Viewing entries in
James's Publications

Comment

Gallery Chronicle (May 2012)

BALLET1
Dancers Abbey Roesner, Morgan McEwen, Jace Coronado of "The Brodmann Areas A New Collaborative Ballet from Norte Maar"

THE NEW CRITERION
MAY 2012

Gallery Chronicle
by James Panero

On "The Brodmann Areas: A New Collaborative Ballet from Norte Maar,” “Jorinde Voigt” at David Nolan Gallery, “William Bailey: New Paintings” at Betty Cuningham Gallery, and “Tom Goldenberg: Recent Paintings and Works on Paper.”

A year ago, the outer-borough impresario Jason Andrew first took his vision of the Ballets Russes to Bushwick. He brought several of the neighborhood’s best artists together with the choreographer Julia K. Gleich for a run of dance performances called “In the Use of Others for the Change.” The event felt like a high-water mark for the Bushwick scene, a modernist tide lapping up against the pcbs of a Superfund Site with a riot of strange colors spreading out across the surface in a rainbow film.

This year, Andrew and Gleich scrubbed down the parts to revive the Bushwick ballet as “The Brodmann Areas: A New Collaborative Ballet from Norte Maar.”1 With visual artists, sound artists, and dancers all coming together, last year was something of a celebratory free-for-all, a sprawling jam session with one guitar hero after the next compounding the awesomeness until your thoughts turned to the line at the Porta-John. “Brodmann,” in contrast, took on the subject of cognition and didn’t dance around the big thoughts. Tight, far more spare than a year before, the performance brought the dance up front while still collaborating with Bushwick artists such as Paul D’Agostino, who created rapid projections out of his triptych cardboard collages. This time Ryan Anthony Francis, as musical director, also arranged a score to link the various parts into a coherent theme.

Named after the fifty-two areas of the cerebral cortex, the ballet’s chapters took on such subjects as hypnosis, taste and smell, and recognition. Dressed in costumes by the Bushwick artist Tamara Gonzales, the dancer Michelle Buckley gave form to memory and, with choreographed movement, recited Pi to 250 decimal places. In “Part II: accelerate. mitigation. toil. blizzard.” the sister artists Audra and Margo Wolowiec used video and sound to compare a thrown piece of string with a drawn line. The effect was meant to stimulate “Brodmann area six,” the center of coordinated movement.

Smart but also wise, the performance fortunately never took itself too seriously. In “Multi-Tasking,” the artist Lawrence (Lars) Swan gave the choreography of neuroscience a sardonic twist by rolling an unusable die and reading mind-bending aphorisms from notecards. One: “In 1909, a German anatomist named Korbinian Brodmann published a map of the brain to help anyone who lost his mind to find it again.” Another: “Where in my brain am I?”

Science and art have long had an under-acknowledged relationship. At their best, the two disciplines unlock the beauty of the other. In Portraits of the Mind, the neurobiologist Carl Schoon­over recently created a coffee-table book out of the beauty of brain imagery. The complexities of the brain only become more mysterious the better we understand them.

The most stimulating part of “Brodmann” came out of a section called “Crowding.” Denis Pelli, a professor of psychology and neural science at New York University, worked with Gleich on the choreography and even distributed a special program supplement before the performance. He instructed us to fix our eyes on the fluttering hand of the dancer Jace Coronado “no matter what” in order to enjoy the “splendors achieved by the other dancers in [our] peripheral vision.” For his day job, Pelli studies “object recognition, especially sensitivity to crowding.” His segment felt like the most controlled experiment of the evening.

Out of the corner of my eye, I can attest that the peripheral dancers appeared to amplify the movement of the “magic hand.” I look forward to Professor Pelli’s return to Bushwick to explain exactly why. If “In the Use of Others” was a celebration of what Bushwick had become, “Brodmann” gave direction for the road ahead. Science now mixes with painting, performance, technology, and sound to contribute to this neighborhood’s particularly innovative culture.

