POST BY PADDY JOHNSON
Over the weekend, Gawker’s Kelsey Keith pissed off a few readers with her latest Art Schooled column speculating on who will become the next Jeffrey Deitch. There’s been some minor theorizing of this ilk already from Alexandra Peers over at NYMagazine, which probably prompted Gawker’s post; Peers has the advantage of getting the details right. Setting aside the obvious — no one can replace Deitch, nor is it necessary to try — Gawker’s post cites Gavin Brown, James Fuentes, Jeanne Greenberg Rohatyn, and Javier Peres as a possible replacements, offering up a poor set of rationales for each. There are more flaws and inaccuracies than is worth getting into in this post, but on the subject of the quality of picks themselves: James Fuentes is the antithesis to Deitch, not his replacement; as far as I know, Javier Peres had shut down his small Lower East Side collaborative space with Terence Koh; aside from Jeanne Greenberg Rohatyn’s new role in the Bravo reality series Work of Art: The Next Great Artist, she seems completely unsuited for the list. Past all this, the post makes the claim that Deitch made “old fogies collectible (Basquiat, Haring, Francesco Clemente),” which is simply not true. All of these artists had a well-established market before Deitch Projects ever came along.
I applaud Gawker for attempting to provide at least some art coverage, but its media mogul owner Nick Denton has to put a few more resources into the column for it to work. The blog receives close to 1.5 million readers daily — with a readership like that, the publication has an obligation to get a few more facts and details right.
{ 27 comments }
I think Gawker’s weekly art column is going to transform into the weekly Deitch column…. possibly with the addition of some Jonathan Levine coverage, or whatever the next Hirst or Banksy project might be. I’m not sure if it’s readers are ready to look further past that style of art/entertainment or it would’ve made sense to do it 2yrs ago.
I think Gawker’s weekly art column is going to transform into the weekly Deitch column…. possibly with the addition of some Jonathan Levine coverage, or whatever the next Hirst or Banksy project might be. I’m not sure if it’s readers are ready to look further past that style of art/entertainment or it would’ve made sense to do it 2yrs ago.
the next jeff deitch is will krieger
the next jeff deitch is will krieger
You should see the bland “art” Mr. Denton has in his soho loft. Sepia tinged, mass produced, “Gotham” prints, looking like an expensive version of what you might find in a dorm room.
You should see the bland “art” Mr. Denton has in his soho loft. Sepia tinged, mass produced, “Gotham” prints, looking like an expensive version of what you might find in a dorm room.
nick denton has stated publicly that their model for accuracy is gradual – that they start with a story and proceed towards filing in the facts. Your scolding tone would be well received by traditional press but in the Gawkerverse they just laugh at your policing – facts get sorted out in the end, they say. Their audience isn’t art-worlders and little harm is done when you speculate about a fashionista like Deitch.
You may find this a waste of time (why not wait for the facts to emerge like a cup of tea) – but it does serve the advantage that they can be first with the gist of the story before other slower “more accurate” (except when they get fed the news by the white house) news outlets.
Another added advantage is the reader gets to participate int he process – and that’s what social media is all about.
As to the short list – are we talking about the persona or the work? Anyone who has seen James Fuentes or Gavin Brown operate know they hardly resemble Deitch. And While Gavin Brown showed similar work – spectacles like upside down police cars, bread houses and socialites, he hardly brings california “steet” culture” or mines youth culture as a whole – Cathy Greyson is the go-to curator for that kind of trustafarianism. She’s nt Deitch though.
Gavin Brown shows socialites as well – but his brand is more serious (even when it is “slacker”) and as far as I know doesn’t include any Swoon’s or Shepherd Fairy’s or porn, for that matter.
Deitch actually had a lot of nudity at his space, live as well as in photographs.
As for the others – they don’t even have the same profile, space or, I assume desire, to be a Deitch.
What you are looking for is more on the lines of a Kenny Schacter who maybe wasn’t that successful maybe because of Vito Acconcci, who’s interior architecture competed violently with any art you might want to show in his old space.
So i guess no, I can’t think of anyone who would replace Deitch – I wonder why people want a replacement – why not something different?
nick denton has stated publicly that their model for accuracy is gradual – that they start with a story and proceed towards filing in the facts. Your scolding tone would be well received by traditional press but in the Gawkerverse they just laugh at your policing – facts get sorted out in the end, they say. Their audience isn’t art-worlders and little harm is done when you speculate about a fashionista like Deitch.
You may find this a waste of time (why not wait for the facts to emerge like a cup of tea) – but it does serve the advantage that they can be first with the gist of the story before other slower “more accurate” (except when they get fed the news by the white house) news outlets.
