You've done a nice job decorating the White House.
— Jessica Simpson, upon being introduced to Interior Secretary Gale Norton

The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth.
— H. L. Mencken

The human understanding is no dry light, but receives infusion from the will and affections; whence proceed sciences which may be called “sciences as one would.” For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless in short are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections color and infect the understanding.
— Francis Bacon

If you done it, it ain't bragging. — Walt Whitman


Received 03/27/07
“In all the cacaphony about the A-K Deaccession, most of which I have tried to ignore but with only partial success, I did not once perceive an opinion from an artist.
“Hi. I am an artist. Here's my opinion.
“The Albright-Knox should sell off any and all their stuff that has insufficient continuity with its prevailing philosophy, stuff that is already so well represented in a hundred or more galleries and museums around here and elsewhere. People love it, it's good stuff, they'll pay good money. Then do what the Albright-Knox has done so stunningly well in its tradition—purchase current creations from artists of these days.
“The fact that a world class institution like the Albright-Knox Art Gallery cannot support and encourage artists by purchasing their creations, which are the whole reason for its existence in the first place, because it has no money is pathetic.
“Consider the collection of Abstract Expressionism in the Albright-Knox. Breathtaking. Priceless. Inspirational. These works were considered to be pretty risky at the time they were purchased. The staff of the Albright-Knox know what they are doing. Let 'em do it. Now.
“Mistakes will be made. Instincts can be wrong. Time will reveal some choices to have been erroneous. But treasures will be acquired.
“Personally, I would love to have my work purchased by the great Albright-Knox. What artist would not. But if the Albright-Knox ever wants to purchase something of mine but cannot because they have no money, it's maddening. And on behalf of serious artists everywhere, it is also feeble, shameful and scandalous.
“P.S. I just heard on NPR that the A-K just auctioned off a bunch of stuff for $7,000,000. I presume they will be buying some interesting contemporary art.
Never mind.”

McGillicutty Watch 

I was intrigued by Jeff Simon’s review last weekend of Carl Dennis’ new book of poetry. I was first struck by the image selected by the News to portray Dennis, which was a McGillicutty image of Dennis speaking out publicly against the Albright deaccession. (sorry, that image doesn’t come up on-line) I was also struck by the phrase “self-deprecatory irony here and meditative stillness” and thought, Well, I didn’t see any of THAT in evidence in any of Dennis’ public remarks or letters. Some friggin’ meditative stillness on his part might have done us all a world o’ good. And don’t bogart that self-deprecating irony either, dude.

Jeff also writes, “Carl Dennis is one of the authentic poets of his time—and not so incidentally, one of Buffalo's wisest citizens, no matter where one stands on his latest civic endeavor.” I trust and respect Jeff, but I think Dennis has been hiding this so-called wisdom under his mattress or something. It has not surfaced lately. Having now finally seen Ted Pietrzak’s powerpoint presentation on the new Burchfield-Penney building, it’s clear how gigantically nonsensical the opposition to that plan was and, in case you forgot, Carl Dennis was a major domo in that little cause celebre as well. I dispute that this behavior is qualification for wise citizenry. A wise citizen would be someone who resolves civic disputes, not someone who generates them. I suggest instead that Louis Grachos is a wise citizen and Carl Dennis is a petulant citizen.

Lastly, and most interestingly to me, Jeff writes, “Surely Dennis' opposite among poets of the past 80 years would be Charles Bukowski, lifelong refugee from decorum and the moderate life—alcoholic, tough guy, hard case, outlaw, enemy of hypocrisy and sometimes even hypocrisy's more clever cousin, civility itself. Who could be more different from Dennis than Bukowski...”



Ha! Well, folks, I have to reveal my colors, the depth of my own degraded tastes and sensibilities—Charles Bukowski has been among my favorite writers for the last couple of decades. Bukowski could suck. Often. He was entirely fallible (though that was entirely the point). I always hated any Bukowski story that had to do with horse racing, which he could write about in excruciating detail and ad nauseum. But Bukowski also knocked it out of the park so many times I lost count. Down in the muck, the gutter, the baseless stupid human desires and impulses that make fools of us all, he knew how to extract the sublime. Again and again and again...there’s room in my heart for Charles Bukowski but, alas, none for Carl Dennis because...well, Chuck needs room for his six-pack...
Carl Dennis
Bukowski Wikipedia







top image: flickr

The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.
— Ernest Hemingway

Animals have these advantages over man: they never hear the clock strike, they die without any idea of death, they have no theologians to instruct them, their last moments are not disturbed by unwelcome and unpleasant ceremonies, their funerals cost them nothing, and no one starts lawsuits over their wills.
— Voltaire

A bone to the dog is not charity. Charity is the bone shared with the dog, when you are just as hungry as the dog.
— Jack London

If you believe everything you read, you better not read.
— Japanese Proverb

Maybe this world is another planet's hell.
— Aldous Huxley


The D-Decision 

Following the vote of the Albright Members last week, in which the AKAG membership reiterated its support for the Board and their plans to sell off select antiquities, there have been numerous deaccession news items. Most interestingly was the full text of the decision of the Honorable Diane Y. Devlin in the case of Dennis et al vs. Buffalo Fine Arts Academy. The decision is available as a pdf on Bruce Jackson’s site and it is highly-recommended reading. No matter where you stood on the issue, it is more than a little relevant to hear how the law approached this specific issue.
Buffalo Report

A few more Buffalo News letters
Someone with the fabulous name of Pinky Regan wrote:
“I was involved at the gallery in the 1960s and it was an exciting place to be while it was collecting the works of renowned artists such as Robert Rauschenberg and Andy Warhol. The artists would be present the night of their opening, making the experience all the more stimulating. “Many times while visiting museums in other cities for a retrospective of an artist, I have been proud to see a work on loan from the Albright-Knox as either the centerpiece or as one of the best pieces in the show. Economically, things in Buffalo are not like they once were, but we must keep up the gallery’s high standards and mission.” http://www.buffalonews.com/222/story/35244.html

Someone named Larry Zollinger wrote the following:
“I thought the mission was to create a place where people could go to have their spirits lifted and their intellects challenged. Call me a philistine or a troglodyte if you wish, but neither Andy Warhol nor Jackson Pollock do anything for me. If the directors were to announce that they were selling that giant Pollock monstrosity so that they could buy a piece to complement “Artemis and the Stag,” I would cheer.” http://www.buffalonews.com/222/story/35245.html

A Jane Hettrick wrote:
“I’m no art expert, but I know that a great collection isn’t stagnant. And a great modern art collection doesn’t require ancient pottery, an old blanket and a landscape by an unknown artist. The deaccession was carefully thought out and planned in accordance with industry standards.”
http://www.buffalonews.com/222/story/35246.html

Still Swinging
Some media is the whack
You believe it's true, it blows me through the roof
Suckers, liars get me a shovel
Some writers I know are damn devils
For them I say don't believe the hype...
— Public Enemy, 1988

Of course, if you disagree with my perspective on the deaccession, then it is I, admittedly, who art a damn devil...

In a March 20/07 column for the Wall Street Journal (p. D6) entitled Buffalo's Defeated Art Lovers May Still Spark a Revolution, Tom L. Freudenheim does his level, Machiavellian best to fan the dying embers of anti-deaccession sentiment with some sumptuous servings of hype and hyperbole:

“The sale is a tragedy for the citizens of the Buffalo region, who will be deprived of significant works of art that are exceptional in their own right, but also have long been considered the underpinnings for understanding the museum's notable collection of modern and contemporary art. Art history professor Martha Dunkelman has ably demonstrated the relationships that link magnificent soon-to-be-sold objects—such as a Benin bronze head, a Khmer female torso, and a rare early Roman figure of Artemis and the Stag—with their various modern counterparts in the collection.”
• no, it’s not a tragedy and yes, Dunkelman did make that case but you know...you can take various and sundry versions of human forms created through history and draw formal connections—which may have as much to do with all these examples being human forms as it does any strictly causal relationship of influence between these objects and the artists who created them.

