Monday, April 23, 2007

RISD MFA Photography Thesis Exhibition @ Winkleman Gallery

Winkleman Gallery is very pleased to host Yes (to everything), a RISD 2007 MFA Photography Thesis Exhibition. Organized by MFA candidate Cortney Andrews, whose work will be shown along with the photography of candidates Jonathan Cana, Maureen Keaveny, Amy Lovera, Patrick Madigan and Millee Tibbs, the exhibition's title refers to the varied style and approach of these six students as well as the limitless opportunities that may await them upon completion of their degree program. The work in the exhibition ranges in narrative from the mundane to the surreal, from menacing to mechanical, to images of the self, within and without comfort.

"Ranging from luscious color prints to multimedia installations, the diverse work of these artists raises issues and reconfigures traditions of sexuality, topography, technology, fantasy and time passage (just to name a few).

Are things risky? Do we worry? Can we contribute to a larger, more pertinent conversation? Will we be part of the generation that reroutes the direction in which things seem to be heading? - Yes (to everything)". --- Cortney Andrews
For more information, please contact the gallery at 212.643.3152 or info@winkleman.com

Yes (to everything)
Rhode Island School of Design MFA Photography Thesis Exhibition

April 25 to May 5, 2007
Opening Reception: Thursday April 26, 6-8 PM
Hours: Tuesday - Saturday, 11 am to 6 pm

Rhode Island School of Design (RISD), founded in 1877 in Providence, RI, is a community of artists and designers that includes 2,200 students and approximately 350 faculty and curators, and 400 staff members.

Winkleman Gallery
637 West 27th Street
New York, NY 10001
T: 212.643.3152
F: 212.643.2040
info@winkleman.com
www.winkleman.com

Labels:

60 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ed-how did the curating artist get hooked up with your gallery?

This is a great opportunity for these kids, I'm asking because as an artist I would like to curate a show or 2 with different galleries than the ones I am represented by-just wondering if you could give a tip, it would be ever so helpful!

-htla

4/23/2007 03:41:00 PM  
Blogger James said...

I read your blog frequently, and this post is begging for a comment. In your last, you expressed some discontent with "this age of art fair feeding frenzies and sold out exhibitions of MFA student work", yet your gallery is now hosting an MFA exhibit. Sounds like you are playing both sides of the game here.

4/23/2007 05:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah, I cant believe that this is the subsequent post after yesterday's.

4/23/2007 05:52:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

I understand your confusion, but this is a show that we were approached to host. The students are very excited about the opportunity to sell their work, but I've struggled with the idea of actually selling the work (or trying to) for the reasons you cite. After talking with the artists we've come to a compromise (the details of which I don't wish to share here), but I now feel OK about this decision. Also there is a precedent for commercial galleries lending their space to MFA candidates so they can celebrate their thesis show with some potential high-profile exposure.

Personally, I see this as an opportunity for me to give something back to students bold enough to ask for a space (see my feelings about this from this post last year). I've worked to carefully keep it from becoming a setting in which there's any room for anyone to be exploited.

There's a signficant difference to my mind between agreeing to host a two-week group thesis exhibition to celebrate the candidates' achievement and whisking students out of grad school to give them solo exhibitions with an eye toward making a killing via speculative sales.

I hope that difference is clear to others as well.

4/23/2007 06:32:00 PM  
Blogger Oly said...

Hands-down always the best art school in America.

R.I.P Fort Thunder.

:(

Miss those days.

Oly

4/23/2007 07:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Henry said...

I'm having trouble calling an event an academic "celebration" when it's held 180 miles off campus. The advertising and marketing value provided by the association with an established Chelsea gallery makes it a commercial enterprise, not a community service. In a world of Art Star and American Idol, it's difficult for me to deny the deep commercial power of this assocation.

The benefit accrues as much to the gallery as the students, much more powerfully than a simple sponsorship statement written in sterile Helvetica in a small gallery 180 miles from Chelsea would. Imagine what would be said if Thomas Kinkade sponsored a student exhibition.

4/23/2007 07:50:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Imagine what would be said if Thomas Kinkade sponsored a student exhibition.

I'm not sure I can...what do you think would be said?

4/23/2007 07:55:00 PM  
Anonymous martin said...

VCU's last show at Stux Gallery cost something like $15,000... shortly before that there was a less expensive show at Bruno Marina, "curated" by Joe Fyfe.

Maybe that is the case here... who knows. Looks bad, anyway. I'm curious what the other artists you represent think. I know it would make me cringe.

Actually, it already makes me cringe.. . it would probably make me vomit with anger.

Next it will be MFA programs underwriting booths at art fairs.

4/23/2007 10:08:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

> Actually, it already makes me cringe.. . it would probably make me vomit with anger.

That's a bit much, Martin.

> Next it will be MFA programs underwriting booths at art fairs.

Cf...
http://www.artworldsalon.com/blog/2007/04/10/the-ivory-tower-erodes-evermore/

4/23/2007 10:12:00 PM  
Anonymous martin said...

dan!!! you're back!

okay... maybe i meant there would be a lot of drinking between the getting angry and the vomiting...

but there would certainly be like an automatic gag reflex thing happening.

4/23/2007 10:26:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Looks bad, anyway. I'm curious what the other artists you represent think. I know it would make me cringe.

It seems you're frequently curious what the other artists I represent think about things we do. I am as well, which is why, rather than be merely curious, I ask them. The ones who've voiced an opinion understand why we would offer students this opportunity for exposure. Artists in other galleries that have done this must feel the same, at least I've never heard from an artist represented that they didn't feel that way in that situation.

By the way, your rhetoric is way over the top here, Martin. Bring it down a few notches or don't bother coming in here.

4/23/2007 10:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Joanne Mattera said...

Um, it IS Ed's gallery.

4/23/2007 10:59:00 PM  
Blogger Martin said...

edward - i've just looked at the thirty-three posts i've commented on, and can't find one where i have ever expressed any curiousity regarding what your artists think.

(i know there was one late-night comment i left not terribly long ago, but i recognized that was over-the-top and deleted it before morning. can't remember what it was about)

anyways, sorry, i though the masthead up there said something about gossip and tough love.

http://www.google.com/search?q=+site:edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com+%22edward_+winkleman%22+martin&hl=en&start=0&sa=N

4/23/2007 11:45:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

> Um, it IS Ed's gallery.

Well I don't think anyone's saying Edward should be somehow prevented from doing this.

But there are important and contentious issues involved here, and the potential for an interesting discussion. Readers are just asking him tough and, I think for the most part, perfectly legitimate questions.

That said, I'm curious why this situation would make Martin so angry specifically if he were an artist in the Winkleman stable. Rephrased: I think I'm failing to see why Edward's artists should necessary have a more visceral reaction to this than anyone else, but that's why I'm asking.

Would you be concerned simply about the redirection of gallery resources for a week and a half?

How negatively would a one-off, week-and-a-half long exhibit like this really affect the quality of a represented artist's representation?

(Would you have the same reaction if the one-off show were, say, a charity exhibition or show of high-schoolers' works from an after school program?)

Or is it the fear of competition for the same eyes; a fear of lost sales to collectors who might find they can satisfy their art-buying jones with the pretty-young-thing MFAs?

4/24/2007 12:11:00 AM  
Anonymous ch said...

Why so angry? This is a group show, these kids are graduating and they do need some exposure to grow. It's not like they will all turn into coke-snorting art star fashionistas in ten days. There is a big difference between this and picking up students from grad school with market trends in mind. I don't understand this extreme notion that all young artists should become cave dwellers until they satisfy some unwritten criteria that qualifies them to show their work.

4/24/2007 01:42:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

can't find one where i have ever expressed any curiousity regarding what your artists think

hnuh! You mean the anonymous poster commenting here as "eberhard haveskost" wasn't you? I always assumed it was. My bad.

Readers are just asking him tough and, I think for the most part, perfectly legitimate questions.

Tough questions are, of course, fine, when offered as such. Mean-spirited projection of one's sentiments about something onto other people (in the hopes of embarrassing someone) for attention, revealing more about how angry one is than one might think is the case, on the otherhand, is not something I'm qualified to respond to professionally, so I'd discourage it in general.

4/24/2007 08:09:00 AM  
Anonymous bambino said...

What I do not understand is, why just to show your support to young students? Instead of congradulate them, we are looking for answers what is right , what is wrong?
Maybe before to say something, put yourself in their shoes (when you just graduating from school, need some attention, some little experience)

I think its wonderful that students will have some chance and opportunity to get some attention and get some real feedback about their work in Chelsea.

So boysa and girls from MFA, big congradulations from me and good luck with your show!!!!!!

4/24/2007 09:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Henry said...

Edward - I would think that if Kinkade hosted a student show, people in the art world would consider him to be using those students to advertise and improve his name.

Let me be clear: I agree that this is good for the students and good for the gallery, and it's good all the way around, but it is not a community service. It is a business venture which benefits both sides.

The slippery-slope leads to Gagosian hosting the Yale MFA thesis exhibition, and with what I know of the artworld, I feel no compunction in making a slippery-slope argument of that type.

4/24/2007 10:28:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

but it is not a community service. It is a business venture which benefits both sides.

I'm not sure I implied it was. It's a service to the artists and the gallery though, which is all I ever claimed. Still, I would hope it would be of interest to our visitors. The work is strong and delightful and the artists are very positive and upbeat, and I'm beyond flattered they approached us to host their exhibition.

I'm still not sure what's wrong with this idea to you though, Henry. Isn't the context clear enough? You seem to think someone stands to get hurt in all this. Who and how?

Personally, I'm comfortable with the context of this exhibition, and I've discussed this thoroughly with the curator and she is as well, so I don't see the problem. I do respect the opinions of those who disagree, but wish I understood better why they do.

4/24/2007 10:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Henry said...

Edward - I'm responding to your paragraph far above, beginning with the words, "I understand your confusion, but this is a show that we were approached to host," and talking about wanting to "feel OK" about the decision. The paragraph read like an apology to me, so I simply responded to the tone I thought I detected in it. It sounded like you were trying to take an academic or social-community road, so I wanted to be clear about its commercial aspect. Thanks for being unequivocal in response.

Personally I don't know if anyone gets hurt. I'm a capitalist, though not an anarchist. I love the idea of bringing artists into the market in a controlled and visible way. In my chosen profession I was a co-op employee in industry while I was still an undergrad. My principles and education tell me yes, but art can be more like American Idol than other "normal" professions -- winner take all -- so something in my heart tells me to take a broader look.

Let me be honest. Maybe it's just jealousy. Kids today. When I was their age, I had to skin my own rabbits and mix my own paints after weaving my own canvases. I was lucky if I got 2 dollars for a big canvas, and "big" in those days meant 24 or 36 inches, none of this 10-foot-paintings stuff.... :-)

P.S. Is anyone else getting caught by the fast "time out" function of the "type the characters" thingie on this comment page? It seems like I need to hit "preview" every 10 seconds or I have to fight the alphabetic dragon all over again.

4/24/2007 11:11:00 AM  
Anonymous nappy-headed ho said...

I think a lot of the negative reaction by artists IS jealousy, but we should be able to admit that. For example, I've been out of school and working for years. Why can't I have a show at Winkleman Gallery? Why do these youngsters get the attention/breaks that I could be getting? I haven't seen these about-to-be-graduates' work, but I'm fairly certain that my work is more accomplished. I have a pretty good record of exhibitions, sales, corporate collections, etc.

I think a lot of people's concern about the poor young things getting corrupted by the market at such a tender age is more that they want the attention for themselves but are a bit embarrassed to admit this. Ok, call us old and bitter, but I think it's reasonable to feel this way.

4/24/2007 11:38:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

"I understand your confusion, but this is a show that we were approached to host," and talking about wanting to "feel OK" about the decision.

I feel there are legitimate concerns, but I feel I've addressed them with the context. Anyone confused about the juxtaposition of the comments in my previous post and this one is who I'm addressing, not the general public.

I had to skin my own rabbits and mix my own paints after weaving my own canvases.

You were lucky. When I was kid, artists had to paint with a combination of berry juice, mud, and blood on the walls of our caves.

4/24/2007 11:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The American Idol model isn't winner take all. The runners up have done quite well and often they get better contracts because the American Idol contract is supposed to be pretty bad for the artist.

