It says Art In America; well, why isn’t it then?
Dear Betsy Baker;
We need to talk: Your esteemed magazine Art In America is not holding up its end of a bargain – one described by its very name. And what I am talking about is how Art In America covers and has covered the Chicago art world. I’m wanting to discuss the last two decades worth of utterly and appallingly incompetent, dull!, pedestrian at best, writing, - accompanying what amounts to just pitiful to the point of being completely awful coverage inflicted upon us artists here in Chicago by the at best laughable (why isn’t he busy being principal at some junior high school?) -Victor Cassidy (more on this imbecile in a minute,) and the apparently comatose purveyor of smart set status quo bland –Susan Snodgrass… (why is it, with Susan you just know things aren’t going to end well?-) or in her particular case, begin well, or be well in the middle, or anywhere else in between -no matter what the situation or circumstance is or what is being discussed …..I mean, sheeeesh! Can art writing possibly be anymore tired or tedious than this by-the-numbers fluff? -Wait! That’s ok, I don’t really want to know-
Betsy with all due respect, where did you find these people, and why is it that I am apparently the first person to write to you –considering and concerning the low regard that both of these writers are held in here? Would a petition signed by any number of very serious people in the art world here be of any help in affecting change? Something’s got to give. Chicago and Art In America both deserve better!
Look, I hear you are kind of great, an irascible. Well, good –then understand me when I tell you that your average Chicago artist is afraid of his or her own shadow, daring not to speak out for fear of alienating people that ironically enough, will never help then anyway. Pathetic and sad, it’s all too true. Consider it a mindset of conformity, a societal form of cowardice, or more benignly, simply a matter of conditioning; for instance, artists here actually tolerate and take seriously a confederacy of dunces –masquerading as critics, known as (if this sounds too stupid to be true, sit down, and believe me, unfortunately it isn’t! -and they, word has it, think its quite clever,) ‘CACA’ –as in 'poopy caca ' apparently, referencing some form of scatological regression … Chicago Area Critics Association…I know, someone quick, give me a gun! Let me shoot these idiots and put them out of our misery…wait a minute...guns....fins....well I'm guessing that won't be possible -oh hell!, -just bring them out to the Farallons, dump them overboard, and clang the dinner bell, we'll figure out something! A sensibility not unlike what comes to mind when I open up Art In America to find another meaningless and insipid Susan Snodgrass art tourist piece; as I’m perusing the title of the article, ‘Window Of Opportunity,’ ….what comes to mind is something like; is there a cliff on the other side of that window, and is she standing anywhere near it? Just kidding! –But what I’m deadly serious about is the harm these people’s complacency and sheer incompetence has visited upon the whole art scene here.
Betsy hello! Your coverage of Chicago amounts to no more than a completely sad joke! Look, if I was to base my understanding of the Chicago art world on what I could glean from Susan Snodgrass's slanted, politically correct (-in terms of her kowtowing to the conceptual crowd so ensconsed in academia/careerism here) -mouthpiece style criticism, I would probably offer Chicago the level of coverage you now do. But, BUT! this is a false premise based upon politics and the ambitions of a few..... we actually have a very complex, interesting art scene here -or at least the beginnings of one; –and yet, and probably in part because of people like Victor and Susan, people perceive Chicago as the Imagists followed by this conceptual conformist international wannabe crowd- who are by now all comfortably enconsed in several art departments around town, trying their damndest to cling to power. Bottom line, this is a great, interesting, diificult city, one of the best around -with better art and artists than your people write about! The proof in what I am saying is, in the work of all those frozen out of your pages, artist here working on a level commenserate with anything going on in New York, and yet, trying to negotiate and deal with the fact that we have approximately the same amount of and definitely the same quality of coverage as does Boise Idaho. I ask, how can this be?
Victor is a member of ‘CACA’ Susan is not. But my point is that neither one of them would be welcome for instance, here on sharkforum. Why? Because neither one of them is good enough! –Victor Cassidy is simply an embarrassment – in fact even The Shark feels guilty taking a chomp out of someone this utterly clueless. Susan is, whether cognizant by design or not, a defender of the status quo –the same academic junk that’s been trotted out here for years –work that has with one or two exceptions for the most part already been ho-hummed and discredited on both coasts. Believe me Betsy, your writer is the only person besides the 29 artists /usual suspects and their students who found ‘Takeover’ at Hyde Park Art Center even marginally interesting. Most people considered it tired, the same old shit –and I for one thought the choice of painters was as dull and insipid as the work itself. We need some decent critics -people capable of thinking for themselves! Writers who ask why we are once more being made to look at the same bad color field paintings, the same small group of academics, that no one cares about over and over again –and now as evidenced in Takeover, add a few heaping tablespoons of saccaharine speciousness, we get to see their student’s amazingly dumbed-down version of the same mediocre blandness…with your supposed critic being led along right by the nose, unable or unwilling to imagine there might be something better to write about…With Susan, Betsy, she is either buying into whatever is being presented by institutions/the people that run them she feels cozy with –or she’s getting down and dirty cruising those ’raw’ storefront galleries, bravely negotiating her way over that homeless person asleep in the entrance way to get at that ‘edgy, emerging’…….what usually amounts to a whole lot of incompetent, student grade junk…or as I like to call it, ‘new institutional product’….her reportage of what is actually happening here in professional studios hovers right around zero.
It says Art In America; well, why isn’t it then?
Let me be specific: when was the last serious coverage Art In America did on a Chicago based image maker? I will shoot from the hip and hazard a guess that it was NY city writer Faye Hirsh’s excellent piece on Tony Fitzpatrick –no doubt precipitated at least in part not only by Tony’s fine work but by the acclaim he has deservedly received –New York Times main review Roberta Smith –MOMA –purchase – etc …do you think either of your people here would have written about Tony under their own volition? ...Not a rat’s chance in hell! Has he shown here? You bet! Extensively! But Tony is not party line, not a member of the ‘smart set’…. I’m betting neither of your writers here have ever even been to his studio.
Victor Cassidy: I’m sending you a copy of the Chicago Reader where Victor wrote a letter to the editor calling into question the Readers professionalism, claiming I was ‘using them,’ asking why they didn’t check their fact clips. Victor Cassidy claimed that a few years ago I had left Chicago in a huff for LA only to return, 18 months later tail between my legs…Victor also claimed the Reader had written about my leaving…hmmmmmm…lets see: The Chicago Reader did a cover story on me in 1998; though nothing there about a pending move to the west coast…ooooops!.…you see Betsy, Victor was only off by two decades as to precisely when I did move to Los Angeles - in1987 by the way. –I will send along with Victor’s letter, my published response. Also, I will send along an LA WEEKLY pick of the week –concerning one of two virtually sold out exhibitions I did at LA Louver in the 5 years I resided in Los Angeles. Apparently my receiving only one pick of the week was the cause of my returning to Chicago with my tail between my legs in Victor’s small little mind…My point is Victor Cassidy wrote a big long letter criticizing The Reader’s professionalism, when he NEVER CHECKED HIS OWN SUPPOSED FACTS –‘facts’ that when not completely false, (he must have decided at some point to just 'wing it' and make this stuff up as he went along) weren’t off by a month or a year or even two years–but TWO DECADES?!! –I mean, how mind-numbingly dumb can this guy possibly be? This mental giant, sporting his 20watt bulb is what you have writing for you, representing Art In America here in Chicago.
