I wished I had given Matt Offenbacher big props for creating/publishing La Especial Norte. I think it (and Matt) add so much to the local conversation!

I would ask a (rhetorical?) question: What does it mean that our community is coming together over our writings about art, rather than our art practices? I'm not implying a value judgement; I don't regret for a minute that this dialog is centered around art writing. I just wonder WHY. Is writing more conducive to community? Is it easier to talk about? Is it less intimidating? Is it less solitary?

Also, it was so wonderful to get to see all of these personalities as (real!) people, in a room, together. We all need to get offline and get in the same physical space more often.

It was a terrific Klatch and I really appreciate Eric Frederickson suggesting and organizing the panel.

Attendance was ridiculous. Of those 60 attendees I counted representatives from every Seattle museum: SAM=Sandra Jackson-Dumont; The Frye=Robin Held, curator - Midge Bowman, Director - and Rebecca Garrity Putnam, Director of Communications; The Henry=Sara Krajewski.

A brief list of other attendees includes:
-3 art dealers: me, Greg Kucera and Paul Pauper of Form/Space Atelier.
-Independent curator Beth Sellars of Suyama Space.
-Art History and Art professors from Seattle U, and the Gage Academy (Pamela Belyea, director of Gage was also there).
-Tons of artists: Gretchen Bennett, Heide Hinrichs, Matt Browning, Tim Cross, Isaac Layman, Shawn Hurley, Ryan and Mandie from Implied Violence, Klara Glasnova, Sol Hashimi (and 20 others I'm sure...)
-Tons of artists who also write: Emily Pothast, Sharon Arnold, Matthew Offenbacher, Joey Veltkamp, Susanna Bluhm, Erin Langner, et al.

-Add to that list the students, art collectors, art advisors, doyens of the Seattle art world, etcetry, etcetry, and you get an idea about the "community" that came together.

To talk.

Amazing.

Any discussion about the lack of community engagement in articles such as "The Vancouver Problem" is hopefully tempered just a little bit by this event.

It's not everything we need, but it's a start.

And as the Klatch inches towards its 2nd Anniversary - that's 104 Klatches in a row! - I can confidently say that we're doing our part to advance dialog, engage the community, promote our scene, and yes, argue like hell about everything the northwest has, can be, should be, needs, lacks, etc.

My "spirit of the stairs" question echoes Ryan's of Implied Violence: He asked for a simple job description from the art critics, i.e., what do you consider to be your role in the arts community? How do you do it? For whom do you do it? Why do you do it? Who are your historical precedents and contemporary peers within the field? And I would add this not quite fully formed question: If a component of what you do is *choosing* -- what to write about/what not to write about -- then your practice is a form of curating, so if it's curating, when all is said and done what does your group exhibition look like and would anyone come to it?

Thanks again to all that came and for a community that continues to inspire and one that I am grateful to be a small part of.

Warmth,
sml

That was a swell turnout. It was good to see everyone, and thanks for the great contributions to the conversation.

@2, I tried to suggest yesterday that writing can be an art practice. I obviously favor forms of practice that are connective over isolated forms; maybe writing is just the clearest example of those sort of practices?

It was really great to see so many people in the arts come together in that tiny room! (cozy, isn't it?)

If I'd had the chance to speak, I would have talked a little about how writing is an integral part of my personal art process. How one of the joys of my art blogging experience (part two) is sort of unveiling the questions I ask myself when I'm thinking about/working on my art. The blog has definitely taken a turn from art-critical to art-theoretical and philosophical. It's important for me to bring that process to the table, to bring it to a level where I know we all coexist; that being inquiry. Even if you don't make art, there are decisions we make on a daily basis that require analysis. This is for me the most important bridge. A way of the artist saying to the viewer, we are the same, you and I.

I also really wanted to further investigate the voice of artists and writers; and the listeners. Who are we talking to and why? How do we expand the audience and contributors? The beauty of art blogging and the conversations it opens up is that it removes the former associations of elitism the art world has always carried. We didn't used to be able to converse; criticism was authoritarian and artists and the people reading the papers/magazines had to equally swallow it down. Now, we all get to talk back.

Er, well, I did speak on some things but specifically, if I'd had the chance to speak on the question of art writing in regards to art practise!

