PAUL S. OCONNOR

I EXHIBIT IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD AS WELL

2012-02-20T09:09:00.001-05:00

I gotta couple pieces up in this joint.

Opening this Wednesday (the 22nd), 5-7pm

HERE

145 6th Ave

Entrance on Dominick St. 1 block south of Spring St.

New York, NY 10013

Sees you if yous makes it.

THEY WERE DISMISSED AS ECCENTRICS, THEIR VIEWS LARGELY IGNORED FOR SEVERAL CENTURIES

2012-02-20T00:08:00.000-05:00

BLARG

2012-02-06T23:05:00.000-05:00

GO PATS

2012-02-05T12:49:00.000-05:00

ALL IN THE DETAILS

2012-01-29T01:38:00.000-05:00

THINGS CHANGE, THINGS STAY THE SAME

2012-01-10T08:00:00.000-05:00

2012

2012-01-01T02:45:00.000-05:00

HEY MAMI

2011-12-30T19:05:00.000-05:00

BLACKOUT

2011-12-29T18:54:00.002-05:00

Finally got my act together and finished this bitch. Took way too long. Gotta keep it simple next time. Available for purchase in like, 5 seconds, or whenever I put it up on et$y.

~~Just in time for X-mas!~~

fuck it.

SOYLENT GREEN

2011-12-07T22:37:00.000-05:00

For some reason I needed to do this.

LIKE FALLING IN MILK BACKWARDS

2011-11-28T23:30:00.000-05:00

I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING

2011-11-18T20:25:00.000-05:00

SCREENPRINTING FOR D-D-D-DUMMIES

2011-11-16T00:13:00.000-05:00

Sup fools. Screenprinting for dummies hunh? Well, check this shit...

Who's a dummy now, hunh? SAID, WHO'S A DUMMY NOW?!?! Obviously it's not me cause I'm cranking out this baller screenprint. So if i'm not the dummy then who is?!?!

Think about it.

~~ANSWER: me~~

How's it done (says the imaginary peoples on the other end of the computer screen)? Pay attention and I'll show you. But first, a couple google search words to boost that traffic. Gonna be bumper to bumper on the information superhighway, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING?!?!?!

knombsayin?

Dear google,

HANNAH MONTANA

PANCAKE RECIPE

~~FINE ART~~

OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE

MIDGET PORN

That should confuse the internet police for a while. Thank you for your patience.

ONE: SOULJA UP

Crank that green and purple stuff. Don't forget the T-Brown. For all the n00bz out there that means transparent brown. Who the hell notices T-Brown? Prolly only me. Don't care. I do it anyways cause that's the way I roll. T-Brown in the house.

TWO: BING BANG BOOM HOW HE DONE IT

One screen. Patch and print bitch. PATCH. N. PRINT. Like a quilt up in this bitch. Cept polyester monofilament, painters tape, and craft paper makes for a crap blanket. C'est la vie.

(p.s. that's ~~italian~~ french if you didn't know)

THREE: SHAPOW

Hit that print up with that baller ass key layer and you set son! Alls thats lefts is a little tweaking of the visual nipples if you catch my drift, son.... Talkin T-Black, T-White, maybe a little brown for the stache and we set. Stacks on stacks on stacks. 5000.

FILLER

2011-11-10T23:46:00.000-05:00

CODE IS ANOTHER WAY TO SPELL LIVING HELL

2011-11-05T01:53:00.002-04:00

Oh look! A brand new tumblr! Wow, minimalist design, très chic. esta padre, no? Bet you whipped that up in a couple of minutes seeing that tumblr is so user friendly and all... wait, what's that? what's that just behind that swell new tumbler?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

COOOOODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

HOURSONHOURSOFGIBERISHCOOOOOOODDDEEEEEEEEE!!!!

KILLLLLLLLMEEEEEEEEEE!

Soooooo, yeah. Been working on building a tumblr. More or less done, but still having some glitches with the lightbox (da ting dat pop up when you put the finga on da pitcha). But fuckit. chekkit if you have a minute.

paulsoconnor.tumblr.com

STACKSONSTACKSONSTACKS

2011-11-02T00:26:00.000-04:00

THAT'S WHY THEY CALL ME CRAZY HORSE

2011-10-28T00:57:00.000-04:00

Prancing pony pose for all the ladies.....

Flipping bird pose for all the H8RZ.

WUT? WUTTEHWUT?

2011-10-25T23:16:00.000-04:00

Check out this image I found in ~~my kitchen~~ a vintage mexican pornomag.

For serial yo. NOT my kitchen.

RISE OF THE ASS MASK

2011-10-19T00:40:00.000-04:00

Oh baby.

Oh yeah.

RISING...

ALSO:

Have a portfolio up at the 3rd Ward Open Call.

Check it out.

Vote for me.

http://www.3rdwardopencall.com/paulsoconnor

ASS HEAD

2011-10-17T23:00:00.001-04:00

~~Burro~~ Ass Mask

✓ urself B4 U wreck urself

H8R

HALLOWEEN PLANS

2011-10-06T20:53:00.000-04:00

(~~more or~~ less)

I AINT NO BUM...

2011-10-05T22:18:00.000-04:00

I be workin. So what if I'm back on the spheedboulz?

I'm in CONTROL, OK?!?

I can STOP anytime I WANT TO. OK???

It's NOT a PROBLEM; I'm just having some FUN, OK?!?

It's none of YOUR business anywho.... SO GET OFF MY BACK ALREADY, OK?!?