Susan Snodgrass: shall I begin by pointing out that her comments about Paul Klein and the Chicago Art Project are way out of date and just flat-out wrong? I mean why bother to print this crap if its not going to in some way be based upon what is happening down here in the world of concrete reality? Chicago Art Project –originally called Chicago Art Foundation was begun by Tony Fitzpatrick and me. Enter Paul Klein who then attempted a traditional museum, which did not work out. And which I might add, I was always dead set against -to the point of leaving the project during the time when a traditional space was the objective. All plans for a museum have subsequently been shelved. Tony and I are back in charge of the project with Paul Klein assisting. There is a project in the works having nothing to do with building a museum that we will unveil when the time comes. One phone call to any of us from your writer over the last 4-5 months would have averted this error of complacency and just plain laziness.
I could go on but why bother? Her dismissal of the MCA’s program while hailing the fundraiser/curator lite entity known as James Rondeau is par for the course. Believe me Betsy, an actual look into The Art Institutes collecting habits –the suburbanite art mavens collectors group led by one Deborah Lovely that fauns over ‘James’ with their jet setting junkets to go do lunch with‘Go Go’ and the likes would make for some scintillating reading- especially when considering most of them wouldn’t be caught dead going to acquisition something from a Chicago artist. When Robb Storr was here he asked why there wasn’t a Jim Nutt up at the Institute –in fact he said he felt it was criminal there wasn’t. If I ever meet Mr. Storr I will tell him why there isn’t a Jim Nutt –its simple; Judith Kirchner (dean UIC) didn’t tell James Rondeau it would be ok to have one –I mean, Jim’s not part of the smart set here. He simply isn’t hip or groovy enough. Perhaps just maybe, if Susan wasn’t so busy ingratiating herself with people she deems important, playing smoochie smooch with the behinds of the powers that be, she could actually take the side of an artist on occasion and ask a real question every once in awhile….
The main thing wrong with the Susan Snodgrass’ annual corporate business section/ dry, dull, colossal snooze, is that it is so out of touch with what is being discussed in the art world here, so alien to what and how artists and the art world here needs to be represented in your magazine. DEAD IN THE WATER! And I even like things that are dead, floating around, getting ripe and rancid! But not this boring to the point of tears, institutional and partisan, art tourist drivel, not when that is all Art In America has to offer Chicago… Two years ago The Aon Tower –directly across from the Gehry Bandshell rehabbed their first floor as a way of being part of Millenium Park: Jaunme Plensa did an installation in one half of the lobby –I did the largest painting installation in Chicago in the other half, the only Chicago artist even peripherally involved with Millenium Park: did I even think for a moment one of these two…’writers’ would even go there to look? Of course not! I’m not part of the ‘smart crew’ nor, am I James Turrell with that kind of name recognition. Do I care? Not as much as you might think –I’m actually quite beyond wanting anything these people have to offer. I’m way more interested in simple vengeance than anything else at this juncture.
Sharkforum.org Betsy –600,000 hits last month- 65,000 pages read … BAS –bad at sports pod casting -take a look at their roster of interviews…/ iconoduel / Lumpen / artoridiocy...all the events theatrical/art/music emanating from my studio –and from others – from Big Cat Press, the cross-pollination of interdisciplinary happenings going on here with visual art, poetry, theatre and music -this is what we are all thinking about – this is what art here in America actually consists of–nowhere to be found or anywhere in evidence in Susan’s, sterile, bland attempt at living the dream of writing for Business Week.
I’m sending you several articles by Kevin Nance –the exciting new art and architecture critic/editor at the Chicago Sun Times…Kevin’s pick of the year was one of two shows he singled out for excellence coming from the Museum Of Contemporary Art. The group drawing exhibition, Lynne Warren Curator, was titled Drawn Into The World and was the talk of the town with everyone apparently except your sleepy writers. Believe me Betsy a lot more people went to see and discuss this exhibition than that lame Takeover exhibition down in Hyde Park. A whole lot more people were interested in the Chris Ware show that Lynne Warren also curated and, that Susan once again passes over in silence….I’m also sending you articles Kevin did on Tony Fitzpatrick, myself, and Nick Cave -my point being –why don’t you have a real professional writer like this doing the Chicago beat for Art In America? Betsy, it would be MARVELOUS. If you are going to call it Art In America –I happen to feel that comes with some sense of obligation to artists in America –a writer like Kevin would go a long way towards fulfilling that.
I’m quite sure you will hear from any number of pundits about that horrible Wesley Kimler Shark guy –how mean and awful he is…what can I say? I’m sure it’s all true ... and so what and who really cares? - Just say the word Betsy and I will gladly take time away from my busy studio and go get you a petition for change; for removal of both Victor Cassidy and Susan Snodgrass from the pages of Art In America. I feel confident that the list I will bring you will be comprehensive, will include people from all walks of the art scene here, will be long and weighted with names both recognizable and not.
Ms Baker, there is so much to like about Art In America. Your David Smith cover piece of a few months ago was completely great in keeping with a tradition of fine, accessible art writing. But times are changing! We all want Art In America to remain relevant! But truly, this cannot go on. When considering all the new media, with this kind of coverage you endanger your reader base. Please consider the idea of terminating both Victor Cassidy and Susan Snodgrass from your editors list and replacing them with someone confortable with Art In America's reader friendly style but also, someone who shows some evidence of possessing an actual pulse.
Cordially,
Wesley Kimler, aka The Shark
We need to talk: Your esteemed magazine Art In America is not holding up its end of a bargain – one described by its very name. And what I am talking about is how Art In America covers and has covered the Chicago art world. I’m wanting to discuss the last two decades worth of utterly and appallingly incompetent, dull!, pedestrian at best, writing, - accompanying what amounts to just pitiful to the point of being completely awful coverage inflicted upon us artists here in Chicago by the at best laughable (why isn’t he busy being principal at some junior high school?) -Victor Cassidy (more on this imbecile in a minute,) and the apparently comatose purveyor of smart set status quo bland –Susan Snodgrass… (why is it, with Susan you just know things aren’t going to end well?-) or in her particular case, begin well, or be well in the middle, or anywhere else in between -no matter what the situation or circumstance is or what is being discussed …..I mean, sheeeesh! Can art writing possibly be anymore tired or tedious than this by-the-numbers fluff? -Wait! That’s ok, I don’t really want to know-
Betsy with all due respect, where did you find these people, and why is it that I am apparently the first person to write to you –considering and concerning the low regard that both of these writers are held in here? Would a petition signed by any number of very serious people in the art world here be of any help in affecting change? Something’s got to give. Chicago and Art In America both deserve better!
Look, I hear you are kind of great, an irascible. Well, good –then understand me when I tell you that your average Chicago artist is afraid of his or her own shadow, daring not to speak out for fear of alienating people that ironically enough, will never help then anyway. Pathetic and sad, it’s all too true. Consider it a mindset of conformity, a societal form of cowardice, or more benignly, simply a matter of conditioning; for instance, artists here actually tolerate and take seriously a confederacy of dunces –masquerading as critics, known as (if this sounds too stupid to be true, sit down, and believe me, unfortunately it isn’t! -and they, word has it, think its quite clever,) ‘CACA’ –as in 'poopy caca ' apparently, referencing some form of scatological regression … Chicago Area Critics Association…I know, someone quick, give me a gun! Let me shoot these idiots and put them out of our misery…wait a minute...guns....fins....well I'm guessing that won't be possible -oh hell!, -just bring them out to the Farallons, dump them overboard, and clang the dinner bell, we'll figure out something! A sensibility not unlike what comes to mind when I open up Art In America to find another meaningless and insipid Susan Snodgrass art tourist piece; as I’m perusing the title of the article, ‘Window Of Opportunity,’ ….what comes to mind is something like; is there a cliff on the other side of that window, and is she standing anywhere near it? Just kidding! –But what I’m deadly serious about is the harm these people’s complacency and sheer incompetence has visited upon the whole art scene here.
