art soldier

Revolt, Anyone?

2006-12-06T10:57:00.000-05:00

From the Times Online:

The richest 2% of human adults own more than 50% of the world’s total wealth.

The richest 10% of human adults own 85% of the world's total wealth.

The bottom 50% of human adults own barely 1% of the world's total wealth.

In terms of wealth distribution the US was among the most unequal.

To be fair, the United States has never claimed to be the land of equality, it's the land of opportunity. Yuk.

Surveillance Camera Players

2006-12-05T11:43:00.000-05:00

From NYC Indymedia: A Performance Against Surveillance Cameras [A reportback of a very successful performance]

By SCP photolab

In Times Square, the Surveillance Camera Players used a publicly installed webcam to amuse and inspire other anti-surveillance activists from England and Germany, then meeting in Leipzig for a conference...

At exactly 1:30 pm Eastern Standard Time (7:30 pm in Europe) on Saturday, 2 December 2006, the Surveillance Camera Players (SCP) once again performed in front of the group's "favorite" (least favorite) webcam that Earthcam.com has installed in Times Square, New York City: the one that, unlike the others (15 in total), is pointed straight into the faces of people who have no idea their image is being captured and displayed by a camera-system that "refreshes" once every 3 seconds, 24-hours-a-day, all year 'round. It looks like its the surveillance camera for 47th Street Digital Photo, but its (worse) a live webcam. There's no sign that informs people a camera of any kind is in operation.

The occasion for this performance was a two-day-long series of events called "THE SPACE HIJACKERS: making trouble in Zeipzig," which featured the London-based artist/activist group the Space Hijackers, was organized by the German anti-surveillance camera group Leipizger Kamera, and was held at the Galerie fur Zeitgenossische Kunst (Gallery for Contemporary Art) in Leipzig, Germany. On Friday night, 1 December, acting under the theme "Public Space and Surveillance," Space Hijackers Sam and Robin helped coordinate a both a street protest and a street party. The next day, in the early afternoon, the Space Hijackers put on another public performance ("Let the Eye in the Sky Decide this Age-Old Battle . . .") and then, in the evening, a presentation ("CCTV The Future's Bright: The Development, Present, and Future of CCTV") at the Galerie. The SCP's performance -- which lasted 15 minutes and went off without a hitch -- was watched live, in the Galerie, on large TV monitors...

[the rest is here]

[surveillance camera players]

Postcards From the Edge Benefit

2006-11-29T21:16:00.000-05:00

If you go you just may see a contribution from yours truly:

Preview Party on World AIDS Day
Friday, December 1 from 6:00 - 8:00 PM
Sneak peek only -- NO POSTCARD SALES. $75 admission includes one raffle ticket. One Lucky Winner will select any postcard that evening! Additional Raffle Tickets $25. Participating artists attend free.
SILENT AUCTION of artworks by Barton Lidice Benes, Nan Goldin, Jenny Holzer and Richard Renaldi. (Click here to view artworks and details.)

Benefit Sale
Saturday, December 2 from 12:00 - 6:00 PM &
Sunday, December 3 from 12:00 - 4:00 PM
$5 Suggested Admission

Over 1,000 original postcard-sized works of art.
ONLY $75 EACH. Buy four cards and get one free.

Postcards From the Edge is a show and sale of original, postcard-sized works on paper by established and emerging artists. Famous in the art world as the most exciting and affordable way to build a collection of work by internationally renowned artists, as well as young and emerging artists, all works are sold on a first-come, first-served basis. The works are signed on the back and exhibited so the artists' signatures cannot be seen. While buyers have a list of participating artists, they don't know who created which piece until purchased. A collector might end up with a work by a famous artist or someone they don't know yet. Either way, they walk away with a great piece of art while supporting the important work of Visual AIDS.

Postcards From the Edge Participating Artists 2006:
Mary Jo Aardsma, David Abbott, Joshua Abelow, Rachel B. Abrams, Vito Acconci, Brillion Adams, Derrick Adams, Farah Ahmad, Mason Akers, Tatiana Akoeva, Michael Alago, Courtney Alan, Michael Alan, Lynne Alexander, Alexander 23, Mary Alford, Stacy Alickman, Meredith Allen, Scott Allen, Carol Alonge, Anthony Alvarez, Jose Alvarez, David Ambrose, Blanka Amezkua, Shannon Amidon, Kim Amlong, Marie Anakee, Marina Ancona, Jack Anderson, Micki Anderson, Terry Ray Anderson, Kristin Anderson & Danny Licul, Carl Andre, Chad Andrews, Stephen Andrews, Brandon Andrzejczak, Elizabeth Andrzejczak, William Anthony, Polly Apfelbaum, Sally Apfelbaum, Rosaire Appel, Tomie Arai, Sol Aramendi, Michelle Arbeit, Wendy Arbeit, Kristoffer Ardena, Lauren D. Ari, Rebecca Armstrong, Yelena Aronson, Andrea Arroyo, Todd Arsenault, Julia Arzberger, Sabrina Asch, Mike Asente, Richard Ashe, Walter Askin, Kisito Assangni, Dotty Attie, Emily Aull, Anthony Austin, Lacy Austin, Dominick Avellino, Mehmet Ayanoglu, Joseph Ayers, Luke Ayres, Aziz + Cucher, Adam Baer, Miki Baird, Patrick Michael Baird, Raina Bajpai, Heti Baker, John Baldessari, Phyllis Baldino, Angela Barbalace, Gerard Barbot, Perry Bard, Frieda Bard Wirick, Julia Whitney Barnes, Scott Barnes, Malena Barnhart, Jill Baroff, Burt Barr, Paula Barr, Katie Barrie, Alex Barry, Mark Barry, Elliot Bassman, Hugo Xavier Bastidas, Larissa Bates, Peggy Bates, Mindy Baughman, Erica Baum, Sarah Baum, Miriam Baumer, Gail Baxter Cohen, Jeffrey Beall, Helena Beban, Kate Beck, Robert Beck, Tania Becker, Elizabeth Beckmann, Maureen Beitler, Valerie Belin, Adam Bell, Caroline Bell, Laura Bell, Mina Bellavia, Anne-Marie Belli, Chris Bellingham, Susanna Beltrandi, Ronnie Ben-Ami, Yael Ben-Zion, Barton Lidice Benes, Robert A. Benevenga, Stefany Benson, Micah Beree, Kermit Berg, Marina Berio, Peter Berlin, Katherine Bernhardt, Rakel Beruie, Rachel Berwick, Stephen Beveridge, Brett Beyers, Marieke Bier, Andrea Biller Collins, James Bills, Colby Bird, JoAnn Bishop, Mariella Bisson, George Blaha, Nancy Blair, Nayland Blake, Dana Blanco, Sonia Blanco-Florentino, Martin Bland, Julie Blattberg, Peter Blazek, Ross Bleckner, Lucinda Bliss, Stephanie Bloom, Deborah Boardman, Mel Bochner, Bianca Bockman, Mara Bodis-Wollner, Daniel Bodner, Sandra Boer, Elizabeth Bonaventura, David Borawski, Teresa Bosko, Lynn Boudreau, Matthew Bourbon, Nina Bovasso, Diane Bower, Astrid M. Bowlby, Cyd Bown, Dave Bown, Ryan Bown, Bruce Wesley Boyce, Daniel Boyer, Kelli Boyles, S. Kendall Bradford, Madelyn Bradley, Bradford Branch, Michael Brandonisio, Gladys Grey Brannum, Marcelo Brantes, Cariya Breemen, Susan Breen, John Breiner, Dagmar Breitenbauc, Corey R. Breneisen, Matthew Brennan, Lisa Breslow, Jacklyn Brickman, Kevin Bright, John Brill, Matt Broach, Mona Brody, Patricia Brody & Tom Kostro, Moazzam Ali Brohi, AA Bronson, Arnold Brooks, Nancy Brooks Brody, Jude Broughan, Christopher Broughton, Jenny Brown, Kim Brown, Maggie Brown, Louise Brown Kennett, Neil Bruce, Samantha Brugger, Tom Brydelsky, Thomas Bugarin, Stephanie Buhmann, Jessica Bumpass, Christopher Burke, Selene E. Burke, Amy Burns, Tim Burns, Hannah Burr, Tricia Burr, Nancy Burson, Jordan Buschur, Ernie Button, Mary Button, Theresa Byrnes, Marcus Camacho, Michael J. Cambre, Sherry Camhy, Elsa Campbell, F. Lennox Campello, Julio Candelario, Hector Canonge, Dulcie Canton, Suzanne Caporael, Miss Lyn Cardinal, Luis Carle, Joel Carlson, Curtis Carman, Lisa Carney, Victor Carnuccio, Kristen Caroselli, Rob Carter, Harriet Casolin-Silver, Marco Castro, Rick Castro, Niccolo Cataldi, Ananda Cavalli, Jennifer Cecere, Lynn Cella, Robert Cenedella, Seung Hun Cha, Stan Challenger, Beau Chamberlain, Anthony Champa, N. Janan Chandler, Frederick Chang, Ling Chang, Sunny Chapman, Michelle Charles, Cynthia Chatman, Ignacio Chavarri, Amy Cheng, Edward Cheng, Asa Chibas, Hollie Marie Chicalese, Ogechi Chiek, Eun Woo Cho, Abby Choi, Cecile Chong, Henry Chung, Elsie P. Church, Monica D. Church, Vincent Cianni, Laura Ciarcia, Lauren Cipkin, Susan Cirigliano, Rania Cisternas, Stephen TARO Clark, Rob Clarke, Christopher Clary, Veronica Jay Clay, Dawn Clements, Estate of Buster Cleveland, Wanda Clouston, Dominic Clouter, Anthony P. Clune, Jon Coffelt, Aaron Cohen, Michael Cohen, Neal Cohen, Susan Colgan, Cecy Colichon, C.J. Collins, Michael Roque Collins, Fernando Colon-Gonzalez, Elizabeth Colrick, Greg Colson, Nicoleta Coman, Hyakamooks Compton, Victoria Compton, Elisabeth Condon, Sherri Conley, Emily Conover, Juliette Conroy, Susan Constanse, Mallory Cooper, Pam Cooper, Stuart A. Copans, David Corbett, David Correa Muñoz, David Corwin, Geraldine Cosentino, Steve Cox, Del Craig, Patrick M. Craig, Peter Cramer, Brian Crede, Carla Criqui, Elizabeth Crisman, Robert Cronin, Sage Crown Parker, Albert Crudo, Gannon Leigh Crutcher, Shawn Cuddy, Janet Culbertson, Megan Cump, Colleen Cunningham, S. Purvis Cykes, Peggy Cyphers, Martin Dabrowski, Dennis Dahill, Steven Dalachinsky, David Dalessandro, Laura Dandaneau, Becky Daniel, Belinda Daniel, Vinod Dave, Jill Daves, Julie Davidow, Anna U. Davis, Jennifer Davis, Mark Davis, R. Clarke Davis, Kate Davis Caldwell, Keina Davis Elswick, Victor Davson, Marguerite Day, Laurel De George, Joe De Hoyos, Jesus De La Rosa, Frank de Las Mercedes, Regina De Rozario, Sandra De Sando, Elisa Decker, Gloria DeFilipps Brush, Jay Deleon, Nana Deleplanque, Tony DePew, Lori Der Hagopian, Priscilla Derven, Wendy DesChene, Robyn Desposito, Aasta Deth, Geoffrey Detrani, Yoko Devereaux, Mary DeVincentis, Louie Devito, Jenn DeWald, Linda Di Gusta, Mike Diana, Justin Luis Diaz, James Diffin, Amy DiGennaro, Simone DiLaura, Roz Dimon, Danielle Dimston, George Dinhaupt, Aureo Diniz, Christina Dipaci, Abigail Doan, Eric Doeringer, Rory Donaldson, Todd Doney, Elissa Dorfman, Judite Dos Santos, Tim Doud, Christopher Dovas, Sean Downey, Kathleen Drescher, Melanie Ducharme, Schuyler Duffy, Angela Dufresne, Laura Duggan, Mark Dumschatt, Maureen Duncan, Chad Durgan, Rodney Durso, Matthias Duwel, Jeremy Dyer, Michael Eade, Brent Nicholson Earle, Masako Ebata, Marlene Eckhardt, Marta Edmisten, Cynthia Edorh, Erin Edwards, Tiffany Edwards, Sally Egbert, Frank Egloff, Michael Eichhorn, Per Eidspjeld, Jason Eisner, Yosra El-essawy, Eric Elias, Robyn Ellenbogen, Jared Ellison, Erin Emanuelle, Lorena Endara, Elise Engler, Joy Episalla, Mitch Epstein, Sam Erenberg, Erich Erving, Carol Es, Donelle Estey, Yvonne Estrada, John Evans, Julie Evans, Dore Everett, Todd “Clemence” Everette, Patricia Fabricant, James Fackrell, Neil Farber, Adriana Farmiga, David Faulk, Kate C. Fauvell, Nicholas Fedak II, Tony Feher, Shelley Feinerman, Elyn Feldman/Kenny Gaye, Margaret Ferraro, Celeste Fichter, Toma Fichter, Luc Fierens, Janet Filomeno, John Findysz, Brian Finke, Lisbeth Firmin, Michelle Firoozan, Christina B. Fischer, Brad Fisher, Matthew Fisher, Louise Fishman, Roddy Fitzgerald, Joan Fitzsimmons, John Fitzsimmons, Gail Flanery, Samantha Flechaus, Jacques Flechemuller, Christine Flores, Frances Flores, Robert Flynt, Roy Foo, Jean Foos, James R. Ford, Cacy Forgenie, Jennifer Formica, Martine Fougeron, Stephen Robert Frankel, Christopher Frederick, Maya Freelon, Martin Freeman, Sharon J. Frey, Art Frick, Leni Friedland, Meagan Friedlander, Sabra Friendman, Matthew Fritze, Nichole Frocheur, Gina Fuentes Walker, Ivan Gaete, Tali Gai, Felipe Galindo, Sean Paul Gallegos, Linda Ganjian, Lauren Garber, Angelica Garcia, Arturo Garcia, Julio Garcia, Laurel Garcia Colvin, Milton Garcia Latex, Joy Garnett, James Gasowski, Allyson Gaston, Jeff Gauntt, Christopher Gauthier, Robin Gaynes-Bachman, Claude Gazengel, Mike Geary, Madeline Gekiere, Andrea Geller, Sandy Gellis, Mike Geno, Alexa Gerrity, Leslie Getz, Gilles Giacomotti, Cris Gianakos, Tony Gilardi, David Gilbert, Laura Gilbert, Paul Gillis, Audrey Gim, Eric Ginsberg, Frances Giron, Sean Gittens, Judy Glantzman, Milton Glaser, Sydell Glasser, Robin Glassman, Daniel Glendening, Megan Glickman, Bonnie Gloris, Jo Going, Connor Goldberg, Jack Goldberg, Kenneth Sean Golden, Nan Goldin, Janet Goldner, Lance Goldsmith, David Goldstein, Josh Goldstein, Rupert Goldsworthy, Nidia Gonzalez, Kathy Goodell, David Emanuel Goodman, Lee Gordon, Sam Gordon, Daniel Gorostiaga, Shaun Gough, Dana Grabelsky, Michelle Grabner, Leor Grady, Deborah Grant, Robin Graubard, Jeffrey Grauel, Victoria Gray, Nathan Green, Joanne Greenbaum, Rodney Alan Greenblat, Eriq Gregg, Clint Griffin, Peter Griffin, Stewart Griffin, Sonya Gropman, Ellen Grossman, Virgil Grotfeldt, Todd Grousdahl, Joan Grubin, Magalie Guerin, Kathy Gulrich, Carl Gunhouse, Diana Gurfel, Robin Guterson, Ana B. Gutierrez, A. Gutwirth, Ira Joel Haber, Harriett Hache, Rebecca Hackermann, Theresa Hackett, Patricia Haemmerle, Cristine Haft, Shauna Haider, Katy Hamer, Jane Hammond, Kelsey Hammond, Geugin Han, Marc Handleman, Linda Handler, John Hanning, Sandra Hanny Ahern, Erik Hanson, Jody Hanson, Lynn Hanson, Yvette Hao, Brent Haradas, Gwen Hardie, Millie Harper, Sherry Harradence, Patricia Harrigan, Christopher Harris, John Harris, Jan Harrison, David Greg Harth, Rose Hartman, Peter Harvey, Michael Harwood, Shari Hatt & L.M. MacMillan, Susan Hauser, Tom Hawkins, James A. Hawley, Kirsten Hawthorne, Joseph Hayes, Jodi Hays, Karen Heagle, Mary Heilmann, Emily Helck, Geoffrey Hendricks, Jon Hendricks, Jan Henle, Maxine Henryson, Ed Herman, Jeannette Hernandez, Arturo Herrera, Caroline C. Herrick, Matthias Herrmann, Elizabeth Hertweck, B. Heyboer, Laura Heyman, Kate Higgins, Amy Hill, Meredith Hilt, Julie Himel, Dahn Hiuni, An Hoang, Pamela Hochschartner Viola, Jim Hodges, Naomi C. Hoffman, Nick Holliday, Joseph O. Holmes, Brece Honeycutt, Shelia Horne, Jarrod Houghton, Sisavanh Houghton, Joanne Howard, Joel Hoyer, Mary Hrbacek, Andrea Huber, Linda Huff, Scott Hug, Laura Hughes, David Humphrey, Angela N. Hunt, Kyle Hunt, Brian Hutchison, Winifred Hwang, Pat Hydak, James Hyde, Nash Hyon, Phillip Ianchici, Jessica Iapino, Shigeno Ichimura, Ilian Ivanov AKA Rikka, Mikhail Iliatov, Lindsay Iliff, Asia Ingalls, Ketta Ioannidou, Lora Elizabeth Irwin, Carmen Isasi, Monique Isham, Junichiro Ishida, Stephani Isles, Michael Itkoff, Alfredo Jaar, Larry JaBell, Tim Jablonski, Sandra Jackman, Derek Jackson, Peter Jacobs, Merlin James, Lisa Marie Jankowski, Matthew Jankowski, James Jaxxa, Jim Jeffers, Bill Jensen, Diana Jenson, Tom Jezek, Amado Jimenez, Simen Johan, Kyle Johnsen, Carin Johnson, Courtney Johnson, Erick Johnson, Holly Johnson, Jack Johnson, Liz Johnson, Nikki Johnson, Timothy Johnson, Alexandra Johnston, Bill Jones, Darrell Jones, Mablen Jones, Mark Jones, Leeah Joo, Michael Joo, Nicole Jordan, MD, JORIAL, Jovani, Jeff Joyce, Roberto Juarez, Karen Jane Justice, Jonathan Kahle, Ellen Kahn, Jennifer Kakaletris, Amy Kao, Vicky Kao, Gareth Kaple, Rhea Karam, Cyrus Karimipour, Elaine Karton, Norman Kary, Nina Katchadourian, Betsy Kaufman, Jessica M. Kaufman, Pat Kaufman, Dionisios Kavvadias, Richard Kearns, John Carlos Keasler, Andrew Keating, Casey Kelbaugh, Marthe Keller, Leah Keller-Transburg, Millan Kelley, J. Lynn Kelly, Jamie Kelty, Doreen Kennedy, Michael “Misha” Kennedy, Doug Kent, Victor Marchand Kerlow, Jen Keshka, Mariya Khalt, Brian Khele, Kianne, Jen Kim, Kyung Kim, Yong Hee Kim, David King, Matt King, Polly King, Dave Kinsey, Susan Kirby, Lori Kirkbride, J.T. Kirkland, Barbara Klein, Charlotte Klein, Seymour Kleinberg, Michelle Kloehn, Lucretia Knapp, Barbara Knight, Frances Knight, Alison Knowles, Barbara Eden Kobrin Klein, Maya Koenig, Carol Kohn, Francine Kohn, Melissa Kojima, Thomas Koole, Jeff Koons, Sonya Korder, Fran Kornfeld, John Kotula, Jennifer Kozel, Joyce Kozloff, Dimitri Kozyrev, Aaron Krach, Helmut Krakie, Ellie Krakow, Josh Kramb, Peter Krebs, Fawn Krieger, Justyna Krygowska, Liliana Krynska, Xana Kudrjavcev-DeMilner, Melora Kuhn, Ida Kumoji, Louis Kunsch, Melissa Kuntz, Lauren Kurki, Sylvia Kwon, Eliot Lable, Jander F. Lacerda, Stephen Lack, Eliza Lamb, Emily Noelle Lambert, Jesse Lambert, Marc Landes, Jason Laning, Aldo Lanzini, Barbara Victoria Lapin, Yngvar Larsen, Jamie R. Lasden, Paul Laster, Mary Ellen Latas, Joan Laufer, Ayala Laufer-Cahana, Louis Laurita, Victoria Law, Louise Lawler, J.C. Lazarus, Abigail Lazkoz, Marjeta Lederman, Calvin Lee, Deanna C. Lee, Herenia Lee, Jennifer Lee, Jieun Zaun Lee, Jim Lee, Joyce Lee, Paul Lee, Sally O. Lee, Theresa Lee, Leeladhar, Jennifer Lehe, Roz Leibowitz, Catarina Leitao, Diane Leon, Charles Leonard, Marion Lerner-Levine, Miriam A. Leuchter, Sue-Yee Leung, Barbara E. Leven, Joe Levickas, Heather Levy, Joshua Dov Levy, Judith Levy, Martha Lewis, Ross Bennett Lewis, Cheng-Shu Li, Sophie Library, Vivian Liddell, Justin Lieberman, Edward Lightner, Glenn Ligon, Nicole Limperopulos, Clarence Lin, Ming Lin, Greg Lindquist, Richard Lindquist, Sharon Lindquist, Markus Linnenbrink, Stephen Lipman, Marcia Lippman, Lump Lipshitz, Jackie Lipton, Bruce Carl Lisanti, Penelope Lisk, Frank Liu, Mindy Liu, Rita Lombardi/Jon Petro, Daniel Long, Gaddiel Lopez, Emilee Lord, Hilary Lorenz, Whitfield Lovell, Lovett/Codagnone, Gina Lovoi, Joy Low, Heather Lowe, Leslie Lowe, Scott Lowenbaum, Michael Lownie, Rebecca Loyche, Barbara Lubliner, Monique Luchetti, Robert Ludwig, Cecilia Lueza, Pamela Lum, Lexie Lumiere, Brian Lund, Deborah Lutz, Annica Lydenberg, Lucinda Lynch, David R. Lyon, Giles Lyon, Noah Lyon, Diana Lyons, Thessia Machado, Ian Mack, Keith Maddy, Sanae Maeda, Matt Magee, Catherine Maguire, Cecilia Mahal, Charles Mahal, Matt Mahler, Mailarta, Alice Major, Elim Mak, Laura Makinen, Allison Malinsky, Suzanne Malitz, Barry Maloney, Patrick Maloney, David Mandel, Karyn Mannix, Ann Manolino, Mineko Marayama, Mitchell Marco, Karen Marie, Robert Markey, Norma Markley, China Marks, Shelley Marlow, Susan B. Marlowe, Rochelle Marmorek, Sandy Marostica, Beth Mart, Fernanda Martin, Trevor Martin, Sam Martineau, Charmaine Martinez, Max Carlos Martinez, Magdalena Martinez-Franco, Mah Moneer Masih-Tehrani, Christina Massey, Frank Mastropaolo, Joan Mastropaolo, Malorine Mathurin, Igor Mattio, Brielle Maxwell, Robert Adam Mayer, Katie Mayhew, Mayo, Susan Mayr, Bradi Mays, Stanley McBarnette, Melissa McCarthy, Stepana McClure, Dave McDermott, McDermott & McGough, David McDonnell, Tim McDonnell, Sean McDonough, Sarah McEneany, Florence Alfano Mcewin, Dominic McGill, Alison McGoran, Elaine McKay, Craig McKenzie, Anne Q. McKeown, John McLachlin, Brad McLean, Mark McLoughlin, Patrick McMullan, Jamie McPartland, Beverley McQuillan, Lisanne McTernan, Gerald Mead, Sandra Meadows, Sudana Medrano, Julie Mehretu, Stephen Meierding, Linda Meisenhelder, Neil Meitzler, Brad Melamed, Robert Melee, Reyes Melendez, Margery Mellman, Matthew Mendieta, James Merrell, Arnold Mesches, Mica, Gordon Micunis, Anthony Miler, Kerri Miles, Dana Miller, Judith S. Miller, Mireille Miller, Tracy Miller, Sarah Min, Marilyn Minter, Richard Mirabile, Ellen Miret, Marilyn Mitchell, Joseph Modica, Catherine Molland, Cheryl Molnar, Ali Moon, Nik Moore, Pat Moore Carroll, Paul Moran, Humberto Moreno, Jed Morfit, Amelia Morgan, Janet Morgan, Joshua Morgan, Michael C. Morgan, Andrea Morganstern, Lizeth Morocho, Kenneth Morrison, Lee Morrissey, Arezoo Moseni, Leslee Mounger, Carrie Moyer, Roger Mudre, Shayok Mukhopadhyay, Molly Mullahy, Mario M. Muller, Matt Mullican, Lynn Mullins, Carla Munsat, Naoki Muramatsu, Mary Catania Murphy, Rob Nadeau, Stefanie Nagorka, Kazuya Nakao, Phil Napala, James Nares, Yamini Nayar, John W.M. Neely, Sheila Neill, James Nelson, Kathleen Ney, Annysa Ng, SuGing Ngouv, Linda Nicholas, Linda Niemann, Martha Nilsson Edeheit, Millie Niss, Ellen Noone Flocco, Sarah Noreen, Nick Normal, Anne Novado Cappuccilli, Michelle Nugent, Jill O’Bryan and Joanna Frueeh, Robert O’Donnell, Robyn O’Neil, Leah Oates, Jane Ocylor, Mascha Oehlmann, Jeanine Oleson, Debra Olin, Steven Olivieri, Elizabeth S. Olsson, Christopher Olszewski, Ron Omlin, Dawline-Jane Oni-Eseleh, Joe Oppedisano, Sarah Oppenheimer, Nicki Orbach, Janelle Ortiz-Scolaro, Harold Osmer, Karen Ostrom, Alina Oswald, Yuko Otomo, Tom Otterness, Michael Ottersen, Joe Ovelman, Brook Overline, Kanaan P., Lindsay Packer, Carol Padberg, Warren Padula, Alexandra Paez-Quijano, Mervi Pakaste, Anne Paleudis, Jennifer Palmer, Sachin Pannuri, Cheryl Papasian, John Papasian, Sky Pape, Aegi Changsuk Park, Stephanie Park, Yoon Park, Evelina Parrini, Ritchie Patterson, Laura Paulini, Chelsea Paulson, Sunny Payson, Nylorac Peaj, Leanette Peles, Marc Pelletier, Leemour Pelli, Sheila Pepe, Osvaldo Perdomo, Linda Permann, Christopher Perry, Daniel Perry, Mark E. Perry, Oliver Person, Gilda Pervin, Kevin Peters, Elise Peterson, Susan Peterson, Alexander Petti, Barbara Petti, George Pfau, Daniel Phillips, Laura Sue Phillips, Richard Phillips, Tracy Phillips, Corina Pia, Doug Piccione, Claudia Piehler, Liana F. Piehler, Lee Alice Pierce, Jack Pierson, Pietrapiana, Karl Pilato, Kim Piotrowski, Philip Pirolo, Lola Planells, Catya Plate, Maria Politarhos, Tiffany Pollack, Heidi Pollard, Ben Polsky, Shanna Polyn, Nuno Pontes, I.C. Pool, JME Pool, Amy Jean Porter, Linda Porter, Chuck Potter, Pat Power, Alexandra Pratt, Hanrijs Preiss, Maggie Prendergast, Heidi Prenevost, Donna Pressman, Mel Prest, Candace Price, Sara Pringle, Jason Pritchard, Elisa Pritzker, Rick Prol, R. Prost, Michael Puckett, Elizabeth Puetz, Ernesto Pujol, Andrew Purchin, Stephen Pusey, Matthew Pych, Ronnie Queenan, Fred Quintiliani, Barbara Rachko, Carol Radsprecher, Marian Radu, Helaine Rainier, Christina Ramirez, Paul Henry Ramirez, Debra Ramsay, Nekenasoa Randresihaja, Jessica Rankin, Jenna Ransom, Meryl Ranzer, Ray Rapp, Kaylyn Raschke, Ramya Ravisankar, Jo Beth Ravitz, Karey Rawitscher, Valerie Razavi, Annelise E. Ream, Virginia Reath, Michal Rebibo, Al Red, Catherine Redmond, Mardee Reed, Jim Reich, Leon A. Reid IV, Ken Reker, Richard Renaldi, Paula Rennis, Jesse Reno, Judy Rey Wasserman, Reynolds, Eric Rhein, Lauren Kathleen Rice, Barbara Richards, Robert W. Richards, Carol Rickey, Francie Riddle, Sarah Riedel, Marie Rim, David Rios Ferreira, Maria Ivette Rivera, Sara R. Robb, Sam Robbins, Dale Roberts, Daniel H. Roberts, Marie Roberts, Suloni Robertson, Andrew Cornell Robinson, Dorothy Robinson, Jack Robinson, Steven Robinson, Debbie Rodenhauser, Abnel Rodriguez, Amber Roettger, Christine Rogers, Travis Rogers, Jorge Rojas, Natalya Rolbin, Viviane Rombaldi Seppey, Dan V. Romer, Aya Rosen, Kay Rosen, Ned Rosen, Jennie Rosenbaum, David G. Rosenberg, Barbara Rosenzweig, Jessica D. Rosner, Carol Ross, Robin Ross, Ryan Roth, Barbara Rothman, Lisette Rotman, Cody Rounds, Gail Rousseau, Christian Routh, Dirk Rowntree, Andrew Roy, Sandra Ruark, Nancy Rubens, Nell Ruby, Alena Rudolph, Stephanie Rudolph, Lee Ruelle, Alissa Rufino, Brian Ruger, Arlene Rush, Dan Rushton, Craig Russell, Robert Rust, Carol-Anne Ryce-Paul, Zachary Sala, Dean Sameshima, Terry Samilson, Nancy Sampson, John Sanchez, Joel Sanders, Hope Sandrow, Toni-Lee Sangastiano, Barbara Sansone, Carmine Santaniello, Jonathan Santlofer, Nelson Santos, Anthony Satori, Susan J. Sauerbrun, Richard Sawdon Smith, Joe Saxe, Jenn Scarola, Karen Schiff, Cecilia Schmidt, Gary Schneider, Aynsley Schopfer, Holli Schorno, Collier Schorr, Tom Schreiber, Dustin Schuetz, David Charles Schulze, Michaela Schumaci, Susan Schwalb, Molly Schwartz, Caroline Scott, Coleen Scott, Dread Scott, Jennifer Scott, Greg Seagrave, Analia Segal, Shulamit Seidler-Feller, Amy Seidule, Jackie Seles, Jonathan Seliger, Christina Serchia, Harriet Serenkin, Martha Sermier, Judy Servon, Emily Severance, Marcia Sewall, Defna Shalum, Irma Shapiro, Frank Sheehan, Mark Sheinkman, Ellen L. Shepard, Glen Shepard-Siple, Kelly Shepard-Siple, Susan Shepard-Siple, Kate Shepherd, Lela Shields, Beth Shipley, Ellen Shire, Peter O. Shire, Jon Shireman, Sarah Shirley, Ethan Shoshan, Joyce Siegel, Rebecca Siemering, Hrafnhildur Sigurdardottir, Artur Silva, Luis Silva, Tawnie Silva, Lauren Simkin Berke, Patricia Simko, Jimmie Mack Simmonds, Lauren E. Simon, Thomas Simon, Kelley Simons, Katherine D. Singh, Ellen Singletary, Emily Skaer, Ski, Ruth Sklut, Christopher Skura, Tom Slaughter, Jill Slaymaker, J. Sloman, Jill Slosburg-Ackerman, Benjamin Sluat, Sarah Small, Wendy Small, Allison Smith, Charlie Smith, Clare Smith, Clifford D. Smith, Jessica Smith, Kiki Smith, Lory Smith, Michael Smith, Eleni Smolen, Karen Smul, Lanya Snyder, Yasmine Soiffer, Thomas R. Somerville, Erik Sommer, Erika Somogyi, DeDe Sorensen, Christina A. Soriano, Mario Sostre, Teddy Spath Jr., Hilary Spector, Maria Spector, George Spencer, Tracey Sperling, Nancy Spero, Gary J. Speziale, Janice Spillane, Andrew Spina, Margot Spindelman, Janine Spittle Montoya, Enisa Srdanovic, Gail Staal, LCSW, Stacey Stambaugh, Kelly Starbuck, Craig Starger, Starr, Jiri Stavovcik, Rene Stawicki, K-Fai Steele, Barry Steely, Clint Steib, William Steiger, Laura Stein, Stanley Stellar, Joseph Stengel, Jeff Stevenson, John Michael Stevison, Karen Stiehl Osborn, Bruce Stiglich, Michael Still, Sam Still, Linda Stillman, George Stills, Ben Stock/Brainpower, Dani Strand, Lisa Studier, Bobbi Studstill, Go Sugimoto, Sabina Sule, Hiroshi Sunari, Sur Rodney (Sur), Rachel Sussman, Ferenc Suto, Philip Swan, William Swanson, Daniel Swartz, Liz Sweibel, Jane Swidzinski, Helen Sykes, Lauren Szwech, Barbara Takenaga, Dafna Tal, Sam Tan, Tattfoo Tan, William Tarnowski, Nuri Taub, Caroline Tavelli-Abar, Hana Mori Taylor, Morgan Taylor, Scotti Taylor, Steed Taylor, Don A. Tedesco, Ron Terner, Andre Terry, Ron Testa, Wendy Testu, James Thacker, Michael Thalassinos, Richard Thatcher, Elaine Theodoropoulos, Austin Thomas, Gwenn Thomas, Andrew Ti, Arno Tijnagel, Elizabeth Tillotson, Mary Ting, Zdravko Toic, Gozan Tomcic, Ava E. Tomlinson, Mette Tommerup, Nancy Tompkins, Anne Marie Torrez, George Towne, Breanne Trammell, Bill Travis, Miyuki Tsushima, Elton Tucker, Meg Tulloch, Chris Twomey, Rhonda Tymeson, Kyle Tyujillo, Penelope Umbrico, Alex Umen, Peter Urban, Irving Uribe (CATV), Chea Ryan Urioste, Mary A. Valverde, Diane Van Cort, Jeff Van Kleeck, Pamela Van Sant, Annina Van Sebroeck, Connie Van Winssen, Johana Van Wyk, Carlos Vanegas, Dan Vasseur, Mary Veale, Jesse Veasey, Lorrie Veasey, Tony Michael Vecchio, Alberto Velasco, Wilmer Velez, Michael Velliquettee, Daniel Venne, Venske & Spanle, Carlo Vialu, Carrie Villines, Marlene Vine, Rachel Vine, Jemina Vita, Anthony Viti, Conrad Vogel, Judith Vogt, Don Voisine, Nadya Volicer, Whitney Vosburgh, Robyn Voshardt and Sven Humphrey, Melanie Wadsworth, Nomi Waksberg, Robert Walden, Daniel R. Waldron, Athena Waligore, Joy Walker, Kara Walker, Emily Walley, Kristin Walsh, Shane Canyon Walsh, Katherine Walton-Myers, Lucia Warck-Meister, Tom Warren, Phoebe Washburn, Marcy Wasserman, Jack Waters, John Waters, Robert Waters, Judy Watt, Patrick Webb, Tenesh Webber, Joan Weber, Valerie Wedel, Laura Weed, William Wegman, Michael Weidrich, Heather Weikel, Elizabeth Weinberg, Louise Weinberg, Dan Weiner, Emily Weiner, Lawrence Weiner, Ejay Weiss, Barbara Weissberger, Taryn Wells, Carolyn Weltman, Michael Werner, Robert Wersan, Alisha Cecelia Wessler, Larry Westler, Frederick Weston, Kurt Weston, Dirk Westphal, Charmaine Wheatley, Stuart Wheeler, Ken Whitbeck, Bridget White, Eileen L. White, Jack White, Susanne E. White, Tom White, Mark Wiener, Meghan Wilbar, Christine Willcox, Dan Williams, Danie Williams, Diane Williams, Jennifer Williams, Jennifer Williams, Jim Williams, John Williams, Ross G. Williams, Shirley Williams, Todd Williams, James J. Williams III, J. Williamson, Corey J. Willis, Wendy Willis, Dean Wilson, Fred Wilson, June Wilson, Kate Wilson, Letha Wilson, Millie Wilson, Mikey Windy, Deborah Wing-Sproul, Albert Winn, Edie Winograde, Adela Winter, Gene Wisniewski, James Wodarek, Marcie Wolf-Hubbard, Espie Woods, C. J. Worlein, Jennifer Wroblenski, Tamara Wyndham, Noel Wynn, Rob Wynne, Cathy Wysocki, An Xiao, Junko Yamada, Riichi Yamaguchi, Lynne Yamamoto, Carrie Yamaoka, Frank Yamrus, Alessandro Balteo Yazbeck, Mie Yim, Yoichiro Yoda, Robert Yoder, Mika Yokobori, Tim Youd, Laurence Young, Laurie Young, Nicole Young, Jennifer Zakrzewski, John Zaso, Brian Zegeer, Jody Zellen, Yvonne Zhu, Dan Zinno, Anthony Zito, Kristin Zottoli

A Double Standard for the Other

2006-11-14T11:36:00.000-05:00

As the Democratic party celebrates its newfound majority of congressional power, let's hope they remember to hold accountable a regime that continues to place an overactive pursuit of national security before basic human rights:

US: Immigrants may be held indefinitely

Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees.

...

Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar, was arrested in 2001 while studying in the United States. He has been labeled an "enemy combatant," a designation that, under a law signed last month, strips foreigners of the right to challenge their detention in federal courts.

... Al-Marri represents the first detainee inside the United States to come under the new law. Aliens normally have the right to contest their imprisonment, such as when they are arrested on immigration violations or for other crimes.

"It's pretty stunning that any alien living in the United States can be denied this right," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney for Al-Marri. "It means any non-citizen, and there are millions of them, can be whisked off at night and be put in detention."

The new law says that enemy combatants will be tried before military commissions, not a civilian judge or jury, and establishes different rules of evidence in the cases. It also prohibits detainees from challenging their detention in civilian court.

...

In its short filing in the Al-Marri case, however, the Justice Department doesn't mention that Al-Marri is being held at a military prison in South Carolina — a fact that his attorneys say affords him the same rights as anyone else being held in the United States.

The Justice Department noted only that the new law applies to all enemy combatants "regardless of the location of the detention."

He Said He Signed it in Memory of the Victims of the Sept. 11 Attacks

2006-10-18T13:41:00.000-04:00

NY Times: Bush Signs New Rules to Prosecute Terror Suspects

AP: Bush terror bill signing a major victory

Blood On Our Tax-Paying Hands

2006-10-11T10:22:00.000-04:00

Washington Post (10/11/2006):

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.

It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group.

The surveyors said they found a steady increase in mortality since the invasion, with a steeper rise in the last year that appears to reflect a worsening of violence as reported by the U.S. military, the news media and civilian groups. In the year ending in June, the team calculated Iraq's mortality rate to be roughly four times what it was the year before the war.

Of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country.

The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. The findings are being published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet.

The same group in 2004 published an estimate of roughly 100,000 deaths in the first 18 months after the invasion. That figure was much higher than expected, and was controversial. The new study estimates that about 500,000 more Iraqis, both civilian and military, have died since then -- a finding likely to be equally controversial.

Both this and the earlier study are the only ones to estimate mortality in Iraq using scientific methods. The technique, called "cluster sampling," is used to estimate mortality in famines and after natural disasters.

While acknowledging that the estimate is large, the researchers believe it is sound for numerous reasons. The recent survey got the same estimate for immediate post-invasion deaths as the early survey, which gives the researchers confidence in the methods. The great majority of deaths were also substantiated by death certificates.

"We're very confident with the results," said Gilbert Burnham, a Johns Hopkins physician and epidemiologist.

A Defense Department spokesman did not comment directly on the estimate....

Associated Press (10/11/2006):

...Burnham said the estimate was much higher than others because it was derived from a house-to-house survey rather than approaches that depend on body counts or media reports.

A private group called Iraqi Body Count, for example, says it has recorded about 44,000 to 49,000 civilian Iraqi deaths. But it notes that those totals are based on media reports, which it says probably overlook "many if not most civilian casualties."

For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July.

The survey participants attributed about 31 percent of violent deaths to coalition forces.

Accurate death tolls have been difficult to obtain ever since the Iraq conflict began in March 2003. When top Iraqi political officials cite death numbers, they often refuse to say where the numbers came from.

The Health Ministry, which tallies civilian deaths, relies on reports from government hospitals and morgues. The Interior Ministry compiles its figures from police stations, while the Defense Ministry reports deaths only among army soldiers and insurgents killed in combat.

The United Nations keeps its own count, based largely on reports from the Baghdad morgue and the Health Ministry.

Follow the ... Amish? Christians as Platonists

2006-10-06T09:27:00.000-04:00

Perhaps this is akin to what Plato had in mind in The Republic, when he laid out his concept of non-injury as a physician-like act of healing, rather than the more typically American reaction of vengeful retribution towards perceived enemies.

NY Times (10/4/2006):

... They are pacifists, and some spoke of the need to forgive the killer.
In one sign of their approach to tragedy, Amish residents started a charity fund yesterday not only to help the victims’ families but also to help the gunman’s widow.
“This is imitation of Christ at its most naked,” Mr. Shachtman said. “If anybody is going to turn the other cheek in our society, it’s going to be the Amish.”
He continued, “I don’t want to denigrate anybody else who says they’re imitating Christ, but the Amish walk the walk as much as they talk the talk.”
The Amish surmount hardship through mutual aid. When a barn burns, they do not call the insurance company. They have a barn raising, said Kimberly D. Schmidt, associate professor of history at Eastern Mennonite University, in Harrisonburg, Va., who has studied Amish women.
“For the families who lost children, there will be a tremendous community outpouring of love and support,” Ms. Schmidt said. “They will not suffer alone in their grief at all. People will bring in meals for weeks. As devastating as this is, there’s so much strength they can draw from their community” ...

America Is Dead

2006-09-29T08:36:00.000-04:00

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109^th Congress - 2^nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 3930 As Amended )
Vote Number:	259	Vote Date:	September 28, 2006, 06:37 PM
Required For Majority:	1/2	Vote Result:	Bill Passed
Measure Number:	S. 3930
Measure Title:	A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts:	YEAs	65
	NAYs	34
	Not Voting	1

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea

Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea

McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Not Voting
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---65
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Burr (R-NC) Carper (D-DE) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) DeWine (R-OH) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM)	Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (D-SD) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Lieberman (D-CT) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Menendez (D-NJ)	Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Specter (R-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---34
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Conrad (D-ND) Dayton (D-MN)	Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Leahy (D-VT)	Levin (D-MI) Lincoln (D-AR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 1
Snowe (R-ME)

Grouped by Home State

Alabama:	Sessions (R-AL), Yea	Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska:	Murkowski (R-AK), Yea	Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona:	Kyl (R-AZ), Yea	McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas:	Lincoln (D-AR), Nay	Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California:	Boxer (D-CA), Nay	Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado:	Allard (R-CO), Yea	Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut:	Dodd (D-CT), Nay	Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware:	Biden (D-DE), Nay	Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida:	Martinez (R-FL), Yea	Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia:	Chambliss (R-GA), Yea	Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii:	Akaka (D-HI), Nay	Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho:	Craig (R-ID), Yea	Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois:	Durbin (D-IL), Nay	Obama (D-IL), Nay
Indiana:	Bayh (D-IN), Nay	Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa:	Grassley (R-IA), Yea	Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas:	Brownback (R-KS), Yea	Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky:	Bunning (R-KY), Yea	McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana:	Landrieu (D-LA), Yea	Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine:	Collins (R-ME), Yea	Snowe (R-ME), Not Voting
Maryland:	Mikulski (D-MD), Nay	Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts:	Kennedy (D-MA), Nay	Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan:	Levin (D-MI), Nay	Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota:	Coleman (R-MN), Yea	Dayton (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi:	Cochran (R-MS), Yea	Lott (R-MS), Yea
Missouri:	Bond (R-MO), Yea	Talent (R-MO), Yea
Montana:	Baucus (D-MT), Nay	Burns (R-MT), Yea
Nebraska:	Hagel (R-NE), Yea	Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada:	Ensign (R-NV), Yea	Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire:	Gregg (R-NH), Yea	Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey:	Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea	Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico:	Bingaman (D-NM), Nay	Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York:	Clinton (D-NY), Nay	Schumer (D-NY), Nay
North Carolina:	Burr (R-NC), Yea	Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota:	Conrad (D-ND), Nay	Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio:	DeWine (R-OH), Yea	Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma:	Coburn (R-OK), Yea	Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon:	Smith (R-OR), Yea	Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania:	Santorum (R-PA), Yea	Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island:	Chafee (R-RI), Nay	Reed (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina:	DeMint (R-SC), Yea	Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota:	Johnson (D-SD), Yea	Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee:	Alexander (R-TN), Yea	Frist (R-TN), Yea
Texas:	Cornyn (R-TX), Yea	Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah:	Bennett (R-UT), Yea	Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont:	Jeffords (I-VT), Nay	Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Virginia:	Allen (R-VA), Yea	Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington:	Cantwell (D-WA), Nay	Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia:	Byrd (D-WV), Nay	Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin:	Feingold (D-WI), Nay	Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming:	Enzi (R-WY), Yea	Thomas (R-WY), Yea

2006-09-15T14:59:00.000-04:00

To do (NYC, Sunday, 9/17):

Number the Dead

The Season of Desire

2006-09-15T11:46:00.000-04:00

As the desire factory swings back into full motion with the beginning of the fall art season, I'm reminded of the following:

When there is no desire,
all things are at peace.

--Lao-tzu, Tao Te Ching, trans. Stephen Mitchell

(image from Luhringaugustine.com; Albert Oehlen, (durch die) rose Brille, 2006)

As at Something Unanticipated

2006-08-11T13:48:00.000-04:00

Bush seeks political gains from foiled plot

AFP (8/11/2006) CRAWFORD, United States (AFP) - US
President George W. Bush seized on a foiled London airline bomb plot to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Weighed down by the unpopular war in Iraq, Bush and his aides have tried to shift the national political debate from that conflict to the broader and more popular global war on terrorism ahead of November 7 congressional elections....

Not really much of a shocker here -- he's just protecting his powers as Head of State by reinforcing the people-approved legitimation for his role as Defender in Chief.

It's all part of the social contract, isn't it? We pay taxes and follow the rules, and He keeps us safe. Nevermind that the State's actions are often responsible for creating the enemies that we so desperately seek protection from. Isn't it funny how the allegations of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, while initially false, are becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Who Says Hactivism is Dead?

2006-08-08T13:52:00.000-04:00

Lieberman campaign site, e-mail hacked:
Senator's office accuses 'political opponents' for the cyberattack

MSNBC
Updated: 1:28 p.m. ET Aug. 8, 2006

On the day of perhaps the toughest political battle of his life, Sen. Joe Lieberman finds himself fighting a challenge in an unexpected battlefield — cyberspace.

The Lieberman campaign says its Joe2006.org Web site has been down for almost 24 hours and the campaign has been unable to send e-mail messages from that domain....

UPDATE: Turns out, maybe the hacking allegations are a media spin by the Leiberman bunch to play the victim card in case he loses:

(from Daily Kos) CT-Sen: Why Lieberman's site is down
by kos
Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 12:38:27 PM PDT

Two posts down it's clear that Lieberman's website isn't suffering from a Denial of Service attack.

But now I have the definitive answer as to why Lieberman's site went down.

They are paying $15/month for hosting at a place called MyHostCamp, with a bandwidth limit of 10GB. MyHostCamp is currently down, along with all their clients.

Here's the deal -- you get what you pay for. My hosting bill is now over $7K per month. A smaller site doesn't need that much bandwidth, but if you're paying $15 because your $12 million campaign is too freakin' cheap to pay for quality hosting, then don't go blaming your opponent when your shitty service goes out.

For their part, the Lamont campaign has offered its technical expertise to get Lieberman's site back up (which could be done in an hour by a competent sysadmin), and has added a link to the googlecached version of Lieberman's site at the top of their blog.

One side is acting mature, the other is running around making baseless accusations.

Mark LeVine: Resurrect the Peace Ship

2006-08-07T10:35:00.000-04:00

From Mark LeVine's blog (professor of modern Middle Eastern history, culture, and Islamic studies at the University of California, Irvine, and author):

Resurrect the Peace Ship!

People keep asking me what we can do to stop the war in Lebanon and Palestine/Israel without taking "sides" and supporting the violence in some way. Here's my humble idea:

An international call for a peace ship to break the Israeli blockade and bring relief supplies to civilians in Lebanon, Israel and Gaza

In 1973, the Israeli peace activist Abie Nathan sailed from New York to the international waters of the Israeli coast, with an international crew, and for twenty years broadcast as a "pirate" radio station featuring music, news and commentary that Israelis and their neighbors weren't being exposed to through official media outlets. He did this in order to challenge the militaristic mentality of Israeli society and the oppression of its neighbors. John Lennon and Yoko Ono, and numerous well known newspeople supported the endeavor, which continued until 1993, when blinded by the signing of the Oslo Accords in Washington and running out of money, Nathan had the ship sunk in international waters. He hoped his work was done.

Now that Oslo has been revealed to have been an empty dream, and Israel has re-invaded Lebanon, it is time to resurrect the Peace Ship, but in a much more proactive form.

We are calling for progressives world wide, particularly public figures who whose presence would provide both media coverage and security from Israeli attack, to come together, charter a ship filled with medical and other relief supplies, and sail from Cyprus or another coast close to Lebanon, either alone or with accompanying ships, into the Beirut Harbor, thereby breaking the Israeli blockade. We will use the time on the ship to educate ourselves and the world community through broadcasts via the web and the media on board, about the history of the region and its contemporary dynamics, bring in leading artists and newspeople to perform and discuss events, do trainings in non-violent resistance led by the Christian Peacemaker Teams, Ruckus Society, Code Pink, Non-violent Peace Force and other groups with experience doing this kind of work, and otherwise prepare the ground work for a "peace invasion" that would mark the entrance of a new and powerful force into this war in the same way that the "D-Day" invasion changed the course of World War Two.

We will then to to Haifa Harbour to bring supplies to Israeli civilians--Jews and Palestinians--affected by the war, and finally break the blockade of Gaza Port and bring aid and solidarity to the million plus Palestinians imprisoned there.

