This week, guest host James Yood and Duncan interview Derek Guthrie, co-founder of the New Art Examiner for an illuminating history lesson.
New Art Examiner was a Chicago-based art magazine. Founded in October 1973 by Derek Guthrie and Jane Addams Allen, its final issue was dated May-June 2002.
At the time of the New Art Examiner ‘s launch, in October 1973, Chicago was “an art backwater.” Artists who wished to be taken seriously left Chicago for New York City, and apart from a few local phenomena, such as the Hairy Who, little attention was given to Chicago art and artists.
Called in Art in America “a stalwart of the Chicago scene,” the New Art Examiner was conceived to counter this bias and was almost the only art magazine to give any attention to Chicago and midwestern artists (Dialogue magazine, which covered midwestern art exclusively, was founded in Detroit in 1978, but it has also ceased publication). Editor Jane Allen, an art historian who studied under Harold Rosenberg at the University of Chicago, was influential in developing new writers who later became significant on the New York scene and encouraged a writing style that was lively, personal, and honestly critical.
Over the next three decades Chicago’s art scene flourished, with new museums, more art dealers, and increased art festivals, galleries, and alternative spaces. Critics asserted that the New Art Examiner “ignored, opposed or belittled” Chicago’s artistic developments, that it was overly politicized, overloaded with jargon, and did not serve the Chicago or midwest arts communities.
The critics and artists who wrote for the New Art Examiner, included Fred Camper, Jan Estep, Ann Wiens, Adam Green (cartoonist), Robert Storr, Carol Diehl, Jerry Saltz, Eleanor Heartney, Carol Squiers, Janet Koplos and Mark Staff Brandl.
New Art Examiner
Derek Guthrie
James Yood
Artforum
Art Institute of Chicago
Jane Addams Allen
Betsy Baker
University of Chicago
Joshua Taylor
Art News
Blackstone Rangers
Martyl Langsdorf
Museum of Contemporary Art
Ed Paschke
Franz Schulze
Art in America
Lake Forest College
Jack Burnham
Guggenheim
Defilement: A Story of the Art World
Proximity magazine Ed Marszewski
James Wood
Getty
Illinois Art Council
Michael Bonesteel
Moholy-Nagy
Mapplethorpe
Smithsonian Fellowship
Dennis Adrian
Alan Artner
Van Gogh
Gauguin
Jesse Helms
Kathryn Hixson
Eleanor Hartney
Alice Thorson
Robert Storr
Peter Schjeldahl
Joseph Beuys
- 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
Refreshingly pessimistic. I’d sit in a pub with Guthrie anytime, anywhere, and buy all of the rounds.
Friends aside, I miss very few things about Chicago; and the New Art Examiner will always represent lost potential. I feel honored to have been published in it.
Yood: “Fixed mentality.” Rich.
Guthrie: “Superficial and silly… I love this collapse…” God bless you, Sir.
“Exclusion from information,” necessity of dialogue”, “a culture of the superficial and silly,†“collapse of the short term” — too many great things to quote. I loved this show, wish it was in print and mandatory reading in all art schools. I must say, I learned more from involvement at the New Art Examiner (and thus Derek, Jim, Michael Bonesteel, Alice Thorsen, etc.) than I did in art school. Great great interview Derek, Duncan and Jim!
Duncan, I always feel free to speak whatever I want. Try it sometime -its…refreshing.
Franz Schulz coined the term imagist to describe the Monster Roster group -Cohen, Goloub Leaf… -who were seen as rebelling against ab ex painting and reintroducing image-
Blaclklisted! Thank god! Making enemies faster than I can kill em.
Derek I think your notion of the internet is flat out wrong. As we just saw in this election -as we see here in Chicago with the art blogs -the internet has the capability of having a profound effect on community -also, the archives of any good site are MORE READILY AVAILABLE- than hard copy- Sharkforum was started for two hundred dollars -I’m sure BAS had a similar budget.
New Art Examiner could be on line, with a world wide presence for almost nothing next week. Online advertising could pay the writers. Give it a print to copy option for those who feel the need for the printed page.
Sad listening to the anarchy that once prevailed at NAE, and then to know, what happened -I will never forget when the late Donald McFadyen and I wrote an article in the early 90’s and then editor Hixon would not allow the term ‘department head’ to be used -as ‘people would know’ we were discussing the unfortunate influence of certain educators here- boosterism had arrived.
If Lou Manilow never did anything else for the local community, he did donate the half a million bucks or so for the fatal redesign that spelled the end for what had become a partisan rag, in effect giving them just enough rope to hang themselves.
