Short Takes on the New Fall Shows: West Loop Edition
September 14, 2009 · Print This Article
Along with every other Chicago art blogger, I’m weighing in with my own brief notes on ten of the inaugural Fall gallery shows that opened this past weekend. Unlike the rest of the Chicago art universe, however, I saw all of these shows on Friday and Saturday afternoons, being a misanthropic anti-social type who loathes art openings. When it comes to looking at art, I’m all about getting down to business and an art opening is for talking, schmoozing, and catching up with friends, not for looking at art. So herewith, my short, West Loop-specific takes on the new Fall season. It’s incomplete — I haven’t had a chance to see Molly Springfield’s show at Thomas Robertello, for example, but I’ll get there.
Craig Doty, from the series Women, at Roots and Culture
Craig Doty at Roots and Culture: No doubt the most provocative show I saw over the weekend, I still don’t know where I land on Doty’s new series of photographs, all of them set-ups, depicting women in various states of objectification and degradation. The fact that I’m still chewing it all over and don’t have an immediate read is a huge plus in my book, and since there’s a chance I may write about this show elsewhere, I’ll hold my tongue for now (psyche!) other than to say: don’t miss it. Even if you wind up hating it, Doty’s work is worth hashing over.
Robyn O'Neil at Tony Wight Gallery
Robyn O’Neil at Tony Wight: One of the shows I was most looking forward to, having read many good things about O’Neil’s work, and as it turns out one of the biggest disappointments. Scaling up otherwise forgettable drawings on huge pieces of paper does not make said drawings any more interesting. I’ll try and go back again one more time to give this show some additional looking and consideration, but for now: underwhelming.
Paul Nudd at Western Exhibitions
Paul Nudd at Western Exhibitions: Puke meets pattern and decoration. The title of this show, Vomitomitron, was a put-off for prudish little me and I went in gearing myself up for annoyance. Surprise! Who knew paintings inspired by the contents of one’s stomach could look so delightful, so…well…delicious? I thoroughly enjoyed this show. Maybe because there was no actual vomit in any of Nudd’s paintings. Oh, and in the little side room? The small show of works by Dan Attoe? Liked it very much, mostly because of one painting, called Sea Kayakers (You Are Not Special). Ohhhhh how I love this painting. Something about how the kayakers appear to be paddling through cobwebs rather than sea water, coupled with the monstrous god-face with the empty eye sockets totally reminds me of this great YA series of books I just finished reading and am currently in withdrawal from. A stupid reason for liking a painting so much, maybe, but there it is.
David Lieske at Rowley Kennerk: I love that there are spaces in Chicago for this kind of hard-core, super-refined conceptualism, even though I myself am not drawn to projects like Lieske’s, which has to do with the pristine institutional packaging of obscure cultural references. The pleasures of Lieske’s work are, arguably, intellectual rather than visual, and that’s cool. But in my humble opinon guys like Simon Starling are doing this kind of thing in a much more interesting way–at least the stuff Starling produces has strong and compelling physical presence. But that’s mostly just my own bias for object-oriented work.
Philip von Zweck at ThreeWalls: Mr. von Zweck returns to a solo show format after working exclusively in collaborations for many years. I really love his paintings–the abstractions, I mean, not so much the one of the seal or the portrait (though I feel bad for saying so about the portrait in case it has some sort of personal meaning to the artist). The abstractions are complex and gorgeous, not an easy combination to achieve. Is it o.k. to say that an artist like von Zweck makes “gorgeous” paintings, or is that supposed to be besides the point?
Luis Gispert at Rhona Hoffman Gallery
Luis Gispert at Rhona Hoffman Gallery: Eh. I came away from this one thinking less of Gispert’s work. I think he may be overrated. The large-scale photographs were cool — how could they not be, really, they’re huge and shiny and in deep focus and have that dual interior/exterior landscape thing happening that can be quite spectacular, but the sculptures are an embarrassment and the 3 screen video installation, though well-intentioned, didn’t allow me to gain any real sense of this man and his relationship to labor and leisure-time expression, as the description of the piece purports. I need to go back and watch the video installation again, as it was undoubtedly the most interesting piece in the show.
Selina Trepp at Andrew Rafacz: A so-so to disappointing show, though I wasn’t previously familiar with Trepp’s work so it’s not like I had my hopes up. A pile of rocks on the floor, a video of a man tossing stones into a bucket and a woman spraying the glass wall in front of her with shaving cream, then they trade spaces, all projected partially through a hanging screen of broken mirror pieces.
Melanie Schiff at Kavi Gupta
Melanie Schiff at Kavi Gupta: Melanie Schiff’s work is all the rage, so I went to this show wanting to dislike it because, like all critics, I get to feel superior to everyone else when I go against the grain of public opinion. Too bad for me, it was a lovely exhibition. I admire the fact that Schiff isn’t pointlessly scaling up her photographs to make pretentious statements (or more money). She’s good, and in this case the hype is well deserved.
William Staples at 65 Grand
William Staples at 65 Grand: I don’t think we’re still technically in the West Loop anymore (are we?) but I previewed this show last week for a profile of Staples that will appear in this week’s New City. Hands down, the best show in this whole darn Fall shebang thing that I’ve seen thus far, and one which I’ll admit was part of the inspiration for writing my earlier post today on collecting.
Wheeee! I’m pretty sure I’ve never written about so many shows in one straight sitting before. Given that fact, take the above comments with the proverbial grain of salt. There’s still lots more left to see, and a few shows I want to visit again and reconsider. I’ll report back on my findings…you know, when I get around to it. And if you haven’t already, go read Jason Foumberg’s amazing cover story on The Museum of Contemporary Phenomena’s “The Glue Factory” exhibition on aging that recently opened at UIUC’s I Space Gallery–another on my long list of shows to see in Chicago over the coming weeks.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Re: Robyn ONeil’s show…reallly? I thought it (along with Molly Springfield’s show) were the only two with any substance this season.
I was blown away by the size of O’Neil’s small and large work. They both served their purpose and left me in such a strange, thoughtful state. Never seen such strong work at a gallery in Chicago, and I also thought it would work in a museum setting even better. It was sublime, sombre, and sincere.
You are the only person I have heard speak negatively about this show. I urge you to look again, slower.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Joanna is absolutely right on both counts. Robyn O’Neil and Molly Springfield are by far the most important gallery shows on view in Chicago right now, and it’s surprising to me that they both happen to be drawing. Those two, and the boiling boot at Rowley Kennerk, which is quite wonderful.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:59 am
I love when someone loves a painting for stupid reasons, go for it Claudine! And thanks for your reviews, I appreciate your take on the scene.
September 15th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Are you kidding me?! I’m with Joanna. You’ve missed the point – this work is not supposed to “hit you over the head”, but aims for a slow read. It’s quiet, sophisticated, and thought provoking. Maybe you should have been at the openings because you would have seen and heard all the positive reactions to Robyn O’Neil’s work. By far the best show of the entire night. Definitely go again, with mind and eyes open.
September 15th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Claudine is not alone. I did attend the opening at Tony Wight’s space. And I said in private what she wrote in public: In Robyn’s pieces the ratio of “worked” to “unworked” white paper was, at least initially, off putting rather than intriguing.
I supposed the meaning of the things to be in some way related to the illusion of three-dimensional space depicted within the frames–and, more, the relationship between that imagery framed tightly versus that which was left swimming in the frame.
We’re meant to ask questions about our experience as a viewer–while viewing the work?
Maybe I’m missing some phrase such as “spatial dynamics” in my thought/writing?
I think, Claudine has been fairly consistent in expressing a personal interest in that which is: (1) small in scale; (2) non-commercial; (3) Feminist; (4) politically “Left.”
So that the reading of Robyn’s work was, for her, of something small wishing to present itself as big–rather than accepting the value of its smallness? Better to have paid more attention to the little bit that was worked–rather than the greater portion that was left empty?
I look forward to the correction, and the good arguments on behalf of the pieces. Citing formal qualities present in the exhibit is a great help; show us what we missed. Assertion of value based upon one’s own will, or the consensus of a group, is less helpful. I hope that it’s possible to better understand things as a result of the dialogue.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Claudine must have attended a different show. I found O’Neil’s work to be amazing. Her intricate work with a pencil is unbelievable. I thought each drawing told a story. I am certainly no expert, but sometimes blank space within the work adds much more than a canvas that is fully loaded with unnecessary colors and nonsensical scribble. My only issue is that I really can’t afford to buy one of these superior drawings.
September 15th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Robyn’s work was neither crude nor intricate. She seemed not to mock the practice of drawing; but the draftsmanship on display was not that of a virtuoso. That’s OK. She got the job done.
The question stands: What was the relationship between those small and tightly-framed pieces in which the paper was wholly worked–and those larger pieces in which only a fraction of the whole appeared to have been touched by the artist?
