Broadsheet

Unpaid Leave

2009-02-16T13:00:00.004-05:00

Dearest forlorn but not forgotten reader(s):

We formally and belatedly acknowledge our wicked lameness. At this time we have no plans to return to blogging, but we reserve the right to change our minds (we are Broads after all - but don't you dudes f-ing try to make that joke). Even the writing of this note has caused additional strife in our relationship. Before we punch each other out, or worse yet end up on Gawker, we must bid you adieu until we see more progress in our couple's counseling.

Farewell for now, and please enjoy the archives.

With love,
The Broads

Overheard at BCAM

2008-06-10T21:14:00.005-04:00

"This is about as exciting as looking at someone's stock portfolio."

Overheard in the magnificent elevator between floors at of the new Broad* Contemporary Art Museum at the L.A. County Museum of Art, which according to Christopher Knight's thoughtful review at the LA Times, featured 80% works by Gagosian-represented artists and only 3 women (out out of 28 artists, and frankly, we were only able to spot Barbara Kruger and Cindy Sherman, so maybe the third was installed in the restroom).

*no relation (it's pronounced "Brode" as in the collectors Edythe and Eli, who infamously announced their decision not to donate their collection to LACMA a few months back.)

Camels are the new Deer

2008-05-22T22:44:00.004-04:00

Based on extensive research, Broadsheet confidently predicts that camels will be the hot new subject for artists next season. You heard it here first!

Clinton, the Lady Fighter

2008-05-10T09:33:00.004-04:00

We have been consistently annoyed at the mainstream media's enthusiastic spinning of white voters' support for Hillary Clinton as attributable to the racism of working class white men, with mostly only the blogosphere and Hillary's supporters arguing that Barack Obama's popularity is attributable to voters' sexism (not least the sexism of young "post-feminist" women). Both arguments are cynical and unproven (though perhaps not entirely false), but the mainstream media's preference for one narrative over the other must mean something.

So Susan Faludi's Op-Ed in today's New York Times is a welcome change to the narrative, although we're not sure we completely agree with her argument. Faludi attributes Hillary Clinton's success among white males to her tough fighting style, a style that is new for women politicians.

For virtually all of American political history, the strong female contestant has been cast not as the player but the rules keeper, the purse-lipped killjoy who passes strait-laced judgment on feral boy fun. The animosity toward the rules keeper is fueled by the suspicion that she (and in American life, the regulator is inevitably coded feminine, whatever his or her sex) is the agent of people so privileged that they don’t need to fight, people who can dominate more decisively when the rules are decorous. American political misogyny is inflamed by anger at this clucking overclass: who are they to do battle by imposing rectitude instead of by actually doing battle?

[...]
It’s the unforeseen precedent of an unprecedented candidacy: our first major female presidential candidate isn’t doing what men always accuse women of doing. She’s not summoning the rules committee over every infraction. (Her attempt to rewrite the rules for Michigan and Florida are less a timeout than rough play.) Not once has she demanded that the umpire stop the fight. Indeed, she’s asking for more unregulated action, proposing a debate with no press-corps intermediaries.
If anyone has been guarding the rules this election, it’s been the press, which has been primly thumbing the pages of Queensberry and scolding her for being “ruthless” and “nasty,” a “brawler” who fights “dirty.”
But while the commentators have been tut-tutting, Senator Clinton has been converting white males, assuring them that she’s come into their tavern not to smash the bottles, but to join the brawl.

Faludi conveniently overlooks Hillary's more wimpy campaign moments, such as when she accused her male debate opponents of "piling on," and choked up on camera while complaining that it's really hard to keep going every day under such pressure. (Personally I thought those tears were real, but by Faludi's argument, could perhaps even these tears be cynically attributed to her willingness to use every possible tactic in a rough fight?)

Meanwhile, if her success with white male voters wasn't attributable to racism before, she seems to now be actively be courting the racist vote. Bob Herbert paraphrases her most desperate recent campaign message as "He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black!"

And Here's A Little Something For The Ladies

2008-04-29T23:13:00.009-04:00

The hair dye aisle at Duane Reade is like a second home to us. So we did a double-take when we saw this new product on the shelves yesterday. Had we been sipping a drink, it might have been a spit-take.

There are quite a few embarrassing things to purchase at the drugstore, but we think there's a new winner.

Broad Sheet Follows Up!

2008-04-27T08:19:00.006-04:00

You may recall our alert last summer about offensive automobile decor and you may have thought, don't they have more important things to think about?

Well, Broadsheet is in good company, because the Florida Senate agrees! Thank goodness some of our country's legislators have their priorities straight.

I am (not?) a Feminist Artist

2008-04-10T13:11:00.004-04:00

What does it mean to call yourself a Feminist Artist?

I've been mulling over Mira Schor's piece in the most excellent Brooklyn Rail for a while now. She discusses "Global Feminisms," "WACK!," and the concept of feminist art in general, lamenting that women artists are reluctant to call their work feminist (a reluctance, however, that does not extend to declining an invitation to exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum or LA MOCA under the banner of feminist art). One of the most interesting passages is this, where she quotes telling excerpts from the WACK! exhibition catalogue:

It is quite interesting to track how many of the women included in WACK! were not, are not feminists in any active sense [...] “Many of [Marina] Abramovic’s best-known performances from the 1970s stand, in part, as critiques of the traditional role of women in the arts...Despite this, the artist has distanced herself from the feminist movement: ‘I have never had anything to do with feminism.” (WACK! p. 210); “[Louise] Bourgeois’s relationship to feminism is complex...‘There is no feminist aesthetic. Absolutely not!’” (220); “[Theresa Hak Kyung] Cha’s work is not overtly feminist but...” (223); “Perhaps indicative of her lifelong antipathy to categories, [Jay DeFeo] did not identify herself as a feminist” (226); “Although [Rita] Donagh was not intimately engaged with the burgeoning feminist discourse in 1970s England...” (229); “While [Lili] Dujourie has recalled feeling marginalized by her primarily male colleagues and acknowledged a debt to feminist film theory…she has also rejected a specifically feminist reading her of her work.” (231); [Louise] Fishman too was struggling to resist a movement that had supported her and through which she was able to develop her identity as an artist.” (236); “Although [Catalina] Parra does not identify herself as a feminist artist...” (280); “Although [Katharina] Sieverding does not explicitly ally herself with feminism...” (299).

I am a proud feminist, and a proud artist. Some of my work deals quite directly with feminist ideas. But it doesn't feel quite right to call myself a feminist artist either, and now I am examining this.

There are many ways I identify myself, depending on the setting. I am a Brooklynite, a mom, a tall person, a homeowner, a subway rider, a Caucasian, a Democrat. I would squirm at having any of these adjectives modify the noun "artist" in a description of my artistic identity. Mira Schor briefly notes the objection artists (really, everyone) has to being put in a box, and then knocks it down a bit too easily, I think:

All artists reject limited readings of their work. But when the work clearly deals with gender and gendered power relations, when it deals with femininity, when it explores female sexuality and the female body, when the work uses the vocabulary of gendered tropes developed by the first generations of the feminist art movement – the ones in WACK! and the ones left out of the history proposed by WACK!--how is it not feminist art? Why is it still such a problem?

Clearly, it is. These denials are a troubling indication that feminism continues to be perceived as a controversial and dangerous identification. Women still don’t want to be seen as feminist artists because that would limit them to being seen as women artists and no one wants to be seen as a woman artist. “Woman” still denotes second-class status within a (still male after all these years) universal. That this should be, or should be perceived to be, the case only proves that feminism is still a necessary political analysis of society and a powerful tool for mobilizing the production of art that engages with the question of gender and injustice on all levels.

I agree with her that the word 'feminist' is more fraught than it should be, and part of the problem is the specific label. But clearly a large part of the resistance is to any label at all. I welcome a feminist reading of my work, but I also want to encourage as many readings as possible. Any label can be a ghetto, except perhaps "brilliant artist."

Image above is from the inimitable Guerrilla Girls.

Lower East Side vs. Chelsea

2008-03-31T11:07:00.005-04:00

We had the pleasure of visiting a dozen or so Lower East Side galleries last week, and it highlighted all the awful things about Chelsea that we have been pretending not to be bothered by for a decade now: the mega-money-ultra-modern-mall vibe, the lack of affordable food or drink, the distance from the subway, the desolate streets with a heartless lack of shade in summer and no shelter from the wind in the winter. On the Lower East Side the galleries are small and friendly, the sitting and snacking options are plentiful, and the work looks great!

We then belatedly toured the New Museum, where there was a strange (or not so) correlation between the "Collection of..." citations on the title plates for the artworks and the absurdly prevalent benefactor names embellishing almost every vertical surface. Yes, even the elevators and staircases are sponsored by the same people whose collections have just increased in value due to their inclusion in this high-profile exhibition. Quid pro quo anyone?

Also, the work kind of looked like garbage, and we are not speaking metaphorically. The bastard spawn of Rachel Harrison and Isa Genzken make their parents look so bad! We have long been fans of Ms. Harrison's work in particular, but it struggles to look serious in the context of all the poorly thought-through imitations. Is it her fault (or Nirvana's) that we have become inundated with terrible grunge art just like we suffered through the 90s with terrible grunge music?

