reviews, features & interviews
A cry for real critics–Junto at P’unk Avenue
By libby
May 1, 2009 · 21 Comments
Drama was the operative word last week when Roberta and I, along with Sid Sachs, Andrew Suggs and book artist Katie Murken participated a take-no-prisoners discussion about art criticism.
Andrew Suggs, Katie Murken and Sid Sach at Junto. All photos in this post taken by photographer Mike Fleming, http://mikeflem.blogspot.com/
The panel was one of a series of discussions, Junto, organized by South Philly design firm P’unk Avenue. Our moderator was P’unk’s Rick Banister, who deftly held it down and keep it directed, until ultimately even he was overwhelmed by a groundswell of anger and frustration (oy, frustrated artists). (Here’s a link to the P’unk Avenue blog, P’unk Avenue Window, where there are several posts and comments about the event).
Rick Banister presiding
The small storefront on Passyunk Avenue on the corner of Federal was filled to capacity, with people on the floor, in the door, wherever they could squeeze themselves.
Mostly what they needed, besides a sliver of space, was a psychiatrist’s couch.
Sid Sachs and Roberta mid discussion. Me on right listening.
Sid Sachs, who’s the director of the Rosenwald-Wolf Gallery at UArts, brought the historical perspective, which no one was taking in, methinks. They couldn’t possibly believe that things used to be worse. Sweet guy, he said that with a nod to us. As far as the artblog is concerned, after his nod it was downhill all the way for us. But we enjoyed the toboggan ride anyway! What a discussion!
Andrew Suggs talking, Katie Murken listening
Andrew Suggs, director of Vox Populi Gallery, expressed a yearning for more writing with philosophical underpinnings and less writing that was cheerleading. That, too, seemed to come with an anti-nod to us, albeit unspoken. I think I pouted. (Just for the record, we do have philosophical underpinnings, but we don’t shout them in the day-to-day posts. There’s a pattern there to be read, honest. And it has to do not with formal issues but content issues. And if you ask me, therein lies the parting of the ways. I for one believe in the formalism of convenience, the one that fits the content, and not vice versa).
James Rosenthal, sporting a hat, Joseph diGiuseppi, sporting a video camera, and Rick Banister
Someone wanted to know why the area academic community wasn’t contributing (by way of writing) to the philosophical and historical discussion about Philadelphia art.
Sachs and Suggs (doesn’t that sound like a Pop music duo?) complained that no hero critic on a white steed was riding in to clarify the murky waters of Philadelphia’s mushrooming mass creativity with standards and philosophical positions.
As if that’s what you get out of the New York Times! Cut me a break.
I do have to thank Sid for pointing out that Clement Greenberg was more certain than he was right. Now there’s some truth.
Anyway, there was a lot of whining (artist and writer James Rosenthal did at least half of it and Sid told him to cut it out and do something instead of just complain; but those two have a long-standing feud that’s best left to sleep). I was impressed with how many issues people had–based on their own needs and disappointments. I mean, really, can art criticism save everyone’s career????
Zoe Strauss‘ name came up as a role model for how to do it. Sid said she created her own world in her art work, and then she marketed it in every way possible. She established herself in New York; no one did it for her.
Afterwards Chris Golas (FLUXspace) came up to me and said some more about the need for people to grow up and deal with the market and stop blaming everyone else for not doing what they themselves should be doing–figuring out how to create a market in Philadelphia, and if it’s not possible here, figuring out how to take advantage of the market in New York. He himself was struggling with what all that means in terms of art and ahht.
A big thank you to Banister and the P’unk posse, who organized the event. They have Juntos ever month or two on various topics. I know they have a crowd of regulars. The Juntos may not all be rip-snorters like this one, but it sounds like they all offer food for thought (plus there was pizza I hear tell; I experienced the beer).
We are thinking about all that got said, and are trying to figure out how we can help further the discussion.
Readers Comments (21)
Great post, Libby!
I agree with you and Chris Golas. We have a great art, cultural and tech scene in Philadelphia. Hold your head high fellow Philadelphians.
There is so much opportunity and so so so many ways to make a living doing creative work here.
We are the talk of the town (country), in my opinion. Whenever I travel, people tell me how lucky I am to live in Philadelphia… and I could not agree more.
It was a great talk. Thanks!
Hi Libby, nice wrap! Its sure to generate some interesting comments, as Mr. Rosenthal made it clear at the Junto that he’s notorious in that regard…i’m keep checking back, or maybe i’ll subscribe to the comments feed!
Also – I’m intrigued by your ‘belief in the formalism of convenience’. I’d like to hear a whole lot more about that.
Id like to state and clear up for the record that my comments were of my own opinion and not related to FLUXspace’s opinion.
Secondly I feel as though the flip side of the rant was not balanced in this statement. The accusatory manner as this was presented is not the actuality of the situation. There was a much more matter of fact statement that I lay on the table. There are people who are taking initiative to make art a career move and use their business skills in the market to both Philadelphia and a larger audience. People like Karen Klimnik and Zoe Strauss are just to name a few who have managed to further their personal goals that come to mind off hand. “if” what Philadelphia artists’ want for their community is criticism and that is a tool to create a dialogue (for the purpose of better art making) then the solution is in artists being more proactive in generating real gatherings for and about artwork that are transparent discussions relating to the technical, the aesthetic, and the contextual nature of a piece of artwork ( their own artwork and others too)
If what people are looking for from written art criticism in Philadelphia is a window to success or to gratify their own creations and time spent with some words then they are barking up the wrong tree. Success isn’t build from the words of others. It is built from your own hard work. There happens to be a dollar/ego market for Art in New York built from the hard world of business. This market seems to me to be about artists serving investors. It is a clear transparent business model in my mind, maybe not to others. Philadelphia is an artist serving artist market. I am the first to admit that I can’t explain all that much about this market, or lack thereof (and I have been here for several years and am involved in some of the local activities) other than is serves its purpose to provide the city with a large variety of art and craft available to the public on a weekly basis. If someone wants or desires to make something of themselves then the opportunity is here just as it is in NY. There is a very narrow cash market here in Philadelphia for contemporary art and from the way things work now it appears as though people are content with that. It is clear that people have forged their own business models to launch themselves and have their home base here in Philadelphia but clearly are successful outside of this city as well as within.
Id like to leave you with an analogy that might be terrible but its a shot. This city is a swirling galaxy, much like the milky way, where there is central core of spirit and determination (lets call it art) but multiple arms that are all moving independently and at their own velocity. Some arms trail off out of the main mass to the point where they become independent stars. These independent bodies no longer have the appearance of a strong arm, but it is much easier to recognize the free body floating in space than trying to find it within the other mass.
Thanks,
Chris
I loved this Junto! It was probably the liveliest panel about art in this town ever (maybe, who knows, am I right?) The thing that frustrates everyone, and it can’t help but be so, is that when you’re in the historical moment it’s almost impossible to see the long view of how your moment fits. The mirror is too close to your face and even if you stand back you’re still looking at you.
Everyone has a need to see how what they’re doing fits in the bigger scheme of things. Is our time the best? worst? most exciting? most fertile? Is our art great, less than great, the most best ever? ….Yes, no, maybe. Hard to see it.
I can’t answer except to say that ten years ago when I started writing for the Weekly the town was a ghost town compared to now. Also, ten years ago, the artist population was older. I have no numbers to prove it but I see it everywhere–the youthies have arrived and they’re staying and they’re beginning to equal (maybe exceed?) the older artists.
In the scramble to review shows (and we are basically a review publication, kind of like the art page of a daily paper) it’s very hard to take time to think those long range thoughts about the era we’re in and then write those thoughts down in a coherent way. Since the beginning we have aspired to do that but…the next review is due and we move on. As Libby says, if you read the blog you can pick up that we’re discovering things while we go along…and the really good thing about the Junto is that we’re going to be writing some of what our goals are and maybe we’ll get to waxing philosophical. Could happen.
Hi, Chris, I’m sorry if I misrepresented. And thanks for that great analogy and all these clarifying thoughts. They need to be part of Philly’s discussion.
And whenever you do say something negative artists’ will lash out at you for being not supportive – And I am talking about a particular article: http://theartblog.org/2008/12/weekly-update-vox-populis-members-puzzles/
TAKE A LOOK AT THE COMMENTS.
This is interesting – at the same time this group in Philadelphia is calling for less “cheerleading” and a more “academicized” approach – there is an article over at NYFA by Hrag Vartanian of Jerry Saltz’s lecture which starts out by calling for almost the opposite.
http://www.nyfa.org/nyfa_current_detail.asp?id=17&fid=1&curid=765
Interesting, no? Interesting although I don’t think its out of left field. I agree – do wish there was some more – or maybe to clarify – “the addition of” [at least public and easily accessible] academic criticism of the art in Philadelphia. BUT I think the coverage we currently have isn’t something that should go away or move in that direction – there is just room for more – as was mentioned – the art community is and expanding organism. [not trying to brown-nose but i just want to emphasize that i LOVE this blog, and it is one of the most reliable and frequently updated places i can go for art news in philly - thank-you!]
What a Great Junto! I agree with Roberta about Philly being a Ghost Town ten years ago. In that respect, there is nothing to complain about. But the issues about in-depth coverage (ie philosphical/theoretical) and amount of reviewing are not mutually exclusive. I believe I got bogged down in writing about Phila-centric issues over the past decade even while covering the world class art showing at Arcadia. It was a tough gap to bridge for a writer. The key lies in the scene’s aspirations. It is simple really: we need new and dynamic art and a commercial sector to promote it. Turn off you computer and go stop by Rebekah Templeton right now!
Nic, thanks for sharing that link–it sounds like Saltz would love what’s going on in Philadelphia. We already have many boats in the water going in various directions upstream. We’re ahead of New York! (not that I’m looking over my shoulder at them), ahem.
To clarify, I don’t really mind getting criticized. I just would hope it were done in a civil way. Fer instance, Andrew Suggs did it with class at the Junto event. And what he had to say was worth hearing. I think all of the comments that set our teeth on edge here were not so much wrong is rude and vitriolic. My mother-in-law’s motto is you can catch more flies with honey.
In a late reply here to Kelani, vis a vis my ‘belief in the formalism of convenience’. I realize this sounds a little off from what I meant. I guess I exaggerated because I was thinking about how formalism, especially in Modernism, placed form over content. I’m sort of McLuhanesque, I guess–the medium is the message, and that would be where I stand. The medium has to be appropriate to the message. The form has to convey content or it’s not doing its job as an art work.
On the subject of cheerleading, we were both adversely affected by Jesse Helms and the pall his anti-art and anti-culture positions cast upon the free commerce of ideas and the NEA. Being political, it seems to make sense to present the opposite view.
darn – I wish I had known about this! As far as more academic criticism goes: all the academics I know are too busy looking for jobs and preparing their randon adjunct courses. Great topic for dicussion. And again, artblog is doing a really important job of reporting on it and providing continuing opportunity for debate.
Hi guys, here’s the link to the Funnel Pages post with the podcast of the entire Junto discussion. http://www.funnelpages.com/blog.html
It’s 60 minutes long. Perfect for downloading….
Thank you for posting the Funnel link. It was a very different experience hearing the discussion and not seeing it. One observation I had was that the men seemed louder and more aggressive than the women at the discussion. Maybe they were out numbered but in any case this seemed to color my listening experience. There was a lot of discussion about an abundance of positive reviews and the inability for writers to make a stand and really be tough (a male voice). Perhaps this could be looked at with a little more subtlety. What kind of artist thrives on good reviews that are not eloquent? Without insight and eloquence what meaning would a review hold? I feel the main issue has to do with investigation and insight. Without these two ingredients the art and the criticism suffers. Few artists are able to present revolutionary insights just as there are few critics that have complementary abilities. With regard to the context of Philadelphia, if Goethe could make art while Napoleon occupied Weimar then there is surely potential here.
We’ve been trying to get the national/local art community to talk about the work, their beliefs in it for months. Through the process we’ve been ostracized and simply put out of “the circle of trust”. We even started an art project called the Welcome Matt where we send an email to art departments asking them questions about art. The last one was sent to a mixture of six schools. No one replied. Here’s a link to the letter and the project.
http://www.globatron.org/headline/welcome-mat-2
You might find it interesting as we’ve found even Yale art school a can’t or won’t answer a rather simple yet loaded survey/letter about art. Seems the cat has gotten everyone’s tongue. At least you guys are having a dialogue. As hard as it might be it is going on. Kudos.
Cheers,
Byron King
Globatron.org (founder)
Dear Libby & Roberta
As a “cheerleader”, I think you were very clear about the purpose of artblog – that it is for letting people know about emerging artists and getting their names reviewed as a jumpstart to their careers – you of course said it much more eloquently. I appreciated this clarity.
On the other hand, I will be very interested to see what the new theoretically section reveals. I hope to see some nice, meaty text references and quotes and rigorous analysis.
Best,
Diedra
We’re very excited about theoretically. It broadens the discussion and there’s room for lots and lots of voices there! We always intended to be part of a community and invite the community in, but I think theoretically clarifies that intent and makes more room for some of the energy and thinking that are out there. We generally have put our own thinking in the context of what we choose to review and what we say about it. We also don’t let the thinking limit who we cover, and as a result we have not necessarily been clear to others, although we are clear to ourselves. So having more people involved and having them write theoretically is going to create an exciting discussion that needs to happen!
Philadelphia really is ripe for this, Globatron! Thanks for sending along your link.
And Diedra, yes, we intended to cheerlead in a town that has traditionally hidden its light under a bushel. We do think it has helped, and that alone has been gratifying to us, although words of support are always even more gratifying.
I guess I think of cheerleading as phase 1. Now we move on to the next level!!!!
Hey Guys,
Glad to see a write up about Junto and very, very excited to see the theoretically section. To give space to theoretical discussion on your blog is fantastic. Its now up to the community ( and especially us theory geeks) to fill it! So start writing people!
PS. Libby, I really liked hearing your thoughts on your “belief in the formalism of convenience”
It’s very exciting to see young writers step up to the plate. The enthusiasm at the Junto outweighed the whining which makes me think the time is ripe for this youth quake to hit it out of the park…(don’t you love baseball?)
I hope the energy will keep building and the writing will spawn more writing and dialog. Maybe there will be a magazine in the offing…and more panels and seminars and discussions over tea and beer…It’s great!
Hi, Ben, I hope that you are one of the writers. You seem to think those kinds of thoughts, and it would be great to have your voice in the mix. Like Roberta said, it’s time to take action and take the discussion out of the ivory tower, out of the white box, and call not inside pool but public, populist, yet still pointy-headed baseball!!!! All of you readers, and all of your friends, step up to the plate and send it Outta heeeere!