Jake & Dinos Chapman, Fucking with Nature, 2009. Taxidermy dog, cat, rat, fox, hare, rabbit and mice, wood, mild steel, electric motor, speaker and sound, 154 x 34 inches, approx. Courtesy of Haunch of Venison

If walls could speak they would make great art market chroniclers.

As gallery goers will have noticed, Yvon Lambert has shut up shop in New York.  When the venerable 75-year-old French dealer retired earlier this year direction of his Paris flagship gallery was handed to Olivier Bélot, who had been managing the New York space.  Running both ventures was too great a strain: that, rather than diminished market, is the given reason for the retreat.

The old space at 550 West 21st Street has a new tenant: Haunch of Venison New York.  They inaugurate their new space Friday September 24 with a group show, Boundaries Obscured, featuring ten artists or artist-partnerships they work with, including Jake & Dinos Chapman, Peter Saul, Gunther Uecker and Ahmed Alsoudani.

Itself a US outpost of a European venture, a coincidence with Lambert for the gallery walls to savor, Haunch of Venison takes its meaty name from the back alley in London’s West End where it started its operation in 2002.  That time, the inaugural show, organized by gallery founders Harry Blain and Graham Southern, was a Rachel Whiteread survey that filled many floors of its sprawling mansion premises.  Since 2007 it has been a wholly owned subsidiary of Christie’s and, in addition to London and New York, also has a space in Berlin.

Their first New York quarters were on two floors of the Rockefeller Center, home of their auctioneer parent, but as director Emilio Steinberger explains, the restricted size of the freight elevator, not to mention the low ceilings of the office premises, limited them in scale.  They also wanted the greater foot traffic for the artists they represent.

There are other connections between the old and new tenants at 550: Steinberger worked for Lambert before moving to Haunch of Venison.  Bettina Prentice, the PR consultant for Haunch at Prentice Art Communications, dealt with press at Lambert.

Patricia Piccinini, Eulogy, 2011. Silicon, fibreglass, human hair, clothing, 43-1/4 x 25-5/8 x 23-5/8 inches. Courtesy of Haunch of Venison

To some, a launch with a group show might indicate tentativeness and excessive diplomacy.  But Boundaries Obscured, a thoughtful selection made by Steinberger, is not simply a cross-section of stable and stock.  For a start, there are is an abundance of critters as befits the gallery name, from the bronze gargoyles crowning Jitish Kallat’s canvases to the gelatinous, bottom-feeding blob fish (platypus) in Patricia Piccinini’s Eulogy (2011) or the stuffed toy animals in Joana Vaconcelos’s War Games (2011).  There is such an abundance of taxidermy in the Chapman’s Fucking with Nature (2009), a see-saw with copulating wild animals at one end and domesticated creatures at the other, with mice running along the middle and tipping the balance, that the piece has been held up at Customs.

The other theme is memorial, which is apropos of our ominous times but perhaps inauspicious for a launch?  The Piccinini fits this theme as the man bewails the imminent extinction of the newly discovered fish.  Kevin Francis Gray’s The Temporal Sitter (2011) is a Job-like marble monument to a homeless man.  Uecker’s Aschemensch (Ash Man) (1986), is the only known figurative work by the op artist famed for his abstractions in nails.  It was made in the wake of Chernobyl by the artist covering himself in ash and rolling on a canvas, a gesture reminiscent of the athropometries of Yves Klein.

When I shared this observation with Steinberger at the press preview he retorted that Klein was Uecker’s brother-in-law, which I had not known.  That is the kind of art historical details walls can’t share.

Boundaries Obscured, September 23 to November 5, 2011. 550 West 21st Street, between 10th and 11th avenues, New York City, 212 259 0000.

550 W 21st Street

Oriane Stender (right) with the late Allan Stone and another gallery artist in a photograph in the collection of Stender

“The back-story of Allan’s estate – estimated at over $300 million – and the Allan Stone Gallery, an enterprise that continued to function until its abrupt closure in late April, is a near-Shakespearean tale replete with internecine family rivalries that have simmered for decades and an outside agitator with just the right set of skills and motivation to turn that simmer up to a boil,“ according to Stender.  The gallery that had given Wayne Thiebaud his first New York exhibition and Eva Hesse a show of drawings when the artist still lived in German shut its doors in the spring.

Works from Stone’s extensive collections, which includedAbstract Expressionist paintings, African tribal art, American and European folk and decorative art, have been selling this year at Sotheby’s.  The third sale is scheduled for Friday, September 23 in New York.

After Allan Stone’s death, in 2006, Claudia Stone, a daughter from his first marriage and a trusted lieutenant of sixteen years standing, ran the gallery.   Direction was wrested from Claudia by trustees of the estate, however, which had been left to Stone’s widow Clare.  But the Upper East Side firehouse premises of the gallery belonged to Claudia and were subsequently put on the market, selling in July reportedly for close to $10 million, and the gallery shut.  Stender recounts this saga in great detail, and delves into the family dynamics of the litigious heirs, and the travails of artists associated with the gallery (Stender herself being one of the latter.)

Therein, ethically and perhaps legally, lies a problem.  The article was commissioned by a leading art magazine, and when rejected, considered briefly by artcritical.  It is a superb piece of journalism in respect of having a tale to tell, doing its homework, and attempting due diligence.  It makes for great copy.

But the piece collides the responsibilities of a reporter with the axe to grind of a cheated artist.  Stender, like a number of artists, had works on longstanding consignment to the gallery subsequently caught up in the back and forth of the warring heirs.  The upshot is that the works are trapped, deemed gallery property in the absence of documentation to the contrary from the artists – rather than due to the presence of documentation in the hands of the gallery.

Had the stories been separated then each might have been fine in itself, from a publisher’s perspective and with fact checking and legal proofing.  But this is our problem, not Stender’s.  For her part, she constructs a compelling yarn of the sad decline and spinning out of control of a once seminal gallery, from the perspective of the aggrieved artist.  Publishing her 2000 word exposé as a “note” on her Facebook page draws her point of view to 600 friends who include Loren Munk and Jerry Saltz, both of whom cross-posted it a combined, further 7000 friends, allowing for overlap.  Plus the “note” is unrestricted.

Stender may not get her artworks back any sooner, but she has had the satisfaction of telling her tale – and even making some new friends.

click to enlarge

Andrew Masullo, 4561, 2006-07. Oil on canvas, 18 x 24 inches. Courtesy of Feature, Inc.

Stealing a march on the Armory in an early attack of fair fever, Studio Zürcher launches Salon Zürcher Monday night, February 28, in a show that transforms their Bleecker Street premises into a showcase for seven downtown and Brooklyn galleries, Zürcher themselves being one of them.  In view of the size and range of fairs in the offing, this is perhaps a homeopathic dose of the overdose to come

The gallery has been chopped up into booths, handsomely fitted with what are rather sturdy looking temporary walls for a fair.  Zürcher hosts six renowned galleries from the Lower East Side and Williamsburg, some of whom were pioneers of their respective neighborhoods.  It is a way for the New York satellite of the prominent Paris gallery to acknowledge peers among what could be called the “indie” dealers of the offbeat locales.  The idea of proprietors Bernard and Gwenolee Zürcher is that harried visitors to New York for the fairs week will not have time, but will have the desire, to sample the wonders of the Lower East Side and Brooklyn.

Zürcher’s guests are Feature, Inc.; The Journal Gallery; Stephan Stoyanov Gallery; the Proposition; Parker’s Box; and Audio Visual Arts.  The show opens Monday night, 5-8, and might well qualify as first off the mark in Armory Week.

