Previous: Critic with a sky-high ego (150)

Next: Works of a Renaissance Master: The Prints of Albrecht Dürer (35)

Face the Nation

Post #1229 • September 15, 2008, 11:36 AM • 161 Comments

Edmonton, AB - Terrance Houle photographs himself in robe and feathered headdress going through his day as a modern suburban cubicle monkey. Dana Claxton photographs a man in native facepaint and pigtails next to a convertable Mustang. Is it 1993, when the purveyors of identity politics once roamed the prairies of art in mighty herds? No, it's Face the Nation, kicking it old school as it promises to "address issues of history, representation and identity" and "utilize strategies of imitation" and "critique the authority of history." Curatorial solemnity and fatuous objects couple with especially jarring dissonance here, as the curator wonders publicly whether she's too white to put this show together and Lori Blondeau presents herself on the satirized cover of a women's magazine as Cosmosquaw.

Consequently the exhibition doesn't inspire reflection on the depiction of Aboriginals, as they call them up here, but the limits of the trickster aesthetic to accomplish anything except entree into the contemporary museum. In fact, we skipped the art museum in Brandon, Manitoba because the exhibition on display was Mother's Mother's Mother, which similarly "addresses the generational relationships that occur among women within familial contexts, schools of theory, and the contemporary Canadian Aboriginal art scene" and featured Face artist Maria Hupfield. Those worried about Edmonton's provincialism need to turn their withering gaze from the vital modernist work being made here and cast it at this niche market for art-based political worries.

Dana Claxton: Baby Boy Gotta Indian Horse, 2008, digital print, 60 x 48 inches

Terrance Houle: Urban Indian #6, 2007, digital print

`

Comment

1.

Snide

September 15, 2008, 8:54 AM

Seriously, shut up.

2.

Franklin

September 15, 2008, 8:57 AM

I'm officially having a good day.

3.

MC

September 15, 2008, 9:01 AM

There's no arguing: this is a terrible exhibition.

Looking forward to reading your review of the infinitely more interesting Durer show...

4.

Snide

September 15, 2008, 9:02 AM

Strangely enough, so am I, after realizing that it isn't genuine argument or criticism that any of you are interested in. Youtube videos and idle yapping work best...

5.

MC

September 15, 2008, 9:04 AM

Hee hee! Now THAT was a brilliant rejoinder, Snide! LOL!

6.

MC

September 15, 2008, 9:05 AM

Snide, how many time do you have to be told: none of us want anything that you have to offer. You are totally fucking useless...

7.

MC

September 15, 2008, 9:07 AM

The last line of your review is the key, I think, Franklin. It nails these poseurs precisely, hence Snide's hilarious huff... Ah, and the sun is shining,too... it IS a good day.

8.

Snide

September 15, 2008, 9:08 AM

It wasn't meant to be funny. I'm even apologetic for not catching on sooner. Somehow knowing that it's supposed to be all LOLs makes it less offensive.

9.

MC

September 15, 2008, 9:14 AM

You are unintentionally ridiculous, Snide, always have been, always will...

That's why we are all laughing at you, not with you... get it?

10.

Franklin

September 15, 2008, 9:15 AM

It's a pleasure to win the disdain of one of the worst sophists I've ever encountered online. Thanks for reading, Snide!

11.

MC

September 15, 2008, 9:28 AM

Here's a line relevant to your post, from, well, guess who...

"Art solves nothing, either for the artist himself or for those who receive his art."

12.

Jack

September 15, 2008, 12:05 PM

Yes, Franklin, do shut up. Never mind that this is your blog, and that anybody who doesn't like it can easily go somewhere more congenial. For a minority member, you're far too vocal. You wouldn't want to upset that O'Keefe woman further. She has enough issues on her plate.

13.

dude

September 15, 2008, 1:46 PM

Q This show opened with a panel on defining a contemporary aboriginal aesthetic. What came out of that?

A Well, you know, in the end we didn't address that specific question. But one of the most interesting things that came out of it is the idea that the investigation of identity is itself an aesthetic.


Er, seriously, shut up...

14.

Snide

September 15, 2008, 7:25 PM

"My threads include gesture, which I have always understood instinctively, color, which I find endlessly fascinating, and a kind of summarizing impulse that wants to capture things economically, sometimes humorously so. I have come to trust these things again. I realize that I could care about them forever. With that comes a sense of modernism as a practice, a living, physical practice that provides a path as wide as a tightrope but an infinitude of ways to move along it."

"Er, seriously, shut up..."

15.

dude

September 15, 2008, 8:11 PM

you nasty boom-basty, mcsnide. come on down when you know what you know about that which you know. sophiste sukka.

16.

dude

September 15, 2008, 8:13 PM

drinkin' n' bloggin' rulz

17.

MC

September 15, 2008, 8:30 PM

At the AGA, the investigation of hockey is also an aesthetic...

18.

sophie

September 16, 2008, 5:09 AM

Artblog.net= nobody cares

19.

Franklin

September 16, 2008, 5:32 AM

Wow, the wit of these latest rejoinders. This must be one fine exhibition to elicit such erudite defenses.

20.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 7:21 AM

It would be great if you would spell Dana Claxton's name right.

21.

Franklin

September 16, 2008, 7:31 AM

Yes, it would be. Thanks for the catch, J.

22.

MC

September 16, 2008, 7:31 AM

Nice catch J. Franklin got it right for the photo credit, but missed an 'l' in the name in the text...

23.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 7:36 AM

You were going to add something MC ?

24.

MC

September 16, 2008, 7:40 AM

Yes, Thanks J.
You made me look again at Mr. Houle's name, which is supposed to be spelled with an 'a'... beat you to that one, J!

25.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 7:44 AM

Oh so you were attempting close reading! Perhaps you could have a go at explaining this bit to us:

"Curatorial solemnity couples with fatuous objects with especially jarring dissonance here"

26.

Franklin

September 16, 2008, 7:46 AM

Nuts. Thanks for that, MC.

27.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 7:52 AM

Or this:

"Consequently the exhibition doesn't inspire reflection on the depiction of Aboriginals, as they call them up here, but the limits of the trickster aesthetic to accomplish anything except entree into the contemporary museum"

28.

MC

September 16, 2008, 8:12 AM

What's the problem, J? Do you need a link to look up the big words? Here you go. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance...

29.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 8:17 AM

C'mon little friendo - you're the one between the goalposts at the moment. What kind of a shot is "Curatorial solemnity couples with fatuous objects with especially jarring dissonance here"?