4/24/2007 12:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

p.s. Remember an American Idol "loser" won a freakin' Academy Award!

4/24/2007 12:13:00 PM  
Anonymous bnon said...

The argument about this show is a good example of a kind of hysteria I think is unnessary. We read about the exaggerated success of very young artists and it prejuidices us against Edward's show, which is perhaps following the same fashionable trend, but is doing nothing untoward. In the same way, why should a painting selling for 100 million dollars affect they way anyone in more workaday strata goes about their business? Yes, it's easy to be jealous of students getting special attention, but most dealers have summer shows with which they can spread a little happiness around on the rest of us undererpsesented artists.

4/24/2007 12:38:00 PM  
Blogger Martin said...

ed - the eberhard havekost link you post comes back to today's comments, but i looked it up and saw him commenting on 11/30/06. is that what you mean?

no, it wasn't me.

anyways, my point has been missed. i really don't care (too much) about the ages of the exhibiting artists, or that they are students, whatever. my point is that the precedent for these types of shows is that they are bought.

AGAIN, maybe that is not the case here.. but the precedents would lead people to make that assumption... and as a hypothetical artist who perhaps struggled for years to get into the gallery i would be perturbed to be associated with a gallery that suddenly looks desperate.

regarding "eberhard", i notice that you call him out as a coward for commenting anonymously, yet my comments are derided as attention seeking.

i'll keep reading, but i won't comment here anymore ed. bye.

4/24/2007 01:56:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Bye.

4/24/2007 02:13:00 PM  
Blogger John Morris said...

Sounds like it's going to be a show worth looking at and for me that is reason to have it. The thing that seems interesting about it is that it's a very good school outside of NY, that might otherwise be a bit underexposed.

I do think there is now a building myth that all young artists are hot. I kind of got the feeling that when i came to NY on my last trips that there might be riots and groupies and every work would be sold. Also, I have to admit that a decent number of these kids are producing decent work.

Could we wait and see if the show sucks before carving it up?

4/24/2007 02:43:00 PM  
Blogger stephen lee said...

As a person who works for an emerging art gallery, I find a lot of these comments ridiculous. Talk to 99% of the student artists out there and they will tell you personally how hard it is to get their work exhibited. The vast majority have to stop their love and passion of art to work a 9-5 job. Ed is doing a great service to these students and I assure you they all appreciate it very much. For someone to tell a student artist that they can't look towards the future is not right. For these artists to continue doing what they love, they will need the support like Ed and others to keep their dreams alive.

Stephen

4/24/2007 03:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Henry said...

Stephen - Maybe you read the thread too quickly. The overwhelming majority of the comments have been positive and supportive. I count only one commenter that was unequivocally negative. The majority of the questions were about Ed's role, not about showing student work. I'm on record saying, "I love the idea of bringing artists into the market in a controlled and visible way," and admitting that maybe the real problem is jealousy, which Nappy-Headed Ho picked up on.

As someone (almost) old enough to be a RISD parent, who works 8 to 6, and who can't depend on a thesis exhibition to get shown in Chelsea, I won't be lectured about the difficulty of getting art exhibited. If thesis exhibitions are all going to be held in Chelsea, maybe it's time for me to get a second masters degree (I have an MS, not an MA). Someone let me know when a Houston school stars holding their thesis exhibitions in Chelsea and I'll be the first to enroll.

4/24/2007 04:05:00 PM  
Anonymous jason said...

Wow, what an unfortunate pissing match between E_ and Martin. I hope they make up -- swallow your prides boys! Now on to criticizing E_'s decision to host an MFA exhibition...

I think the only criticism worth making about this is that it reinforces the commercialization of academic art programs. It's obvious that E_ doesn't have a problem with it (he's a businessman, after all), and that the students who approached him share in the culpability (they're grown adults with free choice), but some of us think that the separation between education and commercialism is an important one. I realize that it's not a very popular idea at the moment.

4/24/2007 04:43:00 PM  
Anonymous arebours said...

Martin seems like the sweetest person around-it actually makes me sad that he has been advised not to come back here-perhaps this issue is just really a hurtin one-how must rebel belle feel?not thrilled ,either,I would imagine-I say,have every kind of show possible-have dogs painting-

4/24/2007 05:26:00 PM  
Anonymous nick said...

In politics, they call this sort of thing "passing the smell test". What's important isn't the reality of the situation (or the details of the compromise agreement Edward mentioned) - it's that gestalt feeling of "Hmm. So Winkleman's going *that* route now?"

Most (Many?) galleries wouldn't get a second thought about this sort of thing anymore, because the presumption of an ethical commitment is absent. And there's no explicit commitment on Edward's part, as far as I know. But here's the rub: Ed, you've gone on at length about running your gallery so that the exhibitions amount to a "program", so that the shows create a sum more comprehensive than its parts. I think people who are fans of yours are invested in that greater sum because there are lots of us who are not ready to give up on critical clarity, intellectual honesty, and, ahem, idealism of a certain sort.

So to me it goes much deeper than petty jealousy about some pubescent hipsters getting a Chelsea show. I mean, that's going on constantly, so there's no sense getting mad about it now.

4/24/2007 05:30:00 PM  
Anonymous arebours said...

I am an "old" woman-I have a deep belief in what I am doing,and a deep insecurity about it,as well-I was rejected from risd-i like and know poeple from risd-Show what you will-I don't see how that detracts from my value.I am,perhaps,an idiot,but this should be a democracy-and I have a horror of appearing to be old and jealous.It hurts to be that,and am tired of hurting.Plus,am still kinda sexy---

4/24/2007 05:46:00 PM  
Anonymous nappy-headed ho said...

Right on arebours! I'm glad to hear you are holding on to the sexy!

4/24/2007 09:24:00 PM  
Blogger Concrete Phone said...

Edward must be doing something right, when he usually posts one of his shows there is almost no response--not sure if he is wanting one, but...
A couple of grad. mfa kids are having a bash at the gallery, the post is not unlike his regular flyer advertising online, it's the upcoming show. The response is far greater than I usually see. Is it because it's a group of MFAs showing? Is it that the art is crossing some border, is different to the usual @ EWG? What is it that distinguishes pervious posts that advertise an opening, to warrant such an overwhelming and mostly positive response? They are the only questions i can ask without actually seeing the work, or at least before seeing larger jpgs of the work and installation.

The flyer is very nice, my current favorite working color.

It spells to me a good response, and should be followed up by lots of walk-ins, a bit of press, and, well, I don't know, if the work jumps out at you, some possibility of some flat-files.

I always get mixed up with organized and curated. I don't really but there is a certain leeway with the difference between the two. Is it a curated exhibition or, organized in the sense that there are six graduates from that particular media depart. MFA program? Ot, Is EWG offering his space just as a goodwill launch, charge or whatever, I don't need to know? Or is EWG putting some kind of seal of 'investment' approval on to the work, as a gallery usually does, focusing on sales?
For all the posts I still don't get that! It's private of course, but what else is to talk about until you get a better look at the work?

Best of luck, and all have fun nite! My MFA grad show was self-organized, though curated, in an artist run space. i felt good, but wow, those new grads, tomorrow nite, they'll feel great!

4/24/2007 09:52:00 PM  
Anonymous pp said...

Obviously Winkleman Gallery has not many black patrons as the Imus style language goes unchecked here..

4/24/2007 11:12:00 PM  
Anonymous nappy-headed ho said...

pp -

Speaking for only myself, I'm using my nom d'internet as a gesture of solidarity with all women (because all women are denigrated when any woman is called a ho, bitch, etc.), as in "we are all nappy-headed hos". If anyone is truly offended by this, I guess I should stop using it, as my intention is not to offend.

How bout "curly-haired ho?"

4/24/2007 11:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

I have more cynicism about the art world than everyone in this discussion put together, and even I have no problem with this show. The age, educational standing, and affiliation of the students are of much less interest to me than the quality of the work, which I haven't seen discussed yet. Carry on, Ed_.

4/25/2007 08:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, but didn't you go to RISD?

4/25/2007 08:51:00 AM  
Blogger Joanne Mattera said...

I wonder if part of the issue here is the degree of savvy art school graduates and MFA'ers have about the art world--which is plenty, thanks to courses that help prepare them for the leap into the art world, as well as organized visits from dealers, critics and curators--in relation to what mid-career artists had when they were in art school, which was, oh, nothing.

I teach a course in "life after art school," essentially, at two Boston-area art colleges, and I see the success these kids are having early on because they're learning how to present their work and themselves and how to navigate the art world. Mid career artists (of which I am one) had to figure it out for themselves. Some never quite did, believing somehow that if they "paid their dues" then "it would happen." Back then artists expected to see it "happen" at mid career. Now, all those new artists--a whole new generation--is coming out of school and things ARE happening for them in a way that that may still not have happened for the mid-career artist.

All of which goes back to a previous post from Ed on how artists can get their work shown--a generous post with the kind of "insider information" that mid-career artists never got in art school.

By the way, I saw "Yes (to everything)." It didn't bowl me over, but there were enough images that made me stop and look, or go back to look again, that I found it worth seeing.

4/25/2007 10:04:00 PM  
Blogger fisher6000 said...

This is, for me, a controversy about what college is for.

Is college a place that's about developing ideas in an (artificial, temporary) vacuum? If so, then having an MFA show in Chelsea messes with the artificial and temporary bubble created by college.

Some people would argue that the vacuum created by college is temporary and artificial, so why bother keeping it? I see the practicality of this argument.

I would argue, though, that the vacuum serves an important intellectual purpose. When college is specifically not a place for any kind of professional development--when college kids are in school to develop their own ideas and strengthen their own minds--then they can approach the whole rest of their lives with the intellectual strength to do whatever the f*** they want professionally. They have the intellectual tools to make their own rules.

Professional opportunities create a lot of pressure--mostly pressure to act like a professional. I don't know what I would have done with something like this as an MFA student. I probably would have gotten really tense and tried to "do it right." That is certainly what I see, increasingly, coming out of the more professionally oriented MFA programs. Work that is behind the curve, and artists that have a very tense relationship to their professional lives.

In other words, giving students this kind of professional opportunity has an unfortunate side effect. It creates young artists who are more oriented toward the market and "doing it right" than they are toward their own vision.

It has the potential to create followers instead of leaders, and it has the potential to create careerism.

4/26/2007 07:34:00 AM  
Anonymous markcreegan said...

Deborah,
I agree with you about the importance of the vaccuum in school, and with your concerns about careerism. I do not think however that the ratio of followers to leaders has been altered much due to the fact that most of us are followers. In fact, knowing what I know about leader types, it may generate more vangaurdism just due to the contrast. There are those that will find their unique voice regardless and/or because of the situation in the MFA programs.

I do worry about the fact that there is a shift to REWARD followers more. So the ones who are forging their own path still stick out and are noticed, its just they are seen negatively rather than lauded as trailblazers.

But you know, perhaps the actions of these MFA students in getting a NY gallery show IS trailblazing. Perhaps approaching your art making and the career aspect of being an artist together is the new avant garde paradigm. Maybe the idea of the lone hermit breaking all the rules artist is the cliche, in fact more than the cliche, is negated because its now these photography majors who are breaking all the "rules". Professionalized radicalism- fascinating.

I am not too critical of this situation because I think that the purpose of an education- to strengthen ones mind and develop intellectually- will always exist. It is just that now there is this added aspect of being somewhat indoctrinated into the system by learning the etiquette.

Plus, just looking at that famous "irrascibles" photograpgh of all the ab-ex painters reminds me that a certain level of professionalism has always been part of the process.

On a related note: I posted a follow up in the "One More Time with Feeling" thread. I am interested in hearing about others' experiences using Ed's advice.

4/26/2007 09:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

Yes, I went to RISD. Are we talking about the kids' work yet?

4/26/2007 11:21:00 AM  
Blogger James said...

Edward - thank you for responding and letting this converstation take place. It's certainly changed my view about student work in commercial galleries (I was uncomfortable with it, but everyone has posted valid reasons for it). I still feel, though, you need to be a bit more careful when discussing the art market and criticizing some of it's trends, for as a dealer you may end up one day in a position which looks contradictory.

4/26/2007 11:47:00 AM  
Anonymous ho with hair of many textures said...

May in Art in America has a feature on art schools and the direction that education is headed. I've only leafed through it, but Dave Hickey has some interesting things to say. Haven't gotten to Rob Storr, et al yet (was reading at newstand; just when I let my subscription lapse they have an issue I want to read).

4/26/2007 12:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Henry said...

Franklin - If a work hangs in a gallery, and no one is around to see it, does it have any quality?

You've discussed the market for jobs and other artistic opportunities on your own blog more than once. I think it's perfectly valid and very timely to explore and discuss the new and unique opportunity being presented today by galleries like Edward's.

4/26/2007 01:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

If a work hangs in a gallery, and no one is around to see it, does it have any quality?

Yes. By the way, didn't whoever hung the work in the gallery see it?

I think it's perfectly valid and very timely to explore and discuss the new and unique opportunity being presented today by galleries like Edward's.

I didn't tell you not to. I am saying that I haven't seen a case made for Ed_ doing something different than what he's doing.

4/26/2007 04:27:00 PM  
Blogger fisher6000 said...

MarkCreegan wrote:


I do worry about the fact that there is a shift to REWARD followers more. So the ones who are forging their own path still stick out and are noticed, its just they are seen negatively rather than lauded as trailblazers.


Excellent refinement, thanks so much for making this distinction. I agree wholeheartedly.

I am in no way opposed to the idea of "radical professionalism" that you float. I think that acting like a professional is a potentially powerful position for artists to work from.

I am also not opposed to artists making money, FWIW, or being straightforward about their work being the commodity it is.

In my own limited experience, I see too little of this kind of powerful, straightforward, professional proactivity from artists. What I see more, if I may be permitted a small snark, is armies of scared kids in skinny jeans living in the shadow of arts administrators and gallerists.

Art is intellectually important. There is also a huge market for it, and gallerists and curators do act as tastemakers--they create and shape the market by choosing what folks should look at and buy.

I would love it if all gallerists took the longterm intellectual landscape as seriously as they took any other aspect of their job. But is this even possible when consumers at art fairs are asking point blank how young each artist is?

Any gallerist is sitting at the crossroads of their own high overhead, strong ideals (why else would anyone open a gallery???) and clients who come to the table with their own picture of what they want and what to look for.

Do I want Edward to do anything other than what he's done? Certainly not. He's got his business and we all have our own...

...and it's not fair to take potshots at him because he is being generous enough to share his work on a blog.

But since he's bloggin'... it seems fair to discuss the potential impact of his choices. Because I think we are all, to some degree, here to figure out what the market means.

I am curious about whether the market can act as a force of radical change, ala Creegan's radical professionalism. Right now I don't think it does. And I don't think it will if gallerists and curators keep making easy choices.

But difficult choices will have to become marketable if any of us can expect gallerists to take the leap... radical professionalism does rely on capitalism, after all...

4/26/2007 05:54:00 PM  
Blogger Concrete Phone said...

http://www.artchicago.tv/five/

... anyone up Chicago way get to see this? I'd love to, also would love to get in and see KATHARINA GROSSE
ATOMS INSIDE BALLOONS, up at Renaissance.
... And thanks Joanne for your brief account of the show, and your common sense.. i think it's useful, and I appreciate it... I'm a long way away. Did anyone else see yes, to everthing? Chris W. wachathink?
... one thing I was thinking about ... technology vs the more traditional media, and there where it crosses, sometimes...
do you think it's easier to graduate with a professional product from a media department, than say from the sculpture department, or say even the painting department...?
Why I ask is because the snippet of footage from the above New INSIGHT... well, I kind I felt the trad. stuff looked a bit art schoolish. And the snippet of the more art-worldly stuff looked art worldly and pitched towards an artworldlyness...
anyway I really wish I could be at Chicago, and also take a look in a Edward's, too!

Advertisement
Well I for one am looking forward to this new art paradigm, the radical professionalism paradigm shift. We'll all be laying macs before you can say pc. While pc needs you to be nerdy and update drivers and the CV to install new softer-ware, and work bigger spaces, radical professional Mac will have that all done, installed with each new batch, boxed, bellied, and ready to go. That's the new mac professional.
I'm an old mac, powerbook, you may have heard of me, and like pc I have a lot of things installed on my hard-drive: And a lot of software and templates that I work with everyday that I just can't afford to update.
Humpf... Things aren't as good as they were. I'm slowing down. And my new friends they are driving like a bat out of hell. I've tried to update with friends' gear but to no avail, I mean the technology police 'police' these things pretty well nowadays. So I'm running on old stuff, but sure, if i could, I'd love to utilize the new stuff ... what do I do?
When I bought my mac, unwritten into the code of professionalism campus was that you can upgrade a couple a times, but after that you need the same kind of skills to perform the miraculous, or get in there with the drivers like the good old nerdy pc.
I'm slow but I have all this information, and I figure that with a couple or reconfiguration classes and facial lifts I'll be running as good as new with my old power looking as good as the new pro.
And then I'll be ripping the tarmac and kicking butt pC.

4/26/2007 08:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Corroborate a rumor?

Allegedly Andrea Rosen Gallery dropped 11 artists?!

4/27/2007 12:34:00 AM  
Anonymous markcreegan said...

Great comments from Deborah above.

And yes we are trying to figure out what the market means, how or why to engage with that, and how that our own practices are or are not affected by it.

I have been rereading about the 70s "institutional critique" art of Hans Haacke, Daniel Buren, the AWC etc. And it struck me how, back then, the museum was the main legitimizer of artists' practices. It was such a powerful force in determining careers, shaping the dialogue and all that.
Museums and curators still play an important role, but it seems (and this may be why such a focus has been on the market lately) much of that legitimizing power has been taken over by the market.

I wonder if artists like Jennifer Dalton and William Powhida are todays Haacke and Mierlle Ukelles? Are art fairs the new bienales?

4/28/2007 11:17:00 AM  
Blogger gustav[] pEña said...

very nice blog. love it.

4/30/2007 02:25:00 AM  
Blogger Lisa Hunter said...

Just because the art market is starting to resemble the modeling industry ("Younger, younger, younger") is no reason to criticize Ed's show.

Fifteen years ago, a gallery show for student art would have been considered a money-losing act of altruism. And I'm sure that for the students involved, this is one of the most exciting times in their lives. I think it's great that Ed is doing this.

4/30/2007 08:56:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

> Concrete Phone said... http://www.artchicago.tv/five/ ... anyone up Chicago way get to see this?

I've seen it, and hope to get some pics of it posted to Flickr tonight.

Edward mentioned that one of the photographers featured in "New InSight" (Patrick Madigan, one of whose photos in the show was one of my favorite works, in fact) is also a part of "Yes (to everything)" at Winkleman.

> I kind I felt the trad. stuff looked a bit art schoolish. And the snippet of the more art-worldly stuff looked art worldly and pitched towards an artworldlyness

I haven't watched that video. But just what is "artworldly stuff"? (And should it be any surprise it looks "artworldly"?)

4/30/2007 11:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lisa said:

"Fifteen years ago, a gallery show for student art would have been considered a money-losing act of altruism. And I'm sure that for the students involved, this is one of the most exciting times in their lives. I think it's great that Ed is doing this."

This is an incorrect statement. 10, 15, 20 years ago, no commercial gallery would host a student show. It was very rare, and mostly in vanity galleries. When it happened the school paid for it.

mls

4/30/2007 01:05:00 PM  
Blogger Concrete Phone said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4/30/2007 06:58:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

I've posted photos of works from nine of the included artists.

(Also took a peek at the ARTropolis.tv video Concrete Phone linked to above, and I don't think a single thing shown in it was in the actual exhibit.)

5/01/2007 10:33:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

> I've posted photos of works from nine of the included artists.

(Nine of the artists included in New InSight, that is.)

5/01/2007 10:34:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

This is an incorrect statement. 10, 15, 20 years ago, no commercial gallery would host a student show.

Er....check the verb tense of the original statement:

a gallery show for student art would have been considered a money-losing act of altruism

That doesn't imply it ever happened, meaning your statement is incorrect (in as much as it misread the original). But that's enough hair splitting for now I think. The exhibition is up. Folks can come by and judge for themselves what they think about it.

This thread is dead. (yes, it's the beauty of running the blog that one can have the last word).

5/01/2007 12:12:00 PM  

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home