Previous: new articles, new media (24)

Next: book review: the undressed art (7)


Post #477 • February 18, 2005, 11:59 AM • 101 Comments

Nathalie Gouillou for the Miami Herald: Art by the bay and throughout the Grove. Boy, I haven't been to the Grove Art Fair in years. I haven't been to an art fair in years, period. Unless you count Art Basel Miami Beach.

Omar Sommereyns for the Miami New Times: Through New Eyes: The experience of travel as self-discovery. Missed from last week. My article this week is here.

Miami New Times: Current Art Shows.

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

Michael Mills for the Broward/Palm Beach New Times: Why Wyeth? America's most beloved artist can make you nostalgic for places you've never been.

Gary Schwan for the Palm Beach Post: American Beauties: Norton Museum hosts an intriguing exhibit from D.C.'s famed Phillips Collection, including Hartley, Dove, O'Keefe. The PBP also put up a gallery of that Spain show at the Norton.

See you there: Tigertail's 25th Anniversary Party at Dorsch. I love these people for obvious reasons. Bring a cake and help me thank them.

I'm also thinking that since we don't have listings, if you're hitting a show this weekend, say so in the comments. It will be like do-it-yourself listings.




February 18, 2005, 9:14 PM

Thanks for the link to the pictures from the Spanish show at the Norton. I want to go this weekend, and will report back on it if I make it there. I expect the image of the El Greco is a rather poor reproduction in terms of the color, which looks washed out or faded in the photo. The image of the Velquez, however, is mouthwatering.


mr strauss

February 18, 2005, 10:06 PM


I've commented here on a number of occasions in the past, and I usually very much enjoy this blog.

The above serves, I hope, to mitigate the slightly spammy flavor of this post. I wrote a test that purports to tell the taker whether or not he or she makes good art. I thought that this test would likely be of interest to readers of this blog, and I thought I'd announce it.

I apologize for pushing the boundaries of what constitutes an acceptable comment. You can reach the test, which is embedded into the body of my blog, by clicking my url link.

thanks in advance for, I hope, cutting me a little slack here. I assure you this is a one time thing.

mr strauss


Chad Harris

February 19, 2005, 4:16 AM

I have no idea why, but I took your test and it was lame. Also, 64%?? I beg to differ!

1. When you listen to a song and think that it's great, what is the quality of that song that most likely made you feel that way? -- a. Lyrics b. Melody c. Rhythm d. Musicianship/Chops

You don't know what you're talking about, I'm afraid. Who listens to music for such simpleton reasons? "This was an adequate presentation of "Melody". Ugh.

Also, I put that all art is inspired from God or Metaphysics.

All questions should have a E. None of the above. Sorry for being mean, Strauss.



February 19, 2005, 9:37 PM

Just got back from a stellar show of Olitski paintings at The Goldman Warehouse, 404 NW 26th Street.
Nothing quite like it.



February 19, 2005, 9:37 PM

Just got back from a stellar show of Olitski paintings at The Goldman Warehouse, 404 NW 26th Street.
Nothing quite like it.



February 19, 2005, 10:30 PM

Im going to see it right now


that guy in the second to last row

February 19, 2005, 10:33 PM

How long will it be up and where was it publicized.



February 19, 2005, 11:11 PM

Recent New Times. Through April 15th.



February 19, 2005, 11:13 PM

Recent New times. Through April 15th.


that guy in the second to last row

February 20, 2005, 12:23 AM

thanks beware I'll get there for sure before than. I'm impressed with the new times for once.



February 20, 2005, 12:30 AM

Hey beWare, what does that "once" in "Click once" mean to you?



February 20, 2005, 12:45 AM

The Goldman Warehouse
404 NW 26 St
305 576 5502


Open (as I remember) weekends 11 - 4, but call and double check.

By far the best exhibit I have ever seen in Miami.



February 20, 2005, 1:34 AM

Can you find it in your heart to forgive me?



February 20, 2005, 1:37 AM

Forgive what? You said it was "stellar". I couldnt agree more.



February 20, 2005, 2:00 AM

Forgiveness for my double posts.

There is something wonderful about each decade of work. The seemingly effortless quality of paint application shows up throughout the different series'. The most recent in the show (2002) are so outrageously daring I am amazed at how they hold together so well. What a joy they are to look at.



February 20, 2005, 2:16 AM

Franklin. Should we withhold comments about Olitski until you can get some images and do a post? Is that part of blog etiquitte? (That is a tough word to spell)



February 20, 2005, 2:23 AM

Okay, beWare, you're all right with me.

The earliest I could post on this is Monday, so if you want to talk about it, I don't want to stop you. You go right ahead. We may have even more to talk about after the images go up.



February 20, 2005, 3:10 AM

You didn't "quitte" get it right, Beware. It is "etiquette"

Everyone who paints has to see this show. It is an absolute must. Beware's description, brief as it was, is right on target.

Someone has to say something about it. I wonder if the Idiot Herald will even take notice. They are such a Mickey Mouse outfit!



February 20, 2005, 5:23 AM

is the Olitski show open tomorrow????????



February 20, 2005, 5:43 AM

As far as i know. Check the phone # on comment #12


that guy in the second to last row

February 20, 2005, 8:44 AM

After digging though acres of ads and restaurant reviews I found that the show is open sunday until 4pm. But call them just to make sure. It was in the "scene and be seen" section instead of the art listings, if we can even call the New Times' "capsules" listings after this little editorial slip up. Maybe if these monkeys sit at their keyboards long enough they will eventually learn how to organize a newspaper and actually send one to the printer thats legible. Who are these chimps?



February 20, 2005, 6:31 PM

The Goldman Warehouse "Jules Olitski: Six Decades"




February 20, 2005, 7:27 PM

I haven't gone yet, but shouldn't this sort of show be at MAM? Who are these Goldman people? Is there anybody in Miami who doesn't have a warehouse? I'm already working on mine: "Jack's Place."



February 20, 2005, 8:27 PM

Let us know of your events for "Jack's place."

I have no idea who the goldman people are, but they do not appear to be very poor:

The Goldman Properties



February 20, 2005, 11:51 PM

Just got back from the Goldman place in Wynwood. No, Momoko, the Goldmans are not poor. Their warehouse is VERY nice, rather more than I expected (and I wasn't exactly expecting a space like Locust Projects, either).

There's the Olitski retrospective and a room full of works by other Color Field painters (including a terrific Larry Poons and an excellent Friedel Dzubas). The Olitski pieces, given the time span covered, are somewhat uneven; they don't all work for me, but many do, and a number of them are very impressive. All are clearly serious work and worthy of respect. My favorites, in chronological order, are "Purple Golubchik" ('62), "Drakely" ('66), "Mother Light" and "Beauty of Lauren" (both '89), "Pompeii Light" ('95), "Mythic Sunrise Journey" ('98), and two paintings from the 2002 series "With Love and Disregard" ("Pleasure" and "Silence"). If I had to narrow it down to one or two, I'd go for "Drakely," one of Olitski's classic pieces, and "Mythic Sunrise Journey", with echoes of Turner.


Sorry for shouting. Just a passing apoplectic fit. It happens. Too often.


that guy in the second to last row

February 21, 2005, 1:05 AM

Jack, I've always felt MAM was a joke. For one, they don't have the curatorial skills to mount a show like this. They are not capable of recognizing talent nor do they care for their members, the public, or art for that matter. Its what I have come to expect from small time low brow art museums. MAM is no different than most small town historical museums, the only difference is that they think so highly of themselves that they feel immune to criticism. New management is the only solution for institutions like this.



February 21, 2005, 1:18 AM

Thanks for the report on the “warehouse” - something to look forward to seeing. I thought I would go today, but I decided to work on an abstract piece I’ve been working on instead. It is fun and scary at the same time as I am making something without following any style, format, or instruction.

Nowadays you can shout or even violate the guidelines big time without getting into a trouble because the blog host is on a honeymoon. It is a perfect time for the pissing contest fighters to start their activities. Let’s hope the honeymoon lasts forever and his mood keep elevated.


Potato H#ad

February 21, 2005, 2:26 AM


I caught the Olitski show today, too. I disliked more of the pieces the I liked. I didn't jot down titles, but I especially liked the latest group of work, from 2002. Some of the thickest paint-as-material stuff I've ever seen, great bright colors and textures, and enough shapes (non-hand manipulated) to stare at for a whole day. Oddly enough the closest thing to this was a piece from 1958 (the oldest one in the show I believe), again one with an emphasis on physicallity, but this one all in grays and black, with a sand-like texture.

This kind of work has a kind of pomposity and hubris to it, which I sort of enjoy, but sometimes the looming of those qualities gets a bit strong. The 80's stuff, in particular, shows Olitski chasing trends (and by the way, the image on the Gallery Guide web site should put to rest the notion that you can tell ANYTHING about a painting from a web image. I challenge anyone to look at Mokomo's link, go see the show, and tell me they're related in any way.), though the results are . . . um, the results filled me with profound aesthetic ambivalence. They would be brilliant as parodies of 80's art, but I'm afraid I strain to make that reading. In any case, there is something to admire in every piece.

I agree that the room of other painters was great. I thought the Frankenthaller was the best thing in the whole building, but all the pieces there were primo.

By the way, I think coming more in line with what you'd like them to show would win the MAM more enemies then friends. I, too, often disagree with the MAM's choices, but I suspect they're different then the choices you disagree with. In any case, a change in management would probably lead to future choices you would agree even less.



February 21, 2005, 2:56 AM

New management at MAM could be better, similar or worse, of course, depending on the people brought in. All I know is, the current management does not have my approval, and there's no question it could be improved upon significantly by the right new people.



February 21, 2005, 4:53 AM

"Olitski chasing trends", potatohead?

"Parodies of 80s art"?

What "trend" might you be referring to? What "80s art"?



February 21, 2005, 5:21 AM

Au contraire, Ms. Momoko - I'm watching, and so's Mon Petit Chou. Explaining what this blog thing is has been entertaining.

I didn't get to see the show today but I look forward to catching it this weekend.



February 21, 2005, 6:19 AM

I agree with Potatohead inregards to Olitski chasing trends.
i.e. the later works 2002 are a clear reflection of Schnabel (recent) , but without the text, same technique.



February 21, 2005, 6:34 AM

don't get me wrong it was a very uplifting show for Miami.
Great space, except for the wicker chairs!
A must see.



February 21, 2005, 6:49 AM

Olitski is "reflecting Schnabel"????

No intelligent, informed exchange could issue from any response I could possibly make to such a statement.

Please, guys, go look at some art and then come back and talk.



February 21, 2005, 7:00 AM

when was the last time you stuck your nose close-up to a recent Schnabel????
maybe you need new glasses!



February 21, 2005, 7:35 AM

Mr. Potato, I assume the Goldman paid extra bucks to the to put the image decoration to get more attention.

Some people cling to something trivial or even microscopic to complain about in order to enjoy the feeling of being mistreated by the universe.



February 21, 2005, 8:12 AM

I don't make a practice of sticking my nose against Schnabels or anything else, wise guy.

The recent Schnabels I have seen have been portraits & figure paintings.

What the hell are you talking about?


mr strauss

February 21, 2005, 12:00 PM

To Chad Harris:

Thanks for taking my test! I'm sorry you didn't like, and I acknowledge that it has the tendency to score people too low.

Except for myself and Komputadora (art teammate) the highest recorded score is 67%. So you actually did quite well.

For example you got the source of art question exactly right!

Regarding the music question: Well... Put it this way. Melody is the single most important component of musical success. But perhaps I could have phrased the question in such a way as to make it less reductive. Because you are right - nobody who has any art sense at all would say "This was an adequate presentation of "Melody." Foremost, such a statement implies that "melody" is amorphous - just a field to be applied, so to speak. In reality, of course, melodies are individuals - entities almost.

Nevertheless, a fair assessment of the question notes that you've created a straw man here. You ask, "Who listens to music for such simpleton reasons? " No where in the question is there anything regarding the MOTIVATION of the listener. It simply asks the reader to reflect back upon a positive music listening experience and evaluate which element had the greatest impact.

Regardless, I am still tinkering with the test and I greatly appreciate the feedback. Recent changes to the test have employed images and have eliminated some of the more ill-advised questions regarding taste in popular music and such.


mr strauss



February 21, 2005, 1:34 PM

There are so many curious responses to Olitski in this thread: "Chasing trends", "parodies of 80s art", "reflection of Schnabel", "pomposity and hubris", to name a few. But even these people more or less agree that something very real is present in Olitski's work. Is it a case of liking the right work for the wrong reasons? Perhaps. If it is, that's OK.Liking the right work can lead to reformation of the "reasoning" process.



