"I think that neither of you have the slightest idea what art is.
I think that neither of you should read my work or comment here. I mean you CAN read it if you want to feel far superior to EVERYONE ELSE.
But really, you do not have a clue about living in your own time.
You have just become cynical.
Which is cool too.
Where were you while we were getting high?
I don't think there's ANY REASON WHATSOEVER for you guys to be looking at contemporary art anymore.
But I would think that..."
-Jerry Saltz (Facebook post - 2.13.2013)
An anti-social contract (1.24.2013)
Humans are aggressive animals and artists are not exempt from this condition...for that matter neither is the art critic. And so we now pan to my favorite case study - Jerry Saltz & his Facebook Clan.
Humans are aggressive animals and artists are not exempt from this condition...for that matter neither is the art critic. And so we now pan to my favorite case study - Jerry Saltz & his Facebook Clan.
"Do not let rejection define you." - Jerry Saltz
Before we can understand Saltz as an established critic we
must first take a peek at his underbelly; it's here that we will find a wound
that had occurred very early on in his career, a nasty gaffing that has left
him vulnerable ever since...Saltz is a failed artist.
We need to put ourselves in the young Saltzs shoes in order
to really understand how hurtful this must of been; this kind of hurt never
really heals. The initial blow to his ego during his formative years plays a
huge role in how he deals with others in a realm that he has dedicated his life
to. Saltz is sadly locked in an ongoing insecure state of having to prove
himself. So with this information in mind it becomes glaringly apparent that at
bottom Mr. Saltz really resents and is in competition with other artists... and
this base contempt has over time manifested into a love hate thing with his
subjects.
A few off the cuff examples of this contempt would be for
instance how both Jerry and his wife Roberta have referred to NYC gallery
artists as patients (as in a mental ward) or how Saltz has repeatedly called
artists "attention seeking babies" or suggesting that we are living
in a time in which the art that is being produced is more limited than at any
time in history. On a more intimate level Jerry has gone so far as to take
deliberate steps to publicly humiliate individual artists when they have stood
in the way of the people or things he has decided to target; he has carried
this out by simply looking up the dissenters webpage and then ripping the work
to shreds in a post...all this done in his signature "killing me
softly" way of course, i.e., offering an unsolicited "constructive"
critique.
This being said, Saltz is very careful to stay well beyond
criticism from others or even himself (short of an occasional self deprecating
dodge tactic)...he is beyond good and evil so to speak. He is notorious for
[blocking] naysayers or anyone who is foolhardy enough to really butt heads
with many of his batty views on any given issue. This rigid regulatory stance
can be problematic for a critic because the unwillingness to truly question
oneself or leave oneself open to a healthy, balanced debate spills over to the
written criticism. An individual that works in this mode seeks to avoid the
"traditional" criteria of judgement, classification and evaluation;
and so what we are then left with in regards to the critique proper is an
elusive, shapeless mass of gray area.
Quite predictably, when Saltz does attempt to actually
criticize - as in the case of his recent Paul Emsley bashing - we are able to
witness a pattern of him choosing what he feels is an easy kill, a weak target.
This abuse of power by Saltz (and others) has been my focus of late and anyone
who would have any doubts about the extent of this abuse need go no further
than to spend some time on Saltz's FB page on any given day. So, as already
mentioned we have yet another clear example of this bullying with Saltz's
over-the-top critique of the Emsley piece on both his FB page and by way of his
article in Vulture. I suggest anyone who is really interested in seeing the
workings of an art-mob go onto Saltz's page where one will see a steady flow of
mean spirited content directed not only at the painter Paul Emsley but also at
the sitter Kate Middleton. These inflated snippets coming from the Jerry clan
are again less about criticism and more about posturing. Many of these posts
have an ulterior motive; namely to briefly bond with Saltz by way of
pig-piling; in this case on a rather adequate albeit prosaic piece of work done
by someone who has remained outside of the pale of the "art world"
for most of his career. With this in mind it is seen as safe to gang up on
Emsley just as it has been easy pickings to jump on Kinkade or Morley Safer, MoMA or even Glenn Beck (Jerry's long time obsession).
So harmless as all this yelping might appear, it is
precisely this kind of crass pack mentality that will be detrimental to the art
community in the long run. Not only is it a gross display of acting out but
more than this, it is the no risk stance that prevents landing a real kill (and
the pack ultimately suffers from lack of proper nourishment). So again, let us
keep in mind that this recent example is not just about judging a painting per
se; this issue is really about territorial flexing and social
maneuvering...both of which have little to do with the art.
