Previous: this just in - painting nixed (58)

Next: substance (34)

a busy morning at the roundup newsdesk

Post #448 • January 7, 2005, 9:06 AM • 24 Comments

First of all, Artblog.net is trying to confirm intelligence from a reputable source that Street Weekly just published its last issue. The mag itself says nothing about it. If anyone has information, e-mail me - I guarantee your anonymity. UPDATE: Confirmed. See comment #6 below.

Daniel Chang for the Miami Herald: New approach putting art fair back on the map. Good luck, people. Also, click the "more pictures" link to see the sorriest excuse for a web-based image gallery you've ever seen in your life, and proportionately wretched work. (Mark Kostabi has imitators? Isn't that, like, redundant?)

Anne Tschida and Jane Woolridge for the Miami Herald: 'Accessible' art draws a big crowd to party-preview. Boy, the Herald must have gotten an assload of advertising revenue out of Art Miami this year.

Carlos Suarez de Jesus for Street Weekly: Art on the block: Miami's emerging art scene threatened by the potential of fast, easy money? Should we be worried? Are you kidding?

Street Weekly: art listings.

Michelle Weinberg for the Miami New Times: Feminine Projections: Three views of time, space, and light.

Carlos Suarez De Jesus, Franklin Einspruch and Alfredo Triff for the Miami New Times: Current Art Shows. You know, back when I took the gig at Street they told me that I couldn't work for both papers. I guess I'm just not as cool as Carlos.

Michael Mills for the Broward/Palm Beach New Times: Scratch-Your-Head Mysterious: What's going on here? It's all about radical transformations and the peculiar in the everyday. Aw, nuts - Douglas Gordon again.

Michael Mills for the Broward/Palm Beach New Times: Artbeat.

Gary Schwan for the Palm Beach Post: Goth meets Goethe. You the man, Mr. Schwan.

Elsewhere: if you don't think this is amusing, the joke may be on you.

I love Tyler, but he doesn't love me back; to him I'm just "some clever blogger." (Sniff.) (Source here.) PS: look, man, I'm sure that Brian Sholis is a perfect, plump little peach of a person, but when Anaba called him out he answered with a this-whole-affair-is-beneath-my-dignity non-response, so I think he deserves whatever he gets. Furthermore, his so-called clarification that you put him up to is the fattest, steamiest turd of accidental self-parody in the history of artblogging.

Artblog.net got picked up by Armavirumque this week. Thanks, James.

Okay, this is actually important:

The Dorsch Gallery will host an auction to benefit Tsunami relief efforts on Wednesday, February 16th, 2005.

We call on all artists to donate works in order to raise as substantial a sum as possible.

100% of auction proceeds will be split equally between the following five charities: UNICEF, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, HOPE Worldwide, Direct Relief international, CARE.

If you are interested in donating work for this cause, please DO NOT reply this e-mail - Instead, write to tsunami@dorschgallery.com with any questions or to confirm your participation.

Works must be delivered to The Dorsch Gallery either Sunday, February 13th or Monday, February 14th, 2005.

We recognize that the effects of the Dec. 26 tsunami will be long-lasting, and that the need for relief funds will persist.

Your contribution is greatly appreciated. Please feel free to forward.

Brook A. Dorsch

See you there: Art Miami. Maybe. Sunday. When curiosity finally gets the better of me. Initial recon from an artist who has his work up there says "it's so bad, it's depressing." Tonight's the Gables openings, and Karpio Facchini seems to be having an opening tonight as well. Also they're reopening Omniart at 1223 NE Second Avenue, which is worth looking at if you haven't yet.

On Saturday we got the Wynwood deal going - Locust Projects and Dorsch. Dorsch has a show up by Kerry Ware, consistently one of the best painters in town, and Claudia Scalise, who risked aesthetic disaster by basing some of her recent works on, well, revealing photographs of yours truly. Frequent commenter Alesh Houdek will show his work at the World Arts Building, 2214 N. Miami Avenue.

Comment

1.

Tyler Green

January 7, 2005, 6:00 PM

LOL, sorry. I knew I'd read it somewhere but couldn't remember it where!

Brian's response at Anaba (or wherever) was appropriate: If the blogger in question had picked up the phone and made a call to check to see if his item was accurate before writing it, the whole absurdity could have been averted. When it turned out the item was inaccurate, he never addressed it.

With publishing comes responsibility.

2.

Franklin

January 7, 2005, 6:43 PM

I'm all for responsibility, but what about a comment like: "Dear Martin, this whole NADA thing is a big misunderstanding, and here's why... (etc.) Fondly, Brian." Hey, it's the blogosphere, and he set himself up to get eaten alive.

By the way, why is this NADA thing a big misunderstanding?

3.

Tyler Green

January 7, 2005, 6:58 PM

Yeah but why should he bother when the writer has so clearly failed to do even the most basic fact-checking or homework before throwing around rather egregious charges? I wouldn't have either.

NADA is a not-for-profit industry association, just like a zillion other industry associations such the Chemical Manufacturers Association or the American Booksellers Association. As a one-time employee at a gallery that was a NADA member, Brian was listed on the page. (A page which hadn't/hasn't been updated in eons, as a simple glance probably would have told anyone who was at all interested in accuracy.) Pretty straightforward. Nothing scandalous. Probably less eye-catching than George Stephanopoulos being on ABC.

4.

Jack

January 7, 2005, 7:44 PM

"New approach putting art fair back on the map." You don't say. Must be the equivalent of a buried-treasure map that sells for $2.99. And no, I didn't bother to read the Herald article--I won't put up with their sign-up BS, and the fatuousness of the title is all I need to know. I did, you see, make the inexcusable mistake of going to Art Miami yesterday. I had a dubious "VIP" pass to get in free, and I figured at least the VIP lounge would be decent--WRONG: all I found to eat there was potato chips (no dip, even), and boy, was I pissed. My only consolation for the evening was the spectacle of the inevitable fashion victims, several-plastic-surgeries-too-many types, and steroid-enhanced guys that talked funny. The fair was terrible, of course, but in such a familiar, predictable way that it was almost comfortable. More tiresome than offensive, like an annoyingly dysfunctional relative one's learned to tolerate. Sigh.

But let's talk about something more interesting, like the de Jesus article in Street and, specifically, the rather serious allegations about Bonnie Clearwater, which she denies. They may or may not be true, but they would certainly explain very well something that never made sense to me: why on earth anyone would fill an ostensibly serious museum like MOCA with a risible embarrassment like the Othoniel show last summer (aka giant colored glass doo-dads on parade). If the allegations of tit-for-tat are true, it makes perfect sense, however deplorable. If not, I have to fall back on my original explanation: Clearwater has no taste or no shame, or neither. Come to think of it, both explanations could be related.

5.

Franklin

January 7, 2005, 7:56 PM

Fair enough, though I see nothing on NADA's members page indicating that it is out of date, including in the source code, and no gallery is listed next to Brian's name. Brian could have cleared this up in a trice if he hadn't opted to condescend to Martin instead.

6.

Franklin

January 7, 2005, 8:15 PM

I have a positive confirmation that this week's issue of Street Weekly is indeed its last.

I'm going to take the high road here and wish everyone at Street the best.

Omar, you want to get into blogging, you know where to find me.

7.

Happy Gilmore

January 7, 2005, 8:32 PM

Kudos to Carlos Suarez de Jesus for his article, Art on the block : Miami's emerging art scene threatened by the potential of fast, easy money? Should we be worried? Are you kidding? Everyone needs to read this.

8.

Tyler Green

January 7, 2005, 8:51 PM

Bottom line: If you're going to slam someone, make a phone call first to make sure your facts are right. That simple.

9.

Jack

January 7, 2005, 9:55 PM

Weird. I just clicked on the link to the Herald article I'd ignored earlier and the article came up, but when I returned to the blog and tried to access the article again, I got the sign-up nonsense. Anyway, ignore the article's PR drivel--this year's Art Miami is the same mangy dog with a slightly different collar.

