kaychin, I salute you for coming forward to both relate your position and take what might be thrown back at you
To those that take it as an insult to art.
Can they say that their own art has been degraded by it,
I would like to see their art........I will give my view on their art unbiased by any of this.
Due to this thread alone I bet that the number of "hits" on that site has risen dramatically.
Reguardless as to what thoughts might have evolved due to the photo's and the story,
I bet there is more awareness/thinking generated about schizophrenia.
To all, a lynching mob is not needed "partitions".
You may disagree and find it distastefull art; I find "Blue Poles"..."Pieces of meat on the steps of parliament" .... "Cans of Heinz beans" ... "A German trench filled with cutlery where dead bodies were" distastefull art.
Time, is an effortless construction :)
C'mon man... it all seems like a cheesy way to worm out of this.
When I was still going to the curator of MOP2007 a few weeks ago, I was still in charge. And that means I get to decide (mostly) what goes in and how they are shown. As the person in charge, I HAD no problem that Wu Xiaokang was fictional as I have explained before.
When I resigned from being the curator, I told the organizer she is free to follow up or dump the three choices I recommended. When she decided to continue with my choices, I show up at one of their meetings to give them my best and to encourage them to work with the organizer to put up a good show.
After that, there was no more contact between the organizer and me.
It never occured to me that I needed to tell her what I knew about Wu Xiaokang but all this while, I was OK with it.
Last edited by kaychin; 3rd July 2007 at 11:03 PM.
It's very unbecoming of you to try to shift the blame in this manner, instead of standing by your original choice and the unfortunate judgement regarding the subterfuge.
After I left, Shirlene, who used to be a curator at SAM, took over. In the past, our roles are very seperate - I only take charge of the creatives, she takes care of the money and the rest. I do not know if she appointed a new curator after I left.
As to your question: I extended an informal invitation to them to exhibit when I met Robert in London in March. We never got to discuss details with the group on how to do it other than saying all the 36 images must be shown. The last time I met Song, the other member, I was there to say goodbye. But I have indicated before that this cannot go on forever and at some point, they must come clean.
Robert had personally became very tormented by this because he could no longer distinguish what is good or bad photography because things he considered medicorce (such as Wu Xiaokang) kept getting accolades while things he really like kept getting rejected.
In the end, I told Adeline the truth and asked her to give them a chance to come clean. The result was yesterday's article.
Last edited by kaychin; 3rd July 2007 at 11:30 PM.
Now, the fact is a person like you have already set aside these pictures, knowing the whole story aside for an exhibit. This itself is an act of promotion. You may not mind it, but it is still pretty much ethical to let the public know this side of the story before anything else, and you should have done something about it or at least voice it out that it's a hoax.
Is lying an art?