From listadmin@worldwidereview.com  Mon Mar 15 14:22:11 2010
From: listadmin@worldwidereview.com (Rudi Scholl)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:22:11 +0000
Subject: (frieze 2004, Ekow Eshun, Signorelli, Hayward 2006,frieze 2008) 5
 of the best art and culture reviews from the last 10 years
Message-ID: <COL118-W45DFB4256D91CD9A8B2AD7BA2E0@phx.gbl>

--_e43badce-e220-4492-abe3-0dd43868265c_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Hello Critic=2C

=20

worlwidereview is pleased to present 5 highlights from over 20=2C000 review=
s from the last 10 years.

=20

Founded in 2000 to cover art shows that never got a review and to expand th=
e scope and nature of criticism=2C Worldwidereview is now the number one si=
te for art and culture reviews in the world. We have a mix of open submissi=
ons and regular reviewers=2C with no restriction on subject but with a focu=
s on contemporary art. Browse our archive of over 20=2C000 reviews from the=
 last 10 years at www.worldwidereview.com=20

=20

We hope you enjoy the new worldwidereview and continue to read and write re=
views. Being critical makes things better.

=20

best wishes=20
Rudi and Jasper

=20

Suicide note to the British Art Establishment on the occasion of "How to im=
prove  the world" 60 years of the Arts Council Collection at the HaywardFro=
m:     Robert Shell
Category: Art
Date:     07 September 2006
Time:     08:29 AM

Review:

I kill myself because of the British Art Establishment.

60 years of British Art disinterred from the Arts Council Collection and gr=
imly entitled "How to Improve=20
the World"=2C like the ghastly double-speak of state power: Guantanamo prot=
ects freedom. Arbeit=20
Macht Frei.

The longest queue was for where they were serving sponsored pies. Starving =
graying YBAs crushing=20
and trampling and gouging each other in a frantic effort to get their canni=
bal hands on some pastry=20
containing the ground-up remains of failed artists and the gravy of their p=
athetic dreams.=20

A man=2C a moustache=2C an adminstrator=2C and art bureaucrat=2C Sir Christ=
oper Frayling=2C MBE=2C order of the=20
garter etc=2C made some tedious remarks boomed out on speakers=2C while the=
 crowd of notables and=20
art school lecturers stood in obsequious quietude. The new director=2C Mr R=
alph Rugoff=2C modest in=20
crumpled American academic garb=2C said some other boring nothing words=2C =
and the daring world-=20
changing brilliant talents of shocking Art Britain=2C the world's greatest =
art superpower=2C stood around=20
respectfully daringly waiting to get there hands on more free drinks and pi=
es.=20

This is it baby=2C the centre of it all. These people in all their thrillin=
g diversity represent most of what is=20
happening. Look a man in a dress! Look sour-faced old Nick Serota! Look a q=
ueue of people to get=20
IN and a women with clipboards keeping uninvited scum rif-raff OUT.

Look at this art: an Ian Davenport and Lucien Freud=2C a Hockney done at co=
llege=2C a Sarah Lucas and=20
a tatty Damien Hirst=2C a Doig and Ophili=2C the painty double act=2C some =
people you haven't heard of=2C that=20
guy Titchner who's up for the TP=2C Bob&Roberta Smith has made a funny sign=
 out of bits of old wood=2C=20
ha ha! A bucket by Craig-Martin.  This is the best. This is art. This will =
be remembered. If you're not=20
here=2C you haven't made it. You're just a feeble art student. This great a=
rt is not that great=2C however=2C=20
unfortunately=2C sorry to tell you.

Some of the artists have even brought their gallerists (did you know that g=
allerist is not even an official=20
word)=2C a fine bunch of coiffeured specimens=2C make sure you don't tread =
on their toes=2C and don't even=20
speak to them=2C they don't like to be bothered by artists. Some gallerists=
 have even brought their=20
artists=2C and don't bother them either=2C they are busy talking to someone=
 who might give them a grant or=20
be on a committee that will buy their work=2C busy with sacred business.

I kill myself because of the British Art Establishment.=20

Because the only thing that matters is success (something I am economizing =
on) which is defined by=20
success which is defined by success=2C which is what matters.

Because a small group of mediocrities is pumped up by reviews=2C scholarshi=
ps=2C prizes=2C attention=2C=20
money=2C collectors=2C and galleries=2C while I watch flaccid. The whole sy=
stem=2C art school=2C funding bodies=2C=20
institutions=2C galleries etc is staffed by the dumbos=2C the asslickers=2C=
 the turgid bores=2C the hard core self-
promoters=2C the cynical=2C the insanely determined. They fly ever higher=
=2C while I stunted=2C die.Because these people define success=2C and I won=
't ask them for a favour. Because it's not a conspiracy=2C
just a bunch of people doing what's best for themselves. Because when I was=
 a child=2C I thought art was being a=20
genius=2C like Picasso or Matisse=2C not ass-licking in the pub or going to=
 the right party. Because those in charge
are boring and I can't be friends with them.

It's true that history is for winners=2C and I am a loser. Daring dreams=2C=
 bold art=2C rebellion/revolution are=20
slogans for knowing artists to turn into ironic posters=2C please stop taki=
ng them seriously.

I kill myself because the British Art Establishment have established an agg=
ressive culture of success=20
based on a few bureaucrats=2C a few collectors=2C a few galleries=2C and a =
few artists that matter. Too few=20
for me.

Frieze Art Fair 2004 London
Reviews
From: Rachel Adams
Category: Exhibitions
Date: 14 October 2004


Review
http://www.friezeartfair.com/=20
Jamie Theakston (English tv presenter with a desirable nose) was there=2C s=
o don't stare=2C he's quite plain and badly dressed in a purple coat. The f=
air is the unspeakeable (collectors=2C hangers on) in pursuit of the inedib=
le (lots of bad paintings and dull photos). Occasionaly something jumps out=
 from the morass of bog standard contemporary artifice=2C a few Andy Warhol=
 drawings of cats=2C an Albert Oehlen painting=2C a little Matisse. It's da=
zzling the difference between what is good and all the rest. Makes you wond=
er whether those old buffs were right about their value hierarchies. Now th=
e only diffentiation is between the various repulsive levels of personal su=
ccess and respect to be obtained: vips=2C super vips=2C gallerists=2C celeb=
s=2C important people=2C famous artists=2C those with special passes=2C tho=
se that shall not queue=2C those that walk along thinking others will move =
out their way=2C humble uninvited people who wait outside for reentry ticke=
ts to be discarded=2C the beautiful=2C the ugly=2C the rich=2C and the poor=
 (not just artists).=20
That's the fun of this glorious bright yellow fair in the greeen cold treey=
 park. It's a spectacle of society=2C and not for seekers of metaphysical g=
reatness or sympathetic humans.

=20

Probably the first review ever written on WWR

The Signorelli Frescoes in Orvieto Cathedral=2C Italy


The doors of the Cathedral look good I thought=2C as we stood in the sunshi=
ne in Orvieto before lunch. I asked my friend when he thought they had been=
 made=2C expecting to hear they were precociosly modern examples of 16th ce=
ntury art. I was told probably the 60s. How careless of me. I expect always=
 to be surprised by everthing and don't bother to think most of the time. T=
he Signorelli frescoes=2C begun in 1499=2C are surprising in that anachroni=
stic way. They are full of naked muscley men and women. The women have firm=
=2C very protruberant breasts and one of the men has one of the most realis=
tic penises I have ever seen in an old fresco=2Cto go with his disconcertin=
gly long aging hippy hair. There are skeletons=2C and demons=2C and people =
with their heads cut off=2C and everyone or thing has textbook anatomy=2C c=
alf muscles which no amount of step aerobics would give you=2C and spines p=
ractically bursting out of their skins. If you saw this kind of thing in a =
kitsch bar/restaurant you wouldn't think twice=2C but in a gothic Cathedral=
 you marvel at its invention and bravura.In contast the main hall=2C the Ce=
ntral Nave in Cathedralese=2C is not highly decorated=2C and the walls are =
mainy just cool stone in stripes of dirty white and charcoal=2Cgray blue. S=
imple and a relief for puritans who hate overdecorated churches=2C but the =
simplicity is pompous in its own way. I wonder what we are doing in these p=
laces=2C looking for kitsch frescoes and grandiose simplicity. Meeting our =
tedious expectations=2C or boning up on architectural terminology=2C biogra=
phy=2C guide books. Why do we give a shit? It is all entertaining enough=2C=
 and as good as the lunch we had sitting on a terrace alone in the sunshine=
=2C but it is a lot different from the vitality that produced massive cathr=
edals and ridiculous frescoes=2C and towns like Orvieto all over Italy. It=
=2C is the entertainment of the tourist=2C the restaurant snob=2C and the l=
azy bourgeois.=20

Ekow Eshun new ICA director
Reviews  From: arts news
Category: Art
Date: 13 March 2005
=20
So he was the youngest ever editor of a men's magazine.. That's meant to be=
 a great achievement. Men's magazines are full of superficial crap and edit=
ed by nobody you've ever heard of. He also edited Virgin's inflight magazin=
e! Wadda brain he must have.. He has been on the Late Review=2C where he ar=
ticulates some opinions about art etc. The ICA is shit=2C and on paper Ekow=
 Eshun has the CV to run it into the ground.

