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
Jill, so as to not misconstrue, I am meaning, ‘what is the nature of legitimate authority’ -in terms of what makes something true/what is truth?
which is I felt was the underlying premise of your questioning on several points made earlier – which I found completely reasonable.
what makes something true? what is truth? ok, i’m not sure i meant to zoom out quite that far though. i feel like art discussions go from micro (personal hurts and ladder climbing) to macro (what is truth), zooming in and out with no stops at regular naked-eye scale. very esoteric and clubby. in fact i’ve heard more comments telling people to stop talking then people actually talking. but maybe that’s me. i want everything to be a new england town hall meeting. me and john mccain sitting in a tree? but i enjoy your comments, shark, and appreciate the dialogue.
I simply like that you seem to be posing the question inherrent in and of what Mortimer Adler might describe as a ‘great idea’ I appreciate the dialog as well.
Jill, authority is the Christopher Hudgens and I are getting together tonight, putting in the administrator password, and changing all the names attributed to each comment. Mix it all up and do an experiment with other people’s comments being associated with your name.
90% of the discussion is fine. But I just don’t see the need to act like complete amateurs. I mean, Jill, do you find these yo-ugly-and-yo-mamma-dresses-you-funny comments further discussion about art in Chicago?
Richard Holland once gave me the title of “Desginated Adult of Bad at Sports”, and I take great pride in that title. I consider myself a pro, I contribute to BAS, to Chicago Public Radio and just did my first review for Time Out. So I do find it offensive when people bemoan our second-city status while acting like children.
My world view is that you either go pro or remain a hack. Some people on this site can say anything because they simply have nothing to lose.
Anyway, I finally listened to the show while working out and have comments I will post once I’m breathing normally.
K
Argh! The vision of the Bard working out.
Especially when he’s been dead for 392 years and about 7 months. Not a pretty sight. That’s amusing that you introduced Edmar and Derek, Paul, — I must have almost simultaneously sent their contact info to each other encouraging them to meet. They are certainly “Seeleneverwandschaften” — related in their souls.
There’s a number of things I could comment on, but even this one gets long.
In the spirit of criticism, I’m going to write an entire post about “Proximityâ€.
I’ll try to moderate the comments with my own view. I don’t think Proximity is a leftist magazine, but I do think it toes the progressive party line. I think that’s the confusion.
I heard a lecture by the guys who wrote “Rebel Sellâ€, http://www.goodreads.ca/rebelsell/. After hearing that, any self-respecting Starbucks-boycotting liberal will be so disorientated that you spending, not knowing what the hell to buy or boycott any more. You suddenly see people who boycott Starbucks with new eyes, as self-delusional and part of the problem. If you check it out, you’ll see what I’m talking about. I’m at a point where I like my ideas to be questioned, or I want responses to the criticisms about liberalism to be addressed. I say Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit†show about recycling and have waited two years to hear someone explain why they’re wrong. Is recycling really just symbolic? Do we really cause more pollution by having diesel trucks drag paper 100 miles? I don’t know, no one’s talking about it.
I just had a really refreshing read of “Little Bangâ€, Audrey Neffenegger (and co’s) literary magazine. It starts with letters to the editor about people trying to re-use hypodermic needles for their houseplants (and failing). I mean, a little humor, a little satire, a little refusal to kowtow to the choir.
Edmar, you’re not putting out a magazine that says “get out the liberal voteâ€, but the patchouli feel comes from the feeling of gathering positive energy for all things grassroots, all things community-based, act-global-buy-local. And with the progressive sentiments… well, I mean, “you had me at helloâ€, and it begs the question of who the audience is.
And this isn’t just Proximity, I mean, the whole art world is this way and I’m feeling pretty saturated.
Madeline Grynsztejn introduced Jenny Holzer’s exhibit by saying Holzer’s show was opening at a great time, as it can “get the word out before the election.” So I asked Holzer her if this was her goal, because what Madeline said was pretty loaded. and here is the transcript of her answer.
“I would make a hard distinction between my personal politics and what’s shown here. In my own life I try to … public citizen/private citizen, but in this show it’s more informative, I’m not grinding an axe one way or another. I don’t think it’s a a neutral show, I’m not saying that, but it is presented in that it is about getting more information for the reader. So yes, it’s getting the word out, but not a slanted getting the word out.â€
Now, who in this room agrees that Holzer doesn’t have a slant? Who thinks she’s just putting facts out there without bias?
So I don’t think it’s just what we say, I think it’s what we don’t question that shows the audience our cards more than we realize.
K
And most of the rest of the world outside the artworld is the opposite way. So? That makes ME feel saturated and attacked. Why do US Americans, as it appears to me being both inside and outside that frame, seemingly only refer to left-oriented things as “slanted” as you do here, Kathryn? I often hear that from US Americans about the artworld, as if to be “balanced” one must also necessarily have inclusion of right-wing thought. Yet I seldom hear the contrary about right-wing arenas like ABC, Clear Channel or Fox from their audiences. They too spout accusations of “liberal bias” — this is and was a mantra put into the media by Karl Rove and his likes (earlier as well under Nixon’s “Agnew offensive”), and has seemingly placed itself well in the minds even of the “opposition.” Especially then tying it to cliches of attacks on “hippies” and “old left” etc. I like your attempts to keep the dialogue on track, K, but I have to call you on “absorbed” right-wing propaganda here.
