download
Special Correspondent Tony Fitzpatrick interviews Time Out Chicago’s Ruth Lopez about just about everything. It’s an engaging and insightful conversation. Duncan and Richard chime in now and again.
The show closes with further proof that if there is an obscure musical tidbit in Tony’s past, we can find it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Robert
Cozzolino
Tony Fitzpatrick
Ruth
Lopez
Artropolis
Time Out Chicago
The Reader
Fred Camper
Chicago Tribune
Sharkforum
Version Festival
Alan
Artner
Deb Sokolow
Hyde Park Art Center
Olympic Games
Michael Bloomberg
Millenium Park
Cloud Gate
Picasso
Donald Young
Bodybuilder & Sportsman
World
Tattoo Gallery
Armory Show
Paul Klein
Wesley Kimler
Stray Show
Paul Morris
Matthew Marks
Susanne
Ghez
Takashi Murakami
Robert Crumb
Vanessa Del Rio
Richard Gray
David Klamen
The Art Institute of Chicago
Dan Devening
Zak Prekop
Martin Prekop
MCA
Museum of Contemporary Photography
Lauren
Weinberg
Hans Hoffman
KN Gallery
Alfedena Gallery
Edward Gorey
Gertrude
Abercrombie
DePaul Museum of Art
Corbett vs. Dempsey
John Corbett
I- Space
Duchess
Old Gold
Volta
David Bowie
Kehinde Wiley
The Whitney Biennial
Giorgio Morandi
Marlene Dumas
Peter Schjeldahl
Damien Hirst
Wes Mills
John Graham
Alfred Jensen
Joseph Cornell
Kurt Schwitters
Louise Bourgeois
Carl Hammer
Rhona Hoffman
Pierogi
The Clayton
Brothers
Camille Rose Garcia
Mike Kelley
Ed Ruscha
Steve Earle
Rush
Direct download: Bad_at_Sports_Episode_90_Lopez-Fitzpatrick.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
btw -what happened they finally can you from the painting schlepping job? Couldn’t do that either huh?
Ok, I’m getting a little bothered here…. So, I tried to get in on artletter but somehow my registration was “lost” and Paul not able to validate it, so he asked that i register again with a different name (besides my own – Olga) since mine was aldready taken and lost. Whatever…So here’s my beef, which i can’t post there so I’ll just post here. Public art program situation….Again, it seems like I just have to repeat again and again what the CAC is, and yes, it is also an advocacy organization.
For this issue, here’s what we’re doing: I have emailed the DCA people in question asking them to rethink their position and make the process more transparent, getting all the commissions out to the art community, not hiding them somewhere on their website, and getting a committee in place again. I have also let them know that we will ask all our members and constitutents to contact their aldermen and discuss this issue with them. We are covering it in the newspaper, in the June issue of ArtNews, and in a full-length article in the July/August issue, complete with interviews with Scott Hodes, DCA, Public art commission staff in other states where the model is more transparent, etc.
It would have been nice for this effort to be coordinated – like i said before, strength in numbers. Meaning, someone could have called me and said, “hey, what can we do TOGETHER for more impact?”. Just another example of how, due to hubris, we are fragmented as a community. Be it.
Duncan -Richard call me immediately -you have a ‘problem’ on your site.
am i a problem, sharkie?
No Olga, there is another situation on the site having to do with ‘Billy’ -not his real name- nor am I his actual target-its being taken care of.
This may be a little off topic, but all of this talk about the CAC made me think of something. Over the years, the CAC has done a lot and still does a lot for Chicago artists. I have noticed though, a negative mentality of some of the members. I attended a couple of the critiques this year and was disappointed at how some of them viewed their work. When shown on the screen, a good number of them apologized for the lack of quality in the images. In each case, they stated that the colors were washed out and spent too much time on apologizing for the poor quality. It was as if they were trying to deflect criticism or were establishing a reason why they can’t get anywhere (“My images suck, so that’s why I don’t get anywhereâ€). I can’t say for sure why, though, but there was a lot of apologizing for bad images in both critiques. In some cases, it was not necessary because the work was good. It was about the confidence level of the artists in presenting their work.
In the most recent critique, when my stuff appeared, it seemed to go over well. When I blabbed on about the work, I was stopped by one artist and asked if I noticed a problem with my images. I said “No. There is some ambient light that’s washing out the colors a little, but you get the idea.â€
I guess what I’ m trying to say is that if you are or want to be a professional artist, stand up for your work. Don’t get embarrassed when its displayed before an audience.
highschool antics and insecurities…
“highschool antics and insecurities’…and a stalker, right ‘Billy’?…..
NOTE TO ALL:
Take the personal shit outside. Seriously.
Fight, argue, scream, insult, but take personal accusations and grudges somewhere else, I am not interested in that BS here.
I love you all. I do. But go elsewhere with the personal stuff.
R
Bill, the CAC Salons are an opportunity for critique, including self critique, for all artists. I was at one salon you intended — the one at the Cultural Center. Some people’s documentation images were not good quality (putting aside the work itself) or could have been improved, and it’s good for those artists to see that, especially since slides/digital documentation is a primary basis on which jurors, etc, will judge/screen the work. I don’t remember if your images appeared washed out or not, but I don’t think you should be taking offense that someone thought they apppeared washed out and commented. As for artists standing up for their work, sure artists should defend their work, but where there is room to learn and improve, they should do so and they shouldn’t be afraid to look for and see places in which they might improve.
BAS is a great forum and the interviews are stimulating and good for the whole art community. The current podcast with Tony Fitzpatrick and Ruth Lopez is terrific. But it’s always an embarrassment when the responding commentary is hijacked and driven into scornful and childish name-calling that has nothing whatsoever to do with the podcast topic.
I admit I know almost nothing of CAC (but recall providing CAC meeting space when I headed DePaul’s art department in the 70s). Reading Olga’s comment’s here, good-humored and smart in the face of pointless attacks, urges me to suppose that the CAC is good for many artists.
And Tony and Ruth’s podcast demonstrate that it’s very possible to express tough-minded and yet civil, optimistic, and nuanced thoughts.
It is also very possible to separate an artist’s effort from his or her work. One can admire the effort but not the work; one can admire the work but not the effort. The aim of criticality among artists ought to focus on making both the art and the effort admirable. As for judgment, which is worthless when accompanied by scornful denunciations and personal insults — or by obfuscatory flattery– it might be good to keep in mind Thierry DeDuve’s comment that regarding the quality of new art, the jury is always still out.
Olga,
Could you email me at [email protected]
duncan.
Dee — I thought that the artists were overly self-conscious about their work. It seemed that most of them had been working for some time and should be beyond that. I didn’t see any bad work there, despite the image quality. Really, most of the images weren’t that bad. I noticed that the moderator fed off of the insecurity of the artists and became increasingly critical of the work. He seemed to be empowered by the negativity.
You’re right, though. It is a great opportunity to learn and better one’s presentation. I hope that one of the things that artists learn is to be confident in talking about their work. I’ve been guilty of it many times, myself. We’re our own worst enemies sometimes.
But at least Olga makes CAC seem to be ALIVE — even approaching Wesley and other critics, openly discussing here, arguing etc. I give her some major props here!
Back when I was in the WIndy City 20 years ago, CAC was a sleepy sleepy group of well-meaning folks who appeared to be more hobbyists than enything else. You keep up the discussion and pushing like this, Olga. More power to you.
I don’t think BAS’s Blog gets hijacked William — more like it swerves off ever-so-often in childish, anonymous, cowardly attacks, (e.g., yeah you Billy-boy, fake posts, etc., ). But the more serious people here always bring it back. Even when they are sometimes also aggressive (like me, BallZ, Shark, etc.). I find BAS and Sharkforum’s extended battles good for art, thinking about art and taking a bite out of complacency and nicey-nice obsequiousness.
It is truly illustrative, that those who get most childish and least conten-oriented are clearly those who feel most threatened by actual critical thinking.
