Thursday, July 29, 2010

When facts get in the way

There are so many disturbing issues with Kriston Capps snarky report on my 100 Washington Artists book that I don't know where to start other than by thanking the CP for giving this book, which is yet to be published, some advance publicity. As Warhol once said, "publicity, even bad publicity is better than no publicity." You can read that article here.

If you follow the DMV art scene, then you know that Capps' past includes some journalistic issues, and so when he expressed interest in doing a piece for the CP, I was fully prepared for the worst. I knew in advance that the piece would try to find the negative angle to the story, the "what's my angle?" the "what's in it for Campello?." This is because unfortunately the formation of some people is so ethically flawed, that they suspect all those around them as being like them.

That I'm doing these series of books because I think it would be good for the DC art scene must be a lie. There's got to be something wrong here; if not they can try to make something up or selectively highlight some issues while ignoring the ones which damage the focus that they're trying to achieve: a negative portrayal.

The first hint is the title: The C List: Will Lenny Campello’s 100 Washington Artists Serve Its Subjects or Its Author? The seed has been planted for "there's something smelly here."

By paragraph four he's already referring to my "ethical tics." The second negative seed has been planted.

Later he lists artists with whom I've had/have a commercial relationship and used to show at the Fraser Gallery, in the process he gets one name wrong but drops an end of sentence that implies that many others in the 100 list are artists that we represented at Fraser. This is a spectacular stretch of his imagination, but designed to leave the impression that I've stacked the list with Fraser Gallery artists. Technically, as of today, there are three artists out of the 100 that are represented by the Fraser Gallery today.

But what is even more shoddy journalism is that Capps knew well that I had put some ethical safety valves in the book to cover the ethical angle of artists with whom I've had or have a commercial relationship. The key one is that every artist in the book who is represented by a gallery or dealer is referred back to that gallery or dealer. In the case of artists associated with me, every single contact points back to another dealer who represents that artist. Not a single artist in this book is associated in the book with me. In fact, if any "business" is to be derived from this book, I am sending the business to everyone but me. Capps knows this, but conveniently avoids discussing that. The reason is simple: it demolishes his implied undercurrent about my ethical transgressions in having artists in the book that I'm associated with.

Then he errs and makes up a quote that I never said in the context that he puts it in the article. The "I have zero commercial relationship with them" quote was in the context of zero commercial relationship with the Fraser Gallery and the artists that they represent or represented when I was a co-owner. I then qualified that by listing for Kriston the artists that I do currently have a commercial relationship with, but instead of Capps writing: "I have zero commercial relationship with them, except for..." he starts a new paragraph with: "That’s not wholly true" and details facts that I told him about my current dealer relationships and my online art dealer enterprise (Alida Anderson Art Projects, which I've discussed here many times), but he writes it as if he "discovered" this and has caught me in a lie.

He then writes that "Through Alida Anderson Art Projects, he has taken work by Janis and Tate to a number of art fairs." It was me who told him about the art fairs, but I also told him that the last time that I took those guys to an art fair under Alida Anderson Art Projects was in 2008 and explained my current business relationships with them and others. This of course, is never mentioned. It would destroy his argument.

He does shoot himself in the foot by later acknowledging that I did tell him that I have current commercial interests in some artists. So the issue here is a quote which put out of place, as he does, serves a purpose best suited to sickening Republican political blogs that publish out-of-context video scenes or some of the garbage-spewing misinformation talking heads of MSNBC. Whereas those extreme right and extreme left wingers are rabid junkyard dogs for their extreme political dogmas, and their goal is to divide us, I am not sure what the goal of this Capps article is, other than to try to make something that I hope will be good for the DC art scene into a smelly conspiracy for me to gain... what?

He strangles the truth once more when he refers to the artists that I write about and "admire" in this blog. He writes: "As much can be ascertained from his blog, D.C. Art News, where he has written for years about artists he admires (and represents)."

What's the condemnation you ask?

That all artists that I write about and admire are only those that I represent. That is of course, completely wrong, and in fact probably numerically the opposite of the truth. But don't let facts get in the way... even though people like Amy Lin and many others, of whom I have gushed about in the past in my blog (get it, my blog) are represented by other galleries and have never been represented by me. But that little poison pill is now also a seed dropped in the article: "In Campello's blog he only gushes about artists that he represents." A damned lie.

See what the undercurrent here is?

Words count and are chosen for a purpose. Capps writes that "Not every Washington-based artist jumped at the opportunity. Artists Jim Sanborn and Sam Gilliam refused to participate." When we discussed this, I told him that Gilliam and Sanborn had "declined" to be in the book, and explained the reasons given to me as to why they didn't want to be in the book - both have private commercial flavors of other issues - but Capps instead uses the word "refused" with the implication offering a harsher reason for them not being in the book.

He then takes a swipe at the publisher, picking some weird titles from a selection of 100s of art books that this respected publisher has offered in the 50-plus years that they've been publishing art books. You see? everyone gets a little dose of negativity here.

At the end he almost closes with: "For this unflagging fanboy of Capital City artists, the fight for visibility trumps profit, or interests, or ethics." Even the snarky choice of words (I'm now a "fanboy") are picked to diminish and reduce and put me into "my place" - how dare this crab try to take 100 crabs out of the basket?

As a man I am nobody's "boy" of anything, and in fact I find this adjective not only offensive and insulting, but also insensitive in this era when we're so well aware of the sins of the past. Because he has failed to find the facts to back up a flawed and dishonest argument questioning my ethics, he attempts to reduce me at the end to a "boy."

And in the end what comes out is a snarky, dishonest, pick-out-of-context art scribe best suited for political blog poison-writing than someone with a pulpit to write about the Washington, DC art scene for anyone, much less the same paper which let him go earlier for whatever reasons.

And I'm much more of an ethical man, not boy, than he'll ever be.

And now that I'm finished with volume one, time to start volume two.

37 comments:

Cheryl Derricotte said...

Anyone who knows you Lenny, knows that you are ethical and kind. You have always been an unwavering voice of support and applause for local artists!

Rogerrr said...

Hey the picture looks good

anybody with half a brain who's been in DC for any length of time is used this kind of cynicism from the City Paper. I stopped taking the CP seriously ages ago.

in the immortal words of the great wise man:

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr Seuss

- said...

(though of course the book suffers from not having ~me~ in it ---and i'm at least SOMEtimes an orbit-of-DC artist ...)

if it were my high school days and if i were writing the paper, the title "The C List: Will Lenny Campello’s 100 Washington Artists Serve Its Subjects or Its Author?" would have set it up so i START at a C- grade and then go downward from there ---a title so blatantly indicating strong bias and foregone conclusion being a major fault in english class. its surprising that the article title even made it past the editors.

Carl Wright said...

Hi Lenny, Sorry to hear that you got such an "insightful" & "revealing" interview. I have found that for certain papers or in particular reporters the only way to handle them is in written form. Most reporters, I have been interviewed by, do not record the conversation - they take written notes. I believe this is done so that they can slant the article to their perspective and claim that this is what was said.

Reporters see themselves as exposing the next Watergate or scandle. Writing about/discovering scandles gets them a quick promotion.

Next interview, send a complete written interview to the media. Then stick like glue to the "script" for the in-person interview. Do not stray from the script, this is where "interesting tidbits" are brought up in the media outlet.

Look forward to seeing the book. People who want to believe implicitly bad things will never buy the book or read it (can they read??). Those people are not the audience for your 100 Artist Book.

You are right, you have just got some free advance sales pulicity. Now all you have to do is embrace that thought and not say it through clenched teeth.

Carl Wright

Anne Marchand said...

You are a true voice for the arts in DC, Lenny and much appreciated in the community. CP has lost credibility in my eyes. That you are moving forward with optimistic action is a sign of great creative thinking and leadership!

Anonymous said...

