Letter to City Paper
The current issue of the Washington City Paper has my letter to the editor responding to Kriston Capps deceptive article published in the previous issue. The letter reads:
The errors and journalist lack of integrity of “The C List: Will Lenny Campello’s 100 Washington Artists Serve Its Subjects or Its Author,” are too many to list in this letter; I will concentrate on the three major ones. To start, Capps lies when he writes that in my blog (DC Art News) I have been “writing for years about artists that he admires (and represents).” A simple check of my blog posts will reveal that 95% of those artists have never been represented by me.
Capps then quotes me out of context when he writes that I said “I have zero commercial relationship with them.” He follows that quote by writing “Not wholly true.” I know of no other meaning of “not wholly true” other than “it’s a lie.” What an ethical journalist would have written is: “But I have zero commercial relationship with them,” Campello says referring to the Fraser Gallery and their artists.” I never lied to Capps, and revealed to him all my artists relationships. I am insulted and embarrassed that he made it appear as if I lied and he “discovered” my lie.
The worst offense in this article, and one that should get the attention of the CP’s editors and publishers and all of Capps’ employers, is the fact that Capps purposefully omitted information which would have destroyed his argument about my ethical issues with this book.
Even though he knew that I had placed a disclaimer in the book, and referred all artists to other dealers so that no referral ever came back to me, he never mentioned the steps that I took to eliminate any perception of conflict of interest. That is unethical and malicious.
Considering that in past CP articles (not once, but twice), Capps own journalistic ethics have been questioned, and considering that he was once dismissed from the CP for issues related to one of his articles, he has huge cojones writing about my ethics when his are the ones on the record as lacking integrity.
15 comments:
Rock ON Lenny
I appreciate the letter to the editor, though it's a little cold to call for my head from all my employers.
I fundamentally disagree that describing your page format in detail (which I haven't seen) would "destroy my argument." My position is this: An art dealer can't do art journalism. More on that in a moment.
My argument is a bit more specific to your book. Which is kind of not art journalism, and kind of more conflict filled than you admit.
Again, the fact that you are not directly routing readers to your website or services has nothing to do with standing conflicts of interest. You want points for something you did not do. I chose to omit that only because it didn't occur to me: It wasn't germane to the book you made what you didn't do. If you had done that, it would make the book a kind of racket. But you didn't. So I don't talk about that.
As for disclosure: The article itself is disclosure. It is not a gotcha. I allow you to tell the reader about your conflicts of interest directly. I write, "In a twist on transparency, Campello has put his conflicts in the book"--or something like that. It never even occurred to me to write that you would be restating the same facts you were telling me on the record in the book. I certainly did not deny any such thing. But that's totally irrelevant, and your hangup on this point is misplaced.
However, I do reveal that you grant anonymity to about a dozen curators, dealers, and collectors who contributed recommendations to your book -- and whose potential conflicts of interest go unstated. Maybe you asked a dealer to give you 10 recommendations, and five of them are artists she represents. Maybe you asked a museum director to name 10 artists, and five of them are artists who will appear in his shows over the next year. And maybe no one did anything remotely dubious. It is impossible for the reader to know because you have disguised these relationships.
Again, in my article I conclude that the book isn't really journalism -- the artists themselves are writing it -- and that the potential for shenanigans is too marginal to matter. It's a low-stakes game, and I say that you're not in it for anything but above-board reasons.
My notes reflect the fact that when we discussed artists you showed at Fraser, you said you had zero commercial relationship with them. Then, when I asked specifically about several artists, you clarified. Or equivocated. I stand by my story on this point.
My take -- independent of this specific article -- is that whatever foreword you write is really a moot point. A dealer, a person who makes his bread and butter off the art world, is in no place to write objective art journalism. And I asked you directly on this point -- straight up -- and you told me it's impossible to be objective. So I wrote that. Maybe this book isn't journalism and maybe you are not a dealer at this present place and time, maybe there is no issue. Fine -- big ol' shrug of the shoulders.
For your own sakes, I hope we don't get into a he said, she said, but it is clear that the logic in this "new" argument that you asking me specifically about several artists and then I clarified. Or equivocated... is yet again incorrect or you are trying to cover you bases to go along the flow of your article with a new explanation.
Two separate issues were discussed - one dealt with Fraser and one with the artists that I took to fairs. I volunteered that info to you, not when you asked, but on my own. What you then did ask, was another set of specific names of artists, none of which I've ever taken to art fairs. Either you've forgotten the sequence of events, or have interpreted it to fit your theme of "discovering" info that I was hiding or equivocating about.
Of course, the proof in the pudding is "why would Campello need to be asked or equivocate about this, when it's all over his blog?" It has never been hidden in the blog, so why would it hidden from Capps?
