First, please RSVP for events to hashtagclass (at) gmail.com, NOT to Winkleman Gallery.
Second, please check the calendar here on the blog before heading to events - things sometimes change and this calendar will be updated as that happens!
Third, we want to be as clear as possible about what we're doing on the chalkboards. It's a messy process by definition (Freedom is Untidy = unofficial #class motto!), but our basic goal with #class is to foster productive discussion about the intersection of art and the market, and the conversation on the chalkboards has an integral function towards that goal. Jen and Bill will be interacting with the chalkboards to try to shape the discussion towards the subjects we most hope to explore, in the way that seems most productive to us. You are welcome to do this too! Anyone is free to write and to erase, but we hope that people will use this privilege thoughtfully to react to, explicate, and refute what has come before, not to obliterate it for no reason. The chalkboards will be photographed first thing when the gallery opens each day to keep a record of the conversations.
Showing posts with label #class. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #class. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Thoughts in the Final Stretch
#class is already making me do, and think about, a lot of things I usually try to avoid. I do not normally seek out conflict but I have already had heated discussions about it and I anticipate more, particularly with artists who do not enjoy obsessing about the "art world," a term that is more a litmus test than anything else. For a long time the business of art (and I do not just mean commerce) has been one of the subjects of my work. Anyone who rents a studio, who spends time there instead of working somewhere a paycheck is certain, who buys art materials (whether at the art supply store or the thrift store or Home Depot), who stares at a blank canvas (or wall, or floor) for hours, who hopes to exhibit her work where someone will see it, is engaged in the business of art. Why do we keep going, when the sacrifices are so obvious and the rewards so uncertain?
When I attempt to make sense of this endeavor in which we are all engaged, the shorthand phrase is "the art world," which does not to me mean Miami/Basel penthouse parties where collectors lick large chocolate sculptures (thank you for the mental image Bill Powhida), I mean informal crit groups gathered in a friend's studio, reading all the way to the end of the comments on art blogs, having conversations with people you only see at Williamsburg gallery openings but you always love to see, bubble-wrapping unsold sculptures in my 4-foot-high crawlspace because they're too heavy to carry out and carry back in (as my dear friends Jennifer and Kevin McCoy like to call chores like that, "living the dream"), and finding excuses such as this show to gather people together.
I belatedly read the Adam Gopnik piece in the New Yorker about the idea that it was actually Gauguin who cut off Van Gogh's ear with his sword. Apparently, what Van Gogh longed for most throughout his short artistic life was to live and work communally with other artists. However, it ended badly for him and, Gopnik argues rather romantically, it has and will for every artist before and since: "You always begin with a dream of community - Braque and Picasso in the bohemian hermitage Bateau Lavoir; the handful of painters brave enough to go abstract in the Cedar Tavern - and end with a reality of competitiveness and assault, suspicion and estrangement."
#class would like to prove you wrong, Mr. Gopnik. Here's to that!
When I attempt to make sense of this endeavor in which we are all engaged, the shorthand phrase is "the art world," which does not to me mean Miami/Basel penthouse parties where collectors lick large chocolate sculptures (thank you for the mental image Bill Powhida), I mean informal crit groups gathered in a friend's studio, reading all the way to the end of the comments on art blogs, having conversations with people you only see at Williamsburg gallery openings but you always love to see, bubble-wrapping unsold sculptures in my 4-foot-high crawlspace because they're too heavy to carry out and carry back in (as my dear friends Jennifer and Kevin McCoy like to call chores like that, "living the dream"), and finding excuses such as this show to gather people together.
I belatedly read the Adam Gopnik piece in the New Yorker about the idea that it was actually Gauguin who cut off Van Gogh's ear with his sword. Apparently, what Van Gogh longed for most throughout his short artistic life was to live and work communally with other artists. However, it ended badly for him and, Gopnik argues rather romantically, it has and will for every artist before and since: "You always begin with a dream of community - Braque and Picasso in the bohemian hermitage Bateau Lavoir; the handful of painters brave enough to go abstract in the Cedar Tavern - and end with a reality of competitiveness and assault, suspicion and estrangement."