Above is one of our favorite works from our Lower East Side tour:
Tue Greenfort, Plant Oil Circulation - After Hans Haacke 1967 2007
at Salon 94 Freemans

This Feminist Voted for Obama

2008-02-23T16:14:00.006-05:00

Despite the headline, The Broads are split on which Democratic candidate is best qualified to lead the US at this moment in history, and which is best positioned to defeat McCain in November.

But This Broad, who considers herself a feminist of the first degree, has been dispirited by the feminist bashing of Obama supporters of late, and their implications that a female American who doesn't vote for Clinton is self-hating, timid, post-feminist, and un-evolved.

Despite my distaste for her husband as a person and a politician (tempered, to be sure, by the past 7 years of true hell), I would be nothing short of thrilled to have a woman in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular, leading our country. But it rang true to me when Bill Richardson called Barack Obama a "once in a lifetime leader." I think Obama is brilliant, and that his ability to inspire and motivate Americans to participate in improving our country, in addition to a pledge to work hard on our behalf, means his potential to forge real change in this country and perhaps beyond is unparalleled. And despite the undeniable realities of gender discrimination--not to mention misogyny--in our country and in the world, I think it is bad for women and kind of gross when Clinton and her supporters play victim.

While we're at it, I've heard women point out, as an example of sexism, that so many people call Senator Clinton "Hillary". It has bothered me too, but that particular example of sexism begins at home.

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, I will support her in every way possible. The growing acrimony between Democrats is terrifying, displaying the idiotic death-wish that once again threatens to hand the election to the Republicans during this year when they should not have a chance.

And let us apologize for the absurdly long absence in posting. We have been otherwise fruitfully occupied. We can't promise it won't happen again, but for now we are here.

Nominate a New York Enemy & Ally before January 10

2008-01-07T20:01:00.000-05:00

When we first heard news of William Powhida's new project, we thought: oh, that's very funny, but people probably won't participate. Apparently, we're wrong.

Anonymity is a powerful motivator...

Internet, do your worst!

Kid-Friendly Miami

2007-12-10T13:00:00.000-05:00

We know that as artists we're not supposed to like going to Miami, or to art fairs, and god-forbid combining the two... so it embarrasses us slightly to admit that one of the broads chose to go to Miami last week and (horrors!) had a good time.

This time around we made it to a couple of parties but our idea of making the scene consisted largely of playing chase on the beach and eating ice cream with our 3 year old on Lincoln Road. He doesn't yet appreciate art very much, so we only made it to a fraction of the 24 fairs infesting Miami this year (one-sixth, to be exact), but we were impressed by the four we visited.

We ask you, dear skeptics who are older than 3, how are we to resist? All the art you can stomach to make up for the fact that you haven't been to chelsea in 6 months.... fabulous beach weather and the beach itself to nap off your hangover... parties every night, often including free drinks... hoards of plastic surgified ladies of indeterminate age and rampant denim 'n' sparkle fashion providing countless opportunities to feel intellectually and aesthetically superior.... What's not to like?

We know, we know: the crass commercialism, the terribly hung booths, the $20 price tag when the drinks *aren't* free, the hordes of glamourpusses who don't care about art but are just making the scene, the clever little bullshit and punishing half-assedness (as a friend recently characterized art-fair work) to which the art fair setting seems so conducive.

But either we're getting more accustomed to seeing art the way it is exhibited at art fairs, or perhaps the galleries are getting better at hanging work (or both), but we enjoyed viewing the work at the fairs this time. We only wished we could have afforded to buy some!

Happy Chanukah!!

2007-12-06T22:32:00.000-05:00

In case you've forgotten the rules, or have been living under a rock, remember -- nothing says "Happy Chanukah" like ham. (And we hear it tastes better than Tofurkey, too.)

see original post

Broad vs. Broad: The Great Tofurkey Debate, 2007 (and if this seems familiar, we say, "Bite Me!")

2007-11-19T13:59:00.001-05:00

Pros

1. Naturalistic Colour!
2. Great smoked flavour!
3. Cooks faster than turkey!
4. Comes with its own stuffing!
5. Best of all, on Thanksgiving, you get it all to yourself!!

Cons

1. Repulsive shape!
2. Repulsive texture!
3. Just plain repulsive!
4. Looks the same when you throw it back up!
5. You may have to share it with your cat!!

OVERHEARD

2007-11-06T07:17:00.000-05:00

©BS07

BS (You Guess!) Top 10

2007-10-31T11:46:00.000-04:00

We provide the list. You guess the topic!

1. Spiderman

2. Dick Cheney

3. Mother Theresa

4. Ralph Nader

5. A Teroryst* **

6. Martha Stewart

7. Jabba the Hutt

8. Hillary Clinton

9. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

10. Your Mom

* Intentional misspelling. We don't want to end up on any watch lists.

** If you follow the link, you will see we may have been wrong about this one anyway.

(To see today's topic, please visit the "comments" section)

Multi-Tasking!

2007-10-22T18:25:00.000-04:00

And the award of the week goes to... This Guy!

image copyright Broad*Sheet 2007

Overheard in London during Frieze Week

2007-10-15T14:22:00.000-04:00

"I miss the days when art was elitist and you could still see it in peace."

We overheard (and couldn't help sympathizing with, in a way) that bitter sentiment from a fellow member of the crowd fighting to get on a stuffy too-small elevator in the Tate Modern's stuffy too-small hallway. Granted, visiting the museum the weekend of the Frieze Art Fair (and at least four other concurrent fairs) was perhaps not the brightest idea...

OVERHEARD

2007-10-09T08:03:00.001-04:00

Image copyright Broad*Sheet 2007

Fashionable Ladies are Now Running their own (Small) Businesses

2007-10-04T14:55:00.000-04:00

In important Fashion and Style news, according to the New York Times some industrious ladies are apparently starting their own businesses! We assume they are dressed very fashionably whilst doing so. However, that does not seem to be increasing their chances of success.

It is a well-known and oft-quoted fact that women are starting businesses in the United States at twice the rate of men. The result, according to the Center for Women’s Business Research, is 10.4 million businesses owned by women nationwide.
That these businesses aren’t doing all that well is far less talked about. About 43 percent of all businesses owned by women have revenue of $10,000 or less. Over 70 percent have revenue of less than $50,000. And only 3 percent have revenue exceeding $1 million, according to the Women Presidents’ Organization, a nonprofit group for women whose businesses take in $1 million or more. (By contrast, men clear $1 million at more than twice that rate, or about 7 percent.)

Frankly, we have little problem with the article itself, merely its placement in the section better suited to today's article on the new plastic surgery trend of "Mommy Makeovers."

This is not the first time we've noted the Times's strange predilection for placing important news about women in the Style Section. As the very astute ML commented last time around, how strange would it seem if the Times placed articles on male business owners under Sports?

The BS Etiquette Guide for the New Art Season

2007-09-23T19:16:00.001-04:00

In an homage to MAD Magazine's "What They Say, What They Really Mean," we bring you our top 10 things you things you may think, but shouldn't say, after you make the mistake of asking someone "what's new?"

****

***

*********************
***

*****

All images copyright Broad*Sheet 2007

Foul Balls

2007-08-27T20:31:00.000-04:00

What's that they say about a man's car being his penis? We reluctantly suppose that this must the logical extension, as it were, of that esteemed metaphor.

We spotted this pair of huevos on the Thruway somewhere in Westchester County while we were trying to escape NYC for a day. Sadly, our camera phone doesn't do them justice. You'll have to trust us that they were naturalistically modeled in fine saggy detail.

Why would anyone do this?

Wha' Happen't?

2007-08-23T07:21:00.000-04:00

The other night someone asked me what happened to Broadsheet. To which I replied, "huh?" C'mon people, it's AUGUST! And unlike the art world, we are taking a summer break. But rest assured, we are busy preparing our special brand of sporadic reporting for the upcoming season.

As the song says, see you in September!

xox
The Broads

Double X Art

2007-07-21T10:09:00.000-04:00

Ad Hoc Vox Holds Panel: Man Schools Feminists on History; Gallerist Saddened; Young Women Silent

Wednesday night both This Broad and That Broad attended the Ad Hoc Vox, Double X Art Panel on Feminism at Brooklyn Fireproof. This Broad promptly fled the heat, as her dear friends were too lame to effectively save her a seat, even after she had been held up in midtown after the explosion. We suck, and we apologize. Thus, it has been left to me to report that the whole thing wound down just as it was really getting going.

As part of a general discussion, Deb Kass was the undisputed highlight of the panel, giving a broad personal and historical perspective on feminism and painting (of particular interest to me). Wendy Olsoff of P.P.O.W., made a valuable contribution with remarks often ending with “and it makes me sad,” referring to the current role and value (or lack thereof) of women in the art market. General remarks were made that are by now very familiar regarding the art market, the devaluing of women's work and, of course, the double-whammy of being female and over-30. Oh, the horror!

Astonishingly, aside from the very able moderator Colleen Asper (one of the panel’s organizers along with co-founder of Double X Art, Jennifer Dudley), and the delightful Art Fag City's Paddy Johnson (who will be weighing in on her own experience), the younger women, were virtually silent. What’s up ladies?! You have to speak up. Especially because NO ONE satisfactorily answered the question I went to hear addressed: Why the hell are young women so invested in disassociating themselves from feminism? Danica Phelps took a stab at it, but I’m not convinced that it’s as she conjectures, that women want to think that we’ve moved on. I think, as was pointed out to me later, there are too many associations with the Goddess and peasant skirts and unshaved legs… still.

