Crash Bam Slam
D Magazine Publisher Wick Allison suggests to his readers that the successes in local art are happening in spite of – not because of – the city’s galleries and the artists they represent. It is precisely because D Magazine’s foray into the local art scene has the potential to reach a new and moneyed audience that this attitude is counterproductive – if not divisive and dangerous.
I heard a commercial on the radio the other day given by the head of the Dallas Convention Center heralding the “Cultural Renaissance” taking place here. He said, among a smattering of other accolades, that Dallas was fast becoming the envy of many metropolises, what with its thriving economy and burgeoning biggest-arts-district in the world.
I found the ad quite ironic after having read Road Agent gallery owner Christina Rees’ brave piece in Glasstire in which she recounts the dire financial strain that many of Dallas’ top notch galleries are under. In addition to the economic downturn, Ms. Rees pinpointed a more abstract reason for galleries’ lag in sales: a lack of support from Dallas collectors. Despite the display of stewardship towards our new arts district, Dallas’ big spenders and collectors aren’t buying art here (well, not many of them). Ms. Rees argues that this lack of participation by Dallas collectors in the local arts scene has a trickle down effect: local collectors set the standards that other local art buyers might emulate, and confidence in a local scene creates a kind of peer pressure that sends other collectors off to galleries. Collectors showing up at openings, buying something or even just signing a guest book, Ms. Rees writes, helps boost the spirit of gallery owners and artists alike, but few are doing it. Ms. Rees’ point is that the success of Dallas’ galleries is contingent on the morale that’s fostered by the wealthy’s dedication to them.
So, all that to say, I was slightly aghast when I recently read D Magazine publisher Wick Allison’s, treatise on why D was launching Art Slam. In it he suggests that Dallas’ arts renaissance has been missing out on something: “[Fashion Industry Gallery owner] John [Sughrue] came across a small exhibit of local artists not represented by galleries,” Mr. Allison writes. “These people often work in obscurity, showing their work only at warehouse parties organized by friends and promoted by word of mouth.” Art Slam, he goes on to say, will reveal to the city the hidden artists of this city, those who do not “produce work to match the color scheme of your living room.”
Mr. Allison has a point here. There are a lot of great artists in this city, and some of these artists are not represented by galleries. But what is troublesome about the attitude implicit in Mr. Allison’s statement for Art Slam is that he suggests that the credentials artists achieve by being represented by galleries somehow discredits them as artists — that credentials, in fact, are a historically moot point. Any artist that’s stood the test of time was always an outsider, he suggests.
His stance as the counter cultural advocate comes as quite the shocker (after all this is the magazine that instantiated the party pic, the gold standard in social narcissistic voyeurism). But let’s give Mr. Allison the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he was trying to pull part of his readership away from the pursuit of swirly gold-framed Thomas Kincaid paintings and expose them to kinds of art they may find unsafe by certain standards. Maybe he was attempting to teach an art appreciation that, unless he suggested it, they might otherwise not be inclined to subscribe to.
But then Mr. Allison says: “we decided to hold our first-ever D Art Slam to showcase the largely unknown work of the best Dallas artists.” After spending a few hours at Art Slam this weekend, and despite coming in contact with a few talented, and many committed artists, it is not a stretch to say that none of the best artists in Dallas were there.
However, that is not what is most troubling about Mr. Allison’s editorial. Rather, it is the impression the piece gives that the successes in local art are happening in spite of – not because of – the city’s galleries and the artists they represent. He suggests to his readers that they need not look to these places to see what’s really good. “The lesson is to not pay attention to credentials. Pay attention to the art,” he says, and then promises to show his audience just what they’ve been waiting for, offering a new credential – the D Magazine stamp. It is precisely because D Magazine’s foray into the local art scene has the potential to reach a new and moneyed audience that this attitude is counterproductive, if not divisive and dangerous.
If Dallas is indeed experiencing a cultural renaissance, I tend to think it is in no small part because of those artists of my parents’ generation who live and work here, artists who are so talented they could have long ago shaken the Dallas’ dust off their feet. Artists like Linnea Glatt, Tom Orr, Frances Bagley, and Linda Ridgway; or my former professors Cam Schoepp and Juergen Strunck who helped scads of grateful students get credentialed — that is, made us better thinkers, better craftsmen, better inhabitants of civilization than we would otherwise be were it not for their instruction.
The galleries that show the work of these artists are some of the very well-springs of Dallas’ sudden cultural revival. Had these gallery-represented artists, and the younger artists in their footsteps, opted to seek credentials elsewhere, or opted to avoid the pursuit of becoming “established” for the sake of ideals, this city would have suffered for it. Most certainly it would not be playing witness to any cultural renaissance brouhaha. These are the artists that have caught the eye of the art collectors and press from outside of Dallas and have helped raise this city’s profile on the international level.
In her piece, Christina Rees’ jots down a quick list of notables who have visited her gallery since it opened in 2006. These included curators from the Whitney, MCA Chicago, and Venice Biennale; trustees from MOMA, the Tate Modern, and the Hirshhorn; as well as many prominent collectors and critics. These are some of the most credentialed art lovers, but those credentials don’t disqualify their understanding of good art. The suggestion of Mr. Allison’s that it might is not just ludicrous, it’s embarrassing.
What is missing from the guestbooks of Dallas’ galleries are the elite of our own city, the people needed to help support and finance a self-sustaining local scene. In other words: D Magazine’s audience.
Mr. Allison’s foray into local art is welcomed and long overdue. There certainly is room for the showcasing of lesser-known talent in the city. He maintains (in no small part due to those ubiquitous lists) an influence over the choices of his readers: where they eat, what they wear, how they entertain themselves. And with each new list or test of status, his magazine begins to shape a collective understanding of what’s best, and what didn’t make the cut. Because of this influence, the attitude of D Art Slam should be showcasing art in addition to – not in spite of – the local art scene. By implicitly pushing Dallas galleries to the side, Mr. Allison nurtures a perception in his audience that is already an obstacle to local artists. His rather romantic attempt to create a revolt of the social elite against the establishment does not support local art, it cracks a fissure in something that’s already too fragile.
Thank you so much, Lucia, for responding to Wick’s statements. I was struck by them as well, and almost commented at the D Magazine site but changed my mind, thinking I may need to cut back a little on the Mr. Grouchy stuff.
Perhaps I’ve just chalked up his “we decided to hold our first-ever D Art Slam” statement to what 20th Century philosopher Pee-Wee Herman might have tagged a truncated syllogism. I’ve inserted here in parens what I think is the missing premise:
“We decided to hold our first-ever D Art Slam (in order to fill an empty slot on the f.i.g. calendar and pay the rent by learning a trick from vanity publishers while appearing) to showcase the largely unknown work of the best Dallas artists.”
And I trust that any thinking person will not choose to misunderstand my jokey little dig as harsh criticism, either of the artists involved or of Wick’s enterprise, and forgive me if I’m actually being unfair. But his editorial seems to me yet another example of how some of the most influential voices in Dallas, particularly those who have stronger ties to business and real estate development than they do to art and culture, misunderstand the latter category and only know how to view it in terms of marketing and promoting Dallas.
Take for example his reference to the Prix de Rome. For one thing, if his assertion is timely and valid, I wonder why he had to go so long ago and far away as mid-nineteenth-century Italy for an example.
But more to my point, it argues against rather than for his position. He might be surprised to know that those he derisively referred to as the “darlings of the academy and the salons of Paris” are actually more analogous to his unrepresented artists, because both have been characterized as producing somewhat predictable and formulaic work; while his “scruffy no-account types” (present company excluded, of course) are much more comparable to the artists represented by our more exemplary and respected commercial galleries. They, like the Impressionists he named and in their time, generally challenge popular tastes more than win their approval.
D Art Slam’s intentions, at least those stated in Wick’s editorial, really are noble and admirable. But I would remind everyone that his “best Dallas artists” didn’t earn that estimation because they really are Dallas’ best artists, but because they were applicants who, once culled by the 5-person jury, chose to pay the $175 fee. In other words, if you didn’t submit, didn’t get jurored or didn’t pay, then you’re not one of Dallas’ best artists.
3 June 2009 at 2:01 pm