Unfortunately many galleries are giving themselves away to these kind of discourses where it seems the only thing that exists in an artist life and work is where they come from and what is their cultural background. What makes me a bit nervous is that they believe to be protected from any kind of criticism about the artworks themselves, or a bad curation as you say here, cause then they can always claim you are being racist or short minded and don't understand their causes. Identity is getting commodified, which is the worst that could happen to identity. I really like Rona Pondick's works, but never been in this gallery so I don't know how they curate her work. It's interesting how much curation can affect the art itself. Anyways, thanks for the article! :)
Identity getting commodified is a tragedy that I see as analogous to fetishizing suffering. I understand that for many artists, their identity occupies so much of their thought and day-to-day reality, so I am interested in seeing that in their art, but as you said, curation can really affect the art and completely flatten the narrative surrounding identity into a pigeonholing brand that just serves profit. I'll have to try to return for any Pondick shows this gallery does in the future, and report back. Thanks!
Yes, fetishizing suffering is a big subject, and I agree with you that a big chunk of an artist is their identity, but this word became really stuck in the last years, it feels appropriated, de-appropriate, re-appropiated again and at the end we don't even know what it really means, it is one of those elusive signifiers. Instead, I would like to talk about identification, cause it feels more a flowing term, more trans-operative, you can identify with this in one moment and the contrary in another moment, you can be a victim in some instances of your life and an oppressor in other, we are dichotomic beings... And I feel that if curators embraced the contradictory aspects of the people they agree to exhibit, and analyze their work from that perspective, maybe the shows would be more interesting at least. Again thanks for your text, I really like to read about curation: another of those elusive signifiers, hahaha. And it's good to make bad reviews once In a while, it feels refreshing!
While I agree with some of what is said here, I'm confused by Counter Service. With a self-frustrated tone, the author seems either grossly naive or startlingly delusional about the function of commercial art galleries and how (or why) they come into being. They seem to confuse The Met with Bergdorf Goodman, and curatorial responsibility with merchandising.
The author poses false, monotonous questions and then offers whiny, meandering answers that do little more than express their own conflicted attitude towards participating in the industry. [See the most recent post: "Really, I am just spiteful of the dilemma: we all see that the system is fucked up, but we still prostitute our art and labor to the wealthy whenever we are given the chance."]
The author knows enough about Marc Straus Gallery to namecheck a director who departed in 2019 but is apparently oblivious to the well-documented fact that the gallery is the vanity project of a rich art collector. They resent the fact that the gallery "takes up this much space" in Chinatown without acknowledging that the owner inherited several buildings in the neighborhood. They mock the gallery's affinity for "self-serious" and "bizarre" writing without realizing that the owner is also a self-published poet. They rightfully identify the gallery's declining quality and sense of objects-in-space without considering that perhaps the aforementioned owner is elderly, or even ill.
But the author continues to unwittingly dismiss the very artists and artwork that they pretend to champion. They bemoan how this exhibition overlooks the complexity and independence of the artists' lived experiences or the nuances of their formal processes, yet they resort to the same "bad" descriptors (ie Ambreen Butt's "work on Muslim identity" or "labor-intensive, conceptual art"). They "feel bad" for the gallery's artists because of the grouping of their artwork, yet their own cynical, quasi-savior voice overshadows any appreciation of the artwork itself.
The author also fails to realize that artists willingly, and often enthusiastically, consign artwork to commercial galleries for exhibition and sale. Or that in many cases artists even suggest other artists whom they admire, and with whom they want their own work contextualized. Maybe these artists all really like each other, wanted to hang in a room together, and it doesn't have to carry the burden of solving the world's problems...today, at least.
"Is this what happens when an oncologist starts a gallery?" Yes, of course. Now move on to something more interesting, or impactful. At a time when everyone is a critic on social media and there is a serious dearth of true art criticism, please be better.
Unfortunately many galleries are giving themselves away to these kind of discourses where it seems the only thing that exists in an artist life and work is where they come from and what is their cultural background. What makes me a bit nervous is that they believe to be protected from any kind of criticism about the artworks themselves, or a bad curation as you say here, cause then they can always claim you are being racist or short minded and don't understand their causes. Identity is getting commodified, which is the worst that could happen to identity. I really like Rona Pondick's works, but never been in this gallery so I don't know how they curate her work. It's interesting how much curation can affect the art itself. Anyways, thanks for the article! :)
Identity getting commodified is a tragedy that I see as analogous to fetishizing suffering. I understand that for many artists, their identity occupies so much of their thought and day-to-day reality, so I am interested in seeing that in their art, but as you said, curation can really affect the art and completely flatten the narrative surrounding identity into a pigeonholing brand that just serves profit. I'll have to try to return for any Pondick shows this gallery does in the future, and report back. Thanks!
Yes, fetishizing suffering is a big subject, and I agree with you that a big chunk of an artist is their identity, but this word became really stuck in the last years, it feels appropriated, de-appropriate, re-appropiated again and at the end we don't even know what it really means, it is one of those elusive signifiers. Instead, I would like to talk about identification, cause it feels more a flowing term, more trans-operative, you can identify with this in one moment and the contrary in another moment, you can be a victim in some instances of your life and an oppressor in other, we are dichotomic beings... And I feel that if curators embraced the contradictory aspects of the people they agree to exhibit, and analyze their work from that perspective, maybe the shows would be more interesting at least. Again thanks for your text, I really like to read about curation: another of those elusive signifiers, hahaha. And it's good to make bad reviews once In a while, it feels refreshing!
While I agree with some of what is said here, I'm confused by Counter Service. With a self-frustrated tone, the author seems either grossly naive or startlingly delusional about the function of commercial art galleries and how (or why) they come into being. They seem to confuse The Met with Bergdorf Goodman, and curatorial responsibility with merchandising.
The author poses false, monotonous questions and then offers whiny, meandering answers that do little more than express their own conflicted attitude towards participating in the industry. [See the most recent post: "Really, I am just spiteful of the dilemma: we all see that the system is fucked up, but we still prostitute our art and labor to the wealthy whenever we are given the chance."]
The author knows enough about Marc Straus Gallery to namecheck a director who departed in 2019 but is apparently oblivious to the well-documented fact that the gallery is the vanity project of a rich art collector. They resent the fact that the gallery "takes up this much space" in Chinatown without acknowledging that the owner inherited several buildings in the neighborhood. They mock the gallery's affinity for "self-serious" and "bizarre" writing without realizing that the owner is also a self-published poet. They rightfully identify the gallery's declining quality and sense of objects-in-space without considering that perhaps the aforementioned owner is elderly, or even ill.
But the author continues to unwittingly dismiss the very artists and artwork that they pretend to champion. They bemoan how this exhibition overlooks the complexity and independence of the artists' lived experiences or the nuances of their formal processes, yet they resort to the same "bad" descriptors (ie Ambreen Butt's "work on Muslim identity" or "labor-intensive, conceptual art"). They "feel bad" for the gallery's artists because of the grouping of their artwork, yet their own cynical, quasi-savior voice overshadows any appreciation of the artwork itself.
The author also fails to realize that artists willingly, and often enthusiastically, consign artwork to commercial galleries for exhibition and sale. Or that in many cases artists even suggest other artists whom they admire, and with whom they want their own work contextualized. Maybe these artists all really like each other, wanted to hang in a room together, and it doesn't have to carry the burden of solving the world's problems...today, at least.
"Is this what happens when an oncologist starts a gallery?" Yes, of course. Now move on to something more interesting, or impactful. At a time when everyone is a critic on social media and there is a serious dearth of true art criticism, please be better.