|
This fall, the Galleries at Moore presented a cross section of
25 young artists' work in the exhibition Greater Philadelphia.
Loosely based on the Greater New York show at PS1, this
was part of the ongoing "selection" series, where guest
curators choose from the artist slide registry at Moore. This
is in keeping with the Levy Gallery's mission to validate local
talent. The actual work, chosen by curator Jeremiah Misfeldt,
came from a pool of artists chosen by eight area curators and
reflects those tastes.
Although this was a diverse group of artists,
it was interesting to notice the precision of curatorial preferences
and omissions. An attraction to conceptual work was clear and
this was both the strength and weakness of the show. A tidy pattern
of choice was displayed, and never did it lose itself with any
well-placed, ill-fitting pieces to counter the tone or add contradiction
-- with the exception of Ben Woodward's window piece, which worked
typically but not as an overall illustration for the show. The
work of Daniel Heyman, though compelling, also seemed out of step.
This may be an example of too much curatorial
control, especially in a show designed to showcase new artists.
The more conventional work lost out in the comparison to or by
association with the overall sameness in the show. Ironically,
this sameness was partially a result of the even and high quality
of the work, as in Mark Shetabi's tank image. You can't go wrong
with a tank.
Aaron Levy's photo and text piece stood
out and made an interesting statement that could have supplied
the shows inadvertent manifesto, in his declaration that standards
for art have slipped. It's not clear if this statement related
to culture generally or to the sloppy application of theoretical
ideas displayed in shallow art at a high level. (He might have
added a polite qualifier, "present company excepted.")
Levy's text may have referred to the paralleling of culture (simultaneously
dumbed down and media-sophisticated) and art generally, or may
have been simply attacking commercialism. Is commercialism the
main reason for the degrading quality? Or does he mean art miming
commercialism, which is slightly different? Art emulates all aspects
of culture and spectacle, and the bond between art and money is
as strong as ever regardless of one thinks of that equation. Furthermore,
is the desire for intellectual rigor the same thing as making
good art, i.e., does intellectual art have to be concept based?
And besides, intellectual rigor exists outside art. In any case,
this particular dialectic seems central to emerging artists in
Philadelphia as emphasized by the work in the show.
-James Rosenthal, November 2002
|
