Monday, October 31, 2011

Examining Profits über Alles as a Part of the Problem

The dialog around OWS is spreading and maturing, and the nation owes the die-hard protesters who have stuck it out through ridicule and nasty weather a debt of gratitude. That's not to say magical solutions have been found or enacted, but at least people are talking seriously about the system's flaws now and not childishly focusing on what the protesters are eating or where someone has to relieve themselves if they're camping outside.

Essentially, the triumph of OWS has been to raise awareness that people are dissatisfied with the current course we're on and to get everyone talking. But even still, though more people are seriously engaged in more meaningful conversations, easy answer are not readily available. The landscape is very complex.

For example, is it really the bankers we should be angry at? Nicole Lapin explains why that's perhaps oversimplified:
1. To get into the “top 1%” of Americans you don’t need to be a billionaire or millionaire or half-millionaire. The minimum wage earners in that group make about $343k/year.

2. Financial services professionals (a.k.a. “Wall Street”) average $311k/year — so they technically don’t make it into the top 1% if you look at the mean.
Or is it the CEOs? Nona Willis Aronowitz suggests they have more power to make real changes in everyone's lives than the bankers do:
[T]ax codes matter, but CEOs and boards are the ones making the salaries and doling out bonuses. They're the ones making obscene amounts of money for no particular reason—John H. Hammergren, the CEO of McKesson pharmaceuticals, made $131.2 million last year, 11 percent of the net income for a company that employes more than 36,000 people. They have the most direct power to redistribute the wealth and give their employees decent pay and benefits. [via Sully]
But, then, the bankers don't get off that easily in Tom Friedman's latest column:
Citigroup had to pay a $285 million fine to settle a case in which, with one hand, Citibank sold a package of toxic mortgage-backed securities to unsuspecting customers — securities that it knew were likely to go bust — and, with the other hand, shorted the same securities — that is, bet millions of dollars that they would go bust.

It doesn’t get any more immoral than this.
Indeed. It doesn't.

Unless your moral compass equates profits with true north.

For generations now we've had it drilled in our heads that profits are the ultimate good. They are the entire raison d'etre of any business. And if profits are good, then a lot of profit must be really good.

And, so we're told, this isn't selfish or greedy on the part of the business executives either. After all, we're reminded, repeatedly, how profits benefit know the proverbial little old lady with 8 cats on a fixed income who would perish were the CEO of MegaCorpaton Inc. not squeeze every last penny out of his employee's healthcare benefits that he could. The fact that the little old lady owns 50 shares of MegaCorpaton and sees $35 dividends a year (a drop in the bucket compared to what she annually sends her unemployed relatives struggling to put food on the table) is not really highlighted, but....

But, unemployment is actually good for profits too, it turns out. As Walter Benn Michaels notes in a brilliant essay (one of the Held Essays on Visual Arts, edited by our pal Jonathan T.D. Neil) published in The Brooklyn Rail, as a system Capitalism rather likes a certain level of unemployment because it increases profits:
Unemployment is both a problem and a solution. It’s a problem for the unemployed, who want work, a solution for employers who not only want workers but also want the cheapest ones they can get. If, say, you’re looking to hire a salesperson (the largest occupation in the U.S.), the reason you can get one for an average salary of only $12 an hour is because there are a lot of unemployed potential salespeople out there. Which means, in turn, that unemployment is not just a problem for people who don’t have jobs, it’s a problem also for people who do. If you’ve got that sales job, the unemployed are your competition; they may be worse off than you but you’re worse off because of them—they’re the reason you’re only making $12 an hour.
Of course, a lot of unemployment means far fewer consumers, so Capitalism likes to keep profits at what Milton Friedman called the “natural rate of unemployment.” But it gets even more complex, when you consider which people are willing to perform which jobs, as Georgia and Alabama farmers have found in the wake of their states' harsh anti-immigration laws.

Over the weekend, we saw the financial thriller (yes, I improbable...but these are the times we live in) that's generating a lot of word-of-mouth buzz and deserves to receive widespread distribution. "Margin Call" is summarized this way on the movie's website:
Set in the high-stakes world of the financial industry, Margin Call is an entangling thriller involving the key players at an investment firm during one perilous 24-hour period in the early stages of the 2008 financial crisis. When an entry-level analyst unlocks information that could prove to be the downfall of the firm, a roller-coaster ride ensues as decisions both financial and moral catapult the lives of all involved to the brink of disaster.
I can report it's indeed thrilling. I felt like I had be punched in the gut by the end of the flick. [Spoiler alert] What really got to me, because I saw the stark truth in it, was a dialog between Demi Moore's character and Stanely Tucci's, both of whom were being let go from the firm. Staring in to the abyss and contemplating not only the repercussions of what was happening for themselves but the general public, Moore's character reflects on how they got there, at the point at which they chose to move forward with the decision that brought them down, and argues that at the time there didn't seem to be a choice. Tucci's confirms that it always looks that way.

In this scenario it looked that way because they were focused not on what was best for their clients or even what was best for the firm, but rather on what profits demanded of them. Indeed, it was the obsession with making money that destroyed the firm and ended up impacting millions, if not billions, of other people in the process. Even as the 24 hours unfolded and the executive decisions were being made, even as it was clear that the path they were choosing would end all their careers, their reputations, harm so many other people, and most likely bring down the firm, they kept focused on the clarion call of the industry's prime directive: profits über alles. Get what you can for yourself while the getting is good.

If you're looking for the baby, it's out there with the bathwater.

Labels: ows, politics

Friday, October 28, 2011

Opening Tonight! Shane Hope's "Transubstrational: As a Smartmatter of Nanofacture"


Shane Hope
Transubstrational: As a Smartmatter of Nanofacture

October 28 - December 23, 2011
Opens October 28 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM

Winkleman Gallery is very pleased to present Transubstrational: As a Smartmatter of Nanofacture, our second solo exhibition by New York artist Shane Hope. Expanding on his explorations of emerging molecular nanotechnologies which could give rise to near costless systems for controlling the structure of matter itself, Hope takes us one step further with two series of incredible work made from the very cutting-edge open-source tools that are increasingly being developed for such research.

For his new series of lenticular-3D prints (titled "Post-Scarcity Percept-Pus Portraiture"), Hope has continued to customize user-sponsored open-source nanomolecular design software systems. He uses this software to modify, manipulate and design groups of molecular models. To build his painterly pictures, he assembles together tens of thousands of these models, resulting in fantastic compositions depicting organic, inorganic, synthesizable, theoretically feasible and nano-nonsensical molecules. The lenticular 3D print format presents holographic-like relief-sculptural depth, providing an extraordinary view into molecular design spaces and how hacking matter happens.

