210 Comments

1. 

   BillDolan on May 25, 2007 at 11:03 pm

   “hey Dolan – I think you missed your calling. you are one funny mofo.”

   Thank you! You’ve all been beautiful! Good night!

2. 

   Mark Staff Brandl on May 26, 2007 at 2:25 am

   I think all your points are quite importnt Dave R. Maybe we need to do a post specifically on Artist Project Improvemnets and one on CAC improvements on Sharkforum, to accumulate the ideas (there are some good ones at the Art Letter now too). Especially as this BAS blog here will fade when this weeks show goes up.

   An important point to add is that yes, Consensus is our plague right now (my term “Dictatorship of the Consensoriat” is here applicable), but total inclusiveness is not the answer, and neither is elitism based on un-earned priviledge.

3. 

   The Shark on May 26, 2007 at 3:14 am

   sharkforum is not the place to fill with suggestions for CAC Mark- period.

4. 

   The Shark on May 26, 2007 at 4:37 am

   Look, fellow sharks; we have spent far too much time right here on this thread trying to fix something that really is what it is -CAC…..its fatal flaw is, that its foundation is grounded upon the dregs of Chicago talent -one look at the artist pages confirms this..we at sharkforum and BAS have bigger….hmmm….’fish’ to fry -and I would point out to you – CAC is at least to my way of thinking part of the problem -due to the fact that whether by design or not, it promotes mediocrity -I’m against it.

   If they want to become more relevant, let them figure it out -we can throw them a bone by having you Mark and Dave contribute some editorial to them on a I would suggest, a one time basis and then lets move on…..

   You can’t make a horse out of horseshit -if they are happy with where they are at -so be it.

5. 

   Mark Staff Brandl on May 26, 2007 at 7:00 am

   Ctually, personally I am far less interested in the CAC than in ideas for Artist Project or AP-like ideas and improvements. I think the Fair and such energy needs to be redirected more than other things.

   Perhaps you are right, WK, and you yourself should do an interview with Olga to be put up on the CAC site about YOUR ideas concerning them, as the extent of our Shark-involvement. I don’t really know anything about them, other than the “old” CAC when I was in chicago, which did not interest me at all, and the fact that Olga seems quite competent and interested in moving ahead.

   But I am quite happy with my involvement in Sharkforum and BAS as my Chicago activities.
   I need to do more therein anyway — especially as I think Richard and Duncan and Amanda seem to be rather overworked and since we have big plans and changes and activities already planned for Sharkforum and Sharkpack stuff.

6. 

   The Shark on May 26, 2007 at 7:44 am

   well Mark I have had my say with the CAC thing…I was hoping you hadn’t noticed I was trying to pawn off that writing chore on you…….besides, you are so much nicer than I am…

7. 

   David Roth on May 26, 2007 at 9:11 am

   One post recommending improvements to either CAC or AP would hardly fill up SF. I say it fits nicely with our goal to be a spur for change, Mark should write about it if he’s got something to say – let’s hear it.

   As for my writing anything for CAC, I’d have to be asked first.

8. 

   Olga on May 26, 2007 at 10:34 am

   wow, i cannot believe how snobby you are, sharkie. And your posts sometimes just look plain angry. At one point you say that the problem in Chicago is not the CAC because it is irrelevant completely, and then you say that we are part of the problem because we promote mediocrity. I’m really sorry I even bothered you – I had no idea that you guys would spend so much time discussing the CAC’s inherent problems when you don’t even seem to understand the underlying premise – we are a service orgnanization, pure and simple. I really wanted to get true feedback and real ideas, practical and informed. But instead I’m getting anger.

   Paul Sierra and Kimberly Pietrowsky have online galleries, and they do because it provides them great visibility. We advertise the online galleries in art publications throughout the nation and people from all over come to them to find Chicago artists and also buy, commission, and otherwise engage Chicago artists. Just because there is a majority of mediocre art does not mean that the service is irrelevant. I don’t even know how you can conceive of this.

   And Chicago needs a service organization. There are plenty of exhibiting organizations from art centers to galleries to museums, that focus on Chicago’s finest, it is not our duty to do that. The CAC’s duty is to provide the infrastructure for a successul art career, whatever that career looks like in the eye of the served. And like i have already said, each member can use the services that are most pertinent to their needs, at whatever level they are in their career. Some don’t need to access our listings of art reps, they might need only our grant lists. Just use what you need. And if you don’t need anything, then you are really someone we all need to idolize…..

   So, MSB and DR, I guess Daddy Shark won’t let you play in my sweet waters – he wants to keep you in his salty seas. Oh, well. So be it. That’s fine.

   But I do want to leave you all with the understanding that the CAC is here to provide support for those, all those, who need it. And support comes in the distribution of information, workshops teaching artists how to market themsleves, create a portfolio, prepare their taxes, maintain a healthy working environment in the studio, copyright and freedom of speech panels, etc, access to the Online calendar to post your event with artwork and websites (all users can use this feature: http://www.caconline.org/calendar.asp, and so many other services.

   The Art Open is in no way an exhibition that has the pretense of showing the 300 best artists, but as its title states, is open to ALL artists who apply, members or non members alike. And I just want to be clear: many of Chicago’s upcoming artists have exhibited in the CHicago Art Open – the Sorg brothers, Greg Stimac who has a 12″x12″ show coming up, and so many others whom I don’t have the time to mention. Collectors buy here, and artists get the opportunity to show off what they’re made off – it’s up to the public and collectors to judge, but the CAC provides the opportunity.

   Anyway, I just started a jurying panel last year at the Art Open, as i had done at Around The Coyote when I was director years ago before I became a mommy, and they will select 30 artists as Curator’s Choice. Some of them will for usre get represenation in Chicago and this will loead to other career developments. This is what our goal is – we don’t do the deciding, the galleries and the buyers, and others providing the $$$$ do. We offer tha platform.

9. 

   David Roth on May 26, 2007 at 12:15 pm

   “So, MSB and DR, I guess Daddy Shark won’t let you play in my sweet waters – he wants to keep you in his salty seas. Oh, well. So be it. That’s fine.”

   Let me be prefectly clear on this – fuck that. I know I speak for Mark when I say that we do what we want. As Wesley will no doubt tell you, SF is a group of people – not one person. He’s made that clear both here and elsewhere.

