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
Bill -fuck you.
You bet I took you on at sharkforum when you came on at my invitation (-which btw significant others on the forum questioned,) – and began kissing among others, Jean Dunning’s behind -which is not what you do in private -as we both know. Fact: you cornered me at Ed Paschke’s funeral to literally rage on about how you were treated by Dunning and company – I won’t list the people here in Chicago -people who you know, who lost respect for you when you pulled your gambit on sharkforum -suffice to say there are some pretty serious art world people who became disgusted with you, and were happy to see you gone from sharkforum.
Painting: Your particular methodology of divide and conquer has never been what I found interesting in painting. You might have made a hell of a stain glass designer..but your stiff, formulaic use of later day cubism done with cartoon based color, with zero skill when it comes to moving paint around -beyond rudimentary application, has for me always seemed like a provincial version of one moment in Frank Stella’s world. I’m not a fan. Oh I’ve heard your proclamations -how your work never comes up for auction blah blah….and I have watched you get quite abusive to Leslie Hindmans underlings when your work did..as the head of her fine art dept said at the time ‘why doesn’t that guy try and make a different painting than the one he has been making for the last thirty years and maybe he would get better prices……’
Yea at times I am probably have been and am pretty crazy-big deal! Who isn’t? -but you know what? fuck it! at least, my work has grown and changed -unlike you Bill, I have made some really good paintings, and some real clunkers, some really bad paintings! But, at least I have pushed myself, and not been afraid to fail. Can you claim that? As evidenced by the work, I think not. At least, I’m not an academic on autopilot making the same slick, empty painting over and over again with an incredibly pompous attitude to all except those in power -and then its smooochie smooch time isn’t it Bill?
There is certainly a place for what you do. I think your work is perfect over at the Cabrini Green Jail, and I think there is a very good reason why it was chosen to be there; not too hot, not too cold, just right…..institutional office art; hell, just looking at those tedious affairs is like doing time…..you don’t even have to lock people up -just make them stand at the front desk and stare up at those things for awhile .
And last, let me address another of your falsehoods: there are any number of artists, curators, critics who I enjoy complex, long term relationships and deep friendships with, can you make that claim? Personally, I have never heard any curator speak of you at all, whether bad or good…artists who you know, curators who you know…just more of your shooting your mouth off…
as the cliche goes, good is the enemy of great -and thats just what I see when I look at one of your paintings -they certainly aren’t bad…..but they aren’t that great or even very good either…in my opinion, for all the reasons I have listed above..I see what you do as what has sufficed for abstraction in a town that for a long while hasn’t been much of a painters town. Unlike me, I haven’t seen you showing on the west coast for instance -where there is more painting -and I cannot imagine you getting much of a reception there if you did. -I know its shocking to you that I would take you on -but that person you verbally abused at Leslie Hindmans -is one of my best friends…you see Mr Conger, the difference between you and I,- beyond my complete superiority to you as a painter, happens to be, -you, are polite Bill -to all the right people….Me? I’m not nearly as politic as you Biil, but what I am, is pretty much honest and straightforward in what I think, with everyone.
And finally, Bill, in terms of who has created change here in Chicago, and who has given away power to all the wrong people – just look in the mirror pal…..what have you done for the art world here other than give away the program at northwestern to a group of artists you privately are infuriated with while you publicly fawn over them? well?….its disgusting. I have zero respect for you. So go ahead -try an rail against me as the one who has spoiled everything for all artists here…(you sound oddly enough, like Dick Cheney trying to incite fear as a way of influencing public opinion, why am I not suprised?)…but, you might want to consider two possibilities -1. people just aren’t that gullible or easily lead, and 2. even if you could turn the whole planet against me, its not going to make those paintings you do, anymore interesting, or any better.
Thanks for proving Conger’s point!
The Shank/Russo: funny thing about anonymous posts: the people who post them are always less than anonymous -with nothing to hide beyond their basic lack of anything of interest. If they actually used their real names people would care even less than they already don’t.
Hi Bill. I am quite aware of where to find resources. I have read all of Collingwood’s works and most essays related to them — but it was all about 20 years ago, so maybe I’m forgetting his exact words — and he is usually mixed with Croce, — I find it interesting that you do not mention him. I mostly read recent aesthetics now, which I find more stimulating to our current artistic problems. Check out the Journal of Aesthetics sometime, if you haven’t.
Wesley does not hate all artists. But you and he sure seem to hate each other. Too bad. I think you both have far more important “targets” to attack.
