Massive Links! National Edition

by Art Fag City on June 10, 2008 · 25 comments

Richard Misrach. Image via the National Gallery of Art

Tyler Green complains that the Amy Sillman show at the Hirshhorn was Sikkema Jenkins 2.0 and is now upset that the National Gallery’s Richard Misrach show is worse because most of it was already exhibited at Pace Wildenstein in 2004. So what? Even if all the work appears courtesy of the artist, which admittedly is a little like advertising that work is for sale, a) it’s not like we haven’t seen this before (see: Matthew Barney at the Guggenheim in 2001), and b) it doesn’t diminish the quality of the work. Misrach‘s beach work is worthy of a museum show, and the exhibition is likely to appeal to a large audience. To my mind, Green’s stance looks awfully elitist.

In last weeks news, a guard who decided he didn’t like Vija Celmin’s painting Night Sky at the Carnegie International and destroyed it with his keys. He says he’s sorry.

This looks great: Women in the City is an exhibition of reimagined pubic works organized by Emi Fontana now up in L.A. All of the work in the show is made by women.

“Just because I’m writing about something doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m recommending it” wrote Jen Bekman last year, after a friend questioned her on the use of a Chris Jordan photograph. I know it’s a little late to chime in on this, but I’d like to second that observation. Also, to add to that, every image and art link I post on this blog is not necessarily a representation of what I think is that artist’s best work. I tend to say so when it is. Factors that inform my image choice often boil down to; format (horizontal images look best in my current blog design), what’s been on AFC recently, convenience, and personal interest. As a result I like posting jpegs of Star Trek, toilets, all things Batman and Robin, unicorns and porn more than the average person.


The Art Fag City Rob Pruitt Art Award* Nominees (Mostly) Announced!	What’s Special About V.I.P. 2.0	Sanja Iveković at MoMA: That Backward Feminist From Croatia

http://hragvartanian.com Hrag
I vote for more porn on AFC!
http://hragvartanian.com Hrag
I vote for more porn on AFC!
http://hragvartanian.com Hrag
I vote for more porn on AFC!
http://hragvartanian.com Hrag
I vote for more porn on AFC!
http://artsjournal.com/man Tyler Green
Just because it’s happened before doesn’t mean it should happen again.
Just because a show is possibly likely to appeal to a large audience doesn’t mean it necessarily belongs. I mean, by that standard the NGA would do a show of Darth Vader costumes.
It’s not about the work, it’s about the museum’s decision. And how exactly is my position elitist?!
http://artsjournal.com/man Tyler Green
Just because it’s happened before doesn’t mean it should happen again.
Just because a show is possibly likely to appeal to a large audience doesn’t mean it necessarily belongs. I mean, by that standard the NGA would do a show of Darth Vader costumes.
It’s not about the work, it’s about the museum’s decision. And how exactly is my position elitist?!
Art Fag City
Ultimately I didn’t have a problem with the Barney show at the Guggenheim because I felt the work was strong enough on its own to be there.
To be clear, I never said that museums should only consider audience draw as their criteria for launching a show. In the case of Misrach it’s a positive because it will connect more people with Fine Art photography, not in the case of Darth Vader.
The implication in the MAN posts is that the commercial viability of the exhibition makes it less valid, which sounds elitist. I don’t see how the museum’s decision can be separated from the work. Of course, I’m open to be proven wrong on this.
Art Fag City
Ultimately I didn’t have a problem with the Barney show at the Guggenheim because I felt the work was strong enough on its own to be there.
To be clear, I never said that museums should only consider audience draw as their criteria for launching a show. In the case of Misrach it’s a positive because it will connect more people with Fine Art photography, not in the case of Darth Vader.
The implication in the MAN posts is that the commercial viability of the exhibition makes it less valid, which sounds elitist. I don’t see how the museum’s decision can be separated from the work. Of course, I’m open to be proven wrong on this.
Art Fag City
Ultimately I didn’t have a problem with the Barney show at the Guggenheim because I felt the work was strong enough on its own to be there.
To be clear, I never said that museums should only consider audience draw as their criteria for launching a show. In the case of Misrach it’s a positive because it will connect more people with Fine Art photography, not in the case of Darth Vader.
The implication in the MAN posts is that the commercial viability of the exhibition makes it less valid, which sounds elitist. I don’t see how the museum’s decision can be separated from the work. Of course, I’m open to be proven wrong on this.
http://artsjournal.com/man Tyler Green
Where did I imply that the commercial viability of the work made it less valid? I just re-read it and I can’t find a whiff of that. Heck, I don’t even know if the work was commercially viable.
http://artsjournal.com/man Tyler Green
Where did I imply that the commercial viability of the work made it less valid? I just re-read it and I can’t find a whiff of that. Heck, I don’t even know if the work was commercially viable.
http://artsjournal.com/man Tyler Green
Where did I imply that the commercial viability of the work made it less valid? I just re-read it and I can’t find a whiff of that. Heck, I don’t even know if the work was commercially viable.
Art Fag City
My response was based on your choice to explicitly describe the galleries the exhibition came from as commercial (twice), coupled with the decision take issue with this particular show, which is likely to be a crowd pleaser.
If you say it wasn’t your intent to imply that the commercial viability of the work made it any less valid, I’m willing to accept that but I’m still entirely unclear on what the problem is. What is wrong with the enlargement of a commercial show?
Art Fag City
My response was based on your choice to explicitly describe the galleries the exhibition came from as commercial (twice), coupled with the decision take issue with this particular show, which is likely to be a crowd pleaser.
If you say it wasn’t your intent to imply that the commercial viability of the work made it any less valid, I’m willing to accept that but I’m still entirely unclear on what the problem is. What is wrong with the enlargement of a commercial show?
http://artsjournal.com/man Tyler Green
I have no idea where this “commercial viability” thing came from. I didn’t raise it, so I’m not going to address it. Of course I referred to the show as coming from a commercial gallery: Pace is a commercial art gallery; it is not an art museum. There is a profound difference.
Shouldn’t an art museum — with all that implies, both legally and otherwise — strive to do more than merely re-hang a Pace show?!
http://artsjournal.com/man Tyler Green
I have no idea where this “commercial viability” thing came from. I didn’t raise it, so I’m not going to address it. Of course I referred to the show as coming from a commercial gallery: Pace is a commercial art gallery; it is not an art museum. There is a profound difference.
Shouldn’t an art museum — with all that implies, both legally and otherwise — strive to do more than merely re-hang a Pace show?!
http://artsjournal.com/man Tyler Green
I have no idea where this “commercial viability” thing came from. I didn’t raise it, so I’m not going to address it. Of course I referred to the show as coming from a commercial gallery: Pace is a commercial art gallery; it is not an art museum. There is a profound difference.
Shouldn’t an art museum — with all that implies, both legally and otherwise — strive to do more than merely re-hang a Pace show?!
http://artsjournal.com/man Tyler Green
I have no idea where this “commercial viability” thing came from. I didn’t raise it, so I’m not going to address it. Of course I referred to the show as coming from a commercial gallery: Pace is a commercial art gallery; it is not an art museum. There is a profound difference.
Shouldn’t an art museum — with all that implies, both legally and otherwise — strive to do more than merely re-hang a Pace show?!
Art Fag City
It sounds like you’re saying the show at Pace isn’t good enough for the museum. That’s fine, but it’s likely to be challenged in a time when large commercial galleries increasingly launch museum quality shows. The fact that the gallery is a business in and of itself doesn’t explain why the Pace show is insufficient for a museum (but it is what led me to believe you were taking an elitist position.) It also doesn’t tell me what the National Gallery needs to do to make it better. The only evidence I’ve read so far is the tagged on observation that they didn’t produce a catalog (which — correct me if I’m wrong — isn’t entirely unusual for what sounds like a relatively small show).
