Disentangling the complexity of issues
within regional art can be a major headache. "Art is Everywhere,"
at the Woodmere Art Museum, is a grand example of the problem. This
show, organized by the magazine Art Matters as part of their 20th
anniversary, fittingly takes place at the Woodmere , which also
has long history of involvement with local art organizations, as
well as a reputation for great classes and work with children.
Although intentioned to promote the diversity of art made in and
around Philadelphia, this exhibition does nothing but underscore
the fact that many artists, galleries, art clubs, and associations
suffer from a great, vague delusion concerning the nature of contemporary
art. First off, this is 2001, not 1901. My second problem is with
the title. There is a lack of accuracy here that is profound. "Art
is Everywhere" suggests some good natured democratic notion
that art is available to all and easily read and digested. The show
attests to this. Although there is some ok painting and drawing
and the odd sculpture or two, most of this work is not art. This
distinction is important. Academic painting and amateur mimesis
are wrapped up with technique and insist on continuing traditions
which ceased having relevance some time ago. They cannot be viewed
under the same heading as serious modern art. By inflating the importance
of "everything" equally, any hope of distinguishing the
great from the good is lost. These cozy traditions don't even come
close to sharing an affinity with real art. Unfortunately, this
is news to some in the region. This appalling lack of cognizance
of contemporary art is bad enough when it's over the couch, but
when it is made public in a such a large way, it is an affront.
This is hijacking for a lesser purpose.
The mish-mash in this exhibition is a collection of pieces from
more than 60 institutions that have supported the magazine over
the years, each gallery or association choosing one artist to represent
them. If the result is a "snapshot" of the local arts
scene, then we are in real trouble in the Delaware valley. Not only
behind the times, this show elevates the amateur to professional
status. This is not only irresponsible, but dangerous. It confuses
the public further as to the nature of real art, and increases the
gap between these two separate entities. It is important to mention
this because the Woodmere is a venue with a substantial following
and considerable patronage. Perhaps the problem here is the lack
of a curatorial guiding hand.
The work runs the gamut from Andrew Wyeth, who has become the epitome
of the amateur painter, to some very student-like work, all lumped
together and framed for the living room. It's not that I'm opposed
to painting per se or realism itself, but this is representation
without purpose, backwardslooking hobby art, mere copying from "life"
without the slightest idea as to any deeper investigation. Contemporary
art should resonate with ideas. It is now a complex, rarified animal
-- no longer pretty scenes.
A show like this validates anything as art. Schlock parades as art,
and schlock, however benign, has the devastating effect of making
it impossible to distinguish between bad art, good art, or non-art.
It promotes visual illiteracy which lives in a conservative cul-de-sac
and deadens the imagination.
Questions: Why we do allow this in Philadelphia? How do amateur
artists like this get away with labeling themselves professionals?
How do galleries get away with selling this work as art? Is it a
case of the blind leading the blind? Does it have to do with the
anachronistic system of patronage in this city? Are the wrong people
running these organizations? Have they any clue at all? How the
hell can we reverse this?
Now, let's be fair toward this conservative tendency. There is a
time and place for the odd juried show, and museums appropriately
show all sorts of historical genre painting. When it's wrapped up
in curatorial, critical, and historical validation, this is fine.
The problem is when these organizations and their benefactors take
on the role of defining the contemporary scene, promoting what can
only be called retrograde. This unseen pact, once entered, has the
ill effects of lowering the bar and making it harder for real art
to surface. These organizations, instead of championing art, are
actively helping destroy its credibility from both ends.
If these organizations don't have the skills to make the distinctions
about art in the first place, they need to be challenged. We have
to draw the line somewhere. This is a shame because the Woodmere
really could be of use to real artists in this area (as could a
more sophisticated and discerning Art Matters) if they raised the
bar and became exclusive. It takes courage to say no.
As if to show up the "Art is Everywhere" work presented
below, the balcony show features the Ella May Fell collection, which
is on permanent loan to the Woodmere. This quiet exhibition includes
some pretty impressive names from the late 19th century (Vuillard,
Paul Nash, Vlaminck, Roualt) and early modernist era. Gosh, that's
when collectors were collectors! It goes completely unnoticed. There
is also an interesting selection of photographs on view by Severo
Antonelli, who left his whole collection to the museum. This clearly
indicates activity, but the potential is untapped and unfocused.
The Woodmere facility is a wonderful Victorian building in a prime
location in Chestnut Hill, and it's a shame that it aspires to a
suburban aesthetic. It has eight exhibition rooms, one being a huge
salon style extension circa 1912. Glancing at an old photo of an
exhibition from the turn of the last century, I felt that they are
missing something fundamental now. The artfulness and dynamics have
been sucked out of the room. My suggestions? Take out the horrible
wall-to-wall carpet and put back the palms, Persian rugs, and heaps
of decorative art. Pack it floor to ceiling. That way it'll look
damn near like a contemporary art show. Lose the stuffy benefactors
if you can, go further upmarket, become independent. Lose the children's
gallery (forgive me for this) and open a decent coffee bar. Make
the Woodmere Museum the great destination it could be. I have recently
discovered that there are plans for a major extension to the museum
by Venturi, Scott Brown Associates. As strange as this seems, it
may be the opportunity for the Woodmere to consolidate both its
vision and collections, and shake off the past. Hiring a first rate
curator with a real commitment to contemporary art would be a great
start.
If regional museums give up their function as bastions of high culture
then there will be no high culture left in the region. This double
bind has a level of complicity that is difficult to comprehend,
but by pandering to the patron, who funds the projects, and the
public (both of whom have apparently lost all taste), these organizations
write an epitaph for Philadelphia that would be better left forgotten.
© James Rosenthal
December 2001 |
