Recently I was introduced in a public forum as a “Modern Artist”, that is an artist whose work was “Modern Art”.
As this was being said and of course, knowing it was not an accurate description and there was not enough following time to establish a correct oversight of my activities I opted for the “later” clearing of facts with the presenter host.
It’s an old issue, and certainly not in my case alone.
Although in my case, I am first of all not old enough (77) to be a contemporary of Pollack,Hoffman Newman, Rothko Smith etc. much less Mondrian, Glarner, Arp, Picasso, Monet or Manet.
No, I am not going to argue the point of beginning or the demise of what’s modern in contrast to “post-modern” but I do have to say I don’t have much faith in the postmodern position; and I am aware of the contention of Pop Art along with the rise of Warhol as being it’s start, at least in the vocabulary of artmaking in Western World culture. Otherwise, it seems all about French critical theory (1980,’s) of some sort, like a fellow in a kitchen in the Amazon attempting to describe Italian spaghetti
So, the question, where does that place me and having considered all this in prior identity encounters: ie. oh, you're one of those Light & Space guys from the West Coast, or you're a post Light & Space studio artist or an abstract illusionist, or.…even being introduced as an “artist” in semi-unfamiliar settings often produces the “well, I know all about you art guys, and so it starts in their heads all the preconceived stories, rumors, suspicions…My solution in the past has been to just ignore the ignorance, talk about the weather, movies , cars….etc.
Then one time it occurred to me, why not just play this against itself. How about giving myself an alternate self-reference. Thus I became a Visual Strategist. even had it printed on a business card.
It kills the usual nonsense and opens the door to questions instead of assumptions providing the opportunity to speak in regard to *art making” not personality explaining. and it’s a bit of fun.