July 2005, 121 posts, 3297 lines
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Kathryn Born wrote:
If we had 400 members, and you wanted to subscribe to the thread "a non smoking society", that would work. We only have some 80 'listeners' and a half dozen active posters.
If this were the "Flat Earth Forum", we might want to remove contrary opinions. This listserv is unmoderated to keep 'owner' bias down. There are 'owners'. Kerry started it and owns the idea; I wrote the scripts and own the domain name. But in reality this listserv is run by a machine. We do absolutely nothing.
Moderation squashes responses. The fact that it might-be-moderated would be enough to give people second thoughts.
We have a blacklist, and have pulled posts on request (one in 5 years). Misreading of email remains a problem. We have had people unsubscribe after suffering a shark attack.
I know. I hate reading art-philosophy. So skip down to the next post.
Basically... this:
I have followed both large and small forums. First, _any forum_ is a pain in the ass to navigate cause everything comes in small bits and pieces, and you need a browser running, and then wait for stuff to come in.
You often miss other interesting thoughts (threads), or people will change topics in mid sentence, or not be allowed to bring up extraneous ideas by moderators.
With many threads, even with many members, single threads tend to be dominated by very vocal people who will cajole everyone else to their opinion. Or threads they stand mutely empty for years. Let me quote Chris Wyberg, a writer, on a UseNet forum:
On-line forums are not accessed like a listserv is; they have much less traffic, for they depend on the intense interest of someone willing to boot up a browser to search for some point made on some select topic and then download all the comments one by one. What a drag.
I have looked at canned forum programs, and they simply will not do. They tend to be underdocumented, brittle, have useless features, are incomprehensibly large, cannot be altered, are owned by some other outfit, or have to be ISP'd through them. I wont do the last.
For the OG listserv I know every line of 'code' (It is a very small set of files). I can fix things -- like let the emails of Klein and Cates through even though both were identified as "level 3 spam".
What OG offers:
- a listserv which is fast (the turn-around time is about 2 seconds),
- operationally responsive (every email problem solved),
- based on 'procmail' and 'sed' scripts (thus easy to change),
- cleans up generations of tacked-on emails (with moderate success),
- produces the smallest remailed emails (non-polluting of the net),
- has never seen any spam (despite some attempts),
- archived in html markup (thus accessible by any browser),
- PHP scripted web site in monthy chunks (thus self generating pages),
- more open and varied than a forum (and thus interesting),
- not dominated by any one person (thus very little bullying),
- completely unmoderated (no worries about what can be said),
- listed and requoted at every search engine (just check google),
- is totally automatic in operation (lazyness rewarded).
My feeling it that the OG listserv works, and will even police itself, even when some people obviously get drunk before setting down at the keyboard. Kerry only once removed a name. /j
What the art world needs is to go see the Flavin exhibit at the MCA during the day when there is no one there.
Curt
"What the art world needs is to go see the Flavin exhibit at the MCA during the day when there is no one there."
Is this connected to the need to go to the movies when no one is talking incessantly or fucking with their cell phones? I'd like to do that. I can't imagine Dan Flavin is gonna be a blockbuster - I'm sure there will be many opportunities to see it in near emptiness. I'm looking forward to it - although I fully expect that with the MCA's crap architecture, this will be the worst presentation of this exhibit of any venue. Please tell me I'm wrong?
Since it is summer, has anyone had any thoughts on trying to see the Flavin show while wearing sunglasses?
How about the incredible culture the city is offering us at Taste of Chicago this year. Did anyone catch Creedence Clearwater Revisited and Lynyrd Skynyrd last night? That must have been amazing. Too bad no Doors of the 21st Century. Maybe next year?
Marc
On Jul 1, 2005, at 9:57 AM, Curt Conklin wrote:
Discussions with people who saw Flavin previously said MCA's was better. I thought the installation was terrific. Lots of new walls, small rooms, and hidden spaces. Almost every piece had its own sanctuary but the light of course bled everywhere making for real nice transitions.
The Aeronut Mik (I'm too lazy to go look up the spelling) video is also cool.
I agree. I thought Flavin's work has never looked so good. Claire
"I agree. I thought Flavin's work has never looked so good."
This is all good news. I will be cautiously optimistic. Having never spent a great deal of time with Flavin, I'm hoping this will be the eye-opener for his work that the incredible Barnett Newman retrospective in Philly was a few years ago.
I'm too lazy to actually go and pull up the recent suggestions by various wankers, myself included about who participates here and why. But it did get me to thinking or wondering does this forum have a mission. I know that its completely open to anyone that wants to throw down or lurk. Should the forum provide something in the way of educational FAQ's? Is there a decisive point of commentary or dialogue that exists here? Is there a reason for an open forum format if some are welcome while others are less welcome? As an open debit about art and it's delivery devices, is Chicago its only subject? Can or does this dialogue include other places in the manner that we wish to be percieved without neglecting ourselves. Can this group support arguments that are invited from outside its source, Chicago?
Greetings othergroup,
I have been following the dialogue for a short time, and thought this may be a time for an introduction. After reading the recent posts regarding what othergroup may function as, the varied voices, and the dilemma of the distance between city art locations, I thought I might use the forum as what I see as its' grassroots function. That is, as a network.
I have been making portraits of creative types (gallery owners, writers, artists etc.) since the early 90s when I arrived to Chicago, and am looking for additional participants. I will not go into great detail, but I will provide a direct link to some examples of the portraits:
[http://users.rcn.com/refocus/chicago.html]
At the very least, you get to see Jno sitting casually in his slippers. Any interested persons may contact me. I am democratic in my approach to this effort and tend to travel easily throughout the city. I can make no promises on a time frame. For the sitter's time, I provide a print. I will not post your image if you prefer to remain anonymous, but still would like to participate.
Also, anyone interested, please send an e-mail directly.
My apologies for not addressing any topics directly at this time. I am confident, this will happen in time.
Regards, Chester (Alamo & Costello)
Greetings othergroup,
I have had a couple queries already, and in both instances, the question of cost was raised. The portraits for this effort are free. Yes, not very lucrative, but a quality introduction to Chicago creative types and collectors. This project is a slow-burn and will hopefully evolve into a quality survey of the Chicago art scene.
Here is a link to a page which provides additional examples:
[http://users.rcn.com/refocus/documents.html]
I photograph with a 4x5 camera in color, and at times need to bring in artificial light. The sitting usually takes 1-2hours and I travel to a you.
Regards, Chester (Alamo & Costello)
i'd rather photograph myself.
"A lurker awakens... It seems some real animosity exists between those who prefer to see art as focused on "community" and those who see it as "commercial." Is that right? I'm not sure why that is other than maybe there are some class issues involved? "
Damn, one should not be allowed to lurk, then throw down the big unanswerable questions.
Luckily, it is a question that can be punted. One thing is for sure, it isn't class based. Upper and lower class are both as likely to make community based work as be involved in the commercial side. Speaking for myself, I have more ties to the "community" folks than the "commercial" folks, but that is more by nature of who I went to school with, and who I worked with than anything else. I feel no animosity toward either in general--just some of the folks in particular, but a few generalities about where the animosity comes from can be seen.
1. The commercial world has a stronger tie to the museum world, and tends to treat things that cannot or do not make money as worthless and irrelevant. Which of course peeves off those involved in performances, public phenomena and ephemeral works that do not lend themselves to sales.
2. At times, the folks involved in what is, for lack of a better term right now, called "alternative practices" can at times claim their works are more moral or ethical in nature. And what peeves off someone more than being called unethical or amoral?
Anyone, however, with a touch of self-doubt can see that both scenes have shortcomings and strengths. Galleries and the commercial sphere are horrible at making their spaces open to performance and events in public spaces, without some sort of detritus for sale. Alternative practices are generally not very good at incorporating paintings or traditional sculptural forms into their methodologies. In healthy art communities, these scenes tend to blur into each other and feed each other in interesting ways. Right now, maybe the lack of a structure that provides viable spaces where these two scenes can meet is breeding a "gentleman's" turf war, as the two sides try to protect what little there is.
That is a form of critical dialogue, not ideal, but a step in the right direction. By critical dialogue, anything that stops short of maybe calling someone a pedophile, rapist, murderer, amoral or unethical, unless they really unabashedly are--I'm looking in your direction Mr. Rumsfield, with at least one of these terms. It does help to be sober, and to provide a reason, and listen to a reason, without resorting to simple yes and no. Not calling someone a shithead or other names helps in the dialogue too, though a friend of mine does more than a time or two in argument resort to calling me "fucking ignorant," and I still talk with, and work with, him. But really critical is just that, no real answer, some criticism is reasoned, some rash, some deserved, some not, some light and some harsh. Complaints are part of dealing with the public, anyone in visitors' services can tell you that. Many people have too thin of a skin.
Oh, and 'dogmatic Michael,' that litany of questions and rhetoricals...can you prune it down a little? How is one to respond? With potato soup? I can only offer paella. a
Anthony - "Oh, and 'dogmatic Michael,' that litany of questions and rhetoricals...can you prune it down a little? How is one to respond? With potato soup? I can only offer paella."
To which litany do you refer?
MT
It is another one of those packed, how-to-respond-in-less-than-5000-words challenges. a
I see. I figured it to be a choose your own adventure post.
None the less the post is the result of having talked to many lurkers about the OG in the last week. I'm surprised by how many people pay attention to this sight. I can't help but wonder if more people would participate if some things were made clearer. Such as does the OG have a mission, If so what is that mission and what would be the best way to make that known.
Also a result of these discussions about this discussion group were some thoughts about opening the OG up to non chicago voices. This might seem like a no brainer, but Is the OG a proper platform to engage dialogue about work from a broader spectrum? Could artists, curators, gallery owners and writers from outside the city be brought into the discussion? Would this be a positive direction for the community?
Its also possible that this forum is meant to function simply as a release valve for local tensions. My earlier post was meant to invite comments regarding these points. Does that clarify it a little for you, Anthony? MT
Dogmatic gallery wrote: "I can't help but wonder if more people would participate if some things were made clearer. Such as does the OG have a mission, If so what is that mission and what would be the best way to make that known."
No thanks. In defense of the 'experimental' side, I don't think I'd participate if this had a mission. Leave missions to other forums. A mission could only be successful with a moderator or if the statement were vague and all-encompassing, in which case there would be no point. It would be kind of like this museum idea, where they want to do everything, so long as it is about Chicago, which is stilll too much. At some point, everything is impossible and just plain silly.
Dogmatic gallery wrote "Also a result of these discussions about this discussion group were some thoughts about opening the OG up to non Chicago voices. This might seem like a no brainer, but Is the OG a proper platform to engage dialogue about work from a broader spectrum? Could artists, curators, gallery owners and writers from outside the city be brought into the discussion? Would this be a positive direction for the community?"
Why not? Anyone is welcome and in the Othergroup there is not a dominant conspiracy theory about 'trendy curators' at local museums ignoring artists. And there seems to be a good mix of people on this listserv already. Sure, there are some sharks, and I am guilty on occasion of posting too late after one too many (this is one of those times), but hey, this is an open conversation and its good that way.
Dogmatic gallery wrote "Its also possible that this forum is meant to function simply as a release valve for local tensions."
So far, this is all it's been good for, at least for me. Not a bad thing, if that's all it amounts to. I don't really consider myself part of the 'art world' although I have been at different times throughout my life, and now experience it vicariously through friends and family. Working in another field, the Othergroup is the one place where I can interact firsthand and maintain a voice.
I would like to say I am disappointed by the absence of response to my culture application. I put an hour of work into that joke. [http://www.mmbeyer.com/MEMBERSHIP_APPLICATION.pdf]
Here is a question (eventually, next paragraph): there have been some letters to the Tribune from people complaining that kids are not allowed to run and splash in the Plesna's Crown fountain. I don't really care, since I don't have kids. Obviously the City has some reasonable concerns, mainly lawsuits from families whose children fall and break their face. There have been other letters from people complaining they can't walk on the grass around the Pritzker bandshell 24-7. Again, the City has a valid reason, because otherwise the grass would die and it would be a miserable field of dirt. (I actually believe police should be able to shoot to kill anybody who walks over landscaped medians, but then again, I'm pretty sure I've done it too).
Does anybody think Plesna would be disappointed or surprised by the limitations? I think any artist since the Serra case in New York would be dumb to think the artist has any true right when working in or for the public sphere. I also think any person, not just artists, would be stupid if they thought something could be created in public with no limitations. But is there anybody still idealistic enough to believe an artist does retain a certain right above and beyond the will of the general public (or for that matter, the public bureaucracy?)
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
Aeelms at aol.com wrote: "1. The commercial world has a stronger tie to the museum world, and tends to treat things that cannot or do not make money as worthless and irrelevant. Which of course peeves off those involved in performances, public phenomena and ephemeral works that do not lend themselves to sales."
Huh? I couldn't disagree more. I think the Flavin show, the original at least, disproves that. Wasn't necessarily a blockbuster, them gold and pink lights..... The MCA often has performances and public phenomena--they took a big risk with that guy jumping off the building as it received mostly negative press and therefore it can be assumed it did not make money for them. And the 12 x 12 shows also prove this statement wrong, since from what I have heard from several artists, there is no input by the museum and it is basically there for the artist to do whatever with. its apparent, too, by the looks of some past shows. Someone should have stepped in and said, "excuse me, but thats shit and you're wasting everyone's money and time."
I think the museums are the one place where for and not-for profit ambitions intersect. There has been a trend of late that has moved the museums closer to the for profit, but I think that is ending.
Beyer wrote: "There has been a trend of late that has moved the museums closer to the for profit, but I think that is ending."
I am not the best person to address this, but I can tell you that, certainly in the case of the Art Institute, this trend is just just picking up speed. The Southeast Asian galleries are at this moment being transformed into an expanded giftshop and cafe for the up-coming Lautrec show. Granted, the initial reason the S.E.Asian galleries were de-installed is because they are in the 'vibration and dust zone' of construction for the new wing. But the simple fact is that gallery space has diminished and commercial space has increased. (a long side note: it is worth mentioning that in one sense all gallery space has roots in commerce, there are books about this I think. Now I have always thought that kind of "rooting" needs to be resisted. This may be a little risky, but I think that so much that happens in galleries also has connections to what happens in some religious spaces, socially and intellectually, even spiritually if you're into that type of thing. Or, less risky, there are connections between what happens in a gallery and in a public square, a more or less dead institution, which included the selling of stuff, but is not merely the selling of stuff) Back to the 'Tute: For my own sense of survival I maintain some ignorance about the blood and guts of what happens at the Art Institute. But the new director, along with a few other recent suit hires at the 'tute have done a lot to move the culture of the place toward the for-profit, corporate end of the spectrum. And that trend is not about to end. Though, by corporate standards, I imagine it is still perceived as a completely backward, little, non-profit institution.
mw
Mike Wolf writes:
I too am very far from the best person to address this. I know little to nothing about the blood and guts of this institution myself and know nothing of these 'suits' James Cuno has brought on board. Likewise, I'm in no position to speculate in any detail about the museum's general philisophical direction and would not presume to read its director's mind.
Nevertheless, before arriving in Chicago, Cuno did edit a book titled "Whose Muse?: Art Museums and the Public Trust" [ [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/] -/0691032157/ ], featuring essays from Cuno and 5 other major American and British museum directors (including former AIC director, James Wood), which might offer some insight here.
I haven't yet read the book myself, but the general sense I got reading about it on its reception was that it was generally *very* hostile to the Guggenheim's Thomas Krens and his ilk (who, more than anybody else, exemplify the contemporary commodification of the museum-going experience). The bit of Cuno's essay that I've skimmed suggests a desire to shift focus away from blockbuster temporary shows toward the permanent collection. (Apologies for leaning on the content of a book I haven't read, but... well, I've been meaning to get my hands on a copy and give it a once over for a while... I'm just too lazy.)
I also know that Cuno has publicly debated/lambasted Boston MFA chief (and Cuno's former nemesis from the banks of the River Charles) Malcolm Rogers over, among other things, that museum's questionable decision to rent a number of Monets -- for profit -- to Pace/Wildenstein's gallery at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. [cf: [http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2004/09/12/malcolm_x/] ]
All this would suggest to me an image of Cuno lining up on the side of the good guys, but if this is mistaken, someone please set me straight.
(And all that said, I know that Victory Cassidy has written [ [http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/news/cassidy/cassidy9] -17-04.asp ] that Cuno was hired quite specifically with the charge of getting the AIC's new Piano wing funded and built (something, interestingly, that he failed to do at the helm of the Harvard Art Museums). So it would hardly be a stretch to suggest that most moves the man makes are colored in the real world by the fiscal needs thereof.)
I would like to weigh in on the concept of shrinking gallery space and increasing commercialization in museums. I do not think the former is happening and I do not think the latter is bad.
With respect to shrinking gallery spaces. Mike notes that the SE Asian wing is closing to make way for the new wing. This is a trend toward *more* gallery space, not less. Sure there will be parts of the new wing dedicated to commercial activities, (restaurants, gift shops, etc) But ultimately this will lead to more space for viewing art at the AIC.
Secondly, everyone laments this perceived loss of gallery space, but when we start talking about the Chicago Artist Museum, everyone gripes that is isn't needed? At the very minimum it's a pile of more gallery space. Are we just complaining about everything?
With respect to increasing commercialization. I do not have a problem with new commercial ways of paying for programming.
Who better to pay for the Lautrec show than the people who care to view it? And by using gift sales they are essentially letting those with more funds, and wishing to pay more do so while keeping the costs of viewing low for everyone else. That's selective pricing and seems perfect to me. Parenthetically, it's the same way colleges charge tuition.
And most of the commercial ventures that run museums are handled behind the walls, gift shops, and restaurants. They call it "development" (I don't know where that word comes from). Most of the funding for these shows, for Millennium Park, for NPR, etc. comes from private donors. And the organizations are doing fine. Sure they'd like to have more money from other sources (read: government), but any organization would like to have more money from *any* source. Everyone prefers a free lunch to one they pay for.
It might be convenient to our discussion to gripe about how all this hurts the shows, but I just don't see it. I spend a lot of time with curators (at least contemporary curators) and I sit on the exhibition committee at the MCA. I have never heard a curator discuss financial motivation with respect to programming unless it was to reject the idea.
Marketing (and particularly outreach) have increased the cost of putting on shows. Additional competition from other forms of entertainment/institutionalized enlightenment has raised the bar with respect to production values and increased the cost of doing shows. Increasingly complicated safety concerns, city and government regulations, and building codes have increased the costs of doing shows. Yet shows continue and are better and more diverse than they were 50 years ago. All this is largely because new and more appropriate methods of funding have developed.
Curt Conklin wrote:
Who better to pay for the Lautrec show than the people who care to view it? And by using gift sales they are essentially letting those with more funds, and wishing to pay more do so while keeping the costs of viewing low for everyone else."
I think the quality of museum/art/viewing experience always deteriorates as commercialization increases. It's never usually one obvious detail, but lots of little details that conspire to make museums more like malls, and less like a place to escape from the commercial shopping experience for an afternoon to go think about other things or be in in the world in a slightly different way. Curt, maybe you are unaffected or used to this increasing commercialism in museums but I don't want to get used to it, and it does seem to keep getting worse. Restaurants weren't always branded. Museum Free Days used to just be Free Days, not "Marshal Fields Free Day" or "Sears Free Tuesday." I've seen little sample boxes of Frango mints in the MCA lobby on a Marshall Field's sponsored free day. Since the museum displays art throughout the entire building, including their corporate branded restaurant, why don't they mix the Frango's in with a Felix Gonzalez-Torres candy pile too while they are at it? The blur between where the art is and where the advertising begins keeps getting fuzzier.
Advertising and art are blended together enough - particularly at the MCA, that I think it sucks a lot of vitality from the overall experience, and this in turn sucks some life out of the exhibits. Some shows and months and programs are better or worse than others, but overall I think the MCA is losing the battle to maintain integrity for their building as a vital place to experience art and ideas. While the old building was a lot smaller, and the institution was a lot different back then, and many things were different, I always felt it was a much more powerful experience of whatever art was on view. Of course, other museums are worse than the MCA at ceding too much visual and experiential weight to their corporate sponsors. I almost assume at the point that there is nothing the Field Museum or Science and Industry or Guggenheim wouldn't show if they could get enough corporate money behind it. I just wish they'd combine all of these lame ideas into one more creative exhibit so I could go see an exhibit about Chocolate Star Wars Armani Monster Truck Motorcycles.
As for the Art Institute, I think commercialization does plenty to shit up the experience of visiting that place too. Every single Art Institute "blockbuster" exhibition layout has to terminate in a gift shop, and how often is one in the last gallery looking at the art while listening to employees loudly ring up sales a room or two over? Why should you have to be funneled through a fucking crowded gift store when you are done looking at the art? There is usually no other way to exit the show. This really sucks. And I'm not renting an audio- tour to drown out the sound of shopping either.
Let's also not forget that while most museums like to do their corporate parties after hours when the museum is closed, a lot of the set up for these private events often happens while the museum is still open. How many times have I seen the Chagall stained-glass windows blocked by workers setting up a huge bar while the museum was still very much open to the public?
Marc
Oh yeah, a couple excellent books on this subject of museums/art and corporate sponsorship are:
Culture Incorporated - museums, artists, and corporate sponsorships" by Mark W. Recttanus Privatising Culture: Corporate Art Intervention since the 1980s" by Chin-tao Wu
read them and weep. They would make great gifts for all upper level staff at the MCA and Art Institute as well as for the Mayor's office. Marc
I don't think commercialization of museums is bad.....I don't think making money is a sin, but a virtue, unless it involves deception or thievery. I also feel museums should not be expected to be temples to culture, where the experience and environment is pristine of obstruction and absent of "money-changers". I consider the shops and merchandise, bars in front of the Chagall--all part of the fascinating spectacle.
I took Aeelms link between the commercial sales of art and museums as referring to the sales of actual art. The gift shops don't bother me and I didn't think that was the question. I assumed he was referring to the belief that museums are run by cabals of collectors who use the space to increase the value of their possessions through exhibitions and public spectacle. I don't believe profiteering or commerce is the main purpose of museums or why individuals choose to fund them, and thus I do not agree that "The commercial world has a stronger tie to the museum world, and tends to treat things that cannot or do not make money as worthless and irrelevant."
My problem with the Chicago Artist Museum is 1. I think there is a false perception that showing work in a museum is a silver bullet to a successful career. No institution, even with flatfiles, could ever satisfy the number of artists that will never have a profitable career. 2. I agree with the earlier suggestion that the money could be better spent on other, established and proven museums. 3. I have not seen or heard of any actual, professional business plan for this museum. I've read their ideas, the many many 'lists' of things they plan to do, but there has not been a business plan made available. Until there is one, it is just hype and something I would not devote my time to. I don't think a business plan is that much to expect.
The only thing I do like about the Chicago Artist Museum is that it plans to show work of groups like the Imagists and other proven artists who have been ignored by the history books. Chicago needs that more than gallery space, which I agree is not shrinking, only decentralized.
That said, I hope this listerv does not get completely rerouted to discuss the Chicago Artist Museum, as there is already a forum for that.
Marc Fischer Culture Incorporated - museums, artists, and corporate sponsorships"
by Mark W. Recttanus
Privatising Culture: Corporate Art Intervention since the 1980s" by
Chin-tao Wu
read them and weep. They would make great gifts for all upper level
staff at the MCA and Art Institute as well as for the Mayor's office.
Marc
I am reading a book at the moment that may be of interest: Art Incorporated
by Julian Stallabrass (Oxford University Press). If you can find it, it may be
worth a read.
On another note (same melody I suppose) I just came back from a visit to the
new Walker addition. Lots of wonderful nooks and crannies - a few of which are
brought to you by Best Buy Inc.
-jb
In a message dated 7/5/2005 1:52:14 PM Central Standard Time,
marcfischer at sbcglobal.net writes:
Oh yeah, a couple excellent books on this subject of museums/art and
corporate sponsorship are:
Culture Incorporated - museums, artists, and corporate sponsorships"
by Mark W. Recttanus
Privatising Culture: Corporate Art Intervention since the 1980s" by
Chin-tao Wu
read them and weep. They would make great gifts for all upper level
staff at the MCA and Art Institute as well as for the Mayor's office.
Marc
"I am reading a book at the moment that may be of interest: Art
Incorporated
by Julian Stallabrass (Oxford University Press). If you can find it,
it may be
worth a read."
Oooooh! Thanks for the tip! His book "High Art Lite" is also highly
recommended reading. Excellent book - you can find it at Harold
Washington Library. Stallabrass is great. I hope I can find that new
book at a bookstore in a safe neighborhood where I feel comfortable
leaving my car.
Wonderful! When I think of the kind of experiences I like having in a
museum, the quality experience I always have inside Best Buy
definitely comes to mind! I can only hope that their wonderful
patronage will do for the Walker at least a little bit of what they
do for their stores! Fantastic!!!
Oooooh part 2: This is wrong: Culture Incorporated - museums,
artists, and corporate sponsorships"
by Mark W. Recttanus
should be Rectanus - one 't'
Marc
Marc Fisher wroter:
"I hope I can find that new book at a bookstore in a safe neighborhood where I feel comfortable leaving my car."
I'll take that as a joke, but for the record, just because someone acknowledges a neighborhood is not safe doesn't make you prejudiced or closed-minded. I happen to ride my bicycle to work every day from 18th to 133rd and back (we live in Pilsen), through two of the most violent neighborhoods in the city, but I still wouldn't want to leave my car there at night on a deserted street. Neither would my wife, who is neurotic about her car, but that doesn't make her or I materialistic, prejudiced or closed minded. Get off your idealistic vantage point and come back down to the real world, where people get mugged and cars get broken into.
---------------------------------
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.
On Jul 5, 2005, at 8:29 PM, Michael Beyer wrote:
" Get off your idealistic vantage point and come back down to the
real world, where people get mugged and cars get broken into."
Of course I was just messin'. I'm not idealistic. Everyone has
legitimate fears. I think for me the scariest art venue of all right
now is probably Millennium Park. All those cops on Segways make me
way too nervous to enjoy a $25.00 lunch in that new restaurant they
built just for the people of Chicago.
Wow, thanks for all the great responses from people
who are obviously much smarter than I am about this
stuff. Way too much to respond to piece by piece, but
it does sound to me, at least, like a lot of what you
all had to say had to do with social stuff or economic
and business-ey stuff and I'm not sure what was about
art. Maybe you guys have some examples of what you're
talking about? Also, sorry if I set off any arguments,
I didn't mean for people to go at each other like
that.
Maybe I should ask it this way: isn't the point to
make art that's capable of lasting? And how does any
of this stuff you guys were talking about matter next
to that?
Eric Blair
don't get all serious on us now, Blair. it's much easier and more fun to have arguments about trivial matters.
---------------------------------
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.
Was there any good art to be had in Chicago this weekend folks? Did anybody
make it to the "Lamprey" pig roast?
OG's,
I saw the Dan Flavin show at the MCA this morning, and for possibly
the first time ever in Other Group history, I'm going to agree with
Curt Conklin. The show looks terrific. The installation is
exceptional and spacious. It is one of the very very rare shows to
make effective use of the MCA's shitty architecture, the variety of
ways the work is placed throughout the museum and the way they feed
into one another is satisfying, blah blah blah. It's just a really
solid experience. The museum was pretty empty of people this morning
which definitely must have helped.
It probably also helped that it was overcast this morning, as the
only electric light provided in the galleries comes from the Flavin
works. A really great guard helpfully noted that it looks even better
at night so I plan to revisit the show right before closing on a
Tuesday. When you see the show, be sure to also look up at the
ceiling, as the light panels upstairs sometimes result in some
interesting reflections, as does the shiny floor surface. I was
already catching little details like this but I've gotta hand it to
this guard because she was pointing out interesting ceiling
reflections to me too and other nice phenomenological moments.
It was also nice to see quite a lot of correspondence on display
between Flavin and Jan Van der Mark. I wish museums included traces
of these dialogues more often so that visitors could see how artists
and curators articulate their ideas and concerns to one another.
Plus, Dan Flavin has great handwriting. And the short documentary on
Flavin that shows him speaking quite a lot was also engaging, though
I immediately lost patience once it switched over to Leo Castelli
talking. Zzzzzzzzz.
Also, the MCA guards get to wear sunglasses during the show if they
want. Pretty sweet! It's a good look.
I still have no idea what, if anything, Flavin's work means to me. It
doesn't suggest interesting courses of action to pursue; I don't find
it terribly moving. I have no idea what to do with it. But it holds
up really well as a visual experience to see it all together. With
few early exceptions, all of the work spanning his entire life
functions effectively as a seamless body of work. Some pieces are
richer than others, but it all hangs together beautifully in concert.
As for the rest of the museum, I found the first floor video
installation very shoddy looking and so tedious I couldn't stay more
than 5 minutes tops. It also has one of the worst ever wall texts
outside the gallery. And apologies to Scott Wolniak if he reads OG,
but I found his 12X12 show to be pretty slight. I can elaborate if
someone needs me to, but I figured I'd spend more time talking about
Flavin cuz I actually got sorta excited about it.
Another note, is it true the the MCA's only truly free period is now
reduced to 3 hours on Tuesday night? I get in free cuz I work at
another museum, but still, that's pretty rough. Did Bob Fitzpatrick
get another pay raise or something?
Marc
OG's,
I saw the Dan Flavin show at the MCA this morning, and for possibly
the first time ever in Other Group history, I'm going to agree with
Curt Conklin. The show looks terrific. The installation is
exceptional and spacious. It is one of the very very rare shows to
make effective use of the MCA's shitty architecture, the variety of
ways the work is placed throughout the museum and the way they feed
into one another is satisfying, blah blah blah. It's just a really
solid experience. The museum was pretty empty of people this morning
which definitely must have helped.
It probably also helped that it was overcast this morning, as the
only electric light provided in the galleries comes from the Flavin
works. A really great guard helpfully noted that it looks even better
at night so I plan to revisit the show right before closing on a
Tuesday. When you see the show, be sure to also look up at the
ceiling, as the light panels upstairs sometimes result in some
interesting reflections, as does the shiny floor surface. I was
already catching little details like this but I've gotta hand it to
this guard because she was pointing out interesting ceiling
reflections to me too and other nice phenomenological moments.
It was also nice to see quite a lot of correspondence on display
between Flavin and Jan Van der Mark. I wish museums included traces
of these dialogues more often so that visitors could see how artists
and curators articulate their ideas and concerns to one another.
Plus, Dan Flavin has great handwriting. And the short documentary on
Flavin that shows him speaking quite a lot was also engaging, though
I immediately lost patience once it switched over to Leo Castelli
talking. Zzzzzzzzz.
Also, the MCA guards get to wear sunglasses during the show if they
want. Pretty sweet! It's a good look.
I still have no idea what, if anything, Flavin's work means to me. It
doesn't suggest interesting courses of action to pursue; I don't find
it terribly moving. I have no idea what to do with it. But it holds
up really well as a visual experience to see it all together. With
few early exceptions, all of the work spanning his entire life
functions effectively as a seamless body of work. Some pieces are
richer than others, but it all hangs together beautifully in concert.
As for the rest of the museum, I found the first floor video
installation very shoddy looking and so tedious I couldn't stay more
than 5 minutes tops. It also has one of the worst ever wall texts
outside the gallery. And apologies to Scott Wolniak if he reads OG,
but I found his 12X12 show to be pretty slight. I can elaborate if
someone needs me to, but I figured I'd spend more time talking about
Flavin cuz I actually got sorta excited about it.
Another note, is it true the the MCA's only truly free period is now
reduced to 3 hours on Tuesday night? I get in free cuz I work at
another museum, but still, that's pretty rough. Did Bob Fitzpatrick
get another pay raise or something?
Marc
Any artists out there interested in donating their talents to the annual
celebrity chair event?
Basically, you are assigned a celebrity (say Roger Ebert) or entity (like
the Cubs) and then you design a chair around them/it. They may have input
or ideas or they may not. Then they attach some personal element to it
(maybe an autograph or something) and your are done.
