Call to Arms, an open letter from Paul Klein
June 4, 2007 · Print This Article
The City Council is on the verge of passing an ordinance that is bad for Chicago, bad for its citizens and particularly bad for the art community.
We have proposed an alternative ordinance that will not be considered unless you act. We are the following groups: Bad at Sports, the Chicago Artists Coalition, Lumpen, Sharkforum, ArtLetter and others to be named soon.
Short Story:
Mayor Daley and the Department of Cultural Affairs (DCA) have proposed a terrible ordinance to modify the Public Art Program. The stated reason makes no sense: that the meetings were open to the public was cumbersome and unnecessary in their judgment. That the previous ordinance existed for 25 years and that the City has an exemplary art collection they deemed irrelevant.
-
It “privatizes” the the selection of public art by eliminating all Open Meetings.
-
It means the DCA does not have to post thorough information on their website about upcoming commissions.
-
It will remove transparency and accessibility from the Public Art program and art commissions.
-
It eliminates voting, democracy and public recourse.
Unless the art community acts the City Council will approve their proposed ordinanceon the 13th of June. The best way to prevent this from happening is for artists to
stage a large rally at 5:30 PM Monday, June 11th at the Picasso Sculpture
and a letter writing campaign to make the Mayor and the Aldermen aware of what Chicago artists think and want.
Full Story:
-
Visualize 100’s of Chicago artists rallying around a single cause - Artists’ Rights.
-
Have you ever read about a large group of artists speaking out publicly with one voice?
-
Think about the media coverage.
-
To a large extent the events of the next ten days stand to significantly affect the future of Chicago artists (and Chicago galleries that care about their
Chicago artists).
Here’s the deal:
In mid-May at the request of the Commissioner of Cultural Affairs (Lois Weisberg), Mayor Daley proposed an ordinance to revamp the Public Art Program.
This proposed ordinance is bad government, bad for Chicagoans and particularly bad for the Chicago art community and artists.
Shortly after the ordinance sailed through committee (despite us “winning” the discussion) a few of us succeeded in having the measure postponed by the City
Council.
WELL, the issue is coming back up for a City Council vote on June 13th. We’ve spoken to a number of aldermen. Most aldermen think: If the artists don’t care, we don’t care.
It is possible to change the system and it is not going to be easy.
It is time to step up or get stepped on.
As an artist or a member of the art community in Chicago, or elsewhere, if you ever want to able to apply for a commission, or give a damn about your peers
being able to, now is the time to act:
-
Appear at a RALLY FOR ARTISTS’ RIGHTS on the Monday the 11th at 5:30 at the Picasso
– 2 days before the City Council meets to vote on the 13th. -
Write letters to the Tribune & Sun Times editorial page.
-
Write a letter to the Mayor
-
Write a letter to your alderman. Speak to your alderman.
-
Speak in favor of Our New (alternative) Ordinance supporting Artist’s Rights
-
Send an email to me or a member of our team telling us what you think. We’ll count them, print them and share them where they’ll hopefully make a difference.
-
Under the pretense of streamlining the selection process, the DCA’s proposed ordinance means the DCA does not have to have “open meetings” to give or get any information to artists about upcoming commissions, nor answer to anyone about selected commissions.
-
They do not have to put information on their website anymore (they’ve been doing a horrible job putting out information so far.)
-
They do not have to allow artists to apply for specific projects.
-
They do not have to respond to the community.
-
They do not have to be responsible for their actions.
-
They do get to keep their inbred selection process whereby they dip into their archaic database, pick whoever they want, sometimes repeatedly, and not have to tell artists why or how they chose or choose.
If you are going to write a letter, here are some key points. -
No fair, honest or open consideration of Chicago artists
-
No Open Meetings.
-
No useful listings of commission possibilities
-
No applying for a specific commission
-
No knowing why you weren’t considered
-
Under their proposed new ordinance, the finger-pointing will shift from the DCA to the aldermen because alderman will be asked to have ward forums to discuss art commissions in their ward. This will be an added logistical and financial responsibility for the alderman they may not want. The aldermen will be responsible to post notice of the forums (many don’t have web sites). They will have to pay for postage out of their own pockets. They will have to host and attend art meetings in their wards. They will have to put up with the potential for dividing their community over art issues. These selfish reasons may be sufficient reason aldermen will defeat this ordinance June 13th – if they are informed.
-
If the aldermen think you care, you will be heard.
-
If the aldermen don’t think you care they will automatically vote with the Mayor and pass this ordinance assuring a closed doors, patronage system where those who are favored will get the most commissions. It will not be based on quality, or a competent committee considering your work. Instead of a democracy we’ll have the Department of Cultural Affairs acting like a country club, picking who they want, why they want, without opening up the selection process and broadening the amount of art they can consider.
-
The artists suffer. The City suffers. The community suffers. The DCA gets a free ride.
-
Think about Chicago’s reputation in the rest of the country.
-
We are already being discussed by National Public Art Administrators
-
We will be a topic of discussion at the National Public Art Conference in Las Vegas.
-
Is this going to look good for Chicago in the rest of the country?
-
How about internationally?
-
How about the Olympics?
-
Every Olympics has a large Cultural Olympics held concurrently.
-
Do you think the Olympic Committee is going to be favorably impressed with this ordinance?
-
You and the Olympics
-
Hidden in the bowels of their ordinance is a distinction between Percent for Art and Public Art. The DCA has succeeded in keeping this totally vague. All Percent for Art (a specific term) is part of Public Art (a general term). Only the Percent for Art must have public forums.(Percent for Art applies to money spent in City government buildings and land. But Public Art also includes money for art not for city property yet still administered by DCA – like housing to be constructed for Olympic athletes – which could be billions of dollars.) Can you say cronyism?
-
Well get this: According to their proposed ordinance they only have to have forums (namby-pamby discussions with not binding authority and no vote) with Percent for Art. Okay, but for Public Art they don’t even have to have any forums at all.
-
Who do you think they are trying to take care of?
-
Actions speak louder than words.
Do
you understand why the Mayor doesn’t care about you – the Chicago artist? Or why the Alderman don’t, or the rest of the world for that matter? Because you haven’t made yourself seen and you haven’t made yourself heard enough.
It is time again to assume responsibility for your career, to take a stance.
Can you visualize the impact just 500 artists showing up at a rally could have globally?
Do you realize the publicity Chicago artists can get?
Do you grasp the impact the discussion of this ordinance will have?
You can either shape your future constructively or get screwed.
It is up to you.
Paul Klein
June 6th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
What a waste of time
Get over yourself.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
[...] To The People Wow. With all that’s going on in Chicago, the less than enthusiastic reactions to both of the TCA State Artists of the Year and the events [...]
June 6th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
[...] As posted on Bad at Sports [...]
June 7th, 2007 at 5:03 am
John, how long do you, John, let the system do it to you before you stand up and say “enough?” If a sufficient number of us feel that what Cultural Affairs is doing is too much in the wrong direction we can alter the situation that you have to endure. Of course it’s easier for us to stay home and do nothing. I don’t think this is a waste of time. It is part of a process with lots of possibilities – many we can’t even imagine. Odds are we lose the first round; but what happens if we have sufficient mass that we get written up in the international press? What if a dozen Chicago artists get written up in the London Times and end up making sales overseas? You could help make that more likely. See you Monday. Paul
June 7th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Paul,
I have a baby doctor appointment in the afternoon, but if I can be there, I’ll be there!
Richard
June 7th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Paul -did you see he Kimmelman article on Richard Serra NYTimes? I love the category Serra creates for all contemporary art involved with Duchamp -”post Pop Surrealism”……I’m guessing he is thinking of hacks like, in fact precisely, John Currin -
-why bother responding to some anonymous dolt who would want to identify himself via this creator of laissez faire dreck?
June 7th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Mr. Currin– Fuck You.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Mr Currin more likely than not = one Erik Weasel
June 7th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
or the same kind of pussy…..
June 7th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Attack John Currin all you want, however lets not make personal attacks on people other than anonymous schmucks on our blog please!
June 7th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Josef Goebbels would be proud of the work Paul Klein is doing demogaging this issue.
If you are a student of the ““If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it” school of information dissemination you would get an A+.
Will Leni Riefenstahl be there to film this monumental event on Monday ?
Given there have been all of ten posts on this, some by the same failures (Tony F.), I do not think police barricades will be necessary to contain the crowd.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Sorry Tony, you are of the wrong gender for me to engage in intercourse so you can put your tube of KY back in your pocket.
But your use of the language speaks volumes about why you were run out of Chicago and had to grub around New York to eeek out a living.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Currin -little creeps like you are so easily dispensed with -all that is required, are the facts -cockroach repellant for an insect like yourself.
Tony Fitz run out of town? hmmm….. funny -I saw him at his studio up on Damen Avenue just yesterday, finishing a drawing collage for Steve Earls new cd, and then there was that wonderful not to mention substantial piece he wrote for the Chicago Tribune last month…….
eeeek out a living: lets see: Tony’s last show in Brooklyn….24 drawing collages…..sold out the day after the show opened…..beautiful write up in the NYTimes…..anyone who knows Tony, is aware that each new piece he makes, hangs on his studio wall for about half a day at best- before its sold -and its Tony who decides whether or not it is sold to someone here, or elsewhere-
the last dealer Tony had in Chicago? Rhona Hoffman -he dumped her.
What is it with these retarded attacks on Tony and me? I have asked this question before of other idiots on other occaisons but, is there some group of the mentally challenged who get together and think this shit up -or did you manage to come up with this all by yourself? Seriously, is this the best you can do? pathetic.
wrong gender? how about wrong species?
June 8th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Such idiotic, childish, kiss-ass comments as those by “JC” above should be simply deleted by BAS, I feel. He doesn’t even have the guts to sign his own, or even a very creative, name and then gets vicious about someone else wanting something “digusting” like open information in a Democracy, oh how threatening — what a creep, with a rather limited ability to write English as well. And then spurious Nazi similes, by which you can see how little he actually knows of history. Pretty clearly a “nice” private school lad.
JC — try to get a brain and some real courage in place of your cowardly whining from the shadows.
Good luck to you all. Get going! I can’t fly all the way in, but I’ll be there in spirit and try to help get the word out.
June 8th, 2007 at 5:54 am
I was interviewed about Public Art on The Wizard, WZRD yesterday for 20 minutes.
http://www.artletter.com/html/wzrd_interview.html (click on the note)
The interviewer, Effie Mihopoulos, was nice enough to get me a copy, which I’ve uploaded with her permission.
It’s a pretty good discussion, with lots of starting points for further conversations, but I sure talk fast.
Paul
June 8th, 2007 at 8:58 am
excuse me guys…. while I go back to my studio and eek out my meager living : )
June 8th, 2007 at 9:04 am
is it just me or does ‘Justin Chin’ and ‘John Currin’ seem lit by the same 20 watt bulb?
June 8th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Oh wow, a CD cover ? Will the next commission be to design the new Capri Sun Juice Box label ?
As for the ability to write “English”, I have always been told that the use of profanity is a sign of a limited vocabulary, so you should look at the man in the mirror.
And sorry if my private school education and references to other propagandists in history went over your head, in future posts I will keep it to your art-school level education.
And how ironic that in a discussion about freedom and transparency, there is a sentence about censoring the posts of a poster you disagree with ?
“comments as those by “JC” above should be simply deleted by BAS, I feel”
June 8th, 2007 at 11:31 am
I did’nt want to delete your posts Mr. Currin — you have every right to be an asshole in whatever forum you choose– to quote you: ‘Get over yourself’. i find it ironic that a guy with so many trenchantly held opinions hides behind a fake name.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:44 am
In fact, Mr Currin, my address here is 2124 n. Damen– the door is open , if you’d like to express your dislike to me face-to-face… what do you say hard-guy?.. would you like a shot at the title?
June 8th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
So, JC — it appears I nailed you on the private school thing — I thought your nearly inchoate phrasing seemed rather SAIC. And my education in several universities is NOT “art school.” I really laughed at “over your head.” Your references are known to everyone on earth, you cretan, the only head it may have gone over is yours, except that you apparently don’t have a head, unless it is “where the sun doesn’t shine.”
Your puerile endeavour to insult has an attempt at logic that would infuriate third graders, who generally are much more sophisticated than your own “cerebral” capacities I’m certain. People calling for open discusion and democratic institutions are equal to fascist propagandists? Try an think that over, if indeed you can do such a thing.
I did not feel your opinion should be deleted, just your posts because, frankly, they are so incredibly imbecile, and so amazingly inerudite as to be embarrassing. You are only humiliating yourself and thereby casting aspersions on all artists. Which is most likely the reason why you didn’t use your real name, as most dim-witted cowards are wont to do. Perhaps you should change your pseudonym to “Asinus maximus.”
June 8th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Seriously folks, I’ll take the fucking blog down if it is going to degenerate to name calling. I will not get in the business of removing posts and crap like that. I know most of you personally and you know me to say what I mean and mean what I say and hope you have enough decency to abide my wishes on this. TAKE THE PERSONAL ATTACK SHIT OUTSIDE. Exchange phone numbers, set up a fight by the flag pole whatever you need to do, but don’t do it here.
Thanks,
Richard
June 8th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Richard -there is a simple way to solve this problem: all the personal stuff begins with a few cowards using pseudonymns -why not just identify Currin if you know who he is -and in the future develop more stringent policies for inclusion on the blog- along with insisting that people only be allowed to post who are known entities-
-if you were to expose Currin here and now, your problem would be solved.
June 8th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Currin… I’m sure you also think its no big deal that MOMA just acquired one of Tony’s drawing collages, and that glowing Roberta Smith NYTimes -main review…more eeeking out a living right?
as for language….shall we start by quoting both Michael Phillips of the Tribune and Hedy Weiss (Sun Times) -discussing Tony’s brilliance on stage in Mary Zimmerman’s Secret in the Wings -or in Stud Terkels Race -both mounted by Lookingglass and both, of which he starred in? Or how about the simple fact that Tony has more big screen credits than any other actor currently in Chicago…..
anyone who actually knows Tony Fitzpatrick is aware of how formidable, well read and just flat out smart and eruidite this guy is.
if you are so smart or such a tough guy, why not prove to us all you aren’t simply cyber garbage -lets see you take Tony up on his offer-
June 9th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Thank you “Bad at Sports”, for calling out the ones that have not anything of substance to say except for profanity and name-calling. In as much as I have done neither, I will take it that your slap on the wrist is not directed at me.
At any rate, such use of the language and the anger by Brandl, Tony, Shark, et. al. is giving your board a bad name, or is it living up to it ? I take it Bad at Sports is an attempt to glorify what was an embarrassing phase of life for young men that were, in fact, bad at sports as young men.
Knowing how cruel children can be, the psychological scars of always being the last one picked for teams in gym class, or throwing a ball “like a girl”, etc. have indelibly and permanently scarred the Brandls, Tonys and Sharks of the world, they find solace as an adult by their use of big words and tough language to compensate for their shortcomings as real men. You should really seek some professional help. In the meantime you should continue to post as an outlet for the years of repressed anger and humiliation you must have suffered for being bad at sports as a lad.
I, for one, hope that those who perform the moderating duties for this site do not, in any way, censor Brandl, Tony and Shark posted comments.
In my opinion, they exhibit a wealth of symptoms common in a manic-depressive personality and, in this type of personality disorder, the patient desperately needs a harmless outlet in which to vent his or her radically shifting emotions.
For them to be summarily denied this outlet would, no doubt, lead to their acting out these potentially harmful, erratically changing moods in the real world and could very well result in them causing harm to others and/or to themselves.
The minimal cost to those who visit this site, of tolerating the less than lucid ramblings Brandl, Tony and Shark posts, is, I believe, well worth the benefits, those being a reduced potential of them having a critical episode among others, thus risking the real possibility of harmful consequences.
As the condition Brandl, Tony and Shark is suffering from is rarely treatable without the patient’s co-operation and compliance with standard treatment regimens, something I suspect they would not be willing to accept as in their best interest, the better alternative is to continue humor them and hope that, at some time in the future, they will recognize their abnormal condition and seek professional assistance.
And no Tony, there would be no sense of accomplishment in engaging in the pugilistic arts against a guy that looks like he is one bratwurst away from a coronary. Even though you have been in New York that did not change your last name to Soprano. Stick to designing matchbook covers.
And Brandl, you can return the thesaurus to the library - stealing Reference copies of the collection is illegal. I hope you did not get a paper - cut on while leafing through it, it could impair your love-life. But your ‘Rosie Palm” should be well calloused by now anyway - well, the two fingers that YOU would need anyway.
Finally, regarding the rally, I hope that you have all the necessary permits, insurance and approvals from the authorities. It would be a shame for something catastrophic to happen and all the groups and individuals stirring up this fire and brimstone rally become personally and severally liable. It would take the commissions from a host of milk carton covers and fine-print credits in B-movies to cover subsequent damage and injury claims.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:08 am
LUCIDITY
free from obscurity and easy to understand; the comprehensibility of clear expressionÃÂ [syn: clarity]ÃÂ [ant: unclearness, abstruseness]ÃÂ
2.ÃÂ a lucid state of mind; not confusedÃÂ
-just to point out to Mr Currin -it is he who seems confused; I for one have answered his ad hominen attacks on Tony, with simple, clear facts -which of course he like any heckler, chooses to ignore….like for instance, the fact that calling what Tony is doing as ‘eeeking’ out a living ….or your ‘b’ movie comment…why generalize like someone who doesn’t understand even the basic idea of critical thinking in argument?…unless maybe you just don’t. Here let me help you: what movie are you discussing…. Jonathan Demme’s Philadelphia? Or Normal lives with Jessica Lange…..or perhaps US Marshalls with Tommy Lee Jones….is that what you are referring to? what planet are you from Currin? Your comments intended only as insults, could hardly be anymore incoherrent or, factually wrong and, completely off base.
