|
Post by Weezy on Sept 16, 2011 15:49:25 GMT -8
I don't have a problem with the Roq-Hi Fructose connection because as you note it's a lot more transparent than most media, where the lines between the advertisements and subject matter of the content don't really exist. It's all about the revenues, which is all about how many eyes see the advertising, and whether those eyes are convinced to buy the stuff being advertised (in the advertisements and the content). That's just the way things are. Art is no different in seeking out buyers, customers or patrons. And I'm not being cynical about it. If you're interested in knowing about whatever stuff is available, then the aggregation of certain available options in a single publication is a service. And art magazines are no different from other magazines in that respect.
I've been looking at art in galleries and museums since my earliest childhood, and I feel like I've already seen so much of the art I look at and don't find it inspiring. Accordingly, I'm interested in being exposed to what younger, up-and-coming artists are doing in the hopes that they're doing something fresh-- Outsider/street art appeals maybe because they're more influenced by their contemporaries and don't seem to have been as much tainted by the study of what others have done historically.
Art sources on the Internet seem better than magazines in that regard, but Juxtapoz and HiFructose do a better job covering that than the other magazines at least I'm aware of, but they're limited to certain styles of art and artists. Increasingly, I read those and start to sense that I've seen it all before as well. And like you, Insomniac, I've considered canceling my subscription on that basis-- I'm already so familiar with what they're presenting.
Many art magazines such as Art in America and the like don't seem to offer much at all in terms of content or critique-- I've tried to read it and end up so bored and not caring that I just thumbing through the pictures (mostly gallery ads) and forget the rest as a waste of time. They also seem more focused on the latest from mature or established artists. ArtNews is probably the best of these. Does anyone have other recommendations?
I like websites like this one-- of course-- and Arrested Motion, Erratic Phenomena, Wooster Collective, Booooom, Sour Harvest, etc., which introduced me to many new artists, especially those who are local or show locally. Often, though, these sites also focus on certain artists or styles of art, and I long for a broader exposure even if I often like the art and artists they cover. One of my favorite sites is Lumper, which introduces me to some really amazing work, and doesn't seem as pigeonholed by genre. Are there other broad spectrum sites like this others recommend?
What I haven't seen anywhere and long for is some real art critique. I want to read something honest about work that's worth discussing, both positive and negative (and there's always that). I want to hear the specific reasons why people like and dislike certain work, and I endeavor to see a piece through their eyes. There are visceral elements, sure, but those can be put into words. I find that as I try to put my own reactions to art in words, I begin to understand better what resonates for me, and especially identify pitfalls that lead to collectors' remorse.
Weezy
|
|
|
Post by |peetov| on Sept 16, 2011 16:15:51 GMT -8
weezy, as far as the sites that might interest you....i really enjoy cgunit. www.cgunit.net/they seem to try and post something new from an artist each day. sometimes the same artists are recycled, but it will be new work. they have photographers as well as digital and traditional artists, and i find i get exposed to new art this way. i usually visit about once a week or so and blast through the couple pages of new work that they have listed. it isn't a super in depth site, but it's one that i enjoy and you might want to check out. many artists you will have seen before, but i've run into quite a few interesting works from people i have never heard of before. for instance, they recently made this post from someone i had never heard of before and i was pretty enthralled with the work: www.cgunit.net/2011/09/oleg-duryagin.htmlsometimes it's worth the time to me pouring over things i've seen before just to find a gem like this that i didn't know existed. sorry insomniac, not trying to hijack the thread with website talk instead of magazine talk.
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Sept 16, 2011 23:30:27 GMT -8
Thanks Peetov, that's a site I'm not familiar with. Already bookmarked.
Since I've fallen in love with my iPad, most of the publications I have are apps, and I download the magazine.
Hopefully, Juxtapoz and HiFructose will move to a digital format.
Weezy
|
|
|
Post by epicfai on Sept 17, 2011 8:57:22 GMT -8
I like websites like this one-- of course-- and Arrested Motion, Erratic Phenomena, Wooster Collective, Booooom, Sour Harvest, etc., which introduced me to many new artists, especially those who are local or show locally. Often, though, these sites also focus on certain artists or styles of art, and I long for a broader exposure even if I often like the art and artists they cover. One of my favorite sites is Lumper, which introduces me to some really amazing work, and doesn't seem as pigeonholed by genre. Are there other broad spectrum sites like this others recommend? hey weezy, i use Google Reader to subscribe to a long list of art related blogs (among other things), its a great way to bring all of my art-related web reading onto one page and allows me to follow a ton of sites without having to check in on them periodically myself by actually clicking a link.
|
|
|
Post by afroken on Sept 17, 2011 14:03:16 GMT -8
cgunit is great. Thanks for that!
|
|
|
Post by roqlarue on Sept 17, 2011 16:24:13 GMT -8
Hi- I thought I'd chime in since I was brought up and I know there is some curiosity. Anyone can ask me anything about my association with Hi Fructose! I had been writing about art for a few years for magazines such as Raw Vision, Rue Morgue, and Make magazine after I put out the book "Pop Surrealism" in 2004. I contacted Hi Fructose and asked if I could help because I really thought they were making a quality magazine and I wanted to see them prosper. I happily wrote for free at first and then they later offered me a title and a small fee for writing. The title, "editor at large" is really an honorific more than anything, I actually have very little pull as to what gets covered. The decisions and direction of the magazine are *very much* decided by editors and founders Annie Owens and Attaboy. There for sure is overlap because we all like the same art, and I've worked with hundreds of artists over the years. I'd attribute my success more to the fact the gallery has been showing work that people want to see and own for over 13 years more than ad placement in a magazine. I would also agree that there there is a lot of arts writing about this "scene" as opposed to critique. I'm not totally sure why people are so eager to have outsiders tell them what or what isn't good vs their own heart...but there you have it. Two critics who DO touch on this world are Mat Gleason and Doug Harvey. You can probably google some of their reviews. -Kirsten
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Sept 17, 2011 17:33:13 GMT -8
I'll look up those critics, thanks Kirsten. I'd still like to see more critique in art magazines and interviews.
When I say critique, I don't mean some blowhard saying "this artist, show or piece is good or bad." E.g., someone claiming to be the arbiter of things good or bad because of degree or position and doesn't feel the need to explain him or herself. I want specific, technical talk about the choices in the piece, from media to palette to composition and the ways in which it is effectively executed or not, and how it contributed to the artist's narrative or concept-- or didn't. Even artists who I think are genius and collect I think have made some questionable choices in some pieces that make them less interesting or effective. Why not identify what makes some of the pieces in a show better and some less good and talk about it? I've encouraged people to let loose in my posted collection about what they honestly think about this or that piece. Seems like people are always really careful about what they say if it could possibly be construed as negative. I try to post why I acquired a piece. I probably agree with some of the negative critique. But I'm not going to develop my eye or judgment in collecting decisions if everyone just likes something or remains silent. If I don't like a piece, but someone else really loves it, I benefit from hearing what it is specifically that made someone gush.
I'm a lawyer. When I draft agreements, I've thought about literally every word as a choice. You can ask me about any word or comma or concept, and I call tell you about why that choice was made. A painting is like that. Like every word in my contract, every brushstroke, nozzle choice, using color X instead of Y, putting Z compositional element in one position rather than another, the direction of light, whatever. They're all choices. Question is the extent to which those choices come together as an effective whole to the viewer or not. Just as one might interpret one of my contracts to determine if all my choices were effective to convey a specific meaning or cover off on this or that issue, so too should one be able to dialog about the choices an artist made in interpreting a work of art.
For example, last weekend I was talking to an artist about a daring choice I thought he made (in that I could easily imagine it seeming disastrously distracting and contrived) but it made the whole piece, and he and I spoke a bit to unpack why it worked. It was clear to me that this artist had actively thought about every single choice in his work. He described a painstaking effort to cut and align affixed elements in a certain way that was consonant with the painstaking detail in the rest of the piece, and then also the artist thought it was important that the figure to have weight, being well grounded within the scene depicted through the use of cast shadows. I had to agree. That dialogue helped me to think about daring choices the artist made in his other works, and to understand his process and media. I left the show with a much deeper appreciation of the work and the artist than without the dialogue. On the opposite, I've seen other artists whose works I thought were good but identified things like a lack of grounding shadows to make the figures look like they were painted as part of the background not onto the background as an afterthought and left floating like some kind of bad Scooby-Doo animation, or some seeming defiance of perspective or proportion without understanding whether it was conscious or not (but doubting that it was to the extent inconsistent with other choices in perspective or proportion), and which I thought diminished the piece. If the artist had a conscious reason for that effect, then I want to hear it, and maybe it changes my mind about it. Maybe the artist agrees, and fixes it in future work, I don't know. At least the artist can have the opportunity to explain the choice.
Kirsten, you've been very transparent about your association with Roq and HiFructose. Never hurts to remind folks and explain it further, but it was readily apparent to me, and it's a great magazine and Roq is a great gallery. Your perspective as curator for an influential gallery, and your gravitas in the scene for the type of art Roq shows gives you important editorial insight that's valuable to a publication that covers the same types of art and makes it better. Notwithstanding my comment that I've seen a lot of the style of work in the magazine, it's an important voice that I'm sure has introduced countless fans. And the fact those fans equal potential clients for your gallery and long-term subscribers to HiFructose? What of it! They're the ones who support financially the existence of the gallery and the magazine. You should be proud to play such a key role in that and to be associated with it. Thinking about it, I'm going to renew my subscription!
Weezy
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Sept 17, 2011 22:33:59 GMT -8
Thanks Insomniac, you've started an interesting thread, and it's great to hear your thoughts and those of others on it.
Hear you on your friend liking different work-- and sometimes it is just subjective-- but even then I want to know what it was about the pieces the person liked and why, if they can articulate it, and at least why the piece that you liked best wasn't also their favorite. I hear you that it's not about who's right, you or your friend; my point is that through that conversation by putting your own thoughts to words, you can learn something about your own viewpoint, and by trying to see what your friend sees you might also expand your eye, also learning something about your viewpoint. And your friend comes away maybe getting you a bit better than he did before.
I think Audrey wasn't just being polite when she said she appreciated your candor. Why can't you have a view on it? And if people disagree, they should explain why they find a recent direction of work to be positive. Her work isn't cheap, so if you're a collector or even just a fan, you should have more confidence in your conviction to spend that kind of money (or for others). The artist, too, if they think they made the right choices. That's the problem, I guess: people don't want to talk honestly about art. Maybe that's why I haven't had too much critique on my own collection although I've welcomed it-- although there's been a little bit on the reasons some people don't want to put street art in their home, a point of view I totally get and that made me ask myself some good questions wearing a collector's hat vs. just someone enjoying the art. Although while I promise to engage constructively in the critique, I wonder that other fans of the work won't turn it into an ad homiem flame fest. That's too bad.
I was surprised that my mom, cleaning lady and contractor all gushed about Micallef's Idiot Love, which was the last thing in the world I expected (esp. given the crude/pornographic references). The best I could get out of them was generally do with the overall composition and execution, and even for those who didn't think they "got it" in terms of the narrative, they all seemed to agree there was clearly enough something there to get-- i.e., it engaged them intellectually in some way. It was really interesting to try to explore these surprising reactions. Would've liked to have learned more, but well, other than mom they're not big art fans. The broad spectrum resonance did give me some confidence in adding a second piece when I had the opportunity.
Well, I may not get much critique, but I will say I appreciate this board for allowing me to post my collection and express my views as to why I acquired a piece. I've really started thinking seriously about collecting recently, and I'm still extremely green about the whole thing. I don't just think I'm making mistakes, I know it, but don't have enough experience to learn from them because they're not obvious-- at least to me. However, by thinking about a piece, and putting into words the reasons I acquired this piece vs the great many other pieces that were available to me, helps clarify my own voice as a collector and to be more thoughtful about the choices I'm making.
