Loved the Artnet lawsuit article, but what really caught my eye was Douglas Fogle being listed as someone who bought a Julie Mehetru painting in 2001 for $18,000. What I'm not clear on, and want to know, is did he buy that for himself or an institution?
UPDATE: The painting in question was Babel Unleashed, 2001, ink & acrylic, 60 x 84 in. retail price $20,000, sold for $18,000. Doug Fogle was in fact acting for the Walker Art Center. Babel Unleashed, 2001 is part of the Collection of the Walker Art Center, T.B. Walker Acquisition Fund, 2001.
Fogle is a curator at the Walker Art Center and that institution is listed separately as the purchaser of a Mehetru painting in 2003, so I would assume that if the 2001 purchase was for an institution that it's name would be listed as the buyer, not Fogle's.
Fogle organized the 2001 Painting at the Edge of the World exhibit which featured Mehetru.
Fogle was one of the nominators for Barry Schwabsky's 2002 book Vitamin P - which featured Mehetru. Was she the artist he nominated? It certainly wasn't anyone within several time zones of Minneapolis.
Fogle would have been involved with the Walker's 2003 purchase of a Mehetru for $100,000 - maybe even in negotiating the purchase price?
Fogle organized the 2003 Walker exhibition Julie Mehetru:Drawing into Painting, which traveled to Buffalo's Albright-Knox Art Gallery, the Palm Beach ICA, and LA's Redcat.
I'm doubting Fogle was actually the purchaser of the 2001 Mehetru, but if he was I won't be surprised. Why does the stock market have insider trading laws and not the artworld? Curators already all know way in advance what will be shown where, and buy accordingly, but I hadn't considered that they might be buying and then using their positions to promote promote promote their investments.
UPDATE: please see artnet's surreptitious correction.
UPDATE: The painting in question was Babel Unleashed, ink & acrylic, 60 x 84 in. retail price $20,000, sold for $18,000. Doug Fogle was in fact acting for the Walker Art Center. Babel Unleashed, 2001 is part of the Collection of the Walker Art Center, T.B. Walker Acquisition Fund, 2001.
I have held myself back from ever posting to blogs, but this crosses the line for me. My first reaction was: are you people crazy?!
ReplyDeleteIt is becoming more and more clear that the people who are writing most art blogs today are people who are not actively participating in the art world, but people who are spectators. This is to be much commended when it comes to critiquing artwork, discussing shows, and all matter of public interest. The peoples' voices should be heard on such matters. However:
I am shocked by several accounts of character assignation on this and several other art blogs that has taken place over the last few months. It is unprofessional & unfounded. It is also sadly maligning several people who are positive voices in the art world, casting their efforts in a light that is NOT AT ALL true to their character. This wouldn't be an issue EXCEPT for the fact that now as one "googles" an arts professional to find out about their work, publications, etc, blog threads show up that are defamatory and therefore could cast the integrity of individual's reputations in a negative light. For those of us who ACTUALLY KNOW the people in question, it is clear that what you write is that of bitter, jaded outsiders...for the general public, however, you are taking away from the actual accomplishments of some good people. To wit:
1. Doug Fogle- he is an EARNESTLY GOOD, committed curator who deserves respect. He continues to explore subjects ("The Last Picture Show") and artists (Julie Mehretu) which may not be getting the museum attention that they rightly deserve. Moreover, he is an ethical person. To top it off, curators make a teacher's salary. When I read the excerpt in question on artnet, I assumed (as I'm sure most people who know Doug and the Walker did) they he bought it for the museum. To think that a curator can afford a very large Julie Mehretu painting is (sadly, and for better or worse) so beyond a possibility that it is laughable. Though there are exceptions to this on occassion, these can easily be explored via better reseach. No research on Douglas Fogle would indicate otherwise than this SINGLE error an artnet once; he does not deserve being dragged into the mud.
2. Brian Sholis- works very hard to be a working writer in the art world, and has taken a lot of risks in his professional and personal life in order to make his goal a reality...including leaving a paying job at a gallery because it presented for him an ethical conflict in terms of pursuing a career in art writing. He has self-published zines and online magazines dedicated to art, and is consistently true to his mission, interests, and self. He WAS a member of NADA when he worked for a gallery & promptly left the group when he started writing full time due to ethical conflicts; his name was left up on the website AS AN ACCIDENT, from what I have heard (from reliable sources). To have taken such risks at such a young age is wonderful, shows a dedication to craft and integrity, and moreover couldn't be easy for someone who also is not rolling in the dough.
Bloggers please: you have an important role in first ammendment rights & representing the views of the general public. Use this. Be positive, be informed. You are at once casting doubt on people who are on your side, make contributions to art culture & society with integrity, while at the same time casting yourselves as bitter, malicious, and malinformed.
Write about the things you know: your thoughts about art & artists. Don't write about what you don't know: the inner workings, personalities, and professional characters of people you have never met (nor clearly have ever done complete research about). Do you want to write about this stuff & be more informed? Do research BEFORE posting; send an email to the entities in question (ie, the p.r. department of the Walker in regards to Doug; the NADA website confirming Brian's involvement) BEFORE you post. You'll be a better writer and serve a more important role in exploring the truth if you do so.
I have held myself back from ever posting to blogs, but this crosses the line for me. My first reaction was: are you people crazy?!
ReplyDeleteIt is becoming more and more clear that the people who are writing most art blogs today are people who are not actively participating in the art world, but people who are spectators. This is to be much commended when it comes to critiquing artwork, discussing shows, and all matter of public interest. The peoples' voices should be heard on such matters. However:
I am shocked by several accounts of character assignation on this and several other art blogs that has taken place over the last few months. It is unprofessional & unfounded. It is also sadly maligning several people who are positive voices in the art world, casting their efforts in a light that is NOT AT ALL true to their character. This wouldn't be an issue EXCEPT for the fact that now as one "googles" an arts professional to find out about their work, publications, etc, blog threads show up that are defamatory and therefore could cast the integrity of individual's reputations in a negative light. For those of us who ACTUALLY KNOW the people in question, it is clear that what you write is that of bitter, jaded outsiders...for the general public, however, you are taking away from the actual accomplishments of some good people. To wit:
1. Doug Fogle- he is an EARNESTLY GOOD, committed curator who deserves respect. He continues to explore subjects ("The Last Picture Show") and artists (Julie Mehretu) which may not be getting the museum attention that they rightly deserve. Moreover, he is an ethical person. To top it off, curators make a teacher's salary. When I read the excerpt in question on artnet, I assumed (as I'm sure most people who know Doug and the Walker did) they he bought it for the museum. To think that a curator can afford a very large Julie Mehretu painting is (sadly, and for better or worse) so beyond a possibility that it is laughable. Though there are exceptions to this on occassion, these can easily be explored via better reseach. No research on Douglas Fogle would indicate otherwise than this SINGLE error an artnet once; he does not deserve being dragged into the mud.
2. Brian Sholis- works very hard to be a working writer in the art world, and has taken a lot of risks in his professional and personal life in order to make his goal a reality...including leaving a paying job at a gallery because it presented for him an ethical conflict in terms of pursuing a career in art writing. He has self-published zines and online magazines dedicated to art, and is consistently true to his mission, interests, and self. He WAS a member of NADA when he worked for a gallery & promptly left the group when he started writing full time due to ethical conflicts; his name was left up on the website AS AN ACCIDENT, from what I have heard (from reliable sources). To have taken such risks at such a young age is wonderful, shows a dedication to craft and integrity, and moreover couldn't be easy for someone who also is not rolling in the dough.
Bloggers please: you have an important role in first ammendment rights & representing the views of the general public. Use this. Be positive, be informed. You are at once casting doubt on people who are on your side, make contributions to art culture & society with integrity, while at the same time casting yourselves as bitter, malicious, and malinformed.
Write about the things you know: your thoughts about art & artists. Don't write about what you don't know: the inner workings, personalities, and professional characters of people you have never met (nor clearly have ever done complete research about). Do you want to write about this stuff & be more informed? Do research BEFORE posting; send an email to the entities in question (ie, the p.r. department of the Walker in regards to Doug; the NADA website confirming Brian's involvement) BEFORE you post. You'll be a better writer and serve a more important role in exploring the truth if you do so.
Hi Anonymous -
ReplyDelete"The people's voices should be heard on such matters"?
Who are you? Can we have cake too?
How does this cross a line or warrant an accusation of character assasination? It's a list of facts and a request for clarification. I did contact the Walker, and received no response, although they did promptly contact Artnet.
As far as Brian is concerned, I called him out on a glowing review of a collection of commercial galleries he was formerly a member of. I don't think I've said anything else about him other than that, and in fact am quite aware of the "google" problem and have tried to avoid that topic since. Conflict of interest point noted - case closed. Brian's young and smart, he'll be fine - no need to even keep bringing it up. Instead of saying "member" I probably should have said "former member" or "original member" or "recent member" - I do admit to only going by the NADA site's list of current members.
Congratulations on ACTUALLY KNOWING the people in question, I hear the people who ACTUALLY KNOW the President find him quite charming. So what? And "-not actively participating in the art world"? It seems evident from your post that by your definition absolutely not, but by most artist's definition absolutely yes.
You did nail me on bitter jadedness though.
Martin
I'm glad you finally found out that fogle was acting for a different institution. anyway, check out this interview I found with him, pretty interesting.
ReplyDelete