Art Critics, the Artworld, Ethics

The issue is not the art world, it's journalism.

Mark--

I don't see this as a 'one-sided attack on critics'-- either Mr. Viveros-Faune's activity is a conflict of interest , or it is not. I don't think you would ever see Jerry Saltz, Roberta Smith, or Peter Shcjeldahl in this position . I can sympathize with the fact that art-critics are underpaid-- but to be a principal critic for the Village Voice AND have a financial stake in an international art fair seems unethical. I think Green called it right down the middle and had a lot of empathy for Viveros-Faune's point of view -- but no amount of equivocation makes this other than it is-- it's a conflict of interest. Viveros-Faune has been let go by the VV and that is as it should be-- he will do fine. With his ethical schematic , art-fairs are a perfect place for him.

Thanks for the link and continuation of the discussion, Sharkforum. Quick note, though...the image on the left is of Joel Beck, CVF's former partner at Roebling Hall. (MSB: Photo has been changed and is now correct.)

It is also worth noting that Mr. Viveros-Faune wrote for the Village Voice; which , other than the New York Times or the New Yorker, is the most influential art review one can get in New York. It might be different if he published on a blog or even in art magazines. I also don't think being dismissed from the VV will keep him from writing-- he is a fine writer and those are in short supply. A good writer will always have currency in the art world. One could also look to the example of Marc Speigler , who upon becoming one of the directors of Basel/Miami; immediately ceased writing criticism, and quit his blog 'Art World Salon'-- he recognized that his new position would put him in a conflict position and he chose to act in an ethical manner.

Oops. Sorry about the photo. I stole it from artnet.com, where it was identified as CVF. I'll go searching again later for a new one! (MSB: Photo has been changed and is now correct.)



I think Tyler did a great job in forthright questioning, by the way. But I disagree, it is about ethics, not just for journalists. Thanks for the comment, though, Tyler. I really enjoy your blog. Yours too Edward.



My point is that it is interesting how in the discussion surrounding this (less so in Tyler’s actual words), ethics seems to be reserved for critics. If you follow the logic out to the end, then critics can only be professors of art history or "theory" ---academics?, as if they are un-conflicted? --- most critics are now academics anyway primarily --- since they have no need to earn money any other way. Does that mean that no one can have any other job in the artworld? It is only academic or waiter? That Richard Holland can no longer have or broadcast on BAS an opinion about any art because he works for Bridge? That I, as a practicing artist, cannot write criticism, which I do. Etc.



Furthermore, is ethics only reserved for a certain "middling" important class? Yes the V V is somewhat important, but no one ever discusses the ethics of those higher on the ladder.

E.g.: There is a woman in Europe who runs one of the most important, and in certain regions the only, art publication. She is also a curator, in VERY important venues and in many countries, she is also on the board of several museums and the like. In one she was the chief person choosing the new curator, who often shows art collected by her family. Shows then reviewed by critics in her mag, critics who have no "conflict of interest" jobs --- but what about her? She also was of chief importance in choosing directors of a major art fair. They are not beholden to her in any questionable way? Or there is the woman in a certain large US city who controls much of its artworld, runs an art school where they turn out copies of her chosen style, and while she was on the board of an important grant, the award was given to a protégé and then-employee of hers. Etc. I would not propose Basel as the epitome of any ethical standards, by the way.



The problem seems to be that CVF in the interview with Tyler displayed absolutely no awareness that there could be any problem, and that infuriated many people. But, once again, MY point is that picking this one issue to parade as an ethical problem in a morass of far more pernicious hypocrisy sounds simply blind, disingenuous or vindictive.

I didn't really express one aspect clearly. I think Tyler Green did an admirable job of asking the correct and tough questions in his CVF interview(s). That is not easy and seldom done. My criticism is of what the event has turned into. The discussion surrounding it in the artworld, as I experience it, and in internet, is highly limited, even blindered. There is more than journalism to look at here.



And, as a reminder, my main point was that this offers "a good opportunity to discuss artworld 'ethics' (which clearly MUST be in scare quotes) at all levels."

