June 2002, 30 posts, 2839 lines
Othergroup:
First of all, does this discussion group even exist any more? Hardly a single thought, or even a blatant piece of self-promotion in ages. What happened? Did you all blow your wad with all that programing in May and then forget that art happens every damn day of the year? Well, at the risk of being off topic for a change, here are some things that are worthy of your attention. They are all important so they are listed (more or less) in order of appearance:
Happening right Now:
High On Fire - "Surrounded by Thieves" (Relapse Records)
It took me at least 6[66] attempts to find this record if not more.
I actually walked into Tower Records on Wabash, stepped up to the counter and asked the clerk "Do you have the new High on Fire album?" Right as I asked, I noticed that the young man behind the counter was in fact holding an unwrapped copy in his hand. Once we both got over the mild shock of this coincidence I learned that the clerk had just purchased the ONLY copy the store ordered! I hung my head and cried - metallic tears rolling down my cheeks. Nice guy though. So finally I did what I should have done from the beginning. I went to "Metal Haven" on Belmont and Broadway. Always support the small family owned shops - they have what you need (at least 5 copies of this masterpiece).
Look people, not only is this most powerful metal album I've heard in ages, it also has the best metal album cover art that I've seen in a long time. Seriously, you aren't gonna find axe-wielding warrior/viking paintings like this in the West Loop Gate anytime soon. If a Richard Serra sculpture fell over and landed on your head, the metal still probably wouldn't be as heavy as it is on this album. High on Fire have actually made an even better album than their first one: "The Art of Self Defense." The drumming is pounding and furious beyond belief. The production is so monolithic it threatens to crush new condos before they are even conceived in my neighborhood. I am playing this out my windows so the cops eating at the Black Beetle won't be able to digest their food and will vomit blood in the streets (but please, not on my car).
Last week the Sun Times ran a huge headline that said "R. Kelly's World Crumbles." Now I know why. He got the new High on Fire album and played it too loud.
June 20, 2002 Electric Wizard - live at the Note, Milwaukee Ave.
Okay so their new album "Let us Prey" (get it? two meanings - a double entendre - that's right, two meanings) is not nearly as good as
June 18 - 23, 2002
Also British, but EXTREMELY different from Electric Wizard. All events at the Smart Museum of Art, University of Chicago. Free and open to the public. Highly Recommended:
In conjunction with the Smart Museum's exhibition Critical Mass, the British curatorial team B+B has organized Talk Show to instigate debate on the role of 'engaged' artists in society and the different histories, politics and methods of practice in the UK and USA. B+B and British artists Anna Best, Kathrin Böhm, and Maurice O'Connell will be in Chicago June 18-23; their participation in Talk Show will consist of:
* Wednesday June 19-Sunday June 23:
Video, web, and printed documentation of projects by Amy Plant, Anna Best, Kathrin Böhm, and Maurice O'Connell will be on view within the Critical Mass resource area. [See below for more on the artists' projects.]
* Wednesday June 19-Thursday June 20:
B+B and artists Amy Plant and Maurice O'Connell will be at the Smart Museum and available for conversation and networking. Times TBA.
* Sunday June 23, 12:00-1:30 pm:
B+B, Amy Plant and Maurice O'Connell will make brief presentations and lead a public discussion about intervention, activism and collaboration in art both in the USA and the UK, and will participate in the Open Forum at 2:00 pm.
FINAL EVENT: OPEN FORUM
* Sunday June 23, 2:00-3:00 pm:
Join the Critical Mass artists, Smart Museum staff, Talk Show artists, and other participants for an informal group discussion about Critical Mass. Help us assess the project and its implications.
Talk Show is supported by the British Council email b.- at welcome.to for more information
July 11, 2002
High on Fire - Live at the Double Door, Milwaukee ave. This show makes up for the canceled show that was supposed to happen in May. After the high praise I just gave their album, no additional info is necessary.
See you in the scene,
Marc
For those many of you who do not know me, I am Michael Wolf, I'm around Chicago sometimes. I'm disappointed that as soon as I discovered this othergroup everyone clammed up. What's happening? It was lonely out there this past weekend, didn't run into many people at the shows. Some people, I admit being among them, were muttering about the end of the scene. Of course you've gotta ask, which scene is it that we are talking about? Muttering is unclear by nature, but I think we were talking about indy galleries, stray spaces, that kinda thing. And considering the shows I've seen at them lately,
I feel like we're not losing a whole lot. I went to Monique Meloche on Friday to see John White Cerasulo's show and socialize. I remember quickly striding through his 12x12 show at the MCA and not really getting it, not really being impressed. So my expectations were not high. However, it turned out that I liked the pictures at Monique's. But there were only ten of them! I'm curious what leads us to us to a point where our art shows are so frail and ungenerous. What are the concerns and ideas that lead us to this point...or set us on this trajectory. And can we please get away from it. Is it so important to showcase one artist's work, is it so difficult to gather up some more ideas in a space? If we continue in this way, I fear that to get any sense of generosity from a show it will have to be a generosity theme show. Have you ever heard the term "hospitality industry?" What if we really needed the hospitality industry to be hospitable? We don't y'know.
On the other hand, I saw this show at the Butcher Shop on Saturday. The original artwork from the first issue of a new publication known as The New Graphics Revival. This issue of The New Graphics Revival (TNGR) is "The Kit Issue." Here is how it worked: the kind folks who arranged all of this sent out invitations to everyone they could think of to draw a comic. Those who said they would like to make them a comic were sent a kit of comic making supplies and some basic guidelines and tips. 120 some people ended up contributing comics: famous indy comic stars, artists who can't draw, artists who can draw, little kids, big kids, rock stars, people from many different nations, many poeple who never made comics before, all made amusing and moving comics. I assume this show will be up at the Butcher Shop for a little while and recommend looking at it. It is the best looking show I've ever seen at the Butcher Shop, in terms of installation. Also you can look at (or buy!) the attractive book at Quimby's (it's in the book and on the web), or order it from the website (www.graphicsrevival.com) it's a bargain at ten bupky.
Marc, I am quite sold on this High On Fire, intend to purchase the record, but am sorry I won't be in town for the show.
I agree with Mr. Wolf. Solo shows in this town only feature five pieces by the artist. What's up with that? Then the alternatives organize these
I think it is time that for the alternatives to take things more seriously. Let's face it, there is no such thing as project space anymore, not in Chicago. Everything seems so half - ass....why even bother. I'm not bashing the alternatives...they did a good job/service for awhile but it is time to grow up. Artists deserve better representation and need to be taken seriously. 12x12:
Well, all the shows I've seen in that room suck. Specially that Paul Dickinson show. And Patty Conaway, gosh, such bad taste, who came up with the Patty fiasco.
I have been quietly reading the other group discussions over the past few months and have yet to say anything, usually because I would not be able to respond quickly enough (I read this at work).
I guess I don't understand why anyone wants the alternative to become more
In reality spaces like Monique Meloche, Body Builder, Vedanta, and the former NFA aren't really alternative. They have turned "pro" so to speak.
They all have rents to pay with art sales which is not what a lot of other spaces do. I am not commenting on which is better, but there is a difference. Chicago is and can be full of "project spaces," but that is not necessarily what all artists are looking for. Dogmatic, The Suburban, Deluxe etc.. all are willing to show installations etc.. maybe that's not what's being proposed?
Any thoughts?
Meg
A slow morning on the job for misterwolf
Meg wrote:
I guess I don't understand why anyone wants the alternative to become more
misterwolf responds and stuff:
Meg, I couldn't agree more, having to sell work to be active? That would just be death. There are a ton of ways to make work with out sweating that boring shit--ways that we need to keep traveling and developing. I don't think that when Pedro talks about getting serious he means that these alternatives or indies need to be more focused on selling work. I mean, I hope not. But I would like to hear more about what getting serious means.
I mean, I don't want to hear about it once, but all the time. Just like I want to hear about making art outside of a market system all the time. It's not a tired thing to talk about. A lot of people don't know anything about it and for people like me who know a little bit about it, it's great to be able to talk about it and develop the language, in an everyday sense, not just a rarified high-vocab sense.
Getting serious? If that means intensifying bureaucracies of the alternatives or focusing on art sales then, no, thanks. If that means doing ambitious and effective projects for broader groups of participants and audiences, and exploring alternative economic models for production then, yes, please. Part of this is the variety play spaces and casual spaces for
ok so now we're serious
can i ask two questions.?
a/ is the scene primarily concerned with entertainment?
b/ and if artists continue to charge entry fees for shows can we argue that art is outside of the entertainment industry.? (and do y'all care or would ya rather be dan rather?)
c/ flying three sheets to the wind ale-ways has been my m.o., however_ all too frequently these art events are but exercises in fashionable elitist stupor. did we forget about the war?
misterwolf, representing misterwolf, responds to Tom B's questions a through c:
a) I certainly think that "the scene" is concerned with entertainment. In so much as entertainment is about spectacle, idea/knowledge production, and socializing (in the educational sense and friend making/networking sense). If anyone says that art is inherently different from or better than, say, commercial TV or Hollywood movies, they certainly have to qualify that assertion. Most of the time, the way art is presented, it is much same as these mostly malevolent forms of entertainment. It serves to calcify a polarized producer/consumer relationship, doesn't make room for critical thought or action, doesn't encourage participation. Not all art is like this; I cite some of my local favorites of the moment, The New Graphics Revival, the work of Temporary Services (actually the whole "Critical Mass" show currently at the Smart Museum).
b) I don't think we should charge entry fees for shows. But there is that nagging feeling that artists, just like anybody who works, deserve some compensation for their trouble. I'm always willing to entertain ideas, but somehow this problem is not the most urgent one in my mind.
c) I have no interest in fashionable elitist stupor. I'm really down on elitism. I encourage anyone to call it out when it rears its ugly head. Stupor? sometimes I'm interested in stupor. Yes, I think that many folks are avoiding thinking about the war, or at least we are not talking about it. That's a problem. To say the least. It is nothing but wrong to believe that this war is being waged in a parallel universe. I'm floating ten feet above this war, drinking cheep beer. Lets talk about it. Who knows about any artists dealing with the war? Some of them must be reading this. I'm sure there are hundreds right here in Chicago.
Alright
a. Art has always been concerned with entertainment of some sort. Dispute this if you wish, but even early religious and ritual art were concerned with getting messages across to the "masses" using recognizable imagery and symbols. Perhaps there's a difference between advertising and entertainment (I'm not necessarily sure that there is), but they both use the same devices for getting messages across. There is entertainment with critical value as well as some that's just fun. Art has the same range. Having room for both is important.
b. I agree that entrance fees for shows shouldn't happen. But to play devils advocate, why then do we consider paying for a performance or a rock and roll show. why are those more worthy of our money(especially if the work is something unsellable)?
c. Could we clarify this war you all are speaking of? Are we fighting against the man? OK so I am being a little fascias, but who's the enemy? Isn't the artist's job to understand place and time not to fight a war?
d. There seems to be an anti-Dan Rather sentiment going around in a few of these emails. My good friend Dan Rather reaches more people a night then my art reaches in a year. who affects more change and has a broader impact?
I'm not sure who it is I'm replying to (Tom & Misterwolf), and therefore I'm not sure who "the scene" refers to, but for what it's worth...
a. Art is entertainment - sometimes as easy as tv, but context is the factor that always adds another level separating it (and which can add the elitism factor). The spectacle of the art market is more boring than malevolent. (It is part of a larger system/spectacle though). And what about the spectacle of political art...
b. which artists are charging entry fees for shows? What shows are you going to?
c. I don't think "we" are avoiding talking about "the war" - it is part of my conversation almost daily. and, we don't need artists to point out how messed up our country is. I do think that there is a general sense that something needs to be done, but a lack of direction or too many divided factions (this pertains to both the Chicago art scene and the current political situation). And, I'm so glad you are against elitism, thank you for clearing that up.
(friendly sarcasm intended here).
keri
Keri - With "the scene" I am talking about stray spaces and the like, I realize that it's a bit of an unfortunate term. I brought it up because I've had a little anxiety about what appears to me as a waning energy around town. But I'm still developing my long view. Glad to hear that someone's talking about the war, I assumed we were talking about the so-called war on terror. There are lots of wars. I guess if I want to have explicit conversation about it with my associates I should bring it up. What about these factions? And I think I'm talking more about Chicago art than the broader political situation of which it is a part. Is it worth while talking about them, can it be done without intensifying the factions?
Meg - You're better than Dan Rather, forget about that tramp!
misterwolf
meg, keri, misterwolf, hello. thank you for responding to questions.
a/ It worries me that "art" suddenly becomes this single issue affair. I can't jive with a general assertion that art has always been about anything or nothing. For myself i find most mainstream media asks us to suffer fools gladly. Against elitism/ Born out of contradiction.
b/ The path of least resistance runs from your check book to the ticket clerk. If a ransom must be paid then so be it. But what lessons can be learnt from the consensual exchanges of Broadway and tourneys of old, tin men vie for the queen's favor.
c/ I myself have kept my head low, and thoughts to myself. The current situation is very difficult to understand and comprehend exactly what occurs behind the cathode veneer. Whether or not artists fight the war or fight in the war, this was not my question. I am concerned that recent work i have seen here and there bears no reference to the events unfolding transglobally, I feel that at the very least we are subjects of possible terrrorist action right now, why don't we show our collective fear a bit more often? that's all.
d/ i'd rather be farther than diss dan rather.
After you see Ben Stone's show at Suitable stop by joymore for a nightcap.
Joymore is hosting a closing reception for Chicago-based artist Patrick Collier's installation, "indisposition". June 21 from 7 - 11 p.m. The closing reception is to coincide with the opening of Collier's exhibition,
Joymore 2701 W. Augusta
Hi All,
I know that there are a lot of openings on Friday, but the MCA is having a little event as well.
So come on over to that there contemporary museum this Friday and
Dance with me... June 21, 2002 10:00 p.m.-1:00 a.m. Museum of Contemporary Art 220 East Chicago Avenue
Dance with Me is a silent dance party taking place on the front grounds of the MCA during the 2002 Summer Solstice events. This dance party features DJ D-Jaded spinning a musical transmission to fifty wireless headsets which the public can put on and dance to.
The party will be on the front plaza of the MCA unless it rains, then it will be moved to the back patio. It's kinda like a new skool ho down well not really, but it should be fun!
Meg
can i ask two questions.?
2+2=4
I hope you all can make it to joymore's outdoor extravaganza Sat. 1-10PM. I am being brash and adding the press-release just in case you haven't heard about this spectacular event yet.
love,
melissa
www.joymore.org
joymore presents... THRILL II : The Sequel A sculpture park carnival brimming with swimming pools and movie stars! Saturday, June 29th at 1pm-10pm. Sunday, June 30th from 12-4pm. 1723 North Humboldt Blvd. (Vacant lots 1 1/2 blocks north of North Ave. North of the grey stone building.) THRILL II: The Sequel : An urban playground, combining interactive art and summertime fun. Dont miss out! * Super swimming pools, giant pancakes, and lava light shows... * A luxurious garden party, county fair kiosks, a geodesic dome, and tiny islands... *see-saws, wishing wells, dancing girls, and more! Plus the grooving tunes of DJ Jim Dorling, with sessions by Technical D and Steve Lacy. Sunday will be a ghost town wind-down before the set is struck, with remnants and remains for your viewing pleasure.
THRILL II: The Sequel Featuring your friendly neighborhood artists: Siebren Versteeg, Nick Black, Michael Bulka, Paul Druecke, Lora Lode, Julia Marsh, Keven Kampf, Jno Cook, Asimina Chremos, Steve Lacy, Andy Hall, John Henley, Michael Thomas, Melissa Schubeck, Mike Wolf, Picolina Oksietowicz, Amanda Ross-Ho and Katy Fischer, Angela Altenhofen, Carol Jackson, Brian Taylor, Helidon Gjergji, Marie Walz, Andrew Moore, Tina Zemen, Scott Pondrom, Meg Duguid, Tim Fleming, Ben Stone, Cat Chow, Denise Dietz, Jeffery Grauel,Sarah Wild,Eric Emert, Julia Hechtman, and more.
is otherrgroup more than a notice board?
will questions pertaining to our discussion be discussed be addressed is this a forum, or rum for?
the silence is tragic. will anyone take up the task?
tom. [down]
Since I was the last person to pose this question before backing off (I got bored with the threads about admission fees and whether art is entertaining or not), I'll add something again. A little more serious this time too. Recently I checked out the book "Get the Message? A Decade of Art For Social Change" by Lucy Lippard. It's from 1984 and it's probably out of print but you'll be able to find it at Harold Washington Library soon when I return it.
The book is a series of essays - mostly reprints of columns Lippard wrote for the Village Voice when she was a critic for the paper in the late 70's and early 80's. As in many of her books, she champions a lot of different socially engaged art - some of it interesting and still vital, some of it really dull and dated. Some of the battles she writes about have been long since forgotten or historically buried, others are as relevant as ever. There's an enormous amount of material in this book - 343 pages of smallishly printed ideas, arguments, internal debates, and reportage from another time - so it's really hard to know where to begin. But I'll quote one little section I keep returning to: "For the vast majority of the audience now, however, culture is something dead. In the '50's the upwardly mobile bourgeois art audience (mostly female) was called the 'culture vultures'. They didn't kill art but they eagerly devoured it when they came upon its corpse. As Carl Andre has observed, art is what we do and culture is what is done to us. That fragile lifeline of vitality, the communication to the viewer of the ecstasy of the making process, the motive behind it and the reasons for such a commitment, can all too easily be snapped by the circumstances under which most people see art: the stultifying classist atmosphere of most museums and galleries and, in the art world, the personal intimidation resulting from overinflated individual reputations.
What, then, can conscious artists and artworkers do in the coming decade to integrate our goals, to make our political opinions and our destinies fuse with our art? Any new kind of art practice is going to have to take place at least partially outside of the art world. And hard as it is to establish oneself in the art world, less circumscribed territories are all the more fraught with peril. Out there, most artists are neither welcome nor effective, but in here is a potentially suffocating cocoon in which artists are deluded into feeling important for doing only what is expected of them. We continue to talk about "new forms" because the new has been the fertilizing fetish of the avante garde since it detached itself from the infantry. But it may be that these new forms are only to be found buried in social energies not yet recognized as art."
This was written in 1981. Over 20 years ago. Not every word is articulated in quite a way that sits right with me but I think the general problems Lippard points out in the second paragraph not only remain, but are probably as bad if not worse than ever. But I suspect that many people do not see them as problems - or perhaps don't see this as _their_ problem. So what do all of you think?
Marc
All right, I'll bite and make a public fool of myself. And I'll ask the public to please bear with, I have a love of digression and waywardness that will perhaps try the patience of the audience at times.
Conversations of this nature always make me cringe because they tend to involve a sort of moralistic "social practice is better than formal practice" tone which is just as condescending as anything a "mainstream gallery support" good usher forth.
I refuse to believe a practice is a priori better than any other practice because it is site-specific, socially engaged, political, formal, aesthetic, engaged in the 'real world' or whatever. (Not to mention, a recent article in the nytimes noted the yearly gross of the gallery world in the city of new york last year was [I'm too lazy now to look up the exact number] several billion dollars. That's a lot of jobs for a lot of people. What could be more "real world" than that?)
And lets remember, Cows on parade, and Botero, were a helluva lot more popular with the "real world" than any of the many Culture in Action type projects here in town. I also remember from my tenure at the MCA that the public loved Moriko Mori, liked Abigail Lane, was so-so towards C. Close, didn't care for Art and Film, and generally disliked almost all exhibits of photography. This is an unoffical summary based on what people bought from the store, and said to us rather than a scientific survey of crowd numbers and all.
The above paragraph is just a manner of saying I am not about to espouse what art, nor what kind, the "real world" wants. And that makes me not want to get into a critical engagement=better argument. I refuse to support Cows on parade as an artistic statement, but all the same I have to admit, its what the people wanted. And any work that tries to use its relation to the
Hans Ulrich Obrist: You formulated new forms of exhibitions, and a contract to change the relationship between artists, galleries, and collectors. Have you ever been interested in formulating a new structure for the museum?
Seth Siegelaub: Nope. Museums were never a problem for me, as I have had very little contact with them. The problem of the museum is structural in the sense of its relationship to ruling power in society and their interests. Thus a museum without this authority and its subservience to power, could be very interesting, imaginative and even spontaneous, but to the degree it achieves this authority, it loses these possibilities. This, obviously, is true of many other institutions and people in an alienated society, including artists. I suppose if enough creative people gave enough thought to the type of exhibitions that were done there, one could probably formulate some ideas how possibly a museum could function in another way. But one has to first understand the contradictions here; to keep in mind that museums, more than ever, are directly dependent on larger interests, and regardless if you or I came up with some hot ideas about changing some aspects of museums (the social dimension of museums have changed in certain areas such as decentralization, interest in local communities, the art of minorities, etc.), the fundamental needs of the museum have very little to do with us; they have their own internal logic. And the margin for maneuver within this structure is probably less today than it was yesterday; or at least, the contradictions are different. So it's very difficult for me, here sitting on the outside, to imagine what a museum could be other than what it is, perhaps a few little touches here or there, maybe free coffee for artists every Tuesday, etc. But perhaps the real question is, why should I be interested in changing the museum?"
So maybe on the surface this quote doesn't seem so different from the quotation of Lippard. But it is a world away for me. Why? The tone.
The sense of the next new thing being social, and therefore more progressive...that is hogwash. And with it the idea that social engagement not yet recognized as art being more advanced than what is on the wall of a gallery. This is comparing apples and oranges. Museums and galleries, for the most part function just fine. Do what they need to do. But to assume museums, and galleries and artists, are somehow all in the same interest is bizarre at best. Galleries are not just for showing new art, they are also for selling art. even if they don't do much of the later. And for that function the white-walled galleries function pretty well. I have no problems. I also have no problems with work that works solely outside that system. Most of the time it functions pretty well. Just don't expect me to pat you on the back for being outside the gallery system. Just like we don't pat galleries on the back for keeping things on the wall.
And inspiration and effect are two different categories. The show you (Marc Fischer, in case anyone has forgotten who I am addressing) just partook in, Critical Mass, I have to say, I found no more socially engaged with the 'real world' than the show of Chinese drawings that proceeded it. Nor than the show of Folk art that is to follow. It had all the same looks and functions that I expect of a show, and was not really much more open in structure or content. But that also is not a value judgment. Its what a show in a museum does. And what all of you chose to make for the show. If there is something to be discussed it is the amorphous morass of funding.
Just last night at dinner, with discussion amid myself, my significant other, and purportedly "one of the most influential curators in america," the Chicago art world came up. (surprise surprise) But what we discussed was the desire here in town for people to be petty and ignore important structures.
How often have we all heard, when someone comes up and says, inevitably,
On one level are the not-for-profits: randolph street, NAME. When they were dying many artists didn't care. But no one has stepped up to recreate what they offered. You could see monochromes paintings there, but you could also see Guillermo Gomez Pena perform, and more importantly new commissions or installations could be paid for at some level. Because they didn't have to sell stuff, practices developed on their own terms without a need for turnaround. How many performances have there been since randolph street closed? How Many large-scale projections, performance pieces, or sculptures have local artists attempted? For the most part as you travel the galleries everything is on an obtainable scale, some cynics might say "cash-and-carry" scale, even at the various "alternatives" or "non-galleries." Gone is an outlet for larger, less sustainable, practice. Even with commercial galleries. Every time one closes, at least ten local artists lose the (ever-so-slim0 possibility of living, or being sustained, from their practice. And a couple others lose their jobs. And guess what, we still fiddle while rome burns. And some wrongly enjoy it.
The new art examiner may not be even close to perfect. But starting, maintaining, and doing the legal work required to keep a corporation in motion is much harder than, I dare say, most anyone in this audience is willing to commit to. And if it goes, something important will have been lost that is unlikely to be replaced. Editorial focus can always be altered, new editors hired. If you don't like the writing, you can always offer to do it, assuming your grammar skills are halfway decent. But no action is ever wasted action, unless you are dealing with the city of chicago building permits department, that is a force of physics in and of itself. end of under-theorized soapbox here.
a
Hey
Anthony and othergroup spectators and sometimes participants, Well I'm
glad you bit as it gave me something interesting to chew on while I was
sitting at my job yesterday. Where to begin? Maybe by getting a comfy
chair
- this is probably gonna be really long.
First, speaking more personally and obviously, I like a huge range of stuff, am glad that there are zillion different kinds of venues for art, like a zillion varieties of aesthetic experiences, etc. etc. And judging by the way that Lucy Lippard has jumped all over the place (championing lots of 'next big things' over the course of her writing career) I don't think she was arguing entirely for one thing over all others either. Or maybe she does that when her passion is particularly strong in one area but then she slips into something else a few years later as her interests shift. She's enthusiastically surveyed a lot of different kinds of art that have little to do with one another. Comparing museums and galleries usually is like comparing apples and oranges, but so is comparing Cows on Parade and Culture in Action as a way of figuring out what kind of art the public likes. What other projects like Culture in Action were you thinking about? As far as I know, Chicago has never produced a series of experimental public projects with anything even close to the budget and promo hype that they devoted to Cows on Parade. Culture in Action functioned on a much much smaller scale and was scattered around the city - mostly in areas that are under-served by contemporary art - not the tourist mecca of Michigan avenue. Culture in Action was generally a more low key endeavor (though sometimes no less vital for that). All of the projects were relatively complicated or at least could not be reduced to the "what is your favorite cow?" discourse that was on TV every morning during Cows on Parade. So it was not readily available for free and easy consumption for the segment of the public the city usually addresses with public art (people walking down Michigan avenue). It was less tourist friendly or ostentatious than something like Botero because the projects were generally geared more toward collaborations with city residents. You couldn't take in the art by riding past it on the bus. The work was more demanding in a number of ways. It also had a time-based element that made it harder to 'get' as a casual spectator.