For his second series ("Qubit-Built-Quilted Scriptable-Species-Being on Graphene"), Hope built by hand open-source / open-hardware 3D printers (RepRaps) with the intent to literally convert bits back into atoms. In RepRap tradition, he used his first 'parent' 3D printer to print in PLA (polylactic acid) parts for subsequent 'child' printers; essentially printing printers. Named “Foglet-Fabber-Fidel, Percept-Pus-Pandora, Qubit-Quacker-Quinn and Borganic-Blobjecthoodlum-Beulah,” this family-printer-farm has also been used to materialize his huge cache of modded molecular models. Hope here exhibits an array of 3D-prints particularly representative of graphene, the new carbon structure experts predict may be that upon which we compute next.

Shane Hope received his MFA from the University of California San Diego in 2002 and has attended the University of California Los Angeles, the San Francisco Art Institute, and the Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture. He has exhibited at Virgil de Voldere Gallery in New York; Project Gentili, in Prato, Italy; iMAL (interactive Media Art Laboratory) in Brussels, Belgium, Rosamund Felson Gallery in Los Angeles and Susanne Vielmetter Los Angeles Projects.

For more information contact Ed Winkleman at (1) 212.643.3152 or

Labels: gallery artist exhibition

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Death Doesn't Really Becomes Us

Candy corn and jack-o-lanterns, apple cider and trick-or-treating. The temperature is cooler, the leaves are changing color, the costume shops are busy...ahh...Halloween is in the air and a young (or young at heart) blogger's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of death.

Not death of the variety brought on by some bloody, chainsaw-wielding inbred sociopath in serious need of some Right Guard or a cerebral cortex-munching zombie with a far too casual sense of how much of her rotting flesh it's ok to leave wherever she goes (although, obviously, I quite enjoy those too), but rather death of the sort that makes me feel that we humans really aren't quite so evolved on the matter. In fact, we tend to reveal a disturbing open embrace of death that makes our zombie friend seem quite the charmer in comparison.

Take for example the open cheering at the earlier GOP presidential candidates debate when the moderator pointed out the number of executions performed in Texas Governor Rick Perry's state. Now the Wall Street Journals' James Taranto, in a column he admitted he was rushed to write (and it shows), attempted to de-gruesomefy the audience's knee-jerk applause at the mere mention of 234 deaths with a rather convoluted set of projections (onto both the audience and the "liberal elite"):

It seems to us that the crowd's enthusiasm last night was less sanguinary than defiant. The applause and the responses to it reflect a generations-old mutual contempt between the liberal elite and the large majority of the population, which supports the death penalty.

There are, of course, reasonable arguments against the death penalty. But opponents are too resentful at their inability to steamroll over public opinion as if this were Europe or Canada to argue their case effectively. One of their most ludicrous tropes is to liken the U.S. to authoritarian regimes that also practice capital punishment. In reality, as Marshall showed, America still has the death penalty because it is less authoritarian than Europe. Thus whenever someone makes that argument, we feel a tinge of patriotic pride. We believe a similar sentiment lay behind last night's applause.

Nowhere did the moderator make the argument that America's death penalty reflected our being more or less authoritarian than any other country. What prompted the applause was the number of deaths:
Brian Williams: Governor Perry, a question about Texas. Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times. Have you . . .


Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent?
The audience didn't even wait for the arguably liberal elitist question: "Have you struggled to sleep?" For all they knew, the question was going to be "How would you advise other governors to improve their death penalty records?" No, the only information they had when they spontaneously cheered was the total number of deaths.

Any suggestion that they knew the question was going to take an anti-death penalty stance is also biased projection. The question as I heard it was about numbers: with so many executions, how confident are you that innocent people are not being put to death? Of the nine most recent, most convincing cases that an innocent person was executed in the US, 6 of them were in Texas.

Furthermore, the suggestion that there is "a generations-old mutual contempt" between pro- and anti-death penalty citizens (or the fact that the majority of Americans who support the death penalty may be tired of having their morality questioned) is still no reason a presidential candidate shouldn't be asked to clarify their position on an issue that is actively being debated across the country. New Mexico and Illinois both recently repealed capital punishment because their leaders found the systems they had in place faulty. All Williams was asking Perry was whether he has similar concerns about Texas's system. Given the record of his state, it would seem important that both he and the debate audience seriously reflect on the question.

But an even more fascinating/unsettling issue surrounding death has resurfaced in response to the killing of Libya's dictator Colonel Qaddafi. Videos of his humiliating and painful final minutes are all over the internet (I won't point to them [they're disturbing]...but you can find them). Few people feel sorry for a tyrant when they meet a fate relatively more humane than their combined crimes against other people, and yet, it's not pleasant to be reminded of just how primal we are as creatures. As Simon Sebag Montefiore notes in a riveting essay in today's New York Times, we seemly can't help but feel that "Dictators Get the Deaths They Deserve":
Despite brandished phones and pistols, there was something Biblical in the wild scene [at Qaddafi's death], as elemental as the deaths of King Ahab (“the dogs licked up his blood”) and Queen Jezebel (thrown off a palace balcony). It was certainly not as terrible as the death of the Byzantine emperor Andronicus I, who was beaten and dismembered, his hair and teeth pulled out by the mob, his handsome face burned with boiling water. In modern times, it was more frenzied than the semi-formal execution, in 1989, of the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, but not as terrible as the ghastly lynching, in 1958, of the innocent King Faisal II of Iraq (age 23) and his hated uncle, who were supposedly impaled and dismembered, their heads used as soccer balls. In 1996, the pro-Soviet former president of Afghanistan, Najibullah, was castrated, dragged through the streets and hanged.
Apparently, for we fragile humans, death is not enough to erase the fear that tyrants instill:
Romans were so terrified of the emperor that it was not enough to assassinate him. They wanted to see him dead: fearing it was a trick and lacking cellphone footage, they had to be convinced. The mile-long line of Libyans who were keen to see Colonel Qaddafi’s cadaver in its shop-refrigerator-tomb would understand this perfectly.
And perhaps the same can charitably be said of those who applaud record numbers of executions. It's fear that drives them to involuntarily express approval...a sense of relief that one more monster is no longer out there.

Of course, the only thing I personally have less respect for than actual deathmongers are cowards who'd abdicate their civic responsibilities to ensure innocent people are not inadvertently victims of an imperfect system out of simply wanting someone/anyone to convince them they'll make the boogeyman go away.

There are other parts of our baser nature we struggle to conquer and characterize as "civilized" when we succeed. Just because our fear and bloodlust are understandable at times in no way excuses abandoning the harder task of continually struggling to overcome them. We have Halloween and horror flicks as release valves toward that end. We, as a nation, should be ashamed that our people literally cheered any part of the deaths of 234 other individuals. And while it's perhaps understandable that the Libyans brutally butchered Qaddafi' in his final moments, we should recognize what it costs us in terms of higher aspirations as a species to revel in that. Death doesn't become us. Not really.

Labels: Art and politics, death, halloween

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Opening tonight...but you must RSVP by 3:00 pm EST

NEW YORK, NY, October 12, 2011 – Ogilvy & Mather New York’s OgilvyArt will present Live Video, an exhibition of contemporary video art that blends technology and nature, co-curated by OgilvyArt’s curator Jun Lee, along with Edward Winkleman and Murat Orozobekov, founders of The Moving Image Art Fair. The exhibition opens on October 25 and runs through March 30, 2012.

Live Video will feature work by Broersen & Lukács, Rob Carter, Oscar Dawicki, Jonathan Ehrenberg, Kirsten Geisler, Claudia Hart, Hisao Ihara, Mary Lucier, Jacco Olivier, Hiraki Sawa and Leslie Thornton.

Throughout human history, nature has held a special place in the hearts and minds of artists and audiences. Indeed, when viewing a completely abstract painting, many people still tend to describe the painting as a landscape. Live Video takes this as its launching point. As where previous generations of artists would carry palettes and easels into nature to capture inspiration, today's generation of artists frequently carry video cameras. Live Video brings together an international selection of artists working in video who have used its technical capabilities to capture nature and interpret it in amazing new ways.

“Video art has evolved into a unique tool for artists of all mediums,” said Ms. Lee. “In the wake of the video art of the past emerges work with a new relationship to life and to aesthetics. Live Video presents a selection of works that feature technology as it touches life.”

“This is the fifth exhibition curated specifically for our office and serves as a continuing reminder to our company of the ways in which creativity is forever changing and being expressed,” said Steve Simpson, Chief Creative Officer of Ogilvy & Mather North America.

The exhibition will utilize the open floor plan of Ogilvy & Mather’s headquarters building at 636 11th Avenue (between 46th and 47th Streets) and be showcased on floors 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

An opening reception with artists and curators will be held at Ogilvy & Mather on October 25 from 6-8 p.m. Private appointments to view the exhibition can be arranged with curator Jun Lee at

About OgilvyArt
Ogilvy New York uses its office space as an art gallery to showcase contemporary and emerging artists of all mediums in the lobby and on the walls of each floor. A tradition that began at its previous location in Worldwide Plaza, the agency continues to support the art community at The Chocolate Factory, which better allows for the accommodation of art projects and the showcasing of exhibits. See for more information.

About Ogilvy & Mather
Ogilvy & Mather is one of the largest marketing communications companies in the world. Through its specialty units, the company provides a comprehensive range of marketing services including: advertising; public relations and public affairs; branding and identity; shopper and retail marketing; healthcare communications; direct, digital, promotion and relationship marketing. Ogilvy & Mather services Fortune Global 500 companies as well as local businesses through its network of more than 450 offices in 120 countries. It is a WPP company (NASDAQ: WPPGY). For more information, visit

About Moving Image Contemporary Video Art Fair
Moving Image Contemporary Video Art Fair was conceived to offer a viewing experience with the excitement and vitality of a fair, while allowing moving-image-based artworks to be understood and appreciated on their own terms. Founded by Edward Winkleman and Murat Orozobekov of New York’s Winkleman Gallery, Moving Image works with an international group of curators and advisors to assemble a survey of the best contemporary video being exhibited in galleries and non-profit institutions. Moving Image takes place in New York in March and in London in October. For more information visit

For media inquiries about Live Video and OgilvyArt:
Lane Buschel
First-Person Communications for Ogilvy Art

Jun Lee
Art Curator, OgilvyArt

For media inquiries about Ogilvy & Mather:
Toni Lee
212-237-5090 (Office)
917-679-7631 (Mobile)
@OgilvyWW and @OgilvyNY

RSVP to by 3:00 pm today.

Labels: must-see exhibitions, opening reception

Monday, October 24, 2011

UPDATED: From the Less Misguided to the Totally Moronic

CORRECTION: As noted in two comments by Noah Fischer (see comments), what I had been sent was not in fact an official press release authorized by Occupy the Museum, but instead an artist's unofficial press release about the ongoing protest. Apparently there is a process by which the arts group at OWS must review and consent to the texts sent out and that had not been done in this case.

While I am sincerely sorry my misunderstanding about that led to my comment about 1/3 of the press release being devoted to Noah's own artwork (he notes that he wouldn't approve of that), I will reiterate as I do below that it was the artist's unofficial efforts to explain Occupy the Museum to me over a series of emails that led me to soften my position. In other words, it was her efforts to be patient and inclusive that helped open my mind a bit.

Knowing now that she was unauthorized to do so leaves me in a rather uncomfortable position. Do I return to my original, less supportive stance (after all, my original concerns would seem to remain officially unaddressed)? Or do I cobble together my willingness to be more open-minded about it with the knowledge that Occupy the Museum's official text really does nothing to deserve that and come away still somewhat moderately skeptical?

Noah asks "Please do not let [the artist's unofficial press release] drive the conversation about the action called Occupy Museums on your blog." Fair enough. But that means that what continues to drive it remains the artinfo article cited in my original post suggesting it's misguided.


I've softened my position somewhat on the Occupy the Museum protest, mostly because of a level-headed and open-minded email I received from one of the participants. In it, the protester acknowledged the effort remains a work in progress, better articulated the goals of the protest, and better addressed the fact that institutional critique is not being hushed (just not changing things fast enough for some).

And so I'm even more willing to wait and see what changes it might bring about. I do have to say that the revised press release I was forwarded (below) nicely addresses some of my earlier objections, but the fact that nearly 1/3 of the press release promotes the OM lead organizer's own art struck me as a really, really bad choice.
The Failure of Institutional Critique

Institutional critique began in the 60’s as an assault on the taken-for-granted neutrality of the institutions that display art. Artists like Marcel Broodthaers, Hans Haacke, Daniel Buren, and Michael Asher attempted to demystify the “naturalness” of assumptions about the purported aesthetic autonomy, neutrality, and universality of art, as well as the institutions which house them. It pulled art out of its rarefied vacuum, whereby art seemed to signify by itself akin to a transcendent religious experience, and instead re-situated the ideologies that frame the reception of art in a social and materialist context.

However, 40 years later it is clear that institutional critique has failed. William Powhida’s grotesque Racine-like caricatures did more to excoriatingly criticize institutions than 40 years of the Whitney ISP and all their Benjamin Buchloh-bots, dutifully spouting their lingo about the “spectacularization of art,” because Powhida did what performance art group Our Literal Speed has called doing things that are not appropriate in non-appropriate places.

Occupy Museums is an outgrowth of the Arts and Culture Committee of Occupy Wall Street. It is an attempt to PUT BODIES IN PLACES WHERE THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE to begin to destabilize a power structure towards which we have otherwise been inculcated to exhibit a corrosive servility.* Occupy Museums is initiated by visual artist Noah Fischer AND IS HAPPENING TODAY, October 20. We are meeting at 3 at 60 Wall Street (Atrium), Occupy MOMA at 5, the Occupy Frick at 6, and Occupy New Museum at 7.

Part of the Occupy Museum Manifesto reads:
The public contract of museum institutions as commonwealth has been instrumentally corroded by a particularly ruthless bevy of globalist-minded neo-Robber Barons who have incrementally instituted certain policy and economic decisions over the course of the past 10 years. Museums in the early stages (LACMA, MoCA, MoMA) were pressured to commit to huge development deals that left them vulnerable to board takeovers by "rescuing" billionaires; some of whom, like Broad (name over info desk at MoMA lobby) helped cause the current depression. These megalomaniacs are using their blood money, laundered through massive donations to reshape our shared cultural heritage to conform to a very corp-"designed" type of echo chamber.

More Info:

Fischer received his BFA from RISD (‘99) and his MFA from Columbia (‘04), was an artist-in-residence at the Mac Dowell Colony, a two-time LMCC Swing Space grantee, a Fulbright Scholar Fellow (Netherlands) and a finalist for the Provincetown Fine Arts Work Center. He is Professor of Sculpture at RISD and a Professor of Multimedia Installation at Pratt, and is represented by Claire Oliver Gallery in Chelsea. He has exhibited/performed at Oliver Kamm (New York, Miami, Brussels), Claire Oliver, Steirischer Herbst (Austria), Künstlerhaus Mousonturm (Frankfurt) and Kunstenfestivaldesarts (Brussels).

Fischer’s exhilaratingly whirring, buzzing, flickering kinetic sculptures reconfigure the semiotics of objecthood, juxtaposing the evanescent with the recalcitrantly machine-like, the obsolete with the atavistically futuristic, enveloping and recontextualizing that which we take for granted to be immaterial (information, pixels, the virtual world) and recoding it within the idiom of the material. Similar to Tristan Perich, his entrenchment with the technological is not derived from a technological fetishism, but something much more old-fashioned: the sublime. He slyly picks off objects that are icons of our modern virtual immaterial world: the TV monitor, the screen, the iphone, the laptop, and re-imbues their hollow immateriality with the embers of an incandescent physicality (lanterns, chairs, clocks), thereby making for hybrid Frankenstinian monster-objects that elicit a dance between the discourses of the material and the immaterial.

I know 16 Beaver is a stronghold of scholars on the AWC. WE NEED TEACHERS FOR OUR TEACH-IN. OCCUPY MUSEUMS WILL CONTINUE EVERY THURSDAY for the duration of Occupy Wall Street, holding teach-ins before the occupation at 60 Wall Street. We are looking for teachers on the following to provide historical context to artists protesting art institutions:
(AWC) Art Workers Coalition:
Mierle Ukeles Laderman:
Artists Against U.S. Intervention in Central America
And anything else that is any way relevant to an overarching institutional critique (financial or otherwise), embodied by Occupy Museums! Contact if interested in partaking in Museum Occupation and contact if interested in teaching at the Occupy Museums Teach-in.

I had a strange dream last night. A genie came out of a bottle to me and mysteriously whispered in my ear, "JOIN ANDREA! JOIN OCCUPY MUSEUMS! join before neoliberal spectacle-oriented charlatans like Creative Time co-opt Occupy Museum (as they are already trying to do)!” It was a very mysterious dream, and I still can’t figure out what it meant… if anybody can figure out what the genie could have meant by the phrase "neoliberal spectacle-oriented charlatans like Creative Time” (those words were too big for me to understand), LET ME KNOW...

*corrosive servility: Julian Assange's term
I still think that occupying the Frick to protest conditions for contemporary artists would be rejected as too-far-fetched a parody by the editors of The Onion, and the OM Manifesto still needs work, reading as it does like some conspiracy theorist's rejected script for a spy thriller (right before the FBI invade his home). But, again, I'm now more willing to watch with an open mind and see where it goes. And I'll thank two patient, sincere artists for bringing me to that point.

What I'm not even remotely willing to see happen again is the idiocy and reported theft that took place by the protesters who occupied Artists Space for over 24 hours before being asked to leave. Gallerist NY's Andrew Russeth reports:

Artists Space executive director and curator Stefan Kalmár, who was sitting at a desk in the space along with other staff members, told us that a group of about 10 people had begun distributing fliers during an event at the gallery yesterday afternoon. (The group has posted a video about the action on YouTube.) He showed us the flier. One half read, in tall letters: “TAKE ARTISTS SPACE.” Below it was written: “TAKE WHAT WHICH IS ALREADY YOURS.”

The text on the other half of the sheet reads: “NO MORE: AESTHETIC AUTHORITY / EXCLUSION DUE TO TASTE / NATIONALISM / XENOPHOBIA / HOMOPHOBIA…” and went on to list dozens of other terms like “BORING COCKTAIL PARTIES,” “TEXTE ZUR KUNTS [sic],” “KITTENS,” “SUSHI,” “SHY FEMALE ARTISTS.”

Mr. Kalmár said that he and other Artists Space employees have worked to secure the space since the occupation began. “We have to ensure the safety of our staff and them,” he said, motioning over to the occupiers, “and safeguard our property and the building.”

For now, Mr. Kalmár has not made any effort to remove the occupiers. “I don’t mind the gesture, but I’m surprised by the naiveté,” he said, noting his organization’s history of commitment to political art and art by under-recognized artists. “I feel like our work is far more progressive than what I have heard here.”