-there is no point in arguing with you -from your pseudo psycho-babble of your most recent post to your initial posting equating Paul Kleins idea of a small art demonstration to Nuremburg…its clear that it is you Currin, doing the playing without enough marbles…
and last, knowing the people at BAS, the rather close relationship they have with both Tony, and Mark and to a somewhat lesser extent with me (I do not work with them as both Tony and Mark do), I think your notion that you are being supported in your cowardly and small minded-not to mention feeble and pathetic attempt at mudslinging, is wishful thinking at best on your part. You, are either completely disengenuous or, sincerely deluded.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:08 am
You know Currin……you seem to really have a thing about Tony: are you some kind of deranged fan or something? You seem to know all about him…
-reading your posts, I feel bad for Tony. You would think that mere chance would drum up a better, higher quality enemy for him than you……can’t you at least focus, and try for even just one, half-witted attack giving some slight evidence of thought or simple intelligence?
June 9th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Sorry Richard– I’ll try to behave. …. I think I’ll go have lunch— maybe a brat.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Hmmmmm….what a coincidence. “The Shark” posts at 10:08, Tony posts at 10:09.
Either this board is being sock-puppetted by one schizophrenic person or the Shark rolled over and gave Tony a loving tap on the shoulder to bring this post to his attention as they shared a late breakfast in bed.
Nevertheless, calling me interested in any form or fashion about the career Tony F. has on the periphery of the arts is like the pot calling the kettle black, considering the fact you feel compelled to defend him so vociferously at every turn.
Unless there is a “special” relationship between you two.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
so now you are using this blog to post your sexual fantasies on….nice -I seemed to have touched a raw nerve Currin….whats with this hard-on you have for Tony?…..what? Did your hero not pay enough attention to you at some opening? So now you’ve turned against him?
-I’m still waiting for some form of attack that doesn’t sound like it was written by a snotty 8th grader -can you manage?
June 9th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
John Currin, I asked you a question after your initial post and you haven’t responded. I want to know how much abuse by those in power you personally would have to endure before you spoke out and sought to rectify the situation. Please answer that question. For me, that threshold has been crossed when those purporting to be arts administrators seek to limit the rights of those they are supposed to serve. How about you?
And also, I see no reason for you to be posting here whatsoever. I don’t get that you are interested in art. To me, it seems that you are solely interested in game playing and I acknowledge that you are rather good at it. My suspicion is that you work for the Department of Cultural Affairs, that you know the artists are correct, that you are personally threatened, that you cannot constructively or cogently argue against the artists’ position so you take cheap, pot shots instead. If you think me wrong, please tell me why you are posting here.
Thank you.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
500 in cash to the person who tells me ‘John Currin’s’ real identity– and can prove it.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Paul, one may ask how you administered 2MM in public money in when purhasing art at McCormick ? What was your open process ? How did you get appointed to that position ? Tell the truth.
As for Tony’s offer of a reward, that is a lot of windmaster sign boards to design. And given the history of some posters here to welch on paying off challenges, I do not think you will get many takers.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
….kidding…. kind of.
June 9th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
John, I have no problem answering your questions. But let’s take these in chronological order. You go first. I asked you two questions. Answer those & I gladly answer you two. Paul
June 10th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Oh give me a breakl JC, the delusionary mind here is yours. Those words which apparently you find too scholarly or something, are mine, in my head; perhaps they are too much in discussion with the likes of you, but I AM a “scholar” as well as an artist (and completing a diss and learning Latin at the moment - so maybe too much of that bleeds over inadvertently) — but don’t worry, I type so poorly that I usually screw up my posts anyway! — however, you seem to assume that anyone other than you is uneducated, and yet scream the minute someone’s vocabulary challenges you. — While your own posts are so cliched and poorly thought out that I am amazed that you find yourself to be so intelligent — even to the point of preaching!
It is not my fault if you have to use a dictionary to read other posts. I’ll try to remember to make it more elementary for your reading enjoyment.
Richard, this is decidedly NOT mere name calling, no matter how vicious the terminolgy becomes. In my case, I feel it necessary to call out a clearly self-aggrandizing, egomaniacal middlebrow for what HE is. Read between the lines: he simply hates Klein and Tony F, thus me because I have sided with them, and is trying to couch that in rather sophomoric attempts at pop-psychology.
There is not even one infinitesimal iota of logic, or even simple clear-thinking in any of JC’s vicious ramblings. So the slap on the wrist is simply a slap on the face of a coward (hidden behind a pseudonym), one too self-obsessed to realize it.
Once again, I must ask: “Since when are people calling for open discussion in democratic institutions equal to fascist propagandists?”
June 10th, 2007 at 2:11 am
By the way, I’m sorry to admit to Richard, Duncan, Amanda and Chris, that I never was bad at sports — I’m sorry! I was okay, sometimes even good.
Am I “out” as a foreign correspondent? And Tony F was positively GOOD at sports — darn. There go the Damen Ave and Central Euro bureaus!
Now should we seak therapy for that?
June 10th, 2007 at 5:39 am
John Currin accuses us of Gestapo tactics for challenging Chicago’s PUBLIC Art Department whose Deputy Commissioner states:
“Public art is a gift to the public from the government.”
“We’re the ones who have been working day in and day out with this process. We’re the ones who are most aware of its issues and we’re in the best position to determine how to address them.”
the “public is not well served by a vote”
I see fascist, elitist proclivities John, but not on our side. We care about open and honest dialogue and access to information for Chicago’s artists and public. We stand with the Better Government Association. We use our real names and stand up for what we believe in. We don’t hide behind a pseudonym or make policy in a vacuum.
What do you stand for?
June 10th, 2007 at 11:33 am
In the words of one half of the founding members of BAS, “For shame, for shame”.
It seems to me that this is one of those times when we should put aside our petty personal/aesthetic differences and try to find a bit of common ground on which to stand. The common ground at this time being that, once again, we have “king richard” (daley) and his court doing what “they think is best for us”; that just-so-happening to be exactly what is good for them.
City Hall is taking these actions without debate and with very little input; not very democratic at all. If they truly wanted to make things better, cityhall would find out how they could improve things, make more details available, increase access (within reason, of course).
Instead, they work in the cover of dark, behind close doors in smoke-filled rooms and they make things less open and less useful.
“jcurrin” shame on you. I can see that your intent is to cause a dustup with the sharkforum/Klein camp. In good fun, maybe I could enjoy the exchange because, hey, lets face it, sometimes it IS funny. There is that voyeuristic appeal; like looking at an arrest or a car wreck. Truth be told though, I am VERY bored by that whole thing and am of the opinion that, at this point, the “Shark-baiting” is doing far more harm to our community than it is providing even fair entertainment value.
There is a time and place for that sort of shenanigans and this is a really BAD time and place. You succeeded only in clouding the waters with that turd of a post and derailing the point of this entire issue; that being that our government is attempting to hijack a PUBLIC process and shield themselves from responsibility and accountabilty. This should be unacceptable to the ENTIRE public, not only artists!!! After all, it is their money too. Instead, no one hears about it and the action goes forward without coverage and debate. Can you say “rubber stamp”??
Shame the rest of you for rising so easily to the bait and continuing the schoolyard-level exchange. What could have been an interesting and fruitful discussion devolves into the usual backbiting and drivel; “I’m bigger than you, so there” (tongue). I know I have said it before but, until we can get past this sort of crap, we will continue to be a weak community, inside and outside of the city.
The end result is what? You have allowed the discussion of a rather important issue to be hijacked and obfuscated into non-existence, embarrassed our community in the very public realm of the internet and succeeded in pissing off our good friend Richard.
Again, for shame, for shame ……….
Now, go back to your respective classrooms and write 100 times “I am sorry for acting like a simple tool and will try to CONTRIBUTE to the community in a responsible manner in the future.”
I expect to see you all at the rally …….
mk
June 10th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Excellent comment Mike Kaysen!
And again, good luck and good rally!
June 10th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Excuse me Mike, but I take issue with several comments you make: first of all, there is no Klein/sharkforum camp -I will do for you precisely what I did for ‘johncurrin’ and that is, point out simple facts to you: sharkforum was created by Dave Roth and myself when Paul Klein kicked me off of artletter -namely because I called him out on his disasterous and ill fated absconding with and then ultimately ruining of an idea that was Tony Fitz’s and mine -CAF- I agree with Paul on some issues -and completely disagree with him on a whole lot of other issues.
Even given that johncurrin seems interested primarily in going after -not me but Tony, I agree with you, the sharkbaiting stuff is stupid -and really unfortunate in its distraction, considering that what I post is usually substantive -and always done by the not very bright who are rarely if ever capable of any kind actual argument or sustained discussion…I’m afraid the sport is always mine if you actually read what is written and how easily dispensed with these fools invariably are-
Perhaps my error is in having grown too fond of whatever small pleasure there is to be found in taking down these plebians -one at a time.
I will also point out to you that I consistently try to keep and return topics to being on point -and please note in terms of community, that I have been at times almost the single voice in Chicago talking about the ongoing hegemony of the institutionalites -as epitomized in the new BAS cure for insomniacs -Gerber/Grabner….trying to make Chicagoans aware that these hackneyed, stale academic aesthetics -are over -basically everywhere but apparently, here.
btw -a perfect antidote for the Grabner/Gerber tedium is any of a number of articles/interviews out right now concerning Richard Serra. I for one think his description and dismissal of all Duchamp based aesthetics being practiced today (questions of authorship, context, etc) as “post Pop Surrealism” -is perfect.
As for the demonstration tmw -this is one issue where I do agree with Paul and Tony -THOUGH! there is much that does need overhauling in the city arts program…the bureaucracy does need to be done away with -and, not everything needs to be or should be public. I say let them revamp things- not everything they are attempting to do is bad! -but give us some imput as to how that happens. We should argue for a good website that allows artist to know of pending commissions -with specificity,-and has an overview of activity within the program -and, a public meeting quarterly.
June 10th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I concur, with Currin. Klein has alternative motives. His present career is directly associated with Chicago public art program. He should share the process he used when purchasing art for the McCormick Place expansion. Hell, he should make public his cut.
June 11th, 2007 at 7:04 am
The notion that I have an alternative (or even ulterior) motive is interesting, but wrong. When I read in the Tribune last month that Department of Public Art Commissioner Lois Weisberg would be retiring soon I made no secret about being interested in her job, even though I didn’t think I stood much of a chance of getting it. Then the DCA came up with this proposed ordinance that I think is insulting to Chicago artists and public and embarrassing to the City. Choosing to help organize a rally to focus on the folly of the Department of Cultural Affairs doesn’t likely help me get Ms. Weisberg’s job. I am obviously taking a strong stance on public art and I think it is an important issue. I hope we get a lot of attention. Some of that attention may or may not be good for me personally. That’s life. I’m okay with that. I stand up for what I believe in. I put it out there and then see what happens. I don’t think that constitutes an ulterior motive.
