The Estheticist is a free ongoing service of art consultation around practical, philosophical and ethical issues around the visual arts profession. To ask a question, email estheticist [ at ] aol.com. Participants accept that their questions may be used for a printed publication that will serve as a professional development tool for emerging professionals in the arts. Your question will be confidentially and the question will appear as anonymous unless you specify otherwise.

To see previous issues, click here.

Dear Estheticist,

I am an artist who is fairly well known in her hometown – a middle-sized art world center. Through the grapevine I heard that an influential curator is curating a show at the main museum there on a subject that is THE subject that has occupied a good part of my career (and most people in that art scene know it). Furthermore, the title of this upcoming show sounds strangely similar to the title of one of my works. Yet, my work has not been included, and I have heard that the artist roster is finalized. This curator knows who I am —we’ve met and been in panels and other things together before— although I am not sure the extent to which he knows my work. I know that being excluded from shows that one feels are exactly about what one does as an artist is an unnerving but common incident, but this case feels to me particularly humiliating given the location, context, and proximity to me in the content and title of the show. I have no way of knowing if this is simply an omission or if this curator really doesn’t like what I do — yet I feel that my exclusion will be interpreted locally as a statement against my work. Is there any way I could insinuate myself into this exhibition (remember that so far the show is not public knowledge), or at least get clarification about why I am not included without appearing presumptuous?

Sincerely,

Hometown Girl

Dear Hometown Girl,

Your anxiety and even indignation about this show is understandable. However, there are few things for you to think about: first, you should ask yourself what this incident might say about your own insecurities as an artist (all artists have insecurities). You yourself say that you are well known in your town, that people identify this subject with your work, and that people will notice your absence in the show. If all this is true, then the embarrassment may actually be experienced by the curator who failed to include your work, as he may appear to others as not having done his homework properly. If, alternatively, the curator is intentionally making a point of excluding your work, there is no point in arguing with him on that. You may want to send a trusted friend or supporter to casually mention your work on this subject to this curator, but this is a risky task that may backfire, if it becomes public knowledge that you lobbied (and maybe failed) to get into the show. Like it or not, the best course of action on your part on this situation is to do nothing, and let the events unfold. You must trust that the work that you have done in the past stands on its own, and your reputation should be able to withstand the fleeting passing of a famous curator through your hometown.

Sincerely,

The Estheticist

Dear Estheticist,

Last summer I made a misstep by assaulting a good friend critic with the work of another dear artist friend. Something went wrong but I am not sure what it was. I would like to get your advise on how to help the career of other colleagues without making anyone uncomfortable, including myself, and how to detect and communicate a negative response from others.

Thank you,

The North African

Dear North African,

It is commendable that you have the generosity of heart to help out your artist friends. Intercession by a -theoretically neutral- third party is the most important kind of help that one can receive as an artist. However, and as you also realized, you do have to be careful not to impose your friend onto others and thus jeopardize your own relationships. If you want to introduce an artist friend’s work to a critic, here are a few things to consider: 1. do not let your friend know in advance that you will be making that connection; if for some reason the critic doesn’t like the work or the idea of meeting your friend, you will end up demoralizing your friend even more. 2. when you introduce the artist to your critic friend, this also has to be done gently and with tact. One way to do it would be to invite the critic to your friend’s show (without the presence or knowledge of your friend), or simply share images of your friend’s work with the critic and ask for an opinion. It also would not hurt to be perfectly honest with the critic and say that you want to help your friend— most people are sympathetic to such situations. Also, if in your request you show to your critic friend that you are aware that you may be imposing on his time, this simple acknowledgment will go a long way.

It is not appropriate to ask your critic friend point blank to do a studio visit with the artist, or to do anything that will place the critic in a difficult situation (such as starting to be pestered with solicitations by your artist friend). Your critic friend may feel obligated to comply with the request just because of your friendship, but it may generate resentment later. All you can do for your artist friend is to facilitate a way in which the critic will get a glimpse of the work; if there is interest, you can help even further. But it is not possible for you to convert others to your friend’s art. You may want to ask yourself if there are any other ways in which you can help your artist friend, maybe through invitations to social events where your friend may make new connections; or through sharing information about grants, residencies, or resources that may translate into opportunities. And regarding how to communicate a negative reaction: you should always prevent from hurting your friend’s feelings by plainly saying things like “my friend didn’t like your work”. You should always present it in the best light possible, which could be something like: “I believe my friend is focusing on other kinds of art at the moment.”

Sincerely

The Estheticist

Dear Estheticist:

I have a persistent fantasy where I approach someone like Rob Pruitt and offer him a cash reward if he can get me a solo show at Gavin Brown’s. All he’d have to do is whisper in Gavin’s ear, right? Here’s my question: how much should I offer him?

