In the last few weeks, I%92ve had the pleasure of going to the theatre to see 2 comedic performances well worth seeing. Both were extremely funny; I can%92t remember when I%92ve had so much fun and laughed so hard.

One was about the differences in the way that men and women see, think and act. The other was about the foibles of every day life when you%92re middle-aged or beyond. Both topics provided plenty to laugh about as you can well imagine. For the most part, it was funny because it was so true, and every joke just seemed to hit the nail right on the head but in such a way that we could laugh at it, and at ourselves at the same time.

On my way home from the last one, it dawned on me that being with other people really enhances the experience. Hearing everyone else laugh, especially those who laughed particularly loud or had a weird laugh, just made everything even funnier. The jokes were getting funnier and funnier as the evening went on, and I%92m sure part of this was the communal experience of shared laughter, not just the jokes.

Laugher feels good. Laughter can ease the pain or stress of life, it can lighten the load from your shoulders. Best of all, laughter is contagious and feels even better when shared with friends or loved ones. I can%92t tell you where to find that which will make you laugh, I suppose it%92s different for everyone. But I can recommend you look for it, be open to it. Try to see the funny side of every day events; instead of getting frustrated sometimes, try laughing at the situation instead. I guarantee you%92ll feel better. You%92ll be happier and a much nicer person to be around. There%92s nothing like laughter, it%92s the second best thing in the world to make you feel good.

"The more I live, the more I think that humor is the saving sense." (Jacob August Riis)

Your comments always welcome.

Suzette

Have you ever wondered about juried shows? Do they really mean anything? Does being accepted or rejected in a juried show say anything about the quality of your work?

Over the last several years, I have had the chance to be involved in many juried shows through my association with an art club, and an art gallery; I was lucky enough to have had the experience of observing jurors while in the process of selecting works for a show on a couple of occasions. I was able to see all the paintings that were entered, I saw what got accepted and what got declined, and then watched while paintings were selected for awards. I was usually left scratching my head. In every show, works that I thought worthy got declined and works that I found lacking got accepted, and on occasion, the awards given completely baffled me.

There is no question in my mind that jurying is a completely subjective process. I myself have had the experience of having a work rejected in one show only to go on to win an award in another show. The bottom line is that the decision of the jurors is a personal one, based on personal criteria, personal interpretation, personal taste, personal opinion.

So if that%92s the case, why then do we place such value on juried shows? It seems to me like the whole process is just one big crap shoot. If you can%92t trust the decision of the jurors to mean that the work is good, or not, then what can be learned by entering these shows, and do repeated rejections not tend to discourage artists who are not yet confident in themselves and their work?

The problem that I see is that artists may have a tendency to want to %92fit in%92 with their work in order to be accepted in shows. To do that, they may end up giving up their own truth, their own vision, in their attempt to please the jurors. It%92s a delicate line to walk, balancing being true to your vision with a desire to improve your skills and gain acceptance. Perhaps a personal critique from an artist you know and trust, would be a better learning experience. In the end, we must all aspire to stay true to ourselves and develop on our own terms.

"As all evaluation systems are suspect, there%92s another way for creative people to approach the game. Pay no attention to what anybody thinks. Set your own standards. Paddle your own canoe. This includes not putting yourself at the mercy of kangaroo courts. Simply become your own jury and prize-giver. The real prize comes to the artist when the work is made, and if it%92s truly worthy and anyone wants to vote for it down the line, maybe they%92ll track you down."     (Robert Genn)

Suzette

I recently heard, on a decorating show (House & Home), the designers talking about the minimalist style of decorating. One of them said: "Everybody%92s doing minimalism; it%92s so common now, so middle class, you don%92t want to do that anymore if you want to be different".

How typical. For the longest time, they were telling us that minimalism was the way to go. Now that many people have believed them and adopted the style, it%92s no longer good. It%92s not good any more because so many have adopted it. In other words, it%92s no longer elitist, it%92s common, and therefore not good enough any more.

For a style of decorating, or whatever, to fall out of favour because people are getting tired of it, that I can understand. But to have that style shunned by the experts because it%92s become too popular, well to me, that pure snobbery. And I hate snobbery.

I can see the same thing applying in art. The experts will tell you that a certain style is %92in%92, and that another is passé. And when that style becomes popular, it too will become passé and will be replaced by another as the new favourite. This kind of thing drives me crazy. It%92s elitist, it%92s a putdown, it%92s nonsense.

Here%92s a comment I saw recently on Robert Genn%92s website:      "Of interest and concern to observant realists is the apparent pervasive amateurism of much of modern art."   (Robert Genn)

I have to admit that I was really taken aback by this comment. He is saying that much of modern art is amateurish. That%92s quite a judgment to make, let alone to do so in a public forum. Another example of snobbery??

How can any one person be qualified to make such a judgment? Why do we let the so-called experts dictate what is in or not, or what is good, or what is significant or meaningful? How do they achieve this level of credibility, if not because people let them, and believe them, and follow their advice, like lemmings plunging into the sea. How sad. How ridiculous.

"The trouble is, we%92ve been taught what to see and how to render what we see." (Pablo Picasso)

Your comments are always welcome.

Suzette