Episode 90: Ruth Lopez and Tony Fitzpatrick
May 20, 2007 · Print This Article
download
Special Correspondent Tony Fitzpatrick interviews Time Out Chicago’s Ruth Lopez about just about everything. It’s an engaging and insightful conversation. Duncan and Richard chime in now and again.
The show closes with further proof that if there is an obscure musical tidbit in Tony’s past, we can find it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Robert
Cozzolino
Tony Fitzpatrick
Ruth
Lopez
Artropolis
Time Out Chicago
The Reader
Fred Camper
Chicago Tribune
Sharkforum
Version Festival
Alan
Artner
Deb Sokolow
Hyde Park Art Center
Olympic Games
Michael Bloomberg
Millenium Park
Cloud Gate
Picasso
Donald Young
Bodybuilder & Sportsman
World
Tattoo Gallery
Armory Show
Paul Klein
Wesley Kimler
Stray Show
Paul Morris
Matthew Marks
Susanne
Ghez
Takashi Murakami
Robert Crumb
Vanessa Del Rio
Richard Gray
David Klamen
The Art Institute of Chicago
Dan Devening
Zak Prekop
Martin Prekop
MCA
Museum of Contemporary Photography
Lauren
Weinberg
Hans Hoffman
KN Gallery
Alfedena Gallery
Edward Gorey
Gertrude
Abercrombie
DePaul Museum of Art
Corbett vs. Dempsey
John Corbett
I- Space
Duchess
Old Gold
Volta
David Bowie
Kehinde Wiley
The Whitney Biennial
Giorgio Morandi
Marlene Dumas
Peter Schjeldahl
Damien Hirst
Wes Mills
John Graham
Alfred Jensen
Joseph Cornell
Kurt Schwitters
Louise Bourgeois
Carl Hammer
Rhona Hoffman
Pierogi
The Clayton
Brothers
Camille Rose Garcia
Mike Kelley
Ed Ruscha
Steve Earle
Rush
Direct download: Bad_at_Sports_Episode_90_Lopez-Fitzpatrick.mp3
May 21st, 2007 at 6:50 am
Good job at making the small Chicago art world even smaller by naming the Tribune, TimeOut, Sharkforum, and BaS as the only 4 outlets for reflection on the scene. There is also a steady output from the venerable Mr. Yood, online reviews at artforum, frieze from London seems to have at least 1 Chicago reciew per issue, locally we also have the Sun Times, NewCity, Lifson (gasp, sorry), and did I leave anything out? It’s great to consult all these outlets, making us bigger, stronger.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:00 am
Also: F News, Chicago Journal, Centerstage, Art Letter, UR, what else?
May 21st, 2007 at 7:09 am
The Skokie Shopper
May 21st, 2007 at 7:12 am
Art in America at two reviews per issue — okay okay I admit that Artforum and Art in America don’t do the amount that Chicago deserves — but some of us are trying to bug them into amplifying that —-
Nevertheless, Sharkforum and BAS are doing the best to reach out to the world beyong the Greater Chicago area. Now we just need use that to get all the other “outsiders” to see the light and give Chicago attention similar to that they give to LA.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:14 am
The vulnerable Mr. Yood? That isn’t z very nice thing to say.
Lifson shouldn’t count that guy spends the bulk of his time talking to the audience and guests like they are small children. His style on the radio is dreck.
UR is pretty swell, and they seem to be trying to improve their place in the scheme of things.
They also forgot Artletter. Paul is still an interesting voice even if he does sell TVs.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:30 am
Balzac,
You chucklehead, Artletter WAS mentioned by Jamaica.
Ann
May 21st, 2007 at 10:32 am
i would add art papers (sort of). they usually have a review of chicago work, although i would like to see more. this month was david schutter (of body builder and 12×12ness). maybe chicago needs to start something like shotgun review (see last bad at sports episode). i think that is a really great resource and would get a lot more chicago voices heard.
there’s also the chicago journal and the chicagoist sometimes has online reviews.
May 21st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I’m with you on a centralized “Shorgun Review” section for Chicago — after listening to BAS last episode I went and checked it out and it is a great idea.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Hey Duncan, do you think that maybe part of the fun in a place like Donald Young is it’s churchy reverance? I am not sure I would want all my art spaces to become unintimidating.
May 21st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
rock on tony. rock on!
May 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
JMW,
I was thinking about that while I was in LA this weekend. Actually I think it is part of the “fun” of Donald Young’s Space. It is their way of signaling you that you are too revere the things you are seeing and there by situate them (in your mind) as important artifacts of this age. Absolutely, your correct.
I will say this, the Chinatown galleries and the Culver City Galleries make DYG and Body Builder look like the most helpful and friendly galleries known to humankind and for that I love them. I will never feel uncomfortable there ever again. Although, I will still be a little shy.
I do feel like it rather limits the audience that will participate in art though. Most people like to be welcomed and made to feel somewhat at ease and maybe a little flattered. I mean come on, even priest try to make you feel welcomed before you are humbled by the sublime nature of the “Lord”.
I think that for younger and mid-range galleries, friendly might not hurt. But if I was Matthew Marks, I would want my space to dwarf and subjugate the people who walked through it’s door. (If you are already a willing supplicant it is easier to convince you of the brilliance of what you are about to see. Or it “allows” you to give yourself over to the experience, both mental and visceral, that you are about to have or share, and thus it is far more rewarding.) But then again who wants to admit to being an upstart or mid-range. So fuck it, let our chosen alienation begin. We are aesthetes, after all, what better to subjugate ourselves too.
Jamaica,
Thank you for the correction. We apologize to those fine outlets you have mentioned. All of us at one time or another have really enjoyed the publications you mentioned.
I differ in the opinion that we should be satisfied by the current state of things. But that is me. I personally return to Elkin’s summation of the state of criticism in general as (paraphrasing) “maybe the criticism you get is the criticism you want”. I personally want more… I believe that this is a community no less interesting or vital than LA’s. We as this community choose not to play on a global stage. We choose to be like Kansas City or Minneapolis and consistently play little brother. We choose to look to our gate keepers as the only way to access the world outside and we generally choose to leave the moment something starts to “happen” for us. I personally don’t want to feel like that is the only way. There are other points of connection and we as this community can make our own bridges and find our own networks of support and participate in the international art world and not just have it brought here by our fine museums. I feel journalism, criticism, and essays are vital in that push and feel we need more.
I wish you would not see this show or any of the comments expressed as being attempts to make us smaller but as calls to action. Tony’s solution may not be your solution, nor will it be mine, but I want more visibility, more commitment to our practices and a developed set of concerns that reminds everyone that this is a global and cultural city, not just another place between LA and NYC.
Once again, I apologize on behalf of the show to the fine media outlets we missed while we were making sweeping generalizations. I would also like to reiterate our feelings of affection toward the job Ruth Lopez does, the way that she does it, and the major place she plays in the community.
JMW.
You’ve got me leaving Shark length posts. Fuck. I’m going to go make something.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Well JMW it might do you well to remember the ferocity at which The Shark attacks the making of oil painting -while he is dining on certain nefarious entities that unfortunately people our art world here…sharks excel at multi-tasking…
having said this -I agree with you on much of what you say above -quite excellent…..I was just in LA myself over the last few days -a place where I lived, worked and exhibited for five years in the late 80’s -early 90’s….
I went first and foremost to attend the opening of a brilliant exhibition -actually more of a cornation of the new king of concentric painting -that would be Don Suggs -with his brilliant new exhibition at LA Louver ‘Concentric’..running concurently with his 30 year survey exhibition at Otis College of Art and Design -Don Suggs- One Man Group Show.
Next on The Shark’s agenda was visiting with The Shark of Venice -the ageless, great painter Ed Moses -one of The Sharks pals and, heroes…
Visiting with my friends at Louver, renewing my ties there, I was once again reminded of what a real gallery, professionally run is actually like. There is not a single comparable situation here in Chicago. Here is a gallery that with a mixture of local LA artists and bigger international names, mounts serious, world class exhibitions (upstairs from Don’s exhibition is a Leon Kossoff drawing show -that is absolutely wonderful)….the effort that is made, documented records of exhibitions that are kept..an actual archivist!…ads that are taken! catalogs that are printed!…not to mention the actual space of which the gallery consists…..nothing to be found here in Chicago even remotely comes close…I’ve never had a problem giving this gallery 50% why? THEY EARN IT!
Coverage here…..yes Ruth does a terrific job -with the one minor glitch -that being the fawning, ubsequious Erik Wenzel from Art no, Idiocy is more like it……..do us all a favor Ruth, lose this simpering clown…..I think Tony is way off base with his notion theat Time Out has won anything -The Reader is suffering from Craigs List and other online entities….
Coverage here -I’m not so concerned with local -its ok we all are aware of each other -is it as good as with theater -where Hedy Weiss and Chris Jones promote as well as critque? Well, no it is not -granted. But yet, -its international where we really have a problem- Artforum, Art In America, Modern Painters -the level of coverage is pathetic…Art In America features for us here, an incompetent and a bought and paid for bureaucrat -as for Art Forum, Mr unctuous himself Jim Yood -who really needs to get over being so pleased with himself, and yes talking to an imaginary audience of apparently infatuated children, and do some actual work writing about the scene here -something he has basically neglected for the last 20 years or so…and an occaisonal review by Michelle Grabner….better go look at those Suggs concentric paintings Michelle….and then either swim really fast or get out of the water…as for what I have seen her choose to write about……not so good. Perhaps more expedient than anything…
I think we really have an opportunity to use the internet in a way different from any other major city -precisely because of the stranglehold of a few here, their towering mediocrity thus the dynamic it has created and the fact that we have this affordable, doable way to create international access/ infrastructure for ourselves -artists taking the lead, being apex in our environment.
Sharkforum is pleased to announce Doug Harvey art critic LA Weekly, will be joining The Sharkpack as a regular contributer and, editor.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I suppose it would be wrong not to acknowledge that Art In America is now apparently taking some positive steps with a new Chicago correspondent -Kevin Nance.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:00 am
“I believe that this is a community no less interesting or vital than LA’s. We as this community choose not to play on a global stage.”
Wise words, Duncan. As I keep insisting as the “insideandoutside” Shark-member, it IS A CHOICE. Now make the choice to be international and let’s run with it. Wesley and I and the other Sharks and TonyF and BAS have begun, we just need more of you to come along!
Also, I’m doing one review of a Chicago show at Art in America, Jon Rajkovich at Lisa Boyle. I’ll do one each time I get to Chicago. It won’t be much, but it is intended as symbolic — That is to help point out how easy it is to do them on a national and international stage.
BY the way, “political” cartoons are underway concerning teh artworld created in collaboration by Steve Hammann and I — coming soon!
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:11 am
Duncan, Mark -yes……look at some of the things we are doing -the work that is happening around Chicago -the non-consensoriat scene -the one that has been continually stifled by the conceptual 101 / institutional cabal….lets bring them down at the same time we raise the game here -its really the same difference….question authority –like the Driehaus farce for instance…how much fun is it shining the lite on this stuff and watching the curatoroaches run for cover-
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:54 am
I agree… Let’s not make anymore art.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:24 am
Or anymore grammar.
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:12 am
And lets’ make silly comments, clearly indicating that we can hardly read for content, and then use a cute “handle” instead of our own name. (With lots of typos, if I’m doing it.)
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:15 am
BTW, I finally listened to the whole show straight through, while walking my dogs in the mountains. IT is WONDERFUL. I could listen to TonyF for hours. Ruth had some great comments and insight. No wonder Time Out is doing well on the fine art scene. (Just get some more writers up to your caliber RL!)
Thanks for a great show, BASies!
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:08 am
I agree, this was a stellar discussion, I enjoy Ruth’s work at Time Out and it was delightful to hear her perspective expounded on in a conversational way.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Interesting discussion about art coverage in Chicago, Artropolis, and the art community in general. Tony: Ruth did not finish several of her thoughts in the beginning. I know she had slightly differing opinions and all, but….
Both Tony and Ruth and everyone else who listened: It seems that there’s some massive misinformation about the Chicago Artists’ Coalition’s involvement with the Artist Project. Where did it originate? When discussing this type of stuff with such certainty, at least be certain of the facts. WE DID NOT MANAGE the Artist Project. We were the beneficiaries of the opening benefit, just like Best Buddies were the beneficiaries of Art Chicago, and the MCA used to be the beneficiary of Art Chicago years ago. I was asked to give advice about the name of the show (which I did), marketing ideas, booths, set-ups, etc. Having had experience organizing artist fairs and having curated some in the past, I gave some ideas about those aspects. We also advertised the show, sent out call for entries, and promoted the concept as much as possible, as did Paul Klein. We were 4 jurors selecting the artwork to be included in the Artist Project - I was very adamant that the quality of the artwork should be the only criterion for inclusion and my grading reflected that, although not everyone on the panel agreed with me.
Tony: why do you think that the Artist Project needs to be open to all artists regardless of their representation status? I wasn’t sure why you felt that it would have been a better show necessarily. What about the price? Do you think that that might have contributed too? If you ask the Artist Project participants, they were very happy with the event and the opportunities it offered. They made connections, and some sales. For many artists, that is what is important. For others, being picked up by a major gallery is what is important. And yet for others, it is the actual creation of the work that is of import. So, let’s defer to the artists participating. If some don’t want to participate, they don’t have to.
For all the talk about empowering artists to do for themselves, it’s too bad that there is such expressed contempt for those who are not perceived to be doing a job reaching the level considered adequate by the “alternative gatekeepers”. We are all gatekeepers in some way, if it is against the establishment or in conjunction with it. We allow those we consider like us, or demonstrating our standards of excellence, in, and keep the others out. I think we should recognize that. Ruth mentioned it slightly - we are more or less at war with one another, hoping that the winner gets to represent CHICAGO ART and be the spokesperson. Or am I totally off?
Also, I do want to add that the Chicago Artists’ Coalition’s newspaper, Chicago Artists’ News, is currently the only publication in Chicago dedicated to arts coverage and art issues affecting the art community locally and regionally (we also have correspondents from NY, LA, and Europe). Yes, at this point you must be a member to get it, or pay $1.50 per issue (just like TimeOut, albeit monthly). We are also starting an art journal in late 2008 - it’ll be published 3 times per year. It would be appreciated to recognize this contribution, and help us move it forward. We do want ideas for improvement (expressed gently people, my skin isn’t very thick yet).
Ok, I have lots more to say but no more time. Gotta get some work done too. I love TimeOut, and yes, I think it is obvious that it has won (Ruth: the guy who interviewed me and might have given out this false info had not done his homework, although I tried to inform him as much as possible, but maybe it did not stick), love the exchange of ideas (although i do like a less dictatorial approach, which I have seen so much of on all the major blogs lately). OK, fire away. Just don’t kill me.
-Olga Stefan
Chicago Artists’ Coalition
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
It’s all love here Olga.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Here’s another recent addition to the Chicago Blogging art Interview/Review sites
http://www.chicagoarts-lifestyle.com
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Olga, I think you meant to say you were one of four jurors; there were three other jurors who are not from the CAC. It’s unfortunate that a few use “CAC” as synonymous with whatever it is they perceive as sub-standard art. Only around 160 artists (Paul’s number from art letter) submitted for the Artist Project; even assuming allowing currently represented artists to apply would have made more than a marginal difference in the numbers, from the sounds of it, the decision to exclude currently represented artists was a MART decision.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:47 pm
It was definitely a MART decision. At an informational meeting for the Artist’s Project they made it clear that this year only unrepresented artists would be able to participate as they had already begun marketing that way. So obviously investors and galleries consulting the MART had the final say this year. What they’ll have to learn for next year is that not all representation is created equal, and that landscape paintings, that would look great at the Wells Street art fair, do not transition well to an international art exposition.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
from how I understand it, the decision to include only non-represented artists and to use The Artist Project proceeds to benefit the CAC was an ‘early’ decision -made before the mart people had a clear grasp of the art world here and elsewhere-
I think both decisions were mistakes -that hopefully will be remedied next year.
the CAC is an organization of artists who don’t cut it plain and simple. The work is substandard.
-I will suggest to the Merchandise Mart people that a far better way to support the scene here will be to help BAS and Sharkforum and other sites defray operating costs.
Also, to help the fair become truly world class, I will use whatever influence I have to open the project up to all artists. The fact is, in this art world, if you are halfway decent and want representation, you can easily find it.
I thought there were perhaps 5 or 6 professional quality participants in the Artist Project this year. This is unfortunate, as I see this part of the fair as an exciting component- in terms of its potential; -that as criteria for inclusion, this thing should be about excellence.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
“Mark Staff Brandl May 22nd, 2007 at 6:12 am
And lets’ make silly comments, clearly indicating that we can hardly read for content, and then use a cute “handle” instead of our own name. (With lots of typos, if I’m doing it.)”
You mean like “THE SHARK” ?
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
‘Love Handles’ -well that kind of says it all -The Shark is usually on point, precise and, about content -if you had half a brain you would get that.
The art world is a stupid place, peopled by idiots -such as yourself. As Robert Hughes noted -good art gets made in spite of the art world - moronic and insipid comments like your just underline that fact.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Ok, forget working - I just have to address the Shark cause that’s so not cool: The CAC has 2300 members. We are NOT an organization that curates, or selects artists for inclusion based on the quality of their artwork. WE ARE A SERVICE ORGANIZATION!!!!!!! We serve (and in this case maybe should protect too). How do we serve? Well, you could find out….http://www.caconline.org/default.asp?page=services
We are trying to be more inclusive, not less inclusive. More inclusive means including you too, Wesley, although I see how uninterested you are and will probably have to give up that idea. We want to represent within our membership the diversity of ideas that exist here in Chicago, and to a great extent we do. Some of the better known artists in the city are members, and although you might think that they are not your equal, Wesley, they are still Chicago’s greats. Certainly we have lots of work to do to engage younger and more experimental artists, and we will.
Also, what do you mean “use Artist Project proceeds to benefit the CAC”? You must be kidding. NOOOOOOO, the proceeds from applications went to the MART for marketing, and all the other costs. We just got $2000 from the Opening Night party after buying the wine (BTW, Wesley, did you buy a ticket? I saw you walking around, said hello, and you walked the other way. Nice…)
Lastly, why do the Artist Project participants have to measure up to your standards of quality? There were 4 jurors in total. OK, say you think my taste sucks. Paul was on the panel, and 2 others whose tastes are well regarded. It was a very basic grading system. Hopefully more will apply next year. More choice.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
ruh roh….
oh not she diint!
good luck Olga.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“and you walked the other way. Nice…)”……errrrrrrrr -that would be ’swam’ the other way- actually, if I did happen to miss you Olga, the perceived slight was unintentional, and actually, I believe I did say hello.
from what I heard, there were slim pickings for the project this year -hopefully that will change for next year -Tony Fitz and I both agree on the importance of all artists being eligible for The Artist Project -for me however, unlike Tony, the way it was configured this year was not a deal breaker-
though there may be some ancillary benefits to belonging to the CAC, for the most part, artists exhibiting under the auspices or involved with this organization seem to be at the Old Town Art Fair level-
sorry Olga -its not my fault, its the way it is
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I have to hand it to Olga. You have major balls for calling out Wesley “The Shark” Kimmler. Most people avoid arguing for wariness of the sound and fury that ensues. I am one of them. So I applaud you in concisely and reasonably addressing his bullshit.
“Don’t say anything, that’s what he wants. He wants an argument and a platform,” we all think. And it is true. But more power to you Olga, your responses are intelligent and well thought out.
I am sure we will soon be subjected to a tirade or “Shark Attack” as he likes to call it. But we can always just not read it.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Shark, dismissing the work of every artist belonging to the CAC in one brushstroke is crap, a non-sequitor, and not particularly productive for the Chicago arts community or to make any of the points you are want to make about the Censuriat gatekeepers. The CAC does not exist to select, exhibit and/or promote the work of particular artists. Rather, it is a service organization and provides valuable information and resources to artists, both those starting out and those who have worked at art for a long time, and has for 30 years, working to improve the environment in which artists live and work.
You’re right, Michael: not all representation is created equal. Some of it is really not much more than being unrepresented. I think the only exclusion for the Artist Project, in the end, must have been currently represented (which I assume means in an ongoing contractual relationship and not simply included in a show in a gallery) — perhaps even currently represented in Chicago — as I believe (from blogs) that some artists exhibiting in the Artist Project had representation in the past or are represented in other cities. The distinctions may not have been all that clear to artists when they were considering applying; so perhaps greater clarity might have helped. I suspect the $1000 probably was a more significant deterrent to applying ( to which one would add other exhibition costs), both because it’s a lot of money and because artists do not want a “vanity” stigma, along with the fact that the first year of the Project inevitably had artists taking a wait and see approach.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Erik Weasel -I mean Wenzel….now what was that crappy, snide remark you made about Tony Fitz on Art or Idiocy?…hmmmmm what an interesting moment it will be when your creepy little self runs in to Tony, I am looking forward to the entertainment factor of that pending event.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
This is so addictive…Yikes, I will have to extract myself from this chair and go home at some point. This new way of communicating by blogging…Isn’t it alienating? I know it’s easier, but I feel weird. Anyway, enough about me. I’m just not used to it.
Wesley, can I call you sharkie? It’s cuter. Anyway, it’s true that artists that have not reached a certain level of professionalism might need more support, but the services that we provide are really varied and can be very beneficial for everyone. Not everyone uses every service. But our newspaper is getting better, and we will start doing cool stuff online too, so my idea is to not give up on us. We are active and we want to be meaningful in today’s art community, which we need to recognize is very multi-faceted. The reason that Chicago has such a vibrant art community is precisely because there are so many different types of artists, including those that bring in the masses of visitors at Old Town Fair. This is all part of the art community. Wait, how does it go? It’s the economy, stupid? (I’m just quoting Clinton, don’t bite my head off…)
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Olga -I guess we are having our phone conversation here online -as you probably are aware, the head of your board -Dr Jerome Hausman is one of my closest and oldest friends and, a major collector of my work. The ancillary befits of CAC are programs that can be benifical to many artists -insurance, grant forms etc……having said this, the artists who gather around your organization as a way to have their work seen in public, are almost uniformly ‘not there’…
I am not trying to be mean about this -. Weasel Erik Wenzel the self titled ‘artist extraorinaire’ -have you seen his work?…will try to turn this exchange into something that works as a platform for attacking me on his way to kissing the behinds of people he think will forward his cause. (Ruth -as your good friend, I say get rid of this guy -I’m sure Tony Fitz concurs with me-) I will remind people -sharkforum 1.8 million hits in April -Doug Harvey -LA Weekly’s art critic -is joining us -due to how much he likes what is being said and how it is being said…..need I say more?
