Of course the great advantage to the blogosphere over print media is its boundlessness; and after reading the Art in America roundtable on art blogs by Peter Plagens with Regina Hackett, Tyler Green, Jeff Jahn, Roberta Fallon & Libby Rosof, and Edward Underscore, my one complaint—beyond the fact that the article isn't available online—is that Plagens's questionnaire really calls for a survey. Art bloggers can demonstrate the topics at hand by exploding some traditional boundaries of a print article.
So I'm going to answer Plagens's questions here, and then I'll kick this to a few bloggers I know will contribute smart answers. Any writers out there with blogs and opinions about art should give it a go. Forgive the navel-gazing, and apologies for the meme—very 2003 of me—but maybe this will help Plagens to understand. "In a sideways version of the time-honored Dewey-esque tradition of learning by doing, I decided to do a story on art blogs," he writes. We can help with that story.
Click below for questions and answers. In proper meme fashion I want to trouble a few select bloggers for their answers—Jen Bekman, fellow District writer Jeffry Cudlin, Global Warming Your Cold Heart, Hungry Hyaena, Paddy Johnson, JL, Arthur Whitman—but the list could go on and on and anyone who wants to take the time for a little self indulgence should give it a go.
What's the purpose of your blog?
It's a medium for writing about art, politics, and rhetoric. In the past I have done some original reporting here, although I tend to reserve that work for traditional media outlets these days. Once or twice I've published Q&As, panel writeups, that sort of thing. It's a decent journal for keeping track of things I've read, and blogs are one way for writers to keep up with friends and colleagues. There on the sidebar are links to recent articles I've published so I suppose my blog, like all writer's blogs, helps to promote my work.
It's an appropriate place for the odd news tidbit—for instance, the suggested attire on the invitation to the Corcoran Gallery of Art's annual ball is "natural glamour in black and white". Is "black tie" always couched in a euphemism? Note the British spelling. (I did not get an invitation.)
What are the boundaries of your blog?
The length and height of your monitor? I don't advertise artists or shows; I'm no cheerleader. I don't particularly think of myself as a blogger who is democratizing art though I know others who claim that mantle, and I'm sympathetic to that view. Peter Schjeldahl said something like, "If people don't like art, bully for them," saying he wouldn't do a dog-and-pony show to try to bring viewers (or readers) under the big tent.
On the other hand, promoting visual literacy—that's something that Roberta Smith talks about—sounds like a worthy goal, but I would hardly suggest that everything I write here serves that function. Some bloggers are very disciplined and write only about a single topic; I'm easily distracted and can't resist writing about politics, literature, and Texas football. I seek out journalism that is never concerned about going over my head. There's no reference to obscure for my blog, if it's a helpful one.
Tyler has cited Joy Garnett's NewsGrist blog [hyperlink added —ed.] as doing a great job of "placing art within a sociocultural and political context." What I see on NewsGrist is a magazinelike interspersing of short profiles, exhibition reviews, op-ed pieces on how other people are covering things, and Village Voice–like political takes. But what does Tyler's comment mean to you, and why are blogs in general better positioned than print to do what he describes?
Le race, milieu, et moment, n'est pas? Medium notwithstanding, it's the critic's goal to do this work.
Funny to me that here Plagens relates Garnett's blog back to print in all these ways, but it's important to consider that there are aspects of blogging that are unique to the medium. Newspapers have the same Web technology as bloggers now, and they've adopted some Web-based practices but few newspaper blogs resemble blogs by the grassroots.
Why can't blogs go further, to the point where there's hardly any discernible difference between artist and critic/commentator, blog and work of art?
I don't know if I understand what Plagens has in mind, but I don't I suppose there's anything preventing a blogger from doing what he envisions. Suggesting that all blogs might do something, though—sounds like herding cats.
What scope and degree of editorial control do you exercise over your blog?
Complete. Absolute unlimited power!
What about posting comments from readers, and what about anonymity?
