Al Taylor: Wire Instruments and Pet Stains

It is not necessarily rare to be amused by the simple coincidences that often foreshadow the events in life that determine specific experiences. In this case, the word foreshadow has been cautiously selected due to the fact that this is not a fictional event and it’s even less of a story. However, when stopping off at my friend Brian’s place when in route to the Al Taylor exhibition titled, Wire Instruments and Pet Stains currently on view at the Santa Monica Museum of Art (SMMoA), it was impossible not to notice the “pee pad” on the balcony of his 4th floor Long Beach apartment which is used in an attempt to train his new Ewok--looking puppy where to urinate(as you may know, potty training any living being is a trying task, just ask my twenty month old daughter and thirty year old wife (insert smiley face emoticon here). With the foresight of knowing some of Al Taylors Pet Stain work, I observed the “pee pad” like a New York collector looking at a Rauschenberg in the viewing room at Christies. Meanwhile, Brian carefully (French) pressed himself a cup of coffee in the kitchen, which ten minutes later splashed its way onto the interior of my 2006 Honda Element. Looking back at these incidences after an afternoon at SMMoA suggests that occurrences that happen outside of the studio can facilitate an approach to the practice of art.

Looking and observing the daily mundane is evident in the playfulness of Taylor’s Wire Instruments and Pet Stains. His subtle didactic qualities can be viewed as a way of looking at objects, life, words, existence and accidents, all with a sense of humility and humor which is evident in this quasi retrospective of a series of works made in a span of two years from 1989 to 1990. A small sketchbook drawing that has been torn out of its binder and exhibited in a frame, rightfully, does not have a title. This work is a depiction of studio or gallery floor with an abstract splatter of black ink on the wall and smudge of white paint on the drawn floor boards and resembles an occurrence, yet its scale is intentionally odd and accidental. This creates a conversation between the smudge and the black splatter and a conversation about the way Taylor approached his studio practice with humor.

Taylor’s 3-dimensional Wire Instruments hang off the wall and should be approached as if they are drawings. Constructed from materials such as wood, latex paint and wire to construct these works resemble a certain type of “amateur” approach to the tinkering and working through ideas. The shadows cast on these works on the museum wall decidedly read as drawings even when exhibited next to the pre or might one say post-liminary drawing of the actual object. Whether the drawing of the object was made before or after the object was made means little. What is most important is the way Taylor used the flatness of the wall to bring up questions of how an artist uses structural elements to suggest how a drawing/sculpture can be made. The simple fragility and delicate nature these works embody almost read as “minimal” but frankly, they are way too funny to be thrown under the umbrella of the austere conceptualism that minimalism suggests.

Confronted with a half dozen sculptures that resemble drawings all on the same floor of a museum is ambitious, and at the same time, can be seen as conceptually didactic. However, because of the sheer lack of hierarchy between these drawings and sculptures in Taylor’s Pet Stain Removal Devices they read as proposals. The notion of an art object having a function as an actual stain removal device is impossible to come to terms with. The Stain Removal Devices instead act as a support for viewing paintings that look like stains. Taylor’s use of Plexiglass on multiple plains allow for the viewer to see the push and pull of space through the use of poured paint in multiple variations of a similar experiment. The poured paint on the Plexiglass of these objects that are held together with scrap wood blocks, wire, screws and metal rods create an appearance of the paint going from place to place. The pre/post-liminary drawings of these sculptures propose that sculptures are actually drawings. The function of the drawing is then a reminder that time reconciled through the movement of line acting in space but not about space is the purpose for these works.

Taylor’s witty approach to looking at the most mundane daily occurrences through a conceptual practice, results in object-drawings and actual drawings. These works then propose that he has two positions that illustrate his ideas. However, Taylor’s work is not necessarily about ideas. Wire Instruments and Pet Stains show an artist functioning on the necessity of making things by looking at the world around him, a simple proposition with unlimited possibilities.

All Over but the Crying - Where's the Regulation?

There have been many questions over the past few days concerning Jeffrey Deitch's decision to white-wash over the mural that the artist Blu was commissioned to paint on the wall of the Geffen Center at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles (MOCA). Some of the questions I have heard are: "Why did MOCA commission an Italian graffiti artist when Los Angeles has some of the greatest graffiti artists?" or "Why doesn't MOCA have the courage to stand behind their artists?"

I believe these are great questions which need to be addressed but further questions need to be asked as well. Such as, is it possible that Deitch's connections with collectors and patrons who most likely own works by the Italian street artist aided in his decisions in commissioning the work of Blu? and by white-washing it soon after, has this increased the hype and market value of Blu and his work? If these are possibilities, wouldn't it also be possible for Blu to be in on it?

These possibilities coupled with Deitch's history of picking the right artists at the right moments to increase their value is un-rivaled. This highly publicized occurrence will undoubtedly raise the value of Blu's work. Deitch knows this, he is no fool, this move was strategic.

Deitch's disregard for the fact that he is working for a public institution continues to be concerning but it shouldn't be surprising. Blu's commission was paid for by the public money (and some private tax-deductible donations), regardless, this disregard for MOCA as a public institution means that he believes its okay to use public money to fund murals like the one Blu painted and then discard it. He also seems to believe that it is okay to use public money to raise the value of artists work.

So why didn't an LA graffiti artist get the job? Because Deitch's benefactors own Blu's work, not Shepard Fairey's, and in that case, he is standing by his artist, as this will surely raise Blu's market value. The real question is then, is there anyone to stop him? The un-regulated art market takes no prisoners...........literally.

Its been a while

I haven't posted for a few months but I have been writing, quite a bit in fact. The following 3 posts are things I've been working on as assignments during my first semester of graduate school (MFA). I've been reading and writting as much if not more than I've been painting, but have been enjoying it and I hope you do as well.

Deitch Made Me Do It

The following exhibition is inspired by decades of commercialism in and around the art world and a recent article on artinfo.com. In this article titled Power, the Art World People Who Matter, wealth, institutional influence, deal making and the ability to recognize the next greatest thing is recognized as power. Interestingly, the articles lists of people who inhibit these traits are comprised of auctioneers, collectors, curators, dealers and patrons instead of artists, except for the occasional mention of the artist who is represented and collected by these people. This type of branding influence brings me to question the role of the artist and the work that they make. The following is an introduction to the branding of commercialism in art and what the art world would look like if there were no longer any objects to sell. The pandemonium that will ensue if there happened to be no more art will be represented in this exhibition through these people of power that often make art possible.

Questioning Commercialism in Art

Branding is not a new concept. Marketing plans which create social desires for products are evident in all areas of business. From Target’s lifestyle products that make the common person desire the world Target creates through fashionable home goods to political campaigns selling the idea of hope which may transcend a country’s evolution into a better world, there is no escaping it. The art market does not escape these concepts either. From branding the artist genius to the major market dealers who promote and sell the works of these artists there is a common thread in all commercial business. Is being a consumer as important as obtaining the objects which are being sold? At what point is the gallery who represents the artist as important as or even more important than the artwork itself? The dealing of art continues to harness this concept which is heightened at art fairs where the who’s who of collectors, dealers and patrons revel in exchanges.

It appears obvious that there would be no reason for dealers, collectors, curators, museum directors or patrons to exist if art did not exist. The real question then is; would art continue to be made if there were no curators to place the art and no dealers, collectors or patrons to invest in art as a commercial enterprise? I believe it would, but to what extent and how would art play a role in our world without these entities? As these questions continue to arise, I find it continuously more difficult to find a concrete resolution to the problematic commercialism which the art world can’t seem to live without. This isn’t to say that the it cannot continue to strive without commercialism, it‘s just increasingly more difficult to conceptually visualize a non-commercial art world.

Commercial Pandemonium as Exhibition

The controlling of the art world is brought on by people of recognized devotion who have a history of making the right decisions at the right time. Power, as the article states, means having the ability to recognize the next big thing, whether that is a specific artist or a concept on how or who to sell to. The list of people involved in this structure continues to grow as their commercial influence develops and expands. In this realm, art works continue to take a secondary role in the dealing of art and the powerful people who constitute these dealings.

In this exhibition the artist and their work will be left out. This will offer a visual insight into an art world where dealers, collectors and patrons will be left under the microscope of the invited viewer. The invited list of participants will include some of the most influential dealers, collectors and patrons who will act as the medium. The creation of this mini-world will take place in Eli and Edythe L. Broad’s special event lobby at the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) and will take place the weekend before Art Basel Miami 2011. This exhibition space which exists courtesy of a donation from the Eli Broad Foundation offers 1,150 square feet of event space and is where the invited patrons will watch the most influential dealers, collectors and patrons sell themselves to each other (rather than art) through the glass and from the courtyard. The exhibition will be promoted as an exclusive opportunity for collectors and patrons to purchase works of art which will only ever be available at this fair style exhibition.

Collectors will be unaware of the fact that there will not be any art at the exhibition but will know that auctioneers have been asked to sell the work of specific dealers. The auctioneer will be aware of his role as mediator between the collector and the dealer. The dealer will stand in his artless booth waiting for the collector’s arrival with only their gallery’s name on the wall behind them. The auctioneer will escort the collector to the dealer’s booth and will begin the bidding. This action will create confusion among the collectors which will make them question what in fact they are actually buying. When they realize the auctioneer is attempting to auction off dealers one by one they will become upset that there is no actual art for sale. Patrons and museum directors will participate by watching the event through the glass but will be unable to hear conversations between acting parties. The entire event will be filmed for documentation which will be on view for the first time the following week at Art Basel Miami. This documentation however will not be for sale and instead a copy will be made which will be given to MOCA for their permanent collection.

The exhibitions ability to question the roles of its participants is critical. The most critical role being questioned is that of the curator. By staging an event left to chance and creating an ephemeral video in the process, the curator also becomes the artist. By placing the video in the museum’s collection, the curator is participating in the commoditization of object inspired art collecting. This actuality is paramount in understanding arts role and its inability to transcend the marketplace.