Betsy hello! Your coverage of Chicago amounts to no more than a completely sad joke! Look, if I was to base my understanding of the Chicago art world on what I could glean from Susan Snodgrass's slanted, politically correct (-in terms of her kowtowing to the conceptual crowd so ensconsed in academia/careerism here) -mouthpiece style criticism, I would probably offer Chicago the level of coverage you now do. But, BUT! this is a false premise based upon politics and the ambitions of a few..... we actually have a very complex, interesting art scene here -or at least the beginnings of one; –and yet, and probably in part because of people like Victor and Susan, people perceive Chicago as the Imagists followed by this conceptual conformist international wannabe crowd- who are by now all comfortably enconsed in several art departments around town, trying their damndest to cling to power. Bottom line, this is a great, interesting, diificult city, one of the best around -with better art and artists than your people write about! The proof in what I am saying is, in the work of all those frozen out of your pages, artist here working on a level commenserate with anything going on in New York, and yet, trying to negotiate and deal with the fact that we have approximately the same amount of and definitely the same quality of coverage as does Boise Idaho. I ask, how can this be?
Victor is a member of ‘CACA’ Susan is not. But my point is that neither one of them would be welcome for instance, here on sharkforum. Why? Because neither one of them is good enough! –Victor Cassidy is simply an embarrassment – in fact even The Shark feels guilty taking a chomp out of someone this utterly clueless. Susan is, whether cognizant by design or not, a defender of the status quo –the same academic junk that’s been trotted out here for years –work that has with one or two exceptions for the most part already been ho-hummed and discredited on both coasts. Believe me Betsy, your writer is the only person besides the 29 artists /usual suspects and their students who found ‘Takeover’ at Hyde Park Art Center even marginally interesting. Most people considered it tired, the same old shit –and I for one thought the choice of painters was as dull and insipid as the work itself. We need some decent critics -people capable of thinking for themselves! Writers who ask why we are once more being made to look at the same bad color field paintings, the same small group of academics, that no one cares about over and over again –and now as evidenced in Takeover, add a few heaping tablespoons of saccaharine speciousness, we get to see their student’s amazingly dumbed-down version of the same mediocre blandness…with your supposed critic being led along right by the nose, unable or unwilling to imagine there might be something better to write about…With Susan, Betsy, she is either buying into whatever is being presented by institutions/the people that run them she feels cozy with –or she’s getting down and dirty cruising those ’raw’ storefront galleries, bravely negotiating her way over that homeless person asleep in the entrance way to get at that ‘edgy, emerging’…….what usually amounts to a whole lot of incompetent, student grade junk…or as I like to call it, ‘new institutional product’….her reportage of what is actually happening here in professional studios hovers right around zero.
It says Art In America; well, why isn’t it then?
Let me be specific: when was the last serious coverage Art In America did on a Chicago based image maker? I will shoot from the hip and hazard a guess that it was NY city writer Faye Hirsh’s excellent piece on Tony Fitzpatrick –no doubt precipitated at least in part not only by Tony’s fine work but by the acclaim he has deservedly received –New York Times main review Roberta Smith –MOMA –purchase – etc …do you think either of your people here would have written about Tony under their own volition? ...Not a rat’s chance in hell! Has he shown here? You bet! Extensively! But Tony is not party line, not a member of the ‘smart set’…. I’m betting neither of your writers here have ever even been to his studio.
Victor Cassidy: I’m sending you a copy of the Chicago Reader where Victor wrote a letter to the editor calling into question the Readers professionalism, claiming I was ‘using them,’ asking why they didn’t check their fact clips. Victor Cassidy claimed that a few years ago I had left Chicago in a huff for LA only to return, 18 months later tail between my legs…Victor also claimed the Reader had written about my leaving…hmmmmmm…lets see: The Chicago Reader did a cover story on me in 1998; though nothing there about a pending move to the west coast…ooooops!.…you see Betsy, Victor was only off by two decades as to precisely when I did move to Los Angeles - in1987 by the way. –I will send along with Victor’s letter, my published response. Also, I will send along an LA WEEKLY pick of the week –concerning one of two virtually sold out exhibitions I did at LA Louver in the 5 years I resided in Los Angeles. Apparently my receiving only one pick of the week was the cause of my returning to Chicago with my tail between my legs in Victor’s small little mind…My point is Victor Cassidy wrote a big long letter criticizing The Reader’s professionalism, when he NEVER CHECKED HIS OWN SUPPOSED FACTS –‘facts’ that when not completely false, (he must have decided at some point to just 'wing it' and make this stuff up as he went along) weren’t off by a month or a year or even two years–but TWO DECADES?!! –I mean, how mind-numbingly dumb can this guy possibly be? This mental giant, sporting his 20watt bulb is what you have writing for you, representing Art In America here in Chicago.
Susan Snodgrass: shall I begin by pointing out that her comments about Paul Klein and the Chicago Art Project are way out of date and just flat-out wrong? I mean why bother to print this crap if its not going to in some way be based upon what is happening down here in the world of concrete reality? Chicago Art Project –originally called Chicago Art Foundation was begun by Tony Fitzpatrick and me. Enter Paul Klein who then attempted a traditional museum, which did not work out. And which I might add, I was always dead set against -to the point of leaving the project during the time when a traditional space was the objective. All plans for a museum have subsequently been shelved. Tony and I are back in charge of the project with Paul Klein assisting. There is a project in the works having nothing to do with building a museum that we will unveil when the time comes. One phone call to any of us from your writer over the last 4-5 months would have averted this error of complacency and just plain laziness.
I could go on but why bother? Her dismissal of the MCA’s program while hailing the fundraiser/curator lite entity known as James Rondeau is par for the course. Believe me Betsy, an actual look into The Art Institutes collecting habits –the suburbanite art mavens collectors group led by one Deborah Lovely that fauns over ‘James’ with their jet setting junkets to go do lunch with‘Go Go’ and the likes would make for some scintillating reading- especially when considering most of them wouldn’t be caught dead going to acquisition something from a Chicago artist. When Robb Storr was here he asked why there wasn’t a Jim Nutt up at the Institute –in fact he said he felt it was criminal there wasn’t. If I ever meet Mr. Storr I will tell him why there isn’t a Jim Nutt –its simple; Judith Kirchner (dean UIC) didn’t tell James Rondeau it would be ok to have one –I mean, Jim’s not part of the smart set here. He simply isn’t hip or groovy enough. Perhaps just maybe, if Susan wasn’t so busy ingratiating herself with people she deems important, playing smoochie smooch with the behinds of the powers that be, she could actually take the side of an artist on occasion and ask a real question every once in awhile….
