download
Duncan and Richard talk to Dominic Molon about, Sympathy for the Devil: Art and Rock and Roll Since 1967. There are lots of “Rock out with your cock out!” kind of stupid comments. Paul Klein and Wesley hated it, hear from the curator go check out the show and see what you think.
From the MCA site:
“Sympathy for the Devil: Art and Rock and Roll Since 1967 examines the dynamic relationship between rock music and contemporary visual art, a relationship that crosses continents, generations, and cultures. Since the late 1950s this unlikely hybrid of rhythm-and-blues and country music has had an undeniable impact on society while drastically changing with the times. Artists from the 1960s to the present have maintained a strong connection to rock, beginning with Andy Warhol’s involvement with The Velvet Underground (who released their Warhol-produced landmark album The Velvet Underground and Nico in 1967 — the same year the MCA opened its doors). More recently, artists such as Slater Bradley, Raymond Pettibon, and Mike Kelley have created album covers and music videos for rock bands, while many noted rock musicians such as John Lennon, Bryan Ferry, and Peter Townsend have emerged from art schools.
This exhibition is the most serious and comprehensive look at the intimate and inspired relationship between the visual arts and rock-and-roll culture to date, charting their intersection through works of art, album covers, music videos, and other materials. The exhibition addresses the importance of specific cities such as London, New York, Los Angeles, and Cologne; rock and roll’s style, celebrity, and identity politics in art; the experience, energy, and sense of devotion rock music inspires; and the dual role that many individuals play in both the sonic and visual realms. This exhibition is curated by MCA Curator Dominic Molon.”
Dominic Molon
Paul Klein
Wesley Kimler
MCA
Hüsker Dü
Pitchfork
Intonation
Lollapalooza
Apocalypse Now
Brian Chippendale
Fort Thunder Collective
Jim Drain
Rirkrit Tiravanija
Mungo Thomson
Rita Ackermann
Angel Blood
Royal Trux
Dave Muller
The Whitney Museum
The Guggenheim
The Tate Liverpool
Warhol
The Velvet Underground
Robert Longo
David Byrne
Richard Prince
James Chance & the Contortions
Rodney Graham
Black Sabbath
Assume Vivid Astro Focus
Throbbing Gristle
Beck
Basquiat
Kraftwerk
Can
Genesis P-Orridge
Psychic TV
Mike Kelley
Destroy All Monsters
Jim Shaw
Niagara
Tony Oursler
Cary Loren
George Clinton
Iggy Pop
George “The Animal” Steele
Soupy Sales
The Nuge
The MC5
The Stooges
Christian Marclay
David Bowie
Mötley Crüe
Gerhard Richter
Roxy Music
Jay Heikes
The Cure
Black Flag
Wire
Sonic Youth
My Bloody Valentine
Ed Paschke
Damien Hirst
Douglas Gordon
Jason Rhoades
Direct download: Bad_at_Sports_Episode_111-Sympathy_for_Dominic.mp3
- 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
Okay. Here we go! Ready, Set, Go for comments.
A one, two, three, four ….
“Wesley and Paul hated it”…….Tony Fitzpatrick won’t step foot inside the MCA, musicians and artists across Chicago feel correctly insulted.
a few points:
1.The ‘midwest section’ of this show is largely filled with ‘Destroy All Monsters’ poster paintings -done by Jim Shaw and Mike Kelly -two of the very top LA artists.
2.” “if there is a relationship between art and rock in Chicago”……Molon said this to Deanna Issacs of the Reader last week……which kind of renders his further comments disparaging the scene here as highly suspect…while pointing out the obvious -that he did not look here. Why does Franceso Bonami openly and publicly brag about how he doesn’t do studio visits? And why do we accept this failed painters pronouncements with rapt attention and apparently, deference?
3. All of which begs a few questions: is this show really about rock and art or, about a few consensus correct artists and a few ‘hot’ emerging consensus correct artists who happen to have worked with rock music?
4. It is probably cogent to note, I am definetly not advocating an all Chicago show, nor have I ever been sympathetic to the MCA only showing whats here in Chicago. Having said this, a certain chauvinism and awareness of what is here would be similar to MOCA in LA and museum in NYC…. ask yourself why are artists routinely ignored by curators here?….would the show have benefited from including more work from here – is there better work here than much of what is in the show? The short answer is yes.
5. are the questionable choices of Chicagoans we see up in the aquisition show then about nothing more than curatorial complacency towards the scene here or, is there also an element of political corruption involved? (Not that corruption and complacency aren’t by defintion co-existent. What is Judith Kirshners relationship to the collectors who bought the work we see up at the MCA from local artists? (all three artists from here have deep associations with Ms Kirshner) What is the relationship of said collectors to the MCA -in otherwords, are these the people paying the bills there? Do the curators making these choices essentially work for them? Does this explain why so much of the local work the MCA gets behind is crap? What is the connection between this culture of corruption and the way Molon feels comfortable dismissing with impunity a scene that in one sentence he admits he knows nothing of “if there is a history between rock and roll and art in Chicago” and in the next sentences disparages?
And still more importantly, why do we artists here tolerate such arrogance, born of expediency and, ignorance, afraid to speak out and demand better for ourselves? Artists in LA wouldn’t put up with a rock and roll show of Chicago artists -I promise you questions would be asked. Beyond Pedro Bell, is a photograph of someone holding a Neil Young Album over their face the best revelation Mr Molon could come up with from Chicago scene -or does this just underline once again his contempt?
6. What can we learn about how ‘sensibilities’ are arrived at -at the MCA by looking at the Karen Kilimck exhibition (pending) at the MCA -championed by Mr. Molon? – I am going to post some of this artists paintings along side my own in my pending sharkforum article – a little compare and contrast session -though admittedly its mean and unfair on my part to do so as aside from the fact that I have forgotten more about painting on any given day than is anywhere in evidence in the insipid work this artist slated for the MCA demonstrates, the only thing of interest in this painting being, how bad it is, and how it ended up in a museum. This is a patently awful painter with just about zero skill… its beyond belief that this trash is being foisted upon us. Don’t take my word for it -look her up online…. incredible until you understand how Kilimnk is one example of the consensoriats answer to ‘the painting problem’…in otherwords -find some lame-ass shite, write some lame ass, consensoriat shite about the shite and presto! You have 200,000 plus auction prices -(look it up and be sure you are sitting down when you see the drech that fetched this stupid sum….) and, you’re showing at the MCA! (well Saatchi owns one! what else do you need to know? she’s HOT!)
THIS, THEN, IS THE MENTALITY.
