• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
    • Real Clear Arts
    • Judith H. Dobrzynski
    • Contact
  • ArtsJournal
  • AJBlogs

Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

FUN Fellowships At An Art Museum Are No Joke

As is often said, non-fiction is stranger than fiction: Sometimes you just can’t make things up as well as life does. That is certainly the case with a press release that DIDN’T land in my email box last week. Someone had to tip me off to it.

The announcement was made by the Museum of Arts and Design, and it said that it had chosen four winners of its “FUN Fellowship,” which “was established in 2011 by the Museum of Arts and Design in recognition of the vital role nightlife practitioners play in the city’s creative community and artistic endeavors.”

The winners receive both financial and logistical support “to help them advance and realize their latest nightlife-related projects.” This year’s winners are Ladyfag, FCKNLZ, CHERYL, and Babycastles. The release continues:  

The Fun Fellows were identified through a complex, competitive process. MAD invited 100 individuals from the art and nightlife communities to each nominate a candidate. From this group, 35 individuals and collaboratives were selected as semi-finalists by a collection of their peers, and the winners were chosen by a jury comprised of curators, nightlife luminaries, critics, and previous Fun Fellows. “We wanted to make sure we’re not trying to force nightlife practitioners into the fine arts sector, but rather expanding the sector to better accommodate the practice,” said Jake Yunza, MAD’s Manager of Public Programs and founder of the THE FUN fellowship.

The “fine arts sector”? And why would MAD think New York City’s nightlife needs such support? Check that press release link for the nature of these subsidized projects, which involve dance-induced euphoria, private “Dayclub” events not open to the public, video game hacking workshops, and theatrical restagings of club-kid talk show appearances.   

It’s easy to poke fun at this, but there’s a serious nature to this post. When it comes to gathering public support for arts institutions — meager as it is — these kinds of programs work against the whole arts community. No one is against fun; but people are not eager to subsidize it in such difficult times.

The Museum of Arts and Design’s URL is “madmuseum.org.” In this particular case, it is mad. 

BTW, I emailed MAD’s press office earlier today asking for the size of the monetary support, the source of the money and the nature of the logisitical support. If and when I receive an answer, I’ll update this post.

Ladyfag, btw, is pictured.

(Re)discovering Simon Hantai, And A Possible Opportunity

If I’d come across the artist Simon Hantai before I went to TEFAF Maastricht this year, I don’t remember him. But one booth (Galerie Beres, I think) featured several works by him, and I was intrigued enough to take a couple of pictures so that I could remember to look him up upon my return (the top two photos here, and sorry about the fuzziness).   

It turned out that I didn’t really need the reminder, because within days, the National Gallery of Art announced the acquisition of Etude (1969) by Hantai, its first painting by him.

That sent me to his 2008 obit in The New York Times, which explained my deficiency (a bit). It described him as “a highly regarded, famously reclusive French painter whose work explored ideas of absence and silence,”  and elaborated:

In 1982, Mr. Hantaï represented France at the Venice Biennale. Later that year, he withdrew from view, in what he described as a reaction against the rampant commercialization of art and the state’s unwelcome involvement in the making of art. Retreating to his home in Paris, he rarely left the house and refused requests to exhibit his paintings. But over the next decade and a half, Mr. Hantaï quietly produced what many critics believe to be his finest work.

The obit continued, describing his invention of a process known as pliage: 

In 1960, Mr. Hantaï began to manipulate and crease his canvases before carefully brushing them with bright liquid color. Where most painters saw canvas as merely a surface to hold paint, Mr. Hantaï focused on its essential physical nature: it was a textile that could be folded, scrunched or tied before paint touched it.

The result, when his painted canvases were unfolded, was repeating patterns of jagged whiteness that could suggest ice crystals, geologic rifts or leaf forms. The paintings seemed punctuated by absence — a kind of visual silence — a telling motif for an artist who was an exile. Mr. Hantaï’s important folded paintings include the series “Mariales” (“Cloaks”), “Whites” and “Tabulas.”

And his red Etude, above right.

The NGA says that  the Pompidou Centre is working on a retrospective of Hantai’s work next year, which it expects “will bring him international attention.” Wouldn’t it be nice if that exhibit were coming to the U.S.? The Metropolitan Museum owns no works by Hantai, and the Modern, which owns two, has neither on view. Nothing comes up in a search at the Guggenheim, SF MoMA, LACMA, MFA-Boston, the Philadelphia Museum or the Art Institute of Chicago, either.

