Ron Slaughter says, finally,f...you Joe Rowand for destroying OUR gallery. It was not yours do do with as you pleased.
Dearest Liberal guy. Of course I am jealous, in the sense of being envious. I would certainly like it if my paintings could have sold for $30,000 as opposed to $10,000. Ad hominem, look it up, you obviously don't know, presently, what it means. By the way I am a trifle suspicious of someone hiding behind "liberal guy." Are you envious that you don't have a name? Address my arguments not me.
My name is Ron Slaughter. I am a painter and have shown my work at Somerhill since 1995. I was always paid promptly and never questioned Joe Rowands integrity and am not questioning it now; I haven't the right to question his integrity. It is a matter of indifference to me regarding his "life-style". I am, however, most interested in his principles. His contracts with the artists consigning their work with him includes the statement that the artists are to be paid 50% of the selling price of their work. which is at best ludicrous As long as that agreement is adhered to I have no further interest in his life-style, the size of his house, how many or how few vehicles he owns, whether his shoes are Italian or Sears nor any other aspect of his life-style, material possesions or the amount of money he paid himself. Deman can't do his homework partially because he or she does not have access to the material with which to inform himself or herself.
Of course Beerman can't be too mad at Joe; Joe was a prime player in establishing a "false market" with respect to Joe's involvment.with Beerman's painting.One hundred thousand dollars is a right good pricefor a painting done by someone who went from obscurity to not obscure in one fell swoop made by Joe, Tom Keenan and the museum curator. Of coures he is not going to quibble over $40,00 with someone who made him a fortune.
I find comments defending him and his lack of principles to be spurious at best. The most uninformed and illogical collection of opinions or "comments "I can imagine. Just about every very basic
tenent of logical thought is suspended in these comments.
Comments regarding his community service are ludicrous. He ran a business to make money for himself. He was obligated to do so following certain restrictions. Some of the money he spent on himsef was not his to spend. It was not his. The money he spent on himself was money he owed the landlord, artists who had consigned their work with him, and other suppliers.
He was not , and is not a community service organization. His is /was an organization to make a profit. That is all well and good but to do so with money that is not his is unprincipled.
Joe knows people of wealth and influence. The debacle of the North Carolina Museum of Art is laughable. Sure, Joe could schmooze with the best of them, ergo his success. Those of you who wrote about John Beerman and the museum don't have any idea of how that was played. You should not write as though you are informed because there maybe someone who, in this case , me who knows at least how that transpired. Three players. The Museum, the curator of which is a close friend of Joes, John Beerman whose main claim to fame is that he was a lackey of Robert Rauschenberg, and Tom Keenan who "donated" the painting in question to the Museum. That whole relationship borders on conspiracy, obviously it was collusion at it's most unprincipled.
It really ain't all that strange that Sylvia Roth who knows Beerman well might have something "community spirited" to say about Joe's failure.
Cudos to Lisa Sorg, Way to f.......go.
The so called economic downturn has nothing to do with the failure of this gallery. It failed because the director is not a principled man.
The Bernie Madoff greed gnome strikes again. My name is Ron Slaughter
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation