Vera Klement is a senior citizen with the energy of a teenager. Most artists decades younger are reprising greatest hits. Vera just keeps growing. She is an underrated giant, genius and beautiful talent. Her work reads like scores of music, which is to say that her pieces are not monolithic compositions but fragments, visual notes, dichotomies and balances. This particular body of works on paper, which opens at Printworks tonight is called American Sublime and references American art from the early to late 1800's when painters fueled our 'manifest destiny' of westward expansion. Images glorified the landscape and the beauty, and downplayed the slaughter of Native Americans. Klement is among other significant artists who are examining issues of and in America's past and bring new understanding to how we got where we are.
Paul Nudd is an archetypal Chicago artist. My contention is that Chicago has always been a blue-collar city that respects hard work and downplays pomposity. That's Nudd. Though outsiders think of Chicago is clean, we all know our river is gross, our schools uncomfortable and that we have a coal plants regurgitating within our City limits. Nudd is the poster child for an honest Chicago. Wonderful, beautiful, hardworking, dirty and ugly. And what a good choice to present Rachel NIffenegger's glorious, grotesque, putrid blobs simultaneously in the Western Exhibitions show that opens tonight.
I don't remember Kendall Carter's previous show at Monique Meloche, but I won't forget this one. This show kicks ass. Sophisticated, intelligent, grunt basic, purposeful and beautiful, with an agenda of using non-painterly materials in a painterly way, Carter looks into his own Blackness - in the eyes of other people's unconscious expectations. Yup he does all that and still keeps the work light and very fun. The opening is Saturday.
It must be tough for female artists to address the objectification of women in their art and yet not push viewers and collectors way with a cranky diatribe. Paula Henderson does this beautifully in another exhibit that opens tonight - at Linda Warren. Henderson repurposes images of too tall, too thin models into mandalaesque compositions that undermine our expectations and encourage us to cast off our old, tired ethics.
I'm impressed with Alderman Exhibitions, a nascent gallery, and its, enthusiastic and professional directory Ellen Alderman whose objective of growing, exposing and unifying art and artists in Chicago resonates nicely with my own. Young, Chicago artist Thomas Roach begins his creative process of finding content by an odd, laborious exercise of borrowing scads of clipped magazine pages from the Chicago Public Library's archives; like a folder full of images of hands. He'll assemble and balance them in a grid. Then, focusing on a detailed portion of one of those images, he'll use it as subject matter for an exquisitely created pencil drawing, that is so tight as to appear photographic. The process is slightly absurd. The result is rather beautiful.
It bothered me less when I had a gallery, but as a writer and viewer it is difficult for me to get a lot of group shows into a comfortable context. Especially when there is a curator who needs to lay their thematic point of view on the exhibition and the artists therein who may have no agreement whatsoever with the context into which their work is placed.
I'm not saying this is the case in either of these two group exhibits I saw, but I am using these curated group exhibits as a jumping off point for a very short discussion about the role of curators. At Rhona Hoffman the title of the show provides a clue - as well as being the genesis of the exhibit: Never Let Me Go. Okay, think about that for a second. Given the title, what could the show be about? I looked at a few pieces and decided the show was about mortality and America's unacceptance of death, but clearly there were pieces in the show that didn't fit my erroneous assumption. So I looked at the press release and read that there were significant works by seven artists who, by making 'figure' inextricable from 'ground' (and vice versa), engender the extraordinary and withstand alienation. I have no idea if these seven significant artists are comfortable being in this show, and wonder how they feel about having their work defined this way.
I'm not saying this is the case in either of these two group exhibits I saw, but I am using these curated group exhibits as a jumping off point for a very short discussion about the role of curators. At Rhona Hoffman the title of the show provides a clue - as well as being the genesis of the exhibit: Never Let Me Go. Okay, think about that for a second. Given the title, what could the show be about? I looked at a few pieces and decided the show was about mortality and America's unacceptance of death, but clearly there were pieces in the show that didn't fit my erroneous assumption. So I looked at the press release and read that there were significant works by seven artists who, by making 'figure' inextricable from 'ground' (and vice versa), engender the extraordinary and withstand alienation. I have no idea if these seven significant artists are comfortable being in this show, and wonder how they feel about having their work defined this way.
At Zolla/Lieberman is another group exhibit, titled Cinematic Bodies. This time I went straight to the announcement card that states the curator's intent where the selected works reflect my fascination with certain contemporary, figurative artworks... that appear to engage with aspects of 'the cinematic. Yeah, much of the work feels cinematic, but a lot doesn't. For me, the bigger questions are why is this trend of curators thinking they're artists not over yet? Why don't curators recall that their job is to enhance art and artists and not to use them as raw material for their own agenda?
Artists must take responsibility for their own careers or they can get manhandled, misconstrued, miscomprehended and misrepresented. Again, I am not saying these particular curators in the foregoing exhibitions have done this, but I've seen it happen too often and perhaps you can tell it is a pet peeve of mine.Enough for now. There's some wonderful art on view. Even I crossed the threshold into a new venue. More often that not it is rewarding and provocative. Try it.
Thanks very much,
One of the problems is that there are quite a lot of artists vying for a limited slice of visibility. We are all hungry and when a curator or gallerist shows some interest we begin to swoon. It can seriously influence our ability to manage our image when we have an emotional response to receiving attention and jump on any exhibition chance we can.
I turned down two solicitations from galleries in the past few years. One from a gallery in downtown LA. My heart said, "Yes." But my gut said, "No." Something about their roster and some of the things she said. In two years it was belly up and the one other artist I was in communication with who followed through didn't get the return of his work. I still have my work but am I any wiser? With the contracting market the one thing I do know is that I am still hungry.
Thanks Greg, Glad to see you are making good decisions. I relate a lot of this to dating. Too often we go for the first person that'll have us (says the guy who's divorced more than once).
As someone who's been in the art world (village) for decades, I can tell you that the quality of your art is not one of the 2 most important things about achieving success. I teach a 12 week course that demystifies the art world, lays out the process to success and introduces you to experts and peers who want to see you succeed.
If your art is any good, it's your responsibility to get it out into the world.
Sounds like you are on your way and maybe you want some assistance and a push.
Paul,
Okay my friend...you are as wrong as wrong can be here when it comes to this whole "curator's agenda conflicting with the artist" nonsense. I speak both as an artist and as one who has undertaken a number of curatorial projects in the past. I am also in the midst of curating an exhibition that will open in the fall here in Chicago, "No Place Like Home."
It is not the place or role of a curator to be either a mirror or unthinking mouthpiece for the artist. The artist does that themselves in whatever discourse they are able to create around their work once it enters the world. This is why it is so important for artists to be articulate and to try to--either through their own writing, interviews, whatever--create some primary resources that others can refer to when seeking out the artists thoughts and ideas on their work. Both curators and others are then free to refer to this, but only to clarify the artist's own intent. That should not, however, preclude either the curator or the viewer from having their own experience of and response to the work.
The experience of the person making the work, the person writing about the work, and the person viewing the work is NEVER the same, and this is as it should be. What needs to be clear (and I always tell people this in regard to my own work) they are free to have whatever kind of experience they want, and to derive whatever subjective meaning they want...as long as they don't ascribe that meaning to ME.
The role of the curator is to bring a fresh set of ideas to bear on the experience of the work for the viewer, through the juxtaposition of pieces in relation to each other and through bringing their own subjectivities to bear on what the work might mean in the broader conversation around art and cultural production. The best curators both respect the work they are dealing with (I don't know any who show work they DON'T respect) while also attempting to enrich, deepen and perhaps cause us to re-examine our response to and consideration of said work.
They bring their ideas and knowledge to bear on the work, not some insidious "agenda." Setting up this false dichotomy between artists and curators overlooks the fact that they have (and should have) very different roles. Neither is the right or wrong one; the are complementary. If all curators and art historians did was to simply parrot the words and thoughts of artists, we would all be seriously diminished. In my own curatorial practice I am often interested in something about the work that the artists themselves have never mentioned to me. Curating allows me to articulate MY response to that work, and place it in a context that the artist might not have thought of. It's not a better interpretation of the work, just different...or better yet complementary. Artists should realize that once their work enters into the world it's impossible (and unhealthy) to try to keep it safely within a cocoon of ones own. Indeed that is what it means for the work to be in the world! Have I read stupid things said about my work? Certainly. I've also occasionally had the pleasure of a writer or curator illuminating my work in a way I hadn't thought of.
Maybe we can continue this conversation when I see you on Sunday. But I just wanted to let you know you are dead wrong on this one! Keep up the great work calling attention to and creating interest in the good and smart work being done by artists here in Chicago.
-Dawoud
Argh. Dawoud, I don't disagree with a single word you've written. And per usual you have expressed yourself better than I did. What irks me is when a curator does have an agenda and forces an artist's work into a context that simply isn't there - or at least to me feels so far-fetched as to be preposterous and excessive. I see that way too often. So, you're right, and now I have to find a way to clarify for the audience that will miss these comments. Thank you.
Paul,
Stop huffing and puffing about "agendas." These so-called agendas are nothing than more than an idea, a thesis that the curator then tries to make visible through an exhibition of work. Sometimes they succeed (and like artists themselves) sometimes they fail. Nothing insidious about that. No thesis is entirely far-fetched if it can be sustained. And if all it was about is simply installing the work along with an artists statement, this job is easily filled by any number of competent art installers equipped with XO picture hooks and pedestals.
When I curate a show, the last thing I want to be guided by is the artist's own statement about their work. I usually know what that is anyway. I am most interested in my own response to the work and how that response (in conversation with other works) can be interestingly and provocatively shaped into an exhibition. Of course, it is also about providing a platform for the work to be seen. I got back from Milwaukee too late to see Terry Myer's show at Rhona's but will try to see it tomorrow.
Stop beating up on curators (even heavy handed pretentious ones); they are the ones who work together with the artists to make their work visible in the world. We need more of them like Jock Reynolds and Rob Storr, two artists who also exemplary curators. The bad ones will be duly forgotten...or at least their failed shows will be.
-Dawoud
Paul--
I am the artist/curator for the exhibition "Cinematic Bodies" at Zolla Lieberman Gallery. Because of your comments about the show, i feel the need to respond. I am first and foremost an artist who is committed to the practice of making stuff, and understand what it means to have your work misread, misinterpreted, etc... I am a great admirer of the work of the artists selected for the show-- a number of whom I have known for many years, and others I have been introduced to as a result of developing the show. Although I have my own idiosyncratic take on the work as it pertains to the show's theme of the show, it is not my intention to be heavy-handed or to override the artist's individual intentions. (There was one remark in my original curatorial statement about Peyton's early work which I noticed later and eliminated as I felt it somewhat overreaching).
As an artist I also appreciate the opportunity to assemble a show as a way to encourage vital and interesting conversations between works which might not otherwise be grouped together.
For the show's theme I am thinking of the term "cinematic" broadly--as it relates not only in direct reference to filmic tropes, such as projective qualities, celebrity personae, the mechanics of filmmaking, etc... but also, in relation to conditions of movement and velocity, transience and having transformational qualities.
To all of the artists participating in the show, thank you for your efforts and the additions of your wonderful works in the show. I look forward to our continuing conversations.
JA
Jamie, As Dawoud pointed out, I reached too far and the breadth of my brushstroke was too broad. For that I apologize. But I still have trouble with curators who seek to advance their career rapidly on the back of artists and exhibits that are forcing relationships and contexts that just don't fit. There are pieces you included that I would not have, but I don't have a problem with what you did. I just used you and the other curator as a jumping off point for discussing one of my pet peeves. I could have done better.
I saw the two curated shows last night. I'm speaking as an artist who's been curated into shows, and who has done a small amount of curating also. An artist begins a work of art with an initial idea or intention. If the work succeeds, which to me means that it has depth, complexity, intensity and contradictions, it will go beyond the artist’s intent. When it leaves the studio its meaning will continue to evolve through the conversations it has with its viewers. A curator is simply another viewer, albeit one with ideas and connections.
If a work of art is strong no one idea, not even a curator’s idea, will define it. That said, I find the concept behind “Never Let Me Go” really interesting. Figure/ground is the most fundamental relationship. It parallels the essential question of our existence: How do we effect our world, and how does our world effect us? The minute an artist makes a mark it comes into play. What an ambitious starting point for a show.
Great conversation. Sorry I am coming to it so late --- I've been way too busy. I have always had great philosophical difficulties with themes, theme exhibitions, curated shows that claim themes, and so on. Themes are student exercises. Mature artists all have their own personal obsessions and must work on those. Perhaps I too have beaten up on curators too much, --- shows need titles and our not-over-sharp-art-press nowadays needs little guidance helps, so I guess the situation(s) described are inevitable.
I don't know if anyone else caught it, but the reference to COYOTE was priceless. For those who didn't catch it ("call off our old, tired ethics"), the reference was to the name of a prostitution legalization organization, COYOTE, which stands for Call Off Your Old, Tired Ethics.
http://www.walnet.org/csis/groups/coyote.html
The implications of the reference, well...I'll leave those to my fellow readers' imaginations.