The main thing wrong with the Susan Snodgrass’ annual corporate business section/ dry, dull, colossal snooze, is that it is so out of touch with what is being discussed in the art world here, so alien to what and how artists and the art world here needs to be represented in your magazine. DEAD IN THE WATER! And I even like things that are dead, floating around, getting ripe and rancid! But not this boring to the point of tears, institutional and partisan, art tourist drivel, not when that is all Art In America has to offer Chicago… Two years ago The Aon Tower –directly across from the Gehry Bandshell rehabbed their first floor as a way of being part of Millenium Park: Jaunme Plensa did an installation in one half of the lobby –I did the largest painting installation in Chicago in the other half, the only Chicago artist even peripherally involved with Millenium Park: did I even think for a moment one of these two…’writers’ would even go there to look? Of course not! I’m not part of the ‘smart crew’ nor, am I James Turrell with that kind of name recognition. Do I care? Not as much as you might think –I’m actually quite beyond wanting anything these people have to offer. I’m way more interested in simple vengeance than anything else at this juncture.
Sharkforum.org Betsy –600,000 hits last month- 65,000 pages read … BAS –bad at sports pod casting -take a look at their roster of interviews…/ iconoduel / Lumpen / artoridiocy...all the events theatrical/art/music emanating from my studio –and from others – from Big Cat Press, the cross-pollination of interdisciplinary happenings going on here with visual art, poetry, theatre and music -this is what we are all thinking about – this is what art here in America actually consists of–nowhere to be found or anywhere in evidence in Susan’s, sterile, bland attempt at living the dream of writing for Business Week.
I’m sending you several articles by Kevin Nance –the exciting new art and architecture critic/editor at the Chicago Sun Times…Kevin’s pick of the year was one of two shows he singled out for excellence coming from the Museum Of Contemporary Art. The group drawing exhibition, Lynne Warren Curator, was titled Drawn Into The World and was the talk of the town with everyone apparently except your sleepy writers. Believe me Betsy a lot more people went to see and discuss this exhibition than that lame Takeover exhibition down in Hyde Park. A whole lot more people were interested in the Chris Ware show that Lynne Warren also curated and, that Susan once again passes over in silence….I’m also sending you articles Kevin did on Tony Fitzpatrick, myself, and Nick Cave -my point being –why don’t you have a real professional writer like this doing the Chicago beat for Art In America? Betsy, it would be MARVELOUS. If you are going to call it Art In America –I happen to feel that comes with some sense of obligation to artists in America –a writer like Kevin would go a long way towards fulfilling that.
I’m quite sure you will hear from any number of pundits about that horrible Wesley Kimler Shark guy –how mean and awful he is…what can I say? I’m sure it’s all true ... and so what and who really cares? - Just say the word Betsy and I will gladly take time away from my busy studio and go get you a petition for change; for removal of both Victor Cassidy and Susan Snodgrass from the pages of Art In America. I feel confident that the list I will bring you will be comprehensive, will include people from all walks of the art scene here, will be long and weighted with names both recognizable and not.
Ms Baker, there is so much to like about Art In America. Your David Smith cover piece of a few months ago was completely great in keeping with a tradition of fine, accessible art writing. But times are changing! We all want Art In America to remain relevant! But truly, this cannot go on. When considering all the new media, with this kind of coverage you endanger your reader base. Please consider the idea of terminating both Victor Cassidy and Susan Snodgrass from your editors list and replacing them with someone confortable with Art In America's reader friendly style but also, someone who shows some evidence of possessing an actual pulse.
Cordially,
Wesley Kimler, aka The Shark
My wife bought me a subscription to Artnews almost two years ago. It's all I get. I won't look at much more because I guess I just don't want to. I read the Trib and NYT reviews when I'm interested in the work. Sometimes the headline is enough to get me. The rest of the art mags get a flip-film speed perusing. My question is, Why do I find myself being all tight lipped about my Artnews? I've heard so much disparaging commentary about it. Does Art in America feel that way? What about any artist who gets a review in Artnews. A "cool guy" once told me, "if you're not being made fun of, you're being ignored". I'd take a bad review in Artnews. I don't think those reviews are as imp or ant as a validation as they are a means to grow an audience. Are you out there Artnews!?
Weren't the olden day's salons a contest of sorts? Wasn't David scoffed at and misunderstood for his Oath of the Horatia which he debuted in a salon? I stop there and leave the facts (as well as running with more examples) to those who know art history, but isn't that what's missing?
I guess the worry from the letter to the editor is that clout seems to define who's a "good" artist. When I ask about a particular artist when the name comes up and no visuals pop into mind I get a "you don't know him/her? He's hooked up with so and so, and John Smith collector or celebrity hangs out with that guy".
Wouldn't a very inclusive salon, with work in defined categories discourage favoritism? If something is obviously worse, it is. We should be able to see it. I've been posing the question for years, "Who is Better? Vanilla Ice or Beethoven"? I get people falling on both sides. I'm firmly on the side that yes, one is better, and there is some absolute to that better that makes it true. "Because I like it" should not make something good. It's easy to make this argument when you are right.
Sharkmann here isn't shy about his feelings about the work of critics. Do we have critics who criticize other critics? If they both have quality credentials couldn't we put them all together at the same salon and see what they all have to say about the same work? Would they possibly arrive at a con senses of who's more successful than the others and wouldn't this illuminate favoritism over merit?
I was gonna post after about the first 4 sentences but scrolled down to see who else was here. Harsh Shark! Maybe I'm about to learn a hard lesson.
First, nothing in your comment even remotely addresses in a substantive way the aims or intentions of my writing. But here, I will humor you with a response.
Jacques Louise David's painting Oath Of Horatia
was a triumph, restoring order, muscularity and clarity to French painting that had fallen prey to way too much rouge and putti. The painting was recognized as a masterpiece and caused much sensation from the time it was first exhibited.
Art News was the art rag back in the 50s but now is pretty thin and a shallow read -Art In America is superior -only not here in Chicago where we have one moron and one mouthpiece writing for them.
Vanilla Ice or Beethoven? This is a serious subject I've brought up here -deserving a certain amount of thoughtfulness. This is a stupid comparison. Even mentioning a great artist in the context of a piece of pop confection is obnoxious.
Go back and read what I wrote -and if you are going to comment try to be at least slightly more focused. At sharkforum we don't just put up every comment. Dave put yours up -where I was hesitating because I didn't think it really merited being here. As you are somewhat of a friend of mine, I'm going to leave it-maybe you should try four good lines next time.
Lesson learned.
Good! This is serious business jaz -no one is kidding or fooling around here. We all need change -and for these two ........ to not represent us via Art In America to the world any longer. They have gotten away with this for years, and it needs to end. The last thing I need is for my little war here to be diluted with a bunch of superfluous blab. If you have something to say, you are welcome to say it - but, just be clear and, concise.
So, if The Shark would prefer Cassidy and Snodgrass out, who would be a good "voice" for Chicago art besides Kevin Nance?
Well Steve -Kevin would be excellent . He has brought some new energy to the scene and isn't in the institutionalites back pocket. Not that there aren't some very good people ensconsed in academia -for instance Lisa Wainwright dean of graduate studies at SAIC would be excellent- Ruth Lopez arts editor Time Out would be way preferable to what we have now.....it would be hard to do worse than what we are stuck with now.
Look, its two separate issues here -one of the writers is just stunningly unqualified to be writing for a national publication -and the other though a completely ordinary and pedestrian critic -really disqualifies herself -because and due to the fact she is a partisan mouthpiece for a chosen few, a conformist.
I would like to see Chicago become more known internationally on many fronts; I have said this before -but perhaps it is worth repeating -I think Alan Artner's piece awhile ago on Francesco Bonami -The Fly Boys -is not a personal attack but rather a study of social mores and ethics that should be required reading in todays art world -a piece that begs for a national and international audience of readers.....