Frieze debate reduxFrom:     blp
Category: Art
Date:     05 February 2008
Time:     02:29 PM

Review:

http://www.frieze.com/comment/article/con_man/

They didn't run my response and wouldn't communicate with me about why (or =
about anything)=2C though I
emailed them to ask. It could be a glitch=2C but I now can't post in that t=
hread at all.=20

Oh well. Here's what I wrote=2C just slightly tidied up since I didn't have=
 the chance to post in
haste and repent at leisure:

***

Hello all. I read the exchange here first=2C then went looking for Lewis' p=
iece and found=2C rather than
the piece of cheap tabloid sensationalism I'd been led to expect=2C a long=
=2C reasoned=2C intelligent
article clearly backed up by extensive researches. Who's misrepresenting wh=
o here?=20

Higgie understandably alights on the very small bit of Lewis' piece that pe=
rtains to Frieze=2C but
then=2C indefensibly=2C blows this up into a smear of the entire piece and =
the man =96 in doing so=2C
leading a largely unified charge from her cohorts. It starts in her first p=
aragraph. Lewis does not
[confuse and conflate] 'market forces with what is actually being produced =
on the complex and
multi-layered stage that comprises the contemporary art world' =96 his enti=
re piece is about market
forces as they play themselves out in this decidedly idiosyncratic and unre=
gulated context. To call
this a perpetuation of 'the kind of anti-intellectual resentment against ar=
t that is usually to be
found in the tabloids' isn't just conflation=3B it's a pure act of the imag=
ination. Higgie objects to
Lewis=92 demonology leaving out some notional honour-role of art world sain=
ts=2C which is silly =96 this
was journalism=2C not a May-Day parade =96 but also unfair given that a sta=
ted part of Lewis=92 concern is
that the dubious machinations of the market are harming talented artists. S=
he suggests Lewis seems
not to have read the magazine=2C but one can=92t help wonder how carefully =
she read his piece before
launching her broadside. Dan Fox=2C with his generalised sneering at the pr=
ess=92 myopia on the art
world=2C looks like an even less close reader.

The pity of it is=2C Higgie might have a point if she could only zero in on=
 it. Lewis is undoubtedly
guilty of conflation: without=2C perhaps=2C quite being libellous=2C he imp=
lies a failure of journalistic
objectivity caused by vested interests =96 a serious charge=2C backed up by=
 only the flimsiest and most
ambiguous of circumstantial evidence. Still=2C that evidence is a charge in=
 itself and one with which
I=92m in sympathy: the criticism in Frieze just ain=92t very critical.=20

In the surprisingly vicious swelling of the ranks that follows=2C it=92s he=
artening to see that=2C on this
point at least=2C the Frieze contingent are not completely of one mind. Hig=
gie baldly refutes the
allegation=2C stating=2C =91Reviews are often critical=92=2C then hits out =
with another swipe=2C =91but unlike
Lewis=2C we back up our criticisms with facts=92 =96 cheap given that she d=
oesn=92t back this statement
itself up with anything at all and given Lewis=92 extensive weight of concr=
ete material on art world
wheelings and dealings=2C though fair enough on the single material point o=
f Frieze=92s objectivity or
lack of it.  The negativity Higgie claims for =91some reviews=92=2C meanwhi=
le=2C will no doubt be of
editorial concern to Dan Fox=2C who sees the criticality of criticism as ju=
st so yesterday: =91Criticism
is not just about being negative or positive =96 the old-fashioned connoiss=
eur-critic presiding in
judgement over the worth of a given artwork=92.=20

And=2C actually=2C except for its oddly arrogant sense of history (when was=
 serious criticism ever just
about being negative or positive?) who=92d quibble with a statement like th=
is? Well=2C it=92s all about
context. No=2C criticism isn=92t just about negative or positive=2C but=2C =
in Frieze=2C when is it ever about
the former? I used to read the magazine at art college and just after quick=
ly fell away in boredom
and have been checking in periodically ever since to see if the situation=
=92s changed=3B which=2C up to
the present crop of reviews=2C which I=92ve just had a look at=2C it appare=
ntly hasn=92t. If=2C as Higgie
seems to claim=2C there is often negative criticality here=2C why=2C since =
it became possible to interact
with the online version=2C have the reviews provoked almost no debate at al=
l? Couldn=92t be because
there=92s nothing much there to contend with could it? Well=2C that=92s how=
 it=92s always felt to me.=20

I don=92t think it=92s mean-mindedness or even anger that makes me want a b=
it more aggression in my art
criticism. About the worst charge you could level at me is a na=EFve attach=
ment to the analytical
force of the dialectic. Well=2C hey=2C it=92s always worked for me. I also =
think negativity=92s making this
particular Frieze thread a lot more piquantly readable than most of the oth=
ers=2C even if the critical
knives have only come out in response to a foreign body intruding criticall=
y. Besides=2C if subjective
identifications of the negative and positive are good enough for Greenberg=
=2C Judd=2C Krauss and=2C hey=2C
Searle=2C whose perhaps hastily penned position here is the most surprising=
 part of this fracas=2C then
pension me out and call me old fashioned.=20

