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 884: Pete and Jake Fagundo - November 12, 2024
- Episode 883: Meghann Sottile and MAD - November 2, 2024
- Episode 882: Eric Von Haynes - September 30, 2024
ok tim. that’s getting somewhere. you think guthrie is pushing a story without substance about the paper firing him and allen. as far as i know, and i’m not positive, i think he always asterisks his guesses about the canning with the statement that he was never told by the paper why he was fired. can you provide evidence to the contrary? that would be enlightening.
and your more confident assertions of limited business ethics, lying and non-payment to writers would be better received with evidence, as they are actual accusations and really require some back-up. it can’t be too hard to let us in on what you know. after all, you wouldn’t accuse him of bad ethics without being convinced yourself. inform the rest of us by providing the information that clued you in.
“Until I spoke up and engaged the massive vanity and rage of Beige Wesley Kimler, nobody said anything mean to me”
boo hoo! what; a wuss…..
are you sure Tim that people beng mean to you on BAS is the only thing gone wrong with your pathetic self you want to blame me for?
Okay, Jill,
I was never once paid on time and often not paid at all when I wrote for the NAE. In the end, I “bought” ads for WhiteWalls with what they owed me. Other writers can report in with what their experiences were like; I’m done trying to speak for others. Mark earlier said he’d been shorted on pay too, but didn’t mind. I didn’t mind either, except I gradually got the impression that some got paid and others didn’t — that was just an impression, though, nothing firm.
I think we all got used years ago to our canned mythologies about the last three decades of the 20th century in Chicago. The one reliable fact is, we were all a lot younger then.
I can’t provide evidence about the circumstances of Derek’s departure from the Trib. Everything I ever had was word of mouth, and if the parties closer to the event want to engage with it, that’s up to them. All I SHOULD have said is there’s an alternative version of events, which is, as I understand it, Artner’s version, and in that version the issues had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with competence and punctuality.
If I have one particular grudge against Derek it’s this: when I wrote for the NAE, they would routinely rewrite editorial copy without consulting the writer AT ALL. Imagine you write a review, and when the paper comes out you open it to find a review that resembles the one you wrote here and there, but begins and ends differently, and is considerably more assaultive than yours was. And it still has your name on it. Like some naked-in-school dream, eh? That was the reality of how the Examiner treated writers. And that wasn’t just when I was a snotnose right out of art school: it continued until the last time I ever wrote anything for the NAE, when Kathryn was the editor, in fact.
By the way, you guys should try to spell her name right. It’s Hixon. Lin Hixson of Goat Island spells her name with that extra s. That’s probably the source of confusion here.
“I can’t provide evidence about the circumstances of Derek’s departure from the Trib. Everything I ever had was word of mouth,”
is this a PTA meeting in Wassila we are listening in on with its attendant gossip?
circle jerk
Everytime I was rewritten I was contacted, the changes discussed, — the editors were usually right, and I learned from that.
If they inadvertently were suggesting a change of my opinion, so to speak, by changing some words, we re-altered it together to fit my intended messagem but better written. All the corrections I ever had were indeed VERY few and had to do with conciseness and good clear description. I never wrote for Hixon, though. I do know she violently edited Kimler’s editorial ! (Something editors almost never do, only features and reviews, etc.)
Ann Morgan And Alice Thorson, were my absolute best “teaching editors,” Koplos my best style model (now she’s my editor at Art in America), Bonesteel and Yood very helpful as well. At least that was my experience. I was never lied to by Derek or any of the editors in any way that I know of. They appologized for non-payment during one of their bad periods (I had been paid everytime before) and so I also took a small ad once, then later just said I’d donate what was owed (something like $ 300.– only) to the “cause.”
Facts for comparison for those whodon’t know .. critics get paid like shit everwhere, of course. Flash Art is famous for never paying anyone, and only accepting positive reviews of “hot” artists, The “Biggies” pay ridiculously low. ArtForum tells their reveiewers wha to review, and/or thy have to requst permission. NAE was never li that to me in anyway except the low pay).
