164 Comments

1. 

   TheShark on October 20, 2007 at 7:13 pm

   see Duncan, you’ve created a monster…Benji The Great!

   Where are these delusions of grandeur going to show up next? Can we dare hope for Ben Lahey to become Ben Laden?

   20 watts and, growing dimmer…

2. 

   TheShark on October 20, 2007 at 7:30 pm

   now,that the emancipator of blogdom has revealed himself to all, people! Salvation is at hand (through the will and grace of Allah that is…)

   what!, a moment in history….Duncan, how does it feel to have announced his coming?…you must feel almost like…St John the Baptist!

3. 

   David Roth on October 20, 2007 at 10:37 pm

   “…claim ignorance to this universal truth concerning such, (seeing Duchamp in some type of vacumn…”

   sigh. not even worth unpacking this, except to say that this bent rendering of my position is proof of my point above. it’s not really personal, or at least it doesn’t need to be.

   “congratulating yourself”

   dude – take a joke. i only said that because of all the shit you gave me about a little web link. talk about picking the fly shit out of the pepper.

   it’s true that some things are more important than decorum, respect and civility – there’s just mixed opinion about where that line is. you managed to respond to exactly zero of the relevant points in my post.

   and Mr. Lahey – I’d respond to your post if I thought I understood it. Seriously – you write in haiku.

4. 

   TheShark on October 20, 2007 at 11:01 pm

   Dave -I cant get back into this again, I responded to your post in just about the same way Lynne did -though admittedly, lacking her razor sharp precision in dismissing an artist who has already been way over-thought, over exposed, over deified, over institutionalized and over exploited causing him to be, over extended……

   as for your far too generous take on ‘Ben’s’ junior high school level pronouncements….well, you are always way nicer than I am.

5. 

   TheShark on October 21, 2007 at 1:37 am

   besides Dave, don’t you remember this guy with the pseudo babble, fake pompous schtick from artletter…..with nothing of substance ever being said? I didn’t recognize until the last post……

   so now..whens ground breaking to begin on your tower of babel Ben? Pardon me if I’m not one of those holding my breath in anticipation of the great moment…..

6. 

   Mark Staff Brandl on October 21, 2007 at 4:08 am

   What a mass of self-contradiction you are Ben, yelling “no no no” to any criticism you don’t agree with, using cheap-shot (and incorrect) historical analogies and then saying your targets are the nay-sayers and you will be the “yes-sayer.” More likely the “yes-man.”

   I think it would be good if you do your own blog, although there are many others already out there — and good ones too— , to which it would probably be good for you to contribute and thus save you the work of doing all the site maintenance and so on (AtStyle, Leisure Arts, ArtIdiocy, etc.).

   Yes, open commentary and discussion are needed. But with a clearness of mind which I seriously doubt you have. A simple blog of kowtowing is hardly needed, especially if you intend to couch it in your double-think (your nastiness as positive, everybody else’s as bad). I’d be more than willing to argue with you on your site — or Sharkforum if you have the courage to appear there. But you do have to review your own serious lack of logic first, whatever my own failings are.

   Dave, I like your comments, as always, especially, “it’s about giving your position it’s best shot at getting across.” Persuasion is something many bloggers (such as I) tend to forget about, simply wanting to get a clear critical idea across. I’m not certain though that it is always possible. “Argue with a fool, lest he feel that he is wise in his follies” it says in Proverbs.

   I find Ben to be the biggest nay-sayer here. VERY haiku, self-contradictory haiku at that. And I enjoyed the fight at your Duchamp post Dave!

7. 

   Ben Lahey on October 21, 2007 at 4:24 am

   “Yawn”

   Shouldn’t some people be painting?Consistently..

   From what i have seen in the month I have perused your forum, yes it’s accomplished some vital things, raised some important issues for scrutiny-.
   & there are, some great talents at your forum.

   But admittedly i have been disappointed by & found your successes tarnished by these vicious circles of diatribe at times brutally projected at others, that do not seem to help your “cause”.Reminding me of all the disregard & hypocrisy & insult from the “powers that be” that you complain about.

   People are people & if you want them to rally behind you- & your “cause” why not be democratic?
   It seems as if it’s either too much to handle-, or you truly demand that all people see through your eyes &/or that anything else is just not up to par, with your “vision”.

   There are conflicting realties at work, in your politics- of which i am not the only one, aware.

   So let’s say your work was included. Or Fitzpatrick? In some ways could this not potentially upset a great number of people? & why….

   Let’s say a woman i am pursuing, throws food in my face one night,threatens me & berates me, & as i try to escape she kicks me in the balls, leaving me whimpering on the side of the road. Not a good experience, interesting, but not good.

   & let’s say i preferred the company of my friends, over this woman & thought well i’ve got some things to work on but i certainly do not deserve that.

   & then i have a get together & she was not invited. Then, let’s say she spreads lies about me & gossips, upset that she was not invited. Then she stalks my friends & tells them that she wants me to invite her to my next party & how upset she is that i am smitten with an Italian punk singer.

   Do i invite her to my party?

   It’s this simple.

   No matter how poignant some of your causes are, people generally cannot have respect for others that spend an exorbitant amount of time “correcting”( very annoying to most people ) & disrespecting others & who lean way to far over the edge of unpredictability.
   & some of us like occasional “playful” impoliteness or the rudeness that we are capable of in certain contexts & in the moment, but it’s next to impossible to participate or cooperate or take seriously those who live by it.

   & well of course if you two- were included- then what?

   What if you were at the “Sympathy for the devil Show”?

   People- do want to have an experience when it comes to art & they do, want it to be free & immediate, meaningful, comprehensive.
   &, no matter what anyone does-or makes, there will always be a few malcontents.

   Those who invest time in learning about you- & Chicago arts- are aware of many inconsistencies on all sides of these constant arguments.

   & generally most of us i think have a preference for cooperative or aware dialogues & the work that is involved in seeing things as they are-, i suppose a sense of useful humanity. This approach is a little less, threatening & creates more momentum & participation.

   & we also desire an escape from emotional & mental novelty.

   A sincere- “rebellion” is dynamic & can bring fruition, flaws & all.

   & much of what you “battle” so doggedly & so persistently & with much insult to others, does not look like it’s going to budge as a result.
   Because you are forsaking many potential advantages.
   Perhaps do things the hard way, ascertaining which version of sincerity is the one that you find most pragmatic & authentic.

   You are not in essence- an artist for the people, in full support of their creativity and aspirations to the full & authentic degree that is required-, by your expectations-.
   Creativity, & a desire for it, is universal & individualistic, & thinkers & artists alike, are watchful over this reality.

   & your lack of tact, furthers you from your “goals”, that you claim stands to benefit all Chicago artists. It’s not the truth.

   “Sympathy for the Devil” is an experience for the people & artists of chicago-, it is an attempt.
   & Yes Molon made a few unfortunate errors in exclusion & i think it’s important to be aware & outspoken about this, but to also try and be aware of all the “politics” involved, inclusive of yours.

   In which case, many people’s observations, are something to think about.

   Haiku? David?
   Kyogen

   Forgetting all knowledge at one stroke,
   I do not need cultivation anymore.
   Activity expressing the ancient road,
   I don’t fall into passivity.
   Everywhere trackless,
   conduct beyond sound and form:
   the adepts in all places
   call this the supreme state.

8. 

   Ben Lahey on October 21, 2007 at 4:47 am

   .

9. 

   Ben Lahey on October 21, 2007 at 4:53 am

   . ( editing mistake ) apologies.

10. 

    Mark Staff Brandl on October 21, 2007 at 7:32 am

    You are right about our lack of socially appropriate tact, Ben, in the Sharkpack. And that it can get “in the way of a successful carrier in the Consensus circles;” you are right, but that is not our, or at least my, goal, nor Wesley’s as I know from many a discussion and even argument with him.

    As I stated above, there are not just two possible options for activity; dropping out or politely following rules. If I may go so far, you’re heart appears to be in the right place, but your mouth is still acceding dominance (and in fact correctness-due-to-momentary-regional-power success) to the situation as is. If you refuse to speak up, or only allow yourself to speak politely in the manner others allow you, you are capitulating, in my opinion. If you have something to say, if you have seen a truth, you must say it. And that, generally, will NOT please others.

    Sitting on the fence is not criticism, it is cowardliness. My father told me that if you never have any enemies, then you have never spoken clearly enough. If you see a truth, you must acknowledge it to free yourself, but you must also clearly state it to help free others. And may I point out that although Wesley’s Shark attacks can cause fear and anger, please read the contents. I think you’ll admit (and have done so indirectly already) that he is usually right (maybe not when he disagrees with me, which is often …. ‘cause I’m usually right … just a joke — I guess I’m Hosea to the Shark’s Amos.).

    Really! Wesley sees injustice and is inflamed by it in the old tried-and-true fashion that all prophets, political critics, heralds, even muckrakers and so on have been. (Read Nelson Algren in Chicago, City on the Make sometime! Or Amos.) He sees injustice not only to himself but to Chicago, to painters, to art, to YOU — and unmistakably and aggressively assails it. That ain’t bad!

    I am less ferocious, perhaps, but equally fierce, especially when I see what I find to be hypocrisy, sycophancy or just plan muddled-thinking. And Dave Roth is even more “measured” but quite clear in his arguements. And so on through the “pack.”

    Even Jesus violently threw the moneylenders out of the temple with a bullwhip. We aren’t all nicey-nice, at least not all the time. Well, maybe we Sharks aren’t hardly ever, but that’s our way. Much of the time we are NOT trying to convince the “enemy,” the pusillanimous consensus schemers, our “moneylenders,” but rather are trying to get others to awaken and help drive them out of “our temple.” Overextended comparison, but you get my drift.

11. 

    David Roth on October 21, 2007 at 7:38 am

    “I cant get back into this again…in dismissing an artist who has already been way over-thought…”

    ::shaking head::

    unbelieveable – you managed to utterly and completely miss the point. Here’s a hint – it has exactly NOTHING to do with Marcel.

    “as for your far too generous take on ‘Ben’s’ junior high school level pronouncements”

    actually, no. I haven’t been generous with this man at all. aside from glimmers of lucidity in his last post I’ve found him to be almost opaque. the fact that I don’t choose to go after him as you do does not mean I’m giving him a pass.

    I do, however, agree with him here:

    “No matter how poignant some of your causes are, people generally cannot have respect for others that spend an exorbitant amount of time “correcting”( very annoying to most people ) & disrespecting others…”

    Just my opinion, but I think the form of your argument does it a disservice – that’s my point.

12. 

    Mark Staff Brandl on October 21, 2007 at 7:58 am

    Sorry — I apologize in advance, especially to Basho —- I can’t resist. With all this talk of haiku and so on and after my big long novel of a comment above (which I hope you read more closely than this post), to add a silly pendant:

    Small courtier frogs in a polluted consensus pond
    A shark jumps in,
    Blood spurts — shpppriiiiits!

13. 

    TheShark on October 21, 2007 at 9:14 am

    Oh bruuther…first Ben, when and where did I ever claim to be an artist of the people? I have referred to myself as, An Enemy Of The People -in both concrete, and metaphorical terms….but artist of the people? huh?-give me a fucking break. That has about zero to do with who I am. And when have I ever claimed to stand for all artists? There are a whole boatload of artists here I detest…..I don’t stand for them -can I be anymore clear?

    -as for your painting consistently remark, only someone utterly unfamiliar with me, the vast amount of work that happens at The Sharkpit would make such a stupid comment.

    Next, your ‘dating’ scenario is simple-minded and idiotic. It also has little to do with the corruption that dogs the Chicago Art World. And besides….I’m not looking to be invited to these peoples party -neither is Tony -or others….we don’t want what they’ve got. Your make nicey-nice stance, is crap.

    Sympathy For The Devil fails on many levels. And no, I do not think it is the unmitigated, wild success you speciously and falsely claim it to be.The point is Ben, they never looked here out of force of consensus habit….it had nothing to do with anyone being insulted, cajoled or otherwise…….this is a very careerist exhibition on Molons part (read Brandl’s terrific instructions for climbing the consensus ladder -on sharkforum.)

