Previous: delehanty to step down (9)

Next: you cannot defeat my linking style (11)

my combined review of exhibitions this past weekend at the world arts building, filtro, ingalls, kevin bruk, and snitzer, and this is pretty much all i'm going to write about them

Post #516 • April 12, 2005, 6:58 AM • 30 Comments

The lovers of art went out one night
Walking the rows of cheap real estate,
Scanning the drywall in hopes that they might
See something stunning, but it was getting late

And they had not. Hot tea and books
Beckoned, their feet hurt, then three
Flights of warehouse stairs brought them a look
Out an open window better than the art. He

Watched the lights of office buildings, and noted
Her hair in the temperate wind. "I suspected it was me,
But it's the art, am I right?" Her chin floated
Up and she smiled and squinted - "we agree."

The art that he had just seen was not as good
As her hair and the lights and the air in Wynwood.

Comment

1.

bibi

April 12, 2005, 3:27 PM

Poor frustrated verse and a bit worse than the art, I bet.

2.

Franklin

April 12, 2005, 3:39 PM

If you think this sonnet was bad, you should see my contribution to the end of the Danto thread (#53) in the form of a slightly broken stanza of the Modern Major-General's Song. Now that was some poor verse.

3.

that guy in the second to last row

April 12, 2005, 6:22 PM

That sums up my walk around Wynwood last Saturday well. Except I saw the Jordan Masengales show one more time at Dorsch. Which was great. I think it comes down this weekend. It looked like Kevin and Fred were really drawing at straws with these two shows. Weak.

4.

Jack

April 12, 2005, 6:44 PM

Franklin, you're taking the wrong approach. You shouldn't be looking at the work as such, but rather at how it illustrates your favorite theory du jour. If it does not fit the theory, you just make one up that does. You then write four chapters about why I should care more about what you say than what my eyes and mind tell me. Eventually, someone will give you a book contract, or at least quote you in some "advanced" journal. Please stop wasting your time on trivialities like "How good is the work?"

5.

Dan

April 12, 2005, 6:49 PM

> If you think this sonnet was bad, you should see my contribution to the end of the Danto thread (#53) in the form of a slightly broken stanza of the Modern Major-General's Song.

I wanted to say that you've left poor WS Gilbert spinning in his urn, but I just enjoyed that way too much. If I ever wore a hat, Franklin, I assure you it would be off to you right now.

6.

PANTS

April 12, 2005, 10:02 PM

Welcoming myself to this blog, but are positive comments welcomed?
ha!
i am throwing this out there...I actually like the direction Adlers drawings were heading. There is a nice line quality and a clean composition.
I fell into these. They are a bit inconsistent with his previous work.
but - I do not mean to say that the work was unequal or opposed to his photographic trail, of charged barren spaces . I feel it is a direction that should be furthur explored. What do i know? I appreciated the drawings.
The mad house next door was just that. i couldnt see past the party, so we all joined in, then preceeded to fall down.

7.

PANTS

April 12, 2005, 10:03 PM

Welcoming myself to this blog, but are positive comments welcomed?
ha!
i am throwing this out there...I actually like the direction Adlers drawings were heading. There is a nice line quality and a clean composition.
I fell into these. They are a bit inconsistent with his previous work.
but - I do not mean to say that the work was unequal or opposed to his photographic trail, of charged barren spaces . I feel it is a direction that should be furthur explored. What do i know? I appreciated the drawings.
The mad house next door was just that. i couldnt see past the party, so we all joined in, then preceeded to fall down.

8.

PANTS

April 12, 2005, 10:05 PM

sorry for writting that TWICE

9.

wwc

April 12, 2005, 10:55 PM

"Who are you going to believe, my theory or your lyin' eyes?"

w

10.

nadroj

April 12, 2005, 11:17 PM

could someone please post some digital's of Adler's drawings?

11.

Jack

April 12, 2005, 11:32 PM

So what was showing at these places? You don't have to go into great detail, but some idea would be of interest (however perfunctory).

12.

RULX

April 12, 2005, 11:46 PM

not a fat chance... adler's style is not considered art in here

13.

PANTS

April 12, 2005, 11:49 PM

pardon me.

14.

FRodo

April 13, 2005, 12:33 AM

wait up a minute- "not concidered art here" thats bold. What do you conside art?
If you are going to be bold you must back your self up.
i actually agree with PANTS, the direction was good.
Simple, but good the show felt cohesive and i felt the drawings exceeded the photography.

15.

Franklin

April 13, 2005, 12:41 AM

Waitasec - I consider Adler's work to be art. I thought it was a letdown, though. Fussy, repetitive, a little flashy in a low-culture kind of way. What is it with Snitzer that between Adler, Naomi Fischer, Bakhti Baxter (sp?), Gean Moreno, and Jiae Hwang (sp!!!) there are more and more fussy things on paper down there? Bas, Beatriz Montevoro, and that woman who does the rabbits don't count - they're a little more together.

World Arts had a show called Wet - a painting show, but nothing really jumped out at me except a Gelfman and Edwin Montalvo. Filtro had a show of photos of Cuba. One guy was really good, Baldomero Fernandez, doing medium scale work, the rest was so-so. Ingalls had somebody redoing weak 70s abstraction. Bruk had an opening show that had some redeeming work by Byron White - a little still life and a painting of a disheveled bed; the rest of his work was sort of failed Alex Katz and nothing else in the space caught my attention. That's all the rundown you're getting, Jack.

16.

Jack

April 13, 2005, 12:45 AM

Thanks, Franklin. That will do.

17.

Max

April 13, 2005, 2:51 AM

Honestly Franklin, I think you're letting your own self admitted bias cloud your judgement. How is it that you usually love or are at least very lenient with your reviews of things being shown at Dorsch (your gallery), yet you seem to pick apart and scrutinize anything else being shown anywhere else in town, when everyone knows that Dorsch Gallery is considered by most to be barely a gallery with barely any good artists. The only people that seem to praise Dorsch Gallery artists are Darby Bannard disciples. The ones that think it's good to make work that looks a hundred years old and detest concepts of any kind in art.

18.

oldpro

April 13, 2005, 3:32 AM

Let's see, a hundred years ago...Cezanne, Matisse, Picasso, Monet, Braque, the Fauves in the middle of their hot period....sounds pretty good to me.

I don't think those Dorsch artists "detest concepts". They may not care for art that has little else. Why do they have to do what everyone else is doing?

19.

Max

April 13, 2005, 3:56 AM

I rest my case.

20.

oldpro

April 13, 2005, 4:00 AM

I think it has been resting all along, Max.

21.

Franklin

April 13, 2005, 4:38 AM

...everyone knows that Dorsch Gallery is considered by most to be barely a gallery with barely any good artists.

Max, say hi to everyone and most for me. You must be good friends with them if you know what they're thinking.

You know, somebody tried to pull this angle when I reviewed Frances Trombly. One "Caravaggio" said, By the way, do you all realize that the entire collective contemporary art world in Miami and elsewhere laugh at most of the comments posted on this site? I guess the idea is to try to make me feel bad at the possibility that a lot of people in my world have a low opinion of me. As it happens, I spent most of high school in this state; I got over it, and now the prospect doesn't bother me much.

I've noticed that there are people out there who want things to be simple. Really simple. Like, if I don't say that Trombly is great, I must have hated the show. Or, if I felt let down by the work I saw this weekend, I don't think it's art. Or, the artists at Dorsch detest concepts of any kind in art. None of this is true, of course, and that kind of nuance must be profoundly threatening to the likes of Max. As Einstein said, everything should be is simple as possible, but no simpler.

22.

Franklin

April 13, 2005, 4:59 AM

"...as simple as possible." Goodnight.

23.

Jack

April 13, 2005, 6:36 AM

Franklin, you'd better get used to it, because it's only a matter of time before MOCA unveils its groundbreaking Basel spectacular, titled, of course, "Fussy Things on Paper."

24.

jake

April 16, 2005, 6:18 PM

well, this is a case of you didn't really look, did you?

man, if all you see is bad art, do you look at your own work. you gotta be able to recognize something good, something worthwhile, i mean, i thought that art appreciation was just that, an ability to see something there. Now, if you like it or not, simple enough. But that is what all this reading and training is supposed to let you see. So on another note, i missed it, fell asleep after hours of preparation for it. I heard it was all pretty packed, and i wasn't there. Maybe if it was dead, and you were the only one there, you might feel that you discovered something, or perhaps a bit more compelled to look, but as it is, it just seems too damn superficial-miami.

so in summation-

the little grasshopper sings
in a city, grinding his legs to a shell
the sound is deafening to himself
when no one else hears

to listen to a grasshopper
is a bit too zen

25.

jake

April 16, 2005, 6:23 PM

or perhaps she has really amazing hair

26.

Franklin

April 16, 2005, 6:59 PM

She did, Jake, she did.

It was packed. Kevin Bruk especially. I saw a few things to like (see #15). I've just been in a mood.

Art just can't compete with life.

27.

cohen

April 17, 2005, 1:17 AM

it is not ok to use the word john cage in a piece of art.... its downright offensive

28.

oldpro

April 17, 2005, 1:57 AM

It is not a word, Cohen, it is a name or a phrase. And why offensive?

29.

cohen

April 18, 2005, 8:43 PM

look smart ass... its like painting the word rothko on your painting...

30.

oldpro

April 18, 2005, 9:30 PM

It would not surprise me at all to see someone paint the word "Rothko" on a painting. It might be silly and stupid, but no more offensive than most of the other garbage we see in the galleries.

Subscribe

@franklin_e

franklin.e

Offers

Other Projects

Legal

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