Until March 6, 33 Bleecker Street, between Lafayette Street and Bowery, New York City, 212 777 0790

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

The author of an authorized biography of art dealer Edith Halpert, The Girl with the Gallery (2006), Pollock covered the arts at Bloomberg News since 2005, and had hitherto reported on the art world for the New York Sun and for The Art Newspaper.  In August 2009 she launched what fast became a highly authoritative blog, Art Market Views.

Lindsay Pollock, Editor of Art in America, from a 2007 photograph taken from her Facebook page

Pollock replaces Marcia Vetrocq after a brief tenure; Vetrocq, formerly a senior editor at the publication, in turn succeeded the redoubtable Elizabeth C. (Betsy) Baker, a protégé of veteran Art News editor Thomas B. Hess .  Baker steered Art in America for 34 years until she was let go in 2008 shortly after Peter Brant resumed direction of Brant Publications after acquiring the 50% share of his co-owner and ex-wife, Sandra Brant.  At the same time Ingrid Sischy also departed from Interview magazine, the Andy Warhol creation and Art in America’s sister publication.   With Peter Brant’s reentry as publisher, Fabien Baron and Glenn O’Brien were entrusted with “editorial direction” above the heads of the named editors of both titles, a shake-up role that proved short-lived.

Under Baker, Art in America secured a place for itself as a thorough, scholarly yet accessible journal devoted, despite its name, to art of broad geographical and historical scope.  That said, back-of-the-book reviews gave emphasis to contemporary art in New York City.  Art world news and market reporting were succinctly confined to opening and closing pages of the publication.  Despite changes signaled by a new design, editorially much remained the same under Vetrocq with the exception of the introduction of more interviews and a named column for celebrated critic Dave Hickey.

David Cohen, publisher and editor of artcritical.com, comments on Lindsay Pollock’s appointment:

I have been a huge fan of Lindsay Pollock since serving alongside her at the New York Sun.  She is an exceptional reporter.  On the other hand, her appointment is a surprise. Had she been given the top spot at, say, The Art Newspaper I wouldn’t have batted an eyelid.  But this signals a determination to change the nature of Art in America by its publishers.

Of the big three art magazines in the US, Art in America, Artforum and ArtNews, Art in America is positioned in the middle in editorial tone and market share alike.  It contrasted with Artforum, which recently also appointed a young editor in Michelle Kuo,  in its broader spectrum of coverage, being less obsessed than Artforum with ideas of what is hip or avantgarde; and it takes less interest than Art News in the “trade” aspects of art dealing and collecting.

Pollock’s appointment is bound to unsettle that status quo, or at least, in view of her qualifications, indicates a desire to do so by Brant Publications.  If Lindsay has aesthetic or creative interests in art they have been well hidden, so far in her young career, behind overriding concerns with personalities, prices and art world politics.  As such it is impossible not to fear a Gradgrindian future for Art in America.

The cover of Art in America magazine in November 2008

Photo: Luis Colan

Carl Plansky, the man who loved colors, went beyond the call of duty implied by the term “painter’s painter.”  For besides his authorship of rich, effulgent, exploratory, expressive landscape paintings, floral still lifes, and raucous self-portraits dressed as his favorite operatic divas, Plansky was a master paint maker whose products, marketed as Williamsburg Handmade Oil Colors, are revered by countless painter addicts.  He founded his company when the painter Milton Resnick gave him a mixing machine in exchange for his own private supply.  Since 2000 the company was managed by Carl’s sister Beverly, allowing Carl full time in his studio – with unlimited paint supplies, needless to mention.

Plansky died of a heart attack in the last week of his show of “Divas” at the New York Studio School: the final day of the show served as his memorial.

In June of this year, the redoubtable Golden Artists Colors, whose acrylic paints are held in similar affection by its users as Williamsburg’s oils are by theirs, acquired Plansky’s brand.  They are now celebrating the event with a sumptuously oil-filled show of Plansky and friends, including Resnick, Resnick’s widow Pat Passlof, and customer-friends Jake Berthot, Susanna Coffey, Cora Cohen, Bill Jensen, Margrit Lewczuk (working in acrylics), Judith Linhares, and Mary Jo Vath.

The exhibition, which continues at the Sam & Adele Golden Gallery in New Berlin, New York through November 20, is curated by artist, long-time Golden employee and director of the SAGG Jim Walsh.

Hours and directions

Thanks to Luis Colan for his photograph, above.

click to enlarge

Richard Prince, Untitled (Cowboy) 1989 Ektacolor print, 50 x 70 inches This work is number one from an edition of two plus one artist proof. Pre-auction estimate: $900,000 - 1,200,000. Sold at Christie's Post-War/Contemporary Art auction #1573 for $1,248,000 (including buyer's premium) on November 8th, 2005. Courtesy Christie's Images Limited, 2005

“There wasn’t really a plan. I’ve never been included in any photography based survey, museum show, photo magazine. I’ve heard that Peter Galassi hates my work. That he would never acknowledge it in the photo department at MoMA. I think he’s wrong. I think my photo work is all about photography. But there was never an idea about where the work was going at the beginning when I started to re-photograph images. When you don’t have any training in a particular medium you can bring something to it that hasn’t been brung (sic). I “brung” the sheriff and I shot him. I killed photography. Maybe they hated that.. I always look for my name in Photography mags but I never see it. Maybe I should have “rescued” photography.”
RICHARD PRINCE FROM AN ON-GOING (UNPUBLISHED) E-MAIL INTERVIEW WITH BRIAN APPEL – SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2005.

On November the 9th, one day after Richard Prince had broken his own personal artist record at auction and set a new world auction record for the medium of photography I contacted the international head of photography at Christie’s auction house with the following e-mail:

BRIAN APPEL – Richard Prince is now the most successful photographer alive!

PHILIPPE GARNER – So – Richard Prince takes the crown as the author of THE MOST EXPENSIVE PHOTOGRAPH EVER SOLD AT AUCTION. I am pleased at a professional level, that this is a Christie’s achievement. Personally, this result sets me questioning the ways in which photographic history, and especially recent photographic history, has been written, seemingly reconfigured, by a relatively narrow audience. I am not saying that readings of photography that put Prince where he is are flawed. Clearly Prince is hailed as a Contemporary Artist, a man of ideas whose chosen medium is, perhaps appropriately, photographic. His admirers are not wrong. What I question is the disproportion between the consequences of acclaim in the Contemporary Art forum as against acclaim in other contexts not fueled by testosterone $$$s. What do you think?

BA – Excellent question. Given the fact that Christie’s has identified 82% of last evening’s buyers as American – testosterone does play an important role. The Prince piece, the cowboy image, is absolutely about this very mythology – the mythic, lone, powerfully independent American pioneer. Prince, of course, is really commenting on the machinery of America, the Madison Avenue advertising myth-making machinery that we export around the world and whose underlying meaning is all about what America needs to see reflected in its mirror. Prince nailed this back in the early 80s and here it is in all its hilarious glory sitting on your walls in the auction room right opposite and closest to your Honorary Chairman and Chief Auctioneer Christopher Burge and at the auction preview peaking out brilliantly so you could see it as you walked into the ‘great room’. It is also a victory for photography in that like the role the invention of photography performed at its inception liberating painting from the need to reflect what was happening in the world, Prince’s “Cowboy” releases the medium of photography from its burden to record what the camera is placed in front of. Prince’s piece is really about turning the camera inward.