February 21, 2005, 3:36 PM

oldpro~ if you SAw the show you'd know what i mean. his 80s stuff is a checklist of 80s cliches: pastel collors, metallics, etc. I'm not being dismissive; it was interesting anyway. By the way, his earlier work rips Frankenthaller and Paul Rand, among others.

mokomo~ i have no idea what you're talking about. mistreated by the universe? it sounds like anything negative anyone says is going to bug you. fine. i'm an asshole. whatever. if the picture ran with the listing, then yes, TGW paid extra on top of their listing fee for that. If it ran with the "editorial" i'm not sure.

strauss~ i got a 77 on your test. it was a painful, insulting experience, and does not reflect very well on your knowledge of art, music, or the purpose of online tests (hint: they should be fun). The premise of the test is misguided, as is almost every single question. I listen to lots of hip hop, and i don't like ANY of the four artists you named.

sorry folks! I'll try to be sweet next time!



February 21, 2005, 4:11 PM

I SAW the show, Potato.

Your references make no sense at all. I could name a dozen artists any other artist is "ripping" with the kind of shot in the dark comparisons you are making. The Schnabel and Paul Rand references are particularly ludicrous. The "checklist of 80s cliches" are cliches, if at all (pastels & metallics?), because Olitski made them so. You are demonstrating nothing but your visual ignorance. And it wouldn't even matter if it were true.

This kind of careless, unsupportable comment misleads readers of the blog. You don't have to be "nice", but you should be accurate.


one potato/two potato/thr33 potato/four

February 21, 2005, 4:22 PM

just across from you when you walk into the first gallery are three or four paintings that are totaly paul rand. hard-edged, bright, colorful abstractions. and if he invented the 80's cliches, i'd like to see some proof of that. The one big picture is 1989; so, unlikely.

"Oldpro: likes intelligent conversation, until someone disagrees with him™"
(then Franklin deletes all your posts!)



February 21, 2005, 4:57 PM

Like it or not, Olitski's most recent work at the show is exceptionally bold, vigorous, and aggressively colorful, yet still controlled and coherent. He knows what he's doing, and he's definitely not just throwing paint around or flailing for effect. There's method and purpose, and the work works. I don't mean this to sound like a condescending compliment, because it isn't, but the fact he, or anybody, can paint like this at 80 is amazing.

I admit I haven't followed Schnabel for some time, as that would be sort of like looking for roadkill for a living, but he never entered my mind. The phantasmagoric quality of Olitski's 2002 series, coupled with its very bright coloring, did suggest a strange fusion of surrealism and Pop art, but the result is much stronger and meatier than either, and certainly more painterly.



February 21, 2005, 5:06 PM

I have no special invested interest in Jules Olitski paintings. I have known of and have seen his work since the 80's and have always been quite impressed with what he does with paint. The latest work in this show we are discussing does not particularly appeal to my "personal" taste. I am not too much into bright shiney synthetic colors. Besides that, I was blown away by the work. My "personal" taste was being exercised which is rare here in the "South". While viewing the work, Schnabel never entered my mind. I don't understand the relationship. The large colorful pictures by Hofmann came to mind. Other than that, I was shocked by what Olitski seems to be able to get away with. All that color: seems like too much, but it worked.



February 21, 2005, 5:59 PM

I have been arguing with people on this blog for going on a year, Potato, and the more I am disagreed with "intelligently" the more I like it. This is on the record. What I shy away from (or should) is uninformed discussion.

Comparing Olitski's minimalist modernist early 60s paintings to a minimalist modernist designer of the same period might be interesting in a survey of style but the interjection of "ripping off" just makes it a silly put-down. Comparing the recent work to Schnabels recent work is simply laughable - there is just no similarity, period. And you are asking me for "proof"?

Influence has to be demonstrated, not postulated on the basis of vague stylistic similarity. Anyone who has made any reflective study of modern art history know this. Apparently you don't.



February 21, 2005, 6:02 PM

Potato still seems to be confused about why his posts got deleted. Much of it had to do with my agreement with his self-assessment in #40.


Chad Harris

February 21, 2005, 6:03 PM

I feel like a dick now that Mr Strauss was so nice about me ripping on his art test. Everybody on Artblog should make a "Are You a Good Artist (According to Me) ?" test. Wow. That's a really really good idea Chad.



February 21, 2005, 6:03 PM

Beware, I know what you mean by the bright, shiny, synthetic colors. They are certainly not part of our system of accepted taste, and there are others using the same garish colors who do it for effect and make crappy paintings. All I can say is, try to get back to the show whenever you can and look again.


five pototo/six potota/s3v3n potato/more

February 21, 2005, 6:20 PM

o/p~ you said "the 'checklist of 80s cliches' are cliches . . . because Olitski made them so." That's the unlikely assertion which I'd asked you to prove. The Schnabel comparison was someone else.

In every decade, Olitski's work veered towards whatever the popular sub-style of the time was. That's not such a big deal, but it's interesting to know in evaluating his body of work. Actually in the 2002 pieces and the 1958 piece I found that to be least so. I agree with Jack's post #43 (note for posterity: if franklin deletes my posts it'll be #40 (but then again then you won't see this, so it's all moot)).



February 21, 2005, 7:00 PM

I said cliches "if at all", Potato. I did not insist they were cliches, though a case could be made for that if you look at all the people he influenced in the late 60s and 70s.

Once again an observation is off: the 1958 piece probably shared in the fairly widespread "materialist" style then prevelant everywhere, but especially in Europe, where Olitski stufdied at the time. His work of the early 60s had characteristics in common with, and perhaps partially derived from, artists like Morris Louis ("popular sub-style"??), but of course, so what.

In the later 60s he virtually invented a whole new method of putting a painting together, employing close-value sprayed color all over and the device of "making" a painting by throwing drawing out to the edge. You may not like these pictures but they were as original as painting can be.

In the 70s & 80s he used the new Acryic mediums and intrerference & iridescent colors to create dazzling effects and new twists on the basic idea of minimal pictorial incident no one had ever done before.

etc etc etc

Look, I don't want to spend the rest of the day bringing you up to date on what happened. It is all there in the show. If you can't see it, so be it.



February 21, 2005, 7:13 PM

Potato's probably the only one concerned with this, but just for the record, mere disagreement and rudeness (even cluelessness, as is being demonstrated here) has not historically caused me to delete posts. I emptied out a whole slew of Potato posts when he started putting up failed html experiments - like the blank 200 lines and the open strike tag. That kind of thing lends nothing to the discussion, and creates work for me. Obliging me to clean it up may, as it did then, cause me to retaliate.



February 21, 2005, 9:37 PM

It probably will be no surprise to anyone that I am about to say this:

I totally disagree with that guy in the second to last row's assessment of MAM's curatorial abilities. I cannot be emphatic enough about this. Nor do I agree at all about his assessment of MAM's concern for thier members, the public or art.

Guy, are you a member? Do you take advantage of the lectures, JAM's, openings, reading room? Have you ever gone to a Second Saturday event with younger family members? Have you talked to any schoolchildren who have gone on MAM field trips?

Are you just feeling cranky or do you have a real argument?



February 21, 2005, 9:39 PM

Oh, and Jack: have you seen Beyond Geometry or the newest installation of the permanent collection, Figuratively Speaking?



February 21, 2005, 10:05 PM

Sorry, folks, we're having a little trouble getting the Monday post up. Look for something tonight and/or tomorrow morning.

Jack is still smarting from his uncompensated membership at MoCA, but I'll let him speak for himself.


that guy in the second to last row

February 21, 2005, 10:13 PM

no Kathleen I'm not a member nor do I plan to be. If they offer something worth seeing I'll think about it. The problem is, that that doesn't seem very likely based on their poor track record. Jack's comments could inform your own. Answer why such a show hasn't been mounted at MAM and we can talk.



February 21, 2005, 10:37 PM

i'm coming into this rather late in the conversation. i haven't seen the olitski show but hope to soon.

as for who the goldmans are, tony goldman is a developer who's credited for much of the renewal of south beach. i read an "article" by tony recently in one of the recent sobe glossy free rags, that he wrote about (surprise!) his son joey goldman. there i learned that joey is now actively involved in revitalizing and promoting (surprise again!) the wynwood arts district. call me a cynic, but i see their opening a warehouse and promoting art as a way of, ahem, advancing their real estate interests above all else.

not that i should be surprised, we live after all in a capitalist society. but i'm waiting for a time when people with money get involved in art without a personal agenda. if all the energy that went into private collections in miami went instead toward the museums and public collections well, perhaps i could take the whole scene more seriously.



February 21, 2005, 10:44 PM


Benefitting art out of the goodness of your heart is all very fine, Necee. Unfortuinately it takes money.

Let's be gratreful there are people like Goldman around who make money for themselves and benefit the rest of us along the way, especially when they do the kind of job he did on that space.

In a free society like ours that's how it gets done.



February 21, 2005, 11:24 PM

Necee, I sympathize with what you're saying, but we'll be eating ice cream sundaes in hell before we see people with money get involved in art without a personal agenda. I'm upset about how MAM stacked the Bicentennial Park charette, too, but that seems to be how business gets done down here.

Kathleen, for the sake of argument, I'm agreeing with Guy. Knowing what you know about Jack's tastes - he likes painting, mostly, and is willing to go as far afield as Brandon Opalka's work if it's good. You get a sense of his tastes from reading his comments here. What at MAM ought to entice him to join as a member? More specifically, at $45/year, what ten shows during the past year would you cite to convince him to become a member? (It has to be ten, because nine or fewer breaks even against just paying admission. And I guess to be fair, the shows can't have run concurrently, because that would only count as one admission.)



February 22, 2005, 12:46 AM

I think what Kathleen was trying to say is that the MAM is a good institution that, on the whole, puts on good shows. Convincing anyone to join on the basis of financial self-interest is a sketchy proposition, especially since you can get in free at the MAM any sunday you want. It really makes more sense for schmoozers, who want to go to the openings.

The MAM has to look at art from a lot of different perspectives. It's role is to serve art-interested people in Miami. No matter what it does, not everyone will praise it, and EVERYone will be able to find some fault with it. Bigtime collectors, artblog painting snobs, families with young children, and local artists with a shot at the art big-time will all have different complaints against MAM. It does a pretty good job of ballancing, in my opinion. Jack and Guy's criticisms are so much "the world should be my way." For myself, I'm just glad the MAM's not running career retrospectives of second-rate AbExers.

By the way, after the Olitski show, I stopped by the Rubell yesterday. A nice photo show downstairs, marred by three Thomas Ruff portraits of the Rubell family. Yuck!



February 22, 2005, 12:57 AM

Of the Rubell family? Weren't we just talking about rich people with private agendas?



February 22, 2005, 1:07 AM

Yes OF. Three typical big-ass Ruff portraits: "Mr. Rubell", "Jason Rubell", and "Mrs. Rubell".

Nice pictures, but gross. Upstairs, there's a Warhol sketch of Mrs. Rubell on a napkin. Somehow it's more acceptable from Warhol.

Yes we were talking about rich folks. And rich folks' kids: in addition to the bad "Not Afraid" Rubell collection book there's a smaller book dedicated to Jason's personal collection. I shit you not.

I agree with Oldpro that rich people buying art is a good thing, especially if they're nice enough to share it with us (in the case of the Rubell, for an entirely reasonable entry fee). Some of this stuff, though, makes me chuckle.

I promise to be sweet very soon!



February 22, 2005, 1:33 AM

Regardless of what Kathleen was trying to say, Potato, my question still stands.

PS - I find your irritation about the interest in painting around here amusing. May your undies get into ever tinier little knots about it.


mr potato head3r

February 22, 2005, 1:48 AM

I was just saying! (some people wear "painting snob" as a badge of honor)

But that's cool . . . i find your ongoin hostility towards me kind of amusing, too.

Your question still stands? Someone should prove why it's not financially adventageous to become a MAM member? So what if it's not! That's not even what Kathleen claimed. Red herring!

Doh! I promise to be sweet next time! No more fooling!


mr potato head3r

February 22, 2005, 1:49 AM

I was just saying! (some people wear "painting snob" as a badge of honor)

But that's cool . . . i find your ongoin hostility towards me kind of amusing, too.

Your question still stands? Someone should prove why it's not financially adventageous to become a MAM member? So what if it's not! That's not even what Kathleen claimed. Red herring!

Doh! I promise to be sweet next time! No more fooling!



February 22, 2005, 1:49 AM

Well, there go my posts. I accidentally hit 'refresh' on the "thank you for posting page."



February 22, 2005, 3:44 AM

Didn't seem to do anything.

Kathleen seemed to imply that membership at MAM would confer benefits that would be worthwhile to Guy. I want to see her make a case for that. If it can't be done financially, then aesthetically or morally or something. Jack seemed like more of a known entity - I was trying to cut her some slack.

As is, Guy and Jack hardly ever see anything they like at MAM, so they're not members and they don't support the curatorial choices. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.



February 22, 2005, 7:01 AM

Jack is feeling cranky (crankier than usual, that is). He's had an irritating museum day, though not in Miami (this time). But more about that later.

Franklin, kindly refrain from bringing up my ill-advised MoCA membership. It's very mortifying. Everybody makes mistakes (even painting snobs), and I don't intend to repeat this one. If I'd just gotten the basic membership it wouldn't be so bad, but I went somewhat higher, which was inexcusably foolish. My good faith was rewarded with things like the Laura Owens "retrospective" (after a career of, like, 7 years) and, of course, the Othoniel glass extravaganza (aka Kids' Day at MoCA). After the glass nonsense, I wanted a full refund (with interest) and a dartboard with Othoniel's picture on it. I'm still waiting.

Kathleen, I haven't seen "Beyond Geometry" or "Figuratively Speaking." After the disgraceful machinations surrounding Bond Issue #8, which I haven't forgotten, I resolved that, as long as the players involved remain at MAM, I would not go there unless I felt a show was of very high interest, and then only on a Sunday when it's free. I have not changed my mind.

Now for today. I used my day off to go to WPB to see the Spain show at the Norton. I get there, ask for a ticket, and get slapped with a $17 entry fee (their regular fee is $8). Since I'm familiar with their permanent collection, this means the whole $17 was for the "special show." I proceeded to object, with dignity (in honor of the Spanish Habsburgs, who were so dignified they barely consented to breathe, and even then only as a biological imperative). The ticket flunky, of course, only knew she was supposed to charge $17. She did offer the consolation that the price included an audio guide. As if. I felt like saying, "Madam, I don't do earphones in museums," but Philip II would not have approved. He would simply have turned away and ordered the woman's execution.

If I'd been a local, or if this had happened to me in Miami, I would have just left. However, I'd already invested too much in the affair for that, so I coughed up the $17, stormed past the audio guide stand, and went into the exhibit muttering to myself that it had damn better be worth the trip and the money. The things I knew would be worth seeing certainly were, but there were relatively few of them. This show is a kind of PR job for Spain (with official Spanish government backing), and it's really about history (with art included as part of that). There's a good deal of stuff that, while interesting, is of little or no serious artistic merit (like decorative objects, armor, naval instruments, maps and rare documents). So what caught my eye? In chronological order:

A creepy-unsettling Bosch of Christ carrying the cross surrounded by nasty caricatures, with very strong drawing and surprisingly fresh colors.

A portrait of Philip II by Antonis Mor that looked remarkably like a hirsute Lucas Blanco in a really bad mood--as in "Go ahead; show me a bad painting. Just one. Make my day. I'll throw your worthless carcass in a dungeon so fast it'll make your head spin. On second thought, I'll just have you beheaded, to save valuable dungeon space."

A very formal portrait of his daughter, the Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia, patting the head of her female dwarf as if she were a pet (Spanish royalty was once very big on dwarves).

A superb late El Greco of a bishop-saint in full regalia immersed in some text, wonderfully painterly and delicately colored so that the oil paint resembled pastels, with a subtle tension between the ascetic intellectual face and the finery of the vestments. Ravishing stuff.

An impossibly assured and authoritative early Velasquez portrait (done in his 20s) of Philip IV, who was actually his friend (this was highly unusual in the Spanish court, where etiquette was VERY stiff). It's soberly gorgeous, with incredible renderings of various fabrics and materials, and a touchingly sympathetic yet unflattering portrayal of the young king, with his oversized jaw, too-fleshy lips, and sad watery eyes.

A large bronze Bernini Crucifix, surprisingly restrained, almost Oriental. The wounds are present but do not bleed, and Christ appears to be in a meditative sleep. There was something Buddha-like about the head. The pictures I saw beforehand did not reflect this and were misleading.

So there you have it. I guess it may have been worth it after all.


that guy in the second to last row

February 22, 2005, 7:10 AM

road in a limo for the first time tonight. The driver was as cool as they come. MAMs got their work cut out for them. New leadership is the only way, come hell or high water. Yeah potato "be sweet",+The+/Gentlemen/Be+Sweet/


that guy in the second to last row

February 22, 2005, 7:28 AM

Jack, you should see me in long hair, I got some high school pics that will bowl you over.



February 22, 2005, 7:41 AM

frnkln~ whadya mean, didn't do nothin? don't ya see the double post!?!?

jck~ muchos gracias mi amigo, for reporting on the WPB price inflation. While we're ragging on the mam's curatorial choices, let's not forget that they're the only major museum in drivin distance that has not increased its admission for a "particularly noteworthy" exhibition. If anyone at the Norton is reading (yeah, right), hear this: nomore of us will drive up there under these conditions. I'd sooner go to the Lowe. The pictures I saw beforehand did not reflect this and were misleading. Can we count you, then, in the anti-jpeg faction?

guy~ you offend me daily. However, you've gotten right 50% of my "i promise to be sweet" reference. Greg Dulli is the man. The other half is a reference to gmtPlus9 (one of the best art weblogs going, my homepage for the last 6 months). Let's all celebrate:

potato h3ads will be back as soon as possible!!


that guy in the second to last row

February 22, 2005, 7:45 AM

alright s3nior potato:
I'll get the champaign.



February 22, 2005, 7:49 AM

sham pain phor maj reel frends
reel pain phor maj sham frends



February 22, 2005, 8:19 AM

Nice report, Jack. Thanks.

I am getting tired of cutesy talk.


that guy in the second to last row

February 22, 2005, 8:36 AM

yeah, Franklin post some images we can dig into. Tuesday's post is forthcoming right?



February 22, 2005, 4:39 PM

Potato: Your quote from Jack about the Norton show - "The pictures I saw beforehand did not reflect this and were misleading" - don't help the "anti-jpeg faction" much.

if you had been paying attention you would have noticed he was talking about a piece of sculpture, a 3D object, which it is obviously much more difficult to see well in a photograph than a flat picture.



February 22, 2005, 6:27 PM

you're still on that, eh? what about the Olitski example i mentioned?

seriously, tho, jack's review of the show is very useful. elisa turner (!) reviews the show in this past sunday's herald. it's on my desk, not red yet.



February 22, 2005, 7:05 PM


As you know I believe it is obvious that it is possible to tell a lot factually about a painting from seeing a good photo of it posted on the web. Denying this makes no sense and is just being obstinate.

I also believe - as you may recall - that i think it is better to reserve judgement (a judgement about quality, not content) about any picture until it is seen in person, although I am guilty of violating this all the time, in my mind, at least.

That said, there are degrees. Some pictures are pretty much all there as a jpeg. Some pictures are really hard to tell much about, in a jpeg, beyond simple physical characteristics. There seems to be a "quality correlation" there, but let's not get into that right now.

The Olitski (and most Olitskis) fall in the latter category. I would say that the one you mention would be particularly hard to "see" in a jpeg. When I went to the show a friend of mine said about that picture "It looks as if the whole thing is hovering in front of itself". That's an example of something that could only be seen in front of the painting itself..



February 22, 2005, 7:24 PM

Thanks for the link, Momoko, but of course the Herald persists in its sign-up nonsense, which I won't do unless they offer me something better in return.



February 22, 2005, 7:42 PM

But Jack, didn't you enjoy the headline at least?

"Navigating the Past: Norton show sheds light on an era of exploration"

Did you enjoy your history lesson? The paintings may be interesting, but let's get something REAL out of all this.



February 22, 2005, 9:00 PM

Hi, I was working like a mofo yesterday--sorry I couldn't follow up.

I wasn't suggesting to Jack that he become a member. He made no statements about what MAM does or does not offer its members. His points had to do with "tripe" vs "serious" work. I think he would like some of the works in Figuratively Speaking, which has quite a few paintings and includes one of Segal's awesome sculptures, which I can't imagine that he wouldn't enjoy. I don't know how Jack would come down on Beyond Geometry, but I'd like to find out. I certainly think one cannot deny that it is not a serious show. When MAM eventually has a larger space, I think that folks like Jack will be rewarded by having the permanent collection continuously available; there are many many works in the permanent collection that I suspect Jack would enjoy.

I have not seen the Olinsky show, so anything I say about it would only be speculation.

I asked Guy if he was a member because it seems to me that he would be unable to ascertain whether or not MAM cared for its members unless he was one. The programs and amenities I listed after asking whether or not he is a member are not solely membership perks; they are features that the public can avail themselves of, members or not. If Guy has not attended nor availed himself of any of those features, then his comments about MAM not caring for the public are once again biased speculations. I think it is quite obvious that MAM cares for art. Guy may not like some of the art that MAM exhibits, but that is not the statement which he made.

I am also curious about Guy's knowledge of MAM's curatorial abilities. What skills are they lacking, for example?

I've written many times about why I value MAM; I am on no crusade to convince the unconvincable. I only wanted to challenge what appeared to me to be an ill-informed attack (Guy) and inquire of Jack whether or not he had seen the current installations.

As for the financial benefits of membership, Franklin, the question is more telling than the answer would be.

As an example, I evaluate my MetroZoo membership in that regard, as I am highly conflicted about supporting an institution which maintains animals in captivity. I choose to get a membership because my daughter is not so conflicted, being only 2. 5 years old, and I think it is valuable for her to see animals in something which approximates the wild, and the membership allows us to visit as many times as we like annually, making it much more economical than more than one occasional trip. If I unconditionally supported the Zoo, I wouldn't have to use a financial analysis to inform my decision.

I think that you are looking at a MAM membership as I look at the Zoo; you are conflicted. You, Person X, Jack, whomever, must make that financial/benefit evaluation according to your own beliefs/needs. I doubt anything I said would change the status of your essential conflict.



February 22, 2005, 9:03 PM

Um, I think I had some kind linguistic glitch.

I attempted to say that Beyond Geometry IS a serious show, but I think I double-negatived it to imply the opposite. Oops.



February 22, 2005, 9:09 PM

I managed to see the Sunday Herald piece on the Norton show by Elisa Turner without signing up. It reads like museum PR, and it's essentially reporting, not criticism, although this is not a straight art show. I don't really blame Turner; it's the paper who has to decide what kind of coverage is appropriate, and this may well be the sort of thing they want her to provide (even for straight art shows).



February 22, 2005, 10:12 PM

"Beyond geometry" is indeed a serious show, Kathleen, albeit a very idiosyncratic one of a difficult kind of art. I suppose I will get clobbered for saying this, but it is not the kind of show I would rent for this town for both esthetic and practical reasons. It is too esoteric and the art itself is too "intellectual", dry and, well, unattractive.

In Franklin's regular "roundups" we see shows all the time which would be very good artwise and also at least fairly popular and appealing to their audience. My problem with MAM is not that they appear to be not trying but that their judgement is bad. I may have missed things but I do check out the listings and reviews and I don't think there has been anything I would make the trip for since the Hofmann show over 10 years ago.


potatoes headings3s

February 23, 2005, 12:07 AM

Kathleen~ did you mean to add "membership at a place like the MAM is based on a support of the institution's activities; it can be seen, in part, as a donation, and a show of support of the institution" ?

Jack~ I haven't read Elisa's piece yet. Did she at least criticize their rate hike? Note to museums: raising your rates for one show is bound to cost you more money in the long run from people like jack and me not going in disgust when we might have, or NEVER COMING BACK.

Oldpro~as I said before, the MAM has to strike some sort of ballance as to what shows it puts on. clearly you and jack are pretty far out along one extreme as far as what you'd do "if you were in charge." The geometry show came up before, and I don't mean to rehash that conversation, but the show struck me as very impressive in scope, quality, and presentation. "Encyclopedic" is a word that comes to mind.

As long as you want to argue the Jpeg thing, i'll go along. Wha you seem to be saying now is that art that YOU like (i.e. good art) is difficult to judge from a jpeg, while art you dislike is easy to dismiss from same. Yet your contradict yourself with the Olitski piece. From the jpeg it looked like nothing; if it wasn't by someone you already loved, you'd say it was crap.



February 23, 2005, 12:52 AM

Do you, then, instruct your child (if you have any) not to go to MAM, Oldpro?

I just imagined a kid explaining to other kids at school, "My dad said it is not the kind of show for this town for both esthetic and practical reasons, and it is too esoteric and the art itself is too intellectual, dry, and unattractive."



February 23, 2005, 1:22 AM

Potato, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be unnecessarily aggressive, but having an exchange with you really is like walking around in a maze. Or a daze, maybe.

First of all my suggestion to MAM was anything but extreme. It was that they try to put on "shows which (are) very good artwise and also at least fairly popular and appealing to their audience". If anything this idea is completely ordinary, mainstream and accomodating. Or is that somehow "extreme"? I don't get it.

Second, again, the "geometry" show is very particular and highly selected and idiosyncratic. My first thought, on reviewing the show in my mind, was how much was left out. For you to say it is "encyclopediac", well, with all due respect, it just means you don't know postwar art history.

Third, once again, as so often in the past, you are telling me what I "seem to be saying" rather than what I actually said. I said this: " it is better to reserve judgement (a judgement about quality, not content) about any picture until it is seen in person". That's what I said and that's what I meant.

I then observed that there seems to be a correlation between good work and work that does not come across well in a jpeg, (which no more than an interesting and arguable idea, at best) but that DOES NOT mean I am judging the quality of anything from a jpeg. Isn't that obvious? Do you weant me to explain it further?

Fourth, you then deduce from your own misunderstanding that not only would I (or did) judge the Olitski from the jpeg but that if it was not an Olitski I would think it was a piece of crap. I have seen the jpeg., I have seen the painting, I like the painting and I think the jpeg does not do it justice. I would never, once again, judge it from the jpeg. That's all I said in the first place. Good grief!!

Are you doing this, and the other inanities, like how Olitski is deritive of Schnabel, just to irritate me? I suppose that would be amusing, but it is a waste of my time and yours and the readers of the blog. I would rather not bother.



February 23, 2005, 1:29 AM

I must be on another planet.

"Instruct my kids not to go to MAM"?

How in the world can you possibly come up with such an idea, Momoko?

I was suggesting - to MAM, to the curators, to the readers of the blog, to anyione who wants to hear - that the exhibit was not a good fit for Miami for the reasons I gave. If someone wants toi disagree and tell me I am wrong, that's fine, but how can what I said in any way be translated into delivering a prohibition to anyone to go see it???

Geez! Go talk to Potato!



February 23, 2005, 2:37 AM


As I've made clear, I have a conflict with MAM, if you want to put it that way. I don't think its collection or track record deserves a major new facility unless entirely funded with private money, in which case it would be none of my business. Since MAM not only asked for what it didn't deserve, but used what I consider at best highly dubious means to get it, I feel offended and cheated. I don't care what they promise; they might as well be politicians talking. Hence my position, stated above in #67. "Beyond Geometry" is not of great interest to me, and I assume "Figuratively Speaking" is drawn from the permanent collection, such as it is, all or most of which I've seen by now. I've seen the Segal piece you mention (the Old Testament group) at least twice.


No, Elisa Turner did not touch upon the hiked-up entry fee at the Norton. She did quote Norton staff (albeit to no great effect), so she obviously talked to them and perhaps felt it would be rude to criticize her hosts, who were no doubt most gracious to her. In all fairness, I suppose I should have taken the trouble to check what the entry fee would be before driving up there. However, the show was subsidized or sponsored by numerous corporate and government entities, and everything about the Norton says "money," so one would think it would not need to resort to this sort of tactic. It's very poor public relations (unless, of course, the only public it cares about is rich Boca and Palm Beach patrons).



February 23, 2005, 3:55 AM

Good to konw that I was misunderstanding, Oldpro. Sometimes the way you express your opinions with absolute conviction makes me forget that it is an opinion.

No, thank you. I have no energy to talk to Sw33t Potato.

Do you think you could write a letter to the museum people instead of keeping it in this blog? At least it would be more proactive and you may feel better.

Miami is a full of surprises to me, and MAM is not an exception. Figuratively Speaking goes on February 5 – October 30, 2005. That, for me, is impossible! How could anyone run a show for NINE months? It is like a river that flows one inch per day and water gets rotten and stinks. There should be something new every three months or at most five months. To me the place is dead, and I am not interested in kicking a dead dog.

If they cannot show good art, they should make the place fun and enjoyable. Any time I go there I feel like taking a nap.



February 23, 2005, 4:23 AM

I don't blam3 you, momoko.

You feel rather more strongly about MAM than I do. Unlike you & Jack I don't have the strong feeling for the situation, though I surely would like it if they did better.

I'm sorry of I gave the wrong opinion. I guess my sense of conviction is kind of intense sometimes, but I can't seem to help myself.

Actually I thought the "geometry" show was pretty interesting. The only drawback from a pedagogical standpoint would be the limited selection - they did not take a big enough bite to make their point. From an esthetic point of view I think most the stuff in it is very boring and "sterile" (I use that word advisedly because it is so often overused.) I did feel that it is not the sort of exhibit the Miami museum going public would find much interest in, and that was my main point. I think those out of town places Franklin keeps putting up are doing much better. There are any number I would go to if they were in town.



February 23, 2005, 5:03 AM

The OldPro writes: Are you doing this, and the other inanities, like how Olitski is deritive of Schnabel, just to irritate me? I suppose that would be amusing, but it is a waste of my time and yours and the readers of the blog.

Potatoe H3ad: OldPro is not interesting when he is irritated. Nor is he amusing, with all due respect to his statement above. He is much better when he is agitated and verging on losing control. Learn how to pull his chain and push his buttons and you will can have some great conversations with him. Continue what you are doing, and you will only have conversations with yourself.



February 23, 2005, 5:13 AM

Momoko, I know you were addressing Oldpro and MAM, but I thought I'd say that I wrote the Norton today to complain. If I hear back, I'll report it. As for writing to an outfit like MAM, I doubt it would do much good, if any, unless the writer was a major VIP type with either a tempting enough carrot or a scary enough stick. It would help if we had art critics with real teeth around here, but that's another matter.

I can tell you that, years back, I tried what you suggest with the local opera company. I was fed up with investing time, money and expectations, only to be repeatedly disappointed by so-so, if not downright inadequate, singers. When the stage scenery and costumes deserve more applause than the soprano or tenor, there's a serious problem. I didn't make generalized complaints; I cited numerous very specific examples from my experience (I used to write a "review" just for myself after each performance, both for the discipline and for future reference). Mine was not a letter to be trifled with, if I do say so myself, and the company director answered me at some length. He was polite enough, though understandably somewhat defensive, but while I appreciated not getting a form letter, nothing really changed. The bottom line is that somebody like me was not the opera company's main target audience. I finally gave up and stopped going.

I know it's a depressing story, but I'm afraid when you're really serious about something and really care about it, not for the fringe benefits but for the thing itself, satisfaction becomes much harder to get. The fact is, many operagoers, like many art "scenesters," aren't truly hard-nosed and uncompromising about quality--they want to have a reasonably enjoyable time, see and be seen, socialize, network, project a certain image, make a splash, whatever, but they're not really that demanding. There's nothing wrong with that; it's a free country, and people can do what suits them, but some of us don't or can't operate that way. Maybe we should; it's easier and less frustrating, but I suppose somebody has to be "difficult."



February 23, 2005, 6:37 AM

Hey, Flats, good to hear from you.

What is the difference between irritating me and pulling my chain? Sounds like the same thing. Potato is a little slow on the uptake. Better explain.



February 23, 2005, 7:52 AM

OldPro: irritating you is a matter of small conceptions writ as wannabe large insults. Pulling your chain is bringing up the other side of things you deeply care about.

All of us carry a chain or two that leads to the best part of ourselves. We need those chains pulled once in a while or we get too complacent.



February 23, 2005, 2:25 PM

Yikes! i'm behind, and have not time to really catchup

o/p~ to suggest that MAM put up "shows which (are) very good artwise and also at least fairly popular and appealing to their audience" implies that you believe they currently do not. most people (not necessarily most artblog commenters) think they do, more or less. therefore you disagree with most people about how good the MAM is. duh.

Undoubtedly you know postwar art better then me, and I defer to your judgement on how well Beyond Geometry represents it. Of course the show only aims to present one part of postwar art... By the way, I believe I said the show "struck me as" encyclopedic, so my comment was mollified, already.

Regarding Olitski, you can scroll on up and see that i wasn't the one who made the Schnabel reference. perhaps your irritation is misdirected? I cary on this Jpeg argument partially as devil's adovcate, because you seem so adamant about being able to dismiss stuff from inadequate digitial images. More to come, but not this second.

Jack~ It's true; the people to whom the difference between $8 and $17 form a disproportionate part of the audience for the show up at the Norton. I've actually never been there. I might have made the drive to see this show (as I do very regularly to visit PBICA), but what with the rate hike, not too likely (though I may change my mind . . . what price great art and so forth).

Good story re Opera letter. I think one good letter like that CAN make a huge difference to an organication. Unfortounately, timing, relative to what's going on internally in the org, is often the key. Over that you can have no control. Do you go to the opera up in ft. lauderdale?



February 23, 2005, 3:40 PM


I don't know what "most peope" think about MAM. You don't either. I think their exhibition policy is confused and inadequate. You don't, apparently. That's about it.

If I ascribed the Schnabel/Olitski nonsense to you I apologise. I was probably misled by the morphing aliases that dance around here. However, you supplied quite enough nonsense of your own - "Olitski chasing trends", "Parodies of 80s art" and the Paul Rand derivations - to justify a strong reaction.

I am tired of the jpeg. discussion. I have stated my position and you continue to misstate what I said. Insisting that it is impossible to tell anything at all about a painting from a jpeg, as you have in at least one instance, is flat wrong on the face of it and does not warrant further discussion.

Playing devil's advocate is OK but be careful; Satan is not tolerant of inadequate counsel.


I certainly sympathize with you, and I really appreciate your uncompromising pleas for better art, but I think your expectations for Miami are foredoomed. I guess I can withdraw a little more easily because I have a studio to go to.



February 23, 2005, 7:38 PM

Potato, what you say I left out was something I certainly hope was implied. I did not say it, as I am tired of flogging a bunch of dead horses. Statements such as that, no matter how right, will not change the minds of those here who denounce MAM for not conforming to thier wishes.

Jack, I do know that you are conflicted about MAM. I commend you for standing by your principals.

I may be in the minority, but I find repeated viewings of artworks with which I am familiar to be quite rewarding. Those who do not might also consider that MAM has a good number of visitors during the summer who are not repeat visitors.

To bring up a more personal stance, I find that I am not one of those who requires the art to prove itself to me. Rather, most artwork I see simmers in the back of my mind for a long time. Sometimes I understand and like it immediately, sometimes I dislike it immediately, sometimes nothing happens immediately. In the case of the latter two types, the simmering continues, and sometimes appreciative understanding comes, and othertimes I forge a better understanding of why I don't like a work and how it ties in to other themes or styles which I do not enjoy. In all cases, I understand better, and grow.

Now, Oldpro, you really were uninterested in seeing Martin Puryear, Matta in America, George Segal (retrospective), Brice Marden, American Tableaux, Shirin Neshat, Kerry James Marshall, Vito Acconci, Annie Liebowitz, Andy Warhol, Anne Hamilton, Re-aligning Vision, or Global Conceptualism? These are but some of the upstairs exhibitions at MAM since 1998. Really, none of them were worth you making the trip for?



February 23, 2005, 8:39 PM


I am probably guilty of overstating my case, if it is one. Certtainly a number of the exhibitions you list have a general interest. If you are specifically asking would I make a special trip to see any of these (Iunfortunately I am not familiar with a couple of them, though I make a point to check regularly) the answer would be no, but that begs the question because so much of this stuff I have seen over the years in NY. I find Puryear a bore, same for Segal. Marden, well, OK, but my laziness and perception of his vastly overinflated reputation won over there. Acconci and Warhol you can chase me with. Hamilton - what I have seen is just pomo mannerism. Liebowitz has some interest but not my kind of thing, doesn't come across in an "art" way to me. And so forth.

But, as i said, this begs the question. In all fairness I may just reduce my complaint to saying I would put on different shows and perhaps a different kind of show in general, and retain my displeasure at others like the label one. Please understand that I am not merely talking about art that I like (I'm trying to ward off another blindsider from Potato here) but shows - especially those curated by the museum itself - which really have punch and serve a real "educational" purpose, like Bonnie Clearwaters]'s 1980s painting show a few years back.


Chad Harris

February 24, 2005, 4:15 AM

Oh my God oldpro, you gotta like Matta, right? You should have gone up and seen that - it was pretty impressive. Anyway, this post is probably dead ...



February 24, 2005, 5:26 AM

I missed the Matta show, Chad, and you are right, that is one I would have gon e to see. Thanks for pointing that out.



Other Projects


Design and content ©2003-2022 Franklin Einspruch except where otherwise noted