“And I've been told that the atmosphere in Buffalo has been poisoned by the myth, propagated by the museum in its efforts to justify the sale, that this failing Rust Belt community can raise money only by divesting itself of its cultural capital because there's no new wealth to tap. In fact, I've also been told that there are massive fortunes in the region, many of them made locally.”
• What? The atmosphere here is not poisoned. Dialogue is not poisonous. The Buffalo art world has been ventilating a lot of opinions, but that’s as it should be. Do not be some chucklehead who cannot tolerate, let alone rebut, a contrary opinion. Anyone who tries to float the notion of our city now being a tepid pool of cultural acrimony is no friend to this community. Do not buy into this fiction.

“But there may be a silver lining to this particular cloud. The failed lawsuit was just one manifestation of the strong local reaction to the Albright-Knox's sale —an unprecedented outpouring of disapproval that took the museum completely by surprise. It also resulted in the formation of Buffalo Art Keepers, which worked, ultimately in vain, to demonstrate the public's deep affection for works of art in their local museum.”
• True to the anti-deaccessionist form, Freudenheim overstates the case, however slyly. If there had actually been an “unprecedented outpouring of disapproval” then I venture to suggest that the sale would actually have been stopped. There was disapproval...but there was also plenty of APPROVAL. Worth remembering. Also, the BAK did not actually demonstrate “the public's deep affection for works of art in their local museum,” they demonstrated THEIR OWN affection for these works. Concurrent with that affection, they also served to overhype the hysteria around the deaccession into a false sense of community disapproval.

“Those speaking against the sale [at the special members’ meeting] were especially passionate in their repeated citation of specific works to which they felt personal attachment.”
• Freudenheim is CORRECT about this. Acutely so. But he misses the point entirely—the anti-deaccession camp was, time and again, reverting to issues of personal attachment and that’s simply not a meritorious position in this issue. If it is (and I’ve said this before), then hell, I won’t stand for keeping any antiquities until Home of the Hits reopens and someone buys and reopens the Royal Pheasant. We all have our attachments.

“Using the kind of spin and contempt for factual accuracy that we associate with the political class, the museum's spokespersons misrepresented the collection's history as one devoted to mostly modern and contemporary art. In fact, a significant number of the masterpieces about to be subjected to what one speaker called "a yard sale" and another characterized as "betting the house" were quite intentionally purchased by previous distinguished directors.”
• Stop equating museum professionals with the “political class.” This is a stupid ruse that keeps coming up in anti-deaccession language. It attempts to make you believe that Grachos et al are politicians first and it’s a slippery trick since we’re in a new era of suspicion in terms of how the public views politicians, but the folks running the Albright are NOT politicians. They are not hucksters. They are hard-working professionals.
• I’m not clear on the parameters of the misrepresentation Freudenheim perceives since no one denies that modern and contemporary art is the shining hub of the Albright’s collection, including the Buffalo Art Keepers, who conceded to this as the gallery’s “primary focus”
• Also, the methodology of the anti-D camp is to continue referring to the disputed works as “masterpieces” which—if you repeat it often enough—gets just enough people second-guessing the sale, which is exactly their goal. And it seems that repeating specific terminology or repeating the same defeated logic is the methodology of,,,well, the politician who needs to pummel you with the same misleading information until you cry uncle.

“Patrick Klinck, a young fifth-generation Buffalonian, pleaded against "running roughshod over the safeguards enacted for the express purpose of preserving the collection intact across the ages," suggesting that this dishonors the memory of previous generations "and reflects badly on us."
• Fifth-generationism notwithstanding, this is hardly a geneology contest. Many on BOTH sides of the argument have lived all their lives, or most of their lives, in Buffalo and going back x number of generations does not give your opinion more weight.
• Some might suggest that, culturally-speaking, nothing reflects worse on us than filing nuisance lawsuits against our major museum.

“The response of museum officials and trustees was clear: they know best; they don't need the advice of the unwashed public. Anyway, it's just not done that way; "we are professionals, so we know what we are doing." That flies in the face of the new mania for museum-visitor surveys and other instruments for measuring public reaction and interest, which may now cynically be best understood as gimmicks to persuade government and foundation funders that there is concern for the public.”
• No one said “they know best,” no one referred to the “unwashed public,” but YES, they absolutely said “we are professionals, so we know what we’re doing.” You know why? Because they ARE professionals and they DO know what they’re doing. And there’s no need to be apologetic about that.
• Freudenheim’s second sentence here is pure, cynical presumption. Believe it or not, all of us in the culture field (even here at Hallwalls) spend A LOT OF TIME talking about the public, our visitors, and how to effectively engage them. It’s not a faux concern to trick funders—we exist for people to experience the art on whose behalf we work. Particularly in this region where, I venture to suggest, it is the cultural community—much more than the political class—that is ready, willing and able to ride the cultural tourism pony into the gleaming rays of the sun. We talk about cultural tourism ALL THE TIME.

“A majority of museum members attending the meeting cast their nonbinding votes against the sale, but the museum mounted a vigorous telephone campaign for proxy votes supporting the sale, enough to turn the outcome.”
• I’m not convinced about the first part of this and as to the second part, so what? Where EXACTLY is it written that the Albright-Knox is not allowed to take action to defend itself and its decision-making process? The Buffalo Art Fascists also mounted a vigorous proxy campaign. I can show you my proxy vote from Carl Dennis again if you don’t believe me.

“Officials of the Albright-Knox may have won the battle, but the community outrage triggered by their brazen disregard for the museum's riches ought to serve as a warning to museum directors and trustees across the country: They can't have it both ways -- expecting public support while arrogantly asserting that the public be damned. This storm in Buffalo might be just the beginning of a revolution in which the public begins to reclaim its rights to public institutions and demands an accountability that museum directors and trustees will ignore at their peril.”
• Again, “community outrage” is an overstatement, as is most of the rest of the fear-mongering language in this paragraph, such as “brazen disregard,” “the public be damned,” ‘the storm in Buffalo,” “the beginning of a revolution,” “ignore at their peril.” Sorry, but this recycling of the same ponderous language is starting to numb me and it is beginning to sound EXACTLY like Charlie Brown’s teacher: “Wah-wah-wah. Wahwah wah!”
• As noted last week, this was the same trick tried by Freudenheim at the members’ meeting, where he tried to get the gathered crowd to believe they could be part of a “paradigm shift” in museum thinking—do NOT fall for this trick. The ground is NOT shifting beneath your feet, the walls are not crumbling, there is no paradigm in the wings. The paradigm we have—an energetic, forward-looking museum bent on excellence—is a pretty good one.

Chuck D says, “Don’t believe the hype,” so don’t.

