There’s a lot of discussion going on regarding The Artist Project wing of Artropolis. Most of it is negative. As a two-time participant, I have something to say about the show. I’ve broken my thoughts down into three areas: what I perceived The Artist Project to be, what it’s become and what it should be.
The first TAP was billed as an opportunity for artists that have yet to be discovered by the art world. I understood this to mean that it was for artists that were worthy of exhibiting in a major gallery or even museum, but for whatever reason have not reached that point yet. The impression I got, was that it was a chance to get work in front of collectors, curators, dealers and the general public. The entry fee was high enough to require a serious commitment from the artists, yet low enough so that it didn’t completely break the bank.
There was some work in that show that might be considered frame shop level. However, the show was small enough so that the good work stood out. It could have been better, though. It was isolated from the main action, so most of those collectors, curators and dealers that happened upon the show were probably passing through from the Wolf Point parking lot on the way to Art Chicago. Though I did notice some Bridge dealers checking out the wares.
For me the ‘07 show was a success. I sold a piece that covered my cost and got a large commission. Since one weekend isn’t really enough exposure and I did OK, I decided I would try again, especially since it would move to the Mart from the lobby of the Apparel Center.
When I was excepted this year, I learned that there were going to be 300 of us. This concerned me, since I wondered how good The Artist Project really could be. They couldn’t have found 300 artists worthy of attention. Plus, with the price increase of 50%, it may attract the itinerant mall fair artists. Would the stigma of being in an art bazaar hurt me? Would it matter? In the end, I felt that it was still an opportunity to show my work and I felt strong enough about it that I didn’t care what may be in the next booth. I also felt that I had unfinished business from last year.
While walking through the show, I realized that the Merchandise Mart had made The Artist Project an “Old Town Art Fair.” I believe that they want something for everyone at Artropolis. Unfortunately, I don’t know how this helps to turn Chicago into an important player in the Art World. This middle market is pretty well covered here with the three major street fairs and the many mall shows. This is akin to having a wedding band showcase at SXSW or lounge singing at NOLA’s Jazz & Heritage Festival. With the antique show and Intuit, they have something for everyone’s taste.
How does this makes Artropolis and Chicago look to the rest of the Art World? Maybe it’s ignored by those that attend NEXT and Art Chicago and it doesn’t make a difference. I also don’t know how successful it is, as the street fair it’s become. It certainly didn’t get the attention that NEXT got (for that matter Art Chicago didn’t seem to get as much attention as NEXT). I must say the show was well attended, though mostly by folks going on an outing — something to do on a weekend before going out to dinner. The Artist Project is not about exposure for artists that need it. It’s an indoor street fair for itinerant artists selling art to go over couches.
In order to figure out what The Artist Project should be, I think that a couple of questions need to be addressed first. Who are these artists that have not been recognized by the Art World and why haven’t they been recognized? Are they young artists still trying to get out there? Are they older artists that have been hovering on the fringes trying to get inside? Does it matter? In any case, I would suspect that these artists have not put forth the effort to promote themselves and while they may focus on their work and produce stuff worthy of exposure, they aren’t in control of their careers. A side show in a larger art circus isn’t going to help.
If anything, The Artist Project should be part of NEXT — a few slots like the Solo projects maybe. In all reality, though, perhaps The Artist Project shouldn’t exist. The artists that were originally supposed to have been served by it should think bigger than pushing their work in a trade show booth. The internet does not revolutionize the art world like it did to the music industry. You can’t download art (mostly). It does, however, give artists an invaluable tool in researching opportunities and making contacts. It makes the seemingly impossible process of self promotion, possible. Perhaps that is what the independent artist should be doing if he or she wants to be a professional.
May 1st, 2008 at 8:02 am
Good essay. I agree. The Artist Project was doomed from inception because of its own model. I like the idea of having The Artist Project be part of NEXT and maybe only feature 5-10 worthy artists.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:20 am
Bill, I think at least some artists looked at The Artist Project as one of those efforts to promote themselves and be in control of their career (get exposure), even with misgivings about the ultimate number of artists included (lesson learned) which makes it all the sadder that the Mart turned the project into a street fair. That said, I think a limited few did get some good exposure. The young kid next to me (just got his BFA, I think) had very good work that looked like ocean forms built with an encaustic process (a la Martin Kline); he got both sales and attention from designers. I don’t know whether he was one of the 50 or so artists the jury picked before the Mart added artists.
Nice site, btw.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:49 am
At first, I thought I was the only one who compared the AP to a street fair when I posted a comment on BAS. I felt guilty that I had not invested enough time into the 300plus artists work to make that comment. I mean, shit, these were my peers, right? So I went back, and felt the same. Most people were not there to challenge/invent/further contemporary art practices. They were there to sell some gifts. Which is fine, but, some/most of the AP artists wouldn’t fit into the NEXT fair, or Art Chicago. Ever. I mean, they were all good at what they do, but showing in a gallery is not what they wanted to do. So why was the AP lumped in with Atropolis, anyways?
May 1st, 2008 at 11:56 am
Thanks Dee.
I agree that artists looked at it as a way of promoting themselves, despite the number of participants, which is why I did it. I don’t think that a street fair is going to help anyone but the itinerant artist that does these fairs for fun/profit. I don’t fault anyone for trying it, especially the young artist starting out. I have this type of show out of my system now.
If TAP is to continue in its original concept to promote artists worthy of recognition by the Art World, then it needs to include them in the show(s) that cater to that market.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Though I was only able to breeze through NEXT, it seemed that it was mostly conceptual work. Not all visual art worthy of being in a gallery or museum is necessarily tied to a larger concept or philosophical construct. It can express something meaningful through line, form, color, imagery, etc. The few good artists in TAP mostly fit in this category. There just aren’t enough of them to fill out a 300 member show. This handful of artist should either be grouped with the other two shows somehow.
I think the Mart folks really want something for everyone. They have nothing against people selling gifts. After all, they host the One of a Kind show. To them, The Artist Project fits that bill. I don’t know what that does to Artropolis or the Chicago’s reputation, but the Mart has the space and there are enough people that like street fairs.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Great job commenting and judging, Bill. I did very well in the first AP, but then I’m not “really” an unrepresented artist. You know my proposals for a better AP. I made a list and got them to the fair folks — and a few artists with another 250+ street “artists” is contraproductive and in fact insulting artists like you who deserve more attention.
Clearly something “else” is needed a la Tony’s ideas, or all real artists have to stay out of TAP. I’m glad I did this time. Maybe you need do your own next year. Let’s think and stay in touch.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Thanks Mark.
It’s interesting to note that Jim Happy Delpech’s plan for Around the Coyote and the intention of the artists that started the 57th Street Art Fair were similar to the original concept of The Artist Project. Both quickly devolved into “street fairs” as well.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I still think The Artist Project could work and do some good. It should feature 5-10 artists and their booths should be free. It should be totally philanthropic from the Mart’s end. But if the Mart is really not going to make any changes than good riddance.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Things that start out as an effort to help artists emerge devolve into “street fairs” because there’s no shortage of “artists” struggling to emerge and get their work out there to be noticed and the organizations want/need the money and, in the case of non-profits, to continue to exist. They take the money of the many to help the few emerge (e.g. Around the Coyote’s Curator’s Choice signals out a few artists among the many who ante up).
If the goal starts out as identifying serious art/artists worthy of emerging as The Artist Project supposedly did, it takes discipline on the part of the organizing entity to keep the original focus in mind and not to let the effort devolve in the street fair direction. As well, artists have to be more judicious than, for example, I was in participating despite misgivings about the number of artists, the lack of event promotion, etc. One tries different things, though, to get their work noticed. The part that bothered me about TAP is the bait and switch in terms of the announced purpose compared to the actual outcome.
Norbert, for the Toronto Artist Project, they had an effort just as you describe — for artists less than five years out of school (which often seems to be a cut off for a fair number of emerging art competitions) in which artists were juried in response to a call for artists and a select few were provided space to show their work. In the case of Artropolis, Next was the venue for such efforts, on an invited basis — in retrospect, the existence of Next should have ruled out participation in The Artist Project.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:52 pm
As I wrote over at BaS, though, NEXT is a transformation of the fair idea from gallery-collector to curator basis — and the curators control most of the rest of the artworld anyway.
Why not a “Next” that is artist-supportive.
I also don’t support ageism in any fashion. What would be the purpose of an upper age limit in an artist area, when most galleries do that now anyway? Ageism is always PARICULARLY hard on, exclusive of middle-aged woman artists. It would be simply repetative of the larger artworld.
It should be a question of artists who are very good and “still emerging” or “under exposed” or “independent” in some fashion. I think that would be up to a jury to decide. A jury INCLUDING artists.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I agree, Mark. I just meant that because they were going in the direction of Next as their new attention getter, I should have seen that they were going to side line The Artist Project. By the way, they are now packaging The Artist Project with One of A Kind in December.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Dee, you hit it on the head with this:
“Things that start out as an effort to help artists emerge devolve into “street fairs” because there’s no shortage of “artists” struggling to emerge and get their work out there to be noticed and the organizations want/need the money and, in the case of non-profits, to continue to exist.”
That’s why we have the mush of CAC, The Chicago Art Open, Around the Coyote, The Artist Project, One of a Kind, etc - -
May 1st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
“By the way, they are now packaging The Artist Project with One of A Kind in December.”
WTF! Instead of fixing it the Mart is just pissing it away…good riddance.
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:10 am
Let’s make our own real TAP, maybe with the Shark and Michael Workman.
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Sounds interesting. Count me in!
May 4th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I am one of those “senior” women artists alluded to in the discussion. I have been making art over 35 years, with breaks for other ventures. I was represented by Phyllis Kind Gallery in Chicago until she closed in 1992. I have had a one-person exhibit at the New Museum of Contp. Art in N.Y.. plus a six page plus exhibition resume.
I was an artist in the Artist Project. I assumed that I was one of the “established artists”. I do not have gallery representation because after years of having done so, I am not interested. I am an independent artist because I like the flexibility of where and how I exhibit.
I agree with some of the discussion as it pertains to the “less than ready for primetime wannabe artists” there were some pretty awful things, booths there. I heard that the original jurors (4 of them I think) picked only 50 artists and the rest of the people were picked by the Artist Project staff. I say greed was the problem here.
In summary, it was to have been an exhibit for unrepresented,( independent) artists, the idea being their work is less expensive than when an artist is with a gallery. AP hoped that the concept would be embraced by the public and they would buy. God knows few could afford Art Chicago prices.
There are not enough galleries for all the decent artists who would like to be represented by one.
p.s. I don’t do art fairs.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I’ve participated in both Artists Projects in Chicago, as well as the recent Artist Project Toronto. And as someone who has had all 3 experiences, I believe Toronto has the model you would all be happy with. APT featured about 80 artists, including about 6 of us from the US, and every single booth was stunning. The work was beautiful, sophisticated, innovative. Everything we want a show like this to be. The show was also held independently of any other art exhibition. It was an event in itself. Though it was promoted, I believe, as a show for independent artists, I know many of the artists had different degrees of representation, so I know they couldn’t have been very strict about it.
I don’t know how the show was juried or by whom. I don’t know how many artists applied. I know they initially promoted it as over 100 artists. And it was ultimately smaller than planned. But I was thrilled to be exhibiting along with these other artists. And regardless of size, location, or other restricitions, I think that’s the kind of Artist Project we want.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
I was an exhibitor at TAP this year and was really disappointed in the way the Mart handled things. The show last year is what made me consider entering and while it was a little hokey last year I respected some of the artists who participated and I thought I’d give it a go. I went into the show with the single goal of getting a gallery and exposure to galleries that I would not have normally. I was very disappointed in the nearly 300 artist roster and the Mart’s anything-for-a-buck attitude. When I saw several street art fair types at the show my heart sank. I invested every cent I had (and even more borrowed) for the show and for it to turn into a typical street fair at 10 times the price just ticked me off. In 2004 I was on the set-up team building booths for the Stray Show and was expecting the same type of quality booth - high walls good lighting etc. but TAP wasn’t even close. Moving the show to a separate location with broader aisles and higher ceilings would also be an improvement.
Not too many artists I know can throw away 1500 to 1800 dollars so it doesn’t surprise me that many tried to have things there to sell. Maybe with a lower entry fee and a more limited selection there would be less pressure to make the money back and many would take the opportunity to really take some chances.
I’ve been one of those artists that seems to always be on the verge of success but narrowly misses. My last gallery closed 6 months after I signed a contract last year and have been looking for a good fit for my work. I did get several leads for galleries at TAP and feel confident in their prospects but doubt everyone had the same experience. I received the same invite mentioned above to participate in the Toronto show but now have serious doubts as to whether it will be any different, they’re both owned by MMPI afterall.
Next year I will not participate unless it is completely revamped and limited to a select few. Maybe instead of the artists sitting their booths there should be one large show space with the judges who currated entry representing the work. Or maybe a chance for a young independant currator to step up and take some chances with the show. I’d be interested in seeing what happens next year.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I’m new to this forum-having only heard about it through a business card left at my booth at TAP. Thanks by the way, and I enjoyed the review of the show. I completely agree with everything said here, particularly Dee’s comment on the “bait and switch”. The packaging of TAP with Art Chicago and NEXT was the reason I decided to participate, naively thinking the overall quality couldn’t help but be high by association. I was a little surprised to see so many accepted artists on the website, but decided to go through with it anyhow-next time I’ll know better.