I never met Roger Brown either -but thanks to Jim Yood and NAE and comments I made about his work, I was featured (along with Rogers attempts at recreating my work in any number of his insipid folk art paintings- I LOVED IT! … I just hope he had the good sense in the end to be buried in a waterproof casket as I’m sure there’s a line of people waiting to piss on his grave-
Derek, what these critics you conjur need to do is what we all need to do here: create our own canon of aesthetics here in Chicago -quit being as Peter Schjeldahl described us, “a receptor city”……
the interview starts at about six minutes in.
guthrie says he feels sorry for people who grew up with television because the tv speaks but doesn’t ask us to speak back; he says he hears the effect it’s had on language. duncan says, “i grew up with television. it was lovely.” thereby, i think, confirming guthrie’s concern and bringing in mine. duncan’s (and my) generation is so confident that we don’t have to know anything or think about anything or listen to anyone with an attempt to consider their ideas. EVEN WHEN WE’RE INTERVIEWING THEM.
Or, Shark, one could say consensus back-room dealing had by then reasserted itself, the very enemy the Derek-through-Jim NAE had revolted against (the NAE version you are speaking of desired to serve as a handmaiden to that cultural clique-ocrasy , but wasn’t accepted ANYWAY by the consensus).
I agree fully with Derek’s lambast against small-mindedness, but feel a different word should be chosen. “Boosterism” can even be good, it is simply enthusiastic promotion of oneself, which has served London, LA and now Berlin well (and which I feel the closed Chi circle never did, being simply closed, not really enthusiastic). I think more appropriate would be some sort of descriptions like “bigoted machinations” or “petty close-mindedness.” In short, avaricious provincialism. An enforced absence of critical dialogue, which has not allowed any real, individual formation of identity (what WK calls “canon formation”), thus creating no real critics or international attention for Chi artists, as Derek rightly points out.
By the way, you can not really talk back to PRINT either, but you can to the web (as this comment displays). One asset you forgot to mention.
is this show called bad at interviewing?
Duncan artist interviewer, does not have interest in art so he interviews himself.
On a side note the winners have been announced for the Podcast Awards that were mentioned some weeks ago.
Bad at Sports was nominated in the Best Cultural/Arts category but lost to the Goliath that is “This American Life”.
The list can be read here
The interview was conducted, largely, by James Yood. That had to be the case, inasmuch as he [Yood] possessed the personal connection to the subject and the memory of Chicago lacked [by virtue of age and place of birth] by Mackenzie.
Having written that, Guthrie needed little prompting: This podcast became Guthrie on Guthrie.
Agree, or disagree, with Guthrie’s position; but don’t fault the format of this episode.
The quintessential European critique of America was offered by Alexis de Tocqueville.
Complaining of, “anti-intellectualism,” bemoaning the, “herd of independent minds,” stating that, “there is no trickle-up, only trickle-down,” Guthrie echoed Tocqueville’s concerns regarding the evolution of a monolithic state underpinned by the progress of equality.
Here, revisit Episode 12: Michelle Grabner
https://badatsports.com/2005/episode-12-michelle-grabner/
It might be the case that Grabner has a friendly relationship with the power structure bemoaned by Kimler, if not also Guthrie; nevertheless, it’s certain that she too has expressed reservations about the development of the “casual” theorist and critic. Why?
Publishing made possible by the internet has resulted in an [metaphorical] explosion not seen since Gutenberg. Has the quality of writing improved or declined?
Knitting things together — as in Cuono’s encyclopedic museum, as via the world wide web — has the effect of leveling the distinctions between them.
Tocqueville: “…there is hardly an important event in the last seven hundred years which has not turned out to be advantageous for equality.”
Even as the low are lifted, the high are brought down. And control of access to the container is elevated over any unique capacity for production of the contents.
Any old shit will do — provided the right gallerist, critic and curator arrange to put it in the right place. Isn’t that the lesson?
If Kimler laments the decline of painting, and Grabner wishes to preserve the academic discourse of theory, Guthrie too seems to want for a — vocal — aristocracy of sorts.
Not a few people worry about [publicly, here even] expressing a preference for “A,” as opposed to “B,” for fear of being [publicly, here even] labeled anti-this, or anti-that, and ruined through ostracism.
And so words are not written; writing isn’t read; and Long Cat and Pancake Bunny are better remembered than internet theory. OMGZBBQ@@@!!!
Not asked of Guthrie: “What did you and/or the Examiner do wrong?”
