Previous: maitenance outage

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


Post #555 • June 10, 2005, 12:58 PM • 82 Comments

I've decided to break up the upgrade phase so we have two smaller outages rather than one big one, and get in a roundup in the process. Phase one is going rather nicely, although June officially became Ramen Month.

So yes indeed, Dorsch is having an opening Saturday night showing the works of Chris Meesey, Robin Griffiths, and Javier Sasieta in three separate exhibitions. Meesey is one of the organizers (along with Jordan Massengale) of Esperanto, which will show at the old Objex space (203 NW 36 St.) on Saturday; yours truly will have a new piece up. Go Chris!

In the news, Jonathan Jones is my people. (I nominate this story's headline for Headline of the Year: short, brutal, and very clever.)

So I was afraid to go to the Venice Biennale because, quite frankly, I couldn't understand the rationale for having it in Venice. Why not Milan, or Turin? In a modern city I want to see modern art. In New York I want Marcel Duchamp. In Venice I want Titian. There was something weird about the idea of going to Venice and cutting yourself off contemptuously from the tourists traipsing after their Tintorettos to see, instead ... well, this year, the latest photomontages by Gilbert and George. Now, let's think. Tintoretto or G+G? If you find the decision difficult, you need some serious help.

I had a nearly identical impulse when, stranded in Italy shortly after 9/11 (Venice is an excellent choice of location in which to become a refugee, by the way), I had to make a decision between going to see the 2001 Biennale or the Balthus retrospective at the Palazzo Grassi. I opted for the latter and had a life-altering experience looking at art. People I knew back in Miami who had seen the Biennale didn't report any kind of commensurate revelations. My patience for contemporary art dies in Venice, because I also want Titian, and Bellini, and Veronese. (I've never been much of a fan on Tintoretto.)

I suppose the reply would be that it's seductive fun, all this superficiality - lighten up. That would be true if the art was sexy or stylish or interesting. But to me Venice seems a very serious context, where artists invite comparison with genius. Almost everything withers. Chris Ofili, the last occupant of the British Pavilion, wilted. What do you want me to say - that he's better than Bellini? And if he's not to be compared, what's the point?

Can I get an Amen? Let's not lighten up - let's keep working the heavy bag and see what we can knock down.




June 10, 2005, 8:24 PM

I'm not sure there's a "right' city for work such as that of Gilbert & George (well, maybe Vegas), but it absolutely, positively isn't Venice. Come to think of it, though, Miami might do (they're represented at the Home of the Brave in Wynwood, and most probably in other "major" local collections).



June 10, 2005, 8:35 PM

this is so nice, this pleasant community, everyone supporting each other. So count me in too.

and venice, well, maybe valentines day would be a good date for the place.



June 10, 2005, 8:38 PM

Roundup item:

Works on paper (mostly monoprints) by John Bailly at the downtown Government Center (

The hours are bad (M-F 10-3) and so is the parking situation, but the work is interesting and serious. Several nice pieces, and one terrific piece (see if you agree with me on which one). The hanging and presentation could be improved upon, given a better space and more money (Helloooooh? is any local gallery listening?), but worth my trip.



June 10, 2005, 11:03 PM

I envy you for seeing that Balthus exhbition. That must have been really special.

I've disliked some of Jones' reviews in the past, but he's got a point about putting Chris Ofili, or almost any contemporary artist, in that kind of a situation. Though I don't find Tintoretto all that compelling, either.



June 11, 2005, 12:43 AM

I agree with the sentiment that one wants to see art which matches the city, like matching a frame to a canvas.

But when Jonathan Jones's article above said "In New York I want Marcel Duchamp," well, we all know he meant to say Philly, of course. I just returned (quite literally a few minutes ago) from Philly's museum (one of my favorites), where Marcel's (and his brother's) most famous works have their own precious little rooms.



June 11, 2005, 3:17 AM

Well, I''d just like to see some good art around here. I don't care what it matches. If it's good enough it won't match much of anything anyway.