#class would like to prove you wrong, Mr. Gopnik. Here's to that!
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Market Space
Purchase Application
Powhida & Dalton
Graphite and colored pencil on paper
Graphite and colored pencil on paper
2010
We will be selling this work to whomever makes their best offer based on their approximate income and rationale for ownership. There is no fixed price point and we won't be insulted if (a) no one wants it, (b) you can only offer what you can afford, or (c) you end up paying the same as your Marc Jacobs handbag.
We will be selling this work to whomever makes their best offer based on their approximate income and rationale for ownership. There is no fixed price point and we won't be insulted if (a) no one wants it, (b) you can only offer what you can afford, or (c) you end up paying the same as your Marc Jacobs handbag.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Here come the projects
Here are some of the events, discussions and performances that #class plans to host at Winkleman Gallery between Feb 21 and March 20, 2010.
We have over 40 events in some stage of development already. There will be a few different things going on every day the show is open! A full schedule will be publicly posted once we have it hammered out. For now, a preview. We'll keep posting as more events become confirmed. If you haven't sent us a proposal yet, there's still time!
Painter and writer Mira Schor will read her 1990 essay “On Failure and Anonymity” and lead a discussion on how these conditions might play a positive role in making art.
Hyperallergic has prepared $ECRET$ OF THE NEW YORK ART WORLD, which invites visitors to reveal who in the city's art industry owes them money. Will the pyramid scheme that is the art world collapse when the secrets come out? Hyperallergic hopes so.
An Xiao will present "Photoglam," during which she and her glamorous entourage will be photographing attendees during the opening and posting them on the Facebook event page. The photos with the top number of 'likes' will be publicly posted.
Magda Sawon of Postmasters Gallery will host "Ask the Art Dealer," vowing to truthfully answer any and every question posed to her. We're starting to collect questions now, if you post one in the comments here it will get asked!
Free Gift Wrapping! Anyone who buys an artwork during the run of the show can have it gift-wrapped by Zoë Sheehan Saldaña in handmade brown paper and twine.
Artists MTAA will demonstrate "Autotrace," a completely automatic, software-generated appropriation and shape creation system.
Rebecca Goyette will present "Market U," an art critique as experiential theatre. The Ringmaster of Market University will review the live examples of artwork of selected recent graduates of of various NYC MFA Programs including Market U. A panel of judges, internationally recognized art critics, gallery owners and artists who work for Market U will be the jury... or will you?
Sarah Smizz will give away free posters featuring her "Maps of the Art System."
Nic Rad will present "The Celebritist Manifesto," a stirring defense of celebrity culture as the boldest creative expression of a democratic society, in which it will become abundantly clear that James Franco is the most significant artist of the decade, if not all time.
Man Bartlett will be presenting "24h #class action," a marathon group intervention involving systematically blowing up hundreds of skinny balloons and popping them, without creating or harming any cute little puppies.
Dr. Lisa Levy, S.P. (Self-Proclaimed) will present "Investigating Personal Obstacles to Creativity and Creative Productivity," a workshop using the tools of psychoanalysis to begin to identify how personal history and emotions subvert and misdirect our actions to make creative work so we can realize our full potential as artists.
Yevgeniy Fiks will present a slide-lecture titled "Communist Modern Artists and the Art Market," showing how many of the the most highly valued art of the 20th century was produced by artists who considered themselves communists (Picasso, Leger, Kahlo, Rivera and more).
The Art Blahg will present "Art Wake," a funeral ritual for contemporary art.
Carolina Miranda will lead participants in "Art Yoga by C-Mon," incorporating newly invented poses to aid artists in the contortions necessary to advance their practice and career.
We have over 40 events in some stage of development already. There will be a few different things going on every day the show is open! A full schedule will be publicly posted once we have it hammered out. For now, a preview. We'll keep posting as more events become confirmed. If you haven't sent us a proposal yet, there's still time!
Painter and writer Mira Schor will read her 1990 essay “On Failure and Anonymity” and lead a discussion on how these conditions might play a positive role in making art.
Hyperallergic has prepared $ECRET$ OF THE NEW YORK ART WORLD, which invites visitors to reveal who in the city's art industry owes them money. Will the pyramid scheme that is the art world collapse when the secrets come out? Hyperallergic hopes so.
An Xiao will present "Photoglam," during which she and her glamorous entourage will be photographing attendees during the opening and posting them on the Facebook event page. The photos with the top number of 'likes' will be publicly posted.
Magda Sawon of Postmasters Gallery will host "Ask the Art Dealer," vowing to truthfully answer any and every question posed to her. We're starting to collect questions now, if you post one in the comments here it will get asked!
Free Gift Wrapping! Anyone who buys an artwork during the run of the show can have it gift-wrapped by Zoë Sheehan Saldaña in handmade brown paper and twine.
Artists MTAA will demonstrate "Autotrace," a completely automatic, software-generated appropriation and shape creation system.
Rebecca Goyette will present "Market U," an art critique as experiential theatre. The Ringmaster of Market University will review the live examples of artwork of selected recent graduates of of various NYC MFA Programs including Market U. A panel of judges, internationally recognized art critics, gallery owners and artists who work for Market U will be the jury... or will you?
Sarah Smizz will give away free posters featuring her "Maps of the Art System."
Nic Rad will present "The Celebritist Manifesto," a stirring defense of celebrity culture as the boldest creative expression of a democratic society, in which it will become abundantly clear that James Franco is the most significant artist of the decade, if not all time.
Man Bartlett will be presenting "24h #class action," a marathon group intervention involving systematically blowing up hundreds of skinny balloons and popping them, without creating or harming any cute little puppies.
Dr. Lisa Levy, S.P. (Self-Proclaimed) will present "Investigating Personal Obstacles to Creativity and Creative Productivity," a workshop using the tools of psychoanalysis to begin to identify how personal history and emotions subvert and misdirect our actions to make creative work so we can realize our full potential as artists.
Yevgeniy Fiks will present a slide-lecture titled "Communist Modern Artists and the Art Market," showing how many of the the most highly valued art of the 20th century was produced by artists who considered themselves communists (Picasso, Leger, Kahlo, Rivera and more).
The Art Blahg will present "Art Wake," a funeral ritual for contemporary art.
Carolina Miranda will lead participants in "Art Yoga by C-Mon," incorporating newly invented poses to aid artists in the contortions necessary to advance their practice and career.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
To Complicate Things
When Ed Winkleman offered his space to Jen and I to consider "alternatives/solutions" to the market, we had some very different ideas initially. One of our first impulses was to completely invert the normal function of the gallery by banishing Ed, Murat, and Max from the space and creating something else. Jen and I had some evil laughs thinking about what that might look like, but the idea never got past Ed, as he felt we were singling him out as a proxy for all shitty art dealers. I thought that position was a little defensive, since Ed isn't a shitty art dealer. It's just that dealers create the market as it exists now. If you're not an art dealer, you run a non-profit, director.
Part of the logic of removing Ed from the equation also correlated with our desire to remove the 'luxury art objects' from the gallery as well. For me, this stems from the fact that galleries sell a lot of the same thing, types of art with minor variations from artist to artist. Eventually a few artists rise to the top of the heap for a period of time. Then, commercial success gives way to museum shows, grants, prizes, and only or two artists from any given style, school, or camp are cannonized and given a shot at the history books, which requires some level of critical support. Currently, The Bruce High Quality Foundation is being elevated into the Whitney Biennial from the collective institutional critique camp. Having admired their efforts, I think it's cool, but reminds me that what Jen and I are doing with #class is being done in different ways by different groups world wide. Not all of them of market friendly, but TBHQF seems to have commercial representation and the Whitney nod will confer a new level of value on whatever they do next.
The problem is, however much I may admire TBHQ foundation from afar, I've never actually seen anything they've ever done and just like the idea of what they are, I understand that we are in competition for the limited number of spots in the star system. I mean, galleries have two or three stars in their stable, two who sell and one who gets the critical acclaim. This is one of the things that makes me particularly queasy about the art market, considering my experience during the boom of people happily selling art and rarely willing to discuss ideas. Most conversations stayed in the area of "What are you doing next?", "How was your last show? (ie, did you sell out?), and "Congrats on your (Insert publication) review. It was great!" Underneath the veneer of artistic comraderie, there is something much darker and less talked about. Usually, we acknowledge the sour grapes, "Powhida is just jealous of TBHQF for getting into a Biennial. What a dick." That's a fair statement, in that I would also love to be in a Whitney Biennial any of these even years, but have stopped holding my breath. I'd already be dead.