Viewing the viewer of the [larger] work one is presented with a scene like unto that depicted in the work, i.e., the back of the head is seen within and without the frame:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/73059802@N00/3919220445/
Yes?
If her art “aims for a slow read,” was the opening night of the season the best night on which to present it?
If the installations at Wight and Robertello are “by far the most important gallery shows on view in Chicago right now,” then in what way are the drawings at Meloche inferior?
What did it mean that at least three galleries began the season with [essentially] hand-crafted pencil on paper?
Is sincerity the new irony?
If Joanna, thenp, Connie, and Jeremy are all the same person or party: Offer some subtlety? Some insight? Thanks!
September 15th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Well, as for me, I think it’s great to challenge the mad crowds of the opening season with work that requires some thought and time (ONeil and Springfield), but I see what you mean about it maybe not being the best time for “slow read” work.
And as for three major shows of the opening season being drawings on paper, well, that’s pretty small compared to the larger art world these days. It seems that works on paper are all people do anymore. Just not that many who do it very well (including that bad-art-student looking stuff at Meloche).
I’m just sick of seeing so many loud, heady, extreme shows. Work that tries too hard or is clever. I definitely don’t think sincerity is the new irony. That doesn’t even make sense. I think an attempt at sincerity will certainly wear out its welcome soon, though. Those artists that can grapple with it will stick around beautifully, and those that do it falsely will (or might not) fail.
I guess what I loved about the Robyn O’Neil drawings was something so simple. It’s just that that offered something contemplative and transcendent. They weren’t goofy or political. They were tender. They were visual reactions to a state of mind I can relate to. (the sombre thing I mentioned.) They were gorgeous.
Oh, and I seem to remember almost half of the small drawings also being sparse (one head, two heads, upside down boat). I’ll check the website to make sure. And one (of three) of those monster drawings was FULL with graphite, so this argument about space that Paul and Ise are trying to have just doesn’t really make sense.
Good reactions and questions, Paul! Glad you were around to give your two cents. Very insightful on your end.
Forget this ONeil business, now I’m curious to know if you (Paul) also liked Molly Springfield’s show? It was a little “insider”, but I really appreciated her way of articulating poetry and literature. And the hanging was gorgeous.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:22 am
I’m not Paul, but I’ll answer Joanna’s call and say why I liked Molly Springfield’s show, which I saw on Saturday. The main reason is that I appreciate that it’s work that can be approached on so many different levels, and that it represents something really different from anything I’ve seen before.
On an aesthetic level, the drawings are just plain beautiful. They’re works of sensitive, faithful versimilitude, but they also include passages that read like abstraction (the edges of the photocopies, the stray marks, the striations of toner.) I have an attraction to work that invests so much care and attention on mundane, cast-aside objects like bad library photocopies, which are fast becoming obsolete. (The possible reference to 1960’s conceptual art using photocopies for a very different purpose are also interesting to think about…)
Joanna is right that the installation itself is gorgeous. It’s like walking into some kind of secular art shrine, like a Rothko chapel–somewhere to go to slow down and be contemplative. But it also includes a collage-like wall installation on cork (undoubtedly a reference to Proust’s cork-lined room) that is revealing of the artist’s thought process and is actually sort of playful. That makes the work more approachable than it otherwise would be.
On a more theoretical or even literary level, I find the artist’s proclamation that she’s performing a translation of Proust to be really fascinating. There’s almost a kind of performance aspect to the work–as if the real work here is not the product (the drawings) but the act of the artist slowly copying the words letter-for-letter in the studio. This project is clearly a labor of love.
Also, I think the tie-in between the drawing, the installation, and Proust’s novel is more subtle than it might seem. I guess I see how the use of a famously unread novel might make it seem a little too “insidery” to some, but my read was that the work doesn’t tell you what to think and that it doesn’t require the viewer to know much if anything about Proust. Like most of my favorite artworks, it leaves you with your own thoughts and associations, and lots of questions. It makes me want to go back and look at it again.
September 16th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
A translator of literature and an artist creating a representational work both face the same problem: their products never fully become the originals.
In Springfield’s show at Robertello the viewer is presented (1) not with Proust; (2) not with translations of Proust; (3) not with photocopies of translations of Proust; but (4) drawings of photocopies of translations of Proust.
And if one takes Proust’s writing to be [largely] imperfect recollections of his experiences–there are (5) generations of distance between the gallery the event.
So that I take the show to be an indictment of the claim of verisimilitude.
But the use of the phrase “secular art shrine,” seems very good–as the process was one of devotion. The book, in Springfield’s show, is a fetish object, it’s presented as the subject of cult-like worship. Maybe it’s a critique of some religious traditions’ claim to knowledge of truth and accurate copying of sacred texts?
Not [I think] presented by the artist, it [both of the two paragraphs above] is a subject as venerable as the varying presentations [and accompanying discussions of writing and memory, at least] of Socrates by Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes.
[September 20, The Renaissance Society will open a show by Allan Sekula in which (among other issues) the pretenses of objectivity made in so-called "documentary" work are called into question. If the subject is appealing, check it out.]
The book, the work of literature as fetish or status object, appeared too in Doug Ischar’s show at Golden.
+ + +
As Springfield, Robert Davis and Michael Langlois focused on a “realistic” presentation of concrete entities at Meloche. Robyn O’Neil is, principally, a surrealist and a landscape artist; so that the idea that a viewer would more comfortably inhabit O’Neil work seems natural.
Davis and Langlois too had an almost religious concern in the construction of a pantheon of sorts? Maybe, the same sorts of questions of value and hierarchy were implied?
I can’t say that I saw any great difference in technical ability between the artists mentioned. But, maybe, that’s evidence of my own limitations as a viewer…
September 16th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Paul, I meant to claim versimilitude only in a very literal sense. I agree with your dissection of the the five, and possibly more, onion-skin layers confronting the viewer. Perhaps I should have added that aspect as part of the attraction, though I think the effect of the work goes well beyond such issues.
September 19th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Claudine, with all due respect-and I mean this this in all sincerity -with no insult intended, you need to take a painting 101 appreciation course if you are to continue writing about it without further embarrassing yourself: what you hold up as exceptional in this particular disciplne invariably is ordinary bordering upon incompetence. Its difficult to make a painter like Karen Kilimnick look good -but given the context of some of your choices, she comes off as sheer genius-
September 19th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I have to ask, in what world would your “With all due respect, you know nothing at all because you don’t see it my way. So as you are an idiot you need to take a 101 class, ideally that shares my world view exclusively, in order to fall into step with my thinking” snipe be anything less than insulting? What a surprise instead of having a conversation you will once again manage to kill the discussion by insulting people.
You are a touch better than you usually are as it is unlike you to not simply insult without the preamble “I don’t mean to..”, you should be applauded for a step in the right direction. Good for you!
September 20th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Amnity means friendship! Just like painting means …….painting! You a. either know what you are talking about (irrespective of your own personal point of view) or b. you don’t!
If you are going to write about a particular field of expertise, you might want to know something about that which you are discussing -or, you probably run the risk of insulting the intelligence of people who actually do! Talk about a conversation killer, you are going to need a bigger boat.
September 20th, 2009 at 8:58 am
You have the rhetoric equivalent of Tourette’s. I’ve watched this forum over time and all you seem to do is complain or attempt to bully people with facades and posturing masking as argument. I have yet to see you post anything positive or constructive unless it is aggrandizing you and your solely self serving agenda.
Here’s an interesting idea, you see yourself as the foremost expert on all things painting (or is it all things?), I have never seen you detail your qualifications, why don’t you do that? We can stack them against those whom you attack and we can see who has more education and experience BEFORE you attack them, wouldn’t that be fun?
Let’s do a quick wikipedia search and see what happens!
“The Shark”:
“The Shark” first began to paint at the age of 21, studying one year at the Laguna Gloria School of Art in Austin, Texas and 2 years at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design.
Claudine Ise:
* Associate Curator of Exhibitions Wexner Center for the Arts
* Assistant Curator UCLA Hammer Museum
* Arts Writer Los Angeles Times
Ph.D., Film , Literature and Culture University of Southern California
Huh, seems to me that Claudine was much more likely to have taken painting 101, or even better a theory and criticism class than you would have been in your three years of non-degree college education. But you’re probably right, I suspect the LA Times is known for hiring people who have no idea what they are talking about, it’s a good thing she moved to Chicago or they might have found out about the whole painting 101 thing!
Wait, that was so much fun, let’s try another frequent topic of your lament, and see how she stacks up!
Judith Russi Kirshner
Education
* Bryn Mawr Graduate School, Bryn Mawr, PA, M.A., Art History, 1969.
* Barnard College, New York, NY, B.A., Art History,1964.