I'll allow it. I might give someone hell who jumps into a thread to attack me or someone else from the veil of anonymity, but only if I'm cranky.
What's "trolling," and why don't some of you allow it?
Here I defer to Ben Wolfson, who has written widely on the art of trolling. Would that a troller were to come along with a proper troll, such a figure would be permitted, even welcomed. Alas, today's pale imitations are urged to peddle their pathetic wares some other place.
Is trolling really so easily identified and universally bad? Is having posters register a solution?
Again, see above. But comment registration isn't a solution for much anything, especially in a low-rent (i.e., low-traffic) niche of the blogosphere like art blogs.
What about liability coverage?
Like if I fall and break my rib? I don't have any. With all due respect asking a blogger whether he has liability coverage for his content betrays a Web-ignorant mentality.
What's the economic model of your blog?
There isn't one although I do get enough clickthroughs from the Amazon widgets there to occasionally buy a new paperback. It's still an open question of how online publications with far larger audiences can make money, so I'm not surprised that a model hasn't emerged specifically among art blogs. There might be money and readership enough to sustain a nationally focused macro-blog—something that would in some ways mime and other ways sidestep the art glossies—but so far no model has yet to emerge. It's something all of us are thinking about, though.
How do you see your blog's relation to the established print art media?
Blogs are or can be part of the art media. They stand to note errors and injustices, expand coverage, and praise good work; bloggers can perform meta analyses that print media rarely will. Of course, the media-hound-dog role is an especially cherished, privileged position: It's the reason blogs came up in the first place.
Tyler and Regina, what's the relationship between your blogging and your work in the print media?
I'll hazard an answer on this one, too. The blog is one more pocket—some things I think to write, I'll tuck into an article, whereas other things wind up on the blog. It's hard for me to establish a narrative the way that, say, Tyler Green has, because I end up moving the little ball under all these shells and that's hard to follow. Over time I think this blog will find a bit more structure and narrative.
How do you attract readers/posters other than by word of mouth?
It helps to have friends and colleagues whose blogs are more prominent than mine—that accounts for a lot of eyeballs. Readers who stick around, though, stay for shared interests, I'd guess, and I wouldn't know how to reach those people except by word of mouth.
In general, is blog art criticism more open and liberal, and print criticism more closed and conservative?
Not strictly speaking, no. I think it rarely lines up so neatly as "liberal" and "conservative" or "open" and "closed"—more like "discriminating" and, well, "not."
Here in the District, bloggers and others in the arts community clamor for more coverage, no matter the coverage. I'd rather see (and write) more expansive consideration of shows and artists and issues that merit the coverage.
Some people say that there's a dearth of art criticism at length on blogs. Is this true? If so, does it have more to do with reading on a computer in general, or with art criticism in particular?
It has nothing to do with reader on a computer. I subscribe to only a few romantic notions about print media—I like my Sunday Times in print—but my brother, who's seven years younger, thinks that's totally ridiculous.
I agree that there's a dearth of longer-form art criticism on blogs. I can't actually afford to write things on my blog that I could get paid to write, but if I were in a position to I'd love to use the blog to publish some off-beat arts critical ideas. JL at Modern Kicks writes long-form on his blog and we're all the better for it. Frankly, those with the knowledge to write art criticism just aren't inclined to write blogs. We're talking about a small number of people total.
Art magazines come out once a month. Newspaper art reviews usually appear once a week. Blogs appear more or less daily, and sometimes have updates by the hour. Do you think that the faster pace of blogs will start to affect the pace of art-making.
No. I just don't see why bloggers updating more frequently would affect practice any more than Artforum changing its print stock or the Times switching from Times to Georgia might. To say that this sphere of commentary has that sort of reach risks hubris.
Tyler just said that there's more good art being made by more artists in more places than at any time in history. Is this true? And if so, what's the reason?
In the West, possibly. Artists, designers, and media figures make up only a small percentage of the creative class but that group is expanding or has expanded over this generation. I'm not sure Tyler's making the sort of claim that can be proven out entirely, but for restricted fields of comparison I'd guess that he's right.
Do blogs help correct the geographical bias in print art criticism, i.e., the tendency to think that most of the important stuff happens in New York or Los Angeles, and the difficulty of art outside those places to get national attention?
Yes—for people living outside New York and Los Angeles.
One index of a city's gravity as an art center is young artists—perhaps recent MFAs—from elsewhere coming to set up shop. Is that happening in Philadelphia and Portland?
Erin Killian wrote a piece in the spring for the Washington Business Journal about city planners who were brainstorming ways to make the District a larger destination for artists than it is today. Here's a crucial item from the report: "Closer to home, Arlington, Fairfax and Montgomery counties each fly the 'creative economy' banner, promoting their areas' abilities to attract and retain all types of creative professionals." Jessica Dawson glanced on these issues in the Washington Post in her report on arts in Bethesda, Maryland.
It can't be overstated the degree to which municipal divides in the region frustrate the city's art scene. There are two states suburban to the metropolitan center of Washington, D.C., both of which hope to skim the profits generated by the urban creative class. There's only so much pie in the greater metropolitan region, and suburban areas like Arlingon, even exurban places like Reston, establish art centers that each take slices from the whole. There hasn't been a viable creative downtown in D.C. and to the extent one exists, it is retarded by the drag, the creative "sprawl," of outlying arts nonprofits. This city can't support the number of arts nonprofits that exist here. Do es the city need a Wpa, a Grace, and an Mpa? To some extent these organizations' programming is redundant—the defining difference is geographical base, and between these there's a difference of dozens of miles at most. It would certainly be better for the District if there were fewer of these nonprofits and those that existed put on better, bigger-profile, and more differentiated shows.
Is there any constructively negative edge to your blogging and, if so, what is it?
This is probably a question to ask the people and institutions I've taken on. I don't think I ever write anything snarky or angry that doesn't implicitly or explicitly suggest how to shape up.
Let's throw something back into the mix: naked human ambition. Unknown bloggers want to be little bloggers; little bloggers want to be bigger bloggers; and bigger bloggers want to be called, as is Tyler's Modern Art Notes, "the most influential of all the visual-arts blogs" by the Wall Street Journal.
I like Green's answer here: "Readers are excellent at distinguishing the Anchor Steam beer from the generic Natural Light." If the question is what do I want to be when I grow up, it's a hybrid journalist, the sort that new media is inoculating: writing investigative journalism, criticism, and meta-media ombudsman–type blogging.
Where will your blog be in three to five years?
One plank in my formidable media arsenal? The last embers of my burned-out career? If I'm still doing it I don't suspect it will be so different. I hope that in three to five years the visual template has changed once or twice.
Does Target count as a "fast-fashion" outlet? In a class with H&M? Target produces designer lines often enough, but do they count as a sort of rapid-turnover indicator of trends and seasons? On that note, courtesy Svetlana, the Erin Featherston stuff is dull—and notwithstanding this and this and maaaybe this, the clothes make the models look frumpy.
In a piece arguing the case against IP protection in fashion, Julian Sanchez identifies "masstige" lines as one reason that designers are casting a warier eye on downmarket copying. So the idea is that lines like Featherston's makes some market actor more anxious. But who? Is the idea that Featherston herself is competing in a market tier against fast-fashion knockoffs, so she's the one who feels more protective? Or is the notion that any designers whose work Featherston "references" will be crankier about potential design similarities given her enlarged platform through Target?
Fema stages a bogus news conference, complete with agency employees posing as reporters, in order to promote the agency's handling of the wildfires in Southern California.
It's funny to me that the equivalent agency in Russia (Ministry of Extraordinary Situations) has an American-sounding acronym: Emercom. Fema, on the other hand, has a Slavic ring to it and is an agency from the Soviet Union.
