As the title implies, I have recently had the privilege of interviewing Stuart Greenwell (who has graciously agreed to share both his time and a piece of his mind with us), about his own projects as well as his views on art, the art world, and technology (to unjustly simplify the much more complex offering that lies ahead). Stuart is an artist, independent publisher, and organizer extroardinary. His words are definately worth reading if you are interested in the arts, and the state thereof, today. And his current publication, the Urbancode Magazine and blog, is highly recommended (and, even better, absolutely free!) I encourage you to go over to the Urbancode site and grab yourself a subscription!
http://urbancodemagazine.blogspot.com
http://urbancodemag.com
Both are also permanent additions to our blogroll.
Now, without any further ado, the interview itself:
Aleks: Could you introduce your current work and projects a bit? What’s the history behind it all?
Stuart Greenwell: Sure! In terms of my own history, I have been a painter for over 30 years. I attended the Corcoran School of Art (as it was called then) and accumulated most of my art foundation there, under the tutelage of the Washington Color School Painters: Gene Davis, Paul Reed, and, especially, Leon Berkowitz. Also, I was exposed to Robert Stackhouse, Bill Newman, and Franklin White through core classes. Later I attended the University of Maryland where I received a B.A. in Fine Arts and ran the student gallery. My important influences there were Anne Truitt, Chip Richardson, and Nick Krushenick.
I remained in my basement for many years, assessing the scene and my own work, neither of which I was pleased with enough. I never believed in showing work before it was REALLY ready. Nowadays I think some people will show anything. I’m really very analytical about things, so I analyzed my work very closely—too closely perhaps, as there did come a time where I should have been showing more. That wasn’t my main objective though.
Over the years, I watched the DC art scene morph into this or that, and at some point I became fed up with the anemic coverage of the arts. In 1995, to be specific, I decided to pound out an arts magazine, for better or worse. It was called Articulate Contemporary Art Review, and though I was very green at publishing, editing, design, Macintosh computers, and the programs it took to create a publication, I dove in. The publication, I think, was pretty successful (except in terms of revenue—it’s ultimate undoing), but not without controversy. I dropped 10,000 copies in at least three cities every month. I pretty much put Richmond in the minds of the DC art world by introducing artists and venues to each other in the two respective cities through regular coverage. No one was talking about Richmond then—it’s second nature now. Articulate lasted from 1995 to 2000; 30 issues! I was designer, copy boy, delivery boy and most everything in-between. Articulate ended up with a staff of about thirty writers and editors, many of whom now work in the arts or journalism fields in some capacity.
Flash forward seven years, and many requests from some in the art scene for me to come up with another publication, and now we have Urbancode. Urbancode, unlike my last publication, is primarily an electronic one, although there are plans to create a print publication if the economics work out. Urbancode currently consists of a pdf magazine, a website, and a blog. The blog is very interesting in that I am trying to grow a network of bloggers across the country reporting on their city’s art scene. “Street level” coverage as it were. Anyone is invited, providing that they can write, they have an interesting angle, and that they blog at least once a week. Not too demanding I think.
Once Urbancode is squared away I want to bring out another publication that I have had in my mind for about a dozen or more years. Can’t tell you about it though! Once that is launched there will be another, and another, and another, etc. A little online media company—or, with a little luck, maybe not so little.
The end result is to not only create a living for myself and for some of the other contributors, but to then begin a program of philanthropy—working for charitable causes—kids and things. I know I will not be able to amass a great fortune in all probability, but if I can gain enough influence I can create charitable events that somehow might benefit others in some small way.
Aleks: As someone who has covered and worked within the art world for so long, what can you say of where it stands now (locally and globally)?
SG: The way I have witnessed the arts scene over the years is that, like anything, it ebbs and flows. I think we are witnessing an up cycle right now, as a lot of younger energy has asserted itself. At the same time, the DC art scene has undergone a facelift over the last half dozen years or so. The galleries in town look and, in some respects, act differently. They now have more of an upscale, New York kind of feel. In the past, galleries were often reflective of their physical space, and perhaps in a bit of a provincial mindset. The art scene in D.C. used to be in Dupont Circle and the galleries were these big townhomes—and the gallery space reflected that. Before that the scene was on 7th street, in the area we now know as Gallery Place. It was a little funkier, more “downtown,” but still only white box galleries. Before that, it was spread out around the city in areas like P Street, and Alice Denny had the Jefferson Place Gallery, Washington Gallery of Modern Art, and later, The Washington Project for the Arts. Some of that was before my time, but I vaguely remember the transition to what was to become the Seventies scene. The Seventies were very fun and funky here in D.C. I realize I’m starting to sound like an old fart now. I’m not comfortable with that realization either!
Having said all of that, an art scene needs lots of things to allow it to transcend its current situation, if that is the goal. Without those “things” there is little possibility that it will change in a radical fashion. For instance, a city has to have a real estate market that allows for commercial art spaces that allow artists to work inside the city, a collector base of more than a handful of collectors, and business and government agencies that see an advantage to a synchronous relationship with artists and the city’s infrastructure, as well as an intellectual class that is interested in the arts. Washington D.C. has more of that than most cities, but not enough to transcend its current state. In other words, the ceiling is very low in a city like Washington D.C. Artists that do well not only tend to leave the city, they almost necessarily have to. Gene Davis set out to prove this belief wrong many years ago, in the Seventies, by living in D.C. and showing here and in New York, but only with limited success. Still, he would have been the first to tell you to go to New York if you were serious about making art.
