OPEN SPACE

………………………………. "Only dull and powerless artists defend their art by reference to sincerity" —Kazimir Malevich……………………………………..

While I was the chief curator at Yerba Buena, I got a call from a journalist who wanted me to comment on the meaning of the opening of the then brand-new remodel of the Palace of the Legion of Honor. He asked, “Does this make San Francisco a world class art center?” He meant that after a decade of new art buildings (and with more to come as we now know), did this reservoir of space for art move the city into the class of New York and LA, or even European capitals?

My answer was that he was confusing buildings with artists. Art scenes are complex amalgams of strengths and weaknesses, but in large part they are a factor of artists producing work worthy of attention. I felt that San Francisco had been doing that job just fine for as long as I’d been around (since the mid-70s), and that that activity seemed to move right along without any meaningful impact from the edifices going up all over town. My point being that buildings take on meaning when we see what human impact they have and what is put in them. The attention that local artists get is what goes up and down, but the production is steady. Not to say that that steady production doesn’t have stronger moments than others.

More than a decade later, things have improved along these lines. SF MOMA is much more friendly to the region than in the past, not only as evidenced by the increasingly rigorous SECA awards but by the highly inclusive recent 75th anniversary events, and the ongoing education department engagement, such as this blog. Even the De Young now has a contemporary series that has shown such local stalwarts as John Bankston and Michael Arcega. Berkeley and Oakland have both been historically strong regional presenters. (I did my best at Yerba Buena to establish a tradition of primary commitment to support of local artists; what direction the current leadership takes remains to be seen.)

The notion of world class is the McGuffin in all this. I know world class is  just a phrase, but it’s one that sets my teeth on edge. It’s the kind of language choice I associate with celebrity gossip on television. Can’t you just see the folks interviewing the movie stars on the red carpet Sunday night at the Oscars pushing a microphone into Tom Cruise’s face and chirping, “Isn’t this just a world class event?” Language is enriched when it incorporates slang, neologisms, immigrant inventions and street talk that say things that were never needed to be said before, or that we were never willing or able to say to each other. Language is corrupted when it is made bland, vague, superficial, flabby or meaningless. World class is a term that I believe leaked over from the sports world. In ranking how fast the fastest sprinters can cover 100 meters, it has objectivity and meaning. Slopped over to a realm such as the arts, it only pretends to some kind of verifiable truth. So while it feigns being about the best of the best, it really means, “talked about and caught up in the international hullaballoo that we all hear so much media talk about,” with a dash of “appreciated by we who are at top of the heap.” Both meanings reveal values that imply that our worth as people and arts professionals is determined by a competitive pecking order. Juxtapose this with the values of someone like local hero Ted Purves, who is an artist who worked for almost three years in his East Bay neighborhood through an organization he and his wife Susanne Cockrell started called Temescal Amity Works. Are their modest, yet deeply, profoundly moving community-based projects world class?

So, a long and long-winded way to say, we need and love gorgeous, progressive, thriving art presenters, the more the merrier. But let’s not equate these facilities with the health of our art scenes. These buildings are only one of a couple of dozen factors that make us all rich in our arts surroundings, which I’ve written about elsewhere.

I wanted to conclude by mentioning another miraculous art building’s upcoming arrival. I went on a tour of the new Crocker Museum in Sacramento on Thursday the 4th. It won’t be opening for several months but the building is essentially done, and it’s quite wonderful. It’s a one-hundred million dollar investment overseen by tireless director Lial Jones. In particular, there are several spectacular galleries on the third floor that will be the envy of most museum professionals. You can see the sawtooth clerestory-style skylights here:

and depicted in the digital mockup below, in the center. Under those are a set of three identical, generously-sized galleries with gorgeous light and uncomplicated lines. There’s also a very nice theater, and the usual array of meeting rooms, cafe, bookstore, et al. Like most institutions that take a big step up, the museum will have to build toward a collection worthy of its facility, but this opening is sure to electrify the Valley art scene for years to come.

[Five questions to SFMOMA visitors, artists, staff, or guests.]

Name/Place of Residence/Occupation/Hobby?

My name is Rebekah. I am an optician and I live in Noe Valley with my husband Adam. My hobby is—a couple of things: I like playing with the dog, Oliver, and then I also make music with my husband, Adam.

My name is Adam and I live in San Francisco, in Noe Valley. My job title is complicated. Let’s go with corporate analyst for an online developer for multi-player games. My hobby is hanging out with Rebekah and hanging out with the dog and playing piano and making music with just one of those two.

R: Not the dog.

Do you collect anything?

R: Lots of vintage clothes. And virtual cards.

A: We kind of collect art.

R: Kind of, but not much. We collect dust.

A: Dirty clothes. Dirty dishes.

R: We collect plastic furniture. I enjoy plastic furniture. Plastic jewelry. I collect glasses, that’s very true. I think we collect a lot of airline miles. We like to travel a lot.

A: I collect all of those thing, so maybe move a couple of those over. I collect musical instruments, I suppose. I have 4 or 5 at home and microphones. Because of Rebekah I’ve been collecting clothes as well. This is my seventh suit and third three-piece suit.

R: We collect friends. Not the TV show.

(more…)

Visitors to the 2008 SECA Art Award exhibition will remember The Magic Window, a suite of drawings and video from 2007 in which Desiree Holman invokes the enticing numbness of sitcom family fantasies from her 1980s childhood. In her latest body of work, on view at Silverman Gallery in San Francisco through May 30, she digs deeper into the complexities of familial psychology, tackling the thorny territory of motherhood. Holman’s practice originates in sculpture, with costumes and props that actors then bring to life in her psychedelic video epics. Her interest is in the mediation of deeply personal ideas, such as the relationship between parent and child, through the lens of popular American culture. The genesis of this project, which she titled Reborn, was Holman’s discovery of a movement among middle-aged American housewives to create lifelike baby dolls, complete with breathing mechanisms and individually-rooted eyelashes.

Holman spent more than two years researching the Reborning movement. She learned that many Reborners have already had grown children, and that many of them are devoutly religious. She found that they take their hobby very seriously, and that they have developed a strong online presence despite representing a demographic that has been slow to embrace the Internet. The process of Reborning is laborious, involving specialized tools and paints, and tremendous technical skill. Holman ultimately produced eight dolls as the starting point for this body of work. (more…)

Desirée Holman, The Magic Window (still), 2007; © 2008 Desiree Holman; photo courtesy of the artist and the Silverman Gallery, San Francisco

[Last Thursday SFMOMA assistant curators of painting and sculpture Apsara DiQuinzio & Alison Gass announced the 2008 SECA Art Award recipients. The SECA Award is an extremely competitive biennial prize with a long local history: since 1967 sixty-two Bay Area artists have been honored with the Award, which includes an exhibition here at the museum, an accompanying catalogue, and a cash prize. Hundreds of artists are nominated but only four are typically selected. Ali & Apsara agreed to answer a few questions about this round's selection and award process. I don't believe in all the years the award's been given there's been a vehicle like the blog to make this process transparent, and to allow us to open it up to discussion. So, a first. Many thanks to Ali & Apsara.]

—————————

SS: Let’s start by illuminating the basic frame of the SECA award process, since many of our readers will be unfamiliar with how it works. I understand that only artists who are nominated are eligible for consideration. Who nominates the artists? Who selects the finalists, and based on what kinds of criteria?

AG and ADQ: We work with a large pool of professionals in the community to generate the list of artists nominated for SECA, including local curators, art historians, gallery owners and directors, former SECA artists, SECA members, SFMOMA staff, patrons, and alternative spaces. Once we compile this list we send out a letter that specifies the parameters of the SECA award and invites them to nominate up to five artists.

After we receive these nominations, we then we send a letter to each artist nominated, inviting them to apply for the award. Surprisingly, some artists chose not to. We then review each of the applications, ultimately narrowing it down to approximately thirty finalists with whom we do studio visits.

SS: Really? Some artists who are nominated choose not to apply? I’m curious about this. Do you have any insight why they might choose not to?

ADQ: I know. We were surprised ourselves to learn that. I’m not sure why they didn’t but it would be interesting to find out. Really, it could be anything though, bad timing, busy schedules, fear of rejection, they don’t like the process, anything.

SS: It would be interesting to hear from artists who’ve declined to apply. What happens once you’ve narrowed the field to the thirty finalists?

AG and ADQ: Then the SECA chair, Dick Drossler, works very closely with the SECA coordinator, Heather Holt, to generate a schedule of studio visits. They try to group the finalists geographically so that we can do five or six consecutive visits each day over a period of about four to five months. In the end we did thirty-one studio visits on six different Saturdays from the end of January to the beginning of May.

SECA is funded by a terrific auxiliary committee at SFMOMA, people who are committed to both the development of Bay Area contemporary art, the support of local artists, and who are committed to SFMOMA’s engagement with the community. As a reflection of this community spirit SECA members also attend the studio visits. The group of about sixty who go on the visits are divided into two groups and as curators, we each go with one group and pile onto charter buses to go to each studio together.

SS: Will you describe the series of studio visits?

AG and ADQ: The visits are really the best part of the process. As the curators, we talk more on the bus about the artist we are going to see. We then squeeze into the artist’s studio or selected venue. If the artist has an exhibition up, we often meet at his/her gallery to see the work. We imagine it can be a little overwhelming for the artist to suddenly have to host 30 people (twice in one day!) in what is often times a tiny studio space. Then we have a conversation with the artist about his/her work. Each studio visit is only 20 minutes, so there is often a lot of information to cover in that time. Overall, it is a very open process, and anyone who has questions for the artist is encouraged to ask. After the five or six visits, we all head back to SFMOMA where we have lunch around a giant table and discuss what we saw that day.

SS: What was the most surprising part of the process for each of you? The most enjoyable?

AG: I am consistently amazed at how much you can learn from visits like this, despite their short length. Each of the artists is so articulate and generous with their time. They give so much of themselves to the visit and I always leave feeling like I want to thank them profusely. I would definitely say the most enjoyable part is seeing the work in person and learning more about the work firsthand. It is an honor as a curator to get to stand in front of work with the artist there.

ADQ: Absolutely. I truly enjoy the chance to speak with each of the artists we visit and learn more about their work. We are really putting them on the spot and invading their spaces during these visits, and they are consistently engaging, generous, and welcoming. It is a very special thing to be able to take part in this kind of dialogue with an artist and with a group of people who care so much about the artist and his/her work. We take it very seriously and greatly respect and appreciate the artists for how much they give of themselves during the process. We have also just begun another enjoyable aspect of the process, which is collaborating with the award winners to produce the exhibition. This is when we are able to take the dialogue to the next level.

SS: You’re both east coast transplants, and through this round of SECA visits have had the opportunity to see quite close-up a nice cross-section of the artists who are working here. Can you talk a little bit about what you’ve seen here in the Bay Area that is different or similar to art practice in other parts of the country?

AG: I would say I came here with a little New York-centricness, which is hard to admit and makes me feel bad. However, I can say it because I was totally astounded by what I saw. San Francisco has a thriving, world-class art world. At SFMOMA, we spend so much time looking at the contemporary art trends from around the world, it is important for us to have SECA to EXPLICITLY focus on the work right around us. I think both things are important, because SFMOMA (and other institutions in the Bay area) do a great service for the local artistic community I hope by bringing art from everywhere here, so artists working here get a chance in their own back yard to see their work in context and can then dialogue with history as well. But, I have to say, it was important for me to realize that I can see fantastic work without getting on a plane. I would say the biggest difference I have felt in San Francisco from New York is a real artistic community. In New York it is so fractured and fragmented without a sense of communal identity at all. I would say that this newest generation of artist in San Francisco seems to be doing a terrific job of maintaining a sense of supportive community, without cultivating regional identity (I mean while still being very connected to artistic practices from other places).

ADQ: Yes, this seems to be an ongoing stigma San Francisco has to contend with: the regional. I think overcoming this stereotype is important not only for the artists who live and work here, so that their work can be seen within a larger, global context, but it is also important for San Francisco itself. Upon arrival, I repeatedly heard people describe San Francisco’s art scene as “provincial”, which was a very disconcerting thing to hear, when in fact, New York can often actually be more insular in its myopic tendency to only look at work being exhibited in New York galleries. I think what is often lacking in New York is an international or even national perspective. Since I arrived two years ago, this city has had a great mix of important international artists come to the Bay Area and display their work, such as Allora and Calzadilla, Felix Schramm, Lucy McKenzie, Rosalind Nashashibi, and many of the artists in the ongoing Passengers exhibition at the Wattis, not to mention Jeff Wall, Douglas Gordon, Olafur Eliasson, and those others who come as part of SFAI’s and CCA’s excellent visiting artist lecture programs. To my mind the San Francisco Bay Area seems to be more international and thriving than New York in many instances. It troubles me to hear the word “provincial” ascribed to the Bay Area. If artists living in San Francisco are to be seen in expanded contexts and in other cities, it is our duty as art professionals to stop using this word and to get out there and look at as much work being made in this community as possible, and then to bring that work to larger audiences. One way we can do this is through implementing these kinds of awards, such as SECA (which has been occurring biennially since 1967), and producing exhibitions that are devoted to highly sophisticated work being made by artists living here, and then to internationally contextualize the work with other work being made today. This is something Ali and I have kept in mind during this process and is something we will continually strive for as we produce this exhibition. The other thing that would help is to havean international biennial in San Francisco, but that is another conversation with an entirely different set of problems…

SS: I’d be curious to take up the question of an SF Biennial up in another interview! In the meantime: Winning a SECA Award can have a substantial impact on the career of a developing artist. This highly competitive award is coveted by local artists, and emotions often run high around the selection process. Surely this is true for the artists themselves, but I imagine it is also true for the SECA committee and for you as well. As curators for this award, can you talk a little bit about the difficulties and rewards in making final decisions?

AG and ADQ: Yes, this is the really challenging part of it, making that ultimate decision of who to select, which necessitates having to exclude so many talented artists who are also deserving. We had rigorous discussions about each artist’s work after meeting with them, with the SECA members and then with each other later. In the end, we could have given the award to more people. Each of the 31 finalists was very talented, which made the decision especially difficult in the end, and it was something we both lost a lot of sleep over. It is not a decision we took lightly. It was wonderful to be able to tell the winners that they won, but after having the finalists open up their studios and their practices to us, it felt really hard to have to leave people out.

Ultimately though, we feel very confident with the four artists we did select: Tauba Auerbach, Desiree Holman, Jordan Kantor, and Trevor Paglen–who are each making exceptional, truly innovative work. SECA was an amazing experience for both of us–completely positive in the sense that we directly experienced the richness and strength of this artistic community. And we hope to be able to continue the dialogue that we began with so many of artists we were able to visit with this time.