"Fanboy" refers to any uncritical supporter of something - it's from sci-fi and comic book culture. It has nothing to do with any racial slur.

It probably would have been better for you to assemble a team to make this book rather that just do it yourself. Then your financial relationships would have been less important.

Lenny said...

Anon.

Regardless of the meaning of "fanboy", the intent was the same: to diminish and reduce. He could have written "fan" and accomplish the same point, had Capps not intended to denigrate to a juvenile status.

I'm a grown man and a fan of the DC art scene.

Lenny said...

Rogerrr,

You are right - the picture does look good! Montgomery is a genius with the camera!

Tim Tate said...

Thought I should weigh in here, since I am mentioned in that article. Besides the pomposity of the tone of Kristin's article (this happens to insecure critics), the real flaw in the article is the premise.

This will mark the 4th Schiffer publication I have been mentioned in, and the 12th book. Not once has this resulted in even a phone call or email, much less a sale.

Many artists believe that if something happens (such as an article in the paper, a museum show, a documentary, a new york gallery, etc), that all doors will be opened and that their career will finally begin.

The truth is......everything is a baby step for that artist. The way to advance your career is hard work.....day by day, year by year. No one moment will catapult you to fame. The illusion of Basquiat is dead.

And if Kristin Capps knows of any way to turn this book of Lenny's into money......please let me know. I'm all ears....for I've never discovered one.

Kriston Capps said...

Hi Lenny,

I'm sorry you didn't like the story. I meant for it to be critical but fair. I'll respond to your more substantive comments, too, but let me say right off the bat that there was no pejorative behind "fanboy" (or "cheerleader," for that matter). A number of your complaints come down to word choice that reasonable people can disagree about.

But to say that I kicked my story with a slur to insult you personally -- or that City Paper would publish that kind of attack -- is not true. As another commenter says, it's a word that comes from comic-book and nerd culture that suggests extreme enthusiasm for a subject.

sabine carlson said...

Keep your focus, Lenny. The book will do its own fighting. if i wasn't so graphically impaired i'd make you a nifty nike swoosh.

Lenny said...

Capps,

I'll say it again: regardless of the actual meaning of "fanboy", the intent was the same: to diminish and reduce. You could have written "fan" and accomplish the same point without the denigration to a juvenile status that "fanboy" brings to those not in tune with the arcane meanings of the sci-fi and comic book culture.

It all comes down to choice of words and the intended meaning that the author wants to accomplish.

Anonymous said...

Meet Fanboy

Anonymous said...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fanboy

Anonymous said...

The "Meet Fanboy" video was hilarious! I'd be offended too :-)

Urban Dictionary definition 2:
"A pathetic insult often used by fanboys themselves to try and put down people who don't like whatever it is they like."

So what's Kriston a fanboy of? He/She strikes me as a very negative, sour person. Is there such a thing as being a fanboy of negativity?

Tim Tate said...

I'm really not trying to vilify Kriston. I have read many wonderful and thought provoking articles he has written over the years. i just think this piece has no basis in reality. Needlessly snide and inaccurate.

But not all my artwork hits the mark either. As humans we all have bad days.

I predict Kriston will continue to be a fair, thoughtful and intelligent art critic again. i expect this was just a fluke.

Anonymous said...

Can we get back to art for a second. Are these Sandra Ramos prints or paintings in the picture? they are great.

Sheila Giolitti said...

Hmmmm, does sound a tad to personal to be considered unbiased journalism.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Tate,

I agree with you, mostly. It is clear that Mr. Capps is an adequate arts writer, and The Lord knows that we need more art writers in this town that is so centered on politics and bad news.

I don't think that anyone is trying to vilify Mr. Capps, but he really showed some basic flaws in this piece that forces us, with the Good Lord's forgiveness, to question the character, ethics, journalistic ethics and aim of Mr. Kriston Capps in the City Paper's piece on Mr. Campello. It is not an article that his current and future employers will be proud of in his resume.

