The Tears of Things: Let's Get Verbal

November 25, 2007

Let's Get Verbal

by Jerome du Bois

To repeat:

In the last posting I made an error in judgment with a derogatory comment about Amy Young and food. I apologize to her now. I'm sorry; I shouldn't have written that part, and I've taken it out of the posting.

Prompted by a local slam poet, Ms. Young wrote a long comment about us and that posting on her new blog. After Catherine read it, she said, "That really hurt her feelings," and we decided to take out that one sentence. It's just that we thought someone who hangs out with body suspenders and holds her own with roller dykes might have thicker skin.

Now, moving on--

Maybe Ms. Young should go read how personal Stephen Lemons got when he attacked Catherine on his blog. Maybe she already knows what he wrote; he's probably one of her many friends. Nobody came to Catherine's defense, including Ms. Young and the local slam poet.

But that trash Lemons was talking didn't actually hurt her feelings. Not at all like the pain of being minimized and blackballed. Because for Catherine, it's always about our work and our philosophy --not about her person. She says, "I hope Ms. Young will agree with me that the important subjects are Art and Culture, not how many years I have or how much size she has. Let us try to overcome our psychological baggage (surely I outweigh you in that department), and talk about Art and Culture."

Yes, let's get verbal. We have several questions for Amy Young (and anyone who agrees with her). Questions about art and its practice.

On November 20 the local slam poet posted a short comment on Ms. Young's blog calling attention to the Real Good For Free posting. She replied this way (with my interruptions as we go along):

Well, you knew that had to happen--as much as they say they're done writing about art in Phoenix, it never happens.

We changed our minds. Why is that a problem? I'm guessing it's because despite her edgy image, she's psychologically brittle and conservative, something she maybe learned in school: "But you saaaaid . . ." And as we read further down in her comment, she complains more than once that she wishes we would write about art. Which we do, of course, all the time. She can't have it both ways. (It had to never happen? Hmmm.) So it's got to be about the fact that we had the gall to change our minds. The local slam poet has the same mindset. They're so uncertain about their own legitimacy that they need people to keep their places. But that's their problem; we know who we are.

It's constant hypocrisy --if someone posts a derogatory comment about his wife, he acts as if the world crumbles . . . yet he always resorts to commenting on what people look like, how they dress, etc.

Except for Amy Young (see apology above) and Stephen Lemons, who will never get an apology from us, and a couple of others, our derogatory comments were and are directed generally, and will continue when relevant. As for the photo of the spandex boys, well, hell, they posed for it. And of course our world doesn't crumble. We're out in that world every day. It's a grand and glorious feeling to be living. It's a serious, grown-up world, too, so we dress for it, and we'll keep on calling out those adults who think the world is a playground at recess, and dress like children.

The saddest irony of this culture is the way they project the illusion of being oh-so-edgy and diverse while adopting a dress code as rigid as any fascistic regime, with at most a half-dozen approved looks. For reference, proceed directly to Ret Lab. These so-called pomobohos are even more conformist than the Fifties they worship in furnishings. They manage whatever microchanges happen in uncanny coordination, like schooling fish, and when the world gets too close, there's always near to the trembling hand the stuffed animals and retro windups to soothe the neosoul.

I'm not "resorting" to commenting on the way people dress, which implies that I have nothing important to bring up about other aspects of the person or their work, and saying that they must know Dress Barn by heart is the only thing we can come up with. Naturally this is wrong, as Amy Young herself knows, being the subject of a couple of our posts which said nothing about the clothes she wears but plenty about what she does and the kind of art and culture she promotes.

The derogatory comments about my wife were not about her wardrobe, but attacked her personally --her person. If you didn't get that distinction before, Amy Young, you'd damned well better get it through your head now.

For someone who supposedly cares so much about art, why not be talking about art?

