SHARKFORUM: OPINION WITH TEETH

im confident that this conflict of opinion is both arousing and titilating to more than just myself. but even if not, my satisfaction is all i can hope for

I find this entertaining as well, although Wesley may have "won" already by the droll act of putting his newest comment under the category "social ills" instead "art"!

Don't worry, I never do things in my best interest, unfortunately. I simply try to tell the truth as I see it. As does Kimler, which is why I appreciate him. As a so-called "artist-who-writes-about-art," or sometime critic, I have a certain insight, or at least perception over the fence into that territory.

Cassidy's comments about Wesley are not legally libelous, I imagine, but nonetheless insulting and at best misinformed. My conjecture is that he was simply repeating things he had heard from certain "friendly" opponents of Kimler's. (That's 'friendly' as in "dying from friendly fire.") My point is that, no matter how vilifying this letter was --- and the publication must print a response from the target, Wesley --- no matter how inane, it is not the WHOLE or SUM of his writing. Wesley implied that Cassidy has no brain. No, he simply didn't use it there. Cassidy has many well-written articles, even when he likes art I don't and criticizes that which I prefer. I can't even imagine why Cassidy wrote that letter in the first place. Yes, I think he owes Kimler an apology, but it won't come by suggesting that the critic is intellectually challenged.

A further point, not aimed at Wesley, but at artists in general, --- please remember that it is nobody's DUTY to review you. Artists, especially young ones often forget this.

I stick by my guns about criticism in general. What Chicago and similarly (self-chosen-to-be-) provincial areas need are MORE critics and the encouragement of ones who already exist when they do a good job. In the German-speaking world where I mostly reside, it is common to get reviews --- even little shows by artsy-craftsies get covered. BUT most writing is hopelessly bland, or when serious, is incredibly academic, ethereal-unto-incomprehensibility, quasi-Romantic.

What we artists need are critics who argue among themselves. Polemical ones who take sides. We all require less "consensus" and more Apollinaires, more Lippards, more De Zayases, etc. We need them to fight it out among themselves; we ALSO need curators who have to openly compete, but that's another story. As it is now, only artists are required to do this. Is that a case of "divide and dominate" artists? --- How about vie for excellence among all.

Paul Klein is putting up some fine reviews over at his "Letters Out" section of his website "The Art Letter." How about some short reviews here, since Sharkforum is becoming a Chicago art publication.

Trackbacks: http://www.sharkforum.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/261 (Brandl) http://www.sharkforum.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/253 (original, Kimler)

This may be à propos to the current conversation, by Oscar Wilde from "The Soul of a Man Under Socialism" Indeed, there is much more to be said in favour of the physical force of the public than there is in favour of the public's opinion. The former may be fine. The latter must be foolish. It is often said that force is no argument. That, however, entirely depends on what one wants to prove. Many of the most important problems of the last few centuries, such as the continuance of personal government in England, or feudalism in France, have been solved entirely by means of physical force. The very violence of a revolution may make the public grand and splendid for a moment. It was a fatal day when the public discovered that the pen is mightier than the paving-stone, and can be made as offensive as the brick-bat. They at once sought for the journalist, found him, developed him, and made him their industrious and well-paid servant. It is greatly to be regretted, for both their sakes. Behind the barricade there may be much that is noble and heroic. But what is there behind the leading article but prejudice, stupidity, cant, and twaddle? And when these four are joined together they make a terrible force, and constitute the new authority.

Precisely-

But I must repeat from my blog ---

"I beg you all also to remember that criticism is essentially an unpaid hobby, which also nowadays brings NO power (unlike Greenberg's heyday). So it occurs as a gift of time and thought from the reviewers. They are possibly the only people lower than us-artists on the artworld totem pole."

Critics are NOT a new authority (even when they desire to be). Those days are over. BUT yes, there is a kind of consensus-clique with curators of a certain stripe, critics who toady for them, artists who illustrate their ideas, etc. etc. etc. THAT altogether might be seen as "constituting a terrible force."

I have less difficulty with their power (some are even rather creative) than with their denial of it. Its the rampant hypocrisy that is new, not the fact of somebody being "over us." Somebody has always been "over us" --- whether the Pope or the Herzog or the King or the Cardinals or or or......

Well, exactly as you say Mark -which is what we are going to change here at sharkforum! THE SHARK INVITES HIS FELLOW ARTISTS TO ONCE AGAIN, BECOME THE APEX PREDATORS OF THEIR OWN REALM. Let us put under the microscope all the denizens of the so called artworld.......let us question authority, and where we find it illegitimate and wanting, lets chew it up and, spit it out. THINK BRAVE NEW WORLD.