In the interest of debate, let me put in my two cents on the various stabs being taken at Elaine Wolff (both in Michelle’s post below, and in the various articles she links to). In her critique of Olmos Famous, Wolff accuses the show of being too much surface, not enough depth. This assessment isn’t necessarily wrong, but I think it misses the point. Franco Mondini-Ruiz’s shows (both his solo shows and those that he curates) are about spectacle, crowds, and excitement. They aren’t about quiet contemplation of a body of work. He’s working on making the community aware of the quality of contemporary art that is made in San Antonio, of the kind of excitement and energy that can surround this work, and of the fact that you can pack a gallery in Olmos Park with people who live on the north side and the south side. And he’s doing a great job of it.

There is room for other kinds of shows, as Michelle Monseau’s quiet, mysterious, and very spacious exhibit at Blue Star recently demonstrated. Franco just isn’t going to curate those shows. The “fairy god-mother” remark may sound bad from a certain perspective, but knowing Franco, and the degree to which he can dish it out, I have trouble getting worked up about this comment.

As for her mention of the coverage of Alejandro Diaz in New York magazine, it sounded to me like she was criticizing the magazine, not the show or the artist, so I don’t really see what the problem is there.

Now, her recent disclosure issues sound to me like a tempest in a teapot. So she interviewed Mikal Watts, a candidate for US Senate, that her husband supports. She also interviewed Rick Noriega, his opponent in the primaries, a week earlier. And she wrote a lengthy article criticizing Watts’ stance on abortion. So from where I sit, she hasn’t demonstrated bias towards either candidate. Her lack of disclosure points more to the need for clearer standards within the Current than to a breach of ethics. I looked around for some indication of whether this is considered a problem in the profession (what do I know about journalism, after all?), and this page at the New York Times indicates to me that it is something of a gray area, but she probably should have disclosed. And she did, albeit belatedly.

Perhaps Michelle should have disclosed that she was a participant in the show she’s defending?

Finally, I agree that the new Current web site still needs a lot of work.

UPDATE: Elaine Wolff wrote to point out that Dave Maass resigned on good terms before complaining about the Watts conflict of interest issue. She claims that although he knew about the campaign contribution back in June, he did not make an issue of it until several days after his resignation on August 6. I’m not going to try to corroborate this information, because I’m not that concerned about this ‘controversy’, but I thought I should pass it along.