ART VIEWS

Gertrude Stein

JL: How would you define the difference in the way these people responded to you?  Was it fear, respect, interest etc.?
 
EVH: I'd call it curiosity. I noticed that people referred to me by name immediately, and that I was getting a lot of hits on my profile. I certainly wouldn't say fear or respect! I think people just wondered who the hell this weird chick with the big mouth was.

JL: When you talk about an exaggerated persona, do you mean like a cartoon character in a way?  I mean, you even use a cartoon for your blog image.

EVH: Sort of like a caricature, I guess - I chose a cartoon because I wanted a certain amount of ambiguity, but wanted it to be clear that I was a woman. Also, cartoons are typically associated with humor, which is a big part of my persona.

JL: What are your thoughts on these comments on your blog site in reference to anonymity.
 
Do you think this artist named Chris Rywal has a valid point?
 

Chris Rywalt said...  One thing does occur to me: At least Charlie Finch and Jerry Saltz put their names and their reputations on the line for what they believe. They put their name to their opinions -- they don't need to hide behind anonymity to be honest, like some parties I could name.

EVH:  It's valid to a certain extent, but it's totally old-fashioned. It's not like I'm telling everyone to elect me for President. It's a fucking blog. Who cares if you're anonymous? Either you want to read my blog or you don't. Seriously, it's a hell of a lot more interesting for all involved parties when you don't know who the other players are.

JL:  What are your thoughts on the rebuttal with respect to remaining anonymous and also honesty? 
 
Anonymous said...   people have good reasons to remain anonymous; they can be more honest.

EVH:  Well, if you're someone who might be jeopardizing your career by speaking out (i.e. all women), you can certainly be more honest when no one knows who you are. When women speak up, they are called bitches, or crazy. In the artworld, there are very few female critics who aren't pandering to men. No one wants to believe it, but it's a fact. It's engrained and somehow accepted. That said, my main reason for staying anonymous is that I'm not interested in any sort of recognition. The downside is that people view that as cowardly. You can't please everyone. I just try to keep it fun for me.

"Mr. Finch may not be anyone’s ideal alternative, but he does have a distinctive voice—and judging from the furor, an active readership". Mia Fineman . New York Observer

Michael Kimmelman was named chief art critic at the NEW YORK TIMES in 1990, having joined the staff as an art critic in 1988. Since 1981, he has written on various cultural subjects for many publications.

JL: This one makes a lot of sense.

Anonymous said...   As for anonymity, people may have high profile jobs that make it hard for them to speak out on certain issues. I may be michael kimmelman's (or charlie finch's) assistant in my day job, for all you know. that could make it difficult to post under my real name.

I could write for a publication or work for a gallery that I might criticize here.

EVH: Totally. Plenty of really smart artists are stuck in shitty day jobs. Blogs are a great outlet for people who have insider knowledge but would be chastised for sharing it under their real names. Blogs bring power to the people who are working the hardest for the artworld - slaves at museums and galleries, assistant to schmucks like Finch, etc - and provides a platform for the type of discussions that no one has in real life. It counteracts all the ass-kissing we have to listen to on a daily basis.

JL:  Do you think that is more of an American phenomenon, than say in some other parts of world, for outspoken women to be called bitches or crazy?

EVH: American, like the Salem Witch Trials revisited? Maybe. I think America's more of a patriarchy then most people will admit. It's just less overt than in other cultures. Americans struggle to reconcile racism, gender-bias, sexuality - everything. Of course, in many parts of the world, people suffer physically AND psychologically. It's almost ludicrous to complain about gender bias in the artworld in the context of world-wide human suffering, but we have to fight every battle. I really think we can help to do our part this way - on a very personal level - just by recognizing the issues and attempting to work them out. Answers would be great, but even without them, it's worth it just to communicate.

JL: What do the following quotes from this review entitled, OLD FRIENDS by Charlie Finch say to you about art critics and their relationship to art dealers, artists and art collectors? 

A. David Salle loves the work.
B. Let’s hope some discerning collector snapped this up.
C. The work is delectable, the prices are right
D. An opportunity during auction week

Caroll Baker

EVH:  I know for a fact that Artnet LOVES mentions like these. The writers are encouraged to drop names, prices, tidbits of gossip, etc - so I don't know for sure if this is Finch's personal interest or a result of the magazine's prompting. Either way, I'm pretty disgusted by all market and money talk, especially when it tries to masquerade as art criticism. Tons of people in the artworld are money-grubbing scumbags - it's always been that way and probably always will be. What disgusts me more than dealers and collectors dropping lines like these is the fact that there are plenty of artists who get off on discussing auction prices. When artists themselves get sucked into money and the business of art - that's about as low as it gets.

Jocelyn Hobbie

JL: Charlie Finch said  "What I saw at first was one of the most beautiful women ever, a blonde reminiscent of Carroll Baker in Baby Doll."
 

A. Is it "the most beautiful woman ever" reference you object to, or;
B. The Baby Doll reference that you object to, being that the character Caroll Baker played in this film was very seductive and scantily dressed.
C. This film at the time was described by a Time magazine critic as "just possibly the dirtiest American made motion picture that has ever been legally exhibited," and one that "might well have embarrassed Boccaccio," is both artistically and intellectually shocking".
D. Or is it something else?

EVH: D. I didn't really register an objection, I just took the opportunity (in my post) to ridicule his testosterone-driven drivel. It's interesting to me that he chose such a sexually-loaded reference, but I've come to expect that stuff from The Finchster. He's got one hand on the keyboard and the other one down his pants at all times. Must get boring after a while. 
 

 

JL:  All joking aside; when Charlie Finch is not talking about a beautiful woman and her work; I think he is really sharp writer, what do you think? 

