December 2002, 41 posts, 2074 lines
Before you hit the Stray Show, stop by the Chicago Cultural Center for
Thursday, December 12 from 6:30 ^Ö 8 p.m. 5th Flr SW
Artists Michelle Grabner, Dzine and Theaster Gates will discuss how visual artists get the word out about their work, their community and their practice -- including strategies for enhancing a local, national and international profile.
Moderating the presentation will be Patricia Joseph, a publishing and marketing specialist who was named Volunteer of the Year by the Chicgo Arts & Business Council for her work with the performing arts community in marketing and management.
Dzine was born Carlos Rolon in Chicago in 1970. He co-founded the grafitti crew Aerosoul in the 1980s and now exhibits his paintings internationally, in Paris, Tokyo, Puerto Rico and Chicago. He is represented by MoniqueMeloche Gallery.
Dzine^Òs cross-disciplinary collaborations include improv painting with the Juba Collective, designing album cover art and working in his own recording studio. His early work^Òs commercial success led to commissions from MTV, and he also worked in the public art arena, on several community murals.
Michelle Grabner is an artist, writer and educator who exhibits her paintings nationally and internationally. Her work has been reviewed in Artforum, Art in America, New Art Examiner, Art Issues and Frieze. Grabner is also US correspondent to Art Press and Frieze and regularly contributes essays and reviews to numerous other publications. She is on the faculty of School of the Art Institute of Chicago and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Theaster Gates is a ceramicist and a planner, currently working with the Chicago Transit Authority on public art. He has established pottery studios on Chicago^Òs west and south sides, working with Little Black Pearl and other organizations. He has also worked in Cape Town, South Africa and Seattle, Washington.
^Ô^ÑArtist at Work Forums^Ò present information and a forum for discussion to people interested in the visual arts in Chicago,^Ô says Cultural Affairs Commissioner Lois Weisberg. ^ÓCreating a dialogue will benefit everyone ^Ö the City, its artists and its communities.^Ô
For more information, call 312-744-6630 or visit [http://www.cityofchicago.org/Tour/CulturalCenter]
Upcoming Artist at Work Forums include ^ÓArt Press -- More Ink?^Ô on Thursday, January 16, 2003.
please forward this message to others who may be interested.
please respond if you would like to be removed from this list.
thank you,
Barbara Koenen Project Manager Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs (312) 744-7649
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Barbara Koenen wrote:
another stray show?
Here's the link for Stray Show 2002:
[http://www.chicagoartistscollective.com/stray/index.html]
I think so. Opening on the 12th.
Your funny Jno.
DB
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, S Barr wrote:
Here's the link for Stray Show 2002: [http://www.chicagoartistscollective.com/stray/index.html]
It is Unit B's promo at Collective - who else is in the Stray show? .. and it says.. (more below)
- The Stray Show
-
Dates:
- December 13-15, 2002
- Opening Night:
-
Thursday, December 12, 2002
- 5:30pm to 8:30pm $30/RSVP to Whitney
Moeller 312.443.3630
- Preview Reception benefiting the Society for
Contemporary Art
- 8:30 to Midnight-Admission $10
-
Opening Night Party at The Stray Show
- Fair Hours:
-
Friday, December 13, Noon-8m - Admission $7
- Saturday, December 14
and Sunday, December 15, Noon-6pm
- Location:
-
Kingsbury Place
- 1418 North Kingsbury
Kingsbury is where the Chicago Junkers unload their refrigerators? For the few of us who have never heard of the 2002 Stray Show, I'll post their press release next - it says a lot about last year's Stray show which was never said at the time.
/jno
And the press release:
STRAY SHOW PRESS RELEASE
(deleting some time and cost stuff)
actually, the Stray Show web site is www.stray-show.com
Here are a few more links that might be helpful:
- [http://www.cagedstray.com/]
- [http://straychildren.survivor.org/]
- [http://www.juststrays.com/index.asp]
- [http://www.saveourstrays.com/]
-
[http://www.strayrescue.org/]
- [http://www.straybullets.com/]
Hi Marc, funny, I actually happened upon a sample of the comic Stray Bullets just a couple weeks ago in an Uptown secondhand store. Bought it along with about five other random comic books for a buck. I'm not a comics guy, but what the heck, use em for collages or whatever, you know. Then I read this Stray Bullets. It's actually pretty intense, even horrifying. You ever seen it?
I wish I could have made it to the Sat event. Unfortunately, we had to be at a wedding in South Bend. Even more unfortunately, it was super Catholic--in the basilica at Notre Dame. This couple had been together for *ten* years and here's this priest who's of course never been married up there giving this insulting homily about how as newlyweds you've got to expect there to be rough times, and how the ecstasy of first love isn't gonna be what sustains a marriage, etc. What a joke.
Anyways, how did the event go?
dan
Other Group, sorry about the private mail made public. Guess you all know what I think of Catholicism now!
Dan w.
I just got a copy of the reader today(monday) and read the lead story for section two about James Elkins. I was curious what the general thoughts might be concerning the state of criticism as its recieved here in Chicago from other cities or countries as well as how it is produced within our own ranks. Othergroup being something of an ongoing critical dialogue, I thought I might be opened of eye.
(actually
from Ray Hendricks Jno-- Would you do me a favor? forward this to the
othergroup website.
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002,
diego bobby wrote: It's about newspapers, though. But note the
"spineless commentary" (Isaacs' words). Isn't that what FGA is about? And
didn't many of the CACA shorts do the same? Well- maybe not. They
_are_ opinions, and certainly not spineless. But do I remember right that
Pedro promised to lighten up, because he is staying in Chicago after all?
Watch FGA go spineless. Maybe Elkins doesn't remember the past as
a lived experience. Maybe he was in diapers in the 50's which he is
covering as a starting point. I also disagree with Elkins'
evaluation that "creating a piece of writing with literary value" is
**not** a critical activity. I agree that descriptive essays are boring;
and that there seem to be all too many of these written on the back of
envelops, ten minutes before typesetting. Art criticism is about
anything except art. Art is just an excuse to write an essay. The most
interesting criticism is about ideas far afield from art. Look at
Rosenbaum's film pieces: I read them because they are about film culture,
not because I am about to go see some 2 star movie. Every now and then he
expands into larger social topics, and if that wasn't done with "literary
value" I would never bother to read him at all. There is another critic
... in town ... in print ... whose style does not allow me past his first
paragraph. Bulka's one paragraph "descriptions" which used to
appear in NewCity were so to the point verbally that it warranted
searching through the NewCity bad-hair-day pages just to find them. We
think and reason in metaphors, and hold ideas as metaphors, and a striking
trope enters your mind to twist your imagination. That is what "literary
style" is about. And, really, visual art doesn't need criticism,
it's its own criticism. Elkins' "traditional duty and glory" of the critic
-- forming a judgement IMHO /jno
I've never viewed my role as an art critic, the few times I've been
allowed to play it, as relieving another viewer of the task of original
thought or interpretation of an artist's work. In some sense, I consider
what is commonly called art criticism, however you want to define it, as
the continuation of a conversation initiated by an artist. I assume, and
maybe I'm an ass for assuming anything, that because art is shown publicly
the artist is expecting and hoping to elicit a response in someone other
than the dudes who come over to drink beer in the studio. Art
does not exist independently in the world and as a form of communication
it functions in a system of exchange. Whatever I write and publish that
can be considered criticism is my public response to something else shared
publicly. In this way, criticism acts as an acknowledgement of artists
efforts in non-monetary form. This might be very important to some
artists, galleries, exhibition spaces especially if there is work for sale
that did not sell or some obstacle is presented to prevent a sale such as
an anti-capitalist ideology or the physical logistics of a project.
Additionally, without exegesis and description being published no
one HERE will know much about what is going on THERE and vice versa.
