At Space, Hot Metal puts the thermometer through its paces

1. Dear Lisa Brennan

   Your article is abusive and juvenile. You must not be from Pittsburgh are you? Cause this show really stood the test of a community coming together to help out. THIS FAMILIES HOUSE BURNED DOWN! And you have only rude comments to add to that…

   My question is where are your credentials?

   First of all you took little time to describe this show to anyone that does not know much about the arts…What would my grandmother think if she wanted to visit Pittsburgh and see some art? Is that not half the point of a review? You did not talk about the content of the work. (That might be because you don’t know much about art) But what about a little research! Like the job of the gallery your job is also to help the public understand and look at art. You must remember most Pittsburghers did not get a college education at a fancy art school, nor do they care too. They just wanna know a little about it…YOU COULD HAVE TALKED ABOUT the tradition of metal working in Pittsburgh!!! HOLY S*** that was obvious.

   Your juvenile paragraph about the “emo boy” was so rude and ridicules I can’t even believe that it got past the editor (they should be more ashamed). Really what was the point of talking about that?
   If you had such a problem with this boy you could have said something to him there, instead of using your power as an “art critic” to send abusive and juvenile words to print.

   YOUR article was “chillingly cold”.

2. the only works that lack labels are rick bach’s, and that’s because they didn’t show up until a month after the exhibition opened, probably the day before she did her review.

   space almost never includes artist and/or curator statements, so that’s nothing new. i think the last time space did anything like that was for ‘miracles’ and the reviewer that time complained that the art should speak for itself.

   i’m not sure how “unhelpful” or “useless” the gallery attendant was that day, but maybe they just didn’t know the answer to her question. the trust’s gallery attendants can’t know everything about every work they show at wood street, space, 707, and 709. and if you go to the mattress factory or the warhol, their attendants are either non-existent or only there to make sure you don’t get too close to the artwork.

3. Oh, don’t get your panties in a bind. I thought the emo boy paragraph was very funny. It didn’t seem malicious to me.

   It’s like going to a restaurant with bad service – no matter how good the food is, you leave completely turned off.

4. “Hot Metal…is only half true.” That statement, and most of this article, is wholly trite.

   If the “simple question” Lissa Brennan asked the attendant was anything like her article, then it probably came across rather snarky, and so who could blame this person for not wanting to pander to her?

   This review starts off being about the show but by the end it seems to be about how the author was having a bad day and didn’t get the information and attention she wanted handed to her. Rather than offer interesting criticism, she makes snide personal attacks on the attendant. In a newspaper. It seems neither professional nor creative. I mean “Emo”? What is this, 1999?

   The worst though is when she makes an obligatory nod to the Parrish’s misfortune (THEIR HOUSE AND STUDIO BURNED DOWN), and totally negates any sincerity she might have conveyed by saying that it (the fire) doesn’t excuse the lack of “at least sentence per artist, and a paragraph from the curator.” Which is it: are you sympathetic to their situation or do you think it isn’t an excuse for the lack of reading materials provided to you at this gallery? (and why even correlate the two, for that matter) I’ve been to this show a number of times and I don’t understand what aspect needs explained or what theme needs to be delineated.

   By the end of the article, it isn’t clear what she wanted other than, apparently, a chance to complain. About some dude at an art gallery who didn’t make eye contact with her? Who cares?

   And Allison, if I go to a restaurant with bad service and good food, I don’t leave “completely turned off.” Maybe that’s because I’ve worked as a waiter before, or maybe it’s because I am fortunate enough to have the good sense not to let a little thing like that detract from my enjoyment of a quality experience. Especially if I’ve paid for it. Although in the case of Space Gallery, admission is free, and so is the spring water in the cooler towards the back. So please people, quit the whining, and don’t sweat the little things.

