Cindy Tower pro and con
The review I wrote about the Cindy Tower show at the Sheldon - one of five short notices about the current Sheldon roundup - has generated a firestorm of criticism on the digital forum criticalmass. If you want to see what the brouhaha is all about, go here.
Although I am repeatedly excoriated for failing to support local artists, a category for which Tower, who came here 3 years ago to teach at Washington University, barely qualifies, hardly anyone - thank you, Robert Goetz - notices that a very positive review of David Hanlon, a photographer who teaches at the Meramec campus of St. Louis Community College, immediately preceded the Tower coverage. To my eyes, his work is good, hers is bad. That’s all. My reviews had nothing to do with where they work.
I admit that my review of Tower was harsh, but she has enjoyed positive press elsewhere - she is favorite of Malcolm Gay and the RiverFront Times - and, as a grown-up, she should be able to handle it. She’s not some babe in the woods. If you put your art work out there in the world, you have to be prepared to hear the response.
Anyway, I love the discussion that has ensued. Controversy is good in the arts. If we all had exactly the same responses to art what good would it be?
Furthermore, I believe that too many mediocre artists get a free ride from society - art schools are the lead culprits here. With the explosion in attendance, art schools need to hire teachers. There aren’t enough good teachers to go around, so you end up with losers in the bitter competition to get to the top of the art world teaching the next generation how not to succeed. Maybe the economic crisis will clean out the stables.
If you want to read the review, go here.
Don’t forget the old adage of “those who can do, those who can’t teach.”
Why is it a given that controversy is good for the arts? As with art, controversy is sometimes good and sometimes bad. Your job as a critic is to be able to distinguish the good from the bad and be able to support your conclusions.
Personally I wish you had let it die. Criticalmass is one of my favorite local arts resources and I’m tired of this tempest in a teapot.
I agree with a lot of what you said there. And I could see where you were coming from on your review of Tower’s work- it’s just your opinion. I’m unsure why anyone would be that upset. If you are going to put your work out there, be prepared for someone to be critical- you have to be tough if you are gonna do that. It’s ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY. Be ready to pour your heart and soul into something, all to have no one get it/appreciate it- it happens all the time. I’m fully aware a lot of people don’t like MY work- they let me know all about it! I listen to all sides, but in the end I have to do what I do, ya know. People have different expectations of the art they are viewing.
Critic peter Scheldahl suggested, that it’s only possible to do art criticism in a city like New York, where you can make a new enemy every day. The growing whispering campaign to get Bonetti fired, circulating around various email inboxes, proves Scheldahls point on the face of it. Bonetti is at least brave enough to state his criticism in public in a reasonably entertaining manner. Bonetti’s comments are tame in comparison to newspaper critics in larger art markets. The long knives brigade might want to consider if they want to have a writer risk their career by covering the vindictive and petty scene here as a replacement for Bonetti.
Maybe this discussion would have died if the “petty pontifications” of some other local critics on critical mass and more private avenues would have let it. Instead we are subjected to emails filled with “strawman” tactics in an effort to discredit Bonetti all the while the artist in question is using our discussion to make you tube videos trying to sell us a poorly crafted and concepted cheese board.
Mr Bonetti -
You refer to the packs of rabid dogs roaming the areas Cindy Tower chooses to paint. Her own dog was once one of them until she chose to rescue him from the street in East St Louis and give him a loving home.
Like all dogs, he occasionally needs to relieve himself indoors - your review should be the paper of choice.
Kit Henningsen
Even if you disagree, Bonetti should be commended for encouraging discussion.
(Unlike the classical music critic who discourages and avoids discussion)
As long as you can back up what you say, then go ahead and say it. Your argument was sound.
It’s nice to see most people on commenting on this blog are a bit more understanding of an art critics job. A lot of the people who posted on Critical Mass have no idea what they are talking about. Some have given very wrong information, for example; Cindy Tower is not a local artist. Forgive me if I’m wrong but hasn’t she only been hear a few short years? It’s her job that brought her here. Either way, I don’t think that qualifies as a good example of “local” artist. I agree with Tim, “say what you want if you can back it up.” Bonetti did. Some of the Critical Mass posters are not able to back up what they say. Some seem to be blaming Bonetti for all their pent up frustrations as an artist in STL, Some do seem to be self-promoting, Some just seem personally mean to both Bonetti and Cindy with no other intention than to hurt, few are truly supportive of either. I go to a lot of art openings in STL and I can guarantee most of these Anti-Bonetti emailers don’t. Perhaps these bleeding hearts and artists need to toughen up and practice what they preach. Getting rid of STL’s self-degrading attitude towards the art community or anything else, will never be solved by putting on rose colored glasses and giving fake support. Bonetti is a refreshingly honest critic and that’s something STL needed for a very, very long time. Keep up the good work Mr. Bonetti!!! So many of us would hate to loose you!
Bonetti,
It is now obvious to everyone that you are a very confused and insecure person. I know for a fact that the local artists and college art teachers understand the important role of art criticism. The issue here is not if a review is positive or negative. In fact a negative review generates more publicity and discourse than a positive one. Your current “harsh” (in your words)review of Towers is poorly crafted art criticism. What I request from you, and have spoken to your editor about, is the quality of your writing.
It matters to no one if you, one individual, believes work to be good or bad. What matters if you are capable of giving us some new insight, or illuminate something that brings a greater understanding of the work you have chosen to write about. It is unacceptable for you to insult an entire community in a review of a single artist. That is lazy, inept writing.
If you were my student I would suggest you do more research, you work harder, and visit the library more often. Maybe take some courses outside of your chosen area of “expertise” to expand your base knowledge.
You have lost your credibility as a critic when you do not understand the difference between insult and intelligent,perceptive critique.
So now you believe it is the role of the critic to attack individuals that teach art. Just curious, what makes you think you know ANYTHING about the “careers’ of the hundreds of dedicated hard working college teachers who in most cases are overworked and underpaid? Yes there are teachers of varying degrees of expertise or competence but it is not your place to now tell us who is a bad teacher and who is a good one.
I could write a thesis on how much you suck but honestly David I have more important things to do, like research, or making art, or preparing for the difficult and demanding task of guiding young artist to find their voice, hone there skills and hopefully lead them in the right direction. As I have stated in previous communications…WE DESERVE BETTER…do your homework sonny.
Gary Passanise
ps. You have my personal email. Your last response to my letter was, as expected, impotent. Try harder David. I think you have some limited potential as a writer so do not give up! Study more.