Yours,
Dan Levenson (New York)

Dear Dan,

Thank you so much for your question. As you yourself recognize, this is a fantasy, which is defined as “an idea with no basis in reality”, so I feel, for the sake of usefulness, I should answer the question in how it would
work in the real world. In the real world, no money will be directly exchanged or offered and you must never be personally involved in the operation. You have to get a triad of collaborators: one, an influential collector, then an influential critic and an influential curator. All of
them at different times need to whisper to both the ear of Gavin and Rob. Then you set up a star-studded celebrity dinner where they are invited and they meet you. At that dinner they will be surrounded by other impressive individuals who will whisper to them about your magnificence and hotness. Then the influential collector will make the request to Gavin to quietly sell a few works of yours from his collection (these will be works that you will have given to the collector for free beforehand). Gavin will jump at the chance and turn the offer into a solo show. (for more details on how to do this, watch “The Sting”). You will ask, I am sure, how do you then get a hold of that influential collector. Basically you do the same “triage” process with that individual, and the same with the previous three individuals that you will need to reach to in order to get to the collector who will get you to Gavin. This is why these exercises are known as social climbing: you can’t parachute your way in —only in fantasyland.

Sincerely,

The Estheticist

Dear Estheticist,

Whose opinion is the right opinion in the world of artistic critique? How do you deal with polar opposite opinions?

Artist

Dear Artist,

You point out a perennial problem that artists face: whom should one listen to? If we receive negative criticism, is it because our work is truly deficient or because it is so advanced that others can’t perceive its visionary nature? If we are praised, is it for the right reasons? And when our work is simultaneously praised and attacked, what does that mean?
The field of art critique, as you are referring to it, has a wide range, from the novice to the connoisseur. Needless to say that the criticism of the layperson, while it can sometimes be useful, it generally lacks enough knowledge of context to make informed assessments of your work ( so, for instance, I would not be overly concerned if your local dry cleaner hates your performance art works).
Then, toward the middle of the field of criticism there is a remarkably wide area of consensus- such as, agreement on what is a technically and conceptually-sophisticated art work, the relevance of certain movements, artists, and also on what constitutes a truly original artwork versus a simply derivative piece.

On the extreme end, however, which is what I imagine you are referring to, gets very interesting. Critics, curators, and artists break into various camps – formalists, conceptualists, neo-Marxists, guattari-ists, etc. Many times their differences simply cannot be solved, partially because art history is full of equally valid opposites (Matisse/Picasso; Delacroix/Ingres, etc) and there is no such thing as a single path to making significant art. But even if one of these camps were to possess the absolute “truth” as to where art is going in the future, at least from the standpoint of the present moment we don’t know what the current debates between these camps will look like. And it is not possible for you, not to anyone, to know the outcome of these debates.

All this to say that when you receive conflicting criticism about your work you should pay close attention to who is formulating these criticisms (or praises), and what is motivating their comments. Could it be personal? (many times it is). Could it be their inability to recognize the possibility of practices that are different from theirs? Are they a bit blinded by their commitment to some monolithic art principles? Are these people who you respect, even if you disagree with them? Ultimately the answer may lie on which camp you identify yourself more closely with. And it has to be a deeply personal choice. Your best bet is then to follow the opinions not that most flatter you, but that point to the issues that you care most about. And, needless to say, to follow the opinions of those who are currently considered the “taste-makers” just because they are given importance in the art world, will just turn you into an opportunist — something that may helps in the short run, but nothing more.

Sincerely,

The Estheticist

Dear Estheticist,

One more question…

What is the responsibility of the artist in making more art? Isn’t the
world already overwhelmed with objects, stuff, art?

Am I having an artistic crisis?

Artist

Dear Artist,

Yet another classic question. This one, however, contains no less than four hidden fallacies in its simple formulation.
The first one is that you are assuming that art is always about its material object.
The second one is that existing art is capable to be an efficient surrogate to any possible future art.
The third one is that art is born out of responsibility, not out of necessity.
And finally, that art can stop to be made.

All four of these assumptions are wrong.

Art may often be an object, but it is much more than its objecthood- it is a way of understanding the world that allows us to see it anew. Even if we were to destroy all the existing art today, its effect has already taken place in us and we have evolved partially thanks to the insights it has given us. Then, most artists make art not because they feel a civic responsibility to make it, but simply because they have to: making art is much more of a human need that it is a constructed activity that services society, even if that ends up being one of its functions. And, as a human need, you can’t prohibit art making— it would be futile and pointless. And that is a good thing, because every passing moment brings a new kind of reality, and that new kind of reality demands some need for interpreting it. That’s what artists do: they respond to the moment they are living. So while you may admire a Leonardo, he is still our ancestor, not a living person with whom you can have a conversation about your daily life. Contemporary art can do that for us, and if we are willing to listen, in the best cases it won’t feel like an accumulation of stuff, but a liberating, enlightening experience.

Sincerely,

The Estheticist

Dear Estheticist,

I’m truly afraid that after graduate school I’ll end up working the same awful, minimum wage jobs I had before starting graduate school. How can I prevent that from happening when it’s all over with? Would it be too far of a stretch to move out of the country (USA) in search of work? Are job prospects better anywhere else?

Jen

Dear Jen,

Try to use art school to learn some skills that you may be able to repurpose for other jobs. There are many fields that absorb people with art school training: conservation, fabrication, digital imaging, archiving, education, museums, paper making, advertising, theater lighting, sound and film editing, television, graphic design, 3-D modeling, drafting for architecture, publishing, etc.
The pay of these jobs will depend on how advanced you manage to get your technical skills. Let’s face it: you won’t ever make a lawyer’s salary, but it is perfectly possible to find a reasonably satisfying niche that would allow you to pay the bills and give you the peace of mind to make your work. I wouldn’t discard the possibility to move elsewhere, but if I were you I would only do it if the place you move to will be a beneficial climate to develop your artwork.