Probably the buyer(s) of this work were not embracing these art historical meanings when they purchased this artwork, but they were smart enough to intuit that this work, and Prince’s work in general is important and somehow uniquely American. They also were wise enough to place it in their “BEST OF” category as they go about their business of collecting the very best seminal pieces for their “BEST OF” Contemporary collections.

PG – Excellent answer. I acknowledge that Prince’s subject matter is BIG – bigger than the overt content of the images.. He really does see a (metaphorical) bigger picture and expresses his position/attitude – call it what you will – very effectively with an exceptional economy of means. Hats off to him (Stetsons of course).

Prince’s isolation of the tokens of masculinity by re-photographing Madison Avenue’s longest-running fiction, the ridin’, ropin’ Marlboro man are generally thought to be the images that made the artist’s name in the art world. By using the camera to revisit a stage-managed, artificially constructed model created for mass consumption, Prince’s cowboy can be looked upon as not only a re-fashioning of history but also a denial of one of the main tenets of the medium of photography – its inherent ability to record ‘truth’. Excited by this exchange with Philippe and curious about what others would think about the impact of this momentous occurrence, I forwarded this e-mail correspondence to a number of art professionals under the heading – “A SHORT CONVERSATION WITH PHILIPPE GARNER, THE INTERNATIONAL HEAD OF PHOTOGRAPHY AT CHRISTIE’S REGARDING THE RICHARD PRINCE PHOTOGRAPH “Untitled (Cowboy)”, 1989, THAT BROKE THE WORLD AUCTION RECORD FOR ANY PHOTOGRAPH”. Additionally, as I received responses, I sent those out to the same list. In the order I received comments, I bring you, dear reader, their unedited, verbatim thoughts. “For Your Eyes Only” is the beginning, I hope, of more articles that introduce important events in the world of art that are addressed in a ‘round-table’ e-mail format by a number of specialists who share their thoughts on the subject.

BRIAN PAUL CLAMP – director of photo gallery / ClampArt, New York – It is telling that the first photograph to fetch more than one million dollars was a contemporary artwork by a living artist as opposed to a classic, vintage print. Of course, the significance of Richard Prince’s contribution to postmodern art cannot be underestimated. His Marlboro men (along with Cindy Sherman’s untitled film stills) typify the “death of painting” discourse popular in the late 70s and early 80s that set the stage for much of the contemporary art being produced today. Nonetheless, despite my own enthusiasm for and investment in contemporary art, one must first acknowledge that it certainly is the flavor of the day, and the fact that an editioned print by a living artist can fetch far more at auction than a vintage photograph by an acknowledged “master” (whatever that means), may speak more of fashion than sound financial speculation (in the short term, anyway). Granted, such a statement likely seems a bit snarky. Perhaps the traditional photography market is still poised for a major upswing. Or, could it be that the art dealers’ construction of the complicated and troublesome concept of a “vintage print” (typically defined as a photograph made within one to five years of the negative date) has never been wholly accepted or embraced by the large part of the art-buying public?

ALEX NOVAK – photo dealer / Vintage Works Ltd., Chalfont, Pa. / writer, publisher / E – Photo Newsletter – Yeah, I was watching this one too. It’s a shame it sold. I don’t think a lot about Prince’s color copy prints of ads. Anyone could do this work, and I don’t think much about his explanation for it.

His concepts are tired, simplistic ideas that have little to add to any dialogue. And his derivative images just plain bore the heck out of me. Will he go up in value? Most probably, at least for the short to medium term. But that is a fake market value being built up around him and a few other “contemporary artists” by the art market. I hope the actual photographer he is ripping off and Marlboro both sue the hell out of Prince and his dealer. There is plenty of legal precedent for that.

DAVID ZWIRNER – art dealer / David Zwirner, New York – It is surprising that the first million dollar photograph would be a contemporary work and not a vintage photograph. However, given the importance of photography in the artist’s output over the last 25 years and the technological breakthroughs in large-scale color photography it was only a matter of time until the million dollar mark would be broken. It is of course ironic that it would be an appropriated image that makes the leap, thus throwing a question mark at the traditional role of authorship that dominates the vintage photography market.

GREGOR MUIR – director of exhibitions / Hauser + Wirth, London – Prince has made a significant contribution to contemporary art through his use of “re-photography”. Of all the different series using this technique, the “Cowboy” series remains the most profound. That Prince appropriated these images from Marlboro advertisements does not take away from the fact that the finished art works are so recognizably his. This is an important artist, an important body of work, and “UNTITLED (COWBOY)” is an exceptional example. One might say it’s a good day for the “re-photography” market.

DAILE KAPLAN – V.P., director of photographs / Swann Galleries, New York – It’s a measure of photography’s ubiquity in the popular imagination that a photograph has broken the million dollar barrier. That this work was created by a contemporary artist raises a number of interesting issues, not least of which is “what is a photograph?” From my perspective as an auction house specialist and scholar, post-modern discourse has fast-forwarded thinking about photography in a culture that, for the most part, is visually illiterate. Yes, the record for Richard Prince’s photograph is a marvelous watershed for our community. But, it also speaks to the need to cultivate a broader understanding of photographic expression in all its forms.

AVI SPIRA – art consultant / Art Ventures International, Inc., New York – Hard to add much as it’s a brief conversation thus far. The comments are certainly all appreciated (especially David’s [Zwirner]). I just think in 2005 we are so far removed from photography being defined as an artist taking his camera to the “street” and photographing reality, whatever that might be. Thomas Ruff makes camera-less photographs and Jeff Wall makes images that in actuality are a combination of hundreds. Vik Muniz makes photographs of precious collages based on paintings and Sugimoto’s portraits are not even photographs of real people. The list could go on and on. Photography is such a malleable and loosely defined medium at this point that I think any discussion of record prices for a photograph are somewhat moot.

I think the more important angle to “the Richard Prince story” is the real star of today’s market boom – Andy Warhol – as almost all successful artistic paths increasingly seem to now run through Warhol’s indelible and enormous footprints.

ROBERT MANN – Robert Mann Gallery, New York – I think this is a wonderful milestone for the art world! I am especially thrilled that you are succinctly classifying the Prince as a photograph. Along with David Zwirner, I too am surprised that the first photograph sold publicly for over one million dollars is not a vintage work by a classical photographer. I would venture to say that this record will be broken this winter when Sotheby’s auctions off works from the Metropolitan Museum of Art / Gilman Paper Company Collection. The Edward Steichen “The Pond – Moonlight” print will more than likely top the Prince.

MARLA HAMBURG KENNEDY – photo publisher / Picture This Publications, photo consultant / HK Photo, New York – I have been thinking about this a great deal. I find it very apropos that the new world record would be a photograph that has been made under the auspices of contemporary fine art. This is an artist that is clearly considered not a photographer but a fine artist who utilizes for some of his work, photography. It is far away from traditional classic photography concerns but ensconced in conceptual issues. Moreover it shows still the great gap between prices of classic photography that is shown in photography galleries and sold in photography auctions and contemporary photography that is shown in art galleries and sold at the contemporary sales. To wit, a major perhaps vintage unique photograph by one of the century’s greatest photographers (Arbus, Weston, Strand, Stieglitz, Frank) can be acquired for under $500,000, while this price is comparable to photographic works done in editions of 10 by an artist like Andreas Gursky (or Richard Prince).

In sum, in my opinion, this shows the stupendous opportunity to buy great works of photography at a relatively very low price compared to the other mediums, and growth potential in the market. I cannot encourage the collecting of important photography more!

