GREAT Article on AIG and the Bail-Out

in Rolling Stone.

(Seems like they and The New Yorker are among the few print media left in the U.S. doing real journalism anymore. Wonder if they're suffering as much as the print media owned/eviscerated by conservatives {i.e., most of the rest})?

Big Art Group's New Production, "SOS"

Absolutely brilliant.

The group's description says, "[t]his latest project explores futureness, survivalism, revolutionary movements, and contemporary rituals, examining the notion of sacrifice to make space for a new beginning within a supersaturated, hyper-acquisitive society. . . . A multi-camera and multi-screen set creates a nexus of environments that eventually . . . [transform] the stage into a celebration of chaos verging toward the freedom of annihilation."

The show opens with a bunch of human plushies with cameras strapped to their chests having a panic attack in a dark "forest." The photo shows part of what was left of the set after the show ended.

The use of technology was dazzling; the acting and writing were terrific, too. More about Big Art Group here.

At The Kitchen (NYC) through March 28.

Ongoing Consolidation of Organics in the Hands of Big Business

Great charts etc. here. Via HuffPo.

Could We PLEASE Get this Straight Re- AIG:

IT'S NOT THE BONUSES.

Ok, the bonuses are bad; but they're the LEAST of the problems with what's going on.

AIG is insolvent; it lacks assets or income sufficient to pay off its obligations to its existing creditors.

When you or I get into this situation, if we fail to file bankruptcy, our creditors can force us into it, to provide for an orderly liquidation of our assets and debts. We have to fully disclose all of both. Our assets are sold on terms reasonable under current conditions, and the proceeds are divided fairly among our creditors -- i.e., none of the unsecured creditors get 100% on the dollar owed them, but they all get the same percent -- there's no favoritism.

AND, if you or I get into this situation, NO new creditors come along to give us yet more money. New creditors are on notice that we're insolvent and, guess what, they don't lend us any more money! Our existing creditors can give us more or less time to try to work things out; but ultimately, THEY bear the brunt of their original and/or subsequently mistaken judgments -- not new creditors.

This is what should happen to AIG.

Instead, AIG is NOT in bankruptcy, because its existing creditors would like us taxpayers to step in as new creditors and throw enough new, bailout money into AIG so the existing creditors won't actually have to suffer any losses -- WE will be the losers, instead of them.

So, that's where our tax money's going: to save AIG's existing creditors from the consequences of their mistakes in acquiring debt obligations of AIG. THAT is what is happening right now.

The bonuses are TRIVIAL compared to the amounts being paid to AIG's existing creditors.

AIG is just a conduit. The real robbers are its creditors, Goldman Sachs -- surprise! -- being one of the biggest.

As usual, Elliott Spitzer's nailing it:

The Real AIG Scandal
It's not the bonuses. It's that AIG's counterparties are getting paid back in full.
By Eliot Spitzer Posted Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at 10:41 AM ET

Everybody is rushing to condemn AIG's bonuses, but this simple scandal is obscuring the real disgrace at the insurance giant: Why are AIG's counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars?

For the answer to this question, we need to go back to the very first decision to bail out AIG, made, we are told, by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, then-New York Fed official Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last fall. Post-Lehman's collapse, they feared a systemic failure could be triggered by AIG's inability to pay the counterparties to all the sophisticated instruments AIG had sold. And who were AIG's trading partners? No shock here: Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, and on it goes. So now we know for sure what we already surmised: The AIG bailout has been a way to hide an enormous second round of cash to the same group that had received TARP money already.

It all appears, once again, to be the same insiders protecting themselves against sharing the pain and risk of their own bad adventure. The payments to AIG's counterparties are justified with an appeal to the sanctity of contract. If AIG's contracts turned out to be shaky, the theory goes, then the whole edifice of the financial system would collapse.

But wait a moment, aren't we in the midst of reopening contracts all over the place to share the burden of this crisis? From raising taxes—income taxes to sales taxes—to properly reopening labor contracts, we are all being asked to pitch in and carry our share of the burden. Workers around the country are being asked to take pay cuts and accept shorter work weeks so that colleagues won't be laid off. Why can't Wall Street royalty shoulder some of the burden? Why did Goldman have to get back 100 cents on the dollar? Didn't we already give Goldman a $25 billion capital infusion, and aren't they sitting on more than $100 billion in cash? Haven't we been told recently that they are beginning to come back to fiscal stability? If that is so, couldn't they have accepted a discount, and couldn't they have agreed to certain conditions before the AIG dollars—that is, our dollars—flowed?

