"Brooklyn Dispatches: Old School Future," Brooklyn Rail by Fredrick Munk

By James Kalm

It’s funny that nothing seems to get dated faster than our depictions of an imagined future. Reading Nineteen Eighty-Four in high school, the future looked grim, but inevitably, when 1984 popped up on the calendar, life still looked cheery, and when the long-awaited movie lumbered along, it was a period piece indulging in high-kitsch Cold War paranoia. Likewise, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a much better snapshot of 1968 than anything we’ve seen in the new millennium.

Ignoring these warnings, I can’t help but wonder what the future of our little art world, specifically the critical side of it, will look like in five years. Irving Sandler’s “A Call to Art Critics” appeared only two years ago in the December/January 2006-07 issue of the Brooklyn Rail, yet today the double trouble of a faltering economy and a burgeoning Internet makes Sandler’s questions of critical taste, market manipulation, and relevance seem like a debate over the best buggy whip. No matter how you arrange the deck chairs, the entire enterprise of hard copy art criticism is sinking. It’s not a question of relevance, but of whether it will exist as anything recognizable in the near future. How will this brave new world, where anyone with a keyboard and a phone line can become an art blogger, affect the consumer? Who’ll guarantee quality and editorial ethics? Has the era of paradigm-shifting essays like Greenberg’s “Avant-Garde and Kitsch,” Rosenberg’s “The American Action Painters” or Sontag’s “Notes on ‘Camp’” (all first published in “little magazines”) passed? Will it be replaced by celebrity gossip and hot button issues designed to drive up views at the expense of aesthetic investigation? Knock, knock…who’s there?…Not art criticism.

About six months ago I started to notice little things. The e-mail address of a rising young editor at one of the big three art mags was deactivated; although she was still working there, her job was strictly “freelance.” Soon after, the New York Sun folded. Despite what you might have felt about the paper’s political slant, the art section featured some of the best local arts writing and lots of color photos. Publications not closing were slimming down, looking to slow financial hemorrhaging and tap additional revenue streams. The first thing to go is always the unprofitable art review section. Even rumblings from The New York Times about cutbacks on writing and editorial staffs and the leasing of major portions of office space in their Midtown building shows that no one is immune. If current trends continue, we’re looking at a cultural shift equivalent to the invention of the printing press or TV.

Meanwhile the emigration to the Internet is frenetic. A laggard like Art in America recently debuted a spiffy new site (http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/), while established mega-sites like Huntington Post are expanding their arts sections. Given the niche market for art reporting, a profitable business model remains elusive. Even some high profile art bloggers like Art Fag City have turned to fundraising, asking fans to pony up for the privilege of their expertise. Sharon L. Butler’s informative “The Art World on Facebook: A Primer” (which appeared in the March 2009 Brooklyn Rail) delves into the recent “social networking” aspect of the Internet with a special focus on Jerry Saltz’s recent Facebook participation. And although his 4,829 “friends” might not equate to the number of his readers at New York Magazine, there’s something to be said for the immediacy and volume of response he achieves with each post. It’s a world in flux, but once you get over the fear, the potential for innovation is astounding.

In the spirit of this new game I posted a query through my own Facebook account: “What’s the future of hard copy art criticism?” Although it didn’t generate the number of responses some of the FB stars get, there were some interesting posts. Sharon L. Butler put in her two cents worth: “Art critics better head over to Blogspot or Wordpress, sign up for their blogs now, and think creatively about new sources of revenue. They should stop wringing their hands and look at it as an opportunity...or else they’ll go down with the ship.” Mark Kramer chimed in with “As long as there are coffee tables, there will be hard-copy art media to adorn them.” Some tech-head art pundits have already predicted the decline of blogs, saying the trend has passed its prime, they’ve become too mean, restrictive, and inhospitable to innovation and new technologies.

What are some of these new approaches that might use the internet to extend art reporting? Recently Twitter has set hearts aflutter. Based on my own experiments in online video art criticism with the “Kalm Report,” I’d nominate online streaming video as a possibility.

I decided to throw out some questions via e-mail to an expert, NewArtTV’s (http://www.newarttv.com/) founder Robert Knafo. Robert was an editor at GQ and Connoisseur magazines (1983-89), and he has organized exhibitions at the Chelsea Art Museum, produced StudioVisit.net ( http://www.studiovisit.net/ ), and contributed to Art in America, Arts, Artforum, Art News, Slate, and The New York Times Magazine.

James Kalm: What made you decide to start NewArtTV?

Robert Knafo: I’ve had a long-standing interest in documentary film on art. In 2006 it occurred to me that online video offered a great new platform for doing what I had been doing in an online magazine format with StudioVisit.net, which is to document and write about contemporary art and artists around the experience of a studio visit. The Internet and editing software meant that you could make “documentaries” or videos on art, to be less grand about it, for relatively little money, and bring them to an audience more or less on your own. I found that very exciting.

James Kalm: Do you think the Internet has made conventional print journalism, specifically that of art criticism, obsolete?

Robert Knafo: It is undeniable that less art criticism is to be found on newsprint, but I am not sure that this is the crucial issue regarding the future of critical writing on art. I’d worry if it meant that there’s less art criticism, or less good art criticism, but is that the case? Judging from the hundreds of art blogs, and the fact that I can read online many if not all of the art critics I follow—I’d say no. I think that art exists as a crucial focal point for discussion and debate about aesthetic, cultural, and a myriad other issues and concerns, and criticism will always be essential for proposing the key terms of the conversation. I think we’re witnessing a morphing of art criticism into different forms (the blog entry, the crit-tweet) as it makes a sometimes-turbulent transition onto a new platform.

James Kalm: As someone who worked as a critic, do you feel your current video practice at NewArtTV functions as critique, and if not, why?

Robert Knafo: What I do on NewArtTV is not art criticism, but it is related, I believe, in that it contains aspects of criticism. In contrast to the explicit and interpretive propositions of criticism, I think that in each video I make there’s an implicit initial argument at work, which is that this work, this artist, is worth paying attention to; beyond that, I am conscious of drawing out certain lines of investigation (through questions, focus, emphasis, elaboration) and, in the editing process, structuring the raw material I derive according to how things relate and connect to each other, their relative importance, their place in a kind of story or discursive experience.

James Kalm: Perhaps you could comment on what you see as the difference between writing a review of a show and your video programs in which you visit studios and interview artists.

Robert Knafo: I’ve come to think of producing videos as having a critical dimension, but I also like and want to emphasize the neutrality of creating a platform, a medium, for someone else’s voice or “performance.” I think video is a crucial way to record the ephemeral as well as the enduring aspects of art production and creativity (the artist’s thoughts and views, the work environment, etc.). I see the videos as having a documentary function about artwork, the critical interpretation and judgment of which I am happy to leave to posterity. I’d love to be able to watch a video studio visit with Manet, or Cezanne, or Duchamp, or Picasso, and I hope that the videos I make will be seen and have a similar interest for people who are not yet around to see them.

Robert demurred from prognosticating further on the future.

However things work out, we’ll have to use our noggins to transform the ancient Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times” into our own blessing.

"Brooklyn Dispatches Resurrection of a Bad-Ass Girl, Part II," Brooklyn Rail by Fredrick Munk

By James Kalm

Life is messy, but death is messier. And at least while you’re alive, you can bust ass in the clean-up—scrub away the stains and sweep what you don’t want seen under the rug.

Recently the ghost of Lee Lozano has been haunting me like Laura Palmer from Twin Peaks. I began Part I of this essay with a simple idea: track the process whereby an artist’s oeuvre is discovered, promoted, and canonized without the direct intervention of the artist, a study at the nexus of where the market meets art history. Lenore Knaster, aka Lee Lozano, aka E, seemed the perfect case, an ambitious young artist with a brief but intense ten-year career that encompassed nearly every major artistic tendency during New York’s tumultuous ’60s. This decade’s worth of artifacts were set like a gem in a ring of actions, rumors, and myths that, because of their complexities, both obscured and enhanced the seductiveness of the work. Lozano’s final twenty-five-year self-imposed exile from the art world, her decision to stop creating physical works and divorce herself from her own production (leaving it like an orphan in foster care), carry all the implications of one of her “actions.”

Armed only with published reviews and oft-repeated historical anecdotes, I assumed I could track down the particulars easily—google a few articles, collect some factoids—and so I went ahead and published Part I. But Lee wasn’t going to let me off the hook so easy. Almost immediately the accepted dates and received myths that Lozano had so carefully constructed started to evaporate. A ten-thousand percent increase in the value of the extant work seemed to raise an E-fever in some witnesses, while at the same time, because of the powerful forces involved, it intimidated others into an uncomfortable reticence.

I was contacted by Lee’s cousin, Mark Kramer, who was living in Dallas when Lee showed up on her parents’ doorstep there in 1982. Mark spent several years as Lee’s closest confidant and hapless provider of a crash-pad when Lee couldn’t face hanging out with her parents. He’s established a website with the mission of straightening out the Lozano legend at www.leelozano.net. Available at the site is Robert Wilonsky’s incredibly tragic article, “The Dropout Piece,” which appeared in the Dallas Observer of December 9, 1999, just a few short months after Lee’s death. This cautionary tale documents the life and death of Lee, and should be required reading for anyone dreaming of risking their all in the pursuit of becoming an “artist.”

So here’s a brief, revised update: despite what’s been recorded in many chronicles of the period such as Robert Hughes’ Shock of the New (1980) and numerous articles in publications like ARTFORUM and Arts Journal (that Lozano left New York for Texas in 1971), it seems she remained in or around the Downtown Manhattan scene for at least another decade. This ten-year gap in her visibility testifies both to her success at “dropping out” and to the apathetic myopia afflicting a shocking percentage of local critical and historical pundits. According to Kramer, it was the death of Mickey Ruskin, owner of Max’s Kansas City and Lee’s longtime meal ticket, that ultimately led to her departure from Gotham and arrival in Dallas as a fifty-two-year-old indigent. Moving in with her retired parents, a strained relationship begins, which ultimately deteriorates to a point where, in desperation, her father is forced to have a restraining order issued against Lee (he complained that she’d kicked his legs bloody during tantrums). Apparently the abuse had gone on for years, and calling in the cops, who removed Lee in handcuffs, was her father’s final act of resistance, and took place only a month before his untimely death.

With the passing of her mother not long after, Lozano’s last lonely decade is spent in and out of various institutions. By 1998 she seems barely aware of the retrospective exhibition of her “Wave” paintings at the Wadsworth Athenaeum, or of the concurrent shows at three Manhattan galleries, Mitchell Algus, Rosen & van Liere and Margarete Roeder. She’s diagnosed with inoperable cervical cancer in the same year and dies in October 1999, laid to rest at public expense in an unmarked mass grave in Grand Prairie, Texas. Perhaps Lee’s quarter-century pilgrimage into obscurity can be posited as a millennial antithesis to Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame, a heartbreaking performance without a safety net, an ambitious exploration in the aesthetics of failure. Here, at the last frayed nub of this artist’s life, you’d expect the story to end, and for Lenore Knaster it does.

The Afterlife

“The evil that men do lives after them; / The good is oft interred with their bones.” In an ironic twist on Mark Antony’s eulogy from Julius Caesar, it’s the artifacts (not necessarily the evil) that live after, but how and why do they reemerge into the conscious world of the living?

In her April 2008 ARTFORUM “Market Index” article, Katy Siegel makes reference to Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of the “circle of belief,” explaining, “By circle, he meant all of the people it takes to make an artist’s reputation, especially dealers, critics, curators, and collectors. By belief, he meant to emphasize that, for the system to work, all those involved must be sincere; they must truly believe in the artist.” With the passing of Lozano, this virus-like “belief” entered a latent phase, but as with any good virus, it needed only one profligate and passionate believer to transmit it. Enter a vector of taste-making.

“I don’t know if I’m qualified to talk about this, I just wanted to buy a drawing,” states the well-known critic, author and co-curator of Lee Lozano, Drawn from Life: 1961-1971 at PS1, Bob Nickus.

“I’d seen the show at the Atheneum, and had known about Lozano before that through the Cologne dealer Rolf Ricke. He’d shown her work in the late ’60s. Ricke also worked with both Steve Parrino [another posthumous art success story] and Cady Noland, a couple of my favorite artists, so we have a shared sensibility. But it wasn’t until some time later that I saw drawings at Mitchell Algus. I had no intention of curating an exhibition, I was just interested, and Jaap van Leire invited me to his apartment and showed me stacks of her work. I was impressed with the quality, the personality and anger that came out of it. That’s what you look for.”

When I asked Nickus during a phone interview about the re-emergence of the Lozano oeuvre at this particular point in time he opined:

“I think we’re in a period of rediscovery and consolidation. It seems about every 15 or twenty years we go through a cycle of looking back and being influenced by what happened in the past. Lozano is an artist whose work resonates with today’s ideas. A lot of the art in the late–80s/early–90s was referring to work from the sixties. Now we’re looking back to the early–90s again, taking stock. It’ll take us another twenty years to sort out what’s truly significant today.”

Nickus’ Drawn from Life co-curator Alanna Heiss is a longtime fan:

“I’d known her work from the ’60s and organized a well-received show previously at the Clock Tower in the early–80s. By then Lee might have traveled back and forth between here and Texas, but she was in New York, I spoke to her almost every day while we were planning the show [another myth bites the dust]. Funny, she thought being around other women would draw away her essential energy, but she was still in contact with me, at least telephonically. Even then the eccentricities were becoming apparent. One of Lee’s demands was that there should be only male guards. We might get into trouble with something like that today, but back then we agreed because we didn’t have a huge staff and our guards could use the overtime.”

