Previous: Who decides (61)

Next: I forget what eight was for (13)


Post #1084 • November 9, 2007, 7:57 AM • 20 Comments

The Denver Post covers a color-field show curated by Karen Wilkin, whom we're big fans of around here. (Marc)

Another giant Buddha statue gets whacked by armed Islamist knuckleheads.

Spam subject lines illustrated. (Kottke)

"One boy was abandoned in an Ikea and raised by affordable Swedish design."

The Independent profiles Alice Walton. I agree with this: "Walton's initiative is, in the end, no worse than art-buying sprees of the past and may be considerably better because she plans to put everything on public display." Compare. (AJ)

Make My Logo Bigger Cream!!! (Brick)

Joel Turnipseed interviews Douglas Wolk, author of Reading Comics.

Another great moment in natural art criticism. (Reddit)

Department of I Miss Boston: Samuel McIntire at the Peabody Essex.

Moneygami. (Drawn!)

Yarn of the Dead.

Department of Skills: Dave Brubeck. I'd be happy if I ever made a painting that makes me feel like Brubeck's music makes me feel. And he's still gigging a couple hundred shows a year. Amazing.



ekim skram

November 9, 2007, 9:11 AM

It's good to be queen or Alice as it is. More power to her she buys what she likes.



November 9, 2007, 9:29 AM

Alice Walton- I like the way she decides, with money.


ekim skram

November 9, 2007, 9:36 AM

Storto, You were just writing about that. Clairvoyant? No wonder you are doing so well with your work.



November 9, 2007, 9:56 AM

Uh, Thank you ekim skram,
I fully enjoyed your comments on Who Decides and highly recommend readers of this blog to check it out. Very well written and gave me alot to think about. And it is no wonder you are doing so well. Great to have you in this art community.



November 9, 2007, 10:34 AM

Ms. Walton appears to have serious, uh, issues, quite apart from art. I don't care about her "pedigree," but it sounds as if she's clearly on a power trip, and using art as a conveniently "elevated" conduit for same. Using, by the way, seems to be the operative word here, and that bothers me considerably more than the perceived vulgarity of her money. In other words, I think this is much more about Alice Walton than about art, the public "good," or Bentonville, Arkansas.

Unfortunately, there's no law that says those with money like hers should be the ones with the best motives and best intentions.


Marc Country

November 9, 2007, 10:35 AM

Kyle MacMillan does a pretty decent job on the Colour-Field piece.

He is right to point out, when he writes "But Greenberg's connection ultimately hurt the movement because his brusque, seemingly dictatorial manner alienated many dealers, curators and others in the art world", that the works themselves, and the artists who created them, have been devalued not because of any supposed lack of quality on their part, but simply because of their associations with Greenberg, who was personally disliked by individual members of the art world establishment. An indictment of shallow pettiness, if ever there was one...

And, I can forgive his statement "color-field abstraction lost ground to two other currents that proved more powerful", as long as "powerful" is understood to refer to market-power, and not art-power, per se...

But, he flubs it when he suggests that Conceptual Art is the kind of art "in which content trumped execution." Woof! Missed it by a mile, Kyle!

Maybe you should email him a link to your "Degrees of Art" post, Franklin. It seems like he might just be thoughtful enough to appreciate the help it would offer.



November 9, 2007, 10:44 AM

Shallow pettiness on the part of the art world, not Greenberg, right, Marc?


Marc Country

November 9, 2007, 10:52 AM

Right, Opie... sorry if I wasn't clear.

Yes, if an artist's work 'A' is pooh-poohed by dealers, curators, etc. 'B', because of what they think of associated critic 'C', then those artworld folks 'B' aren't just shallow, and petty, but stupid as well. That's worse than borrowed taste... it's gainsaying borrowed taste... the ultimate in ridiculousness.



November 9, 2007, 11:04 AM

Actually, Marc, the scenario in question is not really about taste per se, but about whose taste. This is a personality and power issue; it's about resentment and vindictiveness. The art itself is largely a bystander, which happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, so to speak. It's simply guilt by association.


Warm Sand

November 9, 2007, 11:15 AM

Was Bannard included in the colorfield exhibit? If not, he should have been!



November 9, 2007, 11:31 AM

Yes, Bannard is in it - 2 paintings



November 9, 2007, 12:01 PM

GO Alice W GO!!
Buy Buy Buy and be happy!
It's the American way.
She has every right to buy
what she wants and pays a premium price for it.
Is that not the way our consumer economy works?
If she owns it she can place it anywhere she wants.

Art is a Commodity or at least a strange one

Or is that garish of me to say so?


ekim skram

November 9, 2007, 12:53 PM

Jack & RL,
Right on the money, pun intended. We can't blame her. We just need to remember "art is a bystander". Does that reference fit if we consider taste? Is art just a bystander?


Marc Country

November 9, 2007, 7:06 PM

The Rocky Mountain News covers the Colour-Field show too... and doesn't suffer from the failings of the Post article, happily.



November 9, 2007, 8:12 PM

Did anyone catch where the Color-Field show's going after Denver?



November 9, 2007, 8:31 PM

Surely not Miami, Ahab. We're too advanced and cutting edge here for that. Or so one hears.



November 9, 2007, 8:48 PM

However, we might get another exquisitely synthetic Vik Muniz extravaganza or, if we really luck out, a whole bunch of really BIG (and even louder) things by James Rosenquist. I'm stocking up on Dramamine as we speak.



November 10, 2007, 5:32 AM

Smithsonian American Art Museum, Wash. DC 2/29 - 5/6/08

Frist Center for Visual Arts, Nashville, Tenn. 6/20 - 9/21/08


ekim skram

November 10, 2007, 7:44 AM

What about "art as a bystander" in terms of taste? What about art as a bystander in terms of the subjective understanding of the viewer? What about art as a bystander in terms of an individuals desire to express personal experience? I think art as a bystander may be what some of you are all about. Art as a bystander in term of its power to convey concepts, idea's and content.



November 10, 2007, 7:54 AM

Nashville. Great. But of course we get Basel, the ultimate art show. Trade show, that is. Well, it's about money after all, isn't it? It works for the major collectors, and really, as far as the system is concerned, the rest of us can basically stuff it. Take it or leave it. Not an issue.



Other Projects


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