Previous: from last weekend at esperanto (80)
Next: ralph provisero kicks butt in chicago (37)
picked up by the week
Post #561 • June 20, 2005, 10:24 AM • 9 Comments
The review I wrote about the Anne Chu show for the Miami New Times got excerpted by The Week, a digest of US and international news media. Thanks to Mary Malm for discovering it.
Occasionally I go through periods of forehead-clutching about whether all this writing about art amounts to anything, and things like this incline me to keep at it. Whomever you folks are up at The Week, thank you.
2.
June 20, 2005, 6:01 PM
It seems to me that the problem with writing about art is two-fold: the writing needs to be worth reading, which is all too frequently not the case, and, even if it's good writing, it needs a serious, perceptive and receptive audience. I'm reminded of the story of a negative review that got the gallery/artist in question positive attention because a number of readers only noticed (or cared) that the show had been covered in a certain media source. Readers, obviously, also need to be able to review the reviewer and whatever s/he writes. That's why I no longer read reviews by certain people who've proved useless to me, except perhaps in cases where the show is of particular interest, I've seen it and I want to know how badly the critic mishandled it. It may be malicious pleasure, but one takes what one can get.
3.
June 20, 2005, 9:39 PM
Franklin,
old pro is right. Don't be frustrated. You need to know that what you do with your writing in and outside of the blog reverberates, benefits and influences in places beyond your control or awareness, and karma-wise this is a good thing.
I for one find it reassuring to know that when I feel doubtful, or in those nebulous moments of down time when not working in the studio, artblog is there for me to read and remember that there are others out there to whom rumination on all things art is necessary and positive and life-affirming.
4.
June 20, 2005, 9:40 PM
The article is credited to Ane Chu... What's up with these dorks at Week; haven't they ever heard of attribution? Plus, shouldn't you be getting some sort of renumeration? Aren't they making money from the sweat of your brow??
5.
June 20, 2005, 10:46 PM
It's remuneration, Alesh. Renumeration woulkd be "counting again", and Franklin did not get counted the first time, according to your observation.
Otherwise I agree with you. I missed the fact that they didn't give the right credit. Franklin should protest.
6.
June 20, 2005, 10:59 PM
Germain, thank you.
Alesh & Olpro: fair use laws dictate that other publications can freely excerpt my work, as long as they don't use the entire piece, and that is what The Week has done here. That works in my favor too; I can quote from anything I please here at Artblog.net without seeking permission or paying authors, again as long as I don't reprint an entire article. The article doesn't credit Chu - that's an accident of layout. In the print version of the magazine no one has a byline. I think of it as free publicity. Kind of have to, really...
7.
June 20, 2005, 11:27 PM
Wait, I see what you're talking about now. That attribution looks weird, no two ways about it. Again, the print version didn't credit anyone. Hm.
8.
June 21, 2005, 12:13 AM
Fair use applies if you're quoting something in order to critique it. If they'd been writing an article about Franklin's art criticism, they could quote your review. If they were satirizing you, they could quote you. But all they're doing is publishing art criticism, without any additional discussion or commentary. Plus, the "excerpt" seems a lot longer then anything I've seen justified under fair use. The rule is that if reading their excerpt is a reasonable substitution of reading the original piece (which clearly it IS), then it's theft. In any case, proper attribution should be made.
If you sold the piece to the New Times, it's possible they made an arrangement. Even stil, I don't see why they wouldn't run the byline. The whole thing is shady.
9.
June 21, 2005, 12:18 AM
oh crap; I just looked again and boy was I wrong...
it looks like quoting you for the sake of talking about art criticism is exactly what they're doing. oh well, nevermind everything I said.
the online byline IS stupid, though
1.
oldpro
June 20, 2005, 5:50 PM
That's excellent. I don't know that publication but it seems very well designed and thorough, like an on-line Newsweek only "cleaner", less cluttered.
Don't get frusrtrated. You got tthis and the New Times kudo and there is a lot going on, cooking away, that you can't know about. It'll all come together.