BAD of http://blogostan.blogspot.com/
wrote:

An anonymous commenter linked to this Tyler Green tirade:



Today we look at ArtForum's relationship with John Kelsey. Kelsey is a writer (he writes reviews and macro-pieces for AF), a gallery director (of Reena Spaulings Gallery), an artist (recently represented by American Fine Arts), and a member of the cooperatives Bernadette Corporation and Reena Spaulings.



(Perhaps Kelsey and ArtForum think that if they confuse enough people, no one will notice ArtForum's trademark incestuousness.)

Can you imagine an artist who ran a space where his artist and poet friends performed? And also published a journal championing their works?



Or a painter and photographer who works as a graphic designer for a magazine that features his own works, sometimes on the cover?



That would be Tristan Tzara and Alexander Rodchenko, respectively.



Of course, the art community is much bigger today and has much more money and power than it did in the early 20th century. But I don't think the number of truly talented people with good ideas has increased proportionately, which is why the same names crop up again and again in Artforum, and artists whose shows are chosen for reviews are asked to write Top 10s, and artists who are also gifted writers are asked to contribute essays. A magazine becomes interesting and historically valuable when it presents a specific vision of what art is, and that means excluding a lot of people and continually highlighting a select few.



Is that really a despicable thing? Who is being exploited or hurt in this situation?



In any case, it's a lot better than regulating the art world to the point where it is completely corporate and professionalized.



The best thing that could result from regulation would be pockets of artists, writers and curators who cared enough about each other's works to organize an underground alternative to the regulated art world.

Nobody here wants a 'regulated' art world -- just some semblance of fair play and accountability.

It also bears mentioning that in no way did Christian Viveros-Faune try to obfuscate or shade the issue.
He was upfront and honest about the conflict of interest. That he was honest about it does not make it less wrong. What I find hard to explain is that he acknowledged the conflict of interest , and really had no problem with it.In the big art world -- all of this seems to be okay.

I agree with Tony.

now, there's a difference between NY and how conflicts develop in smaller cities and art scenes like Chicago for example.

The "having no problem" is the problem, of course. I see no difference in "conflicting interests" in any area or region of art over any other. Its all wrong. And even "wronger" in the Great Undiscussed Levels which I quickly sketched in the comment above. Simply applying the band-aid of "critics can't have any other artworld jobs" will in no way address the larger problem in the whole schlamassel, and particularly in the levels where it really matters.

Nobody is saying critics should not have other jobs-- Many critics lecture, write catalogs, write books and curate-- I haven't any problem with any of these activities. The discretionary power a critic has as the director of major art fair is QUITE a different thing-- Nobody is even saying CVF abused his power-- it is the appearance of conflict that makes this less than kosher. Apparently the Village Voice thought so as well .

I'm not sure the VV thought so. My feeling is that it was more a form of "damage control," giving in to pressure. After their hamfisted treatment of authors, I suspect VV more than CVF.
--- "V V empties its staff out" :

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/business/media/01voice.html?scp=17&sq=%22Village+Voice%22

You know Mark-- it doesn't seem like you are getting your head around this-- I don't get why you don't understand that being an Art critic for a hugely influential publication AND a stake-holder in an International art fair is not a conflict of interest.

Whether it was damage control or not -- the Voice did the right thing.

That there are bigger inequities and greater injustices in the art world are a given-- and not really any surprise. What we are discussing is this particular one; which, for once, seems to have been resolved as it should have been .

Mark -name the woman you refer to above -speaking of which, when is someone going to name the 2 ton elephant seal sitting in the middle of this little soiree -namely Kavi Gupta: did he secure the services of Mr. Viveros-Faune simply wishing to employ his expertise or, was he in fact buying influence with The Village Voice?

Of COURSE I understand that being an Art critic for a hugely influential publication AND a stake-holder (actually Employee of) in an International art fair is a conflict of interest.

What you people who are so happy about in this affair don't seem to get a hold of is that it is of NO real importance. A nice display. A mere toss-off, if you will, of seemingly-ethical behaviour, a few crumbs to the media, to appear good-willed, while in fact punishing a small fish while leaving any real and dangerous questioning out of the arc. Check further into the activities of the man you wish to compliment above, Tony. E.g. He's deeper in the morass than CVF could ever have been.

As Faune said, "In what other industry, for example, does one of the major magazines that chronicles both the creative and the business end of the art world establish an art fair of the same name. Obviously, I’m talking about Frieze." Which Salz called the "attempted hostile takeover" of the art world from the US.

