Items in the City Paper this week: Bill Christenberry and Don Donaghy at Hemphill. It appears online under the title "Benjamin Abramowitz," who's showing in the gallery's project space, but I didn't write about his stuff. I also have a shorter item on Space-Domestic, the show curated by Jiha Moon for the McLean Project for the Arts.
Last week Jessica Dawson raised eyebrows by writing, "When it comes to nepotism, the best strategy is to avoid it," in reference to the fact that Moon included her husband's work in the show. Now, I already wrote my say; there's no way I could have tackled the question given the space limitations. I assume Dawson was working with a similar length restriction, but it seems like a weighty line to drop without an explanation or judgment.
That said, Dawson's basically right—Moon erred, or she deliberately chose to be incautious. Including her husband's work is is clearly the kind of decision that sets tongues wagging. Given that these things are simply going to happen in the District—this is a town in which a show will be called "Barlow Curates" and most everyone who sees the show will know what that means (and not just whom that means but why it's significant)—maybe a strategy like Moon's should be evaluated based on whether it's merited. Seems to me that if Dawson will call nepotism on a show, she ought to give a little more about what it means and why and to what extent it matters.
Me, I'll do the opposite—framework but no judgment. I need to meet the afore-mentioned Barlow, like, five minutes ago, and in any event the place for expounding on these things is probably the article and not the blog.
Posted by Kriston at June 30, 2006 12:52 PMThanks for the review. On my way to and from Charlottesville I'm too afraid to get off any exits on 66, but you're dead on with the reference. That and JC Penney catalogs.
As for the nepotism, you're right to ask about how AMW's work looks in the show - if it blows, nepotism; if not, more complicated. I haven't seen the show yet, so I'll decide later.
Posted by: wwc at June 30, 2006 2:54 PMI'm getting pretty irritated about this whole nepotism thing. This was not a juried show, this was not a show where there was a call for entries or an application fee. This was a proposed show, curated around a common undercurrent that Jiha noticed running through some of the art she had been looking at. She wrote up a proposal and submitted it to the MPA, which was reviewed and deemed interesting enough to show.
Jiha does not work for the MPA, she is not a member of the board and neither am I. Neither of us has any ties to the organization. So Jiha is in no position of power with regards to what is being exhibited at the MPA. The show was accepted based upon the strength of the proposal, which my slides were a part of. No effort has ever been made to conceal the fact that Jiha and I are married. The idea that this might be a problem for some people never occurred to us.
I am a professional artist with an MFA, gallery representation and an extensive exhibition record, not some hobby painter who has never shown his work before. That my work is being summarily dismissed as part of this show simply because I am married to the person who submitted the proposal seems ridiculous.
My work should be evaluated based upon its quality and how it contributes to the dialogue of the exhibition. I accept any well argued criticism based upon the work itself, but this accusation of nepotism is stupid, unfounded, gossipy bullshit.
My advice to people is to go look at the show or shut the fuck up.
-Andy Moon Wilson
Posted by: AMW at June 30, 2006 3:51 PMHear, hear.
Posted by: supershuttle at June 30, 2006 4:34 PMI hope you emailed this to Dawson, Andy. I wrote about this on my blog and I noted that she said your work looked good in the show just after the nepotism remark. So I'd ask her, which is it?
My point in the comment was that your work doesn't blow, that's why it isnt nepotism. Hope that was clear.
Posted by: wwc at June 30, 2006 5:02 PMHi Warren,
My comments aren't directed to you personally, they are directed towards the issue in general and Ms. Dawson in particular. I don't have her email or believe me I would already have given her an earful (screenfull?). Though it's kind of poetic that I can talk a bunch of crap about her behind her back. The whole "nepotism" accusation by Jessica seems a pretty transparent ploy to titillate her readers whilst avoiding the difficult business of actually talking about the work. Even imaginary scandal sells (and fills up that pesky word count.
As a sidenote, I find it hilarious that she accused my work of being "too convincingly adolescent"- as if that was a bad thing. That's pretty much the whole point of the installation.
Posted by: AMW at June 30, 2006 5:52 PMWell, I am weighing in on this much later than said review. It's an issue that intrigues me...this nepotism thing. Only because it's frequently called on the carpet in the visual art world. But not the theater world, the film world, the music world, the fashion world, or the publishing world. In these artistic milieus, it is assumed that husbands & wives, brothers & sisters, girlfriends & boyfriends, girlfriends & girlfriends, (etc....you get the idea) will work with each other in both commercial and non-commercial venues. These relationships add a certain difficult juice to the works we are looking at, reading, or listening to.
It's about the art, here, people. Not whom you sleep with or blood relationships.
I mentioned this nepotism issue to a high-profile museum director in Europe once and she just laughed at the American obsession with quasi-legal and politically-correct "conflict of issue" matters which are patently absurd. Full disclosure is OK, even encouraged, but let's just stay focused on the art. That's what matters in the long run.
Posted by: Andrea at March 20, 2007 8:20 PM