And I think also about the readers of the City Paper that will never read Mr. Campello's rebuttal in this blog. And I think about Mr. Campello and pray to God that he forgives Mr. Capps as we must all.

But those City Paper readers will see a picture of Mr. Campello painted by Mr. Capps that is not a very positive one, is it?

And deep inside Mr. Capps's own soul, I know that Mr. Capps knows that when he started writing that article, he already had a goal in mind that wasn't ethical or decent. And I pray that as he grows up as a man and journalist, that he realizes that very few things trump decency of character and honesty.

I will pray for him. We need good, decent, honest, skilled and talented arts writers in this city. Mayhaps he can mature into one in the future.

Sonya

Anonymous said...

yawn. all i hear out of the dc art scene more than anything is a lot of hot air. i don't give a shit about the "100 top artists," the second tier of 100 top artists, lenny's potential financial gains from this book, frustrations with journalists, the lack of attention from the mainstream media, etc...all of this, including the book, itself, is a distraction from intelligent dialogue.

where are the critical discussions on the art, on our art practices, and our research?

when you are ready to talk about that, i'm all ears...until then, even though i live in the dmv area, i'm finding my community elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

Kriston Capps,

You write in the comments that you meant the story to be "critical but fair". Critical but fair would have been good. You failed miserably and the criticism crossed the line so often that it was "critical and unfair" as apparently you failed (or chose not to) present both sides of the issues at all times. It is clear from your story that you do not think that this book is an important or positive thing. And that's OK since that's your opinion and clearly many of us disagree with you. But you've let that opinion influence the rest of the writing to the point that it comes across as whinny, patronizing and too personal in my opinion. Had I not read this blog, and only read your story in the City Paper, I would have come away at least with an impression that this book is a publicity stunt designed to benefit the artists that Lenny represents, but which will be no better than a yearbook anyway. I would have also come up with a slight impression that he tried to hide things from you, but you found him out and exposed him. This was clearly not the case, as can be learned from your article itself at a latter point, but the impression still lingers by how you chose to deliver the story.
Carol

Anonymous said...

This isn't the first time and it won't be the last.

Anonymous said...

I don't get the whole "fanboy" thing as a ethnic or racial insult, if that's what the problem is.

I met Kriston at the Skyline panel, and by the way he looks and him being from Texas I assumed he was half Mexican-American and half whatever Capps is.

I've never met Lenny, but from his pictures he is clearly Caucasian and not African-American.

??????

Confused in D.C.

Kriston Capps said...

Seventh-generation Texan, in fact. There are many Mexican Americans in my family, but I don't have much Latino blood in me. And I'm a fanboy for Star Trek and Marvel Comics.

Okay, a couple of points:

On Fraser: In my article I write, "As a curator and a dealer, he’s shown 100 Washington Artists selections Lida Moser, Andrew Wodzianski, Tim Tate, Michael Janis, Joseph Barbaccia, and many others," which is correct. I note that in D.C., he's primarily shown these artists through Fraser--also true. But I did not write that Fraser represents these artists. Somewhere in the editorial process, "Lida Moser" became "Linda Moser," a typo that was either my fault or editorial's.

No way did I fabricate any quote or bend the context to fit the narrative.

More broadly, I think it is a misreading to say that I've fingered Campello in a conspiracy or scheme to profit. I speculate that that opportunity is probably not even there. Rather, I say that Campello has conflicts of interest with regard to artists he works with and artists he is covering in this book. I cited the Alida Anderson/art fair example because it was recent and clear (and because Campello told me that). It doesn't destroy my argument that he skipped last year's Affordable Art Fair. His financial relationships with specific artists continues and will continue in the future.

Again, I acknowledge that Campello has kept nothing hidden. I don't say that it's a scheme to make money. The takeaway is that a conflict of interest doesn't bother him and isn't keeping him from writing a survey of D.C. artists.

Campello writes, "He does shoot himself in the foot by later acknowledging that I did tell him that I have current commercial interests in some artists." I do not see how reporting that constitutes shooting myself in the foot.

