I got the idea of doing an open call from a show I was in while living in NY in 1992 called The 1.5 Show, at the Tribeca 148 Gallery. They handed you a hammer and you actually hung your own work where ever there was room. It had a lot more work than either Copy or Sage and was even more diverse.

Of the 48 artists in Dragnet I would guess that at least 12 were recent graduates of Temple or Tyler, I spoke with one tonight about it. I think a minority do fit into what you are saying about not embracing the mainstream, but some do so consciously and some not. The point is that it is very hard to generalize with the people that came in, there were a multitude of individuals, all very different from one another in age, ethnic background, education etc. That was the point and that made the show a success in our eyes. There we threads as you wrote and we of course looked for that when we designed the installation.

People like Cornell lived hermetic lives and it came through in their art and it is very well respected today. Rousseau was ridiculed by Picasso and friends and both were very well aware of what was going on around them. I think good art can come from anyplace, that it is the rare individual for very complex reason that makes work that is a cut above the rest.

But I do question the legitimacy of those who are aware of art historical trends and hold onto them long after they ran their course or just jump on the bandwagon. It is too easy and doesn’t add to the conversation. This includes graffiti, pop, low brow, decorative, hard edge abstraction, surrealism, cubism? etc. etc. Everything comes from someplace and new work will likely have elements of work that has come before us. But let’s see something different, and new, and great, whether it comes from expected or unexpected places.

Dragnet had an outsider tone, as if many of these artists weren’t looking at the work being made today by full-time artists or in more popular forms of our visual culture. What I myself am looking for is work that reflects both those threads, without losing sight of the art historical past. In other words, it can be graffiti, or cartoon or illustration or video or whatever. Any genre will do, so long as it reflects the world in which we live today, so long as it doesn’t feel hermetic and passe but rather aware of the visual culture in which we are all immersed.

But I’m interested here in hearing other points of view, your own included.

The show is up until 8pm tonight so go see it for yourself. I should state for the record that I was involved in organizing Dragnet.

I think the word “crowd” is a really bad one in the context of an all inclusive, open call exhibition. Crowd hints at clique or an organized group of some sort and that is the opposite of what was our intention or what we got.

I think the more interesting point is Libby’s about 21 century art. I would have to say that Philadelphia on the whole lacks in presenting cutting edge work. There are too few venues to show “new” work and just because work is made by young artists or shown at collectives doesn’t mean it is 21st century. Just because it is a cartoon or a video doesn’t make it 21st century. Is graffiti art still cutting edge or pop based work 21st century? Or is it that work that is trendy or popular is 21st century? How about outsider art?

I think that a broad topic like where Philadelphia stands when it comes to cutting edge work would make an interesting piece to publish on artblog, especially in light of the new season starting up in September.