Two Sunday articles worth reading:
First, for the Washington Post David Greenberg writes about Rudy Giuliani and the misleading meme that mainstream press have built around him: Namely, that Giuliani is liberal on various social issues. He's not. I think the case is even worse than Greenberg writes: If an authoritarian like Giuliani is treated so gingerly by even ostensibly nonpartisan media outlets (e.g., ABC News) then it's quite possible that none of the media flaws that Republicans have been able to game since at least 2000 have been corrected.
It's been my experience growing up in the South that conservatives who do not know anything about politics and do not want to be tainted by negative associations with movement conservatism but who nevertheless reliably vote for Republicans will declare themselves "fiscally conservative, socially liberal," and seek politicians who project a similar image. I fear that a quote-unquote fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republican would be a considerable draw for voters who have voiced frustration with the Bush administration.
Of course, no such candidate exists among the standing GOP field, leaving traditionally conservative to moderate voters with the option of staying home, endorsing a Democrat, or holding their noses while they vote Republican. Any media that can polish a turd like Giuliani can sustain the longstanding image of Hillary Clinton as a cackling bitch—leaving Giuliani as the least-bad option for a lot of Americans who are uncomfortable with but not offended by the state of the republic.
Everyone will be familiar by now with Tyler Cowan's Angry Ape theory of electoral politics: "Most swing voters perceive America as being at war and so they demand toughness. They demand An Angry Ape, if not at every moment in time, at least in principle." Giuliani is an angry ape all the time but he has been cast by the media as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate who can play the angry ape when need be. From this point looking forward, 2008 looks like a contest for which candidate the Christian right finds less objectionable. Do they splinter, giving the race to Clinton, or stay quiet about their objections?
And in Salon, Glenn Greenwald writes about an exchange with Col. Steven Boylan, spokesperson for General David Petraeus. It's really amazing that a PR person would lie to a reporter, get caught lying, then be smug about it be so smug when the available evidence strongly suggests he has been caught lying to a reporter. But Greenwald's right: Worse is that Boylan seems to think that journalists must seek permission before they report things. "As we quickly found out, you published our email conversation without asking, without permission—just another case in point to illustrate your lack of standards and ethics," says Boylan, in response to . . . an e-mail from a journalist asking for information. That's funny! Boylan forgot that not all journalists are shills!
UPDATE: I won't call Boylan a liar before Greenwald does.
You know, I'm going to take a little break here. I'll keep the sidebar updated with pieces that I publish, and I'll have a few in the next week I believe (and I do hope you read them), but as far as the blog is concerned I'm calling in sick and staying in. For the time being.
I fear I'm coming down with something kind of bad right before the single most important day of the year—Halloween (Observed). I've got a review of Radiohead's In Rainbows for Campus Progress but little else to say, I'm sorry to say, so long as I'm under this weather.
Mitt Romney's "Reagan Zone of Economic Freedom"—pictured somewhat differently than it is on Romney's site:
Compare. Choice of graphs really do make a difference!
UPDATE: As I look at it now, I realize: It's an excellent starting hand in RISK! The Game of World Domination. You can't beat that +2 power battery from Oceania. Maybe the Mitt is onto something. . . .
Coty Jones, a photography student at the Corcoran, took down a rather large black bear. Bears live around here?
Maybe it's my mood today but that story does not provoke me. There's something primal about the notion of hunting that formidable a creature. Though the idea of waiting silently in a tree stand for one to meander by doesn't exactly correspond to that romance. But the patient waiting taps into another romantic vein, doesn't it? The severity and concentration juxtaposed with awesome wild power.
I thought immediately about Jason Zimmerman's video, Spotting, and that I felt no remorse about the kill or reflected glory in the hunt. It was the largest bear—now it is not.