Wouldnt it be interesting if the MCA could truly have vision and see past this current marketplace -with its fucked up mixture of academic institutions, museums, auction houses and art fairs- especially given all signs point towards a major crash of this phenomenen?…..how many of you are aware that last years Whitney Biennial artists were announced at Art Basel Miami? Dominic was…..thats his criteria. As it was the criteria for the collectors racing around booth to booth securing one speculative investment after another, as it is for the small group of people who represent Chicago to the rest of the art world -while completely ignoring the artists here………Since its not, the work, its therefore unthinkable the Sympathy For The Devil could have actually focused on rock music and really interesting, good work -rather than art world status consisting for the most part of the usual suspects- and new, speculative investments- in the perimeters of a superficial (or at least, secondary) context.
7. And finally, a point of interest, when discussing the future of the MCA at my studio Molon was decidely pessimistic….in fact he openly questioned whether any of his fellow curators there had any vision…..funny, coming from such a corporate guy like himself, I wonder, did he mean his fellow curators who (with a few exceptions have been such dead weight here) do not share in his corporate vision of the future?….I’m guessing he considers this particular kind of market driven, consensoriat conformity that he adheres to, with almost no originality or, individuality, as a vision, as forward looking…..and you wonder why the scene here sucks…….sheeeesh!
-In the end, some of the work in Sympathy For The Devil is good, some of it sucks, none of it with a few exceptions (Pedro Bell) is unexpected, and yes the show, with even a semblance of an original, intelligent, point of view, should have been so much better. Better than the tired, business as usual affair that it is.
Maybe I don’t make this central point with enough clarity: would Dominic Molon chose a Karen Kilimnk or any number of the artists in Sympathy -based on the work itself, divorced from its position as speculative investment, or simply commodity in the corporate structure of todays art world? If he can answer yes, what can I say but Dominic -if you think Kilimnk is an interesting painter, challenging or in the slightest way, an accomplished painter, you are in the wrong field.
We are desperately in need of curators who understand the idea of being unique, inimitable, individuals. Never has this been more in evidence than with the current doings at the MCA.
So I have listened to the interview. Good job. Dominic is interesting to listen to or read, as was his first BAS interview and various emails I traded with him. I understand his considerations more now. Instead of a Soft Rock Show I propose a follow-up show likening Canadian Art to the Guess Who And Bachman-Turner Overweight.
But but but.
I STILL have to go along with a Shark Attack. This is still a show completely dissing the home team, as I can see by who is included.
If I may be so bold, Dominic has created a show certainly not of bad quality, but it is not what it purports to be. To correctly label it, it needs a name describing its real content:
“Top o the Pops Consensus Artists Who Have Some Interest in Art Rock Bands Deemed Cool by People Who Were Suburban Teenagers in the 80s.â€
Please see our cartoon at http://sharkforum.org/
“Top o the Pops Consensus Artists Who Have Some Interest in Art Rock Bands Deemed Cool by People Who Were Suburban Teenagers in the 80s.”
Do you think?…..just another example of the slack curatorial practice happening here -I mean, Sympathy For The Devil is a song off of Beggars Banquet by The Rolling Stones- a band that took its entire style (not to mention its name) from Chicago r b – a band that considered Chess Records as Mecca- not to mention that this particular record was informed by the playing of the great American music scholar and geetar player -Ry Cooder, -whose open tunings he had taught to Keith Richards…
Duncan said last episode that
“You guys know he [Dominic] is on the show next week and will address directly the question of how he choose work for the show. Then we can all do this again.”
No, he did not, but yes we can.
Anna, Euroshark (MSB) has put up a guide to ‘consensus curating’ on sharkforum -that, kind of…says it all, -in terms of providing an answer to how work was chosen for the show.
Duncan must be forgiven for such transgressions, he is kept under heavy sedation to avoid being a hazard to himself and others.
Anna,
Well, alright, but he did give you some insight into how things were chosen and I did try to nail him down on specific pieces as case study and as to how he saw it, but I suppose I’ve failed.
Let’s face the fact that in part Wesley is right that everyone is conscious of their role in the power structure and no one wants to be last. That being said, Dominic has bosses. Lots of them. Some of them are us, the museum goers, who want to see the big fashionable pieces from around the world and some of them are the Director and his Board who have a serious vested stake in the art world consensus and need to see their Museum on the right side of it.
Wesley,
You wrote a novel. No one can respond because no one has time to read the whole thing.
Everyone,
We have not had a chance to post a policy about these things but…
-No name calling.
-No attacking people on personal grounds.
We have never censored a post because we thought someone’s feelings would get hurt or that people were too “mean,” but due to an overwhelming amount of concern on the part of the general public, it has to be said: NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Period. If you want to attack a position or attitude or role in a power hierarchy go ahead, but do it without claiming someone as fat, or balding, or slutty don’t imply or say that someone is someone else’s lap dog, or a jerk face, or has shriveled genitals or is dead inside or is a troll. This goes for everyone.
Let’s have a clean discussion about the issues, rather then a bitch fight where we call each other names and pull each other’s hair. At the end of the day we are all on the same side. We get too aggressive because we care, but remember we share the local art scenes we are apart of and the more we become divisive and “in-fighty” the less impact we have as a collective.
Don’t make us feel that we cannot maintain this open forum.
Duncan -I don’t believe on my part there has ever been (or if so, very rarely and only in response) any attack on personal grounds- ( well I did agree that Mr Molon is slightly doughy, but I actually considered that more a term of endearment than mean-) but seriously, in fact my experience has been that of writing voracious opinion -only to be stupidly and foolishly attacked- ad hominem -with the apparent prerequisite amount of name calling- just recently as you note in your post above, from a BAS editor-
I disagree with your notion that we are all on the same side… give yourself a few more years here and you may very well come around to my way of thinking.
…after watching the powers that be here in Chicago do their thing for the last 25 years – and by powers that be I mean, Kirshner at UIC her pal Suzanne Ghez at the ‘Ren’, Mr Curator James Rondeau, and his collectors group headed by one art maven known as Deborah Lovely, and certain curators at the MCA (some this does not apply to,) along with this most of the powerful collectors here -who rarely support art from here, I think your notion Duncan is in my humble opinion, sincerely deluded.
As for my ‘novel’, I am as usual, specific, and to the point, almost never indulging in ad hominem attacks, and rarely wasting words. In fact its always my aim to be specific, as the art world here is neither all that large nor difficult to understand. I know in this time of shortened attention spans it may seem unsurmountable, but try and stick with me as I usually attack my subject with any number of specific points and, objectives – all with the idea of unpacking and fleshing out what is, on the menu!