Word of mouth only goes so far and can do only so much. I can tell my
friend over coffee about that show I saw (assuming I haven't gone on the
lam or taken an oath of silence)but the review I publish might be read by
someone I don't know very far away. As far as Elkins's claims
about the lack of judgement expressed in current criticism, he's in a way
contradicting his own statements made at the last CAA conference held in
NYC. At that time the paper he presented stated that art writing
(criticism and history) revealed more about a writer's own personal
preoccupations than an objective account of any particular art or
historical moment. As far as I'm concerned, there is never a case of
purely impartial art writing, even in the most banal descriptions. Word
choice is always a subjective act. Personally, when I write I
attempt to determine what was attempted; why conceptual, material,
stylistic, and aesthetic choices were made; did these choices bear out in
accomplishing the desired task of communication; and lastly do I find
those choices compelling, new, important, seductive, etc. Often,
historical tradition and affinity can be damned. I'm more concerned with
what art is doing for ME right now, sometimes in a purely phenomenological
sort of way. Do I expect anyone to care what I think? Well, yeah someone
might and for the reasons I've mentioned above. Will everyone? Hardly.
Do I have a spine? I think so. Leah
After a hard weekend at the Butcher Shop Christmas Ball, and the
Stray Show, come on out to Bridge Magazine's Space this Sunday and get
your picture taken sitting on Santa's (my dad's) lap. I have created one
of the worlds best winter wonderlands, and my dad and stepmother are
flying out to play Mr. and Ms. Claus in it. Come drink, snack... and
don't forget your Christmas list. It starts at 8 p.m. and goes until
11:00 so no stray show or hang over excuses will be accepted by Santa for
your lack of attendance. xoxo Meg WHAT???!! You mean Santa Claus is YOUR dad? I thought
he was mine! The implications of this could be disastrous....
Robin D. Yes I know now that I have ruined all of your childhood
memories. Sorry, but it's true Santa is my pop. m Hi all, First of all, happy holidays!
second, check out the Stray Show review in Artnet.com I think it
makes Chicago look good. Pedro Pedro, this is not a direct response to your artnet
piece. Just my general thoughts; not a lot of specifics because I didn't
go there taking notes expecting to write reveiws--- First, the
easy part: yes, happy holidays to everybody. I hope everybody gets a
little break, and a chance to relax. And now, the hard part:
Speaking from the perspective of a viewer, I believe the second Stray Show
was, with a few exceptional moments, a failure. At least 75% of
the art work was completely interchangeable in the sense that one could
have moved this piece over there and that piece over here without anyone
other than the artist and presenters noticing. Only a handful of
the spaces did anything to break out of the generic presentation formula
of hanging small and medium sized work by four or six artists, with the
odd sculpture or two thrown in. Law Office broke the mold by showing work
from a million artists, and deluxe stood out by showing work from one
artist. Moniquemeloche, who's probably well enough established and
connected to not need the Stray Show, made an interesting gesture by
presenting a bunch of paintings not hung, but on the floor, leaning six
deep against the walls. Each of these spaces made me stop, look harder at
the art work, and think about just what they were trying to do, beyond
simply offering work for sale. One could say that these three spaces
offered fairly simplistic ways of circumventing the conventional booth
formulae, and one would be right. But so what, they and maybe a couple of
other spaces were the ones who actually did it, and I thank them for that.
Without them, the show would have been _completely_ dead. I was
looking forward to the inclusion of the out-of-town spaces, but they
mostly disappointed me, especially on the level of the presentation
strategies. As a group they were more conservative than the Chicago
spaces. I think they presented some good work here and there, probably
some of the best individual works in the show in fact, and work of a more
finished and resolved quality in general. But the net effect of their
presence was to make the Stray seem even more like a national commercial
art fair. Getting national attention is a worthy goal, but the way to do
that is for the Stray to focus on being the best show it can be. The
second Stray Show proves to me that the inclusion of non-Chicago spaces
doesn't necessarily improve or further the event in a substantive way that
would attract serious critical attention. And I only say all this
because there are so many indications on the part of the promoters that
the Stray is supposed to be something very different. But for every
gesture of unconventionality (dj doin a metal set--that was nice) there
was at least one very conservative addition to the event (previews for
premium ticket holders) that kept it right in line with every other
commercial art fair. Consider also that many of the gestures of
unconventionality were superficial (again the djs--brought in as
entertainment, with little or no effort spent on interweaving the
discourse of dj culture into the Stray--done right, it could have been
really interesting for both artists and djs) when compared to the
concretely substantive "art fair"-type events (that was real money being
raised for the SCA at the preview). Look, I guess my point is
that there's a credibility gap looming here, folks. If it's gonna be
different, then make it be different. Set some guidelines: eg, one artist
per space, or only temporary projects, or do away with the booth format
and just have three enormous walls for small work, medium work, and large
work. Work from all spaces side by side and mixed up. (Doing that would at
once acknowledge and remove the issue of interchangeable art.) Or Tom
Blackman could just say, I'm renting a warehouse next year that won't
allow temporary walls to be installed, so figure out another way. These
are supposed to be the Strays, remember? The ones who improvise, who make
do, who work within their means, who see the opportunity where others
don't, who don't give a shit about how it's But maybe they're really just Vedanta wannabes, the Peter
Miller wannabes. That would explain the conformity. And that's fine if
that's the case, but then don¹t go saying the Stray Show is so different.
And if it's gonna shoot for the same end, then it will be judged by the
same criterion--sales and artistic merit, neither of which were in great
evidence at the Stray. You can't have it both ways--you can't
present a show as the cutting edge of art when it in fact bases itself on
a tweaked but instantly familiar template obvious to anyone who's ever
been to any other art fair. And you can't expect it to succeed as an art
fair when the fact is a good portion of the work is poorly conceived,
carelessly executed, and formulaically presented. Again, equally obvious.
(Don't get me wrong--those are not necessarily the signposts of bad
artists; but they are the signposts of young artists, which is what most
of the exhibiting artists are.) If this keeps up, then we're headed
towards a worst of both worlds-type situation, and I know nobody wants
that. People need to decide what this show is and what it is for, because
the contradictory identity is not working. Look, I would like to
see the Stray Show succeed. I don't have any personal stake in it, but I
am friendly with a lot of the people who were directly involved, and for
their sake would like to see it become something really interesting and
singular. And just as a viewer, I would like to see some cool shit,
altogether, in a big building once a year. But the apparent lack of
self-reflection is somewhat discouraging. I cannot believe that people are
really that beholden to the Stray Show that they can't critically examine
what it's become, and try to do something about it. The excitement from
last year's Stray was just that it happened at all; that's no longer
enough to sustain interest--so it would be good to start some discussion,
to really get some ideas out there about how to push the Stray to another
level. Dan Hi Dan, Your observations are so generic.
The ususal complains about art, fairs, the market, and what should or
souldn't be independent or alternative ...Stray is an Art Fair, people
need to eat and make money to survive, that's the way I see it. And just
like in any other art show, ... there is a lot of bad art and maybe a few
good things to talk about. You said: The same can
be said about Here and Now, don't you think? anyway, I think you
are a good writer and I enjoy reading your comments...it makes me
think..It would be nice to see your writing more often in
publications...Chicago needs it. happy holidays, P Hey Chicago arties, I'm co-organizing this project in New York if
any of you are intersted. Take a peek and jump in the revolutionary stew!
Join the Bureau of Autonomous Information and
Tourism (BAIT)! New York City, April 2003 Open Call for Entries
Calling on all muckrackers, agitators, pyschogeographers, radical
tourguides, archivists, activists, guerilla gardeners, techno
experimenters, tricksters, resisters and cooks for BAIT's most liberating
campaign to date! During these troubled times, BAIT knows the
stakes are high. With permanent war on the global menu and voices of
dissent being subsumed by the tactical trivialities of a sold-out media,
BAIT says BASTA! Join the Bureau for Autonomous Information and Tourism in
N.Y.C in April 2003 for 48 straight hours, as we embark on our most
liberating campaign to date, strategically aligned with the international
Next5Minutes festival in Amsterdam! Both desirous and resistant,
BAIT encompasses a wide range of practices, strategies and agitations.
