That's interesting for sure, as Lenny Campello used to be a contributor to http://dc.metblogs.com/ but only made a few posts ever, mostly about his stuff and then left because the strees of running two galleries and being on TV left him no time to contribute to a local group blog.

I'm not exactly sure where Kriston said Lenny was "screwing [his] artists." I think his point was that sites/publications that publish criticism/show promotion by gallerists have a serious integrity problem.

I'm also unclear on how the startup funding of Lenny's galleries has anything to do with what Kriston wrote, or what the dog or fight is here. I think what Kriston wrote was straightforward and dead-on.

I'm trying real hard, but I can't seem to figure out what the problem is here. Is Lenny some how prohibited from being a critic anywhere other than his own blog because he's got a financial interest in the Fraser Gallery? That seems a little extreme. And for a guy supposedly tainted by unsavory financial interests, Lenny gives an awful lot of free press and attention on his blog and elsewhere to other galleries and other artists.

I appreciate Lenny's contributions as a critic and hope he doesn't give it up, even knowing he co-owns the Fraser Gallery. What's wrong with handling this with a little more disclosure, i.e., F. Lennox Campello, DC Art News and the Fraser Gallery.

Kriston never wrote anything about screwing anyone...

What I mean to say when I wrote that "I thought that I could cover the openings and DC art scene and such for DCist, without screwing our own artists in the deal" was that I felt that I could help DCist to cover the DC area art scene without that equating to DCist never covering the Fraser Galleries.

After all, artists, museums, and every gallery in town sends me news releases by the dozens every day, as they have since I moved to the DC area in 1993 and began to write about Washington area art. Up to this moment, none of them seemed to have an issue with the fact that in 1996 a gallery that I co-owned opened in Georgetown. To my knowledge, no gallery owner in town has ever had an issue with this fact. And DCist has been very careful and very good about prominently displaying the fact that I am the co-owner of the two Fraser Galleries.

More clarifications:

The dog = a gallery (or being really close friends of the artists that one would write about).

Star-up Funding = an apparently unsuccessful attempt on my part to show a timeline of art writing predating the galleries by many years.

And it was and is quite clear to me that what Kriston meant to say, and what Green now re-affirms, is that gallery-owners should not write criticism or about art, because any publication that would then publish that writing would have a have a serious integrity problem.

Sort of like a guy who owns a bookstore, or an editor in a publishing house, or an literary agent reviewing books.

I guess we could also extend this so that people who create art shouldn't also write art criticism? After all, they're often connected to a gallery, and it would appear a tenuous link in logic implies that the same integrity issues could be raised.

See, when I read the original post I thought it was only expressing concern about posts on DCist that were written by Lenny (in whole or in part) AND that directly concerned the Fraser Gallery. It doesn't say that Lenny shouldn't write art criticism, or that he shouldn't contribute to DCist, but rather that having his byline attached to a post that highlights or recommends his gallery is a little bit wonky.

No one expects blogs to be perfectly rational, unbiased voices in the media landscape, but an outlet like DCist presents itself as an advocate on the basis of personal/contributor opinion, not contributor self-interest. Could we really expect Lenny to contribute a tidbit that read, "New show opening at the Fraser Gallery but it's not really worth seeing"? If this is actually something that concerns people, my recommendation would be leaving the "round up" tidbit pieces to other contributors, and specific reviews of Fraser Gallery shows likewise, but otherwise encouraging Lenny to contribute as much and as enthusiastically as possible to DCist or any other venue writing about art in the District.

Just trying to be a calming voice on what seems a fairly touchy issue . . .

I can't for the life of me ever remember Lenny reviewing one of his own shows. That would be a problem. As far as I can tell, the DCist round-up is nothing more than a listing of art events, with a brief description of each. I can't see any problem whatsoever with Lenny helping to compile this, even if it also lists openings at his galleries.

I think Kriston's preface to the original post was straightforward and dead-on: this one is a little bithcy.

Howdy!