MAUREEN BRAY – director of exhibitions / L&M Arts, New York – I think the Prince work is worth every penny that it made at auction. Zwirner makes an interesting point about contemporary photo vs. vintage print. I think the world is finally at a point where contemporary photography and fine art is synonymous. Therefore, we’ll see even more contemporary artists working in the photo medium achieve these auction results. But perhaps the older, vintage photographs may always be seen as a subset of “art”. As they continue to grow in historical significance, they will gain in value, but they may always be considered a subset. I look forward to watching that development. The question might be: what is the cut-off parameters for historical photographs or contemporary art that is in a photographic medium?

PETER MacGILL – photo dealer / Pace/MacGill Gallery, New York – Maureen Bray makes a lot of interesting points, but I don’t really agree that older, vintage photographs may always be seen as a subset of “art”. Even a cursory examination of art history reveals that photography and the other arts are clearly intertwined. Can one really consider Duchamp without Man Ray or vice versa? Those who have embraced this understanding have collected mightily and are, probably, the big winners for they have the goods. Collectors of contemporary art are collecting “vintage” photographs as they recognize their importance, place in history, rarity and archival qualities.  Do you think people understand the permanence issues relating to color photography?

STUART ALEXANDER – photo specialist / Christie’s, New York – In response to David Zwirner’s remark, I would say that there is no “question mark” because the “author” of the appropriated Marlboro ad is Richard Prince and not a lesser-known or anonymous artist, thus “authorship” still matters. In order for a “ready-made” to sell for large amounts of money it must be signed by the well-known artist.

SIMON de PURY – chairman and chief auctioneer / Phillips de Pury & Company, New York – This result in no way constitutes a surprise. First it is only a catching up of the public market place with the private one where the million dollar mark for photographs by Richard Prince had been surpassed on at least two occasions. If over the last two years new record prices for his work have been broken with great frequency it is only a long overdue recognition of the market for one of the greatest artists living today. This is an artist constantly evolving and whose recent and current work is as strong as anything he has ever done. Of the twenty most expensive Prince works sold to date at auction, six were photographs. Photography is just one of the mediums that this artist is working in with equal impact.

The art market in general and the photography market in particular are going through major changes so that in my view in the future the million dollar mark will often be beaten by major works of Richard Prince in any medium and in the photography market by a range of photographers both contemporary and past.

PAUL SACK – photo collector (Top 25 “ARTnews”) / San Francisco – I just think it is too bad that, with all the great photographs that have been taken since 1839, the first to sell at auction for more than $1million is a photograph of another photograph.

ROGER SZMULEWICZ – photo dealer / Fifty One Fine Arts, Antwerp, Belgium – I must say I am divided regarding this important event. On the one hand, I am delighted that a photograph has finally reached the one million dollar mark at auction as it has been dealing with the stigma of being seen as a ‘slightly lesser’ medium of the fine arts because of its unique properties – one of which is its potential for infinite reproduction. Certainly for a photograph to receive prices that are consistent with the other mediums such as painting and sculpture is a change in credibility that is late in coming. On the other hand, buying at auction can be an environment where anything is possible in terms of motivation to purchase. Craving social status, the desire to do something that is seen as intellectual or prescient, or buying for speculation purposes only could be factors motivating buyers besides the passion for the work of art itself. I do think however, that, whatever the motivations on behalf of buyers at auction, this activity is not a fad or a blip in the history of the medium. More of the same is on the horizon.

LESLIE TONKONOW – art dealer / Leslie Tonkonow, New York – Richard Prince is among the most significant artists of his generation. His ideas transcend the various mediums in which he works and his photographic pieces from the late 1970s and 1980s are among his most important works. Why ask the question about a photograph? Is this auction record noteworthy because someone was willing to spend more than a million dollars on a photograph or because it’s a type of color photograph predicted by experts to fade within three decades? What is fascinating and mystifying to me is the relationship of art and money. What constitutes value? What motivates the buyer? Is this an investment or lavish consumption?

OLIVER KAMM – art dealer (NADA) / 5BE Gallery, New York – Is it a photo? Yes and no – it’s really just part of an artist’s output. I think of him as a painter and a photographer and an appropriationist – so is it really just a photograph? No – he’s not just a photographer. I think he is hugely talented and I think these prices are off the charts. It doesn’t make sense. It’ll bite everyone in the ass. I’m just glad I’m not Barbara Gladstone having to deal with all this secondary work coming back on the market.

THEA WESTREICH – art advisor / Thea Westreich Art Advisory Service, New York – First, the Richard Prince photograph was not the first photographic work to break the million dollar mark. A Man Ray vintage photograph surpassed that mark some four years ago. The more important thing about the market in photography, both contemporary and vintage is that it is taking its place alongside other, more traditional mediums and is being accepted, as it should be, for its importance in overall art making practices. Having said this, it is equally important to accept the fact that standards of scholarship and connoisseurship lag far behind in the rapidly growing photography market. There are fewer catalogue raissonnes, less consensus on the standards to be applied to the evaluation of any given work of art, and generally not enough agreed upon information on issues of vintage, color stability, numbers of prints, etc.

With regard to the Richard Prince Cowboy, I have always felt that he chose the images made by advertising directors because they reflected his views on image making, which simply put, are more about how the viewer sees the image than the image itself. The truth and fiction issue lies in the creation of an image that is rich and fecund enough to defy a single read. Thus the cowboy is an icon to wide segments of the consuming public… he is sexy to both men and women, he represents freedom, he is both the iconic American and an outsider at the same time, and, he is on the road… another subject of interest to the artist which early in his work is reflected in the drawings he made out of car windows over car hoods… one need not say more. Richard’s work is highly considered and of whole cloth, richly woven with themes not always easily explicable, but always there for the curious and available eye.

photograph by Aaron Yassin

The place of contemporary art in New York City is changing. With the scheduled reopening this November of the Museum of Modern Art on 53rd Street, the $858 million project will create 125,000 square feet of new and renovated gallery space, and a new era for the museum will begin. It will unquestionably be an event to remember, and will reaffirm MoMA’s primary mission to be the foremost museum of modern art in the world.

This is only one of many New York art museums where significant changes have recently occurred, are in process or have just been announced. In fact, all of the major museums are in various stages of planned projects. The Metropolitan Museum of Art will expand its modern art department, a decision triggered by its upcoming $155 million remodeling project. The Whitney has recently announced that it will hire architect Renzo Piano to design an expansion for its permanent collection. Construction is underway on the New Museum’s new $35 million 60,000 square foot facility, which is scheduled to open in the spring of 2006. Although no additional gallery space will be added, the Guggenheim will spend an estimated $20 million on restoring its landmark Frank Lloyd Wright facility.

All of this activity totaling over $1 billion of construction will change not only the physical structure of these institutions, but also the way they operate. There will be a need to raise more money annually as general operating expenses will increase for a larger facility. The size of the staff will also need to grow and likely so too will the bureaucracy, and the need for continued patronage will place greater demands on the museum’s administrations. There can hardly be a question that big donors will have their sway.
Although it’s unlikely the museums themselves would admit it, these institutions compete not only for patronage and prestige, but also for the millions of visitors that make their way through their doors each year. In most cases a decent argument can be made that competition is good, but when MoMA reopens the competition may be over. The result will have a definite effect on other museums and, in addition, everyplace else that shows contemporary art.

Now, on the eve of MoMA’s reemergence in Manhattan, it’s important to ask questions about what this means for this institution and more broadly for contemporary art in New York.

