PONDERINGS AND ANALYSIS

By Paul Henrickson, Ph.D. tm © 2011

Perhaps it is my advancing maturity that accounts for what I sense is a form of creeping social virus
attacking the collective organization by attracting individual egos and forcing them into high gear before
they are ready, such as, for example, Paris Hilton who is said to be famous for being famous. It seem
that the very human characteristic for admiring achievement has, shall one say, lost focus.

Or, the mantel of naivety has shredded and fallen off leaving me unprotected from the outrageous
behaviors of claimants to non-existent titles, thrones, university degrees and something approaching the

fame of a Dolly Parton’s bosom, so I now find everything suspect.

de Kooning, “Woman” I do not know whether deKooning and Parton

ever met.
In the past, I imagine, I have for the most part simply taken people at their word. I do know for sure that
I respected authority much too much. Now, I can say, for certain, I no longer do….at all.

I might add, as well, that I may nearly be approaching that edge of awareness where I might even be
able to detect the humor in what other-wise are tragic situations.

I now live in a most peculiar place. Not only is the name, Gozo, when heard by the ear of an English
speaking person suggestive of buffa comedic behavior on the level of a Punch and Judy marriage or the
apotheosis of Bozo, the stage clown, expressions quite in line with the likes of that naughty but
provocatively attractive Jeff Koons and not too distant from that full stop to sexual relations, Tracey

Emin.

As one gazes over the visitors to art openings what one generally sees is a gathering of lonely, isolated
social misfits. What keeps them in apparent joyful communion is the terror of the void. [Not unlike what
art historians have called “the Northern Aesthetic”] Regrettably, the void is always there and the only
ones comfortable with themselves are those who respect the discipline of criticism and exercise the
faculties of analysis.

These fallen autumn leaves do not reference the vital energies of a creative mind. Yet, very regrettably,
they, too often, represent (in the minds of the only partially perceptive) the entire constellation of
creative personalities where, in point of fact, they, these wannabe cultural leaders, have only capitalized
upon the more exaggeratedly extreme characteristics of creative personalities. There are two major
types functioning on the social stage. There are the fakes who do not know what they ought to know
but project the aire of the stereotypical expert, and who will go to any intimidating extreme to avoid
being finally detected.

Then there are those who possess the remarkable modesty of many truly creative personalities which
may often be a safeguard against their detection as legitimately creative personalities…realizing that to
be detected is the equivalent to being a potential object of sacrifice not unlike the Aztec who selecting a
young man, giving him everything for a year and then throwing him into the lake as a sacrifice to a god.
Today with the ever present mediocre concept of excellence…everyone wants a slice of the god.

I do not find myself secure in attempting to describe, nor certainly, to explain, the apparent relationship
between one person and another. In general, I suppose, it has something to do with the attractor
(whether intentional or not) having, or offering, something the attractee needs or wants. It is, therefore,
understandable that some misunderstanding might arise if what one thinks one sees isn’t really there,
or, if there, is denied.

Perhaps it has always been so, most especially since art and religious practice seemed joined, whatever
the religious organization it soon recognized the value of drama. It is no secret that some individuals
have been very successful in pulling blinders over the already hoodwinked and promoting their
mercenary values while obscuring the real values inherent in creative art expression, but, I, along with
most others, am hard-pressed to clarify what those real values might be. …but I know they are there.

It is not that they do not exist; it is, rather, that the words may not yet have been invented to describe
them. But, in general, there are elements of real growth, expansion, or perception in what one becomes
after experiences of deep involvement, a sensually better equipped organism. On the other hand, one
might never know what might trigger the collapse of preconceptions.

THE COMPETATIVE ART ARENA seems a possible title

for this piece, but it doesn’t indicate the inappropriate seductions that parallel those that are indicated
in the photo. There are few who seem to know there are special qualities inherent in works of art and
even fewer who dare try to communicate what those qualities are.

I am not at all sure that the title of this piece is adequately descriptive. There are times when I have a
great deal of trouble in synopsizing an idea, but if a picture is worth a thousand words, as the Chinese
tell us, then this image might tell us not to expect too much. The male of the species is so easily misled
and the female, beneath it all, so very practical.

Someone wrote me recently making a brief comment on some of the work associated with the 2009
Malta Biennale which is one of the cultural formulations of Dame Francoise Tempera, an Italian born
widowed British Baronette. I must admit, at the outset, that the effort to bring off any cultural event
that suggests comparative values, expertise and accomplishment, which most exhibition venues do, is
fraught with a great collection of frustrating accommodations all of which adversely affect the quality of
the work that gets to be shown and the public perception of their value.

Consequently the major objective of such enterprises must be the public appearances of the organizers
themselves (a sometimes ego-satisfying experience) and not the peculiar values of the art efforts (which
are often lost in the manner of exposition which often surpasses the mystification in the works
themselves).

This observation applies to all levels of the enterprise from those who conceived the idea initially to
those who respond to the call to select exhibitors and the exhibitors themselves who, sometimes,
confuse such recognition with appreciation and understanding.

In short, most exhibitions which include the work of a variety of exhibitors encourage superficiality of
public attention which may be a defense mechanism created to deal with the fatigue of trying to clarify
the obscure. This is regrettable. It has all the appearance of farce. People, more or less voluntarily,
gather to ostensibly admire works they do not understand and , as after having attended church service,
leave feeling better about themselves ….it is not exactly like having been paralytic for years suddenly
taking up you pallet and walking.
Sonja of the Sinclair Stevenson Gallery, a widow of, I believe, a lawyer who, it is said, was interested in
establishing for Gozitan artists an exhibition venue for their work. The building, an old stone farm house,
offers a spaciously comfortable environment. Many old Gozitan farm houses and the old forts, such as
the Cittadella, as well, are very handsome structures which, most of the time, still await an exhibition of
work that might match their informed and dignified presence. It has thus far escaped both my and their
experience. And the reason for that lamentable fact is the reason for this essay which, in plain language,
is an essay on cultural fraud which is even more rampant than bad taste. There is a difference between
the two, bad taste is defensible, fraud is not.

As I understand Mrs. Stevenson’s situation she has made an agreement with the government of
Malta, or some hirelings of that government, for her to buy a second home (which s not allowed
in Malta for Aliens) for a future investment income. It is clear she has neither the interest nor the
abilities to direct a gallery’ operations. It is true that there have been, to my knowledge two
exhibitions held in that building. The first one was of the work of the Maltese artist Austin
Camilleri which was commented upon by Dr. Raphael Vella
of the University of Malta.  “Contradiction is, after all, the essence of painting, this strangely beautiful form of
art that translates the tangible qualities of the world into two, intangible dimensions. Why not? Austin reminds us
that we do not need to ‘understand’ paintings in order to appreciate them. In a parallel way, one could say that we
appreciate life without understanding it either.”

