0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

This Week in Comments Part Two: Powhida!

by Art Fag City on March 12, 2010 · 125 comments

POST BY PADDY JOHNSON

William Powhida, Hooverville, 2010

Following today’s earlier post on comments around the web, part two of our post tracks artist William Powhida’s latest shit storm of attention. Let’s go back a week and work our way forward:

Lindsay Pollock notes Powhida’s 20×200 edition of 200 sold out in less than a day.

A few days later, Time Out’s senior art critic Howard Halle says over Facebook, “Personally, I don’t what the big deal is with William Powhida. Like working the outsider game is such a new or brave thing? It’s an old trick they teach you at the Ivies: Insult your betters to get their attention.” The following conversation occurs:

Andrea Schwan
outsiders who promote themselves aggressively as such = insiders

Howard Halle
exactly. and when all it takes is making a drive-reference in one of drawings to Jerry Saltz to get Jerry to say “Give that guy a show at the New Museum,” you know it’s an insider game being played very shrewdly.

Paddy Johnson
Being an outsider implies a lack of knowledge about the inside. Powhida does a pretty good job at “insulting your betters” because he’s been very thorough and thus knowledgeable about the inside. Still, this kind of art making has limitations. I suspect it’s more in vogue than it has been because social networking makes sharing dirt publicly a little more sexy than it’s been in the past. Everyone wants more transparency in their networks, and Powhida creates this for people, even if he does so through a persona. I personally don’t see the need for the character.

Lisa Beck
court jester

Howard Halle
right. I get it. he’s tapping into some kind of art-world equivalent of tea-party rage. there’s a lot young artists out there who were promised superstar careers in art school, and now, thanks to the shitty economy, they’ve got bubkis. they are networked however, and I guess his work gives them the illusion of power or connection. still, I’ve seen this sort of thing before—this ain’t my first art-world recession—calls to the barricades, blah, blah, blah, and then it’s back to business as usual. The art world is in need of deep reform and has been for a long time. it would be nice of artists really addressed that, mainly I think, by working for themselves first. I don’t see that happening in Powhida’s work.

Paddy Johnson
I follow you up until the last bit. What is it about Powhida’s work that’s not working for himself first?

Sean Capone
I never thought of Powhida as an “outsider”; he seems to have a deep working inner knowledge of art world persons and politics which he gets from I-don’t-know-where. His comics are for a really specific inside audience. Problem is will this work even make sense to anyone 10 years from now, or to anyone outside the inner circle… questions which are obviously besides the point.

Howard Halle:
First Sean: Yes, you’re right; obviously, Powhida is working from a deep knowledge of the art world’s inner workings, but what I was trying to convey by the term “outsider game” was the pose of speaking truth to power, when it’s really not. I mean, when you preface a shot at someone like Jerry Saltz with “I love you Jerry but”¦” of course, the target is going to be flattered. That’s holding up a mirror in the wrong sort of way. And I agree that this approach has a short shelf life, but I wouldn’t say that the issue is besides the point; it is the point, which takes me to Paddy’s question. “Working for yourself first” means just that: Working through an idea that maybe nobody understands except you, until they do understand it. And yes, this could likely mean not until well after you are dead. What we’ve had over the past 30-35 years isn’t art so much as formula of one sort or the next. Meeting other people’s expectations while giving them some sort of cover of novelty and/or line of theoretical bullshit—which is bullshit. We all know terrific artists who, absent the right connections or right last name, labor for years in obscurity until one day their work surfaces somehow, and everybody goes, Wow, that’s amazing! Conversely, we’ve all seen the work of artists who were huge in their time in a museum somewhere, and immediately wondered, What were people thinking? Neither situation obtains all the time, but enough of the time to make you realize that being an artist is not suppose to be easy. It’s suppose to be hard. It’s almost like the difference between being on a desert island, tossing messages in a bottle into the ocean, and commandeering the giant TV screens at Madison Square Garden. No doubt the latter makes the bigger impression, but does it spark the same sense of wonderment as finding that bottle on the beach? It’s a tough choice, but I don’t think Powhida is making it.

Sean Capone
I just wrote on Jazz’ photo wall that under no circumstances, even in satire, do I like the casting of death-spells on another person (Saltz in question, in the ‘Hooverville’ piece), even if it’s under the guise of working “through a character”. Starts to reek of cynicism; the court jester who envies the emperor instead of pointing out that he has no clothes.

But I may not have all the facts here.

To describe Powhida’s work another way, the drawings are a visual manifestation of media whoring, which unlike years past, is quite socially acceptable these days. I find Sean Capone’s question about its longevity the most challenging to the artist’s practice. Like most people, I put my faith art I think will matter twenty years down the road. Powhida’s an interesting media phenomenon, but I just don’t see enough evidence indicating that his work will have any lasting importance.

Over in Jerry Saltz land, the New York Magazine senior art critic then professes his love of Powhida’s lastest masterpiece at Pulse, Hooverville. This isn’t much of a surprise. Saltz is known to have an affinity for art either about or pertaining to the art world. Being featured in the work probably doesn’t hurt (disclaimer I’m in it too); the piece depicts the five million art world personalities at Art Basel Miami this year. Saltz notes over facebook that he didn’t even attend.

The most amusing response I’ve read to this story comes from Hrag Vartanian (@Hragv) who teases Mr. Powhida (@powhida) over Twitter by saying: Sorry to be crude, but I wonder if you took a dump on Jerry’s head if he’d applaud at this point? Powhida tells Vartanian he’d have to charge for the service.

