[daveart]

I missed this review a few weeks back and have just stumbled across it today.   In that I went to the Brooklyn Museum show and have followed FAILE for many years I admit i was a little interested to see what a NYT reviewer might say.  I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the high minded take down the reviewer does on the FAILE installation - and for good measure he had to pan the prayer wheel effort in Times Square.

I was really a bit sad about the review at first... and then I remembered that one reason i started buying street/urban art years ago was to get away from pencil pushing people that critiqued and put down everything they didnt quite think was up to their lofty standards.

www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/arts/design/review-faile-mines-the-dark-depths-of-modern-youth-with-two-exhibitions.html?_r=0

I saw literally hundreds of kid through teenage through adult people in the exhibit while i was there.. If the number of photographs being taken was any indication .....  the work is connecting to people in ways this reviewer doesnt quite get.  Sadly .. this reviewer has the mouth piece of the NYT at his disposal.

[BKBOI]

would like to get this critique's opinion on Stik

[Harveyn]

I will always love Faile's work. Its one of the reasons I fell in love with this genre. Faile and BAST do it for me all day long.

Edit: For typo caused by a weekend of drinking whilst watching the Rugby.  Ireland certainly know how to torture my soul.

[coller]

"An art review on Aug. 21 about the exhibitions “Faile: Savage/Sacred Young Minds,” at the Brooklyn Museum, and “Faile: Wishing on You,” which was in Times Square, misstated the ages of the two artists who work together under the name Faile. The artists, Patrick McNeil and Patrick Miller, are 39, not in their early 40s. The review, using information from the museum, also misstated the title of one of the figurative marble sculptures outside the large work “Temple” at the museum. It is “Fantasy Island,” not “Untitled (Girl With Skateboard).” The review also referred incorrectly to that work and “Eat With the Wolf.” They were carved by hand, not by machine. And the review also misidentified the material used to make the upper halves of cylinders based on Tibetan prayer wheels. It is Hooverite, not plastic."

That paragraph says a lot about the writer.

[met]

Oct 4, 2015 15:43:49 GMT 1 daveart said:

I missed this review a few weeks back and have just stumbled across it today.   In that I went to the Brooklyn Museum show and have followed FAILE for many years I admit i was a little interested to see what a NYT reviewer might say.  I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the high minded take down the reviewer does on the FAILE installation - and for good measure he had to pan the prayer wheel effort in Times Square.

I was really a bit sad about the review at first... and then I remembered that one reason i started buying street/urban art years ago was to get away from pencil pushing people that critiqued and put down everything they didnt quite think was up to their lofty standards.

www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/arts/design/review-faile-mines-the-dark-depths-of-modern-youth-with-two-exhibitions.html?_r=0

I saw literally hundreds of kid through teenage through adult people in the exhibit while i was there.. If the number of photographs being taken was any indication .....  the work is connecting to people in ways this reviewer doesnt quite get.  Sadly .. this reviewer has the mouth piece of the NYT at his disposal.

Cheers for posting that link to the International New York Times, which I hadn't previously seen.

Having just read the review, for me it doesn't come across as a take-down. I see it as simply a mixed assessment — Ken Johnson citing both what he found to his liking, and aspects he was disappointed by or where he felt potential had been left unfulfilled.

[As an aside, even more so than with the same artwork, it fascinates me how the same text can leave two people with overall impressions that are so different. I suppose this comes down to how each individual interprets language, and the associations they make with specific words or sequences of words.]

I was interested by your reference to "pencil pushing people that critiqued and put down everything they didnt quite think was up to their lofty standards", because I see this as precisely part of the role (in fact, the responsibility) of a reviewer. This is what I myself expect to read or hear from any commentator, regardless of whether or not I agree with their points of view.

Here's a hypothetical for you. It's intended to challenge but, for the avoidance of doubt, without hostile intent: If a pencil-pusher critiquing the Faile exhibition hadn't put anything down and had instead extolled everything without qualification because the whole show had been up to his or her lofty standards, would this have saddened you a bit as well?