Sincerely,

The Estheticist

Dear Estheticist,

How do you tell your best friend who is an artist that her most recent work is the most awful crap you’ve ever seen?

Liza G. , Madison WI

Dear Liza,

If you feel so strongly about this new series you must speak up, for your friend’s sake. One way to do this indirectly -that is, without you becoming the bad cop- would be to instigate a situation that will bring the awfulness of this work into your friend’s mind. Such situation would be such as bringing a respectable and outspoken person to come see the work and be upfront about it. Another strategy is simply to lobby for her previous work ( which presumably is better than the current one ) and convince her that there was an interesting direction in it that she should retake. But the truth is that the best and most effective strategy is to simply arm yourself with courage and tell your friend that you love her and that her work is the most awful crap you have ever seen. She may not stay your friend for long, but she will thank you one day.

Sincerely,

The Estheticist

The Estheticist is a monthly, free visual arts advice service. To submit a question, write to estheticist [at] aol.com.  Questions may be published as part of this montly blog. All questions will be answered and treated anonymously.

Dear Estheticist,

As artists we have the privilege of offering our colleagues artworks in exchange. Are there any unspoken rules about artists bartering pieces? For instance, shall this works have dedication? Or is it right to sell a piece which was acquired in a friendly exchange? Thank you for your advice.

Anonymous Artist, Mexico City

Dear Anonymous Artist,

Exchanging pieces amongst artist colleagues is a wonderful practice. To propose an exchange, however, has to be done carefully and with tact. For an artist to propose a trade with a more successful  — or expensive, for that matter —artist, would be presumptuous and would place the more successful artist in an uncomfortable situation. Artists at the same level can certainly and freely propose trades to each other, but the interest in each other’s works must be clearly mutual as well as the recognition that both are at the same level (which is actually hard to do as most artists have a slightly more aggrandized vision of where they are placed reputation-wise in relation to others). The best opportunity to propose a trade most typically emerges when an artist that one admires expresses a lot of interest for a particular work of yours; it is then perfectly reasonable to suggest a trade. One should not be picky either: to demand a particular work from the collection of that artist would tarnish the exchange.  Regarding dedication: unless the dedication is considered as intricate part of the work (and some conceptual works are that way), in general to visibly dedicate the piece to someone else (say, an editioned photograph) would likely diminish the value of the work when this one may be passed down to posterity — it certainly would be of less interest to a museum unless both donor and recipient would become historically famous ( and let’s not kid ourselves that we will be, say, Matisse giving a gift to Picasso). And regarding sales: it is not appropriate to sell a work that one has acquired through an exchange of this kind. When one enters into such a trade, the implicit understanding is that admiration to each other, not monetary gain, is the reason of the contract. To choose to sell a work that one received this way is to admit that the admiration that one may have toward that artist is not as great as your desire (or need) to cash in.  Regardless of how desperate one may be for the money, the gesture of this artist will not be seen favorably amongst those around him/her, will likely offend the author of the piece, and will likely prevent others from trading with this artist in the future.

Sincerely,

The Estheticist

***

Dear Estheticist,

I am an artist who has been around for a while so I am reasonably well-known and connected in the art world. Also as a result, many younger (and not so young) artists ask me for letters of recommendation for grants and residencies. While I want to help them, writing these recommendations is way too time consuming, I am a slow writer, and sometimes I am just overwhelmed by the amount of requests that I get. Moreover, there is one person in particular who every year asks me to write a recommendation for something and  I am just fed up with it. How can I let this person as well as others know that I am not endlessly available to write letters without sounding rude?

Tired Recommender

Dear Tired Recommender,

This is a very common problem, but it is not difficult to address. You, however, will have to learn how to say no.  One way to do it is to set your seasonal limit (say, three letters) and award those letters to those artists who you consider more worthy. It is perfectly fine to tell others, nicely but firmly, that while you would love to help them you are simply unable to write a decent recommendation because of lack of time. And regarding the artist who constantly solicits you, you should have no qualms in telling him/her that you will have to give the opportunity to others instead than to the same person. Needless to say, not everyone may be so understanding to your negative, but I would be that those same people will also likely be those who don’t understand the meaning of boundaries anyway.

Sincerely,

The Estheticist

***

Dear Estheticist,

I was a photojournalist for many years, until I became disenchanted with the profession. Disenchantment was followed by an identity crisis, followed by a revelation; I wanted to become a full-time artist. I’ve been dabbling in drawing, painting, collage and conceptual photography for many years now, but kept these activities as a private, personal joy. I live in an art world capital with a thriving art scene and I’m thinking of taking some courses here and there, start going to vernissages and mingle, make some connections and start making art (and hopefully a name for myself). The thing is, I’m 37 years old and I never had any art related training whatsoever, which gives me extreme insecurity; I’m just not confident of my skills or my work. I’m reluctant to pursue an arts degree now, as I believe I’ve wasted so much time (I’m kicking myself for not having this revelation when I was 18 or 20 years old). I have a constant fear of not having enough time at this point in my life to develop a successful career as an artist. What should I do? Should I invest five (or more) years studying and then try to start when I’m 42 or older? Or should I trust that a few courses and good connections will help both my skills and my confidence?