I don’t understand why you assume I should know so much about a show I haven’t seen. I also don’t know what legalities are involved for the museum.
Art Fag City
It sounds like you’re saying the show at Pace isn’t good enough for the museum. That’s fine, but it’s likely to be challenged in a time when large commercial galleries increasingly launch museum quality shows. The fact that the gallery is a business in and of itself doesn’t explain why the Pace show is insufficient for a museum (but it is what led me to believe you were taking an elitist position.) It also doesn’t tell me what the National Gallery needs to do to make it better. The only evidence I’ve read so far is the tagged on observation that they didn’t produce a catalog (which — correct me if I’m wrong — isn’t entirely unusual for what sounds like a relatively small show).
I don’t understand why you assume I should know so much about a show I haven’t seen. I also don’t know what legalities are involved for the museum.
Art Fag City
It sounds like you’re saying the show at Pace isn’t good enough for the museum. That’s fine, but it’s likely to be challenged in a time when large commercial galleries increasingly launch museum quality shows. The fact that the gallery is a business in and of itself doesn’t explain why the Pace show is insufficient for a museum (but it is what led me to believe you were taking an elitist position.) It also doesn’t tell me what the National Gallery needs to do to make it better. The only evidence I’ve read so far is the tagged on observation that they didn’t produce a catalog (which — correct me if I’m wrong — isn’t entirely unusual for what sounds like a relatively small show).
I don’t understand why you assume I should know so much about a show I haven’t seen. I also don’t know what legalities are involved for the museum.
Art Fag City
It sounds like you’re saying the show at Pace isn’t good enough for the museum. That’s fine, but it’s likely to be challenged in a time when large commercial galleries increasingly launch museum quality shows. The fact that the gallery is a business in and of itself doesn’t explain why the Pace show is insufficient for a museum (but it is what led me to believe you were taking an elitist position.) It also doesn’t tell me what the National Gallery needs to do to make it better. The only evidence I’ve read so far is the tagged on observation that they didn’t produce a catalog (which — correct me if I’m wrong — isn’t entirely unusual for what sounds like a relatively small show).
I don’t understand why you assume I should know so much about a show I haven’t seen. I also don’t know what legalities are involved for the museum.
http://tommoody.us tom moody
Coming to this a little late. Since Tyler isn’t likely to come back to this thread I’ll refer to him in the third person.
It’s kind of funny to watch him deny his own words here.
Paddy, he asks you, “Where did I imply that the commercial viability of the work made it less valid?”
Well, in the Sillman story he wrote that “The Hirshhorn exhibition is a commercial-gallery sales opportunity dropped into a museum.” He used the word “commercial” twice more in that short post and three times in the short Misrach post.
The clear import of all this repetition is that there is something suspect about “commerce,” that the selection of the work was made with a view to immediate marketing needs–choosing “available” work shown in the last couple of years–and not the long view of posterity. Green said as much in the Sillman review.
But when called on it, he said his use of “commercial” was just to differentiate a museum from a gallery and carries no value judgment. But he could just as easily do that by saying “private art gallery” to distinguish it from a public institution. The repeated use of “commercial” was scolding.
It’s the noodgy hectoring that bugs me more than elitism. Most of us in the gallery scene are inured to its web of incestuous relationships and just want to know “is the damn show any good?” (My own disillusionment came 17 years ago when the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth included William Wegman’s publicity photos for the movie “Hook” in a mini-retrospective of his, the same month “Hook” opened.)
Art is done on shoestring budgets relative to other forms of amusement. Great art shows (like great art articles) are a gift and can come together under the worst of circumstances. Pointing out those circumstances again and again, while offering the barest of discussion of the actual art being shown, isn’t muckraking, it’s ankle biting.
http://tommoody.us tom moody
Coming to this a little late. Since Tyler isn’t likely to come back to this thread I’ll refer to him in the third person.
It’s kind of funny to watch him deny his own words here.
Paddy, he asks you, “Where did I imply that the commercial viability of the work made it less valid?”
Well, in the Sillman story he wrote that “The Hirshhorn exhibition is a commercial-gallery sales opportunity dropped into a museum.” He used the word “commercial” twice more in that short post and three times in the short Misrach post.
The clear import of all this repetition is that there is something suspect about “commerce,” that the selection of the work was made with a view to immediate marketing needs–choosing “available” work shown in the last couple of years–and not the long view of posterity. Green said as much in the Sillman review.
But when called on it, he said his use of “commercial” was just to differentiate a museum from a gallery and carries no value judgment. But he could just as easily do that by saying “private art gallery” to distinguish it from a public institution. The repeated use of “commercial” was scolding.
It’s the noodgy hectoring that bugs me more than elitism. Most of us in the gallery scene are inured to its web of incestuous relationships and just want to know “is the damn show any good?” (My own disillusionment came 17 years ago when the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth included William Wegman’s publicity photos for the movie “Hook” in a mini-retrospective of his, the same month “Hook” opened.)
Art is done on shoestring budgets relative to other forms of amusement. Great art shows (like great art articles) are a gift and can come together under the worst of circumstances. Pointing out those circumstances again and again, while offering the barest of discussion of the actual art being shown, isn’t muckraking, it’s ankle biting.
http://www.personism.com/2008/06/20/links-for-2008-06-20/ Personism » Blog Archive » links for 2008-06-20
[...] Art Fag City » Massive Links! National Edition Please to be reading the comments here. Good thread. (tags: art photography museums galleries) Digg This Save to Del.icio.us [...]