Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The SuttonBeresCuller Fakers

1

What ever SBC may become, they are not either a frat or pranksters. Modernism has always had the ability to critique Modernism. SBC are more than a one liner joke. I know because I have been watching their work longer than anyone else. After 10 years of seeing them, that is all I am prepared to say,

Posted by Steven Vroom | February 7, 2007 5:03 PM
2

although sbc could probably drink any frat boy under the table, i doubt they have any such affiliations, and if they do, i would personally find that pretty d*mn amusing.

in fact (and watch the h*ll out as i come out of the closet here) i was a sorority girl for a (very) short while at my father's behest and spent a few nights hanging out at frat parties. it wasn't anything like hanging out with jon et al...

not that i remember, anyway. the memory is a bit fuzzy as i was drinking a lot back then, probably trying to block out the experience of living in a building covered head to toe in pink.

a few days after i was initiated (or whatever) and the other girls started to get to know me better, they started to ask me why i was there. ultimately i was excommunicated. go figure...

and don't ask me about the initiation ceremony. i was 'sworn to secrecy' and it was lame anyway.

peaches,

the-no-longer-pink-and-not-afraid-to-say-so m.

p.s. jen, i am using your bold thingy. what do you think?

p.p.s. steven (and i hope you don't mind this coming from a former sorority girl), i think your post is bang on.

Posted by m. | February 7, 2007 8:23 PM
3

"ll be curious to see whether The News Tribune plays ball in the aftermath of being duped; could be some very fun art writing coming out of this."

not art writing, but funny...

http://www.thenewstribune.com/ae/story/6355769p-5671993c.html


Posted by come again? | February 8, 2007 1:11 AM
4

who in the h*ll could mistake greg, jed, and jason for ben, jon, and zach!!??? and being from tacoma is no excuse!!

even if you've never met sbc or seen them in person at an opening, if you just visited the sbc WEBSITE and poked around a little you'd never be able to make that blunder...yeeeesh.

in addition, even in the aftermath, it's obvious the news tribune writer only bothered to get the barest of facts about the 'fake' trio and still offers no clear idea who they or vital 5 really are.

wow,

m.

Posted by m. | February 8, 2007 9:18 AM
5

Since I used to be a math major, some 'amusing algebra' [note: UC Davis threw me out eventually]:

1. FAKERS/SBC = Sears Portraits/SBC

I contend that SBC inviting other artists to play them for the press at TAM is a continuation of their SEARS PORTRAIT inquiry. Who is SBC in these portraits? No one and everyone--no one, fixed identity, and therefore, they could be any one. Quite generous as I see it. It is a serious gesture to refute or hand over one's celebrity and should not be dismissed as a mere prank. [Historical footnote: remember Cattelan selling his coveted space to the highest bidder at the Venice Biennial?]

2. SBC photographs/mugging = art/a ham sandwich

I just reviewed the SBC photographs on our website, and couldn't find a single occasion where they were 'mugging for the camera.' They were almost always in costume--always not themselves. The thought that they were selling 'Their personas' doesn't ring true when you look at the work. Like the SEARS PORTRAITS, they are constantly avoiding the use of 'self' in the work. Beyond any discussion of the 'art' of their staged, formal photographs in various guises, the other photographs in the exhibition representing past performances and installations were an attempt to contextualize previous work. We were 'selling' SBC as a group of engaged artists with a record of doing interesting and potentially historically important work. We wanted people to 'invest' in this history--to conceptually and emotionally invest in the artist's ideas and actions.

3. And from Papa D:
Arrhe: art = merdre: merde

Any discussion of SBC exploiting their own celebrity belittles their body of work and misses the point of much of it entirely. And on the other hoof, any discussion about the DISCUSSION of SBC exploiting their own celebrity is marvelous fertilizer for their body of work.

Posted by LAWRIMORE project | February 8, 2007 10:57 AM
6

snore...

Posted by blehpunk | February 8, 2007 1:06 PM
7

Rock, the head of TAM, was in on the joke, as well as the posers, and it remains a sophmoric one-line joke.

Maybe we should all come to the opening on Saturday at TAM and pose as famous/importart art critics. I'm digging out my blonde wig with the bad curls and cool geek glasses and going as "Jen".

or maybe I'll shave my head and go as "Rock".

hope the Chihuligans show up with eyepatches.

Posted by Paul Sykorsky | February 9, 2007 8:37 AM
8

I don't know the guys and have only seen pictures of their art. I'll give them the benifit of the doubt and suppose they are brilliant and that the work is indeed "historic". But my personal impression tends to echo Blehpunk's.. although I'm more of a yawner than a snorer. When I wake in the morning wanting to see and experience life to it's fullest.. a sailboat in the TAM atrium just doesn't do it for me. Then again, very little does.. I'm easily amused, but not very easy easily impressed.

Posted by JB | February 9, 2007 4:33 PM
9

Jasper says to John," Maybe next time choo choo in bottle."

Jasper says to Ben, " Take a bite of my ice cream cone!"

Jasper says to Zac, " Sup Culler?"

Posted by JASPER E. | February 9, 2007 6:32 PM
10

Jasper says to John," Maybe next time choo choo in bottle."

Jasper says to Ben, " Take a bite of my ice cream cone!"

Jasper says to Zac, " Sup Culler?"

Posted by JASPER E. | February 9, 2007 6:32 PM
11

Ok, I'm their 'pimp', so feel free to ignore my biased posits about the sailboat:

Take as given: The title is "Ship in a Bottle."

Posit 1: [with Freudian accent] A sailboat in a museum is not merely a sailboat in a museum. Any reduction and commentary on the 'facts' of the installation ignore the title and the act entirely.

Posit 2: A better reduction would be to explore the notion of 'ship in a bottle' as a metaphor for the 'creative act' and a commentary on how successful this piece is under that rubric.

Unfinished Posit 3: A full-size 'ship in a bottle' in a very specific museum space, with a very specific history and a very specific maritime design, with extreme limitations of access, with extreme limitations of time and funding, in a city with a very specific nautical history, by artist with a documented history of such acts, and by artists who's work has consistently explored the nature of the creative act, the performative, site-specificity, institutional critique, and spectator interactivity is ______________.

Posit 4: Leaving a fill-in ____________ on the SLOG is a very dangerous thing.

Posted by LAWRIMORE project | February 10, 2007 11:22 AM
12

scott, allow me to preempt the responses to your ___________ along the lines of: is "the work of douche bags" with my own fill in, which goes: is "at once brilliant, thoughtful, sincere, witty, and fun."

why should frowning always get all the credit for brilliance? when did a little fun and notable art become mutually exclusive?

seems to me all the negative shots on this thread are probably followed by a shallow chaser of jealousy and/or some sort of hermetically sealed view of what art can be and what it can say.

shine on sbc,

m.

Posted by m. | February 10, 2007 4:22 PM
13

sorry for the follow-up post, but before we regress back to the 'frat boys with one liners' thinking via my assertion of 'fun' as one of myriad possible artistic methods, messages, products, and by-products of sbc's work, let me note that by 'fun' i mean that sbc (and the fakers) are clearly having a good time with their work while also creating noteworthy pieces and installations that challenge, among other things, the role of 'formal' art both in terms of the art establishment and in terms of the public at large.

i'd also like to note that the work sbc does is generally very hard work both conceptually and physically. they think in enormous terms and it takes an enormous amount of energy and dedication to follow through on their concepts.

a few laughs along the way when things go sideways (like they do) can't hurt...

and if some of the work itself also comes off as playful, i don't think that detracts from the formality or the importance of it; humor is one of the more powerful tools at our disposal for the dissemination of both content and commentary.

as for the art of play as both an historical and a contemporary subject of artistic exploration, i humbly offer the following archived article from on the visual codec site, "playtime" by lance blomgren. i think it offers fantastic insight into the importance of play both in art and in society.

good reading,

m.

Posted by m. | February 10, 2007 9:10 PM
14

That's hardly a fair criticism M. Can't someone have a preference or disagreement and it not stem from as you say Jealousy or a narrow mind? This line of thinking has made it taboo for artists to think or comment on other art. It's a non sequiter argument based on eronious assumptions. It doesn't do anything for me, and I assure you I'm not in any way jealous.. or narrow minded.. nor am I ingorant.. uneducated.. or niave.. It just bores me.. can't I be bored with it without having my views thrown in the garbage as non relevant?

Posted by JB | February 11, 2007 12:59 AM
15

"I don't know the guys and have only seen pictures of their art." - JB

but nonetheless you're sure that they and their work bore you?

who's really dishing out the 'unfair criticism' here (assuming that 'fair criticism' even exists)?

go have a look at a few of their pieces in person. show up at a couple of their openings. strike up a conversation with one or all of them at the hideout. suspend your boredom for just a few minutes while engaging in a real life experience of them and/or their art.

if you come back afterwards and tell us you're still bored for reasons a), b), and c) i might not be so inclined to throw your thoughts on the matter into my mental circular file...

but no promises on you being capable of changing my own opinion that the anti-sbc sentiments noted to date on this thread strike me as vacuous blather.

catchya on the flipside,

m.

Posted by m. | February 11, 2007 2:23 PM
16

Perhaps I will check out their work in person sometime M. It's true I've only seen their work in photographs. I'll probably go to the TAM anyway soon. I'm not trying to change your mind at all. There are some fundemental differences between what I enjoy in art, and what I see so far of their work. I could not sum them up in a blog post and don't want to have the conversation publically right now anyway, in part because with respect specifically to SBC, I could only do so in half informed generalizations, and in part because I've found it's suicidal to criticise highly popular artists, curators etc.. The arts community doesn't always play nice and I've been smacked down for saying less.

Posted by JB | February 11, 2007 3:36 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).