The City Council is on the verge of passing an ordinance that is bad for Chicago, bad for its citizens and particularly bad for the art community.
We have proposed an alternative ordinance that will not be considered unless you act. We are the following groups: Bad at Sports, the Chicago Artists Coalition, Lumpen, Sharkforum, ArtLetter and others to be named soon.
Short Story:
Mayor Daley and the Department of Cultural Affairs (DCA) have proposed a terrible ordinance to modify the Public Art Program. The stated reason makes no sense: that the meetings were open to the public was cumbersome and unnecessary in their judgment. That the previous ordinance existed for 25 years and that the City has an exemplary art collection they deemed irrelevant.
-
It “privatizes” the the selection of public art by eliminating all Open Meetings.
-
It means the DCA does not have to post thorough information on their website about upcoming commissions.
-
It will remove transparency and accessibility from the Public Art program and art commissions.
-
It eliminates voting, democracy and public recourse.
Unless the art community acts the City Council will approve their proposed ordinance on the 13th of June. The best way to prevent this from happening is for artists to
stage a large rally at 5:30 PM Monday, June 11th at the Picasso Sculpture
and a letter writing campaign to make the Mayor and the Aldermen aware of what Chicago artists think and want.
Full Story:
-
Visualize 100’s of Chicago artists rallying around a single cause – Artists’ Rights.
-
Have you ever read about a large group of artists speaking out publicly with one voice?
-
Think about the media coverage.
-
To a large extent the events of the next ten days stand to significantly affect the future of Chicago artists (and Chicago galleries that care about their
Chicago artists).
Here’s the deal:
In mid-May at the request of the Commissioner of Cultural Affairs (Lois Weisberg), Mayor Daley proposed an ordinance to revamp the Public Art Program.
This proposed ordinance is bad government, bad for Chicagoans and particularly bad for the Chicago art community and artists.
Shortly after the ordinance sailed through committee (despite us “winning” the discussion) a few of us succeeded in having the measure postponed by the City
Council.
WELL, the issue is coming back up for a City Council vote on June 13th. We’ve spoken to a number of aldermen. Most aldermen think: If the artists don’t care, we don’t care.
It is possible to change the system and it is not going to be easy.
It is time to step up or get stepped on.
As an artist or a member of the art community in Chicago, or elsewhere, if you ever want to able to apply for a commission, or give a damn about your peers
being able to, now is the time to act:
-
Appear at a RALLY FOR ARTISTS’ RIGHTS on the Monday the 11th at 5:30 at the Picasso
– 2 days before the City Council meets to vote on the 13th. -
Write letters to the Tribune & Sun Times editorial page.
-
Write a letter to the Mayor
-
Write a letter to your alderman. Speak to your alderman.
-
Speak in favor of Our New (alternative) Ordinance supporting Artist’s Rights
-
Send an email to me or a member of our team telling us what you think. We’ll count them, print them and share them where they’ll hopefully make a difference.
-
Under the pretense of streamlining the selection process, the DCA’s proposed ordinance means the DCA does not have to have “open meeting” to give or get any information to artists about upcoming commissions, nor answer to anyone about selected commissions.
-
They do not have to put information on their website anymore (they’ve been doing a horrible job putting out information so far.)
-
They do not have to allow artists to apply for specific projects.
-
They do not have to respond to the community.
-
They do not have to be responsible for their actions.
-
They do get to keep their inbred selection process whereby they dip into their archaic database, pick whoever they want, sometimes repeatedly, and not have to tell artists why or how they chose or choose.
If you are going to write a letter, here are some key points. -
No fair, honest or open consideration of Chicago artists
-
No Open Meetings.
-
No useful listings of commission possibilities
-
No applying for a specific commission
-
No knowing why you weren’t considered
-
Under their proposed new ordinance, the finger-pointing will shift from the DCA to the aldermen because alderman will be asked to have ward forums to discuss art commissions in their ward. This will be an added logistical and financial responsibility for the alderman they may not want. The aldermen will be responsible to post notice of the forums (many don’t have web sites). They will have to pay for postage out of their own pockets. They will have to host and attend art meetings in their wards. They will have to put up with the potential for dividing their community over art issues. These selfish reasons may be sufficient reason aldermen will defeat this ordinance June 13th – if they are informed.
-
If the aldermen think you care, you will be heard.