With a united collective BAIT takes on the vanished public sphere,
biotechnology, the global AIDS crisis, militarization of the homeland,
civil liberties, globalization, surveillance, privacy, gentrification,
police violence, racism, economic inequality, and class disparities. If
this sounds like a full plate, it is! OPEN CALL FOR ENTRIES:
CAMPAIGN 2003 BAIT seeks projects in all media: from performance and
screenings, net.art and online installations, spoken word, street
interventions, pirate radio, and much more! BAIT especially seeks
projects that fall into the following three categories. 1.
Tactical Media Projects: An intervention in daily life BAIT encourages
proposals in the form of public interventions, visual demonstrations,
short lectures, and reclamations that occupy the public sphere. Projects
taking place in the public sphere will be video documented and presented
on a large wall of monitors at the BAIT Headquarters for attendees to
witness and enjoy. 2. Eye-Opening Walking Tours Take us on a
tour! Reveal the hauntings of the city. Design and lead repo-historic
wonderings. Meander on a derive. Get lost, go underground, illuminate the
skyline. Seeking Radical tour guides, docents, and late night wanderers.
3. Tech Skill Exchange: Workshops & Presentations Calling all
technology activists, new media artists, geeks, software programmers, and
other digerati who use new technologies for potentially subversive
results! Seeking proposals for presentations for skill exchanges in
public and non-public settings. The focus is on a non-hierarchical diverse
peer-to-peer exchange. This 24 hours concrete technical skill workshop
will be broken down into five sections: 1) web-based organizing 2) low
cost wireless technology 3) DIY radio communication 4) socially critical
web-based art 5) the social context of the Internet – often ignored issues
such as racial oppression online, gender and access. Please send
in a brief description of proposal (no more than one page) with a
description of the size, duration, technological needs of the proposed
project. Documentation of past work, bio and SASE. At this moment there
are no subsidies for project or artists, all works must be self–funded.
Location and exact date to be announced. Please direct any
questions to bait at bait-n5m.org. All Proposals must be received by
February 1st, 2003. BAIT 130 Washington Ave, Suite #1 Brooklyn,
NY 11205 [http://www.bait-n5m.org]
These aren't the usual complaints. I'm trying to
be constructive...so people *can* make more money, so people *can* eat
more, and so people *can* do more than just survive. Don't make the
mistake of taking all negative criticism for sabotage--when you do that
you end up losing the relationships that can help you the most. Look, it's
as simple as this: for the people who are into the Stray, the way to the
good life is to make the Stray as good as it can be. As presented this
year, that limit was not even approached. A generic observation maybe, but
true nonetheless. Here and Now had serious problems, to the
degree that it too, with a few exceptions, was a failure. But not strictly
or only because the show fits the above quotation. It was more of
a case of--too many artists, too many works that had been shown in Chicago
already, too many older works. It would have been a much stronger show
with 10-15 artists all showing work that hadn't been seen outside the
studio. As curated, the show as whole was certainly not 'must see.'
You want to go further and talk specifically about my work in
Here and Now? Go ahead. That's what it's up for. Lord knows, I've put my
stamps of approval and disapproval on the work of enough people, in print
and in person. Giving people in Chicago a chance to see and evaluate my
work was the main reason I took part in this show. And guess
what? I think my work in Here and Now is successful. And guess why?
Because it wasn't done quickly, and it wasn't a first draft, it luckily
wasn't presented in the crowded main gallery, and it wasn't done just by
myself. Studio visitors made helpful comments in response to early
versions of both pieces, and the work evolved in selective response to
more than just my thoughts alone. If you think it's arrogant for
me to say my work is good in public, especially when it's in a show that I
myself declare to be a disappointment overall, then I ask you to also
consider this: I'm not willing to let any work leave my studio that I do
not feel entirely comfortable and confident defending. If it fails, I want
it to fail only by provoking a seriously intelligent critique--to at least
make someone else have to work hard to build the case against it. So if
you or anybody else is gonna bring it on against my work, then bring it on
good--make me learn from it. I would welcome that. In summary, I
can agree that many of the criticisms of Here and Now are deserved. But I
don't see the point of your rebuttal. You can do better than, 'Give us a
break we gotta eat.' If you can't, but also still can't agree with my
criticisms, then one cannot help begin to wonder if there's a fear factor
at work in your lack of critical reflection when it comes to the Stray.
Well, this is maybe a different thread, but it's something we can
agree on totally. In artforum the entire city of chicago has been filtered
through the pen of James Yood... for how long? Not that he's that bad (he
isn't), but one person presenting the work happening in this city to the
whole artforum readership? Not good. Maybe this back to that short-lived
thread about the state of criticism from a month ago. We need to see some
fresh voices in the national and international magazines representing
what's going on around here.
dan
(text deleted) I'm forwarding Pedro's forward to "Other Group
(two words) at Topica" to "group (one word) at othergroup.net", without
the leading hooks (which deletes the text at othergroup.net) and to get
things started. Sorry if you get **two** copies -- we will straighten this
out soon. Any follow-up will distribute to all the active posters of
2002, Pedro included. /jno The Ratt Trap
December 29, 2002 By CHUCK KLOSTERMAN
Chuck Klosterman is a senior writer for Spin
and the author of ''Fargo Rock City: A Heavy Metal Odyssey in Rural North
Dakota.'' His last article for the magazine was a profile of Billy Joel.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/29/magazine/29RAMONE.html]
NYT (c) 2002
[I guess I needed to send this to topica also?] Wow Pedro, Santa
must really love you - or at least you must have gotten what you wanted
for Christmas - a smart, thoughtful, critical assessment of the true
meaning of the death of Robin Crosby from Ratt. That's amazing. Thanks for
forwarding this article. I mean that. Devil horns all the way. \m/ (with
bended knee of course) But speaking of critical assessments, I
can't let this slip away, even though I know better than to try arguing
with Pedro. Pedro, having read your Chicago Social-style puff
piece about the Stray Show on artnet.com (which you directed us to), can
you say anything in defense of your total absence of journalistic ethics
and integrity? To explain - Where do you get off posing as a reporter when
writing a review of an art fair that was organized by the very same
gallery that gave you a solo show just 4 months ago? Didn't it occur to
you that some people might perceive that as a conflict of interest?