I wonder if it’s still possible for an American museum to ask for the Hantai. I’d certainly like to see more, and a simple request — even after an exhibit is on view — has been known to work before. At left, btw, is Blue Muen from 1967.

 Photo Credits: Etude, courtesy of NGA; Blue Meun, Courtesy of Paul Rodgers / 9W Gallery

 

 

MIT Promises To Put More Arts In ITS DNA

Leaving aside the List Visual Arts Center, we don’t usually think of the arts as foremost at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But today it announced a forward-thinking inititative — a new Center for Art, Science & Technology — intended to propel MIT’s goal of integrating the arts into its curriculum and research. CAST, as it will be known, is “A joint initiative of the office of the Provost and the schools of Architecture and Planning (SA+P) and Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences.” Evan Ziporyn, a music professor of Music, has been names as CAST’s inaugural director.

The Mellon Foundation provided $1.5 million in funds over four years for the center, which will be used to give

awards to faculty, researchers and curators seeking to develop cross-disciplinary courses, new research or exhibitions that span the arts, science and technology….supplement[s to]  MIT’s existing Visiting Artists program…to embed artists’ residencies in the curriculum and create a platform for collaboration with faculty, students and research staff in the development, display and performance of new and experimental artwork or technologies for artistic expression.  In addition, the grant will support the participation of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in the activities of the Center. 

MIT, meanwhile, has pledged to mount “a major, bi-annual international symposium on art, science and technology,” with the first set for the 2013-14 academic year.   CAST will be part of the Office of the Provost, which signals it as a priority, I think.

A year ago, MIT held “FAST, the Festival of Art, Science and Technology” as part of its 150th anniversary celebration, and published a report called “The Arts at MIT.” CAST builds on that. (There’s more in the press release here.)

All of this is great; my only worry is that $1.5 million may not go that far.

Other art things are happening at MIT, too. On May 3, the MIT Museum will open the1,650 sq. ft. Kurtz Gallery for Photography, whose first exhibition will show 75 photographs by Berenice Abbott, plus letters and documents — Photography and Science: An Essential Unity.

And on May 10, MIT plans to dedicate Ring Stone by Cai Guo-Qiang — a monumental white granite sculpture and his first public work for a university. (There’s another picture here.)

Consisting of twelve “individual, but indivisible links cut from a 39 1/2-foot-long single block of white granite” — and weighing about 14 metric tons — the piece will be accompanied by seven Japanese Black Pine trees, planted inside the rings and nearby. It will be positioned on the lawn of the MIT Sloan School of Management, observing the principles of Feng Shui. Cai Guo-Qiang will give the keynote speech at MIT’s China Forum the same day as the dedication.

I’m sure there’s much else going on at the List Center, too, under its new director, Paul Ha.

Photograph: Courtesy of MIT

 

A Critical View: The Artist We Love To Hate

The Tate Modern’s exhibition of Damien Hirst’s work opened last week, and I thought I was time to check in on the reaction. It is, the Tate says:

the first substantial survey of his work in a British institution and will bring together key works from over twenty years. The exhibition will include iconic sculptures from his Natural History series, including The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living 1991, in which he suspended a shark in formaldehyde. Also included will be vitrines such as A Thousand Years from 1990, medicine cabinets, pill cabinets and instrument cabinets in addition to seminal paintings made throughout his career using butterflies and flies as well as spots and spins. The two-part installation In and Out of Love, not shown in its entirety since its creation in 1991 and Pharmacy 1992 will be among the highlights of the exhibition.

The Tate advises, on its website, “We are currently experiencing a very high demand for tickets. We strongly advise booking in advance to avoid disappointment.”

When I looked for reviews, I discovered that my friend Helen Stoilas at The Art Newspaper had already compiled some quotes from the reviews, published on the web — “Thumbs down (bar one) for Damien Hirst at Tate Modern.”  That one, I guess, is Richard Dorment at the “conservative” Daily Telegraph, who is quoted saying:

“For reasons that I don’t understand, he insists on presenting himself as a fraud who is somehow pulling the wool over the eyes of the public. And that’s a pity, because in Tate Modern’s full-scale retrospective he comes across as a serious—if wildly uneven—artist.” Dorment ends his review saying: “In many ways this is a difficult show, but I left it with a sense of Hirst as an artist whose moral stature can no longer be questioned.”

Less kind were critics at the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Times, and independent critic (former director of Kelvingrove in Glasgow) Julian Spalding, whose new book, Con Art–Why you ought to sell your Damien Hirsts while you can, apparently disqualified him, in the Tate’s view, from attending the press preview to do interviews for the BBC. Shame on the Tate Modern, if that’s the whole story. Here’s an account in the Independent, hat-tip to TAN.

To TAN’s roundup article, let me add a few:

  • The Toronto Globe and Mail sat on the fence, concluding “The local reviews are in and most of them are reservedly damning – there is a sense among the press in London that Hirst should have made more of his talent, and this show is evidence of a once-starry reputation in decline.”
  • The Daily Mail called Hirst a fraud.

Presumably, the Tate has its man and is sticking with him, charging £14.00 for adults,  and warning visitors to expect an hour of wait time before buying tickets. The exhibit was, btw, sponsored by the Qatar Museums Authority

Photo Credit: Hirst and his “I am Become Death, Shatterer of Worlds,” Oli Scarff/Getty Images via The Art Newspaper

 

 

Art21 Reveals A New Group of Artists: A Test — UPDATED

Art21 is in the news today, and not in a good way — according to various reports, the National Endowment for the Arts is planning to cut the funding it has supplied to this self-described “chronicler of contemporary art and artists.”

I was going to blog about it sometime soon anyway, because Season Six of “Art in the Twenty-First Century” makes its debut on PBS on Friday at 9 p.m. (although, as they always say “check your local listings”).  Season Six

includes 13 profiles of artists from five continents gathered into four, one-hour thematic episodes: Change, Balance, History and Boundaries. Spanning the globe from Nigeria to New York City, from Beijing to Brazil, the programs reveal the artists at work and speaking in their own words as they demonstrate the power of art to alter perception, challenge convention, and change how we see the world around us.

That’s a tall order. The artists vary widely, from Sarah Sze to Ai Weiwei, from Marina Abramovic to Robert Mangold, from El Anatsui to Mary Reid Kelley, from Rackshaw Downes to Glenn Ligon. And more. There’s a short clip for each of the shows here, plus  lots of other images/background material. And the press release.

I watched only the four-minute trailer for the season, with excerpts from each artist. Can you guess which one said, and I’m sometimes paraphrasing slightly:

  1. My work is about change, regeneration, bringing about new.
  2. I get very possessive about my places and I don’t want any other artists coming around here to paint them.
  3. People prefer to be positive about history and they always want something from it.
  4. It’s important for an artist to fnd the right tool.
  5. Art is about new possibilities.
  6. I really like the idea that natural wildlife survives in this intense metropolis.
  7. I try to build an object complex enough to start feeling like it’s alive.
  8. What I’m committed to is not love of painting but love of the idea of making ideas.
  9. Rather than my influence coming from nature, it comes from culture, the history of art and the culture of our times. 

I’ll update with the answers sometime soon — but feel free to leave your answers in the comments section below.

Meantime, I suspect Art21 could use more public support — watching and, if you like what you see, giving.

UPDATE — THE ANSWERS:

  1. El Anatsui
  2. Rackshaw Downes
  3. Mary Reid Kelley
  4. Marina Abramovic
  5. Ai Weiwei
  6. Sarah Sze
  7. David Altmejd
  8. Glenn Ligon
  9. Robert Mangold

Photo Credits: David Altmejd’s “The Eye” (top), El Anatsui making “Change,” bottom; Courtesy of Art21

 

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

About Judith H. Dobrzynski

Now an independent journalist, I've worked as a reporter in the culture and business sections of The New York Times, and been the editor of the Sunday business section and deputy business editor there as well as a senior editor of Business Week and the managing editor of CNBC, the cable TV

About Real Clear Arts

This blog is about culture in America as seen through my lens, which is informed and colored by years of reporting not only on the arts and humanities, but also on business, philanthropy, science, government and other subjects. I may break news, but more likely I will comment, provide

Archives