Fair enough, Bill. I was happy to see so many new faces at the salon at the Cultural Center; I hope more artists continue to come to the salons. I think the next one with Dan Addinton moderating at his gallery June 14 (info on CAC’s website). I do think artists should show confidence — and coherence — in talking about their work (if they won’t, how can they expect others to do so); by coming to the salons, I hope practice makes perfect for those who are less comfortable. I thought in general the moderator’s comments at the Cultural Center were apt and constructive, whether he was empowered by negativity of not. The part that annoys me is when artists get unduly defensive (I recall one or two did); if you come for criticism and get it, ask questions for clarification, take the feedback, and move on.
Well Mark I agree with you -yes the posts can get tough and personal and this is the internet -where you can find all kinds of creatures
still, I would rather have the wide open bazaar of the internet than the dry, dull, academic tedium that in my opinion Bill Conger expouses
both on and off canvas-
The fact is Dee and Olga -if you were to seek to make CAC relevant in Chicago’s art world, in a serious manner -you would have to change its underlying premise and have some form of standards for what you put forth under your auspices.
Now the way it is, most of us won’t get involved because of the low caliber of art that gets shown and promoted through CAC. Personally, I think you should change: let the sunday painters, hobbyists and wannabees go elsewhere and focus on the serious artists here-
CHANGE THE NAME ! its tooo COMMIE sounding! We have the Chicago Arts Club -why not The Chicago Artists Club?
Every IS starts out as a WANNABE; I don’t think a service/advocacy organization should be deciding who is ENOUGH to benefit from its services/advocacy. I think in the long run it would be a mistake not to help artists at different stages navigate the art world, and information/resources is not the place for exclusion. So we disagree. It is a shame when artists (I don’t mean you) who seem to be looking for information/resources won’t look one place where there is information and resources. I would change the name if it were solely up to me. I personally don’t like Coalition, but Club is worse — I can see “club” going along with dismissing those who belong and take advantage of the CAC’s services as hobbyists 🙂
i can think of a better word that starts with an “a” billy doesn’t have time to stalk anything. billy is a working man, and happy to admit it. in spite of roger payne’s poignant treatise on why we work, his ‘age of leisure and plenty’ hasn’t come upon us common folk because of blatant consumerist activities like purchasing overpriced, bad art. there’s got to be some figuring done to get us all out of this jam we’re in…
One other thought … different venues meet different market need. I doubt the folks buying art at the Old Town Art Fair are the same ones buying it at International Art Fairs (for the most part at least) and the people buying art through their interior decorators probably aren’t the same market group either, more or less. In any case, they are not looking for the same things. Different artists choose to meet these different market needs and making money doing it — doesn’t make them non-artists.
Why don’t you use your real name then and put down your website info so we can all get a good look at who is doing the talking. Or shall I do it for you? Talk about case being closed!…..you want to talk about mediocrity/utterly generic, beginning conceptualism 101? sheeesh! This is truly first year art student stuff -at best! Go ahead put it out here for everyone to see -that is, if your intentions are so honorable….
I like the resume’ part….oh wait a minute! you did’t actually show work at those galleries or that museum….you worked at the reception desk! As A CLERK. On a resume”? Its hilarious.
of course you would take the positions you take in order to justify nonexistent aesthetics/ skills or anything of interest -to justify the jam you’re in.
Dee, ‘Club’ is good -I was thinking of the original club in NYC founded in 1950 -where you had to be voted in by your peers……and no, it was not that exclusive -but it did provide for a modicum of discernment. A modicum that CAC desperately needs to have any credibility here.
Aw, Shark, all those darn hobbyists would vote each other in.
that’s pretty good, wes.
Shark shouldn’t call me Bill Conger on the list because there’s an actual Bill Conger who is an artist and curator — no relation and a very interesting fellow. It’s unfair to abuse him when in fact the Shark means to insult me, a painter who obviously does not need Shark’s approbation. My friends do call me Bill, to be sure, but Shark should be specific when creating hard enemies for no sensible reason. My name is William.
‘the Conqueror’ no doubt…’Emeritus’
shhhh
it doesnt mean you’re smarter than me, mister
“… there’s got to be some figuring done to get us all out of this jam we’re in…”
Now, THAT is a real, and important statement, Billy. Try and stay at that level.
I don’t like “Club” or “Coalition.” The first sounds Country-Club-like, the second ad hoc. I also think you guys gotta get away from those “CACA”-sounding names.
That being said, Prof. Brandl has no real idea as to WHAT to change it to —- sorry……..
Chicago Artists Guild (as in the Renaissance-Baroque times)? Chicago Artists’ Service Organization? Artists Organization of Chicago? Updated and made all capitalist trendy — Chicago Art Business Consultants, Inc.? Made really commie — Chicago Art Liberation Faction? The Art Justice League of Chicago? ChiArtOrg?
I’m getting worse by the minute.
Mark -taken out of context, this sentence you quote is fine -out of context that is…. -don’t encourage this stuff -and try and be more aware of whats going on in terms of what the nature of the conversation is -the boosterism has its moments where its appropriate -and others, where it simply is not.
-I like club myself -for the reasons I’ve previously stated -having said that, as long as there is no criteria for membership to CAC other than claiming to be an artist, CAC will remain what it is….which unfortunately is not of a whole lot of use to serious artists in Chicago.
How about ‘ Chicago Artists Union’– we could be like the Teamsters.
We could be like the Teamsters– if anybody fucks with us, we could blow-up their cars– enough of this pussy art-world.
tony’s right. my daddy’s a teamster!
if we’re gonna be a union, the artists and all, do we have to put paint on our noses before we get photographed?
The CAC supports Illinois Covered – You should too!
URGENT ACTION ALERT
CALL YOUR SENATOR NOW
1-888-801-4426
Tell your state senator:
– Vote YES on SB 5 Illinois Covered
The Senate is expected to vote on SB 5 “Illinois Covered” TODAY. Call your Senator NOW. Every call is important. Make sure our senators show leadership in passing this bill that will prove access to affordable, quality health care for all Illinoisans.
If you don’t know the name or district number of your state senator, visit http://www.elections.state.il.us/DistrictLocator/AddressSearch.aspx
Don’t wait, pick up the phone right now, and dial 1-888-801-4426 and tell your state senator to vote yes on SB 5.
I’ve been on the phone today with aldermen throughout the city to encourage them to really reconsider the Public Art Ordinance that was proposed by Daley, and which was deferred and published for 30 days at the request of Aldermen Munoz and Flores. I think you guys should pick up the phone and call your aldermen too, and ask them to support Alderman Flores’ amendment to the ordinance, which as the CAC suggested, would put the burden of responsibility on the DCA to make public all the commissions by sending them out to organizations such as the CAC, and re-instate the public art committee, which should be composed of community residents and art professionals.
Please email me with any questions: [email protected]
“How about ‘ Chicago Artists Union’– we could be like the Teamsters.”
–with a cool union hall on S. Ashland with 4′ thick reinforced walls on the ground floor.
Jesus but this shit can get insipid. Wes I’ll never understand why you waste your time with such nonsense, or why you expect any good to come of it. At the same time I just can’t understand why people still get so enraged at Wesley’s behavior – don’t we all know by now that he’s irrascible? Move on or ignore it, but for the love of god people – grow some testicles! If you’re going to rip into the guy at least have the courage to use your real name. Otherwise you just look like a punk. (and Billy – you make licking ass sound like a bad thing – who knew?)
And this is not for Wenzel, whose site I frequent and have little problem with, aside from the fact that he’s made some hyperbolic claims which have gone unsupported in the past. I often find myself disagreeing with him, or scratching my head, but so what? I’ve asked him to submit work to Sharkforum in the past, and he politely declined. Perhaps that’s best… But let’s get it started – stir it up, and get the conversation rolling.
The thing about CAC is that it seems to be carrying water on both shoulders – the advocacy function is right on target and most definitely needed. The trouble, it seems, is when exhibitions or presentations may take on the impression of some form of credibility or official imprimatur.
My students often get wrapped around the axle on this one. When i show my photo students pro work that they don’t appreciate they immediately want to know why it’s legit. It’s a fair question, but it’s not a fair first question. That question ought to be – “how is legitimacy confered?”
Whenever an exhibition is presented there is the presumption of some form of superiority assumed. Even a middle school talent show suffers from this. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I just don’t see why this is a problem. Let the CAC continue to be an open-door operation taking all comers. So what?
When mediocre artists present their work to a blinking public they’ll find out on their own just how tough the art world can be. The whole issue of gatekeepers, whether consensus-hide-bound or “alterna” is a moot point in at least one respect – art is about judgment and descimination, and someone, at some point, must make a judgment.
We can argue about the fairness of such judgments – there’s a real conversation to be had there, and it often boils down to who stands to gain the most. I for one refuse to accept the premise that all opinions are made equal – some opinions are more learned, informed and honest than others.
But so much work that is offered up these days as legit is utterly and completely context-driven, with little or no allowance for the funciton of the human experience in the origin of all art. Instead we see an awful lot of what I’ve come to refer to as art for blind people. (I say this as a very big fan of Duchamp, Artschwager, Oppenheim and others…)
I remember a BAS podcast some time back where someone said “I like Puryear’s work, I just don’t know what to say about it.” This is hardly grounds for dismissal of artwork, but it does call the rubrics into question. Since when is the value of work wholely reliant about a didactic analysis? The pursuit of meaning is noble and human, but some things “must be passed over in silence.”
Sorry for the side bar, but they seem related. We’re living through a battle between the empirical and the theoretical. I think we need a harmony of the two, but one of them is way more humane than the other.
PS – Workman I love the idea you’ve laid out, and would be happy to blurb it on Sharkforum if it’s helpful. It’s similar to my take on how the Artist’s Project could be improved – have a jury pick 5 top-quality artists and give them a chunk of change at the fair, with the understanding that next year they’ll have a place to show the work.
The whole issue of representation is a knot, which is why I asked Mark Falanga the question at the meeting held at Wesley’s studio – “how do you define representation?” This isn’t MLB, NBA of NFL. I’m with those who say it should be wide open.
billys got big ole nuts of steelbrass, and a sweet dick on top.
Thanks for sharing Billy. Anyone want to have an adult discussion about art, or anything else that matters?
and by the way – what’s steelbrass?
Interesting, David. My two cents… I’m don’t think every form of exhibition/presentation carries an suggestion of superiority — if it’s known to be open and unjudged/unscreened, it’s hard for me to see where a suggestion of superiority comes from, other than I suppose the exhibitor feeling confident enough to exhibit. Once one purports to judge, then of course, there is an imprimature, and a question of what the standards are/were. How is legitimacy confered? Initially, and not the least of which, is by the artist him/herself. After that, it’s the rest of us deciding whether or not to accept the legitmacy by whatever standard we employ, and somewhere along the way, consensus emerges. As you say, a mediocre artist presenting work will find out on their own just where the consensus is on the work they offering. Since there are ways apart from the visual and the merit of the work itself to impact that consensus in the short term, a fair bit of mediocre work (my opinion) enjoys momentary consensus, but I doubt it will stand the test of time. I know why I like Puryear’s work — I can look at it and look at it and look at it. Fairly simple-minded, I suppose.
Dee,
Not simple-minded at all. Do we agonize over the laws of attraction? Of course not. Personally I’ve got no problem with the notion of the CAC presenting the unjuried work of it’s members, provided the powers-that-be at CAC understand that they may not be taken seriously as representing the finest Chicago’s got to offer.
This may be more an issue of branding than mission – I dunno. But the reality is that some amount of legitimacy is conveyed upon work that’s is exhibited anywhere – it’s a matter of degrees I suppose. Legitimacy and superiority are not always the same thing of course – the Sex Pistols were legit, but as technicians they weren’t superior to, say, Led Zeppelin. I think the meatier question is one of context, and how it relates to comprehension, hierarchical organization and value.
Real legitimacy, of course, is conveyed in a variety of ways. But the whole game here is profile and credibility. How does one advance such essential career interests, and what is the caliber of the company you keep? I’ve done one show in NYC, and it was an embarassment, because it was a co-op on either Prince or Spring, and there was a ton of work, must of it >b>god awful. Yet I was thrilled to do the show, mostly out of a sense of desperation and ignorance.
What’s disturbing to me is the trend toward the abdication of presonal responsibility for the control of on’s own context. How many times do we see people bloodthirsty for gallery representation – any gallery – and they honestly see that as the penultimate goal? Artists, as I’ve said before, need to take back art. We’re seeing it happen already, and it can only be a good thing. I’m for more voices as opposed to fewer, but I think we need to return to an acknowledgment that some work is better than others.
hey Dolan – I think you missed your calling. you are one funny mofo.
“I think we need to return to an acknowledgment that some work is better than others.”
I agree. Is an art-enthusiastic journalist the best voice for lending judgement? What about an artist, who often promotes his/her friends to the death? Surely not a dealer. Critics preach press release garbage. Academics can possibly sort this shit out after we’re all dead. Curators rarely go near it until a collector already has it. Collectors! money talks..
Well Dave -with Wenzels snarky remarks about two people who have offered you substantial support -namely myself and Tony Fitz, over my dead body would Erik Wenzel ever publish on sharkforum-
Look CAC is basically irrelevant to the scene here -which Olga seems to be aware of- no doubt why she has contacted me looking for ways to get the organization to be taken seriously-which I have responded to by suggesting that there be some kind of criteria as to what constitutes being an artist to gain membership -CAC is known now as an all-inclusive hobbyist organization -to its own detriment -with some benefits professional artists can acucess -like health insurance for instance. Otherwise, it is not taken seriously.
One of the things I have suggested is you Dave and Mark Staff Brandl -each writing a piece for them -I have done this hesitantly as I do worry about a reasonably serious site like sharkforum being involved even momentarily and peripherally with an organization like CAC-
In terms of how art gets judged, look at people like Tony or myself -those who have persevered and, flourished. Having a serious career that has spanned several cites requires that people be compelled BY THE WORK….its always been an ironic enjoyment for me to watch members of the consensoriat here fall flat on their faces in LA for instance, where for me, that has not been the case. Nor has that been the case for any really substantive artists -Martin Puryear or Tony both being good examples.
Well Dave -with Wenzels snarky remarks about two people who have offered you substantial support -namely myself and Tony Fitz, over my dead body would Erik Wenzel ever publish on sharkforum-
It was before all that, and you and I had discussed it at the time.
In terms of how art gets judged, look at people like Tony or myself -those who have persevered and, flourished.
Of course, and as we’ve both observed in conversation it’s in large part because the two of you are so careful to manage and control the context in which your work is considered.
Because art is essentially a monastic pursuit any sort of organized consensus is antithetical to the pursuit of real quality. And I’m increasingly convinced that it’s really essential for artists to be somewhat removed from the hive mind of society. Here’s a bumper sticker for ya – Consensus Kills Creativity.
The way I see it artists – real artists understand their culture by understanding themselves and vice versa. You’ve got to be removed from society to do that. It’s a weird yin yang thang.
OK – no brown-nosing lapdogs on sharkforum……now that I have been asked to consider how CAC could be improved, (though I really think its a fool errand and, a hopeless situation,) I would offer certain services that could still be made available to all -while the actual membership could have some kind of intelligent criteria-
–
Where and how one exhibits one’s work clearly matters — I am not saying otherwise; these are choices artists make, and different stages, artists can make poor choices, depending on what their end game is. And, sometimes, just wanting to get the feet wet and the work out there can be part of the genesis for poor choices. That’s exhibition, not information, resources, etc, but I won’t belabor the point. Clearly, some work is better than others, which long term tends to prove out (at least I hope so). Making art to cater to a perceived momentary consensus is, well, pointless.
OK – no brown-nosing lapdogs on sharkforum……now that I have been asked to consider how CAC could be improved, (though I really think its a fools errand and, a hopeless situation,) I would offer certain services that could still be made available to all -while the actual membership could have some kind of intelligent criteria-
The Artist Project should be wide open -my main worry being that members of the consensoriat will attempt to rig the jury as they do everywhere else here and foist there crap upon us all once more-