Christine Bailey on "New Work by Christine Bailey"
Some readers of this blog may be familiar with the exhibition I have hanging at 100 E Pratt Street. Cara Ober generously offered me space here to give some details of the exhibition and my intentions behind this body of work.
This was a project in which I adopted a business model from the world of fashion, that of making “designer replicas”, to see how (or if) that could translate to the business of art making within our local community. Drawing parallels to this model, I painted “in the style of” Baltimore artist Cara Ober, using economical materials (acrylic wash on paper rather than paint on canvas). I signed my name to the paintings and included it on the email and postcard announcement, as I was not interested in making forgeries or counterfeits. None of the paintings were direct copies of specific works. The images and text were appropriated from various sources, some of which included free online clip-art, the dictionary, gardening magazines and an antique book on phrenology.
From what I’ve heard, people want to know why I chose Cara Ober’s work as my point of departure for this project. First of all, it was somewhat of an arbitrary decision; I could have worked in the style of any number of artists. Cara is someone I don’t know, so I had no personal connection and could be dispassionate about the work. Additionally, she and her paintings have a strong presence within the local art scene- analogous to a sort of “brand” identity. Finally, it was important to me that I appropriated from someone whose work was already based in appropriation. I really had no personal agenda to do any harm to Cara.
In making an analogy to the business of fashion and branding, I am not arguing that this is the correct or ethical model for an artist’s studio practice. But I do think that it points to many issues and problems relevant to art-making and it’s relationship to market forces, including those of intellectual property, authorship, appropriation, and the legality or illegality of making a picture.
- Christine Bailey
46 Comments → “Christine Bailey on “New Work by Christine Bailey””
New Publication from the Walters Art Museum
“it was important to me that I appropriated from someone whose work was already based in appropriation” – is that just another dis? Imitation IS the best form of flattery, though. Keep your chin up Cara, you give a lot to the community instead of stepping on toes.
i think it is very admirable that christine bailey made this attempt to clarifiy the intent behind her newest body of work. however, it all still sounds like bullshit to me.
if there are one or two things that i’ve learned in my lifetime, it’s that canal street bags will always fall apart, and designer imposter fragrances do really stink. people that make knock offs are not trying to make statements, they are trying to make money. and i’m sorry, but i don’t think that making money should be your main motivation for making art.
there is plenty of money to go around for all of us out there. if we work together and help each other develop ideas, and support one another, we will all grow and prosper together.
i have to agree. i think that is nice and all that christine bailey made this attempt to clear up this entire thing. but i also think it is really quite ridiculous that any of this has even become an issue.
while the apology was nice and all it seems like it was less of an attemt to clear things up with cara ober and more of an effort to keep her name clean. this idea should not have been executed in the first place. let alone shown in a gallery.
christine bailey should not take the blame entirely. it seems as though jordan faye block was a part in this too. it was equally tacky that she was supporting this idea. i mean didnt jordan use to represent cara ober. i dont know. this whole thing made me really annoyed at certain people and personalities within this art scene.
i am always a firm believer in the idea of making work to make work. beacause you need to. and i mean really dont make work with the motivation of making money. because with that being the leading motivation behind the work there probably wont be much money made.
there is plenty of money. there is plenty of press. there are plenty of places to show work here in baltimore. if we all work with each other instead of against each other it would inevitably make the art scene here even better. and shouldnt that be what we strive for as a community.
Money? it doesn’t seem to me that Jordan Faye Block really sells THAT much work, Does she?
Step back from the painful toes and examine the concept… it seems to me to be a sound approach (as well as somewhat humorous) to creating in todays contemporary setting, though perhaps the choice of artist (or lack of multiple artist appropriations)smacks of contempt, overall it seems to fit with Christine’s prior body of work… (paintings finished by workers in china of appropriated images I believe)
While I find it hard to believe that I am defending what seemed at first glance such a blatantly spiteful new body of work, upon further examination, perhaps it was not meant to be a dig…
I do however urge Jordan Faye Block to reconsider hanging work like this in an arts community that is so close knit without proper explanation from the very beginning… Perhaps she should also have considered the implications of showing the work of one artist appropriating the work of an artist whom she USED to represent…
In summation, I guess I believe that while tact may not be the strong point of either Christine or Jordan in this situation, it seems as though Jordan Faye Block has crossed the greater line, leaving one to wonder if “sour grapes” are really the best place to stand when making a decision to hang a show…
This show is just another lame art world stunt. It is a clear example of why people hate and distrust contemporary art. It’s clearly not honest. It cloaks intellectual plagiarism in conceptual lingo and then it generates a buzz – mainly one of outrage. Then the artist gets famous.
What ever happened to giving artists attention for just making good work? Why isn’t this enough?
lets ask ourselves this question…did the audience KNOW what they were looking at? was it reasonable to expect the audience to see the work as a comment on appropriation or the smallness of our art scene? or did people just see pretty pictures? also, if somone wanted to purchase one of the paintings, would they be buying it because of its supposed content or because it matched their couch?
Sadly none of this reflects very well on Bailey. If you want people to realize what your trying to do, you need to either explain yourself first, or (preferably) take on someone a little bigger than Cara. (think sherrie levine does walker evans). god i hope she knows who sherrie levine is
I think that both Bailey and Block made some very foolish and quite frankly selfish decisions in putting this show together. My first reaction to the statement is that it is just a lame attempt to recover from a situation that reflects very badly on both Bailey and Block. I mean, come on. What does this really say about Block as someone who claims to represent the interests of artists? Hmm… maybe that she’s sell you out in the blink of an eye if it makes her a dime? Isn’t money the real subject not appropriation? The sad thing it is they’ve probably done it for small change… if any…
And, what may I ask would you have done Ms. Bailey if a NYC gallery spotted this “inspired” work?
Surely you would have said…”Well, I was actually inspired by THIS artist, it’s her you should talk to.”
This is a money operation pure and simple. If this were any other industry it would be copyright infringement, but in the art world we can hide behind hyperbole and MICA-speak BS.
I also fear that Ms. Bailey may have been manipulated by someone in the art world to turn a quick buck because Cara would not show with her. This person needs to be boycotted for this. Gallery owners know EXACTLY what they’re doing.
A “Cara Ober” work for a cafe art price.
Wow, Cara must be happy to have so many loyal and ‘clever’ friends, whom I venture must not have much to do. The majority of the comments here smack of a small town mentality. Perhaps, you should get out of Baltimore once and a while people!!
First off, adl…I doubt anyone is trying to get rich off of a show in a building lobby with 15 works.
I also think that you miss the point, there will be and are no other works like this in Christine Bailey’s studio. If she wanted to ‘knock off’ the works to make money, she could have just made 100 of them an sold them to a hotel chain.
anonymous…speaking of money…the ‘plenty of money to go around for all of us’, I had no idea that the Baltimore art scene was flourishing like that! I guess that’s why you stay in your small pond.
This project would never have the same effect elsewhere, but within THIS city wherein everyone is familiar with the artist Cara Ober…because NO ONE knows who she is elsewhere!!
Or probably any of you for that matter!
Don’t hate the players…hate the game!
PS. If a New York Art Gallery came by…they probably wouldn’t make her an offer because of the aesthetic prowess of those works!! But, perhaps, because of her broad reaching and provocative ideas about meaning and art!! BTW- Bailey has shown in NYC, has Cara?
s. levine – do you think it is right to blame the victim in this matter? do you think this situation is the victim’s fault, because she makes work in a small town?
ober didn’t ask to be a part of this project, but she has at least put her best foot forward. maybe the people commenting on the blog are her friends, and maybe they are not.
it is possible that they are artists who don’t know her at all, who are offended by the implications of this project and want to say so.
Wow! S.Levine you sound just a little bitter yourself. You make a good point however, given the nature of the project, why DIDN’T Christine Bailey make 100 and sell them on the corner of canal street or to a hotel chain? Either the conceptual rigor of the project is lacking OR it isn’t quite what she says it is. If this was anywhere OTHER than Baltimore, Christine Bailey’s ass would be in a whole lot more trouble.
I hope you can get out more often. It might improve your disposition.
@ s.levine.
first off, this does not “smack of a small town mentality” you obviously have not been on the ArtForum boards have you?
Second, while it was nice to have JFB/CB apologist sign on, your petty rubuttal is asinine.
Why? Because YOU have no idea what you’re talking about.
First point, Cara’s work has shown in New York several times, as well as Italy, New Orleans and Washington D.C. (it’s all on the CV. Do some homework before sounding off)
Second point: It must suck not to have friends. Because if you did you would know what it’s like to come to the aid of a friend who was wronged.
Third Point: Small pond blah…blah..blah..please can you think of something new? Though it’s wrong (ever heard of Dan Deacon, SpankkRock etc…), it just makes you sound juvenile. Oooo….Baltimore is Smalltimore…whatever.
The bottom line is that one emerging artist was manipulated by a sub-par “gallery owner” to copy another emerging artist for the sake of $.
When the managers cheat, you can’t hate the game, you hate the managers.
Having gone through the same grad school program as Cara, I would honestly sue both the artist and the gallery in this case for the cost of my tuition and materials over four years of hard work and struggling through an authentic process. This ripping off of a style for market purposes is cheap and unethical. Also as another exhibiting artist in the Baltimore area, I feel threatened that Jordan Faye Block will strike again. Can we really allow this to continue? As others have said, there is enough space and money for all of us. Also Cara, no one can do Cara Ober like you can.
One might argue, or quote directly form the artist, that this “project” was a sort of experiment. Well, the idea for this experiment is actually somewhat interesting. It could even be compelling.
However, there are rules and guidelines that have been established by the research community that are in place specifically to avoid bad and unethical experiments, or “projects.”
I think that ethics should still apply in the art world. I think that everyone would agree with that, even Christine.
So, when conducting an experiment, the researcher, or artist in this case, should consider the following: Honesty, Objectivity, Integrity, carefulness, Respect of Intellectual Property, Social Responsibility (Strive to promote social good and prevent or mitigate social harms through research), etc.
In college, we were always asked to consider our end goal when conducting research; that our research be geared toward the benefit of people and society in the end; that it help people.
So, my question to Christine is, what are the results of your project? Was it ethical? Was it valid? Do your results have the potential to benefit the community?
You wanted to know what would happen, so please let us know what your findings are.
here is another comment for ‘s.levine.’
first of all, i do not for one second think that the real sherrie levine knows how much work is in christine bailey’s studio. but i think a certain local curator does.
secondly, ‘hate the game – not the players’? come on. if you had framed this project properly from the start, putting all the information out there, YOU would have been playing it fairly.
and last – you started this project to stir up controversy and attention. now you have it. this phrase – controversy – actually means pissing off lots and lots of people. why are you surprised? if you can’t deal with the anger, you shouldn’t have designed and executed this particular game.
Bailey, if you think that this small amount of small-town controversy will make you an artSTAR, I fear you will be very disappointed (and soon forgotten.)
And Jordan Faye Block- please. You wouldn’t know conceptual art if it bit you in the ass.
i am shocked this is still going on. if we all stop leaving comments now i think we will make s levine shut up. and also a lot less happy. and we can only guess who “s levine” is. right…
anyway. bottom line is this. christine fucked up. jordan fucked up. cara did nothing except make paintings. and get recognized for it. keep your envy to yourself people. it is an evil thing and it wont get you far.
to inform “s. levine” yes cara has had work in a show in new york. actually a couple for that matter. and she has also had work in plenty of other cities. and really at the end of the day why are you counting.
and to comment on your money comment. i encounter folks on a daily basis that have money actually. so yeah there is some money in this city. but again who is counting.
and actually i have plenty of stuff to do. i am plenty busy. i was just reading this blog for the first time in a while and was interested in the amount of discussion going on on this entry. so i read along. and then was quite disgusted at the amount of jealousy shining through in this “s. levine” entry. i had to say something.
maybe i am a clever friend of caras. maybe i am not. but regardless of who and what i am i will remain loyal to her. as i am sure most people will in this matter.
yeah sure bmore is a small town. or at least has a small town feel. and with that said we have a pretty decent and definitely a close knit art community. and yet another reason why one shouldnt really fuck with a small scene in a small town.
