Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

A Few Thoughts On The Future of Signature Styles

Over on her Brainstorm blog, artist Laurie Fendrich has an interesting post about painting, specifically about developing a mature or signature style, which raises a question about today’s art I will get to shortly. Let’s start with this quote from her:

Although my compositions and colors change from one picture to the next, they don’t change so dramatically that they no longer resemble one another. You could say that my paintings resemble one another [link mine] in the way that children in a given family, even when they have different heights, hair color and eye color, all manage to look as if they are related [see above].

Although Fendrich doesn’t say so outright, she implies that sooner or later, as artists evolve, they each develop their own style — which ought to be unique.

Although there’s seldom an actual “eureka” moment for artists—a moment where they shout that they’ve finally discovered their mature style—when people look back at any given artist’s complete oeuvre, it’s fairly easy to spot such a moment.

And later she adds that after 40 years of painting:

My artistic habits—the way I put on paint, construct compositions, and come up with colors—are deeply entrenched at this point, and are as big a part of my style as my temperament. To alter them is not impossible, but there’d have to be a reason beyond anything I can imagine.

There’s more along that vein, which I won’t post here, because I was she also said “More than one student has asked me why I don’t ever change my painting style.” Fascinating that it comes from her students (she teaches painting).

Some artists do try many things before settling on their big idea, but it seems to me that many artists over the past few decades have not settled at all. Rather, they go through ideas, perhaps one at a time, then move on. Their body of work ends up to be a series of unrelated bodies. Think Damian Hirst. Think Tom Sachs. Think Tracey Emin. Think of the many artists today who work in many mediums — no longer painters or sculptors or jewelry-makers or glass artists, but all of the above.

Now try to think of an equivalent of Rothko or Still or Pollock… contemporary photographers come to mind, yes, but not too many other artists are almost always recognizable.

What this means for the future of art, I’m not sure. But it does seem that the more things artists try, the less chances they have of truly developing that mature, signature style that will send them into art history. Just a thought that I think I think.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Williamson Gallery  

Securtizing Contemporary Art: An Omen For The Market

There’s a truism in the investment world which says that when an opportunity is opened to the little guy, it’s time to look for the exits. Not necessarily to cut and run,  but rather to devise an exit strategy. 

That’s what ran through my mind when I read an article in this week’s Bloomberg Business Week headlined Short Jackson Pollock! Go Long on Damien Hirst!  It describes a vehicle for investing in art under development by a suburban St. Louis company called Liquid Rarity Exchange, which intends to securitize art works and thus open “the exclusive club of art speculation to the investing public.”

As the article says:

The Clayton, Mo., company says it has patented a technique for banks to take individual works or groups of works public, with the first offerings still 12 to 18 months away. Its argument is that by making paintings—as well as vintage cars, rare books, musical instruments, and other appraised goods—more liquid and subject to SEC regulation, the market will be fairer and priced more accurately. Also, museums would have a new way to raise funds by selling stakes in their collections while continuing to display the work of art.

This fund would mimic the private investment vehicles owning art that have been around for a couple of decades in various permutations, the LRE execs say.

They didn’t explain their vehicle very well in what is a very slim story. What’s weird and somewhat shocking is that while some anonymous Wall-Streeters pooh-poohed the idea, some art world players did not. Here’s collector/hedge-funder Adam Sender:

Any time you bring more liquidity to a market and it’s done properly, it’s a good thing, not a bad thing…The more liquidity you bring to a market, the more confidence you bring to it, and the more money flows in.

And here’s Jennifer Zatorski, a senior vice president at Christie’s:

This is a sign of a healthy global market.

No it isn’t. Those quotes are signs that maybe the art market is nearing the limit on new buyers (for the moment at least), but those with inventory want to make sure it hasn’t.  As Sender hints, keeping this party going requires an inflow of more money.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Daily Telegraph

 

Discovery In the Basement — A Picasso, No Less — Leads to Deaccession

Now it’s a museum in Indiana that has found a treasure lying around in the basement: Picasso’s Seated Woman with Red Hat, dated 1954-1956, has been in storage at the Evansville  Museum of Arts, History & Science since it was donated in 1963. Because of a mixup and misunderstanding, no one knew it was a Picasso — even though it was signed! 

Last week, deciding it was unable to properly secure and show the picture, the museum’s board voted to deaccess Seated Woman with Red Hat through Guernsey’s, the small New York auction house, which plans to sell it privately (about which more, below).

It’s hard to tell, judging by this picture, how good (or bad) this portrait of Picasso’s mistress Marie-Thérèse Walter is — but it has an interesting provenance. The museum’s press release reveals  the whole story; here’s an excerpt:

Seated Woman with Red Hat was created using a layered-glass technique called “gemmail” (plural: gemmaux). Gemmail uses individual pieces of color glass overlapped and joined together with clear liquid enamel and then fired. …Picasso…produced 50 or more gemmaux masterpieces during his two years of study at the Malherbe Studio in France.

Picasso gave one-half of his collection to the Malherbe family in return for their expertise, training and collaboration, and kept one half for himself. The pieces in Picasso’s portion of the collection were sold to private collectors [including, the museum added later, the Emperor of Japan, Nelson Rockefeller and Prince Rainier of Monaco].

Raymond Loewy, an internationally known industrial designer, purchased Seated Woman with Red Hat in the late 1950s and gifted the piece to the Evansville Museum in 1963. …

…associated documentation indicated that the piece was created by an artist named “Gemmaux” – confusing the name of the technique with the artist’s name – and that it was a design inspired by a Picasso painting, which is how it was cataloged by museum staff. It was noted that the piece was signed by Picasso. The piece was placed in museum storage and never displayed. Earlier this year, Guernsey’s, in researching Picasso’s gemmaux works, contacted the Evansville Museum about the gift from Raymond Loewy. It was this contact from Guernsey’s that revealed the significance of the piece, prompting further research and study.

Loewy died in 1986, apparently never asking why his gift wasn’t on display.

Although the museum says it doesn’t want to pay the additional expenses associated with showing the picture, this is a curious excuse for deaccessioning. The museum also owns five works on paper by Picasso, and two are on view in an area it says is “devoted to portraits and figure studies.” It has what appears to be an extensive collection of art that requires security: “American and European painting, graphic works, and sculpture dating from the 16th through the 20th centuries.” It mounts temporary exhibitions. It owns, according to one published report, works by Rembrandt, Hopper and O’Keeffe. Its most recent 990, for 2010, shows net assets of more than $20 million and an operating surplus that year of $461,225. It’s accredited by the American Association of Museums.

Neither the museum nor Guernsey’s have placed a value on the portrait, which was based on Picasso’s 1934 Woman With a Red Hat. But that is what appears to be the motivation for selling, doesn’t it?

The message to patrons is clear: don’t give this museum anything too valuable; we’ll have to sell it. Not a way to build a collection.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Evansville Museum

A Confab To Sort Out The World Of Biennials

My favorite biennial is the Biennial at the End of the World (also here, in Spanish with pictures) That’s physical, not time-based. Not that I’ve been yet — it began in 2007 — but I love the billing. It takes place in  Ushuaia, the capital of Argentina’s Tierra del Fuego Province and of the Southern Atlantic Islands, and on its first go-round it

artistically joined both ends of the Earth in real time, by means of an electronic station located in Ushuaia and others in the North of Canada and Finnish Lapland. In key points of the participating cities, screens were installed for the passers-by to watch and witness the development of the video-artists’ work, to communicate, and also to participate in this multimedia performance.

Did you know that there are now more than 150 biennials “for art and related disciplines”? That number doesn’t include, obviously, art fairs or annuals or triennials. (No wonder curators are tired.)

But now comes a group called the Biennial Foundation with plans to bring together organizers, curators and supporters of biennials to discuss their challenges. From October 27th through the 31st, it’s hosting the first World Biennial Forum in Gwangju, South Korea coinciding with the 9th Gwangju Biennale  (7 September–11 November). And just in case that’s not enough, you can also attend the nearby Busan Biennale 2012 (22 September–24 November) and the 7th Mediacity Seoul (11 September–4 November). That shows a bit of the problem right there: when does synergy turn into subtracting rather than adding to the combined whole?

While the Forum says it aims to “diffuse knowledge and to promote public awareness of contemporary art biennials,” I think it should also provide an eye-opening look at the big picture here. Can all of these biennials be supported? For how long? That, I hope. will be part of the “critical reflection” on the total number the Forum promises.

The Forum has Co-Directors – Ute Meta Bauerand Hou Hanru — who will develop the structure and content for this “first get-together of biennale professionals.”

Bauer is “Dean of Fine Art at the Royal College of Art…served as the Director of the Visual Arts Program and as Founding Director of the Program in Art, Culture and Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology…was co-curator of documenta 11, artistic director of the 3rd Berlin Biennale (2004) and was the Founding Director of the Office for Contemporary Art Norway (OCA).”

Hou is “an art critic and curator…[who] worked at San Francisco Art Institute as Director of Exhibitions and Public Program and Chair of Exhibition and Museum Studies (2006-2012)….has curated numerous exhibitions including the Biennials of Johannesburg, Shanghai, Gwangju, Guangzhou (Triennial), Tirana, Venice (French Pavilion, 1999, Chinese Pavilion, 2007), Istanbul, and Lyon….[and] is currently curating the 5th Auckland Triennial.

They’ve not released a program yet, but I hope it’s a realistic one. What we probably do not need is more biennials.

The Gwangju Biennial was, according to Culture360, “the first international art biennale in Asia to be introduced as such to the international community and has established itself as Asia’s oldest and most prestigious Biennales of contemporary art. It is amongst the world’s “most visited” Biennales and attracts a huge international audience every year – alternating between art and design.”

Photo Credits: The Gwangju Biennial 2010/Culture360 Magazine

 

Breaking News: Indianapolis Gets A Director

The Indianapolis Art Museum has just announced a successor to Max Anderson: Charles L. Venable is the new Melvin & Bren Simon Director and CEO of the Museum. Venable is currently the director and CEO of the Speed Art Museum.

From the press release:

Venable brings more than 25 years of museum experience to the IMA, having held senior positions at some of the country’s top encyclopedic art museums including the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Dallas Museum of Art. During his five-year tenure as director and CEO of the Speed, Venable fueled tremendous institutional growth and initiated innovative programs that placed a special focus on the permanent collection and fostered deeper engagement with the public. He launched a comprehensive analysis of the Speed’s 14,000-piece permanent collection, acquired a series of significant works of art for the Museum, and expanded the role of adult and student education within the Speed’s overall programming. Venable also spearheaded a master plan to reinvigorate the Museum and enhance the visitor experience, which has led to the reconceptualization of the Museum’s current facility and a planned 200,000-square-foot expansion featuring a new building for modern and contemporary art designed by wHY Architecture of Los Angeles and New York

 Read the rest here.

I have written favorably about what Venable has done at the Speed three times: here, here and here (this one is most enlightening — he answers my Five Questions about his review of the Speed’s permanent collection). He will surely be different in style from Anderson. But Venable has been accessible to me whenever I asked, and I assume to others in the press, and that’s a very good thing for many reasons — one being a sign that he’s open.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Business First