Aaron Yassin: What are your expectations for MoMA when it reopens?

Susan Jennings: I am very pleased to hear that the bulk of the additional space that MoMA will acquire through this renovation and expansion will be dedicated to contemporary work. I expect that there will be regular temporary exhibitions of new work. I think MoMA’s commitment to showing both Modern and Contemporary art is very intelligent. Showing the work of artists who are still working keeps the museum alive. I hope that exhibitions of contemporary work will be more heterogeneous in terms of their media. Painting, video, sculpture, photography and other media should co-exist. It is anachronistic to separate curatorial efforts by media, and to separate media with walls.

From what I understand, the floor plan is much more open to an organic circulation, rather than a fixed route of passage. I think this is very wise. To attempt to tell the story of Modern and Contemporary Art linearly is probably impossible and definitely an ill-advised task.

Christian Viveros-Faune: My expectations for MoMA’s reopening are simple: it looks like it will finally become possible for the museum to reengage itself with the business of being a dynamic museum of contemporary art as opposed to being a museum of historical art exclusively. The original mission of the museum as set forth by Alfred Barr, the museum’s founding director, was for MoMA to act as a laboratory for the new. He not only purchased contemporary work for the museum in a wide-ranging way, he also aimed to deaccession work that was 50 years old or older to pay for the museum purchases of the future. That policy went out in 1953 and we’re probably all glad the museum decided to hang on to most of its treasures. Nonetheless, the museum clearly suffered from curatorial schizophrenia from the moment it shuttled its explicit interest in the art of today. Its purchase on the new, on the nominally modern, began to quickly slide into a closed canonical past as soon as it disengaged from the tradition of Modernism. Leaving aside significant purchases, its “Projects” series of small if important contemporary exhibitions and the museum’s somewhat ambiguous partnering with P.S.1, MoMA has largely found itself at odds to explain its position vis a vis contemporary art. I honestly look forward to the museum returning to a sustained and growing level of interest in the art of today, and I say this not only because I aim to sell the museum more work, but because I genuinely think that this city and the world deserve a more energetic and ambitious institution than the one we’ve had for the last 20 odd years. MoMA’s present curators clearly think it’s possible to be both historical and contemporary. I say bring it on. I couldn’t think of anything more salutary.

Rocio Aranda-Alvarado: To be honest, I’m uncertain. I took part in a panel discussion held earlier this year at El Museo del Barrio, during the run of MoMA@El Museo exhibition and it was surprising in many ways. One of the young curators from MoMA showed installation images from the mid 20th century, in which Latin American artists were integrated in galleries with their American and European colleagues. It was refreshing to see this kind of installation, rather than the one seen at MoMA in the recent past, in which the same seven or eight Mexican works were always on display. I asked one of the panelists from MoMA about the re-installation in the new building and he said that he believed that, once again, objects would be installed by department rather than integrated in a more eclectic fashion.

Aaron Yassin: Do think that the new MoMA building will allow more space for experimental works to be shown, which is good. Their Projects series, I think, will have a stronger presence.

Deven Golden: From looking at the original model, and the exterior of the newly completed building, I expect to find a physical space that is open and visually sophisticated. In fact, my initial overall impression of this expansion is how seamlessly, how organically, the new addition appears to grow out of the earlier building – and, in its understated elegance, how this expansion is kind of the antithesis of the Guggenheim idea of the “blockbuster” destination building.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of Frank Gehry, and I haven’t been inside the new MoMA yet, but it appears that Taniguchi’s design is going to be less about the building and, perhaps, more about the art inside.

I am, of course, as curious as the next person to see how they re-install the collection. Is there any museum as famous or, depending on your view, infamous as the MoMA for its unwavering hieratical take on art of the 20th century?

Aaron Yassin: There is obviously tremendous interest in the reinstallation of the collection. The key Modernist galleries set the stage for everything else that is shown and as a result significantly influence our understanding of contemporary art. If you could make one suggestion to the curators about installing the collection what would it be?

Susan Jennings: Concerning the Modern collection, I have a suggestion for John Elderfield, the chief curator of Painting and Sculpture. There is a debate at MoMA about which painting to “start” with, meaning which painting should appear on the opening wall of the permanent collection of painting and sculpture. The painting and sculpture curators seem intent on beginning at the beginning of Modernism and the question is: “Which painting in their collection represents the nascent movement?” Should it be Cezanne’s “The Bathers,” an 1890 Paul Signac portrait of Félix Fénón, or even a Manet or Seurat, though the museum doesn’t own good examples of these artists’ work?

But I say hang an Ad Rienhardt black painting in this spot. Then let the story unfold to and from it. How did we get to the point where painting progressed from areas of slight flatness within a narrative depiction to flatness alone? How did story and color flee the canvas? What led to this pregnant pause and how did we proceed from there? Why and how did we find our way back to narrative meaning and expressive use of color? And how is where we are now different from where we would have been without modernism reaching its ultimate conclusion? Reinhardt’s work represents the conundrum of art from 1889 until now. His work is the quintessential fold at the center of the page. It is the story of Modernism in a nutshell. We somehow found our way to black emptiness and then had to figure out how to continue. How did this evolve? Let that be the question asked of the viewer upon entry to the permanent collection, the work for which the museum is named.

Rocio Aranda-Alvarado: I agree with Susan’s remarks earlier in her hopes that the new installations will feature a variety of media, though I’m not sure this is their plan. I found the modern starts series particularly interesting because of the unorthodox installation of a selection of works in the same gallery. I think that many people still favor chronology for a variety of (legitimate) reasons; however, some very interesting installations could be made, given MoMA’s collection. I would also urge curators to think about changing the permanent collection galleries more frequently and, particularly, to vary the kind of work seen in them. As MoMA@El Museo proved, the Museum of Modern Art has one of the best collections of modern art of Latin America and much of it has never been seen. I would love to see more of these works integrated into the new installation.

As everyone else has also pointed out, by maintaining a relationship with living artists and their work, MoMA will continue to flourish and to provide new audiences with the opportunity to experience wonderful and challenging works.

Deven Golden: In the end, the presentation of the permanent collection and the various temporary exhibitions define (or at least should define) the museum more than any building. In this regard, I would say the insightfulness of the Tate Modern’s installation of its collection is what makes it a pretty fantastic museum, even if it is its bombastic home that draws in the massive flow of visitors.

As much as I like Susan’s suggestion for a Reinhardt-centric installation, it sounds more like an exhibition (albeit a fun one with a potentially great catalogue). Unfortunately, for me, it’s a little too linear in its thinking, echoing, as it does, the basic historical problem of Barr’s MoMA: too neat. Which, of course, is kind of what Rocio is getting at: MoMA has traditionally sidelined art of the Twentieth century that didn’t fit into their straight and narrow path from Monet to Pollock. And not only have the great Latin American artists been marginalized by MoMA, in some cases relegated to the hallway spaces, but to a very real extent so have the German Expressionists, Dadaists, and Surrealists.

If I were to pick an overall model for how I’d like to see MoMA’s permanent collection installed, I’d have to point to the Art Institute of Chicago’s re-installation of their modern collection under then 20th Century curator Charles Stuckey. Stuckey went for a fairly straightforward, room-by-room, chronological installation: placing, say, the Picasso paintings from 1927 in the same room as Stieglitz photographs, Klee watercolors, and Thomas Hart Benton paintings from the same year. The effect was cacophony, to be sure, but, for one thing, those artists really were all working at the same time. More importantly, I believe that cacophony is far more reflective of what the 20th Century was about than order. Order and progress were what people wanted to believe the 20th Century was about, but wars and chaos did far more to define it.