Dabkowski Outdoes the Times
On Wednesday, March 21, both the Buffalo News and NY Times included articles about the exceedingly successful first round of Albright auctions at Sotheby’s. And while it was great, as always, to see anything WNY noted in the Times, and it was the top story on their Arts section, it was Colin Dabkowski’s front page piece for The Buffalo News that really articulated the drama of the occasion. Colin wasn’t knocking out a perfunctory piece of reportage, he was really paying attention to the moment, the details, the emotion. Kudos. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/arts/design/21albr.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin http://www.buffalonews.com/101/story/36964.html

The Jackson Lowdown
Artvoice

The Low Blows of Highbrow Critics
Well, he had me in the headline...today’s column by Donn Esmonde featured one of my favorite American expressions of pure optimism in its headline: WIN-WIN! I was momentarily disappointed that mention of Carl Dennis yet again appeared with the qualifier “Pulitzer Prize winning area poet” and figured well, fair enough, that PP just sticks like an Olympic medal or Academy Award and cannot be denied...then a couple words late, Donn was referring to the “Art Hoarders,“ a new title we haven’t heard before. As always, a smart, sensible column by Esmonde and a good post-sale read:
“It is always fascinating when highbrows strike low blows and refuse to play nice in the intellectual sandbox. The venom of some criticism, questioning the capabilities of Grachos and his curators, carried an unpalatable whine that is fermented only from sour grapes.”
Buffalo News



top image: flickr

Never play cards with a man called Doc. Never eat at a place called Mom's. Never sleep with a woman whose troubles are worse than your own.
— Nelson Algren

Almost nobody dances sober, unless they happen to be insane.
— H. P. Lovecraft

A girl phoned me the other day and said "Come on over, there's nobody home." I went over. Nobody was home.
— Rodney Dangerfield

And there was a beautiful view
But nobody could see.
Cause everybody on the island
Was saying: Look at me! Look at me!
— Laurie Anderson

You only live once—but if you work it right, once is enough.
— Joe E. Lewis


You Get the Culture You Deserve 

Let’s cut to the chase...
The result of the 03/12/07 vote of the members of the Albright-Knox:
1224 (in support of the AKAG board's decision regarding deaccession)
428 (in support of Carl Dennis' resolution to halt the sale)

Regarding the meeting that preceded the vote, it was a civilized affair with equal time afforded to both sides of the deaccession argument. There were key speakers for each side, then alternating comments from the membership. There were salient moments and things worth noting:

• Max Wickert’s remark that “All of us want what’s best for the Albright Knox” tends to stick in the craw of those of us who think that maybe suing your major museum is an irrational and extreme manner of accomplishing “what’s best” and thus must undercut the earnestness of that statement.

• Carl “C to the McG” Dennis was in Pulitzer Prize winning form as he continued lobbing broad statements and inaccuracies: “the art of the present cannot be understood in historical isolation” (I would argue that, actually, it can, but in any case, the Albright is not presenting work in historical isolation); “a deliberate attempt to keep the members in the dark” (wrong, unfair, but it’s the insult that keeps on giving!); “the art of our time is deeply rooted in the past” (no, the art of our time is deeply rooted in...our time; it is those who cannot recognize this who are rooted in the past)

• Martha Dunkelman of Caniscius College did her best to continue foisting this “historical context” analogy and who can deny a triple shot split image between Picasso, Artemis, and the head of a Greek statue? So her rationale appears convincing on its face, but then she said this about De Chirico’s The Anguish of Departure: “If you don’t know [Renaissance painting], you don’t know why this picture is so disturbing.” (I’ve never thought about Renaissance painting even once when looking at this sublime, anxious masterpiece and I’m no less a disturbed art-viewer for that.)

• Marty Pops....I couldn’t write fast enough to keep up with him...Marty tended to frame everything as the sort of “risk-taking” only a lunatic would engage in, going so far as to refer to the “Albright-Knox Gallery & Casino,” which garnered some applause; he feared that we would be unable to “retrieve the aesthetic value of what the gallery sells;” he referred to “self-destructive behavior;” he denigrated the notion of aesthetic value in the future by referring to a “niche museum/tourist destination of the New” as though such a thing automatically came with a free serving of brain cancer

• at this point in my notes, I wrote “They all claim to not be against it on principle.” This came up again and again. It was really striking.

• Patrick Klinck reminded us that he is a 5th generation Buffalonian and then later referred to “today’s ephemeral standard of artistic value”...what can I say? Insert your own rebuttal.

• Louis Grachos was restrained, thoughtful, and FINALLY, gripping the sides of the podium, addressed the perpetual criticism about selling the farm and engaging in unwarranted risk: “Myself and my staff DO NOT GAMBLE! We are professionals who make informed decisions!” It sounded like the loudest spontaneous applause of the night; Louis also noted publicly the new relationship the Albright has struck with the Buffalo Museum of Science, in which the AKAG will be free to borrow, on extended loan, antiquities and objects from the prodigious collection of 60,000 pieces housed at the Science Museum, radically undercutting the historical context concern with a proactive (not to mention local!) solution

• Sandy Olsen, Director of UB Art Galleries, stepped up to the audience mike with 30+ years in the visual arts, including a deep knowledge of museum practices and deaccession policies, particularly in NY State, and she gets our thanks for addressing that so specifically and illustrating just why and how the Albright did everything above-board and by the book

• Deborah Ronnen, a collector and dealer from Rochester, gave a rather brilliant and concise articulation of her love of the modern and contemporary, based on her long years in the region and her personal relationship with the AKAG—wish I could quote it, but I was a bit wrapped up in listening

• Chet Mais of Daemon College deserves props for stepping up to the plate and saying “It’s time to stop dumping on Louis Grachos!”

• Jamie Kubala, a Hallwalls friend and regional art teacher, gave an impassioned articulation of his love for certain antiquities and was perhaps the best example of the truly earnest—he made no spurious claims about the Albright, but he expressed his regret at seeing certain works leave

• Albert Michaels, retired UB history professor and art collector, made the terrific point (and I recall this from my arrival in Buffalo, pre-Grachos) that for 20 years people complained that the Albright Knox had no leadership, no direction and finally said, “We’ve got some leadership now—let’s get behind it!”

• Bruce Adams made an intriguing observation centered on the question of whether—for education and historical context purposes—images might not sometimes suffice, if one no longer has the actual object; Bruce made the point that for the entire evening, we’d all been watching a scrolling slide show of digital images of what the Albright was selling, presumably from the auction catalogue; I mention this because while I would never ever deny the irreplaceable value of standing before the thing, I recall when we first reviewed works in 2005 for Beyond/In Western New York. Most were slides, some were digital images. Which were better? Digital by a country mile. No question. Brighter, clearer, easier to read the work. And it makes me flash back even further to the very first thing I ever heard (15 years ago?) about the internet and digital imagery—the first practical application I remember being cited was the notion of a reference tool for museum collections. No matter how high the quality of the high-def image, it’ll never replace seeing the actual thing, but for many purposes and contexts, it might come pretty close.

Did the Deaccession Debate Jump the Shark?
The Fonz wants to know...Aaaayy! 

In the 03/10/07 edition of the Buffalo News, two days before the Monday AKAG members’ vote at Kleinhans, there appeared a column by David Hamlin More titled "Another voice / Albright-Knox Opponents of art sale should speak up Monday." More is credited as former director of the Buffalo Arts Commission and an adjunct instructor in English at the University at Buffalo.

There were 2 sentences that I felt compelled to note: “The board’s resolution in favor of the deaccession is called into question by the revision of the gallery’s “mission statement” to promote what it euphemistically calls ‘contemporary art.’” Alright now, it’s the 21st century, can we put an end to this, at the very least? There are NO euphemisms involved. It’s art and it doesn’t need to apologize for itself. Time marches on, ideas march on, artists’ use of materials marches on, meaning transforms, develops and blooms forward into the future. Stop treating contemporary art like it’s the bastard stepchild housed under the staircase and not allowed out when polite company visits.

“Contemporary art” is not a euphemism. (How about if every reference to Dennis et al were: “a group euphemistically calling itself the Buffalo Art Keepers...”) But the sentence that really got on the back of the bike with Fonzie and entreated him to jump the shark (Jumping the shark) was this: “Metaphorically, there is a form of public nudity going on for a disguised, unjustified pecuniary advantage, and the board needs to stand outside in the cold or put some wraps on in the interest of compromise and dignity.” Uh....what? I think there’s an “emperor’s new clothes” analogy tucked in here somewhere, but that’s as close as I’ve come to deciphering it.
David More

More sanity from Donn Esmonde
I’ve been fascinated with the remarks of Donn Esmonde of the Buffalo News, who does not typically cover the culture beat but has steadfastly said some of the sanest clearest things in the media about the deaccession brouhaha. Following the AKAG members’ vote, Donn made these two salient points, among others:

“Grachos stands vindicated not just by Monday's vote of support or by his months-long poise under pressure. He stands vindicated by the quality of recent purchases, from Jim Hodges' 9-ton "Look and See" to Rachel Whiteread's reverse-image staircase. He stands vindicated by the creative connections in the museum's displays since he arrived four years ago. A community historically starved for leadership is lucky to have him.
“The folks running the Albright, from Grachos on down, will not be rolling the dice on future purchases. Curators who see the connection, for instance, between Joan Miro's 1945 "Woman and Bird in the Night" and a 2003 Ken Price sculpture—and by placing them in the same room make us see it as well—deserve the faith of this community.”
>Buffalo News

Great McGillicutty’s Ghost!
Thursday morning (03/15/07), I was ruminating over whether I should exile my affectionate Crazy McGillicutty designation for Carl Dennis. A moment later, I heard C-McG on WBFO, post AKAG members’ vote, complaining about how unfair it all was, that the Albright had mailed “misleading” proxy votes to their members. The Albright has every right to make their case to their members. Not to mention that, unless they stole the list, I presume it was the Albright that provided BARF with a list of AKAG members, or how else did I get a proxy voting form from Carl Dennis last week? To be fair, he didn’t use the term “hanging chad” or refer to “voting irregularities,” but it all had the whiff of the sore loser who, having failed (after having been magnanimously accommodated by his opponent), now resorts to a notion that the fix was in.

Crazy McG makes The NY Times
>NY Times

Lodge Hall Burlesque! 

In the surprisingly-treacly-titled column Healing the Arts Community, Jeff Simon makes a valiant pitch to save Carl Dennis from local opprobrium, while frankly admitting that his reverence for the man and his work have not prevented Jeff from occupying a position “quite solidly on the other side of a barricade from him.”

I have to take some umbrage at the notion that the community must now be “healed” implying that it was recently sick. I don’t buy it. Don’t you buy it either. I think all this contention and impassioned debate means precisely the opposite: that we are, culturally, unbelievably healthy. If we’re going to plunge into aesthetic debate, then doing so with a bang rather than a whimper reiterates—if it needed reiterating—that culture is one of the key lifebloods pumping hard and fast through this region. Even those of you opposed to the sale, know this: many museums would not have been half as accommodating to an opposing viewpoint as the Albright has been. They have admirably held the high ground and allowed their critics ample time and occasion to speak.

Jeff Simon continues in his column: “All I can say is that, opposite positions be damned, I refuse to be "at odds" with the Buffalo Art Keepers and "pulled asunder" from them. Positions come and go; they can always be misrepresented, derided and turned into inflexible polemics. The people who propound them, though, are too precious to be reduced to positions...”

Jeff doesn’t mention that Dennis and his Trapper-Keepers had filed a lawsuit in the state supreme court to halt the sale. Individuals who delude themselves about the nobility of their own dubious actions are not anywhere near “precious” in my book. Suing our major cultural institution is not even remotely ennobling. And I would suggest to Jeff that it was Carl Dennis who is predominately responsible for reducing Carl Dennis to a position.

It was a tough column and Jeff was walking an acutely difficult fine line between his own sentiments and emotions and his rational position and I admire him for that. This was my favorite line:

“As is usually the case when polemics rule, people now feel free to go beyond misrepresentation into caricature, mockery and the equivalent of lodge hall burlesque.” As for caricature and mockery....you leave yourself open to that by virtue of your own McGillicutty behavior. And as for “lodge hall burlesque”....Jeff didn’t mention me by name so I can’t exactly claim the designation as my own, but if there’s some other deaccession burlesque taking place out there, link me up to it, willya? Lodge hall burlesque! I laughed out loud at that. Brilliant! Intended, I think, as a mild indictment, I actually read it as high praise, whoever it was directed at.
>Buffalo News

Please Remember This
A long-time friend of Hallwalls sympathetic to the Buffalo Art Keepers made this comment in an email sent to several of us after the results of Monday night's vote were announced on Tuesday night: "Hopefully the board will learn from this that the membership wants a say in what the gallery does in the future."

We love him, but in the same and earlier emails the Sender had also also charged the Albright-Knox's director and board with being elitist ("some elite group"), undemocratic, deaf to their members' concerns, paternalistic, condescending, power-hungry, "ruling class," and "counterrevolutionary," the last because it is their practice to let curators select art—not only to deaccess, but even to acquire and exhibit!--rather than having gallery members or even Erie County citizens do it by direct vote, piece-by-piece. (Actually, the whole phrase used was “counterrevolutionary curatorial model,” which I thought was crazy-brilliant.) Here is an excerpt from Ed Cardoni’s reply to our friend:

"And what I hope is that the Buffalo Art Keepers (BAK), which could also stand for "Bashers of the Albright-Knox"—having seen the will of the majority of those members concerned enough to vote reflected in this lopsided vote—will now drop their nuisance law suits. I have no doubt these lawsuits will be judged meritless, as was the same Carl Dennis's lawsuit against the Burchfield-Penney Art Center (attempting to stop its new building from being built), but not before costing the BPAC [a LOT of money] in legal fees. Arts organizations in Buffalo don't have the resources to waste on paying lawyers to fight meritless lawsuits.

"Also, BAK answers to no one but itself. It is a small, yes, ELITE group of mostly retired tenured university professors and their friends and colleagues who can do and say whatever the hell they want. No one elected them (as the members of the Albright-Knox DID elect its board), or appointed them to be our public guardians. No one has a say in what THEY do, such as launching or pressing nuisance lawsuits. It's not incorporated, and therefore NOT governed by nonprofit law, the IRS, the State of NY, By-laws, or any mission statement or membership of its own. "Why is that more 'democratic' than a nonprofit corporation accountable to nonprofit law (as well as professional accreditation standards), their own By-laws, public funding agencies that review them annually, their membership, etc.?"



intro image: BSurfers ring

The great majority of us are required to live a life of constant, systematic duplicity. Your health is bound to be affected if, day after day, you say the opposite of what you feel, if you grovel before what you dislike and rejoice at what brings you nothing but misfortune. Our nervous system isn't just a fiction, it's part of our physical body, and our soul exists in space and is inside us, like teeth in our mouth. It can't be forever violated with impunity.
— Boris Pasternak

I tell you the past is a bucket of ashes.
— Carl Sandburg

Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia.
— Charles M. Schulz

Technology adds nothing to art. Two thousand years ago, I could tell you a story, and at any point during the story I could stop, and ask, Now do you want the hero to be kidnapped, or not? But that would, of course, have ruined the story. Part of the experience of being entertained is sitting back and plugging into someone else's vision.
— Penn Jillette

Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop. — Lewis Carroll

Continuing Elsewhere With A Vengeance aka the Donnybrook at Kleinhans
“Progressive Thinking? The Future? Oh, a wiseguy, huh? We’ll show you...”


If you are a member of the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, you have no doubt already heard about the special meeting of its general membership that has been called by a concerned portion of that membership for next Monday evening, March 12, 2007, 8:00 p.m., at Kleinhans Music Hall.

Time to pony up for what you believe, folks. Progress? Old chinese porcelain? Risk aversion at all costs? Or the delicious roll of the tumbling dice? The 21st century and beyond? Or the comfortable, predictable milquetoast of sameness? Mmm, milquetoast...

Friday morning proxy moxie...