What I'm hoping, in part, is that #class will open up areas of dialog that don't happen very often without several cocktails and a conspiratorial tone. Well, we may have cocktails, but it will be an open discussion not just for insiders. Artist Ken Weaver, who also shows at Schroeder Romero & Shredder (I still have trouble saying the whole thing), has proposed a variation on this topic, hoping to start a conversation about 'artistic jealousy' and the difference between our public reactions to success and our private conversations. I think Ken and I probably have some things to discuss...
But, back to the 'luxury object'. There still is that startling amount of repetitive sameness that permeates the market. This dull sameness will be magnified by Armory, Pulse, Volta, and whatever new fairs pop up to capitalize on fair week. I'm sure it was part of the reason that Ed offered Jen and I this slot during Armory to address and hopefully problematize the fair mentality. It really is a perfect time for the show. Ed will be participating in two fairs, PULSE and another new 'alternative to the alternative' fair. This is a spectacular set of conditions for #class to exploit and be exploited by. Ed hopes to potentially take part of our show and enter it in to the real market, while Jen and I hope to invade the polished, hushed art fair atmosphere in return. What I love about this project is, even as I'm writing this, I will also potentially be participating in two fairs, definitely PULSE with Charlie James Gallery from LA and Ed, depending on what fair he decides to take part of our show to. If anyone still believes for a second that I am not a 'pig' as Jen Dalton describes those of us who participate in the market (the other choice being 'loser' and the attendant poverty and integrity that comes with it) then you should really go back and take a look at my art. I have been trying to sell out for years, and have found that it takes an incredible amount of work to make any headway at all.
I have made some progress. Nearly two years ago, I was commissioned to do a piece for a collector that involved traveling to the Bahamas as 'research' for the painting. Now, I am finally traveling down to Grand Bahamas Island with my wife and volunteer assistant, Thomas. Jen and Ed have been making fun of me (hypocrite!) comparing me to Koons and suggesting the commission is analogous to designing a yacht called "Guilty Pleasure" for Dakis Joannou. The thing is, I don't have to paint a giant boat and put a patina of class on a massive, floating luxury item. I get to make fun of the whole thing, myself, and the collector. There's no restrictions on the narrative I create from the experience. If there were an analogy to Koons it would be that I would have had the freedom to sink Dakis' yacht off the coast of Athens and the only people who'd get to see it would need scuba gear. That said, I will be sipping cocktails on white sands in balmy weather while Jen and Ed start installing the show. Then, as soon as I disembark the plane I will descend back into my inferior social status and head to the gallery to start putting up on panels and painting them with chalkboard paint. Unlike Koons, Jen and I can't just have the show fabricated to our specifications. We have a budget of $250 dollars. It's not really a joke, but it seems like one. Jen and I will have to work hard to make some drawings that people can make an offer on, and help us fund the month long series of lectures, panels, performances, sits-ins, interventions readings, conversations, eulogies, yoga classes, game nights, and other bizarre activities we haven't even heard yet. (Well, I might be able to use some of the money I will be getting from a certain European collector for one of my New Museum prints.) If we end up making any money, I think we will all be shocked. We'll be sure to keep a running balance sheet on the walls during the show of what went in to it and what we all got out of it in economic terms. The rest of it will be harder to quantify.