The point is=2C Lewis=92 charge=2C however poorly substantiated=2C feels pl=
ausible because Frieze=92s
glassy-eyed absence of criticality looks corrupted even if it=92s not. I do=
n=92t know what=92s behind the
policy of excluding negativity=2C if policy it is=2C and I wouldn=92t be in=
 anything like Lewis=92 hurry to
blame filthy lucre=2C but it sure looks like a love in for an in-crowd. Who=
 knows? Perhaps it=92s like
that because of the concern Higgie evinces for the art types who have it so=
 damn hard. Whatever it
is=2C if actively negative criticality is being actively discouraged=2C tha=
t=92s an unusually controlling
and numbing blanket editorial directive. Sorry if this seems a cheap shot=
=2C but I=92m thinking Pravda.
As Jasper Joffe indicates above=2C there are a hell of a lot of us out here=
=2C most of whom probably
fall into the =91have it so damn hard=92 category=2C who feel alienated and=
 bored by this kind of thing.=20

Searle=2C while professing not to be bothered by art world corruption (alri=
ght=2C so I=92m not sure how
seriously to take this)=2C objects that Lewis=92 findings are not new. Well=
=2C maybe not to you=2C Adrian.
Until a week or so ago when someone told me about similar trading activitie=
s to those Lewis
describes=2C I knew nothing about this =96 and I=92d be surprised if most r=
eaders of the Evening Standard
did either. Bank used to talk about the art world money obsession=2C of cou=
rse=2C identifying a giant
elephant in the room that no one else seemed to want to talk about (as Matt=
hew Collings pointed
out)=2C and now Lewis=2C in his rather different way=2C has done it too. Wh=
y=2C exactly=2C shouldn=92t we see
more of this and why should art world publications be so reluctant to enter=
 into it? And why should
Lewis=2C for having the temerity to turn over the rock=2C be castigated wit=
h so little nuance if he
hasn=92t got his taxonomy of the squirming life beneath it absolutely right=
?=20

Fox implies that it=92s because this kind of critique is never about anythi=
ng but a validation of the
public=92s philistinism: =91Charles Saatchi and Nicholas Serota are frequen=
tly mentioned in the same
breath=2C as if they are high priests of a shadowy crypto-Masonic sect who =
meet to decide who=92s in and
who=92s out=2C what is validated as art and what is not. Money is the centr=
al topic of discussion =96
record auction prices=2C is such-and-such a piece of sculpture really worth=
 the six-figure sum paid
for it =96 not enquiry into why an artist made something the way they did=
=2C what their ideas are=2C where
they=92re coming from.=92 None of this is material to Lewis=2C who has exte=
nsive experience of talking
about contemporary art=2C clearly likes a lot of it and doesn=92t engage in=
 any of this populist
conspiracy theorising in his piece. Strange. Make no mistake=2C I=92m not c=
onspiracy theorising either =96
just pondering the odd phenomenon of defensiveness making its proponents lo=
ok even worse. Why are
they panicking=2C ordinary people will say=2C these effete Frieze people. O=
r would if they bothered to
read any of this. Why are they being so haughtily nasty?

I remember what it felt like myself when I still bought the idea that the s=
lightest negativity about
contemporary art was somehow a threat to all tolerance and complexity of th=
ought. Contemporary art
is a tough sell and often subject to unfair brickbats and this does instill=
 an almost cultish bunker
mentality. But actually=2C of course=2C this mentality is a failure of comp=
lexity in itself and
encourages more than its own fair portion of BS. No surprise that a magazin=
e that eschews negativity
in general wouldn=92t have its bullshit detector turned on.=20

=20
 		 	   		 =20
_________________________________________________________________
Send us your Hotmail stories and be featured in our newsletter
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/=

--_e43badce-e220-4492-abe3-0dd43868265c_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt=3B
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'>
<FONT face=3DTahoma>Hello Critic=2C</FONT><BR>
<FONT face=3DTahoma></FONT>&nbsp=3B<BR>
<A href=3D"http://www.worldwidereview.com"><FONT face=3DTahoma>worlwiderevi=
ew</FONT></A><FONT face=3DTahoma>&nbsp=3Bis pleased to present 5 highlights=
 from over 20=2C000 reviews from the last 10 years.</FONT><BR>
<FONT face=3DTahoma></FONT>&nbsp=3B<BR>
<SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma=3B FONT-SIZE: 10pt=3B FONT-WEIGHT: 400">=
Founded in 2000 to cover art shows that never got a review and to expand th=
e scope and nature of criticism=2C Worldwidereview is now the number one si=
te for art and culture reviews in the world. We have a mix of open submissi=
ons and regular reviewers=2C with no restriction on subject but&nbsp=3Bwith=
 a focus on contemporary art. Browse our archive of over 20=2C000 reviews f=
rom the last 10 years at <A href=3D"http://www.worldwidereview.com">www.wor=
ldwidereview.com</A> </SPAN><BR>
<SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma=3B FONT-SIZE: 10pt=3B FONT-WEIGHT: 400">=
</SPAN>&nbsp=3B<BR>
<SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma=3B FONT-SIZE: 10pt=3B FONT-WEIGHT: 400">=
We hope you enjoy the new worldwidereview and continue to read and write re=
views. Being critical makes things better.</SPAN><BR>
<SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma=3B FONT-SIZE: 10pt=3B FONT-WEIGHT: 400">=
</SPAN>&nbsp=3B<BR>
<SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma=3B FONT-SIZE: 10pt=3B FONT-WEIGHT: 400">=
best wishes <BR>Rudi and Jasper</SPAN><BR>
<SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma=3B FONT-SIZE: 10pt=3B FONT-WEIGHT: 400">=
</SPAN>&nbsp=3B<BR><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma=3B FONT-SIZE: 10pt=3B=
 FONT-WEIGHT: 400">
<H2><FONT size=3D2>Suicide note to the British Art Establishment on the occ=
asion of "How to improve&nbsp=3B the world" 60 years of the Arts Council Co=
llection at the Hayward</FONT></H2><!--webbot bot=3D"FormInsertHere" --><PR=
E>From:     Robert Shell
Category: Art
Date:     07 September 2006
Time:     08:29 AM