Actually I thank Tim for his most illuminating participation here. I think it has been invaluable. The innuendos, the smears the gossip….its how his crowd operates. Though he claims no political agenda -a cursory look at who he has written about will dispel that falsehood….he is a consensus clique schill defending a position that is very close to being completely debunked here in Chicago finally-
Hey Derek!
You are listed on Time Out and some places as at the Cultural Center on Dec. 2, also on Dec. 12. When are you there exactly?
(Derek Guthrie – “Defilement: A Story of the Art World”)
(and — uh — once again I apologize for all the typos in my message above — “wha” is “who,” “thy” is “they,” “requst” is “request” etc. Clearly I need a web-comment editor! — I type fast, but like shit, and never correct before I slam the “post” button. The dangers of internet.)
I am now confused as to when i will give the lecture
maybe I will have to give it twice. I seek clarification
derek guthrie
Derek, I am still wanting to hear you discuss how it came to be that NAE ended up becoming a tool of the consensus clique emanating out of UIC.
I think it would also be of interest to hear from you, what precisely is the nature of your relationship with Ms Hixon today. I personally feel clarification on both of these points would be a good thing in the ongoing struggle for a more diverse and representative art scene here in Chicago.
i heard some great soundbites:
“discussion doesn’t exist in Chicago”
“the art world has gone flat”
– Derek
“.. basic cantankerousness of Chicago as an art center .. continues today….
lots of structural emnities…”
– James Yood
First i want to say that there IS great discussion about art in Chicago. and I would argue that there are elements that are critical and are not afraid to speak to power. Not many but they exist.
I think it’s also evident that one solution to the so-called Chicago Problem and its lack of critical dialogue is to continue ahead with our collective efforts in making media. And to make sure more people contribute to the dialogue by creating even more outlets.
I would also argue that current efforts using web-based and print media will do far more for the arts in Chicago than NAE did. The dissolution of gatekeepers and the rise of the more democratic, professional, and even DIY media provides a wider base of opinion and dialogue re: the various art worlds in Chicago than one or NO art authority.
Also James. Duncan. I am dumbfounded by your assertations that i am pushing some left wing socialist agenda via Proximity magazine. I may have some more radical lefty opinions printed in Lumpen magazine(!) but we have been very open to all voices/agendas/ideas/opinions/criticism within Proximity’s pages. So please, try reading it more carefully and separate your personal bias from reality.
That said I want you to be aware of your own efforts at promoting division and McCarthy-ism here in Chill by bandying about that crap. I would like you to provide some critique on the actual publication and the ideas contained within rather than insult or debase it because of my other interests and projects.
One more thing.
James I don’t know you, but i imagine you might have some issues with your traditional hegemonic role in covering the arts in our little pond. But before it diminishes further i think it’s time that the actors that support and entrench these “structural emnities” be exposed and shamed.
Get to work James and use your status and network to improve the quality of the dialogue. Start naming some names. You are not going to lose your job… You are JAMES YOOD! A Critic!
As Derek said: support discussion.
🙂
ok guys.
see you all on campus.
A gold coin has value apart from the government stamp applied to it. Conversely, fiat currency has no value apart from government script printed upon it.
Not only gold coins, but also finely wrought objects are stores of value that survive the regimes in which they are created.
Conceptual and Neo-Conceptual actors, seeking to remove the commodity value from art, have made of it a fiat currency — dependent wholly upon the imprimatur of a critical regime.
I haven’t decided that skillfully rendered oil paintings, luxurious tapestries, masterfully carved stones and well-cast bronzes ought to be considered valuable. Nor was I consulted about gold. These are the judgments of History and Economy. Even conceptual artists seeking to “de-commodify” art must begin working from a position that presupposes art’s commodity value.
Please understand: I don’t believe that piles can’t have value — only that they have no value apart from the interpretation of the artist and/or critic, and the context of the museum or gallery.
In the case of the hypothetical pile:
Critic A: “Piles cannot have value.”
Critic B: “Piles can have value.”
