The question is why these people -how were they chosen? Michelle Grabner is at least understandable, a sturdy if somewhat limited painter, and more notably an art world operator both here and abroad extraordinaire, she has inadvertently demonstrated via her multifaceted ' art career' the de Kooning dictum 'isn't it amazing how much you can do with so little". The problem I have with Michelle -whom I personally like, is, that aside from the fact she has a history here of championing really bad painting with a focus on aping what is internationally 'hot', is what a partisan power broker she has always been, bringing to Chicago via Suburban/ Poor Farm a steady stream of trending international fare -while presenting from here a rather narrow, myopic, self serving polemic as to what has currency, recently from the very painting department she heads. (think Reeder /Zukerman exhibitions at the MCA -which had her fingerprints all over both of them) Unfortunately, the middle brow academic abstraction in various guises she supports -from colorfield bland to dorm art quality histrionics has been played as if it were the only game in town (think Grabner, Ledgerwood, Gerber, Reeder). While coincidentally, (or not !) over the course of almost two decades of this dynamic, of a small circle of people, institutionally supported, holding sway here, interest in Chicago art -painting in particular- has not surprisingly plummeted at the international level. So, now along with ethical considerations of an artist curating her friends into a big show, comes the distinct possibility that the art world is going to experience the tedium of mediocrity, the tepid de-skill that has hung around the neck of the Chicago art world (and everywhere else) like a putrefying albatross for years at the Whitney. In other words, NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS! That there exists the potential of a show featuring some really bad crap may even be, the desired goal given the idiotic/imbecilic art world of today Michelle is such a purveyor of. Still, I am going to hope for the moment she transcends her milieu, and surprises me. Showing first of all more painting, and while rising to the occasion, confounds her friends while delighting her foes in a demonstration of shocking integrity showing not the usual suspects who she has championed in the past, but rather what is actually skilled, particular , original and fierce from here. Anthony Elms, that, is far more problematic, and nothing less than Kafkaesque: the inexorable creep forward of a petty bureaucrat... why this guy, this career mired in mediocrity at every turn? From failed artist to silly projects to reams of mediocre art writing,) going from an entry level position at Gallery 400 to another entry level assignment at the very small Institute of Contemporary Art Philadelphia. Its difficult to imagine they couldn't have done better. As for the film gentleman, echoing Werner Herzog's sentiments concerning his own participation in the last biennial, why is it other disciplines feel the need to invade the small realm of visual art? Last time I checked there were plenty of venues for any kind or type of effort in that particular medium.Operators, Manipulators, Petty Bureaucrats Business As Usual At The Whitney Biennial
|
|
The question is why these people -how were they chosen? Michelle Grabner is at least understandable, a sturdy if somewhat limited painter, and more notably an art world operator both here and abroad extraordinaire, she has inadvertently demonstrated via her multifaceted ' art career' the de Kooning dictum 'isn't it amazing how much you can do with so little". The problem I have with Michelle -whom I personally like, is, that aside from the fact she has a history here of championing really bad painting with a focus on aping what is internationally 'hot', is what a partisan power broker she has always been, bringing to Chicago via Suburban/ Poor Farm a steady stream of trending international fare -while presenting from here a rather narrow, myopic, self serving polemic as to what has currency, recently from the very painting department she heads. (think Reeder /Zukerman exhibitions at the MCA -which had her fingerprints all over both of them) Unfortunately, the middle brow academic abstraction in various guises she supports -from colorfield bland to dorm art quality histrionics has been played as if it were the only game in town (think Grabner, Ledgerwood, Gerber, Reeder). While coincidentally, (or not !) over the course of almost two decades of this dynamic, of a small circle of people, institutionally supported, holding sway here, interest in Chicago art -painting in particular- has not surprisingly plummeted at the international level. So, now along with ethical considerations of an artist curating her friends into a big show, comes the distinct possibility that the art world is going to experience the tedium of mediocrity, the tepid de-skill that has hung around the neck of the Chicago art world (and everywhere else) like a putrefying albatross for years at the Whitney. In other words, NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS! That there exists the potential of a show featuring some really bad crap may even be, the desired goal given the idiotic/imbecilic art world of today Michelle is such a purveyor of. Still, I am going to hope for the moment she transcends her milieu, and surprises me. Showing first of all more painting, and while rising to the occasion, confounds her friends while delighting her foes in a demonstration of shocking integrity showing not the usual suspects who she has championed in the past, but rather what is actually skilled, particular , original and fierce from here. Anthony Elms, that, is far more problematic, and nothing less than Kafkaesque: the inexorable creep forward of a petty bureaucrat... why this guy, this career mired in mediocrity at every turn? From failed artist to silly projects to reams of mediocre art writing,) going from an entry level position at Gallery 400 to another entry level assignment at the very small Institute of Contemporary Art Philadelphia. Its difficult to imagine they couldn't have done better. As for the film gentleman, echoing Werner Herzog's sentiments concerning his own participation in the last biennial, why is it other disciplines feel the need to invade the small realm of visual art? Last time I checked there were plenty of venues for any kind or type of effort in that particular medium.