So I can't think of anything the city has tried to do that gave artists the space to operate on a scale as massive as that of Cows on Parade, but within a more experimental and similarly ephemeral framework. If an effort was made to execute things like Culture in Action on a larger scale, who knows what people would like and dislike? Did the people with AIDS like the free herbs they got from HaHa's "Flood" project any less than the people that saw some of the cows? The city got an unpleasant surprise when it found that people that loved the Cows wound up not giving a shit about the Couches. That project was a huge failure. And what happened to the big PR campaign for the
Positive responses get measured in other ways. For example one of the most successful public art works right now is probably the one that few people have any idea was made by one of the city's more socially engaged artists: Dan Peterman. Thousands of people are already dancing on the huge mosaic-like dance floor at 600 S. Michigan that he made from his recycled flooring material. The city has been putting it out there every year. Does it matter that the thing is so well integrated into the lives of thousands of dancers that they have no idea it's art? Again, I don't think you need to know it's art for it to do some of the things art can do. To give the city a little more credit, I do think there is art in putting a standard issue ping pong table in a library. It presents an interesting social situation that wouldn't have been possible without some creative thinking. For more traditional forms, I'll take a really inventive snowman over a Botero any day (much less expensive to make too).
So I think the "real world" mostly doesn't know what it wants from art until it finds something it likes or doesn't like. When they use his dance floor of his huge picnic table, an artist like Dan Peterman becomes a part of the success of outdoor projects like that - and that dancing program is a huge success - tons of people out there all summer. "Critical" or "Socially Engaged" projects can fail or succeed in finding an audience just like the Millie dance or Cows on Parade. What I mainly want is to see a more diverse range of approaches and strategies realized on all sorts of budgets. It is clear that one approach is not more sure-fire than the other given the city's recent track record. All kinds of experiments fail. That's why it's often best to perform them cheaply.
Irregardless of their purpose and function, right now in Chicago (which is not New York) commercial galleries and museums seem to be hurting plenty (just like the economy in general). We were talking about it on the phone the other day - the Art Institute and the MCA are apparently not giving raises to any of their employees this year (including salaried ones) AND the Art Institute has actually taken away about 3 days of paid time off from each employee. So art might be raking in billions in New York but it seems to be taking quite a beating in Chicago.
On the subject of "good riddance" to failed businesses or publications. Since all of these things are small enterprises, it is, on some level, kind of sad to see anyone who is trying to start their own entity like this fail and have to close up. As our world rapidly gets filled with more Starbucks and Borders and Blockbusters, it is disheartening to see how hard it is for many worthy things to merely exist - much less thrive. Here the distinction between small art spaces and small businesses in general seems irrelevant. All of these smaller entities have more interesting and distinct personalities than many of the things that replace them (like chain stores and loftominiums). I suspect, as I think you do, that many people that say
I wish they were still around.' So you think, 'Okay, I want to contribute in some way and what must be wrong is that they didn't have the right brand of machines. I think I'll open a Laundromat and do it the same way and put the business in a storefront in the same neighborhood but I'll get different machines .' So you do that and you are passionate and you are hopeful that this will work but what happens? After a couple years you go out of business just like all the other ones did. Why? Not because everyone likes to wear dirty clothes, but because all the people living in the condos that recently went up in that neighborhood have laudromats in the basements of their buildings. The model that you have chosen for your business is no longer effective. Not enough people wash their clothes like that anymore. Maybe you should have tried to put washing machines in the basements of apartment buildings that don't have them? Many young upstart commercial galleries in Chicago seem to have plenty of financial problems - particularly in the West Loop Gate area. When looking at some of these upstart galleries, I have to ask, where do you draw the line between the sadness of people not caring about art as much as they care about TV and Hollywood, and where do you call into question the arrogance and stubbornness of people who think they can do what very few other contemporary art galleries have been able to do in Chicago and survive? What to make of these people who think they can use a very expensive model that has failed many other people with similar goals over and over again? Did Arena really close because of Enron and Texas oil, or did it close because they pumped more money into a place than this city's current audience for that kind of art could ever possibly support? That place must have cost a fortune to renovate and operate. What were they thinking?!
So ultimately I think the greater problem is that there is a lack of energy to fill in the gaps by inventing new and more easily sustained models. It is disappointing that many worthwhile things can't exist because public favor doesn't jibe with a lot of the culture we value. Part of this is a general problem that it can be very hard to bring people over to things that are new and unfamiliar but that they might deeply value if only they saw them; part of this is a lack of interest on the part of many artists/gallerists in doing the outreach necessary to create new audiences. In the past two years my neighborhood lost two really great underground video rental places: Blast Off and Big Brother. No one in their right mind would open a new video store like that when both of those places failed to compete with Blockbuster, rising rents, and probably other factors I don't know about. Their business models seemed perfectly good to me, but it seems there isn't enough support for the culture they presented. I don't know what the solution to that is but it's really depressing. I will never rent movies from the censoring motherfuckers at Blockbuster. But if I had the ability to save either Arena or Blast Off video, I'd immediately save Blast Off. To me, they were providing better access to a broader range of culture in a more accessible way.
So if you have a magazine that gets a gift of $100,000 and then closes up shop a year later $150,000 in debt, that is certainly disappointing,. I don't know enough about business or the New Art Examiner to know quite what went wrong. New Art Examiner gained the appearance of a vanity magazine, just like the MCA got turned into an entertainment complex with their new building. But can art culture in Chicago really support such a thing or were their expectations misguided? Could Chicago really support a gallery as glamorously overwrought as Arena? I think the MCA was a much better place to think about art in its scrappy old building that far fewer people went to. Back then I thought that museum operated on a scale that seemed more reasonable when weighed against the actual interest in the kind of art they were showing. I thought it was a better experience of the art they showed. I thought the New Art Examiner was a much more interesting and contentious magazine when it was in black and white but had tougher critical writing. Good articles still appeared every now and then, just like good works of art still show up at the MCA, but the overall magazine seemed much weaker despite the facelifts, plastic surgery, etc. My favorite room in the new MCA is probably the performance space. There Peter Taub, who used to help run Randolph Street Gallery, still brings some amazing people to town. And when they turn down the lights, you can almost forget you are at the MCA. The loss of spaces like Randolph Street and NAME is still a huge one. Both were born in a time when there was a lot of funding that no longer exists. That model is probably not one that could or should be replicated because the money to keep them afloat doesn't seem to be there. That sucks. Randolph Street had really great diversity. I didn't like lots of the things I saw there but at least you could count on them for variety and breadth. I've said this over and over again and I'll say it a couple more times: Artists and people that organize exhibits need to create new models for how to get their work out into the world in vital ways so it can find new audiences and bring more people over to their ideas. Doing this doesn't mean replacing things by closing museums and galleries or boycotting them (though I personally don't care much for commercial galleries). For larger ideas that cost a fair amount of money or require vast amounts of space, places like the Hyde Park Art Center or university galleries seem particularly important for that now - especially if you don't want to sink a ton of money and time into developing a rented space that you only have an occasional use for. But there is so much people can do effectively by creating new inexpensive models of exhibiting and new sites for art. I simply don't understand why there is so much resistance to this among so many artists. I interpreted some of Lippard's remarks as a railing against this reluctance to strategise new sites for art which go hand in hand with trying to build new audiences and break out of that cocoon which is our too-small art world. Pooling resources and rethinking where art can be shown could result in more sustainable experimental spaces and practices with a broader reach than apartment and garage shows. Looking for ways to bring your work out of Chicago and into other cities ain't a bad idea either. There are many inexpensive ways of doing that too. That's another thing I (and Temporary Services) are working on constantly. Lots of people in other parts of the country and world are in the same boat. Now is a great time to hook up with these people and create new sites for art and ideas that haven't even been thought of yet.
The Critical Mass show I was a part of (with Temporary Services) looked to me a lot like the kind of show that might have happened at Randolph Street Gallery if it was still around. The aesthetics of the projects in the show were different from most of what I see Chicago galleries and museums supporting right now. Certainly the art in Critical Mass was less dependent on a knowledge of other art than most gallery work I see in this city. I'm not arguing that it's better because its meanings hinge less on a knowledge of recent art history, but I think it is an important difference. I do think the organization of the show featured some important differences in the quantity of input the artists were able to have - such as being able to drag other groups and people into the fold, getting to make decisions about programing, getting to have a larger part in the dialogue about how a show comes together, getting to question the other artists' projects. The large power imbalance that often exists between curators and artists did not exist here. The hierarchies within the museum itself didn't change of course. Little touches like the photocopier in the gallery and the phone hotline connecting visitors with the artists/curators are certainly not normal details. The artists in the show were unusually available for dialogue. Ultimately for me the most important thing about Critical Mass was probably just that we got to realize ideas we care about in the company of artists and curators we greatly respect at a venue that - though problematic in some ways like all spaces - had many extremely positive qualities as well. Lots of really great people on staff, no admission fee, long hours, etc.
Speaking of long hours... Enough for now,
Marc [down]
Well I'm glad you bit as it gave me something interesting to chew on while I was sitting at my job yesterday. Where to begin? Maybe by getting a comfy chair this is probably gonna be really long.
To start an answer, I do believe I warned you that my response was undertheorized, and if i can just point to a couple of spots, perhaps we can keep something in dialogue. But I must add, I'm at an unfair disadvantage here, there you are at your job with six hours to figure out a response and I'm here with a lousy 15-20 minutes. And the implication that you have a comfy chair by your computer, when i have not a comfy chair in site surely puts in a tight (literally) spot.
I don't think she was arguing entirely for one thing over all others either. Or maybe she does that when her passion is particularly strong in one area but then she slips into something else a few years later as her interests shift. She's enthusiastically surveyed a lot of different kinds of art that have little to do with one another. I'm not saying she doesn't like a lot of stuff. And I wasn't implying you are close minded either. I was reacting, as I have been a lot lately, to the moralism impled by her comments. reading the passage again there is a strong moral bend. And that is what constantly gets under my skin with the socially-engaged vs. Objects-on-the-wall-or-the-ground debate. Why can I read about Ellsworth Kelly without having to hear that his position is somehow morally superior to, oh lets say...Agnes martin. But in reading texts by critics, and statements by artists, involving social forms of art I am immediately asked to accept a moral position. Applying morals to objects, socially engaged or not, is slippery indeed. And there often is an unspoken degree that, by extension the artist who created the work is morally on the good side. And we all know that isn't the case. I could bore you with the details of a certain well-known, socially-engaged artist who has used his stature to run around the world bedding young impress ionable co-eds, stealing friends ideas, and sometimes not doing much to actually activate many of his models. So all the moral good of his art "objects" is for nothing. And I won't make the cheap shot of Lippard bringing up Carl Andre in an article with a moral tone. A public art project, no matter how many people it may affect, no matter how popular it becomes, no matter how much free goodwill it engenders is amore moral object than a painting on a wall. Even if it is a horrendous painting. maybe this is because in my interests, and in art that I make (which I do not consider social nor political) I am fascinated by how we are so easy to judge people by their objects. people who read theory are "the academics" bpeople without books are "common dolts" and people for some reason think that the Unabomber's desire to live disconnected from the power grid and make his own bread explains why he was willing to kill people. But I digress. And there are many artists who's work may be perceived as conservative, sta id, and complacent that just sits in galleries who quietly work to promote a more active undercurrent.
omparing museums and galleries usually is like comparing apples and oranges, but so is comparing Cows on Parade and Culture in Action as a way of figuring out what kind of art the public likes. Answer A: well I guess I was projecting from the Lippard where that type of argument goes. Viewing the galleries as the way station for the no less ineffective museums. Maybe that was a touch of jumping the gun. Answer B: I guess I didn't make it clear that I was saying it is futile to compare things like culture in action with the cows. That was my point, and that by extension it is tenous at best to give out "real world" street cred points to projects based on their forms.
What other projects like Culture in Action were you thinking about? There have been others, don't remember the names, though I saw them. What does that tell you about the quality?
As far as I know, Chicago has never produced a series of experimental public projects with anything even close to the budget and promo hype that they devoted to Cows on Parade. Culture in Action functioned on a much much smaller scale and was scattered around the city - mostly in areas that are under-served by contemporary art - not the tourist mecca of Michigan avenue. Culture in Action was generally a more low key endeavor (though sometimes no less vital for that). Well not everything is funded fairly. I know the art institute is spending a helluva lot more on Richter tthan its last show by a contemporary artist. But that doesn't mean Richter doesn't deserve the funding. (which, a personal aside, I hated the J.P. article, but not because he takes Richter to task, rather for his lazy eye and conservative critique. The review in coagula is better, but this is a personal conversation...) I hate the Cows, but have to admit that on one level it was money well spent. If for no other reason than it indirectly allowed Whitewalls's grant to be a little bit bigger the year afterward.
All of the projects were relatively complicated or at least could not be reduced to the "what is your favorite cow?" discourse that was on TV every morning during Cows on Parade. But I don't think that inherently makes it a better project.
Did the people with AIDS like the free herbs they got from HaHa's "Flood" project any less than the people that saw some of the cows? No but that does not equate with a vote for either side.
The city got an unpleasant surprise when it found that people that loved the Cows wound up not giving a shit about the Couches. Well duh, I've got a couch at home, but no livestock.
And what happened to the big PR campaign for the "Millie" dance? Well I remember gary cannone perversely trying to get people to do the "Millie" in Los Angeles.
What I mainly want is to see a more diverse range of approaches and strategies realized on all sorts of budgets. Agreed.
That's why it's often best to perform them cheaply. Well there I strongly disagree. Better than nothing, but not necessarily better. Not that you always need a budget. But doing something on a large scale creates something that cannot be replicated on a small budget, even if the large-scale item becomes a box office failure. Sometimes cheap just looks cheap. And I'm sorry, but I do believe dispensing with formalities would be better with a 10,000 budget. its not good because its cheap, it is good you can do it for cheap, but it could be more. (once again, not said because I don't like the project) Irregardless of their purpose and function, right now in Chicago (which is not New York) commercial galleries and museums seem to be hurting plenty (just like the economy in general). We were talking about it on the phone the other day - the Art Institute and the MCA are apparently not giving raises to any of their employees this year (including salaried ones) AND the Art Institute has actually taken away about 3 days of paid time off from each employee. So art might be raking in billions in New York but it seems to be taking quite a beating in Chicago. No obviously the Chicago artworld is not New York. But maybe because the market is smaller here it is easy to put on opposite sides of the see-saw "the real world" and "the art world" I was making it a base level argument, ya know, dollars and cents are the same everywhere. But to take it further I cannot with good conscience say things that only deal with aesthetics, or, horror of all horrors, other artworks, are any less engaged with this mythical "real world" that i seem not to be a part of.
After a couple years you go out of business just like all the other ones did. Why? Not because everyone likes to wear dirty clothes, but because all the people living in the condos that recently went up in that neighborhood have laudromats in the basements of their buildings. The model that you have chosen for your business is no longer effective. Not enough people wash their clothes like that anymore. Maybe you should have tried to put washing machines in the basements of apartment buildings that don't have them? So to play devil's advocate, if it can't be supported by the capitalist, free-market ideology it is expendable? there is no value to running things, like randolph Street, or an Art magazine, that cannot, and can never be, because of their core structure and mission, keep more money coming in than going out? and where do you call into question the arrogance and stubbornness of people who think they can do what very few other contemporary art galleries have been able to do in Chicago and survive? What to make of these people who think they can use a very expensive model that has failed many other people with similar goals over and over again? Well there is a right way, and a wrong way. But regardless of that, Chicago does need these expensive models of galleries. And the Artworld here will suffer until we have people who will stick with that model arrogant or not. All the
But if I had the ability to save either Arena or Blast Off video, I'd immediately save Blast Off. To me, they were providing better access to a broader range of culture in a more accessible way. See that, is the kind of comment that gets under my skin. I hated Arena, but I refuse to think it is better to have blast Off than Arena. Why either/or? You need both.
The loss of spaces like Randolph Street and NAME is still a huge one. Both were born in a time when there was a lot of funding that no longer exists. That model is probably not one that could or should be replicated because the money to keep them afloat doesn't seem to be there. There I disagree, its a lack of will. Spaces like that exist, still, all over this country. Its easier and more short-term rewarding to have a show in an apartment, or an old storefront, or a parking lot, or have a beer tasting even. But the difference, and why I support the "arrogance of starting an expensive model gallery, why I will support something like the NAE (devoid of bogging down on content issues) and think not-profits like randolph street need to be engaged again, is they create a level of commitment, that is extremly palpable as a viewer, on the part of those engaged that cannot be replicated in these other models.
The Critical Mass show I was a part of (with Temporary Services) looked to me a lot like the kind of show that might have happened at Randolph Street Gallery if it was still around. Agreed.
Certainly the art in Critical Mass was less dependent on a knowledge of other art than most gallery work I see in this city. Now there I disagree. It requires a level of knowledge about the change of art issues to an equal degree that any other show. does. When a great deal of the general public has 19th century ideals of art (not just in how it looks, but notions of beauty, sublime, ecstatic emotion, expression, etc.) it doesn't matter if you have a green piece of aluminum on the wall, or a picture cut out of national geographic, you have to make that jump from the 19th century to where you are. And to imply lots of people do that with work that engages the real world, any more than they do with art about art I think is incorrect.
And to continue. I think an equal number of people "misunderstand" temp. serv. type projects as do monchromes, or conceptual art, or whatever. Those misunderstanding do not prevent them having an engaged reaction to the piece. Misunderstandings are not bad. You don't have to know what a barnett newman is about to like it, but yes it does help. But it helps for me to know plumbing before I take apart my bathroom. My experience may turn out ok even if I know nothing about plumbing. or I may get wet, angry and bewildered. its the risk you take opening the door.
I do think the organization of the show featured some important differences in the quantity of input the artists were able to have - such as being able to drag other groups and people into the fold, getting to make decisions about programing, getting to have a larger part in the dialogue about how a show comes together, getting to question the other artists' projects. Well I've seen other shows at other institutions, some large, that functioned on a similar plane, but weren't about "social activism" I think that process was more a result of the people involved, and the people organizing. I take this as a result of the fact that they (you) did it right, where so many do it wrong, rather than a process that happens in this vs. that kind of art.
Ultimately for me the most important thing about Critical Mass was probably just that we got to realize ideas we care about in the company of artists and curators we greatly respect at a venue that - though problematic in some ways like all spaces - had many extremely positive qualities as well. Wel see I also would like, if on occasion, and to your credit, trhough the body of the e-mail you did make reference to this fact in others. When discussions of this kind come up, it is always "the institutions" that have problems, as if the people who engage with the institutions are problem free. The world isn't good, jolly prancing artists under constant attack from the mean evil magazines, museums, galleries and publics. We've got loads o problems ourselves.
First of all, if this continues to remain solely an exchange/debate between Anthony and I, then we may as well just pick up the phone and call each other like we usually do when we wanna talk. But if this is truly entertaining or useful to people who are reading but not participating, then I guess both of us can continue our off the cuff ramblings from our comfy or uncomfy chairs. there you are at your job with six hours to figure out a response and I'm here with a lousy 15-20 minutes. C'mon, just reading all of this takes 15-20 minutes in and of itself! The six hours is the sitting in the comfy chair at work. The rest is sitting in the relatively uncomfortable chair at home.
Applying morals to objects, socially engaged or not, is slippery indeed. And there often is an unspoken degree that, by extension the artist who created the work is morally on the good side. And we all know that isn't the case. I could bore you with the details of a certain well-known, socially-engaged artist who has used his stature to run around the world bedding young impress ionable co-eds, stealing friends ideas, and sometimes not doing much to actually activate many of his models. So all the moral good of his art
Crossed my mind of course but Lippard wrote that article about 8 years before Carl Andre's... ahem..."accident" involving Anna Mendieta (R.I.P.). First off, I don't really think of my work (or Temporary Services' work for that matter) as morally prescriptive and as you well know, much of my favorite art/music/film/writing comes from the most dubious of moral positions.
This is perhaps moving a little more into the area of ethics. I am more concerned with ethics (as is Temporary Services) than morals. A philosopher might want to weigh in here but I think you can make morally problematic work and still be an ethical person. Many artists seek to create the greatest possible continuity between their art and their lives. I do, at least. So if you claim to make ethically-responsible art and are a horribly unethical person, then I think this is a problematic contradiction. All of us are human and subject to human failings but I agree that there are some intensely fraudulent people out there who are selling one set of values and ethics but living another. To use the academic jargon for just a moment: this is Fucked Up! Ethical responsibility is an unfashionable thing to talk about in the arts. Lots of art that is not explicitly about ethics poses lots of ethical problems which do not get discussed. This includes plenty of formalists whose work should be given this kind of attention, as well as more obviously ethically engaged art. If you knowingly and wantonly use mountains of poisonous materials and dispose of them carelessly while trying to get a certain painterly or sculptural effect in your formalist work, your work should probably be subject to a little ethical analysis even if that is not the most explicit subject of your art or its intended subject. There is an inconsistency when we can talk about the sketchy ethics of Richard Avedon's "In the American West" photos but not the ethics of a recklessly destructive art project with a formalist bent.
maybe this is because in my interests, and in art that I make (which I do not consider social nor political) I am fascinated by how we are so easy to judge people by their objects. Again, if the objects people make or the thinking they do in their work are largely continuous with their lives, I think it becomes hard to separate an artist from his or her work. I don't really make much of a distinction between when I'm working on art and when I'm not. This discussion feels like just another extension of my practice. Most artists don't punch a time clock - they think about their work all the time. They look at the world through the filter of their practice. I beat this point to death once before on this listserv and I still believe that once you put your art out into the world you are participating in a social and politicized situation. Doesn't mean you are campaigning for a particular issue or being an activist, but I think by making something that shows your point of view and interpretation of the world you live in (whether that object is minimalist, nonsensical, expressionist, etc.) you are initiating something - you are making a small effort to shape the world you live in by asking it to look at your ideas.
Where you exhibit your work, where you distribute Whitewalls, who prints it, who gets included in each issue, who you include when you curate a show or write criticism - don't any of these things matter or mean something? I think they mean a lot. All of the aesthetic decisions a person makes in their life leave them open to judgment - from home decorating and the clothes you wear to the art you make and the journals you publish. It's all revealing. It's all socially and politically relevant - even if just on a tiny scale.
And there are many artists who's work may be perceived as conservative, sta id, and complacent that just sits in galleries who quietly work to promote a more active undercurrent. I agree - just more ways of being in the world as an artist. Tons of ways to do it.
complicated or at least could not be reduced to the "what is your favorite cow?" discourse that was on TV every morning during Cows on Parade. But I don't think that inherently makes it a better project. Right. All I really meant was that how you measure success or what the measure of success is can vary enormously.
That's why it's often best to perform them cheaply. Well there I strongly disagree. Better than nothing, but not necessarily better. Not that you always need a budget. But doing something on a large scale creates something that cannot be replicated on a small budget, even if the large-scale item becomes a box office failure. Sometimes cheap just looks cheap. And I'm sorry, but I do believe dispensing with formalities would be better with a 10,000 budget. its not good because its cheap, it is good you can do it for cheap, but it could be more. (once again, not said because I don't like the project) I guess my bias is not so much in favor of cheap art, as for art which is accomplished within a reasonable means and does not flaunt or always demand excessive production expenses. For myself I generally like to try things out that don't cost a ton of money. I'm frugal and I am somewhat distrustful of art that can only be realized for outrageous sums of money. I don't know what my budget ceiling is for the production of a single object but I'm deeply skeptical of this million dollar plus Anish Kapoor sculpture we are getting for Grant Park. That seems absolutely outrageous - like a big Faberge egg where the cost of the materials and process seem to start doing the bulk of the work in generating the art's effect and meaning. When I feel this happening I usually lose interest fast. The high cost of making something doesn't impress me and I do think it is sometimes meant to impress. One of the great things Randolph Street Gallery did was create a grant program where artists could draw from RSG's own grants to get funding for guerilla public art projects and other things that are hard to fund. That was a great idea - this grant within a grant way of distributing assistance. cannot with good conscience say things that only deal with aesthetics, or, horror of all horrors, other artworks, are any less engaged with this mythical "real world" that i seem not to be a part of. I think everything is inextricably engaged with aesthetics and the real world. I don't think I've ever argued otherwise, but god who knows with all this rambling? I just think some objects and exhibitions help viewers to make connections more clearly than others. Some people provide a lot of tools, some people provide just a few tools.
So to play devil's advocate, if it can't be supported by the capitalist, free-market ideology it is expendable? there is no value to running things, like randolph Street, or an Art magazine, that cannot, and can never be, because of their core structure and mission, keep more money coming in than going out? What irks me is not that people lose some money running galleries or magazines. Certainly most of what I do happens at a loss or breaks even but does not do too much better than that. I have no problem using personal income to supplement money-losing art projects. I think it's worth it. It gives me a lot of pleasure and excitement in my life. What irks me is when someone stubbornly presents the facade of great wealth and resources while actually operating at a massive loss. It feels dishonest. It is one thing to have a $12,000 budget and come away losing $2,000 that gets split several ways. It is another thing to have say a $500,000 budget and come away losing $100,000. Most money-losing commercial galleries try to look like they are wealthy to create an air of power and importance around the art that they sell. Often that power proves to be completely false. If you can sustain your practice with a modest loss I think that's fine. If you are having fun and having incredible experiences it's probably no big deal. Most artists supplement their art with some other form of work. But I like disclosure and honesty - particularly if I am being hit up for money in letters and emails. I also think it is unhealthy to keep asking for more money or more donations of resources from people while operating with an inflexible and vastly money-losing economic structure. If you want to keep asking for help because you are perpetually close to going under or consistently in massive debt, you might also have to look a little more deeply within and start to modify your practice so that it stops losing such a huge amount of money and instead loses just a little and a more manageable amount of money. I'd be kind of pissed off if you kept asking me to donate art for Whitewalls' auctions (which I always happily do) and then you went ahead and printed every copy of the journal with leather binding and wound up $50,000 in debt and started making desperate pleas for money because you did something that way beyond your limits. But I think you know your limits and seem to stay well within them. Most people probably do.
But regardless of that, Chicago does need these expensive models of galleries. And the Artworld here will suffer until we have people who will stick with that model arrogant or not. All the "stray" spaces and apartment shows, and temporary services in the world cannot do what a large, expensive model gallery can do for the art scene. I completely disagree but I'm not sure what aspects of these spaces (or which ones) you think are this important. Can you explain this?
There I disagree, its a lack of will. Spaces like that exist, still, all over this country. Its easier and more short-term rewarding to have a show in an apartment, or an old storefront, or a parking lot, or have a beer tasting even. But the difference, and why I support the "arrogance of starting an expensive model gallery, why I will support something like the NAE (devoid of bogging down on content issues) and think not-profits like randolph street need to be engaged again, is they create a level of commitment, that is extremly palpable as a viewer, on the part of those engaged that cannot be replicated in these other models. I disagree with this too. Many upstart efforts are half-assed but that need not be the case and you need not spend a ton of money to create projects that are effective and rewarding in a long-term way. For example The Library Project that Temporary Services did where we surreptitiously added 100 books by artists to Harold Washington's collection has been going on for well over a year now because it is self-sustaining. About half of the books are still there and a bunch of them have actually been cataloged by the collection and are circulating. Some people wanted to check them out and the steps we took made it possible that they were able to. This project cost very little to organize. It succeeds not because of money but because of a commitment to looking closely at a situation, figuring out how to test what it could accommodate, and being meticulous about every detail so that it stood a better chance of 'working.' It took about a year to organize and was by no means easy. If in a year you do 10 projects in a gallery space, or a couple issues of a journal or magazine, how does that show a more palpable level of commitment than doing 10 projects all over the place, in a variety of situations, with dozens of people - in and outside of Chicago? Does one have to have a lease to show a palpable level of commitment? Having a rich and vast website that you regularly update shows a palpable level of commitment that is visible. There are many ways to have a presence. Of course this is in no way an argument against Randolph Street or not-for-profits. If someone can figure out a way to revive old spaces like that or start new ones that's great. It's not the road I'd take as an organizer but I'd be happy to see it happen.
Certainly the art in Critical Mass was less dependent on a knowledge of
other art than most gallery work I see in this city. Now there I disagree.
It requires a level of knowledge about the change of art issues to an
equal degree that any other show. does. When a great deal of the general
public has 19th century ideals of art (not just in how it looks, but
notions of beauty, sublime, ecstatic emotion, expression, etc.) it doesn't
matter if you have a green piece of aluminum on the wall, or a picture cut
out of national geographic, you have to make that jump from the 19th
century to where you are. And to imply lots of people do that with work
that engages the real world, any more than they do with art about art I
think is incorrect. People make some kind of meaning from everything.
Whether they grasp the basic ideas that interest an artist varies widely.
I prefer to be understood on at least some basic levels (with plenty of
room for interpretation) and part of trying to create understanding is
presenting things in a way that gives people a fair chance - that presents
enough work to show a fairly cogent point of view. When I have worked with
found photos from books and magazines I often have found that people with
less of an art background have a better understanding of the work than
artists because art audiences are often more hung up on how something fits
into an art historical trajectory. Right away people with no art education
often start making the kind of associations between images that I (or Temp
Serv) intend. They often slide right into their readings of those images
without getting hung up on whether the work qualifies as a collage or not.
That has been my experience in that type of work - this work that
redirects the meanings of printed ephemera. I saw this in Mexico when I
couldn't communicate very well with words but was instead dependent on
images. I find that more people get hung up when you say it's art then
when they can look and tell you what they see and what ideas they can
extract. The disadvantage of being in museum show is that the museum gives
the work the official title of Art and creates a different set of
expectations. Too bad about that. It might have helped a little more if it
was just called "The Smart Museum of Stuff." My experience
- with my
own work and the with the type of collaborative work we showed - is that
most people including children are very good at making associations
between found images. I have seen this over and over again in different
countries, in galleries, in a museum, and in public projects.
Marc
hello, marc,anthony et al
First of all, if this continues to remain solely an exchange/debate between Anthony and I, then we may as well just pick up the phone and call each other like we usually do when we wanna talk. But if this is truly entertaining or useful to people who are reading but not participating i'll admit off the bat that i'm a little intimdated by the depth of this discussion, it has caught me unawares and while reeling i guess i 'm trying to put together suitable response. therefore i'll apologise for simplistic or peripatetic remarks.
Applying morals to objects, socially engaged or not, is slippery indeed. quite. my first thoughts are to weapons. as objects they remain innocent until taken up and pressed into service. then they become a force for change. change of matter, change of state, living to dead, healthy to infirm. the hatchet is buried only to resurface in the hands of academia who scour it's edges and through it interpret the past. historians and politicians listen carefully and sieze these documents to serve an agenda, the sword is forged anew and battle is not far behind. the industry that lies behind the production of these objects is ubitquitous and flows through huge portions of a national economy. it is impossible to divest one's existance wholly from this trade. in terms of self defence most folks would argue that the sword is a pre-requisiste to independance. history suggests that the powerful nieghbor will eventually seek to impose their will on the weaker or perhjaps pacifist state. as the industrious nation grows so the resources it has grown dependant on are depleted and the governors look abroad to new pastures. but all this is fair play. most of the time we make this assumption that somehow we are against this political system. that it is somehow wrong and something must be done. artists seem to be palced in one camp or the other. either we accept the gallery/museum system or we work outside of it. contingent upon accepting the gallery system is tacit acknowledgement that art is produced as prestige capital for consumption by an elite whose position is guaranteed by military might. therefore anything that is produced for that system ultimately is advanced by their morals/ethics and serves as representations of it. in the same way that we use art historical references to explain and intepret our ancestors and their actions. And there often is an unspoken degree that, by extension the artist who created the work is morally on the good side. is this an episode of star wars? how exactly do we define good from bad.? what criteria will you present to make this distinction. i recall from benjamin that "history is written by the winners" so then goodness is srcibed by the pure/?
All of us are human and subject to human failings but I agree that there are some intensely fraudulent people out there who are selling one set of values and ethics but living another. To use the academic jargon for just a moment: this is Fucked Up! right. and imade a point about entertainment. which got dusted under the carpet. the discussion centred around art as entertainment. to which i take issue. the entertainment industry does a great job of sprinkling sugar on dog-shit.
Ethical responsibility is an unfashionable thing to talk about in the arts. Lots of art that is not explicitly about ethics poses lots of ethical problems which do not get discussed. .... There is an inconsistency when we can talk about the sketchy ethics of Richard Avedon's "In the American West" photos but not the ethics of a recklessly destructive art project with a formalist bent. right again. but why should the arts industry be exempted from the same ethical analysis as the chemical industry or the oil companies?
What irks me is not that people lose some money running galleries or magazines. Certainly most of what I do happens at a loss or breaks even but does not do too much better than that. I have no problem using personal income to supplement money-losing art projects. I think it's worth it. It gives me a lot of pleasure and excitement in my life. What irks me is when someone stubbornly presents the facade of great wealth and resources while actually operating at a massive loss. It feels dishonest. but doesn't the system requireb this kind of operation to exist so that there can be clkear winners and losers to gossip about?
But regardless of that, Chicago does need these expensive models of galleries. And the Artworld here will suffer until we have people who will stick with that model arrogant or not. All the "stray" spaces and apartment shows, and temporary services in the world cannot do what a large, expensive model gallery can do for the art scene. I completely disagree but I'm not sure what aspects of these spaces (or which ones) you think are this important. Can you explain this? not now,.
There I disagree, its a lack of will. Spaces like that exist, still, all over this country. Its easier and more short-term rewarding to have a show in an apartment, or an old storefront, or a parking lot, or have a beer tasting even. But the difference, and why I support the "arrogance of starting an expensive model gallery, why I will support something like the NAE (devoid of bogging down on content issues) and think not-profits like randolph street need to be engaged again, is they create a level of commitment, that is extremly palpable as a viewer, on the part of those engaged that cannot be replicated in these other models. I disagree with this too. Many upstart efforts are half-assed but that need not be the case and you need not spend a ton of money to create projects that are effective and rewarding in a long-term way. i stick to this "fail again fail better"
If in a year you do 10 projects in a gallery space, or a couple issues of a journal or magazine, how does that show a more palpable level of commitment than doing 10 projects all over the place, in a variety of situations, with dozens of people - in and outside of Chicago? Does one have to have a lease to show a palpable level of commitment? Having a rich and vast website that you regularly update shows a palpable level of commitment that is visible. There are many ways to have a presence. Of course this is in no way an argument against Randolph Street or not-for-profits. If someone can figure out a way to revive old spaces like that or start new ones that's great. It's not the road I'd take as an organizer but I'd be happy to see it happen.
Certainly the art in Critical Mass was less dependent on a knowledge of other art than most gallery work I see in this city. Now there I disagree. It requires a level of knowledge about the change of art issues to an equal degree that any other show. does. When a great deal of the general public has 19th century ideals of art (not just in how it looks, but notions of beauty, sublime, ecstatic emotion, expression, etc.) it doesn't matter if you have a green piece of aluminum on the wall, or a picture cut out of national geographic, you have to make that jump from the 19th century to where you are. And to imply lots of people do that with work that engages the real world, any more than they do with art about art I think s incorrect.
. right now i have nothing further to add to this discssion I offer my head to the basket.
tom
Hello Tom, Anthony, et al.
i'll apologise for simplistic or peripatetic remarks. Well, we've already apologized for undertheorized off the cuff remarks written in uncomfortable chairs so to use the academic jargon once again for just a moment: It's all Good, Man!
For the record, I don't know Tom so although we are still within the possibilities of a 3-way conference call, this has at least opened up a little.
contingent upon accepting the gallery system is tacit acknowledgement that art is produced as prestige capital for consumption by an elite whose position is guaranteed by military might. therefore anything that is produced for that system ultimately is advanced by their morals/ethics and serves as representations of it. Agreed. That's partly why I prefer to work outside of that commercial gallery system.
right again. but why should the arts industry be exempted from the same ethical analysis as the chemical industry or the oil companies? The arts should NOT be exempted. I'm really glad you connected that. This is what I mean. I view the art world as continuous with the rest of the world but I think many artists and gallerists work in a way where they actively attempt to isolate themselves (in that cocoon, again) so that they don't have to be as accountable for what they make or show - except primarily to other artists/artworld people who 'speak their language.' It's no secret that artists tolerate a lot of truly demented and fucked up art and behavior that many people outside of those scenes would get completely up in arms about if only they knew. I'd like to see everything opened up in all ways. If it puts me in an uncomfortable position, that's healthy, because it's good to be challenged. We all grow from these challenges. As I've alluded before, I think that sometimes an interesting way to help things open up is to stop worrying about what art is or isn't or how it has been defined historically. There are ways to make and show art that allow you to engage people in a thoughtful dialogue about a lot of subjects other than art history. I have no problem talking about art but I suspect most artists would really like to hear discussion of their work that is about something different than the different varieties of art that their work is more or less like. Speaking personally, I love it when someone is able to take the things I make or the shows/projects that I help organize and can start to discuss them in relation to a whole host things that go well beyond the fact that they were generated by a person with an art education. If you think your work has implications for a range of people larger than a small tightly knit local art scene or a range of subjects larger than art history, then you hope to see it received and discussed in a way that deals with those broader implications. It is really exciting when that happens.
facade of great wealth and resources while actually operating at a massive loss. It feels dishonest. but doesn't the system requireb this kind of operation to exist so that there can be clkear winners and losers to gossip about? I know you are probably joking a little at the end here, but I prefer a non-competitive model of operations where people work together with the people they want to work with, collaborate on things, respond to invitations (sometimes having to submit proposals where you may or may not get accepted, so that's a little competitive), help your friends, and basically do what you can to support the work you care about while others try to support the work they care about. It is a happy day as an artist (for this artist at least) when you realize you don't have to send slides around to commercial galleries and wait for them to determine your fate, or that if you do propose something to a space, it's not the end of the world if you don't get it because there are a million other ways of working that are equally pertinent, necessary, and relevant. Because I like working in all kinds of different sites and places which all have their own strengths and challenges, I don't see one place as the golden winner's circle and another as the dirty loser's hut. All kinds of places and models are interesting to present ideas in for different reasons.
right now i have nothing further to add to this discssion I offer my head to the basket. Don't worry - the only sword or hatchet I have access to is the metaphorical one you used at the beginning of your email. There will be no decapitations in Chicago until July 11th, when - as I reminded everyone before - the warriors from the metal band High on Fire come to Chicago to slay us all.
Marc
Well, we've already apologized for undertheorized off the cuff remarks written in uncomfortable chairs so to use the academic jargon once again for just a moment: It's all Good, Man! For the record, I don't know Tom so although we are still within the possibilities of a 3-way conference call, this has at least opened up a little. me neither, but welcome.
C'mon, just reading all of this takes 15-20 minutes in and of itself! I guess I think and type fast. what can I say? But I must confess, this email took 30 minutes.
This is perhaps moving a little more into the area of ethics. Correct. Which is why Lippard, in all her writing actually, continues to bug me. (to take a long trip aside, her books on travel have corn kernels of truth buried in highly condescending turds of morality.)
Ethical responsibility is an unfashionable thing to talk about in the arts. But I am always at a quandary, those who tend to have a desire for ethical responsibility, do it with a smile on their lips and a knife in their hand.
