Needling Jessica Back

Today I picked up my copy of the Gazette and was pleased to see a huge review by Jordan Edwards of Andrew Wodzianski's Abra Cadaver exhibition at Fraser Gallery. That's the only way that I get any news these days about the gallery that I used to co-own for ten years from 1996-2006.

At the Fraser Gallery in Bethesda, a collection of Androids will fill the space until Nov. 14. The mixed media pieces are not new — they first appeared at the Warehouse Gallery in fall 2006 — but this is his first solo exhibition of the illustrations at Fraser. Nine have not been on display anywhere before.

The series is inspired by Tomy's Mighty Men & Monster Maker, a late '70s and '80s toy that allowed children to create rubbings of creatures using interchangeable plates and a box of crayons. Spin-offs included cartoon characters and fashion models. Wodzianski received the original as a gift at age 4 and became fascinated with the differences between the girl and boy versions. He has purchased nearly 40 sets and uses rubbings as starting points for hand-drawn figures that he colors, cuts out and mounts on scrapbook paper.

And here's the gem in the show:

Raised in rural Pennsylvania and educated at the Maryland Institute College of Art, Wodzianski teaches at the College of Southern Maryland (CSM) and has been represented by the Fraser Gallery since 2001.

The D.C. resident has had a few bruises along the way. After his first solo show at the gallery in 2003, Washington Post art critic Jessica Dawson brought down the hammer. He subsequently immortalized her in an illustration called, "Jessica, This May Sting a Little."

"He was completely devastated by the review," gallery owner Catriona Fraser recalls. "So he's done this little homage to [Dawson], but it's nothing like it could have been. He could have been a lot harsher."

Wodzianski shook it off and no longer views Dawson as a dream-crusher. The critic gave him a more favorable review last summer.

"You learn to wear bad reviews like a badge of honor," he says. "I think her writings have become increasingly sophisticated, and I'm beginning to agree with her more often than not."

"Jessica, This May Sting a Little"
Mixed Media, 10" x 8", 2009 by Andrew Wodzianski
Read the review here.

This is what Jessica wrote about Andrew six years ago. There's no art critic like time, and time has proven Dawson to be spectacularly wrong when she mimics the traditional art critic mantra and writes:

Anyone in the art world will tell you: Realism has been done. Remember those cave painters back in 15,000 B.C.? Could those guys render a bison or what?

... only a near-cosmic alignment of skill and innovation will capture the attention of an art world entranced by its own progress.

She then tears Andrew a new one:

Not surprisingly, I guess, one branch of contemporary figurative painters, the ones not quite so talented or clever, have transformed attention-seeking into an art.

... Wodzianski's scenarios are fine camp. But is the artist in on the joke?

Read Dawson's six year old review here.

By the way, I agree with Andrew in the sense that I also think that Dawson's reviews and writing have improved substantially in the ten years or so that she has been freelancing for the Washington Post, ever since that day when Ferdinand Protzman quit as the galleries' critic in a dispute over assignments.

The writing of the young Dawson to the more mature Dawson has mellowed out quite a bit and she's no longer the flame thrower that she used to be from her days in the City Paper to her move to the Post. I've been harsh on Dawson's writing many times in the past, but have also praised her writing when we align in ideas and opinions. And she has clearly become a better writer in the last few years.

And better educated. By the way, the book that Jessica is holding (AH 245) is a GWU course titled "Seminar in European Art of the Nineteenth Century." "Collectors and their Collections," restricted to graduate students and taught by Prof. Robinson.

"Abra Cadaver" runs through Nov. 14 at the Fraser Gallery in Bethesda.

Dawson on Rubell

The Washington Post's Galleries art critic, Jessica Dawson (whose writing role, as explained to me by the Post, has expanded a little, and will allow her to cover more art-related events such as this one, instead of just having Dawson do gallery reviews) followed Mera Rubell around to a few of her 36 studio visits and has the Dawsonesque take on the event here.

You could call it a Hanukkah miracle. Or the arrival of intelligent life from another planet. Last Saturday at 5 a.m., while the rest of us slept, megacollector Mera Rubell walked among us, hunting local art.

Read Dawson's report on the Rubell visit here.

As usual, Dawson adds her own bitter Debbie Downer flavor to a spectacularly positive event and tips her hand, when she introduces her log of the visits by writing: "Mera's troll through Washington's art warrens was akin to Santa visiting the Island of Misfit Toys."

What a putz... or maybe I'm the putz for just seeing just all the positive things that Mera and her interest has generated and will generate, and ignoring some of the things that Dawson highlights. And for the record, I know which Misfit Toy I would be...