Auctioneers, Collectors, Dealers and Patron Viewers (The List)

The following is a list of the participants who will be invited to be in the exhibition. Their names are followed by their influential art dealings which is the direct reason for their invitation. This list of people begins with auction power houses, followed by collectors then dealers and patrons, there will be five in each category. The list is specific, as each participant has displayed a deep entanglement and lack of conviction with the commercial aspect of art dealing.

Auctioneers

Pierre Berge - Is internationally famous for the $443 million sale at of his and longtime partner Yves Saint Laurent’s art collection which took place in February of 2009 at Christies auction house in Paris. His experience as a brand builder has since helped his Brussels-based auction company; Pierre Berge & Associes take market share away from other auction house competition.

Alexandre Carel – Relatively new to the auction world, 27 year old Carel is the head of postwar and contemporary art for Christie’s New York. In his short four year tenure at Christie’s, Carel has made a name for himself by bringing in new collectors. His ability to bring in these super collectors has made him a super power in the auction world.

Lisa Dennison – A museum professional for twenty nine years which includes two years as director at New York’s Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. Dennison has become indispensible to Sotheby’s auction house by developing client oriented exhibitions at the firms New York headquarters.

Tobias Meyer – Known as the “James Bond” of the art market, Meyer is the worldwide head of contemporary art for the auction house Sotheby’s. Meyer is the public face for the firm which he joined in 1992. Meyer is in charge of picking out works to sell and persuading the owners of these works to part with them. His most notable is sale is of Picasso’s Boy with Pipe which brought in $104 million in 2004. Some say that unrivaled auctioneer eventually wants to run the company.

Simon de Pury – After a successful career as Chairman of Sotheby’s Switzerland, de Pury has continued his rise to fame in the global art marketplace. Renowned for his legendary performances on the auction podium, de Pury is now Chairman and Chief Auctioneer of Phillips de Pury & Company which recently opened a lavish new sales room on Park Avenue in New York.

Collectors

Roman Abramovich – One of the best know Russian billionaires who made it rich by purchasing and selling oil. Abramovich is now the owner of investment company Millhouse Capital and the English Premiership Chelsea Football Club. Abramovich regularly adds to his contemporary collection of art, including the impressive $86.3 million he spent on Francis Bacon’s Triptych at Sotheby’s in 2008.

Alice Cheng – A Hong Kong based business woman, Cheng is well known for her connoisseur’s eye. Her recent record breaking $32.4 million purchase of a Qianlong-period vase put her at the forefront of Chinese collectors.

Farhad Farjam – The leading Dubai based arts patron rotates selections from his collections at his exhibition space, the Farjam Collection. These items range from Islamic art to contemporary works by Arab superstar artists such as Mahmoud Said and Youssef Nabil.

Lily Safra – The socialite and philanthropist is known for never denying herself the best that money can buy. Safra is speculated to have spent $103.7 million on Alberto Giacometti’s Homme qui marche I at Sotheby’s London in February of 2010. Safra obtained her wealth through four marriages including her late husband Edmond Safra, a billionaire banker who was murdered in a fire.

Anita & Chaim “Poju” Zabludowicz – The London based billionaire couple have a reputation of being forward-looking connoisseurs. Together, they run their very own private museum, 176, in North London. The pair collects globally and donates locally in London where they award an annual grant to an emerging artist.

Dealers

Ivor Braka – The Londoner who plays by his own rules is known for his record trading deals of Francis Bacon. Braka makes his deals via private appointment in his Chelsea residence rather than selling at an exhibition space. Braka’s reputation is catalyst in raising the value on works made by emerging talent.

Sadie Coles – The London dealer of Mathew Barney, John Currin and Elizabeth Peyton recently opened a second larger space. Her discerning vision brought her booth a best in show ribbon at the recent Frieze art fair. The thirteen year veteran sells work to museums and enjoys the adventure of being involved with artists.

Larry Gagosian – The Los Angeles expansionist dealer operates ten galleries worldwide and shows no sign of slowing down. Gagosian’s eleventh Hong Kong location is due to open this January. He is also now the exclusive dealer of Robert Rauschenberg, having won the coveted estate this fall.

Marian Goodman – Goodman focuses on her Paris and New York galleries where she has been a mainstay since the 1970’s. Her stable consists of blue-chip superstars such as Gehard Richter and Los Angeles artist John Baldessari. Representations such as these coupled with rising talent will bring Goodman continued success for years to come.

David Zwirner – Zwirner opened his doors in 1993 and has since moved and expanded throughout New York multiple times. His recent purchase of a 27,000 square foot building around the corner from his current digs represents his desire to rise to the top even through a bearish art market. Either way this will be a terrific place to show off his inventory of Donald Judd.

Patrons and Viewers

Eli Broad – Los Angeles’s biggest benefactor calls his generous donations to the local arts community and museums such as the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) and Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) “venture philanthropy.” The one hundred and forty million dollars over the past thirty years come at a price; Broad believes he is owed favors for his generosity. He is now in the process of creating his own museum, the Broad Collection, which will house his two thousand plus works of contemporary art and possibly MOCA’s collection, if MOCA decides to share.

Jeffrey Deitch – His New York gallery, Deitch Projects went unrivaled in its ability in finding the best talent money can buy. His resume boasts an MBA from Harvard from where Deitch went on to be the Vice President of Citibank where he developed and pioneered the bank’s art advisory and finance business. The one time dealer of modern and contemporary art was recently appointed as director at MOCA.

The Lee Family – With the Leeum, Samsung Museum of Art brought to fruition in 2004 the Lee family continues its commitment in presenting open-ended exploration. The family now has their sights set on international institutions such as the Guggenheim where they have rumored to committing $1 million annually for the next five years.

Lynda & Stewart Resnick – The Resnick’s have supported arts in Los Angeles for a few decades where Lynda is on the Board of Trustees at LACMA. The couple owns and manages such companies as POM Wonderful and Fiji Water and is actively involved in improving communities where their employees live and work. The Resnick’s $45 million gift funded LACMA’s new exhibition pavilion designed by Renzo Piano. The pair has promised to fill the new pavilion with a portion of their own collection.

Glenn D. Lowry – The Museum of Modern Art in New York pays Lowry more than any other museum director in the entire country. A pay cut reduced Lowry’s salary from $1.95 million in 2008 to $1.32 million in 2009. However, with landmark exhibitions such as Marina Abramovic’s retrospective, MoMA continues to receive critical praise.
______________________
Bibliography
Bruck, Connie. www.newyorker.com. 6 December 2010. 10 December 2010 .
Itzkoff, Dave. www.nytimes.com. 11 August 2009. 10 Decmember 2010 .
Maneker, Marion. www.artmarketmonitor.com. 28 October 2009. 8 December 2010 .
Rawsthorn, Alice. www.guardian.com.uk. 12 October 2006. 10 December 2010 .
Unknown. www.artinfo.com. 1 December 2010. 7 December 2010 .
—. www.bravotv.com. 7 December 2010 .
—. www.cityfile.com. 2010. 2010 December 2010 .
—. www.deitch.com. 10 December 2010 .
—. www.lacma.org. 10 December 2010 .
—. www.leeum.samsungfoundation.org. 2004. 10 December 2010 .
—. www.moca.org. 2009. 9 December 2010 .
—. www.wikipedia.org. 7 December 2010. 7 December 2010 .
—. www.woopidoo.com. 7 December 2010 .
Yee, Marilynn K. www.nytimes.com. 31 July 2007. 7 December 2010 .

Piet Mondrian: Spiritualism as Inspiration

My grandfather was an American born Dutchman named Peter De Boer who moved to California from Iowa after his farm was destroyed in a fire and started a business building fences for dairy farmers. After his death I learned my grandfather had an unusual skill of building perfectly straight fences without the use of a plumb-bob. The concept of straight lines remained present in me when I moved to New York City a few years later and visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art for the first time. This is where I experienced my first Piet Mondrian Composition painting and was immediately inspired due to the ability to see the work of my grandfather in Mondrian’s lines.

Like the fences my grandfather built, which were used to corral cows, Mondrian used hard-edged black lines as a way of holding, or corralling the paintings composition. The design of his painting is as much about composition as it is about the inherent way of life that his strict Dutch Reformed protestant upbringing distilled in him. Growing up in the Dutch Reformed Christian faith means that he studied Calvinism, a theology based on total depravity, which is a belief that man is enslaved to sin and is redeemed only through predestination. While Mondrian physically moved away from his family, and by his own account, “was willing to give up everything for art,” his first spiritual connection which is rooted in the Calvinist theology was a guiding force in his desire for creating Utopian compositions which at first glance appear to be inhuman. Yet, Mondrian knew full-well that the traces and evidence of his fallible human hand was a consequence of total depravity. Searching for freedom of Calvinist teachings led Mondrian to develop de Stijl, which was informed by his readings of theosophy, a belief that all religions are attempts to help humanity evolve to greater perfection. These modernist standards coupled with “Mondrian’s background nevertheless endowed him with important qualities: outstanding resoluteness and probity; belief in the sanctity of principles; faith in the illuminating power of truth; and conviction of the duty to actively spread truth through word and image,” gave Mondrian the ability to understand his work fully and be able to believe in it as truth.

I am reminded of that day when I could feel my grandfather’s presence in Mondrian’s painting when I look at Composition in White, Red and Yellow, 1936. Not only because this geometric abstract oil painting is created by intersecting and connecting a variation of vertical and horizontal black hard-edged lines, which create twenty open spaces, but because this painting, like my grandfather, is spiritual. Eighteen of the twenty open spaces are painted white with the additional red plane in the top left corner and another yellow plane on the middle far right side of the painting. On a formal level these open spaces can be read as both positive and negative space. On a more spiritual level, they can be viewed as an exploration of the multiple parameters of perception.

Through the means of total depravity, Mondrian understood the sense of tragedy in nature and his attempts at eliminating this element are apparent in Composition in White, Red and Yellow, which relies on formal pictorial elements and brings a level of balance that only Mondrian has been able to produce. The harmonious yet rigid black lines and color show Mondrian’s incredible ability to create picture planes through stylized composition paintings. His use of line and color share a perfect balance and ease with each other due to the central rectangle, which is created by the integration of black lines. The whole composition revolves around this white rectangular space, which allows the viewer’s eyes to have a resting place. Through Theosophy, Mondrian believed that all religions shared truths, and this is evident in this painting where the composition relies on multiple variations of divided space and color in order for the work to reflect his spiritual life.

Composition in White, Red and Yellow can be considered an attempt at pure abstraction even though it was primarily inspired by Cubism. The Cubist ability to resolve visible reality into multiple picture planes and lines is always apparent in his work. But unlike the Cubists, who fragmented nature, Mondrian linked the fragmentation of the picture plane with his Theosophical beliefs. In this realm, the pure abstract qualities of this painting are at the forefront of its ability to not rely on nature. Interestingly, Mondrian’s grid paintings have a direct connection to the architectural planning of cities. While this is not exactly nature it bears relevant similarities to the societies created during the industrial revolution. It is not a surprise that Mondrian felt comfortable living in a city such as New York, where the gridded streets and avenues create a unified language for how a culture organizes their daily life. In Composition in White, Red and Yellow, the picture denies perspective and relies on the belief that flatness is the purest form of painting. When pictorial flatness is the most important element in the work of art, the object-hood of the painting becomes a source and an added layer of visual interpretation.

As previously noted, equal to Mondrian’s interest in pure abstraction is the spiritual qualities the painting incorporates. The balance and oneness the painting expresses is evidence of Mondrian’s quest for spiritual truth. The intersecting black hard-edged lines and composed color can be viewed as a road map for his spiritual journey. Being true to the grid, these black hard-edged lines were only ever painted vertically and horizontally, never on a diagonal. Mondrian was so passionate about the grid only operating in this way that it led to the dissolving of the long time friendship he had with fellow de Stijl artist, Theo van Doesburg who painted diagonal lines in his work. The reason for his adamant belief that line can only be painted either horizontal or vertical is related to his Theosophical beliefs. In a statement, Mondrian reveals that he believes there are two ways towards spirituality: the way of the pupil directly practicing (meditation etc.) and the slow, sure way of evolution. This reveals itself in art. One sees in art the slow development towards the spiritual, while the makers are completely unaware of this. The conscious way of learning on the stairway of evolution where it is possible for a conscious spirit to be directly achievable, then you have ideal art.
This pluralistic view is further evidence of his attempt at a Utopian ideal in art and also verifies his continuous effort to separate himself from the teachings of total depravity.

Mondrian’s use of oil on canvas elicits his formal understanding of the language of painting. The minimal texture created through brushstrokes going in all directions creates body and adds depth to flat colors. This depth through flatness shows that his use of oil paint as a medium was the only way this painting could have been made. The creation of a “slick-style” is important to this painting and while this artwork shows signs of aging, the rawness and a hand-made quality appear to have accompanied this painting since its original date of creation. The lines are, in fact, perfectly straight when viewed from a reasonable distance. Upon closer inspection, however, the imperfection of the line’s hard edge quality creates a human quality and nuance when accompanied by the flat white, red and yellow color planes. It is an obvious intention of Mondrian’s to make the hard edge painting elements have a uniform amount of imperfection and to allow the texture of the canvas to show through when the lines and flat color planes do not meet perfectly. Another quality to this work, which is obviously not Mondrian’s intention, is the surface craquelure, which immediately creates the illusion of historical relevance. Craquelure on oil paintings is typically a result of the stressful shrinking and relaxing the canvas has experienced due to heat and other natural elements. This historical quality creates a layer of vintage significance to this work of art and it is impossible to disregard this visual element when analyzing the work.

This work is exceptionally flat in its reading. It is important to notice that Composition in White, Red and Yellow has a three dimensional, dual layered white frame, which the painting is built into. In other words, the white frame is part of the painting, not just a formal three dimensional structure to display the work. This attachment the painting has with the frame creates the illusion that the canvas is being projected forward. Interestingly, Mondrian did not choose to add this element into the materials list, which accompanies the painting.

It is not a coincidence that Mondrian leaves out the word black from the title of Composition in White, Red and Yellow. This work and most of his other works are decidedly about lines. Composition in White, Red and Yellow does not elude this fact and appears to be mostly about the colors black and white. Even though black and white are the dominating colors in this work of art, the minimal use of red and yellow are the deciding features, which make this painting not only interesting but able to stand on its own as an autonomous object. All of the colors are defined by edges and boundaries for which each color operates singularly and also contrasts with each other. The colors are equally as important as line. Prior to making Composition in White, Red and Yellow, he experimented with colored lines. In Composition with Yellow Lines (1933), the lines were painted yellow and were so wide that they appear to be represented forms. This one work was an isolated experiment until he moved to New York and in the 1940’s revisited this investigation of the colored line in his Boogie Woogie paintings.