Likewise, how can you do a bit of straight reporting on the artists
featured at Joymore's booth without bothering to mention what clearly had
to have been some curatorial input on your part (don't tell me someone
else chose Zachary Lowing's work - which you describe as a "visual
extravaganza")? No offense to Zach but Pedro don't you think that a little
bit of disclosure or accountability might have been in order? That whole
booth sounds like it was curated by you. Couldn't you have even written an
explanation like "This is how we do things in Chicago" (because it
basically is - as you know only a very tiny handful of writers aren't
deeply entrenched in the scene in a variety of ways)? Other
problems: To say that the Stray Show was non-hierarchical just because all
of the booths were the same size and cost the same amount is pretty absurd
and untrue to the actual structure of the event. There are many ways for
things to demonstrate a hierarchy. The amount of legalities in the
application form alone made it very obvious that there was a top and a
bottom To stay with the idea about hierarchies a bit
longer - you seemed to like the idea that you thought the Stray Show
didn't demonstrate one. Your article, however, reinforces the most
traditional art world power hierarchies when you write things like:
Do "supercollectors" wear capes to distinguish themselves from
regular collectors? Even if the event actually was non-hierarchical, what
difference does it make when you endorse this same power structure and
support it through the way you write? You care enough about the presence
of these people to know who they are and to make a note of which ones
showed up. You play by artnet.com's rules which, based on the other
writing on their site, mandate that you name drop like this and note what
artworks cost if you are going to write about them. But in this
hierarchical world, disclosing your involvement with the organizers of the
event, many of the artists and some of the galleries would throw the
validity of your role as critic or journalist into serious doubt. If you
want to challenge these hierarchies yourself and push for a new kind of
art writing, try writing about these things from the acknowledged
perspective of being a personal friend of the organizers. I'd be curious
to see if they'd still run the article. When writers are
personally involved in the things they write about and conceal this fact,
it looks completely silly to anyone who knows better. A person can,
however, disclose their personal relationship with the people they write
about, share this knowledge with the reader and still do serious
insightful writing - it just comes from a different perspective. Why not
own up, disclose your involvement, and then write in a way that only
someone involved could? You would be able to talk about interesting
experiences - things that others may not be privy to - which could then
make for illuminating writing. Instead you've written this spineless
reportage which looks like it's just trying to - in your words - "make
Chicago look good." Dan Wang wrote some interesting emails
criticizing the event itself. I was more interested in taking the article
to task - which seems to be what Pedro was hoping for when he announced
that he had written it. The article just reads like an exchange of favors
- not criticism, not journalism, not an interestingly different new kind
of criticism or journalism, and not a very useful or helpful assessment of
anything. Marc P.S. If anyone thinks that being critical
of the credibility of most writing featured on www.artnet.com is a moot
point - well, of course you are right. I mean, there are some good
articles on there once in a while (rarely) but it _does_ feature the
writing of Donald Kuspit and Mark Kostabi which makes the entire endeavor
look pretty hilarious. jno at blight.com wrote:
Anyone who posted in 2002 is on the list at othergroup.net. The
site [http://othergroup.net] has
actually been up and running since Dec 4th, catching Topica posts as they
came in, HTMLizing them, and adding them to the archive for December. The
scripts to operate all this were installed on December 17. On December 25
I added the 30 names of people who posted in 2002. And have been quiet
ever since. Except to rebroadcast the Pedro post (allthe text was deleted
because all the text was "email quoted") For your information:
We
will switch over the full mailing list before January, 2003, if Keri
returns from wherever she went. Hope that helps. Check [http://othergroup.net] for more details on
what you can do and get away with. A brief monthly reminder will go out on
Jan 1. Hope this helps /jno
MARC: PEDRO: Do I get off?
What kind of asshole are you. Gallery? TBA is not a commercial
gallery. It is a "space". Just that. They don’t represent me. I didn’t
sell any work. They don’t sell work. They are not dealers. They didn’t
even promoted my show. I didn’t receive a grant or money to do the show.
TBA Exhibition Space is as alternative as it gets. The date for my show
was selected a year ago. Conflict of interest? How? I
always made a point of telling everyone I was writing the ARTICLE. Not a
secret to anyone. And as you said, it is an article, not a review. THERE
WE GO AGAIN… IT IS AN ARTICLE AND I DID NOT GET PAID FOR IT! And I don’t
get paid for anything I do for Artnet. No conflict of interests. No money
involved. I do it, believe it or not, because I love writing and I believe
Chicago needs it. The art economy here needs it. People outside of Chi
need to know that things do happen here all the time. Curators outside of
Chi need to be aware that this town is alive, ready….a great place to look
for art . MARC: PEDRO: Curated by me? I like post-minimalism and
conceptual art. Is that a secret to anyone? I could sue you for this one.
Are you drunk or what? FUCK YOU Marc. This seems more like a criticism on
Zac’s work than anything else. Yes, I have exhibited Zack in the
past…in the hopes someone in Chicago would like his work. And Melissa
Shubeck did… FUCK YOU again. That’s one of the reasons why I
curate shows. To spread the word…Are you really that stupid? I believe in
Zac’s work, and yes, I know him socially…just in case I need to make
things more clear…I never had dinner with him. Do you want to
play seven degrees of Kevin Bacon? MARC: PEDRO: So what? Why should you care. You don’t
give a shit about selling your work. Why do you worry so much about the
people that try to make a living from their art. Instead of worrying so
much about collectors or sales why don’t you go a get a job in a homeless
shelter? Or run for office? Make a difference in society Marc. Stop hiding
behind the art and all your "good intentions." There is space for
everything and everyone in the art world. I don’t like figurative art but
that doesn’t mean it should disappear from the face of the earth. You are
such a…you are like Fidel Castro. Your way or no way at all.
MARC: PEDRO: Yes. That’s how things in life are rebel Marc. These
things are important. Shelf life, remember. Everything must be
documented. Are you still 16? MARC: PEDRO: What do you mean by spineless?
Spineless…FUCK YOU again. Well, if this is all about skeletons
hiding in the closet then… Spineless is you and your Temporary
Services working in Puerto Rico for one of the most important art dealers
in Latin America, Michy Marxuach. Spineless is to hide behind your so
called "socially conscious" art project just to get a tan. And TS did it
twice. Did you know she had a booth at Basel Miami ? Do you know that 90
percent of the artists you showed with in Puerto Rico are represented by
her? I guess you forgot to be thoughtful enough when the time came to
decide whether to work for an art dealer who sells work to important
collectors or having a good time under the sun. Spineless is to hide
behind the walls of ignorance. Using Mexican iconography to address the
Puerto Rican culture… Did you do any research on that? More than
spineless; that is disrespectful. Shame on you. YOU COULD HAVE ASKED ME,
remember…I’m PUERTO RICAN…BUT I GUESS, WE LATINOS, ALL LOOK THE SAME.
Are you really so straight in everything you do…Mr. God. How is
it that you get to lecture so much? And earn some extra cash. Your friends
that teach get you the gigs….am I wrong? MARC: PEDRO: Yeah, Dan
Wang also reviewed his own work . Did you miss that one? The Dan Wang case
makes a strong point for Chicago. The city needs art writers. Artists are
starving for it. They are so desperate for dialogue that they will even
review their own work. Oh by the way, didn’t you have Dan in one of your
TS shows. Didn’t he write an article on TS for the New Art Examiner?
MARC: P.S. If anyone thinks that being critical of the
credibility of most writing featured on www.artnet.com is a moot point -
well, of course you are right. Imean, there are some good articles on
there once in a while (rarely) but it _does_ feature the writing of Donald
Kuspit and Mark Kostabi which makes the entire endeavor look pretty
hilarious. PEDRO: Then why bother Brother. Oh and In
case I forget to tell you this to your face before I move back to Puerto
Rico in mid January. Fuck you….not kidding! Pedro Velez
Ouch ouch ouch. Gosh, sounds like there's a story behind this
one.
Naw, never been in a TS show. Wanted to write something about TS
for NAE, but then the magazine went under...so no, I didn't do that,
either. But I wanted to, and both the magazine and TS were game. That's
the *real* trick folks: get everything in order, all parties on board, and
then have it play out such that you don't have to do any of the actual
work, but everybody still owes you!!! They even feel sorry for you, and
apologize, and go out of their way to make things right! Believe me, I'm
gonna be milking that one for a while. That's what a real art world player
does. Pedro, you're not even halfway there! (Speaking of
nepotism, favoritism, patronage, and the old-fashioned hook-up....can
anybody out there get me a teaching job? You see, I've never taught a
goddam thing, so landing a part-time gig is gonna have to be a political
manuever, pure and simple. Thus, in return for a couple of intro drawing
sections, I pledge to funnel students into your classes, conspicuously
defer to you, my patron, at all departmental meetings, and 2% of my
after-tax paycheck. Ehhh, maybe those aren't all good things, and 2% of a
part-time paycheck isn't gonna be squat....well, we can work something
out, no problem there, just get me the job first. Trust me, you'll full
credit, whether you want it or not.) Let me clarify my
relationship to TS this way: I attended Marc's birthday gathering, but
left early. I gave him a string of the hot chiles we grew last summer and
had to get out of there before he tried one. Dan
OK, I was wrong about you having a show with TS... sorry? But you
did reviewed your own work Mr.Artworld...and it was very favorable towards
your own work. Congratulations ! P
I think Pedro's hysterical response really kind of speaks for itself. I
feel like I could just yell "Stop the Insanity!" and that would be
adequate. Or I could sing Pedro, I think you missed
most of my criticisms about why some kind of disclosure IN THE ARTICLE
ITSELF about the relationships and interconnections you have with the
organizers of the Stray Show could have made for a more ethical (and
perhaps more interesting) article. These interpersonal relationships
exist; they should matter to international readers who expect vaguely
balanced reporting whether you are getting paid or not. Artnet.com is not
a fanzine or someone's art project. For better or worse, it is a source of
news, reporting, and criticism (even though I think it's a shitty one). I
questioned how you could feel ethically responsible while writing a whole
article without ever acknowledging your own place within the enterprise
that you wrote about. If you can't understand why I called you on that or
why a reader might have a problem then I can't help you. C'Mon -
again, nothing against the nice folks at TBA but I bet they would find
this statement funny. I'm not going to get into some silly debate over
what is more alternative than whatever, but a little perspective please!