   He doesn’t pick my friends, and he sure as shit doesn’t dictate what anyone can or cannot write about. While I don’t blame you for having this misconception, I want to be perfectly clear – don’t saddle him with that, and please don’t place the rest of us in a position of subjegation. My reaction may seem overstrong, but it’s only because I’m growing weary of this mythology.

   I won’t hijack this thread with a long spiel about SF and why it works, but suffice it to say that the profile, credibility and cultural vision that Wesley brings are only one part of the story.

   And just for the record, Olga, I personally have no problem with what you’re doing. My posts above were only meant to break apart the issue, nothing more. The observation that CAC may be operating at crossed purposes is not meant as an indictment, or even a definitive declaration.

   I’m not in the practice of espousing strong opinions regarding subjects in which I have incomplete knowledge. Self-empowerment is a good thing, and artists, like everyone else, should be able to support themselves and occupy a role as productive and constructive members of society. To the extent that you accomplish that I applaud your efforts.

10. 

    David Roth on May 26, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    offered purely in the interest of levity:

    my sweet waters

    is a lovely double-entendre, even if unintended.

11. 

    Olga on May 26, 2007 at 1:44 pm

    pertfectly intended, of course. my compliments…

12. 

    Mark Staff Brandl on May 26, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    Thanks to Dave Roth for the clarity. As you’ll note by the vociferousness of Dave’s response, not only does Wesley not tell us what to do, he doesn’t even try; he’s not like that (really!), we wouldn’t listen anyway, and we all discuss even our disagreements out in the open, unlike our Favorite Targets, the Consensus Clique. WK just speaks strongly, that’s his way and indeed his strength.

    But he does it in the open and he is the driving energy behind Sharkforum, but the rest of us do just as much in our own ways — Roth works like a madman on the site, I’m one prime poster and probably work the longest on each piece, — etc. and similar points concerning all others there, like Lynne, Simone, Nick and some of the newer members, everybody — we all have our own huge individual and individualistic chunk of Shark-dom. That IS, in fact, our major point.

    I am definitely STILL intending to do an essay for your publication. Although it may have Sharky content. What content exactly, I don’t know. I’m still contemplating various options. And I can’t really concentrate till after my huge two-day-long Latinum examination in June/July.

    I thought you had already asked Dave, as I believe you told me, or I imagined or something. If not, then it would be a good idea. It would also be a good idea to have a discussion with Wesley about CAC and put it up on your website and let others comment.

    I meant, in my last post above, that I really know almost nothing about CAC and can’t comment on it. I think such a discussion could be fruitful, though, even to those uninvolved.

    I will most certainly NOT be writing such a piece for your publication (what’s the name again?). As I said to you, when I do something for you I will do something more theoretical, albeit probably heretical to standard poststructural theory. That is MY strength and joy.

    Part of our discussion lies between the lines here. We have talked a lot about what each site should have as a profile, so to speak — what are the strengths of each. As websites get away from being “My Homepage Blog” stuff into more important magazine-type entities, with the huge listenership of BAS and the massively-huge readership of Sharkforum, we don’t want to water them down. It is increasing important to concentrate on the strengths of each site and not just have them scatteredly mimicing each other all across the board.

    I’m a mountain Shark but also sometimes like sweet and sometimes salty waters. And very often bloody ones.

13. 

    Mark Staff Brandl on May 26, 2007 at 2:18 pm

    …. And my primary activity is PAINTING. I’m a visual artist. I make this stuff, I can’t just order it from the yellow pages like a Neo-Con-Artist. And I have shitloads of work with my Phd stuff, my teaching and Art in America.

    My chief affiliation is to Sharkforum, which inspires me the most and helps drive my art, and then BAS, which is just so darn fun (as compared to the Glossies, etc.). So anything else I write will come afte that long list. But I do usually find time.

14. 

    Olga on May 26, 2007 at 3:16 pm

    Hey Mark – it must be 11pm in Helvetia. What are you doing in front of your computer on a Saturday night? We’ll keep in touch about that piece – no pressure. We have quite a few writers lined up for the next few months, so we’re OK. The publication is called Chicago Artists’ News. Here are the current issue’s headlines:

    Major and Minor:
    Media Coverage of the Arts in Chicago and Beyond
    By Janina Ciezadlo (Reader writer and critic)

    Steve Mumford: An Artist in Iraq
    By Victor M. Cassidy

    Is Re-Enchantment of the Art World Possible?
    Some musings on the April 17 School of the Art Institute day-long panel on religious art, ‘Re-Enchantment’
    By Victoria Martin

    Perspectives: ‘The Road’…to More Meaningful Art?
    With Corey Postiglione

    and comprehensive listing for calls for entry, exhibitions, opportunities, etc.

    Also, I’d like to find out from Sharkie what current Chicago artists he either admires or believes to have real promise, and why he feels that he is underappreciated. I mean what woluld he like to see that he doesn’t see happen for his career…A solo MCA show, sold out shows in LA, commissions, repute, stable collector base…What’s not happening?

15. 

    The Shark on May 27, 2007 at 1:10 am

    Anger huh? The Shark feeds at his leisure….what may seem terrifying or filled with anger to you Olga is in fact, a casual dining experience for The Shark.

    Victor Cassidy, Corey Postiglione? You really know how to pick em -I’m almost afraid to ask who comes next-

    Look, you pander to the lowest common denominator -either by choice or design or by some other reason -it doesn’t really matter why-bottom line, you want to be all things to all people and in the end. it costs you any kind of credibility.

    I am not all that angry at my situation in particular -I have worked hard and enjoy a good, working situation as a painter…..I’ve written and spoken for so long about the things that bother me in the art world here -most recently concerning the Driehaus grants -on sharkforum -that I don’t feel the need to reiterate them once again…..

    Believe it or not, my frustration has most to do to do with the fact that for the last 20 years or so, the fix has been in- and, how that has effected the art community here as a whole- not just me personally….the consensoriat cabal has had there way -and, it has been an ASSAULT ON LOGIC and, AESTHETICS…..but now, we have the internet and finally, the gatekeepers are losing their grip on power…this, is good news for almost all of us. Almost.

16. 

    Mark Staff Brandl on May 27, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    I have never felt that Wesley’s criticisms (or mine, for that matter) are specifically about HE himself not getting something or other — look at our Shark attacks. They are about the “fix” as he just said, and how that has created a mannersist, sophistic artworld increasingly self-satisfiedly absent of quality. Many many many other peopel find this true as well; I’ll make no list, but let it be said that when he or I or others do such criticisms we get uncountable emails and so on in agreement — many of which are from very “important” and well-known people in the artworld.

    If I may be so seemingly “idealistic” it is about TRUTH. It has been said by certain poststructuralists that situations do not in themselves suggest alternatives, I greatly disagree — I have said it before and still believe that “EVERY “IS” SUGGESTS AN “OUGHT.” Especially in such servile, clearly KC times as ours.

    I was asked this very question after I wrote a page filling article in an important Swiss newspaper criticizing “fixed” and secretive curation/jurying of certain shows. Shows IN WHICH MY ART WAS INCLUDED. It is about telling the truth(s) and trying to promote what is right and most of all what is great art. If those of us who have some success don’t chirp up, who will?!!

    Yeah, I should have a one-person show in the MCA, etc. But I am in several museum collections and so on. However, MOST OF ALL, I — and Wesley too as I understand him — would like to go to shows as see great stuff, including our own, — great art with which we would want to compete, art which we want to see, things we want to think about (and with). And unfortunately this is very often nowadays not true — to say the very least!

    It has also been suggested to me that an artist must simply accept everything as it is, learn the KC rules so to speak, and go along for success (which, per definition is sophistry) or “drop out” entirely. This is NOT true. There are many many many other and far more productive strategies. Best of all, operating in the system to some extent, enough to have a voice, and then CRITICIZING it.

    In many ways, Wesley’s attacks (and I hope mine too and other Sharks and similar folks) are in fact FOR YOU, for other artists, certainly for art.

17. 

    Dee Fox on May 27, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    Thanks for giving me something to think about. I have a question…. when, in “the art market” sense has there not been an element of “fix”/insularity in the process because the cynic in me suspects it more or less has always been there, just involving different people. It’s never blind if done by invitation/curation; it’s hardly blind otherwise when work becomes recognizably that of a particular artist. Do you mean that we don’t know who the curators are, and hence who to hold accountable for the selections? If the work is poor, facile, or mediocre quality, the market eventually ought to turn INS into OUTS as long as artists are not passive about getting their work out there by whatever means they can.

    If the value of the work is to be judged BY THE WORK, why is there any need for explanations, something we seem unable to resist? The practice of telling people that if they do not like/appreciate the art, think it is art, etc., they just don’t get it or incapable of getting it (which may be true or not) and would/should if they could better understand (enter here a growing importance of theoretical explanation) seems inevitably to devolve down to shallow one liners – which we get whether we care for the work or not or whether it is any good aesthetically – and complicated art that needs to be accompanied by pages of thesis to “get” — again whether we care for it or not or it is any good.

18. 

    David Roth on May 27, 2007 at 4:31 pm

    Dee,

    I would suggest we all consider the music industry as a cautionary tale of what could be. If we’re not careful we’ll be even farther down that road.

19. 

    Dee Fox on May 27, 2007 at 5:54 pm

    David, the caution — the potential for well-marketed blandness abounds, etc. is well taken, but it seems to me that the art market/world stratifies in a markedly different way than the music industry. Perhaps I am wrong about that. How much art has mass or broad commercial appeal (beyond graphic and commerical art). Video, perhaps… Anyhow, if art world/market generally always has been insular — (and audience stratified), should the criticism of resulting blandness accept the insularity model and poke at the particulars, or should it poke at the distribution model instead?

20. 

    David Roth on May 27, 2007 at 6:34 pm

    I don’t think there will ever be a parallel in the distribution model, as people consume art and music in much different ways. I think my point is that the music industry has skewed toward fabricated allure and not-so-subtle pandoring which is the result of people only attending to the bottom-line.

    It’s a question of priorities – but considering the sameness of how much is out there it’s clear that there’s a parallel in the “choosing” part in each world.

    Once upon a time I held the fantasy that dealers were well-funded esthetes with a broad and deep knowledge of art history. Even if those people once existed, they seem to be sorely lacking these days, at least on average.

21. 

    Richard on May 27, 2007 at 10:10 pm

    Holy shit. I leave town for a few days and blammo the blog explodes!

22. 

    David Roth on May 27, 2007 at 10:15 pm

    We always talk when you’re gone.

23. 

    Dee Fox on May 27, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    It seems to me the more open the general arena – i.e, a framework that promotes less insularity – the more room for real competition based on the work itself to ferret out the good from the bad, the great from the merely good, etc., rather than based on the choices of some set of choosers. At the same time, it feels somewhat inevitable (if for no other reason but efficiency) that we end up with gatekeepers narrowing the field at any given moment in time. If they narrow it too much, resulting in sameness, the answer has to be to open the field back up, doesn’t it? I wonder the extent to which absenting of qualitative standards and deconstruction for the sake of deconstruction left the field ripe for momentary marketing to co-opt; in any case, marketing, however engrained it seems at the moment, has a shelf life. The test of time seems to me a fairly good one.

24. 

    The Shark on May 28, 2007 at 12:53 am

    Dee there is a difference between ‘choosers’ as you put it, and a sense of discernment and, reason.

    Lets put it this way, since being a serious painter for instance takes approximately the same amount of involvment, dedication, skill and talent as say, being a neurosurgeeon, lets follow the CAC model and just say that everyone has a little neurosurgeon in them somewhere -lets keep it open -only time will tell who was good and who wasn’t! Have an aneurysm, a tumor -look no further than the person sitting next to you!

    It insipid and lame. And, it is the way CAC operates which, is why as an organization, it is not taken seriously in the art world here.

    -where you may have a few professional artists on your gallery site, the fact is most of it is amateur and not very good -and it doesn’t take a brain surgeon -nor time, to figure that out -sheeeeesh!

    The problem here in Chicago in terms of the market -is first of all, one of certain people in academia attempting to influence and promote their ‘product’ -in various ways, via The ‘Ren’, -biennials, Documenta, LOCAL GRANTS-, local collectors etc. all, where as I have mentioned many times before, certain art educators, in cohorts with a small clique of people here have way more influence -than say, any curator from the MCA does – its like having a fox in the henhouse -no pun intended.

    There was a great fury here when Lynne Warren included people like me, Tony Fitzpatrick -and others in the Art Chicago 1945 -95 exhibition while omitting certain member of the consensus clique -that it wasn’t a party line exhibtion -a promotional tool. People coudn’t believe it -when Lynne acted like a real curator and not a partisan art educator.

