Previous: must not make nada in spanish joke (16)

Next: today's blog post has been brought to you by my mortgage lender

basel wrap-up

Post #678 • December 5, 2005, 3:43 PM • 59 Comments

This publication thing is working out, I think. I just need one of those $1800 cameras and I'll be set.




December 5, 2005, 4:45 PM

Thanks for the post. There is some good work there i didn't know about.

The only purpose of the banner was to let people know that there was another show up the street which they would not have known about any other way, period. There was absolutely no aggressive, one-upmanship intention of any kind. That interpretation is your problem.



December 5, 2005, 5:31 PM

That interpretation is your problem.

Yeah, but if I'm forming it, imagine what other folks are doing...



December 5, 2005, 5:37 PM

Excellent job representing the "goings -on" about town Franklin!
Thanks and keep up the good work.



December 5, 2005, 6:04 PM

Precisely, Franklin.

I don't have to try hard to imagine it. The reaction to the title itself, which was derived from a long-ago show I was in at the MoMA - "The Art of the Real" - has already been discussed here. It was meant to refer primarily to the "material" ("real") aspects of much of the painting in it as well as the "double meaning" which was mildly assertive, at best, and it was quite innocent and sincerely meant.

It has been startling to see the reaction, which seems to be nothing more than a gauge of the fragility of the egos here in Miami. I'm sorry, I was brought up and made my way in the New York art world of the of the 60s, where a title and a show like this would simply have been absorbed and considered for what it was and probably thought humorous, if anything.

I think you need a really, really big banner that says "Real World".



December 5, 2005, 6:24 PM

My ego is bulletproof, which is why I thought that a little humor at our expense would be enjoyed. Sorry for the miscalculation.



December 5, 2005, 6:38 PM

Nobody's ego is bulletproof. Mine certainly isn't. And the bit about the pissing contest assumed that we deliberately instigated it. Intended as humor, perhaps, but wrong.



December 5, 2005, 6:55 PM

oldpro: "Real World" is an MTV series. That's Music Television.
Imagine pitching the idea of a variety of artists living under the same roof? That would be great TV!



December 5, 2005, 7:18 PM

It's coming soon, Bob. The newest reality show. I think young artists are becoming as commonplace as young rock musicians these days, and just as devoted to the "life style". Why not?



December 5, 2005, 7:23 PM

Art has already imitated life on this one...



December 5, 2005, 7:38 PM

The painting attributed to John Sanchez is Luis Angulo's picture (check spelling on last name).



December 5, 2005, 7:40 PM

On it, correction. Thank you.



December 5, 2005, 8:30 PM

I don't see what all the fuss is about with the Real Painting Show. Real Painting is a cute title for a show and very likely descriptive of the artists intention who are in it. Are they not allowed to have such an intention? Why is this title being read as a war cry?

And as regards the car parked with a banner saying Miami Painters Exhibit near the Snitzer Gallery--parking another car to hide this car with the banner on it--how absurd! After all do we not live in a world besieged, deluged by signs and banners, so why the fuss about a sign which is parked on the street! Is it X-rated, or promoting terrorism? Trying to block a parked car with a sign on it so people can't see that sign--and, by the way, in so doing obstructing a lane of traffic which is actually more dangerous--sounds as though someone is awfully afraid that people might read that sign and after reading that sign will go see the show? Is this an attempt at policing our visual world, I mean, really, how silly!


moustache anear

December 5, 2005, 8:30 PM

Folks certainly are sensitive about shows that make sweeping proclamations......



December 5, 2005, 9:11 PM

Again I go for the Celman(#4). This time I will add the Einspruch (#5) to my cart. And the Judy Cooke (#20), which reminds me of the Ruth Root (#12 on the first post). I like the Cooke, but am merely interested in the Root.

Am also, um, attracted to the Rachel Hoffman, like, actually Rachel Hoffman. Shouldn't she be in a different kind of show - what with the stage, the pole and the chairs 'n table that occupy the setting?



