Paddy Johnson

 

Elizabeth McKenzie: When did you start blogging and how and why do you think blog sites like your Art Fag City are impacting the mainstream media?

Paddy Johnson: I started a personal blog in the fall of 2004, which technically marks the beginning of my blogging career though this was more of a past time than it was anything else. Art Fag City was started in September of 2005, which I think is a more accurate representation of the when a began to blog. Given that I have been mentioned once in a printed publication, the measured effect Art Fag City has had on the mainstream media amounts to virtually nothing at this point. It is unlikely however that this reflects the real effect that the community is having.

 

It's not in the interest of mainstream media to acknowledge their competitors if they don't have to, and we certainly are this. The publishing industry has been suffering a great deal this year, and as reading habits continue to evolve in the direction of digital media, they simply won't have a choice. As it stands now, bloggers often pen ideas that get picked up by critics. A good example of this is the Eric Deoringer story blogger James Wagner broke this fall. Deoringer, an artist who sells knock-offs of popular artists out front major galleries and institutions was removed for selling his wares when gallerist Mike Weiss called the police and lodged a complaint. While Wagner was the first to write about this, I didn't notice that Randy Kennedy of Times paid him the basic journalistic courtesy of crediting him when they ran their own. As Tom Moody pointed out, one of the issues that this case also highlighted however, is that bloggers, (myself included), failed to provide good fair coverage and get Weiss's side of the story.

If art bloggers really want to effect the media, we have to find ways to fund ourselves, so that we have the resources to consistently bring high journalistic standards to the medium. Most of us do this without being paid, so we can't necessarily afford the time to be placing calls like this.

EM:  You have some very interesting paintings. I really like the Grad / Undergraduate series, the Comme C'est Curious and the self promotion work.

Are you using your blog site as a means of self promotion and if so, has this worked for you?

 

PJ: I try to keep the two entirely separate, and as such my readers rarely know that I make work at all, much less approach me.  That said, I have just promised an interview that is specifically about my artistic practice, and this is a direct result of my blog.  I guess my only point here is that I don't make a practice of spamming galleries with jpgs of my work now that they know who I am.

No gallery has ever written me about the work I do, though I do on occasion receive solicitations for book contributions. I do however tend to be solicited by artists who think I should be interested in their work. Given the nature of the solicitation, the number of talented people who approach me has been a bit of a surprise. Galleries complain all the time about receiving shitty ass work from people to review, and having worked at quite a few I can honestly say that there is good reason for this.  I mean, I get my share of this stuff too, but more often than not the artists who write me are doing very interesting things, and have shown me work they thought was relevant to something I have discussed. You have to be careful for what you wish for, but I do wish I got more of these kinds of emails, because these tend to be the most interesting.

EM: Also, on the other side of the coin; has being critical of the "old boys club", the mainstream media, art critics, online sites, newspapers and other artists brought you any repercussions?

PJ:  Not yet, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time before some friend sleeps with an artist whose show I've panned, and I'll suffer from the same problem every other critic seems to have. As for the old boys club and most newspapers, I'm quite certain they could give a shit about me, and I suspect they write me off. Of course, hopefully that won't always be the case. I am told they know I exist, so that's a starting point at least.

 

 

EM: Do you think that some subjects in art criticism should be off limits - like gossip or personal comments?  Where do you think one should draw the line?

PJ:  I'm pretty interested in gossip and personal comments, so I like sites that are about this. In addition to the art media I read every day, I spend quite a bit of time on mindless blogs and gossip sites, and am completely happy doing so. What I don't like are sites that claim to be something other than what they are. In other words, I don't like reading gossip on CNN since it proportes to be a news site, and I don't particularly care to read about gallery celebrity spottings on Artforum. I think clarity in the mandate of a publication, be it online or off is important, if for no other reason than it's less confusing to the reader.

 

EM: Do you think blogging has or will change art criticism?

PJ: Absolutely. I think the art world is coming to this extremely late, which mostly speaks poorly of the community, but the one positive side to all this is that we already have models in fields such as business, entertainment and politics where this has happened. The Times just added "The Dealbook" ( which covers the world of finance) to their growing stable of blogs, which says to me that it is only a matter of time before they employ an art blogger. And this will change art criticism, because it (at least in theory) will mean an end to the overly precious reviews that now litter the art world.

EM: What about the effects of blogging in general or on art dealers?

PJ:  This is an interesting question because some of the more visible effects that the blogging community has had can be seen in the gallery world.  Dealers not only read Art Fag City, and many other publications, but they actually respond. You could note a light bulb was out at virtually any major gallery, and if they read you noticed it, they would change it in an instant. In November I wrote a review on the best and worst gallery websites, and  Luhring Augustine received the worst review for having a non functional site. They fixed that problem within three days of my having mentioned it, which I have to say, is an incredible response time. The benefit of discussing issues such as web design reaches beyond simply creating a professional public face for the art world, but ultimately makes the job of researchers, artists, and press a lot easier.

Sean Landers

 

EM:  Who are some of the art critics that you admire?

PJ:  Thomas Lawson is currently my favorite critic. I think his voice is really important to the art world, because his understanding of art making comes from his participation in it. Admittedly, I am very distrustful of critics who aren't at least failed artists, because understanding art making from a point of production is so critical. For this reason blogger Tom Moody is also among my favorites. I read his writing often, and always feel like I have learned something more substantial than what was in a show when he posts a review. He offers more visual entrance points than most when he discusses work, which is extremely important when dealing with, you know, visuals. Of course, while artists are the critics I prefer, there are always those working within the field who defy the expectations of the discipline. I think Caitlin Jones has the potential to be the most important critic of the next twenty years, which may sound overly grandiose, but she brings a clarity and understanding of new media topics that I haven't seen anyone else even approach. One additional note on the critics I like - he's not really a writer but I really enjoy the art world commentary in the cartoons of Sean Landers.

EM: Who do you think are some of the most influential artists today?

PJ:  I think the most important work being made today is in the medium of new media, which isn't clear to many yet, but it is why artists like Cory Archangel (who I suspect will be the next Jeff Koons), MTAA, Marisa Olson, and PaperRad are mentioned so frequently on Art Fag City.

The Internet is having a much more profound effect on the way we absorb information than is currently being discussed in art forums, and I suspect this has to with the hardened arteries of the museum and publication system. The people who are putting together major shows are by in large of a generation that has had little interest or aptitude in learning the language of New Media. Much of the dialogue

I have seen recently within larger institutions (such as the Whitney) frames their understanding of the Internet around the ideas of Marshal McCluhan, which is a problem, because Internet usage happens in very different ways than it does watching television. It is in fact, a much more active process. As has always been the case, the most relevant art is that which reflects and incorporates our lifestyle. For this reason, I see the movement spearheaded by these artists to have some similarities with the Pop Art movement of the sixties, at least in terms of it being a natural response to the visual stimuli around them.

Breaking and Entering at PaceWildenstein - Dec 2005  By Cory Arcangel

 See Cory Arcangel  interview at Columbia university

 

EM:  Blogging seems to be a less uncontaminated form of art criticism in many ways; since in most cases there is no salary involved, no art gallery adverts to pay the bills and no concern over biting the hand that doesn't feed you.

How affected do you think some of these mainstream magazine editors and art critics are - particularly since, for the most part, they have to take into consideration that their salary comes from the advertisers, the art corporations and the institutions?

Please see Noam Chomsky's   What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream

 

PJ:  I'm hesitant to call blogging a pure form of art criticism, if only because it doesn't acknowledge inherent biases that exists within any medium. Ultimately money in whatever form it comes in will have some effect on the content of a publication. I haven't ever been employed by mainstream magazines so I can't speak from experience about how much advertising controls the content, but I do come from a family of journalists, and what I have learned from them is that these things are best considered on a case by case basis. Professional bloggers are typically bothered less by advertisers wishing to control content than print media, but the pay off is that we're all broke. You have to keep in mind that many famous bloggers make about 50 bucks a day. It's really not enough to live off of, and that's a problem.

EM: In my humble opinion, blogging has it's pros and cons. I mean in one sense it has become a kind of uncontrollable "Wild West" arena that is  challenging the system while at the same time, revolutionizing it. Which to me as a media analyst and PR person, is a breath of fresh air.

Do you think that this is what many people find so interesting about reading art blogs over the conventional forms of art criticism? 

PJ:  I doubt that people are coming to art blogs expecting something revolutionary. Paradigm shifts by definition begin without our being able to anticipate them, and recognizing the change almost always means that it has already happened. In other words, I think you are going to be disappointed if you are looking to have your mind blown by blogging, because at this stage in the game, the change has already occurred. What we are doing now is figuring out what this means and how to work with it. Personally, I'm not really interested in participating in an arena that is uncontrollable. In fact, what I love about blogging, and the Internet in general is the continuous curation that is required of the user. I think it is this aspect of the medium that really infuses life into criticism. The medium really expands the choices people have when reading about art and since the style of web writing tends to be a lot less formal, this has to appeal to a great number of people.

Cay Sophie Rabinowitz & Ali Subotnick, Parkett editors, with Art critic of the Village Voice/artnet, Jerry Saltz

 

EM: Your self deprecating sense of humor really shines through in your own work, paintings, drawings, art criticism and your bloggs.  What I really appreciate about your writing, also other writers like Edna V. Harris, is that many mainstream art critics come across as seeming too constrained, straight jacketed, or uptight and maybe too insecure to utilize this kind of humor.

This speaks volumes about the old timer tradition of incompressible "wooden" art criticism.

Jerry Saltz has recently exhibited this two way capability and that's what makes him interesting. What are your thoughts on this and how important is humor to you in your art work, paintings, drawings and writing?
 

PJ:  I think that the value of entertainment in North American culture really can't be under estimated.  You can reach a much larger audience if you couch criticism with humor, which is why my art and my writing takes the form it does.  Saltz is one of my favorite critics for this reason as well. I don't always agree with him, but at least I don't have to be waist high in shit and attempting to decode thoughts that really aren't that complex at all when I read him.  And he takes risks, which is ultimately what also makes the blogging community a successful one right now. We have been and continue to be willing to take risks to further the profession. 

 

To see more please visit  www.artfagcity.blogspot.com