Because it wasn't, but you made it sound in your article like it was. No matter how you parse your thinking or words, you and I know the truth and what you wrote was unethical.
It saddens me a little that after all this arguing, you still refuse to acknowledge that any single issue with your piece could be out of kilter with what a fair argument for the issues that perceive as unethical, looks like in writing from a balanced, shall I say, objective, piece of journalism perspective.
That is what circling the wagons looks like after an error(s)has been called out - Never admit a mistake! And that is what a galvanized perspective on one's own writing sounds like in a Goebbelsian world.
But your agenda and neuroses came through bright and clear through this article and hopefully a lot more people now know what lies behind your byline.
For your own sakes, I hope we don't get into a he said, she said, but it is clear that the logic in this "new" argument that you asking me specifically about several artists and then I clarified. Or equivocated... is yet again incorrect or you are trying to cover you bases to go along the flow of your article with a new explanation.
Two separate issues were discussed - one dealt with Fraser and one with the artists that I took to fairs. I volunteered that info to you, not when you asked, but on my own. What you then did ask, was another set of specific names of artists, none of which I've ever taken to art fairs. Either you've forgotten the sequence of events, or have interpreted it to fit your theme of "discovering" info that I was hiding or equivocating about.
Of course, the proof in the pudding is "why would Campello need to be asked or equivocate about this, when it's all over his blog?" It has never been hidden in the blog, so why would it be hidden from Capps?
Because it wasn't, but you made it sound in your article like it was. No matter how you parse your thinking or words, you and I know the truth and what you wrote was unethical.
It saddens me a little that after all this arguing, you still refuse to acknowledge that any single issue with your piece could be out of kilter with what a fair argument for the issues that you perceive as unethical, looks like in writing from a balanced, shall I say, objective, piece of journalism perspective.
That is what circling the wagons looks like after an error(s)has been called out - Never admit a mistake! And that is what a galvanized perspective on one's own writing sounds like in a Goebbelsian world.
Your agenda and neuroses came through bright and clear through this article and hopefully a lot more people now know what lies behind your byline.
Lenny, I think you have officially squandered my sympathy. This whole thing is a non-issue; I don't understand why you're acting as though Kriston has committed some sort of hate crime against you and the DC art community.
I'd even go so far as to say that the district needs more thoughtful writers like Kriston; ones who can cover the work that's created here without resorting to knee-jerk defensiveness every time a real or imagined slight is made in the local press (eg, The Great "Island of Misfit Toys" Controversy of '09).
Anyway, this whole episode puts a bad taste in my mouth. And I wonder what it says about our art community--kind of astonishing that we can't let go of something this trivial.
grabbing my popcorn and taking a seat :-)When people start doing well, there's always seems to be some kind of hater that comes up to spoil the fun. Keep doing you, growing and being successful and let the haters do their job. :-)
I am sorry to have lost your sympathy. I hope no one ever damages your reputation and challenges your ethics unfairly.
Speaking of reputation, you keep alluding vaguely to past episodes in which my "journalistic ethics have been questioned," and you need to cut it out.
I had two corrections in my first tenure at City Paper, which was maybe 2004 to 2007 or so. In a 6,000 word cover story on the Corcoran, I said Paul Greenhalgh was the director at the Victoria and Albert when he was the director of research. Then, another time, I said there were five curators for an AAC show when there were six. I believe there were five curated sections and one of them was curated by a couple -- something like that.
Another time, an artist thought I misunderstood the trust of a show and wrote to my editor about it. I forget the exact nature of the issue. CP didn't run any correction.
I have never materially misled a reader. Never ever.
The episode that led us to part ways had nothing to do with my work there. It was about what else I wanted to do.
I had posted something on my blog about running into work by an artist I knew back in college (Christine Gray). I included an image and some bit about what I thought. Project 4 saw that work and liked it and asked me about curating a show for them. This was the first time I'd ever really thought about curating a show. In the end, she mounted the solo show herself and I wrote the exhibition essay. I didn't take any money for that work.
At the time, art blogger J.T. Kirkland raised questions about whether it was appropriate for me to write about art if I was planning to be a cultural worker in this town. (My phrasing, not his.) I believe you and maybe James W. Bailey did the same. It was a fair question, since at the time I didn't know exactly what I wanted to do with my life. I had no immediate plans to curate another show, or open a gallery, or anything like that.
City Paper took the question seriously, and they benched me. I won't speak for them as to any other reasons they might have had for the decision -- maybe they disliked working the knots out of my dense prose. That was the reason they gave me.
Since then, I have stayed in journalism and expanded to write about other Washington topics, but I have never strayed from art journalism and criticism. And I have never ventured into the art world professionally; I remain a fly on the wall.
I don't relish writing out my career evaluation form in your comment box, Lenny. But you don't leave me a lot of choice. The last paragraph in your post has no basis in the facts.