I received mail from the Buffalo Art Keepers this morning, which included a proxy vote that would enable Carl Dennis to vote on my behalf at the AKAG Members Meeting on Monday night! Signing over to Carl Dennis the “full power to vote and act for me and in my name, place and stead” just ain’t gonna happen, but I have to pause and tip my hat to such a big fat slice of American moxie.

Accompanying the ambitious proxy vote form was a double-sided sheet detailing some of the concerns of the anti-deaccession camp, denoted as “IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE SPECIAL MEETING ON MONDAY.” Whether it’s actually information or mis-information depends on your point of view, of course. And I will give the notice credit for encouraging all AKAG members to attend, no matter which way they vote. There are other details in the provided information that are curious.

It refers to the AKAG Board asserting that the core mission of the AKAG revolves around modern and contemporary art. It then goes on to state, “...an examination of the history of the Gallery makes clear that while modern and contemporary art has been its primary focus, it has collected older art for nearly a hundred years...” Uhh, “primary focus” sounds like “core mission” to me.

In countering the Board claim that the objects to be sold have been “rarely shown,” the note claims that “in fact almost all of the important objects(some 30 to 40) have been displayed in the last fifteen years, and many of these are acknowledged masterpieces.” Having been shown at some point in the last 15 years does not convince me that the works have been shown more than “rarely.” I also continue to have difficulty with the fairly loose application of the word “masterpiece” in regard to the works being sold. Admittedly, there is a subjective element to that, but I think one could argue that none of the Albright’s undisputed masterpieces are part of the current deaccession sale.

The note mentions that deaccession discussions “were completely hidden from the general membership of the Gallery until the sale was announced as an accomplished fact on November 10...” This appears to be something quite large stuck in the craw of those opposed to the sale. It speaks positively and negatively to the notion of a proprietary community, where people are engaged and feel the obligation and desire to participate as fully as possible in the community to which they have given their lives and their energies. And I respect that. It’s something that makes Buffalo and WNY so undeniably terrific. It’s why so many people (included myself) have come here from elsewhere and opted to stay. And it means that for the past several weeks—for better or worse—many, many people beyond the visual arts community have engaged the broader conversation taking place. That’s fairly tremendous, no matter what side of the issue you’re on. At the same time, it’s a somewhat inappropriate expectation of the AKAG Membership to think they will be personally consulted about all business undertaken by the gallery. As I said before in this regard, they don’t get to vote on staff hirings or firings, or on what exhibitions get mounted, or on other aspects of general and program operations. Why then is there an expectation of consultation with regard to this specific issue? This is why the Albright has a staff and a Board, to make these larger decisions in the best interest of the gallery and its future.

The note also rebuts the notion that the actions of the anti-deaccessionists are causing any harm to the Gallery’s reputation by stating, “The refusal of the membership to allow the sale of older masterworks should provide positive publicity for the Gallery, making it clear that people in Buffalo care enough about their collection to fight for its integrity, that the members of our Gallery can act as true guardians of our cultural treasures when the Board of the Gallery proves unwilling.” Well, I call that moxie-squared. But I can’t tip my hat to it. Note the use of the word “masterworks” yet again, not to mention the unbelievable use of the phrase “true guardians of our cultural treasures...” Wow, bottle that moxie and you’ll make a million bucks.

Finally, the note trots out the dependable education/context double-shot, arguing that the sale would hamper the educational abilities of the Gallery. “We ought not to deny to the children of the community the opportunity to see a Greek or Roman statue, a medieval painting, a Renaissance relief, an African mask, or an ancient Indian statue of Brahma.” Is it too cynical of me to fail to believe this is about “the children”? Is it too cynical of me to think that using the word “children” is a method by which to prop up sympathy for one’s argument?(see the jmr posting below) Anyhow, I remain utterly unconvinced that the Gallery’s educational capacities are suddenly crippled by this specific sale. And I look forward to hearing more about the wealth of antiquities Bruce Adams has referred to the Science Museum as owning. Having had the opportunity to recently peruse the Science Museum holdings, Adams told me he found many many works that were equal, and sometimes superior, to the antiquities in the Albright collection.

So, if you are an Albright member, come to Kleinhans Monday night and exercise your moxie!

“...the vile character assassination in an original piece by John Massier...”
Hmm, I sure pissed Jan Jezioro off in his/her recent letter to Artvoice. Well, at least I was referred to as “vile” AND “original”:
“Jackson’s unwarranted attack on Dennis seems like the work of Goody-Two-Shoes, however, compared to the vile character assassination in an original piece by John Massier, “Why does Joseph Pulitzer look so #%*ing depressed,” that Jackson posted on his buffaloreport.com Web site. Massier writes: “I say the following without malice, since I don’t know the man: every word I heard Carl Dennis speak dripped of deluded insincerity. Or should that be sincere delusion? Or maybe just crapola?” From there, it just gets nastier. Massier then goes on to refer to Jackson as “My new hero.” What could Carl Dennis have possibly done, if anything, to Bruce Jackson to generate this level of hatred?”
Artvoice

First...that Joe Pulitzer line is still funny. It’s gold, Jerry, gold!!
Second...I was earnest in my absence of malice. I don’t hate Carl Dennis. I hate what he’s doing. It’s regressive, divisive, and a complete overreaction to circumstance.
Third...“deluded insincerity....sincere delusion” was a rumination, an open question. I still can’t decide. But that’s absolutely how it came off to me, sitting in the Erie County Legislature, and later the Buffalo Common Council, listening to the man. Condescending to explain to the Albright what they are doing wrong. I found it offensive.
Fourth...is my so-called “vile character assassination” to be understood as distinct from the character assassination employed by Carl Dennis and company? Is theirs a form of endearing character assassination that the rest of us just fail to understand?
Fifth...truth be told, I have a lot of new heroes lately, folks that are speaking up in support of the Albright Knox, its Director, Board, and staff. Kudos to ALL of you.

In fact, in a “hallwalls and elsewhere” first, and just in case you scrolled past it last week, here (again) is the rather brilliant AV letter of Eric Jackson-Forsberg, one of those other new heroes of mine...
“As a Buffalo resident, Albright-Knox Art Gallery member, art historian and museum professional, I feel compelled to contribute to what has become a public debate on issues surrounding the impending deacessioning and sale of a number of objects from the Gallery’s collection. I wish to underscore certain issues that may have been buried in the mounting pile of half-truths and reckless accusations aimed at the Gallery, its board, its director, and the members who support their decisions.

“Insisting that the antiquities and objects of non-Western art in question are vital to providing context for the Gallery’s core collection of modern and contemporary art and crucial to the aesthetic enlightenment provided by the institution is to uphold a long-antiquated notion of what a museum is (or should be)—a large scale, public version of the 19th-century gentleman’s “cabinet of curiosities.” Such a “time capsule” approach to museum collections has proven lethal for institutions that are inherently embedded in an ever-changing cultural landscape. To preserve the objects in question as a historical exhibit on Buffalo’s golden age of largesse would be folly; Buffalo needs to be more than just an exquisite tombstone to cultural history.

“The public should consider that the objects in question have long been anomalies in the Gallery collection, with the non-Western objects in particular situated well outside of their original cultural context and function. The irony of the Buffalo Art Keepers’ insistence that such objects are essential to implementation of the Gallery’s mission is that it calls for a sea change in the very institutional mission they seem so passionate about defending. If they indeed want to call for such a revolution, they should at least begin by advocating for curatorial direction and comprehensive, interpretive public programming surrounding the art in question. But, again, such a focus would necessarily be part of an entirely different institution.

“Museums have many difficult internal decisions to make on a regular basis, not least of which is the strategic shaping of their collections for the education and enjoyment of future generations. Sometimes, progress must come through an apparently reductive process that is bound to be controversial to those who see only the negative in that process. Eric Jackson-Forsberg”
Artvoice

From an Albright curator
It was a bit of fresh air to see a public letter from one the Albright’s curators, also in this week’s Artvoice:
“I would like to respond to the concerns voiced by Hispanics United of Buffalo in their letter “Preserving Hispanic Heritage,” (Artvoice v6n8) where they express opposition to the Albright-Knox Art Gallery’s decision to deaccession pre-Columbian art holdings.

