Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

International Print Week, Me And A New Appreciation

Hurricane Sandy has, as my last brief post indicated, messed up a lot of lives and livelihoods in the art world, among others. Late today, Sotheby’s postponed its Impressionist & Modern Art Evening Sale, moving it from Monday, Nov. 5, to Thursday, Nov. 8. Christie’s sale had been set for Wednesday, the 7th, and it seems to be going ahead.

Earlier this week, the International Fine Print Dealers Association postponed the annual opening of its print fair here in New York from tonight until tomorrow, and the International Print Center moved the opening of its annual fall print exhibition from last night to tonight and then was forced to postpone until further notice. IPC is based in waterlogged Chelsea, which has little if any electricity.

But I am going ahead with what I planned to blog about anyway — as I had two connections to print week. For a start, I wrote a piece about the print market for the October issue of Art + Auction. It has not been posted on line, though it’s on my website. Here’s the money quote, so to speak:

Traditionally, fine prints have appealed to new art buyers with limited resources as well as to committed collectors who are pursuing the gamut of works made by favored artists. But in recent years, with the very best paintings fetching record-breaking prices that place them beyond the reach of all but the top 0.1 percent of buyers, prints have been getting a second look from a broader range of people. Collectors are learning that prints may be the best way to purchase distinctive images by well-known artists, and that many artists devote considerable effort to making important, highly desirable works in print mediums. Moreover, in the world of online art sales, prints have been a success story.

Read further and you’ll find out where you can buy a Cezanne for $35,000, among other samplings. The best thing about writing that story was reminding myself, and readers, that prints aren’t copies of other works — artists use them for many reasons, including to test out techniques and images, and they’re originals.

Which is a nice segue to my second connection: in August, I served on the jury for the New Prints show at the IPC, and I wrote the essay for the exhibition. It will be published online once the show opens, and I will link to it here. It isn’t easy for six people to review some 2,600 prints together in one day (we could preview them online) and then agree on the “best.” We were tough — we chose only 36 prints by 26 artists.

After reviewing the process in my mind, and explaining in print what we didn’t do (seek balance, etc.), I was forced to distill what we did this way:

If pressed to describe how we made our decisions, I’d say that a print had to strike us viscerally. It had to have visual impact. And it had to speak to us, sometimes directly, sometimes – we discovered afterwards, when we reviewed our selections – in relation to another print. It had to have staying power, lingering in our minds. Nothing slipped in – that’s why the final count is so small…

We chose prints that were funny, beautiful, romantic, shocking, delicate, brutal, inventive, emotional, confronting, confining, expansive, and lyrical….

I’ll give you a few more hints: some were aesthetically pleasing, of course, but others had a built-in conflict, a look but don’t look aspect, perhaps, or a beauty-and-discomfort angle.

All of this has given me a new appreciation for prints, and I’ll be going tomorrow to the delayed opening of the fair.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of Pace Master Prints (top); Galerie St. Etienne (bottom)

 

Hurricane Sandy’s Toll In Chelsea

This is an example where pictures are worth a thousand words. For the past two days, the website Hyperallergic has been tracking down the storm’s impact on Chelsea art galleries and artists. Have a look at one picture below; there’s more information and pictures here and here, and Bloomberg has a short story here.

Meantime, Christie’s is offering space and computer access to dealers and artists who need that.

Crystal Bridges, Like the Barnes, Is Documentary Fodder — But For PBS?

How did The Art of Crystal Bridges, a documentary about the founding of Alice Walton’s museum, get made? A recent email from the museum, the monthly roster of news and upcoming programs there, piqued my interest, because how many museums merit their own film? The listing, which advertised the public premier of the film at Crystal Bridges on Nov. 9, didn’t say anything about the film’s origins. But it did say the film was “sponsored by J.P. Morgan.” Intriguing.

I searched and discovered that the film had been shown earlier this month at the Hot Springs Documentary Film Festival, which billed it this way:

…This half-hour documentary written and produced by Emmy-award winning documentarian Larry Foley tells the fascinating story behind the museum”s founding and development. Featuring glorious high definition imagery, narration by Academy Award-winning actress Mary Steenburgen, and an original music score by James Greeson, The Art of Crystal Bridges takes viewers on a visual journey “from construction to completion” of the first major museum devoted to American artwork to open in half a century.

It had to be an inside job. And it was. Laura Jacobs, the museum’s communications director, told me that the museum had commissioned it and sought a sponsor. The Nov. 9 showing there will mark the one-year anniversary of the museum’s opening. The film itself, which includes interviews with museum curators and designers, as well as architect Moshe Safdie and founder Alice Walton, is for sale in Crystal Bridges store and, says Jacobs, “we will show it on a continuous loop on 11/11/12, our anniversary, in the Great Hall.”

After that, she said:

The film will air on AETN  (Arkansas Educational Television Network, the state PBS affiliate), twice in November (15 and 21) and the filmmaker is shooting for a PBS broadcast as well.

Would that be possible? Would PBS really show an inhouse film like this? The answer may be yes. Earlier this year, a film about the Barnes Foundation aired on PBS. It was made by WHYY in Philadelphia and was sponsored by Wilmington Trust. It’s described this way on the WHYY website:

WHYY’s special 60-minute TV documentary on the Barnes Foundation for the new PBS Arts Summer Festival series tells the story of Dr. Albert C. Barnes and his noteworthy, priceless art collection, considered among the world’s greatest, and detail [sic] the design and construction of the new Barnes building in Center City Philadelphia.

The film follows the story about Dr. Barnes and the unique period in art history in which he lived and collected via a focus on a few key pieces in his collection. By showcasing those pieces, the philosophy behind Dr. Barnes’ collection and his methods of displaying works in ensembles will be explored. The Barnes Collection also features digital animation, which takes viewers from Merion through the architect’s drawings to the Parkway location.

