Wednesday, January 07, 2009

American Captain of Culture 2008

Alrighty then. Since the mainstream media doesn't seem interested in such designations, why not, as James Kalm suggested in yesterday's post, nominate our own Captain of Culture for 2008 in the States (with an emphasis on fine art being my bent, but don't let that limit you). (As James also noted, do not suck up and nominate me, please.)

Having set the bar as high as they did in Britain, selecting someone who "turned the British Museum into an arena in which some of our most fraught and contentious contemporary political debates can be approached with a freshened sensitivity and depth of understanding that can surely be a great help in fostering peace," it won't be easy, but still, who do you think had the biggest impact on culture or engaged with culture to the most effect this side of the pond in 2008?

I've started with the suggestions James listed and added a few of my own, just to get the ball rolling and spark some ideas, but feel free to add your own (you may want to read any existing comments before choosing to see who's been added). Also, adding one or two lines as to why you nominated the person you did would be interesting:

A. Thomas Krens
B. Jerry Saltz
C. Roberta Smith
D. Philippe deMontabello
E. Oliver Stone
F. Tyler Green
G. Eli Broad
H. Jeff Koons
I. Louise Blouin MacBain
J. The Rubells
K. Richard Prince
L. Tobias Meyer
M. Alana Heiss
O. Glenn D. Lowry
P. Michael Govan
Q. Kathy Halbreich
R. Richard Serra
S. Larry Gagosian
T. Other _______________

Vote only once, please.

Labels:

56 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

T. Not born yet.

1/07/2009 08:56:00 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Of what and whose culture? We are so much more diverse than the British. Can one person fit the bill? So many people toiling the mines in so many areas. Lately, just to keep the doors open. In my mind no one person stands out-and that's fine. As long as you don't call them f-ing heroes.

1/07/2009 09:14:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Of what and whose culture? We are so much more diverse than the British.

Debatable (have you been in London recently?) but also somewhat beside the point. Saint Neil uses his cultural institution to reach out in an international way, for a worldwide peace, so the award wasn't about being uniquely British as much as it was a Briton of note.

In the US, I would submit that we have plenty of people making this kind of difference on that sort of scale.

1/07/2009 09:32:00 AM  
Blogger Bromo Ivory said...

I don't think I could pick any one person. I would rather create a virtual "Justice League" with several people in the US that define the culture as it is today (fine art, cinema, writing, design, etc.).

Being a superhero of culture, requires a bit of celebrity rather than being a mere culture vigilante. (For instance in the computer world I would pick Steve Jobs of Apple over Steve Ballmer of Microsoft)

But I would also steer clear of people who specialize in mega dollar art - since Western culture isn't always about vast sums of money.

Thought provoking article, I think.

1/07/2009 09:34:00 AM  
Blogger Ethan said...

A bit in the weeds, but did any of you catch the debate (it was a year ago, I think) about whether NYC, London, Toronto, or Sydney is more multicultural? It was simulcast/moderated from a radio station in each city (on WNYC in New York).

New York's argument about being more multicultural is that it has folks from all over whereas London's multiculturalism mainly comes from its former colonies.

1/07/2009 09:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

One really ought to credit the artist who made the Captain America image.

1/07/2009 09:55:00 AM  
Blogger Bromo Ivory said...

Central New York City, Central Toronto, Central London all have more in common with each other than with the nations in which they reside. Deciding "which one is more diverse" might be fun, it may not be instructive of the nation as a whole if this is your goal. Re-do your comparison once you are, say 100km away and see what you get.

Consequently I believe if you want to say who is a good "American Captain of culture," you need to include at least some non-international-city things in your metric.

1/07/2009 10:02:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

One really ought to credit the artist who made the Captain America image.

Used as anything other than a decorative flourish, I would agree, but I would ask why, given that I use uncredited images from a wide variety of sources (but sourced from the original site in case anyone wants to follow them back), why you're pointing out this one and not some previous image for this commentary?