Another added advantage is the reader gets to participate int he process – and that’s what social media is all about.
As to the short list – are we talking about the persona or the work? Anyone who has seen James Fuentes or Gavin Brown operate know they hardly resemble Deitch. And While Gavin Brown showed similar work – spectacles like upside down police cars, bread houses and socialites, he hardly brings california “steet” culture” or mines youth culture as a whole – Cathy Greyson is the go-to curator for that kind of trustafarianism. She’s nt Deitch though.
Gavin Brown shows socialites as well – but his brand is more serious (even when it is “slacker”) and as far as I know doesn’t include any Swoon’s or Shepherd Fairy’s or porn, for that matter.
Deitch actually had a lot of nudity at his space, live as well as in photographs.
As for the others – they don’t even have the same profile, space or, I assume desire, to be a Deitch.
What you are looking for is more on the lines of a Kenny Schacter who maybe wasn’t that successful maybe because of Vito Acconcci, who’s interior architecture competed violently with any art you might want to show in his old space.
So i guess no, I can’t think of anyone who would replace Deitch – I wonder why people want a replacement – why not something different?
nick denton has stated publicly that their model for accuracy is gradual – that they start with a story and proceed towards filing in the facts. Your scolding tone would be well received by traditional press but in the Gawkerverse they just laugh at your policing – facts get sorted out in the end, they say. Their audience isn’t art-worlders and little harm is done when you speculate about a fashionista like Deitch.
You may find this a waste of time (why not wait for the facts to emerge like a cup of tea) – but it does serve the advantage that they can be first with the gist of the story before other slower “more accurate” (except when they get fed the news by the white house) news outlets.
Another added advantage is the reader gets to participate int he process – and that’s what social media is all about.
As to the short list – are we talking about the persona or the work? Anyone who has seen James Fuentes or Gavin Brown operate know they hardly resemble Deitch. And While Gavin Brown showed similar work – spectacles like upside down police cars, bread houses and socialites, he hardly brings california “steet” culture” or mines youth culture as a whole – Cathy Greyson is the go-to curator for that kind of trustafarianism. She’s nt Deitch though.
Gavin Brown shows socialites as well – but his brand is more serious (even when it is “slacker”) and as far as I know doesn’t include any Swoon’s or Shepherd Fairy’s or porn, for that matter.
Deitch actually had a lot of nudity at his space, live as well as in photographs.
As for the others – they don’t even have the same profile, space or, I assume desire, to be a Deitch.
What you are looking for is more on the lines of a Kenny Schacter who maybe wasn’t that successful maybe because of Vito Acconcci, who’s interior architecture competed violently with any art you might want to show in his old space.
So i guess no, I can’t think of anyone who would replace Deitch – I wonder why people want a replacement – why not something different?
Denton’s spin on blogging supports a shitty publishing model designed for profitability first. If accuracy were actually gradual his staff would update the post. They haven’t and don’t unless there’s a measurable traffic gain on highly visible posts, which this is not. I also completely disagree with the assertion that only art world people need to worry about the accuracy of facts when it comes to Deitch. He’s about to take over the head of one of the most important contemporary art museums in the country — people should at least be given an accurate description of his accolades.
And I agree, why look for a Deitch replacement?
Denton’s spin on blogging supports a shitty publishing model designed for profitability first. If accuracy were actually gradual his staff would update the post. They haven’t and don’t unless there’s a measurable traffic gain on highly visible posts, which this is not. I also completely disagree with the assertion that only art world people need to worry about the accuracy of facts when it comes to Deitch. He’s about to take over the head of one of the most important contemporary art museums in the country — people should at least be given an accurate description of his accolades.
And I agree, why look for a Deitch replacement?
Denton’s spin on blogging supports a shitty publishing model designed for profitability first. If accuracy were actually gradual his staff would update the post. They haven’t and don’t unless there’s a measurable traffic gain on highly visible posts, which this is not. I also completely disagree with the assertion that only art world people need to worry about the accuracy of facts when it comes to Deitch. He’s about to take over the head of one of the most important contemporary art museums in the country — people should at least be given an accurate description of his accolades.
And I agree, why look for a Deitch replacement?
Paddy! Hello. I edited the column, I back Kelsey 100%, and I’m entirely responsible for it being on Gawker. Nobody else has had any involvement in this but myself and Kelsey, and Denton has yet to express an opinion on it. Whatever he says, I’ll follow, as he’s the boss, but I’ve been given the liberty to take some risks on the weekend, and I’m trying to do that with this column. That aside, on your post:
I think you’re placing importance and taking seriously things that were not meant to be taken seriously. Like the column Art, Schooled, which was (by design) supposed to poke fun and fuck with the art world and art reporting in general. Sometimes I’ll even spell this subtext out in the tags!
http://gawker.com/tag/thingsthatwerewrittenexplicitlytopissyouoff/
Maybe you noticed our first Art, Schooled post, which was a test balloon of sorts. This is where we suggested Jeff Koons sculptures for the top of cabs.
http://gawker.com/5435063/art-schooled-six-ideas-for-taking-back-our-taxi-cab-tops
The best part was when people called that idea “stupid,” as if one needed to point that out. Which is stupid!
The second post of Art, Schooled we actually tried to do straightfaced, which was when we covered the rumor of Deitch going to MoCA. That went okay, but people still freaked out because we didn’t get every single angle correct – not in fact, but in perspective. Woah: Persnickety! So this week, we went balls out with the Week 1 Theory: that inflaming the absurd passions of the Art World with rampant speculation or even layman’s perspectives (as in, perspectives NOT for the art world. Shock! Awe!) was really quite simple, as they (Art “People”) don’t pick up the slightest hint of facetiousness because they’re some of the most self-serious assholes in the world. One would think that as they work with art this wouldn’t be the case, even on the lowest, most base philosophical level. How wrong we were! This is good, though, because it’s proven just how easy it’s going to be to get the Art World to spazz the fuck out in the coming weeks, when we really begin rolling out the great stuff.
Wait until we start spreading the incredible, awesome, bilious gossip from tips we’ve started to receive and hunt out that we will absolutely run, that are very well-sourced, about people who have never been gossiped about before (art world writers, gallery owners, museum powerhouse players) because the people in the art world are too afraid to take these people on in any substantial manner for fear of being ostracized by the subjects and their sycophantic, lecherous protectors. THAT will be a show. Finally, I applaud your attempt at criticism, as you do it quite well! However:
“Flaws and inaccuracies than is worth getting into in this post,” “as far as I know,” and “she seems..” are all just ways of speculating or hinting at fact without substantially laying out your argument, which is as easy a bone as we’ve ever been tossed, especially seeing as how those phrases are being used to report someone else’s inaccuracies, supposed as they are. Do you think calling Basquiat a Dietch-designed collectible “fogie” is in ANY WAY serious? If that’s the case, we’ll start with knock knock jokes, and move forward, ’cause this is gonna be a long ride, and we’ve got a long, long way to go.
Paddy! Hello. I edited the column, I back Kelsey 100%, and I’m entirely responsible for it being on Gawker. Nobody else has had any involvement in this but myself and Kelsey, and Denton has yet to express an opinion on it. Whatever he says, I’ll follow, as he’s the boss, but I’ve been given the liberty to take some risks on the weekend, and I’m trying to do that with this column. That aside, on your post:
I think you’re placing importance and taking seriously things that were not meant to be taken seriously. Like the column Art, Schooled, which was (by design) supposed to poke fun and fuck with the art world and art reporting in general. Sometimes I’ll even spell this subtext out in the tags!
http://gawker.com/tag/thingsthatwerewrittenexplicitlytopissyouoff/
Maybe you noticed our first Art, Schooled post, which was a test balloon of sorts. This is where we suggested Jeff Koons sculptures for the top of cabs.
http://gawker.com/5435063/art-schooled-six-ideas-for-taking-back-our-taxi-cab-tops
The best part was when people called that idea “stupid,” as if one needed to point that out. Which is stupid!
The second post of Art, Schooled we actually tried to do straightfaced, which was when we covered the rumor of Deitch going to MoCA. That went okay, but people still freaked out because we didn’t get every single angle correct – not in fact, but in perspective. Woah: Persnickety! So this week, we went balls out with the Week 1 Theory: that inflaming the absurd passions of the Art World with rampant speculation or even layman’s perspectives (as in, perspectives NOT for the art world. Shock! Awe!) was really quite simple, as they (Art “People”) don’t pick up the slightest hint of facetiousness because they’re some of the most self-serious assholes in the world. One would think that as they work with art this wouldn’t be the case, even on the lowest, most base philosophical level. How wrong we were! This is good, though, because it’s proven just how easy it’s going to be to get the Art World to spazz the fuck out in the coming weeks, when we really begin rolling out the great stuff.
Wait until we start spreading the incredible, awesome, bilious gossip from tips we’ve started to receive and hunt out that we will absolutely run, that are very well-sourced, about people who have never been gossiped about before (art world writers, gallery owners, museum powerhouse players) because the people in the art world are too afraid to take these people on in any substantial manner for fear of being ostracized by the subjects and their sycophantic, lecherous protectors. THAT will be a show. Finally, I applaud your attempt at criticism, as you do it quite well! However:
“Flaws and inaccuracies than is worth getting into in this post,” “as far as I know,” and “she seems..” are all just ways of speculating or hinting at fact without substantially laying out your argument, which is as easy a bone as we’ve ever been tossed, especially seeing as how those phrases are being used to report someone else’s inaccuracies, supposed as they are. Do you think calling Basquiat a Dietch-designed collectible “fogie” is in ANY WAY serious? If that’s the case, we’ll start with knock knock jokes, and move forward, ’cause this is gonna be a long ride, and we’ve got a long, long way to go.
OH SNAP.
OH SNAP.
OH SNAP.
OH SNAP.
OH SNAP.
BOOM!
Thanks for your response Foster. I’ve read all the columns already, but perhaps other readers haven’t.
To be clear: I never interpreted Art, Schooled as serious, but I do wish a little more time and thought was put into the column. Deitch building a market for pre-established artists is a factual, not perceptual error, and if it’s a joke — as you claim — it’s not funny. It’s absurdity would assume that people know Basquiat’s history, which you readily admit they do not. If the whole the column is supposed to be stupid, that’s fine, just be clear about it. You’ve got a lot of unhappy commenters — surely that’s not all the fault of a profession that takes itself too seriously.
I’m glad Gawker is adding art coverage to the weekend edition but if that’s going to mean anything, the quality of the column needs to improve. Get a few more facts straight, turn a few more good lines, and bring back the quality of writing Gawker was known for a few years ago. If you’ve got the ability to take risks on the weekend, your writers may be the only people who can do this.
As for “as far as I know” and “She seems” you’re right – I did hedge that a bit. I spoke to Javier Peres in Berlin this summer and he mentioned he was thinking of shutting down the gallery. I hadn’t seen it open in months after that, and I walked by last week and didn’t see it open. I didn’t call Peres Projects to check so I opted on the side of caution. The point is, that statement was made out of experience, as opposed to say, simply being uninformed. Speaking of which, consider “she seems” a typographical error and replace with “she is”
BOOM!
Thanks for your response Foster. I’ve read all the columns already, but perhaps other readers haven’t.
To be clear: I never interpreted Art, Schooled as serious, but I do wish a little more time and thought was put into the column. Deitch building a market for pre-established artists is a factual, not perceptual error, and if it’s a joke — as you claim — it’s not funny. It’s absurdity would assume that people know Basquiat’s history, which you readily admit they do not. If the whole the column is supposed to be stupid, that’s fine, just be clear about it. You’ve got a lot of unhappy commenters — surely that’s not all the fault of a profession that takes itself too seriously.
I’m glad Gawker is adding art coverage to the weekend edition but if that’s going to mean anything, the quality of the column needs to improve. Get a few more facts straight, turn a few more good lines, and bring back the quality of writing Gawker was known for a few years ago. If you’ve got the ability to take risks on the weekend, your writers may be the only people who can do this.
As for “as far as I know” and “She seems” you’re right – I did hedge that a bit. I spoke to Javier Peres in Berlin this summer and he mentioned he was thinking of shutting down the gallery. I hadn’t seen it open in months after that, and I walked by last week and didn’t see it open. I didn’t call Peres Projects to check so I opted on the side of caution. The point is, that statement was made out of experience, as opposed to say, simply being uninformed. Speaking of which, consider “she seems” a typographical error and replace with “she is”
I’m sorry, but the whole post was clearly a joke, so who cares? Everything on Gawker is so tongue-in-cheek that you’d had to be crazy to not realize this. It’s a freakin’ gossip website. Nobody at Gawker is forcing people to read it so why should it conform to everybody else’s journalistic standards? Complaining about Gawker being sarcastic is like complaining about oranges for being orange.
I’m sorry, but the whole post was clearly a joke, so who cares? Everything on Gawker is so tongue-in-cheek that you’d had to be crazy to not realize this. It’s a freakin’ gossip website. Nobody at Gawker is forcing people to read it so why should it conform to everybody else’s journalistic standards? Complaining about Gawker being sarcastic is like complaining about oranges for being orange.
Clafleche Who’s complaining about Gawker being sarcastic? I think Gawker has produced some pretty witty art related posts in the past. This isn’t up to their par.
Clafleche Who’s complaining about Gawker being sarcastic? I think Gawker has produced some pretty witty art related posts in the past. This isn’t up to their par.
Comments on this entry are closed.