Hey all! I apologize for the delay in the September gallery review, I’ve been fairly busy in my personal life as of late (including some upcoming projects that I’ll talk about later). This month I’d love to take a moment to briefly talk about a tiny little gallery just in SoHo.
Since my last review was pretty undeniably glowing, I figured this month I’d share what I believe to be one of my least favorite galleries by far.
Now, before I start I’m with the negatives, it really wasn’t all bad. The receptionists were polished, the art was colorful, and there were some places to sit. Unfortunately, that didn’t do much to change my overall opinion of the gallery.
With everything that’s been going on in the world as of late and so many emotions stirred up, it’s important not to let one of the most powerful modes of expression go to waste- art.
“The future belongs to young people with an education and the imagination to create.”
–Former President Barack Obama
This past week we bid farewell to a president who, although not without glaring faults, made history and overall did well for this country as a whole. Unfortunately, in his place we face a man who has glorified sexual assault, appointed individuals who are laughably ill-suited for major positions, and has recently made it known that he plans to completely cut the funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities- as well as the National Endowment for the Arts.
All the money (Shy of $150 million for the Nat’l Endowment for the Arts in 2016) that currently goes to supporting artists and critical art education through grants provided to both individuals and organizations would be completely removed from the federal budget. It’s not like cutting the two will make much of an impact on it either, together they made up a minuscule 0.006% of the total federal budget in 2016, which begs the question- If it makes such an incredibly small impact on the budget, why cut it- especially when schools around the country have already cut arts funding? …Well, honestly, why wouldn’t he? Generally speaking, the art world is particularly left-leaning, and artists themselves can often possess fairly radical ideologies including Marxist, Anarchist, Stalinist, and even Maoist thought, very foreign and likely unsettling to such a staunch businessman and capitalist like himself. So, once the general media is discredited and can no longer speak out against him, it only makes sense to attempt to do the same with the arts.
Obviously, we can’t let that happen. The arts- writing, painting, theater, dance, and music- must continue to express the thoughts of the general populace whether the government wishes to support them or not. We as a global community have proven merely two days ago that we are able to band together and look past our differences to stand up for each other, and that can’t end here. There has already been a movement of artists creating art to react against our newly inaugurated President, putting together ‘Nasty Women’ art exhibitions from Portland to Amsterdam- many of which donated the proceeds to Planned Parenthood.
Get out there and pour your heart out. We need your voice.
Museums have had a place in society for centuries as a place to house information. The word museum has been applied to many concepts varying from places dedicated to philosophical discussion in ancient Rome, to curio collections, and finally to collections of art and literature that were of value to scholars. In modern years, the word has come to represent an institution with an aim to provide an education for the public.
Recently however with the incredible wealth of information available through the internet, museums have to find a way to evolve with the people that walk through the door. There needs to be more of a reason for tourists to stop by than to simply check something off a list of things to do.
Now, art museums will always be important for art students and scholars, but it’s getting harder for them to reach the vast majority of those who don’t fit into either category. There’s often a level of stuffiness surrounding the viewing of art in a museum setting, the viewer feels pressured to understand and like it for the sole reason that it’s hanging before them, and there’s very little room for creating a dialogue about the art. After all, it’s not like the curators are hanging out in the galleries to talk to everyone about why they believe that each individual work is important enough to be on the wall, and audio guides and catalogues can only help so much.
Out of the museums that I have visited recently, I have to say my visit to the MoMA was the most immersive and educating, despite the Met being my absolute favorite place on Earth. The MoMA had a gallery talkback session that I happened to stumble into, and the attendants I spoke to were excited to be there, whereas at others I’ve found them much more cold and uninviting. In addition, the exhibitions had a variety to them that made each piece new and interesting. The stuffiness was more of a scent in the air rather than the fog it usually is, and I think they’re really onto something there.
I don’t have all the answers and I’ll be the first to admit it, especially when it comes to what I love. However, I do believe much more can be done to change the environments of these long-esteemed institutions to help keep it that way. What if we took notes from the Ancient Romans, and used these institutions where conversation is fostered, where people come to question, and ultimately learn from what they see in front of them? What if we took a look at what drew people to those curios collections and replicate that same feeling? It’s absolutely possible, and at this point bordering on necessary.
Yeah, I’m really not a fan
Anyone who has had a discussion with me about modern art knows that I dislike Jeff Koons’ work, and from more recent talks with friends of mine, I am far from alone.
Jeff Koons has built himself a following beginning in the 80s by trying to be like the Dadaist Duchamp, yet injecting his sculptures with consumerism and marketing them to the rich instead of attempting to make them mean anything. His sculpture is about aggrandizing the mundane- recycling the idea of a simple balloon dog, for example, onto a much larger scale for the purpose of profiting off of them. Color temperature is foreign to his paintings, which often come off as flat, cut and paste collages. Although his Made in Heaven series is not in the same style, it only serves to glorify himself and his sexual conquests. To be honest, it’s almost repulsive to look at, complete with overt narcissism and run-of-the mill depiction of sexuality.
His following is incredibly large despite all this, and the only reason I can really think of is his reliance on consumers. There’s nothing to be learned from his work, and quite frankly, I’m disappointed that Gaga chose to work with him as opposed to someone like Richard Macdonald, who has done incredible work for Cirque du Soleil. The only thing keeping him relevant is his marketing and working with the large galleries of the world, who pander to rich, influential patrons.