I agree that Baltimore is not a SMALL pond. Baltimore has grit and action and that is why I moved here rather than a bigger name brand expensive and played city. So don’t dis Baltimore. Also I make all my money from selling my paintings and I make a lot of it and money is one of my many MAIN motivations. I purchase surgeries and help put my sister through college and am able to visit my family (who really do live in small ponds) because I have lots of money. Isn’t paying for all those important things what life is about??? Life takes money and lots of it and I love money and I love painting. And don’t copy people!
P.S.
I meant to say that I was responding to adl who said “i don’t think that making money should be your main motivation for making art”
And the anonymous person who said “i am always a firm believer in the idea of making work to make work. beacause you need to. and i mean really dont make work with the motivation of making money. because with that being the leading motivation behind the work there probably wont be much money made.”
I have to say i think this whole discussion is interesting. This issue has really divided people and forced us to think and reconsider what we do and why we do it.
The baltimore art community has a lot to say and i appreciate the level of honesty and emotion going into these comments, even though they are mostly anonymous. I also appreciate christine bailey sharing her ideas on this blog, knowing full well what kind of a reaction she’d get.
I think one question everyone should ask themselves is this: What would you do if this situation happened to you? and also – How, if at all, does it change what I do in my studio practice?
-Cara Ober
i think that, in the name of this ‘experiment,’ that IF any sales are made from this show, jordan and christine should give cara at least 50% of sales! i mean, it is her intellectual property and christine has basically said that.
Andy Kaufman vs. Jerry Lawler?
I have to agree with the sour grapes comments. I think everyone is missing the humor and the commentary on art in general. Maybe you are just afraid of the truth that there is no such thing as an original thought. An artist who appropriates is approriated. Do we take a step back and defend the artist who Cara appropriated, follow the trail, until we reach the original seed? I love it!
I actually came back to this blog after reading the article in the Baltimore Sun.
One would think that showing on a back wall of an office building lobby would hardly be a place where contemporary art discussion would evolve, but I can appreciate the colloquium that has come about it here and in other media.
Personally, I hardly think this is a matter of appropriation. If Christine wants to imitate Cara, BFD. Street vendors do it all the time in NY and elsewhere.
What is more questionable is the substance of the idea behind the appropriation, in other words, more about why than what. I wonder if this was really Christine’s idea or Pipsqueaks?
Jordan has never been shy about ripping on someone else’s idea, even the Walters, so it wouldn’t shock me in the least if this was her idea to begin with.
One word that is being used that seems to mean different things to different people in this discussion is the word “appropriation.”
What exactly constitutes appropriation in a work of art? Isn’t all art, in some way, appropriated from the works that come before it? All art is created in context.
The fact that I pull images from wallpaper, textiles, the dictionary, and other pop cultural sources and jumble it together- is this appropriation? And if so, is this different than borrowing an entire vocabulary or appearance from just one source (or mostly one)?
Of course, I looked it up. And, as usual, (and this is why I choose to use the dictionary as a source in my work) the meanings presented are cloudy and contradictory at best. Here are several which seem closest to what we are talking about:
appropriation: a deliberate act of acquisition of something, often without the permission of the owner; “a person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is dishonest”
appropriate: 4. to take to or for oneself; take possession of. 5.to take without permission or consent; seize; expropriate: He appropriated the trust funds for himself. 6.to steal, esp. to commit petty theft.
Can someone define appropriation for me, in this particular context?
appropriation has a couple different meanings here. we are so very used to the “appropriation” of images and text in contemporary art. everyone does it. thats why baileys initial statement seemed kind of generic. however, what bailey was ACTUALLY “appropriating” were the sensibilities of another artist, his/her use of composition, color,line, image,juxtaposition,etc.
i think that we CAN accept this as a project or even a valid way of making work, but that means putting alot of trust into the artist and thier intentions (integrity). the reason why so many people are uncomfortable with this show is that they clearly dont trust the artists or promoters. Do we know why?
of course,i think weve always got to give the artists the benefit of the doubt. i mean, did bailey and block know what they were doing? maybe maybe not, but what a wonderful dialogue we are having!
How did we survive before wikipedia?…
“To appropriate something involves taking possession of it. In the visual arts, the term appropriation often refers to the use of borrowed elements in the creation of new work. The borrowed elements may include images, forms or styles from art history or from popular culture, or materials and techniques from non-art contexts. Since the 1980s the term has also referred more specifically to quoting the work of another artist to create a new work. The new work does not actually alter the original per se; the new work uses the original to create a new work. In most cases the original remains accessible as the original, without change.”
Sorry I’ve not had time to come on and read all of the comments related to my post, I’ve been installing a museum exhibition elsewhere.
First, I am not, have never been nor do I desire to be JFB!!! Eeek… I personally hold NO love for her. I’m not certain what her motives were in doing the show with Bailey. I do think her motives may have been suspect. I think Bailey’s work in general deals with all of these issues and she probably didn’t even realize how many people would blog about it.
Second, have not only read artforum, but have appeared in it myself several times.
Third, am not in the least bitter. A curator wept today in response to a recent work I created. So, sorry for my harsh words, but all the whining and silly comments pissed me off, I was a little tipsy and it was indeed, my first blog. And this will probably be my last, cause honestly I don’t have time to worry about everybody else’s drama, have enough of my own.
However, I do want to say that borrowing & artistic “theft” has been a part of the art scene forever. Intentions are key, I think that Bailey’s intention (again, don’t see how you guys think she’s gonna make loads of money off of it), was to stir up those questions for herself and that the content is just that. Whether it is successful or not is subjective.
The more that one’s work is shown and in the public eye, the more other artists’ have the opportunity to riff off of it or rip it off directly.
I myself have had it happen more than once, and most recently with a young artist who came through my studio on a tour, talked my ear off and then moved to town (yes, I live in nyc now…you all can jump on that all you want, i still LOVE Bmore) and began trying to make my work.
Several of my collectors inquired about the girl and her work, as Cara’s obviously did about this project. My response is a bit different. I feel strong and I would never ever call myself a victim of someone that I thought made inferior work!
Also, I would never give them the satisfaction of this much attention. My reaction is to go back to the studio and create even more amazing work- that way I truly own it.
So, in answer to whomever said I was ‘blaming the victim’… come on yourself. The show is going to close soon. I look forward to seeing the next Cara Ober show, because I think that is where her power will lie, not in the complaining about this. It sucks when it happens to you, I understand, but she’s handled it with grace for the most part, which is more than I can say for the ‘supports.’ The more you talk about it and blog, the more you feed the ‘victimization’ of Cara rather than Cara herself or the arts community.
That’s all from me, good night and good luck to you all!
PS. One last question, is there any true originality in the art world to defend?
Now, that’s it for sure. I can see why you do this it’s addicting, you can spew and spew.
This whole thing smells dishonest – Why was Bailey not in touch before the show? “I have an upcoming show that appropriates your style? Here is an invitation, I would love to have your feed-back”
I’m sure Cara has dozens of other directions, she might liked to explore. I would go into the studio and do those – exhibit those as “the next step after my being copied.” and then when the hoopla has died down, go back to the art that started all this.
I would use Bailey’s invasion as a tool for further exploration. I can see other Baltimore artists/collectors being interested in what this all leads to from Cara ten years from now.
“I really enjoyed making these paintings,
because I didn’t have to bring anything personal to it.” – Bailey in Wash Post, Saturday
so it really seems like it would be more “thought provoking” to copy LUCY HOGG (the autherof the story, Blake Gopnik’s wife) someone who already seems to copy for the sake of copying and seems to make paintings without bringing anything personal to it. Thought provoking? hardly. Why bother?
Among the new MD Artist Grants, Christine Bailey is listed as earning a $1000 grant for the works on paper category. Did she do works on paper before this project? The only works I have seen from before this are the paintings of soft-core porn images.
Did she apply for the grant using these works? And, if so, did she disclose what they are actually about? I think it is fine, as long as full disclosure was the modus operandi.
But if Christine applied for grant money and simply passed these off as original works, I think this is problematic, both as an ethical issue and also for the supposed premise of this project.
Or is it ok to apply for a public grant with works that look intentionally like someone else’s?
this is just another example of the resistance to concept based work that has been going on for, oh, about 100 years…you guys ever seen this “inspired rip-off” before? your outrage is pretty stale..
it’s not about the “inspired rip-offs” people, it’s about the idea!!!
i’m amazed at how stunningly literal minded so many artists are today.
To address a recent post someone made questioning whether she applied for the Maryland State Arts Council grant using the New Work from this recent show.
First off does it matter?
Second what if she did?
I do know the answer and it’s NO.
She is why more talented and smart than many of you even know.
Most of the people posting on this blog are only looking at a small portion of who someone really is.
Christine actually has the most gorgeous works on paper, they are “photo” copies – actual copy toner on paper drawings that look like photographs.
Black and white and simply amazing. She’s quite talented and not just in one area but many.
It’s funny and a bit sad that so many of you will judge her or others with out really knowing who they are.
The drawings are at Jordan Faye Contemporary. They are large, 42″ x 55″ works on paper. One from the same series was shown in New York recently and it sold.
I know for a fact that these are the works that she submitted for the grant, but does it really matter to you? or are you going to keep making assumptions about everyone.
You all have way to much time on your hands, you should just get into the studio and make work.
Then maybe someday if your lucky and brave enough to put yourself out there…someone might just want to sell your work.
if bailey’s own ‘black and white toner’ works are so amazing – why didn’t she show them at the t.rowe price lobby, instead of mimicking cara ober’s work? maybe because she wouldn’t have gotten any or much attention for them, certainly not a review in the washington post, no matter how gorgeous they are. thanks for telling us we can buy them at jordan faye contemporary, though.
the art world is a harsh and lonely place. lots of times your best efforts are ignored. well, that is how it is for artists who choose exhibit honestly, without publicity stunts or stealing.
when you admit to stealing another artist’s identity, which baily did, and pretending that you didn’t, it calls into question an artist’s ethics. how can it not? this affects their reputation and should affect what kind of works they use to apply for a grant. in my opinion, this definitely matters.
The anonymous commenter in post 15 here asks some questions that are really interesting to me. And it hit me today (I don’t know why it hadn’t earlier) that the points made and the questions raised are ones that relate directly to a lecture I have presented in class over the last couple years.
In it, I discuss artists’ projects that engage in scientific- or rather “pseudo-scientific”- activities: Eduardo Kac’s “Alba the GFP Bunny”, Elenor Antin’s “Blood of a Poet Box” and “Domestic Peace”, Komar and Melamid’s “The People’s Choice”, Wim Delvoye’s “Cloaca”, etc.
I am interested in these types of projects precisely because, as artists we have the privilege of drawing on models from other fields without having to adhere to the same rules or objectives. Artists can use the same appearances or materials or methods or documentation as a scientist, but we can use them to completely different ends. We can construct scientifically useless experiments, record subjective data, and test absurd hypothesis. For example, Antin can record and categorize intangibles like the essence of poetry or the tension between a mother and daughter. Kac can question the ethics of genetic modification by adopting (or trying to adopt) a pet rabbit that glows in the dark.
Whereas scientists have a responsibility to facts and numbers and objective, quantifiable data, artists have the luxury of addressing intangibles that exist beyond facts and numbers and objective, quantifiable data.
I wasn’t thinking of any of this directly when I started this “knock-off” project but I think the parallels are definitely there- using a model from the business world to different ends than a business would– to question the role of market forces in art, the “branding” of identity, the ownership of images and ideas, and, yes leonardo, questioning the ethics of my own or any studio practice.
In response to 2 other questions…
The work that I got the MSAC grant for was a different series of drawings that had nothing to do with this project.
And, no, Jordan Faye Block had absolutely no role in the creation of this project. It was completely conceptualized and mostly finished by the time she ever knew of it.
The problem is, the “experiment” is rather tired. Haven’t we all done it before ourselves–artists, writers, musicians–made a cheap knockoff of a painting or song in an hour or so, then sat around the house laughing about it and drinking beer with our friends? Bailey hits the nail on the head when she says in the Washington Post, “I really enjoyed making these paintings, because I didn’t have to bring anything personal to it.” That’s why it’s so easy, why someone can whip up a reasonable knockoff of Hemingway in their notebook while waiting for their oil to be changed, because they have no investment in it, it’s an exercise, divorced from feeling, no heart put on the line. So, it’s not the thought behind Bailey’s project that’s particularly interesting, most of us have traveled through the same thought experiment ourselves, but what gives it any interest it has is the fact that it got beyond Bailey’s studio, beyond the kids imitating Foreigner in their band practice space while they smoked dope. What gives the project any cache at all is that it was shown, in a public space, that it was taken one step further, from a laughing goof to a serious prank. Two questions seem to be raised by this, as have already been addressed by other commenters: 1) Whose show is this really, then, Bailey’s or Block’s? 2) Was this “experiment” worth the trouble it brought? I’ve come across a lot of shit stirrers in the arts. Once in a while the shit they stir is brilliant, the idea, the execution, original and charming. Mostly though they are only annoying, the shit stirrers, because, after all, shit for shit’s sake, without originality or charm, is a little sleepy, the stirrers more enamored of it than anyone else. Let’s see what happens with all this in a month or two.
I find that the statement that choosing artwork by someone Bailey didn’t know personally — somehow makes it possible to be dispassionate about the work — to be an intellectual lie.
The truth of the matter is that Bailey fundsmentally knows her intention is not nice; it’s mean and nasty.
It was so important for her to use an artist who already appropriated. So, why not use the work of her good friend Lucy Hogg?
Well,let’s see–Bailey will argue that none of this has anything to do with mean vs nice and since when does great cerebral art have to be “nice”? Since when have any really great artists been nice.
We all know the real reason she couldn’t use her good friend’s artwork –> because it would then be extremely difficult to get Blake Gopnik to write about it in the Washington Post. And everyone knows what a fantastic art critic Gopnik is and how important it is to the perceived value of the work for him to state that some of Bailey’s art “is on it’s way to be sold”. I have a tub of leftover rice in my refridgerator that is on it’s way to be eaten. What does that mean?
All the clothes in the Gap are on their way to be sold. So what?
Is the concept really there if no one writes about it?
and the Modern Lovers say:
Oh well be not schmuck,
be not abnoxious,
Be not bellbottom bummer or asshole
Remember the story of Pablo Picasso
this project seems truly boring to me; and the whole issue of publicity should have very little to do with art making practice. i guess both christine baley and jordan block have accomplished the goal – to create a scandal, and quite successfully. i don’t know if i can call it art. there is nothing artistic in it on any level.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This is a comment on the Post website. I have to point out here that the show is still up at the T Rowe Building. So how does Sisteron see it every day??? Maybe she works at T Rowe and walks past it in that gorgeous lobby. Something smells fishy here… But, congrats, Sisteron, for buying a swell piece of truly fine … um… idea.
sisteron wrote: I feel compelled to comment here since I have purchased one of Christine Bailey’s New Work. Although I read the blogs on BmoreArt and the article in the Sun I purchased the perfect piece for myself. While Christine may have painted ‘in the style of’ Cara Ober, the work is unique to her. I purchased the piece based on what I saw in the art itself, and how it made me feel. Isn’t that what art is supposed to do? Make a person feel? I did not feel the same about Cara Ober’s work (I have seen hers as well). Christine’s New Work is truly fine. I have the pleasure of seeing it everyday, and I am thrilled to have one of my own.
i have a project for christine bailey: she should get other artists’ statements whose work she has never seen, and then do the work and exhibit it under their names (or hers; doesn’t matter). that at least would be interesting. the project she’s done was just boring.
I don’t think there was necessarily anything malicious intended in “New work”. I think it is a interesting idea. The problem is, it was executed terribly. In this sort of “conceptual work”, the idea really needs to be sound in order to surpass what the audience is physically looking at. Her concept falls apart on many levels. So much so, that it seems irresponsible because she risked compromising another artist without really achieving anything, especially not any good work. I think by containing it in a gallery setting she really confused possible interpertations.
I personal know Jordan very well and she is always working to scam a buck off someone. Someone in passing can ask her opinion on something then they are getting an invoice for a bill from her. Ridiculous.
She is a taker and always out to screw someone. Just ask the people who live in her building and I am sure you will get a 90% vote wishing she would leave the state of Maryland.
Jordan Faye Block is a money grubbing dirty wh$%re who will take from a baby in a baby carriage.