Does The Shark care about or covet the 10k just awarded by The Driehaus Foundation to two members of the Consensoriat? -neither of them particularly strong or interesting 'painters' (-I use the term lightly).....No! Of course not. But what does bother me is the blatant corruption and cronyism practiced, even flouted!, with such sneering impudence by (but who else?) Mr Curator himself, in the uhhhhhm! 'decision' making process...
I don't know Gaylen Gerber -and as for Judy Ledgerwood, as a person, I actually like her....but this isn't about a personality contest -this, is about two very average, academic painters -neither of them particularly skilled or conversant in the actual languge of painting -and by this, I am meaning the thing itself 'painting' -not to be confused with 'talk' about painting- - particularly, the species of 'talk' that comes under the guise of some form of 'theoretical' trajectory, employed as foggy ether, an esoteria wafting outward from the halls of academia, made to explain away and muddy the waters of ineptitude, unoriginality, add some kind of supposed gravitas, and basically tell us all why poorly executed, technically limited colorfield/minimalist, decorative painting, derivative, dead in the water going nowhere, work lacking in any kind of serious on-going exploration/varitation and/or growth...should be seen as being 'important'. This particular attempt at perception goosing, of rigged importance being conferred upon them ( via Richard Driehaus' money) comes at a time when most have recognized just how shallow and lame their respective works actually are...and yet the machinations of the consensoriat rumble on.
The blandly innocuous, decorative painting practiced by members of the conceptual 101 club/consensoriat, paraded around during its day here as 'edgy' for the most part now festoons the basements of local collectors. 'Collectors' (they know who they are-) who, rather than look for themselves, collect seriously here in Chicago -like the people in LA or New York do in their respective cities, instead, as the true provincials they were and are, bought into what 'the kids' -students/emerging artists were doing -saving their serious collecting efforts for New York -buying what art educators here told them to buy, abdicating any responsibility as collectors in order to be seen as 'hip', as 'cutting edge' -completely ignoring, even dismissing in derision individuality, originality, and most professional artists in Chicago. What a sick joke -especially on those who were vapid enough to buy into it. You want to discuss the demise of the Chicago art world beginning at the end of the 80's? We could start here.
Lets talk about the 'painting' some more: -this is the stuff of one dimensional triteness; a one trick pony; reliant upon a supposed (though nowhere evident in the work) hackneyed philosophic ie political/aesthetic reinterpretation (authority appropriated) of cannibalized work from serious painters of the past. Both Larry Poons, early Ad Rhinehardt are two who come to mind -both of who's work I might add continued to grow and develop in a way that neither co-(OPERATOR) Gerber's or, Ledgerwoods ever has....and why is that? Well, ask yourself 'what is the nature of legitimate authority?'....I believe true authorship has to do with actions/works in progress leading towards things hard won. A coming to things in an experiential manner, an aesthetic experience, a things thinglyness negotiated, a works workliness, an artist's interior dialog with themselves made exterior. To ex-press: -which, has to do with an action first done, then understood, an outward movement about seeing inward, its meaning entertained. I'm not talking Rousseau here -but more like Heidegger, and also as an idealist: how we negotiate the thinglyness of things without doing violence to their nature, and by this I am meaning, how we approach a 'things' 'being'... how we come to understand our own nature, see what we mean, through working 'things' out -with no purpose other than, the opportunity to live in truth....
Among other things, I'm talking about and describing what is, 'authenticity.'...this opposed to work about surface effects, unearned, cheaply borrowed, the criteria being one of reaching an institutionally consensus correct signifier- to 'effect' a look -in order to have something to 'talk' about to hang words, or trendy philosophical constructs upon -or better yet, to have some important art educator or empty headed curator -incapable of thinking for himself, 'talk' about...or, secure you a grant...
..which is partially why I regard what both of them do as no more than tepid pastiche...or, very poor institutional/academic variants on what painting is...and yet for all it lacks, this is art with a purpose -that being, the attainment of 'position'...and in that way, both Gerber and Ledgerwood almost qualify as craftsmen, in the business of making a career, building a 'position'...these aren't people concerned with looking, say, at a painting -trying to make a good one, uhuh......this is an entirely different animal -a social construct of an institutional environment
...this is the bill of goods sold to us by the consensus clique -embodied here in Chicago by -(to name a few) Judith Kirchner, ms Ghez and now, James Rondeau -three people who doubtless care or comprehend very little about painting - and approach it in an academically aggressive, philosophically challenged manner. What I mean by this is, the forwarding of the academic footprint, the attack upon studio practice and or talent, under the guise of supposed philosophical/theoretical constructs -which in the end is no more than flimsy propaganda fronted by even more anemic versions of what is painting all in the name of foisting mediocrity and an institutionalized version of creativity upon the art world here.
The goal then, is not art, but rather, power.
In plain language? Both of these painters have almost no chops -in terms of being able to ....PAINT, They both SUCK! 'Gerber Gray' (barf) as its known in certain circles of speciousness would fit right in to Ralph Lauren's home decorator 'lifestyle' paint line-except Ralph comes up with better grays -besides, he already has a very similar chroma -known as 'Loft Gray' -he also had the bright idea (no doubt born of consumer demand,) to attempt more than one gray -duh!....Judy...I'm not going to pick on her -the surfaces are thin, barely competent, the visual language is stiff, unadventerous and exceedingly limited: any kind of pretension about this work being anything more than the bland academic fluff it is...is way more creative than anything about the work itself -as a thing, without the talk...I mean this stuff makes the most sacharrine Renoir look like Francis Bacon people! Think about it.
Look, the word 'paint-ing'.....there's the stuff -'paint', and the ing-ie what you do with the stuff...... it all has to do with a thing, and how you put it on/ employ it in a process of ideation realized in the language of plastic invention, on another thing -thats the ing part -the ing that neither one of these people are particularly adroit at or, conversant in or in anyway good at. And sorry, but no half baked, moronic concept about being a 'cooperator'- or, feminist theory about mark making is going to make up for all thats missing here-
The fact is, what they have really both excelled in is not aesthetics at all -but rather another branch of philosophy known as politics- and there they have both been aggressive in a way that even The Shark can admire.
Many people -in and out of institutions here know Rondeau is little more than a pretty boy/ curator lite - brought in and put in place here to raise funds for the new wing at the Art Institute -and that's fine. Where it all goes awry is that James wasn't in town five minutes before the phone rang -here's Judith!....which is why we get what we got here this last week -with Rondeau completely and without apologies, being led around by the nose, towing the party line of the corrupt, the powerful here, upon whose lap he sits. Knowing this, what do we expect when James sits on a jury -no doubt due to his position of authority, holding the most cards, but for him to be a mouthpiece, promoting those artists most closely aligned with institutional power. After all, this isn't about Gaylen Gerber or Judy Ledgerwood, -they aren't why they were chosen! This is about James Rondeau's friendship with Judith Kirchner. Is that in anyway in doubt?.
The Driehaus Foundation nominated Tony Fitzpatrick for one of these awards......everyone in town should know this: TONY ASKED THEM TO REMOVE HIS NAME FROM CONSIDERATION. How great is he or what? Tony and I have a long, complicated history -but I have never been more proud of him -or, to be his partner in crime. Why did he? In the man's own words, " I am not at a point in my career where I feel the need to be patted on the head by the wealthy." I also know, that Tony is as fed up with the corruption as I am.
Bottom line, do Gaylon Gerber's or Judy Ledgerwoods's work as painters merit Mr. Driehaus' money, or did he just get bilked out of 20k by the powers that be here? Its a good question with an easy answer; of course they don't and yes he did.
Next year Richard why don't you come ask Tony and me to give away your money -I'm sure it will be far better spent, ending up in far more deserving hands. I mean, isn't corruption in our culture well funded enough at this point?
The blandly innocuous, decorative painting practiced by members of the conceptual 101 club/consensoriat, paraded around during its day here as 'edgy' for the most part now festoons the basements of local collectors. 'Collectors' (they know who they are-) who, rather than look for themselves, collect seriously here in Chicago -like the people in LA or New York do in their respective cities, instead, as the true provincials they were and are, bought into what 'the kids' -students/emerging artists were doing -saving their serious collecting efforts for New York -buying what art educators here told them to buy, abdicating any responsibility as collectors in order to be seen as 'hip', as 'cutting edge' -completely ignoring, even dismissing in derision individuality, originality, and most professional artists in Chicago. What a sick joke -especially on those who were vapid enough to buy into it. You want to discuss the demise of the Chicago art world beginning at the end of the 80's? We could start here.
Lets talk about the 'painting' some more: -this is the stuff of one dimensional triteness; a one trick pony; reliant upon a supposed (though nowhere evident in the work) hackneyed philosophic ie political/aesthetic reinterpretation (authority appropriated) of cannibalized work from serious painters of the past. Both Larry Poons, early Ad Rhinehardt are two who come to mind -both of who's work I might add continued to grow and develop in a way that neither co-(OPERATOR) Gerber's or, Ledgerwoods ever has....and why is that? Well, ask yourself 'what is the nature of legitimate authority?'....I believe true authorship has to do with actions/works in progress leading towards things hard won. A coming to things in an experiential manner, an aesthetic experience, a things thinglyness negotiated, a works workliness, an artist's interior dialog with themselves made exterior. To ex-press: -which, has to do with an action first done, then understood, an outward movement about seeing inward, its meaning entertained. I'm not talking Rousseau here -but more like Heidegger, and also as an idealist: how we negotiate the thinglyness of things without doing violence to their nature, and by this I am meaning, how we approach a 'things' 'being'... how we come to understand our own nature, see what we mean, through working 'things' out -with no purpose other than, the opportunity to live in truth....