Billing then reads something like *The Oprah Winfrey Chair as Designed by
Smith Winfield*
I don't know much more about it yet, but if you are interested in learning
more, send me an email.
Thanks,
Curt
Well, Sherman and I have been a little busy, but:
In response to Dogmatic:
"Is there a reason for an open
forum format if some are welcome while others are less welcome?"
Since I am a member of many listservs, I've done some unofficial research
into the number of people who receive the messages, and the number of people who
actively post. While othergroup may be a little on the low end, it is pretty
consistent with the percentages of many others I belong to. The others seem
more active, but they also have a thousand or more members, which just means a
larger number of people creating the same small percentage of activity. It just
looks busier.
To agree with Automeris:
"Leave missions to other forums. A mission could only be successful with a
moderator or if the statement were vague and all-encompassing, in which case
there would be no point. It would be kind of like this museum idea, where they
want to do everything, so long as it is about Chicago, which is stilll too
much. At some point, everything is impossible and just plain silly."
Right-o.
And to answer:
"Does anybody think Plesna would be disappointed or surprised by the
limitations? "
According to some interviews, he didn't anticipate all the people running
through the water to begin with, so I'm not sure how he would now respond to the
limitations. But one still imagines he would be slightly disappointed, if
indeed he even knows. Public entities--or even museums for that fact--do not
really have to contact artists when they enact policies to "preserve" the works and
"protect" the viewers, unless specified in a contract. They do own the works.
Automeris took issue with my statement:
"1. The commercial world has a stronger tie to the museum world, and tends to
treat things that cannot or do not make money as worthless and irrelevant.
Which of course peeves off those involved in performances, public phenomena and
ephemeral works that do not lend themselves to sales."
Autemeris:
"Huh? I couldn't disagree more. I think the Flavin show, the original at
least, disproves that. Wasn't necessarily a blockbuster, them gold and pink
lights..... "
That was a long long time ago, and of course, today restaging the work is not
the same, even if it is stellar. Now they use the restaging to pat themselves
on the back, and to entice art junkies from around the globe to see the one
time recreation of the piece. And the aggressive ad campaign does attest to the
money they expect the exhibition to bring in. Not that this is inherently
evil, just the bottom line.
Actually, the 12x12 is exactly what I was thinking about: there is little
input by the museum, including financial or facilities support. Friends have had
to do their own construction, with their own materials, something not even
places low budget not-for-profits expect the artist to pay for. Most of the
artists picked are fairly conventional framed, hung on a nail, or placed on a
pedestal works. Not at all experimental in breadth of materials or designs, and
when friends proposed events, a one time event, and said they wanted nothing on
display they were told no, you have to put something in the space for a month.
And I wasn't talking about some evil cabal. Who needs a cabal when most
people are lazy? You can just do some websurfing, or the in-person jetset
equivalent, the biennial, pick the same ole canvas/video/sculpture that has been shown
multiple times, in multiple cities, and put it right there where last month's
rectangle was.
Automeris:
"I think the museums are the one place where for and not-for profit ambitions
intersect. There has been a trend of late that has moved the museums closer
to the for profit, but I think that is ending."
I somewhat agree, but in this mix, it is important to not just look at the
art, but the sponsorship.
Just having returned from the Walker, The "best buy media nooks" are pretty
much a bust, and not because they are corporate per se, but because they were
not really functional, and in several years, I'm sure they will be empty, or
reinvented to actually work. Of course, the rest of the Walker...best permanent
collection hang in the country, and some great nook-and-cranies and oddball
selections. Best wall text in the country as well.
Anyway, the government is showing signs of looking more closely at
not-for-profit/corporate and commercial connections, and a lot of museum stores will not
survive, if the guv looks too closely. And alot of logo and marketing demands
made by corporate philanthropy giving will also cave.
But an example:
The first special exhibition at the new MOMA was a show of the UBS
collection, some of it given, some of it, "may be" given in the future. So they wouldn't
even promise. But the worst part, overlooking that MOMA's first special show
wasn't scholarship, but a corporate money display, was their demand that every
work given to MOMA by Paine, Webber, a gift that I think happened in the
eighties, maybe early nineties, was required to be renamed "Gift of UBS
Collection" because of course UBS now own Paine, Webber. And MOMA agreed!
(not to mention, people in the trenches will attest that donors were
dictating large proportions of what works were displayed, and in what rooms. Not
curators.)
Oh, and if I wanted to be snarky about commercialization, and the role of
money, I would probably just quote Dorothy Parker:
"If you want to know what God thinks about money, just look at the people he
gives it to."
But I'm not feeling snarky.
Professor Peabody
Aeelms at aol.com wrote:
"Actually, the 12x12 is exactly what I was thinking about: there is little
input by the museum, including financial or facilities support. Friends have had
to do their own construction, with their own materials, something not even
places low budget not-for-profits expect the artist to pay for."
I recently heard the most amazing, shameful story from an artist who had a 12X12 show. I won't mention the person's name. During the opening someone at the Museum gave them drink tickets because since this opening was during the meat market (I mean "First Fridays"), you would normally have to pay for drinks. They were given 5 drink tickets.
I said, 'Well, that doesn't sound so bad - you could at least get a little buzzed at your opening'
That's what the artist thought, but the artist decided to share and give tickets to some friends and family rather than using all of them him/herself.
Well, you can imagine the artist's embarassment when they learned that ONE drink costs FIVE tickets. That's right, the MCA lets you have one free drink at your own opening. If this doesn't reveal clearly enough how much love they are showing young artists with this grand opportunity, I'm not sure what does.
Marc
I like constructive criticism, but I don't want Othergroup to stray too much towards another unnamed forum where they continually slam local institutions for rather mundane points. Most public institutions have not been as financially secure ever since 9-11 and the tech bubble burst. As for the drink tickets, employees never get free drinks. I'm sure if he wanted to bring his own bottle of spirits an exception could be made. I'm not even sure why I'm acknowledging this point, as I really don't care. And First Friday's is a great marketing idea, it brings new members to the museum every time. Yes, it's a meat market, but some people like it, and we can't all have it our way all the time. That would be Burger King.
As for the reduced free hours on Tuesdays, I think that has been in place for a couple years since Marshall Field's reduced their donations. So once again, corporate money does help, so long as it's done tastefully. Haven't been to the Walker to see the Best Buy nooks, but that does sound tasteless. I prefer wings or galleries with donor's names on them, preferably wealthy individuals rather than corporations. Ego is more interesting than faceless corporate boards and, to a large extent, more in line with the ego of artists.
It's hot today so I am feeling snarky: I think it was Steinbeck in East of Eden who wrote, "God gives money to those who can't help themselves." When I read that as I teenager I agreed, but then I grew up and now that I work with a population that is 98% well below the poverty line, I've concluded God doesn't discriminate; it seems the majority of people can't help themselves.
As for a more relevant subject, to make Othergroup a less regional listserv, the first step would be to make the description not read as "A dialog between Chicago artists, writers, gallery owners, and anyone else who wants to participate." Take out any reference to Chicago.
I agree that the artists in the 12 x 12 might not get enough support, but then, at least they have it and I'd hate to see them take it away.
On a different note, does anybody know the average time it takes to graduate from the local universities with a master's in art history or a similar subject? Also, anybody know the percentage of students that actually graduate?
automeris:
" Most public institutions have not been as financially secure ever since
9-11 and the tech bubble burst. "
Of course not, but some institutions have handled this problem with tact, and
some have not. ( I specifically think about the staff bloodlettings at the
guggenheim, while it continues to spend millions on spiriting away its board and
director to far locations scouting new ventures, most of which will never
happen.) We should punish those who have done it poorly.
And meat market nights are to be expected, and again, some do them well, some
do not, some, like Milwaukee or the Whitney, try to keep on mission by often
hiring visual artists to be the musical entertainment, some don't.
Most places with liquor licenses, including museums would not allow that,
ever. But then personal sneakiness can go to some lengths.
And not really functional, unless you like watching videos, crammed on a sofa
with up to 5 other people, all watching flatscreens installed, hanging down,
about a foot from your face.
I'll hoist a midday drink to that.
Well, first we'd have to say that most schools shy away from wanting to take
on masters for art history. If you aren't aiming for the Ph.D., most will
spirit you away somewhere else. For example, I believe it is hard to get accepted
at the uofc for just a masters in a.h., and if you do, little financial help
will come your way, because they save it for the Ph.Ds. That said, I believe
most masters programs want you out in between 2-5 years. I do not know failure
rates. Given that most schools offer a student a grace period of around 7-8
years where you can re-enroll to finish if you do not, it is probably tricky to
track.
And on a side note, anyone notice that in most of the new souped-up architect
museums, the public restrooms are usually stand out beautifully designed
spaces? Often better than the front desks, the place where you supposedly have you
first encounter to the building? What gives? Are international architects
trying to spur on anonymous public restroom sex?
Michael Beyer Of course, but has that affected the MCA Director's reported $400,000+ annual income?
Just to put things in perspective, 12X12 artists get $500.00 to work with and the museum will not insure their art during the run of the show. I'm sorry - this is just crap, and pretty unheard of compared to any museum or university gallery I've ever worked with. Any university gallery will treat an artist better than this.
I'm quick to offer praise when things are good - I just wrote what I thought was pretty high praise of the MCA's Dan Flavin show. But the above criticism needs to be leveled.
Marc
Apropos the recent discussion on museums:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/arts/design/17kimm.html] ?
And, just for the record, I think that the point of
the "anticommercial" set on this list is to mediate
the negative influence of commercial interests on a
demographic more concerned with the socio-cultural
than the economic. But the majority of people, as it
happens, will always care first and foremost about the
economic. Fact. Money always has and always will trump
art; you just can't eat a painting when you're hungry.
But if it's a painting of food, it may make that
hunger a little more tolerable...
Also wanted to weigh in on what I see as the ultimate
purpose of this listserv: it seems to me that this,
like many other such "groups," is a form of therapy.
Maybe unsuccessful when it breaks down into trash
talk, name-calling and sarcasm, but hell, that's half
the outpatient programs I've been in. Anyway, it seems
you have to have both sides to make the whole picture,
and I agree that our institutions provide, like
patriotism, access to the main channels of
self-expression in our society. If we cut ourselves
off from them (or they from us), we'll find ourselves
a poor society indeed.
Eric Blair
Just read that article last night and at first thought I would have to eat my own words but then realized the author might be wrong. Charging rental fees for loaned artwork to for-profit casino/museums and foreign museums might not be against any rules of non-profits. Its like when a private event requires extra police officers, it is within the cities right to charge for the use of those officers. The money charged to the for-profits or foreign museums would go back to the public non profit institutions, helping to off-set the cost to the tax payers. Seems legit and ethical to me. As for deaccession, I'm willing to bet every museum has done so since their inception, to some degree. It's not a recent phenomena and, with the increase in collecting art, donations of art have been on the increase, raising the cost of storage dramatically. Increase of deaccession can only be expected unless the same donors give money to pay for the storage and upkeep, which does not happen as
often as it should. From what little I know, it's easier to get people to donate for the flashy things, less so for things like storage and air conditioning. Given the chance, I'd rather have my name on a wing than an air conditioner.
On Jul 18, 2005, at 6:16 AM, Michael Beyer wrote:
"air conditioning"
Oooooh, air conditioning. I just wanted to repeat that one more time
because it has such a nice sound. If any collectors would like to
donate central air-conditioning to my apartment, please email me off
list.
and, even charging other non-profits for rental of artwork can be justified in that the owner of the artwork has to pay for insurance and upkeep of the artwork.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I've always thought the difference between for- and non- profits is that both can make a killing, but the money in non- has to go back into the program, whereas for- the money goes into the pockets of the owners. An example might be Columbia college, which is non- ( I'm pretty sure?) and charges a lot for tuition yet the money goes back into their programs, which is obvious--students get what they pay for generally. Whereas a smaller art college down the street that will remain nameless is for-profit and charges a lot for tuition, yet the money goes into the pocket of the owner and it is obvious by the bare bones of their facilities and programs.
And someone might complain that much of the money goes into the pockets of directors in non-profits, but so long as it is appoved by a board it is still within the rules; salaries are always compared to similar institutions. Often, as is the case with several local institutions, directors take pay cuts from high paying private sector jobs to work at the non-profits. They might still have high salaries compared to an average joe, but what they bring to the museums is often well worth the pay, even if it is not obvious to every Tom Dick and Harry that walks in off the street.
---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
if its used, can I still put my name on it? Can't afford a plaque, but would write it in magic marker.
On Jul 18, 2005, at 6:31 AM, Michael Beyer wrote:
"if its used, can I still put my name on it? Can't afford a plaque,
but would write it in magic marker."
No, I'm sorry. At some point I may move and might need to deaccession
the air conditioner. This might prove to be a conflict with the
corporate AC underwriting of the new owner. I will however be sure to
note the unit's provenance and you might get a nice footnote in the
annual report (which will be printed on much better paper than any of
the institution's exhibition brochures).
Michael - re: deaccessioning collections - I'm not qualified to say
much on the subject but I think the biggest issue has to do with AAM
(American Association of Museums) guidelines that museums should be
adhering to if they are accredited by the AAM (most major US museums
are). Can someone with more museum experience in that area explain?
Perhaps also explain the benefits of being AAM accredited?
Michael Beyer also wrote:
"Often, as is the case with several local institutions, directors
take pay cuts from high paying private sector jobs to work at the non-
profits."
That's very charitable of them to sacrifice even more unnecessarily
huge amounts of money for the good of culture, but ultimately I think
this is basically apples and oranges. If a hundred grand a year or so
at a museum isn't enough for you, go do something else and stop
sucking all the money out of the rest of the cash-strapped
institution! It also does not excuse the incredibly vast pay
differences between a position like director and the jobs of
curators, heads of exhibition design, tech workers and others who do
a lot to shape the quality of what we see (as well as the overall
experience), not to mention the horribly paid guards, visitor
services people etc.
Let's also not forget that I think the reason most of us go to
museums is not for the director but for the art. This is why I call
attention to items like the crack whore sized honorariums and
treatment offered to 12X12 artists (as well as the fact that I'm an
artist and don't like to see other artists being exploited). In all
of the drive to keep the upper management happy, it is frequently the
support for art going into the museum that seems to suffer most. When
this art is contemporary art being made from scratch for a new
exhibition, this becomes a particularly large problem and it greatly
impacts the quality of what viewers see. Of course, lack of
curatorial/institutional vision also affects the quality of what we
see but that's a whole other story.
Marc
Wow, it's Kimmelman, not you? Must be great never having to be wrong, wish I
could say that of myself. being on a listserv means never having to say you're
sorry.
Anyway, maybe it is a little in-between. You managed to pick out the two
things in the article where he may be wrong, and ignore the more extreme cases.
Deaccessioning, is of course difficult. Anyone who has worked in a museum has
seen the flurry of gifts that arrive at Christmas, which just happens to be
the end of the tax cycle, and people who made a little too much cash need to
unload some assets on a not-for-profit, and fast. But it usually looks more like
trick or treat than christmas, with lots of items the museum never really
asked for, but got anyway. Particularly when bad items are donated by folks with
lots of good ones, making it hard to say no to the bad. So every museum has a
ton of items it never really wanted. (A collection of paperweights anybody?)
(Which of course goes a great length in explaining why a great number of
Chicago works owned by the Art Institute and MCA are not on display, they never
chose the works to begin with. Which is why designated purchase funds would do a
lot to get local works on the walls.)
Places like the New York Public Library, that is public afterall, should be
required to undertake deaccessioning with an extreme number of public
checkpoints, because they are indeed public and not the private property of anyone,
even the government.
Kimmelman is right that museums are given tax breaks because it is expected
they will err on the side of caution, some level of impartial judgment, and
public trust, something which is being burned to the ground in the case of LACMA
and Broad. Having followed this case for a while, it is atrocious. It only
makes matters worse that aside from his collection, broad's not-for-profit
foundation has been a major underwriter for the museum, making it less of a business
negotiation, and more of gentleman's threat.