-
If the aldermen don’t think you care they will automatically vote with the Mayor and pass this ordinance assuring a closed doors, patronage system where those who are favored will get the most commissions. It will not be based on quality, or a competent committee considering your work. Instead of a democracy we’ll have the Department of Cultural Affairs acting like a country club, picking who they want, why they want, without opening up the selection process and broadening the amount of art they can consider.
-
The artists suffer. The City suffers. The community suffers. The DCA gets a free ride.
-
Think about Chicago’s reputation in the rest of the country.
-
We are already being discussed by National Public Art Administrators
-
We will be a topic of discussion at the National Public Art Conference in Las Vegas.
-
Is this going to look good for Chicago in the rest of the country?
-
-
How about internationally?
-
How about the Olympics?
-
Every Olympics has a large Cultural Olympics held concurrently.
-
Do you think the Olympic Committee is going to be favorably impressed with this ordinance?
-
-
You and the Olympics
-
Hidden in the bowels of their ordinance is a distinction between Percent for Art and Public Art. The DCA has succeeded in keeping this totally vague. All Percent for Art (a specific term) is part of Public Art (a general term). Only the Percent for Art must have public forums.(Percent for Art applies to money spent in City government buildings and land. But Public Art also includes money for art not for city property yet still administered by DCA – like housing to be constructed for Olympic athletes – which could be billions of dollars.) Can you say cronyism?
-
Well get this: According to their proposed ordinance they only have to have forums (namby-pamby discussions with not binding authority and no vote) with Percent for Art. Okay, but for Public Art they don’t even have to have any forums at all.
-
-
Who do you think they are trying to take care of?
-
Actions speak louder than words.
Do
you understand why the Mayor doesn’t care about you – the Chicago artist? Or why the Alderman don’t, or the rest of the world for that matter? Because you haven’t made yourself seen and you haven’t made yourself heard enough.
It is time again to assume responsibility for your career, to take a stance.
Can you visualize the impact just 500 artists showing up at a rally could have globally?
Do you realize the publicity Chicago artists can get?
Do you grasp the impact the discussion of this ordinance will have?
You can either shape your future constructively or get screwed.
It is up to you.
Paul Klein
- Episode 886: Scott Speh on 20 Years of Western Exhibitions & Chicago Art Scene Reflections - November 29, 2024
- Episode 885: Betsy Odom - November 26, 2024
- Episode 884: Pete and Jake Fagundo - November 12, 2024
“-duh….!” You say.
Such eloquence, I can’t keep up!
Originally this wasn’t a discussion of aesthetics, it was of public art. But as usual, Kimler ruins it with his rants and his lecturing.
right…..when you can’t have the conversation -find someone to blame……everything I have said above is not only substantive and reasoned, -but also, pertinent to thinking about public art -however far it sailed over your head.
I will remind you, you started this exchange with a completely ill-conceived, entirely off-base, moronic rant/attack upon me, stating erroneously how I wouldn’t possibly like Gehry, Kapoor etc…
did I respond to you with an attack? No, I attempted to have a reasoned discussion with you -obviously more than you can deal with. Why is this not suprising?
“reasoned discussion”
sheesh
halfway intelligent
plebian
anyway, back the McCormick Place. Public or not? Subject to the rules that govern other public buildings? Why or why not? I think publicly funded means publicly controlled. Whether or not the public visits is something entirely; what’s important is that the art is publicly funded.
awwww -and I was being nice!…..good question -asked in a completely straightforward manner…..I’m interested in this question as well Russo -and so for a moment, we are miraculously, on the same side: well Paul, which is it? Public or not? Was the funding part of the 1% program, or, was it entirely private funds? Well?
There’s an awful lot I don’t know about how McCormick is governed, controlled – whatever.
McCormick is paid for with taxpayer $; through the sale of bonds, I think. It did not have to have art in the building. It was not a Percent for Art project. I’d say it is publicly funded. It is not like other public buildings. Here’s where I start speculating: I think it is a hybrid; both State and City, but not really a part of either one. Not sure.
“but don’t they have to comply with the 1% law?”…..”or, are they above that- the law I mean,” enquired the circling shark with a toothy grin…
You put forth a quote that that doesn’t appear anywhere previously in this discussion – at least i can’t find it when i do a search for the word ‘comply.’
