general

The better reporting -- and art criticism -- regarding Ryder Ripps' "Art Whore" piece came not from the art world but from the "hipster" media. Michelle Lhooq's* Vice article attempted a rational, pros-and-cons defense of the work, after the art sites served up mostly kneejerk reaction.

Lhooq thinks the main point of the piece is exploring the definition of consent. I'd say the main point is the continuing use of fine art by the FIRE sector** as a sweetener for property values, in a city where artists can no longer afford to live. (To recap, Ripps thumbed his nose at a hotel that invited him to work gratis as a one-night "artist in residence" by making an elaborate prank aimed at the, let's just say, less-discussed side of their business; this was more effective than simply refusing the commission.) The debates over "exploitation" served as a distraction to discredit the piece, to FIRE's ultimate benefit.

*LHOOQ is a famous Marcel Duchamp punchline, so Michelle isn't a complete art outsider.

**Finance, Insurance and Real Estate, a term used by Robert Fitch and others to describe an extractive, rather than productive economy.

Michael Connor says, on Rhizome, "I'm ... a bit dismayed by your attack on closed Facebook discussions."

That's a classic diversionary argument. I guess he means this post. My reply:

I didn't say that "every viewpoint, however unpopular, must be expressed in full public view." As you say, the parameters of [Rhizome's] "archiving" [of social media discussions] haven't been defined yet. Some form of "monitoring" [those] channels (as in auditing, listening to, finding some way to parse) is badly needed, if that's the new place for discourse. We've talked about this -- now you're putting an Orwellian spin on my words.

Heather alludes to "debates" from those channels that touched off your tweet and this post. You should at least summarize the high points. You don't have to say who said what.

Facebook itself is not public! Ripps has said his discussion was "friends only."

Art F City applied a double standard by liberally screenshotting from Ripps' discussion, and yet scrupulously refusing to copy the complaints against his project from a "private, women-only Facebook group."

You made your own assessment, in writing this post, based on what you could read of Ryder's comments (that I did not have access to) but not his accusers'.

This is a perfect example of why some kind of etiquette needs to be worked out in copying, referring to, or, yes "monitoring" social media art discussions.

Not being on Facebook/Instagram is pure heaven but sometimes you miss some nuances of "public" debates.
Apparently the campaign against the Ryder Ripps Craigslist-masseueses-making-art-in-a-hotel project originated with one or more "private facebook groups."
That's a hoot right there -- these groups are "private" to the people they are dissing but not to the US government or the person in Bangalore monitoring their conversations for unclean thoughts.
The smear job was fully hatched by the time Art F City and Rhizome.org picked it up, and legitimized it by referring to pre-existing "debates."
In the '00s this was called "Swift boating." A page like Drudge would post argument masquerading as fact, a mainstream publication would refer to the Drudge item as being "out there on the internet," then when the controversy blew up the mainstreamers would say the controversy itself was newsworthy.
Rhizome.org and Art F City were quick to tell us the bad things about Ripps' project but we learned next to nothing about the star chambers where the "debates" originated.
One of these star chamber types (I assume) was on AFC spreading lies last week and folded like a wet Ramen noodle in a back and forth discussion.
At one point Rhizome's conservator planned to monitor "social media" -- that would have been helpful here as we could see both sides of the "debate" -- the private witch hunting as well as Ripps' hastily-erased inflammatory responses. A reader could make an informed decision about whether the project was, in fact, exploitative or misogynistic.
Instead Rhizome presented a reasonable-seeming comparison of the "ethically unsound" Ripps project with an ethically sound project by Andrea Fraser. And AFC asked if Ripps' work was the "most offensive of 2014."
This gave the Facebook secret society justification for its brown shirt tactics in the name of political correctness (which are continuing, am sorry to hear).

Update: I used the word "monitor" twice here. That was sloppy writing, and gave Rhizome's Michael Connor an excuse to avoid responding to the argument and to be "dismayed" that I thought Rhizome planned to spy on social media. Let's clear this up. When I was talking about Facebook listening in on private convos I did mean monitor in the sense of spying (for dirty pictures and topics that are too politically hot -- this has all been in the news). As for Rhizome "monitoring" social media, that was meant in the sense of "track" or "pay attention to" or "find some way to make sense of," which is an ongoing conversation we've had, about the need for institutional art spaces to come to grips with the fact that art dialogue has moved away from them and into "social" (i.e. commercial) channels. Connor knows this. They never planned to spy on private convos, d'oh, but this Ripps thing reveals precisely the dilemma of knowing how much an institution should cover when one convo generates a smear from behind a privacy shield, another is "friends only," and yet another is fully public, as in Google-searchable. In this case, Rhizome used some of the private dirt (outraged misinterpretation characterized as "debates," artist gaffes) and never gave "public" opponents a chance to argue.

One of Art F City's commenters had a bee in his smock that I was defending Ryder Ripps, who "doesn't need my help" because the recent controversy over Craiglist sensual masseuses helped Ripps "cement his bad-boy brand." My reply:

There might be reasons other than defending Ryder or "contrarianism" for objecting to two NY non-profits lowering the ban hammer on an artist. It sets a bad precedent. Saying you're not going to review a future show because of someone's previous art, or using a phrase like "ethically unsound" (which has a vaguely Soviet ring to it) ought to be addressed, so I did it. I've mentioned other artists who might also be provocateurs, yet haven't been dissed by the art authorities. Andrew Norman Wilson's takedown of the Google badge system was pure click magic, and see my questions regarding Antonellis' "Poland Spring" piece on AFC today. This is not an issue related to one particular attention-hungry artist, but you seem to have fixated on that. Also, "contrarianism" as I understand the term means opposing popular opinion for its own sake, or to stir up trouble, rather than having actual beliefs and principles.

Regarding that Ryder Ripps art piece where he hired Craiglist sensual masseuses to make drawings on paper in a NY hotel that was underpaying him to be an artist-in-residence. It's certainly not any more "offensive" than the Andrew Norman Wilson piece where he collaborated remotely with a mechanical turk-style worker in Bangalore to make an artwork. Both involve A-list white dude artists exposing civilians-just-trying-to-get-by to the glories of conceptual art. The Ripps work had more of a sleazy sexual dimension, but then, so do hotels.
Wilson got away with it -- as far as I know, his reputation is untouched. Ripps didn't, at least with his erstwhile promoters Art F City and Rhizome. Both repudiated him and hoisted him onto the pillory of politically correct sanctimony. The righteousness of these dismissals was off the charts. Real Cotton Mather stuff, except Mather didn't use mealy-mouthed phrases like "ethically unsound." This is an artist, not a politician, he's not held to the same standards of public trust and you don't talk about his work in the same disgraced tones you would if a Congressman sent dick pics to a girlfriend.
It's especially ripe that the two organizations in question "made" Ripps with fawning coverage, in happier times. Rhizome flattered him by offering his Facebook downloads as an "art" giveaway to subscribers and nominated him for a "Prix Net Art", while AFC's Paddy Johnson praised his honesty and candor in an adoring profile, among other plugs.
Message to artists: "One work of art that slightly embarrasses us and you're a dead person."