The Trouble with Group Shows (Cont’d)
Monday, 25 January 2010
“I know you don’t like group shows, but if you did, what kind of group shows would you put together?”
“Come again?” I replied. It was like being asked what I would do in a restaurant that served only different kinds of yogurt, or sauerkraut.
The caller came again, explaining she was involved with a new organization devoted to displaying work by young, “emerging” artists. Questions like this make you wonder if haranguing for years on a given subject ever does much good.
Well, after a period of time, things that go without saying need to be said all over again.
It is hard to figure which kinds of group shows are most objectionable: patent space-fillers or shows that obviously consumed some time, effort and expense; grab-bag shows that make no point whatever—the current group show at the newly renovated Arts Commission Gallery is an outstanding example—or “theme” shows that reduce individual works to the role of illustrating ideas that are often of more relevance to the curator than to the artists (or most viewers).
Probably the worst are those that purport to give exposure of new, “emerging” talent. The group show has become institutionalized in recent years as the standard, or at least the most expedient, device for absorbing a plethora of certified new artists, ink scarcely dry on their MFA degrees, into the System.
For all the inflationary growth in the number of galleries, museum shows anc other attributes of the Support System exhibition space remains in relatively short supply. The group show, so the logic goes, is the most equitable way of spreading it around.
Yet a group show may well be the most unfavorable of circumstances for a new artist to introduce his work. Whatever his or her achievements-and, with most young, “emerging” artists, these are likely to be uneven at best-even the most helter-skelter of group shows creates a framework, a context, that inevitably affects the way in which ar. artist’s work is seen.
If the show carries a label—”Neo-Expressionism,” “Geometric Abstraction”—it tends to attach itself to the work of all the artists in it.
Often, a kind of Gresham’s law sets in, so that better work takes on the taint of the poorer. At best, the expression of one artist is qualified, and subtly altered, by its proximity to that of another, in much the same way as images take on different meanings according to the way they are juxtaposed in a collage.
Rather than taking their places as part of an integral, continually unfolding organism, as an artist’s works do in the framework of a one-person show or retrospective, in a group show they compete with the work of other artists, or neutralize each other, simply blending into the mass. It is perhaps no accident that the vogue of the group show has coincided with an era teeming with “emerging” artists who somehow never manage fully to “emerge” from the herd.
Probably the most unfortunate byproduct of group shows, however, is their far-reaching effect, not on recognition or careers, but on the very sensibilities of the people who take part in them.
For those involved in organizing exhibitions, the group show has become a handy expedient for substituting a wimpish responsiveness—to external, “objective” pressures of movements and trends, or art world politics—for real responsibility, which involves making hard-nosed, personal and inevitably controversial decisions and choices. Yet art, at least in theory, remains one of the few areas of life where quality, not quantity, is supposed to be the guiding principle.
To the young, aspiring artist, the group show makes a statement of a quite different kind from a one-person show. The one-artist show, and particularly the museum retrospective, says: “If you dig in, experience deeply, work seriously, and manage eventually to identify yourself as an individual and an artist, your work may hang in a show like this some day.”
The group show, and especially the trend show, says: “If you can psych out what dealers and curators are displaying at the moment, and contrive some kind of variation on it, you can get a piece or two in next year’s survey.”
The group show encourages artists to think in collective terms rather than individual ones, even though art is the loneliest of enterprises in which, finally, the artist himself can be the only judge. It fosters relative rather than absolute values, even though the only thing that matters in art is not the relationship of an artist’s work to that of his peers, but to his own vision and goals.
The individual show celebrates exceptionality. The group show wallows in the typical—that is, in mediocrity.
“There must be some kinds of group shows you’d approve of,” the caller persisted.
Well, yes, I had to acknowledge. You might partition a space four or five ways to give each of four or five artists what would amount to individual shows. Or, if you had a genuine idea, you might build a show around it with the work of artists whose identities already had been firmly established, and the meaning of their individual expressions become generally known—provided acknowledgment was made that the exhibition was basically a kind of assemblage of found objects, and the relationships drawn among them a creation of its curator.
“Thank you. You’ve been most helpful.” She was audibly relieved as she said good-bye. As long as people keep wanting to do group shows, and artists are willing to take part, nothing I can say is going to stop them.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1983
RSS
No. 1 — January 25th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Here is the response thread from a Facebook discussion on this essay:
Sarah Lockhart:
I think the points the essay makes about “emerging” and “illustration” are good ones. I’ve seen plenty of mediocre group shows, shows where everything blurs together, and like the essay says, the good work is tainted by the poorer work – but I’ve seen some very good thematic group shows, and some where the interesting work does stand out and is memorable. There are also plenty of artists whose work doesn’t interest me enough to want to see an entire exhibition of it, but one or two pieces are fine.
Steven Barich:
@ Sarah: Well, yes, I think that is the point of the second to last paragraph.
And of course, there never is one, true interpretation “of how things should be.” We are, after all, living in the post post-modern world. But I think it is still interesting to look at the issue of “emerging” artists in the context of the group show and the curatorial agenda.
Sarah Lockhart:
It is interesting how the position of “curator” has become something more people are aspiring to. I wonder how much of it has to do with a feeling of overabundance – glut – of there being too much art or information. I also wonder about the curatorial impulse – or agenda – in the context of “shelter magazines” that were really popular as of late – that potentially indicated a larger cultural urge to decorate and organize one’s stuff.
But then, I’m in a position personally where I see a lot of people wanting to and starting their own galleries, and wondering why.
Steven Barich:
@Sarah: I think it is worthwhile to keep discussing this issue of overabundance…and as it pertains to newly minted post-school artists.
I know why I started the Red Door Gallery so many years ago: there were only 2-3 galleries in Oakland in the late nineties, and the need for exhibition space in contrast to SF was more than necessary.
Still, starting a gallery these days is admirable, cause it’s no walk in the park.
But neither is making good art, IMHO.
Sarah Lockhart:
When we started 21 Grand there might have been 3 or 4, i don’t remember if Red Door was still open when we opened. And of course, starting a gallery and making good art are not easy – but I wonder about the motives of the people starting spaces in Oakland now versus when we did, because our motivation was similar to yours.
Obi Kaufmann:
Good essay. valid points all. Was the essay from 1983? I don´t know if people are really afraid of public debate or not…certainly, spaces like artopic give us a forum. I think it is very difficult to put together a good show, shit, even a bad show is hard. I know plenty of art students/post art-students…but, putting together and even hanging a show? it´s is something totally different. I don´t know anybody who went to school for that. It is a different impulse, no?
Sarah Lockhart:
It isn’t all that hard if you think about it thoroughly, take some time to figure out what works and what doesn’t, though if the work sucks, then you might have an insurmountable problem.
Obi Kaufmann:
True.
Steven Barich:
@ Obi: “I think it is very difficult to put together a good show, shit, even a bad show is hard.” This made me laugh out loud…and then I thought: so many of the exhibition spaces—at least in Oakland—are artist run. Can artists even hang their own work well, then?!?
What the initial Thomas Albright (yes, of 1983) essay couldn’t address is the contemporary crossover of artist-curator-gallerist-critic-(insert noun here..) etc etc! This new chimera (hey, Obi!) throws a wrench into the traditional game players, game changers…but I don’t know if we’re any better off than 25 years ago…
@ Sarah: I am at least pleased to see the range of exhibition spaces cropping up in Oakland, because now via contrast, the spaces that show quality art vs. glut become ever more apparent…maybe, finally, a kind of organic critique will take place, and artwork (and the showing of artwork) will transcend…
Theo Konrad Auer:
I am pretty stoked on the frank and fruitful dialogue going on here. Rad and rare – I say due to folks being in their respective “bubbles” or from sloth more than fear as fear takes a fair bit of effort to be summoned.
Steven Barich:
@Theo: point well taken.
No. 2 — January 25th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
I’m glad that you posted the article, because in some ways I agree with it. I think group shows often leave me with a sense that I didn’t capture everything or have the adequate time or space to take things in. When I see work by one artist, I get a sense of what that artist is trying to do, the pieces by that artist talk to and reinforce each other. In so many details of the exhibition, from the color of the walls to the framing, the sequence, etc., the artist in a solo show can put their work forth in a way that captures what they want in tone and feeling. I think it’s important that young artists also get the opportunity to do this every once in a while, as we often don’t think about how our work will be shown when we’re consumed in the making of it.
Now to where I disagree: obviously Albright wrote this before the current wave of collaborative artists, so the section where he says, “The group show encourages artists to think in collective terms rather than individual ones, even though art is the loneliest of enterprises in which, finally, the artist himself can be the only judge. It fosters relative rather than absolute values, even though the only thing that matters in art is not the relationship of an artist’s work to that of his peers, but to his own vision and goals.” I understand that he means no one should have influence on your work, and we could expand “your” to include collectives, but I think there’s also a growing feeling that we want to relate to our peers and our audiences, to have more than a one-sided relationship with them.
So where does that leave me on the topic? I suppose creating a group show is the trickiest of enterprises while being deceptively easy. When it works, it works, and when it doesn’t, Mr. Albright would say “I told you so.”
-Celeste
No. 3 — January 27th, 2010 at 12:15 am
@ A4DS: One vein that runs through a lot of Albright’s essays on art is the artist finding their own voice. And, even in the 80′s, he was aware of the curator’s tactic to co-opt the voice of an emerging artist, manipulate it, establish it, then “use” it for goals apart from the artists goals. This by no means applies to all curators and all situations regarding emerging artists. But, even if you are an artist that collaborates or sees their artistic practice as much more than simply a “lonely” studio practice, there is still much to gain by having solo shows in which the artist(s) voice(s) can be heard with clarity, instead of through a curator’s positioning, or false labeling.
And, as a side note, when a single artist shows their work in solo, there are no excuses: it’s sink or swim baby, on your own! No dumbing down, no distractions. Everyone can make one good piece of art at least once, but to make a concise vision alive in a gallery via multiple works by one artist, shown with an individuals unique intentions alone and in full display…well, there is a potential for magic to happen then!
Last, I also like how even Albright, in the end, points out: “As long as people keep wanting to do group shows, and artists are willing to take part, nothing I can say is going to stop them.” The act of seeking out and receiving recognition—no matter how small—has a deep pull on the artist, and on anyone, really. May I dare say that the group show often functions as a cheap validation for the mediocre artist?!? Oops, I was just in a group show…what does that say about me??
No. 4 — January 27th, 2010 at 11:48 am
oh complain complain. some group shows are good, some are bad. the reality is that galleries arent going to take a chance on an artist they dont know well by giving them a solo show, they are going to put them in a group show and see how they do. its economics.
No. 5 — January 28th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
@ Shanna: who are you addressing as the complainer? Albright or the comments?
The issue here isn’t just about galleries taking a chance on unknown artists, it is about curators and their presenting ideas, placing ideas upon artwork and/or artists.
I’d be interested in knowing your opinion these days about theme-based group shows, and also the issue of mediocrity in the visual arts. If your photographs were included in a group show of overall mediocre work, would you in the end be satisfied with your participation, your association?