edward_ winkleman

VIP 2.0

2012-01-26T08:29:00.005-05:00

There's a clock on the website for the VIP Art Fair, counting down the days (and hours, and minutes, and seconds) until the fair begins. Our booth for the fair is almost complete (just a few minor tweaks left), and we're delighted with the way it's turning out, but we were talking in the gallery the other day and I was surprised to learn that I'm not the only one who that clock has a way of making feel anxious. Hurry up! it keeps saying to us.

Despite the lack of physical involvement, it can be a lot of work setting up a virtual booth. How much work really depends on what you're willing to put into it. There is much to be gained, for example, by offering the text about your artists and their work in multiple languages, VIP being a truly global event. And while we have English, Spanish, Turkish, Russian, and even a bit of French, German, Irish, and Italian among those of us in the gallery, you try to translate "fantastic compositions depicting organic, inorganic, synthesizable, theoretically feasible and nano-nonsensical molecules" into all those tongues. (Yes, I know, the obvious rejoinder is "why don't you try writing that in solid English first." :-)

As I've noted before, for our gallery, VIP 1.0 was a really big success. And, as with other art fairs, after you've been through it once, all the logistics are actually easier the second time.

But yes, as was widely reported, there were some challenges when VIP launched its inaugural edition. As Will Brand has noted on Art Fag City, though, the team behind the world's first online art fair has taken some serious steps to ensure smoother sailing this year:

this year the fair will be on Amazon’s EC2 cloud. VIP, though, is going further than that, forming an internal tech team from scratch to re-design every piece of the site. “Every piece of code has been rebuilt internally,” Kennedy told AFC, from the database architecture to the front-end. Thankfully, this includes chat, which last year ranged from moderately dysfunctional to actively debilitating.

The second step is the user experience. VIP has hired a full-time User Experience Director, a sign of their seriousness about improving the interface and a step more websites ought to take.

The thing is, as any art fair organizer can tell you, sh*t happens during these events. (The electricity went out in a 3-block radius just as we were beginning a tour for some very important people at the Moving Image London, for example. In the first NADA Art Fair, the lights went out as well, and we were showing paintings by flash light.) The question to my mind has never been "did everything go perfectly," but "how did the organizers handle it when issues cropped up"?

As we approach the launch of VIP 2.0, and virtually pop in and out of our booth, the experience just gets better and better. We are sincerely impressed with how the VIP team has moved the venture forward. I hope you'll join us online and see for yourself.

Dates: February 3 – 8, 2012
Times: Begins at 8:00 AM EST on February 3
Ends at 11:59 PM EST on February 8
Location: VIPArtFair.com
Tickets: Visiting VIP 2.0 is free with site registration and login.

Register for access to VIP 2.0

Profile in Cowardice

2012-01-25T08:09:00.008-05:00

In the final scene of Joe Orton's classic farce, "What the Butler Saw,"* the six characters stand revealed (figuratively and literally, half or even fully naked, depending on the production), bloodied (at least one character has been shot), and united in their desire for the whole sordid day to please just be over.

We're still in January, but that's how I already view the 2012 GOP presidential primary.

And yet, this is the democratic process...messy, at times even brutal, but always about the potential leaders giving the people a real opportunity to see them up close and personal. If you're gonna give someone the nuclear codes for four years, you really want to be sure they can handle that responsibility.

And more than giving the people a look at the candidates, it's about giving the candidates a chance to meet the people. To listen to their concerns and hopes first hand. To carry back into office, should they win, a clear sense of the will of the people. That's why they're called our "elected representatives." It's their role in our social contract to act on our behalf, to represent our hopes and needs. We empower them to make and enforce the laws that we'll have to live by. So our hope is that they have a good understanding of who we are and what we believe. After that, they ARE our voice in government. And, besides, if they betray our beliefs, we always can vote them out.

That's what NJ Governor Chris Christie, who many in the GOP wish would throw his hat into the presidential race, is pretending he doesn't understand in his promise to veto a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the Garden State. After initially saying he would consider the bill when it hit his desk, now, even before it's been passed (and that seems certain), he's arguing that this is an issue the people should decide in a state referendum for a change to the state constitution, knowing that would require a lot more time and save him from potentially being the first GOP candidate running for President who had signed same-sex marriage into law. The New York Times has the details on this undemocratic cowardice:

The same-sex marriage bill is a priority for Democrats, led by the Senate president, Stephen M. Sweeney, who has said that his decision not to vote on a similar bill two years ago, when there was a Democratic governor who supported same-sex marriage, was “the biggest mistake” of his political career.

Gay-rights advocates had been hoping that Mr. Christie, who supports civil unions over same-sex marriage, might sign the legislation, or, if he vetoed it, give Republican legislators tacit approval to vote for an override.

Mr. Christie is considered a rising national star in a party still dominated by socially conservative voters who oppose same-sex marriage. But he had been uncharacteristically noncommittal in recent weeks. On Monday, he nominated a gay man to the State Supreme Court, and when asked about the prospects for the marriage bill, said that he would make a decision if and when the bill ever reached his desk.

He made his proposal [for a state referendum instead] on Tuesday after a town-hall-style meeting in Bridgewater, suggesting that the ballot question be presented to voters as a constitutional amendment. “The fact is, we’re discussing huge change, and I believe we need to approach this not only in a thoughtful way, not in a rushed way, but also in a way where we’re able to get the most input that we can from the public,” he said.

But Mr. Christie is fully aware how our democracy works and insists on it, when it suits his own political career:

“When the governor was doing his town hall meetings, I can’t tell you how many times he said, ‘Call your legislator, I want to make these changes;’ ” Mr. Sweeney said in an interview later. “Why would he put this on the ballot when everything that’s been important in this state in the last two years has been handled by the Legislature?”

According to a recent poll released by Quinnipiac University, 52% of New Jersey residents believe same-sex couples should have the right to marry, and only 42% are opposed. That's a clear majority, and their elected leaders are prepared to support their belief.

Christie is also ignoring the decision of the NJ Supreme Court:

In 2006, the State Supreme Court ruled that gay couples had the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but left it up to the Legislature to decide how to ensure those rights.

The Legislature has decided.

Now Christie wants to deny those rights again, for what looks more like his own political expediency than what his constituents clearly want. He's on the wrong side of history. He should be ashamed of his selfishness in this matter. Same-sex families need and deserve the right to marry now.

*Final scene (from the BBC):

This Is Why You Never Cave to Radicals...

2012-01-19T08:20:00.008-05:00

...it only encourages them.

It's difficult to feel sorry for the powers that be at the Smithsonian, now that the same radical right-wing writer Penny Starr (not to be confused with the burlesque performer the LA Weekly calls a "“delightful sexpot”) is on the warpath, again. You may recall she led the call to censor the Hide/Seek exhibition at the Smithsonian in 2010.

In an article titled, ironically, "Tax-Funded Smithsonian Christmas-Season Exhibition Again Focused on Homosexuality," (ironic, because if anyone seems focused on homosexuality, it's clearly Penny Starr), she again reveals a cultural ignorance that would disqualify her from writing about art and literature for any non-propaganda-oriented publication. Artnet.com has the story:

Penny Starr, the conservative writer and activist who led the (successful) crusade to censor David Wojnarowicz’s video A Fire in My Belly (1987) at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C., is back with a new outrage. Starr has taken offense at the museum’s current exhibition, “Seeing Gertrude Stein: Five Stories,” Oct. 14, 2011-Jan. 22, 2012, calling it another “exposition during the Christmas season focused on the homosexual lifestyle.”

In a long story for the right-wing Cybercast News Service last week, Starr reminds readers that during the winter of 2010 the National Portrait Gallery hosted “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” the exhibition of gay-themed art now at the Brooklyn Museum. The show included a four-minute excerpt of Wojnarowicz’s Fire in My Belly, a rapid video collage of Mexican street scenes, newspaper headlines, animals fighting and, for 11 seconds, ants crawling over a plastic crucifix.

In what has been christened the “The Anty Christ” scandal, the Catholic League claimed the video was an “attack on Christians” and lobbied Congress until it threatened to slash the museum’s funding. Smithsonian Institution buildings and operations are federally funded, but both “Hide/Seek” and “Gertrude Stein” were paid for by private donors. Nevertheless, the Smithsonian bowed to pressure and removed the video on Dec. 1, 2010.

Now, Starr has challenged the National Portrait Gallery to explain why two exhibitions in the last 14 months have been focused on “the homosexual lifestyle.”

I'll submit that it reveals much more about Starr than it does NPG that she's counting.

The Smithsonian, this time, seems to be ready to defend the show on its cultural merits:

In a statement, the museum responded, “Gertrude Stein, as our exhibition texts state, was one of America’s most widely known 20th century writers. She experimented radically with language and reached across the arts in a transatlantic community befriending young writers like Ernest Hemingway and artists such as Henri Matisse and Pablo Picasso. The fact that Stein was a lesbian did not influence why this exhibition was selected. Within the Portrait Gallery’s mission of interpreting significant and diverse individuals who influenced our national experience, she is an appropriate subject for a special exhibition.”

But the Smithsonian owns this latest tempest in a teapot, in my opinion. Had they told Ms. Starr and the opportunists she marshaled with her initial campaign that something as undemocratic and tyrannical as censorship was not going to take place in the National Portrait Gallery of the United States of America, thank you very much, they most likely wouldn't have encouraged this attention junkie to come back for more of the same.

As Rachel Corbett notes in artnet.com: "For those who missed it in D.C., “Hide/Seek” is currently up -- with the Wojnarowicz work -- at the Brooklyn Museum until Feb. 12, 2012."

In Spots We Trust :: Open Thread

2012-01-12T08:55:00.013-05:00

The largest exhibition of a single body of work every presented by a commercial gallery begins today. In all 11 of his spaces (literally spanning the globe), dealer Larry Gagosian is exhibiting the so-called Spot paintings of Damien Hirst.

This is not a review. I'm not a big fan of reviews before shows actually open (although this one by Will Brand on AFC does provide three of the most delicious lines I've read in a very long time...see final paragraph). And I have a general policy against reviewing shows in other commercial art galleries.

There is, however, no doubt that even though they may share my dislike for reviews of shows that the critic hasn't seen, Gagosian Gallery has been interested in launching a pre-exhibition dialog about art, commerce, and spectacle through their publicity efforts for this event. In case you haven't already heard, as part of the advertising campaign, they announced a somewhat tongue-in-cheek challenge in conjunction with the group of exhibitions:

Visit all eleven Gagosian Gallery locations during the exhibition The Complete Spot Paintings 1986–2011 and receive a signed spot print by Damien Hirst, dedicated personally to you.

I presume it's "tongue-in-cheek" not because they won't actually honor the challenge, but because the number of people able to actually complete it are presumably few. Felix Salmon pens a hysterical piece calculating what it would cost to visit all 11 of Gagosian's spaces within the relatively short duration of the exhibitions...and doing so in style, of course.

Over at Artlog, Jarret Moran lists 11 (heh!) Facts about the Spot Paintings, summarizing nicely the general talking points about the event that lead nicely into what I find most interesting about this body of work. Fact #6, in particular, is important to keep in mind here:

6. Hirst is still making spot paintings, despite announcing he would stop in 2008. via

Now in his p/review of the shows, Will Brand said of the paintings, "they’re just some weird meme for the impossibly rich that nobody knows how to stop." That notion got stuck in my brain last week and I've been trying to pry it loose ever since. "Some wierd meme...."

It was helped loose somewhat by another post Will Brand subsequently wrote titled "Art is Not Gold," in which he very smartly explores the idea that, despite all the talk lately of art being a "safer" place to put one's money, "for the potential investor, art and gold simply don’t have a lot of financial characteristics in common."

What does make sense is the idea put forward by Bruno Frey in his 2000 book Arts & Economics: Analysis & Cultural Policy (and before that in a 1995 research paper) that art is an awful lot like real estate: pricey, relatively illiquid, highly differentiated, intrinsically useful, and frequently purchased by Russian oligarchs. There are some key differences, of course – in real estate, for instance, there’s no chance of arbitrage, or picking up an undervalued house in Cologne and reselling it in New York – but I’d forward that art and real estate are a lot less different than art and stocks or art and gold. If you can find a housing price index for a particularly pricey area – like, say, the Hamptons – you’d probably even be dealing with the same buyers and sellers (a boon for comparing markets).
So can we make that our new cliché, please? It may take a few more minutes, as a writer, to look up a housing price index instead of a stock market index, but we’d end up a whole lot closer to the truth.

I find this line of thinking fascinating, and I'm going to give it more thought, but it very nearly lost me entirely by insisting art is "intrinsically useful."

We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless.
--Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

OK, so stick with me while I try to stitch this together into some semblance of a coherent argument. And I'll admit up front that 1) I am not an economist (I'm approaching this from a purely for-entertainment-only point of view), and 2) I reserve the right to be persuaded that I'm talking through my hat.

Still, it was the fact that Jarret highlighted ("Hirst is still making spot paintings, despite announcing he would stop in 2008.") that got me to wondering before I read Will's piece whether aside from their drug references and irresistible prettiness, the spot paintings weren't also something much more clever: a new, private international currency.

currency refers to a generally accepted medium of exchange. These are usually the coins and banknotes of a particular government, which comprise the physical aspects of a nation's money supply.

Or they're supposed to. The idea of bank notes, as I understand it, originally was that they were promises to produce on demand the amount of some precious metal like gold or silver that they represented (try that in your bank today). That meant that a government could/should only print as much in coins and banknotes as they had in precious metals in their treasury (in case everyone all at once demanded the metals in exchange for the currency they held).

This representation of a nation's actual wealth has several obvious advantages: coins and paper are much easier to carry around and trade than the heavy metals; the use of currency permits loaning money much easier, and enables the sale of stock in jointly owned companies, among others. Currency also provides an easily verifiable indication of value. The number of zeros you see at the end of the big number on a banknote, immediately communicates its worth.

Enter the spot paintings.

Valued according to their scale and/or the number of spots they contain, they are immediately recognizable as a representations of their owner's wealth (which reminds me of what I consider the quote of the year):

“It is easier to have ten Damien Hirsts than to have ten yachts… besides, your yacht becomes more interesting with a Damien Hirst on it,” says the Mexico-based collector César Cervantes.

Furthermore, much the same way a government will sometimes simply print more money in response to economic hardship, the initial impact of the Great Recession on the art market and on Damien Hirst's work in particular, may explain item #6 in Jarret's list of facts mentioned above.

Consider this an open thread on spots, currency, art and their interconnectedness. Feel free to elaborate on or obliterate my comparison.

UPDATE: And then there's Hennessy...

"Yes, Internet, he just said that money is his medium."

Has Mighty Casey Struck Out, or Has the Crowd Simply Missed the Home Run Cause They Were Checking Their iPhones?

2012-01-11T09:07:00.007-05:00

Freude, schoener Goetterfunken...blah, blah, blah...
It's a paradox: how packed it seems to always be at MoMA, despite its $25 entry fee and the conventional wisdom that no one really cares about visual art any more. Usually, resentful New York artsies will explain it as having nothing to do with what's on the walls; MoMA has become a tourist attraction to be checked off on one's list as you exit their gift shop. If only they would just move on to Abercrombie & Fitch, like you know they want to, perhaps I could actually see the exhibition. The fact that easily half the conversations one hears in MoMA are in languages other than English supports the tourist explanation, and perhaps that's all it is. I know one finds the same sort of crowd at the Louvre and other museums with worldwide reputations. Still, it remains New York's functioning temple of the avant-garde and crowded or not, we New Yorkers still want to /have to go there. (Yes, yes, I know, you can buy a membership and go when it's not as crowded...but those events are not always in sync with my schedule, so let me bitch, will ya?). And perhaps it's this constant contamination of the rarefied air in this sacred place that causes it, but I find myself in agreement with Charlie Finch's conclusion in a report on a recent visit there. From Artnet.com:

MoMA's rigid Eurocentric habits, where the dry candy of the mind is everything and what dazzles the eye is nothing, ...[T]here is no joy in art, only a dull beating thud inside the head

And so I thought about that for a while...is there no joy in art any more? People do seem to have mostly glazed looks on their faces after touring New York museums or gallery hopping. Or is it simply that there's soooooo much art to take in, and in the museums (and sometimes the galleries) so many people elbowing you out of their way, that any joy found is quickly replaced by annoyance. One of the reviews for our current exhibition was NOT what you'd call a love letter (although the show has gotten tons of good press overall). This one reviewer, though, didn't like the show, and that's ok, but this part of her response gave me pause:

Filling an entire wall of the gallery, these 34 letters are a hilarious read, yet after trying to elbow my way through the opening crowds to read the text, I questioned the point of this action. [emphasis mine]

I couldn't help but wonder if the reviewer's response to the work might not have been different had she not had to elbow her way through to read the text. Just as I can't help but wonder if my last visit to MoMA wouldn't have left a different taste in my mouth if it hadn't been such a chaotic circus. See, the thing is, I do, almost constantly, find joy in the art I'm surrounded by. The works we have up in the gallery, the works we have up in our home. These objects will often completely delight me. But then, I have plenty of time alone with them. And they have plenty of time to catch me off guard, like a thump on the head meant to say, "Hey! Slow down, a**hole. This is your life you're rushing through."

UPDATE: On the same topic, consider this.

Lost in Bad Translation (or, Visual Art as Shibboleth)

2012-01-09T07:50:00.010-05:00

In some European country I visited once, there was a sign outside a barber shop, clearly aimed at English-speaking tourists, that read "Haircuts While You Wait."

Even though I can't remember which country it was, I do recall my imagined narrative of the author of that sign, rather pleased with him/herself, at having found such a sophisticatedly colloquial way of communicating that walk-ins were welcome. My fellow travelers and I couldn't stop giggling, though, as we explored the more literal alternatives to having one's hair cut while you wait...quite a convenience for wig wearers, no doubt, but I would imagine it being a bit of a complicated experience for anyone else.

Traduttore, tradittore, the Italians say ("translator, traitor"), but sometimes I think that nationalistic admonishment rather misses the mark. Indeed, the ultimate reader of imprecise translations generally suffers far more than the communicators or devotees of some cherished original.

Take for example a recent spambot comment I rejected from a thread that had gone cold many months ago. The comment's real purpose is to lead the readers here to a website for an escort service in India (yes, I realize several of you would much rather indulge in that offering that this diatribe, but you'll have to find it yourself). You'll find similar comments littered across the blogosphere, with generic enough phrasings to seem plausibly sincere contributions to the dialog, but they will always give themselves away via their links to some commercial, and usually risque, website.

I've become a bit of a fan of these efforts, watching as they evolve into increasingly credible comments (I have been fooled a few times), and especially delighting in the variations as they enter the stream from different parts of the world (this is the first that I know of from India, for example). What they reveal about how English is translated or spoken in their country of origins often provides a chuckle or two, but the constantly shifting approaches to fooling the moderator is always interesting.

It was the almost sophisticated English in this comment that tickled me initially:

I am very glad with your blog. It’s really very interesting post full of valuable information very well written by u. The key part of this post is its descriptive way to define anything. I liked it with my heart. This post is a excellent example of such kind of thread.

Beyond the charmingly bad English, though, this one captured my attention for its sublimely ridiculous paradox in which the author attempts to convince the thread's moderator he/she's just another well-versed blogger via the (singular) use of the txty abbreviation "u" while attempting to come off as learned enough to put together the academic sounding (although ultimately gibberishy) third sentence.

Where all this comes back round to art is in one of the central issues of the increasingly global art market and cross-cultural misinterpretations. There are those who feel the market will never really become smartly global because not enough people will ever truly comprehend the subtleties of great art from another culture.

There are assumptions, convictions, and unspoken "truths" that are really only universal to a subset of the species. Visual art carries these along for the ride whether it means to or not. Indeed, I would submit there are shibboleths we are barely conscious of in most visual art. Something as simple as a color (like red, for example) carries emotional and/or political connotations that vary per postal code. To use some simpler examples, consider: "Is there a secret socialist agenda behind that artist's use of a red background, or is the artist expressing joy (red is generally associated with good luck or a long life in Asia)?" "Is that black cat in the corner of that painting a good omen or a bad omen?" Depends on where you grew up.

Grasping these cultural connotations/associations separates the artist's intended audience from his/her potential wider audience, often despite him/herself. That, in turn, must impact appreciation on some level, and that would eventually have to impact desire for the artwork in other parts of the world.

There are of course artists with a global vision, who will create work intentionally with the whole world as their audience. But even with them, as with our India escort service commenter, there generally are giveaway signs that they're not as sincere as they're pretending to be.

While on the subject of unintentionally hilarious mistranslations, don't miss this: "I Am A Woman, Not A Test Mouse"

Opening Tonight : "Corporations Are People Too" @ Winkleman Gallery, 6-8 PM

2012-01-03T08:28:00.004-05:00

Note: the next show in our gallery may seem a contradiction to the argument I made just a bit ago that "Art is not the evening news." The show is titled "Corporations Are People Too," and it looks at the love-hate relationship we as a nation have with those powerful organizations. The press release contextualizes the show as occurring at the same time protesters around the world are demanding corporations have less influence over democratically elected governments, but the exhibition is taking a much wider look at how we 1) do recognize distinct personalities of corporations, 2) do appreciate (perhaps too much) the things they create that make our lives easier, 3) [many people] do spend a great deal of their lives working (and laughing and finding fulfillment and possibly even love) in corporations, and 4) do seem to change our opinion about how "evil" corporations are more in response to the general economic situation than we do in response to their general practices.

In other words, the show is about how complex the relationship is between corporations and the average person. Much of the work well predates the current recession as well. So even though I borrowed a line from Romney for the title, it's not truly a show about current events and certainly not a exhibition featuring art made in response to Occupy Wall Street.

Anyway, that's enough from me...I'll shut up now and let the show speak for itself. It opens tomorrow. I hope you can stop by:
_______________________________

Corporations Are People Too
A group exhibition featuring work by Berenice Abbott, Ian Davis, Chris Dorland, Kota Ezawa, Louis Faurer, Yevgeniy Fiks, Jacqueline Hassink, Lewis Hine, Dorothea Lange and Phillip Toledano

January 4 - February 4, 2012
Opens January 4 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM

Winkleman Gallery is very pleased to present Corporations Are People Too, a group exhibition of artists whose work has touched on corporate culture and our love-hate relationship to these powerful organizations. In a time where protesters across the country, and the world, are objecting to the influence corporations have over democratically elected governments and one leading candidate for the Republican nomination for President, Mitt Romney, was roundly criticized for claiming during a campaign stop that “Corporations are people too,” a bright spotlight is being shined on the complicated role they play in contemporary life.

The exhibition begins with a selection of vintage photographs by Berenice Abbott, Louis Faurer, Lewis Hine and Dorothea Lange, showing the arc of attitudes in America about the relationship between huge companies and the average person. From Depression-era images of child laborers and migrant workers up through post-WWII images of happy shiny Americans enjoying all the conveniences that modernized manufacturing brought them in their new age of posterity, these black-and-white photos set the stage for a relationship that continues to ebb and flow with the changing economics of the nation.

The exhibition continues with works by contemporary artists that flesh out the complexity of corporate culture as it has evolved to influence, if not define, many of our political and cultural ideologies. A 2005 installation by Yevgeniy Fiks offers a broader look at how we have come to recognize corporations’ individual identities. Fiks sent 100 US corporations a copy of Lenin’s book Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism as a gift for their library, asking only that they acknowledge receipt. The 34 letters he received, some accepting the gift, others returning it, provide a series of fascinating and, in turns, hysterical portraits of the corporate personalities.

Kota Ezawa’s series of IKEA lightbox works (2008), in which he redraws the pages from the international home furnishing store’s catalog, stem from his mixed feelings about our need for furniture chosen not as an object to be kept or cherished but rather as an inexpensive solution to a living problem. Within these paired-down renderings, the catalog pages lose their function as advertisements and their staged domestic interiors become instead theater stages for the drama of contemporary life. In Ian Davis’ small paintings (2011), scores of men in black suits populate landscapes or auditoriums devoid of any clear hierarchy or leaders. In unison they raise their hands as if making a pledge or collaborate to mug other suited men, suggesting armies of blindly obedient Yes Men, answering to a particular culture more so than an obvious power figure.

In Jacqueline Hassink’s “The Table of Power” series (1993-1995), photographs of uninhabited boardrooms of well-known corporations are completely absent the executives who usually meet there, but still communicate an intimiating degree of order and control. One of the images, totally black, reflects the refusal of Shell Oil to let their excutive boardroom be photographed. People are also absent in the photographs from Phillip Toledano’s “Bankrupt” series (2001-2003), but traces of their having been there remain in the emptied offices of corporations that went out of business. Toledano has described these abandoned objects as “signs of life, interrupted,” and they speak to how the corporate experience is a big part of who they are for many people.

The exhibition concludes with an installation by Chris Dorland incorporating large- and small-scale paintings as well as video. The way that many corporations market their (often banal) products to the public by associating our collective ideals and hopes with their corporate brands is one of the themes connecting Dorland’s various series. From his well-known toxic-colored landscapes insinuating the failure of Modernist architecture to realize its promise of a utopian future, to his newer series of decontextualized, muted logotypes and mixed media paintings of sexy, happy people so interchangeable we recognize them as part of an advertising language even without any hint of their ad’s original product, to a new video titled “Restoration Hardware”, these works, seen in dialogue with one another, bring full circle his exploration of the cynical association of progressive values with consumption and desire. Dorland’s work deals head on with how, as he has said, “'Progress' gets aestheticised and then ultimately instrumentalized by Capitalism.”

For more information, please contact Edward Winkleman at 212.643.3152 or info@winkleman.com.

You Can't Be All Things to All People :: Open Thread

2011-12-27T08:17:00.006-05:00

As I try to do each year about this time, as my Christmas gift to myself, I'm re-reading a book I've enjoyed in the past. I particularly enjoy discovering what I missed the first (or second or third time around). This year the book is "The Picture of Dorian Gray" by Oscar Wilde, and while I'm a bit surprised by the mechanics of the book (didn't quite remember it seeming such a chunky novel the last time), the dialog never disappoints.

One particular bit of musing by Lord Henry Wotton (Wilde's alter-ego in the story) seemed it might make for interesting discussion here. In the age of Warhol's children, where it's not enough to be a well-respected artist...one is also expected to be a bit of a celebrity at a certain strata (did you hear who Jeff showed up with at Larry's party?), this passage stood out for me. Talking to his recent acquaintance, Dorian Gray, Lord Henry Wotton considers Mr. Gray's complaint about their mutual friend, the painter Basil Hallward:

"Dear Basil! I have not laid eyes on him for a week. It is rather horrid of me, as he has sent me my portrait in the most wonderful frame, specially designed by himself, and, though I am a little jealous of the picture for being a whole month younger than I am, I must admit that I delight in it. Perhaps you had better write to him. I don't want to see him alone. He says things that annoy me. He gives me good advice."

Lord Henry smiled. "People are very fond of giving away what they need most themselves. It is what I call the depth of generosity."

"Oh, Basil is the best of fellows, but he seems to me to be just a bit of a Philistine. Since I have known you, Harry, I have discovered that."

"Basil, my dear boy, puts everything that is charming in him into his work. The consequence is that he has nothing left for life but his prejudices, his principles, and his common sense. The only artsits I have every known who are personally delightful, are bad artists. Good artists exist simply in what they make, and consequently are perfectly uninteresting in what they are. A great poet, a really great poet, is the most unpoetical of all creatures. But inferior poets are absolutely fascinating. The worse their rhymes are, the more picturesque they look. The mere fact of having published a book of second-rate sonnets makes a man quite irresistible. He lives the poetry that he cannot write. The others write they poetry that they dare not realize."

Indeed, many of my favorite artists look and generally act far less interesting than the stereotypical artistes you'll find in literature or films. We always chuckle at how the art world is portrayed in movies, as if it were comprised of half fashion models / half circus freaks. The truth is that most good artists I know (and indeed most of the talented people in the art world in general) would pass unnoticed walking through your average shopping mall in the Mid-West. Talk with them in their studio, though, or walk with them through a museum talking about the work therein, and they'll often simply blow your mind. It is about the art, after all.

Consider this an open thread on Lord Henry's theory that "Good artists exist simply in what they make, and consequently are perfectly uninteresting in what they are."

A New Yorky Sort of Holiday Concert

2011-12-21T08:33:00.004-05:00

We put up our first tree in our new home last night. In the light of day, I'd say doing so is probably best BEFORE cocktails. But that's alright, we have a few days to sort it out.

There's an unusual number of darker takes on the season out there at the moment, and much of what Hollywood is offering seems designed to make you feel good only in comparison (e.g., Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, The Darkest Hour, etc.). So there's ample opportunity to get your Scrooge on, if that's your inclination.

But call me a romantic, as 2011 ends, I'm feeling more optimistic about things than I have in quite some time, and so I'm offering this simple playlist, for kids from one to, well, mostly those who like music from the 80s or earlier. My gift to you, a New Yorky kind of holiday concert.

Please do add your faves as well.

Wishing you and yours the warmest and most cheerful of the holiday you celebrate.

This one is particularly for the troops returning from Iraq. I hope they have the most lovely of holidays with their families this year:

And I posted this last week, but it's so my fave, that I'm dedicating it to all my friends in New York with whom we're celebrating Christmas this year. Let's see if we can stay just this side of the particulars of MacGowan's fairytale ... or not :-)

And thrown in, not because it's all that New Yorky, but because it makes me happy:

Art Is Not the Evening News

2011-12-19T09:31:00.012-05:00

I may have told this story here before, but I always figure if I can't remember, probably neither can anyone else.

Shortly after 9/11/2001, about two weeks in fact, an artist came into our new space with a proposal for a group show of work responding to the terrorist attacks. I didn't know this artist. She was simply shopping around for a venue for what I assume she thought would be snapped up as a timely exhibition.

We were in the market for group exhibitions at that time, having just opened, but I lied and said we weren't. I didn't want to see her proposal. I knew no matter how good a curator or artist she may have been that not enough time had passed for her to have assembled an exhibition, let alone seen artists make new work, that would have interested me. I wouldn't have been able to see it, even if she had.

I have a bias, you see. You'll see it reflected somewhat in how I don't often respond immediately to new ideas or events on the blog. I like to give myself time to think about them a bit before I do. I like to ask a few questions, research my knee-jerk reactions for contrary views, and see if I can synthesize something interesting for myself (assuming that if I can't, no one else will care to read it) before putting fingers to keyboard.

My specific bias, though, as it pertains to visual art is the belief that good work perhaps begins more felt than thought, but ends more thought than felt. In other words, it usually takes time. I don't trust my knee-jerk reactions to events, and I certainly don't trust anyone else's either. Especially when they quickly translate that reaction into an artwork. I assume, even for the most nimble and in-command artists out there, that the work they make in response to something new will be better the more they consider it. That's not to say good art can't have passion and anger (it certainly can begin more felt), but just to say that works created solely via passion and anger can usually stand a bit of editing. Usually.

This belief is also why I personally don't find it surprising or disappointing that most of the artwork in Miami this year was not about Occupy Wall Street, or why most of the artwork in the galleries this past year was not about social inequality, as has been noted recently. To my mind, it doesn't necessarily reveal complacency, as much as scheduling considerations. It not only takes artists time to germinate on what's happening and time to consider it carefully in order to make important work about it, it also takes galleries and museums quite a bit of lead time usually to put together an exhibition responding to such events. I know galleries who have their entire 2012 schedule all mapped out already. And their artists are counting on those time slots (they've scheduled their lives and studio practice around them), and so moving them around in order to respond to only-God-knows-what may happen next has significant consequences.

Moreover, not all artists want to respond to current events in their work. Should their shows be sidelined or rescheduled because there are protests? Should all of art be only about current events?

Yes, a good exhibition will sometimes resonate with what's in the air at the time, and perhaps an otherwise good exhibition will fall short because it seems out of touch, but given how long it takes an artist to create a body of work and how long it takes a gallery to then program and exhibit that body of work, it seems unfair to lambast the galleries for not being as nimble as Twitter or the Evening News.

G-d

2011-12-16T08:45:00.004-05:00

I had a dream many years ago when I was living in London that Russian nuclear weapons were raining down on the British capital. It was spurred no doubt by some vague international tensions, but I recalled in my dream thinking, "Really? Today? Why today? What have you toads in DC and Parliament done now?"

Anyway, in the dream there really wasn't much time to do anything other than melt from the sun-like heat. For whatever reason, the London neighborhood I was living in was ground zero, so it, the dying, was over too quickly to really be bothered by it.

What was striking, and it's never left me, after all these years, was what came next in my dream.

Nothing.

No pain, no sorrow, no light, no motion, no regret, no wonderment, no gravity, no breeze, no drama, no loneliness...nothing.

It was dark, I felt nothing at all (I didn't have any fingers or skin or a body), everything was...well, alright.

I suspect something might have happened in that dark, weightless space eventually, had I dreamed longer, but perhaps not.

That dream was an exquisite gift. Ever since I have had so much more peace about the concept of death. I certainly hope it's a long way off, but I don't dread it like I did growing up. Whether that's what truly happens when you die or not, believing it is (which I now do), has given me a great deal of comfort, especially as people I love have passed away. I truly believe that now they are simply alright.

But it's also made death so much less scary for me that I suspect I may have a false sense of bravado about it. I'll probably only know as I'm taking my last breath.

I'm thinking about this today in response to the news that Christopher Hitchens has died. Infamous for both his atheism (his best-selling book, “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” made him both a hero and villain to various contingents) and for his abandoning of the Left and his unbridled support of the invasion of Iraq.

Despite what I consider a misguided steadfastness about the war, I so deeply admire how Hitchens faced death. Even knowing he had terminal cancer, he never flinched on the God question. From The New York Times obituary:

In recent days Mr. Hitchens had stopped treatment and entered hospice care at the Houston hospital. He learned he had cancer while on a publicity tour in 2010 for his memoir, “Hitch-22,” and began writing and, on television, speaking about his illness frequently.
“In whatever kind of a ‘race’ life may be, I have very abruptly become a finalist,” Mr. Hitchens wrote in Vanity Fair, for which he was a contributing editor.
He took pains to emphasize that he had not revised his position on atheism, articulated in his best-selling 2007 book, “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” although he did express amused appreciation at the hope, among some concerned Christians, that he might undergo a late-life conversion.
He also professed to have no regrets for a lifetime of heavy smoking and drinking. “Writing is what’s important to me, and anything that helps me do that — or enhances and prolongs and deepens and sometimes intensifies argument and conversation — is worth it to me,” he told Charlie Rose in a television interview in 2010, adding that it was “impossible for me to imagine having my life without going to those parties, without having those late nights, without that second bottle.”

I'm not saying I think he was right about there being no God. I still am trying to figure that out. But I've witnessed those who professed to not care about religion turn and scramble to it upon learning their days were numbered, and it's always broken my heart. It makes me hate religions for promising something they most probably can't deliver and taking advantage of those who are most vulnerable.

I know others would praise them for providing comfort when there's really nothing left for us surviving mortals to say, but I'd rather see my loved ones stay true to their selves to the bitter end. (Selfish bastard that I am.)

But honestly I see not changing as an issue of bravery, or, actually, as an issue of cowardice. Much the same as I view those who supported the invasion of Iraq in response to the 9/11 attacks (which Hitchens did) as an issue of cowardice. I need hardly remind this audience that Iraq was not involved in 9/11, posed no imminent threat to the US, and even if something truly needed to be done about the threat of "Islamofascism," it was cowardly and inhumane to sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and American soldiers who died in that war toward that goal. Damned cowardly.

And so I find myself still angry at Hitchens for what I see as an inexcusable support of the invasion even as I can't help but admire him for how bravely he faced his own death.

Perhaps he too once had a dream like my London one.

Christopher Hitchens, 1949-2011.

May he rest peacefully.

EAI's 40th Anniversary TONIGHT!

2011-12-15T08:34:00.004-05:00

For 40 years one non-profit organization in New York has worked tirelessly to preserve and promote video and media art. Started in 1971 by the visionary art dealer and early champion of video art, Howard Wise, Electronic Arts Intermix (EAI) has grown to include a collection of over 3,500 new and historical video works by visual artists. EAI is celebrating its 40th Anniversary tonight with a benefit that sounds amazing. Murat and I will be there and hope you'll come too!

EAI 40th Anniversary Benefit

Thursday, December 15, 2011
7 - 10 pm

Electronic Arts Intermix (EAI)
535 W 22nd Street, 5th Floor (between 10th & 11th Avenues)
New York, New York 10011

Please join us at EAI for a cocktail reception, hors d'oeuvres, and a not-to-be-missed program featuring special live performances, rarely seen videos, and more.

Short performances by Joan Jonas, Shana Moulton, Carolee Schneemann and Michael Smith. Video pieces by Charles Atlas, Takeshi Murata, Bruce Nauman and Seth Price, among others. Music selected by Dan Graham. Performance and Video Program: 8 - 8:30 pm.

Celebrate with us on December 15th and support EAI's ongoing mission to foster the creation, exhibition, distribution and preservation of moving image art. Help us to preserve the artistic legacy of the media arts for future generations!

For ticket information click here.

A Pre-Christmas Sentiment

2011-12-14T11:43:00.003-05:00

Have always loved this song, but only recently (as happens throughout my life) have the lyrics really made sense.

This exchange alone sums up so brilliantly the experience for so many people who come to New York to live their dreams

"I could have been someone"
"Well so could anyone"

Not to dampen your spirits, but rather to strengthen your resolve. If something as beautiful as this song can come of shattered dreams and ambitions, then it's all worthwhile.

Hope you're having a lovely holiday season.

Life Doesn't Imitate Art...It Imitates Reality TV

2011-12-12T09:24:00.008-05:00

Partly inspired by a scene in Clint Eastwood's film Hereafter starring Matt Damon and partly as a commitment to try to do things outside the art world from time to time (not that we don't love the art world, just that we feel a need to expand our horizons occasionally), for his birthday, I bought Murat a 4.5-hour cooking class that we could take together. The scene in Hereafter that set our expectations was this one (they won't let me embed it, but you should watch it to understand the rest of this post).

Last night we finally got to take our class. Life didn't exactly imitate art in this case, however. In reality, life more imitated, well, Reality TV.

Just like in Hereafter, we unfortunately arrived late to the class (not on purpose, no), but we were met with a much chillier reception. Fair enough, I guess. But what proceeded from there left Murat and I in a near constant fit of giggling (in between bouts of being really upset at the instructor), as the other members of our class seemed to have come with the intentions of living our their own private fantasy of appearing on Iron Chef or Hell's Kitchen.

From the moment the instructor set us loose, the degree of competition and frenetic pace (which most of the other students seemed to not only thrive on but actually work to generate) completely shocked us. What the hell is going on here?, Murat whispered to me on several occassions. Indeed, this class didn't begin with a nice glass of wine (we were told absolutely no drinking until the meal was complete...which makes sense, but also was too bad as a little relaxing would have done our classmates some good), and there was no music either, unless you count the chuckles our instructor kept emitting in response to jokes only he seemed to get. There were plenty of snappish rebukes from the instructor, who seemed to be auditioning for his own cooking show, and a stunning number of furtive sneers from our unfriendly classmates that would have made the job of any producer of a reality TV show too easy. In a nutshell, it was gross and we concluded only one quarter of the way into it that it was our last cooking class at this place.

Anyway, we did eventually manage to complete (as a team with a woman who started off rather pushy but mellowed as we worked together) our task...a Carré d’Agneau Rôti aux Herbes de Provence (roast lamb with herbes de provence). When we presented it at the communal table, I felt quite proud...it looked (and by all accounts tasted) gorgeous.

And I did learn a few fascinating tidbits (like you can get the smell of diced garlic off your hands by rubbing them on stainless steel and you can reveal the ends of the bones on your rack of lamb with some twine in a swift little movement that eliminates hours of scraping with your paring knife). But what I mostly learned was that we are much better suited to the gossipy, back-stabbing, fiercely competitive realm of the art world than we are the much more hellish culinary one.

A Common Vocabulary is No Small Achievement

2011-12-08T08:06:00.006-05:00

Good art provides people with a vocabulary about things they can't articulate.
--Mos Def

Even though city governments across the nation have done their utmost to decamp the Occupy protesters who had set up tents and taken over parks, leaving the movement (momentarily at least) adrift, the effort was a huge success in one respect. It helped create a common vocabulary that is spreading outward and upward through each part of the nation's dialog. It has provided a shorthand, a means to get past the confusing plethora of phrases or positions that had stymied understanding before, and helped people articulate their frustrations in a way others could more easily understand. As Mos Def might point out, in that way it has been parallel to good art.

But let's look more closely at how that shared vocabulary is accelerating the conversations on topics previously too complex to make much headway on. Two days ago President Obama gave a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, about the economy that pundits are calling the cornerstone of his re-election campaign (and open opponents of the president are, oddly in unison, calling his "Godfather speech" because it struck them as a...ah, forget it...I can't figure out why they're calling it that...let's just say because they think it makes him look bad). In the speech Obama said:

I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules. These aren't Democratic values or Republican values. These aren't 1 percent values or 99 percent values. They're American values.

He also used the Occupy rhetoric to explain why those who don't have a problem with the inequality are not actually pro-American...they're not even pro-business:

Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year. I'm not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars. I'm saying people who make a million dollars every single year. For the top one hundredth of 1 percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about 6 percent.
Now, this kind of inequality -- a level that we haven't seen since the Great Depression -- hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom. America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country. That's why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars he made. It's also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run. [emphasis mine]

I'll confess, for years I've bought the line that paying CEOs more money attracts the best qualified to leadership positions and that lifts all boats. Arguments against that always left me scratching my head, befuddled by the vague terminology and probably purposeful obfuscation. It's only through the shorthand of the 1% vocabulary that this picture snapped into focus for me. When CEOs' salaries are 110 times more than their average employees, that hurts the overall economy, because any given CEO is only going to buy X number of cars, whereas were his/her salary only, oh say, 50 times that of his/her average employee...and the difference were divvied up out across the company to everyone...far more cars would likely be purchased by those average employees. One person getting super rich only helps that one person and arguably harms the rest of us.

And the growing familiarity of the shorthand recently colored my opinion about a trend in the art world as well. Linda Yablonksy has a brave and somewhat surprising report on artnet.com titled "The Art World Naming Blight" in which she critiques the neo-Gilded Age practice of naming cultural institutions after oneself:

Last week, with collectors swarming Miami Beach in profligate display, the Miami Art Museum announced that it would rename itself the Jorge M. Pérez Art Museum of Miami-Dade County. Pérez, it was explained, is a local real estate developer who is donating $15 million to the expanding museum’s $200 capital campaign, on top of $5 million he already gave.

One MAM trustee, Mary Frank, was so outraged by the renaming that she quit the board (as did three other trustees, at last report). As she complained in an open letter to the Miami Herald, local taxpayers are contributing $100 million. Obviously, that sum outstrips the Pérez donation, but he is also giving the museum part of his collection of Latin American art. Reports didn’t say which part. It’s anyone’s guess how masterful it is, but the whole collection is said to be worth another $15 million. That’s still not enough to buy the place.

When I think of all the museums I love that are named for their benefactors (The Whitney, The Frick, The Carnegie, etc.), I have a hard time holding it against these people that they were vain enough to put their names over the doors. In addition to it being their right (my name is on my gallery :-), their names help bring in visitors and certainly trustees and board members, so it's simply common sense. But as Linda points out, the museum naming game has grown a bit over the years:

Buildings aren’t the only cultural turf a one-percenter can buy. Titles are also for sale. Adam Weinberg is the Alice Pratt Brown director of the Whitney Museum. At the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Garry Garrels functions as the Elise S. Haas Senior Curator of Painting and Sculpture. And Lisa Phillips is the New Museum’s Toby Devan Lewis Director.

I don’t mean to fault the generosity of any of these donors. Their interests in art, education, medicine and other worthy causes presumably stem from a genuine philanthropic impulse. Their gifts keep institutions afloat, and may well inspire other citizens to put a similar stake in our cultural heritage. In the end, trading names to keep money flowing into museums seems a small, if grating, price to pay.

The "grating" part of it is probably more obvious when you realize only one of the people who donate their time or energy to keeping a cultural institution healthy and vibrant gets the honor of having their name represent this wing or that staff position. The others' hard work and generosity dissipates into history. As in Miami, this can lead them to quit, which ultimately is bad for these institutions.

As with CEO salaries, the naming blight limits the opportunities/rewards for those not at the very top. There is no doubt that it would cost Perez a lot more than $20 million dollars to build a museum of his own with the Miami Art Museum's quality and reputation. So in that regard, this is a very good deal for him. But really only for him. That was never really clear to me before Linda chose to identify him as "a one-percenter." I hadn't stopped to think how his claiming the name could affect the museum's long term prospects. Before it might have seemed vain to me, but I would have focused more on the generosity of his $20 million gift, and figured he deserves it. The potential repercussions are only clearer to me because of this dialog that began with a dedicated group of people willing to sleep in tents.

White to Blue

2011-12-06T09:36:00.005-05:00

I ♥ art handlers.

Forget that they're the unsung heroes of the art world, that they're the single best sources for who's poaching this or that artist or who's about to close, or that they're more fun to party with than a ship of sailors on shore leave. The best ones are freaking magicians.

Having just returned from Miami, where for the second year we participated in SEVEN (which got some lovely press here and there), an exercise in Extreme DIY pop-up art exhibiting if ever there was one, I cannot express enough gratitude to the men and women who helped put that show together, troubleshoot it, and take it back apart. More than just exhibiting extreme DIY flexibility, these folks demonstrated a staggering aptitude for brilliant problem solving under the most stressful of conditions. Most of them are also artists, which is how they prefer to be publicly introduced, so I won't thank them by name...but you know who you are, you MacGyvers on steroids.

Of course, you'll be hard pressed to find seven harder working gallery owners than the proprietors of these establishments either. There were no pre-show mani-pedis or massages for this crew. If their names are on the door or gallery website contact page, there they were with drill guns and ladders, packing tape and brooms, with cuts, scrapes and bruises galore. Of course, none of us could hold a candle to the man himself...SEVEN's fearless (and I mean that) leader...the entirely indefatigable and multi-talented Joe Amrhein of Pierogi Gallery fame. Seriously, I've never met a harder working human in my life. He's also a prince among men and a brilliant gallerist, but when the rest of us were nearly falling down tired, Joe was just getting started. We all greatly admire him and owe him a huge debt of gratitude.

One of our artists was visiting in Miami, and she noted, quite astutely, as we were preparing to close the show late Sunday afternoon that "This is where you go from being white collar to blue, isn't it?" Indeed, my favorite dealers are the ones who are as comfortable being art handlers as they are trading bon mots over champagne. This willingness to get your hands dirty, to ruin a pair of jeans to ensure the work is installed just so, to bring an extra pair of clothes so you can take a quick sink bath in the restroom before heading out to meet clients...it transcends mere glamor for me...it's real, and fun, and only fair in my opinion.

The artist who acknowledged that part of what we do at fairs is blue collar is one who has the exact same dichotomy in her life. I told her as she left, "Yes, a big part of presenting this to the public involves wearing my blue collar. But it's the same for you artists." She nodded acknowledgement.

I'm not sure I would like the art world if my role in it were limited to only the white collar bits. (Ask Murat, I insist on repairing and repainting the walls of the gallery between shows myself. For me, it's a zen like taking of stock and a chance to think through in-depth our assumptions about the next installation...it's also, oddly, fun.) Mind you, I also very much enjoy lounging in the VIP section of the big fair, air kissing and trading gossip, and on those rare occassions when no one else is looking, having just a moment by myself with some fabulous work of art. But I'm a working class boy, and the idea of just watching as someone else labors makes me more uncomfortable than a bit of grime on my hands or a splinter or two.

But now we're back, and so too are our white collars...until the next installation at least.

A huge thanks to the interns, art handlers, and other dealers of SEVEN for making Miami feel so much like home.

Image above: How many artists/dealers does it take to figure out the timer on a camera? Murat, Justin, and Max taking a photo-op break from installing at SEVEN, 2011.

UPDATE: And here's the photo they were eventually able to take. The crew at SEVEN. I love these people.

Moving Image Announces Curatorial Advisory Committee for New York 2012 and New Partnership with The Armory Show

2011-11-22T12:19:00.002-05:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 22, 2011

We are very pleased to announce that Moving Image: Contemporary Video Art Fair will return to the Waterfront Tunnel in New York March 8-11, 2012.

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. The newly formed Moving Image Curatorial Advisory Committee for New York 2012 is inviting a selection of international commercial galleries and non-profit institutions to present single-channel videos, single-channel projections, video sculptures, and other larger video installations.

Curatorial Advisory Committee for Moving Image New York 2012:

Viktor Misiano, Independent Curator and Critic, Chief-Editor, Moscow Art Magazine (Moscow/Ceglie-Messapica, Italy)
Elizabeth Neilson, Director, Zabludowicz Collection (London)
Berta Sichel, Curator-at-large at the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofia, independent curator and art writer (Madrid/Berlin)
Stephanie Roach, Director, The FLAG Art Foundation (New York)
Dr. Stephan Urbaschek, Independent Curator (Munich)

NEW PARTNERSHIP WITH THE ARMORY SHOW

Moving Image is also delighted to announce a unique partnership with New York City's premier contemporary art fair, The Armory Show. Moving Image will curate the inaugural edition of 'Armory Film,' a series featuring an international selection of leading contemporary video and experimental films. Screenings will take place during the course of the fair and will be shown in the dedicated Media Lounge on Pier 94. Please check www.thearmoryshow.com for details in the coming weeks.

For more information about The Armory Show and the Media Lounge, please contact Lauren Pearson at l.pearson@thearmoryshow.com.

Moving Image New York

Waterfront New York Tunnel
269 11^th Avenue
Between 27^th and 28^th Streets
New York, NY 10001

March 8 - 11, 2012

Opening Reception: Thursday, March 8, 6 - 8 pm

Fair Hours:

Thursday – Saturday, March 8-10, 11 am – 8 pm

Sunday, March 11, 11 am – 4 pm

Moving Image was founded by Edward Winkleman and Murat Orozobekov.

For more information about Moving Image, contact Ed or Murat at 212.643.3152 or email us at contact@moving-image.info.

Or visit the Moving Image New York 2012 website.

Image above: installation view of Moving Image New York 2011, featuring Glen Fogel's installation "With Me...You," presented by Participant, Inc., New York, and Callicoon Fine Arts, New York. Photography by Etienne Frossard.

Suppose They Gave a Class War and Nobody Came?

2011-11-22T07:58:00.003-05:00

Gallerist's Adrianne Jeffries has written an in-depth piece on the OWS protesters support of the Sotheby's art handlers labor dispute with their company. Moments of her retelling of the well-heeled buyers crossing the picket line at the recent contemporary auctions read almost like a movie script:

One protester gave the Sotheby’s clients the finger, provoking a gray-haired buyer with a checkered scarf. “Fuck you! Fuck you!” he shouted in a French accent. Once inside, he stood behind the glass window like a kid at the zoo, sticking out his tongue, mouthing obscenities, zealously grasping an imaginary phallus and pumping it a few times into his mouth before he grew bored or realized how many cameras were around. “He’s in Sotheby’s a lot,” one of the locked-out art handlers told Gallerist as he aimed a flashlight at arriving clients’ eyes. One picketer hoisted a cutout of Sotheby’s CEO Bill Ruprecht’s head on the end of a long pole. “I’m Bill the CEO,” the back of the sign said. “I gave myself a 125% raise, HA.”http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

The real Mr. Ruprecht was inside with “a big African American bodyguard,” said one veteran art adviser, who noted that it was the first time they’d seen Mr. Ruprecht with a detail. “Sotheby’s had staff beyond, beyond,” the adviser noted. “It was like a hand-off. It started many feet ahead of the building, and as you got to the corner, a guy came and walked you a few feet to the next, who walked you a few feet to the next, so you’re not alone for a step.”

But it's difficult when comparing that scene to what's been happening in Egypt, for example, and not feel it's all a bit of silly theater this side of the Atlantic. As Jeffries reported:

“Shame on you! Go home!” protesters shouted as the likes of Eli Broad, Larry Gagosian and Jose Mugrabi scurried past the picket line before being sucked through the revolving door into the marble vacuum of the auction house. A small brass band outside Sotheby’s pumped out a zippy rendition of “When the Saints Go Marching In” as a pair of girls clapped and two-stepped on the sidewalk. An older gentleman leaned over the metal barricades placed by the police and gave a zealous thumbs-down. “Boooo!” he taunted, then turned to Gallerist. “This is fun, isn’t it?”

Of course, revolution has always been a bit of theater. Think Madame Defarge pulling her seat up, knitting in tow, to comfortably settle in for another evening's entertainment in the form of serial beheadings. She remained calm only so long as her bloodlust was satisfied. And so it's not wise to underestimate the real violence that even "theater" can bring mean.

And yet, as Jeffries writes, the Sotheby's art handlers do not seem to be getting much more accomplished with the OWS support than perhaps a bit of better theater:

[T]he 99 percent tactics don’t appear to have won the union much sympathy with Sotheby’s clientele. “It was uncomfortable,” another art dealer said. “It was an ugly scene. I personally felt it was a slightly frightening, a hardcore element above just the union workings.” However, this dealer added, “I took leaflets from everyone. I think that’s the right thing to do.” The protesters don’t realize that patrons of a Sotheby’s auction are generally underlings themselves, this dealer said, referring to the buyers placing bids on behalf of collectors. “A large majority of people in that auction room are working people: people working for the mega-rich. It’s part of a service industry.”

“I understand that’s probably a good way of getting attention and of getting their issues heard, but it seems to me that it was overly aggressive,” said one uptown dealer. “The shouting and being photographed and all the noise and the general feeling of running the gauntlet.”

“To be honest, I don’t even know what the dispute is about,” one art adviser told Gallerist. “I think it has to do with wages.”

But what theater...and like any powerful script, this one seems to be kindling a bit of self-analysis among the audience, if not quite self-awareness:

As for the protests, “some people were offended by it, and some didn’t give a shit,” said the veteran adviser. “They like being in the 1 percent! Anything that points that out is probably a good thing.* That’s why they collect, after all. They’re very self-centered, these people. The whole art world really believes they are the epicenter of the world.”

[*reminds me of something I read on Facebook "I don’t care if you call me a narcissist, at least we’re talking about me."]

So why share this? Because I've been trying to do a bit of self-analysis myself, and this provided a good back drop.

It's a very uncomfortable place to be during a class war, the art world. The ideas we trade in often align with the goals of the protesters. The objects we trade in often align with the goals of the 1%. All the while we have businesses to run, bills to pay, artists to promote, collectors to serve, and our consciences to deal with. The best we can do is try to keep our heads about us and recognize that it's never simply black and white...there are no comic book heroes or villains here, just complex, messy people and the (perhaps misguided) perception that there's not enough to go around.

What works best for me when I find myself between a philosophical rock and a hard place is to focus on my values and remind myself what I believe in.

In the context of the art world, I believe in promoting contemporary artists. I believe in selling art. I believe in educating the public. I believe in providing quality service to those who buy art and support artists. I believe in treating people fairly. I believe in being honest about when you're not treating people fairly and changing that behavior.

In the end, I find this statement by Theodore Roosevelt very helpful:
It's a very conservative point of view, but it's among the conservative points of view I happen to agree with. And there really need be no class warfare so long as everyone feels this is a shared guiding principle, and that we all agree misconduct should be rooted out. After that, accumulate the wealth you (legally and fairly) can.

And when you do...buy some frickin' art!

Sometimes Silence Says So Much More

2011-11-21T09:40:00.001-05:00

Warning: Low Flying Expectations

2011-11-14T09:14:00.003-05:00

Saw an ad for a lecture recently by a legend in the art world to whom I ascribe only the best of motives, and while I entirely understand the point of view this legend is coming from it struck me as a pity that we live in a time when he felt compelled to frame the invite this way:

A lecture on the current art scene and how to look at art without feeling inferior.

That seems an awfully low bar to set for viewing contemporary art (how to view it without feeling inferior). What ever happened to the idea that viewing art could/should exhilarate, inspire, emotionally overwhelm, or infuriate you? That it would spark an emotional or intellectual response that made you feel more alive? That it would make you gasp or cower or really want to lick its surface?

If the best one can hope for is not feeling inferior (to whom? the artist? the art world? the curators?), why on earth should anyone outside that realm give a flying f*ck about contemporary art?

Such low expectations only serve to fulfill the inevitable insularity of fine art if it can't reach a wider audience on its own terms. Yes, education is still part of that process. No one is asking artists to dumb down their work in order to reach the public at large, but the ultimate goal of reaching that public has to be to enrich them, not just leave them feeling unharmed.

