So many thoughts about this piece wrestle in my head. I think back to Rocco's query of "too many theaters" and, more recently, Ralph Remington's keynote at the NCTC Producing Theater Gathering in July throwing the gauntlet of "the McDonalds-ization of American Theater", to the never-ending, oft-mauled Republican vs Democrat hashing of cutting public funding, and, by extension, lessening the perceived value of nonprofit arts organizations.
What is most important for those of us in the theater world to remember is that running these theaters takes three crucial elements: artistic vision, managerial skills, and fundraising prowess. Without all three, the sustainability of any arts organization is called into question. I believe it IS possible to create a small sustainable nonprofit arts organization, even to turn one around after twenty years of purely "let's put on a play" thinking. But all the players--from the visionary artistic director to the financially responsible governing board to the actors and audience members who vote with their dollars--must be willing to uphold all three elements.
I love the show. I was surprised my husband was watching it and not telling me. We started recording & watching them and skipping thru all the commercials. We would have long days devoted to the LLT show and rerun days the last 3 months just to catch up on things. Now I'm horrified if they have sold the business & if trutv doesn't keep their show going or their lives on tv. I knew they had That "Something" and when I saw scripture etc and no cussing &. Ronisms, I was thrilled that I found a show that is good & morally sound with decent humor, entertainment without nudity, swearing, & nastiness. Praise God for bringing them to the tv world! I hope more shows are on tv like them. Bring them back & let them grow into Americas Positively funny role models & entertaining Repo towing! hear this Trutv! We need more new shows from Lizard Lick Towing! The show has to go on! Sign Lizard lick towing for more shows & pay them more even if there are reenactments or scripted! You said they are funny...let them be funny then & show themselves to the world. We already love them. It's not even publicized enough. No One in Oregon knows who Lizard lick towing was until I started telling all of my friends! Mass market them! Do your job! Don't just do a test run on Two seasons! Get them going! I know they'll go for a long time, if they are marketed right & don't sell out. Let Bobby be married too! If he's married, let the single ladies & Juicie lust after him, but if the show hasn't ruined his marriage, let his marriage be part of who he is in the show! People still respect that & still find him adorable & sexy! Amy is too, and she's married to Ron! Ron is adorable & devoted to Amy, yet this World needs real people who have hard times and still pull together at the end of the day as family & friends & we all want a team to root for! Go team Lizard Lick with Ron, Amy,Bobby,Juicy, Krazy Dave, & everyone else we have yet to meet, Go team .WE LOVE You ALL!!! Heather & Jonathan (JP) Parish
POSTED BY HEATHER PARISH SEPTEMBER 7, 2012
Small correction: Bare Theatre is expanding on Ionesco's "The Leader," not "The Candidate."
is ronnie selling lizard lick by kaitlyn
Rape? Hilarious! What a great reason to never see anything Mon Frere ever does, ever.
I saw Rocky Horror opening night. I am not an alien. It rocked my world. Couldn't believe this was community theatre. The tickets are hard to come by. See it if, for nothing else, to witness thier Frankandfurter. It blew me away. (Not to mention the delicious bald Rocky. Every woman in the place was drooling for him.)
To Victoria Joyner who posted on 8/12/12.
You speak of people as though they are uneducated yet haven't met them. That in and of itself is uneducated. If people were to make assumptions based on whatever they feel or deem to be uneducated then I would have to say that you were. See you never place a "an" before a consonant, which you did. So the sentence that makes you uneducated should actually read:
"And of course he is a President Obama hater, he is IGNORANT, white, stupid, illiterate, and did I mention he is uneducated."
To think that ignorance has anything to do with being a color or an education system or being able to read is absurd as well. I wonder if you can hunt or trap animals, build a rocket or simply triangulate your position. That would make you ignorant to those who can. (mind you squirrels can do two out of three of those).
Thanks, Lincoln, for your comment. I think we're occupying almost the exact same spot of rhetorical ground.