    Lets face it -long after that insipid one-liner junk Gaylen Gerber …does he even make it? -is relegated to some dusty basement, (actually thats where it resides for the most part now-) Jim Nutt, Ed Paschke and others will be remembered, be influencial, their work valued. How interesting was it to see Roberta Smith give Ed Paschke such a moving obituary -stating that what really held him back, was staying here -where, I might add, he was treated with disrespect by so many of the minnions -the Erik Wenzels of their day- and by certain artists here -the consensoriat -who, since their work is so poor, must promote themselves from some post modern/fake Duchampian conceit ‘painting is dead’, I’m a co-OPERATOR’….those aren’t brushstrokes -those are anti-ejaculatory marks’…etc

    You want to know what is what? Take one of those moronic grey paintings -how about one of the ones where he put a can of paint in a brief case with a canvas and kicked it down some stairs -put a piece of sophmoric junk like that up on the same wall with a Paschke or a Nutt or a Fitzpatrick or a Kimler, or a Donald McFadyen…its pretty simple to see whats real and what isn’t- what do I really think? To quote Jed Perl when describing another, far better artist than this academic panderer, “he is a bullshit artist masquerading as a painter.”

    Chicago has slid off the international map – during the same time period that Kirchner and the consensus regime came into and wielded power. Coincidence? I think not. These are the people who ironically enough, are provincial and parochial -and they have promoted and sold a version of what is important here that fits their sensibilities. And here is the worst part, we have let them do it!

    Chicago needs to be international on its own terms -this is OUR time…..I am for a complex, multifaceted scene here -there is even a place (in my mind at least,) for the academics with all of their bland, innocuous, inanities….but this doesn’t mean we need art educators to tell us what has currency or, to consider every hobbiest that shows up on the CAC web pages to discern what is or may be important.

    The art market right now is precarious: I was having a conversation with a contemporary art dealer – more powerful and international than any here in Chicago I might add, who said to me -concerning the Chelsea/NYC based market of the moment ie 72 million dollar silkscreened Warhols “Wesley, put your money away -save it!, this thing is out of control -its going to crash”

    We here in Chicago are not part of that market. All Chicago artists -even those at the top of the heap make what is certainly far more reasonable amounts for their work…..any Chicago artist that goes up at public auction, is not going to sell for the retail value of their work. Its just a fact. What I want to see is more artists here be able to make a living off of their work -like I do -like Tony does……a richer, better scene -in every way. All the things that made NYC great have left it; what remains there is a marketplace driven by speculation mostly the financial machinations of a group of vulgarians… IT IS OUR TIME….lets resolve to have a more serious scene here in out city, lets create our own art world, our NEW ART CITY! -where AESTHETICS -as defined BY THE ARTISTS! are the paradigm, what is valued. Believe me, if we do this, have the kind of discourse I am describing, people will pay attention. And maybe artists will even gain back their sense of propriety and self respect.

25. 

    Mark Staff Brandl on May 28, 2007 at 2:56 am

    The Pop-music scene as a cautionary tale — great point Dave.

    Good job answering, Shark! See what I mean? WK clearly describes the situation AND gives ideas for its improvement.

    And Dee, don’t fall for that “oh, it has always been so” mumbo-jumbo. That is what toadies and sophists always try to make you believe — yes, there have always been problems, there have always been power elite. But, as an example — a group of well-educated, aesthetically advanced and COMPETING art-collecting, artist-financially supporting cardinals (as in the Baroque) is much different that a tiny group of middle-brow consensus backstabbers. The only comparable times were the Mannerist Academy and the French LeBrun Academy shortly before the revolution of Modernism.

    My suggestion to the Neo-Cons for a a good work: Put a few of the “fixers” themselves in a case and kick them down some stairs and then exhibit their bodies, while secretly writing gushing, sophomoric love letters to an older art dealer woman behind your wife’s back.

26. 

    The Shark on May 28, 2007 at 3:22 am

    “My suggestion to the Neo-Cons for a a good work: Put a few of the “fixers” themselves in a case and kick them down some stairs and then exhibit their bodies, while secretly writing gushing, sophomoric love letters to an older art dealer woman behind your wife’s back.”

    More proof that Great White Sharks do hunt in packs!

    And btw Mark -The Shark has clearly and doggedly described the situation here with more acuity and with greater concision than anyone else, for a long time now. All the while, offering a vision of how things could be in Chicago.

27. 

    The Shark on May 28, 2007 at 4:30 am

    what we are discussing here is, and I quote -author unknown; ” human values against the established order’

    and then, -author known;

    There must be some kind of way out of here
    Said the joker to the thief
    Theres too much confusion
    I cant get no relief
    Businessman they drink my wine
    Plow men dig my earth
    None will level on the line
    Nobody of it is worth

28. 

    David Roth on May 28, 2007 at 8:07 am

    just a quickie:

    “marketing, however engrained it seems at the moment, has a shelf life”

    the problem is that people have a shelf life as well.

29. 

    David Roth on May 28, 2007 at 9:52 am

    author unknown?

30. 

    Dee Fox on May 28, 2007 at 10:07 am

    Hmmn, where in what I wrote did I ask you to consider what art educators think is current or every piece of art (or for that matter, any of it, on CAC’s website — we view CAC differently… I take it for what it is — a service organization that does not purport to gate-keep). There are plenty of mediocre doctors, even neurosurgeons out there; their credentials are indicia that they put the time in, have some modicum of intelligence, etc, not a guarantee that they are particularly good at what they do. If I had an aneurysm, time-wise, I suspect I’d have no choice but to go to the nearest hospital and hope the neurosurgeon there was in fact good, not just well credentialed. A tumor – I’d have more time to check around, check records, get recommendations, and do whatever other research I felt would help me choose. With art, one has time to look and won’t die if they get it wrong.

    The hold of the French Academy’s was broken by challenges to its standards and to the validity of specialness of its insularity, and in the end, by great artists (accompanied by, I am sure some not so great ones) pushing against it and rising outside its grip. By all means, rise up. It isn’t the list of credentials that distinguish — it’s the work. I don’t think looking at any particular view of what is “current” nor predicting what will be “current” is the way to create great art, regardless of the particular arbiters.

31. 

    The Shark on May 28, 2007 at 4:24 pm

    You didn’t ask Dee -I described for you how the market works to some extent here in Chicago. CAC can do or be what ever it is you people who run it want it to be -just know that almost every artist I know here in Chicago avoids it like the plague.

32. 

