(Okay, this post is partly to fulfill a promise to Pat...)
Our seats were GREAT; if I reached over the row in front of us, I could have touched the back corner of the Twins' dugout. When I heard that Pat Neshek was signing autos over near us, I wandered over and hung out by the fence. He not only signed my program, but he sought out a Sharpie when my pen didn't want to write on the glossy cover. I asked Pat if he ever visited www.stickandballguy.com, and he said "yes." I told him I was a contributor here, and he said, "write good things about me!" Well Pat, here's a start! (and overheard in front of me: "Neshek is signing over there; he'll sign all day." Yeah, Pat's da bomb with the fans.)
I'll put together a full writeup at my blog when I someday get time, but here's a few pictures and notes for now.
Yes, we parked here
Weather was 72F, not too breezy, and we had a couple bouts of very light raindrops. Lots of Cards fans (they played BoSox the day before). We set a Hammond Stadium record for attendance to a Twins spring training game: 8,220 people.
Which of these is Loek Van Mil? (hint: that's Molly on the far left)
Twins won 7-6 when Danny Valencia hit a HR in the bottom of the 8th. There were several web gems: DSpan with a couple nice grass-level catches; a sprawl/popup/throw by LNP (and 2 errors - d'oh!); a quick grab by 'Lexi on a bad hop; Tolbert with a spin 'n toss; and Kyle Waldrop with a pickoff at first (to end the game!)
Ft. Myers is great -- if you ever get the opportunity to catch a spring training game here, do it!
Dammit, they're on my grass again!
Hey Pat, if you read this, I'd like you to know that the baseballs you sent me were a big hit with my brothers. Thanks for trading some of your signatures for some of my art.
That's some awful nice WGOM representin', Rhu. Did you Battey where you parked?
Neshek stops by, eh? Nice to know it's someone I only speak kindly about. Neshek, if you're reading, I'm a big fan and I'd like to trade art for signatures, too. Does it matter that on a scale of Stick Figure to Guernica, I'm a Jackson Pollock?
...apologies to anyone who likes Pollock. I'm as open-minded as anyone, but damn.
Easy, pal. I'm with Jack.
Let's call what you do Haring.
Guh.
Consider me converted. That is beyond words.
I only pick on Pollock, by the way, because it's easy. I know there's something I don't understand at play here...I just haven't yet been able to see it.
Pollack gets a lot of guff from all sides--much of it deserved. To be kind, he was a lout. Quite likely, he may have been a savant, too. He was also an American original who changed abstract painting forever.
Entire rooms at his retrospective (MOMA '98) were like church to me. Groundbreaking. Breathtaking. Awesome, even. (I might have even trembled.) Their color, their rhythm, their scale. Sublime.
I wish I could see art like artists can. I have a palate that's refined enough to see why something's great most of the time, but not always, and that bugs me.
Well, I'm definitely interested in the man now. Any suggested reading/documentaries/particular works?
(Nice. I just went and grabbed that clip, painter!)
There's been a whole slew of over-heated Pollock writing. Clement Greenberg fawned as well as anyone, I suppose. So too did an old painting prof of mine, Herman Somberg--who shared a studio with Franz Kline--and a bar stool at the Cedar with many NYC painters of the mid-century fame. I loved hearing his stories, though.
Even though they don't actually show any of his work in the movie Pollock, Ed Harris seems an embodiment of the guy. A great performance.
So, I know that Pollock is an easy mark for cheep jokes, but he is one of the first to make the act of painting a performance thereby making the painting itself an artifact of the dance. This spawns so many "my kid could paint that" arguments that it makes me sick. As artists we have been told over and over and over and over that there is nothing new under the sun. Well, here is proof that there is a new way to use the materials at hand. Pollock dances between genera and ideology; while his images are decidedly modern they are also used by post modern artists, designers, and philosophers as a means to an end.
Pollock isn't really my cup of whiskey. That said, he provides a model for new uses of the same old materials, and a completely different visual language that we are still referencing (stealing) today.
I wish I could see art like artists can.
I don't know how to read comments like this. Artists don't really see the world, or art, any more differently than say mathematicians. The myth of the artist genius sitting in his studio contemplating the colors of the night sky and viola Stary Night comes out is a powerful one, but, as is said in every art school, every day, art is not made in a vacuum. The glory of art is that the interpretation is in the hands of the audience. The shame of art is that it quickly feels like an insiders club ruled by the snotty elite. I make art and often time feel like I'm not part of the 'it' crowd, even at openings featuring my work.
I have a palate that's refined enough to see why something's great most of the time, but not always, and that bugs me.
This sentiment confuses me, too. Great by who's standards? Back to the snotty elite, who gives a rip what Art Forum thinks about anything? Most of the art that is touted in the mainstream art media is considerably behind the time relative to the 'new' contemporary work being produced, which is frustrating for students and patrons alike. The only thing that makes a piece of art great is it's ability to stir an emotional response from you. I've seen some of the greatest works of art and can tell you that while they are beautiful I'm personally not moved to the core by any of them. However, I have seen things in art galleries that I can't shake from my dreams including both Cai Guo-Qiang's Inopportune and Janet Cardiff and George Bures Miller's The Paradise Institute.
