tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post6724569821610693465..comments2024-03-26T11:20:35.560-04:00Comments on Daily Campello Art News: Lennyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15335261603489770267noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-286453627144737172008-10-12T10:02:00.000-04:002008-10-12T10:02:00.000-04:00"Adequate painter" come on Lenny. You know that's ..."Adequate painter" come on Lenny. You know that's not true. He paints with the technique and ideas of an average high school art nerd. <BR/><BR/>The post must have lost all taste to promote this trash. However print journalism is gasping for air so they have to pay the bills somehow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-44018624204645603702008-10-04T19:58:00.000-04:002008-10-04T19:58:00.000-04:00A couple of thoughts: one, I think we start gettin...A couple of thoughts: one, I think we start getting into trouble when we expect what is essentially a public info/service business - a newspaper - to adhere to a certain <I>role and mission</I> when it comes to covering the arts. I'm not saying that it isn't possible or that we haven't had excellent writers in the past, it's just that for the most part, any good criticism has become so secular and self-serving to all the players involved - artists, galleries, museums, collectors and even bloggers etc. - that it is indeed preaching to the choir. I would turn the finger pointing around towards those same individuals who have sequestered art and its machinations into a castaway activity unrelated to society's day to day existence. Or to put it bluntly, who reads about art in the newspaper these days? The importance of that writing is only equal to the affect it has on an individual concerned by it - which is none on the non-art public.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, honestly, who cares about Paul Stanley? I mean how is his artwork going to affect our art making practices, sales, reviews, or any other related activity we do? It's not, not anymore than Hirst's latest auction. That it is a waste for a newspaper to cover such inane artwork, I agree, but to believe that they have some unwritten responsibility to review something "better" or more substantial (our picks would be limitless) is to assume they care about doing so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-16085908084020996462008-10-03T18:49:00.000-04:002008-10-03T18:49:00.000-04:00Preaching to the choir, Lenny. Keep on keepin' on...Preaching to the choir, Lenny. Keep on keepin' on!<BR/><BR/>With all of the good artists here, and especially with the recent local selections at Littelton and Tate's foray into national collecting status, you'd think the WaPo folks could bother to cover local arts. <BR/><BR/>Their lack of coverage is a real embarrassment.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12716984314646883238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5951361.post-27732715525029698332008-10-03T15:32:00.000-04:002008-10-03T15:32:00.000-04:00I found the video to be pretty funny. What isn't ...I found the video to be pretty funny. <BR/><BR/>What isn't funny is that the Washington Post and many other newspapers (including the City Paper) either have non-existent or simply TERRIBLE coverage of the D.C. arts scene. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, this leaves a market for someone creative and entrepreneurial to start a rag devoted to the D.C. arts scene. No good competition, I'll tell you that!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com