This includes plenty of formalists whose work should be given this kind of attention, as well as more obviously ethically engaged art. If you knowingly and wantonly use mountains of poisonous materials and dispose of them carelessly while trying to get a certain painterly or sculptural effect in your formalist work, your work should probably be subject to a little ethical analysis even if that is not the most explicit subject of your art or its intended subject. Well, a touch, we have seen this happen with serra, and Christo, and others on occasion. But who's ethics are we talking? I don't think everyone should live by my ethical code, and I don't want to threaten the environment or others with my art, but if someone wants to use gallons of turpentine for a painting, well...that's not a lot different from chopping up hundreds of trees for books or booklets. There are ethics, and petty ethics, and very little formal art poses such an ethical risk that its a negligible discussion at best most of the time.
an inconsistency when we can talk about the sketchy ethics of Richard Avedon's "In the American West" photos but not the ethics of a recklessly destructive art project with a formalist bent. I would need to know an example of a "recklessly destructive art project with a formalist bent" before I can even think about this. And try to pick something that doesn't kill anything (no serra, christo, nitsch, or andre) since Avedon didn't.
Most artists don't punch a time clock - they think about their work all the time. They look at the world through the filter of their practice. But that is a lot different from judging people by their work. Many people I enjoy, quite a bit making boring art, I don't like them less for it. It puts me in awkward positions occasionally, but that's it. I may be deeply involved in what I do, and yes you can judge my beliefs/thoughts through my art/writings, but that does not mean you know a thing about how I live or behave on my "off-hours." And I do not expect to be judged, personally as a living being, due to a tiny number of inanimate objects laying around the world.
Where you exhibit your work, where you distribute Whitewalls, who prints it, who gets included in each issue, who you include when you curate a show or write criticism - don't any of these things matter or mean something? Yes, but also there is the "real world." and two sayings I believe: "there's always some killing to do on a farm." and "throw a rock in the air and you'll hit someone guilty." These phrases have been around for more than a hundred years for a reason. You compromise the second you walk out the door. I do not do any of these actions in a vacuum. I need others. I do not always agree with the others. And sometimes you deal with a little shit on your shoes. SO I think there is some level of disconnect. Ellsworth Kelly is not necessarily an aloof bore just because he makes the work he does, and shows at the galleries he shows with. (man, I dislike his work but he is such a good example) I am sure he is a well rounded (as opposed to arched) individual. And I bet he cares about more than primary & secondary colors and aluminum.
I guess my bias is not so much in favor of cheap art, as for art which is accomplished within a reasonable means and does not flaunt or always demand excessive production expenses. No no problem. My point was the absurd one that, for example, if your dof booklets had been offset printed instead of copied, they would've been a nicer object. If my brochure had been two-color printed on a shinny cardstock it would have functioned in a manner closer to what I envisioned, but I didn't have the 1000+ to plunk down. Dof isn't bad, and does what it does well, but also fails where your/brett's and my limits are. (and to wrap things in tidy, yet troubled, baskets) that is why temp serv. will never be able to replicate or replace what a not-for-profit, or commissioning sort of entity will be able to provide. And once again, that doesn't make temp. se rv. worse. just a different beast that hasn't been to the groomer as often as, oh lets say... (what not-for-profits are left anymore...fill in blank)
I'm frugal and I am somewhat distrustful of art that can only be realized for outrageous sums of money. But that's your taste, I don't look down on someone because they have expensive taste. You want to spend 300000 on an art project? If you can, be my guest.
I but I'm deeply skeptical of this million dollar plus Anish Kapoor sculpture we are getting for Grant Park. That seems absolutely outrageous - like a big Faberge egg where the cost of the materials and process seem to start doing the bulk of the work in generating the art's effect and meaning. Well, that's why its formal art.
The high cost of making something doesn't impress me and I do think it is sometimes meant to impress. It doesn't impress me, but some things can "look impressive" but I think that has more to do with scale and all. The high cost does not immediately turn me off. That's for the finished work to do.
I just think some objects and exhibitions help viewers to make connections more clearly than others. Some people provide a lot of tools, some people provide just a few tools. I agree, but I don't think it comes down to "being about the real world" equals more open for an audience than "being about other art" Nor do I think being difficult and nearly impossible to grasp are automatically worse.
I'd be kind of pissed off if you kept asking me to donate art for Whitewalls' auctions (which I always happily do) and then you went ahead and printed every copy of the journal with leather binding and wound up $50,000 in debt and started making desperate pleas for money because you did something that way beyond your limits. I don't think you'd be alone. But I also think sometimes people make mistakes, and need to be cut a little slack, and I'm more cautious of affixing blame when I do not have all the insider scoop. Warning, long cut-n-paste quote ahead.
There I disagree, its a lack of will. Spaces like that exist, still, all over this country. Its easier and more short-term rewarding to have a show in an apartment, or an old storefront, or a parking lot, or have a beer tasting even. But the difference, and why I support the "arrogance of starting an expensive model gallery, why I will support something like the NAE (devoid of bogging down on content issues) and think not-profits like randolph street need to be engaged again, is they create a level of commitment, that is extremly palpable as a viewer, on the part of those engaged that cannot be replicated in these other models.
I disagree with this too. Many upstart efforts are half-assed but that need not be the case and you need not spend a ton of money to create projects that are effective and rewarding in a long-term way. For example The Library Project that Temporary Services did where we surreptitiously added 100 books by artists to Harold Washington's collection has been going on for well over a year now because it is self-sustaining. About half of the books are still there and a bunch of them have actually been cataloged by the collection and are circulating. Some people wanted to check them out and the steps we took made it possible that they were able to. This project cost very little to organize. It succeeds not because of money but because of a commitment to looking closely at a situation, figuring out how to test what it could accommodate, and being meticulous about every detail so that it stood a better chance of 'working.' It took about a year to organize and was by no means easy. If in a year you do 10 projects in a gallery space, or a couple issues of a journal or magazine, how does that show a more palpable level of commitment than doing 10 projects all over the place, in a variety of situations, with dozens of people - in and outside of Chicago? Does one have to have a lease to show a palpable level of commitment? Having a rich and vast website that you regularly update shows a palpable level of commitment that is visible. There are many ways to have a presence. Maybe palpable wasn't the right term, and I'm still looking for that term. But I wasn't dissing apartment shows, or alternative galleries, or things like the library project. Like has been said, the artworld isn't only galleries, isn't only public guerilla art. Maybe it could be only public gorilla art, but that is really hard to sustain. Anyway, The art world, one usually comes to this world, like one does to any social scene, from a gateway.
1. Spaces like this, that are very easy to find because they advertise in big magazines, are open on the more expensive streets etc. Are markers, to let people know "culture exists here." and it is reasonable that if you go to these locales and hang out a while, you are going to meet the people involved and find the more nook-n-crannies stuff. Also because places like this tend to advertise etc. the play apart in bring future residents, future artists, and just plain curious outsiders to town to check it out. This creates a very viable interactive community with little effort exhibited, and it happens by accident. I sure know Chicago looked more attractive than some places I could have considered because from out of town I could identify a handful of galleries, spaces, and bands that made me think, I should check that out. Without these public spaces, that doesn't get seen. people don't necessarily come.
2. Not to say temp serv is worse, and yes I know you and brett are really dedicated, but in all honesty, tomorrow if you two decided you were poor and hated each other's guts, you could pack it in, throw in the towel and never do another project. And the same for people doing things in their apartments or on a two week specially rented or taken over space etc. When you have an incorporated entity, a lease, employees, a bank account, legal papers (in the case of a not-for-profit, a board) you tend to at least cursorily attempt to sweat out the bad times before you pack it in. You know this thing is a solid structure, even if it may have a fatal foundation. And someone will be responsible to that structure.
3. And I respect that someone says: I think this scene is good enough, this market is good enough. these artists are good enough. whatever it is they say and decide to get in over their head and do something that seems really wrong, but wants to make that work. That they decide to take it to what has been chosen as "the industry standard"
4. Division of labor. On one level, I will admit, the fact you choose to show your own work through temp services bugs me. And many others do the same. I like that the more formal a structure, the more likely that the people who run it are not going to show their own art, or show their girlfriends, or that at least with not-for-profits there are strict by-laws against this. Now true, sometimes positions are compromised in the
I find that more people get hung up when you say it's art then when they can look and tell you what they see and what ideas they can extract. Perhaps this is true, but on one level so what, you just present things enough to try and acclimate people, or give them the info to deal with it. And I have seen case, such as working at the mca where some visitors liked dan peterman's benches till they found out it was an artwork. You can't explain it, you can try to talk to them, but being related in some 1=1 level with the social world does not necessarily make a project more open than another. Even in the best of cases. And I guess on one level the whole idea of
The disadvantage of being in museum show is that the museum gives the work the official title of Art and creates a different set of expectations. Well, but you guys always send your invites to the art world, pull most your projects from the artworld. get most your accolades from the art world. The stuff was art before it even got into the smart. We are a culture that names things.
My experience - with my own work and the with the type of collaborative work we showed - is that most people including children are very good at making associations between found images. I have seen this over and over again in different countries, in galleries, in a museum, and in public projects. yeah and I have witnessed hundreds of cases of "art world outsiders" the "common man" coming in and being blown away by the most austere cryptic formal stuff. Maybe they didn't get it, but they liked it. I think kids consistently enjoyed the mca more than many of their parents. Kids are inquisitive.
contingent upon accepting the gallery system is tacit acknowledgement that art is produced as prestige capital for consumption by an elite whose position is guaranteed by military might. therefore anything that is produced for that system ultimately is advanced by their morals/ethics and serves as representations of it. Agreed. That's partly why I prefer to work outside of that commercial gallery system. I'm sorry, no disrespect but I find this view to be first-year undergrad bullshit politics at best. And utterly wrong. Not to mention, if this is so, I do not ever want see either of you in a commercial gallery again. Let's all recite the old mantra "the world isn't all black and white." By this rationale, the fact I pay takes, stop at red lights, own property, vote and don't disrupt my neighbors I am part of the political system and defend the morals/ethics of the political/military complex. C'mon. I do these activities not to defend the status quo, but to be a member of a multi-varied society, and to have a say, no matter how much inferior, just like those in power. So that I cannot be dismissed in the way a criminal, or a noncitzen can. The old phrase "biting the hand that feeds you." And marc, you support of this undermines your stated openness that "there is more than one way to be an artist in the world." Because you have just determined that all those gallery artists are for the side of power. I accept government funds for WhiteWalls, I play by there rules. But I also view it as: I can waste government money just as easy as Daley, or Rumsfeld, or whoever. I may be wasting a lot less money, with a lot less repercussions, but I think I do it pretty well. This is, on one level the theory behind "public museums." Galleries have connections to not-for-profits to an almost equal degree that they have connections to power. It is an ongoing fight, and checking the scorecard power may have a lead, but has not yet won. Let me try an absurd, very undercooked (thank heavens this isn't chicken) comparison case study. Anyone who knows me knows I love the unabomber (no not his actions, but as an intriguing study of one persons actions, and society's responses.) he hated environmental policy/energy policy/scientific advances and government actions. He decided to go move to the woods and remove himself from these influences, use a generator, make as much of his own stuff as possible. So far so good. Now lets pretend he never starts bombing people, instead he only occasionally writes letters to the editor or to various compromised academics/industry heads. Instead of becoming the Unabomber, he becomes just the Unafellow. In this parallel universe, he can become a model of how to opposed various assumed ways of living in the world. Does show how you can live without phone, etc., to not be compromised by the military/power system and all. But at the same time there are hundreds, maybe thousands or more, with his same views working within scientific megacorps., within the gov., with energy megacorps., with ngas. who despite working within a system that many would see as support the power structures in place are doing more to change it than he ever could. In the real world (that ever so elusive term) how much political policy/change has been effected by protest, and how much by those who work in the system. Now before people pull out the guillotines, I am not saying nothing has or is achieved by protest. I've taken part in many myself. I am not saying protesters should shut up and join the gov. Nor am I saying lobbyists get more done than protesters. But by and large, working within the system has a greater effectiveness ratio than working against. I have seen this firsthand. The world, despite Generalisimo Bush's wishes, is not with us or against us. And the artworld is the same. Anyone can walk in a gallery. Anyone can buy from a gallery. They do have "public" hours. Public openings. The powerful may have more sway, but they are not the only ones served. I am not saying galleries are great pillars of open public space/debate (particularly not the new Mary Boone gallery...Third Reich anyone?) But being slanted toward one side does not mean a space is inherently only one thing. Yes too often money and politics make a strange cocktail in a gallery, or a museum, but marc, you are excluding individual thoughts, expressions, actions, and politics in this equation. But the rich and powerful, and the poor and unvoiced alike own and buy art. Sure , when the poor buy art we tend to call it Kitsch, but it is still art in function/purpose. And many, if not most of them do it, shudder to think, from galleries. What about an artist who shows for twenty years but never sells anything? Doesn't that in someway undermine certain elements of this power structure? One who gives items away for free in a commercial gallery? One who works hard to keep many of his prices fare, and uses the money he makes in a gallery to give away works to not-for-profits and others who help him? An artist doesn't have the ability to seek a living from his labors without supporting the military might of privileged society? And he/she's done this just by putting his/her wares on a wall for sale? That is so simplistic it makes me laugh. pepon osorio is hardly working to keep THE MAN happy. The public soapbox of the gallery, and the museum, can be an effective amplifier for messages of change just like the street can be, no matter who owns the wall. Sometimes because someone important owns the wall. You guys are also lucky I'm too lazy to get out of this uncomfy chair to get my Marx books. Too many people say "communism vs. capitalism" But when you read the books, Marx was not against notions of profit per se, or democracy per se, he was disgusted with the way workers and proletariats etc. were losing their say, their involvement in this process, and he put forth a series of ideas for keeping these levels in check. Now it just so happens that he left his proscriptions just vague enough that people like stalin, and mao, and pol pot could greatly misconstrue, on purpose or on accident who knows, his theories to create governments I think any reasoned person would be hard-pressed to support. Which resulted in environments where people like Hoover, or Kissenger could wildly overreact in the opposite direction. These activities had many disastrous consequences, and many people were lumped on one side or the other that did not really support either side. Why do I bring this up? well once again, economic structures, ties and policies are way too complicated, intertwined and long-lined to make absurd neat tight comments like "accepting the gallery system is tacit acknowledgment that art is produced as prestige capital for consumption by an elite whose position is guaranteed by military might. therefore anything that is produced for that system ultimately is advanced by their morals/ethics and serves as representations of it. " And right now we live in (an albeit imperfect) capitalism where services and items are exchanged for pieces of paper with value. Galleries are stores, not outposts of a particular Power. When I need groceries it makes sense to go to the grocery store. When I need art it makes sense to go to a gallery. It doesn't mean that art cannot be found elsewhere, or is not interesting, or valuable elsewhere. Just like there are other places to find, or grow groceries. But mangos don't grow so well in my yard, and large Serra's don't appear in my alley. If I have a taste for either, I need to go to the right place. but why should the arts industry be exempted from the same ethical analysis as the chemical industry or the oil companies? The art world is not exempt, and has been one of the few forums in society actually open to discussing, and at times correcting ethical lapses. There are education systems/outreach programs etc. that are a result of ethical discussions about art. There are more communities represented in the artworld than before. There are tacit agreements of what kinds of behavior are/are not acceptable. Maybe not enough discussion is held for your tastes, but you certainly cannot claim the artworld shies away from discussions of ethics etc. A lot more active in these discussions than, oh lets say the Energy multicorporation industry.
