Showing posts with label Binary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Binary. Show all posts

Friday, March 02, 2007

Gallery Report; February 23rd, 2007

With most of the New York art world flocking to one or all of the art fairs that opened in the city last week, I assumed that the Chelsea galleries would be relatively uncrowded. Such circumstances make for good art viewing; I can engage work for a longer period of time if I am undistracted by familiar faces or the appeal of people watching.

A chilly wind blew strong off the Hudson River, energizing me further, and I visited almost thirty shows. I had planned to mention more than the five below but, as I've written here often of late, "my energies are directed toward the studio," and writing about other artists' work only makes me want to work on mine that much more.

+ + + + +



Julia Randall
"Decoy #8"
2006
Colored pencil on paper
30 x 22 inches

Jeff Bailey Gallery: "Decoys and Lures," Julia Randall's sophomore outing at Jeff Bailey Gallery, is impressive. Randall's works on paper showcase her sensitive technique. Her craft is impeccable, rivaling that of the finest botanical illustrators (of this or any other day), and she uses her superior skills to create contemporary artworks that are as beautiful as they are violent, and as whimsical as they are erotic.

Randall's "Lures" series is aptly titled; these sensuous colored pencil drawings focus on human lips. Viewers glimpse a bit of tongue here, some teeth there, but we're preoccupied with the moist flesh. It's generally difficult to take a long look at lips without becoming at least the slightest bit libidinous and, as I looked at "Lure #1," my own lips involuntarily parted in anticipatory wanting. That doesn't often happen when I contemplate artwork; for that matter, it doesn't usually happen when I look at fashion photography or any other medium that appeals to our id by focusing on organs associated with sexual signaling. Randall's "Lures," though, isolate the lips, making them a spectacle unto themselves. This is effective enough, but my appreciation of the "Lures" doesn't go much deeper, and I found myself considering the "Lures" conceptual studies for the "Decoys."


Julia Randall
"Decoy #4"
2006
Colored pencil on paper
41 x 26 inches

The "Decoys" are, as the gallery's press release states, drawings of "strange flowers and plants hybridized with human and animal traits." Indeed, many of Randall's creations are surreal riffs on carnivorous plants like the well known Venus Flytrap (Dionaea muscipula). The depicted hybrids are decoys in the sense that they bait or seduce other life forms into approach, and then devour or ensare them. Given the curious combinations seen in the series - pitcher plants meld with electrical cords; dental scrapers act as floral supports; belts and chains secure petals to stem - the work does, as the press release puts it, "hint at the perils of human meddling with the natural world," but there is still more visceral and complex content. The works warn of the practical, philosophical, and moral risk involved in genetic mutation and other biotechnology, but they also remind us that scientific exploration (indeed, our very curiosity) is instinctual and as natural as the rest of creation.

Randall's "Decoys" are celebrations of all Nature's orifices, physical and metaphysical, and of our natural desire to enter into and emerge from these orifices time and again. Viewers glimpse starry skies through several of Randall's flowers, an allusion to the scalar continuum. Further, the artist draws trompe l'oeil tears, holes, and sliced strips on her grounds, thus "implicating the viewer" in the ambivalent dissection and probing of her pictures. The human hand belts, cuts, pokes; it acts as an erotic investigator, at once involved in sex play, scientific exploration, and an ambivalent, feline violence. We can't help ourselves! The medical equipment and the metal thorns emerging from organic stems are fetish items and talismans of industrialized scientific inquiry. As Camille Paglia writes, "sex is probings, plumbing, secretions, gushings...the bloody open mouth of mother nature." But where Paglia would argue that science, the product of the male, or Apollonian mind, with its right angles and projections, is in opposition to sex, Randall's decoys remind viewers that things are rarely so dualistic. The lines drawn between male and female, man and animal, and science and art are increasingly indistinct.

Paglia has also written that "art is form struggling to wake from the nightmare of nature." Julia Randall's art, however, is form that embraces the "nightmare," celebrating the awesome sensuality of our apparently amoral universe. Paglia is correct to imply art's moral imperative, but moral and ethical actions are themselves an outgrowth of Nature, consciousness having evolved from morally blind, yet sensate material. Randall's works play with this ambivalent relationship. I left the gallery grinning, eager to find something to poke, in one way or another.


Julia Randall
"Decoy #6"
2006
Colored pencil on paper
46 x 34 inches

+ + + + +



Eva and Franco Mattes
"Harpo Jedburgh"
2006
Digital print on canvas
36 x 48 inches

Postmasters Gallery: Binary, the artist duo of Eva and Franco Mattes (aka 0100101110101101.org), is back. I was disappointed by their last outing at Postmasters. "United We Stand," a media campaign/send-up of "a Hollywood-style blockbuster," was, like most of Binary's work to date, an "incomplete, lazy affair that never really [got] off the ground." I was hopeful, though, when I learned the duo was working within (and presumably making work about) Second Life, the growing virtual community and market that is so much in the news these days.

Consider just a sampling of "real world" stories about Second Life in recent months.
- "First-Rate Art in Second Life" (Regarding the launch of the first "real world" magazine dedicated exclusively to the art scene in Second Life)

- "Second Life opens for business: Toyota, Circuit City, Dell, Sears and Adidas have set up shop in the S.L. virtual world"

- "Terrorists mock-bomb Second Life shops: Home-grown terror group wants democracy in the virtual world"
I assumed that after "living in the virtual world...for over a year" Binary would riff on some of these fascinating goings-on. Second Life, currently occupied by over 4 million inhabitants from all over the "first" globe, is a microcosm of our contemporary social and political geography. As such, it is a valuable mirror, ripe for rumination, dissection, or parody. Many of the artist groups and communities living and interacting in Second Life are aware of this. I salute them for it. (Second Life is the contemporary MUD (multi-user dungeon) and to better understand the value and psychological significance of these worlds, I recommend reading Julian Dibbell's terrific article "A Rape In Cyberspace: How an Evil Clown, a Haitian Trickster Spirit, Two Wizards, and a Cast of Dozens Turned a Database Into a Society," originally published in The Village Voice in 1993.)

So what does Binary bring back to us after a year's sojourn in Second Life? 13 portraits of the most popular and good looking Second Life celebrities. That's right, folks...surrounded as they must have been with so many fascinating socio-political happenings in that world, Binary opts to present gallery visitors with shots of Second Life's equivalent of Justin, Lindsey, and Paris! I suppose one could argue that rendering our culture of distraction and celebrity in this fashion is meritorious, but I fear the end result is as forgettable as the lion's share of our superstars.

Also irksome is the patronizing tone Binary takes in the gallery's press release. They refer to their time in Second Life as a "flanerie," and they (or the gallery) characterize the inhabitants of the virtual world as "peculiar." So once again, Binary, I thumb my chin and leave." This duo has a knack for turning promising ideas into stupid and vapid art. I have little hope left for these two. The art world should be embarrassed by Binary's lowest common denominator appeal.


Eva and Franco Mattes
"Nyla Cheeky"
2006
Digital print on canvas
36 x 48 inches

+ + + + +



Allison Hawkins
"Ink Blanket"
2006
Ink and graphite on paper
12 x 11 inches

The Proposition: "Spiderwort," Allison Hawkins' second solo effort at The Proposition, reads like an unfinished poem. One gets the sense that this accumulation of fragments will add up to something interesting (maybe even something powerful) as the artist matures. Hawkins' most potent ink and watercolor works - "Ink Blanket" or "Your Skin Is A Quilt," for example - hint at a rich interior universe of magic and essential mystery. Much of the artist's imagery seems born of our hypnagogic moments, those seconds immediately preceding sleep, when our thought processes are as defined by the denied, interior animal as by our conscious experience.


Allison Hawkins
"Your Skin Is A Quilt"
2006
Ink, watercolor and graphite on paper
30 x 22 inches

The gallery's press release suggests that Hawkins "[speaks] from a place where nostalgic memories and fanciful visions merge." True enough, but works like "Ink Blanket," celebrate a particular brand of nostalgia, one fundamental to the unabridged Homo sapien experience, one that spans millennia. Perhaps we could call it a longing for essential being, for the "live animal"? Hawkins doesn't merely reference the hands on the walls at Lascaux; she presents us with some of her own transfigurations. What the press release characterizes as "a youthful longing to retreat to...refuge, where one can explore quietly without taming," is not, in fact, a retreat at all, but rather a heroic attempt at the whole truth.

Unfortunately - at least in "Spiderwort" - the artist intersperses afterthoughts, unrealized experiments, and flights of fancy among her successes. I wouldn't encourage anyone to stop playing or to limit themselves to one clearly defined body of work, but I do wish Hawkins had been more selective in deciding what works to include in this show. The exhibition would be stronger, more of a piece, I feel, if half of the twenty-one works were excluded.


