June 2003, 52 posts, 1281 lines
Lately there seems to be a lot of artist-curated shows in which the artist-curator includes their own work in the exhibition. To me, this seems like a passive/aggressive self-promotional tactic, and it makes me want to barf. Somebody please convince me that this practice is acceptable and/or admirable (and not a bunch of hippie bullshit).
Specific examples would be helpful.
xoxo, Gabe
i tend to agree with you
At 08:44 AM 6/9/03 -0700, you wrote:
"If you curate shows and you also make art, you are absolutely
disallowed, under any circumstances, to include yourself in your shows.
Those who do should be flogged, pants down, in the town square."
--Robert Nickas
enough said. a
Gabe, How about you list all the ones that are bugging you and we talk about them specifically?
Keeping it general for now, what does seem true is that in curating shows artists are (or at least the ones here) exploring the very same issues that they explore in their own work. Curating one's own work into the show confuses what happening. What is the priority--to find another angle to look at the issues in one's work or to make a case for one's work. I think what makes most of us uncomfortable is that it seems like artists are trying to make a case for their own work by building an argument around it. An argument made under what seem to be false pretenses.
Lorelei Stewart
Director, Gallery 400, UIC 1240 West Harrison Street (MC 034) Chicago, IL 60607
312 996 6114 T 312 355 3444 F [http://gallery400.aa.uic.edu]
Is it convincing enough to say that you can do whatever the hell you want and don't have to follow art world protocal or ask the art world for permission about how to organize something? Unless you are on a Board of Directors or some other beauracratized entity such as heading a University not-for-profit gallery that answers to a Board or something like that, here are no rules. I think Anthony and I debated this one a long time ago. Jno - our resident Other Group archivist - can you find that particular thread from around 1987 or so?
One example - Gabe: as a viewer/other artist in the project/etc. would I have cared if you curated yourself into your 8.5 X 11 project? Definitely not. If you had a really excellent idea that really fit the parameters that you set for the project, I would say why not? Again, you aren't gonna get arrested. You can do what you want. If you wanna worry about how other people perceive this, you can worry about that. If this is the only way you can get a show... well, you might wanna worry about that too. I suspect you are bringing this up because perhaps for some people who do this, it's the only way they can get a show. But again, no rules people, no rules.
Marc
Gabriel Fowler wrote:
At 11:35 AM 6/9/03 -0500, you wrote: But again, no rules people, no rules.
does that mean Pedro can write fluff pieces for artnet.com that fail to mention his conflicts of interest?
Lorelei Stewart wrote: "Keeping it general for now, what does seem true is that in curating shows artists are (or at least the ones here) exploring the very same issues that they explore in their own work. Curating one's own work into the show confuses what happening. What is the priority--to find another angle to look at the issues in one's work or to make a case for one's work. I think what makes most of us uncomfortable is that it seems like artists are trying to make a case for their own work by building an argument around it. An argument made under what seem to be false pretenses."
I think artists including themselves in things they organize can work most reasonably when everyone is creating completely new work around a similar idea or within similar parameters. This is different from an artist including old work just to get it out of their studio, or because they haven't had a show in a while or for some similarly flimsy reason. Often an idea is made much richer when a lot of people take a whack at it rather than when one person tries to claim authorship and defend the idea as their own to the exclusion of others. If you have an idea that you are excited about and that you think would be of interest to others, why not extend that idea to others and let everyone take a shot at it? It would probably be a much more interesting show to see 15 variations on that idea instead of just one variation (your own). But if you are doing this just to make a case for your own work, or to imply that you have had some kind of influence - well, that's not a very good justification.
Marc
There is a difference between thoughtfully breaking with exhibition-making conventions and ignoring the most basic standards of journalistic ethics. Pedro's article was presented like a straight piece of journalism or reporting, not a work of art or a creative essay. It lacked accountability. I think there should be some attempts to write about art that openly and thoughtfully negotiate the fact that many writers are practitioners who are in dialogue with the people they want to write about. Marc
Scott Speh wrote: At 11:35 AM 6/9/03 -0500, you wrote: But again, no rules people, no rules.
does that mean Pedro can write fluff pieces for artnet.com that fail to mention his conflicts of interest?
I think the focus should be on the motivation of the artist and the success or failure of the project, not on some notion of art world etiquette.
on the other hand, I think it's most important to court the unexpected, which can be facilitated by considering work of artists beyond yourself and your close circle of friends.
-cindy
Writing is different - there is some expectation of objectivity.
