update

Met Nancy Spector and got to ask her about a couple things I was wondering about -

The heavy use of exhibition prints in the Richard Prince show was both a practical and conceptual decision, mostly practical, or at least a practical decision with a full awareness of the conceptual reading. The prints won't be destroyed... they'll be saved and stored for possible future use, and right now those prints are in Minneapolis for the upcoming Walker show. Regarding the fate of Second House, they - the artist and the museum - are not sure what to do with it yet, but it won't be re-made... they're trying to decide whether it should just be torn down or can somehow be preserved as is, maybe inside of a larger clear structure, somehow.

Nancy Spector will be lecturing on Richard Prince, at the Walker, March 22nd.

Robert Storr VS. Nancy Spector?

Robert Storr, in an affadavit written on behalf of Christoph Buchel -

“In my view, under no circumstance should a work of art be shown to the public until the artist has determined that it is finished."

Donn Zaretsky -

“This case presents questions of considerable significance in the art world: Does someone other than the visual artist have the right to decide when that artist’s work is finished or otherwise in a state suitable to be shown to the public?"

Makes me wonder about the Felix Gonzalez-Torres pools that are currently showing at the Venice Biennale. Isn't Storr the Artistic Director?

Gonzalez-Torres died in 1996, before he was ever able to realize the piece... but leaving five sketches for different versions of a work based on various proposal sites. Curator Nancy Spector suggested the piece for Venice 2007 - as "a never-before-realized sculpture"... "a new work, made from a drawing by Mr. Gonzalez-Torres but unrealized in his lifetime" - and made all fabrication and installation decisions.

Christopher Knight -

"Would Gonzalez-Torres choose Carrara marble for this location? Would he alter the pools' dimensions to accommodate this site? Would he display them on brick paving? Would he consider the work site-specific and destroy it after the show?" - It sold.

Blake Gopnik -

"Spector, for instance, has realized the reflecting pools, sketched out by Gonzalez-Torres as needing to be made in "local stone," in cliched white Carrara marble, from quarries hundreds of miles south of Venice. Gonzalez-Torres might have preferred the rose-colored stone, from nearby Verona, that the Venetian empire used for its most showy buildings."

This, the Buchel/MassMoca thing, is all so tangly. Way over my head, and I can barely stand most of them really (especially Sergio). BUT, fascinating... and I have to wonder, reading Storr's affadavit, how that squares with his view of the Gonzalez-Torres(?) sculpture, at the Biennale of which he is Artistic Director.

more from Robert Storr's affadavit -

"In sum, should a presentation be made at the sole discretion of a sponsoring institution, it not only runs counter to the interests of the artist but also to those of the public. Indeed that public is ill-served by the assumption that it will be satisfied by the experience of aesthetically incomplete works while its larger understanding of and sympathy for intrinsically challenging works of contemporary art may in the long term be substantially harmed by the confusion that inevitably arise from being confronted with works that have yet to be fully realized or resolved."

(funniest part in the affadavits - Buchel refers to the museum as Mass Coma. Ouch, that could stick)

White Columns Artist Registry... Matthew Higgs II

AN AMAZING COINCIDENCE! An artist who responded last week that she had "applied to White Columns and have kept my applications current and updated and have resubmitted at least 4 times, but have never, in 2 years, gotten a yes or no, even after emails and phone calls" got her White Columns Artist Registry rejection YESTERDAY! Weird, we were JUST talking about this last week.

Here is a quote from White Columns Curator/Director Matthew Higgs, from Clive Robertson's Policy Matters...

"I don't sympathize with empowerment, survival, battle, frustration and struggle. This essentially seems to be a defeatist or negative position. The idea of us being outsiders, I don't agree with at all. I do not recognize that concept [in the art field]. I'm an optimist. I genuinely cannot believe how exciting life is everyday...I don't see any struggle in the field we work in [which] is largely fuelled by the spirit of generosity."

Matthew, CHECK YOUR ARTIST REGISTRY INBOX!

A little more from the Clive Robertson book -

"Higgs leaned heavily on the purpose of artistic work "as a looking for or thinking about what doesn't exist in the world," to explain why "my practice as a curator is largely selfish. I make exhibitions that I want to see...I spend almost no time thinking about who the audience might be for the work I do." Current museum curators of modern or contemporary art are hardly likely to make the "fuck the audience" public statement that Higgs does; however, using the rhetoric of selfish concern for art or artist's intentions as an excuse to bracket out issues of empowerment or struggle has very much been the standard bailiwick of male art museum curators everywhere. While Higgs' personal ascension from Joy Division fanzine editor to the London's ICA and beyond is, for some, inspirational, it perhaps stretches the usefulness of a boundary-less concept of a curatorial practice within artist-run culture."

White Columns is currently showing Sleeve Notes - writing for/and or on record sleeves.

I'm thinking that as long as Higgs is running White Columns, it doesn't matter too much whether or not you are included in the registry. He isn't curating from it, he isn't interested in it, it doesn't sound like he has any interest in even the idea of it. Applying to that registry automatically identifies you as a possibly frustrated struggler, and Matt said (above) that he does not recognize that concept.

Lauren Ross, the curator/director previous to Higgs, often included artists from the registry. All of the artists from her last show at White Columns, Semi-Lucid, are currently listed in the registry -

Andrea Aimi
Giovanni Garcia-Fenech
Robert Gutierrez
Jesse Lambert
Robert Medvedz
Jiha Moon
Aaron Noble
Julian Pozzi

Previous to that she curated Breaking Ground, of which eight of the nine included artists are currently in the registry (including Gedi Sibony), before that was RANDOM ORDER, of which all but two of the nine included artists are currently in the registry, and before that she co-curated Regarding Gloria... with five of those artists currently listed in the registry. There are plenty of other Ross-curated shows between those, and previous to, with artist registry artists.

I like research but I'm tired from trying to find a registry artist in a Higgs show. I give up.

White Columns Artist Registry... Matthew Higgs

Is White Columns Artist Registry still active? I saw the following anonymous complaint in the comments section of this Edward Winkleman post last month -

"A friend of mine (not me, I swear) submitted her work to White Columns registry and still hasn't gotten a yes or no in over two years, despite repeated follow-up emails."

Maybe that person has the wrong e-mail, or is not getting through for some reason? I wonder if the friend tried submitting again? I'm hoping it is a goof because I submitted stuff almost two months ago and was wondering how long I might wait before I should expect a response. This is my second time to submit, I have a rejection letter from the previous curator, Paul Ha, from maybe 1998, before they had the on-line registry. Matthew Higgs runs it now.

I browsed through a bunch of the artists on the current site, many are familiar names. Some of them have updated their pages recently - it's a do-it-yourself thing - but a surprising amount of artist's pages have been dormant for two or three years or more (a lot of those dormant pages are the work of artists who have since found commercial representation in NYC, and have probably just abandoned their sites).

So... what is the deal? Does anyone know? Are there a lot of other people who have sent stuff and are all waiting? Has anyone had anything at all happen in the past four years or so (or not) from having their work included in that registry? I am NOT trying to harsh too much on White Columns, the shows and art are excellent, just want to know if the registry program, curating shows from it, is phased out... kind of bummed if so...

From the White Columns website -

"The purpose of the registry is twofold: as a source from which White Columns shows are curated; and as a resource for curators, dealers, writers, and others who are seeking the work of emerging artists."

NONE of the artists included in the most recently closed (Jan 9 - Feb 10) exhibitions are included in the Artist's Registry. That includes the four artists who had their own shows, and the seventeen artists included in the Rita Ackermann curated group show.

Actually, it doesn't look like any of the artists in the current shows are included in the registry either. I guess, if the main gallery is showing "writing for and/or on record sleeves", and another space is featuring the late Felix Gonzalez-Torres, that the under-supported artist thing may be not so high on the agenda anymore.

Oh shit, I just googled another one of the current artists, someone shortlisted for Beck's, invited to do a project at Frieze, and included in Saatchi's collection. And this is the second time he's shown at White Columns since 2005!

