Thoughts...

OK... here it is...

1) I've been visiting Chelsea almost every week day for the past 3 weeks during lunchtime. On each visit I get to see about 10 shows, sometimes less, sometimes more, depending on if anything catches my eye. Today's visit was the last straw though. Art sucks. Let me re-phrase, the contemporary art in Chelsea sucks. It all looks the same. It all looks bad. Of course, that's not entirely true. There's some really nice work up at McKenzie Fine Art right now but I saw that last week. Between yesterday and today, not only has the weather become brutally cold, but the shows I've seen in Chelsea stink.

It makes me wonder, what's the point in even making art? If the resulting outcome is such disgustingly awful art, maybe we should all just stop. Right?

I've had multiple people (people "in the know" as it were) tell me I need to move to NYC (or LA) if I plan on being a serious, well-known artist. They don't mean it as badly as I made it sound. Two people in particular have asked me who the big-name young artists are in D.C. I began naming some and all I got was blank stares. These names are ones that everyone in D.C. would ooh and ahh over. But, in the grand scheme of things, they aren't even on the art map. The closest, I think, is Dan Steinhilber and that's because he's had a couple of museum shows. But I don't think he's had a solo in NYC or LA (right?) and still the people I talk to up here don't know him. Now that I think about it, maybe Chan Chao would get close?

But seriously people, name the "top" 100 artists. The artists you respect the most. Any DC artists register? If they do, are you living in DC right now? Thought so. So the question is, if you're a young contemporary artist living in DC, why will you be any different? I'm asking myself that now. Is this a good thing, bad thing, or no thing?

So I've recently thought about moving to NYC. There are affordable places to live in Queens and that's 15-20 mins from mid-town. In 3 years of searching in DC, I havent found a single thing in the same proximity to "mid-town." But after all these visits to Chelsea, do I really want live in NYC? Will my work get better? Will it get worse? Will it be seen by more people? The more I think about it, an artist needs to move out to the country, make the best work he can, and maximize the internet to get their work out in the world. Maybe that's what I'll do...

I know one thing. I'm boycotting Chelsea tomorrow at lunch. Yeah, that's right. I'm sure they'll miss me. What should I do instead?

2) One quick story from my time in NYC (which overall has been great)... last Friday I met with the owner of a fantastic ground floor gallery in Chelsea. This is a gallery I really respect. Anyway, I was showing him some images of my work and I began to talk about my process. He interrupted me, and said (paraphrasing), "Son, I'm not an idiot. I don't care how you made it or how it came to be. I just care that it is here before me and that it moves me deeply." Amen and amen again! Needless to say, this owner/gallery in an outlier in today's world. And bless him for it.

3) Last night an artist stopped by my show and we got to talking about artist statements and how he struggles with them. He told me about a gallery in Brooklyn that he was talking to and that they thought an artist statement was critical. They said that galleries use them to determine which packages should be looked at.

I told this artist that any gallery that looked at a statement before the images was not a gallery for me and I felt it shouldn't be for any other artist. If a gallery can't determine for itself if they want to look at the images, well, the art world is in more trouble than I thought.

4) After Ed posted about gallery lighting, I started paying closer attention to it. Today I noticed that most, if not all, of the big galleries had all-over lighting. Meaning, the light was equally distributed through the space. I don't like it, generally speaking. I probably lack a bit of sophistication in this respect, but I like the feeling that I'm in a gallery, not just a room. I like the drama of spotlights. I like having my attention focused on a work. Why light a bare expanse of wall? I don't know. And when the work is bad, I need all the help I can get to actually look at it.

Come to think of it, the all-over lighting works pretty well with sculpture, I think... but I really dislike it in a painting/drawing/photography show.

5) If you care at all about art (or perhaps the state of the art), you'll go read Franklin's latest post. One of my favorite snippets:

There's no cliché in art like the cliché of challenging cherished clichés.

6) And last, can someone please name an example of a "new media"? Seriously, are there any truly new media? Is there something I'm not thinking of? I'm tired of "new media" being assigned to video or sound installations. I honestly believe that video and sound art has got to be the most boring art out there. Maybe there was a time when it felt "new," but that day is long gone. I don't want to take anything away from video/sound art (quality-wise), but can we drop the "new media" title until an actual new media comes along? Please?

Comments

[wwc]

Here's my thought back:

1. Having lived in NYC for a while (but not now) I can agree that, like any other place one sees art, most of it is crap. NYC has two other things though - great museums (DC has them too, but not as many) and a mass of artists and art folks. When I was there, this was good and bad. Good because I had lots of peers and people to talk to and do things with and, wishfully, to show and buy my work. Bad because there's so many folks scamming things so many ways that you can be a dime-a-dozen nothing pretty easily. I have a good friend who has had shows in Soho and Chelsea and is still hammering away at things, getting good work made, but having a tough time getting it shown. I do think NYC or LA would help one's career because one could participate socially with people and get one's foot in the door that way. But it will also tire your ass out.

2. Amen - sometmes when someone is looking at your work the best and hardest thing to do is shut up.

3. I can't believe a gallery reads statements instead of looking at images. Thats crazy. and dumb.

4. I think all over lighting makes it easier when they switch shows out - no re-lighting things.

5. That is a great post.

6. New Media is anything that plugs in, plus sometimes performance and maybe installation. Its a problem for insitutions like schools - where do they put video artists? Sculpture departments? I've seen them called Time-Arts too. I also think new media is at times a buzz word for hyping crap. Hey, I made a website - I'm a new media artist!

[J.T. Kirkland]

Thanks WWC. By the way, did you make it to Richmond? I think I know the answer but wanted to ask.

1) All good points. I think if you're a dime a dozen in NYC, you're a dime a dozen anywhere. Meaning, just because you stand out in DC, doesn't really mean anything. It just means you're a local celebrity. Think of small town newscasters. Typically they are awful (why else are they in the small town market?) but they are "famous." I don't want to be that kind of famous.

Question 1a) As an artist, imagine you can live anywhere in the world. What would your top 3 cities be?

4) I hope you're wrong about that. I know a lot of work goes into running a gallery, but that doesn't mean you should cut corners. If individualized spotlighting works best, take the time to do it. The art (should) deserve it.

6) I'm not sure why they have to be put anywhere. It's just a label, I think. I think you're last point is right... it's about hype. New is better. Edgier. Etc... But I also think it's inaccurate.

Maybe it should be "Newer Media."

[1stpulse]

first off, I'm a fan of your blog; and wow, you had me at #1. But anyway, just for the record re: the term "new media": although I agree that it's no longer a good or accurate term, "new media" shouldn't refer to "video and sound art" (but maybe does re: some sound art) -- it really pertains to art having to do with code, or software: binary code, and other languages that generate a variety of things from fractals to algorithms to applets, etc., on the web or off. But basically it means "digital" in some sense... so I guess, although it's specialized in terms of its tools, everything being to some degree dependent on "digital" media for a time now, it's really no longer "new."

cheers,
jg

[J.T. Kirkland]

Thanks 1st. I agree with your distinction though I don't think it has caught on across the board. I'll give "code" art another 2 years or so to be "new."

I hate to use the WPA\C as an example, cause I like what they do, but I think of "experimental media" the same was as "new media."

See this call for entry: http://www.wpaconline.org/events/ColorfieldRemix/colorfield.htm

How is video, sound and performance "experimental" but painting, photography, sculpture, etc, is not? Aren't we all experimental?

[wwc]

Maybe "new media" means things older art folks are confused by. Text messaging confuses me, so thats new media!

Question 1a) As an artist, imagine you can live anywhere in the world. What would your top 3 cities be?

I assume I'll be set up in whatever living arrangements I want. This includes a staff and a huge studio.

NYC
London
LA

But that's a dream world where I have no money restrictions. In the real world, C'ville isnt so bad, for now.

Remember, this is a long game we're playing, despite what it looks like right now. You say you don't want to be the big fish in a small pond, but I know you're really playing for history. In that Artblog post you linked to Franklin mentions all the bubble-folks who will blow away someday. They aren't our real competition. Pollack is, Guston, Braque, Manet are.

This is rambling... I dont mean to say that we shouldn't care about this stuff, just that we keep it in perspective.

[J.T. Kirkland]

"In that Artblog post you linked to Franklin mentions all the bubble-folks who will blow away someday. They aren't our real competition. Pollack is, Guston, Braque, Manet are."

Well put.

Question 1b) Who is your competition?

Question 1c) Are you prepared to lose?

WWC - Any houses for sale in your Wysteria Lane neighborhood?

[wwc]

Another point - I have an artist friend who lives in Roanoke - ROANOKE! - who now shows at a top DC gallery, get collected by board members of the Whitney, shown at art fais and lives off her paintings. This all happened in tha past 3 years, while she's been in Roanoke (which, for non-Virginia peeps is in the middle of nowhere).

So it can happen. Maybe living in a big place helps, but it can happen without it. The one thing she did do was buy herself some time - she quit jobs and just worked. Maybe thats a bigger factor for some successes.

[J.T. Kirkland]

I think I know of whom you speak. I'll have to throw her name around and see what kind of a response I get.

The next question (and a better question) is:

7) Who are the older, established DC artists who are "known"?

[wwc]

Ok, by the old art dudes I was speaking about what happens in the studio. I dont see you having the trouble some artists have of thinking of the market while working.

Question 1b) Who is your competition?

Everyone, but mostly me. and Time, which will win, the bastard.

Question 1c) Are you prepared to lose?

Risk. I've been thinking about this a lot. If you're not super-goal oriented its hard to lose - you can just keep shifting the goalposts. I'm not sure hwo t oanswer this - to lose, that means one can win. What does winning look like?

WWC - Any houses for sale in your Wysteria Lane neighborhood?

Yes, two of them. If you move here I'll throw a damn huge party.

[J.T. Kirkland]

I'm not sure that you can win. I wonder which artists thought they "won" and which thought they "lost."

I just want to compete.