Meanwhile, artnet’s Walter Robinson moves from harassing bloggers over email to issuing death threats over facebook.  He left the following comment on Jerry Saltz’s facebook page:

I can’t believe all you people like that fucken Powhida. I hate him and am going to kill him when I see him for that caricature of me, if only I knew what the little dweeb looks like. It’s ARTNET MAGAZINE editor, you dweeb, not Artnet.com editor. Stupid twerp. He tried to write for me once or twice but he’s so fucken nondescript I wouldn’t recognize him in one of his own stupid drawings. And he couldn’t write worth shit. Never gave me any of his fucken caricatures, either, the drip.

Hmm. That’s a sensible argument.

STUFF: Ten Things Ross Bleckner Owns and Loves NSFW: This Week’s Must-See Art Events: Wish In One Hand Intro to The Art World: A Beginners Reading List

Powered by Facebook Comments

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
  • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

    I’ve probably said this elsewhere, but in general, the problem I have with art about the art world, is that aside from its participants nobody gives a shit about the ins and outs of the profession. Speaking to a related field, one of the unique achievements of Gawker was that it managed to create celebrities out of media figures only the media cared about. If Powhida’s work had that kind of influence, we’d be talking about something entirely different. But even Gawker’s crafting of media-celebs was maintained for only a short period of time. Now they focus on actual celebrities, and people describe the shift as a maturation of the web. And so, even if Powhida’s work were reaching vastly different numbers of people, the point at which it stopped talking about itself would still be considered a marker of maturation.

  • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

    I’ve probably said this elsewhere, but in general, the problem I have with art about the art world, is that aside from its participants nobody gives a shit about the ins and outs of the profession. Speaking to a related field, one of the unique achievements of Gawker was that it managed to create celebrities out of media figures only the media cared about. If Powhida’s work had that kind of influence, we’d be talking about something entirely different. But even Gawker’s crafting of media-celebs was maintained for only a short period of time. Now they focus on actual celebrities, and people describe the shift as a maturation of the web. And so, even if Powhida’s work were reaching vastly different numbers of people, the point at which it stopped talking about itself would still be considered a marker of maturation.

  • http://www.lorenmunk.com James Kalm

    As someone who’s been chronicling William’s work from near the beginning with “Bill of Wrongs: Will the Real William Powhida Please Stand”, in November 2004, I’d say I speak with a bit of authority. William has done a fantastic job of finding the vulnerabilities and sensitive spots in the art world’s facade. He’s a master at using the establishments own vanity and snarkiness as a bludgeon to first get its attention and then exploit its masochistic predilections. And, as stated above, it’s like creatively crapping on some one’s head, but in William’s case, it seems, people are eager to pay for the privilege.

    I enjoy and respect the work and think we (the art community) need obnoxious gadflies, and transgressive jesters to blurt out the truths that sane “careerists” fear to utter.

    Regarding the future relevance of the work, I think, for the specialist, it has staying power, and continues the legacy of some of the better, more topical “institutional critique”. I am disturbed by the implications of its influence and the probability of it being miss read. A future generation of young artists trying to out Powhida Powhida is a truly frightening and cynical specter.

  • http://www.lorenmunk.com James Kalm

    As someone who’s been chronicling William’s work from near the beginning with “Bill of Wrongs: Will the Real William Powhida Please Stand”, in November 2004, I’d say I speak with a bit of authority. William has done a fantastic job of finding the vulnerabilities and sensitive spots in the art world’s facade. He’s a master at using the establishments own vanity and snarkiness as a bludgeon to first get its attention and then exploit its masochistic predilections. And, as stated above, it’s like creatively crapping on some one’s head, but in William’s case, it seems, people are eager to pay for the privilege.

    I enjoy and respect the work and think we (the art community) need obnoxious gadflies, and transgressive jesters to blurt out the truths that sane “careerists” fear to utter.

    Regarding the future relevance of the work, I think, for the specialist, it has staying power, and continues the legacy of some of the better, more topical “institutional critique”. I am disturbed by the implications of its influence and the probability of it being miss read. A future generation of young artists trying to out Powhida Powhida is a truly frightening and cynical specter.

  • pedrovel

    I agree with Kelley….

    Powhida’s work will mature once we dig deep into his ideas and stop talking about him. That’s the problem, we are not making any connections out of his “lists”… probably because there’s nothing to talk about in the end.

    Look at the work of Deb Sokolow and you’ll notice the big difference.

  • pedrovel

    I agree with Kelley….

    Powhida’s work will mature once we dig deep into his ideas and stop talking about him. That’s the problem, we are not making any connections out of his “lists”… probably because there’s nothing to talk about in the end.

    Look at the work of Deb Sokolow and you’ll notice the big difference.

  • http://www.zacharyadamcohen.com/ Zachary Adam Cohen

    AFC, regards to your response to @Lisa just above here, your analysis that people just end up looking for themselves or their friends speaks to one of the points I made last night about context and narrative. Now of course we were discussing art criticism from the writer’s point of view. For me, an outsider for sure, Hooverville, now that I think about it in terms of your comment, allows me a keyhole into the world. I don’t know who many of the people are beyond Jerry, Larry, and a sprinkling of others.

    So yeah, if you are knee deep in the art world, are familiar with everyone “worth” knowing, then I suppose Hooverville is just a gimmick like Where’s Waldo.

    But if you don’t know who or what you are looking at, then one is forced to consider the source material, employ the image and meaning of Hooverville’s, shanty towns, and the great depression and see the art world through that lens. Also, one is forced to simply forced to consider the formal elements, the story and to actually read the work.