Aim higher.

Don't Let this Indian Summer Fool You...

2011-11-11T08:31:00.005-05:00

...you know in just a few weeks, the weather in New York (if history is any indication) is going to turn super cold and slushy and drizzly, just like your nose. A snow storm is not at all unusual right after Thanksgiving. And if you leave it to the last minute, you'll end up staying in a South Beach hotel that doubles as brothel/meth lab. So get online and book your flight and hotel for Miami now!

In fact, beat the crowds and come on down for the first day of SEVEN. Doors open at 1:00 pm on Tuesday, Nov 29, 2011. Or join us later that same evening for some brews and chow in our new sculpture garden at the SEVEN Early Bird BBQ:

What: Early Bird BBQ at SEVEN

When: Tuesday, Nov 29, 5:00-7:30 PM

Where: SEVEN's new location, 2637 N Miami Ave, Miami, FL 33137

Hope to see you there!

с днем рождения!!

2011-11-09T08:05:00.002-05:00

It's November 9th...that means only one thing across most of the Northern Hemisphere...someone very special is celebrating a birthday today!!!!

To ensure he understands...being a man of many languages, let me just say...

Doğum günün kutlu olsun, aşkım!

с днем рождения!!

Tulgan kunum menen!!!

Happy, Happy, Birthday Murat!!!!

Top 10 Favorite Topless Bars

2011-11-08T07:57:00.003-05:00

Sorry...I meant Top 10 Favorite "sTopless" Bars.

Actually, I just meant to distract you with something salacious, yet spectacular, yet simplified, to ensure it appeals to your constantly tasked attention and is immediately comforting in how it suggests this post will be bite-sized, most likely painless, and if you're lucky entertaining.

Unlucky you.

I'm actually responding to an email from a monthly arts magazine in which they indicate they're reviving one of their most popular features. Yes, it's a Top {some number here} list of some sort. Mind you, I like Top XXX art lists as much as anyone. In no particular order, some of my favorites include

Hyperallergic's "The 20 Most Powerless People in the Art World" (see 2011 edition)
ArtNews' Top 200 Collectors (see 2011 edition)
Art Review's "Power 100" (see 2011 edition...and how refreshing that number 1 is an artist!)
Gallerist NY's "The 50 Most Powerful Women in the New York Art World" (see first edition) In fact, Gallerist seems particularly fond of the numbered list format, but then no one is covering the art world as impressively as they are these days.
Tyler Green's "Museum collection top tens" (see here) (and be sure to catch Green's new series of podcasts beginning this Thursday)

But it was the sense that this magazine was reviving a Top XXX list because it had been popular that struck me as noteworthy. At one point they had stopped publishing it (for whatever reasons), and now it's back.

I can't help but imagine an editorial brainstorming session focused on increasing circulation and someone who had resented the cutting of the Top XXX list piece casually (but secretly, somewhat smugly) reminding everyone how it used to help spike newsstand purchases. The popularity of other publications' Top XXX issues surely came up, as did some ideas on how to tweak it so that it wouldn't feel like your grandfather's Top XXX list.

And I guess there's nothing wrong with that. Periodicals can periodically rotate through their greatest hits. There are, for example, only 6 types of articles ever published in most men's health magazines (get killer abs easily, get more sex easily, lose weight/put on muscle easily, dress for success, try this cool new sport you'll probably die doing, and pathetic attempts at interviewing someone).

And yet...reviving a Top XXX list because it was "popular"...ehhh...I don't know...the lack of subtlety there chafes my neck a bit.

Then again, if I'm on the list, I'll immediately forgive all...just saying.

Occupy the Voting Booth

2011-11-07T08:23:00.007-05:00

OK, so finally we got down to Zuccotti Park to see for ourselves what has sparked the now worldwide movement (and, as I've noted before...if you're looking to measure the importance of something, look no further than at how influential it is).

It was a sunny, crisp day and the atmosphere in the tent city better known as Occupy Wall Street was thoughtful, peaceful, and rather chipper. We paused at various stations, listening to the speakers (when we could actually hear them), reading the signs, and just taking it in. I told Murat as we approached the park that I wanted nothing more out of this first visit than to merely observe. To try to open my mind and just see for myself.

There is, of course, a great deal of humor to appreciate in the effort. Murat snapped the following photo:

And a great deal of opportunism...people whose message has nothing to do with inequality or the economy taking advantage of an audience others worked to gather.

There were people who looked like the most normal person you'd ever meet, and there were people who looked as if they could rake in a small fortune working in a freak show.

The thing that struck me about the "alternative" looking people, though, was how matter-of-factly the tourists and others accepted them. As I walked past one gentleman whose entire face had been tattooed and I apparently must have let my surprise show on my face, he gently nodded hello and carried on.

It was this that drove home for me that everyone in the park was someone's brother or son, sister or daughter, grandparent or partner. And it drove home for me that, by extension, we were all family. I know how crunchy that sounds, but it's also a well-established concept with Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. etc., so be careful in dismissing it too quickly.

Still, I wasn't entirely comfortable with everything I saw in the park. Again, the opportunism was obvious, but so too was the naivety. And while, as I've said before, in the beginning of a protest that's understandable, it would seem that certain actionable goals might have been more clearly defined by now. I'm not entirely opposed to revolution as an agent of change (read Jefferson on the topic if you think that's unpatriotic), but I'm not interested it in as a lifestyle. To paraphrase the Beatles, when you're looking for wider buy-in for your revolution you're increasingly going to find more people who would love to see your plan.

Then again, naivety is more understandable among younger people (who've yet to spend too much time in the school of hard knocks). And younger people were definitely the majority among the protesters.

Moreover, younger people reportedly have more to be upset about:

The wealth gap between younger and older Americans has stretched to the widest on record, worsened by a prolonged economic downturn that has wiped out job opportunities for young adults and saddled them with housing and college debt.
The typical U.S. household headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater than a household headed by someone under 35, according to an analysis of census data released Monday.
While people typically accumulate assets as they age, this wealth gap is now more than double what it was in 2005 and nearly five times the 10-to-1 disparity a quarter-century ago, after adjusting for inflation.
The analysis reflects the impact of the economic downturn, which has hit young adults particularly hard. More are pursuing college or advanced degrees, taking on debt as they wait for the job market to recover. Others are struggling to pay mortgage costs on homes now worth less than when they were bought in the housing boom.

And it's clear that politics will prevent any help from coming out of Washington any time soon:

Tragically, the more entrenched the jobs shortage becomes, the more paralyzed Congress becomes, with Republicans committed to doing nothing in the hopes that the faltering economy will cost President Obama his job in 2012. Last week, for instance, Senate Republicans filibustered a $60 billion proposal by Mr. Obama to create jobs by repairing and upgrading the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure. They were outraged that the bill would have been paid for by a 0.7 percent surtax on people making more than $1 million.

Outrage is relative, as I hope many senators are going to learn in November 2012. Senate Republicans, in fact Senators in general, are not even remotely representative of their constituents economically speaking [via Sullivan]:

According to a Roll Call analysis of Congress members’ financial disclosure forms, the collective net worth of American lawmakers jumped 25 percent to over $2 billion in just the last two years — with 50 of the richest Congressmen and women accounting for 90 percent of the increase.

In 2008, the minimum net worth of House Members was just over $1 billion. In 2010, it rose to $1.26 billion. Senators experienced a more modest increase during this same time period, going from $651 million in 2008 to $784 million last year. Roll Call notes that the real net worth of individual members is likely higher, since their estimates do not take into account non-income-generating properties such as private homes.

This graph drives the point home more succinctly:

Looking to people who are not part of the 99% (allow me the short-hand this one time, if you will) to represent the concerns of the 99% strikes me as a significant form of idiocy. It's asking our leaders to vote against their own personal best interests. Since I don't think it's sensible to ask anyone to vote against their own personal best interests, one obvious solution would be to vote and vote again until the legislature is more truly representational (in terms of background, wealth, education, and religion) of the public at large.

Now I saw enough signs in Zuccotti Park to know how many people are disillusioned by the electoral process in the US. They've given up any hope that it's possible to get someone elected without the financial support (read: ownership) of puppetmastering corporations or others in the 1%. Moreover, certain minorities are very unlikely to ever be represented in Congress, as they're not concentrated in anyone area enough to overcome the biases needed to get elected.

And yet no matter how I look at the situation, I always come back to the voting booth. Without that as the ultimate action, all the rest is pointless. It's not reasonable to ask a body in which at least 40% are in the top 1% to represent the interests of the 99%. The problem isn't just that the corporations own the politicians, it's that the politicians can't really relate to how hard it is out there for their constituents. The make-up of our legislature has got to change. Enough with billionaire politicians...it's time we elect people who actually need the jobs.

A Tale of Two Performances

2011-11-04T07:51:00.007-04:00

Performance is our post-Halloween treat in New York this year. We get to go places where there's an unusually high number of places to actually sit. We get to slow down and delight in the sublime triumphs or complete fiascoes that only live productions can guarantee.

One performance that a lot of people have been talking about opened Performa 11 (but, unfortunately, last night was the last chance to catch it):

Elmgreen & Dragset Happy Days in the Art World
Tuesday, November 1, 7:30 pm — 9:30 pm
Thursday, November 3, 7:30 pm — 9:30 pm
The artists Elmgreen & Dragset (Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset) will present a theatrical performance titled Happy Days in the Art World, a darkly comic self-portrait of the two artists, drawing references from Samuel Beckett’s play Happy Days (1961). The play tells the story of two main characters, played by renowned actors Joseph Fiennes and Charles Edwards, as well as actress Kim Criswell, and is directed by Toby Frow. The characters use a droll sensibility to unveil their personal history together, their experience of being a “single work of art,” and their fears about what will happen to their substantial art careers when they break up.

Although I'm a fan of Elmgreen & Dragset's work, we already had plans to see another performance last night, so I missed this.

Now, I realize it's not fair to compare the two productions, given I've only seen the one (and it's not even part of Performa), but Ben Davis saw Elmgreen & Dragset's and his response was fresh in my mind while I watched the one we attended.

So fair or not, I want to share what I was thinking of that Ben noted in his less-than-enthusiastic description of Elmgreen & Dragset's play :

Say what you will about the piece, it did indeed demonstrate the power of performance in at least one way: A team of crack actors — notably Joseph Fiennes of “Shakespeare in Love” fame — almost managed, through sheer talent and force of will, to breathe some life into a project that was essentially a multimillion-dollar inside joke, covering up its hollow, self-congratulatory core with a veneer of class. [...]

[T]he scenario is evidently intended as some kind of allegory of the purgatory that is life as a globe-trotting mid-career artist duo.

Upon waking, one of the men declares that he has had a dream in which they were both successful artists “based in a city where everyone else was an artist — Berlin, I think!” In this dream, we hear, ID and ME had an appointment with a “Ukrainian oligarch” who was driving to meet them in a sports car “covered in butterflies.” The two then realize that they seem to have been deposited overnight in some sort of placeless dungeon, and they get down to investigating their situation. It seems grim — evidently they are not at “a yoga retreat, or a workshop with Marina!” Feeling hunger pangs, a member of the duo later moans, “Where’s that Thai soup kitchen when you need it?” As art-world satire, this is about as toothless as it gets. And it doesn’t get better.
I’ll spare you recounting the rest of the plot. Suffice it to say that it all leads up to a visit from a mysterious messenger who delivers a statement saying that ID and ME will receive a visit from… Guggenheim curator Nancy Spector — though, as with Beckett’s Godot, it is not certain when or if she might come (“Waiting for Spector” does have a nice ring to it, actually). All in all, the production values and direction of “Happy Days in the Art World” are first-rate, and Fiennes and Edwards give it their best, sometimes for whole minutes managing to infuse some sense of wit and human gravity into the material. Elmgreen & Dragset's pastiche of Beckett is credible enough — but mainly it just makes you wish that these talented actors were actually performing Beckett.

Again...I haven't seen it so I'll refrain from adding anything to his take other than to note that that line, "essentially a multimillion-dollar inside joke," stayed with me, while Murat and I watched another performance at The Boiler:

Stations Lost a Theatrical Performance by Tony Fitzpatrick

Remaining Performances:
Nov 3rd-6th

Thurs & Fri 8pm; Sat 7 & 9 pm; Sun 7pm

Tony and Stan took a journey to find the dark heart of America. Stan went to Cleveland. Tony took a detour…to Istanbul. This is their story.

From America’s border-towns to Istanbul’s Taksim Square, Stations Lost is the story of two friends, Tony Fitzpatrick and Stan Klein, and their commonalities and divergent paths in an ever-expanding world. Tony takes us through his childhood as a rebellious Catholic schoolboy obsessed with superheroes, reading MAD Magazine, and meeting Chester Gould through his adult understanding of the superhero mythos that leads him to strike out in search of the everyday superhero in the world via a journey to Istanbul.

[Full disclosure: I'm a huge fan of Tony's work...and have noted as much before on this blog.]

Why I think it is fair to discuss these two works in the same post is they both take a Beckett-esque approach (two actors on a sparse stage, an acutely abstract sense of progressive narrative, themes of global travel, and an intentional sense of Existentialist angst) to exploring themes of feeling rudderless in one's own time.

Where the two diverge, if Ben's assessment is correct, is the socioeconomic realm in which the buddy pairs make their observations. Tony's piece barely mentions the art world, per se. It's more about the world at large. Rather than Ukrainian oligarchs or high-powered curators, Tony and Stan's landscape is populated by disciplinarian nuns, overbearing Uzbek bazaar merchants, and the good people of Cleveland, Ohio (who Tony gives short shrift, I'll note). Moreover, there were no art world insider jokes.

Mind you (as our gallery program will quickly tell you), I am not opposed to insideriness. There are unquestionably issues that can only be well explored from that point of view. And this IS the world I choose to inhabit.

But, Ben's quote in my head, I came away from Tony's performance wondering whether, despite all it's artsiness, it would speak to more people from the heartland than Elmgreen & Dragset's play. Then I began to wonder why I was wondering that. Elmgreen & Dragset clearly know the audience for that piece and made their choices based on that. So I don't think the question of insideriness really matters.