So if I got this straight, Kriston wrote, "you really can't don the critic's cap when you're a producer in the community." And then in the next sentence he wrote, "Criticism isn't what DCist is doing..."

Is it possible for somebody to clarify what exactly Kriston meant? If DCist ain't doing criticism, then what's the problem?

For my part - it clearly states on DCist that Lenny is part "of the Fraser Gallery and DC Art News." If somebody discloses fully their affiliations, then what more do you want?

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but... The mistake wasn't Lenny's, it was DCist's for allowing a gallerist to publish.

(I worded that badly: For publishing a gallerist, that is.)

while I can understand the point being raised by Tyler and Grammar police, I don't think that's reason enough for Lennie to stop editorializing on his blogsite, as long as he does the full disclosure thing. I think that FROM his vantage point of a gallery owner as well as an artist, Lenny provides a perspective that would be missing otherwise. And, I among others, really enjoy hearing as many different voices as possible. Us art-starved folks like to hear this stuff, so I think it's time to stop eating our own children and go for the freedom of expression thing. margaret

Ah, I see the barn caught fire while I was out of town. I'm interested in hearing what other people have to say, so I'm going to zip my lips for the moment.

though i write for DCist, i didn't have anything to do with the decision to bring lenny (or any other contributors besides music people) on, so i can't really comment here. but for anyone who has thoughts on this - have you, you know, bothered to email the editors of DCist directly to air your concerns? i know they'd be happy to talk about it.
rob @ dcist.com
mike @ fastmail.fm

To be clear, I never said Lenny couldn't or shouldn't continue to do his own blog(s).

Letter to Mike Grass of DCist – Open Letter of Support for F. Lennox Campello – From James W. Bailey

Dear Mike,

I’m writing to you concerning a post by Kriston Capps of grammarpolice.net concerning Lenny Campello’s apparent “right” to be an art critic/writer about the visual arts scene in the Washington, D.C. region since he is also a co-owner of Fraser Galleries.

I wanted you to know that there are many in the artist community who support Lenny. He’s been an inspiring figure of support and encouragement for a tremendous number of artists, arts organizations and even competing commercial galleries with which he is not affiliated. I hope that DCist will continue to embrace Lenny’s wisdom, knowledge and opinions; indeed, I hope the DCist will continue to encourage Lenny to participate in sharing his thoughts. Lenny represents an important alternative voice for the visual arts in the metro Washington, D.C. region. In addition to his insightful knowledge of the local arts scene, his skillful writing also brings forward the voice of his diverse cultural background. It is important that voices that his be heard in this community.

For the record, I will fully disclose that I consider Lenny a friend and confidant. I will also tell you that I am not represented by the Fraser Galleries. In fact, I have never asked to be represented by them and would not do so. As you probably know, I am a somewhat quirky (Southern) contrarian artist in many respects and take a great deal of pride in achieving some level of artistic and financial success with my photography without gallery representation or by being represented by an art dealer. I was juried into the Bethesda International Photography Competition in 2004 (sponsored by the Fraser Galley Bethesda) and won an Honorable Mention Award. That is the major extent of my professional association with the Fraser Galleries. I wanted to disclose this to you for what it’s worth.

Lenny has done a tremendous job of promoting the arts and at the potential risk to the success of his own business enterprise, especially with the heat he has consistently applied on the local print press – Washington Post, for example – to increase their coverage of the local visual arts scene. Lenny is to be extolled for providing the service he has provided though DC Art News. If he wanted to, he could post nothing but tributes to himself, his art and the Fraser Galleries and the artists it represents all day and all night.

In fact, he has not. Lenny has consistently supported diverse opinions about art and artists that he and Kate Fraser do not represent, as well as encouraging people to visit other art venues, including galleries that he doesn’t have a business interest in. Lenny has even gone so far as to encourage the sharing of opinions about art matters on his site with which he does not agree – I would probably be living proof of that fact. In Mississippi, where I come from, this willingness to encourage, support and help others, even those with whom who may not agree all the time, is called class.

