Alright, so I was a bit of an ass in my last post for these guys. Its just that they were sooo punked by Christo.
Anyways, when I first entered the gallery/ foyer at the DAC, I was greeted by an arch composed of trophy heads. Like a triumphal arch, the black metal frame is adorned with actual trophy pieces. Behind it you find artist Hunter Cross’s scale model, sketches and architectural plans of his proposal for the Open Doors Expansion show at the Dallas Contemporary next year. This show, In Between, is an attempt to reveal the artists’ processes and preparatory studies for soliciting contemporary sculptural artwork. Another words, Open Doors is fundraising a la Christo and Jeanne-Claude. Cesar Alexander Villareal’s meandering, golden path and Terra Goolsby’s dangling, acrylic spheres both lead you to opposite ends of the gallery towards Jacob Villanueva’s design plans for false cellar doors and Cole Thompson’s large latex bubble. Each artist provides samples of their sketches and studies in order to present their intended creations.
The five artists work in diverse methodologies and it shows. Mr. Thompson provides a bowl of sample pieces of latex next to the large protruding blue bubble on the wall. According to his collection of notes, the bubbles are to automatically inflate and deflate so as to appear as colorful, breathing pustules. Ms. Goolsby presents samples of her material explorations with nail polish injected into acrylic products. She encases a couple of spheres in a large glass box reminiscent of a jewelry display case and installs an accurate model of what her drawing proposes. Mr. Villareal has placed a slithering, golden colored brick path that leads you to his corner of the gallery. There you find digitally manipulated photographs that suggest applying the same material to a variety of pathways. To the side you see a bird’s eye view of his path to be placed in the Contemporary. Mr. Villanueva displays five architectural drawings like a professional design agency would propose marketing collateral. This stylistic approach gives the viewer an accurate description without specific material details.
It is blatantly obvious that this group is embracing the developmental process made public by Christo and Jeanne-Claude. They are paying homage by screening two of their films and humbly promoting their current exhibition at the Austin Museum of Art. By piggybacking on Christo, In Between takes advantage of the similarities of the artists’ practices and uses it to educate the public of what hurdles await artists. You can’t just find a wealthy patron and build work on their property. You have to expose the artwork to the people and vice-versa. And that requires a patience and level of professionalism that is continually tested, put in place in order to safeguard the gatekeepers and their organizations. So what is an artist to do? These guys have taken the art to masses. As a way to prepare for the big show in the Big D, Open Doors is opening a discussion about their work in general and are soliciting support for their work specifically. It’s not a bad way of doing business, as long as you do right.
For the most part, these cats are the forefront of the Austin art buzz. They were second only to Construction Site to take advantage of the Second Street District construction going on downtown. They have achieved an exhibition opportunity with a reputable institution with only two previous shows under their belt. They know how to make art. They know how to organize and execute their gameplan. This show is good, but the sale of multiples seems to have been overlooked. In a city not known for its visual arts patronage, it probably would have been beneficial to include some series of affordably priced objects.
It was painful to find out that these off-the-wall artists can not draw. Sure they’re sculptors and their work is to be experienced in the round rather than gazed upon, but drawing is an essential skill. As a show about revealing process and image creation, there was a let-down. I had envisioned a pile of sketches, multiple deviants of the proposed installation, I wanted to sneek a peek into their brains. The possibility of seeing what might be in store from this group, beyond what they are working on for the Contemporary, that is what I wanted to see. I believe that the art should be able to sell themselves. Even as a fundraising tool, the artists should not have had to stand next to their presentation and sell the audience on what it is they are doing. I think there was an attempt to clean up their sketches, like the framing on Mr. Thompson’s sheets of notes and measurements. But the work in progress is exactly what they were supposed to show. This was a studio visit. I wanted to see more.
Even though they embraced their relationship to the Christo show, it feels like they underestimated the difference between the them. I should give them a great for their trailblazing effort, but I think NOT BAD would be more honest.
There’s still plenty of time to garner support. I’ll tell you ’bout what I sees.
Filed under: Art Reviews, DAC
Jaime,
I think some artists in the exhibition and their process are more apt for comparison to Christo than others. I am interested to hear more ’bout our differences that you see.
In the Islands documentary we showed for example, Christo refuses to use the term “poster” because he considers it too cheap and opts for using “photographic image” instead. He specifically avoids cheap multiples. So, I do not think he would have fundraised with the multiples idea you suggest, although I can understand how it makes sense for artists stuck in Austin’s cheap market. Terra, Cole and I avoided multiples showing original drawings instead, while Alex and Jacob showed digital prints.
Perhaps the issue is that Austin’s audiences want an original piece of work at a multiple’s price? Or perhaps in our marketing efforts we over-emphasized the fundraising element and ties to Christo? We had hopes that this would provide some funding for our Dallas projects, and like you and I discussed, we were searching for an artist’s business model to compete with the standardized object-collector relationship enjoyed by traditional artists.
So yes, we are focusing on the Dallas exhibition, making work that fits more in line with traditional formats, and allying ourselves with an exhibition by our predecessor Christo. All true. But, in the end I think our goal was less fundraising and more thought-raising. This is one area where our collective’s process differs from Christo, whose projects could be described as more dominant because they seek little public input, only public acceptance and government approval. We hoped to illicit some feedback about the ideas before finalizing.
Also, let’s not look past the discussions and planning that the 4 installations at the DAC involved and the new opportunities these opened for future artists in the space. To me, this institutional work is one of the most important goals of the exhibition. Let me share the “in between”…
First, the white walls. It was our stipulation that we would not conduct our exhibit unless the walls were converted from the drab carpet to the now pristine white cube style walls. With Arturo Palacios’ initiative we were able to get this done giving new life to the Butridge gallery.
Alex’s path was initially denied because of handicap access concerns, so the edges had to be appropriately ramped. But now, there is a process in place for artists at the DAC to work with the floor. Sure, not a concern at a UT Gallery, but like many things truly public, it took discussion and time. The wall blocking daylight for the appropriate display of Jacob Villanueva’s lightboxes had to be fought for. Otherwise their light would have been completely drowned out. The theatre director wanted it moved, but we didn’t budge. Instead, after two days of discussion and posturing we moved and rewired security cameras. The DAC’s walls are now free for artists to position wherever.
Cole’s work was specially designed to fit diagonally inside the small doorways of the DAC. It fit through with about an inch to spare. This is the largest work to ever be brought into the space. My trophy-covered arch was approved until the night before the opening, when the theatre director again came down against the exhibition claiming fire regulations. He wanted it moved. I needed it in between the front doors and the theatre doors to confront the space’s theatre-going audience. Again, we fought, ultimately I raised the work up an additional 12 inches.
I think this illustrates that the real obstacle for installation art is not the funding, but the limitations and prejudices of a space, issues that neither traditional painting/drawing/sculpture nor installation in less-conservative contemporary art spaces has to endure. We need to remember that the DAC is a public space moreso than it is a contemporary art space. But, this can always change, and these challenges must be undertaken so that the work itself seems effortless. Our triumph over these hurdles and our faith in the possibility of this exhibition liken us more to Christo than our somewhat comparable fundraising tactics.
The truly relevant work forever changes what/how art is exhibited and permanently attaches itself to the memory of a particular place.
So, does “not bad” mean we couldn’t even show up Scion? oh well.
Thanks for writing about the exhibition and keep up the good coverage…
much love,
hunter
[...] “These guys have taken the art to masses. As a way to prepare for the big show in the Big D, Open Doors is opening a discussion about their work in general and are soliciting support for their work specifically. It’s not a bad way of doing business, as long as you do right….As a show about revealing process and image creation, there was a let-down. I had envisioned a pile of sketches, multiple deviants of the proposed installation, I wanted to sneek a peek into their brains. The possibility of seeing what might be in store from this group, beyond what they are working on for the Contemporary, that is what I wanted to see….NOT BAD.” Jaime Castillo, ‘Bout What I Sees Read the rest… [...]
Finally, a comment! Thanks for using this forum instead of emailing me directly. Now instead of me just talking to the wall, its become a discussion.
First off, I don’t think your marketing overemphasized your fundraising intentions. I believe it was my understanding of our discussions and the manner in which I was relating your exhibit with Christo’s. My perceptions and my worries.
I do stand by my longing for more work though. Multiples or not, I wanted to get a better sense of what you are thinking without having you personally describe the possibilities and various influences.
Yes, Austin is a cheap market. One of my solutions for that is to retain quality talent. I’m working on a new “Soapbox” posting on that matter.
Secondly, your efforts at the DAC were invisible to the audience. And except for possibly the five people that may stumble accross this, will continue to remain invisible. Since I was fortunate to have had discussions with you, I knew what it was you were doing and I tried to communicate that. But at the same time I wanted to record, on these pages, what it was that I saw and my honest reactions to it. I was pretending to be a random guest to the gallery. What would that person have experienced?
I wholeheartedly believe what you and the collective are doing is right. And I dreamily wanted to support you financially (while greedily getting something in return). But there are those elements that you could have strenghtened.
And last, my rating system. I am not entirely convinced that it is as accurate as I would like it to be. I definitely enjoyed your show better than the Scion, but I am unable to remain user friendly without designing a complex set of regulations for me to use. My gut feeling has the most authority on my ratings. I know it doesn’t seem fair that even though In Between was a more scholarly effort it still ranked with the publicity stunt that was Scion.
Just today I wanted to go back and demote the Fraleigh show because I looked at my rating system criteria and decided that it should go down. But I committed that rating to it and I feel that I must uphold it on principle. My first reaction is always honest. I can sometimes persuade myself otherwise with enough yakkety-yak, but then I’ll have this uneasy feeling that I was either too nice or too mean.
Take heart in knowing In Between was a hair width away from GOOD