guest post by Lisa Hunter
Why does a museum curator choose one artist’s work over another’s? What themes or subject matter are dealers so sick of that they won’t even consider your slides?
From responses to my book The Intrepid Art Collector and discussion on my blog, I have learned that artists often don’t know the answers to these types of questions. Instead, there is widespread confusion about the inner workings of the art world. This is unfortunate because, if you are an artist, what you don’t know can hurt you.
Where should artists go to learn more about how the art world works? A contemporary art museum recently asked me to consult on how they can make their website more popular. It occurred to me that what would make a museum site interesting is if it were a place not simply to learn what art is in the museum, but why that art is the museum. To explain the “why,” I want to interview curators and ask them to explain how they picked a particular work of art for their museum (where they heard of it, what made it stand out from the others). I want to interview the artists whose work gets into the contemporary museums to find out how they “made it,” how they broke out of the pack of artists with the same goal.
Can you imagine visiting a museum website to find out how the art world really works?
Here are some other topics I could write about in depth for the museum’s site. Which of these would interest you the most?
- Should artists donate their art to museums, and if so, will the museum actually exhibit it?
- Are some artists better off outside of major art centers, where “locals” get more attention from museums?
- What are the options for artists whose work is out of fashion at the moment?
- Does being an assistant to a major artist lead to career opportunities, or does it tar you as a “fabricator”?
- How important is an artist’s personality? (I can already answer this one — it’s critical. One curator I know won’t even consider showing someone who’s “difficult” to work with). How can you avoid making enemies without being a phony?
- Why do curators seem to favor young artists? And how can a mid- career artist break out? Is it too late?
- What type of paid-gallery rip-offs do artists need to beware of?
- Which prizes and competitions actually mean something to major curators and dealers?
Please let me know what you think. At this early stage in thinking about the museum’s website, your feedback would be extremely valuable.
Lisa,
If I were the head curator of a contemporary art museum, I would feel hesitant to present a discussion of the above topics on my museum’s site. The reason is that such a discussion would inevitably evolve into a discussion of the basis of my own authority as a curator and powerful figure in the art world. The website would surely be popular, but it might create something of a crisis as well.
That said, your post makes me wish that I were indeed in charge of a contemporary art museum. Here’s why: in addition to the discussions that you would host, I would have a yearly exhibition in the museum called “Art from the Internet,” consisting of artwork that I, as curator, came to know directly through the web. It would be a win-win situation — If the art, in real life, were great, the exhibition would be great; if terrible, it would merely confirm the importance of the traditional art world and its selection process, as opposed to the modern alternative of the internet.
As for “How important is an artist’s personality?”, I can’t imagine a curator being able to do a professional job and at the same time refusing to work with artists who are “difficult.” Isn’t being “difficult” part of the cultural iconic image of an artist? I deal with “difficult” artists all the time. My experience in the art world would be far poorer without them.
Lisa,
Thanks for taking the time to write here…
On Ed’s blog (http://edwardwinkleman.blogspot.com/), I read the other day that an aspiring artist will need to clearly understand the museum, the reason behind why the museum exhibits the kind of work that it does and the reasons why they may not consider work outside of that oeuvre. I tend to align with the idea that aspiring artists would like for museums to state their mission or raison d’etre for showing a class of work. Not too many museums detail out stuff like that…
I would like your advice on how to go about getting a museums objective if it is really not possible to pop in and talk to the curator…
In addition, I would also like to know what kind of art is ‘in’ and what kind of art is ‘out’ (and the reasons) among curators now. An understanding of this will help explain some of their thinking even if we cannot change our styles to match the current trends.
In addition, I would like to hear more about significant events/competitions that actually mean something to curators…
I’m certainly interested in all the topics mentioned, and in general I’m very interested in learning more about the whys behind what a museum buys and exhibits. I’m sure I would visit museum sites more if this kind of discussion were there.
But the simple answer seems to be one we’ve already found: start a blog. Not necessarily a standard blog, but a communication channel with a curator or other author where questions like these could be addressed. The museum gains by the built-in marketing research aspect of learning, through comments and emails, what their public actually cares about. They would certainly project a more contemporary appeal to a significant segment of the public. They could hone articles that eventually appear in other forms, on the museum web site or elsewhere. Mainly, of course, there are strong PR benefits from putting a responsive human face on the institution.
No doubt such a prospect would seem scarey or dicey to some. It really depends on the individual. But a growing number of CEOs or other corporate types blog these days, so the issues are certainly not insurmountable. If I were a curator uncomfortable blogging myself, I would find an appropriate staff member or hire a writer to manage a blog for me.
start a blog
Steve,
The question that keeps coming back to me is, to what extent could a museum blog express or even host independent viewpoints about the art world? The art world is not exactly “transparent” in its inner workings. This is not by accident, probably. For something like this to have credibility, the blog component would need to have some degree of independence from the institution.
Lisa,
Great questions! I am intersted in all of them and any other tidbits you might have. Yes, I would visit a museum’s blog if it had this kind of helpful stuff included.
These are the questions that are particularly intersting to me:
What type of paid-gallery rip-offs do artists need to beware of?
Which prizes and competitions actually mean something to major curators and dealers?
I am not sure what this next one is getting at but it sounds interesting from the perspective of someone not living in an art center. Are some artists better off outside of major art centers, where “locals” get more attention from museums?
What are the options for artists whose work is out of fashion at the moment?
THanks!
Karl,
I could see refusing to deal with difficult artists. There are so many talented people around that no one can afford to be a pain in the ass as well. I think the modernist notion of the tortured, brooding, gruff, and rude “genius” is gone by the wayside…
Lisa, I started listing the questions I would be most interested in knowing the answers to, and realized I was listing most of them. But I’m wondering if a museum website is really the best place for that information. Maybe it would be better in a book, where you could tell us things that the museum staff wouldn’t necessarily want us to know. Plus, it seems that the information would be of great interest to artists, but not so much to non-artist museum goers.
I haven’t read your book on collecting, because I’ve assumed it was mostly geared toward collectors, especially beginners. But if it contained the kind of information you listed above, I’d buy it today and read it immediately.
Karl,
I think that for a blog to have readership, it simply has to be sincere and interesting. Sure, it will lose credibility (and thereby readership) if it becomes simple PR or overly defensive. Thw writer has to have the right touch. I don’t expect all inner workings to be revealed. I wouldn’t hold it against anyone if they said upfront that they couldn’t address this or that question for this or that reason. In fact, that would be a good illustration in itself of what goes into being a curator or whatever.
Steve,
You are saying it is not necessary to be transparent, if one can be translucent in a sincere way. I agree with that I guess. But it still suggests an independence of the site from the institution to some degree.
Karl and Steve, I think you’re both right. The tone of the blog will have a big effect on its credibility. But there are certain things that can’t be discussed in a credible way on a museum-sponsored site.
This is not just dependent on how the blog is handled. It has as much to do with the perception of an agenda. If readers and commentors know a site is run by an institution, they’re always going to suspect that what they’re reading is only what’s been officially approved.
To tell the truth, the museum angle is less important to me than the idea of communication among the various “classes” in the art world. Even if artists are to meekly accept the dominance of dealers, collectors, and curators, they still have the problem that they don’t know what is expected of them. This is a lack of communication that should be remedied, and Lisa seems like she will help with this in one way or another. Despite the different interests of dealer, artists, etc., in some sense we are all in this together. If the artists don’t make good work, the art world sucks no matter what the pictures are worth. All groups have an interest in encouraging artists. Whatever their faults, I think artists deserve a bit more encouragement nowadays.
Even if artists are to meekly accept the dominance of dealers, collectors, and curators, they still have the problem that they don’t know what is expected of them. This is a lack of communication that should be remedied…
I agree. The stuff they teach you in grad school about how to put together a slide package and resume is all very nice, but not of much use in the real art world. Most galleries never look at work submitted by artists anyway. The books out there on the subject range from entertaining anecdotes about “how I made it” (The Business of Art), to advice about how to sell at the local art fair.
The inner workings of the art world are mostly kept pretty secret. It’s as though those on the “inside” don’t want to let everyone in on how things really work. If Lisa can get past the official story and reveal what an artist has to do to move up in that world, she’d be the first to do so.
One question I would like to have answered is, how is wealth created in the art world? I don’t mean, how does one become wealthy, so much as, how do pictures become a sort of currency?
Lisa I have no answers but I also have many questions…
Normally museums don’t sell artworks, they are just for display, right?
What really interest artists are how to get into a gallery that sells well or have their works recognized by being in a museum?
What is an artist number one interested? Profit or recognition?
What are the advantages and downgrades of exhibiting in a museum opposing to an art gallery?
Great question, Angela, I’ve long wondered about that also.
Even if artists are to meekly accept the dominance of dealers, collectors, and curators, they still have the problem that they don’t know what is expected of them. This is a lack of communication that should be remedied
What if artists don’t meekly accept the dominance of dealers et al.? What are their options?
Dear Lisa,
I have one comment: I just ordered your book from Amazon.