These would be the intangibles. After Ed rejected the radical reinterpretation of the space (ie kicking him out) we spent a long time discussing the intangible values associated with the gallery system and why we all continue to participate when we make (a) very little money or (b) put ourselves in debt. Ed may only have ten collectors who might buy work during the course of a show, but he takes immense pleasure in talking about the art and the artists. One of the intangibles for Ed is that dialog he has, and that is one of the reasons he objected being taken out of the equation. For other dealers who do not engage the public as much, that might not be an issue. As far as art goes for me, I invested $36,000 dollars into my BFA and MFA. I've paid it down to $26,000 since 1999. I'm way fucking behind. I don't know about Jen or Ed, but in general the economics of selling art is largely unsustainable unless you or your gallery breaks the 100k barrier for art and stays above that threshold. During the art boom, there was enough money to make people feel like they probably had a long-term shot, but that was illusory. A 'how are they doing today?' chart comparing sales of artists from 2005 to 2009 would be awesome, but no one is likely to volunteer that information. It would be like committing career suicide. We can see variations on this idea through auction returns, but the values at auction are far more stable than the inflated prices of the art fairs. I'm sure a great number of artists live in fear of seeing their 2005 $10,000 art fair price point get eviscerated at auction. These questions fascinate me, and I'll continue to explore them as long as I can and as long as someone will help exhibit the results of my preoccupations. Part of the paradox is, unless it sells or generates press/controversy/critical interest, the less people are inclined to show it. On that note for another visual representation of this, check out my new Brooklyn Rail drawing Institutional Celebration.
We understand the economics of art, and it's not a pretty picture. Hrag Vartanian has proposed a "Who Owes Who Money in the New York Art World" box for #class. While that might be revealing, it won't be shocking unless you believe that Goldman Sachs and A.I.G. work to better the middle class. What we want to explore more deeply are the intangible aspects of participating in the art world with the market being the focus. We chose the title #class, because it is an evocative word suggesting social hierarchies, economic conditions, school, access, exclusion, difference, taste, luxury, or conflict. This show is an open call to everyone, even those who might want to participate but fear sullying their brand or reputation (I'm talking to Andrea Fraiser, Sean Landers, Matthew Barney, Jeff Koons, Jeffrey Deitch, Kehind Wiley, Damien Hirst, Josephine Meckesper, or anyone with something to lose by even setting foot in Winkleman Gallery or 27th street, but would be amazing to hear from unmediated by the press and their representation) So, let the concept for #class unpack a little more in your heads and think about what what you love and hate in the art world. Then, yell at us! Propose an idea! Commit career suicide! Argue! Whatever, I'd love to see Tyler Green and Jerry Saltz sit down in the space, have a beer and discuss "Ethics, Moralism, and the contemporary Witch-Hunt." Facebook is really no place to get into it.
Tomorrow, Jen will be posting a list of events with short descriptions. A schedule will follow as we program our available time slots.
Part of the logic of removing Ed from the equation also correlated with our desire to remove the 'luxury art objects' from the gallery as well. For me, this stems from the fact that galleries sell a lot of the same thing, types of art with minor variations from artist to artist. Eventually a few artists rise to the top of the heap for a period of time. Then, commercial success gives way to museum shows, grants, prizes, and only or two artists from any given style, school, or camp are cannonized and given a shot at the history books, which requires some level of critical support. Currently, The Bruce High Quality Foundation is being elevated into the Whitney Biennial from the collective institutional critique camp. Having admired their efforts, I think it's cool, but reminds me that what Jen and I are doing with #class is being done in different ways by different groups world wide. Not all of them of market friendly, but TBHQF seems to have commercial representation and the Whitney nod will confer a new level of value on whatever they do next.
The problem is, however much I may admire TBHQ foundation from afar, I've never actually seen anything they've ever done and just like the idea of what they are, I understand that we are in competition for the limited number of spots in the star system. I mean, galleries have two or three stars in their stable, two who sell and one who gets the critical acclaim. This is one of the things that makes me particularly queasy about the art market, considering my experience during the boom of people happily selling art and rarely willing to discuss ideas. Most conversations stayed in the area of "What are you doing next?", "How was your last show? (ie, did you sell out?), and "Congrats on your (Insert publication) review. It was great!" Underneath the veneer of artistic comraderie, there is something much darker and less talked about. Usually, we acknowledge the sour grapes, "Powhida is just jealous of TBHQF for getting into a Biennial. What a dick." That's a fair statement, in that I would also love to be in a Whitney Biennial any of these even years, but have stopped holding my breath. I'd already be dead.
