tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post3188594160397925613..comments2024-03-26T11:20:35.560-04:00Comments on Daily Campello Art News: Lennyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15335261603489770267noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-57975189119057012322010-08-07T11:14:29.736-04:002010-08-07T11:14:29.736-04:00WOW DC! Can't leave you alone for a minute. I ...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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-9188616125637146952010-08-03T21:50:52.152-04:002010-08-03T21:50:52.152-04:00Kriston Capps,
What the fuck are you talking abou...Kriston Capps,<br /><br />What the fuck are you talking about? I have not demanded anything of the City Paper. Are you inventing some new lies now?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Lennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15335261603489770267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-58824553347897071142010-08-03T14:15:17.761-04:002010-08-03T14:15:17.761-04:00Readers should know that my editor and I have disc...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. <br /><br />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 <i>100 Washington Artists</i> selections). <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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.Kriston Cappshttp://grammarpolice.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-47464919508073431432010-08-03T12:51:34.119-04:002010-08-03T12:51:34.119-04:00Jeffry,
By far my biggest argument with Kriston&#...Jeffry,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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).<br /><br />He wanted to paint a picture (and succeeded) of ethical tics on my part.<br /><br />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):<br /><br />“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 <b>some of whom he</b> represents). “But I have zero commercial relationship with them,” <b>he says referring to the Fraser Gallery and their artists.</b><br /><br />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."<br /><br />He also has a huge error when he compares the book to the WPA Artfile. That was just brought to my attention.<br /><br />More on that later.<br /><br />The CP says that they will publish a rebuttal letter if I send them one, but instead I've asked for a rebuttal article.<br /><br />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.Lennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15335261603489770267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-11165060820398948842010-08-03T12:50:37.782-04:002010-08-03T12:50:37.782-04:00Jeffry,
By far my biggest argument with Kriston&#...Jeffry,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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).<br /><br />He wanted to paint a picture (and succeeded) of ethical tics on my part.<br /><br />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):<br /><br />“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 <b>some of whom he</b> represents). “But I have zero commercial relationship with them,” <b>he says referring to the Fraser Gallery and their artists.</b><br /><br />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."<br /><br />He also has a huge error when he compares the book to the WPA Artfile. That was just brought to my attention.<br /><br />More on that later.<br /><br />The CP says that they will publish a rebuttal letter if I send them one, but instead I've asked for a rebuttal article.<br /><br />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.Lennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15335261603489770267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-28352332811388062742010-08-02T19:27:37.830-04:002010-08-02T19:27:37.830-04:00"If you don't read the newspaper, you'..."If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed."Mark Twainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-36325848275971825752010-08-02T16:56:34.426-04:002010-08-02T16:56:34.426-04:00Mr. JH Cudlin,
I think that you have just confirm...Mr. JH Cudlin,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Dawn WilsonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-90191376745668808662010-08-02T12:13:18.023-04:002010-08-02T12:13:18.023-04:00I used to program in FORTRAN -- but I never used i...I used to program in FORTRAN -- but I never used it for art reviews.<br /><br />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 deathRogerrrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-65966071050931811582010-08-02T11:07:12.709-04:002010-08-02T11:07:12.709-04:00At the risk of getting pounced on, I just wanted t...At the risk of getting pounced on, I just wanted to make two comments:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Implicit in all of this, though, is the idea that the City Paper is a place for "snark".<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.jhcudlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10934300453888785805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-1566935918569827592010-08-01T21:30:05.144-04:002010-08-01T21:30:05.144-04:00I understand what you are saying, but I disagree t...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. <br /><br />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.Kriston Cappshttp://www.grammarpolice.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-11973225356530205732010-08-01T18:38:50.928-04:002010-08-01T18:38:50.928-04:00Kriston,
I am sorry. I didn't mean to be rude...Kriston,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"Kriston chooses his words carefully (and purposefully)."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)."<br /><br />Did you know before you wrote this article that Lenny has written extensively about many artists not represented by him?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-66196671357909219202010-08-01T13:08:42.849-04:002010-08-01T13:08:42.849-04:00Disagree. The parenthetical mitigates that conjunc...Disagree. The parenthetical mitigates that conjunction. What other purpose could that parenthetical serve?<br /><br />(Why would anyone knock someone's grammar anonymously?)Kriston Cappshttp://grammarpolice.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-54400229910500276752010-08-01T12:51:29.857-04:002010-08-01T12:51:29.857-04:00Kriston,
When one writes "admires (and repre...Kriston,<br /><br />When one writes "admires (and represents)" that's a Boolean "AND".<br /><br />This means that the reader comes away with the incorrect impression that Lenny only writes and admires artists that he represents.<br /><br />Since you deny that you meant to write such a meaning in that sentence, perhaps what you did strangle was proper (and correct) English.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-75129558203837514352010-07-31T19:30:13.333-04:002010-07-31T19:30:13.333-04:00Seventh-generation Texan, in fact. There are many ...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.<br /><br />Okay, a couple of points:<br /><br />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. <br /><br />No way did I fabricate any quote or bend the context to fit the narrative.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />No more hairsplitting from me. I would refer back to my story on all the other points.Kriston Cappshttp://www.grammarpolice.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-10195555284525194392010-07-31T17:25:56.588-04:002010-07-31T17:25:56.588-04:00I don't get the whole "fanboy" thing...I don't get the whole "fanboy" thing as a ethnic or racial insult, if that's what the problem is.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I've never met Lenny, but from his pictures he is clearly Caucasian and not African-American.<br /><br />??????<br /><br />Confused in D.C.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-48845617589715947932010-07-31T16:12:24.180-04:002010-07-31T16:12:24.180-04:00This isn't the first time and it won't be ...This isn't the first time and it won't be the last.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-69560497659284352622010-07-31T11:22:14.369-04:002010-07-31T11:22:14.369-04:00Kriston Capps,
You write in the comments that you...Kriston Capps,<br /><br />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.<br />CarolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-60934886569056869632010-07-30T22:30:15.024-04:002010-07-30T22:30:15.024-04:00yawn. all i hear out of the dc art scene more tha...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.<br /><br />where are the critical discussions on the art, on our art practices, and our research? <br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-58435391758816902622010-07-30T18:47:27.354-04:002010-07-30T18:47:27.354-04:00Mr. Tate,
I agree with you, mostly. It is clear t...Mr. Tate,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />SonyaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-40549154752170009112010-07-30T18:02:52.772-04:002010-07-30T18:02:52.772-04:00Hmmmm, does sound a tad to personal to be consider...Hmmmm, does sound a tad to personal to be considered unbiased journalism.Sheila Giolittinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-38817922560894461352010-07-30T16:53:49.668-04:002010-07-30T16:53:49.668-04:00Can we get back to art for a second. Are these San...Can we get back to art for a second. Are these Sandra Ramos prints or paintings in the picture? they are great.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-64577701470280251382010-07-30T14:46:25.418-04:002010-07-30T14:46:25.418-04:00I'm really not trying to vilify Kriston. I hav...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.<br /><br />But not all my artwork hits the mark either. As humans we all have bad days.<br /><br />I predict Kriston will continue to be a fair, thoughtful and intelligent art critic again. i expect this was just a fluke.Tim Tatehttp://timtatesculpture.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-61698078137937886592010-07-30T13:16:19.170-04:002010-07-30T13:16:19.170-04:00The "Meet Fanboy" video was hilarious! I...The "Meet Fanboy" video was hilarious! I'd be offended too :-)<br /><br />Urban Dictionary definition 2:<br />"A pathetic insult often used by fanboys themselves to try and put down people who don't like whatever it is they like."<br /><br />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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-69384935615412257122010-07-30T12:50:09.290-04:002010-07-30T12:50:09.290-04:00http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fan...http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fanboyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-53061789388794172612010-07-30T12:27:55.663-04:002010-07-30T12:27:55.663-04:00Meet Fanboy<a href="http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/meet-fanboy/13972181" rel="nofollow">Meet Fanboy</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com