tulsatrix

Did Marina Get a Boob Job?

2010-04-01T15:06:00.000-07:00

I'm in New York now, a place any arts editor should be half of their life. This silly comparison of LA vs NY in the art world goes through my mind almost every time I'm here. Most of the time I feel Los Angeles is up to par. This time though, I have to say New York beats out Los Angeles. But...most of the artists are from LA! And that can easily change with the rotation of shows next month.

My first stop in the Big Apple:

The stellar show by Marina Abramovic at MoMA was a must see, and I'm glad I must saw. It was funny, horrifying, hard to watch and silly too. When you first enter, there's a big screen (pictured) of her brushing her thick brunette mop on a screen near the top of the ceiling. It's just her upper torso on black-and-white film. You first think, oh, another good-looking dame, doing autobiographical art about her, her, her and lots of her great body nude. She's attractive (natch) and there she is, preening for all to see. But then she starts to brush her hair more and more, harder and harder, swinging her head with the beat of the brush, sweeping her thick luscious mop, from side to side, then in front of her face and back behind. And VERY hard. It looks like it hurts. She moans when she's doing it. It starts to be hard to look at. You think she's going to literally tear her hair out, clumps by clumps. I change my mind about the good-looking exhibitionist artist. I don't want to watch anymore. I can't bear to watch her tear her hair out. I'm not sure she does.

I move to the black-and-white films/videos?, three of them, off to the side. One is her (presumably), where she's wearing a cloth draped over her face like a mask or veil, and she's naked. (note: if she's not naked, I will mention it, otherwise, assume she's naked). And she's sort of dancing and bouncing around. Over and over. Kinda funny. I like that piece. Not sure why. It's fun to see her be-bopping with a mask on and watch her tits bounce up and down. She's slender and small breasted (more on that later). The other one is where she's lying down face up, and we just see her upper torso with her head almost coming off the bottom frame of the film. She's screaming. Screaming at the top of her lungs. It's agonizing. It goes on and on. You can hear it throughout the gallery. It doesn't stop. You try to drown it out—and you sort of can. I liked that part. Like a crying baby. Like the '50s parents that were told to let their child just scream until they go to sleep on their own. I felt like that parent in the '50s. If I make believe it's not happening, I won't hear it.

Then there's the two naked people at the doorway. The two that stand close to each other, and the only way to get by is to squeeze through them. I had heard about this piece. This is an early work that is reenacted by other performers. I wasn't sure I wanted to do it, but then saw someone else do it, so I grabbed my husband and said, "Let's do it. We can't go to this show and say we didn't do it." So we did it. It was no big deal. If I brushed against his dick or her breasts, it was hard to tell. I had too many clothes on. The models were indifferent and wouldn't make eye contact, so really, what was the big deal? I said, "Excuse me," they said nothing.

The next room was a more recent work, where there was a picture of her in a white lab coat surrounded by bloody bones. The bones looked like big cow bones. Then they were piled high around her. Whether they were cast bones or real ones, it was hard to tell. This was okay work. I guess it was heavy, like the other stuff.

Then we went to another room, and we're back to the earlier black-and-white films, which I like a lot. There's a naked guy who runs full force into a rope, like a sling, and is bounced back. He does this over and over. It's funny. We laugh. I ask why does he have to be nude? My husband replies, "Because no one would watch it otherwise." I thought that was a good answer. It's good to take non art people to shows. They actually come up with smarter ways of looking at things. They take things at face value, and I think that's a real honest evaluation of art.

There were other things about this show. Like the piece in the public space, where the artist herself is doing a live performance where she stares at volunteers who sit in a chair facing Abramovic, and they have a stare down. I was perplexed to know which was the real artist the first time I saw it. The two at the table were sort of the same age. One was much better at staring, she didn't blink her eyes once. I was impressed. She had long dark hair, looked to be middle-aged and well-preserved. Turned out is was Abramovic. But she had large breasts. That is something I really want to talk about.

Did this artist have a boob-job? That is completely ridiculous if she did, but with all the documentation of her nude in the '7os, it is most clear that she did indeed get a boob job. That seems to go against everything she purportedly is for. I am most disappointed if this is a reality, and how can it not be? The girl got her boobs done. How lame is that?

If anyone out there knows this to be true, then I need to reassess this artist's work. Is this like Orlan, where she has plastic surgery under the guise of performance art, when really, it's just about vanity and her fear of getting old, and perhaps looking old.

Scaredy Cats

2010-03-17T21:28:00.000-07:00

The new May issue of Artillery is out now. It was a bitch to get out, but it's done and I haven't heard too many negative comments. In fact, quite the opposite. So if you're reading this, quick, go out and get your new Artillery.

NOTE: I wrote the above last week, and was interrupted. So there's an update on that positive note. Actually, there's been a few negative comments. I've been applauded for my editor's letter, cutting no slack for our advertisers that dropped out because of our last SEX issue. I'm still quite puzzled about that. I mean, this is the art world, right, that Artillery covers. WTF, is all I can say.

But now, apparently some people are upset because we covered the MOCA controversy, concerning the hiring of Jeffrey Deitch. WTF again, I say. Are we supposed to put our head in the sand and not talk about this? Was our coverage just supposed to be all positive and cheery and STUPID? The art world is indeed a funny place. So many people to please, that it's impossible to please everyone.

So, obviously we do what one does in that situation. Please themselves. My job--to cover things in the art world that ARE controversial. And present both sides if we can. I felt that's what we did with the Deitch coverage.

If folks can't handle that, then we are in a very bad way. When I get flack for speaking honestly, that fuels me to go forward, and tells me I'm on the right track. There's a lot of scared people in the art world. I feel sorry for them.

Going through the Motions

2010-03-02T08:55:00.000-08:00

It's been a week now since I've left Spain. What a whirlwind of art. The mixing of time periods did a number on me. Just seeing the history of all that art made my head spin. It made me think of what kind of art history are we creating now?

My last visit in a museum in Madrid was at the Thyssen-Bornemisza. We visited the early modern collection which was just stellar. Most of the collection was paintings. There was an early Willem de Kooning that was to die for, Hombre Rojo con Bigote (1971), pictured. Edward Goldman, of the Art Talk KCRW fame accompanied me, and he was a joy to go around and look at art with — especially in the museums, and especially in Europe. There was a bench in front of the de Kooning, and we sat down and stared deeply, and blankly, into the painting. Then Edward began to tell a story about how de Kooning had Alzheimer's for the latter part of his life, but kept on painting. How the assistants would wheel him in front of an empty canvas, have his palette ready (colors that they were very rehearsed in mixing), then lift his hand with the glob of paint on it, and set his hand in motion, sort of a kick-start. Then Willem would be off and running.

These latter paintings received mixed reviews. One would say that de Kooning was literally just "going through the motions." Of course art dealers and auctioneers would say they were just as important, but as we stared at the painting before us, with the colors dripping and mixing and moving, it was hard to imagine someone painting without their mind. Edward argued that one does need their mind to paint, as the hands of a painter are just their tools.

I agreed with him wholeheartedly, being a painter myself (back in the day). We swiveled in our seats to see the Rothko painting on the other wall. We looked at that, and wondered what is it about Rothkos! I said that maybe we're supposed to go to the Rothko chapel to really "see" what all the fuss is about.

That was my last day at a museum in Madrid. The next day I took off a day of art, and went around eating, shopping, walking, dodging in and out of cafes to avoid the sporadic rain, and it was a glorious day in Madrid. Every time the sun came out, we'd say, "Oh look, the sun's coming out and it's not going to rain again." The five minutes later, there'd be a downpour.

Life doesn't get much better.

Meaning of life and art

2010-02-21T16:35:00.000-08:00

Still in Madrid, and not being a very devoted blogger. The Internet situation at our hotel was intolerable. Very slow, hard to get on, frustrating. I started giving up. Now at a much cheaper hotel, and the Internet hookup much better. We're staying at the center of the city, Plaza del Sol, near the Prado, Reina Sofia and the Thyssen-Bornemisza museum. I visited the Prado earlier, and was so taken with Goya; the Bosch's were amazing too.

The contrast of the art fairs (contemporary art) with the early period art was a much needed potion. Art fairs can do considerable damage to one's spirit, and being in Europe with that history clarifies the meaning and importance of art — something I deeply need reminded of periodically. I cannot express how moved I was by the Goya. I loved his latest period, where he seems to be going a bit crazy. I'm not well-informed of his state of mind, so I won't speculate, but something was definitely going on. I do know his work at that time was work for himself, meaning not commissioned work.

I kept asking myself questions like: Why does this work move me, and art being made today, does not have that ability to do so? Am I just not being exposed to it? Is it just not out there? Does it have to live through a couple of centuries to obtain that status? Were the Goyas moving and spectacular at the time they were painted?

Spending time at the glorious Prado (much too little time I might add) was an experience that I needed to sort out the meaning of life and art.