Both critics have made value judgments “a priori” about all things in the category of piles, based solely upon said things possession of the quality of “pileness.”
We express valuations simply by choosing: (a) to view, or not view, an art object; (b) to write, or not write, about what was viewed; (c) to read, or not read, what was written.
+ + +
The point is that even as someone holding large amounts of fiat currency has an interest in the survival of the government that issued said currency, so too someone heavily invested in a certain type of conceptual art has an interest in the survival of said art’s sustaining critical regime.
+ + +
Artner is not exactly as portrayed, having been critical of both nominally Neo-Imagist and Neo-Conceptual appproaches.
Friday, May 9, 2008, on Tony Fitzpatrick @ CCC: “The work gives me little to identify with beyond nostalgia, the easy longing for the past that’s better for all of us to resist. Formally, I find the pieces on view overloaded and monotonous.”
Thursday, February 28, 2008, on Karen Kilimnik @ MCA: “It is art made like a cat sprays to mark territory.”
+ + +
In the interview [podcast above] it was said that Ed Marszewski had an identifiable political agenda, and that Proximity Magazine was employed to further that agenda.
In comment #23, above, it’s hinted that Guthrie wanted NAE for the purpose of advancing his own artistic valuations contra the status quo ante.
In other parts of this website there are comments, in podcast and in text, which suggest that Paul Klein’s interest in a new Chicago museum was not wholly selfless.
New things happening? Or the gods casting down the titans, taking up their rule, and setting one peculiar intrigue up in place of another…
+ + +
Selfishly, I am interested in disambiguation: This episode contained both Yood’s mockery of the Tetragrammaton, and Guthrie’s remarks about anti-Semitism, without really making clear how those things ought to be taken…
Hi from the South West of England.
As an independent publisher striving to develop the critical framework for artists creating work outside the London metropolis, I’ve been inspired and energised by Derek Guthrie’s contribution to the pages of Proof magazine this past year. Derek has often made reference to the arts scene in Chicago, and you guys are living up (down) to the tough picture he’s painted.
There are many parallels with the arts scene here – and the stench of independent thought is clearly often overwhelming to some.
But issues of definition, a questioning of boosterism, challenging the critic’s role – these are essential elements for every arts community right now. Without independent publishers (whether online or in print) commissioning reviews, encouraging critics to be bold and ask the tough questions, developing and supporting new writers, who would front this debate?
jago! still waiting for that copy of proof. need my address again?
jago -the real stench emanates from the corpse of conceptual conformity so ubiquitous in the art world here -at one point and finally, just about finished off. Note the venal histrionics of a last vestige going down on this very thread……
jago!
I want a copy of Proof too.
🙂
“As an independent publisher [blah blah blah cliche cliche exquisitely clever stink reference]. Without independent publishers [blindly repeated phrases and self-congratulations nothing to do with the conversation] who would front this debate?”
jago. i was just being silly. i know the offer is rescinded and i don’t really need a copy. but i do need to know if that picasso quote went to print still attributed to someone named pickers.
First name Noz? Right?
waiting to find out. we could try making a wikipedia entry for noz p.
I’ve continued following this thread, and each time I return, I am more drawn to the image that heads the page.
I take it that the figure in the painting is Derek, alone in a flat and nearly empty environment. (I have seen many contemporary paintings done in a similar style.) It is amusing that the “real” Derek is flipping off the painting and/or himself as he is portrayed. What I find most interesting are the creases in the photo. It has been folded and stowed somewhere for some period of time.
Finally just listened to the interview. Guthrie is as much the thoughtful observer I thought he would be, though I have a few questions about his use of the term “professional” with regards to artists, used both as a positive and negative conversely in the course of the discussion.
So far as Chicago’s treatment of Guthrie is concerned, I sense an echo of the old Catholic homilies, as in the Gospels of Luke: “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown.” It’s of course a critical component of speaking truth to power that the voice of God go unheeded. Calvinists, Presbyterians and all other such Reformationist heterodoxies, take heed. Elder offices, it’s worth noting, and their pastoral role, are distinctive of Presbytery.
By my calculations, it was a few years after Guthrie moved on from NAE, that Hixon and the magazine were caught up in the Harvard business school-sourced movement of venture philanthropy during which time Lew Manilow gave his $100,000 gift. By his account, Manilow mandated as a proviso to the gift that a financial advisor see appointment to the board, a proviso that Hixon ignored, leading to unregulated expenditure in favor of an editorial-centric management approach. Hixon was vocal amongst staff that Manilow had pledged further gifts, purportedly as “ladder-step” support funds for the purpose of undergirding the nationalization effort of NAE, funds that subsequently went undelivered. A new publisher was hired, with a quorum of the board, who was quickly proven sorely unqualified to contend with the push-pull conflicting interests of the various parties involved that her position demanded. She was summarily dismissed and the warring parties were freed to engage. Local collector Curt Conklin was elected by consensus vote a position as both board member and publisher. Conklin dismissed Hixon, pursued a short-lived begging campaign, focusing primarily on Manilow, and was unsuccessful. At this point, the board was convened and voted in favor of dissolution of the NAE.
I was the last bookkeeper at the magazine before its dissolution, and at the time of my departure, if I recall correctly, there were nearly $60,000 in unpaid writer’s fees. Whatever assets remain, so far as I am aware, including a sizeable and potentially valuable art collection, remain to this day in the possession of Mr. Conklin.
With the assistance of other staffers, I placed a complete full run collection of the NAE archives at the Art Institute’s Department of Special Collections, and sold through a subscription service another full run to a Swedish collector, using the funds from the sale to fund a few months of an art magazine I attempted to publish in Chicago, but which has subsequently gone out of service. I hold a very incomplete run of the NAE collection for my own personal use.
I would be more than happy to match Guthrie’s startup cost of $250, a month, for any interested party willing to replicate the mandate for discussion in any publishing effort, and am willing to offer a full year’s worth of funding in full, in advance. Interested parties may contact me directly at mworkman@bridgeartfair.com.
Michael
Duncan, I’ll save you a little Googling:
Mission Statement:
The Chicago New Art Association, publisher of the New Art Examiner, is a not-for-profit organization whose purpose is to examine the definition and transmission of culture in our society; the decision-making processes within museums, schools, and the agencies of patronage which determine the manner in which culture shall be transmitted; the value systems which presently influence the making of art as well as its study in exhibitions and books; and, in particular, the interaction of these factors within the visual arts milieu.
The guiding philosophy of the Examiner holds that only through the promotion of a more comprehensive and inclusive cultural discourse free from direct commercial and ideological pressures of the marketplace can one gain a better understanding of our culture. Basic to this philosophy is the perception of visual art as one fact of cultural expression and commentary subject to and influenced by political, economic, and social factors. To this end, the Examiner’s project has entailed developing regional criticism and histories by providing a national forum for established and emerging critics and writers from different regions of the country to publish side by side; promoting journalistic reporting on and theoretical analysis of cultural funding and policies as well as private and institutional patronage; and providing an open forum for diverse, and often conflicting, ideas and opinions about art and the issues that affect it.
Michael
Michael, always a pleasure to hear from you.
Dear Michael Workman, I think we had should meet as soon as possible. my phone number is 773 363 3177
email derekaguthrie@googlemail.com
Actually, Derek is doing his lecture on Dec. 2 – I am organizing it for him (the CHicago Artists’ Coalition) at 6pm. Also, I’m not sure why Prompt is not being mentioned in any of these discussions about the revival in publishing and discourse – we have created something unique and exemplary. Many of you have emailed us to contibute to the next issue but for some reason don’t mention it here in public. Strange.
Lastly, this forum can be a little more interesting without the demeaning name-calling and partisanship. It’s so dumb.
Oh, and by the way, I’m moving to Zurich
in early Jan. Dec. 19 at Packer Schopf I’m having a holiday/goodbye party. I’ll continue managing Prompt from abroad. I hope that some of you can attend.
Here is the link to Prompt: http://www.caconline.org/default.asp?page=Prompt_Main
If you haven’t received one, send a 6.5″ x9.5″SASE and we’ll put one in the mail for you. This first issue is free.
Lecture by Derek Guthrie
December 2, 6pm
Chicago Cultural Center, Gates Auditorium
78 E. Washington St.
“Defilement: A Story of the Art World”
British art critic and co-founder of the New Art Examiner, Derek Guthrie will offer insight into the life of that art magazine and his thoughts on the current state of cultural life in Chicago.
Aide from looking in the mirror, no one from The Chicago Artists Coallition should EVER call anyone or anything in the art world here dumb. EVER.
Aside…..that damned correction device!
ThinkArt will be featuring a discussion with Derek Gutherie, Don Rose, and Michael Workman at 7:30 pm, Friday, December 12th at ThinkArt at 1530 N. Paulina Suite F…All are welcome…Look forward to an interesting discussion…
LR
“Duncan artist interviewer, does not have interest in art so he interviews himself.”
Bob, whether or not Duncan is lousy at his role, I’m not qualified to say, but, I do know Bad at Sports accepts submissions, you should throw your hat in the ring if you can do better, we’d love to hear it!
Wesley, good to see you back and vocal.
balzac,
how can you not be qualified to say if duncan is a good interviewer? you have the chance to listen right here. can’t you discern good interviewing from bad? yet, you think anyone who thinks it’s bad is automatically qualified to do better? i think one could sue a doctor for malpractice while not being nearly as good a doctor.
Olga Stefan –
You seem to be interested in impeaching the character of some person, or some group of people.
I have never met you. I have never made an effort to contribute anything to Prompt Magazine.
Yet, by making your accusation in a manner both vague and public, you have included me in your smear:
“Many of you have emailed us to contribute to the next issue but for some reason don’t mention it here in public. Strange.”
Does that not seem catty? Does that not seem mean-spirited? Who are the, “many,” to whom you refer? The reader is left to wonder…
The following characters, real and imagined, appear in the comments above in the order listed below:
(01) Patrick Collier
(02) Mark Staff Brandl
(03) Wesley Kimler
(04) Jill Peterson
(05) Bob Jones
(06) Christopher Hudgens
(07) Paul Germanos
(08) Derek Guthrie
(09) Barbara Blades
(10) Tim Porges
(11) Allan Jirikowic
(12) Russell Maycumber
(13) Ed Marszewski
(14) Kate Jago
(15) Michael Workman
All 15 names now have the shadows of cowardice and duplicity cast upon them.
And then, this:
“Lastly, this forum can be a little more interesting without the demeaning name-calling and partisanship. It’s so dumb.”
Do you not see the hypocrisy?
Prompt and Proximity were both mentioned in the podcast above; only the motives of the publisher of Proximity were called into question by the interlocutors.
Olga. This is a public comments board on the interweb. Have you been there yet? People get all troll-y and hot when they type!
And Michael. A years funding for a monthly magazine that is well produced, pays its writers, and is meaty may cost well over $350,000.
Send 10% of that to Proximity, Prompt, Three Walls, Neoteric, Green Lantern and BAS and you can corner the market.
Just a suggestion.
😉
Hey Wesley why do you think the art scenes here are so decimated and fucked? Just curious.
I totally forgot about your mag Olga. Sorry. See you soon in Switzerland!
Derek — yes, you’ve got to meet Michael (as well as The Shark). Michael is one of my favorite artworldians, especially in Chicago. Great ideas, works hard, speaks tough, clearly and correctly. Can get enthusiastic too!
Hi Balzac!
Jill, I think Duncan did just fine, although he spoke little. Jim too. They stepped back and let Derek tell his story. (I DO appreciate your other comments here, though, Jill!) It was mostly about stuff Duncan knows nothing about. So it was correct to give him his space and time. People complain when he talks too much, and now when he talks too little. Wait and criticize Duncan heavilly when his interview with me comes up soon. He only let me answer one question really, speak about one theory, and I gotta million of em. Besides I just want to torment him for no darn reason.
Edmar, nice to hear from you. Proximity looks great (I do say so even if I’m contriibuting). Wesley’s interview wat BaS is a must-listen if you missed it. He discussed the “difficulties” with the consensoriat apparatchiks there extensively.
i’m only playing lawyer ball here, saying we’re all capable of judging if an interview is good, but we’re not all necessarily capable of doing a good one. i just like to call people out on bad logic.
Howdy Mark!
Jill, I can offer my own amateur opinions of Duncan, Richard, Amanda, Brian, Mark, and the rest (sorry anyone omitted) and their skills, however I have not done what they are doing, I have not a factual basis to critique their skill, so unlike the rest of the internet, I don’t feel it appropriate to piss all over someone’s labor of love without offering something constructive, or putting my own ass on the line.
Bob may have these credentials, but he has not shown them here. I think the Bad at Sports folks provide a free resource and even when I don’t like it, and there are times, certainly when I don’t, I’m glad it is here.
“Olga Stefan –
You seem to be interested in impeaching the character of some person, or some group of people.
I have never met you. I have never made an effort to contribute anything to Prompt Magazine.
Yet, by making your accusation in a manner both vague and public, you have included me in your smear:”
Paul, you are taking this far too much to heart. Its the Chicago Artist Coalition with their front person shooting her mouth off here. Shes an idiot, They are awful. End of story.
Maybe it is worse than I thought…
During the podcast both Proximity Magazine and Prompt Magazine are mentioned. But while they laugh about Ed Marszewski, they are silent about Olga Stefan. Why?
It turns out that Olga Stefan has, in her own words, organized Guthrie’s lecture at the Chicago Cultural Center.
Too, it appears that Guthrie might be interested in publication, in Chicago, again, as evidenced by the give-and-take between Michael Workman and Guthrie, above. Workman has expressed dissatisfaction with the existing media.
So Marszewski is a potential rival while Stefan is for the moment useful?
Edmar’s and Olga’s indignation, publicly stated, seems real. And it’s as yet unanswered by the guest or host.
“too much to heart”
LA looks good this time of year.
” LA looks good this time of year” I’ll meet you at Versailles on North Venice for the cuban pork/garlic chicken combo-
balzac. free service? so is abc, cbs and abc. galleries are free too in the sense you’re using the term. and museums on free day. so what? we can’t judge anything unless we pay for it directly? (criticism doesn’t make it disappear, by the way.)
and what are the credentials necessary to judge an interview? or a painting? or a pile of goo on a gallery floor? or magazines? or newspapers? or tv news? are there certifications for that?
Jill, I believe you are asking, ‘what is the nature of legitimate authority?’
Hi, this is Kathryn.
I’m a broken record with this speech, but here we go again anyway.
Everyone take it easy. Shark, don’t call people idiots. Tim, don’t criticize people like a second grader.
We at Bad at Sports offer this forum as a courtesy to our listeners. It provides a space for feedback and an opportunity for the guest to clarify or defend their statements.
But if this continues to be a place for libel and a space for insults of a kindergarten-playgroud variety to be hurled at our guests and other members of the art community, then we’ll simply shut this down.
Conversely, I have seen many esteemed guests, in an attempt to defend themselves, get baited into giving out more information than is necessary. Remember that these comments are often anonymous and do not require a defense, or if so, that discussion is best taken off-line. Also, bear in mind that not only are names of posters not verified, one can simply post using anyone’s name. I could, for example, post this as Hillary Clinton.
Things got out of control on these forums a year or two ago. We decided we had two options, let it ride or shut it down. There is no moderating this, and we don’t have the resources to censor.
So police yourselves, be cool, or we’re just going to yank the comment feature at some point.
MSB, thank you for your efforts to do this already.
Always,
Kathryn
You’d better not even think about posting as me. Got it toots?
Got it.
Thanks Kathryn. Although it has occasionally sunk to some mean depths, this is, however, a GREAT discussion! Exactly what makes BaS great, I feel. Don’t pull the comments.
Paul, I talked to Derek a long while on the phone. he was simply unaware of a bunch of the publishing/e-publishing going on there in Chicago. As you’ll recall, he lives in the UK (and I in Switzerland), so not everything is in our minds immediately, and Derek has not been all that internet active. He sees all those folks as potential allies in some endeavours — was very excited that tehy exist. I gave him addresses and tel. and he has contacted most of them — and he sought me out too.
I do wish you guys would lay off the accusations of Edmar and co. as “lefist”. If so, SO THE HELL WHAT. I’ve already openly shouted my political direction. So? You are mouthing, inadvertently I think, standard US right-wing propaganda. The radical right-wing has controlled your media for so long, you even assume their preached beliefs when you don’t believe them. Read a little of George Lakoff on political framing. A little too much “Fox” is in evidence. As if the mere mention that someone might have social considerations is a damnation. The real world is much more complex than that. Hell, e.g., we even have a Conservative Christian SOCIAL party here that does NOT want to legislate morals, but rather fights for a social system out of what they feel are real Christian values. What would call them? Those days of the “L” word as an insult are OVER. We have a liberal president-elect.
i would never ask “what is the nature of legitimate authority.”
yes, i think george lakoff would see some framing here. and that’s why i specifically ask about ability to judge quality of art interviews. assuming we need a specialization of the kind balzac suggests is scary. we are all pretty knowledgable about art, so why can’t we judge an art publication interview? really? we need further specialization into art interviewing to say if this interview was good or not? we’re all arguing about art publications here, aren’t we? but our hands are tied when it comes to saying what’s good? all we are concerned with is whether the heart of the speaker is true- that is, politically correct, as in on our team. why do we need to know the political stance of anyone? why can’t we judge on quality? no different at all from the idiots who watch fox news because it’s politically correct, in its conservatism, for its audience. fox watchers obviously are also unqualified to judge quality. or uninterested.
“I have seen many esteemed guests, in an attempt to defend themselves, get baited into giving out more information than is necessary.”
bad at sports authority kathryn will decide what information and how much is necessary. no baiting for excess information, people, or our playgroud monitor will put the lid on the sandbox and we’ll all regret it.
“So police yourselves, be cool, or we’re just going to yank the comment feature at some point.”
i would say dorky or cheesy in response to that but those are bad words. i better just say this:
what is the nature of legitimate authority?
I don’t quite get that Edmar is being very criticized here, but lots of people are alluding to it, so maybe I should defend him.
Ed Marszewski (Edmar) doesn’t really have a dog in Chicago’s art battles. He just wants to see the level of the pond raised. He, with his wife and partner, Rachel, are the geniuses behind Lumpen, the Co-Prosperity Sphere, Versionfest and the perfect-bound Proximity Magazine. I can’t name another other 1 to 5 person team that does anywhere near as much for art, art consciousness and art fun in Chicago as they do. They are egalitarian, optimistic and operate on a shoe string. Every penny they earn (or pick up off the street) goes back into their projects.
Edmar doesn’t often volunteer that his ‘straight job’ is being a union carpenter – and a fine one. I had the genuine pleasure of working with him (& others) every day for 3 weeks when we installed 50 very oversized works of art by local artists at McCormick Place West.
I hope those of you who would criticize Edmar have standards as high as his, commitment to art and Chicago as meaningful as his and the passion to follow through as well as he does. I know I don’t.
I too want to see a healthier art attitude in Chicago. I’ve been working with Derek Guthrie a bit to explore what happened to the New Art Examiner, how it was perceived historically, what was right, what was wrong and whether they could even theoretically be a future in extrapolating from what was to a new publication.
I introduced Derek to Edmar. One might assume Edmar would feel threatened by the potential rebirth of a local art mag. Not Edmar. His response was “C’mon, let’s talk. No one is making any money at this anyway. If it helps the art scene, it’s good for all of us.â€
That’s Edmar. Giving, generous, passionate, creative and fun. He has my unequivocal support now and in the future. He’s earned it.
Paul Klein