Old Weird America at the Decordova

Its raining pretty steadily today so I decided to head out to the Decordova to see this show that looked interesting called “The Old, Weird,  America” I go to the Decordova every so often because its a pretty low-key environment and they generally have pretty decent shows, but nothing that blows your socks off. So I was expecting more of the same.

Well, I has happily surprised. The show took up every gallery space in the museum, a sprawling, well spaced show with some bigger names (Kara Walker) with some that I was unfamiliar with. The conceptual basis of the show was folk in contemporary art, a liberally applied theme that tied together the work nicely.

The work was, on the whole very strong. Margaret Kilgallen’s installation was great, as was Matthew Day Jackson’s, and though I didn’t stay for the whole Kara Walker video, I’m sure it was great as well. Special mention, though, must be made for the painting in the show. Aaron Morse’s colorful wilderness/hunting scenes (reminiscent of Aimee Belanger) were outstanding. As were Barnaby Furnas’ takes on Civil War battles, again with outstanding color. And Eric Beltz’s luscious pencil drawings of unfortunate scenes of the founders of the USA.

I have to admit, I’m kind of a sucker for this type of work that combines whimsy, lyrical, and humourous subject matter and visuals, with an undertone of serious, “important,” material. But then again, who isn’t. I kind of felt like I was in Williamsburg, with all these hipsterish oldtimey/new works. It  left me with just the slightest hint of, I’ve seen this before. But let me stress that it could have been done so much worse and fallen over into art school kitch so easily.

I was all smiles leaving on the way home, only to realize, upon reading the material that the show was actually put together by the Contemporary Arts Museum Houston. I knew it was too good to be true. Nonetheless, I think it was an incredibly successful show and everyone should go see it, certainly a coup for the Decordova.

The Boston Globe and the ICA

I got an email the other day from Geoff Edgers of the Boston Globe and, to say the least, I was surprised. I surmise he had read this , a somewhat pugnacious rant on the ICA’s mixed obligations, and the implications of said conflicts of interest with respect to the latest show, that of Shepard Fairey. He asked me to ellaborate on my positions, which I was happy to do, as he told me he wanted a counter-opinion for an article about the success of the ICA.

Well, I took a glance at Sunday’s Globe and smack on the front page was that article. A celebration of the ICA’s blossoming into a family museum, with loads of attendees and burgeoning profits, everything looked to be peachy, except this:

Not everyone is convinced of the ICA’s programming direction. Alex Jacobson, a Boston-based writer and artist, has grumbled about the big-name shows.

“Anish Kapoor is so mundane,’’ he said. “Tara Donovan is repetitious, and they lit her work terribly. And then you come to the Shepard Fairey. It’s this repetition of artists people can associate with, things the lay viewer can say, ‘Yeah, I get it.’ But that kind of work is often simplistic and missing the point of a lot of contemporary art.’’

Predictably, he took my most inflammatory statements out of context of my larger point to add a light dab of parity to an otherwise fairly one-sided piece. I do not blame him for that. I take all the credit for my statements and stand by them.

But I think there is a much more complex story here: is the ICA in the business of supporting innovation at the expense of attendance and profit, or are they happy giving way to the preordained to have massive shows that, in my humble opinion, have so far fallen flat?

Look, I get it, it’s a wonderful thing that this arts institution has managed to become a significant player in the community, but surely we must not let it become so at the expense of world-class art. There are ways to do both, just look at examples such as PS1, Whitechapel, The Hischhorn…

But, I have looked at the future programming at the ICA, and I am uplifted by what I see, so I guess I will wait to cast further judgement.

ADDENDUM:somehow I failed to catch this gem in the Globe piece:

“That money – I’m calling it [Shepard] Fairey dust,’’ ICA director Jill Medvedow.

This makes me sick on a number of levels.

Positive signs

I am generally fairly critical of most art and exhibitions that I go to see, especially in Boston. But I don’t mean to be completely negative, I’m just trying to call them like I see them. And with that preface:

I saw a really good show the other night on Brookline Ave. put on by the Fourth Wall Project. This is the kind of organization I think is really good for art, non-comercial, experimental, and engetic. The work in the show (while I wasn’t thrilled by all the pieces) was gereally very good, new, hip and disjointed (for better or worse). There were lots of people at the opening and everyone seemed to be enjoying theselves, really a good time overall. I highly recommend to everyone to check out the show, and its so close, it would be a shame to miss it. Also funny was the fact that there was a Red Sox game starting at the same time, so tons of people were looking very confused as they walked by. If there were only more of these types of shows I think Boston could have a say in contemporary art yet. I’m still hedging my bets.

The website is http://fourthwallproject.com/ Go see it today, or whenever.

I was having a discussion with a friend on the merits of juried exhibitions and perhaps I was a little brash in my unswerving diatribe and here I would like to elaborate on certain points and, in the interest of parity, to provide some counter examples.

I am generally wary of juried exhibitions. Primarily those asking for $15 and for you to send 3 jpegs and each jpeg is and extra $5 up to a maximum of 8 (etc.) I just cant help feeling that these small galleries are preying upon young, inexperienced, untested artists that see no other way to get a show in town beside sending away what little money (see: young artists) they have. Not to mention the extra needless hours spent honing their cv’s and resumes and artist statements along with the attached documents to be filled out in black ink in BLOCK TYPE for each individual piece submitted (with appropriate labeling corresponding to the jpeg [i.e. A.D.Jacobson_1]). I do understand the financial hardships that these small galleries must face, especially in an economic environment where many people are seeing art as a disposable expenditure. But surely there must be a better way to raise capital than to take it out of the hands of struggling artists (I can guarantee they’re hurting just as badly, if not worse).

For the parity aspect of this program: I understand the mentality behind many juried shows: that it is an opportunity to open exhibitions up to artists who might not otherwise have the opportunity of showing in a particular gallery or museum, that this can act as a stepping stone to bigger and better shows at larger galleries and increase the visibility of the artist. I think this is all very reputable and commendable. I have no problem with the occasional open call for galleries to bring in artists that they may not have seen before to hopefully give them a chance to show work to a new audience. This is a good thing.

While I see the prospective benefits, I have further reservations of what this does to the art and artists involved. I am of the opinion that these kind of open calls encourage artists to submit work that they (the artists) think they (the gallery) are looking for. This is especially relevant with themed shows where the gallery clearly want something (landscapes) and the artists give them what they want, anyone breaking the mold is set aside.

These types of shows are often difficult to figure out, and it’s no wonder because everyone in the show is doing something different, there is a unique storyline for each piece, and because of the artificial germination of the show, it is more difficult to fuse the work of the artists together into something cohesive. This is not to say that it can’t be or isn’t done well, it is just very difficult. Furthermore, this is an unfortunate way to display the work of an artist, with many shows only allowing one piece. Many artists work in serial fashion, or at leas need supporting work to make sense of the conglomeration of material. For these types of artists, this type of show is not very conducive. In addition, many of these shows have ridiculous guidelines for how work must be framed, presented, made, etc., which is just insulting.

As a curator, I find that this method is like cheating. It involves no personal interaction, no attempt to understand the motives behind the work and its relation to other pieces by the artist or others. It is simply sitting in an office and waiting for the checks to roll in as far as I’m concerned. Then there are the shows where the artists are picked by their resumes and who they know under the guise of a “juried exhibition,” but that’s another topic.

Finally, if you’re going to have a juried show, make it open to everyone, make it free, invite people to approach you with new ideas or ways to amend the original guidelines. Lose the pretension that this is the biggest deal this side of 495, because it probably isn’t. Better yet, don’t have a juried show, if you want to exhibit more artists, make your exhibitions run two weeks instead of a month and let artists show their work the way they want to.

What I think about juried exhibitions

I was having a discussion with a friend on the merits of juried exhibitions and perhaps I was a little brash in my unswerving diatribe and here I would like to elaborate on certain points and, in the interest of parity, to provide some counter examples.

I am generally wary of juried exhibitions. Primarily those asking for $15 and for you to send 3 jpegs and each jpeg is and extra $5 up to a maximum of 8 (etc.) I just cant help feeling that these small galleries are preying upon young, inexperienced, untested artists that see no other way to get a show in town beside sending away what little money (see: young artists) they have. Not to mention the extra needless hours spent honing their cv’s and resumes and artist statements along with the attached documents to be filled out in black ink in BLOCK TYPE for each individual piece submitted (with appropriate labeling corresponding to the jpeg [i.e. A.D.Jacobson_1]). I do understand the financial hardships that these small galleries must face, especially in an economic environment where many people are seeing art as a disposable expenditure. But surely there must be a better way to raise capital than to take it out of the hands of struggling artists (I can guarantee they’re hurting just as badly, if not worse).

For the parity aspect of this program: I understand the mentality behind many juried shows: that it is an opportunity to open exhibitions up to artists who might not otherwise have the opportunity of showing in a particular gallery or museum, that this can act as a stepping stone to bigger and better shows at larger galleries and increase the visibility of the artist. I think this is all very reputable and commendable. I have no problem with the occasional open call for galleries to bring in artists that they may not have seen before to hopefully give them a chance to show work to a new audience. This is a good thing.

While I see the prospective benefits, I have further reservations of what this does to the art and artists involved. I am of the opinion that these kind of open calls encourage artists to submit work that they (the artists) think they (the gallery) are looking for. This is especially relevant with themed shows where the gallery clearly want something (landscapes) and the artists give them what they want, anyone breaking the mold is set aside.

These types of shows are often difficult to figure out, and it’s no wonder because everyone in the show is doing something different, there is a unique storyline for each piece, and because of the artificial germination of the show, it is more difficult to fuse the work of the artists together into something cohesive. This is not to say that it can’t be or isn’t done well, it is just very difficult. Furthermore, this is an unfortunate way to display the work of an artist, with many shows only allowing one piece. Many artists work in serial fashion, or at leas need supporting work to make sense of the conglomeration of material. For these types of artists, this type of show is not very conducive. In addition, many of these shows have ridiculous guidelines for how work must be framed, presented, made, etc., which is just insulting.

As a curator, I find that this method is like cheating. It involves no personal interaction, no attempt to understand the motives behind the work and its relation to other pieces by the artist or others. It is simply sitting in an office and waiting for the checks to roll in as far as I’m concerned. Then there are the shows where the artists are picked by their resumes and who they know under the guise of a “juried exhibition,” but that’s another topic.

Finally, if you’re going to have a juried show, make it open to everyone, make it free, invite people to approach you with new ideas or ways to amend the original guidelines. Lose the pretension that this is the biggest deal this side of 495, because it probably isn’t. Better yet, don’t have a juried show, if you want to exhibit more artists, make your exhibitions run two weeks instead of a month and let artists show their work the way they want to.

Bravo’s horrible, no good, very bad idea.

I’ve just learned of some troubling news. It involves art, Bravo, and Sarah Jessica Parker. Apparently her production company is producing a show similar to Project Runway and Top Chef  called “The Untitled Art Project” that is going to be for “artists trying to make it big.” What of what will the tagline be this time? “Make me believe that this works”? “You are America’s next Biennale representative”?

Let me begin to explain all the reasons this is a terrible idea. First of all, for full disclosure, I am a huge Project Runway fan, I won’t deny it. I am hooked. I will shamelessly watch 8 hour marathons when I have more important things to do. I’ve only watched Top Chef once but it doesn’t seem that bad. From what I have gathered, this show intends to be a PR, but for contemporary artists working in “painting, sculpture, installation, video, photography, [and/or] mixed-media.” I imagine there will be immunity challenges, stiff competition to create the next great Koons, and the personality clashes, oh the personalities! The most glaring difference (of many) between art and fashion/cooking is that these industries works on a basis that mirrors the contrived challenges of PR and TC. There is always a client and always a clientele. I fear this show will merely emphasize the idea that artists are making products for sale, setting up a consumerist and capitalistic art culture that will inevitably devalue it (as it has recently with the free-falling prices and the Rose Museum scandal). Furthermore, this will reinforce all the negative stereotypes of artists. I know this is easy to say, but I’m talking about both the superficial stereotypes of effeminate metrosexuals and queers as well as show them as power-hungry attention seekers who will inevitably sign up for this show. Which is really the problem in the first place, those who are signing up for an audition (I don’t want to know) are the artists who think that they just need their big break and everything will go all nice and dandy for them for the rest of their career. These shows proffer this image of creatives that are trying to circumvent the entire system of hard work, dedication, and responsibility for a shot at instant stardom. They will probably all get shows as a result of this and then quickly fade into obscurity right about the time season 2 rolls around. (For a great look into the lives of former PR stars, have a read of this: http://nymag.com/news/features/35538/ )

There was a show similar to this in the UK a couple years ago on Channel 4 called “Picture This” (http://picturethis.channel4.com/). It was the same setup: challenges, judges, a show and a book deal at the end of it. The work was miserable and they chose the girl with no talent. I really cant get over how utterly depressing it was watching that show. I cant imagine Bravo’s new venture being any less unwatchable. Art is at its basest a personal venture, an intimate relationship between an artist and an object, an object and a viewer. To turn art into a competition where you are judged on an arbitrary rubric at every stage, is unfair to all those artists out there who work for months and years on projects, giving themselves to pieces without any notion of its worth or value. They do it because they love it, because this is what invigorates them, not because they could get their big break and become an overnight sensation. If you want the publicity, go rob a bank. This show will give the viewers exactly what they want to see: their own preconceived notions of artists, like that stupid movie Art School Confidential. Except I fear that people may actually watch this show. In my honest opinion, this could wreck art was we know it and for a generation or more down the road, it will be known only as a stupid game to be won and lost. Auf Wiedersehen.