Meanwhile, the Whitney Biennial continues to be filled with friends of the curators (as always) and hardly anyone questions. Artist not affiliated with the local “hot” university know well, too, that nyc critics and ouside curators are paid to visit such school's art program and shortly after you always find they have placed that school's artists in big shows, and similar. They are paid to come and promote, period.

Jack -dead, on!....doesnt ANYONE! find it STRANGE! that Judith Russi Kirchner and pal Suzanne Ghez/Hamsa Walker have more say so over who gets a Whitney visit than all of the curators here combined -that professional artists are for decades! ignored in favor of emerging 'edgy' 'artists' (ie new institutional product-) barely out (and sometimes not!) of grad programs?

Its completely corrupt -Kirchner should have ZERO involvement in how her 'new institutional' product is received or, reviewed in the art world-

There does seem to be one exception -people can note it appears MCA Curator Dominic Molon was successful in getting an emerging artist from here into the Whitney -no suprise considering how far he has his conformist nose up the asses of the powers that be-

Mark -- who am I trying to 'compliment'????

If you are going to make a point with me Mark -- you're going to have to name names.

It's an interesting discussion. It's also a potential image problem for Chicago if the Mart shows are seen by the larger art world as ethically compromised in their selection processes. Even though Viveros-Faune no longer works for the VV, I suspect that all the galleries have already been chosen? If so, that would indicate the Next and Volta lists may have been assembled while Viveros-Faune was still writing for the VV, and may lead to speculation that these lists are themselves subject to a claim of having resulted from questionable professional ethics. This seems merely an extension of the selection flap begun last year, and an emerging negative PR narrative for the Mart and their properties.

Clearly the reason the VV let Viveros-Faune go was in the main to protect their own reputation, not to stand behind Viveros-Faune's choices. It's not difficult to imagine how this happened. Since Volta was destined for NY, it's not unreasonable to surmise that both the Mart and Gupta may have thought it useful to have a local critic in their pocket. Questionable? Sure. Illegal? Not in any way. And it's a typical conglomeration approach: the Mart wants proprietary control over every aspect of their operations, and a stake in the editorial may have proven alluring. Why not? The art department of a city weekly is just another dimension of the entertainment industry they're eager to dominate. Without getting into specifics, my own dealings with them have led me to believe that they are less concerned with issues of professional conduct. It's a shame, because it may be simple negligence. In their ambition to become the domestic US version of Messe Schweiz, perhaps they are neglecting to understand the unique professional concerns of the various markets they have entered.

What's unfortunate about this is that Viveros-Faune himself may perhaps not have had any editorial guidance from the VV when he signed on with the Mart. Maybe his editors perceived no real conflict at the time, or didn't recognize the scale of the commercial venture he was signing onto. It's difficult to speculate. What this ultimately comes down to, I think, is the public concern that Viveros-Faune was using his VV position to enrich himself. If he had any hand in choosing galleries, whether or not his position with the VV was involved, it's clear that no Chinese wall separates the two anymore other than Faune saying that he should simply be trusted to keep them separate. Where's the mediation? Of course, in this situation there's no way of knowing for sure, and that's where problems can arise. In any case, that's where the line often gets drawn in these situations: personal financial gain. It's once you cross the line into money that things can become litigious. It's also one of the reasons why, when Bridge was still more of an art project than real commercial venture, I could feel fine about continuing my own journalistic work with Newcity. But once we crossed into profit-making territory or were perceived to be making substantial revenues of any kind, I then felt obligated to stop writing for the paper.