10.

Franklin

January 7, 2005, 10:03 PM

Gilmore's right - that's one of the smartest things I've ever read in Street. At least they're ending on a high note.

11.

mon ami miami

January 7, 2005, 10:35 PM

Carlos wrote a very gutsy article but it was worth reading and talking about.
Bonnie Clearwater really is all things to all people: curator, director, art dealer, art consultant....How does that girl find the time?

12.

Martin Bromirski

January 7, 2005, 11:07 PM

So Tyler, if I change that post from "Nada member Sholis" to "NADA founding-member Sholis" would I have everything straight enough for you?

The point of the post , which seems to have gotten lost, is the absurdity of Artforum's having a NADA member (or founding-member ) covering NADA - and the difficulty that presents in any further reading of Brian Sholis' criticism. I will always wonder what the angle is.

You can spin all you want, but the crap won't come off.

13.

not so oldpro

January 8, 2005, 2:41 AM

cheers to carlos juarez de Jesus! A very thoughtfully and well written article. my hat is off

14.

oldpro

January 8, 2005, 9:02 AM

I appreciated the article also, but, just to be perfectly clear, "not so" is not me.

15.

alesh

January 8, 2005, 12:01 PM

OK . . . i'm pissed off, and I just wrote a long post under the CC gran thread, and i'm going to paste it here just for kicks; let franklin delete it if he deems it detrimental to the conversation:

This follows Jordan Massengale's post, #42, at http://www.artblog.net/?name=2005-01-06-14-39-consortium

>

Thanks Jordan.

I've been seething about this since I found out how this works. I'm too emotional to be coherent, so let me number my thoughts; this way I'll be as clear as i'm able to be on this topic:

1) This grant is not free money. It's OUR money. The panelists i suppose are volunteers (?), and should be thanked, but there are STAFF people who are in charge of setting the rules and taking care of the technical requirements. Those STAFF people are people who's salaries YOU pay, to fairly distribute YOUR money.

2) At one time (maybe), slides were the best way to show your artwork to someone in a neutral way. In the days of computers, that is no longer true. Digital images are ten times easier to look at then slides, a hundred times easier to create, and some number X more accurate then slides. For certain applications maybe slides are still better then digital files, but i couldn't tell you what those are... for something like evaluating artwork for grant purposes it seems obvious that a digital file is better.

3) The CC grant application claims that the decision process is neutral re. slides/digital images.

4) The CC grant decision process SHOULD BE neutral re. slides/digital images. That's fair to both new media/young artists and traditional old-school artists.

5) There is no reason NOT to be neutral re slides/gigital images.

6) The CC grant decision is not, not, NOT neutral. I've heard this from all sorts of people, and Jordan's anecdote is just the umpteenth confirmation. Mostly the word is that CD's either did not get looked at at all, or that they were looked at under inferior circumstances, and with some degree of contempt.

7) The STAFF failed to have a technologically competent person around to look at images that caused problems. I believe that was in a large number of cases, and, as with Jordan's example, had more to do with county equipment issues than with the artist's CD's. Any reasonable competent quasi-computer geek could open 99% of the CD's they got. The STAFF in charge of administering the grant FAILED to have such a person around.

8) And most of all . . .what the FUCK is up with 720 x 480?!? Are they looking at images on a fucking TV set?? The crapiest, cheapest, digital projector in the WORLD works at 800 x 600, and most of them are higher resolution then that, and ANY image projection program can downsample. They should be fired, or at the very least ASHAMED for daring to put in print the suggestion that artists submit a 35mm slide (approximately 12 megapixels of data) OR a 720x480 file ( . . . what, a quarter of a megapixel?).

9) "If you were a serious artist you would make slides." I'm not buying this argument for the reasons above. Slides are an outdated technology. The gallery system can hold on to the outdated technology if it wants to , and it may be able to force artists to conform. But OUR government, in awarding TAXPAYER money, does not have the right to boss us around like that for capricious reason. Especially not when they claim that they do not require slides.

Sour grapes? Maybe. Look . . . i didn't expect to win the CC grant this year. I'm new to the game, my work is not at it's peak, it's my first time applying; whatever. But I DID expect to be given a fair shot. I could have afforded to make slides of my work; I DIDN'T because the grant application led me to believe I didn't need to, and I honestly felt I could produce digital files that more closely represented my work then a 35mm slide could have. There are technical issues that make a good slide more difficult to create then a good digital file. But consider also the cost of a 35mm camera, slide film (enough to bracket!!), developing (not cheap!), mounts, the mounting, etc. Compared with the cost of shooting digital this is asking poor artists to jump through hoops before they can beg for money. Franklin touched on the cost of slides awhile back:

http://www.artblog.net/?name=2004-02-27-08-18-meatmarket

16.

Franklin

January 8, 2005, 5:31 PM

I've answered this over on the other thread.

17.

oldpro

January 8, 2005, 5:50 PM

I have never had anything to do with the Consortium grant but there is enough apparent irregualrity in evidence just from what has been said here to justify going further. At best it looks very sloppy.

I suspect that those who entered the competition have a right to full disclosure. Why not get a list of all the entrants, conduct a survey, do what discovery you can, check procedures and enter a formal complaint. Someone may know a friendly lawyer to help. This process looks like it needs shaking up.

18.

alesh

January 9, 2005, 4:02 AM

it's happening again.

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/01/08/stop_sketching_littl.html

19.

that guy in the back row

January 9, 2005, 4:07 AM

that ought to teach her!

20.

Jack

January 9, 2005, 7:14 PM

Hey, Alesh, don't freak out or anything, but I saw your "Unintended Consequences of Architecture" photos at World Arts Building and actually liked them, especially the quartet on the right. I'm not a photo person, let alone Margulies, but I thought they worked very well as abstractions from reality, well composed, and well integrated as a group in terms of imagery and color (your "palette" was very pleasing, by the way). Apt presentation/framing also.

It's true I'm a sucker for architectural details as opposed to, say, psychodrama or sensationalism, so my approval won't carry much weight with people like the Scholls, but so be it. Nice job.

21.

bookworm

January 10, 2005, 5:56 PM

Franklin
Thanks for the heads up about Brook's auction.

Just to say Darlene Pruess, one of the winners of grant,
is primarily a photographer.
Her work can be seen locally and if anyone is interested on this blog I will say where...
I just have to check if her work is still up.
The work I know is close ups of x-rays of the roots of teeth.
Be your own judge on that one.
I think she also does some of animals at night...

Sorry I am too busy for blogging much these days but I do try to check in...

22.

oldpro

January 10, 2005, 6:53 PM

Nice to hear that dental hygienists are finally being recognized for their valuable contributions to the world of art.

Will gimmicks never cease?

Now someone will write, huffily: "but you haven't seen the work".

23.

bookworm

January 10, 2005, 7:31 PM

OldPro
But you have seen the work.
At the last visit to your dentist....

Seriously I like the girl as a person so I don't mean to trash the work. It does have a "spelunking" aura.

I do want to say something, not in defense of Bonnie Clearwater, for I try not to get into the politcal stuff, BUT

In most towns the museums are not very supportive of local artists.
A museum that can bring in the quality of shows possible at MOCA, even if every one is not of the highest possible standard, has no obligation to show ANY local artists.
When she does show one it seems it is very good for their career. The dilemma here for you all is, it sounds like you would rather she not champion any local artists. It seems anyone she would choose would be at odds with someone's opinion.
IF you have an answer to the dilemma...

24.

oldpro

January 10, 2005, 7:42 PM

I am not aware of the details, but i think most of these ethical matters have been pretty well hashed out by the Association of American Museums and i am sure their conclusions are easily available.

Subscribe

@franklin_e

franklin.e

Offers

Other Projects

Legal

Design and content ©2003-2017 Franklin Einspruch except where otherwise noted