For the most part I agree with you about the fact that our city is poorly represented in Art in America...I wonder though, whether other cities are any better served by its coverage; having lived here for a while I don't have an answer, yet I suspect that similar complaints might be voiced by informed people in many places...because whoever the tastemakers are at that magazine, or in fact so many of the others, must be a pretty small and incestuous little club...I remember being in art school here, about fifteen years back, and flipping through Art in America and Artnews, rarely if ever finding much that caught my eye, much less any article worth reading beginning to end...Modern Painters seemed to at least be more literate, unfortunately since then, with each passing year it becomes more and more like a fashion and lifestyle mag...
So perhaps you have more faith in these magazines than I, enough at least to write them, airing your concerns...with that, I can't argue...I hope your efforts are justified...
respectfully,
dmitry
here's a link to the Artner Piece:
http://www.bulbach.com/forum/readings/museums.htm#curators
Well Dimitry. Art In America really is about art in New York -however since all the things that made Manhattan a great place to be an artist from the 40's -70's are really gone, and since CHICAGO is such an excellent place to BE an artist, perhaps its time for a different perspective.
I don't believe that the people in the New York offices of Art In America have an agenda here in Chicago -I think we have who we do through default -all the more reason to rid ourselves of them.
Modern Painters: a tragedy unfolding. This magazine started by one Peter Fuller with the emphasis on painting now features stories on emerging artist's lofts -not their work or anything cumbersome like that, just their lifestyle....its pathetic. Though in all fairness, Karen Wrights piece on Anslem Kiefer last issue was really excellent.
Are my efforts justified? And by that I assume you mean worth the effort- stay tuned- I don't like to lose -and I don't think I'm going to when it comes to this particular situation.
Some may be wondering why I haven't chimed in here. As readers of Sharkforum probably know, I am clearly a "Shark," but also myself a corresponding editor for Art in America, have been asked to contribute to Modern Painters, and etc. etc. Furthermore, Susan S.'s husband has been a friend of mine for a long time; he was at my wedding in Switzerland, Susan is also a friend of mine, so I don't wish to insult her. I believe I am too directly involved to comment deeply, although I did discuss questions of coverage outside NYC with Betsy a few times (we meet at least once a year, always at least at the Basel Art Fair in Basel, not Miami).
She is aware that a new spirit is arising in Chicago. Indeed, all places outside NYC have it difficult, but it is truly the time for Chicago (and LA) to flex their muscles and demand more from most NYC-based publications. Let's face it too --- ArtNews is a joke, although it was actually a rigorous, important mag longer than you think, up until the 60s or so (back then Betsy of Art in America was editor at Art News), now it is a kind of People magazine catering to whoever will buy ads. Artforum is the "rag of record," the one considered tops, but is seldom read (proven in surveys) due to the fact that is so CC-borrowed-theory-laden purple prose. Bonami's ex-boss Flash Art is renowned amongst insiders as the singularly most corrupt, CC art rag. In my opinion Mod Painters is crashing. I read it for Matthew Collins. Art in America is best written, best read, and more. But certainly does NOT cover Chicago enough.
I can't help, because I write about Europe. Neither do you Chicago artists get enough coverage in your local press. Heck, even the MUSEUMS don't get enough coverage! And certainly not enough serious discussion of a WIDE variety of "scenes." It is indeed hard to be a critic (even when you are an "artist who writes about art" as people like me are labeled). The pay is more than terrible, and you get hardly any space. So actually complaints about getting coverage really HELP the critics, as what is covered and how much is an editorial decision. I think if Chicagoans keep raising their voices and proving how truly exciting the scene is now (and how much vaster it is than the approved Consensus Clique admits), then publications and all else will have to take notice. Both Betsy and the assistant editor Janet Koplos (who are also close friends of mine) are aware of this, certainly now. Both are also great writers/editors and love art --- all sorts of art --- and are NOT beholden to any small clique. They are a good place to start, but only a place to START.
You need to get much more going in other places as well. All the good blogs, Bad At Sports, Sharkforum and so on help a lot too, but really, the Trib is a sorry vacuum.
How to make a great art scene:
1. make great art --- you are doing it!
2. have a VARIETY of art --- not one ruling clique (we're working on that)
3. look at yourself --- stop being (late) copyists of NYC --- I think that's in place too
4. Get good solid criticism and discussion going --- blogs, BAS, Shark, Kevin N. and demands as discussed here are all beginnings, but FAR more is needed
5. Get curators and academics in places of power who support your art. Still lots of work to be done!
6. Build local "distribution channels" --- new galleries, new venues, new forms of getting art out, group shows, etc. etc. --- Art Fair, tons of small galleries, CAP, etc., are underway, but still lots to do.
7. POSITIVE but critical boosterism. If your stuff in your city is great, show it, support it, don't just stab each other in the back as Chicago is wont to do. And your stuff IS great.
8. Get group shows of your "scene" out and up in other cities, especially the Apple. Let's start!
Good luck.
U know Paris was the Rome of the art world, as was Rome b4, and after WWI a steady matriculation of artists of the caliber of Duchamp decentered Paris. The Miami Basel Fairs seem 2b the first economic symptoms, and I emphasise economic, of a slight beginning of change of NYC as the center of the art world. Right now w/ the many galleries, collectors are still afraid to shop elsewhere. Manhattan is losing people and businesses to the sunbelt, the last census showing ny as one of four big population losers. So, things will eventually change.
The question is whether refocusing the art world will take place in Chicago. Don't know. The thing about the east coast from DC on up is that u have so many wonderful collections to get started in art, the National Gallery, Philips, the Hirschorn, Corcoran, Cone/Stein @ BMA, Duchamps work @ Philadelphia, the Barnes, the Met, MOMA, Gug., Whitney, the Brooklyn, American Mus.of Folk, American Mus. of Primitive, not to mention the over 500 some odd galleries in Manhattan/Chelsea/Tribeca/Williamsburg and so on. this is powerful shit.
As to Art in America, isn't it New York centered? I always got the idea it was primarily a Ny based mag. It's previous editor William Robinson, is now a cheerleader for artists monied careers on art net. Moreover, reviewers are paid. The recent pandering of Roberta Smith and her mate jSaltz to Brice Mardens clearly show market influence to keep his prices up so that all the collectors and MOMA in particular can feel happy. His meaningless lines or Modernist wallpaper buoyed by the inflationary prices kinda show how the art world in NYC has changed. No one's arguing ideology or content or technique or positions, they are arguing prices. Look at ArtForum's darling jeff Koons, like there is any thinking left there?
Mark -all excellent points -Art In America is just a beginning -since you and I discuss all of this on an ongoing basis I won't go over what you have to say point by point as we are in agreement on what needs to happen -and, we are both doing our level best to see that it does.
As to tnowakowski: I agree with some but not all of what you have to say. I personally like Jeff Koons a great deal. Also, in terms of the kind of work he does, I think he is the best and most conscientious artist practicing in the realm he does. I think some of his hummel like figurines are truly a vison from hell -I like em! I think they are hellish, strangely beautiful and always, well done. Brice Marden -saw the Moma show -the beeswax paintings are gorgeous. The line paintings start strong with the Cold Mountain pieces and then gradually lose it for me. One way or another, the show certainly towers above that dreadful Sean Scully disaster, lacking even the most remote sense of actual ambition or real rigor in terms of painting, thinking about painting, etc...-for some god forsaken reason, installed up at the Met.
