Space Jam 1996 - Gambia Castle, Awkland, New Zealand. 2009

The old days, second to last show I did at gambia. The title, including the '1996' had nothing to do with nothing or everything,  I was expressing my contempt for the process in which I could preconceive my work being used. Fodder for other peoples insecurities. Especially as here is the evidence, played out here in this 'review' of the work. The guy (who I have met, and is a nice person, just in my opinion has no manners online) has a teacher complex well invaded in the dictator fashion, insists that pseudonyms are dirty and certainly beneath him, go to hell this list of artists. So he deletes mine and others traceable contributions. A lot like Art NZ would like to continue to treat me. That's ok. I'll let my work speak for me. At the end of the day, I need them not.

I don't blame him for not finding much to write about, or writing about what he did. It was to be accused of some inane technicality,  of not producing any info about my work, when at this show was the launch of a 30,000 word essay on my work, in my book 'the new avant-garde'. That he clearly had an agenda and stuck to it is ok, but I'd rather that I hear that agenda openly debated rather than pretended that it didn't exist or that I was simply a sponge to soak up his negative blame worthy opponent vomit.

I don't usually engage writers to publicise their opinions of my work. I am sensitive to the short cutting that this does in terms of asserting value, the quotes, the name dropping. It's to easy. I enjoy the connections myself, enjoy if others see them and use them to create their own connections, but they are or are not there. Writing can destroy this exciting chance to discover.  All because the artist is a fat head who wants his desert.
 

Tao Wells: Space Jam 1996
A drawing and painting sale selected by Nick Austin
Gambia Castle
14 November - 28 November 2009

November is an interesting part of the art year calendar, with many of the main tertiary art institutions around the country briefly presenting public displays of their students’ work. Most of what is shown is invariably inconsequential, work made cloning their teachers or pages of international art mags, or a hybrid. Those few with any substance will become apparent in 3 - 4 years after their paper chase, when they develop strategies of survival, shake the teachers out of their hair, and find their own voices.

In Gambia Castle Tao Well’s show suggests the opposite process, as if his best work is the very early stuff, even before he went to university. Such a premise might be accurate - might even be obviously so if his practice in general is conspicuously unremarkable to start with.

So how can we be persuaded either way? No meritable quality, in my view, is apparent from just looking at the exhibition and unfortunately Nick Austin, the selector of the exhibited work, has no essay advocating its merits. Although he is not listed as curator (only ‘selector’), he is known as an eloquent verbaliser of ideas, one who is exceptionally articulate. A wasted opportunity.

Instead we have Dick Whyte (of Wayfarer Gallery) writing a little introductory text to the show. It is nicely written and in three sections.

The first starts with: Tao Wells is a terrible artist. But he is a good person. This writer is impressively candid it seems, although perhaps too generous about the artist’s personality. Whyte then distinguishes between moral behaviour (externally imposed codes, as with legal or religious injunctions) and ethical (internal and from reflection).

In the second paragraph he puts forward a second definition of ethics in which “we must become adept at talking with ourselves. We are always two, rather than one.” He wants to lead the discussion to the possibility in the third section that Tao Wells is both a terrible artist and a terrific artist. However I can't get that far. For a start I have problems with his use of the word must.

Amongst his many attacks on the notion of prescriptive moral rightness and attempts to systematically provide criteria for it, the British philosopher Bernard Williams claimed that ethical conviction about what one ought to do is not actually a kind of decision (not from a group or from the individual concerned): Ethical conviction, like any other form of being convinced, must have some aspect of passivity to it, must in a sense come to you. (Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, p.169). However this conviction ends up being mixed in with reflection, discussion and theorising to form the individual’s ethical norms.

In other words, one might as well stick with the ‘one mind’ idea that Tao Wells is simply just a terrible artist, especially as there is no articulated evidence here by his Gambia colleagues (or Wellington dealer, Whyte) to counter that, let alone claim he is a ‘terrific artist’ as well or instead. If they are convinced there are arguments for the latter, it might be a good idea for them to elucidate them.

bumber Sticker 1.

Ratings while participating in the public debate on Suicide.

◦ Suzy says: 
February 26, 2014 at 2:10 pm 


Thank you for writing this Martyn. As someone who knows about the hate of anonymous bullies online and offline, due to being on TV and also left NZ because of anxiety due to the scrutiny I received.
I was mortified to read Deborah’s article.
How can anyone know what another human being is feeling.
If it wasn’t for my family…I wouldn’t be here, life got pretty dark.
Charlotte was an inspiration to me and now she is gone.
Please leave her alone if you have nothing nice to say.
I have my own mantra ‘ It is hard enough to SURVIVE in this life let alone SUCEED….so please be kind!!
Writng this makes me feel hugely anxious as I hate blogs…but I need to do it for Charlotte.
To shine in this dark world….is becoming very very hard 


Rating: +13 (from 13 votes)




 3.

Frank Macskasy says: 
February 25, 2014 at 10:14 am 


Insightful, Martyn.



Rating: +15 (from 17 votes)




 4.

 Rahderah says: 
February 25, 2014 at 10:24 am 


Yeah, well said. She’s pushed the movement backwards on understanding Mental Health and suicide prevention. 
Not only that, she admits she didn’t know her and yet assumes vanity caused Charlotte to kill herself, not depression.
I’d suggest that Miss Dawson had far more playing on her mind for a very very long time.
DHC has scored her own “controversial opinion” goal, proving why CD said she’d left NZ’s vicious media. 
I hope young Lorde has her eyes wide open – I doubt DHC will care the hurt she has caused if she wrote it in the first place. 
However – If she had the balls.. she would apologise to Charlotte’s family and friends and also to those suffering mental health issues for trivialising their very real deep and dark pain.
The saddest thing is had CD known DHC’s own battles with depression, she’d have cared and reached out.
Revolting tabloid crap from the writer and shame, shame, on the editor for allowing the publication, less than 48 hours after her passing. 
Really, If this is the standard now at the herald, then they no longer have standards in my eyes.
I will not read that publication ever again, let alone part with my money to buy it.



Rating: +46 (from 48 votes)






◦ Barbara says: 
February 25, 2014 at 2:50 pm 


I agree. This article by DHC, is disgraceful. Nasty. Pointless & cruel.
I too will follow suit & cancel my subscription.



Rating: +25 (from 27 votes)




 5.

Tao Wells says: 
February 25, 2014 at 10:27 am


I couldn’t disagree with you more. I though the writer was clearly coming from her own perspective and experience with the issues and the fact that she has done so, so personally seems to be her crime. A kind of macho reserved only for men, and only for issues deemed appropriate by Men, the good priests presiding over taste and morality and the expense of an honest heart filled awkward communication. I suggest that if you have to lie, cover up the truth and all it’s splendid colors to have your “dignity in death” you (us) may be more of the problem than appreciated.



Rating: -37 (from 47 votes)






◦ Frank Macskasy says: 
February 25, 2014 at 12:40 pm 


Tao – Cone may have been “coming from her own perspective and experience” – but she was clearly using the death of another human human to make whatever point she was trying to make.
I found Cone’s piece revolting and whatever message she was trying to convey was lost in her cynicism and judgementalism.



Rating: +33 (from 39 votes)






 ◦ Tao Wells says: 
February 25, 2014 at 12:51 pm

 
I guess there are just a few people like myself who view capitalism as a major factor in the creation and maintenance of depression. And that celebrities be it All Blacks or Super Models are at best poor spokespersons for this, precisely because of how they represent such a narrow definition of what it is to be ‘successful” in the first place. i understand that Deborah Hill article is upsetting, I just don’t feel you are up set about what is upsetting. Capitalism sucks.



Rating: -7 (from 19 votes)






▪ Catherine says: 
February 25, 2014 at 10:13 pm 


I have to disagree with you Tao Wells about celebrities being poor spokespeople for depression. Having suffered from it myself, mental illness has a huge stigma to it. Had I seen John Kirwan’s advert about depression when I went through it I probably would have sought help earlier, instead of wanting to keep it to myself. It was incredibly humbling to realise that depression can affect anyone, anytime, at any age.
Lack of “success” or aging was not the basis for my depression and I believe Martyn’s point is we cannot assume what Charlotte was going through. Ms Cone’s article was arrogant and as Jennifer said, “full of guesswork”.



Rating: +14 (from 16 votes)






▪ Tao Wells says: 
February 26, 2014 at 9:27 pm

 
in my opinion she wrote directly to this public idea of CD, and about the limited social roles older woman face as a woman aging herself. 
The role media and celebrity have in this is secondary, as in if we as a community celebrated older woman, for qualities other than their looks and not necessarily their smarts (the big two on offer) then perhaps “stars” would follow. But this is unlikely to happen. 
I’m glad a lack of capitalism’s “success” was not a factor in your depression, I wonder what the national stats on that are? How many people have depression, because for some part they don’t share the values espoused by the dominating culture. What are the rates for mental health issues with indigenous people any way?



