Como yo veo las cosas, como yo veo las cosas
Como yo veo las cosas, yo las veo diferente a los demas
If I gave myself, as an Austin-based sometimes-blogger, just 5 minutes to compile a Top 10 list for 2011 of “most exciting cultural moments” presented “in no particular order“:
- Eyes Got It! Group Hug @ Pump Project Satellite Space, Feb-Mar 2011
- Hybrid Arts Summit @ various, Apr 2011
- Eyes Got It! 2011 @ EAST, Nov 2011
- My visit to NUDASHANK Gallery in Baltimore, Jun 2011
- My visit to ICA Boston, Oct 2011
Maybe a couple of shows that I did see and enjoy, lets say 3 of them. But all within the last 6 months.
Then 1 show from the beginning of the year.
Is this acceptable?
I know that I am in the minority regarding arts writers reviewing their artist friends, conflict of interest, etc. according to the roundtable discussion I organized as part of the Hybrid Arts Summit. But I thought it was a poor decision for Glasstire’s Austin blogger, Katie Geha, to end 2011/begin 2012 with such a dismissive list.
I’d prefer if a critic didn’t see 10 things they liked, they’d say “I didn’t see 10 things I liked this year in my town.”
I’ll tell you ’bout what I sees.
'Bout What I Sees 
Top ten lists are kind of silly because everyone is going to disagree with them. But I guess that is the nature of critique of the arts, and what makes art so great is what makes it so hard to write about. I did really like Wayne Alan Brenner’s list, maybe because his tastes are more like mine, but also because he included theater and he gave shout outs to events and galleries that are consistently bringing it, and also to Jamie Panzer’s show which was solid. His show at Big Medium was like a breath of fresh air to me as was Jules Buck Jones’ show at Champion and it is a crime to me that no one mentioned that one. As for the conflict of interest, that is tough. I am quite the contrarian though, so I welcome healthy disagreements.
I really enjoy Jules Buck Jones’ work. But his gallery shows always make me feel like he is holding back. Like he needs to cut loose when he is with his Boozefox buddies.
This was my first introduction to his work, so I am just taking it at face value. Although if he did let loose a little more that would be even more amazing, I have to assume that it probably has a lot to do with venue. In the space of a commercial gallery, you have to give them something commercial and I think something that fits in with their aesthetic. They do seem to value their white there…..
I wasn’t so annoyed that there were non-Texas shows listed. Except the odds of the reader saying, “yeah, that was good.” were slim to none. The thing about “friends” and criticism is that I have seen/heard plenty of great art from people who are jerks. Likewise, there are some genuinely great people, who’s work leaves me unchanged. If I have beers with someone, I am going to know a lot about their artwork beyond what is physically there. If I read a lot about someone, scroll through interviews with them, I am going to come to their artwork with a base knowledge. There is essentially nothing wrong with this, but don’t act like the “art stands on its own.” Because once you know all that other stuff, you have no idea what the art would be like without it. And it makes it bad criticism to attempt to compare this artwork to the artwork of the person I don’t know, don’t read up on, don’t pick their brain. I think that a critic should learn as much as they can about an artist that they review as possible (it’s called research) but should make this a rule for all the work that they review. And if they like the artist too, that’s human nature. Of course people who know an artist’s whole body of work are going to be able to understand the placement of new work in it. If I only know the work in front of me, it is all I have to go on. Apples to oranges.