The Albright-Knox Art Gallery is dedicated to exhibiting a diverse range of artists, including those from around the globe, all within its mission to acquire, exhibit, and preserve both modern and contemporary art. The gallery had the good fortune to acquire a number of important South American abstract works in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This acquisition was made many years before other institutions focused on the modernist works from this region.

The grandfather of abstraction in South America was Joaquin Torres-Garcia. At the age of 60 in 1934, he returned from Spain, Italy, and France to his hometown of Montevideo, Uruguay, to start the School of the South. He was determined to create a new visual identity for South America that combined the radical abstract compositions he had perfected with European masters with the native traditions of the Andean and pre-Inca civilizations. He incorporated the geometric symbols of these native cultures with signs of his own into the classic modernist gird. South American artists in general were attracted to abstraction in the period just before and after World War II. In this time of time of rapid industrialization, disentanglement from colonial powers, and intense nation building, abstraction offered artists a way to envision a new, independent identity. Committed to sharing these ideas, Torres-Garcia gave more than 600 lectures and wrote more than six books. The Albright-Knox owns two paintings and five artist books by this master. This work was shown recently in the exhibition Formal Exchange: The Albright-Knox Art Gallery and Latin America, February 17 to July 2, 2006. The exhibition also included a number of fantastic experimental works that question space, color, and perception by artists working in Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela, which mirror developments in minimalism and op art but with a feel that is entirely their own.

Artists from Latin countries are strongly represented in the gallery’s collection. There are the magical experimentations of Spaniard Joan Miró (14 works), the surrealist mindscapes of Chilean Roberto Matta (four works), the iconic portrait of Mexican Frida Kahlo, the regal, modern peasant scenes of Mexican Rufino Tamayo (four works), material abstractions of Spaniard Antoni Tàpies (nine works), and the telling paintings of architectural plans by Argentine Guillermo Kuitca. The gallery will present a retrospective of Kuitca’s work in 2009. More recently, the gallery has acquired and exhibited contemporary works by Ernesto Neto (Brazil), Angela de la Cruz (Spain), Teresita Fernández (Miami), Jorge Pardo (Cuba), and Arturo Herrera (Venezuela). At the top of the gallery’s wish list of contemporary acquisitions is Cuban-born artist Félix González-Torres.

The place of Latin American art in the cultural history of the world and in the Albright-Knox Art Gallery’s collection is important and vital. As the gallery continues to collect and present modern and contemporary art, this aspect of the collection will grow and become evermore rich. Claire Schneider Associate Curator of Contemporary Art, Albright-Knox Art Gallery”
Artvoice

“I remember, not long ago, I could enter the AKAG and take a journey which briefly transported me across several millennia...”
Dave Derner submitted the following posting to Buffalo Rising, which generated numerous responses:
Buffalo Rising

“I want the Gallery to continue. I want the Gallery to revive its tradition of presenting the cutting-edge unexpected. I do not want it to end...”
Elizabeth Ross, Albright staffer, posted this thoughtful entry, also on Buffalo Rising:
Buffalo Rising

“...the gallery is not collecting so as to say ‘look how much this is worth,’ they are collecting to build a living collection of contemporary work – one that gives us an idea about our culture, our world, about people, and about ourselves....”
Jmr posted this on Buffalo Rising, with plenty of great tidbits in it. Here’s an especially good one: “The children. Spare me. There should have been a line of babies to kiss. I happen to have been fortunate to have parents who took me to museums my whole life. Museums were exciting to me, but the historical periods which drew me in were discoveries in books. Either way, what are we really talking about here? Are we suggesting that our parents and our schools do not have the ability to teach and introduce kids to new and exciting worlds, either parallel or past? They may be right, but is it now up to the Albright-Knox to solve that? I would also challenge every one of the “Keepers” to go to the Albright (or just drive by) during the week and count how many days schools are there. Probably not enough, but quite a lot they might find. Then ask the education staff about their programs, what they do, and what works. Please don’t pontificate about the loss to our children.”
Buffalo Rising

“An art gallery, I think, is like a shark. You know? It has to constantly move forward or it dies.”
From davvid, also at Buffalo Rising:
Buffalo Rising

Hallwalls Executive Director Edmund Cardoni on the Deaccession
Artvoice

I received this from an Albright and Hallwalls member
“After having made impassioned arguments against the proposed de-accessioning to my friends and considered the merits of the Buffalo Art Keepers intentions, I have recently been keeping a lower profile. I understand the underlying economic needs, but it is a shame (why can't those in favor of the AK de-accessioning plan admit this?). And although I understand the AK's mission, I don't fully agree with it. As a teacher of art history, many of those antiquities have been useful in my teaching as examples of past art styles. So this proposed de-accessioning will make my job more difficult, but since art history is pretty low on most people's priority list, this will just go down as one more minor reduction of the quality of life that we must adapt to.

“The list of antiquities for sale included everything I remember talking about. And even if they have a few left, it's doubtful they would put them on public view. Since Louis got there, I've taken my art history class to Rochester because the ancient art was no longer on view. Bruce [Adams] teaches High School. A bit different, although I know it sounds snooty. I'll still use the A-K as a resource for modern art, obviously. I have no clue what Bruce is referring to or about what the historical society has. I saw a nice show of quilts there once.”





top image: flickr


Help the aged, one time they were just like you,
drinking, smoking cigs and sniffing glue.
Help the aged, don't just put them in a home,
can't have much fun in there all on their own.
Give a hand, if you can, try and help them to unwind.
Give them hope and give them comfort '
cos they're running out of time.
In the meantime we try,
try to forget that nothing lasts forever.
No big deal, so give us all a feel.
Funny how it all falls away...
— Pulp

Dusty old relics.
What the Knox will sell off,
or Buff'lo Art Keepers?

Ancient, unseen works
collecting dust. A fair trade
for Knox's future

Modern art in quotes.
Tactic used by those who fear
what the future can bring

Graceful Artemis. A
nice bronze statue.
But, DAMN! Did you see Turrell?!?!

Aging professors
with nothing better to do
stop Albright's progress

Writing haikus 'bout
museum deacession!
Where's my Pulitzer?!

— deaccession haikus by AJ Fries, local rapscallion



Piero Manzoni’s Merda d’artista no. 19 (1961)
est. $50,000-$70,000, at Christie’s New York, Feb. 26, 2007
artnet

Those interested in perpetuating present conditions are always in tears about the marvelous past that is about to disappear, without having so much as a smile for the young future.
— Simone de Beauvoir

Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed passage with you?
— Walt Whitman

The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars...
— Jack Kerouac

We are here and it is now. Further than that all human knowledge is moonshine.
— H. L. Mencken


Hateful Shouting?
A friend informed me of some correspondence in which one of the members of BARF referred to mine and Bruce Jackson’s remarks about them as “hateful shouting.” I was a little taken aback. The deaccessionist camp has—albeitly politely—behaved fairly scurrilously and irresponsibly toward the whole issue and, under the guise of “caring about the Albright,” slung about a fair bit of mud and conjecture. But the veneer of decorum makes that okay?

I’ve certainly been intense about the issue but—and I know this from much of the response I’ve gotten that most people “get” this—I’ve attempted to be a little satirical about it too. Humorous sometimes. Okay, even sardonic. It’s always good to deflate perceived pomposity. (Again, this is a perceptual issue—those against the deacessioning, will undoubtedly make the argument that it is the Albright and their Board who are being pompous.) So, if my sense of humor is not to your liking, then I advise you to scroll and scroll quickly. “Oh, no! A dissenting opinion! Run away!!!”