More at Slate.com; see also Newsday.

The bonuses are just a diversion.

Trends in Works Shown at the 2009 NY Art Fairs

Not necessarily deep observations, just hastily-noted, over-simplified trends -- some old, some not so old -- and partly informed by art I've seen elsewhere. My original posts on the fairs are here: Armory (more pics and vidis starting here), Pulse (more pics and vidis starting here), Scope (more pics and vidis starting here), Volta (more pics and vidis starting here) (all visuals were shot by me with the permission of the galleries).

I should perhaps mention I was somewhat disappointed not to see even more work that was media-based and/or dealt with the grittier media or technology-related concerns (e.g., re- how our relationships and mentation are being affected -- seriously -- by our immersion in new technologies, or re- our dependence on the "Cloud" and the power thus ceded to online facilities over which we have no meaningful control); and although the influence of tech visuals was pervasive, I don't recall any work I'd actually call 'net- or even computer-based {although Jon Kessler may have had a computer running his wonderfully gonzo contraption?}). Of course, fact of our capitalist life, the galleries sometimes have to show what they think they can sell.

That said, on to what I did see.

Maybe it's just me, but after living for eight years under an administration with no apparent regard for history, science, or reality in general, I'm seeing a desire among artists to recall our attention to all of the foregoing.

The artistic project is, of course, not just to retrieve lost knowledge, though that alone is valuable, but -- potentially more exciting and more fun -- to translate the all-but-lost into the present.

One term I'll use below is "nostalgia," but what I mean is really broader. It is NOT an uncritical sentimentality toward "the good old days," although it may involve an appreciation of something we're on the brink of losing. It's rather a concern to critically understand just exactly what it is that we stand to lose -- what media, what modes of expressing meanings that perhaps cannot be precisely and fully expressed any other way, and hence what bodies of knowledge.

All of the works referred to below utilize multiple strategies and could be categorized in any number of ways. And as I've mentioned elsewhere, except as specifically noted, pls don't infer any judgment from inclusions or omissions -- there was stuff I just didn't get to, and stuff I include below mainly to illustrate a point.

Clicking on an artist's name below will bring you to an image of the piece I have in mind. There may be additional pics or vidis of the piece linked to; click "next" and "previous" for more. Again, sincerest apologies for instances in which I failed to get the artist's name; again, any comments supplying the missing info will be much appreciated.

History: Importing/Transforming the Past into the Present.

Whose version of history, whose curation of what should be remembered and how, gets airtime/linked to? For me, one of the most interesting recent art works concerned with history is Matthew Barney's Drawing Restraint 13 (seen elsewhere). Barney, meticulously impersonating General Douglas MacArthur, presented a scene reminiscent of two critical moments in WWII, both of which were carefully staged and documented by MacArthur to begin with. Barney's version of these scenes differs from MacArthur's productions in important ways, however, with the result that his importation of the past into the present transforms our understanding of both. (More on DR 13 here; see also Barney's DR site.)

Other artists also seem concerned to explore connections to historically important people, events, or bodies of knowledge and to translate them into the present. Seen at these fairs:

In Laurina Paperina's animated cartoons, contemporary art stars are squared off against greats from the past, to the detriment of the latter (fun!)
R. Luke DuBois's "State of the Union address" tag clouds-cum-eye exam charts. (I can't help but wonder whether artists would feel less motivated to do work like this {or Mark Lombardi's!} if journalists et al. were fulfilling their proper function.)
Nicholas & Sheila Pye's photographs look like escapees from an Old Master's painting, grittily yet lusciously de-idealized.
Debbie Han's images of eerily-neo- Greco-Roman statues.
In a painting by Gino Rupert, a Paris Hilton-type meets Photoshop meets Medieval art, on location with palm trees.
Vik Muniz translates group photos from the past into a chocolate-y present.
Work shown here (sorry I don't have the artist's name): "grocery store"-style signage featuring quotes from Hippocrates, Bertrand Russell, Bertolt Brecht, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Oscar Wilde et al.
Enoc Perez's "Flash Forward" screenprint of a vintage Pan American Airlines terminal.

Nostalgia for Old Media (Including Words).

"The medium is the message": an (extremely useful) over-simplification (by Marshall McLuhan; some great video of him here).

Artists have always known the distinction between form and content is specious: it's simply impossible to express the exact same content in any one medium fully and perfectly in another.

This perhaps partly explains why artists are so often not only the first to explore new media but also the last to forsake media abandoned by everyone else -- there are still artists hand-illuminating texts, hand-weaving, spinning vinyl, deploying pinhole cameras, etc. etc. No surprise, then, that no sooner was the death of print foreseen than artists began exploring what, exactly, we might be losing.

Nostalgia for Words, Books, Newsprint, Magazines:
I hesitate to include Jenny Holzer here, since her use of words is so obviously so very complex; but certainly it involves an appreciation of what can be done with them that cannot be accomplished by other means. (Similar concerns re- my own over-simplification pertain throughout this post.)
Airan Kang's electrified "books" -- how did he select the titles? (Who'll get to select which ones we read in school, translate into electronic or other media -- will "controversial" material be included?) (This could definitely go into the "History" section above.)
Alina and Jeff Bliumis's portable library of foam-and-acrylic-fabricated "books" installed and photographed in a series of locations.
The Center for Tactical Magic's book containing nothing but hundreds of Tables of Contents from other books on magic.
Dmitry Gutov's painterly transcriptions of Marxian truisms.
Fahamu Pecou's simulated magazine covers featuring himself.
Gordon Cheung's painting on newsprint stock market reports -- although I think he may have done so mainly for other purposes.

Nostalgia for Painting:
Sabine Dehnel's use of old paintings as an element in photographs (this work could definitely go into the previous section on History).
Yum Joongho uses video to transform what looks like traditional asian painting or writing into a moving, real-time landscape encompassing viewers.

Nostalgia for Handwriting:
Michael Waugh's paintings consisting of handwriting (you probably have to like handwriting to make this work).

Nostalgia for Old T.V.:
Erica Eyres' Male Epidemic (which gets even funnier after my clip ends).

Simulating Simulations . . .

i.e., one or more media masquerading as one or more others, exploring, among other things, how new media are affecting our perception and cognition:

Jasper de Beljer's re-photographed cut-and-pasted photographs (sort of like Oliver Herring's work, only 2-D. {B.t.w., I have to mention, at first the visual impact of Herring's sculptures seemed to me so stunning that I wasn't sure their substance could live up; but judging from the myriad references and implications seen in other artists' work, his work clearly has been very important.})
Vik Muniz's re-photographed paper cut-outs (the same artist who used chocolate sauce to simulated old photos).
Patrick Hamilton's actual collage masquerading as a photoshopped photo.
Mike Bayne's highly photo-realistic paintings.

. . . Including Some Especially Obvious or Deliberately "Bad"

Now that our ability to fake reality is virtually complete, obvious fakes seem more "real," at least initially:

Lossy Data Lab's laptop and other machines made of cardboard. But their work was also relational: visitors were invited to complete a survey (the attending scientists' analysis of my answers indicated the presence of lossy data, described as both good and bad).
Work shown here: hand-drawn screengrab of YouTube video, "How Not to Be Seen."
Francisco Valdez's painting of a video still of a "Star Wars" helmet.
Dasha Shishkin's painted-on wallpaper. Several artists made enjoyable wallpapers, presumably using Photoshop or the like; Shishkin took real or fabricated wallpaper and added hand-painted modifications -- I'm hoping partly as a comment on the other, computer-fabricated wallpapers.

Consumerism vs. DIY.

Amanda Ross-Ho's quilted Pregnant Again! and Again! and Again!
John Bock here and esp. here.
Ryan McGinley's Hi 5 on 5.
Tanja Boukal's trompe l'oeil knitted couch throw.
Among other examples; with Liliana Porter's teeny knitter of a mountain of blue knitting offering a possible last word.

Environmental Concerns: Nostalgia for Earth as We've Known It, and Animals Are People Too --

or at least, they can't stop us from anthropomorphizing them.

Olaf Breuning. (I'll probably regret mentioning, this piece was a little too dogmatic or whatever for me.)
Gimhonsok's big, reclining bunny.
Work shown here (I've called this, "enough with the deer"; but then, sometimes I'm done too soon).
Fu Jijang's clay critters.
(There were additional pieces evincing environmental concerns, some of which may be referred to in other categories in this post.)

Some Notables in the Race to Re-Purpose Media.

Tom Molloy modified a screengrab of Google Images search results on "mohammed" by cutting out M.'s image.
Irene Presner's tattoo gunning-cum-flocking in a "wallpaper" design features Casper the Friendly Ghost.
Taro Izumi used paint to fuel "rocket"-propulsion.
Fernando Mastrangelo: well-lit cocaine glows! (some of you knew that).

Some Personal Faves that Might or Might Not Have Fit into the Foregoing Categories:

William Pope.L's amazing pseudo-sauvage assemblage totally deserves in-depth study.
Michael Joaquin Grey's "Self Organizing System: Artificial Muscle Contraction" of the proteins actin and myosin inside a test tube, shot with micro video." (I was sorry not to see more work actually utilizing bio-tech.) More of his work at bitforms gallery.
Jon Kessler's contraption demonstrating, among other things, how little technology it takes to fool us.
The fun and funny, relational project, Lossy Data Lab; see discussion, with link to pics, here.
Alex Rose's amazing collages (lots of pics in "previous" and "next," though none do the work justice).
I also loved pretty much everything in the Parkett booth, John Bock's sculptures, Ryan McGinley's work, Jim Campbell's work, Gino Rupert's paintings, Li Wenqiang's work, Nicholas & Sheila Pye's work (yummy), Zhou Jun's painting, EVOL's paintings on corrugated cardboard, and Alexandro Diaz's hilarious sculptures.

More NYC highlights of other kinds here.

Extreme Sheep Herding LED Art

The new flashmob:



(Thanks, Ben!)

Re- the Death of Journalism

Excellent article in The Nation, by John Nichols & Robert W. McChesney (much more at the link):

"Our founders never thought that freedom of the press would belong only to those who could afford a press. They would have been horrified at the notion that journalism should be regarded as the private preserve of the Rupert Murdochs and John Malones. The founders would not have entertained, let alone accepted, the current equation that seems to say that if rich people determine there is no good money to be made in the news, then society cannot have news . . . .

"The founders regarded the establishment of a press system, the Fourth Estate, as the first duty of the state. Jefferson and Madison devoted considerable energy to explaining the necessity of the press to a vibrant democracy. The government implemented extraordinary postal subsidies for the distribution of newspapers. It also instituted massive newspaper subsidies through printing contracts and the paid publication of government notices, all with the intent of expanding the number and variety of newspapers. When Tocqueville visited the United States in the 1830s he was struck by the quantity and quality of newspapers and periodicals compared with France, Canada and Britain. It was not an accident. It had little to do with 'free markets.' It was the result of public policy.

"Moreover, when the Supreme Court has taken up matters of freedom of the press, its majority opinions have argued strongly for the necessity of the press as the essential underpinning of our constitutional republic. First Amendment absolutist Hugo Black wrote that the 'Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free society.' Black argued for the right and necessity of the government to counteract private monopolistic control over the media. More recently Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, argued that 'assuring the public has access to a multiplicity of information sources is a governmental purpose of the highest order.'

"But government support for the press is not merely a matter of history or legal interpretation. Complaints about a government role in fostering journalism invariably overlook the fact that our contemporary media system is anything but an independent 'free market' institution. The government subsidies established by the founders did not end in the eighteenth--or even the nineteenth--century. Today the government doles out tens of billions of dollars in direct and indirect subsidies, including free and essentially permanent monopoly broadcast licenses, monopoly cable and satellite privileges, copyright protection and postal subsidies. (Indeed, this magazine has been working for the past few years with journals of the left and right to assure that those subsidies are available to all publications.) Because the subsidies mostly benefit the wealthy and powerful, they are rarely mentioned in the fictional account of an independent and feisty Fourth Estate. Both the rise and decline of commercial journalism can be attributed in part to government policies, which scrapped the regulations and ownership rules that had encouraged local broadcast journalism and allowed for lax regulation as well as tax deductions for advertising--policies that greatly increased news media revenues."

Bernanke

"is either an astoundingly self-contained man or is on the best meds modern science has to offer." (More from Yves Smith at the link.)