It is not that those giving money shouldn't have a say. I think it is just as
bad that the past president of the board for Guggenheim used his super-fat
donations to play a game of chicken over Thomas Krens being given the boot. (A
case where either way, the museum lost.) But ultimately you hope that the
curators and directors will be making the decisions on behalf of the institutional
mission, not over fear of losing largess. If Broad wants his pieces exhibited
at LACMA, even if it is in their own building, he should trust the curators to
hang them as they see fit. Otherwise, why doesn't he spare everyone the
trouble and open his own private museum? People have been successfully doing that
for years. I'd even vist, and because it would be private, I'd even go, and
have to pay admission, instead of getting in free with an American Museums
Association card. Like I will at LACMA.
But I too would still accept a window unit from Broad. Maybe even my own
architect designed air conditioned shack. Just a two-seater, nothing fancy.
a
"Let's also not forget that I think the reason most of us go to museums is
not for the director but for the art."
But the reason that the institution gets to show the art is because the
director raises the money to show it.
I'm no super-fan of Bob Fitzpatrick, but it's easy to compare his salary and
12x12 funding and get incensed while missing the individual merits of their
contributions.
Bob Fitzpatrick makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year because he
brings in *millions* of dollars a year. We get to see shows and art at the
MCA because he is adroit at sitting down with society's richest and asking
for a million dollar check. Lower salaries bring in lighter weight talent.
If the MCA weren't willing to pay BF that salary, he'd go to another museum
which was and lighter weight talent is what we'd get. Bob has little to
nothing to do with the art - he keeps the lights on.
12x12 is underfunded. But if the option is to turn that room back into a
coat room, should we? I don't think so and I bet the artists who have been a
part of it would overwhelmingly side with me. 12x12 was originally pitched
to the museum as a great idea that would not cost much. Both of these
assertions have proved to be true - to the strength of the program. I
believe that we (people connected to the museum) should continue to lobby
for increased funding, buts lets view it with a balanced eye.
Curt
My name spelled out is a sentence, albeit not a very useful one.
On Jul 18, 2005, at 9:31 AM, Aeelms at aol.com wrote:
"So every museum has a ton of items it never really wanted."
Among plenty of oddball items, the Art Institute has a fantastic
collection of handguns with gold inlay sitting in storage that I'm
sure will NEVER get displayed. I believe the story was that they had
to take 'em off a collector's hands in order to get something they
really wanted.
They also have this totally morbid axe that was used to behead many
people and you can see all of these dents in the blade from when it
struck a great many spinal columns over the years.
Next time they have a fiscal crisis, I'm sure a big banner reading
"Special Exhibition of the Executioner's Axe!!!" would raise an ass-
load of money in no time flat. I bet a lot of Visitor Services
employees would love to test it out on bitchy museum members too!
"totally morbid axe that was used to behead many people and you can see all
of these dents in the blade from when it struck a great many spinal columns
over the years "
Cool! Can anyone get me a private showing?
On Jul 18, 2005, at 9:43 AM, Curt Conklin wrote:
"Bob Fitzpatrick makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year
because he
brings in *millions* of dollars a year. We get to see shows and art
at the
MCA because he is adroit at sitting down with society's richest and
asking
for a million dollar check. Lower salaries bring in lighter weight
talent.
If the MCA weren't willing to pay BF that salary, he'd go to another
museum
which was and lighter weight talent is what we'd get. Bob has little to
nothing to do with the art - he keeps the lights on."
Curt, I appreciate this explanation. I have to just admit outright
that my own opinion is that overall, the museum made a huge misstep
when it moved out of the old building, and when it shifted toward the
concerns of building and maintaining a much bigger permanent collection.
While some moments and shows have been great of course, I almost
never feel that the vitality of the experience at the MCA's new
building matches the obviously increased costs that have come with
maintaining it. It's a lot easier to keep the lights on when you
don't have as many bulbs in the building (insert bad Dan Flavin joke
here). I feel like so far, the MCA has had to make way too many
cheesy concessions to operate at the scale they work at now. I would
have rather seen them stay smaller and hit a lot more grand slams. I
felt a greater sense of vitality with many of the exhibits in the old
space, and even the space in general. I miss the old book shop / cafe
where you could lounge around reading books for a couple hours. The
permanent collection at the MCA is also, for me, usually the least
interesting or attractive reason to go there. It is seldom that I
find the most compelling work the MCA is showing to be something they
own.
Curt Conklin wrote:
"Cool! Can anyone get me a private showing?"
Talk to the Arms & Armor dept. (or is that part of Euro decorative
Arts? I can't remember). Also ask to see the tiny little pistol that
has a bayonet attached to it.
Aeelms at aol.com wrote:
"Wow, it's Kimmelman, not you? Must be great never having to be wrong, wish I
could say that of myself. being on a listserv means never having to say you're
sorry."
I take it you're still feeling snarky ? My apologies for not acknowledging the more extreme cases, but they didn't seem pertinent to Chicago, or for that matter most cases, hence your description, extreme.
As for the 'new' building, I like it. I like the fact it brought more jobs to the local art scene, albeit low paying, but at least they are in the art field.
Maybe less snarky than proddingly humorous, in a very droll manner.
Curt, as for axe viewing, always make sure to be aware who exactly has their
hands on the handle, and where you are in relation to the business end.
having worked in the new MCA building, I hate it, very hard place to work,
unfunctional in many basic ways.
a
I like the tenor of this discussion, so I will try to keep it going.
I also miss the old museum. I grew up in Rockford and it is the source of
many high school field trip memories. The book store with its macquette
built into the walls and the sonic staircase were magical. In college I
remember being blown away (and having my mind expended) by Wolfgang Laib's
yellow pollen painting on the floor. But then I grew up and moved away.
When I came back the new museum was what we had. It was now mine as I had
felt the old one was. I often feel that way about the contemporary museum in
the city in which I live (or wing in the case of Omaha). Maybe I am a half
full guy but I set out to find what magic the new place had to offer.
For the most part it has not disappointed me. I find the architecture of
the main staircase as beautiful as I found the old one magical (my wife and
I fittingly used it for wedding photographs). The Katerina Fritsch heart
made of gold cast wheat had much the same affect on me as Laib's pollen.
Shows by Kentridge, Lee Bontecou, and this Flavin one stick out in my mind
as terrific as I could have hoped.
Still, there have been let downs (I'm still scratching my head about that
fashion exhibit), but remember that realistic person sculpture that sat at
the bottom of the stairs in the old building? That was crap! Speaking of
deaccession, I think they got rid of that one at a SOFA opening benefit.
People say that the building is hard to work in (Anthony). Maybe from a
preparator's perspective it is, but from a viewer's perspective, from an
event goer's perspective, from a meeting attendee's perspective, from a
space renter's perspective, it's just fine, maybe even good.
People say that no one comes because the stairs are too steep. Just like
people argued that no one went to Cellular Field because the upper deck was
too steep. So they spent a bunch of millions of dollars to fix it, put
together an amazing team, and they still don't sell out! I suppose that's a
digression, but the fact is that people don't rush to the MCA because
Chicago does not have the critical mass of art interested people that other
cities do and the MCA does not do a good job of expanding their audience (a
whole other discussion). It has nothing to do with the grade of the stairs.
People say that the parking garage should open into the building. And they
are right. That was just stupid design.
I guess my point is, *it is what it is and let's make the best of it*. There
are things we can change (funding for 12x12, more focus on emerging artists,
more balanced programming, increased attendance at all shows) and there are
things we can't. It's our museum even if only in a small way. Rather than
waste our time griping about the architecture (snore!), let's focus on
improving what's within our control.
Curt
See, you are tea.
Hey OG's:
Speaking of money and art, I just heard that there's an art fair that happens here at Navy Pier that got cancelled. I've never been, but it sounds like it was maybe interesting: lots of galleries come out and sell art. And looks like they had a ton of galleries. A friend pointed it out to me here: [http://www.thepiershow.com/ccc/.] Is it maybe the other side of what museums do, a big public show like this?
What this mean?
Eric Blair
I'd also like to throw out my opinion that it is not the museum's or galleries fault for paying the majority of their employees below their worth. I've worked in one of each and interned in a third, so I've been there and the pay is crap, but I put the blame mostly on the universities that do not prepare their students for actually getting a job. By the time most of my friends graduated from their programs their self-esteems were so deflated; add to it competing with BA grads, since few galleries and many museums don't even value MAs; tack on the fact there are more graduates each year in the fields than actual jobs, and the result is a plethera of well-qualified hard working people willing to take low paying positions.
I've heard one gallery assistant wanted to start a union for them, which isn't a bad idea.
Eric: the word is that the Contemporary and Classic show is cancelled for next year. It was their first year and failed miserably. ArtChicago won, and I'm glad so long as it stays at Butler Field, and so long as they keep getting those VIP bathrooms.
As for Art Shows, I understand SOFA is trying to take on more art galleries. Someone's favorite person is running that part of it. I guess SOFA has been a genuine success over the years and they have not had any kind of decrease in sales or attendance due to Art Basel Miami, etc. From what I gathered, SOFA appeals to the middle tier of collectors, which is more sensible and less prone to fads.
Curt Conklin OMFG. Barf, dude. Don't ever, ever mention that again.
Eric Blair
Michael Beyer Never heard of it. Is there a website?
Eric Blair
Yes.....google "SOFA". And I'll give you another tip, they aren't the society of financial advisors.
---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Curt Conklin wrote:
"The Katerina Fritsch heart made of gold cast wheat had much the same
affect on me as Laib's pollen."
Well, of course it would have. You obviously just like seeing lots of
little pieces of things scattered into nice friendly shapes!
Just to be a contrarian for a change, I thought the Fritsch piece was
a total and complete dud and a really bad one liner. Yep, heart of
gold. Yep.
Now the Archigram show - that was the shit!
I'm sorry to learn they sold the John de Andrea naked man sculpture.
For a totally startling viewing experience they coulda at least hid
it in that basement level closet devoted to the water fountain
(perhaps having it hold the beheading axe from AIC?)
Marc wrote "I'm sorry to learn they sold the John de Andrea naked man
sculpture. For a totally startling viewing experience they coulda at least
hid it in that basement level closet devoted to the water fountain"
Actually, I made that up. It is still part of the collection and often sits
guard at the warehouse on Hubbard while the night watchman steps outside for
a smoke.
Marc Fischer I thought there was more to it. This was made specifically for the MCA, in the heartland of america, wheat being an occasional symbol of the heartland and America (or something....isn't it in one of our patriotic songs I should be able to recall?), the heartland of one of the richest (i.e. gold) countries in the world, or at that time, at least, before Bush decided to spend it on a family feud.
On Jul 18, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Michael Beyer wrote:
"I thought there was more to it. This was made specifically for the
MCA, in the heartland of america, wheat being an occasional symbol of
the heartland and America (or something....isn't it in one of our
patriotic songs I should be able to recall?), the heartland of one of
the richest (i.e. gold) countries in the world, or at that time, at
least, before Bush decided to spend it on a family feud."
Okay, so maybe a 1.5 liner?
I'm not really a fan of her work but I'm far more partial to the
black monk sculpture at AIC - at least I was until the sculpture's
presence was totally blown by stanchion fever (or did they also put
it on a base too?). Protecting the work just blew it - as it usually
does when people surround sculptures with stanchions. Just ask a
Richard Serra sculpture. I'd rather risk injury - it's more fun that
way.
Marc Fischer I would have given the work 3 1/2 out of 4 stars.
Well, I'm with marc, for me, Archigram was unbelievably rich, and that
Fritsch piece was one of the lowest of the low shows at the MCA, right up there with
the fashion exhibit and Hirsch farm, but that is all beside the point...
Curt:
"People say that the building is hard to work in (Anthony). Maybe from a
preparator's perspective it is, but from a viewer's perspective... it's just fine,
maybe even good. "
Well, never having worked there as a preparator, I don't know what the MCA is
like for them, I worked in a different department.
Curt:
"Rather than waste our time griping about the architecture (snore!),"
Well, sometimes griping about the architecture has to happen (even if doing
it here is like spitting in the wind). Museums keep building flashy new spaces,
but too often the architects build them forgetting that someone is actually
going to have to work in them. Anyone can make an attractive staircase, it is
harder to make a staircase that connects to a useable office space.
The separation of departments at the MCA meant access was restricted for
different sections, so if you had to contact, say curatorial, but you weren't in
that department, you couldn't get into their section, and the separation also
meant that the different departments spoke to each other much less than they
should have. (Of course this was over 5 years ago, maybe camaraderie and morale
are better after years of frozen wages?)
You can add the Walker, to the MCA and the Milwaukee art museum to the list
of newly designed museums with barely functioning stores, in terms of what it
takes to navigate, storage, layout, etc.
And these are supposed to be the money spots. Hire a retail expert for
heavens sakes, not an architect to design the cases, etc.
Curt:
"So they spent a bunch of millions of dollars to fix it, put together an
amazing team, and they still don't sell out! "
Go Sox! Even though I don't like baseball, I like the views of the sky from
the stadium.
Curt:
"the fact is that people don't rush to the MCA because Chicago does not have
the critical mass of art interested people that other cities do"
Well, I might hedge on that one a touch. I'm not so sure the percentages of
people invested in contemp art is that much lower. It is the casual viewer that
isn't being developed. It is a chicken and egg thing, the local papers and
other media, treat the art scene outside of the Institute as nonevents and
pointless. The only thing that can get a major article is some "wacky" art action.
What is the public to think? For better or for worst, people do expect and
respect the attitude that media take to an event. If even the art reviewer--if
there is one -- if going to tell you something is hogwash, why bother?
There has been--despite his protests to the contrary--real support for
contemporary art, from Daley on down. And I'm not talking money support. Though that
would be nice. Bloomberg, for all his problems has ties to companies and
foundations that sure support a helluva lot in NY.
Kids' classes couches and cows may be fine, and to some degree important
investments, but a simple voice in support of other activities wouldn't hurt.
Everyone--well, not everyone, but a huge chuck of the art world -- in New York
hates the Whitney, but you still see a public support and concentration on it,
rather than saying, "oh it is irrelevant" as people here do to the MCA.
Curt:
"and the MCA does not do a good job of expanding their audience (a whole
other discussion)."
And long one. The ad campaigns have gotten a smidgen better since I left the
place, but I still find it amazing the MCA has one of the few marketing teams
that prefers to demean and make fun of the art on display, instead of trying
to help people desire to see and value the work. Consistently. I'm not on a
pedestal thinking the ads can't be fun, and art must be revered, still, there are
many ways to have fun with the art you show, rather than have fun at the
expense of the art you show. Man, don't even remind me of the aborted Charles Ray
ad campaign they wanted to run...
Curt:
"...let's focus on
improving what's within our control."
So what would you like to improve? just to play devil's advocate.
Anthony
"So what would you like to improve? just to play devil's advocate."
I don't believe you are playing Devils advocate. But I sort of answered the
question. I have been a supporter of 12x12 in the past and will continue to
be as it improves.
Some of us have started a new group called the Emerging Artist Advisory
Group. Bob, Dominic, Elizabeth, and others are on board and coming to the
meetings - even running them, sort of. We would like to see more community
focus in the under 45 set. That means more young art, more emerging
programming, more support of organizations like NADA, etc. Its not going to
change the place overnight, but at some point all the blue hairs are going
to knock off and someone else will need to pick up the torch. If the younger
people have been neglected for too long, they may not be interested.
Most importantly, we are going to be making purchases for the MCA in the
5-10K range, a price range often overlooked in spite of its vibrancy.
I would like to see more emerging/new/young art programming to come out of
it. I think the Mik video in the main room is true to that vision, in spite
of its flaws. I will also point out that riskier programming will lead to
more mistakes, but so be it.
Something less in my control that I would like to change is marketing. I
believe the MCA needs to take an educational approach to their marketing.
Anthony you kind of suggested the same thing, but even rock stars like
Gursky need to have their importance explained and quantified to much of the
Chicago audience. If we can accept that people in our market don't know who
Flavin is, or know that he is important, then we can add it to our list of
priorities to tell them.
I'd also like to see financial stability. There were some years recently
when mistakes were made, and for the sake of the institution current belt
tightening is necessary. This coupled with a strong development effort
should even things out in a few years.
Curt Conklin This is the best idea I've heard from OG in a long time. I didn't know Flavin even had a philosophy behyind his art and started wondering the difference between it and glass art. I had to ask an employee of the MCA if he had an explanation for his art, rather than it being just decorative.
If the MCA took a more educational approach to it's programming overall (won't blame marketing) it might also inspire better popular art criticism which, as mentioned earlier, tends to highlight the wacky. I don't think a wall text, or the occasional lecture does the job. Not sure how it could happen but that should be the purpose of it all. Otherwise, people just think the art is flaky and b.s., and the population of casual viewers aren't developed, nor could a larger art market develop.
Michael Beyer wrote:
"This is the best idea I've heard from OG in a long time. I didn't
know Flavin even had a philosophy behyind his art and started
wondering the difference between it and glass art. I had to ask an
employee of the MCA if he had an explanation for his art, rather than
it being just decorative."
Sure, it's a nice suggestion but if you aren't willing to do any
work, what's the point? The Dan Flavin show has about 30 pages worth
of Flavin's letters on display and while I could be mistaken, I don't
think Dale Chihuli is ever the primary subject of his communications
to the curator. The letters talk about his ideas and his life. There
is also a solid video on a loop where again, he talks about his work
in pretty accessible terms. Hell, you can even see him talking to his
dog. This is one case where there actually is some good contextual
material on display, including a number of artist books by Flavin's
peers, none of whom are glass artists, but rather conceptual artists.
As I said before, I really appreciated the museum guard in the Flavin
show who pointed out some nice phenomenological moments in the show.
The notion that guards could actually be educated by the museum to
become highly well informed about the art they are guarding is rarely
explored by museums.
Marc
Marc Fischer You're absolutely right, which is the difference between you and a casual observer and someone whos primary occupation is not art. Most people don't have the patience or time to read handwritten letters. I certainly didn't. I guess I would have to correct myself and agree that perhaps it is marketing that could do the educational part of it. This is the difficult part of finding a balance between educational and informational. Many time people are educated, or at least informed by ephemeral experiececns, not in depth work that takes a lot of time and concentration. Wall texts are too easily ignored because they are not coupled with an image, whereas an ad campaign is a better place for a textual explanation coupled with a slick, attractive image.
I suppose most of the campaigns have focused on the beauty or look of the artwork, rather than the substance behind it. And, although the campaigns tend to be slick and savvy, they are not very informative. The AIC does a better job at this, I think.
Wait, are you all agreeing with me?
What's up?
Curt
Marc Fischer This highlights one of my biggest complaints regarding the contemporary art scene, which often acts as if a person is not totally, 100% dedicated to the experience or to art itself, then they are just lazy, stupid, or not worth the time to help. Hence the fear most people have entering an art gallery or even museum. Most people have busy lives dedicated to other, more imporant matters like family or earning a living. Culture is not a religion, its an experience to enlighten and/or entertain. And enlightenment never came from a hammer.
Michael Beyer wrote:
"This highlights one of my biggest complaints regarding the
contemporary art scene, which often acts as if a person is not
totally, 100% dedicated to the experience or to art itself, then they
are just lazy, stupid, or not worth the time to help. Hence the fear
most people have entering an art gallery or even museum. Most people
have busy lives dedicated to other, more imporant matters like family
or earning a living. Culture is not a religion, its an experience to
enlighten and/or entertain. And enlightenment never came from a
hammer."
This is the last thing on earth I was trying to say. Everything about
how I put my own work, and the work I do in collaboration with
others, out into the world is the antithesis of this attitude: that
people aren't worth helping. I just spent 2 weeks on an outdoor
project in Los Angeles where about a quarter of the time was probably
spent talking to passersby who wanted to know what on earth we were
doing. This is hard and exhausting to do - talking for hours on end -
but it is rewarding and absolutely important and essential. It helps
build new audiences for experimental art, builds confidence that
people can engage contemporary art and artists not be afraid to ask
questions and all of that good stuff. I like diverse audiences for
the work I do, but they don't come naturally most of the time. You
have to work for them.
But there has to be some give and take too. When I said "if you
aren't willing to do any work..." I meant YOU - Michael Beyer. My
assumption is that if you are going onto listservs talking about art,
then you value strange experimental art and know that sometimes it is
hard to comprehend but sometimes worth the effort to wrench an
experience from it. Yeah, having someone to ask questions to in the
gallery is a good thing. There are a variety of ways to wrench an
experience from something but none of them happen instantaneously or
if you are lazy. I don't believe art is a passive thing where you
just stand there and it happens to you. Some things are easier to
comprehend or enter into than others. For me, when I get confused, I
feel I have a choice: work until I understand it, or decide the art
isn't worth the time necessary to understand it better and so I move
on. Thinking you should always be able to 'get' the work just by
taking a gander at it in an afternoon is being unfair to yourself.
Some things just require more effort than others. Either you make the
effort or you don't.
What I appreciate - as I've said before, is when museums and
galleries and artists give you some extra tools so you can use to do
the work if you want to. The MCA does pretty good with Dan Flavin -
they give you contextual materials, a video, and artists' writings.
They even tell you a little about all of the people that Flavin names
in the titles of his pieces. That's a nice wall text. You can also
always treat the bookstore like a library too - though the MCA shop
isn't set up to encourage that like it was in the old building.
Michael Beyer wrote:
" Culture is not a religion"
Oh yeah, forgot to say, no it is not. The difference for me is that I
can easily live without religion. I couldn't live without art, music,
film, and books. I could give a fuck about religion. So maybe we just
have different values?
Marc
Casual viewing is for reality TV and FHM magazine. Museums are not for a
crunch lunch with a big gulp in one hand and a stop watch in the other. They
are public spaces meant to enrich our lives with new experiences or
encourage insight as we meditate on our cultures path through history. The
audience to some degree has to take some responsibility in this interaction.
This is true of any similar experience and not just the arts, contemporary
or otherwise. When you step inside a musuem you should be wearing your
respect hat. You should try and give yourself more time then you expected.
You should walk slowly and look quietly. The average museum visiter spends
something like 40 seconds looking at a given work. You should want to change
that, not embrace it. The public at large should be encouraged to do this as
well. However they won't be encouraged to do so if the content of a program
is continually watered down by its context. Additional wall texts and flashy
media dressings won't any bring more to Dan Flavin's or any artists work if
"you" are only engaged with the support media. Its nice to know about work
when you're looking at, buts even better to spend some time with it to tease
out your own questions and maybe draw your own conclusions before someone
elses "expert" opinion is forced upon you. It is after all your culture too.
MT
Marc Fischer I know, I was just griping in general....goes back to some of the comments made a few weeks ago.
Marc Fischer Yes, I could live without both.
Marc Fischer I agree, but I think there has to be a sneakier, more insiduous and widespread campaign to educate the public about art, rather than things that take too long to read or watch. Whats the saying, medicine goes down better with sugar?
Although I doubt I was around long enough or de-lurked enough to be
missed, I somehow got unsubscribed and lo and behold I am back.
Anyway, in the words of Jack Benny "I will now pause for a moment so
that the audience can say 'so what'".
I'd like to plug my current show, and encourage you to check out the
lovely catalog with an essay by ex-Chicagoan Chris Cook.
[http://www.cod.edu/ArtsCntr/current_exhibit.htm]
Thanks!
"I agree, but I think there has to be a sneakier, more insiduous and
widespread
campaign to educate the public about art, rather than things that take
too long
to read or watch."
On average, an object wall text takes no more than 15 seconds to read.
An introductory exhibition wall text about a minute. An exhibition
handout at tops-the longest 8 page or so ones--15 minutes. Not to sound
like a snob, but is this really asking too much? Even of people who do
not make art their life?
I almost 100% disagree. Marc Fischer standing on the street and talking - interactively - to passerbys, will change the world, one viewer at a time.
But to say
Casual viewing is for reality TV and FHM magazine. Museums are not for a
crunch lunch with a big gulp in one hand and a stop watch in the other.
SAYS WHO????
Seriously, who decided this? Why the hell not? The biggest things I tell art newcomers is to "not worry about it", I tell them to go to the MCA and zip through it, don't even stop to look at anything if you don't feel like it. Don't feel obligated, I tell them. But if something catches your eye, then stop. Stop and stare and feel something. From that feeling, that intuitive feeling, you will start to find your aesthetic, and a pattern of what you like will start to emerge. I don't tell people to read the essay on the wall.
We have these absolutes we follow like lemmings. Like being a free bar at openings. WHY? Or if they don't like something, they may be wrong. Do we do that with food? If you eat something that tastes like total crap do you eat more? Do you read articles on the internet about it and maybe give it another shot?
We are elitist and pretentious. We tell people that if they didn't like something, they're stupid. We don't listen to their responses.
In the art world, it's felt that the public "just didn't get it". We held such contempt for the audience that we made a long term decision to nurse off the breast of the government instead. It was their job to love us and take care of us, no matter how much we sucked. We love government funding because then we can pretty much ignore the idea of an audience of the people and hang what we feel is right and if no one likes it - fuck 'em, they're commoners, masses, red states.
But now the government thing isn't working out so well and we're turning to corporations. Corporations aren't as stupid as the government, and as my friend at the Chicago Symphony said, "if the event we're sponsoring doesn't match the CSO brand, we don't move forward."
Maybe, with great luck, we will hit a bottom so low that we will give our audience, the public, another chance. Maybe someday we'll take them back.
Kathryn
wall texts are boring, and brochures you can only get, along with wall texts, once you have actually gone into the museum or gallery. Which is why I go back to See You Are Tea's suggestion, that in a marketing campaign you can do more to convince and educate people why fluorescent tubes matter, why they aren't just pretty objects. Otherwise, people will never even GO. Its too late if you are relying on those things to make people interested.
As for FHM, I know plenty of guys you don't view that casually, if you know what I mean....
Strange--I agree with Kathryn and Curt at the same time.
Kathryn Born wrote:
"Marc Fischer standing on the street and talking - interactively - to
passerbys, will change the world, one viewer at a time."
Perhaps you've already seen me? I'm that guy preaching in front of
Old Navy on State Street who tells you that there is no smoking in
hell. Unfortunately some of you still smoke. Sometimes I change
appearances and wear a sandwich board sign and tell people that Al
Gore is an alien spy. Other times I dress like Jesus (despite my
disinterest in religion) and drag a huge cross down Michigan Ave. But
when I REALLY wanna make a difference and change the world one viewer
at a time, I dress like a pirate and stand in the window of Marshal
Fields!
(Oh wait, sorry - that last guy is Scott Speh. But I applaud his
crusade on behalf of 21st century pirates!).
Marc
Kathryn - SAYS WHO????
Says me. Understanding is proportional to the time and effort you put into
anything. These are museums that are being discussed. They have
responsibilities to the public, however (and this was my point Ms. Born) the
public should meet those responsibilities in kind. When they visit they
should take their time to reap the rewards of their experience. Thats not
much to ask and its not elitist in any form. No one said a BFA or the proof
of purchase from your last drink at the Rainbow were manditory to enter one.
However time and respect which will both pay off should be implied. Art
should be accessable yes, but it should also be taken as seriously any other
discourse. Not dumbed down to the point of inconsequence just so it can fit
into a persons lunch break.
Would you expect your local park to install flat screen video documentaries
about the history and usage of the swing set or sand box? Probably not, a
play ground would be an inappriate place for something of that nature. It
would seem out of place and very few people would engage it in the spirit
that it was intended. It might even be derided as art. While museums might
have an entertainment value to them, you probably don't expect to find a
water park in one either. Why is this, its because people don't typically
visit a park to be educated, enlightened, introspective or inquisitive they
visit them to relax and or entertained. While a museums purpose is to
provide a public venue for the scrutiny of works of historical importance or
cultural significance and not to get your soccer game on. Niether experience
being any less important than the other, simply different.
Finally, "We are elitist and pretentious. We tell people that if they didn't
like something, they're stupid. We don't listen to their responses." Should
this actually say, "Michael's elitist and pretentious. He tells people that
if they didn't like something, they're stupid. Then he won't listen to their
responses."
Here is my take on the brochure and reading materials issue. First of all, we beat this to death a while back, so we should really just link back to the archives.
But that said, I think it was at the MCA where I saw a photograph of a woman sitting, wearing a weird, waxy mask. Nothing special. According to my theory, keep walking.
But I read the plexiglass thing anyway, because my buddy was walking slow. It said the subject in the photo was wearing a mask molded from her mother's face. Ok. Now you're talking about something interesting. Mother is dead, daughter wearing her face, etc. etc. Some redemption of the piece.
But that's a case where a piece of art I see as nothing special was bailed out by a good curator, who knew how to give the piece meaning. But it's just a bailout. The art should have held it's own. Or the artists should include that piece of trivia as part of the piece (somehow).
When I curated a show a year ago, I grew to feel that curating isn't just something connected to art, it is an art in itself. When I was looking at the blank walls and envisioning the show, I was having every bit of a creative experience and working from the same place as when I create a piece of art. Instead of a square canvas, I had 4 walls as a canvas in which to create an experience.
So I think curatorial skills can be so great that they can make an unworthy piece of art seem great (or somewhat better than it is). I just think it's the artists' job to make us see this, not the curator's. We should see that the curator did a great job, but see the artist as they are, which may be mediocre.
Kathryn
Marc wrote:
But when I REALLY wanna make a difference and change the world one
viewer at a time, I dress like a pirate and stand in the window of
Marshal Fields!
Ahoy me landlubbers!
May that scurvy, bilge-sucking, dubloon theivin', swab dog, Marc "The
Sharc" Fischer, walk a thousand planks for his addled rum-soaked nonsense.
I place a black spot on his soul. Dead men tell no tales
Be warned, me and my brethren are coming fer Mayor Daley's buried treasure
under Meigs Fields.
No quarter!
Cap'n Scott
[http://www.artic.edu/] ~dsokolow/
Michael,
I really like your metaphor about monitors in the park. It reminds me of the
non sequitur ramblings my Aunt Millie used to share with us before her
Alzheimer's got the best of her.
Curt
Curt,
I guess I should file that under sarcasm. I guess I can't win 'em all.
MT
Hi Michael et al,
No, I actually started my response before you posted, and then customized it based on your post. I could say something flattering about your space, but it would sound like I'm backpedaling. Still, I've see the old Dogmatic and I don't think it's elitist, I think it's free from corporate or government funding and it shows.
But the point I see vs. what you see is that it's an Art Museum. I'm fixating more on the Art and less on the Museum space. To me a museum is just an art showing space that's doesn't have the burden of trying to sell art. But I do see "the art experience" as something that transcends viewing time. I don't have time to write because I'm potty training my child, but I'll say that if there is one thing I could give "normal people" is a moment when a piece of art changed my life. There have been many over the years. I saw a piece or an installation and it just totally moved me and in some small way, my life changed.
To me, that's the highest and mightiest goal of art. How that is done, and how long is takes seems non-arbitrary. However, like a joke, if someone explains it, it means it wasn't funny. So an essay to give a work meaning means the viewer didn't have that experience organically.
Also I, literally, see museums with a 35 pound child riding piggyback. Next week we will see the Flavin show and dash out of there. I'm a single mom and this is the only way I can see a show. And when I say art should be for everybody, I include single moms with a child in tow who needs art in her life just like a woman in furs.
K
On Jul 19, 2005, at 2:09 PM, Scott Speh wrote:
"I place a black spot on his soul. Dead men tell no tales"
I bet it doesn't take long to cut a peg leg in half with a circular
saw. And while I don't usually eat much bird flesh, if someone
offered me a parrot taco, I'd probably take a bite.
As for Daley's buried treasure... Meig's Field? Ha. Any scrapper
with an overflowing truck of metal bits will tell you it's sitting
right out in the open. All you need to do is figure out how to break
'The Bean' into small enough pieces to cart it away and sell it by
the pound
I'd like to move away from using the MCA as an example. Overall, I think their marketing dept does a great job, with eNews and mailings. It just makes a good example as we are all familiar with it. I agree with Kathryn that this is going back to what we have discussed before. But my nagging question is, at a time when upscale restaurants, wine bars, theater and many other forms of 'higher' culture have become in vogue, why has visual art been left out of it? Why isn't the general public any more interested in contemporary art than it was 5 or even 10 years ago, (or so it seems)? I don't spend my day in a gallery, so I'd like to hear other people's thoughts.