MW

Well said Michael. The appearance of an artfair-- or in this case artfairs, having a critic in their hip-pocket begs a lot of ethical questions-- and not just of Faune. What were the Mart people thinking regarding these issues. I don't think Faune maybe thought it all through -- I also have seen NO evidence of him having been compromised in his day job at the VV-- but it does make one wonder if it ever crossed the minds of the other parties involved -- Gupta, the Mart group-- who seem to be gobbling up art fairs at an alarming rate -- they remind me of nothing so much as Rupert Murdoch in the 80's buying every media outlet he could -- these guys have been oddly silent in this discourse in that none of them has publicly, as far as I know, come to Viveros-Faune's defense. Which strikes me as odd.
The bigger enigma here may be the grabbing up of art-fairs. I think that some in that group may view these fairs as a growth industry-- which , will more than likely change quickly when the market cools. I think that there is the thought out there in money-land that the consensus of the art-market is the same thing as the consensus of art-world, or worse yet, art itself. It used to be the money chased the art. Now the art chases the money . Dollar-bills are the same thing as brain-cells to these guys. The money-changers aren't in the temple -- now they own the temple.
On another blog somebody criticized Jerry Saltz for his 'hand-wringing' about the art market in essence becoming a beast unto itself. He wasn't wrong -- we are holding the coats for real-estate creeps while they rob us and our work of its definition. It's time to walk away from these guys.

Tony --- It is the principles that matter here to my discussion, rather than simply pointing one finger. In fact you would have to point about a hundred fingers. Thus my problem with the nailing of CVF. It’s like being happy you nailed the person who took the torture photos, but don’t even consider the fact that she was ordered to torture, most likely, by the hierarchy all the way to the top. Read your own post, you named the Basel director. Seems like a nice guy, I could say the same of CVF. MS, according to my sources, had all the Correct opinions about all the Correct people in all the Correct venues, curating Correct shows, until chosen by the Correct Club (pals of JK btw) to be a director, whereupon he stopped writing --- and I should applaud that as ethics? (Note from MSB later: I'm researching his work and will have to retract much of that, no matter what I was told. Marc S has dome some great worjk. The part about The Basel committee is true, though.) My point is that curators and critics and academics using positions to curry favor in blatant CC ways is just as, if not more heinous than monetary double-dealing, or at least its own form of double-dealing. Money IS important, ole Mamon. Especially for Americans, who tend to judge everything based on that (“If yer so smart why ain’t you rich.”) But simply achieving power within your chosen realm is also a huge Mamon-like beast, and I would say predominant here in Euroland. And equally dangerous, the effects being well summed up in Wesley’s post.



Michael’s post is dead-on, thanks. And points to broader questions.



The end of Tony’s last post is the best. I want to repeat and add to it.

“It used to be the money chased the art. Now the art chases the money.”


AND chases Power! And rather culturally unimportant power at that.


“The money-changers aren't in the temple -- now they own the temple.”


No shit! And they appear to be re-designing it in their own image, as a kind of cheesey Disneyland temple. Worse than destroying it. They’re whoring it.


“Saltz ...wasn't wrong -- we are holding the coats for real-estate creeps while they rob us and our work of its definition. It's time to walk away from these guys.”


And from their lackey power-mongering minions.

This IS a great discussion, by the way. Thanks to all. Everybody else reading and emailing me, please leave comments too!

Mark--

You've taken a broad swipe at Marc Speigler-- who is the ONE guy I can vouch for -- I've known him for 15 years-- and he has more than a healthy skepticism about the wealth and power and influence in the art world -- he gained his current position on MERIT-- he wrote for the Art Newspaper, Art& Auction and many others and was recognized for being sharp, fair and coherent -- this guy is a close friend of mine -- in fact I married he and his wife in Chicago years ago --why anybody legally empowered ME to marry people is another discussion-- so , this is somebody I know very well-- and he is not one of the creeps. He is one of my close friends. You should perhaps get to know him better and dismiss the shit-talk you hear about a guy who is where he is becaused he EARNED it. His talent and intelligence brought him to where he is.

... Also ; I take no joy in the fact that CVF lost his job. I think he is a limber and reflexive thinker and I enjoyed his writing , even when I didn't agree with him. His kind of insight is rare , and that is all the more lamentable that his thoughts will no longer be in the Village Voice.

also -- I don't need my thoughts reiterated and thrown into a context with your thoughts-- people can read-- and you've added things I don't agree with.

Well, if you say so Tony about Marc, then I guess I'll reconsider. What I wrote is what I heard from very many people I trust. I do trust YOU too, especially from what Wesley has told me. So I'll have to back down on Marc. You seem highly conversant with his actions. He did write for Artforum and the committee chosing him and the other two was rather CC, but I'll go research him myself. Although I trust my sources, if you are right, then I take it in the case of those commenting to me that it was envy speaking, which happens a lot in the artworld!



It did sound to me like many people enjoyed CVF losing his job. You said, e.g. "for once, seems to have been resolved as it should have been." Then I misinterpreted you, if not others, but that's how it saw it.



I, however, WILL cite anyone I wish to, in any legal way I wish, including you. Among other things, it is a great option of the internet comment structure, enabling writers to make comments into almost almost a direct dialogue. Especially when I disagree I will quote, but also when I agree. I am quite well versed in how to quote and comment, doing it in essays and the like a lot. And there you wrote a great statement that I wanted to underline and add my two cents. Which is my right, as I clearly divided what was yours and mine. I do not have to agree with you on all things, nor with anyone else. Nor you with me. We can chose what to agree with, --- and that was a COMPLIMENT by me to a great summation of yours.

BTW --- you MARRIED them ?!! --- so you're a reverend --- a mail-order one? Do I then have to go to confession and seek repentance instead of just saying I was wrong about Marc S?

Yes, I am legally empowered to marry people..... I am probably the only atheist reverend... A lot of whom I have joined in this holy union have already split up -- I have a for-shit average of lasting unions-- in fact-- I think Marc and Erica are the ONLY couple I have married who are still together...

Rethink Marc Speigler -- he is one of the good guys -- so is Sam Keller-- all of these guys have to deal with the enemy to do business....

Cite who ever you want... but I wrote my post as a complete thought and I don't appreciate having an addendum attached to it -- if we can't agree on that ; I'll post elsewhere.

Your average as minister can't be any worse than "real" ministers nowadays.



Complete thought or not, mine is a comment on a comment. That's the nature of this web beast. The greatest part, I think. It allows us to argue this out in public. If it weren't the nature of blogging, then neither you nor I nor the others would have any comments here at all, it would be like that impenetrable, seemingly third-person wall, of the glossies that always so-bothered me and why I bother to write for internet at all. Just as you have the right to comment on, thus add an addendum to MY post, then I have the right to comment on your comments, especially since I liked it. I feel, for instance, that your comments mostly took my post wrong. Should I now threaten to never post again because you understood it in a way I didn't desire? Don't be so snippy. I'm sorry I insulted your pal, seemingly quite unfoundedly. Nonetheless, you cannot proscribe what I or others then comment about your comments. Obviously I and Wesley and others thoroughly enjoy having you comment on Sharkforum. And usually we are in close agreement, but that won't always be true. I have seen you quote others within your comments. That happens. And your image of the money changers was great --- it expanded into a picture in my mind of what the temple would look like in a quasi-Christian painting of that scene, done up with the effects of the money-boys. Horrifying yet interesting image.



I started reading a bunch of MS's stuff. I'll get to more this weekend. Looks pretty promising. I'll tell you about my "rethink" later after I have more direct info myself, not from friends.

P.S. Tony: I think you should post, really post, not just comment, a blog entry here on your "take" on this affair. It seems to be extremely important to you and I know you write well. I put up my opinion because according to a call from wesley, you and he would like it because you were discussing it a lot. I found the affair of only marginal interest. You know my reading. Do yours, really, it would be illuminating and obviously much different from mine.

Mark -- my own blog will be up in late March-- early April. I am not a joiner-- I enjoy Sharkforum but I don't want to answer to anyone, nor will I. That you only found this of 'marginal' interest is I guess a marret of priorities -- I guess ours are different. That the blogosphere broke this story, tells you a lot about the power of blogs-- namely that the hard currency of this age is really no longer money , but information. The truth of this whole thing about artists empowering thmselves is really simple -- a good artist with a PC can make a living -- One can jpeg as many images to as many people as one wants -- truth be told -- who needs galleries or artfairs anymore?-- they merely provide a certain market- approved context-- one could easily conduct a whole career in cyberspace , which already has a powerful community.
The culture of the current art-world is not so interesting-- it's fashion-driven, self-regarding, and solipcistic-- it's like High-school with money. Artists have become 'mascots' for wealthy dildoes-- the fruit of their creative out-put, a mere 'lifestyle' accoutrement for some hedge-fund shithead. No thanks.
It's time to blow up the castle.

