Saturday, February 25, 2006
HyperCriticalWriting: THE LAST FAVOUR
HyperCriticalWriting: THE LAST FAVOUR Hi Folks, Click on this link for info about the Teresa Jaynes' reading at the Rosenbach Museum and Library. There will be a spirited reading from Jaynes' new book, The Last Favour, "a primer for young men on how to woo women." The event takes place Wed., March 1-5:30 pm. 2008-2010 DeLancey Place. Check out www.rosenbach.org. for more info and RSVP!
The Fair
I had to clear out of Boston early - before a lot of what I wanted to see. But I couldn't leave without stopping into the book fair part of the conference, which is usually my favorite thing anyway. But at this one, I noticed something that I hadn't really seen before. Of course there was the usual mix of tables - from the printers of barely readable theoretical texts to the people who make erasers and want you to get as excited about them as the vendors were. (Guess which group had better freebies?) But I hadn't noticed the extent to which the two appear not to meet.
I spent a goodly chunk of time talking to a rep from Art Boards who was able to answer detailed questions about the composition of the gesso panels and products he was showing. He seemed knowledgeable and generally unhurried. And he had a ton of samples. Other vendors of materials - the huge booth from Golden Acrylics were also similarly helpful and interesting to chat with. One felt a renewed sense of excitement about experimenting with materials after seeing what was out there to use, refreshed and reinvigorated at the possibility that we might not just be making images that were ultimately destined only for slide lectures of websites, but objects that had character and physicality of their own - traits that would contribute to their meaning as much as what they depicted might contribute.
On the other end of the spectrum, there were the book vendors, who generally had the larger adn flashier booths and who appeared to be attracting the most visitors. One of the busiest was the booth for Prentice-Hall publishers, who were going all out to pitch for the new edition of Janson's History of Art. (They had refrigerator magnets...) A plasma screen showed videos or webstuff related to the book, and hoards of art history teachers (readily identifiable by their sensible shoes) milled around.
Other presses had books piled high. Most of them offered discounts for purchases ordered at the conference (some as generous as 50% off). But the communication in those booths – if there was any – was between browsers, who would notice you were looking at something and tell you what they felt about the book. The notable exception was Yale University Press , where I actually got into a conversation with a sales person knowledgeable enough to not only know about the show whose catalog I was browsing, but excited enough about art to know where and when it would be traveling to the east coast.
But by and large, the crowds looking over books were quiet and diliegent about looking through the torrent of titles, as if trying to find something that they might be able to use for next semester without letting on that most of the stuff there was little more than a tempting but obscure reminder of life's brevity (I had the feeeling I was the only person who thought I should have brought my librarian to the conference). I mean, who could read all that? The idea that the editors of these presses had plowed through all that materialwas at once inspiring and enviable, and simultaneously horrible. It's as if each and every moment in the chronology of art (mostly in New York, but in other western cities as well) now had about 5-7 pages to speak for it in that room.
And what of making things - the occasion for which criticism exists? It seemed that there was little discourse between those who stopped at the art supply tables and those who stopped at the bookstalls. I felt rather alone (and after a while, like the subject of some suspicion) crossing back and forth between the two camps. But the whole thing struck me as a metaphoric map of higher education in art – a lot of books many people felt obliged to read, a few books a few people felt excited about, and a general distrust of the materials of art (which – it should be noted, were exclusively related to drawing and painting, though those two disciplines did not enjoy any such majority among the topics of books on view).
I spent a goodly chunk of time talking to a rep from Art Boards who was able to answer detailed questions about the composition of the gesso panels and products he was showing. He seemed knowledgeable and generally unhurried. And he had a ton of samples. Other vendors of materials - the huge booth from Golden Acrylics were also similarly helpful and interesting to chat with. One felt a renewed sense of excitement about experimenting with materials after seeing what was out there to use, refreshed and reinvigorated at the possibility that we might not just be making images that were ultimately destined only for slide lectures of websites, but objects that had character and physicality of their own - traits that would contribute to their meaning as much as what they depicted might contribute.
On the other end of the spectrum, there were the book vendors, who generally had the larger adn flashier booths and who appeared to be attracting the most visitors. One of the busiest was the booth for Prentice-Hall publishers, who were going all out to pitch for the new edition of Janson's History of Art. (They had refrigerator magnets...) A plasma screen showed videos or webstuff related to the book, and hoards of art history teachers (readily identifiable by their sensible shoes) milled around.
Other presses had books piled high. Most of them offered discounts for purchases ordered at the conference (some as generous as 50% off). But the communication in those booths – if there was any – was between browsers, who would notice you were looking at something and tell you what they felt about the book. The notable exception was Yale University Press , where I actually got into a conversation with a sales person knowledgeable enough to not only know about the show whose catalog I was browsing, but excited enough about art to know where and when it would be traveling to the east coast.