I think many artists and gallerists work in a way where they actively attempt to isolate themselves (in that cocoon, again) so that they don't have to be as accountable for what they make or show - except primarily to other artists/artworld people who 'speak their language.' I disagree, but thats me.
I don't see one place as the golden winner's circle and another as the dirty loser's hut. All kinds of places and models are interesting to present ideas in for different reasons. we're in agreement there.
There will be no decapitations in Chicago until July 11th, when - as I reminded everyone before - the warriors from the metal band High on Fire come to Chicago to slay us all. Three cheers for socially malformed rock. thanks for the ongoing ramble.
a
Is it getting too hot outside to think properly? Very likely. Has the length of all this exhausted everyone's attention span? Probably. I'm still on the verge of picking up the phone.
There are ethics, and petty ethics, and very little formal art poses such an ethical risk that its a negligible discussion at best most of the time. Well we kind of circled around this issue a while back while talking about Sol Lewitt, who we found out made an interesting decision to pull himself out of a show at the Guggenheim because it was sponsored by Phillip Morris. We have had personal conversations where you have talked about how extremely and unusually generous Lewitt was to you when you were employed by a gallery to execute one of his wall drawings. He sounds like a really decent guy who goes out of his way for people when he doesn't have to. From the superficial looks of his art, you would never guess just how wrapped up he is in the world of ethics. But from a variety of incidents that are much less superficially apparent, it is clear that he does give these problems some consideration. This kind of thing interests me much more than the obvious problem of getting crushed to death by one of Christo's umbrellas. I would be interested to learn how more artists deal with situations that could be of great personal advantage (like being in a show at the Guggenheim) but that compromise their morals or ethics. I'm also of course interested in artists whose success and careers are founded on ethical notions that they deviate from wildly when an opportunity appears that is too good to pass up. I have only spent so much time with him but it seems Beuys would be an interesting person to look at from this angle.
I would need to know an example of a "recklessly destructive art project with a formalist bent" before I can even think about this. And try to pick something that doesn't kill anything (no serra, christo, nitsch, or andre) since Avedon didn't. Well it's hard cause formalists are usually the killers. I'll have to come back to this one - maybe after a few drinks. Boeing is sponsoring Richter. They've helped a little killing happen in their day. If they didn't get that military contract that Lockheed recently got they'd be doin' plenty a killin' right about now. I bet they love those fighter plane paintings in the third gallery for lots of creepy reasons that I really don't want to think about.
But that is a lot different from judging people by their work. Many people I enjoy, quite a bit making boring art, I don't like them less for it. It puts me in awkward positions occasionally, but that's it. I may be deeply involved in what I do, and yes you can judge my beliefs/thoughts through my art/writings, but that does not mean you know a thing about how I live or behave on my "off-hours." And I do not expect to be judged, personally as a living being, due to a tiny number of inanimate objects laying around the world. All I was really trying to say, I think, was that the art we make is, along with a zillion other things we are responsible for, a part of who one is. Any one thing alone is never gonna be enough to get a full sense of a person. This is why it's possible to get the best feelings from a person's art and the worst feelings from them once you get to know them and vice versa.
No no problem. My point was the absurd one that, for example, if your dof booklets had been offset printed instead of copied, they would've been a nicer object. If my brochure had been two-color printed on a shinny cardstock it would have functioned in a manner closer to what I envisioned, but I didn't have the 1000+ to plunk down. Dof isn't bad, and does what it does well, but also fails where your/brett's and my limits are. (and to wrap things in tidy, yet troubled, baskets) that is why temp serv. will never be able to replicate or replace what a not-for-profit, or commissioning sort of entity will be able to provide. And once again, that doesn't make temp. se rv. worse. just a different beast that hasn't been to the groomer as often as, oh lets say... (what not-for-profits are left anymore...fill in blank) There is no question that it would be nice to have a bigger budget for many things so that the results could look a little nicer. I think I have a slightly higher tolerance for rough edges than you do so that is my bias and sometimes my taste. But since money for projects doesn't appear out of thin air, and there is a limit to how much I can or will spend on things, there are various trade offs one has to make. Whitewalls, in my view, works very very slowly. There is often a long amount of time between projects - sometimes so long that I wonder if you guys still exist. But when the final result appears, no matter what my view of the content, it does look nice and
I don't think you'd be alone. But I also think sometimes people make mistakes, and need to be cut a little slack, and I'm more cautious of affixing blame when I do not have all the insider scoop. Yes people make mistakes and I can cut plenty of slack. Where I become irritable is when the notion is put forward that if something goes away all of us will lose something incredible in its absence. When this is suggested by people who work for these entities it comes across as being a little presumptuous. Galleries close. Magazines end. Bands break up. Stores close. People die. It sucks. Some people are sad that Arena is gone. I'm sad that Blast Off Video and the cool Laundromat on Division with Wilson Picket and Marvin Gaye on the jukebox are gone. The challenge remains for enough new things to happen and for enough people to keep working so the gaps start to fill in or not matter so much.
Maybe palpable wasn't the right term, and I'm still looking for that term. But I wasn't dissing apartment shows, or alternative galleries, or things like the library project. Like has been said, the artworld isn't only galleries, isn't only public guerilla art. Maybe it could be only public gorilla art, but that is really hard to sustain. Anyway, The art world, one usually comes to this world, like one does to any social scene, from a gateway. 1. Spaces like this, that are very easy to find because they advertise in big magazines, are open on the more expensive streets etc. Are markers, to let people know "culture exists here." and it is reasonable that if you go to these locales and hang out a while, you are going to meet the people involved and find the more nook-n-crannies stuff. Also because places like this tend to advertise etc. the play apart in bring future residents, future artists, and just plain curious outsiders to town to check it out. This creates a very viable interactive community with little effort exhibited, and it happens by accident. I sure know Chicago looked more attractive than some places I could have considered because from out of town I could identify a handful of galleries, spaces, and bands that made me think, I should check that out. Without these public spaces, that doesn't get seen. people don't necessarily come. Both of us moved here about 9 years ago - before the internet had an important place in the world as a source of information. The internet is now the guidebook to endless fascinating local hubs of culture and activity that never advertise in big magazines and have very low budget existences. Even places that can afford to advertise are usually better discovered through their websites where you can get much more information (and I NEVER explore something because I saw their website used as an ad). Is it more fun to look at magazines than websites? Sure. But art magazines are rarely if ever how I find out about new artists I want to work with, the places I might show at, or any of that nook-n-crannies stuff. If someone invites me to be a part to their project, I can go to their website and instantly get some sense of what they are about. Or I can just keep emailing them and we can communicate that way. Could never do that 9 years ago. Most of the culture I like best takes some looking to find; it requires a bigger effort. I don't like a lot of mainstream culture. I can find the Arts Club very easily but it doesn't provide an interactive community I want to be a part of. Certainly if there are interesting spaces and they are highly visible, that makes it easier. It's nice to wander into a strange city and be able to locate lots of interesting things in ground level store fronts. But as the cost of living in this city keeps going up, I think it is likely that it is just going to require more work to find interesting spaces. Storefronts are outrageously expensive now. So the bigger problem is that the spaces you are talking about don't exist for me for art in Chicago right now. They exist for me in the form of places like Quimby's, Reckless Records, The Empty Bottle, or maybe sometimes the Fireside Bowl. For some people (not really me) the Autonomous Zone serves that purpose. Other scenes have it. The art scene doesn't. Doesn't bother me that much really. But it has never been easier to discover things. We have a tool that we didn't have before. The magazine was the old way. Most of the people that look at Temp Serv's website have undoubtedly never seen anything we've done in person but they can still gain access to our ideas and contact us and talk with us about it. Happens all the time. By the way, when is Whitewalls going to get a website and start archiving some stuff that way? Any desire?
2. Not to say temp serv is worse, and yes I know you and brett are really dedicated, but in all honesty, tomorrow if you two decided you were poor and hated each other's guts, you could pack it in, throw in the towel and never do another project. And the same for people doing things in their apartments or on a two week specially rented or taken over space etc. When you have an incorporated entity, a lease, employees, a bank account, legal papers (in the case of a not-for-profit, a board) you tend to at least cursorily attempt to sweat out the bad times before you pack it in. You know this thing is a solid structure, even if it may have a fatal foundation. And someone will be responsible to that structure. There are rock bands who have all of these legal things in place and more and they break up in two years because everyone hates each other, their work process sucks, the business bullshit wears them down, and it's not fun anymore. The Dutch band The Ex have been around for almost 25 years with little or none of this shit - not because they have a manager or a contract they have to fulfill and if they don't they'll get sued or any of that, but because they like working together and doing what they do. Though it may be the case that certain things last longer because they have legal papers and they are less likely to give up because of that, if it's not how you wanna work, who cares? If that's how you like to exist, great. But I refuse to believe that you can't exist in a less bureaucratic way and endure just as long. People are doing it both ways and surviving over time or not surviving. ARC and Artemesia are not-for-profits that have been around since the beginning of time, but how do ya like most of the art they show? Ever go there any more? Look at some of the art they show in their rental spaces to pay for the structure they've settled on. Some people on the board must be biting their lips really really hard sometimes.
4. Division of labor. On one level, I will admit, the fact you choose to show your own work through temp services bugs me. And many others do the same. I like that the more formal a structure, the more likely that the people who run it are not going to show their own art, or show their girlfriends, or that at least with not-for-profits there are strict by-laws against this. Now true, sometimes positions are compromised in the
Well the thing is Temp Serv is not a gallery or a critical journal with a formal structure. We often have a chaotic process but that works for us. We work in a broad mix of ways. It is our own creative work, a way of presenting other peoples' work, a way of publishing people's writing and a whole bunch of other stuff you already know. The exchange of favors that went on in New Art Examiner among what was written about and by who was quite eyebrow raising to say the least. Sometimes people even wrote about each others work in the very same issue - mere pages apart! This wouldn't bother me terribly (sometimes your friends are actually great people to have write about your work) but it felt like this was done with the hope that the reader wouldn't notice. It is not what you would expect from that structure. There I did expect a more stringent editorial policy - or at least some kind of explanation. But the group I work with doesn't have by-laws or a board of directors or any of that other crap that I would have no patience for. We are a few people who can pretty much work however we want. As a viewer you get to figure out which parts bug you and which parts don't. The things that bug you don't bug me because I don't think they reveal a compromise. We are talking about this in relation to the standards of something I don't feel a part of, but that I also don't feel is necessarily more special than anything else.
Well, but you guys always send your invites to the art world, pull most your projects from the artworld. get most your accolades from the art world. The stuff was art before it even got into the smart. We are a culture that names things. We are not trying to exclude the art world and thus far we do most of our work with other artists, but that is changing slowly. I hope that one of these days we get to do more work in places that have nothing to do with the art world so that we can enjoy that kind of unstable footing. This is a hard bridge to build. The art bridge is easy. I'm always anxious to work with people from other areas of creativity and culture. The challenge is to find a structure that will allow for their participation in a way that makes sense. We have done some of this. I want to do more. I hope other non-art groups can find a place in their structure to include us, as we are more than willing to participate.
yeah and I have witnessed hundreds of cases of "art world outsiders" the
contingent upon accepting the gallery system is tacit acknowledgement that art is produced as prestige capital for consumption by an elite whose position is guaranteed by military might. therefore anything that is produced for that system ultimately is advanced by their morals/ethics and serves as representations of it. Agreed. That's partly why I prefer to work outside of that commercial gallery system. I'm sorry, no disrespect but I find this view to be first-year undergrad bullshit politics at best. And utterly wrong. Not to mention, if this is so, I do not ever want see either of you in a commercial gallery again. Let's all recite the old mantra "the world isn't all black and white." The fact that commercial galleries and the people that run them are commonly extremely elitist and unpleasant doesn't make it impossible for me to visit them. There is work I want to know about or am curious about and I will go see it even if I think the circumstances I'm viewing it in irk me. I will see my friends' work in those spaces so I can see what they are doing. I don't like seeing bands at the House of Blues or any other cheezy corporate venue but sometimes that's where a great band is playing. The art you like isn't always presented in places you like. Obviously we all have to live with that. There are things I draw the line at because I think they compromise my morals or ethics too greatly. If I ever had to pay an admission fee to go to a commercial gallery I'd probably not see very much art there (to return to something Tom brought up before Anthony and I went berserk)
And marc, you support of this undermines your stated openness that "there is more than one way to be an artist in the world." Because you have just determined that all those gallery artists are for the side of power. Gallery artists, like any artists I think are for the side of what they feel is most beneficial to their practice - or what they need and can agree to in order to perpetuate their practice. I don't dispute that galleries help lots of people to achieve their goals. I'm only saying that I haven't embraced a commercial gallery myself because I don't feel my own goals require their help. I'm trying to work around that system and so far I really like the way things are going. I like to represent myself in the situations where the gallery often does this for an artist. Doing this has thus far not hindered my practice in any way that I can see. In many ways I think it has helped. Some people like having people do lots of things on their behalf from getting them shows to lecturing on their work to schmoozing potential buyers to whatever else galleries do. Good for them. For better or worse I am sometimes probably gonna wind up collaborating with a person who has been greatly helped by this system just because I think the more positive thing is to work with that person. This becomes kinda like hating the Beatles but having to admit that the Rolling Stones, who you do like, were influenced by the Beatles (and yes, for the record, I hate the Beatles and like the Rolling Stones up until about 1978 at the very latest). But working with that person that means working directly with that person, not working with their gallery. When I organize a project and want to contact an artist, I find out how to contact the artist directly. The only exception perhaps has been The Library Project where we got a couple of David Shrigley's books donated by his publisher. The only reason for that was that the last time I worked with David Shrigley he was really slow in responding. I figured he'd have to contact his publisher anyway so I just saved him the trouble.
Let me try an absurd, very undercooked (thank heavens this isn't chicken) comparison case study. Anyone who knows me knows I love the unabomber (no not his actions, but as an intriguing study of one persons actions, and society's responses.) he hated environmental policy/energy policy/scientific advances and government actions. He decided to go move to the woods and remove himself from these influences, use a generator, make as much of his own stuff as possible. So far so good. Now lets pretend he never starts bombing people, instead he only occasionally writes letters to the editor or to various compromised academics/industry heads. Instead of becoming the Unabomber, he becomes just the Unafellow. In this parallel universe, he can become a model of how to opposed various assumed ways of living in the world. Does show how you can live without phone, etc., to not be compromised by the military/power system and all. But at the same time there are hundreds, maybe thousands or more, with his same views working within scientific megacorps., within the gov., with energy megacorps., with ngas. who despite working within a system that many would see as support the power structures in place are doing more to change it than he ever could. All of this is good but ultimately the reason the Unabomber did not become the Unafellow was probably because he could never feel comfortable within that system so the only way he could imagine existing in the world was in this incredibly extremist and isolated way. Anything less than the most extreme position would have felt like a compromise. If you remove yourself too much you alienate everyone because they can no longer relate to your extreme way of life. Maybe what he should have done was checked out the internet a little so that he could find some other extremist people that shared his lifestyle so his world would be a little less lonely. I'm completely open to working with some institutions when I can find a way to do it that is bearable and when I like enough of what they are up to and like the people I'll be working with. Not all institutions use their power structures against invited artists even though they have their own hierarchies that they enforce within the institution. If I find out that they treat their employees like dogshit, I might not want to work with them even if they treat me nicely. It's a very interesting space to be in - where you are neither a visitor nor a year long employee but sort of a guest or something. It reminds me of when I was a volunteer at a maximum security prison. Inmates found it very odd that I was a volunteer. The guards didn't trust this and some of the inmates were skeptical as well until they realized why I was there. To paraphrase one conversation where a guy got right in my face and wanted to know what I was doing there (this happened a bunch of times): Prisoner: "Man, what are you doin' here? You trying to get a job, you gonna work here as a guard or something? Are they payin' you? Me: "No I'm not tryin' to get a job. I'm not getting paid. I'm a volunteer visiting artist. I'm here to take a look at what people here are doing and to talk to them about their art." Prisoner: "Really?! That's really cool. Something good's gonna happen to you! You're gonna win the lottery or something." Me: (probably laughing and relieved). So it's maybe kind of like being a free agent. You try to be effective and get your ideas out by being available on a lot of levels. You leave yourself open to working in lots of ways with lots of people. You test out a situation by having a lot of dialogue. If it feels right you do it and if there are too many problems you move on to the next opportunity or do something on your own. Again, the Dutch band The Ex are a good example of this. They can tour with Sonic Youth and play the Riviera and they can play a squat or be in a free jazz improv festival and they can release their own music and they can try working with other people. And they still have integrity and still do things in a vital way and I don't feel like they are making significant compromises. They do not get the media attention that a lot of bands on major labels and MTV get but you can still find their music quite easily and somehow I've managed to see them perform about 10 times in 13 years. So they are available and they do have an impact. The important thing is that they are able to live with themselves and this allows them to keep going. If you can't feel comfortable working in any structure but the one you create for yourself, and you can't or don't try to find other people with similar enough values that you can share ideas with, then you probably will wind up like the Unabomber. There are a million places I never want to work with, but there are also a million places and people I'd work with in a second. They exist all over the place. One thing about the Unabomber can't be denied though and you have to give him credit for this: he has great hair.
Anyone can walk in a gallery. Anyone can buy from a gallery. They do have
What about an artist who shows for twenty years but never sells anything? Doesn't that in someway undermine certain elements of this power structure? One who gives items away for free in a commercial gallery? One who works hard to keep many of his prices fare, and uses the money he makes in a gallery to give away works to not-for-profits and others who help him? An artist doesn't have the ability to seek a living from his labors without supporting the military might of privileged society? And he/she's done this just by putting his/her wares on a wall for sale? That is so simplistic it makes me laugh. pepon osorio is hardly working to keep THE MAN happy. The public soapbox of the gallery, and the museum, can be an effective amplifier for messages of change just like the street can be, no matter who owns the wall. Sometimes because someone important owns the wall. Ultimately I simply find the commercial structure of a gallery/boutique to be an uncomfortable structure for myself. Pepon Osorio does some interesting work but his show I saw at the museum in Puerto Rico did get slightly undermined for me when you need to see it with the logo bearing Gillette's sponsorship right above the title card of his piece. I was amused to see that another Puerto Rican artist taped over their logo so it just said "Let." If Osorio can live with that, that's his choice. I find it distracting. I've seen his work in gallery situations where it felt much less compromised than at this museum - like at Temple University's gallery a long time ago. I think there are certainly degrees of thoughtfulness to how you can work with or be represented by commercial galleries. Galleries do some good stuff like help to make sure an artist's ideas live on after they die and I don't think this is always just to protect their investment in the artists' estate (though that is certainly part of it). They can help museums understand how to properly display or conserve a work when the artist is no longer around to do that. But there are still tons of very basic things that make me too uncomfortable. One of the things that makes me particularly tentative is the idea of having someone from the gallery making a sales pitch for my work because I've seen this done and no matter how much a gallerist might understand an artist's work, when they need to sell it, they can say all kinds of crazy shit to get the job done. I think this does a huge disservice to artists. We've talked about this before a little in personal discussions. It's curious as a spectator but inasmuch as I can affect the dialogue that happens around my work when it is shown (not a whole lot) I'd prefer not to knowingly enter into that situation. There are things I make that I am happy to have go out into the world and wind up where-ever they do - things I write, print, publish, donate to an auction, etc. But increasingly the work I do is not intended to be collected. What may fill a wall in a museum or a not for profit space is not always intended to fill the wall of someone's home, office, or restaurant, nor is it intended to be collected by a museum and resuscitated again in 30 years. One of powers artists have is the ability to control how their work goes out into the world. I like having that control. When you sell through a gallery you sacrifice a lot of that control and your art can go lots of places you didn't wish to put it. Who knows, it might even become a tool that gets used by THE MAN.
The art world is not exempt, and has been one of the few forums in society actually open to discussing, and at times correcting ethical lapses. There are education systems/outreach programs etc. that are a result of ethical discussions about art. There are more communities represented in the artworld than before. There are tacit agreements of what kinds of behavior are/are not acceptable. Maybe not enough discussion is held for your tastes, but you certainly cannot claim the artworld shies away from discussions of ethics etc. Certainly it is true that the art world is a place where discussions can spin off into a hugely rich array of other areas. At the very least it is a good starting point in this way. Of course there is never enough discussion in general for me. Probably not for you either since the two of us are doing a hell of a lot of discussing while the rest of you people probably bask in your air conditioned splendor while drinking cool drinks with little umbrellas in them. Mute bastards. (apologies to anyone who can't type because they blew their fingers off playing with fireworks a little early this year).
Three cheers for socially malformed rock. From your other email you sent separately (lest people who don't know us think we might be on the verge of choking each other when I'm confident we aren't: "MAKOTO & THE MOTHERS OF INVASION, KAWABATA: Hot Rattlesnakes CD (PLE 1111). "This is the power trio guitar feature offshoot of the Acid Mothers and is pretty much what you'd expect." UK studio records from 2001; The Mothers of Invasion are: Tsuyama Atsushi (bass; AMT, Omoide Hatoba) and Ichiraku Yoshimitsu (drums; I.S.O., Omoide Hatoba, Haco)." I need to hear this now!
Marc
a.) I think one of the questions was whether people were getting bored. I for one am not. This is a very stimulating, intelligent discussion. Way more interesting than most of the pretention in the mags to which I subscribe. Bravo to the both of you.
b.) I can't believe Marc has the good taste to appreciate Marvin Gaye and Wilson Pickett, and the bad taste to love heavy metal. But I guess it's proof that he really is open minded.
Al Ravitz
Okay well, we got a witness. This was nice to hear. Thanks. Sadly that Laudromat had no James Brown (the High on Fire of soul?) or no Parliament/Funkadelic (the Electric Wizard of soul?). But they also had Otis Redding who I forgot to include and who for me towers over Pickett and Gaye. Otis Redding was of course the Egon Schiele of Soul (only because I think they both died when they were just 28 years old). It was also a really great place to buy tamales and bootleg videos and you could play a rigged Ms. Pac Man game for a half hour at a time no matter how bad your skills were. Those were the days - way back in uh... '97?
Marc
You know, liking Marvin Gaye and Wilson Pickett is easy. I like Marvin and Wilson, you like Marvin and Wilson, my boss likes Marvin and Wilson and even my mom likes Marvin and Wilson. They are inherently tasteful. But appreciating them doesn't mean you have good taste, it means you like the same stuff everyone else likes. This is not to dis Gaye and Pickett, who had the chops to craft timeless songs. But to like heavy metal and admit it, you might say that takes balls, takes a little risk to cop to your metal jones. (just kiddin' -- there's no risk involved liking one form of music over another.) Keep dissing the metal. It gives us metalheads the smug satisfaction that some forms of art can still manage to piss people off. believe it brother: heavy metal rulez.
Scott Speh
Scott.
Not pissed off. Not even offended. Only some metalheads are smugly satisfied, the conceptual ones. But metalheads do rule.
Al Ravitz
Hello, May I chime in?
Just 2 cents. All this talk about pitting one type of exhibition space against another is silly. Established galleries are needed, apartment shows have there place as well as non-profits. Museums can be great places to get to know work..... It's all good. I think the problem lies not in the "space" but in our expectations of being entertained and dazzled by new and innovative works. If we are only seeing a trickle of great art in Chicago it is because not allot of great art is being made, not because some non-profit is doing a crappy job. If we (being those of us who make things) are not impressed by the art out there or are bored in some way we should make something that is not boring...... make something that will knock the socks off of much of the other art around....... then, stay in Chicago and do it again, and again. I guarantee that if it happens then that person will get plenty of attention. I honestly believe it is as simple as that. Making art that excels is very difficult.... it always has been, if we are not the ones who are getting the big shows or grants or retrospectives or whatever, we must not complain. For me.... I'll be in my studio with the music turned up as loud as I can get away with.
Tim