In South Africa it's a given that curating is an art in itself and lots
of artists extend their art practices by curating shows that
imaginatively extend their ideas.
Claire Krantz
Well,
Michael:
"This highlights one of my biggest complaints regarding the contemporary art
scene, which often acts as if a person is not totally, 100% dedicated to the
experience or to art itself, then they are just lazy, stupid, or not worth the
time to help. "
That isn't what Marc said or implied. But wall text all over the Flavin show
discusses his approach, and if you are too lazy to read, or have some hang-up
with wall text, it is your problem, not the museum's. Personal responsibility
plays some part.
At risk of being called out for being overly critical and turn-offish, and
sidetracking what had been a productive series of exchanges...
Kathryn, I disagree with just about everything in your email. Who is this
"we" white man?
Sure we've all done this I'm sure, as I'm guessing none of us were born ready
to contemplate art. So all of us at one time, or still do, breeze through
museum's on occasion. But do you also tell your friends that if they like
something, or want to eventually learn about art, to stop and read the text, and
decide whether or not they agree with what it says? To interact?
I can't remember who, but I once heard a museum director say, (paraphrasing
the first bit) every museum, on average, has at least over a hundred objects on
display, "If you don't like everything on view, or conversely, if you like
everything on view, there is something wrong with you, and you need to go back
to the galleries."
This seems good advice to follow.
Kathryn:
"We are elitist and pretentious. We tell people that if they didn't like
something, they're stupid. We don't listen to their responses. "
Again, who is this "we"?maybe one on one when an ego is ruffled by a bad
review or comment? But who has ever said this? I have never heard this from
anyone's mouth in the art world. I've never met an artist who didn't want as large
an audience as possible. I've never heard of a curator who doesn't want a lot
of people to see and respect their work. And I've only heard three people (who,
no, I will not name) say anything even remotely pointing to this kind of
attitude. This isn't to say there is not some elitism in the artworld, but it is a
world where differing opinions (as on this board) are allowed to be
expressed. And if this statement is true, then you would have to say that its exact
opposite is also true (i.e., people on the outside look at the art and say we are
stupid for liking it and hold us in contempt.) Both statements are grossly
and dangerously simplified reductions of attitudes and structures.
Maybe I'm just not invited to the right parties?
I'm sorry, wrong. Government arts assistance was started by the government
(not the art community) to promote American arts abroad. It was made a more
extensive granting agency by Nixon really--go figure -- to aggressively promote
American culture, in part to make arts available to the public, instead of
relying on individual and corporate largesse that saw no need to guarantee access
to programming. Not for "us" in the arts to turn our back on the public. And
once the money is there and for the taking, who wouldn't go for it?
Some shows--the original armory show--garnered huge audiences, but average
public engagement with the art world, and symphony for that matter, was limited.
Before government funding in the arts, there was no real public for art,
artists got by selling to one patron, say, Peggy Guggenheim. She put the stuff on
the walls of her museum, and had no pressure to explain why it was good to
anyone. Now certainly there are still vapor trails from this patronage today,
but government funding instituted a push to appeal to a public, and make
available to a public, however large or small, effectively done or not. In general
the attitude, when it persists, is not contempt for the audience, but an
assumption of mutual disaffection: you don't like us, we won't bother you. Which is a
decidedly different gesture.
Where do you get these weird ass notions? This is the kind of
oversimplification that is repeated as mantra with no basis in fact., and just as dangerous
as the one you are denouncing. Who decides what sucks? You didn't like Gillian
Wearing, I don't either, but thousands (if not millions) of others do?
Government funding requires appeals to a public, there are reports and accountability.
yes, I occasionally--or more often--hear someone complain about republicans,
or fascists, or the rich, or hipsters, or slackers, or whatever, these are
general petty grumbling steam releasings everyone in every industry does.
(waitstaff bitch about diners, visitors service people complain about visitors,
factory workers complain about managers, vice versa and etc.) There is still a
friendliness problem is some art spaces, yes there is still an accessibility
problem to both arts spaces, and arts education, but the entire art enterprise is
built on a model of public presentation. And cheap, even at the inflated prices
of up to 20 dollars. Museum's wouldn't have art education departments, wall
texts, handouts or lectures--no matter how misguided some may be--if they were
not interested in welcoming the uninitiated. Press releases wouldn't exist if
someone didn't want people to know the art, and like the art. If galleries
were not interested in the public, they wouldn't have public hours when anyone
can walk in. (there are many private dealers out there.)
Usually, the not-for-profits instituted in the seventies and eighties are the
ones accused of having "contempt for the audience that we made a long term
decision to nurse off the breast of the government instead." Many of these
spaces relied on the government, instead of the market and public, to give access
to art exhibitions to those the market was ignoring: minorities and women. Many
of these same places instituted artist-run education initiatives, so people
could not just learn about art, but learn about why and how it is made. And
most of these programs expanded, with that government funding, in direct
proportion that public schools cut arts education funding.
What is also being forgotten, maybe because of Chicago specifics, is that
contemporary art is more popular than it has ever been. More people, in higher
percentages are visiting modern and contemporary art museums than ever.
Biennials are instituted because they draw tourists, only some of whom are blue
bloods. People in Chicago don't need to be educated about contemporary art ahead of
time to come see Gursky, most people in New York didn't know who he was. The
difference is, outside of any particular kind of art or artist, people in New
York see MOMA as integral to the city's life blood and diversity as a city,
people do not express that concern for the MCA. That is a larger issue outside of
the art world, and its relationship to the public. it is about the civil
nature of the city. Anyway, between art and an outside, entertainment seeking
audience there is a flow back and forth, and it is just a messily complicated with
class and race as professional sports and politics, but to say it has general
disdain for its audience is a delusional martyr complex.
let's take this out of the art world. I "just don't get it" when it comes to
sports, people think I'm a fool because of this, and I have to defend myself
at every family gathering. I get over it, somehow. I like weird ass music. Many
people call it noise. I know the music I listen to will never be enjoyed by
most of the public. I don't listen to it because it makes me feel superior. I
don't listen to it because no one likes it. I wouldn't hate it if it were
popular. Some of it is more intelligently constructed than a Britney Spears song,
some of it is much dumber. I like it cuz it makes my head spin with pleasure. I
think it should exist and be available, just like other musics should exist
and be available. I don't think people who dislike it are dumb or irrelevant or
less than m, unless they come to the concerts and are disruptive by making
fun of or impeding the music. If someone asks me why I like it, I tell them, if
they want to discuss it fine, I will not try to convert them, but I won't turn
them away either. But they have to lift at least fifty percent of the load.
No, but they are crasser and less interested in appeals to a public outside
of their board of directors or demographic--and I have heard some out right
racist things said, in the polite guise of 'expanding audience' from some in
corporate philanthropy. Shit stinks everywhere. Different strokes, different
folks. And me, I love pirates.
a
Curt Conklin wrote:
"Wait, are you all agreeing with me?"
About Who What Where When How?
Curt - something to run by the board next time: I have long felt that
a better and more accurate name for the 12X12 series would be "Flavor
of the Month".
Do you think anyone would go for this? They could do a great tie-in
with Pucks.
Hi Andy and all,
Andy, that was a great response, and I did have to re-think the generalizations of what I said. I don't have time to respond to all your comments, but a few notes.
But do you also tell your friends that if they like
something, or want to eventually learn about art, to stop and read the text, and
decide whether or not they agree with what it says? To interact?
Right, but the first step is to find what you like, what makes you stop. Then learn about it. But don't feel obligated to stop at the first piece on the right that doesn't strike you and read all the text in order to try to like it. I'm talking about a starting point for experimental art for newcomers.
Again, who is this "we"?
Ok, you're right. However, what I've heard several times is equating approachable with "dumbing down". Picasso was approachable. Everyone can talk about cubism 'til they are blue in the face, but Picasso just looks very cool. Tons of "untrained" eyes have prints of his in their living room. He was also commercially successful and his heirs fought a battle over all the cash.
And the WE is Vincent Price!! This is in the archives, but I was a little kid and he said "people say, I don't know art but I know what I like. That is total rubbish." and Vincent Price on Johnny Carson when I was 10 years old planted this seed in my head and I fight him to this day even though he's dead.
I'm sorry, wrong. (Government). Right. Government assistance goes back to the Sistine Chapel. And you bring up great points. Can you elaborate on this, though:
Government funding requires appeals to a public, there are reports and accountability.
What kind?
This:
the market was ignoring: minorities and women.
Ok. Yes. Good point, and I know, sigh, at heart that if this funding stopped today the bottom would drop out. But... the trouble and potential I see is that because of government funding, non-sellable art (conceptual art, installations) exists as it is. There is little- I think I can say NO -- market for non-sellable art. For obvious reasons when I call it "non-sellable". And I have a huge problem with that. I like to think that if a government grant were offered to me, I would ---eek ack urgh--- at least TRY not to take it. Because I hate authority. I want my only authority to be my audience.
Let me say that again. I want my only authority to be my audience. I want my audience to support me. And if they won't support the art I make, I'll keep making new art and go in new directions until I find an audience that does.
And I feel like the only one who feels this way. Maybe that's where the "we" feels like "I".
I think to have art that is supported by "the people" , a new audience, and not the government, art will have to change. Not all art, but a new branch of art that is BOTH appealing and approachable and "real art" could emerge. But for me, just for me, it starts with a break from the government, a refusal to apply for grants. It's in the archives how I think this could be done, so I won't repeat.
Ok, I'll close with Matthew Collings, who was probably fairly cranky when he said this:
"When I'm being extreme, I'm capable of thinking that frankly the whole art scene is made up of a bunch of idiots. And I have no desire to get millions of ordinary people to queue up to look at that stuff. Why should they? It's got nothing much to do with them. To suddenly expect it to be popular is asking the impossible. There really is very little in it for a mass audience and I think this mass audience it's suddenly now got, knows that really. And they're not really interested; they're just along for the ride, for the nonsense. The mandarin people in charge of the Turner Prize, and the media people at Channel 4, and middle-class people who run the art columns on the broadsheets, all assume ordinary people must have this stuff explained to them -- but the motivations for doing that are completely bullshit."
Kathryn
You know, I recently saw Laura, the 1940s noir staring Gene Tierney and
Clifton Web, and who do you think is the muscle-bound, pretty-boy,
self-serving co star? Vincent Price. I guess there was life before monster
movies.
There was this show on Satuday or Sunday morning when I was a kid (early
70s) about these kids in this big fun house. And for Halloween, they did
this spooky episode where when they arrived for the week's show it was
haunted by Vincent Price. It scared the shit out of me.
Anyone else have any permanent Vincent Price scars they would like to share?
Curt
This is just a hair better than work.
First, it is Anthony, not Andy, that's my brother, but I don't think you know
him.
Well, that is a problem, but Picasso isn't dumbing down. Some people dumb
down just to the art audience. Usually you find Education and Marketing
Departments doing the dumbing down, because they think the people won't take the
complex answer. Try it first, if they don't take the answer, then try another. Don't
assume. Again, I wasn't saying all is rosy, but it isn't so nefarious either.
Vincent Price is right, that statement is rubbish. Does it make sense for me
to say, "I don't know baseball, but I know what I like"? No. I know baseball,
I don't know all the rules, and yes if I knew the rules I might like it
better, but to toss away both your own intelligence, and the intelligence of the
material at hand with "I don't know, but" is a cop out.
You better be careful. If anyone will fight you from beyond the grave it is
Vincent Price, so beware.
(By the way, loved Vincent Price in my youth. When I was seven I would watch
his movies saturdays at midday on Sir Graves Ghastly, then at 1130 at night on
The Ghoul.)
Phew...this is a huge huge question, that I cannot really detail out. First,
let's keep in mind federal grants for artists have not existed in over a
decade (but individual funding is still available to writers, critics and
historians: how's that for hypocrisy?) The reporting has become more advanced through
the years, but if you look up "outcomes based reporting or granting" you will
probably find guidelines for the type of reports funders now require of
organizations.
OK, more assumptions debunking. I think you are shifting between micro and
macro concerns, which are not parallel, and function differently.
1. Conceptual art and installation art have huge markets. When i started
collecting Conceptual artists' books in the early 90s in East Lansing, MI, I could
pick up these things for 10-30 dollars. Those same books are now 500-5000.
Video art didn't sell for 30 years, and now is hot and valued. Installations
sell like hotcakes, if you have a market value. Just ask BillViola, Robert Gober,
etc. it took photography almost 80 years to become a viable market. The
market is not the only marker of value, and fluctuates.
2. Let's not even truck out all the old stereotypes of artists who are now
adored by all, even "commoners' but who couldn't sell a work in their life time.
3. There still today is a limited market for work by women and minorities.
People and experts still say it is a "bad investment with little chance for
increased value" are you going to tell me your art is worse than mine just because
of your sex? Look at auction prices for women and minorities, even for people
like Eva Hesse, and tell me the market is a good impartial determiner, or
final judge on value and worth.
4. Why should they not exist as is? Another myth, the art world exists as is
because of government funding, unlike other industries. If the government
stopped supporting nonsellable activities tomorrow, the airlines would go out of
business, public transportation, the farming industry, etc., etc., all would
dry up.
The only reason a large number of sports teams are not in deep debt right now
is because governments pick up the tab for the stadiums, then allow the
owners to sell the advertising and collect the proceeds.
5. Has corporate and market support overtaking the research and development
of genetics and drugs made more democratic and available drugs? has it felt any
need to control the price of drugs and procedures? or has it created more
copyrights, refusal to share results, and higher investment in advertising? I'm
not saying the market is nothing but evil, but read the tobacco industry's
reports on addiction? read various drug company's reports on side effects? Or just
look at the newspapers of the last two years for all the resulting scandals.
6. And let me repeat my time honored mantra. I will, through the
organizations I am affiliated with, waste as much of the government's money as I possibly
can. Every last dime. And if there is a dime left over, I will spirit it away
into that pirate Speh's treasure chest! The one (only?) unabashedly correct
item to come out of the Republican Revolution, is they are right, tax dollars
are our money. The pentagon, the sugar industry, the airlines. As an artist, in
the art industry, I deserve a fair share of this largesse to support the work
I do as any of them. Government funding is a small way in which to try and
correct disenfranchisement.
The people are not others toiling around, they include you, me, Marc Fischer,
Michael Thomas and the rest of us. We are the people, and we all deserve our
place in the social fabric. We all deserve our kicks.
if only four people like an art, is their taste invalid? Do they not count?
And if only four people like it, I guarantee, maybe they will get gov funding,
but not nearly as much as a Picasso retrospective, or United Airlines.
This quote, it is not so different from what I was actually arguing, the top
down way education is often viewed by the art world is a problem. But notice,
he never says that the criticism, the show, the artists and the displays
should dry up and dissolve. He's arguing, I think, for perspective, not banishment.
The motivations are bullshit, not the results or the endeavor.
Also, to take him to task, obliquely, the art world is one of the rare worlds
where we take into account causality, i.e., what the artist was trying to do,
and whether or not the audience "got it." This should not be used to
determine whether or not the art is for the people, or the masses, or the
intelligencia. The motives may have nothing to do with them, but they can still enjoy the
fruits of the labor, and the circus that is it's public presentations and
judgment. Just like I enjoy the city's parks, public transit and the tax dollars
that come from sporting events, conventions, and political back scratching,
without a care for their intentions.
P.S. There is some contempt out there, not generalized, specific. but how
bout this: I'll work on the artworld's contempt for red staters, you work on red
staters contempt for poor gay couples trying to afford their AIDS meds, and
we'll see who has gotten farther in a year.
a
My wife is curating a show along with Jessica Moss. The theme is 'looking at how artists approach nature.' Can anyone recommend some good essays that might help? They already have a bunch, but would like some more.
I feel very strongly that the answer, or solution to nearly everything
that has been discussed so far lies somewhere within a single product
from the past: Vincent Price's Shrunken Head Apple Sculpting Kit.
Aeelms at aol.com wrote: "I'll work on the artworld's contempt for red staters, you work on red
staters contempt for poor gay couples trying to afford their AIDS meds, and
we'll see who has gotten farther in a year."
If they have compassionate contempt, is it still wrong?
