210 Comments

1. 

   William Conger on May 29, 2007 at 2:38 pm

   Yeah, about 10 years ago I saw a few of the Shark’s collages and liked them. I liked the way he sliced and spliced them, usually all black on a messy white surface. Thery had just the right pitch of disdain for neatness but also just the right exactness of placement. I told him I liked them and they stuck in my mind. What Shark doesn’t know, perhaps, is that I was making painted paper collages and painted canvas collages back in the later 1950’s (and do them now, off and on ). Some of these were shown in NYC (Great Jones Gallery) in 1960, a show arranged by Elaine deKooning, who I had befriended earlier and who, along with Robert Mallary, aided me. Like almost everyone else of any ambition, I was doing AE stuff in the later 50s and looking for a way out, other than pop, or Duchamp routes– who at that time was still the parlor-game prankster of the art world. I hated the lightweight pop stuff but I liked the chaos of the Happenings and Rauschenberg’s sculpture, and there was, for a time, a kind of free for all messiness mixing painting with conceptual beginnings, installations, you name it. I think any artist of my age or era was imbued with a “do or die” (said to me in a very particular way by Miyoko Ito) attitude about art. Even today, when Shark insults my paintings as “academic ” or whatever, he doesn’t know that they always begin in the same way as I began a painting 50 years ago, messy, intuitive, painterly, and build from there toward a distanced sort of rigor that seeks no approval from others but has earned its own life. Academic art is made from the outside and has no inside, no deep genesis. If Shark can’t see the life and vitality in my work, then he’s not looking past his mirror. It’s not influence that I picked up from the Shark’s collages but a recognition of kinship, a full-fledged faith in the impulse for rightness. In a similar way I liked Ed’s way of “touch” painting, his most deiicate and refined way of marking the canvas that always exposed his deep sympathy for humanity in pain and was never sentimental. There are so many Chicago artists who have made important art and I’m happy to have been able to acquire some it now and then. I’ve admired art by people I admire, by people I don’t admire, and by people who don’t admire me or my work. I’ve never had one crumb of reciprocal support from many artists or critics I tried to help with jobs during my years in academia, or others who assume to be in charge, and I don’t seek it. (Besides, in academia, no one person has authority to decide appointments….there are many voices that decide). So, I’m keeping the Tomato piece on my wall, together with several other artworks Shark might despise. I’m for art as the real condition of humanity and for those who are good enough to show it and see it. I fully agree with the many people here who think the scene has been tilted toward a narrow taste. My feeling is to let that taste be and widen the scope of what’s going on. Let’s see how things stack up when all the players are really on the field. As for ridiculing other artists, count me out. I’m so damned happy (even surprised) to still be here, working in my studio — when I’m not bothered by angry fish, even if their collages are good, and memorable. Sheeesh!

2. 

   tony fitzpatrick on May 29, 2007 at 3:58 pm

   William, Wesley,– you guys are on the same side…now lets make up, c’mon now….big kiss.

3. 

   The Shark on May 29, 2007 at 4:25 pm

   The Shark knows you ‘borrowed seriously and copiously from him at one point and no amount of historical flim flam is going to change that fact Bill! Admit it! I opened up the Tribune one day and said to myself, “self, what is your work doing here in Alan Artners review column..only its not quite as good..”….I don’t ridicule other artists Bill -just the frauds posing as artists…well maybe except for you….but you chum the water, put on a big seal suit, clang the dinner bell and jump right in!…what do you expect from The Shark?

   You should throw that rotten tomato thing out on principle:in honor of all the artists who were thrown away to make way for this dreck-

4. 

   David Roth on May 29, 2007 at 4:38 pm

   “William, Wesley,– you guys are on the same side…now lets make up, c’mon now….big kiss.”

   Nice image Tony – thanks for puttin’ that one in my head.

   and Wes, my friend, I’m compelled to ask:

   “I opened up the Tribune one day and said to myself, “self…”

   When you talk to yourself, do you answer back? If the answer is yes then please call me right away.

5. 

   The Shark on May 29, 2007 at 5:45 pm

   How about changing the subject to something less pleasant; I know! Lets talk about Erik Weazel!…

6. 

   David Roth on May 29, 2007 at 6:19 pm

   How about we go back to the conversation about community? It’s way more interesting than the “your mother wears army boots” dialog.

7. 

   The Shark on May 29, 2007 at 6:50 pm

   Oh, this is about community Dave; this is about people like Tony and me observing yet another generation coming up of provincial, kiss-butt toadies, wondering where is the payoff for sticking around for yet another chapter of this-

8. 

   Mark Staff Brandl on June 1, 2007 at 2:13 pm

   … stay tuned …

9. 

   BAD AT SPORTS EDITORIAL on June 7, 2007 at 7:53 am

   The above postings were not by the Justin Chin whose work and character were questioned by “The Shark”.

   I once again beg of you you not post as artists who have a living and active connection to the Art World.

   We for the moment are going to assume that it was another Justin Chin. But if not, please, knock it off. It is very serious and we are very concerned about it.

   REALLY… I’M NOT KIDDING.

10. 

    Mark Staff Brandl on July 4, 2007 at 10:42 am

    Ya gotta admit, though, 209, well now 210 comments ain’t bad.