Previous: if i code my little heart out today (5)

Next: this art school ain't big enough for the two of us (39)

go see art relaunches

Post #557 • June 14, 2005, 7:50 AM • 62 Comments

I did it.

Go See Art is going to do a lot more than what's presently on the site, but I wanted to make sure that basic functionality wasn't choking before I proceeded any further.

The major known issue is incompleteness. If you know of a gallery or exhibition that doesn't appear in the listings, send it to the e-mail address on the site or post it below. Ditto for comments about design or functionality (suggestions, choking alerts, etc.).




June 14, 2005, 4:31 PM

Looks Great! Congratulations!



June 14, 2005, 4:38 PM

the's nothing there....



June 14, 2005, 4:39 PM

Franklin, It looks great. (IE, Mac OS 9.1)

As an outsider, for the first time I can get a concise overview of what's happening in Miami. It's a great service.



June 14, 2005, 4:40 PM

Reload the page. One time this morning the center column blanked out - they may be working on the servers.



June 14, 2005, 4:41 PM

#4 was directed to ?? in #2.

Brook, George, thanks.



June 14, 2005, 4:47 PM

Looks great. Tastes great, too. (although it seemed offline circa 9:20).

You're not going to want to hear this, but artsfeed is spewing funky error messages!!



June 14, 2005, 4:52 PM

Alesh, Artsfeed has been clutching its innards for a couple of months. The new host provides much better XML support and should enable me to rebuild it. In fact, let me go put a "site down" message up there.



June 14, 2005, 5:15 PM

woo hoo! i am so glad to have a resource like this again. good job. it really does fill a need.



June 14, 2005, 5:54 PM

When I look at "Receptions" and current shows by space, the font size progressively decreases as one moves down the page, so that most of the listings are too small to be readable. There is no such problem with current shows by end date.

Of course, Franklin, congratulations and thanks for tackling a blatantly obvious need which has gone disgracefully unmet since Street folded quite some time ago. I have no respect for the official media sources who failed to pick up the slack immediately. I also don't think too highly of the movers and shakers in our illustrious art community who could and should have acted very expeditiously to ensure that the public was kept properly informed. I expect that as long as the "right" people are in the know, they couldn't care less about the rest of the population. Welcome to Miami, "major" art center. Yeah, right.



June 14, 2005, 6:03 PM

Movers and shakers will have ample opportunity to advertise on the site once I get the credit card thingie up and running. Let's see if they do.

...the font size progressively decreases as one moves down the page? Jack, I wouldn't know how to generate that if I wanted to. Let's do the drill: browser, browser version, and operating system. Does anyone else see that?



June 14, 2005, 6:16 PM

IE, Windows 2000



June 14, 2005, 6:17 PM

Jack, things should look okay to you now - please confirm. (Thank you Hovig.)



June 14, 2005, 6:23 PM

Yes, it's fine now.



June 14, 2005, 6:26 PM

Franklin, are you planning an "Openings this week" section like Street used to have? I found that very useful.



June 14, 2005, 6:39 PM

a "submit event" link, or are you going to be data-entering everything (perhaps a GSA intern)? we need an "about" section, capitain.



June 14, 2005, 6:57 PM

hey alesh ,, hows that propasel doing



June 14, 2005, 6:58 PM

Believe it or not, Jack, that's a nasty little ontological problem - what is an opening?

Opening receptions are usually thrown to celebrate the opening of the show. The opening reception and the opening of the show are two different kinds of information that often correspond to two different times.

If you want a list of opening receptions, you can click Receptions - GSA sorts them by date, soonest first. (It might be a good idea if GSA offered to filter in the opening receptions away from the rest of them.) If you want a list of start dates, I can code that, but there may be no corresponding receptions to go with them. This might confuse the hell out of people, but I'll probably figure out how to do it anyway, once I get more info in the database and I have more start dates.

Here's another idea - you sign up with your e-mail address, and you get seven days' worth of openings e-mailed to you once a week. What do you think of that?

Alesh, a submit form is in the works. Interns, however, hadn't occured to me. I work at a school. Hmm... (rubs hands, laughs evilly) I'll work up an About page. Forgot about that.



