Sick Like Me

I hope this piece is intended as the personal peeve that it is and not as art criticism of any kind. Not liking the way you appear in a photographic series that you were complicit in making and for which you signed a release is a poor excuse for a writing subject and a worse one to pass off as art criticism. If you wanted to be cast in one of the even less flattering fantasies Ms. Numen has done, I suspect it is only so you would have a more sensational gripe, I suspect. At any rate, your beef is a self indulgent and tells us nothing about the merit or lack of in the work you are discussing.

Corrected post: delete second "I suspect" and delete "a" before "self indulgent. (No more comments sent before morning coffee.)

This article is in really bad taste and doesn't reflect well on Citypaper at all.

I agree with the above and would like to add that the spurts of what-if scenarios for Numen's project is not a basis for criticism. It is very easy air ones disapproval (especially, I suppose, when one has an outlet that will publish their thoughts), but the tougher task of criticism is to be analytical and thoughtful, and to make arguments that tie artists to the histories that they have adopted and/or rejected.

Please refer to my response to Thompson's article in this week's letters to the editor.
http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2009/05/21/letters-to-the-editor
If you have any questions or concerns please don't hesitate to contact me via my website:
www.evinumen.com

Thank you,
Evi

Seems kind of strange you suggesting in this article how Evi should've photographed her subjects. This is about Evi's vision as an artist and her work's intent. If you want to do a series, why not get out there and do it instead of telling someone else how they might've done it?

You claim to have been duped into appearing the way Evi portrayed you. What did you think you were there for? Tea and cakes? You were there to be photographed for a series about illness. How Evi wishes to express that is part of what makes her an artist, and you a creature who is clearly as miserable as the portrait implies.

This strikes me not as a critique so much as an attack. Just because you were not portrayed as you might have imagined does not make the photograph any less true or revealing. And even if your "look" was manufactured, your own words are even less flattering. What has been shown in your diatribe is your own insecurity, your own lack of self esteem, your own shortsightedness.

It would appear Ms. Numen chose wisely in selecting a "weak" individual after all.

This article is slander, pure and hateful and does not belong in the Arts Section. It is not a review of an artists work, but a pulbic complaint. Please remove the article or re-locate it to the Opinion section.

As for Andrew Thompson, if you are honestly considering the career of journalism, please reconsider using the news as your personal soapbox.
By doing so, your lack of professionalism is blindingly obvious.

I am highly irritiated about Andrew Thompson's article "Sick Like Me". Who writes an art review about a show without even attending the show? Not to mention the fact that it was a group show, and he only reviewed one artist. He also said it was a group of "senior thesis projects". We are MFA students, GRADUATE students, there is a difference. I find this to all to be irresponsible journalism, and not just because of the factual mistakes aforementioned, but also because he is acting like he was taken advantage of in some way, which is totally untrue. One of the subjects of her series is my brother, who has bipolar disorder, and I was present at his shoot. It was nothing like what he described. She was very clear about what she was doing, letting him know that it was a project depicting people with various disorders in an honest and candid way, through capturing their facial expressions while she spoke with them and took pictures of their heads and
shoulders. She was also clear that she would be included in the series. I was also struck by how comfortable my brother felt during the shoot, and how her sensitivity towards him was apparent through how relaxed he felt. As far as the lights are concerned, it is a portrait photo shoot. What did he expect? Ambient lighting? It seems that he is trying to feel sorry for himself in some way. Or maybe he is uncomfortable with the fact that the artist did in fact capture a moment that revealed a part of himself he is uncomfortable with. In which case, maybe Citypaper should not allow some one who is so directly involved with an art project review an entire art show (which has 23 other artists). He should see the photos in person, they are printed large, but are not overly slick, imperfections of the skin are quite evident, and they hang over the viewer, as if the subjects are examining you instead of their illness being put on display. There is too
much that is wrong with this picture, and by saying that, I don't mean the work of Evi Numen, but the person completely misinterpreting it.
Kim Brickley

I'm disappointed in the City Paper for publishing such a personal, petulant whinge in the arts section. Mr. Thompson, if you didn't approve of the image you should have requested to be removed from the exhibit and left it at that. So this project is a departure from the artist's earlier work...isn't that the nature of artistic expression, that it should change through time? Looking at this series, I'm impressed with the strength in the images, not weakness. Disappointing that the paper chose to print your personal rant rather than a more unbiased review of the works.

hmmm, sounds to me like Evi succeeded masterfully. i couldn't be more proud of her and her obvious insight into her subjects.

you have totally proved yourself to be exactly what she was trying to show in this portrait.

I'm confused as to why this is even being published here. A complaint about one's representation in a show does not equal a review. And there's no mention of the other artists at all. This belongs on the author's blog, or livejournal, or whatever.

I am in this series so I can talk about HOW Evi Numen works. This Andrew Thompson doesn't know what art is. Don't sit and critique something you know NOTHING ABOUT!

This arcticle ticks me off because for both me and my boyfriend's portraits, both displayed, we both are in awe at how she captured what we were feeling. Yeah to you, Andrew, it would look like sad faces- that just proves you know nothing of art. Your portrait is mundane because you made it that way- some of us in that moment WORKED and cried when she provoked us. So don't sit here and say what you think is true, its obvious you know nothing of art.

It's curious that you didn't like your portrait, yet you gave Evi permission to use it in her exhibition. It seems like you wanted her to display it so that you could bitch about it later.

Andrew, I'm curious. What sort of mental disorder do *you* have? Your behavior seems rather borderline to me.

I am by no means an art critic, but even I know that when you subject yourself to an artist for art's sake, you are subject to their expression of you, not your expression of yourself. If you want control of your "image", take your own damn self-portrait!

The author of this article really needs to get over himself and accept that an artist's (and others) objective view of him are certainly not in congruence with his own. I wholeheartedly believe in free speech, but this article clearly shows lack of appreciation for art and a clear attack on the artist.

FWIW, I think Evi clearly captured the right picture.

If Mr. Thompson wanted a photo of himself where he was all smiles he should have gone to a Sears Portrait Studio and not to an artist. His “review” is just a complaint that he didn’t get what he wanted from a photographer. It is outrageous that he would expect an artist to just reproduce the same style over for each and every project they do. If he had any understanding of artists he would realize that they constantly explore new styles of expressing themselves. Any dissatisfaction over the situation is entirely Mr. Thompson’s fault for not expressing it to the photographer at any point in time.

It is a disgrace that the City Paper would publish this. This type of “journalism” belongs on the author’s MySpace page and not in a newspaper of any merit.

After reading this article and examining the photograph, I feel like the photographer captured Mr. Thompson perfectly, and that is what the he is upset over.

Ms. Numan knows what she was looking for, and obviously how to get it. How boring the world would be if everyone only took pictures of happy smiling people, It appears that Ms.Numan captured perhaps too much of the real you and now you feel as naked as you appear in this picture. I agree, this article is not an art review- there is far to much whining here. I eagerly anticipate seeing the rest of Ms. Numans work.

The point is not the accuracy of the portrayal of Andrew Thompson -- whether his "inner character" corresponds with the rendering depends on your personal relationship with him and your personal relationship with the piece. The point is that representing illness is a lofty objective, and out of respect for the subjects and humanity a representation of illness should be humanizing. I completely agree with and understand Andrew Thompson's complaint that the method of treating the photo subjects and photographing them stigmatizes illness and the ill. His attack was personal, but I would attack personally too if my identity was portrayed in such a simplistic manner as well.

Patricia,
I don't see how his portrayal was simplified. In fact, I did hope to portray my subjects as respectfully and humanly as possible. As I mention in my letter to the editor, Thompson gave me *one* expression for all the frames I shot with him. I thought that this was because that's how he wanted to be portrayed. He didn't respond at all at my posing instructions. My belief was reinforced when he never voiced displeasure or discomfort with his image, until he wrote this article. On the contrary, he told me that "it was important for him to see himself in this way" and that it was "empowering", in a phone conversation we had about a week prior to him publishing the article. You can understand, I'm sure, why I feel manipulated. You should take the time, if you feel so inclined, to read my letter to the editor (http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2009/05/21/letters-to-the-editor) and my artist statement (http://evinumen.com/section/67902.html). I agree with you that representing illness is a lofty goal and whether or not my project is a success should be the focus of proper art criticism and not a ranty personal attack, that frankly doesn't belong in a newspaper, but on Thompson's myspace blog.
p.s. As I mentioned in my letter, my own self-portrait is included in this project, so I would want nothing other than my portrayal of everyone in this project to be humanizing. Vulnerability is one of the essential states of the human condition and should not be mistaken for weakness.