I remember seeing the White Columns booth at NADA in Miami in 2005. It was sparkling white, set up like a solo gallery show, featuring the (wonderful) work of Aurie Ramirez. It was totally empty, except for Matthew Higgs sitting at a table in the center. I guess Aurie Ramirez would say thanks, if she spoke in a language that anyone could translate, or if she even gave a shit.

The full (anomymous) comment from Ed Winkleman's blog -

"Also worth noting, as Holland Cotter did in a recent review of a Triple Candie show, that the the supposedly alternative spaces are becoming more and more like commercial galleries. Specifically, they seem to be showing more "name" artists and fewer lesser known emerging artists.

White Columns under Matthew Higgs, for example, seems largely to have abandoned the practice of drawing from its curated artist registry when putting together its shows. It's becoming rare, now, to see artists from the White Columns registry on display at White Columns.

A friend of mine (not me, I swear) submitted her work to White Columns registry and still hasn't gotten a yes or no in over two years, despite repeated follow-up emails. Is this bad management, or is it because Mr. Higgs has decided that unknown emerging artists applying to the registry are no longer a priority?

This is not to pick on White Columns -- they are getting favorable reviews for their shows under Mr. Higgs, so why not? I'm sure their funders love it. But for emerging artists hoping that alternative spaces will give them their big break, the increasing commercialization of these spaces noted by Mr. Cotter may not be good news"

UPDATE 2/22/07: WHITE COLUMNS IS AT THE ARMORY FAIR... maybe a few people can ask Matthew about what is up with the registry?

Oh man, it is so sad that White Columns has left blank the "who i'd like to meet" question on its Myspace page.

James Siena and Window

James Siena and window, at Reynolds Gallery.

This reminds me of the Rudolf Stingel that was in Curator of Last Year's About Painting show. That was a a silvery painting hung in a hall between a door and a window, the silver-grey windowshade almost the exact texture of the painting.

The old Tang site had the entire show on-line, but it seems to be gone now. The only thing I can find is this little blurb (scroll down) by David Brickman for the Albany-based Metroland -

"With 67 artists in one exhibition, there are so many permutations as to defy drawing any real conclusions. Perhaps that’s the point of Tang curator Ian Berry’s overwhelming cornucopia of styles and personalities presented under the vaguely bombastic title About Painting (a smaller selection also on view in the museum titled About Sculpture is far more comprehensible, even if by design less comprehensive).

Two things, however, are abundantly clear: Berry loves paintings; and there is no shortage of artists out there who love to make them. What struck me as particularly odd is that, apparently, more than half of those painters worthy of consideration just happen to live in Brooklyn. An absurd instance of an all-too-prevailing attitude in the art world.

In fact, great paintings are probably made every day in just about every country and state. Here, there are 71 pieces, of which only a few could accurately be called great. I’ll leave it up to you (as does Berry) to contemplate the show and then decide which ones those might be. It’s a good bet you’ll enjoy the process."

That last part is true because as we saw this show we made marks next to each artist's name signifying our responses to the work; a circle by the favorites, an X by the unliked ones, and a wavy line by the okays and undecideds. We did enjoy the process, and happened to run into Ian, whom I think enjoyed looking at our marks. I forget who now, but there was one artist we had X'd of whom Ian said "you're wrong about that one" - so we went back and re-evaluated. It was interesting that he didn't say we were wrong about the other X'd ones.

BONUS: my David Brickman review!!

Curator of Last Year

Edward hasn't made any Curator of the Month posts in a while... so I will post on the Curator of Last Year.


This is Ian Berry.

Ian was the co-curator (along with Michael Duncan) of the Richard Pettibone show I saw last November at the Tang Museum. The Tang usually has three different shows up at a time, one in each of the two main galleries and a third in the small mezzanine gallery (sometimes they have a forth or fifth something happening in the lobby). Ian, as the "main" curator at the Tang, was also responsible for the two exhibitions running concurrent with Pettibone's - the co-curated (with Bill Arning) Kate Ericson and Mel Ziegler show in the other big gallery and Kathy Butterly's exhibition in the mezzanine space. Each show was excellent, but it was on my second or third visit that I started to get how brilliantly they all fit together.