The greatness of a work of art should not be determined by an art / culture/ snobby elite, rather the art should be judged by the greatness of it's emotional, cultural, and aesthetic impact.
Let me clarify, meat: what I meant by the second statement, being able to see what's great, is that my exposure to visual art is sadly limited, but when I see something that's supposed to be great (yes, I guess I do mean by snobs here, to some degree), it does elicit an emotional response from me. As for the first statement, not being able to "see," I guess I've always assumed there's something missing from my scope. If you say there's not, I trust you, but it's just in my nature to expect different types of people to view the world in an entirely different way. In short, I'd completely fallen for the myth of the artist genius you outlined.
Have you ever seen Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?
Some of the gallery owners in that movie are so convinced of their own genius that they completely ignore reality. It kind of changed the way I look at art. I'm sure there are pieces of art that are technically complex that I can't really understand, but I don't really care any more. If a piece of art appeals to me, then it appeals to me and if it doesn't, then it doesn't.
I'm with you as far as that movie is concerned. Gallery owners as a breed really put me off, too. They either fawn over you and kiss your ass (which is nice, but still off putting) or they have no time for your shitty work. I'm a huge advocate for finding what you like by looking at everything available.
I'm sure there are pieces of art that are technically complex that I can't really understand
Me too. Meta art and post modern interpretations can be extremely frustrating for even the most seasoned art critics, but often with a little leg work those art experiences can be really rewarding. BUt, that takes work, and pretty often I'm not really interested in doing the work necessary to have that experience, that's just because I'm lazy.
I'm a huge advocate for finding what you like by looking at everything available.
wait, isn't that what gallery owners and critics are for?
try this: "I'm a huge advocate for finding films you like by looking at everything available."
umm, probably not.
sure, the opportunity costs (per work) tend to be a lot higher in film watching than in art viewing, but....
wait, isn't that what gallery owners and critics are for?
Well, in one sense you are right, gallery owners and critics can narrow the available field for you, if you trust them. But, doc, gallery owners are primarily there to make money, to sell a product, enhance a buyers experience, and to pedigree artists / art until said buyer feels comfortable with the 'investment' they are about to make.
As for the movies, how can you know that you don't like romantic comedies if you've only seen the Wedding Planner ? Maybe advocating that anyone interested in expanding their interest in art see everything available is too much, but I do know that if you only go to the museum once you are far more likely to leave feeling like an outsider.
Gallery owners as a breed really put me off, too.
My own experience has born that sentiment out, meat (with, maybe, one or two exceptions.) A typical artist-gallery split is 50-50. Standard numbers. They also generally want an exclusive clause, too (which limits exposure), on top of that caveat. There's an often marked lack of promotion from these folks who've asked for exclusivity, too. Toss in a roster of artists that are lucky to get a show every two years. Well, the numbers get bleak.
Granted, I'm no master. Nor innovator. But I've got a lot of paintings hanging over prominent spaces because I'm "pretty good" at my craft. Hell, it's all I got... A gallery owner is responsible for less than two dozen of them. I've been decidedly DIY.
Nice work, RR.
Sounds like you had a great time, Rh_Ru! I know Sheenie has been excited for a few months that she's going to have some Neshek back in her life.
I tried to contact Neshek awhile back about being interviewed for a BKAC entry, but he never got back to me. If he happens to read this, the offer still stands.
Thanks Pat, for stopping by. We want to push the Neshek Button this year!!!!
Did you forget where you parked, RR?
I'll admit seeing "GARDENHIRE" across shoulders attached to a brown-haired head threw me for a second.
And a nice little detail in that Gardenhire Jr. picture -- the
SchweddySchweigert sign.Great stuff, Rhu_Ru. I hope Neshek knows how much we are all pulling for him.
At some point in my life I will see spring training baseball in person. Thanks for sharing, Rhu_Ru.
One of my New Year's resolutions - ok, my only resolution, since I am not ambitious - was to post more often than 3-4 times a year here. So far, meeting that goal. But gotta start somewhere, and RR's post did mess with my mind a bit.
I read quite literally the phrase "Neshek was signing autos..." Took me a second to realize what this actually meant, but for that moment I had visions of Neshek in the parking lot with a Sharpie, signing cars. How cool, I though, better than any bumper sticker ever (which is admittedly a low bar). Thought maybe it was a new trend that I'd missed hearing about...
Okay, a couple more photos, if I did this right:
Gardy: "Uh, what do you mean, 'I have this photo of you,' Matty?!"
Little Nicky wants to eat at the grown-ups' table.
This guy was pitching at the neighboring field; any idea who he is? Click on photo for larger image.
btw, I meant to mention that I've seen high schoolers that looked older than Danny Rams. Light Rail almost looks older.