Portland art blog + news + exhibition reviews + galleries + contemporary northwest art

recent entries

Resist: Inauguration at Una Gallery
Early February links
First Thursday Picks February 2017
Dead tree media & dead horse flogging news
Post Snowpocalypse Weekend Picks
More Disjecta'd
New Year opportunities
Monday Integrity Links
First Thursday Picks January 2017
Jason Berlin + Alanna Risse at Rainmaker
Saying goodby to 2016
Mid December Links

recent comments

categories

 

Book Review
Calls for Artists
Design Review
Essays
Interviews
News
Openings & Events
Photoblogs
Reviews
Video
Links
About PORT

regular contributors

 

Tori Abernathy
Amy Bernstein
Katherine Bovee
Emily Cappa
Patrick Collier
Arcy Douglass
Megan Driscoll
Jesse Hayward
Sarah Henderson
Jeff Jahn
Kelly Kutchko
Drew Lenihan
Victor Maldonado
Christopher Moon
Jascha Owens
Alex Rauch
Gary Wiseman

archives

 

Guest Contributors
Past Contributors
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005

contact us

 

Contact us

search

 


syndicate

 

Atom
RSS

powered by

 

Movable Type 3.16

This site is licensed under a

 

Creative Commons License

Monday 01.20.14

« Powell - Basquiat Links | Main | Tuesday Links »

The Fail

Gallerist Edward Winkleman has a great post on young artists and how seriously they approach their next show... and the difference between being an art star and a rock star. It is also about how shows fail and my sense is that it is always "both" the gallery and artist who fail in their understanding of one another. This results in a massive dud of an exhibition because neither side understands their own position in relation to the other (which is what really matters). Of course both will usually try to distract blame away from themselves but at the root is a kind of dysfunctional collaboration. For non profit shows the situation works the same...

Ed's take (as always) is very New York centric, cogent and makes a point about the necessary game of self-deluding that most young (and old) artists make about their lifestyle choices but it applies to Portland as well.

Sysmo1.jpg

It really applies to any place with a scene, i.e. somewhere where enough artists and other art world resources have congregated so that a "Community of Desire" as Dave Hickey calls them in his essay My Weimar are capable of creating an ecosystem where peer review and audience are generated. The professional critics are both of this community and intentionally separate and its why we tend to either piss people off or delight them (with nothing in between). It's why so many artists think critics are either crazy or crucial champions (I get into that a little here).

Back on the main topic, in Portland the art world consists mostly of artists generating their own atmosphere to breath and presenters doing much the same. Nobody is getting rich off art in Portland. This makes it a hermetic enterprise and sometimes that means artists have breathed to many of their own fumes...

This is crucial because curators and critics track artists and are always evaluating them. As an artist you want to get our attention but if that next big exhibition is a letdown or seems like more of the same, rather than an attempt at stepping things up... then we either lose interest or if it is high enough profile, the critics will jump in and write a highly critical review.

Here are some ways artists often fail in these big statement exhibitions:

1) Hyperfocusing on certain technical details rather than the overall statement or effect. The exhibition might have merits but it gets bogged down in the minutia so that something gets lost in the shuffle (for video or computer based artists this can be a new technology that the artist underestimates or leaves till the last dog is hung). This isn't the worst type of failing... It is more of an Icarus-like moment where the pre-defined goals override the end product. It is a learning moment, where the artist can step back and see where they ran out of time or resources because they were doing something new and too complicated. Always leave room for flexibility. In hindsight, if an artist is really stretching themselves they should tackle the most difficult challenge first and be prepared to simplify to make the end product more seamless or working whole (as you age this becomes easier). A simple moment of triage of what is crucial, even during the last few weeks before a show can make or break a statement exhibition. Be open to it. Once again, stumbling a little here isn't horrible, a failure of too much ambition does keep critics and curators interested.

2) Over Exposure: Often artists have an incredible pressure to create and put their work in front of people all of the time, lest they be forgotten. As I mentioned earlier this is fine for recent grads but overall it is bad to say yes to everything. If you are doing more than 2-3 group or solo shows a year in a city the size of Portland you aren't editing enough or being selective. If you are already an established name or have a gallery, but have 3 shows in the same city withing 8 months then you've got a self confidence problem. One exception, Winter or Summer group shows at your gallery don't count, they are simply trying to sell your work. Everyone has got to eat.

Also, critics and other artists can get incredibly tired of seeing you everywhere, especially is it's the same old same old. In Portland your gallery or other curators might not see this because they have tunnel vision tuned to their own spaces and have blinders on. An over-exposed artist is ripe for critical pushback if their statement solo show is already overly familiar. Critical pushback is something earned and isn't a purely negative thing either. It means people care about your work and most critics wont bother if they don't see any potential. Typically critics are listening to a large swath of people in the scene and this helps them determine if there is broader interest and concern for the artist's work.

Sometimes, too many shifts in your style can cause people to lose the plot as well. In those cases a group show or two can help signal dramatic shifts in your work and lay down a thread of development to follow. Still, a charge of capriciousness isn't really a negative or critical failure. Instead, it is an indicator of interest and concern... which is a good thing.

3) The Blow Off is much more serious... and what Winkleman describes in his piece. Basically it is treating the big show with the same sense of denial of reality that all art world people (except collectors with $) use to get by. This denial is a slipperiness, looks cool in art school and keeps you in the game but remember these statement shows are moments where you are trying to not only show what you have done but also your ability to telegraph your future potential. I call it amplitude, kind of like seismograph ie tremors before a major eruption.

4) The Undercooked: Sometimes a show fails because it simply lacks the originality that the reputation of the artist seems to command. The best artists in Portland put a lot of pressure on themselves to outdo their previous efforts... and as a rule those who feel too comfortable with their position are the ones most ripe for failure. In those cases the gallerist/curator might catch the need for another dimension or more rigor but are unlikely to. Curators and gallerists are proponents of the work they present and as such are frequently not looking for faults by the time the decide to do a show. In cities like New York or London, the curators and gallerist will generally be more critical but only to a degree (that usually comes into play during the vetting process). Sometimes, a gallerist or curator might unwittingly sabotage a show by misunderstanding what the artist needed. In those cases of undercutting, the artist needs to be a clear advocate for their needs. Sometimes it takes learning things the hard way in those situations. The good news there is that all of Portland's curators and gallerists are pretty genuine. So if things go south, they are open to seeing where an exhibition was compromised to being a point of having a crucial flaw.

Overall, it is best to have a few people who you trust to be critical and objective about your work... discuss your show at length say 6 months before the exhibition and keep what they say in mind. Definitely this is easier said than done, keep your options supple... rigid thinking will sink you. Remember, it is a chess match not checkers so don't consider one bad review a horrendous thing. In fact, they are usually indications that something very right was done to earn the critical backlash. Criticism can be wrong and isn't the final word but a prompt and a thesis from which to set up discussion.

Posted by Jeff Jahn on January 20, 2014 at 10:00 | Comments (0)


Comments

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?


s p o n s o r s
Site Design: Jennifer Armbrust   •   Site Development: Philippe Blanc & Katherine Bovee