    Hooverville, which btw I agree is not his best work, simply his (and Jade’s) largest, delicately balances the line between insider and outsider perspectives.

    Perhaps it is that aspect that compelled Jerry to write what he wrote last week. As one of the few remaining writers to have a broader audience (and soon to be MUCH broader audience what with the Bravo thing) he’s celebrating work that can speak to both worlds.

    Let us not forget that Jerry basically ignored the NuMu controversy, Bill’s artistic reaction at first,and then, of a sudden, annointed Bill in his 2009 Best of.

    Off point, but quite the evolution in a short amount of time. We can be cynical and just say it was a wise way for Jerry to appropriate the growing fervor around Bill’s work. Or perhaps Jerry realized that Bill’s work has a way of speaking to an extended audience.

    That is what I would like to believe.

  • http://www.zacharyadamcohen.com/ Zachary Adam Cohen

    AFC, regards to your response to @Lisa just above here, your analysis that people just end up looking for themselves or their friends speaks to one of the points I made last night about context and narrative. Now of course we were discussing art criticism from the writer’s point of view. For me, an outsider for sure, Hooverville, now that I think about it in terms of your comment, allows me a keyhole into the world. I don’t know who many of the people are beyond Jerry, Larry, and a sprinkling of others.

    So yeah, if you are knee deep in the art world, are familiar with everyone “worth” knowing, then I suppose Hooverville is just a gimmick like Where’s Waldo.

    But if you don’t know who or what you are looking at, then one is forced to consider the source material, employ the image and meaning of Hooverville’s, shanty towns, and the great depression and see the art world through that lens. Also, one is forced to simply forced to consider the formal elements, the story and to actually read the work.

    Hooverville, which btw I agree is not his best work, simply his (and Jade’s) largest, delicately balances the line between insider and outsider perspectives.

    Perhaps it is that aspect that compelled Jerry to write what he wrote last week. As one of the few remaining writers to have a broader audience (and soon to be MUCH broader audience what with the Bravo thing) he’s celebrating work that can speak to both worlds.

    Let us not forget that Jerry basically ignored the NuMu controversy, Bill’s artistic reaction at first,and then, of a sudden, annointed Bill in his 2009 Best of.

    Off point, but quite the evolution in a short amount of time. We can be cynical and just say it was a wise way for Jerry to appropriate the growing fervor around Bill’s work. Or perhaps Jerry realized that Bill’s work has a way of speaking to an extended audience.

    That is what I would like to believe.

  • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

    @zachary Powhida’s work doesn’t speak to an extended audience. You have to already be interested in the art world to inspect the drawing that carefully. The people I know who don’t know anything about fine art, don’t care about this drawing and never will. My sister doesn’t expect me to give a shit about who’s done the latest research on anterior cruciate ligaments, so why should I expect her to invest time in Hooverville?

  • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

    @zachary Powhida’s work doesn’t speak to an extended audience. You have to already be interested in the art world to inspect the drawing that carefully. The people I know who don’t know anything about fine art, don’t care about this drawing and never will. My sister doesn’t expect me to give a shit about who’s done the latest research on anterior cruciate ligaments, so why should I expect her to invest time in Hooverville?

  • pedrovel

    inbreeding…its all about inbreeding

  • pedrovel

    inbreeding…its all about inbreeding

  • http://www.zacharyadamcohen.com/ Zachary Adam Cohen

    I love surgical talk! ;)

    ok yeah, you are right that Powhida’s work doesn’t speak to the American public at large. But there are a great deal of people who would like to know what’s going in the art world, who would like to connect with contemporary art, but who have felt, especially over the past 5 or 10 years, ill equipped to do so, or simply downright not wanted. There must exist a middle ground for a larger audience to engage contemporary art without asking them to translate all the pomo and altermodernism gobblyedeegook, speak five languages, travel to Miami and Europe and visit 300 galleries.

    Again, I think there was some discussion around the edges of this issue at the critic’s panel last night, where, without acknowledging it outright, most of the critics seemed to be of the belief that they were writing for smaller and smaller audiences, and that, in differing degrees, this was lamentable.

    Why do you think Jerry said what he said last week that Powhida should be commissioned to do an enormous piece for a museum?

  • http://www.zacharyadamcohen.com/ Zachary Adam Cohen

    I love surgical talk! ;)

    ok yeah, you are right that Powhida’s work doesn’t speak to the American public at large. But there are a great deal of people who would like to know what’s going in the art world, who would like to connect with contemporary art, but who have felt, especially over the past 5 or 10 years, ill equipped to do so, or simply downright not wanted. There must exist a middle ground for a larger audience to engage contemporary art without asking them to translate all the pomo and altermodernism gobblyedeegook, speak five languages, travel to Miami and Europe and visit 300 galleries.

    Again, I think there was some discussion around the edges of this issue at the critic’s panel last night, where, without acknowledging it outright, most of the critics seemed to be of the belief that they were writing for smaller and smaller audiences, and that, in differing degrees, this was lamentable.

    Why do you think Jerry said what he said last week that Powhida should be commissioned to do an enormous piece for a museum?

  • Howard Halle

    You guys wanna know what Powhida’s work will look like when it “matures”? Take a look at the career of Sue Williams.

  • Howard Halle

    You guys wanna know what Powhida’s work will look like when it “matures”? Take a look at the career of Sue Williams.