Allison Hawkins
"Goofball"
2007
Ink and watercolor on paper
41 x 60 inches

+ + + + +



Colin Cochran
"Frog"
2006
Mixed media with oil on gessoed board
8 x 9 5/8 inches

Andre Zarre Gallery: Two blocks south of The Proposition, at Andre Zarre Gallery, another artist has tapped into the same deep vein as Hawkins, drawing from the well of existential associations attached to the animal form. Colin Cochran's small mixed media paintings of crows, beetles, cows, dingos, and other animals are straightforward exercises in composition, contour, and color, but the artist's confidence and command of the medium(s) make these humble, even "primitive" paintings special. Indeed, in some cases the little works possess an air of monumentality.


Colin Cochran
"Crow Magnon"
2006
Mixed media with oil on gessoed paper
11 x 14 inches

Interestingly, Cochran's animal subjects are largely anonymous. Although the surfaces of his paintings are rich in texture, distinguishing markings are absent; viewers must recognize the cast of characters in silhouette. In the case of an elephant or even a raven, this process is unconscious and immediate, but what kind of mole or beetle are we looking at? Enthusiastic about wildlife biology as I am, such details are important.


Colin Cochran
"Dawn and the Dingo"
2006
Mixed media with oil on gessoed paper
14 x 17 inches

After spending a few minutes with Cochran's work, however, it occurs to me that his subjects do not want to be identified in this way. I recalled a conversation I had a few years ago while paddling down the Colorado River. I had become pleasantly frustrated in my efforts to determine if I had just spotted a female Wilson's Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla) or a male Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia), species which are almost identical, when a friend pointed out that many "primitive cultures" did not distinguish between species in a family. Coyote and Wolf were given separate billing, but often a hawk, no matter the species, is Hawk and a sparrow is just Sparrow, or maybe even just Bird. My friend feels that there is something to be said for this imprecise classification scheme. If behavior across a family is similar, why should we create distinctions based on our own criteria? Does it really matter that the back and head of the female Wilson's Warbler should be a bit more olive than that of her cousin, the Yellow Warbler? Of course, the wildlife biologist in me disagreed (and still does); after all, how can one comprehend or track adaptation and evolution unless some system is in place, albeit a system necessarily in constant flux? But this was beside the point for my friend. Essential experience of the other animal does not need classification or specificity, he insisted. In fact, the experience is likely that much more rich and immediate when the trimmings have been dispensed with. Bird, he felt, was good enough.

And so it is with Cochran's paintings. Beetle and Frog are good enough...and so they are.


Colin Cochran
"Beetle"
2006
Mixed media with oil on gessoed board
8 x 9 1/2 inches

+ + + + +



Robyn O'Neil
"The Fall"
2007
Graphite on paper
6 1/2 x 10 inches

Clementine Gallery: Since seeing her first solo show at Clementine in 2003, my admiration for Robyn O'Neil's drawings has been tentative. The spare, even desolate landscapes and lonely human figures (even when gathered in a group, O'Neil's cloaked nomads seem isolated and fearful) of her New York solo debut appealed to me, but I felt that the work was still gestating. The drawings she produced in 2004 and 2005 were more consistently satisfying. In many, the lonely humans were replaced by statuesque moose or humble pine trees; O'Neil seemed to be imbuing her world with more magic, but I still wasn't sold. Perhaps I resisted because O'Neil's vocabulary is so close to my own? Whatever the case, "This is a descending world," the artist's third solo show at Clementine, proves my initial supposition correct; O'Neil's work is now showing signs of real maturity and confidence, both with respect to technique and content.


Robyn O'Neil
"The Passing"
2006
Graphite on paper
66 x 66 inches

In the front gallery, O'Neil shows four large works on paper. "The Ruin" and "The Passing" are the strongest of these. The melancholic landscapes are less complex than those of O'Neil's previous outings, and their relative simplicity allows viewers to more easily appreciate the power of O'Neil's element (and elements). The ocean is rendered superbly in "The Ruin." Its unfathomable volume is majestic and frightening and, like the branch suspended above it, the sea seems sentient, a wise observer of time's passage. The owl that lays rigid in "The Passing" is as dead as its eyes suggest. While the spirit's energy seems to rise phantom-like away from the raptor's head, the ground gently settles as it prepares to take the corpse. These are the first of O'Neil's works I've seen that merit sustained meditation; they breathe with a mystical intensity that I associate with the work of Charles Burchfield.