June 14, 2005, 7:06 PM, and are up and running as well. you may want to check them out . . . gallery listings, event calendar with submission form and basic artist listings available with links directly to artists sites . . .



June 14, 2005, 7:06 PM

Okay, Alesh, now you have to spill the beans. What proposal?



June 14, 2005, 7:12 PM

I think the word was "propasel" ryhmes with Basel... Banana-bonana fee fi Bonnana..



June 14, 2005, 7:56 PM

I think it could use a basic description of the show (painting, sculpture, installation) and perhaps a statement about it, perhaps submitted by the artist shimself. A calendar aesthetic would not hurt it (an at a glance type of look).

and finally, a place where feedback relevant to the show may be posted, a critical field.

I know that i am typing these things with very little effort and the actual carrying out of them is a lot more typing, but thses are my comments and or suggestions. The design feels bland but the info is crucial. On that note, (and again, i realize it has only been up for a day) are these only the shows that have not had an opening? What about ongoings? Perhaps a listing of all miami-dada Museum,gallery, exhibition and alternative spaces. I have not found one yet, and crave one.



June 14, 2005, 9:41 PM

"go see art" rocks. I'd totally be down for an e-mail notification. oh, and I didn't see the Rubells on there.



June 14, 2005, 10:30 PM

thank you, Franklin.... you surely have a place reserved for you in Art Heaven



June 14, 2005, 10:55 PM

Jake, descriptions are going to be one of the advertising features of the site - it'll be obvious once I do it but it's hard to explain. Feedback to the show is in the works. I vetoed the calendar aesthetic - calendars read poorly on screen. Ongoing shows got vetoed. That was a tough call, but people don't really need help tracking shows that don't change. (I may have to have an "all spaces" query to cover that, I don't know.)

Eddie - thanks. Nothing personal about the Rubells - they'll get on there.

Kate - I like to think that there is, and I hope I'm headed there.



June 15, 2005, 1:25 AM

Avery, thanks for those sites. Yes, there are competitors in the field, and I plan to compete.


storm trooper

June 15, 2005, 2:11 AM

will you have a gallery of local artists on 'goseeart'


storm trooper

June 15, 2005, 2:28 AM

have gallery shows every month!



June 15, 2005, 3:01 AM

Tell me what you guys aside to the previous.
New york Times came out with a small blurb about artist/photographer Ryan McGinley's latest work, this past weekend. It seems like such a sell out move. He seemed so promising at the ps-1 show last summer as well as at NADA. This feels like such a capitalist move. i might just be bitter.
Taking buddies and a clothing line down to Mexico. Dont know, tradgic?
If you don't know his work check it out
then see the article



June 15, 2005, 3:01 AM

Tell me what you guys aside to the previous.
New york Times came out with a small blurb about artist/photographer Ryan McGinley's latest work, this past weekend. It seems like such a sell out move. He seemed so promising at the ps-1 show last summer as well as at NADA. This feels like such a capitalist move. i might just be bitter.
Taking buddies and a clothing line down to Mexico. Dont know, tradgic?
If you don't know his work check it out
then see the article



June 15, 2005, 3:02 AM

sorry i was sure i only clicked once



June 15, 2005, 3:33 AM

Love the look.



June 15, 2005, 3:42 AM

then again i think might feel like
dave eggars on selling out....i always like to refer to this article when people don't quite understand an artists move

i am glad i cought this blog tonight


Rene Barge

June 15, 2005, 3:46 AM

Thank you Franklin,



June 15, 2005, 3:50 AM

Well, Pants, artists who care little or nothing about money and fame have never been the norm, just as saints have never been the norm, not even in the most religious and pious societies. Of course, there are varying degrees of seriousness and integrity among artists, with a Morandi near one end and a Warhol or Hirst near the other. Unfortunately, the current art world climate, as has been noted here before, is very much like that of the fashion or entertainment industries, where stardom is paramount, regardless of what (if any) real talent lies beneath the buzz and hype. The whole system promotes and endorses this, at least tacitly, and often brazenly. Thus, since most artists are not saints, they may well sell out, or something to that effect. The system wants that, since the system is primarily about money, image and status, not art as such. It has little use for a Morandi, but it absolutely loves a Hirst. If you don't believe me, go ask Larry Gagosian.