Review:

I kill myself because of the British Art Establishment.

60 years of British Art disinterred from the Arts Council Collection and gr=
imly entitled "How to Improve=20
the World"=2C like the ghastly double-speak of state power: Guantanamo prot=
ects freedom. Arbeit=20
Macht Frei.

The longest queue was for where they were serving sponsored pies. Starving =
graying YBAs crushing=20
and trampling and gouging each other in a frantic effort to get their canni=
bal hands on some pastry=20
containing the ground-up remains of failed artists and the gravy of their p=
athetic dreams.=20

A man=2C a moustache=2C an adminstrator=2C and art bureaucrat=2C Sir Christ=
oper Frayling=2C MBE=2C order of the=20
garter etc=2C made some tedious remarks boomed out on speakers=2C while the=
 crowd of notables and=20
art school lecturers stood in obsequious quietude. The new director=2C Mr R=
alph Rugoff=2C modest in=20
crumpled American academic garb=2C said some other boring nothing words=2C =
and the daring world-=20
changing brilliant talents of shocking Art Britain=2C the world's greatest =
art superpower=2C stood around=20
respectfully daringly waiting to get there hands on more free drinks and pi=
es.=20

This is it baby=2C the centre of it all. These people in all their thrillin=
g diversity represent most of what is=20
happening. Look a man in a dress! Look sour-faced old Nick Serota! Look a q=
ueue of people to get=20
IN and a women with clipboards keeping uninvited scum rif-raff OUT.

Look at this art: an Ian Davenport and Lucien Freud=2C a Hockney done at co=
llege=2C a Sarah Lucas and=20
a tatty Damien Hirst=2C a Doig and Ophili=2C the painty double act=2C some =
people you haven't heard of=2C that=20
guy Titchner who's up for the TP=2C Bob&amp=3BRoberta Smith has made a funn=
y sign out of bits of old wood=2C=20
ha ha! A bucket by Craig-Martin.  This is the best. This is art. This will =
be remembered. If you're not=20
here=2C you haven't made it. You're just a feeble art student. This great a=
rt is not that great=2C however=2C=20
unfortunately=2C sorry to tell you.

Some of the artists have even brought their gallerists (did you know that g=
allerist is not even an official=20
word)=2C a fine bunch of coiffeured specimens=2C make sure you don't tread =
on their toes=2C and don't even=20
speak to them=2C they don't like to be bothered by artists. Some gallerists=
 have even brought their=20
artists=2C and don't bother them either=2C they are busy talking to someone=
 who might give them a grant or=20
be on a committee that will buy their work=2C busy with sacred business.

I kill myself because of the British Art Establishment.=20

Because the only thing that matters is success (something I am economizing =
on) which is defined by=20
success which is defined by success=2C which is what matters.

Because a small group of mediocrities is pumped up by reviews=2C scholarshi=
ps=2C prizes=2C attention=2C=20
money=2C collectors=2C and galleries=2C while I watch flaccid. The whole sy=
stem=2C art school=2C funding bodies=2C=20
institutions=2C galleries etc is staffed by the dumbos=2C the asslickers=2C=
 the turgid bores=2C the hard core self-
promoters=2C the cynical=2C the insanely determined. They fly ever higher=
=2C while I stunted=2C die.</PRE><PRE>Because these people define success=
=2C and I won't ask them for a favour. Because it's not a conspiracy=2C
just a bunch of people doing what's best for themselves. Because when I was=
 a child=2C I thought art was being a=20
genius=2C like Picasso or Matisse=2C not ass-licking in the pub or going to=
 the right party. Because those in charge
are boring and I can't be friends with them.

It's true that history is for winners=2C and I am a loser. Daring dreams=2C=
 bold art=2C rebellion/revolution are=20
slogans for knowing artists to turn into ironic posters=2C please stop taki=
ng them seriously.

