3 and a half days in The City

Just been back from the art mecca that is New York City. I used to really hate NY, with its people and its taxis and its people. Slowly, though, I am finding some new, more manageable parts of the city. This time I spent a lot of time walking around Soho, whereas I had previously spent the most time in Chelsea, which now, seems a little tedious and boring. Also, I did some pretty serious shopping, bought like 6 shirts (I love MUJI, 50% off!!). I’m pretty pumped about that. But now for the art:

Brooklyn Museum:

I had never been before, went to see the Yinka Shonibare show, an artist who is huge in Britain, a Nigerian/English Black man who works almost exclusively with a palette of “traditional” African fabrics. Most pieces consisted of mannequins in colonial/Victorian dress (made of these extraordinary fabrics), creating a disharmonic bright ball of wonderment, while marking the brutally obvious dichotomy between the two cultures. I had seen some of Shonibare’s work in the past, but when accumulated, the work added and multiplied to create a greater end product. Entering each room was a new surprise, I love that in a show.

http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/yinka_shonibare_mbe/

Deitch Projects:

The show at the Wooster St. Branch was entitled, “Black Acid Co-op” and I knew I was in for something when, upon entering, I was asked to sign a release from liability. This seemed pretty reasonable in hindsight. The show was a series of room, all interconnected, mimicking an abandoned meth lab in an apartment and various retail locations. The rooms were absolutely fantastic. My favorite was the first room, a brightly fluorescently lit room of wigs on polystyrene heads. Another, towards the back, is a massive empty room, with paint pealing. So simple, tragic, incredible. The gallery space next to it, white walls and red carpet was exciting too. I felt like I was walking into a 21^st century Ed Keinholz installation. He couldn’t have done it much better. This fits in nicely with what I’m reading, “The Conspiracy of Art” by Baudrillard. He accosts the notion of art as simulated reality of banality. I think there are holes in it, but mostly a great piece of writing.

http://deitchprojects.com/projects/sub.php?projId=284&orient=v

Vice Photo Show:

BORING. I can deal with the pictures in the context of the magazine, but putting together a show of them just reinforces the fact that they are kind of a joke.

http://www.spencerbrownstonegallery.com/000featured.html

Jen Bekman Gallery:

A nice show of text-based work. Fits together nicely, some great work, all on a small scale, which is nice to see altogether. Decent for a summer group show.

http://www.jenbekman.com/

New Museum:

First, I saw a gig of experimental music by Terry Adkins and Charles Gaines, which was, as advertised, very weird. It was an ode to Bessie Smith, and a bit difficult to follow (and listen to).

Upstairs in the galleries, there was a massive show of David Goldblatt, a fantastic photographer in Black & White, that totally lost his way with color. The photos were hung with paper clips (always suspect) and were decent digi prints, though consistently washed out. The show was spread over two full floors and I think it was probably twice as much as he needed. Many of the color images were weak, and the hanging (one big color, one small B&W, one big color….) was amateurish and unflattering. The other show was Black Panther posters that belonged somewhere else. I think the New Museum is suffering from ICA Boston syndrome: such a nice building and they cant find anything decent to fill it with. This was my second time, 0 for 2.

http://www.newmuseum.org/

FLAG Foundation:

An incredible new space in the Chelsea Arts Tower, they have been showing world renowned artists in group shows with the help of one fantastic benefactor. Better shows than you’ll see at most museums, and of course it’s free. There were two shows on when I went, one of altered landscapes, an overdone subject, with all the regulars (Gursky, Demand, Foncuberta, Gutschow) and a handful of new faces, but all excellent work. Upstairs there was a show of unrepresented artists making work about the recession. A good collection of varied work, not exceptional, but very solid. This is their first show with work for sale, but they jut put collectors in touch with the artist and, I assume, take no commission. Seems from the surface to be an incredible organization, will definitely be back to see what’s in store for the future, can’t wait.

http://www.flagartfoundation.org/current/

Julie Saul:

A miserable show curated by Isaac Mizrahi (who would’ve guessed) and three new photos by Bill Jacobson (no relation) that looked just like every other Bill Jacobson photo I’ve seen. Although, I saw a new book he’s coming out with that looks fantastic! And in focus!!

http://www.saulgallery.com/

That was about it. A short trip, but pretty successful. Went to a bunch of bookstores (Strand, St. Mark’s, Printed Matter, Bluestockings, McNally) and managed to only buy 5 books. If I only had time to read.

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.

Unfurled

was just poking through some poems I wrote several months ago and found this:

A rippled river unfurled
a series of misinformed decisions
of the rudimentary kind
of the prosthetics used

We sat there wordless you and I
a brick barrier staged
the talking was all wrong
not in words
but crickets

A taunted oligarchy
a prurient mister
Harriet the shrew
and often times the Blackness

I woke to find my window half cracked
ugly malady
fortified wine makes the mind go
ghostly

Glasgow makes the mind wander.

I’m still here in sunny Britannia. Except minus the sun. Although it could be a lot worse, it’s only rained once so far. Anyways, I’ve been thinking a lot on my long walks around town to various galleries and every Topman I can find (there are like 5 in town) about this whole gallery structure in Glasgow and why and how it differs from Boston’s set-up and what influence this has over the work that comes out of each. The first thing that almost need not be stated, but I will anyways for those just tuning in, is the presence of the arts council. They effectively pick and choose artists and organizations that they wish to support and encourage, and miraculously, they have done a pretty decent job of spreading the wealth to just about every kind of project and idea, whether big-time or small-time artists, large organizations or some guy who just feels like doing something. This fosters a sense that there is hope for those just starting out in the business, that they can come up with a brilliant idea and see it through and the government will support that venture. Clearly the US scene is hindered by their woeful lack of support, but there is still something to be garnered by this kind of thinking, that I believe can translate into something practical.

By this I mean: artists here are more worried about getting their work out there and being seen and heard than about getting their work sold. In fact, nobody buys work here, all artists have jobs, and really that’s the way it should be. There are 3 commercial galleries in the city. The total square footage is maybe 2000 sq.ft. Yet on a given friday or saturday there are 10 things to go see or do, artists showing films or doing performances, or showing some sculpture they made last week, or having some bands play a gig in their space. And, to be honest, most of it is shit. I can count on one hand the amount of shows I’ve been to in 3 years here that I’ve walked out of really impressed. But I am of the opinion that the quality of the work is, at this early stage in an artists career a little besides the point. the fact is that they are going out there, mixing it up, and having a great time.

Back to Boston now and generally all I see (apart from the art schools) is a couple of small, floundering galleries that have shows once a month. I don’t see any excitement, no emotion in the work. It is all, for the most part easy and redundant. And this is from young artists, artists that were in school a year or two ago, who have their whole lives to make boring art. Why is it so hard to go out and have fun with the work, to have shows that aren’t reviewed in the globe or the phoenix, but are done because you love and believe in what you are doing. That’s what being a young artists is about isn’t it? about pure, unadulterated idealistic visions of grandeur and the spectacular. Why do good artists have to bust their ass to get into a show a year (juried no less that they had to pay $15/jpeg) that no one goes to see, or worse, open studios where no one has the patience to look at everyone’s work. Where are the hungry masses? The abused, misused, confused (to quote a phrase). How about this, 5 artists get together and say I want to have a show, and one of them says, yeah I know this place we can have it, and everybody makes some crap paintings and sculptures and some half assed digital photos and invites all their friends? What am I missing?

Night in the Museum

I’m in Britain at the moment. Most people in the U.S. do not realise that Scotland is in Britain, and that Northern Ireland is not. NI is, however (as we all know), in the United Kingdom. It is all very confusing, don’t even get me started with the political system.

So anyways, in this great country in which I currently reside (or is it a conglomeration of semi-autonomous regions? e.g. why does the UK not have its own football team in international play?) there are some exciting things going on. In case you haven’t heard, Bristol has just announced a show of the world-renowned graffiti artist Banksy in their local Musee d’Art. Let’s all give Banksy a warm round of applause… Apparently only a few select individuals were informed that Bristol’s most famous felon cum artist was going to be taking over the entire museum. This veil apparently hid information from some of the curators of the museum, the city’s mayor, all the councilmen and women, as well as the general public, although “everybody” knew “something was going on”. And what was the reaction by all political authorities in the city, a city that for years fought to keep his work off walls and billboards and which was quickly demolished or painted over? well of course the whole city seems to be basking in the attention of this show, to blinded to see their own hypocrisy. I read a report in the Observer of the mayor’s walk through the exhibition before it was open, proud as could be, they say that this show could bring in 100,000 visitors! Imagine what that would do!

I am struggling to begin to assess this situation from a level-headed objective viewpoint, but here goes…firstly (and most obviously) the council, which has turned briskly about in its position, apparently in the last 3 years from chasing the man around the streets with a can of grey paint, to celebrating him as “Bristol’s Finest” because they realised they were missing out on some sweet profits.This is despicable in my book, the lowest of the low. Shame.

secondly, Banksy: This is what he does and he does it well, it is quite a coup to have gamed the system and he should rightly be applauded. Let others sort out the nitty gritty of what he means in contemporary art and culture.

thirdly, the museum: this kind of exhibition, tapping into the latest hype (as far as they know) to draw people into the museum. The quality of the work, the surrounding sticky issues of intent and ideology, the curation, the history, seem all to be secondary to attracting big crowds. This is a bit ironic as all museums in Britain are free to enter, so there are no profits to be made at the door. However, as I read a while ago in an article in the Times by Waldemar Januszczak, British museums are perhaps at an even greater disadvantage when it comes to curatorial demands because of the nature of the relationship with the government, one that necessitates art being for the masses. We(I) see this type of stooping down at museums large and small, attempts to be all things to all people. I am still unconvinced by my own arguments that art should not relinquish its demands on the viewer to be an intelligent, knowledgeable, and active participent. I understand the argument that we must try to get as many people to the museum as possible, dor the good of the culture. I combat this with the opinion that people are not given the opportunity to see good art as a result. This is a chicken/egg issue for me, one with no answer as of yet. I’m sure with several more years behind me my opinions will change.

What we have is the triangle of power, the museum led by the tail by the council, which is apparently led by the tail by this masked avenger. Who loses in this mixed-up mess? How about artists in Bristol not named Banksy? How about museum-goers that shouldn’t be be witness to this hysterical narcissism? How about the critics who are I’m sure sighing as they ponder whether they still have to pump out 1000 words about this twat.

Three cheers for Bristol’s best. I can hear the glasses clinking now.

i — issue 2

Coming soon….

featuring the work of:

FREYA BIRREN • AMELIA BYWATER • ALHENA KATSOF • ANYA POVER • CALUM STIRLING • SARAH TRIPP • JENNIFER WALSHE

see it online here