So while I think exhibition’s like Susan proposes are great for looking at a particular train of thought in art, I’d be much more in favor of less dogma and more democracy when it comes to the re-installation. But like everyone else, I can hardly wait.

Susan Jennings: I would like to clarify that I do think the work from the permanent collection should be seen chronologically, but I think that it is impossible to do this linearly since so many things were happening at the same time. A more open floor plan, which I believe renovation includes, would allow for viewers to wander around looking at work all made at generally the same time.

And I love the idea of changing the galleries of the permanent collection more frequently. I want to see more of MoMA’s Latin American collection.

Aaron Yassin: How do you feel about the phenomenon of the mega-museum? What practical and psychological effect will the new MoMA have on the Guggenheim, the Whitney and the other museums that show contemporary art?

Deven Golden: I’m not sure that, after visiting the Tate Modern in London, one can refer to the new MoMA as “Mega”. Considering the vast wealth that has been accumulating to certain individuals in our current time – witness the new condominium tower being designed by Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava at South Street Seaport that will cost $30 million per unit – and considering the unarguable importance of MoMA’s collection, it seems to me that their new building is more aptly described as being appropriate.

Will the new MoMA bring a renewed focus on New York’s cultural scene? I’m not sure. The building itself, again unlike the Tate Modern or the Guggenheim Bilbao, does not advertise itself as a new “must see” piece of architecture. And MoMA’s collection is, well, MoMA’s collection. So we’ll have to wait and see how the curator’s use the new space and exhibition program to re-invigorate the collection’s dialogue.

For the Whitney, I would think the new MoMA would help them make the case to their Board for their much needed expansion, although I would have to add that the Whitney’s problems would seem to have more to do with their mission – being a museum dedicated to American art in an international time – than to their physical space.

Conversely, with their global strategy, Gehry building in Bilbao, and thwarted (temporarily at least) Gehry building for Manhattan, one might say that the Guggenheim has practically invented the idea of the “Mega” museum. So in their case, I’d say if anything, the new MoMA is a response to them and not the other way around.

Rocio Aranda-Alvarado: The mega-museum seems to be a fact of life, particularly since the American obsession with entertainment seems limitless. The mega-museum is one of the many results of this cultural phenomenon, the quest for being constantly engaged in some seemingly important activity. The contemporary art world is large enough and rich enough in our region, I think, so that MoMA will fall into place as another significant part of it. Without eclipsing any of the other institutions that work in this same arena, MoMA will continue to contribute to the dialogue of contemporary art, its presentation and its function in contemporary society. One of the most essential programs has been the artist talk series. With its reputation, MoMA can continue to bring some of the most interesting artists working around the world to speak before packed audiences in New York.

Susan Jennings: A problem with large museums with large spaces is they limit themselves in the type and scale of work that can be shown. I am hoping that the plans for MoMA will have circumvented this issue by incorporating into the design galleries of varying sizes. MASS MoCA, for example, is an impressive place, but the curators are limited in what they can exhibit because the spaces are monumental. Not all great art is huge. And obviously, not all huge art is great. It becomes a challenge simply to find work that can hold the space.

In the best possible world MoMA’s expansion and greater commitment to showing contemporary work will create an atmosphere of healthy curatorial competition. The branches on the tree of contemporary art are growing exponentially. We need the space to reflect the explosion in the making and public interest in art. New York City is full of artists who should be having mid or even late career retrospective shows. Chuck Close at MoMA was terrific. I want to see more of these shows at MoMA, the Guggenheim, the Whitney and the New Museum. It’s time.

Christian Viveros-Faune: Frankly, this is not an issue that bothers me with respect to MoMA, though admittedly it did very much in relation to the botched opening of Thomas Krens’ Guggenheim in lower Manhattan. The latter would have been a disaster because the Guggenheim under Krens has been, above all, an institution devoted to the spectacle of architecture as opposed to art and it has also been speculative in the extreme (the man nearly ran the museum into the ground!). MoMA, it is fair to say, has always been a more buttoned-up institution, an organization that keeps its eye firmly on the bottom line and also on its mission of cultural stewardship (which, as I’ve argued previously, should only be part of its mission). It is, essentially, a conservative institution loosening up its tie. Its expansion has been in the cards for a while (this is, after all, part of what big museums do), and I would guess that the expansion of the Tate in Britain lit a serious fire under its elegantly appareled keister. The thought of having the story of 20th and 21st century art yanked out from under its nose by those gate-crashing Brits is too bitter a pill to swallow. The psychological effects of the MoMA’s reopening I can only judge, again, to be salutary in the extreme, and that’s so for everyone involved: artists, galleries and perhaps especially other museums. The prospect of even one major museum in this city getting it mostly right might rub off. The one issue I’m not so optimistic about: how a $20 entrance fee will square with students. They may quit coming altogether. God knows $20 buys a lot of, well, you fill in the blank.

Aaron Yassin: I, too, am optimistic about MoMA’s expansion. Yet, I am still concerned about their motives. The new whopping $20 entrance fee heightens my concern, and I’m certain that the museum will be filled with “profit centers” on every floor. There is no question that MoMA has adopted a new business model. We have begun to expect this from our museums, but I wonder, is there a point when museums can just be too big?

Rocio Aranda-Alvarado: The admission fee is frankly ludicrous. I don’t know how they expect people to pay that. I, too, am certain that the museum will be filled with little black holes of business. Working in a small institution, I understand the need for income at every level. However, if having those little sales shops means that the museum can bring works that we might otherwise not get to see, perhaps it has to be a trade-off. I don’t think a museum can be too big. Some of the best galleries in large museums are the ones rarely visited – such as the period rooms. Like Susan, I also hope that they have created smaller gallery spaces for smaller works that are just as significant and gratifying as larger works.

Deven Golden: Honestly, I don’t quite know what to say about the $20 visitor’s fee. I, too, would hope they either have a student price or, better yet, free admission with college i.d. and for younger students as well. When I think of the dozens of times I went to the Art Institute of Chicago when I was a teenager and paid “what you wish” – usually a nickel – I’m saddened to think that the new MoMA might reduce the viewing of art for students to a special event. On the other hand, I think $10 is too much for the movies as well – even when things blow up really well.

Susan Jennings: I think MoMA should charge $10 or $15 for students, and as they have done in the past, give artists a reduced rate membership if they supply an exhibition announcement card within the last year. As I have said before, MoMA should not be only a tourist destination, but should be a vital component of the art-making process and this should include affordable access to those who are making art.

left to right, original townhouse at 11 West 53 Street in 1932; Philip L. Goodwin and Edward Durrell Stone building in 1939, photo by Eliot Elisofon; New west wing and renovated and improved facilities, designed by Cesar Pelli, open in 1984, photo by Adam Bartos.

Aaron Yassin: While the large museums plan construction projects smaller non-profit galleries struggle to survive. With the current downward trend in public as well as private arts support what does it take to foster growth in non-commercial galleries and how can they sustain themselves in the shadow of the big museums?

Rocio Aranda-Alvarado: Fortunately, there are funders (such as the Dodge Foundation and the Warhol Foundation, for example), who really understand the importance of supporting smaller, alternative art spaces. It is unfortunate for many of the smaller institutions, however, that the largest museums with the largest budgets continue to get the lion’s share of funding from corporations. Non-commercial galleries and alternative art spaces end up relying a great deal on the generosity of artists, who are willing to give time and even donate work when necessary. These kinds of relationships between smaller spaces and artists are essential to their growth.