I kill myself because the British Art Establishment have established an agg=
ressive culture of success=20
based on a few bureaucrats=2C a few collectors=2C a few galleries=2C and a =
few artists that matter. Too few=20
for me.
</PRE>
<H2><FONT size=3D2>Frieze Art Fair 2004 London<BR>Reviews</FONT></H2><!--we=
bbot BOT=3D"FormInsertHere"
DESCR=3D"The FrontPage FormInsertHere Component indicates the point in an H=
TML file where you want a default=2C Registration=2C or Discussion Componen=
t to insert new results."
-->
<B>From: </B>Rachel Adams<BR><B>Category: </B>Exhibitions<BR><B>Date: </B>1=
4 October 2004<BR><BR>
<H3><FONT size=3D2>Review</FONT></H3>
<A href=3D"http://www.friezeartfair.com/">http://www.friezeartfair.com/</A>=
=20
<P>Jamie Theakston (English tv presenter with a desirable nose) was there=
=2C so don't stare=2C he's quite plain and badly dressed in a purple coat. =
The fair is the unspeakeable (collectors=2C hangers on) in pursuit of the i=
nedible (lots of bad paintings and dull photos). Occasionaly something jump=
s out from the morass of bog standard contemporary artifice=2C a few Andy W=
arhol drawings of cats=2C an Albert Oehlen painting=2C a little Matisse. It=
's dazzling the difference between what is good and all the rest. Makes you=
 wonder whether those old buffs were right about their value hierarchies. N=
ow the only diffentiation is between the various repulsive levels of person=
al success and respect to be obtained: vips=2C super vips=2C gallerists=2C =
celebs=2C important people=2C famous artists=2C those with special passes=
=2C those that shall not queue=2C those that walk along thinking others wil=
l move out their way=2C humble uninvited people who wait outside for reentr=
y tickets to be discarded=2C the beautiful=2C the ugly=2C the rich=2C and t=
he poor (not just artists).=20
<P>That's the fun of this glorious bright yellow fair in the greeen cold tr=
eey park. It's a spectacle of society=2C and not for seekers of metaphysica=
l greatness or sympathetic humans.<BR><!--webbot BOT=3D"Include"
U-Include=3D"../_shared_elements/comment_on_this_review.htm" startspan --><=
/SPAN>
<SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma=3B FONT-SIZE: 10pt=3B FONT-WEIGHT: 400">=
</SPAN>&nbsp=3B<BR><SPAN style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma=3B FONT-SIZE: 10pt=3B=
 FONT-WEIGHT: 400">
<B><FONT face=3DTahoma>Probably the first review ever written on WWR</FONT>=
</B><BR>
<H2><FONT face=3DTahoma><FONT size=3D2>The Signorelli Frescoes in Orvieto C=
athedral=2C Italy<BR></FONT><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: 400"><BR></SPAN></F=
ONT><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: 400"><FONT face=3DTahoma><BR><FONT size=3D2=
>The doors of the Cathedral look good I thought=2C as we stood in the sunsh=
ine in Orvieto before lunch. I asked my friend when he thought they had bee=
n made=2C expecting to hear they were precociosly modern examples of 16th c=
entury art. I was told probably the 60s. How careless of me. I expect alway=
s to be surprised by everthing and don't bother to think most of the time. =
The Signorelli frescoes=2C begun in 1499=2C are surprising in that anachron=
istic way. They are full of naked muscley men and women. The women have fir=
m=2C very protruberant breasts and one of the men has one of the most reali=
stic penises I have ever seen in an old fresco=2Cto go with his disconcerti=
ngly long aging hippy hair. There are skeletons=2C and demons=2C and people=
 with their heads cut off=2C and everyone or thing has textbook anatomy=2C =
calf muscles which no amount of step aerobics would give you=2C and spines =
practically bursting out of their skins. If you saw this kind of thing in a=
 kitsch bar/restaurant you wouldn't think twice=2C but in a gothic Cathedra=
l you marvel at its invention and bravura.In contast the main hall=2C the C=
entral Nave in Cathedralese=2C is not highly decorated=2C and the walls are=
 mainy just cool stone in stripes of dirty white and charcoal=2Cgray blue. =
Simple and a relief for puritans who hate overdecorated churches=2C but the=
 simplicity is pompous in its own way. I wonder what we are doing in these =
places=2C looking for kitsch frescoes and grandiose simplicity. Meeting our=
 tedious expectations=2C or boning up on architectural terminology=2C biogr=
aphy=2C guide books. Why do we give a shit? It is all entertaining enough=
=2C and as good as the lunch we had sitting on a terrace alone in the sunsh=
ine=2C but it is a lot different from the vitality that produced massive ca=
thredals and ridiculous frescoes=2C and towns like Orvieto all over Italy. =
It=2C is the entertainment of the tourist=2C the restaurant snob=2C and the=
 lazy bourgeois. </FONT></FONT></SPAN></H2>
<H2><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: 400">
<H2><FONT size=3D2>Ekow Eshun new ICA director<BR>Reviews</FONT></H2><FONT =
size=3D2>&nbsp=3B <B>From: </B>arts news<BR><B>Category: </B>Art<BR><B>Date=
: </B>13 March 2005<BR>&nbsp=3B</FONT>
<FONT size=3D2>So he was the youngest ever editor of a men's magazine.. Tha=
t's meant to be a great achievement. Men's magazines are full of superficia=
l crap and edited by nobody you've ever heard of. He also edited Virgin's i=
nflight magazine! Wadda brain he must have.. He has been on the Late Review=
=2C where he articulates some opinions about art etc. The ICA is shit=2C an=
d on paper Ekow Eshun has the CV to run it into the ground.</FONT><BR>
<H2><FONT size=3D2>Frieze debate redux</FONT></H2><!--webbot BOT=3D"FormIns=
ertHere" --><PRE><FONT size=3D2>From:     blp
Category: Art
Date:     05 February 2008
Time:     02:29 PM