Campello says I "strangle the truth" by saying he blogs about artists he admires (and represents), but that is correct. I don't say they are one and the same.

No more hairsplitting from me. I would refer back to my story on all the other points.

Anonymous said...

Kriston,

When one writes "admires (and represents)" that's a Boolean "AND".

This means that the reader comes away with the incorrect impression that Lenny only writes and admires artists that he represents.

Since you deny that you meant to write such a meaning in that sentence, perhaps what you did strangle was proper (and correct) English.

Kriston Capps said...

Disagree. The parenthetical mitigates that conjunction. What other purpose could that parenthetical serve?

(Why would anyone knock someone's grammar anonymously?)

Anonymous said...

Kriston,

I am sorry. I didn't mean to be rude, but I don't know of any other way to add a comment than using the Anon. button. My name is Liz.

You are incorrect. Parenthesis are generally used to expand or clarify and a parenthesis cannot change (or in your words mitigate) a Boolean conjunction except in FORTRAN or LISP programming.

As you know, a conjunction is a word that connects other words. By putting a Boolean conjunction inside the parenthesis, and failing to further clarify it, you have used it to amplify and expand the preceding words.

If you really wanted to do what you now say you intended to do (mitigate), then you should have used a subordinate conjunction such as: "... where he has written for years about artists he admires (even if he represents them)" where the "even if" is the subordinate conjunction.

"Kriston chooses his words carefully (and purposefully)."

As readers, the meaning that we all get from your sentence "... where he has written for years about artists he admires (and represents)" is the he writes only about those artists that he represents. The Boolean AND has married "admires" and "represents" forever, and the parenthesis have brought even more attention to the marriage.

If you truly meant to mitigate the "admires" to include artists that Lenny does not represent, then perhaps the manner in which Hemingway would have written that sentence would have been: "As much can be ascertained from his blog, D.C. Art News, where he has written for years about artists he admires (even though he represents some of them)."

Did you know before you wrote this article that Lenny has written extensively about many artists not represented by him?

Kriston Capps said...

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree that's the only available reading for how parentheses work to clarify or emphasize text in a piece of prose. I don't know anything about programming and I haven't looked at formal logic since college, so I won't approach my work with rules that obtain in FORTRAN.

Up to a point, I think it's a good thing to wade into these post-mortem discussions and I think more critics should open up to them. I chimed in specifically to answer some questions Lenny raised about my story. But criticism about the nuts-and-bolts mechanics of it, I am going to leave be.

jhcudlin said...

At the risk of getting pounced on, I just wanted to make two comments:

1) Titles. I've said this before somewhere else, but I've never picked the title for any of my WCP pieces; they're always grafted on by the editors late in the process. My understanding is that the Post works the same way. Both publications seem to treat choosing a title as a competition to see who in the copy room can come up with the most eye-rolling bad pun imagineable.

So while "The C List" certainly has negative connotations, my guess is that the title wasn't picked by Kriston. It made somebody in the office--a place where freelancers seldom venture--laugh, and it stuck.

My review a couple of years back of Christo and Jean-Claude was called "Sheet Smart;" a review around that time of Martin Puryear: "Pine of the Times." Both articles were more or less serious considerations of the work being shown, despite whatever breeziness might've been introduced into the lede or introduction of each--another concession to the newsweekly format. This, I think, is just the sort of thing one accepts when writing about the arts for non-art print publications.

2) Tone. I have to say, when I first read Kriston's piece, I thought it was basically an uncontroversial bit of reporting that summed up the relevant facts, but didn't add much to what I already understood about the subject. That's all I thought. The fact that it has stirred up such strong responses is a little surprising to me.

I don't think any of the facts are seriously contested here; much of the war of words seems to center around Kriston's word choices, one adjective or modifier vs. another, the way the sentences hang together--what might be implied through a turn of phrase, but not said. I think this sort of exercise--in assigning intent based not on the definite statements offered, but on prose style--can lead us all into the weeds, into some seriously indefinite territory.