Thanks for the kind words, Jen. I had ample opportunity to speak yesterday, but since you asked, I'd emphasize the fact that I'm excited about the uprising of artist voices (particularly artists writing about other artists) as a counterpart to traditional art writing because what artists take from an aesthetic experience is fundamentally different from what critics and art historians take. Yes, we too can inform ourselves about art theory and history, but at the end of the day, all artists are bower birds. We can't help but identify with the creative act and are thus always looking, consciously or unconsciously for that shape, that color or movement that will worm its way into our souls and mysteriously resurface in our own vocabularies. The ensuing dialogue adds a balance to the community that hasn't always existed. It's an interesting time to be doing what we do.

Okay Jen! Here I am posting! Amazing group yesterday. Thank you everyone. Scott, the Klatch is remarkable. It's utopian in the sense that every week you stubbornly assume the best of us. So here's to the next 104!

One thing I was thinking later is something about art-making and boundaries, and how I think one of the best things we can do right now is not worry too much about what lines to draw where. I think this is what Jen is getting at, talking about artist statements as art, or Eric talking about connective practices, or Emily's bower birds. Making things, making exhibitions, making music, making criticism, making conversation, making love, making blogs, making art, making dinner ... okay let's get to it!

Bravo to Scott for community building-I was in a different conversation, in Olympia, and missed the fun. Unsurprised and glad to hear this gathering was well attended. It was well provoked.

Appreciate the range of views being reflected, as in Emily's note" The ensuing dialogue adds a balance to the community that hasn't always existed." and Sharon Arnold's, "The beauty of art blogging and the conversations it opens up is that it removes the former associations of elitism the art world has always carried."

These notes remind me of Artdish, in particular, because it was there for Seattle online before blogging became the rage it is now, and afforded a different kind of venue for artists and others interested in art to exchange perspectives.

I live happily in this world making art everyday. I wake up, make coffee, go to the gym, go to work, go home, and make dinner. Life is also full of leisure activities: reading, writing, watching, touching all of which I consider art.
Why is none of this ever written about?

@ 8, exactly! just get to it.

my friend's therapist told her that if her abusive boyfriend stopped hitting her for 6 months, she could begin to have hope. after a year, she could start to regain trust, and after 5 years she could start to believe things were improving.

yes, it's great that 60 people turned up at 8am. but please folks, save the puffed-up, self congratulatory attitude for later.

Here's our chance everyone...

Timothy-

[with respect] There is a difference between being it and doing it. The best art does both at the same time--Proust being the best example of what you are proposing as art. I admire the spirit of your response and it serves as a great reminder to all of us who might consider our every gesture a precious work of art that it might be, could be, should be, but probably isn't. When in doubt, fall back on the adage: "Art is long. Life is short."

Or don't.

ps: We just wrote about it and it still isn't art...(a great reminder for critics).

Timothy: I believe it is all the time, in songs, works of art, fiction, and film.

Life is the stuff we feel compelled to do with our time. Art is talking about life. Talking about art is returning the favor. For those of us who feel compelled to do this with our time? Well, that's just life.

That said, I think I agree with your sentiment. For many philosophers (notably Kant), aesthetics and morality are closely linked. You can take that or leave it, but I believe everything we do implies a choice, and there is art in that choice. If you're making the right choices, you'll feel balance and harmony in your life, which is its own reward. If you're one of the unlucky/lucky ones that can't even begin to approach happiness without making yourself nuts striving and making stuff and talking about it, well, that's ok too. But you better do it, and having a healthy, vibrant network to do it in makes a great deal of difference.

@11, you're right. Self-congratulation won't get us anywhere. What I hope we're taking from this, though, isn't self-satisfaction as much as it is a reminder that it feels good to be involved in a community, and it's incumbent on us to make an effort to get out, get connected, and speak up in order to make that happen.

I really enjoyed the physicality of gathering en masse like that. Which is ironic (or not?) considering the topic at hand and the fact that most of us generate dialogue and presence online generally. I get all romantic for old fashioned cafe culture though.