Robyn O'Neil
"Masses and masses rove a darkened pool; never is there
laughter on this ship of fools"
2007
Graphite on paper
79 x 161 1/8 inches

Also hanging in the front room is the exhibition's centerpiece, "Masses and masses rove a darkened pool: never is there laughter on this ship of fools." Over six feet tall and thirteen feet wide, O'Neil's "...ship of fools" can not be ignored. It is impressive both in scale and technique. Any artist familiar with graphite immediately comprehends the feat of patience (and perhaps endurance) this picture represents. Unfortunately, the formality of the piece - the ocean and rafts read as a perspectival grid, effectively flattening the plane and reminding us of vanishing point exercises in high school art class - prevents it from being the show standout. It is worth noting, though, that O'Neil's interpretation of the old allegory is distinctly contemporary. The medieval understanding of the allegory was that each person has his or her vices and sins; from person to person these behaviors can be ignored or laughed at but when considered together, as symptoms of the whole, such individual folly becomes sinister and dangerous. Earlier artists who depicted the "Ship of Fools" - most notably those of the Northern European Reformation, such as Bosch or Durer - portrayed the "fools" as individuals on board one overfull craft. Each face was distinct, each pursuit ridiculous, self-serving, or plain stupid. O'Neil, however, draws faceless men, all clad in suits, clamoring about on so many rafts. The shared vessel is no longer one boat; here it has become the ocean (or even the world) itself, with the occupants not so much sinning as mooning after mirages. My minor quibbles with O'Neil's execution aside, it is an appropriately distressing work; considering the large drawing, I find myself reminded that we live in the Age of Ennui, Aimlessness, and Distraction. Even our sainted celebrities aren't safe for long.

The small works displayed in the back gallery make for a mixed bag, but are generally rewarding. Drawings like "The Silence" and "The Abandon" are forgettable, but "The Fall," "The Growth," "The Fade," and "The Loss" are lyrical, moving, or a bit of both. I'm biased by her subject matter, but I feel that O'Neil is capable of becoming one of our generation's important artists. I eagerly await more work.


Robyn O'Neil
"The Growth"
2007
Graphite on paper
6 1/2 x 10 inches

+ + + + +


Photo credits: Julia Randall images courtesy Jeff Bailey Gallery; Binary images ripped from the Postmasters website; Allison Hawkins images courtesy The Proposition Gallery; Colin Cochran images courtesy Andre Zarre Gallery and Joyce Goldstein Gallery; Robyn O'Neil images courtesy Clementine Gallery

Friday, February 10, 2006

The Art of the Con


"February 26, 2000

Dear Mr. Van Strad,

Please excuse me if I have misspelled your name. It was difficult to understand on our answering machine.

Unfortunately, [the painting you expressed interest in acquiring] has been sold.

I have been trying to reach you since we received your first call regarding [the piece in question]. I tried to contact you continually, at different times of the day, but the number you left on the machine was one that never rang through. All I would get is a recording of a woman's voice saying that the 'number you have reached is either busy or you have entered an incorrect number.' This always happened before it rang.

I am faxing this reply to you now because the number you left this time doesn't seem to take a voice message.

If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me.

Best regards,

[X], Co-director of SoHo Gallery"
+++++


In the fall of 1999, when I first moved to New York City, I found work as a preparator and jack-of-all-trades in an art gallery that I'll call SoHo Gallery. I liked the job well enough, but the daily routine lost its luster by the five month mark. No matter how many paintings I framed, crates I packed, or lights I changed, the job seemed ever more tedious. Something had to be done.

The answer to my work woes presented itself on a typical Saturday night in early 2000. I was hanging out at a friend's apartment in the East Village, drinking beer and bullshitting, when conversation turned to my SoHo Gallery job and the exhibition then on display. Knowing how frustrated I'd been with work, a friend suggested that we prank call the gallery.

Enter Alexander von Stradtt, an eccentric, European art collector. This impressive man, known for his generous spirit and colorful presentation, stopped by SoHo Gallery during an art buying trip to New York City and Los Angeles. One of the paintings on display - by a now well-known artist/illustrator who shall remain anonymous here - caught his eye. von Stradtt was enamored of the work, but felt that it was missing that special something, that je ne sais quoi. Distracted, or perhaps lost in thought, he left the gallery without introducing himself to the dealers. He didn't even sign the registry.

One week later, on a particularly blustery Saturday evening, von Stradtt attended a grand party at a mansion in Prague, Czech Republic. Still preoccupied with the painting he had seen at SoHo Gallery, he made his way to an alcove, where he could only just be heard over the din, and placed a call to information. Moments later, he was connected with the gallery. Because it was such a late hour, even in New York, von Stradtt was forced to leave a message identifying himself and conveying his interest in the piece. Though I do not recollect von Stradtt's exact wording, the thrust of the message is below.
"Hello, this is Alexander von Stradtt calling. I am an established collector and I recently saw a painting in your gallery which I am very interested in acquiring. [Here, von Stradtt named and described the piece.] I do, however, have one request...a request that may initially seem rather unorthodox. I would gladly pay twice the asking price, maybe more, but I will need your staff, or the artist himself, to spray paint a purple 'Q' on the center of the painting. I will be in touch. Good evening to you."
And so a drunken goof, a prank call with a brief back story, was the beginning of the Alexander von Stradtt saga.

On Monday morning, when I arrived at work, the gallery staff were already abuzz with talk of a mysterious caller and his absurd request. I stood alongside the gallery owners/dealers as they replayed the message for me, repeatedly, exchanging baffled looks and shaking their heads slowly. Fighting the urge to double over in laughter, I mustered a passable performance as Surprised Gallery Preparator #1. (Requisite to being a good liar is first convincing everyone that you're a terrible one.)

There were so many questions. Why had von Stradtt left no telephone number? Why had he not called during gallery hours? What in the world was the significance of the letter "Q"? And so it went...but it seemed clear to me that the dealers wanted to believe in von Stradtt. I decided that the calls should continue.

And so, over the next couple of months, Alexander von Stradtt was rendered more distinct. A website was produced, featuring a photograph of the collector and art aficionado giving one of his "impromptu, guided tours of the Louvre" along with a narrative biography and a listing of his many honors. His pseudo-celebrity was made clear: according to the site's text, numerous magazines had lauded von Stradtt with praise, "most notably Paris Match." (The choice of this "notable" magazine was the brainchild of a good friend; it still makes me chuckle.)

An assistant named Gunter (pronounced: goon-ta) was also invented. This short, excitable German placed calls to SoHo Gallery on two occasions. The painter of the piece von Stradtt expressed interest in was contacted at his California studio, drawing him into the hoax's orbit and resulting in a hilarious exchange between the artist and the gallery directors. ("Who in the hell is this guy? Is he for real? You can't do that to my painting!")

The fax that heads this post was sent after Gunter "mistakenly" provided the gallery with a fax number instead of a working phone. The gallery's response, above, resulted provoked an incensed message from von Stradtt, assuring the gallery that "the incompetent Gunter," had been "dealt with" and that, furthermore, he was unaware of any trouble with his phone service.

The highlight of the project, for that is what it had become for my friends and me, was a casual remark von Stradtt dropped in the midst of yet another late-night voice message. "I'll call you when I next head to New York, but I've been just crazy as of late. I'm in Munich, of course. A-huh...I think you know why." Upon receiving this message, the gallery owners frantically began searching the Internet, looking for information on current events in Munich. Was von Stradtt attending some sort of bacchanal? An insider only art fair? Why didn't the gallery know about this event? Desks were pounded, feathers ruffled and, me....well, I no longer found the work day so tedious.

Frankly, I don't recall why the project ended. I suppose my friends and I started socializing more, and our lives filled with commitments and concerns other than beer, ladies and juvenile entertainment. The painting was finally sold to a collector who didn't demand a purple "Q" and, not long thereafter, von Stradtt quietly faded into the background. Even the URL of his publicity website provided only a broken link.

While the von Stradtt project was in its prime, however, many people suggested we document our chicanery. In the eyes of some, particularly those folks familiar with the art world, von Stradtt represented an exhibition opportunity. The leavings of the hoax - phone calls, photographs of involved parties, writings, web sites, news clippings, etc. - could easily be presented in a gallery context, a performance history of sorts. The notion was tempting, but in the end I thought better of it.

Having never intended the affair to be more than a lark, my friends and I hadn't created a fully formed character. Furthermore, we had already turned von Stradtt's eccentricity into over-the-top silliness - the verbal abuse he dealt Gunter, for example. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to marry the messages on SoHo Gallery's answering machine to the humanitarian celebrated in Paris Match and elsewhere. Most importantly, to make the hoax believable we would need to enlist the services of others; a crackerjack production team would need assembling if we intended to work up convincing news articles and presentable magazine layouts. With what little material we had, our mischief didn't warrant a show. Or did it?