McCormick was created by state government, but they’ve got city people involved too. Maybe that’s only on the Art Review Committee. I don’t know the details. As far as I can tell they jump through hoops to comply with all applicable laws.
I am curious as to how the jury was selected…..how there ended up being a bunch of businessmen who knew zero about art calling the ultimate shots in the selection process, instituting these draconian not to mention humiliating guidlines for payouts etc……
I was told 5 members of the committee of 10 were appointed by the Mayor and 5 by the Governor.
I think if you accept the fact that McCormick is more accustomed to contracting for concrete than art their contracts weren’t all that bad: 5% when you sign, 15% when you begin work, 30% when you are 30% done, 60% at 60% done, 90% at 90%, 95% after installation and payment in full 3 months out. (most artists went directly from 60% to 95%.) And their payouts are like clockwork. Concrete. Think concrete.
Just out of curiosity, how many of the 10 people on the panel have any background involving art? I understand Greg Knight is on the panel…….anyone else?
Slightly more than half. They were confident of their opinions. They provided a handful of good suggestions. Some others had convention and community experience. They are proud of the art. They were quite agreeable with the art I was proposing to them. They were easier to have an elevated aesthetics discussion with than most collectors I’ve spoken with. Art can have lots of purposes. What I put in my house isn’t going to be the same as what I put in McCormick. The issues are different.
slightly more than half: transparency! lets walk the talk and hear some names- who are they?
Because of where I sit in the McCormick hierarchy it would not be appropriate for me to say – at least w/o asking and I’m not convinced this is worth asking about. I don’t think you’d know a single one of their names beside Greg’s. Some of them reflected the building’s interests and some the neighboring communities’. There were numerous kinds of balances. They did a good job. Let’s leave it at that.
where, is the TRANSPARENCY! asked The Shark…
just who were these ‘art experts’…. hmmmmmm?
Enquiring minds want to know!
were we not just down at the Picasso having a little demonstration this last week concerning lack of transparency? Or am I somehow mistaken?
I’ll look into it.
it was actually just Paul, Greg and Judith Kirschner drinking scotch and throwing darts at a wall covered with artists’ slides
Russo -I think you’re being hopelessly optimistic
Sounds like the McCormick setup and selection of art is exactly what the protest was about last week.
The adage about people living in glass houses comes to mind.
-art experts-
“at least w/o asking and I’m not convinced this is worth asking about. I don’t think you’d know a single one of their names beside Greg’s.”
hmmmmmmm…having floated around in the art world here for some time, how can this possibly be so? asked the circling shark ever so politely……
Art Experts? I never said the committee had art experts on it. Greg Knight is the only person on the committee that’s an art expert. I said over half were ‘conversant’ in ‘art.’ I also said art has lots of purposes. In a building like McCormick it’s not Art for Art’s sake. A million people will see the art there every year. 99% of them wouldn’t be able to name a living artist. The art needs to be accessible. The trick is to place good art that non-art people can appreciate.
How conversant? Just who are these people -and why weren’t there art experts involved?…Seriously! On a committee of 10 people selecting art, 1 person who knows what they are talking about?
‘the art needs to be accessible”….in terms of the large scale painting installations then, you must mean, keep it polite and innocuous, decorative eye candy….kind of like visual muzak!
god forbid that any of those million people coming through each year might actually be provoked into thinking, or challenged in their assumptions, or perceptions…we couldn’t possibly have that! wur amearikuns! We have the need to waddle through life with our brains swaddled in pampers…….
However, you know how that goes with “art experts” — here in Europe too — they are then usually “experts” (generally only due to their history of “connections”) and from the same-old same-old clique and chose the same old names.
But it would be nice if every art choice were done in “glass houses,” and it would be nice if the media would even consider covering them.
As I recall I was not the only artist told to mind my p’s and q’s and keep it ‘uplifting’ (doesn’t this sound oddly enough like bygone days in the Soviet Union?)
…..what happened to Dawoud Bey?…too scary and tough for McCormick place….wasn’t that it? sheeeesh!
Unbelievable.
Here is a link to Weisberg’s comments on the ordinance. I’m not so convinced, but see what you think.
http://www.chicagoartistsresource.org/?q=section/737/768/769/node/20470
Couldn’t Dawoud Bey have taken portraits of plumber union members and other potential visitors? Uplifting photos, without the plumbers cracks showing. I’m sure he would have been chosen if has been willing.
The Shark champions Tolstoy’s art theory and yet disparages public art that will be viewed, sometimes, by the non-art audience. For Tolstoy the only real art is that which “infects” the viewers with the artist’s feelings, and those feelings (what feelings are he does not say) must be religious, christian, and aimed at bettering the bond of human “brotherhood”. The test of the art quality rested in the sincerity of the artist (despite being unproveable). Tolstoy said most so-called art was really not art because it didn’t follow his theory. Examples of bad art for Tolstoy included the works by Shakespeare, Milton, Brahms, Michelangelo, Manet and other like losers. He did not like difficult art that appealed to a tasteful art elite. For Tolstoy art has to convey the simple feelings of everyday life in some infectious way that is accessible to everyone. Everyone! Shark must have just been having a bad day when he contradicted his hero’s art theory.
The Shark also likes Collingwood despite, apparently, the fact that Tolstoy and Collingwood hold nearly opposite positions on art. Collingwood claims that art is only the idea of the artwork in the artist’s mind. Everything else is lesser, mere craft, and not art. The artist’s job is to use craft to explore and express personal feelings and through such craft, enable viewers to discover similar feelings in themselves. Collingwood doesn’t care for overtly emotional artmaking which he regarded as mere entertainment, “The artist never rants”, he said. Just because we can’t find any evidence in Collingwood to support the sort of importance Shark gives to process, ranting, expressionism, etc., doesn’t mean Collingwood would have disagree with him since, after all, only the idea is art and if Shark has that idea, well, that’s it. Good stuff, huh? Solipsism at its best for Collingwood and for Shark.
But theories of art definition are very interesting. Fun to explore. Always instructive. Never mind that they ALL fail to define art in some critical way. Art philosophy students often begin with Tolstoy’s What Is Art and Collingwood’s Principles of Art because they are so full of obvious problems, uncritical assumptions, and solipsism. But what the heck, with Shark’s twisty ventures into old timey esthetic theory, he might be looking for warmer, shallower waters. I hear he’s even showing with Judy Ledgerwood in some fancy Chicago hotel restaurant (as mentioned in some bling-stuffed Society gossip magazine). How Cool! You have to admire an artist who cares about the reaching all the public as Tolstoy did, bonding with humanity and his fellow painters.
William Conger
RG Collingwood was a late idealist philosopher in the grand manner who expoused contrary to what you state, an expressionist ideal of making art. Your comments Bill -in particular Collingwoods notions of the relationship of craft to art, only describe your lack of of understanding of his position.
Tolstoy was not unlike any of his fellow realists in making art that was ‘the enemy of the people’ and at the same time for the people….in that it challenged their complacency. Obviously he considered his work -specifically in the work I noted, as an enemy of decadence -shattering the mirror which society/individuals see itself/themselves reflected in- he could not be more clear as to his intent. Tolstoy was involved in making art, not craft derived decorative entertainment.
I think you are completely right about Tolstoy, who was a wonderful writer, but a jerk — and not a very logical one — as a theorist.
Interesting comment William, perhaps, but Collingwood did not really claim that “that art is only the idea of the artwork in the artist’s mind.” Well, yes, he sometimes tends that way — but he generally was more of the opinion that the artwork came about through the concretization of the initial impulse —especially as his ideas get mixed into the “official” Croce-Collingwood theory:
That the artist “hones down,” so to speak, initial impressions/ideas; this coming-into-being-made is called an “expression” (NOT about feelings though, as in Expressionism) and gives us the particularity and thus, gives us the art, whereas the initial idea is at the level of an “vague” impression. I don’t find that solipsistic at all — although true Conceptual Art certainly is (as has often been pointed out even by admirers).
Wesley’s rants are not philosophically based, but emotionally and, in fact , morally and sometimes aesthetically. He sometimes mistakes aesthetic issues for moral ones and often go off at tangents difficult to follow, but there isn’t any philosophical problem therein, I think.
Mark -you are closer to being correct about Collingwood than Conger is though you are still missing the complexity of his ideas concerning expression/the object/work of art/ the aesthetic experience resulting in clarification of conciousness -if, successful. You also happen to be dead on wrong concerning where I’m coming from -which at this moment, in this discussion is completely philosphical in its ideation. In fact, I find your comment about my rhetoric being emotive rather than philosophical to be condescending and insulting..