What I'm curious to learn is what exactly you were saddened about at first with the Johnson review — whether it was the act of pencil pushing, or if having lofty standards was objectionable, or if it was just the fact that the views expressed were different to your own.

[daveart]

Hey Met.  I didnt really over think that post - i treat most of my posts on here to be in the vein of - consider we were three beers in to a conversation ... i don't really over think it too much..

but anyway , for discussion: a few key points for me:

1. "In recent decades, artists like Mike Kelley and Jim Shaw have fruitfully excavated the weird, dark side of adolescent consciousness"

he starts the article by basically talking up two other artists. seems odd.

2. "the more thought-provoking possibilities inherent in the topic of modern youth evade them"

really? i saw a whole lot of youth there in an otherwise mostly empty museum of art. in fact i saw youth literally speed walking through other galleries to get to the FAILE exhibit. and the writer apparently has vast knowledge of the "thought-provoking possibilities inherent in the topic of modern youth" .. but doesnt share them or explain exactly how his possibilities don't correspond with the possibilities that FAILE shows in their art.

3. The word Faile is a rearrangement of letters spelling “a life,” but there’s not a lot of real life in the duo’s work.

This is just an unnecessary and petty type of take down that isnt appropriate and clouds everything else he has to say. what possible objectivity can happen at this point ?

etc, etc.

So, at this point i dont think it is a real critique. he doesnt think there is any life in the work. etc, etc.

I dont see it as very much of an art review .. this is just an opinion piece and this guy doesnt like the art.


he could have say balanced this by pointing out that the museum show was very well attended, had a special Q&A session with the artists that was well attended and streamed online. maybe pointed out some #'s about attendance.. or a quote from the gallery about whether the show had been well received, etc, etc.

4. regarding the times square effort - "it has a certain quaint, old-fashioned appeal, which is about the nicest thing you can say for it."

really. that is the nicest thing you can say about it? again, i just dont understand

overall, i dont see anything in the review that really expresses any pleasure derived from the show. even the kids playing games are mindless and unaware. and yet. they are there. in a museum. which is a win for everyone possibly?

i think its great if people think this was a great review. i suppose like art - we all take away something very different.

i had just been to the show and was pretty pumped about it .. and then read this review.. and it was a total let down.

maybe he could have at least ended with " But if you like this type of thing .. please go support the museum and take a look around" ?? it seems to me that someone on the fence of going would read this and intentionally stay away . and that is unfortunate.

time for another beer

[monsoonking]

met

I have to agree with daveart. I think the review was pretty unambiguously a "take-down", especially by the standard of the NYT which tends toward the staid.

The interesting question is, did the reviewer judge the exhibit by the right standard? I.e. is FAILE's work really an exploration of adolescent culture (ala, say, Larry Clark) or is it an exploration of kitsch melodrama, the title being part of that over-the-top, pulp-fiction vein? I've never considered FAILE's work a treatment of "dark side of adolescent consciousness", rather, a study of the fairly absurd intersection between dramatic pop-machinations and hum-drum urban life.

[daveart]

One area I think I probably need to correct myself a bit is the difference in what makes an art show successful. I was approaching this as thinking the show its self was overall very successful. The reviewer could argue you can have an overall successful show with what he perceives to be art that is not all that interesting. Monsoonking has a point - i dont go see FAILE work to see deeply into anything really......... i just think its F'ing cool. maybe i am overly simplistic in my art critiques

brainwash seems to have the same impact on this board... people talk down the art but he keeps having successful shows. i guess overall that makes brainwash quite successful.

[sakyamuni]

I found this article interesting. As many street artist are now having exhibition in museums, I think it is fair that they are considered as artists exhibiting in a museum, whatever they have been doing in the streets or in the past.

to me this is a very different way to view their work, taking into consideration things that we usually ignore (title of artworks or shows, etc). It raises some interesting questions on the meaning of this work and the aesthetic chosen. For me, and I guess for many here, my main point is usually "do I like it or not", is it better or worst than the previous show, is the street work translates well in a gallery, etc... The fact that he likes the show or not is not really important for me, it pushes me to have a different look at the work of artists I like, and that's quite positive in my view... Thanks for sharing the article

[randomname]

I'm happy to know that I don't have the same taste in art as this guy.

[Archer Designs 13]

The article feels especially insidious to me because the writer appears to have no context (i.e. done no research) about Faile's body of work. While the show can of course be enjoyed (or not) on its own, his review is left wanting by placing it in a vacuum.

[cornholio]

Oct 7, 2015 15:46:02 GMT 1 sakyamuni said:

I found this article interesting. 

Interesting maybe. But it's really not a well written article. The fact that the corrections at the end are about half as long as the article itself is telling. The first time I read it I honestly assumed it must have been written by a very young writer, fresh out of college.

I mean who writes a critique in one of the world's largest newspapers and fills it with gems like this?
"The word Faile is a rearrangement of letters spelling “a life,” but there’s not a lot of 'real life' in the duo’s work."
or
"it has a certain quaint, old-fashioned appeal, which is about the nicest thing you can say for it."

Is he a vindictive 15 year old ranting about someone he doesn't like on Facebook or is he a journalist? Hard to tell from this stuff.

This review is one of the worst written critiques I've ever seen. Yes sure. There isn't an enormous amount of depth to the work of Faile, but there is way more to it than he'd ever give credit for. Personally my favorite artists ever are Duchamp and Chris Burden. They've created some of the most intellectual art ever made. But I don't want that all day every day. I like Faile. They're hard working, they've taken chances and they do a really good job of making aesthetically pleasing work --- at least most of the time. Their first big NYC show in the old decrepit Bowery space was really a breathtaking installation. One of the most memorable I've seen in the past 15 years. Maybe it wasn't as intellectual as some other shows, so what.

It's clear that this guy wrote this article for one single reason. Revenge. He has a bug up his a$$ because he clearly loves thought provoking intellectual deep art. And he's upset that Faile and other artists, who don't have as much depth, keep getting these public art installations while his favored "more deserving" artists keep getting looked over. And so he just had to write this to try and take Faile down a notch and get even.

It's childish and insulting to not just Faile but the people who enjoy their work and the institutions that have supported them over the years. I am very surprised that the NY Times editors let this through and put in print.

[cornholio]

He also criticizes Faile because there's no deeper meaning revealed by spinning the prayer wheels.

Give one cylinder a push, and it revolves, albeit for no particularly clear purpose.

With just cursory research he'd understand that spinning a prayer wheel is akin to reciting the prayer. What that explicitly means to Faile's prayer wheels adorned with modern references instead of prayers may be up for debate. But acting like the spinning exists for no reason shows how superficial his review is.

[Howard Johnson]

Oct 9, 2015 4:12:23 GMT 1 Archer Designs 13 said:

The article feels especially insidious to me because the writer appears to have no context (i.e. done no research) about Faile's body of work. While the show can of course be enjoyed (or not) on its own, his review is left wanting by placing it in a vacuum.

Archer, I think you hit the nail on the head. IMHO, this exhibition seemed to be more of a celebration of Faile's career then a standalone show where the artists explore a specific theme or topic. In that sense, the author's critiques are somewhat justified.

While the "Temple" was probably amazing to any fan's of Faile's work (I unfortunately did not see it in person), it functions like a greatest hits collection of their work without a clear focus. Images like "Happens Everyday," "Fight Temptation," and "Wolf Within" are each a fantastic exploration for their specific themes, but together the overall meaning becomes somewhat vague to a person without any prior knowledge of their work. That being said, I feel like a journalist has a duty to at least explore the background of an artists work that led them to that exhibition. Had this author done that, I feel like his opinion would have been very different.