5. Lissa Brennan is continuing in the fine tradition of past Pittsburgh City Paper Art reviewers, a tradition of insulting Artists, Arts organizations and its own readers. Much like Gregory Knepp, a former heavy hitter of the Pittsburgh City Paper Art review style, Lissa Brennan focuses on negativity as a writing strategy.
   Brennan forgoes obvious and trite writing techniques such as critical analysis in favor of a more progressive approach involving a basic physical description of the objects presented in the exhibition, which is immediately followed by a list of complaints about the lack of any previously existing printed descriptions of the objects in the exhibition. However, the truly innovative part of Brennan’s latest piece is her shift away from insulting the artists and their artwork.
   She does in fact take the the time to berate curator Ed Parrish for his apparently inexcusable lack of printed supplemental material. In her eyes, the loss of one’s home and studio is no excuse for a lack of said printed materials. Her minimum requirements in an event such as this are listed as such: “[A] sentence per artist, and a paragraph from the curator, would be a fine start.”
   She also sets her sights on the public at large as well as the staff of the Art gallery, first expressing her desire to ‘clothesline’ a stranger and finally passing judgement on the gallery’s attendant based on their attire. She suggests that because of his style choices he should not have job but rather be sitting at home ‘taking in’ his pants. I infer from this statement that Ms. Brennan would like to see this boy take the time to perfect his personal style and then possibly return to work upon achievement of ‘perfect style.’
   Lissa Brennan is a wonderful and fresh talent in Pittsburgh’s Art Criticism scene. She builds upon an already strong foundation built by the City Paper’s past intellectual giants while continuing to push the boundaries of contemporary Art Criticism. What can we expect to see in Ms. Brennan’s Art reviews in the future? It’s hard to say. The last Pittsburgh City Paper Art reviewer to write like her hasn’t been in print for quite some time.

6. I saw this show and can corroborate that the staff, like much gallery staff when confronted by ordinary people who appear neither hip nor artistic, were pretty grumpy and made me feel like I was intruding…but isn’t the majority of the review positive? It seems pretty complimentary to the artists singled out by name. And are critics supposed to be reviewing on a curve?

7. Well I work for the gallery and I’m never grumpy. I always make eye contact and say hello to every person that walks into the gallery (despite the fact that I often get no response back). And I’m always more than happy to answer any question that is asked of me. So I don’t appreciate you trying to paint us all with the same brush. And regardless, you’re there to look at the art, not to win the approval of some gallery attendant who makes just a tiny bit more than the minimum wage. The bottom line is that the reviewer’s attack on the attendant wasn’t funny. It was embarrassing and unprofessional. It sounded like she ran out of things to say about the art but she needed more words to complete her review.

8. major tom to ground control.
   get it together or go to the frick and droll over drawings done 10000 years ago. or one of the many vanilla art shows that pop up like zits on a tennagers butt all day in the burgh.

   first off. the pgh cp has a history of dull and/or out of touch writers. gregory knepp has (had?) as much talent and insight as a flaccid penis. as for lisa brennan, and i quote: “… and the impetus behind these works, and the exhibit as a whole, are something you’ll have to guess”
   seriously
   i havent seen the show and i can probably tell you.
   the neck bone is connected to the brain bone l.b.
   what planet are you from? its an art gallery, not a chinese buffet. and btw, thats not crabmeat, its polluck.
   which brings me to allison from the northside
   a resturaunt? its a free gallery. what do you do for a living? paint by the river? operate garfields nightmare at kennywood?
   its not wal mart. its a free gallery. should the attendants walk around and ask
   “are you enjoying and understanding the art?”, “can i help you”
   of course you thought the emo comment was funny. i think comments about clueless art-goers who base their entire experience on an attendant and not the art are totally hilarious.
   there are alot of them too.
   lets go to wal mart to buy are art next time? shall we?
   aisle 666
   i think hip people should work in galleries. art should be sexy and weird thats a no-brainer.
   as far as rick bachs labels. hes got a stlye with paint and a stlye of bringing his work at 4 am the morning of the opening. so, just a heads up for next time.
   your mention and sudden downplay of the currators house and studio burning down is tasteless and irresponsible. why editors didnt catch and change this is beyond me. the art scene- in pittsburgh is strong and amazing-like what was said before-this is a show of that. you obviously have no connection to any of that.
   your review is yellow snow. another poor unimaginative review from a lack luster so called critic. half of the artists in pgh could write better. its a shame that the few galleries that do interesting things get hated on. its a shame but who cares? who cares about yellow snow? maybe allison from the northside is a super uptight annoying psuedo yuppie lurker? maybe not.
   she likes to eat though.
   and i like to look at art. not lame reviews. one part time cp writer who also writes for a major art publication told that she would never write about a show she didnt like or had problems with.
   ms. brennan-dont impose your shortcomings as a critic as being those of the gallery or currator.
   and…
   why didnt alice winn write about this show?

9. I’d like to correct a couple of misconceptions that thread through the comments about the “Hot Metal” review, which I edited.

   One misconception is that Brennan didn’t discuss the art. In fact, close to half of the word count was devoted to describing or evaluating the artworks themselves, and most of the rest to the way the show was annotated, which most gallery-goers would agree is an important part of seeing an exhibit.

   Another misconception is that the review was negative. But the review includes the sentence “There is much more good than bad here,” and all but one of the artworks discussed at any length is noted quite favorably.

   I’m not sure why the experience of attending the show — which legitimately includes the way the exhibit is arranged in the space, the way the artworks are labeled and annotated, and the reviewer’s interactions with gallery staff pertinent to answering such questions — shouldn’t be fair game for a reviewer. It’s curious that so many people seem to consider a two-sentence parenthetical aside about an unhelpful gallery staffer to be the heart of an otherwise positive (if qualifiedly so) review.

   Bill O’Driscoll
   Arts and Entertainment Editor
   City Paper

10. yes bill, that is all true. but come on, you can’t tell me that the reviewer’s attack on our gallery attendant wasn’t completely ridiculous. surely, there must have been a better way to address the issue.

    for everyone else that is reading this :

    the curator’s house burned down a week before the show opened. do you really think he gave a fck about artist and/or curator statements. i give him credit just for going on with the show and not completely canceling it.

    rick bach’s pieces showed up unannounced, untitled, and an entire month late. (and probably the day before the review was done) so that is why they lacked labels.

    the show is called “hot metal”. all of the pieces are metal related works. the theme is obvious. no artist and/or curator statements were necessary.

11. Slinky writes: “come on, you can’t tell me that the reviewer’s attack on our gallery attendant wasn’t completely ridiculous. surely, there must have been a better way to address the issue.”

    I wasn’t there, so I can’t swear on the veracity of the reviewer’s account. But I think that in a public venue like Space, the quality of the staffing is a legitimate issue. This reviewer has written about many shows for us, has never before felt moved to comment on interactions with staff, and insisted that in this case the staffer was especially rude. At some point, I have to trust our writers and allow them their voice.

    Slinky writes: “for everyone else that is reading this :

    the curator’s house burned down a week before the show opened. do you really think he gave a fck about artist and/or curator statements. i give him credit just for going on with the show and not completely canceling it.”

    It was terrible what happened to Ed and Carly, and we do note the fire in the review — which alone might help readers contextualize our efforts to identify curatorial shortcomings.
    But I’m not sure what people who criticize the review on these grounds are arguing for. When reviewing a show organized by someone to whom something awful has happened, should a reviewer not mention problems with the exhibit, esthetic, curatorial or otherwise? Or should a reviewer who attends a show organized by someone to whom something terrible has happened, on finding something she dislikes about it — even though she rather values the show as a whole — decide not to write about it at all because she wants to tell the whole story, and criticisms might offend?

    slinky: “rick bach’s pieces showed up unannounced, untitled, and an entire month late. (and probably the day before the review was done) so that is why they lacked labels.”

    that’s certainly a good explanation, but I’m sure you can see why this information was unavailable to our reviewer — and why it shouldn’t matter if it had been. Once, a reviewer here complained in print of unlabeled work at an exhibit, and the gallery got mad because they had had labels, but they’d fallen off the wall. Was that the reviewer’s fault, too?

    slinky: “the show is called “hot metal”. all of the pieces are metal related works. the theme is obvious. no artist and/or curator statements were necessary.”

    the extent of annotation required of a given exhibit is perenially debatable, but this assertion makes it sound like our reviewer was insisting on extensive commentary. in fact, the reviewer wrote that “a sentence per artist, and a paragraph from the curator” would have been sufficient.

    Bill

12. Mr. O’Driscoll,
    I would like to correct a couple of misconceptions that you yourself seem to have about this review. The simple inclusion of the sentence ‘there is more good than bad here’ does not make an otherwise negative review into a positive one. And just because Lissa Brennan hasn’t trashed most of the artwork specifically doesn’t mean that the review isn’t negative. The fact is that she has NOT critiqued the artwork at all. So, how can a review be positive if the review doesn’t actually exist? I think the problem everyone has with this article is just that. She hasn’t critiqued the artwork at all. She has simply said that if you go to this gallery you will find some metal sculptures, some of which are hot and some of which cast shadows. This is not a review. This is not analysis. This is not thoughtful. This is barely informative.

    But the clincher here, and the thing that makes this review so negative and insulting, is that she actually DOES eventually critique something in her article. It is sadly ironic, however, that she has decided not to critique the artwork but rather to criticize a desk attendant’s outfit. It is not ‘curious’ that many people seem to have a problem with this. This was a petty, personal attack which detracted significantly from the rest of this nonexistent critique and it is insulting to your readers for the bulk of a review to be devoted to counting labels and giving fashion advice in an art review.

    Literally HALF of Brennan’s Article discusses irrelevant topics such as the gallery’s windows, her disappointment in the labeling, the prices being so high that she wants to hurt someone, her fashion advice for the desk attendant and finally her suggestion that he should be out of a job. I mean, are you kidding when you say that these things should be taken into account when reviewing someone’s artwork? These things have nothing to with the artwork or even the artists whatsoever. And to make matters worse Brennan DOES brush aside this tragedy of the fire. You ask if a review should not be critical simply because the curator has had a hard time. Of course not. But what Brennan wrote was disrespectful. Why would she complain about a lack of documentation to a man who has just lost his home and studio due to a fire, a fire which was most probably caused by his working on this very same show?! This is beyond distasteful. She knew why there was a lack of documentation but decided to complain about it anyhow. Her writing shows that she has no real sympathy.

    Mr. O’Driscoll, admit it. This is a poor excuse for art criticism and you know it. She has NOT reviewed the art. She has spent half of her article discussing superfluous and inane details about the venue. She’s disrespected a man and a family who have lost their home and their livelihood. She’s made claims that the artwork isn’t worth its asking price. She’s attacked the poor kid who staffs the desk at the gallery. Her article was indeed overwhelmingly negative and way out of line.

    Brennan seems to have no business writing art reviews, period. She obviously has no interest in or understanding of contemporary art. What appreciation for art can a person possibly have when they claim that a piece of artwork isn’t worth its asking price because it is made of tin-foil? And what kind of journalist then writes that they’d like to ‘clothesline someone’ because of this price? There is literally something wrong with every aspect of this review. Please stop defending her embarrassing article. You know that your readers aren’t as stupid as Ms. Brennan would like to assume we are.

13. The Slinky doth protest too much methinks. Perhaps you yourself are never rude, but clearly someone is if both Brennan and I had similar experiences. And by the way, I highly doubt that a gallery attendant is making less an hour than a freelance writer…out of curiosity, how did Brennan know about the house burning down? I was at this show and I didn’t see anything mentioning it, or any donation box or anything like that

14. Also, why is Thad Kellstadt so pissed when she gave him such a great review for BOGUS JOURNEY?

15. If “The simple inclusion of the sentence ‘there is more good than bad here’,” along with glowing descriptions of several artworks, does not qualify a review as at least conditionally positive, there are indeed some novel interpretations of the English language afoot.

