Comments on: Closings

By: Norbert Marszalek

Norbert Marszalek — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:40:37 +0000

I think corporations would only sponsor homogenized work. I don’t really know…are there any corporations that sponsor edgy work? Does Target?

By: Bill Dolan

Bill Dolan — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:07:06 +0000

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.

By: Norbert Marszalek

Norbert Marszalek — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:24:50 +0000

“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?

By: jbeckman

jbeckman — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:59:36 +0000

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!

By: Ted Stanuga

Ted Stanuga — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:00:33 +0000

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….

By: Bill Dolan

Bill Dolan — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 18:03:54 +0000

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.

By: Norbert Marszalek

Norbert Marszalek — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:13:47 +0000

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.

By: Norbert Marszalek

Norbert Marszalek — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:41:33 +0000

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?!)

By: Bill Dolan

Bill Dolan — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:19:52 +0000

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.

By: Norbert Marszalek

Norbert Marszalek — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:09:27 +0000

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 – -