Previous: that government thing again (103)
Next: raffle/fundraiser at ambrosino
we have not met the enemy, and he is us
Post #623 • September 13, 2005, 7:31 AM • 110 Comments
Knocking the art world has become the latest art world fashion. I am not referring to the voices of dissent that have been heard for decades from artists and critics who operate at the margins. What's going on now is that a certain disaffection and even disgust has become an insider's badge of honor, a mark of sophistication, so that artists and critics and curators who frequent the art fairs and auctions where new stars are crowned can be heard bemoaning the corruption of the scene. ... What is troubling about such complaints is that they are almost exclusively focused on the social mechanisms of art: fairs, auctions, prices, publicity. Art itself hardly enters into the discussion; and when it does, the works of art are interchangeable, impersonal, of as little value in and of themselves as a pile of plastic poker chips. Everything is merely product; the art is in the deal. And the attack on the art of the deal becomes a new form of deal-making. This suggests a confusion so profound that the people who are complaining may well not have the faintest idea what is really troubling them. Beneath all the hipper-than-thou bravado, I sense a bottomless uncertainty.
In Miami you have the artists, a few amateur galleries, a few slightly professional galleries and collectors with amazing private collections, but no audience and no academia, and therefore no dialog. Nothing is ever written down or even remembered after it is over. The community thrives on the "new" and "the next" - the foundations of which is nothing more than a sunny outpost from which some collectors and fair organizers have decided to set up camp. I see very little investment or faith in Miami as an actual place of philosophical endeavor or of artistic discovery, while it is that kind of place to the artists who live and work here. Eventually, through the persistence of the artists who make this a permanent home and a culture of conversation, artistic exploration and context, Miami's art community will develop independent of the convention center and the real estate developers.
I present you with a brain teaser: are Jed Perl and Cooper talking about the same thing, or is Jed Perl essentially talking about Cooper?
As someone who has been knocking the art world since he began writing, I feel a little vindicated to find myself so far ahead of the curve. But to hear this message coming from Cooper surprises me, because his work figures in the collection of the Rubells and the gallery of Snitzer. (Hold your groaning, people; I have some fact-based ovservations to make.) The Rubells' renovation of the old DEA warehouse on 29th Street into their dream home practically kicked off the gentrification of Wynwood, and Snitzer faithfully involves himself in these big convention center thingies that roll through here every winter. So I vote for the latter, but I don't really know; I don't have access to Cooper's head or anything. After opining the above, Cooper rightly upbraided his interviewer when he asked about his favorite restaraunt, but I wonder whether he thinks his work somehow plays against newness and nextness, because it neatly fits in with a non-art art style that certain collectors enjoy; I imagine that they think of it as the very picture of progressiveness.
An aside regarding the house that Rubell built, related to the title of this post - the owners had the following exchange with Alfredo Triff, with some imaginary impertinences by yours truly:
AT: You were sort of the first to move to the block. Is that art savvy, business savvy?
M: It's necessity savvy. We came here for a real-estate opportunity initially.
D: [Interjecting] It was not. As far as Wynwood? We said, "We have to find a facility." We had looked all over Miami. We knew what we were looking for.
M: It was the building.
D: Well, it was the building and the context; they both make the right feel. ...
AT: You were here through the arts explosion and in a way a part of it. How does it feel to be a catalyst?
M: It feels great, but we are also very involved with the universe of art; we have relationships with all these artists and countries.
F: What?
D: I hope the neighborhood doesn't change. We don't want this to become a huge mall or condo canyon. The development needs to take that into account.
M: I'm concerned that artists will be pushed out. Purvis used to live nearby. The development may turn all this into a place that doesn't feel good for art anymore.
F: In that case, do you catch your handsome visages in the bathroom mirror and say to yourselves, "There goes the neighborhood"? "Midtown Miami will consist of 3,000 condominium residences, rental units, a hotel and street level shops and cafes." One realtor expects that two-bedroom apartments will go for somewhere between $300K and a half-mil, well out of the range of artists. They're selling it all as the development in the new arts district, with copy and signage about comely creative moneymakers who control their time and working lives in a manner that practically no one does outside of academia - like you folks, if you modelled for a living. Don't you have something to answer for, here?
For the record, I largely agree with Cooper. I personally invest little faith in the Miami art world, for the reasons he cites: our permanent ahistorical state and the elevation of newness to an automatic virtue. I think we make progress here in spite of what's going on with the increased attention and activity, not because of it. As for "Miami as an actual place of philosophical endeavor," I already know from blogging what happens when you challenge local art and what few things people are saying about it - you win a role as a thorn. So will mere persistence on the part of artists cause the city to develop as an art center? Well, if I had to put my money on something, I'd put it there. But a sure bet would require evidence that the artists examine the extent to which they cause the stasis, by their own lack of self-awareness, by not thinking things through, by their attempts to achieve originality by imitating contemporary models, by their willingness to go along with the hyperbole. The real art project requires deeper inquiry, a process that demands forward and backward looking at the same time. It also demands that you recognize when you yourself have become the problem.
2.
September 13, 2005, 11:39 AM
So, in order to be considered a serious critic of the mechanisms of our local art scene, one has to also make a stand by not selling one's work to collectors?
If one does sell one's work to collectors or exhibit in a large fair then one is simply faddish, no matter what the content (or should I say form?) of one's statements?
If you use Cooper's gallery, sales, and your percieved "look" of his artwork as viable proof of his fadishness, why do you leave out consideration of the venue he, Elizabeth, and Wes founded?
If you agree with Cooper, why can you not also accept that he is as serious in his criticisms as you are?
I recommend that you change your vote.
3.
September 13, 2005, 12:12 PM
I'll toss out an observation which should betaken with a grain of salt since I'm not in Miami. I lived in LA until 1983, as I recall a lot of the same questions and complaints were being tossed about with more or less the same results. After I left, LA found it's footing as an art center. It's a form of growing pain.
I doubt there is anyway anything will change significantly in Miami this cycle. Some things need to be in place to make an art center. A museum (actually the Rubell collection is a great start). Some form of support by the city of Maimi to indicate that they think art is as important a cultural resource as cha-cha. Some galleries (ya got them, little spit n polish and away you go), a better critical infrastructure and of course artists who stick around. Sounds simple but from what I saw in LA it's not and if anything happens in Miami it will take time (another 10 years at least)
4.
