March 12, 2012, 7:14 am
Weekend roundup
- In case you need more: The Michael Heizer rock arrives at LACMA, tweet-by-tweet. (At last.)
- Curator Jens Hoffman mixes FSA images with contemporary images for a show at the MCA Denver. In the LAT, Lisel Bradner details the show.
- Also, the LAT has gone to a pay wall, so you may not be able to read that. In a related story, I won’t be linking to David Pagel’s Ellsworth Kelly review. Or a story about Mike Kelley and his students. Or about the Getty’s collecting.
- Surprised?: The new head of contemporary art at the Metropolitan is married to a co-director of London’s Gagosian Gallery, reports Elizabeth Fullerton in ARTnews.
- There is nothing sillier than reviews of art fairs. Closest comparable: A review of the new housewares section at Ikea.
On this week’s Modern Art Notes Podcast, I visit The Menil Collection to interview Richard Serra, whose drawings retrospective has (finally) arrived at the institution that created the exhibition. If you’ve been waiting to listen to or subscribe to the show, wait no more: Download the program, subscribe via iTunes, subscribe via RSS and/or view images from the show.
Add a Comment
The Met wasn’t hiding anything about Sheena Wagstaff’s marriage to Mark Francis. Mark is a distinguished curator and former museum director, who now works for Gagosian. Mark ran the Fruitmarket Gallery in Edinborough, worked a the Centre Pompidou with Jean-Huber Martin Where he worked on both the ground-breaking Magiciens de la Terre and the first major exhibition of the Situationist International, then he came to the U.S. to run the Warhol for several years before returning to London where Gagosian recruited him to do special projects for the gallery. Sheena and Mark have both led serious and important independent art world careers, and to imply that there is something unclean or conflicted about the fact that he works for Gagosian, is silly and insulting.
In no way did I intend to suggest that they were or that there was anything “unclean or conflicted.” (Was there something in a pretty white-bread sentence that suggested such?) It was merely a notable from the story, a tease intended to motivate people to click through the link.
Your protestation to the contrary fails to pass the smell test. The implication of conflict is clear in your post and, if this was not your intention, you should rewrite, retract and/or apologize.
You don’t think it’s an interesting item? That’s fine. But I find nothing there to be confrontational, officious or even conflict-suggesting.
An interesting window into how the art world works? Yes, I think so. And I hope it motivated you to click-through the link, which was my intention.
How does this marriage provide a window into how the art world works?
hahahahaha this argument is hilarious. lorinsky you need to jam, he obviously didnt mean to offend anyone