TERMINOLOGY

REVIEW

Here are a few terms/categories which are in current usage which could possibly apply to my work.

PHOTOREALISM

HYPERREALISM

OUTSIDER ART

SELF-TAUGHT ART

Now first and foremost, I am self-taught. {one art class in High School in 1972 and one class at the University of Cincinnati in 1977} However, the current usage of this term {self-taught} is selectively used to identify grown-up artists who have chosen to remain at their childhood level of ability.

I distinguish between grown-ups and children obviously due to the fact nearly every child begins as being SELF-TAUGHT and therefore, nearly every work of art ever created by the hand of a child could be considered worthy of this category.

But of course, there are marketing formulas and strategies involved here, so the Self-Taught/Outsider Artist distinction really applies to every artist ever born, but for the sake of marketability, one has to Ignore the work of children and consider grown-ups only as worthy of this distinction/category. So alas, this pre-formulated presumptive terminology prescribes the narrowment of work found here to a predisposed

cookie cutter approach,

meaning the art must appear childish,

but rendered by an adult.

In my case, being SELF-TAUGHT, I chose to gravitate towards a fanatical precisionism even seeking to surpass the abilities of the camera image to represent reality. So the galleries and critics and museums who have an affinity or fondness to Self-Taught/Outsider artists, will not, more than likely, have any affinity or fondness of my microscopic technical precisionism.

But alas, regardless of their idiosyncratic cookie cutter brains, I am Self-Taught, and with their blinders on, I will more than likely never ever be recognized as such {Self-Taught} or be represented/shown in their narrowed realm of reality.

Now as to being a Photorealist, maybe I should call myself a PHOTO-REAL-ER-REALIST, but that’s probably above the critics head, easily confused you know. Anyway, I don’t know if anyone could not consider me a Photorealist, but looking at this category Realistically, the vast majority of all so-called Photorealists are in Reality,

Billboard Artists,

whose work only appears photographic when the photographic trick of shrinkage

is used to mechanically reduce their large works down for reproduction purposes on-line or in books and then and only then does their work appear Photorealistic.

You see, in the realm of REALISM, truth is a rather necessary and welcomed trait, no matter how many toes you step on.

If you the viewer did not yet realize the difference between my work and other Photorealists {Chuck Close for example},

please take note of the sizes.

I work at Photographic sizes, 4x5 inches, 5x7 inches, 8x10 inches, 11x14 inches and wallet size, while most all of the others work at mural/billboard giant non-photographic sizes.

Now of course my newer works, since the mid-1980’s, will throw a monkey wrench into anyone’s logic aimed at attempting to decipher just what category I should or shouldn’t be in. First of all, being Self-Taught, once I get off the path/obsession with Photorealism, I have not evolved one iota beyond a childish ability and I incorporate / juxtapose this primitive childlike ability side by side with my Photorealism and walla, I’ve pretty much dumbfounded the critics and curators ability to bag me somehow, somewhere in some category.

Then on top of that, I incorporate content and meaning via the use of words and primitive/naive imagery & ideas, which bring a level of enlightenment into an American landscape infested with two-faced elected Leeches contaminating every aspect of the American Dream, and walla, now I have works which step on the Igorian toes of countless enablers

of this orchestrated Nightmare, which ain’t, realistically,

gonna win me too many brownie points.

So I suppose my works will be somewhat of a dilemma and conundrum to these in-the-know-it-aller curators and critics.

But what else can you expect from a breed of brain happily bagging/categorizing all artists for the sake of monetary gain, when along comes an evolving cross-over hybrid art form which never decided to embrace stagnation

for the sake of marketability.

So yes, I expect curatorial/critical bewilderment/rejection {Google “Tactics of Tyrants are always Transparent”, censored} as a common theme in reaction to my work, but as for the other 99.9% of the people, well, I have been met with overwhelming praise and approval not only for my miniatures and photorealism,

but likewise for my “Controversial” politically charged IYF-ism.

So as you can see, the dilemma/roadblockfor me is the .1% who are the Gate Keepers to the Art World. But of course, these numbers only are applicable here in the USA and elsewhere in this World where curatorial Art Brains are not so narrow and un-evolving as here in the USA, I would imagine gallery owners & Museums will have a more favorable enlightened view of my work.

Now for a few words on the term

Hyperrealism.

This term became common around the year 2000, but realistically, the term is a contemporary of the term Photorealism {+/_ a few years} and so for that reason it is an inherently flawed misconception to believe even the term

Hyperrealism

is descriptive of something above and beyond

Photorealism.

On top of the term being 40 years old, there is the rather pathetic attempt on Wikipedia and elsewhere to suggest that Hyperrealism applies to the new & improved technology of digital imagery and Hi-Def, Hi-Res cameras, therefore taking the art form of Photorealism to a new level of precision and exactitude.

Well, first of all, digital cameras, especially circa 2000 and still to this day 2013, have regressed further into the dark ages,

that is at least relative to the 1840’s-50’s.

You see, to sell products, marketers need to hoodwink a large percentage of the population into believing technology is progressing forward and improving.

Well, relative to camera imagery, the marketers have duped the majority into believing 2mb, now 4 mb, now 8mb, now 16mb cameras are the evolving height of high-definition capturing of an image. Let’s put it this way, there is not a digital camera available to the public today in the year 2013, which can produce an image which can compete with the mirror image of the daguerreotype circa 1848, not in resolution, not in perfection, not in Hi-Def-ness, not at all.

Not only can modern digital cameras not compare resolutionally with the Dags of the 1840’s, they cannot compete with the imagery of the 1850’s {ambrotypes}, nor could they compete with any of the standard 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 inch film/glass negatives circa 1870-1980. You see, the snake-oil salesman is in the house {TV}{Computer} and you’ve been sold on a theory and now every year your cameras need to be upgraded by 2mb or so, when in reality all of these high-tech wonder digital cameras are still inferior resolutionally to your standard

roll film box camera of the 1890’s era.

I mention all of this so as you can realize the absurdity of the carnival barker’s claims of having an

aero-dynamic-full-tilt-stereomatic-

William-Shatner-turbo-2000-toupee,

I mean HD maxed out camera {was that Night Court?}

and you all believe the hype, when in reality modern digital cameras are resolutionally inferior to

images taken 170 years ago.

So this claim of Hyperrealists working from resolutionally superior imagery is, as I stated, rather pathetic. And to take it one step further to get you to understand the false claims of these snake oil salesmen, even the mechanical offset 2nd generation gravure prints of the 1910 era are rated at 2200 D.P.I., which equates to 96 million pixels/points for a 4x5 image. Second generation means that the original continuous tone film was broken down into raised dots/points {on a metal plate} for the purpose of being inked for offset production of the image in various quantities, and even as such, how many 96mb cameras are available today? Actually after further review {taking into account 4 million pixels equals 11.4 mb}, 96 million really equates to being about 280mb, so I should ask, how many 280mb cameras are readily available today? Are we progressing resolutionally? Well, at the rate we are going, maybe in 170 years {2183} the cameras will be up to date with 170 years ago {1843}.

Now just a reminder, Photorealism, meaning the use of the camera image as a tool for the creation of Art, is of course nothing new and dates back at least 500 years. Yes, artists were tracing the camera projected image for hundreds of years

before the invention of photography.

I’ll be adding more about this later.