Primera Noche en Madrid

2010-02-17T16:15:00.000-08:00

Dear Art Lovers,

I'm in Madrid now, at yet another art fair, ARCO. This year though is extra special as Los Angeles is the featured CITY. Previous years countries were featured, not cities. So, Los Angeles should be honored. Seventeen galleries were selected by Christopher Miles and Kris Kuramitsu. I am told that these 17 galleries could have been galleries that were the ones that "accepted" the honor. There are a few caveats to being the chosen ones: you still have to pay for your shipping and flights and hotel. A few gallerists were not so happy about their invitation—and I'm curious who might have turned down the invitation. But, all in all, LA art looked pretty good. Was I blown away by anything? No. But, I've seen all this stuff before, so it's hard to be objective.

Tomorrow I will visit the rest of the fair, and see how LA measures up.

But, on to another subject. I haven't been able see any of Madrid, the city, yet. Our first night we visited the Museo Reina Sofia with a retrospective of Thomas Schutte that was, quite frankly, amazing. On first viewing, we entered a gallery that featured minimal art, lots of cut-out circles on a wall. It was not that impressive, but not offensive either. But then we started going through all the other rooms, and the work started getting more and more creepy. The "German" started coming out. The ugliness of mankind started creeping up. The Holocaust was hard to ignore in this German artist's work. I'm especially fond of the Michelin Tire guy sculptures (who was influenced by who?) This was a very powerful show, and being in the spacious beautiful old building (the first hospital in Madrid), only added to this formidable exhibit.

We also so a great exhibit our first night in Madrid, at the Ivory Press gallery. The work was Claes Oldenberg's. It was later work that dealt with writing tools. It was okay. But the space was really great, and as we wandered through the other galleries, we stumbled upon a room of Damien Hirst's early work. My husband and I were actually blown away by the over-the-hill-over-the-top artist. This only proved to us what fame and fortune can do to an artist. Truly, don't get me started on Damien.

Not a bad introduction to the art world in Madrid. More later. Ciao.

Same Old Fair

2010-02-05T23:21:00.001-08:00

Finally ALL the LA fairs are over. This fair business is getting tiresome. When is the trend going to end? There were three fairs in Los Angeles this year. First, Photo LA, then the FADA fair (Fine Art Dealer Association), then Art Los Angeles Contemporary fair. They all happened on separate weeks, but consecutively. I wasn't sure if that was better or worse. If they happened all at once, then you can get them over all at once. But it's hard to be all places at once, especially in LA. So, that's the main reason I haven't been blogging, because I've been shlepping magazines, spilling wine at the opening receptions and putting on art shows.

But I wanted to talk about my impression of the art fairs. Now that they are over, I'm sure that my assessment is colored by my weariness and the banality of it all. I'm tired of fairs, and I mean that both physically and emotionally. But this last art fair really brought out the ugl

iness. There was nothing in particular wrong with the art or the layout or the people or the lighting. It was actually all of it together! The same people, the same art, the same magazines, the same wine, the same food, the same crap. And the same overpriced drinks.

With all the fairs in LA, there was just too much familiarity. I'm not sure I want to see certain people EVERY week. It was all just too much. So with that sort of negativity in mind, I just sort of lost it with the last fair, which was at the Pacific Design Center.

If you're not familiar with PDC, it's basically laid out like a mall. Every front entrance is floor to ceiling glass. I haven't done much investigating, but apparently there's a few floors that are completely unoccupied. It was a brilliant idea of ALAC director Tim Fleming's to put his fair there. It's a readymade. So, that sounds great—right? Well not exactly, in my mind. I couldn't get past the "mall" atmo. So that, coupled with my sheer exhaustion of the fairs before (not to mention Miami fairs a previous month), put me in a foul mood towards art fairs in general.

Why are we still having them in this troubled economy? Why this persistence? I think it's obvious that fairs aren't the cash cows they once were a few years ago. The art world is so stubborn that way. The art world never really wanted to admit they were caught up in the recession, and that bullheadedness persists with the perennial art fairs. What is the desire? It can't be just money, or can it? Do people really want to go through that much torture?

The answer is yes. The art market has slowed, and the fairs provide a glimmer of hope. But now they just seem to be going through the motions. No fanfare. And even if there was, would it be welcomed?

And guess what? I'm off to Spain next week for yet another art fair, ARCO. I guess I need an attitude adjustment. I'll be blogging more regularly, and hopefully the new atmosphere will give me a lift.