Thanks!

Mid-Life Art Crisis Artist

Dear Mid-Life Crisis Artist,

You seem to be able to assess your situation with great frankness and objectivity; that in itself puts you in an advantage in relation to others who, even if they decided to become artists before you, would benefit from feeling a bit more insecure about their talent. Secondly, I think you have correctly guessed that it is not a good idea to make art in a vacuum. Although we still hold the romantic notion that an artist may make art in secret and one day be discovered after death (e. g. Henry Darger), the reality is that contemporary art is as much the result of the perseverance of one’s vision as the product of the dialogue between artists, between generations, between world views.  So it is of utmost importance for you to place yourself within a community of artists. Attending some sort of art program, classes, residencies, and even art school would be indeed very beneficial for you, to see how others think, solve similar problems, how they articulate their work toward others, and how you share or differ in your views on art.  Do not worry about your age: while it is true that you will not have the same learning arch of a 20-something, at the same time you arrive to art with valuable life experience, which you can put to good use in the creation of thoughtful and original work. Also, remember that many very important artists started making art fairly late in their career: Marcel Broodthaers, one of the most influential post-war artists, was a poet and made his first art object at 40. W. G. Sebald, one of the most influential European authors, published his first work in his 40s.  Such examples abound. And you should not be concerned about running out of time. Your focus should be to become the best artist you can be, and to find reward in the work that you make. While urgency can be a productive motivation to get to work, you should not let it turn into haste.

Sincerely,

The Estheticist

***

Dear Estheticist,

I work at an alternative art space. Part of my job is to solicit artwork donations from an artist roster we have for our annual benefit. Whlle some of these artists in this roster have exhibited as part of our regular exhibition schedule in the past, others have never been invited to do so. One of them complained to me about our solicitations, saying that she has been already asked for several works in the past and that it is hypocritical of us to request donations when we have not shown interest to exhibit her work. My view is that this is indeed an opportunity for artists to get their name out, and that our space can’t possibly show every single artist’s work and thus it is valid to ask for help to those in the art community who attend our space, even if they are only spectators. Who is right?

Benefit Organizer, New York

Dear Benefit Organizer,

She is right. By soliciting free artworks for a benefit to artists who you have not included (or are not likely to include) in your regular exhibition schedule, you are sending the message (intentionally or not) that you have a double standard in artwork selection, and that this artist belongs to the category of those who are good enough to exhibit at the benefit (which is usually not a very exciting context to show a work anyway) but not be included in the regular shows.  I am sure that you have plenty of artists who have indeed exhibited at the space that you could limit your benefit solicitations to them. It is true that you will never be able (nor would ever want to) to exhibit every single artist who visits your space, but if the art community that you are supposed to service is feeling taken advantage of, you have a real problem in your hands and it is your duty to find ways through which these artists will feel, even if not supported, at least treated respectfully.

Sincerely,

The Estheticist.

***

Dear Estheticist,

I am an American artist and have been working with a “personal virtual assistant” from Bangalore to create a project that not only reflects the uneven conditions of the relationship, but also makes attempts to balance out the power dynamics of the relationship by treating my “assistant” like a person, making his interests the content of our work together, and even asking him to assign me tasks. The project has been extremely fulfilling and problematic – right where I want it to be. I have an exhibition planned of the work we have done together, and I’m wondering what you think the best way might be to allow for the relationship be alive during the exhibition.

Thanks,

Artist Entrepreneur

Dear Artist Entrepreneur,

Thank you for bringing up such an interesting and problematic case —which appears to be a classic ethical dilemma in social practice.  First, let’s review the facts: you are an artist who has hired a service. The individual who works for the company and, by extension, for you, is bound to a contractual relationship to which his financial subsistence depends. Even if he enjoys what you are asking him to do, or even if he plots these ideas with you, the relationship is rooted in two unaltered facts: he is doing it as part of a job, and you are his boss. Because of these facts, the relationship artist-assistant is not significantly altered regardless what you ask him to do.

Your desire to disrupt, or expose the power relationships that emerge from globalization is well noted. However, just for the sake of argument: even if this exchange is based on a democratic creative dialogue where you both make aesthetic decisions, it would not be a collaboration, because since your collaborator is likely not a visual artist versed, invested nor inserted in the international art circuit as I would assume you are, even then you will end up getting the credit, and he will remain in the background as an enhancing ingredient to your career.  The reason for this is that the kind of benefits that you are getting from this relationship are tangible but invisible— they are of the reputational economy type: you may appear publicly as a generous or democratic individual, but in the end because you are the one who is bringing this man into your cultural context you are the one to benefit.