As far as Chicago becoming more of a center in the art world, thats really up to the artists here -and how willing they are to get off their timid asses and make things happen for themselves. There are many things about Chicago that make it an interesting place to work from as an artist; also, we have a unique opportunity to employ the internet like no other city in America -given the size of Chicago -and how it completely lacks any other kind of support infrastructure for artists.....if we can lose the cabal, get a more varied inclusive scene happening here -note all the things MSB mentions above -very good things could happen here.
BTW Euroshark, perhaps its time to start a Modern Painting section here on Sharkforum to fill the void now that Modern Painters no longer has anything to do with modern painters.....
Dubuffet was right when he said that art is sneaky. You can never really be certain where it might pop up next. Perhaps this is why the New York centric point of view is ultimately flawed, as it refuses to look in places it just cannot believe could possibly matter.
Alan Artner is also right about the curator as celebrity. This is a most tedious and tendentious situation. A lot of Museums all over the United States are now being run this way. Their collections are being built this way. The curators at these institutions are like late middle-aged nouveau riche men shopping for their mistresses at Tiffany's and Cartier.
When u say u "like" Jeff Koons, well, I can't help u there. From a scholarly point of view, he will always be a school of Duchamp, lacking the sophistication of art gamesmenship, but perhaps making up for it in money. His Michael Jackson and pal I will always perceive as outright racist, which I suspect he probably is given his background. Sexism is not far behind. Kitsch sells. He seems more a CEO of a toy company than an artist, certainly not my idea of an artist. I'm out w/ the art as commodity position or art w/o artists. Call me traditional, but I want 2c more poetry and resonance in someone's painting acquired only through handling paint so many times. Kinda like traditional Asian bamboo painting where the stalk and leaves are written as much as they are painted, or a clay piece where the meaning is derived from the person's developed fucking w/ clay and kiln.
The case of Chicago is interesting. If artists perennially migrated to Manhattan, then they did so due to cheap rent in commercially zoned old warehousing, yet with enough galleries and wealth to display their wares and get sold. Chicago could attract more artists in the future, forcing the nyc based mags to yield more critical attention. Certainly the cheaper rents in old industrial buildings is there. Washington DC has the same qualities, with more 4giving weather. Both cities have the seemingly necessary cluster of universities, from which art audiences often come. With the Internet and digital photos, one can keep galleries aware of one's work easily and not have to live there. I have been in shows and planned my last show w/ by updating my gallery, 12 hrs away by car, w/ 6mpx jpegs. James Rosenquist, for example, has now lived outside nyc for the last 20 years, yet he is still identified as a ny artist. As I said above, too, nyc has changed; there are no movements where individuals collectively subscribe to a set of coherent values not motivated by only money. Students seem more interested in mining art history for gold, not realizing how restricting that eventually appears. I think the last 10 years has yielded flashes of falling stars, better to burn out than rust away I guess. The long haul or big picture doesn't seem to matter. Galleries have become more shrill in their hype. Barnaby Furnas work is definately above average, but there is no breakthrough event in his work to warrant the hype, art history can easily handle anything he does as his situation is more like rearranging the furniture. Thus, ny as a must see kinda thing has definately slackened.
Well, tnowakowski -We agree on more than we disagree on I'm with you on process/methodology/Chicago studio space- -but we differ on Koons -who btw got his start as a painter studying with his mentor Ed Paschke - I don't feel the work is even slightly racist -I don't get where you are coming from with that -I think his ballon manipulations turned to metal are beautiful and, singular -I think he is an intriguing and completely sincere guy. -Way more interesting than an incompetent hack painter like Barnaby Furnas - how awful and insipid is that work? Just how poor of a painter is he? Let me count the ways. The only thing even marginally interesting about a one note -painter without any real chops like Furnas -is that his success really shows just how lost any real understanding of the language of plastic invention via the painted surface really is at this point in time. His work is neither competent nor interesting to anyone with an actual understanding of the "hellbent magic of oil paint".
I do wish that Koons and Hirsch and all the Neo-Cons would stop that "I-make-a-stupid-photoshop-collage / find-a-photo-and-then-hire-students-to-paint-photorealist-copies-of-them and-it's-my-art-and-ooooh-isn't-it-shocking" schtick. If they want to try their hand at painting, good, but really do it, struggle with it. In many ways I am a so-called "conceptual painter" --- but you have GOT to really DO it.
Not a bad idea Shark about the new "dividion" --- although as a (lapsed) historian, I still would hold that Modenism is gone, so how about calling it "Post-Postmodern Painters." A cumbersome phrase, but it would be a kind of humorous taunt at both Modern Painters and the wanna-be-hegemonic PoMo Neo-Cons, and still recall Ruskins book. We could then regularly introduce great painters, especially under-exposed ones, whether young or simply not as appreciated as they should be, etc.
I personally have NO trouble with NYC being the world art center --- it is better for the role than Berlin or Paris or London or Zurich, e.g. I don't detract from New Yorkers THEMSELVES, I just think OTHER places need to raise themselves up as well. The problem is seldom with New Yorkers, rather with people from other places who can't stop thinking "good art and artists can only exist elsewhere" whether that elsewhere is NYC, Berlin, London, whatever. Let NYC be itself --- still my favorite big city actually, but raise your own vision by looking at yourself and those around you. There could, potentially, be MANY important centers of art. I in no way call for REPLACING NYC, just getting Chicago up to what it and it's artists really DESERVE!
Well I agree with Euroshark when it comes to Koon's paintings that really look only like bad Rosenquist knock-offs......I first met Jeff at our mutual friend Ed Paschke's wake.....I like Jeff. I've seen him in action. I think he is a class act. He is definitely not my esthetic -but I think from his crowd, he is the best of that bunch.
Modern Painters is a sad story where the plebians got ahold of what was once the best art rag and made it ordinary -its really a shame.
re: racism. Michael Jackson and the monkey. So, as a kid growing up in a racially divided rural area I constantly heard kids saying how much blacks look like chimpanzees, monkeys, apes guerilla's. U never heard this or made the association? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Moreover Euroscience once projected in charts on an evolutionary scale that blacks were sandwiched between Neanderthals and whites, but whose skull profile fell closer to the chimp. Anne McClintock in Imperial Leather, who interestingly traces this scientific racism into commodity racism in turn of the century England, shows such a mapping. But you can find these evolutionary comparisons elsewhere. For Jackson to be palled up w/ a monkey, come on. I guess I just don't hold Koons 2b a hero so I don't feel a need to whatever. Anyway, from what I know as a student he was the type that did the same image for most of his classes. So profound. I have a feeling one day the high kitsch owner of the piece in question here will one day realize, it is a piece of low art and beat it into pieces w/ a hammer for all the money wasted, unless he sells it to the next fool to get his money back.
I curated a show w/ Ed Paaschke, he was a class act. His brother Richard is a brain psychologist. Very interesting people. if I had to choose between a Koons and one of Paaschke's paintings, no question I would choose the Paaschke's. The balloons for me, like all Koons stuff have no resonance and dull quickly, as they do at the end of the party.
Koons was in Chicago for only one year, Paaschke had that much influence? Anyway, not to keep digressing as I digress, but I'm bewildered by the above calling of Koons as a Neo-Con. How is one a Neo-Con in art? Someone like a Currin or Bo Bartlett at PPOW? I've also heard Neo-Liberal; is that the Bill Clinton, more conservative, less anti-war McGovern type liberal?
Wow, the Shark takes no prisoners on Barnaby Furnas. I didn't have much of a reaction to him at all, his references are obvious, paint 'handling' is art school tidy or correct, but boring. I have a feeling he's headed for the Ruyter/Essenghigh type dust bin.