Rating: +1 (from 5 votes)






◦ Jennifer says: 
February 25, 2014 at 1:03 pm 


Tao Wells – I think the problem is not that Ms Cone Hill didn’t “cover up the truth”, it’s that she wrote an opinion piece, full of guesswork and innuendo, about a woman she never met, who can no longer reply on her own behalf. Poor “journalism”, poor ethics, poor humanity. THAT’s what’s got so many people upset.
The issue of women feeling invisible as they age is a valid one, but a. we don’t know if that was a factor here and b. Ms Cone Hill has addressed it dismally, at best.



Rating: +37 (from 41 votes)






 ▪ Jennifer says: 
February 25, 2014 at 1:35 pm 


And yes, I realise I got her surnames the wrong way round. Not deliberate!



Rating: +5 (from 7 votes)






▪ Tao Wells says: 
February 26, 2014 at 9:38 pm


I agree that there were many lines that were in bad taste, but I could also recognize that as a piece of writing those lines were to me, a way to prepare the more difficult, harder things for herself to say, about the role of older woman in society, a role that I felt she was occupying herself. yes I think we all see that the writer is capable of being nasty, has been before. But critical about capitalism, and the doctrine of the free market society, I think that was very very hard to admit.



Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)






 ◦ Lowana Koroibola says: 
February 26, 2014 at 3:37 am 


There are no truths or “splendid colours” in labeling a dead woman who can no longer defend herself an ageing beauty who couldn’t handle no longer being in the spotlight. To write “she’s dead and I’m alive” shows a trite arrogance, as though Charlotte’s death was a victory for Deborah. Deborah Hill Cone has just taken mental health awareness back 10 years and I cannot believe the NZ Herald ran this article.



Rating: +10 (from 12 votes)






◦ Ross Forbes says: 
February 26, 2014 at 6:36 pm 


Thanks Tao….we are on the same page on this one….although we may be a minority of two judging from the number of negative replies I received elsewhere on facebook when i said something similar to you. I wrote as someone who has had a personal experience of suicide as my then partner of 8 years took her life totally unexpectedly one christmas day. I did not find Cones remarks disrespectful of the victim at all….she bought up some very interesting points about women and the “brutality” of aging. The point of her article was that women who have relied on their sexual capital…[or from a feminist perspective have been denied access to a self that isn't an object of mens sexual desire]…have to devise a strategy for the transition to middleage. She cynically describes how some women may seek this in the arts by becoming writers or artists and thus replace their sexual status with a cultural status. Although this is a cynical position it does ring true to me. Men and women are status seeking beings…I do not think her article bolsters or supports a culture that devalues women….I just think she is articulating the everyday thoughts of many women in their forties and she should be encouraged to do so…..not attacked by people who mistake personal commentary on a celebrity’s death for self agrandisment



Rating: +2 (from 8 votes)






▪ Tao Wells says: 
February 26, 2014 at 9:09 pm

 
thanks Ross Forbes, I appreciate your words. I think it is clear that there is an enormous pool of grief that is being tapped here, and being the flip side some what of anger, there is enormous potential for a mob like mentality to be lead further down the garden path. I ‘m not sure, but initial reports on the new anti bullying law being promoted in CD’s memory is exactly the kind of mass manipulation of public misery that capitalism’s leaders are more that prepared to take advantage of. In the name of internet “security” watch internet “freedom” disappear. Bullying however will continue unaddressed. As to do that, you’d have to start at the top. Where bully’s are collectively rewarded, by us. Bit of a pickle. hence the grief.



Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)




see more article at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/02/25/a-brief-word-on-deborah-hill-cone-charlotte-dawson/

Important News for All Activists Artists Mouth Breathers

Who's Counting? Marilyn Waring on Sex, Lies and Global Economics

Who's Counting? Marilyn Waring on Sex, Lies and Global Economics by Terre Nash, National Film Board of Canada

Helmets = fewer cyclists = more danger

There's an important caveat to the results of that 1989 New England medical study: Bike helmets may reduce the risk of head and brain injury by 85-88%—but only for those who get into accidents.

If we take a closer look at the article we see that both the experiment and the control groups studied are those who have already been hospitalized for bike injuries. If one were to examine the medical and epidemiological literature on bike helmet effectiveness, you'll find the exact same condition over and over: Studies show that helmeted cyclists who are hospitalized are far less likely to have serious head trauma than bare-headed cyclists that have been hospitalized.

But wouldn't this be true, regardless of the activity? Logically, helmeted drivers should also receive significantly fewer head injuries than bare-headed drivers. Similarly, helmeted pedestrians should be less likely to receive serious head trauma than bare-headed ones.

