Comments on: New blahg on the block

By: PJ Smalley

PJ Smalley — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:25:23 +0000

Where can I find this site? Not on google, and it appears you took the link down in this article. Can you re-post the link?

By: Colin Keefe

Colin Keefe — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:52:24 +0000

We were the most recent lucky recipients of his/her/its/their bile.

I just think it’s funny they picked a venue that charges no commissions, shows total strangers and goes out of its way to attract a NON art-going crowd as an example of insider art elitism.

By: Dave K

Dave K — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:57:52 +0000

I learned of this issue yesterday, so my perception of the parody site is filtered through the Arcadia entry. Maybe I would have found artblahg more amusing had I seen it earlier, but I doubt it. This kind of humor is more successful when its overtly juvenile action is supported by some kind of underlying structure. The resourcefulness and energy that have gone into this project make it that much smaller. This attack begins as a top-heavy prank and eventually betrays itself as a gutless waste of time.

“He’d have been a show-dog, but his balls never dropped.”

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:02:15 +0000

Here’s some sensibleness,

1. Disallow arcadia employee’s from being allowed to apply. (It’s just the right thing to do)

2. Get rid of the size restrictions and the bringing the work nonsense. (Ridiculously old fashioned, often un-feasable and excludes large numbers of artists)

3. Create a short-list before finalizing the actual show and notify said shortlisted artists. This is common in many big open call shows. Provides some accountability of the process.

My two cents.

By: libby

libby — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:46:38 +0000

ok ok, I was going to sit this brouhaha out. But really, I think the elliptical press release does not pass for a denial or a counter version. Nonetheless, I don’t really believe there were shenanigans, but I do believe that the accusers think there were, and that a more explicit process statement might be worthwhile. At the same time, I also don’t think the accusers will buy it no matter how countered, because it would run counter to their world view (whoever “they” may be). In short, the conspiracy crowd has shut itself off from a true conversation.
To bring a little sensibleness to all this, what benefit would there be to not looking? The goal of the show is to be the best possible, and that would involve looking at everything and picking out what’s best. Do you really believe that Richard just wanted to include his 22 “frenz” and not care if he had a good show? Give me a break!

By: roberta

roberta — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:14:14 +0000

OK, so I just got the official press release from Arcadia. It says:

“Exhibition juror Ribas reviewed a total of 1256 entries (a record for the “Works on Paper” series) submitted by 567 artists living within a 40-mile range of the University…

With only 22 works by 22 artists, “Works on Paper 2009” is among the most incisive iteration of the show in two decades. Commenting on the process of jurying the work, Ribas stated: “I was impressed by the diversity and quality of the entries. My encounter with specific pieces at the initial stages of the review process prompted a series of visual, conceptual, and narrative connections that established a thread I choose to follow to its conclusion as an exhibition.” The resulting exhibition, with its layering of organic, formal affinities and open, associative themes, can be read as a curated effort that expresses a decisive sensibility. ”

Nothing about student elves steering the boat…

By: cheers!

cheers! — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:57:13 +0000

I wonder if anyone has informed Arcadia of all of this hubbub. They may not be aware of this discussion…maybe someone should call them and allow them to respond (just a thought).

And to you Artblahg, I was excited at first, but honestly, when you accuse others of not playing fair, you need to be above board. In reading your responses to comments, I’m thankful that you’re not in a position to make decisions that effect artists in this city. Angry, reckless, selfish, childish and completely naive. What a shame.

By: James Rosenthal

James Rosenthal — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:56:51 +0000

Can’t resist getting in on both these threads! Philadelphia has needed dialogue on the arts so here it is on oppositional art blogs 1 & 2. It can’t hurt because any “air-time” is good… I would, however, like to point out there is a big difference between bitching about the status quo when you are honestly disenfranchised and bitching about the bitching when you aren’t. It is hard to tell who is who. All I know is that I moved here 15 years ago with an MFA and hard time in the UK art world and it has taken all that time to land some college level adjunct teaching. If you call that now being an insider, fine, but recently I had to fight my way into a faculty show at UARTS! I have to conclude that incompetence and corruption are endemic. That only suits a minority.

By: steve

steve — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:04:41 +0000

Roberta and Martin, I agree. And i’m over my bout of indigestion. I am curious if Arcadia is aware of this little rupture over the generally quiet environs they keep? My major point, as I first stated, was exactly this: that such a juried competition that attracted over 1000 local entrants (are there too many artists in this over-indulged society of ours?) should in and of itself be the topic of discussion! And i was surprised that artblog did not take a more critical perspective and chose to just applaud. I think there is far more interesting and critically valuable content to explore in context to the workings of the art industry and our Philly scene. And I hope artblahg will champion that cause. Artblog, with all respect due to your efforts, is more of a cheerleader. Not banal, at all. In fact, I would say some of Artblahg’s satire is quite on target.

If indeed the works on paper submissions were flagged by undergraduate staffers at Arcadia Gallery, then that exhibit, in my opinion, needs to be flagged. And money needs to be refunded. Has there been any comment by the Director?

There are power brokers and practices in your little art world that echo the incestuous culture of far more significant social institutions in the news these days. I am not implying that the power brokers of the Philly art scene are hoarding capital and living the high life at the expense of the stake holders (you and me). But these power brokers do have a huge influence on what is seen in the ’scene’. Whose in charge of the money that gets awarded to all the art projects and programs in this city? Who are the gatekeepers behind the scenes?

At the recent GPCA annual meeting they celebrated spending millions of dollars (redirected from funding grass roots arts and community organizations and programs struggling for crumbs) to fund expensive marketing studies. What did they find????

From GPCA’s Research Into Action report (see — http://www.philaculture.org/category/research-category/report )

“The importance of non-white audiences: African-Americans and Hispanics report the highest level of cultural activity a compelling finding as virtually all population growth through 2020 in the region will come from non-white residents. ”

The actual numbers in something called the The Cultural Engagement Index stats indicate that hispanics scored 129, african americans scored 108 and whites scored 94.

By 2020 the Greater Philadelphia population change will break along demographic lines above goes like this: non-white, +35%; white -1%.

Millions of dollars spent on glossy reports that tell the predominantly white gatekeepers of our cultural institutions and granting foundations that they better start spending more money on THE community WHEN all that money could have been being spent on THE community. How much time and money was wasted reaching this all too obvious ‘epiphany’?

Don’t give the Kimmel Center or the Art Museum more money to enhance their programs. Spread the money and opportunities to smaller organizations that have practical ideas and direct access to THE community. It’s not about color lines, it’s about increasing the amount of smaller scale, grass roots organizaitions and thus increasing the real, on the ground opportunities.

and Gierschick, i’m sorry you feel this way about the artblahg: “Maybe it’s just me, but it all seems pointless, insecure and childishly solipsistic. In other words, worth ignoring until it goes away.”

Where’s my Maalox…

By: roberta

roberta — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:08:35 +0000

Hi Martin, I agree with all your points. I don’t believe Arcadia has put out any information to dispute to the allegations. That’s an oversight on their part.