BRAIN OFFAL DELI MEATS

2011-10-04T01:07:00.000-04:00

CNTL+C, CNTL+V; OR ART IN THE AGE OF DIGITAL REPRODUCTION

2011-10-01T21:32:00.000-04:00

I'm a bit of an idiot, but this whole world web thing seems to be changing the way that people view, understand, and relate to Art. The technological innovations and democratization of digital media have opened up ~~PANDORA'S BOX!! AHHHHH HOLY SHIT STOP WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?!? YOU WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO OPEN THAT YOU MINDLESS HUSSEY CLOSE IT! CLOSE IT!~~ interesting new avenues for artistic exploration, but inherent in the embracing of new technologies comes a shift in ideologies, for better or for worse. These changes are inevitable, and it is a mistake to adopt resistance to new paradigms ("Back in the old days, when men were real men and women never left the...." GOD GRAMPA SHUT UP!), it is equally dangerous to blindly embrace as positive by default. So this ramble is an ~~exercise~~ jazzercise in understanding the current state of the image as it relates to the object and the viewer. So shout out to muh boy dub. Benjameeeen, big shout out to Greeenburrrrrg, props to that french pimp Valéry, big ups to muh gurl Krauss! sheeah!

OK. Let's do this.

Two Hundred Million Pixels and Counting

Gabriel McGovern, 1k Mona Lisa (enlarged)

VIA

H fuckin D. While the human eye still has an edge on technology, it's only a matter of time before those hoity toity electric eyes can out see our ol' peepers. While the mechanisms at work in a camera and our eyes are different, it has been estimated that the human eye sees in about 576 megapixels. Hasselblad just released a camera that can shoot in 200 megapixels, which is probably 10 times the number of pixels that was top of the line 10 years ago. If the improvement of technology continues at the same rate, in another 10 years cameras will be able to capture images that are almost four times the resolution of our normal sight.

The implication of this is pretty staggering. If image display technology also continues to get more refined (I don't understand what 1080p means other than H fucking D; you go figure that out if ~~you're~~ your curious), then the images we view would not just look real to us, but would be HYPER-F-N-REAL in a true sense; realer than we can possibly experience.

But what does this mean for the art object? Back in the 30's, ~~some damn commie~~ ~~socialist~~ ~~Democrat~~ critic Walter Benjamin was concerned about how new technologies, at the time photography and film, would, through reproduction, sap the "aura" or "authenticity" of the art object. Benjamin felt that the act of reproducing an image removed the art object from it's historic and literal context, cheapening the full experience of witnessing something. Furthermore, the reproduced experience becomes the primary experience in the mind of the viewer, which cheapens the authenticity of the original artwork. (His essay "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", besides being the namesake of my ~~essay~~ "writing" is totally required reading. He also ~~talks a bunch of commie bullshit~~ addresses a lot of other important ideas about art that totally resonate today.)

While this anxiety about the loss of authenticity in art makes sense in the context of the early 20th century, when the mass media cultural machine was just in its infancy, I feel that his predictions were somewhat overstated. While it's true that the viewer's understanding of an original work has in many cases been hijacked by the mass produced image, I feel the opposite effect has occurred.

Instead of the authenticity of the original being cheapened by mechanical reproduction, I think that mass distribution of the image actually increases the feeling of authenticity. Reproduction allows an art object to become well known and recognizable, in other words, famous (or infamous). This results in the fetishization of the original, in the same way a film star's everyday life (despite being in most respects the same as all of us other peons) becomes somehow more fascinating and worth our attention.

VIA

Take for instance the Mona Lisa. It's a painting you probably don't know by some italian guy you probably never heard of (shit I don't know any italians except for Vinnie, Pauly D, Ronnie, and the Sitch) But anywho, it's like, the most reproduced image everrrrrrrrrrrr

Wonna dem fukkin ninja toitles, Mona Lisa

VIA

Despite being so widely reproduced, the "aura" of this painting has not been compromised as Benjamin might have supposed. In fact, its fame has made it even more precious.

The other flaw in Benjamin's logic is that mechanical reproduction "emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual".

A paraphrase of ~~that dirty commie's~~ Benjamin's point, is basically that art was born out of religious ritual and cult, greek gods, statues, blah blah, people revere, authenticity, blah, renaissance, with secularization, loss of religious significance, blah blah, make art for art's sake, cult of beauty, blah blah, theology of art, blah, no social function, blah, i'm a marxist, blah, art becomes designed for reproduction, blah, no authenticity, blah, politics. Read the original text if you can't speak paraphrase.

Benjamin believed that the cult of beauty/theology of art that had arisen to take the place of religious ritual in respect to the purpose of the art object would be destroyed by the technological innovations of photography and film. But people continued to make paintings just the same. People went out to art galleries all around the world just the same. Photo and film were integrated into art, instead of replacing it. I know I knock it all the time, but in this circumstance, thank god for pretentiousness. Without the snobby distinction between fine art and consumable media that allowed for the integration of select works in both photo and film, Benjamin might have been right.

Benjamin believed that the ability to see an object outside of it's context would remove the necessity of the ritual of going to see it, but perhaps the experience and ritual of seeing an object in person is much stronger than he might have expected. When you come back from Paris, you usually get two questions, "Didja see the Eiffel Towa?" and "Didja see the Mona Lisa?". Know what I'm sayin?

