Will Klaus Biesenbach’s Speech Last Tuesday Evening at MoMA Mark His Biggest Career Blunder?

by Art Fag City on June 7, 2010 · 87 comments Newswire

POST BY PADDY JOHNSON

Left: MoMA PS1 director Klaus Biesenbach and MoMA president emeritus Agnes Gund. Right: Artist Marina Abramović and dealer Sean Kelly. (All photos: Linda Yablonsky). Image via: ArtForum

Holy crap. ArtForum’s Linda Yablonsky offers up the craziest account of MoMA’s celebrity dinner for performance artist Marina Abramovic’s newly closed show, including a rather astounding blunder on the part of exhibition organizer Klaus Beisenbach;

For entertainment, Abramović had imported a Montenegrin vocalist, Svetlana Spajic, who appeared in traditional dress and sang a haunting Serbian folk song a cappella to more cheers. But the most unsettling part of the evening came when the tippling Biesenbach took the podium. He didn't thank anyone. Instead he used the moment to make public his two-decade-long unrequited love for Abramović. “Look at me, Marina,” he began. “Listen to me, Marina,” he went on. “Why don't you look at me? You know,” he then said to the guests, tossing aside his prepared remarks, “she can't see anyone without her glasses,” thereby negating the experience of all those sitters who thought she was paying special attention to them. This brought loud murmurs. “Will you stop talking and listen to me?” he said. “OK, don't listen. I don't care. Marina? Are you listening?” It didn't stop there.

Recalling how he had fallen in love with Abramović, twenty years his senior, at first sight, he said that he believed she had fallen in love with him too. “Biggest mistake of my career,” he said, though clearly not bigger than this one.

Got that crying sitters? Abramovic can’t even see you.

{ 86 comments }

Jesse P. Martin June 7, 2010 at 3:21 pm

“Marina Abramović: The Artist Is Myopic”

Jesse P. Martin June 7, 2010 at 11:21 am

“Marina Abramović: The Artist Is Myopic”

L.M. June 7, 2010 at 4:14 pm

He’s older than 44.

L.M. June 7, 2010 at 12:14 pm

He’s older than 44.

L.M. June 7, 2010 at 12:27 pm

I was going to ask you not to approve my last comment because it was probably a bit out of line, but I had a hard time believing he opened Kunst-Werke when he was only 25.

L.M. June 7, 2010 at 4:27 pm

I was going to ask you not to approve my last comment because it was probably a bit out of line, but I had a hard time believing he opened Kunst-Werke when he was only 25.

Giovanni June 7, 2010 at 6:01 pm

Klaus you dick!

Giovanni June 7, 2010 at 2:01 pm

Klaus you dick!

lemonyellow June 7, 2010 at 2:49 pm

Well, according to nymag, he’s that young: http://nymag.com/arts/art/profiles/62918/

lemonyellow June 7, 2010 at 6:49 pm

Well, according to nymag, he’s that young: http://nymag.com/arts/art/profiles/62918/

nate hill June 7, 2010 at 7:40 pm

There goes the neighborhood.

nate hill June 7, 2010 at 3:40 pm

There goes the neighborhood.

L.M. June 7, 2010 at 8:13 pm

OK his age makes sense if he started Kunst-Werke before the Mitte boom. (When I first saw the place in 96 or 98 it was already an institution in the middle of some expensive real estate.)

L.M. June 7, 2010 at 4:13 pm

OK his age makes sense if he started Kunst-Werke before the Mitte boom. (When I first saw the place in 96 or 98 it was already an institution in the middle of some expensive real estate.)

Whiskas June 7, 2010 at 9:03 pm

Did anybody go to the Marina at Moma? Klaus moderated and he was beyond terrible. He barely let Marina get a word in edgewise. She clearly had things she wanted to say, but he kept talking over her and interrupted her. He was also super self-aggrandizing. He tried to make the Artist Is Present seem like an equal collaboration between Marina and him. He was so grating. I went to see Marina speak, not him. Also, he is a parody waiting to happen: a Jil Sander wearing, German performance art curator? The jokes write themselves.

Whiskas June 7, 2010 at 9:03 pm

I meant "Marina talk". Way to proofread, self.