Curating - a person can do two things: can be an artist and curator separately, putting together shows that may or may not have the same focus as his artwork. This is the old model, where we had assumptions and expectations of definable roles in a functioning system. In this context, it bothered me, too, when the organizer would do something as sleazy and self-serving as including his own work
On the other hand, that fantasy of a functioning system doesn't seem to hold. I haven't seen anything interesting in years assembled by a professional curator. What little interesting, vital, provocative, whatever art is happening now seems to be grown out of groups of like-minded friends and shown at what are essentially parties. In this case, a person does the other thing, and is an artist/curator at once - the one of the group who has to deal with the paperwork. In this case it seems almost irresponsible for the artist/curator not to include himself, to put himself on display among equals.
There is an arrogance (not always a bad thing) in saying "I'm the producer/director/curator, the real artist. This is my show and my ideas. The people who made the component artwork only serve to illustrate, decorate, act as foils for what I think is important".
Somehow related - Joe Baldwin's "Retrospective" of a couple of years ago was misinterpreted by a lot of people as Joe's show, when he was actually providing the necessary props for the Law Office to do an interactive performance of them pretending to be a real gallery. Part of Marc's "no rules" is that there are no rules for perception. You can see only Joe's paintings, and ignore the set-up; you can focus on one piece in a curated show and ignore the organizing premise; you can hang Leon Golub in the dining room because you like the color (or as a trophy of being able to afford it, but that's another argument).
There may be no rules, but there is a difference between naive and informed perception.
michael
I will argue that it's not unexpected to throw yourself in a show, it's just too easy. An artist's work should speak for itself. Putting it with other like or explanatory pieces will be interpreted as compensating for the failings of the work.
Relatedly, most work is improved by the mystery of where an artist was coming from. As a viewer, it's great to recognize influences but you don't want the artist to write them down on a piece of paper and hang them next to the work.
Finally, an artist/curator may try to make connections of quality that are unjustified. And even if they are not, it is impossible too know so the viewing is tainted.
A good example; Jason Salavon's piece was well curated in the small mezzanine show at the MCA. It shed historical light on the concept of categorization but also suggested that his work was on par with the other well respected artists in the show. If he would have curated that same show it would have felt like he was cheating and blowing his own horn.
Curt
" ... a bunch of hippie bullshit..."
What does that mean? *smile*
And on a related note I just got this email today. I'm almost certain that Josh MacPhee, who is in this show, also helped curate this show. Is this a problem? I don't think so. When it comes to street stencils, Josh is probably the most passionate person in Chicago. He is stencil obsessed - he makes the things, he uses them, he takes photos of them when he travels and publishes them, he is surely in dialog with other people who use stencils. If this show didn't include Josh I think his omission would be glaring. That he helped organize the show is, to me, beside the point. Also I would somehow doubt that Josh's work will take about 75% of the wall space. I mean, he may have included himself but I don't think he's gonna be a dick about it.
Okay, you may now flog my ass in public Mr. Elms! (or flog Josh's ass) Marc
STENCIL PIRATES’ ALL STENCIL ART SHOW
OPENING JUNE 26th, 7PM BUDDY, 1542 N. Milwaukee, 2nd Fl. Show is up from June 24th-June 27th
Come See the Marvels of Modern Stenciling!!!
Check out the Stencil Pirates’ ALL STENCIL ART SHOW. Over 30 artists from over 20 different cities show stencil work on paper. Using stencils, the poor person’s printmaking, these artists have created works of vast depth, beauty and power! All with just a knife, a piece of cardboard, and can of spraypaint, no expensive equipment, no long preparations!
So simple and basic, one of the world’s oldest forms of printmaking has been making a comeback on streets across the globe. This show is a diverse collection of work from street artists, fine artists, and activists that
primarily use stencils as a way to spread their message. Come see what these artists can do with the most basic of tools. All work is priced at real people art prices ($3-$50) so come and take home some art!
Here’s
a partial list of the artists: Erok Alrededor (Pittsburgh, PA) -- Icky
Apparatus (Detroit, MI) -- Maximiliano Benitez (Chicago, IL) -- J. Brooks
(Chicago, IL) -- Rachel Budde (Brooklyn, NY) -- Colin (Ann Arbor, MI) --
DAKS (Columbus, OH) -- Eyeformation (Lowell, MA) -- Emily Forman (Chicago,
IL) -- Ali Haimson (Bloomington, IN) -- herspiral (Madison, WI) -- Josh
MacPhee (Chicago, IL)
-- Marty Garcia (Chicago, IL) -- Claude Moller
(San Francisco, CA) -- Roby Newton (Chicago, IL) -- Nate Nolting-W/REMOTE
(St. Paul, MN) -- Carl Nyman/SIXTEN (Strangnas, Sweden) -- Rebecca Parker
(Philadelphia, PA) --
Roger Peat (Minneapolis, MN) -- Josh Redd (Ann Arbor, MI) -- Ally Reeves
(Nashville, TN) -- Erik Ruin (Detroit, MI) ? Scout/Stain (East Chapham, NY) ? Shiro Fujioka (Los Angeles, CA) -- Shaun Slifer (Nashville, TN) -- W.C. Stewart (Nashville, TN) -- TRIAGE (New York City, NY) -- Daniel Tucker (Chicago, IL) -- David Wilcox (Toronto, Canada) -- Toben Windahl (San Francisco, CA) -- Peat Wollaeger (St. Louis, MO) -- R. Young (Detroit, MI)
Gabriel Fowler wrote:
want another artnet.com fluff piece on the Stray Show written by your favorite whipping boy Pedro Velez? Of course you do: [http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/reviews/velez/velez6-9-03.asp]
This is classic Pedro Velez right here: "The work questions our desire to invest emotionally in nature and in nature's imagery. Ultimately it is about wishful thinking, love and failure."
Note to Pedro if you still are out there: If you come back to Chicago July 1 and July 4th, you can see St. Vitus (only reunion gig in the U.S. and first show in about 14 years), Macabre, Eyehategod, and High On Fire all in the span of two shows at the Double Door. Might wanna start preparing for the extreme metal and book that ticket!
Marc
Scott Speh wrote: want another artnet.com fluff piece on the Stray Show written by your favorite whipping boy Pedro Velez? Of course you do: [http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/reviews/velez/velez6-9-03.asp]
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Marc Fischer wrote:
Not 1987, that was before I was born. And the archive goes only from 2002. But lets see, grepping for "curate"...
It starts
in March 2002:
- [http://othergroup.net/db/March2002.htm#982]
with Mike Bulka reporting on a CACA panel run by Claire Wolf Krantz.
HTH /j
curt says:
curt says:
is a curator's conviction of an art work's worth and meaning more valid than the artist's conviction of their own art work's worth and meaning? well, that depends on the curator, and the artist!
ultimately, it is the art that must truly speak to the audience. otherwise it remains just a prop, alongside other more or less validated props (for the artist, or for the curator, or for the collector, or for the museum).
the artist shouldn't be trying to prove that the value of their work can compete with the value of other more established art commodities. they should be trying to make art that speaks to their audience in a voice that is wise, unexpected, comforting or challenging (not boring, not predictable, not formulaic).
let's not worry who's curating whom into what shows. let's encourage good, thoughtful, complex artists to keep making and to make even better art.
this world needs some good art. there's not that much of it, and there could be more.
cindy
--
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, jno wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Marc Fischer wrote:
[http://othergroup.net/db/March2002.htm#982]
but there was another instance of someone asking that question.. Cant find it... wait (dang, same month) (I have nothing better to do?)
[http://othergroup.net/db/March2002.htm#1193]
HTH /jno
cindy says:
I'm not exactly worried. But I think curatorial practice can be a legimate creative endeavor, adding a layer of meaning and insight to carefully selected content. If people are running around calling themselves curators for the sake of self-aggrandizement, it bugs me.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Marc Fischer wrote:
Pedro excused himself from OG a few months ago.
Deathtrip wrote "If people are running around calling themselves curators for the sake of self-aggrandizement, it bugs me."
On some level, isn't anyone who runs around calling themself a curator doing it for a little bit of self-aggrandizement. Or for that matter anyone who calls themself an artist. The art world is a pretty vain profession anyway you look it.
My question - how does this discussion of artists curating themselves into shows relate to the last discussion of the self-promoting artist? Is it a similiar objection that we have to self-promotion that we have to self-curating?
I feel we can allow the artists who self-curate a little slack - judge the show for the quality of the show. It's the curator playing artist with their shows that bugs me. I'll even give my eye opening example - Lisa Wainwright (sp?) curated a show at the Bettty Rymer Gallery a few years ago where she had Warhol flowers screened on the wall. That bugged me.
jeff
Mr. Fischer: "Okay, you may now flog my ass in public Mr. Elms! (or flog Josh's ass)"
Without opening myself to any public forms of psychotherapy.. With pleasure Mr. Fischer! (I'd rather have a crack at you than Josh.) Maybe at our event next week? Or at the next WhiteWalls benefit?
I still stand by the quote from R. Nickas that I posted, but perhaps a little more flushing out of the sentiment. I do believe an artists should never curate themselves into their own shows. But a distinction should be made about different terms and activities: curating, organizing, presenting. If an artist wants to organize an event, or present an event including themselves, that is ok, but not curate, at least for me.
Difference, well I expect a certain rigor out of curating. I expect a thesis (no, not necessarily a highly complex theoretical statement, but yes a germ of an idea.) I also expect the thesis will be flushed out with different works. With somewhat differing viewpoints making the focus flushed out, and at times m aybe even problematic or fractured. Implying the curator has looked around a little to find works that are appropriate, and maybe surprising. When you have an artist-curator who says: "hey, this is a great idea, I'm going to find great art on this topic! Oh hey, one of the best artists working with this topic is right here at the desk with me. Hey, it is me!" Well, seems a bit lazy for my tastes. And a foregone conclusion.
An artist-curator has an idea for a show, well of course their artwork is related--no matter how tangentially--to the idea. I take that as a given, and there is enough power involved by setting up the framework, choosing the lens, and selecting the participants, do they really need to include themselves as well?
There really isn't a way to make that a level playing field. And the artworks in a show should, at a minimum, be treated on a level playing field. That can't happen when the person calling all the shots puts themselves in the objects as well.
This is obviously not the same as putting up you and your friends' work on an apartment wall. Which is fine, just don't try to tell me it was curated.
Gabe's 8.5x11 was stronger for him not including himself. He was already present enough in choosing the format, the manner of its presentation, the organization, and the design of the package. His aesthetic is already all over the project, I know what he is interested in without him including himself in the projects.
Cindy: "is a curator's conviction of an art work's worth and meaning more valid than the artist's conviction of their own art work's worth and meaning?"
No, but they are not equal or the same either. I expect an artist to like their own work. And I really don't care what value the artist places on their own work. I'm more interested to know if anybody else finds it interesting. The Salavon example is pretty good in the differences of interpretation that would result from the different hypotheticals. If jason put himself in that mca show, well he sure as hell better be on the same level as everyone else in the show. If a curator chose to compare him to the other artists, that's a different story. I can like the thesis or not, like individual works or not, think the concept is lamebrained or not, without questioning the integrity of any of the choices, or the gestures that went into the production of the works themselves. Those come at a different level, after I've looked at the works in relation to the larger structure, as individual statements.
I don't hold artists responsible for bad (or good) group shows, and I don't hold curators responsible for bad (or good) artworks, even if they picked them. (different tastes and all.) When a work has been curated into an exhibit, it is now in place for interpretation across an expanded field of works/ideas. To decide to place yourself in that field as artist, and also as the curator of the ideas, seems a bit problematic. For me it isn't a problem of selfpromotion, its more a problem of redundancy. I know the artist wants to be successful, I expected that. Its an ego problem.
And lest anyone think I'm coming down hard on artist-curators, and not curator-artists, I'll also quote what Robert Nickas had to say about that: "When placing the work of two artists in relation to each other, avoid three-dimensionalizing pictorial elements. If an artist wants to construct a picket fence and place it on the floor in front of their painted landscape, they can surely do it by themselves. Your mise en scene is nothing more than misrepresentation. The hybrid 'third work' is a myth."
a
anthony, what piece of writing or interview do you keep quoting by robert nickas??
Lorelei Stewart
Director, Gallery 400, UIC 1240 West Harrison Street (MC 034) Chicago, IL 60607
312 996 6114 T 312 355 3444 F [http://gallery400.aa.uic.edu]
Anthony wrote re. ass flogging "Maybe at our event next week? Or at the next WhiteWalls benefit?"
I just remade the Prisoners' Sex doll and it has a lovely plastic bag ass filled with water. You may flog it to your heart's content (I'm thinking I may keep my ass out of this discussion from here on out and therefore take back the flogging invitation). You can even take it home at the end of the evening and flog it while thinking about shitty curating. For all others reading - you'll just have to come to Quimby's for the "Prisoners' Inventions" book release on Friday June 20th from 8-10 PM to see what this means. It will be a very educational evening.
Anthony quotes a guy I'm not familiar with: "When placing the work of two artists in relation to each other, avoid three-dimensionalizing pictorial elements. If an artist wants to construct a picket fence and place it on the floor in front of their painted landscape, they can surely do it by themselves. Your mise en scene is nothing more than misrepresentation. The hybrid 'third work' is a myth."
Gotta agree that this is such an annoying practice. Has Joshua Dector done this? I bet he has. About as bad as his practice of hanging a painting 20 feet off the ground just because he could and because the MCA has the stupid architecture to allow you to do it. I'm sure the artist really got to weigh in and was all for making the viewers crane their necks. Uh huh. Marc
Lorelei asked: "anthony, what piece of writing or interview do you keep quoting by robert nickas??"
Marc responded to the quote: "Gotta agree that this is such an annoying practice. Has Joshua Dector done this? I bet he has. About as bad as his practice of hanging a painting 20 feet off the ground just because he could and because the MCA has the stupid architecture to allow you to do it. I'm sure the artist really got to weigh in and was all for making the viewers crane their necks. Uh huh."
I can answer both with one answer, it is a text Robert Nickas wrote for Joshua Decter's show A/Drift that Decter refused to print in the catalog because he thought it was too critical of his (Decter's) practice. It is titled: "Anchors Aweigh: Some Advice for Those About to Enter... Show Business."
Anthony, yeah, but that doesn't give us much information on where to find it ourselves....
Anthony wrote: I can answer both with one answer, it is a text Robert Nickas wrote for Joshua Decter's show A/Drift that Decter refused to print in the catalog because he thought it was too critical of his (Decter's) practice. It is titled: "Anchors Aweigh: Some Advice for Those About to Enter... Show Business."
Lorelei Stewart
Director, Gallery 400, UIC 1240 West Harrison Street (MC 034) Chicago, IL 60607
312 996 6114 T 312 355 3444 F [http://gallery400.aa.uic.edu]
This is probably one of the best discussions to come on to othergroup. Perhaps because I feel a little tied to it. Yes, I am an artist and I ran a space for awhile and had some curatorial vision/practice but not any educational background to truly be given the title "curator". I do agree with you, Gabe. The term is thrown around a bit much and like Lorelei, would like to note some examples. Were you the curator of the 8.5x11 show? You organized it, I know. But what do you put down in your cv? Is it a problem for spaces to "organize" shows yet their studios are in the back room?
I don't think artists that have their shit together and know to organize shows, events or projects should be penalized. Conceptualizing your own work is hard enough and for a group it is even harder. But doing it once in awhile is necessary, both for vanity and affiliation. Including his or her own work is subjective, it should enforce the concepts and be able to exist on an "equal playing field" with the other works. But what happens when the work is bad? By whose "bad" are we going by? Besides what cognitive judgements are we making? Ethical? Superficial? Are they good looking? Who they know?
The mixing of roles artist, curator, writer, and now collector is becoming more common at least to me because of a need of another perspective, a different voice. Why are there so many new alternative spaces in Chicago compared to three or four years ago? Is that they are better at printing cards and getting hold of emails? I think a red flag should go up when you do start defining clear cut roles because I would go to those young alternative spaces, even established alternative spaces and say "pick one". Are you an artist or a dealer? Leave them be, I say. Let artists self-curate and self-exhibit and hey what the fuck, self-write their own review. But you and I both know that show will be not be very well perceived. But maybe, just maybe...
Amavong
ps. I am new to this, so please be gentle on the my bloodletting.
Aeelms at aol.com wrote: I can answer both with one answer, it is a text Robert Nickas wrote for Joshua Decter's show A/Drift that Decter refused to print in the catalog because he thought it was too critical of his (Decter's) practice. It is titled: "Anchors Aweigh: Some Advice for Those About to Enter... Show Business."
Wow, I must be psychic. I didn't know this. That's just beautiful. Now I just have to figure out how to wield my newly discovered psychic powers. Marc
not to disrupt the flow, but for those who have seen the cremaster check out this essay: [http://www.gamegirladvance.com/archives/2003/05/23/matthew_barney_versus_donkey_kong.html]
-ben gill
Lorelei: "Anthony, yeah, but that doesn't give us much information on where to find it ourselves...."
gee, didn't know you cared. it is in his collection of essays: Live Free or Die. Published by les presses du reel, 2000. $12 isbn 2-84066-038-5.
Does that cover it?
Oh, and Marc, use your new psychic powers not to piss me off! The flogging can still commence.
And to "NFASpace", i dun't think requiring thinking out a specific goal for an action you are undertaking, requires an overall decision to determine what you are in general. You can still have an alternative space with some funkiness. But if you have certain goals, taking actions in direct response to those goals is better than doing things by accident. Do each job with the specificity it requires, not lazy and carelessly.
I tried to send this earlier but it bounced with a password (?!) error.
+!+!+!+!+
Here's a fine summary I think. All artists think that their work is interesting (why else would they do it). A curator's job is to sort through all that stuff, find that that really is and bring it together. The artist is simply incapable of making that determination about his own work.
An artist might have a feeling for what is the most interesting piece he has done, but if it just isn't interesting, he won't see it.
Self promotion as I brought it up is simply doing what one can to ensure that the people doing the curating (and influencing the curators) know who you are and what your work is about. From there they can decide if it's interesting.
To comment on Jeff's curators as artists comment, I have three thoughts. 1) I like the parallel 2) But there is a precedent for screening Warhol images onto the wall behind the art - see the Mao at the art institute 3) But (another but) quality isn't the issue here, its something closer to ethics. A bad curator putting their work in a show they put together has the same problems as a good curator doing the same thing. It's just more likely to be a bad show.
Dudes and dudettes: It has been suggested that I name names regarding my recent anti-whatever comments. Obviously, I'm not going to do that, because you already know what I'm talking about, and it will just piss people off.
About 8.5x11: it appears on my resume under "curatorial projects." And, in the sense that I approached people to participate in an idea, yes, I curated the project.
Maybe we're splitting a few hairs here? My main beef has to do with the often laissez-faire self-defeatest subtext of the "anything goes" approach to culture (e.g: the afforementioned hippie bullshit). I don't want to work that way, and I don't want to look at lazy uncommitted gestures.
gf
Oh, gabe, come on. if you want to call stuff lazy uncommitted gestures and we "already know what you are talking about," by inference you should be pissing people off anyway.
I think a list of artist curated projects (with artists-curators in them) could include:
Nature Delivers, Ukrainian, Scott Wolniak and Julia Hechtman, curators The Impotent Landscape, The Pond, curated by Middlemanagement, Duncan MacKenzie and Shannon Stratton Amy's Friends, Bodybuilder & Sportsman, Amy Saxe, organizer Subtle, Not So Subtle, 1R Gallery, curated by Kirsten Stoltmann and Mark Diaz Oops!...I did it again, 1926 Exhibition Space the Mule booth at the Stray show
a list of artist-curated projects (WITHOUT artists-curators in them) could include:
That video show that Jack Sloss did at the Ukrainian The show John Neff will do in July at the Ukrainian The show Cindy Loehr will do at the Pond this fall
Maybe we can talk about some of these exact examples. The discussion on the othergroup seems to tend toward the general and then we all talk in circles (often redundant circles).
So here I go, talking specifics.
I think that Jack Sloss's show "Video with Headphones" at the Ukrainian was a really good example of how an artist can bring an insightful sense of curatorial exhibition design to a show. The design of that show, a dark room with wall mounted monitors (each with their own headphones) for each of the ten or so videos, had a strong conceptual basis.
A show like Nature Delivers, on the otherhand, doesn't work. More important than that the artists-curators reserved most of the wall space for themselves is that they didn't evidence much of a conceptual thread for the show. How works are linked together is pretty unclear, as is any contrast to use one of anthony's ideas about exhibition-making.
On the otherhand, as a one-off project the Mule booth at the Stray show didn't seem like a bad deal. The artists gathered some other artists together and they made a booth under no theme or conceptual rubric. They showed some work and that was that. We might think of Amy's Friends in the same way. One question we can ask with the specificity of these two examples is, Is there a difference when one show is a three day set-up in the loose atmosphere of the Stray show and the other is the backroom of a commercial gallery. How does the institutional setting function in each?
Hope I don't piss too many people off. :)
Lorelei Stewart
Director, Gallery 400, UIC 1240 West Harrison Street (MC 034) Chicago, IL 60607
312 996 6114 T 312 355 3444 F [http://gallery400.aa.uic.edu]
I think 8.5x11 is clear. It may not be a curated space in the strictest sense but it clearly was a curated project by Gabe. He wasn't in it and it was great. It goes on his resume. Unfortunately it would go on the resume even if it sucked, but I digress.
Curt
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The kindly folks here at the Bridge/1R Partnership would like to invite you to join us this Thursday night, June 12, starting at 7pm for a casual get-together to discuss art making and programming. Join us at Zakopane Lounge at 1734 West Division Street (773-486-1559), right across from the Gold Star Bar in the Wicker Park neighborhood.
This invitation is open to everybody, so invite your friends. Spread the word and bring your ideas. What we're hoping to do is spur conversation between artists and art programmers from wide and far, over a few $2 Pabsts. The Zakopane Lounge staff know we're coming and are ready to serve up the most affordable drinks in town!
See You Thursday,
Michael Workman Editor-in-chief, Bridge 119 N Peoria, #3D Chicago, IL 60607 Ph: 312-421-2227 Fax: 312-421-2228 www.bridgemagazine.org
In a message dated 6/10/2003 1:44:23 PM Central Daylight Time, Aeelms at aol.com writes:
I agree with you. The same thoughts can be applied to the artist/curator then... just as long as it is "not lazy and careless".
sorry.
Amavong here.
curt says:
artists don't think that ALL their work is equally interesting.
Most artists can get enough distance from themselves to know which of their works are more or less successful. of course it is necessary to get feedback from your audience, and listen to people you respect (not just curators, but other artists, and non-artist peers). but these voices also tend to get internalized over time, and in effect, help to form your own self-critical voice as you mature (and yes, this phenomenon that happens to everyone, artists and non-artists alike).
Which is just to say, artists don't just make a bunch of stuff and then go to a curator to see what works get the most gold stars. I think that most artists wade through a lot of mediocre ideas before they get to something they think is truly interesting. that takes a self-critical approach to begin with, and I believe it doesn't stop there.
This is not to say that curators (or writers, or the audience) don't play an important role in the reception and understanding of works. of course they do! But not only are good artists self-aware and self-critical, they engage in critical conversations with their peers as a matter of course.
cindy
--
As if there isn't enough going on on solstice weekend. there is this. I am only officially involved with the flag desecration and nudity on Saturday night, but this is why I'll miss Marc's Quimby thing, the open house at the Fulton/Damen studios, the garden gnome tea party at Bucktown Garden Walk and 3 or 4 other things. I will have to skip the opening speaker to get to the Tingle Tangle Menagerie show at Texas on Fri.
[http://www.lumpen.com/events/freedom.html]
I have no idea if any curators were artists or otherwise compromised in any of these shows.
michael
There have been plenty of shows that have bugged me, which I am not in the mood to list. However, there have been plenty of shows I am grateful for, that I will list. I'm not sure if they count as artists curating themselves into their own shows, I see them more as organizers of events they participate in, but we will all have to judge this for ourselves.
ElectraSlipKnife; Ontology; and Roadkill
They range from the apartment show to the studio show to the show at a space proper, all with the artist/organizer/curators work in the show, and it did not bother me at all. For me, their efforts were not merely self promotional. I believed in them and what they were doing, and these "shows" became valuable resources to me in one form or another.
In fact, they inspired me. I think its a great idea and an inviting venue to see work in an uncompromising environment. I do not think for the organizer of this type of event to include his or her own work is always compromising, nor is it necessarily communal. I assume this is what Gabe means by hippie bullshit?
I am not criticising Gabes judgemnet. It is completely appropriate to raise this issue, and I can sympathise with your position. I do wish I knew specifically which show or shows that were bothering you, since there are so many. So, Gabe, if you like, shoot me an email OFF group for further discussion.
Ben Foch
I feel like I am making my first call-in to a talk radio show that I have always admired and listened to from time to time but have never actually contacted myself.
It was your recent, great and complicated discussion about the whole curating-one's-own-art-into-an-exhibition controversy that has inspired my phoning. As came up during the discussion, the show presently on view at The Pond, which I co-run, features organization and exhibition by the same folks. When we accepted their proposal, this collusion of roles was of no concern to us. I wanted to thank everyone for expanding the issue and encouraging me to take it up in conversation.
Hence: the planned conversation about landscape this Sunday at The Pond will now also include a bit of chat about the whole artist-cum-curator issue. The talk will be on Sunday (22nd) at noon. I made a notice about it on the notice section. I hope you'll consider coming. Thanks for the open invitation to the dialogue; I will weigh in myself after Sunday.
Long-time listener, first-time caller, Jeff M. Ward
congrats othergroup fisher and elms (i would add bloom and collo, but I dont know if they are on the list) - the Reader featured WhiteWalls prison inventions sure look a lot more interesting than the previous drawings I saw. Have they reinvented the fire-drill also? and obsidian blades? Everyone rush to Quimby's tonite. /jno
Well gracias othergroup jno, though I must add it makes me tad uncomfortable with this "othergroup" in front of our names...are we becoming a cult? or some sort of secret society? maybe there is a way here to turn the othergroup into a free masons kind of group.
a
Yes, the "Prisoner's Inventions" event at Quimby's was a good time. Personal highlight: when Brett lit a guy's cigarette with a re-fabricated prison lighter. The contraption looked questionable and cumbersome, but it worked like a charm and didn't explode or anything. After the semi-formal presentation by Temporary Services, a smarmy older gentleman read several prison love letters with gusto. Who was this guy?! He implied that he knew about prison life, but never provided much of a bio.
Also: did anyone attend the seminar-thing at the Pond on Sunday? Here's a crazy idea: maybe we could make audio recordings of these things, transcribe them, and post the transcripts on this site. I'll do transcription if someone provides an audio cassette or CD.
Anyway, what happened at the Pond?
-- Gabe
Yea, and Cheers to Angelo and the fine people who helped him get published.
As for the Pond, yes. I am always glad when the in-gallery discussion is suggested and actually happens. The idea of a landscape show, and especially a discussion about that idea, has always struck me as very interesting and also overwhelming. It's difficult to say "let's sit down and discuss, in the span of a couple hours, everything around us!" I know this is exaggerated, but the word landscape is always one that is more invigorating the further the definition is stretched. Plus, I love the internet and all, but conversations are always more fun and worthwhile when they happen with real people who are actually in front of you. Thanks Pond guys.
Brian
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 Aeelms at aol.com wrote:
It is a cult already. I loved the book. I am inspired to redecorate my house. /jno
Thanks Gabe. The "smarmy older gentleman" is Dave Whitman - a longtime friend and collaborator of Temporary Services and a great enthusiast of Angelo's drawings. Stories recorded by Dave are included in our traveling Audio Relay project (to be presented again in Chicago eventually) and may also get a more public presentation later this summer. I'll keep you posted. Marc
Gabriel Fowler wrote: Yes, the "Prisoner's Inventions" event at Quimby's was a good time. Personal highlight: when Brett lit a guy's cigarette with a re-fabricated prison lighter. The contraption looked questionable and cumbersome, but it worked like a charm and didn't explode or anything. After the semi-formal presentation by Temporary Services, a smarmy older gentleman read several prison love letters with gusto. Who was this guy?! He implied that he knew about prison life, but never provided much of a bio.
Gabe asks: So what happened at the Pond?
There was a formal informal discussion held, mostly about nature and landscape as a genre in general. It started off slow, but the pace picked up quickly and we ended a little too abruptly.
What issues were raised? Nostalgia, obviously, kept rearing its head into the conversation. But to what effect, it is still unclear to me. I can remember many people agreeing that landscape can be a skeleton upon which to hang your content, which, disturbed be, because landscape as a genre can not come along without its historical baggage. At least, it seems ill informed to do so.
I attempted to discuss that the relationship man has had towards nature in the western art tradition has been one of fear and a desire to dominate or conquer. Which, consciously or unconsciously, to a greater or lesser degree, is a realized goal. Which gained the response, nature would have the last laugh.
Some people talked about nature as an unrealizable desire and the mediation of our experience with nature, but it pretty much ended at that. There was no development of a full blown tourism of the body.
One person proposed that an interest in landscape surfaced roughly every 30 or 40 years. That, it perhaps moved in cycles. I could not help but infer that this had to do with A.) trends and B.) more specifically fashion. I felt a little too misanthropic and defeated to interject. But, speaking of manipulation…
The implicit consensus concerning curators curating themselves into their own shows was that in certain situations, its not really a big deal, in others, it can be. A question concerning the history of the curator was raised, thoughtfully so. I believe there is still a lot of room for continued re-definition of this position.
I think there is room for artist “organized” exhibitions that includes the work of whoever is seeking exhibition. It is not a problem of etiquette for me, but rather, an abuse of power that I find problematic. (abuse either of position or audience expectation) When is a curator simply an organizer? It seems to me that Middle Management is an artist (for lack of a better term) collective that exists autonomously from The Pond. They proposed a show and the Pond accepted. The mediator legitimizes the transaction.
However, even if a member of the Pond were to exhibit in the Pond, I still do not see an extreme abuse of power. So long as it was not the artists sole decision for inclusion. Mainly, because the intentions behind an artist run exhibition space tend to be that of an honest resource for its community, at the expense of the artists who run it. I am sure that the work of its individual members is believed in, and if it gets included from time to time, myself as an audience member is happy to see it. I don’t feel as if my gaze has been exploited or manipulated.
I do concede that this is not always the case.
Ben Foch
P.S. all cults have an insignia. Anthony, what should our insignia be?
How about the OG logo from the Ice-T record?
see: [http://www.seditionists.org/HFh/reviews/016.nj10.html]
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Gabriel Fowler wrote:
OK, I cant find a "reviews" subdirectory. Why not fetch the image and send it to images at spaces.org - I'll post it on the OG webspace. /jno
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 BenFoch at aol.com wrote:
Actually, so do alternating conservative and radical politics, wars, and fashion. That is the sidereal orbit of Saturn, BTW. And it is the time needed to replace one scientificism with another - time for all the academics of the old school to die or retire. But, to landscapes:
I always thought the Dutch invented landscapes, even though I know they happen as backgrouds in renaisance portraits. Then i ran into two landscapes done as interior murals in Catal Huyuk - one is a view of the same village against the local background of two vulcanoes (both now quiet). In Anatolia, 8000 BP. The rest of the imagery is just weird and disturbing.
later /jno