The gist: Blake spends about half of his article describing Dan's very cool summer residency at Socrates Sculpture Park in Queens. But there's a significant omission: The WPA, along with the DCAAH, set up and is funding Dan's residency, and will eventually bring the project back to DC (probably next Spring, I'm guessing).
Why no mention of the WPA angle? I accept Lisa's explanation: Blake knew about the connection, but there were only so many column inches and narrative threads his editors would allow. I get this. The piece is already two stories. The first half is a survey of Dan's work; the second focuses on an out-of-town-residency.
Local boy makes good; takes his art to the big(ger) city.
The fact that his trip to NYC is underwritten by and only possible because of a DC organization that provides services and opportunities for local artists doesn't really fit into that otherwise clear storyline. It makes everything a little messier. In fact, maybe it's a separate story. But in my view, that story is just as interesting, and needs to be told.
Read my interview with Lisa Gold here.
Pictured: Dan Steinhilber, Untitled, 2002-2008.