The “New Contemporaries” is a group exhibit of 17 local and emerging San Diego artists in which 3 out of the 17 will be chosen to exhibit their works alongside 3 career or established artists. The established artists of course get to choose who they want to exhibit with. The whole notion of established, mid-career or emerging artist status seems rather archaic to me these days. A definite hold-over from the late 80’s and huge retrospective shows that major museums were handing out to these established artists like lollipops. And in the case of this show, their status doesn’t appear to benefit anyone since there hasn’t been any mentorship or internship per se. The selection of the 17 seems to be one of style over cohesiveness and I can only suppose that the jury of the three established artists will be one of similarities and likeness – viewing by the work they themselves are producing.

Why the match-ups? A little background information might be helpful. It is part of the preliminary selection process for candidates vying for the San Diego Art Prize which is intended to award the “defining trends of the San Diego art scene” upon them. The San Diego Art Prize is presented in conjunction with the San Diego Visual Arts Network, SanDiegoArtist.com, L Street Art Gallery of the Omni Hotel and organized by Art Girls Inc. – director Ann Berchtold. The 2006-2007 SD Art Prize recipients were – established artist first, emerging artist second: Ernest Silva & May-Ling Martinez, Jean Lowe & Iana Quesnell and Raul Guerrero & Yvonne Venegas. This year’s 2007-2008 recipients – established artists only at the time of this writing: Marcos Ramirez (Erre), Eleanor Antin and Roman De Salvo.

Now group shows can be wildly successful or wildly disappointing depending of course on the curator’s theme and/or goal, supporting documentation, the works selected and how well all this blends together. It’s certainly not a requisite for a good show but it seems to me that in the past, curators had the luxury and “embarras de choix” of work that was already firmly directed and deeply rooted in its convictions and message. It was often the curator who looked to the artist as inspiration for an exhibition. Today it feels very much the opposite. I see most curated shows with the curator having the “idea” and the artists who must adapt their work to the theme – often producing just variations on their current body of work by adding just a pinch of this or that required element or style for entry. For the gallery visitor who gets around, especially so in such a small art community as San Diego has, it is quite similar to finding a hair in your soup. Fine if you don’t see it, terrible if you do. Just because you can show in repeated venues or multiple theme shows doesn’t mean you have to.

Which brings us back to the San Diego Art Prize nominating committee who gave Doug Simay of Simayspace Gallery, a list of 17 (pre-selected) artists to choose work from and to present them all together in one show. 17 artists in a relatively small but nice gallery space is no mean feat and Simay appears to pull it off with ease and room for all. What isn’t clear is if this is an accurate picture of what is being made here in San Diego and if it is the most appropriate and contemporary work the artist can/could make. I have my doubts. Now one could certainly argue that this is to be expected given a prescribed selection and the effort to represent each artist fairly and in her best light. But do we need to be fair? One could also anticipate a smorgasbord panorama of works in varying degrees of quality and importance, but is it enough? Is this the best San Diego has to offer within its ranks of emerging artists? Its New Contemporaries? Why do I have the impression that a whole range of “other” emerging artists here in San Diego were never considered or even invited to participate? Honestly, I won’t believe that this is the best work that’s being made, and if it is, a majority of it is lacking the depth and range to support a thriving evolving art community. If we’re trying to define trends it is at the expense of the art being made.

A trend implies a certain temporality, a blip on the radar screen, a display, a “mise en scene” of a particular fashion (movement) and does nothing to define the direction, substance or content of said trend nor does it pretend to guarantee any longevity. This is because, and it is more and more apparent here in San Diego, the reasons for organizing any exhibition either in galleries, private spaces or to some extent at the MCA are for maximum exposure, low risk/investment and social networking. Where is the art in all of this? On the walls of course but it is merely a backdrop for a larger not so complex interaction of artists and people interested in the process and mechanics of art making or art viewing.

The art hanging on the walls is little challenged by its artists and public or critically questioned upon and suffers but a cursory glance. Once you’ve taken the focus off the art, the artist (and it just might be human nature) feels no need to challenge him or herself nor does he feel the pressure of others who might be mining similar or converse ideas that might be better than his own. Without a critical eye and dialogue amongst peers – which may come from many different sources - coupled with a weak selection process (no reflection or criteria for judging beyond that it is simply “art”), it can stifle the desire to compete intellectually amongst all the actors in that arena equally with the paint brush or with words. To simply be the best at what you do is no longer a necessity given there is no difference between each work of art – which ultimately leads to beige mush. Within these loosely defined parameters, the level of consciousness of each artist in her determination as to what is or is not finished meaning ready to be shown can vary greatly. There needs to be a minimum of objective criticism and judgment, benchmarks I suggest sardonically, which enables the individual artist and viewer to gage a certain level of commitment, intent, quality and goals achieved. Art for art’s sake can no longer live as the sole and unique sign of integrity and universal truths in a time of great social and political changes without the passion and drive of the artist who must bring back that focus back onto the artwork she makes and the public who views it. The artwork is self-evident and rarely hides itself from scrutiny.

If San Diego can achieve a certain amount of insightful self-criticism and reasoning, a certain standard of reflection as to where we stand as artists here but in the art world as well – what makes us unique compared to others for example – if San Diego can do this, find that unity and vision as contemporary artists in a very real world, then we have the chance of making some of the best art possible.

Kevin Freitas

The second half of this essay will review the following artists works participating in “New Contemporaries” :

Alida Cervantes , Allison Wiese, Andy Howell , Ben Lavender , Brad Streeper , Brian Dick , Camilo Ontiveros , Lael Corbin , Christopher N. Ferreria, Jason Sherry , Matt Devine , Pamela Jaeger , Nina Karavasiles , Tania Candiani , Nina Waisman , Shannon Spanhake , Tristan Shone