June 15, 2005, 4:30 AM

Sorry, Storm, that's too close to what we tried to do with the Miami Art Exchange and it's outside the mandate of GSA. Nothing stopping you from doing it yourself, though.

JL, thank you. The look has gotten some bad reviews. I'd rather have it be a little plain to start, so I'm sticking by it.

Rene, thank you.

Pants, what Jack said.



June 15, 2005, 4:46 AM

thanks dashen, I actuall meet Dave Eggars while at RISD around the same time I saw Ryan's work, it seems appropriate and amusing to me. I read, A.H.W.O.S.G.:
(so good) & i also liked the article.
Jack, i hear you. but...who knows what artist are scheming (money schemes) i agree. If they are good or bad or the artist i question.



June 15, 2005, 4:49 AM

FOR the artist i question
(i meant to say)



June 15, 2005, 4:50 AM

Hey Pants, you went to RISD? Me too. IL'90.



June 15, 2005, 5:00 AM

BFA & BARCH '03 ...Nice my friend.



June 15, 2005, 5:16 AM

got to say thanks for this blog...its nice to continue the dialouge out of the studio.
Especially because i have become more of a BARCHitect then an BFA, and therefore begun collecting work ever since this happenng. So much apreciation for art so little time (&money).



June 15, 2005, 5:17 AM




June 15, 2005, 6:21 AM

iC: Sun's over the yardarm, smokem if you gottem.

I'm going to take exception. to making the distinction of "selling out" based on a change in an artists work. I think this is grossly unfair because it makes the assumption that the artistic decisions are a machiavellian charting of ones career. In truth this over simplifies the situation. My instinct tells me that Ryan was offered a "photo shoot" opportunity but the boys had to wear something. If he said nope, then we could accuse him of sensationalism. Saying yes, he's sold out. Rhetorically, why are we asking this question?

Well, Jack, I always love your replies. I more or less agree, the world is not black and white, it's mostly a gray, fuzzy logic. I would pick different bounds for my world of integrity. Would I put Warhol and Koons together, yes. Warhol and Hirst, never. While I agree we live in a world of "buzz and hype" maybe these terms are just another label we place on the popular focus, the zeitgeist of the moment. These characteristics can and do occur simultaneously with the subtle characteristics contributing to the experience of "quality" or beauty. While we wish to establish the locus of beauty as the experience of universal satisfaction we are more likely than not doomed to miss near the boundaries. Donald Kuspit touched on this in his essay The Psychoanalytic Construction of Beauty.

I want to make another real world observation about "choosing" between one devil and the other. While I would certainly agree that there are those who would sell their soul to the devil for Julie, most people are less adept and make less informed choices based upon what they think will benefit them most. They learn by experience when they decide badly and realize most decisions are just trade offs.



June 15, 2005, 6:54 AM

Typical Kuspit, George, embarking on a nice comparison between the esthetics of Kant and Freud, saying some good things, then sidling into inappropriate conclusions and then tearing off on a headlong logorrheic orgy of disconnected, rambling thoughts. Too bad he can't finish what he starts. it was an interesting idea.



June 15, 2005, 7:42 AM

I'm an artist who just moved to Miami, which are some good galleries that would show emerging artists?



June 15, 2005, 9:18 AM

rocket, placemaker, dorsch, ingalls, ambrosino, tachmes are the only galleries in town that represent interesting young artists - or at least aim to, not always successfully - well its a small town and lets face it the talent pool isn't endless - must be one of the few cities in the world where the only artists who aren't represented by galleries aren't only because either they don't want to be or because they are so truly appalling as not to warrant it!

but easier might be to contact - its a vast space and needs artists alll the time, artcenter on linclon road for a studio - but who has ever seen any work worth looking at either produced in the studios there or in the gallery.

recomend you check out the show at snitzer cos it has many of the local art market stars and the show at Ingalls cos its the best show miami has seen all year (i think!)



June 15, 2005, 2:05 PM

LC, Goodluck gave you a decent list but I want to take exception to a few things:

1. Snitzer also shows young artists, some of whom are interesting, and there'd be no harm in getting your work in front of him, but he recently spoke on a panel at ArtCenter/South Florida about exposing your art to galleries and said, essentially, Don't call us, we'll call you.

2. This statement - must be one of the few cities in the world where the only artists who aren't represented by galleries aren't only because either they don't want to be or because they are so truly appalling as not to warrant it! - is ridiculous. You could assemble a dozen more galleries off of the neglected talent down here. (People have suggested that I try it myself but I have no idea how to make it work and don't have the cash resources anyway.)

3. Definitely go by Ingalls, but not because of the current show, which is garbage.



June 15, 2005, 3:54 PM

Edgezones is a nice big space, but essentially, I think it takes advantage of young artists... they are asked to contribute $ for the postcards, the utilities (and people live there), etc., then more if they want to pitch in on a catalog. The owners put themselves into the shows and the catalog, and the young artists are essentially paying for the operating expenses and self-promotion of the artists running the place. A service to the art community?...

I have friends from San Francisco who were here for that ArtCenter Gallery panel, and they were appalled that it "is so much about money here", not alternative guerilla scenes, artist generated activities, etc.



June 15, 2005, 4:27 PM

This Art Center panel business sounds interesting. Can we have a first-hand report from someone who was there?



June 15, 2005, 4:36 PM

Oldpro [43] I don't read much of this stuff, so I don't know if it is "typical Kuspit" as you say. I do think he is taking another look at the concept of the beautiful. Kant and Freud grasped pieces of the question but get stuck in their own mud.

Kuspit says at the end...
The distance from the traditional objective conception of beauty, as represented by Kant and Gass, to the revolutionary modern psychoanalytic conception, with its emphasis on the unconscious meaning of beauty -- the subjective reasons we experience an object as beautiful -- is enormous. It seems impossible to bridge the distance. And yet even in tradition there was a thinker who realized that something was amiss in beauty. When Francis Bacon declared that "there is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion," he seemed, at least from a psychoanalytic perspective, to being calling attention to the fact that there is something uncanny about classical beauty -- something unclear and indistinct, or, as we might say, something unconscious and anxious in what seems so self-conscious and self-assured. It is this sense that beauty represses more than it expresses -- that there is something barely under control in what seems so controlled -- that is the link between the contradictory conceptions. Beauty becomes objective only when it satisfies subjective needs, especially the need for narcissistic gratification and for instinctive satisfaction. As Segal emphasizes, this means the satisfaction of destructive urges as well as sexual impulses. The feeling that there is something strange or peculiar about beauty is the unconscious recognition that it is informed by inescapable needs, and that it satisfies them, however indirectly. The strangeness that Bacon experienced in beauty is the strangeness of our own needs to ourselves, as they come back to us contained by beauty.

In short, the peculiar lack of proportion Bacon perceived in the harmony of beauty suggests that it is as inwardly troubled and precariously balanced as we are. It signifies the emotional ugliness and powerful sexuality we struggle to control and contain, but which make themselves unconsciously felt, making us feel strange. Indeed, it is the strangeness of the unconscious -- the unexpected presence of unconscious forces -- in our consciousness of beauty that Bacon is acknowledging, however unwittingly. He unconsciously realized that the disinterested satisfaction beauty affords is tainted by all kinds of emotional interests, which are as universal as beauty itself, and in fact may lend beauty its universality beyond its different cultural appearances. From a psychoanalytic point of view what Gass calls disinterested affection -- a contradiction in terms, suggesting ambivalence -- is sexual lust tamed into sentimental irrelevance. Similarly, what Kant intellectualizes as contemplation is containment of desire for the seductive object -- the object that promises complete satisfaction, and is thus strongly cathected. Bacon recognized, without understanding, the psychodynamic underpinning of beauty, which could not help make itself evident as a feeling of strangeness, that is, a kind of parapraxis and imperfection within the practice of perfect beauty.

I'm inclined to go along with an earlier remark, "In other words, ugliness and beauty are manifestations of what Freud called the death and life instincts -- thanatos and eros." Enduring past the boundary.



June 15, 2005, 6:00 PM

Here Kuspit is busily compounding his basic misunderstanding of the differences between the Kant/Gass and Freudian treatment of beauty, insistently qualifying beauty itself by introducing Bacon's "strangeness" and all the other "real life" stuff we like to stuff into the concept these days.

This kind of logic, by extension, just leads to "everything is part of everything else" which is a nice, dreamy adolescent sentiment but gets nowhere philosophically. He goes so far as to say that "disinterested affection" is a "contradiction in terms", which, at least for Kant, it was anything but, as Kuspit himself makes clear earlier.

His need to portray beauty as odd merely indicates that, for him, it is an unfamilar and uncomfortable concept.



June 15, 2005, 6:14 PM

what am i doing wrong? All i get is that screen that says GO SEE ART will launch on June 1st..

i want to see!



June 15, 2005, 6:27 PM

??, you have caching turned waaaay up on your browser. In Safari, you can hit Empty Cache under the Safari menu. In IE I think you can go into preferences and turn caching off. Or you can sit there and hit Refresh a zillion times.



June 15, 2005, 6:35 PM

Oldpro, I'm confused here, as you see it, what is Kuspits basic misunderstanding of the differences between the Kant/Gass and Freudian treatment of beauty?

Is beauty universal?



June 15, 2005, 6:58 PM

No, it has nothing to do "beauty is universal", although Kant said something like it when he concluded that when you indicate that something is beautiful you are indicating it as a general condition.

To keep it very simple, Kant was talking about the manner and characteristics of the perception of beauty and Freud was talking about the inescapable interrelationships it may have within the personality. It is something of an apples & oranges comparison. Kant would probably agree that the perception of beauty was tied into other human charfacteristics but he would say that it was not pertinent to his analysis of its perception.

Kuspit's predeliction, like that of most content victims, uncomfortable with the idea of simple intuitive comprehension of art, is to not allow beauty to get away as something "pure" but to qualify it with lots of "real" stuff and "meaning", to familiarize, to explain, to clutter the open avenues ot feeling with comforting detritus. it is a way to keep art safe, even while often rationalizing the transgression with lots of "unacceptable' content



June 15, 2005, 7:05 PM

George asks Is beauty universal?

Great question George. Beauty is universal in the sense that it can be found everywhere and that it exists on its own, without the necessity for anyone to prove this or that is beautiful. That does not mean, of course, that everyone gets it, or gets it in exactly the same way. (Not everyone "gets" science either, nor do even the best scientists "get" science in the same nothing is purely "objective".)

The best questions are usually simple. (Same with the best answers.) Thanks for this one George.



June 15, 2005, 7:08 PM

OldPro: Are you saying something is as beauty does, and it doesn't need a lot of shit piled on it to do what it does? If so, great.

I like the phrase "content victim" even though sometimes I am one myself. Thanks.



June 15, 2005, 7:13 PM

I see that I really did not answer your question, George.

I would say that Kuspit's misunderstanding lies within his implication, which runs pretty much through the piece, that the two approaches to beauty can be seen as equivalent and therefore comparable, that is, that one ofr the other is more "right", where in fact they are talking about two different things, one being the nature of the perception of beauty and the other being the roots of the idea of beauty in the human personality. The approaches are precisely as different as the minds that created them. Kuspit gets tangled up on "pure" vs. "impure" and misses the point by talking about himself, as these art writers so often do.


Harlan Erskine

June 15, 2005, 7:16 PM

I though I would share an interesting website about New York arts issues. Especially interesting is the Executive Summary of various cities.



June 15, 2005, 7:25 PM

Flatboy - The perception of beauty doesn't belabor the shit, it subsumes it

Belaboring is for the Kuspits of the world, and the Freuds for that matter, although, in all fairness, beauty was not his thing.



June 15, 2005, 11:50 PM

back to Go See Art:

I was dredging through the New Times online events listings today, and it perfectly illustrated why we needs this - there is no way (on their site) to separate out events happening TODAY versous long term things. ARGH!

I think even the address other information about the galleries can be forgone if the name, exhibition, and web link are there. More events is preferable to more information about each event.

The proposal referenced above (waaaay above) pertains to something that MSG was asked to propose. Apparently my voicing the opinion that the proposal could be embelished upon volunteered me to carry out said embelishments.



June 16, 2005, 5:16 PM

I do LOVE your new site Franklin! Though, you have forgotten the TACHMES Gallery.




June 16, 2005, 10:12 PM

Tachmes, Faktura, and Kevin Bruk are en route. Rubells also.



Other Projects


Design and content ©2003-2023 Franklin Einspruch except where otherwise noted