Composition in White, Red and Yellow also boasts the double line both vertically and horizontally. Mondrian was directly influenced by one of his own disciples, Marlow Moss. This repetition in line bears increasing importance to Mondrian when filtered through his ideal that there is two ways towards spirituality. When writing about this work he says, “In my last works the double line was widened to a form and yet it is still more of a line. But whatever the case, I think this is one of the issues that falls outside theories and which is so subtle that in the long run it falls under the mystery of ‘art’. However, that is still not entirely clear to me!” His unclear intentions show that by this stage in his life; theosophy had become part of who he was. This enabled him to test the boundaries and search for new ways of creating theory, which matched both his beliefs and his pictorial studies.

Testing the boundaries of his medium became an important feature of Mondrian’s later works. Through the layered paint and constructed visual qualities, Composition in White, Red and Yellow displays Mondrian’s sensitivity towards the architectural quality his paintings convey. Even further is the importance of his interpretation of the future of architecture; where he believed that all new architecture must be conceived in terms of flat planes, a theory developed through his writings on Neo-Plasticism. This is obviously much easier to accomplish in painting than it is in architecture where the three-dimensional will seemingly always interrupt the flat picture plane. Yet, Mondrian believed that this was possible through further removing oneself from nature and placing perspective everywhere and nowhere simultaneously. Theosophical beliefs such as these, where multi-dimensionality is not restricted by time/space are a testimony to his spiritual practice as way of life. Mondrian was realistic in his undertaking of the matter, recognizing that his vision would never be fully realized in his time. He continued to investigate these ideals of architecture by constantly rearranging his studio and searching for perfect harmony between objects in a space and called these visual relationships “cosmic harmony.” This idea of “cosmic harmony” is by itself theosophical and representative of Mondrian’s complete submersion in not only his practice as an artist, but his practice as a spiritual being.

Distressed by the war, which had invaded the Netherlands and his adopted home in Paris, and had left him unable to paint, Mondrian made plans to move to New York. During this time in New York his paintings and his beliefs began to evolve. After having devoted most of his efforts as a painter towards the use of black line and small blocks of color, as is the case for Composition in White, Red and Yellow, Mondrian now realized that these works were drawings in oil due to the black line being the most expressive form in the work. Mondrian’s decisive move away from the black line and his interest in the Blues and boogie-woogie music produced works where the lines dissolve into areas of color and appear to dance with the composition rather than using black lines as form for color to live in.

Mondrian’s desperation for perfection is the key element in not only Composition in White, Red and Yellow, but all of his work. His striving for perfection is elemental in his role as a spiritual being in search of the Utopian. Whether it was his childhood upbringing as a young Calvinist or his conversion into the belief in theosophy, it is all apparent in his work and therefore, of equal importance. His spiritual evolution is as important as the work itself, and its Utopian qualities are structured in his belief that “humanity is able to convey beauty into life and into our material surroundings so that they become beautiful themselves. To this end, then, they must be renewed before the past dies and before the future is born.”
_______________
Bibliography

Bax, Marty. Complete Mondrian. Hampshire, UK: Lund Humphries, 2001.
Mondrian, Piet. Composition in White, Red and Yellow, 1936. Los Angeles County Museum of Art.
Harry Holtzman, The New Art - The New Life. Boston: G.K. Hall & Company, 1986.
Piper, John. www.monergism.com. 1998. http://monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/depravity.html (accessed December 2, 2010).
Sweeney, James Johnson. Piet Mondrian: The Bulletin of the Museum of Modern Art, 12:4. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1945, 2-12.
Unknown. www.theosophy-ny.org. November 26, 2010. http://www.theosophy-ny.org/701.html (accessed December 2, 2010).

Whitney Biennial 2010 - Beyond Control?

As the leading advocate of 20th and 21st century American Art, the Whitney Museum boasts a collection of nearly 13,000 works of art. Included in these collections is the entire estate of Edward Hopper as well as significant works by artists such as Alexander Calder, Arshile Gorky, Georgia O’Keeffe, Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns. The founder of the Whitney Museum, Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney opened the Whitney Studio Club in Greenwich Village, New York in 1918. After changing its location two times, it now resides in Manhattan’s Upper East Side.

The Whitney Biennial, which is the Whitney’s signature exhibition, has evolved over the years. Early Biennials are known to be of the first major public exhibitions of contemporary American art. Originally exhibiting painting and sculpture in alternate years, the current Biennial program of combined media was finally introduced in 1973. The Biennial is now often regarded as the premier exhibition for showing the most important recent work by American artists. Showcasing established and relatively unknown artists, the Biennial is inherently controversial due to its vision and desire to cultivate the present advancement of American Art.

In the world of art, and in most areas of life, an examination of history can give us a clearer understanding of the present. By looking at the history of the Whitney Museum and its signature exhibition the Biennial we find similar curatorial trends which have accompanied the exhibition throughout its nearly hundred year existence. Along with the inherent criticism of the relevance of the 2010 Biennial (2010 is also the name of the year 2010’s Biennial), as with all recent Biennials, an onslaught of proverbial commercial trappings which stain this exhibition is apparent.

What does this exhibition mean for the Whitney? What is next for the artists included in this exhibition? How will the dealers and collectors respond to this show? Finally, what does this exhibition say to the general (non-art related) public? By addressing questions such as these, we find a Biennial whose commercial attachment dilutes the grandeur and hype that accompanies 2010. Because of this, 2010 emulates the current socio-economic climate of the time in which it is exhibited. By addressing the framework and intentions of 2010 and its ties to commerce, it becomes evident that American art is shaped by the world it often suppresses. The Whitney’s strategic affiliation with the privately owned commercial world can undermine the Whitney’s vision to pursue the advancement of American art. Their connection to both of these worlds is influential to the history of American art and how it will be viewed in future generations. This brings the Biennials ability to tell the whole story into question.

As mentioned, in order to understand 2010, we must look back at the previous Biennials. There is a trend, or might I say obligation, for each Biennial to attempt to out-do the previous Biennial(s). Monumental efforts such as these may seem risky but these attempts appear to be crucial for not only the Museum but for contemporary American art as a whole to keep up with global art word.

In an attempt to find uniqueness in the 2008 Biennial, Artweek Magazine writer Mark Van Proyen mentions that the last four Biennials from 2002-2008 have been very similar and when writing about the reason for this explained, “they have all been staged attempts to compete with or otherwise annotate the way art fairs have hijacked the entire art world into a vortex of margin-funded speculation that will soon fall into a recession-driven cooling off period”. As Van Proyen predicted, since the Whitney Biennial in 2008, the art world has changed. For better or worse, the economic bubble-bursting inception in the fall of 2008 has seriously affected not only the United States but the entire globe and has left the art world in a state of seemingly disrepair.

It is no wonder that 2010, is greeted with cynicism. The curators attempt to avoid and intend simultaneously the exhibitions prominent theme of commenting on the social mood is confusing and lacks focus. As Richard Leslie writes, “According to them [the curators], the art chosen does, and at the same time does not, embody the times, and when and how (and if?) it does, the process is an uneven one, especially since, by their own statement, the social historical and cultural mood that inevitably imprints art may or may not be visible or direct.” Given the record lows of the current socio-economic climate, should a monumental exhibition such as the Whitney Biennial mirror the current trivial times? If so, by attempting to be two things at the same time, are they trying to say anything at all? Or, is it even possible to be truly successful at all these things at the same time? The answers to each of these questions are yes, but, it is not a “good” exhibition just because the Biennial is able to answer its own questions of relevance.

Yes, exhibitions and art for that matter often mirrors the times. Art and the exhibitions which display these works, whether they are looking to past, present or future are always somehow related to the now. By attempting to be to two things at the same time they are making an underlying statement of: the world is full of un-answerable questions but we will never stop trying to answer them– this is common rhetoric in art. In answering yes to the question of whether or not it is possible to be successful at all of these things at the same time it is necessary to look at whether or not the curators chose successful artworks.

The catalogue essay which notes the curator’s framework for intentions says they were looking for “a certain kind of American spirit,” this being; a spirit which matched the post-election year of President Barack Obama. In choosing work which could be characterized as aesthetic, oblique and ambiguous, yes, they were successful in matching work of the post-election year. Works such as Nina Berman’s photographs of an American soldier marrying his young fiancé after multiple attempted surgeries to reconstruct his face after being shattered by a bomb and Josephine Meckseper’s politically charged video of Minneapolis’ Mall of America are both successful works of art when being categorized and compared by the fore-mentioned criteria. Navigating through this sea of art is rarely a seamless task when being confronted by these issues and as Todd Levin opened his criticism in the magazine Flash Art by saying, “(Biennials) are overrated vehicles if curatorially approached as a singularity attempting an overview of the state and direction of American art” and later noting that 2010 “is a good facsimile of a good Whitney Biennial”, which is more evidence of the curators lukewarm attitude. In response to the less than exceptional work in the show, Levin finishes his essay by saying “Whether this (the exhibition) is a reflection of the curatorial timidity, or the general state of timidity in American art at the present moment, is debatable.”

Like other Biennials, the aftermath of 2010 is a whirlwind of press and commentary leaving the art world and others who care about these matters such as dealers and collectors - chomping at the bit. Searching their in-box's, Facebook updates, websites, blogs, newspapers, journals and magazines to see who will be crowned “King” (or Queen) of the biennial. In this case it was Michael Asher receiving the Bucksbaum Award, a considerably large grant of $100,000 and an additional exhibition at the Whitney in the next year. This is an equivalent to making the Hall of Fame for baseball players and if you’re a collector who does not own an Asher at this point, well you probably ever will. Asher has been an art superstar for a few decades and this ceremonial anointing is a footnote in 2010’s inclusion of young “hot shot” hipster artists such Aurel Schmidt, whose work and celebrity status, continues grow.

Almost as bad as not making it into, yet another Whitney Biennial is getting in the show but without receiving critical exposure. This year marked a conservative approach to the amount of artists in the exhibition, only fifty-five down from the previous eighty , which is still a respectable curatorial effort “which deserves some sympathy” as noted by The Village Voice writer, Christian Viveros-Faune. Out of that fifty-five, it appears as if only a dozen or so get considerably mentioned in popular publications and web media. If this is actually the case, what happens to these thirty other artists in this Biennial? In the allotted time, it is only possible to raise a question such as this due to the realization that it would take a team of researchers and statistic experts to compute the data on these “others.” That said, it is still a monumental feat for any artist to be included in any Biennial and most will catapult the exposure into higher prices for their art works.

While it most often appears as if the Biennial is an attempt to be, as David Deitcher wrote in 2002, “an effective index of the museums administrative philosophy” and “an effective gauge of the tenor of contemporary American art”, it has now become, in the “age of the art fair” a commodity rather than a attempt to historically contextualize certain works of contemporary American art. It is by no coincidence that the Armory Show, New York’s premier art fair, opens within days of the Biennial. Dealers, collectors, artists and the like minded from all over the world, all gather in New York for these simultaneous events.

Collector Mark J. Straus, in an attempt to possibly catapult the commercial value of Curtis Mann’s abstract photos in the Biennial wrote that Mann’s work “is similar to works that sold like popcorn at the recent Armory Show.” By placing market value on the artworks in the Biennial, Straus is equating aesthetic significance with market value similarly to the way Sotheby’s star auctioneer Tobias Meyer did when in an interview said, “the most expensive works were the best”. By this account, the most recent price tag should be placed on every work of art in every museum so the viewers can know which work is most important. However, the asking and auction prices for most works of art are often discussed in private and while some galleries list their prices at the front desk, the rather unapproachable gallerists who often guard these documents make it seemingly impossible to obtain this information.

Moreover, by placing commercial significance rather than historical significance on a museum exhibition it inadvertently changes the context of the art work because it is forced to compete against both of these entities. This is in part due to fact that most of the artists in the Biennial also have work for sale through the galleries which represent them at the nearby Armory Show art fair. The Armory Show and the Whitney Museum seem to act as father and mother giving birth to new “Art Stars” included in these exhibitions. And while previous commercial success is often catalyst for including certain artists in the Biennial, the museums affiliations with such commercial entities which either represent and/or collect the included artists is often overlooked when donations are at stake.

At its current state, it is appears impossible to separate commerce from art. As Isabelle Graw writes, “the codependency between art and the market is matched in degree by a notorious need for distancing. The more outspokenly the market is condemned by its participants, the deeper the entanglement usually runs”. The Biennials of the previous ten years adhered to this philosophy by showing less objectified art and in doing so created what has seemed to be an unbreakable bond with art market, i.e. by showing art that seems to be unsalable, the market adapts and finds a buyer. Interestingly, 2010 did NOT adhere to this philosophy and in what appears to be an attempt to show what one might call more historically sell-able art in the form of paintings, photos and sculpture may have contributed to difficult climate of the art market. While these particular works have most likely found collectors, other non-object works of art which are always being made, are having trouble finding homes. The Whitney’s lack of faith in non-object art has affected the commodity of art as a whole and Biennials apprehensive approach to 2010 has left the art world looking to art fairs for answers.

Moving forward it will be crucial for the Whitney Biennial to separate itself from the commercialism it has been married to if it wishes to exhibit the true advancement and cultural climate of American art. However, this is unlikely in world driven by the corporate world. Instead, the viewing public will continue to receive marginalized exhibitions with no true focus and the artists who desire this exposure will continue down a path of mediocrity, myself included.
_____________________
Bibliography
Deitcher, David. "Polarity Rules:Looking at Whitney Annuals and Biennials, 1968-2000." Alternative Art New York (2002).
Graw, Isabelle. High Price Art Between the Market and Celebrity Culture. New York: Sternberg, 2009.
Heti, Sheila. "Border Crossings 29, #2." 2010 Whitney Biennia May 2010: 100-102.
Laster, Paul. "Surveying the 2010 Whitney Biennial." Flavorwire 26 February 2010: http:flavorwire.com/7337/surveying-the-2010-whitney-biennial.html.
Leslie, Richard. "Whitney Biennial 2010." Art Nexus 9. #37 June/August 2010.
Levin, Todd. "Whitney Biennial." Flash Art International Edition 43 May/June 2010: 61-62.
Proyen, Tom Van. "On Point." Artweek 39 5 June 2008.
Servetar, Stuart. "The Deal of the Art: Malling the Museums." New York Press Vol 7, No. 22 1-7 June 1994.
Strauss, Marc J. "A Truthful Story (A Collectors Point of View on the Whitney Biennial)." Flash Art 43 May/June 2010: 43.
Uknown. "Biennial." Undo 3 May 2002: http://www.undo.net/cgi-bin/undo/pressrelease.html.
Vivero-Faune, Christian. "Welcome to the Mixed-Up, Dialed Down 2010 Whitney Biennial." The Village Voice 2 march 2010: http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-03-02/art/welcome-to-the-miced-up-dialed-down-2010-whitney-biennial/.html.
Whitney Celebrates Tenth Anniversary of the Bucksbaum Award. Press Release. New York: Whitney, 2010.