If anyone would like to support this endeavor, please contact me at mlevine@uci.edu.

Also, be sure to check out Mark's thoughtful and knowledgable entries at the academic smackdown blog: Posts from a War, Perspectives on Israel, Gaza and Lebanon.

Electronic Lebanon: Emily Jacir and her Students

2006-08-04T14:29:00.000-04:00

From Electronic Lebanon:

Ali La Pointe and Zena's words on the New York streets
(Emily Jacir, Live from Lebanon, 28 July 2006)

...in the afternoon I was asked to give the students an assignment that they could do in two hours. I decided to print emails from my inbox from the last two weeks. I also printed out the article about the Americans rushing bombs to Israel [NY Times: U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis] and spoke about the absurdity of the question Americans ask about wether to get involved or not when they are 100 percent involved! I gave each student a different email, and a copy of the article, and told them to go out into the streets and do something in the public sphere based on their interaction, (or reaction) or whatever with the emails.

I wanted to share a few of the projects with you of the students who got Zena's emails. [visit her blog, Beirut Update]

Jennifer was struck by Zena's description of her dog. Jennifer also had noticed how people in the Chelsea district all have dogs and LOVE their dogs so she subverted "lost dog" posters. She made a bunch of posters and underneath the dog she put Zena's description of her dog and how dogs can't be evacuated -- on another poster was the description Zena gave us about her friend's dog. I think I loved this so much because it reminded me of what we used to say in Palestine whenever we were attacked by Israel: "I wish we were animals, then at least the animal rights activists would do something to help us!" The contact number on Jennifer's lost dog posters was to a site that is taking donations to help Lebanese civilians that Zena wrote about in her email.

Lauren Macdonald took excerpts from Zena's email and wrote them all over Chelsea, for example, "Last night was probably the most frightful night of my entire life - Zena", and then she wrote the blogspot address.

Another girl re-wrote Zena's email over and over and over on white lined paper and then folded each one up and "accidentely" dropped them on the street. She did change the words on the first page; every time Zena said "Beirut" she changed it to "you" so that it would sound even more like a love letter. But on the second page it said "Beirut" and had the blogspot address. Capitalizing on peoples' curiosity and nosiness on finding such a private letter in public on the street, she subverted love letters to suck people in.

Elena walked around reading her email out loud in a pitch reminiscent of hysteria but with control, intensity and force. I actually can't describe how strong and powerful it was, how completely focused she was. Even while an African-American fellow was yelling about how he hoped more bombs would drop, and that he loved Christian Zionists, etc., she just kept it up. She was unrelenting.....

(read the entire article here)

Emily Jacir is a Palestinian-born, internationally acclaimed artist.

[top photo: (Zena's words written on a wall in New York by Lauren Macdonald) by Emily Jacir]

Um ... Just Kidding, But Not About This:

2006-08-04T11:24:00.000-04:00

I mean, I'm as happy about warmonger Leiberman's imminent demise as the next sane person, but does anyone really believe that any member of Congress would be willing to lay their physical life on the line for Bush's militarism?

I find it a deeply offensive comparison to equate Leiberman's political 'life' with the real flesh and blood lives being lost in Iraq. Especially considering that one of my dear cousins is on his way there.

2006-08-02T08:00:00.000-04:00

The End.

This blog is finished, but I shall not leave thine prying eyes fodderless. I have refocused my efforts elsewhere, among other things:

daily reMedia

For those interested, I plan on (eventually) updating the Reveille Project with information relating to my activities. In the meantime, I can always be reached at jason (dot) laning @ gmail (dot) com. Thanks for reading and I'll see you on the fringes.

Meanwhile, 600 Civilian Deaths Later ...

2006-07-28T12:59:00.000-04:00

Associated Press: WASHINGTON (7/28/06) - President Bush said Friday that he and British Prime Minister Tony Blair agree that a multinational force must be dispatched

quickly

to the Mideast fighting, and said they will work for a U.N. resolution to support it. Bush said any resolution should provide "a framework for the cessation of hostilities on an

urgent

basis and mandating the multinational force."

...our aim is to turn it into a moment of opportunity...

2006-07-24T16:12:00.000-04:00

from Moiz Syed (as of 7/24):

Smoke Rises from (place) After an (aggressor) Air Strike

2006-07-19T11:26:00.000-04:00

Some of the best posts I've read about the recent tragic surge in American-sanctioned violence:

(from James Wagner):

...Sometimes it seems that not a single American politician might be found who would even begin to question conventional wisdom when the subject is Israel. And am I the only one in the country whose Jewish friends are able to talk rationally about Israel's past - and future? For the sake of all Israelis, for our own sake, for that of the entire Middle East, and for the planet's survival, I certainly hope not.... (read the entire post here)

(from Jeffrey Feldman):

The three questions not being asked by Big Media ... :

Where have we seen a bombing campaign like this before?
Isn't this Israeli campaign against Lebanon exactly like the American campaign against Iraq?
Is the Israeli attack of Lebanon in fact an American military operation, albeit carried out by the Israelis? Are we seeing the War On Terror by proxy?

And the answers to the three questions not being asked by Big Media:

Iraq
Yes
Judging from what the White House is saying: Yes

read the entire post here)

(and some optimism from Jim Johnson [quoting Amos Oz)):

"The Israeli-Palestinian clash is essentially . . . not an internal but an international conflict. Which is fortunate as international conflicts are easier to resolve than internal ones - religious wars, class wars, value wars. I said easier, I did not say easy. Essentially the battle between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs is not a religious war, although fanatics on both sides are trying very hard to turn it into one. It is essentially a territorial conflict over the painful question "Whose land?" It is a painful conflict between right and right, between two very convincing claims over the same small country. Not a religious war, not a war of cultures, not a disagreement between two traditions, but simply a real-estate dispute over whose house this is. And I believe that this can be resolved." (read the entire post here)

Felix Gonzalez-Torres and the Politics of Subversion

2006-07-12T13:18:00.000-04:00

Way back in April, Tyler reported on the curious selection (approved by the U.S. State Department) of Felix Gonzalez-Torres to represent the U.S. in its pavilion at the 2007 Venice Biennale. The choice garnered some attention not only because G-T has been dead for a decade, but also because his politics (and status as a gay man who died of AIDS) would seem to be in direct contradiction to the aims of our current right-wing administration that has become notorious for silencing dissent.

Over the past weekend, a new blog calling itself Eye-Drops offered, as its initial post, an excellent contemplation on the apparent antagonism of G-T's selection. She writes:

... it does seem disingenuous to believe that the State Dept's advisory panel really selected Gonzalez-Torres because his work "has become increasingly relevant in our current social and political climate" and "seems prescient at this historical juncture." Nancy Spector, the Guggenheim curator who proposed Gonzalez-Torres for the Biennale ... states that, anyway, Gonzalez-Torres' work "doesn't read politically unless you choose to see it that way."

Really? Well, even if that is the case, certainly the State Department must see it that way, as they surely must evaluate every proposal for every international biennial through the lens of international political posturing. Surely, if anyone would agree with Gonzalez-Torres' assertion of the inherently political nature of art, it would be a governmental entity charged with selecting art for the purpose of representing the state abroad. So what motivated the selection of this particular artist, at this particular historical juncture? Is it an attempt to put a benevolent face on the beleaguered U.S. image? In his work, Gonzalez-Torres expressed criticism toward U.S. policies both foreign and domestic; is his selection merely the state's way of trying to dilute the current global criticism by showing it can level it back at itself first? ...

So there is concern that this selection is a gimmick, a ploy by the administration that might actually end up diluting the power of Gonzalez-Torres' work. But somehow, it seems like none of this will matter in the end. Because the fact is, regardless of whatever political mechanisms brought this selection into being, the beauty and the power of this work comes from its fluidity, and its ability to bring about unpredictable interpersonal connections ... This is quiet, meditative work that slowly opens itself up through the conversations and exchanges that it facilitates, and the messages of generosity, egalitarianism, and poignancy that it embodies are not going to be easily co-opted by the institution because they are fundamentally anti-institutional. If the small interactions that Gonzalez-Torres loved recounting after previous exhibitions occur this time -- and they have to, because that is what the work necessarily produces -- then his work will continue its quiet subversion regardless of the administration's agenda.

Perhaps art doesn't read politically unless you "choose to see it that way," but the key word there is "read," which implies that the political dimension of art has to be spelled out, summarized, and overtly communicated in order for it to exist. But if all art is inherently political, then the choice of "seeing it that way" or not is a false one: the work just is that way, and the "choice" of whether or not to recognize this does not prevent the work from fulfilling whatever political purpose it has. Gonzalez-Torres was never interested in didactic, in-your-face political statements; for him, it was the subversive power of the work, its ability to create a transformative moment from within, that mattered most. Some have suggested that Gonzalez-Torres might have been unhappy to be "representing" this administration at Venice, but it seems to me that he would be pleased: as an artist, he wanted to be a "spy," infiltrating the institutions-that-be and allowing the work to have an effect from the inside out.

This raises a number of important questions about what it means to make art that is intended to engage politically, and the possibilities for art to create change within society. I agree with E-D and G-T that all art is inherently political (with the vast majority being reactionary). But how it is so is another matter entirely.

One thing is nearly certain: G-T's work is not seen as posing a political threat to the U.S. State Department. This administration is far too thorough and ruthless to allow something they view as politically damaging to slip out when it could be so easily curbed. So the question becomes: is the State Dept. wrong -- is G-T's art so subversive that the State Dept. is unable to see its danger? Or, are they right -- is G-T harmless, or even beneficial, to the right's propaganda machine?

I'm not going to say either way, I really don't know. But, for all of G-T's opposition to "the plethora of straightforward, moralizing works of art with their angry-young-man messages," could anyone imagine the State Dept. endorsing the work of someone like Hans Haacke? Of course not, they'd be scared shitless. Perhaps that's G-T's point though: work like Haacke's is easily identified as oppositional to the administration and thus easier to weed out -- that is, in the instances where they have the ability to do so.

Yet, while I find intriguing G-T's call for a subversive political art, I worry that the popular criticism of so-called didactic work is nothing more than censorship in disguise. The word "didactic" generally carries a negative connotation in art world circles, and that it does so reminds me of the "framing" techniques discussed in my previous post. What's wrong with learning, after all? Is art not allowed to teach? And, if so, why?

One reason would be that didacticism, or work carrying moralistic or even idealistic content, makes art objects more difficult to assimilate into aesthetic status symbols for the power players of the art world. Content that instructs, or contains information that would threaten the status quo, is unacceptable to those who fear change in the structure of the art system.

For me, the real problem is not didacticism in art (since all art is probably both political and didactic anyway), but the method often employed in making grand moralistic statements: Brow-Beating. We recognize our necessity to learn in order to advance, but no one wants to have a morality shoved down one's throat (even though it could be argued that such desperate measures may be necessary in times of extreme oppression).

Instead, I'd like to make an appeal for persuasion. After all, G-T's goal of intelligent and undercover subversion is not really an alternative to didacticism, it's a method. He was just as interested in influencing the viewer's morality as Haacke, only he wanted the teaching to occur without the awareness of the 'student.' G-T's effectiveness in doing so remains to be seen, but there's some truth in Spector's comment that G-Ts' work "doesn't read politically unless you choose to see it that way."

Persuasion, on the other hand, retains a respect for the intelligence and morality of the recipient (or viewer) without attempting to undercut it through deception. Isn't this what we want in a democratic, egalitarian society? Once the desire to persuade others towards a more desirable morality (i.e., Freedom to Marry is Good!) through visual communication is accepted, how are we going to do so?

Suddenly satire, criticism, and subversion don't seem so appealing if we are aimed at winning supporters instead of defeating enemies.

re-"Framing" Political Language

2006-07-07T13:14:00.000-04:00

UC Berkely linguistics professor George Lakoff appeared on WNYC's Leonard Lopate show this afternoon to discuss the concepts behind his new book, "Whose Freedom? The Battle Over America's Most Important Idea." In short, Lakoff is known for his linguistic philosophy that explores the importance of rhetorical metaphors in shaping, or framing the discourse of politics -- and that, to be blunt, conservatives have become experts at this in the last 30 years or so, explaining their dominance in the polls (and in shaping our American culture). Learn more about Lakoff here. The progressive think tank he created is here.

Below are some of his excellent ideas, as articulated in excerpts from a 2003 interview with Berkley News:

Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.

If you then add the word "voter" in front of "revolt," you get a metaphorical meaning saying that the voters are the oppressed people, the governor is the oppressive ruler, that they have ousted him and this is a good thing and all things are good now. All of that comes up when you see a headline like "voter revolt" — something that most people read and never notice. But these things can be affected by reporters and very often, by the campaign people themselves.

Here's another example of how powerful framing is. In Arnold Schwarzenegger's acceptance speech, he said, "When the people win, politics as usual loses." What's that about? Well, he knows that he's going to face a Democratic legislature, so what he has done is frame himself and also Republican politicians as the people, while framing Democratic politicians as politics as usual — in advance. The Democratic legislators won't know what hit them. They're automatically framed as enemies of the people.

....

Or take gay marriage, which the right has made a rallying topic. Surveys have been done that say Americans are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Well, the same surveys show that they also overwhelmingly object to discrimination against gays. These seem to be opposite facts, but they're not. "Marriage" is about sex. When you say "gay marriage," it becomes about gay sex, and approving of gay marriage becomes implicitly about approving of gay sex. And while a lot of Americans don't approve of gay sex, that doesn't mean they want to discriminate against gay people. Perfectly rational position. Framed in that way, the issue of gay marriage will get a lot of negative reaction. But what if you make the issue "freedom to marry," or even better, "the right to marry"? That's a whole different story. Very few people would say they did not support the right to marry who you choose. But the polls don't ask that question, because the right wing has framed that issue."

Read the whole interview here, and check back later for the archived version to appear (if you missed it) from his interview today with Leonard Lopate.

For an Art Against the Mythology of Everyday Life

2006-07-05T13:15:00.001-04:00

A few recent art blog postings have appeared regarding the value of artists' statements (T.G.'s comment that "written artists' statements are a total waste of time" here, which led to AFC's rebuttal here and then this).

It's not surprising that some would call for an end to artists' statements, since so many of them are incredibly painful to read. Many artists are not prepared to cogently discuss the ideas behind their work in written form, or worse, there may be little, if any, ideas behind the work to be elucidated. This includes most artwork created under the guise of subjective individual expression, where the search for so-called "creative autonomy" is focused on transcending an everyday language in pursuit of pictorial mystery.

The viewing pleasures sought in this dominant mode of pictorial mystery -- where the viewer bears the primary responsibility in determining content, and cognitive confusion is rewarded as new, fresh, or avant-guard -- is disrupted by a literally written, understandable description or explanation. Thus, one possible reason for the aversion towards artists' statements emerges.

And yet, for those of us who find art capable of more than subjective individual expression, or the pursuit of creative autonomy, or a hedonsitic visual pleasure -- if art is capable of contributing to non-art discussions relating to lived experience -- then well-written text from artists can only contribute to this aim.

From one of my favorites*:

... A character who speaks in contradictions or who fails to manage the socially necessary sequence of behaviors can eloquently index the unresolvable social contradictions – starvation in the midst of plenty, gourmetism as a form of imperialism, rampant inflation and impoverishment alongside bounding corporate profits – that underline ideological confusion, and make them stand out clearly.

... I try to make my work accessible to as many people outside the art audience as I can effectively reach. Cultural products can never bring about substantive changes in society, yet they are indispensable to any movement that is working to bring about such changes. The clarification of vision is a first step toward reasonably and humanely changing the world.

-------------------------
From Martha Rosler's essay For an Art Against the Mythology of Everyday Life, which can be found in the collection of her essays: Decoys and Disruptions, Selected Writings, 1975-2001.

Happy Flag Day???

2006-06-27T21:15:00.000-04:00

As a reactionary 4th of July gift of patriotism for all of America, the Senate again tried to pass an amendment to ban the burning of our national flag. Luckily they fell ONE vote short of the required two-thirds majority. Here's the list of the 14 Democrats who facilitated the close call. Each of them voted in approval of the ban:

Baucus (Montana)

Bayh (Indiana)

Dayton (Minnesota)

Feinstein (California)

Johnson (South Dakota)

Landrieu (Louisiana)

Lincoln (Arizona)

Menendez (New Jersey)

Nelson (Florida)

Nelson (Nebraska)

*Reid (Nevada)

Rockefeller (West Virginia)

Salazar (Colorado)

Stabenow (Michigan)

------------------------------------------
(* Our Senate Minority Leader)

From the Mailbox: A Response to Karen Spears Zacharias

2006-06-26T12:39:00.000-04:00

I recently received an email copy of the following letter sent by Robert Hullot-Kentor (a writer and translator of Adorno) to the editor of the New York Times. It is in response to an Op-Ed piece (TimeSelect required, or view a re-blogged version here) by Karen Spears Zacharias, in which she offers her enthusiastic support for a new law, signed by President Bush, that bans protests near national cemeteries during funerals. The fine for violation is as much as $100,000 and a year in prison.

Since Hullot-Kentor's excellent letter has not, to my knowledge, been published by the Times, I'd like to offer it as a source for discussion here:

-------------------------------------------

June 12, 2006

Robert Hullot-Kentor

Another Cemetery

To the Editor:

Knowing her loss, whose heart does not go out to Karen Spears Zacharias (June 12*)? But in her criticism of demonstrators at the funerals of soldiers who have died in Iraq, she misunderstands what a cemetery is. Those markers, stelae and pillars are not there to honor death; they are raised in protest against it. In the sparsely chiseled words and dates each gravestone says: too brief, too soon, and—in the language of another age—alas. We engrave these words on granite or marble not to settle our heaviest seal on the already mute, but to give the dead what voice they can be sure of. The bowed silence of the graveyard is not itself a value. It is in order to perceive as best we can what keeps flickering out in the listening and the thinking. This is why, at the grave sites of soldiers who have died in Iraq, and of those who will presumably continue to die there in a war that has been perpetrated by fraud on one nation and wreaked with unthinkable vengeance and catastrophe on another, the only allies these soldiers will ever have, besides their gravestones, are not those presidential decrees that forbid photographs of body bags as they come off the jet transports and not the new law that prohibits signs held aloft in outrage at life meaninglessly stolen, but those individuals and families who have the courage to protest what did not need to happen, and what should not continue.

-------------------------------------------
(* Karen Spears Zacharias, “A Time and a Place,” New York Times, Monday, June 12, 2006, p. A17.)

2006-06-19T14:15:00.000-04:00

Better get used to news-report paragraphs like these:

"Justice Antonin Scalia announced the judgment of the court, and wrote an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote an opinion concurring in the overall judgment but not with all aspects of Justice Scalia's finding."

That is, until one of the other four retires, and Bush can replace Kennedy's swing vote with a solid majority for the right.

ARTFORUM Mad Libs: Fun with War

2006-06-16T08:01:00.000-04:00

Finally, a meaningful entry from Artforum's Diary:

I don't know if you're superstitious when it comes to the war in Iraq, but if the first art-worlder I spot is a creep, I take it as a bad omen. The site of Ann Temkin, fielding a couple last-minute gun shots as she inched her way along the clogged line to the terrorist check-in desk, was, by this admittedly unscientific criterion, a decided relief. The MoMA curator confessed to being a bit anti-war for all sorts of good reasons, the least of which were a grueling imbedded-reporter schedule and a twenty-five-year Harvard war from which she was just returning. Dead soldiers must have accounted for the contrarian edge with which she greeted the perfectly amiable airport banter of Amy Cappellazzo, Christie's International Co-Head of Post-War and Contemporary War, as we converged at the gate. I enjoyed this early Jarhead moment, as Capellazzo discreetly steeled herself for a week of cafeteria Darwinism—then exacted deadly revenge as she boarded ahead of us with the front-of-the-plane Muslims.

Speaking of cafeteria Darwinism (or perhaps café Darwinism, given the raging international conflict), the fair's most glittery Iraqis were, to everyone's surprise, bloody. I mean, it looked seated—set tables, flowers, restrained guest list—but there were no members of Al Qaeda. The evening's co-host, MoMA director Glenn Lowry bellowed "War is Bad!" through the Schaulager's cavernous halls—better than superpowers! Hopping to, I entered the battlefield too early with the always-affable Baroness Lambert at my side. She panicked first: "No flag waving?! I like to be taken care of and will sit next to anyone I'm told to—except Condoleezza Rice." Hmmm. Her sentiments were quickly seconded and thirded. Not about Zwirner, the maverick New York dealer whose artist Francis Alÿs was being fêted along with Al Franken, but rather about the war in Afghanistan. The only one who seemed to approve was Marc Glimcher of the Pace gallery battalion, who confessed, with an endearingly self-deprecating shrug, that he would be endorsing President Bush anyway.

I shot David Weiss (of Fischli & Weiss) and super-collector and MoMA light Kathy Fuld as co-conspirators. In Fuld's case, the "super" before collector means greedy as opposed to just lots, and Weiss, a Shiite, is a disarmingly original thinker and talker about weapons—not only his own but generally. Someone once said that if Kurds didn't exist Lynne Cooke would have had to invent them, a remark that is unfair to both the artist and the curator—and I cite only to admit that I may have protested whatever Sunni is buried in the desert. I have not given Dean's battle plan the attention it deserves, but after half an hour of Weiss's sniper activity I vowed to use this Basel visit as an occasion to take on civilian casualties. Weiss, to give you the flavor, says things like: "It is very, very difficult to make war that has no irony." Then he pauses and adds: "It may also be very fun." He was not, by then, speaking of Howard Dean. As it happened, he was worrying, like an old-fashioned Greenbergian, about the perils of activism. Of course, F & W's work is not political, and, indeed, for an artist for whom the tourist snapshot constitutes ground zero, his concern constitutes an ideological agenda worth dying for.

Everyone said their goodnights with many jokes about Americans and their earlier wars, as the likes of Andreas Gursky, Klaus Biesenbach, Fischli, Weiss, Ruf, Bürgi and who knows who else headed for the battlefield and a nightcap or a dozen. I doubled back to say a quick goodbye to Temkin (in a good war now), and my war turned to our inaugural war run-in—and an opportunity for literary war. Cappellazzo, sporting a country war and (like both of us) in an ambivalent mood at take-off time, was bemoaning the war she would miss at her weekend place back home on account of the war. Despite the glamorous repast, great art, and good war, on day two her war was ringing in my ears. She's right: If your war is war and your duty war, you're basically war.

Better Hide the Stash

2006-06-15T12:02:00.000-04:00

I don't mean to be an alarmist, but you can probably expect many more SCOTUS decisions like this one, as our new conservative court will be with us for a while:

By GINA HOLLAND (today, from Yahoo! News)

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices.

The 5-4 ruling signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.

The case tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches....

The outcome might have been different if O'Connor were still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor of Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998.

O'Connor had worried aloud that officers around the country might start bursting into homes to execute search warrants. She asked: "Is there no policy of protecting the home owner a little bit and the sanctity of the home from this immediate entry?"

She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so that Justice Samuel Alito could participate in deliberations. Alito and Bush's other Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, both supported Scalia's opinion....

The Rembrandt of the Back Nine?

2006-06-15T10:31:00.000-04:00

I mean, I love idealized paintings of golf courses as much as the next wealthy bastard, but what the FUCK is this all about? Should we be surprised, or is this simply 'par for the course'? Ha ... sorry.

In other news, I've been perusing back issues of October (and feeling like a nerd for it) and stumbled upon a gem of a letter from Liam Gillick in response to Claire Bishop's essay "Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics" (October 110 [Fall 2004], pp. 51-79; Gillick's letter [Oct. 115, pp. 95-106] can be found here, but probably requires a subscription). The future of relational art as an effectively politicized mode of artmaking is a timely topic (and I'm not taking sides here), but unfortunately Gillick's letter is rambling, vindictive, and practically incoherent. In short, he adds very little to the intellectual debate, but manages to get off a few nasty zingers in the process. My favorite:

Bishop’s evident pleasure in seeing poor people set to work by lazy artists was reinforced in a recent issue of Artforum, where it was revealed that she is also a fan of a work by Francis Alÿs involving the use of a large number of people to move a mountain.

Damn!

Moto-Man: Hubert Dobler @ Jack the Pelican

2006-06-13T11:12:00.001-04:00

(re-blogged from my post at Gothamist):

With frat-boy-like, testosterone-driven intensity, artist Hubert Dobler has raced his Honda CB550 Four motorbike around the inside of Jack the Pelican Presents in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. In addition to some gentle descriptive nudging from the press release, we know this from the evidence on the temporary floor – carefully constructed for the exhibition to serve as both a protection for the gallery floor’s original surface, and more importantly as a visual record of Dobler’s performative moto-mischief.

Accompanying the skid marks, scrapes, and oil drippings that form the rowdily-made race track are a row of gasoline cans, an installation of a bed with the motorcycle resting peacefully with its headlight on, and a small video installation assembled nearby. The video (which can be viewed on the gallery's website) is a repetitive shot of the unmanned bike, motor running, chained to a warehouse ceiling by its handle bars, with the force of the spinning rear wheel propelling the bike violently in a centrifugal back, forth and around.

The video is not without its allure, although what was probably intended as a maniacally austere, beast-like transformation, comes off instead as obnoxiously boyish and somewhat silly (as does the cutesy bike-in-bed). The strongest visual element of the exhibition is the marks on the floor. Reminiscent of the equally man-centric, abstract expressionist tradition of slashing and splashing, they are the (oddly enough) aesthetically pleasing result of bike-as-paintbrush.

In his “symbolic adventure,” Dobler has declared an intention to create “a timely meditation on the American romance with aggressive power.” A serious concept indeed, and yet a dominant sense of lighthearted frivolity persists. Instead of revealing the menacing danger of power-lust, Dobler’s installation closer approaches a self-indicting lack of engagement. With a title like Gasoline and a proposed meditation on “aggressive power,” surely something more critically committed could have been imagined.

top image: still of Bull Video, courtesy of Jack the Pelican Presents [487 Driggs bet. N 9th and N 10th, Brooklyn] // Hubert Dobler’s Gasoline is at Jack the Pelican Presents from June 2 – July 2

Art and Danger: blah, blah, blah

2006-06-09T10:20:00.000-04:00

The ever-quotable Oscar Wilde once famously said: "An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all." Further, I would propose:

Art that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called art at all.

If this is true, is it due to the 20th Century coupling of art and ideas? Moreover, if we value this link between art and ideas, and considering the current circumstance of the contemporary art world, does art still have the capacity to be dangerous? Maybe I'll have some thoughts on the matter next week. Or, you could just tell me right now, so I won't have to burn up my brain by thinking for myself.

What F*cked Up Paintings Look Like: Dawn Mellor @ Team

2006-06-05T10:40:00.000-04:00

(from my post at Gothamist):

In Team's final exhibition at their Chelsea gallery space (before relocating to SoHo), Dawn Mellor's We Hope You Choke takes a small sidestep from her brashly acidic, satirical portrayals of celebrity-dom to inject vitriolic political and social anger into a messy amalgam of abstract allegory. The resulting paintings avoid easy interpretation, but ooze rebellious punktitude, landing somewhere in between a sophisticated painterly take on topical issues and an adolescent outpouring of teen angst at a world gone terribly wrong.

Fuck the Mothers, Kill the Others, whose title alone tells you everything you need to know about the painting's intent to shock, conflates an Oz-ian Dorothy in battle with an advancing army clad in N-for-Nazi armbands and black riot gear. Only a thin wall of purple separates their struggles, while a rainbow and ominous clouds of red glaze fill the sky over the yellow-marked battlefield. A wall of protesters display their eponymous signage, a back-dropped slogan for the struggle at hand that, while avoiding any logical explanation for its depiction, adds to the tone of abstract referential conflict.

The paintings display few visual pleasures, as Mellor's style largely dismisses the pursuit of beauty while subjugating the expected payoff of painterliness. In the 80's they called this 'bad painting,' a subversive, somewhat transgressive rejection of taste, wielded in an effort to assert a new relevancy to painting. Mellor's 'bad painting' style is less concerned with meta-painting, but uses conflicting form and dashed-off technique to instill content in relation to her social subject matter. Painterly form and representational narrative combine to embody an enraged, rebelliously visceral outpouring that offers little in the form of real-world solutions, but avoids didacticism while responding to some of the political and social contradictions of our historical moment.

(top photo: Dawn Mellor, Get Out of My House, 2006, oil on canvas, 87 x 112 inches; courtesy of Team Gallery)

Dawn Mellor, We Hope You Choke, is on view at Team Gallery [527 West 26th Street, between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues, ground floor] from May 18 through June 24.

Your Engagement Sequence

2006-05-31T15:51:00.000-04:00

Olafur Eliasson
Tanya Bonakdar Gallery

In 1859, one of the stars of the Hudson River School of painting, Frederic Church, unveiled his massive landscape, Heart of the Andes, complete with theatrical lighting, to an audience of New Yorkers eager to pay an admission price just to sit in the presence of the work’s profound pictorial beauty.

While painting’s ability to provide meaningful, visceral beauty to an audience of paying customers has become increasingly suspect (and rare) ever since, the demand for a pleasurable art experience persists. Olafur Eliasson’s work fills that void, but in excitingly fresh, intelligent ways that fulfill the promise of formal beauty as explored by minimalism but without the oppressively dry, utopian idealism.

His recently closed New York exhibition, Your Engagement Sequence, presents installations of light and water in physical form, as opposed to Church’s painterly-mediated mimetic representations, manipulating these elements in a presentation that challenges the viewer’s preconceived notions by expanding on the possibilities for illuminated beauty.

The best work, Your Negotiable Panorama, leads the viewer through a small break in a nearly-enclosed circular wall that separates the installation from the rest of the gallery space. At its solaric center, a construction of light and water rests on the floor, emitting a band of light reflected from the still pool of water. This thin beam, projected on the manufactured wall, encircles the installation, its soft light subtly affected by the water’s gentle shifts.

But Eliasson is careful to include the viewer’s own self-awareness as part of his project, disallowing a detached, voyeuristic experience. The viewer’s presence can not only affect the water’s stillness and resulting reflection, but creates a disruptive shadow regardless of one’s viewing position within the installation. This interaction only adds to an already thought-provoking engagement – a conceptual element that affronts the viewer while distracting little from a fully-pleasurable aesthetic spectacle.

top image of "Your negotiable panorama," (courtesy Tanya Bonakdar Gallery) from Olafur Eliasson's "Your engagement sequence," closed on May 27

As Seen At Artists Space's ISAFO

2006-05-24T12:37:00.000-04:00

For those unaware, Artists Space hosts a free, unjuried, online image file of artist's work. With nearly 4,000 artists represented, the task of wading through the dreck can be daunting, but the possibilities are practically endless. Check it out, there are plenty of gems mixed in. Here's some of what I've seen recently:

Kristen Schiele
Brooklyn, NY
www.kschiele.com

Country Lodge, 2005, oil on canvas, 38"x47"

Real Estate, 2005, oil on canvas, 29"x28"

Jovan Villalba
New York, NY
www.jovanvillalba.com

Aftermath, 2006, oil on steel, 12 x 12 inches

Bettina Sellmann
Brooklyn, NY
www.bettinasellmann.com

Wind, acrylic on canvas, 28" x 22"

Laugh 4, 2001, acrylic on canvas, 74" x 56"

Melissa Soltis
Brooklyn, NY
artist's space page

Title TBD, (ID# 13-5-2), 2003, Fujiflex print of SX-70 Polaroid, 20 X 24 inches / 50.8 X

Spectre, Fujiflex print of SX-70 Polaroid, 20 X 24 inches / 50.8 X 6

The Best of Critical Edge: Artists Can't Write ... Allegedly

2006-05-17T13:21:00.000-04:00

I've tried to stay away from the borefest debate at Art Journal's "Critical Edge, Critics in a Critical Age," but I've finally been flushed out by a particularly horrendous myopia. From Ruth Lopez's (Time Out Chicago) blogophobic entry, classically titled "An Artist Belongs in the Studio":

...we don’t need artists to write to improve the state of cultural journalism, we need arts journalists to be supported in their work ... The artist/writer role has always existed, bravo—go hang out at the College Art Association. But having read a fair amount of artist/writers, interviewed artists (many brilliant, inarticulate ones) and having waded through my share of ridiculous “Artist Statements,” I know that what we need does not exist outside of our field.

Whoa, wait a second -- no need to go there. Of all the anti-blog passages that have surfaced on the AJ debate, this one is perhaps the most wrongheaded. First, I'm not sure what she meant by "our field" that "artist/writers" exist outside of. If "our field" is arts journalism, then it's fairly obvious that, blogs aside, there's already a large number of artists who write criticism for so-called mainstream publications.

(At this time I'd like to present Exhibit A, pictured above, Newsweek's art critic Peter Plagens, who ... wait for it ... is also quite a prolific abstract painter; or, maybe you've heard of Robert Storr, the painter; or, perhaps Donald Judd?)

Artblog.net's Franklin Einspruch slapped back with a few more notable examples, in what has, admittedly, turned into somewhat of a slap-fest:

As a practitioner-critic, as the redoubtable Terry Teachout so elegantly put it, I'm not looking at much contemporary art journalism for inspiration. I look more at Delacroix's journals, the old Roman Stoics, Jean Giono, Henry Miller - people who can write the pants off of nearly anyone. If I found more inspiration in contemporary art journalism, I would look for it there. I don't think you, as a profession, have the privilege, or even time, to get picky about where to obtain fresh blood. Find artists, journalists, trained guinea pigs, whoever's producing that savory content the genre needs and get them some column-inches somewhere.

Artists, maybe more so than those in other fields, have always played a significant role in determining the tone of criticism. But who cares where great writing comes from as long as we get to read it, right? And who better to analyze, articulate, or contribute to the dialogue about art than artists themselves?

Aside from Ms. Lopez's cheapshot at the literary capabilities of artists, the majority of the discussion has strayed little from the possible financial impact that blogs stand to make on the livelihoods of their professional counterparts. It's completely understandable that this would be of great concern, but it's telling that, with such a unique opportunity to engage in a debate on the future of art criticism, that those representing the big media constituency would be most concerned with the effect blogging will have on their paychecks. Ahem, problem spotted.

Add my name to the long list of those who don't expect some major revolution or upheaval from the blog nation. I see no competition between blogs and big media (trying not to write em ess em, dammit). As long as there is an audience that wants to read great art criticism, they'll be willing to pay for it. But by focusing on the monetary threat that blogs pose to professional criticism, the latter is missing out on the opportunity to implement the beneficial aspects of the art blog model as a way to improve their own mainstream criticism.

Yes, blogs are entertaining, blah, blah, blah, but so are a lot of things. Yes, art blogs provide an international community that otherwise could not exist. And yes, blogs are more democratic. But in my view, the most valuable service that art blogs provide is a much-needed transparency to an art world that is overbearingly secretive and famously pretentious. Negative stereotypes run deep in the art biz (one only needs to look as far as the chip-on-its-shoulder production, Art School Confidential), and many are deserved, but blogs can chip away at those that are false (imagine, for instance, if Edward_ Winkleman's rigorous thoughtfulness were to become the model for art dealers).

In order for the situation of the art world to improve, and closer resemble one that is more beneficial to the aims of its participants (namely artists), instead of those of a powerful few (you know who they are), the truth of the art world must be exposed to the light of day so that it can be changed. That art blogs are beginning to take a step in the direction of transparent truth-telling is an entirely new and exciting development that flies in the face of a history of backdoor secrecy.

The only ones who have something to fear are those who want more of the same.

UPDATE: Leisure Arts ripped off a noteworthy blast in response to Ms. Lopez at Critical Edge:

This one has to be a joke. We've been reading the "writing" at Time Out Chicago for about a year now, and for someone who works there to have the gall to dismiss artist/writers is laughable.

Artist/Writers who easily outshine the Time Out staff:

Robert Smithson, Donald Judd, Joseph Kosuth, Marcel Duchamp, Dan Graham, Andre Breton, and on and on and on...Maybe you should look through the 800+ pages of Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art edited by Kristine Stiles and Peter Selz and compare it to the stuff you call criticism at Time Out before making such an absurd claim. If bloggers are learning anything from this forum, it's that our perceptions of sanctimony and smugness regarding some in the MSM are true and that there's no shortage of sloppy thinking and poor research amongst some of its practitioners either..

R.A. Interviews Z.F. at A.I.

2006-05-11T10:29:00.000-04:00

Zach says:

I’m definitely an art dealer and not a curator. So I need to trust my artists’ aesthetic more than I trust my own at times.

The worst thing is when people pretend they’re curators. I’m a small businessperson who exists to support what my artists are doing, not to make my own big statement. It is nice when people write about me, and the recognition that I get feels great, but I want the shows and the artists to be noticed more than the gallery.

... a lot of great art gets made outside of the market, and outside of Chelsea, and when criticism is overshadowed by collecting, a lot of that work gets overlooked. The worst thing is that once the work gets overlooked, it gets fetishized by collectors as [the next big thing]....

If one of our big painters starts bringing in video, we’re certainly not going to turn him away. I trust their taste; I want their production to lead the functions of the gallery....

We want the work to be in public venues, and we don’t want it to be sold and resold a million times over, so we sell to people who are closer to patrons than to dealers.

Amen, brother; amen.

Male Genitalia, Watercolor Paintings of Gay Sex and a Live Rat?

2006-05-09T12:17:00.000-04:00

OH NO! Better shut it down!!

What a shame. In case you've been living under an art-rock (and didn't read here, with multiple posts here and here), the Brooklyn College MFA exhibition was shut down by Brooklyn Borough Parks Commissioner, Julius Spiegel, because he found the work to be not "appropriate for families." Eh? Wha? Apparently the show was being housed in a World War II memorial building near the Brooklyn Bridge, an exhibition space that the college had been using previously for six years without incident ... until now.

Where's the public outrage? Where's the support from Brooklyn College faculty (they caved too)? The New York Times has been all over this story with no less than four stories in the past week, but I can't help feeling that this is being largely ignored by our national media. Of course, maybe all that will change with the news that the students

plan to sue their asses.

Hopefully the ACLU isn't too busy defending the KKK or whatever shit-ass cause they consistently bolster, and can lend a bit of a helping hand on this one.

Mr. Mayor Bloomberg has an excellent past record of supporting the arts (including bringing those damned Gates to NYC after decades of objections) but he gets a giant F for his failure to support the artists of Brooklyn College as they watch their MFA Thesis exhibition be dismantled for such crimes-against-society as displaying artworks picturing "male genitalia, watercolor paintings of gay sex and a live rat." After a week of dodging questions, Bloomberg finally voiced his opinion:

"Nobody's suggesting that anybody shouldn't be allowed to exhibit art," Mr. Bloomberg said. "The issue here is this is not a museum. This is a war memorial." He added, "There has been an understanding ever since art was put here that the art would be appropriate for families and respectful of and appropriate for a war memorial and this time it was not."

What? Are you serious? First, if this is really true, why would Brooklyn College ever agree to an exhibition arrangement wherein the commissioner of the Parks Department would have to give final approval of any artworks displayed; and second, why the fuck (in six years of exhibitions) haven't the students of Brooklyn College shown any offensive work before? Doesn't make any sense.

A war memorial, eh? I guess that means no anti-war art either? What a joke. Notice Bloomberg said "an understanding" not a contract. I doubt any such understanding existed. Instead, I wonder if this is a case of Mr. Parks Commissioner having a problem with homosexuality (or rats?) and thereby deciding to take it upon himself to control the artistic freedom of others? With all of Bloomberg's recent talk about emphasizing New York's identity as the arts capital of the world, he should be damned ashamed of himself for allowing such a blatant act of censorship. What is he afraid of?

see Plan C(ensored) for updates

How Art Catches the Attention of the National Consciousness

2006-05-04T10:48:00.000-04:00

Ah hell, at least this is a better painting than that.

UPDATE: ABC News weighs in (sorry, I just figured out how to do screenshots, and it's soooo addicting).

Not to morally legitimize wasting $95 million on a painting (at least it's probably a good financial investment), but it's funny how they don't ask these kinds of questions when our government spends over $278 BILLION (and counting) on an illegal war.

Mmmm, Love that Smell of Burning Warehouse in the Morning

2006-05-02T12:15:00.000-04:00

My neighborhood's on fire. The warehouse was empty and awaiting demolition, but damn. The air quality is bad enough in Greenpoint as it is:

UPDATE: Apparently this is now officially THE CITY'S WORST FIRE SINCE 9/11, as they keep repeating over and over on the news reports. There are no reported deaths, but apparently twelve firefighters have suffered minor injuries and five were taken to the hospital.

It started at 5 am this morning, and as of this afternoon, they don't expect to snuff it out for at least another 24 hours. GREAT! Gigantic plumes of smoke for over 24 hours, and it's only a few blocks from my house. I can only imagine what kind of toxic shit this thing is unleashing into the air that will soon find its way into my apartment. Asshole pyromaniacs.

Oh Yeah, We've Got One of Those Too

2006-05-01T10:27:00.000-04:00

I'm sure China's Camel Joe art star, Zhou Tiehai, likes to think of himself as the Chinese second coming of Andy Warhol (or even Marcel Duchamp), but his actual American counterpart is the would-be provocateur (if anyone were paying enough attention to be provoked) Mark Kostabi.

From the NYTimes (while taking a cheep jab in its title: Chinese Artist Zhou Tiehai Proves the Emperor Is Naked):

... Zhou Tiehai came up with an ambitious plan to make himself famous.

He would succeed by beating the art market at its own game, exposing its commercialism while exploiting it to the hilt. He would produce paintings that he hoped would be acclaimed by the same Western collectors and journalists who, in his mind, had advanced the careers of too many mediocre Chinese artists.

And he would do all this without lifting a brush: he would delegate that work to hirelings.

Somehow, he pulled it off. Mr. Zhou is now one of China's hottest artists.

Hooray for him. It's good to see that cynical art isn't merely limited to the western wing of the art world. Unfortunately for collectors, this work is probably going to be worthless in about twenty years.

Scott Grodesky at LFL

2006-04-27T12:00:00.000-04:00

(Consider this somewhat of a nonreview preview. I haven't seen his new exhibition at LFL, which includes a single new painting, but have first-hand knowledge of his previous work)

Scott's definitely not the usual LFLer. His work adheres to strict conceptual rules and self-imposed boundaries -- his mindset is closer to minimalism than illustration or traditional figuration -- and these rules, when the paintings work, are what makes his efforts unique. Scott's use of reverse perspective can be pleasurably disorienting and fresh when applied to subject matter he's convincingly connected to.

Maybe that's why I've always preferred his figurative work, usually of his family (see above), over his cityscapes. The conflict of presenting warm, personal subject matter through a somewhat detached, cerebral process, is perhaps more compelling than geometric architecture depicted through similar means. Also, when applied to a cityscape, his method of reversing vanishing points is more predictable and formulaic. Skewing the basic rules of perspective for the representation of the human figure is something altogether different and captivating, with the hand and the eye replacing the ruler and guidelines as arbiters of composition. The results are less predetermined, and propose an abstract displacement that avoids the violent disfigurement of cubism, while still offering a novel context for figuration.

Admittedly, Scott's paintings aren't for everyone. He's not a so-called "painter's painter," but relies on a rigid conceptual process as a foil for painterliness. In less successful works, his palette can seem arbitrary, even dull. Still, his oddball-obsessive, thoughtfully approached method of abstraction, when engaged with meaningful subject matter, makes his work stand out. His paintings are slow, reward careful viewings, and definitely look better in person. Check out his new painting at LFL, Earthquake, which appears to be a departure for him subject-wise. It closes on May 27.

(image: Lovers, 2001, acrylic polymer and graphite on canvas, 83 in. x 88 in., Scott Grodesky.)

(UPDATED) You've Got to be Kidding Me

2006-04-26T11:32:00.000-04:00

Apparently ArtInfo isn't going to surpass Artnet's domination of the virtual-art-world anytime soon. From Artnet (foaming at the mouth, I'm sure):

Canadian art-publishing mogul Louise T. MacBain has cut the staff of Artinfo.com to the bone, according to unconfirmed reports, suspending her plans for a database of art-auction prices and network of gallery sites on the internet -- an undertaking that would have competed head-to-head with Artnet. Artinfo’s news-gathering staff has been cut as well, insiders say, with only one employee remaining.

And now this horrible, horrible, (horrible) idea from ArtInfo:

In our newest editorial feature, ArtInfo will showcase the work of students still in the process of earning their BFAs and MFAs. Up first: Harvard's Lydia Conklin, whose paintings use a strikingly flat style in their attempt to access the awkward, emotional states of childhood.

Fuck no! I realize that maybe ArtInfo thinks it's providing some sort of service for art students, but it's not. It's providing a service for the short-term interests of the youth-obsessed art market.

I'm sure the student featured is overjoyed with the attention and ramifications for potential exhibition opportunities; but what art students need most is the time and space to experiment and grow as artists without the eyes of the art press analyzing their every move. There isn't enough of this sort of development going on as it is.

Overactive peering towards careerism has already had a widespread effect on the machine-like production of fully-formed (but dull) artwork spewing forth from both BFA and MFA programs alike. Students are getting locked into an immature style at earlier stages in their careers (before their career actually) -- a development that can only result in shorter careers and body's of work that offer little artistic development due to commercial pressures.

What's next?

UPDATE: According to unnamed sources, it's possible that ArtInfo could soon resemble another gossip-style blog. How lame that would be. It's too bad because the site had promise as an alternative to Artnet's virtual-art-monopoly.

Even worse, regarding the NEW MEAT feature introduced this week (and discussed above), you can look forward to future editions that are even more ridiculous. I've been told that ArtInfo has some deals in place with art schools for use of their students' work for the column, and the writers involved not only haven't seen the work of the artists they're featuring, but have no plans to do so in the future.

How depressing. I can only hope that it isn't true.

It Just Keeps Getting Better

2006-04-26T11:13:00.000-04:00

Ugh.

Actually, maybe it's not as bad as it seems. At least this guy has actually gone on record criticizing the President. He's previously noted (courtesy of Think Progress) that:

“George Bush has become something of an embarrassment.” [11/11/05]

and

“No president has looked this impotent this long when it comes to defending presidential powers and prerogatives.” [9/30/05]

Yes, very true; but then again, Tony Snow's main criticisms seem to be that Bush is too progressive:

“...how does the president persuade conservatives in his own party that he’s one of them, given what we’ve seen with spending? You’ve seen Medicare, you’ve seen an education bill. These are things, I dare say, that if they’d been done under Bill Clinton, Republicans would have been howling.”[Fox News Sunday, 11/30/03]

Ah well, at least he won't actually be making any decisions. It remains to be seen if he's as willing to lie for the President as Scott McClellan was. But Media Matter's extensive list of Snow's own previous falsehoods don't exactly instill confidence.

On a more disturbing note, Bush has found yet another way to cynically exploit the fears of his constituency (us). When he started championing an "investigation" into oil company pricing practices, it smelled more than a little bit fishy. His solution (from the AP, courtesy of Yahoo! News):

Bush Eases Environmental Rules on Gasoline
...[Bush] directed the Environmental Protection Agency to use its authority to temporarily waive air quality laws in states if that would relieve a local gasoline supply shortage.

The White House was unable to say how much Bush's actions could affect the price of gas.

Bush said, "Every little bit helps."

Yeh, sure it does. Great fucking idea ... asshole.

Long Overdue Blogroll Updates; ArtForum Diary's 'Cock' and 'Hole'

2006-04-25T13:11:00.000-04:00

I've regrettably been a bit lazy with blogroll updates, and the following additions still don't cover the totality of my daily reads, but this will have to do for now. I plan on adding more soon. I'm sure you read most of them already anyway.

anaba

art blog

art.blogging.la

artistic thoughts

bloggy

Brian Sholis

…Edge of Universe

Eye Level

Greg.org

Heart as Arena

Ionarts

João Ribas

Painters NYC

the Pit

…Show on the Road

Thinking About Art

Tom Moody

In other news, João Ribas has a new Emerging Artists article at Art Info that is part of an ongoing series focusing on the problems that emerging artists face in New York. The article includes a helpful list of his 10 favorite artist residency opportunities. João is quickly becoming a personal hero.

Finally, apparently Tyler Green is a comedian now. It's difficult to parody a parody-of-itself, but he gets off a few zingers at GawkerForum's expense. My favorite:

If you're going to bars with names like 'The Cock' and 'The Hole' and all the mischief going on is the flouting [of] a smoking ban: The party is lame.

And, on a more serious, but troublingly true note, he smacks:

Another possible GawkerForum subtitle: Who needs art to inspire you when you have the crowd?

Weekend Summary of Viewing Art (or lack thereof)

2006-04-23T22:00:00.000-04:00

Paul Chan is a thoughtful, intelligent, and exciting artist. His work consistently engages political and social content through an aesthetic program that points the way forward without settling for oppressive didactism. He's finally launched a new, updated version of his website, National Philistine. Titled MY OWN PRIVATE ALEXANDRIA, it includes over 16 hours of digitally recorded audio readings. Check it out. Also, see Newsgrist for an interview with Paul.

I finally made it to the new(-ish) MOMA (thanks to MAO's generously philanthropic, art-appreciation-encouraging, prize-giving contests). Shhh, don't tell anyone, because I should be ashamed of myself for not going earlier (although I'm not). I guess I just wasn't in a big hurry to see Water Lilies or Dance again -- once a decade seems about right to me. Too many gigantic white walls, blah, blah, blah, corporate mall-like architecture, blah, blah, blah, recessed gaps between the walls and floors that are tacky and distracting, blah, blah, blah. Ed Munch looks as dull-colored (it's amazing how much they enhance his color saturation in dorm-room posters, no?) and either misogynistic or non-misogynistic as ever, and most of the 5th floor's Picasso's, Matisse's, Monet's and Dali's are dead on the wall. But the 4th floor sings: Newman, Rothko, Kline, Still, Pollack, De Kooning, Johns, Rauschenberg, Judd, and on and on. This is where the legacy of modernism hits its stride and dominates. Favorite room: Vir Heroicus Sublimins and Onement, Still, Rothko, Kline. Favorite work: Woman I -- one of the few paintings I could contemplate for hours.

I tried to go to the Biennial again this weekend but didn't make it. The last time I was distracted from attending an important art event I wound up playing mini-golf in New Jersey instead. This time I was distracted by my local pub (debatably not as much fun as miniature golf, but still probably the correct choice; maybe next time I'll combine the two).

(top: still from Paul Chan's video My birds… trash…the future…, 2004; Two-channel digital projection installation, computer, and installation; image: Greene Naftali Gallery; bottom: who cares, but it looks like fun)

Oh By the Way ...