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I still prefer a phone conversation…and looooove coffee. What do you say, Sharkie? My treat. Also, since we are tossing around figures: we, http://www.caconline.org, got 2.5 million hits in April and 1.8 million so far in May. We also have 8,250 registered users. So, there….But you know, hits are really not the way to count traffic. You need to focus on the individual visits.
And, I think that Sharkforum is cool, I just wish there were less anger in the whole damn art community. It’s like we’re all sharks fighting for that bloody piece of the Chicago art community. The strongest shark survives. Why is this a mandatory model? Strength is in numbers, right?
Ok, Sharkie, let’s talk on the phone. Even if you don’t want to talk, I’m sure you’ll need a drink at some point (coffee, tea, diet coke, something….) I am lifting myself off this chair and going to see the sun…Good night and good luck!
BTW, he’s not the head of our board….But we dig him. He’s funny.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Look, the thing for CAC to do is scuttle its website for showing art and, its tendency to be a gathering place for Old Town Art Fair quality artists. Its no secret this is the deal and has been for decades.
If you want to creat an artist services organization that provides access to health insurance/information/grant applications etc -great….where you dilute and negate any potential is in offering any forum for artists on your site -due to your complete inclusiivity Olga, yopu get everything….which leads to the now notorious egalitarian beige mush The Shark rails against.
To quote Ruth Lopez, “is there anyone more vociferous about art in this city than Wesley Kimler? Maybe not.” And this, is true. I am a proponent of intelligent, well thought-out subversion. I do not support obsequious social climbers -kissing the behinds of the powers that be here -like Art or Idiocy -as supporting the people this little twit supports is tatamount to being an art world Tory -suppporting those who have presided over the demise of and the provincialism of the Chicago art world since the late 80’s.
As for CAC…I’ve said my piece -it happens to have become a repository for a lot of mediocre work hence, workers -if Olga want to be taken seriously, she needs to dismantle the parts of that program that embraces mediocrity.
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Dude, whatever.
Wesley, OK, you don’t like me. You think I am some sort of evil person that supports the evil views of other, more evil people and therefore we must all be destroyed. All right, I get it. I think anyone who reads all this gets it too. So you can stop. You made your point.
That said, I’m going to continue to have my own opinions and write about things I am interested in writing about. And I will write about them in the manner in which I choose, it is my right.
There is only this point to address: I really don’t appreciate you threatening me with physical harm and publicly attempting to get me fired. Because be honest, that is what you are doing. And that seriously crosses the line.
I’m done commenting, I will save what things I have to say for my own blog. Anyone can chose to read it, or not. As always, if anyone has an issue with something I have written, or an opinion I have expressed, feel free to contact me via email.
artoridiocy@yahoo.com
Take care
Erik
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:05 pm
physical harm? what, so now you are hallucinating yourself into being a victim? Look Erik -your snarky comments about Tony Fitzpatrick on your blog -are issues you can work out with the man himself. It has zero to do with me, though I am sure to find it all highly entertaining. Maybe you shouldn’t be such a little punk saying crappy things about people if the results make you feel threatened…… When you have taken me out of context and posted derogatory garbage about me on your site -as we both know, I have contacted you privately -to discuss your mistake- cutting you way more slack than you deserve or warrant.
As far as getting you fired -hey ‘Dude’ to use your term -you aren’t hired to be fired -you freelance on occaison at Time Out and you know what? I have no problem telling my good friend Ruth Lopez I think she can do better, that your typical SAIC hipster drivel, uninformed and clueless when it comes first of all to painting and/or aesthetics in general, is a substantial distance below the standards Ruth herself sets for her section, and does us artists here in Chicago, a disservice. I have a very good hunch Tony Fitz and significant others feel exactly the same.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
That the CAC offers artists the ability to start/maintain a web presence if they choose and develop some level of audience for their particular work does not change the basic services that the CAC provides. Sigh, this is what I meant by a non-sequitor — the concept that the CAC as an service organization that does not tie the services it provides to artists to reaching some particular level of validation or imprimature of professionalism somehow is embracing one form of artist or art over another and ought to jettison inclusiveness to alter the place of the Chicago in the international art scene. Neither the CAC — nor even the Old Town Art Fair and similar venues which serve a similar niche of the public that buys art — are the relevant target in the debate over Chicago’s place in the international art scene. I’ve seen plenty of medicocre sameness hanging on gallery walls.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:35 pm
I’d say “Can’t we all just get along” but I know the answer and I hate redundancy.
Both Erik and Wesley could stand to bash away at their fellow artists less. Although I have to say at least Wesley is upfront about it, Erik you’ve taken some cheap shots and then removed the ensuing discussion from your blog. Need I bring up Paul Klein.
All that aside, the funny thing is, is that everyone posting here actually gives a shit about art so we are proving the one of the major points of this weeks show, Chicago loves to break into tiny little packs and fuck-all-else if you don’t see things this way or that way.
If bad at sports has managed to do nothing else they have covered Chicago without getting bitchy about a whole lot, or signing on to a team, with the possible exceptions of their ill explained loathing of Ed Lifson and deserved joking about Rashid Johnson, who frankly really sucks and deserves all the negative press anyone can give him. Whatever happened to that joke, it should return to the show.
