What the christ is this? I'm not sure what the Whitney should do, but I know that this isn't going to endear anyone to the idea that 600K is going to a good cause by putting up ugly disjointed vinyl graphics on things. This I expect from the students who design work for (insert town here) window project. I hope the other three artists will have more success.
Edward Winkleman seems to have a similar problems processing the details behind the proposed new Whitney space as I do. I think the trap he talks about is the same advice given to contestants on the game show, wait, I mean important cultural launching pad that is Project Runway. Make it more, and push yourself. You have to have a unique Identity™ and be able to surprise the judges.
They are bored with you and know everything about you before you have your first line finished. One piece of clothing is a whole season to them. The next week you have to have another "new line" as one piece. The new gallery space needs to served the function of presenting art as much as satisfy the vocal minority of critics who will pan whatever is put up.
To continue my exploration of the ethics, for the museum, the space has to serve two masters. You can't win. Something is compromised. If the space is a white cube, you get panned for falling back on old presentation memes. If you go Bibao with your new space, you will get panned for the failure that is inherent to starchitecture. So a compromise is always staring at you. Choose the red or blue pill and you are sacrificing something. The museum's ethics demand you find a third road and keep the professionals who need to work in this space happy and the critical public happy.
Consider this: the original Breuer building was born of Starchitecture. It created this situation.
17 April 2010
16 April 2010
Thursday April 15
On Tax Day, I saw a pile of kick ass art. Most of what I saw were further examples of hybrid multiples.
I started at the Louise Bourgeois at Barbara Krakow. There are approx 8 double spreads of Twinrocker paper printed with intaglio plates and letterpress. These were printed by Peter Pettengill of Wingate and are then hand painted over by Louise. The images weren't very evocative to me, but these were not prints, or more importantly should not be tied to printerly rules. Who cares if there is a layer of intaglio under the drawings? They're work better if you consider them unique works of art rather than some type of multiple. Yet they are editioned. The other complication is that they suggest a book in their presentation. Yet their individual voices are what Louise was pursuing. I'm not sure why this wasn't a book, but whose going to tell her that she could push her work further?
Second was Anthony Greaney's gallery. Currently up is a quick show of some of the greatest hits from his galleries short existence. Daniel Ellis has an object on exhibit that I thought was a painting the first time I saw it, but turns out to be an ink jet print for lack of better word. Does it make it a print? Printers would hate you if you said so. What's the difference between it and a digital photograph? Just because it doesn't use a lens to make the image? They both are built up of 1's and 0's and are filtered through some kind of adobe product probably. It's just a bit squishy how this will be received. He could clearly make multiples of this, but chose not to. An ink jet doesn't sound sexy and raises the archival issue for collectors.
Later I watched Joan Jonas perform at MIT, where they gave her an award for being one the awesomest peoples ever, and right they should. Her work last night was about glaciers and pulled text from an Hilda Doolittle epic poem, the title of which I didn't write down. It was performed at a desk with a video monitor over her hands, involved many of the same sounds, methods, and themes found here. The drawings are not on paper. They are not for sketches. The video is not for posterity. They are not the finished work. The performance is not to be looked at, but viewed through the monitor. Where is the work located in this? Which part of this is the thing?
Her work is performance for video, but has to be live. How does one document this ethically? Should there be a recording of the various people working on the performance and on the video screen? Should you be able to produce copies of the screen image as the work? Are the various flat images on paper/transparency/actual objects important to the object, or are they incidental? Meaning, would the institute purchase the pictures used under the camera if they bought the work? She raises more questions than I have answers.
Either way, along with some great people to hang with, it was a wonderful day.
I started at the Louise Bourgeois at Barbara Krakow. There are approx 8 double spreads of Twinrocker paper printed with intaglio plates and letterpress. These were printed by Peter Pettengill of Wingate and are then hand painted over by Louise. The images weren't very evocative to me, but these were not prints, or more importantly should not be tied to printerly rules. Who cares if there is a layer of intaglio under the drawings? They're work better if you consider them unique works of art rather than some type of multiple. Yet they are editioned. The other complication is that they suggest a book in their presentation. Yet their individual voices are what Louise was pursuing. I'm not sure why this wasn't a book, but whose going to tell her that she could push her work further?
Second was Anthony Greaney's gallery. Currently up is a quick show of some of the greatest hits from his galleries short existence. Daniel Ellis has an object on exhibit that I thought was a painting the first time I saw it, but turns out to be an ink jet print for lack of better word. Does it make it a print? Printers would hate you if you said so. What's the difference between it and a digital photograph? Just because it doesn't use a lens to make the image? They both are built up of 1's and 0's and are filtered through some kind of adobe product probably. It's just a bit squishy how this will be received. He could clearly make multiples of this, but chose not to. An ink jet doesn't sound sexy and raises the archival issue for collectors.
Later I watched Joan Jonas perform at MIT, where they gave her an award for being one the awesomest peoples ever, and right they should. Her work last night was about glaciers and pulled text from an Hilda Doolittle epic poem, the title of which I didn't write down. It was performed at a desk with a video monitor over her hands, involved many of the same sounds, methods, and themes found here. The drawings are not on paper. They are not for sketches. The video is not for posterity. They are not the finished work. The performance is not to be looked at, but viewed through the monitor. Where is the work located in this? Which part of this is the thing?
Her work is performance for video, but has to be live. How does one document this ethically? Should there be a recording of the various people working on the performance and on the video screen? Should you be able to produce copies of the screen image as the work? Are the various flat images on paper/transparency/actual objects important to the object, or are they incidental? Meaning, would the institute purchase the pictures used under the camera if they bought the work? She raises more questions than I have answers.
Either way, along with some great people to hang with, it was a wonderful day.
12 April 2010
Ethics of teh moneys
Yup. Now we will barely look at the deep end. I have no idea what really goes on at such large institutions, but the reality is that if you want to run something larger than local, something where you can present art that is bigger than some cats you've met or the 2 galleries that your grad school friends founded-- you need to have a budget. This budget gets out of hand quickly. One minute you found a tiny gallery with friends the next you have a massive budget that is dependent on private and public funding, run a few non-profit spin offs, and 26 years later are "a contemporary art powerhouse."
In the case of the Whitney... we have some giant budgets, egos, and well, everything. Imagine. When you consider the ethics involved with the decision making process, it would be staggering. Lauder's $131 million ties the hands of the institution and proves the point that money talks in the art world. Yet it also gives the institution the flexibility to use the money to make choices. It seems that they've made choices already though.
They're making payments on a space in case they want it. It's only 600K a year, but still. Imagine the wrestling match behind the scenes.
Obviously, there are disadvantages of starchitecture and few if any of the rewards. But the Whitney finds itself at a cross roads. I hope that the numerous egos involved put the institution first when deciding how they will proceed. I have no opinion about rebuild/move/etc, but it's clear that they do not want to keep things status quo.
In the case of the Whitney... we have some giant budgets, egos, and well, everything. Imagine. When you consider the ethics involved with the decision making process, it would be staggering. Lauder's $131 million ties the hands of the institution and proves the point that money talks in the art world. Yet it also gives the institution the flexibility to use the money to make choices. It seems that they've made choices already though.
They're making payments on a space in case they want it. It's only 600K a year, but still. Imagine the wrestling match behind the scenes.
Obviously, there are disadvantages of starchitecture and few if any of the rewards. But the Whitney finds itself at a cross roads. I hope that the numerous egos involved put the institution first when deciding how they will proceed. I have no opinion about rebuild/move/etc, but it's clear that they do not want to keep things status quo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)