Pointing Fingers

Clinton Fein: Recap

Toomey Tourell Fine Art is pleased to announce the opening of Toomey Tourell Projects at 575 Sutter St.

SPREAD THE WORD

Tweet about it on Twitter

Join on Facebook

Reviews and media

Toomey Tourell Project's inaugural exhibition, Clinton Fein: Recap will draw selections from a decade of the artist's prismatic political output, reinvigorating his (seemingly) temporally bound bodies of work by a pointed recontextualization. Included in the exhibition will be a selection of new works and a sneak preview to his long-awaited, upcoming show, Full Disclosure: a nightmarish multimedia journey into the extent to which the rise of social media has obliterated our understanding and sense of privacy, catering to the most shallow, insecure and narcissistic instincts of our nature.

In 1994, Clinton Fein's CD-ROM Conduct Unbecoming, based on the book by renowned investigative reporter Randy Shilts that examined the issue of gays in the military, pioneered the use of digital technology as an art form, and was dubbed "evolutionary" by Rolling Stone Magazine. The U.S. Navy tried unsuccessfully to stop the release.

Due to the nature of his work, the artist has come under considerable legal fire. Fein's most notable legal victories were his Supreme Court suit against the Attorney General of the United States, where he challenged the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act in 1997, where Fein's right to disseminate his art was upheld in a landmark victory for First Amendment rights; and a federal privacy case, where he refused a government order to reveal the name of the users of Annoy.com.

Clinton Fein's Annoy.com was a visceral response; nothing more than an in-your-face, bitterly ironic and unapologetically wry interpretation of the events, politicians, consumer brands and media onslaught that are packaged to relentlessly permeate our consciousness and intoxicate our senses. This solo exhibition took place in January 2002 at Toomey Tourell Gallery in San Francisco.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd called it obscene and illegal, corporate trademark attorneys bristle over it, renowned artist Lynda Benglis dubbed it "Press Art," and SF Chronicle's Kenneth Baker wote: "Contemporary art gets no more incendiary. [Fein's] digital fabrications, at their best, have few rivals."

Numb & Number, Fein's second solo show at Toomey Tourell in 2004, featured digital collages and photo-based work reflecting on the first term of the Bush Administration. Two pieces from the show were deliberately destroyed prior to the opening, igniting a dialog about censorship in the United States that extended from South Africa to Saudi Arabia and beyond.

In a lengthy profile of the artist in the SF Chronicle, Kenneth Baker observed that "one of the least scabrous but hardest to take pieces in his show lays the words "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" over a grid of photographs from various sources documenting Iraqi war casualties. Each image represents 1, 000 victims, according to credible independent estimates of the Iraq war's human cost to those it was meant to liberate."

In his 2007 show with Toomey Tourell, his widely acclaimed Torture series included large scale staged and digitally manipulated photographic images that recreated the infamous torture scenes from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, transforming the diffuse, muted and low-resolution images into large-scale, vivid, powerful and frightening reproductions. As controversial as any of his previous work, Torture was featured twice in Art in America, inspired rigorous dialogue from Harvard University to the De Young museum and were exhibited in both London and Beijing.

Art in America commented: "Fein seized upon despicable amateur images, which unexpectedly had acquired public notoriety and probative value, and re-presented them in enhanced, painterly terms. His invocation of old mater painting, far from summoning up Christian martyrdom as do the Abu Ghraib canvases of Fernando Botero, delivers us to the dark threshold of inhumanity conjured by Goya."

Opening his review of Torture, Kenneth Baker wrote: " Several contemporary artists have tried to evoke the grotesqueries of war...But no one else has reached the peculiar extremes to which Fein goes... Encountering them in an art gallery provokes tangled responses: outrage that someone would advance his own ambitions through the degradations the Abu Ghraib photos record; perverse temptation by the opportunity to study the mise-en-scene of the original pictures, safe in the knowledge of seeing simulations; despair that history has again diverted the resources of art away from pleasure and contemplation to bleak and urgent critical functions; and, finally, the recognition that, after all the barriers between art and life come down, nothing insulates our enjoyment of the arts against toxic pollution from our knowledge of real events."

In a review in the December 2007 issue of Art in America magazine, renowned art historian Peter Selz summed up the impact of Fein's Torture series, stating: "Torture of detainees or their rendition to countries with even more abusive torture regimens has become semi-legal under the Bush administration. Fein reminds us, however, that these practices can never be anything less than intolerable."

While much of Fein's work captures a moment in our political lives, from energy policy to Abu Ghraib, Recap demonstrates that even more than ten years since he first introduced his works of "press art", they continue ring out loudly, resonating in continually more complex and surprising ways. The exhibition runs June 4 through August 7.

My weakness for flash mobs....

Fuck You Holidays from The Gap

I happened to push pause whilst watching a recording of an episode of Glee (yes, I watched it), and voila!! the Holidays cover for December/January 2010 for Annoy.com was born. No manipulation needed. Thanks Gap. Fuck you too!

The Wall: No Darks in the Class

In 1980, the song, The Wall II, from Pink Floyds album, "The Wall," with its haunting chorus of school children singing we dont need no education, was adopted as a protest anthem by black students during the "Elsie's River" uprising in South Africa, protesting against the institutionalized propaganda and racial bias in the official curriculum. On May 2, the song, album and movie were banned by the Apartheid government.

This video piece was created for "Banned and Recovered, Artist Intervention," in connection with the California Exhibition Resources Alliance (CERA) for which 37 artists were invited to recreate or reinterpret a cover for a book that had been censored. Although most artists chose subject matter that had been censored in the USA, I focused on a musical that was banned in South Africa.

To communicate the relationship between censorship and Apartheid, I chose two songs for which I rewrote the lyrics as subtitles while retaining the original music, given the relevance of Pink Floyds commentary on the British educational system, and the extent to which it influenced white schools in South Africa. The censorship of "The Wall" and my exposure to it punctured the elaborate balloon of deception that architects of Apartheid had so effectively constructed to surround me. It precipitated a passionate leaning toward freedom of expression, and its power to reach and connect with people in ways previously unimaginable.

I juxtaposed imagery of my privileged, sheltered upbringing as a white South African in contrast to that of Hector Pieterson, who was shot and killed on June 16, 1976, and whose death precipitated the Soweto Riots. We were the same age. I also combined photographs I shot on a recent trip to Alexandra, formerly a "township" with some found imagery for which it was difficult to ascertain the creative source.

"Banned & Recovered: Artists Intervention" is divided into four themes: Banning Books and the First Amendment at Crossfires; Books on Trial; Race, Gender and Justice; and Burning Books: the Extreme Ban and includes original book art, mixed media, paintings, photographs, and multi-media pieces.

The exhibition is inspired by the exhibition "Banned & Recovered: Artists Respond to Censorship" that was on display at the San Francisco Center for the Book and the African American Museum and Library in Oakland in 2008. An earlier version of this piece was exhibited at the African American Museum and Library in Oakland.

About Face: Facebook Terms of Service Reversal Has Irreversible Consequences

Some people attribute it to Twitter. Others point to blogs and email campaigns. Regardless, the speed with which Facebook responded to a ferocious backlash over changes it made to its Terms of Service agreement was remarkable. Not only for the speed of its crisis management in the wake of the outcry and proposed boycotts, but for what likely marks a significant turning point in the way content, copyright and ownership are perceived in general.

The facts are simple. About three weeks ago, Facebook made a modification to its Terms of Service, without much, if any, communication as to the changes. The equivalent of releasing a press statement on a Friday afternoon so as to avoid above-the-fold coverage the following morning. In response to a reader tip, a February 15, 2009 article by Chris Walters in Consumerist titled “Facebook's New Terms Of Service: "We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever," spread like wildfire.

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.

For even the layperson, the scope and breadth of the new, somewhat abstruse terms were ridiculous. The terms were fraught with legal landmines, and sweeping enough in scope and breadth to probably render half of them invalid anyway.

If Facebook owns all our content, some clucked and twittered and pinged and bonged, even after we have terminated our accounts, does this mean they are liable for any of the illegal content we upload? Not quite.

Under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, which most media outlets reported as having been struck down in the wake of a couple of Supreme Court decisions challenging specific provisions of the legislation, Service Providers are not liable for third party content. (Disclosure: I was personally involved in both challenges heard by the Supreme Court –filing an amicus brief in the first, Reno v. ACLU, and as the plaintiff in the second, ApolloMedia v. Reno).

Of course if Facebook was to exercise some of the rights they were laying claim to in the new terms, such as the license to “reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt” or “create derivative work” from, they would cease to be merely Service Providers, or, Information Exchange Providers, (as CEO Mark Zuckerberg positioned Facebook in his unconvincing justification in the wake of the backlash), but Content Providers, for whom a whole different set of rules applies.

A few remarkable things happened. In an age where Privacy and Terms of Service are all but ignored, the fact that so many people were paying attention was astounding. But more interesting was that the outcry seemed to include many people who are ensconced in a culture where expectations around ownership of intellectual property are that it should be free.

Musicians, artists and filmmakers have been forced to rethink ownership of the fruit of their creations, where their music is given away by attaching it to a product. Not that long ago, top musicians would never dream of allowing their music to be used in commercials, lest they be accused of selling out. Only now do we see Ford using David Bowie’s 1969 “Space Oddity” to hawk the Lincoln MKS (despite the bizarre inappropriateness). Madonna, on the other hand, used “Hung Up” to sell Motorola before the song from her Confessions album was even released for the sake of the music.

Facebook's seizing control and ownership over the content belonging to the average user highlights an evolving and fundamental paradigm shift in how people view intellectual property. As the distinctions between user generated content and “editorialized” content become blurrier by the minute, so do the lines between treatment of customers as active stakeholders, as opposed to simply passive consumers.

This bodes well for creators of content, who are looking for ways to monetize the fruits of their labor, as consumers become less likely to be offended by the notion of paying for premium content – based solely on the quality of the content and reputation of its creators.

It may turn out that Facebook, in spite of its about face, inadvertently  ushered in the turning of an inevitable tide.

So Sarah, won't you please not bother answering.

I wonder how it is that Americans don't seem to find it disturbing enough that a person supposedly positioned to become Vice President of the United States can get away with rattling off anything but the answers to questions posed. It either suggests that she is incomprehensibly incapable of comprehending a question or either too arrogant or too ignorant to believe that such a strategy is acceptable to global leaders looking for specific answers to specific questions. Gwen Ifill should not have accepted those answers. Sarah Palin might just as well have told her to feel free occupying herself with something else since she had no intention whatsoever of giving consideration to the questions.

P.S. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the making of this video, but it's kinda sweet.

Britney is a Whore and other important things

Leave it to a drag queen to improve on Britney’s new song, Gimme More. Jackie Beat sings her hilarious version in a video by Austin Young, created for the show "Just Britney" at the World of Wonder Gallery, a Hollywood gallery that added to America’s obsessive-compulsive addiction to anything related to Britney Spears, completely distracted from the fact that the Bush administration continues to torture in America’s name.

Our priorities make me proud. Really proud.

Remembering Diana: Money Green

Following the tragic death of Princess Diana on August 31, 1997, I wrote the song “Money Green,” for Annoy.com, which was performed live in Los Angeles in October 1997 by the talented Meri Free, and her band Circle.

Now, ten years later, Annoy.com has re-released the song (with an accompanying, cheesy production values, video which includes more current imagery). While certain of my predictions about the royals did not come true, most about the media did, and the song holds as true today as it did back then. (See lyrics.)

For instance, I wrote: “Now while tabloid sales are in decline, all we can do is wait, to see if Willy smokes a joint at school or Harry’s overweight.” Well, we all know Harry’s not overweight, and William, to our knowledge, was not the son smoking joints at school.

No one can tell the difference between The Sun and CNN anymore than they can tell the difference between the National Enquirer and The New York Post or soon, The Wall Street Journal. The onslaught of here today, gone tomorrow reality stardom has diluted tabloidism to the point that the only celebrities we are force-fed these days are the repulsive Lyndsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, who despite their car incidents are very much alive, and likely to be over-exposed to us for a long, long time.

The Lament of Julie Andrews

Not that I mind Gwen Stefani, but let's leave the classics alone.