If the new trend among art bloggers is that somebody is supposed to function as the moral voice or compass of the art blogging community, then I say let that person(s) write up a set of rules, guidelines, ethics or whatever laws they want, post it on their respective sites and let the rest of the art blogging community, including their readers, decide for themselves what we think about their attempt to hijack the moral high ground.

What’s going on here is so clear to me: certain people have become increasingly jealous of the fact that Lenny’s site, DC Art News, is the first place people turn to for current news about the metro Washington, D.C. art scene. Everybody I know in the artist community who is internet savvy, and I know a lot, tune into his site daily. All of us know of Lenny’s affiliation with the Fraser Galleries because he, unlike some others, has never hidden behind an anonymous name or anonymous profession. Everybody knows who Lenny is and what he does and all of us can and have made adult decisions about any potential biases or conflicts of interests he may have concerning his art reviews. The fact of the matter is that all of us have made our decision about what we think about F. Lennox Campello and DC Art News and the strong respect Lenny commands in the art world is proof enough of his sincerity and importance.

I think Lenny has done some tremendously important things for the artist community through his site, DC Art News, as well as through other actions. I judge people by what they do, not by what they say. Lenny’s actions speak volumes about his love for art, artists and the increased importance of the visual arts in the lives of all people – not just the inside elites. I hope you will continue to encourage the diversity of voices like Lenny’s on DCist; indeed, I especially hope you will continue to encourage Lenny to share and spread the good word about art and artists in this community. This community can not afford to loose his voice.

Sincerely,

James W. Bailey
Experimental Photographer
Force Majeure Studios

Sorry, Kriston. That pot stirring is the LAST thing that the DC art community needs. Everybody knows that Lenny is co-owner of Fraser. He never fails to disclose that. Are you really so naive as to think that there is never an agenda in critism? It's all opinion. There is nothing wrong with Lenny expressing his, as long as we know from whence it comes. And if I may come to the defense of Cyndi Spain (who I have never met), why would you assume that she would be swayed or influenced by Lenny? It's the dialogue that the 2 may have that notches up the appreciation or understanding of the art. Yes, my dear,it was bitchy.

criticism....I hate misspelling.
Oh, to post after Mr. Bailey..........

Lenny clearly has a financial interest here, but he's pursuing it in a way that mitigates any "conflict." He's hyping the art scene in general -- other galleries, other shows, and other artists -- to make the pie bigger for everybody. That way everybody, including Lenny, gets a bigger slice. And I think we can all agree that the pie definitely needs to get bigger.

I also agree with Marsha that everybody has biases and "special interests." At least Lenny's is out in the open -- at least the financial one. If you ask me, financial interests are overrated as a source of conflicts. Other interests, like ego, jealousy, and personality conflicts (just to name a few), are at least as important and often totally concealed. Do we have to purge all of these conflicts as well? Nice sentiment, but totally ridiculous.

As is the suggestion that Lenny should stop contributing to DCist. Sad to say, but we're getting into some serious art-blogging political correctness here.

I hope you do not read into my comments an insinuation that Lenny Campello/Fraser Gallery were doing something crooked. I never thought that there was anything "shady" about what he was doing for DCist. I saw a conflict of interests—and I agree with what Nate wrote above—that doesn't mean I think that Lenny abused his position or did a bad job or anything like that.

I think that DCist is important and rising in prominence, and I also think they publish people who write in a critical way—the DCist staff go to concerts and restaurants, say whether they heard good music or ate good food, etc., and where you should be going to find good music and good food. (Among other topics.) As the site grows more popular, though, these opinions become the difference between whether other people, in fact, go to specific concerts or restaurants. Once that's a reality I think it's probably important for the editors to tighten up the rules about these kinds of conflicts of interest that are about to emerge when people are volunteering their time and energy for the love of the game alone. And it's a moving target, so it's of course reasonable for people to disagree and say that blogs shouldn't mind all the rules, etc.

An 888-word comment?

Looks like James W. Bailey is beginning learn the art of brevity.

Kriston must have a comment limit of 889 words. ;-)

After reading this post Lenny resigned his contributor position. Mike and I have accepted. I've posted a short statement on my personal blog.

Although I now teach for a University, for many years I paid more than enough dues teaching art in public high schools. I am witness to the fact that the masses have little use for or interest in the contemporary art scene. I stopped asking new students how many living artists they could name because the answer of "are you kidding" just depressed me. It is important to note that they could all name lots of livng singers, actors and writers.

So, from my perspective people who actually love and champion the diverse creative spirits of living visual artists are rare. The expanding voice of Lenny Campello is simply a gift to this city. To attempt to silence him from any venue might on the "noble" surface address a "serious integrity problem", but any attempt is, in reality, probably a huge moral mistake because if Lenny Campello shines - we all do.

Margaret Dowell

Brava, Margaret
The posts are coming to the sad reality. We don't have enough people who care as much as Lenny. Kriston, I think your snit was a knee jerk reaction. I can be a lot more concise than JWB, when I say that there isn't a working artist in the metro area who doesn't respect and appreciate Lenny. He always has a timely and thoughtful reply in support. Because of the chats that I have shared with Lenny, I feel very much a part of the community of artists. It's a shame that someone who works so hard should make you twitch. Are you an artist, Kriston? Do you know how hard we are working to make DC a more art friendly city? I'm sorry, I don't know you personally, and I enjoy your blog when I read it, but maybe you should stick with policing grammar. Please don't set our efforts back by making gallerists or artists afraid to speak up.
I'm asking you to reconsider your words.
Marsha Stein

Marsha, et al, while you're rallying to Lenny's side is Splenda-icious, you're all completely missing the point: The criticism was not of Lenny but of DCist for publishing the criticism/picks of someone (it happened to be Lenny in this example) rife with so many conflicts of interest.

While I appreciate that artists who have had work sold through Lenny or been shown by him have magically materialized -- just sudden-like, three days after the original post -- this fascinating mix of angst and back-slapping is completely beside the point.

The tone of the posts here has turned toward the preposterous: Only Lenny loves us! We need people who love art! Everyone must rally around the c-print/canvas/panda! (Panda?!!?) Every time I hear DC art people complain that not enough people love them I roll my eyes. This is one of the five best art scenes in America -- and if that's not enough for you, there are big piles of glue and glitter on aisle six of the Brooklyn Michael's and they're just waiting for someone to go buy them.

People who buy art - buy art. No matter who writes what. Period.
Both Lenny and Kate serve the artist community well. They are passionate about their work and want to see artists succeed. I am pleased to be their art neighbor here in Bethesda.

Stop whining.

Elyse Harrison
Gallery Neptune

Oh, Tyler. That was pretty mean spirited. I am not under the delusion that only Lenny loves us. I am too old for that.......to be blunt. This discussion is getting pointless. I'm so glad to hear that this is one of the 5 best art scenes. Would you please tell the Washington Post? I don't know if you've heard, but they don't seem to cover much local art.

". . . rife with so many conflicts of interest." What a joke! Lenny was contributing to the Arts Round-up, which as far as I can tell is a step or two above an arts listing. For this DCist needs to worry about conflicts of interest?

So here is what has been accomplished by all this moral rectitude, if I'm reading Rob's open letter correctly: Lenny can continue to "contribute" to the Arts Round-up (as can, I guess, the rest of us); he just can't be listed as a "contributor."

Clearly, a point is being missed here. And I admit that I am missing it big time.

Just tired of DC bellyaching. You got it good here people, embrace it.

Marsha: I do appreciate the comment, but I won't take back what I wrote. I am sorry that so many people feel the need to defend Lenny, but I think it takes a willful misreading to construe what I wrote as a personal attack against him.

Howdy!

