There is a very moving post on John Perrault's Artopia about his former student Ana Mendieta and the retrospective of her work Earth Body Sculpture and Performance 1972 - 1985 (on view July 1 – September 19, 2004) debuting at the Whitney.

I offer these details as a way of condensing information and, more importantly, as a way of breaking art criticism's usual frame of objectivity. Too often, critics conceal their friendships and interrelationships with the artists they are writing about, and the reader is left thinking critics are divorced from social life. Transparency is the best policy. The fact is that I have had thousands of students, but Mendieta stands out. She took the new forms she was exposed to at the University of Iowa and made them her own.

I find that, especially in retrospectives and especially in such extraordinary circumstances that surround some artists, that personal insight is one of the most important things. We can all look at pieces of artwork and get the meaning, the expression, the medium but we don't always get a chance to glimpse into what passions and circumstancecs drove artists further. Fascinating.

Paige West of Art Addict writes (in a long-awaited post):

Intimidation is a well-known sales tactic, especially in some of the Blue Chip galleries. If you aren't "in the club" (they don't know you and/or you've never purchased anything at the gallery), many galleries won't offer any assistance, even if you ask. I have a friend who worked at one of those Blue Chip Chelsea galleries not too long ago. She got in a whole heap of trouble for sharing pricing information with an inquiring gallery visitor. Sharing any information with strangers in this gallery was a no-no. When she asked her boss how she should have responded to their questions, she was told that if "we" don't know the individual inquiring then you tell them that the work is no longer available and leave them be, prompting no further questions. In other words, be rude.

I've discussed this before on abLA, specifically about how a non Blue Chip gallery (actually, it's barely a "gallery") treated us so rudely once when we…gasp…asked for a price list at the opening because we wanted to buy something. Owning a gallery I understand the desire to concentrate on those who are serious about buying works, sometimes folks are quite flippant about buying something and don't realize how much time is invested in promoting artists. But I can never understand galleries being so rude and un-helpful to people.

The way I see it, galleries function in two parts: 1) as an environment to sell artwork and 2) to act as an exhibition arena where the artists shown can be learned about and appreciated. I guess there's a third part as well which includes 1 and 2 and that is galleries (good galleries) should be contexualizing contemporary art. Galleries are the place to see artists before they hit the museums…good gallerists are innovators who recognize talent and support that. But it's important to remember that the public is a key part of this.

West includes ten things a gallery visitor can do to ease the situation but ultimately basic decency says you shouldn't be rude to people for no reason. Especially in Los Angeles, where the guy with the most moeny looks like he has the least, galleries should be cordial to anyone taking the time to visit their space.

(Note: not to say that all gallery visitors are angels but that's another post).

With art auctions having recently garnered much attention and higher-than-expected sales, the question on some people's minds is whether or not the artist will/should get a commission from that sales. In the case of contemporary art, I believe that whether or not an artist actually gets a commission is too hard to determine. State laws, ownership issues, etc. all play into this. But, though the owner may get an instant monetary benefit, a living artist stands to benefit for the rest of their career. Granted, auctions are tricky and sometimes things go for more than they should but, in its essence, the market is determing the price. So though said collector will receive a onetime payment of $500,000 the artist can now sell numerous works for around that price.

What led me to this topic was something that Sean sent my way about an artist organization who wants to change the way art is sold:

The mission of the prodigal art organization is to create a free flowing assimilation of art into society. We believe this can be accomplished by reversing the way art is currently sold. Instead of artist's locating buyers of their art, and charging that single buyer for everything the art encompasses, including time, materials, marketing and storage, artist's choose to give the art away for free. Then, whenever the art is sold in the future, 50% of the profit collected from that sale is sent back to the artist. This process is expected of anyone else down the line that owns and sells the art for profit.

If you read the rest of their statement you'll realize that there are many loop-holes in this mission. One, they aren't factoring in a gallery at all which means that they aren't artists on a gallery-representative level. Second, if it's an artist selling the work why would you rather take the change of maybe seeing a 50% return years from now rather than a 100% return now? And if you'd take the 50% why aren't you showing with a gallery who's job it is to sell/promote your art? Third, art has value. Yes, it should be enjoyed and I guess if you're never going to sell or try to sell anything having it up in someone's living room for free might be satisfying but it just seems a little sad to give it away. Fourth, if you're that concerned about the resale, why don't you have the collector sign something upfront that states that if they ever re-sell your piece, you get a commission? And finally, I don't believe that art that won't sell and is being given away for free will likely ever see the secondary market.

From the Financial Times report on Art Basel:

And that is contemporary art for you: what you see is not always what you get, but don't dig too deeply for any profound meaning.

More on this later…I'm still trying to process their inter-changability of Modern and Contemporary art.

My latest art obsession is with artist Amy Cutler. This Brooklyn artist is currently in a slew of exhibitions:  solo show of paintings at the Kemper Museum of Contemporary Art (MS through July 11) and a piece in the Brooklyn Museum in "Open House: Working in Brooklyn. Recently her work was shown at Leslie Tonkow Artworks + Projects (just ended on the 12th) and the Whitney Biennial. All this with more major exhibitions on the way.

Culter's narrative, detailed, and slightly bizarre paintings have me capitivated. I cannot wait to see some in person.

Check out her interview on Artnet in addition to a review on Artnet in regards to her show at Lesie Tonkow.

Image: Sugar Foot, 2004 (Gouache on paper)

lists its pick for 50 Best Magazines and not one of them is an art magazine. Sure they mention Dwell and Wired (who's No. 1) but nothing else even comes close. And while they do list Real Simple (that magazine drives me nuts and is not really all that simple) they didn't include my favs Lucky, Athem, and Ready-Made. Anyway, point being that art magazines (which they are no shortage of) aren't even in these editors radar which means that some publication needs to come out that is 1) well designed 2) interesting to the art world 3) well written so that non-art world people can enjoy 4) has real critiques 5) is designed well 6) is international but remains focused in mission 7) includes new features about artists, galleries, designers, etc 8) is solely an art mag and 9) did I mention it should be well designed 10) have an online component that is user-friendly, contains features in and not in the print mag, and is up-to-date.

Any takers?

Last week I picked up two little paintings by Evah Fan that I had purchased from an April show at GR2. I was quite excited about seeing her work in person and got there as soon as my gallery closed to make sure I got the pieces I wanted. After looking for only a few minutes (honestly, that's all it takes for me to decide which piece is the piece for me) I raced to buy the two works you see here because I sensed there was a guy following me and coveting the same pieces I was; and I was right!

I'm really happy with my two little paintings. They are the epitome of what I like…something cute mixed with something a little naughty. Take the painting on the top - little toilet paper guys with black eyes, butts, sunglasses, and even blood. It's on this great cardboard-type paper and definitely makes me smile.

The other painting also follows the cute-but-sick theme as a little girl curls up with her panda as they poke a pile of poo. Certainly not making waves in conceptual art practices, but the cleverness and light-heartedness of these works has a place in the art world for sure.

, a news source for the art world and touted as The First Art Newspaper on the Net, has left the web-waves.

The inevitable became a reality: that beautiful dream became a nightmare. The agony of not being able to pay the minimum costs of this project: the paychecks for three collaborators, servers and a few other things. Because we were four people that worked most of the time in ArtDaily!

As predicted, there will be some much needed changes made to next year's Art Chicago International Art Fair. I'll be honest, the buzz around Art Chicago was minimal and though gallerists have told me they did good, it's not something that made the headlines. Fewer galleries and minimal attendace have forced owner Thomas Blackman to re-adjust the fair's program in order to zap some new life into it.

From the Sun Times:

What this will allow us to do is move into part of the international art calendar that's pretty wide open," Blackman said. "There are a lot of new international arts all over the world, and all of us are attempting to bring a core group of 500 to 1,000 collectors — who are rock stars in their own right — to our shows. We're hoping that the moves we're making now, this type of creative changes, are exactly what's required. Maybe it'll be the sort of thing that will help us re-enliven the show.

The two big changes are: 1) moving the location of Art Chicago to downtown Chicago, away from Navy Pier and 2) moving the date back from the traditional May to July. Both of these ideas are good ones and probably the most critical in making the fair a success. Getting away from the Pier will give the it a fresh feeling and setting the dates away from the big May auctions should let the big collector's wallets rest and ready to spend again. Blackman wants to fair to be in a tent which may be hideous especially considering how miserably hot it is in Chicago in July. But, I'm going to be optimistic.

Side note: One thing I think that TBA is doing one thing right is the Stray Show. Sure the galleries and artists are spotty, there has been some great stuff there. I also think it's necessary to have the youth component to these fairs…it keeps things honest.

Blogger discussions create more discussion:

Tyler Green from MAN posts today about certain art websites that are, how to say delicately, lacking in effectiveness. Most are major institutional sites for Artforum, LACMA, and other museums. Galleries are mentioned to but that might be too big of an obstacle for even us to tackle! In reference to Artforum, he details more on some of the issues I take with their website.

My current gallery website beefs: not having the current exhibition information up on the site (with images) AND not having the gallery's exhibition schedule posted. I want to know what's coming up so I can prepare to get excited!

Malcolm McLaren is such an ego-hungry bastard. You know, there's the whole "I made the Sex Pistols" thing and now he's taking issue with the Vivienne Westwood exhibition at Victoria and Albert Museum. The Telegraph reports:

He claims that it has downplayed his role in the early career of Vivienne Westwood - the fashion designer whose works are currently the subject of one of the museum's most successful exhibitions - and refused to give him the credit he deserves.

On top of that, he claims, one of the exhibits is a fake.

A spokeswoman for Westwood says:

Vivienne has always tried to make clear the exact nature of her collaboration with Malcolm and she is extremely happy for him to be credited where appropriate.

Should he be credited with the work is contributed to? Yes and it seems as if he has. Should the WHOLE exhibition be titled with his name on it even those Westwood has been designing clothes for decades without him? Absolutely not. Though he's still claiming to be "anti-establishment" he craves the attention from the establishment and those who support it. I guess that's the inherent nature when you mix punk rock with business.

Side note: read an article about the show on Artnet from on May 28. It's interesting how the writer mentions McLaren numberous times…boy, he's really being left out of art history!

Momart has announced that they believe the cause of the devasting fire at their warehouse was due to a break-in at a neighboring store in the shared industrial plaza.

Eugene Boyle, Momart's managing director, said that the police officers investigating the fire had indicated that it had began after a break-in at premises "containing watches, computers and mobile phones, which took place before 3.40am on May 24".

This is a nice theory but they don't really indicate how a break-in would cause a fire. And, ultimately, does this really matter? It seems negligible that a fire could even happen in their art storage facility, let alone one that destroyed all but two pieces!

And more, the Guardian writes today that this fire could be a "sign from God" that Britart is officially over. Make room for Los Angeles!

When you have the super-rich paying for an immature Rose Period Picasso $104m (£57m), close to the GNP of some Caribbean or African states, something is very rotten: such gestures do no honour to art: they debase it by making the desire for it pathological. -Robert Hughes

In case it wasn't evident enough that museums are in serious financial trouble, the Boston Globe announced that the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston has laid off 23 employees (some of which are curatorial). This is in addition to 5 already laid off in January. Last year, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago also laid off employees from their PR department, Adminstration, two from Curatorial, and one from Education. This is from an entire staff of about 80. They run on minimal part-time staff to process/greet visitors and, for the past couple of years at the MCA, positions are left unfilled when any staff member leaves. MCA staffers also haven't experienced the usually norm "standard of living" raise for quite some time.

Are these lay-offs merely a way for museums to get back on track or do they just indicate the invitable demise? In the Globe a department head of operations (one of those fired) is quoted as saying "moral is low" which, I think, is an understatement. Given these current situations (combined with the general nature of museums), I would be surprised if anyone felt hopefull.

Side note: it's interesting how the current art market is experiencing such a prosperous period yet museums are falling by the wayside.

Portland has a growing young art scene full of small galleries and emerging artists. One of the most unique is motel (half store, half gallery) that seems to specialize in new artists who employ design and craft. I love nearly everything shown there.

On Thursday, motel opened a new show called Targets and Trophies featuring the works of Ky Anderson (NY) and Kim Hamblin (PDX).

This stunning exhibition of multi-dimensional works explores the dialogue between hunter and hunted. Anderson's balsa-wood sculptures offer a delicate, architectural rendition of the traditional hunter's trophy. Informed by a fascination with "the relic" these airy constructions displace the order of the natural world as flesh and fur become hollow wood skeletons. In their stunning and unique simplicity, these pieces inspire wonder and curiosity.  This exploration is as much personal as conceptual, representing the culmination of a process to conquer the images and ideas that have haunted Anderson's work and thoughts for years.  By making these into trophies she attempts to master them once and for all while preserving their essence.  Hamblin provides bold textural pieces incorporating found objects and images, nails, sheet metal, and other ephemera.  Positing the viewer as the hunter, she plays with questions of who holds the power of life in his hands. Employing a keen sense of iconic symbolism, Hamblin crafts a series of visual puns to flirt with our presumptions of "the target".  The resulting works range from cute and colorful to contemplative and sentimental.  Ultimately, Targets and Trophies is an unapologetic exploration of conquest by two deft, innovative artists.

motel is located at: NW COUCH ST, BETWEEN 5TH & 6TH in Portland, OR