Thinking About Art

Our time

Back to the scandal that shall be ignored (kinda)... I found the following statement on a local blog:

For one, I agree with the curator Jordan Fay Block: "My idea on art is that if it doesn't get you talking, it isn't working." I also- without actually seeing the project- think that the idea behind it is very cool.

Yes, folks... our contemporary art world rewards art that prompts talking. Talking = Quality, apparently. This concept has pervaded the contemporary art world to such an extent that I don't know how we'll get out the other side. What's so wrong with: Quality = Quality?

And an almost perfect response to this position can be found here:

It's just a concept show. ... Heck, you can choose the side of the fence you sit on without even seeing the exhibit. In my mind, this does not qualify it as "the most stumulating" of shows. Tintilating? Yes, briefly. Newsworthy? Sort of. Provocative? Barely. I'd rather judge how stimulating an exhibit is by actually attending it rather than by reading about its concept in the newspaper.

All of this reminds me of a recent interview I read that stated, and I paraphrase:

Good art or bad art. That's not the point.

I'm sorry, but any world where the quality of art is not the point is a world I'm not sure I want to be a part of. This stance, that quality doesn't matter, is often perpetuated by people who can't tell good from bad. Instead, they find some other measure to supplant quality as quality. In both cases, the idea is that the art makes you talk/think. The game show Jeopardy makes me talk and think... but it's not good art.

[Conceptual art should certainly make you think and its quality hinges on it, I think. I'm using the quotes above in a broader context of all art, specifically visual art. I don't think it's a stretch to say these more conceptual measures for quality exist throughout all of art.]

When to Curate a Show?

Thinking out loud...

Lately I've been paying more attention to the shows other people are curating. I'm interested in what is chosen for the exploration or inquiry into. As I've made clear, I'm not so much interested in new ideas or themes, as I'm interested in fairly traditional concepts brought forward to today. As I stated in my Supple Recap post, there's plenty of room in the art world to curate shows on just about anything.

But what I'm interested in is the timing of the show. Without going into specifics that might make the provocation of this post transparent, there is a show up now in D.C. that claims to explore a subject matter that has been beaten to death in the last 5 years, not to mention the past 20+ years to some extent. In D.C. specifically, this subject matter has seemingly been explored repeatedly in many different venues. The brief statement about the show that I've read from the curator seems to imply that new ground is being charted. I'm not sure this is true.

My question isn't about the value of mounting a show that has been covered in depth recently, but more about your thoughts on the timing of this. Is there a period of time that such shows should be avoided? Should there be a down time between the hot time for the concept and the next show that treads the same ground? Does it change the way you view the show? Do you even care?

I haven't seen the show in person yet, but pictures do look pretty neat. I probably wouldn't have thought anything about it if it weren't for the curator's statement. Perhaps no statement would have been better? Or at least a statement that was honest about the show's breakthrough, if any.

RFP?

I mentioned it in passing the other day, but I am in need of a redesign for my art web site. I would like to maintain the simplicity of the current design, but enhance the presentation of individual works. I'd also like to make it easier to make updates to the site.

So what's my course of action? Do I put out an RFP to web designers? How do I actually get the RFP to the designer? Are there any designers reading that would like to make a pitch? I can provide some minimum requirements and then let your creativity take over. One requirement... absolutely no Flash. None. Period.

I appreciate your feedback on how to pursue this. I'm willing to pay with art and/or cash money.

Just ignore it...

Maybe I'm the only one uninterested in the latest scandal to hit local blogs. I wish everyone would just ignore it. The one person involved with all this who looks good is Cara Ober. She clearly owns the "style." Bailey's work is no better than Ober's. Ober's handling of the situation has for all appearances been quite professional and commendable.

So why are we even talking about it? Is this appropriation really still new and interesting?

I know by writing this I am going against my own wishes. But when I saw a proposal for a panel discussion involving the pranksters, I wanted to speak out against this. Maybe we should do a panel discussion on Ober's practice instead.

Bailey's show calls out for discussion and desperately wants attention. Please join me in ignoring this joke and eagerly waiting for Cara's next solo show. I look forward to seeing it.

2 Thoughts from Miami

Unfortunately, my Miami posts tapered off. I apologize for that. I still hope to get images up somewhere from that time in Florida. I have several hundred photos after all.

Until then, I wanted to share two thoughts that I had in Miami (no, they weren't the only two thoughts). They are definitely related to one another:

1) I saw many pieces in Miami that I liked and was interested in purchasing. The vast majority of times I inquired for the price, I found that it was approximately twice what I was willing to pay. It was really odd. It could be a painting priced at $2,000 for which I'd only give $1,000, and be happy to do so. This happened over and over. I tried to figure out a reason for my feelings. Is artwork priced at twice what it should be? Or being an artist, and having insight into the 50/50 split, am I more inclined to just pay the artist's portion?

Ultimately Stacey and I found three pieces we had to have. The price was right (for us) and we snapped them up. I found a fourth piece, but Stacey was not a fan so we'll move on.

2) I heard over and over how there was too much art in Miami. I heard this from gallerists, critics, curators and artists. "It's too much. It's too crazy." I did not get the feeling that many galleries had strong sales. I did not get the feeling that viewers were able to see everything and retain what they did see. I might be so bold as to say it was practically unanimous the feeling that it was too much in Miami (two times too much?). So my question to all of you is this: Who's not going to Miami next year? Which of you artists will tell your galleries "No, there's too much art in Miami. I don't want to participate this year"? Or what about you galleries? Which of you will say, "We're not going to submit for acceptance in a Miami fair this year"? And you critics and curators, which of you will say "This is far from an ideal setting to display or view art. I'll see you next in your physical gallery space"?

In my opinion, Miami was simply too much. It was too expensive and there was too much of it. I think we reached a max in Miami this year and I can't imagine it getting any better/bigger, especially in this economy. Prices have to come down. Quality needs to be rewarded. Taste... well, let's not go too far.

I'm glad that I saw the circus that is Miami. And I hope that its scope gets greatly reduced. But if anyone wants to take my work to Miami this year, let me know. I will crate up as many pieces as you want to take.

black and white and... all over

I don't think I have publicly announced that I am no longer Assistant Director of H&F Fine Arts. With so much on my plate, I just didn't feel I could dedicate the time required to mounting worthwhile shows month after month. However, my relationship with the gallery will continue. In March, H&F is hosting a photography show that I have curated, "black and white and... all over."

Dates: Feb. 27 - March 29
Reception: Saturday, March 1, 5-8pm

The show will feature 19 photographers from the D.C. area who work some, if not exclusively, in black and white. Here is the list of participating artists:

Erin Antognoli, James W. Bailey, Danny Conant, Max Cook, Stephen Crowley, Justin Hoffmann, Michael Dax Iacovone, Nick Jbara, Jane Jeffers, J.T. Kirkland, Angela Kleis, Prescott Lassman, Thomas Paradis, Aleksei Pechnikov, Susana Raab, Alexandra Silverthorne, Jim Tetro, Bryan Whitson, Lloyd Wolf

Of the 19 photographers in included in the show, some have published multiple photography books as others have only "shown" via Flickr. At this point I have selected 112 photographs for inclusion in the show. It's likely obvious, but the work will be hung salon style. I won't know how many pieces actually make it on the wall until the installation process begins. I'm hoping to hang most, if not all, of them.

There will be some experiments taking place with the installation of the show and with the presentation of individual photo information. I will discuss this as the show draws nearer.

Here is the postcard for the show, front and back:

Please keep an eye out for more information regarding the show.

[Disclosure: I own work by Alexandra Silverthorne and Prescott Lassman.]

What a letdown...