I think the most pertaint question is as suggested
“What did the Examiner do wrong ?’ I seek answers.
derek guthrie
If I lament the decline of painting, – that would include all that it is-a plastic totality of things theoretical, metaphorical, experiential and so on… -surely not to be confused with trendy philosophical buzzwords -acting as signifiers of conformity and colllusion with academic constructs/institutional power/ extending overall mediocrity in an academically aggressive manner, doing violence to the very meaning of what is ‘painting’.
I remember the aversion to the as Franz Schulz calls them ‘The Hyde Park Group’ -Paschke /Nutt /Brown/ Wirsum and others -that was palpable at NAE back in the 80’s -funny, looking back they were only in need -as Derek notes, opposition and other points of view…and seem in retrospect even benign all considered in light of what we eventually got stuck with… the academics -and Derek, you by accident or design, brought us Kathryn Hixon apparatchik and apologist for them- and gave her power. Made NAE their mouthpiece. Big mistake.
If I may grossly overgeneralize, I think that too — the handing over or bending over to the consensus clique — was NAE “big mistake.” Not sticking closer to the spirit of Derek and Jane.
For the record the appointment of Kathryn Hixson
was nothing to do with do with Derek Guthrie or Jane Addams Allen. The subsequent policees adopted were
a reversal of what had been the previous “modus vivendi’ of the New Art Examiner.
Yes, that reversal of your spirit was not your fault Derek! A change we well noticed at the time and still rue! Derek, you expressed your and Jane’s spunky audacious spirit well in this interview!
Paul, please don’t dismiss Derek’s criticism as a “typical European critique of America” (I may have read you wrong); as now both an American and a European, I have often complained about Euro cliche’s of America (and vice-versa)— I don’t see Derek’s thoughts in that way at all. I think he is mostly dead-on about Chicago. Certainly, that “anti-intellectualism” he fought has now been replaced with a strange pseudo-intellectualism, yet it all remains structurally the same with new masters, mistresses: bigoted machinations of those who have petty close-mindedness. An approach stiffling dialogue and having all the negative effects exactly as Derek outlined them, with the added bonus of hypocrisy.
No, of course Derek was out of the picture when the institutionalites took over- and then there went the neighborhood- if one is in need of a visual cue -just look at the UIC suburbanite sprawl that sets as blight upon what was once Maxwell Street –
And then came the the well scrubbed ‘bigoted machinations’ (what else do they have?) of the homogenized; a regurgitation of 1970’s conceptualism -only with even more of a heightened emphasis on the ‘con’ element. You can still hear the proponents of this ‘movement ‘ now -right here on Bad At Sports -they are the interviews where there are one, or zero responses….where the only thing of interest, is to stand back and marvel at how insipid -not to mention flat out lame-stupid, dumb, some of Robbin Lockett crowd really indeed were and are. And then wonder, how DID Kathryn Hixon and crew manage to abscond with NAE?
Imagine two art objects:
(1) an oil painting, skillfully rendered;
(2) a pile of detritus.
In the case of (1) the object has some intrinsic worth and, by extension, so does said object’s creator: the artist.
In the case of (2) the object’s value depends wholly upon the theory attached to it. And if the artist who constructed said pile happens to be incapable of articulating said theory [with the word, written or spoken] then the artwork and the artist would have value only via the critic’s recognition and interpretation.
Some clever person/people committed to the promotion of the appearance of equality, while actually interested in the accrual of power in the institutions of the critic, curator, museum, et al, might tend to prefer (2) to (1).
Once established, the greatest threat to such a group wouldn’t be found in the ranks of the artists, but rather in other institutions [your name here] that offered up alternative definitions of the good.
Strong personalities [Kimler, Fitzpatrick, Phillips, Lutes, et al] who produce objects with commodity value: difficult situation.
Obsequious natures dependent upon continual flattery of the tyranny: priceless.
MSB:
“quintessential European critique of America”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quintessence
2: the essence of a thing in its purest and most concentrated form.
Paul, terrific, dead on.
Derek and James both spoke to the conflicts between factions in the Chicago art scene in the 70s and 80s that lingered far too long.
“Obsequious natures dependent upon continual flattery of the tyranny: priceless.” Very funny — and heartbreakingly true — Paul!
I’m quite aware of that wonderful word ‘quintessence’ and its adjectival form, I just wanted to point out that Derek’s critique is far more than standard Euro fare (which I have to battle almost daily) because it does hit the Chicago nail on the head so exactly. I would use other terminolgy, personally, especially due to the shift from anti-intellectual to oiverblown psedo-intellectual. but I still think he has it quite right in a general, a depressingly repeating, Chicago sense.
“overblown” and “pseudo.” Sheesh, I wish I would use Chris’s wonderful “opportunity to correct” function once in a while.
“Derek and James both spoke to the conflicts between factions in the Chicago art scene in the 70s and 80s that lingered far too long.”
-a mere prelude considering the academic aggression to come-
Paul, your painting v/s pile idea is at fault because you are assigning value judgements before you make your final judgement. That is not what a disinterested critic would do.
but ‘accrual of power’ is interesting. Why do people publish magazines, why do they wish to have their art or words in magazines?
As an emerging artist when NAE began publishing, I never saw it as an outsider publication. I was fortunate to have had my work reviewed several times by NAE writers as well as by Franz Schulz and Alan Artner. I felt that the NAE reviews carried as much weight as the newspaper reviews. I think Derek should be happy that the Tribune released him, forcing him and Jane Allen to start the New Art Examiner, where they had the freedom to cover anything they wished. The Trib covers art according to the market. In the eighties when River North was booming, art coverage was important to them. Now, Sam Zell owns the paper and Alan Artner is forced to rate exhibitions with stars. He has no power, contrary to what we all might believe. His coverage is at the whim of the editors. By the way, we should give him credit for not being a booster for any one movement. He gives equal time to any well conceived work, and sees through work that is superficially conceptual.
Understanding time constraints of the interview, I thought there were omissions of other efforts at good criticism and dialogue in Chicago. There was no mention of John Brunetti’s role in Dialogue Magazine, which also went under. Panel discussions, which were so well attended in the seventies and eighties, fizzled out in the nineties. There was a meeting in the early nineties of all the arts organizations (NAE, the alternative spaces, etc.) to discuss pooling resources to hold panel discussions and lectures, because one organization couldn’t draw a large enough audience. A second meeting was never held. I’m surprised that, excluding a mention of Sharkforum, there was no mention of the movement started by Paul Klein (Artletter), Tony Fitzpatrick, “The Shark†and others to get a dialogue going among artists and to found an artists’ museum that would bypass the power brokers in the museums and art schools. There were good ideas and ambitious plans, inspiring crowds of artists to attend the meetings. Many creative ideas were thrown into the dialogue. After a year or so it all faded away and artists went back to plugging away at their art and their day jobs. Se la vie.
I really don’t know where to start. I had my troubles with a long series of NAE editors, starting withe Derek and finishing with Kathryn Hixon, but this sliming of her is really below you boys. Or at least I THOUGHT it was below you. Maybe not. Well, at least the “official” history of the NAE now includes Alice Thorson, so there’s hope for a reformed version in the future. The decision to produce the magazine in a format its business model could not sustain was Derek’s decision. From that point, the ultimate collapse was inevitable.
My own favorite moment in the Guthrie interview was when he said he ALWAYS paid the writers. I laughed for a solid half-hour. Is he still on meds? That would explain the transparent lies about Artner. Jesus, for all it’s been decades, is there anybody who doesn’t know the Trib fired Derek and Jane for missing deadlines repeatedly? I remember receiving Derek’s version of the event, complete with hinty-hinty allusions to “politics” and “ideology.” It was all bullshit. If Derek wants to know why, in the middle of a crowded opening, he was given a ten-foot radius of private space, why does he think this was because of ideology and NOT because of his remarkably fugitive sense of personal hygiene?
OKAY, so beyond smelling bad, lying a lot and stiffing his writers, what was the matter with Derek? That “us against them” bullshit, for all he decries it now, was his stock in trade back then, and hasn’t changed much since.
And by the way, what’s the matter with YOU guys? At her worst, Hixon’s writing tries to be taken seriously by her peers. If that makes her a little stiff and academic, I don’t mind. I absolutely don;t think she deserves to be crapped on by a provincial blowhard (who’s still settling imaginary scores with the late Roger Brown) like Kimler, and I consider you boys all gutless for failing to stand up for her.
On second thought, I should be clearer about the direction the NAE took in its last few issues, and about its editors. Putting out an art magazine is always a gamble. In the last issues, the editors of the NAE gambled that if they showed what the magazine could be, support might be forthcoming. They lost, but it was worth a try.
And about Kathryn’s writing: there’s nearly always something to think about in what she writes. That puts her way above the industry average. Whatever a work of art has to do to earn its place in the room, writing has to give you something to think about. She does that.