Mark, I know Collingwood is often linked to Croce and the Ideal Theory. I think all aesthetic theories offer something valuable. They each reveal important aspects of the various problems in the philosophy of art. Did I suggest anywhere that you, or even Shark, don’t know Collingwood’s stuff? No. I simply questioned the seeming contradiction of finding common ground in Tolstoy’s art theory and Collingwood’s. But I do think both were solipsists in the claim that the essence of art resides in the subjectivity of the artist. Tolstoy’s position is simply not philosophical because he does not define his terms, basically relying on a “because I say so” argument.
Yes, there are “targets”. One of them is the view against diversity, not only in broad esthetic positions, but in particular modes of art. My views on current academia in art were expressed in a lecture I gave at the Northwestern Block Museum more than a year ago, upon my leaving teaching altogether. Basically I think that the new MFA is almost worthless because there’s no curriculum — I call it the “uncurriculum” — and thus there’s nothing specific to learn and nothing identifiable to perform, or practice. Most MFA curricula are now “talking” curricula with the subject being the whim of the teaching artist and the measure of quality being the dominant market taste, selected by whim and the visibility of visiting artists, critics, etc. In every other academic discipline, the student must demonstrate mastery of some “essential literature or methodology” against which individual progress and research is measured or defined. The hip MFA programs now talk about “post studio and deskilling” as a way to privilege theory — really just aimless talk. I think it’s a big mistake to “deskill” art practice for the sake of ideas or talk theory because I can’t see how any thought can be independent of some external medium that shapes it. (This is a criticism of the Ideal Theory). Just as I deplore the deskilling of art practice so do I deplore the extreme in the other direction, the “instinctual, doing my own thing expressing myself” approach because no form of artmaking is without a history of its practice and its contextualized ideas. Art theory and art practice are equally interdependent; neither precedes the other. I still believe in artists as artists. They are not sociologists, anthropologists, linguistic illustrators of words and patronage issues, and many more, including the recent fashion for psuedo-science. That leaves plenty of room and ambiguity for “visually creative” activity.
Contrary to popular academic tradition, art programs follow and do not lead the reality of art developments. I think students are misled by the fiction that their MFA puts them on the cutting edge of artmaking. The sooner that fiction is removed the sooner a real art curricuum can be devised.
Another “target” is Pals before art. When no clear art interest is being developed, and no one is aiming to clarify what art ought to be tomorrow and the day after, and IF it can be at all, and everything careerwise depends on networking simply because no other way of sorting out quality exists, and when the “anything is art” idea dominates, ignoring the fact that not everything can be art in every time, it’s buddy time. Want a career? Get an art buddy and a few pals who are well placed in the art world. Talk to them constantly. Get more pals. Then make something unart. Buy it, order it, steal it. talk it. Avoid art history. Avoid solitude. Don’t cross a Pal by speaking your mind. The artworld is like a 17C court where gossip and fussy intrigues subsist on money and favors.
Another “target” is hatred between artists. Aren’t we all in the same survival boat? It’s so easy to mock others and their art. And art is the most vulnerable thing out there because it has no purpose beyond being art or proposing itself as art. Nothing protects art — except artists who make it. Hit? Hit back! What would one expect? After 50 years in my case, my work is my life, every trickle of my blood, and even my family’s in their faith and support. Expect my civility but not timidity.
And the best “target” is to be optimistic. It’s a spectacular thing to be an artist. No matter what!
well Bill you finally managed to say some things of interest -that aren’t all linked to your own self interest- I agree with you down to the timidity part -we both know that its too little too late when it comes to that particular issue concerning Northwestern and concerning you-
I understand that you are dedicated: its OK that we don’t like each other or, each others work…your ‘civility’ at times has been more of a negative than anything-
hmmmmmm…..did I say that?
…..Tolstoy is not philosophical…..if I have learned nothing else on BAS, how glad am I to have stuck around for this little gem…sheeeesh!
“Don’t cross a Pal by speaking your mind.” -and what happens if you do? Bill gives a wonderful illustration of what can happen with his utterly nonsensical fabrication, concerning someone who had crossed him..namely, Me!…
“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”
huh? I just don’t care for your work Bill -no need to get ugly or start lying, making false claims…..what happened to all of that civility? What about the truth? Like the truth that I have done more for the Chicago art world, in particular the painting scene here, by even lifting my little finger than you have done in decades of professorial and/or painterly complacency!
see thats the difference between us once more Mr Conger -my attacks upon you have to do with what I believe to be true -yours on me have to do with what you think might serve you at the moment- which is where I have problems with you: your methodology, how you operate; I say what I mean, while you, are ‘polite’. Too polite for my taste. Both on, and off canvas.