Let's take this comparison thing a step further and ask one of our clueless museums around here to come up with a "comparison" show, which juxtaposes established masterpieces, or at least along-acknowledged good art, against some of the expensive dreck they sell at venues like Art Basel. If done right it could be pretty sobering. And we'd see some decent art for a change.



June 11, 2005, 3:49 AM

I know you know you're dreaming, Oldpro. You think museums are going to piss off "major" collectors who've spent very big bucks on dreck? You think museums are going to antagonize potential donors for the sake of good art? You think any ambitious curator will dare challenge PC art establishment taste or skewer currently sacred cows at the risk of his/her career advancement? I don't think so. It's a game; it has rules, and those who want to succeed at it observe them.



June 11, 2005, 4:07 AM

I know. . . I really don't expect anyone to actually do such a thing.

Just a little summer dream.



June 11, 2005, 4:30 AM

OP, hey, it's the internet,
how about a virtual show?


don king

June 11, 2005, 2:19 PM

At Ambrosino Gallery's Project Space, through July 9th:

a site specific installation by Raul J Mendez.
Imagine a character in the bed ridden aftermath of having read hundreds of books. In this piece he or she has come to suspect that you, we, can never really know things ; that the human condition is shaped by illusions, illogic, and a tragic need for order....

and .....................GODS & MONSTERS, a group show curated by Heather Darcy of Mixed Greens Gallery in NYC......



June 11, 2005, 7:21 PM

Re: Jack's comments on John Bailly's work.

I'm glad to see other people checked out John's show, he's awesome. I've known John on & followed his works for several years. I own a gallery in the Gables, and I've offered John space here.... I'm still waiting to hear a definite yes but, I'm hopeful.... at least then you can check out his work after 3pm & on Saturdays. Maybe he just needs encouragement: ... let him know that Miami Art Lab is the right spot for him.


john gray

June 11, 2005, 9:21 PM

anyone see that show by robert wyndam bucknell at Ingalls,
bit odd and cacaphonus - brothers grimm battling the arabian nights, with something distrubingly reminiscent of roland barthes - and a rediculous catalog,
anyway i'll be heading down there again this evening



June 11, 2005, 9:52 PM

Bailly is indeed serious and interesting, as Jack says, though I have reservations from what i see on the web. I will have to see some directly before being convinced, but just to have something which might be worth going to see is refreshing around here.



June 11, 2005, 10:33 PM

John Gray - I saw the Bucknell show. That was one sorry, self-indulgent exercise, uninteresting in the extreme. Has anyone checked the work out at Ambrosino?

George - others have already suggested that curate a show. It might be a good idea but I'm not sure what form it would take.



June 11, 2005, 10:49 PM

Franklin, well it could be a show but that does become curatorial.

On the other hand, whatcha looking at? might work



June 11, 2005, 11:12 PM

Bailly's fairly obsessive (loves Giacometti) and can be overly intellectual in his approach, but he's got something, certainly more than various local starlets I can think of. Given the available local talent, he should have been picked up a good while ago, but he's much better at making work than pushing the product (which doesn't excuse our esteemed curatorial and mercantile community).



June 11, 2005, 11:58 PM

Let's talk.... maybe you should curate a show @ the Lab... I've been reading your blog for long enough to assertain that your taste is appropriate for my gallery. Besides, you still haven't stopped by.



June 12, 2005, 12:37 AM

Jack I am very surprised he is not in a gallery. Could the reason possibly be that he is simply too stgraightforward and visual as an artist? I know these gallery people have no eyes, but maybe they actually can tell what is better - so they can reject it.



June 12, 2005, 2:35 AM

I can only really speculate, Oldpro, but Bailly's work is clearly at least as deserving as that of others who have had more success around here, and in my opinion it's better work. If I've known about it for about 3 years now, surely those whose job it is to know such things should have been wise to it even earlier. Maybe he's not enough of an ass-kisser, or not "colorful" enough personally, or some such reason. Also, as you say, it's straightforward work on canvas or paper without gimmicks or trendy novelty value. Whatever, it makes no real sense that in this particular environment he's been largely overlooked, while much flimsier or more dubious work has been eagerly seized upon by both dealers and curatorial types.


