Comments on: Shop Talk 2 Respondent: Clark Buckner

By: Yeaux Sdink

Yeaux Sdink — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:13:04 +0000

Please, no more postings on this subject, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

By: Rudolf Frieling

Rudolf Frieling — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 05:51:44 +0000

Here is the link to the mentioned project First Public White Cube: http://www.publicwhitecube.com

By: Glen Helfand

Glen Helfand — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:11:56 +0000

Clark, thanks again for your insights into this project. There’s something so great about how much dialogue the Shadowshop project has generated (and thanks to Patricia and Suzanne for creating a platform where it could unfold). I have to admit, the second discussion was far less successful than the first, I think mainly because it tended to highlight a pervasive lack of agency on the part of artists, and the fact that these conversations take place in such limited forums– a bubble really. Those of us who are constantly steeped in art contexts tend to not quite grasp the broader context of SFMOMA as a zone that attracts thousands of people who have no sense of the implications we’ve all be discussing, grappling with, arguing about. (I even have a hard time placing it in context with the larger, The More Things Change exhibition of which it is a part.) Would those people sustain any interest in our conversation? (It seemed telling that the ‘consumers’ who attended the Shop Talks didn’t seem to get much traction, even if their position seemed almost exotic in this setting.) And to hear much of the conversation, it seemed as though the notion of selling these affordable works generated more tsuris than pleasure (which I know is not the case).

Not that the general public needs to be a big part of this conversation– it is that realm of insular art world self-consciousness– but it’s so telling that the role of popular platforms, of places that make the most direct ‘hits’ with the viewing (and purchasing) public has been a lesser part of the discussion. It’s been interesting to hear how difficult it is to address the infrastructural aspects of the projects, the underlying themes, the “what is art” questions. For me the queries relate to engagement with audiences, availability of artwork, and transparency (revealing aspects of how the art world moves along) are the most interesting. I am intrigued by how this project extends historical models– of artists working in ‘retail’ settings, of publishers creating markets for multiples. I get the sense that Stephanie is interested in creating models that cross boundaries of communities and commerce, and we owe her some props for really generating discourse! (Though too bad she wasn’t able to be there to participate in it!) It will be interesting to see, once the project clears out of it’s bricks and mortar manifestation, how Shadowshop moves into art historical mythology. . . .

By: Hadi

Hadi — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 04:54:10 +0000

Thank you, Clark, for hearing me out. I appreciated reading your comments.

My “militant” approach, which is not something I can say I am proud of, comes from my complete devotion to my practice. Art to me is the only hope for humanity, especially in a world that lacks any form of “poetry”.

I am all for exhibits and discussions that raise questions. However, I think we are so conditioned on having things left open-ended that we have forgotten how good and sometimes necessary it is to have some concrete answers as well.

The core of these discussions to me is the taboo question, which everyone dances around; What is Art? Is it not possible to answer this? … At least for our time?

Seventeen years ago my great teacher, Sam Tchakalian, advised a fellow student who was a bit lost and didn’t know what to do, to pay attention to what she didn’t want to do. “You might not know what you like, but you should know what you don’t like.”

I propose that we take the same approach with the question of what Art is? We might not know what Art is, but we should know what it is not. I believe that if we compiled a list, the answer will perhaps become clearer to us.