Tyler - from up here, I see the difference as you thinking that preaching to the choir is all fine and dandy, while Lenny is looking to proselytize.

Kriston - I didn't read it as a personal attack, just as an attempt to silence someone who is trying to to promote the visual arts in DC to a larger audience. As I mentioned earlier, a way to avoid conflict of interest is by full disclosure - which I think Lenny has done and continues to do.

Lastly, I don't see either of you jumping up and filling the void at DCist. What about it, boys?

Lastly, I don't see either of you jumping up and filling the void at DCist. What about it, boys?

I don't know about Tyler, but I hate DC, want to silence those who are trying to promote its artists, am jealous of bloggers, etc.

OK Kriston......I was actually away all day and I have this awful sinus thing that is knocking me out, my 17 daughter was in a car accident Tues night, we both made emergency trips to the dentist this week .......
But let me say this...I'm sure you didn't intend to get the reaction that you did. I'm glad that you understand that while I take exception with your point of view on this issue, it is not personal.
I also appreciate the humor, 'cause enough has been said.
So over and out folks. I'm home rolling in my money and thinking about how good I have it.

Kriston (and Tyler) are doing well to address house-keeping issues in visual arts. More. More. Too bad their objectivity and insight is wasted on sycophants unable to stomach a little scrutiny. Good art will get made hell or high water and doesn't require the nervous mothering those here are seeking to give it. Really. Get over yourselves.

By the way, I say this realizing how difficult it is to make money as an artist. I have less than twenty dollars in my checking and savings accounts combined. But I chose to pursue art instead of middle-management banking. I accept this. Why other artists can't accept their own decision baffles me. Grow up.

Dick P.
I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but what the hell. I can't help feeling that your phrase "nervous mothering" is a better description of Kristin's and Tyler's attitude toward DCist and Lenny than those of us on the other side. I mean, talk about over-protective behavior: DCist can't even issue a glorified arts listing without putting on its coat, mittens and ear muffs to guard against catching a conflict of interest. This shouldn't be such a big deal.

Clearly it wasn't a big deal to Kriston (or to me):

Kriston: 230 words

Commenters: 4,500 words.

That's quite a specious argument.

And anyway, we're at a disadvantage . . we've got Bailey.

Conflict of interest is conflict of interest, no matter how much it benefits the community. Indeed, in this case, it's the heart of the conflict: If a local gallerist convinces others that it's worth buying a piece of the local scene (so to speak), he stands an increased chance of benefitting financially--especially if he writes about artists he represents.

It's critically bankrupt, to say the least.

...it's the heart of the conflict: If a local gallerist convinces others that it's worth buying a piece of the local scene (so to speak), he stands an increased chance of benefitting financially...

This strikes me as a ridiculously broad sketch of any potential conflict of interest here—that is to say, holding that anyone with any ounce of interest in something may not champion it in any respect.

Seems to me the question here—and, for what its worth, I don't entertain an opinion either way and would never presume to adjudicate the situation from my keyboard here in Chicago—is not whether Lenny generally promotes the greater scene (broadly considered) but whether he puts DCist in the compromised position (or the appearance thereof) of uncritically promoting Lenny's own direct interest (ie, Fraser and its artists).

Your point might be more germane were he concerning himself with rigorous, disinterested criticism of the scene in general or his artists in particular. This could well be described as "critically bankrupt." But, as I understand it, this is not about any such thing.

God forbid that a gallerist might advocate art in his hometown.

If you artists can't see a conflict of interest here, pretend Kirston is Noam Chompsky and ease into it slowly.

"I twitch whenever I see a feature with Lenny's name attached on DCist about work on display at the gallery he operates."

Speaking of semantics.........YOU artists? You were hasty Pudding. I thought you said you are one. You don't speak like one.
Marsha

Mr. Puddings,

Do you have a website? I'd like to see your art.
Thanks,
Marsha

Marsha:

I do not see why anyone should have to reveal his artistic pedigree to debate you. That's quite a provincial tactic. You're free to continue challenging people in that way, but I won't be taking the bait.

I'm just an artist, so I don't know much about technical stuff, but on my screen, after it says "posted by" (so and so), all the names except for Dick Puddings are in red ink. Is that suspicious or am I paranoid?

And I apologize, I'm just noticing that 2 of my posts weren't signed by me, although hopefully it was obvious that I wrote them. For anyone who cares....
"Oh, Tyler......and "OK, Kriston.....were written by me,
Marsha Stein

Kristin,

Why would it be you who is taking the bait?
Marsha

You asked me that question earlier in this thread.

on my screen, after it says "posted by" (so and so), all the names except for Dick Puddings are in red ink. Is that suspicious or am I paranoid?

If someone declines to leave an e-mail or Web site address in those fields, there's no hyperlink (i.e., red ink) to click.

Thank you, Kriston, however,
I am still confused that you responded to the question that I sent to Dick Puddings. Did you write the posts that were signed by Dick Puddings?
Marsha Stein

Marsha:

You are sort of paranoid. What do you want with me? Yes, I am an artist. No, you may not see my website. I said "you artists" just for affect.

hmmmmm
Now Mr. Puddings is answering a question to Kriston.
I'll ask it again.
Kriston:
Are you posting and signing with the name of Dick Puddings?
Marsha

Thank you, Kriston, however,
I am still confused that you responded to the question that I sent to Dick Puddings. Did you write the posts that were signed by Dick Puddings?

Of course not. In a comment you left at 7:01 p.m. on March 14 (scroll up), you said: "Are you an artist, Kriston? Do you know how hard we are working to make DC a more art friendly city?" I did not bother to answer the question. More recently in this thread, you challenged Dick Puddings with a similar question, at which point I said that I thought that your combative stance was counterproductive. You took that to be an answer to your question to Dick Puddings, and not being able to see a Web site for evidence of Dick Puddings, you accused me of being Dick Puddings. At which point Puddings called you paranoid—which, I take it, you see as further evidence that he and I are the same person.

I think you're trying to find some angle that isn't there.

Marsha:

I am not answering anything for Kriston. Go back and read what you wrote (to me).

(1) Speaking of semantics.........YOU artists? You were hasty Pudding. I thought you said you are one. You don't speak like one.

(2) Mr. Puddings,
Do you have a website? I'd like to see your art.
Thanks,
Marsha

(3) I'm just an artist, so I don't know much about technical stuff, but on my screen, after it says "posted by" (so and so), all the names except for Dick Puddings are in red ink. Is that suspicious or am I paranoid?

Now this last one one is funny, because when Kriston replied, you said it was for me (3.18, 8:21 PM). Now that I reply --indeed, you are paranoid-- you pretend the question was for Kriston (3.19, 4:31 PM).

Why are you playing detective when you can't even get your own story straight. It's annoying. You are chasing your own tail.

This is my final response to Mr. Puddings:
My story is quite straight. I am 54 years old and I know when people are full of shit. Mr. Puddings is fictional. If you are going to question someone's integrity, you need to have some.
If you want to get respect, earn it.
Marsha Stein

Marsha:

You signed on this thread with an aimless defense of Lenny's role at the DCist --an issue of integrity itself. Then, as a guest here, you start a hapless witch-hunt for identities, suggesting other guests here validate themselves to you. Now, after collapsing under the weight of your own confusion, you drape yourself with the banner of integrity. A fine performance. Stay true.

Speaking of collapsing, I've always loved a (Dick that gave) a good performance.

Spotted Dick Pudding is a traditional British sponge pudding made with golden syrup, suet and raisins. Best served hot with custard.

Yum

JAJA, UPYACHKA! UG NE PROIDET, BLYA!

OgxQdD gks72nf95mdHfLav1Xpu

OgxQdD gks72nf95mdHfLav1Xpu

OgxQdD gks72nf95mdHfLav1Xpu