On a more positive note, I love Mark’s idea of artists, in conjunction with jurors doing their own version. If it were carefully juried (by whom, I don’t know) and kept to a small size it could be really exciting. Unfortunately, it would be hard to garner the type of audience that attends Artropolis, even if it were held the same weekend because the likelihood of people attending events outside of the Mart is slim given how large it is. I don’t know what the best solution is, but it seems like it would be worth attempting somehow. Mark, you mentioned Tony’s idea- since I’m new here I’m curious as to what that is?
May 5th, 2008 at 11:58 am
In the end a few talented artists learned some hard lessons…that’s a good thing.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Neotericart.com is evolving into a wonderful forum; it is fun to watch it gather momentum. Thank you to Norbert and all of the participants.
I participated in TAP the first year. Buying into the pitch that unrepresented artists would receive the attentions of the well heeled Artropolis crowd, I did my best to display a simple, gallery quality selection of my best works. I was so heart broken upon arrival, pushing a loaded cart like a third world street vendor, to se that the show was in a hotel lobby, in front of a commercial art school. I immediately knew what to expect.
As mentioned earlier, this was a bait and switch. Indeed, the Old Town Art Fair is actually of higher quality and better managed. At least with the OTAF, artists know exactly what they are bargaining for. There is no bait and switch. Jury rules are enforced, and the crowd really wants to bring things home.
When the pitch was made to participate in TAP this year, all I could think is “buyers beware!” One would have liked to know exactly what one would be purchasing for $1500 and an awful lot of effort. Little information was offered, other than “send your hard earned artist money to those who need it much less than you do so that they can make things happen for you…just trust us.”
You know what? The level of TAP must have also been a huge disappointment, due to proximity, for the Intuit dealers, who surely have racked up some hefty bills. Walking through the maze of TAP just killed any desire to look. Guilt by association, it’s the American way.
There were enough very wonderful artists participating this year as well as last year, but unfortunately drowning in mud. One of the participating artists I met last year, Jeff Zimmerman, suggested using the model of the old Louvre Salons that we’ve all read about in art history books: a handful of selected artists included free of charge. I do like this idea, but of course that could only address a small handful of deserving artists.
For the many wonderful but obscure artists out there, young and old, there really is no answer. I just hope that the love of what you do and the people you care about offer enough to keep you going!. And please, work to make your own world the way you want it to be, don’t believe that anyone else is going to do it for you. Create your own synergies and exhibition opportunities.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I did not get anything from TAP other than lessons learned. I suspect most of us have organized and looked for own synergies and exhibition opportunities from time to time, and will continue to do so. I think we all hoped for the audience that would come along with Art Chicago, as well as some exposure to galleries, etc., and the benefits of the location, supposedly professional approach, promotion, etc. It does seem like we would have been better off taking the $1500 and organizing something ourselves, at least in overall quality. They’ve put TAP where they want it now — with One of A Kind — though they could just make One of A Kind bigger rather than adding another event, as it’s pretty much the same thing unless they were to dramatically change TAP.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Hmmmm an Artist Project organized by artists… maybe someone should have thought of that earlier. What’s old is new again. Sounds like a better plan than allowing a corporation to take the lead and expect different results. I have learned my lesson from this experience. For 1500 I could have gone to Europe for a few weeks or purchased another artist’s work and supported something worthwhile. Heck we could have rented out a bigger space, advertised and actually had a decent reception for the artists and patrons with just 10 or 15 of us organizing at a fraction of the cost. Next year if anyone wants to pool resources, ideas, energy and put up a show I’m game.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Mark: What’s old is new is old again - -
At one point in time artists creating their own exhibitions was rebellious, progressive and forward thinking but within the last 25+ years during which co-op galleries, apartment galleries, cafe/bar shows, artist organizations (in Chicago the CAC and ATC), etc. have sprouted up in ample abundance, the idea of artists producing their own show currently seems bush league to me.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
If you repeated the CAC or ATC model, it would devolve. How did Hirst make Freeze work? I’d think something like that would be more the model. (I believe he found a sponsor; I’m not sure how he got the event noticed.)
One would have to pool enough money so it’s not a cafe/bar show, etc. but rather is in a significant venue, etc ($1500 x 15 artist = $22,500 … it seems like one could do a lot with that level of funds). Who would put in money if they were not going to be in the show. But the quality of all the art would have to be first and foremost — or the show would be pointless vanity. That’s part of the problem with co-op galleries. Are there suggestions for how one would meet both these needs?
May 6th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
We have some very good examples right here of what I meant by creating your own synergies. Neotericart is one. I would submit that Mr. Wesley Kimler, Paul Klein, Deborah Lader and Tony Fitzpatrick, to give a few examples, are also adept at creating there own synergies. It’s not necessary to create your own Artists Project. I was implying that you can never drop the ball. Just keep loving what you do and sharing it with others. That positive energy will always attract others.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Freeze was back in the late 80s when Hirst was still in school. So again, it was 20 years ago and they were students.
Students, recent grads and older, successful artists can get away with producing their own exhibitions with integrity. All others would be marginalized.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Is it bush league, Norbert, if it’s done in a way that creates strong energy? What kind of event do you think would do that?
Some things get passe very quickly, if they weren’t passe to start with (and some, like putting one’s artwork up in a coffee shop/bar, are passe from the get go). Artists for multiple decades if “small named” have difficulties that students or near students don’t have; at the same time, they ought to know their work much, much better, which ought to be something that can be turned to their advantage.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I don’t believe that it’s any more passe to put your work up in a cafe or bar than it is to put it up in a gallery or the Whitney Biennial. Artist run shows and parties will always have currency, if the artists have integrity and the work is good. For that matter, look what Lee Goodie was able to accomplish on a shoe string budget from the steps of the public library and AIC. Putting free art up in the subways worked well for Keith Haring. However, I’ve learned that it can be really devastating to set unrealistic expectations.
Don’t fall into the trap of letting others define your identity.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Yes Dee, for our peer group of artists it is bush league.
I am not that concerned with energy but integrity. Dee, your question of “what kind of event” would make me think: these poor artists just couldn’t make it in the real art world so they are doing it themselves.
The only way our peer group of artists will find any recognition in the art world is through a reputable gallery or museum. Then more control for the artist will come after the recognition.
Bruce, I don’t think it’s passe to be in a reputable gallery or the Whitney Biennial…at least not yet. Both of these venues will still garner some attention.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“Passe” meaning not rebellious, new, risque, avant garde, etc.. If nothing else, galleries (well, some galleries) and biennials (well, some biennials), etc., still offer external validation/reputation that helps further one’s career in tangible ways — but yes, one doesn’t want to be defined by the externals.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Maybe, Norbert, but it seems worth it to try different things while waiting for that to happen. I am only out of art school since 2002 — not so long, really; my perspective may be different.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I agree with you on that Dee. I’ve been out of school since 1985…so yes, we have different perspectives. So when I refer to “our peer” group I’m referring to 40 year olds (Bill Dolan would understand…ah ah)
May 6th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
The cafe/bar thing seemed to be the thing to do in the early 90s after the bust here. It never was anything more than decorating someone’s bar or coffee shop for free and without any kind of insurance or written agreement. It’s fine if you’re just out of school or starting out and would like to show your work, If you take yourself seriously or value your work, I wouldn’t do it more than once or twice early in one’s career.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Excuse me Norbert, but I don’t believe that I said “it’s passe to be in a reputable gallery or the Whitney Biennial.” Go back and read what I said, please. While you guys were busy pissing away your time and money at TAP, I sold one of my best, very small brand new painting for 2k cash to a client met in a cafe. I am 55 and have shown in museums in several countries and in many very top galleries. Still, I don’t feel above hanging in a bar, cafe or on the street. What is this, a bunch of junior elitists? Read the words I wrote before slinging your stuff.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Yes, there are some of us that have been creating art for years, even decades, but for whatever reason, have been on or outside of the fringes. That’s who I was referring to above as the “older artists.” Doing shows like ATC, TAP (in its current form), just perpetuates this career that doesn’t go very far.
Apartment shows and galleries seem to show some promise. They seem to be part of a scene that is more social than anything , though. Again, something for the person just starting out (a better choice than bars). They do get some attention and it’s a good way to start a movement.
If you’re just moping along in your career (like I have), this DIY stuff is tempting, but doesn’t really advance anything.
I think that some sort of happening could work to stir attention. However, it should involve a few more established artists. Perhaps that might help get the attention of the art world?
In the end, though, it’s about working really hard to find and get good exhibition opportunities. It may be better to look outside of Chicago if you’ve been plugging away here for 20 years.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Bill, I think you have to look outside Chicago.
Congratulations, Bruce.
One should not confuse integrity, which is internal, with reputation, which is external. Regardless of where one shows the work, hopefully, really good art will emerge and get notice eventually (Call me naive!). But it’s silly not to be cognizant of stigmas the art market places on certain venues and opportunities from the point of view of reputation. As well, apart from the validity or invalidity of any stigmas, there are issues of finding the right venue/audience for one’s work and not placing unnecessary hurdles in one’s own way, both in terms of deciding to show in certain venues and in reducing one’s exposure by deciding not to show. The trick is navigating the right path for one’s art and objectives.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
You are correct Bruce. The thing that confused me was the way you are using passe (in a positive sense as opposed to a negative). I’m assuming you mean that a cafe and bar show is just as relevant has a reputable gallery or the Whitney Biennial. If that is what you mean I still don’t agree. There is a HUGE difference between the two and of course I know that you know that too. It’s like the difference between the minor and major leagues. It’s not elitism…it’s just a fact.
So I am back to feeling confused on why you feel this way…that they are both equally relevant.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:52 am
I was so pleased to read Bruce and Dee’s last comments. These people sound like they are comfortable enough with who they are as people and artists to take the risks necessary to make their career a success. And I guess the big question for everyone is, what do you qualify as success?
Is it to be the name on everyone’s lips at the top of the NYC art world? Is it to sell your work for some unimagineable figure? What’s the goal here?
I’ve been aggressively pursuing my art career for about 5 years. I have shown wherever I have to show to be seen and each year my prospects become more and more “high end”. I’ve had solo shows in galleries, universities, and other respected venues. I’ve also done the coffee house thing. I am very ambitious about making sure my work can be seen and discovered all year long. I treat this as a business. My art is my passion, it consumes my thoughts and energy, but I do it to have it be a part of the world. And to me, that means getting it into people’s homes and collections.
The point I’m trying to make here, is I sense a lot of elitism and whining about MMPI. Yes, it was a disappointment to go from 50 to 300 artists. And yes, a lot of artists were mediocre. But I know of many people who got interest from galleries all over the world, who got offered shows, who made huge sales to collectors. It was a place to be seen by people who really love art. The MMPI is a business, not a charity. I have no illusions that they’re doing something to help me. I have to do that myself.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Hi, Kathy. The reputational issues/stigmas are real … I sat in on some of the panel reviews for CAAPs grants this year (they are open to the public) and one artist, whose work the panel generally liked, was criticized because the artist had not graduated from showing in ATC, which they considered more of a starter venue. At some point in one’s career, certain venues become a hinderance, if one’s ultimate goals are higher end collections and museums. As for TAP, yes, some (I’d query the “many”) artists made very good sales and contacts but it seemed to me that a lot didn’t and the venue became something quite different from the pitch to artists. That isn’t a question of the Mart being a business verses a charity; it’s a question of being forthright in the objectives of the event so artists can determine if it is their market/audience/appropriate venue. That said, there were clues, like the number of artists, that in retrospect should have revealed the problems, and one has to take responsibility for not heeding these clues. If artists had known ahead of time that only 50 artists were actually selected by the jury, less would have participated, I think.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Dee, you beat me to the punch - -
May 7th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Point taken. I understand what you’re saying. Again it comes down to what your goals are for your career. And I guess I haven’t been immersed in the art world long enough to to think the way you guys are approaching it.
…I’ll go back to reading the blog and letting you guys hash it out!
May 7th, 2008 at 9:23 am
I want to thank everyone so far for the vigorous dialogue.
Dee, you concisely summed up the entire argument with your comment #40.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I agree — this has been a great discussion and Dee’s comment hits the nail on the head. I would also add though, that even if TAP did what it was supposed to do (or rather, what the it was perceived to do), it wouldn’t be a good idea to do every year as it is a first step toward building a career.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Kathy, you’re doing fine. You’ve only been at it a few years. You and Bill both got press coverage in the SunTimes out of TAP, so regardless of its issues, it was a good thing for both of you.
I doubt anyone who participated this year or last year is going to experience lasting negatives on their artistic reputation for trying it.
I would add that one could view TAP as a somewhat unfair also to the artists who target and do well with juried street fairs, because it was more expensive to participate in than most of these fairs and because it may not have drawn the same audience that comes to One of A Kind, etc. (people who appreciate one of a kind craftmanship and are shopping for and ready to buy gifts, etc).
May 7th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Well it becomes an issue of how does one get exposure if one is outside of the gallery circles? There is a level of frustration that builds with being outside the circle and lets face it as artists we want people to see the work. How does an artist build a list of interested collectors and sales to support the creation of future art without showing work at some venue? Every year I donate work to 2 local art centers. Each time t’s one of my best pieces or I create something specifically for these events because it’s exposure and I want my best work out there.
Kathy and I both showed at the same gallery a couple years ago just as it went CoOp and I know we both were in a few CAC shows as well but that does not mean we have no greater aspirations. We show where we have to to get people interested. The idea here is to support the work, our growth as an artist and continue making new work. The gallery system nurtures the artist (most of the time) and allows them to focus solely on their work. Scrambling around doing the 9-5 or freelance jobs and trying to afford a studio, supplies are difficult without someone else selling your stuff for you. Participating in these lower level shows may not impress a CAAPs juror but not everyone has the straight career path. If we believe in the work and ourselves we keep going and show when we can and step up a notch when the opportunity presents itself.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
As someone who hasn’t participated in the gallery/art world much in the past ten years, it was certainly a learning opportunity to participate in TAP…I won’t repeat the criticisms already well delineated in prior comments, the only thing is that overall being part of an art supermarket left me with no desire to ever participate again…I’ve put up work in bars and restaurants for years and the upside is that many people who wouldn’t darken a gallery’s doorstep see one’s pictures; the downside is that it rarely leads to any greater exposure aside from isolated sales…The prestige, or lack there of, is of no concern to me…Nor are accolades for that matter, only finding some way to keep painting…Not being much of a joiner, the prospect of collectives, grant applications, and most other gatherings aimed to further art careers just don’t draw me in, so in their stead the alternative is to keep working a day job…It’s a real Catch-22; how to do what you do without selling your soul?
May 12th, 2008 at 11:10 am
I knew I was taking a chance by exhibiting in The Artist Project - that the quality would be uneven at best. When I was notified that 300 artists were going to participate I could see the writing on the wall. I decided to participate anyway as I felt the exposure would be good for me. I made every effort to get patrons, friend, dealers and designers to come by my booth and they did. From that perspective alone - it was a great success. My new contacts were few, but viable - I’ve been invited to show in several new venues and I am treating my follow up like it is my day job and simply doing the work. The sheer number of artists that were included in the project made my efforts feel like an uphill battle. The much deserved negative assessments after the fact tempers my experience. I would not participate next year if the circumstances were similar - but I am grateful for what has come of it this year. I would be interested in finding a way to constructively oppose what the fair has become. It’s a great opportunity for dissension on the part of the artists and letting this fuel a new direction. I’m not sure trying to link to Next is the answer.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I think artist organized things could be done — still are in many places — a la Damien with Sensation, etc. They were not in school, btw, just recently out — but several had been out and going for a while. The keys were, first: it was indeed very high quality and/or very serious work. Large scale, etc. Second: it was packaged as radical. With some very shocking work that got more press than the galleries usually got. And third: it was an “almost cohesive” group. Not a hodgepodge and NO craftsy stuff of course.
And if even a handful of artists put up $1500, and their time and energy, you could certainly get much better publicity and attention.
I was in the first TAP and did very well in sales, contacts and shows to come from it, but that also had to do with Sharkforum, I think. I’m glad I didn’t do this one, although iw anted to see Bill and all again! I’ll be at the Chi Art Fair next year, most likely, but either in a gallery booth or in an “outside” event/show of some kind.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I need to look at the artist organized shows a little more. There is the danger that they just become parties for artists, friends and hipsters. I remember the Coldhouse Group did some cool stuff in Chicago back in the early ’90s. I think some of their success was due to the fact that they put on a few shows and didn’t disappear after one. Also, back then there were a lot of empty old buildings that were available for a few nights. I’d like to know if anyone launched or gave a good boost to their career by participating.
Regardless, I do think that it’s very important for an artist to look outside of their hometown for exhibitions. As pointed out in the other blogs, the scene here is small and there is a big world out there. Also I think an artist is more credible to those in other places and after getting shows elsewhere, gains credibility here.
The Internet makes it a lot easier to research opportunities, thereby making it possible to reach out.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I hope to see you next year Mark!
May 13th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I for one have not considered applying to TAP.
I felt it was “street fair” from the start. As for NEXT in my opinion, it was a case of the bigger money buying the premium space to promote the CHOSEN FEW, their own and not about art.
So sad for the collectors! As for the Mart, they are running a business. The art galleries for years have been snobbish, ignorant about art, close mined, only rule applied was get cheap-sell high.The mart comes in (with the help of some of the sell out galleries, I might ad), and fills in the gap where the galleries dropped the ball. The galleries exclude artists above a certain age because the artists’ work costs more to obtain, less profit for the galleries. So sad for the artists and the collectors! Of course here is the rub, not all galleries, artists and collectors are the same.
SO! On a positive note, what do we artists do. First, would you buy gold jewelery from a guy on the street, selling from his over coat. uhhh not likely, why, because it is not credible. So is the plight of the artist selling their own work and artist run spaces are not much help. People need a means of feeling the purchase is credible. We have a system in place, it is just very skewed and at present there is a feeding frenzy. The only way is to use the system in place, but make our presence known. How? Pooling resources to have an impact like the galleries, fairs, etc. What resources, money, marketing savvy. look at where the galleries advertise, look at how artwork is made credible. I’m not giving it away at this point-sorry.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I was excited to see several of my friends exhibiting their work in this years Artists Project. I view Artropolis in this way,
1. Art Chicago, feels like a trip through the art history books. Wonderful to view but who has that kind of money?
2. NEXT, is more like a corporate art channel. Their goal is to show you what art to they want you to buy.
3. The Artist Project, the exhibit for the DIY artist. At least there is a venue for Chicago artists in the building.
The problem with our “art scene” here in Chicago is that the inflight magazine suggests visiting the “River North” art galleries that don’t actually show many or any Chicago artists. So we really do need events like The Artist Project to bring awareness to real Chicago art and artists.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Michael W. - The Artist Project turned into a “street/shopping mall art fair” and that’s NOT the kind of awareness we need to bring to Chicago art. I agree with you that we do need events to showcase Chicago artists but again The Artist Project is not one of them.
May 30th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
As an out-of-town visitor (California), please let me provide my perspective. Most of the displaying artists were new to me, although I had seen a few of them at the previous years’ shows.
I am not in the know about which artists were juried and which simply allowed in for paying the booth fee. There were certainly a number of “questionable” booths (up to 1/3), a number whose work was too conceptual or otherwise not of interest to me, and some proportion (at least 10%) of artists that got my serious attention. I ended up buying two works from each of two of the exhibitors, and I gave very serious thought to buying 2 or 3 pieces from others (lack of space at home and huge resources prevented).
With all the various exhibitors in the 4 or 5 concurrent fairs at the Merchandise Mart, there was certainly an overload on serious visitors’ attentions and alertness. Making the Artist Project strictly a juried show would be helpful there, recognizing that different jurists (or groups thereof) have very different criteria of merit. I do think the Artist Project exhibitors benefit by having the opportunity to display work to attendees at the other shows (purchase, representation, whatever), although I understand the disappointment of having attention diluted by so many booths and the disappointment in allowing unvetted exhibitors. It might make much more sense for artists to only participate every other year unless there are radical changes in their output or displays in the interim or if they have really sold well the previous year.
I do not know the Mart’s practical economic aspects of putting on a show, but I have to assume that unused space cuts deeply into their bottom line. Therefore, soliciting additional exhibitors was understandable while misrepresenting the show to the curated ones was a real shame. I do empathize with selected artists’ resentment of this situation however.
I would still recommend participation to artists from my area (I was surprised that so many non-Chicago artists were there) even at the $1500 or so rental it costs, but it would only be for those artists whom I felt would have a fair chance to make a profit or important contacts with the people attending Art Chicago that are seriously interested in buying art and supporting artists. At an event like Art Chicago, there’s a place for those who have lots of money (12th Floor), some resources (8th Floor - Next show), and very limited resources (7th floor) but really love art. Apologies if I got the 7th and 8th floor participants reversed; I don’t have my show guide here.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:17 am
Pretty good assessment Dave. The original intention of TAP was to give artists worthy of, but had not yet received, exposure to the Art World (important international galleries, curators, collectors, etc.). Instead, the Mart turned it into a street fair level show for the casual collector. In itself, that is not a bad thing, but it seems the Mart was trying to have a show for everyone under the same roof. The Art World people ignored TAP.
The Artist Project seems more like The One of a Kind Show in terms of the artist show and its audience. The Mart did the right thing by moving TAP to the same weekend as The One of a Kind Show.
June 8th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I believe the venue itself, architecturally was as much a part of the problem as was the profit taking and bad art paradigm. That much art in those narrow hallways and low ceilings, hot lights and recycled air was just the death of art.
There was something about the shows at pre renovated Navy Pier that allowed the works to be more than simply merchandise, and seeing art in that setting enhanced the experience, much like the venues in the Miami shows do. Oxygen helps.
June 8th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Good points, Ted. Though I more or less was OK with the ceiling height, I thought the show was kind of crammed, overall. I got the feeling that the booth system used was originally made for trade shows where the attendees wouldn’t necessarily go into the booths themselves. Another 50 percent of space would lend more importance to the work and make it seem less like a bunch of people hawking their wares.
In the end, I don’t fault them for wanting to make an indoor street fair. There are plenty of artists that work in that market and art lovers that support it. I’m glad they moved it to complement One of a Kind. A more “community-type” show doesn’t really need to be mixed in with a major international art fair.
I still think that the original purpose of giving exposure to under-represented artists is valid and could probably be part of Next, especially since the number of juried artists would be small.
I also felt a little slighted by the Grolsch people.
The hook-up for the free beer was only for Next and Art Chicago. — I kid about that, though. I’ve had my share of free beer from the West Loop galleries that they generously supply.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Yea, the beer should have been dispersed where it was needed most.
I agree with you re the move to be part of the One of a Kind show and a rigorously juried or curated show can only help…good point about the booths.. I always thought the booth system was something left over… and that was only one clue as to the opinion of the organizers regarding TAP….