Belgium was a tough place for a lot of artists and galleries, to work and exhibit. There were of course, a select few who did manage to carve out an exsitence and make a valuable contribution to the art scene. However, unlike the gallery system here in the U.S., a majority of the galleries in Belgium and in Europe in general receive funding (in part) from local, State and governmental agencies. The tendancy is to create an ASBL that allows its owner - I refrain from using dealer in its most purest commercial sense, as it is hard to apply this label to the individual or group of individuals, artists, entrepreneurs, critics or thrill seeker, looking to exhibit. To put it another way, there was a profound belief in the flexibility and freedom allowed in the choices in who and what to exhibit, when you didn't have to worry too much about next month's rent. Risks could be taken without risking the shirt off your back. The goal wasn't wasn't necessairly to 'make money' though you could 'sell' as much as you wanted, you just couldn't enrich yourself personally - any profits made beyond your monthly expenses, saleries etc. were used for the gallery's continued operations. Some asbl's started as galleries and eventually created their own foundation that evolved into full fledged museums. Atelier 340 Muzeum is a prime example of individual and governmental funding, drawing from both the French and Dutch institutions for support, that has become an important cultural landmark in Brussels. Local community and town cultural centers, offering a wide range of music, theater, dance etc. are still quite popular within the diverse cultural landscape.

Having lived in Brussels for several years, I started to understand the complex social and political climate that reigns there and the "duality" of everything - it's like having a twin brother and sister living under the same roof. The city of Brussels was linguistically, politically and culturally "divided" with representatives in both houses, so to speak, that governed life in Belgium. Roughly, the geographics were anything NE of Brussels was Dutch and anything SW was French, the capitol itself was approximately half & half as well. As you probably know, Belgium is not a very large country. If I had to guess, it would probably be the size of North or South Carolina. This didn't always make for an abundance of choice or opportunities, and culturally speaking, it made the availability of certain gallery, museum, curatorial and directorships extremely limited and extremely politicized. Not to mention a healthy dose of competition between Dutch and French institutions, its artists and their critics. For every MCA in say french Charleroi, there was its equivalent MCA in dutch Antwerp, each vying for the public's attention.

The upside to this heady competition was that there was always something new being exhibited in galleries and museums, and the quality and interest was relatively high. The downside was that once a position was coveted, it was rarely given up and became in action and vision, a certain personal demagoguery of taste, influence and power. As in the majority of artistic circles, if you weren't in, you were out. This is where the gallery invitation came into play.

The invitation was not a criticism per se of the art being made in Belgium, but a response to the methods and tools being used to promote it and in some cases, to sell it. The fact that I used real names on the invitation, sampled from other gallery invitations and museum shows, lent only a certain credibility to the invitation that many people responded positively to overlooking the obvious "red herrings" in its presentation. It was a "best of" invitation, a collage of ideas and art work brought together under one institution that didn't exist, and only existed in the imagination of the invited guest. By distancing in effect through the use of "recognized" institutions and/or individuals, buzzwords if you will, the image of what it was representing and in reality what was being shown - the supposed art work, it was clear that the emphasis was on the packaging - the "look" and not the art. At this point, at least for me, it was more about hear say and gossip than any actual interest in the artists work or for that matter, the quality of what was being shown. The political jockeying and the power of decision and choosing being done amongst its gallery and museum directors and their disciples, was often at the expense and choice of the art and artist. If we all lived in a perfect world, things would be different I know, but it is less about playing fair and who deserves to be shown or not; but how easily corrupted one can become given a not so altruistic personal vision and the supposed freedom to exercise it in. Art can become at times, a rather large security blanket covering a myriad of ills and good fortune.