30.

MC

September 16, 2008, 8:25 AM

Honestly, J, I don't know what you mean when you ask "what kind of shot" it is.. what are you talking about? What don't you get? What part don't you understand?

31.

Franklin

September 16, 2008, 8:26 AM

I'm not sure what you need explained either, J.

32.

MC

September 16, 2008, 8:27 AM

Does anyone other than J. have a problem understanding the sentence? I mean, It would have been nice to avoid the double "with", I suppose, but it's not like the meaning is unclear, is it?

33.

MC

September 16, 2008, 8:28 AM

Here I am, between the goalposts, waiting... somebody pass J. the puck... and a stick... and some skates... I'm sure she's already wearing a helmet.

34.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 8:30 AM

Yes what IS with the double with? Also is Leah Sandals' National Post interview
with the curator actually part of the show? Because from the way Franklin is writing it sounds like it's part and parcel.

35.

MC

September 16, 2008, 8:34 AM

Seriously, J?

36.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 8:35 AM

In other words - this review doesn't read like the writer spent much time looking at the work in the exhibition.

37.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 8:38 AM

Which means, MC, as goalie you don't even have to worry about your helmut because Franklin is out there fanning all over the puck.

38.

j@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 8:39 AM

helmet

39.

dude

September 16, 2008, 8:53 AM

Here, I'll try...maybe I'm still drunk...

J, I believe Franklin is taking issue with a veneer of (curatorial) seriousness that doesn't jibe with the lot of silly art purportedly able to communicate something about an 'aesthetic of identity.' He must find it irksome, as do I, that the quality of gamesmanship is so low (it is just clever games after all for these people) and that its results are so derivative and old hat - read 1987. Edmonton seems to have a forcefield crafted from 'fatuous' and 'solemn' naivety (the best kind) preventing our most 'illumined' players from seeing the ball. If we're between the posts, my game is soccer and this is definitely not the Premiership. More like a mob of four-year-olds chasing the ball around without a clue as to how to steer it toward the goal. So adorable.

40.

Franklin

September 16, 2008, 8:55 AM

See, J? Dude is drunk and he did just fine with it.

Would someone please explain "fanning all over the puck" to us non-Canadians?

41.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 8:56 AM

You should have stayed in your cup.

42.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 8:59 AM

#41 was for dude.

As for fanning - haha! Franklin! Fanning on the puck is when a player fails to connect with the puck after a great big wind up.

43.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 9:01 AM

Isn't MC Canadian anymore? He could have told you that. But so could a lot of Americans.

44.

drunkdude

September 16, 2008, 9:04 AM

damn you beat me J.

'Fanning' on the puck means missing the puck altogether when the intention is to hit it, rather than look stupid. It is mainly caused by frozen fingers and toes combined with excessive amounts of hot chocolate and whiskey.

45.

Snide

September 16, 2008, 9:19 AM

I bet we'd see plenty more fanning if Franklin listed all the "vital modernist work" he found here in Edmonton...

46.

MC

September 16, 2008, 9:23 AM

Look forward to more zany hockey-themed gags at the AGA's upcoming feature exhibition, ARENA: The Art of Hockey. "The puck drops October 4, 2008"!

OK, j@sarahpalin, how about this:

"Curatorial solemnity and fatuous objects couple with especially jarring dissonance here..."

No more 'double with'. Now, all you have to do is look up the big words...

47.

Snide

September 16, 2008, 9:26 AM

I have to admit looking up "fatuous objects", but all that came up was this:

http://www.nesw.ca/studiosavant/uploaded_images/Customs-Agent-737911.jpg

48.

dude

September 16, 2008, 9:29 AM

Snide, here's a request you likely won't reply to, but humour me anyway...

Please list, in your opinion, the vital non-modernists working in Edmonton?

49.

MC

September 16, 2008, 9:30 AM

Listing all of what you ask would be a daunting task for anyone, Snide, but if Franklin stays on schedule, we'll get his thoughts on the work of Peter Hide at the Royal Alberta Museum.
What do you think about the fact that it will be the first and only published piece on the exhibition, Snide? Do you think Peter Hide @ The RAM exhibits some "vital modernist work", or is it merely "blogworthy, at best", in your (admittedly layman's) opinion?

50.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 9:37 AM

re #47:

Must you throw more sprinkles on your discombob? You got rid of the double 'with' only to add 'especially'?

Again, is the interview with the curator a part of the exhibition?

51.

Franklin

September 16, 2008, 9:39 AM

MC, I have stolen that edit.

Snide, you get to slag on MC's work when I get to see some of yours.

52.

MC

September 16, 2008, 9:39 AM

Nice, Snide. Your #47 is the very definition of 'fatuous', but not quite in the way you intended.

I must scold you, however, on removing the image from its context. Tsk tsk...

53.

MC

September 16, 2008, 9:42 AM

You're hopeless, J. Seriously, fucking learn to read before you do this sort of shit. It's embarrassing. At least Snide has the good sense to hide her real identity...

54.

dude

September 16, 2008, 9:46 AM

Snide, please see #48.

55.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 9:46 AM

Shoot - I meant Re #46 in my last comment.

But now that the issue of context has been brought up - let's think about it. Is Franklin reviewing the work or it's press?

56.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 9:51 AM

I love the way you guys incorporate criticism BTW:)!

57.

Chris Rywalt

September 16, 2008, 9:52 AM

I'm not Canadian and don't watch or like hockey, but even I could figure out what "fanning the puck" means. Come on, Franklin! More mistakes like that and we'll have to dismiss everything you've ever written!

Still, always wear a Helmut.

58.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 10:00 AM

helmut was already noted.

MC is doing close reading today and it's having an impact on Franklin's writing - actually they're making it up togather as they go along.

So MC, help us out with that other bit that's kind of peculiar:

"Consequently the exhibition doesn't inspire reflection on the depiction of Aboriginals, as they call them up here, but the limits of the trickster aesthetic to accomplish anything except entree into the contemporary museum."

59.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 10:03 AM

togather whoooam I ever a typo queen!

60.

MC

September 16, 2008, 10:05 AM

Did my suggested edit substantially change the meaning of the sentence for you, J? Do you comprehend its meaning yet? Do you recognize that the word 'especially' was in the original, yet?

"So MC, help us out..."

There's no 'us', J, there's just you. Heaven helps those who help themselves...

