One topic that could be discussed follows the idea that contemporary art is dead, put forth by the art wake via artblahg. I disagree with this idea but I think that it could be worth discussing why.
Or we could discuss what its like to live/work as an artist/organization in a second tier city. For instance without a healthy commercial market, how does one determine value and or further one's career? Does this lack of market influence the actual making of art? How much influence should government have in supporting artists, therefore determining value? Is Philadelphia destined to become a sort of weigh station/ proving ground for transient artists/gallerists who must look to and eventually move to NYC? ie Ryan Tercartin, Johnathan Levine (SP?) ?
These are the first ideas that I have off the top of my head. I hope someone will jump in with some other ideas!
Ok, gonna move to the next question about working in Philadelphia as an artist. I think as you suggest ben that Philly is a kind of weigh station or proving ground for artists before they can make things work in NY has always been true and can't really change. Its proximity to NY hinders Phillys ability to keep artists in the city and not to mention the lose of Penn. Council of the Arts and now that the Pew is by nomination only there is a glass ceiling in this city and if an artist shows at all the right places they can hit that ceiling very quickly, in a sense there is not as much support and fewer things that might be new or interesting. That said, I think its really up to the artists to push things forward at least when it comes to making things more interesting i.e. curating shows, putting together events etc. In regards to money, that's always going to be a problem. One thing I do value here is that I've had some meaningful dialogue with artists and curators in discussing works of art - I've been able to grow here without the pressure of a market. There's no rush, its a different energy here, but when your looking to change that energy its time to find it elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteWe’re NY transplants (13 years in Williamsburg) so probably have a different perspective on the potential of the Philly scene. We’re also not really too embedded in the local scene just yet, still being newbies and off the beaten path. So maybe you can count this as an outsider’s perspective.
ReplyDeleteAnyway - I’m constantly making (positive) parallels in my head between Philly and mid 90’s Williamsburg (that would be pre-trust-fund WB) - a strong artist-run scene, a strong social web, cheap space, a very loose coupling with the commercial market.
Okay, so Williamsburg benefited from being a 10 minute train ride from Chelsea. Still, I think Philly tends to undervalue its strengths and over-obsess over its liabilities.
I could probably get into depth with this, but for now I’ll just say - just as many leave Philly, others are immigrating here, and for good reason - Philly has potential.
Hi Colin,
ReplyDeleteEverything you say about Philly is true. I was hoping to be pro and con in regards to the value of Philadelphia as a place of production and reception of art. Its hard to get a proper distance when I've lived here since 93'. I appreciate your outlook. You seem to suggest that things like a better market and more opportunities may build themselves around and in Philadelphia in the future like they did in Williamsburg?
I don’t know about that; the market conditions are obviously different. I guess what I’m saying is that what happened in Williamsburg was an artist-driven thing. Most of the initial spaces were artist-run, and most of the better spaces now continue to be artist-run. Williamsburg benefited from a number of things:
ReplyDelete1 - cheap rent
2 - proximity to Chelsea
3 - a mature artist base that had been living there since the 80’s
4 - a critical mass of artists of all ages starting to move in starting in 93-94
5 - a willingness among artists to wear the gallerist or curator or writer hat, in other words to assume most of the roles the commercial market supplies.
6 - local zines
7 - coverage from mainstream press toward the end of the 90s
Philly has lots of the above, plus a strong art school/educational component integrated into the art scene. It’s missing a solid collector base, yes (probably). It’s also not quite critical mass, though I envision that changing in the next 3-5 years. And the press coverage isn’t as comprehensive as NYs. Then again, there are very few newspaper markets that will devote the column space to another Roberta Smith.
There’s been some criticism (by you know who) about the local press, and some of it may be valid, especially if you’re somehow looking to somehow clone Jerry Saltz and tie him to a stake in the Inquirer press room. But I think the press as it stands now performs a crucial service: boosterism. theartblog.org puts Philly on the national map.
I guess I sort of look at the art scene from an ecosystem perspective - lots of moving parts interacting, meshing - and that we need to enlarge the biosphere, so to speak, rather than critique individual components per se. I don’t know, at this point I think I’m starting to feel like I’m talking out of my *ss, so I’ll leave it at that.
Hey Colin,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you on almost every point. However, I think that the lack of a viable market is hampering the possibilities here. Maybe I'm being pessimistic. I won't deny the positives of whats going on here. But I keep waiting for the next step. As fellow artists/ galleriests what can we do (aside from what we're already doing) to push things along?