    Next, sharkforum is not, a democracy. An anarchy of like minded individuals perhaps Is there room for debate? Yes -but, it is not a blog site. Sharkforum is an ezine with at least a partial agenda of over throwing certain elements of the scene here. We have a row to hoe so to speak. You are correct in noting there are some very talented -and here is where you miss the point, people who on many issues concerning the art world here, see it the same way. The debate has already happened Ben. You, are years too late for the party.

    As one somewhat renowned individual person at SAIC noted to me, the scene here in Chicago will only grow when the people in power here have their backs broken.

    “Do not mistake me for what I am not”….do you know the quote? Well, now you do.

    Your final comment about Molon……doesn’t cut it. Claiming the rock show here is for the people is, laughable. Its not a mistake Ben, its a culture of corruption, venal and, insipid…..which is why I chose to bring up that dreadful hack Kilimnik…..(btw note the fabulous Kinkade vs Kilimnik smackdown at sharkforum)…..and ask what are the decision making processes that inform both of these shallow, trendy exhibitions?…am I being mean to Molon? Not really, just a shark -feeding on what’s weak. I actually like Dominic…..he just needs to grow some testicles and quit mouthing existing canon formulated by others in LA and NYC.

    Mark, love the haiku!

14. 

    TheShark on October 21, 2007 at 11:44 am

    Actually, the comments I respond to above from Ben ‘Lahey’…..are strangely reminiscent of comments aimed at me in the past coming from one Victor Cassidy -hack writer who amazingly (to many) writes here on occaison/ was for a long time 1/2 of an awful pair of ‘critics’ for Art In America……but, not so much anymore haha!

    And also NOT!-any longer, for artnet………who says things cant budge or, be changed?

    Sometimes great good does come from acts of vengeance no matter how cold the serving.

    And after all, I am a cold water fish.

15. 

    Ben Lahey on October 21, 2007 at 7:39 pm

    I will not repeat myself, it’s tiring. Another forced to babble, irked.

    Sounds like you are attempting to be an artist for the people in this Swiss Sharkforum entry, Kimler:
    http://swiss-art.blogspot.com/2006/11/wesley-kimler-shark-sharkmania-for.html

    & i sincerely think that one of our issues ( those who are no longer interested in sharing the same novel shifting walls, some of you occasionally bang your head into)
    is that,
    it’s obvious to us that you all take way, way too much to task via the net-, it’s not approachable & digestible, nor is it an experience.

    This fine NY Times article might help with that.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/jobs/07pre.html?_r=1&em&ex=1192161600&en=8642108363889f92&ei=5070&oref=slogin

    Kimler & Co’s paper trail is vast & inexhaustible, overwhelming discussions & creating more confusion.

    Anarchic yes- an “anarchic enemy of the people” swamp of paper-trails.

    & Anarchy? yes- “against the people”? No, we want to work with the people Kimler, we need the people..

    It would take years to make all your diatribes & attacks comprehensive, so that one may just sit & even think, ponder & question them all.It is legitimally impossible at this point.
    You have criticisms, for many an observer, inquisitor, curator, artist, etc.
    & personal- assumptions as to the validity- of their final products, livelihoods…

    But you still have not built a museum( takes “people’s” participation, inclusion & interest- and $$ for that), nor have you gathered artists & done the work to have a significant curated show, or created an online file to represent hundreds of “overlooked & undermined” Chicago ( or Swiss ) Artists.
    & the diversity, at your forum is lacking.

    Some of your best forum talents, seem to find the most success outside- of your forum & their internet comments kept at a minimum-. & yes perhaps some of these successes are due to the exposure- from your forum.

    Meanwhile “The Chicago Art World” is chugging along & working hard, gathering in the real world, flaws & all-.
    &, there are multitudes- of alternative curated shows, art files presenting tangible opportunities that are accessible to all & fruitful & focused discussions & debates- about, Art.
    &- all this activity & opportunity is more prevalent than ever- in all of history.
    & who are you to dissuade anyone into believing that options do not exist when they do-.

    All to perhaps strive towards a movement & it cannot be forced, or prescribed.

    & there have been some incredibly important & influential successes & movements with a vast array of incredible work as a result.

    The “Black Arts Movement” did it & still has an impact-

    Here is an article of a recent conference at Northwestern-
    http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/galleries/603022,SHO-Sunday-blackarts14.article

    Krasner did it. The surrealists did it.Pop, Indian river school, Fluxus, & on & on-. Bad At Sports is a wonderful & at this point irreplaceable Chicago forum for discovery- & participation-.

    For now, i set fire, to the paper trail- .

16. 

    TheShark on October 21, 2007 at 10:29 pm

    blah blah blah…. ever considered the wild idea of writing with intelligibility?

    This is retarded- I quote you:

    “But you still have not built a museum( takes “people’s” participation, inclusion & interest- and $$ for that), nor have you gathered artists & done the work to have a significant curated show, or created an online file to represent hundreds of “overlooked & undermined” Chicago ( or Swiss ) Artists.
    & the diversity, at your forum is lacking.”

    Huh?

    The work and events that have happened at The Sharkpit from the formation of Collaboraction Theater Company, the origins of Sketchbook Festival, the numerous Collaboraction Kimler happenings on to The Hypocrites Theater Company, numerous music concerts/ interdisciplinary events, poetry events Sharkstock 1 and 2…..art exhibitions, are all well documented

    -and have nothing: ZERO to do with, creating a museum, having a curated show.or, online file….. these are not our goals, nor have they ever been…is this sailing over your head or something Benny?

    We have a very diverse and a very select group of people on the site. -We try and avoid people like you for instance -and involve ourselves with people who actually have something of substance to offer, and or, merit inclusion due to accomplishments in their respective fields.

    The whole idea of sharkforum -is about alternative options Ben. This is easy stuff…….I dont see why this is so confusing to you. Tony Fitz myself and others have been exploring alternative ways to make things happen here for years….however: if, we could have MCA function for us as MOCA functions fo LA artists as the Whitney and MOMA function for NYC artists…..it would be good.

    In the meanwhile we have sites -like Bas like sharkforum -2 very different sites…..and there are others…..I think the one valid idea your line of thinking suggests is, if you don’t like what youare seeing at one site -find one you do -or, start your own and quit whining.

    as far as repeating goes -I have been forced -by my good nature and infinite patience with you, -to repeat for you things that have been stated very clearly on this particular thread time and time again..as you seem to have a problem with either your ability to apprehend or, comprehend.

    Tedium Ben, delivered with a certain fey, insipidness in lieu of any real sophistication/ argument with substance……its your strong suite.

17. 

    TheShark on October 21, 2007 at 10:59 pm

    btw -Ben -since you are so worried about what the sharkpack has accomplished, have you figured out who David Amram is yet?

    why not google him? You see, when you do you’ll notice things like…he wrote the score for The Manchurian Candidate, was the first art in residence of the New York Phiharmonic….actually you will have a similar experience with most sharkpack members- whatever the volume of their contributions to sharkforum -they are individuals who can be described as, ‘accomplished’

    maybe rather than worrying about us/our accomplishments -which you seem clueless about anyway,……perhaps you should focus on yourself; when we have googled you, what comes up is a big ZERO….nothing.

18. 

    TheShark on October 21, 2007 at 11:30 pm

    and finally, sharkforum is a online magazine. EVERY member of the sharkpack has his or her success outside of the forum…..its an ezine dummy! As opposed to real time and analog reality…do you get my drift?…sheeesh!.. I mean what do you think or- a better question, do you think even?

19. 

    TheShark on October 21, 2007 at 11:54 pm

    Mark -when you wake up over there in the Alps, perhaps you can help Ben out with the etymological aspects and definitions of the word ….CON-FUSE….as it seems to inform his thought process to a large degree, it might be a good idea if he understood its meaning.

20. 

    Anna B on October 22, 2007 at 1:49 am

    Neither Sharkforum nor Swiss SF are exercises in trying to be wide, broad representation, Ben. It is a critical site. Please note the word “shark”. BAS is a presentational one. I enjoy and treasure both. You clearly want a happy, everybody’s okay site. Good! Go do that. You haven’t. SF and BAS are also not trying to make a museum. Both have actually done very well in attracting attention and closer attention to a handful of artists (like Leta Peer, Litsios and others at Swiss SF) and others, although I don’t think that’s the main idea. Such an idea would be a good one for a site. Why don’t you do it, rather than complaining that someone else isn’t doing exactly what you think needs to be done.

    There are now only about four people talking here and nobody seems to be listening to each other. Reading that is, for understanding instead of as a chance to shout.

    Who are you really Ben and what would you do to break open the closed and as MSB has said “mannerist academic” system? Why does criticism scare you?

21. 

    Mark Staff Brandl on October 22, 2007 at 5:47 am

    Alright, so it is lunch here and I just checked in.

    Thanks Shark and Anna.

    “Ben” seems not really to be reading the answers (mine are a bit over long) and only wants to say “no, no, no” while claiming he’s correcting the shark group for that. I don’t know where he gts his broad assumptions of “facts” from eithr. It has ben brought to my attention by two Kulturbeauftragter (something like Canton Cultural Directors/Ministers) that directly due to my “sharky” activity several shows have been given to certain artists and that they were in meetings discussing the “closed cultural clique of the curators and certain academics,” and since they, the ministers, fund it all, they are going to require more diversity and regional involvement. Pretty much a hit there.

    Yeah, I’ve probably paid personally — after a big sale of a big painting to an important bank, the woman running the curatorial committee told me that she “still” thought I was a great painter and would support my art, but “in spite of” my shark-like articles and so on, with which she agreed, she said, but that theses ideas should not be said out loud. What the hay. On the other hand, I was just invited to be in another show, in a publication, and the only artist to spaek at a symposium (and I have to do that in German). So who knows.

    But my point is, yes the Shark and his company and their/our attacks are indeed bearing fruit.

    Now I don’t want to go any further on this, because it appears that “Ben” wants it to turn into the very name-calling and so on that Duncan badly wants to avoid. And we ARE playing in Duncan’s house, so to speak, right now, so I am stopping here. You can hear me rant another time and another place (SF). And I personally will use my real name.

22. 

    Sophie Lahey on October 22, 2007 at 8:59 am

    I, Sophie Lahey, agree.

23. 

    TheShark on October 22, 2007 at 9:08 am

    well Mark isnt great that you can search out url addresses?……sure this neocon schill for the consensoriat here was able to divert attention from what was really wanting discussion -namely Molon’s stuttering explanation for a consensus correct, east and west cost weighted and informed exhibition.

    Still its not a bad thing to reiterate a few salient points about sharkforum…an entity that clearly has the attention and concern of the Kirshner clones. As it should when your days are numbered..tick tick tick…..

    If nothing else, Duncan’s recitation verbatim, of the consensus mantra as to how it was the dark ages here until Robin Lockett, Mitchell Kane (where is he now?)…..(where is she now? out of jail after ripping off The Arts Club for all of that money?) and the rest of the suburbanite cabal took over here……marching in step, punishing those who got out of line ostracizing, amd marginalizing the rest of the community here, in a way that would have put a smile on Mussolini’s lips, demonstrates the huge need for Shark Park, for sharkforum.

    A place to set the record straight.

    This thread also demonstrates what keeps Chicago small and collegiate….diverted from the very real and serious discussion of what is wrong at one of our major exhibition spaces -a constructive critique no matter how tough, discussing this exhibition and a pending one….in a substantive manner -we end up babysitting this tool.

    Moving on: I suggest people take note of the Kilimnik vs Kinkade Smackdown! on sharkforum…….and we begin the dialog as to why the wall space at the MCA is being compromised, wasted on this specious trash. Its a damned good question.

    I would also point out that this is the final week to see the drawing/photography exhibition hugely reviewed by Kevin Nance Chicago Sun Times, of The Shark and Sandro Miller at Architrouve……

24. 

    tony fitzpatrick on October 22, 2007 at 11:48 am

    Mr. Lahey– please note that I am NOT part of this discussion . Though they are my dear friends, I am not part of Sharkforum. I mostly agree with what my good friend Wesley says– though wish for a tad more civility in how he says it. As for the Chicago Art World– I don’t work there anymore.

    Please leave me out of this discussion

25. 

    david roth on October 22, 2007 at 11:52 am

    “As for the Chicago Art World– I don’t work there anymore.”

    That’s the saddest news of all.

    How did your show go?

26. 

    TheShark on October 22, 2007 at 12:21 pm

    Exactly Tony…..is there anyone here with half a brain that thinks you are part of sharkforum?

    As Tony notes, The Shark and he are close friends -we’ve fought any number of culture wars together, sometimes on the same side, sometimes not, and thus enjoy a rich, complex friendship…..

    I think Tony’s disavowal of the art scene in Chicago says it all; clearly, he’s done…and I know this from my private conversations with him; I think its fair to say he’s fed up and has washed his hands of it. Its Chicago’s loss.

    If I follow his advice, I may not be far behind….this thread here is such a microcosm of the mentality here, the inability to have change, the wrong-headed sycophancy to a group of people who have run the scene here for years -representing us to the outside as a city of only their special interest artists and little else…..

    its all quite unfortunate

27. 

    duncan. on October 22, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    OK. So, I was away all weekend and I came back to a screaming match. Interesting. Although, I’m confused about a few things.

    Mark, for clarity I’m suspicious of any attempt to topple hierarchy and establish a new, now “different” hierarchy. I accept that any scene needs leaders and that is fine. But I prefer the “the scene you have is the scene you want model” and we can and do create our own scenes here. Not a hippie-esque get stoned drop out model(sadly it is more “Field of Dreams”.) The museums here have had more Chicago oriented and relevant work in them over the last couple of years so the pressure brought to bear on the museums by projects like Shark Forum (and BAS) is having an on the ground impact and it is exposing more local talent. Change is slow and I believe that we will have to work for it by building our alternatives.

    As for Ben “…not being afraid,” you and Wesley are such active and aggressive posters that most of your old BAS based sparring partners will no longer participate. Those who have spoken to me personally about it claim two reasons; they don’t have time to match you two post for post and emotionally it just is not worth the tongue lashing they receive for doing so. So as for the “not being afraid” comment, it is that most people are thin enough skinned that they don’t like it being suggested that they are “retarded”. As I defend you to them, I defend them to you and incourage an open forum where these issues can be discussed regardless of peoples art history ideology or social clique, but I too, wish for more civility all around.

    As for my posts and fondness of Tony Tasset. Look. I’m not really sure what the “people’s history” of Chicago Art is. I know a hell of a lot more then I did five or six years ago when I left grad school but the archives of the New Art Examiner do have a record of what these people said and did, and projects like Corbett vs. Dempsey are really looking at the lost histories of Chicago art and it would be silly for me or anyone to ignore their research and results in trying to understand that history.

    I meant no slight to Ed Paschke when I mentioned the regionalist nature of the imagists work. They themselves recorded that they were working in opposition to what was going on in NYC and that their interests where in someway defined by that, not being in the center.

    In terms of Tony Tasset’s generation who seem to me a little younger then Puryear and Klement’s, both of whom are doing amazingly well and make great art… And last time I checked live in NYC. Where as I could call Dunning/Tasset/Ledgerwood and have coffee with them tomorrow. I’m not sure how these people were lionized and how the choices of the chicago art history dogma were made (in fact I’m not sure they have been, it is incredibly difficult to find records of what happened here) and I’m not defending those choices, but I’m not sure why I also have to hate Dunning/Tasset/Ledgerwood work. For me ideas that Tony was working with in the late 80 and early 90’s are still relevant and interesting. Ideas like mythology, masculinity, failure, fantasy, and the hero are all ideas that I still think about and use in my work. Tasset’s urine soaked jean are a stepping stone for me, not because it is “daring” and “dangerous” but because it is not. Why would I now reject it? Must we all maintain the same personal canons? Must we all find the same things useful? Must we all like the same movies, artists, foods, people? Isn’t the fact that people think differently what make it fun to talk to them? Should I really be talked down to because I like something different sometimes?

    And Mark we all know that all history is… “concocted, insipid, manipulated and completely fake”. It is always a story. But it does not seem wrong nor indefensible to say to that the imagist (no matter how international successful Roger and Ed were, and after all Dada, Pop art, and Abstract expressionism are all at one point regional styles) were regionalist in there conceptual interests and defining themselves as oppositional, and that whatever success the 90’s “Robin Lockett-ish” crew had, they were defining themselves as complicit with the international art world. Now, how is that a statement that is wrong? And what does it invalidate?

    We all know that Roger Brown, Jim Nutt, and Ed were insainly successful on the international and national market. THat is why they appear in text books about Modern Art History.

    I never implied that everyone didn’t know what was going on in NYC. Just that they didn’t care. Which again is the choice I would make about the SFTD show. Don’t like it? Stay home. Write a note to Bob F. and tell him why your staying home. I myself will be going back to catch the Douglas Gordon piece and have not yet seen the show fully installed.

    And Tony, ahem, Mr. Fitzpatrick… Anytime you decide to come back to the Chicago art world. I have a shovel and a strong back and will help you build anything you think we need. (And in the mean time I want to drop by and record a couple of things with you. but not for the Chicago Art World, for the Art World in general.)

    PS. I know that I am also going to live to regret this post and I’m am a little frightened.

28. 

    david roth on October 22, 2007 at 2:18 pm

    Duncan – will you marry me?

29. 

    TheShark on October 22, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    Vera Klement lives in Printers Row Duncan…….your earlier recitation of the history of Chicago Art as applies to Tony Tasset and friends is a piece of propaganda that you have unfortunately bought into…..which, I believe you honestly don’t recognize as such -you should…

    ..why don’t you get in touch with Lynne Warren at the MCA the curator here most knowledgable about the Chicago scene, its recent history, and get up to speed on this topic-I think its fair to say she will quickly disabuse you of the notions you set forth in your previous post.

    fyi Puryear and Klement and, the others I mention were all very active here in the mid -late 80’s…

    in terms of my work, you might want to ask yourself why painting that is very contemporary, conflating figuration/abstraction, realist , historical and expressionist conceits in a way unto myself, with high skill level and tons of technical expertise, is looked past for, in one instance -(whats up at the MCA right now- in terms of aquisitions from here,) colorfield painting, with a few elipses of other color -that are not only completely dated and retro, but verbatim ripoffs of the painter Larry Poons circa 1962…….ask yourself why that is Duncan ask -Lynne -or ask me and I will tell you a tale of art world politics and, corruption.

    Welcome back…..sorry us sharks are too fierce, what can I say? are we not apex predators?

30. 

    TheShark on October 22, 2007 at 3:11 pm

    btw Duncan, as for ‘Ben’ -how brave can you be, adding specious filler, never engaging in real dialog, to a blog using a pseudonym?

    also -my comments about the Larry Poons facsimile painting is an opinion shared and discussed with disgust by virtually ALL the serious painters I know here, not to mention people who know anything about contemporary painting…..less a work of art than a signifier of corruption, local art world politics, aided and abetted by the kind of flat out ignorance concerning not only the history of contemporary painting, but painting in general, that seems indigenous to Chicago, or at least to a certain group within the art world here…

31. 

    Mark Staff Brandl on October 23, 2007 at 2:37 am

    Hi Duncan,
    I think I’ve already adequately, in the posts so far, answered or commented on your thoughts, if you’ll read them. Okay — build it, … we all are, in differing fashions.

    But such an activity is not just nicey-nice. You are still ever-so-slightly tying yourself to a “it’s an all or nothing acceptance of the situation” plan. I have heard from many many supporters of our attacks — ahem — discussions, who say that they agree totally but are too afraid of the consensus artworld in Chi-town to contribute. Too bad. So Wesley (and a little bit I or David) sometimes infuriate a handful of folks — isn’t it sadder that a certain coterie has silenced droves? Or brought about a shoulder-shrugging “that’s just the way it is”? THAT is coercion and intimidation.

    Read your own vocabulary too — “defining themselves as complicit with the international art world” — What’s wrong with that? READ that — that is jargon justifying complicity, collusion, with and in your own disenabling.

    I think of the whole “School” crowd you, and Elkins, are the most questioning I have ever encountered, but in such phrase your training, not schooling, “training,” pops out. I think you are better a thinker than that. I like some of Tony Tasset’s art too. Seems like a nice guy too. (I like almost none by the other provincial Neo-Cons, just for the record.)

    That doesn’t effect the principles of corruption and its debilitating effects. And please cut the “it’s always like that everywhere” — yes a bit, in varying degrees, but the scale of such and its results and the approach and the allowance of support for contrary attitudes, — studying these allows the judging and criticism of any manifestation.

    Yeah, your desire to like more stuff can be admirable, but also a bit credulous. (I know that from my own similar tendency.) I, obviously, developed out of Conceptualism (not Neo, just Late), so my weakness for Dada is a far cry from Wesley’s absolute distaste for almost all of it. But my absolute disgust in the face of hypocrisy, — not advocacy there IS a difference—, is unforgiving.

    I promise to be more polite on BAS in the future (NOT at SF), but no less rigorous.

32. 

    TheShark on October 23, 2007 at 4:40 am

    Mark you make a great point- do you have any idea how many people have thanked me for saying something about Sympathy For The Devil?

    ……do you have any idea how many people have thanked me over the years for standing up to the consensus crew here? Its no big secret in the upper echelons how ruthless power is wielded here in Chicago. Its also no secret how uninformed and provincial some of these peoples taste is….which is why we have Larry Poons circa 1962 facsimiles/knockoffs being pawned off here as ‘cutting edge’ oil painting. Believe me, no ones buying it anywhere else.

    In terms of a major power broker like Judith Kirshner, I have had ex directors of Gallery 400 quietly offer their agreement and support concerning my positions, living in fear of her.

    I have had ex directors of specific disciplines/art departments at UIC thank me for saying something. In fact I had one major figure from UIC come up to me at an MCA opening as I stood visiting with Lynne Warren to personally thank me for having the huevos to tell the truth.

    So we silence a few people -or they don’t have the time to respond to us or perhaps we are just smarter, and better at this -whatever! Hell, the whole fucking art world here has been cowed and silenced by the academic thuggery and manipulation that has characterized so much, all the string pulling! around here -FOR DECADES!

    And one more point Mark -no one has argued as ethically and with as much specificity and focus here than the two of us. We have been and are, SUBSTANTIVE and substantial in our discourse/argument.

    Things like ‘Ben Lahey’ making ill formed, poorly thought out, completely specious pronouncements, wafting through here like a (I’m being generous) semi-literate turd…thats what mars the discourse here in my humble opinion.

33. 

    TheShark on October 23, 2007 at 1:56 pm

    A final thought on Sympathy For The Devil….some people here have boasted of it as an unmitigated success, other like myself have scoffed at this perception….well, what is the truth?

    Simple: even with all of the consensus correct artists, usual suspects, this show has obviously been declined by both MOCA and MOMA and The Whitney -and, all venues of consequence in europe….in fact this show is traveling to Miami period -not exactly a major venue. End of story.

34. 

    Abbie Hoffman aka Ben Lahey on October 23, 2007 at 10:56 pm

    I have a book suggestion for some of the Shark folk.

    Martha Nussbaum’s
    “The Fragility of Goodness” Should be interesting.
    Since i do not live on the internet i cannot address all points & most of them i have a complete disinterest in commenting on as a few are sheer distractions, delusions & manifestations of denial.
    First i’d like to comment on Roth & how his blog on Duchamp was dragged into this discussion on “Sympathy for the Devil”, as is typically the case with the shark paper trail.

    I think Conger made some great observations. & I too agree with him about- Lynne’s observations about Duchamp, as to form & the autobiographical.

    “I think one of the really salient questions generated here is “how do you define important?” If the criteria is purely historical, then we’d have to place heavy emphasis on influence, which seems a dicey proposition. Anyone care to weigh in?” good ques- Roth.

    I have always liked The Bride Stripped Bare. & Well i find it odd to make Duchamp personally responsible after his death for the great influence he had in- his time- & our vastly- differing views on his importance now.
    I think the focus lays in his time & then the rest of the answers follow as well as some interesting perspectives, pro’s & con’s & all.

    & Kimler, I am a huge follower of Kienholz & i think there should be more retrospectives of their work, especially now. “Back seat dodge 38” has quite a history, one that makes sense at- battling conservatism, as much of their work did & still does & should.

    & why don’t i post all this at Sharkforum? Because I do not believe in censorship & no matter how viable & successful some of the issues are-..& i also do not support character assassination, or occasional abuses of power. It’s fundamentally unethical.
    I mean it is 2007, some of us take a while figuring this out but when we buy those energy efficient light bulbs it all starts to make sense. Global Warming, is no secret.

    & i also appreciated Roth’s Blog on Auang San Suu Kyi. Which recieved 0 comments.
    Here is a link where one may sign a petition in a global campaign to free her-.
    http://www.actionburma.com/

    & ah yes the Sharkstock-
    So your “curated” Sharkstock 1 & 2..

    Photos of beer bottles & unnamed artists…& it’s a philosophy? you say? Not, a party??
    Not a show that perfectly fits the socialite, diarists life? Rubber gloves, fins & all?

    & what is, this philosophy?
    World domination? Ha it’s a “joke”.

    & fighting conservatism- in the establishment & cultural institutions, is nothing new. Sometimes, however, they are replaced by equally detested frauds.

    & some of you are hardly authentic Marcusian’s, ever read one dimensional man?

    We are, trying—— to reach a TRUE— Democracy.

    & for some emphasis on the Molon show-

    The Beatles, Lennon, most of the members- captivated & still captivate, influenced, their time- profoundly.I think the magic element for them as a band, was an appreciation for awareness & original thinking-.

    It’s next to impossible to have a Beatles, or Lennon, now- & it’s changing thankfully ( Radio Head , GREAT example of beating the “conservatism & powers that be”) but, it’s next to impossible for original thinkers to sublimate because many just analyze everything death- drowning in distraction-..
    While radio head beats the system, peacefully & just taking a very simple & original risk ( Yes I know Npr does this as well ).
    & I along with many cannot stand- the corporatization of everything, inclusive of the arts.
    & all our present day desensitization & distraction, is the perfect nest for hypocrisy & denial-which is another troubling trend ( Iraq ).

    Original thinking & thinkers- engage people so well, because it awakens original thought in all people & ourselves & it’s an invitation to possibility- and an example of this is as mundane & as tangible as discussions with a child-.

    & Consideration is as well vital- whether it’s for some of the talents in “Sympathy for the Devil” or Duchamp, or within the contexts of our own lives- we need our underdog’s & failures- & the amazement that comes when our underdog’s & failures are sometimes-capable of tangible social & cultural heroism.
    & Original thought attracts original thinkers so easily- because it invites possibility & our own original thinking & this is also when we follow & lead each other.

    Nothing is free of error- error is highly underrated as a viable concentration- it’s about consciousness- otherwise we’ve got nothing to stand on-especially when we are so caught up in Hyperreality-.

    & i think the greatest works of art & our most profound philosophies are the result of original thought-, a germination & digestibility, that results from awakening the psyche into action.
    There has to be something to work with, if you analyze the meaning of cobalt to death, you will never use it.

    & i think the greatest works of art & our most profound philosophies are the result of original thought, a germination that results from awakening the psyche into action..
    & i think Grace Lee Boggs, is correct, that great new shifts are about to happen & i think there will be more appreciation for original thinkers & more- authentic & unbiased, factually informed -.
    Leadership for us to find ourselves nurtured & reinvigorated , mobilized, in facing a world of war, the destruction of the environment, lies, hypocrisy, the power elite-,-etc-.

    & in more positive discoveries- the evolution of the sciences & technology, achieving a true democracy & raising more awareness about human rights- on & on.
    All the issues that many genuinely- care about & make work about-. & it is, these sorts of consistent digestible dialogues- that are what make a difference-.

    We are moving away, from the “me me me me” age ( which also brought back a huge resurgence of “God” based faiths ), to be nursed & rendered in EGO is becoming quite boring & facile.
    Even individuals who are not empowered by “groups” & “authorities”spend a great deal of time meditating & researching & acting on- & representing these important & at times very inspiring issues.
    Anyhow.

    Kimler says about sympathy for the devil, “MOCA and MOMA and The Whitney -and, all venues of consequence in europe” & i suppose you won’t be wasting time finding great flaws in these events- instead of investing more time in developing the pro’s of your group & your philosophies? The overall meaning of your shows, a relationship between the artists shown & your own work.

    & will you be criticizing other Contemporary museums, for not getting into MOCA MOMA & the Whitney? & MOCA

35. 

    Abbie Hoffman aka Ben Lahey on October 23, 2007 at 11:03 pm

    & thank you BAS for being such a informative & truly liberal forum, with many talents discovered via your blog-. It is a rich experience, which i have benefited much from.

36. 

    TheShark on October 24, 2007 at 2:30 am

    Dear Abby,

    Herbert Marcuse was a Freudian Marxist. If you are going to talk philosophers, it might be a good idea to know what you are talking about.

    Why don’t you post this at sharkforum? How about because we wouldn’t let you post this unfocused drivel there – and besides, we’re fascists remember?

    One moment you are calling us thugs -the next moment you’ve got your face pressed against the window, whining about joining us….it aint going to happen so just drop it.

    Yea right, Abbie Hoffman the highpoint of his life being hit over the head with a geetar by Pete Townsend and thrown off the stage at Woodstock -meet the new boss Abbie.

    Ed Kienholz was a friend of mine. As a matter of fact a very large scale painting by The Shark hangs in his studio to this very day.

    Backseat Dodge has an antiquated sense about it at this point -however some of his other pieces from that time -Illegal Operation
    ,The Wait, State Hospital are still very strong -funny you pick the one very well known piece of Eds -like you really don’t know (as usual) what you are talking about.

    When Ed came here to do ‘The Art Show’ in 1985 and wanted to use local emerging artists for the installation, (in lieu of his own paintings,) he was appalled at all consensus crap he was chauffered around to see..finally after days of looking at the consensus crew, the usual suspects here, he asked to look at some real paintings…….I was featured in that exhibition along with Michael Hoskins, Matt Straub and others….

    Eds widow and creative partner Nancy Kienholz as I mentioned earlier on this thread – not that you actually read it dear Abby, shares many of the attitudes The Shark argues….and shares, from our most recent conversation, a similar distaste for the international consensoriat cabal.

    As she noted, the only good thing is, Ed is dead and doesn’t have to see it.

    I walked Nancy Kienholz into the opening of the retrospective at The Whitney, an exhibition that was in the works before Ed died.

    Ed Kienholz is buried in a Packard automobile up on a hill out side of Hope Idaho -Beyond Hope as it is known. One day many years ago Ed and I sat in that particular packard (he owned three of them)..and he said “what do you think of my coffin”…I thought it was pretty swell.

    And finally -have you looked up the word CON-FUSE yet?…..you seem to ascribe all of these goals and aspirations to sharkforum, that have zero to do with the site. And besides, since you are so disappointed why don’t you just get of your specious butt and do something about it create this mega site about everything for everyone you keep threatening like a complete idiot…..though skimming over your swamp of muddled thinking, that seems highly unlikely.

37. 

    Mark Staff Brandl on October 24, 2007 at 2:50 am

    I liked your last comment a lot “Ben,” er “Abby,” er “D” or whoever — don’t agree with all, but it was very interesting. I think you should post comments on SF too. I personally promise to try to not be too nasty. Especially if you use your real name. (But then you’d have to warn me, as I have the tendency to be aggressive almost immediately without always noticing it). (Now the Shark’s reactions, that’s another thing you’d have to discuss with him — but that’s just a part of his winning personality!)

    Dave’s posts ARE great, as is his art and music. And his and all SF post gets tons of readers, if not always posted comments (we’ve got trackers on everything to see the real number of hits and readership and so on).

    Also, lots and lots of people write us personal, private emails about the posts, but are unsure of hemselves and such, thus not wanting to go fully public. Going fully public — with your real name — does indeed take a lot of courage. I considered using a psdeuonym at first, but then changed my mind.

    I think we have battered this show rather to death here, so as I said, I think we can get on to others. Yes, we Sharkpack people, with co-workers in NYC and London and Berlin and Switz and elsewhere, including some heavyweights much much bigger than me, have discussed and have planned a concerted, repeating effort to criticize consensus blindness in many places. Keep your www-eyes open!

38. 

    TheShark on October 24, 2007 at 2:58 am

    -and is it that hard to be halfway accurate Abbie, Ben La-hooha -whatever

    “first i’d like to comment on Roth & how his blog on Duchamp was dragged into this discussion on “Sympathy for the Devil”, as is typically the case with the shark paper trail.

    uhhhhhh……Roth brought it up – too much of a strain on that 20 watt bulb you’re packing to go back and read what was said?

    as for all the utopian (talk about tired) babble going on, I do believe you have announced yourself and blown your cover-and yes, aside from the fact that your paintings completely suck, we found your meandering long-winded/ nonsensical writing style an embarrassment and absolutely censored your silly ass on sharkform. Send us some more, we will gladly accomodate you again, the censor switch is pumped and, primed, and me, with that itchy trigger finger!

    Why don’t you write Damian Hirst another letter suggesting you direct him in a collaboration- between him and your unknown, talentless self?

39. 

    Mark Staff Brandl on October 24, 2007 at 3:15 am

    Oh no — Amy is it you again? Oops maybe better forget my offer!

40. 

    TheShark on October 24, 2007 at 3:51 am

    I quote myself:

    “as for all the utopian (talk about tired) babble going on, I do believe you have announced yourself and blown your cover-and yes, aside from the fact that your paintings completely suck, we found your meandering long-winded/ nonsensical writing style an embarrassment and absolutely censored your silly ass on sharkform. Send us some more, we will gladly accomodate you again, the censor switch is pumped and, primed, and me, with that itchy trigger finger!”

    yep!…..Mark, -bullseye…..”SHE”S BAAACK!”…..

41. 

    TheShark on October 24, 2007 at 4:07 am

    -I should have made the connection earlier with the Rikki Kasso references-

42. 

    David Roth on October 24, 2007 at 6:01 am

    Just a quick note to note that California’s burning.

43. 

    Arthur Dent on October 24, 2007 at 9:13 am

    “TheShark Says:
    October 24th, 2007 at 3:51 am

    I quote myself:”

    This is the most humorous thing ever posted on this blog. Wesley cites himself.

44. 

    TheShark on October 24, 2007 at 9:18 am

    who better?

45. 

    Lacy on October 24, 2007 at 10:17 am

    Meet the new boss… Same as the old boss.

46. 

    TheShark on October 24, 2007 at 10:57 am

    Well! Now that I’ve officially been declared a fascist, I should probably try and be a good one. No?

    Sharks are kind of militaristic if you think about it…..all that armament and everything…..

47. 

    Richard on October 24, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    Wesley,

    I thought you had been declared a fascist long ago…why do you feel particularly declared a fascist this time?

    R

48. 

    TheShark on October 24, 2007 at 1:08 pm

    Richard, you’re right!…..I don’t know what got into me!

    I…I.. guess I’ve lived inside this sharkskin for so long, I forgot I actually was one!

49. 

    Mark Staff Brandl on October 25, 2007 at 4:58 am

    I see you, Wesley, more as a prophetic-corrective shotgun anarchist. In a sharkskin.

    By my count, Richard, Duncan only made two “cock-out rock on” type comments. For rock n roll that’s pretty tame and rather appropriate.

50. 

    Richard on October 25, 2007 at 8:39 am

    Keep in mind I probably edited out 50000000 other cock comments. Duncan was in rare form.