But by and large, the crowds looking over books were quiet and diliegent about looking through the torrent of titles, as if trying to find something that they might be able to use for next semester without letting on that most of the stuff there was little more than a tempting but obscure reminder of life's brevity (I had the feeeling I was the only person who thought I should have brought my librarian to the conference). I mean, who could read all that? The idea that the editors of these presses had plowed through all that materialwas at once inspiring and enviable, and simultaneously horrible. It's as if each and every moment in the chronology of art (mostly in New York, but in other western cities as well) now had about 5-7 pages to speak for it in that room.
And what of making things - the occasion for which criticism exists? It seemed that there was little discourse between those who stopped at the art supply tables and those who stopped at the bookstalls. I felt rather alone (and after a while, like the subject of some suspicion) crossing back and forth between the two camps. But the whole thing struck me as a metaphoric map of higher education in art – a lot of books many people felt obliged to read, a few books a few people felt excited about, and a general distrust of the materials of art (which – it should be noted, were exclusively related to drawing and painting, though those two disciplines did not enjoy any such majority among the topics of books on view).
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
CAA Today
I was glad to see Tom Wagner and Tim Murphy toward the end of the day. I'm hopeful that we can convene a UArts caucus at the Pour House tomorrow. I was especially happy to see them because the panel today was such a surreal experience. The speakers were engaged with the subject of ruins in the age of global violence in a number of ways, but when the Q&A started, a number of people in the audience (some of whom admitted they hadn't been present for all the presentations!) expressed disappointment that the panel wasn't "political" enough -that it hadn't spoken to their specific concerns, be they with the Falun Gong or opposition to the war in Iraq or what have you.
It was very strange, and reminded me of a class in which students expect to be taught something which is not really on the agenda. I found myself wondering - as some complained that we'd focused exclusively on "objects" instead of the phenomenon of global violence - what it is that one expects to learn in any situation and how that meshes (or fails to mesh) with what others have to teach.
I don't know. I have avoided CAA for a while out of apprehension about its academic credibility. At one point, a panelist expressed the belief that artists are the the conscience of the world, a view with which I couldn't agree as I can only see artits as opportunists whose ideas reach or fail to reach a public based on circumstances beyond our control. Many of the comments would have made sense had this been a public policy meeting - but art is not public policy. In fact, the best way to devalue a work of aggressively political art is to emphasize its status as "art".
I ramble. Often. But more later...after tomorrow's panels
It was very strange, and reminded me of a class in which students expect to be taught something which is not really on the agenda. I found myself wondering - as some complained that we'd focused exclusively on "objects" instead of the phenomenon of global violence - what it is that one expects to learn in any situation and how that meshes (or fails to mesh) with what others have to teach.
I don't know. I have avoided CAA for a while out of apprehension about its academic credibility. At one point, a panelist expressed the belief that artists are the the conscience of the world, a view with which I couldn't agree as I can only see artits as opportunists whose ideas reach or fail to reach a public based on circumstances beyond our control. Many of the comments would have made sense had this been a public policy meeting - but art is not public policy. In fact, the best way to devalue a work of aggressively political art is to emphasize its status as "art".
I ramble. Often. But more later...after tomorrow's panels
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Greetings from CAA!
It's great to be here in Boston. It's at least half as warm as it is in Southern California.
This is the first of what may bea few updats from the College Art Assiociation 94th Annual Conference. Right now I'm holed up in a fried's office at Boston University finishing the paper I'll be presenting tomorrow morning on the panel "Ruins in the Age of Global Violence". Since we're convening at 9:30 on the first day of the conference, I expect a light turnout. Most of the folks I've talked to aren't coming until later tomorrow or Thursday. There's a lot on the docket and at the same time, not a lot. Walter Plotnick told me there was a cool digital to darkroom discussion that sounded good. I'm bummed I've got to fly home before "New Media Futures: The Artist as Researcher and Research as Art in the 21st Century" meets on Friday at 5:30. But hey, I've got a month-old baby to see, right?
Hopefully we'll have regular (and flippant) posts from the conference for all you who couldn't attend. I'm using the Pour House as my east coast office for the meeting (it's right across the street from the convention center!) so look for me there.
This is the first of what may bea few updats from the College Art Assiociation 94th Annual Conference. Right now I'm holed up in a fried's office at Boston University finishing the paper I'll be presenting tomorrow morning on the panel "Ruins in the Age of Global Violence". Since we're convening at 9:30 on the first day of the conference, I expect a light turnout. Most of the folks I've talked to aren't coming until later tomorrow or Thursday. There's a lot on the docket and at the same time, not a lot. Walter Plotnick told me there was a cool digital to darkroom discussion that sounded good. I'm bummed I've got to fly home before "New Media Futures: The Artist as Researcher and Research as Art in the 21st Century" meets on Friday at 5:30. But hey, I've got a month-old baby to see, right?
Hopefully we'll have regular (and flippant) posts from the conference for all you who couldn't attend. I'm using the Pour House as my east coast office for the meeting (it's right across the street from the convention center!) so look for me there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
