In Pseudo-Defense of Elaine Wolff (Updated)
Posted by ben on 03 Sep 2007 at 07:50 pm | Tagged as: art paparazzi, responses/reviews
In the interest of debate, let me put in my two cents on the various stabs being taken at Elaine Wolff (both in Michelle’s post below, and in the various articles she links to). In her critique of Olmos Famous, Wolff accuses the show of being too much surface, not enough depth. This assessment isn’t necessarily wrong, but I think it misses the point. Franco Mondini-Ruiz’s shows (both his solo shows and those that he curates) are about spectacle, crowds, and excitement. They aren’t about quiet contemplation of a body of work. He’s working on making the community aware of the quality of contemporary art that is made in San Antonio, of the kind of excitement and energy that can surround this work, and of the fact that you can pack a gallery in Olmos Park with people who live on the north side and the south side. And he’s doing a great job of it.
There is room for other kinds of shows, as Michelle Monseau’s quiet, mysterious, and very spacious exhibit at Blue Star recently demonstrated. Franco just isn’t going to curate those shows. The “fairy god-mother” remark may sound bad from a certain perspective, but knowing Franco, and the degree to which he can dish it out, I have trouble getting worked up about this comment.
As for her mention of the coverage of Alejandro Diaz in New York magazine, it sounded to me like she was criticizing the magazine, not the show or the artist, so I don’t really see what the problem is there.
Now, her recent disclosure issues sound to me like a tempest in a teapot. So she interviewed Mikal Watts, a candidate for US Senate, that her husband supports. She also interviewed Rick Noriega, his opponent in the primaries, a week earlier. And she wrote a lengthy article criticizing Watts’ stance on abortion. So from where I sit, she hasn’t demonstrated bias towards either candidate. Her lack of disclosure points more to the need for clearer standards within the Current than to a breach of ethics. I looked around for some indication of whether this is considered a problem in the profession (what do I know about journalism, after all?), and this page at the New York Times indicates to me that it is something of a gray area, but she probably should have disclosed. And she did, albeit belatedly.
Perhaps Michelle should have disclosed that she was a participant in the show she’s defending?
Finally, I agree that the new Current web site still needs a lot of work.
UPDATE: Elaine Wolff wrote to point out that Dave Maass resigned on good terms before complaining about the Watts conflict of interest issue. She claims that although he knew about the campaign contribution back in June, he did not make an issue of it until several days after his resignation on August 6. I’m not going to try to corroborate this information, because I’m not that concerned about this ‘controversy’, but I thought I should pass it along.
Hey Ben, duly noted. The fact that I was in the show was quite obvious but I guess I should have belabored the point in my post? There were over 20 artists in that show, should I list them all here? Any other Olmos Famous artists in the show want to chirp in?
I hear you on all accounts. I’m standing my ground on this issue of ethics in journalism. I’m in communications with the Society of Professional Journalists and the Poynter Institute and we’re all working on this discussion from a professional point of view> I’ll write a more in depth response once I’ve conferred with more sources. Thanks for creating a critical and ongoing dialogue. That’s quintessentially the true importance of a public forum and I don’t assume to know everything on this issue. That’s why I’m asking the experts.
I’m glad to hear that you’re doing the research on this; I did a little bit, but it was admittedly cursory.
My point about disclosing your involvement in the show is an extension of the larger question of personal bias. Many of our readers know the connection between you and Bunnyphonic, and that Bunnyphonic was in Olmos Famous, but many may not. At the same time, Elaine Wolff takes pains to point out that her husband’s campaign contributions are a matter of public record; but we don’t expect her readers to do that kind of research. Obviously the coverage of a US Senate candidate in an alt weekly is of much greater concern to the public than a defense of an art show on a blog, but when you deal with ethics it’s not always cut and dry.
I will say that if nothing else, Elaine Wolff’s actions led one writer to resign, and may have created a rift between her and other writers. Presumably it’s a bad thing if writers don’t trust their editors.
[Edit: check the update to the blog entry for a caveat. According to Wolff, Maass resigned for unrelated reasons.]
“Any other Olmos Famous artists in the show want to chirp in?”
no, none of us read emvergeoning.
or the current, mostly, for that matter ;)
okay, i do have to say something, i guess… that is, while i do agree with the gist of what you said in your letter, michelle, i think your read of her take on alejandro diaz was a little off. i didn’t feel she was criticizing his work, rather what she perceived as the presentation of it, something which is really impossible to judge simply from magazine photographs. one obviously just cannot efectively review a show, in part or in whole, if you don’t experience the actual physical reality of the installation. what bothered me to a much greater degree was the fact that she spent several paragraphs reviewing the show as though it were an alejandro diaz exhibition. it was what it was – a largeish regional group show with an interesting survey of both young and established artists, something which was lacking in this year’s cam due to anjali gupta’s courageous curatorial decision to showcase the work of one artist for this year’s blue star exhibit – and it is hard to understand why wolff saw fit to complain about that.
and yes, missing one of franco’s openings is something very like missing the point of any show he mounts…
her characterization of mondini-ruiz did read as offensive to me as well, but i’m fairly sure that was not her intention. it seemed more of an attempt at trendy cosmopolitan hipster political incorrectness – as if to intimate that we are now so evolved that we are past such superficial concerns and using such language with a straight face is somehow taking the piss. and maybe it is somehow – would that it were so, anyway. of course i could be totally wrong with that interpretation – i don’t know ms. wolfe personally at all.
the journalistic integrity issue sticks in my craw a wee bit, seems more like a forgiveable (one time, that is) carelessness more than an attempt at a cover-up or serious error in judgement, but i will leave that to those more expert on the subject to debate.
Hey, I read both emvergeoning AND the Current…
This dialogue is very interesting to me. I wish it could go on forever! Full disclosure: I was in the Olmos Famous show. I also illustrated the cover for this week’s Current. Swing from deez nutz! Boo-ya!
this may be a late post on this issue, but in actuality, both Michelle Valdez AND Elaine Wolfe are very recent “art professionals” and “journalists”. neither of these women have much background in arts writing or making art that is truly evocative, which should be very evident to anyone who reads them or looks at their work. Valdez’s getting into this silly sniping over an issue that seems like a quote (once again) taken out of context is unprofessional and makes her look like the amateur that she is. but then again, hack journalists continually take quotes out of context to spin their own personal rants (most likely based on things totally unrelated) into some world shattering social issue.