William — do you have a “hard copy,” a written version of that presentation you made about the MFA? And can I have a copy to read. I’m collecting things like this in relationship to art education and yours would interest me greatly as you outlined it here.
shark. you’re a very nasty man. this blog used to be interesting, now it is just depressing because of your rants. i won’t be looking at it again.
mike
Two, one, two, three, four
Ev’rybody’s talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism,
Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, That-ism, is-m, is-m, is-m
All we are saying is give piece a chance,
All we are saying is give piece a chance
C’mon
Ev’rybody’s talking about ministers,
Sinister, Banisters
And canisters, Bishops, Fishops,
Rabbis, and Pop eyes, Bye, bye, bye byes
All we are saying is give peace a chance,
All we are saying is give peace a chance
Let me tell you now
Revoluton, evolution, masturbation,
Flagellation, regulation, integrations,
Meditations, United Nations,
Congratulations
Ev’rybody’s talking about
John and Yoko, Timmy Leary, Rosemary,
Tommy Smothers, Bobby Dylan,
Tommy Copper,
Derek Taylor, Norman Mailer,
Allen Ginsberg, Hare Krishna,
Hare
Krishna
I don’t think I’ve ever said anything about not liking Wesley’s work. I try to separate the work from the person, even when the person is wildly antagonistic, although I don’t suppose it’s fully possible. Anyway, it’s true that I’ve admired a few of his collages and have said so to many, including art writers. I even bought one of his paintings from a Block Museum auction in which he participated along with me, Ed, Tony, and Judy. I gave it to my daughter. Yes, I’ve been influenced by lots of art and even more by everyday things and events. I don’t think I’ve ever disparaged anyone and their work as he has mine and me. Despite the pounding blows, his attacks are even sometimes funny — that bit about the jailhouse– but of course that sort of thing is not criticism. Art needs to be examined for what it actually does and not what someone thinks it should do or maybe even what the artist says it does (remember the Intentional Fallacy). As for our art’s ultimate importance, the jury is still out for us all, even Wesley. Which is why we can only propose our work as art. It’s that conditional status of art that is so vulnurable and so challenging and therefore deserving of our hesitation, if not protection. Grand appraisals of new art, pro or con, ring hollow.
I don’t hate Wesley. But if I was tough enough and young enough I’d punch him out, a really hard blow, just once! Imagine it happening right now! Afterwards, I’d buy the beer.
Moving on…..
Look, I would like to end this little soiree’ by bringing this all back home:
a. Paul drug us all down to the Picasso the other day to protest what he described as a move by the city to have less transparency in the city arts program at the dept of cultural affairs
b. I then after the fact, posed several questions, the first being to Paul; namely, where is the transparency at McCormick Place? Who, were the people on the jury, what were their respective qualifications, how were they chosen? Simple, relevant questions.
c. I then noted how odd it is that in film for instance, Children of Men, Pan’s Labyrinth, Other Peoples Lives etc… even a great mainstream war film like Blackhawk Down we are able to have art that speaks to humanist concerns -something that used to be common in the visual art of painting -but no longer is. I experienced this first hand at The Aon Tower -which has a lot to do with why I find this all interesting….why is so much of our public art now relegated to the eyecandy variety? -and btw I also noted that there were any number of terrific artists doing smaller projects at McCormick Place -no doubt hung up high -but the truth is, the major painting installations are, innocuous and safe….more about being ‘pretty and easy on the eyes than about beauty and/or anything profound. I wondered why this is.
d. I brought up RG Collingwood and Tolstoy as they both in their own manner addressed how art could work in society, within culture. In particular Collingwood is useful in his description of ‘what art is not’
e. I think its fine to have a little war concerning aesthetics and of course it is going to get personal: if anything, what has hurt Chicago and so many artists here -is the closed mouth, frightened, overly and overtly polite way in which our art world here is conducted.
That’s your best post yet, Shark.
Is that the Shark Chorus? Shark’s “best post” still uses unexplained, derogatory, dumb remarks in speaking of art he doesn’t understand or may be jealous of. I sure don’t want to stir up another round of his grandiose anger. So please, Shark, now just go paint a black ghost or something to vent your hatred.
Some art celebrates life in the midst of hard lived and complex reality and so who needs the constant degrading and ultra simplification of the discourse by Shark? There was nothing in his little “war” about aesthetics itself and way too much personal insult and posturing to be interesting. Way too depressing. For a few hours it was me as victim, tomorrow it’ll be someone else, on and on ad-infinitum. I can recall at least twenty years of his saving art through insult.