Voigt_Installation_11
Installation view of "Piece for Words and Views" by Jorinde Voigt

Drawing is often the art of arrangement. The fineness of pen or pencil on paper helps us order and analyze complex observations. It’s also experimental. On an inexpensive medium like paper, drawing can be worked over several times, discarded, flipped, rotated, and tried again. Finally, it’s open-ended. Unlike painting, which can look odd when not applied across the entire surface of a canvas, drawing is often at its best surrounded by open space, giving us something to work with as the composition continues to grow through our imagination.

The young German artist Jorinde Voigt takes full advantage of drawing by largely attending to nature’s unseen phenomena. Several series of her work filled three floors at David Nolan, the north Chelsea dynamo with a second outpost in Berlin, as the gallery brought Voigt to New York for the first time.2

Rather than order and arrange visual observation, Voigt takes on the direction of wind, flight patterns, the syncopation of music, time and temperature, and emotional attraction. The results could be a conceptual mess, but Voigt appears more interested in the connection of ideas than the ideas themselves. More importantly, she is a consummate draftsman. Her ink-on-paper compositions of arrows and swirling lines and tiny notations are astonishingly good. They are also a high-wire act. Unlike in a preparatory sketch, these drawings are a big reach and permanent on the first pass, with only one chance to get each line just right.

The Nolan show ran backwards, with Voigt’s earlier work of drifting, connecting lines, Staat Random I-XI (2008), collected floor-to-ceiling in the upper gallery. While these drawings may claim to document the movement of eagles or the dynamics of a pop song, here the compositions themselves become their own animating force, and the results are a knockout.

I wish I could say the same for the middle galleries. Here a sculptural piece featured propellers painted with spinning phrases like “He loves me. He loves me not” (Grammatik VII, 2010). Another offered up a series of painted rods meant to record the colors of a garden (Botanic Code, 2010). Unlike the suppleness of her drawings, each of these sculptures seemed stiff, weighted down with Dada and minimalist references, transitional half-thoughts between the different series on paper.

On the gallery’s first floor, Voigt’s thirty-six-part Pieces for Words and Views (2012) was stacked three high, floor to ceiling. Employing her own version of Sortes Virgilianae, the artist picked words out from Roland Barthes’s book “A Lover’s Discourse: Fragments” and constructed her own signage and direction to lead her from thought to thought. The result probably gives Barthes’s book a better treatment than it deserves, as Voigt takes up collage and color to give her work an extra compositional delight evolving from one panel to the next. In March, Voigt become the 2012 recipient of the Daniel & Florence Guerlain Contemporary Art Foundation’s biennial drawing prize, and with good reason. This charming, talented artist can draw just about anything and make it look good.

William Bailey

William Bailey, Afternoon in Umbria III (2012) 

With his singular handling of paint, William Bailey can impose a deep emotional charge on something as simple as an egg. His still lifes—or more like mind-lifes, since he paints from imagination—are compositions of jugs and tea cups that crackle with the same sensuality as his nudes. For his fourth exhibition at Betty Cuningham, Bailey goes outdoors and introduces two new motives: an empty courtyard, and two young women resting in the shade of a tree.3

Cuningham presents these paintings with a few examples of Bailey’s more familiar subjects. She also arranges the two new courtyard scenes next to each other on adjoining walls. As our eye moves from Empty Stage I (2011) to the larger Empty Stage II (2012), we notice the subtle adjustments Bailey makes from one composition to the next. By raising a roofline here, separating a corner there, adding sky here, and adjusting a figure there, Bailey alters the effect of each work. He understands the drama of little things. Even a simple shape can have emotional resonance. In the earlier iteration, the shadow of a roof comes over to the center of the foreground. In the later version, the sun spreads out, so that the position of the viewer is also in light, warming our overall sense of the image.

But Bailey is never obvious. While his nudes are not prurient, they are certainly strange. The two figures picnicking in his Afternoon in Umbria series are wonderfully odd. In each, the girl in a white dress isn’t so much asleep as passed out, splayed across the grass, while the second girl looks on. For a painter who can turn a water pitcher into an object of desire, here he creates some of the more charged compositions of his career and among the most mysterious.

