C'Mon Val Ross and the Globe & Mail, Canadian Art deserves better
Howdy!
There's this article in today's Globe & Mail that wraps up last week in art in Miami.
A) Mr. Headline writer (it has to be a guy, no woman would be that stupid) there were 12 art fairs in Miami last week. Twelve is more than one, you need to pluralize the word fair when there are more than one of them.
B) Ms. Ross, calling FIAC a top fair, is the equivalent of writing that the Blue Jays have a chance of winning the World Series.
C) Ms. Ross, quoting Bloomberg News on sales figures for Art Basel Miami, is the same as making them up out of thin air.
D) Ms. Ross, what fair was Miriam Shiell participating in? Or was she just there as an observer?
E) Ms. Ross, writing 'seen with a MoMA curator buying up a large mauve abstract for about $30,000' is something I would expect from the National Enquirer. If you can get the price and the color, why couldn't you get the name of the artist? Or is it that the color and price are more important? And what about the name of the anonymous curator? From where I sit, anonymity just doesn't cut it.
F) Ms. Ross, if it is not surprising for Canadian dealers to be handling Picassos then why can't Mr. Landau sell his? Or if he can't sell it, maybe it is surprising that Canadian dealers handle Picasssos. I don't understand how those sentences fit together.
G) Nine Canadian artists are mentioned by name, only three are mentioned as having any of their work sold, and the others have something called 'strong interest.' That does not jibe with the line, "Canadian art a hot seller." Especially when there are over 1,500 artists exhibited at just one of the twelve fairs.
And finally, H) if the Miami Herald can get sales figures from Landau Fine Art, why couldn't you have gotten them from Miriam Shiell and Jane Corkin? If I were to write the Toronto Stock Exchange is up, and then not listed any figures for any indices what would you think about my ability as a stock market reporter?
There's this article in today's Globe & Mail that wraps up last week in art in Miami.
A) Mr. Headline writer (it has to be a guy, no woman would be that stupid) there were 12 art fairs in Miami last week. Twelve is more than one, you need to pluralize the word fair when there are more than one of them.
B) Ms. Ross, calling FIAC a top fair, is the equivalent of writing that the Blue Jays have a chance of winning the World Series.
C) Ms. Ross, quoting Bloomberg News on sales figures for Art Basel Miami, is the same as making them up out of thin air.
D) Ms. Ross, what fair was Miriam Shiell participating in? Or was she just there as an observer?
E) Ms. Ross, writing 'seen with a MoMA curator buying up a large mauve abstract for about $30,000' is something I would expect from the National Enquirer. If you can get the price and the color, why couldn't you get the name of the artist? Or is it that the color and price are more important? And what about the name of the anonymous curator? From where I sit, anonymity just doesn't cut it.
F) Ms. Ross, if it is not surprising for Canadian dealers to be handling Picassos then why can't Mr. Landau sell his? Or if he can't sell it, maybe it is surprising that Canadian dealers handle Picasssos. I don't understand how those sentences fit together.
G) Nine Canadian artists are mentioned by name, only three are mentioned as having any of their work sold, and the others have something called 'strong interest.' That does not jibe with the line, "Canadian art a hot seller." Especially when there are over 1,500 artists exhibited at just one of the twelve fairs.
And finally, H) if the Miami Herald can get sales figures from Landau Fine Art, why couldn't you have gotten them from Miriam Shiell and Jane Corkin? If I were to write the Toronto Stock Exchange is up, and then not listed any figures for any indices what would you think about my ability as a stock market reporter?
posted by Zeke's, the Montreal Art Gallery on 16.12.06
<< Home