I don't think my review lobs any institutional accusation at all toward the NCMA. In fact I was trying to be very careful to not posit that argument. The NCMA's track record is great in this regard, in their collection of work, curation of exhibitions, and the makeup of their staff. That's what made the narrowness of Word Up so odd to my mind. So I pointed that out about this specific show.
Word Up presents NC artists using image and text in their work. We have six artists, all white men born within a four-year span in the mid-seventies. Isn't that bizarrely narrow? To me, that should have been presented transparently as a themed show, something like "Word Up: NC men using image and text." But it's not. Am I supposed to shrug that off as probably a coincidence? (Which I'd bet cash it is. But it's also 2012, not 1962.) I'd like to hear Jennifer Dasal, the show's talented curator, talk about this.
But consider this. If my admittedly awkward alternative title had been used, then I think the show presents a really interesting opportunity for deeper discussion, with that added facet. It's not just about how artists integrate image and text; Word Up becomes a platform for thinking about how gender -- maleness, specifically -- registers within that integration. That's much more in line with the NCMA's obvious emphasis on considerations of gender and race. And it sets up an exciting correspondence with the GirlTalk show upcoming at CAM. And it's done with a simple title change.
Gender differences in the handling of image and text would be a fascinating way to consider your painting "True/False," actually. There are so many art-historical references in it. I saw this male lineage stretching from the Chanel bag advertisement that images Mondrian, to the overall Rauschenberg combine composition, to the magazine announcement of a Brice Marden show. That line says something about maleness and expression, to me. Your title and the text "really upside down" conveys a fascinating ambivalence on your part, an awareness of the problematic male utterance and gesture.
Another curatorial alternative would have been to include women in Word Up. Here's a paragraph that didn't make it into even the extended online version of my review:
"Plenty of young North Carolina women artists incorporate text into their work. Stacy Lynn Waddell’s cursive branding (in the original sense of the word), for instance, would have brought a historical perspective to this show and lent an interesting edge of obsolescence to Richards’ contemporary graphics. Through her binary-code transcription of mp3 recordings of speeches, Heather Gordon would have provided a glimpse past text and image into the possibility of an exclusively multimedia future, while simultaneously reminding us that the onset of writing stirred fears similar to our hand-wringing about information overload’s threat to the intelligence and attention span of the masses."
I'm looking forward to the talk on Aug. 24. I've pretty much spent my whole life thinking about representation and language. Word Up is a great laboratory for that.
Chris and Talena make some excellent points here — we can't claim things are "fair" for women and artists of color until they're given the same opportunities to show work in exhibitions not explicitly for or about them. And the fact that this exhibition features the work of six men is a little conspicuous. But the previous show in the NCMA's North Carolina Gallery was a solo show for Beverly McIver (yep, a solo show for a woman of color). And the curator of "Word Up" happens to be a woman. So it feels odd to talk about "fairness" when the present discussion seems to assume "Word Up" is the product of the art-institutional boys' club, and that the NC Museum doesn't have a good perspective on gender and ethnic balance. I'd argue that the museum generally does an excellent job of bringing non-white/male voices into the discussion — "30 Americans" and the woefully under-appreciated and under-attended El Anatsui show (in addition to McIver's recent exhibition) are just a few recent examples of this. So "fairness," in this discussion, seems like it warrants at least acknowledgement of these things, and perhaps in fact a presumption that the curator of "Word Up" made her decisions with awareness and in good faith. There's a panel Q&A on August 24 at the museum with some of the artists and the curator — I hope y'all might consider attending and continuing this worthwhile discussion in person.
Another show depicting the life and times of country, ignorant (Bobby) people. Especially the big, ignorant, biggot, Bobby. And of course he is an President Obama hater, he is IGNORANT, white, stupid, illiterate, and did I mention he is uneducated. Therefore he is too stupid to know that Romney is against the very people (Bobby) that will vote for him, because they do not know any better. Bobby is too stupid to read, and research the facts on his own, so he relies on the dirty feet, no teeth, uneducated, back woods, cousin marrying, family to educate him on politics. The very reason why abortion is legal....
Interesting review and comments. In case you are interested in seeing more of Gabriel Shaffer's work, which I happen to love, come on over to Outsiders to check out a whole range of work. Outsiders-art.com
If there's room for an older film, the 2005 Indian film "My Brother Nikhil" would make a fantastic addition to this (or any other) film festival. Especially since the NCGLFF is looking to expand. If not this year, then perhaps a future one. It's a film everyone should see, and one of my favorites in any language.
ThisIsMe, talk about clunky logic and undercutting yourself. You really think the art world is fair and balanced for female artists? Your examples are specialty shows. Women, people of color, and those who would support these consistently underrepresented artists aren't allowed to point out that under representation because, look, we made special shows just for the ladies and the people of color! But the regular group and solo shows, now those we save for the white guys. But look, we've ghettoized you all in your own little corner, so sit there, shut up, and be happy. Don't dare complain. Curating is decision making, and too often curators decide to show the same names over and over and the same white dudes. The great art critic Jerry Saltz (NY magazine) reports every year on the vast under representation of women in NY's gallery shows, and his point is always this: let's give women the same opportunities to be just as mediocre as men. There is nothing inherently better about male artists as their work nor is there necessarily anything particularly superior about female artists. But let's level the playing field so every one has a chance to show their own pretensions. The show at NCMA has awesome local talent, but it's deeply disappointing that the curators couldn't think of one single woman that they thought deserving to show in that field of artists.
I appreciate your comments a lot, and encourage you to revisit my Word Up review -- about an hour after you commented, three or so more paragraphs were added to the end to mete out my "where's the women?" question (there wasn't enough room for these paras in the print version). Some of the points you make are dealt with in that additional portion of the review.
I'm seeing that my enjoyment of this show isn't coming through in my words, which is really too bad. Shaffer's three comics pieces brought me a lot of joy to look at, and I've been thinking about them and bending folks' ears about them too. I love the cryptic text he uses in the captions, it reminds me of a Duchamp piece in which he typed onto four cards, trying to use only non-representational language, and how difficult Duchamp found that. Shaffer is pushing words hard in these pieces, and extending that push with the social lines of power that come out of his images.
Richards' work also fascinated me. I didn't have the room to write about the yellow painting with the alphabet ghosted over the face of a young girl sitting at a dinner table. It's a complex piece and a perfect chance to talk about how Richards balances ambiguity and directness in his work. The XYZ on the girl's face reminded me of the poet Hannah Weiner.
Curran's three Life Magazine covers have also stayed with me. First, I liked how the NCMA hung them so that you could see Hancock's three equally dark fair pieces in the background -- nice visual parallelism there. Curran's pieces are, frankly, scary as hell to me, and I will mull them for a long time -- which is what I go to art shows for, above enjoyment. He's disfiguring women's faces, but they're icons instead of ordinary women, so in that way maybe they're not exactly women because we dehumanize our icons, but wait what kind of monster am I that I just kind of signed off on dehumanizing someone... you see the kind of dryer cycle I'm in the midst of, with the Curran work? I love work that sets me off on that.
So I feel that you're off-base on thinking I'm not interested in artists using text, but I'm thankful you accused me of that because I'm seeing how you could think that from the lack of joy expressed in my review. My background is poetry, so text and image are sort of where I'm coming from.
I hope the additional 3 paragraphs will give more detail to my questioning the NCMA on the male-only show. I think my question is quite legitimate. You point out the Mirror Image and 30 Americans shows (both of which I reviewed for the Indy, by the way) as gender- and race-specific shows. Yes, they were, and they were named thusly and presented as such. Word Up isn't. That's weird. And I think that should be pointed out.
Your last point, about enjoying art for art's sake... we might essentially differ here. I don't know that I do enjoy art for art's sake. I enjoy being provoked to think. I enjoy it when an artwork makes me realize that my thinking had been lazy to that point. I enjoy artworks and artists who make we walk out of the museum or gallery with many more questions than I had gone in with. Word Up absolutely does that and I'm looking forward to subsequent visits. I don't feel like I saw all the way into Lancaster's work, for example. And I started writing a poem in front of the Toomes pieces but ran out of time on my visit so I want to finish that.
Perhaps we'll run into each other on one of these subsequent visits. I would enjoy that.
Though I respect Chris having a point of view, I think he's missing the mark. Repeatedly. And with clunky logic. I recently had the opportunity to see Word Up for myself, and I thought it succeeded on multiple levels. The interplay of text with a variety of visual mediums, messages, and points of view creates a tapestry of effect, wrapping the audience in words and commercials that have little or jumbled meaning from afar, but take on personal significance when viewed close up, surrounded by other bits of information that round out the picture. The show is a puzzle to be solved, a puzzle with more than one answer. It's a beautiful presentation not only of local art and artists (of which we need more!), but of this brand of art in general.
Based on Chris' last two reviews of Word Up, his beef seems to be two-fold. One, he's tired of exhibitions featuring text because no one seizes the reigns and does anything "original" in his mind - artist or curator. Great, Chris. No problem. Don't go to those shows. We'll miss you.
Two, and this is Chris' most vocal gripe, he can't seem to understand why NCMA would feature only male artists in Word Up, and so he throws up his hands and implies sexism at worst, or ignorance of women artists at best. Shame on you, Chris. Where were you when NCMA's attention-getting show Mirror Image featured all local women, or when 30 Americans included all African-American artists, or when most big exhibitions, at NCMA and every other major and mid-major museum (think Rembrandt, Norman Rockwell, etc.), feature all white men? Where's the hand wringing then? He undercuts his own argument in the same sentence by mentioning without similar grumbling that CAM will feature an all female slate in GirlTalk. It's a hollow complaint and one unfair to NCMA. Curating is decision making. This was the museum's decision, and for good reason, I would imagine.
When Chris is hired to curate shows at NCMA, I'm sure his selections will wow us all. Until then, perhaps he should consider lobbing fewer grenades from the sidelines (poor ones, at that), and soak in a few more good shows with the rest of us. We'd be happy to welcome you back to enjoying art for art's sake, Chris.
It's a shame you've forgotten how to do that.
Things must have changed a lot in the repo business over the years?
When I was a Young lad in NJ, I always asked to have a police officer meet me at the repo site to avoid the problems these guys have. Another problem they are having did not exist for me either, that was the keys to the vehicle. The finance company supplied a set to avoid contact with the stiffs.
yayyyy!!! Belindabilly!!! xoxo Candace
I love all the stories in this book, and have read some of the stories several times, either in whole or in part. He is just remarkable. I am especially fond of his description of drownings. They are lovely (!), and you should read this book.
Ronny me and my dad love the show and i hate the fact that it is only on Monday and i was kind of sad when the first season ended and then now it is the second i was jumping for joy when it came on u should have it on tv more it is a good show. and i was thinking one of theses times i would love to pay for my dad and me to come and see u guys for his birthday he would love it. maybe i can get the money around and we could see you guys. :)
Thanks, Eric. Your point about Jesse and the magnet idea is a good one, but I still have a hard time believing Mike wouldn't kill Walter, as close as he's come before. He may like Jesse, but he REALLY doesn't like Walter. That scene on the desert road seemed like melodramatic fluff to me. I had other quibbles that I didn't want to mention because I didn't want to commit a "spoiler" -- like the contents on the laptop not being immediately viewed by Hank. Anyway, in the bigger picture, my initial reactions will probably seem even more nitpicky as the season continues, and I have reason to hope so -- the second episode is really gripping, and some dodgy stuff is (sort of) explained away.
Indy Week • 302 E. Pettigrew St., Suite 300, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation