August Bogda Group Show

Posted by on Aug 3, 2008 in Art Coverage

I had the pleasure of meeting sculptor Johnathan McDermott. There’s a brief video interview below. Johnathan seems to have a lot of thought behind his work and the finished products are polished jewels. Morrison Pierce has some new raw work. His work seems to be dipped in a bucket of chaos wrapped in plastic, dripping with emotion. Served up with a side of honesty. Business as usual. I might be bias though as Morrison is a close friend. Please go see for yourself.

Allison Alford has a couple of very interesting mixed media pieces with nice textures and pleasant color. The photo collage is nostalgic in subject matter. Pat Tally has a grid of portraits of citizens pumped with road rage. Each portrait done with a unique gesture of humanity.

Mark Whitehead’s photography was hard to make out for me. A juxtaposition of different subjects. I’m not sure what the focus was. And finishing out the show, Nicole Middleton showed animals dipped in plastic, illustrated with bright cheerful painterly colors. Perfect for my infant’s nursery.

As usual the August Bogda group show consists of several local artists. I’m pretty sure you can find something you dig and something you can afford. Of course don’t take my word for it, go check it out for yourself.

Share

19 Comments

  1. morrison
    August 3, 2008

    thanks bk good to see you last night, i left soon after to get back to the studio and make some beats for the scared rabbits show tonight. i don’t know about these group shows there is to much and not enough all at the same time

    Reply
  2. BirdBrain
    August 3, 2008

    Is the collage of original artwork made by others valid as art? Is it okay to take the artistic collaborations of others, add some text, crop the images, wrap them in plastic, call them your own, and then place them on the art market? Is it okay to do this without permission of the original artists?

    If Rothko and I were friends and he had given me a painting, can I put some collage elements on that painting, add some text, and put it out on the market for sale? Do I have to credit Rothko in the work?

    I know that I’m still a nobody in the art world, and that this is just Jacksonville, and that I probably shouldn’t care, but I have to ask what others think about this. Conceptually I’ve even entertained the idea of painting on found works of art, but in the end decided that the concept of changing a found object and presenting it as my own probably does not constitute an idea solid enough to make up for the potential ethical violations. Or do great artists find, walk, and dissolve these lines?

    In the future will we see original artworks of established painters painted on by emerging or even more established painters? Does it only work if the original artworks weren’t created by established painters? What happens when one of the original contributers becomes established?

    Is it valid to use original artworks made by other artists as resources for collage? What does the league have to say about this idea?

    Reply
  3. contributor
    August 3, 2008

    To answer your last question I don’t think it is. As I wasn’t aware of this situation I’ll leave it to the artist to answer your questions.

    Reply
  4. BirdBrain
    August 3, 2008

    I’ll leave it to the artist to talk about these works and who played which parts in each, if he chooses to. I think they are great collaborative works made by great artists in this town (this discussion doesn’t include the painting of the girl, which appears to be all original work), including the parts and collage done by the artist who is presenting them.

    Reply
  5. Autrelle Holland
    August 3, 2008

    I’m trying to follow this thread, but “contributor” keeps changing their post, making it difficult.

    Reply
  6. contributor
    August 3, 2008

    I’m not sure what you are talking about Autrelle. It’s a link off the home page under Headline? How is that hard to follow? Please clarify.

    Reply
  7. Autrelle Holland
    August 3, 2008

    Simply that since “BirdBrain” first posted, “contributor” responded. Then, that response changed, for no apparent reason. That’s all. The original post made BirdBrain’s second reply make more sense. Now, it does not.

    Reply
  8. Autrelle Holland
    August 3, 2008

    I didn’t know that my WordPress entry would link directly back to here. It’s not the most positive post. The admin should feel free to delete that post, and this one from this thread, since I didn’t intend on having it being read from here.

    Reply
  9. contributor
    August 3, 2008

    The only change was made was that this isn’t a league but an art blog (even though I always wanted it to be a league) and that I didn’t think there was a real art market in Jacksonville. What’s the big deal with deleting that really? I didn’t think it was positive. I’m trying to stay positive more often.
    Is that reason enough for you Autrelle?

    I’m not going to delete my automatic pingback to your post because maybe others should read your post. And if you change it that’s your prerogative since it’s your blog. Right? You should have that right.

    I don’t necessarily think calling someone a parasite is the most constructive way to address the issues brought up by this post. A host to parasites I find offensive also.

    It would seem best to get the other persons viewpoint before crucifying them. But that’s not how things are done in the blogosphere are they.

    Reply
  10. Autrelle Holland
    August 4, 2008

    Explanation is well enough – thank you. I won’t amend the content of my post, but I will perhaps restate the use of the word “parasite” here. Let me say that the actions that I am talking about are parasitic. I’m not trying to be pejorative and call anyone in particular a parasite. I find hosting parasites, or not discouraging parasitic behavior offensive also.

    Reply
  11. contributor
    August 4, 2008

    What’s interesting about your term parasite is that you haven’t even gotten the other side of the story?

    I find that odd. And just a suggestion if I were you I’d stick to writing about martial arts. Of course I would hope jumping to conclusions and premature judgements is more accepted in that subculture than it is on JaxCAL.

    Reply
  12. Autrelle Holland
    August 4, 2008

    “What’s interesting about your term parasite is that you haven’t even gotten the other side of the story?

    I find that odd. And just a suggestion if I were you I’d stick to writing about martial arts. Of course I would hope jumping to conclusions and premature judgements is more accepted in that subculture than it is on JaxCAL.”

    LOL
    You’re probably right. I’m sure I only have one side of it, and I’m just speaking like this for no good reason. Like I said, I was not intending to offend anyone. I’ll be sure to stick to what I know, as you suggest.

    Reply
  13. markcreegan
    August 5, 2008

    this here show look geeoorgeoouss!

    Reply
  14. Frank
    August 5, 2008

    “If Rothko and I were friends and he had given me a painting, can I put some collage elements on that painting, add some text, and put it out on the market for sale? Do I have to credit Rothko in the work?”
    -BirdBrain

    Probably, but it’s not an altogether bad thing. I think this is an area where music has progressed further than visual art in such things (in terms if legalities and popular acceptance). The idea of re- recording another’s song or sampling parts is well established in pop music, even if it dramatically alters the original meaning of the work.

    Where there would be “financial” problems with taking a valued painting, such as a Rothko, prudence would say no matter what you did to it would make it less “valuable.” Would the ethical question be the same if the co-opted work was less valued or made by a lesser known artist?

    Reply
  15. BirdBrain
    August 5, 2008

    “I think this is an area where music has progressed further than visual art in such things (in terms if legalities and popular acceptance). The idea of re- recording another’s song or sampling parts is well established in pop music, even if it dramatically alters the original meaning of the work.”
    -Frank

    I would argue that art has progressed to the point of music, since pop artists have been including found images in their works for some time now. However, they use reproductions of original works and not the actual works of art themselves (as far as I know). With music, it’s impossible to actually use the original performance; you must always work with a recording or a reproduction. Additionally, there are regulations regarding audio samples, wherein you can only use a 30 second sample without citation or without having to obtain explicit permission by the original artists.

    Since I’ve had a few more days to think on this, I’m not as concerned anymore since the artworks were done in collaboration for a project that was initiated and spawned by the artist presenting them. However, it was not my expectation that the artworks (time and materials) volunteered were going to be repackaged for material gain solely by the artist himself without mention to the other contributors or the original purpose. I suppose this is what caught me off guard.

    Would I have been okay with it if the original artworks had been photographed or re-painted and then worked into the collages? Probably moreso, but I still would have hoped that the original intent of the artworks would have been brought to the forefront and not used for personal gain alone.

    Perhaps my original post really should have gone something like:
    “Love what you did with the artwork we made for the film project, Morrison. We get a cut if you sell anything, right? 😉 J/K.”

    But alas, you can’t always take back your words.

    /r

    Reply
  16. morrison
    August 5, 2008

    well go out of town to play a show and then take the next day to float down the springs and come back and find this shit, how great my misundestanding of this whole project. yeah there were people that made some art pieces for a film i was shooting earlier this year, which most likely will never be finished cause the acting was bad save the chicken scene. and the friend whose loft i shot the picture at didn’t want any of the art anymore and like all things here it was going to be thrown away and most of it was, and the art that is hanging in bogda now with my name on it has been altered more than enough to call it my own, seeing as it was my project from the beginning, and the art scene here is particularly lax when it comes to wrapping things up in plasctic and calling them your own i would say look the artist who has been painting and making art for the last 15 years versus any newbie with their feet barely wet read more books and then learn to paint

    one of the most famous duchamp paintings was a mustache on the fucking mona lisa

    mp

    Reply
  17. morrison
    August 5, 2008

    i had to go and see who this parasite guy was, we probably don’t know one another thanks for the parasite reference, all humans are parasites sucking at mother earths tit minute by minute with their endless wants and needs

    i have no desire to be understood on a blog by strangers trying to validate who they are by writing about me and my art

    to those artists involved in the film we could have a burning party but none of you are invited

    Reply
  18. Interview with Joy McGinnis from Bogda Gallery | Globatron
    December 24, 2008

    […] Byron: Yeah, I did a video of him at that opening. one sec. I’ll get the link. http://www.globatron.org/new-work/august-bogda-group-show […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply