Thoughts on Criticism

by Art Fag City on September 15, 2008 · 89 comments Events

saltz.jpeg Jerry Saltz sees a lot more shows than I do. The critic told Irving Sandler at the Brooklyn Rail he looks at 30-40 shows each week and goes to the Met 40 times a year, (though he thinks going to Frick twice a year will suffice). Frankly, I don’t know how anybody has time to see as much as he does, procrastinate and write weekly, while maintaining a teaching schedule. I suspect living in Manhattan helps though; it automatically gives a person an extra day you’d normally lose in commuting.

Saltz also mentioned he’s finding it hard to read ArtForum again. “The articles seem too long and removed from art.” he said, “There's something academic at the root of this, the cleaning up of reactions, the reigning in of art. Maybe critics aren't self-taught enough and aren't trusting their own reactions.” Given that ArtForum has come up a lot around here in the past two weeks, usually in a negative light, I’d like to make clear that I think the magazine still publishes a lot of great features. Naturally though, as a self taught critic who recently remarked on the overly academic talk that occurs in that magazine, Saltz’s sentiments struck a chord with me.

Meanwhile, in that same paragraph Jerry issued his opinion about ArtForum, the question of which critics Saltz likes best was dodged. With the disclaimer that like anything else my taste in critics changes over time, here are my current New York print picks in no particular order.

  • Peter SchjeldahlThe New Yorker critic can be quite conservative at times, (his Richard Prince review certainly demonstrates this), but there is not an arts writer as skillful. Schjeldahl almost always makes me see something in work I hadn’t seen before.
  • Martha Schwendener – Schwendener freelances for a number of magazines including the Village Voice and the New York Times (though I haven’t seen anything of hers appear in the Times for quite a while, so I’m not sure what happened to that gig), and is brilliant at giving context, explaining complex ideas, and most importantly, identifying bullshit. Read her review of Paul Chan: A Light In April in the Voice. It’s the reason she’s on this list.
  • Jerry Saltz – From a craft perspective, he’s not the strongest writer in this lot, but he’s benefited a lot working with New York Magazine editors, and I’ve never thought that sort of thing should matter as much as a good eye, which is something Saltz has. Also, he’s really funny, has opinions and is open about his biases, (readers will probably notice he mentions his disinterest in subject matter in the Brooklyn Rail interview (as opposed to content)). Every critic finds partiality in something, and that’s a good thing because it’s how strong opinions are formed. Being aware of these biases is incredibly important to a community because it informs the criticism. As an interesting side point, because blogs are more personal in nature, they tend to give a larger window into a writers likes and dislikes; Yet another reason I find the medium superior.
  • Holland Cotter – The long time New York Times critic reviews a lot of emerging artists, goes out of his way to see shows in Brooklyn, and takes an interest in political art, and minorities. Also, I frequently I agree with his opinions.

With the exception of Martha Schwendener who is fairly young (mid to late 30’s I believe) you have to wonder who’s going to take over when these people retire. There just aren’t that many critics who do what they do as well, and the profession is neither lucrative nor thriving.

*Image via MAN

{ 89 comments }

Tyler Green September 15, 2008 at 11:15 am

Oh dear. There are critics only in New York?

Tyler Green September 15, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Oh dear. There are critics only in New York?

Art Fag City September 15, 2008 at 4:33 pm

I run a New York based art blog. I think that’s just fine for my focus. I should however, have included Katy Siegel on that list.

Art Fag City September 15, 2008 at 11:33 am

I run a New York based art blog. I think that’s just fine for my focus. I should however, have included Katy Siegel on that list.

Brian September 15, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Martin Herbert is a very strong young critic and one of the most readable writers in Artforum these days. Christian Vivieros-Faune was going strong until MAN derailed his career, but he still has time to make a comeback.

Brian September 15, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Martin Herbert is a very strong young critic and one of the most readable writers in Artforum these days. Christian Vivieros-Faune was going strong until MAN derailed his career, but he still has time to make a comeback.

Tyler Green September 15, 2008 at 6:42 pm

CV-F derailed himself. I just pointed it out.

I hear you on being NYC-focused, but the post doesn’t (didn’t?) say that it’s just an NYC list. I often enjoy Katy Siegel too, I just wish she wrote somewhere where she’d get read.

Tyler Green September 15, 2008 at 6:42 pm

CV-F derailed himself. I just pointed it out.

I hear you on being NYC-focused, but the post doesn’t (didn’t?) say that it’s just an NYC list. I often enjoy Katy Siegel too, I just wish she wrote somewhere where she’d get read.

Art Fag City September 15, 2008 at 6:42 pm

Brian: Martin Herbert is a very good pick. I also agree about Christian Vivieros-Faune. He wasn’t mentioned only because his career has been derailed some.

Tyler: Yeah, I didn’t mention it. I suppose I could have, but the focus of my blog is the first thing you read in the left hand column, so it seems redundant…except for how you’re saying it’s not.

I agree with you on Katy Siegel.

Art Fag City September 15, 2008 at 6:42 pm

Brian: Martin Herbert is a very good pick. I also agree about Christian Vivieros-Faune. He wasn’t mentioned only because his career has been derailed some.

Tyler: Yeah, I didn’t mention it. I suppose I could have, but the focus of my blog is the first thing you read in the left hand column, so it seems redundant…except for how you’re saying it’s not.

I agree with you on Katy Siegel.

Tyler Green September 15, 2008 at 1:42 pm

CV-F derailed himself. I just pointed it out.

I hear you on being NYC-focused, but the post doesn’t (didn’t?) say that it’s just an NYC list. I often enjoy Katy Siegel too, I just wish she wrote somewhere where she’d get read.

Art Fag City September 15, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Brian: Martin Herbert is a very good pick. I also agree about Christian Vivieros-Faune. He wasn’t mentioned only because his career has been derailed some.

Tyler: Yeah, I didn’t mention it. I suppose I could have, but the focus of my blog is the first thing you read in the left hand column, so it seems redundant…except for how you’re saying it’s not.

I agree with you on Katy Siegel.

Eric September 15, 2008 at 9:20 pm

“I just hope the critics aren’t still being paid paltry sums for reviews and articles. That’d be a crime.”

For someone who has so many pointed opinions about art critics and art criticism it is odd that Mr. Saltz is oblivious to the economic realities facing a majority of the art critics working today. Mr. Saltz, many of us get nothing for our writing. Many of us get no more than $50-$250 per review (a paltry sum if it is earned once a week, once a month, or even less frequently), or if we are lucky we get approximately $1000 for a catalog essay (I am sure that Mr. Saltz wrote these in the past but he disparages those who write them now), but a critic is lucky if he gets to do one or two of them a year.

Eric September 15, 2008 at 9:20 pm

“I just hope the critics aren’t still being paid paltry sums for reviews and articles. That’d be a crime.”

For someone who has so many pointed opinions about art critics and art criticism it is odd that Mr. Saltz is oblivious to the economic realities facing a majority of the art critics working today. Mr. Saltz, many of us get nothing for our writing. Many of us get no more than $50-$250 per review (a paltry sum if it is earned once a week, once a month, or even less frequently), or if we are lucky we get approximately $1000 for a catalog essay (I am sure that Mr. Saltz wrote these in the past but he disparages those who write them now), but a critic is lucky if he gets to do one or two of them a year.

Eric September 15, 2008 at 4:20 pm

“I just hope the critics aren’t still being paid paltry sums for reviews and articles. That’d be a crime.”

For someone who has so many pointed opinions about art critics and art criticism it is odd that Mr. Saltz is oblivious to the economic realities facing a majority of the art critics working today. Mr. Saltz, many of us get nothing for our writing. Many of us get no more than $50-$250 per review (a paltry sum if it is earned once a week, once a month, or even less frequently), or if we are lucky we get approximately $1000 for a catalog essay (I am sure that Mr. Saltz wrote these in the past but he disparages those who write them now), but a critic is lucky if he gets to do one or two of them a year.

Art Fag City September 15, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Eric: Yeah, Saltz would have come out stronger had he not issued those words. That said, up until last year he was working for the Village Voice, which isn’t exactly known for its great pay. I think its safe to assume he’s written catalog essays.

Art Fag City September 15, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Eric: Yeah, Saltz would have come out stronger had he not issued those words. That said, up until last year he was working for the Village Voice, which isn’t exactly known for its great pay. I think its safe to assume he’s written catalog essays.

Art Fag City September 15, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Eric: Yeah, Saltz would have come out stronger had he not issued those words. That said, up until last year he was working for the Village Voice, which isn’t exactly known for its great pay. I think its safe to assume he’s written catalog essays.

Tyler Green September 15, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Crazy idea: Email Jerry and ask, Eric!

Tyler Green September 15, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Crazy idea: Email Jerry and ask, Eric!

Donald Frazell September 15, 2008 at 10:28 pm

The problems is, no matter how well written the essay is, or experienced the writer, art criticism may be behind the current dredgery of art. Too much talk, explanations for the average listener, has diverted art from its historical purpose. Which is, and always has been, defining a people, and exploring the concept of God. And towards entertainment.

