Smaller Can Be Great!

A younger artist friend from back home asked about recommendations for the small or rural art gallery.  It is a difficult question to answer.  I have worked with numerous projects that denote, list and explore galleries as cultural assets in terms of tourism and media, but most often, the smaller gallery and the rural gallery seem to act as a local arts incubator, a social outreach or an artisanal display more than they do a true arts center.

    As I am trying to consistently reinforce, there is nothing wrong with the artisanal center or promotional gallery and as such, I can only recommend a strong relationship be established between the local arts community, the chamber of commerce and the local technical schools and all efforts be made to market! Market!, Market!

    On the other hand, just as a small ethnic or rural community requires a church, mosque or religious center, each should have a fine arts establishment – merely for the survival of the spiritually creative soul.

    The most common arts venue in smaller communities seems to be the theatre – Ft Peck Theatre near Glasgow, Montana, Commonweal Theatre, in Lanesboro, Minnesota, the old Baliwick Theatre in Chicago, and the Minnesota Historical Theatre in St Paul,  and numerous other examples indicate how smaller theatres have become essential venues for the arts.  My observation is that the strongest of these theatres also seem to have tendency to include both locally reflective material and one or two more challenging or experimental pieces, along with the traditional performances of traditional favorites such as the Sound of Music, Death of a Salesman, etc.  While popular films such as Please Don’t Eat the Daisies andWaiting for Guffman tend to disparage small-community efforts in this regard, I often find smaller, more local, more-budget-conscious productions to be more intimate, more approachable, often more creative, and just as interesting as Chicago’s Wolf Trap or Minneapolis’ Guthrie.  What are the popular Fringe Festivals if not groupings of the smaller theatrical and cabaret-style theatre experience?

    Art galleries that seem to do “small” well are Klondike Institute of Art & Culture in Dawson City, Yukon, the original Plug-In Gallery (now a greatly expanded enterprise) in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Chateau Park Museum – Art Centre in St Catharines, Ontario, Hamond Arts Alliance in Hammond, Wisconsin, the Swedish-American Museum (SAMAC) in Chicago, Dana Gallery in Missoula, Montana, and the arts pavilion at Kirstenbosch Gardens in Cape Town, South Africa. 

Jonesing for Depth

Quinn's Planet, courtesy London Telegraph

Jonathan Jones Joneses for Artistic Depth

    In his 21 January review, Jonathan Jones, arts and culture critic for London’s The Guardian Newspaper, dropped the gauntlet over popular British artist Marc Quinn’s giant baby sculpture, Planet, and its installation in Singapore’s scenic Gardens by the Sea.

    Jones’ criticism is direct rather than rhetorical.  Does art need to be deep?  Inaccessible?  Clever?  Challenging?  How is it that we will choose to determine what is or is not considered art in a foundation-less (stated positively) Postmodern global culture? 

    I do enjoy The Guardian’s often thoughtful criticism, and appreciate Jones’ perspective in this case, but too often, I also wonder if The Guardian is not merely the UK’s contra-cultural, anti-establishment perspective – often appearing disagreeable merely to disagree. 

Quinn and Planet at Singapore installation, courtesy Artnews.com

    Indeed, there appears to be some disagreement with Jones’ perception.  Artnews.com confidently judges, “Planet is one of Marc Quinn’s most important works. The sculpture, which is a depiction of the artist’s infant son, appears to float above the ground and is a technical tour-de-force,” (Artnews, below).

    I think that in consideration of today’s cultural norms, Jones is being a bit hypercritical.  Consider the fate and present veneration of The Pearl, formerly at the heart of Manama, Bahrain. 

Peanuts on Parade

Gimmick or Art?

(original 01 Sept 2001; current rev from draft 26 Sept 2012)

    Marketing gimmicks or public art?  What are we to make of the waves of cattle invading downtown Chicago, moose in Toronto, or cartoon characters holding down street corners in St Paul?  These fiberglass sculptures seem to be quite successful examples of the former while being not altogether unworthy of the latter designation as art.

    It would seem a bit preposterous to label the individual units of these events as objects of fine art; yet, perhaps their true artistic merit lies in the effect of the pieces as a whole.  Each of these sidewalk invasions has been labeled, with the full complicity of the local arts community, as public art events, yet each has also been criticized as mere marketing gimmicks.

    What is it then that might qualify these objects as art?  Perhaps we need to examine these events not as potential “gallery” exhibitions, but rather as designators of place and evocative emotional agents, i.e. art.