Edward_ Winkleman
/*
-----------------------------------------------
Blogger Template Style
Name: Minima Ochre
Designer: Douglas Bowman
URL: www.stopdesign.com
Date: 28 Feb 2004
----------------------------------------------- */
body {
background:#ffffff;
margin:5;
padding:40px 20px;
font:x-small Trebuchet,arial;
text-align:center;
color:#000000;
font-size/* */:/**/small;
font-size: /**/small;
}
a:link {
color:#FF9900;
text-decoration:underline;
font-weight:bold;
}
a:visited {
color:#666666;
text-decoration:none;
}
a:hover {
color:#999999;
text-decoration:underline;
}
a img {
border-width:0;
}
/* Header
----------------------------------------------- */
#header {
width:752px;
margin:0 auto 10px;
border:1px solid #000000;
}
#blog-title {
margin:5px 5px 0;
padding:20px 20px .25em;
border:1px solid #000000;
border-width:1px 1px 0;
font-size:200%;
line-height:1.2em;
font-weight:bold;
color:#FF9933;
letter-spacing:.2em;
font:250%/1.4em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif;
}
#blog-title a {
color:#874;
text-decoration:none;
}
#blog-title a:hover {
color:#c60;
}
#description {
margin:0 5px 5px;
padding:0 20px 20px;
border:1px solid #000000;
border-width:0 1px 1px;
max-width:700px;
font:100%/1.4em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif;
letter-spacing:.2em;
color:#a83;
}
/* Content
----------------------------------------------- */
#content {
width:755px;
margin:0 auto;
padding:0;
text-align:left;
}
#main {
width:488px;
float:left;
padding:6px;
}
#sidebar {
width:240px;
float:right;
color:#863;
padding:6px;
background:beige;
border:1px solid #000000;
}
/* Headings
----------------------------------------------- */
h2 {
margin:1.5em 0 .75em;
font:78%/1.4em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif;
text-transform:uppercase;
letter-spacing:.2em;
color:#774;
}
/* Posts
----------------------------------------------- */
.date-header {
margin:1.5em 0 .5em;
}
.post {
margin:.5em 0 1.5em;
border-bottom:1px dotted #fff;
padding-bottom:1.5em;
}
.post-title {
margin:.25em 0 0;
padding:0 0 4px;
font-size:140%;
font-weight:normal;
line-height:1.4em;
color:#c80;
}
.post a {
font-weight:bold;
}
.post-title a, .post-title a:visited, .post-title strong {
display:block;
text-decoration:none;
color:#b70;
font-weight:normal;
}
.post-title strong, .post-title a:hover {
color:#333;
}
.post div {
margin:0 0 .75em;
line-height:1.6em;
}
p.post-footer {
margin:-.25em 0 0;
color:#a85;
}
.post-footer em, .comment-link {
font:78%/1.4em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif;
text-transform:uppercase;
letter-spacing:.1em;
}
.post-footer em {
font-style:normal;
color:#863;
margin-right:.6em;
}
.comment-link {
margin-left:.6em;
}
.post img {
padding:4px;
border:1px solid #ddd;
}
.post blockquote {
margin:1em 20px;
}
.post blockquote p {
margin:.75em 0;
}
/* Comments
----------------------------------------------- */
#comments h4 {
margin:1em 0;
font:bold 78%/1.6em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif;
text-transform:uppercase;
letter-spacing:.2em;
color:#774;
}
#comments h4 strong {
font-size:130%;
}
#comments-block {
margin:1em 0 1.5em;
line-height:1.6em;
}
#comments-block dt {
margin:.5em 0;
}
#comments-block dd {
margin:.25em 0 0;
}
#comments-block dd.comment-timestamp {
margin:-.25em 0 2em;
font:78%/1.4em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif;
text-transform:uppercase;
letter-spacing:.1em;
}
#comments-block dd p {
margin:0 0 .75em;
}
.deleted-comment {
font-style:italic;
color:gray;
}
/* Sidebar Content
----------------------------------------------- */
#sidebar ul {
margin:0 0 1.5em;
padding:0 0 1.5em;
border-bottom:1px dotted #fff;
list-style:none;
}
#sidebar li {
margin:0;
padding:0 0 .25em 15px;
text-indent:-15px;
line-height:1.45em;
font:90%/1.45em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif;
}
#sidebar p {
line-height:1.45em;
font:90%/1.45em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif;
}
/* Profile
----------------------------------------------- */
#profile-container {
margin:0 0 1.5em;
border-bottom:1px dotted #000;
padding-bottom:1.5em;
}
.profile-datablock {
margin:.5em 0 .5em;
}
.profile-img {
display:inline;
}
.profile-img img {
float:left;
padding:4px;
border:1px solid #ffc;
margin:0 8px 3px 0;
}
.profile-data {
margin:0;
font:bold 78%/1.6em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif;
text-transform:uppercase;
letter-spacing:.1em;
color:#763;
}
.profile-data strong {
display:none;
}
.profile-textblock {
margin:0 0 .5em;
}
.profile-link {
margin:0;
font:50%/1.4em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif;
text-transform:uppercase;
letter-spacing:.1em;
}
/* Footer
----------------------------------------------- */
#footer {
width:660px;
clear:both;
margin:0 auto;
}
#footer hr {
display:none;
}
#footer p {
margin:0;
padding-top:15px;
font:78%/1.6em "Trebuchet MS",Trebuchet,Verdana,Sans-serif;
text-transform:uppercase;
letter-spacing:.1em;
}
@import url(http://www.blogger.com/css/navbar/classic.css);div.b-mobile {display:none;}
function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener("load", function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } }
edward_ winkleman
art | politics | gossip | tough love
Show Your Love for PPOW
The lovely folks at PPOW entered their gallery yesterday morning to find nearly utter destruction in their space caused by a fire in the space above them. Not only had the water from the fire hoses used to extinguish the flames claimed all their office equipment and computers, but firemen had trampled across framed drawings they had laid (lain?) out in preparation for installation and destroyed them. Thankfully the work in their storage area and main gallery was spared. Where many people might have simply been devastated to wake up to this, however, PPOW unleashed a Herculean effort to move their art and what remained of their office, and against any reasonable expectations will actually host the opening reception tonight for their artist, Teun Hocks, who had travelled from Holland, in a temporary location:The temporary location for the Teun Hocks exhibition will be:PPOW511 West 25th Street Room 301New York, NY 10001Opening Reception January 8, 6-8pminfo@ppowgallery.comIf you're heading out to any of the openings in Chelsea this evening, I encourage you to show your support and stop in to wish Wendy, Penny, Teun and the whole gang the best as they regroup and move on. They picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and worked their asses off yesterday to make this show happen. Show your love.UPDATE: See this updated report on artforum.com. Wendy told me how truly gracious and extraordinarily generous some of the people in the gallery community were when they heard the news. Unfortunately, there were also a few folks who had the means to help but who decided to take advantage of the situation to gouge them instead. Those people know who they are and should be wholly ashamed of themselves.Labels: gallery exhibition
posted by Edward_ at 8:10 AM
2 comments
 
Topic du Jour Deux
For a less controversial topic than whether or not America should celebrate culture by elevating one person a year to prominence for their efforts, I'll point you to the following, which cheered my agnostic heart to no end:The advertisement on the bus was fairly mild, just a passage from the Bible and the address of a Christian Web site. But when Ariane Sherine, a comedy writer, looked on the Web site in June, she was startled to learn that she and her nonbelieving friends were headed straight to hell, to “spend all eternity in torment.”That’s a bit extreme, she thought, as well as hard to prove. “If I wanted to run a bus ad saying ‘Beware — there is a giant lion from London Zoo on the loose!’ or ‘The “bits” in orange juice aren’t orange but plastic — don’t drink them or you’ll die!’ I think I might be asked to show my working and back up my claims,” Ms. Sherine wrote in a commentary on the Web site of The Guardian.And then she thought, how about putting some atheist messages on the bus, as a corrective to the religious ones?And so were planted the seeds of the Atheist Bus Campaign, an effort to disseminate a godless message to the greater public. When the organizers announced the effort in October, they said they hoped to raise a modest $8,000 or so.But something seized people’s imagination. Supported by the scientist and author Richard Dawkins, the philosopher A. C. Grayling and the British Humanist Association, among others, the campaign raised nearly $150,000 in four days. Now it has more than $200,000, and on Tuesday it unveiled its advertisements on 800 buses across Britain.“There’s probably no God,” the advertisements say. “Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”Spotting one of the buses on display at a news conference in Kensington, passers-by were struck by the unusual message.Not always positively. “I think it’s dreadful,” said Sandra Lafaire, 76, a tourist from Los Angeles, who said she believed in God and still enjoyed her life, thank you very much. “Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don’t like it in my face.” Read the rest...after years of feeling oppressed by a culture fueled by an administration that talked the talk, but hardly walked the walk with regards to believing in God, I find it remarkably refreshing that in England and now elsewhere* folks are openly debating whether or not God exists with a hearty freedom.*Inspired by the London campaign, the American Humanist Association started running bus advertisements in Washington in November, with a more muted message. “Why believe in a god?” the ads read, over a picture of a man in a Santa suit. “Just be good for goodness’ sake.”I'll be honest...I'm unconvinced that God exists. None of the feeble attempts to use logic ("there must be a God, look at the 'miracle' of life...look at how complex the human circulatory system or the brain or whatever is) or romance ("look at that sunset and tell me there's no god") or coercion ("One nation, under God...") have ever truly made me believe. So STOP using them! Alright already?As with the gay community, until atheists boldly come out of the closet in this country, little-minded people will continue to project all sorts of heinous behaviors and beliefs upon them. The atheists friends I have count among the most decent and truly good people I know. The only differences between them and some of the decent religious people I know in terms of behavior are arbitrarily adhered to ritualistic practices. Not exactly the stuff of persuasion one way or the other. As for me, I am agnostic only because I like to hedge my bets...not because I've seen anything that has utterly convinced me God exists. I've seen plenty to suggest others who claim to believe in God are willing to insult Him or ignore Him on a daily basis, though. I've also met people who believe in God who are so lovely and kind and generous (exceptionally so) that I figure if religion is what it takes to produce such a humanity in some people, so be it...let 'em practice the re-enforcing rituals.None of which means anything within the debate as to whether it's OK for a religious group to shove in others' faces that they believe nonbelievers are headed straight to hell but it's not OK for atheists to point out humorously that that assertion is impossible to prove. In this particular battle, I'm ever so more comfortable siding with the atheists.Labels: God
posted by Edward_ at 12:43 PM
31 comments
American Captain of Culture 2008