Like most of the people responding thus far, my favorite topic of the Klatch and what I would love to hear more discussion about was the relationship between artists and their writing. Maybe I'm a somewhat odd duck because my academic background is in literature and writing, not art, so I perceive writing and eloquent communication skills as utterly invaluable and necessary in the arts, and I adore artists who can communicate well on multiple platforms (I think it will only ever enrich their work and the world, and I often feel the lack of good communication skills and the inability to marry words with thought with art produces much mediocre conceptual work - by which I mean work that *wants* to be conceptual but falls down at the very first step). So many of the canon of art greats wrote prolifically and well, and Seattle, along with having a reputation for being a frozen bitch, has a reputation for having a well-read, literary, and generally intellectual population. I think it's completely appropriate to have a vocal and literary bunch of artists here.

And yes, beyond the basics of communicating and thinking well, I also think that writing about one's work and life on a regular basis provides a special means to creating a more artful existence. Artists and writers who can deliberately spin a sort of artful mythology out of the everyday and out of the art-making process aspire to some of the most profound and beautiful artistry (like Proust, even!).

Did you just call a work of art precious?

Sorry,
That was rude.
[with respect] You seem like a decent guy. I just didn’t realize how far across the spectrum we were.

@16:

I admire the spirit of your response and it serves as a great reminder to all of us who might consider our every gesture a precious work of art that it might be, could be, should be, but probably isn't.

Nope. He was responding to your comments @10 (unless I missed something.)

@16+17

No disrespect taken.

I'll be the first to admit that we operate with a very narrow band of this spectrum you speak of and this insular nature is part of the problem you're trying to illuminate. What I'm arguing here is that any mining in the veins of Cage, Beuys, Proust, et al ("everything is music," "everyone is an artist," "eating madelines is art...") is totally valid in theory and often in practice, but it isn't really germane to the conversation we're having in this thread or doesn't contribute anything golden to the practical aims I think we're seeking here.

@18 ". . . precious work of art." Thus works of art are precious.
Also @18 I understand that his phrasing was meant to highlight the quality of my question.
@19 I think the question I proposed is TOTALLY GERMANE to this discussion. Why are actions like I listed above or, in your opinion, below critical discussion? I think criticality is too often left out of writing about art. I don’t think you should tell your reader why they should or should not see something; you should let them know why it is art.

>Timothy,

Andy Warhol said its art if an artist says its art. Your life then, is art. But maybe its just boring for everybody but you, possibly indicating that its not very good.

@20, "Dog X is a tiny dog." Thus dogs are tiny!

Logical fallacies aside, the reason this particular argument is "not germane" to the discussion is that you seem to want to fixate on a semantic discussion that, as LP points out, is at least a hundred years old.

Yes, OF COURSE, we may define art (and whatever other creative enterprise) in flexible ways. But the reality is that you engage in all those activities you listed above for non-art reasons. You go to the gym to improve your health, perhaps, and you go to work to pay the bills. Et cetera. And while all of these activities can (and should!) be done artfully, the kind of "art" we're talking about here is by definition outside the realm of that which is done for non-art reasons. There is an article in the current issue of the UW alumni magazine wherein professor Ellen Dissanayake defines "art" (across cultures, across time) as the practice of "making special." If this is the case (and I believe it's an assumption we're all operating on here) then doing those ordinary things which are required of us is by definition not art.

You could, if you wanted to play devil's advocate, make an argument that art made for commodification isn't art either. Now THAT would be a lively conversation to strike up with an art dealer, and I may even take your side. But this semantic orneriness doesn't contribute anything that hasn't been said a million times over—and a million times better.

@20 Tell us why you think we should talk critically about your daily habits. If the reason is a good one, chances are we'll talk about them. As it stands, your call for attention seems totally random and boring.

On writing practice as art practice:

Yes! Definitely: writing can be an art practice. It has become an essential part of my art practice. I guess I made the distinction up there to start with because I see my writing and my art-making as two very different components within my art practice. I write mainly about my experience with other artists' work; it's not so much a stream of consciousness where my paintings left off. They are two different entities. Looking at other artists' writing blogs around town, that seems to be true for them, too. I think it's interesting that it is the writing that has brought us together.

Thank you Scott and to the panelists for Tuesday's klatch. There is a definite hunger for conversations like this, as has already been pointed out. I enjoyed following the float of conversation as it played out and hope that a followup on the topic of writing :: criticism :: writing-as-art can happen as well. The other topic that Eric posited at the beginning (and end) of the session also deserves its own conversation--the Vancouver "problem." I'm not convinced that it is a problem, but I am convinced that there is a "difference." And why is that the case? What exactly is the difference? Jen's article certainly proposes reasons, but I think it is a meaty enough topic: would Scott--and Eric--be open to, at a future date, dedicating a klatch to that conversation? Perhaps invite artists :: writers :: curators like Kathy Slade, Jeff Khonsary and Jonathan Middleton to participate. Regardless, the energy of Tuesday's conversation was a pleasure to experience. The myriad of voices making themselves available simply benefits us all.

Timothy, perhaps if this is of interest, I would give you the same advice I give anyone. If you see a void, fill it.

For you, perhaps that means you should start a blog and write about the art of your everyday existence. I'm not being glib (I can't gauge the tone of your correspondence) -- I'm being totally serious. I'm sure someone out there is documenting their daily activities and that's part of their artistic process as well.

@11: I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you feel abused by the artistic community? If this is the case, perhaps a little praise and support is the best place to begin. Even if it feels self-congratulatory. I can only speak for myself when I say that I felt nothing but excitement at the possibilities in the midst of all those people.

@20 via 22: Amen, Emily!

Yes, logical fallacies aside.
I asked a simple question, a question I would have asked at the "Klatch". A question that I am sure the moderators would have yawned over. A question I would have expected to get yawned over. It's a question that I take seriously but I know many people do not. (There are many nuances, which Emily has actually handled well without me asking, to the question that I just don't have time to go over now.)
Instead of the yawn, I get an extremely condescending response and a confusing response. I can take the confusion, we can talk that out. The condescension I can not. Art is already an elitist pursuit without belittling and condescending remarks.
That aside, Art is not a flexible idea. It is quite solid in each of us. It can be repaired and renovated but it stands on stable footings. Some people only have footings but no house. It is up to the critic to build that house. It is up to the person to decorate it.
One last thing. For a question that is a hundred years old it is a damn good one. It, in my opinion, has yet to be answered.
Thanks Emily, Scott. I would love to go on and discuss but I want to get back to brushing my teeth ("not art").

What would I say... what I wish I could do...
I wish I could go back in time!

I would have traded cramming into a room with 60+ people early in the morning for the crushing disappointment I felt when I got the email later in the day Tuesday. I just needed 12 hours additional notice. Mondays are my "no computer/internet" day (I may have to rethink that).

Very cool, sorry I missed it - keep doing all of the above!

As a student at a local private arts college (where Jen is an adjunct instructor, although I haven't had her as a teacher), I have been surprised and disappointed in the lack of focus on writing education. The most serious attempts I've found have been in my art history courses. (Of which there are only four offered!?!?!)

I'm in the design department and I really feel like a solid foundation in being able to express one's ideas in writing is seriously lacking at this school. There is so much focus on everyone's major that writing and editing are overlooked. The school does encourage students to use the writing center, but there don't seem to be many students motivated to do so on their own.

I believe a lot of this problem starts with the foundation year H&S classes that combines "Humanities" credits with "Writing and Analysis" credits and grades on a pass/fail basis. It seems too similar to jocks receiving special treatment so that they can play in the big game, so I'm kind of excited to hear about "art writing" as a topic and wonder if my experience is isolated to the school I'm at or is part of a larger trend?

I get all jangled in the noggin during these things, especially when the topics are as dear to me as they consistently are at the klatch; this topic is a particularly pointed one, though I can't say exactly why. Anyway:
It seems like one point of contention between Jen and Regina is who each of you feel you're writing for. Regina, with her emphasis on "marketing," on getting work in front of as many eyes as possible, clearly feels she is working in tandem with artists, as a conduit. Jen mentioned that Regina accused her of negativity. I got the feeling that Jen feels she works in some regard on behalf of the public; if not as an educator per se, then at least as an appraiser. Of course, both of these perspectives are true; however, neither is fundamentally correct.
The reason for the large turnout among artists --- and I acknowledge this is a huge presumption, and if I'm wrong so be it --- is that both Graves and, until very recently Hackett, take for granted one element of their vocations that most artists struggle their entire careers to achieve, and that is a large and consistent audience.
An audience renders questions of quality irrelevant --- this is one reason (among many) why Hollywood is simultaneously maddening and magnetic. An audience is the ultimate goal of any serious artist --- and I mean a person who has devoted her or himself to a discipline of any kind and wishes to forge with and through that disciple some kind of communion with another human being. That seems to me axiomatic. And what can elicit a big reaction among this set is when someone --- a critic --- presumes he or she is somehow not playing that very game. Because in point of fact, Jen works for neither the public, not the artists, nor the museo-gallery complex; she works for Mr. Tim Keck who, if he is given a hearty kick to the head by young Reuben tonight, could well come in tomorrow morning, hand Jen a check and a kleenex, and hire Hilton Kramer. Or Matthew Kangas.
Think about this, artists of Seattle: You believe you are a Genius. Jen believes in Art Geniuses too, but she doesn't think you are one. Who is correct? I'll tell you: Nobody. The Genius Award is the only Genius in town. For the cost of about a third of one 84 page paper, the Stranger arts editors are ensured that they remain the arbiters of all things literate, aesthetic, and entertaining. Don't get me wrong; this is fine by me. Good parties. Great friends. But that is what the whole history of art really is: just a record of friendships and rivalries. It's all personal, and issues of quality, or authenticity, or novelty are at most wax to put on that big bus. When Jen no longer has a paper to write for --- and I'm sad to think how soon that will be --- people will keep on painting and filming and writing and whatever they feel like. And maybe even more will do so, and think that they too might have a chance at being a genius, if only because there is no one at the top to suggest otherwise.

@25, Stephen, I'm wary about devoting a forum to TVP--I think Jen raised the Vancouver issue as a way to get us talking about our own city.
I thought the Fillip presentation at the Henry Art Gallery in early 07
http://hankblog.wordpress.com/2007/03/20…
and the related program of Portland artists assembled by Stephanie Snyder
http://hankblog.wordpress.com/2006/08/31…
were excellent core samples suggesting the cultural structures and artistic practices of each community. What might be interesting is to imagine a similar program about Seattle. How would we present our activities if asked to think of them as in part a collective enterprise?

@32 There is an article about Scotland in the March issue of Art Review that talks about how Edinburgh worked out their "cultural" identity in the 90's. It seems to have worked, Turner Prize nominations and all. Maybe we should borrow some of their ideas.

I suggested at a klatch some time ago organizing some kind of Creative Credit Union, an idea bank where artists could deposit ideas they lack either the time or skill sets to bring to fruition; other members could then withdraw an idea that strikes them as personally germaine, or simply use the idea as a seed (the likelier possibility), bring off the project, and deposit the rewards of their labor back into the CCU, from which a quarterly dividend --- both in merit awards and dough --- would be paid back out to the members. Artist X deposits a Guggenheim-worthy idea, but doesn't know how to weld jellyfish; Artist Y does, and has had dreams of welded jellyfish since she was a teenager; the finished project is purchased by the Whitney, and somehow manages to change the rules of the MacArthur award, so at the end of the quarter all the members get to add the Whitney to their list of collectors, and share in the half-mil. The most difficult part of the enterprise is the actual facilitation of the organization, which is simply another form of Union membership. The UW could well serve as an organizational springboard for this sort of thing, which could potentially provide for them a net gain in funds. It's worth considering, anyway.

@33 I got a fresh copy of the "Make Your Own Life" catalog at the klatch. (Thanks Sara!) Bennett Simpson's essay on Cologne and "Cologne" in the 1980s and 1990s is a really sharp look at the construction and contestation of cultural identity. I highly recommend it. (And thanks much to the Henry for bringing that thorny, rich show to Seattle.)

When I look back at the last year, I think Jen has been making attempts at defining Seattle’s cultural identity. She has chosen specific shows and artists to illustrate what she, as a cultural critic, expects of us as artists. While I may not always agree with her choices, I appreciate her work.

I really must commend Scott Lawrimore for the absolute divine inspiration which is Art Klatch. I was a very regular attendee for a year and feel it was the most rewarding time EVER as a gallerist, curator and artist. Since I am an intermittent attendee due to increasing family obligations, I treasure the opportunity to be in the presence of greatness, of warm bodies, of thought-provoking discourse, inspiring camraderie and the ineffable grace with which Scott nurtures this lovely congress, all at 7AM on a Tuesday morning.

One need only read Scott's list of who was present at this Summit of Seattle April 28, 2009 to realize that the art community is better for Scott's contribution. Thank you, Scott.

Speaking specifically about Klatch 4/28, I was truly reassured by the calm charisma of the panelists Regina Hackett, Jen Graves, Matthew Offenbacher and masterful finesse of guest moderator and panel brainchild Eric Fredrickson.

I, like Scott, heart art critics, though I don't have a t-shirt to prove it. I really like Jen and Regina as persons. I was just telling Regina after the Klatch that she and Jen remind me of sisters, truly. I hear bluster and disagreement when I read the printed conflicts they have, but when I hear them in person, I can hear them fighting for the same thing in their undertones, LIKE SISTERS, LIKE SISTERS! It is SO endearing.

Regina's calm charisma after having lost the union gig after what- 27 years- was truly inspiring to witness. And she is so smart. Smart. She knows the whole thing is flowing here and there.

Jen's genius is also formidable, and indomitable.

It is the best of times, as Regina said, and I think because of the URGENCY of the times. Bravo.

Paul Pauper,
Form/Space Atelier

@36, Jen's doing great work. But please, let's not talk about "defining Seattle's cultural identity." It's not about a definition. (A dialectic wouldn't hurt, though.)

Timothy,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I'm sorry to have come off as condescending, and I appreciate your continued efforts to get some answers.

You mention (@28) that the question of why artmaking can be considered an activity separate from that which is done for "non-art" purposes has not yet been satisfactorily answered. I'm of the opinion that this is one of those questions for which there is no answer, yet contained in the act of asking is a YES. So while brushing your teeth in and of itself may not be art, the act of declaring it art may well be.

Perhaps my personal version of Godwin's law is "the longer Emily talks about something, the more the chance of her bringing it around to religion/spirituality approaches one," so here goes. This line of inquiry reminds me very much of the kinds of conversations post-Enlightenment Westerners often try to strike up about God. That is, we ask questions like, "Is there a God?" which are, like your art question, perhaps quite fun to chew on, but circular and inherently unanswerable.

We may take as given that existence "is," and assume it to therefore have a source, or we may declare existence to be illusory, and inquire after the source of the illusion; either way, the act of defining obscures the primacy of Source. To paraphrase Augustine, "If you think you got God figured out, it ain't God."

I find this entire line of inquiry orthogonal to the reality that human beings, across times and cultures, have engaged in the practice of mythologizing and ritually observing that Source. God exists, if only a function of the human mind viewing the kind of math it's made of as worthy of reverence. Voltaire sez: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." Evolution is God. So is the Big Bang. Jehovah isn't, but the mysterious, slippery stuff deep in our brains that makes it possible and even enticing for us to conceive of him as God IS.

In the same manner, Art (defined for this purpose as an activity removed from that which is undertaken for any reason other than "make special") exists because humans (across time, across cultures) do it. To call this category into question is fine, but then we must put a semantic marker in the place of the activity I previously defined as "art," which puts us back where we started. Thus, I do not mean any condescension when I respond to your apparent fixation on this feedback loop as "semantic orneriness." ;)

Also, I heartily appreciate that (at least for me, right now), a giant bong advertisement appears to the right of this comments thread.

Long Live the Slog.

@32
The original "Projections" program included 10 Seattle and Tacoma artists, many at that point not "represented" and selected by Nate Lippens... that must have been in 2005 (sorry for my spotty memory). Then during "Make Your Own Life" Fionn Meade organized another "Projections" on artist run spaces and their kin: Crawl Space, SOIL, Punch, and others. So there is a precedent for Seattle based programs...

I came up with the "Projections" notion as a periodic, topical look at parts of the regional scenes. The two programs you mention were meant to do this. Admittedly it has been an infrequent program but a good one nonetheless. It's one modest but hopefully useful way I see for the Henry to help make some introductions and connections.

@41, Oh, right! My rhetorical question actually had a real-world answer. I only remembered the ones I'd attended. Sorry!

...which is funny, because I was thinking today that in Seattle, things happen once, and then we forget them, and wondering what it would take to connect a series of events and make a history (even better, a contested history) out of them. (One of Jen's examples in "The Vancouver Problem" was the mostly forgotten 1969 Lucy Lippard exhibition "557,087" at SAM.) And then I go and forget a bunch of stuff that already happened!