As commenter "fisher1" noted in the Post's website in a comment about Dawson's article:

Jessica Dawson tactfully didn't mention one major reason artists in Washington feel neglected and isolated and that is the lack of any consistent critical voice. Any thriving art scene needs good critics as well as collectors and venues willing to take chances. We might have the latter two but certainly not the critical voice. Jessica Dawson might review one art show in ten if we're lucky; the Post's major art critic, Blake Gopnik is usually found wandering through New York's galleries ( admittedly, recently he has noted that art is going on in Washington)and people like Andrew Sullivan and occasional pieces in the City paper try to fill the gap but gap it remains and that's been the situation for many decades.

Unfortunately that wasn't "tact" on Dawson's part, after all, she's one of the critical voices in question.

You can see all the comments, or add your own, here.

Ten years of Jessica Dawson

The WaPo's Galleries' critic, Jessica Dawson, has an almost nostalgic article in the Post today as it is her 10th anniversary writing for the paper.

Jessica and I have had a very interesting professional relationship over the years. I first met her when she was a young writer for the City Paper and used to swing by the original Fraser Gallery in Canal Square in Georgetown. Back then there were seven galleries in the square, and the 3rd Friday openings were packed with people. Most of those galleries closed over the years, Fraser relocated to Bethesda, Parish expanded into the Fraser space, MOCA went through the loss of Clark & Hogan and it is still there, as is Alla Rogers and her almost new neighbor Cross MacKenzie.

At one point we were even writing for the same editor, as for a shining short period of time the WaPo had several writers, including Jessica and yours truly, writing online gallery reviews for the brand spanking new washingtonpost.com site. Imagine that! Online art reviews to expand the WaPo's print section's art reviews. Ahhhh... the good ole days.

When she first started writing for the print version of the paper, as she notes, her "prose smacked harsh" and many of us gallerists were left with our mouth open in some of her reviews. One former Dupont Circle area gallerist kicked her out of her gallery and prohibited her from ever returning - they've since made up.

As she notes in today's article, over the years she "wised up and recognized that there are kinder ways of saying "shape up" than likening art to "a dental hygienist scaling your tartar with a metal pick." Ouch! I don't remember that one.

Also over the years I have been an avid follower of her writing, and protested when it was reduced in appearances (she used to write every Thursday). I recall an angry email received from Eugene Robinson, who then used to anchor the Style Section. I had complained to him that Dawson's column had been missing for two weeks. He responded with a terse: "She's gotta go on vacation sometime!" I wrote back in an even terser note saying: "It would be nice if you told us that she'll be back in two weeks, as you do for all other columns!"

Through this blog I've trashed, praised, criticized, admired, hated, defended, attacked and also liked Jessica's writing at different times and on an individual review basis. I've been left astounded, educated, surprised and pleased by what she has written over the years, but I've always read it. "Jessica goes yard!" announced one of my banners; "Jessica off the mark... again" reads another

Ten years is like a 100 years in gallery-years, and the legacy of Washington art galleries to Washington art and artists has been documented in print by Dawson at the Post, and I for one, still look forward to her columns and how they make me react.

Jessica, I look forward to 10 more years of me delivering one-voiced arguing, or yelling at your writing, or admiring your points, or agreeing with your views, or disagreeing with your conclusions, etc., but always reading your words.

Un abrazo sincero.

Mellema on Lin

"It's hard to argue with the notion that Amy Lin gets more press coverage than any other artist in the greater Metro area."

That's the beginning of a most excellent review by Kevin Mellema of the Amy Lin show currently at Addison Ripley in Georgetown. Read the whole review here. Mellema is right, Lin has received tons of press and critical attention in her past and current exhibitions.

It's also hard to argue with the puzzling fact that so far the Washington Post's Jessica Dawson, whose job is to write about DC area galleries, is one of the rare important critical voices who has so far managed to avoid writing anything about this artist. Lin has managed to capture the attention of nearly every art critic and writer in the region but Dawson's.

Says something about having a "finger on the pulse of the DC art scene" doesn't it?

I really hope that Dawson proves me wrong and plans to review this current Lin show and bring one of the District's top visual arts voices to the attention of the WaPo's readers.

On the other hand, me bitching about Jessica's review choices (or lack thereof) could result in a permanent poisoning of the well and guarantee that Dawson will black list Lin forever.

Still on yet another hand, in 100 years no one will know who Jessica Dawson was, but Amy Lin's artworks will still be around and being enjoyed for centuries to come.

Jessica off the mark... again

In this article, the Washington Post's freelance galleries' critic Jessica Dawson writes that an artist's "highest calling" is "creating work that challenges social and political norms."

Really, did I miss that in Janson's?

OK, OK, I know that this is simply Jessica's own opinion being passed as some sort of highest calling agreement that we've all signed up to before receiving our art degrees.