I tuned in (though you can watch the whole thing for yourself at that link above), and I was appalled. In nearly 60 min., it made no mention of the controversy surrounding that move. It completely pulls the rug out from under the pro-NEW Barnes* critics that complain that The Art of the Steal was biased against the move. At least that movie tried to get interviews from both sides.

PBS, which famously airs no commercials, managed to air a 60-minute one that time.

I suspect it will have more trouble airing The Art of Crystal Bridges — but not because of content or who exerted editorial control. The difficulty may be with the length. PBS likes schedule national programs that fill an hour, not a half-hour.

I haven’t watched the Crystal Bridges documentary, so I am making no judgment here about its merits. Its behavior is perfectly understandable. But if PBS airs this documentary, without explaining its origins, then I do have problems with PBS.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Crystal Bridges

*Please see comment below, after which I added the word NEW.

 

Now, From Google, A New Cultural Institute

Google, always after new content, continues to experiment with museums and other cultural institutions. Earlier this month, in a move that didn’t get much press, the Freer-Sackler at the Smithsonian became one of 17 partners collaborating with Google in a venture called the “Google Cultural Institute.” Billed as an initiative to “promote history, culture and art online,” the site offers a window on the contents of largely unseen archives — letters, photos, videos, manuscripts and the like.

In a way, it complements the Google Art Project (which was expanded last spring), except it’s about history,  not art. At the moment, there are 42 online historical exhibitions. Initially, at least, these focus on 20th century events. This doesn’t leave much room for art museums, but historical museums that also collect art could conceivably have a place on this project. The partners, according to Google, put the exhibitions — the “stories” — together for the site. Here’s Google’s explanation of  this project.

Of the 17 partners, the Freer-Sackler is the only art museum. Among the others are Getty Images, the Imperial War Museums, the LIFE Photo Collection, the Anne Frank House, the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, and the Polish History Museum. They are listed on the site — click on Explore — though, personally, I found the whole thing a little hard to navigate (except for the listings of decades — that was easy and good).

Why the Freer-Sackler? Drawing on its archive of photographs from William Howard Taft’s “Mission to Asia” in 1905, it has crafted an inaugural offering called Imperial Portraits – the first in a series highlighting that Taft trip, “a three-month diplomatic trip led by Secretary of War William Howard Taft to China, Japan, Korea and the Philippines.” According to the Freer-Sackler, the mission “transformed the United States’ diplomatic and military presence in Asia.” The exhibition consists of “photographic portraits given to tour-member Alice Roosevelt, the eldest daughter of President Theodore Roosevelt, by Asian heads of state who sought to sway global events through personal diplomatic exchange.” Here’s the link to it. It’s kind of fun, actually — short and sweet — but I could not copy any of the material to show you.

A few more details from the press release:

The Freer and Sackler Archives contributed approximately 74 historical items from a collection of photography given to the archives in 2010 by the granddaughter of Alice Roosevelt, Joanna Sturm. The online platform allows users to see the metadata accompanying each image and the ability to see rich details with deep-zoom technology.

I have a deep interest in archives, and I know there is more in them than one might suppose. For example, this Google project might dip into archives from museums, like the Metropolitan, the MFA-Boston, and others, that took part in archaeological expeditions in Egypt and the Middle East in the early 20th Century. They could use digitizing.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Freer-Sackler

How Should Children Learn About Art?

When a publicist recently offered me a review copy of a book called Strange but True! published by Time for Kids because it had “a chapter devoted entirely to ART,” I said yes, with high hopes. A mistake.

Chapter 7, “Strange but True Art,” asks “What is art?” and responds “It’s a picture of stairways and strange creatures. It’s a dress made from a tasty dessert. It’s a creation inspired by a weather map. These are only a few of the strange but artful ideas you’re about to discover.”

The book is aimed at children aged 8 through 12. The art chapter begins with an opening spread teasing what follows and cites as strange “an umbrella hat,” “a monster that prowls beaches,” and “a dot-crazy room.” Can you guess the artists being cited?

We’ll get to them in a minute. But that wasn’t what I saw as an optimal way to get children interested in museum-worthy art, which is what I was hoping for.

I went back and reviewed the book’s billing, stated as intended to provide “an offbeat and very kid-appealing look at the workings and fascinating oddities of the natural world as well as offbeat human behavior and talents. The book’s editorial mission is to show kids 8 to 12 that planet Earth is filled with the odd, the weird, and the wacky-both natural, human and human made,” according to the publisher’s description on Amazon.

Now what art would fit that billing? Kids who read this book will get a Ukranian pastry chef who made a dress of 1,500 cream puffs; a 1930s zoot suit; that aforementioned umbrella hat/dress by Alexander McQueen; kinetic beach animals made by Dutchman Theo Jansen (the monster); and Yayoi Kusama’s Obliteration Room. They also get a styrofoam sculpture by Tara Donovan, a robot sculpture by Alex Holden, and a drawing by M.C. Escher. Plus a mention of the Penrose Triangle sculpture in Australia without attribution to an artist.

Now, some of those examples are just fine. But aren’t there better opportunities here? What about Bosch? Pollock? Turrell? Petak Coyne even? Why not the Roentgens, whose inlaid furniture pieces have secret compartments (and will soon be shown at the Met)? Those are just off the top of my head.

I suppose it’s the zoot suit and creampuff dress that set me off. And the trivialization of art. Art is sometimes strange, but I’d rather not have children start off learning about the mix this book presents.

In retrospect, I should have known, given the book’s title, that my expectations were too high. There are other, better children’s books about art.