Uhhh -if you are talking about Michael Jackson with his pet monkey Bubbles.....and you are seeing racism, - its yours....I'm sorry -your reasoning is convoluted and strained at best.....look, I grew up in the inner city -I've seen racism and watched it practiced to a level of racial violence any number of times. I know what prejudice and bigotry look like. I think calling Koon's piece racist is laughable at best and PC polemical/McCarthyism at worst.
We are way off topic here -but quickly, of course Ed Paschke was terrific and made his own work. I'm betting Jeff Koons would be the first to say that.....look, I don't hold Koons as a hero either -but I like him personally -and, I think he is a way more interesting artist than that completely trendy hack painter you mention, also to answer your question, Koons worked during the time he was here as Paschke's studio assistant. They remained close over the years -Koons discusses Paschke as a major influence -and I believe came here to specifically study with Ed........now how about getting back to the topic of this thread? -Perhaps slightly more important than where this is all going....
Hi TN, "Neo-Con" is slang in the artworld, and often used by we-Sharks, as shorthand for the NEO-CONceptualist mannerists. I'm surprised you haven't heard it. It has nothing o do with the Neo-Con Wolfowitzes and so on, but of course we all relish the accidental similarity of terms, as the art Neo-Cons purport to be liberal (in US terms) and "progressive" and may even be so politically but have a hegemonic, attempted-one-party-system position in the artworld. They are "Neo-" and not simply "Conceptualist" as they sometimes assert, due to the fact that Conceptual Art was a movement with historical dimensions, not a shopable "style," you know, Kosuth, Acconci, etc.,which went into Late Conceptual, like our own Phil Berkman back then and me at the time, and then it was challenged as is usual by other positions, such as Neo-Expressionism, certain installation forms, etc, then what was a sort of third-wave arose (Koons etc.), (fourth wave in Chicago, the KIrshner crowd) doing an academic form of a kind of return-to-Conceptualism. Entities coming into being like this are generally termed "Neo" in art history ---i.e. "new" but sort of too late and sort of return, but sort of pseudo. As it was first linked with "Neo-Geo" as a unity it has come to be called "Neo-Con."
Thanks for the neo-con update; I don't keep up on the argot or pay much attention to short term labels like neo geo, which didn't have much legs afterall. Surface stuff. As u can c i don't pay much attention to Koons work to know his titles, as a former art historian, I find the residual play of Duchamp much more sophisticated, nothing Koons does even remotely comes close to the problematizing of the Green Box. He just doesn't have the brains; he's more a bombastic salesman who has cornered galleries and collectors, no doubt.
Returning to the Case of Chicago, I kinda see the problem in broader terms. DC has a ton of excellent abstract painters along the newly developing galleries on Connecticut Ave and 14-16 sts NW, Numark down by the National Gallery, but these people never get reviewed in AIA. I tend to think the ny based thinking simply marginalizes the art world into two domains: NY and the rest of the country, the provinces. I don't know if this has changed. There must be a certain laziness for the editors, why bother w/ the provinces when u have so much in Manhattan alone?
As usual tnowakowski , I concur with much of what you have to say when it comes to ny based publications and how they cover the art world. And just as usual I find it appalling that you can sit here attacking an artist -any artist, without even knowing the titles of his or her work - This is all about context and intentionality: here you are accusing Koons of essentially being a racist when you don't even understand nor, have you taken the time to get why the figuration in a certain piece is what it is. This is what pre-judice is all about- demonstrating contempt prior to investigation. And, no amount of trotting out poor old way over extended Marcel Duchamp is going to change the fact that no matter what you may think of Koons, your methodology for arriving at the conclusions you make, are in fact, flawed/assumptions based upon your lack of investigation. I want to suggest if you are going to attack someone, its always a good idea to know what you are talking about - first and foremost, the subject of your attack.
interesting piece and feedback! And very fact heavy. nice. I would love to witness this all played out in some live symposium someday. It does need to be addressed, I agree on most of these points, esp. the embarassing lack of mention of chicago in art in america and the weird downfall of modern painters.. and you are right wesley, karen wright still makes it workwhile.
wish we had one of her here. are you out there?
I agree with The Shark about Jeff Koons. I actually think his work is very smart and that he has plenty of brains. It is unfair to make ad hominem attacks on him and to call him names. To me, the polychromed wood sculptures are beautiful, especially the one of Buster Keaton. They are like strange and lovely contemporary riffs on Catholic Altar Sculptures.
The stainless steel sculptures filled with bourbon are simultaneously a take-off of those kitsch ceramic booze bottles and reliquaries of desire and commodification. As they contain the drink that one can never have.
To me, his work is about moral crisis in our culture. The materialism and commodification of the soul.
And let's not forget "Puppy", the gorgeous and enormous sculpture of a little dog made entirely out of flowers. That thing, to me anyways, was a beautiful happy thing. And sometimes that is more than good enough.
OK -but lets get off the Koons thing -its really a distraction from the task at hand -which is, getting Art In America up to speed on Art In America -and not just NYC!
Agreed. That is more than enough said on Koons. Sorry.
I think a part of the problem is that artists outside of New York are too content with their marginalization. There is an inverse provincialism that thinks if one were actually serious, then one would live in N.Y.
Ambitious serious sincere artists in Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Las Vegas, or wherever need to become far more aggressive about self promotion.
Regarding Chicago, it is very strange indeed that Art In America's coverage is so minimal and poor. Chicago has a major and unique Art and Architectural History. Chicago has been and still is home to many innovators. Artists who stood their own ground and followed sincere and personal visions without succumbing to trends.
The fact that Art In America gives Chicago coverage commensurate to what it gives towns like Seattle is a damn shame.
Yep! And no one ever says anything about the horrible coverage -like its a crime or something to speak out!.......what a bunch of pansies....
-no one speaks out that is -save for one -that would be The Shark-
Well Theo perhaps you too have an inferiority complex regarding the NY ArtWorld. The more exhibits one sees there, month after month… years turning into decades, the more one realizes that many of the "Best NY Artists" do not actually live or create in the tri-borough area.
Understanding the Art in America headquarters are in Manhattan, which is no excuse for NY-centric coverage, is part reason for it’s myopia… after all it costs less to walk from 6th Ave & Spring St to West 25th than traveling to other locales. Remember, most AIA correspondents are independent contractors of sorts, paid (not much) per printed article and the submitted unpublished pieces go to the circular file. If you want a show covered, try paying for an advertisement… the more expensive ad, the more likely a review will appear. Please don’t construe this as advocacy for Art in America’s conduct.
Sharforum is clearly Chicago-centric... no problem! As you mentioned, AIA coverage in satellite cities is sub-par, however to cite Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Las Vegas and then qualify Chicago over Seattle is designing a pecking order as AIA seems to. Theo, I suspect if you were a secretary at AIA, you would spend each day deflecting press releases from artists seeking the coverage they often feel entitled to. Great exhibits happen in most cities and face it many are not covered! Art in America... fuuggeddaabaatitt!!!
Shark, too bad some artists in Chicago are afraid of their own shadow, that condition is par tout, like the fact that great exhibits in most cities conclude without review. Perhaps artists should consider jumping over their own shadow rather than being afraid of it!
Well Glenn, Sharkforum is based out of Chicago -however we have sharkpack members scattered far and wide. John Kruth based in NYC for instance has been keeping us all enthralled with his travelogue from India -then there is Euroshark in Switzerland....the point being that while Sharkforum emanates from here, we aren't glued to it.