Since late March, I count eleven postings specifically about an artwork or exhibition or which uses artworks or proposals to ask aesthetic questions: our Steve Yazzi piece, Donald Lipski's Doors, The Lunaphiles, Theo van Gogh vs. Bat Boy, Space is the Place, five15's Stinky Skool show, four pieces on The Arizona Partnership for Innovation and Creative Capital Foundation, The Loser Tribe and its followup, our proposal for The Blessing Room, Ringing True Among The Tone Deaf, and Real Good For Free. Each one had questions questions questions. That's writing about art.

I'm choosing to do so in the fashion that I want to, and I'm not reading that site, haven't in ages, because it's generally always the same.

Meaning that we're consistent in our principles, our passion, and our commitment to the future. Also, let's examine that phrase "choosing to do so in the fashion that I want to." This is code for "you can't criticize me." No doubt it's her blog and she can "fashion" it any way she wants, even if most of the time one shirttail is out and the collar's askew and the buttons are misbuttoned and its front is covered with old stains. But the thing is out in public and therefore subject to criticism. We've been handling criticism and vicious attacks for ages --over four years-- so deal with it, Ms. Art Attack.

You get handed a venue most freelancers never get --a blog already set up on a major newspaper, with nearly unlimited disk space-- and you treat it as if it was nothing more than a reminder bulletin board, or the front of the refrigerator, dotted with tiny decorative magnets, and with casual jottings and sophomoric "what rocks your world" questions. You could do better, and you should.

I just don't have the time to sit at the computer and take shots at people just because they live in Phoenix and are part of the art activities that occur.

That last is weird phrasing, no? as if the activities arise spontaneously and the passive human artists merely receive them gratefully. And we don't criticize people "just because they live in Phoenix." She should know that's an empty sentence, just more of that code that wants to stifle criticism. This is our city --not Tucson or Waukeegan or Kalamazoo-- and we're working to make it a better one. That's why we criticize corrosive local artists --because of their work and their behavior, not because of the city they happen to live in.

I'm preparing for a Miami art fair in two weeks where I will get to showcase art and dialogue with many artists, curators, arts journalists and appreciators--and that, to me, is much more exciting than trying to tear someone apart. Forever predictable. What would be way more intriguing was if he was using his knowledge of art and its history to actually talk about it.

I'm pretty sure there will be no shortage of people tearing other people apart in Miami. That's predictable. You'll do fine in Miami --you already have the connections with other operators and you've obviously adopted the correct dispositions. Oh --but if you really want to impress those big shots while you're "dialoguing," try to avoid the mistake we've seen you make so often in print: it's media, OK? not mediums.

And we're not interested in being "intriguing." We have questions. Let's start with an example. It may seem like an extreme and unfair one to most readers, but I'm sure Ms. Young can take it in stride.

I refer to a Colin Chillag painting of a shotgunned face, taken from a photograph, which was shown at the overpraised and anti-American "Warlike People" show at MonOrchid awhile back. Lots of people praise Chillag, and nobody objected in writing to this obscenity, as far as we know.

I'm going to make a giant leap and assume that Amy Young doesn't really have a problem with this painting. If she does, she can just substitute any of the depictions of cruelty, misogyny, humiliation and degradation she has hosted at her own gallery.

We remember reading somewhere (probably a self-interview for New Times, Java or the Republic) that Ms. Young was going to pursue a graduate degree in Art History. If that degree is going to mean anything, she's going to have to be writing lots of papers, and a thesis. She's going to have to stand and deliver. Phrases like "I just like it because" and "It's ineffable" will not cut it.

So. Questions. What is the aesthetic and moral defense of this painting? Is it good? And I don't mean technically. I mean, is it there for good? for inspiration? If not, why is it worth . . . anything: money, exhibition, mere existence?

What was the inspiration for those pieces? I believe I remember reading that Colin Chillag painted another series from anonymous discarded family photos. I'm wondering where he finds meaning, if he does at all. Do you know, Amy Young?

We feel that the body in death is sacred, and should not be used for entertainment. And so we also want to know what it is about true crime snuff photography that attracts so many of these local artists, gallerists, curators, and collectors. Do you know, Amy Young?

If it's okay to display snuff of a stranger, how about death photos, paintings, art of someone you knew? Specifically, what is it about corpses and pain that is so entertaining?