Above photo: Artillery Publisher Paige Wery (the tall one), and moi. Wine always helps attitudes too. Photo by Lynda Burdick

Coitus Interruptus

2010-01-13T22:42:00.000-08:00

I promised (to whom, I'm not sure) that I would continue blogging about sex and art. But I got interrupted. Would that be coitus interruptus? The newly appointed MOCA director, Jeffrey Deitch, was the culprit that stymied my sex talk. After reading the deluge of ink on his new position here in the Los Angeles art world, I am reserving the right to wait and see. My previous blog was highly skeptical, but after the MOCA press conference, and his phone call to me, I've become somewhat sedated. Maybe it's not a bad thing after all. The one thing that has convinced me to not jump to conclusions, is the fact that Deitch is giving up an awful lot to come to LA. He had quite a lucrative thing going, and that won't be the case as much. Being the director of MOCA I'm sure comes with a few perks (understatement of the world), but his monthly income will surely be substantially lower. And do I really care? Of course not. But I'm impressed that he was willing to part with some of his millions for us, here in LA. I mean, that's sort of a sacrifice in this day and age — in our age of avarice and lust for attention.

So, we shall wait and see. On another completely different note. I will be going to Madrid, for the ARCO Los Angeles art fair. It was a complete surprise for me, but it's happening. I just learned of this news a couple of days ago, and I'm still reeling from it.

Money Talks

2010-01-11T11:23:00.000-08:00

I was going to blog yesterday what a farce it would be if Jeffrey Deitch ended up being MOCA's new director, but I can now blog in present tense.

This must be the result of Eli Broad's strong-arming. This is highly unprecedented, for a top gallery owner to become a museum director. The conflict-of-interest factor is sky-high. Jeff Poe was quoted in the LA Times as welcoming Deitch with "open arms." Duh!! How about open bank account.

Another aspect of this circus, is the Hollywoodizing of our museums. Deitch is an art celebrity. Have you ever heard of the two other candidates? No. But EVERYONE has heard of Jeffrey Deitch. California just can't help themselves. It's in our blood.

So, along with our state government, we now have a celebrity for our city's contemporary art museum. Do you think Jeffrey Deitch is a Republican? No matter.

I'm just having a gut reaction now, and once I calm down, maybe I will spread my arms wide for Jeffrey Deitch, but I doubt it.

More later. This needs to be processed.

Welcome to LA Mr. Deitch. We hope you like our weather.

2010-01-08T09:56:00.000-08:00

Another Artillery issue is out. For some reason, this was particularly hard to complete. I think working through the holidays was the challenging factor. But, it's out there now, and I'm damn proud of it. It's our sex issue, and what could be more fun.

While putting the issue together (and I talk about this in my editor's letter), I began to notice an infinity of sexual material in the art world. And I see it more and more now. When it was decided to do the sex issue, it seemed hard-pressed to find artists working with sex now. My contributors came to me with the usual suspects: Tom of Finland, Annie Sprinkle, Cosey Fanni Tutti, Paul McCarthy. Those were no-brainers. Now, with the sex issue out, it's like a sexual revolution, in the art world.

I'd like to ponder on sex in art for a while now. It's been a subject I've been attracted to for some time. I did a lecture on pornography and art in my graduate seminar. I've included sexual content in my own work. But I abandoned it because of embarrassment. No one else was doing it at the time (at least in my circle), and my professors were flummoxed (imagine!). And I'm not talking the Stone Ages people. I'm talking late '80s.

To be continued. And pick up a new copy of Artillery.

arias with a twist

2009-12-14T00:09:00.000-08:00

I was able to avoid going to any art openings this weekend. Of course I felt terribly guilty. It's like calling in sick at a job, when really, you aren't sick. But it was raining! That excuse is almost as bad as saying you're on your period. In other words, that's no excuse.

But I did make it to the REDCAT performance of "Arias with a Twist." I was glad that I hadn't really read anything about it, nor heard any reports. My hairdresser mildly mentioned it, and then one of my reviewers suggested it. So, after those two unintentional recommendations, I made reservations for the late show Saturday night. We had a late dinner, then hopped in the car with a pipe in tow. We scored TV-parking, had a few tokes, and made it in plenty of time. The theater started filling up fast once we were seated. Pretty soon, it was a sold out show.

Then the lights abruptly went out. An uncomfortable silence engulfed the arena. A deep dark voice came on announcing the upcoming event, and to hold on to your seats, and that you would be terrified and horrified. Then psychedelic lights and music filled the stage — a light show that Pink Floyd would be envious of. Immediately my husband and I looked at one another and said in unison, "I'm glad we got stoned." I was glad, but thought mushrooms or cookies would have done the trick too. And speaking of mushrooms, that's one of Aria's acts, that's unbeatable--her trip is one we've all been down, but visually more of a treat.

So, the weekend wasn't a bust after all. I went to REDCAT, which I promise to do more of next year. So a performance that was stellar. I feel I still got a little culture.

art basel miami

2009-12-06T21:21:00.000-08:00

I'm here in Hollywood, Florida, now. I spent two days at the Art Basel Miami extravaganza, rented a car now, (I'm mortified, it's a PT Cruiser) and will go up the coast to visit my stepmom in St. Augustine. It's become a tradition, me staying a few days more after the fair to spend some time visiting friends and family.

But, this is an art blog, so I'll impart a few observations about the fairs. First, the "few observations" are very literal in this sense, as I really spent very little time looking at art. A lot of time was spent on the shuttles, going back and forth between the fairs. Artillery had a booth at NADA, which was on the very north end of Miami Beach, but I was staying at the Hilton in downtown Miami with a friend (free room). Anyway, these are details I'm sure would soon get boring for anyone to read. Suffice to say, very little art was seen by yours truly.

Now, am I disappointed? Immensely. But at the same time, it all looks the same, so I'm trying terribly to convince myself I really didn't miss much. I breezed through the Art Basel Miami Beach fair at the convention center on the last day, Sunday. Surprisingly, I was able to get through the security wearing a NADA booth badge with someone else's name and photo. I pleaded to not have to go to a different building to get a press pass and badge, with only two hours left of the fair. They let me go in.

I gotta say, I was not very impressed with what I saw. These days, the ugliest art gets the most attention. After fours years of this, I've come to realize, the art that stands out is the art that tries the hardest. It's gotta have a gimmick. It has to move, be kinetic. Or it has to be outrageously crude, pornographic or just plain bad. Otherwise, it all just all blends together. Another thing I found interesting, is just how many artists are with multiple galleries. I know this is nothing new, and is becoming more common, but I still find it a little odd. For instance, Kehinde Wiley--his work was at at least three booths. I mean, it starts to look like posters in retail stores--also, his work is starting to look like that anyway--like posters. I can't imagine collectors wanting something, so, well, commonplace. So, I would say, that's something to watch for. If everyone has a Wiley--do you really want one too? I think the answer is yes.

Like I said, it's hardly something new I'm saying or pointing out, but I'm finding it increasingly annoying. It's become my pet peeve sort of.

And it's not because the artist is particularly prolific, it's just because the artist has a lot of money, and can pay assistants to crank out the art. I mean, that's sort of fucked, isn't it?

Thanksgiving

2009-11-30T12:40:00.000-08:00

The Thanksgiving holiday is over. I planned to be a little more productive, but I wound up relaxing, watching movies, reading, eating and drinking — all the time, musing on what I'm thankful for. Well, I was very thankful that there were no art openings all weekend. I missed Christopher Russell's book signing at Samuel Freeman's this past Sunday. (I plan to buy the book.) I was instead, at a dear friend's father's memorial. Somehow that seemed more important (please don't take that personal Christopher). My friend's father, Eli Sercarz, was a man of great accomplishments. He was a scientist and renowned immunologist. He received many prestigious grants and was a professor and mentor to many students at UCLA. Many of his close family and friends spoke about his great contributions to society in the name of discovery and medicine. His research will go down in history and in the future, most likely, be responsible for saving and prolonging many lives. He touched many people's lives, yet he was a very modest man who was so gentle and kind when I would encounter him and his lovely wife at my friend's many family events.

So, what does this have to do with art? Nothing. But it's what art comes from. And sometimes, we all need to take a break from the art world to take a deep breath and understand what is really important in this world. And this sadly, makes me angry at the art world, and the world in general.

Since I was able to catch up on a little reading this extended weekend, I was able to take the time to read other sections of the newspaper besides the Calendar and Arts & Leisure sections. I read about our war in Afghanistan (ugh) and California's waning higher education funds, reducing enrollment for students by 40%. Both are abominations to our nation. I guess keeping America stupid is essential, so we can keep convincing America that our engagement in war is more important than education. And it's working!

After that dismal dismaying bit of reading, I found myself in the Sunday Style section of The NY Times. I read about Madonna's Brazilian 22-year-old boy toy. He frequently gets DJing gigs of $15,000 a night. How can that be? How is that fair? That kind of money would pay half a teacher's wage in California. Does that sound right? It's all so fucked.

So, what does that have to do with art? Nothing. I guess I should not take a weekend off from art, otherwise, I might start having trouble seeing the importance of it all.

Here's hoping to having a new attitude when I take off for Art Basel Miami this week. I'm sure everything will be back in place. Our safe little world, with our safe bank accounts, all in place, ready to buy that expensive piece of art to hang over our expensive designer couch. Is that our contribution to society? Does that seem as important, like Eli Sercarz' contribution? There's no comparison. But, I know for a fact, Eli loved art and going to the opera and symphony, all which enriched his full life.

The world is a big mixed-up place, and art makes it a safe retreat for me. But is that sort of like putting my head in the sand?

Who's afraid of Larry Gagosian?

2009-11-22T16:00:00.000-08:00

The Jeff Koons show at Gagosian Gallery royally sucks. And the fact that LA Times critic David Pagel bothered to dig deeper in order to find something redeeming about these new paintings actually proves how bogus and dishonest and pretentious and superficial the art world can really be — on all levels, right down to the critic for chrissakes. Of course, it's his opinion, and being a critic, one has to believe he has made an earnest assessment of the work he is writing about. But Pagel's critique of Koons' new paintings is just too hard to swallow.

He started off the review with admirable frankness, but then blew it when he decided to do an about-face. He took another look at these works and managed to compare them to Warhol. (Granted, Warhol pretty much sucked in the end, and Koons is frequently compared to him) In the end, he praised them for their genius (these are not quotes, I don't have the review in front of me) and his new view of the paintings was attributed to the fact that the gooey sloshes of paint were not actually paint on top other layers of paint. In fact, there were no areas in the paintings of overlapping paint! OMG! What a fucking accomplishment! Why does that suddenly make them great paintings? This is very puzzling to me, and it seems like Pagel just could not bring himself to call a spade a spade.

The paintings are just plain bad. Also brought up was the minor detail that the paintings are not painted by Koons himself, and his masterminding of these paintings to his lackeys also merited high praise from Pagel. I'm afraid this is just getting all out of hand. Perhaps Pagel is moving with the times, when art stars like Koons get away with just going through the motions fetching big bucks for each work. Everybody's got a make a living I realize, and Koons just knows how to do it really well. But, why can't a critic speak up and say something? I say shame on Pagel for kowtowing to the art world, namely Larry Gagosian.

Dirty as in Filthy

2009-11-14T06:05:00.000-08:00

Went to the "Dirty Show," and boy was it dirty. And I mean as in the motel rooms were filthy. The exhibition was held in an abandoned downtown LA motel called City Center Motel. Every room had photographs of soft-core pornography hanging on the walls. There was a lot of black-and-white photography — trying to trick the viewer into thinking it was art. My husband and I discussed this. Of course it wasn't art, was my response. But why not? he challenged. And when or can pornography be art, and vice versa?

The old wag about pornography and obscenity — I know it when I see it — that's sort of the same response I have with pornography and art. Larry Clark's photographs have long been controversial because of its pornographic content. He frequently has images of large cocks of young boys, both flacid and erect, images of sexual acts such as blowjobs, gang bangs and car sex. The gang bang is hard for some people to take, as I accidentally learned when I featured Larry Clark's photographs (detail pictured) in my graduate seminar lecture some twenty years ago. The professor at the time was James Hayward and he still tells the story to this day. There is written text below the image: They met a girl on Acid in Bryant park at 6 am and took her home... . Hayward stopped the slide show on that image to rant and rave about the artist I was showing and how it wasn't art, but pornography. It continued in the elevator afterwards.

I still don't think it is pornography. And Jimmy still thinks it is. I won't be able to change his mind, but there's no doubt in my mind. When I look at pornography, it doesn't strike me as art in the slightest. If I look at the Clark image, there's not a doubt in my mind that it isn't art. I know it when I see it.

I can go on and on about this, and I will be in my next issue of Artillery. So, perhaps that's why I'm blogging about this now. It's heavy on my mind.

So, the "Dirty Show" wasn't that dirty, nor was it that arty. It was neither. It was a lot of soft-core black-and-white photography.

Chris Burden's Bad Hair Cut

2009-11-11T23:26:00.000-08:00

Am I the only one that has noticed Chris Burden's very bad haircut? How come no one has said anything? How come my columnist hasn't ragged on it? Finally, today, was the last straw (no pun intended). There it was, in the LA Times. Those short little bangs, straight across (sort of) his forehead. Doesn't Nancy notice? Why doesn't she say something? I often wonder, when something as noxious as halitosis for instance, how does their partner tolerate it?

I realize he's a genius, but that's no excuse. Actually it sounds like a great punk band name: Chris Burden's Bad Haircut. Also, while we're on the subject of the LA Times, early in the story, Burden is 70 years old (that did raise my eyebrows). Then later, he is 63. I then looked at his picture, to determine which it might be. Was he 63 or 70? It was hard to tell. The bowl haircut threw me off. I kept thinking of Jethro Clampett. Even a slight part to a side would be an enormous improvement.

Other than Chris Burden's Bad Haircut Day, the new (old) show for MOCA's 30th anniversary might be something to look forward to. And the prices at Sotheby's were astonishing, which needs a bit more attention, but I'll leave that to someone better with numbers. Right now, I'm deeply concerned about Chris.

No Charles Shaw here (hopefully)

2009-11-08T11:25:00.001-08:00

Finally got to see the new & improved Blum & Poe gallery; I was in New York during their opening weekend. Yes, it's a gorgeous space, and by space I mean cavernous, humongous, ginormous and all the other words that fit in that huge category. I don't know the square-footage (I'm not going to refer to their press release), but it just might be the largest gallery in Los Angeles now. I think Ace gallery held that title previously.

I understand the need for storage—which probably is half of their building, but I don't understand the need for two kitchens, unless some of the staff are required to cook for Jeff and Tim now. Apparently, one kitchen is for the "caterers." That's pretty fancy stuff. But, can't the caterers' kitchen be used by the staff when the caterers aren't there? Or are they part of the staff now? Honestly, doesn't that sound a bit excessive?

They also have a outside area designed for entertaining and elaborate dinners--that's when the caterers apparently come in to play. No more taco trucks for Blum & Poe. Of course, the tacos and Tecate were always for the hoi polloi, and we didn't mind that, really. At least they never served Charles Shaw--for that, we are thankful. So, maybe there will still be tacos and beer for us common folk.

But, in the end--the gallery looks great. It's beautifully designed. All the work looks stunning. It's a bit ostentatious, but I've never complained about an over-the-top venue for showing art. I guess, in the end, it's the two kitchens that bugged me.

Now on to the rest of the night. Bor-ring! I loved Samantha Fields new "fire" paintings though. There were multiple small paintings on maybe six by six inch canvasses, rows of three or four, covering three walls. She's concentrating on the fires themselves (not the surrounding landscapes of the disasters, like smoky skies against the horizons). It's really a California show, and Field's stories of hanging out with fire-chasers is a bonus to her experience. Check out the show, the paintings are irresistible.

And, check out the new Artillery. I love this issue, but I love all the issues. There's some good stuff--the lead story is about art in domestic settings, in other words, homes or spaces that people live in as well. Anne Martens is the writer, and we had to settle on spaces that double as living environs, which narrowed our selection of venues. It's a great story, and I talk about the history of such places in my editor's letter. Lots of subsequent dialogue has taken place, with a lot of nostalgia for the times of some great art that was spawned back in the day. Perhaps those days are happening again.

Art goes Hollywood NEWSFLASH

2009-10-27T13:23:00.000-07:00

Good God. It's here. The academy art awards. Roll out the red carpet. Artists, curators, any big shot art person, rent your gowns and tuxes now! The first Annual Art Awards given by Guggenheim and White Columns of New York are preparing to open the envelopes October 29. Calvin Klein is a sponsor, natch.

Artist of the Year! Best Solo Art show of the year! Best Museum show of the Year! Best Gallery show of the Year!

How exciting!

Really, is this all necessary? We have critics that do this annually, and that was just fine. I find this all nauseating.

I gotta get back to work.

Nothing to get excited about

2009-10-23T23:03:00.000-07:00

I was thinking I would blog about the LACMA opening I went to this week, but I really can't. I didn't see the show. Is that just awful? Okay, come on, how many people really saw the show? I fully intended to see the show, it's just that there was too much free champagne and photo opportunities (see upcoming November issue of Artillery). So I was working.

Also, I didn't really read the Friday reviews in the papers. I just scanned them. Nothing really interested me. This blogging thing might start to bore me. If it means I have to admit things to the public that I didn't do, then, maybe I might want to think this thing through.

Things in the art world are sort of status quo. There's a lull as everyone is gearing up for the fairs. We'll have some Halloween ghosts, some pumpkin pie, then off to Miami. The art fairs of art fairs.

The balmy weather, the prickly poseurs, the smell of money. It's the perfect place for pretending. It's the middle of winter, but it's 90 degrees and chicks are in halter tops. It's Christmas time but Santa is having a margarita. It's like the art circus has come to town.

I'll try to make it to some art openings so I can report something in this blog. I remember my promise, to only blog about art world issues. That's boring! Why did I make that promise?

More to come...

Untitled, new art film

2009-10-20T20:57:00.000-07:00

Remind me, why am I blogging again? Blogging feels like talking to yourself, but just a little more pathetic. I've never kept a diary, so maybe it's something like that too.

Anyway, I had planned to blog yesterday because I was going to the film premiere of (Untitled), the new art film. I saw a screening a month or two ago, and decided we should do something about it in Artillery. It's a fun enough film, and pokes fun at the art world in a realistic and justifiable way. Adam Goldberg plays a serious, frustrated, misunderstood experimental music/performance artist. Performance artists are such an easy target in the art world. When I did my play with Jade Gordon, her character was a performance artist. Anyway, it has the right amount of ridicule and accurate portrayal of the art world. It's loaded with art stereotypes: your conceptual artist, your abstract Bank artist, your world renown artist that works with dead animals, and your uppity yuppity fashion-damaged art dealer. It all takes place in, where else, New York.

But the film works. I would recommend it, if anyone out there cares. Hello! Anyone out there? We're covering it in our next issue of Artillery, which I'm working on right now, and just took a break. Back to work now. Bye, bye blog.

Hirst so bad

2009-10-16T14:01:00.000-07:00

OMG! A friend just forwarded the new Hirst paintings to me. They are horrible. How dare the artist Francis Bacon be uttered in the same breath (NY Times). Damien Hirst, go back to being a poseur.

Friday reviews and art news commentary

2009-10-16T09:47:00.000-07:00

Just a very quick read of the reviews in the papers today, but more fun is when my friends send me news of Damien Hirst's downward spiral as superstar art star. Why do I find that pleasurable? I do respect his work, on some level, especially in the beginning. But like art stars, they begin to just go through the motions. It's a common dilemma, so why pick on Hirst? But Hirst just got out of hand, and I suppose that is his prerogative. You have to give him credit for being smarter than the average artist when it comes to manipulating the art world. The fact that he closed down two super-sized studios and is now going back to painting is interesting. The obvious reasons for him to stop his factory-style productions is his need for tightening his pockets during the recession. And the other is reflective of how artists are working during the recession. As predicted, artists are changing their outlook and approach to the artmaking process, and Hirst ACTUALLY painting with his OWN hands is a result of this. It's just kinda funny that this is groundbreaking news!

white house art

2009-10-14T17:16:00.000-07:00

The art buzz of the day seems to be what the new selection of artworks our President and First Lady selected. Everyone has an opinion. Holland Cotter is in a complete tizzy about it and seemed to think it unconscionable that the Obamas didn't pick the correct African American artist. There's also talk about the lack of attention to gender and other minority artists. Please, give me a break. I'm not entirely sure my art collection is politically correct in its ratio of white artists to artists of color or the equality of male and female art. Ostensibly, we choose art that we like and respond too. But, of course, we all know that's not true either. So, why did the Obamas choose what they did? Were there politics behind their choices? I sincerely hope not. I hope they selected works that would give them pleasure, every time they walked by the painting or sculpture. Or just imagine having all that great art in your house. Maybe everyone is just jealous. It's nice that our President has taste at all. Give the Obamas a break on this one.

2009-10-13T17:25:00.000-07:00

Hello Artillery Fans,

I've decided to start blogging. Notice I didn't use the word "writing." I have to admit, I'm a bit cynical about blogging, bloggers and blogs. But, alas, I need to enter the 21st century. So, I'm going to try this for a while.

I will now make a cyberspace oath. I promise not to drone on about my personal life. I promise not to make too many misspellings and typos. I promise not to be self-serving and self-promotional. I promise to mostly write about art and what's important in the art world. And lastly, I promise to try to keep all my promises.

Just a quick update to get started on this thing. We, our publisher Paige Wery, and I just got back from our trip to New York City. What a great town, you gotta love it. But, we were not so convinced Artillery is loved by New York. It's a tough town folks. Also, I wasn't so impressed with all the art--or at least not MORE impressed than art here in our hometown (Los Angeles). I'm not sure I want to go into the LA vs. NY thing though. It's actually absurd to do that these days. Half the artists that are showing in New York are from LA, and half the artists that are showing in Los Angeles are from New York. So really, who cares. It's tedious.

Paige and I pounded the pavement (literally) for four days straight. We only covered half of Chelsea, did the Lower Eastside and got to almost all the galleries in Brooklyn. We found Brooklyn to be more hospitable than Chelsea (NEWS FLASH!!) Being back for a week now, I have to say, not much of the art was very memorable. We did get to visit MoMA, and checked out the New Photography show there, which the proper name escapes me now. That was impressive stuff. More on that later (if I actually do this regularly).

More stuff to come--just wanted to get started and get the hang of this thing.