Tolstoy used theory like an artist, to forward the trajectory of his own particular aesthetic. -like I do. I’m not confused like many members of the consensoriat seem to be. I am not a philosopher, I am an artist.
I’m of course aware Mark that you are near having you phd in theory….that does not make you the only person on this blog who has studied philosophy- and it seems rather clear to me that in the strangely cranky and straightforward/ zero bullshit corner of aesthetics where Collingwood had his say, I would dare to guess, I have spent the greater amount of time-….he is an interesting philosopher to consider when it comes to aesthetics -and perhaps at no time more so than now considering the times we live in…
Everything is a trade off Mark -you’ve spent more time with the latin/phiolsophical tracts -I have spent more time applying what I know to the practice of making art….I don’t denigrate your practice, give me the same consideration-
-a final thought, since when haven’t aesthetics been involved with ethics?…..its called philosophy, and is, a conflation of its respective branches…its not a matter of con-fusing anything to consider the morality of a particular aesthetic position.
Collingwood, according to Richard Wolheim (who was at Northwestern the year before his death) makes the work of art something inner or mental. The external artifact is not art. There is a separation between mental work of art and external artifact and that means the “link between artist and audience has been severed. There is now no object to which both can have access, for no one but the artist can ever know what he has produced.” Collingwood’s Ideal theory “ignores the significance of the medium…whereas the entities posited by the Ideal theory are free or unmediated.” (Wollheim). I think these are big problems. The Ideal theory is solipsistic because no one but the artist can justify the mental work of art. Also, how can anyone conceive of an artwork without visualizing it in some medium? Collingwood’s default position on that was to claim a difference between a mental sense of a medium and actual medium. And even supposedly pure mental artworks are preceded by memories of other actual art objects, in some medium, and that again clouds the primacy of the purely mental art idea. The whole Ideal Theory rests on notion that it is possible to have ideas independent of a means to express them. It is a solipsistic view because there is no way to know what the artist’s mental artwork and any medium is a lesser surrogate.
However great Tolstoy was on all other respects, in the field of art theory he was a a philosophical failure.. He rejected ideas of beauty (pleasure without desire) and “taste” (art for art, etc) as signifiers of art. Unlike Collingwood, At least he made room for the art object, the “external” thing that transmits (infects) the viewer with the artist’s feelings. So far, OK (yet Tolstoy does not say what feelings are). But then Tolstoy’s wheels go off track when he presumes that the valid feelings, the valid infections, are christian/religious and centered on the Brotherhood of man (again, undefined). Whatever the Brotherhood for Tolstoy, is it is certainly based in the simple feelings all people have. His is a plea for honorific common popular art for the average person and a rant against historical “high art” with its insider notions of “Taste.” Tolstoy’s theory is not a theory in the true sense because it is untestable, an assertion of his “taste” and completely subjective, solipsistic. Tolstoy had rules for art and they were rules that no important artist ever followed, even when they tried (VanGogh?).
Frankly, I don’t think serious artists give a damn about art theory as such. They are solipsistic. All art theories with their inclusions and exclusions are left at the studio door. You do something and then you wonder, now what? And then you do something, and you just look for the surprise. Whether or not it’s art is simply not an issue. The object of painting is painting. A good painting is as publicly open and as privately opaque as a rock. It eludes meaning even as it pretends to require it.
Yes, there is an ethical dimension to art theory and that’s usually a very big problem. On one hand it leads to sentimental stuff like Tolstoy demanded and on the other it replaces the art object with something verbally incidental to it…as for example, the “contextualizing” paintings of Gaylen Gerber, I mean paintings that are equivalent stand-ins for words. In such work you can say what you see, perfectly. Mostly, paintings show what can’t be said. Maybe the only ethical aspect worth considering is the act of the artist, always an act of severe, unsayable criticality, however messy or neat it may be. Hmmm. Is Collingwood still here?
We’ve had a generation or two of theorists and what’s left except tons of words and confused young artists who try to illustrate the artworld “discourses”. I don’t care about painted discourse, verbal meanings, what the painting “says” and in that respect at least, Im uninterested in public didactic art. I care about what a painting is, its presence, and indifference to “meaning”. I think good art puts a sword to your throat. Cheery, bouyant, or grimly dark, it’s always menacing nonetheless.
William Conger
How is it possible for a aesthetic judgment not to be a moral judgment? It’s not made in a vacuum. Whether we admit it consciously or not, aesthetic judgments correspond to our sense of life, values, etc.
why don’t you try Collingwood according to Collingwood?…..what Collingwood contends is simply that it is the imaginary experience evoked by the medium -(if memory serves me correctly he brings up Beethoven.)..and points out its not the notes as much as it is the imaginary experience provoked..which is obvious -when we listen to say the violin concerto or ‘Emperor’….it is the emotions that well up, remembrance of things that are imagined, is what we hear -surely not mere notes. And we then take this with us having experienced it.
-Collingwood contends that all art begins with the body as medium – with dance being the most primary art form…..movement lacking purpose in order to have meaning -and what is meant by meaning?..Simple, that art functions on a primary level as a way of cleaning -flexing, our ability to perceive, of evoking who we are as imaginary beings, that we might live with greater depth and breadth….after one dances, one becomes more aware of, or imaginarily reconfigures who one is standing in line buying beans at Jewel…..Collingwood in otherwords is not looking for answers in terms of meaning….he is looking for a greater more robust imagining of who we are. That we might have the opportunity to live in a greater truth by meaning ‘more’.
-not unlike Tolstoy who by btw used his theories that you both find so lacking to make art that some have found reasonably interesting- perhaps for Tolstoy the philosophy was an afterthought-
The nice thing about RG Collingwood is, he is not a theorist. He is an old fashioned philospher in the grand manner who wrote what for him was an aside; a quick book on aesthetics designed to cut through much of theoretical flim flam of his day…..I studied The Principles of Art with the new critic David Nye Brown who is also now deceased. His take on Collingwood was different from Wollheim.
And btw -Collingwood discusses taste in a way completely sympathetic to Tolstoy’s notions…which, I happen to agree with-…..as for some of his more odd and eccentric notions…I refer you both back to the work…worked for him now didn’t it? Perhaps you both could learn something here….his thinking was pretty wild -and often at odds with his work….or perhaps not-
I would like to see you make a painting Bill that put a sword at someones throat -unfortunately I don’t think I’ve noticed that kind of danger or pictorial daring-do or drama happening with your work…words like polite’ or mannered -even well mannered, come more readily to mind…if nothing else, the are certainly competent …well wait, perhaps when you were borrowing from my drawing collages (as you have at times readily admitted,) you were close to something fierce…..
I was making cut and torn collage paintings in the 1950s. There were quite a few others doing that then. It was sort of common practice, actually. I continue my theme with them and have shown them in several venues. Face it, Wesley, neither of us is the originator of painted collage. It’s a 100+ year genre of artmaking but not as worn out as preplanned paint drips or illustrative faces.
William Conger
“put a sword at someones throat”
when have you done that, Sharky?
Shark, you are right that for Tolstoy philosophy and so on was an afterthought, and of course we have to mostly judge him by his art itself, but as soon as someone begins to spout theory, we get to judge that too.
I did not mean to insult you, sorry that you read its so, — I stated it falsely. I meant you sometimes conflate formal quality with morals. And even vice versa. That is, I know from our discussions, which I enjoy, that you sometimes suggest that simply because someone’s art is sometimes weak that all their thoughts are wrong. That just isn’t so — although I’m with you fully on the “quality of production comes first.”
But of course you are correct, and I agree, that all decisions, even in art, are to a large extent ethical ones. My statement was too poorly phrased. Oops.
On other points, simply because I have also spent a lot of time in the theoretical realm does not mean that I have painted or installed or whatever any less or less seriously than you or anyone else. Thesre actions are not mutually exclusive. I entered the theoretical ring as a form of self-defense, after a fashion, seeing myself as an intellectual, but mostly a painter — and the Neo-Cons didn’t want that to be possible.
Your Collingwood, Wesley, is closer to the way I understood him than the way William describes him — but I find Lakoff and the Conceptual Metaphor people and their “embodiment” notions better thought out than Collingwood with or without Croce anyway, and more useful nowadays.
Russo its clear you wouldn’t know it if I had….though it is Mr. Conger who makes that claim-(perhaps you should try reading more carefully so you get the people right) as you are a non-entity in the art world here -all you have is this small opportunity to shoot your mouth off- hope you are enjoying your big moment-
Bill -I take back what I said concerning the knife at the throat claim of yours….you are right! Recently after being involved in a minor traffic incident, I found myself at the Cabrini Green Police Station, looking up I saw not one but two of your paintings and I thought to myself ‘self, if Conger makes anymore of these tired, all the same looking, corporate, formulalic paintings that if nothing else, serve the function of making Frank Stella look like a complete genius, and if I have to look at them, I might just commit hari kari’-
and btw, since-lots of people have made collage, why did you come up to me at the Union League Club in front of Vera Klement and others and announce quite publicly how my work had influenced you…well?…..like I said, I thought when I saw the work aside from reminding me of me, you were on to something.
And look, I know everything about your work is preplanned and completely safe and careful…..when you make comments about the same being true with me, you are projecting-
actually, sharky, you’re wrong on both accounts
you don’t even know who I am
but I do know you
everyone does
which doesn’t make you an ‘entity’
just a full blown psychopathic egotist
who does nothing BUT shoot his mouth off
aon aon aon
big whoop
what else have you done lately?
MSB -one of the advantages to the ‘new critical methodology’ expoused by Mailer and other less well known members of that group, was the insistence upon context: Tolstoy makes a lot more sense when considered in the familar to him, while rather exotic to us, context of his life…of course all of the Russians of that time were amazingly conflicted, complicated artists…juggling not only coming out of a thousand years of serfdom, but also the influence of the Germans and the French among the Russian aristocracy, along with the decline of their own monarchy and the dawning of the 2oth century…..its interesting to consider Dostoyevsky’s relationship to the Fourier, Petrashevsky, and then after his near execution, the transformation to his anti-utopian humanism…with Tolstoys not dissimilar evolution-
also interesting is the evolution from social realist to more of an elitist stance the happens with Dostoyevsky….and I say that in terms of his ethical progression as a novelist. Perhaps with more success and greater clarity than Tolstoy-
Russo -well then tough guy, quit hiding your cowardly self behind the pseudonym and show up here as yourself…come on big mouth…put up or shut up
what have I done lately? -probably more than your sorry self as ever done…but since you seem so obsessed with me -you can figure that one out for yourself. -here, I’ll give you a clue; you can start with yesterdays Chicago Tribune Magazine-
btw..since you make the claim to know me, shouldn’t you already have the answers to your question? why do these ‘Russo’ posts have ‘I’m a loser’ written all over them?
wow! a picture of you at Art Chicago! I’m soooo jealous! You made the social scene pages! Can I have your autograph?
still waiting russo….put up or shut up, mr brave guy hiding behind the pseudonym…..
just pathetic; sure you can have an autograph- who should I make it out to? The coward skulking behind a fake name?
for a shark, you’re quite defensive and easy to distract
i thouht sharks had thicker skin and more focus
i don’t think you’re a shark at all
more of a puffer fish, perhaps
at best a large mouth bass
obsession…how’s that working for you Russo?
self-obsession is working pretty good for me!
Shark’s judgments on art are truly worthless because they are saturated with himself and hateful of other artists. He knows nothing of my work or painting process and his efforts to ridicule it are just boring and crazy. He can’t get distance from his vile hubris. Nothing new there. Shark’s been insulting every artist (curator, dealer, collector) he hears of for decades and has poisoned every opportunity to help energize Chicago art. Pay attention, artists! Shark preaches individualism but hates all artists — and their work– who actually are individuals. He invited me to be a regular member of his Sharkforum but then began his usual spewing of insults when he discovered I wasn’t going to be the flattering a patsy to his bellicose psychodrama.
As for my take on Tolstoy, I quoted his own words. Collingwood is more interesting, agreed, but the basic problems with his theory, and the Ideal Theory, are well-known. Any critical anthology of general aesthetics will explain them in plain language.
Chicago still needs good art discussion. Any chance of that?
Not a chance, Bill! Sharks rules these waters! Chomp! Apex of the art world, here I come! Chomp! Can’t wait for someone to take me seriously… chomp! No one can comprehend my brillian mind! Hell, if Collingwood and Tolstoy came back from the dead, I bet I’d have to correct them on their own theories, those plebs!