Caroline — great!:
“What makes Chicago unique is the ground it holds between affordability
and support. Unlike NYC or L.A., artists can afford to live, being
thus more capable of artistic risks–what may be lacking in cities
with higher financial stakes. Unlike a Pittsburgh or Baltimore,
however, where life is similarly affordable, Chicago actually has a
vibrant community of art-goers, who consistently maintain a dialogue
about their respective endeavors. This is essential to our urban
character.”

Daniel great!:
“Chicago art is already suffering enough invisibility and stigmatization, in the Art Chicago debacles, the loss of The NAE, and the loss of much of its talent to other more supportive or financially lucrative seeming markets (Ahem, MARC!).” (And… ahem…me Mark, too).
I loved this too: “I feel any art tourism here will suffer as a result, and wonder how anyone would even consider not listing galleries et al, in , say, The Village Voice!.”

I liked the two-very-different-opinions bit by Duncan and Terri. That is something I actually tried in the past to get the old NAE to do — side-by-side reviews of the same show by people who think very differently about the work. They didn’t like the idea. In BAS it works well.

I think the Shark is right about Drew Beattie’s work and Rauschenberg too. It bothered me that you argued about “what is painting” fom a very closet-Greenbergian (and limited) sense, as if Rauschenberg (and Pop) and so much else had never happened. Would you have such a discussion about installation? Painting is whatever a painter successfully proves it is in his or her works. It is, in my opinion (and David Reed’s) the best absorber and embody-er of all the art forms. It has only been seen so limited since the pintophobe rhetoric of Krauss and the Octoberists (and she being a Greenberg student), where painting is seen as the only art form that has to somehow only use a small handful of “pure-to-itself” elements, in effect making it impotent by only being allowed to discuss itself. Don’t believe that crap. Use your clear ability to understand the multiplicity allowed in works such as installations, as often is exhibited on BAS, and apply that thought process to paintings too.

In all, though, I liked this show a lot!

As for Chris Verene…….I happened to view the exhibition with a serious photographer -as opposed to an art photogapher -in fact probably one of the top photographers in the country and definetly in the midwest- Sandro Miller -responsible for instance, for all of the Steppenwolf theatre/ actor images- we both took note of what fine sophisticated images these works were -how high the quality of composition was, how well done the work was, how clearly the photographer had the trust of his subjects- you know -the actual photographs -something I didn’t hear you discuss-

Anyhow. That show is jsut so upper-crusty doilies-on-endtables. And always with the architecture. Oy.

Enjoyed the show, even if Duncan can’t get everyone to use a mic properly. Will definitely go check out the shows, esp. Verene- That’s the best part about BAS; getting me off my ass to go check this shit out for myself, instead of just lifestyle-magazine-ing about art (cough HB cough).

Seems like the very reason that those other listings or venues that are advertising couldn’t offset the cost of arts listings.

I mean to say that to maybe question how much effort does it take to print black and white text listings versus laying out color images and the inking costs? They are taking the exact same space (2 pages).

Chicago art is already suffering enough invisibility and stigmatization, in the Art Chicago debacles, the loss of The NAE, and the loss of much of its talent to other more supportive or finacially lucrative seeming markets (Ahem, MARC!).

The fact that even museums or institutions which are meant to serve the community at large, such as Hyde Park Art Center, The Art Institute, the MCA, the Chicago Cultural Center, the Mexican Fine Arts Museum, The Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art, The Museum of Surgical Science, The Field Museum, etc etc ETC, are not even listed I feel is a grave disservice to the community at large.

I feel any art tourism here will suffer as a result, and wonder how anyone would even consider not listing galleries et al, in , say, The Village Voice!

Can you imagine coming to chicago and NOT being able to look something up as easy as picking up a READER? How will people negatiate the gallery district eevn during the fair?

comparatively which is more rewarding? “300″ (yay, thinly veiled militarism!, NB: sorry If I stepped on your review MIKE B) or a great art show?

Dear Tamara,
Though I’m sure you’re already getting swamped with responses from the
latest reader art listing format, I wanted to respond personally. I
couldn’t help but voice a number of questions, probably a little
disordered, but I hope you’ll bear with me.

With this new format, the function of the art listing is lost: the
center fold of jpegs becomes a decorative garnish, rather than a
every-where usable map of artistic activities. Where already there was
a certain competition to be listed, now the competition has been
reduced from the list of 80 museums and galleries to a 12. The
exhibition is opening-centric, gallery times and show dates being no
longer readily at hand.
What about galleries that do not want to send you images?
What is the criteria for your selection?

What affect do these selections have on the art community at large?
Perhaps even in a historical sense? This could affect the style and
direction of the art community, reducing it further to an
insider-inside community in which people have to rely on their social
networks to find out what is going on. The danger of this, as the
danger of much on-line distribution, is that it reciprocally
marginalizes communities that do not have regular access to the web,
thereby making any artistic dialogue even more remote to a population
that is already questioning it’s relevance.

What makes Chicago unique is the ground it holds between affordability
and support. Unlike NYC or L.A., artists can afford to live, being
thus more capable of artistic risks–what may be lacking in cities
with higher financial stakes. Unlike a Pittsburgh or Baltimore,
however, where life is similarly affordable, Chicago actually has a
vibrant community of art-goers, who consistently maintain a dialogue
about their respective endeavors. This is essential to our urban
character. It is something that every member of the population can be
proud of. What does it mean to dismiss this community in the Reader,
when other communities (theater/music/restaurants) maintain their same
foothold?

None of this seems democratic.

Granted, I’m dissapointed. I’m sure it you’ve been juggling a number
of logistical issues that would compel you to make this change, but I
feel like the arts community has been publicly reduced–a travesty
considering that chicago is one of three major metropolis’ in the
country. Maybe this is the mark of something nation wide. Considering
the timing, It is ironic that in the wake of ny times discussions
about purchasing work through jpegs, critiquing work through jpegs,
the increasingly common acceptance of the similacre recreation of an
image (also exclusive in its representation: i.e. an
artist/collector/gallerist may be able to decipher a visual sense of a
jpeg, but probably not the unfamiliars) the arts listings would have
similarly switched to an all-jpeg format.
I’d love to continue talking to you about this. I feel like these are
important issues, and I’m sure I must not see the big picture-

all the best and happy sunday,
caroline

Maybe we can interview the responsible party.

BAS

Thanks for asking. Due to the cost of printing, we were very limited
for space each week, and never able to run anywhere near a
comprehensive listing, or more than a few images. We decided to use the little space we had to run images with listing captions and run the comprehensive listings online. I would hope that the captions with listings would do some service in letting people see what is out there, and also to see more art online.
with regard,
t