The people at Q101 and The Zone probably know what you mean by alternative
though. I like looking at art and presenting the work of others
and I care about how art and ideas go out into the world. It's interesting
to me. It matters to me even if it's not my own work. I'd like to find an
agreeable way to make a living from my art. I don't worry about it much
but the idea of trying to make a living from your art is certainly a nice
one. Eating pancakes is also nice. Walks on the beach are nice as well.
But I wasn't talking about that. I was merely disagreeing with your absurd
assertion that the Stray Show was a non-hierarchical way of organizing an
event. Yep, me and my Temporary Services went there just to get a
tan - twice. Definitely. Believe me, if I just wanted a tan I'd go
somewhere a lot less oppressively humid than Puerto Rico (maybe Basel
Miami?). So what if Michy sells peoples' art? What does that have to do
with anything? I don't really care where she has a booth, what her hobbies
are, where her kids go to school, or what kind of toothpaste she uses. She
sells art. Osco sells beer. Ann's Bakery sells really good cookies. Our
reasons for going were that she also organizes non-commercial public
projects and tries to engage a broader audience than contemporary art
usually reaches (this is, admittedly, not always successful but it
sometimes is). And she invited us to do the projects we wanted to do. She
is thoughtful, adventurous, and great to work with. If we had art dealers
in Chicago like Michy for the kind of art I make then maybe I'd want
gallery representation. You seem to have this insane idea that Temporary
Services will only work with people who are identical to ourselves in
every way. We work with all kinds of people all over the place. If we can
find enough things to agree on, we can work together. Fuck, once we even
worked with you! Believe it or not, some people who sell art want
to work with us without having to be our dealers. And just because someone
is a dealer doesn't mean we are inherently against them. Lots of people
fill that role very thoughtfully, critically, and intelligently and Michy
does a lot more than just sell art. And how Michy works with the artists
she represents as a dealer has little bearing on how we've worked with
her. You won't be seeing our art at her booth at Basel Miami. She works
with us with that understanding and has never asked us to be something we
are not. Oh and next time you see Zena and Rob be sure to ask them if we
ever called our collaboration with them in PR "socially conscious." I'm
sure they will give you a very politically correct response.
Sure, play the race card. Ignoring your obnoxious and stupid suggestion of
racism (I know you don't look like Jennifer Lopez), this claim essentially
makes no sense. A couple images from a Mexican magazine does not add up to
what you are claiming and our projects were a totally messy grab bag of
cultural references. Last I looked, every culture in the world seems to
have masks, which were again, just a small part of our presentations. Our
project was even called "Mid-West Side Story" in reference to a very
popular musical which is very much about Puerto Rico and its relationship
to the US. And it was only vaguely about that - but we did talk to several
Puerto Ricans about our projects and the language in our booklets before
going - it's just that you weren't one of them. There are a few other
Puerto Rican people in Chicago. Again you missed my point. There
is nothing wrong with creating opportunities for your friends. We don't
ask our friends to give us lecturing opportunities - I'd like to think
they actually want their students to hear about our ideas and that is why
they ask us. If they invite us we usually do it whether we get paid
anything or not. It's fun. Some of our projects are portable so it's like
doing another show for a very intimate crowd. We also talk openly to the
students about our relationships with the people who invited us because
the teachers are sometimes people we have worked with. Sometimes we talk
about the projects we did together or the projects they did with us. I'm
not against people creating opportunities for each other. How could I be?
I never said that. I criticized you because your article on artnet.com has
a pretend critical detachment that I find irritating because it's so false
- you do nothing to tell the reader where you are coming from. If you had
made your personal connections to the organizers clear in the article I
don't think artnet's editorial staff (assuming they have one) would have
printed it. And while I sometimes have my doubts, I think you must
understand that this is a shoddy unethical approach to journalism and that
is why you are being so angrily defensive. I also think you commonly use
your writing as a way of working out petty grudges and plays for power -
that has always been evident in FGA but I'm sure I've told you that before
in our past arguments. Round and round, Our love will find a way
just give it time. Bon Voyage. Tell Michy I said Hi. Marc "Fidel"
Fischer
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Marc Fischer wrote: Hi Marc; No, it is by design.
RTFM. The site will not re-distribute or store email-quoted
text, so all of it gets removed. Same with "forwarded" segments. We have
had plenty examples of people who write two lines, and attach 200 lines of
garbage. Learn to clean up yr email. The following is supposed to
go out Jan 1, but here it is: I'll kill crontab so you dont get two copies
in three days. HTH /jno This is the "othergroup" listserv at
othergroup.net - Once a month we send out these directions as reminders.
You can send email to "othergroup" at "othergroup.net" and it
will be redistributed to everyone on the list. Clean up your
email, and the subject, before replying. Standard email is 74
spaces, and uses US-ASCII or the iso-8859-1 character set. Don't use HTML
format. There are a few rules: The purpose is to keep things clean and to the point, to
curb abuse and prevent spam. The emails are cleaned up before
redistribution:
In order to
have the emails readable on the web pages, the text is HTML-ed. Since all
empty space is ignored by browsers, including line breaks, here are a few
ways to have the text look presentable:
Other general information: More details at [http://othergroup.net/]
...................................................... (end)
This is a small point, but saying that I liked how my work
turned out on the Other Group list hardly constitutes a 'review.' If
you're gonna insist that Marc make the valid distinction between an
ARTICLE and a REVIEW, then please, let's extend the effort and recognize
the equally valid distinction between a review and remarks made within the
confines of a mailing list discussion. Moreover, it doesn't make
much sense to talk about me or anybody 'reviewing' their own work, unless
it is a case of outright deception. (Which my comments certainly were
not.) To me a 'review' requires some sort of distance--a vague and
unspecified form of distance, sure, but distance nonetheless. The
appropriate distance will be measured by the writer's comfort level, and
the degree to which the writer can insert his or her own content--a degree
inversely dependent on how well one knows the subject of the review. So
even though I may on an occasion defend, explain, interpret, and judge my
own work, it's not going to be anything like a review. Or, to put it
another way, if I share my opinions about my work, that is in no way a
substitute for a review of my work. This also means that as I get
to know an artist better, there comes a point at which I feel it's good to
stop reviewing their work. That doesn't mean I stop writing about them--it
just means that we have to find a different way to use writing as a
medium. One that's not so dependent on distance, which is probably more
intimate and collaborative, and which does not call itself a review.
dan
Some time ago we decided to not talk about art. Right after that huge
debate at Standard Gallery, remember? We decided we should talk about
music and whatever else we could come up with. That was a good way to be
friends. And it is obvious why. I'm way to passionate about art and about
Chicago and you love to rattle in monologues about utopia. We can't seem
to take criticism very well from each other. And we always want to have
the last word...and in the end...win. Why don't we just go back
to the music talk. I will talk to anyone about art but you... and you
should do the same. you are always welcome to visit me in PR, I
know you love it there... and you could use another tan. not
kidding! hope to see you before I leave. P
OK, I fail to see what the argument is between Pedro and Marc,
the ad hominem sniping aside. And i think anyone who has read the actual
"review" would agree (to my first phrase). First of all, I agree
(with Marc), it is a name-dropping puff piece, overburdened by
superlatives. That is what makes it look suspect, but that also closes it
to any further consideration. Secondly, it doesn't look to me like Pedro is
in Joymore's employ, but rather that he is salaried by Blackman.