My notes are long gone... but I am remembering the miniaturizing and care of Pettibone with the very small and detailed Butterly sculptures with the tiny Rushmore "copy" and dollhouses of Ericson/Ziegler... the repetition of Pettibone with Butterly's pieces all lined up in one long row with Ericson/Ziegler's bars of soap, rows of jars, and small trains (which bring me back again to Pettibone's trains)... Pettibone's Shaker stuff with Ericson/Ziegler's cupboards and chests with Butterly's "teapots". Much much more.. I can't remember it all

So, Ian Berry is Curator of Last Year.

Pulse, at 1708 Gallery

VMFA curator John Ravenal, in Rachel Hayes' piece. It cast green shadows on the inside walls. This blog has become The Rachel Hayes Blog; I can't help it, she keeps showing good work in Richmond. Maybe John is thinking something like this would be good to put against that big blank wall and have our group VMFA installation in?

Rachel at Anderson Gallery.
Rachel at ADA Gallery.
Rachel at Sculpture Center.

Chris Ashley is exhibiting an entire year's worth of his daily html drawings, printed out and hung in a big grid on the wall; there are four or five blank sheets that I think represent a week during which he was unable to get to a computer. GO TO HIS BLOG and start following his work. I can't believe he makes/posts these things every day AND that he is able to get so much variety out of them. The recent ones are making me think of Stephen Westfall.

I like these best on the computer, seeing them printed out is sort of like seeing a print of a painting, like I'm not seeing the "real" thing; but looking at an entire year's worth all at once on the wall is also exciting. Seeing how one piece informs the next, and how a group forms, and how that leads to another group.

The prints are being sold for twenty-five dollars apiece, I think they are signed editions of one. You can also buy a CD of all of them, for something like ten bucks. With the CD you can print out as many (unsigned) copies that you want, maybe even different sizes(?).

Steve Karlik and Brad Hampton are both showing paintings. Steve's paintings, on his website, look similar to Chris' html drawings. Weird to consider that on-line you are seeing Chris' stuff as intended and Steve's stuff once removed, while in the gallery it is Steve's work as intended with Chris' work once removed. I find, in the context of both this show and on the net, Chris' work the more absorbing. The paintings were a little dry for me here.

Steve was included in Presentational Painting III at Hunter earlier this year.
Conversation/Interview between Steve Karlik and Chris Ashley.
JT Kirkland intrigued by Brad Hampton.

Annoying Part: This sentence from the curator's statement - we believe the resilience of painting reveals itself through its ability to adapt its fundamental practices to new mediums - and this part from Richard Roth's catalogue essay - the painting-like works expand our notions of painting and reinvigorate painting without having to be painting.

What a burden! Having to be painting! Richard is the most neurotic head of the most neurotic painting department on the planet. So so tired. This is a show of six artists, two of whom are showing paintings.

Get over it! It isn't painting, it's okay!

a little PULSE

Who is that little kid who has cornered two girls in Rachel Hayes' fort?


It's THE FARTIST!!!!

I took these photos from Pulse co-curator Peter Baldes' Pulse flickr set. I haven't had much opportunity to sit at the computer recently, more Pulse stuff coming soon - hopefully tomorrow.

Style Weekly's Becky Shields had a review of the show last week. She really nailed Peter. I heard that Heide Trepanier was pissed off about it(?) and wrote a letter to Style Weekly, but I didn't see a letter in this week's issue. Maybe next week?

various AWESOME news in the world of ART

Good. Tyler has today addressed the Whitney Biennial question I posed to him yesterday.

Hey struggling artists, here's another one: Do you know that the Museum of Modern Art recently bought a painting by Tony Curtis for its permanent collection? Yes, I know, he really hasn't gotten his due. Which one is it? Who is the curator responsible for this purchase? Please please please release a statement about the awesome art of Tony Curtis.

i'm not in the Whitney Biennial again

The list is out.

The show is touted in today's NYTimes as being international, because they have included so many European artists, but it isn't really. No Asians, for example (except for Rirkrit). The two curators are both Europeans, so... SURPRISE!