On the question of Lozano’s re-emergence Heiss states:

“She had a small group of very loyal supporters, and these people also happened to be very influential in the art world. Berry Rosen and Jaap van Leire had developed relationships with committed collectors who maintained an interest. Bob Nickus is a very passionate and agile advocate. I knew the work was beautiful, but Bob has such a deft hand at designing and hanging exhibitions. I don’t know exactly how many people saw the show, but if one person sees it and loves it that’s enough. You saw it and loved it, and Ronald Lauder saw it.”

(Ronald Lauder acquired “Untitled” (1963), a large gnarly hammer painting from Drawn from Life, which was subsequently donated to MoMA and prominently featured in their controversial exhibition What is Painting in the summer of 2007.)

Once the prestigious gallery Hauser & Wirth comes on the scene, securing the estate after the PS1 exhibition, Lozano is on track for art world canonization. With their international reputation and timely focus (they mounted Lozano mini-retrospectives at their booths at both the 2005 Armory Show in New York and the 2006 Basil Art Fair—coinciding with the traveling exhibition Lee Lozano: Win First Don’t Last Win Last Don’t Care, curated by Adam Szymczyk and originating from the Kunsthalle Basil—and a one-person show of dark, nearly abstract paintings from the mid–60s at their Zürich gallery in late 2008) Hauser & Wirth presented Lozano as a seminal force in feminist and conceptual art theory, rather than a downtown eccentric who didn’t play well with others and had trouble sticking to the rules. (At the time of this writing, queries made to Hauser & Wirth regarding Lozano’s estate and the artist’s re-emergence have remained unanswered.)

Dave Hickey has stated that one of the measures of great art is its ability to morph and change yet remain in memory, and Lozano proves the point. A body of work that was created in the ’60s, abandoned in the seventies and forgotten by all but a minute few over the next two decades suddenly pops back into popular consciousness, as fresh and relevant as if it were made this morning. In that span of forty years, the work hadn’t changed, but the world has, and so has our perception of Lozano’s art. At the end of our conversation, Alanna Heiss left me with a cautionary note, “Don’t present Lee’s path as a recipe for success, she was unique.” I agree: who in good conscience would encourage that kind of self-destructive sacrifice, even on an enemy? Still, I can’t help but think I hear a faint, coy chuckle carried on the wind from the dusty barren planes of East Texas.

Special thanks to Mark Kramer, Bob Nickas, Alanna Heiss, Katy Siegel, Jaap van Leire, Stefan Eins, and the friends and acquaintances of Lee Lozano who wish to remain anonymous.

"Brooklyn Dispatches: Tough Time, Don’t Whine, Get With a “Project” ," Brooklyn Rail by Fredrick Munk

By James Kalm

If you’re lucky enough to be in a relationship, one that has begun to stretch, before you know it, into an ever-higher percentage of your life, then you’ve been privileged to witness what the ravages of time can do. The same kind of decrepitude can creep into a neighborhood or a community, with equally off-putting results, but without the option of cosmetic intervention to restore suppleness to sunken eyes, blush to the cheeks, or tighten the wrinkles at the neck. With this latest economic downturn, things around the Williamsburg Bed/Met nexus have begun to look downright tired, at least as far as the gallery scene is concerned: re-dos of projects that got attention three or four years ago, and sequel shows by artists who seem trapped into complacency, producing their signature stuff for a market paralyzed with fear. A whiff of desperation tinges the air, and for those trying to survive this crunch, a rush to the slick, safe, entrepreneurial shop owner side of the avant art boat just might cause the whole thing to finally capsize. Official announcements of gallery closings are coming in. Brooklyn Fire Proof has folded its tent and Aron Namenwirth’s Art Moving is under pressure from encroachment. Even much-envied escapees from the ‘Burg, like 31 Grand, have fallen by the wayside, and rumors of others in dire straits are floating thick and fast around the blogosphere. Some local venues seem to be backsliding into the kinda, sorta, maybe-we’ll-be-open status, recalling the pre-“Elsewhere” period of the mid-nineties. Blue plastic tarps lashed to the side of a gallery snap in the wind like arctic sails, while week-old notes of apology festoon its glass door.

The subprime catastrophe has put many local construction projects on hold, leaving long stretches of the nabes looking like a fractured smile with a bloody, half-finished root canal. Despite the developers’ “gold rush fever,” by last fall you could bet on the direction things were going. Even the latest episode of “The Burg Show” (the locally produced YouTube comedy at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIPmqUO_2FA) was spreading the grief with its dysfunctional Christmas celebration that ends with the cast of artsy, lovable, neurotic slackers lining up for handouts at a Driggs Avenue soup line. Now that the future ain’t so bright, maybe you can take off those shades. But if, as in the old Kris Kristofferson song, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose,” then maybe this isn’t such a bad situation, maybe we’re just free. All it takes is some creative collagen, injected into the right places, to smooth out the situation and at least give the appearance of getting the groove going again.

Schlepping through my latest tour, I stopped in at Pierogi to catch a glimpse of David Kramer’s “Snake Oil” and, in the front gallery, a selection of very impressive Surrealist graphite drawings by Michael Schall. Once upon a time Schall and I had shown with the same “gallery” for about three seconds before he was snapped up by Williamsburg’s most revered venue. These pieces showed a solid development in both scale and ambition. “Battle at Sea” (2008), at about six by eight feet, is the largest piece in the show and reflects most of the characteristics of what I’ve dubbed “Meta-drawing” (a perennial Pierogi favorite). It features a panoramic view, so broad that the curvature of the earth is visible, filled to the horizon with cruise liners battling fully loaded supercargo ships. These huge vessels have none of the grace of classic schooners, and Schall’s detailed rendering captures the thick, blocky nature of these “floating cities” with relish. Ice floes cover the ocean surface, enhancing a sense of comic slow motion, not unlike whales dancing ballet in ruffled tutus. At roughly half the size of “Battle at Sea,” “Remaking the Night Sky” (2008) is technically the most challenging piece in the show. On a velvety black ground, Schall depicts what appears to be a sophisticated industrial site, perhaps an oil refinery, at night. A pair of brilliant, ground-hugging orbs, one in left foreground the other toward the upper right corner, illuminate a mindboggling mass of scaffolding and pipe works, casting shadows like a Georges de La Tour, then quickly fade into the all-encompassing dark void. As much as one might enjoy these displays of drafting prowess, I found myself getting a headache just contemplating the tedium of grinding out every strut, elbow-joint and concrete wall these pieces required, and wondering whether this kind of commitment would be more durably preserved as a painting on canvas or board rather than a drawing on the fragile surface of paper?

Entering Kramer’s show in the rear gallery, we’re confronted by a pair of wacky back road store signs, their utilitarian backlit plastic letters reading “Free Kool Aide” and “Snake Oil.” The implied impermanence of the removable letters, which could just as easily have been “Night Crawlers” or “Discount Rims,” is contrasted by the light bulb-festooned metal arrows on top of the pieces, which point at each other like two frozen gunslingers. On the signs’ rippled plastic backs, in a chunky brush script, Kramer has written brief anecdotes of art world hijinks (the anxiety of getting involved with a rich but naive dealer) and his conflicted feelings about letting his son watch cable TV. A grouping of watercolor and ink drawings on the front wall continue the artist’s hapless tales of unmet expectations, including some apparently based on illustrations from popular 1960s lifestyle magazines. For years Kramer used funky typewriter texts that could only be read close up, at arm’s length, which appeared more as literature with drawings added. This current batch’s use of hand-lettering is a move into full-fledged painting, with a direct gestural quality that juices up the color, and entertaining erasures and edits that recall movie posters or paperback book covers inspired by the crisp graphic style of 1950s Stuart Davis. For fans of Kramer’s work, his Rodney Dangerfield “I don’t get no respect” routine is pretty familiar, but these new monologues announce an even more pathetically mundane set of concerns—a poetry of broken promises, disappointing business deals, and the mind numbing, churlish slog a middle-aged professed artist trudges through day to day. I’d be sniveling if I weren’t giggling.

On my slink out, stopping to forge a signature in the guest book, Joe Amrhein buttonholed me for a brief chat. With the European economy suffering even worse than New York’s, Joe has decided to scale back operations in Leipzig and refocus energy on the gallery’s core local, right here in good old Williamsburg. “The Boiler” is Pierogi’s latest venture. Situated in an ancient factory’s steam plant, at 191 North 14th Street, between Berry and Wythe Streets, “The Boiler” will be a cutting-edge project space. This kind of facility, with its forty-foot ceilings, will lend itself to lots of possibilities, from in-site constructions to film projections, musical performances and maybe even bungee-jumping. Joe’s planning to debut on March 7th, to coincide with the run of the Armory Show. The opening will feature works by Tavares Strachan, Jonathan Schipper and a twenty-foot painting by Yoon Lee. On the night of the opening they’ll close North 14th Street to traffic until 3:00 a.m., allowing revelers to drift freely between “The Boiler” and Gutter, the bowling alley/bar across the street. As Joe said, “This is like the old neighborhood, before the developers, they’ve still got weeds growing through the sidewalks up there.” Stay tuned for further updates.

Back on the street I pondered as I peddled. I was beginning to see a pattern here. Just around the corner from Pierogi is Black & White Gallery’s Brooklyn branch. I’d been informed several months ago by Tatyana Okshteyn, B&W’s director, that their Driggs Street gallery, with its wonderful open sculpture garden in back, was in the process of becoming a not-for-profit “project space.” As a practical matter, Tatyana calculated that the difference in foot traffic between the Chelsea and Brooklyn galleries made it a clear business decision to alter the mission of the Brooklyn space. They now have a five-member curatorial board that will select two artists or artist collectives a year for a residency program, which entails creating site-specific works on a rotating schedule. The winter term’s production will be exhibited for three months in the spring, and the summer output during the fall season. Funding has already begun with a successful benefit auction and a NYFA grant. The inaugural exhibition, Casual Conversations in Brooklyn by Alina and Jeff Bliumis, will open March 5th.

Cruising south on Driggs, I turned west on Grand and jumped the curb to peek in at Parker’s Box. For a couple of weeks now I’ve been watching the progression of John Bjerklies’s “evolving solo group residency project,” When A River Changes Its Course, through window gates from the street. The pile of painted debris, hand-lettered signs, and flickering video monitors seemed to get bigger and more colorful every time I passed by. “We didn’t want to do what they’re doing in Chelsea, putting up tiny precious things on the wall and hoping they sell. We decided we wanted to get back to what our original intent was, to be as experimental as possible,” stated gallerist Alun Williams during a phone chat. “With our international sales it doesn’t seem to make that much difference whether we show commercial stuff in the gallery. It’s counterintuitive, but with the economy slowing down we wanted to do the opposite, show crazy unsalable stuff. We’re not going to do just projects, but we want to be more flexible, expand the program, give the artist more time to let things grow organically.” To this end, the Bjerklies project will take a couple of months to install, and will involve “Real, Fictional and Virtual Time and Space, Politics and Anti-Politics, Construction and Demolition, Interviews, Discussion, Debate, Demonstrations, Incidents, Sculpture, Drawing, Painting, Video, Installation, Performance, Poetry, Speeches, Anti-Performance, Dancing, Jokes, Auctions, Sales.”

Will this cluster of “projects” provide an outlet for underexposed artists and tap back into the critical attention that seems to have shifted from the ‘Burg to the New Lower East Side in recent years? I’ve certainly been impressed with installations I’ve seen out east in the MoJo district, like Andrew Ohanesian and Tescia Seufferlein’s Blind Spot at English Kills (a video tour is available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1Ewhpxryro&feature=channel_page), and I’m heartened to see risky, innovative ideas being tested when most people are pulling back into security.

Finally a brief note of interest: Attitudes of Magnitude, the latest exhibition by Carri Skoczek at Ch’i Contemporary, is worth an ogle. I’ve known Carri for quite a while; she’s a local spark plug who organized the “Mermaid Show” that ran concurrently with the Coney Island “Mermaid Parade” shindig, as well as a benefit auction for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. I’ve always enjoyed her hyper-decorative work and its sometimes over-the-top elements of kitsch. With Attitudes, a visibly new level of maturity has been reached. Despite her self-admitted influence by and homage to Egon Schiele, and his own derivation from Klimt, these single figures, ensconced on their off-white grounds, make a simple, punchy statement. What Skoczek’s women lack by way of Shiele’s Freudian angst and emotionally tortured expressionism, they make up with a kind of comically self-satisfied vamping that places them somewhere between the denizens of a local rock club and not-so-high-fashion models with plump, pouty lips. Her unique technique, employing printer’s ink and pearl powders, is like a reversed Byzantine icon: the flesh is a shiny metallic bronze while the backgrounds are dry and modeled as blanched skin. But the real surprise is the power of Skoczek’s new series of linocuts, a rogues’ gallery of art stars rendered in bold black and white, with graphic decisions that reduce recognizable features into blocks of hard-edged abstraction. With this group of prints, Skoczek’s gifts have found a perfect medium. 

"Brooklyn Dispatches: Resurrection of a Bad-Ass Girl, Part I," Brooklyn Rail by Fredrick Munk

By James Kalm

Where did they go, and where the heck are they now? If you’ve got more than a casual interest in contemporary art, and a memory that extends beyond breakfast, these questions can hold a morbid fascination. Pick up any copy of a Whitney Biennial catalog, or glance at a five-year-old art magazine, and you’ll undoubtedly run across artists who streaked across the art world firmament like comets only to disappear just as suddenly, a humbling note often overlooked by young artists with shortsighted career ambitions. The art game is tough, with bizarre politics, serendipitous trends, and general struggles with the vagaries of life; even for the few who do break through, it’s an extremely fragile achievement. Compound this with the notion that there are no second acts in American life, and you grasp the daunting challenge of gaining and remaining in the spot light.

Lee Lozano (1930-1999) was the name on the wall at P.S. 1 in 2004, and even though I pride myself on being an amateur art historian, I was totally oblivious of her work or back-story. Drawn from Life: 1961 - 1971 was a tantalizing overview of an intense decade; it followed Lozano’s development from Chicago Imagist to Pop, through Proto-Feminist Expressionism to text-based Conceptualism and Minimalism. As much as I enjoyed Drawn from Life, the troubling question was not how someone whose work was so prescient could slip through the cracks, but what kind of machinations and behind-the-scenes string pulling had enabled this oeuvre to suddenly reappear and garner so much attention? Was this an authentic new narrative of artistic alienation? A legend-in-the-making as memorable as slamming an Oldsmobile into a tree or hitting a pothole with a Harley on the way home from a New Year’s party? After all, none of this stuff just happens; there are no coincidences in the art world.

Longtime local painter Fred Gutzeit knew Lozano. He met her in the late ’60s soon after he arrived in the city. Lee was about ten years older than Gutzeit; they were introduced through connections at the Paley & Lowe Gallery in the nascent neighborhood of Soho. Because, at the time, his painting was abstract and based on scientific theories and mathematics, it was natural to assume he and Lozano would have something in common. Though they never became intimate friends (Lozano was known for her intensity and flighty relationships), the young Gutzeit considered her something of a mentor. He visited her at her loft, and is mentioned in her journal entries as one of her dialog subjects. Flattered, but slightly overwhelmed by her attentions and underground reputation, Gutzeit’s friendship with Lozano foundered and within a year they were no longer in touch. Lozano split New York for Dallas, Texas in the mid-70s, leaving a trail of wraithlike sightings among Soho’s bohos, but never again spending any extended periods in the city.

Before their parting of the ways, Lozano gave Gutzeit a notebook of graph paper similar to the ones she’d been using for most of her journals and text-based conceptual works. Inside the front cover is the inscription: “Love to Fred from Lee Lozano.” The notebook lay empty around the studio for thirty years, kept as a memento but never used. Even after Lozano’s death in 1999, Gutzeit couldn’t bring himself to draw in it. With the recent uptick in Lozano’s profile and a renewed interest in returning to earlier subjects, Gutzeit decided to create a gallery-filling tribute for Pocket Utopia in Bushwick, and the gridded notebook was finally put to use to develop his mural design.

Gutzeit has based his work in part on Lozano’s “Wave Paintings,” which were exhibited in an elegantly spare one-person show at the Whitney in 1970. These were Lozano’s final works in that medium and, as some postulate, the beginning of the artist’s disenchantment and withdrawal from the art world. For his part, Gutzeit has compressed the multi-paneled “Wave Paintings” into a single section on the left side of the mural. Using a combination of hand manipulations and computer programs such as Photoshop, the artist improvised a highly-keyed palette with gradient fades (Lozano had been criticized for the dour and “minimal” browns and grays of the originals) and extrapolated his own black and white forms from the wave rhythms that swirl throughout the rest of the piece. The completed design has been digitally printed onto plastic tarps using a commercial billboard process. At 12 × 60 feet, “Lee Wall” runs the entire length of the gallery’s west wall, enveloping viewers in a vibrating environment of high-contrast, hallucinatory swoops and ripples. A selection of collage-paintings and the above-mentioned notebook are also on display, a fitting tribute to a complex artistic persona, and perhaps a goad for further investigation and a greater understanding of the seminal work of Lee Lozano.

Worth More Dead Than Alive

Katy Siegel’s very insightful “Market Index” article from the April 2008 ARTFORUM clears up some of the questions surrounding Lozano: “Between the time I saw Lozano’s paintings in a barn in Pennsylvania, in 2001, and their appearance in (Art) Basel (2006), their prices had rocketed from the low tens of thousands to nearly a million dollars.” This fact would focus the attention of the New York art world like a laser. My own research into the “Lozano Case” has encountered obstacles and obfuscations that you might expect from a B-grade film noir. Again and again I was cautioned that comments were “off the record” or not for attribution. One dealer who’d exhibited her work simply said he was “uncomfortable discussing this” and abruptly hung up. Timelines were revised, relationships discovered. Friends from her Soho days were happy to recall her eccentric behavior, drug use, and contacts with an amazing network of art world stars, exemplified by a photo, prominently displayed in her loft, of Lozano mugging with Andy Warhol.

Having arrived on the scene in the early ’60s, with huge dark eyes and an attractive yet doctrinaire presence, by the late sixties she was seen by some younger artists as a role model, part of a group of emerging female artists that included Eva Hesse, Lynda Benglis, and Hannah Wilke. Her work was presented in two group shows at Dick Bellamy’s Green Gallery on 57th Street, who also represented the likes of Don Judd, Ronald Bladen, Robert Morris, and Larry Poons. Plans for her own one-person show fell through when Green closed, leaving the artists scrambling and flummoxed. Bellamy helped to arrange her presentation at Bianchini Gallery, and she debuted there in 1966. Like a natural-born surfer, Lozano rode the crest of every new wave of artistic expression, collecting artists from every neighborhood and clique. Somewhere in the late sixties, along with the dope, the social unrest, the constant strain of competition and perhaps the onset of middle age, things started to go wrong. The culmination of a decade of work was the exhibition of her “Wave Paintings” in the Whitney’s Lobby Gallery. Though critically well received, it didn’t lead to the kind of career-making recognition or financial security she had hoped for. A box containing nail clippings from her fingers and toes, hair and other bodily castoffs was included in the show, running counter to the austere Minimalist qualities of the paintings and causing some to question Lozano’s vision. Shortly thereafter, in arrears with her landlord, Lozano was evicted from her Grand Street loft. She stopped painting and began concentrating more on her notes and journals, which soon became her pioneering efforts in Conceptual art. The “actions” she set for herself, with titles like “Masturbation Piece” and “General Strike Piece,” were a program for her rejection of and eventual expatriation from the art world.

The preservation of one’s work is a constant concern of artists. Horror stories like the loss of Stuart Hitch’s life’s work occur all too often. It’s notable and fortunate for us that the cagey Lozano, having lost her loft, down on her luck with little cash and no permanent address, was nonetheless able to make an arrangement with a reputable collector from Philadelphia to maintain and store her work.

For a while she lived with Scott Billingsley, known later as half of the Underground Film team of Scott and Beth B. During these last scrappy years in New York, crashing on couches and living on air, friends began to notice the toll—she looked haggard and people believed she’d gone nuts. In the early ’70s she spent time in London and eventually ended up in Dallas living near her parents.

Once she landed in Texas the story gets hazy. Beginning in 1985, through her inclusion in a show at PS1, she was brought to the attention of Barry Rosen by Donald Knollbert. He, along with partner Jaap van Liere, committed to represent Lozano. They supported her with occasional sales and were eventually the executors of her estate. Van Liere was one of the few New Yorkers who remained in touch with Lozano via phone. When asked if Lozano continued working after leaving New York, van Liere mused, “Lee never denied, condemned or destroyed any work. She considered her studies and continuing dialogs as her art, but as far as creating objects, paintings or drawings? No. She made obsessive notes of her activities and lists but as far as we know that was it.” Apparently she spent much of her time in the library of Southern Methodist University reading Scientific America and other scientific and philosophical journals, and to an extent maintained her network of artist friends with occasional phone calls

In the late nineties Lozano was diagnosed with inoperable cervical cancer. As an appropriate last hurrah, a retrospective exhibition of the “Wave Paintings” was scheduled in 1998 at Hartford’s Wadsworth Athenaeum along with three concurrent shows in New York at Mitchell Algus, Rosen & van Liere and Margarete Roeder. The accumulative exposure and critical attention of these shows started wheels in precipitous motion.

Lee Lozano died on October 2, 1999, in Dallas, Texas, at the age of 69.

Part II of “Resurrection of a Bad-Ass Girl” will appear in a future issue of the Brooklyn Rail. I’d like to thank: Sarah Lehrer-Granwer, Katy Siegel, Jaap van Liere, Fred Gutzeit, and friends and acquaintances of Lee Lozano who wish to remain anonymous.

"Brooklyn Dispatches: Performance Anxiety," Brooklyn Rail by Fredrick Munk

By James Kalm

As a painting snob, I’ve always held performance art at arm’s length. I do appreciate the Feminist tactic of using its designation to elevate the drudgery of “women’s work” to an aesthetisized level, subverting the elite realm of high art. (Witness the glorious Wack! Art and the Feminist Revolution at P.S. 1—my nominee for one of the top five shows in New York in 2007—which included many such paradigm-shifting works.) On the other hand, there’s an element of spectacle in much performance that borders on schmaltz and publicity stunts, like David Blaine wrapped in critical theory. When asked specifically about the difference between “performance” and publicity stunt during his 2007 sculpture/performance piece “Flatland” ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sUPYptuzNU) at Long Island City’s Sculpture Center, Ward Shelly stated “The context is actually the only real difference, and the intentions of the person doing it. Whether they want just to get attention or whether they want people to think about the subject. It’s really kind of a subtle difference. In a way it all depends on how it’s being presented and what we’re asking you to do with what we’re doing—not just what we’re doing, we’re asking you to think about it.”

Though “highbrow” syllogisms like these are what chased me out of the cafés and back to my studio, recent permutations of performance have become unavoidable, even for me. Perhaps it was Seven Easy Pieces, Marina Abramovi’s series at the Guggenheim Museum in November 2005, which recreated seminal works from the 1960s and ’70s by five different artists as well as two of her own pieces, that indisputably proved that performance might have a life beyond its fleeting moment of origin (and that it had been legitimized in the eyes of the bigs as a practice whose crowd pleasing bankability might one day match its purely aesthetic value). In this way it has been as influential to a younger generation of performance artists as the Saatchi Gallery’s Triumph of Painting exhibit was for new painters.

Young galleries have taken to using “performance” as a come-on to entice visitors to drop by an opening. The inevitable late start also gives the cash bar a chance to squeeze a few extra bucks out of a thirsty crowd. And so it was in early August at Fresh Meat, a mixed bag of a group show at Factory Fresh, on Flushing Avenue near Morgan.

At the entrance my hand is stamped by an affable, thick-necked “bouncer,” an affectation adopted from the club scene that seems a bit pretentious, even in this scruffy up-n-coming neighborhood. After perusing the works on the walls I hear a wave of whispers circulating the space. An area is cleared in the middle of the floor; rows of youngsters sit or squat in a circle. “Dream Story” by performance artist E. Greem is about to begin.

A figurative painting is laid out on the floor (ironically, a lot of performance work alludes to “Action Painting,” but that’s another essay). A heavily orchestrated classical musical number starts pumping through the sound system. E. Greem, cloaked in a white organdy veil that draws up to a recessed orifice over her still-shrouded face, whisks through the audience. She wears layers of blue and green undergarments, white tights and high heels wrapped in rough burlap. She kneels in front of the painting and, in sync with the musical flourishes, folds it in half, only to reveal another image on its back. Over the course of about five minutes she repeats this action several times, pausing at intervals to circle and observe her handiwork; each folding exposes another picture until the canvas (which by now has been replaced by smaller props) is reduced to the size of a saltine. As the music crescendos, she dramatically raises the bite-size painting and pops it in her mouth. Then, escorted by gallery assistants, she beats a hasty exit to a side door.

Despite the explanations I’ve received from the artist via e-mail (the pictures represent, among other things, various relationships and situations from the artist’s past), what stayed with me was the faux-mysteriousness and unexplained ritualism of “Dream Story.” Though masked, there was no question as to Greem’s gender, and, as I’ll discuss later, this allusion to the classic witch, sorceress or muse relates “Dream Story” to Essential Feminism and avoids the all too easy tropes of burlesque and hard core porn that infects much of today’s post-Feminist performance work.

Maximum Perception: Contemporary Brooklyn Performance at English Kills Gallery is the kind of late summer shindig that deserves mid-season primetime (except cold weather might require more clothing). Co-curated by performance artist Peter Dobill and English Kills director Chris Harding, Maximum Perception is conceived as an environment in which performance works could be seen in an ongoing context: four weekends, with performances all day from 1 till 9 pm, an all-encompassing block of action. To this end, the main gallery is surrounded by a battery of continuously running video monitors with headsets on plinths showing examples of the work. Documentary photos and artworks are hung nearby. Over the course of the show’s run, the project space is transformed for each piece, with some works spilling out of the gallery proper onto the sidewalks in front and Forrest Street as well.