This suggestion derives from the style of the piece. There is no
need for We have all seen
this type of writing -- the copy of ads, the articles in the travel
section of the Tribune, the self-descriptive brochure.. Any of us can
instantly slip into the requisite prose to produce something similar - and
as the author we can predict that the content will not be rationally
judged by the readers, but rather be seen as the expected product of a
Public Relations Department, instantly but uncritically dismissible. It is
as pleasing as your mom's portrait on the mantle, but meaningless if it is
not your mom. Judge for yourself: I must say I cant make it much
past the second paragraph (except to hunt for extravagant phrases). It is
way too congratulatory for a show which wasn't all that .. well ..
interesting. Direct at [http://artnet.com/magazine/reviews/velez/velez12-23-02.asp]
IMHO /jno
Pedro Well, after the other argument at Suitable we decided we couldn't do
that again for at least another 4 months or something. It has been way
more than four months so of course this was particularly bad.
There is no question that it is hard for us to discuss seemingly anything
relating to the world of art without eventually reaching the point of a
nearly violent argument. We seem to have a special talent for being able
to make each others blood boil. Both of us could have let this become a
very long-running soap opera, and I'm thankful you had the humility to not
let it become that. I don't like holding grudges. It should be
plainly obvious to anyone who reads these posts that we are after very
different things and have extremely different ideas about how we want to
negotiate the art world while still energetically going about our work.
That isn't going to change any time soon and I'm sure I am never going to
be able to reconcile my differences over your writing. I obviously can't
(and won't) turn off my critical thinking switch whenever I bump up
against your work or something you've written, but I could have kept my
thoughts to myself or been a lot less vitriolic when sharing my criticisms
in a public forum. I expect to be kept aware of all Puerto Rican
metal after you move and I would be happy to have a beer before you leave.
I am sure both of us will always feel that we completely misunderstand
each others work but that we can at least recognize a heavy guitar riff
when we hear one. That is, perhaps, more than most people can agree on.
Marc Pedro Velez wrote:
There are different styles for different magazines. That also includes
different editors. When I used to write for the Examiner, all my writing
would sound like, well, Jan Estep's point of view. I don't have a
problem with sounding like Roger Ebert because as you , and pretty much
everyone knows, I'm honest about everything I write. Sometimes I write
negative reviews,(most of the time), and other times I like a show and I
will write a good review. The name dropping is just that... some
like it , some don't...and that's part of Artnet's style and pretty much
imposed by the editor. And that is fine with me. I don't drop names for
other magazines. Which, taken from many of your (other group) comments, I
don't think you (other group) are aware I write for many other
publications. Not every piece of writing needs to be crititical.
And critical doesn't mean negative. And from the begining of the piece, it
is obvious I liked the show. Not because of the art... but because for
what it means for the future of Chicago and ArtChicago. This is important
stuff brother. There are two huge art fairs competing against ArtChicago
now. What happens if ArtChicago goes down? Well, a lot... believe it or
not. The art world is bigger than three recent grad students
putting up a show in some apartment. We need those grad students as well
as the alternative galleries, and the blue chip galleries, and the
inmstitutions and everything else. But if ArtChicago goes down...then
Chicago will be percieved, to the outside world, as a sinking ship. If
that actually happens then... Who will care about Chicago. It is hard
enough right now. And yes, money is an important issue here. People need
money to produce or promote art. Anyway, I would love to talk
more about the "article" ... but Marc and I decided to give it a rest for
our own sanity...so. If anyone else is interested ...they can reach me on
my private email. have a great new year. P
If Pedro and Marc can agree to disagree, then there might be hope for all
the festering conflicts across the globe. Rock on brothers. I may just
cry. Happy New Years y'all Scott At 06:38 AM 12/31/02
-0500, you wrote:
I just wanted to restate that starting tomorrow, one block south of
Dogmatic a winter sculpture garden will begin. This, for anyone that
missed my previous note will be a winter garden for outdoor sculpture from
new years day until spring thaw. All Works involved should be considered
gifts to the public. They will be housed on a site that is used primarily
as a dog run for the local's pets. The space is midway between Deluxe
Projects and Dogmatic in location. This is not a Dogmatic show and their
will not be any hot coco drinking/beer swilling opening outside. No cards
will be sent out. No invites or gallery listings will be mailed or made.
You can consider it a collaboration with the erosive powers of the
elements and the public. You can think of it as an appropriation of a
quasi-public space. You could even think of it as a really large
recontextualization of the artist's studio practice. I tend to think of it
as an oppurtunity to put up some work on a large vacant space sandwiched
between a couple of warehouses. But I'm a simple minded person. Either
way, do what you will with it. Its there for the doing. The only thing I
ask is that you don't set anything on fire or hurt anyone. This ain't no
burning man. If you want more information email at diegobobby at
canada.com
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 Pedro wrote: Hi Pedro; I read
every one of your articles posted at [http://artnet.com] and they are all very readable
and have a personal touch which makes them more interesting (especially
liked the PR-2 coverage). But the Stray piece doesn't compare to these and
doesn't seem to be your normal style. and.. I certainly notice the framing of "it's
important" but I never get any sense of "how" it is important. When you do
make some points, they don't follow from each other ... I
think that sequence, and especially the last statement, is what Marc
jumped at: First, you don't avoid a hierarchical structure by adopting
equality among cubicles. The hierachy is still there: Art Fair Owner, Art
Fair, Galleries, Artists, Public. Second, you "emphasize the
multiplicity of roles" by having a hierachy, not by avoiding it. So, what
exactly _is_ the experiment? You writings are full of enthusiasm,
acute observations, and broken adverbs, but not logic. If you say it is
important, then you need to answer the questions, "To who is it
important?" and "How is it important?" Well, happy new year. /jno
JNO: I read every one of your articles posted at [http://artnet.com] and they are all very readable
and have a personal touch which makes them more interesting (especially
liked the PR-2 coverage). But the Stray piece doesn't compare to these and
doesn't seem to be your normal style. PEDRO: I can’t make a great
article all the time. I’m not trying to make up excuses but it seems that
people think I was forced to do this article… or that it was retooled… or
some other conspiracy theory. Artists usually have 5 to 6 great pieces in
them during their lifetime. So, you know. What do you want me to say. I’m
burned out, flat broke, in the process of packing all my shit. It’s like
sports… you can’t win all the time but at least you try your best.
JNO: I think that sequence, and especially the last statement, is
what Marc jumped at: First, you don't avoid a hierarchical structure by
adopting equality among cubicles. The hierachy is still there: Art Fair
Owner, Art Fair, Galleries, Artists, Public. PEDRO: Well, duh. Of
course. What do you want, chaos. That is a given fact of life.
PEDRO: Anyway. The hierarchy is broken down when you walk inside of the
space. (Think of it as a huge like a huge sculpture). Curated booths were
the same size as a gallery booth. Everyone paid the same fee. It almost
feels like a Biennial. The viewer had to find out who was a
curator, or a gallery, or a magazine or some other weird project. Usually
in art fairs, the magazines are tucked away in tiny cubicles…and the
curated stuff would be in the hallways or in containers outside of the
place where the action is taking place. In Art Fairs the booths are
reserved for the galleries, the commercial stuff. At Stray you
could enjoy …let’s say The Kit (a web zine) and then walk to next booth
and find Sarah Conaway’s curated show. Then walk more and find Revolution
Gallery. So viewers had to be active. It’s a great mix, don’t you think?
Commercial galleries, next to not commercial projects. Everyone had a
chance. Why is this so difficult to understand. Let’s say you are a
curator/artist and you want a booth at Art Chicago. How do you get it?
Well, you don’t …because you are not a legit gallery. But at Stray you can
get a booth, as long as you pay. And you can do whatever the hell you
want. JNO: Second, you "emphasize the multiplicity of roles" by
having a hierachy, not by avoiding it. So, what exactly _is_ the
experiment? PEDRO: What’s the experiment? Read it again. The
whole Fair, the structure of it. The risk involved. A Fair that takes a
risk by mixing commercial galleries with other stuff that will make no
money for the Fair but that will be interesting to a lot of people. Let’s
say this is an Art Fair that believes in art and not just in the people
that can sell the art. This Fair wasn’t a big economical bonanza
for Blackman. I’m sure he lost a lot of money. Or do you think all these
walls and lights and related stuff just comes out from thin air. This is
another reason why this Fair is still an experiment. Anyway, this
is the last attempt to justify my article in public. As I said before,
anyone is welcome to question me in private. Happy new year to
all, P "-Forwarded
-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 18:17:41 -0600
-To: jno AT spaces.org
-From: Ray Hendricks
-Subject:
Benefactors "Dear stray participants,
"Congratulations on your latest effort.
"One
note of concern: It is very interesting that you will be funneling your
profits from stray2 into the SCA. While it is a worthwhile "society" to
fund, will you (as the group who organized this, although I'm sure I
couldn't even guess who is running it) have any input as to what they, in
turn, will be doing with the money? That will certainly be a tidy sum of
dosh following the party.
"I'll get to the point here.
In the not so distant past I spent three years involved in, among other
things, the aquisition and presentation of all SCA purchases and
considerations. I viewed all of it. Without even the slightest hint of
angst I can tell you that they bought a lot of very ordinary art, to put
it mildly. At least what I had contact with.
"Perhaps
"you" have an understanding as to the Stray role in the larger SCA
picture?
"Very curious, RH
"I just got a copy of the reader
today (monday) and read the lead story for section two about James Elkins.
I was curious what the general thoughts might be concerning the state of
criticism ... etc "
-- isn't needed or wanted. I don't want other
people's formed judgements, I want to use use my mind and come to my own
conclusions.
"supposed" to be
done.
"Only a
handful of the spaces did anything to break out of the generic
presentation formula of hanging small and medium sized work by four or six
artists, with the odd sculpture or two thrown in".
-nato
"
-From: Pedro Velez
-Subject: about taste..art too "Dee Dee Ramone
and Robbin Crosby were both shaggy-haired musicians who wrote aggressive
music for teenagers. Both were unabashed heroin addicts. Neither was the
star of his respective band: Dee Dee played bass for the Ramones, a
seminal late-70's punk band; Crosby played guitar for Ratt, a seminal
early-80's heavy-metal band. They died within 24 hours of each other last
spring, and each had only himself to blame for the way he perished. In a
macro sense, they were symmetrical, self-destructive clones; for anyone
who isn't obsessed with rock 'n' roll, they were basically the same guy.
"Yet anyone who is obsessed with rock 'n' roll would
define these two humans as diametrically different. To rock aficionados,
Dee Dee and the Ramones were ''important'' and Crosby and Ratt were not.
We are all supposed to concede this. We are supposed to know that the
Ramones saved rock 'n' roll by fabricating their surnames, sniffing glue
and playing consciously unpolished three-chord songs in the Bowery
district of New York. We are likewise supposed to acknowledge that Ratt
sullied rock 'n' roll by abusing hair spray, snorting cocaine and playing
highly produced six-chord songs on Hollywood's Sunset Strip.
"There is no denying that the Ramones were a beautiful idea.
It's wrong to claim that they invented punk, but they certainly came the
closest to idealizing what most people agree punk is supposed to sound
like. They wrote the same two-minute song over and over and over again --
unabashedly, for 20 years -- and the relentlessness of their riffing made
certain people feel like everything about the world had changed forever.
And perhaps those certain people were right. However, those certain people
remain alone in their rightness, because the Ramones were never
particularly popular.
"The Ramones never made a
platinum record over the course of their entire career. Bands like the
Ramones don't make platinum records; that's what bands like Ratt do. And
Ratt was quite adroit at that task, doing it four times in the 1980's. The
band's first album, ''Out of the Cellar,'' sold more than a million copies
in four months. Which is why the deaths of Dee Dee Ramone and Robbin
Crosby created such a mathematical paradox: the demise of Ramone
completely overshadowed the demise of Crosby, even though Crosby co-wrote
a song (''Round and Round'') that has probably been played on FM radio and
MTV more often than every track in the Ramones' entire catalog. And what's
weirder is that no one seems to think this imbalance is remotely strange.
"What the parallel deaths of Ramone and Crosby prove is
that it really doesn't matter what you do artistically, nor does it matter
how many people like what you create; what matters is who likes what you
do artistically and what liking that art is supposed to say about who you
are. Ratt was profoundly uncool (read: populist) and the Ramones were
profoundly significant (read: interesting to rock critics). Consequently,
it has become totally acceptable to say that the Ramones' ''I Wanna Be
Sedated'' changed your life; in fact, saying that would define you as part
of a generation that became disenfranchised with the soullessness of
suburbia, only to rediscover salvation through the integrity of
simplicity. However, it is laughable to admit (without irony) that Ratt's
''I Want a Woman'' was your favorite song in 1989; that would mean you
were stupid, and that your teenage experience meant nothing, and that you
probably had a tragic haircut.
"The reason Crosby's
June 6 death was mostly ignored is that his band seemed corporate and fake
and pedestrian; the reason Ramone's June 5 death will be remembered is
that his band was seen as representative of a counterculture that lacked a
voice. But the contradiction is that countercultures get endless media
attention: the only American perspectives thought to have any meaningful
impact are those that come from the fringes. The voice of the
counterculture is, in fact, inexplicably deafening. Meanwhile, mainstream
culture (i.e., the millions and millions of people who bought Ratt albums
merely because that music happened to be the soundtrack for their lives)
is usually portrayed as an army of mindless automatons who provide that
counterculture with something to rail against. The things that matter to
normal people are not supposed to matter to smart people.
"Now, I know what you're thinking; you're thinking I'm
overlooking the obvious, which is that the Ramones made ''good music'' and
Ratt made ''bad music,'' and that's the real explanation as to why we care
about Dee Dee's passing while disregarding Robbin's. And that rebuttal
makes sense, I suppose, if you're the kind of person who honestly believes
the concept of ''good taste'' is anything more than a subjective device
used to create gaps in the intellectual class structure. I would argue
that Crosby's death was actually a more significant metaphor than
Ramone's, because Crosby was the first major hair-metal artist from the
Reagan years to die from AIDS. The genre spent a decade consciously
glamorizing (and aggressively experiencing) faceless sex and copious drug
use. It will be interesting to see whether the hesher casualties now start
piling up. Meanwhile, I don't know if Ramone's death was a metaphor for
anything; he's just a good guy who died on his couch from shooting junk.
But as long as you have the right friends, your funeral will always matter
a whole lot more.