Interesting reading: http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/10/10_401.html
are william shakespeare, k, and kathryn all the same person? the bad at sports adult? 90% of the comments are fine you say. so do we get an A? and congratulations on your pro status.
Over dinner with Robert Hughes the name Jenny Holzer was brought up….Hughes being a gentleman quite unlike The Shark, did refrain from the blunt simplicity of calling ms Holzer an idiot; instead he couched his terms with a certain specificity and, restraint you might appreciate Kathryn, Hughes chose to describe Ms Holzer as an ‘imbecilic’ idiot-(or, an idiotic ‘imbecile’ -I forget which) I also congratulate you on your newfound ‘pro’ status…..bruuuuuuuther!
Ho-hum Holzer.
“. I consider myself a pro, I contribute to BAS, to Chicago Public Radio and just did my first review for Time Out. So I do find it offensive when people bemoan our second-city status while acting like children.”………whew!!!###^%&##!@!!!!! THE BIG TIME HAS ARRIVED!…..talk about proof of Chicago’s second city status- this must be a joke.
sorry Shakespeare, Kathryn or whoever you are, I’m having my work featured nationally on the Today Show next month-so what?…..it has zero effect on the fact that Chicago is not second city in the art world -its a distant third at best -and to not recognize this speaks to huge amounts of naivete and flat out denial of this basic truth. I happen to think as an artist, that the pursuit of truth, the opportunity to live in truth, is a worth while prerequisite to what I do.
who are you, The Shark? i think everybody else knows. if i’m wrong, i apologize, i don’t mean to pry. i just want to look up what you do and what you’re going to have on the today show.
A disturbing notion Mr.Guthrie voiced in his interview:
What he repeatedly referred to as ‘Trickle Down’, that critics and other professional cultural appreciators made art flower in some way…First, if the work hadn’t been done, there’d be nothing to champion or describe…Second, art made at the instigation of said experts and other authorities, is exactly what we don’t need more of…
So what is Mr.Guthrie proposing exactly? As a critic first and a, self-confessed, closet painter second, I understand why the opinion-maker’s role is so important to him. However, there needs to be something there in the first place before we can talk about it. It can only be ‘Trickle Up’; imagine building a world-class museum without any artwork to put in it…
Am I misunderstanding it, or is that what he’s saying?
Hey thanks for getting my back Paul.
Been a bit busy doing our little Select Media festival this week and missed all the fun.
I want to thank you Kathryn for trying to articulate your distaste for what you think our magazine is about, but I really doubt you actually read a copy.
We started Proximity because we love this city and we need more media to discuss our activities. We are concerned and have been concerned about the role of cultural workers here for over 15 years.
Proximity magazine clearly represents a hybrid form of distributing content that affects the various strands of the art worlds here in Chicago and elsewhere. Please open the magazine and see for yourself.
We will continue to provide opportunities for people to share their critiques and ideas about the art worlds here and beyond. We will also keep on doing everything we can to support the various communities, some that are insular, others that are not, to ensure we can build a better environment for all those interested in making Chicago a great place to live and work. Everyone who contributes has their own bias, their own slant and their own politics and we are open to wide variety and diversity of opinion.
But all we can do is share those opinions. We cannot do everything some of you may want to see in a magazine. Unless YOU contribute those ideas.
But that said we also support everyone’s efforts at contributing to the conversations in print, online and on the street. If you want our help. Ask. We will do everything possible to increase the volume of discourse and action. If you need tips, printers, webhosting, a space, some hugs, a beer. drop a line..
Shark,
I have two questions. Two simple questions I have been wanting to ask for two years.
1. Please name a critic or curator who strongly dislikes your work, yet you respect tremendously.
2. Please name a critic or curator who is an advocate of your work, whom you believe to be a part of the wretched gatekeeping force you believe rules Chicago.
That’s all I ask. Two names.
I promise if you provide two verifiable examples, I will never say one word against you again.
Thanks,
Kathryn
What I like most about Edmar, and this is entirely selfish, is that he’s (almost entirely) happened in the time that’s passed since I left Chicago. So to me, he’s new. While a lot of what I miss about Chicago is things that are no longer there (Sophie’s, the Coop, the Hopi Altars at the Field Museum), what I don’t miss is the Balkan grudge fests. And sure, I’m as guilty as anyone — on this board, I seem to be the guilty one, as I found it impossible to accept the Derek Guthrie official version of one slice of the past. Fine. Let that go. “Discourse,” Chicago style, is buttkick. Plus it’s a small market for ideas, so a lot of faces get erased from the podium, especialy now that everything’s digital and erasure is so much easier.
Now, if you’re going to build an arts community, it’s going to have to begin with lots of small, largely symbolic gestures. And the people who make those gestures will run the risk of being treated like idiots and posers by the more established idiots and posers on the scene, and I will not name names here, as I’m done with that. Mocking any attempt to do something new, while clinging bitterly to old wounds and insults is the essence of Chicago: it’s why I left town, because I was sick of being like that and couldn’t change without leaving. My craptastic little exchange with Wesley was a reminder of everything that was deeply fucked about my life there, and not just mine. Wesley, you should have stayed in California. A last piece of unsolicited advice.
Ok, Edmar, your turn.
Of course I read both issues. I’m not a hack.
I like many things about Proximity. I don’t think it’s bad at all. Number one, graphically, it’s outstanding. It also has a format that’s snappy, offers quick reads when you want one, is easy to navigate, and touches on interesting things.
But in issue 1, it was the Nato Thompson interview and “Death to Law: Progressive Public Art in Chicago” from which I began to form that opinion.
Your first question, “I always say to people that your generation of students from SAIC were very influential in producing/promoting the confusing realm of art/activist work in Chicago.”
and end with
“Your current curatorial focus is in looking at local practices in different cities and different regions. Trying to see how those infrastructures or those support networks and their operations themselves become some form of artistic activity that’s new or innovative?”
In issue two, which is much better than one, you’ve got the PRS piece, where they swap out institutional plaques for their own. “The PRC created political, economic and cultural networks that extended the words and actions of the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas to a working class urban bario of Los Angeles… projects like pirate radio station, food distribution group, solidarity building activities.”
Are these bad things??? NO! There not bad choices for things to discuss, I’m just saying you had me at hello with progressive grassroots stuff. For me personally, I’ve become exhausted with partisan politics in this country and instead of strengthening my feelings and fortifying my liberalism, I’m… honestly… ready to listen to the other side. I’m ready to listen to Republicans, not because I think they’re right, but because I think we’re never going to get anywhere if we keep writing 48% of the US population as morons and don’t get to the heart of the things that divide us.
Again, Edmar, I’m not attacking you, I’m just trying to show you where I personally think a progressive vibe is coming from.
I mean, I’m confused, wouldn’t you want feedback? And that’s great that Paul sticks up for you, and I assure you that one-on-one he does the same, but does that help improve your work? I just saw Olga and told her things I had problems with in “Prompt†and she was fine with feedback.
I just don’t get it, I’m showing people my novel and when they say they like it, I don’t find that helpful, I push and question until they tell me what they don’t like about it. Then I have something to work with. I mean, a few people are giving you feedback suggesting that there’s a tinge of pink to your journal, so what? Is that so bad? If you said, “look, I keep getting pegged as someone with a liberal agenda, and no matter what I do, and how far I feel like I’m getting from it, I can’t shake it.†Well, then, hell, man, we’ll help you. We’re on your side, we all want you and Olga and all the new media to be successful. But if you just want compliments, then fine, I won’t say anything except what I like about it.
K
Well Kathryn I guess you’ve spoken your last and I will hold you to your word.
Though I am disappointed in how he has under achieved and not been part of creating a canon of aesthetics here, letting personal battles compromise his judgment at times -Alan Artner who was quite laudatory about me for a time critically turned completely against me many years ago culminating in a huge rant when I did a show at the MCA. I respect Alan and personally like the man. I thought his article on curators/Franceso Bonami specifically, was absolutely marvelous.
Lynne Warren who was and is a member still of the power strcture here in Chicago -who was a sworn public enemy of mine in the 80’s has been a champion of my work for many years – as is lisa Wainwright and, after the Decadence exhibition, with the reception my work received so apparently now is Mary Jane Jacobs. All three women have at one time or another been major players in the very flawed power structure that hampers us all here in Chicago.
Any further questions? I didn’t think so.
Kathryn, it’s pretty easy to explain why proselytizing Repuglicans are obnoxious – besides the fact that you are starting to sound like one.
Progressives believe that children are born good, warrant nurturing, possess benevolent instincts and are god loving, if they care about god at all.
Repuglicans believe children are born undisciplined and need to be controlled and god-fearing,
Progressives believe that all people are good and worthy.
Republicans believe that only those who accept discipline to correct their defects of birth are good and in exchange for pursuing the disciplined, god-fearing life are entitled to the excessive rewards, benefits and golden parachutes they receive. Correspondingly, minorities, indigent people and those on welfare obviously didn’t buy into the discipline bullshit and deserve no support, no money and certainly no love.
Repuglicans – listen to that bitch Ms. Pail-in – believe they are entitled and are irresponsibly arrogant. They believe they have the fucking god-given right to impose their will on other countries who do not concur with their myopic opinion – this is known as the Bush Doctrine which your vice presidential candidate never heard of, but she was embraced by the idiots of the right, either because they appreciate her discipline or because they want to fuck her. You and she sort of do look alike, ya know.
You’re impugning Edmar’s egalitarian non-agenda sure makes you look like a rightwing thug and we both know you’re better than that.
See, that’s exactly my point. Progressives who love and accept everyone, except non-progressives.
God forbid I dissent, you go ahead and give 25 million to GM. Be my guest.
Humans are a warring species that can’t help but attack and the new war is partisan. I think the passions against the other side are as simple as that. Humans break into clans, we divide and fight.
Personally, I’ve voted democrat to the point that I thought Kerry was too conservative and was ready to vote for Kucinich even though he believes in goddamn aliens. That said, your definition of republicanism is overly simplistic. I wish it was that simple.
But who gives a crap. The point is… hey, let’s get back to the original topic of criticism, eh? Let’s bring this boat full circle.
Maybe criticism is in jeopardy because as a whole, whether it’s me or you or Edmar or New Art Examiner, maybe we don’t like to be criticized. Maybe when we say we have a thick skin, we’re lying. Maybe we’re at the point where we just don’t want those lines drawn in the sand.
Today I thought about how funny it would be to make an art criticism spoof where they criticize artists and not the art. It’s just all personal judgments about the way they dress, where they live, if they like good movies. Criticism is touch territory. I saw that documentary about Hunter S. Thompson and the reason he did so great on the campaign trail is that he only did the trail for 1 year. He was willing to burn bridges because he wasn’t planning on sticking around.
Paul Klein describes highlights things he likes and doesn’t dish on the stuff he doesn’t because if Paul started giving stuff the thumbs down, that would hurt his whole agenda of building unity in this city. Maybe “criticism†is inherently in conflict with “communityâ€. I’ve learned that for myself, I was asked to do a CPR piece about the city’s art budget and the economy. There was NO WAY I was going to take that assignment, just in case the city money actually doesn’t actually do that much towards tourism and the city’s bottom line. I would have done that piece determined to show that money for the arts is well spent. And for that reason I declined.
Listening to the Guthrie interview, reading between the lines I could see how it all became such a hot mess. If you say a movement is bad, you hurt the artists, the galleries, you say something is good, then it’s boosterism, and as he put it in one point in the interview, “at that point, we had few friends”. Well I’m sure he didn’t! They were writing criticism and raising money at the same time… what a nightmare.
Lastly… really.. you think I look like Palin! Omigod that’s so nice. She’s nuttier than a fruitcake, but she’s a folksey cutie. It’s an old picture, I’m big as a house now.
K
I wonder if it would be a good idea, so that we could all share for this discusion some referance points. I ask who are the succesfull artists that have come through the Chicago system since 1980. What were the crucial and critical steps that made that success possisble.?
I gotta say — wonderful discussion, even though we swear and attack Chicago style! 123 comments! Welcooome Baaaack Derek! Loved your last post Tim. That is the Tim I remember. I didn’t really understand the “trickle down” comments completely either, Derek. Rather than discuss “who’s famouser than who”, first could you launch into that a bit more explicity?
Kathryn, I don’t find you a closet righty, I hope my point was claer, I just find that certain of your Edmar comments are rather cliched anti-Liberal images and terminology, which was largely consciously planned and planted in the Amnerican mind after the Republicans determined that the media had undermined the VietNam War, thus organized, bought up the media and under Goebbels-like sophisticated activities, primarily by Rove, planted these items. And even US Liberals began to spout them until Howard Dean got Lakoff to preach the shit out of everybody in the Dem Party.
Kathryn -since I am sure you will live up to your word, I expect nothing but your rapt attention -in perfect silence as I further enumerate: my biggest champion here -who is part of the art establishment here in Chicago – is the person who really provided most of the knowledge and insight for this interview -that would be JAMES YOOD. Would you like a list going back to his time at NAE when he has written about/ been a proponent of my work? Why don’t you just call him up and ask him?
Let see: since you are so snidely condescending in asking for verification -which only decribes your ignorance about who I am-as anyone who knows me friend or foe, knows, I never lie.
I wii humor your insulting behavior -for which I am not the only recipient here-
Lynne Warren: the catalog essay from the show I did at the MCA or the three essays for gallery exhibions since then?
Mark Pascale: drawing exhibition Tom McCormack -catalog.
Lisa Wainwright :catalog ah…Decadence! exhibition
James Yood: numerous catalogs, and NAE pieces
these are people who have been major players here over the years and are but a few of the serious interesting people in the art world here who have supported me-and if you knew much of anything about the scene here, you would be aware of their strong, seemingly tireless (for which I am grateful) support of my work. I will caveat here by saying the exception is Mark Pascale who has written about me very favorably once -and whom I dont really know beyond that.
I think the degree with which you seem impressed with yourself over being on public radio and ‘beginning’ to write for Time Out !!#$#$%!!@#%^!!! is both amazing, disturbing and revealing. You were smarter on this blog before you started talking Kathryn.
And you think you are a pro?….Indeed…..at the risk of being gauche, the last big piece I sold -the one destined for the today show, I was paid 50,000.00 to paint. It was the third large scale work I sold last year -along with MANY other smaller works. I have been touted as the best painter here in Chicago, the most exciting, promising, I have been cast down and, villified. I have done good shows and been trashed and poor ones and been praised. I have been gossiped about -on these very pages -being called a drunk -when I haven’t had a drink in come May 15, TWENTY YEARS, I have endured a hundred Tims -screaming out the disapointments of their own lives blaming me, somone they don’t even know. I have had my beautiful little two and a half year old daughter maligned on these pages……I’ve seen it all and you know what? What people like you and the Tims don’t get, is when I speak up, its not so much about me -I do very well here -its for all the people I know and some who I dont know who got fucked by the way things are here; who dont have whatever it is that drives me to speak up and out and TELL THE TRUTH. Tell the truth, work my ass off and consistently improve and gain and accrue mastery as a painter.
Bottom line, (here you go Jill) WHAT IS THE NATURE OF LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY? WHAT MAKES SOMETHING TRUE?
How about this: ACTION SPEAKES LOUDER THAN WORDS./ I am a professional artist with all the dents and dings, high points and lows, triumphs and failures to prove it. I have made my subsistence from making oil paintings and drawings for 25 years here in Chicago and for a period in LA. I am a pro, and frankly Kathryn, either my standards are simply much more stringent than yours, or you are not what you claim to be in any place other than your own version of Fantasy Island.
Beginning to write for Time Out…..do you honestly think that I or any serious artist in this town gives a shit what ANYONE let alone some beginning writer at Time Out has to say about our work? Do you think Tony Fitz cares or Dawoud Bey?…….get real.
Like Tim before you I think some of the most interesting and revealing moments on this thread have come about inadvertently. If I was Duncan or Richard, I would be reining you in quickly before you further step in it and sound even more foolish, individually and as a member of BAS.
To me, your pitch on this thread seemed shrill and wrong, that it was more about you flexing your new found muscles as a,… uhmmmm……. ‘pro’- than it was about anything aesthetic or, intelligent.
Cordially,
Wesley Kimler
and btw Edmar, I think what you are trying to do, what you have already accomplished is unique, individual and terrific. Whether I agree with it all or not, is not relevant. What is, is that you are not a conformist, that you are obviously approaching what you to with complexity, ingenuity and intelligence. That you have your own thoughtds and speak your own mind.
Don’t let the bastards get you down.
The number of media outlets has increased; but there has not been a proportional increase in (a) meaningful, (b) original, and (c) local content.
Already, Chicago-based print and on-line publications share authors and material: It is possible to listen to a Duncan MacKenzie interview at Bad at Sports, and to read a transcript of said interview in Proximity Magazine. Likewise, one can find articles by Nicholas Lampert in both Proximity Magazine and also in Prompt Magazine. Mark Staff Brandl participates here, at Sharkforum, and, again, at Proximity. Etc., etc..
Ed Marszewski, comment #62, above:
“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,”
Mark Staff Brandl, comment #97, above:
“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. […] I gave him addresses and tel. and he has contacted most of them — and he sought me out too.”
Is it really the case that more people are being heard? Or, are the same people being heard in more places? It would seem a great challenge to produce some new work of publishing that was truly connected to the City and yet didn’t recycle talent and/or text.
Michelle Grabner [and I invoke her again because Bad at Sports contains two hours of audio in which she states her own case in her own words] suggested rightly that the health of critical theory might suffer if everyone began their own practice.
Knocking down the big gate and the big gatekeeper, one might, in time, find another wall rebuilt — with many little gates, and many little gatekeepers. And through such gates no big ideas would pass. Do you want the big ideas? Maybe the time of the “great critic” passed?
If I understand the time frame correctly: In 2008, at April’s art fairs Ed and Rachael released the first issue of Pro-ximity. And six months later, in October, Olga and the Chicago Artists’ Coalition released the first issue of Pro-mpt. What did the second magazine do that the first did not? What will a third magazine do that the first two have not done?
Is more publishing good? Or, is it only more (a) meaningful, (b) original, and (c) local content that is good?
Olga Stefan, comment #77, above:
“I’m moving to Zurich,”
“I’ll continue managing Prompt from abroad.”
Local?
In the case of Prompt and the Chicago Artists’ Coalition asking questions becomes especially important as public money from the Illinois Arts Council and Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs might be involved. How have CAC funds been spent? In The Reader, Deanna Isaacs reported that: “For $7,500,” Olga Stefan, “hired her husband, Oliver Bosche, to build a new [Chicago Artists’ Coalition] Web site.”
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/thebusiness/061124/
Where in all of this is the art? I see the social networks, and the ambition, etc.. But the art?
If you [Ed, Olga, Duncan, etc.] really want more people to write, and more diverse points of view expressed; if you really want to be relevant to Chicago; if you want “change” things for the better:
(1) – get out there every week and focus on what’s going on in this town; New City is doing it;
(2) – identify your next issue/episode theme, post a public deadline, make clear your needs [photo or text, review or editorial], specify the address to which these things should be sent;
(3) – stop recycling content; differentiate.
Kathryn, comment #121, above:
“Maybe criticism is in jeopardy because as a whole, whether it’s me or you or Edmar or New Art Examiner, maybe we don’t like to be criticized. Maybe when we say we have a thick skin, we’re lying.”
Shark, I agree with you about Edmar (and could extend that to Michael Workman, you, and others)!
Paul — wonderful comments.
The more “serious” media outlets we have in Chicago the better it for us locally and in turn nationally…internationally. I’m sure that there are some cross-overs between the different outlets but each outlet still has it’s own distinct voice and direction so I don’t think that’s an important issue.
The thing that concerns me is that most of the artists and art-related people I come in contact with have never heard of BAS, Proximity, etc. And it’s usually the same old crowd on the comment section here at BAS…though I am very happy to see Wesley Kimler back in the game.
We have 1000s upon 1000s of artists in Chicago…where are they?
“We have 1000s upon 1000s of artists in Chicago…where are they?”
Most likely busy trying to make the rent.
I agree with Kathryn-the-Bard,
“Maybe criticism is in jeopardy because as a whole, whether it’s me or you or Edmar or New Art Examiner, maybe we don’t like to be criticized. Maybe when we say we have a thick skin, we’re lying.â€
BUT — BUT — I must add that this is frequently said about artists (and true), yet almost NEVER said about critics themselves, never ever said about curators, or gallerists. THEY too must be prepared for real discussion. When I wrote a large, full page article in a German-language major newspaper here criticizing (not just complaining, but really analyzing) the current consenus constraints on curators , I meant it also as a compliment to those who go their own way. Some saw that, but two big-shot curators wrote responses which pretty directly said “why didn’t you criticize artists you don’t like, not the structure or power-situation of the artworld.” No shit. Didfn’t even see their assertions as odd. I answered as you can well guess, that I will darn well critcize anything and anybody I chose. And I chose to seldom criticize artists. Everybody else does that. I prefer to bite the hands that feed me. That is, in my opinion, a more important activity at this moment in time, as therein lies the real problem, — and what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Wesley,
“It’s not about me.” Except when it is, which is.. always. If you’re going to live in truth, you can start there. It’s always about you, and that’s fine.
I didn’t know you’ve been dry for twenty years. When I knew you, you drank a lot, more or less constantly. Here, you posted a string of enraged abuse, late at night. So I assumed… and was wrong. Apparently the blowhard aspect of your personality remains intact, though, which is too bad.
Another part of the act that hasn’t changed (along with bragging about recent $ale$) is the angry outsider bit. So, successful as you may be, it’s not enough and not as much as you deserve, and someone is to blame for this, and that person or group would be whom or what? You have some cute name for the group — the Consesoriat, right?
So what is their consensus?
Derek,
Playing games about who has succeeded and who has not is silly, but I’ll go so far as to name two artists who have done well since 1980, though there are many more: Kerry James Marshall and Tom Friedman. That should be enough for your trickle-down game to begin. Go to it.
I didn’t know you’ve been dry for twenty years. When I knew you, you drank a lot, more or less constantly. Here, you posted a string of enraged abuse, late at night. So I assumed… and was wrong. Apparently the blowhard aspect of your personality remains intact, though, which is too bad…..
……..still finding a way to use my ancient drinking problem against me aren’t you Tim? How fucking pathetic. Everyone in the art world should note this: -this is the working mentality among a large contingent here, modus operandi. You are a coward Tim. Why don’t you slink back into the hole you crawled out of and worry about your own problems little ms Ann Landers and let me worry about mine?
“I didn’t know you’ve been dry for twenty years. When I knew you, you drank a lot, more or less constantly.”
uhhhhhhSo you ASSUMED WRONG Tim….and as far as ‘enraged abuse’ are you joking after the trash talk you just delivered here towards me? You must be kidding….. Look, its not believe it or not, my fault that you are an embittered loser trying to find somone to blame for your plight. I don’t know you, never knew you and am not responsible for your sad situation, or that your parents stuck you with a crap name like ‘Tim’ (which is probably where this whole thing started) where ever you are (obviously not here hence the puffed up cyber bravado.
Consensoriat -Mark came up with the term -ask your old pal. -I’ll give you a clue though -take a look at who you have written about…….what, a tool.
-the other evening when I was talking to Mark Staff Brandl, we discussed how he once tried to get you to write for sharkforum -when you first delivered up your on-going tirade against me and we took a pass……as Mark noted, I don’t know what happened to this guy but now when you hear him, you just want to smack him. Mark, very perceptive of you-
[I wish I’d posted this before Wesley got his posts up, but having written it I kind of want to publish it, so here:]
Christ Tim, What’s the point of being so negative? You seek to be provocative when you could be proactive. You’ve taken the role of muckraker. Bad choice.
Wesley is damned good at defending himself. Why that makes lesser mortals want to challenge him is beyond me. He’ll probably take your bait, but invariably you will be the prey and you will be chomped. “Where is Laertes? At dinner. Not eating, but being eaten.†That’s you. Hardly productive.
Wesley is a fabulous painter and a brilliant artist. (If you want me to explain the difference and ramifications, I will.) In fact, I’m having difficulty thinking of a better painter right now since Caravaggio or Cezanne. I’m sure there are some, several, many (?), but certainly not the currently fashionable tripe like John Curren, Elizabeth Peyton, or Karen Kilimnick.
Wesley happens to give a big goddamn about helping his fellow artists, raising consciousness, calling a spade a spade, but always with the agenda of helping others. That it often includes himself too is normal, proper and appropriate. Are you some superior, altruistic saint? Where are you coming from? What are your credentials? What have you done that let’s you pontificate from the same stage Wesley does? What have you done since you left so long ago most here don’t remember you? And please tell me how that gives you the authority to speak about what has changed in the past 20 years that you’ve already proven you know nothing about.
Tim, I used to like you – a lot. I always enjoyed our conversations, your point of view and your affable quirks. I don’t know where you’ve gone, what you’ve done and why you choose to publicly demean yourself and others.
What happened?
Paul
placeholder
Paul,
I wasn’t responding to W. Kimler The Painter, who’s not bad, but Cezanne? I see him as a bigger and less interesting version of Amy Sillman, but you think he’s great and that’s fine.
I was responding to Wesley Kimler The Blowhard, aka “the shark.” I mean, Jesus. Well, okay, he wants to call himself a shark, fine and dandy. But some of the things he and others were saying weren’t true, and some of the things Derek had to say about the history of the NAE weren’t true, and it was my view they were all loading a bit much of it on Kathryn Hixon’s shoulders — more of it than was true, or fair.
I guess you have some kind of “benefit of clergy” deal going with Wesley, like when he slimes people it’s fine because he’s a genius painter. I don’t get that. That was, apparently, MS Brandl’s problem with me, when he asked me to srite something for his blog and I wrote back in response to some shark nonsense and MSB decided I was too angry and bitter for his universe.
I am neither angry nor bitter. I don’t think I have to earn the right to speak in the same forum (from the same stage) Wesley does. Not that it’s any big thrill. For someone who likes to hand out shit by the bucket, he’s awfully touchy, don’t you think?
I didn’t start the Public Demeaning on this string, but I did join in halfway and did my part, and I’m not hugely proud of that. But for you I have one question regarding the NAE and its history: was there ever a time when the policy of one review per ad was not in place?
Poor little Timothy: if you are going to dicuss my work it is probably a good idea that you have a clue as to what it even looks like today. Clearly, you do not.
Amy Sillman – yes she does a watered down, far less skilled, or interesting version of many of the same things that engaged me over 20 years ago- but of course you would use the comparison to denigrate me, you, a critic of such sterling principle….who would never think of placing principles before personalities -what a joke and a farce. You have a bitch with me, and you will say anything to have it -truth be damned.
I’ve moved on, obviously, since you clearly have this obsession thing with me going on, you ms Landers have not. The funny thing is I don’t even remember your inconsequential little self- must have made a big impression…..is thats what is really bothering you Timmy?
Kathryn Hixon: I stand by what I said, its an opinion far from being only mine. I ask Derek once again to make his relationship with Ms Hixon public. I think it would be most useful.
Tim, to answer your question about NAE advertising, I don’t know. Wouldn’t surprise me. Advertising for coverage tends to be damned close to the norm in the journalistic world. They give lip service to fair treatment, but it’s invariably bullshit.
Yes, Wesley can be short-fused and acerbic. Yes, I frequently find it excessive, but it is a question of style – not content. And perhaps more important for you there vs us here is that we are used to it and dismiss it. There was a period of time where Wesley bore me so many new assholes that I felt perforated. So what? Unfortunately, many of the negative things he said about me were warranted, at least in part. And yes, sometimes his tactics/strength in winning an argument diminishes his co-combatant. Not that you follow football, but if Michael Vick had Wesley Kimler to watch Vick wouldn’t be in jail now.
Additionally, in the past 2 ½ years Wesley has gotten milder and calmer, and we appreciate him more for it. And like the rest of us, he is a work in progress. But I’m sure glad he’s in Chicago, because his presence makes us better – and that’s pretty much the bottom line.
Paul
Heavens, I’m out of date. Well, thanks to the internet, I’m nearly caught up on Kimler, and the new work doesn’t look a thing like Amy Stillman, though whether that’s a good thing I can’t say until I see some in real life, as reproduction hypes the spectacle aspect of them, and there’s an awful lot of that.
Sillman. Damn, my typing sucks.
Inadvertently, Tim through no fault of his own thinking, having more to do with his inherrent pettiness, does manage to stumble upon what for artists, what is the crux of the matter: I don’t know or have anything against Amy Sillman -my friend Tony likes the work- still, one could pick through my work from the mid to late 80’s, eliminate the range, application skill (hands), and ambition and have a best of Sillman before Sillman was Sillman exhibition.
And then, I moved on as anyone familiar with the work I do today would know.
My point being, that the entire New York School in all of its recent incarnations has lost more than a step. I think some of this can be attributed to the simple fact that NYC no longer is, what made it the art center back on the 1950s-60’s….there is no cheap affordable studio space, its a total cluster fuck, ambition and celebrity have supplanted seriousness and long dedication, exploration and study…..
That many things coming out of here have been SUPERIOR to NY -in the case of ms Sillman or Cecily Brown and me -20 years before the fact of their work (- looking at their work is like a time warp for me-) and I am far from the only artist here who has been superior to what is happening in LA or NYC – finally, this year in theater, this truth became a fact as Steppenwolf dominated Broadway and the Tonys- Steppenwolf also has right here in Chicago 3 theater critics of international stature where we in the art world really have none-
And yet over at the MCA we have Molon importing LA and NYC here for his rock show, ignoring everything here. Hanging Raymond Pettibone and his low skill low brow cartoons for the umteenth time here…..all of this a precursor to the Kilimnk debacle.. Its inexcusable -as is the lack of support for a professional art world here -this includes lack of critics, poor curators (with some exceptions-) crummy support -in fact arrogant indifference from the major collectors here…..
I see this the function of sharkforum BAS and others -Edmar……we need infrastructure -and we need an out and out revolt -revolution! -we need to boycott some of these institutions until they get their acts together….
We just elected a new president. He is from Chicago. Steppenwolf -Chicago- ITS OUR TIME. But we must seize the moment and not tolerate the benign neglect to indifference that has hampered our art world for generations, Nor, must we allow the academic institutions to call the shots -thats over just like the art fairs where much institutional art is shown (festivalism) are now crashing to earth.
Here in Chicago, we artists have an opportunity to change the art world in America, to bring bask seriousness and purpose, technical excellence, long term explorative methodologies -but we must stand up and take control of many of its aspects…we must build our own infrastructure as it is obvious no one is going to do it for us-
Tim get it straight: Sillman looks like me and not on a good day -twenty years after the fact -not, visa versa- Second City mentality rears its unfortunate head once again! sheeeeesh!…..
Look, lets get back to the discussion. I did not come here to talk about me…..this is an unfortunate aspect of who I am -which I do regret -lets focus on what is at hand -my preceeding post is about that- lets talk infrastructure, how we initiate change.
Consensoriat explained:
http://www.sharkforum.org/2007/03/dictatorship-of-the-consensori.html
Come on — you know damn well what is meant Tim, don’t play befuddled on top of bitter Wesley hater.
Good points Paul!
Other than the occasional weird pointless attacks, I’m still really enjoying this discussion.
Jill, btw, I know you’ve tried to get some more philosophical things going here, but we’ve got an intense “regime change is eminent” Chicago thing going here! Sorry, ordinarilly I’d be chiming in on yours. You said you were from Georgia (I think) so you may not know about the Consensus Clique tendencies of the Windy City. I don’t live there anymore either, but have strong contact. Keep posting here (and at Sharkforum.org if you wish) — we’ll discuss with you evenetually!
Wesley, I think it is no longer of much use to answer Tim. He answers with some real thoughts, then lapses into “weird bitter.”
When I wrote back to you, Tim, after your attack on WK at SF a few years ago, we had a good exchange, but you DID say to me that you were disappointed and bitter about the artworld, or some such thing. I have the email, but am not checking at the moment. You said it was useless to struggle against the “powers” and I said, well then I’d rather go down in glorious flames than give up. Drop the consensus! Get them out of your brain. They’ve ruined you. They are on the way out anyway. See the light again and look for real quality and activity in Chicago. Edmar, Michael W, BaS, the SHARK (yes!), hell, ME, THAT’s where its at. Listen to Derek again and think about it. Then you could have your old positive look back. The Consensoriat is, in short, those “frienemies” you plodded for who have ruined your perception of art and tried to ruin Chicago. Read my post above. It is light-heartedly written but deadly serious.
That’s the end of my “witnessing” to Tim. No more comments from me to Tim!
mr. brandl, thanks for the hospitality and actually this is very interesting. i’m from chicago originally and although i don’t know the scene, chicago politics and art are fascinating. also, jinx buy me a coke, i already went to sharkforum before you wrote that. it’s really good. doesn’t feel like art talk- everything makes sense. the glossary is great.
Hey this thread shows that at least a dozen people care about what is going on in town. And despite the crossover of participants writers etc in the various print and web media i think there are at least 4o other writers who give a hoot, too (at least by my count in our recent contributors list).
And the hardcore commentary is juicy. i love it!
So.. to adress a few things:
Kathryn, soon we will start a project or two that will cover the huge gaps of art coverage in town. We hope to do this in a more timely fashion in between issues and online. And we will continue tweaking the diversity of voices in proximity too.
Also K, I also appreciate the criticism.
Just keep in mind that we do support the bourgeois neoliberals and Republican art hoi polloi too!
And FYI those spreads of objects, studios and artists’ work we print in full color really piss off the hard lefty art elements that we work with.
No one is ever happy with anything. including myself. So as usual we get hit from all fronts. It’s normal. And i do have thick skin. I just like to defend ourselves when we are derided. No harm in that. And just because my personal interests are in print alongside those of the other couple dozen participants in the mag does not mean Proximity represents my agenda. My main agenda is to merely pay for the thing.
I apologize for accusing of you of not reading the mag.
i wish there was an emoticon for hugs.
🙂
In response to the shark’s question requesting information of my relationshipe with Kathryn Hixson.I had no relatioshipe with Kathryn Hixson untill a few days ago when we met for the first time. We had a very pleasant discusion and will meet again. At some point in the last years of the New Art Examiner while it was changing it’s image and focus it was indicated to me by a studied silence that the New Art Examiner did not have any interest in using whatever writing that jane Addams Allen or I could contribut I requested that I should not be put out to grass but we were It is my sense that this issue will never be solved.
It is also my beleif that Kathryn Hixson has been scapgoated for the demise of the NAE. As far
as I can undertsand the complexites of the demise
seems to be tragic. There was a serious conflict
of values as how an art magaizine should be or structered or focused.
Unfortunately the question remains as James Elkins has eloguenetly writen ” What has Happened
to Art Critism?
When I used the expression “trickle down” I meant that when substantal money adhers to an idea or art it will trickle down to those who do not have money.
” Trickle up is an attempt to devolpe art and ideas without money and usual will not trickle up
through the filters of our existring system.
There are excepations of course. those excepations have interest. usually called success.
“In fact, I’m having difficulty thinking of a better painter right now since Caravaggio or Cezanne.”
I don’t know whether to throw up or cry. Since my dog died 2 weeks ago and I have no more tears left, I guess I’ll barf. Thankfully the toilet is industrial size. Jesus.
Good to hear that, Edmar, I was starting to think I’d really ticked you off. I could say more offline.
And I will follow my own advice and not feel baited to defend myself about the comments made about me.
As for infrastructure, to plug BAS (since it’s been recommended I be shitcanned), I think it’s really important to compare Volcalo to BAS. Volcalo budget = $400,000 to launch. BAS budget for 168 shows+ <$8,000. That’s NOTHING. It’s 60 minutes of weekly content done with $500 of equipment. Time wise, I did the entire publishing show, with editing, in about 5 hours which included the event. Media production is do-able now. Doing television/video would be just as cheap and easy and you could actually see the art. We have the technology, all that’s needed is the will and the talent. I think that would be a great next step for Chicago art media.
After researching Chicago’s publishing scene, I think, per capita, our publishing scene is more robust than our visual art scene. We’re truly second in line to New York. It’s a smaller pool because of the language barriers. But in publishing, there’s not revolution in leadership, there’s many strong arms. Marc Smith has 250 people on their feet, going crazy at the Green Mill for POETRY. I mean, whoda thought? Who’s cheering and throwing beer bottles over abstract expressionism in this town? In the literary scene, we have drunken literature in bars, we’ve got first place titles on all sorts of big indy presses (women’s, black, black independent), we lead in academic presses. It’s strong not because of one thing, but the sheer multitude of content makes it strong. As Guthrie said, “discussion”.
As for overthrowing the power, I don’t know if we’d do any better, frankly. If anyone ever wants a lesson in knowing how you’ll do as an authority figure, try raising some kids. It teaches you very quickly what a shitheel you are once you’ve got all the power.
To close on NAE, people are bringing up a lot of ancient history. But the living question that remains is “Do publications fail because we don’t have a market for them, or because the content didn’t meet the market need?” If we don’t have a marketplace for discussion, we’re sunk. But if it’s just about serving that market, we have a shot, we just need to understand that market and give them the content they are willing to pay for. Not the content that’s good for them, but the content they want.