Art is Revolution.

I ran into a few cool artists last week. The reason my blogs have been untimely is that I've been a little too busy exploring and not busy enough writing. In my adventures these past few days, I attended a one-year anniversary party for a local, independent bookshop, and met a couple very interesting artists. Here's a bit of a re-cap.

The One-Year Anniversary party was for a small bookstore called Babylon Falling (http://babylonfalling.com/blog/), located in the 'tender-nob' area of SF, downtown. I found their store via some surfin' the net, and heard about their party. They were also launching their t-shirt line, which features art from several of the artists they've featured there over the past year. One of the guys being featured was David Choong Lee, a resident here in SF. His art was also being featured at a gallery party I was planning on attending the next day, so I decided to go check him out here first, since he was spinning some tunes at the anniversary party. I dragged my roomie and a couple friends along, with the enticing promise of free beer, wine, and celebratory cake and we were off! David Lee was there, as promised, along with another artist featured: Emory Douglas. Their shirts were awesome, (I picked up an Emory Douglas design) and I was able to meet the artist himself.

((The owner of the bookstore (Sean) was present at this moment, and said that he was an amazing guy as well as artist, and a great person to sit down and talk to. I'm guessing this is because of his affiliation and participation in/with the Black Panther Party, here in SF back in the 60's.))

What I love about these two artists is not only their style, but their message. After all, what is arts purpose but to inform the people? David Choong Lee is a transplant from Korea, and even though he still barely speaks English, his paintings speak volumes. Once he arrived in the city, he immediately took notice of the homeless community here that is often seen and even more often ignored. Not only did Lee take notice, but he completely immersed himself in this disregarded culture-- talking with and sitting with and befriending these people who are the outcasts of this society. This greatly inspired his works, and in turn, its viewers. It makes me think about how often I've walked by a homeless man or woman on the street. How often do we pass these people, and try our hardest to avoid them, looking away in discomfort, and praying that they not confront us? How often have we become so jaded towards the homeless, that we don't even notice them in our daily travels? Is it because we're scared? Is it because we're TOO good? Is it because it's not proper, expected, inconvenient? A lot of times, I come across the same bums and hobos, transients and travelers, or what have you-- and I start to wonder where they've come from? What's their story, where have they been and likewise, where are they going?? Who CHOOSES this life, or did they at all?? Like Gericault, bringing light, through art, to the most marginalized in society; Lee brings a life to the downtrodden living on our own streets. He uses lots of mixed colors, vibrant hues, and intimate brush strokes which place a sense of emotion on his canvas', and its subject matter, that is much harder to forget than the hobo hanging out on 6th St.

Emory Douglas also brings his art to represent a marginalized group in society: the Black Community of the civil rights era. He was the man behind the many images of the Black Panther Party, and plays a leading role in the group here in the Bay Area. His images are fueled with a passion for societal change, and that is what they pushed for then and still stand for today. They are sometimes grotesque and violent images, but it's only to say that it reflects what was rampant within that community. His artwork calls for self-defense, unity, and uprising-- something that we can still relate to in the state our society is in. What's even more attractive about this artist is his sense of history. His legitimacy not only as a skilled artist, but as an active member in combating the problems he paints about. Not only is he reflecting the times, he's also re-fueling the force that breeds discontent, and in turn-- revolution. We've talked about how powerful an image is, and what is more powerful than an image created by someone who is experiencing it first hand? Needless to say, Douglas was a charming man, who despite his somewhat abrasive images, seemed like your average, friendly, neighbor-next-door type. Someone you'd definitely want to sit down over a cup-o-joe and chat with. I'm positive he has plenty of stories.

Seriously though, go to Babylons website and check out the cool features they've done on these local artists. Represent, Support, Love!

Surf's Up

So, Pamela Anderson pretty much ruined it for me. Okay, granted I grew up in "So-Cal", which IS known for its big waves, bomb beaches, and blonde bombshells, but SERIOUSLY I'd lived there all my 20+ years, and I haven't seen Pam or Carmen save squat!