Six years later, the art world has proven to be a rather undiscerning arena when it comes to von Stradtt-like experiments. The truly successful hoaxes - I'm thinking particularly of The Museum of Jurassic Technology (though this is a more loving, complex enterprise and something truly special), Andy Kaufman's antics, or Jose Alvarez's "Carlos" - are those that "go all the way." The artists involved in such hoaxes are intimately tied to their asserted realities; the hoax, in effect, consumes them, at least for a time. As Lawrence Weschler suggests in his book, Mr. Wilson's Cabinet of Wonder, the critical component of a successful hoax is the perpetrator's willingness to abandon irony. A hoax is only believable when those confronted with the fiction believe that the bluffer is sincere. In such cases, even those in the know will second-guess themselves.

Keeping this in mind, what are we to make of the recent Binary show at Postmasters Gallery? (See my earlier remarks on the show here.) Sincerity plays no part in the creation and marketing of "United We Stand," a fictional "Hollywood-style blockbuster." I hope Eva and Franco Mattes, the artists behind the 1s and 0s, are having fun with their fake promotional campaign, but, ultimately, "United We Stand" is a lazy, puerile project, a Grade D, acerbic response to the state of the world. Standing in Postmasters, I felt expected to nudge other viewers in a self-congratulatory manner. The message conveyed: "We cognoscenti should be proud of our clever artist friends...and of ourselves. Why? Because we're educated and in on the joke."

But it's not only Binary's superior, acrid message that rubs me the wrong way. I also react against the show because I'm a product of our replacement culture. Philosophically, the global zeitgeist resides somewhere between embracing tradition - to a fault, in the case of the strengthening fundamentalist streak - and tearing down existing foundations. Most of us pay lip service to tradition and revolution, but our day-to-day actions reflect our consumerism and our willingness to render obsolete products and ideas that are still valuable, all in the name of progress.

Advertising does this better - or worse, depending on your perspective - than any other industry, although technology and fashion don't lag far behind. A hip commercial is considered tired two months after it first airs. As a result, advertisers constantly tweak their approach to make certain their product appeals to the younger demographic. Ad companies one-up one another by injecting dialogue even more barbed than the competiting spot or randomness even more "clever" (the Sony PSP television spots airing now, for example: "It's cheese you can listen to outside!").

Living and performing in front of our individual blue screens, we're eager to see what improvements will be made to our existing background. "What's next, man? C'mon. Let me see it. Cycle it! Now!" It's a sad state of affairs, and one the smart kids, Binary included, comment on. Unfortunately, their brand of arch critique - the self-assured, fuck-all posturing of hipsters and matriculating English majors - no longer sits well with me. Like nerd rock, I'm so totally over it.

I want the irony turned down and the crooked smiles pried open into gaping wonder. I don't want to deal with the hoax as wry commentary, rather I want - and I think the world needs - the lines blurred, I seek experiential abandonment.

I was twelve the first time I watched the 1984 film satire, "This Is Spinal Tap," and I believed it. I didn't laugh much; for most of the movie I just stared, dumbfounded. What's wrong with these morons?, I thought. After it was over, I asked friends of mine if they had ever heard of the band; this provided them with quite a few laughs at my expense. There are plenty of clues in the film; even at twelve, I should have recognized it as satire, but like the owners of SoHo Gallery, bent over the office answering machine, I wanted to believe. Christopher Guest provided the actors with a screenplay they could immerse themselves in and the rest is history. It's no surprise that a cult of Spinal Tap blossomed following the film's release. The movie doesn't ridicule its subjects, rather it endears their stupidity and arrogance to the viewer. Even if Guest didn't intend his "mockumentary" as a proper hoax - at least not in the same way that Orson Welles intended his 1938 radio "play," "War of the Worlds" - the ingredients were all present and the art persists.

So where are these competent con artists in the contemporary art world? There are clowns and jesters aplenty, but the working magicians, the cultural alchemists, are hard to find. Maybe they're just quiet for now? I'm hoping this is because we're not supposed to hear them. After all, if the con artist is uncertain of where commentary or character ends and reality begins, then the rest of us should be unsure, too. Perhaps, like David Wilson (of the MJT), the best con artists are those who have ceased conning, those who have entered into, or been consumed by, their own creations. As Wilson writes on the MJT Membership page, "Here at the Museum we feel a strange affinity for these first exceptional, earth-born creatures to leave our planet. Like the dogs, we feel ourselves to be lonely vanguards in a rarefied and unknown atmosphere." Amen. All hail the space cadet and a toast to those who keep our day jobs interesting.

Photo credit: image of Andy Kaufman, www.bodyslamming.com