That's it.
"I have never materially misled a reader. Never ever."
What about Kirkland's accusations in his letter to the editor about the "Supple" show. Specifically, whether or not Ms. Ruppert was notified about the nature of the performance? You quoted Ms. Ruppert as saying she was not notified. Kirkland asserts she was but you did not ask him. That's what the letter to the editor suggests.
Oy, Anonymous #413, that's some old school. That's right: Ms. Ruppert told me that she was not made aware that a man would be circumcising himself in her venue that evening. She told me she would not have permitted it to go through had she been made aware of the nature of the work. So I reported what she told me.
I don't remember if I ran into Kirkland -- I was trying hard to find Molly and it took me awhile. It took me a while. My thought was that there was a liability question at hand. When I got to her, most everyone had cleared, and I needed to get back home to actually write up the story (which was only actually supposed to be a review).
So why did you not interview Kirkland? Why didn't you report both sides of the story? Sounds like it could have gotten very interesting as one of them was clearly lying. But perhaps you liked the way one side sounded over the other.
If you're going to stress that you never - ever! - materially mislead readers, you should be prepared to deal with anything from your journalistic past. I had forgotten about it too until the letter was posted in one of the WCP threads.
Anon #413
I don't think Kriston has access to a time machine. Didn't Kirkland state his version AFTER the piece was published? So I don't see how Kriston could have chosen a side.
I think foreskingate is a red herring. So Kriston called a "live installation" a "performance" -- even though Kirkland admits using the term "performance"...big deal...I see no reason to blame Kriston for the difference of opinion about whether or not Molly was informed in advance. People remember things differently & forget stuff all the time -- no need to assume one is lying.
I'm reminded of something Einstein said - you can't solve a problem with the same type of thinking that caused the problem in the first place. A lot of us were upset because Kriston's article seemed pretty cynical -- but we can't solve the problem with MORE cynicism and assuming every little thing Kriston does has some kind of evil purpose.
I agree with Rogerr. Kriston's article on "THE BOOK" (as we're calling Lenny's book at our League meetings) was way too cynical and looking at a lot of negative nothings, but he doesn't deserve this "extra" grilling. In the end, I think we all learned a lesson from this and about the neurosis (neurosi?) of both Capps and Campello. Very Ying Yanginsh they are, as Yodda would say.
Anon #414
Kriston,
You make some good points on your comments about the letter to the editor, but with all due respect, in 2010 I am of the opinion that such thing as objective journalism (of any flavor) is a fantasy no longer relevant in today's media world. There are some folks who believe that FoxNews is objective, and there are also some folks who believe that MSNBC and NBC are objective, and a whole bunch of us who see them for what they are, which is far from objective. Once one's eyes and perspective acquire that ability to see how a story can be leaned one way or another depending on the agenda of the writer or organization (mine were opened after working for almost two decades in the newsmedia in Europe), then it is clear to recognize biases one way or the other and subjectivity and bias in nearly everything written for the press, media, blog, whatever. I don't know you, but I suspect, from reading some of your archives, that you are a progressive type person, who leans to the left. So I would then suspect that any political journalism that you'd ever do, would be from a left point of view, and thus never truly objective (perhaps only from your point of view). I submit to you, that art journalism is no different, and I submit also that there is no such thing as objective art journalism. Predilections and fancies such as a liking of performance art over painting, or abstraction over figuration, or a person/friend/relative/friend of a friend/gallery over another will creep in, and (again) in glancing at some of your art writing, and at the risk of creating a wave of denials, I read it in your art journalism. This is not an accusation or even a bad thing. This is just one reader's perspective, and I am confident enough (in my own set of perspectives and biases that is) to even admit that I could be wrong, but for now, I detect it. I also clearly detect it in Campello's writing of course, but I'm focusing on your claim of objectivity and hoping to bring a little outside perspective into this rather caustic discussion. I'm also leaning to believe Campello's assertion that no one could come up with an objective list of 100 artists (or baseball players or dancers or salsa bands) in most cities, not just DC. This in turn takes the importance and dilutes (and perhaps eliminates) your worry and concern about the anon. list suggestions from dealers and curators. It is my opinion that your concern about conflict of interest is so minimized and removed from actuality, that it is almost irrelevant to the story of the book and a weak focus for any article. Did you bring an agenda and a perspective to the article? Of course you did. It's not a gotcha article (I agree), but it is also an article written from a perspective that highlights the perceived flaws and negativity of the event, rather than what (I gather), most people seem to view as a positive development for the local art community.
My apologies if I have offended you. It wasn't my intention to do so.
Hannah
"A dealer, a person who makes his bread and butter off the art world, is in no place to write objective art journalism"
I don't agree, but I am open to hearing why you think this is the case. My question thus: Why?
Eleanor
Post a Comment