Continued Conversation w/ James W. Bailey

Artist James W. Bailey responds again with further elaboration on his recent comments and his thoughts on the modern/contemporary art world. The dialogue below is in response to my review of Bailey's current show here, Bailey's response here, and the comments left by readers here.

I believe this dialogue is of the utmost importance and relevance, and I doubt that this amount of honest, artistic insight is readily available anywhere else. Given that, I won't be doing the "Weekly Post of My Work" today because this deserves front and center attention (please, dry your eyes!). Check back tomorrow for the latest installment.

Lenny Campello, discussed below, is co-owner of the Fraser Gallery in Washington, DC, and writer of the blog, DCArtNews.

From James W. Bailey:

I am feeling a sense of guilt over my recent post because I feel that I may have said things that might have been construed as responses to personal comments or statements that either of you may have said to me or written in response to my work. I never meant anything that way. My comments are the response to many serious issues that I have been debating about the state of the modern art world that culminated personally for me on the day of 9-11.

J.T. - I have tremendous respect for you and what you are doing with your amazing site. I am inspired by your honesty to put your own work out to an international audience and ask them to honestly comment on it. This is an amazing project. This is a brave position for an artist to take and the dialogue you encourage is cutting-edge as far as I'm concerned.

Lenny - I consider you to be a role model and one of the strongest advocates for the visual arts that I have personally met or know since I have moved here. The risks you take with you career and business by keeping the fire to the feet of the Washington Post are incalculable. I don't know that I would have the strength to take them on the way you have. It is inspiring.

I was born and raised in the fire and brimstone Baptist Church and sometimes, I'm afraid, my rhetoric approaches that of a Holy Roller Pentecostal. My god, J.T., I so hope you didn't think I was responding to your review because I thought you were attacking my work. I seriously did not mean it that way. I do understand what you are saying. As a matter of fact, I am in some agreement with you on comments such as your interest in seeing larger works. This is an issue that I personally struggled with concerning this work. I will confess to you that I felt a certain degree of internal, as well as external pressure, to go to a larger image size. For a whole host of reasons, I finally settled on the 4"x6" format, chiefly because I did want to impart with the work that snap-shot sensibility that you talked about. That was an editing decision of mine, I suppose. I have consciously chosen to exhibit and show works that reflect that sensibility to some degree as opposed to images I took that would more properly, perhaps, be described as art photos. Again, I wanted to walk away from a certain photographic aesthetic choice for the purposes of this work. There is a casualness and non-pretentiousness about snap-shots that appeal to me. The content of the imagery and the technology of the capture of these types of images, usually using relatively inexpensive cameras, connect me to an approach that I am comfortable with at this point with this type of work.

Lenny, you are absolutely right about how I should probably be more descriptive or conversationally engaging about the purpose and intent of my framing. Again, this was a decision I struggled with somewhat. I was tempted at a certain point to really go over the edge with distressed frames that would clearly indicate a position or philosophy, I guess, on the purpose for such frames. I kept revisiting the frames in my grandmothers' homes, however, and found myself thinking about how cheap they were, yes, but how functional they worked with the photographs. Both of my grandmothers would have had far too much pride to purposely hang seriously beat up damaged frames on their walls. They had too much pride in the photographs inside those frames. They were not curators. They were simply family historians. I finally realized that what I was most comfortable with was creating a frame that in someway reflected a certain naive position about the subject of framing. I guess I wanted to invite some comment on it to illustrate a larger point. The point being: Does art exist outside the frame? Does a work of art have to be framed? Not just physically, but contextually, curatorially and socially.

Anyway, enough about frames! The recent theft of Edvard Munch's "The Scream" did not pass by me without irony. The thieves cut the painting out of the frame and left the frame on the street. What can possibly be said about that!

As is probably evident by now, I have a tremendous concern for the state of the art in the modern art world. That is why I am so appreciative of the work that both of you are doing with your sites. You are engaging a participatory conversation about art that I personally believe rises to the level of what I consider to be Littoral Art as defined by one of my great inspirations, Bruce Barber. If you GOOGLE for a document of his titled, Sentences on Littoral Art, and read it, I think you will understand where I am coming from at this point in my life and with my art.

