Tuesday, January 16, 2007

If a Sculpture Falls in an Empty Gallery, and Nobody Hears It....

The fine folks at Triple Candie, now unquestionably Manhattan's most controversial alternative art space, have stirred things up again. And the long, mostly glowing, article by Holland Cotter in today's New York Times only tells part of the story. Not that that part isn't a good chunk to deal with on its own. From the Times:

The word is that, with the art industry so flush, nonprofit alternative spaces are thriving. And why shouldn’t they be? Some of them now look all but indistinguishable from commercial galleries.

White Columns in Chelsea recently devoted its space to a survey of 2006 art season highlights from distinctly for-profit Chelsea galleries. The SculptureCenter in Long Island City, Queens, is currently giving over its main space to a large-scale piece, already shown elsewhere, by Monica Bonvicini, an Italian artist who has been thoroughly vetted and long supported by the international establishment.

But aren’t alternative spaces where we should look for introductions to new or commercially unrepresented or undervalued or lost careers? Or for projects too impractical or arcane or outré to find a mainstream platform? Isn’t the alternative space, by definition, where the possibility of failure is written into the mandate, and where a record for risking failure is not only a gauge of institutional success but also the justification for existence?

There are, of course, small alternative spaces in the city that are doing things not being done elsewhere, staying strange and risking, among other things, critical heat. Triple Candie in Harlem is one. Established in 2001, it offered in its first few years fairly traditional solo and group shows, often of artists either locally underknown (Charles Gaines) or unaffiliated (Rodney McMillian). Lately, though, it has been trying something different. The gallery has begun to take a less orthodox course.

That course has included an unauthorized retrospective of work by David Hammons ("composed entirely of photocopied catalog illustrations of that elusive artist’s work') and a highly controversial exhibition of replicas of work by the strongly anti-establishment artist Cady Noland (see descriptions for both on this page of the space's website). And yet, despite some heavy-handed feedback for those exhibitions, founders Shelly Bancroft and Peter Nesbett (full disclosure: whom I've been friends with for years) continue to push the envelope, keeping the dialog honest and interesting, as they do.

Their latest is an exhibition of work by Lester Hayes. Who?, you ask. Don't worry, you shouldn't know him. If you have time, you really should stop reading here and instead read the Times article first...

But it doesn't make sense for me to try to summarize, let alone improve, upon the fine job Mr. Cotter has done in setting up this idea, so I'll just cut to the chase:
[T]here is no Lester Hayes. He never existed. He is entirely an invention of Triple Candie. The gallery’s directors, Shelly Bancroft and Peter Nesbett, the co-publishers of the magazine Art on Paper, who assembled the Hammons survey from photocopies and the Noland from replicas, cobbled together all the “Hayes” work from scrap material and cooked up the detailed biography to go with it.
Invented artists are not new, of course. "John Dogg," whose work "was widely assumed, but never confirmed, to have been made by [Colin] de Land and the artist Richard Prince," is a classic example, but Bancroft and Nesbett, who are not artists and will tell you so, seemingly made a point of exhibiting "art" by the imaginary Lester Hayes that shouldn't really fool anyone:

So, with no real artist and no real art, what do you have here? You have many questions raised about art and the often unquestioned ideas surrounding it, like originality, authenticity, influence, history, formal value and biography-as-value. Is contemporary art largely a promotional scam perpetuated by — in no particular order of blame — museums, dealers, critics, historians, collectors, art schools and anyone else who has a sufficient personal, professional or financial investment riding on the scam to want to keep it afloat?

If you are affected — moved, amused, provoked — by the assembled Hayes oeuvre, then is it art? Are Ms. Bancroft and Mr. Nesbett artists? (They would certainly say no.) Are they themselves perpetrators of a scam? Or are they critical thinkers working in an alternative direction to the market economy? Imagine the consequences if lots of people started creating “fake” art without acknowledging what they were up to? The whole art-as-investment illusion would evaporate. The market would crumble. Art myths could no longer be trusted. The Triple Candie’s Hayes biography, in other words, is spun largely from myths and clichés that sell art and artists today.

Like Triple Candie's previous exhibitions, this one serves to raise a series of fascinating (and I'd say important questions), but one question that I'm not sure they'd intentionally invite is whether or not it's important to actually go see this exhibition. I mean, it's clearly important that they installed an exhibition and that the context provide for the opportunity for some viewers, at least, to assume the work is legit, but once you realize what's going on, can't you debate the questions it raises from the comfort of a bar or via the Internets, without having to see the "fake" work? There is the apparently well-written psuedo-biography of the fake artist in the space, and the details of that life never lived provide interesting fodder for debate as well, but in general...why look at the fake work if it's admittedly not "art"? That is, other than to congratulate Triple Candie on another thought-provoking exhibition, of course. :-)

At the beginning of this post, I noted that what Mr. Cotter covers in his review is only part of the story up at Triple Candie at the moment. On their website is listed another, perhaps even more controversial (and I assume unauthorized) installation in their project space. Titled "The Matthew Higgs Society," it appears to be a ribbing of fellow alternative space director, Matthew Higgs:

Established in 2006, the Matthew Higgs Society is the largest organization devoted to a living U.S.-based curator and is dedicated to promoting Higgs' legacy through education, outreach, and advocacy. The Society meets regularly at bi-monthly opening receptions at White Columns in the West Village, New York City, and on a more frequent basis at art fairs, galleries, and museums around the world.

Our current initiatives include the creation of The Matthew Higgs Archive, consisting of press clippings that mention Higgs by name and photographs of him at art openings. In time, we hope that the Archive will have its own dedicated gallery at White Columns. We also plan to organize symposia celebrating Higgs' achievements.

I find myself almost afraid to laugh at this, not being sure whether Higgs is a willing participant in the fun here, and I could pick up the phone and call Shelly and Peter and ask, but then that's obviously not their intention with the average visitor to their website, I'm assuming, so I'll run with an incipient impression. Even as I chuckled here (because Mr. Higgs has been in the art news a good deal the past year), context is critical to whether this is mean-spirited or not. Triple Candie and White Columns are both competing for the same audience to a large degree, if not the same funding. Furthermore, is it OK to criticize one's competition so openly, regardless of whether it's an honest, heartfelt critique? In the commercial art world, I would consider it taboo to do so. But why? Am I too timid? Should those of us committed to open dialog accept that sometimes that dialog isn't going to be flattering to all concerned?

One thing's for sure, Triple Candie continues to boldly go where no art space (that I know of) has gone before.


Anonymous rebel belle said...

Ed, I really loved this article. The chutzpah of Triple Candie is really heartwarming.

I think it makes sense that this "exhibit" actually has a home, in that it seems to be the correct logical outcome of their project. The fact that the team gave these "works" a bricks and mortar reality, (even if one never sees the show) give the whole shtick a kind of legitimacy amd rigor. The conceptual idea here doesn't require viewing the exhibit, but the show does need to acutally exist. It's really like a lot of conceptual work; do you really need to see "Spiral Jetty" to get it?

I would have loved to have been around for the conversations as they were making all this work. What artist hasn't considered doing this very exact thing? It's funny, yes, but the message is very dark, and Holland Cotter is a lovely accomplice.

All of us know that success in the art world often is accomplished by getting the right people to talk about the work. I think this project is a very good indicator of the craziness of the whole system.

And as far as the Matthew Higgs Society... I laughed my ass off.

1/16/2007 10:06:00 AM  
Anonymous bnon said...

The Triple Candie show sounds like a lovely idea, and I kind of admire them for doing it. But maybe it's a little sophmoric, which, actually, I have nothing against. And I admire their guts, too. But the problem is that this project, at least as much as I know about it, displays a greater interest in art institutions than it does in art. And that is a version of the complaining about the art market we hear so much of: people only care about the money and prestige, not about the art itself. Why not hunker down and show unusual art that will do the talking for itself? Present an alternative instead of critiqueing what we have?

1/16/2007 10:28:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

I agree to a point bnon.

I like to think that providing the true alternative (which I believe Triple Candie does, in addition to exhibitions like this one), does speak for itself to a large degree, but with so much noise in the art world in general (and the commercial side of it in particular), I don't think it hurts to totally spell it out once in a while. There's so much glamor, with the media attention that follows such glamor, about the commercial art world at the moment, that the not for profit spaces are understandably having to raise the noise level to get any of that attention.

I mean, I like to believe that real alternative work will get such attention, but sometimes it pays to hit folks over the head with what's going on, don't you think, just to shake them out of their glam-induced stupor?

1/16/2007 10:45:00 AM  
Anonymous bnon said...


Well, I think you spelled out why I basically approve of the show but am not really happy about it.

The project reminds me of a little philosophical conundrum that was going around in my head a month or two ago about defining the edges of what art is. I wanted to do an artwork of some undefined kind that was not art, even though--by the powers vested in me by Marcel Duchamp himself--I said it was. I couldn't think of anything that would satisfy this thought experiment. But I think Triple Candie has! Jeez, I think I just talked myself into really liking the Lester project, at least if I can let my own little interpretation stand.


1/16/2007 10:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Bnon said...

Just to put a finishing touch on what I just wrote: I think Triple Candie has suceeded in declaring something art and it turns out that it's not! B

1/16/2007 11:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

Speaking as someone who is not in a glam-induced stupor in the first place, I doubt seriously that the above is any more than a sop to rampant marketeering - it's certainly not a challenge to it. As art about the art world, I find it too onanistic to discuss philosophically.

1/16/2007 11:06:00 AM  
Blogger Jason v2.0 said...

I like the idea of curators or gallerists becoming artistic/"the artist" yet everytime I see or hear of it happening I am just really repulsed. Contemporary art surely warrants the blending of categories and positions. But this reminds me of the make-believe curator from the last Whitney Biennial. In the end too much attention is focused on the curator. I urge curators and art organizers to be artistic and creative in their endeavors but not to steal the limelight from the actual art. Sure enough there are a lot of artists today who are making work that questions the concepts of originality and authenticity. Let's hear from them instead. And curators, if you are feeling ignored or artistically frustrated, go ahead and make art, but get in line with all those artists trying to seek representation and exhibits.

1/16/2007 11:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I agree that Triple Candie is a bold-ass gallery, this conflating the artist and the curator is not new. It was one of the more depressing features of the depressing 2006 Whitney Biennial.

Here's some Vintage Todd Gibson taking on the Wrong Gallery's biennial efforts. I kind of disagree with Todd... I think that curators can do whatever they want and that includes being artists. I think that the problem is not that curators want to become artists, but that artists seem to want to curate.

Good for Triple Candie for having their finger on the pulse. But I think it's sad that art is so often a re-presenting or clever re-contextualizing of what is already known. I like invention more than I like clever.

1/16/2007 01:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

By the way, I did this already
in 1997, a fake exhibit with five non-existing artists' works.

And detailed bios, etc..

That was for school, mind you, and mostly a prototype of an exhibit.
I only do prototypes until someone actually opens me their goddam basement or closet so I can show something. Lol !

Cedric Caspesyan

1/16/2007 02:29:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

It seems that most of the criticism of this idea (mine included) that centers on it not "being new" doesn't permit the same leeway we give artists who delve deeper into an idea than anyone else has done, or do so within a context that gives it new life, though, no? I mean, it's rather brilliantly executed.

1/16/2007 03:02:00 PM  
Anonymous markcreegan said...

If the work or action is interesting or thought provoking what does it matter if the authors call themselves an artist , curator, or spelunker. They have a space, they are creative obviously- i dont think its a matter of a curator stating " I am an artist" as much as a critical questioning of those distinctions Or perhaps its not even that. Perhaps its just asking what is needed to create the discourse around this thing called "art" (a space, a press release, something to show).

I am interested in what the work is like. Is is a parody of a certain style or artist? or is it just a hodgepodge of things? Or is it a sincere attempt to make something excellent and new? Does it matter what the work is like?

1/16/2007 03:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

I have not seen it, so I can't comment.

I am not sure that the fact something got coverage and presented in a gallery means that it is "deeper", but whatever.

Mine was obviously not deep as it was called "Parallel Identities"
and a spoof of those artists and exhibits that centered around the self and promotion of identity. I was so fed up at the time.

It was in 1998, not 1997 (just checked).

I'm sure I could rebuild it some day, whynot.


Cedric Caspesyan

1/16/2007 03:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Actually...I think I'm always, and still, fed up. :-)

No wonders I don't have any friends.


Cedric Caspesyan

1/16/2007 03:57:00 PM  
Anonymous markcreegan said...

I just saw the image in the Times article and read the press release. Witty touch how they made Hayes a formal precursor to both Tuttle and Nauman.

Another deft move in this wacky wacky game.

1/16/2007 03:57:00 PM  
Anonymous ml said...

Someone needs to poke holes in the bloated ego of the art world. Good for Triple Candie. While I would definitely prefer seeing tremendously interesting work by a real artist, and always have questions with art about art, this one sounds like a good time. Intelligent entertainment is not a bad attainmnet.

1/16/2007 04:04:00 PM  
Anonymous bnon said...


I guess I like it because it's not art about art, it's non-art by avowed non-artists about art that appears to be just like art but isn't. Or something.

1/16/2007 04:31:00 PM  
Anonymous markcreegan said...

it is about the system of how art is promoted. I think the most daring aspect is the bio of the fake artist as an African American whose work was "taken" by white artists , at least the formal aspects of it. As a critique it is interesting but what does it mean when 2 white curators invented such an artist and context?

If this show is art. The press release must be a central part of this particular work. As have the prs of the previuous Triple Candie shows.

1/16/2007 04:52:00 PM  
Anonymous ml said...

If Duchamps' urinal was art, then why isn't this art? The artists are the owners of Triple Candie. They conceived, executed the project. These days it does seem that the people who determine what is and isn't "high art" are the gallerists and curators.

1/16/2007 05:20:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa Hunter said...

"...one question that I'm not sure they'd intentionally invite is whether or not it's important to actually go see this exhibition."

This exhibit sounds like a conceptual piece, and if knowing the idea means you don't have to see it in person, what does that say about other conceptual work?

1/16/2007 06:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

somthing about the racial politics of it don't sit right with me. Shelly and Peter are upper middle class whites, live and have a space in harlem, have money (enough to buy art on paper mag) and they're creating this black artist whose work was appropriated by white artists... what's wrong with this picture?
which brings up the question, does the race of an artist influence how the work is seen? (yes, obviously. think kara walker. would her work be accepted if made by a white artist?) and should this be the case?

1/16/2007 06:47:00 PM  
Blogger Marc Snyder said...

"Art cannot reveal the truth about art without snatching it away again by turning the revelation into an artistic event"

from Pierre Bourdieu, "The production of belief: contributions to an economy of symbolic goods" from The Field of Cultural Production", as cited in Paul Mattick's "Art and Money" in Art In Its Time

I think that holds true even if the creators attempt to claim that the art is actually non-art. I can't really see how you can make "fake" art if you exhibit it. Now, if our noble blog-host actually invented this entire scenario, and we were all assuming the existence of something that actually wasn't there, I could see that as fake art.

1/16/2007 08:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

There's an artist in Canada I always liked, Tim Whiten, and I only discovered much later that he was black.

Did that change anything? Nope. The only thing I stopped at thinking was considering that it was great that I couldn't know because his art wasn't about identity and race politics (though he did borrow sometimes elements from african culture, but I somehow missed that for a while).

Which doesn't mean we don't need political artists, but, we tend to
mostly recognize "as black" the artists who are about the politics.

This said I would never miss a William Pope L exhibit because I think he's quite funny. Lol ! That urban ramping video is a total classic !


Cedric Caspesyan

1/17/2007 12:07:00 AM  
Anonymous J@simpleposie said...

It seems like it's a pen name / ghost writer issue to me. You know, like how Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was Lewis Carroll's REAL name. A lot of creative possibilities open up when you suddenly give yourself a new name. All your other personal artistic signifiers fall away. You are free to imagine yourself making any kind of work you want. And if you act on the impulse, there's no one to blame but a fiction.No harm done! If people dig the fiction then so much the better.

A difficulty that seems to present itself is how to best test out the fiction. The question of whether or not you can fool your friends - pull off the masquerade like Fred Flintstone as Mr. Blahblahblah dancing with Wilma at the ball - would the Triple Candie act have the same impact if it triumphed over the submission process at another gallery? Could it penetrate the so called Matthew Higgs Society? Or similar societies in other towns? In other artworlds?

1/17/2007 09:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Henry said...

You have many questions raised about art and the often unquestioned ideas surrounding it, like originality, authenticity, influence, history, formal value and biography-as-value.

Amazing what can be done in the name of art. If only Enron had written their prospectuses to describe themselves as a performance art group, "raising questions about commerce and the often unquestioned ideas surrounding it," like ethics, market power, the financial value of untangible goods, and accounting-as-reality. Their founders might not only be free today, but they may also have gotten almost as wealthy as Damian Hirst.

1/17/2007 09:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The image available online shows that it's very pat, poor in even its mirroring of the times [lost would-be-agents], not at all provocative in its conceptual and visual underpinning, leading one to believe the bail is without too much 'hey'. Are there more images online, anyone? Let's start at the beginning before we argue the possibility, the irresistible, quotidian, or the end!

1/17/2007 09:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh henry, you are funny

1/17/2007 09:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the triple candie people are self-obsessed wankers who use other people's achievement to get attention for themselves, and without the consent of the people involved. have you artists ever spent five minutes thinking about how you would feel if a gallery decided to remake all your art WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT? you'd go fucking apeshit. this matthew higgs thing just shows how idiotic and self-obsessed they are. they just need attention. they're gross. i wouldnt go there if you paid me.

1/18/2007 02:49:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

don't hold back, anonymous...let us know how you really feel. :-)

To paraphrase Wilde: the only thing worse than people having strong opinions about what you do is people not having strong opinions about what you do.

1/18/2007 08:03:00 AM  
Anonymous amory blaine said...

Hey Anonymous, didn't I see you work at triple candie a few years back?

Nice job.

1/20/2007 01:19:00 AM  
Anonymous amory blaine said...

Sorry folks, I left out the key consonant to make "you" into the possessive. This happens occasionally because I'm trying to multi-task and I get distracted. In this case, I was busy doing one-armed push-ups in an attempt to warm up for a full-fledged response to some of the responses on this thread.

I'll get back to you right after I finish this morning's marathon and tomorrow's bacon bun eating contest.

Anonymous, I've got your number!

1/20/2007 09:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"somthing about the racial politics of it don't sit right with me. "

Doesn't anyone else think the race & class issues this brings up are important? I felt it with the Hammons show, and again here. What does it mean that these privileged white people (with their space in Harlem) are making up a history of black artists?

1/20/2007 03:31:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Doesn't anyone else think the race & class issues this brings up are important? I felt it with the Hammons show, and again here. What does it mean that these privileged white people (with their space in Harlem) are making up a history of black artists?

My feelings about this are akin to the feelings I expressed about Political Correctness in general here. As with Affirmative Action and Hate Crimes Penalties and other such legislation, I concede that we're not quite socially at the point that protections/special considerations for minorities are not needed. But I do believe that if society in general is ever going to get to the point where they're not needed, then we've got to start talking as if they're not in some context...somewhere. The arts strike me personally as a good choice for that context.

In other words, someone has to say it's irrelevant whether the Lester Hayes exhibition was created by a curator who was of a different race than the fictional artist. Others can disagree, but until we reach that point (where it is irrelevant) the disparity won't go away, IMO.

But to answer your question: "What does it mean that these privileged white people (with their space in Harlem) are making up a history of black artists?"

I think it means we're seeing the disintegration of the importance of such labels. That we're able to see that while the biography of the artist is relevant to the work, the biography of the viewer or curator needn't be as much. At least I hope that's what it means.

1/20/2007 03:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Point taken.

Not to drive the point into the ground, but in this case the biography of the artist is a creation of the curator(s), so isn't the biography of the curator equally, if not more, important than that of the artist? In this case. I'm not trying to be politically correct (which I also think needs to be phased out), but still, there's something here that sticks in my craw.

1/20/2007 04:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I too feel pretty strongly that the racial aspect of this clever project is a bad idea for the type of people you've described to be undertaking. I don't care how cool they are...Art people often seem to feel that they are above all that old-school political stuff and entitled to automatic membership some supremely advanced avant-garde just cause they're Art people. It ain't so! Until the group being spotlighted to prove some point about the foolishness of Political Correctness --like, the African Americans in that gallery's neighborhood--have done a project like this first or have themselves decided that it's time for "the disintegration of the importance of such labels," those with all that power and privilege could benefit from exercising a little more conscience and restraint, IMHO... out of a sense of respect? ..maybe?..or is that a cheesy embarassing notion these days?
The whole idea behind the politics of identity was to give relatively voiceless people a say-so in how they want themselves defined. Personally I don't think this is such a one-dimensional idea--I know that these notions opened my own world up tremendously and wonderfully-- and I am pretty sure that most of us have yet to reach a place in our social evolution where we no longer need to think about all these implications before we act so cavalierly.-- a different anon

1/21/2007 03:00:00 PM  
Anonymous amory blaine said...

Okay folks, let's get the idea of "coolness" out of the way in regards to the directors of triple candie. THEY ARE NOT COOL. Peter needs a haircut since forever, and Shelley wears the same glasses that she was wearing when they first met in 1977. Furthermore (though fashion clues would suffice for an argument for most of you dim-wits), there is no aim of "coolness" in any aspect of their curatorial mission. And I am tempted to re-label their mission a crusade. A crusade specifically against coolness and the disingenious disaffection that it usually employs. Cool people very seldom play for keeps. Triple candie, always.

The arguments against this exhibition are again, as with the Noland and Hammons projects, knee-jerk exclamations of an inarticulated "wrongness". Let's try to be more articulate. Let's try to make arguments more complex than just the race of the curators, their assumed position in the social and economic order, and their assumed aims.

I'll go ahead and offer that they are not wrong, they are not loaded with power and privilege, and they are not nearly as white as you might take them for. The first claims can be substantiated. The last is merely a hunch spoken in the same fashion as the assertion that Bill Clinton was our first black president. I'm not totally (literally) serious, so don't get your hackles up (I'm talking to you, Anonymous). I just mean to say that they're hardly aligned with the power structure of the bleached-out upper eschelon of the global art market.

Triple Candie is in a historically black neighborhood. This is a preoccupation with them, and every decision they make takes this into consideration. With this in mind, let us consider that the Lester Hayes project, as well as a forthcoming revisitation of "Harlem on My Mind", takes as it's form and content the injustices and imbalances of the status quo. THEY ARE RECREATING THE SITES OF WRONGDOING IN OUR CONTEMPORARY VERNACULAR IN ORDER TO BRING LIGHT TO THE MACHINATIONS OF INJUSTICE. Their projects are not created to bring attention to themselves (let's also remember that theirs is a non-profit venture, and that their other business, a magazine, is in the realm of businesses most likely to end up in the red. Art on Paper is no cash cow), but rather to focus attention to the working of the art world beyond their drafty doors.

This is not about Peter Nesbett and Shelley Bancroft. It's about everyone else.

You'll notice that the bulk of the materials from the last several shows have been turned over, re-re-appropriated, and recycled onto themselves. This recycling is a direct result of their status, financially. They are forced into corners, every time, for lack of funds. They unpaint themselves out of these same corners with their wits, their friends, and their uncommon lack of fear and and equally uncommon faith in art's ability to jump over tall buildings with a single bound and a good press release. If triple candie has power, it is in the power of their imaginations and specifically in their ability to imagine that they might be able to do something that is important, and if they're lucky, can play a part in some kind of change.

Even my friends today, upon one last viewing, were a little disappointed in the lack of a more moving physical presence in the works of Lester Hayes. I was not unsatisfied because I was looking elsewhere. I was looking out onto the world, thinking about what has happened before my eyes in other places filled with art. I was looking ahead to how that world can be different.

1/21/2007 06:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saying they are white does not imply any of that other stuff you attribute to it. It's a fact; they are white. I never understood that "Bill Clinton is black thing" either.

1/21/2007 06:26:00 PM  
Anonymous amory blaine said...


Please try to make sense. And stop wasting my time with "stuff". Be specific.

Thank you.


1/21/2007 11:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"they are not nearly as white as you might take them for... I just mean to say that they're hardly aligned with the power structure of the bleached-out upper eschelon of the global art market."

Calling attention to the fact that they're white does not equal saying that they're aligned with the power structure of the bleached-out upper eschelon of the global art market. Is that specific enough?

1/22/2007 12:04:00 AM  
Anonymous amory blaine said...

So, Anon, just what are you saying?

1/22/2007 12:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Nicole Diver said...

Jeez, you two, give it a rest.

1/22/2007 12:55:00 AM  
Anonymous amory blaine said...

Nicole, why don't you ditch Dick and come with me. I know this great place that has delicious bacon buns...

1/24/2007 07:00:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home