Reading over a 2002 Artforum essay on Barnett Newman by Yve-Alain Bois I was struck by a detail that I'd either missed or forgotten:
Perhaps the most lethal label is Newman as Conceptual artist, for it prevented people from paying attention to the extraordinarily varied quality of his touch, to the wide range of his pictorial effects. Sadly, it also provided a good excuse for what can only be described as a criminal lack of care for his canvases—Mondrian's work dramatically suffered from a similar misconception: Why worry about painterly qualities if everything is just cosa mentale? Newman's paintings almost invariably came back damaged from exhibitions and have been frequent victims of outright vandalism—perhaps more so than those of any other artist in this century. What's more, they have not always been afforded the best treatment by restorers.Fascinating. I wouldn't know how you'd go about putting a quantitative label on the damage done to a painting since you have no great basis for comparison between, say, an acrylic on gessoed canvas and an oil on ungessoed linen. Maybe a label measures the absolute amount of effort a conservator puts into a piece of work—but then, it's imaginable that certain techniques require far more effort than others outside any proportion to the actual restorative work that they do.
Isn't it something, though, that a conservator would get her hands dirty like that? Mucking around with the whether and the how of art rather than eyeing strictly the what of the pigment and support. By that same token the image is charming: a spurned conservator, frustrated by this notion of a conceptual art that does not require execution, compelled finally to lash out in passive-aggressive rage against the thing itself.
Grab a copy of today's City Paper and check out my cover story on the Corcoran Gallery of Art, will you? It's about Modernism, staffing, the board of trustees, the state of the building, and future programming—roughly, a survey of the institution's fortunes following the resignation of David Levy and appointment of Paul Greenhalgh. If these names don't mean anything to you, read on.
In the same issue you'll find a feature review of two exhibits—the Wpa's 2007 "Options" and "Wack! Art and the Feminist Revolution"—both of which are ongoing. Feel free to compare notes in the comments.
I'll be back with more later, but right now Wrecky and I are going to go indulge in a spa and pedicure day. That's how I'm framing it, anyway; point of fact, I'm taking him to the Laundro-Mutt to give him the hose, and on the way he will resist by barking, snapping, pulling, running if he can make a go for it, and eventually falling totally limp in protest. At which point he's eighty pounds dead weight.
The other day I was quoted a fare by a cabbie that was so grossly out of step with the actual cost by zone that I nearly refused to pay him anything at all. I was wearing a suit, I was visibly harried, and I was traveling from one part of downtown to another—I didn't look much like a tourist. But why not lie to me or the next guy on K Street about the division of zones or the taxi fuel surcharge? The worst that happens, he's challenged by a grumpy passenger.
No, I'm not sympathetic to the complaint that cab drivers in the District can only make it as independent contractors under the zone system when, as everyone who lives here has experienced (as well as everyone who has visited, whether they know it or not), cab drivers thrive by exploiting information asymmetries built into the zone system. So a big hand to Mayor Fenty for ordering the District to fall in line with every other major city in the nation by adopting the meter, thereby ensuring his hold on the office of the mayor—and our hearts—for as long as he shall live.
Total insanity indicator of the day courtesy of the Washington Post: President Bush has appointed Susan Orr, who is opposed to contraception, to be the chief of family planning programs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Orr has worked at the James Dobson–funded Family Research Council and didn't drop dead from shame after letting the phrase "Fertility is not a disease" pass her lips in public.
The birth czar does not approve contraception. How does that even work? She's going to tell the whole nation . . . to use the rhythm method? Hunt stork? Her predecessor, Eric Keroack, also came to his anti-woman positions during a long career working in religious practices more in sadness than in anger after reviewing the science. At least Keroack's sharing his conclusions with the rest of us. Amanda Schaffer writes in Slate that Keroack holds to the belief (which he might have lifted from Alexyss Tylor) that "premarital sex disrupts brain chemistry so as to create a physiological barrier to happy marriage." Now there's a disease.
I was crafting another fine argument about the market for Chinese contemporary art when I got distracted by this video. Spencer's responsible for sending it along; he seems determined to open a third front in the cute bear argument that has divided our household. While the video has convinced me that Wreck very much needs a polar buddy, the p. bear is simply no match for the koala. O hai, koara. Harro, koara bear.
