Monday, August 02, 2010

Not good enough

Kriston Capps responds to my defense responding to his his highly flawed and deceptive article on the 100 Washington Artists book and I. He writes:
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.
Let's examine this response in detail.

Capps writes that: "No way did I fabricate any quote or bend the context to fit the narrative." But he did bend the context. The quote in question is: "I have zero commercial relationship with them."

This quote is in the context of our discussion on the past and former Fraser Gallery artists in general that we were discussing in our telephone conversation. He even listed a few artists by name at one point and that quote was in response to that context. I then immediately followed that by listing the very few artists that I do have a relationship with - which Kriston admits in his response "I acknowledge that Campello has kept nothing hidden" - but in the article he follows the "I have zero commercial relationship with them" quote with "That’s not wholly true." He then details all the facts that I revealed to him without telling his readers that it was I who revealed that information to him.

If you follow the thread of the writing, the implication is that I lied to him, unless someone knows of another meaning for "not wholly true." Had he written in the article what he wrote in his response ("Campello has kept nothing hidden") then this part of my argument would have been a moot point. But to make that clear in his article would have seriously undermined his goal to make this project seem full of conflicts of interest.

I also told Capps of the safety valves that I had implemented to minimize the potential conflicts of interest with the artists in question. I'll repeat myself: 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 info 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 avoided 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.

He shoots himself in the foot because first he implies that "That's not wholly true" as in a lie, but then later reveals that I did tell him that I have a relationship with a tiny percentage of the artists in the book. So he has told you that I told him that I have zero relationships with any artists and I also told him that I do have a relationship with some artists. It is the flow of the sentences that don't follow a logical path other than to imply to that I tried to hide my relationship from him.

And he does strangle the truth when he writes in the article: "As much can be ascertained from his blog, D.C. Art News, where he has written for years about artists he admires (and represents)." Clearly this was meant to incorrectly suggest that I only write and admire artists that I represent. In his response he says: "I don't say they're one and the same." See how a dishonest employment of English to convey one meaning - the one the author wants to convey - works?

What an honest journalist would have written should have been: "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)."

You see the difference between the truth and unethical journalism designed to carry the author's agenda forward?

In another response in reference to my anger at being called a "fanboy", Capps tells me that:
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.
Fair enough, but I'll say it again: regardless of the actual meaning of "fanboy", the intent was the same: to diminish and reduce. He could have written "fan" and accomplish the same point without the denigration to a juvenile status that "fanboy" brings to those readers not in tune with the arcane meanings of the sci-fi and comic book culture.

Capps doesn't respond of his denigration of the publisher. In the article he picked as examples 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. This is a highly respected publisher that is taking a huge chance financing this book, its marketing and exposure at zero cost to the artists or anyone.

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

What bugs me the most out this whole episode is that I really tried so fucking hard to bust my ass to cover every possible angle dealing with conflicts of interest; that I've spent some many hundreds of hours putting together this volume with the real Pollyanna goal of doing something good for the DC art scene; that I tried so hard to focus all possible future "financial rewards" to other art dealers or to the artists themselves... and still, after all that, in the end a piece of shoddy attack journalism still tries to focus most of the attention on conflicts of interest without pointing out the steps that I took to remove them.

For that there's no semantic excuse other than a flaw of character and a scary disregard for ethics. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, right? and one lesson that Capps will learn from this episode is that you reap what you sow.

11 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:59 PM

    Lenny,

    Kriston says that "Campello has conflicts of interest with regard to artists he works with and artists he is covering in this book".

    Did you do anything to minimize that conflict of interest? At the very least you should have a disclosure in the book.

    Kriston is right in thinking that readers of the book need to know that you have some financial interests in some of the artists in the book.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rogerrr8:11 PM

    Anon - I think you just proved Lenny's point. Lenny has been disclosing all over this blog -- but you don't get that impression from the article.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Aaaaaargh!

    Anon, read the entire post again.

    ReplyDelete
  4. rebecca1:01 PM

    I'm not one to nit-pick line by line, so I won't comment about he said/he said. I will say that there will always be people who judge. All you (any of us) can do is give 110% and be honest about our intentions, and I think you've done that. I hope the book is a success.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dead Greek Philosopher1:55 PM

    "He who mistrusts most should be trusted least" - Theognis of Megara

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous8:20 PM

    Kriston,
    Why didn't you mention any of the stuff that Lenny did to remove any suspicion of conflicts of interest? That omission is what's killing your argument about semantics and all the other nit picky stuff. Not telling your readers about what Lenny did to minimize or eliminate conflicts of interest makes YOU look unethical.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Second Anon.,

    It doesn't strike me as noteworthy that Campello did not put his phone number on every page as a point of contact and sale. Had he done that, it would have read like a painfully obvious scheme. In any case, he didn't. So he is not capitalizing on the conflicts in a calculated way. Campello seems to think that I should have reported that he is not capitalizing on this book in this hamfisted manner, but I disagree that it's crucial to report on ways he could be scheming but chose not to. It's not a "safety valve" to choose not to exploit the artists in the book.

    Further, the fact that he directs readers to artists' websites instead of his does not actually erase conflicts of interest. Disclosure is something I mention twice in my article -- which is on its face an exercise in disclosure. I quote Campello talking about disclosure.

    As I report in my article, there are contributors whose potential conflicts are not revealed at all. Campello is transparent about his own conflicts of interest, but it's ultimately up to the reader (not me, not Campello) to judge whether they are serious. Campello says they are not; I agree with him.

    That's the last word from me on this one. I'm sorry some readers did not like this story.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Folks......please let me reiterate, since I am the primary recipient of being represented by Lenny at fairs.

    THERE IS NO WAY TO MAKE MONEY FROM THESE BOOKS!

    I am in at least a dozen books, 3 from this publisher. Not ONCE has anybody called. emailed or sent smoke signals to me because of it. ever!

    Its the premise of this debate that is flawed. Yes, he takes me to art fairs, but that's how he makes money on art....NOT from this book, or any other.

    If ANYONE knows of some amazing marketing concept that will allow someone to make money from this publication, PLEASE contact me with details!

    Both Lenny and Kriston are great guys......this bizarre and contrived issue based entirely on fantasy is way too polarizing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous5:08 PM

    What does this sentence even mean?
    It's not a "safety valve" to choose not to exploit the artists in the book."

    or this:
    As I report in my article, there are contributors whose potential conflicts are not revealed at all.

    Are you talking about the artists in the book?
    Artists contributed their images and their bios. So Lenny asked around for suggestions of who to put in the book? Area fanboys gave Lenny names of their favs? How is that some sort of shady dealing that has some sort of exploitation potential ? The article seems to be saying that Lenny doesn't know how to do fanboy the right way, as if there is only one way to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rogerrr6:37 PM

    this is kind of self-incriminating:

    "...contributors whose potential conflicts are not revealed at all."

    "potential conflicts"???

    biased much?

    if someone wants to claim there's a conflict of interest...the burden of proof is on them...this is like a conspiracy theory -- there's no prrof but let's spread a hint of rumor anyway

    and...it's a freakin' art book not some group of shady stock brokers hiding from the SEC

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rogerrr,

    In Kriston's world everyone has a shady reason for everything they do; there must be an inside scheme to everything. It is a sad, bad karma existence that believes that we live in a world of versus and that no one just does something honest and straightforward. Thus his malicious approach to a story that (like any story) could always be debated, but has zero of the insidious things that he implicates and bathes the story in.

    He uses word like "exploit" to describe things that have nothing to do with exploitation. It is the sad naive approach of someone who knows nothing of the good, decent relationship that ethical dealers and good artists have.

    In an odd way, I am now sort of feeling sorry for him. I don't blame him for not commenting anymore here (or elsewhere), as he seems to be burying himself deeper and deeper in a hole of semantic excuses, one-man interpretations of grammar rules and a galvanized personna incapable of admitting (even to himself) that he had a goal in mind all along which was not ethical journalism.

    ReplyDelete

Comments