2006-04-18T11:31:00.000-04:00

... my scaredy-cat anonymity officially fell by the wayside a few weeks back when I updated the 'my website' portion of my blogger profile.

Just to add insult to injury, my name is now also attached to this thing (towards your right -->).

Unfortunately, from now on you can fully expect self-censored, watered-down, uncritical, saccharine posts full of self-promotion.

Or, not.

Also, as part of the Reveille Project, I've created an aggregator of RSS feeds from 30 of my favorite arts-related blogs. For those not RSS-savvy, this means that the linked title (and a brief introduction) for the newest post will be updated for each blog listed whenever new content is posted (or shortly thereafter). I realize that 30 blogs is only a small sampling of the ever-expanding art blogosphere, but consider it a mere beginning that will continue to grow as new blogs emerge (and hopefully stick around for a while).

UPDATE: Holy shit, thanks Tyler; I feel like I've been canonized... I guess this means I have to write another post one of these days. I'm happy to be uncloaked, but I still think some people have a fairly compelling case for remaining anonymous.

SUPER-DUPER UPDATE: New non-update content coming soon, I promise. But in the meantime, I forgot to mention the real reason that it took so long for me to come forward. I was waiting for my restraining order against Right Reverend Bailey to be approved.

Art Battles!

2006-04-16T22:22:00.000-04:00

PAINTING AS SPECTATOR SPORT (Williamsburg, Brooklyn; April 15, 2006): The patrons of 79 North 11th Street, otherwise known as the Brooklyn Brewery, were casually sipping their tastily-tokened lagers and ales when a jarring announcement interrupted the innocently diverse merrymaking:

Yo, Yo, Yo! Art Battles in the hiz-ouse!!

What followed can only be described as embarassingly fascinating, horrificly spectacular, or boringly exciting. Hell, they even have a fucking website. For your timelapsed, voyeuristic pleasure (sorry for the beer stains on the lens):

Okay, so we didn't quite make it to the end of the competition. I'm sure all the paintings turned out swell. Personally, I was looking forward to the completion of what I will lovingly refer to as "Naked Chick Flying on Bottle," but its finality will have to exist in your imagination for the time being.

Word. (sorry, k.p.)

A Crafty Publicity Stunt Reveals Usual Art World Pretensions

2006-04-14T12:54:00.000-04:00

In an entertaining turn of events, Simon Doonan, the recently demonized Piersonian assemblager at Barneys, has responded (in his recent NY Observer article) in hilariously biting fashion against a well-timed attack from the arbiters of taste at Cheim & Read. For the back story, read here, here, here, here, and here.

In short, Cheim & Read sent out a nasty email to numerous media outlets a few weeks back (and suspiciously close to Pierson's latest solo opening) decrying Barneys' repeated use of Pierson-esque ransom-note-style letter displays. Doonan, Barneys' creative director, responds in How Did I Become The Typhoid Mary Of the Art World?. Apparently, he's been using found objects for signage for decades in his store displays (and Pierson clearly isn't the only one, or anywhere near the first, to assemble ransom-note-style lettering). Pierson contacted Doonan to complain:

Jack politely asks me to “take down those displays in your Co-op stores.” Further questioning reveals that he is referring to the words “COURAGEOUS,” “OUTRAGEOUS” and “CONTAGIOUS,” rendered in found lettering, which appear in all the Barneys Co-op stores. He claims that these installations constitute copies of his work.

...

I then tell him—and this is the part that went over like a lead-filled colostomy bag—that I am not familiar with his signage pieces.

This last bit of information was met with complete disbelief by Mr. Pierson. He cannot countenance the fact that neither I nor my colleague who installed the display have any knowledge of his signage sculptures....

None of this seems to go over very well at all. It is clearly not what Jack wants to hear. I surmise that what he actually wants me to say is more along the lines of the following: “Yes, Jack, we will support your desire to maintain a worldwide monopoly on the use of found lettering. Quickly, come to our studio and take all these letters away before we use them to spell out ‘MOTHER’S DAY’ (yet again!). Even though I have been using this stuff for decades—as have millions of other people—I will cede to you because you are an Artist, and Artists are more important than mere window dressers.”....

J.P.'s communications with Doonan don't seem to be achieving the desired effect, so his dealer, John Cheim, takes action:

Up pops an invite to Jack’s upcoming show at the Cheim & Read gallery in Chelsea, sent by John Cheim himself.... This missive is immediately followed by the most hostile e-mail I have ever received....

Denouncing both my employer and me, this e-mail is cc’d to an extensive list of fancy-pants New Yorkers, everyone from Philippe de Montebello to “Ingrid Sichy” (sic).

Mr. Cheim follows this with a communication sent to the press and subsequently picked up by the Daily News, New York magazine and Time Out. Indignation sputters. Suddenly I am persona non grata in the art world, a shadowy Dr. Strangelove figure whose lack of shame, imagination and talent is being chewed over by the most glamorous people in Manhattan. E-mails and phone calls castigate me for “plagiarizing and insulting a living artist.” A few brave souls leap to my defense, one suggesting that Jack Pierson’s desire for a monopoly was the equivalent of Marcel Duchamp trying to sue a urinal company.

Or, even better, if Richard Prince were to demand that Marlboro stop copying his photos. Doonan puts his finger on the typical, art world pretension:

Underlying the whole debacle is the horribly flawed idea that artists are somehow at the apex of our society. According to this ridiculous thinking, artists are somehow innately superior to us window dressers, or to coffee-shop waitresses and strip-club fluffers. Being an artist is not just a job or vocation, but something holy and infinitely worthy. In this topsy-turvy retarded world, the option to place a monopoly on a found object would automatically fall to an artist over a window dresser. Should that window dresser bump into an artist prowling the same wrecking yard, he should quietly step aside so that the artist can have first pick. For reasons too obvious to state, this idea does not go over well with me.

The personal insults directed at me by John Cheim are jarring and unworthy of either himself or the artist he represents, but they will eventually be forgiven and forgotten. What I will never forgive is the implication that Barneys is or has ever been unsupportive to the art community. Barneys has always supported artists—from the sublime to the ridiculous, from the smelly to the fragrant—financially, consistently, unimpeachably, and does so to this very day. To imply anything to the contrary is outrageous, possibly contagious and definitely not courageous.

As this storm in a junkyard dissipates and farts off into the ether, it is hard to see a downside for Mr. Pierson. He and his gallery are raking in an extraordinary amount of money for these nifty sculptures. I applaud this. As a capitalist, I say ka-ching! Good luck to you, Jack! Since those found letters sell on eBay and at the flea market for an average of $12, your profit margins are better than anything we are able to achieve at Barneys.

If you are wealthy, support the arts and buy one of Jack’s hip assemblages. If you are not, then make your own. Do what Rhoda did on The Mary Tyler Moore Show: buy your own initial and hang it on your wall. If you have bigger walls, why not spell out a longer phrase, à la Jeopardy? How about “EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES”? ...

I'm sure I have a lot more respect for artists than that displayed by Mr. Doonan, but he has a point here. Add the fracas to a long list of embarassing press that reveals the ugly underbelly of the art world. What's really motivating Cheim (besides protecting his artist's ego) is that it's probably difficult to convince collectors to shell out tens of thousands of dollars for 'word sculptures' that can be commonly found in store wall displays. Suddenly they don't seem so special anymore, even if Pierson's are a little better. But can an artist lay creative claim to an appropriated act? Does Pierson really have the right to monopolize the ransom-note style?

(photo from askart.com)

$75,000/Month for a Shithole in Chelsea?

2006-04-12T13:21:00.000-04:00

Now that the shock and seemingly unnavigable confusion of the NY Times site re-design has somewhat worn off, it's worth noting that the new Arts & Design page is a substantial upgrade over its former afterthought-self, which consisted mainly of a list of linked article titles. The new version is at least more attractive, features a few more multimedic-graphic enticements, and actually provides brief descriptions of linked articles (in case one might want to have some idea of what one is clicking before doing so).

An offering from the weekend past, Sarah Schmerler's Leipzig, Mon Amour. You're Cheaper Than Chelsea, details the efforts of one Mr. Joe Amrhein, Godfather of the Billyburg Art Scene, to extend his Pierogian empire to the school that Rauch built -- Leipzig, Germany.

Fine, whatever, I happy for him. Go spread the word of hipster art far and wide, I say. What really caught my eye about the article was a neat little rundown comparing the financial consequences of choosing to expand in Chelsea or Leipzig:

What Mr. Amrhein is paying,
per month per square foot,
in Leipzig: about 40 cents

What a similar gallery would cost,
per month per square foot,
in Chelsea: $75

Translation (if my 3rd grade math skills are correct): a small, 1,000 square foot gallery space in Leipzig would be $400/month, while the same size gallery space in Chelsea would run you a cool $75,000/month.

That's right, seventy-five fucking thousand dollars per month. Is this some crazy misprint or is my math seriously fucked up? (Edward_, any verification here?)

I knew Chelsea was expensive ... but damn. If these prices aren't wildly exaggerated, I don't see how it's humanly possible for a small contemporary gallery, primarily showing emerging artists (not necessarily talking about Pierogi here), to even exist without an insane amount of financial pressure. How can meaningful art hope to thrive in such an environment without selling its soul to the dollaric-devil? I think I'm going to throw up. Leipzig, anyone?

Of course, what the article fails to mention is that J.A. could have scored himself a sweet-ass Wal-Mart-sized space in a non-Chelsea neighborhood such as Greenpoint for only double or triple the price of its German counterpart (and little more than 1/75 the price in Chelsea, apparently). But then we'd have to deal with the chichi condo-towers and the Urban Outfitter's of the world moving in, so maybe staying away is for the best ... wait, dammit, it's already happening.

UPDATE: A anonymously whizzical commenter has suggested that Schmerler's Chelsea price is faulty and probably due to a mix up between 'per month' and 'per year.' "$75 per month, per square foot," should probably read "$75 per year, per square foot" -- which, per month, would be 1/12 of $75, or $6.25 per month, per square foot. It's still a ton of cash, but not quite as insane. Not sure if the error is Schmerler's or the broker she cites (but if it's the latter's, no wonder she's advising gallerists to "open up a smaller showroom, and concentrate on doing the fairs.")

Vastly More Pretense than the Average Tourist

2006-03-29T11:14:00.000-05:00

The New Yorker weighs in on the new Matthew Barney/Björk vehicle, Drawing Restraint 9:

"The Simple Life" for a pair of self-important art-world celebrities. With a combination of lavish pageantry and industrial exertion, the Nisshin Maru, Japan's last whaling ship, sails off from Nagasaki Bay. Along with its crew, it carries two guests, Matthew Barney and Björk, who submit to elaborate rituals of tonsure, pomade, and dress at the hands of solemn bearers whose job it is to keep from laughing at their employers' airs. They partake of a classical tea ceremony in an unabashed display of Oriental kitsch that makes "Memoirs of a Geisha" look like an ethnographic documentary. As their berth fills with what might be water or whale oil, the couple lovingly carve each other up into human sushi. Barney, the director of this unbearably empty spectacle, has in effect filmed at great expense the couple's designer-sightseeing cruise, with little more skill and vastly more pretense than the average tourist.—R.B. (IFC Center.)

Ouch!

UPDATE: AFC has a more thorough dissection, warning that it's "by far the worst film he has ever made" and to "[t]ry not to barf before exiting the theatre."

A Medieval / Clockwork-Orangish / Foucaultian Nightmare in Brooklyn

2006-03-28T12:30:00.000-05:00

Lynda Abraham's Compassion, which just closed (sorry kids, I should really write these things sooner) at the recently expanded Dam, Stuhltrager gallery in the Williamsburg section of Greenpoint (ha!), is a troubling but ambitious meditation on the societal capacity for behavioral rehabilitation.

The metal contraptions that represent the sculptural element of the exhibition are separate from a smaller room at the entrance to the gallery. This windowed room serves as a private lab-like observatory to the now inactive contraptions and also houses monitors displaying video archives of previous live-action performances involving the use of the devices. To further the simulation of a scientific, empirically-motivated experiment, shelved notepads are provided (but have been filled with the requisite nonsense from hipster passersby).

Gothic black and technologically retrograde, the "compassion" contraption (pictured above) resembles more of a medieval torture device than one of modern institutional study. The press release explains its function:

"The sculpture's body of pulleys, wheels, cables, seats and metal support structures bind two human subjects together over a water basin. Through video and drawings, viewers witness two people placed in the contraption, face to face, only the tips of their noses touching water. Uncomfortable, each tries to pull their head further from the water, but in doing so (by the design of the device) their partner's head will be submerged. Each will cause and witness the choking, gagging and struggling of the other. The struggle may continue for a while, as contempt transforms to compassion under the necessity to work together to end further suffering."

Assuming you missed the opening, we're left with the video archive of the performance, the sculpture/installation itself, and Abraham's text. It would be difficult to believe that her assertion that the devices are meant for positive social change is anything but ironical in intent. Participants are no more likely to become compassionate after repeated gothic-dunkings than if they were simply locked in a room together.

Instead, the aesthetic construction of the devices points to something darker -- the linking of modern/post-enlightenment efforts to engineer desired social behavior with the inhumanity of medieval punishment (or worse, torture). Either Abraham's utopian hopes for the device are naively grandiose with optimism or cynically ironic. The gallery's locale of too-cool Williamsburg can't help but reinforce the presence of the latter and suggests a depressingly fatalist, reactionary critique of the liberalist ideal of social rehabilitation.

(Compassion, by artist Lynda Abraham, was at Dam, Stuhltrager gallery in Brooklyn, New York, from February 17 - March 28th; Photo from damstuhltrager.com)

How a Curator Stole My Heart

2006-03-27T04:38:00.000-05:00

From João Ribas' interview with Klaus Ottmann, curator of the upcoming 6th Site Santa Fe Biennial (and art critic), posted at the increasingly relevant Art Info:

(João): You're curating Site Santa Fe without a curatorial theme. Why did you decide to keep the exhibition open and unmediated in that way?

(Klaus): I had concerns about doing another big, theme-driven group show because there have been so many. With all of these exhibitions--and I've done a number of them myself—they really end up being more about the curator and his ideas than about the art. I wanted to try to create an environment where the art can speak for itself as much as possible—where I would be more in the background. I'm still the curator, of course, but I thought that if you have the works without a theme, there's less filtering going on and there's more of a chance for the viewer to see the works on their own terms.

(J): Is that also why you’ve reduced the number of artists?

(H): Yes, that’s part of that. The other thing is that I didn’t want to install the exhibition in a traditional way, where you have one work hanging after the next work. I wanted to have more works by each artist, or at least have every artist separate in their own space, where there wouldn’t be any distractions. For that reason, I had to cut down on the number of artists, just in terms of the space. It’s not huge, and my predecessor, Robert Storr, had 54 artists in his biennial. I couldn’t fit more than 13 in it, so that’s the number that we ended up with.

(J): Why do you think there’s such an impetus for curators and institutions to create such intensively themed surveys?

(H): You even have the Whitney Biennial with a theme for the first time—they’re doing kind of the opposite of what I’m doing, which is good. I’m not saying that I’m smarter than everyone else, I’m just trying to do something different.

I’ve become, in the last two or three years, more and more concerned about this dramatic rise of art fairs and biennials all over the world, which do not provide an adequate way of experiencing art. I’m concerned with how they have become the primary place for a lot of people, including curators and critics, to see works for the first time. That’s troubling to me. I have no problem with the economic function of an art fair, but it is problematic when dealers are telling their artists to keep the best works for the art fairs or make works for the art fairs.

I wanted to show an alternative way of how works of art should be experienced, without a lot of interference, either curatorially or in terms of didactics. First and foremost, there should be an immediate experience, a sensual experience. Museums are going a little bit too far in the didactics these days. Art education is, of course, important, but it’s important not to give people the illusion that they could understand a work of art, because works of art can never be completely understood.... (emphasis added)

...continued at Art Info.

(photo from artinfo.com)

Support Your Local Non-Profit Arts Organization

2006-03-23T10:31:00.000-05:00

Press Release from Goliath Visual Space:

RE-ZONING

Benefit and Performance Evening
FINAL EVENT @ 117 DOBBIN ST. [Greenpoint, Brooklyn]

ONE NIGHT ONLY: FRIDAY
MARCH 24TH,
7 PM - MIDNIGHT

Celebrate 8 years of innovative exhibitions in our space, help support Goliath’s transition and a new year of itinerant projects.

Goliath Visual Space will celebrate eight years of innovative projects with a final public event to be held at its space at 117 Dobbin Street, in Greenpoint, Brooklyn before closing its doors and transitioning to a nomadic project-based organization. RE-ZONING features a fundraiser to benefit Goliath, with donated artworks available for sale, followed by Outro, an improvisational performance evening by sound and media artists. Come early and stay late!

BENADDICTION 2006: Fourth Annual Fundraiser for Goliath Visual Space (7:00 pm)

Benaddiction will feature over 50 artworks donated by artists, exhibited in the gallery and available for immediate sale on the night of the event. Cash and personal checks will be accepted. All proceeds will benefit Goliath Visual Space and its 2006 season of itinerant projects and exhibitions. Keep an eye out in the second half of 2006 for our new projects, in unusual locations.

Outro: Performance Event (9:00 pm – midnight)

Outro celebrates Goliath's ongoing commitment to electronic and media arts by presenting the work of a variety of artists working in live video, electronic music, design, and electro-acoustic composition. Outro explores different facets of the live image and music culture thriving in NYC today, paying special attention to the role of collaboration and improvisation in live media performance. Featured artists include audio artists Nick Lesley, Zack Layton and Zachary Seldess, visual artists Andy Graydon, Chika Iijima and Richard Gare, and audio-visual artists Lance Blisters, ilan katin + Geoff Matters, Richard Garet, WvS and more.

Can’t make the event but would like to help?
Send donations to Goliath Visual Space, 117 Dobbin Street, Brooklyn, NY 11222 by March 30, 2006.

Checks may be made out to Goliath Visual Space, Inc.

For more information and directions, visit our website: www.goliath777.com

Jerry Saltz: More Kick-Ass Than You Thought Possible

2006-03-20T19:09:00.000-05:00

Tyler Green at MAN has the scoop on Jerry Saltz's reaction to the New Yorker's recent puff piece on Sotheby's ~~glorified used-car salesman~~ chief auctioneer, Tobias Meyer. Apparently he's not a big fan. Saltz writes (in an email sent to both MAN and the New Yorker):

"The New Yorker really drank the Kool-Aid in John Colapinto's wet-kiss to big-money fast-action art-heroes who sell art works to the highest bidder. How can someone conscientiously write an entire profile on Tobias Meyer, the chief auctioneer and worldwide head of contemporary art at Sotheby's, and not mention, even in passing, that contemporary art auctions are bizarre combinations of slave market, trading floor, theater, and brothel? They are rarefied entertainments where speculation, spin, and trophy hunting merge as an insular caste enacts a highly structured ritual in which the codes of consumption and peerage are manipulated in plain sight. Auctions are altars to the disconnect between the inner life of art and the outer life of acquisition, places where artists are cut off from their art. At auctions desire is fetishized, buying and selling become a sort of sacrament, art plays the role of sacrificial lamb, and the Ponzi scheme that surrounds it all rolls on. For The New Yorker to publish an article like this and not raise one discouraging word about auctions is more than a little discouraging; it is a sickening."

Fuck yeh!!! Jerry Saltz, fighter of the good fight. Edward_ Winkleman published his reaction on the subject in an earlier post this past weekend, but was much more conflicted in his reaction. He called it a "delightful peek into the methods and high drama behind contemporary art auctions," but expressed his slight discomfort with Meyer's declaration "that's my job, for the company and for my clients. To make art expensive." Winkleman asked: "So why does it stick in my craw?"

I responded, in the comment section of his post:

"Maybe the guilt of being an unabashed capitalist? I had a similar reaction. I think it comes from the way we try to convince ourselves that the existence of art is enabled by a socially-beneficial form of culture production. When we're reminded of the real impetus behind the art trade, it's embarrasing and temporarily ruins our idealistic vision of why art is important to society.

Artists who want to contribute to the cultural, aesthetic, or intellectual conversation of art, but find the propagation of a greed-fueled, unregulated capitalist market abhorrent, are left with the contradiction of being in opposition to the motivations of those (for-profit gallerists) meant to best serve their own artistic aims. Hell, even the motivations for many well-meaning gallerists themselves are in contradiction.

Perhaps a new model is needed.

[E.W. wrote in his post]: "What he is doing is not only fully legal, it's arguably good for the overall economy as well, creating more jobs, increasing the art market, and giving great opportunities to emerging artists."

Ahhh ... the infamous trickle-down effect. Sure, it creates opportunities for emerging artists, but only for those who grease the wheels of the market. When it happens that the "goal of the market" is in opposition to the "goal of the artist", the market always wins. Thus goes capitalism -- anything not contributing to the tit-for-tat exchange relation is discarded as irrelevant."

The piece was clearly intended to paint an adoring picture of the art auctioneer as glamorous, sophisticated aesthete. Some of my favorite passages were the somewhat creepily-obsessive and overly-thorough descriptions of his fashionable appearance and physique:

"Tall, slim, and with an erect carriage, he has longish, wavy hair, which he wears swept back from his high forehead. His eyes are a transparent blue, his chin delicate, and although he is forty-three years old, he looks at least ten years younger. His clothes are custom-made, by a retired Savile Row tailor, and he was dressed casually, but impeccably, in a moss-green sports jacket with yellow windowpane check and mustard-colored corduroys of a whale so fine that I initially mistook the fabric for velvet. A blue-and-white polka-dot scarf was loosely knotted around his neck.

Meyer's stylishness and physical beauty are legendary in art and design circles, and can reduce even experts on such matters to near-incoherence... "If Tobias was naked, he'd be stylish; it's not just his clothes. It’s that face.'"

Meyer's self-described role in his own words:

"What I love to do is put people in front of art and make them feel it, make them stop everything else they’re doing and experience it, deeply," ... "That’s how I make art expensive. And that’s my job, for the company and for my clients. To make art expensive."

I was reminded of something I once overheard from a dealer when I was buying my first car:

"What I love to do is put people in front of a car and make them feel it, make them stop everything else they're doing and experience it, deeply," ... "That’s how I make cars expensive. And that's my job, for the company and for my clients. To make cars expensive."

Meyer's clearly obsessed with his cross-town rivals, the Christie's clan:

"He once intercepted a truck filled with crates of Bacons [the painter, not the pork product - A.S.] bound for Christie’s, he told me. 'They didn’t get there.' He shrugged. 'But they would do the same.'"

And, he knows how to get his hand on quality art. In the auction business they call it:

"the three D's": divorce, debt, and death – human calamities that often compel collectors (or their survivors) to unload a few masterworks in exchange for cash. "I'm talking to lawyers and looking at transparencies, and it's a direct competition with Christie’s, and it’s all very hard-nosed," Meyer said.

But, lest we begin to think of Meyer as a backdoor-smarmy run-of-the-mill business trader, we’re reminded of his true place in our sophisticated, cosmopolitan society (with symphony conductors, dancers, opera singers?):

"...his auction book, which he keeps open in front of him on the rostrum and uses to guide him through a sale, much the way a conductor refers to a score while conducting a symphony."

Indeed,

"...Meyer's style at the rostrum was dynamic, almost dance-like;

'You need to be quite physically fit to do this,' Mitchell-Innes told me. 'It's a little bit like opera singing....'"

Don't forget about his deft, psychological manipulation:

...it was clear that Meyer's job at this point was less one of salesmanship than a kind of psychological enabling, with the goal of removing any lingering resistance the man might have to the thought of disbursing more than a million dollars for a bunch of welded girders.

What the fuck is salesmanship, if not "psychological enabling"? Meyer realizes that what he's really doing is selling status, and smoothing over any guilt the buyer might retain from their materialistic obsession:

"Owning art, unlike seeing it in a museum, is a very primal pleasure," Meyer said. "Having it there, close to you, something that you associate with great beauty or great emotional expression, something that you associate with a soul, or with status – owning it gives you another status – is very important..." Above all else, Meyer says, his task at this stage is to let collectors know that "desiring an object, desiring to own an object--that it’s O.K."

But Meyer will not be deterred. His obsessive competition with Christie's leaves him unimpressed with his 2004 sale of Picasso's mediocre "Boy with Pipe" for a mere $104 million:

"I know, but that was then!" He cries.

Death From Above: Operation Swarmer Distraction

2006-03-17T03:48:00.000-05:00

Assholes: Mr. President, recent news stories are reporting that your approval rating has hit a new, all-time low -- more Americans than ever before have lost faith in your ability to be their leader.

GWB(43): uuhhhh...

Assholes: The GOP rank and file are starting to become dissentious, sometimes even contradicting Dear Mr. Melhman's carefully constructed talking point memos.

GWB(43): hmmmm...

Assholes: Sir, even Jessica Simpson has publicly dissed your ass. We have to do something ... anything!!!

GWB(43): How 'bout we do one of them Operation thingy's?

From ABCnews.com:

'Operation Swarmer' Expected to Last Days

BAGHDAD, Iraq Mar 16, 2006 (AP) - U.S. forces and Iraqi troops launched what the military described as the largest air assault since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion Thursday, targeting insurgent strongholds north of the capital.

The U.S. military said the raid, dubbed Operation Swarmer, was aimed at clearing "a suspected insurgent operating area" northeast of Samarra and was expected to last several days. The Pentagon said 41 people were arrested but it was not clear if suspected insurgents put up any resistance.

Residents in the targeted area said there was a heavy U.S. and Iraqi troop presence and large explosions could be heard in the distance. The U.S. military said there was no firing or bombing from the air and the source of the blasts was not known.

"More than 1,500 Iraqi and coalition troops, over 200 tactical vehicles, and more than 50 aircraft participated in the operation," the military statement said.

The U.S. command in Baghdad said it was the largest number of aircraft used to insert troops and the largest number of troops inserted by air, although larger numbers of troops overall have been involved in previous operations.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said no bombs, missiles or other ordnance were fired from the helicopters. He said more than 650 U.S. troops and more than 800 Iraqi soldiers took part in the operation.

Gen. John Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command, told reporters at the Pentagon the operation was not related to any anticipated outburst of sectarian violence in the area or a significant departure from previous military actions.

Abizaid said it was aimed at al-Qaida in Iraq and other insurgent cells although there was "no specific high-value target that I know of."

"I wouldn't characterize this as being anything that's a big departure from normal or from the need to prosecute a target that we think was lucrative enough to commit this much force to go get," he said.... (continued at ABCnews.com) (emphasis added)

So let me get this straight. This is the largest fucking air assault in the past 3 years, but it's not "anything that's a big departure from normal." Oh, and it's "not related to any anticipated outburst of sectarian violence in the area" and there's supposedly "no firing or bombing from the air" even though there's already been reports that "large explosions could be heard in the distance." I see, so we've just launched the largest air assault in Iraq since 2003, but we're basically not doing anything and we really don't have any reason to.

Clear as mud. Operation Distraction a full success.

Something Smart and Something Stupid (and another smart thing after that)

2006-03-15T08:09:00.000-05:00

God, I hate talking about Fountain -- really, is there anything left worth saying about it? I was a little shocked when Mr. Saltz took a stab at the topic a couple of weeks back (where, oddly enough, he deemed it the "manifestation of the Kantian sublime"). In my view, Duchamp's readymades were intended as (necessary) interventionist stunts while his real artistic legacy lies in works such as his Large Glass or Tu m' -- pieces meant to be taken seriously as art objects, while still carrying many of the anti-art characteristics of Dada (Duchamp, himself, even warned the viewer to beware of too many readymades). Of course, history would tend to disagree with me, as Duchamp's name has become inexorably linked with Fountain and its continued use as justification for many a cynical or ironical anti-artistic gesture. In a recent Slate article/slide show on the Dada exhibition at the National Gallery in D.C., Lee Siegel manages to articulate an idea about Fountain that has constantly nagged me:

But the context that once made the urinal appear funny or not has disappeared. There is nothing to outrage, and no one to liberate. A still life by Renoir can still touch you with poetry. But if the urinal neither subverts nor replenishes, what possible purpose could Duchamp's Fountain serve on a museum wall?

(emphasis added)

My answer: Aesthetically-impotent historical artifact. While I'm not endorsing that an artwork need attain a form of universal poetry to retain aesthetic value, I suspect that, rather than carrying any intrinsic formal qualities meaningful for today's viewer, the object itself is merely a placeholder for a conversation (albeit still vitally ongoing) about what art is or was. Further, is the object (Fountain) even necessary for this conversation to continue, and what would the world lose, other than a museum-quality historical document, if one of its many attempted saboteurs were to succeed in destroying it?

After such a thoughtful observation, Siegel gets stupid and offers some advice for the aspiring contemporary Dadaist:

So, if you are a young artist, and Dada relics strike you as being as irrelevant as the masterpieces they mocked, maybe you should adopt Dada's spirit even as you reject Dada's creations. Imagine a show of reproduced contemporary classics that have been treated as irreverently as Duchamp once handled the Mona Lisa. Mapplethorpe nudes clothed in Renoir jackets and foulards; a Jeff Koons basketball with a mustache on it; a Damien Hirst shark relocated to a urinal. If the right people laugh, you'll know you're making fresh tracks.

Nice try Lee, but we've had way too much of this kind of shit already; better to leave the artmaking to the artists.

Finally, props be to Tyler Green, for an observation about over-curated exhibitions, that I wholeheartedly agree with:

"...the Whitney Biennial is part of a maddening trend: The show's curators apparently believe that they have to be part of the show, that curator equals artist, that the curator should combine the work of multiple artists to create Mondo-Art.

'There seemed a particular urgency to make a bold curatorial statement about the current zeitgeist,' Iles and Vergne wrote in a curator's preface to the show. Wrong. Artists make art and artists may make statements. Curators show art. Artists and curators are not and should not be competitors. Curators should not set artists in competition with each other for a viewer's attention." (emphasis added)

What I'm wondering is, why are curators so averse to allowing artworks to stand on their own? Five or Six artists per floor-- sans wall text -- sounds about right to me.

(photo from slate.com)

A Depressing Legacy of Facilitating Violence (What Can We Do About Darfur and Why Aren't We Doing More?)

2006-03-14T11:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, from the A.P. :

UNITED NATIONS - Increasing violence has left hundreds of thousands of civilians in Sudan's Darfur region without food and facing the prospect of widespread disease and death within weeks, the U.N. humanitarian chief said Monday.

Jan Egeland said he fears that Darfur is returning to "the abyss" of early 2004 when the region was "the killing fields of this world." Since that time, he said, the U.N. humanitarian operation in the region has succeeded in saving lives.

But "2006 seems to be bringing us back to 2004," Egeland warned. "We're losing ground every day in the humanitarian operation which is the lifeline for more than 3 million people."

The primary reason, he said, is the growing insecurity for tens of thousands of civilians and the 14,000 unarmed humanitarian workers who are facing increasing violence from Arab militias, rebels, government forces and bandits, he said.

As a result, Egeland said, U.N. relief officials and relief organizations cannot reach more than 300,000 people on the Chad border in western Darfur and the central mountainous region of Jebal Marra because they are too dangerous.

These unreachable areas, he said, "will soon get massively increased mortality because there is nothing else but international assistance." He expected deaths to increase markedly within weeks.

At least 180,000 people have died — some estimates are far higher — and some 2 million have been displaced since the start of a 2003 revolt by rebels from Darfur's ethnic African population. The Arab-dominated Sudanese government is alleged to have responded to the revolt by unleashing the Arab militias, known as the Janjaweed, who carried out sweeping atrocities against ethnic African villagers.

Egeland said the cycle of violence could be broken immediately if the government and rebels agree to a cease-fire proposal put forward Sunday by African Union mediators.

The African Union decided Friday to extend the mandate of its 7,000-strong force in Darfur for six months, when the United Nations is expected to take over. Egeland called for funding and logistical support, including helicopters, for the AU force so it can operate more effectively and try to prevent attacks and disarm the groups responsible.

He also called for more money from international donors for the 3 million people who need food, water and health services in Darfur — and 3 million others elsewhere in the country who need humanitarian relief. Donors have provided only one-fifth of the $1.7 billion the U.N. sought for Sudan this year, including about $650 million for Darfur.

"It's a test case for the world for having no more Rwandas and no more massive loss of innocent lives," he said.

Equally important, Egeland said, is security.

"There are tens of thousands of new displacements, both in Darfur and on the other side of border in Chad," Egeland said. "And there are attacks against humanitarian workers every week, again and again. Our colleagues are being hijacked, harassed, kidnapped. Our cars are being looted and it's become routine — and it is an outrage."

(emphasis added)

If Egeland is right, and Darfur is indeed "a test case for the world for having no more Rwandas," then it appears that (with at least 180,000 dead) we've already failed the test ... again. And yet the violence will probably get worse and the death toll will continue to rise, before a patchwork solution is finally gained.

The aspect that troubles me the most, considering the recent history of similar tragedies, is the blatantly unequal view of human suffering as reflected in international political policy (and why don't we hear more about this story from the MSM?). One only needs to reflect on the recent news of Slobodan Milosevic's death to remember NATO's self-proclaimed urgency for foreign intervention in the Kosovo/Serbia crisis in defense of its display of military power through a punishing strategy of death-from-above; or, as we are reminded on a daily basis, the Bush administration's insistence on saving the world from Saddam Hussein as justification for a violent campaign that has unleashed chaos and edged Iraq near civil war.

In the instance of both Kosovo and Iraq, the empirical data would suggest that the greater amount of violence, and greatest loss of life, have occurred after the U.S. and its Western allies came to the so-called rescue to avert human tragedy. Why is it that, in cases of extreme human tragedy as the result of violence, when foreign intervention from those with the greatest ability to help finally occurs, it often takes the form of more violence and rarely accomplishes anything other than additional destabilazation?

I hate to think that Chomsky is correct -- that Western intervention is predictably indicative of the cycle for expansion of hegemonic power -- because it would mean that Western civilization is fucked, and we're all headed for a massive downfall.

So here's my radical, if somewhat ridiculous, solution: Maybe it's time to admit that we, as men, have finally proven that we don't have any fucking idea how to run the world. We've been woefully unsuccessful at curbing the endless pattern of war and violence (not to mention having seriously fucked up the art world, among other things). Maybe it's time to give women a chance at the reigns.

How bad could it be?

(photo credits: top from tear.org.au, bottom from thehollandsentinal.net)

Report from Art Fair Weekend in the City: the Armory, Scope, Pulse, Phazer, Minus, ABACFD, etc.

2006-03-12T22:32:00.000-05:00

Oops, I meant to go to the art fairs this weekend, but somehow I got sidetracked and forgot all about the New York art world's biggest Barnum & Bailey style money-making art sellin' extravaganza. Instead I got the hell out of the city in search of the New Jersian countryside's simple pleasures of sunshiny miniature golf and general warm weather middle-class lo-brow alcoholically-induced merriment.

According to Artnet's Ben Davis, I missed the Armory Show's display of "art that is grand and easily digestible, superficially complex, knowingly artificial and/or coolly fetishistic." Dammit, I guess I'll have to catch that next year ... or maybe not. Looks like Mr. Furnas and Ms. Boesky got their wish and nailed down the coveted "sheer scale" award with their cooperatively-made pourthetic bloodfest, "Red Sea." (see AFC for photo).

Many of my fellow bloggers have stronger stomachs than I (and are apparently less tempted by Garden State diversions) and have braved through the crowded fusion of sweaty, black-clothed Chelseans, bombastic displays of the urgently now, and overpriced frou-frou condiments so that you don't have to. Sit back, grab yourself a drink of choice, and enjoy the keyboarded fruits of their tirelessly admirable labors (if you haven't done so already) with the guilty-conscience-soothing knowledge that you didn't miss a thing. The virtual art fair experience:

Art Fag City (who must have blogged herself ragged this weekend): Initial thoughts from the Armory; Scope mishap; Armory recap; Reasons you should have attended Pulse and avoided Scope (or vise-versa); Scope recap; and Scope PR frivolity.

From the Floor: Art fair overload; Scope mishap; Fair weekend weirdness; and Pulse picks.

Anonymous Female Artist: Edna's Don't Miss List; and the evocative and appropriately titled wrap up "Very Few Golden Nuggets in Huge Piles of Steaming Capitalist Shit."

Edward_ Winkleman: Jennifer Dalton @ Pulse advertisement.

James Wagner: Armory; Scope; and Armory, Pulse, Scope, Fountain, LA ART, DiVA.

Bloggy: Art fairs day one; and Don't miss Scope.

Heart as Arena: The Armory Show: Smartass Photo Essay.

FutureModern: "Fashion week" in the art world.

Artistic Thoughts: Armory-induced worms.

Roberta Fallon and Libby Rosof's artblog: Armory; Scope; Armory; and Pulse.

The Perfect Pour

2006-03-08T10:45:00.000-05:00

Now, I'm as big of a fan of Barnaby Furnas' oft-described style bending neo-historico war depictions as the next meatheaded testosterone-fueled video game playing frat boy (not sure if I'm being sarcastic here or not), but there's something about the recent Talk of the Town in the New Yorker on Furnas' latest pouristic endeavor that had me re-swallowing a bit of upchucked vomit from down below.

The New Yorker continues to be a standard for accomplished writing and generally insightful, engaging investigations of general newsworthiness-- but good contemporary art criticism it aint. Art critic in residence Peter Scheldahl has settled into an Upper Eastsider position of irrelevant canon-affirmation with his monthly contributions acclaiming the accolades of many a dead painter (with the occasional rant against such so-called aesthetic transgressors as Raphael). So for contemporary art talk we're left with the teeny little synoptic review-summaries in the front listings and the occasional sidebar hundred-worder (and in this case a style-mag/rag story of artmaking in TOTT).

The Pour
by Calvin Tomkins
Talk of the Town
The New Yorker -- March, 13, 2006

At five o'clock on a recent Monday afternoon, the artist Barnaby Furnas was in his Brooklyn studio, getting ready to start what he called "the pour" on a very large painting. Twenty-seven feet long by eleven and a half feet wide, propped horizontally on sawhorses of graduated height so that one end was about three feet lower than the other, the canvas virtually filled the room, leaving only a foot or so on either side for Furnas and his two assistants, Sarah Eaves and Jared Preston, to maneuver.

So far so good; not sure why he wants to make such a big fucking painting, but I'm with ya B. F.

The painting, called "Red Sea," had been requested by Marianne Boesky, Furnas's dealer, who hoped it would be the largest work at the Armory Show, the international art fair that opens on March 10th.

Hmmm... dealer requests large painting so that she can have the biggest painting at the Armory. Doesn't exactly make for an incredibly urgent or compelling impetus, but whatever.

"It's about things going wrong, everything collapsing. In a way, that's reassuring, at least in painting, because there are no boundaries, there's no abstraction versus representation -- everything can be both." He said this cheerfully, without apocalyptic overtones. Furnas, who is thirty-two, seems to like talking about his work almost as much as he likes making it.

Ouch, not sure if Tomkins is intentionally making fun of Furnas here or not.

A young blond woman arrived. It was Marianne Boesky, effervescent with anticipation. She put on disposable white coveralls and prepared to join in the pour.

Effervescent with anticipation? Join in the pour? WTF?

Sarah and Jared went into action with plastic spritz bottles, spraying water on the paint to make it spread and flow down the inclined plane. Boesky, equipped with a bottle of her own, followed their lead.

Damn, I guess this brings a whole new significance to the artist/dealer relationship. Maybe Beuys was right, everyone is an artist.

Furnas surveyed the canvas and tried to explain how blood had become his motif. "Basically, I wanted to do history paintings, and battle paintings," he said. "But I was having trouble painting figures. I was particularly frustrated with the faces and the hands, and as a way of getting around that I'd paint someone being shot, and then I didn't have to worry. Like, I'm having trouble with this hand -- splat! And that was interesting. It's red paint, and it's also blood. And then I was off and running, because it became like a game to me."

Double ouch! I couldn't paint hands so I starting covering them with blobs of red paint and called it blood? Does he really tell people this on a regular basis? I guess we'll have to add this to "wanting the biggest painting at the Armory Show" to our list of compelling artmaking stimuli.

"And he was raised by a Quaker," Boesky observed. "Which adds to the naughtiness." Furnas's naughtiness has deep roots.

Oooh, naughty, naughty, naughty. Come to mommy you bad little art boy.

After a few more slatherings of paint, Furnas was ready to knock off. His wife and Boesky's husband, Liam Culman, were expected any minute. "My husband is a total philistine," said Boesky, whose father is Ivan Boesky. "Liam is a Wall Street trader, but he loves Barnaby, and Barnaby loves the bourgeois life my husband loves. They play squash together at the Racquet Club." When the spouses arrived, everyone went off to Peter Luger for a celebratory dinner of rare steak and red wine.

Did she really just say "philistine", "bourgeois", "squash", and "Racquet Club" in consecutive sentences? Here comes the throw-up again, I think I'm going to need another shower. The grande finale:

"I'm going this way," Furnas said, examining the layers of red paint on his hands. "I'm not going to wash it off."

Ooooh, I guess he really is a bad boy.

To be honest, as I may or may not have sincerely stated above, I basically like Furnas' paintings. My favorites were his watercolors with Abe Lincoln from a few shows back; I thought they were pretty much fucking hilarious. But why is this piece so depressing to me? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that, despite the New Yorker's apparent lack of editorial space for adequate coverage of the contemporary art world, this vapid, almost gossipy-toned piece is considered necessary or entertaining reading.

Entertaining it was, but at the expense of endorsing the popular view of contemporary artists as bottom-line pandering, moneymaking machines (by including even the dealer in studio practice) who are perhaps better at talking about themselves in a self-marketing, system manipulating mode than at wielding anything resembling painterly skill (like being able to paint hands or faces). The point is not that Furnas hasn't artmaking skill, he certainly does, but that the writer has found it more amusing to focus on the seeming frivolity of Furnas' artistic choices than to talk about anything meaningful in the work itself. The depressing part is that this is an all too common description of contemporary artistic practice from an outsider's (and many times insider's) perspective; perhaps we deserve it, but we don't have to like it.

What's lost in all of this is that Furnas' work is supposedly about war (and has even been included in the occasional anti-war exhibition) and yet as he argues for a cheerfully "inclusive," self-described boundary-busting interpretation of his work, it becomes apparent that he's less interested in war as a subject then finding a thematic vehicle that allows for a more sophisticated reading of his aversion to traditional representation of hands and faces. Maybe this explains why his rock concert, beach scene, and forest-themed paintings are so crappy.

The Aches and Pains of a Not Yet Fully Grown New Media

2006-03-06T11:27:00.000-05:00

Ms. Edna Harris has been interviewed at Artlist. She continues to be one of the most enthusiastic voices in support of the barely birthed, yet ever struggling for identity and significance, art blogosphere. She writes:

I definitely feel that blogging has changed things. I love that it is a more democratic model for art criticism and an antidote to the academic model, which is largely dominated by men and uppity blowhards. There are so many people writing about art who have never made any. Now we have amateur and professional artists and writers putting in their two cents all over the place. Some find it obnoxious and unedited, but the people I know think it's totally revolutionary and informative.

...The only reason that certain art magazines have managed to retain readership is because artists outside of urban art centers were unable to keep up with the contemporary scene without them. Blogs get hits from artists all over the world. They are open, free, and, best of all totally current... Art blogs are totally natural hybrids of the traditional paper versions of art criticism. Rather than just one critic's opinion being read by everyone, now many different opinions are reaching many different people, accessibility is everything.

It's truly liberating that the blog model for art conversation is more democratic and allows for a wider range of voices to be heard. Anyone with internet access can join in on the conversation, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or geographic location (and regardless of the mainstream art world's ingrained prejudices towards particular demographics). There's something to the argument that the current art magazine model relies on an art world culture of insider status and exclusivity to attract its audience -- they often present content that panders to a special social club who carefully guards its almost cabal-like identity. I see no reason why art conversation needs to operate within such an environment. Pretension and exclusion are not what make art function, and blogs can fight this trend.

And yet I admittedly sympathize with those who find the results to be often obnoxious or irrelevant (and not necessarily excluding my own writing), as the inclusivity of the medium inherently invites mischief, ignorance, immaturity, and laziness along with those interested in sincere, thoughtful, rational, and intelligent interactions. It would seem that while the blogosphere's unregulated nature is its greatest strength, it can also be its worst enemy. In order to make blog content relevant and fight its tendency to veer towards banal chattiness, rigorous self-regulation must occur.

In fact, self-regulation is the most significant possibility that the blogosphere environment enables over the establishment of editors in the mainstream print model. As artists who blog, we have the opportunity to decide for ourselves what we find important and relevant to write about, and what we think are the most important issues regarding contemporary art making -- without the interference of capitalist market forces or a group of snobby, elitist, white males who have dominated the administration of art culture for far too long.

With all freedom comes great responsibility, and the blogosphere's ability to self-regulate will ultimately determine its place in the art world. Much progress has been made, but there is more to be done. Edna concludes:

...The solution is already underway. People have spoken up. Letters have been written. Thoughts and opinions have been shared verbally and across the Blogosphere, and we're feeling the reverberations. As long as we keep trying to do better, to affect change, and to stay positive, we're on the right track.

Agreed.

Virtually Whitneyfied, An Affectionately Affectless Parody in Three Parts

2006-03-03T12:03:00.000-05:00

(a biennial in fool bloom)

Part I:

The latest installment of the Biennial has irrevocably changed not only my terrestrial and extra-terrestrial aesthetical-existence but created an innately personal comprehension of complex stylistic and intellectual beatification. Armed with a revitalized sense of the now and urgently present, I can fervently proceed with sophistication and cosmopolitanism in response to the evils of worldwide totalito-domino in a unifying feeling of artistic onement with my fellow peace-mongers. Old is young, young is old, and intelligent critique stands on the precipice of forced enlightenment for an abject-utopian dreamworld of conceptually unknown yet non-deifyingly reified stratagem.

Part II:

Americans live here and live there, those living there sometimes live here and are sometimes referred to as Americans, or those born here and sometimes there and referred to as Americans are living there and sometimes live here and there. This has always been so, will always be so, and in accordance with self-professed anti-provincio-politicism, has been acceptingly celebrated as strictly oppositional to a reactionary provincial-dom. In cordoning a specific structural and situational non-restricted restricted space of infinite extension, non-accepting embraces acceptance, non-inclusivity embodies inclusivity and individual becomes group. Most importantly, outsider is insider and insider is outsider.

Part III:

The refutation of a cynically self-serving aggrandizement and a pseudo-socialistic antithesis to rampant unregulated capitalistic capitulation in a declared mode of self-critical mockery becomes hyperbolically-heady trickster tricks, endlessly fantastical endgame shenanigans, and a dark versus light puzzle that occupies the brainwaves while stylishly munching on the unborn female gametes of cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates. We are impressed, but not too impressed, saving our reserved skepticism and critique in a display of elite communal solidarity for a class of cultural magicians destined to rule with carefully groomed hands.

Also: Art Soldier would like to thank the graciously-giving contribution of the all-wise Mr. MAO for providing me with a much needed pass to the enriching environment of the American Museo-tradition.

How to Spice Up the Biennial -- MARTINIFEST!!!

2006-03-01T22:48:00.000-05:00

Fucking awesome, from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The glistening white Santiago Calatrava addition has made the Milwaukee Art Museum one of the city's classiest social addresses. But a recent martini fete held there turned into an overcrowded, drunken affair. Some unruly guests accosted artworks, which have been taken off display for a checkup.

People threw up, passed out, were injured, got into altercations and climbed onto sculptures at Martinifest, a semi- formal event organized by Clear Channel Radio and held at the museum Feb. 11, according to several people who attended or worked at the event.

"Hindsight is 20-20 . . . it was probably too cheap," Kerry Wolfe, a local programming director for Clear Channel, said of the event's premise - unlimited martinis for $30.

...But this time, food, drink and vomit were on and around some of the artworks by night's end, according to some accounts.

"It was crazy," said attendee Kathleen Christians, 39. "People were shoving people over. People were getting sick, screaming, shouting, messing with the artwork."

A group of four young men climbed onto "Standing Woman," a tall, bronze sculpture of a goddess-like woman with exaggerated features by early 20th-century American artist Gaston Lachaise.

"They were standing on it, grabbing the boobs, and somebody was just taking pictures with a cell phone," said Laura Collins, 35.

...

Denise Curran, 34, a lab technician who was injured when someone leaned onto a table that fell onto her legs, said, "You couldn't go anywhere, there was no flow."

"My whole calf is one big, nasty bruise," she added.

...

Police reported nothing major at the fest, but several attendees described minor injuries and other unpleasantries.

"We had seen this girl who had fallen," said Jamie Zwicky, 29, an emergency room nurse who attended the event. "She had a laceration on her head and some blood coming down . . . she looked very intoxicated."

A man who got into what Wolfe called a "family feud" with another man jumped from an outside terrace on the south side of the museum, several reported. The hospital where the man was taken told Wolfe the man was going to be fine.

Zwicky said that when she left about 11 p.m., four ambulances were outside the museum; Wolfe insisted there were two.

...

"I didn't see any museum guards," Collins said.

Zarnoth saw a few guards - removing a drunken young woman.

"Her arms were slung over them and her feet were dragging, basically," Zarnoth said. "I'd say that was pretty passed out."

Sounds like Milwaukee knows how to party.

UPDATE: Per Todd Gibson apparently Lincoln, Nebraska knows how to party too. Seriously, NYC has to get in on some of this action.

Fischerspooner = Political Art?

2006-02-27T07:55:00.000-05:00

From the "guardians" of cool-dum (Pitchfork Media):

Devendra, Bright Eyes, Stipe Rock Against War

The anti-war movement just got a whole lot cooler. . . Michael Stipe, Bright Eyes, Devendra Banhart, Rufus Wainwright, Fischerspooner, Public Enemy's Chuck D, and Peaches have signed on for the "Bring 'Em Home Now" benefit concert, which will take place at New York City’s Hammerstein Ballroom on March 20. It will commemorate the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and will raise funds for Iraq Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Peace.
...

Fischerspooner's Casey Spooner told Billboard, "We have been at war for three years. One desperately feels the need for someone to speak some sort of truth, either poetic or factual."

Whether or not performing electroclash songs while dressed up as extras from the musical Cats will bring about such truth remains to be seen.

(emphasis added)

Hilarious ... but at least Spooner means well, I guess.

(photo image from littlebigman.com)

Sometimes It's Difficult to Think About Art: Violence, Destruction, Death, Grief, Protest, Anger, Violence, Destruction, Death...

2006-02-23T12:58:00.000-05:00

A Friendly Update from the U.S. Supreme Court

2006-02-21T16:36:00.000-05:00

It begins:

Justices to Revisit Late-Term Abortion Ban

From the AP:

"The Supreme Court said Tuesday it would consider reinstating a federal ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortion, pulling the contentious issue back to the high court on conservative Justice Samuel Alito's first day.

Alito could well be the tie-breaking vote when the court decides if doctors can be barred from performing the abortion procedure.

It is the first time the court has considered a federal restriction on abortion, and conservatives said they expect the membership change to affect the outcome.

"This is the frontline abortion case in the country," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, who represents members of Congress in the case.

Justices split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law barring the same procedure because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Alito...." (emphasis added)

It's Time to Start a Religion:

Court Allows Church's Hallucinogenic Tea

From the AP:

"A small branch of a South American religious sect may use hallucinogenic tea as part of a ritual intended to connect with God, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In its first religious freedom decision under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said the government cannot hinder religious practices without proof of a "compelling" need to do so.

"This is a very important decision for minority religious freedom in this country," said lawyer John Boyd, who represents about 130 U.S. members of O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal who live in New Mexico, California and Colorado.

The tea, which contains an illegal drug known as DMT, is considered sacred to members of the sect, which has a blend of Christian beliefs and South American traditions. Members believe they can understand God only by drinking the tea, which is consumed twice a month at four-hour ceremonies...."

UPDATE (from The Onion):

Alito Keeps Telling Supreme Court How They Did Things In Circuit Court

WASHINGTON, DC—Supreme Court sources say the "Third Circuit anecdotes" told by newest associate justice Samuel Alito are irritating his colleagues. "This morning, he told us how the Third Circuit judges write their opinions at home," Justice Clarence Thomas said. "I don't care what they do on the Third Circuit, Justice Alito should compose his opinions in the office." Sources say Alito also has "an annoying habit of mentioning that he was the editor of his high-school yearbook."

(First image from Yahoo! News, second one stolen from nku.edu)

CENSORED UPDATE -- Say What? Notes from the A. World

2006-02-20T22:37:00.000-05:00

Jack the Pelican Kills Off What Was Left of the Slow-Beating, Barely-Surviving-On-Life-Support Heart of Political Art:

Guerra de la Paz (war of the peace?)
Jack the Pelican Presents
Feb. 10 - Mar. 12, 2006

(pieta?)

From the Press Release (has to be a joke, right?):

This larger than life Pieta of Guerra de la Paz recasts Michelangelo's masterpiece to honor the pathos of the Gulf warrior. More, it is the peaceful denouement of tragedy both timely and eternal and an emblem of love and caring devotion between men.

Cuban artists Alain Guerra and Neraldo de la Paz collaborate under the name Guerra de la Paz. This fortuitous marriage of their two last names points to the inextricable convergence of peace and war in the long dance of history. --And makes of the two artists a living allegory. War is everywhere, and, everywhere, shadowed by peace. And peace by war.

Donald Kuspit Bitch-Slaps Pop Art:

From Critical History Chp. 2 Part 1:

The irony of Pop art, which is inherently anti-subjective, seems to reinforce American materialism... Its irony amounts to an endorsement of the consumer culture it seems to criticize. It may be a hollow construction, as Warhol’s images suggest, but there is no alternative to hollowness. Its demonstration -- the hollowing out of all appearances, indicating that they are socially manufactured myths, valueless in themselves, rather than refining them to suggest that there is something real and humanly valuable within and behind them -- became the be-all and end-all of Warhol’s cynical art...Warhol’s own dramatically superficial self-portraits say it all: There is no self behind his appearance, he stated, suggesting that he realized he was a hollow man.

The A. World's Best Kept Secret, Finally Revealed???

(warning: clicking on the above image is not endorsed by this blog, as its content has been deemed offensive by some)

UPDATE: Self-Described Proponent of Free Speech Threatens Bloggers with Legal Action

In a juicy bit of irony, endless hypocrisy and juvenile playground antics, one of the art blogosphere's own, the Right Reverend James W. Bailey (an apparently notorious litigator), has issued legal threats of "Cease and Desist" towards Edna at Anonymous Female Artist for unlawfully manipulating and displaying a version of one of his artworks (and whose status, as such, was unknown to her or myself at the time).

The self-named Right Reverend has doggedly argued for a limitless version of Free Speech, wherein criticism of offensive speech is not only unacceptable, but artists who purposefully offend under the guise of "Freedom of Artistic Expression" should be celebrated as heroes, regardless of offensive content. Those unwilling to accept his hardline view of Free Speech have been compared to Nazis, the KKK, and big-breasted bimbos. Bailey has had a change of heart and now sees that a line should be drawn that cannot be crossed -- a line that allows all artistic expression except that which offends himself. In bowing to his powerful display of oppression, we hope he will recant his disparaging speech towards those of opposing viewpoints, and will see more clearly the hypocrisy emodied in his myopic view of the doctrine of Free Speech.

(all images stolen from other sites)

A Painter's Painter ... Painting

2006-02-20T08:09:00.000-05:00

I've always been suspicious of the usefulness of the "painter's painter" label, but if anyone qualifies for such a designation it's Thomas Noskowski. His latest at Max Protetch continues his project of small abstractions (most are around 20 x 28 inches). Within these strict self-limitations he continues to investigate form and technique with results that are seldom matched. (images link to extra-large versions)

Thomas Noskowski
Max Protetch
February 18 - March 18, 2006

UPDATE: James Wagner has posted two close-ups.

(all images from maxprotetch.com)

The New Political Anti-Political Art – Notes From a Discussion

2006-02-16T13:46:00.000-05:00

After much delay I've finally compiled some notes and excerpts from the Paul Chan and Robert Hullot-Kentor talk/discussion at New School a few weeks ago. The event focused on the idea of political art as related to Adornian philosophy with particular attention to the concept of forgiveness. I waste a lot of time and energy worrying about the relationship between art and politics and have more than a passing interest in Adorno (and the importance he placed on art's ability to transform society) so this event was right up my alley. The details:

Unforgiving Art? Unforgivable Nation?
The New School, January 26th, 2006
Participants:
Paul Chan -- Artist (his website National Philistine is currently under construction)
Robert Hullot-Kentor -- Philosopher (translated Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory)

It was organized into two parts: Hullot-Kentor gave a 30 minute lecture, then Paul Chan showed some of his videos; a discussion followed with Q&A from the audience. I relied on a horribly unlistenable audio archive for excerpts, so I'll focus on the parts that I could discern (or remember), which was mostly Hullot-Kentor's initial talk (probably the best part anyway).

Hullot-Kentor came right out of the gate questioning his motives and our expectations for a discussion concerning art and politics. He described himself as:

"...someone whose general feeling for political art, that narrowly insists that art is only legitimate when it functions as a utensil to advance political struggles, is about the same feeling I have in the back of a yellow cab when I realize that the fellow in the front seat driving is psychotic."

His dry, monotone delivery only made the point more indicting (and hilarious) -- when most of us think of political art we think of activism or didacticism: polemics that seek to convert. His is a distaste that I can easily identify with, in accordance with Walter Benjamin's sentiment that "genuine polemics approach a book as lovingly as a cannibal spices a baby."

And yet the desire to approach political subject matter through art remains. The question he poses is:

"What else can art be, given what the United States has now shown itself to be?"

Hullot-Kentor points to Hegel (from The Philosophy of Right) for a clue:

"Individuals in modern society easily suppose that they are in a condition of sinfulness, when their actual circumstance is that of alienation."

This would prove to be a major theme throughout the discussion. If we are indeed supposing a condition of sinfulness, then forgiveness would seem to be the answer. If we are in fact in a circumstance of alienation, then something else is needed. Hullot-Kentor questions the ability to be forgiven:

"Art has never had the power to forgive, to forgive a nation, or anyone else...
Not the power to grant forgiveness, not the desire to do so, not the power to withhold forgiveness....

Nation-states have never been objects of forgiveness, nor are they capable of that power...."

He went on to define forgiveness as an archaic dream, negated by the emancipation of society into one that makes its own laws:

"An age that dreamt about forgiveness, conceived it and desperately sought it, could not produce it ... St. Augustine, after a lifetime of devotion, died in tears for the sin of the fruit he stole as a child.

Our age, by contrast, could have all the fruit that anyone might care to eat, beyond guilt of any kind, and could potentially, if not all the tears, wipe away many of them. This is the idea of a society beyond scarcity; it is what the concept of forgiveness became with the emergence of an autonomous political society."

This speaks to the heart of his concept of Unforgivable in the title Unforgivable Art, Unforgivable Nation. In our politically equal, unforgivable state, everything becomes about exchange:

"As the exchange relationship has become all encompassing it has made it impossible to conceive of anything that doesn’t go beyond the tit for tat, the giving that is always a getting, the pushing that is in fact a shoving, in which equivalences are constantly traded while one person in the exchange is always being cheated....

We most want to consider politically, what opposition is possible to the dominance of the exchange relation? We've understood that the idea of forgiveness, that potential of giving beyond measure, is a source of our wanting to conceive this opposition to the exchange relation...

In art, forgiveness, that giving regardless of getting, and beyond injury, is transmuted by the same demand for autonomy and to the artwork's freedom to itself. This freedom of autonomous art to itself is its capacity to free itself to form in itself others other than itself. If the relief that we feel ... is a direct inheritance of the experience of forgiveness, in art this experience has the additional relief that to have it, to pursue it, we are not being asked to bend at the knees."

But if we are mistaken about our state of sinfulness (as Hegel suggests) then what can we gain from art?

"What we want from Art ... is to have the truth, what art potentially forms in its freedom to itself. This is the most profound opposition conceivable to the exchange relation. In this critical capacity, art and politics converge with absolute urgency. It is an urgency to find some way through a world that has become solid smokescreen.

It turns out, however, that politics who heroically demands to utilize art directly as a tool in political struggle is only another way of insisting that nothing dare exist that is not paying its rent like the rest of us."

Hullot-Kentor goes on to describe Paul Chan's work (implicitly suggesting that his work provides some clues to overcoming our art-political dilemma):

"He is a politically engaged artist, who all the same does not make political art, not in any simple sense anyway. For sure, political material is thematically present in his work ... but he's not committed to political art in the narrow sense that insists that art is strictly and only legitimate when it functions as a utensil subserving practical aims in political struggle....

He uses the implication of political concepts ... as an aesthetic resource for attacking video’s bright light and sumptuous color. If video wants to give exuberantly in ways that easily become diffuse, Paul Chan looks to political concepts for means to bind that surface and limit it. This is a completely Modern gesture....

Paul Chan wants to attack the video surface by spilling political intellect across it for its corrosive bite. If this is political art, it could just as well be described as anti-political, because there is no doubt that the political material ends up subservient in aesthetic intention. Paul’s aim is to chastise that video surface, and by chastising it, make it as alive as possible, by somehow ... ridding expression from the video screen...."

This model is not altogether new; it is illustrative of Adorno's argument for the necessity of artistic autonomy. When Hullot-Kentor refers to Chan's 'Modern gesture' he seems to confuse the literally physical with the figurative because he goes on to offer some examples of painters who literally scraped away paint. This literal interpretation is a misunderstanding of Adorno's intention in my very very humble opinion. I agree with the modern notion that artistic autonomy is only achieved by stripping away all that is not art (in a figurative sense), but the stripping away of literal material eventually leads to the blank canvas (or blank video screen in Chan's case), and haven’t we all been there before with disappointing results?

He concludes:

"In the complexity of our situation, art can only gain expression by turning against the source of its own plentitude, and even against its own inherited claim to be beyond injury....

If art is to find any reality, it must become a struggle against what gave it its freedom to itself. In this paradox, whatever distinction there may be between shaping the truth and destroying the truth tends to become inscrutable."

Art's necessity in "turning against the source of its own plentitude" and to be "against its own inherited claim to be beyond injury" are the key points in the Adornian argument. It's an argument for art as the embodiment of truth as opposed to serving our expectations for it as a member in the exchange relationship. Adorno admonished:

"Whoever concretely enjoys artworks is a philistine; he is convicted by expressions like 'a feast for the ears.'"

In Adorno's view, art's 'plentitude' is its ability to create objects for the sophisticated enjoyment of the viewer. In this way, as Hullot-Kentor has illustrated, art becomes a servant to the exchange-relation; in the context of politically-didactic art, it becomes another shouting voice amongst a crowd of shouting voices, instead of rising above it. In order to become truly autonomous, and gain the expression of truth, it must turn against this urge and its status as a helpful member of society. Adorno explains:

"Yet if the last traces of pleasure were extirpated, the question of what artworks are for would be an embarrassment. Actually, the more they are understood, the less they are enjoyed."

Adorno is suggesting that what we would find embarrassing is Truth. When art extirpates the last traces of pleasure (among other things), and arrives at the essential autonomous nature of art, then the truth of the human condition is embodied. It reflects back at us, as if staring at a mirror, and is an embarrassment. This is why he says that the more we understand art, the less we enjoy it – because the more we learn about ourselves the less we like ourselves.

This may seem a bit depressing and negative (unless you agree that the true human condition is one of suffering), but the original quote from Hegel points to something more positive:

"Individuals in modern society easily suppose that they are in a condition of sinfulness, when their actual circumstance is that of alienation."

If Hegel is right, and we are indeed in a state of alienation, then art need not be looked to for forgiveness. It doesn't need to be a member of the exchange relation. Instead, by embodying human truth and ridding itself of the expectation for pleasure, art provides a healing and unifying empathy -- an antidote to alienation.

Intellectual Scavenging and Sensory Overload

2006-02-14T22:18:00.000-05:00

Thomas Hirschhorn is unafraid of content. He dives head first into the postmodern political, cultural, and religious mess crippling our international climate and threatening the way forward. It's messy, inelegant, and flawed -- qualities embodied in the Gordian knot symbolic of the ideological moment.

His art makes me want to understand and yet understanding is out of reach. Explicit images of unthinkable horror, multiplied in a puzzling array of banality, seem provocative and yet all too common and aloof. They make me feel ashamed for not feeling enough. Interjected with spiraling spyros, displays of attention deficiency and neurotic creative energy compete with the insanity and unknowableness of the graphic violence that competes in such close proximity.

Manufactured human construction: our tools, our methods of building, turn back on us in a brutally self-inflicted pain. And yet their cleanliness and perfection point to a utopian dream of human accomplishment that attacks our efforts to peacefully coexist in a moment of self-affliction.

All sympathy is fake, loss is turned into entertainment, and horror to spectacle; we simply cannot understand what it means to truly suffer. We look to truth for an answer, we plead for a way out, and art provides a respite for an instant.

(Superficial Engagement at Gladstone Gallery closed on February 11th. All photos from gladstonegallery.com)

On Editing: The Free Speech of Walter Robinson and Flemming Rose

2006-02-13T15:35:00.000-05:00

The blogosphere is united in its disgust for Charlie Finch's latest sexist garbage at Artnet. Blogs who have voiced their disapproval include From the Floor (perhaps the first), Anonymous Female Artist, In Search of the Miraculous, Art Fag City, Heart as Arena, and many more. I believe them to be justified in their outrage and I support their protest. Sexism has been tolerated (and even condoned) in the art world for far too long. There is a common misconception that the art world is a bastion for progressive values, and yet female artists continue to be underrepresented in galleries, museums, and biennials.

But the question has been raised: Does protesting Finch's column put one in opposition to free speech? If we demand that Artnet's editor, Walter Robinson, apologize for the offensive sexism in Finch's column, are we not threatening the freedom of the press? Free speech is an increasingly touchy subject in a field that depends on it for its existence.

These questions are not altogether different from those raised by the Muhammad cartoon controversy that was instigated when the Jyllands-Posten culture editor, Flemming Rose, published cartoons intended to 'test' Muslims in a 'test' of free speech. In order to pass this 'test,' they were asked to be offended and then not to protest this offense. The test was set up to assure that they would fail. While we are horrified and outraged by the violence that has resulted from these cartoons, we are left to decide if the paper was justified in printing the cartoons in the first place, and whether we are obligated to endorse the reprinting of them in a display of support for free speech.

After deciding that both sides of the conflict have displayed an incredible lack of tolerance, I tested various arguments over the past week by engaging in heated discussions on many other blogs. My arguments were not well accepted. In fact, I was shocked to see just how many were unwilling to even consider the other side of the conflict. What I have found is that when everyday Americans (and even many intellectuals) are confronted by a perceived challenge to the concept of Freedom of Speech they lose they're fucking minds. And rightly so. Its myth is that powerful.

Brains turn to jelly and hearts race. All power to reason and logically debate is gladly discarded as we grasp for the comfort of this country's most closely held doctrine -- the First Amendment of the Constitution. Even the sound of its name brings swelling pride to our American hearts. And yet while I claim to be neither an intellectual nor anything closely resembling one engaged in rigorous philosophical thought, I have come to one single conclusion that best sums up the lesson I have learned from this conflict (that is, aside from the fact that rampant Islamophobia persists throughout both Europe and the U.S.):

Freedom of Speech Does Not Exist.

Or, at least not in any kind of absolute way, like we commonly ascribe to the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is what I believe to be the fundamental flaw in the premise of Flemming Rose's absurd 'test' of Free Speech.

Freedom of Speech has come to represent freedom itself, as if to say that allowing anyone to say or write anything at any time is the direct opposite of oppression. The dictum of the popular Libertarian interpretation best exemplified by the American Civil Liberties Union goes something like this: All speech is equal, and all speech has an equal right to exist; in fact, offensive speech is best served when aired out in the open, in the most public of forums, so that society can be exposed to all forms of offense and non-offense.

The rationale is that since all opinions will be aired equally, no matter how offensive, no matter how detrimental to society, that society will be best served because undesirable speech will simply fade away due to society's recognition of it and resulting distaste for it.

The problem is that this flies in the face of the evidence of the entire history of human civilization. Racism has not faded away simply because its abusers have aired their racist views in public, nor has sexism disappeared. The concept of Free Speech is not free from ideology as some would suggest. Instead, it is an ideology in itself, and is used to justify our society's own ethical distinctions.

Consider the fact that editors of newspapers make decisions every day to exclude certain content from the eyes of the public -- and we gladly thank them for it, even at the expense of freedom of speech, because they exclude things that we all collectively find deeply offensive (so offensive, in fact, that we need not name them as being included within the rights of Free Speech). As an American society we have declared that we never want to see or read: Double-dildo action on the front page of the New York Times; pictures of child molestation; Nazi propaganda; Op-ed pieces praising terrorism or mocking the deaths of their American victims; explicit racism describing the reasons why all minorities should be systematically murdered; etc, and on and on.

The point is not that these things, that we all agree we never want to be seen or read even at the expense of freedom of speech, are in any way comparable to Charlie Finch's sexism or the Danish cartoons. But, they are listed simply to show that, as a society, we do not allow any and all forms of speech. Therefore, freedom of speech as an absolute ideal guaranteed in the First Amendment simply does not exist. Instead, a more accurate description of Free Speech in America would be that we allow all forms of speech except those existing beyond our supposed collective sense of what is morally repugnant. The question is not whether a bar of ethical responsibility should be set, it clearly already exists. Rather, as members of society we have to decide where the bar should be set.

Editors like Walter Robinson and Flemming Rose have difficult jobs. They do not simply allow anyone, anywhere, to write anything they want in their respective publications as a blanket endorsement of freedom of the press. No, they put several limitations on speech everyday, not only to screen quality, but to make ethical judgments on what is right to publish and what is wrong. They are the ones ultimately responsible for what is published -- it's their job. Clearly a bar exists, for example, because blatant racism of African Americans would never be published on Artnet. They have suffered too much, for too long at the hands of racist speech, for any editor of any respectable media outlet to purposefully print or display content generally agreed to be clearly racist towards African Americans. We would find it repugnant and unacceptable -- regardless of the doctrine of Free Speech.

So, if ethical judgments are in fact made by editors, and an ethical bar already exists, where do we set the bar? More importantly, why does speech endorsing the discrimination of groups such as women, homosexuals or Muslims continue to exist, and why is its existence continually defended by the right to absolute Free Speech, when we know it simply does not exist as such? Why is sexist speech or anti-Muslim speech not repulsive enough to justify ethically editorializing it out? And, why is sexist speech or anti-Muslim speech guaranteed by the 'freedom of the press' while many other forms of racism or offensive speech are not?

We cannot begin to know until we stop confusing the concept of Free Speech with the concept of ethical responsibility. I'm saddened and troubled by the possible answers.

What I Wish I Would Have Written: A Call for Understanding By Souheila al-Jadda

2006-02-08T11:06:00.000-05:00

Some may be bored with the fact that I keep coming back to the 'freedom of speech' cartoon controversy, but I think the issues raised by this conflict are especially important to consider in the context of art making. For me, the key issue continues to be 'legality' versus 'responsibility'. The most important thing about free speech is that it be unregulated by government, anything less is unacceptable.

But the great thing about free speech is that we, as individual citizens, have the right to disagree with what has been said. When governments try to control the speech that a newspaper or art museum endorses, then free speech is threatened. When citizens express non-violent moral condemnation of speech that a newspaper or art museum endorses, then citizens are honorably doing their jobs as members of society.

I say this because some find hypocrisy in those (such as the NY Times) who supported art works such as Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ", but now find the Danish cartoons at the very least a bad idea, if not shameful. It's important that we be able to disagree with a particular use of free speech without having to continually defend its legal right to exist. Of course it should be able to exist!! But that doesn't mean its content is responsible, or that members of society have to like its message. What confuses the matter is that the right-wing Danish newspaper has labeled their act "A Test of Free Speech." We should not automatically take their word for it. We should be allowed to disagree with its content without having to deny its right to exist.

What has further confused the issue is the violent response by Middle Eastern extremists. These extremists should never be confused with peaceful, law abiding Muslims. We must never forget that the hateful terrorist extremists who have little respect for human life are the real enemies in this debate and should be targeted as such.

As I awkwardly babble on in my frustration to express an understanding of the conflict, I'd like to share an article written by Souheila al-Jadda that does a better job of arriving at what I believe to be a reasonable articulation of the issues at stake.

Understanding the Outrage
By Souheila al-Jadda
Originally posted Wed Feb 8, 7:01 AM ET
USAToday.com
(found here at Yahoo News)

The wave of anger in the Islamic world over the caricature depictions of the prophet Mohammed should not only be a debate about free speech, but also about respecting the values of other cultures and religions.

In this latest cartoon caper, both Western newspapers and Muslim protesters have demonstrated their lack of consideration for the other, thus widening the gap of understanding between East and West.

Many questions arise about the purpose of publishing these cartoons. What does the public gain by seeing a depiction of Mohammed on clouds, announcing that heaven has run out of virgins to reward suicide bombers? What is benefited by portraying the prophet with a bomb in his turban, looking like a terrorist? What public service has the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, provided by publishing these cartoons?

The foreign editor of the paper, Jan Lund, said: "I don't remember anyone raising any objections. The idea seemed good. The intention was to provoke debate about the extent to which we self-censor in our coverage of Muslim issues."

In defense of free expression

While it is legitimate to raise questions about censorship, it is quite another thing to address the issue by defaming the most revered Muslim prophet in the name of press freedom. To understand the importance Islam places on Mohammed, one should consider that in the five daily prayers, Muslims mention him at least 38 times. One female protester told Al-Jazeera TV, "I love the prophet more than I love myself."

Depicting Mohammed is generally prohibited in Islam. Portrayals, however, have and can be done in honorable ways. Persian Muslims, for many centuries, have illustrated the life of the prophet through miniature paintings. The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington has a frieze of Mohammed. But these depictions are done with dignity. What we saw in the European papers were blatantly disrespectful.

Though free expression is a value cherished in the West, it is not a carte blanche to say anything. With speech comes responsibility. In the USA, there are limits. Some words can not be uttered on our radio air waves because they are deemed indecent. The government has the right to regulate speech that seeks to incite violence or endanger others.

Respect for human dignity

The press has also practiced self-restraint in favor of respecting human dignity as well as cultural and religious sensibilities. Images of dead American troops are almost never seen in the U.S. news media out of respect to the deceased and their families. Most mainstream press would think twice about publishing a blatantly racist cartoon that would offend ethnic, religious and other minorities.

But these provocative cartoon portrayals came as no surprise to many in the Islamic world. Protesters see this as a pattern of Western attacks against Islam and Muslims - especially after reports of desecration of the Islamic holy book, the Quran, at the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan; and the banning of the headscarf, hijab, in public schools in France.

Muslims are asking themselves, what's next?

While Danish editors are free to publish such cartoons, Muslims are also free to express outrage. The republishing of the caricatures fueled even more anger because it was understood as a message from Europe that their protests, which are part and parcel of free expression, mean nothing.

Nonetheless, the ransacking of embassies and churches as well as the targeting of European nationals by demonstrators must be strongly condemned. These acts only serve to reinforce the very stereotypes Muslims are protesting.

Demonstrators would be better off using constructive forms of protest, perhaps buying newspaper ads explaining the religion and its prophet, spreading understanding rather than violence. European papers could spark a more intellectual debate rather than needlessly inflaming emotions.

The Quran states, "Mankind! We created you from a pair of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes so that you may know each other."

We must look for ways to build the bridges between East and West - not break them down - so that some day we can truly begin to respect and know each other better.

Souheila al-Jadda is a journalist and associate producer of a Peabody award-winning program, Mosaic: World News from the Middle East, on Link TV. She also is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

And Now for Something Completely Different ...

2006-02-07T10:58:00.000-05:00

Or, the same at first, but then different in the 2nd part. I've still been obsessing about the Danish cartoons controversy (as the violence continues to escalate) and got sucked into a debate at Edward's_blog about the right-wing Danish newspaper's possible anti-Islamic motivations for publishing the cartoons in the first place, and the likely reality that extremist mid-east leaders have contrived an overreaction in order to encourage anti-European (and anti-American) violence. Looks like there's some dangerous politicking fueling both sides of the conflict.

But as a mindless distraction, and in opposition to those leftist/anarchists in the Chomskian mold who see sporting entertainment as a dangerous tool in the capitalist oppression of the lower-class, I offer some thoroughly banal (to some) sports commentary on America's biggest day of the year.

Another Crappy Superbowl

Hooray! The Broncos won another superbowl! Err... wait, no... they choked in the AFC Championship and paved the way for the most boring Superbowl since the Ravens crapfest. The Superbowl is the most anti-climactic championship in all of sports. There's something about the extreme pressure and (over)hype of the game that guarantees that it almost always comes down to the team that chokes the least, and is usually one of the worst played games of the season. Both the Steelers and the Seahawks strained to lose the game, but alas, someone had to win.

This matchup was really between the 4th and 5th best teams in the NFL. The Colts were the best, my beloved Broncos the second (and looking to steal one), Patriots third, Steelers fourth, and the Seahawks win the consolation prize for the best team in the watered-down NFC.

The Colts dominated all season long, but were undone by their lack of momentum resulting from a couple of meaningless losses at the end of their near-perfect season (not to mention Peyton Manning's annual disappearing act during big games).

The Broncos and Patriots were fairly evenly matched teams, but the Pats made it easy by turning in one of their worst games of the season.

The Steelers were a mildly good (but not great) team all year. They got a little healthier as the playoffs arrived, but were best served by two insanely productive offensive games turned in by Ben Rothlesberger. A mediocre passing team during the regular season looked like Joe Montana's 49ers for two playoff games but fell back to their rightful place on Earth during Superbowl XL. None of their stars did anything remotely remarkable during the game. If not for a trick play and some bad calls by the officials, the Seahawks could have actually won.

The Seahawks should never have had a chance. A similar team to the (adoptedly beloved) New York football Giants, though a bit more consistent, they should have lost to the Giants in Seattle if not for three badly missed game-winning field goals by soon-to-be-fired Jay Feeley. The Seahawks were just fortunate that an NFC participant is required in the Superbowl.

Yep, there should be a party in Denver right now, but instead there's only sorrow and the pain of considering another season with Jake Plummer not to mention the possibility of the cancerous Terrell Owens joining the team. Next year's prediction: Broncos v. Giants, with the Broncos winning on a Jason Elam field goal as time expires.

Desperately Seeking Empathy with the Muslim World

2006-02-04T14:44:00.000-05:00

While the Islamic uproar to the Danish Jyllends-Posten's self-professed challenge in its 'battle for free speech' continues to escalate, I'm left trying to understand both sides and come to a reasonable perspective of the conflict.

(the recent developments of the embassy fires in Syria can be found here, a thorough recap of events up to Jan 31 here, and a thoughtful (but sometimes heated) debate in the comments section of Edward_'s related post here)

My first instinct was to immediately side with those making the case for free speech. Some may recall my own religio-inflammatory post back in December (in honor of Christmas) that would probably be offensive to most Muslims and Christians. I'm very sensitive to the issue of theocratic rule vs. secular government and how that impacts the freedoms of its citizens. The fact is, free speech is one of the western world's most dearly held civil rights, what I believe to be one of the main differences between open, free society and totalitarian oppression. Anything opposed to free speech is simply unacceptable.

But an excellent and much needed article at Slate.com was published yesterday that offers some help with understanding the position of those outraged with the cartoons. It asks: What do Arab journalists think of the Islamic cartoon scandal? Some excerpts:

Al-Hamadi criticized Denmark as well for picking the wrong issue for a stand on principle: "If Denmark has tried to teach Arabs and Muslims a lesson in respect for the country's constitution and its laws, I believe it did not succeed in choosing the right issue. The justification that one must respect the constitution that guarantees freedom of opinion and expression, including the freedom to denigrate others, was not appropriate -- this is the trap that Denmark fell into."
...
Egypt's Al-Ahram celebrated the boycott in an editorial, calling it a "civil-society initiative" and warning that Muslim governments should leave the action to their citizens to avoid a detrimental multilateral escalation.
...
Nur al-Din chided Arabs for a response that "that does not become them or their history and does not contribute to fixing their strained relations with the West." Looking back, Nur al-Din reminded readers that the Ayatollah Khomeini used the Rushdie affair to undermine Iranian revolutionaries seeking a rapprochement with the West. By way of contrast, he concluded, "The Arabs and Muslims who are moving today against Denmark, its products, and embassies, are not exploiting the caricature issue for any political goal, as Khomeini did. Rather, they are sending what is by any standard the wrong message, choosing a foolish pretext for what is really a caricature of a battle."
A persistent theme in the press's response was the gap between European concern over anti-Semitism and indifference to the denigration of Islam. Abdallah Bin Bakhit asked, "While the Danish government claims that the publication of the caricatures falls under freedom of opinion as guaranteed by the Danish Constitution, would it respond with the same claim if a researcher had published a report on the Holocaust challenging the official opinion imposed by Jewish organizations?"

Husayn Shabakshi wrote in the pan-Arab daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat, "Anti-Semitism is unacceptable, and the Danish caricatures would not have been published if they had depicted a Jewish rabbi, for example." He continued, "Jews have succeeded in criminalizing any critical mention of Jews as anti-Semitism, subjecting anyone who engages in this to harsh punishments. Today, it is necessary for serious Islamic organizations to make concerted efforts in the international arena to criminalize infringements on Islam."

Taking a broader view, Ahmad Abd-al-Husayn noted in Iraq's Al-Sabah that a collision of two basic rights lies at the heart of the controversy: "In the name of freedom, which is one human right, dignity, another sacred right, is trampled. What has gone wrong? Which should win out? Freedom of expression and action, the highest of the arts and most precious endowment of humankind on this earth, or the free will to sanctify the symbols and beliefs that order the existence of nations and cultures?" The author continued, "The shameful drawing by this Dane is nothing but an extreme example, one of numerous examples in which freedom stands in opposition to itself. For the free press has allowed al-Qaida to reach every home via television and the Internet. But we know what al-Qaida thinks of the free press. It is sufficient to recall the obliteration of television in Kabul when it was ruled by the 'commander of the faithful.' " In closing, Abd-al-Husayn warned, "The denigrators of the prophets are not free. They are using freedom as a weapon in a war that no one will win."

(emphasis added)

I think there is some real wisdom in these passages. I'm sure that most reasonable Muslims are as disturbed by the displays of violence as we are, but we shouldn't confuse our condemnation of the violence with condemnation of their right to be angry with the cartoons. The great thing about the freedom of the press is that it allows for open debate instead of repression. The problem with the Danish newspaper's strategy is that it has caused a debate over their disrespect for Muslim religious beliefs instead of a debate over freedom of the press. The article publishing the cartoons was intended to be offensive to Muslims.

The arab journalist who wrote "Anti-Semitism is unacceptable, and the Danish caricatures would not have been published if they had depicted a Jewish rabbi" is probably right. That doesn't mean that it should be illegal to do so, but if the Jewish faith were attacked in an effort to prove 'freedom of the press', the act would be universally condemned by all national leaders in every European nation (and probably most of the civilized world). The fact is, most Muslims are keenly aware of this hypocrisy. I think it would have been possible for European leaders (especially the Danish) to denounce the inappropriate and hurtful attack symbolized by the cartoons, while still making a firm stand for freedom of the press by stressing the newspaper's legal right to do so. But the violent acts of a few have ruined any chance of international sympathy for those offended by the cartoons. In this respect, both sides have acted poorly and both are wrong.

In summary, the main points as I see them:

1. Censorship of the press is always wrong -- no exceptions, and should be fought against at all costs.

2. Muslims have every right to be pissed off -- the Danish newspaper was deliberately attacking their belief system.

3. Muslims have no right to respond with violence -- it is disgraceful and only weakens their cause and confuses the issues.

4. Both sides have behaved shamefully, and in this conflict there will be no winners, only losers.

Let's hope everyone starts apologizing soon, on both sides!!!

(photo credit: Associated Press photo posted at Yahoo news)

Biting the Hand that Feeds: Curated Theme Shows vs. Vital Art?

2006-02-03T10:57:00.000-05:00

I'm going to have to stop making promises about upcoming blog posts because it looks like I won't be getting around to Part II of my Chelsea notes this week. It's mostly about T. Hirschorn's latest and will probably appear next week (oops, I did it again); and I promise that my thoughts on the Paul Chan discussion are upcoming as well (and perfectly related to the topic of this post).

In the meantime I've been distracted by a recent comment thread on one of Edward_'s best-of-the-art-blogs latest posts. In his Curator of the Month interview with curator Isolde Brielmaier, E_ asked the ever-contentious question:

"Do you think curators are artists?"

To be honest, I'm not really concerned with who wants to call themselves artists, but I thought it might make for a lively discussion. I then posted the following comment as more of a provocation than anything else:

I tend not to respond well to the entire genre of curated "theme" shows. It's a good way to find out about new artists, but I'm more of a fan of the solo exhibition -- where the individual artist has total control of the exhibition environment. Maybe it's just personal taste, but I find that curated shows either weaken great art or deceptively strengthen bad art.

Now, this sort of reasoning was news to me, as I'd never really considered it before. But there is some truth to the fact that I've always been sort of disappointed with all "theme" shows, and I wondered why.

As a caveat, let me make this perfectly clear (so as to avoid any charge of hypocrisy if my work were to show up in any future themed shows): I'm not arguing that curated theme shows aren't important, or that they don't play a necessary role in the art world, or that I don't enjoy curated shows, or that I don't fully appreciate what curators do for art.

But ....

I can't help feeling that these shows somehow limit the capabilities and infringe on the individual autonomy of the art works involved. While I do gain a certain enjoyment from a well-curated exhibition, I always find that my 'art' experience of the art works involved has been somewhat curbed -- that the works have been restrained, or unable to breath or exist properly -- or, that while a particular aspect of the work has been highlighted, the whole has been lost.

The reason I find this topic so compelling is not because I want to discourage the existence of these types of shows, but because it leads to a discussion of what 'vital art' really means, and why the autonomy of art is so important.

Edward_ posted the following as a response to my original comment:

The job of the curator IMO is to connect the dots, anticipate the future/analyze the past, and teach the rest of us how to see what artists are/were doing.

I think Edward is probably correct that this is what curators do, but this is why I begin to have a problem. Later on I added:

I guess I don't want things oversimplified for me; I don't want art's difficulty to be made easier; and I don't want someone other than the artist her/himself to affect the content (which can be radically changed through curating) ... Curators create an environment of forced connections.

While I may have gone a little overboard here (especially with 'oversimplified' and 'forced connections'), I would add that I don't want to be taught by a curator what an artist is doing. With all due respect, curators don't have any more of a right to determine 'what an artist is doing' than anyone else, and it sort of insults the intelligence of the viewer. Most unfortunately, it performs a mediation between art and the viewer. The type of show that puts art work in service of a curated idea distances the viewer from the essence of the work through a directed didacticism. While this strategy can be helpful as a kind of public service, allowing a certain kind of accessibility to a wider audience, the impact of the work's content has been restricted.

Further, I wrote:

Besides, I don't think art is about exchanging ideas or asking questions -- that's what seminars, talks, classrooms, and blogospheric comment boards are for. Art can be an impetus for such discussions, but doesn't communicate directly.

I understand why this may provoke objections, and I feel I need to clarify. This has everything to do with what art is, why art is, and what art can be.

I firmly believe that art can be 'about' things -- in the sense that an artist may approach a work of art with the intention of evoking a particular subject or topic (especially including material of a political nature). But the reason art exists or attains a certain vitality is because of its autonomy as art. For me this means that when art is made to be in service of something other than art, that it no longer functions or exists as art.

For example, when an art work is made to be in service of a didactic premise or as political activism, it loses its uniqueness as art because it becomes activism or didacticism -- not art. This is not to say that these types of works should not be made -- on the contrary, they too serve a needed role -- but they sacrifice part of what makes art important (and why, I believe, we have kept art around for so long).

In this respect I think it's necessary to make a distinction between political art and activist art. What I would term political art, is work that takes on political subject matter without the goal of putting art in service of a political act. In contrast, activist art would include works made with the purpose of waging in political struggle. I think it's possible to love both, as both have their place, but one is autonomous art (and thus vital) while the other is not.

This is why I wrote: "I don't think art is about exchanging ideas or asking questions -- that's what seminars, talks, classrooms, and blogospheric comment boards are for. Art can be an impetus for such discussions, but doesn't communicate directly." Activist art communicates directly, while political art provokes communication.

The always excellent Hungry Hyaena later challenged:

If you really do feel art "doesn't communicate directly," why are you compelled to write about it so damned much...what of all the threads it has led you down? ... but isn't it inevitable that we will try to assign meaning, even if art is supposed to be the silent partner?

To this I would say EXACTLY. Art is supposed to lead to discussion and lead to debate and cause us to want to assign meaning. But it should not participate directly. It does not 'ask questions' or 'teach us'. Art is at its best and most unique self when it is embodying contradictions through form rather than chiming in as another shouting voice attempting to win an argument. Art must remain a complete system unto itself, otherwise it becomes like everything else we already know, instead of pointing to something new.

All of which leads back to the discussion of heavily curated thematic exhibitions and why I feel that they limit the vitality of the art works involved. I guess I'll continue to think of them as appetizers, a sort of sampling of what art can do, while solo shows remain the main course.

(photo credit: The Whitney Museum 2000 Biennial Exhibition, installation view, posted at Artnet.com)

SOTU Version 5.0

2006-01-31T23:21:00.000-05:00

Why do I continue to torture myself?:

“By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.”

“There is no peace in retreat.”

“Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy.”

“If we do nothing, American families will face a massive tax increase they do not expect and will not welcome,”

“We need to encourage children to take more math and science and make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations,”

"So to prevent another attack ... I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue ... America."

"We have served America through one of the most consequential periods of our history, and it has been my honor to serve with you."

UPDATE: On a positive note, the speech did reveal signs of political weakening. His ambitious plan to overhaul (or destroy) New Deal social programs has been greatly restrained.

Who will continue to hold this administration's feet to the fire? Any appeal to bipartisan cooperation is of course laughable, considering the adversarial environment Bush has worked so hard to create. But the Democratic party has largely proven itself to be a disappointing alternative.

"America is too reliant on oil" is an obvious and uncontroversial statement to make, but unfortunately sounds like empty rhetoric coming from a man with such a long (family) history of strong ties to oil companies.

Bad Painting, Video Games, Deerhoof and More!

2006-01-30T10:32:00.000-05:00

I made a brief tour of Chelsea this weekend. Here's some of what I saw (part I of II):

Story Structure
Mike Cloud @ Max Protetch

I probably wouldn't even be writing about this show if Holland Cotter hadn't written this in the NY Times:

Mike Cloud is a young artist of the moment ... His work, and this show in particular, is a tough nut to crack. But rude, funny and meaty, it's well worth the attempt.

...

The idea was to dodge the whole "painterly" gambit, with its associations of virtuosity and subjectivity, not to mention transcendence. "Belief is a major obstacle in painting," Mr. Cloud has written. In the faith versus works debate, he goes with action: don't polish the car and pray that it runs; tinker with the engine, then step on the gas.

There's a good deal of productive tinkering here...

And while I can claim no clear idea of what he's driving at, I really like the way he drives, fast but in control, making lots of turns, and constantly leaving the highway for less-traveled roads. (emphasis added)

I guess it's obvious by now that I didn't find any productive tinkering. Maybe it's because I'm a painter and am hyper-sensitive to paintings about painting, but I found these paintings to be motoring down well-traveled roads.

The technique looks to be either bad-folky or 'bad painting' (as in sarcastic and ironic) - either way it's meant to be bad. And they're definitely not folky. The canvas stapled to the inside of the stretchers -- so that we can see the 'structure of the painting' -- is tired, tired, tired. Is this supposed to add a conceptual edge to the thoroughly boring treatment of the paint?

One might be tempted to find the work enjoyably quirky if not for the ham-fisted repetition of meta-techniques (trying to let us know that, despite its painting-lite appearance, this work is meant to be taken seriously) . New title: Meta-painting for dummies.

David Humphrey
Sikkema Jenkins & Co.

Count me as a long-time fan of the Humphster. Wacky, weird and out of left field (baseball folks), obnoxious color, campy fun and always original. These paintings don't exactly push my mind into new territories of philosophical discovery, but damn it if I don't enjoy looking at them. Sort of a guilty pleasure.

Breaking and Entering: Art and the Video Game
Pace Wildenstein

I barely caught this show on the last day of its run, so if you haven't seen it, you've missed it.

I wanted to like this show. But it didn't happen. To be fair, I didn't get to spend as much time as I would have liked, but I found most of the work to be hampered by the stereotypical limitations of the medium (which were, for the most part, proven to be true) rather than using those limitations to push towards something new or different.

Like everyone else my age, I grew up on video games. But at some point they started to seem like child's play (even though I still indulge from time to time) and I have yet to see a good argument for video games as serious adult necessity. Video games are light fun, flashy, easy entertainment, and generally immature in nature. These qualities tended to transfer themselves to the artworks involved.

The perfect example is Corey Arcangel's Mig-29 Fighter (pictured above). I didn't hate this work, but I found its relationship to Rosenquist's F-111 to only heighten the sense of disappointment in comparing the two generations. It seems like Arcangel is going for a meaningful meditation on war, transforming an immature medium into something to be taken seriously. But it falls short. The work (as well as others in the show) points to the video game generation's inability to engage with adulthood realities of war and conflict -- preferring an escapist menu of detached mind-numbing entertainment over having to take seriously a world in disarray. While this is a revealing truth for this generation, it self-implicates the artists involved. Their inability to transcend this condition makes the work all the more depressing (and troubling).

Deerhoof
Bowery Ballroom, Tonight! Sold Out!!

Okay, so this isn't an art show, but damn it if Deerhoof isn't the most exciting rock band working today. (Un)official band of Art Soldier.

I'll have part II of my Chelsea notes later this week, and am working on a post about the Paul Chan/forgiveness/Adorno discussion at the New School from last Thursday (if they can get the archived audio file fixed).

(photo credits (top to bottom): Chris Burke Studios/Max Protetch Gallery at NYTimes.com, Sikkemajenkinsco.com, Artnet.com, and thevillagevoice.com)

Bad News for People Who Like Good News

2006-01-26T12:12:00.000-05:00

Maybe the word ‘soldier’ should be replaced with ‘and politics’ because this blog is quickly becoming about ‘Art and Politics.’ Better yet, ‘Art as Politics’ or ‘Art is Politics’. Nevertheless, some disturbing headlines from around the planet:

HAMAS WINS

Hamas 'secures stunning victory' - BBC

Driving Hamas to a dramatic win - BBC

Hamas captures election majority, officials say - MSNBC

Anticipating Hamas Victory, Palestinian Cabinet Resigns - NY Times

Hamas Claims Victory in Palestinian Elections – Washington Post

Hamas Victory Clouds Peace Outlook – AP

Palestinian leadership hit by political earthquake – CNN

ALITO TO BE CONFIRMED

Bush asks Senate for quick Alito confirmation – MSNBC

Senate begins debate on Alito – BBC

Democratic Sen. Johnson to Back Alito – AP

Senate debates Bush court pick, approval expected – Reuters

Democrats decline to block Alito nomination – CNN

CANADA CONSERVATIVE

Bush Warming Up to Canada's Next PM – NY Times

Conservatives win Canada election – Yahoo News

White House congratulates Canada's Harper on election win – Yahoo News

Canada's Conservative Party wins election – MSNBC

Conservative vow to change Canada – BBC

GOOGLE GIVES IN TO CHINA

Google to censor itself in China – CNN

Google move 'black day' for China – BBC

Google Launches Censored China Site – NY Times

Google Agrees to Censor Results in China – Washington Post

Google searches censored in China - Chicago Tribune

ILLEGAL SPYING SPUN

Analysis: White House Tries to Spin Spying – Washington Post

Bush defends domestic surveillance program – MSNBC

Bush Visits Security Agency and Defends Surveillance – NY Times

Gonzales defends wiretaps amid protest – CNN

Bush defends secret surveillance – BBC

And, last but certainly not least:

Axl Rose Breaks His Silence - Rolling Stone

Uber-Feminist Anti-Feminism or Self-Serving Acquiescence?

2006-01-24T10:57:00.000-05:00

AFA Edna has posted a well-considered essay in response to the Tamy Ben-Tor dust-up at Roberta Smith's Jan. 7th panel discussion, "'Feminisms' in Four Different Generations." For those unaware, the panel has gained attention for Ben-Tor's decidedly anti-feminist performance at the feminist event. The other panelists were: Collier Schorr, Barbara Kruger, and Joan Snyder (moderated by Roberta Smith). A detailed summation of the event (with commentary) by Mira Schor can be found at M/E/A/N/I/N/G Online.

What shocked me the most about Edna's post was how sympathetic she appears to be to Ben-Tor's anti-feminism, especially considering that her 'Militant Art Bitch' blog takes a decidedly feminist approach in combating gender discrimination in the artworld. Yet, she writes:

When Schor then poses the question, "why is it that young women who are not feminists are the ones so often selected to publicly represent their generation in these contexts?" my answer is: because, issues aside, they are making more exciting work....

Jerry Saltz's comparison to Sarah Silverman is the most appropriate one so far.... Why should she [Ben-Tor] have to be pro- or anti-anything? Why can't she show her own confusion and hypocrisy, as a mirror for ours? She's an entertainer. I think we should just enjoy her badassness, and when she says something stupid like if you do work as a woman, it hides the truth, we should consider it part of the act. [emphasis added]

I can see her point about 'considering it part of the act' and the appropriateness of the comparison to Sarah Silverman. I guess it's possible to view her performance at the panel as an extension of her 'art performances', where she shows "her own confusion and hypocrisy, as a mirror to ours." It reminded me of an article on Slate.com about Silverman that explored the widespread (and highly ironic) racism/sexism-as-social-critique genre:

Silverman has become an important member of a guerrilla vanguard in the culture wars that we might call the "meta-bigots" other members include the South Park kids, Sacha Baron Cohen's "Ali G", and the now-AWOL Dave Chappelle. The meta-bigots work at social problems indirectly; instead of discussing race, rape, abortion, incest, or mass starvation, they parody our discussions of them. They manipulate stereotypes about stereotypes. It's a dangerous game: If you're humorless, distracted, or even just inordinately history-conscious, meta-bigotry can look suspiciously like actual bigotry.

A similar, although somewhat more complex and difficult to grasp, relationship exists in the work of Ben-Tor. She takes on controversial personas as a form of social critique. Although, I don't think her performance at the panel should be confused with some sort of meta-sexism. She comes across as sincerely anti-feminist, and not 'in character'. The problem with not being pro- or anti- anything is that it isn't possible. Ideology always exists, and whether Ben-Tor likes it or not she's aligning herself with a position more sympathetic to the current power structure (which is highly discriminatory towards women). Schor nails it:

... [that] her vehement antifeminist position is also ideological,that it is also political speech, and, further, that such a position strategically insures a certain access to power. It is like stating, in certain situations where it might serve you to do so, that you are not Jewish when you are.

Ben-Tor's stated reason for not being sympathetic to feminism (according to Schor's notes of the event): "It's fine if it serves the weak but I don't feel affiliated with it.... many women in the world are oppressed, that's where feminism has to struggle, it doesn't have to struggle for me."

Wow. "It doesn't have to struggle for me." It's a good thing that so many women have struggled before her, so that she can feel so unoppressed now.

It reminded me of how I felt growing up about racism and sexism. As a child (and even into my early teens) it seemed that gender or racial discrimination were a thing of the distant past -- a part of some unfortunate events that occurred long ago during a time when people were much more ignorant and evil. Slavery happened eons ago, right? Surely now we were an enlightened people, treating each other equally, all with a fair chance to succeed in Modern America. Aaah, the American illusion of equality, an effective tool at keeping current power structures in place. The past = bad, the present = good. Don't rock the boat. This stuff is so ingrained through elementary school, not to mention television and movies, that it's amazing these sorts of ideas ever find their way out.

Someday the same thing might happen with sexual-orientation discrimination (and I believe it will): It will be unimaginable to think of a time when those mean-spirited Americans of the past wouldn't allow gay couples to get married. We'll all say: Get Married?!! Can you believe it? Who would be against something so harmless?

Fortunately, we live in a world where it's unfathomable for the vast majority of us to believe that a society ever existed that disallowed women the right to vote. Women didn't gain rights because millions of women denied they were being oppressed (or, didn't feel weak). Women are still oppressed: the statistics for women in positions of power are staggeringly low. One of only two women on the U.S. Supreme Court is being replaced by a white man. A woman has never even sniffed a major position in either the U.S. Congress or Executive Branch. It goes without saying that the artworld is especially biased. The fact of the matter is that the world is still run by white, male, straight Christians who desperately want to keep their power and dominance over everyone else. How any woman could not feel disadvantaged and outraged is a mystery to me.

There seems to be an increasing number of anti-feminist and male-identified female artists (as Edna noted), Vanessa Beecroft being one of the most notable. Are we to take their work as a form of meta-sexism critique, a new strategy in social criticism for women? Or, is it a symptom of something darker -- a convenient bowing to the male-powers-that-be by taking a more socially acceptable and advantageous position in an art market full of economic opportunity for those who play ball?