Tom Goldenberg
Tom Goldenberg, Hunter's Ice (2011-2012)

In 2001, after Hilton Kramer wrote that Tom Goldenberg was “one of the most accomplished painters on the current scene,” I became both a friend and admirer of this consummate painter of landscape. In April, Goldenberg opened up his Long Island City studio in one of the smartest self-showings of an artist’s work I have seen, engaging the dealer William O’Reilly as his studio curator and publishing his own catalogue on his website.4

Goldenberg brings a background in abstraction to the hills, trees, fields, and streams of New York. He grinds his own pigments into supersaturated oils. He incorporates his own studies of classical draftsmanship, leading tours through the open stacks and special collections of the city’s libraries and museums. He cultivates his own simple snapshots of Dutchess County and Central Park into a lush garden of paint and brushwork, in a process that could be problematic but which he seems to exploit to its fullest potential.

In a highlight of the current show, Goldenberg takes a series of his preparatory photographs, which would usually be splattered with studio paint, and deliberately goes back into them with oil, combining a painted and photographed landscape into one composition. A few years ago, Gerhard Richter made a similar attempt, adding a daub of paint to his photographs and allowing his collectors to bring the joy of German nihilism into their homes at a fraction of the price they thought possible. By comparison, Goldenberg’s overpaintings are wondrous examinations of his own working process, where the final product rises above the cleverness of their manufacture.

In his paintings, Goldenberg can range from the very large, with canvases that are eight feet across, to landscapes a foot wide or less. Recently, he has been showing drawing as well, and several in both charcoal and ink are in the current show along with larger portraits of anthropomorphic cherry trees. I first saw Goldenberg’s landscapes through his small gem-like paintings, and, along with his drawings, I still like them best. Both the color and energy of his brush strokes can overrun his largest compositions. When restrained by scale or materials, his work is a tour de force, and a delight now to see in the place it was created.

 

1 “The Brodmann Areas: A New Collaborative Ballet from Norte Maar” was on view at the Center for Performance Research, Brooklyn, from April 12 through April 15, 2012.

2 “Jorinde Voigt” was on view at David Nolan Gallery, New York, from March 8 through April 28, 2012.

3 “William Bailey: New Paintings” opened at Betty Cuningham Gallery, New York, on March 29 and remains on view through May 12, 2012.

4 “Tom Goldenberg: Recent Paintings and Works on Paper” opened at 37–24 24th Street, Suite 213, Queens, on April 11 and remains on view by appointment at TomGoldenberg.com.

Comment

Comment

Supreme Court should have taken the Harmon rent control case


Do you have the right "real estate karma" to rent here? The UWS Harmon house with its three rent-regulated tenants. 

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
April 24, 2012

Supreme Court should have taken the Harmon rent control case
by James Panero

Current law allows for lavish living, practically for free

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from James and Jeanne Harmon, the owners of two townhouses on West 76th St. who have challenged the constitutionality of rent control.

In Harmon v. Kammel, the Harmons claimed that such controls meant that the government has essentially made them the private funder of a welfare program. It had also illegally taken their property in violation of the 5th Amendment, which reads that “no person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Rent control, they argued, has taken their private property “without just compensation.”

When the Harmons took ownership of their two small buildings, which had been in the family since 1949, they also got the tenants occupying three rent-controlled apartments. By law, these tenants now lease their apartments at 59% below market rate with lifetime tenure and generous succession rights.

A decade ago, one of Harmon’s tenants even bragged to a newspaper that he lived there “practically free” due to his great “real estate karma.”

Monday’s Supreme Court decision might only sound like a setback for landlords like the Harmons, but really it’s bad news for our entire city, which has long been the victim of a disastrous and near fatal experiment in price fixing. This is especially true for neighborhoods like the upper West Side, where I have been a lifelong resident.

Rent control was an “emergency” measure put in after World War II that stayed on the books for political convenience, even as it nearly bankrupted our city’s aging housing stock. These laws, which came out of a fear of the dangers of the free market, in fact demonstrated how government-manipulated pricing could be far more destructive than market forces.

