Twin Cities Two Cents

But enough here – I am going to unpack this whole argument/Chicago’s possible response to an increasingly specious art world, over in the waters of sharkforum in the coming weeks…

uuhhhhh…….
“I wish this city had a single legit gallerist that wasn’t a follower with his or her face plunged into the ass of the sheep ahead of them.”

so this is gossip? Funny I found Workman’s observation, especially in light of the ‘critics’ contextualizing of the show as part of a genre described and informed by certain artworld trends as utterly appropriate to the discussion.

“I was even reading what Wesley had to say…about the painting, until that too started to devolve into the same thing.”

….and what precisely might that ‘thing’ be? gossip? there is, unfortunately to your argument Ms Boyle, not one sentence of gossip in my discussion. If you are making reference to my pleasure in practicing social psychiatry of a form/ in pointing out how the art world works here, perhaps if you had better understood it yourself, your gallery might have been more relevant/still in existence- suffice to say, as a dealer of my own work, I feel confident that over the last few months I have made more sales for more money than you did in the entireity of your tenure as an art dealer- so someone here must know what they are doing…..

“It’s not an interesting digression to use a review of a painter to tenuously segue into pointless slander about the person who owns the gallery. It’s tedious.”

….but that was not the digression… -actually the real digression had much to do with your review -the context in which you chose to frame the work, all of which Kavi is a participant in.

as for tedious -how about, “that low key, often monochromatic rendering of disparate objects and interiors, you know the one. The one Luc Tuymans made famous; the one that brought back small painting from the bombastic Eighties.”

you might want to consider given that we are halfway through 2008, that you could be called to account for indulging in a form of overkill and redundancy that stretches the definition of the word tedium, beating on a rancid puddle of flesh, bones and maggots, that perhaps a decade or so ago used to be the remains of a long dead horse-

And I look forward to more reviews by Lisa (again — on a somewhat technical, colleague-critic matter, I thought the “it is best when he does this — this direction doesn’t work” thing you did was great. Such constructive, yet standing on your own two feet, critcism is seldom nowadays. Keep it up!)

Now I’m off to Brittany in France for vacation!

I am very clear now that “serious” was entirely the wrong word in describing the aspirations of BaS. “Interesting” or “Useful” might have been a better word. I think that BaS can be irreverent and silly and still be of value in talking about art.

All the “golly, gee willickers” and “by goshes” notwithstanding, I assume from the amount of time a few people spend on here that one of the terribly self-effacing little goals is to be interesting. We are, at the very least, hoping to have discussions about art, and have people read them, no? Maybe even have more than the same handful of people get in there and comment.

My objection was to having posted a review of a show and to see that the thread got hijacked into (yet another) landslide of personal grievance disguised as “bravery” and “spot on observation”. It tends to quickly truncate the train of thought about the show and people get instantly fatigued by toxic gossip. And then they stop reading. I know I’ve stopped reading a discussion board or two in this town once the slinging gets under way.

Mark, on the other hand, said useful things. He pointed out what he hated about this kind of painting. Talked about some things I was forgetting, etc. That is the kind of conversation I would hope for. I was even reading what Wesley had to say…about the painting, until that too started to devolve into the same thing. I became scared that I was about to be referred to as having the brain of an ape, as I’ve seen happen before. So I stopped reading. Because I don’t want to face that I am a troglodyte. In fact, I shaved my legs twice this morning out of anxiety.

It’s not an interesting digression to use a review of a painter to tenuously segue into pointless slander about the person who owns the gallery. It’s tedious.

I was just hoping to keep this thing on the dance floor, that’s all.

However, you haven’t nearly gone far enough.

Fucking shark…..