We will have all sorts of interesting and useful news shortly. Including our
1st Thursday guide.
Till then lets read the
Guardian who wonders why the British can't paint
... which isn't true...
journalists never try to to invent a crisis eh?
Tyler Green reports on how
Elisabeth Sussman is helping to make the upcoming Gordon Matta Clark retrospective
. Would love for this or the Andrea Zittel show to come through
the Portland Art Museum. In fact, putting Zittel in the context of Clark is interesting
Also, just because its interesting Portland artist Scott
Wayne Indiana reacts to the review of his piece
in grey|area PORT
published last week
. Its true these publicly accessible feedback loops are
an interesting part of the online revolution. There is a video piece in the
by Andrew Ellmacher & Mark Brandau that exploits a similar
art discourse wank fest but there is something fresh about the call and response
on the Internet and something so BFA thesis show about doing it as a video piece
(granted Andrew and Mark were going for this, although maybe it simply accomplishes
its aims all too easily in a Council of Trent, # of angels on the head of a
pin way). Discourse is only its own reward only when it doesn't run on already
well traveled rails. Complaining that there is nothing original left to do smacks
of the fellow who wanted to close the US Patent Office over a hundred years
ago because there was nothing new. Complaint art is often tedious but reacting
to reviews always seems to bring out something honest or at least revealing.
Posted by Jeff Jahn
on August 01, 2006 at 14:40
| Comments (9)
Artist blogs that offer rebuttals to bad reviews seem super pathetic to me.It's as if the artist doesn't recognize that artwork is supposed to catalyze discourse and negative reviews are just one part of this discourse.
Posted by: jerseyjoe at August 1, 2006 02:59 PM
On the other hand there are lots of historic examples that are hardly pathetic. For example Barnett Newmann's hilarious rejoinders or Whistler's response to Ruskin over the "flinging of paintpots" issue.
Well that one got moved into the legal system pretty quickly.
Posted by: Double J at August 1, 2006 05:25 PM
Why is it that the critic should get the final word? They are just as capable of making mistakes and producing crap as an artist is, and should be taken to the mat when they do. BTW: I am not defending anyone’s response to a critique only pointing out that a sweeping generalization like “Artist blogs that offer rebuttals to bad reviews seem super pathetic to me” seems to me to be rather poorly thought out reflexive response. And JJ has pointed out there are times when taking a critic to the mat is just the thing to do.
Posted by: foolishfolly at August 1, 2006 09:44 PM
Unless I am missing something the "rebuttal" was printed BEFORE the review. (rebuttal o723o6 and review o726o6) Funny? I think what SWI is writing about in his "rebuttal" is, (unless he has deleted something,) this comment from the weekly web roundup on the 20th of July " ...I'm sorry but the only thing worse than reading a short artist statement is reams of aimless artist personal blog-spew" Which i found his response of "someone commented that he is sick of artist blogs. the easy solution is this: don't read them. (i'm sick of bad tv too, i don't sit and watch it all day." to be pretty right on.
Posted by: foolishfolly at August 1, 2006 09:57 PM
Why is it that the artist should get the final word? Didn't they already make their statement by makiing something for others to consider?
Critics are certainly capable of making mistakes, but the "mistake" is not their emotional or intellectual reaction to the work. I agree that they ought to be taken to the mat if they misrepresent the work's attributes (media, title, author), but I don't think arguing with a critic about the validity of one's work in a public forum is particularily interesting.
What seems to be missing is the consideration that the viewer(not the critic or the artist) and the reader (again, not the critic or the artist) gets the final word by responding to the work or the writing about the work.
Posted by: jerseyjoe at August 2, 2006 02:45 PM
Fact is it is a mediation and a litmus test of all of the factors mentioned. Its all fair game and blanket statements dont work, the details often matter most.
One can have a great response (critics, viewers, other artists, museums) during their llifetime only to be forgotten later. Sometimes there is a revival.
The point is it is a mediated process where what is relevant gets sorted out.
Once the work is created it gets carried by the currents of history. It usually isnt fair but anything that survives... survives for a reason.
Those "reasons" are often those very specific details that everyone bandies about. So go ahead react and have your say, if its good it might survive the washing of history...
Ignorance is the norm, there is no reason to restate it.
Posted by: Double J at August 2, 2006 03:36 PM
"Art Discourse Wank Fest" was to be the title of Ellmaker & Brandau's greatest hits, volume 1. Thanks for ruining it for everyone.
Posted by: MB at August 3, 2006 10:25 AM
you are a dependable fellow MB
there is somethiing on Art forum's diary that has a major 24 hour art talk wank fest between Rem Koolhaas and Hans Ulrich Obrist too. I like their work seperately... but I think they have intentionally crossed a line.
PS, I'm coining the terms: Postellmacher and Brandauistic.... its partly up to you two to make that mean something.. har.
Posted by: Double J at August 3, 2006 12:14 PM
The "Big, Red & Shiny" review of 'grey|area' by Avantika Bawa appears here:
Posted by: TJ Norris at August 9, 2006 04:51 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in,
. Now you can comment. (sign
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by
the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear
on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)