Another photo from the Jessica Ciocci show at Foxy Production. The orange cast is because this is taken inside a tent in the corner of the gallery--the lights are shining through various colored fabrics. I told Paper Radder Ben Jones that all the artists in the three-person collective are equally good, and I think they are, but this was my favorite of the Foxy shows, including their collaborative effort. It's the most materially sumptuous. I still don't agree with the gallery's decision to show the artists individually so soon, though. It's not like the Who, where you have Pete Townshend and John Entwistle solo albums or whatever. Or actually--you had a bunch of Who albums before the solo efforts started appearing. In any case, everyone knows and expects musicians to work as groups. The art world, however, still clings to the myth of the Leonardo-like solitary artist, moving culture forward in a single heroic leap. The most rad thing about Rad, to me, is their rejection of individuality cliches--who made what? Who cares? If you're a gallery you pound that message home. You don't immediately take your strongest artists and start presenting them the way everyone else presents their artists--as individual branded commodities. The power of the status quo is insanely huge. [/rant]
did the artists agree to the solo shows?
Hi, anonymous. No, I think they pushed for them and the gallery just went along with it.
Actually, i think the gallery initially pushed for it and the artists went along with it... gallery has since changed its mind a bit (due to i think reasons you hinted at , which i think artists knew all along in their hearts)
I was being ironic--I don't think it matters so much how the decision got made, nor do I want to be a total hardass about it (although I know it sounds that way). Every step in the art world ends up being so strategic and fraught with importance. When I said the power of the status quo is huge, well, I'm up against it, too. All our brains are colonized by these social Darwinian ideas of individuals struggling against individuals. I think here the issue is one of mystique-building. Everyone assumes the weight of commerce and habit will eventually turn the collective into a "bunch of talented, readily identifiable individuals" so it would be cool to hold out as long as possible resisting that "inevitability." A good role model would be the musical group The Residents, who perform in masks and reveal little of their back story--I still have no idea who those people are. Who sings? Who does the writing? Are the southern accents real? Are they really from Louisiana? Are they men? WASPs? I'm sure I could figure some of that out googling but they never really made me *want* to know. We should just be listening, not nosing after "stories." And they're in music where a certain amount of ego-submersion is expected. In art you would drive the whole art historical trainspotter structure insane if you held out and continued to thwart the all-important Alfred Barr chart of which rugged individualistic genius influenced which. This would never happen but it's nice to dream.
|
Another photo from the Jessica Ciocci show at Foxy Production. The orange cast is because this is taken inside a tent in the corner of the gallery--the lights are shining through various colored fabrics. I told Paper Radder Ben Jones that all the artists in the three-person collective are equally good, and I think they are, but this was my favorite of the Foxy shows, including their collaborative effort. It's the most materially sumptuous. I still don't agree with the gallery's decision to show the artists individually so soon, though. It's not like the Who, where you have Pete Townshend and John Entwistle solo albums or whatever. Or actually--you had a bunch of Who albums before the solo efforts started appearing. In any case, everyone knows and expects musicians to work as groups. The art world, however, still clings to the myth of the Leonardo-like solitary artist, moving culture forward in a single heroic leap. The most rad thing about Rad, to me, is their rejection of individuality cliches--who made what? Who cares? If you're a gallery you pound that message home. You don't immediately take your strongest artists and start presenting them the way everyone else presents their artists--as individual branded commodities. The power of the status quo is insanely huge. [/rant]
- tom moody 7-09-2006 12:03 am
did the artists agree to the solo shows?
- anonymous (guest) 7-09-2006 12:30 am
Hi, anonymous. No, I think they pushed for them and the gallery just went along with it.
- tom moody 7-09-2006 12:53 am
Actually, i think the gallery initially pushed for it and the artists went along with it... gallery has since changed its mind a bit (due to i think reasons you hinted at , which i think artists knew all along in their hearts)
- anonymous (guest) 7-11-2006 11:51 am
I was being ironic--I don't think it matters so much how the decision got made, nor do I want to be a total hardass about it (although I know it sounds that way). Every step in the art world ends up being so strategic and fraught with importance. When I said the power of the status quo is huge, well, I'm up against it, too. All our brains are colonized by these social Darwinian ideas of individuals struggling against individuals. I think here the issue is one of mystique-building. Everyone assumes the weight of commerce and habit will eventually turn the collective into a "bunch of talented, readily identifiable individuals" so it would be cool to hold out as long as possible resisting that "inevitability." A good role model would be the musical group The Residents, who perform in masks and reveal little of their back story--I still have no idea who those people are. Who sings? Who does the writing? Are the southern accents real? Are they really from Louisiana? Are they men? WASPs? I'm sure I could figure some of that out googling but they never really made me *want* to know. We should just be listening, not nosing after "stories." And they're in music where a certain amount of ego-submersion is expected. In art you would drive the whole art historical trainspotter structure insane if you held out and continued to thwart the all-important Alfred Barr chart of which rugged individualistic genius influenced which. This would never happen but it's nice to dream.
- tom moody 7-11-2006 7:04 pm