SFMOMA Artists Gallery : Willard Dixon, Rachel Kline, Charles Valoroso.

Comment by AB: Three talented takes on pure classic landscape painting-- I don't think a single painting has even one person in it. Willard Dixon extols the majestic grandeur of the California coast and countryside; Rachel Kline waxes romantic on the open road, freeways in particular; Charles Valoroso offers up a sort of a Robert-Bechtel-meets-Edward-Hopper assessment of unexceptional architecture, deserted streets, and cars parked quietly in front of houses.

***

San Francisco Art Institute : Adel Abdessemed - Don't Trust Me.?

Comment by AB: According to the alibi for this travesty, "Don't Trust Me portrays six animals-- a sheep, a horse, an ox, a pig, a goat, and a doe-- being struck and killed by a hammer. Each killing occurs so quickly that it's difficult to determine definitively what has happened." I'm gonna edit that one up to more accurately convey the gravity of the situation...

'Don't Trust Me' presents six looped videos; each video opens with a view of an animal tied to a wall by one leg. Then you see a sledge hammer bludgeon the animal directly on the head, and the hideous blunt force trauma that follows (someone does the bludgeoning, but you don't see who). They say that these are kills and that they're quick (like quick somehow makes it OK), but viewers actually have no idea whether they're quick or not because each video stops several seconds after the sledge hammer savagery, and then loops back to the beginning. And how quick is quick anyway? They don't tell you that either. In actuality, viewers have no idea whether the animals die instantly, whether they suffer, how long they suffer if they don't die instantly, how long they stay alive if they don't die instantly, or what else happens if they don't die instantly. They also don't tell you whether any additional animals were killed for this art farce because the initial videos perhaps didn't have the right look or the animals moved their heads at the last second and things got messy, and so they had to continue killing until they got the bull's-eye hits they wanted. The animals starring in these videos of their own deaths are a sheep, a horse, an ox, a pig, a goat, and a doe.

Returning to the so-called justification for this barbarity, as outlined in the pretext, viewers are invited, among other things, to reflect on the "social, cultural, moral, and political implications" of these snuff films. Here's a reflection-- does the fact that atrocities exist in this world give us licence to commit our own, no matter how elevated our intentions? These six videos are not the total show (it's got art as well as merits in other areas), but once you see 'em, it's hard to get past 'em. If you wanna get sick to your stomach while wondering who was thinking what, including SFAI, here's the place to do it.

Update posted March 27, 2008: Commendably, SFAI intends to cancel the show as of Monday, March 31-- with a discussion group to be held on that day (er... like what's to discuss?). The sad part? They're 12 days too late.

Update posted March 29, 2008: The show is cancelled; the discussion group is cancelled. As well they both should be. Maybe next time consult the real world before you proceed with your delusionary agenda.

Update posted March 31, 2008: First off, regarding threats of violence made to anyone at SFAI, let me say that I neither support nor condone such behavior in any way, shape, or form. That said, apparently the San Francisco Art Institute doesn't want to slink away quietly on this one and admit that perhaps they experienced a mild lapse in judgment. Instead, they've issued a rather indignant, perhaps even defiant, press release which can be read in its entirety here .

The text includes the following statement: "The artist," continued (SFAI) President (Chris) Bratton, "participated in an already-existing circuit of food production in a rural community in Mexico. The animals were raised for food, purchased, and professionally slaughtered. In fact, what causes the controversy is that Abdessemed, an artist, entered this exchange, filmed it, and exhibited it."

My questions are as follows:

Were the animals purchased for food, for art, or for art and then for food?

Were the animals fully mature and ready for slaughter, or were some or all of them purchased before they were mature?

Were traditional Mexican rituals and procedures for slaughtering animals for food altered in any way for artistic purposes?

Were the slaughters scripted in any way for artistic purposes?

Where exactly did the slaughters take place? Where they normally take place, or elsewhere, perhaps in better lighting or on cleaner ground?

How was the slaughterer compensated? Was he compensated any differently than for normal slaughters? If so, how?

Was anything else about any of the slaughters altered in any way for artistic purposes such as how the animals were tethered, how they were hit, what time of day they were slaughtered, and so on?

Do you think it's appropriate to alter any form of slaughter or execution, or the traditional rituals or procedures surrounding a slaughter or execution for artistic purposes?

Do you think it's appropriate to video any form of slaughter or execution for artistic purposes?

Do you think it's appropriate to publically present a video of a slaughter or execution for artistic purposes?

***

W San Francisco : UnScene San Francisco.

Photographers: Cody Bratt, Anthony Kurtz, Don Blasingame, Elizabeth Graves, Robert Kroenert.

Comment by AB: 944 Magazine and UnScene Tour present select photographs by five local emerging photographers at the schwanky W Hotel. The winner is chosen by our own Jack Fischer, proprietor of Jack Fischer Gallery at 49 Geary.

***