I’ve also aspired to make some serious points along the way. For whatever that’s worth...

And if you’d rather not read ME but prefer something much more polite (but I warn you, far far more scathing), how about this splendid essay from 1729, in which the great Jonathan Swift (another hero of mine) floated the notion that the Irish should eat their own children. It was called A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick.

Here’s a taste of Swift:
“I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.”

Mmmm, fricassee child....If I were you, I’d read Swift (the masterpiece) and skip me (the contemporary swine). I’m offering you a deaccession-respite here, you might want to take it...
Jonathan Swift

The Public Record
On Tuesday, February 27, the Buffalo Common Council heard public statements for and against the Albright deaccession from “both sides of the aisle.” I won’t belabor or re-hash the many remarks except to say a few things remain astonishing to me.

One is the liberal usage of the term “masterpiece” with regard to the many of the items up for sale. It’s a term being gigantically overused, even if we concede that a few of the pieces might qualify for that designation. Many more don’t. And you know what? If the museum is going to sell anything, I would certainly hope that at least a few of the items would be worth something. This ain’t a garage sale. You cannot, as George Carlin once described in a bit, simply stick your head in the refrigerator and shout out, “Does anyone want this dried up piece of pudding skin? Anyone....? I’m only going to throw it away...”

Another is—reverence for art and antiquities aside—the troubling fact of how risk averse the anti-sale proponents were. Time and again, someone would trot out the logic that these precious antiquities exist with proven worth while the Albright wants to, what, take a chance on unproven works and artists? Well, what a scandal! When Ed Cardoni was speaking that night, he made the terrific point that it’s astonishing how many bona fide modern and contemporary masterpieces in the Albright collection were actually purchased the year they were produced, or within a few years of their creation—most of them long before said artist became famous and their works valuable. The dice will come up seven or eleven...but not if you refuse to roll it.

As he was unable to attend, I read aloud a statement prepared by Bruce Adams. Last on the list of speakers, Bruce got the last word of the evening. Here’s the statement I read:

“I am a visual artist with a 26-year survey exhibition of my art currently on view at the UB Anderson Gallery. I am also in my twenty-eighth year as an art teacher in Tonawanda City Public Schools. I was the former WNY chair of the New York State Art Teacher’s Association, and the National Art Education Association’s choice as NYS Art Teacher of the Year in 2000. I’m a published art critic, having written for the Buffalo News and more recently Buffalo Spree. Last year I won a national award for regional art criticism. I am a sixteen-year board member for Hallwalls, three of those as president. And I am a life-long Buffalonian.

“It’s true—as Carl Dennis often contends—that contemporary art can only be fully understood in a historical context. However, the geographically and historically scattered assortment of about 200 antiquities at the Albright Knox—regardless of their individual aesthetic and cultural values—does not constitute an “instrument of education” as Mr. Dennis claimed at the February 22 meeting of the Erie County Community Enrichment Committee. This notion is laughable on its face, and I respectfully suggest that I am more qualified to make such a judgment than the representatives of the “Buffalo Art Keepers.” I would also point out that the Buffalo Museum of Science has 60,000 works of art—many of exceptional quality—spanning a wide range of periods and cultures, and another 60,000 cultural artifacts. So Buffalo will not be hurting on the antiquity front.

“While as an artist, teacher, and critic I have found little to get excited about among the antiquities at the AK, I have gained immeasurably from its extraordinary modern and contemporary collection, particularly from the artwork of our time. As such, I am highly supportive of the Albright Knox’s plan to deaccession antiquities from its collection for the purpose of bolstering its acquisition capacity.

“I’m not alone. At a recent meeting of art teachers, I informally asked for a show of hands of those concerned about the pending deaccession. Not a hand went up. Not one. I have yet to meet a single artist either, who does not support the plan. I’m sure they’re out there, but in far fewer numbers than the “Buffalo Art Keepers” would have you believe.

“About seven years ago I too was highly displeased by a decision the Albright-Knox made stemming from their strategic plan. They ended a sixty-year tradition of the biannual juried Western New York Exhibition. This action limited regional artists to the more selective alternate-year “In Western New York” exhibition. Like the “Buffalo Art Keepers” today, many local artists were absolutely convinced that this was a tremendous disservice to the community that supports the gallery, and I made my own feelings known in a strongly worded letter to the board. When then-director Doug Schultz responded insufficiently, I wrote a second impassioned letter. But the board was not swayed.

“Now I could easily have rallied similarly minded people—and there were many—to petition the board. I could have contacted the media and spread inflammatory rhetoric to win support for my cause. I might even have found a lawyer willing to launch a fruitless lawsuit. But I didn’t do any of those things.

“As a long-time board member of a cultural institution, I knew the decision was theirs to make. The public doesn’t—and shouldn’t—vote on such matters, no matter how great their unhappiness. I also understood the harm a public brouhaha could cause the institution.

“As it turns out, their decision to end the WNY Show was a good one. Under the expert leadership of Louis Grachos, the newly-named “Beyond /in Western New York” has become a bigger and more spectacular event than anything preceding it, serving the community in ways hitherto unimagined. Change, it turns out, is not always bad.”

Deaccession Mailbag
So, a few people emailed to spank me for my remarks last week, though others applauded, some loudly (ie: “BARF. I laughed so hard I spit coffee all over my computer. Brilliant.” or “I laughed out loud all the way to New York on my JetBlue flight over that one, and the people next to me must have thought I was insane.”), and my remarks did end up posted on commie-pinko, ACLU-card carrier Bruce Jackson’s website (Buffalo Report).

First of all, if you want to dissent, dissent! Do not hesitate. I don’t. But please don’t email me merely to suggest that my tone was unpleasant or lacked decorum. I don’t recall using any expletives that required deletion. How soon you forget that I gave Ben Perrone over 900 words of space in my own email to rebut my own remarks about this hot-button issue. What else on earth do I need to do to reiterate that freedom of speech is a two-way street? If Carl Dennis is to be afforded his freedom of speech (which he has exercised in multiple forums—written, political, and potentially legal) then I expect to be afforded mine (exercised in one forum, a weekly email non-blog).

Second, any intensity of tone you may perceive in my blather, is real. Do not adjust your email. It is in response to actions I find....well, chilling. Presumption, irrationality, character assassination, multiple inferences of ulterior motives—all this directed by Mr. Dennis and the anti-deaccessionists toward my professional colleagues, individuals I know to be honest, forthright, and ethical. Many of them—particularly the Albright Board of Directors—long-time residents of this city and region who deserve far better than to be irrationally depicted as cultural pirates gutting the local heritage booty.

Third, do not email me to explain that someone is passionate about the cause as though this qualifies whatever they say. We’re ALL passionate about it. Passion doesn’t make you right. Doesn’t make me right either. You have a brain. Decide for yourself. Agree with the Buffalo Art Fascists (BARF), agree with me, blow it all off to see a movie or watch 24. Bet your bottom dollar that the sun’ll still come up tomorrow...we can all vehemently disagree while bearing no malice.

One person emailed me to ask to be taken off my mailing list. Que sera. Hasta la vista. Auf wiedersehn. So long!

Others have emailed me to ask to be added to the mailing list. So the circle of life and dissent is complete. Welcome aboard.

I received this from an Albright and Hallwalls member:
“I don't think it is appropriate for you to be using your position to be taking sides in the Albright-Knox controversy. And especially not to be calling names and insulting respectable people who disagree with you.”
Thanks for writing. I guess my response is that “taking sides” is also called having an opinion. To which we are all entitled, irrespective of position. Thank you for YOUR free speech and keep it coming.