    It’s interesting that among the people who are parsing this review as though it were the Dead Sea Scrolls, and quoting it at length, none quotes any of the more roughly 200 words, citing several artists by name, of unalloyed praise for the work in the show.

    “the gallery’s windows,”

    windows are unimportant in an art gallery? especially when they’re as integral to the space as at SPACE? not even worthy of a sentence-long mention for folks who might never have been there?

    It’s fair game to take offense at a reviewer’s tone, and to question a reviewer’s sensitivity in light of a tragedy such as befell this show’s curator. And it is of course fair, in the spirit of reviewing the reviewer, to question how well someone has described, or critiqued, a show. I haven’t questioned those assertions, and I won’t.

    But since someone else brought it up in this discussion, I’ll add that, at least at the time our reviewer saw the show, there was nothing in the gallery to indicate that the curator had suffered such a misfortune. We found out only because a CP staffer heard about the fire. We notified the reviewer, and altered the article accordingly (with her complete knowledge). Our reviewer was merely reflecting the experience she had at the show, and which others, therefore, might have had as well.

    Bill

16. i admit i was hotheaded. these are my ex-co-workers -fellow artists and friends and i may have taken it personally. but like whats been said in previous posts, lisa brennan wasted alot of space on non-art subjects.
    thanks to bill for responding. his job is difficult and what i said was not meant to be a slam on him. at all
    as far as lisa giving me a favorable review being a reason to ignore this or put her in my favor doesnt make sense to me.
    i dont know her at all. she doesnt know me. thats whats wrong with pittsburgh in the my opinion. people patting each other on the back incessantly and continuing to make work that is dated.
    if she did have some insights into my work that were decent, then why couldnt she assume that position with hot metal? soley as a critic. its the critics duty to rise above the stance of a normal viewer and shed some insight onto a show.
    a bad review or a good review doesnt mean anything to me . an insightful one does though. as does a dissmissive one. i only write because i care.

17. But Bill, there simply are not ‘glowing descriptions of several artworks’ featured in this article. There just aren’t. There are, at most, 3 positive descriptions of specific artworks in this review and none that I would classify as ‘glowing.’

    1. ‘Skill and beauty overflow in several works by Oleh Bonkovikyy.’

    2. ‘Tim Kaulen’s “Go Finch,” a man-sized bird lit from within, is colorful and cute in its features…’

    3.’ Cal Lane’s “Wheelbarrow” upends the hardy apparatus and beautifies it with lacy floral filigree…’

    First of all, 3 doesn’t qualify as ‘several’ and ‘cute’ doesn’t qualify as ‘glowing.’ I’m not trying beat this to death but this just isn’t a positive article. There is just as much or more negativity than positivity within her text. She has criticized a piece simply based on it’s price and its materials. She has disrespected the curator. And we have already noted her unnecessary smear campaign on the gallery via the attendant. Add to all of this the fact that she has all but ignored the artwork for the entire second half of the article and you can begin to see how someone might view this a negative article.

    And, again, to simply give a physical description of a work of art is not to review it. You should know this as ‘Arts and Entertainment Editor’ of the City Paper. But this is exactly what Brennan has done and what you’ve allowed her to do. She has merely given physical descriptions of the objects in the gallery without discussing them conceptually at all. She has not made the effort to understand the work. She prefaces her review by saying, “the impetus behind these works, and the exhibit as a whole, are something you’ll have to guess at.” The problem is that Brennan herself has not made a single ‘guess’ of her own even though she is writing a supposed critical review of the artwork. In order to review a piece of artwork you have to THINK about the artwork. You have to make an effort to UNDERSTAND the artwork. Brennan should ask herself WHY an artist might decide to build ‘Mobile Suit Gundam Japanese-anime figures’ out of tin-foil instead of jumping to the conclusion that the artwork is worthless. I can understand that the average viewer may need a little guidance when viewing artwork but what excuse does an art critic have for not even attempting to understand the artwork she is reviewing? Can you answer that question?

    So, I’m sorry prolong this debate, but I think that you may be the one with the most novel interpretation of our English language if you actually believe that this review is ‘glowing’ or if you call this article a ‘review’ at all. It is both far from glowing and far from a review. Surely as ‘Arts and Entertainment Editor’ you know what constitutes Art Criticism. And surely you know that this isn’t it. If the City Paper wants to publish edgy material by being rude, that’s fine. But don’t publish writing that is tantamount to a high school student’s myspace blog and call it art criticism. Because as you can see, it isn’t going to fly.

18. amazonpghpa-

    No, it wasn’t me. I’ve been at wood street for this entire show. But, of course I’m going to stick up for my co-workers, and I highly doubt that anyone was purposefully rude to the reviewer or you. However, the reviewer’s comments were most definitely rude.

    We make eight dollars an hour.

    There are signs and a big donation box at the front desk and they have been there the entire show. It’s curious that you and the reviewer both noted the “rudeness” of the gallery attendant but completely missed the huge donation box full of money sitting right in front of him.

19. Personally, I never said the review wasn’t about art and I don’t even have a problem with a review being negative. In fact, I like it when a reviewer has interesting criticism about the subject being reviewed, and if they voice their disapproval, then that only seems to lend validity to the positive words they have to say.
    Regardless of any insight Lissa Brennan may or may not have shared about the art, I took exception to her tone and her choice of things she chose to critcise, particularly the content in the second half of the article.
    Sure, a lack of information is a valid complaint but why connect it to the fire? I think a better way to address the issue would have been to write the review, and then at the end of the article write a brief note, perhaps in italics, telling what happened and how people could help.
    And no, Bill, she didn’t write that “’a sentence per artist, and a paragraph from the curator’ would have been sufficient”, but rather that it would be a “good start,” and that she wanted something between “a sentence” and a “five-page statement.” Here again we see this flippant sarcasm, and when it’s related to someone’s house and studio burning it is VERY offensive.
    Bill, never in this article is the attendant described as “especially rude” as you seem to think he was (admittedly, without having been there), which might have been understandably a point worth criticizing, but rather he is described as “useless” and failing to make eye contact. There is nothing in that whole paragraph (3 sentences, partially in parentheses- not just the two parenthetical sentence as you maintain it is) that is constructive or intelligent.
    The attendant is accused of being reticent, but Lissa Brennan is the only one exhibiting any rudeness in this article.
    Over and over these statements are criticized here for coming across as childish, a point you fail to address. Instead, you reiterate how valid they are.
    Do you also think it is cool to make fun of the clothes or attitude of someone taking money for admission at a rock show? Would you want your reviewers taking potshots at say, Manny Theiner or Joel from the 31st St. Pub (who work not just as staff, but as promoters and venue managers)? Would you consider it “pertinent” to make fun of Manny’s shoes or Joel’s tattoos? I don’t think you would. When people read a review of a play, they really just want to read about the performance, not whether the usher was short with them.
    Perhaps through defending the validity of L. Brennan’s statements you are actually defending your editorial abilities, or in this case a lapse thereof. A notion reinforced by the fact that Brennan’s article, and the flaws it contains, are being defended by you rather than her.

20. I’d like to say that I agree with much of what ‘Ladd’ has to say.

    As I’ve previously stated, Lissa Brennan’s careless comments in regard to the fire are, in fact, inexcusable. Yet, Mr. O’Driscoll repeatedly defends these statements, despite the fact that the vast majority of the commenters herein take great offense and express strong disapproval of these flippant remarks.

    You may claim, Mr. O’Driscoll, that these comments were written before Brennan was informed of the fire. But this detail only functions to reinforce previous suggestions that she has done no research to support this article and that she didn’t even give her full attention to the exhibition while she was there in the first place.

    ‘Slinky’ claims ‘There are signs and a big donation box at the front desk and they have been there the entire show.’ If Ms. Brennan was so interested in getting more information on the exhibition, how is it that she missed this ‘big’ display? After all, she apparently paid some serious attention to the boy who was sitting in that very desk.