People say that a democracy is the condition in which differing views can co-exist in reasoned and respectful debate. Not so with “Shark”, the great new humanist, the follower of Tolstoy’s United Brotherhood, the uplifter of all Chicago art. Our savage warrior spokesman! (Here the chorus sings a sweet praise). So very depressing. It makes me want to go look at my Jeanne Dunning piece or my Judy Ledgerwood painting and Ed Paschke and Tony Fitzpatrick prints and drink scotch. I’m desperate for a little fun.
that’s being generous
his repeated tirades against Conger, et al, prevent any form of discussion from occuring in Chicago. Notice the lack of comments on his forum? He completely shuts down any attempt at discussion by making it about himself. He’ll try to blame anonymous posts, but it is really him and anyone with any sense knows that. I take part in several online forums, and anonymous posts don’t cause an interruption of dialogue. Only with meglomaniacs like Kimler does it matter and actually affect dialogue, due to his obsession with knowing who it is, just so he can attack and embarrass them.
In all sorts of blog-worlds (sports, politics, education, etc.), people are allowed to remain anonymous. Kimler has affectively shut down dialogue in the art-blog-osphere with his onslaught of e-attacks on his own forum, Art Letter, and now Bad at Sports; about the only thing he has accomplished in the past decade.
but once he himself is attacked, he digresses and tries to go back to the original conversation.
too little, too late, and too typical of el snarko
Like an actual attack, a swift punch to the snout or eye can scare the fish away. I like Conger’s idea and think someone ought to do the same to Kimler.
Chicago would be better off, the art world entirely, without el snarko.
…shank -why don’t you come over and try it tough guy? I’m in the phone book…..skulking behind your pseudonym tossing out threats wooOOOOooo….. your such a badass-
as for what I have accomplished over the last decade…..of course you have no idea of what you are talking about – want to talk museum shows, paintings sold, articles written, events staged and created both in the art and theatre worlds? -Of course not -because a creep like you can’t deal with facts…….like I said before, the irony of anonymous posts -is, that the losers who do it have nothing to hide, Mr nobody other than a coward-, your attempt to have a say with anonymity is simply because no one would listen to you if they knew you you were -or, aren’t.
Bill I understand your work quite well, not to mention other superior practioners of the same basic pattern/decorative genre and have seen numerous exhibitions of it. Lari Pittman being probably the best painter working in your particular arena…. And then there was the hard time I did over at the Cabrini Green Police Station….your work does have a time transcending quality…..20 minutes did seem to drag on to what seemed like ten years…. Go look at the lame work of the artists that you privately bitch about and publicly fawn over -you should! After all, they are your legacy-
btw shank -sharkforum gets what I believe are far more unique readers than our good friends here at BAS- when Dave Roth and I set up the site after exiting from artletter, we decided we wanted an ezine not, a blog site -so we do not encourage and often edit or omit comments altogether -as none of us there have the patience of the BAS people in dealing with garbage like you.
Lari Pittman Bill; notice how he doesn’t paint the same piece over and over again….the detail and scale shifts? the varieties of paint application -the exceptional use of color? Critiquing your work, is, a simple thing… there, is ambition Bill, and then, there is painting; think about it.
Wesley’s my friend, and I have no conflict with Mr. Conger (although his whirlwind tour through Sharkforum did add some unnecassery work to my already over-large list), having had very little contact with him or his work. I really do think this whole blog would be better served by the two of you taking this outside. Personally I couldn’t give a damn what the two of you think of each other – I’m interested in art and I wish we could all go back to talking about that.
As for anonymous posters who launch vitriol at others – any argument as to the fairness and/or veracity of your claims is taken out at the knees by two important things – 1. There are often factual errors in your accusations, and 2. It’s both personal and impersonal at the same time, both in the worst possible ways. Wesley knows how I feel about this – I think he’s most persuasive when he keeps it above the belt. But he is what he is, and most anyone who’s heard his name knows what that’s about. I do agree, to an extent, that the invective often does more harm than good. Some battles are worth fighting, others not so much. Thank god there are people around like Wesley when the fight is worthy. It’s unfortunate and messy when that energy is misdirected.
But anonymous turd-throwers are pussys, plain and simple. I’ve spent a ton of time, more than I care to admit, blogging anonymously on the subject of politics. But there’s a very big difference – everyone on those blogs is anonymous. Making an overt threat of violence is entirely different when you’re ready to place your name behind the threat. Otherwise you’re quite simply demonstratinig cowardice.
What’s funny about all this is that, for all his barking and biting, it’s more often than not his detractors who place the conversational focus on him. Wesley’s quick to defend himself, and he’s (in my opinion) often too quick to attack, but he has demonstrated an ability to focus on salient, non-personal points. When he does that even his enemies are likely to give him props.
Additionally, those who refuse to post because they’re afraid/pissed off/disgusted/whathaveyou with Wesley’s style are only serving to let him “win.” Funny enough, I don’t think that’s his intention, but only he can tell us. The thing of it is that more artists ought to be willing to fight for what they believe in, and that fight often starts at home.