Alas, poor Whitney Museum of American Art mission statement. Where are you? The NYTimes piece states that "the curators have scoured artists' studios in art capitals like Milan, London, Paris and Berlin". Of course they have, if you were a curator would you rather travel on the museum's dime to Paris and Milan or Richmond and Indianapolis?

Very happy that Philadelphian Zoe Strauss, an artist often championed on Roberta and Libby's blog, is included. The news came to Zoe as a complete surprise - did the two curators visit any studios in Philadelphia? I'm curious. Why not select Roberta and Libby too? Seriously, they are excellent artists making a huge impact.

No artblogs are included, although I think there are some that should be. This is art. Even this is might be considered art, whatever his intentions or motivations, he is most certainly creating Social Sculpture. No artblogs included (as far as I am aware) is NOT surprising, but it is a shortcoming. Come on, curators, catch up!

Zoe Strauss' very very happy, funny, and excited blog entry announcing her inclusion in the Whitney Biennial. Also includes the full list of participating artists.

OC Artblog on Zoe Strauss with funny comment by Zoe Strauss.

Photos of Recommendation: Thumbs-Up Mandala: Judith Stein

Photos of Recommendation: Thumbs-Up Mandala: Judith Stein, originally uploaded by Bromirski.

This is art writer/collector/curator Judith Stein.

Carol Es just wrote that she visited with Judith while in Philadelphia and that "Judith has co-curated a show at Slought with Gabe Greenberg called Comicology: The New Magical Real, which includes original comic book art".

I remember seeing Judith's Horace Pippin show at the PAFA, it was so good. Great paintings, great setting.

Pat Adams
William Bailey
Nayland Blake
Carl Dennis
Lois Dodd
Inka Essenhigh
Roberta Fallon
Jonathan Franzen
David Gates
Peter Halley
Wolf Kahn
Ray Kass
Sarah McEneaney
Melissa Meyer
Carl Phillips
Libby Rosof
Sherod Santos
Kai Vierstra
Larry Woiwode

Relativity

Relativity, originally uploaded by Bromirski.

Someone was kind enough to send me some photos of Relativity, the Anderson Gallery's current exhibition, featuring the work of four local artists (Jeannine Harkleroad, Chris Norris, Sun Tek Chung, James Davis) each paired with that of artists from the gallery's collection.

The galleries look good, as good as I've seen yet, but some aspects of the installation really bother me. The artwork of the four locals (all of whom work for VCU) is well-presented but that of artist's from the gallery's collection is mostly annoying and frustrating.

The picture above is of the work of James Davis paired with that of Jules Olitski. The three pieces on the wall belong to Davis; Olitski's prints are on the pedestals. Those pedestals are at least five feet high and covered with plexiglass. I'm six feet tall and except for the edges all I could see was glare. ANNOYING! I'm pretty sure that is not the way the artist intended for them to be presented. Here is what they supposedly look like, but although I've seen them for real I can't confirm that. Hey George, sometimes it is better to see things on the web!

There was a funny(?) moment at the opening when I was on the periphery of a circle admiring Davis' work (including the artist and Dean Richard Toscan) and Elizabeth King was introducing Davis and his work to a couple. She made a sweeping gesture with her arm saying something like "James did all these" which ended with her hand on the Olitski pedestals. I said those were by Jules Olitski and she looked a bit confused. I forget what we said next exactly but I did tell Toscan that I know Olitski's daughter. I was on his left and he continued to look straight ahead and sort of ignore me. Toscan looks like David Paymer to me, whenever I see him I think it's the mob guy from ABC's Line of Fire (it was set in Richmond!).

Almost as bad as the presentation of the Olitskis was the presentation of a photograph by Thomas Daniel, the artist whose work is juxtaposed with that of Sun Tek Chung. I say almost as bad because if you get on your knees and tilt your head to the side you are able to check out Daniel's photograph, whereas with the Olitskis you don't have a chance. Here it is.

At the recommendation of a more sensible artist friend I contacted the curator, Amy Hauft, for more insight into some of her presentation decisions and she wrote back explaining some of her ideas:

"In all cases with the works from the Anderson collection, I wanted to take them away from being exclusively images and force them into being "things". I did this with the Olitskis by presenting them on edge at eye level atop pedestals of their exact dimension. As mentioned in the handout, I wanted to highlight the iridescent ink that was more visually pronounced at that angle. In some ways, you could say that I was treating them the way that James Davis treats his materials. He maximizes what they are materially and then uses that materiality to create his imagery. As for the Daniel photo on the floor... certainly taking the image off the wall and leaning it against the wall turns it into more of an object. I am a sculptor and I always find power in object-ness. Because a thing is in the room with us, it is less ignorable, more undeniable. Part of it was a sense of numbers - that there were/are so many of them (the daughters)...they are waiting in the wings. Part of it is to indicate that its a working project, metaphorically rearrangeable to create other relationships."

I'm glad she wrote back and I get what she was trying to do, but I think the project fails. First of all, they were never "exclusively" images and have always been things; they don't need to be forced. The Olitski pieces now are not only no longer images but irrelevant. The "things" that James Davis' work is relating to are three five-foot-high reflective pedestals.

I'm also extremely disconcerted at the amount of curatorial liscence taken with the work. Why does the art serve the curator and not the curator serve the art? Amy Hauft is an artist herself and the creator of a fantastic installation at the Beaver College Art Gallery a few years ago but suppose a future curator were to reinstall her piece at ankle-level in a pitch-black room, or on a wall, and present it as a Hauft? What is a curator's responsibility to an artist's intention?

I'll post more about the individual artists later, I had to post about the presentation first.

RELATED: Hans Dieter Huber Artists as Curators - Curators as Artists?

Libby Lumpkin - OPTIONS 2005

Got my rejection, at least a week ago, for the OPTIONS 2005 show.

On Friday I saw this post on Lenny's blog informing that the juror, Libby Lumpkin, "has scheduled her second visit to the area later this month. She will be continuing her tour of graduate programs in the area, as well as reviewing remaining written submissions in the WPA/C office".

This weekend I heard about a couple of other artists who have also received their rejections. The funny thing is that everyone I know who has applied has received a rejection except all the current grad students I know that applied. What does that mean? Especially after reading the sentence highlighted above? Are some artists being rejected by slides and some by studio visits? Are artists affiliated with institutions being given preferential consideration?

Someone told me that she will be at VCU this Wednesday visiting studios - I'm not sure if she is visiting everyone's studio or only those students that applied to be in the OPTIONS 2005 show. My feeling is that if I were a current VCU grad student I wouldn't have already received an OPTIONS rejection - I would be getting a studio visit from the curator. I know a number of good-enough VCU grads that didn't apply - if one of them ends up in this OPTIONS show I'm going to puke.

What would Dave Hickey say???

How to Get an Interview at The Drawing Center

Last month I let you know how you can have your work considered for inclusion in the Whitney Biennial - at the end of this post. Now I will show you how to cheat your way into an appointment to show your work to a curator at The Drawing Center, for possible inclusion in a Selections Exhibition, even if your submitted slides have been rejected.

The Drawing Center has two excellent programs, the Viewing Program and the Slide Registry. Submitted materials are reviewed by the curatorial staff for possible inclusion in the Slide Registry and for a portfolio review at The Drawing Center. At the portfolio review, a staff curator meets with each artist to offer comments and advice.

I've had two private meetings with Drawing Center curators, the first I got legitimately and was a complete waste of time which I will relate later. The second time I cheated my way into an appointment, and was fortunate to meet with someone who really took the time to study my work and let me know what he thought (he didn't like it, but he was so good it didn't matter).

If you get a legit invitation to make an appointment to bring your stuff in for review you will be sent a letter requesting you call the Drawing Center and schedule the appointment. Nobody will doublecheck this. So all you have to do is call and say "I'm calling to make an appointment to show my stuff for the Viewing Program. I got a letter". It's that easy. Actually, I didn't call, I just happened to be at the Drawing Center when I got the idea and went up to the girl at the reception desk. She made an appointment for me the next day!

Good Luck!! (Don't tell any Curators!!!!!)