Besides, if my posts are so too long for people to read, why then does your readership go through the roof when The Shark swims onto the scene?
And finally one last point Duncan: don’t make excuses for Dominic Molon! Don’t be an enabler! a small amount of courage and, ORIGINALITY! -a slight demonstration of the huevos to at least in part begin the creation of his own canon of references would have only made this a way more complex, interesting exhibition. There’s just no way around it. I don’t want Dominic or the MCA to fail, I want to see them as a vital force. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or, even a large shark! to see, this is not happening at the moment. From the bad building, to the programs and vision of the place being in disaray, change is required.
About talking nice: I’m still going to do my best to get the Canadian Guess Who into this conversation, just to torment Duncan, though. Amerrrricannnn womannnn, just geeeet awaaaay….
Personally I don’t think you failed, Duncan. It was a good interview as far as it goes. Maybe you are just a bit blinded by being roughly of the same sub-generation and taste-group as Dominic, but this is a very very limited view of rock and of art and of course of Chicago.
You are right about the bosses. That is my point at the post on http://www.sharkforum.org/, that the power structure of the currently mannerist artworld does indeed generate what is done more than any individual can. But one DOES not have to buy into it fully. A whole additional room of works from Chicago and one more cognizant of non-80s-cool Rock would have made an impact. Even better would have been a Rock and Art show with hardly any top o the pops artists. That would have been a Helter Skelter or a Sensation or the like. We’re not talking about a bad idea here, au contraire mein Herr. A great idea thus producing an openly great failure of courage. Check out my post at SF. This has GOT to change or we will be mired ever deeper in an ever-feebler and brown-nosing artworld.
While agreeing with the foregoing, I find the MCA show problematic for additional reasons.
The MCA missed a major opportunity. Once the Art Institute opens its contemporary wing the MCA is going to pale in comparison. The Sympathy for the Devil show was an opportunity for the MCA to assert and redefine itself. It failed ignominiously.
As is suggested by the interview, Dominic was given damned near free reign. Big mistake. Director Bob Fitzpatrick has announced his retirement. Who’s in charge? The show, and the interview, present the MCA as clueless about defining its future.
The history of art in Chicago – for over 100 years – is to act with the conviction of the values that exist here and to not kowtow to the whims of the coasts. Here was an opportunity for the museum to establish an attitude that says a small portion of MCA content should be Chicago relevant. To do something fresh. (Has anyone looked at how the Detroit Institute of the Arts is redefining their program and significantly altering how art is grouped and information presented?)
That our museum should be a sheepish follower denigrating its support base hurts us, and more importantly it hurts the MCA.
Bad tactics. Bad message. Stupid. Unfortunate.
Paul, you’ve outdone yourself in terms of being succinct.
Sharkforum now has up an online exhibition of Mr. Molon’s next project -the stunning consensoriat vapidity known as Karen Kilimnik…..let the work speak for itself. Truly, beyond belief.
okay, i have read thru everything and I am perplexed. I understand many of you want more representation of Chicago artists in the museum. That is understandable, but how THIS particular show should have accomplished that is beyond me. Please educate me about Chicago artists whose work incorporates rock and roll sensibilies. Everyone knows that Chicago is important in the development of rock itself, and I would say that any exhibit about rock (sans art) that did not have Chicago elements would certainly be lacking. But without clear examples of Chicago artists (other than Ed Pashke) whose work deals with rock, I would say to just add such artists to be arbitrary. What should Molon have done, call up a bunch of Chicago artists and ask them to make a piece about rock and roll by a certain date?
I once carved a megadeth logo into my desk in high school…does that count?
Perhaps the simple difference between Karen Kilimnik ( the correct spelling of her name ) is that she has been able to amount to such success (surprising enough, yes) due to the fact, that she is not a fascist.
But in all honesty, if one is to actually compare Kimler or Brandl’s work- to Kilimnik, as Kimler asks us to do, it all adds up to great confusion.
& with all the censorship & nepotism & abuse that goes on at sharkforum I have to agree with Duncan as to his apt observations:
“Everyone,
We have not had a chance to post a policy about these things but…
-No name calling.
-No attacking people on personal grounds.
We have never censored a post because we thought someone’s feelings would get hurt or that people were too “mean,†but due to an overwhelming amount of concern on the part of the general public, it has to be said: NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Period. If you want to attack a position or attitude or role in a power hierarchy go ahead, but do it without claiming someone as fat, or balding, or slutty don’t imply or say that someone is someone else’s lap dog, or a jerk face, or has shriveled genitals or is dead inside or is a troll. This goes for everyone.
Let’s have a clean discussion about the issues, rather then a bitch fight where we call each other names and pull each other’s hair. At the end of the day we are all on the same side. We get too aggressive because we care, but remember we share the local art scenes we are apart of and the more we become divisive and “in-fighty†the less impact we have as a collective. ”
It’s simple, two wrongs do not- make a right & many at sharkforum ( some of the few talents that are there,aside) they are just burying themselves in a mire of vitrol,censorship, conspiracy theories & massive distractions-.
Ironic really.
Those who work with tact, sometimes have an easier time getting things done, at times this may not seem fair, but for the most part it’s true.
Attempting to focus & act on- more important, fresh & successful endeavors seems to make much more sense.
Instead of railing against those few who have benefited from the system because they know how to. As we all know, this is nothing new & has been an issue for centuries.
& how to battle these trends? Dialogue & creativity- offering us an experience & a reality, that is digestible.
I have rarely seen sharkforum attempt to freshen & open our eyes with new talent.
I have seen from them the opposite, taking talents or those with an opinion- to the guillotine for kicks & scoffing about it, with an odd & grandiose sense of inflated entitlement that just, gets, nowhere.
Recently many at the forum, Tony, & Wesley, Brandl- etc- had some particularly nasty & immature things to say about conceptual artists & students at SAIC-
One of the comments,
” You know what would be great ?– If one ‘conceptual artist ‘ locked another ‘conceptual artist’ in one of those plastic port-a-shitters and set it on fire…. I’d really like that!
Posted by: tony fitzpatrick | August 22, 2007 02:49 PM ”
I would hate to see Yoko Ono or Joseph Beuys in that sort of situation, two conceptual artists that i admire greatly.
& what does this say or accomplish as far as useful satire? Or Chicago Art?
Not much.
& Ann Shaw, has every right to go to Art School & do whatever on earth she likes & in her case, an appropriate, significant satire of anyone- should never be inclusive of all conceptual art. Not to mention, it was not a very good discussion on conceptual art in the first place.