I’ll get back to this when I’ve read it. It is clear I have much to learn.
As I understand it, there are hierarchies within hierarchies in exhibiting venues. A group venue is perhaps bottom of the heap (although coffee shop exhibits might be a bit lower). A solo show in a local art center is a bit lower than a solo show at a local commercial gallery is less than a solo show at a university gallery. Within these venues, however, are the additional hierarchies of what I’ve heard called “venues of record” — the places that have high status within their particular categories. This is true in the so-called craft venues — I don’t know if it’s so within the general run of galleries and museums.
Then there’s gallery _representation_, local, regional, cross country, 1 gallery 5 galleries, etc.
Museums have their own hierarchies, although so far as I can tell, exhibiting within a museum, even with a group, is more high class than exhibiting with all but the most important galleries. However, you have to be in a real museum, not a self-designated one. “Real” museums apparently subscribe to a set of standards of storage and display, etc. I know of at least two quilt “museums” that are simply old houses turned into venues that get funded locally for their tourist attractiveness.
Moving from one set or kind of exhibiting to another (hopefully a slightly better one) is a pain in the patootie from my point of view. Very slow, very time consuming, very frustrating. Once established, though, it’s pretty smooth — until it’s time to move to the next level.
Now there may be artists and/or circumstances that propel one, like a sling-shot, from one level to the next — a good dealer, a good deal maker, a lucky break, being both beautiful and controversial and a maker of something different enough to cause gasps — but these are not what we plodding artists are likely to run into.
Lisa’s question: “Why do curators seem to favor young artists? And how can a mid- career artist break out? Is it too late?” resonates with me, although I suppose that Grandma Moses could act as a role model.
I’m never quite sure whether my ambitions are misplaced and silly, whether the struggle (particularly at my age) to get seen and known is stupid, or whether the game is worth whatever the end goal is. I do know that I keep piling up the art around the house and would like to move it out. That I do better art when I have an exhibit coming up that pushes me to finish stuff, that I _want_ to make it to the next level because by temperament I’m basically greedy (for life, perhaps not so much for money).
But it sometimes seems all too much. Which might be why I haven’t bought Lisa’s book –yet!
June,
I appreciate your description of the steps involved in trying to rise in the art world. There is something inescapably tragic in your comment, something that applies to all artists today, something which will not be fixed even if Lisa explains to us how to “make it.”
I do not subscribe to the notion of “art for the sake of art.” I believe art is for the sake of people, not abstract entities or imaginary “worlds.” As long as we are trying to make art for people we neither understand nor necessarily respect, we will never be making the best art we can. There is an essential disconnect between the artist and the viewer. The art world of galleries and museums as it stands today is an inadequate intermediary. This is not changed by the success of any given individual artist.
Thanks for all the thoughtful comments, everyone. They will really help when I go into the meeting to present my ideas.
It bothers me so much to see artists feeling “powerless” in the presence of dealers, curators, etc. Without artists, there wouldn’t be any dealers or curators!
Without artists, there wouldn’t be any dealers or curators!
But Lisa,
There is lots of art around for dealers to deal and curators to curate. I’m sure they could do quite well without artists making new things.
A related question is, what could the artist accomplish without the curator and dealer?
Karl,
I am somewhat (or a lot) outside the “making of the art for people we don’t necessarily understand or even respect.”
I absolutely agree that my ultimate desire is to communicate through my art — which means it has to be seen and therefore exhibited — I can’t say that I imagine, for example, either Lisa or Ed Winkleman looking at it. I do the work, then I think about who might be interested. The process begins internally and moves to the external once I’m satisfied with my product.
I don’t know how that fits with art for art’s sake — it’s something off to one side, I think — but it also doesn’t deal with people whom I don’t know or even necessarily respect. I’m missing a piece here, I suspect.
I’m missing a piece here, I suspect.
I agree, June, we are all missing a piece here. It’s hard to describe what we don’t know, but I think it is something like this: the art world is not something we believe in any more. We make art for ourselves, a valid but minimal purpose. We hope it is accepted into the art world where it might be seen or bought. But beyond making the work for ourselves, there is no idealism, no beauty in the process. The art god is dead and we are left with anomie — personal unrest, alienation, and uncertainty that comes from a lack of purpose or ideals.
I like the idea of a curators blog. But if you suggest it to them you might want to warn them of how it might turn out, in line with the Guardian arts blog…:
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1985049,00.html
But beyond making the work for ourselves, there is no idealism, no beauty in the process.
That’s quite a leap, Karl. Whom are you speaking for?