December 5, 2005, 9:25 PM

Careful, Ahab. Some of your friends may not be amused.



December 5, 2005, 9:30 PM

Actually, Ahab, I mistook you (similar name) for Alesh. Glad I was wrong; I was afraid for Alesh's life for a moment.



December 5, 2005, 10:15 PM

I often mistake myself to be mildly amusing when I am myself merely amused.


that guy

December 5, 2005, 10:16 PM

Yeah the Rachel Hoffman needs to be flipped in photoshop about 110 degrees cw. Looks like a Stepford wife before the software went screwy.



December 5, 2005, 10:44 PM

what's the bickering concerning the real art show. or whatever you guys called it. i notice there has not been a crit of it yet. why not?



December 5, 2005, 11:02 PM

Great post. brought back good memories. I really loved the atmosphere amd art of Aqua as well. I didnt feel pushed like at NADA and scope and I could get visual breathers now an then. very important.

I wasnt as thrilled with scope but I am glad I went because I saw some kickbutt Lisa Sigals there!

Frankly Franklin (HA!), I regret making such a fuss over that real painting show . In fact, I was thinking about that walking around Art BAz and realizing you know, there are so many directions and niches in the art world. What is the big deal if groups form to stake out a territory in that world? Maybe thats just part of the dialogue that is art right? I regret not seeing the show, In fact I never made to any of the local galleries there and I regret that also. I am making a trip early next year to rectify that situation.

As to the crass comment about the lady artist.. come on! Have some class guys. What is this a bar?



December 5, 2005, 11:18 PM

Well, mek, you're obviously hot to trot over Real Painting, so you might as well have at it, though I thought Franklin was planning a separate post on it (unless he meant this post).



December 5, 2005, 11:31 PM

I enjoyed seeing all the images so much. Thanks for taking all of that time.



December 5, 2005, 11:46 PM

Real painting sizzled. I still think the forced hostility was a misstep, but at least half the stuff in the room was really great (i secretly love abEx, see?). Particular favorites were the George Betheas, and a David Marsh (i prefered the other one; for sheer surface texture).

I say let's have a more of these shows, rely a little less on Dorsch artists, and don't confirm Jack's fear that all anyone cares about is Basel weekend.

ps what was up with the tarp piece? was that a piece of recovered billboard? what did that have to do with 'real painting,' another joke?



December 6, 2005, 12:05 AM

Glad you liked the show, Alesh, but it was not "forced hostility", as I tried to explain.

Oh, what's the use.



December 6, 2005, 12:35 AM

You were right, Jack, my friend onesock is not very amused. No, onesock, a blog is not much of a bar. I haven't visited EdgeZones personally but I'm inferring that it isn't supposed to be a bar either. Though my comment may have been a sly interpretation of the photo, I hold that it was a critical one and not crass.

Ms. Hoffman is posing as, among other things, a beautiful genie half out of her bottle (half in if you're a crass optimist). As is every artist, she is responsible for the entirety of her presentation, including the incidentals of her environment. She is arguably also responsible for the most obvious associations relating to her set, costume and personae.

Ms. Hoffman's piece suffers from split personality, and would undoubtedly be better developed in a more appropriate show. A play for example. The theatre is indisputably one of the best places for an act, and a gallery for art. Venue bending is too weak as a concept to base any justification of her performance on it.

What is actually conveyed is of primary concern for every art piece, regardless of any intended message. And yet an artist (performer, musician, painter, whatever) who understands the difference between the two is still only a short way to being a good one.


Marc Country

December 6, 2005, 1:16 AM

Nicely put, ahab.


homero hidalgo

December 6, 2005, 3:01 AM

A friend of mine told me one of my works was online at this wbsite. Well thank you very much. Have a wonderful holyday.



December 6, 2005, 4:08 AM

Julie is the most spiritual painter of all, and therefore the best. The rest is just that. David the mere "Lad" (as Franklin puts it) out-painted everyone else in the show.
Thanks for taking shots Franklin as they all look great.
Peggy's photos were excellent at "Of the Map".
Thanks for putting on the show Darby and Kathleen, and thanks for creating the web-page Franklin, and posting your new painting.



December 6, 2005, 4:38 AM

Oh and before I forget, Paula Celman I'm very proud of you - and our SODA group did a wonderfull job as well.


not interested

December 6, 2005, 6:57 AM

I'm fascinated how everything you are attracted to all looks the same, [example images 5 and 6.]....and how it all looks as if it was made in 1959.
I am also fascinated by how you would pass over all the work in an entire fair based on comments made by much for having an open mind......I've heard many positive and negative comments about every event.
Nice pictures, but I would have rather sceen thumbnails and then selected what interested me, rather that have to wait for the garbage to load....perhaps its my crappy connection....
And have you ever noticed how the same bitter people are constantly hurling their antiquated and stodgy comments around this blog like a sack of stinky poop. I like the blog but cant' suffer the old fools.
keep up the good work...the more you blog the less you "paint".



December 6, 2005, 7:23 AM

Wow! Lots of activity during the night. Thanks to all for the comments, including NI, for whom "crappy connection" may apply regarding more than just his dial-up.

This is indeed the Real Painting post, so anyone with thoughts on the show should put them here. Next up I tackle the NY shows I saw a couple of weekends ago. It'll be another publication or two, the first ready sometime this evening.

I found Ms. Hoffman's piece rather beautifully crafted, visually over-the-top but performatively understated. We don't get a lot of performance art down here, which is too bad, and often what I've seen is the other way around.

Onesock, with the enormous range of work being made now, staking out territory, as you put it, becomes inevitable. Certainly the collectors will do so unless their tastes are so broad that everything jumps out at them. People with similar sensibilities will gravitate towards each other.



December 6, 2005, 7:59 AM

You are right, notinterested. #5 and #6 both have a lot of red and green paint on them. It take a sharp eye to spot something like that.

As for "1959", well, bone up on your art history a little.

"Venue bending" is good Ahab, as is the rest of that comment.



December 6, 2005, 8:33 AM

If the "Real Painting" title is about the material, what's with the Richard White collage? I also believe there was an Andy Gambrell piece in the show (which I liked better than most of the paintings). No paint there...



December 6, 2005, 8:54 AM

The exhibit is not "about material" but there was a common thread of "materiality" to the show because most of the artists relied on fairly heavy paint application and surface inflection of one kind or another and because attention was directed to the material itself and what was done with it rather than some kind of inferred meaning.

Gambrell's had no paint and White had a painted base under paper collage; both also use materials as the others did but with little or no paint, so they do not fit exactly under the title. This was mentioned at some length in the catalog essay, which was posted at the exhibit.



December 6, 2005, 8:56 AM

while i was somewhat rushed and only saw about 20-25% of what there was to see, i'd say that there was plenty of very good art.

my favorite painting was a hofmann, my second favorite was a hofmann and my third favorite was a hofmann. he also had another in my top ten and another in my top fifteen. sure he can put out some dogs or experimental randomness. but he can also climb to the top of the mountain and make other very good works by the most historic of artists look just pretty good in comparison. talk about a guy that can take it to another level or put it in another gear. that is hofmann in the late 50's forward.

while i don't have a great feel for sculture. there was a caro table piece in an adjoining room to the one above that was extremey good. it was painted green, composed of much fewer parts than the one above and partially hanging over on one side. did not catch the date. think i would put this in top 5-15 if i had time to sort it all out.



December 6, 2005, 9:15 AM

jordan your fenced in pic is a litlle further along and overall a better pic than either of david's. his pics, while pretty good, are still in the developmental stage yet show potential. your 2 others are very good with the alive animal part, but the backgrounds don't work as well with the overall pic as fenced in does.



December 6, 2005, 9:33 AM

Onesock, with the enormous range of work being made now, staking out territory, as you put it, becomes inevitable. Certainly the collectors will do so unless their tastes are so broad that everything jumps out at them. People with similar sensibilities will gravitate towards each other.

