It was great. There are many strong points, most of all I would like to highlight and compliment Paglen’s approach to theory. Being an intellectual, but an independent one. He saw that he wanted to use theory, but sought out his own arena and thinkers, ones who spoke to him, ones OUTSIDE the mandatory small circle of nihilistically-interpreted deconstructivists, those enforced by the academy.

I think even if geology doesn’t interest you as a model, this model of seeking one’s own philosphers, so to speak, is a fabulous one that should be encouraged in artists and art students, especially intellectually-oriented ones. It would be a GREAT model for teachers to follow. There are many many many creative, exciting thinkers out there in many fields, not just Derrida & Co. (although I love literary theory, but by many others). Good job, and good job on bringing that out Brian and Marc.

I thooughly enjoyed hearing about Conaway’s approach too — a kind of quasi-surrealist, critical-and-yet-embracing, process: find a, perhaps neglected, technical process and then lightly change some aspect of it until it becomes a startling artwork.

Both artists offer ways to extend and rediscover certain types of thought that appeared liberating in early Conceptual Art, yet were abandoned in favor of a very illustrational, closed-circle, ironic versions of Neo-Con. This is “conceptually based” art with an evocative and stimulating edge.

Old Holland

Holland Oats?

or Holland Tunnel?

Like Charles Wilson Peale, one of the first US painters and the founder of the first US museum (and one of the first museums in the world), you could name all your kids after famous painters. In your case, Dutch/Northern ones of course. Rembrandt Holland, Vermeer Holland, Van Eyck Holland, Van Gogh Holland, DeKooning Holland, Little Dutch Boy Paint Holland.