    In any event, as ‘Dinardo’ first stated, it is shameful that you as an editor allowed these comments to go to print.

    I also agree with Ladd’s second point, that Brennan’s comments in regard to the gallery’s attendant are rude and completely inappropriate in the context of an art review. But again, Mr. O’Driscoll continually defends these comments while the majority of the posters here describe them as ‘childish’, ‘petty’, ‘unprofessional’ and ‘juvenile.’

    Ladd brings up some interesting thoughts when he asks if Mr. O’Driscoll would object to the critique of a music promoter’s attire in the review of a recent concert. Of course his answer should be no, but he’s already compromised his integrity by defending Brennan’s writing. So I am certain that the answer to this question will be thoroughly entertaining, if not a depressing reminder of the depths to which Pittsburgh’s art criticism has sunk.

    I do, however, disagree with Ladd’s acceptance of Brennan’s article as ‘art criticism.’ I maintain that this article fails to meet the criteria of art criticism. Nowhere in her article does Brennan attempt to understand the artwork conceptually. She even mentions Carly Jean and Ed Parrish’s fire-damaged piece, “Shadows of a Place We Knew and Together We Move Through,” the title being an OBVIOUS reference to their recent tragedy.

    How can you allow your writer to make specific mention of a piece such as this without discussing its meaning, when four paragraphs later she brings up this very same tragedy only to give the opinion that it isn’t an acceptable excuse for a supposed lack of follow through? Again, as editor, dealing with discrepancy and disrespect such as this is your responsibility.

    If he wants to, Mr. O’Driscoll can defend Brennan with claims that she was uninformed when she wrote the article. But either way, Lissa Brennan is at fault for one of the following: extremely lazy journalism or heartlessness. My guess would be both.

    However, Bill O’Driscoll, if you truly want to defend this article then you can take responsibility for it. At this point in the conversation I can’t help but wonder what the state of art criticism in this city would be if certain past art reviewers at the Pittsburgh City Paper had been properly edited or properly qualified to write in the first place. As other commenters have already mentioned, I, personally, didn’t think that I would ever be more offended or disappointed in a Pittsburgh City Paper art reviewer than I was with Gregory Knepp. But as poster ‘Video’ has suggested, Brennan seems to pick up where Knepp left off, describing pieces in great physical detail, but never even attempting to discuss the work conceptually. Also like Knepp, Brennan makes room for personal attacks in her article. The real shame though is that she has perverted an already perverse practice by redirecting this negativity toward the completely irrelevant desk attendant.

    Like ‘Ladd’, I wonder now if this trend is actually a shortcoming of yours. If you truly think that this type of writing is passable as an art review then perhaps you are part of the problem at the City Paper. That, of course, is assuming that you personally choose who writes in the arts and entertainment section.

    I also agree with Ladd as he notes that it’s interesting that you’re doing all of the talking here while Brennan remains mute. If Ms. Brennan hasn’t lost her keyboard since she wrote this article she might apologize for her apathy, her false sense of entitlement and her distasteful comments, or at least attempt to defend her indefensible words.

21. I’m sure this discussion could go on indefinitely, and it may well anyhow. But at this point I’d just like to thank everyone for contributing to the discussion. Posters made many valid points and raised a number of interesting questions, and we’ll be considering such points of view in future arts coverage.

    Bill

22. Artists are so touchy.

    This whole discussion was very entertaining to me. Some people can’t stand reviews, good, bad, or lukewarm, and therefore should STOP reading them! There must be more important things to get worked up about.

    A review is basically someone’s opinion. I feel all opinions have some validity. If readers feel Lissa Brennan’s opinion was invalid then, by default, so are theirs.

    So all of you take a Valium and try to steer clear of such inflammatory reading material.

23. OK, lissa.

24. allison –

    when an opinion is based upon ignorance, it is NOT valid.

Comments are closed.