Evi has rallied her colleagues to such an extent that that compels me to reply. Before I reply to the statements at large, let me refute the last point made by Evi: At no point whatsoever did I say the image was "empowering" or that "it was important for me to see myself this way." I have absolutely no idea to what you're referring.

Unfortunately, the commenters' interpretation of this article is that I don't like my picture and am "ranting" and "whining" about it. The picture itself is fine, and had I been so ashamed of it I would not have chosen to publish it in the paper. The point of the article, which I will try to state as clearly as possible, is this: It was a discussion on whether or not artists, particularly when doing this sort of documentary work, have any obligation to portray their subjects in their natural states, or if it is acceptable for the artist to conduct the subjects expression. Despite Evi's refutations, she did indeed tell me to change what I believe was a pleasant look (not a toothy smile, which many people think I meant) into one that ultimately, in my estimation, became overly morose. This small act raises the question of how authentically portrayed someone is if they are given directives on expressiveness. I have no problem with the aesthetics of the picture itself. Rather, my piece focused on the process behind the picture. I understand that word limits sometimes prevent writers from elucidating their messages in full, and I apologize if my point did not come across as well as it could have. But that indeed was the point.

Contrary to what some people here claim they experienced during their own shoots, I did not have any real discussion with Evi about my own illness during the shoot. The only real discussion occurred before the process, and I did not experience any inward journey through the depths of my brain ending with an exit through my visage.

The attacks launched at me are bizarrely ad hominem, I guess in response to perceived attacks on Evi. I have no problem with Evi. She was extremely genteel when I met with her, and I found her to be an interesting person. This article is not about Evi, it is about her work (and for that matter, other artists' work) and how that work is produced. I also have no problem with her placement of the piece in her show - indeed, she said it was one of her favorite pieces and I said that it would help my piece if she included it. Her admiration for the picture and my critical article are not at odds with one another, and if she likes the photo, I'm not sure how this article is evidence of manipulation on my part.

While my article was conceived as an experiential piece rather than a review, I don't believe I could have written it without any critique of the work. My own experience made me wonder if Evi's goal was to doctor a sense of gloom not necessarily congruous with the subjects themselves, leaving us with no insight about people with mental illness except that they are surrounded in darkness. It's easy to have people sit against a black background and frown. But to show these subjects in their natural states - it may not be as grave, but it might be a little more honest.

Andrew,
that you would lie to me to me does little to surprise me at this point, but to lie about something you said to me not once but twice, in a public fashion, is something else entirely. The level of deceit you continue to employ, not just to me but to others and yourself, is simply astounding.
First of all, I never claimed to be doing documentary work- to the contrary I claim to be doing fine art work- there is a big difference.
Secondly, I guess that your story about your expression has more to do with self-deceit than deceiving me or others. Your expression didn't change at all during the shoot, which I thought was fairly bizarre, but I figured, as I mentioned in my response to Patricia, was how you wanted to be portrayed. If you didn't agree with how you were portrayed you really could have said something instead of publicly defaming me, yellow press style.
If you had any concerns about my practice, you could very well have directed those to me. Somehow, I think that would have been far more productive for both of us.
If you wanted to convey any of the above in your article, I'm afraid you failed because most of your readers seem to think that this was a personal attack rather than a review of any sort. It is fairly obvious that you did this in a poor attempt to break in the world of art criticism, as this is your first article with art as its subject, if I'm not mistaken.
I have more to say to you, but I'd much rather do it in a private manner, for your sake.

It is clear that the writer of the "article" saw posing for Evi as a means to get a good angle. He didn't.

Hey. Perhaps, after all, America never has been discovered. I myself would say that it had merely been detected. Help me! Please help find sites for: Fred white deerfield capital. I found only this - dsw shoes job application. More and more cash advance lenders are charging flat fees instead of interest rates. Priest legal challenge to california school finance system. Thank :cool: Opal from China.