What I'm hoping, in part, is that #class will open up areas of dialog that don't happen very often without several cocktails and a conspiratorial tone. Well, we may have cocktails, but it will be an open discussion not just for insiders. Artist Ken Weaver, who also shows at Schroeder Romero & Shredder (I still have trouble saying the whole thing), has proposed a variation on this topic, hoping to start a conversation about 'artistic jealousy' and the difference between our public reactions to success and our private conversations. I think Ken and I probably have some things to discuss...
But, back to the 'luxury object'. There still is that startling amount of repetitive sameness that permeates the market. This dull sameness will be magnified by Armory, Pulse, Volta, and whatever new fairs pop up to capitalize on fair week. I'm sure it was part of the reason that Ed offered Jen and I this slot during Armory to address and hopefully problematize the fair mentality. It really is a perfect time for the show. Ed will be participating in two fairs, PULSE and another new 'alternative to the alternative' fair. This is a spectacular set of conditions for #class to exploit and be exploited by. Ed hopes to potentially take part of our show and enter it in to the real market, while Jen and I hope to invade the polished, hushed art fair atmosphere in return. What I love about this project is, even as I'm writing this, I will also potentially be participating in two fairs, definitely PULSE with Charlie James Gallery from LA and Ed, depending on what fair he decides to take part of our show to. If anyone still believes for a second that I am not a 'pig' as Jen Dalton describes those of us who participate in the market (the other choice being 'loser' and the attendant poverty and integrity that comes with it) then you should really go back and take a look at my art. I have been trying to sell out for years, and have found that it takes an incredible amount of work to make any headway at all.
I have made some progress. Nearly two years ago, I was commissioned to do a piece for a collector that involved traveling to the Bahamas as 'research' for the painting. Now, I am finally traveling down to Grand Bahamas Island with my wife and volunteer assistant, Thomas. Jen and Ed have been making fun of me (hypocrite!) comparing me to Koons and suggesting the commission is analogous to designing a yacht called "Guilty Pleasure" for Dakis Joannou. The thing is, I don't have to paint a giant boat and put a patina of class on a massive, floating luxury item. I get to make fun of the whole thing, myself, and the collector. There's no restrictions on the narrative I create from the experience. If there were an analogy to Koons it would be that I would have had the freedom to sink Dakis' yacht off the coast of Athens and the only people who'd get to see it would need scuba gear. That said, I will be sipping cocktails on white sands in balmy weather while Jen and Ed start installing the show. Then, as soon as I disembark the plane I will descend back into my inferior social status and head to the gallery to start putting up on panels and painting them with chalkboard paint. Unlike Koons, Jen and I can't just have the show fabricated to our specifications. We have a budget of $250 dollars. It's not really a joke, but it seems like one. Jen and I will have to work hard to make some drawings that people can make an offer on, and help us fund the month long series of lectures, panels, performances, sits-ins, interventions readings, conversations, eulogies, yoga classes, game nights, and other bizarre activities we haven't even heard yet. (Well, I might be able to use some of the money I will be getting from a certain European collector for one of my New Museum prints.) If we end up making any money, I think we will all be shocked. We'll be sure to keep a running balance sheet on the walls during the show of what went in to it and what we all got out of it in economic terms. The rest of it will be harder to quantify.
These would be the intangibles. After Ed rejected the radical reinterpretation of the space (ie kicking him out) we spent a long time discussing the intangible values associated with the gallery system and why we all continue to participate when we make (a) very little money or (b) put ourselves in debt. Ed may only have ten collectors who might buy work during the course of a show, but he takes immense pleasure in talking about the art and the artists. One of the intangibles for Ed is that dialog he has, and that is one of the reasons he objected being taken out of the equation. For other dealers who do not engage the public as much, that might not be an issue. As far as art goes for me, I invested $36,000 dollars into my BFA and MFA. I've paid it down to $26,000 since 1999. I'm way fucking behind. I don't know about Jen or Ed, but in general the economics of selling art is largely unsustainable unless you or your gallery breaks the 100k barrier for art and stays above that threshold. During the art boom, there was enough money to make people feel like they probably had a long-term shot, but that was illusory. A 'how are they doing today?' chart comparing sales of artists from 2005 to 2009 would be awesome, but no one is likely to volunteer that information. It would be like committing career suicide. We can see variations on this idea through auction returns, but the values at auction are far more stable than the inflated prices of the art fairs. I'm sure a great number of artists live in fear of seeing their 2005 $10,000 art fair price point get eviscerated at auction. These questions fascinate me, and I'll continue to explore them as long as I can and as long as someone will help exhibit the results of my preoccupations. Part of the paradox is, unless it sells or generates press/controversy/critical interest, the less people are inclined to show it. On that note for another visual representation of this, check out my new Brooklyn Rail drawing Institutional Celebration.
We understand the economics of art, and it's not a pretty picture. Hrag Vartanian has proposed a "Who Owes Who Money in the New York Art World" box for #class. While that might be revealing, it won't be shocking unless you believe that Goldman Sachs and A.I.G. work to better the middle class. What we want to explore more deeply are the intangible aspects of participating in the art world with the market being the focus. We chose the title #class, because it is an evocative word suggesting social hierarchies, economic conditions, school, access, exclusion, difference, taste, luxury, or conflict. This show is an open call to everyone, even those who might want to participate but fear sullying their brand or reputation (I'm talking to Andrea Fraiser, Sean Landers, Matthew Barney, Jeff Koons, Jeffrey Deitch, Kehind Wiley, Damien Hirst, Josephine Meckesper, or anyone with something to lose by even setting foot in Winkleman Gallery or 27th street, but would be amazing to hear from unmediated by the press and their representation) So, let the concept for #class unpack a little more in your heads and think about what what you love and hate in the art world. Then, yell at us! Propose an idea! Commit career suicide! Argue! Whatever, I'd love to see Tyler Green and Jerry Saltz sit down in the space, have a beer and discuss "Ethics, Moralism, and the contemporary Witch-Hunt." Facebook is really no place to get into it.
Tomorrow, Jen will be posting a list of events with short descriptions. A schedule will follow as we program our available time slots.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Draft Mission Statement (or some such thing)
#class will turn Edward Winkleman Gallery into a 'think tank', where we will work with guest artists, critics, academics, dealers, collectors and anyone else who would like to participate to examine the way art is made and seen in our culture and to identify and propose alternatives and/or reforms to the current market system. By 'current market system' we mean the commercial model and attendant commodification of art, but also the unquantifiable, intangible, unpaid aspects of participating in the art world. We will work to physically transform Winkleman Gallery from a showroom into a think tank, where discussions and events will take place from approximately Feb 20 - March 20, 2010.
These issues will be approached from three intersecting spheres of artistic practice: 'Think Space', 'Work Space', and 'Market Space'. While thinking is also work, we make the distinction here to separate the labor the organizing artists, Jennifer Dalton and William Powhida, will perform individually from the collaborative and communal dialog that we will facilitate.
Among other things, we hope to reduce the amount of certainty that the audience feels when entering a gallery and encountering an art work. The outcome of this project is totally uncertain, and involves risk. We will process this uncertainty and risk artistically and respond as individual artists by making work at tables in the 'Work Space' and and displaying it in a small, marginalized 'Market Space' within the gallery. This will make explicit the conflict artists often feel between their belief in socialist or communal values and their isolated, individualistic artistic work and career.
Think Space
The gallery will be reconfigured from a display-space into a place for working, thinking, and hanging out. Several walls will be covered in chalkboard paint where artists and others may participate in defining and working out problems consecutively or communally. There will be chairs and tables available for visitors to use to sit and converse. We hope to improve upon and refine our current working definition that “art is a luxury commodity for the wealthy that limits the possibility of ownership, understanding, and access based on class, education and geography”. We will work in the gallery to continuously update, record, and modify the information that the public provides. Eventually, we hope to move from identification and definition into analysis to propose solutions.
We ourselves, along with other collaborators, will spend as much time in the gallery as possible. During some of this time, we will participate simply by talking, drinking, and working on the walls themselves as we would in a private studio. Members of the public will be welcome to join in on the dialog and make themselves comfortable.
We believe that this aspect of the project will implicitly challenge some of the expectations of the market including (1) that most art is produced in private by individual artists and (2) is presented as a finished product ready for consumption. We hope to make our thought process tangible.
The last goal of the Think Space will be promote a critical and academic dialog around the project and attendant developing ideas by hosting a series of informal events and discussions involving critics, bloggers, artists, dealers, collectors, academics, and the general public through a call-for-proposals. We would like to avoid the professionalism and authority of traditional panels by making the discussions less formal and encouraging people to speak with greater freedom and candor about the subjects by plying them with food and drink. We will have a full calendar of performances, discussions, and uncategorizable art-like events, all invested with the aim of enlarging and deepening the conversation about the intersection of art and the market.
Work Space
As the show progresses, the individual artists Jennifer Dalton and William Powhida plan to participate in the market by making art work inspired by the information, events and discussions generated in the space. At the work tables in the space, in public, we will create small works on paper based on our interpretation and documentation of the evolving project. This work will not be priced in the usual commercial manner, premised on 'what the market will bear' based on our past work and reputations. Instead, we plan to offer our work to the highest bidder with no reserve. We may offer suggested guidelines for appropriate prices, such as one day of the buyer's income from his or her job, 0.1% of his or her net worth, etc. However, the buyers will be free to offer whatever price they see fit, and the artists will be obliged to sell the work at the highest offered price.
Market Space
There will be a clearly defined, physically marginalized Market Space within the gallery where these works can be displayed and marketed to those who would like to view or purchase them. Our transparent complicity in the market and the proximity of the think/market spaces to the work space will help steer the discussion back to the emotional conflict between ideals and reality.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
To elaborate:
This is not business as usual and we are not soliciting art work for another group show. We are asking you (if you are reading this we mean YOU!) to participate in a dialog around the art market. Also, we are not addressing the New Museum or the Imaginary Museum Series directly. Rather, we are looking more broadly at the gallery model, the commodification of art, and all the unquantifiable, intangible, unpaid aspects of participating in the art world.
Tentatively, we have identified the following problem surrouding these issues, "Art is a luxury commodity for the wealthy that limits the possibility of ownership, access, and understanding based on class and geography." This is an oversimplification and a departure point for engaging all aspects of what causes the ambivalence, queasiness, or discomfort around the business of selling art. In particular, artists are sometimes unsettled by the intersection of the 'gift space' of art and the 'market space' of the commercial art world. Do you disagree with any or all of this or think we are missing the point? That's great, there's nothing we'd like more than to give you a platform!
Tentatively, we have identified the following problem surrouding these issues, "Art is a luxury commodity for the wealthy that limits the possibility of ownership, access, and understanding based on class and geography." This is an oversimplification and a departure point for engaging all aspects of what causes the ambivalence, queasiness, or discomfort around the business of selling art. In particular, artists are sometimes unsettled by the intersection of the 'gift space' of art and the 'market space' of the commercial art world. Do you disagree with any or all of this or think we are missing the point? That's great, there's nothing we'd like more than to give you a platform!
As we began to define the 'problem' we realized that our own discontent is about more than the economics of the art market, but the unspoken rituals and norms that the selling and private ownership of art violates creating a discrepancy between how we value art. We also began to think about all the intangible values derived by participation in the art world from social status to existential purpose in life. We agreed that we wanted to bring more transparency to the intangible, affective aspect of the production of art, not just the economics.
In order to start this dialog, we have decided to shift the focus of the project from art objects to the discussions that the New Museum controversy and the recession have helped start after an unprecedented period of commercial growth in the art market. While the market expanded and everyone profited there seemed to be little dialog about the primary support system for artists and institutions, wealthy collectors and patrons. Now that the money has receded, underlying problems have been exposed.
This is not a comfortable dialog and speaks directly to our own complicity in the market, and what we really want to hear is what you think, not what you allow yourself or are allowed to say out of self-interest, careerism, or commercial pressures. In short, we are asking you to take a reasonable risk and participate by speaking, debating, lecturing, presenting, performing, or listening with people who may feel free to challenge you.
We want to hear your thoughts and ideas! email hashtagclass@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