Whiskas June 7, 2010 at 5:03 pm

Did anybody go to the Marina at Moma? Klaus moderated and he was beyond terrible. He barely let Marina get a word in edgewise. She clearly had things she wanted to say, but he kept talking over her and interrupted her. He was also super self-aggrandizing. He tried to make the Artist Is Present seem like an equal collaboration between Marina and him. He was so grating. I went to see Marina speak, not him. Also, he is a parody waiting to happen: a Jil Sander wearing, German performance art curator? The jokes write themselves.

Whiskas June 7, 2010 at 5:03 pm

I meant "Marina talk". Way to proofread, self.

Ryan Dunn June 7, 2010 at 9:22 pm

My experience says different. She was able to successfully mimic my blink patterns, as I did hers for a number of minutes. We had an undeniably clear communication, even if limited. She may not have been able to see clearly, but enough to pick out facial gestures, surely.

Ryan Dunn June 7, 2010 at 5:22 pm

My experience says different. She was able to successfully mimic my blink patterns, as I did hers for a number of minutes. We had an undeniably clear communication, even if limited. She may not have been able to see clearly, but enough to pick out facial gestures, surely.

Jill Conner June 8, 2010 at 6:01 am

Biesenbach may have been performing an Ulay role. She didn’t get there independently and he was provoking her to react, to slap back. Was it equal? Probably not given the context. Is that a first, to upend Abramovic? Definitely.

Jill Conner June 8, 2010 at 2:01 am

Biesenbach may have been performing an Ulay role. She didn’t get there independently and he was provoking her to react, to slap back. Was it equal? Probably not given the context. Is that a first, to upend Abramovic? Definitely.

Heather R. June 8, 2010 at 6:13 am

Is it not possible that she also wears contacts? Typically when someone says they “can’t see anything without glasses,” that really means “can’t see anything without some kind of aid to my vision.” I have a hard time believing that she is walking around in a blurred world, not knowing who she’s speaking to.

Heather R. June 8, 2010 at 2:13 am

Is it not possible that she also wears contacts? Typically when someone says they “can’t see anything without glasses,” that really means “can’t see anything without some kind of aid to my vision.” I have a hard time believing that she is walking around in a blurred world, not knowing who she’s speaking to.

Art Fag City June 8, 2010 at 6:19 am

Yeah, I mean, she’s obviously wearing contacts. It’s mostly just an indication of the level of drunkeness he’d achieved.

Art Fag City June 8, 2010 at 2:19 am

Yeah, I mean, she’s obviously wearing contacts. It’s mostly just an indication of the level of drunkeness he’d achieved.

greg,org June 8, 2010 at 1:44 pm

Please.

Marina sits in a chair for three months, then turns up the next day wearing a couture snakeskin outfit and posing with Courtney Love, and suddenly KLAUS is the freak?

The art world is full of crazy people doing weird things.

If Klaus and Marina had settled down in their Bavarian gingerbread house twenty years ago to bake apple pies all day, they’d be attending school soccer games and packing the trailer for their two week vacation in Spain.

And if Linda Yablonsky wants to treat the museum like it’s the Colony Club, or if you want to tut-tut outbursts in “professional” settings, fine. The art world can accommodate your weirdness, too.

greg,org June 8, 2010 at 9:44 am

Please.

Marina sits in a chair for three months, then turns up the next day wearing a couture snakeskin outfit and posing with Courtney Love, and suddenly KLAUS is the freak?

The art world is full of crazy people doing weird things.

If Klaus and Marina had settled down in their Bavarian gingerbread house twenty years ago to bake apple pies all day, they’d be attending school soccer games and packing the trailer for their two week vacation in Spain.

And if Linda Yablonsky wants to treat the museum like it’s the Colony Club, or if you want to tut-tut outbursts in “professional” settings, fine. The art world can accommodate your weirdness, too.

hayward June 8, 2010 at 1:49 pm

“Will Klaus Biesenbach’s Speech Last Tuesday Evening at MoMA Mark His Biggest Career Blunder?”–
Probably not. He’s proven with shows like Greater Brooklyn that he can do whatever he feels like and regardless of the criticism it will still influence the art world, regardless if the work has become generic and inconsequential.

hayward June 8, 2010 at 9:49 am

“Will Klaus Biesenbach’s Speech Last Tuesday Evening at MoMA Mark His Biggest Career Blunder?”–
Probably not. He’s proven with shows like Greater Brooklyn that he can do whatever he feels like and regardless of the criticism it will still influence the art world, regardless if the work has become generic and inconsequential.

Jesse P. Martin June 8, 2010 at 2:01 pm

“She was able to successfully mimic my blink patterns, as I did hers for a number of minutes.”

How “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” of you guys, minus the crippling-degenerative-living-hell part. And whether she had contacts on or not doesn’t really matter: she didn’t “see” anyone, at least not in the telepathic-soul-licking way that people imagined that she was “seeing” them. Though the drug-addict-getting-their-fix look on many of the repeat-sitter’s faces attests to the fact that they were having some deep itch scratched…

I’ve decided to sum up “The Artist is Present” as a dizzying stew of paradox and hypocrisy, with the black-clad, Biesenbach-gushing, star-fucking nightmare power party acting as a fitting cap to such an “inclusive,” über-emo, and “seminal” retrospective. I hope that Bjork puked up her golden-lip-stamped chocolate dessert all over Michael Stipe as Patti Smith dove for cover behind Liv Tyler as Antony made a pass at James Franco who…

Jesse P. Martin June 8, 2010 at 10:01 am

“She was able to successfully mimic my blink patterns, as I did hers for a number of minutes.”

How “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” of you guys, minus the crippling-degenerative-living-hell part. And whether she had contacts on or not doesn’t really matter: she didn’t “see” anyone, at least not in the telepathic-soul-licking way that people imagined that she was “seeing” them. Though the drug-addict-getting-their-fix look on many of the repeat-sitter’s faces attests to the fact that they were having some deep itch scratched…

I’ve decided to sum up “The Artist is Present” as a dizzying stew of paradox and hypocrisy, with the black-clad, Biesenbach-gushing, star-fucking nightmare power party acting as a fitting cap to such an “inclusive,” über-emo, and “seminal” retrospective. I hope that Bjork puked up her golden-lip-stamped chocolate dessert all over Michael Stipe as Patti Smith dove for cover behind Liv Tyler as Antony made a pass at James Franco who…

Art Fag City June 8, 2010 at 2:14 pm

@greg.org Yes, I’ve overstated craziness of the incident. I am not perfect. Happy?

Art Fag City June 8, 2010 at 10:14 am

@greg.org Yes, I’ve overstated craziness of the incident. I am not perfect. Happy?

Jesse P. Martin June 8, 2010 at 2:31 pm

These people are as “crazy” as foxes, and their affected “weirdness” isn’t what’s being criticized here. The whole show has this gauze of hard-won “realness” that is fairly repugnant, and reading about the curator’s drunken, maudlin schoolgirl love-profession/gaffe that somewhat undermines the “realness” is understandably satisfying, however dishy and immature such a reaction might be. I like that some of the air is being let out of this balloon, because the “mystification” brought on by the retrospective was getting fairly cloying.

That being said, I think Abramovic knocked this one out of the park. She also made a strong case for the kind of pandering showbiz-y “eccentric” posturing that one must engage in to achieve such “greatness” (cough, Lady Gaga, cough).

Jesse P. Martin June 8, 2010 at 10:31 am

These people are as “crazy” as foxes, and their affected “weirdness” isn’t what’s being criticized here. The whole show has this gauze of hard-won “realness” that is fairly repugnant, and reading about the curator’s drunken, maudlin schoolgirl love-profession/gaffe that somewhat undermines the “realness” is understandably satisfying, however dishy and immature such a reaction might be. I like that some of the air is being let out of this balloon, because the “mystification” brought on by the retrospective was getting fairly cloying.

That being said, I think Abramovic knocked this one out of the park. She also made a strong case for the kind of pandering showbiz-y “eccentric” posturing that one must engage in to achieve such “greatness” (cough, Lady Gaga, cough).

greg,org June 8, 2010 at 3:00 pm

Touche’ on the posturing, JPM.

And I’m not trying to wring walkbacks out of you, Paddy; the faux pas faux shock is mostly Yablonsky’s.

I just think/hope we don’t have to be Ben Davis to recognize when country club mores take over the art world.

greg,org June 8, 2010 at 11:00 am

Touche’ on the posturing, JPM.

And I’m not trying to wring walkbacks out of you, Paddy; the faux pas faux shock is mostly Yablonsky’s.

I just think/hope we don’t have to be Ben Davis to recognize when country club mores take over the art world.

Sam June 8, 2010 at 3:14 pm

Wait, I thought Klaus’s true love was James Franco.

Sam June 8, 2010 at 11:14 am

Wait, I thought Klaus’s true love was James Franco.

L.M. June 8, 2010 at 3:40 pm

May I steal the phrase “telepathic-soul-licking” for an exhibition title?

L.M. June 8, 2010 at 11:40 am

May I steal the phrase “telepathic-soul-licking” for an exhibition title?

Art Fag City June 8, 2010 at 3:44 pm

No you’re not trying to wring walkbacks out of me, you’re telling me how you think I should be writing this blog. I want this kind of feedback, which is why I’ve tried to set the comments up for people to say, “actually I think the real issue is this”, but I do wish you took the tone I approximated a little more frequently. Instead, I read that I’m just as crazy as a lunatic curator who drunkenly professes his love for Marina, the artist herself, who’s now wearing the most designer-y of designer-y clothing, and the stars now clinging to her because I’ve focused too much on Yablonsky’s account of Klaus. Your argument would have been just strong without kicking me over a bad headline choice.

Meanwhile, Jesse is right. My interest had more to do with highlighting something that undermines the “hard-won realness” of the show, then it did picking on Klaus. Perhaps we can discuss that.

Art Fag City June 8, 2010 at 11:44 am

No you’re not trying to wring walkbacks out of me, you’re telling me how you think I should be writing this blog. I want this kind of feedback, which is why I’ve tried to set the comments up for people to say, “actually I think the real issue is this”, but I do wish you took the tone I approximated a little more frequently. Instead, I read that I’m just as crazy as a lunatic curator who drunkenly professes his love for Marina, the artist herself, who’s now wearing the most designer-y of designer-y clothing, and the stars now clinging to her because I’ve focused too much on Yablonsky’s account of Klaus. Your argument would have been just strong without kicking me over a bad headline choice.

Meanwhile, Jesse is right. My interest had more to do with highlighting something that undermines the “hard-won realness” of the show, then it did picking on Klaus. Perhaps we can discuss that.

Jesse P. Martin June 8, 2010 at 4:00 pm

@L.M.: “Marina Abramovic: Telepathic-Soul-Licker” was actually the original title for her retrospective, but they changed it at the last minute because it brought back too many tough memories for Klausy B.

You can probably use it, but you’ll probably have to deal with Abramovic’s newly-formed long-duration-performance-art intellectual-property-protection team first.

Jesse P. Martin June 8, 2010 at 12:00 pm

@L.M.: “Marina Abramovic: Telepathic-Soul-Licker” was actually the original title for her retrospective, but they changed it at the last minute because it brought back too many tough memories for Klausy B.

You can probably use it, but you’ll probably have to deal with Abramovic’s newly-formed long-duration-performance-art intellectual-property-protection team first.

aly June 8, 2010 at 5:29 pm

It’s true..Berlin early 90’s…Kunst-Werke. I was there…

aly June 8, 2010 at 1:29 pm

It’s true..Berlin early 90’s…Kunst-Werke. I was there…

Jill Conner June 8, 2010 at 8:53 pm

Klaus’ comments, and then the various reactions that have spun out, are part of a performance that ended. A friend of mine said that it was like a roast. However the literal interpretation of the event, as Klaus’ gaffe, reveals that viewers are still challenged to interpret performance art when it does not take place on a stage.

