|En español||Internacional (en inglés)||Blogs de Arte10||Ver Todos||Incluye tu blog||Canales activos|
¡Cada dos semanas comentamos en Fluido Rosa de RNE3 las novedades de Redes de arte!
Redes de arte también tiene su versión offline: Encuentro sobre arte en la red
|Installation view of "The Double Bind," an exhibition |
at Loughelton Gallery, New York, in 1987.
Maybe a long time ago people from Quaintsville were less informed on current conceptual trends, but that's certainly not the case now. You can be typing away in Elk River Idaho, working on your MFA thesis from a top conceptual University via correspondence. Most people have access to all of the same information.
To assume that an artist is less involved in progressive dialogue simply because they're in Quaintsville is highly dismissive. Everyone is on Facebook. Everyone Tweets. Everyone blogs. We all know what color tie Jerry Saltz wore to the last opening. Quaintsvillagers have their finger on the pulse.
Human relationships are rich; they?re messy and demanding. We have learned the habit of cleaning them up with technology. And the move from conversation to connection is part of this. But it?s a process in which we shortchange ourselves. Worse, it seems that over time we stop caring, we forget that there is a difference.
We are tempted to think that our little ?sips? of online connection add up to a big gulp of real conversation. But they don?t. E-mail, Twitter, Facebook, all of these have their places ? in politics, commerce, romance and friendship. But no matter how valuable, they do not substitute for conversation.
Connecting in sips may work for gathering discrete bits of information or for saying, ?I am thinking about you.? Or even for saying, ?I love you.? But connecting in sips doesn?t work as well when it comes to understanding and knowing one another. In conversation we tend to one another. (The word itself is kinetic; it?s derived from words that mean to move, together.) We can attend to tone and nuance. In conversation, we are called upon to see things from another?s point of view.
All of which both rings true to me and makes me question the value of the so-called digital dialog, particularly as it feeds a conceptual art practice.
FACE-TO-FACE conversation unfolds slowly. It teaches patience. When we communicate on our digital devices, we learn different habits. As we ramp up the volume and velocity of online connections, we start to expect faster answers. To get these, we ask one another simpler questions; we dumb down our communications, even on the most important matters. It is as though we have all put ourselves on cable news. Shakespeare might have said, ?We are consum?d with that which we were nourish?d by.?
The answer to this needs to be broken into two parts.
The problem is that art fairs are absolutely crap way to look at work. Also they are horribly inefficient. You have to move artwork, temporarily, across the country or across the ocean...and then whatever isn't sold, ship it back. then the plane tickets, hotels, meals.....I can't imagine it could possibly be profitable unless one is selling work in the mid five to six figure range.
it seems like participating in fairs is something of a "loss leader"....just something you have to do in order to maintain a profile.
Ed...can you weigh in on this?
Bonus question For Edward Winkleman. If Rush Limbaugh walked in your gallery and wanted to purchase a work of art would you sell to him?
Too much of anything is bad,
but too much good whiskey is barely enough.
~ Mark TwainNext week, whether you be in Germany, Brussels, or Mexico, you can visit a major contemporary art fair presenting an international selection of high-profile galleries. You can even visit a fair from the comfort of your own home, as VIP launches its works on paper edition.
In his now-infamous 60 Minutes story "Yes...But is it art?" Safer took on artists, dealers and critics of the 90s with equal gusto. The artists, he said, make mostly "worthless junk," or better yet, hire craftsmen to make it for them. Dealers, he said "lust after the hype-able." Critics write in a language that "might as well be in Sanskrit."