Tony, no one on sharkforum answers to anyone- we argue and have disagreements -but no member of sharkforum has ever been prevented from posting whatever blog they choose to here-

We are an ezine -not a bloggers site so yes -we do decide on occasion not to publish comments -one of the main reasons for that being I personally dont want to deal with the Amy Denes and other various sundry idiots that form the krill contingent in the art world. I dont need the aggravation- nor, the waste of time.

I think its great that you start your own site -but there is no need to denigrate sharkforum -we are an anarchy of like-minded individuals. Marks opinions expressed on this particular blog differ from mine -I happen to agree with you. However, I defend Marks right to have his opinion -precisely because this is an anarchy.

I agree with you the time has come to blow up the castle -and I agree with you that the art world in all of its raging venality has hit rock bottom -Karen Kilimnick- I'm sure Mark agrees as well.....you two are disagreeing on a point, a particular situation -but I do not think -knowing you both that you disagree on the totality of the art world being pretty fucked up.

Now, its not in The Shark's nature to play referee -so children, ENOUGH!

Who denigrated Sharkforum?-- I just said I didn't want to join anything-- you want anarchy?-- I got plenty.

Of course Mark is free to have his own view -- just as I am free to disagree with him.

We actually don't disagree on much-- this discourse started as an ethical discussion -- I thought Mark , who is also a critic would find this story telling-- he sees this very differently than I do. That this is of marginal interest to him I find curious; as the idea of a critic in the employ of an international art fair, cuts right to the heart of some of the discussions that have taken place here in this forum.

I think it speaks to the whole idea of how the art world operates-- how the game got so rigged.

The more I thought about it -- the bigger the questions became for me -- I usually ignore this shit-- I'm from Chicago -- the game is always rigged here you know?-- especially art-world politics-- but when I read Tyler Green's interview with CVF and he just blithely acknowledged that ' yeah it's a conflict-- but it's okay'-- I thought; well,
no actually, it's not.

I don't know this guy-- I feel bad he lost his job -- he ran a terrific gallery in Brooklyn and then Chelsea later -- Roebling Hall.

I do however know a bit about the guys he now works for -- Gupta and the Mart guys -- we had meetings with the mart guys last year -- I attended two of them -- and then ran like hell. These guys are the Rupert Murdochs of the art world-- watch out for them.

These guys are not art guys.

They are about money and preserving the profits of art-dealers and not about art and artists .

I used to enjoy artfairs-- they were places where you could see things you'd never seen before ; and ideas about art were always front and center . There was always something that entreated the imagination.

Now they are tarted-up trade-fairs that render the artist invisible in the equation-- they are about pimping the endless product-- the work is crammed together and never exhibited to its advantage. My friend Fred Tomaselli told me that he avoids artfairs now because being an artist in this setting is like watching your parents have sex -- it's creepy .

He isn't wrong -- the creeps have taken over -- burn it down.

Thanks for the "call to earth" Shark!
Yeah, Tony, actually we agree on all the important issues. We are both, though, rather "pugnacious," but since you were a real boxer, I'd better watch out!

We are also both, as well as Wesley, so deep INSIDE the artworld, yet also each OUTSIDE it in various ways that we each have perhaps overlapping yet "unique" viewpoints. You see more into the face of the double-dealing and hypocrisy of the US artworld. I'm confronted more with the European one (where, e.g., catalogue essays are far more politically and monetarily important than critical reviews, and where most writers-on-art are openly double-dealing in power --- curators writing on their buddies' shows, openly asking for favors and adverts in exchange for reveiws of galleries, openly currying favor --- never writing anything negative --- etc.). I hope I am not carrying my disgust so far that I am tarring the innocent, which I may have done to MS above as you suggest, but even more so, I hope I remain angry about ethics --- far worse than that would be to become so jaded by the ubiquitousness of it all that it seems natural, which unfortunately so many of my art-teaching and artist collegues a half-generation younger seem to feel (that famous, hateful, "that's just the way it is"), but I do have HOPE as most of the students, thus one or two generations younger, find it disgusting.


I can see Tomaselli's point and am coming closer and closer to it. That truth, plus the lack of any attempt to expand the Artist Project in real artist-serving ways (as demanded by Tony), are reasons why I am not participating in AP this year.

Fighting about this everywhere.
http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/finch/finch1-28-08.asp

http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2008/01/democracy-and-fascism-on-blogosphere.html