Artnet has listings for artists participating in "Unmonumental," the four-stage show that will fill every gallery of the New Museum for its opening on December 1. From Kristen Morgin to Thomas Hirschhorn to Michael Bell-Smith to Language Removal Systems, it's an impressive menu of artists. The 30-hour opening party on December 1 sounds like an event not to be missed, if perhaps an event not to be enjoyed in its entirety.
Jiha Moon, Jade Cycle, 2007.
Read about that show here. And if you grab the paper that's on stands today, you can read about Nelson Vergara's "Anni" at Meat Market Gallery.
I paid £5 for In Rainbows, which was like, twice as much as my cheapskate friends put down.
I mentioned a while back that I was selected to participate in the Maryland Art Place Artists and Critics Residency program. So were two other writers: Darcy Bleau and Robert Jason Fagan, whose work I haven't yet had the pleasure of reading.
Here's the deal. We selected critics, along with a senior critic—this year, that's Robert Berlind, a contributor to the New York Times and Art in America—will do a host of studio visits, select works for a show (to be hosted by MAP), and contribute essays for an accompanying catalog. The first big chunk of that work, we'll do this weekend, when we drive around the mid-Atlantic to do studio visits with the following artists:
Vincent CarneyI've only ever done studio visits mano a mano. When I was taking a studio class in Italy in 2001, I participated in a show organized by the college, and some visiting Georgetown professors stopped through and talked with each of us about our work. That's my only brush with group critique; I hope it's not stressful for the artists to field questions by four writers. And, of course, I hope we don't all pass out by the end of the afternoon on Saturday.
Timmerman Daugherty
Dennis Farber
Symmes Gardener
Catherine Kleeman
Isabel Manalo
Jacqueline Schlossman
Jacquelyn Singer
Diane Szczepaniak
Some of those names are known to me, but more aren't. Saturday morning I'll be catching an early ride to Baltimore, then returning fairly quickly to meet with Isabel Manalo, then on to the next stop. See you back on Sunday.
Oh—speaking of Berlind—did any New York readers attend this panel on art criticism?
For Artnet's art market watch column, Richard Polsky writes:
The market will decline, this season or next, for Chinese contemporary art. The price rise in Chinese contemporary is a sucker bet based purely on speculation rather than on the quality of the work itself. There's nothing innovative here. In fact, other than its specifically Asian content, the work is totally derivative of Western art.It's certainly reasonable to suggest that a correction in the West's art market will affect the booming Western market for contemporary art from China. That said, it's a mistake to talk about China as a monolith. There's a crude Orientalism supporting the feverish market for Chinese contemporary art. As if there is any sense in the notion of "Chinese contemporary art," a Sinicized style in a nation so geographically and demographically vast. A projection like "There's nothing innovative here" is as baseless as the endless march of gallery shows exhibiting "the new trend" in China.
But we may still talk about a Chinese contemporary art market because, as yet, the infrastructure for the market is still immature and depends on a great deal of Western investment. Building out this infrastructure is good for the West, good for China, and good for Art. However, it's also work paid for by suckers. Economist blogger Ryan Avent and I have been chatting about this issue this morning (read: I've been peppering him with questions over IM), and he points to this Slate column by Daniel Gross that introduces Gross's book, Pop! Why Bubbles Are Good for the Economy. In short: Booms make for lots of bad investments that nevertheless build infrastructure. So the question is, then, whether the avenue connecting Chinese studios and Western collectors has been sufficiently paved by the sort of speculation Polsky decries to survive the bubble's collapse.
The manosphere is micropulsing over Tom's writeup following his recent Gillette Fusion purchase. Naturally, I scoffed. I've been enjoying micropulse technology for months now. In fact I am such a devoted fan of micropulse technology that when I initially purchased the Gillette Fusion (again, months ago) I also bought the Oral-B Pulsar, the best toothbrush a man can get. I patiently await a prototype entry into the as-yet-unexamined field of micropulse deodorant, at which time every single one of my hygienic needs will be met by products that vibrate in a barely perceptible way. So much could go wrong with a Micropulse Cool Stick Clear, of course; I have every confidence that the people at Right Guard labs are simply determined to get it right the first time. Think about what hangs in the balance.
So I read on, comforted by the fact that Tommy is only now catching up in this critical game of razor-consumption oneupsmanship. Just this weekend, as I slapped down $25 to re-up on Fusion cartridges, I pondered the many increased benefits afforded by an asymptotic rise in the number of blades per razor system. I am not paying $25 for nothing, you know! I like to think that I'm doing my part to realize the gradual development of the Gillette Aleph.
Still comforted by my purchase, and not at all doubting the amount of money I was paying for disposable razors, I humored the rest of Tommy's post. But as he began to enumerate the technical specifications of his product (available courtesy of Gillettepedia, which is a nonprofit and nonpartisan online scientific resource foundation 2.0), I felt a growing sense of dread. Certainly, my face has felt the comfort of five flowing blades. Without question, I have trimmed and tidied sideburns using the single reverse blade, or as I like to call it, "the option." I think I have been very clear about my feelings on micropulse anything. But in a panic-inducing revelation, Tom revealed, much to my panicking, that he was now shaving at another level. I had been left behind.
The Gillette Fusion Phantom. It has an onboard microchip for consistent power, shave after shave. I'll see you at CVS—or I'll see you in hell.
"Bush Leaving Some Problems to Successors." Courtesy of Spencer. Who is most assuredly not wearing a freedom lapel pin.
I had to be a little late to the story on the Washington Project for the Arts\Corcoran, now the Wpa, but click for some reporting about the organization's long-term plans. I've been working on some other projects (that's why, as of late, this blog is little better than a graveyard for puns).
I missed my chance to use the best lede for this story. That one got swept up by Mike DeBonis: "Copy editors across the District rejoice: The end of that infernal fucking backslash."
Leah Dickerman is leaving the National Gallery for MoMA. This year has witnessed the departures of Jonathan Binstock, Jay Gates, Olga Viso, and Jeffrey Weiss. With exceptional curatorial and directorial talent draining from the District, and with an excess of demand for museum curators and directors at a national level, the city is looking forward to a serious problem. "Crisis" is not overstating the matter.
All things are full of labour;
man cannot utter it:
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.
Mark Athitakis passes along a great anecdote from an unexpected source:
As if to compensate for the general dreariness of her novels' themes—her latest is a one-two punch combining the Holocaust and domestic violence—[Joyce Carol Oates]'s affected a dry, almost Stephen Wright–like demeanor in front of the crowd. One audience member said she understood she had an interest in boxing, and could she expand on that? "Well, I wrote a book called On Boxing," she said, dryly. "That may have given you a small hint of that." It sounds bitchier written down than it does when she says it. Thompson didn't write about her weirdest, funniest joke, though. She talked about Hitler and Stalin for a bit, then noted to the audience that somebody was holding a sign saying she had two minutes left. "Then they'll machine-gun me," she said."Oates! That's so funny! She really is not a humorous writer.
The Telegraph, reporting on Radiohead's decision to allow fans to download their forthcoming album for free:
Radiohead could even benefit from those who ignore the box set and choose to pay nothing to download the album from Radiohead's online shop, where they will be required to register their details and therefore become targets for future marketing campaigns.Thom Yorke wants my private data? For marketing purposes?
Pitchfork, on Sonic Youth contributing to a Starbucks compilation:
During New York City's recent Fashion Week, [videographer Liz] Glover approached [Kim] Gordon to ask exactly why the band chose to go with Starbucks. The result is . . . Gordon's pithy, pretty awesome reply:And Thurston Moore on same: "Starbucks is the new record store, right?" The sorry thing is, I'm more sympathetic than not with the adults in both cases."They're less evil than Universal."