Yes, and where I think we may differ is that I approach this fragmented state of the art world with the gusto of someone with whom (as you say) "everything jumps out at them". I would clarify this by saying that, instead, I jump into them, meaning that since I recognize the fragmented status of procedural and theoretical concerns in contemporary art practice, I try to meet (conceptually, perceptually) each work within its own "territory", rather than demand the work enter my theoretical base before I engage with it.
I am not saying my appraoch is better. I recognize the dangers in that it leads to "everything is good" reasoning. But I find the challenge of pontificating contextually based systems of evaluating quality extremely worthwhile , valid, and advancing. It also helps to prevent (if not completely erradicate)the insidious nature of marginalization that pervaded modernist, Kantian-based reasoning (which we discussed previously over the idea of the "canon").



December 6, 2005, 9:47 AM

Speaking of marginalization. I previously objected to the language surrounding the "Real Painting" exhibit as a gesture revealling a jealous or bitter standpoint. I think this was innacurate. I think what it may demonstrate (along with the sign next to snitzer) is that reaction against marginalization. Noone wants to be marginalized, so now I see the presentation as completely understandable and even acceptable as a means of simply saying "Hey guys We are over here, check us out"



December 6, 2005, 10:09 AM

estimable shows by Ralph Provisero and Kyle Towbridge...
If the shows by TOWBRIDGE (sp) and Provisero are so estimable why the pictures of peddlers?



December 6, 2005, 10:20 AM

Actually Franklin, I think we do share the ability to meet works on their own terms ( as a rereading of your post shows me- I think your idea that things are maturing, is very insightful). By the way, Did you get that image because you actually saw a bullethole ridden diaper?



December 6, 2005, 10:20 AM

"Hey guys We are over here, check us out"

Thanks, onesock. That was exactly the intention, no more, no less.



December 6, 2005, 10:20 AM

There will always be at least attempted marginalization, exclusion, what have you, of what is not currently "in," mainstream, and/or officially sanctioned and promoted by those who are supposed to know. That's why it ultimately comes down to the individual to decide and choose personally, assuming the individual is willing and able to do so--some can but don't; some apparently just can't.

The bottom line (at least mine) is that the only thing that really matters is the relationship or interaction between the individual and the work, and the individual can and should have absolute control over that, and absolute freedom to judge and act accordingly. What others, meaning absolutely everybody else, think or claim is their business, but while that may be of interest, it entails no obligation whatsoever.



December 6, 2005, 10:29 AM

I agree with you that it comes down to an indiviuallized interaction. Do you believe, therefore that if my interaction has been informed by reading say, Rosalind Kraus or Arthur Danto, that my response has been tainted in any way? I guess what I am asking is that do you think that someone receiving an MFA education can have a truly individual and sincere response to a work of art?



December 6, 2005, 10:48 AM

Thank you for the catch on Trowbridge, lb, and for making me look it up. I was planning a separate post for them. I may not get to it now. Sigh.



December 6, 2005, 10:56 AM

I have no idea where the diaper image came from.

Onesock, I don't think you have a choice about what jumps out at you - it's intiuitive. As for reading Krauss, Danto, or anyone, I don't think that taints your taste unless you make a practice of talking yourself into or out of liking something. I've read a fair amount of Greenberg, but when the Hoffmanns didn't do a lot for me this time at Basel, I said so. Being able to discern your true feelings is of primary importance, although reading fills out your experience of looking at art quite a bit.



December 6, 2005, 10:58 AM

Great art is a joy, onesock. Kraus and Danto are torture. Keep them at a distance.



December 6, 2005, 11:32 AM

Well oldpro, I agree there is joy to be had. My particular joy stems from the approach to art that critcally regards the idea of "great art" as suspect. Not as an individualized value system but as an all encompassing "canon" of demarcation. I realize the "october" group is fraught with its own totalizing and heirarchical structure. My goal is to, again, see each work within its own set of criteria, which involves an active engagement with multiple standpoints, which is why on my bookshelf you would see Berger next to Kant, Greenberg next to Foster.



December 6, 2005, 12:08 PM

Onesock (#43), we can and should choose personally and individually. That applies to art as well as art theorists, critics, educators, curators, and any and all "art people." If a particular voice really makes sense and speaks to you, if it rings true and helps you, then obviously it's legitimate for you to accept it and make use of it--but you still have to make that choice or decision. It shouldn't matter what the presumed authority's status, reputation, CV, publication list or whatever may be; either you buy it or you don't--it's your affair and nobody else's.


Ms. Hoffman

December 6, 2005, 12:14 PM

hee hee. I definitely love to read responses... even and especially criticism. Thank you. I will be doing a new performance in early Jan., and I hope that you can come see me in the FLESH at that time!



December 6, 2005, 12:37 PM

Don't worry about the "multiple standpoints" or "great art" or what's on your bookshelf, onesock. Just look at the art and go for what does it for you.



December 6, 2005, 12:44 PM

Concerning the Real Painting show, it was a spur-of-the-moment, last-minute enterprise, and given those conditions it came off rather well (there's even a catalog, which is unheard of around here except for museum shows). People may like the work or not, as always, but I'm glad to see artists taking matters into their own hands when other hands are not sufficiently forthcoming. Sometimes that's the only way to make something happen, even if there's no guarantee. Also, if artists really believe in what they're doing, they should make no bones about it, let alone apologize for it or make concessions to what they don't believe in. Ultimately, as I've said, the viewer has to decide, and if the viewer is serious about art (as opposed to the art scene), s/he will.



December 6, 2005, 1:22 PM

Don't worry about the "multiple standpoints" or "great art" or what's on your bookshelf, onesock. Just look at the art and go for what does it for you.

AH but what is on my bookshelf counts in my "looking" and deciding what "to go for" and what "does it for me",. for I beileive I need more than an eye, I need a mind also. Your "just look" order negates the fact that one can never "just look", nor should one if a more insightful and meaningful experience is what one is after.



December 6, 2005, 2:18 PM

Franklin's painting at doesn't make me think of Hofman so much as German painter Michael Toenges, whose work I like a great deal. See:

In particular, something like this:



December 6, 2005, 2:39 PM

You need a mind to see, onesock. You don't need Kraus and Danto.

Many thanks for the Michael Toenges reference, Chris. I knew nothing about him.



December 6, 2005, 2:59 PM

Precisely, Oldpro (#54). Let everyone see with his own eyes and think with his own mind. It's fine to consider what others do with theirs, as long as one doesn't see or think by proxy.



December 6, 2005, 6:04 PM

chris you are probably right about the franklin comparison. i'm sure we could find someone even closer . just thought hofmann was a name everybody would know and it followed franklin's unenthusiastic viewing of hh. to me it seemed ironic. nice link.



December 6, 2005, 6:32 PM

My comparison of Franklin's painting to Toenges's is not meant to take anything away from Franklin, whose work can stand on its own. But the Toenges comparison seemed more interesting to me than other comparisons that are even more obvious than Hofman; for example, there is a connection to Kossoff or Auerbach, both of whom paint the figure, often up close and cropped, with heavy paint that builds up along the edges.

To my eye the size at which Toenges works, and the size of marks and brush strokes, are generally closer to Franklin's work than Kossoff's or Auerbach's. Toenges has exhibited for some time in Euopre and the US, but of course is much less known than Kossoff and Auerbach. I believe that the work of all four painters named in this post probably highly value "the visual component of visual art above all else [link]."



December 6, 2005, 6:39 PM

Again, thanks for the info, Chris. Toenges also paints some larger pix too, judging from the google images. That is interesting because this kind of painting usually tends to be small.


edwin montalvo

December 7, 2005, 8:29 AM

thank you franklin. I got to see more in your wrap up than i did live. Way too much noise, way too many people, way too much sneezing!



Other Projects


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