Christian Viveros-Faune: Let’s face it, public support for the arts is going the way of the Dodo. It’s a crying shame, but the survival of not-for-profit spaces today depends largely on private monies, which fortunately I do not see shrinking. You may have information that I have yet to see, but the growth of the number of galleries in New York also includes its share of not-for-profit spaces. An important number of historical not-for-profits survive and do quite well. On the other hand, I do think an examination of the role of the not-for-profit space is under way right now. It’s entirely possible that the default mission of not-for-profit spaces, to show emerging art, may be done better and more efficiently by commercial spaces or that, to the degree that not-for-profits insist on this as their primary mission, that their exhibition programs ratify the tastes of the commercial gallery world. As for smaller not-for-profits sustaining themselves in the shadow of big museums, well, frankly they’re two different beasts altogether. There’s room for carnivores and herbivores on the meadow.

Deven Golden: With nearly $1 Billion in museum building going on in New York alone, is there really a downward trend in support for the arts? In any case, institutions, large or small, are going to be successful in direct proportion to their ability to clearly define and implement their mission. Large institutions by their very nature are exceedingly slow moving. One of the recurring jokes of the Whitney’s Biennial is that by the time it opens the artists selected are old news. Small non-profit galleries have a distinct advantage in this regard, and if they have a curator or exhibition committee with a dynamic vision, and are willing to act on it, they should be able to attract the necessary patronage. I would point to the Drawing Center in Manhattan, L.A.C.E. in Los Angeles, and the Renaissance Society in Chicago to name but three excellent examples of this point.

Susan Jennings: If New York can continue to thrive as an art center I think the non-profit spaces will survive and thrive. Artists love the small non-profit spaces. Many artists received their first opportunities to show at Artists’ Space, White Columns, Exit Art, and Momenta. We do whatever we can to help them survive. We give art and time and whatever else they want. Of course these spaces cannot expect to survive solely through artist donation, but these places are much beloved by artists. I see no problem with museums getting bigger. Presumably we will see more well-curated shows. There is nothing better for artists and their practice of art making than seeing art. But MoMA’s patrons should be aware that the contemporary artists MoMA has collected and/or exhibited recently – artists like Cindy Sherman, Chuck Close, John Currin, Elizabeth Peyton, either had their first shows at White Columns, or curated shows at Artists’ Space or simply admire and support Exit Art or Momenta. New York would not be what it is, a rich center of art, without these spaces. It is very important that these places exist outside of the commerce of art. They need to be supported, and not only by artists, if New York is going to continue to be vital. MoMA and the other New York City Museums could and should encourage its patrons to support these smaller institutions.

Much more concerning to me for the health of the New York art community is the problem artists are facing finding affordable studios and living situations. If young artists cannot work in or near New York, the city will become a showroom rather than a thriving art center. MoMA will be only a tourist destination and not part of the circulatory system of art making.

Aaron Yassin: I agree that the health of small non-profits does depend on artists’ support. So, I’d like to pick-up on this issue of affordable housing for artists, because I think the two are related. There is no question that New York continues to get more expensive. It used to be easy to find cheap loft space and artists lived nearby local non-profit galleries and supported them. Now, artists that are relocating or coming to the city are moving to places like Bushwick, the Bronx and Newark. How can artists, who are so important to this dialogue, survive and prosper in this increasingly expensive environment?

Deven Golden: I guess we’ll have to see what will happen with artist spaces in New York, but it’s hard for me to see affordable space as an “artist” problem. If you want to start freaking out about space, try having a 3 year old in New York when you don’t already own your own building, loft, or apartment. If the real-estate market continues the way it has for the last few years, it’ll be interesting to see just who can afford to stay in New York – and not interesting in a good way. The vitality of New York, for me at least, has always been defined by its mix of people from all economic strata living side by side – much more than in a city like Chicago, where I’m from. Artist’s can and do live anywhere and everywhere, but if they can’t afford to live in New York anymore, that bodes far worse for the city than the artists.

Susan Jennings: The developer Bill Ehrlich has gambled on the idea that Beacon, NY where DIA is located should be an artist outpost of New York City. Not a bad idea. DIA draws visits from art lovers, curators and artists. It’s a short Metro North train ride from the city. The problem with Beacon is that Ehrlich bought most of the available real estate and is renting the spaces for prices that are too high. Art centers are not something that developers can create like the Spice Girls. Artists move to places the mainstream considers undesirable like Beacon, with its aluminum siding, down-and-out bars and distance from the city, because there are large spaces available that are very cheap. If we are going to find nearby outposts the deal has to be really good. And we have to do it ourselves. Soho and Williamsburg had huge spaces for very little money with no developer schemes.

I think a great idea that has been discussed a bit amongst artists I know would be for one or many groups of artists to organize and convince art loving patrons to buy a building with live/work spaces. The artists would “buy” their spaces but their payments would go into a fund to be used as seed money for the next group of artists to do the same. The original patron investment would start a chain of building buying in and around New
York. Artists would have the option of selling out and they would receive what they paid in as the new artists pay into the fund. Nobody would make a profit on these spaces. Everyone would pay fair prices and over time New York would have a large number of artist-owned buildings.

Rocio Aranda-Alvarado: This is an extremely important issue, and one that cities and their governments don’t seem to appreciate. How can it be that when it has happened time after time, in various places, there is no understanding of how significant artists are for neighborhoods, businesses and urban living? It is extremely disheartening to see the vitriol that is launched against artists who are merely attempting to eke out a living in a city the size of New York. Many young artists are poor, just like others living in New York; why should their housing not be subsidized? Here in Jersey City, artists have made the waterfront a space that has become attractive for business owners. But instead of continuing to support them and their work, they are treated like pariahs.

View of the new David and Peggy Rockefeller Gallery Building from Fifty-fourth Street, Courtesy Museum of Modern Art © 2004 Timothy Hursley

Aaron Yassin: In a similar way that MoMA will become the institutional center for contemporary art, West Chelsea has become the commercial art center. Although it is convenient to be able to see so much in one place do you think it encourages real competition, growth and dialogue or instead does it create a situation where galleries follow the latest trend and too many shows start to look alike?

Christian Viveros-Faune: Yes, Chelsea has become the world’s most important art mall. That it is ground zero for the international art market is a fact so obvious few folks bother with the observation any longer. It is undoubtedly good for collectors in the sense that it makes shopping, and comparison-shopping at that, much easier. As a dealer, and particularly as one that just opened a space in the neighborhood, there is no sense in my making light of convenience. Chelsea works and it works because collectors can take things in at a glance, on a single trip or pair of trips a month. I do think the neighborhood does engender a certain sameness: many of the spaces look the same (many, in fact, were designed by the same architect or at least in imitation of that architect’s minimal-looking design) and there is a tendency for shows to take on a homogenous look, if not to actually mimic themselves along the neighborhood as certain trends ripple across the art world. At the end of last decade, there was an expansion in the number and kind of exhibition spaces in New York and they made the city an even more vibrant and interesting place to see art. Unfortunately, today what we see is a contraction of those energies. Partly, this is due to the old ineluctable outsider/insider process. Outsiders, if successful, don’t stay outsiders. Still, there are at the very least a dozen fantastic galleries outside of the precincts of Chelsea. Most of those are in Brooklyn, where the artists live and work.

Susan Jennings: I don’t think it is true that Chelsea galleries show work that is all alike. Who thinks this? Of course there are artists in New York City, some might say bitter holdouts working in anachronistic styles that are irrelevant to today’s conversation, who might feel shut out of Chelsea and claim that all of the shows look alike. Is this who we are addressing with this question? Throughout art history there have always been currents of common thoughts and styles. This is a normal process, the ebb and flow of dialogue and influence. It is the artists themselves who are elaborating on common themes, as they always have from decade to decade. This does not have to do with the proximity of galleries. Indeed right now in Chelsea there is a far wider range of art than one would have found in Paris in 1910 or Uptown in the late 50′s. Of course, forces other than proximity, such as collector demand can be driving decisions that galleries make about what is exhibited and, sadly, the work that some artists put out. It goes without saying that it is the responsibility of good artists and good dealers to avoid this trap.

On another note, like the mega-museum issue, there is a Chelsea gallery size issue that I think effects our impression of what is there to be seen. Many galleries in Chelsea suffer from the same size-creepage problem as McDonald’s french fries, Starbuck’s coffee and American clothing, cars and people. Though “small” seems to be a word in exile there actually are some small and smallish galleries right in Chelsea that show good challenging contemporary work: Derek Eller Gallery, Oliver Kamm Gallery, Feature, Inc., Michael Steinberg Fine Art, Mitchell Algus, LFL Gallery. But galleries like Paula Cooper, Metro Pictures, Barbara Gladstone, Gagosian, and Mary Boone all have the problem of filling their spaces with varying degrees of success. Mary Boone just showed 3 small Hilary Harkness paintings in her monolithic space. I don’t think it worked but I admire the guts to challenge the scale of the space. I think there are a variety of spaces in Chelsea showing a range of work, but the large ones really stick in our minds, maybe because the shows frequently seem to be about bigness more than anything else. It is just not enough to leave a gallery with the thought, “That sure was BIG!” But then again, Douglas Gordon’s elephant at Gagosian made me happy for weeks.

Luckily, Chelsea is not the only neighborhood with galleries. There’s Williamsburg! There are excellent small and medium-sized galleries over there and like Chelsea, visiting these galleries can be a superb way to have dialogue with other artists and art lovers. Both places provide community and ample opportunity for conversation. This is a great argument for the concentration of galleries.

Deven Golden: Well, first of all, I’m not sure if you mean to say “the” institutional center for contemporary art, and if you do, I don’t agree. The contemporary art world is, at this time, international. The new MoMA will still be just another stop on the culture train, albeit a pretty spectacular one. In the same way, West Chelsea is just the most recent manifestation of the cultural marketplace. Fifteen years ago it was SoHo, fifty years ago it was 57th Street, eighty years ago it was the Left Bank in Paris. In fact, one main difference between today and those previous times is the fact that while the gallerists in West Chelsea may represent the single largest concentration of contemporary galleries, there are many other large, viable contemporary gallery centers around the world, for example in Los Angeles, Chicago, London, Cologne, and Berlin. Moreover, the so called problem of “the latest trend” or, put another way, the problem of sameness is not, I would think, about geography as much as it is about the paucity of idiosyncratic collectors and the strength of market forces. Fortunately, I think we’ll all agree, much good art always seems to find a way to be seen.

Rocio Aranda-Alvarado: I believe it was Jerry Saltz who recently described the New York art world as a giant blob (I hope that’s right!), a large thing which can’t really be controlled and in which things are beginning to look very much the same. I find that occasionally I spend three hours in Chelsea and don’t see anything truly inspirational. Williamsburg, however, is a different story, as is Newark. I believe sometimes that the more interesting things happen in the (perceived) periphery. There are some extremely motivated and wonderful young artists doing great work and organizing themselves in significant ways in these places that get less attention.

Aaron Yassin: Artists started moving to Soho in the 1960′s and the galleries followed them there. This was less the case with Chelsea as it has always been primarily a commercial center. As a result collectors have a significant influence on this market. We all agree that there are interesting things happening in other neighborhoods often closer to where artists live. How do you see the future of what is shown in Chelsea compared to what is shown in other neighborhoods?

Susan Jennings: Oh, that’s funny that it was Jerry Saltz who said that everything in
Chelsea looks the same. Well, I think this statement is probably being taken out of context or else I just plain disagree. In Chelsea you can see artworks as varied as those by Ricci Albenda and Luc Tuymans, Olafur Eliason and Lydia Dona, Carroll Dunham and Walton Ford, Devendra Banhart and Leo Villareal, Scott Grodesky and Kara Walker, George Condo and Anselm Kiefer, Paul Ramirez Jonas and Peggy Preheim, Do-Ho Suh and Eric Hanson, Justine Kurland and Yuri Masnyj, Maurizio Catalan and Lucky DeBellevue, Elizabeth Peyton and David Shaw – Really a wide variety.

I have often heard people say that they spent an entire day looking at art (say in Chelsea) and saw nothing they liked. When you consider that in any given 10-year period of art history there are only a handful of artists of significance, I say, “Well what do you expect? Great, inspirational art is not something that happens easily. Did you really think you would find some in just one day or even one month of gallery visiting?” When I do come across something that shakes me up, it makes me very happy. It doesn’t happen all that often. I think that is just how it is.

And yes, there is good work all over the greater metropolitan area in artists’ studios and in small artist-run spaces in outlying places, but there is also a lot of uninspiring art in these places. I am amazed when I go to open studios, say in Brooklyn, by the sheer number of artists paying rent for studios. The ratio of interesting to not is very low. Hopefully, the truly good work does eventually make it into Chelsea and the Museums. I agree that shows in Williamsburg can often be very good. ATM Gallery in the East Village has great shows, too. Many times these shows are curated by artists, either the gallerists are artists themselves or artist guest-curate. I think artists often do a good job of discovering the next good art. That is why I try to go to these places and then tell people at White Columns, for example, about what I see that is outstanding. It is also why it is so important for curators, critics and dealers, not to mention artists, to go to Williamsburg, Jersey City, Bushwick, wherever the artists are. Gone are the days of finding all of your artist friends at Food in Soho after a day in your studio around the block. Jerry Saltz, actually, is great about not being a lazy Isle-of-Manhattan art looker.

Rocio Aranda-Alvarado: I think that because there are still small galleries showing strong work by emerging artists in Chelsea and because some of the best from Williamsburg and other places are moving there, it will continue to be a vibrant place to see art. There is no doubt that the bigger spaces get more attention but smaller galleries and non-profits like White Box also make contributions. I forgot to mention that I think Harlem is an important area that is developing also…it’s not so inconceivable that the west side of Harlem could become something akin to Chelsea. With a significant museum in its midst as well as important non-profit spaces like Triple Candie, Harlem is clearly a contender.

Deven Golden: We seem to have gone from discussing the new MoMA to speculating on how real estate prices are going to affect how and where we view art, and I’m not sure where we’re going with this. Galleries, like the artists, go where they can afford to go, only unlike artists, their calculation for deciding that has a lot more to do with available foot traffic (although if you can’t get the gallerist to come by your studio because you’re in Sheepshead Bay, that’s not an unrelated consideration). However if, in ten years, neither the galleries nor the artists can afford to be in Manhattan anywhere, then they’ll have to move somewhere else and the collectors and curators will follow them. But who knows, perhaps in 20 years, when 90 percent of all artworks are digital, and most adults have been going on-line for all of their information for 30 odd years, people will just download new art and view it on their huge living-room wall screens, and brick and mortar galleries will be a thing of the past, just like people thought it would be in 1997.