This doesn't mean that biking without a helmet is safer than driving without one. Rather, it helps to explain why there is no comparable fear of driving (or walking) without a helmet.

How bike helmets may be harmful

But say you are someone who is concerned enough about head injury to wear a helmet while you're driving or while walking down the street. Is there an argument that says that wearing a helmet actually increases risk of injury?

Turns out that there is. There is some evidence that wearing a helmet may directly increase your chance of getting injured in the first place. In 2001, an article in the New York Times reported that the rate of bicycle head injuries had risen sharply — an increase of 51% — during a ten-year period when bicycle helmet use became widespread. This during a time when statistics showed an overall decrease in bicycling in the United States. No one knows for sure why head injuries among cyclists increased, but there are a few theories.

First, wearing a helmet changes how drivers perceive the cyclist. A University of Bath study showed that drivers, when overtaking cyclists, gave helmeted cyclists significantly less space than they gave cyclists who don't wear head protection. The study found that drivers were twice as likely to pass closely to a helmeted cyclist, and that drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer when the researcher was helmeted than when he was not. Not only does this increase the chance of being clipped by a vehicle, it leaves cyclists with far less maneuvering room to avoid other potentially injurious road hazards like potholes and icy patches.

Second, the design of the helmets themselves may increase the chance of some types of injuries when incidents do occur. Three separate studies have shown that bike helmets may increase the probability of certain types of neck injuries. There's some evidence that having an enlarged piece of plastic and foam on your head increases the probability of hitting an object that you'd be able to avoid in the first place, or that otherwise glancing contact with a surface becomes a full-on blow when the head is helmeted.

Finally, wearing a helmet may create a false sense of security and induce risk-taking that cyclists without head protection might not make. Those wearing helmets may take risks that they wouldn't otherwise take without head protection.

There are even some startling statistics that show helmets may have little to negative effects on the incidence of head injuries outside of the cycling world as well. A recent study from the National Ski Areas Association found that, despite a tripling of helmet use among skiers and snowboarders in the United States since 2003, there has been no reduction in the number of snow-sport related fatalities or brain injuries. On the contrary, and 2012 study at the Western Michigan University School of Medicine found an increase in head injuries between 2004 and 2010 despite an increase in helmet use, while a 2013 University of Washington study concluded that snow-sports related head injuries among youths and adolescents increased 250 percent from 1996-2010, a timeframe that also coincides with the increased use of head protection.

Helmets = fewer cyclists = more danger

So as much as helmets decrease the chance of head injury when you get into an accident, they may actually increase your chance of getting into an injury in the first place.

There is another significant way that the use of helmets harm cyclists: Bike helmets discourage cycling. An Australian study on mandatory helmet laws concluded that laws that required cyclists to wear head protection actually decreased the number of cyclists on the road. The implication of this study? The fewer cyclists on the road, the less likely drivers will be accustomed to sharing road space with cyclists, ultimately increasing the hazards faced by cyclists and further dissuading people from hopping on their bikes. 

As an environmentalist, this is very troubling. To improve public health and the environment, we need to do the exact opposite. People should be encouraged to take a quick bike ride, not the other way around. Unfortunately our society has conditioned cyclists to feel unsafe without a helmet, even though wearing one might actually increase the chance of a collision with a vehicle; and even though other activities capable of inflicting serious head wounds are enjoyed bare-headed without stigma.

The ultimate way to make cycling safe is to promote a culture of cycling, not bike helmet use. Helmet use is very uncommon in bike-friendly cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam, where cyclists have been socialized to see cycling as a safe activity. In order to promote the same culture here, we need to encourage people who don't bike that they should give it a try. If biking without a helmet can help with that, then great. Especially since it's not conclusive that cycling with a helmet reduces your chance of getting injured.

If there was conclusive proof that bike helmets reduce the total number of serious head injuries compared to other normal activities, then I'd reconsider my stance. But if I'm not the kind of person who wears a helmet when I take a walk or get behind the wheel of a car, then there's no logic to me wearing one when I'm on a bike, particularly if I'm confident in my urban bike safety ability.

Meanwhile the proof is pretty strong that vehicles give me more space when I'm biking without a helmet. In a city biking, that's the kind of injury I'm most concerned about. And I want to encourage more people to get on their bicycles, because the more cyclists out on the road, the safer I'll be.

Says Chris Bruntlett in Hush Magazine:

... it is hard to overstate how our unnatural obsession with head protection is stifling the growth of our bicycle culture. It achieves little, except deterring the most casual cyclists, who also happen to be the slowest and safest ones on the road

Link to actual Article