john gray

June 12, 2005, 3:17 AM

hmm, i'm not sure, when you say that bucknell show is self indulgent, it was kind of dull, i walked through it the first time, but i passed by again this week because some of the stuff had stuck in my mind, don't know if thats ould or bad. but the repetetive images, mostly, apparently, borrowed from Islamic iconography from the first few centuries, (which is a bizare thing to be referencing in miami of all places! - who has the time to read sterne or pessoa here - let alone Death of the Author by Assis!) - in fact none of the references and quotes really have anything to do or any relevence to anything here - unlike julie kahn's show next door - which i guess is why her show strikes a chord, but back to the islamic iconography repeated and repeated until it's almost killed - sometimes the same image over and over agan, changing slightly each time is interesting - but like a john cage piece - but you don't always want to listen to the whole piece - let alone more than once, the catalog is a bit odd too



June 12, 2005, 4:53 AM

Any way we can see any of that Bucknell stuff? All I could find was a photo of cars against an evening sky.

I did look at examples of the other Ingalls artists. Ouch! In the world of pomo there is just bad and then there is just awful.



June 12, 2005, 5:20 AM

The younger generation sees it differently



June 12, 2005, 5:52 AM

Glue & Glitter versions of Modernist works? What midget-sized innovation will they think up next?

John, if something sticks in your mind I think the best thing is to go see it again. Bucknell's work references all sorts of things, which just goes to show you how easy is to reference a bunch of stuff and how hard it is to incorporate it. The catalogue is no more odd than the show, which really doesn't function on any level.



June 12, 2005, 7:20 AM

George, what's the point of all those crappy take-offs?


peter diaz

June 12, 2005, 8:24 AM

hay guys,
just back from gallery walk - not sure where the art was - snitzer - well its snitzer that's snitzer, nobodies particularly bad - and its the summer show, - rocket - nice but dull - haven't we seen it before. Locust and Ingalls were thje best - crackers are odd, loved the cowboy talking about being a cowboy - almost weird being in miami and realising that miami's part of florida and florida's part of the south, rather than south america - which is where i thought it was.
Wynd, Wyndam, bucknells, viktors? whatever his/their name is show was certainly the oddest show - is that good? including a drunk who fell asleep and pissed himself - which is one comment - in a room i couldn't have slept in - a silly squeaky voice was telling the arabian nights very loudly and the center of the room was filled with suspended sticks - twitching like fish - actually quite nice, but above some dirt and a used condom (how original!)
silly videos in the next room. but the drawings - stripped of the presentation which is pretentious are incredibly detailed, even if the detail is of nothing and there's nothing there but millions of lines, like looking at time - almost like the lines on an old womans face, or the lines of my hand. there does seem to be a story there but i couldn't find it and the press release makes no sense, but the drawings in their own are fantastically beautiful - but difficult to see when you have to listen to sneezes, groans and yet more stories - from the brothers grimm.



June 12, 2005, 8:34 AM

why are there no shows like the Balthus in Miami? why can't the museums here put on proper art show by dead people. i could look at Balthus all day. the bass is always boring contemporary - but could put on good proper painting. mam, mca, mac are supposed to be contemporary - but why can't here be a proper space here showing good shows of the masters? - anyone see the Spanish show at the Norton - i didn't car didn't work.

i'm pissed - why do these galleries bother in miami - went for the walk and the drinks - could be better, the only show that was any good was the Bucknell one, - of course he's not from miami, or florida, or art school or anything which is probably why he knows how to draw - the drawings were the best i've seen for years - but no ac and no drinks, i could have sat and stared at the stick piece all night - but for the drunk who'd fallen asleep and pissed himself. but the drawings are amazing - but he's spent too much time reading Beckett, and he's not beckett or derrida for that matter. have to go back when there's no urine on the floor and hope they've thought of puttting ac in by then - anyone know when its open?

of to washington next week to see some real art - at least there Balthus is guaranteed



June 12, 2005, 8:39 AM

i'm bored, roger (an me?) you are right.
only show worth being at, only room worth being in - anyone hear the whole of the story?
but no a-c and a drunk - though someone told me he was part of the installation and ad been hired to sleep for $10 an hour, wonder if pissing was extra!



June 12, 2005, 9:23 AM

Went to the one-night group show at the former Objex space, organized by Jordan Massengale and Chris Meesey. They're getting better with practice (but please, guys, the identifying stickers for the various pieces need to be in place before the show starts). The space was also better than what they've had to work with before, and the works included seemed less uneven this time.

As with their two previous shows of a similar nature, there was at least one piece that justified my trip, though it wasn't the only thing worth seeing. I refer to a very nice abstract painting by Rene Barge, which I hope Franklin can find some way of posting here. It did more for me than anything I saw at Snitzer's summer group show, for what that's worth. I also liked Kerry Ware's piece (ditto to Franklin), although I've seen very similar work by him before. Franklin's own piece employed a more delicate and subtle palette than usual for him, especially the background to the central figure, and I think that's worth exploring.



June 12, 2005, 2:25 PM

Re: Glue & Glitter, well we all agree on those. I was funnin.
I actually saw the show, sparkles like a dive in a bad part of town.



June 12, 2005, 2:29 PM

why are there no shows like the Balthus in Miami?

Bottom line - no curatorial will exists to assemble one. I visited DC in early 2004 and my traveling companion insisted that we leave the NGA to go see a Douglas Gordon show at the Hirschorn, causing me to miss a show of Leonardo drawings. I noted sourly to myself that while I was never going to see a Leonardo show in Miami, the appearance of Douglas Gordon was probably inevitable. This came to pass at MoCA, which included Gordon's work in a video show called CUT/film. The fact that I have to leave town to get myself in front of the figurative tradition, even contemporary interpretations of it (excepting a few insistent folks), irritates me to no end, and expends my patience for the Bucknells of the world to nothing. Our museums and collectors don't think of Balthus's as a kind of art that needs to be dealt with. We're never going to have a Lucian Freud show here either. Nor Kossof, nor any Bay Area people, nor Janet Fish - the list of artists whom they have rejected on the grounds of insufficient cutting-edginess goes on and on.

The only thing amazing to me about Bucknell's work is that anyone takes it seriously. I drew little compulsive doodles like that in the margins of my notes in high school, and the rest of it - the sticks and videos and all - was just uninspired detritus. Whatever his/their name is show was certainly the oddest show - is that good? Not inherently, and definitely not in this instance.

JL - Not to rub it in, but yeah, it was extraordinary. I was going to refer you to the catalogue but it seems to have gone out of print.

Erik - we'll talk.

Jack - thanks. I left my camera at home, but I asked Jordan to burn me a disk of the images which I'd like to post here on Tuesday.



June 12, 2005, 3:00 PM

I ran across this nicely organized site of Balthus Paintings, 30 in all.



June 12, 2005, 5:31 PM

an addendum to your rant above, Franklin, is that shows like Balthus are acutually curated and take work and money to do, and they are expensive even when rented.

This is not how it works here. Most so-called curators in Miami just rent shows of more contemproary art which is cheap, easy to do and often supported by galleries or other interested parties one way or another. So what we are seeing is not only miserable art but the cheapest and laziest way of getting it to us in the first place.

I would certainly not spend time with this kind of garbage in a city with real art in it.



June 12, 2005, 5:39 PM

Peter Diaz--I got a great phone pic of the pissed-on-drunk at Ingalls. If anyone would like it emailed let me know.



June 12, 2005, 5:57 PM

Franklin - I've never been to Miami, but I know middlebrow taste. Someday Lucian Freud and Janet Fish will have shows in Miami. Middlebrows are suckers for technique, especially when coupled with reputation.



June 12, 2005, 7:53 PM

It doesn't seem to work that way down here, Catfish. There's a market for what I call Coral Gables realism, mostly Claudio Bravo knockoffs of some stripe, and it's pretty uninspired. In the museum-oriented market, those kinds of skills become liabilities because they tend to lend the work a traditional air, and defeat the youth-culture look.



June 12, 2005, 8:32 PM

"The youth-culture look"

Yes. Never mind if it's mindless, flimsy, gimmicky, "shocking" (please), or pointless posturing. It looks happening. All bow to the god of with-it-ness. Strike a pose (the prescribed one, of course). Don't dare arouse the slightest suspicion of being (gasp!) afraid of anything, such as, I don't know, bad art in any guise whatsoever, including the furiously trendy. After all, who wants to be out of step at the Venice Biennale? The horror! No, can't have that sort of thing. Bad for the image.



June 12, 2005, 10:03 PM

Occasionally it occurs to me to go into the studio and paint like the last three centuries never happened. Maybe that would be a good impulse to follow through on.

Jack, I forgot where it came up but I've been meaning to compliment you on your description of the Rubell Collection as "The Home of the Brave." With your permission we'll make that the official term for the joint.



June 12, 2005, 10:26 PM

douglas gordon v leonardo

erm erm erm - where did the element of choice come in?????

still nice Balthus's at the Hirschorn

just read this again
very funny and well written - but different from this years show - that was a funny show - if you ignored the self hatred and just read the jokes, either that or it seemed to make people cry. still he's english and allowed to be self hating i suppose!



June 12, 2005, 10:47 PM

These one-night shows that Chris Meesey and Jordan Massengale have been assembling have managed to form some kind of community. Its really great to be part of a show where so many different artist are really interested in showing work, and participating in the dialoged that the environment creates, I wish there where more artist with the kind of explorative ambition that Jordan and Chris have shown. {by the way chris and Jordan arent even from Miami, yet show more involvement in the local arts than any born and raised Miami artist. We should all be embarrassed}



June 12, 2005, 11:33 PM

chris and Jordan aren't even from Miami

I don't know about Chris but Jordan has been down here for about a decade now. He's an honorary local at this point.



June 12, 2005, 11:52 PM

Franklin, Occasionally it occurs to me to go into the studio and paint like the last three centuries never happened.

This is a curious thought. What would you let go of?



June 13, 2005, 12:48 AM

Franklin, your painting at the Esperanto show transcended
its composition and color palette. I would like another look.


that guy

June 13, 2005, 1:48 AM

Just got back from the Istanbul Modern and its nice to visit a new beautiful museum that puts its best work in its best galleries (right when you walk in). Grouped not chronologically as it were but by quality. As one local paper put it: it may not have the best collection in the world but it certainly has the best view. It is located right on the Bosphorus River and overlooks the old sector of town. The architecture is industrial and modern. My flaw as an overseas reporter is that I spend too much time looking at the art and not enough on the name plates, so I can't give you details about who had the best work but all of the top pieces were from about 50 years ago or so. I'll let you know when I see some other good work over here and next time I'll write down the names, promise.



June 13, 2005, 2:17 AM

John Bailly's work is best seen in person, it is almost impossible to appreciate all the layers online. As for why he has not been "picked up", there are many amazing artists in this area who are in a similar situation.
I suspect that it is not his first priority... from what I know of John, his energy goes into the making of the art itself, and engaging with/encouraging others who are engaged in a similar pursuit.



June 13, 2005, 2:18 AM

John Bailly's work is best seen in person, it is almost impossible to appreciate all the layers online. As for why he has not been "picked up", there are many amazing artists in this area who are in a similar situation.
I suspect that it is not his first priority... from what I know of John, his energy goes into the making of the art itself, and engaging with/encouraging others who are engaged in a similar pursuit.



June 13, 2005, 2:40 AM

Kate, it may not be his first priority, and more credit to him if this is so, but i think the point is that he seems to be known well enough so that galleries must be aware of him and none of them are showing his work. That is what is so remarkable.

I am not 100% sold on his work but if I were trying to run a contemporary gallery around here, and feeling pretty desperate about the lack of serious talent, I would ask him to show in a minute.

You say there are others like him and I believe that to be true. Would anyone be interested in clearly better work? Does good art have any chance around here commercially? I ask that in all seriousness. What's to be done?