June 11th, 2007 at 7:33 am
Shortly before I closed my gallery in the Spring of 2004 I received a phone call from one of the McCormick West architects asking me for the names of art consultants who might be able to handle the job of placing art in the 2,000,000 square foot expansion. I gave them the names of 4 art consultants I respected and then asked that my name be added to the list.
I think my first interview was in July 2004, a 2nd a month or so later and a 3rd in October. I was selected in November of 2004. My recollection is that before the 2nd interview I was told that the Art Review Committee felt “compromised” by the expense account they’d provided for the previous building’s art program because of the cost of shipping art, and that maybe I should shop locally. In my 2nd interview I suggested that McCormick interact more with the City and its artists, that they use solely Illinois and Chicago art (McCormick is a combined city and state entity), that because of scale all artwork be commissioned and for marketing and branding reasons all content be about Illinois and/or Chicago.
I was told the total art budget would be two million dollars, that my fee would come out of that and that there would be sizable expenditures necessary for infrastructure changes to accommodate the art.
I believe 8 to 10 individuals were considered. We were instructed to name our fee and that the fee would cover all expenses for shipping, travel etc. I’d heard that at least one person said they wanted $300,000. I calculated my expenses at $30,000. Because I really wanted the job I asked for $200,000.
Two of us were selected as finalists. There was a 3rd interview and then a vote. I heard the results were exceptionally close.
I wouldn’t say that my art selection process was Open with a large “O.” I’d say it was semi-open. It was not a Percent for Art program. I reported to a committee. The committee made their selections based on my recommendations. McCormick is not a building that is open to the public the same way a library is and does not serve a neighborhood. It is national and international in its focus.
Having been an art dealer in Chicago for over 20 years I know a lot of Chicago artists. And I wanted more input. I put out a call for artists. I asked every gallery in the city to nominate artists and send images. I went to the Department of Cultural Affairs and asked if I could go through their database. I spent 4 days in their database looking at slides, getting addresses, writing down names and sending letters. I asked scores of collectors who focus on art by Chicagoans to suggest artists. I reached out to the arts groups in communities physically close to McCormick and asked them for suggestions. And I asked artists directly.
In total I had about 500 Illinois and Chicago artists submit images and information. From that pool I sought to have a high level of quality representing a range of mature and young artists, with an array of media, styles, aesthetics, ethnicities, age, gender and points of view.
I narrowed the pool down to 75 artists with the intent of getting to approximately 25. I presented the 75 artists to the Art Review Committee for their input. They responded to each and every artist. I listened and took notes. They commented about things I hadn’t considered. They had valuable pragmatic input.
I removed some people from the 75 and added a few others. I was looking for a balanced, diversified selection that met their criteria. I began a balancing act of assigning specific locations to individual artists and asking artists for ideas of the type of art they might like to make for the situation. And I calculated how much money should be spent on those specific individuals.
I concluded that 50 works of art (some – mostly photographers – have more than one piece) by 30 artists would be right. For my presentation for the committee to make selections I had 35 artists with the intent of their selecting 30. They selected 30 of my top 31. One artist subsequently chose not to accept a commission so another artist was added.
Over 1.4 million dollars was spent on art. The remaining portion was spent on electrical (wiring and lighting), drywall modifications, art storage, installation, signage plaques, miscellaneous small expenses and my $200,000 fee.
Most of the art has been installed. The building opens this summer. McCormick was great to work with. The architects designed the building with art in mind and created large areas for it to energize the concourses. Because everything was commissioned there is a lot of very large art all the way up to a painting 10 x 100 feet and single photographic works as large as 16 x 10 feet and 6 x 28 feet. There is more painting than anything, 5 photographers, 4 or 5 new media electronic works and a couple of sculptures, though they don’t sit on the floor. Every art installation is accompanied by wall plaques that have explanatory text which was written and/or approved by the artists. The art is accessible and is Illinois or Chicago content specific. I gave the artists huge lists of possible subjects that are on the Chicago Public Library website and let them choose their own content. They were not confined to the list. They chose their own content. Subjects are all over the place: The Columbian Exposition. Lake Michigan, the Chicago River, endangered or extinct Illinois animals, the northern migration, Bronzeville, Chicago jazz and blues, Chicago industry and commerce, the L, Nelson Algren’s book “Chicago: City on the make,” the Loop, Chicago architecture and more.
The artists included are Nick Cave, William Conger, Susanne Doremus, Dzine, Ken Fandell, Doug Fogelson, Scott Fortino. Kariann Fuqua, Diana Guerrero-Macia, Marc Hauser, Michiko Itatani, Preston Jackson, Cheonae Kim, Vera Klement, Evan Lewis, Robert McCauley, Patrick Miceli, Herbert Migdoll, Jason Peot, John Phillips, Sabrina Raaf, Dan Ramirez, Jason Salavon, Lincoln Schatz, Paul Sierra, Peter Stanfield, Bob Thall, Pala Townsend, Bernard Williams and Mary Lou Zelazny.
I am very proud of the artists and art at the McCormick Place West Expansion. I hope you get to see it.
June 11th, 2007 at 9:45 am
The issue isn’t really who specifically is doing the curating/selecting for the city or DCA, it’s about keeping the process open, transparent, and answerable in a meaningful way to the public (the public is the buyer not the recipient of a gift — it’s public dollars being spent to buy the art and pay the curators, etc.) — the people holding the jobs will change. DCA can find other ways to improve efficiency that don’t take away meaningful opportunity for public participation, including posting more tailored calls for artists designed to streamline what they are considering for particular projects.
June 11th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Paul took a great deal of column inches to basically say that the City of Chicago, Department of Cultural Affairs should “do as I say, not as I do”.
Where were the open meetings, the minutes, the notices, the Requests for Proposals, etc. ?
Sounds like someone pocketed $200K and was able to distribute goodies to all of his friends.
Good for goose, good for gander ?
June 11th, 2007 at 10:58 am
John, you seem intent on missing the oblivious. McCormick is NOT a public building. There was a McCormick Art Review Committee. Half the ten members were appointed by the governor – the other half by the Mayor. I reported to them. With them we created a selection process. They participated in and approved the selection process we came up with. Do you understand? The people appointed by the Governor and the Mayor approved.
Art for Public Buildings is a different story and should engage the Public. It’s pretty simple John. If you are buying art for your house, you don’t need to get the public involved. If you are buying art for the corner of your block you do. Essentially, I was commissioning art for McCormick’s house.
I have a lot more than 30 friends, John. There were a lot of people who received McCormick commissions that I’d never met and some I’d never heard of before. There are a 1000 artists I count as friends who did not receive a commission.
I’m pretty certain you actually do understand John but just prefer to be annoying. I asked you a question 45 posts ago and you haven’t yet answered. In fact, you haven’t yet said anything constructivem at all. Talk about a waste of time!
What’s most important is to focus on the horrendous policy put forth by the Department of Cultural Affairs and not be further distracted by the antics of someone who enjoys getting attention for being a nuisance.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
“…someone who enjoys getting attention for being a nuisance.” And who is too craven to sign his real name and, moreover, clearly not very perspicacious. (Look it up buffoon.)
AND answer a question or two, if you dare.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Funny, I did not think a message board that is read by apparently 4 or 5 regulars was a proving ground for a doctoral diss defense.
Anyone who has watched the old “Leave it to Beaver” televison program would remember Ward’s use of the word perspicacious (actually it was perspicacity) in reference to Fred Rutherford, so I would not give myself an arm cramp patting myself on the back for using this particular multi-syllabic word. Try again.
At any rate, Mc Cormick is very much a public building. But keep telling the “big lie”.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Was that the guy who played Lumpy?
June 11th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
johncurrin
June 11th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Fred Rutherford = Clarence “Lumpy” Rutherford’s father.
He (Fred) was an obnoxious, overbearing, grandiloquent, pompous, pontifical, self-absorbed, jerk.
Maybe that is the connection between our resident wordsmith and his use of this particular word. Life DOES imitate art !
However, something tells me this Brandl fellow is, with his insistence on typing with his dictionary by his side, overcompensating for something.
Kinda like the 50 year old guy that buys the red corvette or the phallic-ly challenged (size-wise) male who does not quite m who drives a big honkin’ SUV.
June 11th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
yawn
June 11th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
I am not surprised that something over your head would bore you.
June 11th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Oh yes, I’m sure that’s quite so Mr. Currin. I’m not very smart.
stretch….yawn….
June 12th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
We are often bored with what we do not understand.
June 12th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
If you say so.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:42 am
I don’t know how you all see it, but when it comes to the children, Wu-Tang is for the children. We teach the children. Puffy is good, but Wu-Tang is the best. I want you all to know that this is ODB, and I love you all, peace.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:28 am
JC —- yawn yawn yawn. Get a life. Then you can stop projecting all your childish, thick-witted sexual fantasies onto others. Seek therapy for your strange half-baked, babbling and perverted imagination.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Hmmmm, the lady doth protest too much methinks……
June 13th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Look how fixated — the coward can’t let anyone use her/his words against her. Why that might actually resemble an ability to think.
I have tried to follow the advice of Proverbs, “Argue with a fool, lest he feel wise in his folly.” But now I shall give up; it is simply mean to debate with the mentally deficient.
To put it in the style of word usage for which the cowardly JC seems to keep clamoring, those on her/his level:
“You are, like, stupid, bitch (or dude), get it? And a sicko scaredy-cat too. So I quit.”
Let’s have real discussion here again.
June 13th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Have we lost the ability to have an argument without calling each other expletive based names? C’mon ladies and gents pull it together. Beat each other up with argument instead of the sad base sniping.
R
June 13th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Richard -
I agree with you, but how can you have a civil arguement with a troll? I use the term in it’s internet usage - an individual, almost always posting under the protection of a pseudonym, who seems to have the singular goal of creating disagreement.
This individual has demonstrated an unwillingness, or an inability, to engage any real debate in a meaningful way. The ad hominem attacks, refusal to respond with specificity to any remark which serves to rebut their statement, suggesting small penis size and the like. Come on - it’s just cowardly and childish.
Are you defending the poster, or the principle?
June 13th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
At this point, to use the churlish vernacular of the wise Sage Mr. Brandl - eat feces and die.
The ordinance has passed.
All of you can cry in your beer.
Good triumphs over evil.
And yes, the opposition has been truly noted and will be remembered.
My work is done here.
I will leave you to go back to the circle-jerk that usually defines the discussions here.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Thanks for playing. Shame on us for caring about accountability.
I honestly can’t imagine how good has triumphed over evil.
Somehow I don’t imagine you expounding on that.
Funny how you’d likely be more cogent and accountable if you didn’t hide behind a pseudonym.
June 13th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
David,
My position is neutral, I am defending no one. I don’t want this forum to turn into some that consists only of name calling and baiting. I’d like to keep the anonymous posting option available but won’t be able to if people keep posting under the names of others, and if the discussion devolves to pointless stupidity. So, once again, because it didn’t work the last five times, I am asking the people who use this service, that we produce, at our own expense, for no reward, to be respectful enough to not act like assholes while in our house so-to-speak.
R
June 13th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
OK, as a part of the BAS staff, I’ve had about enough. I was a forum administrator for 3 years and I have seen about a million yahoos like johncurrin. Let me tell you everything you need to know about johncurrin.
Paul, JC does not work for the DOC. He is 17 and lives with his parents. He posts to about 50 forums a day under 20 names. He’s been blacklisted from another 20 sites and just moves onto a new one with a new handle name. See how short his posts are? The johncurrin nut jobs of this planet get the greatest satisfaction by seeing how many and how lengthy a response they can get with as few words as possible. They don’t even read the response, they just come up with something new to get a rise out of people. 99.9% of the time they make gay inferences.