Alrighty then. Since the mainstream media doesn't seem interested in such designations, why not, as James Kalm suggested in yesterday's post, nominate our own Captain of Culture for 2008 in the States (with an emphasis on fine art being my bent, but don't let that limit you). (As James also noted, do not suck up and nominate me, please.)Having set the bar as high as they did in Britain, selecting someone who "turned the British Museum into an arena in which some of our most fraught and contentious contemporary political debates can be approached with a freshened sensitivity and depth of understanding that can surely be a great help in fostering peace," it won't be easy, but still, who do you think had the biggest impact on culture or engaged with culture to the most effect this side of the pond in 2008?I've started with the suggestions James listed and added a few of my own, just to get the ball rolling and spark some ideas, but feel free to add your own (you may want to read any existing comments before choosing to see who's been added). Also, adding one or two lines as to why you nominated the person you did would be interesting:A. Thomas KrensB. Jerry SaltzC. Roberta SmithD. Philippe deMontabelloE. Oliver StoneF. Tyler GreenG. Eli BroadH. Jeff KoonsI. Louise Blouin MacBainJ. The RubellsK. Richard PrinceL. Tobias MeyerM. Alana HeissO. Glenn D. LowryP. Michael GovanQ. Kathy HalbreichR. Richard SerraS. Larry GagosianT. Other _______________Vote only once, please.Labels: Captain of Culture of the Year
posted by Edward_ at 8:07 AM
52 comments
A Wide Disparity of Priorities : Open Thread
 Wilde once quipped that the English "have really everything in common with America nowadays, except, of course, the language.” I'd humbly submit that you could easily swap out "language" for "cultural priorities" and in a way that perhaps confirms another Wilde quote about the U.S.:America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.I can hear the right-wingers blood vessels bursting from here as they prepare to call me a "hate-America-first Liberal"...but take as evidence the news that The Times of London this year named British Museum director, Neil MacGregor, as their "Briton of the Year."Not that I would disagree with Time magazine's choice of Barack Obama as their Person of the Year. Our President-Elect surely deserves this accolade. But the rationale The Times of London gives for choosing a director of a museum for their honor is one I cannot fathom ever being offered by the US media:By emphasising the importance of an international community of inquiry, of a “republic of letters” as it would have been called in its Enlightment roots, he has helped to create a global society that is quite separate from others that constantly get caught up in the squabblings of government and politics.Through this society he has managed, over the years, to create important cultural links with countries – including, perhaps most notably, China, Iraq and Iran – that have not enjoyed the warmest of political relations with the West. Culture as diplomacy. What a concept. What a wonderful, intelligent, peaceful concept.Mind you I don't blame our cultural institutions for this disparity of priorities. They are phenomenally engaged in such efforts and respected throughout the world (when they're not being sued for smuggling, that is :-). And I don't blame our government either, to tell the truth. They understand full well how culture serves our foreign interests, and when I've worked abroad I've always found our embassies highly engaged in promoting American culture.No, I blame our media. After all, it wasn't the museums or government of the UK that selected Saint Neil as the Briton of the Year, it was their capital's most influential daily newspaper. Read more of why they made this choice:Helping to release the power that lies implicit in the world’s ancient artefacts, MacGregor has turned the British Museum into an arena in which some of our most fraught and contentious contemporary political debates can be approached with a freshened sensitivity and depth of understanding that can surely be a great help in fostering peace. Now compare that a passage from Time magazine's rationale for selecting Obama...it discusses art as well:Our cover portrait is by the street artist Shepard Fairey, whose roots are in the skateboarding world and whose early poster of then Senator Obama became the great populist image of the campaign. With this cover, Fairey has now created a new iconic image of the President-elect — a rich, multilayered poster that echoes but then expands on his original.In keeping with the theme of citizen art, we open our Person of the Year package with a dazzling array of images culled from those created by thousands of individuals from around the world and posted on the image-sharing site Flickr. Obama always said his candidacy was not about him, but "you," and now, along with Flickr, we're helping give "you" a voice. See the difference? On one hand, is culture viewed as an "arena in which some of our most fraught and contentious contemporary political debates can be approached with a freshened sensitivity and depth of understanding that can surely be a great help in fostering peace" and on the other hand, culture is viewed as a means of casually flattering one's paying customers. Consider this an open thread on how American priorities regarding the role of culture might be changed or at least taken more seriously by our media.Labels: cultural priorities, open thread
posted by Edward_ at 8:19 AM
14 comments
We Are the Ones We've Been Waiting For
 Over the holidays I reflected on what I thought might be next in contemporary art, what will happen now that the market is no longer driving things...no longer "the story" of contemporary art. In doing so, I should note, I considered "contemporary art" as a dialog between artists, curators/museums, critics, collectors, fairs, and yes even galleries, although clearly artists are the raison d'etre for the rest of us. With that in mind, I'll save my thoughts on how any of this applies to artists until the end and work through the other players first. Before that, though, permit me to set the stage for these thoughts (you may want to grab a coffee first, this one goes on for a few gigabytes):Context for My ConclusionsEarly on in his career, Andy Warhol embellished his paintings of cartoons and other Pop images with drips and "expressionistic" passages so that the world would know to take him seriously as an artist. Or so the story goes. More likely he simply hadn't reach the point at which he understood himself what he was working toward...who knows for sure?Yet now that we're this side of Andy's choice to abandon the obligatory tell-tale signs of "seriousness," we can point to it as evidence that art movements have a down-side to them. They can keep artists from clearly focusing on where their explorations might otherwise take them. The "rules" of a movement that might provide the structure for mining deeply into a rich vein also keep directing adherents (or worse, those who see adherence as their only access into the "dialog") back into choices others have predetermined as valid.Still, often one hears in the cacophonous contemporary art world a longing for a return to the days of movements or at least a salivating anticipation of the "next big thing," either of which will presumably provide some direction, something to really rally behind or invest in. Like waiting for Godot, it borders on tortuous, this sense that their must be something that will bring clarity or at least a wider urgency. I'd like to suggest we take a cue from the improbable new President-elect and consider instead that we are the ones we've been waiting for.The clarity we seek will not, I suspect, emerge in conjunction with the rise of a dominant voice or bold new direction by a band of brilliant artists (the essential "art world" is probably too dispersed for that now), but rather with a broader point of view, a step back if you will, that permits us to recognize that Pluralism isn't a temporary brainstorming session, but rather a progression into a richer and wider cultural inter-connectivity. I'll explain more in detail below what I think that means in a fine art context.First, though, for broader context, consider that socially we're already way ahead of this notion and increasingly very comfortable with it. When I check the stats on this blog, I see I enjoy a daily dialog with people living in virtually every corner of the world. My "friends" on Facebook live in nearly every continent and that circle keeps expanding. What we lose in intimacy with such environments, we make up for in immediacy and quantity. Yes, there's plenty of flotsam bobbing about in the blogosphere and social network sites, but there are absolute gems that come to those who put even the tiniest of efforts into finding them as well. But even the flotsam, especially in its database-convenient accumulation, becomes a ponderous thing, a raw material that provides satisfaction via its quantity (think: hit counters).Of course, there's more value in this than merely the daily dispensing of digital pellets of personal validation. I don't mean to valorize sitting at a computer, but rather to point to how these tools are enriching our off-line social lives. When I meet someone at an art fair who comments on the blog or am prompted to visit an exhibition by a previously unknown "friend" of a "friend" on Facebook (someone whose profile and mutual friends I can see in preview), for example, I encounter these folks with a remarkable jump-start on real-world intimacy. An artist friend of mine just admitted the other day she finally gave in and joined Facebook because she felt she was missing out on too many invitations to events that everyone else seemed to know about.Furthermore, we are collectively creating an exhilarating and phenomenally accelerating new lingua-franca (centered in English, which is rapidly closing in on 1 million words) through such tools, one that keeps blending all of recorded human history into an ever-widening pool of referents. (See this list of words added to the Oxford Dictionary recently....origins for new "English" words range from Scotland to East Africa to Japan, some of them just now, nearly 100 years after first coinage, and much of them created in response to the need to discuss new technology among ourselves).More than that, though, we are collectively sorting through the content of recorded history and tagging it...in essence, through the Internet we're building the most remarkable content management system (CMS) the world has ever known. Consider Wikipedia or YouTube. How much money would it have cost someone to find and input all that data, let alone add all that metadata, let alone refine the quality of the data (via ratings and/or feedback) in a socially relevant way? These are truly historic projects, and we're all contributing to their generation (willingly and for free I might add). (Yes such systems suffer from the bane of any database [i.e., garbarge in = garbage out], but I'll get to that in a moment.)Moreover, with the speed with which you can now access information that the Internet provides, more of history, more of contemporary life, more of everything is quite literally at your fingertips. I recall, for example, a bit they did on Monty Python decades ago and within seconds I'm watching it on YouTube. If I want to share its significance, I no longer need to summarize or transcribe the telescript, I send out a link and voila, we're all watching the exact same bit. This ability accelerates what I can communicate more accurately. It connects us more succinctly (especially as I would have undoubtedly remembered it incorrectly had I been left to summarize it from memory).Finally, this ability (and more importantly, our