Finally, Sharkforum is not a blog, and it was never intended to be. Furthermore, Wesley neither controls nor comments on each post. There’s quite a bit of mythology out there, and the notion of Kimler as Tito is one of the more amusing ones.
One last detail – shame on you William for suggesting physical violence to anyone. I think you know better.
I sort of like what Roth said. But I can’t do physical violence to anyone. I’m 70 and trying to stay healthy enough to paint every day and enjoy my family. It was an imaginary cartoon to punch out bossman. A fun one too.
Shark has said it at least twice — that my work is the same ptg. over and over. My 40 yr. retrospective will be at the Cultural Center in 2009, and that will give Shark an opportunity to eat the words of his lie. And I’ll give him a personal tour while he’s eating.
Conger -I liked the small work of the early 90’s best -the studies/collages…..the paintings for me -lack variation -I believe I have seen at least 5 full scale exhibitions…but lets take the focus off of my stated indifference which, is simply my opinion- I also feel you are the strongest of the 3 painters doing large-scale work -and unlike Dzine for instance, I know you actually paint your own paintings- which, is a good thing -especially if you are going to call yourself a painter-
I was visiting with my long time friend/enemy/near brother Tony Fitzpatrick today….discussing my comments on public art -and I asked him -what would it have been like if the large scale pieces were a Fitzpatrick, a Golub, a Kimler, a Marshall…and I could add, a Klement…..I think it would make for a far more challenging, visually more dynamic -more everything…an installation that people would come to see and discuss….I think the work that was chosen was a choice to avoid any form of controversy -in fact, I know this is indeed the case from my own interaction with the jury…my argument concerning this really isn’t all that personal -I find American culture and its aversion to visually powerful humanist work out in the public to be interesting and more about avoidance than anything aesthetic.
Daves comments are as usual, cool-headed and dead on -there is a kind of unspoken idea on sharkforum that we are going to keep the grief quotient down low; I for example cannot imagine Lynne Warren tolerating this punk shank for half a sentence before hitting the delete button-
and finally congratulations on your having a show at the cultural center Bill -of course Tony is having one as well…..I personally don’t understand Tony’s desire to show there -or yours for that matter -but then the upstairs will provide you with adequate space to exhibit -and I do feel given your long career, that it is well deserved.
I find American culture and its aversion to visually powerful humanist work out in the public to be interesting and more about avoidance than anything aesthetic.
Now this is a fascinating topic, and it makes me wonder if the reason for this is that we often, as a culture, confuse the humanist with the populist.
One more thing to William – I know your suggestion of violence was innocuous, but it introduced the topic, which was seconded by this anonymous coward “Shank”:
I like Conger’s idea and think someone ought to do the same to Kimler.
I personally challenge you to either use your actual name or retract the comment, Mr./Ms. Shank. Otherwise you’re being an irresponsible jerk.
Dave I appreciate the intent but give it up -you’re trying to converse with a piece of trash.
btw -your humanist-populist comment -is dead on -thats the problem
the large scale paintings at McCormick Place were chosen with the primary criteria of don’t challenge, do not offend, keep it ‘uplifting and light’
I am not a chorus, as is clear by my other comments, William, so don’t bs. You know I like your works and find many of your comments interesting. BUT I did indeed find that to be the clearest and best statement of Wesley’s contentions in this whole run-on-blog here, — many of his points I agree with, others I do not, — but MY point was that it was a CLEAR comment, rather than harangues such as you have been doing, rather than attacks like Wesley has been doing, and rather than just plain nastiness such as the Fake Mr Currin and I myself did earlier.
In the future can we all try to get to substance more by:
– writing less so-darn-long and quasi-academic (Mr Conger)
– writing less so-darn-long personal attacks (Wesley)
– being less undirected and childish (JC)
– being less (over-)reactive and uselessly nasty (Me Myself!)
There are some great thoughts here, but we have all buried them in viciousness (except perhaps Dave Roth and some of Tony’s and Kaysen’s).
“irresponsible jerk”? Ha! That coming from someone who continually serves as Kimler’s stooge, defending the ass time and time again. I can’t believe two tough acting, loud mouthed Chicago art-jerks are so bothered by such a silly comment. Kimler doesn’t give one thought about how he makes others feel, from Conger to Kirschner, now everyone has to dance around to please the creep and his stooge. What a joke the both of you are! Go back to Sharkforum and post some pictures of scary fish.
FYI, there is a new show posted worth listening to and commenting on. Maybe its time to refocus the energy here people.
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course Shank, and I won’t argue with you about your accusation (this fool ain’t running that fool’s errand). On more than one occasion I’ve called Wesley to account for his actions, both privately and in public fora such as this one. If you’re referring to me as a “tough acting, loud mouthed Chicago art-jerk” then I just don’t know what to say about that, except that I’ve not expressed a desire to visit violence upon anyone – you have.
I defy you to demonstrate even one example of my being either tough-acting or loud mouthed – I’m typically described by friends as being somewhat quiet. If you’re going to take a position try to defnd it with something real.
My point remains unchallenged – anonymous flaming and threats is a pussy move – grow some nerve and own your opinions – YOU are the one acting like a tough-guy, not me. I’m not here for invective or insult.
I just call it like I see it – what, of value, have you added to this conversation? You hate Wesley – ok, we get it. What else ya’ got? Do you know me? I doubt it.
By the way, just for the record – I agree that Wesley gives little thought to the effect his actions have on others, and I’ve told him so. He and I are different, and none of my points should serve to condone that disregard. Regardless, none of that gets you off the hook for being a pussy – why don’t you demonstrate the courage of your convictions, muster the courage which is currently supplanted by self-rightous indignation, and screw up the nerve to put some skin in this game? You know who I am – I’m willing to state my honest view and suffer the barrage from the likes of you. If that’s being a tough guy then perhaps you’re right after all.
So I say put up or shut up – otherwise your spew of bile comes off as childish shrillery.
wah!… wah!….that mean old shark hurt Judith Kirshners feelings …wah!…wah….boo…hoo….just forget about the generations of artists marginalized, careers compromised or destroyed, mediocre, academic conceptual 101 championed here in order for Judith and her curatoral lapdog Rondeau to have their little fiefdom…..he hurt her feelings! …boo ….hoo
_I told you Roth -garbage, and not very smart garbage either
I just want to know which Stooge I am. I’ve always been partial to Shemp – can I be Shemp? No – wait! I want to be Iggy! He was a Stooge.
Thanks for the compliment Skank. And Skank – you’re still a kitty-kat. Screw up your nerve and put some skin in the game. For the record, I neither excuse not endorse Wesley’s methods. He is who he is, and it’s not my ox to gore.
Hey, just an FYI we are NOT LIMITING posting here, there is some glitch with the blog that is eating people’s posts. We are looking into it. Until we have fixed whatever the problem is I would encourage you all to write your rants in word or some such thing and paste them into the blog so they aren’t lost if things are still f-ed up.
R
I’m sure Dave ‘shank’ doesn’t know mw either…..hey shank -why don’t you go find a lynch mob to join? Don’t like what someone thinks, try violence -isn’t that your deal?
Look Dave, you disagree with my methodology -thats your business -and as sharkforum is not made up of the like-minded on every topic of discourse, I think it healthy. For me, my thought does come with a type of vengeance….thats what keeps me entertained. Usually when I am confronting something or someone, I’m not looking to show them a comfort zone -contrare’ I’m a big believer -as Mr Conger noted in a certain Sun Times article, in the take no prisoners approach.
if we are going to continue here, how about that public art as art? or as window dressing, discussion….
Speaking of public art in Chicago, check out this 1943 installation at Union Station.
http://www.shorpy.com/model-flight-1943?size=_original
Thanks to Bill Dolan for putting up that photo of 1940s Union Station showing all the planes suspended from the ceiling. I saw them many times as a kid…always loved it. The sight was truly spectacular. Good “propaganda” public art because it suggested overwhelming air power. Sometimes during the War fleets of actual US warplanes would fly over Chicago and “bomb” the city neighborhoods with weighted red-white-blue streamers. Then the kids would pick them up and tell the “Block Captain” of the Civil Defense, usually someone’s mom or dad. where they were found. The aim was to try to estimate damage if enemy bombs actually fell. I think the kids and the pet dogs rarely turned them in. I turned mine in because my mother was the Block Captain. She had a white helmet and an arm band and kept a big poster showing enemy bomb styles pinned to the pantry door. Seems so odd now. But those planes….unforgettable!
Great story William!
Thank you for that story. It makes the photo even more meaningful. I think that proves the importance of public art. It inspires, influences, triggers important/fond memories and more. I’d like to see the planes reinstalled.
Holy crap! That is amazing, I wonder where they all are? I suspect somewhere, in a warehouse, these things are crated up.
It’s a little hard to get a sense of scale, but man that’s a powerful shot. I can hardly imagine what it must be like to look up in the sky and see all that mechanized death, raining down ordnance.
I took a walk down to Dearborn and Adams this morning to commune with the Calder. It just reinforces the value of public art, and really demonstrates how crucial it is to have that process run by people who know what they’re doing.
