On Tuesday I attended the "DC Warming" panel lecture organized by the District outpost of Art Table, a national organization for professional women working in the arts. The event was initially intended for Art Table members only, but since it was held at DCAC, the invitation was extended to that organization's listserve, from which it eventually trickled down to the Internet and its unruly masses (and moi). Faith Flanagan (whom I recognized as a former contributer to Cultureflux, if you remember that old site) helped organize the event—three cheers for her. Courtesy of HTML bullets, the panel members:
Pollan opened up by establishing a rule that would greatly behoove every DC arts conversation: No mention of any local newspapers whose names start with Washi and end with ngton Post. I came in expecting to gag over denunciations of Art-O-Matic and medieval cries for Blake Gopnik's head. It didn't happen. We're all better off if it never does again.
On the general state of the arts in the District, Tyler sized up our place pretty neatly:
"They're putting up Anish Kapoors in Chicago with public money, and we're putting up panda bears."If there was a dominant narrative thread of the evening, that captured it. It's not so much that the District has conservative tastes per se but that its progressive arts community has been on the defensive for some time. I think there was some consensus among the group that this is changing—nationally visible artists and the emerging 14th Street corridor (maybe we should start saying emerged?) being the hallmarks of the sea change. There's something to be said for the way that the federal museums abet this growth: Since the Hirshhorn and Corcoran and NGA are national points of interest, a prominent gallery culture stands to capture some share of that attention. Especially for those who can take some share of credit for this progress—these panelists all can—a guarded optimism is certainly warranted.
A few turns in the discussion struck me as exceedingly interesting. The first was pretty much everything Allison Cohen had to say. She's an IP lawyer who has transitioned into entrepreneurial arts consultancy (she operates Sightline). Which means that she helps people who lack specialized knowledge of art with their decisions about purchasing and investing. Cohen noted the predominant attitude among cautious, first-time buyers: "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." Which she says is as much an intentional barrier, an insecurity, as it is a revelation. Cohen is certainly right that people ought to have as little compunction about seeking out guidance with decisions regarding art as they do when they seek a lawyer to answer questions about the law—not only is that practical advice, it's a hell of an elevator pitch. I would certainly like to be able to discuss her business in greater detail—I'm sure that I'm making her sound like an art world madame, guiding tender novices in their search for beauty. But as she said herself, she respects art for its ideas and not its potential to supplement home decour, and she wants to help people make sound decisions. I hope to find out more about what she's doing—broader Internet visibility wouldn't hurt.
Pollan, McClellan, and Reis had a few commentworthy observations about the psychology of the gallery. That the bright white of a contemporary gallery seems to suit contemporary art better than other setting options is a given, but that such a space is hostile to most people sometimes escapes me. Different communities have addressed this paradox with different strategies: As Tyler explained, it was years ago (so the story goes) when Mary Boone commanded her gallerists to be unfriendly, a strategy intended to make the white space the least intimidating aspect of a gallery visit. Here in DC, the galleries are "personable." I think the alcohol helps, personally. No word about how they cut the tension in LA . . . I'm inclined to say Qaaludes, but that's probably ungenerous.
Hearing Philip Barlow speak was the first time I'd ever heard a collector address how one gets into the business of being an art collector. As one might suspect, it involves acquiring large sums of money. So that's a scratch. He did say that he does not (yet) consider his collection to be a document of the 90s/00s District progressive arts, and he does not buy work from good artists whom he does not care for. He also says that the work he collects fills his home and offices, which made me wonder—if Barlow buys a Steinhilber, does he just end up with scores of plastic junk everywhere?
[As Philip notes in comments: "What I said on the panel was that I started buying art when my income started growing faster than my rent. Admittedly this was 15 years ago, but I started saving $100/month expressly to by art and only spent what I saved. That was hardly acquiring large sums of money." I didn't mean to disparage the man's hard work or thriftiness. Philip struck me as a funny guy, so I was having some undue fun at his expense. All apologies. —Ed.]
Some odds and ends:
Thanks Kriston!
Posted by: J.T. Kirkland at January 21, 2005 9:35 AMExcellent overview!
Posted by: Lenny at January 21, 2005 10:03 AMThanks for the post and for the kind words, Kriston.