Review:

http://www.frieze.com/comment/article/con_man/

They didn't run my response and wouldn't communicate with me about why (or =
about anything)=2C though I
emailed them to ask. It could be a glitch=2C but I now can't post in that t=
hread at all.=20

Oh well. Here's what I wrote=2C just slightly tidied up since I didn't have=
 the chance to post in
haste and repent at leisure:

***

Hello all. I read the exchange here first=2C then went looking for Lewis' p=
iece and found=2C rather than
the piece of cheap tabloid sensationalism I'd been led to expect=2C a long=
=2C reasoned=2C intelligent
article clearly backed up by extensive researches. Who's misrepresenting wh=
o here?=20

Higgie understandably alights on the very small bit of Lewis' piece that pe=
rtains to Frieze=2C but
then=2C indefensibly=2C blows this up into a smear of the entire piece and =
the man =96 in doing so=2C
leading a largely unified charge from her cohorts. It starts in her first p=
aragraph. Lewis does not
[confuse and conflate] 'market forces with what is actually being produced =
on the complex and
multi-layered stage that comprises the contemporary art world' =96 his enti=
re piece is about market
forces as they play themselves out in this decidedly idiosyncratic and unre=
gulated context. To call
this a perpetuation of 'the kind of anti-intellectual resentment against ar=
t that is usually to be
found in the tabloids' isn't just conflation=3B it's a pure act of the imag=
ination. Higgie objects to
Lewis=92 demonology leaving out some notional honour-role of art world sain=
ts=2C which is silly =96 this
was journalism=2C not a May-Day parade =96 but also unfair given that a sta=
ted part of Lewis=92 concern is
that the dubious machinations of the market are harming talented artists. S=
he suggests Lewis seems
not to have read the magazine=2C but one can=92t help wonder how carefully =
she read his piece before
launching her broadside. Dan Fox=2C with his generalised sneering at the pr=
ess=92 myopia on the art
world=2C looks like an even less close reader.

The pity of it is=2C Higgie might have a point if she could only zero in on=
 it. Lewis is undoubtedly
guilty of conflation: without=2C perhaps=2C quite being libellous=2C he imp=
lies a failure of journalistic
objectivity caused by vested interests =96 a serious charge=2C backed up by=
 only the flimsiest and most
ambiguous of circumstantial evidence. Still=2C that evidence is a charge in=
 itself and one with which
I=92m in sympathy: the criticism in Frieze just ain=92t very critical.=20

In the surprisingly vicious swelling of the ranks that follows=2C it=92s he=
artening to see that=2C on this
point at least=2C the Frieze contingent are not completely of one mind. Hig=
gie baldly refutes the
allegation=2C stating=2C =91Reviews are often critical=92=2C then hits out =
with another swipe=2C =91but unlike
Lewis=2C we back up our criticisms with facts=92 =96 cheap given that she d=
oesn=92t back this statement
itself up with anything at all and given Lewis=92 extensive weight of concr=
ete material on art world
wheelings and dealings=2C though fair enough on the single material point o=
f Frieze=92s objectivity or
lack of it.  The negativity Higgie claims for =91some reviews=92=2C meanwhi=
le=2C will no doubt be of
editorial concern to Dan Fox=2C who sees the criticality of criticism as ju=
st so yesterday: =91Criticism
is not just about being negative or positive =96 the old-fashioned connoiss=
eur-critic presiding in
judgement over the worth of a given artwork=92.=20

And=2C actually=2C except for its oddly arrogant sense of history (when was=
 serious criticism ever just
about being negative or positive?) who=92d quibble with a statement like th=
is? Well=2C it=92s all about
context. No=2C criticism isn=92t just about negative or positive=2C but=2C =
in Frieze=2C when is it ever about
the former? I used to read the magazine at art college and just after quick=
ly fell away in boredom
and have been checking in periodically ever since to see if the situation=
=92s changed=3B which=2C up to
the present crop of reviews=2C which I=92ve just had a look at=2C it appare=
ntly hasn=92t. If=2C as Higgie
seems to claim=2C there is often negative criticality here=2C why=2C since =
it became possible to interact
with the online version=2C have the reviews provoked almost no debate at al=
l? Couldn=92t be because
there=92s nothing much there to contend with could it? Well=2C that=92s how=
 it=92s always felt to me.=20

I don=92t think it=92s mean-mindedness or even anger that makes me want a b=
it more aggression in my art
criticism. About the worst charge you could level at me is a na=EFve attach=
ment to the analytical
force of the dialectic. Well=2C hey=2C it=92s always worked for me. I also =
think negativity=92s making this
particular Frieze thread a lot more piquantly readable than most of the oth=
ers=2C even if the critical
knives have only come out in response to a foreign body intruding criticall=
y. Besides=2C if subjective
identifications of the negative and positive are good enough for Greenberg=
=2C Judd=2C Krauss and=2C hey=2C
Searle=2C whose perhaps hastily penned position here is the most surprising=
 part of this fracas=2C then
pension me out and call me old fashioned.=20

The point is=2C Lewis=92 charge=2C however poorly substantiated=2C feels pl=
ausible because Frieze=92s
glassy-eyed absence of criticality looks corrupted even if it=92s not. I do=
n=92t know what=92s behind the
policy of excluding negativity=2C if policy it is=2C and I wouldn=92t be in=
 anything like Lewis=92 hurry to
blame filthy lucre=2C but it sure looks like a love in for an in-crowd. Who=
 knows? Perhaps it=92s like
that because of the concern Higgie evinces for the art types who have it so=
 damn hard. Whatever it
is=2C if actively negative criticality is being actively discouraged=2C tha=
t=92s an unusually controlling
and numbing blanket editorial directive. Sorry if this seems a cheap shot=
=2C but I=92m thinking Pravda.
As Jasper Joffe indicates above=2C there are a hell of a lot of us out here=
=2C most of whom probably
fall into the =91have it so damn hard=92 category=2C who feel alienated and=
 bored by this kind of thing.=20

Searle=2C while professing not to be bothered by art world corruption (alri=
ght=2C so I=92m not sure how
seriously to take this)=2C objects that Lewis=92 findings are not new. Well=
=2C maybe not to you=2C Adrian.
Until a week or so ago when someone told me about similar trading activitie=
s to those Lewis
describes=2C I knew nothing about this =96 and I=92d be surprised if most r=
eaders of the Evening Standard
did either. Bank used to talk about the art world money obsession=2C of cou=
rse=2C identifying a giant
elephant in the room that no one else seemed to want to talk about (as Matt=
hew Collings pointed
out)=2C and now Lewis=2C in his rather different way=2C has done it too. Wh=
y=2C exactly=2C shouldn=92t we see
more of this and why should art world publications be so reluctant to enter=
 into it? And why should
Lewis=2C for having the temerity to turn over the rock=2C be castigated wit=
h so little nuance if he
hasn=92t got his taxonomy of the squirming life beneath it absolutely right=
?=20

Fox implies that it=92s because this kind of critique is never about anythi=
ng but a validation of the
public=92s philistinism: =91Charles Saatchi and Nicholas Serota are frequen=
tly mentioned in the same
breath=2C as if they are high priests of a shadowy crypto-Masonic sect who =
meet to decide who=92s in and
who=92s out=2C what is validated as art and what is not. Money is the centr=
al topic of discussion =96
record auction prices=2C is such-and-such a piece of sculpture really worth=
 the six-figure sum paid
for it =96 not enquiry into why an artist made something the way they did=
=2C what their ideas are=2C where
they=92re coming from.=92 None of this is material to Lewis=2C who has exte=
nsive experience of talking
about contemporary art=2C clearly likes a lot of it and doesn=92t engage in=
 any of this populist
conspiracy theorising in his piece. Strange. Make no mistake=2C I=92m not c=
onspiracy theorising either =96
just pondering the odd phenomenon of defensiveness making its proponents lo=
ok even worse. Why are
they panicking=2C ordinary people will say=2C these effete Frieze people. O=
r would if they bothered to
read any of this. Why are they being so haughtily nasty?

I remember what it felt like myself when I still bought the idea that the s=
lightest negativity about
contemporary art was somehow a threat to all tolerance and complexity of th=
ought. Contemporary art
is a tough sell and often subject to unfair brickbats and this does instill=
 an almost cultish bunker
mentality. But actually=2C of course=2C this mentality is a failure of comp=
lexity in itself and
encourages more than its own fair portion of BS. No surprise that a magazin=
e that eschews negativity
in general wouldn=92t have its bullshit detector turned on.=20
</FONT></PRE><!--webbot BOT=3D"Include" U-Include=3D"../_shared_elements/co=
mment_on_this_review.htm" startspan -->
<FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp=3B<BR></SPAN></H2></SPAN> 		 	   		  <br /><hr =
/>Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? <a href=3D'http://clk.atdmt.=
com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/' target=3D'_new'>Tell us now</a></body>
</html>=

--_e43badce-e220-4492-abe3-0dd43868265c_--