I know it's controversial, the way I use images on the blog. I've had a few people ask me to take them down (and of course I do), but it's a statement about appropriation and democracy (and I never complain if someone uses one my images and I grant permission to anyone who wishes to reprint my text, so I'm walking the walk here).

1/07/2009 10:27:00 AM  
Blogger pam farrell said...

I've read EW's list of A-S and would like to suggest either Laurie Anderson or Philip Glass for T.
Besides the obvious, that they are both international cultural figures with histories of groundbreaking work behind them (and still to come, one hopes) I would like to see either of them in tights and a cape.

1/07/2009 10:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

(but sourced from the original site in case anyone wants to follow them back)

You didn't source this image at all, as far as I can tell. The artist who drew it deserves credit, at least in the form of a link.

(Ironically, the CAPTCHA I have to type in for this comment is "comic.")

1/07/2009 10:32:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

well, the blogsophere being what it is, that's gonna be tough. I am pulling that image in from another blog (found via googling) and the URL is http://sharpercrook.com/goods/captainAmerica.jpg, but upon searching through that blog, I found this note:

"This is my new desktop background. It’s just so good. I don’t know who the original artist is..."

But again, I'll ask, why this image and not one of the previous hundreds of images I've used, obviously in the same way other independent bloggers are using images?

If you want to make a case about crediting images, might I suggest another thread, so this one can return to the topic. I'll delete the image.

1/07/2009 10:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

But again, I'll ask, why this image and not one of the previous hundreds of images I've used, obviously in the same way other independent bloggers are using images?

Because typically the images with which you illustrate your articles don't interest me. But when I saw this one, I thought, "Ooh, that's a nice-looking Captain America. I wonder who did it?" So I clicked on it, which didn't do anything, and then looked around for a credit, and couldn't find one. I am also an independent blogger, and I wouldn't dream of using somebody's work in this way, largely because if someone ever reposted my work without a link or a credit, I would take swift actions of rapidly decreasing cordiality.

1/07/2009 11:04:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Ahh, a fundamental difference is revealed. You see, it requires but one action of perfectly even-keeled cordiality for me to delete an uncredited image: just ask me.

But your real point seems to be that you were frustrated you couldn't find the creator of the image, not that you're a self-appointed champion of stomping out uncredited images in the blogosphere, am I correct?

For the record, though, if you wish to follow an image back to its original source on this blog, click right on it and choose properties...the original URL will be readily available.

OK, enough pomposity from me...back to the topic of the thread.

1/07/2009 11:18:00 AM  
Blogger fish said...

I would like to nominate Poster Boy, if only to fuel discussion. It can definitely be argued that he is a fairly good representation of our current culture; not only can he inspire a new direction for at least some artists (as well as others), but also the way his work came to people’s attention is a product of our times.

While street art has always been commenting on our culture, he takes it a huge step forward using obvious skill, talent and originality. In the real world, his art would be seen by a few people and then taken down. He utilized technology (such as Flikr) to capture and archive it. Then our culture’s need to find that next new thing kicked into gear. His work was inspired enough that people started to talk about it and eventually the mainstream media (New York Time, New Yorker…) and other internet sites and blogs (such as this one) brought his work to the attention of a wider audience then would normally be able to see it.

And this doesn't even begin to discuss the things he says with his art.

He could not exist in any other time.

1/07/2009 11:29:00 AM  
Blogger Julie Sadler said...

I find it interesting that no one so far has chosen anyone that you have on your list, and in fact have gone so far to recommend other "T"s.
I think that it's hard to be objective about it when you are "in" it. I appreciate some of the people on this list, but I am not sure that I could associate ONLY one as a winner.
Thought provoking as usual, Mr. Ed.
Poster Boy? Shepard Fairey I assume?

1/07/2009 11:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

But your real point seems to be that you were frustrated you couldn't find the creator of the image, not that you're a self-appointed champion of stomping out uncredited images in the blogosphere, am I correct?

I can't simultaneously answer your questions and allow the thread to return to topic, but since you ask, I was frustrated that I couldn't find out who created the image, said creator deserves to be discoverable without resorting to RMB->Properties, unpermitted reuse of copyrighted art is legally actionable regardless of what the rest of the blogosphere is doing, there but for the grace of God go I, creators of comic art deserve no less respect than any other kind of artist, and a gallerist ought to possess a little more understanding about such matters. I'll be happy to illustrate a future Artblog.net post with one of Joy Garnett's images, taken from winkleman.com without hyperlink or credit, if that would help clarify your thinking.

1/07/2009 11:56:00 AM  
Blogger fish said...

Sorry, see here for more about Poster Boy...

http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/search?q=poster+boy

1/07/2009 11:57:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

I suspected as much...you're tossing your teddy at what you presume to be a slight against comic book artists. A simple trip into the archives reveals a whole range of artists images being including without credit since the blog began. When it seems relevant I provide a link, when the work is used as decoration, I don't add that flourish, but feel that the Properties makes it just as discoverable (an inconvenience you point out that clouds just what your exact position is to be honest).

I'll be happy to illustrate a future Artblog.net post with one of Joy Garnett's images, taken from winkleman.com without hyperlink or credit, if that would help clarify your thinking.

You could not have picked a more perfect example. I think Joy would be honored to have her uncredited image selected as an image on a post discussing this issue. Let me know when it's up.

1/07/2009 12:15:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Franklin, again you are pointlessly getting anal over something.

Enough, we really don't care.

Back to Ed's real topic.

I guess I'd vote for Philippe deMontabell. Although he is no longer director of the MET he turned it into the best museum in the country.

1/07/2009 12:16:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

One final thought. You're point won't be parallel unless you follow my practice of immediately taking down any image that anyone objects to. With that clarification...go for it.

1/07/2009 12:18:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Your point, not "You're point."

illiteracy is contagious.

1/07/2009 12:20:00 PM  
Blogger joy said...

I'll be happy to illustrate a future Artblog.net post with one of Joy Garnett's images, taken from winkleman.com without hyperlink or credit

(talk about picking the wrong artist to illustrate a point...)

1/07/2009 12:28:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

joy, ROTFLMAO!

1/07/2009 12:31:00 PM  
Blogger joy said...

PS: whether it was intended to or not, this thread now illustrates something important: there are many works of art in every medium that don't have known authors, or whose authors have been "lost" beyond retrieval. they might be "vernacular", "pop" or "fine" art works, but they are all classed as orphan works. if people are afraid to publish them, screen, play, share, use them in any way publicly or in an educational setting for fear of copyright disputes (legal reprisal), these works will basically disappear from our culture.

1/07/2009 12:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

Ah, silly me - I picked one of the Winkleman Gallery appropriation artists. Mea maxima fucking culpa.

Ed, I provided six answers to your question, five of which had nothing to do comic art, and the remaining one presumed thoughtlessness rather than malice. The rest of them concerned simple courtesy due to a fellow creator, which seems to be escaping you today.

George, Ed asked, I answered.

1/07/2009 12:56:00 PM  
Blogger John Hovig said...

I nominate James Kalm. His alternatingly surreptitious and assertive dealings with uncooperative galleries [see, Franklin, there's a way to combine the two sub-threads after all!], and his all-too-brief interviews with too-famous-for-thee artists border on downright inpsirational. His confidence as a documentarian is increasing, and an enthusiastic commentary is beginning to spring up around his youtube postings, affirming his impact. If the man would just steady that camera a wee bit more and slow the heck down sometimes...!

1/07/2009 01:01:00 PM  
Blogger Aaron Wexler said...

I'm going with "other" - that other being Mayor Michael Bloomberg. It's fair to be New York-centric in this case, if you do indeed consider NY to still be the center of the art world. Maybe that makes him the mayor of the center of the art world? - funny huh?
He has consistently supported the arts like no other mayor I've seen. Especially so in such trying economic times and let's face it... war times. He was at my studio building a few months ago doing a studio visit with another artist. Very casual, very friendly. I'm guessing it was for a public arts project - and not a foreign art star, just a brooklyn gal.

