GFinholt
report this user
Apr 30, 2013 GFinholt commented on Interlocking Objects.
My, my, breanne (comment 2), because you are a supporter of Jen, because I have criticized her, I must put up with your precious, churlish, hyperbolic bitch slap. In fact, I have moved you so much that you appear to have signed up, for the first time, to write me your one and only Stranger blog comment. I take it you are wearing your heart on your sleeve and, in a socially repellent mode, blowing your cork. So you provide a snide form of argumentum ad hominem to rescue your heroin as some kind of perfected diva of position whose thoughts and actions are above inspection.

The thing is, Charlie Krafft is a buddy and it is my responsibility to defend wrong against him. You have misapplied “patronize.” In fact, it is Jen who has patronized Charlie and you who have patronized me. You both have been condescending to us.

Here’s the thing, breanne: Jen, does have power, the power of the press and would best use it responsibly and not in the manner of much of the sensationalist ways of contemporary news media. But her main Krafft article begins from the first paragraph up as a major piece of propaganda and not with the sobriety of balance nor the warnings of good scholarship. The picture of the Hitler teapot, the headlines, the beginning text presses alarmist notions against the minds of the readers to jump to conclusions that the conclusion has already been made. Jen hides behind the concept that she is just reporting facts and realities of others and little of her own opinion. Like most folks, Jen seems to have immersed herself in the cloth of denial, the folly of a fantasy that she is just exploring a honorable curration of how an artist’s changing belief’s might affect the evaluation of his work, and that she is creating a neutral yet informative journalistic offering.

But , as by many of her errors, she presses the idea that Krafft’s appearance on a radio show of white nationalists and his comments there condemn him. To protect the way her article might harm his reputation on this matter she fails to point out that, of the three on the panel, Krafft comes off like a lamb, like a reasonable and open minded thinker while his company on the show come off something as extremists. She fails to point out how he takes an intellectually careful and open point of view on this show. She fails to point out that the reader should not find him guilty by association.

So one has to ask of Jen’s main Krafft article, what is she really up to? Surely not careful exposition. She could have waited to vet the ideas but she couldn’t wait to go to press. She attacked Krafft out of the blue with a warning that it didn’t matter what he had to say because she would soon go to press whether he like it or not. Sounds a lot like abuse of an artist by something very extortion like. Her article created a huge showing of media copy cats essentially parroting what she presented. These copy cats dutifully picked up her half-assed alleged damaging directed condemnation of Krafft’s beliefs and associations as the lead into their reports, continuing the message of kicking this artist like a can down the street of pop media gossip explosions. In the metamessages of Jen and all these media reporters is an attack on a Northwest artist in his autumn years who may be a bit of a curmudgeon but so was William Cumming and many others.

So much more can be said but Jen seems to continue a blithe optic of distance and self-satisfaction on the Krafft matter. All begun, apparently, by the complaints of an upset woman who Krafft had told to go stick it. As to the complaint of this woman upset by postings on Krafft’s Facebook page, Jen could have spent some time vetting the complaint to find out and report in her article that the complaints were not about what Krafft had posted but of those of person other than Krafft. But such careful research never developed before going to print.

An irony is to the above article on the artists, one who created the kitty porn. Working from her more common mode Jen supports these artists and makes only the slightest reference to the possibility that the work is kitsch. Other than this she delivers an article that strains to be supportive of the galleries and the artists. Why didn’t she do this of Krafft? I’m thinking that, as the years go by, Jen may reflect and come to accept that what she did to Krafft was a kind of media violence. She still has the opportunity to get real, make amends and post a public apology for this.

As to you, breanne, I can say I do respect your support of Jen and probably would appreciate you if I knew you, even if you had swishy wrists. Jen IS worthy of a positive critique. But I also have to say, I’m not your bitch.
More...
Mar 25, 2013 GFinholt commented on Charles Krafft Is a White Nationalist Who Believes the Holocaust Is a Deliberately Exaggerated Myth.
Brad Davis (306,307),
Well, at least you call him Charlie. That’s nice. But maybe you’re one of his defenders in disguise. I’ll presume you mean your words. It’s so bazaar that you site this wonderful interview (perhaps the best so far) of Charlie’s reality as an example of him being a Nazi or Neo-Nazi. He excels in this interview in stating his case and hanging Graves for her poor and incomplete research and reporting of the facts. Graves has shown that the liberal agenda can come on as a mighty fascism buoyed by the hope of a weird species of progressive righteousness. She has played the old intellectual con game of changing the subject quickly to avert the reader to something else. She hastily moves to claim that what matters is not the artist or his work anymore but an importantly deep curatorial deep insights about how the artist new beliefs change the meaning of his works. Of course she hasn’t proven this at all but initiated a bevy of international modern media copy cats wallowing in the sensationalism. And you, calling up the old rubric of guilt by association jump to the conclusion that Charlie is what he is not, and believes what he doesn’t believe as witnessed to by this interview. It might be instructive for the explosion of liberal media bigots to really listen to the interview you have selected. In it the interviewer describes Charlie as not one of them and Charlie can be quoted as saying:
“…I believe there was a lot of Jews and others killed in the holocaust. It’s not that I didn’t believe it didn’t happen.”
The liberals here, who are supposed to believe in the respectful importance of an open minded conversation in which we listen to and spend time reflecting on what another has said could do well to listen to the very interview you view as condemnatory. It doesn’t follow that because Charlie appeared on this site that he is one of them. Get real for Christ sake.
More...
Mar 20, 2013 GFinholt commented on Charles Krafft Is a White Nationalist Who Believes the Holocaust Is a Deliberately Exaggerated Myth.
nemofred, if Jen and all the others are promoting a false picture of Charlie and the wounded folk like you are looking for a scapegoat they've accomplished something like their expected ends. But in doing this they've made a fool out of you. You’re clearly bleeding and need to find an enemy and it's so understandable why you would jump on just about anybody to vent your pain, but you need to get it right. You are a puppet of Jen's very poorly written article that is the spawn of profoundly errant speculation. Charlie is not your enemy. Bad press and ridiculously poor and immature art curation is. You have not found the correct enemy. You have work to do if you want to be responsible. You'd be better off looking in the South or Idaho. All of you friends of the devil need to look elsewhere. Charlie's a victim like you and your dear lost one. Jen's misdirection is a culpret in a crime against her true beliefs and Charlie, a good man and good artist who is truly Northwest. Someone, with good character and good power needs to intervene in the slaughter of the inoccent.

(Hey, it’s the three-hundreds already!!!!)
More...
Mar 20, 2013 GFinholt commented on Interlocking Objects.
Dear writer of art news and art appreciation, it’s nice to see you back in the saddle doing good for artists. It should have become clear to you that, in my mind, what you did to Charlie Krafft approaches the unforgivable and, in my view, may be yellow journalism. My read is you did terrible violence to Charlie. I really love it when you are on task. You have such good qualities to do your job. Keep it up. I’m thankful for your return to the right stuff.
Mar 20, 2013 GFinholt commented on Charles Krafft Is a White Nationalist Who Believes the Holocaust Is a Deliberately Exaggerated Myth.

Dear Supreme commander of truth (undead ayn rand), I am deeply moved by you personifying me as being capable of appearing academic. For this, I offer you undying thanks and the biggest kiss ever. I’m amazed that I made you mentally stutter though. Of course the major problem with what seems to be a foundation of your approach is that you have succumbed to the atrociously unscholarly foundations of the pop-journalistic piece of Jen Graves on Charlie Krafft. She normally delivers such wonderful bouquets of art news and views to us all. Most of us like her quite a bit but she’s just human. Sadly, she unleashed this unfair and unbalanced diatribe on a good person who isn’t in any way what you seem to think he is, and a bevy of leading contemporary media folks have uncritically caved into acting out a putrefied herd behavior. There’s nothing like a mean meme. Many know the contemporary news media tends to an illness akin to what motivates reality TV, an illness burdened with dishonesty and illusion. How can we expect Jen, being in this system, being contaminated by such pressures and opportunities towards professional fame from slipping? (Can you imagine her, working to grow her own success, mashing an artist, to grow her name?) There’s the pity. I’ve tried like crazy to maintain respect for this one article of hers that drives me nuts. Her arguments against Charlie consist largely of vapid nonsequitors. In this she is attacking an artist of all things with a hubris that is rich in bullshit. You, being a puppet of her offerings are a sub-prophet of the ridiculous.
More...
Mar 18, 2013 GFinholt commented on Charles Krafft Is a White Nationalist Who Believes the Holocaust Is a Deliberately Exaggerated Myth.
My first comment containing a reply to JG’s less than sympathetic article on C. Krafft was posted last week Monday the 11th in response to her article on the TAM scandal about Chinese donations. I tried to be cordial but guess there’s the possibility to read it as offering advice to a critic. Link follows (See comment 11):

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/chine…

Two days later there seemed to be an indication that I may have helped provoke a reaction. I’m not about to flaunt my self-importance here. On the subject one seems to experience the appearance of a lot of issues related to the inner-child. I’ll leave the psychologizing open to everyone. JG delivered what appears a final response to the Charles Krafft affair. She removed herself from writing the main article for the next week, wrote a retort (link follows) amplifying her put down of Krafft, his work, fixed it so no one could directly comment on it and quickly buried it under six new slog articles. Reminiscent of Caesar washing his hands maybe? (Note her crabby use of zzzzzzzz…s).