In my view, the only way to truly balance the power dynamics of this relationship would be to not make the outcome of the project an exhibition in your cultural playing field (that is, the artworld, america, etc.) To do so would first tilt the project in an advantageous light toward your own practice, and make the assistant look less than a real person and more like a human readymade, which is what these companies sell anyway.  Where you, for instance, to revert the hierarchy and ask him to assign you tasks, or to perform tasks that his friends are doing for other bosses in the U.S., you would be into more interesting territory. And to truly level the relationship, your financial or artistic subsistence should depend on his decisions and suggestions — for instance, having him decide what your art should be like in the next year or so, without you revealing to others that you are taking instructions from him. Or starting your own reverse company, doing the kind of work for free for the personal assistants in Bangalore who service these American companies. Or just becoming the free personal assistant to any random person in Bangalore. Or do like Marina Abramovic who exchanged jobs with a prostitute in Amsterdam for a day. Etcetera.  These courses of action would be in my view a more complementary (and complimentary) alternative to simply exhibiting the projects that you had your virtual assistant do.

This is not to say that it is not valid to retain your artistic authority in this relationship (Santiago Sierra, for instance, exploits people but he is direct about it, even if it may be an unethical act). The problem is that you have created a situation where the artist-assistant relationship you propose to problematize may not appear to go so far as to truly upset the balance. What matters here is conceptual transparency and the kind of stakes that exist on both sides. Without carefully addressing both in your presentation, you risk appearing to simply extend that which you appear to criticize or only half-heartedly exposing your personal risk in a power relationship.

Sincerely,

The Estheticist

***

Dear Estheticist,

I would like to ask you where would we be right about now art-wise if Renaissance had never happened – if we had skipped it altogether?

Georgia, Athens

Dear Georgia,

Thank you for your question. Not being a Renaissance expert, I consulted one truly versed Renaissance scholar.  He was puzzled by the question, saying that “I don’t know what the questioner means by “the” Renaissance, and even if I did, I would likely have no idea.”  However, knowing that this is not quite a satisfactory answer, and given our pledge here to answer every question, here I go:

Marxists historians would point out that during the Renaissance the emergence of a bourgeois class (e. g. Medici) with time for leisure and education led to art as a product that could be bought and collected. Furthermore, the emphasis on man as the measure of all things (as opposed to God) has, amongst other consequences, the phenomenon of constructing the notion of “The” artist. With Vasari’s “Lives of the Artists”, this notion is first articulated, and, one would argue, the tendency of narrating art history through the canonical narrative of individual “geniuses”. Fast forwarding to our era, we can all agree that we continue to regard physical artworks as carriers of intrinsic value (both symbolic and financial) and that we continue to nurture the notion of “The” artist (now as in “art star”), both legacies of the Renaissance.  So, what would have happened if the Renaissance hadn’t occurred?  Perhaps we can find part of the answer in societies that did not participate in, or exist outside of, the construction of Western modern culture (indigenous cultures around the world, religious movements, outsider artists, etc).  For some of these people, art is the expression of a collectivity, but it should not have financial value.  Some recognize that great artworks can be created by individuals, but don’t necessarily appreciate or favor an self-centered vision but instead how this work speaks to the group. And in some societies what we call art is not called art and artists are not considered artists in the same way in which religious icons in churches in medieval times were not seen as containing an aesthetic value outside of its expression of faith and the artists were anonymous (until Giotto came along). In other words, interpreting the view of authors like Arthur Danto, without the Renaissance we would not have had a beginning of the art historical arch, we would not have had a modern era, an academy, a modernism, a post-modernism, and the death of art. Art today would perhaps not be called art. Museums as spaces where to show these things would not be considered necessary.  People would make art, but not necessarily sell it or collect it, and this art would perhaps not be about their vision but would perhaps be collectively made or anonymous. And we would have lost the chance to have a Sistine Chapel. But we would have likely also been spared from Damien Hirst.

Sincerely

The Estheticist

***

Dear Estheticist,

What makes an Art object meaningful? it the indication that something meaningful is present? Is it the attention we proceed to invest in it? Is it our capacity to subsequently rationalize that experience into a communicable verbal analog: to describe it in words? Is it in the act of communication?

Yours sincerely,

Dan, St. Louis

Dear Dan,

Your question lies at the core of epistemology and it is the source of a large debate between proponents of different schools of thought.  From the standpoint of hermeneutics, what makes an artwork meaningful is the successful mediation of a force between the viewer and the object, some kind of “third” force that, if successful, disappears when the connection takes place (the most common example is language: when we speak about an object language help us attain meaning, but at the same time recedes into the background because we are not conscious that we are using it).  Structuralism, by contrast, argued that meaning only can come when you utilize a signifying system —could be feminism, anthropology, political theory, semiotics— to approach an object, and because of the many variables of systems and individuals, meaning is an unstable product. In art museums, an influential approach has come from constructivist theory, which draws from hermeneutics in that it sees the reaching of meaning as a mediated process, and from structuralism in that it is relative to the interpreter. It also places most emphasis on the experience of the viewer as the main constructor of meaning.

In any case, most art education theorists would agree that there are likely a myriad of reasons why an art work becomes meaningful. Objects can be meaningful to us without us having to verbally articulate why. They also become suddenly meaningful when we hear others speak enthusiastically about them. But meaning ultimately is an internal negotiation within yourself, when you process all the information you have received of a particular object and, be it for the suggestibility of the context around you, irrational impulse, or careful reflection on the issues that it poses in your mind. And because the conditions that create it are never fixed, it is unpredictable what may become most meaningful to an individual. Social and cultural conditioning may cause us to agree that a particular art work is very meaningful, but even then we usually disagree on the reason why.