You would have to have never visited Artists Space to think it represented "NATIONALISM / XENOPHOBIA / HOMOPHOBIA…" or any of the other moronic accusations in that text. Indeed, the outright opportunism of this effort (as the nights in New York are getting chillier, mind you), was all but admitted on the Take Artists Space tumblr:

“The newly acquired occupied space in Lower Manhattan, which, unlike Zuccotti Park, provides luxurious bathroom and central heating, has just conducted its first official general assembly…”

Yes, I recall George Washington's troops insisting on luxurious bathrooms and central heating before they signed up for Valley Forge.

Even more discouraging about this stunt was this tid bit:

During the night, Mr. Kalmár said, about 60 people had participated in a group meeting, or “general assembly,” to use the term of the occupiers. “There were a lot of smart people here saying great things, but they were shouted down.” He has participated in some of the discussions. [emphasis mine]

Shouting down other people may be required in urgent situations, sure, but when you're camping out with luxurious bathrooms and central heating and even the man with the keys to the place you're occupying has joined in the discussion, it's a grotesque abuse of others' freedom of speech and reveals a lack of sincerity about open dialog.

The reported theft seems to be still a bit fuzzy ("Mr. Kalmár ... had also learned that occupiers had broken into a storage space and removed a laptop computer."), so I'm willing to hold off on slamming the protest's organizers for that until more is known. I will note that, imo, it does indeed reflect on the organizers if participants break the law in a context they've created. Don't unleash a beast if you're not prepared to accept responsibility for the damage it does.

But the notion expressed by the occupiers that nearly makes my head explode (it's so freaking idiotic) is their slogan "Take that which is already yours."

Say we take that slogan at face value (and if we don't then it's dismissable as mere propaganda or simply absurd).

I can grasp the concept that a non-profit designed to promote new artists and new ideas (and that receives public funding) does indeed belong to the people. And that in one sense it mostly belongs to artists who are working to have their visions seen. But, even if we leave out the non-artist people (the viewers) that it also belongs to, just the number of artists who would be very happy to have a show at Artists Space one day would not all fit in the space at one time (and how much fun would it have been had everyone been forced to stand all night and were constantly being elbowed by increasing grumpy fellow protesters fighting to get in the bathroom?), and since not all of them can "take that which is already theirs" the true essence of the rallying cry, if it makes any sense at all, becomes one of exclusivity: take it if you can get here before all the others do and hope not too many people show up.

Pulling that apart reveals the true irony at work here: to take what you can before all the others do is PRECISELY what Occupy Wall Street is protesting AGAINST. "Take that which is already yours" is precisely what drives the extreme right-wing of this country to fight to disband unions and cut teachers' pay and bankrupt the government with an eye on "taking back America." They see it as THEIR country, and they don't want to share it.

Sharing Artists Space is more in the spirit of Occupy Wall Street than "taking" it. And in order to share it, artists need to wait their turn for their visions to be exhibited there properly. Otherwise, like the discourse was, their visions will simply be shouted down.

Take Artists Space is probably not the stupidest off-shoot of OWS we're likely to see, but it has to rank up there.

Labels: ows, politics

Friday, October 21, 2011

Knackered...but Hopeful

It's one of my favorite true English words (by which I mean it's used in England, but not so much in the States). It comes from the noun "knacker," meaning "a buyer of worn-out domestic animals or their carcasses for use especially as animal food or fertilizer." In its adjective form it popularly suggests being uncharacteristically tired to the point of being next to useless (like an animal carcass). A typical sentence using it might be, "I'm too knackered to even go to the pub."

The two weeks of 18 hour days in London have finally caught up with me (despite precautionary flu shots and vitamins), but it was bound to happen. I could only run on fumes for so long. Today I realized I am officially knackered.

Still, I was buoyed a bit to read an article on MSNBC that points to something I have been longing to see: a sense that there is still a spirit of
E pluribus unum that defines America. We are all in this together, and while there is no doubt that a few placards are not going to solve all our problems, I find this the single most encouraging development to come out of the Occupy Wall Street protest thus far:

The “Occupy Wall Street” protesters — also known as the “99 percent” — have struck a chord with at least a few members of an unexpected audience: America’s rich and privileged.

United under the banner “We are the 1 percent: We stand with the 99 percent,” a band of entrepreneurs, trust fund babies, professionals and inheritors has taken to the web to share their abhorrence of corporate greed and support for tax code changes that would see them pay a higher share of their considerable wealth.

Among other things, they’re posting their stories on a Tumblr page created by Wealth for the Common Good and Resource Generation, two groups dedicated to working for "fair taxation and just wealth distribution."

Some are probably not actually in the top 1 percent wealthwise — calculated at earning a yearly salary of more than $506,000, according to The Wall Street Journal— but all are certainly well off and supportive of reforms that would narrow the widening gap between America's elite and poorest citizens.

Some of the comments on that article reveal what I've always found unreasonable about certain opinions in the US...the insistence that any wealthy person who wants to can give their money away, but that there's no reason that should implicate other wealthy people. This comment is a good example of that:

WELL THEN, JUST GIVE THE MONEY AWAY and end this nonsense.

If the "rich" protestors want to "solve the problem" then just set up a trust fund or charity, toss their unwanted dollars into it, and dole it out.

I'm not sure what these people are waiting for.

Why there is this obsessive need to have the US Government do what these people can simply do for themselves RIGHT NOW, I just don't understand.

The reason this is unreasonable is noted in the following comment by a reader from Sweden:
Enough with the "they can just give money away" nonsense argument. That would be charity done only by some and would change nothing.
Indeed, it is the selfishness the original comment reveals that I hope we can have a national conversation about. "You can give YOUR money away to help salvage the economy...but I want to keep all of mine!"

Don't get me wrong. I'm in no rush to pay more taxes, but I would happily do so if it could help stabilize things. As I'm sure it does many Americans, all this uncertainty keeps me up at nights, running our finances through my head, wondering how we can accomplish this or that goal on less, worrying how events in Greece or Spain will affect a collector considering purchasing a piece, etc. etc. etc. It's exhausting.

And so when I read comments from people saying "You can give YOUR money away to help salvage the economy...but I want to keep all of mine!" I have to wonder what they think the world is going to look like when they have what they need but everyone around them has become desperate. Will they retreat to their country estates and fund their own private armies to protect them from the hungry mobs? How long will that be attractive? It's worse than selfish, it's bad money management. Why waste your own money on private armies, when a shared sacrifice (costing much less in the long run) can more quickly help return balance and more certainty?

E pluribus's sound fiscal policy as well as social policy.

Labels: politics

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Occupy the Museums...Or, Simply Don't (and another type of Protest/Party Tonight!)

As noted here before (and if you follow my facebook posts you'll know), I'm watching and, in spirit, all for the Occupy Wall Street protests because I feel the issues being raised need to be discussed. I truly wish the banks would get involved, to help balance out the conversation, but apparently they're too busy raking in record profits.

That said, I find the Occupy the Museums notion a bit too misguided (and more than a bit ironic) to let it go without comment. In a nutshell the message of this effort is:
Museums, open your mind and your heart! Art is for everyone! The people are at your door!
Let's begin with the notion that despite $20 and $25 dollar entry fees, the people seem more than happy to keep passing through the doors of New York's museums :
  • Met Hits 40-Year Attendance Record
  • MoMA Attendance Hits Record High
  • Guggenheim Museum Sees Record Attendance
And they offer alternatives for people who can't afford those fees. So there's apparently NOT a serious "access for the people" issue here.

More specifically, though, the effort's rallying cry is:
For the last few decades, voices of dissent have been silenced by a fearful survivalist atmosphere and the hush hush of BIG money. To really critique institutions, to raise one’s voice about the disgusting excessive parties and spectacularly out of touch auctions of the art world while the rest of the country suffers and tightens its belt was widely considered to be bitter, angry, uncool.
Er...uh...the critique of institutions is alive (*cough* #class) and well (*cough* #rank) by artists like William Powhida (whose new show opens Saturday) and Jennifer Dalton (whose current show ends this Saturday [**see announcment below about event tonight]) and many, many others. I might add that BIG money seems to get and (I can report) does indeed buy such art as well. So there really is no hushing going on here.

So if it's not that "the people" are being denied access to the museums, and it's not that artists are afraid to critique the institutions, what is it really that this protest can accomplish? Their stated goals continue:
The members of museum boards mount shows by living or dead artists whom they collect like bundles of packaged debt. Shows mounted by museums are meant to inflate these markets. They are playing with the fire of the art historical cannon while seeing only dancing dollar signs. The wide acceptance of cultural authority of leading museums have made these beloved institutions into corrupt ratings agencies or investment banking houses- stamping their authority and approval on flimsy corporate art and fraudulent deals.
This strikes me as a gross oversimplification of what motivates curators and museum boards to mount shows. Although there is a popular sense that inflating certain markets does occur to certain decision makers at times, most museum curator I know are indeed passionate about the artists they work with, and the persuasion going on is, generally speaking, from them to the board members, not the other way around. Furthermore, the correlation between museum shows inflating the value of individual collections has never been shown. That's a red herring that does a disservice to board members who could spend their money on far less altruistic things than supporting art and museums.

But I think this text jumps the shark with claims of "stamping their authority and approval on flimsy corporate art and fraudulent deals." What is or isn't "flimsy" is a matter of opinion, and the history of art is nothing if not a shifting of opinions. As for "fradulent" deals, I think I'd consult a good libel attorney before throwing that accusation around so casually and indirectly.
Ultimately, though, I find this an opportunistic and somewhat ahistorical argument. Take this line:
For the past decade and more, artists and art lovers have been the victims of the intense commercialization and co-optation or art.
That's only true if by "past decade" you mean "past few centuries." And it's only wholly true if you acknowledge that the victimizers (i.e., those responsible for the "intense commercialization") include many, many artists as well.

Mind you, I think the protest should move forward and I'll be very curious to see how the museums respond. I suspect they'll accomodate the protesters as best they can.

I just don't think the motivation as outlined in the official text is even remotely accurate and probably won't be very productive. Moreover, I think a better way to get the museums to change (if that's your goal) is to encourage people NOT to occupy them...but that's just me.

**Should you not want to attend the protest, but still wish to be involved in a critique of "the institutions," Jennifer Dalton, A Feminist Tea Party, and Feminist Killjoy Quarterly are having a party in the gallery tonight:
Please join us for an evening of lady* parlour games, co-hosted by A Feminist Tea Party** and Feminist Killjoy Quarterly, in conjunction with Jennifer Dalton's show "Cool Guys Like You" at Winkleman Gallery.

We will play games with funny names while also drinking cocktails with funny names while also enwisening*** ourselves about women's history.

When: TONIGHT Thursday, Oct 20th, 6-9pm
Winkleman Gallery 621 W. 27th St., NYC

More info at and

*No, you don't have to be a lady to come! **A Feminist Tea Party will be hosting in fabulous '60s style, so you can dress in 1960s costume if you like.
***Yes, we know 'enwisening' is not a real word (yet).
Cross posted on Art World Salon.

Labels: Art and politics, gallery artists exhibitions

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

You Know What to Do With This

Halloween is only 11 days away.

Labels: politics

The Left Side of the Road

Nothing jolts an American out of their jet lag haze upon arriving in London like the blaring horn and screeching brakes of a double-decker bus barreling toward them as they look the wrong way and step into the street. Throughout Central London you'll see painted on the curbs in big block letters "LOOK LEFT" or "LOOK RIGHT." And despite this precaution, the number of times I myself (even having lived in London) get caught up in my conversation or otherwise switch to New Yorker mode, confident of my surroundings, but am nearly flattened, is alarming.

It's familiar enough, London. The feel of the city is inviting and warm. But it's still another country, and as Wilde noted, no where is that more clear than the differences in language.

Indeed most of the challenges we met installing Moving Image in London surrounded vocabulary. For example, boxes full of equipment we needed were delivered by our tech team (the wonderful Aubury & Associates...if you're looking for installation help in London, we strongly recommend them). One box was labeled "28 kettle leads."

Again, having lived in London, I knew full well how much the Brits like their tea, especially during the work day, but even still, 28 kettle leads seemed excessive for our staff of 12 or so. Upon opening the box I found 28 cords for the TV monitors (with their characteristically oversized plugs...I mean really, can you work on that? They're enormous). Apparently the most popular use of these detachable leads is for the electric tea kettles you'll find in most homes and offices throughout the UK (and won't find any even remotely as solid or good in the US despite how hard you look...could we work on that?).

There's been a great response by the press for the London version of Moving Image, and some pretty sweet video interviews as well. Here's a quick round-up:

  • Coline Milliard, "Betting on Riskier Art, the SUNDAY and Moving Image Fairs Offer Affordable Alternatives During Frieze Week,", October 14, 2011
  • Rachel Spence, "Other art fairs, various venues, London," Financial Times, October 13, 2011
  • Bethany Rex, "Opening Tomorrow | Moving Image | Contemporary Video Art Fair | October 13 - 16 | London," Aesthetica Magazine, October 12, 2011
  • Gareth Harris, "Moving pictures," Financial Times, October 11, 2011
  • FAD Website interviews with Moving Image artists and founders (see additional links to the right)
  • Thomas Keane, "Frieze Art Fair All’s Well That Ends Well," ArtLyst, October 18, 2011

  • As you might imagine, we have a lot to catch up on, but Murat and I would like to send a very special thanks to all the people who helped make Moving Image in London possible, including our amazing Curatorial Advisory Committee ( Edwin Carels, John Connelly, Solange Farkas, Mami Kataoka, and Elizabeth Neilson); our Moving Image team including Amanda Lees, Deborah Crowhurst and all the great people at the Bargehouse, Helen Toomer Labzda, Justin Amrhein; and our kick-ass team of interns: Micah, Clare, Joao, George, Victoria, Mark, Nina, and Polly. You guys rock!

    Last, but not least, are the gallerist colleagues we met or reconnected with who participated in the fair. We love that you too are investing in this medium and look forward to working together as the project expands.

    We'll have more images and tales to tell in the days to come.

    For now, though, let me say thanks for hogging all the nice weather while we were away New York! This blustery rainy day is a LOVELY way to return home! :-P

    Actually, it's great to be home...
    ...more soon.

    Labels: Moving Image

    Monday, October 03, 2011

    Moving Image London 2011, Participants and Events

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 3, 2011

    Vincent Meessen

    Vita Nova, 2009


    26:56 min

    Courtesy Normal, Brussels, Belgium


    Dara Birnbaum

    Six movements: Video work from 1975, 1975

    One channel video, b&w, mono-mix

    Courtesy Marian Goodman Gallery, New York, NY


    Cao Guimarães

    Limbo, 2011

    Digital HD video

    20:30 minutes

    Courtesy Galeria Nara Roesler,
    São Paulo, Brazil


    Cameron Platter

    The Old Fashioned, 2010


    12:23 minutes

    Courtesy toomer labzda, New York, NY


    Michael Smith

    Baby Ikki, Out and About, 1978/2008


    4:07 Minutes

    Courtesy Hales Gallery, London, UK


    Eve Sussman | Rufus Corporation

    The Kiss, 2007

    HD Video

    8:20 minutes

    Courtesy Impronte Contemporary Art, Milan, Italy


    Oliver Michaels

    The Lovers, 2010

    Video projection/sculpture, wood, carpet

    13 minutes

    Courtesy Cole, London, UK


    Persijn Broersen & Margit Lukács

    Mastering Bambi, 2010

    HD Video

    12:30 minutes

    Courtesy Akinci, Amsterdam, Netherlands


    Adrian Wong

    Haak Seh Wuih Tuhhg Mau Jai, 2007/2011


    Courtesy ltd los angeles, Los Angeles, CA


    Jonathan Ehrenberg

    Seed, 2010


    6:52 minutes

    Courtesy Nicelle Beauchene Gallery, New York, NY


    Kenneth Tin-Kin Hung

    The Fast Supper, 2011


    3:00 minutes

    Courtesy Postmasters, New York, NY


    Gilad Ratman

    The Multipillory, 2010

    Video installation

    Continuous loop

    Courtesy Braverman Gallery, Tel-Aviv, Israel


    Yeondoo Jung

    Handmade Memories, 2008

    Dual-channel HD video

    Courtesy of Kukje Gallery, Seoul, Korea, and Tina Kim Gallery, New York, NY


    Chen Shaoxiong

    Ink History, 2010


    3:00 minutes

    Courtesy of Pékin Fine Arts Bejing, China


    Bani Abidi

    I Love You, 2003


    3:35 minutes

    Courtesy Green Cardamom, London, UK


    Gulnara Kasmalieva & Muratbek Djumaliev

    A New Silk Road:
    Algorithm of Survival and Hope
    , 2006

    Five-channel video installation

    9:43 minutes

    Courtesy Winkleman Gallery, New York, NY


    Moving Image

    Contemporary Video Art Fair

    London | October 13-16, 2011

    For its inaugural exhibition in London, Moving Image presents works by 28 artists represented by 28 galleries and non-profit institutions from South America, Asia, the Middle East, Europe and the United States. Presenting 19 single-channel videos and 9 larger-scale video sculptures/installations, Moving Image has been conceived to offer a viewing experience with the excitement and vitality of a fair, while allowing moving-image-based artworks to be understood and appreciated on their own terms. Taking place in the Bargehouse, a raw, four-storey warehouse space behind the OXO Wharf Tower, conveniently located within walking distance from both the Tate Modern and the Southbank Centre along the Thames, Moving Image represents a broad survey of artists invited by an international committee of curatorial advisors.

    Historical works by renowned artists Dara Birnbaum and Hannah Wilke anchor the exhibition. Birnbaum's Six Movements: Video work from 1975 (presented by Marian Goodman Gallery) explores, as one critic put it, what "men can get away with, and women can't." These black & white works with fixed camera setups are still shocking today. Equally provocative is the 1977 work by Hannah Wilke, Intercourse with....(presented by Ronald Feldman Fine Arts), which documents a haunting performance in which the viewer "'eavesdrops" in on a series of phone messages intended for Wilke, recorded from her answering machine.

    Among the single-channel videos in the fair is Vincent Meesen's highly acclaimed 2009 film, Vita Nova (presented by Brussels non-profit space Normal). Taking as its starting point Roland Barthes' famous 1957 essay Mythologies and the Paris Match cover photo that illustrated his critique of Modern thoughts on history, Meesen's film reveals how each new telling of a famous story breathes new life and meaning into it. The Kiss (2007) by Eve Sussman and Rufus Corporation (presented by Impronte Contemporary Art) isolates a light moment between two people in a room as if captured on a surveillance camera, their truncated bodies drifting in and out of the shot, punctuated with sounds of laughter and the ambience of a party. Jonathan Ehrenberg's 2010 video Seed (presented by Nicelle Beauchene Gallery) addresses themes of transformation and metamorphosis. Evocative of Nikolai Gogol's The Nose (an absurdist tale in which a man's nose becomes detached from his face and begins to boss around its former owner), Ehernberg's piece explores feelings of disembodiment and loss of self. And Shadi Habib Allah's 26-minute video The King and the Jester (presented by Dubai's Green Art Gallery) was shot over two weeks at a Miami autobody shop, capturing the characters of this hypermasculine world as they drift between moments banal and impassioned, revealing a riveting infrastructure of class identification and hierarchies of authority.