Because Jessica Dawson is an art critic and not an artist, she views what "real art" should be from a postmodern theoretical viewpoint in which a lot of art critics and writers, and some artists, may see art's highest calling as indeed creating work that challenges social and political norms.

That artwork and those artists are just members of a much larger set of artists and art which has an equally important "higher calling" in their art that has zip to do with social or political norms, such as 98% of contemporary abstract painters with the other 2% just claiming that their work does challenge some social or political norm. For some of those, their higher calling may just be the beauty of what can be achieved by a talented hand and brush with the nuances of color and form and shape.

But Dawson's comment is an eye-opening inside view at the mind of this Washington Post freelancer, and somewhat sad in that her viewpoint excludes the vast majority of other highest callings that artists may have.

Philippa over at the Pink Line Project drives a good historical stake through the heart of Dawson's silly segregationist viewpoint. Read that here.

Feh!

In defense of Jessica Dawson

Yesterday I noted the mess that former WaPo art critic Jessica Dawson is in due to her recent review of an African-American artist, where she's being accused of being a racist.

Jessica Dawson is not a racist. Her art criticism is almost always negative, often offensive, very snarky and she's unable to give an artistic positive compliment without doing it in a backhanded manner. That, unfortunately for the DC area artists whom she used to review in the Washington Post for years, is a known fact (see here for my empirical evidence). She was once even kicked out of a DC gallery and prohibited from ever entering again! 

This critic is one who, when she departed the Post, noted that over the years she "wised up and recognized that there are kinder ways of saying "shape up" than likening art to "a dental hygienist scaling your tartar with a metal pick."

I seem to also recall when she once compared someone's artwork to "looking at a fat lady's butt" ... 

DC artists will also tell you that she hates realism... She once wrote: "Anyone in the art world will tell you: Realism has been done. Remember those cave painters back in 15,000 B.C.? Could those guys render a bison or what?" 

Her Art History background and depth of knowledge was also questioned often, as a few of her reviews had jaw-dropping art history errors... But a racist? Not a chance... She's simply an equal opportunity Debbie Downer art scribe, and I will always defend, even as I may disagree, for her right to write a negative art review about anyone, regardless of race, and in this case, I think that Jillian Steinhauer is not only showing her youth, but also her formation, and unfortunately using the "race card" in the wrong place, something that she's probably learned due to the ubiquitous use of that card by nearly everyone these days.

Patronizing

Few things make me madder than someone patronizing me. Here's the Assistant Style Section editor's answer to my question:

Question: By the time that one adds up commercial art galleries, non-profit art galleries, alternative art spaces, embassy galleries, and cultural art center galleries, there are over 100 new art shows every month in the Greater Washington, D.C. area, making it one of the largest and most active visual art scenes in the nation.

And yet the Style section has diminished its already dismal gallery art coverage to a twice a month schedule by Jessica Dawson. And The Post's Chief Art Critic (Blake Gopnik) focuses exclusively on museum shows, and does not review local art galleries. By comparison, his colleagues at the NY Times and LA Times (for example) review both museums and their cities' local galleries. The Arts Beat column also focuses on arts news events and rarely on local galleries.

What can the Style section do to improve local gallery coverage, say to the same (or even 50%) of the level as local theatre coverage (which is covered in Style on a nearly daily basis)?

Steve Reiss: I understand that no one likes to hear that their gallery show isn't going to get reviewed. But while we've got a lot of talented critics and reporters in the Style section (Thank you, Don Graham!), we don't have enough people or money to cover everything we would like to and we have to make choices. Some of those choices are based on quality, some are based on popularity, some are based on the interests of the individual critics. A while back, we reconfigured one of Jessica Dawson's monthly columns so it would feature a half-dozen galleries instead of just one or two. As for Blake Gopnik, he is a prolific writer and I find it hard to argue that we should be giving up reviews of major museum shows so he can write more about galleries that have a much smaller audience.

Now, do you see why this is a losing battle for our area's art galleries and our visual artists, when these sort of answers are being given?

By the way, the Jessica Dawson "reconfiguration" so that it would "feature a half-dozen galleries instead of just one or two:"

(a) predates Style reducing her coverage from weekly to twice-a-month, and

(b) I suspect was made by the WaPo following a suggestion that I discussed with their Arts Editor (a really nice guy and a very hardworking editor named John Pancake) when Ferd Protzman left the Galleries column... as a means to review more galleries.

The Gazette newspaper (which is owned by the Washington Post) has an article on the subject of the tremendous success of the Bethesda Art Walk.

We're described as showing "bold and sometimes bawdy work." Can't recall the last time I've seen a gallery described as "bawdy."

I do share Elyse Harrison's concerns that one problem with the Bethesda Art Walk is that there are a few too many decorative, chain galleries on the "walk" - the type of galleries that sell decorative art and also do exorbitant framing to tack onto their "gyclees on canvas" reproductions of artists well-worth their owner's desperate resell attempts at Ebay.