September 13, 2005, 12:52 PM
George (grain of salt taken), not counting the academic museums, we have at least three: the Miami Art Museum, The Bass Museum, and the Museum of Contemporary Art. In addition to the Rubell collection, we have at two other freestanding private institutions, Miami Art Central and the Margulies collection, and at least one more private exhibition space, The Moore Space.
The county of which Miami is a part (the actual city of Miami is somewhat poor; we usually say Miami when we refer to greater Miami) is very supportive of artists and the arts. The "brass-ring" Franklin mentioned in an earlier post is the largest of a wide range of grants and other opportunities.
We've got artists who stick around. We've got a decent number of galleries (too many to see them all on the gallery-walk nights), and more on the way. We've got some great not-for-profits, like Locust, the Miami Light Project and Tigertail Productions.
We could probably use more critics.
But we're working on it.
5.
September 13, 2005, 1:33 PM
So, in order to be considered a serious critic of the mechanisms of our local art scene, one has to also make a stand by not selling one's work to collectors?
I didn't say this, so I won't refute it.
If one does sell one's work to collectors or exhibit in a large fair then one is simply faddish, no matter what the content (or should I say form?) of one's statements?
I didn't say this either.
If you use Cooper's gallery, sales, and your percieved "look" of his artwork as viable proof of his fadishness, why do you leave out consideration of the venue he, Elizabeth, and Wes founded?
I couldn't say this if I wanted to, because I don't understand what his work via Snitzer and his work via Locust have to do with each other. Are you characterizing Locust as a redeeming force against faddishness? Go ahead. I dare you.
If you agree with Cooper, why can you not also accept that he is as serious in his criticisms as you are?
For the same reason that I can't account for Don Rubell's "I hope the neighborhood doesn't change" and Mera Rubell's "I'm concerned that artists will be pushed out. ... The development may turn all this into a place that doesn't feel good for art anymore." They helped cause the change, funded the development, and now artists are being pushed out. Either they don't see their connection to the cause, which I doubt, or they're not speaking sincerely. Meanwhile, "the community [that] thrives on the 'new' and 'the next'" favors Cooper's work, as do "some collectors and fair organizers," so if he has a problem with these things, either he doesn't see his connection to the cause, which I doubt, or he's not speaking sincerely. Or, as Perl put it above, "This suggests a confusion so profound that the people who are complaining may well not have the faintest idea what is really troubling them. Beneath all the hipper-than-thou bravado, I sense a bottomless uncertainty." So I don't know, but I know that it doesn't add up.
I was thinking of George in LA, and when Kathleen said:
...not counting the academic museums, we have at least three: the Miami Art Museum, The Bass Museum, and the Museum of Contemporary Art.
I thought, In LA they have, first of all, the Getty... and I almost started crying.
6.
September 13, 2005, 1:36 PM
Now you know what it is like to go point for point with Kathleen, Franklin.
7.
September 13, 2005, 2:03 PM
Kathleen and I beating on each other goes all the way back to the days of the Miami Art Exchange, OP, so believe me, I know. She's the strongest writer out there who consistently comes by to disagree with me, so I value her presence here.
I meant to say above that Cooper can sincerely state that "Eventually, through the persistence of the artists who make this a permanent home and a culture of conversation, artistic exploration and context, Miami's art community will develop independent of the convention center and the real estate developers." Actually, that bit about "context" is crap, but I've never doubted that Cooper is in this for the long haul, success or not. He has exercised persistence, no question, and deserves a lot of credit for it.
8.
September 13, 2005, 2:16 PM
So, Franklin, please explain why you are inclined to put Cooper in the latter category, that of the faddish criticism of the workings of the art scene?
Why not, if the information does not add up for you, simply dump Jed Perl's remarks about such a trend. Alternatively, why not include yourself in the trend?
Do you not feel that Locust provides an alternative exhibition opportunity? Have you submitted a proposal to Locust? I'm sincerely curious.
Do you have a good model for how artists and galleries can move into areas without encouraging gentrification?
Do you feel that the galleries and artists are more responsible for the gentrification of Wynwood than condo developers?
Do you personally hold yourself responsible for the actions and beliefs of someone who purchases your work?
Franklin, I'm sorry for you that Miami doesn't have the Getty, or a museum that you even like, but George had no qualifier on the word "museum" in his remark.
Oldpro, I'm confused that you thought I was going "point for point" with Franklin. I was asking questions of him.
But please explain "what it is like to go point for point" with me, if you would. I thought we had agreed that there would be no backhanded characterizations.
9.
September 13, 2005, 2:17 PM
F--I didn't see your 2:03 post; thanks.
10.
September 13, 2005, 2:24 PM
Yeh, I warned you that I don't know enough about the scene in Miami to comment directly on it.
I'll stick with the idea of "growing pains" as a valid observation. It takes time.
11.
September 13, 2005, 2:39 PM
You are asking for it, Franklin. Vigorous disagreement and discussion is one thing. This is just retroactive correction, and it is a waste of time.
Nothing back-handed about it, Kathleen. I am specifically referring to the page 8 days ago titled "The Herald's Art Coverage".
12.
September 13, 2005, 2:48 PM
Brief Reading Lesson:
oldpro post #6
Now you know what it is like to go point for point with Kathleen, Franklin.
Kathleen post #8
Oldpro, I'm confused that you thought I was going "point for point" with Franklin. I was asking questions of him.
The first sentence speaks of: "F" going "P for P" with "K".
The 2nd sentence speaks of: "K" going "P for P" with "F"
These are not the same. Clear enough?
13.
September 13, 2005, 2:56 PM
Bonus Lesson
Kathleen post #8
Question: But please explain "what it is like to go point for point" with me, if you would
Answer: See post #5, above.
14.
September 13, 2005, 3:09 PM
Do you feel that the galleries and artists are more responsible for the gentrification of Wynwood than condo developers?
It's my understanding that in Miami this relationship is more fluid than one could imagine.
Some artists are realtors or have realty companies. Some gallerists have big realty in the family. In fact, Liquid Blue Gallery is backed by a realty company. One artist in particular is a realtor that owns a newspaper that is basically a large realty brochure.
Like the Rubells and their hotel line, developers like Craig Robbins/Scott Robbins are also collectors, but at the same time they made the Design District very artist unfriendly. There has to be a balance.
BTW, Franklin, you will be glad to know that Sandro Chia is moving to Wynwood. I'm not kidding.
15.
September 13, 2005, 3:10 PM
So, Franklin, please explain why you are inclined to put Cooper in the latter category, that of the faddish criticism of the workings of the art scene?Why not, if the information does not add up for you, simply dump Jed Perl's remarks about such a trend.
Let me ask you this - how do you reconcile my little dilemma in #5 regarding Cooper's criticisms?
Alternatively, why not include yourself in the trend?
Because... Shit, wait, I have to go kick some collectors off of my doorstep. Excuse me.
Pesky collectors. I'm sorry, what was the question?
Have you submitted a proposal to Locust?
I came close once and still might, on behalf of some other people, but I happily paint at my easel and don't need or want their space to do what I do. I say that as pure fact, btw, not judgmentally.
gentrification et al....
Artists are the hyenas of the real esate world. We devour carcasses of real estate, and return them to the real estate ecosystem for further growth. Gentrification is not evil, but it's pointless, even a little insane, to develop a neighborhood and then complain about it changing. If a neighborhood becomes desirable because people regard it as different and edgy, it inexorably becomes increasingly homogenous and padded as people act on their desire to live there. I worked on Lincoln Road for a few years and know what thereof I speak.
Do you personally hold yourself responsible for the actions and beliefs of someone who purchases your work?
No. Why?
George had no qualifier on the word "museum" in his remark.
George went from LA to NYC and doesn't have to qualify "museum" with "important."
16.
September 13, 2005, 3:17 PM
Also, isn't Goldman of the famed Olitski retrospective a big developer in Wynwood?
17.
September 13, 2005, 3:24 PM
"Famed" Olitski retrospective?
This is an exhibit that managed to almost completely escape any notice whatsoever,.
18.
September 13, 2005, 3:28 PM
Why doesn't someone get a squad of about a dozen artists, buy up lots of buildings in some depressed area, set the artists loose in it with free rent, and reap the benefits 5 or 10 years later?
This could happen in cities all over the country. Sounds like a dynamite idea to me.
Maybe it is already being done.
19.
September 13, 2005, 3:40 PM
Mindy, to clarify, I'm not faulting anyone for being a developer - I'm faulting the Rubells for not making a heck of a lot of sense above, and challenging the basis for Cooper's referring to developers as if they were a bad thing.
20.
September 13, 2005, 3:47 PM
Matty, I don't feel that what you have written is helpful. Is there something particularly different in "going point to point" with me versus anyone else? I'd like to assume that the implication is that I am a superior opponent, but sadly, I think that you may be eager to suggest otherwise. So, why don't you suggest what you like in lieu of the algebra?
Franklin, I'm not convinced that this argument/dilemna holds water:
"Either they don't see their connection to the cause, which I doubt, or they're not speaking sincerely. Meanwhile, "the community [that] thrives on the 'new' and 'the next'" favors Cooper's work, as do "some collectors and fair organizers," so if he has a problem with these things, either he doesn't see his connection to the cause, which I doubt, or he's not speaking sincerely."
How does him seeing his connection to the cause (assuming he is related to the cause for the sake of argument) relate to his sincerity? Do you imagine that because these types may favor his work that he holds his tongue around them? I really don't understand how you get to the either/or statement there.
I feel that you are applying different standards to Cooper than you would someone whose work is not either collected by XYZ or exhibited in a fair.
Perhaps if we start without addressing Jed Perl, we can make sense of this. I mean, it's kind of like basing one's argument on Trend Tracker. Just because he said art-world bashing is trendy, doesn't make it true, nor does it necessarily mean it is the correct criteria by which to evaluate Cooper's statements.
Mindy, thanks for your assessments. Don't leave out the Goldman's real estate empire. Your points about fluidity aside, why would venues such as Locust and Dorsch be more responsible for the gentrification of Wynwood than the developer of ABC Lofts? Why would artists such as Cooper have to have his staements about the Miami art scene scrutinized against his alleged role in the gentrification? This is why I asked earlier whether or not one would have to make a make a stand by not selling one's work to collectors--or developers, I should add--in order to have one's criticisms taken seriously.
21.
September 13, 2005, 3:56 PM
Well, I'm suffering from comment lag again.
22.
September 13, 2005, 4:04 PM
Kathleen, I think it is probably incorrect to make any connection between Perl and this guy Cooper. It just occurred to me that Perl is probably referring to the talk seeded by that article in New York magazine last season, the accompanying spurt in auction prices and a couple of dealer vs collector court cases. People gossip about it I suppose but I'm wondering if Perl is making it sound fashionable for his own ends.
Franklin's remark about the hyenas is spot on. I have seen this occur over and over again in LA, NYC and SF. Artists go where there are big spaces for low rent. They make it respectable and safer for gentrification. The real estate guys are just smart business people.
23.
September 13, 2005, 4:06 PM
Kathleen, I realize that you don't think my dilemma holds water. I'm asking for an explanation that reconciles his criticism of fairs and developers with the fact that fairs and developers benefit him directly. If you're up for it, reconcile the Rubell's hopes that their neighborhood doesn't change with the fact that they are changing the neighborhood.
I feel that you are applying different standards to Cooper than you would someone whose work is not either collected by XYZ or exhibited in a fair.
Cooper put himself on the record in MAG and what he said doesn't add up. Ditto for the Rubells in the New Times. And you can bet the rent money that if I don't say anything about this, no one will.
24.
September 13, 2005, 4:41 PM
You can count on people actingh in their own best self interests.
You can count on people saying what they think will do them the most good.
You can count on the bigger fish to eat the smaller fish with impunity.
almost always
25.
September 13, 2005, 4:49 PM
I think for Miami to to retain its artists it needs to institute Rent control. and to have artist subsidized housing. I was talking to someone who is a well established (full time) Artist and they have trouble finding a condo they can afford and by all accounts their shows are selling out and even with that they can't afford the $300,000 dollar fashion artist bullshit condos. Everyone should be up in arms when they market these condos with rendered images of artists painting in their wide open spaces. Take a look at "cynergi" Click around their selling condos on the back of a painter - and its not Romano Burrito . They're act like any artist can afford their condos. There can be no arts district with condos in starting in the low $300,000! is anyone building Affordable housing in Miami?
26.
September 13, 2005, 4:56 PM
You notice his brushes don't have a drop of paint on them? Lordamercy, between this clown and Sandro Chia I'm gonna grab the next bus out of town.
Funny - I've been calling that other guy Romeo Burrito for years.
27.
September 13, 2005, 5:00 PM
Subsidized housing is not going to happen, Harlan, but the "Cynergi" ad you provide the link to is a gas.
28.
September 13, 2005, 5:01 PM
He called him Romano, which is even better
29.
