already a subscriber? Register me
Subscribe now See my options


  • We reserve the right to close commenting on specific stories.

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Limit of 2000 characters, 2000 characters remaining

Sort by
Comment threads per page: 10 | 20 | 50
  1. i'll rework an idea i pitched to the MARN listserv here...

    why not have the guards work double duty as docents/educators? or even one or two of them?

    most of the guards are Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design (MIAD) graduates anyway. why couldn't they ask visitors, "Do you have any questions?" isn't that what people expect anyway? could they hand out brochures? engage the public. ESPECIALLY children.

    it's not like they are tackling art vandals. they aren't allowed to put their hands on anybody anyway (for insurance reasons).

    there are probably peek family visit times where some out of work art education graduates could be on hand to engage people.

    we NEED to rethink how we engage art viewers before their numbers dwindle more.

    aren't arts organizations just as interested (or 10x more) than Banana Republic to engage visitors, give them a positive experience, and encourage them to return?
  2. Hello Mary Louise (and the entire world),

    One thing that is fascinating about this whole situation and hasn't really been addressed is that when you make a public posting to the world you become a public figure subject to public scrutiny. The Internet isn't neutral. If you imagine you are only addressing the people in your social group who think along the same lines, you might think twice and just invite them over for a chat in your home instead of broadcasting your opinions to the the world. The world, as we see, is watching, and drawing it's own conclusions, however right or wrong they may be. Remember the recorded death threats to Mike Brenner because of his publicly posted sentiments about the Bronz Fonz and how others turned those recordings into audio parodies? I think it's healthy that nothing is sacred. I don't know if Picasso was right, but he certainly provides a warning.

    I do think the rhetorical question of "What would happen if artists went into the studio with Emily Thomas in mind?" is answered by many artists already who create art for people like her. They just don't get invited to MAM much but can be seen at small galleries, plein air events, art fairs, frame shops, malls, and other outlets. Art is one big continuum from the watercolor over the sofa that your aunt painted to the most radical experiments that shake up the history of the field as determined by critics and museums. It's a big world.

    I happen to prefer Aleksandr Rodchenko's 1921 Monochome Tryptich to Elsworth Kelly's, but I guess the museum couldn't score that one. Still, its an interesting piece to consider how far in that direction you can go and have it considered art. Regarding revealing flesh, all you have to do is turn on the tv or open a magazine or shop for pop music to have seen more in what is commonly accepted as popular culture in America today. It's so common, you'd expect it to be in a museum.

    Best regards,

    Thomas Gaudynski
  3. I find it fascinating, Thomas, that you believe the only artists who can make art for the Emily Thomases of the world are those who create for frame shops and malls.

    Let me ask that question again, in a different way, a way David Robbins inspires me to ask the question (and I think his show at the Green Gallery East right now very much engages this idea): Can we make pop culture smarter? Is there a place for intellectualism in the mainstream? Can artists make challenging, relevant, smart work that engages within existing pop culture models and that do not require an ounce of background in art history?

    What would happen if we stopped pointing figures at the "uneducated masses" (some of which is certainly justified) and asked ourselves if the modes of art making might, in fact, be too limited?
  4. i was unable to leave a comment on emily thomas's blog. i wanted to ask her about her comment, “woman with her breasts hanging out.” that's considered "art" to that artist and to some those in the public. i wanted to ask her if she finds her breasts beautiful or if men have ever found her breasts beautiful. if her own breasts have been considered "artistic" (i'm using that term loosely), why shouldn't an artist be able to paint them.

    i'm a playwright/actor in LA (Wisconsin native, and big fan of Mary Louise's column). i have readings of my plays to hear them out loud. my actors and audience members are free to make comments and suggestions. i listen and take note. the final product is of my choosing - no one dictates what i choose to write about or how i write it.

    there are two issues here: the artist's mission statement and the patron's perception (i think). the idea of inviting people patrons like emily into an artist's studio is intriguing. whether the artist remains true to his or her passion OR compromises that passion to sell their work or get noticed....that's a fine line.
    and there's that danger that artists lose their "voice" in the trade-off of what's deemed "acceptable" by the public.

    fine line. but interesting topic.
  5. ...sorry about the "code", mary louise. :)
  6. you go into Blockbuster Video on a Friday or Saturday night and it's PACKED? so i would argue there is no place for intellectualism in the mainstream. isn't it an oxymoron?

    at the same time there are 50 "artists" hovering over the cooler of Pabst at a gallery opening? leading me to believe there is very little room for intellectualism within the "cultural elite" anymore either.

    don't intellectuals just try to exploit the plebs in order to be able to continue to make art and have creative thoughts? we teach little pleb kids how to make macaroni sculptures and paper mache masks to pay our bills. we faux finish. we design brochures. we play cover tunes.

    wasn't the battle of trying to infuse the mainstream with any sort of intellectualism lost a long time ago?
  7. Maybe her daughter will grow up to be the next Karen Finley.
  8. How unfortunate that the blog mom missed out on the opportunity to have more meaningful discussions with her kids. Art shouldn't always please us with prettiness. Art should challenge our perceptions and lead to reflection or dialogue. I love taking my kids to MAM and challenging them to question what a painting, sculpture, or object "says" to them, what they think the artist intended to communicate. We may read information about the work (plaque or brochure) or pick up a "scavenger hunt" booklet to complete and keep. Art is also a wonderful way to discuss standards of beauty in various cultures and to question the narrow definition of beauty in current popular media. It would be interesting if the blog mom would try to revisit the museum (perhaps alone?) and spend some time with those works which she questions or dislikes.

    Regarding talking to museum guards: On visits to art museums in other cities (esp. Kohler and the Guggenheim) I've met guards and have asked a question or two. Without expecting a personal tour guide, I've met some with genuine interest, knowledge, and enthusiasm which greatly adds to the experience.
    In Milwaukee, however, I find most museum guards to be uninterested or unwilling to interact. We have had great experiences with MAM docents however; one led a class field trip and another was in the train car during the Brooks Stevens exhibit. I look forward to future docent led tours or encounters.

    Thanks for your columns and discussion too!
  9. WOW! I am just blown away by this ongoing discussion. One of my personal favorite artists (Ken Auster) once spent time in a museum observing people and how they view art. If I remember the conversation correctly, he said the average time in his study that a person spent looking at any single piece of art was 3 seconds! As an artist that shocked me! So what causes a person (art educated or not) to stop and really look at a piece of art? I am reminded of one of my favorite art quotes from the book “My Name is Asher Lev” when the instructor of the young painting prodigy told his father that he would do very well if he had a scream or a laugh in him. That sentence has stuck with me somehow. And now I get to my point! This mom stopped, discussed, and shared her opinion generating this whole discussion…she reacted…she screamed! I for one find it refreshing somehow.

    Wendie Thompson
  10. at best, "art" is subjective. one artist once took a crucifix, placed it into a see-thru container of his own urine, then photographed it. and he supposedly got funding from the NEA. some snooty art critics feel architecture IS NOT art. i believe mary louise feels differently; i know i do. when looking at a frank lloyd wright home or a neutra home (not my cup of tea though), how can you not consider that architecture "art"? those three colored, rectangle canvases that emily referred to in her blog - many people wouldn't consider those art. i painted my own "pollack" (there's a site you can go to and do this) and i thought it was "art". it's a constant debate. no definitive answers. art critics and artists will tell you one thing. the general public think another.

    in the end, nothing will change. education, it seems, may be the only option. but nothing's for certain. art is....what it is.


Design Ideas Column



Art City Asks

An ongoing series of interviews with creative people.


Art City

E-mail Newsletter


Get the Newsletter!

Login or Register to manage all your newsletter preferences.