Everything about Flamingo is dead-on right: placement, scale, color, it all works. It makes other pieces seem really plopped down, like the Hunt at Randolph and Michigan, or the Di Suvero pieces buried in Millenium Park, or the criminal placement of the Serra in Grant Park (which just recently was flanked by a colonnade of Port-A-Potties).
Dear David.
“I took a walk down to Dearborn and Adams this morning to commune with the Calder. It just reinforces the value of public art, and really demonstrates how crucial it is to have that process run by people who know what they’re doing.” (D. Roth BAS)
Public art operates on many levels, from community based works – i.e. Project Row House, which in my mind better serves the “Public” to works like the Calder. It terms of social sculpture the 1943 Union Station sent most through a nostalgic walk, but at the time it was woven into our social understanding of our world – powerful.
“Really demonstrates how crucial it is to have that process run by people who know what they’re doing.” (D. Roth BAS)
It is not only the powers that run a small portion of “public art†it is also our responsibilities as artists to engage public in a meaningful way.
Agreed Michael. My vision of a healthy public art program would involve a department with good leadership and direction, while allowing for critical input from the public.
Right, and that leadership is totally lacking at the moment.
“Right, and that leadership is totally lacking at the moment.”
exactly -but lets face it, this is a much larger issue than who is running the dept of cultural affairs here….as I previously mentioned, I find it fascinating that even our most mainstream films -like Blackhawk Down or, Saving Private Ryan can address issues of life and death, war and peace, violence, love……but we as a people cannot deal with who we are in terms of much of our public work (I too, am a big fan of the Calder -and agree the placement of the de Suvero’s is an abomination)….but this is really not work of the present (granted de Suvero is still active -but his aesthetic was really complete 3 decades ago-)
back to the point I intially made: I happen to believe and think that the large scale painting selection at McCormick place, like much corporate type lobby art we see in our time, was, fear based. Don’t create a scene, don’t ruffle any feathers, do not provoke….. Can one even imagine the reception something like Sistine Chapel with its religous content/homoeroticsm/ hellish figuration and simple hellbent fury would receive today?
when you consider the wholescale level of denial american society is living in, how art can function, its easy to grasp the magnitude of our failure -as artists, as a culture.
its interesting, no?
almost equally interesting is the threats of violence directed at me for bringing this up…..whats next now that we have successfully done away with the writ of habeas corpus, lynch mobs and jack boots?
Dear Wesley
“Lets face it, this is a much larger issue than who is running the dept of cultural affairs here…. as I previously mentioned, I find it fascinating that even our most mainstream films -like Blackhawk Down or, Saving Private Ryan can address issues of life and death, war and peace, violence, love…but we as a people cannot deal with who we are in terms of much of our public workâ€
(WK AKA Shark bas)
There are many sub-cultures that create “our†culture, within these sub-cultures we surround and create an idealized version that we as individuals operate from, some prefer to control or censor, some embrace blindly, some embrace raw experiential output. I agree there is a much larger issue – A Public Art Program could also be used to disseminate information, act as a facilitator of community growth and understanding/education – not for approval, but an engagement with our city.
The McCormick place has little interest to me –
hear! hear! ……and as it stands now, talk about dysfunctional…somehow today I was recalling those stupid cows…..didn’t money from the 1% get siphoned off and funneled down that moronic drain?
….there is discussion I believe in re-doing Navy Pier: why not make this a major issue for the cultural community here? LETS TAKE IT BACK -make it a major issue for the next majoral election. Lets face it, for all the Mart is attempting now, the failed fairs, our problems as an art world here, we have been fighting an uphill struggle since the pier was taken away from the adults and turned into that abomination/suburban shithole/ cash cow kiddeland from hell, and since the braintrust over at the MCA the board of directors passed on Tadao Ando, Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas, and instead gave us Joseph Kleihaus…..how could this possibly have happened? We need a new building!
I agree Michael we need a way more activist, intelligent, engaged and aware and just plain serious public art program. A program that as you suggest, facilitates and educates- I can get behind this -far more than the ineffectual protest downtown last week-
“almost equally interesting is the threats of violence directed at me for bringing this up”
boy, you really are dumb. Threats of violence were because you say such rude, hostile things about people like Conger and whoever else you have chosen to target or blame for your own problems (read: Kirschner).
You make a good point, that painting and visual art in general has been pacified, but that is not why Conger suggested he should hit you, and I agreed, so don’t try to make yourself a martyr. You’re simply a jerk.
As for your point, I would suggest the reason why much of visual art has been pacified is because other cultural forms, mainly popular entertainment, has become too violent, sexual, etc. Visual art has become a refuge of sorts. BUt thats just one possibility, and I don’t even believe it to be the main reason.
shank -I’ll tell you whats dumb, every cowardly kiss ass post of yours -all directed at me -including your lynch-mob, thug like utterances all done from the safety of your chickenshit anonymity…what a creep. Obsessed with me aren’t you? Every posting of yours is about one thing: me. I have a really good idea of who you are. Why don’t you try getting a life?
Like most truly stupid people in the art world here -including those peripherally involved as I’m sure is the best you can claim, you confuse what I think about the art world here with my personal world as a painter. I had a very good week in and out of the studio, with the sale of a single work for instance, paying the rent on this considerable and beautiiful space for another year…working on a new series of collages and, a very large article about my work set to appear this fall in a terrific magazine …personally I have no complaints and anyone with half a brain knows that about me.
“Visual art has become a refuge of sorts”…..oh really? talk about flat out dumb- its art as therapy now; is that what you think? Beginning art 101 here we come.
there must be some kind of kiddee blog you can you can take part in -Dave Roth, myself and others have attempted to get you to show evidence of even an ounce of actual intelligence -which you have failed miserably in demonstrating that you possess.. why don’t you flit off to the shallow end of the pool where you belong?..the adults are having a conversation.
Past public art is scarcely a model for present public art. However it’s interesting that the publicness of past public art centered on what has been termed “the civic religion”. This is the appeal to public interests, in a national sense, that rise above sub-groups and are exemplified in commemorative deeds, important “civic” people, leaders, and the like. It should astonish us that 275,000 people atended the unveiling of the President Grant Equestrian Statue in Lincolon Park, but such unifying public events were common in the 19C. Popular “civic religion” movies may take the place of those equestrian statues today but the theme of lurking nationalism and reinforcing public pride and power in overarching symbolic form does continue. Yet it is a theme at odds with late modernism and perhaps that’s one reason why it’s so difficult to know what public art can be now that is not a severe critique of the civic sensibility hidden in celebratory form (like Oldenberg’s Bat-Column).
Since I was there when the model planes were hanging in Union Station, amazed as a kid, but having learned later that they symbolized the inevitable Victory Flight, and not a bombing raid except in abstract threat to a projected enemy. Chicago industry was building many war planes and so the display also honored the “home front” production.
Manipulating public awe and fear through public art is not a contemporary habit. The fake bombing of Chicago could not have happened in reality because no 1940s enemy plane could fly directly to mid-America. It was research for determining likely US bomb damage on foreign cities. But the noise and the hoopla kept everyone on edge, reinforced by periodic “blackouts” practice sirens (still Tuesdays at 10 am) and weird events like the very public transporting of captured German soldiers with big black or red targets painted on their shirts, the gory photos in LIFE magazine of Japanese atrocities, the blatant war posters everywhere, the tin can collections, and all the rest to keep Americans psychologically at the “front”. A few years later there were Nike missles at Belmont harbor, supposedly to shoot down Russian Bombers carrying A-Bombs. That was public art, too. No one explained how a missle with a 25 mile kill range would stop a falling A-Bomb from evaporating Chicago. The Nike missles, utterly useless, nevertheless did the job of Civic Religion — a big dose of awe and fear for the easily distracted citizen trying to live a decent life.
Is public art just art in public space or is it addressed to some imaginary persona of the civic identity? I am not a fan of art to serve the utility of so-called public economic needs, as has been suggested here. That responsibility cannot be shuffled under an art rug. But I do agree that the definition or function of public art is much more difficult to define today than it was years ago. Something changed with the Picasso sculpture; namely, the new burden of art in public space that is really without a public in mind.
Public art can also be inextricably linked to a place. The Picasso has become as much a symbol of Chicago as the official seal, the “Y” or the Chicago Flag. Can one think of it without thinking “Chicago?” It’s Chicago’s hood ornament, if you will.
It’s ironic that Pablo never set foot in this city.
and as with much good art, (think of the recent rehabilitation of Richard Serra’s reputation as a public artist,) the Picasso, which began life (to once again paraphrase Henrik Ibsen “as an enemy of the people”) has now been embraced, the piece having the effect of making us collectively greater as we grew to see it…of transforming in the way good art can, our understanding of who we are. It confronted and challenged peoples peceptions, prejudices, assumptions and in the end, imaginations, it redefined, it offered up as it still does, an aesthetic experience.
perhaps the best work out there inhabiting city spaces, creates its own public -as in the instance of the Picasso, which for that specific work, would mean, the entire city of Chicago.
my fear is that we no longer possess the tolerance or strength as a people to allow the aesthetic experience to happen, thus the dumbing down, and retreat from challenging public works. Not that all work needs to be -Kapoor for instance, however the ability to have any work at all that challenges our preconceptions about ourselves or art, seems endangered.