 

EVH: Uh, well...he's smart - that's obvious. And he's certainly not boring. But is it better to be exciting and sexist, or boring and not sexist? Or am I leaving one option out?
 

JL:  Why do you think the artworld has become so much more commercialized than ever?

EVH: People have shitloads of money right now, and art is a great investment. It's an unregulated market. Basically, it should be illegal - it's essentially money laundering and insider trading. This is what rich people do - they look for ways to make more money and impress their friends. Sorry to be so cynical, but it's true. Hopefully the really good artists won't fall victim to the market, exhaust their creativity making crap to decorate people's houses, and end up waiting tables at TGI Friday's. This is my biggest nightmare about the art market.

JL: Do you think it's possible that this bubble could burst as a result of unrealistic inflation like it did in the late 80s/early 90s?  And if it does, do you think this could be a good thing for art?

EVH: It's not only possible, it's inevitable. I'm not sure it will be a huge "burst," per se, but it can't maintain itself this way forever. I think it'll be a double-edged sword when it happens (not that I'm at all the expert on markets) - artists will get their time and struggle back, but galleries will suffer and that means less exhibition opportunities. I think rather than a market crash, I'd like to see a shift toward more introspection in the artworld - by artists and critics. If this could happen without a crash to prompt it, it would be incredible. I'd also like to see curators taken down a notch, or removed altogether. I guess that wasn't really part of your question.

Yale University

JL: What are your thoughts on art students fresh out of art school, expecting to sell their work for astronomical figures?  Who would you blame?

A.  Art students
B.  Art teachers
C.  Art schools
D. All of the above or something else for this expectation and commercial mentality?
 
EVH: Well, you certainly can't blame the art students - if I'd had the chance to show when I was in school I would have done it. And you can't blame art teachers for being jaded and competitive, since they had to work their asses off for what's being handed to some 20-year olds on a silver platter. If they can stay at all positive, I commend them. Art schools? I don't blame them. Except maybe Yale for being so annoyingly insular. I guess I blame the critics for building up shit art by juveniles and then complaining that there's nothing to talk about.

JL: Do you think there is a way of circumventing this commercial system, or being a part of it, without being swallowed up by it?

EVH: There are plenty of non-corporate and non-profit galleries, artist-run spaces, etc. It's not a totally lost cause - it's just harder to find the good stuff.   Artists need to be smart and not let greedy gallerists fuck up their careers by selling to any loser with a wallet. Artists should say no to shitty exhibitions and belittling commissions. Basically, just take an aggressive role in your own career and keep your feet on the ground. Make real friends, and make art for yourself and your own generation. Don't try to please everyone and stay as close to the work as possible.
 

JL: . What are your thoughts on Alex McQuilkin's video which appears as if she is having sexual relations, while putting on her make up?
 
EVH:. I'm not into it. I think it's an easy way to shock the viewer into thinking you're providing commentary, when in reality it's just a shifted porn format. I think conceptually there's something there - a level of emotional fuckedupness that is worth exploring - but the makeup is too clichéd and the video format is too accessibly commercial. But a lot of people think it's a great piece.
 
JL: In a recent review on Matthew Barney's work, Jerry Saltz had this to say about all artists being self absorbed?

The art critic Peter Schjeldahl has previously written admiringly of Barney. He recently told me Barney is "monstrously self-absorbed" and that Drawing Restraint 9 is "boring" and "a scratch where there is no itch." I think all artists are self-absorbed, monstrously or otherwise. 

Do you think that all artists are self absorbed, monstrously or otherwise? 

EVH: Well, I think it sounds derogatory for Saltz to reply to Schjeldahl's comment in that way. It's too obvious. Artists are inside their own heads, hopefully pleasing their own eyes and brains, but this does not necessarily mean that we have huge egos. Everyone says this but I really don't agree. To suggest that an artist is self-absorbed is to also suggest that they are not generous, or are primarily selfish, and this is not the case with the best artists.
 

Peter  Schjeldahl

Mathew Barney

Schjeldahl's comment that Drawing Restraint 9 is a "scratch where there is no itch" is a counterintuitive excuse to use a cute expression. We create the itches; we're not just attempting to solve things that the critics already know about. Schjeldahl really shows how conservative he is by making such old-fashioned remarks.

JL: I totally agree with you. I have not seen this Drawing Restraint 9  video, but believe that he is very creative and original.

Have you seen it and what do you think of his work?

EVH: Yes, I saw it the day after it opened. Of course I love to pick on his concepts - I mean, he makes art about male genitalia - but he's a smart, incredibly ambitious artist. Seeing this show, I felt a strange visual lack - somehow it is too flat, too dead - but then I realized that he had really succeeded in communicating the look of restraint, and I became intrigued. His work in general is a bit too epic for my taste, but I can really get into the sculptures as objects. I'd have to say that I'm a fan. I feel like artists and critics who diss Barney are totally reaching. It's fine to nitpick (especially when the work is as resolved as Barney's is), but there's a point where you need to just shut up and admit that you wish you'd thought of it.
 

JL:  Village Voice (and Artnet Magazine) writer Jerry Saltz has been named the most influential art critic in New York Magazine’s roundup of art power figures. What do you think of this?

EVH: Well, the most influential in New York, anyway. It's true; he is. What I really like about Jerry Saltz is that he changes his mind all the time - most people hate that, but I think it's the mark of someone who's really thinking and struggling. Gone are the days of myopic art criticism. There's no room or time for it. You may not agree with Saltz all the time, but at least he puts himself out there and doesn't fill the page with pseudo-erudite emptiness.

JL: . I agree with you on that. By the way, are you "Gorgon"?

EVH: Nope, but that's flattering. Is it because Gorgon called Schjeldahl a 'pious fraud?' I see the connection...

Visit Edna's site at Anonymous Female Artist (aka Militant Art Bitch)