"Why doesn’t Seattle have a radio show “where artists talk about art”? Would you listen to one? If it didn’t suck? Would KEXP be the place? KPLU? KUOW? Thoughts? (I do know that Gary Faigin is on KUOW sometimes doing reviews, and he’s great—not taking anything away from him.)"

Just curious if I'm the only one who thinks we don't have the cult of personality to support it, as does our Portland neighbor to the South, that has 2 none the less radio shows featuring visual artists.

Hey Jen Graves why doesn't the Stranger sponsor a Visual Artist Beer Banquet? The Lure [free beer] and the promise of meeting fellow artists may generate a fair turnout. Whatever you do make sure the Theatrical types have another more enticing event to go to that night, if I hear another Norma Rae speech from an unemployed actor/director/writer/egoist I may start screaming show tunes from the top of my lungs and no one would like that.

--------------------

I am somebody who generally does not care for the run-of-the-mill artist interview, whether it is in print (ever checked out -- yawn -- Arcade?) or live on the Seattle Channel. Artists and curators are simply allowed to drone on about their projects after being asked all the obvious questions by the host. They are really little more than live-action press releases as far as I'm concerned.

I have met Eva twice and I am confident that she has the knowledge and presence necessary to make things happen over the airwaves. She possesses a quality that is as admirable as it is rare: her desire to uncover the essense of her guests is greater than her need to please them. But, alas, please them she does!

While your style would no doubt be different than Eva's, I suspect that you, Jen Graves, would be well-suited for such a radio endeavor. You've got me reading the Slog each day -- how could I possibly resist your broadcasts?

I think you should start with Dale (just kidding!!!). Actually, an interview with Gerry Schwarz (great work dredging up that WSJ piece, by-the way!) would be the place to start.

--------------------

Jim Demetre

Well, maybe I spoke too strongly with my catch phrase "cult of personality" but what I was getting at is there seems to be a little more emphasis on artists as personalities, critics as personalities,curators as personalities and even exhibits as personalities...down in Portland. My best example is one of their newspaper boxes last summer:

Here is the accompanying article. Would it be possible to write an article like this in Seattle? Just curious.

PS If you read the whole article you will find in the gallerist paragraph about Justin Oswald the exact term: cult of personality. Count me mortified for original thinking.

Look, I learned a few things from Linda Farris and my perception of Seattle is that nobody has come close to filling her shoes in the cult of personality realm yet (she also had immense substance). She even officiated the foot race I had with Jacqueline Ehlis in Red Square between the Barnett Newman and herself... Linda was the finish line... hilarious. There is a hole in Seattle and maybe Scott Lawrimore is stepping into that role? Portland had a huge hole when William Jamison left too...

It takes a few years and it's never the same but people step up and their efforts set the groundwork for others.

As to Portlnd's media, we do have a lot more art coverage and artists are valued public personalities here (somefor pure entetainment value and pathos). Ive done some things a particular way in Portland to make certain other people besides myself stick out and get attention in the media by polarizing the discussion.

Actually, I remember Lisa Corrin at Eliot Bay Books talking about Damien Hirst being very generous and I thought... "generous ambition is about the most powerful force one can engender in any city." It also helps if overwhelming quality and genuine excitement can be summoned to support the cult of personality. That's the goal, the real deal.

BTW, Seattle has its advantages too... Ill visit soon I promise. Also, you must not forget that Jack Daws is pretty good at exploiting the media and then backing it up with quality, there are others as well ...

ciao

Jeff Jahn

quote:

---

but what I was getting at is there seems to be a little more emphasis on artists as personalities, critics as personalities,curators as personalities and even exhibits as personalities

---

lol be careful what you wish for... are we looking to gather artists or con artists? anyone can talk. Few can make something from it. If I could have a dollar for ever personality I've met I'd be a millionar.. and If I had a dollar for every great artist I've met I'd be begging for change on Olive Way.. **** personality.. If you want to bring artists together you need to work harder and pull them out of their own world. You need to understand why it's worth bringing those specific artists out.. or you end up like a COCA party.

--------------------

Your citing of Linda Farris as an example of a great Seattle "personality" could not be more on the money. You are entirely correct when you state that no one has replaced her here in Seattle.

Your suggestion that Scott Lawrimore could be the one to fill her high-heeled faux leopard-skin platform boots is indeed a plausible a scenario.

I am still mediating on the dual roles of generosity and ambition. Very fruitful topic, that.

Thanks for writing in!

--------------------

Jim Demetre

--------------------

Jim Demetre

I miss Linda, what can I say... she was the crazy art aunt I never had and she was so bright. She could awlways tell when someone's speech was "sucking the air out of the room." But it was her generosity that made her so dangerous. In Miami last December Emily Hall and I ran into eachother and it was a big Linda fest.

Portland's scene is super active, rather agressively so now and it's a moment of self-awareness of a city that the artists are channeling. Every day I meet new RISD and Art Center grads who have moved here. Lately the floodgates of ex-Brooklyners have opened. I know of two more serious galleries that are opening up here too.

Basically, Portland is in the midst of defining itself and that is the reason we are the way we are, nature abhors a vaccum and Portland had the biggest one on the West Coast. Who knows what will come of it, certainly Portland has changed tremendously.

Seattle is recovering, but you are doing just fine. I'll let Y'all know when I drive up soon.

--------------------

quote:

---

I'm also not sure how in hell to do a radio show that anyone would want to listen to, but I'm up for trying.

---

Jim Demetre spoke rather well to this question in his initial post here- and I also think double j's comment opens windows:

quote:

---

Ive done some things a particular way in Portland to make certain other people besides myself stick out and get attention in the media by polarizing the discussion.

---

Knowing your intention and having key principles will give shape and form to a radio program. Asking questions: Are you aiming to have more people know more about the whole range of art in Seattle, or to focus attention on some aspect? Or is it more like, with colorful interviews I want to "stir the pot..." and raise the public profile of the local scene?

Having looked over the Speer article on Art Wars from Willamette Week, something I noticed was how much was added to the article by the subsequent comments posted in response. How might the same idea be woven into the fabric of your radio show to enlarge and enliven the dialogue?

double j interestingly brings up the matter of a city "defining itself..." as to art. How does that apply to Seattle?

The Speer article on the Oregon Biennial was interesting and informative, but ended on a sour note, slamming several artists. This approach is used more often than I like by some art critics.(I prefer the critical approach of using words to inform and illuminate, mostly- to encourage readers to see for themselves....and if criticising, then, backing it up.)

When critics trash the subject artist-seemingly for the sake of sensation- after all the artist went through to get their work in public, I don't understand how that serves anyone except(possibly) the critic. And it certainly hurts the feelings-if not the reputation-of the artist. How would you deal with artists whose work (or personality) you don't like in a radio show?

quote:

---

I think that the radio interview format would be an excellent way to explore the subject of visual art. But the live, real-time interview is a genre of journalism that requires some very specific skills.

---

quote:

---

The idea of focusing on personality is a good one, but not if the piece is lazy and uniformed when it comes to genre, media, and intent.

---

So we can talk about what a radio show might or should be, but I know from experience that it is – to use a well-worn phrase – an organic experience. It changes as the person changes and as the moment changes. Maybe Barbara Walters has a lot of control over her guests, but I sure don’t.

That’s what makes it fun but that is also the reason that very specific agendas might backfire. Ideally, one is curious enough to prepare but also, to embrace what comes. Some of my regrets were when I went on with my questions and missed an opportunity. I didn't listen enough and maybe listening is even more important than talking. And the above post is right: it takes hours for one hour of radio to happen.

And yes, it’s true that some artists don’t have verbal grasps on what they are doing. Do you have to interview everyone? I ask this because some artists are indeed visual artists because they have no words and do not want to use them. That's OK. For those who have the words, there's a million different ways to approach them.

--------------------

Jim Demetre

--------------------