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

My views don’t parallel some of Charlie’s basic disastrous beliefs but believe there is, in the moral frame of a truly liberal/progressive framework, a rightful call to show Charlie understanding, compassion and support as a truly local veteran artist who we might actually celebrate to our betterment. I understand the problems but hold out seeing his reality from the glass half full mentality. What follows is an amendment of my comment on Charlie first incorporated in the other thread:

“One of the major rules of the liberal/progressive tradition is to do no harm. It’s built into this approach to life with roots in Romanticism and the Enlightenment. One style of reporting can be the subjecting elements in a local art world not only to scrutiny but as a victim of an intense drubbing combined with the premise that the reporting comes from higher ground. Such reporting can reach the level of “high” but entertains the danger of the kind of curious exposé found in such periodicals as the National Enquirer. In addition, such reporting faces the danger of violating fundamental social rules about being positive and getting along. Myself, I’m caught on the fence on such reporting. I can find myself lifted on the refreshing and brave calling up of something that seems wrong in the system. It’s revolutionary. But I also feel a part of me cringe when just about any article breeches certain social standards and exposes the supposed dirty laundry of a person, community or institution. The Stanger seems to embrace a style that ensures a foot in all camps and the possibility of doing wrong and thus harm, at times, in print.

(Exemption).

We can recall the article pointing out that the Seattle art community in some way sucks compared to Vancouver’s. We can recall the brazen honesty of an article that accused a local art critic of taking payoffs in the form of the works of an artist to write good reviews of that artist. We might ask were these exposés as balanced as the current one. And then there’s the recent article that would appear to just be telling the facts about a senior truly local artist, Charles Krafft, and find in its text really questionable statements that would seem able to harm the reputation and commerce of this artist, a reportage that leaves out so many good things about this man at hand in the evidence the article claims to use to obtain balance. In some theology there is the wise observation of the sin of omission. One might wish that this recent article on Charlie had been more fair and balanced and revealed more examples of his being quite a good person. We could have been treated a stronger revelation of how Charlie’s rather conservative beliefs don’t necessarily lead to an intelligent conclusion that he should be condemned for his associations. It could be said that the distinction of such nuances are important to any fair analysis. I can imagine some local artists being distraught over one of their own being so pilloried, worrying about what’s dirty in their laundry and wondering how their discursions or imprecise use of language might impact the public valuation of their work.

(Exemption).

I continue to value and enjoy the writing in this column by this author and have no fantasy that we can always agree. I support her role in the local scene and only offer my point of view as a reflection.”
More...
Mar 11, 2013 GFinholt commented on Chinese Treasures Shipped Out of Tacoma.
One of the major rules of the liberal/progressive tradition is to do no harm. It’s built into this approach to life with roots in Romanticism and the Enlightenment. One style of reporting can be the subjecting elements in a local art world not only to scrutiny but as a victim of an intense drubbing combined with the premise that the reporting comes from higher ground. Such reporting can reach the level of “high” but entertains the danger of the kind of curious exposé found in such periodicals as the National Enquirer. In addition, such reporting faces the danger of violating fundamental social rules about being positive and getting along. Myself, I’m caught on the fence on such reporting. I can find myself lifted on the refreshing and brave calling up of something that seems wrong in the system. It’s revolutionary. But I also feel a part of me cringe when just about any article breeches certain social standards and exposes the supposed dirty laundry of a person, community or institution. The Stanger seems to embrace a style that ensures a foot in all camps and the possibility of doing wrong and thus harm, at times, in print.

This article reveals something apparently gone wrong in the Tacoma art community and seems to have carefully exhumed the bones of a dead-as-done mistake by all parties involved. The examination and resultant text of the reportage seems well balanced, informative, and shows the parties under scrutiny sharing blame.

We can recall the article pointing out that the Seattle art community in some way sucks compared to Vancouver’s. We can recall the brazen honesty of an article that accused a local art critic of taking payoffs in the form of the works of an artist to write good reviews of that artist. We might ask were these exposés as balanced as the current one. And then there’s the recent article that would appear to just be telling the facts about a senior truly local artist, Charles Krafft, and find in its text really questionable statements that would seem able to harm the reputation and commerce of this artist, a reportage that leaves out so many good things about this man at hand in the evidence the article claims to use to obtain balance. In some theology there is the wise observation of the sin of omission. One might wish that this recent article on Charlie had been more fair and balanced and revealed more examples of his being quite a good person. We could have been treated a stronger revelation of how Charlie’s rather conservative beliefs don’t necessarily lead to an intelligent conclusion that he should be condemned for his associations. It could be said that the distinction of such nuances are important to any fair analysis. I can imagine some local artists being distraught over one of their own being so pilloried, worrying about what’s dirty in their laundry and wondering how their discursions or imprecise use of language might impact the public valuation of their work.

In this article it seems clear that the Young Yus were maybe quite naïve in their trust of the TAM system. (Nothing like museological management.) The only non-legal defense I think of for them is that one might say TAM had a responsibility to communicate to them the inappropriateness of such gifts to them and of Tam’s possible fickle nature in such matters. The Young Yus could have been pointed to the Seattle Asian repositories of such gifts such as SAAM, the Wing Luke and, maybe, the UW’s Burke. Also arising is the interesting reality of what might be a struggle for such cultural items between the old and new countries’ communities. Apparently old Chinese items are in demand by some of the new rich of China who on purchasing such items may be beginning a process that could return them, at some point, to Chinese museum collections. It reminds us of the historic phase when the Europeans rushed to collect the artifacts of the Middle East for their museum collections or the transporting of such items to a new country by immigrants. The question of where these things should reside is intriguing.

I continue to value and enjoy the writing in this column by this author and have no fantasy that we can always agree. I support her role in the local scene and only offer my point of view as a reflection.

gfinholt
More...
Jan 31, 2012 GFinholt commented on The Activation of Corners.
@17
High ya, nw mystical person,
Another eruption, eh? You’ve managed to skirt my pointing out that a little earlier how your rant about what you characterize as Jen’s store window error is not supported in her text. You were clearly wrong even though Jen may make mistakes. This time you’re completely wrong, factually, again saying there’s no connection between you’re Matthew and Jen but for them living in the same city. I didn’t mention any names but you’re the one who puts one on the screen for everyone to see. Don’t you ever admit to your mistakes? Below is an article that shows a serious connection between them and raises possible serious behavior on his part.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…

So, can you say “I made a booboo or are you going to erupt again? “ You describe your Matthew as kind of hopelessly vain and snooty. You say he would never read Jen so why would comments about him affect him? Both Jen and I believe your Matthew is quite a guy and we do very much appreciate his skills and positive contributions. I sort of sense your Matthew appreciates a larger frame of things and has quite a sense of humor. I found it amazing that he called the local painter Larry Heald the last of the northwest mystics but then added that so much of the local painting continued mystical qualities. Heald did some wonderful crazy stuff.

Affectionately yours,
GFinholt
More...
Jan 28, 2012 GFinholt commented on The Activation of Corners.
About northwest mystic,

WHERE’S THE BEEF? Have you been able to tell the difference between ordinary beef and ANGUS beef?

I’ve had a strange sense of who northwest mystic might be for some time. There have been some things to counter this but still I can imagine it. There is a northwest art critic who did pretty well for a time. This critic’s initials are MK. One of the names initialed rhymes with “ANGUS.”

I don’t think of nm being crazy as some suggest, but an extremely angry or hurt person or friend or group of artists who feel they have been seriously wronged by the main column writer here. Enough to carry on a sustained assault on that writer. The writing of nm is not up to the standard of MK but one who knows the inside story of the clash of the local critics over recent years can imagine MK still being livid in the face and countenance. Evidence is MK is rather sensitive to the use of the term “Queer.” I can imagine nm with a drained bottle of Jim Beam lashing out in barely recognizable blather. The writing is kind of like WUI (writing under the influence). nm erupts like a small atomic bomb and doesn’t take prisoners. In this recent post (#13), nm, offers nm’s proof of a possible awkward moment for Graves producing a pleasurable efflux from nm. My God, an 88 comment Slog article.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

An article in which it’s possible to accuse Graves of many things but difficult to look to her careful writing for actual clues. At least one thing’s clear, nm appears to be an avid reader of Jen Graves.
More...
Jan 27, 2012 GFinholt commented on The Activation of Corners.
@9

There is a third Thursday free admission for all!

A trip there can be enhanced by going another 25 miles down I5 to take a walk on the trails of the wonderful Nisqually delta to see the birds and think about the Northwest Coastal Natives who originally lived there. A wonderful experience where the land meets the sea at the mouth of a River fed by Mt. Rainier. A few more miles gets you a meal in Olympia.

http://nisquallydeltarestoration.org/