With rents, services and evictions all regulated by the legislature and the courts, the city and state became the absentee landlords of neighborhoods like the upper West Side.

Power flowed from a politician’s apparent ability to depress rental rates for existing tenants while “taking on” the buildings’ now captive owners for diminishing services.

The city’s price controls, among the most stringent in the country, meant that the rate of apartment turnover plummeted. This created an artificial apartment shortage that continues to raise the rental rates of new construction. Since lower rent also meant that existing owners had less revenue for upkeep, for years aging buildings decayed for lack of funds, meaning that politicians could exert even greater rhetorical leverage over their “slumlord” conditions.

Historically, rent control has exacted its heaviest toll on the very tenants it purports to serve. The wealthy could maintain multiple residences while keeping their sprawling and under-used rent controlled apartments off the market.

Corrupt tenants learned to manipulate their rents even further by calling in phony complaints to the Department of Buildings and suing for bogus “diminution of services” in order to tie up rate increases in litigation (the practice remains commonplace today). Meanwhile, average, honest renters became hostage to the artificially depressed rents of their apartments as rent control diminished surplus and drove up the prices of alternative rental apartments.

Even as their building and their neighborhood collapsed around them, they were often unable to afford to relocate and became increasingly captive to the whims of a political class that purported to have a say in rental rates.

What saved New York wasn’t rent control. It was the cooperative revolution. Stocked with rent-controlled and rent-regulated tenants, the aging buildings in neighborhoods like the upper West Side, despite their grandeur, became next to worthless to their owners.

In the 1970s and 1980s, non-eviction plan coop conversions finally allowed owners to sell shares of their buildings to their own rent-controlled and rent-stabilized tenants, who could then invest their capital and sweat equity into the restoration of the neighborhood. Rather than taking on the landlords, as landlords themselves they took on the squalor of their neighborhood and restored areas like the upper West Side to what we see today.

Despite the damage done to our neighborhoods, rent control and rent regulation still feeds our city’s political machine. In 2008, Rep. Charlie Rangel, with a reported net worth of $566,000 to $1.2 million, was even caught taking up four rent regulated apartments for his personal use.

If the courts won’t take it on, the time has come for New Yorkers to do the right thing in the voting booth and say no to a system that has given their politicians a free ride while damaging their neighborhoods almost beyond repair.

Comment

1 Comment

Time for Tim Tebow to Stand Tall

Tim Tebow appearing in Superbowl commercial for Focus on the Family, 2010

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
April 1, 2012

Time for Tim Tebow to stand tall
by James Panero

His voice and values may be just what New Yorkers are looking for

Out of the circus that has surrounded the arrival of the Jets new backup quarterback, one thing is clear: New York has never seen a culture warrior like Tim Tebow — a fact that could challenge the city in profound ways.

For this “muscular Christian,” football and faith have been a winning combination. And like his game on the field, Tebow’s powers of religious persuasion didn’t come by chance. They date back long before his star turn for the Denver Broncos, his championship runs with the Florida Gators or the local squad he joined as a home-schooled teenager.

Tebow is an evangelist — not just for his Christian faith, but more importantly, for the kind of living it commands. And now, rather than that message being spread in more conservative Colorado, Tebow has the opportunity to practice what he preaches on the world’s largest stage.

In a city where sky-high abortion rates are rarely questioned, he should spotlight the problem. In a city where churches are being forced out of public schools on weekends, he should speak for them. In a city where abstinence-only sex education is passé to the powers that be, he should connect with young people on the virtues of saving oneself for marriage.

Call it Tebow’s biggest mission.

Abortion is the first and most obvious opportunity. The son of Baptist missionaries, Tebow was born in the Philippines. While pregnant, his mother Pam went against doctors’ orders and refused to have an abortion. This story has long informed Tebow’s own pro-life beliefs. During the 2010 Super Bowl, the organization Focus on the Family famously aired a pro-life advertisement featuring her being “tackled” by her loving son.

