Mediaboss Marketing

Since the coronavirus pandemic began, art fairs have gone through several permutations, from online only to fully in person, along with several varieties of hybrids.

To many in the art world, the format and fate of Art Basel in Basel, Switzerland, the fair scheduled to take place from Friday to Sunday, is especially important, given that it is the mother of all art fairs, in the words of the London-based dealer Pilar Corrias.

There are too many fairs around the world, and not all will survive, Ms. Corrias said. But we need Basel.

The fair first took place in 1970 and now has editions in Miami Beach and Hong Kong.

More than 270 galleries are scheduled to show inside the Messe Basel exhibition hall the first such gathering in Basel since 2019 and, like the Hong Kong fair that took place in May, this one is actually a hybrid, with a concurrent online viewing room.

But the focus is on the return of the real-world event.

The online component is limited to galleries who are physically at the fair, said Marc Spiegler, Art Basels global director. The logic is that we want to extend the fair digitally rather than having two fairs. (Art Basel will also have a purely digital event in November.)

Given the circumstances, Mr. Spiegler was especially proud of the robust number of galleries 33 countries are represented especially in the Parcours sector, which takes place around the city of Basel, and in Unlimited, the section for large-scale projects.

Both require an extraordinary effort on the part of galleries, he said. The fact that we have 62 projects for Unlimited is especially impressive.

For organizers, exhibitors and collectors who want to attend the fair, there are pandemic-related precautions. In addition, the halls capacity has been reduced and masks are required.

The upshot: Were running a safe event, Mr. Spiegler said.

He noted that the precautions may encourage a more local crowd.

We assume the fair will have a more European flavor, Mr. Spiegler said. I think the audience may be younger this year, too.

For an event that once derived at least part of its appeal from its social scene, the tone may change as well.

Were expecting a pretty focused crowd, Mr. Spiegler said. People who come to an art fair under these conditions are really there for the art.

He added, Its more about seeing art than being seen.

The American philanthropist Pamela Joyner, known for her collection of works by Black artists and those of the African diaspora, said she planned to attend the fair to talk to collectors and galleries who I dont talk to all the time.

There are some things, she said, you cant get online.

Ms. Joyner, currently based in Nevada near Lake Tahoe, travels frequently and serves on many corporate and cultural boards, including that of the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

I have a particular fondness for Art Basel, she said. I think of it as part of my collecting tool kit.

Among other benefits, it helps her stay ahead of the curve. Several years ago, Ms. Joyner said, she bought a work by the painter Jordan Casteel before she was in the limelight. (Ms. Casteel had a survey at the New Museum in New York last year.)

It was figurative painting, said Ms. Joyner, a frequent buyer of abstract works. And I dont buy a lot of those.

Ms. Corrias, who has two gallery spaces in London and plans to expand to Shanghai next year, will be showing, among other works, a sculpture from Philippe Parrenos Fraught Times series; it resembles a Christmas tree left out past its prime.

Its intricate and delicate, and it took him more than two years to make, Ms. Corrias said, making it one work that needs to be seen in person. Hence her participation in the fair.

Its made of stainless steel but it looks real, she said. You cannot see that in a photograph. You have to stand in front of it.

Jeanne Greenberg Rohatyn, the founder of the gallery Salon 94 in New York, agreed, saying: Putting art in front of people is key. People are starved to look at art and stretch their eyes.

Ms. Rohatyn will be showing art by Lisa Brice, Lyle Ashton Harris and Huma Bhabha, among others. Her booth will include photographs by Kwame Brathwaite, including Untitled (Model who embraced natural hairstyles at AJASS photo shoot) (circa 1970).

Mr. Brathwaite helped popularize the phrase Black is beautiful.

He has a very precise eye, Ms. Rohatyn said, adding that it would be fresh material for the Basel audience. Europeans havent seen a lot of this work.

Ms. Rohatyn recently announced that in January she would merge her business with that of three other top dealers, creating a hybrid gallery and art advisory called LGDR. Salon 94 will close out its fair slate at Shanghais West Bund fair in November and at Art Basel Miami Beach in December.

A less dramatic and disruptive collaboration is planned for the Basel fair by Sperone Westwater and David Nolan Gallery, both of New York. They are splitting a booth and creating provocative pairings from their respective exhibitions, under the title Dialogues.

David Nolan and I were having lunch, and we said, What are we going to do, how can we make this interesting? said Angela Westwater, one of Sperone Westwaters founders. So were playing a game and challenging each other.

Some of the pairings are linked by aesthetic and medium, as with Susan Rothenbergs Red (2008) and Georg Baselitzs Cebe (1993), two oils on canvas that employ the color red.

Others, like a combination of a Bruce Nauman video and a collage by Barry Le Va, are connected thematically in that both look at the psychological effects of architectural spaces.

We hope its as mesmerizing and challenging for others as it is for us, said Ms. Westwater, who has been attending Art Basel since the 1970s.

In addition to veterans like Ms. Westwater, there are 24 galleries at Basel for the first time this year, including Isla Flotante of Buenos Aires, founded in 2011.

It concentrates on younger and midcareer artists, said one of its two directors, Leopol Mones Cazon.

The gallery has shown at Art Basel Miami Beach. Now we want to deepen our ties to Europe, Mr. Cazon said, a process that began in early 2020 but was canceled by the pandemic.

The gallery is showing a mixed media installation by the Bolivian artist Andrs Pereira Paz called Ego Fvlcio Collvmnas Eivs [I Fortify Your Columns] (2020).

The work incorporating bird sounds, lights and thin metal sculptures, some in the shape of stars addresses both environmental degradation and colonization. It was inspired by the 2019 appearance of a guajoj bird in La Paz, Bolivia, fleeing the fires destroying its Amazon habitat, and gained much attention in the media because it is traditionally thought to be a bad omen.

The bodies of outer space are in a sad mood, looking at this destruction, Mr. Cazon said. Its an apocalyptic scenario. But at the same time, its poetic.

Go here to see the original:
Art Basel Reasserts Its Importance at Home - The New York Times

On Tuesday, CNN anchor Don Lemon opened his show Don Lemon Tonight with, "If youre not going to get vaccinated, you dont want to social distance, you dont want to wear a mask, then maybe you dont want to go to the hospital when you get sick. I know that sounds harsh but youre taking up space for people who are doing things the right way.

He went on to suggest restricting medical treatment for those who do not wear a mask. Anyone with even a sliver of compassion would never suggest denying health care to a significant percentage of the population and yet people like Lemon see no issue legal or ethical with such radical views. Worse, he is applauded.

As you might be aware, Don Lemon is gay. I find it ironic that his comments about the unvaccinated grossly conflict with his public statements regarding medical treatment of homosexual men during the HIV/AIDS crisis.

Back then, he expressed opposition to medical discrimination for those with HIV. He's not alone in his targeting of the unvaccinated as several news outlets expressed similar opinions. A Toronto paper going so far as to say "Let Them Die" in its headlines.

Sadly, I see a population willing to look the other way as millions of its fellow citizens are targeted as second-class citizens, as cries go up to prohibit them from restaurants, planes, jobs and now health care.

We must speak up for the rights of our neighbors vaccinated or unvaccinated and push back against a government and media which are clearly out of control. Because one day they will come for us and there will be no one left to speak in our defense.

Here is the original post:
Donna Dodge: Government and media out of control with vaccinate mandates - Conway Daily Sun

When Twitter decided briefly last fall to block users from posting links to an article about Joseph R. Biden Jr.s son Hunter, it prompted a conservative outcry that Big Tech was improperly aiding Mr. Bidens presidential campaign.

So terrible, President Donald J. Trump said of the move to limit the visibility of a New York Post article. Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, said Twitter and Facebook were censoring core political speech. The Republican National Committee filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing Twitter of using its corporate resources to benefit the Biden campaign.

Now the commission, which oversees election laws, has dismissed those allegations, according to a document obtained by The New York Times, ruling in Twitters favor in a decision that is likely to set a precedent for future cases involving social media sites and federal campaigns.

The election commission determined that Twitters actions regarding the Hunter Biden article had been undertaken for a valid commercial reason, not a political purpose, and were thus allowable.

And in a second case involving a social media platform, the commission used the same reasoning to side with Snapchat and reject a complaint from the Trump campaign. The campaign had argued that the company provided an improper gift to Mr. Biden by rejecting Mr. Trump from its Discover platform in the summer of 2020, according to another commission document.

The election commissions twin rulings, which were made last month behind closed doors and are set to become public soon, protect the flexibility of social media and tech giants like Twitter, Facebook, Google and Snapchat to control what is shared on their platforms regarding federal elections.

Republicans have increasingly been at odds with the nations biggest technology and social media companies, accusing them of giving Democrats an undue advantage on their platforms. Mr. Trump, who was ousted from Twitter and Facebook early this year, has been among the loudest critics of the two companies and even announced a lawsuit against them and Google.

The suppression of the article about Hunter Biden at the height of the presidential race last year was a particular flashpoint for Republicans and Big Tech. But there were other episodes, including Snapchats decision to stop featuring Mr. Trump on one of its platforms.

The Federal Election Commission said in both cases that the companies had acted in their own commercial interests, according to the factual and legal analysis provided to the parties involved. The commission also said that Twitter had followed existing policies related to hacked materials.

The rulings appear to provide social media companies additional protections for making decisions on moderating content related to elections as long as such choices are in service of a companys commercial interests. Federal election law is decades old and is broadly outdated, so decisions by the election commission serve as influential guideposts.

Campaign finance law does not account for the post-broadcast world and puts few restrictions on the behavior of social media firms, said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a law professor at Stetson University. There is a real mismatch between our federal campaign finance laws and how campaigns are run.

Still, the Republican National Committees complaint stretched the boundaries of campaign finance law, she added. The choice to delete or suppress certain content on the platform is ultimately going to be viewed through the lens of the First Amendment, Ms. Torres-Spelliscy said. I dont think that type of content moderation by the big platforms is going to raise a campaign finance issue.

Some Republicans are seeking to take a broader cudgel to the big internet companies, aiming to repeal a provision of communications law that shields them from liability for what users post.

In the case of the Hunter Biden article, Twitter reversed course within a day of its decision to block distribution of the piece, and its chief executive, Jack Dorsey, has called the initial move a mistake.

The Federal Election Commissions official vote on the case the commission is split equally between three Democratic-aligned commissioners and three Republicans is not yet public, nor are any additional statements written by commissioners. Such statements often accompany the closure of cases and can provide further insight into the commissions reasoning.

In addition to rejecting the R.N.C. complaint, the commission dismissed other allegations that Twitter had violated election laws by shadow banning Republican users (or appearing to limit the visibility of their posts without providing an explanation); suppressing other anti-Biden content; and labeling Mr. Trumps tweets with warnings about their accuracy. The commission rejected those accusations, writing that they were vague, speculative and unsupported by the available information.

Twitter and Snapchat declined to comment.

Emma Vaughn, an R.N.C. spokeswoman, said the committee was weighing its options for appealing this disappointing decision from the F.E.C. Liz Harrington, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, said on Tuesday that Big Tech is corrupt and accused it of interfering in the 2020 election to protect Mr. Biden.

Twitter would go on to permanently bar Mr. Trump from its platform entirely in January, citing the risk of further incitement of violence after the attack on the Capitol by his supporters as Congress voted to certify the 2020 election.

Out of office, Mr. Trump has sued Facebook, Twitter and Google, arguing that a provision of the Communications Decency Act known as Section 230, which limits internet companies liability for what is posted on their networks, is unconstitutional.

Legal experts have given little credence to Mr. Trumps suit, the news of which the former president immediately used as a fund-raising tactic.

Section 230 has been a regular target of lawmakers who want to crack down on Silicon Valley companies. While in office, Mr. Trump signed an executive order intended to chip away at the protections offered by Section 230, and Democratic and Republican lawmakers have proposed repealing or modifying the provision.

But technology companies and free speech advocates have vocally defended it, arguing that Section 230 has been crucial for the growth of the internet. If the measure were repealed, it would stifle free speech and bury social media companies in legal bills, the companies have said.

Twitter initially said that it had prevented linking to the Hunter Biden article because of its existing policies against distributing hacked materials and private information. The article, which focused on the Bidens Ukrainian ties, involved correspondence that The Post suggested had been found on Hunter Bidens laptop.

But Mr. Dorsey, Twitters chief executive, acknowledged in October that blocking links with zero context as to why had been unacceptable.

Soon after, Twitter said that it was changing its policy on hacked materials and would allow similar content to be posted, including a label to provide context about the source of the information.

Republicans said the damage was done and set a poor precedent.

This censorship manifestly will influence the presidential election, Senator Hawley wrote in a letter to the F.E.C. last year after Twitter blocked the article and Facebook said it was reducing its distribution of the piece.

The commission documents reveal one reason that Twitter had been especially suspicious of the Hunter Biden article. The companys head of site integrity, according to the commission, said Twitter had received official warnings throughout 2020 from federal law enforcement that malign state actors might hack and release materials associated with political campaigns and that Hunter Biden might be a target of one such operation.

The election commission said it found no information that Twitter coordinated its decisions with the Biden campaign. In a sworn declaration, Twitters head of U.S. public policy said she was unaware of any contacts with the Biden team before the company made its decisions, according to the commission document.

Adav Noti, a senior director at the Campaign Legal Center, said that he supported the rulings but that he had concerns about the election commissions use of what he called the commercial rationale, because it was overbroad.

It encompasses almost everything for-profit corporations do, Mr. Noti said.

Read the original post:
Under G.O.P. Pressure, Tech Giants Are Empowered by Election Agency - The New York Times

A steady stream of Orange residents and college students filed into Argyros Forum at Chapman University Tuesday to cast their ballots on the last day of voting for the gubernatorial recall election, one of dozens of sites in Orange County to which voters flocked.

Editors Note: This dispatch is part of the Voice of OC Youth Media program, working with student journalists to cover public policy issues across Orange County. If you would like to submit your own student media project related to Orange County civics or if you have any response to this work, contact Digital Editor Sonya Quick atsquick@voiceofoc.org.

The fate of Gov. Gavin Newsom, the 40th governor of California, is in the hands of the Golden State residents. Fred Smoller, a Chapman political science professor, attributed Newsoms response to the pandemic as the catalyst behind this recall election. Newsom is only the second governor in California to face a recall.

Some people are upset about the overreach of Newsoms aggressive shutdowns, Smoller said.

While some who voted at Chapman on Election Day were not enthused about Newsoms actions as governor, opinions on whether he needs to be replaced were divided.

I voted for Newsom to stay. I dont love the way that he has handled COVID-19, but more restrictions are better than none, said Chapman junior Audrey Fish.

Others said that Newsom had his chance to better California and failed.

Newsom hasnt been doing a good job with COVID-19, and the homelessness issue is out of control. He has had time to fix this, but he has not, said Orange resident Casey Crosby.

Some who voted in person said they felt it was a more accessible, secure way to cast their ballot. Nearly 825,000 Orange County residents opted to vote by mail, according to data provided by the OC Registrar of Voters.

I was actually expecting more people to be here, said Orange resident Chanel Martinez, I voted in person so that way I know my vote will be counted, for security reasons.

Professor Smoller said he feels confident that Newsom will hold on to his position despite what he believes will be a high Republican turnout for in-person voting.

Republicans will dominate in-person voting, but there just arent enough of them to undermine Democrats mail-in ballots, Smoller said. The state is 2-1 Democrats.

The polls closed at 8 p.m.

Continue reading here:
Chapman University Vote Center Sees Steady Turnout on Election Day With Voters Divided on The Governors Fate - Voice of OC

Progressives want Justice Stephen Breyer to step down while Democrats still narrowly control the Senate and before the 2022 midterms, when control of the chamber is at stake. Elizabeth Gillis/NPR hide caption

Progressives want Justice Stephen Breyer to step down while Democrats still narrowly control the Senate and before the 2022 midterms, when control of the chamber is at stake.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has said he will retire on his own terms amid calls from progressives for him to step down from the court so President Biden can name a younger liberal to take his place.

"I'm only going to say that I'm not going to go beyond what I previously said on the subject, and that is that I do not believe I should stay on the Supreme Court, or want to stay on the Supreme Court, until I die," he told NPR's legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg in an interview in Boston to promote his book, The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics. "And when exactly I should retire, or will retire, has many complex parts to it. I think I'm aware of most of them, and I am, and will consider them."

Breyer's remarks, while not a surprise he hired four clerks in July for the court's next term are likely to anger progressive activists who believe that the 83-year-old justice should make way for a younger nominee who holds his and their values and views. They want him to step down while Democrats still narrowly control the Senate and before the 2022 midterms, when control of the chamber is at stake.

Progressives fear a replay of the situation following the death in September 2020 of 87-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which allowed President Donald Trump to nominate and for the Republican-controlled Senate to quickly confirm Amy Coney Barrett, giving conservatives a 6-3 supermajority on the Supreme Court. Ginsburg didn't step down in 2014 when both the presidency and the Senate were in the hands of Democrats.

But Breyer said being in the court's minority didn't deter him because "about half of our opinions, almost half, are almost always unanimous."

"I see it as trying to decide this case and trying to decide the next case," he said. "And we might be the greatest of friends ... and allies beyond belief on Case 1, and Case 2, we might be on absolute opposite sides."

But an NPR analysis of the court's last term found that the justices swerved to the right, even by the standards of the traditionally conservative Roberts court. While there was unanimity on statutory matters, the justices split along ideological lines in the high-profile politically charged cases such as voting rights.

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, but a justice can decide to retire at any time. Progressives had hoped to push Breyer in that direction. One group, Demand Justice, even sent a billboard truck driving around the Supreme Court building in April with the message: "Breyer, retire. It's time for a Black woman Supreme Court justice," a reference to the president's vow to nominate a Black woman to the court.

The campaign to push for Breyer's retirement has not gained momentum in the Senate, which votes on judicial nominations. Only a handful of Democrats have suggested they would like to see Breyer, who was nominated to the court in 1994 by President Bill Clinton, retire of his own accord.

The White House has said that Biden's view is that retirement decisions are up to justices themselves.

Link:
Justice Breyer Says He Will Retire When He Thinks The Time Is Right - NPR