Art and What Not

2010-11-29T16:00:00.000-08:00

Some new paintings for the Tiny Too show at Meltdown... the top one is "Dot Drop" the second is "My Eye!" and I don't yet have a title for the third one. I might just exhibit the top two as a diptych. We'll see. :)

Here's the finished painting

2010-06-12T14:08:00.000-07:00

Okay, so here's a photo taken by my dear friend, Linda (thanks, Linda!) at the actual show. Since the previous post, I added more detail to the dog, more detail to the mini-Dutch landscapes, as well as shiny paint all about. Now it really looks like the trainwreck I had envisioned. A non-matching painting. I did a big one like this once (maybe I'll post it in a bit) which was named, "Monstrosity, or, Putting on Makeup in the Car". Same idea. Just me basically barfing lovely bits onto the canvas (or panel) and saying," Eew - that was gross, yet still kind of lovely." Why inflict this sort of thing upon myself and others? Maybe the answer will come out in therapy. Anyhoo... have a great day!

A few changes

2010-06-10T17:04:00.000-07:00

Hello three people that I actually let see this blog...
There have been a couple of changes to the dog painting below, so come to the Meltdown show on Saturday to see the finished piece.

2010-06-02T22:43:00.000-07:00

I call this one, "Happy Dog Presides Over Many Horizons. I don't know which dog painting to put in the dog show coming up at Gallery Meltdown. I rather enjoy putting awkward things into my paintings usually, but frankly, I think both of these pushed a little too far on the awkward, so that I now want to go back and make them more pleasing. But, outa time, just about. Sigh...

2010-06-02T22:37:00.000-07:00

Okay. Here's a painting I call, "Poodlepuff". Or maybe I should call it "Droodle". (I crack myself up). I wonder if this will make it into the art show. Hmmm...

Some Tiny Little Pieces in Progress (?)

2010-04-02T01:16:00.000-07:00

Okay, so here are some weird little paintings I am making for "The TINY Show" at Gallery Meltdown. Their titles are "Multi Eyelash Transport", "Squinchy Face", and "Purple Puffball". I wanted to do peices that used whispiness as well as something poweful that flies. Kickass but cute was the objective. The squinchy face one I can't quite explain. I have My Little Pony on my mind quite a bit, as well as Orange County in general, thus the horrible pink and pastel colors, and the shimmer. You can't really tell much at all from these pictures (which are way too warm and seethru seeming on this monitor compared to the originals), but there are eyelashes on the ends of one helecopter propeller. This evening, I'm pretty happy with these.

Done... ?

2009-12-02T21:35:00.001-08:00

Okay, so here's my painting, but I'm very sad to say that I did not see a couple of troublesome parts of it before it went to the show. I wish I had it back. Would make some major changes. Dang. Oh well. I like it overall, but it needs some tweaks. Argh.

almost...

2009-12-01T04:30:00.000-08:00

Okay - Painting's almost finished. Stayed up most of the night to do it. In big trouble. I think I like it... but this is for sure the last time I paint a sad face! Looking at it makes me sad! Even wound up picking really sad colors. Well - there's self expression for you. Thanks for looking!

Ugh!

2009-11-30T12:52:00.000-08:00

Okay, so here's a painting I'm currently working on, though I'm dead sick, so it's really... shall I say... a bear! Ha. Well, I wanted to make something extremely complicated, and create a problem it would be tough to dig myself out of visually. It worked. I didn't set a goal of making an overridingly beautiful painting, which is what I'd like to see now. Aaaa. It's taking forever. But, I shall persevere. Sorry Linda - I'm already late for a show deadline. An Aurora of Polar Bears at Gallery Meltdown.

A Drive with Jack

2009-10-20T23:34:00.000-07:00

This is a "series" of paintings done for an art show I had at my house, and, frankly, the deadline came up too fast. I want to redo these with black birds done in enamel at the top of each painting. Will most likely complete the series soon. Or will work on a series of illustrations for a book I have in mind. Hmmm...

Narwhals!

2009-10-20T23:29:00.000-07:00

Well, folks, below are pics of two paintings of three that I made for the "A Murder of Crows" show curated by my friend Linda at Gallery Meltdown (inside Meltdown Comics) in Los Angeles. Each artist invited was asked to do a painting based on a grouping of animals, and I was assigned, "a pod of narwhals". I should note that there is now a gleaming highlight in the rainbow-y narwhal's eye. There is also a third narwhal painting. Having a deadline has been great, but I really need to just paint way, way more, with or without a deadline. More posts to come.

The first paintings on the blog!

2009-10-20T23:15:00.000-07:00

2009-10-12T22:13:00.000-07:00

Hello blog with no followers yet...

Just FYI - I will shortly be posting some pictures of artwork I have made. Just have to scan and photograph some. I have not shown art in 10 years, but suddenly had one art show and then a quasi-art show in the space of two weeks! I did six peices in about a month. It felt great to show some work. After a decade of completely dropping out of the gallery system, I feel very free of the whole art school preciousness thing - the quiet gallery: haunting sounds coming from a video monitor somewhere, echoing against a concrete floor. Young people looking waif-like and miserable; older people that all remind me of Steve Martin, or have the last name, "Levinthal" (no offense!). Overuse of the word "juxtapose". You know what I mean. Ugh.
No! I have discovered illustration! Comics! The beauty of a really well-done line! This is my taste right now! In finally looking around again, I'm a little taken aback by the proponderance of big-headed people and of robots, but, hey, it's all good! All stuff I love to doodle. Rainbows! Humor! Something small! Something from Etsy!
I'm sure much of this can get old sooner or later, but I am sure of this: If I don't create something, I don't really live a good life. It's good to pop my head up and look around. The ideas I have in my head are still reaching for something sort of new, I suppose - or something that at least feels new to me - but it's not associated with any kind of art-world anxiety at all anymore. I am waking up.

2009-01-04T15:59:00.000-08:00

I was just surfing around on You Tube and discovered several spots for "Yes on 8", all of which used adorable children in the ads. How despicable to use innocent little children to promote hate! What an irony it would be if one of those children grew up to be lesbian. (All I saw were girls; I suppose they connote "innocence" the best.) My idea of loving children is to love each one the way he or she is. Homosexuality is said to be predictable as early as pre-school through observing a child. I can only imagine how it would feel to be part of a church community that is a vital part of your life, only to have them turn on you, and/or promote self-hatred in you, just for discovering, in the tender, insecure moments of pre-adolescence, that you are attracted to the the "wrong" gender. How is that wholesome? How is that loving? Why is this kind of hate so prevalent?

The Case Against Prop 8

2008-12-22T23:28:00.001-08:00

There is no current news item about which I feel more passionately than equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians, in opposition to the Prop 8 travesty. A year ago I would not have imagined that this sort of discussion would be necessary, but I do not hear the main-stream media debate making a clear case for why Prop 8 is logically problematic. And the stakes are so high for correcting this societal error; we have gone backward in the fight for civil rights for all.

Below I will seek to spell out the reasons why each of nine arguments for defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not work. It just does not make sense to argue the case for any of the following:

1. The term "marriage" should not be allowed for same-sex couples because marriage is a holy institution.

2. Civil unions are equal and available to gays.

3. The definition of marriage needs to be restored to its previous definition.

4. Churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.

5. Marriage to animals is the next step in a progression toward moral chaos

6. Procreation is the reason for marriage

7. Using another word for domestic partnerships does not hurt same-sex couples.

8. Same-sex behavior is deviant and should not be glorified.

9. Children will be forced to think about sexuality and sexual behavior before they are developmentally ready.

Here is why:

1: Argument: Marriage is a holy union; gay and lesbian marriage is against the Bible. It is only the term "marriage" to which we object.

Counter-argument: Yes, religious marriage is absolutely a holy union, but only to the religion in which it is performed. Hindu marriage is a holy Hindu union, but has nothing to do with the Christian Bible or Jewish Torah. Yet, it is perfectly accepted in our society, even though Hindus worship multiple gods, which is also contrary to the one God of the Christian Bible, the very God in whom we "trust" on currency, and under whom this country was founded. Should there be another word for their marriage? There is nothing holy about my marriage; my husband and I were married outdoors by a bankruptcy judge. Our marriage is entirely civil, and is still fully recognized by our community and every U.S. civic institution. Should there be another word for our marriage? My church, Unitarian Universalism, among other religious institutions, has been performing gay marriages for decades. Here is an example of a religious version of marriage that is no longer recognized by the state.

Like the words "art", and "love", the word "marriage" has multiple meanings. It connotes a Christian holy union, a Jewish holy union, a Buddhist holy union, a Hindu holy union, holy unions associated with the multiple smaller religions around the world, and courthouse ceremonies, as well as other civil unions between two consenting adults.

It is my understanding that in most of Europe a couple is first married by the state, then may exercise their option to have a religious ceremony. This sensible process underscores the basic difference between these two definitions of marriage; the civil and the religious.

2. Argument: Gays and lesbians have all the rights and privileges of anyone else through civil unions.

Counter-argument: Not so. There are multiple ways in which many kinds of civil unions and domestic partnerships are unequal in rights afforded to married couples, including the fact that federal tax law does not recognize domestic partnerships, so there is no option to file a joint tax return to be allowed those tax savings. Many more reasons are outlined on http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm .

I would like to add one detail, that when filling out a broad range of other forms, such as medical forms, loan application forms, etc., in the course of normal life, one is asked to select from, "single" "married" or "divorced". It is either necessary to essentially lie on these forms if you are in a domestic partnership, or leave the section blank, which would single you out as gay or lesbian. Gays and lesbians would also be singled out if forms everywhere were changed to include "domestic partnership" as an option. The only purpose of this choice would be to single people out as gay or lesbian; institutions do not need to know this for any other purpose. It's just an issue of semantics - of language we choose to use.

3. Argument: The definition of marriage has been the same for millennia: why should we change it now?

Counter-argument: While I have no good argument for gay marriage being allowed in previous eras (not to say that such an argument isn't out there), where it comes to our country and state: it is Prop 8 proponents who have changed the definition of state-sanctioned marriage from its time-honored union "between consenting adults".

4. Argument: Churches will soon be forced to perform gay marriages.

Counter-argument: I can fully understand this concern, as seemingly every other civil rights issue has been vigorously enforced in public institutions everywhere. However, again: this is not a religious question, it's a civil question. A church is a private institution, not a public one (unless it receives public funds, which is a whole other debate), and is allowed to be as hateful and exclusionary as it wants to be. I personally think that children should not be allowed in such environments, and that some day the state might seek to remove them from institutions that might profess their hatred toward some of them (the gay and lesbian ones), but maybe that's way off the deep end. Anyway, perhaps the sort of conclusion as I have extrapolated it is the reason for the fear.

5. Argument: Marriages to animals are next.

Counter-argument: An animal cannot be part of an agreement between "consenting adults", because it cannot consent.

6. The purpose of marriage is procreation. Because gays and lesbians cannot naturally procreate together, their marriages should not be sanctioned by the state.

Counter argument: This argument was made to me by my mother, who remarried after menopause. ...sigh...... I suppose that there should be another word for people who marry with no intention of having children. Or who are infertile. Perhaps people discovered to be infertile should be made to get divorced and then perhaps get a civil union? Pardon my sarcasm, but this does get tiring.

If people would just stop substituting their own consciences for those of clergy and TV personalities that fill their minds with these justifications, the truth would be allowed to surface.

7. Argument: As straight people, this is "our" word - they can't use it. Let them have their own word for marriage. It does not hurt them.

Counter-argument: Yes it does. One could argue that requiring Jews in Germany to wear stars of David on their arms did not hurt them. It hurt by singling them out, simultaneously de-humanizing them, which opened the door to a progression of ever more violent acts toward them. Jews have their own word for divorce, "get", and many are fine using it because it came from them. But, if society insisted that they not be able to use the word "get" because there is a pre-established definition of it by another religion, and instead imposed another word on them alone, people everywhere would be up in arms. Same if they were made to use a word other than "marriage". It would be dehumanizing, which is always the first step toward violence in every form and degree.

Besides, claiming ownership of a particular word is unbelievably juvenile. I seem to remember something like that going on at the playground in fifth grade.

8. Argument: Gay and lesbian "behavior" is a choice to engage in sexual deviancy and/or is, at best, an illness; an affliction. It should not be glorified in the public sphere by being elevated to a social norm through the sanctity of marriage.

Counter-argument: Well, this gets to a major issue of the issue: do you believe that sexuality is a choice? According to a television documentary aired recently on twins in the womb, medical science has recently discovered that the cause of sexual preference might be associated with hormone levels afforded to a fetus at a critical developmental period. Similarly, conditions in the womb are responsible for certain medical afflictions, as well. So, it seems that homosexuality is not a choice (as evidenced by countless sources - I encourage everyone to research this fact online, using non-religious sources where possible). If homosexuality is, in fact, an affliction, like a handicap, isn't it up to us NOT to discriminate?

As John Stewart, among others, has pointed out, homosexuality is not a choice. But religion is.

9. Argument: Our children will be forced in public schools to listen to stories about gay and lesbian people, and my child is not of an age to think about sex.

Counter-argument: This gets to another basic premise that people have, that I think really needs to be shaken: that gays and lesbians are first and foremost sexual, and to explain that men and women are in a committed relationship to someone from the same-gender, it is necessary to explain graphic sexual practices to that child. Why? Learning in school about two men or women who marry is no different from learning about a heterosexual couple who marries. No description of sex necessary, whatsoever. Sure, sexual attraction is generally the first step toward a committed relationship, but it is by far the dominant force in many relationships, (and even less so in marriages! Take it from a married woman!)

I don't particularly see schools teaching in depth about gay marriage. But, the law of the land is bound to be discussed, I suppose, at some point or another (briefly, though, I'm sure). My feeling is that if you really want your child sequestered away from discussion any particular kind of marriage, whether it be gay, lesbian, or multi-racial, you need to send your child to private school.

The only logical - although misguided - reason for a person to vote yes on Prop 8, would be discomfort with the existence and prevalence of homosexual people in our midst has led us to vote emotionally. That we may be familiar with some gay and/or lesbian people, their presence in our society interferes with our version of our ideal lives. Perhaps, just as thinking about our parents having sex made us uncomfortable, since "homosexuality" brings about adolescent-style questions about how such sexual acts might work, thinking about gay or lesbian people doing the same makes us uncomfortable as well. We would prefer that this issue would just go away, or that at least we could exhibit some measure of control over it. At worst, this discomfort, combined with an individual's insecurity, can lead to bona fide hate.

It is my sincere hope that we can open our collective hearts toward love and compassion for those who are different from ourselves. My heart broke on November 5, 2008 for all those children and teens who were in the closet, about to come out, or, who have just come out. It is not worth the cost to our inner consciences and overall well-being to bully a minority over the use of a simple word.

2008-12-04T00:32:00.000-08:00

Hello! This is my first blog entry ever. I'll just start by saying that I'm 34, a mother of two, and a co-owner of a business teaching art to kids. I didn't know it for years, but apparently I'm also some kind of raving liberal. Finally, after eight years of baffling confusion, it seems that now, at the dawn of the Obama era, the world is beginning to agree with me idea-wise, and I've begun to trust that I'm not nuts; in fact, I was right all along ("right" while still being "left" - ha). So, I've decided to start this blog in order to get my ideas out of the fuzzy airspace in my head, and into the real world - well, the cyber-world at least, so that if anyone out there finds them interesting, these thoughts, articulated, may actually help that person articulate his or her own point of view. Somewhere along the line, somehow, some of this might do someone some good.