The ad proved to be a simple and positive treatment of a mother’s love for her “miracle baby.” “He almost didn’t make it into this world,” she said. “I can remember so many times when I almost lost him.”

Airing this soft-sell ad despite the pushback from abortion groups became a victory for Tebow and his convictions. He later claimed that a survey revealed that 5.5 million viewers changed their stance to pro-life because of its message. A football star can be a powerful argument against an abortion that had once been presented as a medical necessity.

What better place to repeatedly make the case than in New York City? This is the country’s “abortion capital,” with the highest rate of any city in the nation. Yet it’s rarely discussed that fully 40% of all pregnancies here end in abortion — 83,000 in 2010 — compared to 23% nationally, according to the Chiaroscuro Foundation.

It’s not that New Yorkers are happy about the fact: Two-thirds of us, including a majority of pro-choice supporters, believe these numbers are too high. It’s just that we’d prefer not to think about it. That may be coming to an end; it’ll be impossible for Tebow to ignore the epidemic in his new backyard.

Second, Tebow should challenge a city administration that’s been downright hostile to a few dozen small churches fighting for the right to use public school space on weekends. If secular groups can rent the spaces, the churches contend, why should religious organizations be forbidden?

But that’s precisely what Michael Bloomberg has fought to do, citing a policy prohibiting “worship services” that courts have, up until now, endorsed.

A visit from Tebow to the Bronx Household of Faith, which is at the eye of this storm, would send a powerful message and likely change many minds.

And imagine if, instead of only serving as a spokesman for car dealerships and clothing brands like other sports stars, Tebow also uses his celebrity to sell New Yorkers on the evangelical Christian values that course through his bloodstream. For example, back in 2009, Tebow openly admitted in a press conference that he was a virgin — an earnest and honest expression of his convictions.

That sort of straight talk could win him many converts of the literal kind. Kids wearing his jersey might think twice before getting pressured by peers to engage in irresponsible behavior.

None of this is a leap of faith: Unlike Charles Barkley, who famously chafed when called a “role model,” Tebow embraces the term.

The Tim Tebow Foundation, which the football star first envisioned when he was an undergraduate, now uses “the public platform that God has blessed Tim Tebow with to inspire and make a difference in people’s lives throughout the world,” according to its website. As the testimonial from coaching legend Tony Dungy makes clear, “His leadership and Christian values set an example not just for his teammates, but for all young people.” Now, he has the opportunity to set an example for New Yorkers of all ages.

In the process, he just might call New York City to recognize its true character, hidden in plain sight. Much has been made about the pious Tebow landing in a heathen town. “So the Denver Broncos have sent quarterback Tim Tebow to the New York Jets, which is akin to dropping the Christian among the lions,” wrote Tracee Hamilton in the Washington Post.

It’s a common refrain, but it relies on a caricature. New York is far from the Gomorrah that Woody Allen describes in “Annie Hall”: “Don’t you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we’re left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes, and I live here.”

In fact, Andrew A. Beveridge, a professor of sociology at Queens College and a demographer at Gotham Gazette, reports that an “estimated 6.8 million New Yorkers — or more than 83% of the population — were identified as being affiliated with some organized religion in 2000.”

Just how religious does that make New York City? More religious than all states except Louisiana and “even slightly higher than Utah,” writes Beveridge.

From the tallest church in America — Riverside Church, at 22 stories — to the seat of a newly reinvigorated Catholic archdiocese led by Timothy Cardinal Dolan, to the epicenter of American Jewry, to evangelical ministries now sprinkled into old theaters throughout the city, New Yorkers take their religion seriously but silently.

Tebow’s words and, more importantly, his actions, can help get religion out further into the public square.

“If people are still somehow talking about prayer or talking about my faith, then I think that’s pretty cool,” Tebow said on Monday.

Just days after his arrival, that strategy is already working.

UPDATE: Syracuse Post-Standard picks up on this story and reports the Jets may have other ideas for their backup quarterback.

1 Comment