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Michael Beyer wrote:
For reasons as quaint as this request, I rummaged through a garage which
is about to be demolished, content and all, and ran into a Maya Deren (the
filmmaker) book on Voodoo in Haiti. Maya writes in paragraph-long takes,
and had to explain how she got involved, eventually, as an accepted Voodoo
practicioner. Her claim is that anthropologists look at content; she, as
an artist, looked at form. I'll abstract her many-paragraphed conclusions
for you: Thus she 'understood' voodoo -- and was accepted by the Haitians,
initiated, Voodoo'd. Of course this isn't 'nature', except as 'human
nature.' 1953. reprints to 1991. Forwords by (ugh) Joseph Campbell.
HTH /jno
Darn you, Anthony, for your posts that compel me to reply on a busy day.
Ok. Homosexuality. Government funding. Art.
This combination has not been so good for Arthur's lesbian aunt in Vermont and PBS CAVED, Cowered, mewed away like a wet cat and pulled the episode so they wouldn't jeopardize their 15% of government funding.
Sure, grants go to organizations rather than individuals, but the next Mapplethorpe is still probably going to be left out in the cold.
Also, I'm not against other people getting funding, I'm just into supporting groups that don't. My favorite news show, Democracy Now, is not corporate or government funded. Not a dime. And it shows in their coverage. To bring it back to gay rights, a guy was on just recently who made more sense on the issue than anyone I've heard on regular TV. He talked about the movement working to understand that it's not just anti-gay marriage, it's pro-marriage. So it cuts out breeders who live together and anyone else who is unmarried. And they always ask the question, "so what is your organization doing to change this?" The show aims to mobilize.
When I look at the pirate piece, the one thought, not good or bad about it, is that it's "safe". Now if Scott had grabbed the pen out of her hand, and crossed out Pirate and written in "Al Qaeda", and then Deb takes off her costume which converts to a burka, and writes in "America is coming", and Scott changed into a regular outfit and held hands with a man, and then Deb turns into a cheerleader and kills Scott with an axe.... well. Would it be a better piece? No, too heavy handed, even though I like the idea that it's the paranoid entity that's the murderer, rather than the paranoid entity (America) being right about eminent danger.
But more important, the piece wouldn't be Safe. It would kill the MCA sponsorship. And Marshall Field's would back off because it doesn't promote the brand.
As an aside.
[http://chicago.craigslist.org/apa/85709363.html] . Someone please take my apartment. The basement is huge, my friend had her stained glass studio down there as well.
Kathryn
Kathryn Born huh?
I wrote (at the beginning of the month):
Not true - I noticed the archive was a year behind. Fixed. Now the webpage
will discover what year it is by itself, and also scroll out the months in
reverse order.
Two cents: And them Michael wrote (2630):
Too many 'shoulds' as unreflective admonitions. Just to be fair to
Michael, Kat (2634) added 4 more 'shoulds' in the next post. But Kat's
response looked (to me) more like a response to the the mandated precepts
by Michael (rather than a response to Fisher).
I certainly would agree with the general tone (Katherine's) -- to loosen
up in viewing an exhibit. I also agree (with whoever might have proposed
this or not) that exhibitors owe some sort of explanation to viewers.
But good copy is hard to write. Elms had reference to dumbed-down PR
Department copy. I hate that as much as I hate blank walls.
/jno
Michael
Although the topic is "landscape" not nature per say, (and the book is
about ten years old) I would recommend several of the essays in Visions
of America: Landscape as Metaphor in the Late 20th Century,
particularly the one by Rebecca Solnit. If you don't already know of
it, it might be worth checking out just to be aware of the issues it
discusses and how some better known artists have dealt with the topic.
And to all, just some thoughts:
I've really enjoyed the exchanges on othergroup these past few days. I
have to add, however, (although perhaps someone here has already said
it and better, and Anthony, I must here praise your thorough and
even-handed postings which I almost entirely agree with,) I think
there is a distinction that is not being stated clearly, between a type
of art which attempts to be "educational" and as a result requires "a
spoon full of sugar", and by virtue of it's didacticism appears to be
talking down to the viewer vs. materials which support and educate the
viewer about any given exhibition regardless of it's message.
The first is a matter of taste and the second is an attempt to provide
an entry point to understanding. Unfortunately, to use the old cliche,
you can lead a horse to water....
Perhaps I've fallen prey to the "myth of the artist", but sometimes
artists communicate things the general culture isn't necessarily ready
for. And I think it's always been this way (I was a history major, but
I still may be wrong.) Once you realize that out of 158 countries in
the UN, the US ranks 49th in literacy, roughly 60% of the adult
population has never read a book of any kind, and only 6% reads as much
as one book a year, (where book is defined to include self-help books
and Tom Clancy,) the fact that there are 40,000 MFA's released into the
greater community every year speaks fairly well for the state of the
visual arts.
We've been dumbed down to death. Has art ever attained the status of
popular culture? I'd rather be called an elitist. But only as defined
by the likes of Lyotard who wrote: "Elitism for everyone," NOT an
elitism based on class or privilege , but one based on sensitivity,
consideration and an appreciation of complexity and irony, as well as
one which eternally defends against the hostility to intellectualism on
all fronts.
But, perhaps as artists we're not doing a very good job at
communicating our message/s. I think we could all learn alot from Ali
G.
Katherine
On Jul 20, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Michael Beyer wrote:
Kathryn Born wrote:
My own experience with this, as an occasional curator, is that I have
always tried to float into the background (particularly because I'm
always one of the exhibitors) and let the works communicate without my
interference. I always keep the artists on the roster as informed as
possible about each others plans, to increase the chances that the show
will gel naturally. The problem is that if any of these shows get
reviewed, the writer insists on talking about my role as curator (the
funny part is that they have never mentioned me by name, they always
acknowledge some unnamed presence). I guess it's a sort of persistent
auterism among the art-educated sort -- similar to how film
buffs/critics focus upon directors, and the general public on
actors/actresses.
Erik
While this post may be annoying to some, when people here post a lot,
I never mind if they take a moment to plug something they are working
on or a show they are having. While I know a lot of the people who
post here, there are others I either don't know or have yet to meet
in person. Understanding what other OG's DO, in addition to what they
SAY, provides a nice bit of context for where they might be comin'
from. I like knowing what people are up to when I'm reading 10 of
their posts in a single day sometimes.
Many of the things I work on locally don't always get listed in the
usual art openings places because they tend to be more event-based.
So if you don't want to know what I'm doing, feel free to quit
reading now. Otherwise, you are all invited to Mess Hall tomorrow and/
or Saturday for the following events I'm co-organizing with Terence
Hannum:
Hardcore Histories
A new series at Mess Hall
6932 N. Glenwood Avenue, Rogers Park
www.messhall.org
"Morse" stop on the Red Line.
Hardcore Histories is a new series at Mess Hall that will explore
many facets of Hardcore Punk music and culture, from its origins in
around 1980 up to what s happening now. The series will provide
concrete information and knowledge in a variety of social event
formats. All events are free to attend and many will include
opportunities for attendees to participate and share their knowledge,
music, videos and ephemera.
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
.....................................
Thursday, July 21, 2005
7:30p-9:30p
Hardcore Histories - Short, Fast & Loud: a 7" Survey
Series organizers Marc Fischer and Terence Hannum will kick things
off tonight with a presentation and listening session: Short, Fast,
and Loud: A Seven-Inch Survey .
The hardcore punk seven-inch record has a striking place in the
history of recorded music. And let s not call them singles because
when hardcore bands started putting out 7 s, they rarely conformed
to the format s previous function. There wasn t a single A-side
song which was the projected radio hit from the full length album,
coupled with the B-side non album track. Though some hardcore seven
inches have
only two songs like a typical pop band, it is more common to find at
least four. D.R.I. (Dirty Rotten Imbeciles) were arguably the early
record holders for the most songs when they jammed 22 tracks onto the
Dirty Rotten 7 in 1983.
In hardcore, the seven-inch record is a total package unto itself
that frequently preceded the first album. Assuming your band didn t
break up before it was time to record an album, the full length may
not have had any of the songs that appeared on the seven inch. Fans
wouldn t be expecting redundancy.
Tonight we will bust out lots of great 7 s from our own record
collections to play and discuss. We ll be bringing out records by
bands like M.D.C., D.R.I., Rattus, Enemy Soil, Born Against, The Ex,
Poison Idea, HeWhoCorrupts, Palatka, Filthy Christians, Mob 47, and
tons more. Many of these records are extremely obscure and hard to
see or hear. You are invited to bring any hardcore seven-inches you
may have to share. Bring the tunes, we ll supply the stereo.
........................................................................
........................................................................
........................................................................
...............................
Saturday, July 23rd,
5:00p - 7:00p
Hardcore Histories -
Italian Hardcore Pasta Dinner!
Tonight we'll be serving up a free pasta dinner, musically
complimented by raging Italian Hardcore Punk records. Included on the
menu will be rare records by Raw Power, Negazione, Cheetah Chrome
Motherfuckers, Indigesti, Declino, High Circle, and Chain Reaction.
Anyone who has any Italian hardcore records, CDs, cassettes, or video
is urged to bring music to share. Pasta dinner is free but please
bring a beverage or dessert to share if you can.
Upcoming Hardcore History events:
July 31st & August 12th. Check the Mess Hall calendar for details.
We are seeking people who are knowledgeable in just about any areas
of Hardcore music and culture and that would like to participate in
leading or contributing to programs. We are particularly interested
in people who can speak on this music's history in Chicago.
Got a program idea or a way to help?
Contact:
Marc Fischer: marcfischer at sbcglobal.net
Terence Hannum: lindy8hop at aol.com
I would recommend "UNCOMMON GROUND-Rethinking the Human Place in Nature"
edited by William Cronon. This collection of essays approaches nature as a
construct without the cynicism that angle might imply.
-Carol
Katherine Chial I have advanced degrees in art history and education and I know for a fact these statistics are always bullshit. Most countries only count their most educated. The U.S. counts all of it's citizens. Its why we lose in every subject. If you match our best versus any other country's best, we would at least be equal if not better. And don't give me that stuff about how high schoolers in the U.S. graduate without being able to read. This might happen on a rare occasion, but there are many, many other details being left out, such as the individual being special ed or having a serious learning disability. I teach kids who come from public housing. My brightest kid lived in a homeless shelter. They all read and do math very well (public education, by the way, is much better than any charter or private school....the only difference is the setting they go home to. A rich kid will always rise closer to the top....a poor kid is born with a disadvantage). But if you stuck them in an
art gallery without giving them an introduction at their grade level, they'd think it was a joke. So do most adults who are only familiar with art from only hearing (or reading if they are capable....) about the crazy shit.
Speaking of which, anyone read the article in the Tribune yesterday about the Precious Moments theme park in the Ozarks? The founder built a chapel with paintings like the Sistine but with Precious Moments children. I think the MCA should commission something. [http://www.preciousmoments.com/park/attractions/]
Katherine Chial Yes, you have. For the most part, this myth began in the modern period. Artists were tradesmen pre-renaissance, rock (pop) stars in the renaissance, didn't change that dramatically until the avante-garde, but then, its late and I'm making some serious generalizations.
Katherine Chial I'm not suggesting art should be dumbed down, but there should be a better bridge to it for the unititated. There can always and should be complex explanations, but why not an easier, alternative route? A comparison might be college. You don't begin your freshman year taking senior courses....or usually don't. You ease into it with 101 courses. If you tried anything harder you would be scared off. That's all I want, is a better bridge for the general public.
On a different note, I just saw Doll House tonight at the Goodman.....GREAT production! Best thing I've seen in years!
Sure Jno, the public has no resposibility whatever. We can't ask them to try
and be respectful. We can't say, hey just get a look on. All they have to do
is show up and be titilated or it's our fault if they go the hubris route.
Written text isn't read and you can't draw people to it. Mb is a clear
welcome mat for that argument. How is this suppose to work?
If the audience won't work when the artists and curators try, how do you
expect to make things work? Clearly you have an answer beyond you're grammer
lesson?
I've found that people who work with their hands are very interested in
my work. (Plumbers, painters, carpenters). If they happen to be passing
through my studio, they always stop and look very carefully at my
paintings. They're generally interested and ask very intelligent
questions. They don't know all the "art school" things I'm doing but
they get the bottom line of what my intentions are and they just plain
enjoy looking at it. They also understand when I explain stuff to them.
I wish they went to galleries and museums but they work their butts off
supporting often large families and can't go anywhere near where art is
shown.
Claire Krantz
Katherine Chial Furthermore, education in America was never deemed inadequate until the 1980s when the Reagan-Bush whitehouse released a report called "A Nation at Risk" ( [http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html] ). It has been cited as a landmark study that forewarned of the US being overtaken by just about every country from Japan to Sudan in education. It scared the crap out of everyone and helped push the Republican's agenda which was, even then, vouchers and privately run charter schools. They didn't care at all about education reform, only the money their backers could make off of it if privatized.
The report has since been debunked. In fact, all people had to do was ask for proof of all the statistics the report cites and the original report, at least, didn't even have foot- or endnotes citing references! It was total b.s. to support their political agenda. Nonetheless, public education has been on the defensive ever since, despite rising test scores.
As for reading books, the majority of adults read non-fiction like newspapers, magazines and online journals. Books are usually for pleasure.
MB writes
"They didn't care at all about education reform, only the money their
backers could make off of it if privatized."
It's so convenient to assume that whoever is on the other side of the
political spectrum is aligned with the devil, but the truth is almost all
politicians in America have the betterment of the country in mind -
regardless of whether you agree with their goals or methods.
I will not argue that they were pushing a political agenda but it wasn't to
get rich or make their friends rich. There is plenty of evidence that
private schools are better than public schools and that a little bit of
competition improves efficiency. I also have a fair bit of experience in
both public and private schools. And nobody gets rich in either.
Curt
Well, the statistics are not always bullshit, but too often comparing apples
and oranges. And the U.S., for all its good, never counts all its citizens,
even in these studies. But one statistic that isn't bullshit and maybe more
damning than literate or not, was conducted by an independent foundation (wish I
could remember which one, I get all this policy wonk stuff in my mailbox and
read and recycle it way too fast) in various countries, and possibly very
relevent for listservs such as this: Of the developed nations, U.S. students have
the highest estimation of their own powers.After completing tasks and tests,
U.S. students, completely divorced from how good or bad they actually did, always
estimated their performance as amongst the best, and predicted higher
placements for themselves than students from other countries. So whether we are good
or bad, at least we are confident we are on best.
And I did see the Precious Moments thing, and it creeps me out on one level,
but draws me to visit on another. I have no doubt that eventually (maybe after
100-200 years? like with earlier crafts?) the serious museum world will have
to address items like this seriously, instead of ignoring them. The murals
looked unbelievable.
A brief glance at my bookshelves finds:
Jane Jacobs and Lucy Lippard both have some books on nature, anything on
Marie Uikiles, Olafur Elliason or Mark Dion will have something on nature or
ecology.
Mel Chin's recent soil revitalization projects.
Space & Place edited by Erica Carter, James Donald & Judith Squires
Landscape and Power edited by W.J.T. Mitchell
Mitchell also has an essay I always liked, Illusion: Looking at Animals
Looking
Landscape, Natural Beauty and the Arts edited by Slaim Kemal and Ivan Gaskell
Landscape into Art by Kenneth Clark (old school, of course)
Fragile Ecologies by Barbara C. Matilsky
Platzwechsel from Kunsthalle Zurich (more about responses to a
park--platz--obviously)
Robert Morris' essays Aligned with Nazca, The Present Tense of Space, and
Notes on Art as/and Land Reclamation are obliquely about responses and desires
for aspiring to the scale of nature.
*WHAT*, you mean that Karl Rove *isn't* a minion of Satan?!? This never
even occurred to me. I think my devil-alignment position is pretty solid
here.
This is the last bit I will say about education. The best way to predict a person's future success whether in school or in life is to look at their socio-economic status while growing up. Those born into money tend to stay there (on average), while those who don't, will never get there. This carries over into private schools, where the population is of the higher socio-economic bracket, their kids naturally do better. Even more, private schools have more rights to get rid of troublesome students. Private schools start off with a better group, they will naturally seem to do better. The actual quality of education is negligible, but considering many if not most private schools pay their teachers less and have less qualified teachers, there is a strong argument public education offers a better product.
