Closings
During the last year or so, a number of Chicago galleries have closed shop. This seems to be taking a number of people by surprise, but I’m not that sure it’s that much of a shock.
These galleries were in areas that pretty much attracted a party (hipster singles) crowd with the gallery owners being the party hosts. These young artists (a lot of them are recent MFAers) and gallery owners just want to be part of the current “scene” and are making an income that is not related to selling work. There is a shelf life of about 3-5 years for these gallery spaces (any small business takes that long to just get off the ground). As time passes, it gets tiring for both artist and gallery owner. For the artist, their art takes a back seat when they start families, get a “real” job and when the rigors of making art become too demanding. For the gallery owners, rent and expenses go through the roof, plus they have to mind an empty art gallery on their days off. This could be different if there was a strong collector base that sought out these places and purchased the work.
I think this is why some have derided the Chicago art world as “academic” and the art as being “academic schlock.” No one ever is in the business long enough to make or do anything well. Unfortunately, I think it might be different if there was a strong collector base here. Collectors that would purchase art because they are moved by it and not because it was made or sold by someone important. As it stands now, the person with a few extra dollars is more likely to buy something at The Gold Coast Art Fair or Macy’s than something at GardenFresh (which is one of the galleries that closed).
Maybe this is as it should be. This scene is where an artist can shake things out. Perhaps maybe even find out if one has what it takes to devote a life to being an artist. It takes a lot of stamina, passion and effort. Some people just don’t have it in them. I think there are also those who realize that their contribution to the art world may be doing something else. This is where the serious artists are weeded out from the crowd.
I’ve seen a lot of junk at these spaces and I’ve also seen stuff, that while lacking in quality, shows promise. I’ve also seen really good work and some that has blown me away. Because of this, I hope that there will be other galleries to take their place.
Category: Articles, Essays 27 comments »
September 6th, 2008 at 11:09 am
When I do see those party crowds I think to myself: I’d like to see their work twenty years from now…but then, most won’t be creating anyway.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:11 am
“I’ve seen a lot of junk at these spaces and I’ve also seen stuff, that while lacking in quality, shows promise. I’ve also seen really good work and some that has blown me away. Because of this, I hope that there will be other galleries to take their place.”
I agree. You have to give credit to the effort.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I do enjoy going to these spaces and attending the parties, even though I often feel like an outsider.
This scene does play an important role in the art world. It’s a great place to start a career and as I mentioned, find out if one wants to be an artist in the first place. There are those that have talent and some ability, but would rather be or would be better at doing something else. This is a place to find that out.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:30 am
This scene could also have a skewed effect on these young artists because after the party dies they are left alone with their work…and that’s when the real problems start.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:41 am
…and that’s where the realization that one would rather do something else, or the inspiration to work harder to make something happen comes in.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:50 am
“I think this is why some have derided the Chicago art world as “academic” and the art as being “academic schlock.” No one ever is in the business long enough to make or do anything well.”
I guess that’s true. A lot of the work is closely tied to certain art schools.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Bill,
The big art gallery season opened in Chicago yesterday – - you were able to make some of the openings…how was it?
September 6th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
It was well-attended, but It seemed like it was less crowded than the last couple of years. It would be nice if the crowds were almost this size for most of the year, but it always seems to drop off sharply after October, picking up briefly around Artropolis before the doldrums of summer. It’s certainly not like the days when they had the tent-party on Superior.
Though Peoria St. was a big party, one could still drive down the street easily, which was different than other years.
I wanted to make Architrouve, but I didn’t finish with River North and the West Loop until 9:30.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I wish i could say galleries closing are a shock. But for every mid-size gallery like gardenfresh closing, there are five more apartment galleries that open up.
While they may only last a few years till the owners move out or grow out of it, the constant, ever-shortening lifespan cycle makes for a regular production of fresh ‘ideals’ and ‘goals’ with new spaces.
This said, I have pretty much all but completely stopped attending gallery openings. And the openings i do attend will definitely not be found in the west loop, which i see as a trend-driven scene-uberfest.
I know im not alone in this, many many of my artist friends have stopped attending openings as well. It seems easy to sense that the ideals driving many gallery owners are broken, and i guess we dont mind if we help break them a bit more with our non support.
Perhaps once the gallery system is totally destroyed, a phoenix will rise – There is something very distinctly ‘punk’ about the chicago imagists – and maybe the lack of this rebellion punk mindset is one of the reasons things have been rather stale in chicago since then…
September 9th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
parallels can be found in the music scene as well. A friend and i often discuss the lack of innovation’s permeation of the mainstream culture within music. The last ‘sincere’ and ‘artist’ driven music scene may have been grunge in the early nineties, PCD (pre-Cobain-death) and time since then has been filled with exploiting a system whose ideals were grounded in art, in non-exploitation, much in the way of the fine art system (who began its exploitation much earlier).
I often think about populist uprisings in culture – enough people need to recognize the need to return to the roots of their practice before anything will change…
off topic much?
September 9th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Yeah, the Imagists were somewhat punk. You can see that in the posters at the current MCA show. They also had good proponents; Don Baum, Phyllis Kind, Dennis Adrien, etc.
I do think that a thriving scene like the West Loop is a good thing. Good artists work their way through it. Good gallerists/curators can come out of there. Good galleries can get their start in that environment. The scene, even though, or maybe especially since it’s a party can help to give the art world a bigger presence in the cultural landscape in Chicago. I think that’s good for everybody.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“Perhaps once the gallery system is totally destroyed, a phoenix will rise”
It would be interesting to discuss this so-called phoenix. What sort of options or scenarios would likely play out? Like it or not, right now, the gallery system holds a 95% share of the market while artists showing their own stuff (successfully) is 5%. What would happen if it really was the other way around?
September 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
ill have to think about that one a bit, norbert. – -
on a side note, i was just flipping through last weeks Reader, the one that came out the week of the season openings. We all know that the reader has turned to sheit for art coverage over the last few years, but a new degree – - those coffee shop shows you write of, a coffee shop exhibition got one of the few artwork images displayed.
im sitting in front of the work right now, at a coffee shop in pilsen. Was season opening so slim-pickin’ that the reader defaulted to this?
and i just picked up this weeks, and its the ‘arts guide 2008′ – conveniently released in late 2008, the week AFTER the season openings! wtf!
September 11th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
oh no! i just flipped through the gallery section of that sweet arts special – almost missed it, because its the same TWO whole pages that the reader normally has! sigh
September 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
You’re right about the Reader. Instead of embracing the Visual Arts (which is what you would expect), the Reader is turning away. Maybe it’s budget concerns…
September 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Speaking of arts coverage – -
The second issue of PROXIMITY came out. Great fuckin’ magazine. Hats off!
September 11th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Where The Reader dropped the ball, Time Out Chicago picked it up. Proximity is one of the best magazines yet. I’m looking forward to the CAC’s new glossy magazine. Things are looking up.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Do you really think the CAC can turn things around? It’s just like Around the Coyote…2 stale models…they both need some radical changes.
But again, it will be interesting to see ATC in the new space and I guess it also will be interesting to see the new CAC glossy. Both are trying – -
September 11th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
You’re right, they need radical changes. However, I’d rather see them reinvent themselves. It sounds like the CAC magazine is very non-CAC and a smaller, less inclusive, ATC would be good for this city. The fact that Around The Coyote is more of a weekend show in one place instead of a walk with art stuffed in hallways, cafes and field houses is a major improvement.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:41 am
I would like to get back to the question: How can an artist be successful without a gallery system? And I define success as selling work for 5 -10k at least, getting written up in reviews and art mags, getting into museum collections, getting into the big art fairs (I guess without the gallery system the big art fairs wouldn’t exist either, right?), auctions (which in turn will increase one’s price), etc.
I know some artists who are not represented by galleries and they do sell their work (in the 1k range) but other than that, I feel they are on the road to nowhere. They don’t have the means to attain the list I mentioned above – -
Others have advocated that artists should “take the reins back and do it themselves”? I think this statement is confusing and open ended but it ties in with the gallery system question.
Again: How can an artist be successful without a gallery system? (Maybe the thing to ponder is one’s definition of success?!)
September 20th, 2008 at 10:13 am
There is an interesting article in this week’s Reader (September 18) that talks about Leslie Hindman’s auction house in Chicago. The article also mentions Damien Hirst using Sotheby’s to sell directly to the collector and skipping the gallery system. Hindman makes a point which reflects the question that we have asked here concerning the gallery system: “Artists’ reputations have to be developed in the primary markets.Damien Hirst has been represented by really good galleries for years, That’s the only reason he could risk this”.
Right now (and things don’t seem to be radically changing) artists need the gallery system to garner real success.
September 20th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Perhaps the DIY scene could gain strength and be something important, but I don’t see it replacing the gallery system for sometime. The work will never command the higher prices necessary for an artist to quit the day job or achieve the recognition that the gallery artists get. However, it could be a scene that is more respectable than the itinerant street fair art world.
It’s a lot of work to keep everything moving, and maybe that’s why a lot of this stuff comes and goes. Maybe, with the computer and internet making some of the arduous chores a little easier, it could be a legitimate movement.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:00 am
Hang on because this ride is going to be downhill and furious. This economy could (is going to) topple and a huge chunk of American Business’s will be included. Perhaps like the 30′s artists will have support from government projects….
September 22nd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
i wonder if artists are not as important by popular standards as they were in the 30′s – wpa and art grants mightve saved them then, but now it seems that arts funding is falling through the floor along with the economy!
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:24 am
“i wonder if artists are not as important by popular standards as they were in the 30’s”
There were not as many options for entertainment (if you want to assume that going to a museum or looking at art is entertainment) back in the 1930′s as now. So yes, I think artists were more important in the past. We have so many more things available to us now that art/galleries/museums are probably low on the family list of things to do.
Concerning the WPA then, I believe now we have more grants and funding available to us overall in comparison + we have all the secondary venues in which we are able to show art: coffee houses, bars, eateries, furniture stores, street fairs, etc. (though I would not recommend doing these secondary venues). Even with our slumping economy artists are much better off now than the 1930s, right?
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:07 am
I agree. Art does not play as an important of a role in our culture anymore, at least fine art that is. One could say that with the percentage of art programs and other grants today, as you mentioned, the efforts of the WPA to give work to artists have continued.
There is room for corporate sponsorship of the arts to grow. Target is doing just that.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:40 am
I think corporations would only sponsor homogenized work. I don’t really know…are there any corporations that sponsor edgy work? Does Target?