Wow.
I haven't seen the January Art in America, but I've heard, through subscribers who have already received their copies, about the "FRONT PAGE" article, "Art in the Blogosphere." The issue still hasn't reached the stores, and there's nothing on their site, but I did receive a scanned image from one generous blogger.
Barry writes that I've achieved fame in the print media.
[for more on the story see Joy garnett]
This modest site, jameswagner.com, is one of twelve included in a list assembled for the magazine by Raphael Rubinstein, who writes in his introduction, ". . . there are now quite a few interesting art-related blogs. Here is a list, briefly annotated, of those that I've found to be worth regular visits."
My first reaction was shock, especially when I heard how short the list was. When I finally saw it I realized that a number of important people weren't there. If the list actually means anything, I think it's quite unfair. I can only explain my inclusion as something of a fluke, especially since I'm "not in the industry" (in the words of a friend who is, Michael Gillespie). Not only do I have no academic credentials in the fine arts, but I'm also neither a working artist nor a critic, I'm not selling anything, and I can buy very little.
I'm a fan.
Then I thought (again, if the list actually means anything), wow!, the blogosphere makes it pretty easy to become slightly famous. Without the financial resources, the connections, real talent or probably even the will to get "published," a lot of people now see the stuff I upload.
If I can do that, almost anyone should be able to. I wonder if this world is ready for us.
Scary.
But I'm not going to let the pressure get to me. (the audience is hushed here) This is going to remain the very independent, subjective and idiosyncratic arts-politics-and-whatever blog it's been for two and a half years. With the arts I write only about (some of) the things that please me; with everything else it could be praise, condemnation, plain observation, or just a silly whim. I also try to amuse with decent images whenever possible, while trying to avoid overwhelming bandwidth with their size or number.
>
This is probably why they found your blog notable. Traditional media tends to provide access to little other than proffessional academics, critics and artists. Blogs by art lovers who are not professionals or have the resources to be world class collectors provide a voice to the previous silent majority of those who visit museums and galleries. As a RISD dropout and refuge, I hate art academics. Most tend to be in their own little world and are detatched freom the general population for whom art theoretically is created for. News blogs are changing media for the better, ie the story of how the GOP was funding and canvassing most of Nader's effort to get on swing state ballots was broken by Kos and other bloggers not by professional journalists. Hopefully art blogs will find the same power. Giving a voice to small collecors of modest means. Promoting and giving exposure to new artists whose work is not catered to credentialed professionals, promoted through "liasons" with prominent gallery owners or arising out of communities normally shut out of the maintream artworld. Go Jim!!!!!
Congratulations ! Oh, and by the way, you deserve note.
I find the work of most art critics and mags repulsive (including a few bloggers), so is good to read and look at a blog that doesn't feel like it has a tenure committee looking over its shoulder.
As a full time art consultant, I'm an avid reader of most of the popular art magazines.
I find Art In America features some of the worst contemporary art available. I have no idea what their criteria is for reviewing art but it leaves a lot to be desired.
Great news about the Blogosphere article though.