Previous: that meeting (32)

Next: faced with the option (32)

new dorsch site

Post #626 • September 16, 2005, 10:49 AM • 64 Comments

I have reviews in the hopper, several, in fact, but work calls. In the meantime, the new Dorsch site is up. Design by yours truly.




September 16, 2005, 11:20 AM




September 16, 2005, 12:20 PM

Good. Now all the artists need to provide suitable info for the site (bio, artist's statement, etc.) ASAP. Get on them, Brook.



September 16, 2005, 12:22 PM

He already is.



September 16, 2005, 12:29 PM

Meetings scheduled all next week. I will work on the Exhibitions pages - starting with the current exhibitions this weekend.



September 16, 2005, 12:33 PM

Finally. Now some A/C, longer hours and it will start to look like a professional gallery.

I hope Andy can get some press. Those pictures are really pretty interesting, and different .


maria martinez-canas

September 16, 2005, 1:39 PM

congrats on the site. work on putting the artist' statements asap so we can read about the artists we like.




September 16, 2005, 2:06 PM

I assume, Franklin, that your design is such that keeping the site up to date is not a problem, since being up to date is critical for such a site.



September 16, 2005, 3:22 PM

Easy as pie, Jack.



September 16, 2005, 8:04 PM

wow! the navigation system and layout is perfect. very simple and easy. Nice. What I miss from the old site is a little of the grungy look. I think maybe an interior photo on the home page would help, or maybe swaping the white bg for some shades of gray.

all in all a good bit of work. and it looks like you bit the bullet and did it with divs not tables?



September 16, 2005, 8:44 PM

Yeah, it's all divs, and hiccups only slightly in IE. What a waste of time, making things work in IE. I would tweak in Safari, reload the page on Brook's Dell laptop, reload Safari, tweak again... what a nuisance. But throw in a doctype and this baby ought to validate xhtml and css. Glad it works for you.



September 16, 2005, 9:46 PM

Cool paintings, Franklin



September 16, 2005, 10:40 PM



J.T. Kirkland

September 17, 2005, 8:03 AM

Hey Franklin,

My two cents... it looks good. Simple layout and the focus is where it belongs, on the art. My only qualm is that to view all of the artists' work you have to go to their page and hit back (or "Artists") to go to the list again. You then have to remember who you've looked at and navigate from there. I'm a big fan of being able to proceed through the list of artists directly from the individual art pages. For example, I look at your page and click a right or left arrow at the top to move on to the next artist.

Just a thought... I'm not sure if it's a tough implementation or not. I have something similar on my individual art pages and it seems to work well.

All in all, great site!



September 17, 2005, 5:03 PM

Moca opening tonight.


ms quoted

September 17, 2005, 5:17 PM

This is off topic.

We went to an art opening last night for a Graham Peacock retrospective. It was thrilling! I can't say have been the greatest fan of his painting but all his work was displayed brilliantly. It was visually orgasmic! Now THAT is how art was meant to be seen and experienced!



September 17, 2005, 8:15 PM

Do you live in Canada, Ms?



September 17, 2005, 11:29 PM

Went to the MOCA thing tonight. Le tout Miami and all that. Work by around 30 artists. Stayed about an hour. Kept going round and round. Had weird Peggy Lee experience: Is that all there is? (Peggy Lee was definitely before my time, by the way). Switched to people-gawking mode. Came within a foot a Rosa de la Cruz and accidentally brushed against Mera Rubell, but I've seen them too often now; the thrill is gone. Couldn't even work myself up to sneering at artsy socialite types and their painfully artsy get-ups. The buffet was weak, distinctly inferior to the spreads Charo Oquet routinely puts on when she sponsors something at World Arts Building (I'm not anorexic, you see). Oh, well...

But then, suddenly, there she was, in the flesh...Yes...the one, the only...NINA ARIAS, totally on and looking fabulous (the tan alone was worth the price of admission). I mean, Kevin Bruk (her former employer who, uh, let her go) was there too, and he's all right as gallery people go, but let's face it: he just doesn't have star quality (as for Snitzer, well, let's not even go there). Nina, though, is definite L.A. material. If she's putting out this kind of wattage now, by Basel time she oughta be radioactive.