Among other things, I'm talking about and describing what is, 'authenticity.'...this opposed to work about surface effects, unearned, cheaply borrowed, the criteria being one of reaching an institutionally consensus correct signifier- to 'effect' a look -in order to have something to 'talk' about to hang words, or trendy philosophical constructs upon -or better yet, to have some important art educator or empty headed curator -incapable of thinking for himself, 'talk' about...or, secure you a grant...
..which is partially why I regard what both of them do as no more than tepid pastiche...or, very poor institutional/academic variants on what painting is...and yet for all it lacks, this is art with a purpose -that being, the attainment of 'position'...and in that way, both Gerber and Ledgerwood almost qualify as craftsmen, in the business of making a career, building a 'position'...these aren't people concerned with looking, say, at a painting -trying to make a good one, uhuh......this is an entirely different animal -a social construct of an institutional environment
...this is the bill of goods sold to us by the consensus clique -embodied here in Chicago by -(to name a few) Judith Kirchner, ms Ghez and now, James Rondeau -three people who doubtless care or comprehend very little about painting - and approach it in an academically aggressive, philosophically challenged manner. What I mean by this is, the forwarding of the academic footprint, the attack upon studio practice and or talent, under the guise of supposed philosophical/theoretical constructs -which in the end is no more than flimsy propaganda fronted by even more anemic versions of what is painting all in the name of foisting mediocrity and an institutionalized version of creativity upon the art world here.
The goal then, is not art, but rather, power.
In plain language? Both of these painters have almost no chops -in terms of being able to ....PAINT, They both SUCK! 'Gerber Gray' (barf) as its known in certain circles of speciousness would fit right in to Ralph Lauren's home decorator 'lifestyle' paint line-except Ralph comes up with better grays -besides, he already has a very similar chroma -known as 'Loft Gray' -he also had the bright idea (no doubt born of consumer demand,) to attempt more than one gray -duh!....Judy...I'm not going to pick on her -the surfaces are thin, barely competent, the visual language is stiff, unadventerous and exceedingly limited: any kind of pretension about this work being anything more than the bland academic fluff it is...is way more creative than anything about the work itself -as a thing, without the talk...I mean this stuff makes the most sacharrine Renoir look like Francis Bacon people! Think about it.
Look, the word 'paint-ing'.....there's the stuff -'paint', and the ing-ie what you do with the stuff...... it all has to do with a thing, and how you put it on/ employ it in a process of ideation realized in the language of plastic invention, on another thing -thats the ing part -the ing that neither one of these people are particularly adroit at or, conversant in or in anyway good at. And sorry, but no half baked, moronic concept about being a 'cooperator'- or, feminist theory about mark making is going to make up for all thats missing here-
The fact is, what they have really both excelled in is not aesthetics at all -but rather another branch of philosophy known as politics- and there they have both been aggressive in a way that even The Shark can admire.
Many people -in and out of institutions here know Rondeau is little more than a pretty boy/ curator lite - brought in and put in place here to raise funds for the new wing at the Art Institute -and that's fine. Where it all goes awry is that James wasn't in town five minutes before the phone rang -here's Judith!....which is why we get what we got here this last week -with Rondeau completely and without apologies, being led around by the nose, towing the party line of the corrupt, the powerful here, upon whose lap he sits. Knowing this, what do we expect when James sits on a jury -no doubt due to his position of authority, holding the most cards, but for him to be a mouthpiece, promoting those artists most closely aligned with institutional power. After all, this isn't about Gaylen Gerber or Judy Ledgerwood, -they aren't why they were chosen! This is about James Rondeau's friendship with Judith Kirchner. Is that in anyway in doubt?.
The Driehaus Foundation nominated Tony Fitzpatrick for one of these awards......everyone in town should know this: TONY ASKED THEM TO REMOVE HIS NAME FROM CONSIDERATION. How great is he or what? Tony and I have a long, complicated history -but I have never been more proud of him -or, to be his partner in crime. Why did he? In the man's own words, " I am not at a point in my career where I feel the need to be patted on the head by the wealthy." I also know, that Tony is as fed up with the corruption as I am.
Bottom line, do Gaylon Gerber's or Judy Ledgerwoods's work as painters merit Mr. Driehaus' money, or did he just get bilked out of 20k by the powers that be here? Its a good question with an easy answer; of course they don't and yes he did.
Next year Richard why don't you come ask Tony and me to give away your money -I'm sure it will be far better spent, ending up in far more deserving hands. I mean, isn't corruption in our culture well funded enough at this point?
Leave a comment