So this is a good example of lack of tact, & entitlement.
Again, ironic.
& I too agree with Creegan as to his inquiry,
“Please educate me about Chicago artists whose work incorporates rock and roll sensibilies. Everyone knows that Chicago is important in the development of rock itself, and I would say that any exhibit about rock (sans art) that did not have Chicago elements would certainly be lacking. But without clear examples of Chicago artists (other than Ed Pashke) whose work deals with rock, I would say to just add such artists to be arbitrary. What should Molon have done, call up a bunch of Chicago artists and ask them to make a piece about rock and roll by a certain date?”
& if you cannot do it better & with tact, then best not to resort to fascism.
Geez Ben, calling “bad art” bad doesn’t really make a person a fascist.
This is for Mark Creegan- It’s not my battle, but I think I might be able to offer a rendering of the objections:
1. Chicago figures quite prominantly in any narative of Rock ‘n’ Roll history. So much so that any rendering of that history should acknowledge that fact in some significant way. Granted this point deals with the music side of the show, but:
2. The period in question, 1967 – 2007, offers a TON of examples of local work that is not only superb on it’s merits as art, but was pivotal in the growth of the indie rock scene, for example. As I stated in other posts, I think there’s a really persuasive argument that says that the huge success of indie rock in the 90’s (isn’t it one of the most profitable periods in rock history?) was directly connected to Chicago as a substantial hub, and the swag and promo art that supported those shows was huge. How many great records has Sheila Sacks done the album art for? Did you know that she was the art director at The Reader until the recent sale? I only mention it because there’s been a robust and substantive connection between these two forms for some time. Other artists of note have been mentioned. I wonder if Mr. Malone ever contacted Gregg Parker, owner and proprietor of The Chicago Blues Museum.
Parker’s got an amazing collection of R & B, Soul, Blues and Rock artifacts, a library of rare DVD’s, and a near-encyclopedic knowledge of this fascinating history. This is about the art side, but there’s more.
3. There’s a reason to wonder (I’m at a remove, so I can only wonder) if the calculus employed in the selection process for this show was more about (esthetics and history) or (politics and ambition). I don’t know – I’m just saying that the impression is given off, and the images I’ve seen of Karen Kilimnik’s work seem to lend credence to this theory.
Without having yet seen the show I can only offer a rendering of the arguments at hand and a comment on appearances – it does look pretty bad. I don’t know Mr. Malone and I haven’t got an opinion of him. The episode was pretty entertaining, but I enjoy listening to Duncan try not to punch Richard. I really wish they’d take it to Itchy and Scratchy territory already. Either that or Larry and Shemp.
The upshot is that it starts to seem as though Chicago was either intentionally ignored or just not bothered with – I dunno. I judge Mr. Malone more on his words than anything – he did confess to a lack of knowledge of the well-documented and robust interaction between art and music in this town. Perhaps this is anti-perochialism, or something innocent, I dunno about that either.
As far as Mr. Lahey’s observations about Sharkforum, I’ll respond a little since I’ve had some involvement in that project. While I’m not going to touch your criticisms (too sticky and not really my table anyway) I’ll offer that I think you misunderstood the Ann Shaw posting – most SF editors that I spoke with thought she was quite brilliant.
Oh brother……ever consider Ben than maybe Duncan really doesn’t give a shit about what is said here -and made the comments he did to shut-up the whiners like yourself? Sorry Duncan -for spilling the beans…
And for your information – the fish that has been called the most names here is this one -usually by people like you.
I’ll let Mr. Fitzpatrick respond to your feeble attack on him when and if he has the time -or cares to bother himself (doubtful) -Tony’s a little busy what, with his one man exhibition at PS1 opening this weekend.
Karen Kilimnick is an awful painter. I wish she was a fascist, then at least there would be something to discuss about this no talent fake -beyond the insipid consensoriat that promulgates this kind of rancid junk. As for as taking ‘talent’ to the guillotine..I assume you consider Ms Kilimnik one of them..boo hoo
Who should have been in the Sympathy For The Devil……..how many times have Tony and myself given our opinions on this? Have you even seen the work Tony has done with Steve Earle? -or the work I have done using large scale paintings and drawings with Eleventh Dream Day, Nicholas Tremulis, Alejandro Escovedo, Kurt Elling for Blue Note…have you ever seen the work of the Screwball Press people? The bottom line is Ben, if you can’t see what work here in Chicago incorporates rock sensibilities -no amount of money poured into SAIC is ever going to help you figure this one out….in the meantime, why don’t you try educating yourself…I know that from potty training on, you have probably been told what to do….but there is no time like now to start trying to self actualize…..
Sharkforum is not a show and tell venue Ben -we have put up some very good work on the site-work that has been hugely reviewed here -like Dave Roth’s show with its great review from Alan Artner, like the exhibition I have up now with Sandro Miller, with its review from Kevin Nance referring to me as the leading painter/provocatuer here in Chicago ….like Ursula Sokolowska, just now returning from London where she was one of 20 artists in the world chosen to participate in a Saatchi (speak of the devil) sponsored emerging artist exhibition at Frieze. As far as few talents, do you even know who David Amram or Simone Muench, or Rick Rizzo is Ben? Or half the other people of whom the sharkpack consists? Doubt it.
Quit whining Ben, coming on with this limp wristed, slack, faux attack. Quit acting like a cheap, dime-store turtle, with a soft shell to go along with its soft head.
btw Ben since you’re so big on people ‘educating’ you, and as you do seem to have the whiff of SAIC about you, why not go ask Lisa Wainwright -dean of grad studies who she thinks the most important artists are here…ask her who she thinks is the most interesting painter here in Chicago…Lisa’s an art education professional, go ask her -do it! I’m sure she will be more than happy to accommodate you-
Ben — cut it with the “fascism” comment. That’s drawn out every time anyone criticizes anything. In purely political terms (real life , not artworld) if you were knowledgeable of our activities you would see that I am diametrically opposed to that, certainly far farther left than Amis (the nickname for US Yankees in Europe) (and fascism is a dictatorship from the right, in case you’ve forgotten). Please choose your vocabularly more carefully or YOUR criticism is only vicious and negative, which you apparently don’t see as such, and conterproductive to discussion with you!
Beyond that, this is NOT Mr Rodger’s Neighborhood. Criticism in the true, wide sense is accomplished both by pointing out what is WRONG as well as doing nice positive things.
Granted all of us get nasty from time to time, wordwise at least (I’m guilty of that), but as Duncan also points out that is part and parcel of being truly involved and caring.
I agree that in GENERAL we should be more civil. BUT I also feel there is a place for REAL outrage or the whole thing is silly. If everything is okay, nothing is good, to say nothing of great. If we are never outraged, we never really care and then this art thing is simply one nice big middleclass hobby. What I have called the Polyanna on Prozac viewpoint. That is indeed what many of our distiguished opponents desire. For me, art is more important. Quality judgements MUST be made. Attempts to see the truth are necessary. Everything is NOT okay.
I would add that Ann Shaw’s video is indeed powerful — and nuanced, albeit satirical — and quite clearly dead-on as it hit some nerves very directly.
May I add, since you mention and enjoy him, that I personally worked directly with Joseph Beuys, building an exhibition and performance for him and have a multiple he gave me up in my house. He was VERY critical before his death of where things have gone, while they are claiming to be in his (and my) direction.
Beuys was a Stuka dive bomber pilot in WWII, by the way, but that is going in a direction I don’t want to discuss. Just to point out that terminology like “fascist” should be used with more care.
Thanks to Chris or whoever, by the way, for the function of being able to correct comments on this, the new BAS site design. Notice how my massive typos have become a wee bit less overwhelming?!!
Yep, Ben’s hero Beuys, a Luftwaffe ace- not, that there is anything wrong with that……well Mark, its always the Ben’s who hurl the most and the really nasty invectives amidst their passive aggressive vituperations…..all the while trying to pass themselves off somehow as the offended and ‘hurt’ victims….nothing new here.
My thanks to Chris as well, though I have about given up on the error free post-
“fascism is a dictatorship from the right”
I think you’ve got that wrong Mark.
Well, yes and no Dave -fascism (league) was coined by Benito Mussolini…and was anti left/communist – like the Nazis, and also like Hitler and friends, there was this whole totalitarian state thing that is not unlike the far left… not how we think of the far right at least in this country, today- though the whole militaristic thing has carried through…in another context, Iraq under Saddam Hussein could be considered a far right fascist regime and a totalitarian society…..
What? Are we trying to turn this into an interesting discussion? I suppose there was no where to go but up…..
Hi Dave, I’ve certainly got that RIGHT! Look it up. I know there is a lot of propaganda in America to make only the left scary, we call that “being blind in the right eye” here — but yes, fascism is: patriotic, nationalistic, militaristic, pro-big-Capitalism, power to the rich (Krupp, Flick, etc.) dictatorial, usually racist, right-wing. Communism is a dictatorship from the left: supposedly internationalist, anti-patriotic originally, anti-Capitalism, dictatorial, class-based, supposedly power to the “common man,” left-wing. Yes, in effect they come out darn close, but there is a difference, even when they are both dangerous totalitarian bastards. That’s why I am adamant that vocabulary matters. The word comes from the Roman “fasces,” that bundle of sticks representing (to fascists) that the group is more important than the individual, later it becomes replaced with racist symbols like the swastika. The fascists all flirted with “socialist” words as a part of their campaigns of misdirection, to claim that taking your freedom away was good for you — you’d be protected as in a social state. Communism of course had its own lies but that is another matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
What are you guys doing blogging at this hour? It’s the pm for me, but it has got to be ungodly early for you!
Man, I keep trying to get out while being pulled back in.
It is true that, I don’t ever care, in specific, about the content in any single blog post.
Do it think that it is important that we don’t totally beat the verbal and emotional crap out of each other… Yes. I always keep in mind that I am a willing participant in this art world, a volunteer and that I want to be here and so does everyone else. I don’t want to deliberately alienate anyone. That is, maybe, what the art world is best at and I think I’ve had enough of it.
Do I think that we must struggle and defend our positions and beliefs… absolutely. Should we question any center that makes itself an absolute authority… absolutely. In this specific debate do I side with anyone… nope.
I think we often get confused about what these institutions are doing and why they are there. There we see a pretty clear divide between people like Yood or Klien that advocate for a regionalism with an eye to the local and people like Malon and Tasset who look to, and connect with, an international focus. But is that really a problem?
What are the roles of these places? Wesley is right that if I was the MCA I would be worried about the AIC’s new modern wing but I would also be worried about my wallet and in Chicago the art world never bets wrong when it bets against Chicago. (Which seems like a self perpetuating loss.)
There are models of national and international practice that do not require (although it would be nice) financial viability. Great local examples are Dan Peterman and/or the mess hall scene and/or the Area Magazine scene. They all have found non prophet models to create a sustainable practice and audience.
I think if anything is clear it is the the only way we will ever make things happen here is by doing it ourselves and not allowing the divisive nature of this places possibilities to mire us.
The MCA is not the only place in town. Look at 3 Walls they just opened a new “Locals only” SOLO show space in response to this urgent need for more spaces to support some of the less commercial practices in town. Those that are not getting those coveted spots at the museums or have had them and now there is no where left to show. (Their submission deadline is soon, look it up.)
I hate being pulled into this because I don’t know what I want out of these institutions and I think if we were smart we would do our own things and support those we believe in.
Do I think I would have made the same Rock show Dominic made? Of course not I’m bored of Marclay’s work and don’t feel like it “rocks” at all but I wouldn’t have done a major US rock show without including “Destroy all Monsters” or Assume Astro Vivid Focus. I would have included Paul McCarthy and the Chapman Brothers. (because their work addresses a key point for me in rock and roll, the willingness to shit on yourself and any one that supports you. Seemingly cause your too stupid to know better. For me they are the GG Allen’s of the art world. And mind blowing.) Did I like what I saw of the show? Yes. Am I going back to specifically see “conceptual artist” Douglas Gordon’s piece. FUCK YEAH! Do I care for Karen Kilimnik, not really but I also wonder a lot about how these decisions get made and why the shows happen. For instance I still have trouble believing that the most edgy and interesting work that the Art Institute could find in THE WORLD was those Maureen Gallace paintings. So I imagine there to have been other concerns placed upon why to do the show. Not that anyone would ever admit that but I can’t understand it any other way.
Let’s face it the whole art world seems a lot more like a business world then the pure and spiritually righteous aesthetic exploration that I was taught to believe in as an Undergrad. It is true there are power centers here. You decide if the represent you. For some people the are god sends and for others the bane of there existence. If not do what Dan Peterman or Marc Fisher or Brett Bloom or Tony Fitzpatrick does… ignore them and do your own thing.
Sorry, I hate being dragged into these things.—————————————————-
.
.
.
.
Fuck it. What I think is… that we have a determined need to maintain open, frank and critical dialogue about these things. If you feel like Mark or Wesley or Marc or I am being a bully… beat our asses down, we are assholes and we do deserve it. But… DO NOT ATTACK PEOPLE ON PERSONAL GROUNDS. (they know their faults and I know mine) We share this place. Make your voice heard and be honest. We are not getting anywhere now so we might as well like each other on the other side of this thing. Even if, or especially if, we are in the same damn place.
Damn, posted a novel.
Gone With The Wind in scope and scale Duncan!…….
I would put Destroy All Monsters in my version of an exhibition -wouldnt it have been way more interesting to have had half of those poster paintings, and then say, some work from here…..-in other words, some slightly more complex and original thinking on the part of the curator -using pre-existing canon and then adding to it……..its really a no-brainer and just kind of sad and amazing that its not that way.
Karen Kilimnik is up again on sharkforum again! in a SMACKDOWN OF THE HEAVYWEIGHTS! going up against Painter Of Light Thomas Kinkade! -Shes losing!……at least he is honest enough to admit he’s just a whore…..and he is a better painter…..though thats like saying between the two of them, he’s like the leper with the only finger……
Yea it is kind of funny how vile Ben’s complaint was as he wrapped himself in a cocoon of self-righteous indignation…..
Back to Kilimnik……those paintings are worth maybe 20 dollars at best….I view the 198,000 price tag as a frightening indication of what is to come….there are financial analysts talking about another 1929 level crash…..and when I see this kind of almost pyramid scheme like prices being rolled out for complete junk……there is going to be an adjustment….in our hand to mouth existence here -I hope it doesn’t wipe us all out when it comes….I had a great dealer pull me aside and warn me to be careful and try and save $ because a crash was coming…..
As far as how this show was chosen….same with the rock show to some extent Duncan: Karen Kilimnik;…..shes HOT! Saatchi has one! Its really sad that Molon doesnt know enough about painting, cannot apparent look and see for himself, and is so wired into consensoriat thinking that he would be suckered into showing this crap. Its an embarrassment beyond belief.
-I’m glad you jumped in…I think it was a good idea……lets go eat food! dinners on me. And I wont even make you swim around in cold saltwater and chew the heads off of seals…
In a very general sense, I agree with you Duncan.
(Even if you are badly mistaken about Tasset being international. I enjoyed his interview on BAS, but internationally he is seen as a regionalist “facsimile” of hit NYC artists. Sorry, but it is true. He’s only “international” in Chicago, you might say. Tony Fitzgerald, seen as somehow idiosyncratic it appears to me in Chicago is seen OUTSIDE the city as one of the most international artists from there. Believe me, I am international, even have two passports, and live in several countries, so I see and hear alot from many different contexts. You are too Duncan, you Yankee-Canuck (friendly name calling), but with cultures perhaps a bit to near to one another.)
I especially like your desire, often stated, about trying to overcome “the divisive nature” and tendency to self-destruct of Chicago. That should be repeated at EVERY opportunity.
But I think you are self-conflicting in your statements. First, you say “Do I think that we must struggle and defend our positions and beliefs… absolutely. Should we question any center that makes itself an absolute authority… absolutely.” But then you end with the idea once again that if there is an unjust situation, one should just “ignore them and do your own thing.”
I’ve often heard, especially from your generation, especially in Switzerland and Chicago (not in NYC, and seldom from older or much younger artists, e.g.), that there are only two choices of response to any given situation: accept it, learn the rules, try for career success — the ol Yuppie tactic known as Sophistry since Socrates attacked it. Or, alternately, drop out of ithe situation totally, the ol Hippie thing. I can envision many other responses, being neither Yuppie nor Hippie.
A “punky,” critical DYI is needed. Best of all, operate with the parts of the situation that work for you, criticize and attack the others, create opportunites for yourself — and most of all NEVER ignore anything. And let them know you are intelligent, observant and critical. Ignoring things can often be a tacit form of support if not fear or indirect subserviance. We can keep hypocrisy on the run if we openly talk about it. That of course does not preclude being very very very supportive of what you find positive (like I and you find 3 Walls to be, and so on).
Most of all you are right about dissing Chicago being a kind of Popular Sport of “self-perpetuating loss” — I think BAS and Sharkforum and all the little galleries and stuff are genuinely tearing that self-built penitentiary down, slowly but surely, brick by brick — and often this is being done by bringing clear criticism right out in the open.
That’s my War and Peace post.
Just for clarification, I sited Tony Tasset partly because I love that guy and partly because it seems to me that the moment he was part of for the “History of Chicago Art” was one in which he and the other Chicago Artists lionized in the nineties were looking out towards the international world rather the preceding Chicago Art spikes like the Imagists which defined themselves in opposition to an international NYC based art world.
And I think Tony’s great and screw the international art community. I want a life sized photo of a grown man wetting himself. That’s right I said it and meant it. (Tony Fitzpatrick is also great and deserves the success and reputation he has.)
Also, I loved Ben Lahey’s post. He is not afraid.
Hmm, Duncan. Couldn’t be further in diagreement with you.
Nice that Ben considered everything and was interested enough to comment,
but
“not afraid”? Of what?
Of learning to not exactly DO what he is complaining about? Complain that others have no tact and then accuse me and others of “fascism,” a rather loaded insult, exactly what he decries, and misused at that.
You and I can discuss that manufactured “lionization” of a concocted “history” another time. I think I need to do an interview with you about some facts concerning Chicago before you appeared there.
“Looking out toward” — one of the best euphemisms I have ever heard for toeing the line and copying.
I think the pissing the pants/toe sucking/canned tomato fight/second rate colorfield painting epoch, invented to play to the art mavens from Wilmette as ‘dangerous’, funded by the likes of Howard and Donna Stone among others, pushed by Judith Kirshner as ‘international’ -when in fact it was a mere provincial wannabe copy -never taken seriously in the markets it was intended for, is way over.
That two of these artists were showcased in the 40 year acquisition show was widely questioned and complained about AT THE MCA is what I have heard from any number of people.
As a matter of fact I heard that their inclusion was described by the curator herself as ‘LOCAL POLITICS’. I feel pretty confident in stating that in most curatorial circles I respect, that work is now seen as having aged very poorly, that the political manipulation that happened to ‘place’ that work here has had a large role in what a collegiate, moribund scene we have here today.
I will point out to you Duncan -and you wouldn’t know this as it was before your time, -there were a whole group of artists bringing international ideas about art here -people like Gary Justis, myself, Ken Warneke, Martin Puryear, Vera Klement Ted Rosenthal, Michael Hoskins, Jim Brinsfield -way before these conceptual 101, white bread generic types were ushered in here…..causing Chicago to lose all of its self identity and become a second rate copy of what was happening elsewhere.
Sorry Duncan you’ll have to fight that Wilmette suburbanite who in hushed tones thinks a photograph of someone urinating on themselves is…….’daring’ , ‘dangerous’….for it.
And btw -I was the one that brought an east and a west coast sensibility to painting here to Chicago in the 80’s -as I still do today -partially due to the fact that I grew up in San Francisco……… it certainly wasnt a bunch of completely derivative, lame ass, generic, slack, decorative abstraction executed with almost no skill emanating from the smart set, that did! Wake up and smell the coffee dude -and while your at it -you might try and learn something about painting to aid in your comprehension of it.
You need to wise up on this Duncan.
Ben., I thought he came off as a tool, personally…..Tony wondered this morning if this guy understands what a joke is….
and btw Duncan…it would serve you well to stop buying in to the concocted, (as Mark describes it perfectly) insipid, manipulated and completely fake history that you parrot-
I know you are smarter than this……so why not quit carrying water for the generic, academic, mediocre goods of the consensus crew -an agenda that you were sold as a student under false pretenses. An agenda that as an adult you should have outgrown, and seen through by now.
Speaking of which, I’m pretty sure one good sign of being an adult and, a man (or a woman) -is not living your life worrying whether or not all people like you.I assure you, they won’t and, they don’t.
a final though on this -when you get all mealy mouthed and parrot this consensus correct, cooked up history -understand that there is a whole host of people you are insulting…
As one of the very top painters here said to me a while back, “so much was lost for so little.” I know Ed Paschke felt the same way -and what are you talking about Duncan -his being regional?…HELLO! Ed showed all over the world! At the Louvre! With his Paris dealer for decades! In LA! In the American Show 20th century show at the Whitney! The last Biennial there ,…did you see Roberta Smiths obit on him when he died?….sheeeesh! -quit buying into this absolute and utter horse shit! Its disgusting! Quit kowtowing to this fake sales pitch…..I mean jesus! Just do yourself a favor and check the facts before stating things you were told that are in fact, about an agenda, and patently untrue.
a final though on this -when you get all mealy mouthed and parrot this consensus correct, cooked up history -understand that there is a whole host of people you are insulting…
As one of the very top painters here said to me a while back, “so much was lost for so little.” I know Ed Paschke felt the same way -and what are you talking about Duncan -his being regional?…HELLO! Ed showed all over the world! At the Louvre! With his Paris dealer for decades! In LA! In the American Show 20th century show at the Whitney! The last Biennial there ,…did you see Roberta Smiths obit on him when he died?….sheeeesh! -quit buying into this absolute and utter horse shit! Its disgusting!
Ah yes, the “Shark Pack” is utterly flawless.
& who is not allowed to make mistakes? You? I? Molon? The Universe?
Hitler?
Oh the sorrow & betrayals of senselessness.
After all, what is a mistake, but an infinitely vital process of evolution, ( the error threshold :).
& since the fish is so enthralled, especially with all his prescience- about the likes of Hirst- who he dislikes so much ( another London Saatchi artist )
& i quote: “Lets consider Mr. Hirsts most recent images: the face of the female crack head disintegrating, the lab animals being cut open……I don’t think correcting societies ills is nessecarily Mr. Hirsts agenda….it all seems slightly too sensationalistic for that.”
Praising the London art scene are you Mr.Kimler?
Well, then you better get to writing a fine article & critique about this years 2007 Zoo Competition winners.
http://www.zooartfair.com/downloads/2007_PR9_winners.pdf
Ces’t la vie.
Ah yes & i almost forgot, i found this small prize-
who is Kimler to know what artworks in Wilmette are collected ( names & artworks please- facts?)
“Sorry Duncan you’ll have to fight that Wilmette suburbanite who in hushed tones thinks a photograph of someone urinating on themselves is…….’daring’ , ‘dangerous’….for it.”
&, let alone criticize- when he is such an avid fan of Rikki Kasso?
& I quote Kimler on the immense talents of Kasso:
“I like the work. In the context of now, with photographers such as Nan Goldin portraying the Tokyo Underground in far more explicit, sexually charged works, these images appear romantic with a sense of melancholy to me. Any criticism I would offer would come in the form of discussing how influenced this work is by Araki Nobuyoshi, that like so much work of today it perhaps lacks a view forward….”
A nice Kasso article: http://fleshbot.com/sex/blogs/tokyo-undressed-163566.php
“Daring, dangerous”, are not words that come to mind.
More like, “silly & hypocritically redundant”.
Ah yes such fine artworks, really changing things in Wilmette- are we?
What other unthinkable observations shall ensue?
But in all seriousness, “freshen our eyes” or just keep yours- shut.
Ben Lahey…stalker, sycophant or merely an obsessive fan of The Sharks? -you tell me. You seem to be an avid reader of my writing.
Obsession…..”freshen my eyes”
As far as a list of collectors….from Wilmette, lets start with the chairwoman and treasurer of Mr Curators collectors group……do you even have a clue of whom I am discussing Benji The Fearless?
As for ‘freshen our eyes’…do you work at a makeup counter somewhere on the Gold Coast Benji?
Simple, on your next lunch break head over to your local Barnes&Noble and pick up the current issue of Shelter Magazine -where there is a very large, comprehensive article on….me! Or, hike your smug little self over to Architrouve and see the exhibition I have up there along with Chicago photographer Sandro Miller. Or, head out to Queens for Tony Fitzs opening at PS1 this weekend -(I’m sure he’ll have the welcome wagon out for you).
Of course you take the Kasso comments out of context…been watching a lot of Fox News reruns there Benji? You really had to dig through the archives of sharkforum for that didn’t you? The adventures of Benji…all in the name of some petty obsession. Got a lot of time on your hands do you Benny? As far as Hirst, I am indifferent -some of the work I like, some, like the photorealist paintings done by assistants, I’m not crazy about…is this an issue?
btw -while you are at Barnes&Noble Benito, why not pick up Alejandro Escovedo’s last cd ‘The Boxing Mirror’ -produced by the great John Cale of The Velvet Underground -that I happened to do all the art work for?
There: now you have your assignments for the weekend Ben so scamper off and avail yourself to what is out there to be seen, in other words, put up or shut up-
And is there anyone besides you so foolish as to think Molon’s criteria for the rock show was a mere mistake on his part? Or that my comment regarding Rikki Kasso “I like the work” translates into my being an avid fan?… Huh?
Better make sure that 20 watt bulb is screwed in tight Benji the Brave, its apparently all you’ve got.
The Sharkpack are certainly not flawless —we have our ebbs and our flows as do most people, but clearly you mistake the ebb for the flow.
I did NOT think you “made a mistake” Ben (until that last post which appears merely rancorous, and rather pointless, you obviously just hate Wesley or me or whatever) — I meant you over-exaggerated with the “fascist†word, thus actually becoming an example of what you (correctly or not) were attacking at Sharkforum. I guess you should have accused us of “talking like thugs†or something. But maybe you missed the jokes, and perhaps they weren’t all that funny, but all our threatening sounding scenarios you refer to were really mimicking artworks actually done by the people we were criticizing. Parodies — perhaps to the point of travesties, but basically cartoon-like.
Your logic rather leaves a lot to be desired, as well, but if you are pleased as punch with the status quo and with defending it, and thereby with your own disablement, then go ahead. I find it sad, — and even sadder that such sycophancy is described as courage by Duncan, but I can’t see too much to argue with in the face of such lack of vision. Maybe it is just that Shaw’s very amusing satire hit an open nerve in you. Duncan, I’m very disappointed in you. I usually trust your vision.
I do believe that criticism, clear and open, such as Wesley’s, IS the opening of eyes. Eyes blinded by masses of memorized art school verbage. And lots of times that cannot be done in a nicey-nice, let’s all get along fashion. Even if we do all want the best for our little artworld.
well Mark -as usual, your erudite, learned self scores a direct hit….
mr Lahey; (Benji) art world pundit and, non-entity, (google = nothing)…. (is this guy a receptionist at some art gallery or some other equally high powered position?) merely seems not very bright.
But, Duncan’s comments are a disappointment….I’ve said what I want to say to him on this topic above, hopefully Duncan, you will hear me and get your facts straight.
Is this the same Mr. Lahey?
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/author/Lahey,%20Benjamin%20B
http://health.bsd.uchicago.edu/Member.aspx?PersonID=219
this whole thing has become infantile.
I think it’s worth while to say a word about judgment and opinions. The reason the accusation of “facism” comes up (over-strong in my opinion – is it the same as Fascism?) is that often those with differing viewpoints are forcefully instructed that these opinons originate from weak-mindedness and indoctrination.
Recent examples would include the ridiculousness surrounding my Duchamp post on SF a while back. I submit that such accusations are greatly lacking in persuasiveness, and do the argument a disservice.
Forcefully advancing one’s position is acceptable and appropriate, provided this advancement takes the form of salient points and avoids the temptation of becoming personal. Telling someone over the age of 12 that the things they believe are the result of swallowing whole academic doctrine only serves to anger and/or alienate, and does little to persuade.
This is not about “playing nice,” although I’m a big fan of civility – it’s about giving your position it’s best shot at getting across. Once it gets personal it all seems like quantum foam at best, and schoolyard childishness at worst.
If the goal is just shutting someone up, then by all means let ‘er rip. If the goal is enlightenment and persuasion, then the message gets lost in the personal vitriol. Personally I’ve seen little of value in the back and forth, but that’s just me.
Duchamp…..are you STILL! talking about this Dave?…..thats just what we need in this discussion, its so relevant!.. Marcel Duchamp…why not add to his ubiquity? I think the general feeling at sharkforum was with all of this artist’s airtime, we really didn’t need to add to it….though you were welcome to post it……others were equally welcome to question the necessity or value of doing so.
are you kidding? it’s got nothing to do with him – it’s about the method and form of disagreement.
and you took credit, congratulating yourself (at least to me) for the lengthy discussion that ensued, as I recall.
you might also note how I BEGAN THIS THREAD -WHICH PERTAINS TO DOMINIC MOLON! AND THE MCA ROCK SHOW!…..with a detailed, lengthy discussion of what I felt the issues were concerning the exhibition…far more important to me and I believe for everyone than listening to Benji yipping or discussing your bent feelings over an artist a lot of us on sharkforum felt had been way over, (including most pointedly Lynne Warren I might add,) had been way over discussed period. And to not discuss this artist in the context of the institutional art education system is ludicrous-
.
and to claim ignorance to this universal truth concerning such, (seeing Duchamp in some type of vacumn, suspended apart from his towering influence in todays academies…) is….well what do I know..perhaps the wheel does need reinventing….
“If the goal is enlightenment and persuasion, then the message gets lost in the personal vitriol.”
“it’s about the method and form of disagreement.”
Yes.
Mistakes, mistakes, mistakes. A rather thrilling ( yet not quite engaging) monsterous pile, somehow compelling from afar, almost but not quite as compelling as “The large night in the bucket” by Baselitz.
It is a fact- that Mr. Kimler, Fitzpatrick, Brandl & what ever few acolytes these fellows have- ( ostensibly, because of the lack of open dialogue available at Sharkforum- scaring “free thinkers” or those with an opinion- away )
a problem.
Dilemma, what ever one wishes to call it, a significant problem, on their hands.
& i beg to differ Kimler- you seem to have quite the love affair for Kasso’s work, as i think anyone would care to notice if they wished to put on some hiking boots to climb the mire, of the blog. & Wilmette? Sounds like just the vacation spot for you with all you know about Wilmette.
& I am glad you are enjoying healthy excursions into fascism Marc.
I’ll offer my notion- ” Sharkforum- The New Stasi” it’s a good “joke” yes?
Must be funny to you & your sense of “pranks”-. But the difference is i am serious.
& i think, at this point, it’s obvious that Molon managed to pull off a exciting , inspiring, successful & meaningful show.
& soon, i think- i shall take it upon myself to create a diverse blog for Chicago artists- ( & artists the world over ) to share dialogues & post articles, discuss local & world issues & politics, the issues that are important to artists & those who work in the arts- & art lovers.
& of course, there will be debate. & there will be a healthy wealth of self proclaimed failures, original thinkers, mad men, logicians, street artists & graduates, etc-.
If- they find themselves so inclined.
A blog, that will as well be accessible to those who have turned away ( & will turn away ) from Sharkforum because of character assassination, or abuse.
( I can see some hands rubbing in anticipation- of attempting to assassinate the blog, even before- it’s conception )
I hear the delicious & sweet endless style & Shark drone of “NO”.
No to everything.
Well we will say, “Yes”
& some, not all, of those at the Sharkpack, sadly- will not be allowed to comment, whatsoever.
See you on the other side of the coin.