The point with publications like Art In America, is that with the internet, the crashing implosion of the gatekeepers, they are going to have to get up to speed on their coverage or, perish.
The art world is a funny place: how have these two clowns been able to claim that they represent Chicago in Art In America for all of this time without someone saying wait a minute, what in the hell are you talking about? Its a good question -and one that The Shark finds much humor in asking.
Times are changing: anyone who has perused the Vanity Fair Art Issue or the W art issue both in their towering venality and insipidness- or looked at the stupid prices being paid for mostly crummy, mediocre work in Chelsea, can see that a sea change is inevitable. Its time for the stupid people to go bye-bye, for artist to return to their rightful place as apex predators of their own ecology.
I get the impression that Wesley is attacking Art in America because he thinks there is some hope there, as compared to obviously hide-bound Artforum, vacuous ArtNews or worthless Flash Art. So don't take it too personally Mark. I think a good attack on Artforum would be worthwhile, however.
Here is a perfect example of why we don't do open blogs on sharkforum -namely, this is an apex environment -and we try to keep the krill levels at bay. When this guy tnowakowski sought to continue his moronic attack on Jeff Koons -and believe me, this isn't a debate as to the quality or lack there of of Mr. Koon's work -buth rather the just plain stupidity and lack of any kind of reasoning that went into this guy's trash talk.
There is a phrase -dumb as a painter -I would add to that -dumb as a painter who happens to come off like a total loser. Though I am a painter, I have no patience for the us against them mentality. I like good conceptual work -in fact I like many kinds of work -I try and take it piece by piece, artist by artist -knowing through the small amount of philosophical training I have had -that gross generalizations are the modus operandi of a dull mind. My argument is not against a certain genre of work as much as it is an argument against the politics that accompany the institutionally correct form of art think. This is a long topic that we consistently trot out and discuss here so, I'm going to leave it alone for the moment -my point is, I really don't care whether or not this clown like Jeff koons. What I do care about -is that he was going after work he didn't even know the title or context of. This is what contempt prior to investigation is. And, its known as prejudice -something really not welcome here. There is simply no room here for this kind of dull-witted bigotry. Especially when it is clouding the water -and creating diversion from the subject being discussed
I sent this guy an email telling him this and, that if he was wanting to contribute something of substance, he would be welcome to do so. Here then, is apparently what he considers substantial
From that curator who says read Rush Limbo (yeah, she
enjoys the racism like the guys who read playboy 4 the
articles) to the other guy still sniffing flowery
farts from arthur danto epistemological/ontological
take on duchamp to your obvious castration complex,
paranoid disorder and control issues (like all
bloggers frustrated w/ their field), I should have
known u old hens were old school the moment u put down
duchamp scholarship. But u live on the old academic
philosophy paradigm of the the last millenium. 3 major
revelations, unknown b4, have changed the paradigm on
Duchamp. All that philosophical hot air (maybe that's
y u r from the windy city) has evaporated into people
looking at original documents. Imagine that! There
will b more phd's on Duchamp than ever b4 and,
conversely, as an aside, few on Koons, except how he
carried on warhol's shallow take on duchamp. So,
anything u say is tainted as uninformed. Again, u r
not invited here, u have been blocked, u r voted off
the island, go away, what else do u ............
Need I say more?
I thought "tnowakowski"'s comments were okay, a bit off the mark of what Wesley was trying for, and better over on other posts, but okay enough. BUT I have absolutely no idea what that paragraph you quote of his means, though.
Yeah, I get it that he is wishing to insult Wesley and trying to insult me, but it seems meaningless. What the scatological refernce to Danto (who does only ontology, the epistemology is mine) should mean, I haven't a clue. You can be quite certain that I am "up" on all the Duchamp scholarship, though, as you seem, tnowakowski, to keep trying to act as if no one but you knows.
You aren't the only one who can read, I might be "somewhat" knowledgeable of the field, esp. since I am doing my PhD in the stuff and have published in various journals and magazines on the subject(s). I find the new insights quite refreshing, but that doesn't chnage the manneristic way in which Ole Rrose is (mis-)used in the artworld now, which is what I was CRITIZING in the OTHER post --- I would prefer more interest in alternative readings of him even. Didn't you understand that?
You keep bouncing off at tangents and not concentrating on the issues at hand. I suppose that's why WK wrote to you, nastilly as it sounds, but let's try to talk more cordially and concentrate on the issues in each post. Your opportunity for discussing other things will certainly arise. Now back to critical/review coverage of current art, brought to you by your sponsor, the Nasty Shark.
Correcto Euroshark -this guy is ok -but just ok- if he would lose the thoughtless tangents -what we are discussing here is really important -and what he is wanting to discuss really at this point is not. It is a petty distraction. He is welcome to post if he can be constructive -even in attacking things -and I would point out, unlike most people who if not wanted are simply deleted without further fanfare, I have extended the invitation to continue to comment -if, he has some well thought out contribution.
Now lets move on.
I post a few remarks and some guy named Glenn Grafelman, a man whom I have never met decides he's qualified to psychoanalyze me. He states that perhaps I too have an inferiority complex regarding the New York Art World, and that he suspects if I were a secretary at Art In America, that I would spend each day deflecting press releases from artists seeking the coverage they often feel entitled to.
Please! I'm a Greek. We are not inclined to the clerical professions.
He seems to think that I am against hierarchical structures and that I then contradict myself by being for them. That is incorrect. It isn't what I meant.
Like I said earlier, referencing Dubuffet, Art is sneaky, you can't tell where it will pop up next. Great and / or good artists can happen anywhere.
Therefore, artists outside of New York need to be more entrepreneurial in advancing their own best interests.
That said, I would not advocate some kind of kindergarten nonsense where all the children's scrawls are treated equally so that everyones self esteem can be coddled at the expense of excellence.
Some cities matter more culturally than others. That is a stone cold fact. It is a fact that changes its geographical location throughout history, but it is a fact nonetheless. Yes, there might be a genius at this very moment in Reno. But that doesn't mean that Reno per se deserves coverage on a par with New York.
However, cities like Chicago and Los Angeles do deserve coverage from Art In America commensurate with New York. As both cities have a major and unique artistic and cultural history.
It seems like an additional problem that goes hand in hand with the Curator as Celebrity, is the Museum as Boutique. This is another reason why cities like Chicago and Los Angeles trump towns like Seattle or Denver.
These smaller cities are so desperate to prove themselves "world class" and sophisticated that they hire architects that they read about in Art In America like Rem Koolhaas, Daniel Libeskind, Frank Gehry, and Robert Venturi to design trendy jewelry boxes to house their meager collections. They then proceed to shake down the local hoi-polloi for the lucre to purchase some new trinkets to festoon the interior spaces of this snazzy new building. Trinkets that they find in the pages of Art In America.
The problem being that none of this has anything to actually do with the town or its history. Cities like Seattle or Denver are very late to the party.
The fact that Art In America pays about as much attention to what is going on in Chicago and Los Angeles as it does to these smaller cities is wrongheaded at best.
I agree that this topic is very important, but as usual on blogs, things have become mired. I was hoping for more discussion on what to do. The Shark threw down the gauntlet, but no one seems to be continuing his call to action. I am merely a cyprinidae, and looking to the big fishes. Aside from foot (or fin) stomping, what would the next step be? I don’t subscribe, so I couldn’t boycott AIA. How can this neglect of Chicago art be truly remedied?