Everyone seems agreed that the ridiculous pettiness that passed for local color back in the seventies and even in the eighties was a waste of time and talent. So why does it persist today? And why do you encourage it?
“Everyone seems agreed that the ridiculous pettiness that passed for local color back in the seventies and even in the eighties was a waste of time and talent. So why does it persist today? And why do you encourage it?”
“If Derek wants to know why, in the middle of a crowded opening, he was given a ten-foot radius of private space, why does he think this was because of ideology and NOT because of his remarkably fugitive sense of personal hygiene?
OKAY, so beyond smelling bad, lying a lot and stiffing his writers, what was the matter with Derek?”
Tim Porges Hixon apologist/, consensoriat card holder…..but more relevant here, not smart enough to do much more than shoot himself down with his own argument, so what is it Tim not very bright or just immune to your own hypocrisy -or, do your little rules only apply to those who make you feel threatened?
Relax Timmy, what is your going rate as an art ‘writer’ -down at the bottom of the ladder even here Chicago…..maybe a nickle a word? Whatever it is, I’m betting I’ve picked up more change off of my studio floor than you ever been compensated for your consensus correct opinion. Though you might try doing a gossip column -you are marginally more adept at coming off like a little bitch.
“On second thought, I should be clearer about the direction the NAE took in its last few issues, and about its editors. Putting out an art magazine is always a gamble. In the last issues, the editors of the NAE gambled that if they showed what the magazine could be, support might be forthcoming. They lost, but it was worth a try.”
And what precisely was your first thought Tim? Do you mean when you try to lay the blame for the format change, into a slick New York-style publication that came and went, blowing through something like a half million of Lou Manilows dollars in 4 issues – on Derek Guthrie -long gone to the tune of a decade and a half from NAE at the time?…sloppy at best.
Perhaps you just havent come to terms with the fact that by the time of it demise, NAE had beome a consensoriate tool, populated by hacks like yourself. That it had lost its relevance and that all the redesigns in the world weren’t going to succeed in making a horse out of horseshit.
And one more second thought Tim. Since you are so big and bad and everyone else is so gutless, 2046 West Carroll -why don’t you stop by and share just how deeply offended you are that I called out a leading member of your little clique in person, tough guy.
Apparently I struck a nerve. So here I am being called a hypocrite, which, having undertaken to wrestle a pig, is what I deserve.
Kathryn deserves better than to have me as her champion, and she deserves better, much better, than to be crapped on by a pig like Wesley.
So how about it Mark? Is anti-intellectualism only bad if it’s twenty-year-old imaginary anti-intellectualism? Or do you think Wesley the period gasbag is some kind of natural savant?
ooooHoooooooo big bad Timmy! Now, you were a failed artist before you were a failed critic/Kathryn Hixon suck-up right? Thats a hell of a resume…..You have my address -don’t be Tim-id -if you have such a row to hoe with me -by all means come do it in person.
Lets see Tim: Derek smells bad, and I’m a pig….at your going rate of a nickel a word, why don’t you try writing that a few thousand times over……if you can find a taker you can earn your weeks lunch money and write your Opus magnum simultaneously!
Dear Derek///// I listened to your pod piece…you were in a standard Derek mode..you are there to trouble reason….. I really do not think you understand what this market collapse will mean to the vast populations of the world…. there is no bottom, it is the same in the art world in terms of critics and artists do not know what is good, or valid or substantial, there is confusion and hype and ego, quite frankly, I am sick of it all…..and they are lost. There is no talk about art with out talk about power and politics,,,, art is a message, or a cover, an excuse, an alibi, an innocence, a justification, a rationalization,art by it self is the fall guy, it is not innocent….. All this talk is so lame, so self righteous or vain…. where is the authority ?…The situation politically will eventually break down stupidly to war, if not next year, the year after…the resolve is war…. that is the real issue…. if you want to talk about art you must talk about war..as Cezzane said…I no longer wish to not offend people if it means I cannot tell them the truth,,,, Obama was a sham….. look who really paid for his campaign….. look who is getting on board,,,Clinton retreads…. the same meat-heads who set up the Iraq war…..and spent our ass off..set the table for Bush….. one seem-less line of action, as it is now with Bush to Obama…. seem-less…..if you want to talk about art that means something , for certainly you know it has been de-fanged and mollified as a social force…. you must have courage and not be afraid to say what you mean,,,,, no skirting around the issue….. there is a well defined dualism operating in our society today…. there is the story of how are said to be living, operating cleanly, things are ok, kids go to school, we go shopping, eating, drinking, driving in your car , you clothes are clean….. people are nice…. then there is the truth, the Enron truth of things, how the economy is failing, how hard and painful it is to manage one bills, to get some decent health care, to make ends meet, to not feel scared of the cops, wondering what that phone call was, who is at the door, is my kind all-right ….. do we have a future if I loose my job?…. what about the people across the street…. where did they go?…..who the hell is that?…There is a lot of fear and anxiety out there, something the art world should be a barometer on ,,,,, art is so holed up….. so useless, so banal, ….. I am surprised you did not rip the guys\’s head off,.,,,,if you want to be of any assistance at all , just tell the truth to those who would otherwise bull shit us all….. and fuck them,.,.,,the well is poisoned, the glaring contradictions are there for all to see,,,, we no longer live in a republic,,,,what is art’s reaction to that?….a
Dear Derek///// I listened to your pod piece…you were in a standard Derek mode..you are there to trouble reason….. I really do not think you understand what this market collapse will mean to the vast populations of the world…. there is no bottom, it is the same in the art world in terms of critics and artists do not know what is good, or valid or substantial, there is confusion and hype and ego, quite frankly, I am sick of it all…..and they are lost. There is no talk about art with out talk about power and politics,,,, art is a message, or a cover, an excuse, an alibi, an innocence, a justification, a rationalization,art by it self is the fall guy, it is not innocent….. All this talk is so lame, so self righteous or vain…. where is the authority ?…The situation politically will eventually break down stupidly to war, if not next year, the year after…the resolve is war…. that is the real issue…. if you want to talk about art you must talk about war..as Cezzane said…I no longer wish to not offend people if it means I cannot tell them the truth,,,, Obama was a sham….. look who really paid for his campaign….. look who is getting on board,,,Clinton retreads…. the same meat-heads who set up the Iraq war…..and spent our ass off..set the table for Bush….. one seem-less line of action, as it is now with Bush to Obama…. seem-less…..if you want to talk about art that means something , for certainly you know it has been de-fanged and mollified as a social force…. you must have courage and not be afraid to say what you mean,,,,, no skirting around the issue….. there is a well defined dualism operating in our society today…. there is the story of how are said to be living, operating cleanly, things are ok, kids go to school, we go shopping, eating, drinking, driving in your car , you clothes are clean….. people are nice…. then there is the truth, the Enron truth of things, how the economy is failing, how hard and painful it is to manage one bills, to get some decent health care, to make ends meet, to not feel scared of the cops, wondering what that phone call was, who is at the door, is my kind all-right ….. do we have a future if I loose my job?…. what about the people across the street…. where did they go?…..who the hell is that?…There is a lot of fear and anxiety out there, something the art world should be a barometer on ,,,,, art is so holed up….. so useless, so banal, ….. I am surprised you did not rip the guys\’s head off,.,,,,if you want to be of any assistance at all , just tell the truth to those who would otherwise bull shit us all….. and fuck them,.,.,,the well is poisoned, the glaring contradictions are there for all to see,,,, we no longer live in a republic,,,,what is art’s reaction to that?….a
pseudo-intellectualism- would that include the belief that a mental thesaurus makes a crude thought sophisticated?
“pseudo-intellectualism- would that include the belief that a mental thesaurus makes a crude thought sophisticated?”
Chomp!
Does Derek smell bad now? Apparently your pigginess continues. Been drinking, have you? I remember that part of the act.
Oh, stop it children! Tim, YOU are the one sinking to insults here.
Yes, I was never paid by NAE either — I voluntarily donated it back, though.
I, at least, did NOT mean to insult Hixson — she wrote well. I do insist though that in my opinion she was a purposeful part of a bad influence on Chicago — she tended to serve as a handmaiden to the Consensus Clique. Which YOU, btw, did NOT when I knew you as the very good editor of Whitewalls.
Yet in your comments here and at Sharkforum, you seem to have inverted your stance and are making up for lost time in silly support of a dying club. And the constant “drinking” comments are stale. As I recall you could slam em down too. As could I. Let’s talk substance. Derek, as always, has brought up some extremely interesting topics.
Let’s stop the “pig” insults. That’s just personal crap. We are talking about real issues here, whether you like Wesley or not, keep your shit together. Kimler is not anti-intellectual, although his enemies like to paint him as such. I know, I talk to him a lot. AND argue with him. He’s hard-headed about quality, brooks no fools and tends to speak too aggressively, but wtf, such is needed.
As I recall, you, Tim, and I and Buzz, all bemoaned the anti-intellectuality of those days several times when we were discussing together. I just bemoan even greater the lame-brained spouting of memorized jargon that passes as intellectual now even more throughout the artworld. I like real intellectualism, I have to sheepishly admit, — incl. a bunch of stuff you did back in WhiteWalls days —. But differentiation does need to be made.
I’d like to add a positive point: The NAE was very important, at least up until Hixson (I left Chicago then), as a spot to learn how to write earnest, intelligent but not pseudo-intellectual or overbearingly intellectual texts. I learned from Thorson, Koplos and others how to undo the “verbage-inundation” style I had learned in art history grad school. We owe them A LOT for doing that for many. A mentoring approach that Derek attributes to Jane, and I don’t doubt it, although he can turn a mean phrase too.
Barbara — you are very correct about all the others who put up a good fight. Thanks for mentioning them. It didn’t bother me that Derek didn’t mention them, it was his interview. A big piece on all these attempts would however be very interesting article or podcast. But the good part is that apparently, at least to some extent, Sharkforum, Bad at Sports, The Art Letter, Proximity are indeed succeeding. Look at the comments here! Until it degenerated into insults, very important dialogue was occurring.
Wellllllllllll, Derek, welcome back to the little big city both of us left! You seem to have the same effect as before! Amazing and wonderful. Chicago still cannot talk openly, is still usually a one-horse town, the horse just changed (from a ‘minor-league’ Imagist stallion to an even lower Neo-Con nag). You’ve become the elder statesman of Chicago criticism! But still cause arguments…..
Mark,
Ah, degenerating into insults. Such is the fate of standard English. And yes, I always at least tried to write in standard. What I objected to, and you can call it insulting if you like, is Derek lying about the past. The one good thing about Derek, always, was he would do Anything to keep the paper coming out.He had no business ethics, though, like a lot of old lefties, and it was a pain in the ass dealing with him. And he should stop sliming Alan Artner. It’s all based on lies, and they’re now lies that take way too much explaining to be worth the effort.
As to whether I ever belonged to, or now belong to some kind of clique, I never had such luck. I always hated the preemptive jargon taught at the SAIC by people I can’t name because, thank God, I can’t remember them any more. Translated french theory was like an imaginary landscape, and not everybody likes learning new things. It can be easier to just learn the words instead. Fighting about that now is like two bald men fighting over a comb that neither one has seen in over twenty years.
Go ahead and play the Dad role if it suits you, but an apology was in order and the time for it was yesterday.
For once in this conversation Tim you are actually right, an apology is in order: to all of the artists here in Chicago who had everything they had worked for taken from them, so that people like Kirchner with her lieutenants (-Hixon for instance,) could ride roughshod over the scene here, and rewrite and create their fake version of hierarchy/history here, and then inculcate it via the educational institutions so insistently and aggressively, that years later, we have people like Duncan for instance, actually believing their machinations to be the truth. Their will to power.
*Its all about power Wesley isn’t it?” Kathryn Hixon once told me when I questioned NAE -thus her, partisan stance, how it, she, had become a mouthpiece for a certain faction…the pseudo-intellectuals, with their idiotic, positioning (painters don’t think (unless they are our pals) they are anti-intellectual, and so on and so forth Tim -as you reiterated here -as mantra, Well, fuck you. Perhaps you can get the people whose asses you chose to kiss to let you write their apology to the artists here in Chicago who now must deal with this art world here so decimated and marginalized, due to the wreckage of their past-
Dear Tim, It is serious when one is called a liar in public. I wil be pleased to meet you in a public forum and confront that accusation. Yes i was committed to the New Art Examiner and I would do anything to keep it going except to tell lies or break the law.
I will give a lecture in the cultural center on Dec 12th. If you want to present the lies at that time i will give you time and sapce. If you want to meet in private before then I will be pleased to do so.
I think the well worn cliche about me being an old lefie , (new up to date name terroist) , is a bit thin. It seems to me after a visit to Hull House that Jane Addams had such stupid and ignorant accusations made about her as she beleived in free speech and gave space for Communists and Anacharists to hold meetings there.
I beleive in free speech , as long as it is not libalous. I think you may have commited libel. i have neither the resources or interst to sue you.I beleive in free speech which is a very American and also in spite of a Queen very Britsih.
Actually I was playing reprimanding teacher. So much for my comedy sense.