But seriously, as a card-carrying art person (come to think of it, I don't like the sound of that) I dragged myself over to Ambrosino after MOCA (you know, to do my duty and everything) and, lo and behold, I saw a couple of things that I actually liked, or at least found pretty interesting. Don't freak out now, but one was a photograph (by someone named Kevin Cooley, I think) of a night scene in a shabby neighborhood, and the other was (you might want to sit down for this) an installation by someone named Raul Mendez titled "The Failure of Knowledge" (I think). No, I had not had too much to drink. So there.


that guy

September 18, 2005, 12:26 AM

Come to think of it Jack. I think I saw Nina in some porno recently. Could of been some other bimbo however. Not sure.



September 18, 2005, 8:05 AM

And they call me "delightfully bitchy."



September 18, 2005, 9:17 AM

Don't let the looks fool you, Guy. Nina's no bimbo--a real bimbo is basically clueless; Nina is very clued in. By art scene standards, she might turn out to be some kind of perfect storm. Just think of her as the anti-Sartre.


trista dix, curator at large

September 18, 2005, 12:02 PM

That piece at Ambrosino is titled THE FAILURE OF KNOWING , by raul j.mendez and should be up through the month of october in conjunction with another show opening October 9th titled MANIFESTO (one), curated by Trista Dix., featuring, Raul Mendez, Joseph Biel (from LA), Dan Webb (seattle) and AA Rucci (tampa).
Those of you who have wondered from time to time where figurative art is headed should go see this show. It promises to jump the rails of fashion by actually joining meticulous attention to craft with content..(and no, there won{t be any figures staring blankly into space.....)
expect more on that soon.


Paul Watson

September 18, 2005, 12:44 PM

Nice gallery site - all the artists were of a high quality, but I particularly liked the work by Maria-Jose Arjona and Ramon Fernandez-Bofill.



ms quoted

September 18, 2005, 1:11 PM


Yup I am from Canada. I grace ahab with my presence on a daily basis.


ms quoted

September 18, 2005, 1:29 PM

The retrospective of Graham Peacock was at the Edmonton Art Gallery, Canada. If you are near there, check it out.

I didn't rub up against anyone famous though or anyone with a tan. Sadly, canadians are slowly beginning to lose their frantically gained slight summer bronzing in favour of the more traditional pastey glow.



September 18, 2005, 2:30 PM

- wow Salazar's 10 by 10 foot paintings must encompase the viewer in a field of nature.



September 18, 2005, 2:33 PM

Those are ten by ten inches, although they're still good paintings.



September 18, 2005, 3:24 PM

The Salazar paintings would be better 10 feet square, for sure. It would compensate somewhat for their lifelessness.

Too bad Ambrosino doesn't keep his web site right up to date with his exhibitions. If Jack actaully likes an installation it would be good to see what it looks like (I know, I can actually go see it, but it is Sunday and I am sitting in front of my computer at the moment).

All I can find on Mendez is a picture of a dog taking a shit and a few other pictures which convince me of little else but that he certainly cannot draw.

Interesting that Peacock is having a retrospective, Ms. He is an interesting artist who I have always felt was too dependent on what paint does by itself rather than what he can do with it.



September 18, 2005, 4:50 PM

re#27: Peacock He is an interesting artist who I have always felt was
too dependent on what paint does by itself rather than what he can do with it.

I'm not sure what you mean here oldpro. Has he got the colors in the wrong place? The paint too lumpy? too dry? not runny enough? too clotted? too goopy? too accidental? Too literally paint? Not rectangular enough to win the plane? huh?



September 18, 2005, 5:44 PM

I watched the other artists too, and especially liked
Andy Gambrell and Kerry Ware and Dan Weihnacht. As I've seen so many installations in the Dorsch Gallery too, maybe you didnt know Jonathan Meese and maybe you find him cool.




September 18, 2005, 5:45 PM

I think oldpro is probably referring to Peacock's primary process, which is to pour and drip and insert materials that react with one another (some literally, some visually) and create other incidental effects when drying (known as crazing), with less emphasis on painterly intervention. Like I can tell you guys anything about painting that you don't already know, but I have just seen the works, so I'll give my take anyhow.

My take is that Peacock imbues his creative presence in the carefully drawn contours of the paintings - usually quite amorphous in profile. It should also be noted that most pieces employ varying relief, often deep, sometimes illusory. The 'frames' of his work also verge on seeming incidental, even accidental. His most recent works, 2005, have made a noticeable leap toward communicating an artistic feeling that is not simply "look at what happens when acrylic meets gouache". More along the lines of ms quoted's "visually orgasmic". The EAG retrospective plots his trajectory, the show is an example of definite artistic development. oldpro's comment about "what paint does by itself" seems to have already been considered and responded to in Peacock's newest work.

He is a New New painter. George Bethea's paintings on the Dorsch site have some similarities to Graham Peacock's, but more staid.



