Recent links of note:
“Why ‘Ugly’ Paintings Are So Popular”
Ayanna Dozier, Artsy
Virtue signaling is petit bourgeois; vice signaling is what all the cool kids are doing. Or at least that’s the sense one gets from Nahmad Contemporary’s aptly titled show “Ugly Paintings.” “Ugly Paintings” assembles a disjointed group of contemporary canvases unified only by the fact that their construction is immediately off-putting to the viewer. The exhibition guide (and the Artsy article included here, which covers the show) recites the typical platitudes about the necessity of ugly art—it’s an antidote to conservatism, elitism, etc.,—but in doing so they consistently parrot the increasingly tired sentiment that such paintings give us a chance to “confront ugliness and find beauty in it.” Nobody involved seems to notice that this conclusion contradicts the foundational premise of the show. “Ugly Paintings” is organized around the principle that the elevation of beauty is reactionary and unprogressive, and yet the organizers can’t help themselves from finally making a recourse to beauty their end. Is this ugliness for the sake of ugliness or is it ugliness for the sake of beauty? If it’s the latter, then ugliness is just a means to the true end of beauty, and these organizers are accidental conservatives—at least in theory. Like most pieces in the show, the underlying concept is almost comically shallow.
“The White House Struck a Deal With A.I. Companies to Manage the Technology’s Risks. Artists Say It ‘Does Nothing’ to Protect Them”
Adam Schrader, Artnet
AI is the new asbestos. The incorporation of asbestos into every corner of American life in the early twentieth century was considered a miraculous innovation, a sign of modern man’s ingenuity. Then, some eighty or so years later, everyone realized that this symbol of modern man’s ingenuity was actually a sign of modern man’s incalculable ignorance. This is a tale of hubris as old as Icarus, and it’s a tale we find ourselves living through again with the sudden ascendance of artificial intelligence. Of the many industries and enterprises vulnerable to the unfeeling, caustic code of AI, few are at as great a risk as the arts. The White House ran a victory lap last week when it secured a list of “voluntary commitments” from every major AI-related tech company to develop “responsible AI,” but nowhere to be found in these commitments was any mention of protection for the arts, even as artists have repeatedly demonstrated just how damaging to their practice AI can be. In failing to invite any artists to take part in these negotiations, the White House exposed themselves to be either ignorant of or apathetic toward the art world’s existential concerns. In the twenty-first century, asbestos isn’t in your walls—it’s in your phone.
“How Larry Gagosian Reshaped the Art World”
Patrick Radden Keefe, The New Yorker
Speaking of toxic things—Larry Gagosian gives the impression of a used car salesman on a Ford lot who charmed his way up the ranks until he owned not just the dealership but all of Ford. Were his life to be made into a movie, it would almost come across as a caricature of the American rags-to-riches story. In this tale, our protagonist is a third-generation American, two-time UCLA dropout, stoner from San Francisco who manages through sheer hustle and a barely concealed deficiency of scruples to conquer the international art market (and eventually score a girlfriend five decades his junior). That’s the stuff biopics are made of. But until Gagosian dies—a prospect the man himself seems to consider unlikely—this deep dive by Patrick Radden Keefe will do. Alongside a cornucopia of juicy art-world anecdotes, Keefe carefully demonstrates the way in which the art market has been remade in Gagosian’s image.