Weezy
|
|
|
Post by mistersmith on Sept 19, 2011 16:46:35 GMT -8
Many art magazines...don't seem to offer much at all in terms of content or critique I think that's the single most important point that can be made on this topic, and something that I wish more magazines would take to heart. But in reading this diatribe please remember: I am a cranky, cranky bastard. Too much art/culture magazine writing is about two things: enhancing the artist's image, and the writer impressing you with their own cool factor (and in art magazines especially, their overwrought vocabulary). I get really, really worn out trying to read most art magazine features, as so many gloss over the important details and most of the rest are really just a writer trying to sound some kind of hip/intelligent. I get through most articles and haven't learned a damn thing about the art, just how badass the artist is as a person and how cool the writer wants to be perceived. I want to read an art article to learn the whats and whys and even hows of an artist's work...not so much how hard they party and what a badass skater they are and all that crap. The same things go for most culture-style publications. I've written for big-name art sites and have been an editor at a huge-name hot rod magazine, and have written some non-fiction books that you could buy in bookstores back when they were a thing that existed...and people just don't seem to care about content so much as being part of the scene and all that nonsense (not to mention the earlier point of advertising fueling content, which is very much the case). In the hot rod world especially, for every guy that ever told me my stuff was the best stuff they ever read, I had a dozen people dismissing me because my hair wasn't greased back and my cuffs weren't pressed correctly...meanwhile, every other writer was lacking adjectives outside of "bitchin'." So I'm genuinely disappointed in most culture-oriented writing, and I find it really lacking in most art publications as well. I feel like writers taking their subject seriously should do a much better job of communicating about the work instead of about the artist, or, as happens too much, about themselves. The job of a magazine writer is to inform the reader about the subject in ways that are unique to the article being written. It's really that simple. Dig up some factual information, connect those dots into readable sentences, and before you know it you have an article. That's really all there is. Non-fiction writers should want to write not for the hype but because they're good at sharing information with people: that's all. Stop trying to be HST or Wolfe or fucking David Foster Wallace even...readers shouldn't be made to care about the writer. It's not about the goddamn writer. Generally I think Hi Fructose does the best job, I think in a lot of ways they're the best culture-type rag being published. They need a copy editor, one that not only proofs grammar but layouts and consistency and style and the whole package (I'd love to do it!) but as far as quality of content -- artists, feature writing, etc. -- I don't know anyone that beats them.
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Sept 19, 2011 20:51:36 GMT -8
Mistersmith:
Interesting perspective from the "insider" view of editing a culture mag. Do you think people wouldn't have subscribed to the hot rod magazine you edited if there were frank, substantive reporting about the "bitchin' cars?"
I actually think the reason for lack of substantive content may be the moral relativism pervasive in our education system. In a world where all viewpoints, however ridiculous or extreme, are equal, to challenge another's views on any grounds is a faux pas of the highest degree and met with hostility. Accordingly, people run around with convictions that can't withstand a simple logical challenge.
Likewise, if someone believes something is cool, or some art is the shizzle and a product of breathtaking talent, to challenge that view, particularly marshaling reasons that are technical and not entirely subjective in nature, is rude and often met with pique if not outright hostility. I kind of think that the publications (especially specialty publications with limited circulations as it is) don't want to alienate any of their audience, both subscribers and advertisers, on those grounds. Better to talk about something else than the art, like how cool the artist is or how bitchin' a piece is because the artist or piece is irreverent, even if the irreverence is cliche.
It's a shame. A semi-famous philosopher and law prof of mine challenged us that we couldn't really claim to have conviction on something if we couldn't have the intellectual courage to acknowledge the best arguments against it and still defend our views. Maybe that's too much to ask of a culture style publication that someone just wants to thumb through while on the pot, and have whatever positive feelings reinforced (or at least not undermined) by the magazine content. I, too, like looking at all the pictures in art mags.
Weezy
|
|
|
Post by mistersmith on Sept 20, 2011 14:38:19 GMT -8
Mistersmith: Do you think people wouldn't have subscribed to the hot rod magazine you edited if there were frank, substantive reporting about the "bitchin'" cars? One thing we tried to do with that mag was present good cars, but never necessarily make value judgments. And, honestly, there were some cars in there were kind of meant to stir it up, to hopefully generate some discussion. Of course if a magazine is featuring something then on some level they tacitly approve, but there was a necessarily neutral stance that we would have liked applied. Where I was, it was really -- in concept -- more of an attempt at journalism/documentation first, that this stuff and therefore this magazine would be seen as historically important, years down the road. In execution, though, I was the only in-house guy and the freelance writers weren't up to the task, so we always got a few thousand words on how rad stuff was instead of some truly substantive copy. Also, most of them were car guys that decided to be writers, just to "play the game," and that was a whole 'nother source of pain! I actually think the reason for lack of substantive content may be the moral relativism pervasive in our education system. In a world where all viewpoints, however ridiculous or extreme, are equal, to challenge another's views on any grounds is a faux pas of the highest degree and met with hostility. Accordingly, people run around with convictions that can't withstand a simple logical challenge. This is the meeting of the Liberal Arts approach with the "everybody wins" approach...I loved in college how any idea, reasonably supported, became worth discussing. But the discussion is the important part, like you said, but inside a discussion you have to listen to your counterpart and potentially reform or refine your own arguments. But most people associate a difference of opinion with being told they're wrong, or that they're being attacked, and I agree that people are increasingly being coddled and won't speak critically for fear of a "fight." But on this topic, on art and culture, I think it's simpler than that. People think cars are cool. People think paintings are cool, graffiti is cool, sneakers and vinyl toys and whatever else limited edition crap is cool...so on these topics you get a lot of people that just want a piece of that cool all to themselves. They want to sit at the cool table and be with the cool people and show up to the cool parties. And most of them aren't going to spend time thinking -- because thinking ain't cool. That's what nerds do. And you have to think to write. Not to float my own boat too much, but I am a pretty capable writer, and I never tried to be cool...and I've received respect for some of the things I've written. I'll take that over cool any day. I've had old-head hot rod guys say some really meaningful stuff to me about things I've written, I've been offered some rad projects based off what I've done, and I've had artists read my stuff and ask me to write about them. Cool can be faked but respect is earned. But earning something takes work, so, there's not as much of that going around as the world could use.
|
|
|
Post by crazyreesie on Sept 20, 2011 18:15:44 GMT -8
I get really, really worn out trying to read most art magazine features, as so many gloss over the important details and most of the rest are really just a writer trying to sound some kind of hip/intelligent. I get through most articles and haven't learned a damn thing about the art, just how badass the artist is as a person and how cool the writer wants to be perceived. I want to read an art article to learn the whats and whys and even hows of an artist's work...not so much how hard they party and what a badass skater they are and all that crap. The same things go for most culture-style publications. I've written for big-name art sites and have been an editor at a huge-name hot rod magazine, and have written some non-fiction books that you could buy in bookstores back when they were a thing that existed... Interesting perspective. I wrote features for a big car enthusiast site for a few years, in a way that no one else has really written about imports. My colleagues were constantly name-dropping and bragging about their experiences, which bored me. I searched out interesting cars and explained why they were special. Perhaps it was just my female perspective, and lack of desire to join the boys' pissing contests, but I grew disillusioned with the entire industry because it was about connections rather than talent. I've only worked on one art-related writing project (copy for an artist's upcoming book, from which he extracted the bio he uses on his website and for galleries), but I'm hungry for more. There are so many untold stories that affect artists' work and development. So far, my pitches to glossy mags and local publications haven't yielded results, but I haven't given up hope.
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Sept 23, 2011 15:51:02 GMT -8
I believe Fifty24SF has the same owner as Juxtapoz. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Personally, I love Hi-Fructose and VNA.
|
|
|
Post by mistersmith on Sept 24, 2011 14:49:54 GMT -8
I believe Fifty24SF has the same owner as Juxtapoz. Correct me if I'm wrong. Fifty24 is an Upper Playground property, and the owner of Upper Playground is Matt Revelli...who's also currently running Jux -- he's labeled as Editor, and first on the masthead behind Robert Williams. The magazine is owned by a company called High Speed Productions, who also owns (publishes) Thrasher and Slap. High Speed's President is Gwynn Vitello, Fausto's widow. So she's probably the closest thing to an "owner" of Jux.
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Sept 27, 2011 19:25:08 GMT -8
I saw this article today, and I thought it did a better job than me at capturing what I was trying to address in my earlier post. From ArtInfo Deputy Editor Ben Davis: "How do you argue about art in a meaningful way that acknowledges the basic diversity of perspectives without having it all become a question of pure opinion (in which case there is not much point in arguing at all)? Obviously questions of artistic quality start from a subjective place. Neither the Abstract Expressionists nor the Minimalists were "wrong" or "right" in some scientific sense. Both positions are valid, starting from their own points of reference. On the other hand, insofar as a judgment incorporates something like an assertion of originality, you are not just speaking about your own gut reaction, but referencing certain objective characteristics of a work: the types of colors, the materials being used, the kinds of strategies and intellectual claims being made for something. And you are comparing these characteristics to the objective characteristics of other works, and assessing them in relation to one another. You are saying that either the new work of art is like or unlike the other art that is out there, derivative or original, ordinary or exceptional. The value of such artistic claims to originality changes in relationship to history. At one point, abstraction seems fresh and alive; decades later it seems played out, and people rebel against it as an orthodoxy. The discernment of what is original about a work also relates, quite evidently, to the reference points an individual has in terms of education and experience: to someone who doesn't know Mark Rothko's painting, two canvasses may look exactly the same; a connoisseur can point out the details that make one more unique than the next. And so it seems to me that the ultimate horizon, when it comes to arguing about art — at least insofar as it incorporates a judgment of artistic originality — is neither objective facts ("telling people what to think") nor subjective opinion ("it's all just thumbs up or thumbs down"), because the one is completely wrapped up with the other; your subjective experience is the product of objective context, while your perception of the creativity of a work's objective features is, in turn, bound up with subjective associations. It's in the nature of the game of art that these two factors interpenetrate, to the point where maybe you need a new term to understand what is going on — sobjective? It may even be that it is the fact that art inhabits this gray area that makes it interesting and important to argue about in the first place." Read the whole thing: www.artinfo.com/articles/story/38098/prolegomena-to-a-contemporary-theory-of-judgment-or-why-some-arts-cool/Weezy
|
|
|
Post by mistersmith on Sept 27, 2011 23:36:25 GMT -8
I disagree with all of that -- mostly because most of that is typical art-writing doubletalk. "It's not facts or opinion, it's both!" Horseshit. You need to pick one or the other and run with it -- expound on it.
I'm a guy with strong opinions, but I mostly shelve that when I write. It's not the writer's job to tell someone that something is good or bad, but the writer still needs to SAY something. It's the writer's job to say something interesting about work that is interesting, and to do so in a way that makes people want to think...if you do it right, the reader will decide good vs. bad on their own.
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Sept 28, 2011 13:57:41 GMT -8
I disagree with all of that -- mostly because most of that is typical art-writing doubletalk. "It's not facts or opinion, it's both!" Horseshit. You need to pick one or the other and run with it -- expound on it. I'm a guy with strong opinions, but I mostly shelve that when I write. It's not the writer's job to tell someone that something is good or bad, but the writer still needs to SAY something. It's the writer's job to say something interesting about work that is interesting, and to do so in a way that makes people want to think...if you do it right, the reader will decide good vs. bad on their own. This article was about the nature of art critique, but the basic point seems to apply to art writing generally: If one writes about interesting artwork, the conclusion that it's worthy of the attention of a broader audience is an argument one has to make a case for with logic, facts and/or stated assumptions. Art writing that's merely conclusory-- this artist is talented or that work is interesting and great-- is not interesting at all. This guy is admonishing that kind of conclusory or poorly argued writing and goes on to explain the kind of factual support that a good writer could marshall in support of an artist's work being worthy of our attention. It also seems consonant with your complaint at the hot rod magazine about authors making conclusory statements about this or that car being bitchin' without any discussion of why. I think the author's reference to the subjective aspect of art is that art is inherently about experience, which is used by art writers in particular as license for conclusory writing-- i.e., a view that because experiences with art are subjective and unique to the individual, it's pointless or even wrong to even try to argue why certain art is interesting or not. You either agree with the author's conclusion or you don't. I think the author correctly challenges that view. Some of the art people gush about I don't get at all. So a conclusory statement that it's cool and interesting, and a bunch of affirmations of that conclusion, isn't going to change how I think about it. I truly find this unfortunate. I've got an open mind. If someone could give me some reasons, I might change my mind or see something I didn't. Whether it's art or any other viewpoint, a well argued writing will change my mind or strengthen my own convictions in opposition of the argument, which hones the mind. I'm not sure how interesting I'd find purely factual writing about work that makes no argument, i.e., a technical dissection of artwork, such as "this is a painting depicting X or an abstraction, with references to this or that style, done with this medium and palette on this surface to achieve the following technical effect..." Although that would leave me free to reach my own conclusions about the work. Weezy
|
|
|
Post by murdock on Sept 29, 2011 3:56:46 GMT -8
I really love Hi-Fructose and discovered quite al ot of artist through them. I like the format and publication schedule, and dearly hope they DON'T switch to monthly or do even more online-only (like that aswesome Horkey interview a while back).
I recenty canceled my Jux sub, because I really only enjoyed every 2nd issure or so. Will still buy the occasional copy, like this month for J. Fish or Dabs Myla and of course next month for Mr. Horkey, but after that I'll probably let this rest for awhile.
There's a great German magazine called Monopol, that online available in English, too, that I had subscribed to for a couple of years, but recently cancaled because, frankly, most of the art reviewed there is over my budget.
In general, I LOVE to hold a magazine in my hands as much as I LOVE to see an artwork in the flesh and up-close. I dearly hope that I still can discover new artists through that medium not only through blogs and message boards.
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Sept 29, 2011 20:51:03 GMT -8
Does Monopol generally feature mostly German/European artists? From the website, it looked like it had such a bent.
Even if I can't afford the work, I like to see it so I can judge maybe something I can afford qualitatively against what's being celebrated at that end of the market.
I can read/speak German. I wonder if there's an Abo available here in the states-- and what's the difference between the magazine and website content.
I'm generally all about my iPad these days, so getting a hard copy magazine makes sense only if there's no digital edition and the content is superior than the web.
Weezy
|
|
|
Post by murdock on Sept 30, 2011 0:19:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Sept 30, 2011 18:35:51 GMT -8
Thanks a bunch for the iPad link!
Weezy
|
|
|
Post by arezee on Sept 30, 2011 20:19:33 GMT -8
I have cancelled all my subscriptions and at this point just look at all the websites and pick up whatever mag when I see something interesting. I do pick up every Hi Fructose. I think that they have the most on what I'm most interested in.
There was a time when I couldnt wait for the new Juxt. I think they started to really go in a bad direction once Robert Williams stopped contributing in a serious way. My favortite part was his intros. Does anyone know why he stopped and kindof parted ways?
|
|
|
Post by sketchv on Nov 15, 2011 11:21:08 GMT -8
I have cancelled all my subscriptions... There was a time when I couldnt wait for the new Juxt. I think they started to really go in a bad direction once Robert Williams stopped contributing in a serious way. My favortite part was his intros. Does anyone know why he stopped and kindof parted ways? Ha, I sadly just did the same. I held on to Juxt for to long being a die hard Williams fan ,but it is just to far gone. I wonder as well what caused the rift...
|
|
geoff
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by geoff on Dec 21, 2011 6:41:08 GMT -8
Also just cancelled my Jux subscription...found it harder to find features I liked, or indeed any that were written well. Some issues had no content that interested me so i'll go back to picking up the odd copy here and there.
The discussion about magazines and critique is an interesting one and perhaps for a separate thread. I know speaking from experience of working on a magazine (in my spare time) it's difficult to do - we tend to only feature artists that we like, so I suppose there's an implied criticism there but when we have done more 'argumentative' type pieces we usually get a barrage of emails along the lines of "who do you think you are to critique X, Y, Z" so we've increasingly left that side of the things to the blog.
|
|
|
Post by svenman on Dec 21, 2011 14:05:25 GMT -8
The discussion about magazines and critique is an interesting one and perhaps for a separate thread. I know speaking from experience of working on a magazine (in my spare time) it's difficult to do - we tend to only feature artists that we like, so I suppose there's an implied criticism there but when we have done more 'argumentative' type pieces we usually get a barrage of emails along the lines of "who do you think you are to critique X, Y, Z" so we've increasingly left that side of the things to the blog. yes, i understand where you are coming from here geoff. most magazine and blogs that cover our 'genres' are guilty of not being subjective enough in their appraisal of the things they cover. i wonder if people really do want critique though rather than just news? i'm guessing a lot don't. i know i would welcome a more critical standpoint from my reading material, be it printed or online. i've pretty much stopped reading all the blogs and magazines i used to read due to them either being too self-congratulatory or plain old ass-kissy. i used to take your standpoint a while back on 'implied' when i regularly wrote blogs also, but now i don't really write much at all. one of the reasons for that is that i began to feel disingenuous by only writing about things in a 'positive' light. i think that what you say above is not correct at all though - it's more implied acceptance than critique that you are exercising by only featuring things you like. personally i'd welcome some more critique in the magazines associated with 'genre' art. last time i read jux, it just read like a big old style guide / advert, which is a real shame and a massive departure from when i first discovered it.
|
|