    In Oliver Michael's multimedia work The Lover's (2010), video is projected onto a bronze bust of Abraham Lincoln, animating the sculpture, as he utters a perpetual procession of descriptive, often spurious statements. The weight and tone of the imposing black bust and its subject are hijacked by Michaels in a critique of the formal fetishization of historical objects. In their 2010 installation Mastering Bambi, Persijn Broersen & Margit Lukács (presented by Amsterdam's Akinci Gallery) strip the Disney classic of its cute, personified characters, guiding the viewer through the moods of the film via the "untrammelled wilderness, full of deceptive realism and harmony in which man is the only enemy." And in their five-channel video installation A New Silk Road: Algorithm of Survival and Hope (first commissioned by the Art Institute of Chicago and presented by Winkleman Gallery), Kyrgyz artists Gulnara Kasmalieva and Muratbek Djumaliev weave a mesmerizing, contemporary look at the inspiring resilience of poverty-stricken residents along one of history's most famous passages.

    Full list of artists / Participating galleries and non-profit institutions

    Bani Abidi / Green Cardamom (London, UK)
    Anna Baumgart / LOKAL_30 (Warsaw, Poland)
    Dara Birnbaum / Marian Goodman Gallery (New York, USA / Paris, France)
    Mihut Boscu / SABOT Gallery (Cluj-Napoca, Romania)
    Persijn Broersen & Margit Lukács / Akinci Gallery (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
    Jonathan Ehrenberg / Nicelle Beauchene Gallery (New York, USA)
    Jakup Ferri / Weingruell (Karlsruhe, Germany)
    Cao Guimaraes / Galeria Nara Roesler (Sao Paolo, Brazil)
    Shadi Habib Allah / Green Art Gallery (Dubai, UAE)
    Oliver Herring / Meulensteen (New York, USA)
    Yeondoo Jung / Kukje Gallery (Seoul, Korea) and Tina Kim Gallery (New York, USA)
    Gulnara Kasmalieva & Muratbek Djumaliev / Winkleman Gallery (New York, USA)
    William Lamson / Pierogi Gallery (Brooklyn, USA)
    Vincent Meessen / Normal (Brussels, Belgium)
    Oliver Michaels / Cole (London, UK)
    Wagner Morales / Galeria Transversal (Sao Paolo, Brazil)
    Daisuke Nagaoka / Galerie Yukiko Kawase (Paris, France)
    Cameron Platter / Toomer Labzda (New York, USA)
    Gilad Ratman / Braverman Gallery (Tel Aviv, Israel)
    Chen Shaoxiong / Pékin Fine Arts (Beijing / Hong Kong, China)
    Taro Shinoda / Taka Ishii Gallery (Tokyo, Japan)
    Michael Smith / Hales Gallery (London, UK)
    Eve Sussman & Rufus Corporation / Impronte Contemporary Art (Milan, Italy)
    Leslie Thornton / Winkleman Gallery (New York, USA)
    Kenneth Tin-Kin Hung / Postmasters (New York, USA)
    Suzanne Treister / PPOW (New York, USA)
    Adrian Wong / ltd los angeles (Los Angeles, USA)
    Hannah Wilke / Ronald Feldman Fine Arts (New York, USA)

    For updates on programming information, please visit our website
    or contact Ed Winkleman at +1 212.643.3152 or

    BYOB Performance hosted by Film Co Lab

    On Saturday, October 15, 4:30 - 6:30 pm, in collaboration with Film Co Lab, Moving Image will present "Bring Your Own Beamer" (or BYOB)

    BYOB is a series of one-night-exhibitions hosting artists, their work and their projectors. As part of Moving Image, the event will include a series of artists that will collaborate on site to create a moving image performance. Each artist will choose the work to be exhibited and bring his or her own projection apparatus. This edition of BYOB will happen in the Bargehouse attic.


    • Greta Alfaro
    • Richard Install
    • Olga Koroleva
    • Lucy Fry
    • Claudia Tomaz
    • Franck Trebillac
    • and more to be confirmed soon

    This will be the third edition of BYOB in London. The first happened in February with more than 30 artists exhibiting their work at the Woodmill and the second BYOB happened at the Roundhouse in August.

    Film Co Lab works on the exhibition of moving image work outside familiar settings. For more details email

    Schedule of Events

    Thursday, October 13, 2011

    · 11:00 am- 8:00 pm : Admission Is Free

    · 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm : Opening Reception

    Friday, October 14, 2011

    · 11:00 am 7:00 pm : Admission Is Free
    Private tours available for groups. Email us at to schedule.

    Saturday, October 15, 2011

    · 11:00 am - 7:00 pm : Admission Is Free
    Private tours available for groups. Email us at to schedule.

    · 4:30 pm - 6:30 pm
    Film Co Lab
    hosts "Bring Your Own Beamer"
    Bargehouse attic
    (details above)

    Sunday, March 6, 2011

    · 11:00 am - 6:00 pm : Admission Is Free

    Moving Image London's Curatorial Advisory Committee

    • Edwin Carels, Festival Programmer, International Film Festival Rotterdam (Ghent, Belgium)
    • John Connelly, Director, Felix Gonzalez-Torres Foundation (New York, USA)
    • Solange Farkas, Curator | Director, Associação Cultural Videobrasil (São Paulo, Brazil)
    • Mami Kataoka, Chief Curator, Mori Art Museum (Tokyo, Japan)
    • Elizabeth Neilson, Director, Zabludowicz Collection (London, UK)

    Moving Image gratefully acknowledges the support of our Media Partners and Sponsors:

    • The Art Newspaper
    • Ogilvy Art
    • Safiniart
    • Culture Pundits
    • Flash Art International
    • Artnow Online
    • Artports
    • FAD
    • Aesthetica
    • Art Update
    • Spoonfed
    • Swedish Delivery
    • Jimmy's Iced Coffee
    • Fiji Water

    Moving Image London
    October 13-16, 2011

    OXO Tower Wharf
    Bargehouse Street
    South Bank
    London SE1 9PH, UK


    Bargehouse is owned and managed
    by Coin Street Community Builders

    Fair Hours

    Thursday - Saturday, October 13-15, 2011 : 11 am - 7 pm

    Sunday, October 16, 2011 : 11 am - 6 pm

    Opening Reception : Thursday, October 13, 2011 : 6 - 8 pm

    Video Performance: Saturday, October 15, 2011 : 4:30 - 6:30 pm

    Moving Image was conceived by Edward Winkleman and Murat Orozobekov of New York's Winkleman Gallery. For more information, contact Ed Winkleman at +212.643.3152 or +1.917.517.0761 or email us at

    Moving Image, LLC

    621 West 27th Street

    New York, NY 10001

    t: 212.643.3152

    Labels: Moving Image