September 18, 2005, 6:06 PM

Ahab, thanks. I had seen some earlier works of his, not the latest pieces though. I thought oldpro was imprecise in his remarks and was looking for a clarification.

Hans, have you named that horse yet?



September 18, 2005, 6:13 PM

I have not seen the recent work, Ahab, so i am encouraged by what you say.

George: my response is based on my visual take, of course. I have always detected a coldness in Peacock's work which i attribute - rightly or wrongly - to excessive dependence on purely physical happenstance. I have nothing whatsoever against this kind of process as such; I do some of the same thing in my own work. And, conversely, I do not maintain that "intervention" is any kind of answer. Obviously, as you already know, and try as you might, I am not going to ever say that any single element is "too" anything.

Hans: I think your eye is working.



September 18, 2005, 6:26 PM

The Dorsch artists are extremely varied in style. But not much sculpture, as I'm sure you were waiting for some sculptor to chime in and say.

I would like to see Provisero's sculptures up close and personal. His materials seem to match, in a fashion sense - the wood compliments the steel compliments the concrete sort of thing. Very refined. I'm not crazy about the overall form of the winged things though, and though I'm sure they would decorate a building lobby nicely they don't have much feeling. Kind of Caro/diSuvero-like architectural ornamentation, but almost conventionally so. They seem to be drafted into place, 3-point perspective style. I'd still like to see them.

That's my unasked-for peanut-gallery opinion. Part of it anyhow.



September 18, 2005, 6:33 PM

I think your take on Provisero is excellent Matty.

I have a feeling that if he were up in Edmonton with you guys to push him he would be a hell of a lot better. Around there is simply nothing for him to go up against but the usual silly pomo crud.


northern squall

September 18, 2005, 7:41 PM

You guys can be such idiots.

especially old pro and that guy.

what a waste.

and to think that one of you is a professor...
what a sad state for women, for artists, for miami.

my condolences. were it not for people like that you guys down there might have something worth looking at.



September 18, 2005, 7:43 PM

Oldpro, after being distinctly underwhelmed by the show at MOCA, much of which I'd seen previously, I was perhaps more prone than usual to respond to something less familiar and less predictable than the usual local suspects. Perhaps I was unduly susceptible or "needy."

The installation is much more about suggestion and implied meaning than about a visual experience. Briefly, in a small bedroom-like space, there's an indistinct body on a bed, covered with white sheets, with some books on the bed and numerous tall stacks of books behind and around the bed. The books appear more or less indistinguishable from one another, with whitish covers like the sheets. A cluster of long pencils are stuck, arrow-like, high on the wall, and what appears to be a sea of blue ink runs down the wall from them onto the floor and under the bed. On the opposite wall, a metronome is mounted and ticking away audibly. On another wall, a shelf holds numerous stacked matches, previously lit and used.

Obviously, a work like this is meant to be experienced in person. I found it had a curiously cool, collected, deliberate feel, with an odd mix of classical admonition and neo-Victorian cautionary tale, somewhat akin to the old vanitas paintings. As I said, it was at least interesting in concept and execution, though I suspect it might be primarily effective on first exposure, after which it may not really "keep on giving," as you've said about other work.



September 18, 2005, 8:00 PM

no need to appologize



September 18, 2005, 8:40 PM

Hey, Northern, greetings. We haven't had a good drive-by shooter for a while.

He was not apologizing, George, he was qualifying.

I would like to see the piece myself.



September 18, 2005, 8:47 PM

The New New: This unfortunate term was introduced by Kenworth Moffett. It draws attention to all the wrong things, art as satisfaction for the desire for novelty, especially. But Moffett also pontificates on the necessity of using water based acrylic (the newest painting medium) and using it in a certain way - getting it to do things that are intrinsic to its nature and easy therefore to do, along with color that is saturated and gross, also intrinsically suited for the plastic nature of acrylic. The "risk" of looking gross is cast as heroic and a sign that something great is in the air.

Moffett writes like a would be Greenberg, adopting several of Clem's mannerisms without the substance that permates the real McCoy. Even Michael Fried, another would be Clem, gets closer to the heart of things than Moffett (but not that close).

The art world, on the other hand, does not look at the New New and its modernist underpinnings as anything but a desperate joke (I may be wrong that it notices at all). The artists who live with this label might be better off without it, though I surmise it does result in a sale every now and then (but not many).



September 18, 2005, 8:53 PM

It gets worse, Northern. That Guy and I also teach at the college level. Thanks for letting us know that we're making an impact on you.



September 18, 2005, 8:54 PM

Clem had mannerisms? He could be strikingly declarative, but I can't think of a mannerism in the way that I can think of them for Hughes and Schjeldahl.



September 18, 2005, 8:56 PM

Oh, and that New New label makes me feel a little sad. My question: is anyone else calling them this besides Moffett?



September 18, 2005, 9:33 PM

When I first encountered the New New label, my Irish side said something like what do these assholes think they are doing? When I looked at the results, I thought Old Old would be a more accurate term if "newness" is to be the defining issue.

Besides Moffett, they call themselves New New, at least some of them do. I don't think Jim and Ann Walsh would call themselves that, though Moffett has included them on occassion.

Here is a little would be Clem mannerism on the part of Moffett: What I think of as the Olitski wing of the Society’s painters include Robert Scott, Walter Darby Bannard, James Walsh, Mitch Smith, John Griefen and Harold Feist. It is testimony to the largeness of Olitski’s post 1965 style that so many good painters are so successful with it. On the other hand, none of these painters have come close to matching Olitski’s achievement. At the moment, Bob Scott is the strongest of this group...then Moffett breaks down into sentimentality going on about Scott (which was not part of Clem's manner, except early on when he wrote about socialism)...His dark vision and seething passion keeps his work dramatically alive.

Or here is another, this time about a specific painter: Walter Darby Bannard has always been a good, sometimes excellent, painter, but rarely a great one. He did some truly great pictures in the 80’s and recently he has gone back to his style of that time which, in itself, shows a heightened self awareness.

There is nothing stylistically wrong with this writing, qua style, but the style reminds me of Greenberg's. But when I look at what Moffett is using that style to say, I only wish the real McCoy were still with us. (What the hell does "heightened self awareness" have to do with it, anyway? Phrases like that and "seething passion" reminds us that it is not really Clem writing.)



September 18, 2005, 9:40 PM

About "mannerism": Yes Clem was declarative, but in a "manner" that was distinctly his own, and almost always a vehicle for lots of good stuff. But when that style is decoupled from the good stuff, as in Moffett and Freid, it becomes "mannered" in the pejorative sense.



September 18, 2005, 9:48 PM

More thoughts on mannerism: Hughes and Schjeldahl have their own distinctive containers, but they deliver very little in them. Thus their "manner" is all they really offer. Not so with Greenberg, but he nonetheless delivered in containers that were noticeably "his own".

I realize most people consider the term "mannerism" as a negative. I don't.


that guy

September 18, 2005, 10:57 PM

squally: little slow on the draw? Normally the peanut gallery is on me like white on rice.
As the official spokesperson for the peanut gallery, I'm glad you pointed out my politically incorrect stance. I'll make a note of it.



September 18, 2005, 11:23 PM

re 46: That Guy,

politically incorrect stance?

try rude on for size, fits insignificant well


that guy

September 19, 2005, 12:12 AM

Thanks George, I'm trying it on, and liking it. I'll file that one under "things to feel guilty about". Just for the record Squall said:

"my condolences. were it not for people like that you guys down there might have something worth looking at".

As far as I can tell, Artblog readers, commenters, proprietors and the artists they praise, are the only ones trying to make art worth looking at down here. So the premise is wrong there.

I'd like to know from the squally north, what difference my disposition towards curators could have on the quality of the work shown in Miami. If I were in a position of power in the art world, I certainly would suppress a lot of what gets play down here. But that would result in the opposite from what the north suggested.



September 19, 2005, 12:32 AM

that guy, did you just lump me in with Northern Squall (peanut gallery, the north)? If so, really?

I'm not taking offense, just requesting clarity.



September 19, 2005, 12:57 AM

New New is how Peacock describes his own work, or at least allows it to be described. Unfortunate though it may be, it locates the paintings' parentage to some understandable degree. I agree with and accept instruction from your observations about the term. I like the Old Old comment especially.

Neo Neo, Retro Retro. Double Positive, Double Negative. Muddling terminology rather than the reverse.



September 19, 2005, 1:03 AM

And fred, thanks for the props in #34.



September 19, 2005, 5:56 AM

ahab, thanks for the compliment. "New" always bothers me because it has led art and artists into some dim places. A double dose is just too much for my normally hidden Irish.

Unfortunate though it may be, it locates the paintings' parentage to some understandable degree. Yes it does, but "understanding" has become the bane of the art world, along with "new" - a dynamic duo of darkness that has suppressed the best art. Seems like everyone wants "new", as long as it can be thoroughly "explained". But when something is really new, it stumps most of us until its newness is absorbed. The "easily explained new" is suspect.

But that "understanding" does lead to a few sales.

And so art muddles on.


that guy

September 19, 2005, 8:01 AM

No ahab, I should have been more clear. I'll make you czar of visual prowess of the northern territories. I think everyone here has taken shots from the peanut gallery.



September 19, 2005, 12:49 PM

op post #34:
For the record, I agree with Ahab's take on Provisero too, but since OP and I share a psychic link, he must have known that already.
My favs from the Dorsch site are conveniently located in a tight grouping of George, Lucas, Franklin, and Ramon. I'm with OP on the Salazars as well... I was going to say "thin" which probably isn't right, but they are lacking something (life, OP supposes, and he may be right). I'll reserve final judgment for when I see them in the flesh though. Anyone want to buy me a plane ticket?

I love that Catfish posted the excerpt from Moffett's article... a previously unpublished article, if I'm not mistaken. I've read the whole piece, and its just plain bad. I didn't find much in it that reminded me of Clem, or his 'mannerisms' (Whereas catfish's use of "qua style" has CG's influence all over it!)

As for Hughes, while I agree he doesn't deliver nearly as much as CG, I've generally found him to be a decent art reporter. Good, but not in the Greenberg league... but then again, that may be a league of one.



September 19, 2005, 2:08 PM

Yes, Matty, Great Minds, and all that.

This comparison of Provisero and perhaps other quite respectable "formal"sculptors around the US with the Edmonton sculptors would make a good essay sometime, because I really do think the difference is almost entirely because of circumstances.

Provisero is talented and serious and hard-working but he lives in a place where (as far as i can tell) there is no one to push him, to show him something that makes him run to his studio pursued by the winds of panic. A year or two ago he showed a very large installation of regular rows of big cone-shaped objects at Dorsch. It was monumental and impressive but boring; there is no one here to tell him that putting things all in a row just has to be left alone for now, that it has been a dead form for at least 30 years, at least until some genius proves otherwise.

You guys have a full generation, perhaps more, of really hard-nosed metal sculpture up there, still going strong, obviously, with "kids" like youself and Ahab, and I'll bet a number of others, who are driven to take what they have been taught and make something new with it.

it would be a good study on the dependence of art on its environment.



September 19, 2005, 4:56 PM

The horses name is: MERTSKHALA

Georgian for a SWALLOW



September 19, 2005, 5:19 PM

Hans, good choice.

It's daybreak.
I must have tired you with my confession.
My caravan is heading for Gulansharo.
Join us,
as long as fate has put you in our path.
Accept this robe from me.
Bring the horse!
I've chosen this horse for you myself.
Look at this beauty! A horse worthy of a king!
Remember, his name is Mertskhala, or Swallow.
You're giving me a horse and a robe?
Allah is giving them to you.
For luck...
A good deed will never vanish without leaving a trace.
Don't forget my name. It's Osman-aha.

English subtitles to Legend of Suram Fortress The Ashik Kerib



September 20, 2005, 9:01 AM

I share northern squall's opinion. Speaking to those on this blog: for all of your intellectual prowess, your work does not hold up. From what you have shown as your own and what you have reviewed locally, I have not seen anything worthy of attention.



September 20, 2005, 9:03 AM

Thank you for sharing, Yankee. What sort of thing to you go for?



September 20, 2005, 10:50 AM

Let me ask you something, Yankee. You don't have to answer, but please think about it.

Do you say this kind of thing about the bad work shown on other blogs, or are you motivated by your resentment of what you perceive as "intellectual prowess".



September 20, 2005, 11:04 AM

Wow, George, I am impressed, how did you find that, I didnt know about this. But of course I know the fortress of Surami, its in the Center of Georgia, at the village Surami near Khashuri. I wouldnt expect MERTSKHALA at that famous. Thank you.



September 20, 2005, 12:56 PM

Speaking to those on this blog: for all of your intellectual prowess, your work does not hold up.

So, now that you are on this blog, I guess that means that your work doesn't hold up either... maybe you shouldn't paint with such a big brush, if you know what I mean.



September 20, 2005, 6:06 PM

Canuck - like Northern, Yankee is just another drive-by pea shooter.

They don't stay around to discuss anything. Not enough "intellectual prowess", I guess.



September 21, 2005, 1:59 PM

that guy. Comment 18:
You are such a HATER.
I co-curated the show at the Moore Space with Nina Arias. We worked so hard on that exhibition and it bothers me that your comments have nothing to do with art.



Other Projects


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