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.
No comments:
Post a Comment