Like many, I awoke yesterday to the New York Times. Specifically, to the Steven Kurutz's story Unmerry Prankster, which Wooster Collective discussed early in the day, igniting coverage in the blogosphere.
Like many peripherally associated with the kids featured in the article, I have heard various incomplete accounts of the events that unfolded that night at 31 Grand, just a month or so after I had arrived on these islands. I remember following those rumors closely, studying their characters and connections; naively trying to determine how the young art world functioned, how ambition manifested itself, in my new home. So, while I will fully admit that my desire to finally understand what actually happened easily carried me through the piece, I should also mention that I feel the story does young artists making work in New York City a huge disservice. Kurutz's article continues to traffic in the kinds of stereotypes that fracture an already overly competitive community. To the great majority of artists, the scene is secondary. It's the Art, not the antics, that keep us in the game.
Additionally, I take offense at the Times' choice to censor Michelle Cortez's self-portrait, by obscuring her breasts with the image of Simon Curtis. This artwork is absolutely central to the story, as is the content of this particular artwork. To modify this work (in a transparent attempt to placate some of the Times' readership) is to withhold necessary information from very same readership. This is not a pornographic image, nor is it misogynist, and I see little rational ground for censorship. Personally, I find the violation of an artwork far more offensive than any portrayal of the female anatomy.
Did anyone else react the same way upon flipping to the City section in the Sunday sun?