  • pedrovel

    a broader audience? didn’t Lady Gaga (Koh), James Franco, David Blaine accomplished that already? I know they’re tacky but…

  • pedrovel

    a broader audience? didn’t Lady Gaga (Koh), James Franco, David Blaine accomplished that already? I know they’re tacky but…

  • http://www.micahganske.com Micah Ganske

    Your average outsider is just as confused by post-minimal installation as well and that contributes to the psychology of why some people like it so much. On some level everyone likes to think they understand something that others don’t. It’s not exclusive to the art world, it’s just a facet of human nature.

    Also, if Powhida’s work is now applauded by dealers, collectors, and critics I think the critical aspect of the work is broken. It doesn’t mean the work is bad, or disingenuous, it’s just that it’s part of the system that it criticizes and feeds into it. The only thing I can think of that has truly affected the dynamics of the art world in a meaningful way is HowsMyDealing. It helps to disrupt the power structure of this business by giving a modicum of power back to artists. The only reason why it works is because it’s anonymous and people can say the things that would get them black-listed in the art world if said out in the open.

  • http://www.micahganske.com Micah Ganske

    Your average outsider is just as confused by post-minimal installation as well and that contributes to the psychology of why some people like it so much. On some level everyone likes to think they understand something that others don’t. It’s not exclusive to the art world, it’s just a facet of human nature.

    Also, if Powhida’s work is now applauded by dealers, collectors, and critics I think the critical aspect of the work is broken. It doesn’t mean the work is bad, or disingenuous, it’s just that it’s part of the system that it criticizes and feeds into it. The only thing I can think of that has truly affected the dynamics of the art world in a meaningful way is HowsMyDealing. It helps to disrupt the power structure of this business by giving a modicum of power back to artists. The only reason why it works is because it’s anonymous and people can say the things that would get them black-listed in the art world if said out in the open.

  • http://markphilipvenema.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/to-all-the-detractors-of-william-powhidas-work/ Mark Philip Venema

    To the detractors of William Powhida’s work

    Preoccupation with his posterity?
    Are you joking? Does he care?

    Powhida is Billy Bragg with a busted button,
    the Hogarth of Hooverville,
    the crapper taking down Koons and his goons
    who made the NuMu Moo and Swoon
    throwing Urs Fischer onto the bonfire of the vanities.

    He is Savonorola with a swagger
    raising up a #class of unbeknownst blog buzz,
    with a raft of fanatical starving artists about to disembark
    from the raft of Medusa,
    willing and ready to rip your artwork off the wall
    and throw it in with the rest of the soylent green

    Hello!?

    Never has their been an online Cedar Tavern so engaged,
    even with it shit-licking fly on the wall webcam
    perched in the upper back corner
    like a reverse Russian icon,
    the eye of God,
    Malevich come back from the dead.

    This little ass-kicking Willy Blake has rather smoothly run a hashtag class,
    has been holding court at Winkelman Gallery for what?

    I venture he wants to you feel pain.. think about it for a moment
    …what worth is it all when tectonic plates are shaking the real earth
    beneath our feet, when Haiti’s headlines are tomorrow’s forgotten Chile dogs.

    What do you really want?
    …hypocrisy, banality, endless hours in denial and therapy bills
    or something a tad other…

    Sober up. Go walk the dog, call your mother, think again.

    In short, I thank Powhida and Jen Dalton and Ed Winkelman for making art, however illusory, personified, characterized with some “integrity and morality” interesting again…

    My hats of to the Hogarth of Hooverville.

  • http://markphilipvenema.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/to-all-the-detractors-of-william-powhidas-work/ Mark Philip Venema

    To the detractors of William Powhida’s work

    Preoccupation with his posterity?
    Are you joking? Does he care?

    Powhida is Billy Bragg with a busted button,
    the Hogarth of Hooverville,
    the crapper taking down Koons and his goons
    who made the NuMu Moo and Swoon
    throwing Urs Fischer onto the bonfire of the vanities.

    He is Savonorola with a swagger
    raising up a #class of unbeknownst blog buzz,
    with a raft of fanatical starving artists about to disembark
    from the raft of Medusa,
    willing and ready to rip your artwork off the wall
    and throw it in with the rest of the soylent green

    Hello!?

    Never has their been an online Cedar Tavern so engaged,
    even with it shit-licking fly on the wall webcam
    perched in the upper back corner
    like a reverse Russian icon,
    the eye of God,
    Malevich come back from the dead.

    This little ass-kicking Willy Blake has rather smoothly run a hashtag class,
    has been holding court at Winkelman Gallery for what?

    I venture he wants to you feel pain.. think about it for a moment
    …what worth is it all when tectonic plates are shaking the real earth
    beneath our feet, when Haiti’s headlines are tomorrow’s forgotten Chile dogs.

    What do you really want?
    …hypocrisy, banality, endless hours in denial and therapy bills
    or something a tad other…

    Sober up. Go walk the dog, call your mother, think again.

    In short, I thank Powhida and Jen Dalton and Ed Winkelman for making art, however illusory, personified, characterized with some “integrity and morality” interesting again…

    My hats of to the Hogarth of Hooverville.

  • Tom Sanford

    I would like to second Mark Philip Venema // 13 Mar 2010, 1:36 pm: HATS OFF TO THE HOGARTH OF HOOVERVILLE!

  • Tom Sanford

    I would like to second Mark Philip Venema // 13 Mar 2010, 1:36 pm: HATS OFF TO THE HOGARTH OF HOOVERVILLE!

