« Road Trip!! | Main | Florida Sure Is Spooky »

November 17, 2005




Will do! Roger wilco and out.

La Dauphine

Count me in!

You poor thing... you loan some of your prized pieces out for a show and look what happens. First of all when has Andisheh ever said anything intelligent about art?? You do your research and have an opinion - and it isn't even your job.

That was a really low, ignorant blow.


I do as much cringing and silent eye-rolling as the next guy when, unwittingly, I overhear most stand-up commentary in galleries or museums, but I'll admit:
1. this Andinesh seems to have entirely missed the point, both of the piece and the comments,
2. I expect I would have enjoyed listening, had I been there.

So is the point to sic the blogosphere on this stoneage critic?

La Dauphine

Hi Mathieu! ;) I would say it is, but I posted a comment on Creative Loafing's site and it has yet to be posted - several hours later.

Cinqué Hicks

Oh come on now, are you really going to assert that a gallery opening is a conducive environment for viewing art? Unless you're talking about the first 12 minutes or that last 4 minutes when there's only 6 drunk guys left, scamming on chicks and trying to figure out who's throwing the afterparty, most gallery openings are simply neither spacious nor quiet enough to actually view the art.

Like you, though, I always fall into that trap; I can't count the number of times I've gone to an opening fully intending to report back on the art, only to say, "I'll go back when there's nobody there."

La Dauphine

I don't get your comment, CH. Because there's people around you can't form an opinion on the art? I agree that I personally prefer to be in a more solitary enviroment when viewing artwork, but this was not a loud, crowded environment (I was there) and besides, Erik owns the piece and knows it well. Why shouldn't he express his opinion to his friends about during an opening??

La Dauphine

...and personally, I'm over just going to openings to hob-nob. If you don't at least attempt to look the art, you're doing the artist and yourself a huge disservice.

Erik Schneider

I agree that art openings perhaps arent the best place to REALLY look at art, but if that's the case, its not really the best place to WRITE about it either

Cinqué Hicks

Yes, Erik, not at all. And attempts to do either are often shortcircuited. A gallery show isn't usually a one-shot deal. You can go back more than once. That's why I usually stay home from openings. When I do go, it's only for the party, party, party... and the free booze. And possibly some flirting action. I often barely glance at the art because I find it usually (notice I didn't say always) too noisy and distracting to enter that quiet internal space that art contemplation deserves. Instead, I do the artist (and myself) the service of returning when it's quiet, when I can really consider what I'm looking at without getting interrupted every 26 seconds.

Andisheh Nouraee

A clarification

This bit from my column:

even though the political figures depicted in the piece (Washington, Jackson, Franklin) predate the Republican Party's existence.

Was supposed to have read:

even though three of the political figures depicted in the piece (Washington, Jackson, Franklin) predate the Republican Party's existence.

It was an editing error on my part. My apologies to all for creating a misunderstand.

La Dauphine


La Dauphine

CH, you are to be commended for coming back when you can really experience the work. Many people don't. I rarely ever have the time to visit galleries other than openings which is why I like to arrive before the crowds - yes, I prefer art to people at this point! Anyway, the last time I flirted at an opening was just over 3 years ago (when I met my sweetie).

Ronald Seaburgh-ATL

So did you actually say that the photo attacks the idea of photography? If so, you deserve all the ridicule you get.

Erik Schneider

What I actually said is that the photo is an attack (I'm not sure I used that word but okay) on modernist photographic traditions (e.g. tonal qualities etc)...as is much of post modern photography.

jason johnson

well, this is a long dead thread i guess, but i just stumbled on it and thought i would point out a few things:

andisheh is paid to give a "scene and heard" column. not art criticism. attacking his comments on pretentiousness at openings is misguided at best, but also a waste of time to go on about it like a high school spat, and especially attempting to get others to do likewise.

and it should also be noted that the entity that pays for his column subscribes to a pointed anti-intellectualist approach just as 99% of publications in the western hemisphere, if not the "civilized world". so much for civilization. but if being called pretentious draws this kind of response, then perhaps there is validity in the slur. for, if one really cared about talking about art, and felt confident in what one had to say about it, then who gives a rat's ass about some anonymous jab in a populist column...

also, no, openings are not the place or time to see art. it's possible to give it a valiant effort. but it just doesn't offer the space and time to consider the work seriously.... if that is what one's pretense is. on the other hand, if on is self aware enough to comprehend the obvious and that one's job is to make short pointed comments - as opposed to anything remotely able to be called criticism, then one could be creative enough and honest enough to employ a healthy dose of self-deprecation in one's work, instead of making volcanoes out of ant hills.

and also, no, it is not a disservice to the artist to just show up at the opening. sure, it would be fantastic if more people showed to actually look at the work and talk about it intelligently. but that is not reality. reality is that if more people show up, even just to gawk and grub and be seen, then it at least helps the art or the artist have a shot at getting talked about more and in an uber-capitlaiste faux-market-driven superficial society, that can help any artist, even those who actually take the work seriously and do not buy into that system any more than is necessary to actually be an artist who exhibits publicly.

if intellectual discourse is this blog's goal and it seems it could be, then raising one's own bar, and thickening one's skin, not to mention a long hard look in the mirror, are in order.

if however, the writer of this blog would care to continue to write in a manner that is populist, with a dash of intelligence and a demonstrable aspiration toward gravity on occasion, then by all means do so. i found it enjoyable enough and a good thing to have in atlanta. but to do so while attacking other writers in other venues for doing essentially the same thing with a slightly different set of parameters smacks of little more than sour grapes and hypocrisy.

and no, i don't intend this to be as harsh as it may seem. but it needed to be said. i mean, how can one wail about immaturity while beating the drums for help in skewering the writer, as i said before, as if it is some high-school event ???

The comments to this entry are closed.