this all sounds very unlikely - guards (no matter how rich the institution) do not get severance they get un-employment insurance - administrators with contracts get severance
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:15 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > The thing I didn't understand, and perhaps William can explain it,he > became a guard ar the Dia Art Foundation in Chelsea,possibly in the > late nineties. When Dia closed its Chelsea space in 2004," his > severance pay was generous enough to allow him to continue renting an > East Village studio and apartment without having to look for another > job." Is this the usual thing-get a job at a nonprofit display space > and if they have to close you get ample severance? > Kate Sullivan > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Conger <[email protected]> > To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Sep 30, 2012 4:42 pm > Subject: Re: today NYT > > Fine, Chris, I'm not going to argue with you. My friend John Miller > does not > feel slighted, I'm sure. His attitude may be similar to your own. Yet > I always > detect a bitter tone in your comments. That's different from just > being damned > mad. > > I don't quite get your comment about taxes. But it always puts me on > high alert > when someone gets upset about taxes going for art or artists. Lately, > people > here who hate taxes tend to be those who should be paying a lot more. A > lot > more! They scream against 'redistribution' but moving capital away > from > concentrated and non-useful pools of wealth is exactly what is central > to > democracy, and good for economic health as well. > > I don't think the true-blue sincere artists examine the market and look > around > for gaps to fill or plan to adjust their work to some perceived notion > of what > might sell. They are obsessed with some idea and need to work with it. > The > point of my comment about Wade was that he did his thing for his own > reasons and > someone, a curator, etc., decided it fit what they were projecting as > the next > step. Artists, if they're lucky and good, find a way of working that's > right > for them. If someone notices, fine; if not, annoying but also fine or > OK over > the long haul. > > I think the American power class is doing better than ever. Super-Rich > idiots > are filling the cultural space. If the name of the game when it comes > to power > is the freedom and wealth to do just as one pleases, to be both > political and > economic anarchists, the American big shots are winners. I like > Canada, or I > should say Canadas, but I sure get sick of the holier than thou > attitude that > comes down from there. > > The best and worst thing about America is that its made up of many very > different cultures and values, each contentiously trying to claim the > American > Myth for itself. The Myth fits none of them. It fits Hollywood and > 1950s TV and > pulp literature. > > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: caldwell-brobeck <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sun, September 30, 2012 3:10:08 PM > Subject: Re: today NYT > > Re. Wade Guyton at the Whitney, I guess my own take on it would be "So > what?" If John Miller (whoever he is) feels slighted because he was > really there first, maybe he should find a more personal form of > expression, and stop playing in the pool where talent and skill mean > so little. Or maybe he should just get better at pulling strings. The > only thing that would really bother me is if it was being paid for > with taxpayer dollars, but I don't pay American taxes (well, not very > much), so it's not my problem. > > I think there are a lot of things in life one just can't do very much > about - in this case the decline of the American power class, > symbolized by the art they seem to enjoy, and the art establishment > that caters to them. Canada is only a few steps behind. But there are > things in life one can do to make it richer and more satisfying, and > one builds art on that. > > Today, I spent a lovely afternoon with a delightful model I haven't > seen since May; tomorrow I continue on a series with a friend who has > been going through breast cancer treatment; later in the week it's > work with a couple of performers from the Halifax Circus. I'll never > be rich off this (but I'll survive), and I'll never be famous, but I > am content with the way the work is progressing, with the techniques > and ideas I am exploring, and I am very happy with the people I work > with. Whether some big money curator somewhere decides what I do is, > or is not, art, is entirely irrelevant. What is important is whether I > can create something that means something of value to those around me. > > Cheers; > Chris > > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 4:14 PM, William Conger > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> No, my point is that he's not a sculptor, no matter how a monument is >> > made, > >> until someone else, a curator with status abd power, says so. The >> Institutional >> Theory. >> wc >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sun, September 30, 2012 1:35:19 PM >> Subject: Re: today NYT >> >> Today "ANYONE "can create a bronze monument, any size,of anything >> in a few >> weeks or months, and be called a sculptor, if he can cover the cost. >> >> AB >> ______________________________**__ >> From: William Conger >> <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Sunday, >> September 30, 2012 8:11 AM >> Subject: today NYT >> >> Take a look at today's NYT >> article on Wade Gayton. He's having a solo show at >> the Whitney. He doesn't >> paint or draw but makes 'paintings' by computer, >> printing out images he takes >> from everyday print ephemera. The curator of the >> show says "Wade speaks to >> the way images travel across out visual culture -- on >> our computers, Iphones, >> televisions and books". Please note the art-speak. >> What the curator could >> have said in ordinary language is, "Wade copies images >> from popular culture >> on his big digital printer". >> >> My point here is that we shouldn't blame the >> artists for doing transgressive >> stuff or making what seems to be silly, >> vacant art. There are always artists >> who are doing every sort of stuff but >> we never hear about them because no one is >> paying them any attention at all. >> It's the gatekeepers, the curators, who pick >> and choose artists through the >> templates of confabulatedart-speak. When the >> curator says, "Wade speaks", he >> implies that Wade has a thoroughly >> intellectualized or analyzed position, a >> stance, from which he issues a >> philosophy of culture and visuality. It's >> phony. Wade himself says he never >> liked drawing and thinks painting is too >> hard (acting out his inner Warhol). But >> admitting a slacker attitude as an >> artist is exactly the key, the push-button, >> to provoke intense concentration >> by the curator. But Wade really simply copies >> images from papers and >> magazines, book endpapers and the like according to whim. >> His fancy printer >> can blow them up to gargantuan scale (extremism at work) and >> the curator can >> present this ephemera as high art (extremism of intentional >> conceptual >> re-contextualization). >> >> There's an artist here in Chicago, John Miller, who >> has been doing similar >> computer and big digital printer art for several >> years. Few have seen this work >> outside of colleague artists. No Whitney >> curator has called. No big collectors >> are pasting his stuff to their dining >> room walls on Park Avenue. The article on >> Gayton makes it pretty clear that >> he has changed the course of painting! No, >> the curator is trying to redefine >> painting and Gayton came to his attention and >> thus exemplifies what the >> curator has already decided is the 'next inevitable >> step' (a Greenberg >> phrase, I believe). Meanwhile John Miller piles up hundreds >> of huge digital >> 'paintings' done before Gayton bought his first pair of trendy >> red tennis >> shoes, that curators ignore. The curators make art, not the artists. >> The >> artists and their work are merely the specimens the curatorial >> > creativity, > >> the footsoldiers used by imperialist, unaccountable curators. You go, >> > Wade! > >> wc >> > > -- S a u l O s t r o w *C r i t i c a l V o i c e s* 21STREET PROJECTS 162 West 21 St NYC, NY 10011 [email protected]