Awards
* 1964-1965 Graduate Fellowship Bryn Mawr
Academic and Administrative Appointments
1997-Present Dean, College of Architecture and the Arts, University of Illinois at Chicago
1990-97 Director, School of Art and Design, The University of Illinois at Chicago
1990-Present Professor, School of Art and Design, Department of History of Art and Architecture, The University of Illinois at Chicago
1988-89 Chair, Graduate Division, School of the Art Institute, Chicago
1987-89 Associate Professor, Art History Department, School of the Art Institute, Chicago
1985-87 Curator, Terra Museum of American Art, Chicago
1981-87 Assistant Professor, Art History Department, School of the Art Institute, Chicago
1980-83 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Graduate Art Department, The University of Illinois at Chicago
1976-80 Curator, Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago
1974-76 Assistant Promotion Manager, University of Chicago Press
1971-72 Assistant Director, Richard Gray Gallery, Chicago
1969-70 Instructor, Art History Department, Dutchess Community College, Poughkeepsie, NY
I’ll have to skip the publication section as it is way too long.
Wow! She too must not know what she is talking about! How has she managed to pull the wool over people’s eyes in her 40 year history as an educator?
Maybe Judith and Claudine can get a group rate on that 101 class?
Alas, no bigger boat needed, in the end remember the “great shark” was taken down by a breath of fresh air and a well aimed shot.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Typical academic response -from no doubt another academic hack. Complete with a whole lot of bean counting. You are really impressed with all of your heroes academic pedigrees aren’t you?
My education has been in the studio (ever heard of one?) the history of painting, and has been about making paintings -not stacking up theoretical based degrees in academic institutions, or working for art galleries, or getting a few freelance articles posted like so many others in a newspaper……
But of course you would kowtow to the viewpoint of those who talk about something -not, those who actually do it. Of course you are impressed with the academics/their resumes- I note you don’t quote any theotetical stance or position from either of these people -but do glom to their resumes -boy, your a real heavyweight aren’t you?
And of course you are so imbecilic in your argument that you end with your hilarious, self-congratulatory back patting session -don’t wrench your arm out of joint there sheriff-
Let me ask you this sheriff, has Claudine or Judith ever had a painting hanging in the Museum Of Contemporary Art?
You want to speak about bios -I just put one together for the MCA…..its the bio of an artist – a painter -it is long, varied, filled with exhibitions at major venues all over this country -longer than both these insitiutional/educator versions you are so impressed with- of course in your small little world whats an actual artist bio compared to someone in academia who you might curry favor with?
Truly pathetic. And, endemic.
September 20th, 2009 at 10:18 am
-further, now that you mention it, Judith Kirshner -with her actually very thin resume, has managed to promulgate her rather middle-brow academic vision of art on Chicago…via willing conformists such as yourself -
in fact, only now with exhibitions like Constellations is it losing its grip…..though it still attracts its share of art student fawners, the easily impressed, the sycophants- the easily led.
The fact is painting, aside from a dwindling few studio courses, is not really taught in institutional settings any longer/ art history in terms of really understanding painting is at this point an esoteria- and this fundamental lack of understanding, undermines anything someone like Caludine might say about the activity -as she is clearly ignorant about it. This is a societal issue -and is not something specific to Claudine-or to Judith. Since you are so enamoured by the academics, why not investigate the writings of Svetlana Alpers on this topic (not her resume- but her actual writing-)
September 20th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Do you know enough about Claudine to know what she has and has not done? It is hilarious that you would accuse anyone of having a “self-congratulatory back patting session” as that seems to be, from a comprehensive historical perspective, the topic of 90% of everything you have written on both on the Bad at Sports and Shark forums. The other 10% being aimless bile. How is it that you know so much about academia having spent so little time there and hating it so much? How do you know what is and isn’t taught? You certainly have a lot of jealousy and pent up rage directed at those who are trained in the contemporary methodologies and are able to articulate post 80’s ideas.
Maybe you should take a theory and criticism 101 course and you could understand and possibly even comment on art criticism in an appropriate way that doesn’t reduce the dialog to your usual tired schtick of name calling.
Your “republican town-hall disruptor” style approach belies a mean spiritedness that everyone would appreciate you checking at the door. You might consider working with Glen Beck as you a type of rhetoric. I hear he wants to get into the art commentary game.
I’m a bit disappointed that you couldn’t regurgitate another fresh shark metaphor to counter my hilarious air tank comment. I expected more from you.
September 20th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
just clicked on martin brody lol
September 20th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
blah blah blah -the thinness of your argument is noted- actually its quite familiar -as I am getting an idea of exactly who you are once more behind the Martin Brody pseudonym….back for more huh? Some people never learn. You are going to have to do better than googling a couple of academics, and posting their resumes.
Actually though this is a good opportunity to point out several things: first your very “I can see Russia from my house moment” in describing my rather extensive bio as a painter- by choosing to ignore it- a rather insipid and venal form of disinformation, is such an obvious tactic- why not mention that since MCAD -I have spent my time pallin around with terrorists? -as I noted previously my bio, is a bit larger and more varied, than the those of your heroes that you so proudly posted -combined.
But more importantly, I have heard enough from Claudine and discussed just 20th century painting, specifically women painters of the 50’s and 60’s, with her on this blog -to know, her knowledge in this area is indeed limited -which is typical of art education today. This is not an aspersion on her in particular, its a simple fact.
Now, do I think that either of these two art educators could without great preparation, discuss and teach painting 101 -not even from the distant past, but simply 20th century painting -even narrowing it down further 20th century American Painting: if you are an academic -which I am beginning to suspect you aren’t, you will be aware that the chances of either of them being able to do so are slim to none. As the in depth study of painting, how its made, executed, the actual language of sheer plastic invention -of paintings “hell bent magic” -though it is still a dominant art form, has ceased to exist.
Chuck Close recently described Willem de Kooning as the most important American artist of the 20th century: Excavation -which was purchased by the Art Institute in the 1950 American Exhibition for 5,000.00 hangs here in Chicago: does anyone believe for one moment that Judith or Claudine without research can describe and discuss any of de Koonings subsequent major works after Excavation -with the possible exception of Woman One? For instance, to name several works off the top of my conical shaped head; Door To The River – Bolton Landing? Havana Suburb? Who’s Name Was Writ On Water? Prirates? These are all major 20th century works -I can pretty much guarantee you ‘Sheriff’ hah! that neither of them can.
They can speak about Derrida and Barthes…..they can even apply theoretical constructs from these people to a painted image…..but they without research, will be unable to discuss the actual work of an actual painter -the most important American painter of the 20th century. I think that’s a problem -like I said, you are going to need a bigger boat.
- as for your breath of fresh air comment you are so impressed with, if your abilities at argument here are an indication of your intellectual capacity, I admit, you have the market on air-heads cornered as far as this discussion is concerned.
September 20th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
just clicked on martin brody lol- Mary, you haven’t been paying attention…….unfortunately I am afraid as this thread goes on revealing who the actual person behind Martin Brody is, it becomes a whole lot less interesting than the outmatched sheriff ever was………
September 20th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
huh….there are these things called BOOKS! have you heard of them?
“How is it that you know so much about academia having spent so little time there and hating it so much? How do you know what is and isn’t taught?”
September 20th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I few, very few, and only in big block letters. Have you many of them type of books? The regular sized ones I mean. If you had, I would think you would be more open to the marketplace of ideas and less interested in belittling others to make yourself feel like the authority. You have failed, sadly, to understand an important part of participating in humanity, you are incapable of accepting that there are people in the world that have opinions different than yours, and they maybe, perhaps, they have something of merit to add.
Your endless, bitter ranting about how this person and that person conspire to control the art world, and how this person or that person is an idiot because of x, y, and z are not only depressing but are so abrasive they exist only to stifle actual dialog.
Do you think you are making people see the light of your way of thinking? What is the point of this endless angry narrative? Do you see an ends to it, or is it simply to convince yourself of your powers of edification? Honestly I’d love to know what you had hoped to accomplish by insulting Claudine, or anyone else for that matter. Why do you feel the need to do it over and over and over again? Did you think you would put her in her place? Make her feel inferior? Run out and sign up for classes on your suggestion? What did you hope to achieve? What are you so angry about? Let us all know what the point is in all of this anger you aimlessly wield against everyone. Is it just an act? You want to be the bad boy artist? Others will tremble in fear! You do call yourself “The Shark” and you are a grown man, so I suspect this speaks to your motives.
I don’t think you are stupid, evil, or without some sort of perspective, so you must be able to examine your own motives and appreciate how you come across to other people. So please, let us know why you behave like this and what your end goal is. I’m sure I’m not the only one who would love to get an honest answer to this quest devoid of your usual hyperbole.
Do you just need a hug? Everyone, next time we see the Shark lets all give him a group hug, and then maybe he will stop being so gosh darn angry all the time!
September 20th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Sorry, I just can’t help myself. I swear I’ll stop after this.