Sincerely,

The Estheticist

***

Dear Estheticist,

What do you do when you realize that you are being been stalked, used and vampirized by a so-called friend, some one much younger than you? How do you let the world know that you reject this person? I confronted my friend but he reacted surprised, as if I was mad. I feel as if I was in the “All about Eve’ movie, surrounded by pathological narcissists on coke. I want to escape! Help, please!

Best,

Don Quixote, Spain

Dear Don Quixote,

It would be easier to help you if your letter was a bit less opaque in the details. I gather that by being “vampirized” and “stalked” you are referring to a colleague who has taken advantage of your friendship, perhaps plagiarizing your works or using your friendship for advancing their personal career. The fact that they sound like drug-addicts is not promising either.

Whatever is the case, it is clear that you have surrounded yourself with people that are detrimental to your well-being and your creativity.  But as bleak as your surroundings may look, it is very important for you to know that they don’t represent the totality of the art world: there are valuable people out there that will value and support you as a friend and as artist. Your job is to find them and surround yourself by them in a better environment. Whether that means to simply cutting all ties to your torturer, or to move to another neighborhood, town, or country, is only that only you can decide. But this change will likely require that you drastically change your life as it is- expand your professional circles of friends and acquaintances, seek out the individuals you admire, build a group of people who share your same values.  Usually we blame the others for our own inability to change our situation, but as you yourself suggest this situation has now become untenable and you are the only one who can change it.

Your priority right now should be to sever all ties from those who have caused you this aggravation, and have the discipline not to contact them again.  You can’t move on to meet and develop good relationships because you are too involved with the poisonous ones.  Finally, I suggest that your focus should be to make art, not to worry what others think about you. This focus will ultimately be rewarded.

Sincerely,

The Estheticist

[streaming audio files]

The Art World Home Companion, Smack Mellon, July 17 2010:

The Art World Home Companion, Introduction:

The Art World Home Companion, The Estheticist:

[full video documentation below]

The Art World Home Companion is a radio program originally conceived for  Condensations of the Social, an exhibition at Smack Mellon, Brooklyn, curated by Sara Reisman in June-July of 2010. The project pays tribute to Garrison Keillor’s A Prairie Home Companion, adapting the concept for the contemporary art community. The “Estheticist” segment of the  program invites public participation and offers a counseling and answering of art-related questions from listeners, in the spirit of Randy Cohen’s New York Times column “the Ethicist”.

A live program was presented at Smack Mellon on July 17, 2010 with the participation of Ryan Hill and Larry Krone.

Pablo Helguera and Larry Krone performing "Art Basel", AWHC, 07/15/10, Smack Mellon

Introduction:

The Art World Home Companion is the great variety show and radio podcast desired and expected by all and produced by none — until now. For those of you who feel lonely amidst the social choreographies of the art world, whose anxieties about professional issues generate unanswered questions that they are afraid to ask, who cant detach from Facebook and are a bit nostalgic of the time when you actually got to see and talk to people in person, but feel awkward at openings, for those for whom the art world remains inscrutable, who cannot understand why it is the way it is— who feel that our social rituals are slightly absurd and contradictory, our theorizing incomprehensible, our ethical behavior suspicious, our professional acting opportunistic, and yet you still ache for being part of it —this program is your friend, your companion and your Saturday morning sunshine.

Now that nothing is radical anymore but we are still stressed about it being so, the era of folk conceptualism has begun and it must be celebrated. Well aware of this,  The Art World Home Companion will reach the artist studios in Brooklyn and the Amish households in Pennsylvania, the pristine galleries of Chelsea and the prairie chicken farms of Mississippi, the grave hallways of Bard and the harmonious mountains of Appalachia. Uniquely American in its folksy spirit and humor, its relentless optimism, its shameless commercialism and its confessional talk show nature, The Art World Home Companion is the Car Guys for art students and confused art school graduates, Dr. Phil for artists and independent curators, the Oprah of the art historians, the Jim Cramer for collectors and dealers, and the Larry King of all of us who care about art but have a hard time not becoming cynical about the art world.  Each program will include special guests, American folk music, art recipes, site-specific travel tips from the Atlas of Art Commonplaces, strange manifestos, and the centrally important program The (Esth)ethicist, to whom listeners can write with their burning professional questions. The art world has now a friend, a shoulder to cry on, a companion finally not to compete against or sleep with for convenience but just someone to laugh with, to love, learn and share our eccentricities, fears and desires as members of our little town which is the Art World.

Radio drama: "Otto's Self-Board Meeting"

Full video of the July 17, 2010 program at Smack Mellon:

Part I: introduction and worst exhibition titles competition

Part II: Radio drama: Otto’s Self-Board Meeting

Part III: Larry Krone

Part IV: The Estheticist

Part V: The Estheticist 2nd part

Part VI: Over the Hamptons and Art Basel

Part VII: Art World Trivia and The Dan Flavin Awards

Part VIII: Documenta (final)

Las Aventuras de Olmeco Beuys es un comic que se remonta a la era precolombina, tomando como protagonista un artista olmeca incomprendido. Autor de cabezas colosales, Olmeco Beuys vive en la eterna pero futil búsqueda de reconocimento, becas y exposiciones mientras que es ignorado por su entorno social de galeristas, curadores, artistas y coleccionistas.

Las Aventuras de Olmeco Beuys fue presentado por primera vez en la galería Enrique Guerrero (Mexico, DF) en Mayo del 2010.

El libro, publicado por Jorge Pinto Books, se puede conseguir en Amazon.

The Adventures of Olmeco Beuys is a comic strip created in 2010 which goes back to the Precolumbian era. Its protagonist is a misunderstood Olmec artist. Author of Colossal heads, Olmeco lives in the eternal but futile search of artistic acknowledgment, shows and grants while he is ignored by the social and artistic milieu of dealers, curators, artist and collectors.

The project was first presented at Enrique Guerrero Gallery in Mexico City in May of 2010. The book, published by Jorge Pinto Books, can be purchased in Amazon.

Introducción de Felipe Ehrenberg:

¿Destino manifiesto en las artes?

PABLO ARTONERO

Felipe Ehrenberg

Estaba el cabo en medio del matorral y mal herido, con las tripas colgándole de la panza por un bayonetazo enemigo, cuando llega el sargento:

-¡¡Por Dios, cabo, que feo le dieron…!! ¿Le duele?

-Arghh, mi sargento…. sólo cuando me gana la risa…

NOTICIA:

Censura Gobernación a JIS y Trino por decir “inche”, “mamón” y “puñeta” en la radio.

Diciembre, 2009

El origen de las palabras ‘arte’ y ‘artilleria’ es uno mismo.

1.

México se puede ufanar de tres grandes artistas de apellido Helguera. Tenemos al genial y venerado pintor Jesús (1910-1971), cuya amplia obra conocemos casi toditos los mexicanos a través de reproducciones en calendarios y cajas de fósforos. Tenemos a Antonio, mordaz y elegantísimo cartonero sin cuya certera visión la vida política de México sería otra peor. Tenemos también al artista multidisciplinario Pablo Helguera, que nació el mismo año en que murió don Jesús y cuya obra conocemos muy bien millones de  cibernautas. Es de hecho, nuestro primer artonero.

2.

El principal mérito de don Jesús, además de su buen talante y sus innegables dotes como pintor, fue que logró como nadie darle sustancia a todos los mitos que sostenían a la sociedad mexicana, homogenizando a la ciudadanía dentro de cánones cuidadosamente elaborados a la medida por los ideólogos del Partido Revolucionario Institucional. Por su parte, Pablo H. es un artista inteligente que destaca entre artistas inteligentes. Viajero y versátil, piensa, teoriza, escribe (y publica), crea obra de sustancia y alto calibre. Y es, lo repito, artonero.

3.

Hace un millón de años hubo en el territorio que hoy conocemos como Nafta Sur, un país llamado México. Eran tiempos de la Guerra Fría, López Mateos, el Gran Tlatoahni, en breve le pasaría la estafeta a Díaz Ordaz y las etnias de la gran nación vivían lo que los arqueólogos y antropólogos –y seguramente uno que otro sociólogo- hoy denominan “Los ‘60s”. En el brillante pero reducido mundo cultural de aquella civilización surgieron una serie de monopolios culturales intelecto-delictuosos, compuestos por poetas, escritores, periodistas y editores. El vulgo, que en aquel entonces no se hacía llamar “chilango”, nombró al principal de estos, “La Mafia”, pues alcanzó a incluir a pintores y a uno que otro escultor. Todo indica que este tipo de fenómeno sociocultural también se dio en la mayoría de las capitales iberoamericanas, cuyas cultósferas –no hay que olvidarlo- eran el blanco de la vocación hegemónica de la OEA. Para ahorrarnos espacio (y tiempo) recomiendo leer la grandilocuente aunque graciosamente acertada descripción de cómo funcionaban dichos monopolios, publicada en 1975 por el poeta y escritor mexicano Enrique González Rojo.

4.

De la época de Jesús Helguera a la época de Pablo Helguera (pasando por la de Antonio Cartonero), el mundo ciertamente ha cambiado. Tanto así que si traigo a colación el texto de González Rojo es solo para demostrar cómo el mentado “destino manifiesto” que hoy domina el mundo internacional del arte y que impacta en el mundo del arte mexicano consiguió desplazar los cazicazgos autóctonos (‘grupúsculos elitistas’ los llamó el poeta) para sustituir sus provincianas costumbres por otras, estas sí globales y globalizantes. La única semejanza que tienen entre sí las locales y las globales lo sintetiza el poeta diciendo: “Es necesario indicar… que toda mafia tiene como finalidad crearse un público. No sólo en el sentido de organizarse una demanda, sino en el de rodearse, por así decirlo, de la admiración, envidia, respeto del mayor número de lectores. Una mafia cumple su objetivo cuando hay un número grande de personas que “sueñan” con pertenecer al “grupo selecto” y estar “en el candelero”.

5.

El mayor mérito de Pablo Helguera es que, mientras el poeta requirió 1,900 palabras para describir la situación local, Pablo El Artonero resume lo glocal en una serie de tiritas cómicas que son ácido ascórbico en su estado más puro.

6.

¿Se necesita decir más?

São Paulo, Brasil, 15 de abril del 2010

Pablo Helguera

Otto’s Self Board Meeting

Otto:

Thank you all for coming. I had to call this emergency board meeting of all my top senior selves in order to address a matter of serious importance to the Otto Rumperstreiser Art Career Corporation. As you know, Us, Otto, have not received an invitation to do a solo exhibition for 2010. We are approaching the end of the year and so far My/Our exhibition schedule looks empty. This is an unacceptable situation that I/We all have to work quickly to correct. We just can’t allow this embarrassment. I look forward to your suggestions.

Otto, Senior Marketing Strategist:

To be honest, I have been saying all along that we don’t promote Us enough. People are not aware of our product. We have to be more aggressive. We are up against other artists who have huge galleries with promotional machinery behind them. We need to spend more money, like sending weekly emails about what we do to everyone Otto knows and maybe buy an ad on e-flux. And We have to get ourselves to more important openings. We keep going to the same stupid openings in Chelsea without collectors or decision-makers. We just need a dramatic change of tactic.

Otto, Social Etiquette Supervisor:

We have to be careful with the self-promotional thing. It looks inelegant and desperate. We don’t want to appear desperate. I agree that we need to attend higher-end openings and we need to be more on top of important people’s birthdays. But email doesn’t work anymore. People just delete whatever they get, everyone is saturated even with Facebook.

Otto, Chief Financial Officer:

I am sorry, but we can’t afford an ad campaign right now. Ads cost a fucking fortune. Otto hasn’t sold a work in months and the only money we are getting, from that lecture in that College in Ohio we are going to use it to pay for that stupid photo print job for that piece that Otto agreed to donate for the art auction, and then the rest of the money will have to be spent on that expensive dinner date this coming Friday with the French curator.

Otto, Manager of Getting Laid:

Excuse Us- the French curator actually is a promising relationship. Don’t forget that she said she is very interested in Otto’s work. And in the meantime, let’s face it, she is really hot and Otto is in dire need to get laid.

Otto, Deputy Director of Art Ideas:

Please, let’s focus on the content of Otto’s work. Without the content there is no work, without work there is no career. The other morning We were in the shower We had a really interesting idea for a video piece that would be about the slums of Morocco. It would be a multi-channel video piece and it would show these slums with a narrative of a blind Moroccan prostitute whose story Otto read the other day in Paris Match.

Otto, Coordinator of Reality Check:

That’s ludicrous. First of all, how the hell are we going to get to Morocco to do the video, and then find the prostitute? There is no fucking way we can pull that project together.

Otto, Deputy Director of Art Ideas:

You guys always have to ruin every great initiative. That is why Otto will never make it as an artist.

Otto, Chief Financial Officer:

I am sorry, but we don’t even have the money to buy that external hard drive Otto needs, let alone…

Otto:

Wait a minute. I thought we were talking about getting a show, not about coming up with a new piece!

Otto, Cheating Manager:

How about if we just steal footage from YouTube or something and get a female friend to do a prostitute voiceover?

Otto, Senior Marketing Strategist:

Wait a minute: what if we ask the French curator to do the voiceover, and then once the piece is made we ask for her help to get the piece shown? She may even have contacts in Morocco. Wasn’t it a French colony? Wasn’t she working on a show about post-colonialism? She is totally going to love this piece.

Otto, Deputy Director of Art Ideas:

I don’t know about that idea, it’s too opportunistic…

Otto, Coordinator of Reality Check:

At least sounds doable. We can pull it off.

Otto:

We are pathetic.

Otto, Manager of Getting Laid:

I think it’s a great idea. What do we have to loose? If anything, We will get laid.

Satándranas Obrescas is a series of works first started in 1995. The works on view here are from 2009. These works have no explanation.

Artoons is a series of books of cartoons about the artworld (Volume I – January 2009; Volume II- October 2009). The cartoons have been published in many art publications internationally from Ireland to Brazil and new ones continue to appear on a regular basis in a number of web and print publications.  They were first developed for Artworldsalon.com, where they continue to appear on a regular basis.

http://www.pintobooks.com/illustratedbooks10Helguera.html.

“An artist, museum educator, and man about town (specifically, New York City), Helguera is an amateur anthropologist of the art world. (…) [Helguera’s] cartoons really do capture the foibles, ironies, and occasional stupidity of the art world with a clarity and economy that only a simple pen drawing and a short piece of text can achieve. They fill an important gap. Cartooning is rarely done in the art world (…) Maybe the problem isn’t the humor, but the truth. It may take years of sleuthing for Helguera, the anthropologist, to figure out why this is so. In the meantime, Pablo’s Artoons can do the talking for us.”

—From the foreword by Adrás Szántó

Poster for The Metropolitan Opera Bathroom

The Metropolitan Opera Bathroom consisted in a live recital -a capella, and au naturel- under the shower, on June 1, 2008, as part of the exhibition “Entree”, curated by Krista N. Saunders in a private apartment in New York’

s Upper West Side. More than 100 visitors had a chance to listen to arias from operas by Puccini, Verdi, Mozart, Leoncavallo, Bizet, and others, while the more daring were able to peek in at the performance behind the shower curtain.

Video