Thoughts about Conflicts of Interest

It seems these days everyone’s all abuzz about the the new, old buzzword, “conflict of interest”. Whether it be regarding the New Museum, Deitch, or Corporate art collections. It is clear that more and more museums in our still uncertain economic times, are relying on private patrons to subsidize there waning funds. But this is perhaps only becoming more clear, as the water has receded to such a point that we can see the institutions’ nooks and crannies in the light of day.

To be clear, I think money inevitably taints the water we drink from, but seeing as we don’t really have the option of shifting to an entirely different system, I will not even go there. A privatized funding system brings with it an inherent conflict of interest. Because the museum is a money-making entity (even if it is a non-profit, it acts for all intents and purposes as a for-profit one), there will always be leveraged positions of certain individuals and companies against the museum. Conflicts of interest are not necessarily acted upon, in fact to the contrary, most are dealt with in a perfectly appropriate manner, but that does not mean they do not exist. For Example, a new patron gives $1mil to a new museum. That museum is now in a conflict of interest because that collector may have certain interests associated with that gift that may or may not come to fruition. And if it does, if his gift leads to an exhibition of his favorite painter, a painter who he happens to have a large collection of? What then?

The issue really is where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable conflicts of interest, and more specifically, the ramifications of the conflicts of interest? (For those of you keeping score at home: the Deitch situation falls into the former and the New Museum/Dakis Joannou situation the latter.) Do we try to root out conflicts of interest before they have a chance to manifest themsemves in “our” institutions? Do we wait until bloggers start making a big to-do about it and then superficially “reconsider” our funding policies? How much conflict of interest is too much?

A recent interchange between Jerry Saltz and Paddy Johnson centered on whether it was ok for her to take money for ads from galleries that she reviews on her site. My assessment is again, yes it is a conflict of interest, but it needs to be dictated how much effect that has on the product, and from what I read this is very little. But that does not change that fact that those conflicts of interest still exist. In conclusion, I guess what we must strive for, is prescient, fierce journalists looking into these various dilemmas and parsing out in a public sphere exactly how much we will stand for as a community. My guess, for the oddsmakers out there: it wont take long before conflict of interest becomes a non-story and we all just accept that our curators are out of jobs because the collectors are now running the hen-house.

Alternative Spaces in Boston (a response of sorts to BR and S)

Thank you Big Red and Shiny for this , a wonderfully thorough rundown of how and why to start an alternative space in Boston by Micah Malone and Matthew Nash. And the why could go on much longer, as far as I’m concerned. But it was very well researched, with quotes from the leaders of the leading (and only) not for profit spaces in the area. It has been so obvious it almost need not be stated, except for reinforcement of the issue, that Boston lacks the stepping stones to get one from art school doorstep to art career. This necessitates a host of galleries (com and non-com alike) at increasingly bigger venues to project one into the outer reaches of art-world stardom (hyperbole for effect). But to say the community needs more non-profit spaces and to produce them is a whole other kettle of fish. And mr.s Nash and Malone succinctly outline the issues and options in starting a non-com space from scope of work, to economics, to location issues, and one can only hope that this will provide a nice roadmap for many people to start these types of organizations.

Living in Glasgow, the majority of art there occurs within non-profit spaces, the obvious difference between our two Hamlets being the amount of government subsidy, which essentially props up the entire British art system. Work that comes out of non-profit spaces (e.g. in Glasgow: Transmission Gallery, Studio Warehouse Gallery, Lowsalt, Washington Garcia ….) is naturally more original, more spontaneous, dare I say, experimental. This is because the work is front-end supported (yes, all the artists are paid for showing at these galleries). This lets artists make the work for its own sake, without being burdened by whether it will sell, or whether the format is appropriate, or whether it is appropriate for conservative eye of Boston, etc. etc. When you have a contemporary market let by the tail by collectors, the work is naturally going to be less free, take fewer chances, and really ultimately be stifled into slow cycles repeating and riffing off of what has come before.

Now I understand that due to the lack of funding and high cost of rent, many of these spaces are just impractical. What I feel this discussion left out is that for-profit spaces are just as viable and play an important role in the structure of the arts in Boston. But there must be ways to adjust the purview of Boston galleries towards the freedom of non-commercial spaces. There should not be a dichotomy between the two, whereby experimental or non-traditional art is relegated to the non-com spaces and the more proper, sellable, conservative work is within the domain of the Art Gallery. I would like to object to the notion that non-com spaces are simply stepping stones to the Big Time of galleries. Commercial galleries must take up the charge of moving this art community into the 211th decade, by taking risks, breaking rules and trying to slowly adjust the image of Boston arts as all things tepid. On the flip side, non-com spaces must also represent artists who are in the full throes of their practice, if not just to let them break out of a world of collector-worry and allow them to embark on projects that may not be feasible in other venues. Some may say that this is best left to University galleries, but I disagree. I feel the UG’s charge is to educate their population on art that is otherwise out of reach. Galleries such as the List, Rose, and MassArt have been doing this very successfully for years, and let’s support them in that effort, but know that that is not nearly adequate.

The idea of the “incubator” as discussed in the follow-up here , I believe is a central one, and where I disagree with the authors (or maybe one of them). The role of a non-com space, in my eyes, should not be limited to guiding the young, inexperienced artists to gallery representation, though that may be a nice ancillary benefit. It should exist (speaking with my idealist hat on now) to represent unique, original, and outstanding work that does not have the opportunity to exist in other spaces, be that a function of form or content. I have a difficult time dealing with the idea of a spritely, young artist, who shows in a fantastic, no rules space, only to be handed off to a gallery that imposes guidelines and restrictions meant to prune out the saleable content of the previous work.

Ultimately what Boston lacks is simply the space to exhibit work. There are so many artists working here (both in school and out) and finding anywhere, a hallway, a storefront, a studio, a crack den, to exhibit their production. There, I think should be the object of scrutiny.

Artists I like, Vol. V (NADA edition)

Of all the really solid work I saw in Miami, a couple of artists stood out:

At Montreal’s Parisian Laundry gallery, a solo exhibition by sculptress Valerie Blass.

At San Francisco’s Johansson Projets, small animated animal sculptures by Misako Inaoka.

At New York’s Horton Gallery (SUNDAY LES), trompe l’oeil paintings by Kirk Hayes.

And at Boston’s LaMontagne Gallery, drawings by Langdon Graves.

NADA, Miami Beach recap

I’ve just spent the last week in Miami. Wednesday night we went down to the Big Fair (Art Basel Miami Beach), which was packed, and hurried through the maze of blue chip galleries, really too much art to possibly comprehend. Then on to the Oceanfront, which was having a gig by Amanda Blank (scaled down Peaches) and Ebony Bones (south London brit pop). I went back to the fair later in the week, but it was still too much work to concentrate, so I only spent an hour and a half there.

NADA was a much smaller, more manageable fair in comparison. The work was still really solid, but the atmosphere was much different. It was in the Deauville Resort, an old beachside hotel with an incredible pool. There were only 80 galleries (compared to close to 300 at Basel) and they were lined up (half with group shows, half with solo shows). Overall the galleries seemed to have brought there most arresting/bombastic work, which makes sense if you are trying to lure passersby. I felt that soft, quiet, work was really lacking, but I’m sure that is a terribly naive impression. Art fairs are meant to grab people’s attention with instantaneous gratification over long term appreciation, and as an exhibitor, one realizes this and plans accordingly. I just hope that attendees realize that this is not the only type of work being sold in galleries and should not be the norm.

I feel the long tern appreciation and patience with art objects is waning. This has been in the background in a lot of what I have written here (see Shepard Fairey diatribe). But it seems “bright shiny object” art (lowest common denominator art) is winning the hearts and minds of those with the say. On the other side of the coin is the strictly ideological, the at all costs socially relevant and politically persuasive type. This always seems to me to feel a bit self-conscious about its existence, the way in which is needs to be utterly practical and pragmatic, with aesthetic questions put to the back burner. I think these two poles represent a schism in art that are slowly (or not so slowly) inching away from eachother, with those in the middle either not aggressive enough or not activistically minded enough to find a proper home in the contemporary art millieu.

It was a nice break, but good to be back in Boston, ready to get to work and pump out some pretty cool shows this spring.