I've had several run in's with one particular famous question that has spawned itself from so many movies and television shows, and it haunts me still to this day. One such incident, I will never forget. Back in 2000, I went on a cruise with my Mom. It was just she and I, and I was 14, so hanging out with my Mom every day wasn't the coolest thing to do. I decided to venture out and get involved with the groups/activities they had for kids my age on the boat. I think I was the only kid from California, and everyone else was from the mid-west or the east coast. Immediately, upon hearing where I was from, that dreaded question began to spew from their corn-fed little mouths like the milk from the utters they pulled back home: "So, do you surf?" Ugh! Stab me in my impressionable, self-conscious, little, 14-year-old heart! My reply was always, "Um, Er, well. . . NO, I don't surf. . . " and their looks were always the same: ones of disappointment and confusion.

Now, there is a lot of pressure put on a girl at that age to do, and be, and look a certain way. Growing up in So-Cal, there definitely is a prominent "beach" culture that presides over the whole of San Diego, but it's not all there is. Granted, I grew up going to the beach all the time, spending the days lounging on the sand. My summers were spent participating in programs that prepared young kids throughout SD to become lifegaurds, and ultimately spend the rest of there lives at the beach, but that wasn't ME. While I'd surfed before, it wasn't something I wanted to identify myself with, especially when it was simply another added pressure on young citizens of San Diego, CA. For a young person, I was pretty subversive when it came to what was considered "cool". I've always had a sense of skepticism when it comes to fads and trends, and even at that age I felt that the surf culture was simply a phase, and I knew there were other things out there.

I felt that the ideal of a female San Diegan, was placed in a thin, bronzed, blonde, blue-eyed, big breasted body, prancing down the shores of the Pacific with a surfboard in tote. She probably had some studly surfer/lifegaurd boyfriend and they lived happily ever after as they paddled out into the sunset. . .right, right? NOT. You can imagine my feelings of alienation, being a chubby, hairy, disproportionate mexican girl, with no knack for surfing or any desire to immerse myself in the sand. I had no word in my vocabulary that sounded like "Shaka, Bra" or "Gnarly, Dude!" I mean, while I have been known to throw in an "Awesome" or a "Stoked" or "Rad", those words have been added in the last few years mostly to play off of the novelty that people may see me as, rather than what they really represent.

So what then has perpetuated this stereotype? Why are upper/middle class kids from SD being pigeon-holed into this 'character' that doesn't always play a part in this particular regional location? I can only think back to the days of "Malibu Barbie" and "Saved by the Bell", when kids all over the world were buying up Ken and Barbie boxes, (along with their matching boards, bathing suits, and sunblock) in order to have a piece of that California lifestyle! Girls would swoon over Zack Morris, the mischevious, blonde heart-throb from Bayside High, who was a supposed 'surfer dude'. (But, seriously, when did we actually see Zack surf??) Or, one of my personal faves: the famous, brain dead, surf dude-- Spicoli from "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", who donned the famous uniform that surf rats still wear today: a mexican poncho (from that gnarly, Baja surf trip), checkerboard Vans slip-ons, and a sleek pair of Ray-Bans. And the icing on the cake is when Kelly Slater, pro-surf god, had a stint on popular television show "Baywatch" which glamorized the beach lifestyle, and made Pamela Anderson the poster girl for California girls all over. This pretty much sealed the deal, and forced the final nail into my beachwood coffin.(Yikes!)

This image has been manipulated and reproduced over in over in different types of media, but it doesn't accurately represent the entire California population. There is a marginalized amount of people from Southern California who are in fact interested in other things than the morning surf report. There is a sense of culture that extends past the pretty girls and the endless palm trees. There is art, and intellect, and a community of people that are often times stifled by the heat of the so-cal sun and the sterotypes that stem from it. While I call SD home, and I love it dearly, I prefer to detach myself from it in order to see it for what it is, and see myself for who I am apart from it.

Pamela Anderson? She can bite me!

"Whoever Has Ears To Hear, Let Him Hear."

Something that really caught my attention last class was Goya. I've seen his work before and knew him to be a well known artist, but never had I examined his work knowing some of his background. I think one of the most interesting facts I learned was that Goya was deaf. As someone who takes comfort in chaos, I can't imagine living in a silent world. I find something beautiful in the fact that Goya was painting without sound. How focused he must have been on seeing, without the distraction of hearing. It seems so vulnerable. Its most interesting since in viewing many of his paintings, I really felt a sense of sound. In "3rd of May, 1808" I can hear the people shouting and the soldiers shifting. "Saturn Devouring his Sons" had great energy, and his presence seemed loud; his growl and his victims screams came right out the painting. Its amazing that someone with limited hearing can express such loud, in your face messages. Goya was commenting on his society and taking it upon himself as an artist to do so within his work.

This immediately made me think of Brit artist, Banksy. As a well-known graffiti/street artist, Banksy has chosen to focus his subject matter on things in society that are worthy of noticing, but are often ignored. His works are often correlated with the very buildings that he does them on. Banksy's larger than life works are seen in locations that are some of the most conspicuous and would make even the MOST daring graff artist green with envy. Often times its right in the heat of the afternoon, and available for anyone passing by. It's artists like Goya and Banksy that strive to reach the masses, via their sometimes shocking, but always influential artwork. A message that needs to be heard is not always clear when spoken or read, but when it is seen, it has the ability probe the psyche through orifices that are much more inviting-- the ojos! Check these links to see Banksy in action!

Guatanamo Bay Meets "The Happiest Place on Earth"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jkZoC6dwRqE

The Truth About Paris

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IqQYVKSmugc&feature=related

"Fine Art"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EkUbYBo5xgs&feature=related

Art, For Arts Sake??

I don't know about you, but I'm TIRED of the glamour. I'm telling you, if I have one more piece of sensationalized bulls*** hurled at my face, I'll be as sick as a blog. The power of image, under the flattering guise of "art", has not lost it's fervor nor it's insistince on constructing some sort of false reality.


In Greuze's "The Beloved Mother", there is a strong sense of idealism being portrayed. It doesn't take a seasoned historian to see the ample emphasis being placed on the Mother in this picture, and to know that that sort of thing isn't the norm. Even now, the majority of people(especially in the U.S.) generally retain a patriarchal model of "family". The role of the Father being the head of household is considered a 'normal' one. Children who've grown up in families that are lead by single-mothers are still subject to the ideal of having the traditional "Mommy/Daddy" roles, where the Dad is the boss and Mom is the submissive counterpart. I know-- I've lived it. And while these roles have shifted slightly throughout previous generations, and women within the home now have a tighter grip on it, the template is still the same! What then is the perpetuate of such an ideal?


Back in the day, art was pretty limited to the form(s) and medium(s) of painting, sculpture, and drawing. There was no television, no printing, no internet. There were no giant billboards lining the cobblestone streets and certainly no form of airbrushing in order to perfect the images that the billboard might contain. Fine art for the masses is now seen through advertising and the level of its consumption is now at an all time high. While meticulous paintings were done to portray the importance of certain values within society such as: aristocracy, wealth, patriotism, and in this case the value of a woman; art NOW comes a lot easier and its messages are able to be mass produced at a higher rate. This means an image is able to influence A LOT more people! And we've all fallen subject to consuming it, allowing it to influence us, and then regurgitating it back up into our own lives as semi-digested, idealized cud that we continue to chew on in hopes of creating/sustaining some sort of "reality".


The first thing I thought of when this subject came up in class, were the overly exemplified "housewife" advertisements of the fifties. While Greuze's painting seemed to place value on the Mother as the bearer and keeper of children, adverts from the fifties and sixties not only emphasized her role as the rearer of her children, but also her husband, and her immaculate household. This is not to go without saying that she should perform all said 'rearing' whilst wearing a girdle, pantyhose, high heels, and a string of pearls. To me this sounds downright masochistic! There is nothing more unrealistic to me than vacuuming in a girdle and a pair of heels. I can barely traipse down Market in a pair of stilletos without tripping, let alone perform daily household duties! Whether this means a decline in society, or an increase in laziness, it's hard for me to imagine any woman enjoying this lifestyle. I mean, what woman (or man, for that matter) would find it satisfying to struggle in the confines of her kitchen all day on stilts and wrapped in spandex, just so her husband can have dinner on the table--piping hot, no less-- right when he gets home from his "strenuous" workday?? I don't know, but they did. And it's sad, but so, so true. And it's all thanks to the ubiquitous images of this 'model housewife' in the very pages of her leisure reading.


Another example of this is comic books. Seriously, how many females do you see walking down the street with the 'perfect' proportions of Wonder Woman? I mean, it's no wonder men can be so critical of the female body, and cultivate obsessions with butts and boobs, when they are being fed these images at the impressionable age of 13! Has anyone seriously analyzed a comic book hero? With females, their breasts are often much larger than their heads, and their butts are as big as their breasts! Their limbs--needed to hold up such extraordinary assets-- are infinitely long and slender, as are their waists. Is this normal? Is this attainable? Is this healthy? I think NOT! If that was real life, that woman would hardly be able to walk down the street without falling over. We would think she looked more like an alien than a woman. Same with the men! If I saw some super-hero strutting down the street with all those bulging muscles and bulging nether-regions, I would fear for my life rather then assume he was there to save it! These images that are being put out by some very talented artists, are being consumed by some very vulnerable teenagers. The concept of body image is so skewed when looking at these cartoons. The way people feel about their own bodies, as well as their interpretation of others, at this stage in life, are still being formed. So what are unrealistic images such as these impressing upon individuals realities? (Ugh, and don't even get me started on the waif like models in magazines!!)

Finally, the most current constructor (or commentator, I should say) of culture, through image, that I can think of is none other than Mr. Shepard Fairey. Fairey's philosophy on art is focused on the phenomenon of the perpetuated image. More specifically, the masses response to an image that is mass produced. He started with a very generic image of Andre the Giant, and posted it up on every wall, street sign, billboard, and bathroom stall. Without any explanation, only the image of a face, people became intrigued and immediately adopted the image without any real cause or reason. While Shepard's artwork is not necessarily idealizing a certain society, it IS bringing to light the downfalls of our current one. There is a danger in the consumer mentality, and I think his art is commenting on that. His constant over-reproduction of images is sort of a throw back to Warhols work, and like Warhol there is a satirical element involved in the effect that an image has on people. Obama's face has never looked so cool, since it went through Fairey's wheat-paste ringer, and no doubt has it called more political attention to the community than before.

There is something very powerful about art and image. Its power to seep into the human brain, run through its crevices and conduct it to think accordingly. Art is, now-a-days, fueled by some sort of agenda. It's been said that there exists no longer the idea of "Art, for Arts Sake." That is to say that the common consumer will not consume art because it is beautiful, but because the image is multiplied several times and engrained into the mind, along with its corresponding values and ideas. Society is often looking outward for cues on how to live, and when these values/ideas are wrapped up in a pretty package (read: picture), they become a lot easier to consume. And that's freakin' scary!

Sexuality "Swings" Into Focus

So, SEX is one of those things that's hard to shake from the mind.

After my discovery of what Fragonards "Swing" was REALLY implying, it's been hard to shake since. It's interesting in that time period how sex, as well as other taboo social situations, was always shown through symbols. I mean, who would've thought that the loss of a shoe, or the spin of a top hat could mean "gettin' it on"?? And the fact that nude portraits were only allowed to represent mythological characters seems downright oppressive! But what is interesting is that a fine artist like Fragonard would go out on a limb to push that sexual envelope, and really pull out of the viewer those raw feelings of love, lust, and even discomfort. The real story behind this painting is borderline pornographic, but just by looking at it it seems hardly shocking.

It's interesting to see how works like this stack up to sexually driven works of art that are portrayed now in days. The loss of a shoe, or a wind blown skirt, is hardly unsettling for the modern viewer. But what about an artist such as David LaChapelle who borrows a lot from the subject matter of different periods in art history, and mashes them up with the popular culture of today as well as contemporary pornography? Here is a fine art photographer that really seems to modernize what Fragonard was doing back in 1770. Sex as subject has transcended time and it's interesting to compare the old with the new.

LaChapelle's use of sexuality is a lot more overt. The raw emotion that Fragonard's paintings evoke, are now, with LaChapelle, evoked through very raw images. There is flesh free of censorship, flanks free of clothing, and a fresher take on fornication. LaChapelles images are almost so pristine, the colors so saturated, that it takes a vulgar image and makes it look ethereal. In the same way, Fragonard took a very soft color palette and mixed it with a very edgy subject matter, in order to allow the two to somehow even each other out. Sex doesn't seem as taboo when it's all dressed up. It's like a wolf in sheep's clothing, but who's to say that it's in need of a disguise?

What it comes down to is a massive change in the times and the way that social standards have effected the way we look at topics like this; and more importantly how these topics are seen in art. It's like comparing a Beatles song that boasts, "I wanna hold your hand" to a Ludacris song proclaiming, "I wanna lick you from your head to your toes!" While sex even today lacks exclusive acceptance amongst ALL societies, it is a part of life that is not going away no matter how often it is censored or exploited. Artists will continue to use it as subject matter, and it will be interesting to see how future art will represent a topic that has been continually shunned and/or embraced, much like the controversial artists themselves.