But this leads us back to megapixels. What if the experience of viewing a reproduction of an artwork exceeded the quality of viewing the actual object. The rate that technology is going, it seems likely that in my lifetime, I may be able to have a HD scan of the Mona Lisa, 500 megapixels, displayed in 3D, on my plasma flatscreen above my fireplace. How would that compare to seeing it in person:

VIA

Sixteen feet away through a forest of tourists and bullet proof glass.....

In that case, wouldn't the reproduction be better than the real thing? At that high a resolution, I could zoom so far up Lisa's nose that she'd sneeze. And it's not like I can touch the actual painting either, so I'm just as well with the image.....

What would then be the draw to the actual object? If the reproduction is more than real, better than real, if the image quality surpasses the physiological limitations of my own body, doesn't it negate necessity of the original? As soon as there is a HD image that surpasses my ability to see it, is the digital data is just as good as the original, except that it has the capability to be infinitely reproduced and consumed, i.e. commodified?

But alas, these questions will have to be answered at a later date. Sorry to leave you with a cliff-hanger so to speak but this ~~critical essay on the theory of art~~ "writing" will have to be put on hold, as I must go consume alcohol in a manner that would not be considered responsible. It is Saturday after all.

To Be Continued....

Dictated but not read.

THE INTERNET IS A SKETCHY PLACE

2011-09-28T21:44:00.001-04:00

I think I'm gonna make these into paintings. At my current production rate, I'll have something to show in about.... well.... this time next year.

AMUSEMENTS

2011-09-27T01:08:00.000-04:00

THUS, A "RAINBOW" IS NOT A PHYSICAL OBJECT, AND CANNOT BE APPROACHED

2011-09-24T17:18:00.000-04:00

Dun.

TIME MACHINE:

GIMMICKS: THE RETURN OF THE GIMMICK

2011-09-13T22:55:00.000-04:00

This is the second part of a continuing web log series about gimmicky art. I'm gonna skip ahead a little as far as general concepts; so if you didn't catch the first part because, ~~i don't know~~ idk, you were out of the loop, were high on ~~pot~~ life, or you can't read, check out the first part here. Unless you can't read.... in that case just look at the pretty pictures and look contemplative.

As a refresher, let me restate my central thesis (p.s. I went to artschool?):

By Gimmick Art, I mean:

-An art object where the dominant feature of the piece is a blatant novelty that fails to satisfy the conceptual foundations of the work

-And/or an art object seeks to create an imitation of an object, where the object of imitation is more interesting than the artwork itself.

Also important: remember that craft (the skillful application of traditional and invented techniques to create an object that achieves a desired end result) is not a substitute for substance in fine art. Craft is merely a set of tool/skills which artists may use to translate their ideas into a physical form. To put it in laymen's terms, a masterful chef could make a shit sandwich look appetizing, but it doesn't really matter if it still tastes like shit.

OK.

Gloves on. Round Two.

DANIEL KORNRUMPF:

I WASN'T JUST CLEARING MY THROAT, THAT'S HIS LAST NAME....

OH WAIT, THAT'S NOT THE SUBTITLE

HERE'S THE REAL ONE

DANIEL KORNRUMPF: WTF IS THIS BULLSHIT, BRO?

Daniel Kornrumpf, Focal plane (Detail), 2008

hand embroidered on linen

[uh, hand embroidered? what? nice use of a past tense verb for your medium.

did you learn that sweet technique while getting your masters?]

42"x36"

So, what are we looking at? In this body of work, D-Force has made some naturalistic portraits using embroidery thread. Swell. Here's some more. If you're confused about the size, the embroidery is only a couple inches square on a stretched linen canvas frame (you'll see in the pics below)

All images via danielkornrumpf.com

Daniel Kornrumpf, Focal length (Detail), 2009

hand embroidered on linen

42"x36"

Daniel Kornrumpf, Focal length, 2009

hand embroidered on linen

42"x36"

Daniel Kornrumpf, Brooklyn Bobby (Detail), 2007

hand embroidered on linen

50"x44"

Daniel Kornrumpf, Brooklyn Bobby, 2007

hand embroidered on linen

50"x44"

Daniel Kornrumpf, diamonds on my neck, diamonds on my grill (detail), 2007

hand embroidered on linen

42"x36"

Daniel Kornrumpf, diamonds on my neck, diamonds on my grill, 2007

hand embroidered on linen

42"x36"

Daniel Kornrumpf, Austin Texas (Detail), 2009

hand embroidered on linen

42"x36"

Daniel Kornrumpf, Austin Texas, 2009

hand embroidered on linen

42"x36"

At this point, I would usually have a couple of bullshit quotes from gallery people, an artist statement or interview that attempt to illustrate why anyone should give a shit about the artist's work.

However, in the case of Korndog ova heah, there is surprisingly little written about this work.

Buuuut in most cases the captions describing his work read something like:

"EMBROIDERY: NOT JusT for GrAnDMa ANymoRE!!!"

"The Art of Making Embroidery Cool"

"OMG. This must have taken like 4evr! :o"

"IT'SLIKEAPAINTINGORPHOTOGRAPHBUTNOT!SHITJUSTBURSTABLOODVESSEL!"

But I joke. There is some merit to these stupid, stupid, mongoloid comments. These are superbly crafted portraits; the choice of materials, use of color and mark making, and the skillful capturing of a likeness all point to an artist who has spent years honing their eyes and hands.

BUT.....

not their brain.

As soon as you get over the novelty of a ~~photorealisic~~ ~~hyperrealistic~~ ~~META, BRO!~~ well drafted portrait using embroidery thread, you realize that the work has no substance whatsoever. The materials and composition of these works reference three different mediums (painting, photo, and embroidery)

yet say nothing at all about those specific media!

Granted we are in a ~~pomo~~ post-modern age, where the mixing of various signifiers and modes of expression is status-quo, but you can't just mix and match a bunch of shit and expect it to be justified conceptually, make sense visually, or stand up to my amateurish criticisms (god I'm humble!).

It's critical to remember that there is no art historical ~~hoover~~ vacuum, and that every piece we make is in a continuing dialog with all the pieces ever made before ours, particularly within a prescribed medium. The colorfield paintings of Kazimir Malevich and Yves Klein, despite having no "content" per se, are significant specifically because their works are in dialogue with every previous painting since..... well, since we started putting fat and dirt on the cave wall and treated it like it was special.

One of the keys to this is that their works possess a set of signifiers shared by, and inherent in all traditional paintings (canvas, frame, paint, duh, etc.) except for that of "content". By keying into the signifiers or language of painting, Klein and Malevich rely on the viewer to juxtapose their paintings to those of the past, thus underlining the conceptual elements of the artwork (i.e. hmmmm line? tonal variation? foreground/background? subject? FUCK IT) thereby negating the need for content, ya follow?

Yves Klein, Monochrome bleu sans titre [Untitled blue monochrome], 1960

Pure pigment and synthetic resin on gauze mounted on board,

199 x 153 x 2.5 cm

Via

Kazimir Malevich, Black Square, c. 1930s

Oil on canvas

53.5 x 53.5 cm

Via

The same aht historialligraphicamally type shit goes down with photography too.

Terry Richardson, fo instane.

Don't really have any of the info on these works but I sincerely don't think he gives a shit. His world wide web page: www.terrysdiary.com

Terry Richardson, Me and Catherine McNeil in Berlin.

Terry Richardson, Gubler as Me

Terry Richardson, i dunno some photo with macaulay culkin

The snapshot aesthetic that characterizes Richardson's work is completely informed by the explosion of amateur photography starting with the introduction of the Kodak Brownie camera in the year of our lord, 1900. This was the first inexpensive camera that allowed people to take pictures themselves (rather than going to a professional photography studio), which was the start of a whole new genre of photographic image. Instead of being restricted to the formality (and art historically informed) setting of a studio based photo shoot, people were free to shoot whatever, and however they pleased.

Generally this meant simple, naive compositions free of the pretensions of ART (in the capital sense), which meant that as the snapshot aesthetic developed, it was largely ignored by fine art photographers for the majority of the century, till i don't know maybe the late 70's/80's. I'll leave it at that cause I don't have enough art histoire education to not be talking out of my ass from this point on.

REGARDLESS....

Richardson's photos are unequivocally influenced by the everyday snapshot aesthetic that was characterized by amateur (meaning non-professional, not shithead) photographers. And even though Terry's photos have a direct debt to these nameless photographers who defined his aesthetic, his work also breaks down the pretensions that existed for the greater part of the twentieth century against snapshot photography. The disintegration of these biases re-informs viewers, now allowing them perceive the normal, everyday snapshot in a totally new aesthetic light. Thus, the dialog that occurs between objects in a prescribed is truly a dialog! Newer works being influenced by older ones, and older works being reconsidered in the context of the broadening scope of the medium. Cool hunh?

(grammer note: wish there was like, a combination semi-colon and exclamation point. semexclamation.)

(sexclamation?)

The final medium from which rumpflstiltskin borrows is that of EMBROIDERY, children. A quick wikipedia search (although not a reliable source for, ahem, a scholarly work such as this) tells us that early embroidery was common all overs the ancient world. Talkin Bronze Age, kid. Talkin Iron Age kid. We got Egypt, we got Northern Europe, we got fucking China over here. Cup a Zhou dynasty, son. Probably because embroidery developed through the regular maintenance and repair of clothing before you could just pop down to ~~Abercrombie & Fitch~~ AbFit and buy a new tee. I mean if you're gonna sew some shit, why not make it all purdy? amirite?

But through these humble beginnings, you spawn a whole shit ton of folk tradition and folk art (yes art. I meant it.) They got all sorts of stitches and shit, Motifs (whaddeva that means), patterns and whatnot. Truly a culture in and of itself. That's why this artist is ~~doing it right~~ doinitrite:

Aubrey Longley-Cook

All images via his blog: spool spectrum

Aubrey Longley-Cook, Neighsayer's Hay Day, 2010

~~Hand embroidered~~ Embroidery Thread on Cloth

Aubrey Longley-Cook, You Will See My Castles Boy, 2011

Embroidery Thread on Cloth

Aubrey Longley-Cook, You Will See My Castles Boy (detail), 2011

Embroidery Thread on Cloth

Aubrey Longley-Cook, Runaway, 2011

Embroidery Thread on Cloth

The thing I love about Aubrey's work is that its foundations are so solidly in the realm of traditional embroidery, yet they maintain a freshness that keeps them relevant amongst contemporary images (while avoiding an over-reliance on pastiche, or hiding under the tickle-blanket of kitsch). All the while, he executes his work with a sense of confidence, leaving the viewer with no sense of doubt or insecurity about the legitimacy of the objects as artwork.

The embroidery frame underlines the traditional nature of the work (the hoops created a taught surface for the artist, that made stitching easier and more even), but it also acts as a novel framing and compositional element at the same time. His stitching, descriptive at times, structural at others, points to an understanding and appreciation of the varied history and uses of embroidery: from decorative, to pictorial, to utilitarian. But despite the different effects of each type of stitch, the specific applications never seem out of place or at odds with each other.

All in all, Aubrey's works leave me with a nostalgia for objects that perhaps, like the candid snapshots of the 20th century photography, never were truly appreciated for their elementary beauty and unencumbered candor. The only difference though, between Longley-Cook's work and the clunky boyscout badges, the saccharine patriotism of cross stitched eagles, and ol' granny's HOME SWEET HOME, is that his work doesn't require a curatorial, aesthetic eye to elevate his work into the world of fine art....

(if you didn't get the implication, I'm saying that his work holds his own against other works of fine art while the more everyday objects need someone to appreciate them as aesthetic objects for them to be considered fine art.)

(dummy)

BTW:

Boy Scouts of America, TOTIN' CHIP

VIA

E PLURIBUS UNUM

via spool spectrum

HOME SWEET HOME

VIA

So what is to be derived from all this ahty fahty im smaht i go to college bullshit...

While D. Korn rumpfer draws from each of the past three media, i.e. painting, photo, and embroidery,

painting through stretched linen canvas,

photo through subject, composition, and titles,

and embroidery through duh,

he fails to adequately explore any individual aspect or interaction between mediums fully. So by saying a bit about everything, he fails to say anything meaningful at all.

I mean, I understand that they're supposed to be photos (I guess...), but unless you go to a much larger scale, you'll never get the viewer to really believe that they were looking at a photo, cause it's fucking made with thread and shit... and without closely resembling actual photographs, like a photorealistic (meaning the movement, not the technique) painting would, the conceptual mind fuck doesn't really take hold. So what's the point of leaving all the signifiers that say that these are photo? Knombsayin?

And despite the material signifiers, and a couple of amateur (meaning shithead) parallels to painting (it's like ~~you're~~ your "painting with thread"!), there is really no physical similarity as far as making a mark with paint and a mark with embroidery thread. Paint (even if used in a pointelistic/impressionistic fashion) is still fluid, with subtle elements of transparency, feathering, and irregularity; meanwhile K dawgs use of embroidery consists of rigid stitches with a uniform size, definite color, and absolute direction. A better analogy would be "it's like he's making a drawing with a bunch felt tipped markers only using strait lines of the same approximate length and not blending any of the colors with thread".

hmm...........

And as far as his use of embroidery? While Dan Dan the Korn Man has used the materials and techniques of embroidery, his work doesn't participate in a dialogue with the tradition or history of the medium. He's acting as a aesthetic tourist, merely borrowing some elements instead of stealing them and making them his own...

But perhaps the most insulting aspect of his work is that he feels the need to spruce up the medium with the fine art pretensions by centering his images in the middle of large, blank, stretched linen canvases. The implication in doing this is that ~~hand embroidered~~ embroidery as medium is not worthy of a place in the pristine marble halls of fine art. As if, in order for it to be taken seriously, embroidery cant just be embroidery as it exists in its current forms, modes, and traditions; instead it has to be

"PaInTinG wiIiITH ThReeeEAaD!".

(BULLSHIT)

If anything, these turkey works, fully dressed with artistic pretension and ready for for their close up, reveal an indecisiveness of concept on the part of the artist, and a total lack of confidence in the caliber of his own work (perhaps justly so).

SO LETS TALLY THE SCORES:

CONCEPT: Berift of.

PRESENTATION: Pretentious and at odds with the medium

IMAGERY: Hokey and little bit annoying actually

EXECUTION: Quite good!

In my mind, if this doesn't say gimmick, I don't know what does. If the quality of craft and novelty of the technique used in the artwork is the only redeeming aspect, then what good is the work? Technique or craft is merely a means of achieving a specific end, not an end in and of itself.

Here, look at DK's drawing of the same subject versus his ~~embroidery~~ hand embroidered:

Same girl. Same composition. Same sneer. Both well executed. But if one seems more interesting than the other, it's only because it's done in embroidery thread. Does the thread itself doesn't have any significance to the imagery? No. It doesn't. It's a bullshit gimmick.

A commitment to craft doesn't validate a piece of artwork, it's just a way of making something look the way it does. And when you are making an artwork, you must remember to think about the appropriateness of the techniques you're using. If you want to make a bronze sculpture, don't break out the silly putty. Even if you hit that silly putty up with some spraypaint and glitter when you're done, it's not the same thing, because the work wasn't defined by the limitations and boons and history of working in that specific medium. No matter how hard you try, if you deny the legacy and modes of a medium, you will be making an imitation of an experience. A shitty falsehood. Which is stupid cause you could have been making the experience itself all the while.

And the final pratfall of depending on a gimmick to carry your work? Someone out there will do it bigger and better than you. So watch your back Danny Boy!

Cayce Zavaglia, Garrett

Hand Embroidery: Crewel Wool and Acrylic on Linen

43"x16" <-------check that shit out dawg

Via www.caycezavaglia.com

Cayce Zavaglia, Garrett (detail)

Hand Embroidery: Crewel Wool and Acrylic on Linen

43"x16"

Via www.caycezavaglia.com

Cayce Zavaglia, Garrett (detail)

Hand Embroidery: Crewel Wool and Acrylic on Linen

43"x16"

Via www.caycezavaglia.com

AWWWWWW SNAP!

Phew. That was epic. I haven't had to look at this many sneers, listless stares, and ironic chuckin of deuces since I said something genuine down on bedford ave.

peache out.

SHOOP-A-DOOP

2011-09-08T00:50:00.000-04:00

Ye olde Adobe Photoshoppe grabbe bagge

BEEN HAD METALLIC ADHESIVE STARS

2011-09-03T19:11:00.000-04:00

SHA-POW.

Total bitch to photograph though... light and exposure, fancy f-stops, and whatnot.

DEADBEAT DAD MAKES MIRACULOUS RECOVERY

2011-09-02T21:55:00.000-04:00

AW, NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I've been busy. Gonna try to finish this one up this weekend... Next weekend.... Soon, kiddo. I promise.

DAYUM KEN. You lookin CRAY-ZEE. Whaddayah, high on ~~mary jane?~~ pot? Did all that pot go to your head? Nah, just weighting down some 2.5-D bedazzled letters spelling out HOLLYWOOD.

~~No big deal~~ NBD.

p.s. THE INTERNET 80085

Shit's getting real man. Bedazzled everything. Why? ~~CAUSE IM STUPID .~~ Prolly cause it an allegory for modern, western society's obsessive vanity, the rampant spread of disposable consumer culture, and vapid celebrity worship perpetuated by mass media, gossip rags, and myth of plenty that is the "american dream".

CAUSE IM STUH-STUH-STUPID.

DEMS DA BREAKS (OR NOT)

2011-09-02T00:36:00.001-04:00

Pinata part dos:

FRINGEN'

On my re-up for tissue paper (TP for HATE), I realize that the manufacturers have been so kind as to provide directions on how to properly use it. No wonder America neva made it to da moon....

X-TREEEEM! REVERSE UPSIDEDOWN FRINGEN'!!!

A rare shot of the the artist at work. While seated there, someone asked me if I went to art skool. It was a joke. But just all you punks get it straight... I did go to art skewl. AND IT WAS NO JOKE!!!11!!! PUNKS!1!

Ben boxin the finished pinata. Also this is the closest it came to being roughed up, and exploded like a hot shot of candy mess all over your face space.

We never broke it. And my friend decided that she was gonna keep it around for a while.

Go figga. A motherfucker makes a gad dam pinata, and ends up makin some sort of objet d'art.

Ammirite?

EL PINATERO

2011-08-19T01:27:00.000-04:00

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:

SPELL IT OUT.

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.....

Sha-Pow!

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.

Ballin

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.

DOUBLE DOSE

2011-08-16T21:59:00.000-04:00

TWO LAYERS, ~~ONE CUP~~ ONE SCREEN

TALKIN MAGIC, SSSSSSON.

CRAFT CONCEPT AND GIMMICK

2011-08-14T14:05:00.002-04:00

PART 1.

PRELUDE:

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: ART SPEWED FORTH FROM THE COLEN

Dan Colen. Untitled (Vete al Diablo), 2006

Wood, wire, polyurethane, papier mâché, gesso, oil paint

Saatchi Gallery, http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/

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

http://postcardsandroadtrips.blogspot.com/

Source: John Andrews Photography

http://johnandrewsphotography.blogspot.com/

Source: Sherry Osbourn

Source: Bernd das Brot Team

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.

ON THAT NOTE......

we have these wonderful works

GUUUUMMMMPAAAIIIINNNNTIIINGS

Dan Colen, Coulda, woulda, shoulda, 2009

Chewing gum on canvas

Gagosian Gallery, www.gagosian.com

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.

LOOK!

Source: The Flipside

http://www.dhsflipside.com/

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

www.garywinberg.com

Source: Oddity Central

http://www.odditycentral.com/

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)

CONTRAST ROWING PUSHING PULLING

2011-08-11T22:31:00.001-04:00

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.

TOUGH.

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

PUSHIN

PULLIN

OL' SCUMBAG SCREENPRINTING, PART DEUX

2011-08-04T23:04:00.000-04:00

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.

PS- PYTHAGORAS BITCHES

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?

SHAPOW!

Been had stencils.

fig. B- PUH-PUH-PUH-PUH-PINHOLEZpinholez (AIIRRRHORN)

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...

BAAAAAAALLLLIN'.

Next time. Printing.

PEACE.

TO BE A SURGEON, YA GOTTA USE THE NOODLE

2011-07-25T22:09:00.000-04:00

Gonna perform some surgery. Of the arts. Fine arts surgery.

Gotta put the hollywood in Hollywood. Gotta get the glitz and glamour, riiiiiight?

First, let's examine the patient....

Oh yeah, those letters are an eyesore...

gotta remove those alphabet nightmares and spruce that shit up...

Let's make some incisions and then remove the offending letters

"OH SHIT! WITH A BUTTERKNIFE?1?! Dr. Paul you can't remove no paper from board with a..."

"Shuyamouf. I do what I what. No parents no rulez.... I went to art school....."

OH BABY. Trace that shit out onto binders board for the 3-D effects, cut it out, file the edges smooth as a baby's bottom, and break out the adhesive mylar. Trace that shit with a KNIFE, SON.

"Oh, but Dr. Paul, how are you going to glamour-ize that "L"

when it's covered by that golden lock of hair?"

"............ "

"i'm gonna trace it, dummy."

sh-POW!

"But Dr. Paul, how are you gonna..."

"AWL!"

(POKEPOKEPOKEPOKEPOKEPOKEPOKE)

(sh-POW!)

"Oh, Dr. Paul, you make it looks so easy!"

"Quiet, Nurse. You don't even exist."

RE-UP

2011-07-19T00:17:00.001-04:00

I got back into the etsy game bitches. You'll catch me at the corner of paulsoconnor.etsy.com . Etsy be trashin all my phoe-toez so check out my merch here if you don't want the shit that been stomped on.

Check it out if you be likin what i be sellin.

paulsoconnor.etsy.com

MEANWHILE... AT THE DRUM CIRCLE.

2011-07-17T00:24:00.001-04:00

Still workin on the screen print and the painting so I got no pictures for y'all. Actually I made food all day. so yeah. no art. But if y'all didn't know, I worked as a book binder at Hope Bindery for 3 years before I moved to the BK. This is a piece I made just before I left Rhode Island.

Leather inlay with Moroccan goatskin leather with blind, gold, and color tooling. yeah baby.

FAN ART

2011-07-12T23:07:00.002-04:00

Been really diggin' Triangle Forest recently... They're a band from PVD if you're not in the know (but I bet if you're reading this, it's prolly ol' news). But was listening to some of their newer tracks on repeat and felt inspired to make this. Oh, shout out to Einstein and his general relativity ish...

Here's TF's Facebook if yall interested:

http://www.facebook.com/TriangleForest?sk=app_178091127385

OL' SCUMBAG SCREENPRINTING, PART ONE

2011-07-09T00:19:00.001-04:00

I figured I go ahead and do a detailed explanation (uh, tutorial... if you will) about how I make screen prints in my spacious brooklyn kitchen, in hopes to inspire y'all to give screenprinting a good ol' college try. It's pretty fun, relatively cheap, and a great way to make a bunch of ~~crap~~ fine art. Hey, making prints gives you the chance to sell work, give to your friends, and spray adhere shit to your neighbor's car without that nagging guilt of loss!

BARE NECESSITIES:

PICTURED:

IMAGE: That's like, your picture or whatever

FREEZER WRAP: I got this roll of restaurant sized wrap at good ol' Job Lot for four bucks or something redic like that. The restaurant size is key for this application, kid.

SCREEN: I have a dinky screen made by Speedball, America's favorite intravenous cocaine and heroin cocktail and screenprinting supply company. Victory Factory out of BK makes better screens for long term use, but the size and scale of this one works great for the ol' home-screener. Its slim frame stores away well, and it fits into a sink, tub, sink/tub combo, or toilet tank for easy cleaning.

My screen has a 16" x 20" printing area, which just happens to be the perfect size for my compositions (11"x15")! Also, 11"x15" just happens to be two sheets of letter paper w/ overlap, so printing out a computer generated composition is a snap! And serendipitously, 11"x15" is also a quarter sheet of standard sized printmaking paper (22"x30"). Jeez! With all those random coincidences, it's almost like I planned out my compositions to be that specific size to save time and money... Good thing I didn't do that, cause a real artist would never let economics be a factor in ~~his~~ ~~her~~ his compositions!

SCREEN DRAWING FLUID: Should be called screen painting fluid. If spilled, should be called a horrible mess. This Speedball product is made of a solution of hair-ron, co-cane, and blue food coloring. Actually it's probably just corn syrup and smurf blood. I have not yet tasted this product. It acts as a resist to the apt, yet ambiguously named Speedball Screen Filler. That way you get duh pretty pict-cha when you put duh ink froo it. (If you don't follow this clear line of science and logic, I will explain it in the applicable post, duh)

SYNTHETIC BRISTLE BRUSH: Quardah inch Angle Shader, baby. Great for fine lines, filling of shapes, and expressive mark-making (<----- See, I went to art school). The Swiss Army Knife of brushes. Need I say more?

3/4" MASKING TAPE: ~~CAUSE YOU SO STUPID!!1!~~ For adhesion purposes. Beige, with a grip that's firm, but also gentle. Like an oversized idiot caressing a kitten....

STEP ONE:

OK, first thing you gotta do is clean your screen of the stencil left over from your last print cause you're a lazy bastard who couldn't get that shit squared away a month ago. To the right you can see a bottle of "Speed Clean". This must refer to the narcotic jambalaya, because there is nothing speedy about this handy solution. I apply the stuff and forget about it while I google search my name for two hours and it still doesn't dissolve the stencil by the time I get to page 98. I used to use liquid dishwashing detergent (CHOICE, KID) but I think that it might have been causing buildup on the drain pipe. Cereally. I was showering in a puddle.

TWO STEP:

After your screen has been rinsed and dried, attach a large swath of freeze-tite or freeze-tite alternative to the backside of the screen using masking tape ~~STOOOPIIIID~~ in a sexpartite adhesion solution. The freeze-tite or freeze-tite alternative should run the entire length of the screen. Next, adhere your image, centered in the printing area, using a similar sexpartite method.

PART THREE:

Some notes on Screen Drawling Fluid. If you buy this ~~garbage~~ wonderful Speedbawl product, buy the smallest size that they have. If you are fortunate. and in the six months since its purchase don't spill this on your sofa, where it creates an irremovable pud of dubious consistency (is it crispy? is it sticky? is it a god damned plasma? Hmm, I approximate that the dew point is appx. 68˚ today...) resembling the science project of a well meaning, but misinformed candy maker, then you will soon open your monochromatic container to a fuzzy, technicolor mold. Or perhaps it will have congealed into a cottage cheese of teal persuasion. Yum.

END SESSION:

Alright. Class is over for today. Fix yerself up a glass of nice cold gansett or coffee or screen drawing fluid or flower juice or whatever sizzles your bacon. Next time we'll cover the hardest part of Ol' Scumbag Screenprinting, which is painting your screen, in a segment entitled: "THE HARDEST PART: PAINTING YOUR SCREEN".

MEANWHILE.... I'M STILL THINKIN'.

2011-07-07T01:24:00.001-04:00

Been at a crossroads.... what with my screen still at the cleaners and my paint still out on the line. Figuring out shit takes time man! Real progresssss to come soon. Maybe I'll have some time for myself soon.

NOW WE'RE COOKIN WITH STERNO, KID

2011-06-30T00:32:00.001-04:00

I'm feelin this more.

Inspiration is like making love to a woman; sometimes she comes, sometimes she doesn't.

S'all I could come up with

2011-06-29T00:22:00.001-04:00

All I could come up with. I guess it's a little scary...

TRY AS YE MAY

2011-06-28T22:45:00.001-04:00

Was trying to compose a new print to work on but didn't work out as I had hoped. OK stuff. Not good stuff. Anyways... take this image as a parting gift. Don't think I put this here yet.

ACTS WERE SEEN THROUGH THE PRISM OF SUBMISSION AND CONTROL

DAMN GOOD MEAT THERMOMETER

2011-06-20T20:20:00.002-04:00

STR8 8 BAWLZ

2011-06-17T22:03:00.001-04:00

AHT SKOOL CONFIDEMENTIAL, PAHT TOO

2011-06-17T00:03:00.001-04:00

The next step in all this shit is to cut out the backing board and mount the surface image. I use a 1/4" binder's board called davey board as a mounting surface cause it's wicked dense and works well with glues. The downside of this stuff it's so dense that you have to go all Hulk on it when you cut out the shape.... soooo my wrist and fingers have been killing me from all the curves.

Here's the boards cut out (along with the surface image). Takes about 5 hours to cut out that ish. You can see now that the boards are in two pieces to add a physical depth to the image.

I like my gluestick as I like my purple stuff.... purple. That's cause I'm gluing such a large surface area that it's easy for certain areas to dry out before you've hit the entire surface. The purple stick dries clear so you can see if you have dry areas with a quick glance. I use gluestick to mount btw cause it's low moisture (to prevent curling), it's repositionable while wet, and easy to clean up (important for an apt kitchen/studio).

Soopah doopah diy weighting mechanism. (effin genious amirite?)

Forget that purple stuff! I use that Elmers for the stronger bond when going board v. board.

Oh. Baby. Time. To. Paint.

"INK AND LIGHT AND PAPER AND SCISSCORS" OR "HOW TO MAKE A PAINTING"

2011-06-11T14:27:00.001-04:00

After making a sketch on the photoshoppe I print it out onto acetate and use my overhead projector to scale it up to the size I want. The projector is another of my favorite tools; I lucked out to have one that has a bulb that staples still sells.

Some people may say, "Hey you're just tracing... if you were a real artist, you would like, freehand draw that, cause like, anybod-" and I tell them to shut up and that they don't know what they're talking about. Tracing is faster and achieves the same results. I went to art school.

When I ~~trace~~ freehand draw the image, I usually do it in several pieces (two in this painting).

One reason is that the paper is only so big and I can fit the whole thing, and the other is that you can achieve different relief effects of awesome when you mount the paper to the backing board. So that certain parts of the painting have a literal depth in addition to any illusionistic depth I may (or may not) add.

After the image is all ~~traced~~ freehand drawn, I cut it out to the final shape, so that I can ~~freehand~~ ~~draw~~ trace the outline onto the backing board which then has to be cut out before the image is mounted.

Here's the raw image all cut out and stuff. As you can see it lacks paint and depth. I will remedy this soon. Smel u l8r. lul.

Hollywood Ken

2011-06-07T12:00:00.002-04:00

Alright. Next Painting. Will update with progress. So get the hell off my back, Barbie!

ALMOST THERE!

2011-06-06T22:10:00.002-04:00

FLESH WOUND

2011-06-02T12:00:00.003-04:00

FIN

C'mon

2011-05-31T23:50:00.001-04:00

2011-05-31T12:00:00.002-04:00

GEEKING OUT

2011-05-30T16:31:00.001-04:00

I love my new scoop-coater. It's such a pleasure to use a tool that is elegantly designed to perform such a specific, mundane, but ultimately crucial task. I can't tell you how many hours I've wasted by bungling a stencil. This is a breath of fresh air.

PRINTMAKING, SON!?!!?!

GHOSTS CONTINUED...

2011-05-26T12:00:00.001-04:00

Layers and Layers and Layers

2011-05-25T20:49:00.001-04:00

2011-05-24T12:00:00.002-04:00

Print in Progress

2011-05-22T12:31:00.001-04:00

The sketch for a new print in progress

And the first couple of layers inked up

2011-05-19T20:41:00.003-04:00

GHOSTS MAY ALSO HAVE STREAMERS THAT BLOW AROUND WHERE THE AIR ESCAPES

2011-05-06T00:11:00.000-04:00

NEW PAINTING!1! First image is original sketch and the following is the final product. I'll be updating with process photos (it kind of took a circuitous route) for the next couple of time period.

Is this thing on?

2010-12-28T23:04:00.000-05:00

Testing....Testing.... Am I doing this right?