The Shark speaketh: “does anyone believe for one moment that Judith or Claudine without research can describe and discuss any of de Koonings subsequent major works after Excavation -with the possible exception of Woman One? For instance, to name several works off the top of my conical shaped head; Door To The River – Bolton Landing? Havana Suburb? Who’s Name Was Writ On Water? Prirates? These are all major 20th century works -I can pretty much guarantee you ‘Sheriff’ hah! that neither of them can.”
ROTFLMAO! I can see it now, a game show style Q & A and I would guess that yes, yes they could, even with the laughably tiny example picked from your own narrowly defined set of criteria. Could you compete with their knowledge?
You could alternate topics and perspectives: yours on mid 20th century white male painters, theirs on art history.
Can someone please set up some public forum where this could take place! Charge admission, tape it for posterity, sell t-shirts, there is a fortune to be made here. It would be the art event of the decade.
I will drift off to sleep tonight chuckling at how this event would pan out if it were staged. Thank you so much for this. Classic.
September 21st, 2009 at 12:21 am
“How is it that you know so much about academia having spent so little time there and hating it so much? How do you know what is and isn’t taught?”
You are joking right? Only a frightened small town sheriff trying to deal with a big hungry shark, some second tier art world denizen (old town art fair is calling!) hiding behid a cute psedonym or just some utter imbecile hiding under a rock would not get that ideas great and lesser, philosophical conceits esthetic and otherwise, have been trafficed in, put forth had their influence wax and wane since the beginning of time in the art world. How sad that it apparently needs saying, but here goes: philosophy, that branch of it known as esthetics, art, ideas are not the property of the institution -not unless you are some variant of a conceptually correct, conformist of an idiotic imbecile.
“Do you think you are making people see the light of your way of thinking?”
Actually, the answer is clearly yes. Its hanging on perhaps the premier wall upstairs at the MCA right at this moment. Not to mention sharkforum -with its many participants -including people I would consider quite superior to either Judith or Claudine -as art world professionals who are not artists -such as Lynne Warren for instance.
This is about academic aggression: how we have lost the ability to apprehend objects, to see things visually, to assess the quality of the visual experience, how the corruption of subsequent epistemologies that has come hand in hand with the neo conceptualist agenda that disgards ontological presence, replacing it with agenda fulfilling theoretical construct has created a decline in western painting.
One can claim that much art is no longer painting -or even that painting is no longer relevant -however, since so much of the work being done in the art world today is indeed painting, many -myself included, think that the people discussing it should be qualified to do so. That those who know next to nothing about it, being its arbiters, is not a particulary good idea -this is born out by the very low level of quality we see coming out of the universities -and championed by those who essentiallty are untrained, in fact ignorant about …painting.
“I love when someone loves a painting for stupid reasons, go for it Claudine! ”
Well, I dont -love it that is…nor do I love poor painting being foisted upon us with stupid reasoning either- conceptual , theoretical constructs to prop up bad work -its become the prevailing esthetic….I’m against it!
even with the laughably tiny example picked from your own narrowly defined set of criteria. Could you compete with their knowledge?
huh….are you just not very with it? -able to comprehend intention? I quite obviously and intentionally set a very narrow context -and as far as that goes better go back and read the discussion of women in the art institute…..the short answer is put your money where your mouth is; can either of these two academics compete with someone like me in discussing mid twentieth century painting (where contrary to your conformist clone ideology there were many fabulous female painters/art world figures-speaking of ignorance,) are you insane? Of course they can’t! Two academics discussing painting with an actual painter: are you nuts or just sincerely deluded?
Look, I know behind that pseudonym there is no sheriff -just a little guppy -relax! the great white shark does not hunt the guppy! If you were anyone with a modicum of accomplishment or actually had something valid to say, a real argument evidencing actual knowledge /intelligence you would doubtless sign your own name to it -and stand up for yourself like an adult instead of cowering behind the fake badge. You’d respond to my suggestion that you investigate Svetlana Alpers, or any of the other actual arguments I have put forth -instead of behaving like some star struck groupie -thats groupie not, grouper-
Though it entertains high concept, lets not confuse that, a painting is a painting, is a at best a visual-not conceptual object. Its meant to be seen first with the idea of discussion being to allow us to yep! hard to believe! SEE IT BETTER! Wittgenstein spoke of that which must be passed over in silence – the language of sheer plastic invention. A painting is not a construct for the profusion of yet more philosophical constructs that have little if anything to do with the actual work. When this does happen, we see the results of academic aggression in two ways: a good work being intellectually desecrated or a poor work being propped up as something of value -either way, neither of these things have much to do with the thing itself…its ‘thinglyness’…
THAT a thing is a painting is one thing Brody, HOW it is, another. A big ontological other.
And finally,
“I don’t think you are stupid, evil, or without some sort of perspective, so you must be able to examine your own motives and appreciate how you come across to other people ……
Excuse me, obviously you are mistaking me for someone who actually cares!……..or, I know what it is……its that ‘other people thing’..here, say the word shark: now, what does that conjure up for you? Other people? As Neitzsche said, ‘do not mistake me for what I am not’-
Only in painting when we consider the disciplines of architecture, music, literature, design have we seen such a takeover via academic aggression of actual esthetics: where architecture today is at its post modern zenith, design, migraiting to the internet and still of course pushing forth further ideas of discreet objects, literature undiminished -and supported without meddling in and out of institutions -only in high art -with the new academic industry -’the racket’ as Ad Reinhardt called it has such an out and out war on studio practice -actual ability to execute with authority a vision been so relelntlessly attacked.
Its a culture war Brody -I consider you, in all of your sycophant like idolatry of these two rather ordinary (I do hold out hope for Claudine) academics, the enemy. Just try and get your head around the concept if you will -its me not either of them looming large over at the local museum -I understand its a big concept for you to wrestle with-My fate unfortunately, is the low quality of foes out there as you have so perfectly demonstrated -it makes for slim pickins and a cranky shark out here in the grey green sea.
September 21st, 2009 at 12:45 am
Actually, forget the ‘are you insane?’ remark -I wouldn’t want to provoke you -one final push over the edge -if you are who I think you are, the last thing I’m wanting is to further incite -I live in fear you might show up at the art fair again this spring and reprise that awful, horrifying, drunken peasant dance. Please! Don’t do it-I can’t live through that again!
September 21st, 2009 at 2:58 am
hmmmmm…….lets see: you have cut and pasted the resumes of two of your academic heroes up here, demonstrated your apparent ongoing fascination/obsession with me…..do you actually have anything to say beyond whining about how insensitive I am? Back on topic: My comment to Claudine was pretty straightforward and clear: I hope she does do something to ameliorate what is clearly a lack of basic knowledge on her part when it comes to painting. Pretty direct, straightforward and, fact based.
Its clear reading her -and discussing with her women painters of the mid 20th century, her knowledge is sketchy at best. Which, understanding the nature of contemporary art history departments, is not particularly a shock. I find, it has an impact on her ability to write quality criticism -at least from my perspective -that of someone who is quite conversant in both contemporary and historical painting. My ire is probably due to the fact I am fed up listening to people go on about something of which they know so little- I actually hope Claudine heeds my advice and takes it upon herself to develop a deeper, less consensus correct, more unique and individual understanding as to the nature of painting as her current take is the all too familar consensus clone variant. For some god forsaken reason I actually like Claudine -which is not going to stop my being the direct, confrontational entity, an expert, master painter, that I am.
If the krill has to float around, and whine and cry bloody murder about the pitiless shark, so be it.
September 21st, 2009 at 10:14 am
I find it amusing that the West Loop shows a couple of artists that can kind of handle graphite and all of a sudden it’s the two best shows in town. Maybe compared to the usual inane pseudo-conceptual bullshit it is.
Wesley, keep fighting the good fight:
http://neotericart.com/2009/09/04/has-anyone-answered-kimlers-complaint-yet/
September 21st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
It is amusing Norbet -but no more so than the whole homogenized suburban upbringing/institutional pedigree as life experience/ that now informs and forms the kind of people who enter into the art world -note ‘Brody’s’ listing of institutional signifiers as if reciting the ten commandments…. the attack of the clones-
I am always tempted to put down on my bio -the real university I attended -the dusty streets and bazaars of far off Afghanistan and Iran. Where rather than partaking of dorm life and the academic whirl, I kept apartments in Herat, Kandahar and Kabul, spending my time when I was 20, 21 years old speaking pathan, bartering for tribal carpets at the great bazaar at Kandahar and turkoman silver from the nomads that cross the steppes of Afghanistan each spring, drinking chai seia and smoking hookahs with the Pushtu tribesmen in the muddy, onimous and foreboding tribal regions of the Khyber pass….the most fierce part of an incredilbly dangerous and interesting place, drifting in and out of Iran as my travels and work took me, walking away from it all finally -alive- and at times that wasnt always a given. I loved my alumni -far more so than I could ever love the domesticated fare peopling our art school departments today- but thats just me. In Afghanistan its the resident sikhs who do all of the banking…the Pathan people are warriors and consider bean counting and shop keeping beneath them…..money is never to be regarded highly. One of the more mortifying moments of my then young life was the day I got into an argument with a customs official over money -only to have two Afghan gentlemen whom I had never met offer to pay the difference as they hated to see me get worked up over mere money……this, in a country where the average income was 125.00 a year……
The tradition of western art is one of character -of real characters -from Carravagio through Joan Mitchell -individuals and innovators…..now, we see that world usurped by the academic bean counters…people like Brody who actually believe that some academic art educator stands above and beyond any mere artist -and of course she does -coming no doubt from a culture that specializes in following instruction, in doing what they are told to do in order to fit in.
Thats what the shark thing is all about: as alien as it is to the culture of now, I happen to believe it is we, the artists who are the apex predators -not, the art educators, not the curators and certainly not the art dealers- but I’m coming from a different place than most -as many good artists traditionally have.
September 21st, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Mr. Apex Predator – nothing more need be said to you than follow the link.
September 21st, 2009 at 11:50 pm
well, well well! ‘Brody’ slinks back…..been a little quiet around here since I mentioned that awful, drunken moose parody/peasant dance debacle- that turned an already ruinous evening at the most recent Art Chicago Vernisage into a hideous spectacle of heretofore unimagined stupidity!
I am surprised you haven’t yet gotten around to accusing sharkforum of being a purveyor of Japanese pornography -though given your past forays here, I’m sure its simply a matter of time…
I was so hoping you weren’t …..you! And actually were indeed some real academic, a genuine conceptual clone but, as I feared, it was indeed only you, back again with that Old Town Art Fair rancid painting thing still intact -though I notice you now feature Lucian Freud rather than your own work on your site……probably all considered, not a bad idea. Why not just put up a link to your own ‘work’ here and really go for it for?
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:20 am
I’m reposting this slightly amended -as I think its good, and happen to like it, feeling it transcends its original impetus.
It is amusing Norbert -but no more so than the whole homogenized suburban
upbringing/institutional pedigree as life experience/ that now informs and forms the kind of people who enter into the art world -note ‘Brody’s’ listing of institutional signifiers as if reciting the ten commandments…. the attack of the clones-
I am always tempted to put down on my bio -the real university I attended -the dusty streets and bazaars of far off Afghanistan and Iran. Where rather than partaking of dorm life and the academic whirl, I kept apartments in Herat, Kandahar and Kabul, spending my time when I was 20, 21 years old speaking pathan, bartering for tribal carpets at the great bazaar at Kandahar and turkoman silver from the nomads that cross the steppes of Afghanistan each spring, drinking chai seia and smoking hookahs with the Pushtu tribesmen in the muddy, gun turreted gulches onimous and foreboding, the tribal regions of the Khyber pass….the most fierce part of an incredilbly dangerous and interesting place, drifting in and out of Iran as my travels and work took me, walking away from it all finally -alive- and at times that wasnt always a given. I loved my alumni -far more so than I could ever love the domesticated fare peopling our art school departments today- but thats just me. In Afghanistan its the resident sikhs who do all of the banking…the Pathan people are warriors and consider bean counting and shop keeping beneath them…..money is never to be regarded highly. One of the more mortifying moments of my then young life was the day I got into an argument with a customs official over money -only to have two Afghan gentlemen whom I had never met offer to pay the difference as they hated to see me get worked up over mere money……this, in a country where the average income was 125.00 a year……
The tradition of western art is one of character -of real characters -from Carravagio through Joan Mitchell -individuals and innovators…..now, we see that world usurped by the academic bean counters…people like Brody who actually believe that some academic art educator stands above and beyond any mere artist -and of course she does -coming no doubt from a culture that specializes in following instruction, in doing what they are told to do in order to fit in.
Thats what the shark thing is all about: as alien as it is to the culture of now, I happen to believe it is we, the artists who are the apex predators -not, the art educators, not the curators and certainly not the art dealers- but I’m coming from a different place than most -as many good artists traditionally have.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 am
I’ve been staying out of this as I am too busy to battle, BUT I’d like to quickly point out that studying THEORY is not learning painting. I studied and teach both (as well as art history). In fact, painting, especially anything technical, is quite proudly NOT taught ON PURPOSE at most academies nowadays. I have perhaps an even longer cv than the two you listed, so I feel free in also saying that is ONLY bean counting. I also note that Claudine does not herself parade her CV and achievements— it took someone hiding behind an alias. If you take CVs as the penultimate test of value, you are literally an academician. In the worse sense.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:03 am
Jabberjaw just can’t be quiet.
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:18 am
Well Mark, ‘Brody,’ Jabberjaw, ……I cannot recall the last alias she used when she came on here accusing us at sharkforum of being involved in the exploitation of women in the japanese porn market (remember that piece of hilarity?l) -is not an academician, not an artist, could care less about who Judith or Claudine actually are, flake is perhaps the most accurate way to describe…… I will send you her name privately. Suffice to say, ’she’s baaaack’….
CVs -I knew there was a reason I declined to put mine up on my website..now its clear why. Like yours, mine is extensive -having just put one together for the MCA in the last few weeks, I was surprised- how many things, how much work has taken place: as demonstrated here, there is no good reason to have it out there for the perusal of every wayward idiot.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:28 am
They call him Jabber-Jabber-Jabber-Jabber-Jabber-Jabber-Jabber-Jaw!
The most futuristic shark you ever saw!
I can walk, and talk, and LOOK, I’m even breathin’!
He’s so sharp the things he does are unbelievin’!
Jabber-Jabber-Jabber-Jabber-Jabber-Jabber-Jabberjaw!
I’m the latest greatest shark you ever saw,
When his friends get in a jam, they just call on this big ham
He’s Jabber-Jabber-Jabber-Jabber-Jabber-Jabber-Jabberjaw, Jabberjaw,
He’s the finniest, funniest, shark you ever saw,
He’s Jabber-Jabbber-Jabber-Jabber-Jabber-Jabber-Jabberjaw!
Jabber: I don’t get no respect! JABBERJAW! N-yuk n-yuk n-yuk!
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:11 am
what the fuck
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 am
Wesley,
It’s not Amy.
Don’t you notice that there are no…
&, &, &, &…….
That’s her signature.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:39 am
The demagoguery runs so rampant amidst the CAC crew, its hard to keep them all straight….Brody, jabberjaw -whatever -maybe they have an art therapy course over at chisel and pallet..
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I would guess people post under alias due to the general lack of civility. I wonder how many people you jackasses (all of you who engage in this pointless pseudointellectual pissing contest here, the shark being the worst but not only) have driven away from this otherwise nice resource. Frankly some of you seem downright mentally unbalanced so I completely understand the use of aliases. I wouldn’t want some nutcase engaging in a prtracted campaign of who knows what because of some comment.
You all need to grow up and find something better to do with you lives. Get over yourselves one and all. You divisively fight about this stuff like anyone cares. The 34 people in Chicago that give a rat’s ass about art and instead of using your resources to do something positive you belittle each other. Just pull out tape measures and drop your pants and get it over already.
Unbeleivable.
You all need to
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
great now, we have why an alias? -AS an alias…..
-sorry to rain on your parade why? -but there has been only one person using an alias on this thread-that would be -jabberbrody (obviously one and the same) -unless you want to include me, but my alias is not one of anonemity……
to further throw a crimp in your assertation, the one person employing an alias here, is doing so as a way of masking an obvious lack of any actual resume, real accomplishment, or anything of interest to actually say beyond an insipid, iii advised attack upon yours truly./ Anonemity is her only source of power- thats pretty simple to surmise, and easy to see.
as for your 34 people who give a ……smells like more CAC demagoguery to me – Pallet and Chisel; there must be some kind of going group rate for an art therapy over there -perhaps CAC could offer it up as a membership bonus or something-
My points in this discussion have been clear concise and to the point -and remain so. Though I always try and add a sharky quality to my attack -its never personal -just, janitorial. I suggested Claudine needs to know more about painting if she is going to continue writing on the subject -and wishes to do so with any kind of a formed, unique, individual viewpoint that would have any real quality. This is pretty concrete, simple stuff. Perhaps somewhat hardnosed, but not unreasonable.
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
“its never personal -just, janitorial”
I love that line!
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
From the SHARKFORUM archives(appears to be an outtake from the inane SHARKSTOCK):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLEIDTUcYRs
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Lack of power, was our dilemma…….so without further accomplishment, we donned an alias and pretended we were someone else!……… Welker/brody/jabber/fries….
I agree sharkstock was simply awful…who’s idea was it to get Mark Messing and that punk marching band Mucca Pazza anyway? The musical director of Redmoon? There MUST be some mistake! Its..its… inane!
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:34 pm
you don’t seriously still think it’s amy as “brody” do you?
I wonder what ever happened to Arthur Hogg?
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:40 pm
ba ba booey is fa fa fooey
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Arthur….is that you??!!! If true, how I miss thee!
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Welcome to the looney bin, I love being right.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:07 pm
whataya mean shark?
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“Every intelligent painter carries the whole culture of modern painting in his head. It is his real subject, of which everything he paints is both an homage and a critique.”
– artist Robert Motherwell
“Just at the height of the belief, … endemic in the American art world, that Painting was Dead. Cal Arts epitomized the frivolity of late modernist art teaching no drawing, just do your own thing and let Teacher get on with his …
Art education that has repealed its own standards can destroy a tradition by not teaching its skills, and that was what happened to figure painting in the United States …. (artists such as) Fischl have been badly hampered by it, and the exaggerated demand for his work was also a function of it: very few collectors (or curators or critics) know how to judge a painting, so that any attempt … can slide by on its declared intensity.”
— critic Robert Hughes
“It has been said that there’s nothing so useful as a good theory. As a teacher, i.e. a person involved in an applied discipline, I know this is true: Pieces of disconnected research leave us nothing to base our actions on. But, as teachers we are also aware that theories have come and gone, and go mostly because they don’t capture the detail of day-to-day reality. Especially of painting.”
— Art Teacher George Boeree
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Mark, thanks for this; of course Motherwell had it completely right on this account.
My intial comment was also dead on. It would serve Claudine well intelligent woman that she seems to be, to learn more about painting if she is going to write about it, employing that intelligence she possesses for something more than cobbling together theoretical, conceptual smokescreens to obscure basic lack of knowledge. That she could become more discerning, her writing more acute if it were knowledgable -based upon painting itself and not look to conflate painting with and apprehend it by relying upon theoretical constructs/ ideas of conceptualism that have little to do with actual HOW of a good painting.
This is a good discussion, and a serious one – Hardnosed and REAL! Its fucking important!
-Unfortunately marred by my having to spend energy fending off the ongoing obsesssion of this lunatic – who for what its worth, happens to be, a CAC/Old Town Art Fair (in otherwords, very poor) quality painter -not a member of any consensoriat, nor a conceptual clone, nor particulary conversant or schooled, (clearly) in the culture of contemporary painting or, contemporary art.
Ah! The vicissitudes and vagaries of life as a shark.
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Hey Mark! Great job copying and pasting.
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Wrong. It’s really not important.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:00 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLEIDTUcYRs
September 24th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Mr “Hogg,” that is referred to as “citing.” As you’ll note, I put the authors names next to the quotations. This is a useful and common device among art historians and so on, that is, people unlike yourself who can use their own names, instead of cowardly hiding, find others who agree with them, and thirdly can actually read. AND unlike certain of the people you seem to value who were openly chastised for “citing” without giving names, claiming the work as their own, which is plagiarism.
September 24th, 2009 at 3:07 am
Hogg Fitz Weller, whoever you are, maybe you should use “Megan” as your next alias.
Click on link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6g3d1AUwps
September 24th, 2009 at 7:18 am
Mark, thanks for the quotes.
I really enjoy Robert Hughes but have noticed that he has written a few negative things on Eric Fischl. Fischl has acknowledged his short comings because of Cal Arts and has made a conscience effort to work on his technical skills over the years. I still respect Fischl’s work and was especially blown away by his early 80’s stuff, “Sleepwalker”, “Bad Boy”, etc. at his MCA show which I believe was in 1984. I also saw Fischl’s show at Gagosian in London in 2000 and was equally moved.
September 24th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Mark, I’m sure you have tried to put out of your mind the last encounter with this whack job: its Snufalufagus -Mark. ‘Hogg’ was her alias of choice when we at sharkforum were accused of aiding and abetting the slave trade of young asian women somehow, on sharkforum-
Amy always gloms on to artists who actually are well known to try and obtain power- this is the piece of work that wrote Damian Hirst suggesting he would be better off simply executing her ideas, letting her art direct him- (I wonder if she sent along images of those paintings of hers to illustrate her uhmmmmm….. ‘brilliance’.')
If you go to her website -she has now taken on the persona of Lucian Freud (complete with his paintings)
I find it fascinating. What a vision of hell -multiple personalities, each one more idiotic than the last, a descent into stupidy -in increments.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:54 am
So Mister “Why Aliases Exist on this Board”, aka Richard, it appears they made a video for you! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugCtAct-_kg
September 25th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Sorry. Couldn’t resist that since your syntax and phraseology and Gravatar icon were recognizable.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Yes Anna, only a child would have Megan’s reaction to this SHARKFORUM Jabberjaw.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Mark, since you Paul and I have been having this side conversation about Gravatar and his completely wrong headed assessment of why an alias -particular on this thread, let me clear the water here and spell it out:
I came on and delivered a hardnosed, accurate criticism of Claudines lack of expertise when it comes to discussing painting: anyone familiar with how art theory and history are being taught today at the University level would not find my criticism/suspicions, invalid.
As for my own familarity with where Claudine is coming from -UCLA/Armand Hammer….I have
a. have lectured twice at UCLA
b. exhibited with Don Suggs, Roger Hermann, Lari Pittman and Charles Garabedian -all professors there.
c. I also have a long term professional relationship with the former director of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Henry Hopkins who after leaving that position, was dean of UCLA’s Art Department, and head of the Armand Hammer Museum -responsible for bringing that institution under the auspices of UCLA. Henry wrote an essay about me for the Real Deal Catalogue of the exhibition ‘The Real Deal’ I did with Ed Paschke and Tony Fitzpatrick here in 1994-
As for Judith anyone who isn’t brain-dead here in the Chicago Art world understands to some degree the role she has played here -for better and for worse over the years.
I offered only a critical attack upon Claudine -not, personal -but serious nonetheless,and, valid.
At this point along came one person -with a personal bitch about me -brody, jabberwaw, arthur hogg -and several more -all one Snufalufagus -a mediocre at best (I’m being generous actually-) amateur painter, with almost no knowledge of, the art world here or anywhere else, or of art -particularly though not limited to, painting -as she more than adequately demonstrated during the course of her ad hominen attacks on me. She, has been a continual troll here.
I always attempt to stay focused and stress the point or points I am trying to make which anyone who actually reads what I have to say, will note. At the same time, not letting this idiot ruin a serious discussion with her uninformed, flat out dumb! crybaby antics -all stemming from the fact we booted her off of sharkforum because we couldn’t and wouldn’t deal with her craziness. She, has little or no interest in this discussion beyond trying to get me -as she demonstrates -her knowledge about Claudine or Judith or anyone else of relevance in the art world hovers at around zero -she want attention -and this is the only way she can get it. Her use of an alias is simply to mask who she actually is in an attempt to be taken seriously.
Sure, I bring controversy -I also bring a considered point of view formed over the course of thirty years of being deeply involved at a high level in the contemporay art world. I have continually been blamed for being the cause of these conflagrations -and perhaps some of this is justified in that I am a controversial, incendiary figure here. At the same time, anyone who does read what I have to say or who knows me understands, it is not personal, it is philosophical -often times not just simply involving esthetics -but ethics and politics also…that I get blamed for the sniping when it is often the Shark bringing something real and substantial to these boards ultimately says more about the nature of our particular social setting than it does about me.
I return to what I said: Claudine if she is going to write about painting, should try and learn something about how to assess a painting not based upon contemporay theoretical constructs that have little to do with the actual reality of the thing.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
“all stemming from the fact we booted her off of sharkforum because we couldn’t and wouldn’t deal with her craziness”
If only someone would be so merciful as to do the same thing here for Jabberjaw Kimler.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
1900512069_f973624676_m.jpg/Users/wesleykimler/Desktop/1901364128_e391db7ac7_m.jpg
September 25th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
As I said once… I’ll say it again….”brody”, “jabberjaw”, “arthur hogg”, etc… are NOT Amy….Wesley. Come on, I thought you were smarter than this. The comments by these anonymous posters certainly don’t reflect what she would post. Not even close…. Do you really think she could post some sort of refute without typing at least 500 words and….&,&,&,&,&,&,&,& as AND!!!
I know you wanted to date her and got turned down, but please, pick on someone else.
Also….jesus….with you ranting on about her….well….she just might actually turn up here and start posting again! I really don’t look forward to reading that. Never has someone given me such a headache with their written word. Ugh….
So please, give this up. it’s not her; it’s just another one of the countless people who loathe you. That’s all.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Sure thing Amy, whatever you and all the voices in your head say ..I won’t dignify your suggestion that I somehow wanted to ‘date’ you which is patently false…….beyond pointing out, if it isn’t you, how do all the voices in your head, steve, brody, jabberjaw, arthur hogg, seem to know about it?
September 25th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
i’m not her, but i know the story; at least from her, and it did not include sexual harrassment. just a simple case of her not being attracted to you. that’s all.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
“beyond pointing out, if it isn’t you, how do all the voices in your head, steve, brody, jabberjaw, arthur hogg, seem to know about it?”
…oops, looks like i struck a nerve.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Of course! I guess its my lucky day, that I just dodged a bullet -given that you have in the past made those kind of accusations against other members of the art community here.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Do you honestly believe that anyone could read this, your self described “anonymous posters” and not know its one and the same person? The only person you are possibly fooling is yourself. Amy, go get some help.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Look….she’s a certified nut job. i’m not denying that. all i’m saying and have ever said on this thread, is that it’s not her that made those comments to you. are you happy?
i don’t know who made the comments, but believe me its not her. Like i said, you’re smarter than this….right?
September 25th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Right -so whats your full name steve/brody/jabberjaw/aurthur hogg -a real identity, first, last name -actual link……of course there isn’t one…..beyond who you actually are ms Snufalupagus.
I’m checking out of your looney bin – arguing with an insane person aside from being tediously boring, is never all that its cracked up to be as there is no conversation and besides, this is too sad even for me.
There was the beginning of a real discussion having to do with painting here before you showed up, with your ongoing obsession with me and glomed on as you always do, making this all about you. You got some attention Amy, happy? Now, go seek some professional help.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
You know, she reads these damn threads….it’s just a matter of time before the real Amy descends upon us. Thanks Wesley.
Woe upon you who have not read her diatribes before….
Break out the aspirin.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Aspirin? I’m afraid you are going to require some stronger form of medication than that -like I said initially Amy, you are going to need a bigger boat –
You need to go get yourself some help. Someone needs to be the one, even here, even oddly enough me, to tell you this.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Wesley,
I AM NOT AMY! And i’m not her latest ultra ego either. All i have said here and continue to say is that you’ve got the wrong “mark”. So stop it.
It’s not fair to her (though i expect she’ll show up shortly), so quit it.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
btw…you mentioned before some kind of drunken “moose dance” at Art Chicago. What the hell is that? I assume you were referring to her.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
“I AM NOT AMY!” You and your other selves probably actually believe that don’t you Steve? Think of it as a mantra – just keep repeating it -but how about to yourself? Spare us……..perhaps if you say it enough times, quietly over a long enough while, you won’t seem so oddly invested in her……
September 25th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Oh brother…i tried to stop this.
i quit. if you are content to think that “they”, “I” am her, then fine.
Good night.
September 25th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results -I’m done. Want to prove you aren’t Amy, Amy I mean ‘Steve’? Simple, post you actual name -with a link to your url.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Sure, how about this Wesley….An actual name, and your own definition of insanity included.
Click my name.
Good night.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:46 am
uhhhh…..using another artists identity as your own! Thats so…….YOU, AMY! Lets see, Bacon, Hirst, Freud and now…… me! At least I’m in good company. And at least you are seasonally correct -talk about creep factor -I guess the only remaining question is, who are you planning to be for Halloween?
September 26th, 2009 at 2:08 am
you’re not in good company…meaning if you think i equate you with any of those truly great artists. you don’t hold their piss bucket kimler… and how you wish you could.
As for halloween, perhaps i’ll drench myself in a poured black blob, and decorate my face with a stylized, poorly drawn, illustrative mask. sound familiar? For a show stopper, I’ll decorate my body with a surface lacking of any luster, life, or inspirational mark making that makes a truly great painting visceral in its simplest.
When i’m done with that, i’ll pour preconceived drips down my entire costume with the muddiest recipe i can conceive, and present myself as the most pretentiously titled halloween trick or treator of the last 30 years.
Its just a start, but halloween is coming soon.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:54 am
Oh….and its not Amy.
Sheeeesh…..
September 26th, 2009 at 8:10 am
“Look….she’s a certified nut job. i’m not denying that. all i’m saying and have ever said on this thread, is that it’s not her that made those comments to you. are you happy?
i don’t know who made the comments, but believe me its not her.”
September 26th, 2009 at 9:03 am
and to quote you further:
” and decorate my face with a stylized, poorly drawn, illustrative mask. sound familiar?’
-it does sound familar; all one has to do is look you up online Snufalufagus to notice it…..I am glad you have come on her in all of your ‘personalities’ -if BAS is paying attentinion they will note that you have been cyber stalking here for some time and are actually responsible for much -in fact most, of the garbage posted, unfortunately associated with me -often using Steve -or Arthur -and now Brody and several others….
You are not an artist -but you stalk artists -oddly enough the very male artists you profess to hate….I wouldn’t give you the time of day -as you simply don’t deserve it -and so the poor lost little girl became a ‘fan’… obsessive, …creepy …and unwelcome.
Snufalufagus -thats your name -’the work’ is on the internet to be seen. Happy now? -you got even more attention -unfortunately there is that little nagging issue about your work -its very poor quality -not that you actually care or apparently are capable of doing anything to change that.
Why don’t you go find someone else to glom onto Amy? Perhaps some dead artist who won’t have to actually put up with your obnoxiousness.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:06 am
“arguing with an insane person aside from being tediously boring, is never all that its cracked up to be as there is no conversation…”
If everyone followed this advice,Jabberjaw Kimler would have no one to talk to.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Alright, look. We have no idea who is posting and it is NOT ok to guess and disparage other humans who can not be proved to be involved in this exchange.
This is not appropriate behavior ever. Seriously.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Duncan -it’s a fact. Its proven even right here if you take 5 minutes sit down and actually read what is said. Its Snufalufagus. Just pay attention for once -and get it right.
I have contacted her privately, and made her aware of the steps I will take if she posts again concerning me. Did I receive back some indignant email of denial? What do you think Duncan? Of course not. For one good reason: its her.
And no, cyber stalking is not appropriate behavior ever. Seriously- so don’t support it.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:36 am
I admit that I was wrong. I am sorry.
September 27th, 2009 at 8:24 am
uhhhhhhhhh- this I admit I am wrong -comment is not me- an actual read of the comments proves my contention of exactly who it is.
September 27th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Not only is it not me apologizing for anything in the below post, but why does Bas persist in supporting anonymous ad hominem attacks of zero substance? (Usually directed at me) And then blame me for them? As I have noted, a read through the alias comments, a familarity with aliases of the past (though this is even not necessary) proves who the one person posting under these multiple aliases, Brody, Northcut, Steve, Jabberjaw, Arthur Hogg is.
I suppose I should note -that since I contacted ‘alias ‘ privately and explained the ramifications of what would happen if she didn’t knock it off, its been awfully quite around here- someone got the message.
September 27th, 2009 at 9:46 am
You may agree or not agree with Wesley but I feel that his comments have always been clear, succinct and insightful. Too bad that they get mired in the bullshit…
enough of this silliness – let’s move on
September 27th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Martin Brody’s first post on this thread was not an ad hominem attack on you. He/she, whatever, posted an appropriate response to your comment towards Claudine. “The Shark” Quote:
“with all due respect-and I mean this this in all sincerity -with no insult intended, you need to take a painting 101 appreciation course if you are to continue writing about it without further embarrassing yourself…”
You brought this on yourself as you always do. So stop your damned whining. No one is stalking you.
September 27th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Right ‘Steve’ ‘Brody’ ‘Arthur Hogg’ ‘northcut’ – and you know what I told you my response would now be. Why not use a more appropriate alias, like, -basic idiotic chickenshit afraid to use his/ her own name?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:30 am
My intial comment stands: anyone actually familar with the university system, how art is taught would not find it shocking or, insulting that I would suggest -pointedly as I obviously did, that someone who had been through it, is still and clearly, in need of undertaking a study, a basic 101 painting appreciation course -not to be confused with art history, conceptual art or anything else. Mark Brandl adequately addressed this ongoing situation here as well-
Its clear that Steve, Martin Brody, Ninja Bo, northcut, jabberjaw -is ignorant not only about painting – (yea, my paintings don’t have any surface lustre to them -you moron), but, about art education in general -which considering the real source of these aliases -is actually, a fact. Not that any of this actually matters -as alias’ big obsession -is not about art -but rather about the artist she has currently glomed on to -
I have issued a private warning to the muliple personality wonder, and I’m done with it -this person has been coming on here for the last several years doing this -if Bas won’t act, I will.
September 27th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Why can’t I get the respect I deserve? Why won’t Bad at Sports do what we do at Sharkforum and simply ban those I disagree with? Or at least carefully select those I disagree with a la Rush Limbaugh? My attempts to turn this site into an art world version of right wing radio have only been partially successful. I need Bad at Sports to cooperate so that I can fulfill my fantasy to become the Glenn Beck of Chicago art talk.
September 27th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I’m sure haviing a hard time getting some respect aren’t I? I’m just having an awful year…..!
Funny how its these alias posts that actually echo right wing tactics in being virtually fact free -posted by chickenhawks – cowards who love a fight as long as they personally don’t have to be involved. And then only about persoanl attacks while attempting to defend and maintain the status quo -why not just limit your post to a single shout out -LIAR? Far more succinct and in your case, thought out..
September 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Alright. Team.
We love you all but… Can we stop attacking each other?
We at BaS have for years have supported your write to speak to each other in any manor you choose.
We are fine with you talking back at us and supporting your own points of view but… Enough with the personal attacks.
We here, do a specific and intentionally personal thing. We speak from our own perspective, in our own voices and we ask our bloggers to do the same thing. You can disagree with any of us and question our position but please be polite to each other and to us. We are all here because the silly pictures and objects that we spend our lives with mean more to us then anything and we care how they are perceived and understood.
Of course we are all going to get heated from now and again but it is vital that we retain some kind of civility towards each other. It is vital that we don’t chase less aggressive voices out of the exchange. Community means that we share in the project together, not that we always agree. If we ever hope to make more space for all of us to live and work here then we have to do it together. That means arguing with points rather then personal attacks. Lets stop questioning each others schooling, intelligence, talents, egos, and right to exist.
Bad at Sports strives to support the things we love and sometimes we need to be a bit cranky to find a way to fully commit to that love but lets try and be civil.
And lets all post under one name and lets not drag any other names into the debate, nor knowingly post under another’s chosen moniker.
your friend,
duncan.
September 28th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Duncan I could not agree more: this whole thread started with my questioning Claudine’s knowledge about quite specifically, painting. This is not a question of her schooling but rather an acknowledgment of the fact that in art history departments in theoretical courses at universities across this country -how to discuss and evaluate an actual painting on its own merits is rarely taught. Look at you Duncan -MFA right? -know much about painting? -I dont think so-
I will point out to you that post after post right here on this thread, I as I almost invariably do, brought substance and discussion amidst the cowards of alias’ the townhall style shoutdown of those somehow obsessed with me.
Do I have a responsibility in this -of course I do. I have been a lightening rod here for years, and I am somewhat problematic and difficult: still, -its funny that I illicit such hostility -much of the time from the very people who would probably benefit most from the art world here being a more democratic place – not run as it has been in the past by a handful of power brokers-
the Chicago art worlds own version of the health care/economic debate -the Joe the artists coming after me -for my wanting this place to actually function at a higher level.
this situation: is Claudine’s writing personally important to me? Of course not. I am at a certain level here as an artist and have had such mountains of press both laudatory and not -to the point of it having no effect upon what it is I do -either personally or professionally…but, what I would like to see however, is a more serious art world happen here where we actually have critics who can intelligently write about painting…Chicago has a huge opportunity at the moment, when you consider fine younger artists like Rob Davis and Michael Langlois -and realize how they, the best painters of their generation here carry on a socially serious agenda in their work one that has gone on and informed the work of – Kerry James, Dawoud Bey, Vera Klement, the late Leon Golub, the work I make…..there is a seriousness here that you don’t see in the the more decadent painting coming out of New York -but we will continue to struggle, fighting over crumbs, all will be lost if we don’t have infrastructure both critical, and financial to have a vibrant and vital scene. I want Claudine to be a great critic, who can handle writing about painting coming from a place of expertise and knowledge. I want to see artists here make more money as professional artists -to enable them to have more time to make still better work, to flourish.
Sharkforum -we dont really blog there -in two instances I have ixnayed two people/ their writing from the site -Pedro Velez and Snufalufagus -one for being ridiculous and the other for being in my opinion obsequious…but, in terms of posters like here, I would never allow the comments of cowards. The simple way to civility is to have those who post be known.
Bas is a good thing: I will try and limit the size chunks I take when I do bite – but one way or another, you will always know its me. I don’t believe in being a coward.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I didn’t realize Chicago was full of nutjobs. OK. Next city, please.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
“Chicago has a huge opportunity at the moment, when you consider fine younger artists like Rob Davis and Michael Langlois”
Liar. Tell us what you really think of them Shark.
No offense Rob and Michael.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Amazing what a cowardly jerk you are ‘Steve’ I do hope everyone is reading this and getting a real sense of what a piece of junk email you are-
-Rob and Michael are both aware of my long time support of their work…which is probably why they took the time to invite me to the opening of their 12X12 show -which not only was I glad to attend, but as my daughter is half Palestinian, I found personally quite moving.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
horseshit.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
wouldn’t have to do with anything with Monique would it? I remember seeing you at Rashid’s opening last year giving an interview…yeah, at Rashid’s opening. I suppose you’re best friends with him also.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
so you follow me around then: In real life as well as on the internet. Maybe you need a hobby. And as a matter of fact, I am friends with Rashid Johnson…so?
September 28th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
no, I just saw you and observed. it was funny. you didn’t see me in the midst of your “interview”. i actually waved at you, but you missed it. Too bad, it could have lead to some very interesting street theater.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
So lets see: you seem jealous of the fact I am friends with several artists you mention, and then you are waving at me at openings trying to get my attention …not unlike your behavior here. What is this some kind of weird psycho crush? What’s next, are you going to start blowing me kisses?
September 28th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
btw…i wasn’t out to hurt you.
….let’s just make that clear.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
no, not jealous at all. and i won’t be blowing you kisses.
sheeeesh…..
September 28th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I guess I would be quaking in my boots if I wasn’t sitting here on the phone with a friend laughing our asses off at what a complete whack job you are. Whats it like to be not only stupid but nuts?
September 28th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
EOM
nite nite.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Well Duncan I actually do apologize here -and am trying to take the high road -and yet this was just too entertainingly funny to look past without comment…..if you wish to delete back to my initial response to you, you certainly have my blessing-
At the same time people reading this should take note and be aware of this-quoting ‘Steve’:
“no, I just saw you and observed. it was funny. you didn’t see me in the midst of your “interview”. i actually waved at you, but you missed it.” ………..”btw…i wasn’t out to hurt you.
….let’s just make that clear.”
How completely off the charts is this in terms of creep factor?
September 29th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Oh God…did you just call me stupid and nuts?
I just might have to stalk you now.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:13 am
this is really fun….
Sorry Duncan and Richard….just had to.
I’ll leave for now.
See ya Wesley. Watch those shadows….
September 29th, 2009 at 12:39 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y
September 29th, 2009 at 12:50 am
twilight zone it is. Good night everyone. Even you Wesley.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Steve, You disappoint me. We raised you better than this. We tried. Lord knows we tried to teach you to play fair, to care and to leave the world a better place than you found it.
Kid, in my mind you are failing. Yeah sure, I’ll love you always. You know that. But look, my darling son, at what you are doing to yourself. What are you trying to accomplish?
Have you looked at what Mr. Kimler has written? I’m shocked at you. Mr. Kimler is clearly trying to elevate the art discussion and to instruct those who don’t have the experience and wisdom he has, despite the fact that he obviously gets in his own way a lot. Who taught you to pick on people like you do? Was that your father? Steve, have any of your replies been constructive?
Let me ask you a question Steve. You’ve stopped going to church haven’t you? Are you hanging out with the boy again? You know, the bad one.
Steve, we’re going to have to talk. I think it’s time for you to come home. And your doctor wants to see you.
Love,
Mom
September 29th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
all day at the day job trying to figure out how to save face after your ‘I’m so gay about the shark’ moment last night…and this is the best you can come up with, hiding behind ‘mommy’s’ skirt-tails?! Of course it is -I’m out of here.
September 29th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Mom,
It’s so nice to hear from you again. After you left me at the bus stop, I never thought I’d hear from you again. Yes, I have been with that boy again. I’m sorry, but he awakens something in me that is quite exhilirating. An ultra-personality perhaps.
Yes, Mr. Kimler has tried to teach us children here a whole whole lot, even though he’s very mean. I don’t think I’d like to invite him to my birthday party next month. The other kids say they don’t want him either. I hear he smells funny too.
And no, I have not been to church in a long long time. How do you know all this?
I will try much better from now on and make a point of being more constructive in my replies to that Mr. Kimler; even though I’ll have to pinch my nose.
Mom, please. We can certainly talk, but I don’t want to see the doctor anymore. He’s a nice man, but he didn’t help at all…I still live in my studio with the electric plate and I don’t see how another visit will change anything.
Mr. Kimler has changed everything!!! I see things more clearly now because of his wisdom and his genius. Did you know he’s the best painter since Carravagio and Cezanne?
And don’t you see? He thinks I’m gay about him now.
Things could turn around very soon Mom. You’ll see. Maybe Mr. Kimler will invite me over to his garage that rivals Gagosian’s space in NYC! Wouldn’t that be great.
Until that time, I promise to play nicer, take my medication and visit Father Kearny this coming weekend.
In the meantime, please say a little prayer for Mr. Kimler mom.
Love you.
Stevie.