Author's note: The following text is about as far as we got before we ran out of time and/or patience. There was a large amount of other works that we meant to discuss (Alika Cooper, Robert Larkin, Ryan Thayer, Carol Anne McCrystal, Nick Karvounis, Theresa Ganz, Brian Stinemetz, and countless others I am sure). In the case of such large shows (55 graduates from CCA and 86 from SFAI) it’s hard to touch on every point, discuss every work. MFA shows are heartbreaking, overwhelming, etc.—following the flow of conversation with an 'alias' felt like the most appropriate way to deal with their enormity…

ALIAS: So, why don’t we start at the CCA show, because that’s the first one I went to.
ME: That’s the first one I went to as well. Do you want to initiate a point of departure?
ALIAS: (eating cake) Well, I was kinda meditating on the thought of the whole social sculpture thing you were talking about...
ME: Yeah, I have that flyer from the one guy that did the food…(Michael Wallace)
ALIAS: So what did that entail?
ME: Basically he had these canned food drive buckets with a flyer that described this act/activism as his art practice.
ALIAS: (looking at flyer) Is that it? That’s lame.
ME: It had this defensive statement in there saying how it was art because he framed it as art regardless of how someone saw it. That initiated for me the whole annoying topic of why not do activism instead of art. Especially because of how it was framed at the CCA show it was very unsuccessful as a food drive. It should be geared to gain…
ALIAS: …success. Yeah…
ME: …food and money for homeless and poor people. Instead he is framing it like his pointing to the issue, but I don’t think it really does that.
ALIAS: Terrible…how about other work?
ME: You mean like Susan O’malley? I was really frustrated by my desire to interact with her machines and my desire to buy something…it’s that consumer desire.
ALIAS: You should have bought the ‘gum’ instead of the ‘pep-talk’ (Side note: O’malley’s work consisted of vending machines, one with several options like a ‘pep-talk kit’ or gum, etc. The other was a vending machine of buttons that will be described later in the review)
ME: You’re right, I would have been more fulfilled.
ALIAS: Then again the flavor would have been gone in about 5 minutes…
ME:…that would have lasted longer than my thrill over the pep-talk packet.

ALIAS: First, I wanted to ask you, how about the vending machine as an object?
ME: I thought it was nice as an object. I think in the end I wondered about what was in it more.
ALIAS: You know the ones she had with the buttons?
ME: I did think that one was more successful. Though I was still annoyed that I wanted to buy a button, and felt dissatisfied after buying it, they were just ridiculous in a good way, a button with someone’s name on it that you may or may not know. I think that with the larger machine she tried to put too much into it with the individual packets.
ALIAS: She was probably the only artist that didn’t get a set white cube.
ME: Yes, they were dispersed all over the show. This touches on the point of works that interact with a space, or the works we had talked about before this conversation that directly address the context of the MFA show.
ALIAS: I wrote, ‘does the idea of writing down the names of everyone you know entertain you, or does it seem like a futile act of sincerity?’
ME: That’s a hard one to answer. I think it is initially entertaining, because if you think of yourself doing that practice it seems nice/funny. It’s like when people write down the names of everyone they have slept with.
ALIAS: In relation to that… like if you were to write down everyone you knew…
ME: …or slept with…
ALIAS: …what would that give you? It’s interesting to think that there are a lot of people we have met or known or whatever–but, what do they really mean to you in the end, like today…
ME: It’s a personal document in that sense. I wonder about her making the buttons thinking about the names that hold more importance, making that button carry a heavier sense of a person than the random acquaintance that she happens to remember the first and last name of.
ALIAS: It also made me think about how many people we really hold close to our hearts and care about…it’s like, are we really alone in this world? Or what? Not alone but…
ME:… It’s the whole idea of being alone even with company. We are really individualistic. We have our own sustained emotions, our own sustained history. It’s interesting to think of how the people on the buttons think of her.
ALIAS: It made me think of myspace in a way…
ME:…like a collection of friends? The Internet version of a button?
ALIAS: As far as networking, knowing the other person is out there, it’s somewhat more tangible. As opposed to someone just being out there.
ME:…their existence is solid. You have a more immediate sense of what they are doing out in the world. I think O’malley’s piece is a more simplified version of this…
ALIAS:...I think there is a lot of potential there.
ME: An interesting factor about potential would be if you chose to wear the button you would probably eventually run into the person or someone they know, causing a connection. Which is why I can see this as the more successful vending machine. It has the potential to continue on despite documentation or context.
ALIAS: I think that piece is effective–no doubt–I think it’s hilarious. Reducing the idea of 6 degrees of separation especially in a city like San Francisco where we have about 3 degrees of separation.
ME: You could even run into someone’s ex-lover.
ALIAS: (chuckle) so…you think it could be like a ‘New Edition’ or ‘New Kids on the Block’ fan club?
ME: It could be assumed to be a sort of fan club….

Moving on…
ALIAS: You know what, there was an article written 3 months ago or something…Artforum or something…it looks at social sculpture…
ME: …for comparisons sake, I think we can mention here that CCA had a lot more of this type of work than SFAI.
ALIAS:…well, they have a whole program in that. SFAI doesn’t even have that. A program called "Social Practices." I think that even having a program called that is problematic.
ME: Well, the fact is, program or not, this type of work doesn’t exist much at SFAI.
ALIAS: Is that a good or bad thing?
ME: I think it’s neither here nor there. Think of how you tell people what you do. This is an interesting thing considering the scope of contemporary art, how we have so many genres that fit in. When you come to the point of saying what you do, do you say I am an ‘Artist’? Or do you say I am a ‘Social Sculptor’, or a ‘Conceptual Artist’ or a ‘Video Installation Artist’. My dad still calls me a ‘Conceptual Artist’ even though he isn’t sure what it means and I don’t particularly associate with it–just like I don’t associate myself as a ‘Video Artist’ even though I make video. He just needed something to latch on to as a title. If I made a lot of ‘Social Sculpture’ I probably would feel uncomfortable using it as a title. I think one of the beautiful things about contemporary art practice is that you don’t have to own up to a genre. Your internalization of the world is what makes the work.
ALIAS: I think so. I enjoy being that kind of chameleon of sorts. A shape shifter as you might say it…
ME: Maybe there lies the problem with a department of specific title. The people in the program may not be internalizing things individually, but making work that fits into a certain genre.
ALIAS: I think that is what the article I read was talking about. Making everybody accountable.

Moving on…
ME: To what extent is what we make part of culture? I think of it most often as a cultural document, but not as something that institutes real, fast change. Maybe it has the potential to do so, but it isn’t trying to accomplish this automatically. Like historical paintings that were of political events and things didn’t necessarily institute change, they existed in a certain realm and not another. Eventually looking at it may cause a change. That is a gray zone in contemporary art to me…
ALIAS: I don’t think there is anything wrong with politically motivated work…take for example ‘Bush’ art….
ME: I think ‘Bush’ art is problematic…
ALIAS: No one in an MFA program in both these institutions–both CCA and SFAI–would do ‘Bush’ art.
ME: Wrong! There was the artist from SFAI who did the really nicely displayed wood cases, with what looked like pages from a book displayed inside of them. They looked almost like ‘Canterbury Tales’ or something, ornate calligraphy with illustrations. (Rebecca Whipple)
ALIAS: Ok, yeah yeah yeah…I saw those…
ME: At first I thought ‘wow those are very nicely presented, nice illustrations’, but upon closer look they are all drawings of Political figures Etc.
ALIAS: Oh, and then there was that video piece…with the score composed from the Bush speech. (Mariana Negron-Quinones)
ME: That’s right. See, those two are both walking the line to me.
ALIAS: See, I don’t necessarily have a problem with work in that vein…
ME:…well, the illustrations were beautiful…but I wonder: did it have to be political? Would they still be interesting as a piece without the direct reference? That is the thing. Political work is only good if it is a good piece of Art as well–and not just a political statement…maybe that is where the gray area stops…
ALIAS: Yeah, it has to examine something else…
ME: A piece I saw that I felt was successful was a piece by Omer Fast in Switzerland where he edited together all these newscasters (talking heads) to say this really intense dialogue, I think it said something like ‘the world will end tomorrow because of our lack of love…’ though I know that isn’t exact, it was intense in that way. Each edit was a different newscaster saying a word or short phrase…
ALIAS:…there was this really strong painting I saw by a German artist (at a show in New York of German/Austrian artists)…I want to get the name right but sometimes I get confused when it comes to those German names. I want to say it’s Otto Dix, but I am not a hundred percent sure. It shows these heads of state, he is making fun of them in a blatant way…he shows one politician with his head open with shit inside, flies coming out…
ME: Did you see Roger Ngim’s work at SFAI? He used appropriated footage. I think this is hard to do successfully but he pulled it off. This could also be seen as political–reusing cultural documents already existing to make a point, but it isn’t so heavy-handed in that sense where it tells you how to think…

Moving on…
ALIAS: Let’s talk about other directions; art could be coming from many angles. Let’s go to SFAI…just cause we can…take the Hoerchers…I think you were talking earlier about walking the walk or sincerity or what not–how you can’t just talk about love or art, how it is about the execution of it. I don’t think so. I think the strongest work by the Hoercher’s (Ryan and Seth Hoercher) are their proposals.
ME: Well that still is an execution…
ALIAS: Well, yes and no. It’s about the potential. Looking at their book of proposals, that is a strong work. Step away from their installations, their residues.
ME: I thought the installations and residues weren’t that well executed.
ALIAS:…so that essentially is just talking about art, or love. And I think it has the potential to carry it through…
Now take a piece like Flint’s work (Aaron Flint Jamison). You know Flint’s work? He had a video of himself doing basically nothing. He had a few stills of what not, of kind of this nothingness. Powered by this really bright fluorescent lighting…Do you know what I am talking about?
ME: No…
ALIAS: Well I think his work goes for this intellectual approach. Personally I don’t think the work grabbed me in any kind of capacity. It almost suffers from this over-intellectualizing work thing.
ME: You mean when artists don’t let themselves go enough to just…
ALIAS: …no…when artists think they have the freaking answer and approach work through this kind of…
ME: …are you trying to relate this to love too?…
ALIAS: …no, I am just talking about art now…I think the easiest way to talk about this stuff is to now just start flipping through all the pictures in the catalog (SFAI)…
ME: Ok, let me say something about the Hoerchers, because I saw them as this almost gag sensibility in art. Which can be cute and funny, and I think comic art can be beautiful if it’s done a certain way. But, in a sense the Hoercher’s made me feel like one of those 20-something movies from the early nineties, ‘Reality Bites’ maybe. I see them as that of the art world …
ALIAS: Are you saying its passé?
ME: No…not in that sense…it's just that cute sarcasm and funny sensibility…Like a jaded early nineties romantic comedy…
ALIAS: It doesn’t live up to your expectations?
ME: I guess not.

Moving on…
ME: Ok, Let’s go back to CCA.
ALIAS: The work that was strong?
ME: Well how about talking about the work that didn’t initially ‘blow me away’, but I think is strong because it stuck with me later…I even had a dream about it. Zachary Scholz did this piece that was a folding chair that had paper that folded into the wall…
ALIAS: Yeah, that was a good work…
ME: In the show it was a little different than the image we have here because the paper was folded into a mirror. There is something about it…it’s not really overt…it is heartbreaking, a nice thought in a way.
ALIAS: It’s not heartbreaking at all to me.
ME: I think it is as an object, in a good way…like the weak chair holding up the paper the way it is…
ALIAS: It’s holding it up and it can barely hold it…
ME: Yeah…
ALIAS: …like at any point it could just collapse or…
ME: …yeah, it has that element of weakness…but it’s pretty sturdy at the same time.
ALIAS: I like the image and how he displayed it at the show with the mirror. It had that kind of…
ME: …infinity of possibility…
ALIAS: …yeah, the cheap illusion…
ME: I like cheap illusions. I think it’s successful because it’s simple in the execution. Even a cheap illusion can come off well if it’s beautiful. For example, Christine Ancalmo’s cave with paper at SFAI…I wasn’t so fond of what was inside the cave, but I liked the space she constucted with rolled paper. She didn’t seem to try to hide the fact that it was paper and a cave. She still had the roll propped against the wall that the paper was coming from propped in the corner. I think work like that is beautiful–that doesen’t try to hide anything, but uses your visual mechanics and assosciations…
ALIAS: I overheard two comments about that work before I even walked into it…one was ‘I am tired of unicorns and shit…and glitter…’ and this that and the other…
ME: (chuckle)
ALIAS: I respect this gentelman as an artist, so I considered this…so I thought ‘hmmm I wonder why he would say that?’…the other friend of mine was saying ‘you know Christina’s work? I don’t know so much about the drawings at the end of the cave, but, the enclosure really took me into getting away from where I was. And that is something that not a lot of other work does in this conventional setting…take you away from location.'
ME: I think that is what I liked about that piece, not only the mechanics of the structure…It was just the way that she manipulated the space that was nice. When I got to the end of the cave I didn’t necessarily like all the glitter, unicorns and stuff in there, but I liked being enclosed.
ALIAS: A third friend of mine and I were talking about going to see work in general at that place, Fort Mason. This friend was saying how he was so heartbroken last year at the MFA show that he never wanted to go again. Meaning that he thought that maybe that institution was just shortchanging individuals and handing them out a degree. He was saying it was such an awful setting to see the work, and some of the work itself was so depressing that it just made him feel bad…
ME: I understand that…I did feel bad for the artists in both shows…
ALIAS: …he said he felt less bad at CCA than SFAI…about the work being executed in a better fashion.
ME: I think the context of those spaces…there is so much weight on the idea of an MFA show because it is a closing of what is supposed to be this formative education. As if you are supposed to have everything figured out. That is what feels so heartbreaking–walking into a space where you know everyone has spent all this money in school to come out with some grandeous statement. And not even grandeous, it could even be a subtle work. What is so heartbreaking is when it falls short, especially when everyone is lumped together, better work with worse work–which should make the good work look even better, but the overwhelming nature of that building just makes everything seem so small in size and importance...

Moving on…
ME: This next Image is from Laura Plageman…she did the photographs of folded and crumpled photographs of trees…
ALIAS: I liked that…
ME: I did and I didn’t. It’s like what we talked about before with serial works. The one image in this series I thought was best isn’t the one we have here. What I don’t like about repetetive serial work is trying to relive the magic of one image over and over again…
ALIAS: I don’t necessarily have a problem with serial work. In the fact that it could be trying to examine a phenomenon…
ME: Well, that is the difference I guess…when a serial is about examining a phenomena it can work, but when it’s just a repetition of something because it worked the first time is when they seem unsuccesful.
ALIAS: Can’t you just see it as one work?
ME: I can see it as multiple examinations, but none of them seem to take the idea farther than the first one did. It’s about editing.
ALIAS: Why should it have to be about one upmanship from the last work?
ME: I think if you do a serial right, it means you are trying to examine something deeply. So at the end of the examination you should edit down to the best. Or if it’s going to be a serial, have enough differentiation between the parts so that they can stand alone or together.
ALIAS: And what about the other guy from CCA with the serial you were talking about? (Alex Claussen)
ME: Same thing…I found it problematic as well….the first image I saw was a photograph of this amorphous lumped together furniture like object in the middle of a room. I liked it, but then I was dissapointed that he filled a whole room with the same style of photo, different amorphous blobs in different rooms, but very similar.
ALIAS: Maybe he was trying to point out the commonality of people and places.
ME: Then why not use one or two of the most successful ones and then try something else that expands on the same notion?
ALIAS: I think yes and no. I think sometimes you need repetition, like in poetry…the need to repeat to find the common thread. To drive in the point.
ME: We could argue this for years.
ALIAS: I see you saying two things here. One is that MFA shows have the pressure of being this culmination or growth of your work while in this institution…and so it kind of suffers from your one beautiful mixed tape, or your one beautiful writing piece, or your one beautiful photograph, or your one beautiful painting. It suffers from the culmination. Where as this guy chooses to show one work. If he were to show the next progressive thing then the next, it becomses too much of a masterpiece.
ME: Well, I think if I would have seen a body of his work expanding on the idea more, I would have found it more exciting.
ALIAS: What I can accuse you of is wanting more.
ME: Well, maybe that is my problem with serials, and maybe you don’t have that same problem…I like subtle work, but I don’t know how I feel about seeing six images so very similar. The first one draws me in, but by the time I get to the last one I’m not so interested anymore. Like when something is drawn out too long in general and then you get to the end of it and it just sort of pitters out…
ALIAS:…it isn’t as exciting anymore, it’s like beating a dead horse….right? I can agree with that, but I also see the validity of meditating on a work. To find truth in a work….