What matters, I concluded, is heart. Tony, I get the sense, wasn't playing to a particular audience (although I understand that quite a list of VIPs have seen it)...but rather just being Tony (who, as I've noted before, is a person I'd happily make king of the art world were the decision mine). Indeed, the arc of Tony's incredibly un-PC narrative led me back to a place that left me feeling more human, more connected than when I walked into the Boiler. I hope the same happened for audience members who got to see Elmgreen & Dragset's piece. There's really no higher marker of success for a performance, in my opinion, than that.

A Few Thoughts on Greed :: Open Thread

2011-11-03T07:44:00.010-04:00

As we're finding in the post on profits, it's difficult to discuss possible societal issues related to the economic crisis without agreeing on a definition of greed. I think my own working definition is ripe for tweaking, so I'll put it out there for critique as a means of hopefully finding a way to discuss it productively.

Before we get to the definition, I'd like to suggest we leave out whether "greed" itself is immoral or not. I think that's best left as a theological question. I'd also argue we agree it's not unethical in and of itself. It's a personal choice. And we in America are all about defending one's right to make personal choices. Of course, that doesn't mean others can't criticize that choice.

As for that definition, though, my working one operates around what separates merely wanting more from greed. I don't see wanting more as problematic on its own. I think it's a healthy part of human nature. I think it becomes unhealthy as it approaches hoarding (and at a certain point that's interrelated with greed), but in general, wanting more (even more than your neighbors or more than others might selfishly consider your fair share) is fine by me.

What separates wanting more from "greed" for me is defined by how one goes about it. By one's actions. Here I think we can discuss morality and ethics. Seeking more in an intelligent, legal, ethical, moral way is all well and good. But that pursuit approaches "greed" when one's actions approach the opposite and become stupid, illegal, unethical, or immoral. In other words, the consequences of one's actions must be considered in defining "greed." And, arguably, as long as no one (or thing) is being hurt by one's actions, no matter how much one accumulates, they're not being greedy.

While out there swimming, for example, I could drink down all the water from Lake Erie my stomach can handle, every day of my life, and--should the toxins not kill me--it most likely wouldn't make a bit of difference to any other living person (and probably not many other living creatures, other than the tiny creepy crawlies I inadvertently swallow). It would never reasonably be seen as "greedy." Because there's so much of it (and so few other people reasonably want it), I could never take more than my fair share.

Moving the discussion back to the economic crisis and the sorts of actions being examined as the source for our woes, clearly, while things are in motion, there are shade of gray as to whether this or that action is stupid or even unethical (I'd argue legal and moral are less gray, but...). But the results are now in, and I think everyone would agree that selling packages of toxic mortgages to unsuspecting customers who trusted you, securities you knew were likely to go bust, while also shorting those same securities is unethical behavior. There's no gray in there for me at all. That was greedy, pure and simple.

You can expand upon the theme here, though, and point to the greed of home buyers who accepted the mortgages they knew damn well they couldn't really afford. The "best practices" here are well established.

To get to the heart of the "greed" issue as it applies to both banks and home buyers, though, one need look no further than Ninja loans. Ninja loans may have been legally available, but only greedy people would think they were entitled to them. And only greedy banks would put their shareholders at rick by offering them.

At this point of the argument someone will inevitably point to the Community Reinvestment Act and insist that piece of legislation tied the banks' hands. They had no choice, the meme goes. They were only doing what an interfering government was making them do. This doesn't stand up to the evidence though:

In a 2003 research paper, economists at the Federal Reserve could not find clear evidence that the CRA increased lending and home ownership more in low income neighborhoods than in higher income ones.^[84] A 2008 Competitive Enterprise Institute study resulted in a similar finding.^[85]

Indeed, the law itself insists on sound practices:

The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) [emphasis mine]

More precisely:

The Community Reinvestment Act has encouraged banks to lend fairly and responsibly for over 30 years. The Community Reinvestment Act does not impose fines; it periodically examines FDIC-backed banks and issues them a CRA-compliance rating. [Community Reinvestment Act] To receive a high rating, banks must meet the financing needs of as many members of their community as possible and must not discriminate against racial and ethnic groups or certain neighborhoods. However, a bank cannot receive a high rating unless it is also maintaing “safe and sound banking practices.” [Community Reinvestment Act] In other words, the CRA requires banks to lend to working-class families and people of color, but only when those people have been deemed credit-worthy.

I'm not sure how, when the best practices for being credit worthy are so well established, anyone could argue that Ninja loans were anything other than an incredibly stupid (and therefore greedy) idea.

Again, to my mind, it's stupid and immoral actions that define greed. Not wanting profits, but wanting profits above all else, above reason, above what you know is honest and right.

Quick Quote for a Busy Wednesday

2011-11-02T08:29:00.002-04:00

Went through a serious Bukowski phase as a young man. Someone posted this on facebook, and it made me remember why:

“There's nothing to mourn about death any more than there is to mourn about the growing of a flower. What is terrible is not death but the lives people live or don't live up until their death. They don't honor their own lives, they piss on their lives. They shit them away. Dumb fuckers. They concentrate too much on fucking, movies, money, family, fucking. Their minds are full of cotton. They swallow God without thinking, they swallow country without thinking. Soon they forget how to think, they let others think for them. Their brains are stuffed with cotton. They look ugly, they talk ugly, they walk ugly. Play them the great music of the centuries and they can't hear it. Most people's deaths are a sham. There's nothing left to die.”

Charles Bukowski

Examining Profits über Alles as a Part of the Problem

2011-10-31T09:51:00.006-04:00

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 shareholders...you 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 know...how 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.

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

2011-10-28T08:31:00.004-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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 info@winkleman.com

Death Doesn't Really Becomes Us

2011-10-27T07:49:00.010-04:00

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 . . .

(APPLAUSE)

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.

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

2011-10-25T09:03:00.002-04:00

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 jun.lee@ogilvy.com.

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 www.ogilvyart.com 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 www.ogilvy.com.

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 www.moving-image.info.

For media inquiries about Live Video and OgilvyArt:
Lane Buschel
First-Person Communications for Ogilvy Art
lane@frstprsn.com
646-279-4985

Jun Lee
Art Curator, OgilvyArt
jun.lee@ogilvy.com
212-237-5975

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

RSVP to rsvp@moving-image.info by 3:00 pm today.

UPDATED: From the Less Misguided to the Totally Moronic

2011-10-24T07:47:00.011-04:00

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.

_e
________________

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.~~

OCCUPY MUSEUMS TODAY AT 3PM 60 WALL STREET

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.

A REBELLION AGAINST CORROSIVE SERVILITY:

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:
http://www.galleristny.com/topics/occupy-museums/

http://paddyjohnson.tumblr.com/post/11652516894/occupy-museums-speaking-out-in-front-of-the-cannons

http://blogs.artinfo.com/artintheair/2011/10/19/occupy-wall-street-movements-declares-war-on-nyc-museums-as-temples-of-cultural-elitism/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Museums/148157235282782

ABOUT NOAH FISCHER (ORGANIZER OF OCCUPY MUSEUMS):

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.

FOR MORE ON FISCHER'S WORK SEE:

http://www.castyourart.com/en/2008/11/05/noah-fischer-installation-new-york/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlcU5Md5gls

http://newyork.timeout.com/arts-culture/art/5410/noah-fischer

JOIN OCCUPY MUSEUMS!

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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Workers%27_Coalition

Mierle Ukeles Laderman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mierle_Laderman_Ukeles

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 fischer.noah@gmail.com if interested in partaking in Museum Occupation and contact naxalbelt@gmail.com if interested in teaching at the Occupy Museums Teach-in.

STRANGE DREAM:
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.

Knackered...but Hopeful

2011-10-21T08:14:00.006-04:00

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 unum...it's sound fiscal policy as well as social policy.

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

2011-10-20T07:37:00.012-04:00

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 :

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
Where: Winkleman Gallery 621 W. 27th St., NYC
More info at http://www.jenniferdalton.com/events and
http://afeministteaparty.wordpress.com/
*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.

You Know What to Do With This

2011-10-19T13:24:00.001-04:00

Halloween is only 11 days away.

The Left Side of the Road

2011-10-19T07:40:00.010-04:00

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," Artinfo.com, 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.
e_

Moving Image London 2011, Participants and Events

2011-10-03T08:22:00.003-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 3, 2011

Vincent Meessen

Vita Nova, 2009

Video

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

Video

12:23 minutes

Courtesy toomer labzda, New York, NY

_______________

Michael Smith

Baby Ikki, Out and About, 1978/2008

Video

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

Video

Courtesy ltd los angeles, Los Angeles, CA

__________________

Jonathan Ehrenberg

Seed, 2010

Video

6:52 minutes

Courtesy Nicelle Beauchene Gallery, New York, NY

__________________

Kenneth Tin-Kin Hung

The Fast Supper, 2011

Video

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

Video

3:00 minutes

Courtesy of Pékin Fine Arts Bejing, China

________________

Bani Abidi

I Love You, 2003

Video

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 www.moving-image.info or contact Ed Winkleman at +1 212.643.3152 or contact@moving-image.info

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.

Artists:

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 info@filmcolab.org

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 groups@moving-image.info to schedule.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

· 11:00 am - 7:00 pm : Admission Is Free
Private tours available for groups. Email us at groups@moving-image.info 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

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

MAP

Bargehouse is owned and managed
by Coin Street Community Builders
www.coinstreet.org

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

www.moving-image.info

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 contact@moving-image.info

Moving Image, LLC

621 West 27th Street

New York, NY 10001

t: 212.643.3152

www.moving-image.info

The Sky is Falling, the Sky is Falling (if only at the BBC)

2011-09-28T08:47:00.006-04:00

I don't respond well to panic. It just tends to piss me off.

I respond even less well to fear. It strikes me as perhaps among the lowest of human emotions, and those who would intentionally attempt to manipulate it in other people come pretty close to causing me to rethink my opposition to capital punishment.

There's a BBC interview making the rounds in a which a self-declared independent trader made, in addition to some statements that many people would agree with, all kinds of other statements and predictions on the air that set off a bit of a panic:

I have heard his advice to "get prepared" for the pending calamity echoed by several other people over the past few days, all of which began to trigger my aforementioned pissed off tendencies.

Nothing calms me down like doing a bit of research, so I looked up what could be learned about the independent trader Alessio Rastani (who one critic claiming he's wrong nicknamed "the bastard offspring of Gordon Gekko").

Here's what the London Telegraph was able to find out about him:

The interview contained such gems as "Governments don't rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world [and] Goldman Sachs does not care about the rescue package."

But on Tuesday night the BBC was left facing questions about just how qualified Mr Rastani is to speak about the markets.

In the interview Mr Rastani described himself as an independent trader. Elsewhere he claims he's an "investment speaker". Instead of operating from a plush office in Canary Wharf Mr Rastani works and lives with his partner Anita Eader in a £200,000 semi in Bexleyheath, south London. The house, complete with a mortgage from Royal Bank of Scotland, belongs to her not him.

He is a business owner, a 99pc shareholder in public speaking venture Santoro Projects. Its most recent accounts show cash in the bank of £985. After four years trading net assets are £10,048 - in the red.

How a man who has never been authorised by the Financial Services Authority and has no discernible history working for a City institution ended up being interviewed by the BBC remains a mystery.

Asked why he did the interview, Mr. Rastani replied:

"They approached me," he told The Telegraph. "I'm an attention seeker. That is the main reason I speak. That is the reason I agreed to go on the BBC. Trading is a like a hobby. It is not a business. I am a talker. I talk a lot. I love the whole idea of public speaking."

So he's more of a talker than a trader. A man who doesn't own the house he lives in, but can sum up the financial crisis in just three minutes – a knack that escapes many financial commentators.

"I agreed to go on because I'm attention seeker," he said on Tuesday. "But I meant every word I said." [emphasis mine]

Yes, the Eurozone crisis warrants monitoring, but like the rest of your life, that too is better done without panic.

Tales of Cartels and Other Windmills

2011-09-27T09:20:00.008-04:00

As reported in Artforum.com, Berlin's Der Tagesspiegel recently published a story by Kai Müller about an alleged gallery cartel in the German capital that wields so much power they essentially "decide who plays a role in Berlin and who doesn’t."

Writing about his attempts to investigate his hypothesis further, Müller notes that the tone among Berlin dealers has changed: “One hears conspiracy theories and encounters a lot of discretion,” he writes. No discussion about the subject is to leave a meeting. “Even though it’s difficult to prove to a cartel that it wants to be a cartel, it does spread enough fear to make it seem like one,” Müller argues. “For a long time there wasn’t much to go around in Berlin,” says Gerd Harry Lybke, the owner of Eigen + Art, who was recently excluded from Art Basel after years of participation in the fair. “Now that there’s something, people reveal their true characters.”

No one loves yarns of international intrigue more than I do (ask Murat, who can attest that I never leave an international airport without a cheesy spy novel to read on the plane, as well as a Duty Free bottle of a choice single malt).

But anyone who's ever tried to raise the stature of their gallery (via the art fairs or other events designed to aggregate the worthy spaces and label them such for collectors and others too busy to shift through all the pecking order indicators) can tell you that of course there are cliques and alliances with preferred curatorial philosophies, as well as personal friendships that open doors for the limited room at this or that table.

But they can also tell you that the landscape is constantly shifting, and that today's power-brokers often find themselves, when tomorrow comes, either just plain broke or worse, passé. Collectors are constantly seeking out what's new. It's hard to stay new for very long, so it's silly in my opinion to get too upset about whether you're invited to learn the new secret handshake or attend this or that frat party.

Yes, it may look as if all the money and attention is following one particular new coterie and that your business's very survival depends on them realizing how cool you are too, but in the same way I strongly believe it's a fool's game for artists to chase after this or that trend (because they're more likely to see tastes circle back round to what they're truly interested in making than they are to ever catch up by constantly changing), I feel a gallery too should stick to its guns and carve out its own opportunities.

As I have long observed (and note in my book...yes, the marketing manager at my publisher will agree that it's high time I plugged that paperback again), the most successful new galleries are often the ones that reinvent the business model in some significant way. The same goes for the ones who reinvent the gallery community and how it collaborates.

Take SEVEN, for example, which I am very pleased to note will be returning to Miami this December with the same seven galleries but in a newer, even nicer location (details as soon as the ink dries on the contract). This initiative is founded in an attempt to present our programs on our own terms. It was a lot of work, yes, but it was also ultimately nicely profitable. Last year each gallery had nearly 3,000 square feet of space each to present large-scale installations, performances, videos, etc. More than that, though, it felt good to be able to work in an art fair setting the same way I work in our gallery, dreaming bigger with our artists than we can afford to in other fair contexts. Not that I don't like other art fairs (I'm of that rare breed of dealers who rather enjoys them), but I do prefer an overall landscape in which galleries are, from time to time, able create their own options. Indeed, because the galleries are closer to the artists than fair organizers (or auction houses or what have you), it is gallery-organized fairs and events (like the various gallery weeks or more and more of the art fairs/events out there such as Independent, NADA, VIP, Moving Image, Sunday, etc.) that can create contexts closer to their artists' visions.

No such event can duplicate the control an artist can have in their respective brick-and-mortar galleries, for sure, but rather than worrying about cartels (yes, where there's smoke, there is most likely fire, but who cares?), I'd highly recommend that the galleries who feel left out make the effort to organize something themselves. If you make it smart and attractive enough, it will play double duty in giving you more control over your gallery's fortunes and how effectively you can promote your own artists.

Warning: it is a lot of work (and I, as do many other dealers, have the bags under our eyes to prove it), but it's far more productive than bellyaching that you weren't invited to the dance.

Occupy Wall Street : A Few Thoughts

2011-09-26T08:10:00.004-04:00

Really rushed for time today, but wish I had more to go down and see for myself what's happening on Wall Street. I had seen from early reports that it looked like the typical mishmash of characters we typically see at most progressive/left-leaning protests (even gay rights one where the communists handing out tabloids and the anarchists handing out attitude all seem to get along just fine somehow), which quite frankly I've grown accustomed to, not being a stranger to exercising my Constitutional right to assembly.

And, knowing how it can take some time for fledgling protest movements to get on message and vet their best leaders, I expected the early days to be more pageantry than incisive policy debating.

Still, when I turned to The New York Times, my bible for most things New York politics related, I was really taken back by the headline on one article: "Gunning for Wall Street, With Faulty Aim."

Then I saw the same sentiment echoed on Facebook, and, well, I penned the following:

Much of the "adult" response to the wall street protest seems focused on how little the protesters understand about the stock market. I have two responses to that : 1) you don't need to understand how derivatives etc. work to know you're sitting in a world of shit with no job prospects and that no one in a position of power seems to have a clue as to how to help you; 2) as is evidenced by how little effect the world's financial leaders have had in correcting the crisis, I'd say it's rich for anyone, including the so-called experts, to suggest anyone else is undereducated on how the system works. If they truly had a grasp on the system, the solutions to crisis would be more obvious. It's gotten so complex, no one really understands it.

One comment in response to that compared Occupy Wall Street with the more specific goal-oriented protests that ACTUP organized in response to the AIDS crisis. There is no question that the ACTUP tactics were extraordinarily precise and well considered, but in that case, it was fairly more obvious what was needed (easier access to the medication that could slow down the advance of the syndrome's life-ending effects and more awareness about how to avoid contracting the virus).

In the case of Wall Street, no one seems to knows what our best first steps to curbing the damage being wreck by the Great Recession should be. Even Paul Krugman offers more generalities than specific steps. So the idea that the protesters are supposed to do what an army of economists and MBAs can't do strikes me as a red herring.

Yes, it's uncomfortable to have some of the protesters out there prancing around nude or holding up placards with over-generalized statements. But at least they're out there. This photo says it all to me (Michael Kirby Smith for The New York Times).

If I were the head of the NYSE I would send out PR agents to let the protesters know they wanted to listen to why they're there. Not to lecture them or correct their misconceptions about how the market works. Just to listen. The way Wall Street seems to be just holding its nose as it hustles by the protesters now strikes me as a strategic mistake. There probably isn't much that can be said that will help them right away, but this sense that the rich just don't care how hard it is out thee is what sparks revolutions.

If Occupy Wall Street is still going on when we get back from London, I will be making time to go down and listen to the protesters myself.

Everyone's a Critic, if Only Secretly

2011-09-23T07:49:00.008-04:00

He didn't wince at the stench wafting out from the back of the truck he was hurling the garbage bags into, but his nose crinkled up when he turned over the first of the four large canvases piled up on the curb. He turned to his co-worker, raising his eyebrows as if to ask "What'd you think?" The impasto splotches of primary colors in the large abstraction read like some Warner Brother cartoon character exploded [;-)]. His co-worker shrugged and turned back to his plastic bags.

The first canvas sailed into the dumpster's dripping jaws.

The next large canvas had a much darker palette and directly referenced the P&D movement. "What about this one?" the first gentleman asked.

His colleague considered it longer and shrugged a bit less dismissively.

I didn't get to see he rest of curb-side crit play out--my bus was hurling toward the stop up ahead--but this short exchange stood in stark contrast for me to the Marshalls commercial we discussed a while back, where the message was that art's too hard or boring to bother with...just go shopping instead.

That commercial had sent me into a funk. It wasn't only the offensive way they dismissed the art in the staged gallery (which, before anyone who hasn't seen the commercial jumps to anti-conceptualist/anti-contemporary conclusions, was mostly your garden-variety mediocre abstractions), but also how it belittled the fun people have playing the art critic (which is what the characters were engaged in before being magically transported to the department store).

I've witnessed it in private settings again and again. Without any pressure to please some authority, anyone will voice their opinion on what's presented to them as art, and seemingly enjoy the process. I actually believe it's human nature to look for meaning or pleasure in such objects. Only when people fear they'll be looked down upon if they "get it wrong," do they shy away from sharing their honest response.

I wish I had had more time to listen to the sanitation workers critique the tossed-out paintings. The fact that they were having fun doing so is important, imho.

Janet Biggs Performance in Dumbo this Weekend!

2011-09-22T08:30:00.005-04:00

The art world flocks to Dumbo this weekend for festivals and fun of all varieties. One of the highlights on our schedule (and I hope you'll come too) is what promises to be an exhilarating and rather daring multi-media performance on the Brooklyn waterfront Friday and Saturday evenings by our very own Janet Biggs!

Sponsored by the always amazing Smack Mellon, Janet's performance combines music, video, kayaks, ballet, and chaos.

I promise, you won't want to miss this!

WET EXIT
Janet Biggs

Performance dates:
September 23 and 24 at 8:30pm

Performance location:
Waterfront Amphitheater in the
Brooklyn Bridge Park
(Entrance at Main and Plymouth Street)

On September 23rd and 24th, 2011, Smack Mellon presents the premiere of video artist Janet Biggs’ powerful new multi-media performance, WET EXIT.

Biggs merges the fierce athleticism of battling kayaks with pounding drum beats and the siren-like lament of a violin, cello and vocalist. Taking its title from the term used to describe an emergency exit from a capsized kayak, WET EXIT looks at loss, desire, chaos and control in the face of extreme situations. Musicians and kayak polo players perform against the backdrop of lower Manhattan’s post 9/11 skyline while the audience watches from amphitheater seating at The Cove Between the Bridges in the Brooklyn Bridge Park.

WET EXIT from Janet Biggs on Vimeo.

Projected video images from Biggs’ recent expedition to film kayaks in the Arctic are combined with live synchronized kayaks as they define a dance of survival strategies. In the struggle to maintain control amongst the fraying fabric of a society in peril, known patterns are repeated and individuals search for second chances.

The piece opens with lights searching the night sky and a lone violinist playing on the shore. The chords he plays mimic the sound of an air raid siren. Video images from the Arctic appear on a large-scale screen. Lights come up on four kayaks and a drummer poised behind his drums out in the water. The drummer and his kit float on a boat anchored off shore. The kayaks perform a series of synchronized movements to the strains of a waltz. A train speeds across the Manhattan Bridge. Its deafening sound sends the drummer, violinist, cellist, and vocalist into a frenzied performance as the ballet-like movements of the kayaks becomes a battle of spins and speed.

Musicians:
Drums: Blake Fleming
Cello: William Martina
Violin: Earl Maneein

Vocalist:
Carol Grayson-Johnson

Kayak Paddlers:
New York Kayak Polo team members (nykayakpolo.org) Margaret Mann, Agassi Nakhapetian, Agnes Simon, Lev Grote and Jake Lewis

Artist/Director:
Janet Biggs is known primarily for her work in video, photography and performance. She lives and works in New York City. She has captured such events as speeding motorcycles on the Bonneville Salt Flats, horses galloping on treadmills, Olympic synchronized swimmers in their attempts to defy gravity, and kayaks performing a synchronized ballet in Arctic waters.

She received her undergraduate degree from Moore College of Art, and pursued graduate studies at Rhode Island School of Design. Her work has been exhibited, among other institutions, at the Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, Ithaca, NY; Everson Museum of Art, Syracuse, NY; Gibbes Museum of Art, South Carolina; Rhode Island School of Design Museum; Kunst Museum Bonn; MACRO (Museo d'Arte Contemporanea di Roma); Vantaa Art Museum, Finland; Linkopings Konsthall, Passagen, Sweden; Oberösterreichisches Landesmuseum, Austria; and the Perth Institute of Contemporary Arts, Australia.

Reviews of her work have appeared in the New York Times, The New Yorker, Artforum, ARTNews, Art in America, Flash Art, Artnet.com, and many others.

Biggs is the recipient of numerous grants including the Electronic Media and Film Program at the New York State Council on the Arts Award, the Arctic Circle Fellowship/Residency, Art Matters, Inc., the Wexner Center Media Arts Program Residency, the Anonymous Was a Woman Award, and the NEA Fellowship Award. Her work is in public collections including the High Museum, Atlanta, Georgia; the Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, Cornell University, Ithaca; Mint Museum of Art, Charlotte, North Carolina; Gibbes Museum of Art, South Carolina; and the New Britain Museum of Art, Connecticut.

Janet Biggs is represented by Conner Contemporary Art, Washington, DC, and Winkleman Gallery, New York City.

WET EXIT is sponsored by the Walentas Family and Two Trees Management. This project is also funded in part with public funds from the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs and the New York State Council on the Arts, and with generous support from The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts and The Concordia Foundation and by the Experimental Television Center's Finishing Funds Award. The Experimental Television Center's Finishing Funds program is supported by the Electronic Media and Film Program at the New York State Council on the Arts.

How About Some Politics???

2011-09-21T08:12:00.005-04:00

Come on, now, you know it's good for you.

Just because it tastes like liver-flavored broccoli...

Let's see if we can make it relatively painless. Saw this on Facebook:

Oh I know, it's silly.

But consider this. If corporations were truly "people," just like you and me or any other citizen, then any other citizen could, all people being equal, ask a court to weigh their personal interests against a corporation's personal interests, right?

Wrong.

If it seems easier lately for companies to add small fees on your bills and harder for you to get your money back, that's because it is.

A Supreme Court decision that was denounced as a “crushing blow to consumers” when it was announced in April has become exactly that, according to lawyers who argue on behalf of alleged victims of corporate cheating. The decision, which upheld corporations’ right to enforce fine-print contact language that compels consumers to waive their right to file lawsuits, is being used to squelch legal cases across the country, they say.

“Defendants are trying to steamroll us out of court with this. We're getting completely shut down,” said David DiSabato, who specializes in consumer law in New Jersey. “… The ruling opens the door for companies to pickpocket $10 at a time from millions of consumers.

As an example, DiSabato told the story of client John Considine of Rutherford, N.J., who found several phantom $10 charges on his Verizon cell phone bill from firms offering ring tones, horoscopes and other services he didn't want. In one case, he couldn't even find out the identity of the company levying the charge. Working with DiSabato, Considine learned that cramming is a common problem, and decided to file a class action lawsuit to get his money back and help others -- many who might not even realize they'd been victims.

But Considine ran right into a brick wall. Only days after the Supreme Court arbitration ruling, Verizon filed a motion to dismiss his case and to compel arbitration. If Verizon prevails, as expected, Considine will never have a day in court, will never be able to discover how many other consumers were hit by the same charges and may never even find out the name of the phantom company. He certainly won't be able to find legal representation for a fight to recover $10 fees, DiSabato said.

"(The Supreme Court decision) gave the telecom companies a license to commit petty theft without ever having to face the consequences," said DiSabato. "The telecom companies get rich by committing theft against consumers on a massive scale, and (the decision) deprives consumers of any meaningful ability to fight back."

When considering how these corporation people have rigged the game and eliminated the one legal recourse disgruntled citizens have in a democracy (the chance to air one's dismay in court), it begins to become a bit clearer why citizens here might, as happened recently in London, one day take matters into their own hands and commit petty theft in return.

I mean clearly, even in the most capitalistic, consumerist society, you shouldn't be be able to be charged $10 for things you never wanted. This practice, as noted above, called "cramming," is clearly against FCC rules:

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Truth-in-Billing rules require telephone companies to provide clear, non-misleading, plain language in describing services for which you are being billed. Because one telephone company, usually your local telephone company, may include charges you incurred for another company’s service on your bill, the company sending you the bill must identify the service provider associated with each charge.

Unfortunately, at this point, the FCC is all but a joke. Even on their website they explain how your only recourse if the phone company refuses to take a cramming charge off your bill is to file an FCC complaint. The instructions for filing a complaint seem doubly designed to encourage you not to, especially when you're talking about a charge of $10 or less.

The phone companies are obviously counting on all this working in their favor. All of which would, in any other context, encourage a class action suit to teach them not to rob their customers. Which brings us right back to the Supreme Court's decision from April, which eliminated that option.

If corporations were truly people, they'd be afraid to ride the bus in New York City, knowing how many other citizens would very likely walk up and punch them in the nose.

Quick Reflection

2011-09-20T07:50:00.004-04:00

I have an acute allergy to that thing that drives so many people to want to be an artist these days: mainly it seems to boil down to a rather grotesque desire to be famous that far exceeds any willingness to put honest reflection or, God forbid, a generosity of human spirit ahead of itself.

I have a real soft spot for that thing that drives anyone to need to be an artist: a nearly overwhelming sense of being lost if they're not challenging themselves, solving problems, making work.

The later can exist outside of the art market/"art world." The former really cannot.

The irony though is that the later is what the art world is tasked with discovering, nurturing, and ultimately preserving, while the former flock like so many Whacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube People inserting themselves everywhere they can (mind you, even the most desperate of artists who only want to be famous can't hold a candle to most art dealers in this regard, but....).

I saw a man coming out of a restaurant in Chelsea yesterday holding a sketch pad, rubberbanded to a palette and other art supplies. He wasn't an artist I recognized. He looked a bit old to be still hoping for an emerging career, but perhaps not. [UPDATE: As I note in the comments, that last line was an extremely lazy bit of writing. What I meant was he seemed too old to just be out of art school and unaware that bringing your sketchpad into a gallery was not the best way to get a gallery show...suggesting that his having it with him was not part of a "hit the pavement" and get a show campaign.]

He had that thing...that look in his eyes...that disposition that convinced me he was perhaps only accidentally in Chelsea, the commercial center of New York's art world (it was Monday after all...the galleries were closed). What I saw in his face (or thought I saw) was that need to challenge himself...that need to make work (hence, his slogging around with sketchpad in tow). There was no arrogance in his face, no sense of determination to become famous. There was a simple, gorgeous curiosity. And more than that...the rarest of qualities one finds on New York's streets: a vulnerability.

I don't know who he was. Perhaps just a Sunday/Monday painter. But I found the lack of obvious ambition in his body language and facial expression refreshing. Yes, perhaps, I projected a narrative onto him, but it still quickened my step and renewed my determination for what tiny role I'm getting to play in the history of art. Just that look on his face totally made my day.

I've been thinking about this quality in conjunction with the highly anticipated Willem de Kooning retrospective at MoMA. Here was an artist who, by his own words, felt there was no time period in painting's history for him. Yet he kept painting. Over the course of 70 years he challenged himself, he solved problems, he worked (and worked, and worked).

This is the only practical approach to greatness, in my humble opinion. Humankind reserves some of its highest honors (acknowledgement, respect, and preservation of contributions) for its artists. Such honors are not something one deserves for some trendy innovation. They're certainly not something anyone is born entitled to.

________________
Murat and I will be extremely busy the next few weeks getting ready for the London Moving Image (which, we're delighted to report is coming along brilliantly!). I'll blog as often as I can, but can't promise to get to it each day. If all I can manage is a quick reflection or two, I hope you'll bear with such indulgences while we get this new venture up and running.

e

Press Release : Moving Image London Announces List of Arists and Participating Galleries

2011-09-14T08:56:00.007-04:00

Moving Image is pleased to announce the list of participating artists and galleries for our inaugural London exhibition, including:

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)
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, 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)
Suzy Triester / PPOW (New York, USA)
Adrian Wong / ltd los angeles (Los Angeles, USA)
Hannah Wilke / Ronald Feldman Fine Arts (New York, USA)

Presenting single-channel videos and larger scale video sculpture/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.

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 was conceived by Edward Winkleman and Murat Orozobekov of New York's Winkleman Gallery.

For updates on programming information, please visit our website www.moving-image.info or contact Ed Winkleman at 212.643.3152 or contact@moving-image.info

Moving Image, LLC
621 West 27th Street
New York, NY 10001
t: 212.643.3152
e: contact@moving-image.info
w: www.moving-image.info

Click to watch a video about Moving Image produced by our sponsor Safiniart :

Grading the Late Summer Makeovers

2011-09-13T08:00:00.008-04:00

I know the calendar agrees with me, even if the shop windows would like to convince us otherwise, so I refuse to call it "Autumn" just yet. For a few weeks still, "late Summer" it is.

What's being made over in late Summer 2011? Apparently most of the online sources for news on art I regularly read. How they've redesigned their sites suggests perhaps some interesting things about their future plans.

A while ago (ok, in mid-Summer, I think) came the freshening up of Artnet.com's look and navigation:

I like the bold new home page, but it does bother me a bit that the link to the Magazine fell below the fold. I know the scrolling images that dominate the page will take me to a particular magazine story, but I used to begin by scanning all the stories and then diving in. It took me reading a few stories about artnet.com's rising success in their online auctions to begin to suspect the new design is meant to steer readers even more directly toward that functionality.

It's just me, I know. Artnet.com does describe itself as "the place to buy, sell and research fine art online," and I suspect most of their readers visit it for such. I personally rarely browse its gallery section, now that most galleries have websites of their own, so I don't mind that the link to Galleries falls below the fold, but I so read their magazine religiously.

Otherwise, the look is crisp and they've done a pretty good job of organizing a great deal of information and navigation options. I'd give them a B-.

At long last, ArtNews.com has a look that feels post-1990. Not that I terribly minded the old look and feel (it felt nostalgic and I liked that), but as the mainstream media (finally) begins to figure out the new digital delivery channels, it was perhaps time for ArtNews to freshen up its site:

There's a lot of information on the home page that they don't reveal until you begin to scroll, but that may actually be a clever mimicry of a print magazine cover. My internal jury's still out on whether I like that or not. I do like the Popular Posts section to the right, and the tags that tie the articles into the print issue they appeared in (helpful and clear).

I'm not so sure I like the mixing of icons for the various social networks. If you click on a story, you see a customized icon at the very top for ArtNews's Facebook page, and then the story's "Like on Facebook" link under the title (will say the depth of social media options here feels about perfect...not crazy, but rich enough to indicate ArtNews gets how they work).

As for the two Facebook buttons, though, I get why they're different, and understand one is persistent and accompanies the site, while the other is particular to a story, but I'm not a big fan of re-branding other site's visuals. Again, perhaps that's just me, though.

I have been all over the site, but still can't find one of my all-time favorite columns that ArtNews publishes, their Retrospectives look at the ideas and criticisms from 25, 50, 75 and 100 years ago. Maybe this is a subtle signal that ArtNews is looking more toward the future than the past, I don't know. I do hope they're going to continue to put Retrospective online.

Overall, I'd give the new site a B- as well.

Over at artinfo.com, it's a bit hard to tell if they've done much more than change their background color from black to white (notice a trend??), but either way, it freshens the feel of the site up quite nicely.

Murat will tell anyone that he visits artinfo.com more that most other arts sites because they add new stories more often. I've noticed they "rotate" their stories a bit more than they change them, but I would agree with Murat that it keeps you coming back.

I suspect they're still in the process of converting the different quarters of their site. The jarring return to the black background when you click on the Culture + Travel link felt like a digital flashback, but the ever growing list of bloggers suggests artinfo.com is seeking to become a portal for ideas beyond just its magazines' collective purview.

Overall, I'd give them a solid B.

Marshalls Wants Dumb Customers

2011-09-12T07:58:00.003-04:00

If you've ever been dragged into one, it's obvious why.

The items at Marshalls worth buying are not anywhere near as discounted as you'll find at their competitors', and even those are next to impossible to find under all the crap the average person would be embarrassed to give away at a garage sale. So, again, why it is that Marshalls encourages stupidity among its consumers is very clear.

That still doesn't mean they should get away with it.

What am I rambling on about?

Well, I was yelling at my TV last night (which as Murat can attest is not that unusual, especially during political talk shows or presidential debates), but this time it was at a remarkably insulting commercial for Marshalls, the aforementioned crappy discount department store.

In the commercial, three women are in an art gallery, looking at dubious concoctions on the walls and questioning their meaning, when the Marshalls spokeswoman whisks them out of there and into an environment that one supposes is meant to represent the shopping experience you'll find at an actual Marshalls (only they left out the piles and piles of useless junk crammed high in aisles you can barely fit through and the poorly trained and grumpy staff).

One of the three women picks up a purse in this fantasy version of the store and says, "This is art." The Marshall's spokeswoman agrees, noting "Yeah, who needs 'real' art. Such a snooze."

I won't repeat here what I reflexively yelled at my telly, but it included several &%$#-ish characters.

Korky Vann, who pens Savvy Shopper, a blog on bargain hunting, shared my opposition to the ad, only she phrased her response with a fair bit more decorum:

I can't figure out the reasoning behind this marketing campaign. Women who like to shop at Marshalls find art boring? Seems rather insulting.
Maybe it's the grownup version of the highly-publicized JC Penney's shirt for pre-teen girls that read "I'm too pretty to do homework, so my brother has to do it for me."

There are two issues such marketing efforts raise for me: first is the anti-intellectualism it encourages. Already running rampant in the US, this aversion to education is creating a cultural atmosphere in which people actually believe if something is difficult to understand it must automatically be bad for them or OK to ignore (things like banking regulations aimed at preventing another financial meltdown). The second issue, of course, is the misogyny this commercial and the JC Penney t-shirt campaign represent. What marketing genius, in the age of Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Angela Merkel, Dilma Rouseff, Indra Nooyi, Irene Rosenfeld, Christine Lagarde, etc. etc. etc, still thinks women would tolerate being talked down to in this way?

In the meanwhile, I would encourage women who don't find art boring, but still love bargain shopping, to consider shopping instead at SYMS, whose tag line is "An Educated Consumer is Our Best Customer."

Opening Tonight! Jennifer Dalton's "Cool Guys Like You" and in the Curatorial Research Lab, Melissa Brown's "DOTTO LOTTO", @ Winkleman Gallery

2011-09-09T08:48:00.005-04:00

Jennifer Dalton
Cool Guys Like You

September 9 - October 15, 2011
Opens September 9, 6-8 PM

Dear Bill/Brian/Charlie/Jon/Leonard/Rachel/Stephen/Terry:
I listen to or watch you regularly, in most cases for years running. Let's just get this out of the way: I admire you. I admire you for finding a wide variety of intelligent, interesting guests, and for having entertaining and illuminating conversations with them. You radio hosts have made it possible for me to work for hours and days in the studio without going bonkers. And to be completely honest, I have also made artwork while watching all of your TV shows too.

You interview people who are not necessarily household names and seem to make a point of discussing issues and ideas that are not commonly discussed elsewhere (except in the New Yorker, which you all crib for ideas, obviously). Just as important, you help me and others like me to feel less alone in the larger sea of fear-, humiliation- and tragedy-based media. I am grateful to you.

But when I looked closely at whom you interview—the people you collectively decide are the most important of the moment—I was very surprised. I should explain that a lot of my artwork starts with a bee in my bonnet, a question of, “Is it just me, or are things really the way they seem?” I had started to feel, after years of experience with all of your shows, that I just wasn't seeing or hearing all that many women guests. So I went to your website archives and started counting, and what I found was this:

In 2010, the most lopsided show among you featured only 17.5% female guests. The most balanced among you still only featured 34% female guests. The rest of you are in between, but mostly huddled around the more lopsided end of that spectrum.

If I may be so bold, WTF?

I would like to get to the bottom of this lopsidedness. I would like to understand why men are still perceived as more brilliant, more fascinating and more important than women. I have some theories, and I respectfully request a meeting. I know you are the interviewers by trade, but I would like to interview you or one of your producers to discuss the reasons behind this imbalance: is it an internalized bias or a business decision? What is there to be done about it?

I assume you like to see yourselves as critical thinkers. Might it be possible to get a bit more critical about the internal and external forces that encourage all of us to think that men produce the best ideas and cultural products out there? I think it might.

As I hope this letter makes clear, I have a sincere desire to understand your perspective on a problem we all share. But at times I also wonder if it's edifying for me to be exposed to so much bias, and Winona Ryder's character in the 1988 movie Heathers springs to mind. At the end of the movie she finally realizes that she is better off without her smart, hot and psychotic boyfriend (played by Christian Slater). She tells him, striking a blow for all of us who feel oppressed by those they have admired, “Do you know what I need? Cool guys like you out of my life.”

In any case, my response to your shows has inspired me. I have incorporated my explorations of the demographics of your guests into large scale artworks I'm presenting at my next solo exhibition.

I look forward to your response.

Best wishes,

Jennifer Dalton

Jennifer Dalton received her BFA from UCLA and her M.F.A. from the Pratt Institute in New York. Her work has been exhibited throughout the United States and Europe, including in: "Making Sense," a solo project at the FLAG Art Foundation, "#class" and "#ranks" a multi-disciplinary project with William Powhida at Winkleman Gallery and the SEVEN Art fair, "Wall Rockets: Contemporary Artists and Ed Ruscha," curated by Lisa Dennison, FLAG Art Foundation, NYC; "Made in America," curated by Janet Phelps, Peel Gallery, Houston, TX; "Air Kissing: An Exhibition of Contemporary Art About the Art World," curated by Sasha Archibald, Arcadia University Art Gallery, Glenside, PA; and "The Cult of Personality: Portraits of Mass Culture," Carriage Trade, NYC and Galerie Erna Hécey, Brussels, Belgium. Her work has been reviewed in Artforum, The New York Times, The New Yorker, Art Review, Art + Auction, ArtNews, and Art in America, among other publications.

For more information, please contact Edward Winkleman at 212.643.3152 or info@winkleman.com.

_______________________________________________________________
And in the Curatorial Research Lab

Melissa Brown's DOTTO LOTTO
Organized by Julie Chae

September 9 - October 15, 2011
Opening: Friday, September 9, 2011
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

DOTTO LOTTO Video Trailer

DOTTO LOTTO is an installation of almost 3,000 connect-the-dot puzzles on business reply mail postcards completed and returned by people in New York City and across the globe, along with an animation video that "connects" the postcards.

A year ago, Brown initially distributed these postcards by slipping 1/3 of them into magazines at newsstands in mass transit locations such as Grand Central Station, Port Authority Bus Terminal and Union Square; providing 1/3 of them to New York City public school teachers who incorporated them into art classes; and handing out 1/3 of them to colleagues in the art world, including prominent artists, gallerists and curators.

These postcards provide simple instructions to connect the dots and use the US postal system to give voice to participating individuals and groups. In addition to tourists to New York from around the world who found the postcards in magazines, the New York City public school students and art-world colleagues of Brown and curator Chae, some of the participants came upon the postcards through Fluxface, a mail art blog/website located in Merignac, France; an art teacher in Hellerup, Denmark; the Federal Corrections Institution Elkton in Lisbon, Ohio; and the Green Gallery in Milwaukee, Wisconsin as well as Winkleman Gallery in New York.

Brown has created a stop-motion animation video by scanning in the returned postcards and editing to place similar responses in frames next to each other. The similar images pass the eye at a rate to “animate” the images and “connect” the individuals who created them with each other. The Dotto Lotto project plahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifyfully and seriously explores the possibilities for human connection through these elementary puzzle-game postcards. The video is approximately 6 minutes long and appears accompanied by a sound collage created by Brown.

A sample of the Dotto Lotto video is available at dottolotto.com.

For more information, please contact Edward Winkleman at 212.643.3152 or info@winkleman.com.