In terms of how I feel about art in general, either locally or globally, I think it’s in a rather sorry state. I can’t tell you how bored I am with half-assed photos of alienation and ennui, and the notebook doodling that now passes for “art.” There are simply too many artists, and the criteria for “art” has become so loose, so all inclusive, that art has become, largely, unspectacular and boring. You may or may not agree with the democratization of art, but this is what you get, for better or worse. I could talk to you about why this is so for hours, but, of course, we can’t—there are many reasons that work in concert to create this situation.
The next time you go on a gallery crawl, say a half dozen to a dozen galleries—take notice of how much of it you consider really interesting. I don’t know about you, but if I go to New York and visit a dozen galleries, I feel lucky if I see a single thing that really gets me excited. Artists feel so entitled that they almost demand attention and coverage; they then get upset when it doesn’t meet their expectations. Art and the art world has become so cliché—Les Enfant Terrible!
AS: It seems this democracy creates a paradox of sorts. As the art world becomes more and more saturated and permissive, does it not become more difficult for work of value (speaking subjectively, of course) to be seen and truly appreciated? It seems that in many instances art is more commercial product nowadays than a means of communication or expression. If you think this is, indeed, the case, could this be contributing to the state of aesthetic atrophy you’ve described, and is there a way to reconcile democratization with what we might see as a truly healthy art world?
SG: The idea of the “democratization of art” being paradoxical–that it creates an inclusive, but dilute market, thereby making it more difficult for “works of value” to become “seen and appreciated” is in really an objective reality. Art’s value cannot be seen as “subjective” without a hierarchical system in place to impose that “subjectivity,” and I don’t think the art market has the will or the ability to do that any longer. So first you would have to identify what works qualify under those terms—valued, seen, and appreciated, and I’m not sure what works of “value” and “seen and truly appreciated” means. I’m sure there are those who feel that they are seeing the work that should be seen, and that they have their finger on the pulse, but I think then we may be talking about two different things—art and commerce. Art and the art market are experienced entirely differently.
“Value” in “Art” can be “appreciated” on only one “true” level, and that is sensory. It either moves you in some way or it doesn’t. All of the other stuff, and I mean all of it, is illusory bullshit. It’s all so vampiric. I think this is why artists are increasingly working outside of the traditional system. The music industry is currently going through the same thing too. So value, outside of a commercial sense–which is largely a synthetic dynamic– is always objective and shifts from one person to the next. I know people who covet action figures as if they were the Holy Grail, but they mean very little to me. Choosing the “best” art is a bit like picking the best name out of the phone book.
You mention that “it seems in many instances that art is more commercial nowadays than it is a means of self expression.” My immediate question would be in comparison to when? Art has been a commercial product for nearly as long as there has been art, whether artists were doing it to enrich themselves or in the name of the Church, or the Crown. We artists have just become better at marketing ourselves. The revolution of the internet has transformed the discipline–just like it is transforming the music industry, and just like it is also transforming the publishing industry. Soon it will transform our very lives beyond our wildest dreams. The paradigm for the art market has shifted dramatically and we’re still learning how to navigate it and to capitalize on it. Some do it better than others.
As far as expression goes…I do think that art is still an expressive medium, but expression is like the old saying about everyone having a belly button. Often I think artists confuse “self expression” with exhibitionism. I suppose both acts have their “value” but what that value is, is dependent on the perceiver. Personally, I think exhibitionism is most often boring and usually pretty pathetic.
My perception of an aesthetic atrophy, as you put it, and its relation to “the democratization of art” is just that—my perception and we go back to the belly-button comparison. Post-modernism has completely obliterated the concept of authority, not just in art, but throughout every aspect of our lives. We have no more Einsteins from whom to take solace. Having said that, I think there are those that think that democratization in art is a “healthy art world.” I’m not sure which side of the fence I fall on.
AS: Could you elaborate on the positive changes you’ve seen with the emergence of the new distribution and marketing paradigms, and the technological revolution in general? Is there any advice you can give to artists who want to make the best possible use of these channels (assuming, of course, that they have put in the requisite time to actually make their work)?
SG: Well I’m not an expert on any of those things, but from the limited perspective that I have I would say that—and I assume we are still talking about art—distribution channels have been open wide and anyone with marketing savvy can take advantage of that. I mean, the internet is like one big department store. You can buy or sell anything on there, and I mean anything. For those that have a desirable commodity, let’s say a painting or print, you can reach more people online in one minute than you could in a brick and mortar store in a month. Try this–Google the most extreme, obscure concept that you can think of, then look at how many entries exist in the results area at the top right of your screen. Let’s say it was something way extremely obscure. I’ll bet there are still a couple thousand entries in that results area! That means there are still a couple of thousand people searching that website who are potentially interested in that topic. That also means that there are that many people who are your potential customer. Online distribution is totally global, and there are many artists, not all of them, but many, who really think locally still.
The technological revolution is a much deeper matter and there are probably billions of people that know more about it than me, but just get ready for a totally online existence if you are not already. I’m hoping this oil crisis bullshit will be moot in a dozen years. What if we never had to leave our homes to do anything, unless we wanted to? For example, what if your new home had a wall that was in actuality a computer screen, and what if you could log on to your office in L.A. right in your home in D.C.? What if that screen had avatars of you and everybody else that worked for that firm and you could interact with one another just as you would in a traditional work environment? What if you could walk over to the file cabinet and get a file out, print it or work on it on screen, then file it back in that cabinet, all without leaving your living room? You could bullshit about the game last night, or have a conference with three dozen coworkers, all with surrogate people in the room. You could also watch a movie with 100 of your closet friends, or go to the game, or shop…whatever! All done at home. No car involved, smaller carbon footprint, no office building. You could use your feet to walk to the gym!
This is not some far off fantasy either. This is all possible right now, as we speak.
I don’t think I have to advise artists on how to take advantage of these tools. I think many of them do, and far better than I. My only advice is to live in the day, and use the technology.
AS: How has the experience of creating and editing Urbancode, as a digitally distributed magazine and blog, differed for you from that of running Articulate? Are there advantages and disadvantages in either method?
SG: That’s a good question. They are a little alike, but even more different. When I started Articulate I was totally naive. I was a painter and I didn’t entertain thoughts of publishing yet. What I did know was that the magazines in the area that covered art, largely, sucked! I know I will make some enemies saying that, but the big magazine in town at that time was no more than a club that did vanity articles about one another, and the others were so poorly done, so poorly conceived, and so poorly written that I thought they actually made the D.C. art scene look bad!
My magazine was far from perfect, but it started out with very noble intentions. It ended up being a pretty good magazine—especially for an amateur. The problem with Articulate was that I was one guy, and I needed more dedicated people to help. I had some, like the poet Blair Ewing, who was very good for the publication, and Joe Natoli, a designer, who actually showed me that the magazine needed to be Designed—with a capital D. I also had many, many talented writers—people who didn’t even know they were writers! That was one of my strong points. Finding raw talent.
I used to do everything else myself, including visiting everyone’s studios, taking their phone calls, etc. It took me until 11:00 every night to even get to my dinner, and I let it destroy my home life. I also drove 10,000 copies of that magazine to at least four cities twice every month! Just stupid! I gave too much of myself, and I don’t say that as a martyr or anything like that. I say that because I was just plain dumb about this stuff. You can’t allow everybody to take a little piece of you, because soon there will be no pieces left to take. And the irony of that is that the more popular you get, the more pieces people want.
Urbancode came about because I love to publish and I love to design magazines. I had the express notion of publishing a magazine that was digital and to purposefully stand back form the process. Urbancode is starting to take off and it’s at least ten full-time jobs. I have gotten some good people involved, and I hope to get many more involved so that I can make this “project” take off, because the “project” is much larger than Urbancode. Publishing independently is always a challenge, but it’s damn near impossible without money to back you. That was also the problem with Articulate. No money–and I am no salesman. Ultimately, I’m a working class kid from P.G. county Maryland and I don’t know how to ask moneyed people for money.
Is one methodology more advantageous than the other? Yes! I resisted electronic publishing for years, hoping to get another paper magazine out, but electronic publishing—and I know all about the niceties of a tactile product—is by far superior in so many ways as to make it no contest. In the last, oh month or so, I’ve had over 8,000 unique hits at our blog site, which has actually begun driving traffic to our web site, instead of vice-versa. Still I would like a paper version. I told you I was dumb!
AS: How do you (and did you) go about building your base, getting it all out there? You’ve talked about expanding to a nationwide network of writers. Do you see this as a community building endeavor ( a community of the writers, readers, and the art world at large)?
SG: With Articulate I went about building my base in what you would call the “Old Fashioned way.” I went to all the openings, artists’s studios, did as much “face work” as I could– that and the actual process of distributing it. That got the message out because there were so many of them. 10,000 copies in several cities!
Urbancode is different, and it is so because of the electronic nature of the publication. I am currently building a base through what are becoming the “traditional” electronic methods. Online social networking, like Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, etc., developing an email database, and through a little word of mouth and past connections. Ultimately, I think the best means of growing a base is by putting out a good product. I think we have a pretty good product, but I’m always working to improve it.
The network I’m trying to build is through the blogger community. I think it would be an awesome thing to have bloggers in every city where there is an arts community, to share with artists and enthusiasts across the world e
![[del.icio.us]](http://alchemyreview.com/opus/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://alchemyreview.com/opus/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Google]](http://alchemyreview.com/opus/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://alchemyreview.com/opus/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://alchemyreview.com/opus/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://alchemyreview.com/opus/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://alchemyreview.com/opus/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Recently I remarked to a parent that ‘they’ (meaning the school chancellor, board, gov’t etc.) just don’t get how important the Arts are to any kid’s education.