April 2002, 41 posts, 1498 lines
Well said, Marc
Claire
In response to the discussion regarding curatorial practices, 3 comments:
First, to Keri Butler regarding the practice of major collectors sitting on the boards of museums and promoting the artists they collect - I totally agree with you. It makes for a new Academy that tends to silence discordant views. But I think the process is actually more complicated, because many (not all) major collectors probably rely on major museum curators to make their aesthetic decisions for them in the first place. I am always amazed at how all the "big" private collections and all the "big" museums and all the "big" art magazines seem to feature the same artists. Now there is no question but that many of these artists are quite talented, but it tends to challenge credibility that so many people genuinely agree on what would seem to be such a highly personal topic.
Second, to Claire, on the issue of "themed" group shows. My own experience is that nine times out of ten the work has nothing to do with the expressed theme of the show. Rather, it's just work that appeals to the personal aesthetic of the curator. And if the curator herself is an artist, then of course she should include her own work. It is up to the audience to then assess the quality of the show.
Third, I also liked Nato's little rant. I liked the concept of artists, curators, and insiders. On the other hand, I have never thought that socially relevant art is good art. More often than not, socially relevant art is boring art.
Finally, to everyone in the othergroup who is interested in the practice of criticism, I am reading a very interesting book, Exile's Return, by Malcolm Cowley, which seems to address many of the same questions that I read about in postings on this email list. I guess that people struggled with the same dilemmas in 1934, when this book was written, that they do today.
Al Ravitz
I'm going to try to restate what Alan Ravitz wrote with the hope of better understanding his various opinions:
-1. Artists, Curators,
and Insiders are a concept
-2a. Socially relevant art is bad
-2b. Socially irrelevant art is good
-3a. Socially relevant art is
usually boring
-3b. Socially irrelevant art is usually interesting
So perhaps if we just call the "concept" in part 1 "people" and we try applying this to parts 2 and 3, we can conclude:
-4a.
Socially relevant people are bad
-4b. Socially irrelevant people are
good
-5a. Socially relevant people are usually boring
-5b.
Socially irrelevant people are usually interesting
Okay I think I get it.
Thanks!
Marc
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, bulka (actually 'greg') wrote:
Hey folks,
My biggest info source is email, including the ChicagoArt.net mailing list. I've received a number of emals from the list which lack address and phone numbers. ...
[deleting most of an earlier reply.. except:]
The stupid designers of the ChicagoArt.Net web site should just auto-append the location information, if you ask me.
OK, they are doing that now. No more lost addresses and phone numbers. I wonder how that works with off-site exhibitions.
/jno
Marc, you've taken too many philosophy courses.
Alan,
I appreciate that you liked my "little" rant. I appreciated your "big" one. I also like Mark's semantic deductions, but of course, I would.
Hey, while we're on the subject of artists and curators (a favorite topic of mine), has anyone read Nicolas Bourriaud's Relational Aesthetics? It's an interesting attempt to codify the various practices of the 90s by folks like Liam Gillick, Pierre Hughye, Jorge Pardo, Dejanov & Heger, Superflex, etc. The only problem is Bourriaud is pretty much an a-historical twit at the Palais de Tokyo, but at least he understands that the nature of artistic practice is dramatically changing. (though I know that many people in Chicago, and the rest of the provincial US, are still concerned about whether or not painting is dead).
I'm just curious if anyone has some thoughts on it.
Also, has anyone been paying attention to the way Documenta is shaping up. I find it completely interesting and since, the Midwest is representing in a phat way, with Okwui Enwezor of AIC, Carlos Basualdo of the Wexner and Chicago's very own matriarch, Suzanne Ghez at the Ren, all represent, sent, senting......................it is of particular regional significance.
oh, and pardon my "little" rant:
nato
About Alan Ravitz's tiny rant:
Here is another way of looking at it--
Socially relevant, socially informed medicine is bad, contaminated medicine. Socially irrelevant, socially uninformed medicine is good, pure medicine.
Can anybody believe such a thing? Yes. "Believing" is what it takes to think the above is true. But that doesn't mean it's the best or most useful way to think about it, especially if what you are after is a differentiation between good and bad medicine.
Too simple?