  • http://www.postmastersart.com magda sawon

    Good afternoon. This is for Paddy’s sister: Our society seems to be quite broken at the moment. Artworld, however small and irrelevant for the outside, is an intense mirror that reflects larger forces in global economy, politics, class hierarchies etc. We have our own growing polarization of wealth and power, we have the establishment and and the seemingly powerless, we have the geniuses and the hacks, we have idealists and opportunists, we have corruption, celebrities, white knights, and utterly misguided douchebags. Like in the real world there are people that expose these mechanism. Powhida does this with humor and panache and while in years to come the names of most “players” will be forgotten, these mechanisms reflect basic strenghts and weaknesses of human nature so there is relevance beyond momentary snapshot. It is not uninteresting to see it from outside. A “2×4 with a found polaroid and can of peas stuck to it” (Lisa S’s irresistible vision of bullshit art) may ultimately be less of a discovery.nand by the way I am not a unequivocal fan of Hooverville (IMHO Jerry got on a bus with the wrong work, I think #class as a whole is a way more seminal project that Bill and Jen conceived of)

  • http://www.postmastersart.com magda sawon

    Good afternoon. This is for Paddy’s sister: Our society seems to be quite broken at the moment. Artworld, however small and irrelevant for the outside, is an intense mirror that reflects larger forces in global economy, politics, class hierarchies etc. We have our own growing polarization of wealth and power, we have the establishment and and the seemingly powerless, we have the geniuses and the hacks, we have idealists and opportunists, we have corruption, celebrities, white knights, and utterly misguided douchebags. Like in the real world there are people that expose these mechanism. Powhida does this with humor and panache and while in years to come the names of most “players” will be forgotten, these mechanisms reflect basic strenghts and weaknesses of human nature so there is relevance beyond momentary snapshot. It is not uninteresting to see it from outside. A “2×4 with a found polaroid and can of peas stuck to it” (Lisa S’s irresistible vision of bullshit art) may ultimately be less of a discovery.\nand by the way I am not a unequivocal fan of Hooverville (IMHO Jerry got on a bus with the wrong work, I think #class as a whole is a way more seminal project that Bill and Jen conceived of)

  • R.

    I’ll preface this by saying that I enjoy Powhida’s twitter feed, bought his 20×200 print, and generally like his work — including Hooverville, which I thought was one of the highlights of the otherwise very mediocre Pulse fair.

    However: I think #class has been getting a lot of credit for being revolutionary, and I just don’t see it. From my perspective, #class has been getting a bunch of people together who fundamentally agree — it’s self-congratulatory, and isn’t advancing the dialogue. Yes, I know not everyone who has participated literally agrees on every point, but on the broader issues, you’re getting people who are more or less on the same page in terms of a desire for democratization of the art world, etc. Which is not to say that the conversations haven’t been interesting, or profoundly satisfying for participants and observers, but this is not a major turning point in art history and it’s not going to profoundly change the art world. This doesn’t make it a bad project, or an unworthy one, but it’s not “Important” with a capital “I”.

    I also don’t necessarily think the fact that it’s in a commercial gallery means much — would Powhida and Dalton have chosen Winkleman if another space had been offered to them for free? A museum? A raw space? My guess would be that they chose to do it in a gallery because a gallery was the space that was offered to them for free. Nothing wrong with this, and it opens up avenues for discussion, but simply putting art that is unsaleable/mostly critical of the market system in a gallery isn’t inherently interesting or revolutionary.

    I follow most of the main #class participants on twitter, and listening to (reading, I guess) everyone constantly talk about how #class is something transformative has gotten really old, because it simply isn’t true. This reminds me somewhat of Claire Bishop’s article about Relational Aesthetics a few years back (Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics) which addressed Rirkrit Tiravanija and his projects serving curry to gallery guests. People who participated came away feeling like they’d been a part of something revolutionary, something game-changing, something rejuvenating — Saltz’s review speaks to this. However, as Bishop pointed out, this was a bunch of fundamentally similar people (artists, critics, gallerists, curators, art world insiders) getting together and allowing themselves to think that they were a part of something big, democratic, etc. Essentially, something feel-good for the people involved. I think the same can be said of #class.

  • R.

    I’ll preface this by saying that I enjoy Powhida’s twitter feed, bought his 20×200 print, and generally like his work — including Hooverville, which I thought was one of the highlights of the otherwise very mediocre Pulse fair.

    However: I think #class has been getting a lot of credit for being revolutionary, and I just don’t see it. From my perspective, #class has been getting a bunch of people together who fundamentally agree — it’s self-congratulatory, and isn’t advancing the dialogue. Yes, I know not everyone who has participated literally agrees on every point, but on the broader issues, you’re getting people who are more or less on the same page in terms of a desire for democratization of the art world, etc. Which is not to say that the conversations haven’t been interesting, or profoundly satisfying for participants and observers, but this is not a major turning point in art history and it’s not going to profoundly change the art world. This doesn’t make it a bad project, or an unworthy one, but it’s not “Important” with a capital “I”.

    I also don’t necessarily think the fact that it’s in a commercial gallery means much — would Powhida and Dalton have chosen Winkleman if another space had been offered to them for free? A museum? A raw space? My guess would be that they chose to do it in a gallery because a gallery was the space that was offered to them for free. Nothing wrong with this, and it opens up avenues for discussion, but simply putting art that is unsaleable/mostly critical of the market system in a gallery isn’t inherently interesting or revolutionary.

    I follow most of the main #class participants on twitter, and listening to (reading, I guess) everyone constantly talk about how #class is something transformative has gotten really old, because it simply isn’t true. This reminds me somewhat of Claire Bishop’s article about Relational Aesthetics a few years back (Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics) which addressed Rirkrit Tiravanija and his projects serving curry to gallery guests. People who participated came away feeling like they’d been a part of something revolutionary, something game-changing, something rejuvenating — Saltz’s review speaks to this. However, as Bishop pointed out, this was a bunch of fundamentally similar people (artists, critics, gallerists, curators, art world insiders) getting together and allowing themselves to think that they were a part of something big, democratic, etc. Essentially, something feel-good for the people involved. I think the same can be said of #class.

  • http://www.artblognyc.com Alan Lupiani

    I gotta hand it to you Paddy…you are one of the hardest working art writers in the city today. Bravo. I have been a part of the #class goings on and did not know Bill P. outside of a handshake before #class. At first I was skeptical…I had heard the rumors such ad “art curmudgeon,” “angry artist” etc. Some of the rumors might actually warrant some credibility, but who cares? The bottom line is that Bill has specific beliefs about what he does, has been able to find/locate the avenues for his art/narrowcasted audience, and now he is getting his due. Bill has been able to execute an art career strategy that has been utilized for years. Nothing different. He has made use of all the tools i.e. contention/contradictions, including, art fairs, museums, galleries, and whatever else. The major point that has become clear to me through this whole #class experience/Powhida effect is that the same tools that are being utilized by individuals/bloggers/corporations on the internet today, have been in use by artists/artworld folks for over 150 yrs. The idea of getting your work in front of a “NARROWCASTED NICHE” audience, which, in fact is what the art world is, and perhaps will always be. I remember how Letterman used to bring artists/art onto his shows in the early days and how it seemed so obtuse and weird for late night television. I laughed, and then I cried a bit. Perhaps Bill’s next conquest will be to appear on Letterman. That will give all us folks/pundits something else to discuss.

  • http://www.artblognyc.com Alan Lupiani

    I gotta hand it to you Paddy…you are one of the hardest working art writers in the city today. Bravo. I have been a part of the #class goings on and did not know Bill P. outside of a handshake before #class. At first I was skeptical…I had heard the rumors such ad “art curmudgeon,” “angry artist” etc. Some of the rumors might actually warrant some credibility, but who cares? The bottom line is that Bill has specific beliefs about what he does, has been able to find/locate the avenues for his art/narrowcasted audience, and now he is getting his due. Bill has been able to execute an art career strategy that has been utilized for years. Nothing different. He has made use of all the tools i.e. contention/contradictions, including, art fairs, museums, galleries, and whatever else. The major point that has become clear to me through this whole #class experience/Powhida effect is that the same tools that are being utilized by individuals/bloggers/corporations on the internet today, have been in use by artists/artworld folks for over 150 yrs. The idea of getting your work in front of a “NARROWCASTED NICHE” audience, which, in fact is what the art world is, and perhaps will always be. I remember how Letterman used to bring artists/art onto his shows in the early days and how it seemed so obtuse and weird for late night television. I laughed, and then I cried a bit. Perhaps Bill’s next conquest will be to appear on Letterman. That will give all us folks/pundits something else to discuss.

  • m

    I really want to like WP’s work but when I think about people like Honore Daumier and Goya (esp. los caprichos) I don’t recall the illustrations that are about time specific events/people… But “Asta su Abuelo” and “The Sleep of Reason” are burned into my brain! Still, the # of conflicting comments in this thread is probably a testament that he’s onto something.

  • m

    I really want to like WP’s work but when I think about people like Honore Daumier and Goya (esp. los caprichos) I don’t recall the illustrations that are about time specific events/people… But “Asta su Abuelo” and “The Sleep of Reason” are burned into my brain! Still, the # of conflicting comments in this thread is probably a testament that he’s onto something.

  • May

    @Chris Walker’s statement: “No one else is making work that mocks the world that supports it right now.”

    Believe it or not, there actually are other artists creating work of that nature, right now in fact! But, I suppose to the WP-Controversy-Mongers, they simply don’t exist at all.

  • May

    @Chris Walker’s statement: “No one else is making work that mocks the world that supports it right now.”

    Believe it or not, there actually are other artists creating work of that nature, right now in fact! But, I suppose to the WP-Controversy-Mongers, they simply don’t exist at all.

  • Jill Conner

    Caricature and cartoon imagery still have major import with the potential to attract attention. Powhida follows in a long line of artists like Gary Panter, R Sikoryak and R Crumb who have made cartoon drawings that are independent of the censorious Comics Code that was established in the 1950s. It’s terrifying to see how that medium was monitored by the FBI and deemed “dangerous” to society (by Congress) only to be chalked up as bad teenage behavior that was the result of growing up with either a WWII vet or single parent. Check out “The Ten Cent Plague.” Powhida’s drawing shouldn’t be judged so harshly. Instead it’s a huge success.

  • Jill Conner

    Caricature and cartoon imagery still have major import with the potential to attract attention. Powhida follows in a long line of artists like Gary Panter, R Sikoryak and R Crumb who have made cartoon drawings that are independent of the censorious Comics Code that was established in the 1950s. It’s terrifying to see how that medium was monitored by the FBI and deemed “dangerous” to society (by Congress) only to be chalked up as bad teenage behavior that was the result of growing up with either a WWII vet or single parent. Check out “The Ten Cent Plague.” Powhida’s drawing shouldn’t be judged so harshly. Instead it’s a huge success.

  • Gina

    Wow R. I totally disagree. I didn’t have some superficial feeling of self-congratulation or being a part of something revolutionary. I could give a shit about that!

    It was a space to come and geek out with a bunch of people who are into (sort of) the same things you are. I mean outside of school, or working in academia, how often does an artist off the street get to come in and hold forth and seriously discuss and debate things with other art world people. Openings are just not like that. And yes, all the people at the discussions are art-interested people, but anyone can attend, no matter what your knowledge or educational background and it’s free. Honestly, all this bemoaning ‘art world insiders,’ who’s going to change the art world? A bunch of insurance adjusters? No! People who like and care about art, i.e. PEOPLE IN THE ART WORLD.

    I think the end result is much different than what Saltz was talking about with the Rikrit thing, because there was an inherent self-conscious aspect about that project, if you weren’t in the ‘in crowd.’ In #class, the discussion serves as an organizing focal point for interaction and engagement. It’s much harder to feel alienated.

    To assert that the excitement people are feeling when they participate in #class isn’t real, is just BULLSHIT!

  • Gina

    Wow R. I totally disagree. I didn’t have some superficial feeling of self-congratulation or being a part of something revolutionary. I could give a shit about that!

    It was a space to come and geek out with a bunch of people who are into (sort of) the same things you are. I mean outside of school, or working in academia, how often does an artist off the street get to come in and hold forth and seriously discuss and debate things with other art world people. Openings are just not like that. And yes, all the people at the discussions are art-interested people, but anyone can attend, no matter what your knowledge or educational background and it’s free. Honestly, all this bemoaning ‘art world insiders,’ who’s going to change the art world? A bunch of insurance adjusters? No! People who like and care about art, i.e. PEOPLE IN THE ART WORLD.

    I think the end result is much different than what Saltz was talking about with the Rikrit thing, because there was an inherent self-conscious aspect about that project, if you weren’t in the ‘in crowd.’ In #class, the discussion serves as an organizing focal point for interaction and engagement. It’s much harder to feel alienated.

    To assert that the excitement people are feeling when they participate in #class isn’t real, is just BULLSHIT!

  • http://andrewbirk.com andrew

    i keep reading the name jerry saltz. take that man off the pedestal.

  • http://andrewbirk.com andrew

    i keep reading the name jerry saltz. take that man off the pedestal.

  • R.

    Re: Gina

    I wasn’t saying that #class was totally meritless — there were a lot of really interesting talks, etc. that I very happily followed and mostly enjoyed listening to. But I’ve also heard a lot of people talking about the project as something democratic, transformative, revolutionary, game-changing, etc. which I personally don’t think it is. That’s not to dismiss the project entirely, but I think everyone should be realistic about what it is and what the limitations are. It’s not even necessarily Powhida/Dalton who are making these sort of claims, but the general dialogue surrounding the project has been somewhat frustrating. Personally, I’m uninterested in the whole insider/outsider dialogue and think it’s a waste of time. I for one know I’m an insider (as is anyone who reads, let alone takes the time to comment on, this blog.) Most art-world outsiders don’t CARE if they’re outsiders, and many don’t think the art world is particularly important. I’m also not saying that people shouldn’t be excited about #class — but there needs to be more of a recognition that it’s the sort of excitement you feel when you’ve had a really good conversation, not “this-is-changing-the-world” excitement. Also, given all the discussion of insider vs. outsider, there seems to be little acknowledgment of the fact that the “art world” represented by #class participants is actually only a small fragment. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there were no museum/institutional people involved — a significant part of the art world, surely.

    Lastly, I wasn’t trying to make an exact comparison by bringing up the Rirkrit project and don’t want to break off into too much of a tangential conversation, but I’m not sure my above comment was totally clear. Bishop cited Saltz’s review of Tiravanija’s show as an example of the sort of insidery feel-good back-patting: his review of the show was all about how fun it was to sit around schmoozing, essentially. In her article, Bishop doesn’t dismiss Tiravanija or say that the project was useless, but that much of the discourse surrounding his work (Bourriaud’s particularly) was essentially giving it too much credit in terms of its political agency and democratic possibility, which is what I thought was similar. And that work was just as much “open to everyone” as #class — galleries are free, openings are public. Frankly, I’d imagine it’s more intimidating to an “outsider” to come into a gallery where people are sitting around debating art, the art world, etc. than to come in and eat curry.

  • R.

    Re: Gina

    I wasn’t saying that #class was totally meritless — there were a lot of really interesting talks, etc. that I very happily followed and mostly enjoyed listening to. But I’ve also heard a lot of people talking about the project as something democratic, transformative, revolutionary, game-changing, etc. which I personally don’t think it is. That’s not to dismiss the project entirely, but I think everyone should be realistic about what it is and what the limitations are. It’s not even necessarily Powhida/Dalton who are making these sort of claims, but the general dialogue surrounding the project has been somewhat frustrating. Personally, I’m uninterested in the whole insider/outsider dialogue and think it’s a waste of time. I for one know I’m an insider (as is anyone who reads, let alone takes the time to comment on, this blog.) Most art-world outsiders don’t CARE if they’re outsiders, and many don’t think the art world is particularly important. I’m also not saying that people shouldn’t be excited about #class — but there needs to be more of a recognition that it’s the sort of excitement you feel when you’ve had a really good conversation, not “this-is-changing-the-world” excitement. Also, given all the discussion of insider vs. outsider, there seems to be little acknowledgment of the fact that the “art world” represented by #class participants is actually only a small fragment. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there were no museum/institutional people involved — a significant part of the art world, surely.

    Lastly, I wasn’t trying to make an exact comparison by bringing up the Rirkrit project and don’t want to break off into too much of a tangential conversation, but I’m not sure my above comment was totally clear. Bishop cited Saltz’s review of Tiravanija’s show as an example of the sort of insidery feel-good back-patting: his review of the show was all about how fun it was to sit around schmoozing, essentially. In her article, Bishop doesn’t dismiss Tiravanija or say that the project was useless, but that much of the discourse surrounding his work (Bourriaud’s particularly) was essentially giving it too much credit in terms of its political agency and democratic possibility, which is what I thought was similar. And that work was just as much “open to everyone” as #class — galleries are free, openings are public. Frankly, I’d imagine it’s more intimidating to an “outsider” to come into a gallery where people are sitting around debating art, the art world, etc. than to come in and eat curry.

  • http://whitehotmagazine.com Noah Becker

    These are relevant historical examples:
    1. Hogarthnhttp://www.news.wisc.edu/news/images/hogarth1-lg.jpg
    2. Mort Druckernhttp://www.aboutfacesentertainers.com/images/caricature/about_caricature_samples/drucker.jpg
    3. Bruegelnhttp://www.wga.hu/art/b/bruegel/pieter_e/13/14sin.jpg

    THE FOLLOWING SEEMS RELEVANT AS WELL:

    The artist is the creator of beautiful things.

    To reveal art and conceal the artist is art’s aim.

    The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.

    The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.

    Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.

    Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope.

    They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.

    There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book.Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.

    The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.

    The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass.

    The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything.

    Even things that are true can be proved.No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.

    No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything.

    Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.

    From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor’s craft is the type.

    All art is at once surface and symbol.Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.

    Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.

    It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital.

    When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself.

    We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless.

    -Oscar Wilde, Picture of Dorian Gray (the Preface)

  • http://whitehotmagazine.com Noah Becker

    These are relevant historical examples:
    1. Hogarth\nhttp://www.news.wisc.edu/news/images/hogarth1-lg.jpg
    2. Mort Drucker\nhttp://www.aboutfacesentertainers.com/images/caricature/about_caricature_samples/drucker.jpg
    3. Bruegel\nhttp://www.wga.hu/art/b/bruegel/pieter_e/13/14sin.jpg

    THE FOLLOWING SEEMS RELEVANT AS WELL:

    The artist is the creator of beautiful things.

    To reveal art and conceal the artist is art’s aim.

    The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.

    The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.

    Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.

    Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope.

    They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.

    There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book.Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.

    The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.

    The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass.

    The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything.

    Even things that are true can be proved.No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.

    No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything.

    Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.

    From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor’s craft is the type.

    All art is at once surface and symbol.Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.

    Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.

    It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital.

    When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself.

    We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless.

    -Oscar Wilde, Picture of Dorian Gray (the Preface)

  • http://www.zacharyadamcohen.com/ Zachary Adam Cohen

    Micah,

    great comment above. Last night Ed Winkleman said something to the effect that Artists have THE MOST power in the market, that their work CAN shift paradigms.

    He cited Jaspers Johns “painting with two balls” absolutel evisceration of the market for abstract expressionism. http://www.artchive.com/artchive/J/johns/twoballs.jpg

    Z

  • http://www.zacharyadamcohen.com/ Zachary Adam Cohen

    Micah,

    great comment above. Last night Ed Winkleman said something to the effect that Artists have THE MOST power in the market, that their work CAN shift paradigms.

    He cited Jaspers Johns “painting with two balls” absolutel evisceration of the market for abstract expressionism. http://www.artchive.com/artchive/J/johns/twoballs.jpg

    Z

  • http://dks.thing.net Douglas Kelley

    Nice citations of Oscar Wilde Noah.

    Last night I found the Jerry link to Hooverville and downloaded the PDF, and examined it carefully, which is difficult because his balloons are hard to read. As much as I love his work, as a former art director from long ago, if I had commissioned it, I would say it’s a great first effort, now do it over and make it legible. Which is another reason he has to be an artist, because he couldn’t take it as an illustrator? Does he do any crazy, brilliant, precise painting like Hieronymus Bosch or Robert Williams? In the drawing, I liked the rabble, or angry with “bonus artists,” in the distance trying to tip up a wooden medieval Siege Tower in the distance, and would kind of like to see things like that painted?

  • http://dks.thing.net Douglas Kelley

    Nice citations of Oscar Wilde Noah.

    Last night I found the Jerry link to Hooverville and downloaded the PDF, and examined it carefully, which is difficult because his balloons are hard to read. As much as I love his work, as a former art director from long ago, if I had commissioned it, I would say it’s a great first effort, now do it over and make it legible. Which is another reason he has to be an artist, because he couldn’t take it as an illustrator? Does he do any crazy, brilliant, precise painting like Hieronymus Bosch or Robert Williams? In the drawing, I liked the rabble, or angry with “bonus artists,” in the distance trying to tip up a wooden medieval Siege Tower in the distance, and would kind of like to see things like that painted?

  • http://grabados.org Patrick Frank

    You folks who are slamming Powhida need to deal with this fact: The man is mostly correct in his diagnosis of the art world. All this talk about whether the work has “evolved” or whether he’s inside or outside, or whether it’s formally interesting or has “staying power:” All are side issues. Powhida is a humane voice saying something we need to hear.

  • http://grabados.org Patrick Frank

    You folks who are slamming Powhida need to deal with this fact: The man is mostly correct in his diagnosis of the art world. All this talk about whether the work has “evolved” or whether he’s inside or outside, or whether it’s formally interesting or has “staying power:” All are side issues. Powhida is a humane voice saying something we need to hear.

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →

Previous post:

Next post: