Jamie Kripke

We’ve moved!

It’s official!  My new identity is done, and the new site is up, which has an integrated blog journal with a bigger, better looking format.  So it’s time to shut down Deconstruction I and move on to Deconstruction II.
Huge thanks go out to Lucian and Todd at Cypher13 — insanely talented designers and collaborators that worked with me from beginning to end.

And thanks to everyone that checked in and shared their thoughts over the last few years, it has been inspirational to hear from people all over the world.

Here are the new links:
Please stay in touch!

We’ve moved!

It’s official!  My new identity is done, and the new site is up, which has an integrated blog journal with a bigger, better looking format.  So it’s time to shut down Deconstruction I and move on to Deconstruction II.
Huge thanks go out to Lucian and Todd at Cypher13 — insanely talented designers and collaborators that worked with me from beginning to end.

And thanks to everyone that checked in and shared their thoughts over the last few years, it has been inspirational to hear from people all over the world.

Here are the new links:
Please stay in touch!

Busy Busy

Wow.  It has been a long time since I’ve taken time to write.  I’m back in the studio after a crazy January that took me to New York, all over Mexico, and North Carolina (twice).  
I’m definitely feeling the journal neglect guilt, but have been reluctant to write here because I am putting the finishing touches on a sweet new site / blog / identity that should be done sometime next week.  I can’t wait to get it done.
2011 is off to a great start.  Let’s hope it continues…


Busy Busy

Wow.  It has been a long time since I’ve taken time to write.  I’m back in the studio after a crazy January that took me to New York, all over Mexico, and North Carolina (twice).  
I’m definitely feeling the journal neglect guilt, but have been reluctant to write here because I am putting the finishing touches on a sweet new site / blog / identity that should be done sometime next week.  I can’t wait to get it done.
2011 is off to a great start.  Let’s hope it continues…


Beautiful Losers = Winners

Watched Beautiful Losers tonight — a story of the birth, growth, and explosion of an art movement that has now firmly lodged itself into advertising + pop culture.  
Mike Mills, Barry McGee, Thomas Campbell, Ed Templeton, Geoff McFettridge, Margaret Kilgallen, Chris Johansen, Shepard Fairey, etc, etc, etc, are all in there, talking about their beginning with Aaron Rose and The Alleged Gallery in NY.

I especially liked Geoff McFettridge’s take on how he entered the commercial realm on his own terms, while under tremendous amounts of pressure from the agency / client world.

Anyway, I was inspired to follow up with some of these fine creators and see what they’re up to now, a few years after the 2008 film.

Thomas Campbell just had a show at 49 Geary in SF, and shot a strange 60 sec. spot for Fuel TV, as part of their signature series:

TC’s film, (#25 in a series of 100 films), puts him in the company of Doug Aitken (#3 of 100):
as well as personal fave Hunter Gatherer (#22 of 100)

Mike Mills appears to be taking a break, at least based on the lack of new work on his site, but made a film about antidepressants in Japan that looks interesting:

McFetridge is cranking out amazing work for everyone.  And it’s 100% his.  Nice…. 
Barry McGee is still with Deitch Projects, and doesn’t have need his own site.  This painting sold for $50k.
This Chris Johanson painting went for $32k.

Not sure how to describe what Ed Templeton is up to.

Beautiful Losers = Winners

Watched Beautiful Losers tonight — a story of the birth, growth, and explosion of an art movement that has now firmly lodged itself into advertising + pop culture.  
Mike Mills, Barry McGee, Thomas Campbell, Ed Templeton, Geoff McFettridge, Margaret Kilgallen, Chris Johansen, Shepard Fairey, etc, etc, etc, are all in there, talking about their beginning with Aaron Rose and The Alleged Gallery in NY.

I especially liked Geoff McFettridge’s take on how he entered the commercial realm on his own terms, while under tremendous amounts of pressure from the agency / client world.

Anyway, I was inspired to follow up with some of these fine creators and see what they’re up to now, a few years after the 2008 film.

Thomas Campbell just had a show at 49 Geary in SF, and shot a strange 60 sec. spot for Fuel TV, as part of their signature series:

TC’s film, (#25 in a series of 100 films), puts him in the company of Doug Aitken (#3 of 100):
as well as personal fave Hunter Gatherer (#22 of 100)

Mike Mills appears to be taking a break, at least based on the lack of new work on his site, but made a film about antidepressants in Japan that looks interesting:

McFetridge is cranking out amazing work for everyone.  And it’s 100% his.  Nice…. 
Barry McGee is still with Deitch Projects, and doesn’t have need his own site.  This painting sold for $50k.
This Chris Johanson painting went for $32k.

Not sure how to describe what Ed Templeton is up to.

Talking about art is like dancing about architecture


I’m working on a new site, and have been thinking about different ways to present my work, and thinking about artist statements.  Even if you don’t end up sharing it with anyone, the exercise of thinking and writing about it can be really helpful, bringing clarity to what you do, and where you want to go.

But do you really have to articulate what your work means?  Is this even possible with words?  As Steve Martin said, “talking about art is like dancing about architecture.”

That said, I’ve been looking around at how other people talk about their work.  I am drawn to statements that sound like a normal person talking.  Like this one from House Hunter Todd Hido, via 20×200:

“People ask me how I find my pictures. I tell them I drive around. I drive and drive and I mostly don’t find anything that is interesting to me. But then, something calls out. Something that looks sort of off or maybe an empty space. Sometimes it’s a sad scene. I like that kind of stuff. So I take the photos and some are good. And I keep driving and looking and taking pictures.”
 
Does this tell us what the work means?  Not really.  But do we have a deeper understanding of his work?  Sure.  So does this really count as an “artist statement?” 

Who cares?

It’s frustrating to have to pick up a thesaurus to get through a really wordy, esoteric statement.  Getting caught up in layers of “artspeak” seems like a great way to alienate and exclude people from formulating their own ideas about the work. 


Emily Shur (amazing floating donut pic) wrote about this conundrum a while back:

“Why can’t we just take pictures?  I always feel as though there’s supposed to be some deeper meaning behind my pictures, a meaning other than ‘Something inside me connected with what I saw in front of me, so I pulled out my camera and took a picture.’  That does not seem to fly as an artist statement.  Why, I’m not sure.”   


Or as ninja master Garry Winogrand said, in fewer words:



“I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs.”



Enough said.

Talking about art is like dancing about architecture


I’m working on a new site, and have been thinking about different ways to present my work, and thinking about artist statements.  Even if you don’t end up sharing it with anyone, the exercise of thinking and writing about it can be really helpful, bringing clarity to what you do, and where you want to go.

But do you really have to articulate what your work means?  Is this even possible with words?  As Steve Martin said, “talking about art is like dancing about architecture.”

That said, I’ve been looking around at how other people talk about their work.  I am drawn to statements that sound like a normal person talking.  Like this one from House Hunter Todd Hido, via 20×200:

“People ask me how I find my pictures. I tell them I drive around. I drive and drive and I mostly don’t find anything that is interesting to me. But then, something calls out. Something that looks sort of off or maybe an empty space. Sometimes it’s a sad scene. I like that kind of stuff. So I take the photos and some are good. And I keep driving and looking and taking pictures.”
 
Does this tell us what the work means?  Not really.  But do we have a deeper understanding of his work?  Sure.  So does this really count as an “artist statement?” 

Who cares?

It’s frustrating to have to pick up a thesaurus to get through a really wordy, esoteric statement.  Getting caught up in layers of “artspeak” seems like a great way to alienate and exclude people from formulating their own ideas about the work. 


Emily Shur (amazing floating donut pic) wrote about this conundrum a while back:

“Why can’t we just take pictures?  I always feel as though there’s supposed to be some deeper meaning behind my pictures, a meaning other than ‘Something inside me connected with what I saw in front of me, so I pulled out my camera and took a picture.’  That does not seem to fly as an artist statement.  Why, I’m not sure.”   


Or as ninja master Garry Winogrand said, in fewer words:



“I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs.”



Enough said.