SO, seriously lets band together, create more resources for the community. CAC is a nice site, and I like their newsletter. I wish more people participated in the site, it is a bit of a ghost town, but the idea is a positive one.
Join together, come up with new methods or raising the profile of this burg.
Wesley and Erik, I will gladly start a collection for your favorite charities if you two square up in the proposed “Fight Night” that Industry of the Ordinary was talking about hosting.
For that matter I want to see the bad at sports folks offer themselves for pummeling, I know a few folks would sign on for that.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
As a matter of fact, now that I think about it; Dear Ruth, go to art or idiocy and read ‘artist extraordinaire’s shit comment about Tony -and then, let me remind you of how Erik took a quote of mine - describing Ed’s great generosity in helping me, another artist get a commission, and twisted this into trying to say I used the context to discuss myself ….when in fact I was discussing what an unselfish, great friend I and others had just lost…..a completely fucked thing to do.
Ruth we do deserve better than this fawning little sycophant -I do urge you to lose him from the pages of Time Out.
-why not ring up Tony and get his take on it as well-
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Well Balzac, I have given ‘Erik’ way more attention than he deserves…….read what I actually say about CAC -a group btw that I -no doubt unlike most people on this site, have actually addressed and lectured to -(before your time Oga)….CAC needs to redefine itself, and lose a portion of what it is in my opinion, to have any credibility-
as for chomping on people -the Shark eats out of necessity -never due to malice. My attacks -like Night of the General on Sharkforum for instance, are principled arguments within, philosophical context, points of view. I attack with reason.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:04 pm
(before your time Olga) -pardon my typing-
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Honoré de Balzac,
Thank you Sir. I perfer not to get in the ring with anyone, as I’m a tad bit delicate. Ah fuck it, why not? Wait before I agree, who wants some?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:17 am
Hey, hey HEY. What a fart-stench mess. I mean, you’re all good peeps. Despite the “allegiances,” I’m sure there’s something that everybody in the community likes about what each of you are doing, Wenzel, Kimler, Mr. “the Sack.” No need for histrionics. Chill pill time. We may muss each other’s hair once in awhile, but that’s pure Chicago, right? I personally know and like all of you and think there’s merit in all these perspectives, no matter how hard they are to glean from the diametrically opposed other side. Except Richard Holland. I can’t stand that gigantic, gaping whore of pure assholery!
M
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:13 am
Michael Workman….nice of you to attempt the arbitrator -but not this time-art or idiocy boy obviously trying to score points with a certain sector of the art world here and aparently -and completely erroneously perceiving some kind of linkage between Paul Klein, Tony Fitz and myself -has in his petty snarky manner taken shots at all three of us- its all pretty transparent -the last thing we need is more of his fawning, and obsequious garbage promoting the status quo -a failed status quo! Lets face it, one Andrew Patner is enough for any place.
How many bad writers must we tolerate?….Look, the whole CACA crew was a disaster, thank god they are finished! we now have Time Out -The Sun Times -the Tribune and all the blog sites to give us local infrastructure..I mean is anyone really pining away for the days of Fred Camper?….
I’m just suggesting to Ruth Lopez -that she replace this clowns occaisonal review with someone better -it can’t be that difficult to find someone -anyone- sheeeeesh!
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:42 am
Dee anyway you cut it, looking at the website the CAC provides will quickly disabuse anyone of the notion that what is up there is anything other than pretty amateur work-
having said this -I do agree with you CAC is not really part of the problem with whats going on here in Chicago in terms of the art world here being more ‘international’ -namely because CAC is really not particularly relevant.
I also agree with you -that what one often finds on gallery walls here is mediocre sameness…art attempting consensoriat approbation is more often than not, the culprit.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:26 am
Michael,
Guilty as charged.
Wesley, I agree the day Michael attempts to be an arbitrator is a dark day indeed!
What has the effect been on Fred Camper with the brutal hacking and slashing of the Reader’s coverage?
Duncan, you are delicate, best not to start shit, you’ll get hurt.
R
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:32 am
“Wait before I agree, who wants some?”
Jeanne Dunning would kick your ass Duncan. Seriously.
Lets see….who else would sign on…I’ll come up with a list….
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:41 am
Hey — I’ve tried posting here three times, and each time it appears and then disappears. Do you have a mystical voodoo force shield out against me?!!
As I keep trying to say:
1. I was a part of the Artists Project and had a great time, sold a lot, made many good contacts, loved the artist contact,
am a GREAT artist,
with some renown, and usually with representation (which is not all it is cracked up to be by beginning artists), …
2. AND …… I believe the AP MUST be re-imagined dramatically.
3. Olga — Wow! You’ve got guts. As I remember you and I differed more over the quality of Chicago’s critical “opportunities.” See people, she argued with ol’ Sharky, as I often do, and he hasn’t killed us yet, so quit the chirping about that he “intimidates” people into not talking. He only intimidates scardy cats and stirs up those who actually hate his telling of the truth, as far as I can see.
4.Erik — you can’t make snide comments like you did about Tony F or “retarded” comments like the Klein thing and then criticize others for doing the same. I think you THINK you are a defender of somethingorother, but you come across as more of a Wanna-Be-Consensus-Houseboy than I think you realize. Look in the mirror first, then attack.
5. Yes, I know I’m kind of an asshole too in attacks — although not everyone sees that because my writing and speaking style are simply more amusing, and because, being in the Sharkpack, I am then compared to Wesley, which makes me look like a friendly, civil type in comparison. But really I’m not. If you catch me being too aggressive, please tell me, them I will yell at you and deny it.
6. Don’t forget that in Wesley’s attacks is always an eye for quality, and much forgotten central point of art.
7. I guess we cannot be nice — but that is NOT all bad! Here in Europe everybody tends to be “nicey-nice” “kissy-kiss” then does the complaining secretly. Doing it in the open is the Chicago, and American, way and frankly I find it refreshing.
8. That said, to get back to the content of the show, make a CHOICE to be international, and proudly Chicagoan (no Malinchismo), make HIGH quality art, stop being obsequious and take friendly enough so that we can argue about CONTENT, but not so friendly as to make everything “okay.”
9. So maybe there were only a handful of good and active artists in AP — was it really much different in the main show? The percentage there was higher in fame, but also rather low on the average in quality. I DO think though that we have to keep coming up with ways to empower artists and get them to take their lives into their own hands and stop kissing ass. Which means such “alternatives” need to be EVEN higher in quality than the main shows if we are to make our vision clearly understood.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:15 am
You guys started referencing the Rashid Johnson show in the episodes around the 40s and 50s. I tried to download that one (one of the first) and it’s not there. Have you since reposted that show so I can hear your comments about Rashid’s Johnson? Pesonally, I think his work is pretty fuckin good.
And the show with Erik W. on it was really a chore to suffer through. It sounds like a couple 8th graders in their basement with mom’s tape recorder. Listen to it again. I really couldn’t believe you guys put that one out. Revist the shows with William Conger or james Elkins for example. The information, perspective and general seriousness don’t jibe. Or for loose fun and humor, Hamza Walker. Erik’s site is fine but that interview, well…
I’ll get in the fight night.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:21 am
“Wanna-Be-Consensus-Houseboy”
Now, now, while I don’t often see things Erik’s way, and I think his dismissal of Bridge was inaccurate, AND I think the Paul thing was utter BS, I do think mean spirited name-calling is not helping anyone. Seriously if you want to attack someone’s intellectual prowess, or position on an issue, I know from you prior posts and bits on the show that you are capable of a solid argument.
I don’t think we should be nice, but making personally denigrating comments about Erik isn’t helping the dialog.
Baul Shack baby Baul Shack.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:34 am
Please read the whole sentence and you’ll see that I am attempting to be nice about it. (But maybe point No. 5 came through too strongly!)
But I’m afraid THAT was NOT name-calling, it is indeed a truthful statement of my perception. As I said, and I quote, “I think you THINK you are a defender of somethingorother, but you come across as more of a Wanna-Be-Consensus-Houseboy than I think you realize.”
I think that is true and I think he should consider that. I DID NOT say that he IS in fact that way “in his soul” — for that I cannot vouch. I don’t know him that well. But for every Good Thing on his site (and there are many), there is at LEAST one such “off-hand” comment putting him in that position. Listen to the interview and read between the lines, as well. I suspect he “respects” his former teachers and current employers far too much, to put it extremely delicately for your delicate little ears (eyes? since you are reading this?).
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:50 am
“Wanna-Be-Consensus-Houseboy”
Sorry Balzac -I think it describes Erik perfectly….
…Mark, you are one of the handful of good artists who did the project this year -I simply wanted to avoid a list……..
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:23 am
Duncan wants to get in the ring with Jeanne ‘The Spine crushin Machine’ Dunning!!
Jeanne is gonna bring the shit storm Duncan! You better look out!! Jeanne’s gonna take your Zombie Group Huggin ass and tie it in a neat little bow!
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:48 am
Unrelated to the above:
Did anyone see this in Sunday’s Chicago Tribune??
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/arts/chi-1sf28thmay20,1,5599369.story?coll=chi-leisurearts-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
Holy cats!! What century are we in?
One response: http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/chicagoland/2007/05/21/going-greenhorn/
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 am
Hi Jeff — I have all of the episodes and have posted the one with a review of the Rashid Johnson show at Monique Meloche at http://www.dolanart.com/ArtReviewCastGameOn.mp3
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 am
Word.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 am
Now, I think a good Jeanne Dunning post is pretty funny but come on she asked me personally to try and cut that stuff out and really… She runs a great school and we should show her some respect.
That said I’m pretty sure she would rip my face off and where my asshole as a hat.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:56 am
Shark, I should have written with greater clarity. The CAC is not a relevant target in the context of exhibition because it’s not an exhibition venue (website aside) but having a artist service organization is not irrelevant in the context of infrastructure for artists in Chicago and improving conditions for artists in Chicago. I recall attending a few of Paul’s artists’ meetings about the Chicago Artist Foundation (now Chicago Artist Project, I think) and quite a bit of talk about the need to educate artists on marketing, taking charge of their own futures, etc. — all of which CAC does and which is valuable. I don’t remember Paul or others at that time ever mentioning a litmus test to be able to benefit from or take advantage of these kinds of services. I get that you think offering any ability to show work along with providing services somehow takes away from the services unless the work is screened, but everyone starts somewhere, and the CAC is not about separating the chafe from the wheat, nor as a service organization should it be. Giving artists a place to start — in some cases end — whatever stage they are at does not take away from the value of the services to all artists.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:12 am
Seriously,
NO MORE fake Jeanne Dunning posts. She is not okay with it. And neither are we, I implore you.
Richard
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 am
Dee -we are somewhat in agreement here -however, due to the fact that the chafe clings closely to CAC -this in turn renders the whole thing suspect……look, most ‘alternative’ art organizations/collectives (and yes, CAC does have a certain collective, egalitarian conceit going on) suffer from the same quality problems your organization does -which is why I have tried to, for my part have Sharkforum be more anarchistic, and, ‘aesthetic’ -like say, Ant Farm was back in the 60’s
-Olga has contacted me recently, wanting to discuss how to improve CAC; well, first, make it more professional -more abouts the be’s than the wannabes….perhaps change the name so it doesn’t sound so damned commie-
And second, perhaps re-think how an organization like CAC should function in the cyber/analog world……
as far as Paul’s CAF -remember Dee, that was a run-amuck version of something Tony Fitz and I started. One of the things that caused it to fall flat on its face was Paul wanting CAF to be all things for all people -with the ‘Cafe’ on the 6th floor -no, wait a minute -that was the 1st floor…my point being, once the inital impetus and ideas -a great many of them mine, were put into a collective like environment, their original dynamics born out of neccesity thus abrogated, it all turned to shit and imploded-
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:08 am
CAF may have imploded as you say because it was trying to do too much, including things that were already being done — ie, lacked focus. Or it may have imploded for other reasons, like lack of capital. Not being involved, I don’t know.
I am not going to argue whether some members of CAC have a collective attitude on exhibition issues. I don’t. I see service organizations like the CAC addressing barriers to entry that individuals may face, especially individuals starting out, by combining resources of their members(ie, member dues) to make information and resources for proceeding as a professional artist largely available, and leaving it then to the individual artists to use the resources and information in plying their own trade on their own merits, come what will.
I am curious to learn your ideas for how an organization like the CAC could function better in the cyber/analog world. Perhaps specifics there are something you could share with Olga.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Specifics?
The SHARK doesn’t have time for specifics!
Specifics would take time away from the SHARK’s busy schedule being the best, most important, most smartest and most under-appreciated artist in Chicago EVER!; and jousting windmills and paper tigers.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Wesley Kimler isn’t specific only to those too dimwitted to read what he actually has to say, which, almost always deals with and discusses issues via specifics, very rarely given to gross generalization.
This is the kind of stupid crap we weed out at sharkforum -btw dummy -Night of The General ….my latest article, have you read it? -where is there anything about that particular piece that is not specific? Is there any specific point I bring up there or, in the ongoing discussion here that you would like to offer an opinion on?
Why don’t you gut up use your real name and answer the question?…..but of course you won’t- cyber cowards never do.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Tigers have an advantage on land …
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:29 pm
yes, but sharks never venture forth on land -whereas tiger on occaison do try their paws at swimming…….
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Only Wesley Should be posting as Wesley.
We love the fact that this is an open forum to everyone but if it is abused for childish taunts…
Well it will be bad. Really bad.
duncan.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Actually the apex preditor on land and sea is us, Humans. We kicked the shit out of Tigers and Sharks. Mostly do to thumbs, tools and an ability to kill at a distance. We are bad, very bad. So don’t F with humans.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Damn wrong do. due. Stupid blogosphere.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Yeah, we’ve always prided ourselves on allowing anonymous posting and having a nice and interesting dialog. Please don’t put us in a position where we have Chistopher delete posts that are posted improperly and require sign-up to post. That will suck.
I am begging whoever is doing this to cut it out, you will wreck a nice thing if you don’t stop.
Thanks,
Richard
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Don’t sweat it Duncan -let this dope make himself look stupid- if there is one characteristic, that anyone with half a brain would note, about how I do formulate my arguments, it is that they are always based upon specificity…..if this anonymous fool can’t figure that out -or at least find some better, less insipid way to attack me -then let him flaunt his stupidity.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Yes, silly tigers … I did not realize you hadn’t posted the message under your name and read it as joking around.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Just curious…I posted a reply to your piece on Sharkforum last week and it never showed up. I thought it backed up your point succinctly.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
hmmmm? I have been out of town -perhaps I missed it……
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
It pertained to the Artadia grants. Are you aware these? If not, check out this link to the Chicago awardees and jurors since 2001. It is funded in part by the Dreihaus foundation. I think you’ll wet your pants (uh…or soil your fins) with laughter after reading the lists.
http://www.artadia.org/awardees.html
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 pm
can you re-send over on the forum?
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
There are some good some bad on the artadia list.
I wish there were more granting agencies like them.
It would be nice if there was a centralized location for grant info.
BAS or SharkForum should house such a thing.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Hi guys, man do you have a lot of time on your hands…back and forth and back and forth. Anyway, I thought I’d take a break and play some ping-pong too. Thanks for the call, Skarkie. I was totally listening, and like I mentioned - there are things that I can implement and some that I can’t due to the nature of the organization (its mission, goals, and what its mandate is from inception). Of course a watchdog group is a great idea, and we have done this for a long time, discussing these poignant issues in the newspaper and sometimes advocating directly to the people in question. The real problem is that we have not yet really made the work that we do widely known - I’m working on it. Help me out here…
We are doing so many cool things, and will do more. But here’s my principle - I don’t like preconceived ideas nor advancing a specific agenda (except when it comes for encouraging everyone to support Illinois Covered through our mass emails and newspaper). I totally agree, of course, that for Chicago to be an internationally respected cultural center it needs to have several artists that get seen, collected, and talked about throughout the world. And when I say “provide opportunities”, I don’t mean that I believe we are all equally talented, or that everyone deserves a show at Donald Young or wherever. But I totally believe that everyone needs a chance to either make it or break it. If they break it, that’s the nature of how the world turns…And believe me, both the marketplace (which for some is the litmus test for success) and history will be able to judge by themselves.
Yes, you can certainly argue that this and this rich-man consults with this-and-this fashionable curator and that it is all so wrong, but ultimately the work either holds up or not. People are famous one day and perish another, people are not famous one day, and appear out of nowhere. Or people can have astoundingly profitable careers in their city/country, and mean zilch in another. I mean anyway the artworld is crazy - billions of dollars on a Warhol, whatever. The GDP of some countries is less than that and people