I received this from an Albright and Hallwalls member:
“I had the distinct displeasure of reading your pieces on the discussion of the Albright's selling off 200 older artworks. Less ranting and more openness about actions like the Gallery's before it was a fait accompli would go a long way. I won't sink to the ad hominem attacks that are flying around these days. And, believe me, I will continue to be a member of Hallwalls, and will continue to support our cultural institutions in actions as well as words.”
Thank you for taking the time to respond, I regret the distinct displeasure, and I thank you for your continued support of Hallwalls and the cultural community at-large. It reassures me that you do not consider a dissenting viewpoint a punishable offense. Neither do I.

I received this from an Albright and Hallwalls member:
“Thank you for taking a public stand. I enjoyed the rant! Enjoyed Bruce Jackson's too. “In response to the ground mail received from BARF (perfect!): the first paragraph clearly described intent, thus allowing one (me) to quickly turned to the last page, note the irrational participants, and toss it in the trash, wasting not one more valuable minute on the ill-based argument.

“A day later, I received a letter from the Albright's Board, which produced deeper annoyance with BARF . . . for prompting circumstances leading to the wasteful use of limited resources. The money and time consumed for public defense could be better used elsewhere – and should be. I quickly jotted supportive opinions to the Board in the margins of that same letter, mailing it back within the hour, with hopes others would do likewise. Thought was: if the Board knew they were publicly supported, they could disregard BARF, move forward with confidence in their actions, and thereby refrain from spending precious dollars towards defensive actions.

“It seems to be an aspect of life in Buffalo . . . the stagnation of so many minds, which keeps the city tied to outdated methods (politically, culturally, artistically, humanisticly). It tends to be the same people who refuse acknowledgement of life as an in-flux, evolving, participatory process; individuals who wish to stop time for sake of security in their comfort zone. We all realize change isn't easy, but it is a necessity. Keeping intellectual-pace with the evolutions of time is a never-ending process, mandatory if one is to understand today, with visions to tomorrow and beyond.

“Everyone knows art/cultural funding has been drastically cut, forcing cultural institutions to discern unique financial strategies for their continued goals. On top of typical 'business expenses', the Albright has contended with ongoing upkeep of the Pan-Am building (leaky, moldy), adding expensive technological improvements for purpose of art conservation. Any logical mind can add up the dollar signs: rising institutional costs (utilities, salaries, insurances of all sorts, advertising, community relations, educational programs, expected technology, etc. etc.), inflated public expectations, extraordinary prices for acquisition of new art, all while public revenues have dwindled. The public, overly infatuated with their technological toys at home, venture out less often; cultural organizations are splitting a smaller financial pie.

“And then - as your email describes - add in the Albright's well-known goal of being recognized for modern art. The deaccession makes perfect sense - rational, logical sense. If our paychecks were reduced by 50%, yet living expenses continued with a steady rise, we too would determine and sell off unneeded items for purpose of sustainance. (In fact, isn't that exactly what made Ebay a success?)

“Anyway, just wanted to say THANK YOU, to you, for speaking loudly and publicly. I hope you sent a copy of your email to every person on the Albright's board, so they know (without a doubt) they are supported, and refrain from any further waste of money on actions of public defense.”
Thank you for sharing one person’s BARF experience.

Do you know what I really enjoyed about those last two correspondences? They BOTH referred to “ranting” in exactly the opposite manner!!! One person’s rant is another person’s...rant! Come on, that’s pretty great. Really, I can’t make this stuff up.

What about that Crazy McGillicutty crack?
Well, some people might call that a term of endearment. There are far worse things one could be called. What’s most bizarre and hilarious is that for a few days (it’s no longer the case), if you googled “Crazy McGillicutty,” the first entry that would pop up would be “John Massier: BARF.” That’s not exactly a point of pride and I don’t know what it implies about the information superhighway, but there you go.

But let no one claim I’m unfair, so how’s this—Carl Dennis (or any of his cohorts) can call me whatever he wants, in public or private, on video, on film, in print, in any forum he chooses, for so long as we both shall live. How about calling me Pussbag McGillicutty? We could be billed as feuding cousins. Or how about Scumbag Johnny of the Contemporary Art Mob?

Listen, don’t just believe what Scumbag Johnny tells you...

Alison Wonderland

A couple weeks ago, we noted the intriguing detail that the deaccession flame is getting white hot just as a huge survey exhibition of Bruce Adams’ work has opened at the UB Anderson Gallery. The man with no irrational sentimentality toward cultural objects (despite his reverence for them, art objects and otherwise), breaks it down like this:
Buffalo Spree

Thanks to Eric Jackson Forsberg for this thoughtful letter to Artvoice
“As a Buffalo resident, Albright-Knox Art Gallery member, art historian and museum professional, I feel compelled to contribute to what has become a public debate on issues surrounding the impending deacessioning and sale of a number of objects from the Gallery’s collection. I wish to underscore certain issues that may have been buried in the mounting pile of half-truths and reckless accusations aimed at the Gallery, its board, its director, and the members who support their decisions.

“Insisting that the antiquities and objects of non-Western art in question are vital to providing context for the Gallery’s core collection of modern and contemporary art and crucial to the aesthetic enlightenment provided by the institution is to uphold a long-antiquated notion of what a museum is (or should be)—a large scale, public version of the 19th-century gentleman’s “cabinet of curiosities.” Such a “time capsule” approach to museum collections has proven lethal for institutions that are inherently embedded in an ever-changing cultural landscape. To preserve the objects in question as a historical exhibit on Buffalo’s golden age of largesse would be folly; Buffalo needs to be more than just an exquisite tombstone to cultural history.

“The public should consider that the objects in question have long been anomalies in the Gallery collection, with the non-Western objects in particular situated well outside of their original cultural context and function. The irony of the Buffalo Art Keepers’ insistence that such objects are essential to implementation of the Gallery’s mission is that it calls for a sea change in the very institutional mission they seem so passionate about defending. If they indeed want to call for such a revolution, they should at least begin by advocating for curatorial direction and comprehensive, interpretive public programming surrounding the art in question. But, again, such a focus would necessarily be part of an entirely different institution.

“Museums have many difficult internal decisions to make on a regular basis, not least of which is the strategic shaping of their collections for the education and enjoyment of future generations. Sometimes, progress must come through an apparently reductive process that is bound to be controversial to those who see only the negative in that process. Eric Jackson-Forsberg”
Artvoice

Albright Deaccession Podcast

This is 27 minute interview with Buffalo Rising’s Bill Zimmerman speaking to Albright-Knox Director Louis Grachos and Albright Board President Charles Banta. KUDOS to Buffalo Rising for bringing this to us. There were a lot of interesting segments, particularly Zimmerman referring to his own “straw poll” of everyday Buffalonians, who, he claimed from his unofficial polling, were 100% behind the deaccession plans. (Zimmerman himself concedes to not ever having heard the d-word until a month ago, which I thought was journalistically-terrific) It was an interesting detail suggesting that maybe the wave of hysteria is overblown and that so-called ordinary folk are pretty savvy about recognizing change, progress, and the future. And boy, doesn’t that Charlie Banta have a smooth voice? Shouldn’t he be reading audio books or something?
Buffalo Rising

Here’s the Buffalo News deaccession editorial
Buffalo News

Do you fear that the Albright will sell your favorite antiquity to buy this?
Maurizio Savini

Tapped out yet? Here are some anagrams for “Buffalo Art Keepers”
courtesy of AJ Fries and Don Laranjo
• Raffle a puke sorbet
• Freebase up art folk
• Affable super toker
• Sufferable pork tea
• Plebes freakout far
• Puree' of bleak farts
• A pube talks for free




Every man is wise when attacked by a mad dog; fewer when pursued by a mad woman; only the wisest survive when attacked by a mad notion.
— Robertson Davies