Trust me, everyone, this guy is a dime-a-dozen-forum loser. FOR YOUR OWN SANITY JUST IGNORE JACKASS POSTS. I PROMISE THERE WILL BE OTHERS, AND THERE WILL BE MORE POSTS. But the more you respond, the more they stick around, and they more they are ignored, the more they go away.
Remember, no one ever reads the blog a month after it’s posted. We could yank down the archives of comments and no one would notice, so don’t worry if someone says something crappy about you and you don’t respond. No one is reading it. Forums are not for posterity.
All my love,
Kathryn
P.S, SO WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED WITH THE CITY COUNCIL VOTE? I CAN’T FIND ANY INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:03 am
The vote was 39-11 on the side of right, Katie my self righteous board operator. If it will not matter in 6 months, I might add, what difference does it make whether or not you find it on the internet?
Anyway, I must go now, I have 49 other sites to post to yet today and another 19 nom de plumes to create. But first I must finish my milk and cookies, after all, a growing boy needs his nourishment.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:11 am
I haven’t commented much on this particular issue -and though I support Tony in particular and do agree that there is a need for transparency and for some public in public art, I also feel a certain degree of ambivalence about all of this -hence my declining to speak the other day at Daley Plaza. Probably my attitude is self serving in the sense that I know I have been blacklisted by the little fiefdom that runs things down at the Cultural Center for years- (not that I really care-I mean, I think Bill er… William Congers work looks fabulous and couldn’t be more appropriately seen than festooning the walls of the Cabrini Green Police Station - I just don’t happen to think its…….ME!) so none of this really concerns me. And also, I understand from people whose knowledge on this particular issue I respect, people who have been involved on selection committees, how overwhelming the bureaucracy has become.
Having said this, Mr Currin, for the sake only of argument, why do you think that ‘right’ prevailed today?….I’m just wanting to hear your reasoning behind all the vitriol- why you believe what you believe- I think in articulating your position, you would do everyone, yourself included, a favor.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:49 am
It is pretty straightforward:
I read the ordinance and read the opposition communiques and was puzzled because the opposition points did not address the ordinance. The ordinance increases public input in the process.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:15 am
-through our respective aldermen, yea, I took note of that as well -though given your average artist’s basic complacency, I wonder how well it will all work…….I thought a quarterly open meeting -and a revamped, comprehensive website might be far less cumbersome way of doing business, more fluid/viral hence effective…also it would allow for much flexibility in the messiness of decision making posting information but sparing all, or at least some of the gory details…-not everything should be public!…what about when the conversation is about rejecting an artist? -does anyone want that out there for mass consumption?
I’m a big proponent of creating more infrastructure for the art world here via cyberspace…I really think that doing so is the key to giving Chicago the international presence you would think it would have…a way to make our local doings available to the world -like they do in NYC -via more traditional media- I urge the city to embrace the idea of helping to create the most cyber-forward looking art scene anywhere- we have the perfect situation here to implement such a solution.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
You’ve got me there, I have yet to read the ordinance. And me an f-ing lawyer.
Is there a link?
June 14th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I’d like to hear someone explain how the McCormick Place isn’t a public building.
If you read the history of McCormick Place (http://www.mccormickplace.com/about_us/History.html ) you will learn that from the outset, the building has been financed and refinanced many times, with public bonds and public monies, including this one: earmarks of “$4.8 million a year in cigarette taxes”
Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em! But first, tell me how this building isn’t public property?
June 14th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Paul Klein, we await your response to G. Russo.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
We’ve got two issues here that warrant a response.
The ordinance which just passed City Council just might increase public participation. It says there will be two forums. One needs to understand the difference between a “forum” and a “meeting.” Meetings have to have notices posted about their timing, and have to have minutes. This gives the public the ability to see a record of what transpired and a means of holding the committee responsible. A forum is a discussion with no vote, no minutes and no ability to scrutinize what went on. As such, though public involvement may be increased, the public loses all the “power” it formerly had. (Richard, here is a link to the ordinances: http://www.artletter.com/html/ordinances.html.)
Secondly, I agree that McCormick is a public building, paid for with taxpayer dollars. However, it is rarely, if ever, open to the public. It exists for those attending a convention. In my mind the goals for the art in McCormick are different than the goals for art in a public location. McCormick was created by an act of the State government. The art in McCormick is not a percent for art and they didn’t have to include any. The MPEA board chose to include art because it augments the building. Essentially, the public won’t get to see the art in McCormick as much as I would like. How much I don’t know yet. Yet one million convention attendees per year will. It seems appropriate to me that the art selected for inclusion there conforms to the wishes of those who own the building – that would be the Metropolitan Pier and Exhibition Authority (MPEA). I was hired as an art consultant to provide suggestions to an Art Review Committee. That committee made the selections. That committee reported to the MPEA Board in a public meeting, with minutes, etc.
Conversely, when art is placed in a building that is open to the public, or exists outdoors in a public place, the wishes of those that use the building or see the art outdoors in a public place, or live in that neighborhood should be considered. And their opinion should count.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
NICE BACK-PEDDLE AND DOUBLE TALK.
YOU HAVE A FUTURE AS A LAWYER.
June 14th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Thank you John. I accept your apology.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Pardon us for jumping in here, but how exactly do these two statements square with each other?
“McCormick is NOT a public building.” - Paul Klein - Jun 11th, 2007 at 10:58 am
“Secondly, I agree that McCormick is a public building, paid for with taxpayer dollars.” - Paul Klein - Jun 14th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Maybe the “In my mind” qualifier following the latter statement provides the wiggle room here, but that seems a bit shaky as a foundation for coherent discussion.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Well, they sure don’t appear to square very well.
in the first statement, I was focusing on the fact that the building isn’t “public” because the public doesn’t have unrestricted access.
In the second I agreed that the building is public because it is paid for by taxpayer doll