I just received an email from the publishers of New American Paintings, a publication I'm sure most of you are familiar with. The email touted a new publication the pipeline, Studio Visit. The email read:

The Open Studios Press, creator of New American Paintings, is pleased to announce a new series of juried artist catalogs called Studio Visit. Due to the overwhelming amount of interest in New American Paintings, and the limited amount of space available, we are pleased to offer artists a new and effective venue through which to introduce their work to a serious national audience of art world professionals.

Unlike New American Paintings, Studio Visit will be a nationally focused publication that presents all two- and three-dimensional work. Each volume includes approx. 150 artists, rather than the 40 who appear in New American Paintings. Each selected artist will be provided with one full page that will include a full color image, contact information and a brief artist statement. As with New American Paintings, each volume will be juried by a professional curator and produced to the highest quality standards that can be used as a valuable promotional tool.

Once published, Studio Visit will be mailed to 1,500 of the nation's top galleries and curators and a growing subscriber base. Additionally, participating artists will receive a complimentary issue of the publication, and they will be able to purchase additional copies at a discount to send to galleries, collectors, friends and family.

Sounds good so far, right? Then the last paragraph said:

The competition is free to enter, however, artists will be responsible for a $225 production and distribution fee if selected.

You knew there had to be a catch, didn't you? Congratulations... we love your work and wish to publish it for the world to see. Now fork over that $225 please, you have to pay for you single page out of 150. Aren't you happy?! We require $33,750 from the artists we publish to cover our expenses!

If the business model requires that the selected artists pay $225 each for the publication to be successful (break even? profit?), then what does that say about the business model? I'm anxious to see what kind of work gets selected.

Will you submit (for free!!) to Studio Visit? I positively will not.

Oh, I just saw this. The submission process will not accept digital files, only slides/transparencies or printouts. Are they kidding?

A recent photo...

New posts coming, but I wanted to share a photo I took recently. I don't know what it is about this one, but I love it.

Not sure what to make of it, but...

Kriston does a good job of summarizing the scandal of the day (week?) in the art world. I'm sure you're all familiar with it. Here's one portion of what he writes:

An eagle-eyed watch for conflicts of interest in journalism does not actually concern art, the art market, the prestige of critics or criticism, or the rise and fall of arts-writing salaries. It's a concern for journalism itself one the answer is clear cut, across fields and publications: One has to look out for conflicts of interest, because journalism only happens in their absence.

First, let me plead ignorance on this topic (journalism, that is). One distinction, if it's even a distinction, that I need more clarity on, is the difference between "journalism" and "criticism." When I think of "journalism" I think of facts. I think of someone reporting events that occur. I can see the mere coverage, or non-coverage, of things presenting an opportunity for conflict of interest. However, when I think of "criticism" I think of the reporting of facts AND opinion/judgment. Without doubt, conflict of interest is possible by the mere coverage or non-coverage of an artist or show. But, there's the opinion component too. With the opinion component, regardless of motivations I can see value in reading one person's opinion. Regardless of why the critic wrote it, there is value in the discussion... the potential for increased understanding of art. We've all read plenty of art criticism from folks who presumably have no conflict of interest and whose opinions are not valuable to us.

Again, I'm by far no expert in this topic but I'm wondering if there's some value to criticism that isn't present in journalism that would allow for a slightly different way of handling conflict of interest. Personally, I'll miss Christian Viveros-Fauné's writing and I'll hope that the next critic who writes for the Village Voice writes as well if not better, conflict of interest or not.

As for me, here's my hat.

If he's struggling, then what am I?

According to this post, Brian Uhlrich describes himself as a "struggling artist." If that's really the case, then what in the world am I? What adjective would be about 10 steps down from struggling? I'm kidding of course... I can see where he's coming from.

On a more serious note, I've been contemplating a large redesign of my personal web site too. Wonder if I can trade original paintings or works in wood for some design help (he's trading multiples so I'd have to offer originals, right?). We'll have to see how his search works out.