Art has become academicized, secularized, castraticized. Even Robert Hughes, who lambasted Hirst’s current auction, has led the public, and artists, astray. He was correct in who were the great artists, but completely wrong in why. And this has watered down each generation through mediocre arts schools for over forty years. And as arts purpose is now totally neglected, it has become weak, self involved, therapized pablum and worshipful of the individual. And so we are where we are, as the economic foundation of the now decadent art world crumbles under its feet.

For though artists love to criticze others, in their PC world they can never criticize themselves. And so grow, learn and create work that is relevant to the rest of the world, the 99% who dont give a damn about it. This was not the case a hundred years ago, art was politicized, philosophized, tools of mental warfare. Now bought and sold to the highest bidder. And so lacking in strength as it has become the tool of the rich.

I wrote how this happened in three posts on ArtNewsBlog on July 16. I offered it to the New Yorker, which loved it, told me to keep on looking as it was worth reading, but not for its audience. It completely undercuts the foundation built on sand that now is crumbling.

The world has changed greatly this year, the era of cheap energy and commodities is over. We need to be constructive, focused, building strong work that benefits mankind. Visualizing the world around us, reflecting its many faceted being, the relationships built of skeleton, muscle, nerves, organs, brain and heart that now are ignored, Superficial work of timid selfishness reigns. Exploring til we find equivalents of who we are, finding triggers that allow people to see patterns and purpose in life, to grow, find god, and feel intensely about a life that matters. Ours. Humanities, not the individual artists, who is little. No more than the other 6 billion people who live, and to each has a thread in life, a woven work an artists job is to visualize, and find ballance in.

Time to replace what is. Forget all we have been taught about art, as all great artists have, Picasso, Matisse, Bonnard, few ever graduated from an art school, all threw out what they had learned to observe the life around them, the ideas of science in the air, history, what we must know to build on. For in evolution, only 1% changes, often not to the species benefit, but when it does, in times of change, it still must know and be that 99% that has come before. We are nothing as individuals, humanity and god is our subject, our past, our present and struggling to see the future that is being born.

Imperial Clothing
Art academia delenda est

Donald Frazell September 15, 2008 at 10:28 pm

The problems is, no matter how well written the essay is, or experienced the writer, art criticism may be behind the current dredgery of art. Too much talk, explanations for the average listener, has diverted art from its historical purpose. Which is, and always has been, defining a people, and exploring the concept of God. And towards entertainment.

Art has become academicized, secularized, castraticized. Even Robert Hughes, who lambasted Hirst’s current auction, has led the public, and artists, astray. He was correct in who were the great artists, but completely wrong in why. And this has watered down each generation through mediocre arts schools for over forty years. And as arts purpose is now totally neglected, it has become weak, self involved, therapized pablum and worshipful of the individual. And so we are where we are, as the economic foundation of the now decadent art world crumbles under its feet.

For though artists love to criticze others, in their PC world they can never criticize themselves. And so grow, learn and create work that is relevant to the rest of the world, the 99% who dont give a damn about it. This was not the case a hundred years ago, art was politicized, philosophized, tools of mental warfare. Now bought and sold to the highest bidder. And so lacking in strength as it has become the tool of the rich.

I wrote how this happened in three posts on ArtNewsBlog on July 16. I offered it to the New Yorker, which loved it, told me to keep on looking as it was worth reading, but not for its audience. It completely undercuts the foundation built on sand that now is crumbling.

The world has changed greatly this year, the era of cheap energy and commodities is over. We need to be constructive, focused, building strong work that benefits mankind. Visualizing the world around us, reflecting its many faceted being, the relationships built of skeleton, muscle, nerves, organs, brain and heart that now are ignored, Superficial work of timid selfishness reigns. Exploring til we find equivalents of who we are, finding triggers that allow people to see patterns and purpose in life, to grow, find god, and feel intensely about a life that matters. Ours. Humanities, not the individual artists, who is little. No more than the other 6 billion people who live, and to each has a thread in life, a woven work an artists job is to visualize, and find ballance in.

Time to replace what is. Forget all we have been taught about art, as all great artists have, Picasso, Matisse, Bonnard, few ever graduated from an art school, all threw out what they had learned to observe the life around them, the ideas of science in the air, history, what we must know to build on. For in evolution, only 1% changes, often not to the species benefit, but when it does, in times of change, it still must know and be that 99% that has come before. We are nothing as individuals, humanity and god is our subject, our past, our present and struggling to see the future that is being born.

Imperial Clothing
Art academia delenda est

Donald Frazell September 15, 2008 at 5:28 pm

The problems is, no matter how well written the essay is, or experienced the writer, art criticism may be behind the current dredgery of art. Too much talk, explanations for the average listener, has diverted art from its historical purpose. Which is, and always has been, defining a people, and exploring the concept of God. And towards entertainment.

Art has become academicized, secularized, castraticized. Even Robert Hughes, who lambasted Hirst’s current auction, has led the public, and artists, astray. He was correct in who were the great artists, but completely wrong in why. And this has watered down each generation through mediocre arts schools for over forty years. And as arts purpose is now totally neglected, it has become weak, self involved, therapized pablum and worshipful of the individual. And so we are where we are, as the economic foundation of the now decadent art world crumbles under its feet.

For though artists love to criticze others, in their PC world they can never criticize themselves. And so grow, learn and create work that is relevant to the rest of the world, the 99% who dont give a damn about it. This was not the case a hundred years ago, art was politicized, philosophized, tools of mental warfare. Now bought and sold to the highest bidder. And so lacking in strength as it has become the tool of the rich.

I wrote how this happened in three posts on ArtNewsBlog on July 16. I offered it to the New Yorker, which loved it, told me to keep on looking as it was worth reading, but not for its audience. It completely undercuts the foundation built on sand that now is crumbling.

The world has changed greatly this year, the era of cheap energy and commodities is over. We need to be constructive, focused, building strong work that benefits mankind. Visualizing the world around us, reflecting its many faceted being, the relationships built of skeleton, muscle, nerves, organs, brain and heart that now are ignored, Superficial work of timid selfishness reigns. Exploring til we find equivalents of who we are, finding triggers that allow people to see patterns and purpose in life, to grow, find god, and feel intensely about a life that matters. Ours. Humanities, not the individual artists, who is little. No more than the other 6 billion people who live, and to each has a thread in life, a woven work an artists job is to visualize, and find ballance in.

Time to replace what is. Forget all we have been taught about art, as all great artists have, Picasso, Matisse, Bonnard, few ever graduated from an art school, all threw out what they had learned to observe the life around them, the ideas of science in the air, history, what we must know to build on. For in evolution, only 1% changes, often not to the species benefit, but when it does, in times of change, it still must know and be that 99% that has come before. We are nothing as individuals, humanity and god is our subject, our past, our present and struggling to see the future that is being born.

Imperial Clothing
Art academia delenda est

Eric September 15, 2008 at 10:31 pm

Tyler when I said “I am sure that Mr. Saltz wrote these in the past” I meant exactly what I said. I didn’t have to email him (which I have done in the past) to find this out. Search and you will find mention of at least one catalog essay that he has written (Saltz, Jerry, catalogue essay, “Painting Yourself Back into The Picture”, written in 1994 for something the artist Catherine Howe was involved in). Maybe you meant I should email him and ask him about whether or not he knows what the economic situation is for a majority of art critics. I don’t see the point in doing that. A few years ago I sent him one of my reviews and he actually read it and provided feedback, which was mixed at best. That was very nice of him to do of course. I didn’t feel like Mr. Saltz was criticizing me when he made general statements about art critics in the Rail interview, I just thought it was weird that this guy, who tries to come across as down to earth, etc., would have no clue about what most art critics earn.

Eric September 15, 2008 at 10:31 pm

Tyler when I said “I am sure that Mr. Saltz wrote these in the past” I meant exactly what I said. I didn’t have to email him (which I have done in the past) to find this out. Search and you will find mention of at least one catalog essay that he has written (Saltz, Jerry, catalogue essay, “Painting Yourself Back into The Picture”, written in 1994 for something the artist Catherine Howe was involved in). Maybe you meant I should email him and ask him about whether or not he knows what the economic situation is for a majority of art critics. I don’t see the point in doing that. A few years ago I sent him one of my reviews and he actually read it and provided feedback, which was mixed at best. That was very nice of him to do of course. I didn’t feel like Mr. Saltz was criticizing me when he made general statements about art critics in the Rail interview, I just thought it was weird that this guy, who tries to come across as down to earth, etc., would have no clue about what most art critics earn.

Eric September 15, 2008 at 5:31 pm

Tyler when I said “I am sure that Mr. Saltz wrote these in the past” I meant exactly what I said. I didn’t have to email him (which I have done in the past) to find this out. Search and you will find mention of at least one catalog essay that he has written (Saltz, Jerry, catalogue essay, “Painting Yourself Back into The Picture”, written in 1994 for something the artist Catherine Howe was involved in). Maybe you meant I should email him and ask him about whether or not he knows what the economic situation is for a majority of art critics. I don’t see the point in doing that. A few years ago I sent him one of my reviews and he actually read it and provided feedback, which was mixed at best. That was very nice of him to do of course. I didn’t feel like Mr. Saltz was criticizing me when he made general statements about art critics in the Rail interview, I just thought it was weird that this guy, who tries to come across as down to earth, etc., would have no clue about what most art critics earn.

Tyler Green September 15, 2008 at 11:01 pm

@ Eric: I’m sorry. You’re right. I misread. (By a factor of about five words, too.)

Tyler Green September 15, 2008 at 6:01 pm

@ Eric: I’m sorry. You’re right. I misread. (By a factor of about five words, too.)

Joanne Mattera September 15, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Paddy,

Aren’t you being a bit premature in worrying about who will take over (in New York) for Saltz, Cotter, Schwendener and others–including, I might add, Smith? They’re all relatively young. By the time they retire, criticism may be so blog-ified that an entirely different form, or format, could have settled into place.

Joanne Mattera September 15, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Paddy,

Aren’t you being a bit premature in worrying about who will take over (in New York) for Saltz, Cotter, Schwendener and others–including, I might add, Smith? They’re all relatively young. By the time they retire, criticism may be so blog-ified that an entirely different form, or format, could have settled into place.

Joanne Mattera September 15, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Paddy,

Aren’t you being a bit premature in worrying about who will take over (in New York) for Saltz, Cotter, Schwendener and others–including, I might add, Smith? They’re all relatively young. By the time they retire, criticism may be so blog-ified that an entirely different form, or format, could have settled into place.

Art Fag City September 15, 2008 at 11:57 pm

Joanne: I don’t think so. In fact, it’s a conversation I had with Saltz himself last year in Chelsea.

Art Fag City September 15, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Joanne: I don’t think so. In fact, it’s a conversation I had with Saltz himself last year in Chelsea.

Hrag September 16, 2008 at 1:04 am

I want to read your list of worst critics…any way of convincing you of creating that?

I have to admit I don’t follow critics as much as topics when I read criticism.

Hrag September 16, 2008 at 1:04 am

I want to read your list of worst critics…any way of convincing you of creating that?

I have to admit I don’t follow critics as much as topics when I read criticism.

Hrag September 15, 2008 at 8:04 pm

I want to read your list of worst critics…any way of convincing you of creating that?

I have to admit I don’t follow critics as much as topics when I read criticism.

Eric September 16, 2008 at 1:11 am

No problem Tyler.

Donald I am not sure what to do with your grammatically challenged ball of mush. It sounds like you are saying that every living artist and critic who does not live in complete obscurity is responsible for destroying art. I find it odd that the New Yorker, a publication that ignores every unsolicited fiction and non-fiction manuscript sent to it, would do otherwise with your writing.

One last comment about art critics and money. The New York Sun is setting at the end of the month. Last year they paid me $200 for a 600-800 word review and $100 for a 300 word review. This year they paid me $250 for a 600-800 word review.

Someone who talked with Ken Johnson before he went to Boston for a short while, said that he made less than what I was getting paid at the Sun. Obviously, this is heresay and can’t be equated with the truth, but I do know for certain that no freelancer at the NYT gets their benefits paid for by the paper and they get very low wages. I am sure that Johnson returned to work as an art critic in NYC because he was able to supplement his income with work as an adjunct.

The NYT is at the top of the heap in terms of influence and prestige in New York City. It is easy to figure out what the situation is for all of the other art critics working and living in the other cities and states around the country.

Eric September 16, 2008 at 1:11 am

No problem Tyler.

Donald I am not sure what to do with your grammatically challenged ball of mush. It sounds like you are saying that every living artist and critic who does not live in complete obscurity is responsible for destroying art. I find it odd that the New Yorker, a publication that ignores every unsolicited fiction and non-fiction manuscript sent to it, would do otherwise with your writing.

One last comment about art critics and money. The New York Sun is setting at the end of the month. Last year they paid me $200 for a 600-800 word review and $100 for a 300 word review. This year they paid me $250 for a 600-800 word review.

Someone who talked with Ken Johnson before he went to Boston for a short while, said that he made less than what I was getting paid at the Sun. Obviously, this is heresay and can’t be equated with the truth, but I do know for certain that no freelancer at the NYT gets their benefits paid for by the paper and they get very low wages. I am sure that Johnson returned to work as an art critic in NYC because he was able to supplement his income with work as an adjunct.

The NYT is at the top of the heap in terms of influence and prestige in New York City. It is easy to figure out what the situation is for all of the other art critics working and living in the other cities and states around the country.

Eric September 15, 2008 at 8:11 pm

No problem Tyler.

Donald I am not sure what to do with your grammatically challenged ball of mush. It sounds like you are saying that every living artist and critic who does not live in complete obscurity is responsible for destroying art. I find it odd that the New Yorker, a publication that ignores every unsolicited fiction and non-fiction manuscript sent to it, would do otherwise with your writing.

One last comment about art critics and money. The New York Sun is setting at the end of the month. Last year they paid me $200 for a 600-800 word review and $100 for a 300 word review. This year they paid me $250 for a 600-800 word review.

Someone who talked with Ken Johnson before he went to Boston for a short while, said that he made less than what I was getting paid at the Sun. Obviously, this is heresay and can’t be equated with the truth, but I do know for certain that no freelancer at the NYT gets their benefits paid for by the paper and they get very low wages. I am sure that Johnson returned to work as an art critic in NYC because he was able to supplement his income with work as an adjunct.

The NYT is at the top of the heap in terms of influence and prestige in New York City. It is easy to figure out what the situation is for all of the other art critics working and living in the other cities and states around the country.

Art Fag City September 16, 2008 at 1:16 am

Hrag: That usually ends up in the worst of the web in some form or another. To be honest though, I’m not interested in bad criticism as much as I am bad art. At least the latter you can learn from, the former has no use at all.

Art Fag City September 16, 2008 at 1:16 am

Hrag: That usually ends up in the worst of the web in some form or another. To be honest though, I’m not interested in bad criticism as much as I am bad art. At least the latter you can learn from, the former has no use at all.

Art Fag City September 15, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Hrag: That usually ends up in the worst of the web in some form or another. To be honest though, I’m not interested in bad criticism as much as I am bad art. At least the latter you can learn from, the former has no use at all.

Art Fag City September 16, 2008 at 1:27 am

Eric: Benefits are a real issue I think. It’s really really hard for critics to get by, and while the Times pay is certainly reasonable, it’s no Vanity Fair. And we can’t all work there.

Art Fag City September 16, 2008 at 1:27 am

Eric: Benefits are a real issue I think. It’s really really hard for critics to get by, and while the Times pay is certainly reasonable, it’s no Vanity Fair. And we can’t all work there.

Art Fag City September 15, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Eric: Benefits are a real issue I think. It’s really really hard for critics to get by, and while the Times pay is certainly reasonable, it’s no Vanity Fair. And we can’t all work there.

Donald Frazell September 16, 2008 at 1:41 am

Its easy to understand, if you dont have your mind warped from an art school. Art has its purpose, it is not being fulfilled. Easy as that.

I grew up in a house with an art college graduate, and an athlete. Couldnt stand the artistes, wimps, and the jocks, jerks. These days, athletes are much better, coached HS kids in basketball and my three kids all played or playing college ball. I came back after twelve years off from art to this, crap. Art worse than ever, meaningless, and decadent.

There now, that wasnt do hard now, was it?

Art collegia delenda est

Donald Frazell September 15, 2008 at 8:41 pm

Its easy to understand, if you dont have your mind warped from an art school. Art has its purpose, it is not being fulfilled. Easy as that.

I grew up in a house with an art college graduate, and an athlete. Couldnt stand the artistes, wimps, and the jocks, jerks. These days, athletes are much better, coached HS kids in basketball and my three kids all played or playing college ball. I came back after twelve years off from art to this, crap. Art worse than ever, meaningless, and decadent.

There now, that wasnt do hard now, was it?

Art collegia delenda est

Donald Frazell September 16, 2008 at 1:44 am

And maybe they dont like your erudite form of writing, but like solid content and masculine prose. Just not for their crowd, for though they do have an arts section, they are really a literary rag, and rather think the same way about flakey artiste types as I do.

ACDE

Donald Frazell September 16, 2008 at 1:44 am

And maybe they dont like your erudite form of writing, but like solid content and masculine prose. Just not for their crowd, for though they do have an arts section, they are really a literary rag, and rather think the same way about flakey artiste types as I do.

ACDE

Donald Frazell September 15, 2008 at 8:44 pm

And maybe they dont like your erudite form of writing, but like solid content and masculine prose. Just not for their crowd, for though they do have an arts section, they are really a literary rag, and rather think the same way about flakey artiste types as I do.

ACDE

Art Fag City September 16, 2008 at 1:47 am

Donald: Please explain what you think the purpose of art is and cite examples of why it’s not being full filled. The comments section of this blog is not meant to be used as a means of publishing unsupported claims about why art is now more meaningless and decadent than ever, even if we were all to agree on that point.

Also, I’m not sure what your last comment meant, but there’s no reason to be slinging stereotypes around here as personal attacks. Your comments will not be approved if they continue in this vein.

Art Fag City September 15, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Donald: Please explain what you think the purpose of art is and cite examples of why it’s not being full filled. The comments section of this blog is not meant to be used as a means of publishing unsupported claims about why art is now more meaningless and decadent than ever, even if we were all to agree on that point.

Also, I’m not sure what your last comment meant, but there’s no reason to be slinging stereotypes around here as personal attacks. Your comments will not be approved if they continue in this vein.

Eric September 16, 2008 at 1:54 am

There are very few art critics working for newspapers nowadays. Art critics are disappearing as quickly as music and film critics are, and their numbers are far fewer. A very small group of people read art criticism with any sort of regularity. Say whatever you will about ArtForum, it has a fairly stable reader base. College and select public libraries, galleries, museums, individuals (artists or artist wannabes, collectors), will continue to subscribe to it, but overall the subscription rates of all print resources are dwindling. Advertising dollars are dwindling as well, but there is still money to be made. ArtForum, and the rest of the glossies will continue to publish because they are known quantities, stable brands. They would never publish content that would alienate their advertisers, who also happen to be their readers. Print might die some day but I don’t want to play Nostradamus and predict when and if it will happen. I have no clue what it would take to shake things up on the editorial boards of any of the glossies, but I am sure that barbed opinions by art critics and bloggers won’t do it. Criticizing the glossies isn’t entirely futile though. I am not sure what good comes from it, except perhaps a bit of catharsis. And if you have ever read my blog you know I am all for catharsis.

Eric September 15, 2008 at 8:54 pm

There are very few art critics working for newspapers nowadays. Art critics are disappearing as quickly as music and film critics are, and their numbers are far fewer. A very small group of people read art criticism with any sort of regularity. Say whatever you will about ArtForum, it has a fairly stable reader base. College and select public libraries, galleries, museums, individuals (artists or artist wannabes, collectors), will continue to subscribe to it, but overall the subscription rates of all print resources are dwindling. Advertising dollars are dwindling as well, but there is still money to be made. ArtForum, and the rest of the glossies will continue to publish because they are known quantities, stable brands. They would never publish content that would alienate their advertisers, who also happen to be their readers. Print might die some day but I don’t want to play Nostradamus and predict when and if it will happen. I have no clue what it would take to shake things up on the editorial boards of any of the glossies, but I am sure that barbed opinions by art critics and bloggers won’t do it. Criticizing the glossies isn’t entirely futile though. I am not sure what good comes from it, except perhaps a bit of catharsis. And if you have ever read my blog you know I am all for catharsis.

Donald Frazell September 16, 2008 at 2:53 am

Again its simple. I already wrote a very long piece on WHY art is useless now. But it comes down to what is arts purpose. Now, colleges wanna say there is none, its in their interest, make more money taking money from babies, baby daddies actually. That anything you want is art. But words are symbols, they have to have some meaning or are useless.

Look at arts history, what is the common denominator? Defing a people, public art that says who that groups is, separates it from others, unifies it, give it common purpose. And god, whatever deity they worship, or attitude towards the unknown, that explains why their are there. How they got there, Why they are there. You can trace this at the Met, with the communal tribal house of symbols summoning that sense of the eternal, of god. To the Parthenon. To Michalangelos St Peters.

Art became more rational after that, but still looked for meaning, perhaps a different sense of god, but god nonetheless. You can tell me you dont feel more than just Water Lillies when looking at a room full of Monets? When you look at Cezannes last Mt St Victoires? He was trying to make sense of science, that all is matter, that all is one, and reconcile it with that passion we all carry, of something more. Gauguin asked, Who are we? Where do we come from? Whre are we going? you listen to Miles or Cotlrane, and dont feel it?

With modernism, and jazz IS modern music(Euros got no rhythm and could never get it), it became about US as a race, about humanity, all cultures, and finding that common thread of who we are. Threading it together with science, history,technology. Exploring the world, and in paints or stone or metal or film or whatever, finding the RELATIONSHIPs, the interweaving of themes, of forms, of layering flesh upon bone, and creating a life force that engages our souls. However you want to define that.

When you walk into the room with Matisse Harmony in Red, Picassos Demoiselles, Cezannes Bathers, you can feel a presence. Because it reflects life. Not because it illustratse some funky idea, which is illustration, or exemplifies ideals, which is gamesmanship. But by treating the visual aspect as music does, line as harmony, color as harmony, structure as rhythm, gives energy to the forms involved, and creates the relationships that mirrors who we are. It is about who WE are, not I. And this is where art went to hell.

Critics claimed the hero artist was creating some theory, some idea of self expression, of self discovery, when it was really about humanity. All critics are bad. No creative artist needs to go to college to learn art, they will be corrupted by mediocrity. Just read what artists of the past have said, study their work, as Cezanne said, the Louvre was his teacher. You need no Pharisee.

Fine Arts are for the rich, caters to their desires, fine, you can have Hirst. Applied Arts, where the best artist go into now, design and film, produce those practical things we need everyday. Things to motivate, even if it is to buy a product.

Creative art, the art of the academies, or what they claim to be doing, has always been by those outside the system who can see it for what it is. A self serving industry of hacks. No great artist ever graduated from an art college, Why would they? They would leave early, as they would outshine their teacher quickly, as Wynton and Branford did, same as Miles, leaving Julliard and Berklee for the real teachers, working artists, like Art Blakey and Bird. Critics are part of that gallery-art school-museum complex, same as the military-industrial complex, interested in its own survival and wealth, not arts purpose.

Contemporary art is all about the individual, not WE, but I. The subject is centered, set apart, not interwoven, Only a few like Anselm Kiefer have risen above this, he works his surface so much he creates layers of meaning, and so life. He is a Modern artist truly. Most are self consumed, their feelings, their desires, their brilliance. Boring. And completely empty. As is all contemporary art, which is at its death knell.

Life is changing now, those who adapt to it and want to help life become more, fulfill the artists roll, which he has as much as the farmer, warrior, cook, or chief, will be a part of it, Thosw who want to continue serving the decadent art establishment, you can have it. And soon to be in the dustbin of history. What that is, I have no idea. But it cant be any worse than this, its nauseating. And why no one outside the art world, limited and inbred, gives a damn about it anymore. It wasn’t always this way, but art schools have created their own fan base, its own market, so doesnt give a damn. And neither do we.

Art collegia delenda est.

Donald Frazell September 16, 2008 at 2:53 am

Again its simple. I already wrote a very long piece on WHY art is useless now. But it comes down to what is arts purpose. Now, colleges wanna say there is none, its in their interest, make more money taking money from babies, baby daddies actually. That anything you want is art. But words are symbols, they have to have some meaning or are useless.

Look at arts history, what is the common denominator? Defing a people, public art that says who that groups is, separates it from others, unifies it, give it common purpose. And god, whatever deity they worship, or attitude towards the unknown, that explains why their are there. How they got there, Why they are there. You can trace this at the Met, with the communal tribal house of symbols summoning that sense of the eternal, of god. To the Parthenon. To Michalangelos St Peters.

Art became more rational after that, but still looked for meaning, perhaps a different sense of god, but god nonetheless. You can tell me you dont feel more than just Water Lillies when looking at a room full of Monets? When you look at Cezannes last Mt St Victoires? He was trying to make sense of science, that all is matter, that all is one, and reconcile it with that passion we all carry, of something more. Gauguin asked, Who are we? Where do we come from? Whre are we going? you listen to Miles or Cotlrane, and dont feel it?

With modernism, and jazz IS modern music(Euros got no rhythm and could never get it), it became about US as a race, about humanity, all cultures, and finding that common thread of who we are. Threading it together with science, history,technology. Exploring the world, and in paints or stone or metal or film or whatever, finding the RELATIONSHIPs, the interweaving of themes, of forms, of layering flesh upon bone, and creating a life force that engages our souls. However you want to define that.

When you walk into the room with Matisse Harmony in Red, Picassos Demoiselles, Cezannes Bathers, you can feel a presence. Because it reflects life. Not because it illustratse some funky idea, which is illustration, or exemplifies ideals, which is gamesmanship. But by treating the visual aspect as music does, line as harmony, color as harmony, structure as rhythm, gives energy to the forms involved, and creates the relationships that mirrors who we are. It is about who WE are, not I. And this is where art went to hell.

Critics claimed the hero artist was creating some theory, some idea of self expression, of self discovery, when it was really about humanity. All critics are bad. No creative artist needs to go to college to learn art, they will be corrupted by mediocrity. Just read what artists of the past have said, study their work, as Cezanne said, the Louvre was his teacher. You need no Pharisee.