As someone who falls squarely in the middle of these two generations, I would really like to hear something more convincing. Katy Siegel gave a few illuminating remarks on the subject, based on her experience as a professor at Hunter with international students who feel feminism is a “white, middle class” movement that doesn't speak to their concerns as they are more interested in identity, politics and economic issues. Um... excuse me, but last time I checked, those were all feminist concerns.

While the presence in the audience of members of the Brainstormers demonstrates that some of the young ladies are able to see the big picture, fighting for the advancement and empowerment of women with humor and sass, I would still really like to hear from people who were there as I remain,

Yours truly, flummoxed,

That Broad

Go Ball Fem-what? The Occasional Toddler Perspective

2007-07-03T14:28:00.000-04:00

The other day my mommy took me to the Brooklyn Museum because she said she wanted to see an important art show before it closed, and she said she would show me a whole lot of art by women artists and we would have a great time. I was very excited to go to the museum because I thought there were going to be really big dinosaurs there, like there were the last time we went to the museum. My first warning should have been when I noticed that the woman at the ticket counter glanced at me and said something to my mommy about the content in the show possibly not being suitable for small children, but I followed my mommy's lead and paid her no mind. I was very excited about the museum because I got to push the elevator buttons (not once, but twice!) to go to the floor where I thought the dinosaurs were going to be.

At first I was a little confused because I didn't see any dinosaurs at all, but I didn't mind seeing lots of naked women, especially the booby-feeding pictures. I think my mommy must have thought that those were the images the museum staff was referring to, and I shared her disdain at that bourgeois attitude. But as we walked through the next room I started to feel very upset. There were a lot of really unpleasant images of women being hurt in all these different ways. My mommy picked me up and hurried us through that room but the next room was no better, and neither was the one after that. Then she tried to appease me by spending some extra time in a dark gallery with a video of a funny brass band following a woman walking down the street, but by this time I really didn't like being in the dark rooms in this scary place, even if I was getting to watch a giant TV, and I refused to walk anymore and made her carry me because I wanted to go home, and I know because she tells me all the time that I'm getting to be a very big heavy boy and she has a hard time carrying me for long periods of time. So after just a couple more minutes my mommy said we could go home now and I could tell she felt really bad because she said she didn't know that the art was going to be like that. But I guess this "feminist art" term that I hear my mommy use so much actually describes a lot of stuff that is really ugly and violent and mean. But I can't figure out why that should have to be the case.

In any case, it's going to be a while before I let my mommy take me to the museum again.

UPDATE: Apologies for not captioning that image above:
Ryoko Suzuki, images from the Bind Series, 2001

CAT FIGHT!

2007-06-27T10:44:00.000-04:00

Ok, I shouldn’t have even been watching this show, but rather than drink alone, sometimes, despite the utter depravity, I watch really, really, really, and I mean REALLY, bad TV. Yes, I confess, dear reader(s), I subjected myself to the newest of the vilest reality dating shows, Age of Love. And I have to say, I was riveted with disgust. But it got me thinking that along with ageism (oft discussed in the art-related blogs), it is clear that sexism is an intramural sport.

One of the most gag-inducing aspects of this ridiculous spin on the The Bachelor, in which 40-something women are pitted against 20-something women (kittens vs. cougars) to “win the heart” of an Australian tennis “champ,” is the unconcealed female self-hatred expressed as fear of aging by the younger women toward their older counterparts. The former speculate, as they primp for their group date (ew!) that perhaps the older women are experiencing hot flashes (at 40? please...), they spew phrases like “hello, do I hear stretch marks, anyone?” and make references to sagging skin. I’m sorry, but do these women even know anyone over forty? Furthermore, do they think they will never age? Ultimately, this isn’t pitting age against beauty as much as it is the same old, same old, pitting women against women to fight over a man. Meow… and, again, EW!

Subsequently, I think that the retreading of the improvable idea that youth trumps wisdom and age in the art world and that women are always being cut out of the equation serves to not only depress us, but to reify this notion that we can’t get ahead. The structural systems in place are clearly not working in our favor, but for every over-40 female artist that you point to that has been rejected on account of sexism and ageism, I can point to another who has managed to launch a career at this age. Okay, not a superstar, Matthew Barney, Damien Hirst-type of career, or even a Tracey Emin, Kara Walker-type career (and maybe we should ask them how they feel about what they make compared to the boys), but how many people have careers at that level anyway? Indeed, the numbers are skewed in favor of the men. But if you’ve gone down the path this far and are still making art at 40 or 50, you’re clearly not just in it for the glamour *ahem* or the money.

Now, This Broad will tell you that I’m no Pollyanna, and she regularly, rather endearingly, calls me a curmudgeon, so don't think I'm here to give you a pep talk and tell you to just put your nose to the grindstone! But I do believe that the language that we use and the scripts that we repeat in our heads can be as damaging as any external forces. Women in the art world and in the world in general lose site of their ultimate goals– kind of like any oppressed group– and bicker and fight amongst themselves.

Rather than blame the obviously faulty system, let’s try to help each other out a bit more and spend our energies on our work and, of course, simply refuse to go away.

Yours truly,

That Broad

Overheard (Oh dear, where do we start?)

2007-06-16T00:23:00.000-04:00

(The above image courtesy of The Gowanus Lounge, and though it does not represent the precise intersection referenced below, it provides sadly appropriate context for the quote.)

The scene: Bedford Avenue near Metropolitan Avenue, in a neighborhood legendary for being a) hip and b) ugly--and not necessarily in that order.

Older lady in black velour tracksuit to hipster mom pushing stroller: "I'm looking for a cute little town called Williamsburg...?"

Late To The (Dinner) Party, Yet Again

2007-05-25T11:05:00.000-04:00

You’ve read the reviews, the critiques of the critiques, so we ask you – isn’t it time you actually went and saw the show? Yes, we're talking about Global Feminisms, AGAIN! You wanna make somethin' of it?

We’ve heard a variety of opinions, in the aforementioned New Yorker, of course from The New York Times, as well as New York Magazine, City Journal and a host of blogs, the most intelligent and in-depth writing coming from John Haber.

But whether conservative or "liberal," snarky or sophisticated, they all ultimately come down on the same side, critiquing the exhibition and its curatorial objectives for nearly the same reasons, namely, that this is a monolithic view of feminism, focusing almost exclusively on women and their bodies as the element in art that distinguishes itself as “feminist.” Such an essentialist view of women, with some notable exceptions (discussed extensively in the above-mentioned reviews) glosses over the broader range of artistic practices also informed by feminism.

As someone who is not afraid of "the F word," it pains me to not like this show. There were a host of interesting comments and complaints on the museum's own website, many echoing my own, simply regarding the uncomfortable layout of the closed and claustrophobic galleries. My overriding feeling was one of being in a graduate school exhibition where women, with Audre Lorde’s prohibition against using the master’s tools echoing in their heads, eschew sculpture, and especially painting, in favor of “media,” that is, video and photography, to critique the public images of women that dominate the cultural landscape in which the appearance of the female body nearly always signifies “sex.”

At its inception, this was a very radical approach, but decades on, despite the persistence of sexism in the culture and the art world, like abstraction, it’s starting to feel like a stylistic option. Again, I don't question its relevance or importance as an outgrowth of second-wave feminism’s exploration of new forms, including performance and installation, but there has been an abundance of complex and interesting painting, sculpture, drawing and installation in the third-wave as women returned to these media (although plenty never left).

If this is to be the first in a series of contemporary work at the Brooklyn Museum’s Sackler Center that will look at a range of feminisms, then please let us know! Using a title as all-encompassing sounding as “Global Feminisms” gives a sense of expansiveness and completeness that contradicts the show’s reality. The “global” moniker feels particularly misleading, for while the artists cut a wide geographic swath, there is an inherent level of privilege in attending art school in any hemisphere and the resulting “cultural production,” is dishearteningly homogeneous, employing the same sort of “strategies” that we are used to seeing with regularity in New York.

But maybe we’re just spoiled.

-That Broad

Lady Artists, Please Choose To Be Either Smart or Pretty

2007-05-08T17:59:00.000-04:00

Would it kill the New Yorker to find someone under 60 to write about contemporary art? Their hiring of Sasha Frere-Jones to cover rock music almost gives us hope. Almost. But reading that fuddy-duddy Peter Schjeldahl is so tiring! It doesn't matter how good a writer he is if he refuses to even consider the possibility that there might be good art being made right now, besides that made by (wait for it... no, you can't be serious) John Currin.

We're not saying that the Global Feminisms show over at the Brooklyn Museum is so brilliant or anything (more on that soon), but Schjeldahl's response in the New Yorker was a caricature of the reviewer as crusty old curmudgeon. However, we must give the devil his due: just as his knee-jerk dismissal of pretty much all idea-based art makes us want to lock him in a small room with a giant Jenny Holzer L.E.D. for eternity, some of his musings are actually making us think. Here he is in his 4/9/07 review, the least interesting part of which briefly addressed the actual art:

... The major factor [in the stalemate between the apparently opposing goals of individual female successes and collective feminist aims] is a natural antagonism between school-rooted institutions and the commercial art world, in which an individual's success distances her from the ranks of collective purpose. The market selects art that people like to look at, whatever it may be about. This is bound to exasperate partisans of any particular aboutness, whose goal is not case-by-case approbation but blanketing justice. The conflict cannot be resolved, because the terms on the two sides - politics versus taste, virtue versus pleasure, aggrieved conviction versus disposable wealth - sail past each other. The agon's usual form is an assault, by the party of politics, on the complacency of art lovers. It draws force from the unexceptionable truth that justice is more important than artistic quality. [...] Of course, no movement will admit the inferiority of its art. It will redefine the field to make pleasure appear to be at one with virtue. Many art lovers, for their part, like to imagine a socially salubrious tendency in their takings of joy. Both are wrong.
Genius and vileness can cohabit an artist's soul as comfortably as mediocrity and rectitude...

On that last sentence, um, Duh. But let's take that first paragraph one idea at a time because there are a whole lot of ideas in there. Sometimes it seems that Schjeldahl is just enjoying his lovely sentences so much, he lets them go on to say whatever they want even when they don't add up to anything coherent.

Firstly, can he be right about the unresolvable conflict between individual female artists and feminism? It sounds like a compelling narrative, but I don't think it makes any sense. When Dana Schutz or Cecily Brown are called geniuses for their work, although neither of their work is considered feminist, the cause of women artists in general is advanced by "genius" being pried open to include more female practitioners and this changes the way women artists in general are viewed by collectors, curators, critics, dealers and the public.

On another major point, most art-lovers agree (and certainly it is fashionable to say) that political art usually sucks, even when one agrees with the politics. But I would argue that there is no more bad political art than there is bad painting, it's just that when political art crashes and burns it's somehow so much more painful to watch because the work, its high-minded goals, and its failure are so obvious.

Schjeldahl's also wrong about the marketplace not responding to art with an agenda: just because some conceptual art may be bad doesn't mean it's not breaking auction records along with some equally bad painting. And does he really mean to assert that the art market responds solely and purely to quality?

Most importantly, Schjeldahl's brush is much too broad by the end; his pretty sentences are lulling his sharp mind with their siren songs. In those lovely pairs of opposing forces (genius/rectitude, pleasure/virtue, taste/politics, disposable wealth/aggrieved conviction) he inexplicably fails to allow the possibility for genius and rectitude, or virtue and pleasure, to coexist, however rarely it may happen. Really, where else should an artist with any sense of morality aim? Or is he actually implying that it is not possible?

- This Broad

2007-04-09T18:33:00.000-04:00

Never Use OvernightPrints.com, Ever.

2007-03-30T12:10:00.000-04:00

How not to run a postcard-printing service.

1) Mail someone the wrong postcards (for instance, for a group exhibition in Wisconsin when the order was placed from Brooklyn).

2) When the customer calls to report the error, make her pay extra to have her new postcards delivered the following Saturday, since the postcards are needed that day, even though the mailing mistake was entirely the company's.

3) When the customer calls on Friday just to be sure the postcards will be delivered the following day, tell her there was an oversight and the postcards won't be delivered on Saturday afterall! As a minor concession, all of the shipping charges will be refunded. Plus she gets 20% off her next order (it'll never happen!) with OvernightPrints.com.

4) Don't give her any refund at all until she calls the next week to ask about it!

5) Only refund her half the charges, until she calls two days later to nag!

Broadsheet Wants to Know, What's So Scary about Calling Yourself a Feminist?

2007-03-08T11:31:00.000-05:00

1. You think feminism is incompatible with your wardrobe.

2. You think feminists’ shoes aren’t cute enough (but we all know it depends on how you wear them, what you wear them with and if you wear socks).

3. You’re afraid to earn equal pay for equal work.

4. You're afraid you won’t get laid anymore (except by large hairy women named Brenda).

5. You're afraid you won’t get art shows anymore (except at womyn’s co-op galleries).

6. You think you’ll have to throw out your paint and make art with your menstrual blood.

7. You're afraid you’ll have to read all those Julia Kristeva books (preferably in French) and pretend you understand them.

8. You’d miss the cat-calls and bottom-pinches if men suddenly started being more respectful.

9. You think those formerly flirtatious construction workers will hiss “Lorena Bobbitt” at you when you walk by their work sites.

10. You think you’ll have to stop trying to schtup your way into art shows (Like that even works. We know, we’ve tried.)

11. You think you’ll have to start paying for dinner (newsflash: lots of women already do and your Match.com dates all think you’re a cheap wench!)

12. You think you’ll have to stop shaving (eww! See #4 above).

13. You’re not so sure about women’s suffrage (sounds a lot like suffering, doesn’t it?)

14. You don’t want to have to like The Dinner Party.

15. But you do want to work at Hooters.

16. Because you really do have a nice rack. (We’ve so noticed! Who’s your surgeon?)

17. You feel overwhelmed by your current career choices, and think life was much easier when you could just choose between teacher, nurse & housewife.

18. You think it’s appropriate when the news about women politicians focuses on their hair and wardrobe.

19. You want the big diamond ring.

20. Your hipster burlesque pole dancing class makes you feel, like, so totally empowered.

Overheard

2007-03-03T08:41:00.000-05:00

Oh, how we miss Spy Magazine...

2007-02-28T16:51:00.000-05:00

Separated at birth?

On the left, a bodacious mannequin we found a while back at a cheap store on Canal Street. On the right, Maxwell Anderson, formerly the very controversial Director of the Whitney Museum, now at the Indianapolis Museum of Art and his wife, actress Jacqueline Anderson.

We felt briefly bad about pointing out this similarity after reading a sympathetic biographical article about the Andersons (married 11 plus years, since Jacqueline was about 20 years old and he was about 40), and their two children. But then we looked at some more pictures, and decided we didn't feel that bad....

Update:
We realize we were terribly remiss in not crediting the photo of the arty couple. We came upon it on Artforum's Diary coverage of the Armory Show last week.

Women fight discrimination, in "Style"

2007-02-22T18:03:00.000-05:00

Yet again, the New York Times thinks the Fashion and Style section is the right place to talk about serious women's issues. Last time it was a woman running for president, this time it's women fighting workplace discrimination for mothers.

For some reason, it makes me remember this postcard I had pinned on my wall in college.

Overheard at IKEA

2007-02-20T22:16:00.000-05:00

(in the frame department)

"I don't get why anyone would spend money on art when you could just get some paint and cardboard and do it yourself"

Wow

2007-02-08T22:18:00.000-05:00

Could it be? After all these decades, is the Greenpoint oil spill really going to get cleaned up? And those responsible really going to be held accountable? And someone really cares?

Just for a minute, I feel warm inside. I know it will pass, just let me have my moment.

Artastrophe II

2007-02-02T11:06:00.000-05:00

Okay, we're a little late to the party, but That Broad had to go to MA this weekend to investigate ... and the verdict is in: the previous week's art/marketing/policing debacle in Boston ensures that even more people will feel justified in their belief that artists are idiots.

In case you missed it, two art-dorks (we mean, performance artists) were hired by a small marketing company that was in turn engaged by Turner Broadcasting to promote a new TV show by placing small lite-brite-style boxes around several cities, including New York. The boxes have been in place for months thus far, mostly without causing a stir, but last week Boston spent approximately $750,000 responding to the possibility that the they posed a terrorist threat.

As always, Broadsheet duly took the side of the artists... right up until the time they staged a mock press conference, refusing to answer any questions that didn't pertain to their hairstyles.

Air America's Randi Rhodes weighed in against the terror hysteria, bashing poor beleaguered Williamsburg in the process. She described the two terror suspects, both of whom were arrested and then released on bond in Boston last week, as "graduates of Mass College of Art... you know, those kinds of white guys with the dreads and the tattoos and the PIERCINGS." Managing to take a broad swipe at hipster-art-dorks everywhere, the Boston police and Homeland Security in one impressive breath she said, "if they're terrorists, have ya been to Williamsburg? Have ya seen the people there? If those two guys are terrorists, then Williamsburg is a sleeper cell." Ha!

Poor us!

Overheard

2007-01-28T14:57:00.000-05:00

Edna, Where Art Thou?

2007-01-16T23:27:00.000-05:00

Where once was a steaming morass of crankiness that put BS to shame, there is now merely a BSOD. Did Edna commit blogocide?

And we never even saw her face....

Should we have a wake?

Moooo!

2007-01-14T13:29:00.000-05:00

We were so happy to see vegan fashion in the New York Times Style section! It's high time people started seeing leather as part of the anti-cruelty movement. We've always wondered why fur is so taboo in certain circles, and leather so unquestioned.

Not that we're perfect in this regard. Both Broads strive to limit their cowskin, but haven't managed to completely purge their wardrobes; This Broad being slightly less vigilant than That Broad. But even if you're not yet ready to give up your adorable leather boots (and we know it's hard!), it's great to see the fashion industry giving more and more fabulous choices to those who would like to wear less leather.

There are some pretty cute options here and here.

BS On The Couch

2007-01-08T21:18:00.000-05:00

That Doctor:
What would you like to talk about this week?

This Patient:
Well, I'm feeling a lot of ambivalence about my last post.

TD:
Mmmm hmmmmm....? Go on....

TP:
As you know I consider myself a feminist, and this is a feminist blog, and, well, last week I went and posted a bunch of boobies on it.

TD:
And how does that make you feel?

TP:
Well, I realize I'm conflicted about using obscenely proportioned images of women (well, they weren't exactly real women) in my post, even though the intent was to expose sexism.

TD:
Perhaps you are familiar with what Lucy Lippard said: "blah blah blah blah."*
*It is a subtle abyss that separates men's use of women for sexual titillation from women's use of women to expose that insult. L. Lippard, 1976

TP:
It makes me feel inadequate when you trot out those musty olde feminist crones.

TD:
I'm sensing some hostility issues toward older women.

TP:
Well, it's true, my mother used to flagellate me with her old bras.

TD:
Would you like to talk about that?

TP:
Not really.

TD:
Let's return then to those sexist images. Where do I find those online? My interest is purely professional... ahem.

TP:
You see, that's just what I mean. I tried to make a point about retailers' horrid attitude towards women's bodies. But, like artists I've criticized whose work simply functions as free porn, maybe I've gone and done that too.

TD:
Since you couldn't control the perception of the viewers, now you are afraid that you are guilty of reifying sexual stereotypes. Am I close?

TP:
Yes, I think that's it. I'm a hypocrite.

TD:
I'm glad you finally realized that. I think you've made some really great progress today.

You can put your clothes back on now.

Made You Look

2007-01-04T22:24:00.000-05:00

As the L train likes to say, we apologize for the unavoidable delay... in creating our Top 10 list for 2007.

In the meantime, just to hold your attention, we thought we'd share these lovelies spotted last night in a store window on Canal Street directly across the street from Pearl Paint and snapped with the brand new camera phone we just figured out how to download photos from about 15 minutes ago.

You might see these someplace else as well, since we were not the only paparazzi who couldn't resist taking their pictures. When I was shooting our friend on the right, a gentleman next to me who had a fancy SLR camera with giant lens and a bag of accessories said (of our friend on the left), "This one over here has extra nipples!"

I was thrilled by the momentary thought that he meant extra as in more than two, but I was only slightly disappointed by the reality.

X-MAS Cheer

2006-12-25T10:31:00.000-05:00

Yes Dear Reader(s),

It is Christmas. And we at BS hope that you are having a delightful holiday. We are aware, however, that not everyone is feeling merry, not everyone is celebrating and that some of you may not be feeling celebratory. Some of you may even be overwhelmed by the glut of holiday food, cheer and gifts; bored and sick of your family, you seek an oasis of quiet with a computer, or are perhaps being held hostage at an in-law's house, looking for a brief respite from all the peaceonearthgoodwilltowardmen. Never fear; we here at BS understand the needs of the cranky.

For That Broad, it was shaping up as a good non-holiday celebration with a small group of non-celebrants, watching movies and overeating, when the projector needed just oooone more magazine to pitch it higher... and 2006 was nearly completed in blissful ignorance of Vanity Fair's "Art Issue." Of course the link won't allow you to actually see the article or the delightfully annoying graphic of the satellite of "stars": who's rising, who's falling, who's a satellite, who's a super-nova. Cute. The round-up of usual-suspect artist profiles and studio shots once again reinforce the age issue, discussed at length over at Ed's and Edna's.

But that is just an aside... What really must be shared is a fun link to brighten your holiday mood! Submitted last night by an "anonymous" tipster: Scamorama! Eve Edelson, web mistress and author of the book of the same name, and interviewed on WNYC this past week, provides an entertaining compilation of scams and scam-baiters, including Artists Against 419. Delightful!

So, while you're hiding there in the basement from your relatives, enjoy!

Merrily Yours!
The Broads

'Tis the Season

2006-12-18T09:55:00.000-05:00

In the spirit of the holiday season I would like to wish everyone a Very Happy Chanukkah (my preferred spelling variant) and to share with you this moving piece of spam that I received the other day. As I am not now, nor have I ever been a Christian, I was most surprised to be the recipient of this blatantly false appeal, intended to lure both the greedy and the stupid. That doesn't seem very christian, now does it?

Happy Holidays,
The Broads

****

MRS LOUISA WELSH

DEAR FRIEND,

PLEASE UTILIZE THE FUNDS JUDICIOUSLY FOR HUMANITARIAN PURPOSES. Do not be surprised on my aquittance. I got your email from a list of christian individuals site my Doctor showed me. I am the above named person presently residing in Belgium on treatment. I am married to MR GERALD P WELSH who worked with BRITISH HIGH COMMISSION in BRAZIL for nine years before he died in the year 2002. We were married for eleven years without a child. He died after a brief illness that lasted for only four days.

Before his death we were both born again Christians. Since his death I decided not to re-marry or get a child outside my matrimonial home which the Bible is against. When my late husband was alive he deposited the sum of $28.5Million (twenty eight Million five hundred thousand United State Dollars) with an OFFSHORE BANK in UK. Presently, this money is still under the safe keeping of the BANK.

Recently, my Doctor(Garry Stewart) diagnosed that I would not last for the next SEVEN months due to my cancer problems. Though what disturbs me most is my stroke. Having known my condition, I have decided to donate this fund to church or better still a good individual like you that will utilize this money the way I am going to instruct here in. I want this funds to be used on orphanage and widows propagating the word of God and to ensure that the house of God is maintained.

I took this decision because I don't have any child that will inherit this money and my husband relatives are not Christians and I don't want my husband's hard earned money to be misused by unbelievers and in an ungodly manner. Hence the reason for taking this bold decision. As soon as I get your response, I would instruct the bank to have the funds released to a security company. I would pay the deposit fee for it and you would have to contact them on how how best you would want to receive it. You should commence with the projects immediately you receive the funds and keep me or my Doctor who has access to my email always updated. He is a good man Doctor Garry Stewart and he would also be assisting you with advise on how to utilize the funds. you can contact me via email.

Email: (omitted to protect the stupid and the greedy)

Hoping to hear from you as soon as possible. Remain blessed in the name of the Lord.

Yours in Christ,
Mrs Louisa J. Welsh

(emphasis mine)

Artastrophe

2006-12-10T13:52:00.000-05:00

Overheard in Miami:

"Daniel Reich is like Woody Allen on LSD."

What we saw, artwise:

* Deer: a thousand or more created or represented in every conceivable medium
* Chandeliers: almost as many
* Natural sponges glued to canvas: just a couple
* Wan little drawings that take up a fraction of the page: in every booth at every fair
* Felt: many yards
* Porn: never goes out of style
* Pornbroidery: in decline but still quite popular
* Artwork that made fun of art fairs: lots, usually accompanied by unironic red dots
* Satellite fairs spinning around Miami Basel: Somebody said there were 12

And for the non-art, but still artastrophic:

* Anxious clipboard people: hovering in doorways behind countless velvet ropes
* Exhausted art dealers earning their 50%: I wouldn't want to be one
* Big hairy male butts mooning the poolside crowd at ritzy hotels: only one thank god
* Excessive and ostentatious Japanese minimalism: more is less
* $20 million loft apartments: one
* $20 drinks: shockingly common
* Babies: everywhere
* Outrageous fake ta-tas: a gazillion times two
* Martha Stewart: one
* Enough art to make us feel insignificant and inconsequential for months to come: yes

Well, it'll take us a while to recover from all that.

The Rapture

2006-12-06T16:13:00.000-05:00

What with everyone in the art world headed off to Miami this week, you may be finding yourself feeling a little like the "left behind." It is just an illusion - you are not alone! We at BS have split the difference: This Broad, south, That Broad, north. So whether you are here or there or just about anywhere, consider us your open forum for venting and whining and even for success stories as we celebrate a week of The Rapture in Miami!!!

Happy Thanksgiving!

2006-11-22T16:15:00.000-05:00

We Vegetarian Broads would like to wish everyone a very Happy Thanksgiving!
Please re-join us after the holiday
when we will continue with the sporadic programming
you've come to know and expect!

xox
The Broads

Q: How many Feminists does it take to Screw in a Light Bulb? (A: That's not Funny!)

2006-11-13T17:27:00.000-05:00

I will admit at the outset that I haven't yet had the cringe-filled pleasure of viewing the Borat movie, and have been looking forward to doing so. But I think I've seen enough of Borat on Da Ali G Show to understand and comment on his modus operandi. When Sacha Baron Cohen (or Stephen Colbert, for that matter) exposes the stupidity and hypocrisy of bizarrely unwitting politicians or other public officials by baiting them and selectively editing the results, it is obviously unfair to the participants but in the end I have little sympathy for them. This is partly because I share most of Baron Cohen's and Colbert's political biases, partly because these people clearly have so much more power than they deserve, and partly because public figures should know better.

But though I think Baron Cohen is truly hilarious, and one of our generation's sharpest cultural critics, I am very ambivalent about what seem like some misplaced targets within the admittedly target-rich environment of the USA. In particular, I was surprised by the story of artist and member of Veteran Feminists of America Linda Stein, who writes her account of their encounter in Downtown Express. Stein, by the way, has an exhibition of her work up at Flomenhaft Gallery on 27th Street in Chelsea until December 20th.

Stein on her fatal mistake:

I finally agreed, although I admit that I failed to read the fine detail on the “Standard Consent Agreement.” Since I thought this was a documentary, I probably would have signed it anyway. When I did study it later, I realized that it’s anything but “standard.” Buried are statements asserting that I waive claims for “offensive behavior” and “misleading portrayal” and “fraud (such as any alleged deception or surprise about the film or this consent agreement).” While I’m no legal expert, I can’t believe that you can agree to be defrauded — or wouldn’t every used car dealer use the same clause?

On the process, and what it all means:

But it wasn’t long before the fake journalist started switching and baiting, performing like a Howard Stern wannabe. Women in his country must walk behind men, he said. Condoleezza Rice is the “chocolate lady,” he claimed, implying that she beds foreign diplomats. He gestured his interest in large-breasted women. His goading produced predictable results. Right before I kicked him out, he declared — as the clip shows — that women have smaller brains than men.

In humor or art theory, you could argue that his statement is so ridiculous that the very utterance of it proves the reverse, and therefore is an unmasking of his character’s small mindedness. Some of Borat’s most famous segments do just that, such as when the comic, who is Jewish, cajoles patrons in a country-western bar to sing “Throw the Jew down the well” to expose covert anti-Semitism. But what exactly is he trying to unmask when he ridicules women?

Borat could cause a sensation by pressing his “small brain” commentary on people like Lawrence Summers, the former president of Harvard who resigned after saying that women can’t be scientists. Instead, for the sake of a cheap laugh, he chooses to reinforce the stereotype of women as the inferior sex, at the expense of women. How funny is that?

Her last point is a good one: it would make more sense, within Baron Cohen's own oeuvre, for him to go after sexists than to go after feminists, and the fact that he chose the latter displays laziness and willingness to go for the cheaper laugh. I suspect his point with this scene of the movie, unhelpful as it is, may be that feminists are humorless and artists are out-of-touch weirdos. Once again, we prove to be easy targets.

It's Morning in America (or, as they say, Mission Accomplished)

2006-11-09T13:21:00.000-05:00

It's hard not to be optimistic today, however cautiously. It remains to be seen how different things will be. But somehow we can't help but feel hopeful today. It's a strangely unfamiliar feeling, but we're indulging in it just for a day or two.

Overheard

2006-11-03T20:54:00.000-05:00

Too Many Bees For One Bonnet

2006-10-30T08:39:00.000-05:00

In a world filled with infinite possibilities, a Broad can easily become overwhelmed with choosing one. This week's top ten contenders are:

Radio: Why do I love to listen to Randi "putting the Broad in Broadcasting" Rhodes, even when when she drives me crazy? Let's start with the Limbaugh bashing and go from there.

Civics: Ok, I know I'm NOT preaching to the converted. Some of you still don't vote. Get out there on Tuesday, November 7. I mean it! And I don't want to hear any of your stupid excuses either!

Multi-tasking: Because life's not dangerous enough, some of you have decided to up the ante. Ten points to those of you who can manage talking on your cell phone while skate-boarding, smoking while biking and an extra 5 pts. to those who combine the phone with a smoke while in motion, or either of the two on the bike with a beverage.

Etiquette: While we broads have long bemoaned the spread-eagled gents on the trains, I have lately been having a problem with the ladies. Please note: YOU DON'T GET TO CROSS YOUR LEGS AT THE KNEE AND KICK REPEATEDLY ON A CROWDED TRAIN. You just don't.

Conspicuous Consumption: Did you see BillMoyers Faith and Reason on PBS last night? One of his interviews was with author Mary Gordon. Among other fascinating things she noted that only her faith keeps her from a murderous rampage against Hummer drivers. Damn, now I'm going to have to find someone else to do my dirty work!

Television: While we here at BS delight in bad TV, it is still a bit of a mystery as to why it is even more enjoyable to read it re-capped rather than to watch it, courtesy of Television Without Pity.

More Television: Is anyone actually watching The Bachelor, Rome?

Podcasting: Like reading TV, listening to art: Bad At Sports' podcasts are my new obsession.

Fame: Normally I filter out emails from e-flux and browse through them quickly before tossing them, but one recently caught my eye. From the press release: Under the programmatic title Anonymous: In the Future No One Will Be Famous, the Schirn Kunsthalle Frankfurt presents an exhibition with works by 11 international artists who – like the curator – will remain unnamed. In their Notes toward a Manifesto, the initiators of the exhibition proclaim: “Anonymous artists wish to wriggle the status quo into a status incognitos. Their aim is to remove the increasing barbarization of thought via short circuits and fast lanes created by the marketing of artists as brands whose works have become masterpieces in ignorance of philosophy.” As Manifestos go, it's an interesting idea. Whether or not it is self-defeating or a thinly veiled publicity stunt, we shall see. Or maybe noone will care.

Happiness: Waiting for an order of Chinese take-out revealed a fine collection of reading material, including a back issue of New York Magazine with an article by Jennifer Senior entitled "Some Dark Thoughts On Happiness," returning us to the original premise that too much choice can lead to indecision and discontent.

Working Moms Not so Evil After All

2006-10-17T12:57:00.000-04:00

The New York Times discusses a new book, “Changing Rhythms of American Family Life,” based on a long-term study on how much time mothers and fathers spend with their kids. The focus of the article is that both men and women are spending more time on childcare than in previous decades, despite women logging more hours in the workplace. But a few other things jump out:

The average amount of time both men and women spend on childcare seems incredibly low. I would like them to define "childcare." Perhaps it's because I have a hyperactive toddler (however, he is in nursery school or with a nanny part of the week), but it seems impossible that parents only spend 10 hours a week on childcare, and this has been the same since the 1960s. When I take my son to the playground or museum or read stories to him or walk around the neighborhood attempting to answer his neverending questions, is that not childcare? I certainly can't seem to get anything else done while caring for him. But perhaps they only count changing diapers, feeding, helping with homework, rocking to sleep in the middle of the night, etc. I assume that must be the case.

This is a pleasant surprise:

The researchers found that “women still do twice as much housework and child care as men” in two-parent families. But they said that total hours of work by mothers and fathers were roughly equal, when they counted paid and unpaid work.

Using this measure, the researchers found “remarkable gender equality in total workloads,” averaging nearly 65 hours a week.

However, towards the end of the article they explain why it doesn't feel quite equal to many working moms, including artists:

While married mothers and married fathers were approaching “gender equality,” measured by total hours of work, the researchers found stark differences among women. These disparities suggest why working mothers often feel hurried and harried.

Over all, the researchers said, employed mothers have less free time and “far greater total workloads than stay-at-home mothers.” The workweek for an employed mother averages 71 hours, almost equally divided between paid and unpaid work, compared with a workweek averaging 52 hours for mothers who are not employed outside the home.

So the article doesn't compare working mothers' total workweeks to working fathers'. I'll dig further and see if the study is available online.

We Love The Smell Of Gossip In The Fall

2006-10-07T08:42:00.000-04:00

1. What newly-minted gallerist said that her first order of business would be to install an electric zapper on her derriere to dissuade overzealous bum-touchers?

2. What former U.S. President is getting the last laugh right now as he watches CNN and enjoys another cigar?

3. What fancy gallerina just paid an artist for works sold at the spring 2006 Pulse Art Fair?

4. What fancy gallerino just paid an artist for work sold during a spring 2005 exhibition?

5. What mid-west arts adminstrator, just this side of gay, spent so much of his vacation time on his "crackberry" that his enraged fiance threw it into the hotel pool?

6. What mid-west gallerinas didn’t get the memo that an all-black wardrobe is not part of the 80s revival?

7. What jilted artist took revenge on their former gallery by redirecting the gallery’s website to their own?

8. What post-emerging independent arts professional could use a copy of Emily Post and a course on anger management?

9. What young Queens-based artist played two galleries against each other while selling work out of the studio?

10. What obnoxious lady bloggers have nothing better to do on a weekend than to feed the rumour mill?!

Sorry Linda Hirshman

2006-10-04T18:09:00.000-04:00

We've been pondering the sorry state of women in the arts as well as the glass ceiling at home for some time now.

But perhaps we've been looking for answers in all the wrong places, and that this is the answer. We'll be signing off, learning how to bake and getting pregnant now.

On Feminism(s), Second-Wave, Third Wave, and "Post"

2006-10-01T15:06:00.000-04:00

We went to a panel the other day
filled with women, straight and gay
talking of an art world where men hold sway
and elders stating not much has changed since their day.

Statistics were offered and batted around
of how few women the gallerists have found.
All-women shows? Humor? Suggestions abound
But on new strategies there was nary a sound.

The numbers speak volumes, it is quite true,
and maybe they'll shame some galleries into giving us our due.
The museums seem to have even less of a clue,
and when a woman points all this out she is called a shrew*.

Is our battle with sexist galleries or husbands who don't understand?
The latter who rarely give their wives a hand,
so when women artists** have kids there are just too many demands
and men artists do just fine while the women can hardly stand.

For more than an hour the audience was meek,
but grew restless over time and raised hands to speak
but the forum, ironically, was a hierarchy
and by the 'open question' period we all just wanted to sleep.

*Actually, a "quota queen" - but try rhyming that!
** or stockbrokers, or anything else for that matter!

Maybe Our Minds are in the Gutter, but this Disturbs Us

2006-09-27T17:59:00.000-04:00

Overseen on location in Wisconsin on a storefront:

Oshkosh PC
Sales, Service, Support
We Think Inside your Box

Ghost of Gertrude Stein channeled at UN

2006-09-20T23:40:00.000-04:00

You probably heard the sound bite, but it's better than that. Yesterday at the U.N. General Assembly Hugo Chavez spontaneously composed some modernist poetry while bashing Bush and also seeming to trash any chance Venezuela has of a rotating seat on the UN Security Council:

"The devil is right at home. The devil. The devil himself is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here, right here. Right here. And it smells of sulphur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of. Yesterday, ladies and gentleman, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer to as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world, truly as the owner of the world."

It is kind of beautiful, isn't it?

Nearly-Yearly Failure Attempt (it's an acronym)

2006-09-19T21:37:00.000-04:00

Fall has just begun and we're already suffering bouts of art hysteria. We broads need to take a sea cure, or at least a spa day. Our quaint displays of our wares are safely hung on their respective white (or not) walls, and at least one of us has made great progress in perusing (okay, scouring) ye olde blog-o-spheare in search of civilized discussions on the topic of our show(s). Why we would ever subject ourselves to such a wringing out of our emotions is a private matter. However, we will say that the attendant roller coaster ("fearless", "terrible", "fascinating", "heavy-handed", "thought-provoking", "pretty lame", et cetera) has left us the worse for wear, just when we need our energy for grant-rejection-solicitation season.

Whatever you do, just don't ask us for a letter of recommendation!

2006-09-14T00:02:00.000-04:00

Happy Labor Day Weekend

2006-09-01T09:05:00.000-04:00

Dearest Reader(s),

It's September! Which means summer and all dreadful summer-related weather is over! And we here at BS couldnt' be happier. Now that the temperature has finally dipped low enough to require the occasional sweater, we feel a renewed sense of energy and purpose. While the thought of enduring the sight of flip-flops and shorts until the end of October fills us with some anxiety, we will get past this, knowing that it is in fact, cold enough to wear boots.

Thank you for bearing with us and expect some actual content by mid-September.

The Broads

An Apology To Our Reader(s)

2006-08-18T09:53:00.000-04:00

Dear Reader(s):

It has come to our attention that there has been some tinkering with our settings, and several of the amusing and witty comments we have received have been languishing in pre-approval limbo. We do apologize and regret any disappointment and disgust that this situation may have caused. Please continue to post and all of your delightful comments will now go straight to print. Unless of course they are coarse, vulgar and horrid and we deem them unfit for consumption.

Contritely Yours,
The Broads

I Have A Massive Bee in My Bonnet

2006-08-14T21:13:00.000-04:00

Gentle Reader(s),

Perhaps you are luckier than I, and have never had to work in an office. Perhaps you were born after 1970, and have never heard of a "mimeograph" or a "carbon copy." These two factors together have lead to an unfortunate breach of email etiquette that I simply must, ah, address.

DO NOT REVEAL YOUR CONTACTS WHEN SENDING MASS EMAILS!!

"But how can I control this?" you say. "Why, it's simple," I reply -- enter the addresses in the field labeled "BCC". That's B as in "BLIND," C as in "CARBON" and C as in "COPY." "Oooooh, I always wondered what that was...." I can hear you saying.

"But why the big stick up your ... I mean, why the big ol' BEE in your bonnet, about this?" you ask.

Because I've grown bored with worrying about the world getting blown to bits and I need to return my attention to the petty irritations of daily life.

And because I get too much freakin' spam, and I would like retain the illusion of control over my personal email address. That's why. It also strikes me as truly bad manners to know that many people, receiving an email with addresses revealed, see this as an invitation to lift the names and add them to their own list. I don't think your fancy-pants critics, collectors and museum director friends enjoy this either!!

Still not convinced? Just as an example, consider this: You apply for a grant. You get rejected. The rejection letter goes out as an email and all of the rejected artists' addresses, some with their names attached, are revealed. Oops! Yes, that's right! Somebody forgot to enter them in the BCC field. Yes, it was an accident. Yes, there was a very contrite email apology. But still.

So to all of the rest of you out there: STOP IT!

You know who you are. And so do I.

Disproportionately Annoyed,
That Broad

2006-08-12T09:07:00.000-04:00

The Occasional Gentleman's Perspective

Dear Reader(s):

Because we here at Broadsheet believe, not so much in equal time for the male perspective, but in farming out the work, we present to you a video, recently received, from male artist David Kramer. You will laugh. You will cry. Or maybe you will simply sit in stunned silence brought on by self-recognition.

In any case, please see the above post to view this occasional male perspective.*

Brought to you by The Broads

*DISCLAIMER: The creative content and ideas expressed in this video are those of the male artist. We are well aware that many people, including us from time to time, regard artists as self-loathing, whining babies... hey that was part of a recent post title... but we digress. Needless to say, we do not necessarily endorse this position, but we do think Mr. Kramer is very funny when he complains. And here at BS, we're all about the cranky.

Top 10 Current Obsessions

2006-08-01T12:46:00.000-04:00

We apologize for the unavoidable delay in service. Hard work and anxious fretting have intervened in our posting schedule. We hereby put you on notice that August Broadsheet activity is going to be light. Both Broads are hard at work for upcoming shows.

In lieu of anything coherent, we present instead our current obsessions, in list form:

The worsening Middle East conflict(s), sense that the world may be ending, and accompanying heartbreaking stories.

Our artwork, which despite its relative (or absolute?) irrelevance to the wider world is still driving us crazy because, for some reason, we care.

Mel Gibson's crazy drunken rant and apology is surely another sign of something.

NYC's heatwave and impending possible blackouts. Getting anything done in this heat is almost impossible, and we are constantly cranky!

(Related) Heat is really bad for paint! Something one of us Broads was working on yesterday dried wrong and cracked miserably.

What is up with those Mitchum Man ads on the subway? If you've ever fantasized about installing one of those subway poles up a Mitchum Man's bum, you're a Broadsheet Woman.

The day job is really getting in the way. How to survive without it?

We think that, come Fall, BS online may take another form. We miss the print zine. We'll keep you posted, of course.

Stay cool, dear friends.

Love,
This Broad

Overseen:

2006-07-24T20:06:00.000-04:00

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'

Saatchi Wants Us!

2006-07-17T22:24:00.000-04:00

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: http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/ or e-mail
[saatchina]@saatchigallery.com for more information.

Regards,
[Saatchina]
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,

[Broad]

We'll let you know if we hear back.

Who else here has been invited???

Reporting From a Super-Secret Undisclosed Non-Hamptons Location

2006-07-14T09:37:00.000-04:00

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

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

2006-07-10T21:47:00.000-04:00

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

The New York Supreme Court Really Gets My Goat

2006-07-06T20:59:00.000-04:00

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.

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):

2006-07-01T13:54:00.000-04:00

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 broadvsbroad@gmail.com

Keepin' it Weird

2006-06-26T18:10:00.000-04:00

New York, for all its “center-of-the-universe-ness” can get a little provincial -- especially in the art world. So even when it feel like it's going to be an enormous pain in the ass, I know I have to get out of town.

This weekend I had a long overdue visit to my brother in Austin, Texas. Yes, Austin, that shining beacon of Bush-bashin', barbeque-grillin’ and music-lovin' fun! And they even have contemporary art. Who knew?

As a musician, my brother left New York years ago and, as far as I can tell, has never looked back. So somewhere in between Redd Volkaert’s set at the Continental and his own gig with The Grassy Knoll Boys at Flipnotics, my dear bro graciously agreed to shuttle me around town to check out the art scene. We started at the corner of 4th & Congress at the new Volitant Gallery, where, of course, I ran into a New York artist who was showing there. Next we strolled up the street to Arthouse for the New American Talent exhibition, curated by Aimee Chang of the Orange County Museum of Art. This included what you might expect of such a survey show: very young artists, working in a range of styles; and what you you might not expect to see in New York: artists from a wide range of locations across the country.

Our next stop, across the street, was the more mature exhibition, Over + Over: A Passion for Process at the Austin Museum of Art. Curated by James Housefield, a professor of art at UT-San Marcos, this was a show to make a New Yorker feel right at home, featuring number of familiar names like Chakaia Booker, Liza Lou and less familiar (at least to me), but no less intriguing works by Dane Picard and Barna Kantor.

The next day we went to the Blanton Museum of Art, a new, hugely endowed institution built on the UT Campus. I was told that the 24-hour opening event drew a huge crowd, and it was inspiring to see the number of visitors on a sunny, Saturday afternoon.

A large contemporary survey show graces the lower level (with the most awesome bathroom I have ever seen in any museum), again with many familiar New York names, along with a large number of South American and Latin American artists. Ascending the monumental staircase in the glaringly bright light of the soaring gallery walls brings you to a collection of Western art that, for me, was just too cheesy, but is clearly very popular. To the right of that is a small rotunda with reproductions of Roman statuary and to the left, numerous galleries with B & C list Renaissance through Modern European paintings. There is a modest but fine collection of prints & drawings that surpasses the paintings, but we missed several collections including the Latin and Ab-Ex paintings, which didn't appear to be open to the public that day.

Likewise, I also missed the more alternative spaces, such as Art Palace and the well-known non-profit, Women & Their Work, but now I know what I've got to look forward to on my next trip. And of course more music and gastronomic adventures.

Take Back the Day

2006-06-22T21:43:00.000-04:00

It's been around a while; we don't know how it escaped our notice. It should be clear to anyone reading this by now that hollabacknyc would be our cup of tea and we would make it our business to learn about it almost before it existed. So although we were caught snoozing, we'll make up for it now.

Because it's summer in New York, and 'tis the season we ladies must choose between modesty and comfort. As we re-adjust to having quite a bit of our bodies exposed as we go about our daily business, we must steel ourselves for the Beavis and Buttheads who have come out from their dark caves to remind us that we exist for their visual pleasure.

Even broads who've been around the block a few times find that often you can't walk around the block in peace. But thanks to Hollabacknyc, there's an antidote to the fury of being cat-called.

The Hollabacknyc ladies are fighting back with their camera phones and you can too. Keep your camera at the ready as you stroll by that construction site or klatch of drunken idiots and tell them to say cheese. Send the delightful results to hollabacknyc.com and perhaps the jerk will end up in jail!

Yes, we know it's vigilantism, and that's not always the best policy. Yes, we know that it's possible that the good name (or image) of innocent gentlemen could be besmirched and could be subject to mob justice. As the Village Voice noted, a guy caught on camera with his little pal in his hand could be waving it aggressively at a poor lass on the street or he could just be taking a public piss. (To this we say, 'A guy yes, but a gentleman no'.)

So we'll give you this, hollabacknyc: Thanks for giving us a reason to look forward to the next moron who has the poor judgment to tell us he just loooooves tall women!

Gallerina For A Day

2006-06-19T08:48:00.000-04:00

Chances are, there will come a time during the exciting roller-coaster ride that is your art career, that you will be asked to gallery sit. If you're in a group exhibition at a non-profit, this may be par for the course. And “so what?” you say. Gallery sitting is a job-job for many, many artists. But what if the request comes from the gallery that represents you? If they ask you to take a turn behind the desk, should you do it?

I for one, say yes. But ask these questions first:

(1) Most importantly – will you be paid?

(2) Do you actually have to do any work? If you’re not going to have time to read magazines, call your friends and troll the web, you need to know if, beyond grunting at people who enter and answering the phone, you will be asked to do any skilled labor. Then return to question (1) and ask “how much?”

(3) A touchy issue for some -- will you be sitting during your own, someone else’s or a group show? Are you in said group show? If you are, will you be filled with anxiety, jealousy, rage and/or insecurity facilitating a sale for another artist? Will you be uncomfortable talking to potential buyers of your work? Will you feel the need to assume a false identity and pretend you're not an artist who needs to pick up extra cash by gallery sitting? (I wouldn’t worry about this because with your youthful disposition and lack of information, everyone will assume you’re an intern!)

(4) Which leads us to the ultimate question - do you even have a job? If you don’t and the answer to (1) is yes, you'd better just do it and suck it up! Your gallery probably asked you to do this because they were sick of hearing you whine that even though they sold out your show, you're still broke. That, and watching you clap with glee at events where free food was involved.

I know, some of you are going to say it's exploitive, it compromises your position, your gallery will see you as a “worker” and not as a “serious artist,” and thus it is “bad for your career.” This may be true if the requests start to become a pattern. But if you’ll actually be responsible for doing some work, remember that information is power and it can’t hurt to know who calls, who stops by and what actually goes on behind the desk!

Pragmatically Yours,
That Broad

It Really Gets My Goat!

2006-06-16T06:57:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine used to insist that all visual artists really want to be rock stars. Maybe so, but then how do you explain all the rock stars who want to be “taken seriously” as visual artists? I guess it just proves that a BFA really is a good investment, if you want to be in a band. When musicians hit middle age and they start worrying about looking silly up on stage they can trade in on their celebrity status and devote themselves to a whole new dignified means of creative expression… (hello, MICK?!) But where does this leave the struggling artist who didn’t have the good sense to get into a band when she was in art school? I mean sure, we’ve all had the fantasy where some professional jackass at a party smugly asks “so, you’re an artist, do you make a living doing THAT?” and you say “no, but I make money playing in A BAND, asshole.” But who ever thought that could be a reality? I hate to name names, but I think the Davids Byrne and Johansen, Tony Bennett, Don Van Vliet (hey you’re not foolin’ us by using your REAL name!) and even Martin Mull (an actor no less, who has two degrees from RISD -- now he was really thinking ahead!) need to step aside and give back a little wall space. (Ok, so I’ve warmed up on the John Lurie issue after hearing Leonard interview him Wednesday on WNYC.) But, just like movies stars who want to be rock stars… it really gets my goat!

Sincerely Annoyed,
That Broad

Apparently We Have Not Really Come Such A Long Way, Baby

2006-06-12T13:40:00.000-04:00

Maybe you missed this, dear reader, it having appeared in the cheeky, gossip-infested Style section of the Sunday New York Times and you being a serious person, but yesterday there appeared an article discussing the potential for a female president of the United States.

Why, you ask, should a discussion of why our country has never had a female head of state (and why it in fact lags behind many other countries, including those not exactly famous for their benevolent and equal treatment of their female citizens) be considered next to the adjacent articles "Strung out On Love and Checked In for Treatment", "Shopping with Lauren Conrad Heidi Montag: Blond Ambition Comes in Flats or Heels", and "Having All the Fun", part of the campaign to re-heterosexualize Eric McCormack?

Is it as simple and 1950s as this? Women politicians are to be discussed primarily in terms of their makeup, hairstyles, and catfighting potential? We're trying to think of charitable reasons why this article might be in the purview of Style. It does quote a few celebrities, such as Susan Sarandon and George Clooney, but the Hollywood varnish strikes one as applied, not intrinsic. One can almost hear the editor calling the writer, breaking the news: "That article on the prospect of a woman president? Yes, we still need it tomorrow, but it's going in the Style section and we'll need some celebrity quotes." Ouch!

When one reads the article on the website, as we did, the text is sandwiched between a column of photos of real women foreign heads of state on the left, and a giant Neutrogena Dermabrasian ad featuring a woman wearing nothing but a towel on the right. That is the context in which we read about the unfortunate dearth of women in "the political pipeline in the United States, which now, with 8 female governors out of 50, and 14 female senators of 100, still offers a limited number of experienced candidates for the presidency."

Last but not least, we would try to ignore the the article’s title, with its terrible pun and its ever-so-slight whiff of “eww", but we found that to be impossible.

A bee in our bonnet? Try a hornet's nest!

Yours In Indignation,
The Broads

Oops, and Thanks!

2006-06-08T16:51:00.000-04:00

On behalf of That Broad and me, please accept our belated but heartfelt thanks for welcoming us so warmly! And thanks to Edward_ for sending his love and readers our way!

We are embarrassed to admit that we found it necessary to attend to urgent non-internet activities for the past couple of days. Please bear with us as we get used to the blogging schedule; it's much more rigorous than the thrice yearly pilgrimage to the office Xerox machine to which we have been accustomed. We have been spoiled by our in-house motto "BS = No Stress", but we'll get up to speed soon (though we hope to continue our policy against stress).

So perhaps this is the right time to try to influence your expectations regarding new posts: for now you can expect something from us at least two times a week, probably on Mondays and Thursdays.

We are very glad to be here and we look forward to many mutually enriching exchanges!

Love,
This Broad

Dear Reader(s):

2006-06-04T21:01:00.000-04:00

From the same wellspring of megalomania that produced Broadsheet, the award*-winning paper 'zine, we proudly bring you BROADSHEET, The Blog.

Just so you know, we collaborators, That Broad and This Broad, have lovingly and joyously planned this blog for months. We got our 'look' together, we scanned all the back issues of the 'zine (see list at left), we zealously and jealously read the other leading art blogs and plotted our smashing entrance upon the scene. We then assembled a list of themes so brilliant, so feminist, and yet so unpredictable, showcasing minds so fiercely engaged with the issues of our day and interests so vast, so appropriately broad, that we felt perfectly at ease with our entitlement--no, our responsibility--to blog. That is, until it came time to actually post something.

We became flustered, we developed writer's block, we dilly-dallied, we flip-flopped, and we wrote columns that were just plain stupid. We found other Very Important things we had to do first, like watch all the season finales of our favorite shows on TV.

So, as it was with losing our virginity--separately, of course--oh those many lifetimes ago, let's just get this over with.

Here's a short list of what the future of BS might bring:

Proof that the only thing cooler than Williamsburg right now is hating Williamsburg

Evidence of the many other Jack Pierson-like art scandals that are all around us, tragically un-publicized

Reasons we agonize over why, if Grey's Anatomy is such a great show, we are embarrassed to admit we watch it

Arguments about why most people who don't eat meat do wear leather

Master lists of artists who do mean things to women (in their pictures, we mean!)

Musings about what it might mean when liberals brag about their techniques for dodging taxes

Discussion of what it is exactly that makes someone a "hipster" and why noone will admit to being one

Bafflement over why Eric Fischl needs a website, and why his website is so lame

And finally! It just wouldn't be an art blog if we didn't dissect Jerry Saltz now and then

Gah! We're so glad that's over with.

See you tomorrow!