The next Artwalk is tomorrow, Friday April 9, from 6-9 PM. See you there.

In the Post, Jessica Dawson takes off her gloves and puts artist Leith Eaton in her place. Eaton claims that her work is a new kind of "ism" and Jessica doesn't buy it - I agree with Dawson. This is a very good review that shows that art criticism can and should have teeth - and when intelligently applied, as in this review, it shows passion and opinion! Leith Eaton is at Foxhall Gallery through April 17, 2004.

Dawson also reviews one of my favorite DC area painters: Sheep Jones at Target Gallery. Jones' work at Target Gallery is a significant, if not huge, departure and new direction for Jones, whose work had previously concentrated in giving the viewer a sort of subterranean look at vegetables and roots. The new work opens a new path for this talented painter as we enter a dark and interesting door in her artistic discourse. I also agree with Dawson in Jessica's recommendation that Sheep lose the verbiage in her paintings.

Sheep Jones, is the Friends of the Torpedo Factory 2003 Artist of the Year. Washington printmaker Lou Stovall selected Jones as recipient of the award.

What about art?

This article by the Washington Post's ombudsman Deborah Howell exemplifies the sort of stuff that drives me batty about the Washington Post's coverage of the visual arts.

While one one hand they claim that they deliver fair and appropriate coverage, and while new editors all promise to look into the complaints about lack of appropriate coverage, and while they also promise to expand it, the truth is that it continues to shrink while the WaPo tells us that if we "don't get it, we don't get it..."

Ms. Howell writes an interesting article titled "The Critics Have Their Critics," and it goes along like this:

Who decides whether a play, concert or dance performance gets reviewed in The Post and whether the review is favorable? Readers complain about the absence of a review, an unfavorable one, or a review they think is given insufficient length or prominence.

Post Arts Editor John Pancake says the chief critics, all based in Style, decide what to review and who will review it -- a staff writer or a freelancer. A critic's job is to be, well, critical. While culturally sophisticated people can disagree, the critics' decisions to review and the review itself are The Post's guide to readers in the performing arts. The critics also write news and feature stories.

She then goes on to quote, discuss and explain away the theatre, dance, classical music, and pop music.

Two questions:

What about art?

What about Blake Gopnik, Michael O'Sullivan (not based in Style, but nonetheless a Washington Post art critic) and freelancer Jessica Dawson?

The Post already has the most minimalist of arts coverage of any major newspaper in the US, and its Chief Art Critic is the only one that I know of who is allowed not to report on his city's art galleries, a job and task that he had in his previous art critic assignment for a Canadian newspaper.

Maybe Ms. Howell will soon be doing a separate article discussing the spectacular apathy that the Post exhibits towards its city's art galleries and artists.

Yeah...

Second question: My good friend John Pancake says "the chief critics, all based in Style, decide what to review and who will review it -- a staff writer or a freelancer."

This is interesting news to me, as it reflects a change in how gallery reviews were done in the past, where Jessica Dawson pretty much had a free hand on what she chose to review and who and what gallery she chose to ignore. Apparently, according to Pancake anyway, now Blake Gopnik tells Dawson what her assignment is...

Interesting uh?

Holy crap! Jessica's in trouble!

Former WaPo freelance galleries art critic Jessica Dawson is in serious kimchi because of this review (I didn't even know that Jessica was still writing art reviews!).

And while Dawson's style of art criticism has a vast and serious set of negative critical issues associated with it (as I've often documented in this blog while she was a freelance art critic for the WaPo), and while The Dawsinator was (and maybe remains) a very thin-skinned recipient of return fire, and because I've met and had a lot of personal interaction with Dawson while she was the WaPo's main gallery art critic, one fact that I can say with a very high degree of assurance, is that her art criticism is not based on racism, as many people now claim because of this review.

As this blog entry is written, there are 124 comments debating Jessica (is she a racist or not, or just a bad art critic???)

Nepotista

"When it comes to nepotism, the best strategy is to avoid it."
- Jessica Dawson advising Jiha Moon here

Mmmm... in the artworld, this is often quite impossible... I would advise: "When it comes to nepotism, the best strategy is to minimize it as much as possible."

In writing about art, selling art, curating art, awarding art grants, seeing art, talking about art, we're all nepotistas to some degree or other. Nearly every curator that we've ever hired to jury an exhibition for us, has brought some nepotism into it and nearly every writer that I've read has exhibited some degree of it.

Critics get to know artists, and art dealers, and curators on a nearly daily basis, and they too, being human, develop nepotism in some degree or other, and become nepotistas perhaps without meaning to do so, or perhaps while minimizing it.

Even advise-giving Dawson.

