Comments on: Chelsea Art Museum President Dorothea Keeser and Curator Manon Slome Respond

By: Kate Travers

Kate Travers — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:40:20 +0000

@Donald Frazell: “Ask Paddy, its his site.”

Paddy is a woman. FYI.

By: Tina

Tina — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 00:51:49 +0000

I have heard very little by way of good news about the management of the Cheslea Art Museum (and I know people who have worked there and had dealings with the place). the interview with the self appointed president Ms Keesler confirms my thoughts about the venue - a total vanity project primarily oriented around a compulsive desire to display her husbands somewhat pleasant work. No wonder she did not want to display a show with a challenging content! I hope the show finds another venue as the debate about the subject matter is very timely.

By: Donald Frazell

Donald Frazell — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:47:25 +0000

It is the kind of obtuse, opaque, unfathomable writing, that has gotten art into its current situation. Splitting hairs on a dead rat, and not seeing the rat itself. And recognizing a life form, which art can be, but not in this clinical myopic self infatuated wordsmithing about nothing. Jerry Seinfeld is the god of that breed of curator, a plague upon man at the moment.

Doesnt matter what little is said, it misses the point, and the art or lack therof, completely. And those history paintnign are not creative art, but yes, propoganda. Well done histodrama, though this show looks pretty wimpy as most contemporary art is. Softness makes softness. There are many types of art as there are musics. Creative art is supposed to be what artists talk about, plus the Fine Arts for the rich, currently espoused by Hirst and his ilk. Other sites for grandma art and flag waving, or burning, works.

Or maybe I am wrong. But seems like that is the premise here. Ask Paddy, its his site.

ACDE

By: pol rosenthal

pol rosenthal — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:06:54 +0000

donald frazell wrote: “Not suprised, The Hill writes like a curator, endless drivel about nothing, completely unreadable by any non art school indoctrinated intelligent human beings.”

mr. frazell, did you even read what the Hill wrote? it would be surprising if you answered ‘yes.’ you and the hill are in agreement. if you had bothered to pay attention to the hill’s statement you would have realized that you are on the same side.

hope you haven’t made an enemy by rushing in so haphazardly. or simply lost a supporter. and just out of curiousity i’m curious what part of the hill’s argument did you find unreadable and why?

By: Bret

Bret — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:42:27 +0000

i am a staff sergeant in the United States Army. i am also a National Guardsman. i am embarrassed and appalled at the treatment of the prisoners by my fellow soldiers.

i do not want this exhibit withdrawn however, because it is a vision of what we should strive to avoid and to prosecute in our society.

-bret

By: Richard Rounds

Richard Rounds — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:58:32 +0000

I think the “Art” is in the conflict.

By: Derek

Derek — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:52:23 +0000

Here’s my question: What about all the famous paintings of Washington in the Potomac, The Battle of Antietam…and many other famous paintings…’of war’…does that not constitute…or glorify terror then as well…should we remove ALL paintings/artwork that depicts war and battles…because one person’s subjective interpretation…this place…the planet…is getting very pathetic…when a few…can determine what everyone else should see…here’s a suggestion: If it offends you…DON’T see it. How difficult is that to wrap around…

By: Art Fag City

Art Fag City — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:00:00 +0000

Donald: Just to be clear, it was the curator’s decision to pull the show, not Dorothea Keeser’s. Slome pulled the show because she felt the show was compromised under Keeser’s authority.

By: Donald Frazell

Donald Frazell — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:55:57 +0000

Not suprised, The Hill writes like a curator, endless drivel about nothing, completely unreadable by any non art school indoctrinated intelligent human beings. This is the Presidents decision, I hope it was not jsut about human body parts, that is not a reason to stop the showing. If seen as propaganda, from any side, most certainly is.

They can hold a show, but can get together and rent a space, should be eay with the current economy. But Goyas work was most certainly NOT propaganda, but about the horror of war. And the fight of the human spirit agaisnt tyranny. Not that their government was any better than Napoleons.. Not necessarily against the French, who he worked with, but despised also. They being the occupying power of his homeland of course he showed mostly their attrocities, they controlled it. And any Abu Grahib show should show American attrocities, though not exactly on the same scale as the French. No one died, more about humiliation and sadism of a few. But if done well could show a therem about humanity. Which is arts conern, not jsut a point in time by certain combatants. art is about the human soul, psyche, essence, mind, whatever you want to call it.

So the show may be worth something, but this person decided not as art. which is the museums field. So be it, move on. And if you mean it, got rent a space. You got tehn publicity to run with. Though a little more pressing matter at hand now. like teh collapse of the economy.

And my wife loves you too ann, finds it interesting i have a groupie. I am not so impressed. Go back and terrorize winkleman, those ephermeral folks need a taste of reality.

Art collegia delenda est

By: Kelli Williams

Kelli Williams — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:46:40 +0000

” I do not think that an artist should show children and women which are torn apart by bombs.” Maybe all the puppies had already been cast. Maybe the artist’s burka was at the dry cleaners.
I’m perplexed, I thought it was terrorism not art that “disrespected human beings”. This is an example of a sad, reactionary disengagement pervading every aspect of our culture. Political art is more necessary at this moment in history than ever.