collective acceptance of communicating this way) permits me to draw more casually and eventually more effectively from all of history (images and titles and text and video) to try to convey something. When I wish to suggest humorously that the order for the New Year is Hope, it takes me mere minutes to provide a series of images that reach back millennia. A few key strokes and voila, history condensed and sewn together with ease to underscore my point.It's not just the access (dedicated travelers or scholars could always spend their lives researching dusty volumes or the back roads of the world and then regurgitate what they found toward their own ends), though, but the ease of it. The speed of it begins to blur it all a bit. Indeed, all of world history and human accomplishment is our fertile playground and the ravenous rate with which we can consume it is changing how we feel about boundaries between times, places, and things. It didn't take me a week to make an appointment with a library and then hours of searching to find the Monty Python sketch, during which any number of life events might have derailed my quest or interest. I found it in seconds and combined it with another idea and moved on.But why isn't this bad, you might ask? This speed surely leads to shallower observations or offerings, no?Taken individually, perhaps (depending on the effort or the skills of the person offering it), but collectively I would argue the opposite. The following is an excerpt from something I wrote for the Daily Constitutional, Issue 6, Summer 2008:It's widely accepted that programming has advanced to the point that no mere mortal will ever again consistently be able to beat the best computer applications at playing chess. The best that even the World Chess Champion can consistently hope for is a tie. And that may be but a momentary situation. Indeed, the notion has been raised that the brute force of intelligence available to a computer now produces the same results as the most intuitive human mind (leading to the situation where humans now prefer to pit their machines against each other at chess tournaments). In terms of processing future possibilities, things have reached the point at which quantity becomes indecipherable from quality.Effectively directing such quantity into meaningful connections (it's not enough to take your opponent's queen if that then facilitates their checkmating you) is still an achievement of high purpose, though. And for human purposes that will always require understanding what is important from a human point of view. Against this furious backdrop, this new rapidly evolving reality, then, what reflects most accurately what's important now? How can you elevate one idea or achievement or time period over another in such a sea of arguably equal options/sources/references? The answer seems to be you don't. Not in the manner you used to at least. Perhaps moving forward, you assess what's important (to you or to society at large if that's your role), not solely through a chronological canon of individual achievements (although those are still essential elements), but rather through our new-found ability to see deeper, more complex, more subtle connections, independent of linear history or place.What that means for the players in the art world constitutes the balance of this post:Curators/MuseumsTwo "trends" (if you will) or perhaps simply emphases in curating seem to be acknowledging that inter-connectivity is important now. The first is overt collaboration, as evidenced most succinctly perhaps by the collective What, How and for Whom (WHW; Ivet Curlin, Ana Devic, Natasa Ilic and Sabina Sabolovic) who formed in 1999 and will be curating the upcoming Istanbul Biennial. Second is the growing interest in mixing historical with contemporary art or older historical works with more recent historical works...any dismissal of linear time seems of urgent interest (see, for example, this, this, this, this, and this) to present a more accurate overall picture of the works' significance or, as the recent exhibition at the Morgan Library and Museum called it, to "draw connections." This achronological approach has captured the imagination of nearly everyone I speak with about it these days. Part of the enthusiasm is admittedly designed to correct what's seen an "imbalance of commercial interest." But I suspect more of it is because of the synaptic connection it sparks...evidence of how it answers a floating question about our times.CriticsArt on Paper has been carefully balancing its coverage of the medium it's dedicated to, independent of the year the work was created, since the early 90s (see their summer issue reviews for a range of their interests). Their medium-specific mission has permitted this connecting thread across history more easily than that of, say, Artforum or other art publications dedicated to contemporary art, but the history of that publication has been one of continuously widening its scope. It's not irrelevant that its publishers are Peter Nesbett and Shelly Bancroft (the brains behind the sometimes controversial and always thought-provoking non-profit space Triple Candie [currently without a physical location]), two art world insiders with a knack for seeing the big picture.The depth and breadth that focus permits is but one part of what I think art criticism must provide at the moment, though. The writers at the New York Times cover an incredible range of exhibitions, spanning all of art history, and still maintain more credibility collectively than any other daily publication in the world. But that, I believe, is their strength...their collective voice. Other publications have identifiable points of view or voices, but a singular point of view for any publications' readers increasingly seems a fetishization to my mind. So much so that I suspect publications with only one art critic will benefit greatly from those critics also voicing their opinions via other, perhaps less-formal channels, to permit these (non-edited) critiques to balance out their formal contributions. Blogs are one such channel, but other (less time-consuming channels) are being used effectively by writers for this as well.CollectorsA high-profile contemporary art collector (a fairly brilliant man recognized as such in his industry) recently noted with great enthusiasm that he had moved past the point in building his collection of only buying "brand" names and had found great joy in also acquiring work by less-established artists that complemented or connected his trophy pieces. He had learned enough about contemporary art to connect the dots, so to speak, he said. Juxtaposing works based on formal or conceptual connections had become his new passion. But more than that, the line that cut through from a budding artist to a highly celebrated one seemed more relevant than any individual piece.Indeed, I suspect such collections will prove to be more important in the future than deep assemblies of brand names. They will prove to have been more insightful of what was really happening at this time. I know I can't say that without seeming to indict a wide range of what are considered very important contemporary collections, mostly because of their remarkable depth (how many pieces they include by "significant" artists), but having informally surveyed visitors to such collections they nearly universally report the ennui such visits left them feeling. Why? I began to wonder. What is it about such an approach that seems so ho-hum now? Why is the idea of connecting the dots so exhilarating?FairsTwo years ago we were invited to participate in Art Chicago, which I had never done before (this was the year of its rebirth via the Merchandise Mart team) and we were excited to try it. Upon seeing our placement at the fair, though, I grew rather anxious. We were surrounded by galleries with programs so different from ours (a secondary market gallery that sold important Modernist works, a print gallery, an old Masters gallery, and contemporary galleries that I considered to be having a very different dialog than the one we're investing in [which is my nice way of saying they were too commercial for my tastes]) that I didn't know what to expect. Most of the fairs we had done before were much more consistent in their scope. A few of them were all but homogeneous (you'd find the same well-selling contemporary artists in several booths). Oddly, though, as the week wore on I began to love the context. To see the connections between what our artists were doing and what had come before, sometimes long before, was very eye-opening. Of course I knew the references that were obvious, but sometimes a subtle connection would reveal itself and it was, indeed, exhilarating.Now that the market has cooled down, I do wonder whether fairs that had focused on traditional (i.e., older) works but began to embrace contemporary art or contemporary fairs that expanded to include more traditional work will back off that trend. I think that would be unfortunate for the public, even as it might be necessary temporarily for some organizers. The homogeneous art fair increasingly has the same impact that the too-indepth collections have on viewers if anecdotal evidence counts for anything.GalleriesI suspect we're going to see more exhibitions like the one that just ended at Kinz and Tillou, pairing the photography of contemporary artist Kim Keever with paintings by Hudson River School artists. Indeed, if a contemporary art gallery's role is to explain to the public what an artist is doing and why he/she is important, such exhibitions are surely much more effective than lengthy press releases, no? Another gallery presenting work in this manner for years now to great effect is Pavel Zoubok Gallery, which strategically deals in both the primary and secondary market more seamlessly than any other gallery of its size. Presenting their contemporary artists' work alongside historically important work in an ongoing series of group exhibitions, they connect the dots brilliantly (not to mention improve their odds in any market climate).More than that, though, galleries will see education on inter-connectivity as a solid means of selling work. A friend of mine who owns a gallery rocked my world when she described her program, which seems consistent to me but confuses some of their collectors from time to time, in terms of imagining that each gallery artist were a segment on a color wheel. You have connections between the artists that mimic the relationship of complementary colors and those that are more akin to the relationship of colors next to each other, both formally and conceptually. It may not be immediately obvious how artist A makes sense in the same program as artist B until you see how one completes a segment of the same wheel.Not all galleries strive for consistency in their programs, of course, but the same thinking can be incredibly useful in connecting certain artists in one's stable with the artists in a collection. Using the axis system of a color wheel and the main categories of formal concerns and conceptual concerns, connections that may have required painful lengthy explanations may be easier to communicate (provided they're actually there, of course).ArtistsIf we accept that the role of contemporary art curators is to investigate and present what's important among the studio practices of living artists, then the two "trends" suggested above should be reflected in what artists are doing, no? Collectives are certainly alive and well, even as their membership, raison d'etre, or output ebbs and flows (as is the norm with collectives it seems): from Fluxus to the Gorilla Girls to Forcefield to K48 to What is to Be Done? and countless others, contemporary collectives continue to form in response to issues or merely a convergence of interests and time and place. Whether curating collectives have any meaningful connection to artist collectives is a fair question though.Collaboration is also not only alive and well, but seemingly reaching a critical point as a medium unto itself among contemporary artists. Not only are artist teams still thriving (husband and wife [or husband and husband or wife and wife] teams seem everywhere interestingly enough), but we're seeing artists now who see collaboration with a wide range of others (artists and non artists alike) as the main thrust of their practice. Most interesting among such approaches (especially for me admittedly) is that practiced by Christopher K. Ho, described by Jonathan Neil as "collaboration [that] implies or even necessitates a certain antagonism. [Ho's] favored analogy is to the tennis match, where two players not only compete against one another but also collaborate in the creation of the match itself, whichsomehow exceeds the inevitable outcomes of victory or loss. Here, ‘working together’ is stripped of its hackneyed utopian veneer and set up as a constant and never frictionless negotiation."So while friction is in abundance still (evidenced as well by the individual goals of artists that can drive collectives apart), a deeper understanding of the value of collaboration is emerging. Indeed, the "match" (the collective series of points, the back and forth, the connection between the players that creates the drama, and the rules that facilitate the accomplishment) itself becomes what is most interesting for the viewer. Any individual play might indeed make all the highlight reels (even go down in history as spectacular), but the satisfaction comes from witnessing the accumulation of individual plays, some fabulous, some merely moving the match forward.How this seems relevant to artists not working in collectives or using collaboration as a medium is perhaps best illustrated by looking at two ongoing trends in art making that seem to be converging. One is what I'll call the accumulation (connect a thread through Yayoi Kusama, Tara Donovan, and Daniel Zeller to name but a few) and cataloging processes (connect a thread through Mark Lombardi, Jennifer Dalton, and Danica Phelps, again, to name but a few) trend. What these processes have in common is an approach to organizing vast amounts of information, seemingly the greatest mental challenge of our time. The second trend is the battle to realize the 2-D object (read: painting) in space trend (connect a thread through Elizabeth Murray to Frank Stella's wall sculptures to Matthew Ritchie [and yes, Ivin Ballen]).What the mutation of these seems to be heading toward is a complex approach to composition that incorporates a huge amount of information and presents it in multi-dimensions (I've seen Rauschenberg-esque photog-collage canvases cut into all manner of forms, painted over in parts with outrageous palletes, and installed such that it's all coming out into the room and along the floor recently...exhilarating, but still in the resolution phase I would say. Not to be confused with installation or scatter art, this effort is a single wholly connected object, not architecture or sculpture unto itself either, but a painting in which the artist confines his ambition to a singular composition.)But even that, I would submit, is only the beginning of where the foundation being laid now can take art. Talking with three of the smartest people I know in the art world in Miami (Jonathan Neil, Franklin Boyd, and András Szántó) it was suggested that where this is heading, these achievements in visualizing so much information, is an incorporation of the fourth dimension, or in other words, the temporal. I'll leave it to artists to figure out what that will look like.ConclusionsSo it seems to me that what some of us are missing, as we're anxiously anticipating the next big thing, is that it's right here, right now, under our noses and that we, in fact, are actually all participating in it. The systematic connecting of the dots across all of history, the uploading and tagging of the videos, the databases we're voluntarily building in social network sites, the knowledge base we're creating and constantly refining in Wikipedia, all of this is a necessary part of building the foundation for the coming new way of seeing and processing the world around us. We're collectively creating a massive content management system, but it is simply a tool, not the product. This multi-dimensional interconnectivity is merely the new "Perspectiva!"I suspect it's an evolutionary survival strategy, actually. We simply must be able to process information more quickly to survive. But it must be noted again, that as in any content management system, the output (or what you can actually do with the system) is only as good as the input. In other words, the quality of the individual paintings or photography or video or installations that go into this system, that we tag and collectively connect the dots to, is as important as what anyone ever expects to get out of it. Quantity must be directed by high purpose to reach its quality potential. (The real potential there, again, is something I can't wait for artists to show us.)What this means I feel is that artists are free to focus intensely on their individual contributions, in the media of their choice. Free of adherence to any manifesto other than their own. This, I know, is where we are...the Pluralism that defines our time, and yet, still, you hear the frustration that the lack of a dominant movement has created in talking with one another about what's important now. I would argue that what's important now is what we are collectively doing. It must come first, and in a way it's an essential part of the art of our time.UPDATE: Ben, of Emvergeoning, offers a thoughtful response and a few counterpoints:[A]rt world observers still looking for “the next big thing” need to take a deep breath and accept that fragmentation is here to stay; and this is, in fact, “the next big thing.” This isn’t a crisis, it’s just a way of being.Labels: art trends
posted by Edward_ at 2:14 PM
37 comments
Happy 2009!
 The Hope Dionysos George Frederic Watts, Hope Gustav Klimt, Hope II The Hope Diamond Hope. It's what's for dinner.Labels: happy holidays
posted by Edward_ at 11:06 AM
10 comments
UPDATED: The Pending End of the "Up Is Down" Era
UPDATED with the answers and a very embarrassing admissionHelping a friend bubble wrap a large abstract painting the other day, I recalled how many times I've been in a studio of a painter who works in abstraction and had one of two experiences. Either it had been years since I had seen a particular abstract piece but upon noticing it again realized, often to the artist's surprise, that it was upside down (my one and only memory parlor trick) ... or ... I watched as the artist his/herself tried to recall which was the correct orientation of a piece. Together those experiences might suggest I find it odd that artists sometimes forget the orientation of an abstract piece, but my parlor trick is inconsistent enough that I actually totally empathize.Toward that end, and as my parting gift to 2008 (what a wild and in so many ways awful year it's been), I offer the following highly irreverent quiz (with sincere apologies to the artists). Among these well known works, can you tell which is upside right and which is upside down? I've ordered them according to what I consider easiest to hardest and I should note that in a few instances the image has been cropped ever so slightly to remove a tell-tale signature or other indication:A. Kasimir Malevich: (correct) B: Georges Braque (Upside down) C: Barnett Newman (upside down) D: Jasper Johns (correct) E: Jackson Pollock (correct) F: Joan Miró (correction: Image that had been here was actually a parody of a Miró, NOT an actual Miro...my bad. What I get for taking short cuts). It was upside down, but I've deleted it to not further my offense to the parodying artist.G: Wassily Kandinsky (correct) H: Kasimir Malevich (upside down) I'll post the answers next year.Have a healthy, happy and prosperous 2009 everyone!Labels: art quiz
posted by Edward_ at 9:23 AM
21 comments
Name: Edward_ Location: New York, New York, United States View my complete profile
var titleText = "Recent Comments";
var numberToShow = 6;
var displayTemplate = "[name]:[title]";
var nameIsLink = true;
var comments=new Array(0);var title = "";
var itemurl = "";
function getSortDate(strDate){var d=new Date(strDate);
var day=''+d.getDate();if(day.length==1)day='0'+day;
var month=''+(d.getMonth()+1);if(month.length==1)
month='0'+month;var hour=''+d.getHours();
if(hour.length==1)hour='0'+hour;var min=''+
d.getMinutes();if(min.length==1)min='0'+min;var sec=''+
d.getSeconds();if(sec.length==1)sec= '0'+sec;
var sortDate=''+d.getFullYear()+month+day+hour+min+sec;
return sortDate;}
function recentComment(t,u,i,a,d){var rcmnt=
document.getElementById('frch'+i).innerHTML;
while(rcmnt.indexOf("\n")> -1)rcmnt=
rcmnt.replace("\n","");while(rcmnt.indexOf(" />")> -1)
rcmnt=rcmnt.replace(" />","/>");
while(rcmnt.indexOf(" ")> -1)rcmnt=
rcmnt.replace(" ","");var author=a;var pos=
rcmnt.toLowerCase().lastIndexOf('posted by');
var pos2=
rcmnt.toLowerCase().lastIndexOf('');
var pos3=
rcmnt.toLowerCase().lastIndexOf('');
var pos4=
rcmnt.toLowerCase().lastIndexOf('');
var aoffset=pos+6;if (pos3> -1) pos2=pos3;
if (pos4> -1) pos2=pos4;
if (pos2> -1){pos=pos2;aoffset=
rcmnt.toLowerCase().lastIndexOf(' ');
if (aoffset==-1)aoffset=
rcmnt.toLowerCase().lastIndexOf('')-1;}
if (pos> -1){author=
rcmnt.substr(aoffset+15,rcmnt.length-1);var expt="";
expt=rcmnt.substr(0,pos-4).replace(/(]+)>)/ig,"");}
else expt=rcmnt.replace(/(]+)>)/ig,"");
author=author.replace(" -1)
expt=expt.substr(0,expt.lastIndexOf(' '));expt+='...';}
expt=expt.replace('"',"\"");expt=expt.replace("'","\'");
if (!nameIsLink)author=author.replace(/(]+)>)/ig,"");
var st=getSortDate(d)+''+displayTemplate+'';
st=st.replace('[name]',author);
st=st.replace('[title]',''+t+'');comments.push(st);}
');
Show Your Love for PPOW
title=
document.getElementById('frcht7985427923433682815').innerHTML;
itemurl='http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2009/01/show-your-love-for-ppow.html';
An absolute nightmare. I feel for them, especially the artist whose work got trampled due to something out of his control. I will definitely send fellow gallery goers to the show (although I will be in Philly). There are a ton of emergency grants easily researched online which they would definitely qualify for. Check NYFA too.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'374727291829618430',
' Aaron Wexler','1/08/2009 10:12:00 AM');
They were able to do all that with out the Federal Guberment…hu?
recentComment(title,itemurl,'7867450861862361907',
' kalm james','1/08/2009 02:55:00 PM');
Topic du Jour Deux
title=
document.getElementById('frcht337830400701465759').innerHTML;
itemurl='http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2009/01/topic-du-jour-deux.html';
When I was in Berlin a couple of years ago I was greatly amused and impressed by what I saw on the subway.There was an ad by [I think] an electric company 'explaining' why they needed to build a plant in a particular place.A group, obviously opposed to the building of the plant, had gone around and placed neatly designed and printed 'counter ads' next to the original ads. Another 'guerrilla action' that amused me was graffiti on walls of houses in Kreuzberg which said "Clean Walls = Higher Rent."
recentComment(title,itemurl,'880158900777699383',
' christian','1/07/2009 01:28:00 PM');
As you said, atheists continue to have heinous behaviors projected onto them, but now I wonder about the believers. At a raucous New Year's Eve party last week I got into a discussion with some religious friends. They seemed awed that atheists have the fortitude to be "good", without a god watching over them. And that kind of scared me. What does that mean about my friends? Are they only good because of Jesus? What happens if they have a crisis of faith? If they haven't developed an inner scale of morality and decision tree based on a lifetime of experiences and not simply on the rules they were handed, will they choose to be good? The idea seemed to scare them as well. They freely admitted that Jesus was their reason for being good and that acting morally without his presence seemed difficult.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'6092630572681452287',
' Cat Rocketship','1/07/2009 01:31:00 PM');
I have to agree with Cat--in many ways one could argue that atheists are *more* moral, because they adhere to being "good" not because of a fear of retribution or hell but simply because their inner compass guides them to behave in such a manner. I hover somewhere between being an atheist and agnostic, and I'd like to think I've lived just as moral a life as my religious friends (who are lovely people, by the way). I've also always espoused the notion that you can believe (or not believe) in what you will, just don't try to tell others that they have to think the same way you do. Which I have to say is often what gets me about people who try to convert others--why can't they simply practice their religion without trying to get everyone else to do the same? Why are people so threatened by those of us who don't believe in God, or at least question his/her existence? And it does seem hypocritical to tell someone they're going to burn in hell but then be offended when that person turns around and challenges the idea of GodThanks for the post.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'515568665038464725',
' Elizabeth Fleming','1/07/2009 01:51:00 PM');
without having to hedge bets on one big thing because like I mentioned, it's all already out there and there aren't anymore rules to be broken.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'1973031953848163665',
' Do it Again','1/07/2009 01:51:00 PM');
Just to clarify an often confused point:Agnostic means "without knowledge."An atheist does not believe in the existence of God. Some atheists would acknowledge that despite their disbelief in God, they are not equipped with any scientific evidence proving or disproving His existence. Therefore, one can be an agnostic atheist (as I would classify myself).On the other hand, I've met otherwise rational theists, who believe in God but recognize that they don't have any actual knowledge to assert His existence beyond their belief. A person such as this could be considered an agnostic theist.Conclusion: Being agnostic about something does not preclude belief or disbelief in that very thing.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'972695109900421922',
' Mike','1/07/2009 02:14:00 PM');
Agnostic means "without knowledge."I'm not sure if this is more or less what you're clarifying, but I've always used "agnostic" in this context to mean "without certainty." Is there a difference?
recentComment(title,itemurl,'1041668506822743066',
' Edward_','1/07/2009 02:21:00 PM');
GOD is a Wiki
recentComment(title,itemurl,'1714850010414436599',
' George','1/07/2009 02:34:00 PM');
"Without knowledge" is a literal translation of the word agnostic, from the Greek root of the word. Edward, I use the word the same way as you: to mean without certainty. Which makes sense, since if you don't "know" something, you can't be "certain" of it. Although there probably is some semantic difference between knowing and certainty.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'695492353814800383',
' Mike','1/07/2009 03:12:00 PM');
The question shouldn’t be: “is there a God” but, just as with the Devil, what's your definition of God.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'3232397937757978684',
' kalm james','1/07/2009 03:23:00 PM');
I think the free exchange of ideas is terribly important to have a healthy and vibrant culture - and religious ideas are no different.As long as it is not physically violent, I can't see the problem.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'3046210855552256500',
' Bromo Ivory','1/07/2009 04:04:00 PM');
Question: So you are saying that when you die, that's it?Gore Vidal: "NO, I'm really saying, " When you're born, that's it"People imagined god(s), and now we should have developed enough to see that they were all imagined.But I guess that won't fit on a bus.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'3280446747436747315',
' Christopher/Mark','1/07/2009 04:52:00 PM');
I'm not theistic at all. But I think it's smug to say "there is no god." It's pretty much narrow minded, perhaps even arrogant. And yet Jesus talk completely confuses me (to say the least).I just wish the religion debate focused more on the spiritual.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'5901567617372622204',
' Molly Stevens','1/07/2009 06:08:00 PM');
First off, a true Christian does not fear hell. So that is not the reason to be devoted to Christ. I find it amusing that people chuckle at this, but the same people would be in an uproar if it said, "Allah probably wants your head" or "Muhammad was just a man". Americans are funny about that. They will put down their largest religious base, but if someone pokes fun at another religion there is (no pun intended) hell to pay.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'7154451472098593924',
' Anonymous','1/07/2009 06:08:00 PM');
Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac? She used to lie awake at night wondering if there was a Dog.Sorry, continue.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'9103604622489970726',
' Franklin','1/07/2009 07:22:00 PM');
Will the real God please stand up!I think it was clarified back in 1958.The real god is God no.3 Which totally threw me off. The God I had been talking with for years always went under the non-de-plume Three and a Bit.I phoned. God picked up and said he was 3 alright, but kind of liked the bit on the side.I nodded, I don't doubt that.c.p.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'5576314606275412229',
' Anonymous','1/07/2009 08:23:00 PM');
God, voodoo, chicken blood, whatever.Have you heard about this cannibal cult? Their leader is a dead guy and the followers eat a little piece of his body and drink a little sip of his blood every week. Some of them will privately admit that they don't believe they are actually eating his flesh, but they go along with it. There are all kinds of strict do's and don'ts and superstitions and apparently there are offshoots in many areas of the world. Strange what you can get people to fall for.Oriane Stender(And Ed, if you couldn't tell, I'm officially out of the aforementioned closet.)
recentComment(title,itemurl,'2742383032972992230',
' Anonymous','1/07/2009 09:48:00 PM');
The important word in the second bus sentance is the word "Maybe".I wish religious people would realize that when theyspeak about the bible and hell, they actually mean "Maybe this book is the truth. Maybe there is a hell". But everyone acts as if they are convinced God talkedto their own selves.I mean...I talk to God every day, but I'm not convinced I doesn't suffer from some form of Paranoia and Schizophrenia or any other mental diseases that mightbe at the source of every religious beliefs. Lol !Cedric"God is your dog, and Satan is a friend of mine" (lyrics from a tune I wrote ages ago)
recentComment(title,itemurl,'2574600615359778596',
' Cedric C','1/07/2009 10:00:00 PM');
I have some friends who believe in God and for all that they seem to be normal well adjusted people except for the invisible friend bit.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'4468052899022613386',
' Henry Bateman','1/07/2009 11:51:00 PM');
If people can conceive of a godly justice and there is no god, than this expression of godly justice is God. A best possible world that we have imagined. Would such a Godembrace or condemn the behaviours of each participant here? This is the question. What can you morally reproach to yourself? And what part of your morals are you letting go out of your belief that there is no God from what part that you keep because of your idealism? To put it another way: what would be your idea of a fair God? What would that God do or not do? Are you doing anything in your life that is going toward that direction?If you don't do crimes out of a fear of God, than where is your moral limit? Would you kill your own children? Can actions be unfair to communal human life even without a God? Don't you somewhere how your intelligence and capacity of language to the community of every humans that have passed before you? If you are y and pretty, don't you owe it to every ugly monkey beings that have passed before you? Are you going to mistreat the life that has giving this opportunity? Cedric C
recentComment(title,itemurl,'7583746801745677645',
' Cedric C','1/08/2009 01:30:00 AM');
Not every Christian rants about how you, you, and you are going to hell. If you go by the teaching of Jesus Christ he says to be among the sinners. He went as far as to stand up against the religious leaders of his time by saying they were wrong for telling people to avoid sinners. His teachings also make it clear that people will sin no matter how hard they try not to. The whole "you are going to hell" thing was crafted by the Catholic church. The actual teaching of Jesus was far more peaceful. A lot of people who deny him today live pretty close to his teaching and don't even realize it. There were many wandering holy men in his time and the majority of them have long been forgotten. So I think the fact that his name remains spoken today is a sign. It is not like the Christians had strength in numbers from the very start. It took a long time for Christianity to be accepted. Was he the son of God. I believe so.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'3204765935448351611',
' Anonymous','1/08/2009 02:16:00 AM');
. If you go by the teaching of Jesus Christ he says to be among the sinners.Actually, this is where I entirely lose my patience with so-called Christians. This arrogant delineation between themselves and the rest of us, presumably with them being only relapsed Christians when they sin (and boy oh boy do they sin) and the rest of us being (what?) dedicated sinners?A lot of people who deny him today live pretty close to his teaching and don't even realize it.Then what's the problem? If recognition of Christ is the only difference between who goes to heaven and who goes to hell (because from what I can see, you're right, not all that many Christians apparently are that concerned with which other actions will lead them to the gates of hell), I call b.s. (yes, that's right I called b.s. on the teachings of the multiple flavors of contemporary Christian sects). Do the math with me. Until Christ died, there was no means by which to get to heaven if recognizing Christ is the only means. So everyone who died BC is in hell. Then you have those awkward years, during which Christ walked among us, but hadn't yet been crucified. Did recognizing him then get you in, or did you have to live longer than he did? Finally, once he's ascended to heaven and, phew! finally, you can delineate people between those who deny he's the Son of God and those who accept it, you still have the embarrassing lack of mass communication enabling the spreading of the Word. If I had lived in India, per se, and then died before the Word reached there and I stood before my maker only to hear that I was doomed for eternity because, had anyone asked me, I would have answered "Jesus who?" I don't think I'd be all that impressed with God's fairness.Yet, today, certain Christians will fundamentally reject that anyone other than those who accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior (and they differ on whether or not that includes walking the walk too strictly) could join them in heaven. Even if they're much less of a sinner.When you challenge them on the fairness or logic of this, they'll generally resort to "Well, that's what I believe" (as if that were an actual argument).It's all a bit too convenient and (for the chosen few) lucrative, don't you think?
recentComment(title,itemurl,'621928368242907149',
' Edward_','1/08/2009 08:10:00 AM');
So everyone who died BC is in hell.Some of them were sprung out of hell by Jesus after he died. There's a hilarious Fra Angelico painting in Florence in which Christ has kicked in the gate of hell to rescue Adam and a host of Old Testament prophets. The door has fallen in on some hapless demon, who gets flattened Wile E. Coyote style.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'3461825135882703651',
' Franklin','1/08/2009 09:38:00 AM');
The bummer about the entire religious thing is that most religions have an exclusivity policy. "We have the answers...and if you don't agree with us, then you are lost and must be fixed." (converted)It's lack of tolerance at a basic level. Christians, Jews, Muslims, these are all exclusive clubs. If you don't believe it's "the way" and aren't following "the rules", then you are basically screwed.That lack of tolerance is the reason why I have a problem with a bus ad promoting a particular God. It is divisive. Period. And from what I can observe in life, "God" is far from divisive. Lowly slugs have life. Amoebas...bacteria.... I cannot recall Buddhists, for example, promoting such messages. I do believe it's the product of only particular religions, not all. Unfortunately, these religions are the largest in population. Therefore-- our situation, ads on buses.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'2469348347890399966',
' Julie Sadler','1/08/2009 09:56:00 AM');
Why would it be so hard to envision that when we die we go back to a same state we were before we were born. To see Life as a wonderfully privileged moment, but one in which the body frames one, imprisons one temporarily. Like a frame surrounding a painting? No need for any religion, no need for any god, no need for any purpose. Accept life as a wonderful accident. We should be leaving the explaining of the origin of the universe(s) to the astrophysicists and theoretical physicists. And view the stories of the bible and all religious texts as some beautiful, other less beautiful stories, literature. mythologies, metaphors, anything except to take the stories literally.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'6001114946714583173',
' nemastoma','1/08/2009 10:03:00 AM');
I don't like being bombarded by any agenda, and I find car ads just as offensive as the bible club ads on the subway. There is a built-in pushy element to fundamentalist Christianity, followers take the bible literally including the instruction to preach and spread the "good news" about Jesus. I was raised in a house with religious, albeit spiritual parents and ended up Agnostic because my parents encouraged critical thought. My observation is that religion, or the idea of God, is largely a comfort issue. How distressing is it that evil exists and life ends with death and is wrought with uncertainty and pain. But with this Jesus character comes eternal life and if you take the bible literally, an answer to every question. Zealous folk from every religious stripe have a definite answer to any question naysayers put to them, emotionally manipulative "concrete" answers are powerful. It means believers can turn off their brains and be absolved from doubt and fear and be happy saved folk. This is why organizations target the young scared kids at university campuses as well as prisons and underprivileged neighbourhoods, these people are ripe for the picking. I don't think it is as simple as Christians not enjoying their lives because they believe god exists. The humanists' ads probably won't change a religious person's mind or stop them from giving tithe to their pastor, people are pretty attached to their protective bubbles. It means that they are right and they don't have to wrestle with existential problems. What makes the fundamentalist Christians so annoying to me is self- righteousness, but the same arrogant attitude is equally vexing coming from Atheists and trust fund kids trying to sell me the Socialist Worker paper. Thanks for the post Ed, and congrats on your upcoming book!
recentComment(title,itemurl,'4155479893478877312',
' mcknight','1/08/2009 10:15:00 AM');
It all comes down to your Final Authority. Mine just happens to be the King James Bible. You (me, you, all of us) make a choice. You choose to accept that we are all sinners and will continue to be or not. I am a sinner, not any better or worse than you, because Gods word reads that we all fall short, all have sinned. If you have committed one, you have committed all. Sin is sin.Everything Old Testament (sacrifice) leads up to the Birth, Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. After the Gospels, everything New Testament points back to it. Comparing Old and New Rules and Laws with Grace, is equivalent to comparing apples to telephones. Old T. was Law, New T. is Grace. "For we are saved by Grace, through Faith."Many people say that a Loving God would not send people to hell. This is true. A Loving God wouldn't, but a Just God would. God can not be Just if he does not stand by his own word. "Choose today whom you will serve." Yourself or God? You can make a hundred excuses why you choose not to believe in God. It boils down to you choose to serve yourself rather than accept Gods word. Oh, you are "good" person. You never killed anyone. You don't spit in the coffee cup of the elderly. You don't trip little children walking to school. Again, sin is sin. Too many of us just don't want to accept Christ, the Light of the world, because we don't want that light shining on our lives to reveal our sin. We don't want to admit that how we live our lives has sin in it. Yes, there are many hypocrites in a variety of churches and religions. There is no perfect church (assembly of people) because people will always have sin in their lives. You, I, we are sinners. I will be a sinner until the day I die. The difference is that I accept it, and have heard what Gods word says about eternal life -vs.- eternal death. Hell is real. Count on it. What sends a man to hell is rejecting Christ. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man come unto the Father but by me." Yes, I'm quoting scripture, and no doubt you know some scripture too. I've heard plenty of it taken so far out of context that it sickens me as much as you say you are sickened by Christians telling you that you'll go to hell if you don’t accept Christ Jesus as your Saviour. I live believing that Christ died on the cross for my sins, to save me. I will sin from time to time, but am taught to repent of them. So I live a life restricting myself of things that Gods word reads are sin (killing, stealing, coveting, outside of marriage, I'm sure you know the rest), I fail, but call upon his grace, turn from that sin and walk the path that God said would be narrow and hard. If you reject what I say here it is because you reject Gods word. God said that his followers would be rejected because the light they carry as a Christian will reveal the sin of the world. Your argument isn’t with the likes of Christians, it is with God. Choosing to not acknowledge Him or trying to make a Christian prove that he exists is not proof that he doesn’t. So, I live NOW obeying Gods word believing upon his grace, and love, and trusting his promises. If I am right I lived a good life and go to heaven. If I am wrong I still lived a good life. (I had a belief and shared it with others. After all, Gods word tells me to go out into all the world and share the Gospel of Jesus Christ.) OR You live your life. You do not kill anyone, you give to charity, you show love to your family and friends, basic morals of the world. But you choose to reject Gods word and Jesus. You choose to reject, confess, or repent that you are a sinner, and that God created this world. (And isn't it SO much easier to believe in the "Culmination of Years of Random Genetic Mishaps", than it is to believe in God the Creator? That is just sad.) So now, if you are right, you lived a good life. No harm no fowl, right? Okay, but what if you are wrong? Now, you stand before Christ who tells you: You rejected me. You rejected my love, my gift, my word. You had no need for me then. Depart from me for I knew you not. Then, you spend eternity in darkness. No love, no light, no hope, never any relief from the constant pain of your body burning. Forever locked in solitude to be tortured by your sin. You wanted it your way after all, right? Because if I can't live my life the way I want now, what's the point of spending it with God in eternity? Right? If a loving God is going to dictate that the way I live my life is sin, then I would rather go to Hell. Right?"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Is it so hard to sincerely call on God to show you the truth about this life? Or is it just too scary to think that we might be wrong. Our selfish pride, I – Me – My. So much better to live life now and burn later, than to work hard at pleasing a Loving God who gave all he had, to show that He loved us in the first place. Hell…It should be scary; the idea of eternity without God: it should quite literally scare the hell out of you. You are so obviously an articulated and intelligent man. Why is it you work so hard at avoiding God? It’s all your choice. God wrote it clear. Our choice, NOT GOD sends us to heaven or hell. Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'7999506617500158730',
' A Non-PERFECT Believer','1/08/2009 10:55:00 AM');
Non-Perfect,While I appreciate that you're attempting to be both inclusive and balanced in your assessment, one statement you've made overshadows all the rest and really is the essence of my problem with your position. On one hand you write:It all comes down to your Final Authority. Mine just happens to be the King James Bible.but then you insist:If you reject what I say here it is because you reject Gods word. You've nicely blurred whether or not it's fair to point out inconsistencies in the King James Bible, but you yourself list as "sins" those actions declared as such in the Old Testament. Christ never listed "killing, stealing, coveting, outside of marriage" in any of the Gospels I've read. But more than that and far more problematic, you're suggesting it's your way or the hell-highway. Despite admitting that your way (the King James Bible) is a personal choice you've made. Had you made that choice after an exhaustive reading of other texts purporting to be the divine word of the creator, I might respect that (I'll leave it to you to let me know whether you have) but even then, as you note, it comes down to your (implied: personal) final authority. Taken together, your second statement then reads "If you reject what I say here it is because you reject what I personally choose to believe."I'm comfortable with that.But more importantly, let's get back to this..."So I live a life restricting myself of things that Gods word reads are sin (killing, stealing, coveting, outside of marriage, I'm sure you know the rest), I fail, but ..."...should someone near you be calling the authorities?
recentComment(title,itemurl,'7521759886231663771',
' Edward_','1/08/2009 11:10:00 AM');
It all comes down to your Final Authority.I got mine.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'8804663065382838880',
' Franklin','1/08/2009 12:32:00 PM');
My apologies to Oriane, who posted a comment that I inadvertently deleted trying to moderate the comments.;-(
recentComment(title,itemurl,'4177636644744750180',
' Edward_','1/08/2009 01:20:00 PM');
Harrumph! Ed, for that you will burn for eternity in the environs of basement cat. Also, you are sentenced to spend some time in purgatory looking at the following links.Franklin, that's not bad.I gotz mien too.http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/04/07/funny-pictures-the-final-battle-for-our-souls-begins/http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/03/03/funny-pictures-glorious-appearence-in-da-sky/http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/02/13/funny-pictures-ceiling-cat-creates-man/http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/02/10/funny-pictures-sees-no-evidence-of-celing-cat/http://icanhascheezburger.com/2008/07/10/funny-pictures-commanments-of-ceiling-cat/Oriane
recentComment(title,itemurl,'2812385791957598920',
' Anonymous','1/08/2009 03:22:00 PM');
Arghhhhh!!!!My eyes!! The cute!! It burns!!!
recentComment(title,itemurl,'4581418573581013998',
' Edward_','1/08/2009 03:30:00 PM');
American Captain of Culture 2008
title=
document.getElementById('frcht8670664232770531187').innerHTML;
itemurl='http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/2009/01/american-captain-of-culture-2008.html';
T. Not born yet.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'3415149463827013258',
' Anonymous','1/07/2009 08:56:00 AM');
Of what and whose culture? We are so much more diverse than the British. Can one person fit the bill? So many people toiling the mines in so many areas. Lately, just to keep the doors open. In my mind no one person stands out-and that's fine. As long as you don't call them f-ing heroes.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'1020629296443636841',
' Mark','1/07/2009 09:14:00 AM');
Of what and whose culture? We are so much more diverse than the British.Debatable (have you been in London recently?) but also somewhat beside the point. Saint Neil uses his cultural institution to reach out in an international way, for a worldwide peace, so the award wasn't about being uniquely British as much as it was a Briton of note. In the US, I would submit that we have plenty of people making this kind of difference on that sort of scale.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'2506966242507066974',
' Edward_','1/07/2009 09:32:00 AM');
I don't think I could pick any one person. I would rather create a virtual "Justice League" with several people in the US that define the culture as it is today (fine art, cinema, writing, design, etc.).Being a superhero of culture, requires a bit of celebrity rather than being a mere culture vigilante. (For instance in the computer world I would pick Steve Jobs of Apple over Steve Ballmer of Microsoft)But I would also steer clear of people who specialize in mega dollar art - since Western culture isn't always about vast sums of money.Thought provoking article, I think.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'969219259728223683',
' Bromo Ivory','1/07/2009 09:34:00 AM');
A bit in the weeds, but did any of you catch the debate (it was a year ago, I think) about whether NYC, London, Toronto, or Sydney is more multicultural? It was simulcast/moderated from a radio station in each city (on WNYC in New York).New York's argument about being more multicultural is that it has folks from all over whereas London's multiculturalism mainly comes from its former colonies.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'2131789431187009724',
' Ethan','1/07/2009 09:41:00 AM');
One really ought to credit the artist who made the Captain America image.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'3881169975696208792',
' Franklin','1/07/2009 09:55:00 AM');
Central New York City, Central Toronto, Central London all have more in common with each other than with the nations in which they reside. Deciding "which one is more diverse" might be fun, it may not be instructive of the nation as a whole if this is your goal. Re-do your comparison once you are, say 100km away and see what you get.Consequently I believe if you want to say who is a good "American Captain of culture," you need to include at least some non-international-city things in your metric.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'4588133627334157095',
' Bromo Ivory','1/07/2009 10:02:00 AM');
One really ought to credit the artist who made the Captain America image.Used as anything other than a decorative flourish, I would agree, but I would ask why, given that I use uncredited images from a wide variety of sources (but sourced from the original site in case anyone wants to follow them back), why you're pointing out this one and not some previous image for this commentary?I know it's controversial, the way I use images on the blog. I've had a few people ask me to take them down (and of course I do), but it's a statement about appropriation and democracy (and I never complain if someone uses one my images and I grant permission to anyone who wishes to reprint my text, so I'm walking the walk here).
recentComment(title,itemurl,'8020164380012826876',
' Edward_','1/07/2009 10:27:00 AM');
I've read EW's list of A-S and would like to suggest either Laurie Anderson or Philip Glass for T. Besides the obvious, that they are both international cultural figures with histories of groundbreaking work behind them (and still to come, one hopes) I would like to see either of them in tights and a cape.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'2054953824695773706',
' pam farrell','1/07/2009 10:30:00 AM');
(but sourced from the original site in case anyone wants to follow them back)You didn't source this image at all, as far as I can tell. The artist who drew it deserves credit, at least in the form of a link.(Ironically, the CAPTCHA I have to type in for this comment is "comic.")
recentComment(title,itemurl,'1908591736185753243',
' Franklin','1/07/2009 10:32:00 AM');
well, the blogsophere being what it is, that's gonna be tough. I am pulling that image in from another blog (found via googling) and the URL is http://sharpercrook.com/goods/captainAmerica.jpg, but upon searching through that blog, I found this note:"This is my new desktop background. It’s just so good. I don’t know who the original artist is..."But again, I'll ask, why this image and not one of the previous hundreds of images I've used, obviously in the same way other independent bloggers are using images?If you want to make a case about crediting images, might I suggest another thread, so this one can return to the topic. I'll delete the image.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'2777206205001226132',
' Edward_','1/07/2009 10:42:00 AM');
But again, I'll ask, why this image and not one of the previous hundreds of images I've used, obviously in the same way other independent bloggers are using images?Because typically the images with which you illustrate your articles don't interest me. But when I saw this one, I thought, "Ooh, that's a nice-looking Captain America. I wonder who did it?" So I clicked on it, which didn't do anything, and then looked around for a credit, and couldn't find one. I am also an independent blogger, and I wouldn't dream of using somebody's work in this way, largely because if someone ever reposted my work without a link or a credit, I would take swift actions of rapidly decreasing cordiality.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'294692910320056048',
' Franklin','1/07/2009 11:04:00 AM');
Ahh, a fundamental difference is revealed. You see, it requires but one action of perfectly even-keeled cordiality for me to delete an uncredited image: just ask me. But your real point seems to be that you were frustrated you couldn't find the creator of the image, not that you're a self-appointed champion of stomping out uncredited images in the blogosphere, am I correct?For the record, though, if you wish to follow an image back to its original source on this blog, click right on it and choose properties...the original URL will be readily available.OK, enough pomposity from me...back to the topic of the thread.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'8423087008328055831',
' Edward_','1/07/2009 11:18:00 AM');
I would like to nominate Poster Boy, if only to fuel discussion. It can definitely be argued that he is a fairly good representation of our current culture; not only can he inspire a new direction for at least some artists (as well as others), but also the way his work came to people’s attention is a product of our times.While street art has always been commenting on our culture, he takes it a huge step forward using obvious skill, talent and originality. In the real world, his art would be seen by a few people and then taken down. He utilized technology (such as Flikr) to capture and archive it. Then our culture’s need to find that next new thing kicked into gear. His work was inspired enough that people started to talk about it and eventually the mainstream media (New York Time, New Yorker…) and other internet sites and blogs (such as this one) brought his work to the attention of a wider audience then would normally be able to see it.And this doesn't even begin to discuss the things he says with his art.He could not exist in any other time.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'6880292976605149473',
' fish','1/07/2009 11:29:00 AM');
I find it interesting that no one so far has chosen anyone that you have on your list, and in fact have gone so far to recommend other "T"s.I think that it's hard to be objective about it when you are "in" it. I appreciate some of the people on this list, but I am not sure that I could associate ONLY one as a winner. Thought provoking as usual, Mr. Ed.Poster Boy? Shepard Fairey I assume?
recentComment(title,itemurl,'5413407285141036840',
' Julie Sadler','1/07/2009 11:43:00 AM');
But your real point seems to be that you were frustrated you couldn't find the creator of the image, not that you're a self-appointed champion of stomping out uncredited images in the blogosphere, am I correct?I can't simultaneously answer your questions and allow the thread to return to topic, but since you ask, I was frustrated that I couldn't find out who created the image, said creator deserves to be discoverable without resorting to RMB->Properties, unpermitted reuse of copyrighted art is legally actionable regardless of what the rest of the blogosphere is doing, there but for the grace of God go I, creators of comic art deserve no less respect than any other kind of artist, and a gallerist ought to possess a little more understanding about such matters. I'll be happy to illustrate a future Artblog.net post with one of Joy Garnett's images, taken from winkleman.com without hyperlink or credit, if that would help clarify your thinking.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'4345042534271122285',
' Franklin','1/07/2009 11:56:00 AM');
Sorry, see here for more about Poster Boy...http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/search?q=poster+boy
recentComment(title,itemurl,'8337943178702983113',
' fish','1/07/2009 11:57:00 AM');
I suspected as much...you're tossing your teddy at what you presume to be a slight against comic book artists. A simple trip into the archives reveals a whole range of artists images being including without credit since the blog began. When it seems relevant I provide a link, when the work is used as decoration, I don't add that flourish, but feel that the Properties makes it just as discoverable (an inconvenience you point out that clouds just what your exact position is to be honest).I'll be happy to illustrate a future Artblog.net post with one of Joy Garnett's images, taken from winkleman.com without hyperlink or credit, if that would help clarify your thinking.You could not have picked a more perfect example. I think Joy would be honored to have her uncredited image selected as an image on a post discussing this issue. Let me know when it's up.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'2078110454703883008',
' Edward_','1/07/2009 12:15:00 PM');
Franklin, again you are pointlessly getting anal over something.Enough, we really don't care.Back to Ed's real topic.I guess I'd vote for Philippe deMontabell. Although he is no longer director of the MET he turned it into the best museum in the country.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'1568408066939407673',
' George','1/07/2009 12:16:00 PM');
One final thought. You're point won't be parallel unless you follow my practice of immediately taking down any image that anyone objects to. With that clarification...go for it.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'3539609973955294020',
' Edward_','1/07/2009 12:18:00 PM');
Your point, not "You're point."illiteracy is contagious.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'1074399717507386525',
' Edward_','1/07/2009 12:20:00 PM');
I'll be happy to illustrate a future Artblog.net post with one of Joy Garnett's images, taken from winkleman.com without hyperlink or credit(talk about picking the wrong artist to illustrate a point...)
recentComment(title,itemurl,'1508630411292318890',
' joy','1/07/2009 12:28:00 PM');
joy, ROTFLMAO!
recentComment(title,itemurl,'3143070618714878848',
' George','1/07/2009 12:31:00 PM');
PS: whether it was intended to or not, this thread now illustrates something important: there are many works of art in every medium that don't have known authors, or whose authors have been "lost" beyond retrieval. they might be "vernacular", "pop" or "fine" art works, but they are all classed as orphan works. if people are afraid to publish them, screen, play, share, use them in any way publicly or in an educational setting for fear of copyright disputes (legal reprisal), these works will basically disappear from our culture.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'2264477596177271469',
' joy','1/07/2009 12:45:00 PM');
Ah, silly me - I picked one of the Winkleman Gallery appropriation artists. Mea maxima fucking culpa.Ed, I provided six answers to your question, five of which had nothing to do comic art, and the remaining one presumed thoughtlessness rather than malice. The rest of them concerned simple courtesy due to a fellow creator, which seems to be escaping you today.George, Ed asked, I answered.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'5417451035758067263',
' Franklin','1/07/2009 12:56:00 PM');
I nominate James Kalm. His alternatingly surreptitious and assertive dealings with uncooperative galleries [see, Franklin, there's a way to combine the two sub-threads after all!], and his all-too-brief interviews with too-famous-for-thee artists border on downright inpsirational. His confidence as a documentarian is increasing, and an enthusiastic commentary is beginning to spring up around his youtube postings, affirming his impact. If the man would just steady that camera a wee bit more and slow the heck down sometimes...!
recentComment(title,itemurl,'2644411539808528855',
' John Hovig','1/07/2009 01:01:00 PM');
I'm going with "other" - that other being Mayor Michael Bloomberg. It's fair to be New York-centric in this case, if you do indeed consider NY to still be the center of the art world. Maybe that makes him the mayor of the center of the art world? - funny huh?He has consistently supported the arts like no other mayor I've seen. Especially so in such trying economic times and let's face it... war times. He was at my studio building a few months ago doing a studio visit with another artist. Very casual, very friendly. I'm guessing it was for a public arts project - and not a foreign art star, just a brooklyn gal.I missed the convo on "We Are The Ones We've Been Waiting For" post. I think the title is great and it's the point I most agree with. I don't think we (artists, curators, gallerists) are going to do any good at all waiting for that pot to boil. I don't think there are rules to break anymore - therefor no "next big thing" to come crashing through. The plurality of the internet and digital communication has maybe become the thing crashing through (that's what I got from Ed).I do think that things will move forward and flourish in art making if artists excel at what they are naturally good at (no schemes, no BS), just pushing that "thing" to the absolute limit - no matter what kind of artist you are. A mentor of mine also described it as your USP - unique selling point. Meaning the part of you that comes out in your work the most. As artists, it's truly all we can offer. I think the art markets will benefit from this notion without having to hedge bets on one big thing because like I mentioned, it's all already out there and there aren't anymore rules to be broken.Dave Hickey wrote a great essay that relates to thiscalled "The Heresy of Zone Defense".http://www.eludication.org/maingraphics/hickey.pdf
recentComment(title,itemurl,'6181714800874532849',
' Aaron Wexler','1/07/2009 01:20:00 PM');
F. Silly you? Joy is a painter, and to my eyes a pretty good one, but then I've actually seen her paintings. The 'appropriation' stuff is a red herring.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'7616701009127818824',
' George','1/07/2009 01:30:00 PM');
David Chase, for taking TV from idiot box to art form.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'7513997390320228684',
' Lisa Hunter','1/07/2009 01:58:00 PM');
No. This is too wrong to let stand unchallenged:there are many works of art in every medium that don't have known authors, or whose authors have been "lost" beyond retrieval. they might be "vernacular", "pop" or "fine" art works, but they are all classed as orphan works. if people are afraid to publish them, screen, play, share, use them in any way publicly or in an educational setting for fear of copyright disputes (legal reprisal), these works will basically disappear from our culture.Consequently, potentially affected parties are working on the passage of the Orphan Works Bill, a nasty piece of legislation that, if passed, would undo important protections that allow visual artists to make a living from their work. This bill is opposed by the Illustrators' Partnership and the Graphic Artists Guild among others. It seeks to protect reusers of copyrighted material from damages if they make a reasonable effort to discover the copyright holder, but - this is important - it sets no standards for what constitutes a reasonable effort at discovery. Which means that if it became law, Ed's attempt at discovery ("Well, it came up on Google, and the image was hosted by some guy who didn't know where it came from") would cause the forfeiture of the original holder's copyright. Frankly, weak protections like this only benefit artists like Joy, who would like to freely reuse other peoples' photography without fear of reprisals. This claim that "these works will basically disappear from our culture" is self-serving bullshit on the order of what Catherine Spaeth was spuriously implying about Ed the other day. As for this:Let me know when it's up.Why, did you let the creator of that image know that it was up on your blog? Because the right way to do this, once Google fails to turn him up, is to contact Marvel Comics, determine whether the art is their property or that of one of their artists, and obtain permission to decorate your post with it. If I understand you correctly, you don't think you're doing anything wrong because you're willing to take the image down if you ever get caught, and the aggrieved party asks you to do so. Which is like saying that I can take money out of your wallet, but it's okay, because I'll give it back if you ever find out that I've been stealing from you.It gets worse, and here artists should get worried. One of the remedies under discussion by the bill's proponents is private-sector image banks, which artists will have to pay, per image, for registration and subsequent status as reasonably discoverable. So instead of automatically holding copyright on anything you create, as you do now, you will have to pay for protection to a private agency for you to keep rights on your own work.I'm sorry, but this started as, simply, that one really ought to credit the creator of that handsome Captain America image. As a matter of basic professional courtesy, I thought that would be self-evident. And I was expecting you, being a basically decent guy, to find out who made it, link it or credit it, end of story. I was not expecting a probe and subsequent attack on my motivations.The 'appropriation' stuff is a red herring.No, George, the joke was on me because I rhetorically threatened to improperly republish the work of an appropriation artist. Did your brain fall out of your head when you were rolling on the floor laughing your ass off?
recentComment(title,itemurl,'7308284067516571346',
' Franklin','1/07/2009 02:47:00 PM');
Yooo, John Hovig,I’m still wiping away the tears of laughter. Nu’tin I like better than a good joke, even when it’s on me, yuck yuck yuck (I feel like Curley). I can not accept the nomination and will not serve if elected, but I appreciate the kind words.Perhaps rather than an individual I’d like to nominate the whole internet art-blogosphere world. As the MSM collapses it’s all the little messy pieces that are coming together to form the new, more all encompassing perception of art and art history. Maybe like Bromo Ivory posited, "We are the Media".While speaking with Bob Nickas yesterday, he mentioned that it appears we’re entering the part of the cycle (about every 20 years) where we consolidate and fill in gaps in recent history. But we’re looking back ten to fifteen years. We won’t really understand what’s happened in the last couple of years for an other decade or so.So, I nominate you all, and just hope we all live long enough to see this mess sorted out, Happy New Year
recentComment(title,itemurl,'8264131004385404193',
' kalm james','1/07/2009 02:50:00 PM');
I nominate John Haber at haberarts.com because his writings on anything relating to art blow me away by their intelligence and original insight.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'2992166947093140925',
' nemastoma','1/07/2009 03:23:00 PM');
F. Silly you?I don't consider Joy's paintings to be (exclusively) about appropriation, I was commenting to that point.It was my take on Joy's paintings, sorry if you think I was referring to you but I wasn't.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'6173552519569392011',
' George','1/07/2009 03:25:00 PM');
Why, did you let the creator of that image know that it was up on your blog? No, but you indicated you were going to post your image to test my tolerance and I didn't want to miss that intentional interpersonal dialog (nor the opportunity to demonstrate that it's not a strong enough parallel [the irony of randomly selecting Joy aside] to make your point).I get your point. Honestly, I do. I just think this medium can be casual enough that it warrants flexibility. As soon as anyone objects, I delete an image.But if it makes anyone (including you) feel better, I hereby promise to be more diligent in crediting images (which, as Joy has predicted, will undoubtedly result in my using far fewer images). who would like to freely reuse other peoples' photography without fear of reprisalsThat on the other hand is something so wrong I simply cannot let it stand unchallenged: Joy has expressed at length and in public forums (see also here) the heartfelt philosophy behind her process. You might disagree with her conclusions, but impugning her motives is something you've simply no cause for at all.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'8051883297792193027',
' Edward_','1/07/2009 03:29:00 PM');
How's about Dan Cameron for taking a crazy leap of faith, leaving New York, to organize a tremendously successful biennial in a decimated New Orleans?!
recentComment(title,itemurl,'1668991359624305578',
' J. Thomas','1/07/2009 03:32:00 PM');
Kind of disturbed by this post. First a little upset that the majority of your voter picks are critics, collectors, directors and dealers. Are these the people who make culture happen. Are they "art directors" in the way one directs an ad agency. You are either right or it is just your myopic perspective as a dealer that this is how culture happens. That it is not about the individual (dare i say) maverick studio artist developing the "new" but the power game of those in real control promoting their own vision. It works, not necessarily to the benefit of culture. If you would identify captains of culture in the past you might realize it is the art makers who really matter. It just takes a little while for the smoke to clear.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'2191039410039284106',
' Anonymous','1/07/2009 04:01:00 PM');
The orphan works issue is not synonymous with the Orphan Works Bill. Franklin as well as the various writers, photographers and illustrators guilds who vehemently opposed the proposed legislation (which indeed was far from perfect, enough to draw strong opposition from the likes of Larry Lessig himself), might do well to separate the the problem of the proposed legislation from the very real issue at hand. If they'd dare take a step back from their "position" of emotional recoil for a moment, they'd see that the problem is a real one that affects us all.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'4092063659166323632',
' joy','1/07/2009 04:18:00 PM');
Mr T. Other
recentComment(title,itemurl,'4009044737752591495',
' Anonymous','1/07/2009 04:27:00 PM');
Kind of disturbed by this post. First a little upset that the majority of your voter picks are critics, collectors, directors and dealers.Methinks thou doth protest too much, actually.First of all, there is one (1) dealer on the list (vs. four [4] artists). Second of all, what part of "don't let that limit you" was unclear? The rest of your comment is valid, but obvious, I would argue. None of it prevents anyone (you included) from submitting the name of an artist, though.
recentComment(title,itemurl,'1503167321320665201',
' Edward_','1/07/2009 04:30:00 PM');
okay then: in the spirit of my last bit and to rise to the challenge of the Anonymous post preceding mine (04:01:00 PM) I nominate a dynamic duo (like, don't we need a duo here ? Like Batman and Robin?):Mike Kelly and Larry Lessig!(and I see that my blogger word verification is "dually" -- wha!?)
recentComment(title,itemurl,'3568986091357483249',
' joy','1/07/2009 04:31:00 PM');
Fine, I transfer the charge of bullshit to | |
