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 exactly what is going on in their respective arts community at the street level. The stuff that is “really” going on. I think this would have such a powerful effect for the arts. It has some very practical applications too. For instance, for artists wanting to check out an art scene before they move to a particular place, artists wanting to create a show swap between locations…well, the possibilities are quite broad.

I see the entire Urbancode project– the magazine, the blogs, the website, and, hopefully soon, a print and events presence—as a community building project. Not only for a community of artists, but community in a larger sense. I think that all organizations should have imprinted in their DNA a charitable aspect. Ultimately, I hope that urbancode and other projects that I have in mind will become an entity that can do some good in the world, even if it’s just a little bit. If everyone did that, there would be a whole lot of good in the world!

AS: Very much agreed! Well, we’ve touched on a lot of things here, it seems. And I’ve really appreciated your time and your answers. In closing, do you have any practical (or idealistic) advice for emerging artists and community builders looking to go out there and make their own bit of good happen?

SG: I think the best advice I could give anyone is to just do it. Frankly, I don’t have to tell anyone that, because there are a lot of folks in DC and elsewhere that have already begun “doing it,” and it seems to have just taken off, like true movements have a way of doing. There are some great blogs, websites, DIY art spaces, alternative spaces and commercial galleries, as well as magazines like mine, that are putting together a pretty vibrant art scene. I think it is a lot more exciting around here than it has been in a long time.

I think there are three factors that have enabled this new vibrancy.

1. A “new guard”  taking over the commercial scene in the last half dozen years—people who had been understudies of some of the older galleries in town now have their own spaces.

2. Equally important is the influx of a very vibrant youth movement in town, which has really gotten things moving again. They have injected energy and an intelligence that had been missing for a number of years.

3. The shift of the art “center” from Dupont Circle to the 14th street corridor has had an energizing effect. It has created a different kind of exhibition space than what had typified the DC art scene previously.

A half dozen years ago I remember artists talking about the scene being moribund. How quickly things can change!

Thank you Aleksander for giving me this opportunity.

AS:Thank you very much Stuart, for your time and your insight.

In my internet travels, I have come across several sites and companies offering graphical and publishing software to artists for a "small membership fee" or to purchase. And then, of course, there are those proprietary programs that we all know and love (or hate, depending on your disposition),  and that cost an arm and a leg to legally use (Adobe’s CS series being a prominent example). Now, those can be wonderful programs if you have the cash, and I certainly cannot libel them unjustly. They really do get the job done.

However, their dominance and superiority are, in many cases, completely illusionary. If you didn’t know this, then you really should. There is a whole world out there of absolutely free software that is functional, friendly, and useful. I must earnestly thank the members of the Open Source community for bringing these wonderful programs to us, and I think you may, after checking this stuff out, thank them too.

In a nutshell, there is a great community of software programmers and designers out in the world that is dedicated to bringing free software to the people, so to speak. Many of the applications originally make their home on Linux. However, many, if not most of them, can run quite well on Windows and Mac OS as well, if you are not inclined towards changing operating systems.

A Bit About Linux

Now, a word on Linux itself, as it may be of interest to some of you. If you haven’t heard of it, Linux is a free operating system that comes in a wide variety of constantly evolving distributions. Though it may have received a reputation for being difficult to use by non-guru types, I will assure you that in most respects this is a thing of the past. I have been using it almost exclusively in the past year, and I myself am no guru. Far from it. You can find a number of elegant graphical interfaces (Gnome, KDE, xfce, to name the bigger players at the moment) to run a Linux system under, which should be enough to suit just about every taste. If you have a high end computer, the desktop special effects (essentially eye candy) available to you on some of the major distros will, in fact, make Vista look like DOS (perhaps an overstatement, but not by much). If you are simply curious, many Linux distributions can be booted straight from the CD Rom, without any danger to your currently installed Windows or Mac OS, and you can try them out and play around with them all you want, and thus see what works and what doesn’t.

On occasion, the system will require a bit of tweaking to get to work perfectly with certain hardware. However, the major distributions are usually very well supported, and you can find the answer to most questions or problems easily enough. If you are interested in trying out Linux, I highly recommend taking a look at Ubuntu, a nice, functional, and very well supported distribution. It is currently the reigning champion, and, of course, for a good reason. You can find more on it (or download it) at:

http://www.ubuntu.com

If that one isn’t right for you, there is a whole slew of them out there. Once again, Linux is available in a whole variety of different flavours (some distros are more lightweight for better performance on lower end computers, some are designed to maximize the efficiency of sound production, some are designed specifically for security, forensics, graphic design, etcetera, etcetera). You can check up on what’s going on in the Linux and Open Source world (as well as find tons of free software for download) at:

http://www.softpedia.com

There is usually a list of supported hardware and known problems publicly available through the individual distribution websites, forums, or wikis. And, generally, the said support forums, at least for Ubuntu in particular, are quite active and helpful. Personally, I had to spend 30 bucks on a compatible wireless card (no longer necessary; since the recent upgrade, my internal wireless card has been pretty compatible as well), and about half an hour configuring the display settings, in order to get it to run perfectly. Much of the time, this won’t be required at all.

Now, as far as tweaking goes, many of the more advanced functions on Linux require some knowledge of the command line (much like DOS, if you remember it). However, this is not as complex as it seems, and can be, for the most part, learned from one of the many online tutorials available. One good resource is www.linuxcommandline.org . Unless you are getting into some serious stuff, or need to initially configure some major aspect of your system, you’ll probably have to use the command line very, very rarely, if at all. Most functions in the big name distros (like Ubuntu) have graphical interfaces for most common administrative tasks. However, if you are at all interested in trying this whole free operating system thing out and do decide to install it, it might be nice to learn the basics, just in case. The Linux terminal is a pretty powerful thing. Through it, you can read and edit text documents, configure pretty much any part of your system (don’t type anything crazy till you know what you’re doing!!), access remote machines, download and install new software, and even browse the web (the advantage being that a text based browser is lighter and much faster).

Now, if you are intrigued, but not yet ready to make the full leap, you can usually create a partition on your HD during the installation process and opt to dual boot. This way you can keep your Windows intact. The big drawbacks of Linux are the relative lack of games to amuse yourself with (remember, this article is about productivity, and there are some games, many of them quite good), and the lack of proprietary fonts that one may be used to. Now, the fonts available are many and are quite good, and more can always be obtained, if needed for professional purposes. The common web fonts (Times New Roman, Arial, Garamond, etc…) are available for installation through Ubuntu’s repositories.

A distribution’s repositories are collections of downloadable stuff, most of which is software. There is often a special interface designated for an easy and friend download and installation process.  Thus, in most cases, installation is a very simple, five click process. In fact a the greater part of the supported software that you’d want can be obtained this way, as long as you have a working internet connection. In Ubuntu, you simply go to "Add/Remove Software" in the main menu, click once, and a whole world of Open Source goodness is laid out before you. You can even install some proprietary stuff, such as support for Java applets and your MP3 collection. Once you check off the program you want, you just click the Install Button, enter your password for safety, verify your choice with one more click, and the package manager downloads and installs the software for you (it usually ends in your main menu, under its proper category, with an icon and everything). I think there’s another click after that to close the window once it’s done. You can check off multiple programs at once (as many as you want, really) to essentially load up your machine with software to your specifications, in one streamlined process.

Linux offers a goodly amount of highly useful, and absolutely free, programs, many of which can be quite competitive with anything you have to pay a thousand dollars to use.

The Programs

Now, finally, let us get to some of the software itself. As previously stated, many applications, such as the GIMP and Inkscape, do not require Linux to work, though there may occasionally be a few extra steps you may need to take in installation (consulting the instructions on the website should usually tell you what you need to do). I personally decided to install the full version of Ubuntu on my new hard drive, and have been test-driving the software available for it over the last year. Below are some of my findings.

The Gimp.

The Gimp (GNU Image Manipulation Program) is a wonderful graphics application that can do just about anything Photoshop can. In its most recent release, the developers have added the much yearned for professional quality colour matching, its own implementation of the heal tool, as well as a more attractive and usable interface, a few other retooled features, and a cute new splash screen. With the Gimp, you can manipulate photos in just about any way and save them in a variety of formats. So far, I have not been able to find anything significant that this program is missing. It does have a weakness in it’s somewhat limited color depth (it’s not something that you’d notice with the naked eye, but it may be important to some photographers). However, it seems that the next update is going to finally address this issue, and there will be nothing else left to gripe about.

Really, you can do just about anything with it, including photo retouching. Certainly, if you are used to Photoshop, this may take a little while to get the hang of, as some things are done a bit differently and the interface may appear somewhat alien to CS users. However, the learning curve shouldn’t be too steep for the intermediate computer user. It’s a relatively easy program to begin using.

The Gimp has support for a Wacom tablet, with pressure sensitivity and all. However, this may require some tweaking and forum hopping to get to work perfectly, which can be aggravating (I find this sort of stuff fun on occasion, but I am a bit of a geek, as you may have guessed). Considering the price (absolutely free to use, to make stuff with, and to use the stuff you make for any purpose under the sun) the troubleshooting steps are well worth it. For me, it came down to a choice between twenty minutes of tweaking and hundreds of dollars that I don’t, after all, have. A no brainer.

The Gimp is able to import from and export to PSD format. However, this is not yet an iron tight process, and the programs are not fully interchangeable, though I have, in fact, had some success in retrieving and converting many of my old Photoshop files. Of course, if you are looking to make a clean switch, this should not be a major problem.

There is also a RAW image development plugin (Ufraw) which is available for download from the repositories. This is definately something worth mentioning for all you photographers out there. Unfortunately, since there is currently no standard RAW format (many camera manufacturers simply create their own), there is also no guarantee that it will support the one used by your particular camera (sadly it doesn’t yet support mine) but it does a whole bunch of them, and most cams usually come with their own digital development tools anyway. If the said tool is a Windows program and you did, after all, decide to run Linux, all is not lost. There is an "emulator", called Wine, which will allow you to run many windows programs. It is also easily installable via the repositories. It worked flawlessly with Sylkypix, which is the RAW developer that came along with my Lumix camera. Also, LightZone, a pretty high quality proprietary image editor with very good RAW support, has recently become available on Linux. On Linux, It’s currently free to use %