A few years ago, I asked some of the WaPo's leadership why Dawson never reviewed (the now closed) Fusebox.

I was told that Dawson had recused herself from reviewing Fusebox due to private reasons (I was told "friendship with the owners").

Thus Dawson (I assume) did the right thing with the Post's policy (one exists I assume) in writing/reviewing about friends... good for her (although unfair somewhat for Fusebox, although to make things fair for them, the WaPo then apparently had Blake Gopnik review them a few times while they were open).

But as reported here in 2004, she had no nepotista issue in writing that Fusebox is "sharp and savvy," and has "raised the bar for visual art in Washington," and that their openings are "events to see and be seen at" for the 2004 issue of Timeout DC. In the lead page for the galleries (p.189), she even lists Fusebox under a listing of five galleries selected as "the best galleries." And on page 194 she again highlights Fusebox in a special commentary section where the gallery is highlighted after the following introduction:

"While some DC galleries could be accused - justifiably - of playing it safe, the following stand out from the crowd with their interesting programming and sheer charisma."

I'm not even that fussed that Dawson gave Fusebox some well-deserved comments and well-earned kudos on that issue of Timeout DC, but I am fussed that she's now giving Jiha Moon advise on nepotism instead of just reviewing the show.

In the event that you actually want to read a review of the show, then visit Thinking About Art and read Kirkland's, declared nepotism and all.

New Timeout

The current Timeout 2004 guide for Washington, DC has really good coverage of DMV art galleries; in fact it is the only DC guide that offers any decent "guiding" to Washington area galleries.

It is written by Jessica Dawson, who also pens the "Galleries" column for the Washington Post.

Read her introduction (you'll need an Amazon password) here and her favorites here under "Names of the Game."

Jessica nails it when she recognizes in her intro that a new "optimism" is kindling a really good art scene in our region.

Throughout the pages dedicated to the galleries, and as it is to be expected, there are quite a few comparisons to New York this, New York that all over the place.

And reading through Jessica's descriptions of the various galleries also offers an honest and rare insight as to how this critic evaluates and views (she seems to have something about "safe art," whatever that is) most of our region's art galleries. For example Dawson praises Zenith Gallery's Margery Goldberg for her "tireless activism," but describes the gallery as "while influential in the neon art scene, consistently shows mediocre painting and craft."

Addison/Ripley is praised for selling "high-calibre paintings, photography and prints," but "their selections, while lovely, are awfully safe."

Cheryl Numark is "Washington's power dealer", while Leigh Conner shows work by the "kind of cutting-edge artists that Washingtonians usually travel to New York to see."

MOCA is "DC's answer to the hip, alternative galleries of New York."

We "concentrate on photography, but occasionally shows innovative sculpture and work in other media," while our Bethesda outpost is a "bright, glass-walled gallery [that] exhibits realist painting and photography."

Hemphill Fine Arts "plays host to many of Washington's strongest artists," but "the art here tends towards the decorative."

Fusebox is "sharp and savvy," and has "raised the bar for visual art in Washington," and their openings are "events to see and be seen at."

Does anyone know why Jessica has never reviewed Fusebox in her "Galleries" column? Fusebox is easily one of our top area galleries, and I'm curious as to why it is so nicely praised in Timeout, but (so far) avoided in Dawson's bi-weekly column at the WaPo.

Anyway... Bravo Timeout!

Worth noting

Back when the WaPo announced the Real Art D.C. thing where the WaPo's Galleries critic Jessica Dawson reviews online entries and selects work that she liked, there was a good discussion about the rules of the entries, which seemed particularly one-WaPo-sided towards image copyright issues.

Not sure if that was a lot of wasted words worrying about copyright. I think.

Jessica's first pick was Joel D'Orazio, and she really liked his chairs but didn't seem so hot on his paintings. By the way, I'm the opposite: I like his paintings better.

Anyway, score is Jessica one, Lenny zip as Joel's chairs are featured in Dwell Magazine.

And by the way, all of Jessica Dawson's picks will be automatically invited for the next volume of 100 Washington Artists, tentatively titled 100 More Washington Artists.

Dawson on the Black Panthers

The WaPo's Jessica Dawson does a really good job in reviewing "Black Panther Rank and File" at the Decker and Meyerhoff galleries at the Maryland Institute College of Art in Baltimore.

She also makes a good point when she writes:

"The exhibition was organized by San Francisco's Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in conjunction with Claude Simard, a curator associated with New York City's Jack Shainman Gallery. Shainman represents many of the contemporary artists on view; the gallery also supplied a number of historical pieces.

Though Shainman is a well-known source for African American artists and ephemera, Yerba Buena's association with a commercial gallery raises questions about conflict of interest. The show favors Shainman artists, who gain exposure on this small museum tour -- "Black Panther Rank and File" originated at nonprofit Yerba Buena, traveled to nonprofit Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art and now hangs in a university gallery. That kind of exposure can translate into higher earnings for Shainman artists, casting a shadow over this otherwise strong show."

And Dawson also hits the mark dead on when she questions:

"But what of the Panthers' critics, of which there were many? For the most part, this is a pro-Panther project. Yerba Buena worked closely with former Panther Bill Jennings to construct the show; he's even credited for suggesting the project."

When I was a kid in Brooklyn, one of my first jobs was in a store on Belmont Avenue that used to have a sidewalk stand outside its doors. My job was to stand outside, freezing my buns in winter, broiling in the summer, and watch the stand and either send people into the store when they bought something and needed change, or to take their money if it was an exact amount. I was also the "chaser," when someone grabbed something from the stand and ran away with it.

Usually, if the gonif was being chased, he'd drop the merchandise and keep running, and I would return it to the stand.

But back to the Panthers.

During that time the Black Panthers were big in Brooklyn, and about once a month they'd come by Belmont and Pitkin Avenue hitting all the stores for "contributions" to their various programs. They were one of three such groups that demanded, not asked for, but demanded, some sort of cash flow in order to assure some degree of safety.

In addition to the Panthers, my employer (a Cuban Jew named Simon, who was fluent in Spanish, Yiddish, Polish and German and who used to smoke huge cigars all day long) had to grease the hands of the local Brooklyn cops and the local Mafioso. Of the three, the cops came by most often.

Dawson finishes with "...the only overtly critical work comes from the painter John Bankston, who points out Panther homophobia in his 2005 canvas 'The Sermon.' In it, two latter-day Panthers have seemingly strong words for a transvestite and his companion."

A really good review for what sounds like a very interesting exhibition. The show is up through Dec. 16. Read Dawson's review here.

PS - Museums, non profits and commercial art dealers have been dancing together for a long time and will continue to do so. Here's something I wrote in 1995 (do forgive the 1990s style website) about the Gene Davis legacy to the museum where he was a Commissioner. When that piece was published in the WaPo back then, I actually received a couple of hate phone calls.

Dawson on the City Hall Art Collection

The Washington Post's Jessica Dawson proves me wrong whan I predicted that she would dismiss the new City Hall Art Collection and writes a really good and insightful review on the subject.

Over the years, in my opinion due to her youth and insecurity over being the WaPo's sole gallery reviewer, Dawson has often resorted to being nasty on a semi-personal level, and even preachy and incendiary, in a cheap attempt to be "noticed."

In the past, she also has made huge mistakes in her writing, and DC area gallery owners and artists have laughed about it publicly, and in many letters to her hard-working, but benign editor, they have complained about her writing and art history ignorance consistently and brutally, and because she bruises easily, she has taken the negative feedback about her writing personally, while at the same time dishing out loads of negative writing in return.

And maybe it is maturity in this young critic, or perhaps the result of her taking Art History classes to solidify her writing background, but in any event, after years of reading her writing, I'm detecting a maturity (and security) level as a writer that now allows her to give a positive review without doing it as a back-handed compliment.

My kudos to Jessica for an excellent review. Read it here.

Bravo Jessica!

Thursday WaPo reviews

Jessica Dawson reviews Hemphill Fine Arts' new floorplan in George's new beautiful space on 14th Street and is also disturbed by Chan Chao's nude photographs currently on at Numark.

I wasn't too surprised that when Jessica first stepped into Chao's exhibition, she "wanted to step right back out" [because]... "Twenty just-over-life-size portraits of naked women ring the gallery's walls. Yet the mood isn't sexy. Or playful. It's utterly vulnerable and uncomfortable. For you and me, for sure, and even more so for Chao's subjects."

I write that I wasn't too surprised because both Dawson and her predecessor in the "Galleries" column appear to me to be rather uncomfortable with nudity. I could be wrong, I guess, but it is something that I've noticed in their demeanor and their writing over the years.

I was also surprised that Jessica writes that Chao "has applied the same clinical, pseudo-journalistic approach he used on the pro-democracy guerrillas of Burma -- those pictures were a hit at the 2002 Whitney Biennial -- to naked women, many of whom are the artist's friends or associates. Despite Chao's attempts at evenhandedness, or perhaps because of them, the results feel exploitative and manipulative."

This is in fact backwards! Those familiar with Chao's photographs before he turned his camera to the pro-democracy guerrillas of Burma, know that prior to that he used to focus on the nude figure, and in fact applied the "same clinical, pseudo-journalistic approach" that he used with his earlier nudes to the pro-democracy guerrillas of Burma, not the other way around.

Chao abandoned the nude for a few years, returned to his native Burma and photographed the pro-democracy guerrillas of Burma. It was a big hit with curators all over the nation, landed him a spot on the 2002 Whitney Biennial and national acclaim. I personally thought those photographs were boring and repetitive; I have, on the other hand, always liked and admired his nude portraits and I think that his current Numark show is spectacular!

Chao has just returned to the nude now; that's all. And I think that Dawson is just uncomfortable around nudes.

I could be wrong. For a different (male) perspective on this show, read Louis Jacobson at the WCP.

P.S. Blake Gopnik also reviews Iraq and China: Ceramics, Trade and Innovation at the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Asian Art.

Liz Spayd for WaPo.com

Liz Spayd, an assistant managing editor in charge of national news for The Washington Post, has been named editor of washingtonpost.com.

Spayd's upcoming editorialship has been called in an official WaPo statement as "another sign that our Web site is a journalistic force that will play a large part in shaping The Post's future."

Spayd joined the WaPo in 1988.

A little history:

When the washingtonpost.com first got started, one of the first things that it did was to augment the galleries and visual arts coverage by adding a group of freelance writers who would write reviews and profiles to augment the print version's scant coverage of the DC area's galleries and artists.

This is how Jessica Dawson first connected with the Washington Post bosses. Previous to that, she used to write for the Washington City Paper as a freelancer working for then WCP Arts Editor Glenn Dixon Brad McKee.

At the washingtonpost.com, under editor John Poole (who was then the site's online Arts Editor), the arts coverage by the WaPo online flourished and there were dozens and dozens of gallery reviews, which have unfortunately mostly disappeared from the WaPo's online presence, as well as many gallery profiles, most of which have also vanished, although a few still remain.

At once point, even the print version critics, such as Jessica Dawson's predecessor for the Galleries column (Ferdinand Protzman) and Michael O'Sullivan, authored online articles and reviews for washingtonpost.com which were only available online.

And for a short period of time, there was happiness in the air, as the WaPo finally appeared to be delivering gallery coverage, if just through its expanded online presence.

And then John Poole got promoted and went on to bigger and better things.

And then it took a looooong time to find a replacement online Arts editor. And by the time she was hired, she had a tight budget and no allowance for online art critics, and a bare bones coverage of the art scene.

And then the WaPo's Chief Art Critic (Paul Richard) retired, and Ferd Protzman got pissed that he didn't get promoted to that job and quit, and Jessica got hired as a freelancer to replace Protzman and back then the Galleries column was a weekly column.

And then Gopnik got hired from some Canadian newspaper where he used to write for after the Post's first choice (a New York Times critic) turned the job offer down and recommended Blake, who apparently was outside the Post's radar at that time.

And the "augmented" online visual arts coverage ended, other than the random Gopnik video here and there.

Liz Spayd, if you read this: can you bring back some other critical voices to the DC art scene and renew the online art reviews?

Goodbye Book World

In another sign that literary criticism is losing its profile in newspapers, The Washington Post has decided to shutter the print version of Book World, its Sunday stand-alone book review section, and shift reviews to space inside two other sections of the paper.

Where will they shift the book reviews and articles and discussions to?

“I think it’s going to be a great disappointment to a lot of readers,” said Marie Arana, who edited Book World for a decade before taking a buy-out from The Washington Post in December. “I just hope that there’s enough coverage and emphasis and attention given on the pages where Book World will now appear in print in Outlook and Style and Arts to satisfy those readers.”

Good luck with that Ms. Arana; it has been clear to the most casual observer that those sections of the WaPo are not really interested too much on "satisfying" their readers; at least those readers with niche interests such as book, visual arts, etc.

Think more celebrity focus and you've got the Style section. A few years ago the decay of the Style section's coverage of the visual arts in the Post started under then Style's editor Eugene Robinson, and this blog is a historical record of the decay of that section in covering the arts, as well as some outright lies by its editors over the years about some of the issues raised over the years.

In 2004 the Style section used to have one column a week to review DC area art galleries. 52 articles a year to review from a potential field of over 1,500 or so gallery shows. But 52 is better than nothing. The columns were shared by freelancers Jessica Dawson and Glenn Dixon, both ex-Washington City Paper writers. Then Dixon quit over some dispute with the Post and the art review column was reduced to twice a month.

But we were told on Monday, December 27, 2004 that the Post had "decided to hire a second freelance writer to augment Jessica Dawson's 'Galleries' reviews."

We're still waiting for that second additional freelance art critic. Instead, since then the Post has reduced its galleries' coverage even further. And it's not like we don't understand the economical reasons for this. With newspapers all over the nation slowly bleeding away readers each month, the end of the line is near for these major, once dominant moribund giants of the printed media. But what fires me up is when they still try to tell us that nothing will change and that they still "get it" as the Post's annoying radio ads proclaim.

