Modern Kicks

the very face of cryptofascism today

What to do with an art critic full of hot air?  Ed Winkleman first defends himself, but then can't help but try and reason with the guy; Geoff Edgers just deflates him.  I like both.  As to the underlying issue, no doubt some ambiguity between being engagé and conflicted can exist; but allowances made for the great during different times can't be expected to apply to those who toil in today's workaday world.  Another solution is possible, of course, for those who, like our protesting critic, want to preserve a certain coziness: never rise to a level at which responsibility is expected of one.  That, at any rate, seems to be his solution.

midwinter report

A bit melodramatic, like a lot of his stuff, but it still strikes a chord, especially at the end of one in a series of long days.  Not that my life is anywhere near this, but isn't that part of the point?  A little wallowing has such a cathartic effect.  And the piano part is lovely.

These Days (I Barely Get By) - George Jones

i know how she feels

Tough week, with connectivity issues at home and lots to do at work.  Try to be better soon.  In the meantime, go vote for this lolcat; she'd vote for you.

"ogni giorno è buono per nascere; ogni giorno è buono per morire"

This just appeared in my inbox and I couldn't resist it:

THE SMALL ARTS GROUP DIE-OFF
SUNDAY, JANUARY 13, 2008 --A feature of ‘Al’s Crockpot’ at OUTPOST
186 Hampshire St., Cambridge, Massachusetts (enter rear door on side path)
Doors open at 8 pm for Chili, gathering…8:30 pm Die-Off begins

Is your small arts group feeling hopeless?  Tired of bashing your head against the wall? Do you suffer from artistic depression? According to the latest report of the Boston Foundation, if your small arts group’s “vision either dissipated or lost its resonance with its audience or  supporters,” you should think about pulling the plug.  Of course, you’ve thought of ending it all before, but now a Major Player in the Boston arts scene is calling out to you with an expensive new study.  Look deep into your heart.  Consider how fruitless it all seems. Think of the burden that will be lifted from your shoulders if you answer their call for small arts groups to die. No one wants to go first.  But after that, it gets easier, and if enough groups expire, the ones that live on will be stronger and help Boston be a world-class city.  Wouldn’t it be easier if groups went together, all at once?  Come and join us. Represent your small art group – whether real or imagined.  Together, we will inspire one another to perform our ultimate acts in a loving circle of small-art-group friendship.

A $5 donation helps to pay for free Kool-Aid and further die-offs.
For more encouragement, go to responsibleart.org
To see the report, go to tbf.org  Sign a PETITION (see below) at: ipetitions.com/petition/BFsmallarts
For More Info: Funeral Director: Ian MacKinnon, 617-491-8971,
artezani@verizon.net

And the petition:

Dear Boston Foundation,

We are inspired by your recent report on Boston cultural groups, Vital Signs. Now we are calling on you to put your money where your mouth is.  You recommend that some small arts groups dissolve. Well, the fact is that funerals cost money. It can be expensive to turn off the lights. We would hate to think that you would issue a report saying some should die off without offering to help them put themselves out of their misery. Small arts groups that choose to go to the great beyond will be giving their lives so that the arts scene of Boston will be stronger and our city will be seen as World-Class. Often when small arts groups die, there is little closure and bitterness prevails. Instead, they can be encouraged with financial support for final performances and/or paying the last phone bill. They can die with dignity. Perhaps, if the cause truly moves you, you could even fund an artistic float on First Night memorializing the small arts groups that answered your call.

We, the undersigned, are putting an end to it all, considering it, or sympathizing with those who are doing so. Just think: If you gave a mere $10,000 in 20 $500 grants, 20 groups would be encouraged to die off, be it by grand farewell or neat demise. Other groups, idly thinking of the ultimate sacrifice, could be given the push they need. If that $10,000 does not work, then a new round of Encouragement Grants could be given until arts groups of all sizes have the right funding climate here in Boston.  Oh, and by the way, could you outline what your ideal innovative start-up is in case anyone wants to start a group that could justify your funding something small and new again?

If anyone goes, send a report.  Until then, this gets filed under "modest proposals."

the worst

Paddy Johnson has a very amusing post up on the "Worst of the Web" for 2007.  It's as opinionated as you'd expect (and want), and nails a number of ripe targets.  As I commented there, I think she's a little too tough on Artworld Salon; in design terms, it's a pretty standard sort of blog, and while I understand her objections to the content, nothings going to appeal to everyone.  While I agree that their comments policy is too restrictive, that's a topic different people chose to handle differently--some opting for no comments at all, a valid choice but arguably even worse than highly controlled threads.  Anyway, I described my real enjoyment of the post in a comment I made there, reproduced here in slightly edited form:

Oh my god, I was reading along thinking you were being a little tough on Artworld Salon, saying to myself, “If she thinks they’re bad, I’m going to have to point her to RISD’s website.” I chortled when I scrolled down.

I remember several years ago talking with someone on the museum’s staff who asked me out of the blue, “What do you think of the website?” I started to stammer, not wanting to say flat out that I thought it stank, when she gave a wicked smile and said, “Not a fan of the duck gallery, huh?” And that’s exactly what that awful front page is like. Evidently there was a lot of anxiety over it having an appropriately impressive design, pressure that ultimately delivered the absolutely wrong result.

The worst parts, however, are the museum collection pages. They took the time to present extensive selections from all departments of the museum–in images so small as to be worthless. Keep in mind that, after the basic information–hours, admission fees, current exhibitions–collection pages are what visitors to the museum’s part of the website most want to see. In person, William Powell Frith’s Salon D’Or, Hamburg is nearly 50 inches tall and over 100 inches wide, with every person depicted engaged in some distinct action charged with narrative; online (it’s number 8 on the Painting and Sculpture page) it’s about 1″ x 2″ and impossible to see.  And it was just as much work to create those pages of tiny, crappy images as it would have been to do it right.

I mentioned the Frith because if you're not getting the narrative element, you're not getting anything at all from that painting.  The point could just as easily have been made regarding their Rothko, Manet, Sargents, etc.  And seriously, all of the images are done through pop-ups: literally just as much work to put up in their absurdly small size as if they had done them larger.  I realize museums don't want high-quality images of their collection escaping their (already limited) control, but really, a better balance between online access and security would not have been hard to achieve.

woke up this morning with the hot water

Crisis averted, how about a little fun?  Not only in keeping with recent events, it can double as a personal, belated "best of 2007" post.  Not that I've heard the whole record, but the song is great.  I remember the SO coming in once when I was listening to it; she asked, "When was this recorded?"  "Um, this year, I think," was my reply.  "Sounds like it was 50 years ago," she replied.  That's part of the fun of it.  Also it reminds one how much fun Tom Waits can still be as a songwriter now and again.

Cold Water - John Hammond

. . .

It was going to be a pretty slow post-holiday week anyway--there's just not a lot going on--but having the pipes freeze has pushed writing even further down the list of things to do.  Back soon.

a little self-indulgence

Because otherwise, what's a blog for?  Kriston Capps decided to answer Peter Plagens' questions himself, to add to the conversation, and kicked it out to others to do the same.  The idea to do so had already occurred to me, and I had chosen not to; but Kriston not only included two links here in his post as well as a flattering comment, so what the hell, I'm easily bought.  I'm putting the rest under the fold to not bother those who'd rather not be bothered.  And while I won't kick it out to specific others as Kriston does, I do join him in encouraging anyone else who'd like to take part.  Anyway, moving on,

art (blogs) in america

Give Peter Plagens credit: after getting raked over the coals online last winter, he opted to put together a feature on art blogs rather than simply lash out against a phenomenon he admits he knew little about.  Even smarter, having realized that (I paraphrase) the distinctive element about blogs lies in their role as a platform from which to talk back, he let the story be told through the words of several prominent online writers--you can get the rundown here.  The result, of course, is the already-mentioned Art in America article, "Report from the Blogosphere: The  New Grass Roots," in the new issue of the magazine (but with no version as yet online, unfortunately.)

Having now read it, I'm sorry to say that, through no one's fault in particular, it's a bit dull.  Or at least it is to anyone who has more than a passing familiarity with blogs, as the questions revolve around old warhorses like editorial control, relative prestige of different media, dealing with comments and trolling, etc.  To the extent that one must assume Art in America's audience is not terribly internet savvy, that probably makes it a useful article, though it does pull the rug out from under my argument that the most interested audience for it would be online--if anything, it's the opposite.  There are a few intriguing nuggets I might return to, but for now I'll just point out two off-notes that struck me.  First, Plagens makes sure to note that he didn't mean any insult when he wrote in February that "More and more people in the audience for contemporary art would rather read Tyler Green snark somebody in his blog, Modern Art Notes, than ponder the considered judgment of Michael Kimmelman on a MOMA retrospective."  That's nice, but his further remark that he, too, prefers snark goes right by what Tyler objected to in the statement and continues to perpetuate the idea that snark is all MAN (or similar sites) do.  Second, Ed Winkleman noted his impression that his contributions to the article seemed to be more heavily edited that those of the others.  I don't know that his answer to the first question--what do the writers see as the purpose of their sites--was one that got chopped down.  Its content, however--a bald statement that the blog is a marketing tool for the gallery, and nothing more--makes it seem so and doesn't do full credit to his online work.  Sure the marketing aspect is fundamental; I don't think Ed's ever made any bones about that.  But anyone who reads his page will see that he brings much more to it than a simple pr need would suggest.  A little more context would have painted a more accurate picture, I think, though perhaps I'm wrong and Ed would disagree.

Art in America's efforts have also brought forth a little tantrum as ugly as it was predictable from one frequent target of art blogs.  I'm not going to link to it, though I'm sure anyone reading this site has already seen it or can find it easily enough.  I will repeat the gist of a comment I left elsewhere regarding the outburst:

The writer is a garden-variety troll, nothing more.  He and his editor enjoy trying to piss people off and the attention that ensues.  The Art in America article provided an occasion for them to take potshots against some people who've criticized them in the past and they took it. At the same time, that editor is quoted in the same AiA article comparing his site to a blog, trying to get some of the buzz that publication's providing. And I can understand the anxiety that leads the author to write as he does and his editor to publish it: no one pays to read him--it's hard to even conceive of doing so--and the website he's published on essentially amounts to a very useful artist/gallery listings service and auction database with a vanity publication attached. Growth in other online media and art writing only exposes that fact more and more each day.

And that's that.

water, water everywhere

I had planned on going apple picking this past holiday weekend and then maybe doing a little writing, but that sounded like too much fun, so instead I spent my time dealing with a leaking pipe.  Pulling waterlogged carpeting out of the basement?  It's molderiffic!  So now I'm tired, loaded with work, cranky, and as soon as the plumber finishes his work, about to be considerably poorer.  I'll be back when I can.