As I peddle to the gallery on opening night, I nearly drove over Rob Andrews lying on the sidewalk against a dumpster, his ankle chained to a curbside lamppost. His stained yellow shirt, a couple of sizes too small, exposes a pudgy midriff; his tattered black slacks could have been ripped off a Bowery bum; his feet were bare. The only thing that cues you in that this isn’t just another homeless guy chained up in the street is the cobalt blue bull mask Rob wears. This is “Minotaur,” a signature endurance piece that the artist has performed at various locations. In this Brooklyn incarnation, among garbage cans and dumpsters, this recumbent ox seems somehow appropriate. Lying motionless for minutes at a time, the artist would occasionally stir, shake his head, scratch his crotch and rattle the chain like a cowbell, exuding a bovine petulance. I was told he started this action around 5 pm and continued it till way past dark.

In the main gallery, a sweaty, beer-lubricated crowd huddled around “hee-hoo / he who Meets Us will adore us,” a lengthy piece by Holly Faurot + Sarah Paulson that combines elements of dance, endurance and video. Two bare-breasted performers in gold satin miniskirts, accompanied by a third, clad in red shorts and top, who seems to lead the other two in a kind of movement call-and-response. Sometimes the dancers mimic a male figure that appears on one of three video monitors set up in the performance area. At other times, the monitors show a live feed from an overhead camera. As the piece progresses, the skirted dancers pick up thick slabs of stone and repeatedly lift them in front of their bodies until they’re so fatigued they nearly drop them. Then, setting the stones in front of the video screens, they retreat to platforms at the rear and to mimic the leg lifts of the red dancer. Catching only a brief part of the two-hour performance, any interpretation on my part would be a stretch, but the athletic exertion, the odd repetitions, the legs lifts in seeming supplication and the glistening perspiration on proud young breasts has a primitive erotic force that was stark, unignorable, and riveting.

A ladder leading six feet up to an open window in a black plywood wall is the entrance to Marni Kotak’s “Slumber Party,” another Maximum Perception offering. Climb up a few steps and peek through the frilly green curtains; inside is an over-scaled bedroom with a huge bunk bed (recalling Lilly Tomlin’s character Edith Ann’s giant rocker), a soda-and-chip-laden table, and a stereo blasting bubblegum hits. Several female performers lounge around in their jammies, interacting with visitors, joking and yakking like pubescent Valley Girls. Viewers are invited to climb in, join the party, and become part of the show.

Though I didn’t have the opportunity to experience all the performances, there are a few commonalities worth pointing out that seem to establish precedents and hint at future directions.

As with “Slumber Party,” the much discussed “retreat to infancy” is in play. This trend has analogous forms in painting and music and was a popular theme at the recent Whitney Biennial. It mixes childhood fantasy with pop culture and a dose of adolescent Surrealistic sexual angst. These can be potent subjects, but some works lose their bite and drift into a sweet blandness and a gutless aversion to the pathos of maturity.

A more macho vein is the endurance piece, like Andrew’s “Minotaur” or perhaps the work executed on the closing day by Mark Lawrence Stafford, “Temporal Exchange.” In “Exchange,” Stafford, dressed in a white, long-sleeved shirt, black slacks and walking shoes, spends eight hours trudging clockwise in circles on a field of granulated salt. He’s tethered to a black pole in the center of the space by a ridiculously long tie. References to punishment, dog runs, the mindless grind of office work and endless repetition are obvious. I calculated he’d walk about eighteen miles that afternoon.

Though I missed co-curator Peter Dobill’s performance, while speaking with him a few days later, he proudly displayed a series of small gashes running up the length of his arm (and further I assume) that he self-inflicted during his routine. Through video documentation and photos, I could detect the influence of the Austrian Actionists like Rudolph Schwarzkogler and Hermann Nitsch, as well as their American progeny, Chris Burden and Kim Jones. Much of this work is immersed in a grotesque infatuation with, and distortion of, the body’s forms, fluids and functions.

But perhaps the most disturbing and challenging are the post-Feminist works employing hardcore XXX-rated porn. Breasts, hips, thighs and buttocks are the universal eye candy that we’re saturated with daily. It was the degrading exploitation of these female attributes that so much consciousness-raising was focused on during the nascent phase of Feminism. A reaction against this kind of esteem-building (or perhaps an opportunistic glomming on to these same exploitive tendencies) is exemplified in the work of Leah Aron, stage name Amber Alert.

In a darkened gallery, dressed in high camp hot—platinum wig, skimpy satin bustier, garter belt, panties, high white stockings and platform high heels—the voluptuous Alert performs a bawdy pseudo-striptease to the soundtrack of a classical duet. Bumping and grinding, she removes article after article of clothing while applying white greasepaint to her breasts, then stomach, arms and thighs until the front of her body is covered. A video is projected over the performer, creating a visual frame; in the video, a crouching woman masturbates while her face is assaulted with ejaculate from a seemingly endless line of multi-racial penises. With each application of white paint (and each male orgasm), Alert seems to dissolve into the projection. Watching the audience, I couldn’t avoid wondering how many found this “artistic” presentation simply a convenient, guilt-free way to view porn on a balmy Sunday afternoon. Initially, I shuddered for the video porn queen, feeling her degradation, but after a while a desensitizing occurred and this all became pathetically, depressingly funny. While a performance like this can raise profound questions, is there a danger of pushing this genre too far? Will we move on to kiddie porn and snuff films next? Is the sensational and shocking just an attention-grabbing gimmick for the lazy or untalented? Should artistic ambitions or “aesthetics” trump decency and morality? Are there any limits? Should art care?

A video of "Fresh Meat" with E. Greem's performance can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tolMg7ETQ90

A brief our of the "Maximum Perception: Contemporary Brooklyn Performance" opening can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7uBsa2zqMw

"Brooklyn Dispatches: Virtually Overwhelmed," Brooklyn Rail by Fredrick Munk

By James Kalm

“Hi, my name is James, and I’m an Internet addict.”

“Hi James!” A small circle of bleary-eyed geeks sit on folding chairs in a musty church basement.  

“It started a couple of years ago, when I started lurking around art blogs.” “Spawn of the Devil” mumbles an obese twenty-something wearing pajama bottoms and a Buddha patch. 

“I thought I had it under control, then I signed up for a Google account…” The hook was set: I was a blogger. 

*  *  *

The unstoppable proliferation of Internet art sites and blogs has turned online coverage into an ever-larger slice of my daily art fix. And as one of the few hardcopy writers following this new phenomenon, I’ve recently been tapped for involvement in developing its potential for a new set of aesthetics.

A couple of months ago I got a phone call about lending my art-critical chops to a project headquartered at Williamsburg’s Jack the Pelican Presents. As described in its blogspot (http://brooklyniswatching.com), Brooklyn is Watching (sponsored by Popcha!) is a conceptual art project by Jay Van Buren about “’cultural colonialism,’ marketing, the attention economy, critique, dialog, power-relationships, and the difference between potential and actual…” Quartered within the vestibule of the back room at Jack, a massive monitor tracks the status of BiW, which purports to span “the virtual, 3d space of Second Life, the two dimensional ‘traditional’ Internet and the ultimate hipster mothership, Williamsburg, Brooklyn.” Anyone entering the gallery is invited to interact with it as “an artwork, an entertainment product, a venue for critical dialog and a marketing vehicle.”   

Second Life, the creation of Linden Lab, was founded in 1999 as a virtual, three-dimensional world created by its residents. Millions of people use the site for everything from pure entertainment to-on-the-job training. To subscribe, you sign up, adopt an avatar and start exploring. You can buy land, build environments, run businesses, nurture families and do deals that supposedly render real cash (though I never saw a cent). Brooklyn is Watching has an open-call out to virtual designers to submit works to be placed on its island. Each week a panel assembles, sometimes at the gallery, sometimes virtually over Skype, to critique the latest crop of works, producing a podcast and ongoing blog posts. Technical design for the virtual island is provided by Boris Kizelshteyn, and Jay Van Buren plays ringmaster for the weekly critiques, which include real-lifers such as Tyler Coburn, Don Carol, and Amy Wilson, along with a rotating cast of Second Life luminaries like Patrick Lichty, Bettina Tizzy, and Shirley Marquez.
So far so good, and I applaud the opportunity afforded these artists to expose their work for consideration in a Williamsburg gallery setting. Leaving aside the artworks themselves and their concomitant aesthetics, which we’ll discuss later, I have to say there are aspects of Second Life I find just plain creepy. As a self-confessed technological caveman who’s having a bitch of a time just keeping up with his first life, my exploration of Second Life so far has been fraught with as much frustration as fascination. As a fan of sunshine, fresh air and the smells of the streets, why should I voluntarily enlist in a virtual existence? Like Neo in The Matrix, if someone offers me the red capsule and a chance to experience the “real world,” I’m gonna take it. But that’s not all; there’s also a strange political culture, a benign form of corporate fascism percolating through this world; although subscribers are supposedly free to create whatever their imaginations can dream up, there are restrictions and protocols that must be adhered to. Issues of censorship and morality, which have provided the premise for some of today’s most provocative real world artwork, are simply off limits. Recent tragedies and their accompanying multimillion-dollar lawsuits involving sites like MySpace and Facebook have, no doubt, put the management and lawyers at Second Life into a defensive posture to limit liability.

The artworks themselves, like any group show, vary in quality, intent and technical expertise. In many cases, an artist’s self-consciousness (aspiring to Art with a capital A) taints the work with sophomoric explication that circumscribes its visual and conceptual possibilities. Despite the constantly rotating roster of works, repeat exhibitors have emerged who have evolved an apparent affinity with the simulated space and the BiW honchos. Their attention-getting effects include: kineticism, or the ability to design elements that move and change; interactivity, which allows viewers to activate a range of reactions, some interesting, some just plain annoying (my avatar was attacked and dry humped by a Warholian Campbell’s soup can repeatedly spewing the text “Pop Art hates you”); and an apparently limitless palette of colors and surfaces that allow designers to simulate darn near anything in a fairly convincing way.

Despite all these options, there are drawbacks and questions. Are there simpler ways to build projects that would open up the space to artists who aren’t code-savvy über-geeks? Where does context come into play, with “sim” artists whose prime focus is recreating a version of the real world while others delve more formalistically into the particular properties of this new medium? (The possibility of Computer-Age-Neo-Greenbergian-Hyper-Formalism has been raised on the BiW blog.) If the corporate politics of Second Life dictate parameters on the kinds of art that’s allowed to exist there, how can one circumvent or subvert them? And finally, although there are no nails and sheetrock, how much does the time and costs of programming and code-writing limit a project’s scope and complexity? As Van Buren has stated, much of what happens in Second Life is about social relationships—a group of artists building a community and exploring the potential of a new medium. For those of you whose inner-nerds are crying out for affirmation, if you’ve got the time to invest in cyberspace, take a stroll through Brooklyn is Watching, see what you think of one of art’s burgeoning frontiers.

* * *

Meanwhile, at other locations on the web, I’ve noticed a decided change of tone; things appear to have darkened. The dynamics of many art blogs seem to go through a cycle of struggle, acceptance and recognition followed by burnout, troll attacks, and nasty personal assaults verging on slander. The free-flowing interaction of posters in real time is one of blogging’s most attractive features, but also one of its greatest vulnerabilities. The long established, much visited blogspot Edward_ Winkleman.com (http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com) recently invoked an oversight policy requiring all posts to be approved by the blogmeister. Although most sites enforce a basic level of decorum, the nasty snarking by some of the anonymous commenters at Ed’s site escalated to over-the-top personal attacks. Another hazard of the blogosphere is the unfocused blatherer. Some folks with too much time on their hands and maybe a little too much caffeine in their bloodstreams can hijack even the best sites, taking over the conversation thread with banal remarks or paragraphs full of off-subject twaddle. Last year I reported on paintersNYCblogspot (http://painternyc.blogspot.com), a site that posts a picture of a locally exhibited painting almost daily for critique. Since then the site has gone into partial hibernation. While it’s true that blogmistress painterpaparazzi is in preparation for an upcoming exhibition, I wonder how much of the site’s inactivity is an attempt to wean-away swarms of blatherers through benign neglect.

* * *

Finally, howsmydealing.com (http://howsmydealing.blogspot.com) is a site with a brilliant premise that’s gotten the attention of more than a few chagrined dealers. Posters are asked to comment on the treatment they’ve received from a long list of gallerists, curators and critics (even me). While providing the inside dope on plenty of local players (along with a hefty dose of misinformation), the anonymity of most of the posts encourages the vindictive and the petty with elephantine memories to flame the objects of their anger with gossip and ad hominem attacks (“I remember when he farted in Mrs. Wolinsky’s third grade class”). Rebuttals from hapless dealers have the tone of encounter group therapy confessionals. There’s also the potential for dealers to be trashed by competitors for commercial advantage.

The art blogosphere is a work in progress, and you’ve got to be vigilant of hidden agendas. As with anything online, take it with a grain of salt. Have fun, speak out, but don’t let it cut too much into your studio time; you might end up in a twelve step-program.

"Location, Location, Location: Women in 20th Century New York Art History," paper delivered at the AIR Symposium at Werkstätte Gallery by Fredrick Munk

By James Kalm

First of all, I would like to thank the members of A.I.R. Gallery for the last thirty-five five years of incredible art they’ve given us the opportunity to experience.  I’d also like to thank Patsy Norvell for the idea and curation, and Karin and Alexis and compliment their insights and for the time and energy they’ve devoted to this exhibition.

My obsession with mapping began as a child.  I loved Treasure Island, and was fascinated thinking that I could find gold if I followed a map, X marks the spot.  Later in the Boy Scouts I learned to read a compass and find locations (how could you know where you’re going if you don’t know where you’ve been).  In the Army I taught classes to plot the patterns of Nuclear Fall-out.  When I came to New York in the late seventies my first job was driving the delivery truck for an art supply store, so I had to learn where all our regular customers were located.  About ten years ago when I started this project, I decided it’d be interesting to put these skills to use and document the locations and enclaves of artistic actions in New York over the last 100 years.  Here are some of my findings:

Metaphysical vs. Realists the Early Duality

The New York scene might be diagramed as two separate but collaborative impulses that I’ve labeled the Metaphysical and the Realist.  These forces seem to rotate in recognition and prominence in almost decade long cycles, and with various permutations have remained consistent for most of the century.  In many ways the heart of the New York art scene has been downtown around Washington Square.  In 1857 about two blocks away at 51 West 10th Street the Artist’s Studio Building was constructed hosing dozen of studios, frame shops and galleries, and making Greenwich Village the city’s center for artists.  The influence of this structure resonates and still echoes today. 

By the turn of the century many of America’s best known artists were ensconced around the square and include Albert Pinkham Ryder, Albert Bierstadt, William Merit Chase, Frederick Church, R. A. Blaklock, William Glackens and Winslow Homer.  This group has a more mystical bent and I see as part of the Metaphysical persuasion.

The other central nexus for artists at this time is the Lincoln Arcade located at 1931 Broadway where Lincoln Center is now.  This rookery of studios because of it’s proximity to the National Academy, attracted a group of more conservative artists which I recognize as the Realists.   Many of them were from Philadelphia, the likes of Robert Heneri, George Bellows, also Milton Avery, and Thomas Heart Benton.

Alfred Stieglitz’s Photo-Secession, 291 Gallery New York’s first “Modern” art gallery was located on 5th Avenue between 30th and 31st Streets almost half way between these  poles and opened in 1905.  Other important galleries in this neighborhood included The Madison Gallery at Madison Ave. between 41st and 42nd   Street, Maris de Zayas’ The Modern Gallery 500 5th Ave. at 42nd Street, the Carroll Gallery at 44th Street and Fifth Ave. Macbeth Galleries 237 Fifth Ave. between 32nd and 33rd Street and the Grand Central Palace at Lexington and 43rd street where the Society of Independent Artists staged the exhibition debuting Duchamp’s “Fountain” in 1917.

The Women

Beyond artists, I’ve categorized influential women in several groups such as:  The Rich Wives/Heiresses, the Salon Dames, The Muses, the Dealers, and Critics/Activists.
At the top of our list is Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney an heiress, rich wife, artist and salon dame, who in 1914, established the Whitney Studio at 19 MacDougal Ally, a facility where young artists could exhibit their works, which evolved in 1918 into the Whitney Studio Club, and eventually in 1931 into the  Whitney Museum of American Art, at 8 West 8th Street (now the home of the Studio School).  Virtually every important artist in New York was or wanted to be exhibited there.

Walk just around the corner and north on Fifth Avenue and you’ll come to the Greenwich Village salon of Mable Dodge.  After a tragic early life, and an extended stay in Europe which brought her into contact with Gertrude Stein André Gide and Heneri Matisse.  In 1912 Dodge established herself at 23 Fifth Avenue during the development and presentation of the Armory show.  She became a staunch supporter of radical modern artists as well as radical politics having a torrid affair with the communist revolutionary John Reed.  During these evenings she entertained a cross section of downtowns artistic and political radicals including Emma Goldman, Margaret Sanger, Marsden Hartley, The Stettheimer sisters, Alfred Stieglitz and his young lover Georgia O’Keeffe.

Meanwhile uptown, in the late teens early twenties the eccentric and elegant Stettheimer sisters became the center attractions of their own salon at 102 West 76th Street.   Ettie was a novelist, Carrie a dollhouse designer and Florine the exquisite painter, host extravagant dinners that attracted the likes of Francis Picabia, Leo Stein, Man Ray, Charles Demuth, and Marsden Hartley.   They also subsidized the young Marcel Duchamp, hiring him as a French tutor while Florine paints portraits of him.

A few blocks south just off Central Park West, and very near the Lincoln Arcade in the Café des Artists Building at 33 West 67th Street we encounter the enigmatic and cerebral salon hosted by Louise and Walter Arensberg.  This group clustered around Duchamp who’s “Nude Descending a Staircase” had scandalized thousands at the Armory Show in 1913.  His sensibilities echoed the host’s interests in linguistic puzzles, puns and secret codes. This notorious group also includes perhaps one of the most influential female artists of the Twentieth Century, Rose Sélavy.  Frequent guests included Francis Picabia, William Carlos Williams, Man Ray, Charles Demuth and Katherine Dreier.

Across town Katherine Dreier a Brooklyn born painter and early abstractionist enlisting the help of Duchamp and Man Ray, and in 1921 establishes Société Anonyme, at 19 East 47th Street devoted to the exhibition and promotion of modern art.  During the 20 years of its existence the Société purchased over 800 works of art by living artists, and organized lectures and travelling exhibitions.  It’s the first   “Museum” dedicated to modern art in New York. About three blocks east of here and thirty-five years later Andy Warhol builds his “Silver Factory”

With the initial sensation of the Armory Show and the revelation of European Modernism gradually diminished by the horrors of WWI and with the waning days of the “Roaring Twenties”, a stasis is forming  that would hold for the duration of the Depression.

In 1928 while touring in Egypt, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller (Mother of Nelson) meets Lillie P. Bliss, an heiress and collector of modern painting since the Armory Show.  They begin to form a dream, a dream of a museum in New York dedicated to the exposure of Modern art.  While returning on shipboard, Abby meets another enthusiast and collector Mary Sullivan.  These three women change the course of Modern art when they engage the young Alfred H. Barr Jr. as director and found The Museum of Modern Art, on the twelfth floor of the Hechscher Building at 730 Fifth Avenue at 57th Street, the heart of the Uptown gallery scene.  With the art world’s usual impeccable timing the late November opening comes just a month after the stock-market crash of 1929    

Downtown Hans Hofmann, opens his school at 52 West 8th Street in 1930 and provides an important venue for students and young artists to connect and become part of the “tribes” of artists forming downtown.   The stasis caused by the Depression only begins to crumble with the unveiling in 1935 of the WPA which enlisted hundreds of artists both men and women and provided them with a heretofore unavailable means of income and networking.

Ambitious Greenwich Village artist and Hofmann student Lee Krasner made it a point of knowing every one and making connections between other “villagers” like a master electrician.  Her apartment at 51 East 9th Street was across from Franz Kline’s, John and Rae Ferren’s and Conrad Marca-Relli’s at 52 East 9th Street. She worked as an administrator for the WPA in the Poster division. Not only did she meet and marry Pollock but introduced Clement Greenberg to Harold Rosenberg hung out with John Graham, and promoted and introduced dozens of artists to her mentor Hofmann.

With the onset of WWII an influx of avant-garde artists and dealers flood into New York to escape the European conflagration.  Peggy Guggenheim arrives with an entourage of Surrealists and establishes a headquarters at her town house 165 East 61st Street.  With her marriage to Max Ernst, and engaging Marcel Duchamp as an adviser, she establishes “Art of This Century Gallery” at 30 West 57th Street showcasing the Surrealists.  During one golden moment the forces of the art cosmos aligned.  In late 1942 one could have strolled from the “First Papers of Surrealism” exhibition at the Whitelaw Reid Mansion at 541 Madison Ave. to McMillen and Co. where John Graham’s “French and American Painters” was hung to the Debut of Art of this Century. 

The beautiful Dorothea Tanning falls in love with Max Ernst.  Peggy Guggenheim catches wind and dumps him.  She says audios to the Surrealists, and hires Howard Putzel, a Californian with contacts to many young downtown artists, as her new advisor.  Abstract Expressionism gets its first moments in the 57th Street spot light.

The end of WWII brings waves of young solders to New York to study at the Hofmann School.  The presence of a very accessible Willem de Kooning at 88 East 10th Street as well as the Artists Club at 39 East 8th Street and the Cedar Tavern around the corner at 24 University Place create a milieu unique in American history which came to be known as the New York School or the 10th Street School.  Dozens of young artists seeking to rub shoulders with the most advanced practitioners move to the neighborhood.  Soon they organize co-op galleries which line East 10th Street with names like Tanager at 90, Camino at 92, Bratta at 89, Gallery Grimand at 92, Carmel at 82 East 10th Street.  Others in the area included Hansa on East 12th Street, and the Ruben gallery on 4th Ave. where many of the first “Happenings” took place in the late fifties.

Philip Pavia in his recently published memoir “Club Without Walls” mentions the fact that at its founding the Artists Club didn’t allow women to become voting members.  But within short order, this ruckus all night debating club relented and Pavia states that “A noteworthy point about “floor panelists”: Mercedes Mattter, Elaine de Kooning, Rose Slivka, Alice Yamin, May Tabak, and Grace Hartigan, week after week, hounded, badgered and out talked the podium panelists. There were tears in the eyes of the podium panelists but certainly no tears in the eyes of these women sharpshooters… They (the women) learned to flex their muscles at the Club.”

By the End of the fifties, the New York School and East 10th Street was stale. Pop Art is ascendant.   Other strips attracted artists who cross-pollinate each other with complimentary ideas.  Lucy Lippard, a critic/activist while married to Robert Ryman lives at 193 Bowery and begins to notice a shared sensibility among her neighbors.   She is crucial in formulating Minimal Art which is institutionally baptized with “Primary Structures” in 1966 at the Jewish Museum.  Her posse of “Bowery Boys” includes Don Judd, Sol LeWitt, Brice Marden, Mel Bochner, Robert Mangold, Dan Flavin, Tom Doyle and Bowery Girl Eve Hesse.

 

Looking for new cheap yet accessible territories artist began looking further south. One enclave was Coenties Slip, near South Street Sea Port which was the Studios of, Robert Indiana, Agnes Martin, James Rosenquist, Ellsworth Kelly, Jack Youngerman and Charles Hinman A few blocks away in 1963 a new co-op gallery is started called Park Place.  This gallery moves in 1965 to 542 West Broadway, its director is Paula Cooper.  By 1968, Cooper opens her own gallery at 98-100 Prince Street.  Soho is born.  Within the nest ten years there are over a hundred galleries and thousands of artists living and showing in the district.  Soho is the veritable Center of the Center of the art world.  Much of the attention is focused on 420 West Broadway where Leo Castelli opens in 1972,  Ileana Sonnabend soon becomes a tenant and in 1978 Mary Boone comes on board.  With is organic community of artists dealers curators and publications Soho is assumed by may to be the unassailable bastion of the avant-garde.  But by the 1980s rumblings are being heard form an old neighborhood long thought dead. 

The East Village begins with a string of galleries on East 10th Street, most notably Patty Astor and Bill Stellings “Fun” Gallery at 261 East 10th Street Gracie Mansion at 337 andNature Mort at 204.  Ironically when the Artists’ Club laid down its constitution those boys wanted to exclude Women, homosexuals and communists.  30 years later those were the exact people on this ravagedstrip of 10th Street who got the East Village ball rolling.  At its peak in 1985 there were over 75 galleries operating with a strong club and boutique scene to match.  But sometimes success is it own punishment. 

By 1988 the scene had collapsed, the community is devastated by the AIDS epidemic.  For those galleries savvy enough to survive Soho became the symbol of success.  A few of the EV DYI (East Village Do It Yourself) types stay on the look out for the next new neighborhood.  Pat Hearn started with a gallery On East 6th and Ave. B.  When the EV bubble bursts she moved to Soho. In 1994 she and partners Colin De Land, Paul Morris and Matthew Marks organized the first Gramercy Art Fair, which morphs into the massive Armory Art Fair,  changing the process of art dealing for the new millennium.    Then in 1995 following the DIA foundation she opened a spacious new gallery on the far Westside of 22nd Street an area known as Chelsea. Twelve years latter there are over three hundred galleries and it represents the largest art market place the world has ever seen.

Moving in the other direction was Annie Herron, who had been director at Semaphore Gallery East.  Looking at the active but underground scene that had been gestating for years in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, Annie opens Test-Site at 93 North 1st Street in 1991.  Though not a business success, Test-Site none the less gives impetus to several of the local art activists and soon a small but energetic group of weekend galleries and art venues begins to form a solid community.  Since 1985 the Williamsburg section has hosted over 140 galleries/art venues and has long since overtaken Soho as the largest concentration of artists in America, maybe the world.

Pressures from real-estate development and high rents have put stress on both the height end of Chelsea and the Lowend of Brooklyn.  Returning to form the latest hot spot to open a gallery or find a studio is again the Bowery.  With the unveiling of New Museum and a string of new gallery openings which at last count was 24 in a way we’ve come full circle back to Washington square and 10th street.  As usual with the story of art history there is never an endingmerely a brief pause labeled:  to be continued  

"Brooklyn Dispatches: The Brooklyn Canon: Airbrushed Out of History," Brooklyn Rail by Fredrick Munk

By James Kalm

He was a goner, a nonentity, and although he’s had a perfectly respectable career, to the forces that “streamline” history, he was invisible.

It was in Soho, at the Spring Street Bookstore (which gives you an idea of how long ago this was) that I picked up one of those small-run artsy publications with the punchy cover design (Russian Constructivism meets Hippie Bauhaus) and latched onto an essay featuring a set of nearly identical photographs.  In the first, with their shirts off in mock “muscleman” poses and lined up like a screen test for a Fassbinder movie, were a doughy-looking Julian Schnabel, a sleeker Marcus Lupertz, Jorg Immendorf, and, hanging at the end, the above-mentioned artist.  Evidently, this was a snapshot taken on some summer lark, four friendly painters hanging out and mugging for the camera. 

The second photo was identical to the first except that someone had cropped out the fourth artist, deciding his notoriety wasn’t sufficient to merit inclusion.  This “corrected” pic has been used in countless catalogs, textbooks, and magazines all over the world.  The gist of the article was the shameless alteration of actuality to tidy up reality from a certain preconceived angle, in essence to propagandize, create a myth and shape history.  I snickered, digging the subversive humor. Years later I’m still laughing, but the sinister aspects of the alteration have become more apparent.  Despite my awareness of the cropped-out artist, I can’t for the life of me remember his name.  Modern techniques of thought control are effective. 

What brought back this memory was Jerry Saltz’s “The New York Canon,” published April 7th in New York magazine(http://nymag.com/anniversary/40th/culture/45761/).  As an amateur historian, I love these kinds of overviews; Irving Sandler’s quartet of books, The Triumph of American PaintingThe New York SchoolAmerican Art of the 1960s and Art of the Postmodern Era make up the core of my bookshelf on the New York milieu.  “The New York Canon” reads like the beginnings of what could become, if fleshed out, a standard art history text that picks up where Sandler leaves off.  A couple hundred artists are mentioned, twenty-eight dealers, and forty-four galleries, as well as the Museum of Modern Art, the Whitney, the Guggenheim, the New Museum and PS1.  Publications listed include the New York Times, ARTFORUM, October, Avalanche, the Washington Post and Saltz’s current employers, New York.  Among featured locations are: Soho (numerous times), 57th Street, Chelsea, Times Square, Union Square, the East Village, Washington D.C., Texas, Germany and other spots in Europe.  There’s even a mention, despite Saltz’s caveat that “the market is ruining everything” of the Brooklyn Museum’s controversial 1999 Sensation exhibition, organized and sponsored by super-big moneybag collector Charles Saatchi.

Far be it from me to argue with any of the items included in this litany. I did find one glaring, unexplainable omission, however: that among its nearly 6500 words, the one word that was missing was—Williamsburg.  Yeah, I’ve been accused of being a “provincial chauvinist” by one of America’s preeminent bloggers, but (in my finest Chamber of Commerce voice), “Williamsburg, Brooklyn is the largest enclave of artistic talent ever to congregate in one community in American history.”  Okay, perhaps a touch hyperbolic, and maybe at this point (which adds to the urgency) we’re talking in the past tense.  In any case, I’d like to offer a few humble suggestions from this side of the East River that might warrant consideration for the BIG PICTURE before airbrush-wielding historians and pundits consign the whole megillah to the eternal damnation of obscurity,

Let me add that, thanks to the scarcity of gullible types willing to bankroll venues and projects, and with only the Brooklyn Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Academy of Music as institutional presences, nearly all the actions and events here described have been Do-It-Yourself affairs relying on the energy, ingenuity and finances of a “coalition of the willing.”  While much of New York’s “mainstream” art history has been a function of exclusivity, one of the main strengths, or weaknesses, of the Brooklyn scene is its inclusivity.  Consequently, for better or worse I’ve solicited suggestions and ideas from dozens of local residents.  Despite the expected gaggle of “hey, my show three years ago was the most important exhibition of this century,” many intriguing individuals, events and venues were dredged up.

Manhattan has always been the place to be, but since artists typically live on restricted budgets while needing large spaces to work, Brooklyn has long been the closest and most sympathetic alternative.  And while it’s not my intention to go back forty or fifty years, suffice it to say that the long tradition of artists living and working here has seen the likes of Mark Rothko, David Smith, Barnett Newman, John Graham, Ben Shawn, Judy Pfaff, Vito Accocni, Ashley Bickerton and more, many more.  A recent wave of high-profile artists seeking maximum studio space in “real” neighborhoods has included Julian Schnabel, David Salle, Tom Otterness, Fred Tomaselli and Dana Schutz.     

Proto-Williamsburg

The decade of the 1980s witnessed ironic, even reactionary changes.  Soho, which emerged barely ten years before as an alternative venue for young, downtown avant-sters, has hardened into its own worst enemy, strangled by formalist theory, market forces and a political elite.  Despite its dozens of galleries, opportunities are limited for recent art school graduates, women, and other out-of-the-mainstream artists.  At the beginning of the decade, however, a trio of groundbreaking exhibitions in Brooklyn establish precedents for grassroots art happenings in the borough and beyond.

In May 1981, the Monumental Show, a huge exhibition organized by Frank Shifreen, George Moore and Michael Keene (and which, no doubt, took its cue from the previous summer’s Times Square Show), presents a Brooklyn-sized cast of over 150 artists in a former Civil War munitions factory near the Gowanus Canal.  As one of the first mega shows, Monumental includes well-known artists like Nancy Holtz, Keith Haring, Komar and Malamid, Carl Andre, and Mike Cockrill along with dozens of lesser-known and unknown contributors.  The opening party, featuring rock bands and performances, draws 3,000 spectators.  After only three days, the landlord pulls the plug due to concerns over “toxic contamination”.  

On April 1st of the following year, a loose-knit community of artists living in and around Williamsburg is introduced to a larger group of downtown artists through the All-Fools Show.  As a condition for making the space available, for six weeks beforehand, the landlord on South 4th Street enlists teams of overly energetic artists as slave labor (I was one of them) working from dawn till dusk removing tons of baled rags and other garbage from his building, getting an expensive clean-up job for free.  All-Fools runs a month. Hundreds of artists participate and thousands attend. Contacts and alliances are established that blow back over the Williamsburg Bridge and influence the organization and tone of a nascent East Village scene.

By the time Terminal New York debuts during the summer of 1983, a standard operating procedure for gargantuan shows has been established.  This massive former military terminal contained more cubic feet than all of Manhattan’s museums combined, and its vaulted cathedral-like nave has the highest ceiling for the display of art seen in the city until the Museum of Modern Art reopens with its new atrium in 2004.  The big Brooklyn show is now been accepted by the establishment, and the list of stars in this production includes Uptowners, Soho-ites, East Villagers and Europeans. 

A Scene Grows in Brooklyn

During most of the eighties boom, with the media focused on the East Village and Soho, swarms of art school grads and dream-seekers pour into the city, with Brooklyn as the place for cheap studio and living space.  Small enclaves of creativity pop up in places with roguish names like Red Hook, Sunset Park, Dumbo, Vinegar Hill and Greenpoint.  Weekend loft exhibitions and guerrilla happenings become a ritual for hundreds of local artists.  A web of networks form, spanning the Manhattan mainstream, the East Village, the marginalized outer-boroughs and even New Jersey.  Because of its direct link to Midtown via the L train and its low-rise, semi-industrial building stock, Williamsburg becomes a magnet, developing the highest concentration of artsy types in the city.

As Soho reels, knocked off its plinth as the center of the art world, and the East Village garners a lion’s share of press, art activists in Williamsburg want to get in on the action.  Though accounts vary (after all, little of this made the New York Times or ARTFORUM), A Place Apart Gallery (“Formerly Sirovich Gallery”) opens at 230 North 6th Street. “A community gallery for artists of all ages and backgrounds,” it’s generally recognized as the first in Williamsburg. This venue, opened in 1982 and operated by Marguerite Munch, is where Chris Martin remembers meeting James Harrison, a legendary Brooklyn eccentric who worked the desk and ended up becoming a mentor to many young artists in Greenpoint and the ‘Burg.  Other alumni include Kathy Bradford, David Kapp, Tom Bills, and Rick Briggs.  Though not a commercial success, A Place Apart gives local artists a focal point around which to hang out and begin forming a network.

Certain buildings become havens for dozens of artists.  Though too numerous to list, a crucial pair are 252 Green Street, a former potato chip factory in Greenpoint, and 85-101 North 3rd Street. The Green Street space is home to Cecily Kahn and David Kapp, and provides studios for a group of sculptors that include Judy Pfaff, Tom Bills and Robin Hill.  Kahn remembers a studio on the third floor that “had a 3-inch layer of blackened potato starch on its floor which would soften in the summer months.”  85-101 North 3rd Street, with it dozens of studio spaces, has a rotating roster of artists including James Beiderman and his N3 Project Space, Russell Roberts, Michael David, and Kristen Baker, as well as the notable Berlin artist and founding member of Critical Realism, Wolfgang Petrick.  

When you’re overshadowed by the likes of Manhattan’s cultural conglomerates, you’ve got to try a lot harder to get a sliver of the spotlight. In 1983, the Brooklyn Academy of Music inaugurates its Next Wave Festival, a three-month annual presentation designed to focus the attention of the international avant-garde on this stretch of hardscrabble downtown Brooklyn.  BAM is now the American home of world-class artists and companies like Peter Brook, Needcompany, Sankai Juku and William Forsythe/Ballett Frankfurt.  But it’s their homegrown productions and revivals, like Philip Glass’ Satyagraha and (with Robert Wilson) Einstein on the Beach and Trisha Brown’s Set and Reset with original score by Laurie Anderson and design by Robert Rauschenberg, that have gained worldwide acclaim.  The list of collaborators at BAM is a virtual Who’s Who of the art world: Roy Lichtenstein, Louise Bourgeois, Keith Haring Steven Reich and Mark Morris, who opened his own studio/school next door in September 2001.
    
The entire East Village scene booms, crests and crashes in the five years between 1983 and 1987, leaving the city with a gaping hole where there was once edgy, sexy and subversive work. With the stock market crash in 1987 and the art market following suit in ’89, what better time or place to open an art gallery than the desperate and crime-ridden area of West Williamsburg?

A smattering of galleries emerge with names evoking the busted down and abject nature of the locale: Minor Injury in Greenpoint, founded by Mo Bock in 1985; Brand Name Damages, a cooperative started by The Justice League of America, a group of mostly Pratt Institute grads showing works by friends and members; Ammo; and The New Waterfront Museum, located between the anchorages of the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges and run by another small cooperative that rents studio space and utilizes the hallways for exhibitions. LedisFlam on North 6th Street is billed as the first “commercial” gallery.  Founded in 1986 by Lori Ledis and husband Robert Flam, this space raises the bar for the district during its four-year run there.  Due to the scarcity of foot traffic and the difficulty of attracting clients, they relocate to Soho in 1990, but not before giving early exposure to Amy Sillman, Terry Adkins, David Mann and Peter Acheson.  Lori Ledis dies prematurely in December 2000 of a heart attack; she’s forty.

One individual who played a decisive role in raising the self-esteem of the ‘Burg was East Village gallerist Annie Herron.  I’d met Annie several times at Semaphore Gallery on West Broadway where she worked as director in the early eighties.  She was known as someone on the move with a good eye and a soft touch.  Remembering her pursuit and very public courting by the then unknown Mark Kostobi still gives me giggles.  Mark painted a large portrait of her and stuck it in the show window of his Broome Street studio. He hoped Annie could assuage his loneliness and boost his career at the same time.  When the East Village took off Annie, as usual at the center of things, was dispatched to open Semaphore East on Avenue B and 10th Street where she showed Ellen Berkenblit, Martin Wong, Mike Cockrill, Mark Kostabi and Jane Dickson.  When the East Village bubble bursts in 1987-88, Annie is already looking ahead to the “next new thing.”  Having tripped over the bridge to sample the action out East, she’s convinced that with the right grooming the ‘Burg could be ready for its close-up.               

Brooklyn also has its share of tragedy.  In 1987, Christopher Wilmarth, a visionary sculptor who used the weight and balance of unique materials like etched glass, steel sheets and cable to capture light and arrest space, moves into a beautiful, spacious new studio in my stomping ground overlooking the waterfront at the northern end of Red Hook. With a career that seems charmed and a high level of critical and institutional recognition, it appears as if Wilmarth is poised to begin a sustained midcareer phase of creativity.  During a studio visit, Patterson Sims suggests we give Wilmarth a welcome-wagon introduction to the neighborhood.  Within a couple of months Wilmarth, who is apparently being treated for depression, hangs himself in the studio. He’s forty-four.

The BMA Steps Up

Despite the scenes on Sex in the City where taxi drivers refuse to take fares across the East River bridges, The Brooklyn Museum of Art has long been a destination for serious art tourists.  Regardless of its quirks, it’s proven itself as a wonderful museum of last resort, hosting important exhibitions that haughtier Manhattan institutions are ether too fully booked for, uninterested in, or see as box-office losers.  A personal favorite is the Albert Pinkham Ryder show, organized by Dr. Elizabeth Broun, that opened in September 1990.  Ryder, although a longtime denizen of the West Village / Washington Square neighborhood, is a quintessential inspiration to many a scruffy reclusive local painter.  Though cited by Marsden Hartley and Jackson Pollock as the essential American Proto-Modernist, this is his first revival since a Whitney retrospective in the 1940s.  The show includes not only his signature nautical scenes under looming night skies, but also a display on the strange physical condition of some paintings due to his unusual material sensibility: the cracking, oozing, slippage, and general decrepitude of some pieces that miraculouslykeep them bound in a perpetual death throes.  This local love affair with Ryder leads to an homage exhibition curated by Phong Bui in 2000 at State of Art Gallery (an early outpost in Greenpoint) which includes adoring Ryder fans from the ‘Burg like Bill Jensen, Margrit Lewczuk, Chris Martin and Kathy Bradford, as well as Gregory Amenoff and others.