Rattling the Saber (in two parts)
Pt. 1 [No Quarter]
“Oh. It only mean there WAS BLOOD at SAIC today.
I had to destroy many students.
Six survived.
And are very good. And will live to make art another day ...
The Critic Has Spoken.
None shall be spared thy Orc Sword.
Bring out your art.
Bring out your art.
Bring out your ...”
Jerry Saltz (FB post 1.26.2013)
An anonymous response:
“oh Jerry, your fb pals can continue to make excuse for you
while you bob and weave but we can all see how much you REALLY enjoy the kill
just for the kill. For you this has never been about making the victim stronger
and that is fine...just embrace your inner pettiness, you will be better for it
in the long run. Lol”
January 27 at 3:13pm · Like · 1
[repost]“It is a shame you never got that Pulitzer though. 3x's it
slipped away (those Columbia University connections only go so far) Just remember, you will never be a Roberta and Roberta will never be a Holland Cotter. Sigh” January 27 at 3:23pm ·
Like · 1
Pt. 2 [Fear& Loathing]
"BTW, Aaron Holz: The person you referred to as "Jen" [Justin Town] is not a real person; it is someone who is obsessed with me, regularly creates false names, and posts here. FB is looking into it; as are other authorities; they can get computer ID codes after a certain amount of this sort of doings.
Your points are all brilliant, still."
Jerry Saltz (FB post 1.22.2013)
Stanley
Casselman: Take your hands and crop out her hair... it's a man..? Things that
make you go hmmm...
Above image:Lena Henke (left) -vs- Bill Viola (right)
Wellington
Hersh: Jerry, in regards to small groups, elitism, esoteric huddles and
surplus; it seems that all these conditions are spread across the art world
quite liberally. As a critic in print, you visit, write about -take from- a
small pool of galleries exclusively. Galleries in NYC (Chelsea specifically)
command prices, pay rents, participate in art fairs and host events that are
also one big cash sucking circle jerk (great shoes and no penises included).
The ENTIRE art world -from top to bottom- would tank without compulsion,
appetite, and disconnect...all auctions aside.
Wellington
Hersh: The late Dave Hickey stated recently, "Art editors and critics –
people like me – have become a courtier class. All we do is wander around the
palace and advise very rich people. It's not worth my time." Mr. Saltz,
you are not exempt from this condition are you?
Wellington
Hersh: ...seems like penises are a great diversion from the more difficult
questions raised. lol carry on people.
Wellington
response [deleted]
Wellington
response [deleted]
Wellington 's
final response [deleted]
Here is yet another recent post from Jerry Saltz emasculating the West:
"Morley Safer, Sunday Painter, Declines Saltz's Curatorial Challenge" GalleristNY article: here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Justin Town
Jerry Saltz on Kate Middleton’s Terrible Official Portrait
(1.22.2013)
"Art usually only makes the news in America when
the subject is money. Here, the dollar is king. In Great Britain , the queen is
"king." Even though it's still a mystery to many Americans, the
British populace's unhinged fixation on and fetishization of their ever-beloved
royal family knows no bounds." –Jerry Saltz
Unhinged fixation? …And this from the guy who is so obsessed
with Obama it borders on the pathological! Hey Saltz, have you ever been to the
American portrait museum? I got some news for you Jerry, the Brits are
notorious for blasting the Royal family; this is not England pre 1800’s. Besides,
Fairey’s American icon Obama poster was boring as hell as was Chuck Close’s
recent fixation on fetishization; The Obama tapestry series. I might also point
out that Close's portrait of Kara Walker was WAY off! Friends and family of Walker have said as much
on her FB page. So on behalf of the British populace, piss off you wanker!
Jerry Saltz has also stated "Painting has its own
physicality and alchemy." well, let Jerry explain further this
"physicality and alchemy" in regards to portrait painting. Just to
say it is bad or good in some hyperbolic rant without really going into the
details of the physicality is lame. Saltz is shooting in the dark at any easy
target. but what else is new. When is the last time he immersed himself in this
genre or even wrote a review concerning portraiture? He didn't even see the
Kate Middleton portrait "in the flesh"
“…Again, I know we don't care, but whatever. Oh ... and
Obama kicked such serious right-wing maniac ass yesterday. ...” –JS
The challenge (sent to Jerry Saltz on 1/23/2013)
"It sucks. It's an absolutely lackluster, conventionally generic, photorealistic rendition of a pretty, white, thin, young, bourgeois-looking woman with long hair." - Jerry Saltz on the recent Kate Middlebrook portrait.
