Harald Szeeman's exhibition at Kunsthalle Bern, May 1969.
Daniel Birnbaum on Szeemann
Complete list of artists
Carol Thea interview with Szeeman
David Levi Strauss about Szeemann and Hopps.
Brief obit for Szeemann.
23 March 2010
When Attitude Becomes Form
Harald Szeeman's exhibition at Kunsthalle Bern, May 1969.
Daniel Birnbaum on Szeemann
Complete list of artists
Carol Thea interview with Szeeman
David Levi Strauss about Szeemann and Hopps.
Brief obit for Szeemann.
22 March 2010
Museums serve the public right?
The Guggenheim has auctioned off stuff practically directly from their gallery.
Powhida talks ethics and morals.
Hashtag class has just finished its run.
We seem to be fighting with what art is and should function in terms of ethic or morals. Sure. But I believe that these three have a subtext about the non-profit and its assumption of non-profitness.
Let's review. The non-profit art space is granted that legal status why? It serves the public by being a location of reference. It becomes a location where we store our physical goods that are deemed to be influential and of note. Like the news paper of yesteryear being the paper-of-record, the museum serves a similar function. We ask that the non-profit museum acts in our interests, or at least pretends to act in our interest.
The question of how the museum is or isn't a public institution is the question at hand. It has to be profitable and raise insane amounts of money yearly. One part of the Museum's job is collecting the work, the collectors, the scholars, the curators, the staff into one place to make the museum function as a public institution. But the museum's morals and ethics are often stretched by this basic job.
Gathering the coffee sales people is not usually a decision fraught with ethics, but an artist acting as curator, who has been collected by a board member who is a major benefactor to the institution is. Selling art from a show should bring up red flags. The questions raised by Brandeis with the Rose is a similar situation. Does the non-profit status of the art museum allow for gathering of property that will be sold off at an opportune time? Not at all by most people's estimation. One cannot start a collection, say it's in the public's interest and then just change your mind that it was actually a liquid collection that will be up for sale to the highest bidder.
So, instead of going all Andrea Fraser and critiquing the museum through our art, we seem to be talking about this in public via words?! Amazing. We might be growing up yet. One thing I hope is that as people like Powhida are smart competent thinkers, I hope that the opportunity to self-publish constantly, and without much editorial challenge won't keep them from working these ideas out completely and writing what would be a fascinating book about this subject. 140 characters, no matter how often, does not allow for full thoughts.
Powhida talks ethics and morals.
Hashtag class has just finished its run.
We seem to be fighting with what art is and should function in terms of ethic or morals. Sure. But I believe that these three have a subtext about the non-profit and its assumption of non-profitness.
Let's review. The non-profit art space is granted that legal status why? It serves the public by being a location of reference. It becomes a location where we store our physical goods that are deemed to be influential and of note. Like the news paper of yesteryear being the paper-of-record, the museum serves a similar function. We ask that the non-profit museum acts in our interests, or at least pretends to act in our interest.
The question of how the museum is or isn't a public institution is the question at hand. It has to be profitable and raise insane amounts of money yearly. One part of the Museum's job is collecting the work, the collectors, the scholars, the curators, the staff into one place to make the museum function as a public institution. But the museum's morals and ethics are often stretched by this basic job.
Gathering the coffee sales people is not usually a decision fraught with ethics, but an artist acting as curator, who has been collected by a board member who is a major benefactor to the institution is. Selling art from a show should bring up red flags. The questions raised by Brandeis with the Rose is a similar situation. Does the non-profit status of the art museum allow for gathering of property that will be sold off at an opportune time? Not at all by most people's estimation. One cannot start a collection, say it's in the public's interest and then just change your mind that it was actually a liquid collection that will be up for sale to the highest bidder.
So, instead of going all Andrea Fraser and critiquing the museum through our art, we seem to be talking about this in public via words?! Amazing. We might be growing up yet. One thing I hope is that as people like Powhida are smart competent thinkers, I hope that the opportunity to self-publish constantly, and without much editorial challenge won't keep them from working these ideas out completely and writing what would be a fascinating book about this subject. 140 characters, no matter how often, does not allow for full thoughts.
15 March 2010
art revolution
Most of this article from Boston.com I agree with.
If the local institutions were to ante up, the artist community would be better off. True. My one critique is that they obviously don't want to.
Which leaves us at:
1. how do we do this without them?
2. how do we convince them it's in their best interest?
Harvard is too conservative and way behind the times to start an art degree. They're still not sure if humanism was a good idea. Good luck convincing them that contemporary art could be a field of studies.
It sounds like a well conceived non-profit with a comfortable budget would fill some of these roles. Something like apex art should be in Boston. No question. We should be the space in the US for curatorial studies. But Bard (of all places) has become that. We have the academics and institutions, but have a blind spot for anything visual.
As for having tons of students, only in undergrad. Add up all the grad students coming out of Boston, and we don't even match up to one gradating year from Art Institute of Chicago. We just don't have that many who are working on an MFA here. AIB, SMFA, MassArt, and BU have fewer than 10 per year each.
And last, good luck convincing them to give moneys to MFA students. This is something I've been arguing should happen for years, but is a bit idealistic. There would have to be a push for professionals to set up funds for endowed chairs and other common academic roles inside the university. Until art departments are able to be good programs from the university's point of view (bringing in status members to staff, revenue positive, etc), we will always be considered a second class program. Bring in money, and guess what! The university will take care the students in the program. You can't expect the sciences/medical/literature dept/etc to let the money they bring into the university to pay for art students, which is what you are asking for.
If the local institutions were to ante up, the artist community would be better off. True. My one critique is that they obviously don't want to.
Which leaves us at:
1. how do we do this without them?
2. how do we convince them it's in their best interest?
Harvard is too conservative and way behind the times to start an art degree. They're still not sure if humanism was a good idea. Good luck convincing them that contemporary art could be a field of studies.
It sounds like a well conceived non-profit with a comfortable budget would fill some of these roles. Something like apex art should be in Boston. No question. We should be the space in the US for curatorial studies. But Bard (of all places) has become that. We have the academics and institutions, but have a blind spot for anything visual.
As for having tons of students, only in undergrad. Add up all the grad students coming out of Boston, and we don't even match up to one gradating year from Art Institute of Chicago. We just don't have that many who are working on an MFA here. AIB, SMFA, MassArt, and BU have fewer than 10 per year each.
And last, good luck convincing them to give moneys to MFA students. This is something I've been arguing should happen for years, but is a bit idealistic. There would have to be a push for professionals to set up funds for endowed chairs and other common academic roles inside the university. Until art departments are able to be good programs from the university's point of view (bringing in status members to staff, revenue positive, etc), we will always be considered a second class program. Bring in money, and guess what! The university will take care the students in the program. You can't expect the sciences/medical/literature dept/etc to let the money they bring into the university to pay for art students, which is what you are asking for.
03 March 2010
Mira Schor: The Art of Nonconformist Criticality
Mira Schor: The Art of Nonconformist Criticality
Spend two hours thinking.
From 2006. Wonderful talk about-
the delay between initial thought and implementation
repetition from artists
what makes something feminist art
More than just that. Go on then! Download it and have a drink while you listen.
Spend two hours thinking.
From 2006. Wonderful talk about-
the delay between initial thought and implementation
repetition from artists
what makes something feminist art
More than just that. Go on then! Download it and have a drink while you listen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)