In a phone interview with the NYT, Marcus Brauchli, executive editor of The Post said that “Our intention is to have nearly as many reviews as we’ve had in the past, though clearly there will be somewhat less room.”

Goodbye Book World.

Mean, Unfair and Plain Wrong

That's me!

My DC blogsphere colleague Kriston Capps, who just like me every once in a while is very fond of policing other folks' opinions, thinks that I am "mean... unfair... and plain wrong," in my recent rant at Jessica Dawson's inept review of Caitlin Phillips.

And while I respect Capps' right to express his opinions to my response to Dawson's review, I disagree 100% with his insinuation that a critic's interpretation of a body of works, absolves them/us of having a responsibility or need to gather information about an artist's intent; especially if they are preparing to deliver a public question or opinion that suggests that an artist is denigrating herself via that same body of works.

Let's be clear: Critics don't have to ask questions or gather information for every thing, even intent.

But if they're going to make the leap and portray an artist as denigrating herself because of what the images convey to the critic, at the very least they should try to find out what the artist thinks they're conveying or was trying to convey.

It just makes sense to me.

In this case, I think Dawson blew the review, and erred in her (let's assume) interpretation, because she didn't know (or cared to know) the photographer's intent - even if Phillips didn't deliver it very clearly, as could be the case - and although Dawson was keen enough to make a harsh interpretation about the intent, she wasn't curious enough to try to gather the easily available information.

And boo hoo... now I also think that Kriston is just mean, unfair and gets it plain wrong when he interprets that my post is suggesting that critics should go "around asking artists to tell them what to write in their reviews."

Especially since he knows me, and knows well that I would never suggest such an idiotic thing.

That makes two critics who should have asked a question before making such a knuckle-headed leap.

Read Kriston's opinions here.

The Thursday Reviews

The WCP's Louis Jacobson reviews our current Mary Lang show in Georgetown and makes some excellent points on Lang's tranquil photography.

Over at the Gazette, Dr. Claudia Rousseau delivers a superb review of Metro Clay at the Rockville Arts Place, and lauds Margaret Boozer, whose show at Strand on Volta last year was one of my Top Ten Shows of the Year. Dr. Rousseau writes:

Among the 57 pieces by 13 artists who live and work in the metro area (hence the exhibit title "Metro Clay"), Boozer's work is probably the most dynamic. "Out of the Fire" is set into a large wooden box frame hanging on the central wall of the gallery, its dark brown color easily dominating the space. The piece is part of a larger series of clay wall works entitled "Land/Marks." These show the results of a working process that deals as directly as possible with the medium's essential nature. Boozer begins by spreading mounds of clay on the floor, then stomping, tearing, carving and otherwise pounding it. Buckets of slip are then splashed onto the broken surface. Thus set into motion, the natural processes inherent in clay take over. As the medium dries, it warps and cracks, taking on the appearance of earth as geologic material.

It is a fascinating idea, with unforeseeable outcomes. When the artist moves these pieces from the floor to the wall, they project the process they record, emphasizing the idea of the persistence of the earth and a sense of memory. There is, as Boozer herself has said, a visceral appeal to these works, connecting directly to the viewer's own identification with clay as earth.

For the exhibit, Boozer has launched another of these works in the gallery space. "In Process Porcelain Landscape" is a thick slab of creamy white porcelain clay, carved and manipulated, and set on a low base. Over it, the artist has poured slip of the same medium that collects in a pool on top and drips onto the floor. It is cool and moist to the touch at this writing, but by the end of the exhibit, will have changed into a craggy moonscape of dried clay.

Over at the WaPo, Jessica Dawson has an excellent review of Mexican Report at the Cultural Institute of Mexico. Miss Dawson prefers the video artists, but also makes an excellent point on the issue of the adjective "Mexican." This is sort of the same arguement that I have been making for years now about art and ethnicity, specifically the so-called "Hispanic" ethnicity, which I submit is a cultural and not an ethnic or racial term.

In her penultimate paragraph, it's apparent that Dawson has missed the memo that painting is hot again when she slams the "predominantly retrograde cache of paintings and drawings [that] hangs at Meridian International Center" and states that their the "predictable and anachronistic work that results is particularly forgettable."

Overall an excellent review of a show that I still have to go see and is in my "must see" list.

Bravo Dawson!

---

By the way, tonight The Cultural Institute of Mexico will hold a roundtable discussion on trends in contemporary Mexican art starting at 6:30. Participants include exhibition curator Santiago Espinosa de los Monteros, art critic Anthony Harvey, Hirshhorn programs manager Milena Kalinovska and Curator's Office director Andrea Pollan. The Cultural Institute of Mexico is at 2829 16th St. NW, in DC. I wish I could make it tonight, but I have karate class on Thursdays!