On 9-11, my life and my art forever changed. Prior to 9-11, I suppose I had fantasies of being a Walker Evans type street photographer of life on the dark side in the underbelly of New Orleans. During my life in New Orleans I became very acquainted with and familiar with the museum and gallery structure of the city. To put it politely, the system is corrupt in way that only things in Louisiana can be corrupt. I became increasingly disillusioned by the whole process of what was required to become a "successful" artist in the city. The whole game of sucking up to the right gallery owner so you could suck up to the director of the Contemporary Arts Center for a solo show so you could suck up to the only weekly art critic who writes for the Times-Picayune so you could suck up to the 50-100 wealthy citizens in the poorest city in American that might be interested in buying your art whether they liked it or not. Deep in my heart I knew and felt that art should and could have a larger purpose.

When I was a little boy growing up in Mississippi I can still to this day see my grandfather sitting in his cattle truck parked in front of the general store in a tiny Mississippi town named Eupora. My grandfather used to keep 10 or more King James Version Bibles of all sizes on the dashboard of the truck. He would never lock his truck. I asked him one time, "Granddaddy, aren't you afraid that one day somebody is going to steal one of your bibles from the truck because you keep it unlocked?" My grandfather said, "Son, that's exactly why they sit there and exactly why I keep the truck unlocked. Anybody that would steal a bible needs it." I later asked him if anyone had ever stolen one of the bibles. He told me that maybe someone had, but that they probably had an overnight attack of guilt after reading a few passages and returned it before he got up the next morning.

Years later I had the great fortune to have a chance meeting at the Hobby Airport in Houston with another of my great inspirations, the experimental film maker Stan Brahkage. I recognized him sitting in a chair waiting for a delayed connection from pictures I had seen of him. I introduced myself and the next thing I knew we were having one of the most intense conversations I have ever had in my life. Brahkage was another artist of integrity. His works reflects that at every level. One of the funniest things Breakage told me was in response to a question I asked him about the American obsession with being or celebrating the next great artist, the Jeff Koons, Mark Kostabi's, that whole group of New York media created shallow artists from the 80's and 90's. Brakhage told me the following: "You know who the greatest art critics are? Art thieves! Any really bad art thief knows the value of the Mona Lisa. But a really good art thief has the ability to see into the future and can recognize little Martha Jean Cornsock who sits up in her dilapidated farm house attic studio in Lost Plains, Iowa, doing figurative paintings that she will enter into next year's Apple Festival Painting Contest. The wise art thief that recognizes that talent and steals a bunch of those paintings before New York discovers her is the person the art world should be listening to. And believe me, there are lots of art thieves out across this country that recognize that type of talent."

Bible thieves and art thieves...thank god for both of them!

After 9-11, my world and my art changed. I knew that there had to be a bigger purpose. All of the concerns that I had about everything seemed to coalesce into a purpose that I felt I needed to pursue. I became convinced that I could create a style of art that would serve in some capacity to function as a platform to make my concerns and views known. Not to the art intelligentsia, but to the ordinary person that the art world has turned their back against.

My concerns are threefold:

1.) EVIL DIGITAL MEDIA: I believe that there are serious issues that need to be scientifically examined in regard to the use of and exposure to digital media. I personally believe that it is engineered to interact with the human brain in a way that induces violence. I am not alone in this belief. William S. Burroughs believed until his dying day that the WORD was a virus. He believed that language was a human created virus that literally infected the brains of humans to the point of one person feeling the compelling urge to kill another person because someone might dare to call that person a name: kike, nigger, spic, cracker, etc. Why would people react in such a way to a mere word? Burroughs believed that such words infected us to react that way. Beyond slurs, what about political words? Republic, Democracy, America, The War on Terrorism, The War on Drugs, The War to End All Wars. You get the point.

I can't prove my theories on digital media, but I do know this: If I had just 1/100th of 1 per cent of the advertising budget of just one digital monolith manufacturer, say Sony, I could hire an army of behavioral psychologists and other scientists to actually investigate this issue. The present body of literature on the subject, and again, you can GOOGLE dozens of studies on the subject of media and violence, has always concentrated on the wrong thing. All previous studies have focused on whether the depiction of a violent scene encourages violence. I think they have it all wrong. Violence has been depicted in art since the cave men in France. I don't think the issue is images of violence. I believe that modern media, especially digital media, interacts with the mind to induce an agitated state of mind whether the images being shown are violent or not. Now that I have a 4 year old son I am more conscious of these observations than I have ever been. It is amazing to me to see how my son reacts to a 70mm film projected in a theater to the same movie when it is released on DVD and he watches it on the television.

2.) CORRUPT MODERN ART WORLD: I basically believe that the modern art world has absolutely turned its back on the general population. It has for some time now been taken over and hijacked by an elitist element of art snobs and ethereal professionals who have done everything in their power to remove the context, purpose and vibrancy of art from the realm of the people and have placed it in the ivory cages of the museum and gallery structure. The purpose is simple: the present system allows these self-anointed art gods, the Artfanistas as I call them, the system allows these people to build successful and well paid careers as museum directors and curators and art dealers and gallery owners, yes, a handful of celebrated artists.

The modern art system is one with a historic parallel. Being from Mississippi, I know all about the share-cropping system. My mother who holds every educational degree under the sun was raised on a sharecropping plantation. What exists today in the art world, especially in this country, is an art version of the post-Civil War Mississippi Delta plantation. The plantation owners are the so-called leading art museums. The plantation foremen are the museum curators. The sharecroppers are the emerging artists. What you have to do as an artist sharecropper, and as a human being, to elevate your self through the plantation system to artistic independence, to that coveted position of celebrated international artist superstar, is almost unspeakable. Selling out doesn't even begin to describe it.

The results for this country are horrible. The average American is absolutely alienated from contemporary art. They are alienated because they have been treated with contempt by the modern art establishment. The thinking that prevails in New York is that the average American is a cultural idiot who is too unsophisticated to understand the secret language of modern art. Therefore, considering how stupid they are, it would be an incredible waste of our valuable time and resources to share our wealth of secret knowledge with them to help them understand what they don't know and will never appreciate.

The fact of the matter is that the average American is damn smart and can smell bullshit from a thousand miles away, all the way up to the top floor of The Whitney Museum of Art in New York. There was some talk by someone, maybe you Lenny, I can't remember for sure, about the suggestion that maybe The Whitney should put its next Biennial on the road across America. It will never happen. First, even if they were to do it, they would only send it through pre-selected museum venues. The idea that they would ever agree to send the Biennial to the Mississippi Museum of Art in Jackson, Mississippi, almost makes me laugh. I don't think that there is anyone working at The Whitney that could locate the state of Mississippi on an unmarked map of the U.S. without the assistance of a geographer from the U.S. Geological Survey in Reston!

Secondly, if it were to go on the road, take it to the Mall of America in Minnesota, take it to the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo in Texas, and yes, take it to the Mississippi Delta Blues Festival in Greenville, Mississippi. I say all this tongue in check, of course, because I know that dog ain't gonna hunt out in America and there's reason why: the American people know a con when they see it and they damn sure know a con artist when they see him or her and their work.

The high altitude of American Art divorced itself from the American people long ago. I think that act was worse than a national tragedy; I believe it was a national crime.

3.) LITTORAL ART: The Art of the Gift - I believe that an ethical artist who lives a life of integrity has a responsibility to share their art in a way that intersects with and becomes part of the life of their community, society and nation. I believe in the principles as articulated by Bruce Barber in his work, Sentences on Littoral Art. This is a radical position within the modern art milieu where it's all about getting your 15 minutes and $15 million.

The present art structure works against the principles of Littoral Art. The current system is set up to further the careers, artistic and professional, of those on the inside. The rewards for success are fame and money. At the end of the day, what does the art created do to make the world a better, safer more peaceful place? Nothing. Because that is not even the goal under this system.

I strongly believe that artists have the power to change the world. Not just interpret it or represent it. What I mean by that is that artists can use their art to advocate, instruct, share and involve people in demanding reforms of corrupt systems of power, whether political, social or cultural.

"ROUGH EDGE PHOTOGRAPHY" - On the night of 9-11 my life and my art changed. I consciously began to experiment with a photographic process that I thought connected me to core concerns and values that I had felt disconnected and alienated from. I also began to see that I might be able to use my "Rough Edge Photography" as a platform, or calling card if you will, to introduce a conversation into the American dialogue about issues that I held deep concerns for: those mentioned above. I had worked in the museum and gallery structure and knew how the art game was played on the art plantation. I consciously decided on 9-11 that I would never stoop again to pick another damn cotton ball on the Man's plantation. My sharecropping days were over. The depression had ended for me. My mother left the plantation in Mississippi when she was sixteen years old and got a job in Memphis. She worked her way through high school and college. If she could do that, maybe I could become a successful artist in some capacity without selling out my soul to New York.

I knew I wanted to get my message out to the people. I did not want it curated, filtered, watered down or shallowed-out by the art intelligentsia. I developed a strategy to get my work and words out directly to the people through the news media. It is of more interest to me have a front page interview about my work and my concerns on the front page of my hometown newspaper in Columbus, Mississippi, than to be positively reviewed by the leading art critic for the New York Times. I say that because I have had the former happen, as well as with newspapers all over the country, as well as in Europe, and the typical response I get is maybe a phone call or an email from somebody out in the middle of god know where saying something like, "I've never been to an art exhibit until I saw that story last week in my newspaper about your work and I wanted to let you know what I think..." This is true. This has happened on many occasions during the past year and excites me at a level that art never did before.

There is a deep deep thirst in this country for meaningful, purposeful, hopeful art and the art establishment has failed this country miserably. Most everybody sold out: the artists, the museums, the curators, the galleries. I don't think this sell out occurred because everybody in the matrix of modern art is evil. I think it occurred because it all became about fame, money and reputation. For every Jeff Koon, there are 1,000 Jeff Koon clones and 100,000 Jeff Koon wannabes. They exist because of a fantasy of fame, money and reputation that has been created and propped-up by the modern art infrastructure.

On 9-11 I decided to turn my back on this system. However, as much as I despise what has happened with the state of the art in this country, I do hope that it is possible to reform it. I believe the American people could truly and really become the most liberated and creative people on the face of the planet if we had an art that spoke to them rather than at them. Until this situation changes, serious national art will remain irrelevant to vast majority Americans. This reality is a national tragedy and a national crime. I am very thankful to both of you because I believe that you are both working to reform the system in your own ways. God bless you for it.

The winds of Ivan are starting to Howl outside. I wonder if the poet Allen Ginsberg ever experienced a hurricane?

Sincerely,

James W. Bailey

Comments

[Robert Josiah Bingaman]

To believe that digital technology and its place in the art world is a form of "evil" is a gross misunderstanding of history. Many years ago, similar proclamations were made about the steam engine, the radio, and the camera. The sort of conspiracy-theory approach Mr. Bailey takes to the issue only gives the artists who refuse to embrace the progress of technology and their art less relevance then they had to begin with.

To put forth vast, cosmic theories about science and human behavior without actually using evidence from science or human behavior to create or even manipulate a valid hypothesis is a useless waste of the energy and time of the author, and moreover, his readers.

How many centuries must humans live to realize that the only true corruption or evil comes from within. Television screens, the projected image, and warheads alike are as capable at promoting peace or its opposite as the men who command their use. Technology has served evil to new heights in the 20th century, but it is man who exerted its evil path. Just as there are those that may be moved to violence, or brainwashed in submission by technology, there are the stories of the freedom-inducing powers of radio and mtv in East Berlin, friendship across nations made possible by ones and zeroes alone, and digital images, film, and music that continue to touch the soul as art always has.

The sort of witch-hunt Mr. Bailey has embarked on reminds me of the culture he came out of. His convictions are strong, but the foundation is weak. Such convictions never last.

As an artist myself, I say this with all sincerity. We, like all people, should stick to what we're good at.

[Robert Josiah Bingaman]

Also, I've never heard of Jeff Koon.

But the point you make concerning whom I can only assume is Jeff Koons seems related to an insecurity as an artist, not a valid sub-point of the evils of media. If fame and all that surrounds it is inherently evil, you should be careful, because it isn't hard to become famous - what with all the media you readily have at your fingertips (press-release e-mails got some bloke from Kansas to read all about you).

[J.T. Kirkland]

Robert,

I'm not sure how pointing out a typo advances this discussion... I think it's clear that Bailey meant Jeff Koons. Let's keep the conversation focused on the issues at hand.

Thanks!

[Robert]

I wasn't pointing out a typo, I was pointing out that a lot of the fire behind Mr. Bailey's words seems to be based upon a problem of security, related to fame, networking, and relationships which he either refuses to have any part in, or has been refused from. Either way, I don't think such absolutism helps his case, or his ability to be heard by those who are willing to listen. He referred to Jeff Koons three times, each time not spelling his name correctly, but making some pretty altrusitic, simple, and elementary statements about him and his art. I think that's a typo worth pointint out, if you want to call it a typo - because it points to a fundamental rejection of knowledge, and distrust of success that is taking place within Mr. Bailey's own mind, at the hands of his own insecurities, or misperceptions, or both. Mr. Bailey has such a complex that he has backed himself into a corner, in which with his own words he will find that even he is guilty of the sins he accuses. Such incessant and unworthy shouting is just the type of noise that gives the art world and its artists less relevance in the rapidly changing world Mr. Bailey speaks of.