61.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 10:08 AM

You're still calling a three way a couple no?

62.

MC

September 16, 2008, 10:09 AM

"Consequently, the exhibition doesn't inspire reflection on the depiction of Aboriginals (as they call them up here), but rather the limited capacity of the trickster aesthetic to accomplish anything except entree into the contemporary museum."

Better, or worse?

63.

MC

September 16, 2008, 10:12 AM

lol...

'Couple' as a verb, J.

I'd suggest Franklin change it to 'combine', but then J. will think he's taking about a Rauschenberg...

64.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 10:16 AM

Re:

"Consequently, the exhibition doesn't inspire reflection on the depiction of Aboriginals (as they call them up here), but rather the limited capacity of the trickster aesthetic to accomplish anything except entree into the contemporary museum."

Better, or worse?



Consequently - As a consequence of what?

65.

MC

September 16, 2008, 10:22 AM

Ugh.

As a consequence of everything he mentioned in the first fucking paragraph you unbelievable dolt...

Your free remedial reading lesson is over. Go back to grade school.

66.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 10:24 AM

Everything - includimg the National Post interview?

67.

J@simpleposie

September 16, 2008, 10:52 AM

That is to ask- Everything - including the National Post interview?

It'd be great if you could clear that up - because it really does read like a critique of a commingled external context rather than of the work itself.

How do you arrive at the conclusion the objects in the show are fatuous? How many works were in the show?

Was all the work in the exhibition photographic? I see for example that the one Claxton photo you have shown here is of a rather large scale - How big is the Houle you pictured? Are the works shown in proximity to historical depictions of Indians in the AGA?

68.

Snide

September 16, 2008, 11:00 AM

Dude, I've already talked about some local artists that I feel are vital to our community. Brennan, Cantine, Munson, and (formerly of Edmonton) Baker are a few of the individuals who consistently make art that excites and impresses me.

My question mostly had to do with what I assume is the very particular circle that Franklin is referring to. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's for him to say. I'm not going to take the narrow ended definition of modernism that I think he's talking about. Argue with me if you like, but I think that most art being made in our community falls under the banner of modernism in one way or another.

MC, I've said that Hide's work doesn't do much for me, but I'm not sure why it would receive no coverage, as he's definitely considered a senior artist in our community. Other than the obvious minimal arts coverage in general, what are you thoughts on this seeming disinterest?

69.

Chris Rywalt

September 16, 2008, 12:11 PM

I didn't mention Helmut to point out the typo, J, just to make a joke. I wanted to find gay German porn I could link to -- for some reason the very name Helmut makes me think of gay German porn -- but then some of the Google hits were just too scary, so when Helmut Newton popped up, I went with that.

Optimally the image would've been of the guy in bondage gear from the Late Late Show sitting on someone's head.

70.

MC

September 16, 2008, 12:55 PM

"My question mostly had to do with what I assume is the very particular circle that Franklin is referring to..."

Franklin refers to "vital modernist work", not a "circle" of people... You seem to have some "particular" individuals in mind though, Snide, so why don't you name who you're thinking of, and maybe Franklin can say if he's seen their work or not...

Brennan and Cantine have both personally been by Common Sense, and both had very positive words... but I have a hunch they're not part of the "very particular circle" Snide has in mind... but, why not, I wonder?...

71.

setar

September 16, 2008, 2:35 PM

any comments or critiques on the show this weekend at dorsch gallery?

72.

dude

September 16, 2008, 4:45 PM

re 68

Thank you Snide for the reply. Your list is slim but I got a feel for what you like I guess. I'll take Cantine, Brennan on paper and a some of his sculpture, Baker is just kinda thin for me, quite repetitive and not that adventurous really...think material here...and it limits his work. Now for Munson...I am not familiar with much of his work but that piece at the AGA is abysmal and so so so weak. I got to thinking that much of the flimsy thought typified by the fetishism doled out by U of A printmaking has rotted these kids brains. I think you're onto something with your closet modernist label...

That Edmonton Explored show was so lame and so ugly. Like a f*cking junior high hallway. But maybe better I guess, than the sterility of the operating theatre dubbed Face the Nation. Why do we ask so little of art like this? Aesthetics of Identity...really? Isn't that just narcissism? Are we this shallow and facile? Doesn't anyone see how tenuous all of this, to borrow a phrase, horseshit is?

73.

MC

September 16, 2008, 4:55 PM

Of course, Dude. It's actually obvious to most people, which is one of the reasons most people pay so little attention to what passes for art in contemporary museums and galleries...

74.

blah

September 16, 2008, 6:14 PM

this is no longer a miami based art-blog. i see....

75.

Jack

September 16, 2008, 7:00 PM

Franklin left Florida some time ago, though a few "regulars" remain in Miami, including me. I, however, got off the Wynwood merry-go-round a while back, since it had become a case of diminishing returns, and it wasn't exactly great to begin with. I didn't hear about the new Dorsch Gallery show till it was mentioned here, but maybe I'll drop by for closing night and post some comment or other. Or not.

76.

dude

September 16, 2008, 7:40 PM

ya sorry, Blah. i'll crawl back in my hole soon enough.

77.

Snide

September 16, 2008, 8:31 PM

If specific works or curatorial themes don't appeal to you, then I guess that's just how it goes. But it is the nastiness of your responses that really gets under my skin. As someone mentioned in another context, that's what reeks of an agenda more than anything else. There's no question that I've slagged some of your work and writing, but for the most part that's a knee-jerk reaction against the sky-is-falling-attitude that some of you seem to hold. I might be disinterested in MC's sculptures and Franklin's paintings, but I don't resent your means and reasons for making art-- like you seem to do to others. These past couple of posts have manifested this bad will; exaggerated indignation at a remark whose context you don't know; dismissive criticism of an exhibition without bothering to consider much of its content.

I certainly need to take some of my own advice. Telling anyone to shut up and bringing up their own shortcomings doesn't help much of anything. Legitimate criticism shouldn't be confused with talking shit. So quoting from Franklin yet again:

"Dialogue requires communication with actual persons who may not agree with you, not making straw men [whether we name them or not] the subject of cheap brickbats".

78.

Noah

September 16, 2008, 8:44 PM

Rather than guessing who you refers to, Franklin, I'd be interested in knowing whose work you enjoyed.

79.

Noah

September 16, 2008, 8:47 PM

Make that "refer"

80.

ahab

September 16, 2008, 8:58 PM

My willingness to critically consider art has nothing to do with anybody's "means and reasons for making art". In fact, has nothing to do with anybody else at all. Except in the case where someone plausibly demonstrates an omission or fault in my critique, it's only my own take on the art that matters. Only the art.

I kinda liked the image of the warpainted befeathered businessman standing next to his '68 Mustang, in a sentimental, punny sort of way; but it was a lousy photo, displayed to poor effect, in a godawful exhibit.

People regularly deserve criticism and I won't dictate anyone else's personal threshold for it, but I don't confuse the artist with the art. When Houle and Blondeau make themselves the subject then they must not conflate criticism about the art with criticism of their persons. And neither should snide bloggers.

81.

ahab

September 16, 2008, 9:03 PM

Or, in the case of writing, only the writing. Not the writer, only the writing.

82.

Snide

September 16, 2008, 9:13 PM

You did a better job of addressing specific art, and your personal take on it, than Franklin did in the entire review. He chose instead to jump into a generalized tirade against political art and curatorial practice. See the difference?

And regarding the personal politics of criticism, I do find a distracting bias in this review. We need only look at its concluding sentence. Withering gazes are generally personal, no matter who's throwing them about.

83.

Chris Rywalt

September 17, 2008, 6:04 AM

I think there's definitely a side to curatorial criticism where one asks, is this really where people should be spending their resources? In a very real sense, in order to show these clearly dopey photographs exploring not much of anything under the cloak of making some comment about indigenous Americans or whatever, someone had to spend money and time and energy which could have been spent on something better. That investment isn't deserving of criticism? Of course it is! Of course we can say, hey, there's a lot of great, interesting, worthwhile work being done in Edmonton. Why then did you put up this crap?

Is that a subjective argument? Of course it is! Criticism isn't useful if it isn't subjective. As Roger Ebert just wrote in his online journal, "One thing I try to do is provide an accurate account of what you will see, and how I feel about it. I cannot speak for you. Any worthwhile review is subjective. If we completely disagree, my words might nevertheless be useful or provocative. If you disagree with what I write, be my guest."

Part of what ones sees in an art exhibit is the curating. Maybe you don't literally see it, but it's there in the choices of the artwork and its display. And that's something to criticize, too.

84.

Franklin

September 17, 2008, 6:42 AM

Snide, you don't only need to take your own advice, although that would be a fine start - you need to adopt a single standard for argument and apply it to yourself and to others whether they agree with you or not. If spending two and a half weeks in Edmonton, seeing the museums and galleries and hanging out with the artists, means I know "nothing" - your word - about the Edmonton art scene, and am therefore unqualified to respond to MCO's mean-spirited, irresponsible whack at Greenberg and some unnamed Edmontonian fans of his work because I don't know the "context" - this is basically crap and we're not going to proceed into a productive conversation from it. If I have to prove something that you're allowed to assume, then I'm not going to take you up on a debate. If you characterize all counterarguments as "defensiveness" and "hissy fits" and like terms, then there's no incentive to treat you as a responsible participant in a conversation. I could go on, but you get my point.

As for this review, I'm trying a new format here at Artblog.net in which I review something in a paragraph or two, five days a week. The brevity makes it possible to get content up each weekday, but it also means that I have to get to the point and support it in a pretty tight space. And the main problem with this exhibition is not the formal failure of the work - conceptual statements like this are typically not designed to succeed formally in the first place - but that the premise of the exercise is generating some unintentionally ridiculous and dated outcomes. If I found something to like I would have said so, and spared it from my description of this aggregate failure. I did not.

I want to add too that "actual persons" means individual, named people. Avoiding names, whether it's MCO's loathed vocal minority or your real identity, encourages irresponsible arguments. It's up to people who indulge themselves accordingly to strive for reasonableness.

85.

MC

September 17, 2008, 7:35 AM

Snide, the only shortcomings you've exposed here have been your own... kinda like in real life, except for here, you're anonymous... phew!

86.

MC

September 17, 2008, 8:23 AM

The works in this show were a much more offensive exploitation of the 'exoticism of the Indian' than the portraits in the Nicholas de Grandmaison show. The pastel drawings from that show depicted real people, whereas Face the Nation's curator satisfies herself with presenting these supposedly more 'authentic' hackneyed cliches. It's cringeworthy, at best.

87.

Snide

September 17, 2008, 12:23 PM

Maybe you're not the best person to talk about cultural (in)sensitivity, MC... Just saying!

Chris, who said anything about criticism not being inherently subjective? Or that curatorial approach was off-limits? It just seems like the details of the work and theme were secondary in the review, plugged in merely to make a point that seems as tired out around here as identity politics seems to Franklin.

And the same goes for the response to O'Keefe. Sure she may have thrown up an elbow or two at CG, but that's pretty secondary to what seems to be her focus-- local attitudes. Do you think that you know enough about Whitelaw's project or argument (and their reception) to understand this? Or any of the other examples I gave? None of your comments give any evidence that you do.

88.

MC

September 17, 2008, 2:44 PM

"Sure she may have thrown up an elbow or two at CG, but that's pretty secondary to what seems to be her focus-- local attitudes. Do you think that you know enough about Whitelaw's project or argument (and their reception) to understand this?"

What 'local attitudes' are 'her focus'? The correlation between dinner guests and their cultural relevance? The non-existent attitude that Greenberg is the end point of art, or whatever it was she was talking about? And what does this have to do with Whitelaw's "project or argument". What was her argument, anyway?

(And, what does this have to do with Face the Nation? If you feel like answering any of these questions, Snide, maybe do it over on the "Sky-high ego" thread...)

89.

Chris Rywalt

September 17, 2008, 3:17 PM

Personally I can't say much about Whitelaw or any of that stuff because I've never even been near Edmonton. I can only knock around whatever shows up here at Franklin's.

But anyway, you wrote, Snide:

These past couple of posts have manifested...dismissive criticism of an exhibition without bothering to consider much of its content.

Which is why I said the curatorial setting is something one can criticize aside from content. In this case the works look like they were content-free anyhow. Maybe not intent free, which is what substitutes for content all too often these days. Just because the artist intends a photo of a Native American wearing sweatpants on a horse to cause me to think about the modern Native American and his relation to his culture doesn't mean that I will or that that's the content of the photo.

I mean, I'd really like my paintings to cause people to give me huge sums of money. Hasn't happened yet, despite my best intentions. Apparently their content doesn't warrant it.

90.

J@simpleposie

September 18, 2008, 5:03 AM

Bogus Chris and you know it.

91.

Chris Rywalt

September 18, 2008, 6:11 AM

Which part is bogus? Maybe the last bit about my paintings and their intent.

92.

J@simpleposie

September 18, 2008, 7:01 AM

Re:Which is why I said the curatorial setting is something one can criticize aside from content.

Is an after the fact interview with the curator in the newspaper the curatorial setting of the exhibition?

Re:In this case the works look like they were content-free anyhow.

I say: Explain pleaze.

Maybe not intent free, which is what substitutes for content all too often these days.

I say: Prove or at least somehow develop this thesis.

Re: Just because the artist intends a photo of a Native American wearing sweatpants on a horse to cause me to think about the modern Native American and his relation to his culture doesn't mean that I will or that that's the content of the photo.

I say: So take a look at the pics Franklin provided and give us a formal analysis of their content. What are they pictures of? Take a stab at what they make you think about... take a stab at distinguishing the intent from the content.

93.

MC

September 18, 2008, 7:05 AM

J, why don't you take a stab...

94.

Chris Rywalt

September 18, 2008, 7:21 AM

Is an after the fact interview with the curator in the newspaper the curatorial setting of the exhibition?

No, but it is perfectly acceptable fodder for analysis of the curator's motives and intelligence (or lack thereof).

Re:In this case the works look like they were content-free anyhow.

I say: Explain pleaze.


Oh, be serious. These photos don't look content-free to you? What are we to make of a photo of someone in an Indian outfit shopping in the supermarket? It's so hopelessly superficial as to contain nearly nothing. Not to mention aesthetically uninteresting if not actually ugly. It is, in fact, stupid. A total waste of all the materials of which it's made, and probably also of all the technology and energy involved in its manufacture. I'd almost go so far as saying that the artist probably isn't worth the carbon they're made of, let alone the oxygen it takes to keep them going.

Maybe not intent free, which is what substitutes for content all too often these days.

I say: Prove or at least somehow develop this thesis.


Given that this is a comment on someone else's blog, I can't develop it too strongly. You can go read my reviews, if you like, and get a sense of how much content-free crap I've looked at. If you want essays on how intent has replaced content, well, read most of what Franklin's written on this site.

I say: So take a look at the pics Franklin provided and give us a formal analysis of their content. What are they pictures of? Take a stab at what they make you think about... take a stab at distinguishing the intent from the content.

I don't even know what you're asking. I can't distinguish the intent from the content because, as I wrote, there is very nearly no content. Unless you mean the literal content, as in, "This is a photo of a boy on a horse, which contains a boy and a horse." Or maybe we should talk about more literal content, as in "This is pigments squirted by machine onto paper coated with plastic."

As for what they make me think about, they make me think about waste. Wasted lives spent making stupid crap, wasted lives spent putting that crap up on a wall, wasted electricity running lightbulbs to illuminate said crap. They make me think how you can give some people everything in the fucking world and they throw it away on shallow worthless pointless wandering in masturbatory circles pretending they're actually using that flan between their ears.

That's what they make me think about. Is that their intent?

95.

Franklin

September 18, 2008, 7:23 AM

Hey - they made me think the exact same thing. That's what I call a consensus.

96.

Franklin

September 18, 2008, 7:27 AM

I mean, exact right down to the flan.

97.

Chris Rywalt

September 18, 2008, 7:32 AM

"A great mind thinks alike."

98.

Jack

September 18, 2008, 7:39 AM

Chris, I think you should explain "think," and then you should explain "about." When and if you manage that, of course, additional explanations will be required.

99.

Chris Rywalt

September 18, 2008, 7:47 AM

Could you please explain the space between the words "think" and "about" in the phrase "think about"?

100.

MC

September 18, 2008, 7:53 AM

If you guys think you're funny, well.... PROVE IT!

101.

Jack

September 18, 2008, 7:53 AM

That's a tough one, Chris. I may need expert help for that. I'll try to get a hold of Bill Clinton and get back to you.

102.

J@simpleposie

September 18, 2008, 8:09 AM

Re: No, but it is perfectly acceptable fodder for analysis of the curator's motives and intelligence (or lack thereof).

I ask you: Would Greenberg say that? Is that the New Modernist way of looking at art?



Re: Oh, be serious. These photos don't look content-free to you? What are we to make of a photo of someone in an Indian outfit shopping in the supermarket? It's so hopelessly superficial as to contain nearly nothing. Not to mention aesthetically uninteresting if not actually ugly. It is, in fact, stupid. A total waste of all the materials of which it's made, and probably also of all the technology and energy involved in its manufacture. I'd almost go so far as saying that the artist probably isn't worth the carbon they're made of, let alone the oxygen it takes to keep them going.

I say: I think you may later regret the amount of thought you put into that answer.

Re: I don't even know what you're asking. I can't distinguish the intent from the content because, as I wrote, there is very nearly no content. Unless you mean the literal content, as in, "This is a photo of a boy on a horse, which contains a boy and a horse." Or maybe we should talk about more literal content, as in "This is pigments squirted by machine onto paper coated with plastic."

As for what they make me think about, they make me think about waste. Wasted lives spent making stupid crap, wasted lives spent putting that crap up on a wall, wasted electricity running lightbulbs to illuminate said crap. They make me think how you can give some people everything in the fucking world and they throw it away on shallow worthless pointless wandering in masturbatory circles pretending they're actually using that flan between their ears.

That's what they make me think about. Is that their intent?

I say: You should eat something.

103.

Chris Rywalt

September 18, 2008, 8:12 AM

I ask you: Would Greenberg say that? Is that the New Modernist way of looking at art?

When there's no art to actually look at, you might as well.

I say: I think you may later regret the amount of thought you put into that answer.

Really? I can't even imagine how.

I say: You should eat something.

Since you mention it, I could go for some custard.

104.

MC

September 18, 2008, 8:16 AM

I say: I think you may later regret the amount of thought you put into that answer.

Really? I can't even imagine how.


Another example of waste, Chris... you could have used that neurochemical energy to imagine a more pleasant thought instead...

105.

J@simpleposie

September 18, 2008, 8:17 AM

Re: When there's no art to actually look at, you might as well.

Might as well what?

106.

Chris Rywalt

September 18, 2008, 8:17 AM

Might as well pick on the curator.

107.

J@simpleposie

September 18, 2008, 8:22 AM

C'mon - you guys all know your Greenberg off by heart. How much does he say external context should come to bear on a critical analysis of a work of art?

108.

Chris Rywalt

September 18, 2008, 8:32 AM

I've said before -- maybe you weren't here -- I've never read Greenberg. Rosenberg, yes. Greenberg, not yet.

That said, I'd guess he says external context should be kept to a minimum. That's what I'd say, that's for sure.

But Franklin didn't review the art based on its context, and neither did I. He looked at the art, thought it sucked, said so, and then went on to ask why anyone bothered in the first place. I'm boiling it down to essentials, of course. He didn't say the art sucked because the curator is an idiot. He said the sucky art was on display because the curator is an idiot. Subtle but important difference.

109.

J@simpleposie

September 18, 2008, 8:34 AM

Franklin wrote:

Terrance Houle photographs himself in robe and feathered headdress going through his day as a modern suburban cubicle monkey. Dana Claxton photographs a man in native facepaint and pigtails next to a convertable Mustang. Is it 1993, when the purveyors of identity politics once roamed the prairies of art in mighty herds? No, it's Face the Nation, kicking it old school as it promises to "address issues of history, representation and identity" and "utilize strategies of imitation" and "critique the authority of history." Curatorial solemnity and fatuous objects couple with especially jarring dissonance here, as the curator wonders publicly whether she's too white to put this show together and Lori Blondeau presents herself on the satirized cover of a women's magazine as Cosmosquaw.

110.

Chris Rywalt

September 18, 2008, 8:37 AM

"Fatuous objects" equals "sucky art." "Curatorial solemnity" equals "idiot curator."

I can't help it if you can't read, J.

111.

MC

September 18, 2008, 8:39 AM

I'll never understand what you people think you accomplish by quoting some text (that we could all read perfectly well ourselves in the first place) without making any point of your own whatsoever, as if the twisted fantasy that only you are going on about was visible to anyone else, who need only look at your marvelous 'cut'n'paste' job to be convinced.

You're an idiot, J.

112.

J@simpleposie

September 18, 2008, 8:42 AM

Was the curator in the gallery wondering aloud about her whiteness when Franklin and his entourage made their tour - or wasn't it something she said in response to a question in a newspaper article?

113.

J@simpleposie

September 18, 2008, 8:44 AM

How come it get's play in the same paragraph that attempts a meagre description of the works in the show.

114.

Jack

September 18, 2008, 8:45 AM

There's an obvious pattern here (not that it hasn't been evident previously). I would advise against encouraging it, as that will only increase needless suffering.

A word to the wise.

115.

Chris Rywalt

September 18, 2008, 8:47 AM

Sigh. It's like trying to bounce a ball off a pillow.

116.

J@simpleposie

September 18, 2008, 8:47 AM

Don't worry Jack, I'm immune to MC's puerile insults.

117.

Franklin

September 18, 2008, 8:49 AM

That's cool, J. I'm immune to your puerile questions.

118.

MC

September 18, 2008, 8:51 AM

It wasn't meant as an insult, so much as a diagnosis, J... What was Crowston talking about in the interview? The exhibition that she curated!

"But, but, but... what does THAT have to do with anything?", sputtered the clown...

Enough, already.

119.

J@simpleposie

September 18, 2008, 8:51 AM

Oh good your here Franklin, maybe you'd be good enough to help Chris out with his Greenberg.

120.

Franklin

September 18, 2008, 9:03 AM

Not really. I don't check my responses against Greenberg. I check them against perfect honesty.

121.

Jack

September 18, 2008, 9:08 AM

OK, I tried. I suppose I should just stay out of this sort of thing, but I figured if Al Gore could get a Nobel Peace Prize, I should at least be able to get nominated...

122.

J@simpleposie

September 18, 2008, 9:08 AM

Uh,Huh.

123.

Snide

September 18, 2008, 10:29 AM

"[P]erfect honesty"-- I seriously have to give you guys some credit for all of the catchphrases you whip up around here!

"[C]ontent-free" is a tricky one though. Am I justified in feeling that way about the images from the latest NESW exhibition? Or how about the long-winded justification that accompanies them? I realize that we've all different sets of eyes and thoughts, but maybe it's interesting that what I see inspires boredom rather than negativity.

124.

MC

September 18, 2008, 10:52 AM

"...the latest NESW exhibition..."

You mean the Peter Hide@ the RAM show? That's the North Edmonton Sculpture Workshop's latest production. What "images" are you talking about, where did you see them, and what is the alleged "long-winded justification that accompanies them"?

125.

Snide

September 18, 2008, 10:56 AM

My apologies for mistaking NESW and Common Sense as one and the same thing.

126.

MC

September 18, 2008, 11:01 AM

Why didn't you just say "Franklin's show", then?

127.

MC

September 18, 2008, 11:02 AM

Of course, you've never been to Common Sense, so you've never seen Franklin's show, but don't let ignorance stop you now.
Do go on...

128.

Snide

September 18, 2008, 11:39 AM

I've actually been to Common Sense-- though maybe you hadn't named it then yet. And no, I haven't seen them in person. But the images and statement were cause enough for disinterest. I'm not trying to be petty or rude, they just don't look like anything worth caring about to me. Decorative was what came to mind.

129.

John

September 18, 2008, 12:05 PM

Ah yes, decorative is the greatest sin. And Matisse thegreatest sinner of all time, er, recent time.

130.

Snide

September 18, 2008, 12:27 PM

Decorative has its place when done well or interestingly enough. Kind of like political art. In any event, Franklin is no Matisse, of course.

131.

Jack

September 18, 2008, 12:34 PM

John, don't waste your time so. It is both futile and, in a way, demeaning. George is one thing, at least if you're so inclined, but this is a case of no redeeming value whatever. Leave black holes to the astronomy people.

132.

Chris Rywalt

September 18, 2008, 1:52 PM

Snide sez:
Am I justified in feeling that way about the images from the latest NESW exhibition? Or how about the long-winded justification that accompanies them?

You can dislike Franklin's work, or find it uninteresting. No problem there. You can't say it's content-free, though, because at the very least his drawings and paintings contain his perceptions, his interpretations, in paint, of what he was feeling and thinking at the time they were made. Presumably these were related to the subject at hand, whether that was a model, a still-life, or the various things abstract painters work on when they work on a painting.

I see absolutely none of that in those Face the Nation photos, and I'm guessing Franklin didn't, either. I've seen enough similar work here in New York to know exactly how he felt walking through the show, flan and all. Those photos clearly all began as ideas, and as we've discussed here ad infinitum, ideas are philosophy, not art. Houle would've been better off writing an essay on the difference between the mainstream perception and daily reality of Native Americans (or Aborigines or Amerinds or Indians or whatever we're supposed to call them these days) in the modern world than taking those dumb-ass snapshots. But that would've required a lot more dedication, research and, dare I say it, intelligence. So Polaroids it is!

133.

Chris Rywalt

September 18, 2008, 1:54 PM

As far as the long-winded justification, well, I don't remember reading it, but even artists I like seem to get saddled (or saddle themselves) with those. Part of playing the game, I guess. If I'd been a position to give advice, I'd probably have recommended skipping any kind of essay, but no one asked and I don't think they should have.

134.

J@simpleposie

September 18, 2008, 2:32 PM

Snide's impression of Franklin's work was that it was decorative. No one but you, Chris, has said anything about content free art today. You're so far off the mark it's turning hysterical.

135.

J@simpleposie

September 18, 2008, 2:35 PM

But the other day Franklin did say "it's hard to say anything about a giant purple painting except "hurray."

136.

Chris Rywalt

September 18, 2008, 2:41 PM

J, your inability to read simple English is getting out of hand. I really thought you were smarter than this.

Snide sez:
"[C]ontent-free" is a tricky one though. Am I justified in feeling that way about the images from the latest NESW exhibition?

Later, Snide clears up their confusion between NESW and Common Sense, and admits they mean Franklin's show. So Snide is saying Franklin's show is content-free and decorative.

137.

Chris Rywalt

September 18, 2008, 2:41 PM

Next up: I explain what the meaning of "is" is. Also, "the."

138.

J@simpleposie

September 18, 2008, 2:50 PM

I read what Snide wrote and "content free" is all yours from way back in the thread. If the images Franklin posted of the show were so free of content - how come they're so troublesome to you?

139.

Chris Rywalt

September 18, 2008, 3:01 PM

I get it. This is some kind of Deep Argument, isn't it, where you circle around the outside tossing in intellectual hand grenades while I tie myself into knots trying to throw myself on all of them.

The images aren't troubling. They're dumb. That people waste time on them annoys me. I like to vent my annoyance. My psychiatrist says it's good for me.

140.

J@simpleposie

September 18, 2008, 3:05 PM

I got that you're venting.

141.

Snide

September 18, 2008, 4:22 PM

"You can dislike Franklin's work, or find it uninteresting. No problem there. You can't say it's content-free, though, because at the very least his drawings and paintings contain his perceptions, his interpretations, in paint, of what he was feeling and thinking at the time they were made. Presumably these were related to the subject at hand, whether that was a model, a still-life, or the various things abstract painters work on when they work on a painting"

Chris, I guess I don't see how you make the claim that these things aren't present in the conceptual work that this review objects to.

As an aside, I think that Franklin's comics are much more engaging than some of the straightforward paintings that I've seen of his. Probably because there's an explicit thoughtfulness to them. I don't really care to argue about their status as this genre or that-- they're far better art. I hope some of them were in the show!

142.

Franklin

September 18, 2008, 7:11 PM

There's an easy way to find out.

Notice how the thread has turned to a discussion about my work instead of the work in the original post? Postmodernism is all tactics.

143.

Snide

September 18, 2008, 10:11 PM

There's nothing but politics, Franklin. Your review doesn't really use very convincing tactics, but they're tactics intended to advance your agenda nonetheless.

144.

Chris Rywalt

September 19, 2008, 6:47 AM

Snide sez:
Chris, I guess I don't see how you make the claim that these things aren't present in the conceptual work that this review objects to.

Easy. Take away the title of the show and the explanatory text. Take away the names of the artists and whatever the text says about them. View the objects as objects. It becomes clear that the objects have no meaning without all that supporting text. They have no aesthetic quality. They transmit no information or feeling. They are content-free.

Now do the same with Franklin's work. Hey, looky there, the work is pretty much the same without all the supporting text! In fact, the text doesn't support the work at all. It may, in fact, detract from it. The work stands on its own.

I'm not going to say I think Franklin's work is great and should be put up next to Matisse or Leonardo or anything. But it succeeds or fails visually, not verbally. The same can't be said of the Face the Nation works: They're not meant to be looked at, they're meant to be read about.

145.

J@simpleposie

September 19, 2008, 7:53 AM

"View the objects as objects. It becomes clear that the objects have no meaning without all that supporting text. They have no aesthetic quality. They transmit no information or feeling. They are content-free."

Yes, my point exactly. View the objects as objects and keep your criticism to the exhibition - not it's press.

Your assertions are getting funny (haha!) Chris. But even more hilarious is the idea of comparing the works in Face the Nation to those of Franklin. Snide has already made the point that Franklin's show was also accompanied by a rather long written press release. I challenge you to put some Franklin's and FTN jpegs side by side and compare them for "content" or lack there of. Too funny.

146.

Franklin

September 19, 2008, 8:25 AM

There's nothing but politics.

Yes, I realize that is the postmodernist premise. Thales thought everything was water. That didn't pan out so well either.

Perfect honesty, by the way, is not a catchphrase. It's a way of life. The fundamental insight of nonfiction is that it is difficult to write something completely true. So one comes as close as one can, picking better words, better phrasing, ripping out the little falsehoods and inadequate truths from one's prose like weeds. As I've said before, anyone who is not humbling himself to the demands of his discipline is littering.

147.

Franklin

September 19, 2008, 8:43 AM

Yes, my point exactly. View the objects as objects and keep your criticism to the exhibition - not it's press.

If I had done that, J, you and yours would instead be bitching at me about not appreciating the context of the exhibition. The irony is that this is coming form someone who claims to find value in Derrida, but is supposedly confused by the phrasing of the first sentence in the second paragraph of the above post. Which demonstrates to me the level of bullshit I'm dealing with around here.

Would anyone like to attempt an actual defense of the work in Face the Nation? Because pointing out the inadequacies of my work does not accomplish that.

148.

Snide

September 19, 2008, 8:56 AM

"It becomes clear that the objects have no meaning without all that supporting text. They have no aesthetic quality. They transmit no information or feeling. They are content-free"

Chris, I think you're underestimating most audiences and not giving the work much of a chance to stand on its own. While "aesthetics of identity" might not be the first things that pops into most people's mind, I think most people would get the general drift of most of this work. In terms of feeling, that's a tough one to generalize as well. Even if you want to say that these are silly, and I know that Claxton does have a tendency to be playful, that's still an emotional response. Aesthetic quality probably isn't something we want to get into again, and I'm not all that taken by Houle's style myself, but I wouldn't be nearly as dismissive as you about it having no visual worth.

Franklin,

It's hardly an assessment that is uniquely associated with POMO. But keep it up with the pigeonholing anyways, it's perfectly ignorant.

149.

Jack

September 19, 2008, 9:21 AM

Franklin, your capacity for tolerating visitors who persist in repeatedly defecating all over your own house continues to amaze me. I suppose it may be admirable from a Zen perspective, not that I would know, but it's hardly likely to sit well with other, toilet-trained visitors who object to smelling or stepping in shit.

150.

Franklin

September 19, 2008, 9:22 AM

I didn't say it was uniquely associated with pomo. Way to stay classy, Snide.

Chris, content is just recognizable form. I understand the sentiment behind calling them "content-free" but you now see what a can of worms that opens. The distinction between content and intention, though, is worth noting, and very much an aspect of what's going on in FtN. I'm going to steal that for a future post.

151.

MC

September 19, 2008, 9:23 AM

"I've actually been to Common Sense-- though maybe you hadn't named it then yet..."

No, THAT is perfect ignorance!... You've been to the gallery, before we opened it? You mean, like, when it was a bumper storage room for Zoom Auto, or back when it was the SASCO small appliance repair shop?

So, did you look at the building from across the street, or something? See, Snide, the TRUTH is you haven't "actually been to Common Sense".

Perfect Ignorance, or Perfect Dishonesty?... whatever.

152.

Snide

September 19, 2008, 10:34 AM

Well, you asked if anyone would...

http://www.vueweekly.com/article.php?id=8885

MC, I said maybe it wasn't called that yet. For some reason, I thought you christened it Common Sense after already having put on a show or two-- but maybe I'm wrong! But I have been there since you started putting work up.

153.

J@simpleposie

September 19, 2008, 10:43 AM

Strawman #1: If I had done that, J, you and yours would instead be bitching at me about not appreciating the context of the exhibition.

Strawman #: The irony is that this is coming from someone who claims to find value in Derrida...

Straw man #3: but is supposedly confused by the phrasing of the first sentence in the second paragraph of the above post.


Franklin, you know and understand "perfectly" well my problem with the second paragraph of your "review" and it's not a phrasing issue. Though you have expressed your complete aversion to Face the Nation, you've not reviewed the show. Not even in a good piss crotchety Donald Judd shotgun kind of way. Nobody's art deserves that little respect. That is the point being made.

Re: Would anyone like to attempt an actual defense of the work in Face the Nation?

Maybe call up someone who can actually see the show like someone in Edmonton?


PS Quit dumping on Thales. The world has never stopped being made of water.

154.

Franklin

September 19, 2008, 10:53 AM

Franklin, you know and understand "perfectly" well my problem with the second paragraph of your "review" and it's not a phrasing issue.

But instead of making a point, you began at #34 peppering me with questions in your annoyingly precious j@myquestionsarevalid manner and we didn't get anywhere. Let that be a lesson to you. For the record, I saw the show. Three witnesses were in attendance. If the work was worth writing about in itself, I would have done so.

155.

J@simpleposie

September 19, 2008, 11:11 AM

Ah yes, #34 in which I wrote

"Yes what IS with the double with? Also is Leah Sandals' National Post interview with the curator actually part of the show? Because from the way Franklin is writing it sounds like it's part and parcel."

Well, You did manage to fix the weird structure of your sentence because of that first one didn't you. You still haven't attributed the curator's remarks to their source; I don't know if that is valid journalistic practise or not. At any rate, situated as it is in the "descriptive" part of your post, it reads as one event. It's presence there lends something less than credence to your review and impressed this reader that you didn't spend much time with the works themselves.

And now forward to #154 in which you announce:

"If the work was worth writing about in itself, I would have done so."

Now that's precious. Choice really.

156.

Franklin

September 19, 2008, 11:31 AM

Now you're tossing back criticisms without understanding what they mean. Snide must have emboldened you. Unfortunately, Snide is a lot smarter than you. Time for you to get lost.

157.

J@simpleposie

September 19, 2008, 11:43 AM

[Really - time for you to get lost. F.]

158.

MC

September 19, 2008, 12:33 PM

Re: 152

Wrong, lying, the usual...

But, that "defense" Snide offered up is a doozy! Too funny. And written by the esteemed O'Keefe, no less! Talk about 'fawning'... wow.

It fails in so many ways, I think it might be worthy to print out and distribute to writing students as the Perfect Train Wreck, a supreme example of bad art writing, or just bad writing, period, I suppose.

159.

Chris Rywalt

September 19, 2008, 4:42 PM

Franklin sez:
Chris, content is just recognizable form. I understand the sentiment behind calling them "content-free" but you now see what a can of worms that opens.

The trouble isn't the term, it's the usual problem with trying to prove a negative. "What do you mean there's no content? You just need to look harder! What, still couldn't find any?" Content is like a Weapon of Mass Destruction that way.

But I take your meaning here.

The distinction between content and intention, though, is worth noting, and very much an aspect of what's going on in FtN. I'm going to steal that for a future post.

It's also good that "content" and "intent" parallel so nicely.

160.

Jack

September 19, 2008, 6:42 PM

MC (158), as I said recently, consider the source. I'm all too familiar with the same sort of thing here in Miami (or at least I was, till I decided to stop reading the stuff for good). In a sense, wasting time and energy getting upset over it is inappropriate. It's sort of like complaining that Bob Dylan is totally hopeless as an opera singer. Well, Duh.

I know it still rankles, and that it can be very difficult to just ignore it, especially when it's put forth as the real deal and apparently taken as such, at least in certain quarters. But again, consider the quarters. Of course, I have a luxury that you, as a working artist, do not. My livelihood and career have nothing to do with the art scene or establishment, so it's no skin off my nose, and I can easily tell any or all of it to go to hell. And do.

161.

MC

September 19, 2008, 9:23 PM

I know Jack, I know...

Subscribe

@franklin_e

franklin.e

Offers

Other Projects

Legal

Design and content ©2003-2017 Franklin Einspruch except where otherwise noted