After going back and re-reading Chris Shott's article in the Washington City Paper, I wanted to make a few more comments. I'm getting more riled up by the minute on this...
From the article: “You can’t just exclude a category of people from an exhibition on the basis of their participating in an activity unrelated to the exhibition,” says Levy.
I do not believe that Barlow's exclusion of the Panda artists was unrelated to the exhibition. In my opinion Levy can't see the forest for the trees. Barlow's vision of curating the Options 05 show was to comment on state of the arts in DC and give a voice to emerging artists without easy access to galleries/museums. In order to do just that, Barlow made the decision to exclude a group of DC artists that participated in an infamous public "art" project. This project had an enormous audience meaning that these artists aren't so unknown. I'm not sure if I see any more direct way to acheive Barlow's vision. I would love to hear Levy explain how excluding artists who participated in such a big project IN Washington, DC, is not related to Barlow's curatorial vision. Perhaps this exclusion does not fit with Levy's curatorial vision, but I think Barlow was the one selected for the job. Will Levy be announced as the new Options 05 curator?
From the article: Adjchavanich says a lip zipper would have saved Barlow’s job. “Most curators wouldn’t be so naive as to empty the contents of their curatorial vision into a reporter’s notebook,” she says.
How pathetic of a statement is this? Heaven forbid someone make their ideas and opinions public knowledge! Heaven forbid somebody not hide behind Mr. Director! Perhaps Barlow was naive... naive enough to believe he really had the support of the WPA/C. It has been established that Adjchavanich knew of Barlow's intentions prior to the Washington Post article - actually, prior to even being hired. She supported him then, why not now? Perhaps we should never voice opinions or ideas. That sounds like a great life to me. You never know who might tear you down...
Something I am working on: In reviewing non-profit tax returns and other public information for WPA/C via guidestar.org, I came across a listing of the Board of Directors (note: there is no date associated with this information). Adjchavanich is listed as Executive Director for the WPA/C (as she is on the WPA/C Web site). David Levy is listed as Director/President of WPA/C (there is no mention of him on the WPA/C's staff page or the Board members list). I also understand that both Levy and Adjchanavich work at the Corcoran museum, i.e. the same building. So my questions are, 1) Is Levy currently the "Director/President" of the WPA/C? 2) How independent is the WPA/C really? 3) Did Levy know Barlow's position prior to the Washington Post article? If not, why not? If so, well you know what that would mean...
It's much ado about nothing. Barlow is guilty of an arrogant political and diplomatic "faux pas" ..obviously he didn't want donkeys and panda bears, or elephants in his show but to make such a combative and insensitive statement is asking for trouble. You don't think Richard Serra ever drew a bunny rabbit for his nieces and nephews? Just because an artist participates in the lark that was the panda project doesn't necessarily mean they don't and can't produce more substantive art. And he could have excluded all of that kind of stuff with out ruffling feathers anyway. Does he think he was making some "macho" statement? I know Philip.. I think not.
Posted by: chris lee | Friday, October 22, 2004 at 11:45 PM
Chris -
First, I think a curator could exclude Serra on the basis of bunny rabbit drawings if that fit with the curator's vision for his/her show. And a drawn bunny rabbit is much closer to art than the pandas... so the analogy doesn't really work to begin with.
Second, I don't think anyone has said that the panda artists don't or can't produce more substantive art. I don't think Barlow has made that assertion either. In fact, the only thing in question (and what Joseph and Scott have pointed out) is that Barlow is only concerned with the participation in those public "art" projects. It has nothing to do with quality of the art. By excluding those artists, Barlow is fulfilling his vision for what he wanted the Options show to be. The artist's other work was/is not in question here.
Last, if when you say Barlow "is asking for trouble" you really mean "is asking for dialogue and debate," then I think you are absolutely right. Barlow's decision was strategic... and ultimately successful. Unfortunately he won't be allowed to curate the show, but he has brought up questions about the merits of the DCCAH's support of those projects.
I don't think Barlow was trying to make a "macho" statement at all. I believe he was making a personal statement... and isn't that what we want from a curator? Would you rather we lock him up in a dungeon and throw away the key so that we don't have to hear his controversial or unpopular opinions? It sounds like that is from where Adjchanavich wanted Barlow to curate the show!!
Posted by: J.T. Kirkland | Saturday, October 23, 2004 at 11:13 PM
Let's see if we can take this a step further.
I'm going to curate a show made up entirely of excluded artists. I will fulfill my "vision" and the show (show?) will be very easy to set up. I'll exclude only the best. All the major names won't be there. The art community will be up in arms! Everyone will want to be excluded!
I even have a name for this type of curating. I call it "Conceptual Curating".
No wall cards either!
;)
Posted by: Joseph Barbaccia | Sunday, October 24, 2004 at 10:32 AM
I've spoken to several people who take Barlow's side in this and they all seem to be bending over backward to excuse the mean-spiritedness of Barlow's stance. He didn't say anything about excluding EVERYONE who has shown publicly in DC he singled out the party animals and panda projects. Look I don't think those projects were especially meritorious, but the whole flap is so overblown. When you're working w/committee's and institutions that have a responsibility to the "public trust"- you have an obligation not to make statements like that- he might have apologized and or clarified his meaning-" I don't mean to malign any of the particular artists who participated in those projects- but my vision for this show will be..blah,blah,blah.." It's a shame because I think Phillip would have done an excellent job but it's all degenerated to a petty "pissing contest" now.
Posted by: chris lee | Sunday, October 24, 2004 at 11:13 AM
By "singleing out" the ARTISTS who participated in the "Animals" projects he was setting a bad precedent. Whether this is done all the time by curators, I care not, it's wrong. No artist should be turned down only because they previously participated in a certain politically questionable show. It potentially lowers the quality of work in the curator's show if the field of possible entrants is reduced for political goals.
As always, I respect Mr. Barlow's vision, but in this case, he put blinders on.
I think I'm going to lobby for a Party Animals/Pandamania Pride Parade.
Say that fast three times.
Posted by: Joseph Barbaccia | Sunday, October 24, 2004 at 12:43 PM