Hey now! Adoptin' an arch pose near the Arch (Winkl!) Makin' cracks ‘bout my expense account but how little it means in the flyover country, though. Pondering why a city needs both an art museum and a contemporary art museum, betraying an ignorance that belies a Ph.D., y'all! Name-droppin’ snd showing off my ennui. Ya know, like ya do!
Fag snobbery or snob faggery?
Yall from NYC right?
As a resident of St. Louis for the past 25 years, please allow me to reply on behalf of many of us here...
Michael Wilson is the idiot who has killed art in the Midwest.
There are educators in St. Louis who tirelessly tell kids that art is for everyone. That if you're a 5 year old carving a tree stump, it can be art. That you can be masculine and an artist. That you can make your art out of old rifles, or carburettors, or kitchen sinks. That you should try SOMETHING, anything, just to see how it feels. Everything counts. Just get started.
In the other corner, we have Michael Wison. The epitome of the soft-handed, boorish, condescending snob who turns his nose up at the wrong vintage of Beaujolais. The guy endlessly complaining about the weather. Hint: this is America, you foppish dolt, not merry old England. It gets hot in the Midwest. If you think it's bad lounging in the Islamic Garden, you might want to try the warehouses where my friends work without airconditioning. Michael Wilson is the caricature you see on TV complaining about how the sheets are only 300 count, or how the rental agency only had a SMALL Mercedes.
Please, please, get this dandy out of the equation. This is what gives art a bad name.
You missed the beautiful female art in East St. Louis, partner. Don't ya'll come back now ya hear?
Word on the street is that you didn't pay a cent for this trip. So I guess the “You get what you pay for...” saying is true, huh?
Perhaps you kicked back one too many free drinks, as you failed to see the beauty in St. Louis. There's a reason we are the heart of America. As you are from New York City, there is a reason you are considered the “armpit of America”...simply because, you sir, STINK.
Try pulling your head out of your ass. You'll feel much better, you whiney snot.
Wasn't there a Martin Amis character, a sot and brown-nosing journalist who dropped names and forgot the purpose of his reportage?
St Louis is a town that values art in the face of the usual American fiscal misfeasance, and has a history of spending good money on art when times are hard- see the Impressinist paintings purchased durnng the worst years of the Depression.
I am from rural Texas and can only envy that city's commitment to the arts.
St Louis deserves better reportage than that of a fly-by-day partygoer.
And Artforum deserves better writers, hope this snide and self-centered nitwit is not on staff.
Mr. Wilson, I'm that sorry your experience wasn't what you expected. This write up lacked appreciation in my opinion. Where was the thank you to the St. Louis Convention and Commission for bringing you out here? What was your goal in writing this piece? Was it the art itself? About STL as a whole? Customer service? Was it about travel? I'm confused as to why your entire trip was reflected in a piece that I understand should be about the art and the people sharing it. It's too bad that you can't give a critical opinion and still share something positive here.
My first though on reading Mr. Wilson's diary was that he needed to add a little more bran to his cereal.
Oh, poor Michael. So desperate to be clever. So cranky.
And ultimately, so irrelevant.
I find it so much easier to overlook “dodgy grammar” from a hotel than to overlook “dodgy grammar” from a so-called professional writer.
So… St. Louis is loudly publicizing that they were hoping to pay for a sellout “good” review… clearly they don't understand that integrity can't be bought. Or if the negative responses to his article in the press is a desperate attempt to strum up some STL pride… with comments like “fag snobbery or snob faggery” and “get this dandy out of the equation” who would want to visit a town filled with inferiority complex and homophobic locals?
What a strangely incoherent piece by usually-coherent Wilson, and what an equally unsavory collection of responses! As far as I can tell, an all-expenses-paid junket to celebrate the opening of a new wing of an art museum becomes not an object of ironic self-scrutiny, as one would expect, nor an actual analysis of the museum and its new wing, the question of architectural melding in public buildings, or the role of a major museum in a major American city that is not one of the trio New York/LA/Chicago of artcoasts, as one might hope. Nor, even, a critical eye to the work on display. Instead: an unselfconscious travelogue most revealing of a particular sort of humorless narcissism, and then responses full of misspellings, veiled threats, cries of civic boosterism turned to outrage, and the like. As an art historian who travels, I've found St. Louis, like Minneapolis-St. Paul, Pittsburgh, Santa Fe, and other non-coast American cities, to have particular and particularly interesting artworld characteristics. This set of jejune performances by all concerned, however, leaves me disheartened at Artforum, at Wilson, and at the world of wounded commentators.