    Dee Fox on May 28, 2007 at 6:55 pm

    Actually, I don’t run CAC, Shark. I did serve on the board a couple years, along with Jerry Haussman and others. At any rate, the questions I was asking and the points I was making went beyond CAC. To the extent you responded to the the larger points, I appreciate it.

33. 

    The Shark on May 28, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    Dee, actually I was far more specific with my response than were the questions you posed -but, you can always go to sharkforum.org and read more blogs from The Shark -where I have written extensively about any number of art world issues that I find interesting -I would also suggest you read Jed Perls piece Laissez-Faire Aesthetics -also on sharkforum- and, I might add, an essential read of the moment seems to be Perl’s discussion of mid-century Manhattan, – New Art City with its ideas of ‘heroic determinism’ and the evolution of essential form, not to mention, the discussion of concerns as to how artists related to society and the idea of a complicated fabric of individuation as a societal definition of artistic freedom-

34. 

    Justin Chin on May 28, 2007 at 9:01 pm

    So why is it that the Bad at Sports blog keeps getting turned into a pity party for The Shark? Doesn’t he already have his “forum” via which he can air his conspiracy theories? It’s as much a “forum” as Bill O’Reilly offers a “no-spin” zone – they occupy about the same level intellectually as well…if being intellectual means macho posturing and pompous indignation at the “elites” who are holding back their morally superior agenda. They both remind me of those villains from superhero cartoons that complained about the “fools at the lab” that didn’t recognize their genius. The formula is quite obvious – anyone who agrees with me/supports the work I like is smart and honest; anyone who disagrees with me/does not support my work ,or that of those I admire is corrupt and part of a cabal. Pathetic. If ANYTHING makes Chicago look irrelevant or “small” as compared to New York or L.A. it’s tolerating the inanity of a washed up wannabe “SERIOUS!!!” painter like Kimler. He failed in L.A. and he’s failed here, but it’s someone else’s fault, it’s the gatekeepers, it’s the academics, it’s the neo-cons, it’s the small minded conformists, blah blah blah…And now The Shark gets to show how tough he is, by ranting some more about my role in the conspiracy against him and all his righteous compatriots, by blathering on about how he IS successful, just not as successful as he could be if the various boogey men of Chicago didn’t hold him back, by issuing veiled (or direct) threats of physical harm, by reminding all of the “krill” what a BIG BAD shark he is…I mean seriously, what kind of an adult calls himself “The Shark” except one wracked with insecurity, frustrated with his artistic and intellectual impotence, and wallowing in his irrelevance to any real arena of discourse (like one he and his friends didn’t make themselves – like when the dorky, unpopular kids start their own club to show up the smart, popular ones)? Sorry Wesley, but you’re going to die in obscurity no matter how many rants you issue on blog comments…

35. 

    The Shark on May 28, 2007 at 10:14 pm

    Poor Justin Chin (speaking of washed up)…lets see: how, have I failed here in Chicago?……or how about LA or San Francisco? -OH, thats right, your ad hominem attack here has nothing to do with reality!

    What a jerk, not to mention just a plain fool.

    Lets see: I have done two LA exhibitions -both virtually sold out shows. Both shows were reviewed, with one of them being pick of the week in The LA Weekly -is this what you meant by failure moron? I am now in the midst of planning further exhibitions in LA along with doing a major painting project involving a number of large scale works there (which btw -I feel confident I’m being paid more for than you Justin will ever earn off of anything aesthetic in you entire life.) The art critic at the LA Weekly Doug Harvey is not only an admirer of my work, he is joining sharkforum as an editor. A very large scale painting of mine just went up on exhibition at the Weisman Museum at Pepperdine -along with many of the other painters from the Venice scene…is this what you were referring to?

    I have exhibited extensively in the bay area both with Ivory Kimpton, Kay Kimpton and Paula Anglim. Where my work has been widely collected -including the Berkeley Museum.

    Here in Chicago I do not require nor want an art dealer. I make a comfortable living as a painter and have had extensive coverage of my work in the press over the last several years -as anyone who isn’t a total and complete imbecile would know. They would also know (or with half a brain make it a point to know, (especially if they were goint to attempt an attack upon me, duh!) that along with this I exhibited a major piece of drawing at the MCA over the last year that was more than well received. They would also be aware of the very large scale public work I have accomplished her in the last few years, the fact that sharkstock 2 was the official after party for the Chicago Art Fair -that it was a huge success, and that what I’m in the midst of now is creating a series of paintings to be used by the great Alejandro Escovedo for his next recording with the great producer Glyn Johns-and quite probably to be reproduced as large scale backdrops for performances – some of which will be filmd by Jonathan Demme…..Man! Am I washed up or what? No wonder I call myself The Shark!

    OOPS! Its that goddamned reality thing rearing its ugly head again! But then again, if you are a brain dead, washed up performance artist attempting to kiss consensoriat butt -what the hell! Obviously, no amount of stooping down to grovel or smooch behind is enough!

    _I don’t list these facts to boast – but simply to point out to a dunce that if you are going to attack someone -its kind of a good idea to know of what you are talking about. As for physical violence, implied or otherwise, you digress! From sheer stupidity to specious fabrication! Impressive.

    Kind of like your last (in a litany) of retarded comments , sorry Justin, I just ain’t that obscure.

    This is the kind of junk that muddies the water unfortunately obscuring points relevant to us all -observe my last post prior to this garbage…..as usual, it substantive and about critical discourse..unfortunately, here then comes the latest cloud of krill in the personage Justin Chin with his small little generic self, blathering like a petty uninformed dolt, making a complete fool out of himself.

36. 

    Dee Fox on May 28, 2007 at 10:18 pm

    Shark, your answers were indeed more specific than my questions. I will look at Jed Perl’s articles.
    I don’t see a long term benefit to some set of cardinals (Mark’s reference, not yours), however good a set of particular cardinals’ judgments are at any given time, deciding what is worthy/good/bad/etc., because in fact the cardinals change and the ones that take over don’t necessarily apply similar apt judgment … hence, my questions on the model/system, verses the particulars. At the moment, as I see it, keep the base field of opportunity wide and make then make aesthetic judgments on the individual works that result; a laissez faire marketplace does this, although our marketplace in general does not perfectly reflect the laissez faire paradigm. And sometimes the marketplace runs amok and has to correct itself. Or I suppose one could opt for a nice mountain valley and shrug.

37. 

