Apparently Not wasn’t aware of who ezimmerman is. His contributions include Glasstire and ArtLies and of course, his own blog. Even though I’ve been slacking, I started out writing reviews. Since then, I’ve found people online who write, review, critique or just plain discuss art in Austin.
DIY is in full effect. At least, I think it is. I understand this call for better “art criticism” but I’m also confused. We want better criticism, but it seems like we’re holding our collective breath until the newspapers provide us with what we want? Is that the right way to go? I mean, what about Austinist? Shouldn’t they be pressured to provide something more than just the occasional listing and Mr. Uhlir’s photography? And what about Austin Monthly or Tribeza? Do they get a free pass because they’re monthly publications?
And what of the audience? Right now, I feel we’re kinda incestuous. Look at the bylines of any art publication and you will be able to cross reference Austin names with other categories. I already mentioned Zimmerman’s contributions. Another artist Mr. Rios writes for …might be good and is a staffer at Okay Mountain. Independent curator, Ms. Douberley, was the curator at Gallery 3, co-curated the summer MFA shows, writes for the Chronicle and has written for
ArtLies, Glasstire, and I believe …mbg. The same can be said about Ms. Puleo. Director of the now defunct Donkey Show, curator at testsite, editor at ..mbg, editor at ArtLies, contributor at Glasstire. And lets not forget that asshole Mr. Castillo.
I guess what I’m asking is who is writing? Who are they writing for? Can the audience be expanded? should it? and how?
What cages need to be rattled? Tell me. I’ll rattle them.
I’ll tell you ’bout what I sees.