June 13, 2005, 3:06 AM

Precisely, Oldpro. The point is not Bailly's priorities but those of the galleries. What are they really trying to accomplish? Showing the best available work, or the "right" work? The bottom line should be quality, which should sell better anyway, but if the local collecting crowd will only go for officially approved or art mag-sanctioned product, product with trendy buzz around it, or if dealers feel that's the case, then that could explain a lot of things. Also, Bailly could never do a Hernan Bas-type number in terms of how he presents or packages himself for art scene consumption. He's almost painfully earnest and obsessed with working, not marketing, but again, the galleries are supposed to be seeking out people like him, not so much the other way around.



June 13, 2005, 3:31 AM

That has to have something to do with it, Jack. I must offer the caveat that earnest hardworking artists might make terrible art and selfconsciously Warholian artstar artists might make good art, but it certainly does seem that really being into making art as such is not exactly the best market-savvy attitude.

The customers love the art myths and the bullshit and they love to be manipulated and taken.

In Rubellaland, the Home of the Brave, they are not afraid to be screwed.



June 13, 2005, 4:09 AM

did anyone happen to see the show at dorsch, aside from the heat i thought it was pretty interesting.



June 13, 2005, 4:19 AM

Check out this image from John Bailly's show at the Government Center:

The actual work is significantly nicer than the image, which came out too harsh and clinical, maybe with too much contrast. When I saw the piece live, I liked it very much.



June 13, 2005, 6:26 AM

From what I saw, John Bailly looks pretty good. I doubt he is worrying about a Miami gallery, his audience is wider than that.



June 13, 2005, 6:33 AM

He's Ok. The work is a little dry. He may have a way to go yet.

Still better that the stuff we see around here, if only for its seriousness.



June 13, 2005, 7:30 AM

wow, is this guy john at the government center the only work worth talking about? i took a train there once, wanna talk about that?



June 13, 2005, 7:40 AM

I couldn't agree more with your comment on "seriousness". I have often thought that a great deal of the art made here is simply a reflection of the environment, mirroring all of its superficiality and gloss... Seriousness is, indeed, rare.
What I hunger for is depth, something beyond mere ingestion and regurgitation of pop culture...



June 13, 2005, 4:39 PM

Understatement (from todays ArtDaily)
The Northern Constabulary issued this statement: "While we understand that artists need to be controversial, the subject matter is highly insensitive and distressing not only to the family but the officers searching to find Alistair`s killer."



June 13, 2005, 5:52 PM

I stopped by Dorsch very briefly on saturday, and only really got to see Robbie's work. It was as good as ever, although I wonder why Dorsch shows him so often; isn't that like the third solo show he's had there inside a year? Also saw Snitzer's garage sale, and the Sara Stites show at Rocket, which I thought was good. But nevermind all of that; let's talk about the show at (the location formerly known as) objex.



June 13, 2005, 5:55 PM

Snitzers garage sale...he he, thats funny


Rene Barge

June 13, 2005, 5:57 PM

Good Morning!
Just having a coffee.
I would like to say to the trainspotter in lower cases that yes John Bailly's work is worth talking about, second to looking at. His work is loaded and by this I mean literally! The surfaces are loaded with its medium and technique, his form is his chosen and he takes it thoroughly. Also, his choice of subject matter and his investigation towards its form is one of integrity that we do not often witness in cont. art or art here in Miami. These words are only a fraction of what comes together in looking at his paintings which are not executed over night.
JB has paintings available for looking, across from the FIU Credit Union/North Campus.

Off to paint!
Rene Barge



June 13, 2005, 6:03 PM

George, what does that note refer to?

Kate, "depth" is a little hard to pin down for me, but I can't disagree. I would be quite satisfied to see some sort of organization or visibility of the artists around here who are concentrating on working hard to make their art better and are able to maintain a skeptical view of the scene.

Before I participated in this blog I had no idea how shallow and juvenile the Miami art world really was. Now, reading things about - for example - that Bucknell person and his ilk, and seeing his work, which is not only literally dreck but even worse, second-hand, rip-off dreck, praised as "raw and powerful", or whatever, by the New Times, it really seems hopeless. Won't someone please just say, in print, that shit and piss and semen and all that lot is just neither appropriate nor interesting? And tiresome, for God's sake!

A city that praises stuff like this and allows the Jules Olitski exhibition at the Goldman warehouse to go unreviewed cannot be taken seriously.



June 13, 2005, 6:27 PM

Oldpro, Hirst


Rene Barge

June 13, 2005, 6:35 PM

Old Pro,
I listened on Saturday to the Wall Street Journal's Film Critic discuss the film Mr and Mrs Smith. A film that was an MFA thesis, his response was something along the lines... that if this is Fine Art, then he was not sure of his position or what to think of himself as a critic. His words continued to stumble towards an agony of criticism and a loss of words about a horrible film that otherwise is a load of popular symptoms which includes staple techniques in studio cinematography. This explanes much of art here and now with a good dose of in and out. He finished with not much to look forward to.
I likened this to what we see often in Art. "Raw and Powerful" graces the reviews of almost every movie "of the year".
Their is a language that is missing... How many art dealers have investigated art and its histories as thoroughly as say, some who have gone through six years plus, of serious art education, tried tested and true.
I speak from experience, I myself have gone through an agonizing time of juvenilism and would believe what was accepted until having glimpsed at the austerity in quality, and that I am even still trying to wrap my head around.
I agree whole heartedly on your comment as well regarding the Olitsky show. It is to bad that it went by critically mute here at home. Perhaps it would have been to much work for those who could have, should have, would have. Perhaps to much work is what is being avoided, it does come with a whole lot of sufferring, that may be too difficult for the little hearts and minds of those in positions to take on what would be dutiful challenges here in Miami.



June 13, 2005, 6:52 PM

Well, Rene, we all go through an agonizing time of juvenilism. Mine is more distant than yours, but the agony is well remembered.

But I see no virtue in trying to pretend it is worthy of exhibit. I've recently had occasion fo sort through some long-stored student work of mine. At the time I was annoyed that no one would show it. Now I am grateful.



June 13, 2005, 7:12 PM's a little taste of how it really is folks.....

Bucknell- its been a little rough for this guy since day one for him at his solo show at good old Objex Artspace....needless to say, i wasn't the least bit interested in seeing his new 'work'

Jordans Show- The same ol same ol, a lack of cohesiveness, way more pictures and images than actual 'real' art. Most of the people in this show just dont seem to be dealing with anything....where's the content?

Rocket- Nick has been doing a fine job...nice show

Dorsch- didnt make it there

Snitzer's 'Garage Sale' - Sold enough to buy some new garages and give some of you bitter 'drawers,' 'painters,' and 'image makers' a shot some time.........but you'll have to take some time away from this blog and devote it to trying to develop some sort of conceptual backing for your work first.

Franklin- i thought you always paint like the last couple of centuries never happened?.....Maybe it's time to accept the fact that the DID happen and move on...



June 13, 2005, 7:34 PM

As long as bad art is accepted, or more specifically, as long as it sells well enough, it will continue unabated and probably increase. It's obviously easier to make and much easier to find than the good stuff, and if it sells, hey, you do the math. It's useless to expect dealers to put quality over profit, which is never going to happen. The only hope is for the buyers to wise up and raise their standards, which is hardly a high probability but conceivably possible. I continue to lay much of the blame for the state of things on those who spend enough money and lavish enough promotion on enough crap, which both maintains and perpetuates the crap circuit. In other words, if mediocre or worse work sells well and gets taken seriously, there's not much practical incentive to do seriously better. It's too easy and too tempting to stick to business as usual.



June 13, 2005, 7:36 PM

Tell me, Boss, what exactly is the "conceptual backing" all the "bitter drawers" need so badly?



June 13, 2005, 7:41 PM

Oh, and also, it has always seemed to me that Franklin was one of the few around here who was actually aware that there had been 3 centuries of art before our glorious age of kid pomo, knew something about it and was possibly therefiore prepared to actually reject it.

And what's he to move on to, jars full of semen-stained kleenex? That's conceptually backed, for sure.



June 13, 2005, 7:44 PM

Never mind, Oldpro. You're dealing with "If it sells well enough, and/or if it's popular enough, it must therefore be good, and anyone who disagrees is just a case of sour grapes."



June 13, 2005, 7:53 PM

Seeing as believing.

Seeing is believing.

Sight is thought.


Rene Barge

June 13, 2005, 8:05 PM

Ease up Boss!
I just got through drawing from Chinese Art before 1280. And, incidentally I was listening to Animal Collective's endeavor with Vashti Bunyan.
The concept of the courage of Lady Feng. An escaped circus bear rushes toward her husband, a Han Emperor, who is filled with fear. Behind his throne, two female servants have turned to run away. Before him, two male attendants, themselves on the verge of panic, try to fend off the bear with spears. Only Lady Feng is calm as she rushes forward to place herself between the beast and the emperor.
Gosh, I am no feminist you know! But, the drawing is incredibly sexy. Kind of like one foot in the tech and the other in the strings that came before it.



June 13, 2005, 8:14 PM

Where's the content? Hey, did you see the content? I'm sure it was here a minute ago. Remember, we all agreed?

Wait a minute, why do we need content? If you want content, watch TV, it must have content, right? What would happen, if content slipped away, while no one was watching? Tell me please, would it be, just another "can't see the forest for the trees" story? Delivered in uber hip cartoon style on the sweet underside of a skateboard. OK, so it's hip today, flip content, yo bro, tell me so's I'll understand. You say, "it's the postpope ascension of spongebob to immortality", wow, that's so totally cool. Is it a secret?



June 13, 2005, 8:17 PM

I feel content. Does that count?

Sorry, back to coding.



June 13, 2005, 8:18 PM

Rene [re: 69] nice thought...



June 13, 2005, 8:24 PM

Did the emperor have any clothes on, Rene?

Or was he bear naked?

(sorry, puns like this are too much to bare).



June 13, 2005, 8:26 PM

feeling content is one of the tests, I would say.....


Rene Bage

June 13, 2005, 8:27 PM

Well... hey!
I gotta go, it's time for my cactus plants to enjoy a good dose of Lionel Marchetti while I enjoy some icy cold beer and knock off some Arthur Dove's... to the tunes of L.M.
Best Wishes,



June 13, 2005, 10:06 PM

Well, I have no actual artistic talent, but if I can come up with a good enough concept, or just the right content, maybe I can pass myself off as an artist, and sell stuff, and wind up in a group show at MAM, and...who knows...maybe even the Venice Biennale, or at least Dokumenta...



June 13, 2005, 11:38 PM

Well, Jack, i think that if that WERE to happen, it would hardly be the worst thing in the world. If i thought there was anything i could do to make you try, i would bend over backwards.



June 13, 2005, 11:59 PM

Thanks, Alesh, but I've decided the field is already way too crowded--unless, of course, I could think of something REALLY shocking, or come up with an especially novel gimmick, or take up cross dressing and dredge up some personal trauma or other...still, it's all been done already pretty much, and I'm not even photogenic like Hernan Bas...



June 14, 2005, 12:02 AM

awww.... c;mon. You'd look really good in a red wig. I can see it now. The trick is to come up with somethign that hasn't been done before.



June 14, 2005, 11:28 PM

I thought we were going to talk about the work at the show instead of discussing the same ol' same ol' about art and content. you assume there is no content but how would you know if you didnt ask the artist. youre dissmissing the art for what you think it is instead of making keener observations.



June 15, 2005, 6:08 PM

I don't believe that you should have to ask the artist in order to get something out of the work.

Re: "depth", for me that means seeing something that draws you in and holds you, there in the moment, and sometimes, even after you leave. It haunts you, you think about it, you feel it. I will quote Kuspit's Idiosyncratic Identities... "not easily dismissed, not easily shaken off..". That is what I work towards.... you can go the Frost Museum and let me know if I have succeeded.



June 16, 2005, 12:53 AM

If that's what you mean by "depth", I'm all for it.

You say "I don't believe that you should have to ask the artist in order to get something out of the work." Obviously not. That's ridiculous. The artist should keep out if it.



Other Projects


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