Also in 1990, the Brooklyn Museum hosts Joseph Kosuth’s installation The Play of the Unmentionable, a protean manifesto that probably wouldn’t happen at our less “offensive” institutions.  With the culture wars raging and the controversies over government funding of “progressive art” driving the Moral Majority nuts, Kosuth, working with the BMA’s team of curators, hangs works from the museum’s vast holdings on neutral gray walls, paired with blown-up quotes from some of our favorite fascists, moral reformers and do-gooders.  This sardonically stinging institutional critique is one of the best-attended and critically well-received exhibits of the season.  

Things Get Crazy

Like the street warning “don’t corner a rat,” with the Manhattan scene in a slump and no prospects on the horizon, Brooklyn hipsters feel they’ve got nothing to lose.  More people open their studios to happenings and exhibitions.  A communication tree forms to spread word of impromptu raves and potlatches in vacant warehouses and the dilapidated piers fronting the East River.  More ad hoc galleries and art spaces like Jimenez & Algus on South 11th in 1989 and 4 Walls Project, founded by Mike Ballou, Adam Simon and Michele Araujo in 1991 (relocating from Hoboken), appear.  These “projects” have more esoteric programs and a greater commitment to “keeping it real” than turning a buck.  Coteries based on shared aesthetics and approaches to the public begin to distinguish artists and activists who will eventually rattle the world beyond the borough. 

As the momentum builds, ambitions and liabilities increase, and impromptu events soon outgrow studios and begin to migrate to the waterfront.  Cat’s Head, an “interdisciplinary rave happening” is so notorious that word spreads though the international underground, and its organizers are invited to re-create it in Dublin, Ireland.  Other mass actions like Lizard Tail and Fly Trap keep the energy flowing and begin the process for a more sustained scheme, something with a legally sanctioned location.

“Organism,” a watershed occurrence, is the brainchild of a group of Williamsburg art activists who were part of a meeting in the loft of Ebon Fisher on February 15, 1993: Phil R. Bonner, Megan Raddant, Al Arthur, Ruth Kahn, Stevie Allweis, Robert Elmes, Jeff Gompertz, David Brody, Yyvette Helin and Anna Hurwits.  In subsequent meetings they’re joined by Fred Valentine, Don Gibson, Matthew Schneider, Michael Henery and soon others.  The idea is to pool their money and rent a space large enough to house a number of projects dealing with the concept of an organism’s systems.  The vacant Old Dutch Mustard Factory at 70 Metropolitan Avenue fits the bill.  Numbers of artists contribute projects, and an estimated 2400 curious revelers join in for an all-night fest.  As Fred Valentine writes in an e-mail, the impetus was “Let’s do here what we and others can’t do anywhere else.  What we became was a combination of Bacchanalia, anarchy, social club and creative space.” An extensive web site documenting Organism can be found at http://www.artnetweb.com/organism/manifesto.html.

During the remainder of the lease, the Mustard Factory becomes a testing ground for creativity, a laboratory for exploring just how much an arts community can tolerate.  With abundant media coverage and growing international recognition, it also baptizes the ‘Burg as having arrived as a destination for the cultural cognoscenti.  As of this writing, the location of the Mustard Factory is a fenced-in construction site awaiting the completion of yet another luxury condo tower.

The ‘Burg Goes Button-downed

What ever you might think of Rudolph Giuliani, his campaign to clean up and tame the city after a decade of devastation from crack wars, rampant murder statistics and the AIDS plague, comes at an opportune moment for a district trying to attain a level of respectability, or at least give the impression of stability and a ceasefire. Snazzy bars and boutiques begin to show up.  By 1993 Williamsburg becomes a favorite backdrop for trendy fashion shoots, and references in movies and TV put it on the lips of the nation.  Even so, the physical challenges and financial drain of trying to maintain a gallery force many spaces like Test-Site and Jimenez & Algus to fold after a couple of seasons.  Regardless, a group of more “professional” venues begins to take shape, forming a strip near Bedford and Metropolitan Avenues where visitors can drop in on four of five shows, drinks, shopping and maybe hear some poetry or jazz during a weekend safari. 

Rumblings from other areas are heard with shoestring operations like Florence Neal’s Kentler International Drawing Space, specializing in works on paper by local and international Red Hook artists coming on the scene. Relocating from Soho, Arena in Carol Gardens brings an elegant if diminutive sensibility to Cobble Hill courtesy of Reneé Riccardo.  In 1995, Smack Mellon debuts in Dumbo with loft shows organized by visual artist Andrea Reynosa and musician/composer Kevin Vertrees. Thanks to support from the Walentas Family and Two Trees Management, Smack Mellon shows hundreds of artists’ works in some of the city’s most dramatic venues, while providing studio space to hard-strapped artists.  GAle GAtes et al., a performance and visual arts company started by Michael Counts, tests the boundaries between artists and audience and winds up on the résumés of bunches of artists in 1999 with Size Matters—a marathon group show curated by Mike Weiss, an ambitious young dealer now ensconced with Chelsea’s big boys on West 24th Street.  Dumbo Art Center starts up during 1997 in the wake of the first Art Under the Bridge festival.  Their program solicits proposals from independent curators, arranges for site-specific installations and publishes local guides and organizes studio tours.

Meanwhile back in Williamsburg, Annie Herron is busy scurrying about being midwife, den-mother and stage manager, organizing various happenings in the burgeoning environs.  1992 sees Salon of Mating Spiders, an Art-Palooza extravaganza at Test-Site, a major signpost on the history turnpike.  Check it out—half the artists in Williamsburg’s Curriculum Vitae begin with Mating Spiders, a street fair, New Music performance, picnic and art happening, all rolled into one.  Even with community recognition and press coverage, Test-Site folds.  Herron retreats to Soho for a brief stint with Black + Herron but can’t resist the pull of Bedford Avenue.  While curating a multi-site show, Dyad in 1994, she convinces a recent arrival from California, disappointed with the difficulty of breaking into the art world, to participate. 

Joe Amrhein gets hip and takes Annie’s advice.  Deciding to open Pierogi 2000, he begins assemble what will become the world-famous Pierogi Flat Files, currently representing over 700 artists.  By 1996 word of the Flat Files and other developments reach the BMA, and Current Undercurrent, a Working in Brooklyn show organized by Charlotte Kotik, features the collection.  Moving east on North 9th Street and opening a new space in 1998, Pierogi becomes the cornerstone of the Williamsburg scene, and is credited with promoting the “big drawing,” massive works on paper that has been recognized by critics as one of the few commonalities to distinguish local work produced during this period.   Along with debuting and / or showcasing artists such as Jim Torock, Dawn Clements, Jonathan Schipper, John J. O’Connor, Kim Jones, Jane Fine, James Esber and Ward Shelley, Pierogi is instrumental in promoting the seminal conceptual drawings of Mark Lombardi.

After receiving a bachelor's degree in art history from Syracuse University, Lombardi moves to Houston where he runs a small gallery and works at the Museum of Contemporary Art.  Though still practicing painting, he becomes fascinated with diagramming financial and political scandals collected from the popular press, interpreting them through the lens of Herbert Marcuse’s theories of social activism.  He shows these drawings for the first time in 1995, and receives greater public exposure in 1997 when he’s included in an exhibition at Soho’s Drawing Center.  He moves to Brooklyn in 1998 and has his first Pierogi 2000 show, Silent Partners.  At forty-eight he’s taking off like a rocket, with a supportive dealer, international curators knocking and inclusion in the career-making Greater New York 2000.  Friends and admirers are struck dumb when word comes of his suicide.  It’s reported that he hanged himself in his South 5th Street studio on the 22nd of March, 2000; years later, rumors still circulate suspecting foul play.

Strength in Numbers

The mid-nineties is a period of consolidation and recognition.  Other galleries, some with public funding, join the fray and form a core community.  Momenta Art, begun in Philadelphia by Eric Heist and Laura Parness, pitches camp in 1995 on the north side and features a program of conceptual work, much of it with a biting institutional critique.  Feed, founded in 1992 by Lisa Schroeder and Barry Hylton on North 3rd, starts casually and goes through several mutations, eventually partnering with Sara Jo Romero and absconding to Chelsea as Schroeder Romero in 2006.  Roebling Hall is kicked off in 1997 by Joel Beck and the controversial Christian Viveros-Fauné.  Taking their name from their Roebling Street location, they move in 1998 to larger digs on Wythe Avenue and present artists Eve Sussman, Christoph Draeger, Sebastiaan Bremer among others before heading to West Chelsea in 2005.  The Williamsburg Arts & Historical Center at Broadway and Bedford anchors the south end of the Bedford strip.  Housed in the landmarked Kings County Savings Bank, this edifice was home and studio to the notorious time-traveling art team of McDermott & McGough before being purchased for the museum by Yuko Nii in 1996.  Under the direction of “eccentric anarchist” Terrance Lindall, the WAH Center presents Brave Destiny in the fall of 2003.  Bombastically billed as the largest Surrealist exhibition in history, Brave Destiny includes nearly 400 artists, with big names like H. R. Geiger and Ernst Fuchs taking part.  Though originally skeptical of the gamy tang of this “outmoded” genre, I’m now thinking that Brave Destiny could, in part, be credited with many local artists’ current infatuation with Pop Surrealism.

As Soho fades in the late nineties and the colossus of Chelsea embodies a new paradigm, a flock of galleries join the Brooklyn chorus.  Some have deep ties to the community, while others see Williamsburg as training camp for the big leagues.  Galleries to the east spring up, including Flip Side, Dam & Stuhltrager, Front Room, Naked Duck and Jessica Murray Projects.  

Annie Herron teams with Larry Walczak’s “eyewash” in 1998.  Over the next ten years “eyewash” presents over 125 artists while pioneering some challenging collaborations with local businesses, like the current ARTWALKING: Bedford Avenue, a project employing 28 store windows.  In 2002, Annie—with her indomitable energy and organizational and social skills—is unexpectedly stricken with leiomyosarcoma, a rare form of cancer.  Though continuing her hectic non-stop schedule of curating, lecturing and travel while under going chemotherapy, Annie, at age 50, succumbs in September 2004.  With the ‘Burg’s big sister gone, a drifting away begins.  

The Williamsburg Gallery Association decides to cash in on their outsider status and in 2000 organizes Elsewhere (the rubric that the ‘Burg is listed under in the New York Times). It’sthe first neighborhood-wide collaborative celebration, with late-night openings, shuttle buses, food, drink and performances.  At this point, the WAGMAG Guide lists over twenty-five galleries.  But with increased desirability, pressure from real estate development makes it tougher to stay in the district. Bellwether, Black & White, Plus Ultra, 31 Grand, Foxy Productions, LMAK Projects Monya Rowe, Jessica Murray Projects andPriska C. Juschka all exit to Manhattan nirvana (though some still maintain Brooklyn presence).

Sensations and Beyond, the Wrap

In March 1997, The Brooklyn Museum announces its selection of Arnold L. Lehman as its new director.  Though a Brooklyn native, Lehman left the borough at the age of eight and had spent the previous thirteen years heading the Baltimore Museum of Art.  Lehman is seen as an innovator who, it is hoped, will nudge the BMA out of the doldrums and spearhead the museum’s massive renovation project. But these lofty expectations are eclipsed in 1999 as Sensation raises the hackles of local conservatives and brings down the wrath ofMayor Rudolph Giuliani.  The prime target of contention was Chris Ofili’s painting “The Holy Virgin Mary,” a glittering expressionistic rendering which included porn-mag crotch-shots and rested on two lumps of varnished elephant dung.  The museum is picketed daily, the Mayor threatens funding, and the show becomes an international cause célèbre signaling the rise of the Young British Artists and the power of a new breed of “art capitalists.”  Controversies surrounding its sponsorship by Charles Saatchi and the subsequent sale at auction of a number of pieces call the Museum’s ethics in to question.  You can’t buy this kind of press.

In spring 2004 the Museum unveils it $63 million Polshek Partnership-designed entranceway with choreographed fountains and a gleaming glass rotunda.  Brooklyn’s front stoop is pimped extraordinaire, and this world-class collection finally looks the part.

Like any ecosystem, art scenes ebb and flow.  As the Bedford/Metropolitan nexus is swamped with pricy towers, a group of rugged down-and-dirty spaces have emerged in Northern and Eastern Williamsburg with names like Brooklyn Fire Proof, The ‘temporary Museum of Painting, vertexList, Janet Kurnatowski, English Kills, Pocket Utopia and Ad Hoc Art.

Despite what William Powhida proclaims, tongue planted very firmly in cheek, in his “Williamsburg Eulogy” delivered in 2006, Brooklyn will survive.  In personal research I’ve compiled a list of over 140 arts venues operating in the neighborhood since 1982, far surpassing the East Village in number and duration.  With thousands of resident and visiting artists showing here, Williamsburg has long ago hit the “tipping point.”  If and when the Broadway musical based on the ‘Burg comes out, rather than a dramatic ending, in tragedy and death, like Rent, the ‘Burg will, more likely, fade and crumble without a whimper, burdened under its own ennui and the pressures of the real estate boom. To all the pundits and historians seeking to “streamline” the story and clean up the narrative, you’re going to have to get a bigger airbrush.

I’d like to thank the following for their suggestions and contributions: Peter Acheson, Mitchell Algus, Joe Amrhein, Kathy Bradford, Mike Cockrill, Jennifer Junkermeier, Stephen Maine, Licha Jimenez, Cecily Kahn, Chris Martin, Ward Shelley, Fred Valentine,  Don Voisine and Larry Walczak

"Kim Dorland “North” At Freight Volume," Brooklyn Rail by Fredrick Munk

By James Kalm

I can still remember the exact moment, the exact brush stroke.  I rounded a corner and fixed my eyes on “Marschland (Dangast),” a 1907 painting by Erich Heckel.  I was visiting the small, secluded Brücke Museum in the Grunewald in, what was still at the time West Berlin.  The landscape, measuring about two by three feet, is a panorama with a couple of massed trees and a scarlet and vermilion path that angles off to the horizon.  Situated in the lower-right corner is a clunky slab of striated paint which, due to its broad mass, is out of character with the rest of the surface.  Because of its insistent presence (and not so much that it represented anything beyond itself), it seemed to command the rest of the picture plane.  I’d seen a lot of paintings go from thick to thin by Rembrandt, Courbet and Van Gogh, but I fixed on this clump of pigment as something different, an odd mutation in my thinking about physical matter and the sticky subject of paint’s ability to change perception.  When I first came to New York during the heyday of Neo-Expressionism, the question of paint as a vehicle for developing spatial illusion versus paint as a significant substance with alchemical properties embodying its own unique set of forces was a significant factor in the debate that attracted international attention to the “new” painting.

North, the New York debut by Canadian artist Kim Dorland, emphatically declares that “chunky painting” is still a viable direction for practitioners not afraid to get their hands dirty.  I’ve been followed Dorland’s work for years, since stumbling across it at the room of the Toronto gallery Jamie Angell during a SCOPE New York Art Fair.  It wasn’t that I liked the work so much (though, as mentioned above, I’m a fan of “gooby paint”), but that I found its acidic fluorescent orange and red underpainting, clunky, quotidian subject matter, and slacker urgency—somehow evoking your favorite garage band with all the bad production values and strip mall expediency—kept resurfacing in my memory.  With each subsequent encounter the works grew in scale, and the subject matter veered from a somewhat kitschy focus on deer in forests (what was the deer image craze anyway?) to a dreary rendition of kids sauntering through the unpaved back alleys of sub-suburbs, cruising among the parked pickups, RVs and camping trailers. 

Alberta, identified as the site of these pictures, is known as the breadbasket of Canada. I imagine vast plains and overwhelming skies with widely scattered hamlets, a few thousand families clustered around a local railroad hub, phosphate mine or lumber mill.  There’s a palpable tinge of desperation in the wandering figures central to many of the compositions in North, as if these skate punks are aimlessly trudging in search of some action, some mischief, some beer, some joints or some sex that might deaden the pain of their tedious, irrelevant existence.  In “Alley # 4” and “Shortcut,” both from 2007, we see departing youngsters rendered as blocky squibs of paint walking through anonymous back streets.  The figures are surrounded by haloes of hot underpaint, a kind of illuminated shade, as if they’re in the focus of some electric force-field that designates them as “slacker saints” or conveyers of a vibrant life energy. 

Dorland composes his pictures with a confident sense of contrast to his sinewy bands and angular abstract fields.  Shadows are stark; skies, lawns, parking-lot pavement, and the sides of buildings become blocks of color, differentiated not only with strong tone and harsh hue but by various paint applications—dripping washes, spray-can puffs and scribbles, lumpy and clotted fields or turd-thick shrieking green shrubbery.  The people, like the cars and trucks, are abbreviated, reduced to featureless hunks of ragged color, with the slide, speed and heft of the rendering stroke becoming shorthand for posture and bearing.  Often, as in the largish picture “Hoarfrost # 4”, despite the peeks of brilliant underpainting, parentheses of heavy pigment surround the figures, envelope their forms, reinforcing the contiguousness of the picture plane.

To quote Yogi Berra, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”  With North, Dorland is faced instead with a “brush in the paint,” an obvious struggle between figure and ground.  In the larger landscape paintings, like “Hoarfrost #4,” “Woods # 2” and “Northern Lights #2,” human figures comprise a minor compositional element. Despite areas of exuberantly thick paint, he’s flattened his compositions to the extent that a couple of these works even echo Alex Katz with their populist naturalism, distilled layouts, elegantly subdued palette and compressed space.  The current mode of ultra-thin painting, popularized by painters like Elizabeth Payton, Karen Kilimnick, Luc Tuymans and Peter Doig seems in direct conflict with most of Dorland’s proclivities.  Conversely, in a group of single-figure paintings and portraits like “Blue Hoodie” and “Lake Louise,” where turnip-sized globs form cages and exoskeletons around the shapes, Dorland piles the paint with such abandon that it becomes bas-relief, verging on the performance/conceptual action of artists like Geoff Davis, Johathan Meese and Scott Richter.  Whether these tendencies continue in their polar directions or coalesce into some wacky hybrid is a coin-toss, but at least they provide enough interest to keep our eyes open for future developments.

In conversations with other painters and pundits after the latest round of art fairs, I couldn’t help lamenting on the strange irony that although America gave the world Abstract Expressionism with its concomitant ideas about gutsy paint-handling and truth to materials, so few New York galleries were showing the native version. Hopefully this audacious display by Dorland a cat from “North” of the boarder will help folks be less intimidated by the muck. 

"Brooklyn Dispatches: Computer Brain, Or Human Stain," Brooklyn Rail by Fredrick Munk

By James Kalm

WARNING: If the frank discussion of bodily fluids and their excretion make you squeamish, perhaps you should skip the first paragraph of this essay.

While going to college in the early seventies, my older brother worked for a local cleaning service.  Most of their jobs amounted to scrubbing and waxing floors in supermarkets after hours and cleaning windows at office buildings.  Occasionally they labored at private residences after fires or plumbing disasters.  In one instance, as my brother related later, they were hired to clean a house as part of an estate sale.  It seems an old lady, a neighborhood stalwart for decades, had passed away leaving her modest Victorian home to out-of-town relatives, this despite the fact that she had a son who had lived with her well in to middle age.  As it happened, the son was mentally or emotionally “challenged” and ended up being institutionalized.  As the job progressed, they vacuumed, removed stacks of domestic clutter, squeegeed windows and tried to make things presentable for the real estate agents.  When they went to check on the son’s room, tucked away upstairs under the eaves, they found a small, spare cubical with a chair, a small writing table and a bed pushed against a wall.  On this bedside wall was a thick, pealing accumulation of what my brother described only as “a forty-year residue of God-awful human gunk”.  Despite their best efforts with scrub brushes, steam machines and putty knives, they finally had to slap up new pieces of sheet rock, tape, spackle and paint over this smutch.  In the years since I’ve often thought about this Boo Radley blotch with a kind of comforting disgust.  But it wasn’t till I’d come to New York and involved myself in the marginal underground art scene that I came to realize the pathetic appeal of the skuzzy nature of life. 

It’s not just famous works like Vito Acconci’s 1971 performance piece “Seedbed,” Carolee Schneemann’s 1975 “Interior Scroll” (the actual “scroll” in all its discolored and Scotch-Taped glory is currently on view in the terrific WACK: Art and the Feminist Revolution show at PS1) or the grandiosely rotting, long-term sculptures built by Dieter Roth that attracted and repelled me.  Work by anonymous unknown artists, the “Outsider” and “Art Brut,” also had a new resonance.  If the initial attention-tug was Dadaist anti-art shock, eventually the recognition of human frailty, decline, death and decay, and our pathetically gallant struggle despite this knowledge, led to an enhanced appreciation of work that retained an authentic residue of existence.  The hard-worn and piss-stained seemed an undeniably fitting artistic reliquary.

In a way, this was a reaction against the super-slick presentation of the Minimalist artists (think of Don Judd’s pristine metal boxes, Ryman’s über-elegant white canvases or the statements by Warhol the he wanted to “be like a machine”).  Sentiments like these were gaining credence at the time, and led to a cluster of works apparently “untouched by human hands,” produced by followers of the French Deconstructivists and marketed as Neo-Geo and Consumer Art.

Time has passed.  The computer has altered our vision and become a standard studio tool.  Photoshop and animation programming have replaced anatomical drawing and painting classes in some university art departments, and with the ever-expanding galaxy of the Internet, virtual art is becoming an institutionally accepted and vibrant form.  As we’re becoming more accustomed to artificially intelligent accessories infiltrating every aspect of our lives, I can’t help but see on the horizon a final aesthetic cleansing: art by machines for machines, an Academy of the Mechanical.

With The Tunnel, his latest exhibit at Parker’s Box, Patrick Martinez displays works employing various media and concepts—including ballpoint-pen drawings, sheets of paper, hand cut into meandering ribbons and video—buta couple of works using laser cut paper were what made me take a second look.  In one, “The Web” (2008) Martinez tapped the expertise of the New York Design School at CUNY and programmed its sophisticated computer-driven laser cutter to incise a twenty-sided web pattern into a piece of heavy drawing paper.  The impossibly fine cuts have left behind filaments of thread-thin, scorched browned paper that appear so delicate that a breath might break them off and send them drifting across the room.  The other paper piece that intrigued me, “Winter Tree” (2008), was a silhouette of a tree backgrounded against two grids of tiny rectangular holes cut to form a horizon line.  Again the precision was impeccable, and far beyond human capability.  For these pieces Martinez spent uncounted hours using Illustrator to draw the files.  The process required another six hours of cutting time by a laser mounted on an articulating arm. What troubled me was probably not that different from what bugged the19th century French critic Paul Delaroche when, upon seeing his first daguerreotype spouted, “from today painting is dead”.  Now laser paper-cutting probably won’t mean the end to collage or scissors or X-acto knives, which Martinez used before he got his hands on the laser, but with such a reliance on mechanical and computer-aided techniques, how can the artist introduce and maintain a human presence?  Can the viewers’ expectations for humanly-derived inspiration and ingenuity be satisfied, or should they surrender to the technology? 

In the case of Martinez, the web piece seems to have pushed the laser cutter to its maximum capacity, slicing the strands so thinly as to confound the practical application of the apparatus and push its abilities to a level useless for anything beyond art (in a phone conversation, the artist admitted to testing the capability of the machine to the point of setting the paper on fire).   I felt a certain relief thinking that overly enthusiastic programming could overload the system and goad the machine to levels it wasn’t designed for, leaving evidence of a mischievous hand.

What look like high speed vapor trails or curving tracer shells weaving through crisp modernist architectural space are the subjects of recent paintings by Yoon Lee at Pierogi.  Lee’s approach is yet another take on computer-assisted work with a subversive twist.  On my initial viewing at the opening, I was faced with what appeared to be huge photo-silkscreened images.  Though more textural, and with a considerable overlaying of paint, their facture on PVC board gave every indication that these pictures were produced in some massive commercial print shop with the latest in high-tech digital imaging.  Obviously a lot of thought and effort was expended to create this “machine-made” quality.  When I came up with the idea of writing a piece about art by machines for machines, I Googled Lee and skimmed some reviews.  I gleaned that her pieces are actually produced by hand, using a squirt bottle and other mysterious techniques to paint a composite of scanned images.  A second viewing in an uncrowded gallery was enlightening as was an as yet unpublished catalog interview by Joe Amrhein and Susan Swenson.   Lee refers to as her reliance on “digital interfacing” and its ability to introduce the illusion of speed into her forms.  An echo of Warhol’s “I want to be like a machine” no doubt plays a part in justifying the tedious replication of Benday dots, massed and haloed forms,  and other telltale signifiers of photo and commercial computer graphic techniques.

At seven by twenty feet, “JFK” (2008) fills the entire back wall of the gallery, its swooping, abstract vector lines lacing through a realistically painted wall of windows, reading like the afterimages of the blastoff a superhero or some galactic speedball from a computer game or an animated feature.  Broad fingers of yellow green paint taper precipitously from the right margin toward a left-center vanishing point.  Other trails arc through the central space like the rings of Saturn, dissipating into screens of dotted mist.  Strangely, it’s impossible to tell whether the implied momentum is approaching or receding.  Punctuating the foreground are small abstract silhouettes, many in unnamable tones of pinkish grays or beige that could be figures or signage in a parking lot.

“Untitled, 2008” is the only vertical painting.  Again, swirling bands of protoplasm seem to emanate from just over the central horizon.  These have a more organic feel and present a more persuasive pun on the image of paint slinging.  Lee’s colors are muted, with swirls in ochre, black, and powder blue.  There’s a sense of explosive energy and velocity, like an attack by military jets: by the time you seem them coming, it’s too late.  Imagistically, they relate to Pop Abstraction in their knowing use of mass media graphics and slick, crisp finish.   That Lee is able to fake this kind of mechanical precision and also use a variety of transparent and opaque colors is impressive.  Despite the “digital interfacing,” her imitation machine-making bespeaks a technical prowess that subverts the premise with a painstaking, hand-wrought style.  Computers may not yet rule the world, but they make up an ever-larger part of the artist’s toolbox.  Maybe this is just a fad, a new toy to explore, or perhaps unknowingly, artists have already become their tools.