Painter Painter pt 1 of 3, Walker Art Center

Painter Painter

Walker Art Center

Minneapolis, Minnesota

02 Feb – 27 Oct, 2013

Part 1:  the process

Painter Painter has the potential of being both theoretically progressive and informative in terms of content (the works and artists displayed), and I was privileged to be attendance as Michelle Grabner, Jan Verwoert and Bruce Hainley led participating artists and the Center’s members in presentations and group discussion of the meaning behind the show. 

    For me, it was my first time in the new Walker Auditorium.  The room was cozy, intimate and perfectly theatrical – we could easily have been in any one of thousands of commercial theatre venues across America – only then we would have had sodas, popcorn and even more cushy seats.  This thought was to stay with me throughout the event – an interfering static.  The discussion resembled a business conference or trades meeting in a busy airport, complete with schedules, overhead announcements and stewardesses (my apologies to the volunteer ushers).

    The students and audience were professionally engaged and polite (and non-native), and we could leave the event with mandatory cookies and cocoa and a receipt for having attended a continuing ed seminar.  We were re-assured that our city has made its mark on the visual arts scene without forcing us to accept any major influence on our own more pedestrian life-styles.

    Painter Painter is a great idea and the panelists were in fact, amazing … and the Walker will be able to chalk this up as a successful notch on their collective resume – and by Thanksgiving, the show will have been forgotten by both the panelists and Minneapolis.

    Regardless of the intellectual or creative integrity of the event itself, there is little to suggest that it is more than a creative tax write-off for a country club élite who merely want to be able to pick up a copy of ArtForum and be able to discuss how they once met such-and-such writer at a private showing in that awkward town where the husband still has family.

    Three wonderful presentations by Chicago’s Grabner, an instructor at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and regular contributor to Artforum, Berlin-based Werwoert, who teaches at Piet Zwart Institute in Rotterdam, and Artforum’s Hainley, presented the audience with useful object lessons and in all three cases, very insightful, synopses as to where they feel the process of creating art is headed in the post Postmodern age.  All three focused on themes of adjacency and increasing sidereal connections between painting, other art forms, and non-art forces such as the market, fashion, music, taste and lifestyle.

    Jeffrey Dietsch’s controversial 2011 Art in the Streets show at Los Angeles’ Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) made a brief mention as did criticism by Baudrillard, Quaillessoux and T.J. Clark. Humorously, much of the panels' criticism of Dietsch follows the lines of criticism received by the Walker (celebrity versus impact).

    A participating artist, Molly Zuckerman-Hartung (?), questioned the relationship between the artist and the critic… with the artist requesting that the assembled trio put it on the line and provide some much sought-after harsh criticism and direction.  The panel responded by indicating along the lines that it was not the critics’ position to provide a guide as to how good art is produced or how to produce good art or even new art.  Rather, the task of the critic is to understand and contextualize what he or she observes in the art scene and in the work.  The critic does not produce art and so is not able to pre-determine what will or will not be a good or compelling piece.

    A final question provided a more-or-less rhetorical statement that the definition of art has become so undefined that it is nearly impossible to state what is or is not art….

    To my mind, the penultimate issue was the extent to which critical reception continues to or to not exist.  

    Issues of pertinence have continuously plagued the Walker as an institution.  Much of this criticism seems to stem from the poly-nature of the museum and its dependence on a perceived to be disconnected from the community, wealthy elite.  The Walker is both museum and commercial gallery.  The Walker is both a local institution and an international venue.  The delicate balancing of these multiple and sometimes contradictory identities can breed pride, confusion, jealousy and ambivalence.

    Two activities seemingly inspire much cynicism on the part of local artists – being a lack of access to the Walker’s commercial activities in support of local and regional artists and the Walker’s notoriety for being “Chelsea on the Hill,” referencing the impression that while curators are perceived to go on spending sprees in New York’s trendy Chelsea neighborhood, the institution has done little to collect or promote similarly talented artists in Minnesota.  One local artist quipped that someday he hoped to show in Chelsea so that he might eventually sell to the Walker.

    The Walker is a fine institution and we are fortunate to have the access it provides to national and international artists and dialogue.  At the same time, unless local and regional artists find a real sense of belonging to the institution, it does seem to be a bit elitist, a bit of a luxury – purchased “cultural pertinence?”  Recalling the demolition of The Conservatory and recent decisions to close the downtown Nieman Marcus, both catering to upper-crust, elite tastes in the downtown area, one wonders about the true impact and place of the Walker in a rather populist, very Midwestern society.

    Similarly, the panel discussion of Painter Painter raised questions, not about the quality of the show, but regarding the local arts infrastructure and its effectiveness.  The panelists delivered brilliantly – but the audience participation came across as star struck and under prepared.  One wishes we had had more time for discussion, yet wonders what we would have found to talk about.

    I fear I am seeing an institution that is a destination point, truly a luxury, and not an overly engaged aspect of local culture.  To the extent that the Walker would hope to succeed in educating and reaching even the engaged public, it seems to have failed to develop any depth of appreciable impact.  Whether this is an institutional failing or a public failing, I cannot judge, but… it is clear that the Walker has not overcome it.  Hainley mentioned that art forms come and go – that opera for instance, has lost most of its impact in the 21^st Century.  Could the Walker and the contemporary visual art scene be far behind?

    A trio of observations from this observer are that the Walker seems to have little outreach to the neighborhoods.  The audience for Painter Painter was as white as the snow covered sculpture gardens outside its doors.   There was little economic, let alone racial and ethnic diversity readily apparent. 

    Secondly, in as much as it is seemingly not impacting its target audience, one must question both the choice of shows (and topics presented) and how internationally renowned works, artists and concepts are failing to be communicated effectively to the cities.  This is a difficult task, but as Minnesotans, we have the right to demand expert creativity and local pertinence.

    Third, criticism of the show seems to exist on two extremes – the elite academic essay form and the brief, ambivalent local media blip.  A vibrant art scene needs to develop, train, and support five or six multi-media critics who can digest and help present the concepts and shows to the general public.  If the Walker buys a page of advertising, they should expect to see a page of engaged criticism and reviews.  Roger Ebert might not reflect fine art, but as a critic, he made film pertinent and essential to Chicago’s cultural scene.  This can be done.

    What’s at stake?

    Former Walker Assistant Curator, now in LA, Doug Fogle wrote a revealing piece for the Nov-Dec 2012 issue of Frieze Magazine. 

    Critically engaging recent controversy regarding the fate of L.A.’s MOCA and the aforementioned Dietsch show, Fogle questions the future of the American patronage-style art institute and interestingly, my feeling that such institutions should impact and engage the populist public.  “…Is it heretical in the age of museum metrics and audience engagement initiatives to suggest that sometimes the numbers of people who pass through the turnstile are not necessarily indicative of the importance of an exhibition, intellectually or culturally?”  Later he ponders if “… there is still a place for the experimental, marginal and challenging in contemporary art museums today or is that ground to be ceded to alternative spaces and even to commercial galleries who both operate with much more freedom?”

    Fogle’s conclusion is both non-populist and uncompromising.  He admits that popular shows and populist access to galleries such as MOCA generate necessary revenues – monies which he hopes will be invested into endowments that will eventually buy their independence from the public and freedom in their programming.

    Returning to Painter Painter for a moment, to the extent that art itself is market oriented and the future of post Postmodernist art must and will engage the market as a determination of viability, and that visual art is expected to grow and maintain lateral cultural references and connections to other media such as fashion, the market, music and etc., Fogle’s dream of a free and independent institution could in fact relegate the contemporary gallery to a fate of irrelevance and ineffectiveness.  Art depends on the market.  The market depends on audience.  Audience depends the educational outreach of the institution… and we are back to square one.

    If the curators are hesitant or non-communicative, and the artists are seeking direction, perhaps we are in fact left only with the critics to reach the public and preserve relevance.  That’s a heavy duty to absorb given the voluntary, avocational background of most critics.  We have some work to do.  Are you in?