I should apologize to you, Tim? Or who to whom? I don’t get it frankly, and you are being the vicious one here and should apologize to Derek, I feel. I was there — his time, your time, my time etc. — in Chicago — and he and Wesley, in my opinion, are telling the truth (although of course not all of it, that’s not possible as we have individual experiences). Their opinions are very much to the point too : “Chicago who now must deal with this art world here so decimated and marginalized, due to the wreckage of their past” — concise, sad and true.
I really truly cannot fathom what the fuck is bugging you. I meant what I said about your fine writing and editing earlier, but right now you sound bitter that others don’t share your “official view” of Chicago art history or something.
I suggest everone go to the Cultural Center on the 12th and argue it out with Derek directly — before an audience. I wish I could be there. Maybe I’ll call in. Or do a Skype video on someones laptop or so.
By the way, Tim, per: the silly “leftist” comment. I am and always have been unrepentantly left. Many of the Consensus Clique you apparently feel a need to defend also claim to be so. So what. I am even a card-carrying member of the left-wing of the Democratic Party, am a member of the Social Party (not Socialist, there is a difference, even if propaganda-eating Americans don’t know it) here in Switzerland. BFD. Are you going to call Derek or me or someone a potential Muslim next, did you learn some other Palin tricks recently. It looks like regime change and the beginning of a change from the corrupt Chi Art regime is harder for some to take than they even can express.
Go on the 12th. Do your accusations where you have stand up for them.
Shark, let’s get Derek and some others and do a Sharkforum “Regime Change” panel soon!
My favorite Artner comment: I was discussing “art criticism” in Chicago (which truly needs scare quotes) once years ago with Dennis Adrian. Artner came up. Dennis said “Poor dead thing… and no one has had the good grace to tell him of his passing.”
tim,
from what office are you trying to impeach guthrie for the crimes of stink, drink and pink? none of these should impede an online discussion. pseudo-intellectuals hide behind a cloak of pseudo-science, a frankenstein’s monster that has nothing to do with real science. if this were a discussion among scientists, we would be trying to figure something out together and any disagreements would be investigated with actual interest in finding something. we would be working for something greater than ourselves, a search for truth that includes all pertinent points of view and favors none and noone’s over the goal of common discovery (which is similar to how i understand guthrie’s description of the workings and purpose of the nae). you seem to me to be defending a stance with an eagerness to destroy those who don’t agree. that’s not science, it’s fundamentalism.
and even here in podunk georgia, we have people willing to get inside guthrie’s radius for the chance to talk to someone who thinks.
Thanks for the reality check, Jill.
Oh for christ’s sake.
1.) You shouldn’t say you always paid writers when you didn’t.
2.) It’s a pointless old he-said-he-said, but the reason why the founders of the NAE got canned by the Trib is legendary, and there are two legendary versions in circulation, and one of them is Derek’s and the other is Artner’s. In one of them Derek is let go for reasons never specified that have to do with (lots of eye-rolling here) politics and maybe some (never named) gallerists. Artner is also blamed, though there’s always lots of handwaving and this times’ “maybe I was just keeping his seat warm for him” is consistent. The other version is that deadlines were missed and the Trib looked elsewhere. I have no desire to go to Chicago on December 12: I have a life and things to do elsewhere. If Artner wants to go to this event I assume he’ll go; if not, not. I’ve already made enough of a fool of myself on this topic.
I’m not bitter, and don’t have an official view of local history or of just about anything. Until I spoke up and engaged the massive vanity and rage of Beige Wesley Kimler, nobody said anything mean to me, and I’m certainly not important enough in the little history we are engaged in rewriting here for anybody to have said anything ABOUT me. No.
No, Mark, nobody owes me an apology for anything. I should apologize for pointlessly engaging Kimler, whom the rest of you indulge for what seem now obvious reasons. I should also leave Derek well enough alone, let him continue to retail his self-serving version of history, which is hardly different from the self-serving versions of events we all have. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
Concerning all thats happened here in Chicago, all that Tim is trying to justify, I feel I have always been too damned nice when speaking out about the whole rotten group of conniving apparatchiks-and what they pulled here. Mark, I think you sometimes have the same problem I do -we are really far too polite and nice about the whole thing.
And also, i was and am not red-baiting Guthrie, whose politics were never all that clear. all I SAID was that like a lot of old lefties he had limited business ethics. This is lovely. Now Derek’s a martyr and I’m red-baiting scum. ain’t life grand?
Just plain scum as you more than adequately demonstrated here.
btw Beige? I;m dark grey on the top and white with some blood detritus underneath