September 25, 2008 · Print This Article
Art Fag City has just broke the news that The Chelsea Art Museum has cancelled their show The Aesthetics of Terror. According to the site, artists were informed yesterday of Dorothea Kesser’s decision stating that she felt the show “glorified terrorism and showed disrespect for its victims.â€
Here is the roster of who was going to participate:
Jake + Dinos Chapman
Art21’s blog has posted an interview with former BAS guest Kerry James Marshall. They sat down with Marshall while he was installing his show ” Black Romantic” at Jack Shainman Gallery. The video on their website is worth checking out.
Below is an excerpt from the interview.
ART21: Whatâ€™s the relationship between your series of Vignettes (2003-07) and whatâ€™s commonly referred to as post-black art.
MARSHALL: The work of African-American artists has for a long time been seen more as a kind of social phenomena instead of aesthetic phenomena. The social implications of the work â€” be it identity politics and things like that â€” seem to be privileged in terms of the way the work is received, as opposed to any kind of aesthetic project or intervention the work might be organized around. And so if you read any of the critique that was made around the Freestyle (2001) show at The Studio Museum in Harlem, youâ€™ll find an undertone that seems to suggest that the mainstream critical world and art aficionados were tired of this whole identity politics and multiculturalism moment.
If you examine the subjectivity that a lot of African-American artists address, it often has a kind of cultural, social, political, or historical angle to it. So for the mainstream to suggest that it was sort of tired of having to address those kinds of issues, then, whatâ€™s really left for these artists to do if thatâ€™s something thatâ€™s meaningful to them? On some level, I thought maybe the only thing that was left to do was to make paintings about love. And to take a cynical approach to the concept of love, to the concept of the Vignettes (2003-07), so that they donâ€™t seem to directly address the social and political issues that had been relevant to me and maybe to a lot of other artists who want to make work.
I began by looking at a lot of 18th Century French painting â€” Rococo work â€” like Boucher, Fragonard, Bouguereau, and other artists who themselves are also critiqued but critiqued for a lack of political depth in their work, for the frivolity of the work and for the work being kind of saccharine and sentimental and overly puffy and flowery. I started to take those two things and see if I could put them together â€” to preserve a certain element of the social, political, and historical narratives that are still important to me, but also to deal with the sentimentality, frivolity, and excesses that are embedded in Rococo painting.
ART21: Why are they painted predominantly in black-and-white?
MARSHALL: One of the reasons I use the grisaille technique in those paintings was to deny a bit of the Rococo. If you take a genre of painting thatâ€™s recognized for being pretty or flowery, but you want to start to do some other things, then you have to strip away some of those characteristics. One of the first characteristics is the over-investment in color that those pictures would have. So I stripped away the color, which reduces a certain amount of sweetness in the pictures. Black and white always tends towards a level of seriousness, and you can use it to avoid sentimentality when youâ€™re dealing with highly keyed chromatic kind of relationships. The only color note in there is the cartoony pink in the hearts. The pink is a way of refusing to deliver on all of the points of which grisaille is supposed to deliver. And I chose to paint the hearts pink specifically to emphasize the disconnection between the overtly romantic imagery in the foreground and the historical or political imagery in the background.
ART21: What advice would you give to younger artists?
MARSHALL: The drive to be relevant â€” not just for yourself and the people who like your work â€” has moved a lot of artists throughout time to do the kinds of things they do. If you look how artists became artists in the past, there were smaller numbers of people vying for positions in the royal courts and churches and atelier system. They didnâ€™t have five thousand people coming through the system back then. But now we have these graduate programs at universities that are putting out thousands of credentialed artists every year. And so what are these artists trying to do? They are all trying to get a gallery show. Theyâ€™re trying to get the grants. Theyâ€™re trying to get written about in the newspaper. Theyâ€™re trying to get their work collected. Theyâ€™re trying to do all of those things so they can keep on making their work.
Now the only way you can do that really is to distinguish yourself from what everybody else in the field is doing. And so if you were taught while you were in school that being a part of the club â€” being one of many amongst other artists â€” that thatâ€™s somehow worthwhile, then how do you sustain your development and your productivity? What do you aim for?
Whatever it is youâ€™re aiming for has to be judged by somebody outside yourself as having a kind of value. But if you just leave that to people who are out there, who somehow supposed to know more about what youâ€™re doing than you do, then I think you are in a world of trouble. If you donâ€™t have any mechanism to determine to some degree what your chances might be of achieving the kind of success as an artist you want to achieve, then youâ€™re in deep trouble. And I think there is a lot that can be done. I think you can decide. And the way you decide is to know what it is artists are trying to do and what is meaningful to the discipline above and beyond what you think is meaningful to you as a person trying to express yourself.
This is why I say itâ€™s not about self-expression. If it were really just about self-expression, then that would require a receiver who is so sensitively attuned to your sensibility that they are capable of recognizing an intrinsic value â€” not in what it is youâ€™re doing, but who it is you are.
via the New York Times:
After a seven-month search, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation on Tuesday named Richard Armstrong of the Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh as its next director.
Mr. Armstrong, 59, who has been director of the Carnegie for 12 years, succeeds Thomas Krens, who announced in February that he was stepping down after nearly 20 years.
In a decision that was widely reported in the art world, Guggenheim trustees settled on Mr. Armstrong in late August but did not vote formally until its board meeting on Tuesday afternoon. Their choice appears to signal a distinct change in style for the Guggenheim, whose international ambitions under Mr. Krens have stirred some conflict within the institution in recent years.
â€œWe were looking for someone with a passion for art who understood that the New York museum is at the center of our universe,â€ said Jennifer Blei Stockman, president of the Guggenheimâ€™s board.
Under the long tenure of the provocative Mr. Krens, the Guggenheim transformed itself into a global brand with branches in Berlin, Venice and Bilbao, Spain, as well as a planned museum in Abu Dhabi that is expected to open in 2013. Now the Guggenheim seems eager for a more centered presence.
â€œWe interviewed a lot of young avant-garde European and American museum directors and thought, do we want another maverick who puts their stamp on the museum or a seasoned expert who is a wise adult and who would put the needs of the institution and the staff first?â€ Ms. Stockman said in a telephone interview.
Mr. Armstrong, who assumes the post on Nov. 4, will nonetheless be responsible for the foundationâ€™s global network of museums as well as its New York headquarters.
Just as the Metropolitan Museum selected a highly respected curator this month to be its next director, naming Thomas P. Campbell, a noted scholar, to succeed Philippe de Montebello, the Guggenheimâ€™s search committee opted for a leader with a long curatorial history rather than a professional administrator or a fund-raising wizard.
Before he was named director of the Carnegie in 1996, Mr. Armstrong served there for four years, initially as a curator for contemporary art and then as the chief contemporary-art curator. In 1995 he organized the centennial version of the Carnegie International, a sprawling contemporary survey show.
Mr. Armstrong is also deeply familiar with New Yorkâ€™s museum culture. He worked at the Whitney Museum of American Art from 1981 to 1992 in curatorial posts and as senior instructor of its Independent Study Program. He helped organize three of the Whitneyâ€™s Biennials â€” in 1987, 1989 and 1991 â€” along with a 1991 exhibition devoted to the sculptor Alexis Smith and other shows.
Sipping tea during an interview in the Carlyle Hotel, Mr. Armstrong who like Mr. Krens is tall and strapping at 6 feet 5 inches tall, said he saw his role as one of â€œempowering curators.â€
Mr. Krens was often criticized for organizing exhibitions that were so sweeping in theme that they sometimes lacked sharp scholarly focus, like â€œAfrica: The Art of a Continentâ€ in 1996, â€œChina: 5,000 Yearsâ€ in 1998 and â€œBrazil: Body & Soulâ€ in 2001. Some faulted him for unconventional shows like â€œThe Art of the Motorcycleâ€ in 1998 and â€œGiorgio Armaniâ€ in 2000.
Mr. Armstrong said it was â€œunlikelyâ€ that he would pursue that type of programming. He said he did not know Mr. Krens and had not yet consulted with him about the Guggenheim.
As director, he said, one of his aims will be to draw on the Guggenheimâ€™s rich permanent collection as well as to present shows exploring what young artists are doing today.
â€œI remember when I was growing up the Guggenheim was frequently the source for enlightenment about European art, and then it had an edge for accommodating new, younger artists,â€ he said.
Today, Mr. Armstrong said, he finds the Guggenheimâ€™s interest in Asia â€œand I hope Latin Americaâ€ exciting. He said he was attracted by the museumâ€™s â€œability to bring information to the public that might otherwise be overlooked.â€
Born in Kansas City, Mo., Mr. Armstrong studied art history at Lake Forest College in Illinois and said he was deeply influenced there by Franz Schulze, a historian of Modern architecture who he said helped him appreciate art as well.
Mr. Armstrong studied in France at the University of Dijon and then the Sorbonne in Paris. â€œIt was in France that I started looking at art more seriously,â€ he said. â€œBy the time I left I was pretty well hooked.â€
But his first memory of looking at art dates from when he was living in Washington in his early teens. â€œI would go to museums because they were air-conditioned,â€ he said. â€œI particularly remember a painting by Arthur Dove at the Phillips Collection.â€
The Guggenheim has just completed a sweeping renovation of the facade of its 1959 Frank Lloyd Wright building. (To mark the occasion, a light projection by the artist Jenny Holzer made its debut on the facade Monday night and will appear each Friday night through December.)
Mr. Armstrong is no stranger to renovations. At the Carnegie he oversaw the refurbishing of several of the museumâ€™s exhibition spaces, including the Scaife Galleries and the Heinz Galleries and an expansion of the Heinz Architectural Center. He was also responsible for acquisitions like â€œUntitled (Domestic),â€ a monumental 2002 sculptural installation by the British artist Rachel Whiteread that the Carnegie bought jointly with the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo.
In June Mr. Armstrong announced that he would resign as the Carnegieâ€™s director. â€œI slowly had come to the conclusion that I should wrap things up,â€ he said, adding that he wanted to give his successor a long lead time to organize the next Carnegie International.
Although had not lined up a job, he said, he had had one â€œcasual conversationâ€ with the Guggenheim before he resigned.
Mr. Armstrong said he hoped to bolster the Guggenheimâ€™s online presence to help lure younger audiences to the museum. â€œItâ€™s their portal to knowledge,â€ he said. â€œWeâ€™ve got a generation that knows all about Paris Hilton but nothing about Paris. That needs to be enriched and brought back into alignment.â€
He said that while he dislikes using the term â€œpermanent collectionâ€ because it â€œturns everyone off,â€ he hopes to find ways of re-interpreting the Guggenheimâ€™s holdings in eye-opening ways.
â€œThatâ€™s one of the things you want to reassert especially to young people, who think everything is disposable,â€ he said. â€œOne of the charms of the museum is being able to go back time and again and see the same works in the same place month after month, year after year.â€
â€œThose talismans,â€ Mr. Armstrong said, â€œare extremely useful to peopleâ€™s development.â€
If you ever wondered when Bad at Sports really started it was not in 2005. In reality it was in 1896 Richard’s GG Grandfather Josiah Holland and Duncan’s GG Grandfather Cyrus MacKenzie meet at a bar in St. Louis, MO both having tried to get the postal digits of a young barmaid. Both having struck out and blaming each other for the result the grudge that has lasted the centuries began.
Over 100 years later it has come to a head again. This time over the use of the word webby and interweb but this time only one can survive.
Who will win, vote this weekend and see.
Oh also that barmaid that won the hearts but not hand of our two hosts? Turns out she was the GG Grandmother of Christopher Hudgens, one Temperance Hudgens. Kaveh Soofi was the photographer who captured this epic moment in Art grudge history.
From the desk of Mark Staff Brandl “After more than three decades as the editor of Art in America magazine, Elizabeth C. Baker, a powerful voice in the contemporary-art world,” as Randy Kennedy describes her, has resigned.
As the New York Times writes, with very little information coming from the magazine itself:
“The change comes shortly after a shake-up in the magazine’s ownership. Peter M. Brant, a newsprint magnate and art collector, took over Brant Publications, the magazine’s publisher, in January after buying out the 50 percent stake owned by his former wife, Sandra Brant. Mr. Brant appointed Fabien Baron and Glenn O’Brien as joint editorial directors of Art in America and the company’s two other publications, Interview and The Magazine Antiques. Ms. Baker, known as Betsy, took over the magazine in 1974. Under her leadership Art in America grew from a bimonthly publication with a circulation of around 45,000 to a monthly with a circulation of more than 75,000, featuring the writing of many influential critics. Marcia E. Vetrocq, who joined Art in America in 1998 as a senior editor, will take over as editor. Ms. Baker will become editor at large in charge of special projects, which will include book publishing and Web site development.”
Read more about the shakeup and Mark’s history with Art in America at Sharkfourm the Newman to my Seinfeild…. Or is that reversed?
Don’t forget fight night is just a few months away!