What I Hate About the NY Art Scene: Open Thread
OK, so I should confess that my comment on the "I Want to Be Criticized!" thread that prompted the following response was written after I had been to see the Fringe theater production by "The Rude Pundit" and then downed three gin and tonics, so it didn't represent my most unpolluted thinking (although, re-reading it this morning, I'd stand by most of what I had written, even if I might alter the tone a bit). Here's the response (from Preacher's Daughter) I mean though:I stand by my general response to this (i.e., the game's not fair, so rather than complain about that, a better use of your time is to set about changing the rules), but I think Preacher's Daughter (PD) makes some very good points and I want to open a thread to hash them out.Funny how someone who doesn't need to make money from his gallery can say there's no "crying in Art". And the curation I have seen, most recently at Sculpture Center and PS 1 was all about dealers jockying for position (PS 1, which I heard included 9 unknown artists from their famous slide review) and on the other hand artist "resistant to market" (Sculpture Center who seemed to pick from the HOT MFA programs and [d]ealers.
And it's funny how content and smug this "no crying" statement is considering what it really means practically--the mostly white trust fund baby gets to be the artist. and funny how that type has of late been producing shows that overall classified as adolescent. devoid of content.hmmmm. and as far as the resistant to market business. (sculpture center) Most artists are aware that apparent messiness gives one visibilty and curries the interest of the critics. One artist told me my work was too ready to be collected. something I have been told often-- I have to mess it up, get down with Holland (maybe an earth room that's actually a pile of shit will get his attention), and then crank it back to an object I can sell.
The contemporary art world (ny) is turning my stomach.E I like you and your blog so much, but give me a break.
In particular, the "Greater New York" exhibition and other efforts like it always seem to generate much more anger than they do a sense of community. We've talked virtually non-stop about that in my gallery since the list came out, but I'm not sure there's anything short of not having such survey shows that could change that. Perhaps the lukewarm reception to the current rendition will lead PS1 to rethink their approach. I don't know.
I want to elaborate on one point here though before I open it up: I had a chat with one of the "hot" Chelsea dealers a few months back, talking about the choices made for "Greater New York" and this dealer was upset about the obvious choice many artists have made to add (as PD puts it) that certain "messiness" to their work that the critics seem to love so much. This dealer (who has an artist considered one of the originators of that trend) couldn't wait for the smoke to clear so that his artist (the "real deal," so to speak) would get the recognition they deserved without the confusion. In other words, all that strategizing and copying of trends to get the critics' attention can affect other artists and/or carry a price. Specifically, if you go that route, dealers will notice. Less scrupulous ones might exploit that, but the good dealers (the ones I assume artists really want to work with/be affiliated with) will see right through it and avoid those artists...and so, in the end, what do such artists accomplish? A few sales, perhaps, but no long-term respect (not even self-respect, IMO).
My advice: Stick with what you're doing. Perfect it. Tastes change. The market will come around if your work's the "real deal."
The thread is open:
posted by Edward_ at
8:55 AM
36 Comments:
My advice: Stick with what you're doing. Perfect it. Tastes change. The market will come around if your work's the "real deal."
Whay more can be said?
Sorry, What(Whay) more can be said? How about spelling lessons for artists.
heh
no points taken off for spelling on this blog, Mark...I'd be permanently in the negative column.
What critics love messiness in artwork? Speaking just for me, I can't stand the sloppiness in so much of the work I see in Chelsea and at PS1. It just looks lazy.
What critics love messiness in artwork?
Now that's a potentially explosive question.
Have you written about how lazy it looks Tyler? I'd love to read something about that.
Personally, I don't hate it when it's conceptually sound and aesthetically resolved, but I do think it's like a bad rash at the moment.
Apologies,
My spelling is not so good at 6am. The "real deal" Art that people seem to look for, authentic work, does not come out of a recipe. And my point is that artists are well aware of the recipe of the artist who sacrifices everything for their work. It is so impractical that it has produced an environment that only the independantly weathly can compete. I know artists who pretend to have more money than they do-- sometimes borrowing expensive clothes for openings. Try to hide their families, their job, their struggle and the other things that may (I don't want to create another recipe) add flavor and maturity to their work because they have had real life experience.
Holland loves messy. In his role as enthusiast, many artist look to make him happy. He has complained that there is too much exiquistely crafted art out there and he wish art were more ephmereal.
The Sculpture Center curators discussed at their talk that there were interested in Art that was uncollectable and "resistant to market"
My spelling is not so good at 6am.
You're speling's good enuf for this cite. ;-) believe me.
And my point is that artists are well aware of the recipe of the artist who sacrifices everything for their work. It is so impractical that it has produced an environment that only the independantly weathly can compete. I know artists who pretend to have more money than they do-- sometimes borrowing expensive clothes for openings. Try to hide their families, their job, their struggle and the other things that may (I don't want to create another recipe) add flavor and maturity to their work because they have had real life experience.
This is far from a hard and fast rule, PD. There's an artist who's literally rolling in the dough now and on every collector's wish list, who just a few short years ago was cleaning other artists' studios to get by. Love or hate the work, you have to admire that fact that the artist did what it took to realize the dream.
Holland loves messy.
I think Holland loves alternative...art that's bucking the trend. The thing is that "alternative" is always changing. Once every artist is messy, Holland will champion tight work.
And no offense to Holland (we love him), but he's not the only critic out there.
I'm with Tyler on the messy issue... it is a lazy affectation and often when Brooklyn artists show in Portland (sportling lots of masking and glue and deer) it doesnt hold up.
I think Rachel Harrison and Franz West do it well. Thomas Hirschhorn and Tom Sachs are also leaders that are being imitated less successfully as well. It seems like the dry heaves of a trend cannonized by the 2002 Whitney Biennial (which most people hated but understood as a trend to be exploited).
lots of masking and glue and deer
LOL
don't hold back, jj!
{{{that's too funny!}}}
It think this notion that "the market will come around if your work is the real deal" is suspect and probably untrue. There are many "real deal" artists unrecognized or under-recognized. It is depressing to see art in these terms. The market seems fickle and silly, not reliable or reasonable. It is totally suspect in my opinion. Forgive me if I sound like a romantic.
Ed, What are the trends? Would you mind being specific?
It think this notion that "the market will come around if your work is the real deal" is suspect and probably untrue. There are many "real deal" artists unrecognized or under-recognized.
There's no guarantee, that's true, but look at how incredibly hot figurative/representational work is compared with abstract work...virtually the opposite from how it stood 10 years ago. Trends come and go. Tastes do indeed change. None of which means each artist will be one day recognized if they're patient enough, just that it's foolish to make work that's trendy. Some artists are condemned to remain unrecognized.
Here's my mantra for this thread: The games not fair...so change the rules!
It is depressing to see art in these terms.
I'm not discussing "art" here, I'm discussing the art market. Artists are free to make their work in total obscurity if they like. If they want to sell it though, it's best to be realistic about the market.
Forgive me if I sound like a romantic.
I'd rather thank you. Stay that way as long as you can!
And how about that Roberta Smith review today. Strive for originality or get out of the kitchen. I sort of agree with her, but that strikes me as HARSH. How does one determine originality of purpose? Maybe I shouldn't defend artists so stridently. I am so bored and disgusted when I go to chelsea. And then I think about all those artists working so hard for these meager shows and feel sick with myself.
Ed, What are the trends? Would you mind being specific?
That's trickier than Tyler's question about which critics like messy work. There's no comparison I've seen anywhere for how little anyone in the art world likes to be pinned down. Critics, artists, dealers, etc. As soon as you begin making declarations about this or that, they get all squirmy and disagreeable.
Still, with that caveat, I'll point out that what I believe folks mean by "messy." In a nutshell, work that's not tight. There's a low-tech aesthetic or a heavy-handedness to the lines (or a wispy, slacker feel, as if the artist made the work in the space it took them to walk from posing for a magazine to head out to go surfing). Refinement is not so hot right now. (Tyler likes the term "glue and glitter" to describe the lazy artsy craftsy feel much of the popular work has now as well. I think that's a bit harsh...but I know what he means).
I'm not about to name names though...the art world's too small for that. ;-)
Strive for originality or get out of the kitchen. I sort of agree with her, but that strikes me as HARSH.
I don't think it's harsh. It's what I've been trying to say all along in this thread (and explains why she's paid the big bucks for her writing ... she's much more concise than me obviously). The alternative to striving for originality is to copy other artists. To be really harsh, if that's what you're doing, I'm not sure I'd be interested in your work.
How does one determine originality of purpose?
First, you see one hell of a lot of art. Second, you stop and think, can I describe that work as "kind of like this artist"? Third, you realize if you can't do that second one, that what you're looking at is either original or it's like something you've just never seen yet (which, if you're following my first suggestion, becomes less and less likely). Finally, you talk to the artist, read the press release, ask the dealer, etc., and decide if what you're hearing sound original or like something else slightly warmed over.
When in doubt, stick with the first step.
All work has precedents, but I know what you mean. I think of Anne Chu as an artist working on her own terms.
This is all sound advice that I agree with, try to be original, see lots of art, wait out the hellish times, the feeling overlooked...however, aren't you leaving out the social aspect? Isn't there also a popularity contest aspect to success? I mean not always, but a lot, it helps to have some sort of cooked-up persona or aggressive and commanding social skills. You have to seem "cool" and not needy, no matter what your work is like. However, I do see that enthusiasm for your own work can be contagious...I am just saying, it is hard to be shy and truly participate in the artworld. It just doesn't seem to be always about the art. Sure you can get back in your studio and keep plugging away, challenging yourself and digesting criticisms of your work, but if you don't have that selling yourself kind of instinct then aren't you kind of screwed? Just curious what you think.
There are lots of artists working on their own terms, but all of them had precedents. When people first see an artist's work, isn't their initial impulse always to say it reminds me of x, y or z other artist? And sometimes you can be working on your own terms, but those terms just are not interesting.
This whole idea of "the real deal" is confusing. Often people need at least 4 other votes of confidence about an artist to agree that it's the real deal. It seems like dealers are always waiting to see what other people think before they take a chance on someone. Maybe not you, but plenty do.
It's great when you encourage these kinds of discussions. I happen to agree with the no crying point. We are all struggling here, dealers and artists alike, and ultimately when looking at an artist's work, no one cares about your excuses or struggles or how tired your day job makes you. It's the work that matters.
Isn't there also a popularity contest aspect to success?
As in any field. Yes, most definitely. Don't know there's any way around that. It's how the entire world works. If you're that one a zillion genius, the world will find you, perhaps, but for the rest of us, it's a journey...overcoming your shyness, learning how to conquer your hesitance or fear (which it often is), and putting youself out there.
If it came in a bottle, everybody would have it.
but if you don't have that selling yourself kind of instinct then aren't you kind of screwed?
You're only screwed if you're not willing to try. I had a studio visit with an artist I'd describe as epic-ly shy (really, it must be torture for this artist to do studio visits)...but do them this artist did...and the work's pretty damn good (out of respect for this person's privacy, I won't say more than that expect to point out this artist believes in their work enough to put up with the discomfort).
It's easier if you're a natural charmer, but then so would anything be that you'd try your hand at.
When people first see an artist's work, isn't their initial impulse always to say it reminds me of x, y or z other artist?
Yes, we had that exact discussion a while ago. What's impressive though, is when you can't do that. It's not something I see as a dealbreaker (not being able to find a precedent), but it sure is thrilling as a dealer to encounter it.
And sometimes you can be working on your own terms, but those terms just are not interesting.
To whom? To the artist? Why would an artist do work that didn't interest them? It's not like anyone assigned it to them. Only do what you're interested in. Seriously.
Or do you mean not interesting to the rest of the world? Here, again, you can wait for the world to gain interest if you like...it might happen. But either way, I still wouldn't recommend you stop making that work if it genuinely interests you. Make the work, first and foremost, for yourself. Screw the world.
We are all struggling here, dealers and artists alike, and ultimately when looking at an artist's work, no one cares about your excuses or struggles or how tired your day job makes you. It's the work that matters.
You sound like a dealer, anonymous ;-) I totally agree.
I leave at 9 comments and come back to 21! Great thread, nice way to end the week. It all comes down to one thought, "get to work". Fame and fortune is fabulous, I'm told, but there is no alternative to making art; no matter what comes my way. The process alone is satisfying. Of course a good cry now now then, but only for effect. Never in the beer.
This whole idea of "the real deal" is confusing. Often people need at least 4 other votes of confidence about an artist to agree that it's the real deal. It seems like dealers are always waiting to see what other people think before they take a chance on someone. Maybe not you, but plenty do.
I'll respond to this with an anecdote (just keep in mind the altruism: the plural of anecdote is not "data"):
We had an artist we liked, but were waiting to see what he did (he had just gotten his MFA, and his work was good, but we thought he could push it a bit more), one day come into the gallery with an exquisite maquette* of our space and a miniature version of an installation idea he had realized so perfectly in the maquette that we didn't even hesitate. We didn't say yes to him right away (because it's always good to discuss things with your business partner), but the second he left, we both agreed "abso-fucking-lutely." We were floored. His show went on to get some excellent press, which led to other shows, then a nice international commission, etc. etc. etc.
No one had to tell us that the idea in the maquette we were looking at was brilliant. We didn't wait for 2 or 3 or 4 other dealers to show interest in his work. All we knew is that we wanted very much to see that installation in our space.
Does it always work like that? No way. But it can.
*We photographed the maquette for the invite, because we couldn't wait for the installation, and it looked so good a magazine asked us for "the installation shot on the invitation" for reproduction. They didn't believe us when we told them it was an image of the maquette.
It all comes down to one thought, "get to work".
Amen!
so much info for me in this thread. glad I had my 6am fury. thanks so much Ed.
Everything Jeff said goes double for me. Couldn't have said it better.
Screw the world.
Yes, indeed. Make what you want-just make it. It's hard to fully disregard the fact that your work doesn't get noticed. Frustrating-definately! However, at the end of the day, It's infinitely more satisfying knowing that you are being genuine and not collapsing and trying to be the flavor of the month. And when the market catches up to you--ENJOY!
It's great to air this stuff.
I agree with Jen on this one. Forget changing the market's rules. If you're not a dealer they're beyond your control. The market's a petulant, capricious god, unfit to rule gifted creators. Wash your Ramen down with cheap champagne, keep working, don't look down, promote yourself at every shameless opportunity, never change to fit a trend.
I wasn't suggesting the rules of the market, per se, Bill, which I realize artists don't have much control over. I meant the rules of what's considered good art, which artists have complete control over, and always have.
I think the qualities which make art distinct from objects of art are unnamable. Sometimes the artist can be working in an unoriginal style, but it is the content and the depth that sets it apart. Maybe it is depth of character and emotional experience that can't be copied.
A curious thing about trends-does a trend begin with a collective unconscious that happens among the artists or the art dealers? A bit of both perhaps?
does a trend begin with a collective unconscious that happens among the artists or the art dealers? A bit of both perhaps?
If you're talking about the art, then it's the artists.
If you're talking about the market, then it's both.
The thing is, in both instances the artists have more control (should they choose to exert it) than the dealers
My understanding is that art collectors usually rely on dealers to tell them what is considered good art. They don't usually pay thousands for something they find leaning against an abandoned building, right? Although granted I'm sure it happens sometimes. Dealers control what gets seen and when, and what is recommended to which collectors. They're really the point of entry.
Artists need to make their peace with that, I think. Hence my 'shameless self-promotion' recommendation.
The trick is to stay focused on the work (IMO) than in concerns for the market. The marketplace is for selling. Being too concerned with marketing takes away from the artist's mission to challenge, provoke, and or inform.
It is better to work on decoding your own work than on trying to find some idealistic "clear path" to success into a marketplace. I see it more like what I think it is. War. You have to fight to get your artistic flag in the soil. Of course there's the trust fund babies that get the money/time to get more work done than the working-class dogs (me) that have to fight for it. I'm enjoying the fight.
I'd rather be like Alexander the Great and fight my way into a battle then to let some relative with connections give me a crown I don't deserve.
I refuse to believe in tricks and BS about connections. It's the work in the end that will speak loudest. I would focus on that and work the stock market instead. That's probably a saner and/or more lucrative venture.
tata.... :)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home