Thursday Links!

by Paddy Johnson on October 20, 2011 · 4 comments Massive Links

  • The blogosphere is questioning the wisdom of Occupy Museums. Isn’t it better to question the auctions, the art market, the anything but the Frick? More on that later in the day, but first a related link from Lisa Beck, who reminds me of 2009’s hot media story: the art market is more corrupt than the stock market! [Reuters] [IntelligenceSquared]
  • Holy shit: the Warhol Authentication Board is going to dissolve. “I don’t want to spend $7 million a year on lawyers,” Foundation president Joel Wachs said, referring to the amount paid by the foundation last year toward defending itself. [ArtInfo]
  • This week in Miguels: Curator Miguel Von Perez uses facebook like tumblr; his image updates are the best I’ve seen. [Facebook] Miguel Amado’s The Walls That Divide Us opens November 9th as part of apexart’s Unsolicited Proposals program. [ApexArt]
  • Kyle Chayka talks link rot. [artinfo]
  • “Defining the youngins” is a story that never seems to get old. And could there be anything more representative of 20-somethings than a Gchat with your sister? I’m pretty sure there is, but NYMag didn’t find it. [NYMag]
  • Jerry Saltz’s Work of Art wrap-up this week is pretty great, though perhaps I just like the use of the word douchebag. [NYMag]


Edward Winkleman October 20, 2011 at 4:33 pm

Two quick notes:

1) “Isn’t it better to question the auctions, the art market, the anything but the Frick?”

These thing are already questioned in many places, including the same blogs you’re pointing to as questioning Occupy Museum. Isn’t better to address the issues raised by those posts than just to change the subject?

2) “The archives to prove it here.”

The “proof” you’re submitting for this outrageous allegation boils down to a survey on who won a debate held for entertainment purposes, not any evidence of actual corruption from one market compared with that in another. As a mentor of mine drilled into my head, the plural of anecdote is NOT data. There is no proof of more corruption. In fact, that wasn’t even the question of the debate. The question was which market was “less ethical,” which is an idiotic question followed in that debate by idiotic answers given that ethical behavior can only be measured against stated standards of practice (of which the art market has notorious few).
Otherwise, have fun at the protest!

Anonymous October 20, 2011 at 5:14 pm

Hey Ed, 

I wasn’t trying to change the subject. The links section of a blog isn’t where I like to actually discuss matters, so it was a tossed off line and a few links about a vaguely related topic, with the promise of a forthcoming post. And yes, the links pose idiotic questions with idiotic answers. (I think I’ll change the words “proof” as they direct a reader in a way that was not intended).

I haven’t written enough on the subject to offer a disclaimer, but Noah Fischer, the organizer Occupy Museums is a friend of mine. I think he’s a really smart artists who makes great work and who understands that the protest isn’t perfect. The point was to get it out there while people were talking and use the mass of people and energy that exists with Wall Street to refine the project into something greater. Our participation aids this, even if we decide that well, we have better things to do than go out and protest. As everyone seems to have made perfectly clear, we’ll definitely chat endlessly about it online. 

Edward Winkleman October 20, 2011 at 6:04 pm

Thanks for the clarifications Paddy.

As I mentioned on the blog, I am a fan of OWS and am curious about its
off-shoot potential, which is why I’ll watch Occupy the Museums with
keen interest. It’s just that the initial text has some significant
problems in my opinion with regards to how it suggests the museums are
parallel to Wall Street and how it otherwise co-ops the OWS language and positions.

Whether one approves of the holdings of this or
that museum (and in New York, there’s always another one if you don’t
like the one you’re in), they are at least working within a higher human
endeavor than maximizing profits. They are not (as Noah notes about the protests) perfect, but, well, when you occupy the Frick and yet your central criticism is the commodification of art over the past decades, you confuse matters. Nothing in the Frick is ever likely to go to market again. Nothing there is contemporary.

I think it might make sense to protest the Frick as a symbol of robber baron ill-gotten goods (with the obvious connection being the way wealth disparity is back and how), but not as anything even remotely connected to the contemporary art market.

glassdesignunique, ziggy October 21, 2011 at 3:49 pm

interesting !


Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: