Art & Criticism

If you refer to one of my previous posts, "The seven types of art market players", I talked about the role of the art critic in today's society. They aren't as sought after for their opinions like they used to be. 

Since the 1990s, critics have believed their role in shaping the art consensus has been devalued by the art world. You can find art reviews, exhibition reviews, and reviews on the art market on the web in a thousand opinionated blogs, journals, books, and online newspapers written by writers - writers who probably didn't go to SVA for theory and criticism. All I can say is art critics aren't the only positions being devalued or manipulated through these sources of information. 

Critics are the "whistleblowers" of the art world. They should investigate the art industry's values, infrastructure, and practices - if they didn't who would? Art is subjective to the viewer, but who tells the viewer what to look at? Who tells the viewer or the collector what they are viewing or buying into is a huge mistake, or time and money well spent? If you were willing to spend millions of dollars at a restaurant, would you not read the review on the chef or the service or the wine list? 

THE MARKET

John Coplans and Max Kozloff sought to turn ArtForum into an anti-market publication in 1971. They wanted to expose the way in which investments and money in art was becoming harmful to the art world. Coplans, in fact, attacked a group of collectors who were treating the art they were buying like stocks and bonds - who were museum trustees and curating shows. Galleries refused to advertise in ArtForum if they didn't feature their artists. They wanted to control criticism and eventually Copland was fired. 

PLURALISM 

Aside from the art market, there's another reason why critics have lost most of their influence. 

The growth of pluralism in the postmodernist era. During the Modernist period, critics took sides for or against avant-garde art such as Color Field or gestural paintings, assemblage, pop, minimal, earth, conceptual and so on. They debated against movements and ideas and their opinions were demanded by the art world. In the postmodernist period, critics were reduced to picking one artist at a time, like or dislike, and focus on them individually. Debating in the art world has become unfocused and undramatic, and some might say irrelevant.

Questions for today's art critics:

1. What should art criticism be doing?
2. What are the issues or polemics, if any, for art criticism?
3. Is there a crisis in criticism?
4. Has art criticism been marginalized in the art world consensus? Is it influential in terms of what readers think and do?
5. Who and what is an art critic?
6. How would you define yourself as a critic? Reviewer? Essayist? Theorist? Artist-critic? Blogger?
7. For what audience do you write?
8. Has the Internet been good or bad for art criticism? Does it raise the issue of elitism versus populism?
9. How do you deal with the proliferating mediums in the art world today? 
10. How has globalization of art and the art world changed art criticism?
11. How has the enormous growth of the art world changed art criticism?
12. How do art magazine policies affect art criticism?
13. Are gender-based and political issues still viable in art criticism today?
14. Is it a function of art criticism to analyze art world institutions?

Abstract inquiries

                                          Franz Kline, Mahoning, 1956

What triggered the invention of "Abstract Art"?

In view of a long history of visual representation - what caused some artists in the early 20th century to abandon it entirely?

THREE INFLUENTIAL EARLY MODERNISTS

• Wassily Kandinsky 
• Kazimir Malevich 
• Piet Mondrian 

These three left extensive treatises to rationalize their views:

- The abstract pioneers were motivated by extreme , if arguably mistaken, assumptions - not only about the nature of art but also about human nature -- They believed art belonged to a higher spirituality - one that is completely detached from life -- This could only be represented by work in which no objects were depicted or recognizable -- These inventors of "nonobjective art" expected that their work would help humanity attain the higher plane of reality they imagined.

What do ordinary people think of such work?
Despite the abstractionists' inventions, their work is incomprehensible to the viewer who has not yet evolved "beyond reason". We cannot begin to guess their intended meaning just from looking at their work - only through their artist statements can we comprehend lines, shape, and their "highly-evolved" way of thinking.
To the ordinary viewer, a typical Mondrian "composition" conveys no meaning.
Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow

Some abstractionists who represented patterned shapes and colors, like Mondrian, ended up having their nonobjective art work mass produced - hand towels, wallpaper, and high fashion. If they were alive to see the direction their art went they would be pissed. 

The risk all abstract artists take is having their work turn into something merely decorative. 

I like abstract art on some levels, but I can't help getting flashes of Architecture Digest magazine covers. 

How did these Modernists misread the human mind?

Using what we know about the mind through science exploration, it isn't hard to believe that such paintings failed to communicated their maker's intentions. What we understand of our world and our emotions greatly depend on our direct, sensory contact with our physical reality. Sight is our most important sense - so this sensory contact is geared toward recognizing people, places, and things that impact our survival and well-being. 

Modernists didn't keep this important facility in mind. Although they preached the rejection of material objects, they nevertheless attempted to represent spirit in material form. They sought to make their images intelligible by trying to break the connection between visual art and the everyday life experience. 

The art critic, Clive Bell, once said,

"To appreciate a work of art, we need to bring with us nothing from life, no knowledge of its ideas and affairs, no familiarity with its emotions."

Cognitive science proves Bell's reasoning to be faulty. Studies have demonstrated that images activate the same areas of the brain that relate to real-life experiences. Our understanding and appreciation of art is directly connected to our life experiences. Furthermore, studies show that our higher cognition functions are not activated by abstract patterns like Mondrian's. Clement Greenberg, another art critic, said that "advanced art" - referring to abstract art - was "something to be avoided like the plague." His mistake was ignoring the spiritual aims of the artists who invented abstraction in the first place. Regardless, he did a lot more to persuade the cultural community that the work of abstract expressionists, like Pollock, were major artistic achievements.
Michelle Marder

How not to approach a gallery

Lets face it, you are going to be rejected once if not a hundred times by galleries, small art venues, and even art fairs. With all of the advice floating around about how to approach a gallery you could be pushed and pulled a lot more for a lot longer if you're getting the wrong advice. I want to focus on what you shouldn't do when you introduce yourself to your gallery of choice.

The thing that comes to mind every time I think of artists sending their CVs out is a clip from one of my favorite tv shows, Arrested Development. This clip shows one of Tobias' attempts to nail an acting job...

(I couldn't find the clip so this will have to do)

Tobias Fünke: So fill each one of these bags with some glitter, my photo resume, some candy, and a note.

Mae 'Maebe' Funke: "I know where you live, ha ha!" Casting directors hate this!

Narrator: They really do.

Casting Director: [cut to casting director's office] The glitter queen struck again. Never hire Tobias Funke....

I hope for your sake that you haven't gone to extreme lengths - regardless how "creative" you think you are being. If you're gonna go all out you better make damn sure it blows people out of the water. If this is the case then you probably don't need any of this advice.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Sending an Email or Letter?

A Westchester dealer says, "I am not to whom it may concern. If you don't know whom to address, you haven't done your homework." 

"Sir or Madam" salutation needs to be retired, too. There's nothing more off-putting than being addressed as "Dear Sir" if you're not a sir. I am a woman, and my name is Dylan. This has happened to me many many times. Good thing I am not in a position where I held the future of your art career in my hands - depending on the morning I'm having I might not be too forgiving. 

Sending a Package?

First make sure the gallery is accepting physical packages. Many don't want to deal with the administrative responsibilities and will tell you they prefer electronic submissions. 

If the contents peak their interest they will get back to you. 

I attended a Studio Visits lecture at the Dallas Contemporary a couple years back. The Director Peter Doroshenko had a lot to say on the matter. He is very proactive and likes that artists take the initiative to send him resumes or packages. But he also said that most galleries and museums like to visit the artist's studio. Even when a collector contacts a museum to donate or loan pieces the curator needs to see the collection before making a decision. Pictures don't always cut it. 

When it comes to the pictures you send, in either a package or electronically, make sure the quality of those photos are top notch. These galleries know you are probably poor and struggling to find work, and they expect that, but they also consider this as a job interview. You may not be there personally to hand over your work dressed in a suit or tie, but your packaging or electronic portfolio needs to act as an indication of your professionalism. 

Visiting the Gallery? Don't Interrupt 

I was talking to this art consultant in New York - we were sitting the gallery proper, and an artist came in with a portfolio. She was hovering even though she was in the background. She was waiting for a break in the conversation, and when it didn't come quickly enough for her, she cleared her throat and said to the dealer, "Hey, I'm here to show my work. Are you the dealer?" 

"Did we have an appointment today?" 

"No, but you said you'd be willing to look at my work."

"I am willing to look at your work, but you need to make an appointment."

"But I'm here now."

"But I'm busy."

"You're just talking," she persisted, holding her ground.

"Yes, I sure am."

It was literally the most awkward situation I have ever been in, and I wasn't even a part of the conversation. The artist eventually turned her heel and left.  

Don't Waste the Dealer's Time

Hundreds of galleries face this issue on a regular basis. Do your homework, peeps. Make sure you know the gallery's name, and again, the gallerist's name. Make sure your work is appropriate or you will be wasting your time as well as the dealer's. Granted, I know its hard to research galleries, especially out-of-state galleries. Their websites are usually minimalistic and vague. That's their appeal. 

There is a book I bought a couple years ago when I was still interested in becoming an artist. They come out with annual artist market listings and tips to get your stuff out in the art world. Super useful. 

2013 Artist's and Graphic Designer's Market - check it out. It lists almost every known gallery from all over the world. Even the successful small galleries if its the first time showing your work. 

I WILL NOT MAKE BORING ART

I absolutely love this video. Not only because Tom Waits is the narrator, but because John Baldessari reminds me of one of my professors I had in school. My professor's art is nothing like Baldessari - he's just as big n' tall, bearded, gentle, and crazy.

John Baldessari 

Mark Davis 

Told you...

The seven types of art market players

THE ARTIST

Any buyer interested in collecting a certain artist's work will tell you they prefer to meet the artist. I don't believe it does any good. After all, the work is what buyers are after. The work must speak for itself; the object must communicate that blissful liberation that ever masterpiece conveys. Whether the artist is polite, polished, or tortured, after the cocktails are over, you are living with the purchase you made, not the artist...Kinda sounds like an Abstinence program.
Note to the artist:
The dreaded words "My new work is going to be my best". The artist must have faith in order to continue to develop his or her personal vision, but you don't, and neither does the art market. A piece of advice I could give to an artist is be absolutely confident in your work and have a clear direction for your future work (granted its always relative to change) before you try to make your debut. Once you've graced the art world with your presence by jumping the gun too early - your future work will not be taken seriously.

THE ART CRITIC

It is a challenge to understand why these sophisticated people no longer influence the prices of art in the marketplace. In the Forties, Fifties, and early Sixties, a review by the great (and despised) Clement Greenberg could make or break an artist's show; today, no critic has that power. Reading art criticism is like reading Rotten Tomatoes. Yes, people read those reviews, but if the movie got a bad rating people will still go see it. Even though art critics may seem outdated and unnecessary this information will ultimately save you money - they're experts for a reason. They highlight market hype and derivative copycatting, and potentially alerting you to work that is passe.
The influence of Clement Greenberg has possibly affected the work of artists today. If it wasn't for Greenberg following Pollock throughout his career - whose reviews put Pollock's success in writing (initially there was no art market during his time - not many people knew or cared about up and coming artists), Pollock's work wouldn't have influenced future artists.

THE ART DEALER

These cats are fascinating people. With egos that are even bigger than some of the artists they represent, art dealers, the good ones, have a gift. It takes balls to open up a pricey retail store that sell things that nobody needs and that nobody wants to buy. Collectors need art dealers. Whether you are a well-known, self-made successful collector at some point in the years you've been collecting you have crossed paths, sought advice, and even used their services to buy that ultimate painting at the ultimate price. Just keep in mind - most dealers will offer a 10% discount on any primary work, so if you like to negotiate, remember, 15% is the maximum you can realistically expect - but on secondary material, prices should be much more negotiable; the dealer is seeing what he/she can get out of it, so make an offer and wait. Dealers need their relationships in order to keep a good name and gain more clients - so scamming you is not their idea of a good business deal. Results will vary - some may be disappointing - but, note, the success of this deal is just as important to them as it is to you.
Here are a list of prominent dealers:

Marianne Boesky - MB has built one hell of a programme over the last ten years. Her major representation that put her on the map was developing the career of Lisa Yuskavage.
Bruno Brunnet and Nicole Hackert -  Founders of Contemporary Fine Arts in 1992 - here's an extensive list of artists they represent.
Sadie Coles - In 1992 new paintings by John Currin and an installation by Sarah Lucas were the first exhibitions shown in Sadie Coles' gallery. Soon after opening her gallery, she started "gallery swaps" - a programme of exchanging her exhibits with galleries in other locales all over the world.
Jeffrey Deitch - Seriously the coolest and most annoyingly loud website I've seen - especially for an art dealer. I have this constant image in my head that shows dealers having minimalistic lifestyles. Deitch does not look like he would tolerate the art that he collects, but sure enough he does.
Marcia Fortes - Fortes started working as an art critic and correspondent for Jornal do Brasil along with other art magazines including friez after graduating from New York University. In 2001 she founded Fortez Vilaca with her partner Alessandra d'Aloia. She is known for representing Brazilian artists like Ernesto Neto and Beatriz Milhazes.
There are so many dealers I would love to mention, but I still have four more players to name.

THE ART CONSULTANT 

For awhile I believed dealers and consultants had the same job description, but I was wrong. Who are these people? From what I gather, an art consultant is simply the middle man. They have ties to many of the seven heavy hitters in the art market. They consult collectors on what to watch for, when to buy, and even help sell the work you've collected. Consultants touch base with art dealers, other collectors, galleries, museums, and lawyers. They make a collectors profile - they are usually very personable and in order to do their job right they need to know the type of person they're buying for.
Anyone willing to spend ungodly amounts of money for a piece of art is probably a control freak, so the consultant has a pretty difficult job ahead of them. They are hired for their knowledge of the art market and to know the wants and needs of the clients they are representing. I think of a wedding planner when I think of an art consultant. They are hired because they are good at what they do, the amount of money one might spend using a wedding planner might actually save them money if they tried to do it themselves, and so on and so forth. They may not be a necessity, but if you are going to spend tons of money and you have know idea what you're spending it on, art consultants are the smart way to go.

THE COLLECTOR 

I know a couple of art collectors, and I think I am one of the lucky ones. The collectors I know are incredibly wealthy, incredibly smart, and incredibly humble. You usually don't get the chance to see all three characteristics in one person let alone two. I aspire to be an art dealer, or consultant, or adviser depending on what I can get and what I end up loving. Even though I have been extremely lucky to know these collectors, I also know that I need to meet a nasty collector in order to get a sense of what most of them are like out there. BUT the truly great collectors don't make it their goal to just make money; they want to live with major masterpieces - if you're ever up against a nasty art collector just try to remember this.

THE AUCTION HOUSE EXPERT

Sotheby's, Christie's and Phillips sound a look glamorous, but the reality is that they are struggling and competing with each other and with all the dealers...This was news to me too. I did think it would be a glamorous job - working in an auction house handling and dealing beautiful pieces of work - but I guess in retrospect auction houses are struggling. The auction houses obtain many of their prize works for sale by giving the sellers a "guarantee". Often works that are priced over $1 million will be guaranteed by the auction house for the low end of the estimate. This means that works that are priced $1 million to $1.5 million the sellers have already received a check for the low estimate from the auction house, and will probably receive only a small portion of the gain over the guaranteed figure.
Not so glamorous in the grand scheme of things. These experts need to have an extensive knowledge of the buyer's market or they're in deep shit.

THE MUSEUM PROFESSIONAL: DIRECTORS & CURATORS

I am currently working for a museum in Ohio. I am going to leave out the name because I am going to be talking about some pretty shady stuff. The museum is going in a downward spiral. Our director and associate director were hired about a year ago. The Director used to run a theatre and the Associate Director ran a small gallery that only represented community artists. The museum is in a substantial amount of debt, there is a lack of funding and a serious lack of museum ethics. The wealthy families that supported the museum have stopped giving money; one of the reasons being the museum stopped caring about the art and are now spending the money they receive on events and parties - events and parties that members only go to, probably because they get in for free or have a major discount. OVERALL, this is a shitty example for a museum.
Concerning the art market, are these the type of people that are aware of the art market today? Are they purely academic? I don't have a great answer for these questions. I do know that curators are academic, but along with this level of academia they also have a broad knowledge of the art market - they need to. To prevent questionable museum ethics, curators need to know what's selling and why. If a museum secretly started collecting certain artists for a future show "not knowing" that they were playing a big role in the art market, the museum could have a major portion of a superstar artist's collection that could potentially sell for big bucks in an auction if they decided to sell. They would become a commercial business and lose their non-profit institution status.
Collecting Contemporary. Adam Lindemann

The new 'blue-chip' ship

This may be old news, but I had a hard time collecting my thoughts on this one.

A friend of mine shared an article in September about Amazon opening a new venture in art sales. At the time I didn't like the idea so I immediately wrote it off - but it is happening, so I need to except it I guess.

Art on Amazon is currently the most expensive offering on Amazon. It is hard to stomach the idea that a $10 piece from some Joe Shmo is just a click away from a  Monet selling for $1.4 m. How can this work?? I don't want it to work. I like the rare access blue-chip art possesses. I can't help but feel that the art market is going to get a hard punch in the balls.
There is more than 150 galleries and dealers and examples of more than 4,500 artists...I guess there is something there for everyone.

Although this is pretty big news, Amazon's arty strides aren't revolutionary. Hundreds of dealers sell art online. Sedition sells digital works, some by famous artists, Artsy researches buyers' tastes through their browsing activity, the self-proclaimed "market leader", Artnet, auctioned $15m-worth of art last year and provides online exhibition space to over 1,700 galleries, and Christie's and Sotheby's, the biggest auction houses, accept online bids as an extension of their traditional sales.
So far this type of art selling hasn't made an impression. Online art sales were $820m in 2012, less than 2% of the $56b global art market (excluding the online bids at the major auction houses) - according to a report published by Hiscox. The art market research firm, Skate's, predicts that the lower end of the art market will shift online though - but higher up things get more complicated.
The Economist

Amazon Art is less risky. It doesn't require any overpriced art world persuasive tactics to navigate - just a click and a credit card. For the art market, which is overflowing with young millionaires who would rather buy Banksy than Eric Fischl, it could be a game changer. There is just one problem, though. Those manipulative tactics are there for a reason. Art dealers and art consultants are there to navigate a complex world - where prices fluctuate for a number of reasons - for clients who would otherwise get ripped off. Art appraisers are finding major problems. There is a lack of information about where these paintings came from and their history. This kind of information greatly affects the price and value of the work - if you are unfamiliar with the art market and its trends you could be making a huge mistake if you buy off impulse rather than research.
Art dealers may have a little to worry about, but if I am correct their expertise cannot be replaced that easily - if not then I'm screwed, I am going to school for art business.
Gizmodo

Confronting Bacon

Francis Bacon (1909-1992) remains as powerful and daunting today as he did in his prime - the same applies to his art - art that still speaks to viewers remote from the unpropitious post-war world in which his pictures were first exhibited. Important for its wide appeal, Bacon's aesthetic vision was figurative rather than abstract. His paintings suggest some disturbed sense of the human condition beneath everyday life, expressed by the alarmingly distorted physiognomies and bodies.
Bacon ultimately saw himself as the heir to a tradition of experimentation and uncompromising individualism handed down by such European forebears as Edgar Degas and Pablo Picasso. Like these artists before him, Bacon's main focus was geared towards the human figure, whereas many of his English contemporaries hearkened back nostalgically to landscape themes and a native Romanticism.
Decades after his death he has joined the ranks of Rothko, Warhol, and others as a blue-ship modern 'Old Master'.

Ok, enough history talk. Im starting to sound like Simon Schama.
Lets compare and contrast.

Figure Study I (1945-6) @ The Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art 
Study for a Portrait (1991) @ The Lefevre Gallery 

The paintings were created some 35 years apart, but together, both paintings encapsulate the trajectory of Bacon's artistic development. Figure Study I seems to be a montage of fragmentary and disconnected elements - an overcoat, a hat, flowers, and more abstract background details - that appear to have crystallized within a improvised painting process, obscuring discarded ideas and layers of paint.
By contrast, Study for a Portrait is larger in scale, and far more legible in its description of a particular, anatomically coherent individual. The thinner paint surface suggests that Bacon started working with a clear idea about the final composition. The earlier picture seems to have been an exploratory struggle for the artist, whereas the later one appears to have come to him more easily and looks relatively deft.

Bacon: 'I think that the best works of modern artists often give the impression that they were done when the artist was in a state of unknowing...when you get to the late analytical-cubist works, there's a totally mysterious relationship to reality which you can't begin to analyze, and you sense that the artist didn't know what he was doing, that he had a kind of rightness of instinct and that only instinct was operating'.

I wish I could go on and on and on about Francis Bacon, but I decided to keep it a little less opinionated. Maybe one day I can write a bit more. (If you want to look him up type in 'artist' after his name or you'll get a completely different dude.)

Don't you get it?

I find it rather funny that my first post as an official "blogger" has to do with time-based media. Those who know me know how worked up I get on some of the ridiculous antics contemporary artists are up to these days. I like subtle. I like purpose and clarity. I don't like artist statements that rationalize the work by making the viewer (or me) feel inferior and less highly evolved...But I'm trying to be a big girl and make this blog as unbiased as possible - so I digress.


Ok, Ed Atkins.
For those of you that read ArtReview there is an article in the current September issue titled "Great Collectors and their Ideas: Julia Stoschek"which has some interesting insights into her collection. Growing up in a family where art was never an interest, Stoschek has a pretty distinct taste - taste that definitely has street cred. September 6, 2013 was the seventh annual exhibition from the collection featuring Ed Atkins and Frances Stark.




Video by Ed Atkins.