Artists I Like vol. IV: Roger Ballen

Here’s a story: once upon a time I saw a Roger Ballen Show at Robert Klein Gallery in Boston and fell in love with him. The End.

Roger Ballen is an American who moved to South Africa to work for a mining company. While there, he began a series of photographs that has continued for 15 or 20 years. His portraits of the locals in mining communities, especially the Platteland, are arresting, shocking, and in so many ways beautiful. His images teeter on the edge of humor and dispair, with the viewer left to detirmine the position on the spectrum. It could be proffered that Ballen is merely using these strange, unfortunate looking people for his own material purposes, but according to Ballen, the sitters are very much a part of the action. He sets up situations, tableaux for these individuals to improvise and have fun. Somehow, these unbelieveable images are created, perfectly constructed, rich images that are timeless and undeniably awe-inspiring. (enough gushing)

Ballen has a new show open at Gagosian in NYC, I recommend it to everyone.

(taken from rogerballen.com)

 

Artists I Like vol. III: Claes Oldenburg (…duh…)

So everybody knows Claes Oldenburg, pop sculptor extraordinaire. His pieces are everywhere: misplaced foodstuffs among a set of skyscrapers, clothespins, nails, and icepicks plunged into parks, blown-up fire hydrants, off kilter and waning. His “Store” was certainly a fantastic development in public art interventionism and consumerist critique (or applause?). I want to briefly shed a wee spotlight on his public art proposals. I love the idea of proposition as art, especially the more ridiculous and impossible it is. Oldenburg made hundreds if not thousands of these proposals, jotted on scrap paper, silly ideas that speak to his sense of humor and silliness, a man who did not take himself or his work to seriously. Another artist to work in this vein is Thomas Schutte, I feel he took over from where Oldenburg left off, and has since taken the idea to more elaborate and fantastic heights.

But now for Oldenburg:

Artists I like vol. II

Today’s artist I like: Pierre Huyghe.

In reference to the previous post in which I implied that I don’t really like  most video art, I wanted to counter that with the following example: Pierre Huyghe. This French artist makes long, narrative video art that is as engaging as it is intellectually complex. I saw a show of several video by the artist in Reykjavik several years ago and have never quite recovered from how enthralled I was. The video, entitled, “This is Not a Time for Dreaming” follows a puppet of Le Corbusier as he tries to design Harvard’s Carpenter Center. Later there is a puppet of Huyghe, controlling puppet LC, and the whirlwind of music and interprative puppet dance all makes for one magical video (see below). Constant throughout Huyghe’s work is an interplay between the real, the imagined, the imagined, purporting itself to be real.

You can read more about his other videos in this rundown by super-critic Nicolas Baurriaud here:

http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue7/pierrehuyghe.htm

Performance Art, no wait, Video Art

I have little patience for video art. I know it’s been 40 years and all and it’s now become the mainest of mainstream contemporary art and it’s difficult to get any kind of big grant or prize with out being a “NeW MeDiA ArTiSt” so I acknowledge, from the outset, that I am behind the curve, and I’m sure the following have been discussed, or solved, or something. Also keep in mind I think that most of this may be due to my terribly short attention span.

I was reminded recently of my dislike of and discomfort with documentation of performance trumpeted as video art. Or I don’t know if that’s even an accurate representation. What I was looking at was a documentation from a performance, but nobody was there, so I guess it was a video piece? It was shown in an enclosed room with a beautiful bench. I was intrigued by the performance, but I wanted to see the action, I didn’t really care about the video of the action, it was as expected, uneventful. I asked if the action was going to be performed and nobody seemed to know. I feel like this kind of work, which I see all too often is a cop out. The artist thinks, “I want everybody to see my performance” so they videotape it. And nobody sees their performance. But it sure a hell of a lot easier than trying to convince even a single person to drive half an hour to see a ten minute performance. I remember [reading about] when performance art just existed. There was no record except the memory. There was no accessory that could be sold. Maybe there was a photograph, a destroyed car lying in a field, a chip of glass from a broken window. When that crazy came in and shot a bullet through Warhol’s head in those screenprints, that was amazing. The story lives on like myth. Of course those are some of his most expensive pieces in the auction circuit.

There are interesting things to be done in documentation of actions. Sophie Calle is certainly a genius in this field. Her performances meld with her life brilliantly. Acconcci’s documentation is simple, to the point, and fantastic. But the most fascinating works are those that only few remember, to those who have taken part or heard embellishments upon the fanciful narrative. Simon Starling is an interesting example of a, for all intents and purposes, performance artist, that shows only documentation. The Shed must stand in lieu of the action of disassembling, assembling, and assembling again. The car is a stand in for the fantastic journey across Europe. The silver steel blob a cover for a historical tale of trans-Pacific immigration. To have merely videotaped, trailed the artist in the act would be a waste, and dull.

A tangent: screening methods for video-based art:

I have so rarely encountered a set up that felt natural and appropriate. As a video artist, one has the following options: 1. LCD screen mounted on the wall, w/ or w/o headphones. Nobody actually wears the headphones, and even if you oblige, you feel like this weird alien member of the viewing public. It’s awkward. 2. the projection on a wall thing, out in the exhibition. It says, “oh hey there, don’t mind this white plinth ahead of me, I’m just a normal drawing/painting/photograph just like everyone else, except, what’s this? I can move! yay me!” etc. 3. the mini theater setting. A decent compromise, holds the sense of worth that the piece demands, allows for undisturbed, uninterrupted viewing, but completely excludes the piece from the rest of the show. A comfortable sofa is much appreciated though, or better yet, convertible mattress things. 4. screenings. These are the most official form, but totally remove these works from the non 4-d. Not everyone seeing the show will be there for viewing times, but most people there will want to be there and be more engaged… anyways…I’m not saying it’s impossible to show video art in an appropriate setting, I just think there need to be more appropriate expectations that are not based on those for other media.

Artists I Like vol. I

In a further effort to convince my faithful reading public that I am not a cynic, merely throwing stones, I present to you a new weekly(?) feature, soon to become a reader favorite: Artists I Like.

First up, John Divola

I saw some of Divola’s work when this Aperture monograph first came out, but I guess never got a chance to look further into it. While at Harvard Book Store today, I found it in the remainders for like $25 and I pounced. Turns out it’s a fantastic series of images, reminiscent of Aaron Siskind, Lewis Baltz (et al), and Jeff Wall to name a few, but with a distinctly original feel. He goes into abandoned buildings (the most trite of the trite photo subjects I know) and creates these assemblages and paintings that really are fascinating exhibits of composition, contrast, and at times, color. I’m not sure what I make of the socio-political aspect of the work, I am more interested in the incredible emotions achieved through the modernist compositions.

Here are a couple (from www.divola.com):

Nashian Art

Living in Newton and not actually knowing that many artists (or people) here, perhaps I am not really in the position to make an accurate assessment of the situation, but here goes: I feel like there could be a lot more communal activity amongst the artists here. It seems the majority of art is made by individuals or couples with very singular interests and ideas. They are all vying for representation by the same handful of galleries or juried shows and this (palpable or not) creates a certain amount of tension and rivalry.

There must be a way to alter this model in a way that still keeps the Darwinian selectivity to cull the best art, but removes the individualism and self-centricism. What I mean to say is, if there was a way of giving other people a stake in each other’s work, by means of group curation or group production, I think we would be in a better place to grow and expand the community.

These are more conceptual/idealistic ideas for sure, but here’s one proposal: a weekly or bi-weekly meet up where artists can talk about the kind of things they’re working on, ideas they’re thinking about, books they’re reading, shows they’ve applied for, shows they’ve been to, open discussion about the future of art, discussion on the efficacy of video art, (I could go on and on…….).

Basically I wish there was some sort of an open door group (NOT a critique session) where artists could get together and bounce ideas off one another, even come up with communal objectives. I always love that scene in A Beautiful Mind where the guys are at the bar and John Nash (played be the adorable Russell Crowe) explains the principles of his economic theory (if we all go for the hot one, we all lose, but if we all go for her slightly less hot friends, we all win). I think we can translate this idea quite neatly to our own struggles to find modes for dissemination and exhibition, to take back the control, even a little, from the galleries and exhibition spaces we are more or less beholden to.

Discuss amongst yo’selves…