 The comments certainly illustrate the value of a higher education and might also demonstrate
what J.J. Charlesworth had in mind when he observed “It seems that the intellectual and
political conditions in which contemporary art now exists are in danger of making writing about
it dysfunctional.”

I am completely sympathetic with the tight-rope balancing act an art critic must preserve, or believes he
must in small, or even large communities such as New York, where angry letters to the editor
threatening a withdrawal of the ad account might cost the writer his job. When I was writing for The
Sant Fe Reporter my payment was $1.25 per article so my interest in writing had more to do with my
pushing my abilities to communicate difficult points than enriching my coffers. In the final analysis I find
nothing amiss in a critic developing a position and expanding upon it in the face of the works he
encounters in the galleries which touch, or do not touch his sensiblities.

However, that scenario is not the one which usually functions in the gallery scene. As a rule, what one
has on the one hand is largely an illiterate audience which, if it is capable at all of making a judgment
does so on the most elementary of levels. “I like it”, “I don’t like it” “I do not understand it”. And the
inadequacy of the ability to judge value is not limited to the illiterate. I was recently criticized by a
polyglot who claims 14 languages to his credit including Arabic and Sanskrit, that I failed, he claimed, to
appreciate the amount of time he had placed in the production of his graphic work. I was as
dumbfounded to attempt a response as I was when a prominent gallery director in Santa Fe pointed out
an Emile deHory copy of a Gauguin above his mantel and held a post card of the same painting and
asked me to state which was real.

This illiterate audience includes the expert gallery directors who are very clever at manipulating the
ambitions of their buyers. It is a very depressing scene for one who knows that there is value there
somewhere but is intensely frustrated in the ways of exposing it and of understandingly sharing it. In the
end, because many are lazy, the aesthetic insight never gets revealed. The audience is content to be
charmed by a clever man or woman and later to brag to their acquaintences that they got the work at a
bargain. So what if Giotto invented the solid human body. What’s so important about a solid human
body?...and so the point is missed…and everything is magic.

Virginia Miller of Florida, who certainly appears as though she mght

be a great deal of fun to know ,has shown by her geographically narrowly defined and carefully
aesthetically varied selections indications that she may be aware that there may be some values in the
world of art production after all that are not focused on the bizarre, the comic or the weird, in short not
directing her attention to the pre-peurile satisfactions of the eight year-old.

At this point I think it important to idicate that I believe in two things relative to this topic and they are:
1) there is a limit to the application of the concept to democracy and 2) there is an elite….but the elite I
recognize is not a social or necessarily monied one….and, of late, they have seemed harder to locate in
whatever the area.

Gerhard Richter
 Paul Brach

Joseph Albers

Judy Cohen aka Chicago

R.C.Gorman was interviewed by telephone by Susan Lawrence Rich .

The article was published in “Radiance” in the Summer 1990 issue and I read these words: “ I paint
what I see; I don't think. I don't have any message. I think it's so phony for artists
to have this huge meaning. I don't.”

Gorman’s admission that he finds “phony” that other artists have messages in their
works is quite probably a truthful statement. He could very well find such a concern
or interest beyond his areas of interest and, therefore, not believe in their
legitimacy. However, I suspect that an artist like the German expressionist, Kathe
Kollwitz, the French cartoonist Daumier and the Americn Paul Cadmus would
disagree for all these people do have a message to present…and these messages are
not difficult to ascertain.

However, when one leaves that work which is in some way based on figurative
illustation and enters the non-objective environment of Paul Brach or a Judy Chicago,
for example, we are, I believe, entering a world similar to that of the circus huckster
or 19th century snake oil salesman where most of the effectiveness of the work, at
least in terms of sales and a degree of notoreity rests on the ignorance of the
consumer.

What is missing in such a instance in the consumer, is a developed aesthetic system

as important, for “the whole person” environmental awareness as the circulatory,
nervouse or digestive systems are for the physical body. Expressed another way, the
language of the non-objective, non-pictorial choices, the colors, lines, blobs and
scratches all tell something to the observer of the status of the work on many non-
literate, affective levels. This is, it must be said, is also true when there is a relatively
recognizable subject matter, as sometimes, can be seen in works that depcit the ame
subject matter but is by different artists.

Kollwitz Daumier Cadmus

But I doubt Gorman had any of these in mind when he said that. It was more likely
someone like Gerhaard Richter, Frank Ettenberg or Sam Scott where the artists’
markigs seem totally unrelated to a reality outsde of themselves, an egocentric style,
if you wish, but I prefer ths system to be seen as one that builkds toard an expressive
vocabulary. It is not that one approach is better than the other, that a recognizable
subject is necssary for a message to be carried successfully to the observer. It might
be sufficient that the observers’ senses are stirred. But something is certainly
apparent and that is that the observers’ sensibilitites are not moved in the same way
by the three works above as they are by the three works below. Each observer must
check out for himself the ways in which he may be moved differently by these two
groups.

Richter Ettenberg Scott

at some point, I seem to remember, Gorman talked about how he mischievously (?)
drew six toes, (or were they fingers?), instead of the customary five and left the reader
wondering whether this was supposed to exemplify a creative act or not…while it
was mildly amusing for a moment, but only a moment, and for some became an
important conversational point one might still wonder whether it really is an
important aesthetic matter any more significant than Tracey Emin’s semen-stained
sheets which are, admittedly of some sociological and confessional interest. It is
beside the point, at least it usually is, and illustrates, if anything important, that
some artists do not work seriously and like the western-style snake-oil salesman will
take advantage of the gullible who offer themselves as victims. But, one might say
this in its favor, it provides an opportunity for comment, and extrapolating from the
buddhist-like consciousness of the totality of things assume that analytical
distinctions ad differences are meaningless.

At this point, perhaps, we will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff by firstly
acknowledging that all works of graphic art begin with alterations of the surface used
by the additions of lines, dots, smears, stains or globs.

On the critical level, one who writes critical reviews of art shows and lives in the
community he writes for is really in quite an untenable position. If one would like to
experience first hand the community response to a home-town parriah write what
you think straighforwardly.

It may also be true , as he claims, that he paints what he sees and that , as he states,
he does not think. With this last, however, I sould have to disagree for he does think,
not, perhaps, in the way he meant it, but he does evaluate. Granted, it is all rather
superficial and would appear that he rather responds more readily to opportunities
to clown than to attempt to seriously state an observation.

Below are examples of artists having dealt with the phenomenon of human sight.

Earl Biss Karl Benjamn

 background tile Op Art Henrickson’s Creativity Puzzles

??

Henrickson: Set for opera “Pedro”. n.b. this is designed to fll the procenium area blocking off the depth
of the stage. There are three hinged areas in the desgn which, when required by the script will open to
reveal actionable areas….areas where acton can take place on different levels.

A part of what those artists listed above are about has to do with the observer/audience interaction
with these composit symbol “events”…”Events” they are because they are singular as opposed to
continuous occurrances. It is almost as though man needed periodic dramatizations inorder for his spirit
to breath, or a differentiating focus in order to evaluate. Perhaps it might be accurate to state that the
nerve endings are more actively engaged in these works than in others where looking does not generate
pulsating nerve expeiences or, as in the case of the stage set, the opening up of, or the closng of areas of
space on the set itself becomes a part of the underscored definition of space offered the audience. The
space itself becomes a plastic medium.

There are, as well, other differences touched upon in the work of two painters, one of whom., Hyman
Bloom, references religious subject matter, much against the Old Testament prohibition especially
where living creatures are concerned, and the other . Yaacov Agam, with no refereces to living creature
whatever but a concentration on the neural response of the observer. In Agam’s work the observer is a
pliant subjective audience not required to actively participate because the natural behavior of his
nervous susyem does the work…it might be called a knee jerk response, but with the work of Bloom the
observer must actively participate and the deree to whch he does so may depend on his accumulated
experience and the instinct to evaluate.

Hyman Bloom

Yaacov Agam whose works, to be fully appreciated must be seen by the observer while the observer s
walking past the work,so there is actually some voluntary participation involved, but the physical
response required to understand an Agam is not the same as the mental activity required of a Bloom
observer. This kinetic involvment of the observer vis a vis an Agam is a necessary ingredient to
understandig the work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31RrhzqzzVU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFJRi5a5MAo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP_z1OWP5lw

The critical difference between the works of Hyman Bloom and those of Yaacov Agam is that with Bloom
the observer must stand still, with Agam one must move. Certainly fom this observation we must
conclude that the participarion of the observer is essential both cases, but one is evaluatve and mental
in the one instance and in the other while physically moving is essentially passive. “Give me a thrill” it
says like a flashing neon sign.

With Agam the required, or dictated, movement induces a sensation, in fact, it is a sequential sensation,
one image followed by another as the body moves in front of the image. With Bloom physcal stillness is
nearly a requirement and the sensual experience is deduced after a quiet contemplative period. The
observer’s movement with Bloom is an action of the mind not of the body.
an Aboriginee work
 Aboriginee drawing, the meaning of

which, to non-Aboriginees, is unclear Here we have another Aboriginee

painting whch is visually more complexly developed than, for example, this Paul Brach who, at one time

headed the department of art at the The University of California at La Jolla . Of

Below are shown a group of images focusing on one of the major differences in which ‘decorated”flat
space is treated. For the purposes of discussion, the difference seems to lie with the presence, or
asence, of a concern for repesenting space. Although some base reliefs are included in this group and
some actual space is employed, it is not done so as a major expresive element as it is, somertimes, in
sculpture, architecture and dance. The letters near the images translate as follows: A= aboriginee,
S=stichery,V=Viking, C=Daniel Calleja, K=Book of Kells,
S V

Cc C C K
C V
V K

As it easy for us to be mislead I thought I would use the photograph below showing a pussy cat acting
like he thought himself a muircat with whom it had been raised. We think it funny, but I would doubt
that pussy has a concept of his being a stand up commedian. It does, I believe, illustrate the powers of
peer pressures. When in Rome do as the Romans…that sort of thing.
 As we all, sometimes, discover, things are not always what they
seem, which brings me to the problem of how to answer William Drsiscoll’s complaint that I did not
even mention the time it took him to execute his work…..as though “time” were a truly significant factor
in aesthetic judgment…although it, itself, takes time. This seems to be a very Puritian value.

Mr. Beamer rarely refers to the time he spends on a work, whch is, I am sure, coniderable, but on the
purpose of the time spent which is the relief of pain...and this is quite a different matter from “time”
itself…and still, that “relief from pain” is NOT a proper primary matter for conideration if the topic is
creative aesthetics, but is, to make a pont, in medical aesethetcs.Although in both of these instances,
the Beamer and the Driscoll, aesthetic response is an appropriate consideration since both these men
have presented their work for comment.
 Billy Bob Beamer;
“WordDust”. Beamer’s “word Dust” or “asemic” writing images developed , he tells us, from his need to
releve his awareness of physcal pain through having to force the mind to use its enegies to focus
attention on other matters. I may not have expressed this phenomenon in appropriate psycho-somatic
language, but, it would seem, on the surface at least to be similar to my growing awareness how some
artists use their involvment in the creation of works also as a way of solving intense personal problems,
e.g. Caravaggio, A.P. Ryder,and Paul Cezanne. They may not consciously have known what the problems
were, and we may not with much certainty find out, but certainly the big body of evidence suggests that
this is the major goal with many artists. However, at a lecture scheduled for the Cirque de Gozitano one
artist bravely maintained that there should never be a critcicism of art a suggestion which did not
receive much approval, but it did stir some thought in me. I rejected the dea that sucha move would put
art critics out of a job as being too flimsy a concept to be give any thought.

Nor could I accept the idea that critics are more important than the work the artist produces for he
clarifies its meaning for the vast mass which doesn’t undertstand what it is looking at for it places the
critic in the role of an o, besides, I haven’t identified much clarifiction stemming from critics while in
some rare intances they do, somewhat, suggest modes of approaches to the problem. Now, it might be
maintained that Beamer’s attempt to relieve his personal pain through intense concentration in the act
of production has its response in the observer’s possibly mildly hypnotic state of reverie as he indulges
in contemplation is as valuable an experience as the resurgence of patriotism in the bossom of one
gazing upon “Washington Crossing the Delaware” by Emanuel Leutze.

or Delacroix’s “Liberty Leading the People”

omniscent being which they are not and the work of the artist permanently in the position of being an
occult icon At this point I need to draw a distinction between two groups of art product makers. One
group making art product for a defined audience and the other group of art makers making art products
as a result of their search for answers.

To which receipt William Driscoll replied (and sent a copy to me):

Bill,
That is exremely impressive. It is even closer to the infinite vision that we discussed
earlier in our correspondence, because uniform in colour..[to which Leo Steinberg
might have responded as he did about the work of Paul Brach: “the invisibility of an
encompassing, undifferentiated homogeneity,".

It is even closer to the works of mine which I tried to describe; whereas I used tight
geometrical patterns, you use a minute searching, vermiform line. The colour is
tastefully chosen.

I went for black on grey, and slightly greater dimensions, but not much greater.

Thank you for this.

Best regards,

William
I wonder what Driscoll migt have in mind by the word “tasteful” and how he might justify it historically
in the context of art criticism. Greenberg also used it extensively in a lecture at Western Michgan
University, but it was clear, at least to the discerning, that he had some part of his tongue in cheek.

The above , in blue, is from an email from William Driscoll to William Beamer relating to BBB’a
(Beamer’s) work.
 This is one of William
Driscoll’s works which, for me at least, is demonstrative of several factors. I consider these factors
important for art criticism as the perforance of the artist in the development of the work seems, over
the course of its history to range beween appearing casual and appearing intentional. This work appears
highly intentioned and focused as opposed, for example, to these sumi-e works which possess the
appearance of a spontaneous happening..they just appear , it seems, without conscious effort. Is there
any doubt why William Driscoll insists his work be appreciated for the amount of tme involved in its
prodution?
 These,
it has been said, are the results of a very different type of concentration. It is a concentration that is
exercised in the moments, or unspecific times, just prior to the application of brush and pigment to
paper. Apparently, a host of possibilities are filtered through the mind before application as opposed, as
in the Driscoll, to the steady, disciplined control of the hand poised above the surface, as is a cat upon a
prey, to pounce upon the next sequential and definitional mark.

There seems, to me, to be a difference, as well, in the consideration of the role of the observer. In the
Driscoll and Calleja approaches, and the Celtic and Viking as well, the observer is expected to study,
fixidly, the patterns prepared for him, not too unlike that of a chicken whose gaze at a line drawn in the
dirt will not waver http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M268UccYVCE , wheras the viewer of the sumi-e
work is encouraged to ponder how he will shift from what he sees on the paper to the possible intended
meaning of the artist. From my point of view the second of these functions is the prefered one.
Educationally, these philosophies refer to the differences between instruction and education, between
following orders, receipes, and protocolls and being open, evaluative and flexible and arriving, perhaps,
at a better than customary solution.

Driscoll’s comments regarding his understanding of my reception of his work seemed to concentrate on
two matters;[1] my having referenced the Celtic in regard to its design qualities, which I did merely as a
notation on the general “style” of the work and [2] my neglect of the amount of time it took him to
execute the piece,[in short, Driscoll wished to have me perform like a chicken, perhaps, his talents as a
linguist were side-tracked momentarilly and he mistook Henrickson for Hen.]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M268UccYVCE] a concern which I found irrelevant to art criticism
and more related to an idea of the proper moral work ethic. All of which might explain (because Driscoll
and I come from neighboring suburbs of Boston, Massachusetts), that the Puritans had a more lasting
effect upon the public consciousness than expected and why I, being perhaps more undiciplined, or
unamenable to it, was greatly impressed, as a teen-ager , by the work of Hyman Bloom who, although
himself highly disciplined was certainly NOT a puritan, nor Bostonian.

Hyman Bloom, “Male Corpse”

It is a mark of wisdom, or so we have been informed, that one choses one’s expressions to suit the
audience. We are not often directly reminded that we also chose the vehicle of our expressions to suit
our purposes, or, as some might express it in contemporary political terms: we are assured, or there is
an attempt to do so, that we should all have health care available to us which some see as a placebo
to encourage us to place our lives in some other person’s hands. It is not presented to us as: “we want
you to submit to our decision as to whether you live or die.”

ON THE OTHER HAND, there is, as well, the theory that as some basic characterstics such as gender
and sexual preference, are decided for the foetus during the second trimester the concept that one is
free to chose one’s mode of expression may be more complicated than originally thought.
Morphological episodes that occur during the nine month period of gestation do not, apparently, all
follow the same pattern and there are a range of different results. It would also seem that some of
those results do not at all fit into the social structure determined by authorities and there are few
members of any society will dare to suggest that those who function as authorities are themselves,
not fully developed human beings.

“Narcissism is destructive, alienating and self-defeating. Trance is a psychic

black hole, a reality wormhole.” This quote comes from Iona Miller’s……….and
struck me as being opportunely presented to me by thoe forces that act upon us
when we are ready to receive, or need to receive, them. They are not the mundane
answers to the time clock.
And this as well: Fear is the primary agent of mortification. Moving toward the
fear and pain--deepening it--brings one closer to the tranformation. It feels
like defeat and failure. Yet, to resist seems like madness--in fact, it induces
madness. Those with near-death experiences tell us that to embrace death brings
about deeper meaning and purpose in life.
Rotting corpses, decapitation, amputation, creeping, crawling worms and snakes, and particularly
noxious odors like the stench of graves are images which are reported in therapeutic journeys, again
and again. It is truly a journey through "the Valley of the Shadow of Death."

Thus the psyche depicts the decay of outworn forms in preparation for new.
It can be a voluntary death, giving up the old order for the sake of
wholeness, the incorruptible body that grows from death. The infantile,
personalistic ego is eclipsed. The journey to the land of the dead
(collective unconscious) opens one to transpersonal life.
Life, Death, Love are the experiential nucleus of our existence. Ego-death
emerges from activated Thanatos, raw, undifferentiated consciousness. This
unformed consciousness -- which we often mistake for death -- is really the
essence of our vitality and life force. It is the energy we can use to
recreate ourselves in every instant of time. It reaches our awareness through
dreams (Hypnos) and the flow of our imagination.

It is the need to address the role of reassessing the “outworn forms” Iona
Miller mentions above that I reintroduce this image below.

Some may have wondered why I included this image

(above) with the picture of the animal which produced it. I did so because, to a
great extent, if one were to judge the aesthetic values inherent in the work, in
this work and in the following works we might be at some pains to arrive at a
reasonable criteria. (1) (2) (3)* We,
you, the reader and I, cannot be certain that what we see we can agree upon and
we have difficulty in ascertaining that what we see the gorilla also sees. But
even beyond that, at this point in time, I know of no indication that the gorilla
might have, or could have, ideas of elaborating upon this image, an elaboration
which might indicate something about how the gorilla viewed the product. This
product may have been “play with soft pigment” or it might possesses imbued
symbolic significance such as, one might imagine, be the case with this work by

Richter.
*1.Joan Miro, 2. Barnett Newman, 3. Joan Mitchel

Now, the question which comes up at this time is this: is the order made of visual chaos the order of the
observer or of the maker?

As a consequence to all this which I might interpret as “awareness” I miss, in much of the works
referenced above, any indication of a need to recombine…to be born again. This, as I understand it puts
a full stop to their efforts unless we can identify a development. If the gorilla were able also to
demonstrate an interest in a development of his original image we would really have a important
discovery on our hands. However, it should be mentioned that, as an artist, I have often made similar
markings and, without doubt, if they were to be taken in isolation few would be able to understand their
significance. Their purpose for me, however, is to reintroduce a flexibility of attitude which might allow
me to proceed along the path of continual invention. By way of contrast, it had been reported that

Bougereaux stated that for him a perfect painting was one where the marks of the
brush strokes were not in evidence” The painting should have the surface of an eggshell”…or something
to that effect .

The next step in this inappropriate logic would be to demand that the surface of the egg shell is too
rough, one is virtuous if one’s work is as smooth as the membrane on the inside of the egg shell. I
equate this Bougereaux observation to that of Doris Cross who in response to the question what it eas
she found of value in the work of Harold Joe Waldrum responded “ He lays the paint on very neatly”, or
Leo Steinberg’s comment on Paul Brach. “the invisibility of an encompassing, undifferentiated
homogeneity,".

By way of contrast I consider Cezanne’s comment about Monet (“Monet is only an eye, but what
an eye”) as being highly significant. While he suggests tht Monet has an excellent eye he also
suggests, but I’ve never read that he actually said it, that there is something more in the aim of
picture making than the accurate recording of a sensual experience. One, that is, that involves more
than the translation from the third to the second dimension.

The Grail Society (1 out of 100,000,000,000)

Seems like it should be a typo, but it's not. That's right, the admission requirement for Paul Cooijmans's Grail Society is a
whopping one out of 100 billion. This would be the smartest person who ever lived, and Paul's Test for Genius supposedly
has the ceiling to identify this person. This is one one society that's not likely to have much political infighting.

This would place him in quite a different league than that of Vincent van Gogh or Monet.

It has been reported, I no longer have the source, that a female gorilla in a kitchen with her human
friend and trainer was given instructions to perform fifteen tasks which she performed. A human
companion, I doubt, would be unable to perform 15 tasks without, at some point in the middle of the
doing , asking “What’s next?” Gorillas are unable to talk…at least as we understanding talking.

ON ANOTHER LEVEL:

If we accept the notion that any mark a person makes, or, for that matter any gesture, however
invollunt.ary, a person makes in response to his environment is exactly that…a genune response to the
person’s environment conditioned only by how that person interpretes his environment it then becomes
the critic’s responsibility to try to reconstruct that response in terms of expressively communicable word
symbols that touch upon the reader’s referential experience. Well, as the reader can probably readily
undertad there is, as the addage goes, plenty of room for a slip between the cup and the lip.

When William Driscoll , an American expatriot in Malta wrote complainingly that, among many other
lacunae, I failed to express any appreciation for all the time it took him to execute his drawings and that
the comment, which I do not remember having made, but may have done so, his work was “involved
with the Celtic” I was able to think of only one example , outside of Michelangel having taken four years
to complete the Sistine Chapel ceiling, where time had been an issue. That one concerned Edvard
Munch and the Norwegian banker who had commissoned a family portrait. The banker, as a common
banker would, complained about the price for the portrait when it took the artist only thirty minutes to
complete. Munch quipped that it took thirty years for him to learn how to do it in thirty minutes was

both deserved and true. If there is anything to

lament about the significance contained in this anecdote it is that nothing is indicated about the artist’s
ability to perceive the differing psychological stances of these boys and the impecably shining floor
which indicates the banker could afford a maid.

Applying this same sort of analysis to both Driscoll’s tme-consuming graphic emplyment and his appeal
for appreciation………………………………………

Of course, there are artists who seem to have no particular problem at all and the performance of
creative activity is seen as being really rather shallow…like innocent and harmless entertainment. I am
thinking of R.C. Gorman, Katz, Paul Brach, of course, for Paul Brach the chief problem was to keep the
Goyim out of his personal and professional life which is why the lone Scotsman in the department at La
Jolla was made to feel corporately unwelcome.

This approach, that is, the creation of art as a tool for the accomplishmnet of an other goal involves our
growing awareness of two things, the creation of a symbol and the application of that symbol. As
pattent examples, the form of the revered crucific was born out of the very negative, as in killing a god,
today, it constitutes an extremely pervasive ,among many, object of worship as does the Mogen David,
The Star of David, which originally was created , in its interwoven triangular form, to indicate directions
of influence, from the divine to the human, down, and from the human to the divine, up.

 Today, many of us who admire the work of some artists immediately recognize the apparent
characteristic of that work, that is, the basic image which is the signature of that artist and,
most frequently, that is as far as our attention goes. It does not extend , nor can it
psychologically afford to do so, into the essential causes of the imagry…why a Cezanne looks like
a Cezanne. We accept that it does look like Cezanne and we leave it at that…this, of course, is
one of the reasons why attributions are in error and, as I understand it, why Bruce Chatwin was
so extraordinary a person and who had his own peronal ghosts with which to deal.

How to Paint a Color-Field Painting

By Marion Boddy-Evans, About.com

Prev Next

It's Easy to Create a Bad Color-Field Painting

Only two of these paintings ever got past "work in progress" status, and ultimately I considered only Fire/Rain worthwhile.

Photo © Marion Boddy-Evans. Licensed to About.com, Inc

Color-field paintings fall into the category of art often derided with statements such as "My six-year-old could do
that." Well, like all good abstract art, the masters of color-field painting have made it appear simple and effortless.

It's easy to slap out a bad color-field painting. One in which the colors are flat and dull, or where the colors clash
rather than enhancing one another. One that's simply boring to look at, that you take in at a glance and never see
any more in no matter how long you stare.

When you start working your own color-field painting, you'll realize it's not as easy as it looks. Attempting to paint
a satisfying one is an enjoyable challenge though, and will ultimately enrich your knowledge of color and glazing.

"The really critical decisions facing every artist ... cannot be learned from viewing end results."* It's by trying it for
yourself that you truly learn and discover things useful for developing as a painter with your own style and
approach.
(*Quote source: Art and Fear, p90.)

This shows a baby wearing what the orwegians

call a lusekoften (GENSER or sweater). It is a visual joke playing on the appearance of te black specks in
the knitting and the appearance some generations back when heigenic practices were more difficult and
some people had lice. The symbolic development of an experience has been incorporated into a
decorative national custume.

An aboriginee painting An Aboriginee describes

his approach: We are painting, as we have always done, to demonstrate our continuing link with our
country and the rights and responsibilities we have to it. We paint to show the rest of the world that
we own this country and the country owns us. Our painting is a political act.

The process of visualizig experiences associated with the area (envoronment) one lives is not a new idea
and, by itself not unusual, so, in this way, then the black dots in the Norwegian sweater and, perhaps,
the dots appearing on the Aboriginee painting are, in this way related. I have no idea what the dots in
the painting refer to ---so I tend to view them only as aesthetic items and not as symbols---but I am told
the “U” shapes refer to people. They are in six groups of three and total 18, facing perifferal circles (like
a table) and all six groups surrounding a central circle. All the circles are filled with dots contained by a
well-defined donut shape from with six “feeder lnes” with dashes extend to reach the surrounding
circles. This might suggest that these could be lines of communications, (but this is my application from
my experience)or “avenues of instruction”. In any event, so far, these Aborigine marks seem to indicate
human experience. Consequently, the orwegian and the Aboriginanee have this in common: they have
made marks and these marks refer to their experience ad these marks d these experiences become
corporate property .

The distnction I make between such corporate property and marks made by what might be known as a
“creative” artst is that those marks done by the creative artist are nely invented devices made as by
products of a search for expressive solutions to mystifying and personal intuitions not yet formalized
into units of culural communication….e.g. as are words with agreed upon meanings.

I recently came across an internet image of a painting attributed by the Chrysler Museum as a Van
Gogh. As a device to assay the nature of perception I asked four people I know to tell me why I thought
this work was wrongly assigned to van Gogh. 

 
The first response was: I don't know enough about VanGogh to tell, even though I watched a PBS
film about him recently.  Sorry.  (It  doesn't seem as bold as some of his work.)

The second response:

 if you feel that that painting is not his then i'm sure something inside you that knows
more than you know,can detect something which i, who knows him not can't. Well now
keep in mind that i know nothing about art. I know very little about the great Van Gogh,
but i would have thought that that painting was his. It has all his traits doesn't it??? but
why does the grass move in the opposite way to the wheat.

The third response:

I ‘m not sure i can do that but will try...

i know in my own early years, i produced a couple of things i gave away and don't even recognize now
till someone told me -
senior moments.

The fourth response:

about the Van Gogh:

 I cannot say what you perceive, but, perhaps because you have cast doubt about it's maker, I can
observe some characteristics about the painting that make me wonder also.

 First of all, it does not have the depth or richness usually found in Van Gogh.  He seems to have more
going on,  more vibrancy.  How this vibrancy translates into pigment, is most conspicuous in the colors
selected.  Indigo, gold, greens, rich, drenched hues combined in contrast are typical of Van Gogh.

 This painting seems too pastel for Van Gogh, because his choices are usually bolder.

 The subject matter seems a bit subdued also, or dealt with in too serene a manner for Van Gogh.  His
brush strokes evoke an energy that wants to just vibrate off the canvas, while this picture seems to be
content with less vitality.  Although there are similarities in texture, the painting over all does not
have the typical conflict, contrast and intensity of Van Gogh.

The response from the Dutch Museum was:

Dear sir,
Indeed the painting " Wheatfield with a Lark ", painted in the Summer of
1887 in Paris, is by Van Gogh. It was a pleasure to help you.

Regards,
Harold Hennep information desk
 Carmen Quintana Svere, wasa woman I met by accident, I think,and found her
to be as cute as a button, even as she grew older, BUT, she was a liar and a thief and retrospectively
their existence , like that of Lokki. TilEulenspiegel and the Greek centaurs are necssary elements in every
society to keep us from getting too complaisent regarding our meaning in the scheme of things.

Lucy Lippard represents for me the perfect example of what an art

“Conceptual art, for me, means work in which the idea is paramount
critic should not be.
and the material form is secondary, lightweight, ephemeral, cheap, unpretentious
and/or “dematerialized.” and again, “Verbal strategies enabled Conceptual art to be
political, but not populist. Communication between people was subordinate to
communication about communication. [...] For the most part communication was
perceived as distribution, and it was in this area that populist desires were raised but
unfulfilled. Distribution was often built into the piece. [...] I find it truly amazing that
someone as intelligent as Lippard is may not recognize when she is bordering the edge
of her nemesis. I think actually she does recognize it but is too fearful of admitting to
it for its implication is that if “concept” is everything and “material” upon which
concepts usually are borne, insignificant then if the concept is proved false she, the
material bearer will dry up and blow away.
 Joe
Waldrum. It is rare that I immediately take an intense dislike, edging on loathing for someone but with
Joe W aldrum I certianly did. When he walked briskly toward me at his Hill’s Gallery opening to which I
had been brought by Doris Cross (I am certain he hd asked her to see that I got there) I had the
intensely focused instrinct I was facing animated vile. I had the same, but somewhat diluted response
when in the presence of Paul Shapiro and Paul Brach

This sketch is from my memory of the exhibition of about forty similar pieces on exhibit in the small
gallery attached to Rancho Encantado, north of Santa Fe. I hadn’t heard of Harold JoeWaldrum and so
had arrived with no expectations. It was true that I was bewildered by what I saw and stood for nearly
an hour wondering why these differently patterned Indian tepees had any particular reason for
existence in the first place, But, of course, everyhting has a reason for existence…so what is this one?

I left the exhibition with that answer as much hidden as the ranch itself. In fact, it was a very long time
later that the answer came to me by way of someone else’s reference.
These were not tepees, they were cunts…… Cunts??!!! Then came a question even more perplexing.
“Why would anyone, even an adolescent, say nothing of a grown man of forty plus, feel the compulsion
to make renderings of, frame them neatly and talk an owner of a remote, exclusive high-class pretigous
ranch into exhibiting cunts? The same cunt at that…everything was the same except for the fabric
upon which the cunt sat. This is more than a matter of preference for one groin over another, or even
cunt over prick, since it is only the fabric that changes.

This matter vagely reminded me of the cult of the Virgin of Guadalupe in Oaxaca, Mexico where it
seemed that the major concern was what dress this doll was going to wear for this upcoming occasion…
and those dresses were, inded, elaborate and valuable…but the doll was always the same.

The same observation can be made about the importance to art of Brezhnev’s alleged attraction to the
causes of the labouring classes:

Dear Mr. Sloane, I was glad to receive as a gift, your painting of sickles, which symbolize the labor of
people.

I fully share you opinion on the great importance that their ideological content of a painting has in real
art. That’s why the art which reflects mutual expectations of the peoples, their expectations for peace
and for peaceful labor, fore friendship and cooperation, deserves the greatest recognition and respect.

I was glad to learn that the exhibit (sic) was highly appreciated by art lovers of our country.

Wishing you further success.

(Signed) L. Brezhnev

(the following in red is taken from the CD “In Broad Daylight”

Politically, Eric Sloane and Leonid Brezhnev probably (?), perhaps (?) could not be further apart
(although anyone would be hard-pressed to prove that in spite of the very strong indications that Sloane
solicited the letter for promotional purposes), but the letter itself is a fascinating document and serves
to illuminate one central point about the painting of Eric Sloane, their appeal to the conservative, even
reactionary tastes. Sloane doesn’t like modern art, probably because he doesn’t understand it and his
paintings do not bear the slightest tinge of modernism after Gustave Courbet or Winslow Homer. They
celebrate an America of memory, remembered images, nostalgic recollections.

At least Brezhnev is probably honest enough to indicate that he himself did not attend the exhibition,
but it is also highly unlikely that very many did and of those who did that many were deeply and
emotionally attached to a farmer’s working tool. In any event, all these considerations are quite beside
the point. It is of no consequence to someone interested in the art of the work what the subject is
whether a sickle, a virgin or a cunt. This is of concern only to the historian interested in chronology ( a
form of time keeping. The sociologist / archeologist concerned with the numbers and kinds of articles
found, or the psychoanalyst concerned with mental preoccupations. The art critic may be interested in
all these things as well but not at the exclusion of art’s primary concern which is how is something
made?....made materially, brought together, assembled, constructed.

Regretably, it is all too easy to forget this matter in favor of one’s political passions such as those of Lucy
Lippard or my friend in Gozo, Paul Finger who while an alert observer almost always translates what he
observes into its significance in terms of his chauvinistic French Republicanism. Perhaps it is in this way
he has something in common with Brezhnev who advised Jaime Wyeth not to underestimate the power
of an image….and from my point of view, they both miss the point………..Anyone can make a damned
crucifix but only one could do this one.

Consequen
tly and, I think, logically it is NOT th subject that is of primary importance in commenting upon a work of
art, it is how the worker approached the project.

Later, I asked Doris whose opinions on other mattres I respected, what it was she admired in his work
and her response was: “He lays the paint on very neatly.” I have the suspicion that such a remark might
be the topic of a lengthy sociological paper
 Linda Durham has been,
in my experience one of those brave soul who dare to give their instincts, their instincts about aesthetic
image making a chance to make an error. And, in point of fact, there may be never ever any “errors”,
but other refinements of judgments. If errors in aesthetic judgment can exist they would, I regret, be
found in the consistently politically correct aesthetic judgments made by Wilson Hurley who, again
regretably, consistent with his family’s political judgments, support of the status quo paints not in a
fashion exemplary of exploration (personal or technical) but in the fashion of a conistently good

workman. Why he was, on the

part of powers that be at the Los Alamos laboratory, selected to represent the creative mind and to
address the scietists on creativity can only be rooted in a serious misconception. .

Wilson Hurley

Now, of course, that status quo has to be supported, of course, at least until such time as it is on an
effective percentage basis possible to shift what Iona Miller has called the “collective psyche” . The
“ship of state” must be guided well and certainly the “barque of human consciousness” as well. I’ll
change that description to “barge” as, in terms, of most art openings it is a ceremonial vessel, usually
flat-bottomed, and intended to keep many self-appointed elite afloat as in the numerous government
sponsored art exhibitions in Gozo, where the Ministry controlling some very admirable exhibition spaces
has appointed political hacks to supervise. For these political leaders it is of no importance whatever
they, or their servants, know anything about what they are doing. Consequently, in the minds of a
largely pretensious and ignorant populous…its all a good show.

However, as a professional in the area of art, its production, evaluation and psychological implications I
take all these things very seriously.
 The above five examples of graphic fun
an games, Jeff Koons (like Bill Clinton not having sex), Vargas titilating the common American male, a
Scott caught in cultural ambiguity, an American college teacher terrifying a foreign student and a sense
of humor from an artist to a critic. These are informative images, and they do carry messages, but are
they art?

Venice is a community which has known for centuries the power of artistic display to seduce, entertain
and enforce.
When I published art criticism in The Santa Fe Reporter (in the middle 70’s) I sometimes made people
very unhappy. Writing art criticism is, at any time, a mentally strenuous effort. The problem of finding
the right words to say what you want in just the right way is immensely complicated when you have to
address an audience which you know, is fairly unsophisticated and you that most of your references will
either be undetected or not understood.

The exhibition of Richard Thompson was one of those.

The exhibition of the work of Richard Thompson, which he calls “things” rather than paintings,
“”sculpture” lacks the advantage of time, both for itself and its viewers, for its special vocabulary to be
sufficiently incorporated into our cultural level. Time will tell whether it will ever occur. These works
may be playful “things” in that their manufacture may desire, or need, the money from their sale. But, if
they touch on art, they do so on a very elementary level, for what survives with the viewer is a simple
curiosity, which is quickly exhausted. I wondered about Thompson’s selection as a participant in the
Whitney Biennale of contemporary American Art and, as a result, learned that over the past two years,
the Museum has shown the works of Albert Bierstadt, Sam Francis, and an exhibition of “Abstract
Designs in American Quilts”.

This is quite a range indeed, and their endeavor a worthy one, however, perplexing for the critic. Hill’s
Gallery, Santa Fe’s own little “Whitney” has within the past three years, or four, exhibited quilts or wall
hangings which contained in them more visual aesthetic interest and stimulation than Thompson’s
present work.

Certainly the distinctions between “art” and “craft” have broken down, and, at the moment, it would
appear that the crafts have benefited and the “art” is impoverished. The current “show” by Richard
Thompson at Hill’s Gallery does offer us a respite from strenuous intellectual activity, and, if nothing
else, brings to the present Santa Fe scene values similar to that of the nursery room, the neighborhood
sandlot, or the midway of itinerant circuses with their colored banners, sparkly toys, and the like.

What appears to be missing in this exhibition that one can sense in the circus is the presence of the
grotesque. In he presence of a content no more significant than the textile design for a little boy’s shirt,
it seems that everyone is demeaned, the artist, whose elevation to prominence may be a cynically cruel
act, and finally, the apparent total abandonment of responsibility on the part of the gallery.

There may be, at times, valid reasons for symbolically breaking-up structure, mental, social, or whatever,
if what one has in mind is a newer and more encompassing restructuring of the elements. It may be
worthwhile to see what Hill’s might have in mind by way of a program. It is my feeling that if something
doesn’t happen soon, and Hill’s continues the exhibition of mentally vacuous frippery some other gallery
may sense the opportunity to act positively.

SHALLOW EXPECTATIONS (a response from the director of Hill’s Gallery)

As Director of Hill’s Gallery I have always taken the position that critics, reviewers, or those vaguely
represent themselves as such, should say what they wish about the works exhibited at Hill’s. I have
never felt justified in responding to honest, forthright, and hopefully intelligent critiques…positive or
negative. However, I adhere to no such neutrality when the reviewer confuses the issue by entangling
considerations of the artist’s exhibit with criticism of the Gallery’s program, as Mr. Henrickson has
done in his “review” of Richard Thompson’s exhibit (March 6,1975).

I will not presume to defend Mr. Thompson’s art except to say it requires a certain depth of
perception that resists superficial preconceptions or shallow expectations of what art “should” be.
Mr. Henrickson describes the “elevation to eminence” (of Mr. Thompson) as a cynically cruel act, and
finally the total abandonment of responsibility on the part of the (Hill’s) Gallery.” It is flattering to
know that presenting a young artist’s work in a single one-person exhibit at Hill’s is adequate to
“elevate” him to “eminence”. The reality is, of course, that the eminence of an artist comes from the
collective result o sustained presentation of a viable visual statement. If Hill’s exhibition of Mr.
Thompson’s art constitutes irresponsibility, then we are certainly not alone. Nine other irresponsible
galleries have dared to present one-man shows, including the Whitney Museum, which selected him
as one of the three artists in the entire state to be represented in that museum’s 1975 Biennial of
Contemporary American Art.

If Mr. Henrickson considers exhibits such as Richard Thompson’s as “mentally vacuous frippery”, that
is his privilege (or his problem).

R. I. Cook, Director, Hill’s Gallery

A COMMENT IN THE FORM OF A REBUTTLE

(It should be noted at this point that the arts editor of The Santa Fe Reporter (John Konopak) advised Henrickson
that it was not the paper’s policy to allow its writers to respond in print in the newspapers to letters to the editor.
This is the first time that Henrickson has had an opportunity to publicly respond, nearly three decades later.)

Nearly a generation has passed since Richard Cook responded to me comments about Richard
Thompson’s exhibition at Hill’s Gallery in March of 1975. Jill’s Gallery is, regretfully, no more, the Hills
have divorced, Richard Cook was, for awhile Head of the Art Department at The College of Santa Fe and
that Richard Thompson is now fishing and painting in New York State and exhibiting in Texas.

At the time Richard Cook’s comments wee published in the Santa Fe Reporter, John Konopak informed
me, the arts Editor at the time, that it was not the paper’s policy to allow a contributor, such as myself,
to answer comments to the newspaper by its readers (well, even free speech seems to have its limits). I
chose not to go into the matter with him at the time because my energies were directed elsewhere and I
sincerely felt that public nitpicking was unseemly. (I was right about my energies, and right about
nitpicking being unseemly, but very wrong in not being willing to engage in something unpleasant
merely because it is ugly, impolite and undignified.)

I also trusted, wisely or not, in the sophistication of readers to identify the lapses of logical argument.
Now, under the present circumstances, with this manuscript and its purpose of providing a more
substantial intellectual platform than is possible in most newspapers, I find it appropriate to respond to
the type of thinking put forward by Mr. Cook.

Normally, in the everyday exchange of comments, observations, opinions, and social disagreements are
most often passed-by, over-looked, or postponed until a more suitable or controlled environment might
be secured. Mr. Cook’s public attack, of course, in response to me published comments concerning the
work of Mr. Thompson and Hill’s Galleries responsibilities in offering itself as a public stage, were, and
are, in the public domain. From my personal point-of-view as an educator, I feel it important that these
comments be public. In reviewing the material in preparation for this book I felt it important that certain
oversights be corrected. Actually, in all fairness to John Konopak, a newspaper is not the proper
platform for the exchange of opinions, which require greater concentration than what is generally
afforded in the reading of most newspapers. A more secured environment is desirable and usually those
who buy books can usually find the time and the place to read them.

Now is the time for me to (gleefully) tear Cook’s comments to shreds!

At the very outset Richard Cook presents himself as a reserved, highly considerate and a generously
compassionate man who “always” has taken the position that “an art critic, reviewer, or even one who
merely presents himself as one of these as the right to say whatever he pleases, provided it is done
honestly, forthrightly and intelligently”…(at this time one can see the Gothic virgin’s hand limply resting
on her breast, her eyes directed upward in divine adoration, while Cook dons the apparel of the injured
saint). It would seem to me that, contrary to Cook’s claim that he never felt justified in responding to
“honest”, “forthright” and “intelligent” statements, that those are the types of statements one can most
readily respond to, and that that was the reason he did so. It is very difficult to respond to a non-
sequitor except with a non-sequitor.

I can’t imagine what it is, or was, that suggested to Richard Cook that an art gallery, which puts itself out
there to represent cultural images, is not, thereby, subject to critical comment. This statement,
however, really aught to have been responded to by the newspaper’s editor. Theatrical staging, which is
something certainly possible within the walls of any art gallery present a powerful and influential entity
and in no way can be thought to be exempt from criticism. This applies to public exhibition and
performances in educational institutions wherein Mr. Cook has also functioned.

Once again, Mr. Cook dons the mantle of modesty that he wouldn’t “presume” ( but then he goes ahead
and does it anyway), to “defend” the work of Richard Thompson by stating that it requires a certain
“depth of perception that resists superficial preconceptions of shallow expectation.” Perception is a
quality, which I, presumably, lack. The comment made me involuntarily cover my “private parts” in the
event, like the Emperor himself, I believed that dishonest people would be able to see that I was
wearing nothing.

Cook mentions that there were nine other galleries which have shown Thompson’s work, including the
Whitney Museum of American Art, which would seem to suggest that democracy rules even in the
matter of taste and aesthetic perception. I don’t think so, and it does seem to me that any serious
observer of the role of popular culture would readily detect the consequences of that dictum.

Finally, it is necessary to point out, for the benefit of those who may have forgotten recent art history
that were Richard Cook’s unqualified statement to the effect that the “reality of artistic eminence lies in
the frequency and consistency of exhibitions” true, we would all have been deprived of Cézanne, Otto
Dix, and Van Gogh. Mr. Cook represents the kind of fashionable sophistry that has and will continue to
deprive us of our rightful inheritance of the insights, so painfully obtained, of Cézanne, Monet, Munch,
Kline and others, by focusing out attention on the public relations scores as opposed to learning how to
look. If Mr. Cook had been a sincere advocate and had felt there was something I had missed in the work
of Thompson he should have taken me by the hand and pointed out what I had missed. In fact, this is
what he, as the Director of the Gallery, should have done when he first put on the exhibition…drawn the
attention of the observer to those qualities in Thompson’s work. he, even now, rejects the opportunity
to tell us about.

1. Become mentally independent from the herd which the corporate-government-media

complex is working overtime to mislead, rip off and exploit at every turn.

2. Suggest ideas for evasive action so

that you can avoid becoming a victim of the corporate-government-media's endless
scamming.

3. Provide you with resources to educate yourself and the people in your circle
about the nature of the forces that are aligned against normal people.
Terry Taggert
George Rouault
Andrew Wyeth
isamo naguci
Hyman Bloom
 It was a drawing like this, indeed, perhaps this
one, I gave Froidis Ruud, a librarian at The University of Oslo when she invited me to stay in her and
Bjorn’s apartment …very nice apartment, in Oslo. She complained that it had no color. I explained that I
felt it would stand out better from all the other items she had that did have color. Later, still having
believed I may have short-changed her I sent her the envelope Carl Nesjar had decorated when he
wrote me. This way, many needs are served in this very busy-body world.

More importantly, Froidis seemed to have dismissed the idea that uniqueness had its own “peculiar”
value…but what is also underscored is the apparent need for words to exist to bridge the gap in
comprehension between seeing and “getting the point”. I can only see the word, in this instance, as the
only vehicle which makes it possible for one person to share with another one’s aesthetic experience.
Does this mean that the “aesthetic” experience, as an experience, cannot be shared but must be
experienced privately, whereas, writing can be shared by any number provided all know the language.

But the point, for this writing is that even relatively well-educated people at times fail to make the
appropriate connections. In this instance it was not the value of the work as an aesthetic expression but
some imagined competitive standard having more to do with the artistic performance of others as seen
as a collective group than the item in its own point in space and time.

Concurrently, there is as well this perplexing and quite annoying issue (manufactured by Driscoll) where
I have become, perforce of someone’s imagination, an object of derision….for not having admired
someone in the ways and to the extents to which he had thought himself accustomed …justifiably
accustomed, that is. It would appear from such criticism of my lack of response that I have failed in my
socially corporate responsibilities and am somewhat threatened with exile from a company I had not
originally sought.