Fine Arts are for the rich, caters to their desires, fine, you can have Hirst. Applied Arts, where the best artist go into now, design and film, produce those practical things we need everyday. Things to motivate, even if it is to buy a product.

Creative art, the art of the academies, or what they claim to be doing, has always been by those outside the system who can see it for what it is. A self serving industry of hacks. No great artist ever graduated from an art college, Why would they? They would leave early, as they would outshine their teacher quickly, as Wynton and Branford did, same as Miles, leaving Julliard and Berklee for the real teachers, working artists, like Art Blakey and Bird. Critics are part of that gallery-art school-museum complex, same as the military-industrial complex, interested in its own survival and wealth, not arts purpose.

Contemporary art is all about the individual, not WE, but I. The subject is centered, set apart, not interwoven, Only a few like Anselm Kiefer have risen above this, he works his surface so much he creates layers of meaning, and so life. He is a Modern artist truly. Most are self consumed, their feelings, their desires, their brilliance. Boring. And completely empty. As is all contemporary art, which is at its death knell.

Life is changing now, those who adapt to it and want to help life become more, fulfill the artists roll, which he has as much as the farmer, warrior, cook, or chief, will be a part of it, Thosw who want to continue serving the decadent art establishment, you can have it. And soon to be in the dustbin of history. What that is, I have no idea. But it cant be any worse than this, its nauseating. And why no one outside the art world, limited and inbred, gives a damn about it anymore. It wasn’t always this way, but art schools have created their own fan base, its own market, so doesnt give a damn. And neither do we.

Art collegia delenda est.

Donald Frazell September 15, 2008 at 9:53 pm

Again its simple. I already wrote a very long piece on WHY art is useless now. But it comes down to what is arts purpose. Now, colleges wanna say there is none, its in their interest, make more money taking money from babies, baby daddies actually. That anything you want is art. But words are symbols, they have to have some meaning or are useless.

Look at arts history, what is the common denominator? Defing a people, public art that says who that groups is, separates it from others, unifies it, give it common purpose. And god, whatever deity they worship, or attitude towards the unknown, that explains why their are there. How they got there, Why they are there. You can trace this at the Met, with the communal tribal house of symbols summoning that sense of the eternal, of god. To the Parthenon. To Michalangelos St Peters.

Art became more rational after that, but still looked for meaning, perhaps a different sense of god, but god nonetheless. You can tell me you dont feel more than just Water Lillies when looking at a room full of Monets? When you look at Cezannes last Mt St Victoires? He was trying to make sense of science, that all is matter, that all is one, and reconcile it with that passion we all carry, of something more. Gauguin asked, Who are we? Where do we come from? Whre are we going? you listen to Miles or Cotlrane, and dont feel it?

With modernism, and jazz IS modern music(Euros got no rhythm and could never get it), it became about US as a race, about humanity, all cultures, and finding that common thread of who we are. Threading it together with science, history,technology. Exploring the world, and in paints or stone or metal or film or whatever, finding the RELATIONSHIPs, the interweaving of themes, of forms, of layering flesh upon bone, and creating a life force that engages our souls. However you want to define that.

When you walk into the room with Matisse Harmony in Red, Picassos Demoiselles, Cezannes Bathers, you can feel a presence. Because it reflects life. Not because it illustratse some funky idea, which is illustration, or exemplifies ideals, which is gamesmanship. But by treating the visual aspect as music does, line as harmony, color as harmony, structure as rhythm, gives energy to the forms involved, and creates the relationships that mirrors who we are. It is about who WE are, not I. And this is where art went to hell.

Critics claimed the hero artist was creating some theory, some idea of self expression, of self discovery, when it was really about humanity. All critics are bad. No creative artist needs to go to college to learn art, they will be corrupted by mediocrity. Just read what artists of the past have said, study their work, as Cezanne said, the Louvre was his teacher. You need no Pharisee.

Fine Arts are for the rich, caters to their desires, fine, you can have Hirst. Applied Arts, where the best artist go into now, design and film, produce those practical things we need everyday. Things to motivate, even if it is to buy a product.

Creative art, the art of the academies, or what they claim to be doing, has always been by those outside the system who can see it for what it is. A self serving industry of hacks. No great artist ever graduated from an art college, Why would they? They would leave early, as they would outshine their teacher quickly, as Wynton and Branford did, same as Miles, leaving Julliard and Berklee for the real teachers, working artists, like Art Blakey and Bird. Critics are part of that gallery-art school-museum complex, same as the military-industrial complex, interested in its own survival and wealth, not arts purpose.

Contemporary art is all about the individual, not WE, but I. The subject is centered, set apart, not interwoven, Only a few like Anselm Kiefer have risen above this, he works his surface so much he creates layers of meaning, and so life. He is a Modern artist truly. Most are self consumed, their feelings, their desires, their brilliance. Boring. And completely empty. As is all contemporary art, which is at its death knell.

Life is changing now, those who adapt to it and want to help life become more, fulfill the artists roll, which he has as much as the farmer, warrior, cook, or chief, will be a part of it, Thosw who want to continue serving the decadent art establishment, you can have it. And soon to be in the dustbin of history. What that is, I have no idea. But it cant be any worse than this, its nauseating. And why no one outside the art world, limited and inbred, gives a damn about it anymore. It wasn’t always this way, but art schools have created their own fan base, its own market, so doesnt give a damn. And neither do we.

Art collegia delenda est.

Eric September 16, 2008 at 12:20 pm

I guess it might be fun to play the role of a mentally unstable person standing on a street corner yelling at people as they pass by, but Halloween is over a month away.

Eric September 16, 2008 at 7:20 am

I guess it might be fun to play the role of a mentally unstable person standing on a street corner yelling at people as they pass by, but Halloween is over a month away.

some girl who lives in brookly September 16, 2008 at 3:10 pm

i think that critics are better then curators. i think that there should me more critics under the age of 30. i think that would make things actually interesting.

some girl who lives in brooklyn September 16, 2008 at 10:10 am

i think that critics are better then curators. i think that there should me more critics under the age of 30. i think that would make things actually interesting.

Eric September 16, 2008 at 3:38 pm

This 41 year old art critic says, Ouch! I would hope that people in their twenties had better things to do with their time. I know I did!

Eric September 16, 2008 at 10:38 am

This 41 year old art critic says, Ouch! I would hope that people in their twenties had better things to do with their time. I know I did!

martin September 16, 2008 at 4:44 pm

she’s dance not art, but i once heard j. saltz say that joan acocella is a great critic.

martin September 16, 2008 at 9:44 pm

she’s dance not art, but i once heard j. saltz say that joan acocella is a great critic.

martin September 16, 2008 at 9:44 pm

she’s dance not art, but i once heard j. saltz say that joan acocella is a great critic.

The Hill September 19, 2008 at 1:39 pm

First, my take is more long haul, Big Picture oriented. Traditionally, a distinction was made between criticism and reviewers. The people u mention here all fall into the category of reviewers. Reviewers, often labeled critics, tended to be descriptive agents writing short reports for newspapers and art journals. People who wrote criticism w/ a cap C, like a Greenberg, Krauss, Kuspit, Danto, GPollock, etc. hooked up the works into a larger game related to the history of ideas, Marxism, Hegel, Wittgenstein, language philosophy, semiotics, feminism, queer theory, etc. A Jerry Saltz reviews but maintains an intrinsic view that does not map highways to the history of ideas.

The nature of the situation, in my opinion, amounts to an improvement in reviews, historically speaking, but a significant loss in the relevance of criticism. I read Kuspit, e.g., struggling to tie the explosion of artists to the old paradigms of philosophy, Freud, religion, etc. w/o much success. W/o old paradigms like a Greenbergian model, however, I find reviews to be sometimes aimless since there is no big picture model. I’m not saying this is bad, I’m saying this different, and positive in some ways since I think we should never return to the Greenbergian, minimal art days of prescribed art. So the question is are reviewers guided by an overriding set of principles? The poor pay is significant since no one in nyc can live on low word count pay.

To DFrazell:

Your label of wimpy to art types and posing of a more ‘masculine’ prose causes me to suspect u r a right winger here to correct gays. First of all u are like the Bushies refusing to accept anything for being in control politically in America for the last eight years, u refuse to see we have had nothing but ‘masculine’ prose in art for the last 20 centuries, and look how fucked up that got us.

“Which is, and always has been, defining a people, and exploring the concept of God.”

The reason Eric dissed your writing is the above, e.g., is a sentence fragment, sub clause, used as a sentence. That’s the least of your problems. Painting has not always been about “God”. Painters in need of jobs often towed the orthodox line, but didn’t really care. There is nothing in Leonardo’s writings that suggest he cared about Christianity, Michelangelo was homosexual, Vatican notwithstanding, who sarcastically painted his male love in the ignudi’s of the Sistine chapel to punish Julius II for squandering funds for the grand marble tomb MA wanted to produce. Manet cared little for God, Picasso, Pollock even less so, and so on. My working model starts from the premise no one has ever proved the Bible is the voice of God and the narrative is all male w/ Adam being first and taking the fact of giving life away from women. Women from Adam’s rib my ass. So, I’m a painter who proceeds from the fact of a world w/ no God. U should talk to Fox News.

The Hill September 19, 2008 at 8:39 am

First, my take is more long haul, Big Picture oriented. Traditionally, a distinction was made between criticism and reviewers. The people u mention here all fall into the category of reviewers. Reviewers, often labeled critics, tended to be descriptive agents writing short reports for newspapers and art journals. People who wrote criticism w/ a cap C, like a Greenberg, Krauss, Kuspit, Danto, GPollock, etc. hooked up the works into a larger game related to the history of ideas, Marxism, Hegel, Wittgenstein, language philosophy, semiotics, feminism, queer theory, etc. A Jerry Saltz reviews but maintains an intrinsic view that does not map highways to the history of ideas.

The nature of the situation, in my opinion, amounts to an improvement in reviews, historically speaking, but a significant loss in the relevance of criticism. I read Kuspit, e.g., struggling to tie the explosion of artists to the old paradigms of philosophy, Freud, religion, etc. w/o much success. W/o old paradigms like a Greenbergian model, however, I find reviews to be sometimes aimless since there is no big picture model. I’m not saying this is bad, I’m saying this different, and positive in some ways since I think we should never return to the Greenbergian, minimal art days of prescribed art. So the question is are reviewers guided by an overriding set of principles? The poor pay is significant since no one in nyc can live on low word count pay.

To DFrazell:

Your label of wimpy to art types and posing of a more ‘masculine’ prose causes me to suspect u r a right winger here to correct gays. First of all u are like the Bushies refusing to accept anything for being in control politically in America for the last eight years, u refuse to see we have had nothing but ‘masculine’ prose in art for the last 20 centuries, and look how fucked up that got us.

“Which is, and always has been, defining a people, and exploring the concept of God.”

The reason Eric dissed your writing is the above, e.g., is a sentence fragment, sub clause, used as a sentence. That’s the least of your problems. Painting has not always been about “God”. Painters in need of jobs often towed the orthodox line, but didn’t really care. There is nothing in Leonardo’s writings that suggest he cared about Christianity, Michelangelo was homosexual, Vatican notwithstanding, who sarcastically painted his male love in the ignudi’s of the Sistine chapel to punish Julius II for squandering funds for the grand marble tomb MA wanted to produce. Manet cared little for God, Picasso, Pollock even less so, and so on. My working model starts from the premise no one has ever proved the Bible is the voice of God and the narrative is all male w/ Adam being first and taking the fact of giving life away from women. Women from Adam’s rib my ass. So, I’m a painter who proceeds from the fact of a world w/ no God. U should talk to Fox News.

Donald Frazell September 19, 2008 at 9:11 pm

(Please post, as it is really quite innocent, and deserve a rebuttal to the anal editor off the Hill. And not, that is NOT a gay joke, its a psychological reality.)

LOL!!! What a small minded, insecure person. As I live in the LBC, lesbian capital of the universe and also a large conservative gay population, and work in WLA, enough said, working in print production, you’re nuts! There, like the sentence fragments? Easy to write simply when you have nothing to say, some of us work for a living.

Still dont get the blogs title, hell, WeHo far gayer than SoHo, and Frisco would deserve the title. But would get more pissed about being called Frisco than Fag. So this is a serious question, why the title? Does it have some other meaning my limited cranium dosent see?

I simply am quite obviously far more experienced about life, as your limited suppostition proved. I am a father, basketball coach, athlete, artist, photographer, lover, husband, home owner, tax payer, history major, handsome, virile, did I say lover? You obviously cant handle the truth. Not my problem, thats yours.

And as far as God, you are small minded, who said Religion? They are quite different and why art is now meaningless, the left is scared of facing their own mortality, they think they ARE little gods. Usually is silly spiritual center which my wife works as a graphic designre for a major one, one Jon Stewart slammed as “multi-racial, gay, lesbian, transgendered backup choir” at the DNC. I got no issue with the gender confused, you obviously do with those who aren’t.

The left has ruined art, now controlled by the self absorbed, spoiled, soft, decadent whiners. Straight, gay, lesbian, transgendered, trans everything, whatever. Its about ME, I, therapy, fetishes, self expression, and childishness. If you fit one or more of those categories, thats your problem, not mine. I have not idea who you are, except a little thin skinned, and obviously uneducated.

EVERYTHING Picasso did was about humanity, our identity, our past, god. Michelangleo also, his being gay is irrelevant. He was extraordinarily religious, and felt great pains about his homosexual desires as they were considerd a sin at that time. Me, I dont care, I know being gay is born, not learned or perverted, no more than heteros are. Lesbians? Well, I think its about half are and half angry at men for past beatings, rapes, molestations, just anger.

But having a concept of god is not the same as religion, which is needed by man as an institution, to deal with life, death, birth, weddings, social functions that involve great transitions and mortality. But you are so scared of the concept you run to a sterotype, YOU are the one making selfish accusations.

Creative art always involves the sense of eternity, of the feelings before the unknown, questions of our beginnings and end. Our purpose, OUR being, ones that science cannot always answer. and you would probably be suprised to know msot scientists DO believe in a god, just not necessarily theone of the Bible, you are rather narrow minded, aren’t you?

And I apologize for any typos i invariably have, I am always in a hurry.

Art collegia delenda est

Donald Frazell September 19, 2008 at 9:11 pm

(Please post, as it is really quite innocent, and deserve a rebuttal to the anal editor off the Hill. And not, that is NOT a gay joke, its a psychological reality.)

LOL!!! What a small minded, insecure person. As I live in the LBC, lesbian capital of the universe and also a large conservative gay population, and work in WLA, enough said, working in print production, you’re nuts! There, like the sentence fragments? Easy to write simply when you have nothing to say, some of us work for a living.

Still dont get the blogs title, hell, WeHo far gayer than SoHo, and Frisco would deserve the title. But would get more pissed about being called Frisco than Fag. So this is a serious question, why the title? Does it have some other meaning my limited cranium dosent see?

I simply am quite obviously far more experienced about life, as your limited suppostition proved. I am a father, basketball coach, athlete, artist, photographer, lover, husband, home owner, tax payer, history major, handsome, virile, did I say lover? You obviously cant handle the truth. Not my problem, thats yours.

And as far as God, you are small minded, who said Religion? They are quite different and why art is now meaningless, the left is scared of facing their own mortality, they think they ARE little gods. Usually is silly spiritual center which my wife works as a graphic designre for a major one, one Jon Stewart slammed as “multi-racial, gay, lesbian, transgendered backup choir” at the DNC. I got no issue with the gender confused, you obviously do with those who aren’t.

The left has ruined art, now controlled by the self absorbed, spoiled, soft, decadent whiners. Straight, gay, lesbian, transgendered, trans everything, whatever. Its about ME, I, therapy, fetishes, self expression, and childishness. If you fit one or more of those categories, thats your problem, not mine. I have not idea who you are, except a little thin skinned, and obviously uneducated.

EVERYTHING Picasso did was about humanity, our identity, our past, god. Michelangleo also, his being gay is irrelevant. He was extraordinarily religious, and felt great pains about his homosexual desires as they were considerd a sin at that time. Me, I dont care, I know being gay is born, not learned or perverted, no more than heteros are. Lesbians? Well, I think its about half are and half angry at men for past beatings, rapes, molestations, just anger.

But having a concept of god is not the same as religion, which is needed by man as an institution, to deal with life, death, birth, weddings, social functions that involve great transitions and mortality. But you are so scared of the concept you run to a sterotype, YOU are the one making selfish accusations.

Creative art always involves the sense of eternity, of the feelings before the unknown, questions of our beginnings and end. Our purpose, OUR being, ones that science cannot always answer. and you would probably be suprised to know msot scientists DO believe in a god, just not necessarily theone of the Bible, you are rather narrow minded, aren’t you?

And I apologize for any typos i invariably have, I am always in a hurry.

Art collegia delenda est

Donald Frazell September 19, 2008 at 4:11 pm

(Please post, as it is really quite innocent, and deserve a rebuttal to the anal editor off the Hill. And not, that is NOT a gay joke, its a psychological reality.)

LOL!!! What a small minded, insecure person. As I live in the LBC, lesbian capital of the universe and also a large conservative gay population, and work in WLA, enough said, working in print production, you’re nuts! There, like the sentence fragments? Easy to write simply when you have nothing to say, some of us work for a living.

Still dont get the blogs title, hell, WeHo far gayer than SoHo, and Frisco would deserve the title. But would get more pissed about being called Frisco than Fag. So this is a serious question, why the title? Does it have some other meaning my limited cranium dosent see?

I simply am quite obviously far more experienced about life, as your limited suppostition proved. I am a father, basketball coach, athlete, artist, photographer, lover, husband, home owner, tax payer, history major, handsome, virile, did I say lover? You obviously cant handle the truth. Not my problem, thats yours.

And as far as God, you are small minded, who said Religion? They are quite different and why art is now meaningless, the left is scared of facing their own mortality, they think they ARE little gods. Usually is silly spiritual center which my wife works as a graphic designre for a major one, one Jon Stewart slammed as “multi-racial, gay, lesbian, transgendered backup choir” at the DNC. I got no issue with the gender confused, you obviously do with those who aren’t.

The left has ruined art, now controlled by the self absorbed, spoiled, soft, decadent whiners. Straight, gay, lesbian, transgendered, trans everything, whatever. Its about ME, I, therapy, fetishes, self expression, and childishness. If you fit one or more of those categories, thats your problem, not mine. I have not idea who you are, except a little thin skinned, and obviously uneducated.

EVERYTHING Picasso did was about humanity, our identity, our past, god. Michelangleo also, his being gay is irrelevant. He was extraordinarily religious, and felt great pains about his homosexual desires as they were considerd a sin at that time. Me, I dont care, I know being gay is born, not learned or perverted, no more than heteros are. Lesbians? Well, I think its about half are and half angry at men for past beatings, rapes, molestations, just anger.

But having a concept of god is not the same as religion, which is needed by man as an institution, to deal with life, death, birth, weddings, social functions that involve great transitions and mortality. But you are so scared of the concept you run to a sterotype, YOU are the one making selfish accusations.

Creative art always involves the sense of eternity, of the feelings before the unknown, questions of our beginnings and end. Our purpose, OUR being, ones that science cannot always answer. and you would probably be suprised to know msot scientists DO believe in a god, just not necessarily theone of the Bible, you are rather narrow minded, aren’t you?

And I apologize for any typos i invariably have, I am always in a hurry.

Art collegia delenda est

Donald Frazell September 19, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Thank you, I appreciate it. And that really was a serious question, why the title of the blog?

And some people criticze MY writing(Mr.orMrs.Hill)? At least I am in a hurry, and don’t write in the obtuse, academic, pseudo intellectual syle of the over educated, and under learned.

google me and get my three part essay posted at artnewsblog.com in July.
You will get a more in depth answer, AND better written, when I had the time.

Art collegia delenda est

Donald Frazell September 19, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Thank you, I appreciate it. And that really was a serious question, why the title of the blog?

And some people criticze MY writing(Mr.orMrs.Hill)? At least I am in a hurry, and don’t write in the obtuse, academic, pseudo intellectual syle of the over educated, and under learned.

google me and get my three part essay posted at artnewsblog.com in July.
You will get a more in depth answer, AND better written, when I had the time.

Art collegia delenda est

Donald Frazell September 19, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Thank you, I appreciate it. And that really was a serious question, why the title of the blog?

And some people criticze MY writing(Mr.orMrs.Hill)? At least I am in a hurry, and don’t write in the obtuse, academic, pseudo intellectual syle of the over educated, and under learned.

google me and get my three part essay posted at artnewsblog.com in July.
You will get a more in depth answer, AND better written, when I had the time.

Art collegia delenda est

Brian Sherwin @ Myartspace Blo September 20, 2008 at 8:19 pm

“Michelangleo also, his being gay is irrelevant. He was extraordinarily religious, and felt great pains about his homosexual desires as they were considerd a sin at that time.”

Donald, art was contained in a religious box at that time as well. In fact, most of the artists throughout history were controlled by the over zealous whims of the church and the governments that embraced it. Who knows what kind of works would have been created had religion– supported by governments and military– not had so much control in the past.

Just so you know, I’m a Christian. I also have an open mind. My faith is what it is… but that does not stop me from acknowledging the fact that individuals have twisted my religion and other religions in the past– and now– for social and political gain– including the disgusting act of locking art in a cell.

Brian Sherwin @ Myartspace Blo September 20, 2008 at 8:19 pm

“Michelangleo also, his being gay is irrelevant. He was extraordinarily religious, and felt great pains about his homosexual desires as they were considerd a sin at that time.”

Donald, art was contained in a religious box at that time as well. In fact, most of the artists throughout history were controlled by the over zealous whims of the church and the governments that embraced it. Who knows what kind of works would have been created had religion– supported by governments and military– not had so much control in the past.

Just so you know, I’m a Christian. I also have an open mind. My faith is what it is… but that does not stop me from acknowledging the fact that individuals have twisted my religion and other religions in the past– and now– for social and political gain– including the disgusting act of locking art in a cell.

Brian Sherwin @ Myartspace Blog September 20, 2008 at 3:19 pm

“Michelangleo also, his being gay is irrelevant. He was extraordinarily religious, and felt great pains about his homosexual desires as they were considerd a sin at that time.”

Donald, art was contained in a religious box at that time as well. In fact, most of the artists throughout history were controlled by the over zealous whims of the church and the governments that embraced it. Who knows what kind of works would have been created had religion– supported by governments and military– not had so much control in the past.

Just so you know, I’m a Christian. I also have an open mind. My faith is what it is… but that does not stop me from acknowledging the fact that individuals have twisted my religion and other religions in the past– and now– for social and political gain– including the disgusting act of locking art in a cell.

Hayward September 21, 2008 at 5:41 am

I don’t think it is actually an issue of there now being enough self-taught artists or the like, but actually that ARTFORUM just doesn’t want to cover material made by those artists. Artforum think they have a responsibility as taste makers, they have lost their critic credibility, it is now a journalistic magazine, devoted to showing what trend has been created by which curators and which galleries, they don’t have a solitary voice, it is a voice of what is already going on. That is more like re-iterating what is already present. Not much insight.

Hayward September 21, 2008 at 5:41 am

I don’t think it is actually an issue of there now being enough self-taught artists or the like, but actually that ARTFORUM just doesn’t want to cover material made by those artists. Artforum think they have a responsibility as taste makers, they have lost their critic credibility, it is now a journalistic magazine, devoted to showing what trend has been created by which curators and which galleries, they don’t have a solitary voice, it is a voice of what is already going on. That is more like re-iterating what is already present. Not much insight.

Hayward September 21, 2008 at 12:41 am

I don’t think it is actually an issue of there now being enough self-taught artists or the like, but actually that ARTFORUM just doesn’t want to cover material made by those artists. Artforum think they have a responsibility as taste makers, they have lost their critic credibility, it is now a journalistic magazine, devoted to showing what trend has been created by which curators and which galleries, they don’t have a solitary voice, it is a voice of what is already going on. That is more like re-iterating what is already present. Not much insight.

The Hill September 21, 2008 at 3:29 pm

you would probably be suprised to know msot scientists DO believe in a god, just not necessarily theone of the Bible, you are rather narrow minded, aren’t you?
——————–
This is irrelevant to the topic at hand which is Thoughts On Criticism. You maintained that we should return to a more masculine prose (obviously a gay/female version is taboo). Yet you won’t deal w/ the fact we have had a masculine prose in criticism and it’s time to change. Deal.

To think Lesbians are only such because of what men have done to them crudely states the reality, meaning if they hadn’t had bad heterosexual experience they would never be lesbian. Your rant on middle class values of being a mortgaged miserable Monogamite attests to your belief that heterosexuality is the natural state for everyone. It’s not. In my humble, uneducated opinion, you should read Judith Butler on performativity in Gender Trouble or any other author who queers the hetero hegemony. You will find even a basic biological essentalism of sex determination as well as the social construction of gender is wildly contested and interesting. As far as the title of the blog, I can’t say, but when I was being uneducated in high school the jocks called art people art fags, and in college the sculptors called painters Painter Fags. I often use the latter as an ID.

It would be nice as well, when u rant on u would actually cite a specific work to make your point so your rants are hissy fits that just hiss, like the air slowly leaking out of a balloon. You talk wildly of Picasso, etc. w/o examples.

Do u honestly think that someone who knows the term for the pagan figure studies in Italian Cinquecento ptg., ignudi, is uneducated? Your ad hominum attacks imply that u r here only to troll for a fight; you’re getting old real fast.

I disagree w/ you that todays art and criticism lacks meaning. The meaning has shifted though and criticism has lagged behind in providing viable models. A case in point is the kind of quasi Marxist writings in Hal Foster, in Artforum, who obviously takes his cue from Jameson. The problem is even the dissing of the meta-narratives endemic to Post Modernism has been lost. Artforum, which I disagree w/ the person above on the reactionary nature of that rag, is still clinging to a post modernist position. The artists aren’t listening.

The Hill September 21, 2008 at 3:29 pm

you would probably be suprised to know msot scientists DO believe in a god, just not necessarily theone of the Bible, you are rather narrow minded, aren’t you?
——————–
This is irrelevant to the topic at hand which is Thoughts On Criticism. You maintained that we should return to a more masculine prose (obviously a gay/female version is taboo). Yet you won’t deal w/ the fact we have had a masculine prose in criticism and it’s time to change. Deal.

To think Lesbians are only such because of what men have done to them crudely states the reality, meaning if they hadn’t had bad heterosexual experience they would never be lesbian. Your rant on middle class values of being a mortgaged miserable Monogamite attests to your belief that heterosexuality is the natural state for everyone. It’s not. In my humble, uneducated opinion, you should read Judith Butler on performativity in Gender Trouble or any other author who queers the hetero hegemony. You will find even a basic biological essentalism of sex determination as well as the social construction of gender is wildly contested and interesting. As far as the title of the blog, I can’t say, but when I was being uneducated in high school the jocks called art people art fags, and in college the sculptors called painters Painter Fags. I often use the latter as an ID.

It would be nice as well, when u rant on u would actually cite a specific work to make your point so your rants are hissy fits that just hiss, like the air slowly leaking out of a balloon. You talk wildly of Picasso, etc. w/o examples.

Do u honestly think that someone who knows the term for the pagan figure studies in Italian Cinquecento ptg., ignudi, is uneducated? Your ad hominum attacks imply that u r here only to troll for a fight; you’re getting old real fast.

I disagree w/ you that todays art and criticism lacks meaning. The meaning has shifted though and criticism has lagged behind in providing viable models. A case in point is the kind of quasi Marxist writings in Hal Foster, in Artforum, who obviously takes his cue from Jameson. The problem is even the dissing of the meta-narratives endemic to Post Modernism has been lost. Artforum, which I disagree w/ the person above on the reactionary nature of that rag, is still clinging to a post modernist position. The artists aren’t listening.

The Hill September 21, 2008 at 10:29 am

you would probably be suprised to know msot scientists DO believe in a god, just not necessarily theone of the Bible, you are rather narrow minded, aren’t you?
——————–
This is irrelevant to the topic at hand which is Thoughts On Criticism. You maintained that we should return to a more masculine prose (obviously a gay/female version is taboo). Yet you won’t deal w/ the fact we have had a masculine prose in criticism and it’s time to change. Deal.

To think Lesbians are only such because of what men have done to them crudely states the reality, meaning if they hadn’t had bad heterosexual experience they would never be lesbian. Your rant on middle class values of being a mortgaged miserable Monogamite attests to your belief that heterosexuality is the natural state for everyone. It’s not. In my humble, uneducated opinion, you should read Judith Butler on performativity in Gender Trouble or any other author who queers the hetero hegemony. You will find even a basic biological essentalism of sex determination as well as the social construction of gender is wildly contested and interesting. As far as the title of the blog, I can’t say, but when I was being uneducated in high school the jocks called art people art fags, and in college the sculptors called painters Painter Fags. I often use the latter as an ID.

It would be nice as well, when u rant on u would actually cite a specific work to make your point so your rants are hissy fits that just hiss, like the air slowly leaking out of a balloon. You talk wildly of Picasso, etc. w/o examples.

Do u honestly think that someone who knows the term for the pagan figure studies in Italian Cinquecento ptg., ignudi, is uneducated? Your ad hominum attacks imply that u r here only to troll for a fight; you’re getting old real fast.

I disagree w/ you that todays art and criticism lacks meaning. The meaning has shifted though and criticism has lagged behind in providing viable models. A case in point is the kind of quasi Marxist writings in Hal Foster, in Artforum, who obviously takes his cue from Jameson. The problem is even the dissing of the meta-narratives endemic to Post Modernism has been lost. Artforum, which I disagree w/ the person above on the reactionary nature of that rag, is still clinging to a post modernist position. The artists aren’t listening.

Donald Frazell September 22, 2008 at 3:33 am

Reading comprehension obviously has not been emphasized in art schools as you saw what you wanted to see, starting wiht i stated that maybe half lesbians are born that way, and half been mistreated. I live in the LBC, lesbian center of the universe. You have not idea what you are talking about, in your erudite and vacuous manner. Hows that? And art writings is as far from masculine as possible, which is spare and to the point, when will you ever get there?

But there are far more important things than art going on right now. Far more, as the economy is on the edge, and without follow up to todays bailout package, the economy will collapse. As a history major who focuesed on economics, it is plain. the businessmen dont see it, their quarterly bottom line is all, and dont care about teh future, figuring the government will bail tehm out. the debt is being raised from 11.7 TRILLION by 700bilion. We dont ahve the money, we forgot waht built the post Depression economy was Keynesian economics, to minimize depressions into recessions. The safeguards have been destroyed, or not enforced This is a critcial moment in history, Write you congressmen, demand taht taxes be raised on those who ahve it. For if revenues are not raised, this will collapse, adn the rich to. They dont believe it, but thi has not hapened sine 1929 through teh tightening of credit to the Smoot-Hawley protectionist tarrifs. We are a step away form collapse, the hell with art. Put is aside to another day. Write your congressmen, and demand that a yes vote be tied to revenue enhancement, major revenue. This will take years to work off as is, the old rules are dead, they were castrated, and died. I dont care if you hate me, but look to the worlds future, not your present. It is time sacrifice became a badge of honor. for it is necessary. PLEASE

Donald Frazell September 22, 2008 at 3:33 am

Reading comprehension obviously has not been emphasized in art schools as you saw what you wanted to see, starting wiht i stated that maybe half lesbians are born that way, and half been mistreated. I live in the LBC, lesbian center of the universe. You have not idea what you are talking about, in your erudite and vacuous manner. Hows that? And art writings is as far from masculine as possible, which is spare and to the point, when will you ever get there?

But there are far more important things than art going on right now. Far more, as the economy is on the edge, and without follow up to todays bailout package, the economy will collapse. As a history major who focuesed on economics, it is plain. the businessmen dont see it, their quarterly bottom line is all, and dont care about teh future, figuring the government will bail tehm out. the debt is being raised from 11.7 TRILLION by 700bilion. We dont ahve the money, we forgot waht built the post Depression economy was Keynesian economics, to minimize depressions into recessions. The safeguards have been destroyed, or not enforced This is a critcial moment in history, Write you congressmen, demand taht taxes be raised on those who ahve it. For if revenues are not raised, this will collapse, adn the rich to. They dont believe it, but thi has not hapened sine 1929 through teh tightening of credit to the Smoot-Hawley protectionist tarrifs. We are a step away form collapse, the hell with art. Put is aside to another day. Write your congressmen, and demand that a yes vote be tied to revenue enhancement, major revenue. This will take years to work off as is, the old rules are dead, they were castrated, and died. I dont care if you hate me, but look to the worlds future, not your present. It is time sacrifice became a badge of honor. for it is necessary. PLEASE

Donald Frazell September 21, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Reading comprehension obviously has not been emphasized in art schools as you saw what you wanted to see, starting wiht i stated that maybe half lesbians are born that way, and half been mistreated. I live in the LBC, lesbian center of the universe. You have not idea what you are talking about, in your erudite and vacuous manner. Hows that? And art writings is as far from masculine as possible, which is spare and to the point, when will you ever get there?

But there are far more important things than art going on right now. Far more, as the economy is on the edge, and without follow up to todays bailout package, the economy will collapse. As a history major who focuesed on economics, it is plain. the businessmen dont see it, their quarterly bottom line is all, and dont care about teh future, figuring the government will bail tehm out. the debt is being raised from 11.7 TRILLION by 700bilion. We dont ahve the money, we forgot waht built the post Depression economy was Keynesian economics, to minimize depressions into recessions. The safeguards have been destroyed, or not enforced This is a critcial moment in history, Write you congressmen, demand taht taxes be raised on those who ahve it. For if revenues are not raised, this will collapse, adn the rich to. They dont believe it, but thi has not hapened sine 1929 through teh tightening of credit to the Smoot-Hawley protectionist tarrifs. We are a step away form collapse, the hell with art. Put is aside to another day. Write your congressmen, and demand that a yes vote be tied to revenue enhancement, major revenue. This will take years to work off as is, the old rules are dead, they were castrated, and died. I dont care if you hate me, but look to the worlds future, not your present. It is time sacrifice became a badge of honor. for it is necessary. PLEASE

Jill September 29, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I’m jumping into this late, but the bottom line is we art critics do not get paid for our work and when we do, we have to write what people want to hear. That should be the main argument behind “why there are no good art critics”. Good criticism does exists but you’re not seeing it in the fine print.

Good luck!

Jill September 29, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I’m jumping into this late, but the bottom line is we art critics do not get paid for our work and when we do, we have to write what people want to hear. That should be the main argument behind “why there are no good art critics”. Good criticism does exists but you’re not seeing it in the fine print.

Good luck!

Jill September 29, 2008 at 8:58 am

I’m jumping into this late, but the bottom line is we art critics do not get paid for our work and when we do, we have to write what people want to hear. That should be the main argument behind “why there are no good art critics”. Good criticism does exists but you’re not seeing it in the fine print.

Good luck!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: