Confessions of a Florentine Pet Sitter


EXp WEst show

Brian Hoover: A Feast of Dreams

Brian Hoover’s highly detailed and symbolic work revolves around dreams, myth and spirituality. Often he begins works by spilling paint onto a canvas and then drawing out the subconscious images which arise. His work has been exhibited nationally and is part of many private and public collections. Hoover, a Professor of painting and printmaking at Southern Utah University, received art training at the Cleveland Institute of Art, Kutztown University and the State University of New York where he received his MFA.

In the Uno E Richter Atrium Gallery: April 24 – June 27

From the Coos Art Museum website. Coos Art Museum (CAM)

The Expressions West Juried Exhibit at the Coos Art museum proved itself to be a wonderful and exciting show. An eclectic exhibit featuring a variety of styles, subjects and content, it also drifted towards the juror’s tastes as exemplified by his own work in the Uno E. Richter Atrium Gallery upstairs gallery.

Because  many of the paintings in this show are highly different and innovative in concept and style, for me it had the fragrance of an academic art program. I don’t mean the “old” academic art classes where you learned how to draw with meticulous detail, and spent hours and hours making color charts and designs studying the rules of composition.  I’m referring to the contemporary art schools. At most universities now, professors push you to the edge with your work.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s when I was a BFA student, and an MFA Candidate, our artwork had to be innovative; it had to be meaningful on the personal or sociopolitical-statement levels. It couldn’t just be spot on as far as technique or formal issues, for example with a landscape or portrait.  It had to say something. (But what it said couldn’t be too obvious!) The content, the media, the colors and form, all had to be evident in the overall concept of a painting. And that was no subtle thing hammered into our brains.

In the late 80s and 90s when I was a reentry student, we felt pushed to the edge and felt the great pressure of innovation to make a statement or make our presence known in the land of art. And after receiving lackluster reviews  from our professors, we artists now thrive on a real sense of freedom to do what we want with our art. Anything goes. If you call it art, then it’s art. If you do it well, prizes and notoriety may follow. If not, it is okay. Still art.

For our professors,  tired of the same ol’ same ol’,  a  beautiful and beautifully painted landscape didn’t give them a rise.  Neither did a vacuous abstraction full of gratuitous brush marks (for which I am guilty of making) excite them. Brush marks had to be meaningful marks in the context of the painting. They were looking for something showing the artists hand or thought or expression or creative process. They didn’t want to see a painting that looked like a Zoltan Szabo or a Rex Brandt, they wanted something that looked like you.

And they wanted something they could talk about. At her unusually quiet critique sessions for beginning drawing students, my friend and fellow-TA instructor at SJSU told her students stand in front of their drawing against the wall and tell a story about the drawing, and if you didn’t have a story, make one up. Give us something to talk about, she said. It was a successful idea. She had some lively and bizarre critique sessions for the rest of the semester. It doesn’t matter if the other students agree with you or believe it is truth, but what matters is that it started conversations.

My fellow TA influenced how I think and write about my paintings  and how I look at paintings. I write about how the ideas for my work come up in the process, the problems or issues I encounter in the making of a piece,  and what it means to me personally. Sometimes I don’t know until after the piece is completed!

Anyway, the point of my rant about college art education is that the juror Brian Hoover has a background of teaching art at the college level. He is …”a Professor of painting and printmaking at Southern Utah University, received art training at the Cleveland Institute of Art, Kutztown University and the State University of New York where he received his MFA.”  This is bound to have been an influence in his selection process. Nobody can escape the influence of a university art background. Not even I.  And so it behooves all of us entering our work in juried shows to not take the juror’s non-acceptance as personal. I can think of only a few shows where I agreed with the judge’s choice for 1st place. And this show is one of them.

It is my belief that Hoover looked for things that were well done, but more than that he looked deep into a painting for the raw technique of explorations and thought process, for the reasons why an artist painted a background grey, put hand-writing on its surface, and how it fit with the chair and the red ball placed in front of the grayness. The big concept. It wasn’t just a nicely painted chair with a red ball to him like it was for me at first. It took my friend to tell me there was writing on the grey area, as if it was a classroom “chalkboard,” she said.  Suddenly it dawned on me, it was a child’s chair holding a red ball in front of a blackboard with writing on it which pulled the concept together. It wasn’t just a chair and a red ball. The blackboard gave it context. It became personal, possibly a memory owned by the artist, but perhaps one shared by many. Universal. The chair with the red ball was, of course, a prize winner.

There was a variety of work, but an overriding commonality. The number of pieces that were different in content, style, media, concept—often surreal, bizarre, imaginary, fantastical, meaningful— was higher than the number of traditional landscapes or abstracts. The landscapes were for the most part exceptional, but the pieces  proclaiming themselves as different in some way owned the show.

My painting was hung in a smallish room off to the left of the main museum door. Not sure why, but it turned out to be an interesting assortment of works and events. One piece,  “Portia” painted by Andy DeWeerdt, hung on the wall directly facing the lobby entrance, took center stage. It was a large painted female figure with lots of red and gold dancing on her and around her. Stunning. I liked it immediately. It was the only painting I saw in that room. I didn’t even want to look at mine! To my friend I said, this one “is going to win 1st place.” And so it did! It was in the same room as mine, but no, unfortunately none of that glory gold  rubbed off on my painting!

Another painting that I enjoyed had a very simple two-tone metal gray surface, like Mark Rothko’s late horizontal abstracts in depressing grays and blacks as he pondered suicide.  It was by Claire Duncan. On top of this gray surface the artist painted the back side and open wing span of a pure white egret ( I think it was an egret)  placed in the exact horizontal and vertical center with its wings spread fully open, the tips almost touching the sides of the wide canvas, the wings expertly delineated in full bloom, and the egret flying towards a horizon…the end point.

The experts in composition have always said centering a subject is taboo, but breaking all the rules is what sometimes makes a painting interesting. The two grayish background areas were not centered. They were a sliver of dark sky at the top and a wide expanse of medium grey as a body of water. Her painting of the egret was so elegant and precise, and so vertically and horizontally centered it broke all the rules. To that same friend who opened my eyes about the blackboard and chair, I said this is a winner. And it was! Struck by the combination of the absolute realism centered against the abstractness of the gray background, it was special.

For me, the selection of paintings was a strong reflection of the juror’s tastes and style. And with that, it was a great show. I find that interesting because it confirms the idea that judges are often not as objective as we think they should be or they claim to be.  How they look and what they choose in the end is highly subjective. We just have to accept it. The odd thing is, I agreed with his choices. And they were probably the most bizarre nearly surreal pieces with a combination of realism and abstraction!​  Maybe both of our tastes in art became jaded by university art programs; always looking for paintings that are different from the norm, even though the norm is often well conceived and executed to perfection and deserves just as many accolades.

ACCOLADES: Local Florence artist, Win Jolley’s Orbatello Dalmatian (see previous post) won an Entry of Merit Award. It is a beautiful combination of realism and compositional abstraction that Win often uses in his paintings.

ERROR CORRECTION : A third local artist, Carol Kumpula-Clark, also had work selected for the show.  Not being able to find her name in our local phone book, I assumed she did not live here, but in Eugene where I did find her name and address. Due to my confusion about her residence,  and not considering Eugene part of the local Florence area, I neglected to include her name in all my press releases. My apologies to Carol Kumpula-Clark.


Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment



Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: