|
|
Re: Feedback on Articles
Posted:
Jun 28, 2005 9:55 AM
|
|
> Kathryn, hello, again, my meandering points are the
> thoughts that pop up after I read the articles, and
> other effluvia issued from on high, some of which is
> particularly unintelligible. Such as the comment
> made by a French dude, Philippe Vergne, (someone, by
> the by, whom a certain woman artist wished to meet in
> a bygone article), that American culture was run by
> "Cartesian logic" (Descartes to the peanut gallery),
> you know, the guy who said "I think, therefore I am"?
>
>
> Stuff like that, being able to sit in the funk-haven
> Nordeest Modern, and think-speak yer way through
> pot-roast, with wine, clarifies the position for
> Minnesota artists. I and you and Jimmy and Ray and
> Gabe, and literally tens of thousands Minnesota
> artists, artists who actually grind through years,
> maybe painting, maybe not, are, in fact, the butt of
> much derisive laughter, I'm sure, of those in power
> positions. That's one of the smaller predicaments of
> life.
>
> And why do we need these details of the lives (?) of
> these curators anyway? I guess to keep them up where
> they can do their unintelligible work. Why would an
> artist hope to bump into, or send slides to Philippe?
> Well, she probably knows that if "he" places her
> work in the Whitney beeee-in-alley, fame and fortune
> await.
>
> The whole scene, as I begin to see it, is not real.
> I can't believe that any artist promoted by any
> curator, or to a lesser extent, any critic, isn't
> selected without an eye to the career of that very
> curator. If she/he picks the "wrong" art, it's the
> end. So, many of the choices appear going along to
> get along. I never see anything risky at the WAC.
> Predictable.
>
> And I got my MAEP postcard last week, and whad-a-you
> think was on the front? You guessed it. A
> self-portrait dolly, naked, with black nylons, and
> her thingees showing. Again, predictable. This is
> what I expect, shocking, repetitive to banality,
> nudity. Next thing you know, someone will start
> painting their penis. And a curator will "discover"
> this work in, you guessed it, a foreign country,
> after an extended six month hiatus, and bring it back
> to "shock" the rubes.
>
> One of the VACUUM (sp?) contributors during the
> "political MAEP show" last year mused at the lack of
> "shocking" content. And I thought, "Really?" Would
> he be able to identify "shocking" art considering the
> stifling atmosphere of the academy? Of course he
> couldn't because the shocking art was staring him in
> the face, and he dismissed it with, you guessed it,
> harsh criticism. There it was, the bulldog piece,
> not that it was a fine piece of art, mind you, but
> finally something that shocks schmarties. And they
> dismiss it, shocking ideas, in art museums.
>
> I keep asking for Miller to write, "Death of an
> Apparatchik" and I'm amazed that a schmarty doesn't
> ask why. Of course the apparatchik is now dead, but
> it would make a shocking addition to the resume of
> any playwright. However, artists cannot do this
> work, yet. They are yet too close the permanent
> revolution. Maybe in a hundred years.
Thanks for saying the thongs I have been saying for the past couple of years. I guess they are more acceptable from a white artist instead of a brown one.
I have been removed from the MAEP mailer list! Is't it funny!
The nude is back. I too have started to paint nudes; nude tractors, shovels, tools, I even getting ready to try nude barns, wish me luck with curatorial mob when they have to shudder on my "nudes".
coyote infinity
|
|