    The Shark on May 28, 2007 at 11:17 pm

    Dee -be sure to read the Perl piece on sharkforum -its completely brilliant. I have been piecing through New Art City for the last 6 months or so and have finally resolved to read it it in its entireity….I happen to think Perl is our finest critic.

    I feel like New Art City -and the de Kooning biography really set a tone in a timely way to discuss what has happened to the art scene -in America and abroad…..its interesting to note -in light of the poorly done attack on me above -that far from my being alone with only fellow sharkpack members for accompaniment, on some kind of quiotic crusade. Writers the likes of Jed Perl, Jerry Salz, Roberta Smith, to name a few of our finest critics have weighed in over the last few years on the market run amuck, on institutional aggression -questioning the art education business -what Ad Rhinehardt referred to as ‘The Racket’ -how all of this is effecting the making of art- among other topics of interest we discuss on sharkforum-

38. 

    Mark Staff Brandl on May 29, 2007 at 4:20 am

    I agree with you, actually, Dee. I myself would most probably have been railing against the Cardinals in the Baroque, had I been an artist then. I just meant those history facts as salient illustration — there are “supporters/doorkeepers” and there are mere “doorkeepers” so to speak.

    I was talking less to you, Dee, I believe, than to the whole question. Far too many people answer any critique with a statement to the effect that “it has always been this way, just live with it.” That is not only cynical and anti-creativity, but also untrue, … even THOUGH it is taught in many art schools that way (see my rant against the truncated, self-serving and false view of history propagated by the Consensoriat as addressed in an earlier blog discussio here on BAS). — As a side comment, everyone should learn more art history and THUS be “free” from it. You are entrapped with a “burden of the past” mostly, perhaps only, when you don’t know it in all its richness. When you do know it, you find your own “forefathers and mothers” and don’t have to swirl in endless circles of repetition nor write in endless daisy-chains of plagiarism.

    Excuse me, Justin, but I take personal intellectual offense at your perception of Sharkforum. Can you read? I take it so; you wrote in here. Well, then go and read some of my/our back posts. If anything, mine tend to be too far opposite your appraisal — extremely forum-like, scholarly and so on. I have to work to lighten it all up a bit.

    And your post is an almost perfect illustration of what you CLAIM to be against in Kimler’s posts. It is YOUR post which is whiny, if not simply an example of small-minded conformism. That “oooh he failed” is the standard rant AGAINST Kimler. Do you Consensus folks have seminars From The Top wherein you memorize such stuff? Like you memorize “how to try to succede in art without having talent”?

    EVEN IF that statement were true, it would not affect Kimler’s criticisms’ truth value (try a little logic in place of memorization) — and it is blatantly NOT TRUE anyway. (Nor about me, by the way. I’m doing quite well, as is WK, certainly better than you are — I’ve never heard of you), but again, that is NOT the point.

    It just helps to have success WITHOUT ass-kissing when criticizing — as I have repeatedly written, — if those who HAVE some success don’t complain, who can or will.

    Check your puerile armchair psychotherapy at the door and try arguing from and about content.

39. 

    The Shark on May 29, 2007 at 5:27 am

    Well not just your posts Mark -I’m assuming this guy is the ‘performance’ Justin Chin one finds on google – he is either that or less than that..you know here in Chicago we have some really amazing performance artists -some say the best in the world -you can see them on any given night lighting up stages all over town -at Steppenwolf, Looking Glass, Redmoon, The Hypocrites -even my old alma matter Collaboraction…..they are called, ACTORS! They do THEATRE! We also have a terrific poetry scene here -with actual real poets -not ex SAIC student poseurs faking it -but the real thing -perhaps the premier poet here in Illinois being sharkforums own Dr. Simone Muench. And of course the great Mark Strand (do you even know who Mark Strand is Justin?)-who was here until last year -with whom btw -I collaborated on a broadside for The Poetry Center -more of my failures! ha!

    But seriously, when is someone going to level an attack against me who gives some evidence of basic intelligence? I mean, all I have to do is state a few basic facts -LA for instance -thats an abreviated version of things I have done there….I can go on -the Pasadena Art Center -In Perfect Silence -with Ed Moses, Roger Hermann, John Milleu -to name a few -an exhibition that the curator centered around my work;….more? Its just mind numbing how lame these flimsy, poorly though out and/or executed, attacks are. What? Are the mentally challenged all rising up in unison against me?

    First, I don’t feel the need nor, do I have any burning desire to be more ‘successful’ here in Chicago. I’ve kind of done it -and besides I’m quite confident that in terms of local coverage Tony Fitz and I have received the lions share of it in recent years -just as confident as I am that he and both do very well in terms of supporting ourselves with our work. Like Tony, I would not have accepted a Driehaus Grant -for my own reasons -and I might add, having been involved in the theater world where Driehaus money has long been around, I have my own personal reasons why I would refuse it. Its not about me -its the fact that this particular ‘selection’ of Gerber, Ledgerwood, smells bad. Somethings rotten in Chicago. Far from being simply my reaction I might add.

    What is so hard to get about the fact that I have a row to hoe with certain elements of the art world here that I have really bypassed in terms of my own career, that I have transcended? -I do not seek nor want their approbation. My anger derives primarily from having witnessed the corruption, the poor work they have promoted, how they have limited the scene here, destroyed promising careers. Careers of friends of mine.

    Is anyone besides your garden variety morons like Justin so fucking lame they think I am the only person in the Chicago art world that holds my points of view? Is their anyone besides the Justins of the world who thinks that the people on sharkforum -some reasonably formidable people, are there because they disagree with me?

    Look – I could start listing people who do agree with me on the situation here -but of course, I won’t. At the same time I feel completely comfortable stating that major figures in art education at the art institute, major figures at the curatorial level at museums here, major figures in terms of artists here concur with my perception. Not a few, but many- if not the majority, not far from it.

    As one of the very top people in art education said to me -the scene here will not grow until the backs are broken of the people in power here -or, as one of the deans of painters here, a long time Chicago art world figure said to me ” so much has been lost for so little”

    How many times have I heard someone from out of town say, ‘what ever happened to Chicago? You used to have such a good art scene there’…

    The idiots who attack me always try to make it personal…….have they seen my studio? Are they aware as Olga pointed out of all the things that I have done here? Are they aware that with the exception of The Art Institute I am more than well represented in every museum here? That I have had a one man show at the MCA here -what more could I possibly do? That I make well into the six figures each year -with some reasonably challenging very large scale work -traditionally difficult to place? What does it take to get across the simple idea that this is not a struggle about my career? And, what does it take,… -how just plain stupid are these people that they don’t realize that what is important to me -is the canvas I’m camped out in front of at the time…and that in terms of this political fight, that its personal as a MATTER OF ETHICS..

    I’M PICKING A FIGHT FOR ALL THOSE ARTISTS WHO JUST ARENT QUITE AS TOUGH OR MEAN AS I AM -ALL THOSE WHO GOT CRUSHED BY THIS CABAL OF BLAND ACADEMIA- HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND?

    Besides -if this most recent clown is so convinced of my failure -then how could I ever have the power to hold back the scene here as he makes the claim I do? Can’t have it both ways dummy.

    Look, most of the old collectors are dying off -or at least are way past their prime; one of the things I am interested in is bringing a new generation of collectors into the art scene here -its important for all of us. I’m also interested in getting all collectors here TO SUPPORT CHICAGO ARTISTS -like they do in LA, like they do in New York -which they consistently don’t do here. This, is a huge issue…and the fact is that many of yesterdays top collectors treated people like Judith Kirchner as an art consultant -which meant that the conceptual 101 crowd is what was collected to the exclusion of everything else. How interesting was it to see Lou Manilow’s collection of this academic detritus at the MCA a few summers ago -curated by Sharkforums own Lynne Warren -and see how poorly it aged -how just awful the work looked in retrospect…

    Sharkforum is not a blog site -it, is an ezine. I believe we have more unique visitors and hits than any other art related blog site coming out of Chicago. With the addition of Doug Harvey -along with others to be announced its probably going to grow exponentially. I think that along with BAS -and others -even that pimply pus-pool of obsequiousness Erik Wenzel, we have a chance to really become a major international scene ON OUR OWN TERMS whether you or your fellow sycophants like it ‘Justin’ or not -so fuck you.

40. 

    The Shark on May 29, 2007 at 6:42 am

    And one last thing -assuming this is Justin Chin -ex-performance artist -washed up -or you hung it up, or no one was showing up, or whatever -as you readily admit you were a bad actor -well, if your post here is any indication -your writing isn’t so hot either. if you are going to call yourself a poet maybe you should consider returning here and taking one of Dr Muench’s beginning poetry 101 courses – you would be right at home over there at UIC!

41. 

    Mark Staff Brandl on May 29, 2007 at 7:33 am

    !

42. 

    David Roth on May 29, 2007 at 10:12 am

    Mr. Chin,

    I must take exception with you gross mischaracterization of Sharkforum. As co-founder and co-managing editor of the site, I can assure you that SF has utterly nothing in common with DildO’Lielly’s (aka Bill O’Reilly) “No-Spin Zone.”

    Have you ever even looked at our site?

    Aside from the relative sillyness and/or artifice of a grown man giving himself a nickname and then referring to himself in the 3rd person, your blanket statements regarding Wesley’s career betray gross ignorance of anything factual. I can understand your antipathy for his manner, but to attempt a connection between his manner and his work/career indicates a basic lack of logical comprehension.

    So…what’s yer damage, Heather?

43. 

    The Shark on May 29, 2007 at 10:19 am

    Dave you must understand, this guy speaks in the language of ‘poop’ about his teddy bear, ‘nipples’….

    -believe me, you don’t want to know-

    And please, disregard my recommendation of further studies with Dr Muench, Mr Chin. Simone and I have a fine, longstanding friendship I would hate to see come to an end over an ill-advised, off-the-cuff suggestion on my part.

44. 

    William Conger on May 29, 2007 at 10:23 am

    I can’t resist it. Shark is right about one thing. Some people in gatekeeper positions in Chicago have indeed favored a generally bland sort of neoconceptualism and have indeed downplayed painting and other studio centered artmaking, sometimes to the level of ridicule. I’ve agreed with Shark on that for quite a few years. I knew Ed Paschke pretty well myself and I think he was, as were most artists of that generation, including me, a pluralist. He didn’t decide for or against artists on the basis of what media or kind of work they made; it was a matter of integrity and quality that mattered –and matters. Unfortunately or unfairly, Ed, me, and others were a bit blindsided by the fact that some artists, often those most espoused by the neocon gatekeepers, were really not pluralists themselves and openly or otherwise degraded painting, “aesthetics” the personal, the individual, or anything that did not worship a purified Duchampian attitude toward artmaking. An effort to make room for some neoconceptualist outlooks, an effort grounded in open-minded pluralist aesthetics and a deeply ingrained faith in the fellowship of serious artists — again, a trait among 60s artists who experienced the societal humiliation of artists as “hippies, dopers, beatniks, losers, peaceniks” by the “establishment”.

    No wonder it was considered — by 60s artists — very bad form to ridicule a fellow artist on the basis of style or media, no matter how much his or her work differed from yours. But that pluralist openmindedness was not returned in kind in recent years. Shark correctly argues (but too screamingly for me, “sheeesh”) that a neocon generation disdains painters as retro romantic hermits. The general outlook among the gatekeepers was that the Imagist art had become naive and childish narcissistic, skill-centered, formal, provincial, and outdated and that certain leaders of that mode were too much in power in Chicago. They wanted revolution based on some vague post minimal-international-post conceptual art and they got it. They won and they have purged their court of the messy, paint stained and battered knights.

    Now, 25 years later, it seems laughable to me that some people still think painting is dead, again. As a painter I do like some neoconceptualist work, now and then, no matter the authors. Who wouldn’t like witty, playful puzzles with image-words? After all, it’s really a language thing a game of verbal metaphors, insider table talk reminiscent of the 17-18C idle aristocracy? That fantasizing of old-world Courts is reimagined at every museum opening. It’s something close to the hearts of curators, etc. who are trained to be glib and keen to word-play in cocktail dress. But any dope can see today that painting — like other skill-based, object based, practices is plenty strong everywhere, even as, foolishly, it is still being downplayed in Chicago art schools (and museums) where some MFA curricula still define the glories of the “post-studio” artist. Ironically, in an effort to be proudly at the “cutting edge” our curatorial leaders and their artists and collector followers have failed to recognize the fact that the more interesting young artists are secretly practicing drawing skills and buying how to paint books. Cutting edge art always begins in disgrace.

    What I don’t like about Shark’s outlook is his default mode of ridiculing other artists whenever he suspects criticality of his self-proclaimed position of ultimate authority. He knows damn well that some of those artists are the real deal and are not darlings or knee-jerk apologists of the now-aged and increasingly rigid gatekeepers. I don’t get the Shark name either. A great white sharks’ brain is typically 1.2oz, about the same as a cat’s. I’d argue the WK Shark is smarter than my cat. Perhaps his emphasis on a shark’s instinctual violence is a sly way of excusing himself from civil discourse which rests on a basic respect for other people, especially fellow artists. Because he goes well beyond the pale in his reckless fuming against fellow artists and is not critical in a useful way — blaring that someone, most often an artist, is a moron or worse is not criticality, only slurring insult — he finds himself alone as the “most extreme” hater and confuses that as proof of his superiority.

    Who would go as far as Shark in publicly degrading others, and himself by implication? Most hold back and retreat from that sort of vulgarity knowing that any tit for tat response will only get deeper and darker. And nobody goes as deep in those ugly waters as the Shark.

    Isn’t it time to rationally and collegially discuss the situation in Chicago, to admit that there are many highly capable artists here, some of them post, 50s, post 60s. post 70s, post 80s, and even post 90s. It takes a broad and willing optimism, free from quick ridicule, to foster new art. The bad stuff will vanish soon enough.

    Aside from his methods, one can support Shark’s overall art-political outlook. Chicago art has been damaged, yes, indeed it has, by those who lust for the generic esteem of international (still aristocratic influenced) art. The famed idiosyncratic, individual, pioneering and anti-mainstream authenticity of Chicago art — and find its roots in 1920s Chicago modernism and industrial boomtown power — is still alive here. Some of it is idea centered not practice centered but in Chicago studio practice has always been the main game. From slash and burn to monkish exactitude, Chicago art is mostly devoted to letting the ideas come from the work and not the other way around. Chicago art fuses doing and thinking. Language comes after the work, not before it. Dandy curators, art talkers, and some artists don’t like that. They want art to illustrate language instead of mystifying it.

    Some of us aren’t good at art politics and actually choose a more hermetic, studio centered life. After all, studio time is king to an artist. I’m glad for the art-politics people and especially for the resurgence of good old Chicago individualism — a proven world-recognized art outlook — but I do wish for more civility, even a rough sort of saloon civility would be fine.

45. 

    The Shark on May 29, 2007 at 10:59 am

    You’re such a killjoy Bill..errr I mean ‘William’……to slog along dealing with this crap I’ve at least got to have the option available to me to humor myself..and quit denigrating sharks -I don’t appreciate it at all! You and Dave can question my sharkiness -what can I say -I’m obviously a far more imaginative being than either of you -maybe you both need to come my way on this issue- haha!

    So I’m a little dark -so what, at least I’m not boring and what is wrong with going beyond the pale -are you some kind of self annointed judge?

    -Just remember while you were all busy being polite and civil, you gave away the store so to speak -I don’t think thats a very nice thing to do -or very civil….I would have much rather listened to you call someone an idiot or moron than corrupt an entire program…..words like ‘complacent’ come to mind and when I think of that word, Kierkegaard suddenly looms large with his notions of ‘what is truly evil-‘

    I see you as a prevaricator: I have had a difficult time respecting you -when I have seen you play smoochie schmoooch with certain behinds publicly that you have railed against -to me! privately- It reminds me of when that painting of yours went up for auction at Leslie Hindmans -you raked my friend an underling, an employee over the coals for the better part of an hour -but then when the actual power Leslie came on the line…….nice as pie Bill…..now is that polite? I have always disliked people who make a big deal about bossing around servers at restuarants- because they can…you know what I mean?

    Who knows -maybe thats just force of habit on your part -what I do know is that I am trying to get back what you gave away up at Northwestern -and yes Ed was duped along with you -while I warned you both -Ed knew he had been had -we discussed it on a regular basis.

    How could you have not known that the untalented institutionalites would of course attack anything that took a degree of skill or, talent? Are you rally that gullible?

    say what you want Bill, I have one thing going for me I haven’t always seen in you -no two things: I don’t kiss behinds, and I’m honest. I do not back down.

    what you still don’t get, is that the people you put in power hardly qualify as artists -why is that? BECAUSE THEIR GOAL IS NOT AN AESTHETIC ONE, IT IS ONLY ABOUT THE AQUISITION OF POWER- you are right -I don’t respect these people as artists nor do I intend to anytime in the near future. When you get your head out of your behind you may very well see the light yourself -as The Shark is somewhat ahead of you -both on this issue -and on those drawing collages of mine that so influenced your own (you can thank me anytime you want for that by the way-)

46. 

    David Roth on May 29, 2007 at 11:33 am

    you’re far more imaginative than which Dave? You talkin’ to me? Based upon what? A nickname? if that’s the standard then perhaps so. I haven’t named my pecker either, so maybe I ought to consider it. funny how I missed that day in art school.

    Yer funny when yer hyperbolic.

47. 

    The Shark on May 29, 2007 at 11:45 am

    Dave, I said imaginative being, but lets not go there -I’m trying to be nice-
    and Bill, throw away that lame, canned tomato fight photo you have up on your walls -into the trash -think of it as a proclamation of artistic freedom, a removing of that leash you have around your neck (I mean come on! -you were a uhuhuhuhhh ‘bit blindsided’!?? really?-another fine feature about us sharks -we, are neckless-

48. 

    David Roth on May 29, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    “we, are neckless”

    and reckless! but hardly feckless.

    this conversation has shifted to the topic of community once again, and the morality of participation. It’s fruitful and interesting to consider the responsibilities which come with such participation.

49. 

    The Shark on May 29, 2007 at 12:45 pm

    thanks Dave -and giving credit where it is due – Bill, you are dead on with your assessment that painting is strong and the whole provincial antipainting/studio skill thing here, completely outmoded DONE! -in both LA and NY and, London-

    -so now we are stuck with these talentless suburbanite power freaks you put in place, now enconsed up at Northwestern….thats just great- sheeeeeesh!,,,,,,can’t you do something, make some kind of apology, amends for what you did? Tell you what -canned tomato fight in the dumpster, all is forgiven- you can gut up and do it Bill! Its like No Exit -you just have to walk through that door and, plunk! in with the rest of the garbage…..

50. 

    Mark Staff Brandl on May 29, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    Great post William, even if even longer than WK’s or mine usually are!

    Now throw a tomato-Molotov-Cocktail at the photo, then photograph THAT, then print it out “glicee archival ink jet print.”