Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by missmarymack, 05.29.02 09:17 am
I could have sworn those copies started at $12.95! Maybe susanh grabbed the=
bargain.
Otherwise, there's one for twenty bucks at:
<A HREF="http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=2529305&domain_id=
=1856&meta_id=1">half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=2529305&domain_i=
d=1856&meta_id=1</A>
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by Door, 05.29.02 09:37 am
Truly I am not interested in belatedness, and the rest was antidotal,
and I won't give another luxury, it means little except in the context in w=
as
written—it was a dazing experience.
But I guess you can fathom that.
I feel it was expressed clearly—Good Luck—Isn't that transp=
arent.
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by BPrevidi, 05.29.02 10:35 am
I have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you're talking about now.
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by susanh, 05.29.02 11:26 am
BPr…I don't know but I think you should stay away from the Door…somethi=
ng
eerie is going on there…it's difficult not to read personal notes back an=
d
forth without getting vibes…
And MMM-I snagged the bargain…I can't wait to see what all the hulabaloo =
is
all about…many thanks.
As Ever, susanh.
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by missmarymack, 05.29.02 12:34 pm
Yikes. I hope the 91 catalogue was the one you were really after. You wrote=
1991 in your post, and I figured you were responding to BPrevidi's comment=
about how that Biennial was his favorite. I fear I led you astray—E=
lizabeth
Sussman's notorious Biennial took place in 1993.
I don't remember the 91 show very well, but the catalogue is nice. I do
remember that Richard Armstrong wrote a clear, informative essay for that=
one. Hope you like it!
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by susanh, 05.29.02 01:11 pm
Hmmm, yes, it's the '91 Biennial, not the '93. I should have been more
attentive to the dates but I am all for collecting and it still will be
useful. Now, I will search for the '93…
Peace, susanh.
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by Art Boner, 05.29.02 01:38 pm
…and here's a motherlode of biennial catalogues dating back to '79:
<A HREF="http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=&title=whitney+bien=
nial+&submit=Begin+Search&new_used=*¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=s=
r&ac=qr">www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=&title=whitney+biennial+&
submit=Begin+Search&new_used=*¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=
=qr</A>
or if the link is funky, go to www.bookfinder.com and plug in "whitney
biennial"
yo.
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by Door, 05.29.02 04:13 pm
Oh susanh, you picked it up, good, I wasn't sure it it was coming through=
—
-don't worry they were not for you.
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by BPrevidi, 05.29.02 04:27 pm
Well, what did I do to deserve it?
I have been nothing but well-behaved.
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by missmarymack, 05.29.02 04:40 pm
Absolutely true. You've been the perfect gent.
Hence I nominate Mr. Previdi for host of the board.
Wait. There's no such thing.
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by Door, 05.29.02 04:57 pm
Best get back to your review of the biennial.
And without anomy, the perfect gent would leave the name out next time roun=
d.
Try it—it may work for you!
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by missmarymack, 05.29.02 05:02 pm
Try what?
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by BPrevidi, 05.29.02 05:08 pm
Hey! You're the one who wrote your name. I just added the uber-polite prefi=
x
of "Mssr."
Anyway, back to Biennial reviewing. This time it's 1991 to refresh MMM's
memory:
Favorite parts: A room full of large interiors by Lichtenstein; Pat Steir's=
gorgeous, towering waterfall paintings; minimal assemblage work by
Rauschenberg; walls that breathed by Wendy Jacob; Rona Pondick's little
stools which greeted me at the elevators; and seeing Adam Fuss' photograms=
for the first time.
Low points: Dawn Fryling's bright lights pointed at empty frames (what was=
that?) and those scary Nayland Blake surgical steel sculptures.
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by missmarymack, 05.29.02 05:22 pm
Wow. I don't remember any of that, not even the Lichtensteins. Pathetic.
All I remember is a Glenn Ligon black-and-white stencil rubout painting
(maybe there were two). That was my first encounter with his work and boy i=
t
drew me like a magnet.
That was 91, wasn't it?
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by Door, 05.29.02 05:34 pm
MissMary what do you want?
I have no problem with you at all.
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by BPrevidi, 05.29.02 05:40 pm
There were at least 3, maybe 4 of Ligon's pieces. They were quite good. I=
don't think he's outdone himself since, which is a shame.
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by BPrevidi, 05.29.02 05:41 pm
Do you have a problem with me?
What did I do?
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by missmarymack, 05.29.02 06:01 pm
Door, I just want to know what you mean.
When I understand you, I appreciate your insights. But much of the time
you're too cryptic for me to understand. It's OK if that's the way you want=
to play it, but I will complain.
Three or four! Were there any paintings from Ligon's dream series? I will=
have to dig up that catalogue.
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by Door, 05.29.02 06:15 pm
Sure—fair enough.
Try what/
Being a gent without anomy.
Re: more of what did y'all think of the artforum review of the biennial?
by BillPrevidi, 05.29.02 06:19 pm
(I had to change my posting name. A message popped up that said I'd posted=
too much and that I need to get some sleep!!! How embarrassing.)
Well, some autobot's not going deter me!
Dream series? No. What do they look like?
Another big deal in that show were Chuck Close's paintings. I was familiar=
with them in print, but in person they're entirely different.
So, so good. And the show's installation was also impressive.
See? That's what a Biennial should be. A mix of the seasoned, the mid-caree=
r
and the underknown.
Whereas this past Biennial was undercooked and could have used a little
seasoning.
pish
-
Type: discussion