Readers' Comments
updated 08.07.07
We welcome your comments. Please email us with your comments
(comments@susceptibletoimages.com) and indicate whether or not your comments
may be posted on the site.
Comments on "I Don't Get It" (06.05.07)
Friends, Thanks for the opportunity to exchange ideas concerning our visual arts
culture, and specifically the recent articles and responses concerning the "I Don't
Get It" and "Art vs Art". These manifested because of the good fortune for us all
to have in our Wisconsin midst three quality juried exhibits, the Biennial, The
Triennial and the Forward exhibit.
Janet Roberts and I served as CoChairs of the Wisconsin Artists Biennial, held at
the Haggerty. Janet is also my Significant Other, so I can hardly be said to be
objective regarding her comments concerning conceptual and intellectually derived
work compared to that which might be more visceral, romantic and intuitive...and
which depends more on paint, brushes or tactile medium. But...I think I did get
her meaning.
(For an near ultimate visceral and romantic exhibition, please, by all means, visit
the exhibit in the John Michael Kohler Art Center of Sheboygan, "Sublime Places
and Visionary Worlds. Janet and I were both rocked by that world.)
One thing that is clear in Janet's comments is this: There is room for all kinds, and
viewers will pick and choose what they like for whatever reason. Choices reflect
one's life experiences, and we must recall the old adage about walking in
another's shoes. Thank goodness we are not dictated to by government,
religious or outright coercive forces...he says carefully. However, we are at the
whims, the agendas and limitations of the media.
The Biennial and the Triennial had different methods of selection, different physical
places, different needs and probably different goals. The Biennial always has at
least a very good selection of work produced in the state, and it will vary toward
or away from conceptual work depending solely on the juror. The Biennial held at
the Anderson Art Center in 05 had more conceptual work than the current show,
and was not that year in some silly perceived "competition" with the Triennial.
(Janet and I were CoChairs that year too.)
Katie Musolff commented that there is a fairly well defined pool of artists from
which WP&S exhibits are drawn...but this was not a show consisting of only WP&S
members. Yet she is correct in assuming there is a limted pool. The Biennial had
about 400 artists from all over the state submitting 800 pieces. Depending on the
choices of the juror, it could have looked very different. Having myself seen all
entries in image form, there is no doubt that some highly progressive exciting
work was not chosen due to the decisions of a juror.
The Triennial had the staff of MMoCA making choices from around 500 artists, and
certainly many of the same artists applied for both opportunities. Considering
that MMoCA could elect to visit anyone it wanted to, staff could visit the
professors of art and other artists who will not enter juried exhibits from which
they might be excluded. We might assume that MMoCA therefore had a bit more
breadth and leeway in making selections. One might also assume that some
people would not attempt to enter an exhibit in a venue that is titled "Museum of
Contemporary Art", for that may imply to some a more progressive art expression.
The fact that the Biennial had to be selected based on images, either slides or
JPEGS, meant that the usual flaws caused by poor image representation could
affect choices. The size of the venue clearly influenced selections as well. The
fact that the Triennial was chosen by progressive MMoCA staff who have the task
of showing "contemporary" works meant that there would be some obvious bias
and eliminations...and the size of the facility allowed for huge work compared to
the Haggerty.
The BIG DEAL is this! All these larger periodic exhibits deserve our attention! All
of them should be reviewed/commented about by the media in this state. Just
because a certain arts writer or critic does not favor an exhibit which is more of a
survey, like the Biennial or the Forward exhibit at the Charles Allis, does not mean
there is in sufficient reason to give it space in news print or on some other media
outlet.
The public will respond to exhibits it hears about, and it does not hear when there
is no media interest or response. One might say that the media is killing off at
least part of its own future by not publicizing visual arts exhibits and stories that
are accessible to the general public, from which the public can learn and gain
enjoyment, and help build a greater base of support for the visual arts!
- Gary John Gresl
Well, Judith Ann, I bow to your considerable knowledge and obvious
intelligence…..and I say that without rancor or sarcasm. I had written
the article, THE END OF ART AS WE KNOW IT, for some time before having
the courage to submit it to Art in Wisconsin, knowing I would no doubt be
showered with metaphorical stones. Much to my surprise, I received many
emails congratulating me on the article, and my so called courage in
stating my beliefs. One person wrote, “Finally…..someone said what
all of us have been thinking for years”, and drew upon the analogy of
the Emperor’s New Clothes.
However, and it is a big “however”, I realized when I saw the
article in print that I would be treading on risky and uneven ground. I am
probably fortunate that I have not had easels burned on my lawn in
protest.
I cannot argue with your comments, Judith. As I stressed in the
article, there can be no censorship if art is to thrive and grow. What
distresses me, and will continue to, is the fear that artists choosing to do
more traditional work may be overlooked, ignored……or even ridiculed.
There must be standards…..but who should define them? As art is, or
WAS for years, a visual endeavor, I am confused by the increasing
emphasis on “the idea”. Should one have to read what one is supposed to
“see” in a work of art before he can understand and/or appreciate
it? Should we—the general public AND artists—feel ignorant and out of
the artistic loop because we are still delighted with the feel, the
smell, and the sight of art upon which the touch of a human hand is
evident?
Perhaps I am just turning into a grumpy, small-minded old fogy, and
will end out my days grumbling and muttering about the new fangled stuff
that calls itself art. But hopefully, I also will continue to be amazed
and thrilled by new artists and their visions, and at least some of
these will be created with paint and clay and will indeed be magical.
- Janet Roberts
Comments on Art vs Art: The Wisconsin Triennial and the Wisconsin Artists
Biennial (06.05.07)
I remember returning home to Milwaukee in 1980 after living in Paris for ten years,
the esteemed Wisconsin Sculptures and Painters were juring the exhibition that I
aways wanted to be in since my days at Layton School of Art. In the 1960s WP&S
seemed to me to have an edge on art and be something of an honor to be
exhibited in. My politics to art after being in europe were very broad and open and
'art' has to be free to all and available as well. But in the States there are old
traditions and narrow rules that I felt had to be broken to be vital. There can be
no entrance fee. It is a group exhibition where artist do all. I brought a cartoon for
a [direct] wall installation and refused to pay the entrance fee. Tom Uttech was
the head at that time and I was rejected. So this is the stagnated provincial
institution that WP&S was then. And now I look at the art presented in the
biennale as what I could see in any commercial gallery from Door County to any
gallery in Milwaukee's Historic Third Ward.
The chance to exhibit in the Triennal in Madison, a much smarter institution is
desirable for me. I am not sure that it is really more academic than more in-touch
with the art of our time. [ and I do not mean this in elitist terms.] There are a few
faults in this exhibition too.
In the review by Dorota Biczel Nelson the exhibitions were discussed as the art
works in the 'art' sense . What I found deeply missing was real 'political' art since
we are a country at war [for how many years now?] I was looking for something
of expression and emotion on that theme. I watched the art of the 60's & 70's
that had things to say politically. I quested the curators as I first went through
the Triennial. Is the war that unimportant to the artists of Wisconsin? Does
Wisconsin artist live in the safe bubble and the war is --over there? I was told
there were a few examples presented but they touched me as being more
decorative that making a clear statement.
To justify my name, I continued on my art that I have been making long before
George W. Bush created this war. He is a dangerous man, but not of any value to
me or my art. I only wanted it to thrust nature, pure nature, into you face and
space and then some, to show the structure and nature can say to art -- living.
- Roy Staab
I too have seen both shows and applied for both. Rejected by the triennial and
awarded by the biennial, I was initially on the defensive while reading this article.
But I believe that there are good reasons why the results are so different. As with
many WP&S shows, many of the same artists apply and I find that same names
coming up over and over at each show. It can be a comforting and at the same
time, frustrating cycle. And for some reason, many artists that I admire do not
apply for these shows. However, once the call for artists from the triennial came
out, every artist I knew was chasing after it.
In reflecting on both shows, I too found the triennial more stimulating overall. I
will apply again in three years. But do know that the pool of artists from which to
pick from for each show were not so similar.
- Katie Musloff
Comments on Recap: Art Chicago in Review (05/03/07)
To submit your own comment, please visit the review, which is linked above, and use
the reader response form at the bottom of the review page.
"It was the best Art Chicago in years! Early numbers suggest over thirty
thousand attended the fair. Our Wisconsin artists ( John Wilde, Tom Uttech, Fred
Stonehouse, Jason Rohlf, Dennis Nechvatal, Mark Mulhern and Mary Bero) received
lots of attention and held up in quality and content to our stiff competition."
Comments on METALS! 07 @ UWM (05/03/07)
To submit your own comment, please visit the review, which is linked above, and use
the reader response form at the bottom of the review page.
"This is Jada Milner, creator of the piece "En-DEER-ing" from the Metals 07! Show.
I just wanted to ellaborate on my piece a little...You are right that it is commenting
on the views of hunting in society, but it is much more personal to me. I am a
(female) hunter myself and have been hunting in Wisconsin for 10 years now.
Hunting has been a tradition in my family for generations and I hold it very near to
my heart. That is why I have encased the antler bits as 'jewels' because they are
of precious nature to me and it is another alternative to having MY deer trophy
mounted on the wall. I love to incorporate hunting into my works since it is a huge
part of my life and it is definitely something most people do not know about me. I
am proud to incorporate it knowing that the public might not necessarily approve,
but there is no way I would compromise myself just to ease the minds of a few
viewers. I really enjoyed reading the review! (it is also made from brass, not
copper)."
"From what I see here this is a very nice show. Congrats to
all participants. "
Comments on Hans Hermann Viets at Beans and Barley (posted 04/24/07).
To submit your own comment, please visit the review, which is linked above, and use
the reader response form at the bottom of the review page.
Having known Hans for about 6 years, I can tell you that not only is he real, but all
that you have read is true! I haven't seen these new paintings in real life, but I
can tell the reviewer that she is probably responding to something deeper than
what the average viewer might see. That is to say, Hans' skill and passion when it
comes to painting and art. He has made some amazing work in the past, and as
hard as these recent ones may be for some to understand, he has a skill that will
someday be widely appreciated.
- Paige
Awhile ago I saw a card showing the "falling bull" picture. My initial response was
that there was a certain graphic quality to the work. I happened to be eating at
Beans and Barley sometime later, saw the paintings,and my first assessment
stood. While I do believe the larger pictures have an initial zip, they seemed to
come up a bit short in the way of moving beyond that. I was very much reminded
of Basquiat, who (maybe because he ran out of time), seemed unable to fully
digest ideas, or internalize them in some way. He had a good graphic sense in my
opinion, and was a pretty good painter (at least for the first four years), but I don't
agree he is the powerhouse many say he is (despite how many barbaric films
heighten his pop status). Eight years isn't long. I suppose time will tell. Typically,
when looking at paintings, I refrain from lumping one artist with another, as this
can be a hindering factor, but ultimately, as I have seen this many times before, it
seemed unavoidable. Viets' pictures elicit a similar response. Literal ideas and
execution, a strong
connection to illustration, a sort of browsing conceptual disposition, what is
typically called overstyling, and so on; all things related to the "style-over-
content" 1980's NY art scene. While I would disagree with "disgusting", I do
believe that initial attention grabbing rather quickly subsides. It is possible that in
Milwaukee there are few who work in this vein, but I certainly have seen this
many times elsewhere. However, I have also seen it done more poorly.
- Kyle Fitzpatrick
Perhaps it is the similarities between the color pallete of van Gogh and Viets'
works that you find favorable. Who knows. I think Van Gogh's work suggests
much richer definitions and contrasts.
- Thomas Kovacich
Dear Deb,
I read the review, saw the photographs, and went to see the paintings at Beans
and Barley. And well…I’m trying to like them; after all you and I have been
partners in crime in a couple of art historical endeavors. But I am sorry. The best I
can do is accept that the paintings are intriguing their colors somehow iridescent;
they are also certainly big; and, as one of the waitresses told me, they are very
different from the more conservative art that usually hangs in that space.
However, I also find the paintings simply hideous. The application of paint seems
pasty, the drawing is cartoonish and, I disagree with you, there’s nothing gentle
about them. In fact they make me feel uncomfortable, maybe it is the violence
with which the bull plunges down head first, the void to the side of the seated
bull, or the way in which that large bird is (in my least favorite of the group)
…what? Attempting to go INTO the cage?
I’m offended that you mentioned these works in the same sentence as van Gogh’
s. The old master’s works are full of indomitable energy, the paint spurts and
splatters in thick globs of paint: His stars like exploding suns, his skies alive with
energy. Poor Vincent, his raw emotions painted on the canvas, compared to
works that seem to be trying too hard.
Maybe I just don’t get them and you do. Maybe you are the true visionary, and I
the pig headed traditionalist. Who knows? But one thing I am sure of: I would
not want any of these works in my living space. I guess it will remain you and
Hans. Alone.
- Natanya Blanck
Comments on No One Would Kick a Renaissance Painting by Debra Brehmer
(posted 04.11.07)
Nice observation about the Baroque's tendency to incite passion and emotion.
Perhaps that is why, as an art history major, classes became most interesting to
me when we reached the Baroque period. I appreciated the humanistic approach
of the Renaissance, was less enamored with the Mannerist period which seemed
to back-slide a bit into the religious fervor of the early Christian (though 20 years
later the Mannerist visual sensibility seems more palatable to me).
But when we reached the 1600's I was fully riding the swing (in my early 20's)
into the Baroque rebellious, larger than life dramatic punch. But Caravaggio was
so very much in the spotlight, so far outshining his peers that when looking at the
lesser artists of his time, I became a snob, a critic of all that was not the "real
deal". He seemed one of the original art super stars. Warhol had predecessors.
The other thing that always struck me about Caravaggio was his constant co-
mingling of the sacred and the profane. It is clear that he had faith of some kind.
But his paintings also speak strongly of being pulled by the material world,
fascination for the gritty detail, the sensual (from fruit to pale exposed skin) the
pleasures of the flesh that were perhaps not entirely divorced from spiritual
salvation in his mind. Even the symbolism used in his paintings (and by many
Baroque artists) left viewers choosing between double interpretations, satisfying
both those looking for religious lessons and those seeking titillation, or both. As
an artist he seemed to have a foot in both worlds, feeling moved with some kind
of spiritual illumination, but also embracing and intertwining that with the other
multi-sensual powers in his life, living by and fueled by his connected passions.
There was some of that in the Renaissance as well, and Caravaggio seemed to
borrow the celebration of the human form, the highly structured compositions
(turning it, as you said, on its corner). He added the theatrical light and he
removed the veil of idealized form (dirt under fingernails??!). Obviously, impulse
control, when confronted with the power of the Baroque, is what the Pewaukee
guy was lacking...even when facing a lesser master.
I found myself asking "Was this guy a religious zealot? Was he the victim of
bullying but frustrated, being incapable of taking down his own Goliath? Did he
know anything about art history or the biblical story behind the painting? Was his
response purely reactionary to the violence of the image? Was he possessed by
the ghost of Caravaggio who had disdain for a lesser work?
Caravaggio got into street fights in real life and from all accounts possessed very
little impulse control himself. His ghost (if one believes in such things) would no
doubt be a rambunctious one. Then I thought, perhaps we are entering/living in
the midst of a Baroque-ish period ourselves...the swing in response to, or away
from things more fanatically religious (on many divided extremist fronts) and
illogical. We do know history to repeat itself. What will the 21st century look like,
politically, religiously and artistically when viewed through an art historical lens?
Seems like there is alot to kick against right now. Will that show up on the
historical timeline as something significant? Would Caravaggio have encountered
many of the same challenges today (as an artist and as a young, perhaps angry,
brilliant gay man) that he struggled with in 1600? Alright, he would have had
access (if his patron offered a health insurance package) to a plethora of
prescription drugs to treat his extreme emotions. But beyond that...
Perhaps I am just a bit overwhelmed by it all. But that ol' structure and
celebratory, idealistic Humanism of the Renaissance is looking pretty darned good
right now...at least from where I stand.
Josie Osborne
Responses to Artists of Color: Paintings, Prints, Collage, Sculpture, and Quilts
by African American Artists at Peltz Gallery (review published 02.13.07)
I am responding to your review of the Artists of Color exhibition. I am an visual
artist as well who attended the exhibition. First, I would like to say that the title of
the show (with the use of the word 'color') in no way misrepresents, demeans, or
degrades African Americans--the group you seem compelled to highlight. The term
'Artists of Color' brings to mind that the artists involved in the show are simply
that artists of color. This doesn't mean it is referring solely to African Americans--
but actually defines anyone that is non-white (Asians, Puerto Ricans, etc.). It is
extremely hard for persons of the majority group to understand what offends,
degrades, or demoralizes those of the minority group.
The point you raise regarding, "discussion of African-American art as a separate
entity is possible at all and whether the exhibition suggests anything about its
potential preoccupations.." We are just about the business of creating art period--
we are not trying to a separate entity in our art. Even when the works depict
themes of black struggle, the diaspora, etc., this is does not mean we are trying
to be proponents of some "cause" or to 'let y'all know that we's been oppressed
and that we's tryin to speak out about our plight'. Unfortunately, the art culture in
Milwaukee has tried to force African American artists into some mode--largely
because they don't understand us and are not willing to talk directly to us to find
out the truth. If you are even vaguely aware of Chicago's or New York's art culture
and African Americans' part in you would not be stating the exhibition in terms of
Black or white or anything for that matter. Those cities have a rich art culture that
simply embraces their artists--regardless of color--for what art is.
In my opinion, the diversity of the works shown in the show spoke to the diversity
and individuality of each artist. Nothing more. If a white artist (who happens to be
Jewish) paints a picture depicting the holocaust, Germany, or some other event in
their history does this mean that they are speaking out on Jewish culture or race?
No, in fact one might not even know the artist to be Jewish unless they asked--
instead they would be commenting on the composition of piece, what they were
trying to say, etc.
The show was not demeaning to African Americans nor did it exploit them. Again,
you are making statements on how you would view African Americans and their
supposed response to their art. Too often, the majority--that is White people--
tend to be patronizing in their response to African Americans and their culture.
Since they don't know very much about the essence of our experiences (and
again don't delve further to understand it) they try to grope or grasp for a
palatable solution which helps them "quench the guilt". Some even think they are
helping our 'cause'. Perhaps unconsciously this is what you are trying to do. I
would suggest that you accept and embrace the art on display in Peltz gallery as
art that you would see displayed in any other gallery.
When I viewed the exhibition I saw the diversity of works in the show as
refreshing, exciting, and colorful and a vivid display of talent. Someone from
another culture might have thought the show was about artists showing their
colorful works.
Blanche Brown
Dear Ms. Biczel Nelson and the Editor.
I recently read your review of the "Artists of Color Exhibition" at Peltz Art Gallery.
I am puzzled by your notion that this exhibition should have focused on African
American artists who explore the "question of what it means to be African-
American" and your assertion that it was about racial identity. It was not. The
reason that Cissy Peltz did the exhibition was to showcase some Milwaukee
African American artists who do not normally get seen in Milwaukee art galleries.
That was the only purpose of this exhibition. The only connection between all the
artists in this exhibition they all were African American.
Why must a exhibition featuring African American artists have to deal with race?
Do white artists who create images featuring white subjects are they exploring
racial identity? Moreover,xhibition featuring African American artists have to deal
with race? Do white artists who create images featuring white subjects are they
exploring racial identity? Moreover, how to you know whether or not if the
artists are exploiting or extolling African-American heritage? You fail to explain
that in your review.anymore to support your point. The reason she can resist
those exhibitions now is because she does not have to do them anymore to get
her work out there. She used those feminist and African American exhibitions
to get her work out there.
Another question that I have how do if George Ray McCormick's Pastor Low
Mo' Get Down and Sister Hattiebell "represent the tradition that Saar's work
references". Whose tradition are you talking about? Hopefully, in future
reviews that you examine more what the subject you are writing about before
it appears in print.
Della Wells
I am responding to your review of the Artists of Color exhibition at Cissy Peltz
Gallery.
By the time we spoke to Cissy, she had already established the shows title, I
would like to add that although Cissy didn't fully use of the term “artist of
color” in it's proper context, it was not offensive. What we explained to Cissy
was that the shows titled suggested that artists of other nationalities would
also be shown, not just African Americans. So I don¹t know what you mean
with your interpretation of the word "color." Also I don't know what you mean
by "minorities remain significantly removed from the positions of powers in all
spheres of life," even for women that's a gross exaggeration.
As an African American artist, I wonder why every time the term African
American art exhibition is used, the expectation of the exhibition has to be
about race, whether figurative works are used or not. When white artists are
shown together and may feature portraits of figurative subjects is that too
about race? I think not.
In addition you mentioned, “an important question to answer is whether the
discussion of African-American art as a separate entity is possible at all and
whether the exhibition suggests anything about its potential preoccupations.”
The answer in my opinion is as African American artists we're not advocating a
separate entity anything. The world of art has chosen to pigeon hole artists
and to marginalize artists. We just want to create art. When we do it
collectively Milwaukee's art world thinks it's about race. Cissy's exhibition
features artists who happen to be of African decent, some of which usually are
featured in exhibitions all over the country.
Please consider this, when going to a salon style gallery like Cissy's, Yes,
you're going to see various art making methods. You are not going to walk
into a commercial gallery and see multiple artists all looking the same, all
addressing the same issues. The ways in which artists incorporate their art
influences, whether in techniques, materials or subject matter, speak more to
the individuality of these artists than to a monolithic aesthetic. The
cohesiveness is not always reflected in theme but in the motivation of Those
who created the work.
Lastly, don't assume that there is a national trend for being American, with
statements like “similarly to national identity, as I can assure from personal
experience is a rather weak link between various artists” When you believe
the all the work you saw has to be about race. For that very reason is why the
Allison Shaars of the art world don't want to do the African Americans themed
exhibitions.
I applaud Cissy for having the guts to embrace our work “period.”
Mutope J. Johnson
Author Dorota Biczel Nelson responds:
As a writer, I am always thrilled to receive responses to my reviews. The most
important thing -- in my opinion -- we can accomplish through a publication
such as Susceptible to Images is extended dialogue that goes beyond the
immediate circle of friends and colleagues. After all, it is through dialogue that
we learn and are able to exceed limitations of our own perceptions. Therefore,
I am grateful that both Mr. Johnson and Ms. Wells took their time to reply to
my article. However, I'd also like to take the opportunity to elaborate on my
position.
If Mr. Johnson indeed believes that the statement "women and minorities
remain significantly removed from the positions of powers in all spheres of
life" is a gross exaggeration, then why do all the pundits claim that for Hillary
Clinton being a female is going to be the major obstacle in her run for
presidency? And why did the fact that Harvard appointed first woman
president make it to national headlines? On a whole different level, I'd also
like to point out to Mr. Johnson that while working ant UWM I everyday
witness the imbalance that is reflected through the univeristy's student
population. According to data from 2005, less than 7% of all undergrads at
UWM were African American and less and 4% -- Latino. In the arts these
proportions are even worse: 3.5% for each of the respective groups. I can
literally count on the fingers of one hand minority students I've had in the last
3 years. Since UWM serves the largest metropolitan area in the state of
Wisconsin, I find the discrepency between the make up of general population
and that of the University deeply troubling. I wonder what this fact speaks to,
in Mr. Johnson's opinion.
I'm also confused by the distinction that Mr. Johnson makes between Cissy
Peltz's Gallery and commercial galleries (where one can presumably see
"multiple artists all looking the same, all addressing the same issues"). I had
always thought Peltz Gallery was a commercial gallery and as far as I know
Cissy has always been very proud of it (in the best sense of the word).
Finally, I completely don't understand why both Ms. Wells and Mr. Johnson
have a problem with my opinion that it'd be more beneficial (to me as a
viewer, at least) to see the work that deals with identity in a more direct
manner. First of all, I have not denied African American artists their innate
right to do any kind of work they want to do, or deal with any issues that might
interest them. Quite the contrary, multiplicity of voices and diversity of media
and subject matter is exactly what I expected to see, just like I don't expect,
for example, all Polish artists to talk about fall of communism, European
integration or critique governmental corruption by employing the image of
Holy Virgin Mary in every piece. The quote from Betye Saar was used to affirm
the fact that no human individual can be classified or narrowed down to a
category such as race or gender. In some cases gender, race, nationality or
sexual orientation can play the role in an artist's work, but obviously it does
not have to be the case. I found the quote particularly striking precisely due to
the fact that Betye Saar achieved recognition through her association with
both African American and feminist movements. I thought that her ultimate
refusal to be categorized as either was very telling, pointing out to
complexities of individual experience as well as individually expressed artistic
truths. Interestingly, this is also similar to the position Sam Gilliam has held all
his life.
If the individualism and variety of voices within any community are the key,
then I don't understand why the title of the exhibition at the Peltz emphasizes
the fact that the artists included in the show are African American. When I go
see any exhibition, I expect to find some kind of underlying internal premise or
logic to the selection of the work. I thought that the Peltz's show, even though
it contained a large amount of interesting work, overall lacked very definite
clarity of intention. Just to compare, Mr. Johnson has recently curated the
show "The Art of Africa-N-American Artists" currently on display at
Inova/Zelazo Center's Mary Nohl galleries at UWM, where he deliberately
chose African American artists dealing with the heritage of African art in their
work. However, if the race or heritage are really secondary factors to a
particular grouping (supposedly as it is the case with the show at Peltz), then
what are the possible reasons for stressing them? I feel that neither Mr.
Johnson nor Ms. Wells explained that to me or our readers.
Sincerely,
Dorota Biczel Nelson
Response to Francis Bacon: Paintings from the 1950s (review posted
02.13.07)
While it makes more intellectual sense to look for an artist's sources
Of inspiration in the history of art, most people readily dig into the artist’s life
"traumas". Professor Bendiner's review of the Bacon show at MAM reminds us
of the importance of applying what we know about the history of art while
looking with our own eyes.
Natanya Blanck
Response to Peter Goldberg’s essay on art collecting (article posted 02.05.07)
Great article. What Peter Goldberg has to say about collecting art is as
inspiring as anything I've heard artists say about making it. I like how he is
fearless about his own opinion and analysis of the work - this is how art works
best, a real personal connection. It's as simple as that, like listening to music.
Chris Miller
Responses to articles about Jin Soo Kim's sculpture Stratiformis.
(See Putting the Public Back into Sculpture by Debra Brehmer, In Favor of
Stratiformis: an interview with Mark Lawson, and EyeSpy (01.29.07).
When will Stratiformis be recycled into cellphones?
Thomas Goetz
I suspect our current call for ideas and comments regarding Jin Soo Kim's
sculpture is well meaning, but I wonder how wise it is to encourage people to
"interact" in anyway they want with a piece of art.
It is one thing for relatively enlightened people who respect art forms to
suggest clever, even heartfelt forms of interaction which may bring new
dimensions of life to the piece. It is very different to unleash less enlightened
persons who feel that such found object sculptures are "piles of junk" that
should be vandalized or destroyed.
Think about the kind of sentiment unleashed by right wing talk show radio
over the infamous blue shirt fiasco in Milwaukee. Consider the public outcry
surrounding the Armory show in NYC (yes way back in 1918) which pretty
much pioneered modernist European art in America. Marcel Duchamp's now-
famed Nude Decending a Staircase was the subject of the most intense
ridicule, an "explosion in a shingle factory" was one of the kinder descriptions.
Stratiformis has been received with much of the same sort of derision often
based on a general lack of appreciation for a whole genre of constructivist art.
Is some kinds of work OK for public art and others are not? Any such "rules"
for art only exist long enough for someone to break them.
This is a challenging piece of art, it invites interaction. But let's keep it
respectful and worthy of the sort of dialog that thoughtful, heartfelt art
deserves.
Mark Lawson
Stratiformis possibility?
Good suggestions except for the dog and puppy park. It would get too trashy
with dog doo all over the park and no one to clean it up. Remember the work
is in a public park and the County and City have no maintenance money, or so
they say!
The idea to make the piece interactive is really what the artist wanted to
achieve, but her idea was for people to walk inside the piece. I am not sure
many people do that today. If MIAD would set up a little kiosk beside
Stratiformis with papers or cloth for the passerby to write their hopes and
dreams of life or art; the writer would attach the message on the piece.
Wouldn't it be fun to read the pieces and add our own??? (In China women
attach messages to trees that grow in sacred places. They are mostly wishing
for a boy child; however, people are fascinated by the messages and spend
time reading them and talking about the messages.)
I also liked the idea of a bird place, although that also might get a bit grungy.
Diane Buck
New potential for ‘Stratiformless?’
A few new ideas:
1. With all this snow around, I've been thinking that I'd love to see the
thing turned into a Chia pet of sorts: Cover it with seed, water it and watch
the grass grow. It would certainly make the work look more alive!
2. Or how about turning it into a community vegetable garden? Several
people could claim a space (on the ground or up in the air) to plant some kind
of vegetable or flower. There's some great potential for tomatoes and other
climbing goodies. It could even transform itself with the seasons: Wouldn't
huge sunflowers look great in there?
3. There are little rituals that tourists perform in different cities. I'm thinking
of must-do activities like throwing a coin in the Trevi fountain in Rome, or
attaching a lock (and throwing the key away) to one of the metal rings along
the Arno River in Florence. Why not turn Sratisformis into THE ritual site for
Milwaukee's tourists? After all it is pretty close to the city's main attractions
(Summerfest, the Calatrava...I feel uncomfortable typing these two in the
same sentence but such is life)? We could certainly follow Florence's lead and
attach locks to the sculpture, or just attach anything... How about standing at
one end and tossing a small ball or marble across? The number of layers the
object makes it through in one throw could refer to the number of years that
will pass before a person comes back, gets married, or something like that.
3. Some of Stratiformis' elements are already looking rusty. How about
chopping it up and using its pieces to create a new sculpture about the history
of the Third Ward?
A fellow Art History Chick
Comments on "In Favor of Stratiformis: an interview with Mark Lawson"
(article posted 12.24.06).
Tinguely made the "Fountain des automates,'' machines that clunked and
clanked and squirted water by the Pompidou Center in Paris. This is no
Tinguely! Far from it. And if she really has a mechanical sense [she does not]
then Jin Soo Kim should have used the machines as they were set up, beautiful
moving and functional and dangerous -- it would be wonderful. Think of those
belts as they turned the wheels..wonderful lines and forms. But this thing is
irregular, it is not a machine or is it constructed like a fine watch. It’s put
together with clumsy 'bad craft' and is very, very uneven. I think the artist
was over her head in a dimension that she could not handle.
So I vote NO, it is a failure. Take it down and give back the money.........all
that money. And call back Dennis Oppenheim and get the blue shirt. Even
with its foibles. Some other Korean artist told me that it will get better with
age. For me to see anything grow on me would be let it be covered with vines
and then look at the form.
Art has to be inspired somehow....
The other sculpture that is called 'public'' is by Liz B at UWM and at least it has
wheels and can be moved around. She too used things from defunct industry. I
wonder who suggested defunct factories as a reference for 'place'? Still have
to see it to make deeper comments.
Roy Staab
In early January, I tuned in to WUWM to listen to writer/art critic, Tom
Bamberger, talk about "Stratiformis," the sculpture created by Jin Soo Kim for
Catalano Park in the Third Ward. His discussion with moderator, Bonnie North,
was a further illumination of an illuminating feature he wrote about the work
(The Brown Smudge, Milwaukee Magazine, January 07 issue). Bamberger's
points about why the piece is a disaster, were clearly stated, concise and to
the point. A day later, I listened to Mark Lawson, who directs the galleries in
the Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design, defend the work, at one point
comparing it to the work of Picasso. It ended up sounding more like an
apology than a defense. He really dug himself into deep doo-doo when he
claimed most of the merit of the piece rested on the premise that it was made
from old tools and stuff, remnants of what used to define industry in the Third
Ward. I would call to his attention the glorious sculpture/gazebo constructed
by Terese Agnew for Ziedler Park in downtown Milwaukee. It also uses a
profusion of tools...but to great effect.
Let's rename the Catalano Park sculpture, Strati-formless.
Stella Cretek
Putting the Public into Art by Debra Brehmer
I heard a woman speaking about the public art in Milwaukee and those two
pieces. I did not recognize your [Debra Brehmer on Lake Effect] voice and
wondered who it was. How scathing and how much I agree with what you
said.
You know I find it sad here in Milwaukee. I got feedback from the works that
I made here this last summer and then a hotshot lawyer who is one of the
directors of the Hank Aaron trail said that he wished they would have got a
permanent piece there instead of something so temporary. I am sure he
knows nothing about art, sports perhaps. And I felt my work was a success
even for so little that was paid. They would not bargain. What is the plan for
that roundabout? Plant a tree an oak tree maybe, and then look at the south
end of the 6th Street viaduct. Plantings, another place for a great piece of art.
It seems there is no vision, even when there is an example presented.
Best,
Roy Staab
Comments on "Transformation of the Mundane: New Work by Paul Stoelting"
at Walker's Point Center for the Arts by Zoe Darling (review posted 12.22.06)
Zoe Darling's response to Paul Stoelting at Walkers Point Center for the Arts
was incredibly insightful and revealingly important.
If I could I would like to extend my gratitude to her, for as a friend of the
artist, I couldn't have imagined a better way to address some of the issues Zoe
has addressed.
What does is mean to spend all of ones time ticking away at something void of
imediate satisfaction?
What does it mean to him?
What does it mean to all of us?
Sincerely,
Mary DiBiasio
Comments on "The Art of Richard Tuttle" at the Museum of Contemporary Art,
Chicago, reviewed by Richard Knight (12.22.06).
Richard,
Thank you so much for the wonderful commentary on Richard Tuttle's work on
exhibit at MCA. I was very fortunate to visit this particular exhibition over the
recent holidays. I should also say that I was impressed with the other
installation exhibited on the main floor regarding Sustainable
Design/Architecture. I think it was equally inspiring in comparison to Tuttle's
visual inventions.
Best Regards,
Thomas Kovacich
Comments on Whole Foods: An Essay in Five Parts by Debra Brehmer.
Dear Debra,
A link to your article about Whole Foods was forwarded to me from a member
of a food group I attend at the Urban Ecolgy Center called Friends of Real
Food. This group is a great forum for talking about food choice issues. Whole
Foods has come up a lot!
Just wanted to tell you that I thought what you wrote was wonderfully
descriptive and a joy to read. It managed to adequately describe many of the
issues I have found it difficult to articulate myself, that omnipresent unease as
you try to make conscious decisions about what you eat and who gets your
money, and that funny feeling you get when you know you've just bought into
another kind of marketing and start assuming WF is doing all the ecological
thinking for you.
I for one, was thrilled when WF moved to Milwaukee (and Trader Joe's...
maybe that's another article altogether!). I loved WF and Trader Joe's and
was glad to find them coming here, (a little healthy competition is good,
right?) but I am beginning to question if that is really where my money ought
to go - not locally owned, big corporation, does big = bad??, etc. Weighing out
all the pros and cons
can be had. I moved from Michigan where I didn't know I had CSA's as an
option. Maybe they weren't as strong a presence as there as they are here, or
maybe I just didn't know they existed. We seem to me pretty lucky here in
Milwaukee to have so many CSA choices. Even though WF has done some
good things, at the end of the day, my money isn't staying here in Wisconsin
and your point about all the other things that end up in your basket that don't
seem to follow the WF party line was well taken. I too have succumbed to the
equivalent of the $13 gourmet cheese (and is this only the domain of
reasonable affluent "foodies" ? What about low income folks and their access
to healthy locally grown food? Another topic we grapple with our group quite
often.... ).
Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for articulating the difficult issues so well.
Jenny Achuthan
Comments on Mary L. Nohl Fellowships for Individual Artists, 2005, reviewed
by Dorota Biczel Nelson.
(It should be noted that no women are anticipated to received fellowships in
the 2006 awards either.
- Debra Brehmer)
Just had to stop in the frenzy of the semester to thank you (Dorota) for your
review of the Nohl exhibition. I couldn't agree with you more - and I can only
imagine the juror's comments on opening night...I have a hard time attending
openings like this anymore at all.
I was at the Walker last week and walked away feeling stupefied (different
from stupid!) - which is how I often feel with so much of the contemporary
work I see these days. (I saw Lynn Tomaziewski there and she said that the
art at the Walker WAS supposed to make your head hurt, because you had to
think about it so much.) But so much of it either hits you over the head with
the sheer spectacle of itself - or is so obtuse that you just want to walk away
and get on with the rest of your life. I don't even want to start on the lack of
women artists....if the exhibit is any reflection of the sorts of things I hear
students saying about women and people of color - well we are back to
drawing board....
So your ability to write pointedly about these thibr soft>is any reflection of the
sorts of things I hear students saying about women and people of color - well
we are back to drawing board....
So your ability to write pointedly about these things and put them out
there...is much appreciated by me.
Best Regards.
Leslie Fedorchuk
I know Dorota and like her work. However, I think her essay is guilty of the
very thing that she accuses the Nohl Fellowship and its curators of doing. The
easy thing to care for, that it is easier to be critical of an idea or situation than
it is to actually come up with a solution or plan for change.
Dorota in no way describes the faults of any of the works in the show, merely
that she didn't care for Nato Thompson's approach or that there weren't any
women included in the fellowship this year. In regard to those two issues we
are in complete agreement. Alas, these are two areas of contention in which
none of the fellowship artists had any say. To make a public statement telling
people not to go see a showing of works by her peers because of curatorial
issues seems rather disappointing and short-sighted.
Isn't it hard enough to get the public into galleries of contemporary artwork
without contemporary artists telling them not to? Dare I ask what Dorota's
response will be to the Nohl Fellowship exhibition the year that her work is
included?
Michael K. Julian, Fellowship winner
What a great piece of writing. I noted in the listing early on that the "winners"
did not include women, and was disappointed. However, it is my feeling that
including "women" just because they are women is a big mistake. I feel the
same way about the inclusion of minorities of any kind, simply because they
are minorities. This is an area that Susceptible needs to explore. I fail to see
what political correctness has to do with the making of art...thank you for your
efforts on behalf of Susceptible.
Judith Ann Moriarty, artist and writer
Your feedback is welcome. Please address your comments to
comments@susceptibletoimages.com and indicate whether or not your
remarks may be published online.
updated 08.07.07
We welcome your comments. Please email us with your comments
(comments@susceptibletoimages.com) and indicate whether or not your comments
may be posted on the site.
Comments on "I Don't Get It" (06.05.07)
Friends, Thanks for the opportunity to exchange ideas concerning our visual arts
culture, and specifically the recent articles and responses concerning the "I Don't
Get It" and "Art vs Art". These manifested because of the good fortune for us all
to have in our Wisconsin midst three quality juried exhibits, the Biennial, The
Triennial and the Forward exhibit.
Janet Roberts and I served as CoChairs of the Wisconsin Artists Biennial, held at
the Haggerty. Janet is also my Significant Other, so I can hardly be said to be
objective regarding her comments concerning conceptual and intellectually derived
work compared to that which might be more visceral, romantic and intuitive...and
which depends more on paint, brushes or tactile medium. But...I think I did get
her meaning.
(For an near ultimate visceral and romantic exhibition, please, by all means, visit
the exhibit in the John Michael Kohler Art Center of Sheboygan, "Sublime Places
and Visionary Worlds. Janet and I were both rocked by that world.)
One thing that is clear in Janet's comments is this: There is room for all kinds, and
viewers will pick and choose what they like for whatever reason. Choices reflect
one's life experiences, and we must recall the old adage about walking in
another's shoes. Thank goodness we are not dictated to by government,
religious or outright coercive forces...he says carefully. However, we are at the
whims, the agendas and limitations of the media.
The Biennial and the Triennial had different methods of selection, different physical
places, different needs and probably different goals. The Biennial always has at
least a very good selection of work produced in the state, and it will vary toward
or away from conceptual work depending solely on the juror. The Biennial held at
the Anderson Art Center in 05 had more conceptual work than the current show,
and was not that year in some silly perceived "competition" with the Triennial.
(Janet and I were CoChairs that year too.)
Katie Musolff commented that there is a fairly well defined pool of artists from
which WP&S exhibits are drawn...but this was not a show consisting of only WP&S
members. Yet she is correct in assuming there is a limted pool. The Biennial had
about 400 artists from all over the state submitting 800 pieces. Depending on the
choices of the juror, it could have looked very different. Having myself seen all
entries in image form, there is no doubt that some highly progressive exciting
work was not chosen due to the decisions of a juror.
The Triennial had the staff of MMoCA making choices from around 500 artists, and
certainly many of the same artists applied for both opportunities. Considering
that MMoCA could elect to visit anyone it wanted to, staff could visit the
professors of art and other artists who will not enter juried exhibits from which
they might be excluded. We might assume that MMoCA therefore had a bit more
breadth and leeway in making selections. One might also assume that some
people would not attempt to enter an exhibit in a venue that is titled "Museum of
Contemporary Art", for that may imply to some a more progressive art expression.
The fact that the Biennial had to be selected based on images, either slides or
JPEGS, meant that the usual flaws caused by poor image representation could
affect choices. The size of the venue clearly influenced selections as well. The
fact that the Triennial was chosen by progressive MMoCA staff who have the task
of showing "contemporary" works meant that there would be some obvious bias
and eliminations...and the size of the facility allowed for huge work compared to
the Haggerty.
The BIG DEAL is this! All these larger periodic exhibits deserve our attention! All
of them should be reviewed/commented about by the media in this state. Just
because a certain arts writer or critic does not favor an exhibit which is more of a
survey, like the Biennial or the Forward exhibit at the Charles Allis, does not mean
there is in sufficient reason to give it space in news print or on some other media
outlet.
The public will respond to exhibits it hears about, and it does not hear when there
is no media interest or response. One might say that the media is killing off at
least part of its own future by not publicizing visual arts exhibits and stories that
are accessible to the general public, from which the public can learn and gain
enjoyment, and help build a greater base of support for the visual arts!
- Gary John Gresl
Well, Judith Ann, I bow to your considerable knowledge and obvious
intelligence…..and I say that without rancor or sarcasm. I had written
the article, THE END OF ART AS WE KNOW IT, for some time before having
the courage to submit it to Art in Wisconsin, knowing I would no doubt be
showered with metaphorical stones. Much to my surprise, I received many
emails congratulating me on the article, and my so called courage in
stating my beliefs. One person wrote, “Finally…..someone said what
all of us have been thinking for years”, and drew upon the analogy of
the Emperor’s New Clothes.
However, and it is a big “however”, I realized when I saw the
article in print that I would be treading on risky and uneven ground. I am
probably fortunate that I have not had easels burned on my lawn in
protest.
I cannot argue with your comments, Judith. As I stressed in the
article, there can be no censorship if art is to thrive and grow. What
distresses me, and will continue to, is the fear that artists choosing to do
more traditional work may be overlooked, ignored……or even ridiculed.
There must be standards…..but who should define them? As art is, or
WAS for years, a visual endeavor, I am confused by the increasing
emphasis on “the idea”. Should one have to read what one is supposed to
“see” in a work of art before he can understand and/or appreciate
it? Should we—the general public AND artists—feel ignorant and out of
the artistic loop because we are still delighted with the feel, the
smell, and the sight of art upon which the touch of a human hand is
evident?
Perhaps I am just turning into a grumpy, small-minded old fogy, and
will end out my days grumbling and muttering about the new fangled stuff
that calls itself art. But hopefully, I also will continue to be amazed
and thrilled by new artists and their visions, and at least some of
these will be created with paint and clay and will indeed be magical.
- Janet Roberts
Comments on Art vs Art: The Wisconsin Triennial and the Wisconsin Artists
Biennial (06.05.07)
I remember returning home to Milwaukee in 1980 after living in Paris for ten years,
the esteemed Wisconsin Sculptures and Painters were juring the exhibition that I
aways wanted to be in since my days at Layton School of Art. In the 1960s WP&S
seemed to me to have an edge on art and be something of an honor to be
exhibited in. My politics to art after being in europe were very broad and open and
'art' has to be free to all and available as well. But in the States there are old
traditions and narrow rules that I felt had to be broken to be vital. There can be
no entrance fee. It is a group exhibition where artist do all. I brought a cartoon for
a [direct] wall installation and refused to pay the entrance fee. Tom Uttech was
the head at that time and I was rejected. So this is the stagnated provincial
institution that WP&S was then. And now I look at the art presented in the
biennale as what I could see in any commercial gallery from Door County to any
gallery in Milwaukee's Historic Third Ward.
The chance to exhibit in the Triennal in Madison, a much smarter institution is
desirable for me. I am not sure that it is really more academic than more in-touch
with the art of our time. [ and I do not mean this in elitist terms.] There are a few
faults in this exhibition too.
In the review by Dorota Biczel Nelson the exhibitions were discussed as the art
works in the 'art' sense . What I found deeply missing was real 'political' art since
we are a country at war [for how many years now?] I was looking for something
of expression and emotion on that theme. I watched the art of the 60's & 70's
that had things to say politically. I quested the curators as I first went through
the Triennial. Is the war that unimportant to the artists of Wisconsin? Does
Wisconsin artist live in the safe bubble and the war is --over there? I was told
there were a few examples presented but they touched me as being more
decorative that making a clear statement.
To justify my name, I continued on my art that I have been making long before
George W. Bush created this war. He is a dangerous man, but not of any value to
me or my art. I only wanted it to thrust nature, pure nature, into you face and
space and then some, to show the structure and nature can say to art -- living.
- Roy Staab
I too have seen both shows and applied for both. Rejected by the triennial and
awarded by the biennial, I was initially on the defensive while reading this article.
But I believe that there are good reasons why the results are so different. As with
many WP&S shows, many of the same artists apply and I find that same names
coming up over and over at each show. It can be a comforting and at the same
time, frustrating cycle. And for some reason, many artists that I admire do not
apply for these shows. However, once the call for artists from the triennial came
out, every artist I knew was chasing after it.
In reflecting on both shows, I too found the triennial more stimulating overall. I
will apply again in three years. But do know that the pool of artists from which to
pick from for each show were not so similar.
- Katie Musloff
Comments on Recap: Art Chicago in Review (05/03/07)
To submit your own comment, please visit the review, which is linked above, and use
the reader response form at the bottom of the review page.
"It was the best Art Chicago in years! Early numbers suggest over thirty
thousand attended the fair. Our Wisconsin artists ( John Wilde, Tom Uttech, Fred
Stonehouse, Jason Rohlf, Dennis Nechvatal, Mark Mulhern and Mary Bero) received
lots of attention and held up in quality and content to our stiff competition."
- - Tory Folliard
Tory Folliard Gallery
Comments on METALS! 07 @ UWM (05/03/07)
To submit your own comment, please visit the review, which is linked above, and use
the reader response form at the bottom of the review page.
"This is Jada Milner, creator of the piece "En-DEER-ing" from the Metals 07! Show.
I just wanted to ellaborate on my piece a little...You are right that it is commenting
on the views of hunting in society, but it is much more personal to me. I am a
(female) hunter myself and have been hunting in Wisconsin for 10 years now.
Hunting has been a tradition in my family for generations and I hold it very near to
my heart. That is why I have encased the antler bits as 'jewels' because they are
of precious nature to me and it is another alternative to having MY deer trophy
mounted on the wall. I love to incorporate hunting into my works since it is a huge
part of my life and it is definitely something most people do not know about me. I
am proud to incorporate it knowing that the public might not necessarily approve,
but there is no way I would compromise myself just to ease the minds of a few
viewers. I really enjoyed reading the review! (it is also made from brass, not
copper)."
- - Jada Milner
"From what I see here this is a very nice show. Congrats to
all participants. "
- - Eric W. Holmes
Comments on Hans Hermann Viets at Beans and Barley (posted 04/24/07).
To submit your own comment, please visit the review, which is linked above, and use
the reader response form at the bottom of the review page.
Having known Hans for about 6 years, I can tell you that not only is he real, but all
that you have read is true! I haven't seen these new paintings in real life, but I
can tell the reviewer that she is probably responding to something deeper than
what the average viewer might see. That is to say, Hans' skill and passion when it
comes to painting and art. He has made some amazing work in the past, and as
hard as these recent ones may be for some to understand, he has a skill that will
someday be widely appreciated.
- Paige
Awhile ago I saw a card showing the "falling bull" picture. My initial response was
that there was a certain graphic quality to the work. I happened to be eating at
Beans and Barley sometime later, saw the paintings,and my first assessment
stood. While I do believe the larger pictures have an initial zip, they seemed to
come up a bit short in the way of moving beyond that. I was very much reminded
of Basquiat, who (maybe because he ran out of time), seemed unable to fully
digest ideas, or internalize them in some way. He had a good graphic sense in my
opinion, and was a pretty good painter (at least for the first four years), but I don't
agree he is the powerhouse many say he is (despite how many barbaric films
heighten his pop status). Eight years isn't long. I suppose time will tell. Typically,
when looking at paintings, I refrain from lumping one artist with another, as this
can be a hindering factor, but ultimately, as I have seen this many times before, it
seemed unavoidable. Viets' pictures elicit a similar response. Literal ideas and
execution, a strong
connection to illustration, a sort of browsing conceptual disposition, what is
typically called overstyling, and so on; all things related to the "style-over-
content" 1980's NY art scene. While I would disagree with "disgusting", I do
believe that initial attention grabbing rather quickly subsides. It is possible that in
Milwaukee there are few who work in this vein, but I certainly have seen this
many times elsewhere. However, I have also seen it done more poorly.
- Kyle Fitzpatrick
Perhaps it is the similarities between the color pallete of van Gogh and Viets'
works that you find favorable. Who knows. I think Van Gogh's work suggests
much richer definitions and contrasts.
- Thomas Kovacich
Dear Deb,
I read the review, saw the photographs, and went to see the paintings at Beans
and Barley. And well…I’m trying to like them; after all you and I have been
partners in crime in a couple of art historical endeavors. But I am sorry. The best I
can do is accept that the paintings are intriguing their colors somehow iridescent;
they are also certainly big; and, as one of the waitresses told me, they are very
different from the more conservative art that usually hangs in that space.
However, I also find the paintings simply hideous. The application of paint seems
pasty, the drawing is cartoonish and, I disagree with you, there’s nothing gentle
about them. In fact they make me feel uncomfortable, maybe it is the violence
with which the bull plunges down head first, the void to the side of the seated
bull, or the way in which that large bird is (in my least favorite of the group)
…what? Attempting to go INTO the cage?
I’m offended that you mentioned these works in the same sentence as van Gogh’
s. The old master’s works are full of indomitable energy, the paint spurts and
splatters in thick globs of paint: His stars like exploding suns, his skies alive with
energy. Poor Vincent, his raw emotions painted on the canvas, compared to
works that seem to be trying too hard.
Maybe I just don’t get them and you do. Maybe you are the true visionary, and I
the pig headed traditionalist. Who knows? But one thing I am sure of: I would
not want any of these works in my living space. I guess it will remain you and
Hans. Alone.
- Natanya Blanck
Comments on No One Would Kick a Renaissance Painting by Debra Brehmer
(posted 04.11.07)
Nice observation about the Baroque's tendency to incite passion and emotion.
Perhaps that is why, as an art history major, classes became most interesting to
me when we reached the Baroque period. I appreciated the humanistic approach
of the Renaissance, was less enamored with the Mannerist period which seemed
to back-slide a bit into the religious fervor of the early Christian (though 20 years
later the Mannerist visual sensibility seems more palatable to me).
But when we reached the 1600's I was fully riding the swing (in my early 20's)
into the Baroque rebellious, larger than life dramatic punch. But Caravaggio was
so very much in the spotlight, so far outshining his peers that when looking at the
lesser artists of his time, I became a snob, a critic of all that was not the "real
deal". He seemed one of the original art super stars. Warhol had predecessors.
The other thing that always struck me about Caravaggio was his constant co-
mingling of the sacred and the profane. It is clear that he had faith of some kind.
But his paintings also speak strongly of being pulled by the material world,
fascination for the gritty detail, the sensual (from fruit to pale exposed skin) the
pleasures of the flesh that were perhaps not entirely divorced from spiritual
salvation in his mind. Even the symbolism used in his paintings (and by many
Baroque artists) left viewers choosing between double interpretations, satisfying
both those looking for religious lessons and those seeking titillation, or both. As
an artist he seemed to have a foot in both worlds, feeling moved with some kind
of spiritual illumination, but also embracing and intertwining that with the other
multi-sensual powers in his life, living by and fueled by his connected passions.
There was some of that in the Renaissance as well, and Caravaggio seemed to
borrow the celebration of the human form, the highly structured compositions
(turning it, as you said, on its corner). He added the theatrical light and he
removed the veil of idealized form (dirt under fingernails??!). Obviously, impulse
control, when confronted with the power of the Baroque, is what the Pewaukee
guy was lacking...even when facing a lesser master.
I found myself asking "Was this guy a religious zealot? Was he the victim of
bullying but frustrated, being incapable of taking down his own Goliath? Did he
know anything about art history or the biblical story behind the painting? Was his
response purely reactionary to the violence of the image? Was he possessed by
the ghost of Caravaggio who had disdain for a lesser work?
Caravaggio got into street fights in real life and from all accounts possessed very
little impulse control himself. His ghost (if one believes in such things) would no
doubt be a rambunctious one. Then I thought, perhaps we are entering/living in
the midst of a Baroque-ish period ourselves...the swing in response to, or away
from things more fanatically religious (on many divided extremist fronts) and
illogical. We do know history to repeat itself. What will the 21st century look like,
politically, religiously and artistically when viewed through an art historical lens?
Seems like there is alot to kick against right now. Will that show up on the
historical timeline as something significant? Would Caravaggio have encountered
many of the same challenges today (as an artist and as a young, perhaps angry,
brilliant gay man) that he struggled with in 1600? Alright, he would have had
access (if his patron offered a health insurance package) to a plethora of
prescription drugs to treat his extreme emotions. But beyond that...
Perhaps I am just a bit overwhelmed by it all. But that ol' structure and
celebratory, idealistic Humanism of the Renaissance is looking pretty darned good
right now...at least from where I stand.
Josie Osborne
Responses to Artists of Color: Paintings, Prints, Collage, Sculpture, and Quilts
by African American Artists at Peltz Gallery (review published 02.13.07)
I am responding to your review of the Artists of Color exhibition. I am an visual
artist as well who attended the exhibition. First, I would like to say that the title of
the show (with the use of the word 'color') in no way misrepresents, demeans, or
degrades African Americans--the group you seem compelled to highlight. The term
'Artists of Color' brings to mind that the artists involved in the show are simply
that artists of color. This doesn't mean it is referring solely to African Americans--
but actually defines anyone that is non-white (Asians, Puerto Ricans, etc.). It is
extremely hard for persons of the majority group to understand what offends,
degrades, or demoralizes those of the minority group.
The point you raise regarding, "discussion of African-American art as a separate
entity is possible at all and whether the exhibition suggests anything about its
potential preoccupations.." We are just about the business of creating art period--
we are not trying to a separate entity in our art. Even when the works depict
themes of black struggle, the diaspora, etc., this is does not mean we are trying
to be proponents of some "cause" or to 'let y'all know that we's been oppressed
and that we's tryin to speak out about our plight'. Unfortunately, the art culture in
Milwaukee has tried to force African American artists into some mode--largely
because they don't understand us and are not willing to talk directly to us to find
out the truth. If you are even vaguely aware of Chicago's or New York's art culture
and African Americans' part in you would not be stating the exhibition in terms of
Black or white or anything for that matter. Those cities have a rich art culture that
simply embraces their artists--regardless of color--for what art is.
In my opinion, the diversity of the works shown in the show spoke to the diversity
and individuality of each artist. Nothing more. If a white artist (who happens to be
Jewish) paints a picture depicting the holocaust, Germany, or some other event in
their history does this mean that they are speaking out on Jewish culture or race?
No, in fact one might not even know the artist to be Jewish unless they asked--
instead they would be commenting on the composition of piece, what they were
trying to say, etc.
The show was not demeaning to African Americans nor did it exploit them. Again,
you are making statements on how you would view African Americans and their
supposed response to their art. Too often, the majority--that is White people--
tend to be patronizing in their response to African Americans and their culture.
Since they don't know very much about the essence of our experiences (and
again don't delve further to understand it) they try to grope or grasp for a
palatable solution which helps them "quench the guilt". Some even think they are
helping our 'cause'. Perhaps unconsciously this is what you are trying to do. I
would suggest that you accept and embrace the art on display in Peltz gallery as
art that you would see displayed in any other gallery.
When I viewed the exhibition I saw the diversity of works in the show as
refreshing, exciting, and colorful and a vivid display of talent. Someone from
another culture might have thought the show was about artists showing their
colorful works.
Blanche Brown
Dear Ms. Biczel Nelson and the Editor.
I recently read your review of the "Artists of Color Exhibition" at Peltz Art Gallery.
I am puzzled by your notion that this exhibition should have focused on African
American artists who explore the "question of what it means to be African-
American" and your assertion that it was about racial identity. It was not. The
reason that Cissy Peltz did the exhibition was to showcase some Milwaukee
African American artists who do not normally get seen in Milwaukee art galleries.
That was the only purpose of this exhibition. The only connection between all the
artists in this exhibition they all were African American.
Why must a exhibition featuring African American artists have to deal with race?
Do white artists who create images featuring white subjects are they exploring
racial identity? Moreover,xhibition featuring African American artists have to deal
with race? Do white artists who create images featuring white subjects are they
exploring racial identity? Moreover, how to you know whether or not if the
artists are exploiting or extolling African-American heritage? You fail to explain
that in your review.anymore to support your point. The reason she can resist
those exhibitions now is because she does not have to do them anymore to get
her work out there. She used those feminist and African American exhibitions
to get her work out there.
Another question that I have how do if George Ray McCormick's Pastor Low
Mo' Get Down and Sister Hattiebell "represent the tradition that Saar's work
references". Whose tradition are you talking about? Hopefully, in future
reviews that you examine more what the subject you are writing about before
it appears in print.
Della Wells
I am responding to your review of the Artists of Color exhibition at Cissy Peltz
Gallery.
By the time we spoke to Cissy, she had already established the shows title, I
would like to add that although Cissy didn't fully use of the term “artist of
color” in it's proper context, it was not offensive. What we explained to Cissy
was that the shows titled suggested that artists of other nationalities would
also be shown, not just African Americans. So I don¹t know what you mean
with your interpretation of the word "color." Also I don't know what you mean
by "minorities remain significantly removed from the positions of powers in all
spheres of life," even for women that's a gross exaggeration.
As an African American artist, I wonder why every time the term African
American art exhibition is used, the expectation of the exhibition has to be
about race, whether figurative works are used or not. When white artists are
shown together and may feature portraits of figurative subjects is that too
about race? I think not.
In addition you mentioned, “an important question to answer is whether the
discussion of African-American art as a separate entity is possible at all and
whether the exhibition suggests anything about its potential preoccupations.”
The answer in my opinion is as African American artists we're not advocating a
separate entity anything. The world of art has chosen to pigeon hole artists
and to marginalize artists. We just want to create art. When we do it
collectively Milwaukee's art world thinks it's about race. Cissy's exhibition
features artists who happen to be of African decent, some of which usually are
featured in exhibitions all over the country.
Please consider this, when going to a salon style gallery like Cissy's, Yes,
you're going to see various art making methods. You are not going to walk
into a commercial gallery and see multiple artists all looking the same, all
addressing the same issues. The ways in which artists incorporate their art
influences, whether in techniques, materials or subject matter, speak more to
the individuality of these artists than to a monolithic aesthetic. The
cohesiveness is not always reflected in theme but in the motivation of Those
who created the work.
Lastly, don't assume that there is a national trend for being American, with
statements like “similarly to national identity, as I can assure from personal
experience is a rather weak link between various artists” When you believe
the all the work you saw has to be about race. For that very reason is why the
Allison Shaars of the art world don't want to do the African Americans themed
exhibitions.
I applaud Cissy for having the guts to embrace our work “period.”
Mutope J. Johnson
Author Dorota Biczel Nelson responds:
As a writer, I am always thrilled to receive responses to my reviews. The most
important thing -- in my opinion -- we can accomplish through a publication
such as Susceptible to Images is extended dialogue that goes beyond the
immediate circle of friends and colleagues. After all, it is through dialogue that
we learn and are able to exceed limitations of our own perceptions. Therefore,
I am grateful that both Mr. Johnson and Ms. Wells took their time to reply to
my article. However, I'd also like to take the opportunity to elaborate on my
position.
If Mr. Johnson indeed believes that the statement "women and minorities
remain significantly removed from the positions of powers in all spheres of
life" is a gross exaggeration, then why do all the pundits claim that for Hillary
Clinton being a female is going to be the major obstacle in her run for
presidency? And why did the fact that Harvard appointed first woman
president make it to national headlines? On a whole different level, I'd also
like to point out to Mr. Johnson that while working ant UWM I everyday
witness the imbalance that is reflected through the univeristy's student
population. According to data from 2005, less than 7% of all undergrads at
UWM were African American and less and 4% -- Latino. In the arts these
proportions are even worse: 3.5% for each of the respective groups. I can
literally count on the fingers of one hand minority students I've had in the last
3 years. Since UWM serves the largest metropolitan area in the state of
Wisconsin, I find the discrepency between the make up of general population
and that of the University deeply troubling. I wonder what this fact speaks to,
in Mr. Johnson's opinion.
I'm also confused by the distinction that Mr. Johnson makes between Cissy
Peltz's Gallery and commercial galleries (where one can presumably see
"multiple artists all looking the same, all addressing the same issues"). I had
always thought Peltz Gallery was a commercial gallery and as far as I know
Cissy has always been very proud of it (in the best sense of the word).
Finally, I completely don't understand why both Ms. Wells and Mr. Johnson
have a problem with my opinion that it'd be more beneficial (to me as a
viewer, at least) to see the work that deals with identity in a more direct
manner. First of all, I have not denied African American artists their innate
right to do any kind of work they want to do, or deal with any issues that might
interest them. Quite the contrary, multiplicity of voices and diversity of media
and subject matter is exactly what I expected to see, just like I don't expect,
for example, all Polish artists to talk about fall of communism, European
integration or critique governmental corruption by employing the image of
Holy Virgin Mary in every piece. The quote from Betye Saar was used to affirm
the fact that no human individual can be classified or narrowed down to a
category such as race or gender. In some cases gender, race, nationality or
sexual orientation can play the role in an artist's work, but obviously it does
not have to be the case. I found the quote particularly striking precisely due to
the fact that Betye Saar achieved recognition through her association with
both African American and feminist movements. I thought that her ultimate
refusal to be categorized as either was very telling, pointing out to
complexities of individual experience as well as individually expressed artistic
truths. Interestingly, this is also similar to the position Sam Gilliam has held all
his life.
If the individualism and variety of voices within any community are the key,
then I don't understand why the title of the exhibition at the Peltz emphasizes
the fact that the artists included in the show are African American. When I go
see any exhibition, I expect to find some kind of underlying internal premise or
logic to the selection of the work. I thought that the Peltz's show, even though
it contained a large amount of interesting work, overall lacked very definite
clarity of intention. Just to compare, Mr. Johnson has recently curated the
show "The Art of Africa-N-American Artists" currently on display at
Inova/Zelazo Center's Mary Nohl galleries at UWM, where he deliberately
chose African American artists dealing with the heritage of African art in their
work. However, if the race or heritage are really secondary factors to a
particular grouping (supposedly as it is the case with the show at Peltz), then
what are the possible reasons for stressing them? I feel that neither Mr.
Johnson nor Ms. Wells explained that to me or our readers.
Sincerely,
Dorota Biczel Nelson
Response to Francis Bacon: Paintings from the 1950s (review posted
02.13.07)
While it makes more intellectual sense to look for an artist's sources
Of inspiration in the history of art, most people readily dig into the artist’s life
"traumas". Professor Bendiner's review of the Bacon show at MAM reminds us
of the importance of applying what we know about the history of art while
looking with our own eyes.
Natanya Blanck
Response to Peter Goldberg’s essay on art collecting (article posted 02.05.07)
Great article. What Peter Goldberg has to say about collecting art is as
inspiring as anything I've heard artists say about making it. I like how he is
fearless about his own opinion and analysis of the work - this is how art works
best, a real personal connection. It's as simple as that, like listening to music.
Chris Miller
Responses to articles about Jin Soo Kim's sculpture Stratiformis.
(See Putting the Public Back into Sculpture by Debra Brehmer, In Favor of
Stratiformis: an interview with Mark Lawson, and EyeSpy (01.29.07).
When will Stratiformis be recycled into cellphones?
Thomas Goetz
I suspect our current call for ideas and comments regarding Jin Soo Kim's
sculpture is well meaning, but I wonder how wise it is to encourage people to
"interact" in anyway they want with a piece of art.
It is one thing for relatively enlightened people who respect art forms to
suggest clever, even heartfelt forms of interaction which may bring new
dimensions of life to the piece. It is very different to unleash less enlightened
persons who feel that such found object sculptures are "piles of junk" that
should be vandalized or destroyed.
Think about the kind of sentiment unleashed by right wing talk show radio
over the infamous blue shirt fiasco in Milwaukee. Consider the public outcry
surrounding the Armory show in NYC (yes way back in 1918) which pretty
much pioneered modernist European art in America. Marcel Duchamp's now-
famed Nude Decending a Staircase was the subject of the most intense
ridicule, an "explosion in a shingle factory" was one of the kinder descriptions.
Stratiformis has been received with much of the same sort of derision often
based on a general lack of appreciation for a whole genre of constructivist art.
Is some kinds of work OK for public art and others are not? Any such "rules"
for art only exist long enough for someone to break them.
This is a challenging piece of art, it invites interaction. But let's keep it
respectful and worthy of the sort of dialog that thoughtful, heartfelt art
deserves.
Mark Lawson
Stratiformis possibility?
Good suggestions except for the dog and puppy park. It would get too trashy
with dog doo all over the park and no one to clean it up. Remember the work
is in a public park and the County and City have no maintenance money, or so
they say!
The idea to make the piece interactive is really what the artist wanted to
achieve, but her idea was for people to walk inside the piece. I am not sure
many people do that today. If MIAD would set up a little kiosk beside
Stratiformis with papers or cloth for the passerby to write their hopes and
dreams of life or art; the writer would attach the message on the piece.
Wouldn't it be fun to read the pieces and add our own??? (In China women
attach messages to trees that grow in sacred places. They are mostly wishing
for a boy child; however, people are fascinated by the messages and spend
time reading them and talking about the messages.)
I also liked the idea of a bird place, although that also might get a bit grungy.
Diane Buck
New potential for ‘Stratiformless?’
A few new ideas:
1. With all this snow around, I've been thinking that I'd love to see the
thing turned into a Chia pet of sorts: Cover it with seed, water it and watch
the grass grow. It would certainly make the work look more alive!
2. Or how about turning it into a community vegetable garden? Several
people could claim a space (on the ground or up in the air) to plant some kind
of vegetable or flower. There's some great potential for tomatoes and other
climbing goodies. It could even transform itself with the seasons: Wouldn't
huge sunflowers look great in there?
3. There are little rituals that tourists perform in different cities. I'm thinking
of must-do activities like throwing a coin in the Trevi fountain in Rome, or
attaching a lock (and throwing the key away) to one of the metal rings along
the Arno River in Florence. Why not turn Sratisformis into THE ritual site for
Milwaukee's tourists? After all it is pretty close to the city's main attractions
(Summerfest, the Calatrava...I feel uncomfortable typing these two in the
same sentence but such is life)? We could certainly follow Florence's lead and
attach locks to the sculpture, or just attach anything... How about standing at
one end and tossing a small ball or marble across? The number of layers the
object makes it through in one throw could refer to the number of years that
will pass before a person comes back, gets married, or something like that.
3. Some of Stratiformis' elements are already looking rusty. How about
chopping it up and using its pieces to create a new sculpture about the history
of the Third Ward?
A fellow Art History Chick
Comments on "In Favor of Stratiformis: an interview with Mark Lawson"
(article posted 12.24.06).
Tinguely made the "Fountain des automates,'' machines that clunked and
clanked and squirted water by the Pompidou Center in Paris. This is no
Tinguely! Far from it. And if she really has a mechanical sense [she does not]
then Jin Soo Kim should have used the machines as they were set up, beautiful
moving and functional and dangerous -- it would be wonderful. Think of those
belts as they turned the wheels..wonderful lines and forms. But this thing is
irregular, it is not a machine or is it constructed like a fine watch. It’s put
together with clumsy 'bad craft' and is very, very uneven. I think the artist
was over her head in a dimension that she could not handle.
So I vote NO, it is a failure. Take it down and give back the money.........all
that money. And call back Dennis Oppenheim and get the blue shirt. Even
with its foibles. Some other Korean artist told me that it will get better with
age. For me to see anything grow on me would be let it be covered with vines
and then look at the form.
Art has to be inspired somehow....
The other sculpture that is called 'public'' is by Liz B at UWM and at least it has
wheels and can be moved around. She too used things from defunct industry. I
wonder who suggested defunct factories as a reference for 'place'? Still have
to see it to make deeper comments.
Roy Staab
In early January, I tuned in to WUWM to listen to writer/art critic, Tom
Bamberger, talk about "Stratiformis," the sculpture created by Jin Soo Kim for
Catalano Park in the Third Ward. His discussion with moderator, Bonnie North,
was a further illumination of an illuminating feature he wrote about the work
(The Brown Smudge, Milwaukee Magazine, January 07 issue). Bamberger's
points about why the piece is a disaster, were clearly stated, concise and to
the point. A day later, I listened to Mark Lawson, who directs the galleries in
the Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design, defend the work, at one point
comparing it to the work of Picasso. It ended up sounding more like an
apology than a defense. He really dug himself into deep doo-doo when he
claimed most of the merit of the piece rested on the premise that it was made
from old tools and stuff, remnants of what used to define industry in the Third
Ward. I would call to his attention the glorious sculpture/gazebo constructed
by Terese Agnew for Ziedler Park in downtown Milwaukee. It also uses a
profusion of tools...but to great effect.
Let's rename the Catalano Park sculpture, Strati-formless.
Stella Cretek
Putting the Public into Art by Debra Brehmer
I heard a woman speaking about the public art in Milwaukee and those two
pieces. I did not recognize your [Debra Brehmer on Lake Effect] voice and
wondered who it was. How scathing and how much I agree with what you
said.
You know I find it sad here in Milwaukee. I got feedback from the works that
I made here this last summer and then a hotshot lawyer who is one of the
directors of the Hank Aaron trail said that he wished they would have got a
permanent piece there instead of something so temporary. I am sure he
knows nothing about art, sports perhaps. And I felt my work was a success
even for so little that was paid. They would not bargain. What is the plan for
that roundabout? Plant a tree an oak tree maybe, and then look at the south
end of the 6th Street viaduct. Plantings, another place for a great piece of art.
It seems there is no vision, even when there is an example presented.
Best,
Roy Staab
Comments on "Transformation of the Mundane: New Work by Paul Stoelting"
at Walker's Point Center for the Arts by Zoe Darling (review posted 12.22.06)
Zoe Darling's response to Paul Stoelting at Walkers Point Center for the Arts
was incredibly insightful and revealingly important.
If I could I would like to extend my gratitude to her, for as a friend of the
artist, I couldn't have imagined a better way to address some of the issues Zoe
has addressed.
What does is mean to spend all of ones time ticking away at something void of
imediate satisfaction?
What does it mean to him?
What does it mean to all of us?
Sincerely,
Mary DiBiasio
Comments on "The Art of Richard Tuttle" at the Museum of Contemporary Art,
Chicago, reviewed by Richard Knight (12.22.06).
Richard,
Thank you so much for the wonderful commentary on Richard Tuttle's work on
exhibit at MCA. I was very fortunate to visit this particular exhibition over the
recent holidays. I should also say that I was impressed with the other
installation exhibited on the main floor regarding Sustainable
Design/Architecture. I think it was equally inspiring in comparison to Tuttle's
visual inventions.
Best Regards,
Thomas Kovacich
Comments on Whole Foods: An Essay in Five Parts by Debra Brehmer.
Dear Debra,
A link to your article about Whole Foods was forwarded to me from a member
of a food group I attend at the Urban Ecolgy Center called Friends of Real
Food. This group is a great forum for talking about food choice issues. Whole
Foods has come up a lot!
Just wanted to tell you that I thought what you wrote was wonderfully
descriptive and a joy to read. It managed to adequately describe many of the
issues I have found it difficult to articulate myself, that omnipresent unease as
you try to make conscious decisions about what you eat and who gets your
money, and that funny feeling you get when you know you've just bought into
another kind of marketing and start assuming WF is doing all the ecological
thinking for you.
I for one, was thrilled when WF moved to Milwaukee (and Trader Joe's...
maybe that's another article altogether!). I loved WF and Trader Joe's and
was glad to find them coming here, (a little healthy competition is good,
right?) but I am beginning to question if that is really where my money ought
to go - not locally owned, big corporation, does big = bad??, etc. Weighing out
all the pros and cons
can be had. I moved from Michigan where I didn't know I had CSA's as an
option. Maybe they weren't as strong a presence as there as they are here, or
maybe I just didn't know they existed. We seem to me pretty lucky here in
Milwaukee to have so many CSA choices. Even though WF has done some
good things, at the end of the day, my money isn't staying here in Wisconsin
and your point about all the other things that end up in your basket that don't
seem to follow the WF party line was well taken. I too have succumbed to the
equivalent of the $13 gourmet cheese (and is this only the domain of
reasonable affluent "foodies" ? What about low income folks and their access
to healthy locally grown food? Another topic we grapple with our group quite
often.... ).
Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for articulating the difficult issues so well.
Jenny Achuthan
Comments on Mary L. Nohl Fellowships for Individual Artists, 2005, reviewed
by Dorota Biczel Nelson.
(It should be noted that no women are anticipated to received fellowships in
the 2006 awards either.
- Debra Brehmer)
Just had to stop in the frenzy of the semester to thank you (Dorota) for your
review of the Nohl exhibition. I couldn't agree with you more - and I can only
imagine the juror's comments on opening night...I have a hard time attending
openings like this anymore at all.
I was at the Walker last week and walked away feeling stupefied (different
from stupid!) - which is how I often feel with so much of the contemporary
work I see these days. (I saw Lynn Tomaziewski there and she said that the
art at the Walker WAS supposed to make your head hurt, because you had to
think about it so much.) But so much of it either hits you over the head with
the sheer spectacle of itself - or is so obtuse that you just want to walk away
and get on with the rest of your life. I don't even want to start on the lack of
women artists....if the exhibit is any reflection of the sorts of things I hear
students saying about women and people of color - well we are back to
drawing board....
So your ability to write pointedly about these thibr soft>is any reflection of the
sorts of things I hear students saying about women and people of color - well
we are back to drawing board....
So your ability to write pointedly about these things and put them out
there...is much appreciated by me.
Best Regards.
Leslie Fedorchuk
I know Dorota and like her work. However, I think her essay is guilty of the
very thing that she accuses the Nohl Fellowship and its curators of doing. The
easy thing to care for, that it is easier to be critical of an idea or situation than
it is to actually come up with a solution or plan for change.
Dorota in no way describes the faults of any of the works in the show, merely
that she didn't care for Nato Thompson's approach or that there weren't any
women included in the fellowship this year. In regard to those two issues we
are in complete agreement. Alas, these are two areas of contention in which
none of the fellowship artists had any say. To make a public statement telling
people not to go see a showing of works by her peers because of curatorial
issues seems rather disappointing and short-sighted.
Isn't it hard enough to get the public into galleries of contemporary artwork
without contemporary artists telling them not to? Dare I ask what Dorota's
response will be to the Nohl Fellowship exhibition the year that her work is
included?
Michael K. Julian, Fellowship winner
What a great piece of writing. I noted in the listing early on that the "winners"
did not include women, and was disappointed. However, it is my feeling that
including "women" just because they are women is a big mistake. I feel the
same way about the inclusion of minorities of any kind, simply because they
are minorities. This is an area that Susceptible needs to explore. I fail to see
what political correctness has to do with the making of art...thank you for your
efforts on behalf of Susceptible.
Judith Ann Moriarty, artist and writer
Your feedback is welcome. Please address your comments to
comments@susceptibletoimages.com and indicate whether or not your
remarks may be published online.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Events Calendar Click on listings for more information |
| SEARCH THIS SITE |
| Join the list! Receive email notifications of site updates. Privacy Policy Your email address is strictly confidential and will never be sold or given away. |
| SEARCH THIS SITE is case sensitive, so be sure to use capitalization where needed. |