Do note that Abramovic’s show began with her ex-husband, and longtime collaborator Ulay sitting across from her at the table. Tears ran down her face in the cathartic moment. Ulay came back to open up a show that gave him marginal recognition. So it is very fitting that Klaus performed an Abramovic vignette back to her, similar to Ulay, a slap for a slap, creating a good closure to the piece. Abramovic would not be Abramovic without a complimentary response from an other, from someone else.

Jill Conner June 8, 2010 at 4:53 pm

Klaus’ comments, and then the various reactions that have spun out, are part of a performance that ended. A friend of mine said that it was like a roast. However the literal interpretation of the event, as Klaus’ gaffe, reveals that viewers are still challenged to interpret performance art when it does not take place on a stage.

Do note that Abramovic’s show began with her ex-husband, and longtime collaborator Ulay sitting across from her at the table. Tears ran down her face in the cathartic moment. Ulay came back to open up a show that gave him marginal recognition. So it is very fitting that Klaus performed an Abramovic vignette back to her, similar to Ulay, a slap for a slap, creating a good closure to the piece. Abramovic would not be Abramovic without a complimentary response from an other, from someone else.

greg,org June 8, 2010 at 10:19 pm

If Klaus’s discomfiting speech was “part of a performance,” it’s less Andrea Fraser, I’m afraid, and way too much Jennifer Rubell.

As I tweeted, I’ve felt uncomfortable before watching Klaus’s unabashed, emotionally raw toasts for artists he [presumably] hasn’t lived with, and I’ve just come to assume it’s Klaus’s thing. Or one of them.

Yablonsky’s right that it was awkward, but I would really like her to be wrong that everyone is an always-striving careerist, or should always be conforming to some professionalist expectation.

greg,org June 8, 2010 at 6:19 pm

If Klaus’s discomfiting speech was “part of a performance,” it’s less Andrea Fraser, I’m afraid, and way too much Jennifer Rubell.

As I tweeted, I’ve felt uncomfortable before watching Klaus’s unabashed, emotionally raw toasts for artists he [presumably] hasn’t lived with, and I’ve just come to assume it’s Klaus’s thing. Or one of them.

Yablonsky’s right that it was awkward, but I would really like her to be wrong that everyone is an always-striving careerist, or should always be conforming to some professionalist expectation.

Jesse P. Martin June 8, 2010 at 11:44 pm

@Jill: What is life, really, but one big, pretentious, long-duration performance? And are we not ALL present, artists or not?

Any thoughts, viewers? Others? Someone else?

Jesse P. Martin June 8, 2010 at 7:44 pm

@Jill: What is life, really, but one big, pretentious, long-duration performance? And are we not ALL present, artists or not?

Any thoughts, viewers? Others? Someone else?

Jeremy June 9, 2010 at 11:53 am

I'm so full of shit. No, I'm not. Yes, I am.

Jeremy June 9, 2010 at 7:53 am

I'm so full of shit. No, I'm not. Yes, I am.

Jill Conner June 9, 2010 at 6:12 pm

@Jesse, according to the Greeks who set dramas on an open-air stage with a view of the city in the back, art and life have been closely connected for a long time. But now, as seen at MoMA, can something be viewed outside of the highly theatrical, conspicuous consumptive moment, where fashion and celebrity dominates? I doubt it since everyone wants the latter but not anything that poses as a diversion – in this case Klaus’ heckling of Abramovic.

Also, consider the cultural differences that are at play. Klaus, for example, is not a conspicuous consumptive American. He is German who carries out Kantian critique, the dialectic. If Klaus made a mistake, it was in assuming that the audience would be able to understand the aberration beyond its literal character.

Jill Conner June 9, 2010 at 2:12 pm

@Jesse, according to the Greeks who set dramas on an open-air stage with a view of the city in the back, art and life have been closely connected for a long time. But now, as seen at MoMA, can something be viewed outside of the highly theatrical, conspicuous consumptive moment, where fashion and celebrity dominates? I doubt it since everyone wants the latter but not anything that poses as a diversion – in this case Klaus’ heckling of Abramovic.

Also, consider the cultural differences that are at play. Klaus, for example, is not a conspicuous consumptive American. He is German who carries out Kantian critique, the dialectic. If Klaus made a mistake, it was in assuming that the audience would be able to understand the aberration beyond its literal character.

Jesse P. Martin June 9, 2010 at 6:54 pm

@Jill: You’re giving Ãœbermenschean status to Klaus and making determinations based on nationality (culture), and otherwise over-academicizing as a way of justifying an exhibit that was “conspicuously-consumptive” through-and-through.

Just because this took place in the (American) MoMA and involved a Serbian performance-artist and a German curator doesn’t exempt it from the nastier mechanisms of spectacular capitalism (which is a global phenomenon, last time I checked).

In fact, I’d argue that the show (and its attendant parties and press) have succeeded in further assimilating this meta-theatrical-high-art you’re defending into the crass-celebrity-famewhoring-moneymaker that you’re claiming it’s above (or somehow functioning outside of).

Jesse P. Martin June 9, 2010 at 2:54 pm

@Jill: You’re giving Ãœbermenschean status to Klaus and making determinations based on nationality (culture), and otherwise over-academicizing as a way of justifying an exhibit that was “conspicuously-consumptive” through-and-through.

Just because this took place in the (American) MoMA and involved a Serbian performance-artist and a German curator doesn’t exempt it from the nastier mechanisms of spectacular capitalism (which is a global phenomenon, last time I checked).

In fact, I’d argue that the show (and its attendant parties and press) have succeeded in further assimilating this meta-theatrical-high-art you’re defending into the crass-celebrity-famewhoring-moneymaker that you’re claiming it’s above (or somehow functioning outside of).

Ian Aleksander Adams June 11, 2010 at 2:59 am

honestly, art opening pictures look a lot like any other “event” opening picture to me. I would feel out of place and unhappy at any such event. I’m not sure how they all take it, or seem to thrive on it.

Ian Aleksander Adams June 10, 2010 at 10:59 pm

honestly, art opening pictures look a lot like any other “event” opening picture to me. I would feel out of place and unhappy at any such event. I’m not sure how they all take it, or seem to thrive on it.

kamershah June 11, 2010 at 11:26 am

It was a very uncomfortable moment for anyone paying attention. Yablonsky was at our table and we asked her if she was going to go easy on Biesenbach. In my opinion she did, because it was a typical moment of arrogant curator trying to eclipse an accomplished artist at their “shared” moment of triumph. Plus, it was just pathetic and boring the way he was going on and on. His jealousy of Ricardo was palpable.

kamershah June 11, 2010 at 7:26 am

It was a very uncomfortable moment for anyone paying attention. Yablonsky was at our table and we asked her if she was going to go easy on Biesenbach. In my opinion she did, because it was a typical moment of arrogant curator trying to eclipse an accomplished artist at their “shared” moment of triumph. Plus, it was just pathetic and boring the way he was going on and on. His jealousy of Ricardo was palpable.

Jill Conner June 11, 2010 at 2:54 pm

@Jesse – I’m married to a German, I’ve studied German and German culture, I’ve worked with Germans at a bluechip company, have friends in the art world in Germany and there are certain things that just don’t go away, especially Kantian critique. Why do you think Theodor Adorno (of Jewish descent) was homesick in America and so happy to return to Germany after the War??

But sure, let’s take a few steps back: Biesenbach is not the type to knowingly mess up his career in front of thousands. He’s highly in control. So if it wasn’t a mess up, what was it? Given that he’s highly interested in performance, could it be connected to that? The result was like a Sprockets skit gone bad without any laugh-track.

I agree completely, though, that because the show was in MoMA, it was very capitalistic. Did you read the NYTimes House & Garden section in March that detailed Abramovic’s million dollar properties in NY? She’s at a different level. And yes, the show did succeed in dissolving itself into celebrity and brand, because that’s what successful contemporary art has been about for the last decade – not about the majority of artists who are making art with no gallery or have shows in small, alternative spaces (something which I highly favor.) It’s about fashion, spectacle and now a TV game show.

Jill Conner June 11, 2010 at 10:54 am

@Jesse – I’m married to a German, I’ve studied German and German culture, I’ve worked with Germans at a bluechip company, have friends in the art world in Germany and there are certain things that just don’t go away, especially Kantian critique. Why do you think Theodor Adorno (of Jewish descent) was homesick in America and so happy to return to Germany after the War??

But sure, let’s take a few steps back: Biesenbach is not the type to knowingly mess up his career in front of thousands. He’s highly in control. So if it wasn’t a mess up, what was it? Given that he’s highly interested in performance, could it be connected to that? The result was like a Sprockets skit gone bad without any laugh-track.

I agree completely, though, that because the show was in MoMA, it was very capitalistic. Did you read the NYTimes House & Garden section in March that detailed Abramovic’s million dollar properties in NY? She’s at a different level. And yes, the show did succeed in dissolving itself into celebrity and brand, because that’s what successful contemporary art has been about for the last decade – not about the majority of artists who are making art with no gallery or have shows in small, alternative spaces (something which I highly favor.) It’s about fashion, spectacle and now a TV game show.

Jesse P. Martin June 11, 2010 at 5:22 pm

@Jill – Point taken: you have a telepathic-soul-lick with Germans. And they’re a thoroughly professional and precise people who are incapable of messing anything up. Gotcha.

Jesse P. Martin June 11, 2010 at 1:22 pm

@Jill – Point taken: you have a telepathic-soul-lick with Germans. And they’re a thoroughly professional and precise people who are incapable of messing anything up. Gotcha.

Jill Conner June 12, 2010 at 6:57 pm

@Jesse, they’re not perfect – it’s their illusion that they are and that’s where the arrogance comes from.

Jill Conner June 12, 2010 at 2:57 pm

@Jesse, they’re not perfect – it’s their illusion that they are and that’s where the arrogance comes from.

Art Fag City June 13, 2010 at 6:23 am

@Jill Conner: How do you know Biesenbach is “highly in control” or not the type to knowingly mess up his career in front of hundreds. He’s a curator, not an artist, and according to one person in this thread, this isn’t the first time he’s gotten drunk, stood on a table (or in this case a podium) and professed his love for an artist. There is nothing that points to this being anything but a mishap, except of course, for a bunch of stereotypes that have lead to the strange conclusion that his must have been a performance.

Jill Conner June 28, 2010 at 6:29 am

AFC – Yea, it’s a mix of personal experience combined with friends in Munich who know KB. I was not stereotyping, for sure.

Art Fag City June 13, 2010 at 2:23 am

@Jill Conner: How do you know Biesenbach is “highly in control” or not the type to knowingly mess up his career in front of hundreds. He’s a curator, not an artist, and according to one person in this thread, this isn’t the first time he’s gotten drunk, stood on a table (or in this case a podium) and professed his love for an artist. There is nothing that points to this being anything but a mishap, except of course, for a bunch of stereotypes that have lead to the strange conclusion that his must have been a performance.

Jill Conner June 28, 2010 at 2:29 am

AFC – Yea, it’s a mix of personal experience combined with friends in Munich who know KB. I was not stereotyping, for sure.

peter June 13, 2010 at 8:16 pm

KB is an ass. Really. An ass. How he has got so far at MoMA is a fine example of someone being kicked upstairs, and not recongising thats whats happened to them.

anyone remember Dieter by Mike Myers on old SNL?

peter June 13, 2010 at 4:16 pm

KB is an ass. Really. An ass. How he has got so far at MoMA is a fine example of someone being kicked upstairs, and not recongising thats whats happened to them.

anyone remember Dieter by Mike Myers on old SNL?

Jesse P. Martin June 14, 2010 at 4:21 pm

We’ve arrived at throwing around German stereotypes as a means to justify things, so I give up.

I like how calling everything “a performance” is (another) way for people to suggest that something is beyond (or outside of) a certain kind of criticism. It’s like when people call an art-based reality-show “a game,” as if it being one makes it impervious to the same kind of (qualitative) criticism. So it’s actually fitting that any attempt to address these things ends in a critical dead-end where we’re expected to indulge in banality and cliché… or just give up.

Jesse P. Martin June 14, 2010 at 12:21 pm

We’ve arrived at throwing around German stereotypes as a means to justify things, so I give up.

I like how calling everything “a performance” is (another) way for people to suggest that something is beyond (or outside of) a certain kind of criticism. It’s like when people call an art-based reality-show “a game,” as if it being one makes it impervious to the same kind of (qualitative) criticism. So it’s actually fitting that any attempt to address these things ends in a critical dead-end where we’re expected to indulge in banality and cliché… or just give up.

Art Fag City June 14, 2010 at 4:45 pm

Jesse, I wrote a review of the Tricia Donnelly show today that’s posted on the blog, and invests a good deal of thought in the art. Perhaps that’s a little more your speed?

Obviously reality show comment threads and Marina Abramovic news aren’t going satisfy your interest in doing some heavier intellectual work. I honestly think it’s a waste of your time to complain so bitterly on these threads about this when it’s clear they’re never going to be the forum you want anyway.

Art Fag City June 14, 2010 at 12:45 pm

Jesse, I wrote a review of the Tricia Donnelly show today that’s posted on the blog, and invests a good deal of thought in the art. Perhaps that’s a little more your speed?

Obviously reality show comment threads and Marina Abramovic news aren’t going satisfy your interest in doing some heavier intellectual work. I honestly think it’s a waste of your time to complain so bitterly on these threads about this when it’s clear they’re never going to be the forum you want anyway.

Jesse P. Martin June 14, 2010 at 6:43 pm

I greatly appreciate the omnivorousness of your posts, and I do make a point to read your articles outside of AFC. I engage in a plethora of other “forums” as well. I’m polymorphous, too! But thanks for the (somewhat condescending) redirection to your “smarter” writing.

Still, you’ve used this platform to post a great deal on Abramovic and WANGA, and I don’t think that my comments are mere “bitter complaints” or pretentious sniping for “heavier intellectual work.” Both are major mainstream contemporary art events – which involve major “art world” players – and I’m trying to engage them as attentively as one should, say, a Tricia Donnelly show. Both events are based in and appeal to, I think, utter cynicism – so I don’t feel that my equally cynical comments are in any way out of line. I’m just “fighting fire with fire,” really.

But if you want me refrain from playing in your sandbox, that’s fine (I was kicked out of Saltz’s pretty quickly too, remember!).

“As innocuous as it might seem, the divorce of the critical voice from the art media breeds a conformism that ultimately thwarts any desire to be original. Art is then replaced by perpetual cynicism and held in check by the institutional affiliations of critics.” (Robert C. Morgan, from “The Plight of Art Criticism”)

Jesse P. Martin June 14, 2010 at 2:43 pm

I greatly appreciate the omnivorousness of your posts, and I do make a point to read your articles outside of AFC. I engage in a plethora of other “forums” as well. I’m polymorphous, too! But thanks for the (somewhat condescending) redirection to your “smarter” writing.

Still, you’ve used this platform to post a great deal on Abramovic and WANGA, and I don’t think that my comments are mere “bitter complaints” or pretentious sniping for “heavier intellectual work.” Both are major mainstream contemporary art events – which involve major “art world” players – and I’m trying to engage them as attentively as one should, say, a Tricia Donnelly show. Both events are based in and appeal to, I think, utter cynicism – so I don’t feel that my equally cynical comments are in any way out of line. I’m just “fighting fire with fire,” really.

But if you want me refrain from playing in your sandbox, that’s fine (I was kicked out of Saltz’s pretty quickly too, remember!).

“As innocuous as it might seem, the divorce of the critical voice from the art media breeds a conformism that ultimately thwarts any desire to be original. Art is then replaced by perpetual cynicism and held in check by the institutional affiliations of critics.” (Robert C. Morgan, from “The Plight of Art Criticism”)

Art Fag City June 14, 2010 at 7:03 pm

Sorry Jesse. I hadn’t meant to be condescending. Let me recast:

I hope you don’t give up on all the comment threads here.

Art Fag City June 14, 2010 at 3:03 pm

Sorry Jesse. I hadn’t meant to be condescending. Let me recast:

I hope you don’t give up on all the comment threads here.

Haley Vazquez June 15, 2010 at 5:17 pm

Hah am I really the first reply to this amazing writing!?

Haley Vazquez June 15, 2010 at 1:17 pm

Hah am I really the first reply to this amazing writing!?

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: