Broadsheet, The Blog

Two Lady Artists with Bees in Their Bonnets

24 July 2006


On a bumper sticker in Williamsburg (of course):

Man is the new Woman.

Does that mean that they should be expecting pay cuts or that we should be preparing for raises?

I mean, I'm just sayin'

17 July 2006

Saatchi Wants Us!

Chances are you've heard about Saatchi's intriguing new democratic art venture, "Your Gallery." But in a startling new development, in the past week both This Broad and That Broad have received "personal" invitations to participate! We both received the following letter in our email inboxes (one of us received the letter 2 days earlier than the other; it has been a matter of some contention over here at Casa Broad whether the timing reflects on the relative quality of our work):

Dear [Broad]:

My name is [Saatchina], I am contacting you from the Saatchi Gallery
here in London. Whilst searching the web I came upon your site and was
impressed by the high standard of work. I would like to tell you about
a new development here at the Saatchi Gallery.

We have created a new resource entitled Your Gallery; this allows
artists to post their work and information on The Saatchi Gallery
site. You can post up to eight images, biographical information,
information about you and your art, as well as your own contact
details and website. This is not a transaction site and there is no
fee, we have created this to assist artists in raising their profile.

Curators, collectors as well as thousands of visitors that we get
everyday have the opportunity to view your work. You have your own
page which you can update as much as you wish. If you are interested
please visit: or e-mail
[saatchina] for more information.

Saatchi Gallery

Whilst reading this email, our emotions zigzagged between, "Saatchi Gallery Wants To Show Our Work!" to "This Is A Piece Of S*** Spam!" and landed in a tangled pile about half an inch from the latter. How did they get our email addresses? Are they personally inviting every artist on planet Earth to participate? Do they really want every artist on planet Earth to participate? Does Saatchi employ thousands of underpaid sweetie pies to search the web endlessly for "high standards of work" like That Broad's and mine? Or do they employ hundreds of unmanned web drones to search artist databases for email addresses?

So, what the heck, I replied to Saatchina. She seemed so nice, and after all she did say she was impressed with my work:

Dear [Saatchina],

Thank you very much for bringing the Saatchi site to my attention and inviting me to participate. I will definitely check it out.

Would you mind telling me how you came upon my email address, as it is not posted on my website?

Best regards,

We'll let you know if we hear back.

Who else here has been invited???

14 July 2006

Reporting From a Super-Secret Undisclosed Non-Hamptons Location

As neither one of us Broads lives in the land of relaxation, our motto at Broadsheet (which we fondly think of as BS) has been "BS=No Stress." This is more hopeful than actual. We often stress. So it is at times like these, say in the middle of a heat wave, that we wax nostalgic about ye olden days, when the art world used to shut down for the summer, and no one was expected to show or buy art or work, much less blog ("what is this 'blog' of which you speak?" they would have asked).

So we are throwing in the towel this weekend. This Broad has wisely chosen to head north, while That Broad has foolishly chosen to stay put, eschewing an invitation to depart for a separate, undisclosed, northern location. We hope that you will return, like us, refreshed - no less cranky about computers, government and poor manners, but more capable of tackling these serious issues. After all, our other motto is, "Whaddya want from us, it's summer?!"

Yours in Relaxation,
The Broads

10 July 2006

Have You Ever Been So Mad At Your Computer That You Wanted to Hurl It Out The Window?

Before you hurt yourself or an innocent passerby, here's a better idea.

06 July 2006

The New York Supreme Court Really Gets My Goat

As you may know, the New York Supreme Court issued a ruling today that the New York State Constitution does not require the state to recognize same-sex marriage. The three opinions (majority, concurring and dissenting) can be read here (click on the decision that includes #s 86, 87, 88 and 89, and the dissenting opinion rocks, btw.) The ruling as reported in the mainstream news was bad enough, but when I actually read the majority opinion it made me furious.

First let me say, as I posted on Ed Winkleman's blog earlier today, that in my opinion our society should separate the two notions of civil unions and religious marriage. The State should get out of the marriage business entirely and issue only civil unions which would confer all the rights and responsibilities we now associate with "marriage" to all willing couples. "Marriage" could then be celebrated solely within religious institutions, which may discriminate as much as they want, sad and hypocritical as I believe that is.

But given the way marriage exists in our culture today the State is being inexcusably discriminatory to disallow certain of its citizens the right to marry whom they choose. To state the obvious, I am no lawyer, but this court opinion is really worth looking at because it's written in plain language but completely sidesteps logical thinking to arrive at the decision it wants, and even kind of admits that right up front:

In deciding the validity of legislation under the Due Process Clause, courts must first inquire whether the legislation restricts the exercise of a fundamental right, one that is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." [references to precedent court cases deleted] In this case, whether the right in question is "fundamental" depends on how it is defined. The right to marry is unquestionably a fundamental right. [references to precedent court cases deleted] The right to marry someone of the same sex, however, is not "deeply rooted," it has not even been asserted until relatively recent times. The issue then becomes whether the right to marry must be defined to include a right to same-sex marriage.
Huh? How does that follow?
You just re-defined marriage yourself!

The majority opinion goes on to rationalize limiting marriage to heteros based on the welfare of children (all emphasis mine):

There are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted… both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children.

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not … The Legislature could also find that such [heterosexual] relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement – in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits – to opposite sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other

[And later:]
A person's preference for the sort of sexual activity that cannot lead to the birth of children is relevant to the State's interest in fostering relationships that will serve children best.

This asinine reasoning led a lawyer interviewed by All Things Considered this afternoon to respond (near verbatim) “The ruling, that states that straight people can have children resulting from casual, even momentary, couplings and need to be encouraged to marry, makes it sound like gay people don’t need marriage because their children are so well planned." I might add that it sounds a bit like logic that could be used to outlaw birth control!!

The second reason stated in the majority opinion is that “The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father.”

Let's momentarily grant that that's true, though I really don't know. Even so there are about a million other ways to be raised that are indisputably worse than being raised by two loving committed gay parents all of which are 100% legal. And even the majority opinion admits that there is no research that supports that children don't thrive with gay parents: “What [these studies] show, at most, is that rather limited observation has detected no marked differences" between children raised in same-sex and opposite-sex households. However, I bet there's quite a bit of research to support that children don't benefit from being raised by assholes, criminals or racists, yet Rick Santorum, Tom DeLay and Trent Lott can still get married and have all the kids they want.

And the logical extension of the "undisputed" statement that marriage is primarily for the purpose of raising children and that's why the State has an interest in promoting it is this: that we should deny marriage rights to heterosexual couples who either choose not to or are unable to bear children, and should encourage gay couples who wish to have children to marry. The majority opinion momentarily acknowledges the ridiculousness of this and then offers the astounding argument that "While same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are easily distinguished, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples likely to have children would require grossly intrusive inquiries, and arbitrary and unreliable line-drawing." So let me get this straight (so to speak!): The judge is saying that the only reason we can't discriminate against straight couples who can't or don't want to have kids is that it would be too hard to figure out which ones those are???

And, duh, it seems quite obvious that in our culture marriage is no longer primarily about bearing or raising children, just as it is no longer about managing property. It is primarily about love and commitment.

Oh yeah and just a few words about "stability," which the State seems desperate to encourage: Given that gays have been dismissed as sexually promiscuous for most of the past few decades, if not since the beginning of history, it is beyond ironic that when gay couples want to settle down, contribute to their communities and make families, often with children that the rest of society has discarded, they should be denied that right. It makes me sick!

One last thing: I know this has nothing to do with the actual ruling but if you're trying to protect children, you might start by physically protecting actual real live poor children from malnutrition, homelessness, miserable or nonexistent healthcare, or substandard childcare and education. Oh, but this takes actual money, which no one wants to devote to other people's children. Denying marriage to gays is a cheap way for hypocrites to feel like they have accomplished something pro-family, when really all they’ve done is promote intolerance, which as we all know is awesome for children.

There is so much more to say, but this post is long enough.

01 July 2006

Top 10 Reasons to Love Being an Artist (don't say your parents, school guidance counselor and shrink didn't warn you, you big whiny crybabies):

1. The flexible pay schedule keeps you young.**

2. Gentrification encourages you to explore new and exciting neighborhoods in ever further reaches of the five boroughs.

3. Choosing between cutting your own hair and making your own shoes builds character.

4. Choosing between making your own art and keeping up with the blog (*ahem*) also builds character.

5. The privilege of making expensive decor for rich peoples' homes continually reinvigorates your class consciousness.

6. Varying degrees of success among your friends challenges you to an ever higher level of grace and good manners.

7. Art world gossip is some of the funnest around, except when it involves us.

8. Provided you cultivate the "right" "friends," you can amass a large collection of classy artwork without paying a dime.

9. Even when you think you're doing great, the constant drumbeat of other peoples' more fantastic successes keeps you humble.

10. Artists and "creative types" are irrepressible non-conformists and feel free to stop with 9.

Happy Fourth!

The Broads

**for more information on how this can work for you, write to us at