My challenge to you Mr. Saltz is this:
Give a full critique on a traditional, non-ironic, fully clothed , hyper-realistic portrait done within the past three years that you deem worthy to be labeled "art". This portrait must not have unorthodox visual props or a conceptual element. In short, it should done similar to the Middlebrook format- a standard frontal pose from the shoulders up.
When you find this gem be sure to tell us what makes it art or rather what sets the work apart from the Kate Middleton portrait.
It is far too easy for a contemporary critic to bash (from a distance) a work done in this genre and further than this, I do not believe Mr. Saltz is in any way even qualified to judge a traditional portrait painting.
In fact, I don't think the loosed-lipped, pulp-critic would know where to begin at an honest attempt.
The challenge stands.
-----------------
And now in closing just a few insightful comments from the
sensitive, tolerant and open ended art world via JS FB friends:
44 minutes ago · Like
Bobby Ray Wilson: Jerry, if you would just smear some fish
and crumpets into your eyes you'd see the beauty and genius of this
painting...a long trip to the pub beforehand would also enhance your ability to
see the truth and beauty of this painting.
about an hour ago · Like
Joseph Whitt Smile: lines buckling just ever so slightly in
line with pursed lips... sober patronizing gaze... I bet if you scratch and
sniff this canvas it wafts of lavender and the blood of peasants.
2 hours ago · Like
Matthew Weinstein: Kate Middlebrow.
2 hours ago · Like · 4
Lori Agostino: when i see this portrait i always think of
the scene in the movie brazil when the character ida lowry gets her face
stretched on that metal frame as a face lift...the only thing holding up her
face in this portrait are her eye sockets. all marshmallow- all fluff...great
critique jerry!
2 hours ago · Like
Sherie' Franssen: the biggest crime is that it's so
dreary...maybe when the couple went home they looked at each other and just
laughed. Jenny would have done the job for sure. Obama=greatness...
3 hours ago · Edited · Like
Kym Bloom: Well, if she wanted to be an uptight royal, this
portrait certainly accomplishes that.
4 hours ago · Like
Libby Crowley :
sucks donk
4 hours ago via mobile · Like
Tina Duryea: Obama was on fire yesterday! Looking forward to
read the article in Kate's hideous portrait when I get on a computer:)
4 hours ago via mobile · Like
Rex Bruce: Barf. Yuck. Etc.
4 hours ago · Like
Camilla Fallon: pickle face
4 hours ago · Like · 1
Georgia Griffin: Agree completely - on the awful portrait,
and our terrific President.
My partner and I looked at that portrait when they covered
the unveiling, and just could NOT believe that it was accepted. It makes her
look much older, smug and snide - none of which she is. So many could have done
a better job.
4 hours ago · Like
Laura Brandt Breck girl...exactly. Blonde bland and blah.
2 minutes ago · Like
...And last but not least, Jerry Saltz's attempt to bully a naysayer:
Jerry Saltz: Richard Schemmerer : You write, "It's a
good painting. The artist is just ahead of his time and misunderstood as
usual."
You could be right.
I'm an art-critic, you know, so I can't help myself. I read
your post and took a very very brief look at a lot of the pictures of your work
on your fb page.
I am sure you will say that I am misunderstanding your work
but I looked and think that the ONLY things of yours that have any promise and
that aren't derivative are your collages on the magazine covers.
I do not say this to be in ANY way mean.
Really.
I'm a critic; this is what I do.
Jerry rigged (12.27.2012)
Above image:
Art critic Jerry Saltz is at it again, attempting to make
molehills out of anthills. This new offence comes to us straight from the
bowels of NY MAG (Dec. 31st /Jan. 7th issue)...these ADHD reviews fade fast so
be sure to catch this one while you can.
The (female) artist in question is Lena Henke, and this is
what Jumping Jerry has to say about her recent installation:
"The sight of Lena Henke’s semi-transparent boxy
rectangles, each about as big as a car door, cantilevered from the wall in a
long row from front to back of this gallery, stunned me. A new sculptural
spark. A minimalist configuration transformed into something ghostly, strange,
un-artlike. Made with materials like plastic and construction hardware. With
images of statuary printed on their surfaces, some overlapping, fading, or
barely there, these objects transform into carriers of information outside
themselves, three-dimensional JPEGs, texts from the future-past. Here’s an
artist to watch out for." — Jerry Saltz
The operative phrases here are - "stunned me", "new sculptural
spark", "un-art like", and "future-past".
Henke's use of the medical/specimen format is
meta-derivative, the subject matter is borrowed and the overall effect is very,
VERY art-like. Below are a few "boxy" samples of done-art that are
akin to Henke's piece...an informed reader could easily find many more art historical
examples with minimal effort.
Father Saltz regulates scripture (11.17.2012)
Recap [excerpt from original post by Jerry Saltz]
“I know this is just me doing the same-old same-old and that
it grows tiresome. But after this week and a half of non-stop breathless
auction reports I still don't get it. Or I still can't stand it. I don't get
what we know now that we didn't already know last week. How a handful of very
very rich people with penises likes buying the work of a handful of artists
with penises for very very high prices in public, in front of other people with
penises and some very tall thin blond people with great shoes and no penises.
Really.”…
“Always people walk out of auction nattering utter nonsense.
"It's a smart market." Or "People are really going after
quality."Forget that none of this has anything to do with
"quality" or being "smart." These spectacles now happen
dozens of times a year all over the art-money map. All of it without raised
eyebrows, skepticism, or honest assessments that none of this matters except to
the handful of people it matters to. That none of it has anything whatsoever to
do with art. Let along "quality." Or "smartness."
This only has to do with compulsion, appetite, and
disconnect. Blind eyes and penises (which may be the same thing).” – Jerry Saltz
(Response)
...mindless, off-topic banter [8 posts]
…penis talk [6 posts]
Jerry Saltz: “Wellington Hersh: You ask, "The late Dave
Hickey stated "Art editors and critics have become a courtier class."
You ask, "Mr. Saltz, you are not exempt from this
condition are you?"
Three things.
1. Dave Hickey is still alive.
2. I am not "exempt from this condition."
3. Are you "exempt from this condition?"”
Yes Jerry, David Hickey is still alive. “Late” meaning, No
longer with us – meaning exited the art world. You are very literal today. In
regards to being exempt, no I am not exempt from this condition, none of us
are, that is the point. This condition dovetails the workings of the auction
house that you are complaining about…people in glass houses shouldn't throw
stones.
…more banter [5 posts]
Jerry Saltz “Wellington Hersh : You write, "meaning
Hickey exited the art world."
Hah!
You believe that!??
Talk about being literal!
"Exited the art world!??" Hah!”
…random mindless comment [1 post]
Well he did exit the art world for all intents and purposes.
In fact, he has been removed from the art world for some time now being in
Vegas and all. Besides, he is 72 so I’m sure he will be physically exiting
sooner than we would all wish. In regards to “exciting” the art world… isn't
that what you are trying to do with these “angry” posts? but in all of this you
have conveniently sidestepped the main point.
lol
Jerry Saltz: “Wellington :
Okay you've got my attention. Let's not focus on me. Okay?
What is your larger point about auctions or whatever.
I am listening.”
The larger point was already made in my first post and you
didn't address the hypocrisy in your initial argument. The point being we are
ALL subject to and part of everything you are deriding the auction houses for!
It is all interconnected. I realize you do not want to (focus on you) in
regards to what you said, at least not critically that is. Unfortunately for
you, this can and should not be separated…you are part of the very problem that
you say disgusts you.
-------------------------------------------------
(note) Jerry removed 3 of the 4 following responses from Wellington as they were
posted [and then blocked]. But he left the two initial posts and HIS own
responses creating the illusion that he was keeping the dialog open and that Wellington simply did not
respond. [The actual screenshot of the complete exchange has been retained in
its entirety]
This is not your mother's penis envy (11.16.2012)
"Again, Jerry Saltz unleashes his disdain for males in
general, and females (only if they are white) ... he does this of course in the
context of criticizing the art market, and all with little or no resistance. No
one is spared, from the artists right down to the collector.
----------------------
----------------------
Jerry Saltz [FB post]:
"I know this is just me doing the same-old same-old and
that it grows tiresome. But after this week and a half of non-stop breathless
auction reports I still don't get it. Or I still can't stand it. I don't get
what we know now that we didn't already know last week. How a handful of very
very rich people with penises likes buying the work of a handful of artists
with penises for very very high prices in public, in front of other people with
penises and some very tall thin blond people with great shoes and no penises.
Really. Here is what I read: "Phillips de Pury's $80-Million Sale Closes New
York 's Epic Week of Auctions." Yes? So!? I learn
"that we've just capped a billion-dollar auction week of postwar and
contemporary art, Phillips de Pury & Company sold a modest $79,904,500.
Christie’s and Sotheby’s, delivered us back-to-back evening sales tallying
$887.5 million." "Us? We?
I read that "Gerhard Richter’s abstract, “Kegel”
(1985), sold on a single bid for $12,402,500." Yes? So whoopee!? (I do
love that the painting is named after a vaginal exercise.) Christopher Wool’s
“Untitled” sold for $1,930,500." Yes? So yippee!? I learn that "Andy
Warhol’s 3-D “Statue of Liberty,” sold to a telephone bidder for
$43,762,500." That "Warhol’s “Marlon” (1966), sold for $23,714,500.
(Jose Mugrabi was the underbidder... in fact, he originally bought it for
$1,652,500 at Sotheby’s)" Good for Mr. Mugrabi for turning his Warhol into
gold. Or "Mark Grotjahn’s “Untitled” (2008), fetched a record $4,170,500."
Or "Dan Colen’s bubble gum-on-canvas “S&M” (2010), complete with a
certificate of authenticity signed by the artist, sold for a record
$578,500." Can I get a certificate too? I read that "Jeff Koons's
Tulips (1995-2004) set a record for the artist, bringing in $33.7 million. Who
cares that this thing comes in an edition of five? It's all just more mindless
clueless joy.!
Always people walk out of auction nattering utter nonsense.
"It's a smart market." Or "People are really going after
quality."Forget that none of this has anything to do with
"quality" or being "smart." These spectacles now happen
dozens of times a year all over the art-money map. All of it without raised
eyebrows, skepticism, or honest assessments that none of this matters except to
the handful of people it matters to. That none of it has anything whatsoever to
do with art. Let along "quality." Or "smartness."
This only has to do with compulsion, appetite, and
disconnect. Blind eyes and penises (which may be the same thing)."
----------------------
----------------------
Jerry's contempt for the auction houses, the artworks and the wealth of certain groups is apparent as well. But it's the male bashing really gets this guys rocks off!
What should be addressed is that Saltz is never critical when it comes to living artists like Kara Walker selling simple Lithographs and prints from $8,000 to $25,000. Or original pieces that range from $20,000 for a small sketch to $1 million plus for a large installation. Most of her original (small) ink, cut paper or charcoal pieces are priced in the $80,000 - $200,000 range if not more...but Miss Walker is a female and is Black(ish) so in Jerry's mind, her cash haul is a well deserved excess that is beyond reproach. All that aside, let me just remind you Jerry that there are a LOT of penises in Walker's work...and you are one of the many who are bending over and taking em' in!
Seaman (10.12.2012)
Jerry Saltz does some paradoxical pondering: “We now have
this enormous top-heavy operational apparatus… a hundred art fairs and
international biennials, galleries growing larger as artists work in smaller
spaces, skyrocketing prices during a worldwide economic contraction. The art
world’s reflexes are shot; its systems so predetermined that they’re driving
us; we’re no longer driving them. The system is less susceptible to paradox,
discovery, ambiguity, and all the exquisite deviations and orphic oddness that
brought us to art in the first place.
We all need to ponder the massive expense and effort that
must go into all of this, the making, dismantling, shipping, storage, and
reinstallation of it all someday in a public or private space. The system may
be too big NOT to fail. It is telling us what we already know: A crystal is
cracked. It is time for mutinies, forging new topographies and plotting other
courses."
...funny thing is, this was lifted in part from Saltz's
contracted article on Thomas Hirschhorn's nautical nod fest at Glad($)tone
Gallery...a place where most things shown are "less susceptible to
paradox, discovery, ambiguity, and all the exquisite deviations and orphic
oddness that brought us to art in the first place." In all his romantic
rumblings, Jerry would be the last deckhand to take part in a true mutiny on
this ship of fools.
Side note: It wasn't too long ago that Saltz and his better
half publicly scoffed at Morley Safer for raising many of these very same
grievances concerning the direction the art world is heading in his 60 Minutes
segment.
see article
Pleasure Principle (8.10.2012)
Here is yet another recent post from Jerry Saltz emasculating the West:
Jerry Saltz: 1. In Western art there is a prohibition
against pleasure.
2. In Asian art the depiction of pleasure is common.
3. In African art the depiction of pleasure is common.
Again, this is one of our "elected" voices. Has
Jerry missed the entire cannon of Western Erotic art?!!...and if we are
speaking contemporary erotic pleasure prohibition, there are countries like say
CHINA and NORTH KOREA that are as culturally asexual as it gets; frigidity as a
policy.
...and what about African art?...the sexuality that is found
is visually one dimensional and cliche like much tribal art...hardly sexy.
Saltz needs to (re-?)read (review) some Bataille, Miller, Freud, Balthus,
Bellmer, Tom of Findland, R. Crumb, Grosz, Fellini, Victorian era erotica,
erotic art from ancient Greece, erotic art from ancient Rome etc. just for
starters before he opens his anti-male/anti western pie hole.
...and in regards to prohibition, remember, the more you
abstain the more powerful the release. Not to mention the innovative (creative)
circumventive measures that make the forbidden fruit far more tasty!
Above image: Le Poitevin's diableries circa 1830
Ashes to ashes: Saltz on Hughes (8.9.2012)
Jerry Saltz FB post:
RIP Robert Hughes.
I do not write this to speak ill of the dead.
I was never a fan of Mr. Hughes.
I thought of his writing as showy; his taste as middlebrow;
his opinions more or less negligable; a presenter more than a critic.
I also think that he was one of the most homophobic critics
of our time...
I respect all you who laud him so. These are only my
quasi-informed opinions.
Read him on Warhol...
Read him on his favorite artist: John Alexander - who he
claimed the art world could not stomach becase of Alexander's great
"heterosexuality."
My work may be no good.
I simply don't have any use for Mr. Huges's - his criticism
or his books.
I am sure he would say the same about me... -Jerry Saltz
[Sure Saltz, Hughes was about as Homophobic as Hemingway,
Miles Davis, Norman Mailer, Sigmund Freud or Martin Luther King Jr. for that
matter. Those guys were a product of their Heterosexual dominate generations.]
...and here is how much of a scum-bag, back-peddler Jerry
Saltz is:
Jerry Saltz:
"I posted something about Robert Hughes a few minutes
ago.
I see that it could stir up bad blood. At the wrong time.
I apologize. I have deleted my comment."
[Well Jerry, at least Hughes had balls to stand by his convictions
in the face of pressure]
Side note: On Saltz's page, Todd Levin made the point that
the art world had no problem jumping on Thomas Kinkade before the man was even
buried, so why hold back now? Levin is a snake, but he is also a fan of
Hughes...otherwise he would NEVER have pointed out Saltz's flip flopping.
CBSaltz (5.25.2012)
Jerry Saltz has some big ideas about how the painting
"The Scream" by artist Edvard Munch (which recently sold at auction
for $119.9 million) should be handled. It's bullshit time!:
Saltz feels that..."this is a painting that almost
anyone already has in their mind, it's a kind of an icon" (but on the
other hand says)..."It's the kind of painting that should be out of the
market so it can be seen by everyone."
Saltz feels that..."A museum could not afford to
purchase a work at this price." (but on the other hand says)..."I
would say just find a way to sell it to a Norwegian museum"
Saltz feels that... Mitt Romney "may be the only
American that can afford to buy a million dollar painting" (sigh) please
Jerry, your killing me!!!
Saltz feels that..."Attaching this type of value is
disgusting to me" (but on the other hand says) If he had 100 million
"I think I would buy a building and give it to the art world." -Charlie
Rose suggested giving the money to medical research.
[It should be pointed out that the seller of the Munch is
using the cash generated from the sale to open a Museum in Oslo .]
Saltz has shown yet again that when placed in a position of
improvisation, his scatterbrained, half-baked views fill the void...to the
brim.
Playing it Safer (4.23.2012)
Saltz speaks of change in his article "Reject the
Market. Embrace the Market.- Eight young artists whose work the critic believes
breathes new liveliness into a frustrating system"
Of all eight artists, none are uninitiated; in fact they are
all very much insiders so the "liveliness" Saltz is siting should be
likened to the St. Vitus dance. Two are from Canada gallery, one from
Mitchell-Innes & Nash, one sanctioned by MoMA PS1 and one from Elizabeth
Dee no less. Liz Magic Laser's work is politically heavy and dated and Marie
Lorenz's piece was done way back in 2006 (hardly fresh in art world time)
Throwing in the older artist Bjarne Melgaard from Olso was a nice touch though
but was certainly for effect; as was the tricky splicing of Mike Kelly with
Alex Israel. uhg!
What is far more interesting than this depressing attempt at
art world resuscitation is Jerry's assessment of art the fairs in which he gave
an overview that was essentially the same as Morley Safer's 60 Minute piece on
which Saltz unleashed fire and brimstone -Jerry's confessional spirit doesn't
make this section any less hypocritical either- He sums it all up in writing of
the art fairs: "most of the time I see bad art, or see nothing at
all..."
----Case closed----
Saltz finally buckles under pressure! Jerry Saltz sends this
to me a few minutes ago after a fb friend of mine shared the above link to his page:
3 minutes ago
Jerry Saltz
· The only
reason I am blocking you on my FB is NOT for anything you have written about
me.All that is great. No problem.
The reason I am blocking you is for a phrase you wrote to me
that had a kind of violence to it and that for personal reasons hurt me:
"Oh no Jerry. **I am as serious as a heart attack!"
Thank you for all of your thought about me and my work.
...For a word man, Mr. sensitive pulls the literal slant on
the phrase "serious as a heart attack"?! Citing a "kind of"
violence? What a cheap way out. This guy is really something! lol
As I said before, This is not about a well worn cliché -
phrase written during a sporty and VERY civil exchange that occurred three
weeks ago (as he has commented and liked since) but this is about today's criticism
piece of his recent article...It is the straw that broke the camel's back.
Saltz is a regulator who does NOT want a level playing field and has clearly
shown this by cutting off access to his audience. Watch out for this guy art
world!
**[see the exchange in the article below for reference]
"Jerry Saltz, Savvy Critic, Declines Town
The NYC based art critic Jerry Saltz recently mocked,
chastised and even challenged Canadian reporter and CBS News correspondent
Morley Safer over a segment he did for 60 Minutes in which Safer quite
accurately criticized Art Basel Miami Beach. Objective art world insiders (if
there are any), would find that the Saltz article was pretentious, rife with
double standards and embarrassingly elitist. This attack piece seemed to
insinuate between the lines that only the initiated have the authority to gripe
about this “endemic stuff we all know about and dislike”. Ultimately, The challenge to Safer was
essentially to curate a public New
York show of 25 to 35 contemporary artists of which
Mr. Saltz would then review. Saltz offered this challenge to Glenn Beck a while
back as well. Of course Mr. Safer respectfully declined the offer to the glee
of hundreds of Saltz Facebook followers and what ensued was a continual barrage
of mocking insults aimed at Safer from Jerry's camp. A victory for the
“art-club” so to speak. Mr. Morley Safer was “Saltzed” good and proper and
labeled a coward for not taking the challenge…case closed right? Not so fast!
The way I see it is that this whole thing is less about Morley Safer's personal
work or his "harmless" criticism piece geared to the uninitiated and
more about Jerry choosing an easy target to flex his muscles and piggyback for
promo.
Now, seeing as this
was such a lopsided victory I decided to turn the tables and extend to Saltz
the same challenge he tossed around twice already. After all, he is a long
standing art critic so who would be better suited to pull off a show like
this?…it would be big, REAL big! And of course I would review the work and foot
the entire bill…this was a serious offer and I was ready and able to make it
happen. This challenge was posted to Saltz’s Facebook page…and the wait was on…
As was expected Mr. Saltz declined to step up to the plate
and accept my very real curatorial challenge; the very same challenge he used
against Safer and Beck. What gives? Well, what gives is that this is yet
another example of good old fashioned lip service and double standard from a
well-healed bully and I’m willing to bet we will not be hearing any of Saltz’s
cronies calling him a coward anytime soon either. What is good for the goose is
still, as always not good for the gander. Sad thing is, people won’t be able to
glean these tidbits on Vulture.com…or even 60 Minutes for that matter. Nor will
you find the full exchange on Saltz’s FB page because as it turns out Jerry
thought twice and removed some of the response sections of our showdown from
his page the following day. Now why would this proponent of transparency and
democracy selectively hide seemingly harmless content from his followers? Your
guess is as good as mine...talk about self-editing. But all jokes aside, the
implications of this little act are actually quite disturbing; those two little
deletes - that in essence admit to the decline of a challenge - speak volumes.
If a critic is willing to bury content to save face in this small instance just
imagine what that same critic might do within the larger picture...the devil is
always in the details.
-------------------
-------------------
See the full Town vs Saltz exchange below:
[Jerry Saltz to Morley Safer: Morley, I challenge you to
curate a public New York
show of 25 to 35 contemporary artists — those who have emerged since, say, 1985
— whose work you really approve of, plus a few examples of your own art. I promise
to review it, fair and square. Deal?]
Justin Town- I will take this further by suggesting that Mr.
Saltz show some balls and originality (as this is his second identical
challenge; the first being made to Glenn Beck a while back) and take up my challenge:
Saltz, I challenge you
to curate a public New York
show of 25 to 35 contemporary artists — those who have emerged since, say, 1985
— whose work you really approve of, plus a few examples of your own art. I
promise to review it, fair and square. Deal? ...seeing as "we're all doing
this filtering together"
Justin Town- … This is less about Morley Safer's personal
work and a criticism piece geared to the uninitiated and more about Jerry
choosing an easy target to flex his muscles and piggyback for promo. My
challenge remains unanswered. I will cover all costs of this proposed show as
well...press included. Hear that Mr. Saltz...now kindly put your money where
your mouth is (money being time and expertise that is) oh, and don't
forget...you must provide some of your work you ex-artist you.
... for the record, I could care less about MS, his work or
his criticism outside of this context.
Jerry Saltz- Justin: Thank you for coming onto my fb to
comment about me and my work.
If you want to know what I like read me; read both my books;
cull from what I write here and in my columns and my books.
I don't mind if you select 25-35 artists from those. I guess
that's my show.
-- Now, which 25-35 artists - emerged since 1985 - would YOU
say are very good?
I would love to know.
Justin Town- I don't answer the test questions remember. The
ball is in your court here
Justin Town- Lets do this thing Jerry, it's bigger than the
both of us...
*Justin Town- I know who you have "written" about
so to refer me to past books or articles is a bit lame my friend. Let's do the
here and now! This is about the challenge that you have extended to two
different persons already that I am extending to you and **I am as serious as a
heart attack...and I think you know it. This will not be whittled down to a
facebook Q & A. It's on you... Let's get it on!
[deleted] Jerry Saltz- Justin. Thank you.
I guess I don't answer the test questions either.
Justin Town- just what I thought...till next time friendo
[deleted] Jerry Saltz- Ditto ...
"Jerry Saltz on Morely Safer's Facile 60 MinutesArt-World Screed" Vulture article: here
"Morley Safer, Sunday Painter, Declines Saltz's Curatorial Challenge" GalleristNY article: here
Silence of the lambs (10.25.2011)
Being an art critic and not a politician, Jerry Saltz
devotes a hefty amount of space on his FB page for political discourse and his
followers are more than willing to sing along to the tune of comments that
frequently soar into the high hundreds. This is fine in and of itself as it
makes for a well rounded and informed art community that is willing to reach
beyond art per se. My issue is that in light of the happenings on Wall Street
why is there not one word about it on Jerry's page? Considering the protests
are on the lips of almost every artist I know, not a word has been uttered by
Jerry or his followers... not a peep. What could be the reason for this strange
phenomenon in which such a hot topic among the art world is met with an
absolute black out? One art world figure suggested that many of the artists in
Jerry's circle are at the protests. Well, I thought about this and the numbers
didn't work. Jerry has close to 5,000 FB friends and at least 500 active
contributors and even if all 500 are at the protest there is the issue of
laptops, Iphones and quite a bit of down time for posting. So why isn't Jerry
Saltz or his vast circle of followers
entering the discourse regarding the protests and why isn't anyone in the art
world questioning this? Somehow it is
not business as usual. My feeling is that there is a delicate situation going
on here. We are all aware that the NY Times - you know, Roberta Smith's
employers have not exactly been protester friendly during all of this. Also New
York Magazine - you know, Jerry's pals just did an anemic one page spread on
the protesters (opposite an Emirates ad that takes up an equal amount of
space) titled "Meet the
Occupants" which at the very least makes light of their cause with cherry
picked stats and imagery that seems to mock between the lines. Now, this being
said, it would appear that Jerry Saltz is put between a rock and a hard place
concerning open discourse on his Facebook page regarding the protests.
Although, given his hard nosed stance on speaking truth to power, it is a bit
disconcerting to witness this solidarity of silence from both him and his
entire flock. In fact it is downright eerie considering Jerry's tribe is
otherwise all fire and brimstone on hot topics such as this. Politics aside,
there are implications that are far worse here; might one suppose that this
type of behavior might creep into one’s approach as a critic? You better
believe it does. When it comes right
down to it there is no ideal system, not the art world or any other world and individuals
as well as groups are imperfect, built to spill even. At times whether we like
it or not, and more often than not, we are all subject to our own self
interests even if it flies in the face of what is perceived as right. So I
guess the thing to be learned from all this is when you feel the urge to get up
on the soap box … you might want to speak easy.
"Okay. I’ve had it with tolerance/ complacency about
lying cynical republicans. Watch this vid ...Then watch response... FB friends
- be honest. If you’re a republican who agrees with this, stand up, be counted.
Have courage of your convictions. I promise I WILL delete you from my friends
list. I promise"
- Jerry Saltz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the final analysis it would seem that Mr. Saltz could not possibly be as scatter-brained and schmucky as he would have us believe (maybe). His Jerry Springer-like social dealings and weird psuedo-politico aesthetic views are designed to attract attention and gather a following for sure but we are left to wonder if this kind of approach compromises the art of criticism. or are figures like Saltz just a product of a craft that has been on its way out for some time now anyways? These kinds of questions are not new but in the particular case of Jerry Saltz there is a disturbing energy at work. This being a modus-operandi that is self-serving, dishonest and frivolous yet highly engaging and this is a dangerous mixture because it undermines and contaminates not only the genre of art criticism but any and all things it comes in contact with.
-Justin Town