I missed the convo on "We Are The Ones We've Been Waiting For" post. I think the title is great and it's the point I most agree with. I don't think we (artists, curators, gallerists) are going to do any good at all waiting for that pot to boil. I don't think there are rules to break anymore - therefor no "next big thing" to come crashing through.
The plurality of the internet and digital communication has maybe become the thing crashing through (that's what I got from Ed).
I do think that things will move forward and flourish in art making if artists excel at what they are naturally good at (no schemes, no BS), just pushing that "thing" to the absolute limit - no matter what kind of artist you are. A mentor of mine also described it as your USP - unique selling point. Meaning the part of you that comes out in your work the most. As artists, it's truly all we can offer. I think the art markets will benefit from this notion without having to hedge bets on one big thing because like I mentioned, it's all already out there and there aren't anymore rules to be broken.

Dave Hickey wrote a great essay that relates to this
called "The Heresy of Zone Defense".
http://www.eludication.org/maingraphics/hickey.pdf

1/07/2009 01:20:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

F. Silly you?

Joy is a painter, and to my eyes a pretty good one, but then I've actually seen her paintings. The 'appropriation' stuff is a red herring.

1/07/2009 01:30:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa Hunter said...

David Chase, for taking TV from idiot box to art form.

1/07/2009 01:58:00 PM  
Blogger Franklin said...

No. This is too wrong to let stand unchallenged:

there are many works of art in every medium that don't have known authors, or whose authors have been "lost" beyond retrieval. they might be "vernacular", "pop" or "fine" art works, but they are all classed as orphan works. if people are afraid to publish them, screen, play, share, use them in any way publicly or in an educational setting for fear of copyright disputes (legal reprisal), these works will basically disappear from our culture.

Consequently, potentially affected parties are working on the passage of the Orphan Works Bill, a nasty piece of legislation that, if passed, would undo important protections that allow visual artists to make a living from their work. This bill is opposed by the Illustrators' Partnership and the Graphic Artists Guild among others. It seeks to protect reusers of copyrighted material from damages if they make a reasonable effort to discover the copyright holder, but - this is important - it sets no standards for what constitutes a reasonable effort at discovery. Which means that if it became law, Ed's attempt at discovery ("Well, it came up on Google, and the image was hosted by some guy who didn't know where it came from") would cause the forfeiture of the original holder's copyright. Frankly, weak protections like this only benefit artists like Joy, who would like to freely reuse other peoples' photography without fear of reprisals. This claim that "these works will basically disappear from our culture" is self-serving bullshit on the order of what Catherine Spaeth was spuriously implying about Ed the other day. As for this:

Let me know when it's up.

Why, did you let the creator of that image know that it was up on your blog? Because the right way to do this, once Google fails to turn him up, is to contact Marvel Comics, determine whether the art is their property or that of one of their artists, and obtain permission to decorate your post with it. If I understand you correctly, you don't think you're doing anything wrong because you're willing to take the image down if you ever get caught, and the aggrieved party asks you to do so. Which is like saying that I can take money out of your wallet, but it's okay, because I'll give it back if you ever find out that I've been stealing from you.

It gets worse, and here artists should get worried. One of the remedies under discussion by the bill's proponents is private-sector image banks, which artists will have to pay, per image, for registration and subsequent status as reasonably discoverable. So instead of automatically holding copyright on anything you create, as you do now, you will have to pay for protection to a private agency for you to keep rights on your own work.

I'm sorry, but this started as, simply, that one really ought to credit the creator of that handsome Captain America image. As a matter of basic professional courtesy, I thought that would be self-evident. And I was expecting you, being a basically decent guy, to find out who made it, link it or credit it, end of story. I was not expecting a probe and subsequent attack on my motivations.

The 'appropriation' stuff is a red herring.

No, George, the joke was on me because I rhetorically threatened to improperly republish the work of an appropriation artist. Did your brain fall out of your head when you were rolling on the floor laughing your ass off?

1/07/2009 02:47:00 PM  
Blogger kalm james said...

Yooo, John Hovig,
I’m still wiping away the tears of laughter. Nu’tin I like better than a good joke, even when it’s on me, yuck yuck yuck (I feel like Curley).

I can not accept the nomination and will not serve if elected, but I appreciate the kind words.

Perhaps rather than an individual I’d like to nominate the whole internet art-blogosphere world. As the MSM collapses it’s all the little messy pieces that are coming together to form the new, more all encompassing perception of art and art history. Maybe like Bromo Ivory posited, "We are the Media".

While speaking with Bob Nickas yesterday, he mentioned that it appears we’re entering the part of the cycle (about every 20 years) where we consolidate and fill in gaps in recent history. But we’re looking back ten to fifteen years. We won’t really understand what’s happened in the last couple of years for an other decade or so.

So, I nominate you all, and just hope we all live long enough to see this mess sorted out,

Happy New Year

1/07/2009 02:50:00 PM  
Anonymous nemastoma said...

I nominate John Haber at haberarts.com because his writings on anything relating to art blow me away by their intelligence and original insight.

1/07/2009 03:23:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

F. Silly you?

I don't consider Joy's paintings to be (exclusively) about appropriation, I was commenting to that point.

It was my take on Joy's paintings, sorry if you think I was referring to you but I wasn't.

1/07/2009 03:25:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Why, did you let the creator of that image know that it was up on your blog?

No, but you indicated you were going to post your image to test my tolerance and I didn't want to miss that intentional interpersonal dialog (nor the opportunity to demonstrate that it's not a strong enough parallel [the irony of randomly selecting Joy aside] to make your point).

I get your point. Honestly, I do. I just think this medium can be casual enough that it warrants flexibility. As soon as anyone objects, I delete an image.

But if it makes anyone (including you) feel better, I hereby promise to be more diligent in crediting images (which, as Joy has predicted, will undoubtedly result in my using far fewer images).

who would like to freely reuse other peoples' photography without fear of reprisals

That on the other hand is something so wrong I simply cannot let it stand unchallenged:

Joy has expressed at length and in public forums (see also here) the heartfelt philosophy behind her process. You might disagree with her conclusions, but impugning her motives is something you've simply no cause for at all.

1/07/2009 03:29:00 PM  
Blogger J. Thomas said...

How's about Dan Cameron for taking a crazy leap of faith, leaving New York, to organize a tremendously successful biennial in a decimated New Orleans?!

1/07/2009 03:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kind of disturbed by this post. First a little upset that the majority of your voter picks are critics, collectors, directors and dealers. Are these the people who make culture happen. Are they "art directors" in the way one directs an ad agency. You are either right or it is just your myopic perspective as a dealer that this is how culture happens. That it is not about the individual (dare i say) maverick studio artist developing the "new" but the power game of those in real control promoting their own vision. It works, not necessarily to the benefit of culture. If you would identify captains of culture in the past you might realize it is the art makers who really matter. It just takes a little while for the smoke to clear.

1/07/2009 04:01:00 PM  
Blogger joy said...

The orphan works issue is not synonymous with the Orphan Works Bill. Franklin as well as the various writers, photographers and illustrators guilds who vehemently opposed the proposed legislation (which indeed was far from perfect, enough to draw strong opposition from the likes of Larry Lessig himself), might do well to separate the the problem of the proposed legislation from the very real issue at hand. If they'd dare take a step back from their "position" of emotional recoil for a moment, they'd see that the problem is a real one that affects us all.

1/07/2009 04:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr T. Other

1/07/2009 04:27:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Kind of disturbed by this post. First a little upset that the majority of your voter picks are critics, collectors, directors and dealers.

Methinks thou doth protest too much, actually.

First of all, there is one (1) dealer on the list (vs. four [4] artists). Second of all, what part of "don't let that limit you" was unclear?

The rest of your comment is valid, but obvious, I would argue. None of it prevents anyone (you included) from submitting the name of an artist, though.

1/07/2009 04:30:00 PM  
Blogger joy said...

okay then: in the spirit of my last bit and to rise to the challenge of the Anonymous post preceding mine (04:01:00 PM) I nominate a dynamic duo (like, don't we need a duo here ? Like Batman and Robin?):

Mike Kelly and Larry Lessig!

(and I see that my blogger word verification is "dually" -- wha!?)

1/07/2009 04:31:00 PM  
Blogger Franklin said...

Fine, I transfer the charge of bullshit to George, who addresses me and then claims not to be addressing me. The offer to improperly use Joy's work was not a test of your tolerance, but an effort to put you in the other guy's shoes.

But I don't think I'm wrong that Joy would like to reuse other peoples' images without fear of reprisals, am I not? And I mean that in a matter-of-fact way, not in the way that I would mean if my point was that appropriation is a worthless cul-de-sac. Which generally it is, but not here. So the OWB would work in her favor. Which means that her statement that restricting reuse will cause orphaned images to disappear from the culture, which is already questionable, and made ridiculous by the fact that we were talking about a contemporary image of Captain America, to top it off, doesn't appear to come from a place of neutrality.

Whoops, I just refreshed the page and it looks like I'm going to have call BS on Joy again.

If they'd dare take a step back from their "position" of emotional recoil for a moment, they'd see that the problem is a real one that affects us all.

They don't have a scare-quoted "position" of emotional recoil. The Graphic Artists Guild held off from making an official statement for months while versions of OWB bounced around the Senate. When there were finally some hard facts in place, they communicated to their members - once - that they had decided to oppose it, and began working to explain to legislators in the driest language possible why this bill would adversely impact creators. The IPA chronology is similar. Maybe Ed can explain to me why the OWB opponents have a "'position' of emotional recoil" and you have a "heartfelt philosophy."

Oh, and this real problem affects us all how, exactly?

1/07/2009 05:12:00 PM  
Anonymous David said...

"Mea maxima fucking Culpa" - Any copyright on that Franklin? It's wonderful.

I'd give the Captain America job to Dave Hickey because he'd be so amusing if he had a national platform, and God knows we're going to be looking for amusement in the coming days.

Dan Cameron is a serious nomination, because the New Orleans thing was a great idea and a serious leap into the future.

John Haber would get my vote too as a smart and sensitive character with a big view.

I'd nominate John Perreault because he occasionally writes about the crafts, and I believe in the unity of the arts - "Are we not civilized?" as Hickey said somewhere.

An artist seems to make sense at first glance, except that the skill sets aren't always there for herding groups of people in a mutually beneficial direction.

1/07/2009 05:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Kara Zor-El said...

seems to make sense after the first glass

1/07/2009 05:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"First of all, there is one (1) dealer on the list (vs. four [4] artists). Second of all, what part of "don't let that limit you" was unclear?"

Ed,
4 artists vs. how many of everything else?

Is my argument so obvious? Let me say it more plainly. Fringe creates culture. I mean REALLY create. Dealers, critics and collectors and directors do what by comparison. And yes I understand I can suggest my own but you need to understand that you've already set the discussion.

1/07/2009 06:02:00 PM  
Blogger fish said...

anon to Ed: "...you need to understand that you've already set the discussion"

What's the problem here? Ed wrote a post, opened it up for discussion, and now you are discussing it.

1/07/2009 06:39:00 PM  
Anonymous fiescon said...

"okay then: in the spirit of my last bit and to rise to the challenge of the Anonymous post preceding mine (04:01:00 PM) I nominate a dynamic duo (like, don't we need a duo here ? Like Batman and Robin?):

Mike Kelly and Larry Lessig!"

Thanks Joy, thats what I'm talking about! (the Lessig vote is sending me straight to TED).

Now I think your verification makes more sence then mine. Fiescon? Maybe that will be my new identity

1/07/2009 10:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Cartrain said...

Julie Sadler said, "Poster Boy? Shepard Fairey I assume?"

HA, ha, ha. That is what the media would like you to think along with Yosi Sargent the man who has made Shepard Fairey a brand. Funny how if you mention a street artists who has shaped culture people automatically think you are talking about Mr. Obey himself. Shepard is not a "street artist". He uses street teams, but he is in no way a street artist if you define it as the guys on street define it. Half the time he is not even present until all the work is done. He is an artist with a corporate mentality selling anti-corporate dreams. I hate that people are starting to define art with him as the measure of influence. If you can't see that his "influence" was created by investors you are a fool. Go ask Yosi.

1/08/2009 02:33:00 AM  
OpenID deborahfisher said...

Dave Hickey is a clown.

This doesn't disqualify him as yesteryear's captain of culture, and it doesn't mean that he doesn't mean that when he's doing his little song and dance he isn't right. But I have a feeling (hope?) that the future isn't going to be about pretending to hand rich people's asses to them on a plate in a way that makes them want to pay through the nose for the privilege.

1/08/2009 09:31:00 AM  
Blogger Julie Sadler said...

Hey, don't misconstrue my post.
I was verifying who "poster boy" was. I didn't endorse him. I am well aware of his practices, strengths, and faults.

Perhaps he wasn't referring to Fairey. Perhaps it was Banksy or some other poster head. Am I aloud to ask?

1/08/2009 09:40:00 AM  
Blogger Donna Dodson said...

FYI- Quincy Jones has started a petition to ask President-Elect Obama to appoint a Secretary of the Arts. While many other countries have had Ministers of Art or Culture for centuries, The United States has never created such a position. We in the arts need this and the country needs the arts--now more than ever. Please take a moment to sign this important petition and then pass it on to your friends and colleagues.

www.petitiononline.com/esnyc/petition.html

1/08/2009 12:20:00 PM  
Blogger joy said...

this is Poster Boy:

http://tinyurl.com/57qn7w

1/08/2009 01:02:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Oh for the love of ...

I've done it again...tried to approve a comment by Julie Sadler and deleted it instead. I'm terribly sorry...I'll learn to use the computer. Please try again.

e_

1/08/2009 02:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a little confused as to exactly what this captaincy is to be awarded for. Every single person on Ed's list, with the exception of Oliver Stone, is involved in the visual arts (well, the collectors made their money in other fields, but are on the list presumably because of their contribution to the visual arts through their collecting). The visual arts are important to us, the readers of this blog, but if we're talking about the nation's priorities, visual art is way, way, way down there.

Are we talking about the person who is the most influential in the creation of culture? Disseminating or promoting culture domestically? Or the person most responsible for our country's cultural image to other cultures? These are all very different things.

I would say President Obama is, or is going to be, the most important symbol of the evolution of American culture as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

Also, this may sound petty, but since issues of illiteracy and education were brought up, I think we should at the very least spell the nominees' names correctly. At least two of the names on Ed's list are misspelled. This is just from my reading; there may be other errors that I didn't notice because I didn't do any spellchecking or googling. Philippe de Montebello and Alanna Heiss.

Oriane

1/08/2009 08:29:00 PM  
Blogger Joanne Mattera said...

I've got to diagree with this pick-one (or add-one) idea.

Art originates in the fertile imaginations of a group of creative (and obsessive, possessed, driven, egotistical, poetic and possibly delusional)individuals who labor, usually alone, in their studios. The non-artists on the list, powerful and visionary though they may be, have nothing to work with unless we produce it.

So I would have to nominate, as a group, the folks without whom there is no art world.

I would also like to acknowledge the collective contribution of the art blogosphere, which has democratized the way we view and discuss art, and the way we are able to interact universally and instantaneously to the images and comments posted.

1/08/2009 09:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with George. Give me Phillippe.

1/10/2009 07:26:00 PM  
Blogger David said...

Stephen Colbert!
http://www.colbertnation.com

1/11/2009 11:33:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home