Friday, August 19, 2011


Makin a piñnata for my friend's birthday. It says HATE. Cause what a better thing to smash but hate? (intresting aside, why do people want to beat up dora the explora? She's a fine young lady. Not deserved of ritual beating.) Here we go:

I switched around the letters a bit, making the H and E italicized for structural integrity. using the noodle.

Yeah, the original sketches were all regular, but sometimes you need to mock it up fo reals before you see that shit.

Traced out and cutting out, double decker style. Advanced cutting technique with Le Creuset weight. Wait for iiiitttt.....

Double your hate bitches.

Let's connect that shit. The paper tape adds structure but can be destroyed by a broom stick, baseball bat, or another object beginning with B

PAPER TAPE. baller ass redundancy. But gotta fill that last floating space tween the T and E. amirite?

See all that maths stuff? Yeah. 3-D Geometry bitches. Pythagorus and shit. Imax 3-D. Don't forget that paper tape, dawg1!

hey, chalee. that's what i'm talkin about.

WTF is this crazy shit? Serpentine ass mother fucker don't make no sense like a piggy bank.

oh wait.

what's this?

Sha-pow! Like a man and a lady part tagetha.

See, this is the result of hard work and persistance. Structural integrity. Balla ass red zip tie.


If you're your gonna be all "The Fringe" and have some floating text you best break out the fringe, yo! amirite?

But that's all I can do for now cause I don't have any white tissue paper. I'm not a millionaire you know. I'm not made of tissue paypa. I'm not MISTA MONEY BAGS. get the fuck outa hee.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011




Sunday, August 14, 2011




I'm sick of gimmicky art. By that, I mean art thats main focus is a blatant novelty, failing to satisfy the conceptual foundations of the work and/or that seeks to create an imitation of an object, where the object of imitation is more interesting than the artwork itself.

And to be clear, i'm talking about fine art- meaning a physical manifestation of a visual/sensory/aesthetic idea which is contextually aware...

and by contextually aware i mean that, me taking a shit isn't art, but me taking a shit in a roped off corner of a gallery is... (use your imagination)... I don't completely understand why the awareness of the object is so important, but it's necessary to the definition.... An art object demands a specific context, whether it's a frame, a gallery, or street corner.

Now that we understand what the fuck we're talking about (rather what the fuck i'm writing righting about and you, for the time being, are reading) let me show you some examples: let me first make a critical distinction about art and craft

 (by craft I mean the application of traditional and invented techniques to create an object which exhibits quality workmanship and achieves a desirable end result [not arts and crafts type craft]).

Art is both an idea and a physical object; the artist's role is to conceive the idea and bring it into a tangible (or experiential) realm that others can experience. Craft, is therefore an important part of the process. Craft is the set of tools (in the broadest sense) that allows the artist to translate their idea, in the truest way possible, into a physical object.

However, a well crafted object is a far different thing than a well conceived object; a well conceived object is very different than a well crafted object, and neither guarantees a great art object. It's an undefined balance that makes a fine piece of work, but despite the dubious ratios, it is absolutely certain that in no way, craft is a substitute for substance.

Superior craft is admirable in that it takes many years and tireless hours to master, but practice and experience is really all that you need. A monkey could paint photo-realistically if you had the patience to train him, but there is no amount of practice that will ensure inspiration.

This is an important distinction because a lot of gimmicky art relies on the impressiveness of craft to carry people through the swamp of bullshit that is their concept (or lack thereof). Well crafted objects are generally widely popular (especially amongst people not well aquatinted acquainted with the art world) because a well developed craft is truly admirable. And, due to the lack of education and discourse about art amongst the wider populace, the idea (the fundamental being of the art work [or lack thereof])is often an afterthought, disthought, or nonthought shadowed by the excellent craft of the object. But popular opinion does not good art make. And neither does craft. Remember that as I provide these examples:


Dan Colen. Untitled (Vete al Diablo), 2006
Wood, wire, polyurethane, papier mâché, gesso, oil paint
Saatchi Gallery,

The Saatchi Gallery website describes this piece as:
 "a graffitied boulder ... fictionally transplanted from [a] suburban wasteland. Towering as a henge-like monument, it immediately conjures images of teenage ritual, exuding a reliquary aura as degenerate totem. It is in fact made from papier mâché expertly faux finished to look like the real thing. Colen creates a duplicity in the sculpture’s rough hewn appearance, elevating the overlooked and forsaken to a contemplative object of inspiring craftsmanship."

If you want to skip the art speak (reliquary aura as degenenarate totem, lulz), Colen describes the work himself in a Vice magazine article, published 2009:
"It originated from me imagining “secret” places—in the woods, by the train tracks, in sewer ditches—where teenagers would congregate to get drunk, smoke weed, talk about the universe, and make out."

While the idea of this work is truly captivating (and deserved of artistic exploration!), lil' Danny's work doesn't cut it. 

Despite the claims of being "expertly faux finished to look like the real thing", there seems to be a lot of unconsidered elements in this work that drastically detract from the verisimilitude of the object. If you take the time to google "graffiti rock", the actual rocks that Colen is mimicking are far more interesting than his little art project. The real boulders exhibit a denseness of layered markings, coming from the myriad hands that left their tag over multiple generations of youth and the distribution of the tags across the surface of the rocks are not the contrived "randomness" of mock spontaneity, but are constrained by the scale (and scalability) of the rocks themselves. 

Unlike these real world examples, Untitled (Vete al Diablo), only has specific areas of denseness and light "petina"of other marks encompassing the whole surface, which reveals the hand of the artist like a chimp playing poker. If this object was really "transplanted from [a] suburban wasteland", wouldn't a very large part of the lower area be free of all marks, because, you know, it was fucking underground?

(the birdshit clearly shows how the rock was situated in it's hypothetical natural environment. at least 1/3 of the lower part of the rock would have to be underground to support the upper weight)

Wouldn't there also be a higher concentration of marks in the lower portions and peter out as it got higher, because of the relative difficulty of reaching those areas? It seems like the artist was more preoccupied with recreating a angsty, stereotypical, and two-dimensional version of teenage ritual so that he could maybe get a couple of laughs from facetious hipsters.

All in all, this bungled effort to recreate a collective memory of adolescent debauchery PALES in grandeur and significance, to the real thing, resulting in more of a mockery of these "henge-like monuments" than a glorification. Here's some images that you can use for comparison:

Source: Postcards and Roadtrips

Source: John Andrews Photography 

The final failing of this work is that the mode in which it is created is totally at odds with the ethos of the  work. Danny boy, ol' chum, how the hell is making a boulder out of papier maché, gesso, and oil paint a tribute to these special places where kids "congregate to get drunk, smoke weed, talk about the universe, and make out". You're succumbing to farce! There is no good reason to mimic an experience, when the real thing is infinitely more significant, subtle, in alignment with your concept, and right at hand! Here's how you do it:

Step 1: get a bunch of kids, bunch of booze, smokes, gum, paint. easy enough.
Step 2: Get a rock.
Step 3: Get fucked up. Paint the rock.
Step 4: ?????
Step 5: PROFIT

D.C., the only other reason why you would half ass it, fiddle around with gesso till you get the right consistency of bird poop and attempt to simulate gum with acrylic medium (for realz?) is because your work is based on a GIMMICK!

AND it's full of arty farty pretensions. As if anyone with half a brain and a little bit of self respect gives a shit whether you use acrylic medium or, idunno, real gum.

we have these wonderful works

Dan Colen, Coulda, woulda, shoulda, 2009
Chewing gum on canvas
Gagosian Gallery,

Same artist. Same critique. Using gum on a canvas, instead of paint, does not offer enough visual or conceptual satisfaction to outweigh the novelty of a pPAaInTiNg MaDe OuT oF GuUuUmMmmmm (SoOoO KeEwL).
 Furthermore, the real world references far outshine the hum-drum, blah, bullshit of the actual pieces.

Source: The Flipside

Hey, Mr. Cy Twombly, over here. Not only is the surface a more contextually appropriate place for chewing gum to be, but the gum also acts as punctuated, bursts of color out of the haze of seemingly random gestural marks, instead of the bullshit carpet bomb of monotonous busywork which characterize Colen's work. But if you were going for sensory overload, there's always this:

Source: Gary Winberg

Source: Oddity Central

COLEN. BODDY. Stop trying to hold onto your high art pretentions! Why are you putting gum on a canvas, when it makes more sense to put gum on the bottom of a desk? PUT GUM ON THE DESK, PUT THE DESK ON THE WALL, AND CALL IT ART! Gimmick resolved. 

By linking the materials to a real life context the execution matches the apprehension of the work, and the novelty of the object actually becomes necessary to the success of the piece. This symbiosis of idea and object allows the viewer to make allusions to other tangible things and artworks changing the meaning and significance of the artwork itself, but also the meaning and significance of the objects the artwork references! (so fucking cool). However, without synchronicity between concept and execution, then you end up with a conglomeration of dead materials. Just cause gum is on a canvas doesn't make it paint. And the fact that it's gum and not paint doesn't make it interesting.

 So stop saying that you're your "painting" with gum, Danny Boy. I know what bullshit is. I went to art school. I used to eat bull shit for breakfast and wash it down with some hot air. What you got is some  gum stuck to a canvas, and you're only fooling the idiots with the lowbrow materials, highbrow execution claptrap. Trying to hover between low brow and high brow makes your work middle brow, which sucks. Middle brow sucks. Commit to one or the other; quit it with the gimmicks. And try to have a little more pride and integrity in your work. OK? 
(or at least have someone chew the gum instead of boiling it)

Thursday, August 11, 2011


Added some deeper hues (shadows and such) to add a little more illusionistic volume and shit
Alley got all pissed cause it wasn't all pastel and whatnot. 
I'm pushing and pullin like a kitten stimulating it's mother's teet.
Plus after I bring the mids and highs back up it'll be back to pastels but BETTER



Thursday, August 4, 2011


In our previous installment, we had left off with taping your shit to your f-tite to your screen in a sexpartite fashion. Now we continue on to the most difficult part of ol' scumbag screenprinting, entitled: THE HARDEST PART: PAINTING YOUR SCREEN.

How is it done? Easy. Free hand paint your image onto the screen (if you're your a real artist) or alternately trace that bitch. Except instead of using a pencil (or perhaps burnt sienna conté crayon?), use a brush and paint with Speedbawlz screen drawing fluid. Yeah, drawing fluid. Even Spizeedbizawlz gets confused by this whole tracing with a brush thing. 

PS- looks liek a 3-D. COOL OMG TRIPPIN

fig. A- Silkscreen stencil resist, created via freehand drawing

So, after you put in the four and a half hours twenty minutes it takes to painstakingly effortlessly trace  your image, with all the lines and shapes and funny bits (see fig. A), you're your all ready to coat your screen, right? RRRRIIIIIGHT????!? 

PUH-PSYCH!1!!l!1! PUH-PSYCH-YO-MIND!!1!!!7!!!  See all those little tiny holes that you see when you hold the screen up to the light? See how all that fine detail work that you spent soooo much time getting just perfect psh idunno a couple of seconds on? Yeah. That's not gonna hold up when you coat your screen. So my advice is to repaint the entire image on the backside of the screen. 

PS- remove your image and freeze-tite or f-toight substitute before you paint the backside of the screen.

but i didn't need to tell you that. did I.... or did I?!?!?

Yeah, so see how this looks right now? All not filled in and even on the back. yeah you gotta fix that. I'll go have a smoke and come back when you're your done.

Alright... Once you're screen is all purty, wedge something between the base of the screen (for instance, a Spuhyeedabaowl brand squeegee) and a vertical surface (for instance a wall) so that it creates an isosceles triangle as illustrated. 


Now it's time for the magic. Grab your SpdBl brand screen filler,
(for your info, they don't pay me for these product placements; but if anyone from SB out there is reading, and want to pay me, I will take your money. Call me on my flip fone. We'll tele-chat.) 
and put that shit blood suspended particle solution into your handy dandy scoopcoater. Alternatively, if you don't have a scoop coater, you could hand paint filler onto your screen and risk destroying the resist that you just spent the better part of a week i dunno, however long it takes to make a hot pocket, on. Trust me on this one. Get a scoop coater.

PS- Shake that Screen Filler like a mofo before you use it.

PPS- Are you ready for the magic?

Been had stencils.


But wait.....
Did I hear that you were using a SPODBOL brand silkscreen? With a 110 mesh count? If you're your gonna apply a baller ass thin stencil on that mesh count using a handy dandy scoop coater, you most definitely gonna end up with PUH-PUH-PUH-PUH-PINHOLEZpinholez (AIIRRRHORN) (see fig. B)

So make sure you double coat that shit. From the back. yo dawg you know i ALWAYS hit it from the back

Finally, when your red stuff is dry, take that shit to the tub and rinse all the blue stuff out. Both sides of the screen. use your fingernail if you have to clear some of those finer lines of that stubborn red stuff. You know how stubborn red stuff can be. Gotta make sure you maintain all that baller ass fine line work. Oh yeah. Look at that...

Next time. Printing.