Isn't it interesting that Lenny can consider this an excellent overview, when the "overview" on his blog bears no resemblance to this post, is anonymous, and is based on virtually no facts whatsoever?
Posted by: Tyler Green at January 21, 2005 10:32 AMInteresting discussion. Glad to read it. I'd like to learn more if they plan to have future "warming panel" discussions
Posted by: Jesse Cohen at January 21, 2005 11:07 AMKriston,
Two questions:
1) Do you feel that the panel was worth the $20?
2) Do you know where the money went? The DCAC? The panelists? Somewhere else?
Just curious. Thanks!
Posted by: J.T. Kirkland at January 21, 2005 11:13 AMDon't shoot the messenger! My Anon poster obviously sees and hears somethings that happened on Tues from a different perspective; if anything was "made up" and didn't happen, then I need to know specifically what it was and it will be corrected. I've asked for feedback on the Anon posting.... if there are inaccuracies, or made up shit, then someone who was there, please point them out to me.
Peace Out...
Posted by: Lenny at January 21, 2005 11:19 AMShit, I meant to note the price in the post. So, being an Art Table event, the $20 price tag was affixed because they charge that much for every event they host. I think the context of the event changed when it went "public," and people (like me and probably others) viewed it as a fee for a discussion. Taken as a charitable donation combined with an event, it's not unreasonable. Since otherwise that money would've gone toward alcohol, I'd say it was well spent.
I'm not sure what other events they regularly host, but $20 in general seems like a high nonmember fee where alcohol isn't being served.
Posted by: Kriston at January 21, 2005 11:24 AMRe the anon poster Lenny published: 1) I am positive that Anonymous misquoted Andrea Pollen vis-a-vis the exchange with Tyler Green about Tyler's blog. And whether or not Anonymous was satisfied with his answer, Tyler did respond; 2) it's funny that someone who complains about the panelists comparing DC to other places would cite a Jerry Saltz discussion about NYC; and 3) anyone with so much shit to talk about other people shouldn't be a coward about it. Useless!
Posted by: Kriston at January 21, 2005 11:38 AMI think there's more that pandas in the public art scene here, but its not downtown. I urge you all to head up to Mt. Pleasant to see Michael Ross's version of the Art on Call project. Other neighborhoods are working to get in on the project.
Posted by: Rob W at January 21, 2005 11:56 AMK,
So Andrea didn't ask Tyler this specific question: "Why does he focus so much energy on criticizing the critics?"
P.S. Sorry if this is becoming a "he said, she said."
Posted by: Lenny at January 21, 2005 12:21 PM"They're putting up Anish Kapoors in Chicago with public money, and we're putting up panda bears."
Bear in mind that the pander bears you folks are getting were no doubt directly inspired by the cows that showed up here in Chicago back in '99. That idea was stolen from the Swiss.
Posted by: Dan at January 21, 2005 12:24 PMDidn't Houston rip off that idea, too, but using longhorns?
Posted by: matty at January 21, 2005 12:33 PMDear Kriston,
Thank you for taking the time to post this summary.
Bottom line from the point of view of having attended DC Warming:
1.) Did the panelists express a "collective" or consensus opinion that the DC scene is warming?
2.) If so, who or what do they consider hot?
3.) Did one or several express a "Top 10" list of things that need to be done today to increase the art heat in DC?
Sincerely,
James W. Bailey
P.S. I didn't have a spare $20 FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE available to spend on this exercise, but find the concept interesting.
Posted by: at January 21, 2005 12:40 PMThat idea was stolen from the Swiss.
And RI stole it from Chicago before DC got around to it. Mr. Potato Heads everywhere. Because as you surely know, Rhode Island, home of Hasbro, is the birthplace of fun
Posted by: Miguel Sánchez at January 21, 2005 12:45 PMDoesn't it seem that cities whose understanding/support of the arts is, well, tenuous at best tend to latch onto these damn fish (Baltimore) dinosaurs (Pittsburgh) pandas (DC) cows (New York/Chicago/Kansas City/ Houston/freaking LONDON)...you see where I'm going with this. Sponsoring a design-a-[insert animal representative of given city here] contest has become the second or third-tier city's way of "promoting the arts." Annoying! Enraging! Who hasn't resisted the urge to wreck their car into such eyesores, or to douse them in Kerosene and light up a Cohiba nearby? Especially after a quote like this one:
Art is about breaking down barriers. It gets people to feel, to think, to react. So when you come across life-sized cow sculptures that have been covered in mirrors or gumdrops, cows that have been painted with elaborate themes or transformed into something else entirely, you can’t help but stop and think about what it means. All your preconceived ideas go out the window. Suddenly people see that art can be fun and that art can be interesting to everyone, not just people who frequent museums.
--Peter Hanig, Cow Parade organizer, New York
Kill me now.
What I said on the panel was that I started buying art when my income started growing faster than my rent. Admittedly this was 15 years ago, but I started saving $100/month expressly to by art and only spent what I saved. That was hardly acquiring large sums of money.
Posted by: philip at January 21, 2005 1:33 PMSorry, Philip—I was making a joke, but I didn't mean any implications by it. I remember you saying exactly that. I'll note the correction.
Posted by: Kriston at January 21, 2005 1:44 PMThanks. I took no offense, I just wanted to clarify.
Posted by: philip at January 21, 2005 2:00 PMDoesn't it seem that cities whose understanding/support of the arts is, well, tenuous at best tend to latch onto these damn fish (Baltimore) dinosaurs (Pittsburgh) pandas (DC) cows (New York/Chicago/Kansas City/ Houston/freaking LONDON)...you see where I'm going with this. Sponsoring a design-a-[insert animal representative of given city here] contest has become the second or third-tier city's way of "promoting the arts."
Wait, so now Chicago, New York and "freaking LONDON" are "second or third-tier cities"? What cities would be in your first tier, other than possibly Paris? These decorated cow, etc. events have taken place damn near EVERYwhere now, in a lot more cities than made your list (pigs in Cincinnati, guitars in Cleveland, etc.), and some like Chicago and DC have actually repeated the idea once or twice.
I can't make any positive claims about Cow Parade or its offspring as real, substantive art, but the type of arts and tourism councils that promote them often aren't all the interested in substantive art, they're interested in bring tourists into town and getting media coverage. As soon as the numbers came about regarding the "economic impact" of the Cows in Zurich and in Chicago, however dubious those numbers might have been, it was pretty much a given that every city in the U.S. would come up with their own version of the idea.
I think we all need to get over the damn pandas, personally. Time to move on.
Posted by: Nate at January 21, 2005 2:33 PMNate, stand down. I was referring to Pittsburgh, my very own third-tier city. Should've been more clear for the sensitive New York types out there, yourself included, perhaps?
We agree, though: no more pandas.
Posted by: sarah at January 21, 2005 3:09 PMActually, I'm in DC, which seems to be pretty universally regarded as "second-tier" when it comes to its support of the arts. I just question the assertion that events like Cow Parade are somehow characteristic of "second or third-tier" cities when cities that are pretty obviously "first tier" like New York and London participate so enthusiastically.
Posted by: Nate at January 21, 2005 3:57 PMI think you've answered your own question. Well done.
Posted by: sarah at January 21, 2005 4:45 PMI remember these panels being fairly regular back in say 2001 or so. It would be interesting to get deeper into the specifics of individual agents (ie signal66, muse, fusebox, decatur blue) and objective social processes, prefab lofts in the 14th and U street corridormeaning the MARKET for contemporary art and the dissemination of the attendant "bon metropolitaine" lifestyle (exscuse my bad french)
Posted by: chris lee at January 21, 2005 4:56 PMI remember these panels being fairly regular back in say 2002 or so. It would be interesting to get deeper into the specifics of individual agents (ie signal66, muse, fusebox, decatur blue) and objective social processes,like prefab lofts in the 14th and U street corridor representing the MARKET for contemporary art in DC and the dissemination of the attendant "bon metropolitaine" lifestyle (excuse my bad french)
Posted by: chris lee at January 21, 2005 5:10 PMIndeed, if the first dimension were represented by a visible curvature only, it would be conceivable. Thus for every not plane continuum we can substitute a plane continuum of more dimensions
Posted by: Tanya at September 30, 2008 7:18 PMWhen after the abstractions made upon the orange, I have left only the idea of its extension.
Posted by: Andy at November 27, 2008 12:27 PMWhen after the abstractions made upon the orange, I have left only the idea of its extension.
Posted by: stainless earring at June 3, 2009 3:46 AM