Implicit in all of this, though, is the idea that the City Paper is a place for "snark".

As someone who writes (albeit infrequently at this point) for the City Paper, I realize I may have no perspective on this, or might even be considered part of the problem.

But I would say that Kriston's tone in the article strikes me as standard WCP--informal, but smartly constructed, with a few turns of phrase here or there that are meant to charm an audience, whether they actually succeed or not. It doesn't strike me as sour, or sniping--maybe a little bittersweet about the state of DC arts generally, but that's it.

I know what a writer ripping her or his subject into tiny little pieces for a personal agenda looks like, and this isn't it.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I happen to like both Lenny and Kriston personally, and hope to continue to have the pleasure of interacting with both professionally...and just find this whole episode a little weird. The end.

Rogerrr said...

I used to program in FORTRAN -- but I never used it for art reviews.

We've complained about the article... Kriston has responded...now if we're digging in this deep maybe it's a sign we've beaten this horse to death

Anonymous said...

Mr. JH Cudlin,

I think that you have just confirmed part of Mr. Campello's argument. Since according to your own experience at the WCP, it can be argued that Mr. Capps probably did not create the negative title for the article, but it was created by an editor or someone at the WCP, and we all agree that it is a negative title, then clearly the person who read the article and then created the title for it, came away with a negative impression after reading the article.

Conclusion: Someone with no dogs in the dogfight reads the article and comes away with a negative impression and then creates a negative title to fit the character of the article.

I know that when I first read the article I came away with a distinct impression that Mr. Campello had tried to hide the fact that he represents some of the artists on the list (which we actually never find out how many or who they are). When I read Mr. Campello's defense and also Mr. Capps comments above, then I discover that nothing was hidden from Mr. Capps and his article indictment of "That’s not wholly true" is itself not wholly correct, is it?

Dawn Wilson

Mark Twain said...

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed."

Lenny said...

Jeffry,

By far my biggest argument with Kriston's piece is that he chose to ignore mentioning the two steps that I took to eliminate any potential conflict of interests with the two artists in question.

He knows that I have a disclaimer in the book, and he knows that all artists are referred back to their dealers/websites and none (including Tate and Janis) are referred to me. Since the article is focused on conflicts of interest, why skip two very important and key elements of the story that address the focus of the article?

Simple: It destroys his argument. I believe that there's malice in doing that on the part of any journalist unless you work for FoxNews or MSNBC (in which case there's political dogma).

He wanted to paint a picture (and succeeded) of ethical tics on my part.

He also took a quote completely out of context in order to make it look like I lied to him. This is how an honest journalist would have used that quote (the bold are my changes):

“I’m a PR machine for the people that I do like. I do try to spread that,” Campello says. As much can be ascertained from his blog, D.C. Art News, where he has written for years about artists he admires (and some of whom he represents). “But I have zero commercial relationship with them,” he says referring to the Fraser Gallery and their artists.

Then the next para. should have started (instead of "Not wholly true") with "Campello does admit that since his time at Fraser Gallery—and following a brief stint in Philadelphia as a private dealer— he's had a business relationship with a small number of artists in the book."

He also has a huge error when he compares the book to the WPA Artfile. That was just brought to my attention.

More on that later.

The CP says that they will publish a rebuttal letter if I send them one, but instead I've asked for a rebuttal article.

Let's see if they have the courage to allow me to present my side of the story and point out the unethical drive-by journalism issues and errors in this piece.

Lenny said...

Jeffry,

By far my biggest argument with Kriston's piece is that he chose to ignore mentioning the two steps that I took to eliminate any potential conflict of interests with the two artists in question.

He knows that I have a disclaimer in the book, and he knows that all artists are referred back to their dealers/websites and none (including Tate and Janis) are referred to me. Since the article is focused on conflicts of interest, why skip two very important and key elements of the story that address the focus of the article?

Simple: It destroys his argument. I believe that there's malice in doing that on the part of any journalist unless you work for FoxNews or MSNBC (in which case there's political dogma).

He wanted to paint a picture (and succeeded) of ethical tics on my part.

He also took a quote completely out of context in order to make it look like I lied to him. This is how an honest journalist would have used that quote (the bold are my changes):

“I’m a PR machine for the people that I do like. I do try to spread that,” Campello says. As much can be ascertained from his blog, D.C. Art News, where he has written for years about artists he admires (and some of whom he represents). “But I have zero commercial relationship with them,” he says referring to the Fraser Gallery and their artists.

Then the next para. should have started (instead of "Not wholly true") with "Campello does admit that since his time at Fraser Gallery—and following a brief stint in Philadelphia as a private dealer— he's had a business relationship with a small number of artists in the book."

He also has a huge error when he compares the book to the WPA Artfile. That was just brought to my attention.

More on that later.

The CP says that they will publish a rebuttal letter if I send them one, but instead I've asked for a rebuttal article.

Let's see if they have the courage to allow me to present my side of the story and point out the unethical drive-by journalism issues and errors in this piece.

Kriston Capps said...

Readers should know that my editor and I have discussed every complaint that Campello has brought to his attention, and City Paper has declined to run five or so different corrections demanded by Campello.

Again: I don't think that any reader was led to believe that Campello or Fraser Gallery represents every artist Campello writes about on his blog (including the 100 Washington Artists selections).

Also: I did not slur Schiffer Books. I picked two titles from the "Books Arriving This Month" section on the website. (Both were published last week.) I added a note to editorial to pick other ones if they preferred.

Campello will not direct readers to his own site or commercial affiliations under artists' entries in his book. That much I am willing to admit, because I never wrote that Campello was going to do that. He says he's refraining from directing readers back to himself as a fail-safe against scheming for profit. But I never charged Campello with looking to profit in a dishonest way. I repeat several times that his motive is not profit.

I write: "In a twist on transparency, though, Campello is putting his own conflicts into the book." I say elsewhere that Campello has been honest and concealed nothing.

The most pointed thing I write in my article is that Campello's contributors, many of whom have commercial connections to artists in D.C., go unnamed. Potentially, Campello tapped curators and collectors and dealers who -- under anonymity -- named artists who appear in their collections, shows, galleries and museum.

But, again, I conclude in the story that the likelihood for abuse is pretty small. And, perhaps lamentably, because the stakes are small. (Jeffry's right--I do register that as a bittersweet point.)

I am not going to respond to every point Campello raises. I don't want comments here to feed into posts that Campello parses further for demands for corrections -- as if comments I leave here are edited for publication. They're not, they're just me responding, and I don't want to feed a Möbius strip of commentary about my use of language.

Lenny said...

Kriston Capps,

What the fuck are you talking about? I have not demanded anything of the City Paper. Are you inventing some new lies now?

I have asked your editor, who seems to be a nice guy, if he would run an article by me correcting all your errors and omissions and deceptive grammar. He declined (maybe I should say "refused") and suggested that I send a Letter to the Editor, which I have submitted.

To this moment, you have not answered the key fucking question: Why didn't you mention the steps that I took to remove all notions and perceptions of conflict of interest?

You now write "Campello will not direct readers to his own site or commercial affiliations under artists' entries in his book. That much I am willing to admit" - Had you revealed that in your drive-by article then perhaps we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Answer why you didn't and this may all be settled. Until you do, I believe that you did it out of malice, deception and shoddy journalism.

Anonymous said...

WOW DC! Can't leave you alone for a minute. I just discovered this firefight by accident. And you know what is funny? That Capps himself proves one of Campello's main points in the article when Campello says that no one can put a list of DC artists objectively.

In the article Capps puts a mini list of "respected and nationally recognized artists from D.C." consisting of three names and in just three names he manages to include one which doesn't fit the adjectives but is pushed into the limelight by Capps because she is a close friend of his (as I once was and how come I know this).

So in three names he manages to blow the objectivity of his list. Imagine what would have happened if he came up with a list of 100.