The Name Game

Sept 2, 2009
Johnson, VT

I have completed the first round of edit of on the new images from Latin America and now I am scanning/cataloging them. It is a boring task, a tedious task, but it needs to be done. When the images gets scanned, you have name it as you file it away on your hard drive. Each image are filed under country, month/year and the city the image was shot in. Then each individual image gets roughly named, along with the twin check number and frame number on the roll. So a sample name for an image would be "meat_7991_12."

I don't get very creative with these preliminary names, once the images have made it through another round of edit is when I start to think about what to title each image, but even then, I still struggle. After naming numerous files "meatlady" over the course of the day, of the years, of the life of "Wok the Dog," I am starting to wonder how many files do I have that are called "meatlady" and if you could have too many "meatlady"? When I hit that creative block on what to name each file, I began to think that maybe there might be something to calling your art "Untitled" after all.

What you title your art work tends to be some what important and can be very helpful in the reception and success of your work. For example, do you think Damien Hirst's tiger shark would be as successful if it was not titled "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living" but simply called "Dead Shark" instead?

A room of one's own

July 3, 2009

Mexico City, Mexico

Elevation 2240m



I went to the Museo Frida Kahlo and the Museo Casa Estudio Diego Rivera Y Frida Kahlo today.



First of all, there has always been a bit of envy, or desire amongst friends of mine who all believe that the separate but together life style would be the way to ensure domestic happiness. Two house, connected but independent. At the very least, it sounds like a great idea.



I went to the "Blue House" first today and I love it. I walked in and thought,"f*ck Virginia Woolf and her room of one's own, we all should have a blue house of our own."



Then I went to the house and studio where Diego and Frida had lived from 1934 - 1940, before their divorce and subsequent remarriage to each other again. Diego's house was lovely, bright and spacious with a beautiful set of cement staircase and giant windows. In complete contrast, Frida's house was claustrophobic. Tight, small quarters with tiny windows and no main door way in. It felt like a prison with Rivera's house as the gate keeper. No wonder she moved into the blue house after.



Frida Kahol's work is one of the most highly valued of any female painter, she set auction record in 2003 at $1.3 million for "Self portrait with curly hair." I am sorry, but that auction price is an insult. $1.3 million is pittance compared to what her male contemporaries prices are and a drop in the bucket when compared to auction prices for male contemporary artists such as Hirst and Koons.



When will we stand up and demand to be paid what we are worth? For the work to be judged on merit and nothing else? When will we demand for a blue house of our own and not merely be happy with a room?*



*I have gotten fired from many jobs and lost quiet a few commissions because I like to get paid for what I do. Its not a easy road to follow.

Charlie Grosso

www.charliegrosso.com

310-592-0895

Dreams of Others

October 3, 2008
Los Angeles, Ca

"Wok the Dog" exhibit has officially come down at the LA ArtCore. I think this is the first week this year that I really did not know what to do with myself. What is next I ask. More grant and fellowship proposals, more contest submissions, more inquiries to galleries for future exhibits, more, more and more.

As I search around for MORE opportunities and I look at conferences and Portfolio Reviews and this and that, I can't help but ponder on the industry that built on the "Dreams of Others." Conventions, conferences and portfolio reviews exists in all creative industries, they charge the creative money so that the creative can have an opportunity to put their work in front of the "Taste Makers" and hope for to be given a chance that will launch them into big time and make the world their oyster.

Is is morally "right" to profit from feeding on others dreams and hopes? Or do we justify it by the pure market logic? There is a need, a market, so the apparatuses is there to fill it and profit from it. Not to mention that it is beneficial to all sides involved, the "Taste Makers" can discover new talent, creatives can be discovered or at least be given helpful criticism that would "improve" their work.

I can't help but wonder if Damien Hirst, Takashi Murakami, David Hockney and artists of that caliber has ever attend a portfolio review session. I am willing to bet money that Damine Hirst, Takashi Murakami, David Hockney never paid money to people that are feeding on his dreams. He went out and plastered the city with his art and the rest we know.

If you limit the scope in which you participate or involve your art in, does that limit the scope in which you will rise in the world or art? Play big to win big? Or is playing by the rules the only way?