- essentially a lessor and a lessee. TBA ran the show, they
set the rules; artists and gallerists follow them. Maybe the structure is
a little more accommodating (and cheaper) than some other Art Fairs but
nonetheless, that application had a ton of terms and conditions and I kind
of doubt they were all set by the participants using a consensus-based
process. Art fairs are many things to many people and I understand the
purposes they serve, but if you think a room filled with identical
same-sized booths looks like "a formal structure and philosophy suitable
for freedom in contemporary art practice", I'd hate to see your vision of
imprisonment. The people at TBA all strike me as really nice people, but
let's see this event for what it is. It's basically Art Chicago with
training wheels. "many of Chicago's leading art-opinion-makers were on
the scene. Among those present were Museum of Contemporary Art director
Robert Fitzpatrick and curators Sylvia Chivaratanond and Michael Rooks,
Refco collection curator Adam Brooks, Peter Doroshenko from INOVA,
supercollectors Susan and Lewis Manilow and Sandy and Jack Guthman, and
Chicago Cultural Center curators Lanny Silverman and Gregory Knight."
"In case you are wondering, this site and Topica are running in
parallel currently, with not all users listed at the othergroup.net
location yet.
"Any posts sent to Topica will be distributed to the full list
by them, and archived both at Topica and here.
"Posts
sent to OtherGroup.net will be distributed to a minority of active users,
and will be archived here, but will not appear at Topica.
"do you get off posing as a reporter when writing a review
of an art fair that was organized by the very same gallery that gave you a
solo show just 4months ago? Didn't it occur to you that some people might
perceive that as a conflict of interest? "
"Likewise, how can you do a bit of
straight reporting on the artists featured at Joymore's booth without
bothering to mention what clearly had to have been some curatorial input
on your part (don't tell me someone else chose Zachary Lowing's work -
which you describe as a "visual extravaganza")? No offense to Zach but
Pedro don't you think that a littlebit of disclosure or accountability
might have been in order? That whole booth sounds like it was curated by
you. Couldn't you have even written an explanation like "This is how we do
things in Chicago" (because it basically is - as you know only a very tiny
handful of writers aren't deeply entrenchedin the scene in a variety of
ways)?"
"Other
problems: To say that the Stray Show was non-hierarchical just because all
of the booths were the same size and cost the same amount is pretty absurd
and untrue to the actual structure of the event. There are many ways for
things to demonstrate a hierarchy. The amount of legalities in the
application form alone made it very obvious that there was a top and a
bottom- essentially a lessor and a lessee. TBA ran the show, they set the
rules; artists and gallerists follow them. Maybe the structure is a little
more accommodating (and cheaper) than some other Art Fairs but
nonetheless, that application had a ton of terms and conditions and I kind
of doubt they were all set by the participants using a consensus-based
process. Art fairs are many things to many people and I understand the
purposes they serve, but if you think a room filled with identical
same-sized booths looks like "a formal structure and philosophy suitable
for freedom in contemporary art practice", I'd hate to see your vision of
imprisonment. The people at TBA all strike me as really nice people, but
let's see this event for what it is. It's basically Art Chicago with
training wheels."
"To stay with the idea about hierarchies a bit longer -
you seemed to like the idea that you thought the Stray Show didn't
demonstrate one. Your article, however, reinforces the most traditional
art world power hierarchies when you write things like: "many of Chicago's
leading art-opinion-makers were on the scene. Among those present were
Museum of Contemporary Art director Robert Fitzpatrick and curators Sylvia
Chivaratanond and Michael Rooks, Refco collection curator Adam Brooks,
Peter Doroshenko from INOVA, supercollectors Susan and Lewis Manilow and
Sandy and Jack Guthman, and Chicago Cultural Center curators Lanny
Silverman and Gregory Knight."
"Do "supercollectors"
wear capes to distinguish themselves from regular collectors? Even if the
event actually was non-hierarchical, what difference does it make when you
endorse this same power structure and support it through the way you
write? You care enough about the presence of these people to know who they
are and to make a note of which ones showed up. You play by artnet.com's
rules which, based on the other writing on their site, mandate that you
name drop like this and note what artworks cost if you are going to write
about them. But in this hierarchical world, disclosing your involvement
with the organizers of the event, many of the artists and some of the
galleries would throw the validity of your role as critic or journalist
into serious doubt. If you want to challenge these hierarchies yourself
and push for a new kind of art writing, try writing about these things
from the acknowledged perspective of being a personal friend of the
organizers. I'd be curious to see if they'd still run the article."
"When
writers are personally involved in the things they write about and conceal
this fact, it looks completely silly to anyone who knows better. A person
can, however, disclose their personal relationship with the people they
write about, share this knowledge with the reader and still do serious
insightful writing - it just comes from a different perspective. Why not
own up, disclose your involvement, and then write in a way that only
someone involved could? You would be able to talk about interesting
experiences - hings that others may not be privy to - which could then
make for illuminating writing. Instead you've written this spineless
reportage which looks like it's just trying to - in your words - "make
Chicago look good.""
"Dan
Wang wrote some interesting emails criticizing the event itself. I was
more interested in taking the article to task - which seems to be what
Pedro was hoping for when he announced that he had written it. The article
just reads like an exchange of favors - not criticism, not journalism, not
an interestingly different new kind of criticism or journalism, and not a
very useful or helpful assessment of anything."
"Round and Round - What comes around
goes around - I'll tell you why..."
"I noticed on
spaces.org that the quoted parts I responded to in email vanished from my
reply.
-Marc
- You must have a
password on the "Subject" line.
- Email has to be smaller
that 16K - which is plenty.
- Email composed in HTML is not
accepted.
- Email with attachments (multipart) is not
accepted
- Any line starting with a right angle
bracket is deleted. Quote other people by using quotes.
-
Everything from "Forwarded.." on is deleted.
- Everything
from a score (signature line) is removed.
- The "From:"
header is retained - it is the person posting the email. A "Cc:" header is
not accepted.
- A "Reply-to:" of "othergroup at
othergroup.net" is added. Your email program will most likely use the
"Reply-to".
- The list consists solely of email addresses,
no names are used. But use a name when responding, not a blank.
- An archive is kept at [http://othergroup.net/archive.htm]
of current posts and all of 2002. Plus free spam.
- Skip a line
between paragraphs, this will insert a P tag, which allows text to flow
smoothly to any browser window.
- Start list items with a
hyphen (ascii 45). This will start a new line in each instance.
- To indent a paragraph start with a quote mark (ascii 034) on the
left of the first line of a paragraph.
- URL's starting
with '[http://'] will be converted to links.
- No email addresses will show on the web pages.
- To remove your name send email
to "list" with the word "unsubscribe" on the "Subject" line.
- To add your name send email to "list" with the word
"subscribe" on the "Subject" line.
- If you fail
to understand any of this, send email to "help" at
othergroup.net with your questions.
"OK, I was wrong about you having a show with TS...
sorry?
But you did reviewed your own work Mr.Artworld...and it was very favorable
towards your own work. Congratulations !"
Pedro,
"... an amazing selection
of ... was one of my favorites. ... are extraordinary ... a great photo by
... a visual extravaganza. ... the surprise of the show ... one of the
best pieces ... the most notable paintings ... was one of the standouts
... was simply beautiful. ... a spectacular entry ... the show-stopper was
... passionate and a perfect tribute ... simple yet spellbinding ... an
excellent tribute ... a beautiful piece of ... Simple and direct, ...
clearly a success)
"distance" or "disclosure" -- the writing is pure
hortatory, and anyone reading it would deduce the relationship between the
author and the outfit instantly from the style.
"The name dropping is
just that... some like it , some don't...and that's part of Artnet's style
and pretty much imposed by the editor.
"And from the beginning of the piece, it is obvious I liked the show. Not
because of the art... but because for what it means for the future of
Chicago and ArtChicago.
"The future of art fairs is being redefined by Thomas Blackman [...]
Blackman [..] has a new experiment in the works...
"... it adopts a formal structure and philosophy suitable for
freedom in contemporary art practice [..] Everyone involved in the Stray
Show is treated equally.
"By avoiding hierarchical
structures, Blackman emphasizes the multiplicity of roles ...