“To be an artist, you might as well tattoo ‘Shithead’ on your forehead. You’re always in a position where you have to explain who you are and what you do and why you do what you do. It’s a weird job to have in the long haul.”
- Seattle artist Dan Webb
Dan W. was spouting quotable phrases left and right. Jen Graves is really charming. (As the only paid art critic in town, it would be easy for a lot of people to hate her; but when you’re in a room with her, you can’t help but love her.) It was a rousing evening. There was a lot on the table! I think all we really did was get all the issues on the table, and then look at them. I could talk about this stuff for days.
Is there such a thing as a Seattle Artist? If we entertained the notion that there were such a thing, what would s/he look like? Dan W. offered that Seattle artists might be more sincere than your average artist.
Stephen Lyons from Platform made a kind of squirmy (like, eww) movement when he said “sincere,” saying usage of the word made him uncomfortable in the context of contemporary art.
Jen G. talked about how Vancouver artists seem to reference their own city’s art history in a productive way, whereas American artists seem to forget where they came from. (I’d say this is true on the whole– not just with art.)
This begs the question: Do artists working in Seattle need to fashion themselves as Seattle Artists?
In my opinion, no. I think we need to make ourselves international artists. And I guess my answer to the first question is also no; there shouldn’t be such a thing as a Seattle Artist.
I see curators as having the opportunity to frame art and conversations in such a way that poses questions surrounding issues like “regionalism.” (Maybe there is such a thing as a Seattle Curator? Or maybe there isn’t, but there should be?)
One thing that I see as missing in Seattle is thoughtful risk-taking by the major art institutions. It seems that the risk-taking is left to the gallery dealers, with the museums only showing “new” artists after they’ve been around for ten years and recognized by the rest of the world. The way this plays out strikes me as odd, because a gallery dealer has so much more to lose than a non-profit art space. Because the museums don’t take risks, there is a lot of pressure on Seattle galleries to fill the void.
Dan W. talked about how we all need to just accept the American model of the gallery/patron-based art system. He spoke of the specialness of making an object that a [wealthy] individual loves enough to want in his/her own home.
I find specialness there as well; but when there aren’t enough risk-taking galleries and wealthy patrons to go around, what’s left?
Thank you for the recap. I couldn’t agree more with the things you brought up. As someone who has traveled much and lived a few places, I’m rather put off by the idea of branding some Type of Seattle artist. I love the city and love working and living here for many reasons, but I have no interest in forming a relationship with the art historical aspect of it, and like many people/artists living here I wasn’t born here and I don’t plan to die here. I think it’s to Vancouver’s detriment that it fosters this kind of identity politics.
And yes to more local institutions taking risks. Big yes.
I still think the best model to follow is the DIY method. Artists and curators, wanting to see risks taken, should then take/initiate risks themselves. It’s not going to come from the outside first, especially if we simply wait for it to happen.
From what I’ve observed, institutions rarely take risks until they see the benefit. This seems to be a bottom-up rather than a top-down pattern in the arts. Personally, I don’t mind that it’s up to us to push the walls back.
There’s little risk of failure in DIY– the beauty of entrepreneurship is that you’re starting from square one to begin with and if you don’t make it to square two, you’ve lost very little except for maybe a few more dollars and your time.
That’s a small price to pay for gaining more knowledge of how to do it better the next time.
@ sharon: I agree whole-heartedly. But how cool would it be if a major Seattle museum took risks WITH us? Artists in this town have lots of energy and ideas, but little/no funding and resources. I certainly don’t see us as simply waiting for anything to happen– we are making things happen. But, for example, WHAT IF the upcoming SAM show, “Target Practice,” didn’t stop at 1979? what if it stopped at 2009? and included painters in and out of Seattle?
Oh don’t get me wrong – I’m dreaming right alongside you and agree it should have extended at least a couple of decades.
If institutions can find that balance of risky, current, local, national, and international, we’ll be in good shape. Being an idealist, I remain optimistic, but I still believe all of us will have to step off a few increasingly larger cliffs for this to begin.
As you point out, this is happening/has been happening already in Seattle, but I think we’re just at the tip of the ice burg – which only makes it more exciting, given the possibilities of what could come.
@ sharon: “but I still believe all of us will have to step off a few increasingly larger cliffs for this to begin.” This is interesting– what do you mean?
What I mean is I think institutions need to shake it up and try new things, but it’s also up to artists to think of interesting ways to break outside the status quo of institutions, galleries, collectors, etc. These things are integral to the art world and important, it’s true. But when I think of the cliffs we should traverse, I’m thinking of all the creative ways in which artists interact with each other and the world while getting their art out into the open and exposing new concepts, formats, or people.
One very fine example of this is the RIDER Project in New York. A group of artists acknowledged that galleries are a hard gamble – you may get into one you may not — and they took the challenge of showing their work in a high-visibility arena into their own hands.
I admire their project, ambition, and success. I have dreamt/still dream of doing something similar here in Seattle. I expect between the two or three ideas I’m fleshing out in my head that I’m not alone, and other artists are simultaneously plotting their own crazy-ass ideas which may be similar to or different than mine. These ideas-outside-the-gallery-box are the cliffs=risks I’m talking about.
The next step is for us to meet and collaborate, and like I said, I think that can happen/has happened/should happen more.
Locally, Matthew Offenbacher’s publication is another good example, as well as several artist-run co-ops around town.
Hi
Just to clarify, I didn’t say the usage of the word “sincere” makes me uncomfortable when describing contemporary art (although I did squirm in my chair). I do see sincerity in the work of contemporary Northwest artists. That’s not a bad thing–in fact it is a positive thing. I squirmed because I’ve had people roll their eyes when I’ve talked about it. The question Jen asked me was “Describe Seattle art.” I don’t see a material “style” or a philosophical “link” between the works artist here make, but I do see a sense of sincerity (as opposed, I guess to a sense of irony that I find in work from other places.)
So, squirm I did. In anticipation of a frying pan being hurled at my head. Uncomfortable, no.
Stephen
hi Stephen, sorry I think I misunderstood! Thanks for correcting me. No frying pans! susanna
Pingback: Eco-Macho, Not-So-Macho, Thoughts on Bloggery, and a Media Invasion « Getting To Know You Better
Pingback: I Like That « Freese