Elizabeth McKenzie:   How long has your blogsite been online and how much attention does
it receive?

Edna V Harris.  I started the site in December 2005, so it's only been in existence for a few months.
Other female artists were the first to find me, and now I have a regular readership of both men and women. The site really took off when I published the piece on Tamy Ben-Tor (after Roberta Smith's panel discussion in January). Since then, items like the Whitney Biennial curator debacle, two articles in the New York Observer, and mentions on other art blogs have really kept the momentum going.

 

 

EM. What kind of impact has blogging made on the art world?

EVH:  I definitely feel that blogging has changed things. I love that it is a more democratic model for art criticism and an antidote to the academic model, which is largely dominated by men and uppity blowhards. There are so many people writing about art who have never made any. Now we have amateur and professional artists and writers putting in their two cents all over the place. Some find it obnoxious and unedited, but the people I know think it's totally revolutionary and informative.

 

EM: Do you think that bloggers and blogsites are a threat to the establishment, art dealers, critics, art magazines and newspapers?

EVH:  Yes, I definitely do, but it's healthy; it's competition. The only reason that certain art magazines have managed to retain readership is because artists outside of urban art centers were unable to keep up with the contemporary scene without them. Blogs get hits from artists all over the world. They are open, free, and, best of all totally current. That said, blogs are ephemeral. An entry might show up on a search engine or it might not. As a 21st-century model. One that must employ information technology or be left in the dust.  Art blogs are totally natural hybrids of the traditional paper versions of art criticism. Rather than just one critic's opinion being read by everyone, now many different opinions are reaching many different people, accessibility is everything.

 

 

EM: In a recent post, you have been quite critical of Art Critic Charlie Finch. Yesterday in the New York Observer, Charlie Finch said "Now in the art blogs, there's this younger generation who thinks I'm this fat, old guy, that I'm out of it and know nothing. People are treating me the way I treated them. But it's fine.  What goes around comes around". He chuckled and thrust a finger into the air. "Sharpen your swords!"

EVH:  What bothered me the most about that article was Finch's and artnet.com editor Walter Robinsons dismissal of art blogs as inferior sources of information on the arts. It's obvious that they feel threatened. If they really didn't care what we're doing on the  Internet, they wouldn't read our blogs and I know for a fact that they do. Finch's comment to sharpen your swords is to me an admission that he is affected by what we've done and plans to work harder to compete with us.

EM:  Do you believe that "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword"?

EVH:  I guess so, yes. People who attack get attacked. It's happening to me, too. Anyone who
chooses to buck the system, or speak out in an opinionated fashion, will receive criticism. In Finch's case, he's been a jerk for so many years that he'd have to live to be 100 to cash in on his karma. There's a difference between speaking out and having had 20 years of verbal diarrhea. literally. He's shit on so many innocent people.

EM: What kind of art criticism would you like to see more of?

EVH:  I'd love to see more writing by artists. Artists have the perfect perspective: emotional and informed, yet still highly critical. Critics who are not artists usually lack the ability to make sense of an artist's choices, which are often compulsive, empirical and cerebral at the same time. Typical critics want to call everything derivative. This is a word I'd like to see die a quick death, along with "transgressive." I think there must be a bulletin board at Yale with that word in huge block letters with the phrase "use it for everything" scrawled underneath.

 

EM: Who are your favorite art critics?

 

EVH:   Well, I am a fan of Jerry Saltz. I love that he is flawed. When he's on, he's completely on and brilliant. Roberta Smith is the best critic at the Times, though I also give props to Holland Cotter for being a thoughtful champion of under-recognized artists and minorities.

 

 

EM: Who do you think are the most influential artist's today?

EVH: . Gerhard Richter is practically taken intravenously. Duchamp, Eva Hesse, and Andy Warhol are always in the air. Also Luc Tuymans, Neo Rauch, Jessica Stockholder, and Robert Rauschenberg. Dana Schutz is very important to younger painters. Why isn't she in the Whitney Biennial? If they'd added Schutz, they could have had 30 female artists out of 101!

 

EM: When you said earlier that Charlie Finch has had 20 years of verbal diarrhea and has been shitting on so many Innocent people; what do you think or know from personal experience, friends, colleagues has the consequential impact psychologically, emotionally and financially on these innocent artists?
 

EVH:  The example that first comes to mind is not an artist, but a dealer - Becky Smith of Bellwether. She admitted being hurt by Finch's comments, and how could she not be? Obviously she has moved on and been very successful, but those things stay with you. I am glad she fought back and had them remove the article.

 

The other prime example was the piece published last fall on Elizabeth Murray, who made a number of serious formal investigations in the course of her career (most of which were credited to other, male, artists) and she was finally getting her due at MoMA. She was also fighting cancer. Finch's criticism of Murray's work was cruel and unwarranted. At one point he said, 'There's nothing worse than encouraging an artist with no talent.' If Finch is really as smart as some claim he is, he should have the common sense to refrain from writing if he
has nothing constructive to offer.

EM: Walter Robinson has referred to Charlie Finch as the biggest loose canon, loud mouth out there and "a genius".  Do you think that  www.artnet.com  is an enabler of  "this form" of art criticism?  If so, what do you think is artnet's motivation for allowing this to continue for so long?

EVH:  Well, of course they're enabling it by publishing it and continuing to employ Finch. When I suggested on my blog that Finch be squelched, I received a flurry of accusations that I was against free speech. This brought up the ethics question - where do we draw the line? Is there ever a point when something should not be published? I actually changed my mind over the course of that dialog and realized that the best recourse is to continue to point out the inequalities, question authority, and be completely open to differing viewpoints. There will always be people who choose to malign others with no apparent motive - all under the umbrella of free speech.

I think artnet continues to support Finch because Walter Robinson truly respects his writing abilities, which I agree are stellar. That is really what makes it so biting - you know from Finch's writing that he is incredibly smart and witty, so why not use it toward a more meaningful end? I actually don't see him as an art critic - he's really a gossip columnist, which is why I think artnet keeps him on board. He provides an element of kitsch that they seem to have misinterpreted as edgy. To me, it's an insult to everyone's intelligence, including Finch's.
 

EM:  What do you think is the solution to this problem?

EM:  The solution is already underway. People have spoken up. Letters have been written.
Thoughts and opinions have been shared verbally and across the Blogosphere, and we're
feeling the reverberations. As long as we keep trying to do better, to affect change, and
to stay positive, we're on the right track.



For more visit http://anonymousfemaleartist.blogspot.com