I keep reading online that the AGA's director is hosting a sneak preview for local bloggers. I wonder what blogs/bloggers have been invited, and, of course, wonder why Studiosavant (arguably Edmonton's longest running, widest-read blog devoted to visual art) did not make the cut…
January 23rd, 2010 at 11:57 am
ahab:
I fear studiosavant's artists are fated ever to be outliers to Alberta's artscene. We're just too damn arguable.
"You like being critical" one insider said to me of studiosavant. But, no. We like to like things and don't like to pretend we do when we don't.
January 24th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
MC:
I suppose speaking truth to power isn't everyone's cup of tea.
January 24th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
MC:
Perhaps the AGA will make public their list of approved bloggers… or, is that kind of transparency too radical?
January 25th, 2010 at 11:46 am
ahab:
So the blogger preview was apparently scheduled for this a.m. They toured past the gallery I was working in – I just put my head down and kept wiring speakers. George Miller, when he heard who'd just been by, went running off to fire up the hundred speakers on the third floor for them, because "bloggers have been some of our best supporters".
There were about six of them. Keep your google search peeled for the usual suspects' acute reportage. I can't say I was sad not to be following that little herd around.
As you might imagine, the private guided tours have been ramping up towards opening day, as have the donations and membership sales.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
ADAM WALDRON-BLAIN:
No, that was just us "old media" types from Vue (although we blog too sometimes, obviously). The bloggers came in the afternoon, in (I'm told) a larger group.
I would have waved, but you seemed too interested in building the show to notice. Fair enough.
I'm sure if you were interested, MC, you could have emailed Sarah Hoyles or Mack Male and they could have easily put you in the loop. I don't think it was very exclusive.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
ADAM WALDRON-BLAIN:
And: other than the huge fold-up wall/door in the main lobby, the building looks pretty good on the inside. I was impressed. They put a lot of money into it, and the Karsh show at least looks great in terms of production. I'll have to wait to see the rest when they are ready.
Now hopefully with all that out of the way they can maybe get back to collecting and focussing on art rather hyping the false scarcity of their free tickets.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
ahab:
I appreciate the correction, Adam. It's true, I'm being kept awfully busy running speaker wire – tens of thousands of feet of it, by now. I saw that second group too, but didn't bother trying to recognize anyone. More like I unsaw them.
Does it seem at all upside down to you that the shows get previewed, instead of reviewed (especially when they're not even exhibition-ready)? Does it not all strike you rather as an institutional (corporation-al) play for promotion than an authentic interest in honest responses?
January 25th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
ahab:
Okay, I'm leapblogging – a little out of step. I missed your last comment while typing out my own.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
ADAM WALDRON-BLAIN:
Heh, you'll have to wait 'till Thursday. But I can offer you a preview of my article: yes.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
ahab:
You'll have to wait and see whether I can resist the temptation to never look in Vue or See for arts coverage ever again.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
ahab:
But if you're wishing for an editorial red pen, I'll make this one-time offer of mine – no strings attached.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
MC:
"old media" types from Vue… makes me giggle. A bunch of Woodward and Bernsteins, I tells ya!
I kid. But seriously, folks, it's interesting to hear that the "blogger" group was larger than the "old media" group.. I guess it included a broad who's who of Alberta's cutting edge Tweetists and AGA Facebook 'fans', but no Studiosavants. An even deeper puzzle, it seems.
I have no doubt a list of invited Tweeters would be very revealing of the AGA's motives (not that their motives are difficult to estimate without such a list).
The question, however, was not whether they would provide me with a list if I privately asked for one (which I would then make public), but rather whether they would themselves publish their list of preferred old- and new- media-outlets, say, on their website, in an act of corporate transparency (kinda like how the White House publishes a list of its visitors), so that the public might see where their own biases lie.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
MC:
Sorry Adam, I see, you meant that I could have asked Sarah (or Mack?) to invite me… Actually, I wouldn't have been able to attend the preview, in any case.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:32 am
MC:
According to Mack, "Nearly thirty people from Edmonton’s very active social media community attended the blogger sneak peek today at the new Art Gallery of Alberta in downtown Edmonton."
So, I guess it wasn't very exclusive… just, sort of, specifically exclusive. Of us.
I guess maybe we're not "active" enough, maybe? Hmmm…
January 26th, 2010 at 12:39 am
MC:
More importantly, is this video not fantastic? The entire "Look Around You" first season is well worth watching…
A Studiosavant Exclusive!
January 26th, 2010 at 12:40 am
MC:
I already see a few mentions of the AGA Bloggy preview, from political blogs to wedding planning blogs… I suppose we just don't fit in to such a select group… what with our visual arts focus, and all. Not really the demographic the AGA is trying to attract, after all… it's all about those rentable party spaces… only the best for the Ladies Who Lunch.
""You like being critical" one insider said to me of studiosavant. But, no. We like to like things and don't like to pretend we do when we don't.
As opposed to those who like to be uncritical? in what field of endeavor is an uncritical attitude a plus, exactly?
Regardless, it would be an understatement to say that the AGA is aware of our little online publication. Which leaves the conclusion that we were left out for precisely that reason: We're not uncritical enough.
As another blogger puts it, "Great to see organizations recognize the value of many voices contributing to and shaping a PR/marketing message."
Super-great. Awesome. Etc…
January 26th, 2010 at 11:04 am
ahab:
The video's title was a typo – "Look Around You: Irony".
Re: uncritical. A skewed sort of unacknowledged criticality is currently exercised by marketers, admen and fasionistas, one that is neither the admirable nor contemptible version of the trait, but entirely involuntary. While I value a discriminating criticality, and may be criticised for being of the censorious type, their faculty of discernment is betrayed by reflexive shudders of horror at the very thought someone might suggest all is not as it should be.
But those of the 'them' who are unaware of it all, cannot, as a result, be held responsible. And what reason other than cluelessness could there be for damping one's critical sense of things? No taste at all?
What can a guy lay authentic claim to if not his own taste? (I read that in some very unfashionable book.)
January 26th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
MC:
I tried to ask some questions about the selection of "bloggers" for the AGA's tour, over on Mack Male's blog, but sadly, instead of answers, all that was offered were personal attacks and sarcasm:
"You're just mad 'cuz you didn't get invited", "Sorry you're so upset", etc…
So much for transparency, critical thinking, common courtesy, etc….
I wish I had a Twitter account… I could write like:
Meanwhile, Paul Matwychuk continues to opine stupidly (despite being FIRED from SEE Magazine! LOL).
But, that sort of shit is fucking irresponsible childishness, OBVIOUSLY!
Er, I mean… GRRR! I'm sooo mad!
January 27th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
MC:
Fuuuck me! Why don't people accept a free editor when they need one?
January 27th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
ahab:
I trust they actually mean what they mean to say, but Amy's and Adam's couple of potentially credible (and critical) points get lost in the confusion of whether they could have possibly meant what they actually said.
The blogging goofiness would be a fiasco if it weren't so… horrifically goofy.
I hope you passed your unusable artist/industry party pass on to somebody who'll appreciate it.
I keep reading online that the AGA's director is hosting a sneak preview for local bloggers.
January 23rd, 2010 at 11:57 amI wonder what blogs/bloggers have been invited, and, of course, wonder why Studiosavant (arguably Edmonton's longest running, widest-read blog devoted to visual art) did not make the cut…
I fear studiosavant's artists are fated ever to be outliers to Alberta's artscene. We're just too damn arguable.
"You like being critical" one insider said to me of studiosavant. But, no. We like to like things and don't like to pretend we do when we don't.
January 24th, 2010 at 10:06 pmI suppose speaking truth to power isn't everyone's cup of tea.
January 24th, 2010 at 10:20 pmPerhaps the AGA will make public their list of approved bloggers… or, is that kind of transparency too radical?
January 25th, 2010 at 11:46 amSo the blogger preview was apparently scheduled for this a.m. They toured past the gallery I was working in – I just put my head down and kept wiring speakers. George Miller, when he heard who'd just been by, went running off to fire up the hundred speakers on the third floor for them, because "bloggers have been some of our best supporters".
There were about six of them. Keep your google search peeled for the usual suspects' acute reportage. I can't say I was sad not to be following that little herd around.
As you might imagine, the private guided tours have been ramping up towards opening day, as have the donations and membership sales.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:01 pmNo, that was just us "old media" types from Vue (although we blog too sometimes, obviously). The bloggers came in the afternoon, in (I'm told) a larger group.
I would have waved, but you seemed too interested in building the show to notice. Fair enough.
I'm sure if you were interested, MC, you could have emailed Sarah Hoyles or Mack Male and they could have easily put you in the loop. I don't think it was very exclusive.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:35 pmAnd: other than the huge fold-up wall/door in the main lobby, the building looks pretty good on the inside. I was impressed. They put a lot of money into it, and the Karsh show at least looks great in terms of production. I'll have to wait to see the rest when they are ready.
Now hopefully with all that out of the way they can maybe get back to collecting and focussing on art rather hyping the false scarcity of their free tickets.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:39 pmI appreciate the correction, Adam. It's true, I'm being kept awfully busy running speaker wire – tens of thousands of feet of it, by now. I saw that second group too, but didn't bother trying to recognize anyone. More like I unsaw them.
Does it seem at all upside down to you that the shows get previewed, instead of reviewed (especially when they're not even exhibition-ready)? Does it not all strike you rather as an institutional (corporation-al) play for promotion than an authentic interest in honest responses?
January 25th, 2010 at 8:53 pmOkay, I'm leapblogging – a little out of step. I missed your last comment while typing out my own.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:56 pmHeh, you'll have to wait 'till Thursday. But I can offer you a preview of my article: yes.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:02 pmYou'll have to wait and see whether I can resist the temptation to never look in Vue or See for arts coverage ever again.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:10 pmBut if you're wishing for an editorial red pen, I'll make this one-time offer of mine – no strings attached.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:25 pm"old media" types from Vue… makes me giggle. A bunch of Woodward and Bernsteins, I tells ya!
I kid. But seriously, folks, it's interesting to hear that the "blogger" group was larger than the "old media" group.. I guess it included a broad who's who of Alberta's cutting edge Tweetists and AGA Facebook 'fans', but no Studiosavants. An even deeper puzzle, it seems.
I have no doubt a list of invited Tweeters would be very revealing of the AGA's motives (not that their motives are difficult to estimate without such a list).
The question, however, was not whether they would provide me with a list if I privately asked for one (which I would then make public), but rather whether they would themselves publish their list of preferred old- and new- media-outlets, say, on their website, in an act of corporate transparency (kinda like how the White House publishes a list of its visitors), so that the public might see where their own biases lie.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:31 pmSorry Adam, I see, you meant that I could have asked Sarah (or Mack?) to invite me…
January 26th, 2010 at 12:32 amActually, I wouldn't have been able to attend the preview, in any case.
According to Mack, "Nearly thirty people from Edmonton’s very active social media community attended the blogger sneak peek today at the new Art Gallery of Alberta in downtown Edmonton."
So, I guess it wasn't very exclusive… just, sort of, specifically exclusive. Of us.
I guess maybe we're not "active" enough, maybe? Hmmm…
January 26th, 2010 at 12:39 amMore importantly, is this video not fantastic? The entire "Look Around You" first season is well worth watching…
A Studiosavant Exclusive!
January 26th, 2010 at 12:40 amI already see a few mentions of the AGA Bloggy preview, from political blogs to wedding planning blogs… I suppose we just don't fit in to such a select group… what with our visual arts focus, and all. Not really the demographic the AGA is trying to attract, after all… it's all about those rentable party spaces… only the best for the Ladies Who Lunch.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:45 amCheck out the Horror Show…
January 26th, 2010 at 2:21 am""You like being critical" one insider said to me of studiosavant. But, no. We like to like things and don't like to pretend we do when we don't.
As opposed to those who like to be uncritical? in what field of endeavor is an uncritical attitude a plus, exactly?
Regardless, it would be an understatement to say that the AGA is aware of our little online publication. Which leaves the conclusion that we were left out for precisely that reason: We're not uncritical enough.
As another blogger puts it, "Great to see organizations recognize the value of many voices contributing to and shaping a PR/marketing message."
Super-great. Awesome. Etc…
January 26th, 2010 at 11:04 amThe video's title was a typo – "Look Around You: Irony".
Re: uncritical. A skewed sort of unacknowledged criticality is currently exercised by marketers, admen and fasionistas, one that is neither the admirable nor contemptible version of the trait, but entirely involuntary. While I value a discriminating criticality, and may be criticised for being of the censorious type, their faculty of discernment is betrayed by reflexive shudders of horror at the very thought someone might suggest all is not as it should be.
But those of the 'them' who are unaware of it all, cannot, as a result, be held responsible. And what reason other than cluelessness could there be for damping one's critical sense of things? No taste at all?
What can a guy lay authentic claim to if not his own taste? (I read that in some very unfashionable book.)
January 26th, 2010 at 8:44 pmI tried to ask some questions about the selection of "bloggers" for the AGA's tour, over on Mack Male's blog, but sadly, instead of answers, all that was offered were personal attacks and sarcasm:
"You're just mad 'cuz you didn't get invited", "Sorry you're so upset", etc…
So much for transparency, critical thinking, common courtesy, etc….
Samo, Samo…
January 26th, 2010 at 11:39 pmHi Paul… thanks for reading!
Mmm… angry stew!
January 27th, 2010 at 1:52 pmI wish I had a Twitter account… I could write like:
Meanwhile, Paul Matwychuk continues to opine stupidly (despite being FIRED from SEE Magazine! LOL).
But, that sort of shit is fucking irresponsible childishness, OBVIOUSLY!
Er, I mean… GRRR! I'm sooo mad!
January 27th, 2010 at 2:11 pmFuuuck me! Why don't people accept a free editor when they need one?
January 27th, 2010 at 9:27 pmI trust they actually mean what they mean to say, but Amy's and Adam's couple of potentially credible (and critical) points get lost in the confusion of whether they could have possibly meant what they actually said.
The blogging goofiness would be a fiasco if it weren't so… horrifically goofy.
I hope you passed your unusable artist/industry party pass on to somebody who'll appreciate it.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:24 pm