As for higher education, I've read plenty of studies that also suggest the more expensive, elite schools don't offer that much better of an education than state schools. The main difference, which often leads to more success later in life, are the personal connections one makes at private schools. I'm not supporting the conspiracy, but that Bush and Kerry were members of Skull and Bones at Yale illustrates the point.
Back to art, as for the Precious Moments Theme Park, I agree, it should be dealt with. I'm also fascinated by it on a certain level. Reminds me of Victor Margolin's (UIC art history professor) Museum of Corntemporary Art ( [http://tigger.uic.edu/] ~victor/museum1.html)
Thanks for the references! These will help!
Nature essay:
[http://www.olafureliasson.net/publications.html]
Try Jonathan Crary's, "Olafur Eliasson: Visionary Event"
--
Erik Fabian
www.ErikAndTheAnimals.com
On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:25 PM, Michael Beyer wrote:
Yes it is true that statistics is an inexact science and that its
results may be used to support very differing states of things,
depending on your agenda. However, my very unscientific impression,
(and I apologize for not having a study to back me up) is that there
are a lot of people out there who, although they can read (which, by
the way, I never said they couldn't) choose not to, and not solely
because they are too busy working or reading newspapers and magazines.
I have NO intention of maligning the underprivileged or the learning
disabled. I do not think that people who have learning disabilities,
come from disadvantaged backgrounds, or public housing are not bright.
In fact I think I implied just the opposite. I was actually alluding to
a large segment of the college-educated middle class who have a CHOICE,
who do have leisure time which they prefer to spend watching reality
TV.
Michael Beyer wrote:
First of all I don't believe I gave you that "stuff" and secondly, I
have two children in the Chicago Public School system, 7 good friends
who teach in the CPS, one of whom is an assistant principal, formerly
an Area Reading Coach, and I have the utmost regard for public
education. As a parent of school aged children I know only too well
that one of the important differences between the school I send my kids
to and other public schools is that the families at "my" school are
actively involved with their children's education, (and not just the
upper-middle class white people, who are in fact the minority, and not
just in fund-raising, but in sitting down every day with their children
to do homework.)
Katherine Chial Yes this too may be true, but it's really apples and oranges. The
inhabitants of renaissance city-states (Italy for example) shared
ethnic, cultural and ideological (Catholicism) values in a way that we
cannot hope to, due to consumer culture and globalization, (unless our
civilization falls, like Rome, and is rebuilt after a very long dark
age.) Painting didn't have to compete with mass media and furthermore
performed a function, and I'm almost certain that meanings hidden
within these paintings that were in opposition to the ideology of the
church were only understood by a select few. I think common working
people of the renaissance had even less leisure time to contemplate the
virtues of Leonardo vs. Rapheal, than the common working people of
today?
So then, let's talk about the modern age, because that's where we are.
To clarify my point:
1. Whether artists were rock stars in the renaissance or not, that
doesn't change the fact that in our society in competition with
film/television and other mass media, art will lose, nearly every time.
That really doesn't bother me, however, in fact, I think it's O.K. that
art be a different type of experience.
2. I also believe whole-heartedly in building a "better bridge to it
for the uninititated." I don't have a problem with marketing art in a
way that gets more people in the door; I do think, however, that there
(as has been said here before) a certain degree of personal
responsibility required on the part of the public, IF they have leisure
time, IF they are supposedly educated, to come to the art on it's terms
and not just say it's stupid or boring or pretentious because it's not
as immediately accessible as The OC. Again I am talking about those
folks who are in a position to make these kinds of choices. Again it's
easy to place the blame for a person's preferences on society and the
market forces which supposedly delude them into believing that getting
an ipod or a picture phone is going to be a more rewarding experience
than opening a book, questioning something or looking at some art. But,
I don't think we can blame society entirely.
On the other hand it's a fine balance and I think that institutions
sometimes display art that is supposed to be "good for you,"
(especially in the late '80-'90's) which while having good intentions
is off-putting to the very people it's supposedly sticking up for.
Furthermore, I agree with Claire that people who work with their hands,
and otherwise, often experience engagement with art without taking a
class or being educated in it. But these folks by their very make-up
are exemplars of "personal responsibility."
I apologize for going on and on and am also remembering all too well
why it's almost fruitless to post opinions about such large and
impossibly complex issues, not to mention how to avoid the pitfalls of
being overly righteous and self-serious.
Oh well, i tried
"I do think, however, that there (as has been said here before) a certain degree of personal
responsibility required on the part of the public..."
This quote is what I'd like to deconstruct. If there is a key thread in OG topics, the line that draws the line, it's this quote.
What is that personal responsibility?
Who is the audience responsible to? I think a democracy can only be based on an "informed public" (as our forefathers said). So I think the public has a responsibility to know something about our country and the decisions we make as a country.
But what responsibility do they have to art? What responsibility does anyone have to further themselves? What responsibility do they have to grow? What responsibility do we have to find meaning in this life? Ideally, as a species, we have a responsibility to evolve. But it's hard to grow as a person. It's hard to quit smoking. It's hard to shake our shortcomings, and it's hard as hell to rise above.
And when has the public's responsibility been met?
I think art is supposed to Do Something. I think it's supposed to Answer Something. But I never want to jam my questions down the audience's throat. They have a right to ask questions about their own lives, wherever they are coming from. It can be a simple question or an impossible question.
And then is it the artists' responsibility to give the right answer?
What if we're wrong?
Kathryn
What if we replace the imperative of personal responsibility with the
desire for awareness in the hopes of alleviating the implication of
parental guilt, Protestant Work Ethic subtext and knowing or unknowing
references to thousands of informational films made in the 50s and 60s
geared towards educating our youth on how to become better citizens?
Being wrong is just a perk for being able to sound our barbaric yawps
over the roofs of the world.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Kathryn Born wrote:
Give us time to think about it, and we'll be wrong let often then
others are. But I dont think art is supposed to Do Something.
/jno
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Craig Newsom wrote:
Great! So my response then to Dogmatic-Michael, along the same lines:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Dogmatic gallery wrote:
I'm not sure what you are asking here or proposing, or the level of irony
I am being asked to ignore. I presume the "grammar lesson" is my objection
to the use of 'shoulds' which I responded to, not the content?
The use of 'should' sounds like my mother telling me to go to church and
pray. A church can legitimately impose silence, just like a museum can
impose some propriety, but a church cannot extract prayers from me, nor a
museum. I hate stop signs, speed bumps, and queues also. I skim through
books. But mostly as an adult I dont want to be beleagered by 'should do
this', 'should do that'.
I do exactly as you suggest -- "just look on" at a gallery or museum.
I need an overview, and then will zero in on what strikes me. It is a
carnival attitude, and maybe childish, but that is what I do. I imagine a
lot of people do this. I dont learn anything if I have to follow textbook
order. And going to an exhibition is like randomly opening an upside-down
encyclopedia. The question always is, will this be an interesting and
worthwhile page?
I live with a woman who will look at exhibitions from left to right, and
will read all the labels. And if she doesn't 'get it' she will corner the
artist and question him/her (and later tell me what it was all about). I
cant do that, I have opened too many random pages.
But I will read labels. Not the small numbers on the wall where you have
to walk with a pricelist in hand. And I stop at any introductory texts
where the beginnings of a sermon, or more-of-the-same art talk, is
spotted. I am (you think) not the only one to do so. But there are reasons
us viewers skip labels: they are frequently so bad, so boring, so
uninteresting, so unenlightening, so verbose, and so obscure.
The worst are 'artist's statements' for if artists were really articulate
enough to be able to translate their visual work to texts they need not be
working visually. It is at any rate the ability of visual work to
transcend the rational (verbal) which is the draw for me.
So I am only asking for the curators to search for the perfect metaphor
(each time) which can translate the visual experience, or make it come
alive, or hint at some core item from our common cultural background which
will singly light up comprehension.
Someone will point out that art works should stand by themselves, whcih is
true enough, except that there is gonna be a history 'attached' anyway.
And at times it is some single anecdote about the work, or the intent, or
a single fact from the life of the artist which will suddenly illuminate
it. The wall lables -- and whatever other text -- are the start. But
writing that stuff is very difficult to do.
I dont think you can say that. It is more likely that as soon as texts
prove to be of little use, or dumb, or impossible to comprehend, viewers
will draw away. The attitude of people who write these texts seems to be
that they need to furnish 'ad copy' which does not say anything, and so
empty of content that noone can take issue with it.
I do not think artists try hard enough. Nor some curators, although I
generally have much more faith in curators (and they really ought to get
more credit).
It is all about presentation, and many artists cannot see the forest of
viewers for the ... Well, I dont know how to complete that simile
elegantly, but I am sure you get what I mean. Artists concentrate on
objects, and are mostly so engrossed by their individual work that they
loose all sense of the outside world where their objects will be viewed.
It is always a curator which will make all those artist-created objects
come alive.
hth /jno
jno wrote:
I just had to write my own artist statement for a gallery this week, and
it was the best I've ever written in my life up to this point, and it
STILL sucks! Artists need writers most of the time, and these writers
need to be concise unless they are writing for art magazines, where
folks can kick up their feet and sink into the rhythms of literature.
I've found galleries to be a bad place to get into writing, and so I
require brevity in all texts presented to me so my visual/intuitive
reception channels don't get fouled up.
I think this is really an interface issue, and (paraphrasing Jef Raskin)
interfaces should be humane. Any friction in the delivery of content
from author to viewer may diminish the power/impact of the content --
particularly for challenging content. I once had to create an article
for my dept. as a pre-reader for a class' McLuhan readings. I gave a
class the first draft, and an extra-credit assignment to review it. The
best comment was "If this is supposed to help us understand difficult
stuff, shouldn't this have been easy to read"? Duh, yeah.
Granted, we're talking about sideline materials and not modes of
delivery, but maybe there's not so much difference for viewers who have
trouble with artworks. I'm sure there are times in galleries where it is
preferable for the support materials for the art to intensify the
mystery for the audience, but I would guess that this really isn't
appropriate to most art shows, relative to the number of occasions where
this happens. I rarely see an equivalent to film writing where short
articles can be enlightening and easy to read -- without requiring
exposure to film studies (I think an OG'er mentioned this recently...)
Perhaps a network of galleries could jointly hire a good writer to
handle supportive texts and editing of statements and such, and make the
rounds each month.
Erik
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Erik Brown wrote:
Funny. I have done that and regretted every 'perfect' artist's statement I
ever penned -- a month or a year later. I like the one line versions by
other people which go, "I just wanted to ... bla bla bla."
Frampton (the filmmaker) once wrote that great art proceeds from a
misreading of the postulates of an art form. But who wants to use a
'misreading' as an excuse, especially after you recognize that you misread
the basics.
A change would be refreshing. But it (writing) is no small job, and
requires (I think) a change in the mode of art marketing. I think
secondary texts *are* part of the mode of delivery. It is just that they
are neglected currently. And like you I wonder why film does much better.
The hired art writer's brain would soon be fried, and then you would have
the fallback to 'standard accepted' texts.
Hope this makes sense, this heat is frying *my* brain. /jno
Ok, I just noticed something interesting I wanted to share with the group.
I'm moving and I refuse to move all these 'Art In America' copies. So I'm going through and ripping out pages and articles and pictures of things I like and just saving those. Here's what's interesting: the issues that I really read thoroughly when I got the mag, or looked at several times, now when I go through them, I like a lot of things and rip a lot of pages out. The issues I barely looked at (or unwrap from the plastic now) I barely pull out a page.
So I think a way to think outside the box with expanding the audience isn't always "explaining it" but exposure and using repetition. Like the marketing rule that people need to see an ad 5 times before it gets into their head. Maybe we need to see some pieces more than once to appreciate it.
This post sounded better and more practical in my head. Oh well.
K
"On another note (same melody I suppose) I just came back from a
visit to the
new Walker addition. Lots of wonderful nooks and crannies - a few of
which are
brought to you by Best Buy Inc."
" The MCA often has performances and public phenomena--they took a big risk
with that guy jumping off the building as it received mostly negative press and
therefore it can be assumed it did not make money for them."
There was no risk there, and negative press? I saw articles fawning over
that project everywhere.
"And the 12 x 12 shows also prove this statement wrong, since from what I
have heard from several artists, there is no input by the museum and it is
basically there for the artist to do whatever with. "
"I'm sure if he wanted to bring his own bottle of spirits an exception could
be made."
"Haven't been to the Walker to see the Best Buy nooks, but that does sound
tasteless. "
"Ego is more interesting than faceless corporate boards and, to a large
extent, more in line with the ego of artists."
"On a different note, does anybody know the average time it takes to graduate
from the local universities with a master's in art history or a similar
subject? Also, anybody know the percentage of students that actually graduate?"
"They might still have high salaries compared to an average joe, but
what they bring to the museums is often well worth the pay, even if
it is not obvious to every Tom Dick and Harry that walks in off the
street."
"I take it you're still feeling snarky ?"
"Okay, so maybe a 1.5 liner?"
"So maybe we just have different values?"
"they give you contextual they give you contextual materials, a video, and artists' writings"
"I tell them to go to the MCA and zip through it, don't even stop to look at
anything if you don't feel like it. Don't feel obligated, I tell them. But if
something catches your eye, then stop. Stop and stare and feel something. From
that feeling, that intuitive feeling, you will start to find your aesthetic,
and a pattern of what you like will start to emerge. I don't tell people to
read the essay on the wall. "
"In the art world, it's felt that the public "just didn't get it". We held
such contempt for the audience that we made a long term decision to nurse off
the breast of the government instead. "
"It was their job to love us and take care of us, no matter how much we
sucked. We love government funding because then we can pretty much ignore the idea
of an audience of the people and hang what we feel is right and if no one
likes it - fuck 'em, they're commoners, masses, red states. "
"Corporations aren't as stupid as the government"
"Andy, that was a great response,"
"Ok, you're right. However, what I've heard several times is equating
approachable
with "dumbing down". "
"And the WE is Vincent Price!! ...but I was a little kid and he said "people
say, I don't know art but I know what I like. That is total rubbish." and
Vincent Price on Johnny Carson"
"I fight him to this day even though he's dead. "
"Can you elaborate on this, though:
Government funding requires appeals to a public, there are reports and
accountability.
What kind? "
"But... the trouble and potential I see is that because of government
funding, non-sellable art (conceptual art, installations) exists as it is. There is
little- I think I can say NO -- market for non-sellable art. "
"I think to have art that is supported by "the people" , a new audience, and
not the government, art will have to change. "
"Ok, I'll close with Matthew Collings, who was probably fairly cranky when he
said this:"
"But in reality this listserv is run
by a machine. We do absolutely nothing.
"... the public should meet those responsibilities in kind.
"When they visit they should take their time to...
"... will both pay off should be implied.
"Art should be accessable yes, but it ...
"... should also be taken as seriously any other
"and I know for a fact these statistics are always bullshit. Most countries
only count their most educated. The U.S. counts all of it's citizens."
"I think art is supposed to Do Something.
"I think it's supposed to Answer Something.
"And then is it the artists' responsibility to give the right
answer? What if we're wrong?
"What if we replace the imperative of personal responsibility with
the desire for awareness in the hopes of alleviating the
implication of parental guilt, Protestant Work Ethic subtext ... etc
"Sure Jno, the public has no resposibility whatever. We can't ask
them to try and be respectful. We can't say, hey just get a look
on. All they have to do is show up and be titilated or it's our
fault if they go the hubris route. Written text isn't read and
you can't draw people to it. Mb is a clear welcome mat for that
argument. How is this suppose to work? If the audience won't work
when the artists and curators try, how do you expect to make
things work? Clearly you have an answer beyond you're grammer
lesson?
"just look on"
"Written text isn't read and you can't draw people to it.
"If the audience won't work when the artists and curators try"
"I just had to write my own artist statement for a gallery this
week, and it was the best I've ever written in my life up to this
point, and it STILL sucks!
"Granted, we're talking about sideline materials and not modes of
delivery, ....
"Perhaps a network of galleries could jointly hire a good writer
to handle supportive texts and editing of statements and such, and
make the rounds each month.