Then maybe categorizing art as "socially relevant" and then deciding it's all boring is too simple.
dan w.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Marc Fischer wrote: .. to restate what Alan Ravitz wrote ... 4a. Socially relevant people are bad
I think so too, although this is a very terse restatement of Nato Thompson's double negative, "It really isn't offensive to me if non-socially minded people reveal themselves to be conniving insiders.."
Much much more intersting, and which hasnt seen a response, is the suggestions of a reevaluation of curator-artist relationships ..
- "The
entire curatorial/artist breakdown is a dubious supposition that needs to
be reconfigured.
- "shouldn't curatorial and artistic practice be
completely revamped?
- "the movement between artist and curator and
insider all just seems like a useless balancing act..
- "I just think
the economic and social positions are in dire need of being addressed.
Shees, there's some meat there: What do you think about that Mr. Pedro? Mr. Bulka?
/jno
To Dan Wang
Marc Fisher subjected my little rant to a an excellent logical analysis, but really, all I said was that socially relevant art is usually boring. I stand by that. I don't think social relevance differentiates good from bad art. I think other admittedly abstract criteria, such as emotional honesty and originality differentiate good from bad art. Now, as for medicine, once again the criterion, in my opinion, is not social relevance but rather intelligence, education, logicality, sensitivity, and empathy. Social relevance, in my opinion, makes for good politics, good social policy, etc. I (and this is just a personal predisposition) want to be moved by art, not educated by it. I want to have an experience that is not otherwise available to me. I am perfectly happy if you think about art differently than I do (as I mentioned previously, I think matters of personal taste are almost inescapably idiosyncratic), but I don't really think your logical analysis of my rant is as acute or as funny as Marc Fisher's. I think you missed my point.
Al Ravitz
Nato
Gee whiz. Don't take offense. I liked what you said.
Al Ravitz
Maybe I did, but I'm glad you got mine--perhaps you didn't laugh because I wasn't trying to be funny.
I believe social relevance is always there, because it's part of any human activity. Does that mean one cannot be moved by beauty, honesty, emotional content? No, but those are all measured by socially-informed coordinates which change over time as societies change, as well. So how is any art, or one's response to it, not in a broad sense socially relevant?
If you're talking about 'political' art being boring, then when does a work of art stop being political or, if you like, socially relevant? And is that when you can start to enjoy it or be moved by it in other ways, or is it once socially relevant, always socially relevant? Also, can't an educational experience through art not also be moving, maybe even in ways that are, like you say, not otherwise available?
I agree that there are works of art which are more and less socially relevant in an intentional sense, but I don't clearly see how that by itself makes work any more boring than art being made according to any other intention.
Personal taste? Okay, that's a perfectly legitimate answer. But one with it's own social history, as well.
Maybe I should have written this the first time around. . . but the original remark, as offhand as it was, didn't seem to call for much more than a bullshit comment.
dan w.
Hey guys, the new FGA is up. The FGA
Issue #10
Read the damn thing at: [http://spaces.org/rants/fga10.htm]
FGA; URL:[http://spaces.org/rants/index.htm]
In a message dated 4/2/02 9:08:58 AM, natonovich at hotmail.com writes:
Hey, while we're on the subject of artists and curators (a favorite topic of mine), has anyone read Nicolas Bourriaud's Relational Aesthetics?
hey Mr. Nato,
to be formal, I've heard this Bourriaud article mentioned before, but I never have found what its referenced in. What book or mag is it in? the berlin Biennale? I guess that somewhat identifies me as having thoughts on the topic, but not the article. except where to get it.
Marc you and Dan should teach High school. Thanks for stating the obvious to such lenghts...It reminds me why I hate art sometimes, especially those long labels and artists statements and yes, boring to hell politically charged art. Yoy guys are just defending your "personal taste." Try being more tolerant and ease down that snob attitude.
Pedro
Nato
Just so you understand, I didn't mean "little" in the sense of insignificant or not smart or in any other pejorative sense. I meant "little" in the sense of terse, not a lot of words, succinct. To repeat myself, I liked what you had to say.
Al Ravitz
I guess you mean that because I'm from Puerto Rico everyhting I see, hear or do is in response to the "filter in my brain" that reads "made in Puerto Rico". Then I guess, I'm full of machismo and wear a mustache deep in my heart. Give me a Break, Marc and Dan.
Pedro,
Responsibility and accountability and reasonable (if long) attempts at thoughtful analysis (as opposed to what I felt were shoddy simplistic reductions and generalizations) are not issues of personal taste. They are realities that you can deal with or that you can ignore. All art is politically charged in the right context. Abstract Expressionism was used as a political tool. Everything can or does get used that way. Your show "Porn" at Joymore was politically charged the moment a political representative from an Alderman's office barged into the show and wanted to know what you were potentially exposing to the people in that neighborhood. So you are a part of this and it is a part of you. The only way that I think you can avoid this debate is to stop making, viewing, exhibiting and writing about art.
What is snobby to me is expecting that shoddy lazy thinking will be accepted by everyone here because we all supposedly have something in common: an interest in art. Don't get upset when we strongly disagree with each other. That's life and you don't have to be tolerant of my opinion if you don't agree.
No one puts a gun to your head and forces you to read "those long labels and artists statements." In fact, you seem to like to read these things because I think you take pleasure in finding something to complain about later on (many people might perceive THAT as a snobby attitude). And obviously you like making artist statements too because you regularly publish FGA just like you regularly post thoughts and ideas and opinions on this discussion group.
Love,
Marc
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Marc Fischer wrote:
are political .. are not .. are socially relevant .. aren't .. be looked at .. physical beauty .. political course of action .. bizarre wishful thinking .. passive space .. sophisticated sense .. radiant beauty .. poetic ideas .. makes you think .. makes you feel .. logical thinking .. social policy .. about society .. transcendental bliss .. move people .. educate .. emotionally honest .. abstract issues .. separate from art
Ding!
[ ... ending in.. ] .. but you haven't convinced me that I should shut up.
ding! ding!
You guys are typing faster than I can think. And you have become more lucid than you have been in months. But when I backtrack to see where all this came from, I can't quite figure how we got here. I think it started as some musings about not liking 'socially relevant' art, but when stated as "I have never thought that socially relevant art is good art," it was (I think) misread as an assertion. And then everybody started downing espresso shots and hitting the keyboards. Even Pedro.
If Ravitz meant 'art about social issues' of the type we were inundated by for about a decade a decade ago, then I for one certainly agree, it was topical, it _was_ boring, and it has disappeared. Wasn't it also called 'political art'?
Otherwise, of course _all_ art is political, as long as you allow that people are political. What could we be arguing about?
And what on earth is Pedro responding to, with, "I guess you mean that because I'm from Puerto Rico..?" Pedro is _so_ PR, there is no arguement there either.
:)
/jno
(Alan I'll back ya up a little) To follow Marc's logic:
-Art is
presented in social situations
-Things presented in social situation
are socially relevant
-All art is socially relevant
-Movies and TV are presented in social situations
-Things presented
in social situation are socially relevant
-All movies and TV are
socially relavent
-I drink in social situations
-Things
presented in social situation are socially relevant
......
Ok. I think I get it.
Under your argument, everything is socially relevant and therefore being
I'll use "political intentions" instead. I think that art with political intentions tends to be if not boring, misguided, one dimensional and ineffective. To quote you, "I just saw the Barnett Newman retrospective in Philly and I loved it even though his idea that capitalism will come to a screeching halt when people properly understand his paintings is absolutely hilarious." His contributions to the dialogue of modern art - interesting. His contributions to societal revolution - insignificant. And I say this knowing that you, Marc, participated in one of my favorite projects in recent years, Brett Bloom's Dispensing with Formalities. I know its possible to create interesting socially minded work, but its rare. It's even more rare to create political art that is politically effective and is still interesting as art. My typically response to work that screams social relevance is to not bother.
And while I'm at it...Marc wrote: Unlike the MCA, the Art Institute tries to prostitute itself a little >more privately.
I know this was just a throw away comment, but it bothered me. Why is holding after hours events to raise funds for cultural institutions a negative thing. I understand bitching about many of the now common practices that museums use in order to balance their books. But holding a party for say Deutsche Bank during the Gerhard Richter show after the museum closes - where's the problem? They have to pay for the new multi-million addition with something.
jeff
I have found that most (not all) of the art that I've seen that has a political focus is too didactic and heavy-handed. Sometimes it's just too easy to get the artist's point - and then "so what?" (another opinion) But, maybe if the general public was more aware of national and international political sitations then artists wouldn't find it necessary to try to use their art to educate/preach? (another simplified generalization)
to quote Jeff: "But holding a party for say Deutsche Bank during the Gerhard Richter show after the museum closes - where's the problem? They have to pay for the new multi-million addition with something."
I agree, and it doesn't really even bother me that the museum would do marketing outreach to targeted audiences. Marc, you're going to have to explain a little more why this is so bad in order to change my mind (if it's worth your time). now, what does bother me is how the museum/school is (mis)using tuition fees? as real estate investments, to fund the museum, from what I hear it certainly isn't equipment for the students...
keri
My thoughts on this as are such:
I specifically use the word 'socially relevant' because it allows for some leeway. I know that many people can stand didactic preachy work. I can relate. I think this is generally what people think of when they think of 'socially relevant'. But this not necessarily be the case, because, obviously if the work isn't resonating with people because it is too preachy then it can hardly be relevant.
We need to open up the discourse around what is political. It's not necessarily didactic. In fact, I think what is political about art is exactly the opposite of didacticism because that type of closed system perfectly reflect the closed system of capital. It also reflect hierarchical educational models that are so pervasive. I think art is best when it reflects the pedagogical approach of Paolo Freire, or it opens up categories. Spaces of ambiguity are highly political particularly when they clear enough space in one's minds to imagine their own being, their own personal situation, and in effect break out of commodity alienationn. These kind of moments are quite prescious and all kinds of non-didactic work does such a thing.
But we must be careful. I am generally leary of people lambasting "didactic" work because I tend to suspect they aren't really interested in these open spaces either. They aren't really interested in a process of growth or becomming. The general desire I am familiar with is arty people want to 'feel' like a work is irrelevant, not very challenging, but most of all, somehow mysteriously sophisticated (which is just a coding of power). That's the baggage that I am quite intent to fight. Art has such a pathetic history of bougoise legitimation that it drives me crazy to see so many people rushing to jump on the band wagon.
Sometimes its helpful in these discussions to use specific examples and instead of art, it is always more helpful to discuss specific media like painting, sculpture, installation, intervention, whatev.
Jeff,
I can't devote my life to Other Group forever so I'll try to do something I haven't been trying to do. I'll try to be concise (sort of).
Under your argument, everything is socially relevant and therefore being "socially relevant" defines nothing.
I felt that Alan (and Pedro) were trying to claim that some art is socially relevant and some art is not. So can we agree that all art is socially relevant once exhibited etc. etc.? My beef is that most artists do not even acknowledge that exhibiting their art brings forward this role and therefore being an exhibiting artist carries with it certain social responsibilities and accountability issues. Of course tons of art is not socially effective. But whether you intend for your art to effect social change or not, art gets used this way by other people (the Richter example and all the other ones) - especially if you relinquish control over it by selling it, giving it away, or letting other people - possibly people with dubious motives - represent your ideas.
I'll use "political intentions" instead. I think that art with political intentions tends to be if not boring, misguided, one dimensional and ineffective.
Hey let's be fair to not just the shitty political art, but the shitty art of ALL stripes! I think most art tends to be "boring, misguided, one dimensional and ineffective" no matter what it is about. You'd be hard-pressed to find a guy that hates more art than I do. Of course the ratio of interesting stuff to less interesting stuff varies considerably from venue to venue and artist to artist. I think most art is shit, but the stuff that I care about I care about very deeply. And I make this stuff myself and I work to present the art and ideas of other people so I have to contend with what is out there, just like a chef has to think about the other restaurants and kinds of food in the world. Doesn't mean you have to like 'em or would wanna eat at too many of these places.
To quote you,
I think: almost but not quite. Did Newman stop capitalism? Of course not. Has his work irrevocably changed the way some people see by contributing some rigorously considered aesthetic objects to our world? Yes. That's a really powerful thing in and of itself. His contribution extends much further than a dialogue within modern art once it is seen by people, outside of those critical circles, who carry around what they have taken from his work. You can apply things learned from looking at his paintings when looking at all kinds of aesthetic phenomena in the world - like the way someone paints their house, or a crack in the road that changes the spread of the asphalt and how it reflects light. Once you develop these tools they can be immensely liberating. We have to stop trying to keep this stuff in the art ghetto. It drives me wild that people are afraid of what will happen when art participates in a broader discussion and has relevance to a broader array of people than those who are part of the "dialogue of modern art." (Still would have been kinda cool if Barney stopped capitalism with his paintings)
And I say this
knowing that you, Marc, participated in one of my favorite projects in recent years, Brett Bloom's Dispensing with Formalities. I know its possible to create interesting socially minded work, but its rare. It's even more rare to create political art that is politically effective and is still interesting as art. My typically response to work that screams social relevance is to not bother.
Thanks about DwF. I agree that it is the rare art that works on all of these levels you mention. That's the stuff I'm interested in with regard to this discussion - the rare work that is socially minded, aesthetically interesting, politically effective (or at least politically engaging), etc. etc. I prefer complicated stuff to simple stuff. Most art is fast, cheap, and not out of control enough.
And while I'm at it...Marc wrote: Unlike the MCA, the Art Institute tries to prostitute itself a little more privately.
I know this was just a throw away comment, but it bothered me. Why is holding after hours events to raise funds for cultural institutions a negative thing. I understand bitching about many of the now common practices that museums use in order to balance their books. But holding a party for say Deutsche Bank during the Gerhard Richter show after the museum closes - where's the problem? They have to pay for the new multi-million addition with something.
It was kind of a throw-away comment but that stuff is serious too (sorry, low fun quotient in this email). I know it is a reality but I find it sad that they have to raise money this way. AIC _is_ better than a lot of museums about not letting it get in the way of their exhibit displays very much but the next logical step is always that these practices _do_ get in the way of the exhibits. I saw a Goya show in Philly a few years ago and there was a full color ad for a huge chain men's clothing store as the first page you saw when you opened the free exhibition brochure. This was nauseating. I mean, can't they at least respect an iconoclastic mofo like Goya? The Art Institute hasn't whored themselves that badly compared to other museums (though they do perhaps offer a few quiet hand jobs here and there). I heard one of the officials at AIC (can't remember who) talk about how sponsors have asked for such outrageous things as displaying new cars in the lobby during public hours in exchange for exhibition support, and the museums said No. Hopefully they will keep saying No.
But when museums get desperate they do desperate things. We are just viewers of the Richter show so as long as we don't have to walk around a Mercedes to get to his paintings, we shouldn't be too horribly affected. The issue is perhaps more one for Richter, who by having this huge show, is gonna get dragged into this marketing and audience development stuff because he is the main attraction. Maybe he doesn't care? Maybe he has refused to let them do a lot of things they wanted to do that we'll never hear about? Maybe they have proposed the idea of making beach towels based on his Baader-Meinhoff series and he turned them down? I don't know what level of control he and his handlers desire or assert. I would be interested to hear any stories people may know of artists that have been asked to make concessions to institutions that they refused to make. Hearing how artists negotiate the uglier side of museum work sometimes inspires me more than their art itself! Remember also that not all artists go for certain corporate sponsors and this does affect what we get to see. Hans Haacke and I think some other artists pulled themselves out of a major conceptual art survey a while back because it was funded by Phillip Morris. Did the museum care enough about Haacke's contribution to conceptual art to find another sponsor? No.
Fuck, I said I was gonna be concise and look what happened.
Marc
I have found that most (not all) of the art that I've seen that has a political focus is too didactic and heavy-handed. Sometimes it's just too easy to get the artist's point - and then "so what?" (another opinion) But, maybe if the general public was more aware of national and international political sitations then artists wouldn't find it necessary to try to use their art to educate/preach? (another simplified generalization)
Art with political overtones doesnt last, especially if topical, heavy handed, and if it attempts to generalize. The prime 'political art' today is found in editorial cartoons of newspapers. Their force is in suggesting a point of intellectual recognition -- a flash of insight. But of course they are old hat the next day also.
Compare contemporary editorial cartoons with the specificity and ferocity of Goya's work, and you realize why they dont last. Or why so many artists fail at this also.
/jno
In a message dated 4/3/02 11:22:55 AM, marcf at corecomm.net writes:
Hans Haacke and I think some other artists pulled themselves out of a major conceptual art survey a while back because it was funded by Phillip Morris. Did the museum care enough about Haacke's contribution to conceptual art to find another sponsor? No.
To clarify this mistelling of the tale...No artists pulled out of the show. The show was put together and well on its way before the museum's (la moca) funding for the show was entirely in place. When the artists heard tale that Phillip Morris was to be a sponsor haacke protested (at this I'm uncertain if PM was specifically funding the show, or is they always got thanked on the wall didactics because of general support to the museum) and arranged to post a wall text clearly stating the situation, the lack of foreknowledge, and his disgust with PM as a sponsor. he circulated a petition a large number of the exhibiting artists signed on.
so the museum did in fact care enough about haacke's position to allow him to muckrake in public and to show the solidarity he had from some of his fellow exhibitors.
I did a some quick Google research and found out that Anthony and I are both a little bit right and a little bit wrong (also perhaps a little free jazz and a little rock 'n roll). According to an excerpt from Haacke himself:
California's penchant for discouraging indulgence in carcinogenic pleasures probably was also the reason, in l995, for Philip Morris to sponsor the exhibition "1966-l975: Reconsidering the Object of Art" at the Museum of Contemporary Art's Temporary Contemporary in Los Angeles. This investment was not an unqualified success. A number of the artists in this survey exhibition of so-called conceptual art, discovering as late as the show's opening, that Philip Morris was its sponsor, protested vociferously and managed to have the national press amplify their anger. Adrian Piper withdrew her works when the Museum was unwilling to substitute them with a work commemorating her parents, who both died from smoking related diseases. The case of Adrian Piper demonstrates that artists risk losing access to the public and foregoing participation in the public discourse, if they don't want to lend their work and their name for the promotion of corporate interests - in this example of a company whose products killed the artist's parents. The non-representation in large survey-shows can jeopardize the recognition artists receive when history is written and, of course, also the prices for which their works are traded.
A few months after MOCA's abduction of artists into Marlboro Country, Sol LeWitt, one of the MOCA protesters, rejected a major commission from the Guggenheim Museum when he learned that the survey show Abstraction in the Twentieth Century: Total Risk, Freedom, Discipline for which the commission was intended, was sponsored by Philip Morris. The exhibition opened without him.
To read the rest of this paper go to this link: [http://www.societyofcontrol.com/research/Haacke.html]
Compare contemporary editorial cartoons with the specificity and ferocity of Goya's work, and you realize why they dont last. Or why so many artists fail at this also. /jno
This is something I started thinking about only recently so it's a little off the cuff. A couple weeks ago I went to a horrible little undergrad exhibit of student political cartoons at Columbia College and I was trying to think about why I hate this stuff so much - or perhaps, what's happening right now that is as good as those killer photomontages that John Heartfield made in the 1930's that made fun of the nazis. The only thing I could think of, the only thing that I think comes close is... The Onion.
Is The Onion art? Does it matter? As political satire and parody - what's better? What is more specific and ferocious? I think that back issues of the Onion might actually make a pretty formidable historical record in a hundred years. It sets the bar pretty high for free expression just like Heartfield did in the 1930's. It makes room for hopefully even more fucked up parody to occur in the future.
Marc
In a message dated 4/3/02 2:33:30 PM, marcf at corecomm.net writes:
I did a some quick Google research and found out that Anthony and I are both a little bit right and a little bit wrong (also perhaps a little free jazz and a little rock 'n roll).
well i guess I'll be a little bit free jazz. My comments were based, as I should have said, from my memory (usually a more respectable source than most) of the exhibition. I remember reading a text in the show about Piper, but didn't remember that she was not represented at all.
I agree, and it doesn't really even bother me that the museum would do marketing outreach to targeted audiences. Marc, you're going to have to explain a little more why this is so bad in order to change my mind (if it's worth your time).
I think it's great when the Art Institute makes an effort to really inform different communities of what is going on at the museum - like putting up street banners in a Polish neighborhood for the Polish exhibition. This brings new audiences to art and art to new audiences. Can't complain about that. What I don't like is the fact that once the Polish exhibition was over, the Art Institute no longer seemed to make an effort to advertise its exhibitions in that community in this highly visible way. Will they put street banners in Mexican neighborhoods to let everyone know that Gerhard Richter is coming? Very very unlikely. But if they were having a Diego Rivera show, they probably would. I think this is patronizing and presumptuous - it subtly sends a message that they think different ethnic/racial groups are only interested in the art of their own people. Obviously untrue and they know that from conducting surveys where African Americans will commonly say that they were not visiting to see the African art, but to see the Impressionist paintings that everyone else loves too.
A whole other thing which I could bore you with for hours is the matter of how the Art Institute collects their demographic information. Ever wonder why the lines are enormous on weekends - commonly out the door? Is it because they use Ticketmaster ticketing systems which suck shit? Partially. Is it because they hire slow and uneducated workers? Perhaps - they don't seen to hire the kinda people that they used to in Visitor Services. Or finally, is it because the people behind the counter have to ask EVERY SINGLE VISITOR for their zip code? Yes, the answer is 'C' - Zip codes. I fought them over this like crazy every time it was brought up at a staff meeting that we weren't collecting enough zip codes. I said, 'This is a museum, not Circuit City. People don't expect to be asked for their zip code.' The annoying lady from Development responded that she goes to Party City and Target and they ask for your zip code and she never minds. I asked her if she thought going to Party City was just like going to a Museum? She failed to recognize that these places have a different purpose. I said 'Can't you just get zip codes from all the credit cards that are used for admissions payments and purchases in the shop?' She said, 'Well not everyone pays with a credit card.' I argued that this held up the line. I argued that the acoustics in the lobby are bad so not only do you have to ask people once, you usually have to repeat the question, which holds up the line even more. And then there are the foreign visitors who don't speak English and don't know what a zip code is. You have to ask them about 3 times and then when you realize they have no idea what you are talking about, you have to ask them what country they are from.
I could probably go on and on and not stop rockin' til the break of dawn if anyone needs to hear more about this, but I'll stop for now. You don't even wanna get me started on when they were trying to find African American visitors that would fill out surveys but they had to be making at least $25,000 a year in order for their survey to 'count'.
Marc
I tried to get the book that several of you mentioned - I think, last week. I wrote down the title, Relational Aesthetics, by Nicolas Bourreaud, but I can't find it listed anywhere. Is it an article in a book? Can you help me?
Thanks,
Claire
Hey!
Although I haven't posted here before, some of you may know me from such critical art texts as "Pablo Picasso really *was* called an Asshole", and "Richard Serra/Richard Scarry: More than a coincidence".
More seriously, I work at the New Art Examiner and am focusing on a bunch of things including benefits. To that end, we (the NAE) are looking to build a group of volunteers to assist us in our efforts. The group will be called the Friends of NAE (FONAE) until we come up with a better one. Membership is free to anyone willing to help us out at fund raisers and subscription events. Benefits will include free access, inclusion in the dialog of community, invitation to special events and open houses, and if we can swing it with the mayor, a key to the city.
In simpler terms, we are looking for folks to help us man events and in return we are offering cool hang out opportunities, good conversation, snacks and beer - oh yeah and that key thing.
If you are interested, send me an email with your name, phone number, and email address or talk to any of the other NAE Hipsters. We've got events coming up in the next month and we need your help.
Thanks,
Curt
Hey!
Although I haven't posted here before, some of you may know me from such critical art texts as "Pablo Picasso really *was* called an Asshole", and "Richard Serra/Richard Scarry: More than a coincidence".
More seriously, I work at the New Art Examiner and am focusing on a bunch of things including benefits. To that end, we (the NAE) are looking to build a group of volunteers to assist us in our efforts. The group will be called the Friends of NAE (FONAE) until we come up with a better one. Membership is free to anyone willing to help us out at fund raisers and subscription events. Benefits will include free access, inclusion in the dialog of community, invitation to special events and open houses, and if we can swing it with the mayor, a key to the city.
In simpler terms, we are looking for folks to help us man events and in return we are offering cool hang out opportunities, good conversation, snacks and beer - oh yeah and that key thing.
If you are interested, send me an email with your name, phone number, and email address or talk to any of the other NAE Hipsters. We've got events coming up in the next month and we need your help.
Thanks,
Curt
Curt Alan Conklin
- FABULASS PRODUCTIONS
- PRESENTS
- A
FABULASS FUNDRAISER
- Come support your SAIC Photo Grads
- See a
screening of FABULASS VIDEOS
- See your favorite photo
hotties in the
- WET T-SHIRT CONTEST
Sunday April 14th, 2002, at the LAVA LOUNGE 859 W.Damen
8:00 Doors open
8:30 Screening
9:30 Wet T-Shirt Contest
10:00 DJ
$6.00 at the door
21 and over only.
ALL PROCEEDS GO TO BENEFIT THE FABULASS SHOW DURING ART FAIR CHICAGO
FABULASS PRODUCTIONS IS: Constance Faulk, Sheree Hovespian, Matthew Hollis, John Photos, Camilla Meshiea, Kate Steciw, Heidi Norton, Jane Critchlow, and Hannah Corbett.
contact: fabulassproductions at hotmail.com
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, bulka wrote: .... working on economic development, with a " high tech campus with duct and fiber interconnects between seven downtown buildings" (I don't even know what this means).
Hope this helps.
/jno
I've just agreed to do some fast co-curating for a June 13 show in Hammond. I'm a little vague on the details myself, but here is a sketch. If it sounds like fun, email me bulka at enteract.com and we'll see what happens. At this point, I'm just shaking the bushes to see who's interested. If you have completed work that seems appropriate, tell me about it. Otherwise I can do some pre-curating based on whatever idea it is you have in mind.
I think we are looking for 8-10 pieces, from Chciago and Indiana. There will be some small honorarium to artists to help cover materials and possibly an opportunity to work with the equipment and technicians of the shops in the industrial park.
The show is part of "Hammond Pride Week", and partially a promotion for Hammond Development Corporation, an "art-friendly" non-profit working on economic development, with a " high tech campus with duct and fiber interconnects between seven downtown buildings" (I don't even know what this means).
There is a local internet company (Jorsm) based in Hammond that is a big part of all of this. Jorsm just opened up a big data center in Hammond that is one of the two locations we will be working with to do the exhibit. The data center is pretty large, very sterile and bright. The other space is located in Hammond Development's headquarters. Relatively small, street level and huge glass windows from about 2 feet, to the ceiling.
What the director of HDC would like is to somehow connect the two spaces utilizing the fiber connection.
We'd like to broaden the scope, and take advantage of the strangeness of this 21st century production in the middle of the Hammond's history with 20th century industry by including things that incorporate low-tech mechanics with fancy new tools and toys.
michael
other group,
My pal from NY, Scott Speh is moving to town. He runs a zine called Hot Commodities... kind of like the FGA. Now that Gravy has moved to LA and the FGA will no longer be %100 dedicated to Chicago Hot Commodities should fill the gap. Find it here:
Hot Commodities 14 is alive and kicking - Big, big news plus lots of observations, art, architecture and other, on Chicago (part of the reason for the big news - you probably already know why.) PLUS comments on new rock and roll, Su-en Wong, Jack Featherly, Pia Fries and Andrew WK. PLUS a new feature (Lists) and a plea from ShitBeGone Inc. PLUS much, much more....
[http://www.artic.edu/~sspeh/hc_current/index.html]
Is this 'zine 100% dedicated to decent grammar or will we still have to rely on FGA and Gravy for that? :) Marc
Marc,
I haven't been able to sleep in three days...thank God Temporary Services is having a show tomorrow night, that way I can finally get the much deserved sleep. Are you guys providing viewers with pillows and blankets? What about some hot coco?
Well P,
We weren't planning on providing free cocoa but I'll try to remember to take a packet of the free Swiss Miss we have in the break room before I leave work today. I think the Smart might be able to provide you with a cup of hot water.
But why is it that you can't sleep? Still struggling to understand what Ozzy was trying to say from Tuesday night?
See you tommorrow at the Smart.
Marc
Well I took a look at Hot Commodities. This is a special day for Chicago. Ladies & Gentleman of Chicago, roll out the red carpet for....
PEDRO'S CLONE!!!
Either this guy is really Pedro's long lost brother Scott Velez, or Pedro is really Scott's husband Pedro Speh and Velez is simply his middle name. If you guys aren't clones or married, you guys are at least soulmates. Where else are we gonna find another person that is obsessed with both contemporary art AND the music of W.A.S.P. and Whitesnake?! Writing-wise, things are pretty even. But otherwise Scott Speh sort of ups the ante because (no joke) he digs the music of JOURNEY! If you guys can find one or two more people who share these strange qualities, I think you will be able to incorporate, or at least form a posse.
Love,
Marc
Now at Gallery 400:
Loop
April 23 - June 1, 2002
Opening reception: Wednesday, April 24 4 - 7pm
Tacita Dean Lisa Lapinski John Neff Kori Newkirk
Organized by Lorelei Stewart
Contemporary art is marked by uncertainty and paradox. By framing Dean's audio work, Lapinski's and Neff's sculptures and Newkirk's photograph as allegory, Loop reveals the perpetually deferred contradictions in viewing and making contemporary art.
Gallery hours: Tuesday - Friday 10 - 5; Saturday 12 - 5 Special hours for Art Chicago 2002: Saturday, May 11 10 - 8; Sunday, May 12 10 - 2