September 13, 2005, 5:35 PM
That Cynergi ad has been running in the sunday paper for months. I figured you all had seen it by now. I crack up every time I see it. Yes, it's time to pack up and run.
30.
September 13, 2005, 5:56 PM
I don't see why subsidized the rents for artists can be a possibility in Miami. As far as I can tell they have these available is most of the major cities across the world, in North America, and even in some red states.. why not Miami? what if we all got up out from behind our computers and open the window and yelled "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"? or staged an art protest during Basel? or al least we write emails to the Mayor or something?
31.
September 13, 2005, 7:17 PM
Harlan. Trying to implement it is a quagmire. After the 1975 depression, NYC had a AIR zoning rule in Soho which essentially said only artists could live in their lofts. Guess how many lawers were artists?
32.
September 13, 2005, 7:24 PM
After participating in the "renaissance" of Lincoln Road, I moved, in 1995, to the Wynwood neighborhood for many of the same reasons I moved to Lincoln Road in 1992. Location, location, location; and, extremely inexpensive real estate. I never had any doubt about what was going to happen to Lincoln Road; it is a story repeated in depressed/undervalued urban areas throughout the country. The art community in search of cheap space makes an area safe, trafficked, "cool," desirable.
At the risk of aligning myself with the Rubells, I find it neither inconsistant, or insincere to both develop ones own interests and hope that nothing else about the neighborhood changes. Naive, maybe....though that is a word not often used to describe the Rubells. But, I can imagine that they are quite sincerely not interested in being surrounded by the kind of development that is looking increasingly inevitable for Wynwood.
It seems to me that the real estate issues should maybe not get confused with what Cooper and Perl are really talking about.
34.
September 13, 2005, 7:46 PM
I agree, wtimo. The artists move in/artists get pushed out cycle has been repeated numerous times, even in a city as young as Miami (before lincoln rd it was coral gables). The Rubells are, after all, private individuals; they are entitled to their views, even if there is a degree of self-contradiction to those views (which I'm personally not convinced there is).
Mindy points out that it's not just collectors with art we hate that are changing Wynwood, the Goldmans actually have much more to do with the development then the Rubells.
But whatever; this is what happens; people like Brook, who have the foresight, and some financial means to go with it, make out good. The rest of us just have to move.
Oldpro has a good idea (in #18), but I don't think the numbers work out, which is why the closest thing I know of to that is a non-profit.
Now, as far as Franklin's original brain teaser, I think the answer is clearly "neither." I think Jed is wrong in that there has always been complaining, about the art scene as well as about everything else. However, I wouldn't call Cooper's statements complaining in that sense... he's making some very specific statements about specific things that deserve to be dealt with in a more straightforward fashion.
35.
September 13, 2005, 8:50 PM
For Oldpro's idea of a coop to work you ideally want to see high interest rates.
In the current situation with low interest rates, property prices are elevated so what the developers do is buy and remodel or build new and then sell all or part of the development off to recoup their investment. The buyer ends up taking the risk which at current market prices is higher than normal. If you live in the place that's ok but the speculators are in for a surprise. The Federal Reserve chairman has made it clear that they will raise interest rates until the speculation in real estate cools off. I personally don't think the Fed can engineer a soft landing so somewhere down the road the speculators will feel real pain, prices will fall. Then you buy, pay the higher interest rate and refinance as rates decline again.
36.
September 13, 2005, 8:54 PM
Update from the heart of Wynwood.
That famous photo of the artist with the clean brushes is reproduced as a gigantic banner outside of the sales office here in da hood. Some clever artist(s) have graffitied the banner to add a big X over his mouth and a $ over his eye.
I makes me smile everytime I drive by.
37.
September 13, 2005, 8:56 PM
Alesh, Artspace had planned to visit Miami last fall but, the rash of hurricanes changed them. I was scheduled to meet with their plans. About a week ago I put a link about a program (audio podcast) that comes on Sundays on WLRN 91.3 (and WLRN.org) talking about what some creative thinking people are trying to do in Toronto. They also interviewed Miami's Mayor about the project, Miami 21 (which will come online Wednesday morning). Here is the Canadian link:
Lessons from Canada
38.
September 13, 2005, 9:01 PM
Jeeeze. My post got messed up by me! The Miami 21 radio program took place a while back but, I'm putting my link to the article tomorrow. Also, I was trying to say I was scheduled to meet with Artspace people but the hurricanes cancelled Artspace's plans to visit Miami. I need be more careful typing my posts... Sorry. :-)
39.
September 13, 2005, 9:55 PM
When Witmo talks about one guy moving into a neighborhood and hoping it stays the way it is for a while, that's understandable. But I'll assume that Witmo didn't go into a huge facility and enact a bazillion-dollar renovation. People are people, sure, but please.
Alesh, I don't hate all the art in the Rubell's. Let's clear that up. And I have no feelings about them as people; I don't know them personally and assume they're decent and upright. We're not talking about that. And too, I have nothing against the developers in general. I actually don't know what Cooper's alleged issue is regarding the developers and wouldn't mind seeing him make a case for it that takes his involvement into account. That definitely fell outside the scope of the overdesigned two-page spread in MAG.
...the rest of us just have to move. Eventually Brook will get an offer he can't refuse and that will be that.
Again, I largely agree with Cooper, especially on the points of ahistory and the apotheosis of newness. I'm just adding that something about it all smells fishy, and until Kathleen answers #23 to my satisfaction I'm standing by that.
40.
September 13, 2005, 10:11 PM
Franklin, why don't you leave Cooper to Tyler Green or someone suitably "advanced" and "with-it," and tell us all about what went down at your Monday afternoon meeting with the Miami-Dade arts people.
41.
September 13, 2005, 10:40 PM
Franklin~
Yes . . . eventually Brook will get an offer he can't refuse. And good for him. Actually I saw a herald article (don't have the link handy) just today that talked about something else . . . landowners who are renting to low/middle income folks.
Let's say I own a small apartment building in Wynwood. For fun, let's say a bunch of artists live in the building. Once all this development starts happening around me, I may want to keep my rents the same.
But I can't, because the development drives up land values around me, and with it my LAND TAXES. The construction essentially forces me to raise the rent. Since my building isn't nice enough to justify the increase in rent, the only, only ONLY option at that point is to sell, because I don't have the money to kick everyone out and pay out-of-pocked for a 12-month restoration. Wow.
Jack~ considering how easily your feelings got hurt during our last exchange, you sure are quick with the nasty, sarcastic comments. This time directed to Tyler Green, who doesn't even seem to be part of this conversation.
42.
September 13, 2005, 11:31 PM
If the artist/mascot dude for Cynergi can afford a $300K condo (plus what are likely to be insane maintenance fees), why can't he afford a shirt?
How does one go about becoming a professional mascot for a a loft concept? Does it pay well?
Also, what's the point of having a big old live/work lofty space if it's going to stay COMPLETELY PRISTINE AND NOT DIRTY ANYWHERE AT ALL TIMES? (as suggested by the photo of Artist Mascot Man curled up happily on a spotless floor sketching on a sterile canvas with no art supplies around.).
I just needed to vent. I have been driving by and getting annoyed at that banner and that shirtless, clean-brush-wielding Artist-Mascot dude for several months and the website just added more fuel to the fire.
When are they going to name a new one Simulacra and just admit these are big expensive dollhouses for people who wish to buy an entire lifestyle withoually having to do the actual dirty work (i.e., art) associated with it?
43.
September 13, 2005, 11:40 PM
Kathleen,
All I can say is, did you read Franklin's post #5? Did you notice a certain theme emerge in his responses? The fact that each point was refuted by a simple "I never said that"? The fact that the majority of disagreement on here stems from misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of what people actually say?
No? Nevermind then.
44.
September 13, 2005, 11:52 PM
My 'algebra', as Kathleen puts it, is not some obscure attempt at poking fun at her, but is merely the easiest, clearest way I could come up with to point out what, to me, was the very clear cause of her misunderstanding, based on two sentences which, although they superficially appeared to say the same thing, were in fact different, and implied different meanings.
45.
September 14, 2005, 7:26 AM
Hey, Grump, funny comment. Do more.
I don't think the loft mascot lifestyle involves shirts.
46.
September 14, 2005, 8:06 AM
The artist depicted in the big banner ad is Richard Boprae. He's an artist that also happens to have a modeling background. The ad is scary. Can you imagine the "loft lifestylers" actully living next to an actual artist, in a live/work loft?
Will there be a weekly bocci ball tournement between Sandro and Oldpro? Va bene!
47.
September 14, 2005, 8:12 AM
Apparently, the artist lifestyle involves an intensive pec/deltoid regimen. I had no idea. I'd better get to work on that.
Bocce with OP and Sandro sounds more like my thing, actually.
48.
September 14, 2005, 8:20 AM
And that shirtless artist is Canadian!
His work: http://www.lasolasfinearts.com/a2b/boprae/
49.
September 14, 2005, 8:46 AM
http://www.lasolasfinearts.com/a2b/boprae/
Ouch!
He better stick to modelling.
50.
September 14, 2005, 8:49 AM
Getting back to the original topic, which still requires discussion:
Franklin: As someone who has been knocking the art world since he began writing, I feel a little vindicated to find myself so far ahead of the curve.
This blog seems to glorify the Modernist movement only, with all else being crap. That is why so many of us have a problem with what you say here. To knock the art world is totally valid. To keep trying to wish that everything would go back to a particular period of art is ignorant.
It is critical to analyze the current state of art. We can all see that. And we can all agree on that. That is what Perl is saying, and Cooper to a point.
F: But to hear this message coming from Cooper surprises me, because his work figures in the collection of the Rubells and the gallery of Snitzer.
What is wrong with Cooper dissing the scene, and the superficiality of what surrounds him? He is a hero for finally saying it. He is not complaining about the art being made right now, he is criticizing the machine. He feels for the local artist and is witness first hand to what is going on. Why not put it in print?
Perl says that artists, critics and curators are almost exclusively focused on the social mechanisms of art: fairs, auctions, prices, publicity. Art itself hardly enters into the discussion..
Cooper says: In Miami you have the artists, a few amateur galleries, a few slightly professional galleries and collectors with amazing private collections, but no audience and no academia, and therefore no dialog.
I think you are taking Cooper's point of the interview and applying it to a broader issue than what it really intended to be.
Perl is talking about the machine laughing at the machine. Cooper is saying there is no machine here.
51.
September 14, 2005, 9:09 AM
Alesh (#41), you're mistaken. You didn't hurt my feelings earlier; I simply objected to having my position and views grossly distorted by you, even if it was because you didn't or don't understand them (although, by this point, I probably shouldn't take much notice).
As for Tyler Green, he's a big boy with a very public gig, he's part and parcel of the system, and he's definitely not off limits. You have far better things to do than to serve as his protector.
52.
September 14, 2005, 9:28 AM
Creative, Crap is crap, modernist, postmodernist or whatever. We have said it before and we will say it again: no one here is trying to "go back to the past"
All we are looking for is good art. What form it comes in cannot be predicted. To paraphrase Potter Stewart: we will know it when we see it.
53.
September 14, 2005, 9:50 AM
I would be curious what postmodernist work are good according to oldpro? is there anything you could name and link to that we wouldn't expect you to like maybe? what postmodernist work or even modernist work do you 'know it when you see it".
54.
September 14, 2005, 9:52 AM
i second that
55.
September 14, 2005, 9:59 AM
There isn't much, for sure, but there isn't much "modernist" work I like, either.
I am not quite sure what qualifys as "Postmodernist". How about those videos by Fischl & Weiss? I am very impressed by those.
56.
September 14, 2005, 10:01 AM
Also, what do I make of "what we wouldn't expect you to like"? What might that be?
57.
September 14, 2005, 10:09 AM
Hello,
Cooper once tore a statement off the wall in both fury and prank at the Dorsch Gallery. The statement belonged to Kerry Ware and was in relationship to the work Ware had hung. Kerry who works with oil and works with sound is not 'new' or 'next', he does not participate in the 'commodification of disscent' or 'creative capital', and his interests and operations lay far outside the main stream. His work is worthy of philosophical inquiry, but it would have to be lower case, by this I mean quiet and contemplative. This also means that you would need to be realistic and leave any dreams and romanticism behind. I could never imagine Cooper at the table with Ware. Perhaps neither could Cooper, and so Cooper tears in fury and criticizes in the manner for and against his very own.
Jed Perl is essentially talking about Cooper.
Rene Barge
58.
September 14, 2005, 10:12 AM
Creative,
The modernist movement, such as it is, gets the same rough handling that all other movements get. What I glorify is an attitude toward art-making that I feel is perennially valid: that visual art ought to be good visually. That only encounters resistance, as it were, when it comes to some contemporary art, and I have decided in that case that the fault lies with the art, not with the attitude. I have my ears open for arguments to the contrary, but I haven't heard any convincing ones yet, and at this point don't expect to - its proponents, frankly, can't seem to put a cogent argument together.
What's wrong with Cooper dissing the scene? Well, what's wrong with me dissing the scene? I've been at it a lot longer than he has, so if he's a hero, then I'm a champion. And, again, I largely agree with him - the dissonance lies with what I said up in #23. For instance, when I was talking about grants the other day, it would have been insane for me take a hardcore libertarian stance and say that government grants are bad. Why? Because despite my libertarian sympathies, I'm pretty good at getting them and I plan to get more. I find a statement like "through the persistence [etc.], Miami's art community will develop independent of the convention center and the real estate developers" to be potentially bogus on similar grounds. And Perl had conveniently offered a theory about such statements. Again, I'm not in anyone's head, so I don't know, but I know what doesn't add up.
59.
September 14, 2005, 10:16 AM
oldpro, I think they want you to tell them which bad art is the best.
Or else it's a trap.
60.
September 14, 2005, 10:27 AM
Have you worked with any other materials besides paint and pastel Franklin?
And the figure, why is it the subject of your work?
I am just curious. I respect what you do.
61.
September 14, 2005, 10:34 AM
I've played with a lot of digital tools, and have done some programming-generated imagery. I did some performance work at art school - that was fun. I wrote the program that you're using to leave comments and navigate this blog, and a lot of technology fascinates me.
Why the figure? I like the figure. I don't mean to sound flip - I find it endlessly interesting.
62.
September 14, 2005, 10:42 AM
I am curious as to why OldPro, Jack, Franklin, Matty, Etc have not chosen to explore other materials? You seem to have stuck with one medium your entire career. Correct me if I am wrong. I do not wish to be impolite. Just an observation. Yes, this has a point eventually.
63.
September 14, 2005, 10:47 AM
Sorry, boys, I was (am) under the weather.
Look, Franklin, I think that your assertion of a contradicion is wrong.
Matty, I know Franklin didn't say any of those things; I asked questions which logically extended his arguments. His response was that he didn't say those things, which is the safe response if one's arguments don't logically extend where one likes.
Let me try it another way. Franklin, you agree with Cooper. We'll assume that you have no fishiness inherent in your citicisms of the Miami art scene. If what makes Cooper's assuptions fishy are the fact that he has work in the RFC and that he shows at Snitzer (who exhibits at fairs), then is the absence of those attributes what makes your criticisms not fishy, given that the content of the cirtique is the same? If not, then the attributes which you assign to Cooper are weighted differently that the attributes of their reverse, unless there is another characteristic, as yet unidentified, which you posess that renders your criticims more sincere than Cooper's.
What I think is happening is that you are allowing bias (the same bias discssed not too long ago, introduced by George) to direct your arguments. I am not using the "sour grapes" theory, be patient. I think you have a negative opinion about what is currently being called the machine, especially in Miami. I think that you have made the judgement that Cooper is comfortably ensconced in the machine (is association with the machine is an all-or-nothing proposition?) and because you associate Cooper with your opinion of the machine, you are making what appears to be (to you) a logical conclusion that there is something contradictory or fishy about Cooper's statements.
Personally, I'm really glad that people are talking about affordable housing for artists (which is the best thing about this thread--thank goodness people brought that up, thank goodness that non-regular contributors are commenting).
64.
September 14, 2005, 11:04 AM
Creative asks me if I've used other materials besides paint and pastels, I tell him that I've done digital and performance work, and now he's curious why I haven't explored other materials and stuck with one medium my whole life. Listen, man, all I can do is answer the question.
To save time, Jack doesn't make art, OP knows a few digital tools, and I can't speak for Matty.
Coming back at Kathleen soon.
65.
September 14, 2005, 11:16 AM
I would like to engage your question on materials, creative collective, even though you didn't explicitly include me. I think I know where you're heading. Alas, I haven't the time this morning and a recent dopio-espresso impels me giddly onward to the welding shop. You know what they say about making hay, with a needle, while the sun is shining.
66.
September 14, 2005, 11:22 AM
It's the man that makes the media, not the media that makes the man
or, of course...
It's the woman that makes the media, not the media that makes the woman
67.
September 14, 2005, 11:46 AM
It funny creative collective asks about materials. Because I think art is no longer really about materials I think it is more about concept and ideas. It doesn't really matter what materials you use but the language you speak with those materials and their application.
68.
September 14, 2005, 11:47 AM
No matter how politly put, the question about media carries a storng "subtext" that says using only one medium is somehow limiting and narrow. Just for the record, I reject any such implication absiolutely. If anything, it is the other way around.
In terms of flat work, I have done oil and acrylic, of course, and I continue to make small abstract landscapes using oilstick, pastel, spray paint, collage and just about anything that will stick to a surface. I have periodically made sculpture where ever I happened to be that had the facility; most of it it left in situ. I am very interested in photography and did quite a bit of "art"photogrqaphy, particularly when i was in my early 20s. Some of that was shown at the LA County Museum back, when...in the 70s?. I am fairly proficient at Photoshop and I have done a lot of goofy stuff with it, inclufding a whole "Zelig" series as a kind of prank; the idea of altering photographic material "artistically" fascinates me and I am appalled at the dreariness and lack of imagination of the few so-called artists who practice it.
I have nothing against the basic ideas of Postmodernism and nothing against any medium. I do have something against boring, silly, pointless bad art, whatever teh medium
69.
September 14, 2005, 11:56 AM
In reference to the Cooper argument,
Let's say the mechanism of the art world is a cow, a stupid fickle cow that only comes to graze on your lawn if it thinks you are the new or lucrative. When the cow is in your yard, you need to milk it for all it's worth, because any day it may decide to move on to another lawn. Now if the cow happens to be in your yard, you probably still detest it for all its whims and stupidity, but you'll take whatever milk you can while the getting is good. This is where I believe many artists are. They don't like the art world, but if they can get some now, they will, and who can blame them?
Imagine for a second that the local, national, global art scene decides that thick, impastoed, somewhat abstracted figure painting was the next big thing. Wouldn't you Franklin, milk the cow, whilst still detesting it?
70.
September 14, 2005, 11:56 AM
Harlan, art is not "about" anything. It either works or it doesn't.
71.
September 14, 2005, 12:01 PM
No doubt Franklin would be cursing all the way to the bank.
72.
September 14, 2005, 12:32 PM
re: #67 Because I think art is no longer really about materials I think it is more about concept and ideas. It doesn't really matter what materials you use but the language you speak with those materials and their application.
This is the new "party line" but essentially meaningless because of the form-content duality (smile Matty ;-) which I discussed at length in comment #102 yesterday. I don't think art was ever really about the materials, they exist to give form to the work. While I am partial to the choice of content driving form I also believe that the form must be brought to a successful resolution in order to make an enduring art. In general I agree that it doesn't matter which materials or medium you choose. Non traditional media lack much of a history which makes historical comparison more difficult. The more traditional forms like painting have a tradition dating back 40 thousand years, so the works inevitably are compared with the historical antecedents.
What passes for "concept and ideas" today, is essentially nothing more than an artists style, which is the same as it always has been except that the content end of the form-content duality is driving the process. This is just part of a cycle of interest and I would suggest that in the rush to find a new concept or idea one will start to discover that the territory is already staked out and what is left is the intellectual backwater, brackish and without current. I would ask where is the territory less occupied and suggest focusing less on the "idea and concepts" but on making them engage the audience as artworks. The context of history has not disappeared, it does not disappear with a new media or idea or concept, and all the variants in today's art will inevitably be judged on their historical merits.
73.
September 14, 2005, 12:43 PM
Oldpro (#49), while I'm surely tempted to elaborate on your admirably succint response to Mr. Boprae's, uh, art, I can't do it. It's way too easy a target, and hardly worth addressing (other than to say it's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect in a Las Olas gallery). The way he's being used, however, by the Cynergi people is so flagrantly stereotypical that the only proper response is mocking laughter. Anyone who falls for this sort of adverstising deserves to be had.
74.
September 14, 2005, 12:51 PM
I am curious as to why OldPro, Jack, Franklin, Matty, Etc have not chosen to explore other materials? You seem to have stuck with one medium your entire career. Correct me if I am wrong. I do not wish to be impolite. Just an observation. Yes, this has a point eventually.
There can't possible be a point to this, because it's based on incorrect assumptions. Who says we haven't worked with, sorry, "explored" other materials? Our entire careers? You know nothing about the careers you are speaking of. So consider yourself corrected.
I will say though, that I think there is value to be found in focus, or specialization. A painter is bound to get better, at least in the technical aspects of using paint, the more the painter works with that material. Same goes for specialists in fields outside of art.
So, Creative, why not spare us the suspense and tell us what your point was going to be?
Oh, and George, thanks, I'm smiling ;)... although I didn't read that long post of yours on the other page... OP was right, you should keep your comments shorter... short comments, you have my attention... long essays, zzzzzzzz.
75.
September 14, 2005, 12:51 PM
His response was that he didn't say those things, which is the safe response if one's arguments don't logically extend where one likes.
It also cuts off a lot of pointless discussion that generates when the questioner is trying to disprove one by reductio ad absurdum.
"Weighted differently that the attributes of their reverse"? The rest of #63 is intentional fallacy. Cooper is denigrating phenomena that benefit him directly. Explain.
Tabletalk has made an astute observation in #69. It has come up - I once saw a press release describing me as a "hot, emerging expressionist" or some such thing and I wanted to rip off my eyebrows. But I would be awfully careful about detesting that cow. I don't detest gentrification all that vehemently for the same reason - it benefits me big time.
76.
September 14, 2005, 12:54 PM
I should add, in all fairness to Mr. Boprae, that I'm sure he cuts a dashing figure while making his art, even if the art just doesn't cut it. Sort of like, "it's not what you do, but how good you look doing it." I'm sure the Cynergi people understand that concept perfectly.
I don't know, Oldpro, maybe you need some photos of yourself working shirtless and/or posing immersed in the contemplation of the mysteries of art. That might just put you over the edge and get a fancy gallery interested in promoting your Minimalist period (just avoid having messy paint all over the place, or other pesky signs of reality).
77.
September 14, 2005, 12:57 PM
yeah, Jack, the art and the ad idea and the whole thing, its all pretty lame.
The Las Olas web site was interesting, It is full of the kind of bad art I used to see years ago at the "social" galleries in places like Palm Beach and Nantucket and Wally Findlay in NY, only a little more on the abstract side. Also, all the artists seem to have French names.
The whole thing had a "made up" look about it, as if a Pomo artist had simply invented it.
Now, there's something I could appreciate.
78.
September 14, 2005, 12:59 PM
Photos of me working shirtless would not promote anything except exhortations that I should exercise and go on a diet, I guarantee you.
79.
September 14, 2005, 1:53 PM
George's response to Harlan in #72 was pretty good. I want to take it further:
Art is no longer about materials. Art is also no longer about concepts and ideas. What is it about then? What is your breathing about?
80.
September 14, 2005, 2:19 PM
at the risk of getting jumped for not qualifying the following statement, or not properly supporting it with further arguement , or failing to "carefully think things through", i propose that art is about life and ideas and materials and concepts and visual pleasure and commodity and desire and oh-so-many things.
It is not solely about what works or what does not, though it does tka it into account.
81.
September 14, 2005, 2:22 PM
82.
September 14, 2005, 2:30 PM
Very good, Franklin.
But I think Trisa has the final word. "Art is about 'oh-so-many things'"
That really nails it.
83.
September 14, 2005, 2:57 PM
Oh Franklin, I don't think that is quite the right path.
Yes, art is about life.
Art is about oh so many things as Trisa so aptly noted.
but history, the memory of things past, has a different viewpoint.
glazed into the febrile memory of club nights dancing over small victories
lies forgotten as footnotes, dust of the nameless
exhibitions of yesterdays fancy, filling time like mortar
between the moments of true revelation called out
with your mothers voice, so softly only you hear
if you know this moment, but once to tears
everything else is history's dust
well, it's shorter
84.
September 14, 2005, 4:25 PM
#79 Point taken I guess. I mean when it comes down to it I don't care if your Cooper or Franklyn as long as your making things because you have to and not because you think its cool or 'in' or stylish or to sell condos then. more power to you. At the end of the day all of this is subjective I find a lot of painting boring but a lot of people don't I like a Damien Hurst now and again and some people, a lot of people think he is a hack. At least we seem to be agreeing that an artist who is the poster boy for a condo makes him a hack.
85.
September 14, 2005, 5:00 PM
Being a poster boy for a condo does not make him a hack, Harlan; bad art does.
86.
September 14, 2005, 5:03 PM
Although being a poster boy for a condo doesn't exactly help.
87.
September 14, 2005, 7:31 PM
I'm sure those who, unlike me, are not fashion-challenged, and especially those who, unlike me, ever had a remote chance of getting work as a model would know this, but how does one get one's hair to look like this guy's? It certainly looks artificial, but it's more interesting, formally speaking, than his art work (which, by the way, seems heavily pod-based, as Oldpro surely noticed). The fresh-off-the-store-rack brushes, though, are unforgivably gauche. Way to go, Cynergi.
88.
September 14, 2005, 7:46 PM
It's gel, Jack. You know, like you buy at Pearl or Utrecht.
It's what they used to call a "permanent"
89.
September 14, 2005, 11:34 PM
If you mix gauche with acrylic it's permanent
90.
September 15, 2005, 7:10 AM
George, is that word play (gauche for gouache) or do you have your spellings mixed up?
91.
September 15, 2005, 7:13 AM
You're slow on the draw this morning, OP - he was playing on gauche, permanent, and gel (acrylic).
92.
September 15, 2005, 8:01 AM
I guess I am slow. I don't get it. Gauche meanbs socially awkward. I already made the play on permanent.
Please explain.
93.
September 15, 2005, 8:12 AM
Gauche, permanent, and gel were all mentioned above, and George noted that when you mix gauche with acrylic it becomes permanent. It's an art materials joke. It's also withering under excessive scrutiny.
94.
September 15, 2005, 8:19 AM
Franklin's got it.
95.
September 15, 2005, 8:30 AM
It is withering, all right.
First, the play on 'permanent" was made when I joked that he was using acrylic gel instead of hair gel.
Second "gauche" is not an art material. It is a word meaning "socially awkward". The art material is "gouache".
Sorry to be picky, but I still don't get it.
96.
September 15, 2005, 8:31 AM
He's punning on gauche/gouache.
97.
September 15, 2005, 8:53 AM
I didn't know the word "gauche" had come up earlier in the discussion.
It is a bit of a stretch, but OK.
98.
September 15, 2005, 9:00 AM
Don't lose your tempera
It probably wouldn't have occurred to me except that I'm working on gessoed paper and I have a bunch of old gouache that I use every now and then to tint the ground.
So I notice that gouache, a kind of paint, sounds like gauche, your necktie and I start humming to myself "gouache, gauche", "gauche, gouache" , "gauche, gouache" which is kind of catchy.
Then it occurs to me that if you mix gouache with gel (acrylic) it really becomes acrylic, not gouache which is wettable. If it's acrylic it's permanent, right?
So I turned gouache into acrylic and made it permanent or did I turn something gauche permanent? So you were supposed to see the play on the two words "gouache" and "gauche", "gauche" which Op supplied and "gouache" which I supplied, together with "gel" which Op supplied and "acrylic" which I mutated from gel and then mix them all up.
I guess it isn't much of a joke,
more like a pun
99.
September 15, 2005, 9:04 AM
Jack said "gauche" up in #87.
100.
September 15, 2005, 9:04 AM
Yeh, even I had it wrong in my term paper #98
It was Jack, not oldpro, who mentioned gauche in #87 in referring to " fresh-off-the-store-rack brushes" and then it oldpro who used the words "gel" and "permanent" in the same comment. I mixed then up like a salad.
101.
September 15, 2005, 9:06 AM
must be a slow news day
102.
September 15, 2005, 9:45 AM
Gosh. It's all so confusing.
I was going to respond to cc's materials question, yesterday, but ya'll got to it well ahead of me. Come back to it cc, stage two, where you get a chance to critique the answers. You obviously had a rhetorical thrust - let's hear it.
103.
September 15, 2005, 9:52 AM
George you redeemed yourself with "Don't lose your tempera".
I can understand jokes gesso long as they are obvious.
104.
September 15, 2005, 9:53 AM
I, for one, answered CC, Ahab.
Got no response.
105.
September 15, 2005, 9:55 AM
Looks like we're having brushes with humor.
106.
September 15, 2005, 10:14 AM
Yeah, I know oldpro, ya'll got to cc well ahead of me. I had wanted to type something along the same lines about the underlying false assumption that working in a single material is stultifying. And who says I've never dabbled.
I will just add that simple and direct are qualities largely absent from tthis crazy culture, I would like to reintroduce them. Simply and directly, in the form of sculptures made from steel.
107.
September 15, 2005, 10:30 AM
Putting it all into perspective
Its all about percentages...via Don Wolanchuk
From a strictly mathematical viewpoint it goes like this:
What Makes 100%?
What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?
What about those who say they are giving more than 100%?
Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you
answer these questions:
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26.
Then:
H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%
And
K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%
But,
A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%
And,
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%
And, look how far ass kissing will take you.
A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%
So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that..
While Hard Work and Knowledge may get you close, and
Attitude almost gets you there....
it's the Bullshit and Ass Kissing that will put you over the top!
108.
September 15, 2005, 10:39 AM
Al kydding aside, Franklin, it's not prime humor, just medium, but you can brace yourself or duck when it looms. Or chalk it up to pad taste. I am board with it myself; in fact, some of it makes me bristol with anger. Actually I am going to the matte with this one: Some of these sharpies are really full of sheet. But most of it just goes down the tubes and can be easely dismissed.
Sorry folks. I can't help myself.
109.
September 15, 2005, 11:13 AM
As the ruler of this operation I wouldn't try to paper over drier expressions of humor, even if they don't gel for you, or stetcher patience. Oil try to keep things o-pen for everything, except lacquer understanding, of course.
110.
September 15, 2005, 12:27 PM
We better stop this. I think we have "dematerialized" the discussion.
1.
Brook
September 13, 2005, 10:44 AM
I agree mostly with Cooper's observations on the art scene as well.
A little history of Wynwood.
In 1999 / 2000 The Rubells had been there for years, but thier place was not open to the general public, by appointment and special tours only. Locust Projects was the first real venue to bring crowds (of artists mostly) to the Wynwood hood, and at that time it really was da hood. Cooper knows cause he was there living it.
The Bakehouse was in the hood for years, but never really had many people go there. Marty Marguiles had just purchased his Warehouse, but did not open until much later to the public. Bernice Steinbaum opened in February of 2000 to a gigantic crowd. Then I opened on March 3rd, 2000 to another gigantic crowd and the gentrification was in 1st gear.
In every city Galleries will come and go and Miami is no different. It is a strange business, most times stranger than the art itself.