Hey loves,

Mad Rubber Rose Love
- Carly and Lea


I’m saddened by the news of their closing. I’ve attended (almost) all the gallery’s monthly Ray at Night openings, written a review or two about their shows, and at least on one occasion, purchased a work of art. This of course doesn’t make me special, not at all, because there are plenty of other Rubber Rose disciples that have also followed the gallery’s ascension into becoming one of the few great galleries in North Park. Yes, great.

The Rubber Rose up until now, with the exception of a couple rather forgettable shows, has been a consistent and very powerful visual force and voice in San Diego, and mortar to Ray Street’s shaky foundation. The gallery has exhibited some of the most diverse artists and works of art, which have pushed the boundaries and envelop of the art scene here. It was a much needed breath of fresh air and art. And now they will soon be gone. Why?

I don’t pretend to know all the reasons; I do know owning a business is difficult and a gallery, even more so. Robert Hughes, the former art critic for Time magazine, once predicted that we would end up with a two tiered economic driven art market, with galleries at the bottom and auction houses at the top. This would eventually leave no place for galleries like the Rubber Rose to exist. It would function something like this: young fashionable upstart galleries would “test drive” the hottest artists of the moment, and groom them to be picked-up by collectors and museums. These galleries or talent scouts if you will, would reap the benefits of a few sales, lose their artists to bigger NY and European spaces, but have the bragging rights for the discovery without any future returns on their investment.

The other tier of this over inflated and imaginary commercial venture would be dominated by the auction houses – Christie’s & Sotheby’s. They too would cherry-pick artists from galleries, but would take it one step further by organizing their own exhibits and museum shows, virtually guaranteeing an artist’s promotion and sales. There are two sides to every story of course, so depending on what side of the fence you found yourself on, it was either a lucrative reality or a dismal nightmare. If anything, it resembles today’s current art market. So what about everyone else?

Well, here in San Diego, in a much smaller microcosm, Rubber Rose could have become one of those galleries hand-picking the talent. Spacecraft Gallery is also located in North Park, and does this to a larger degree already, but even better, is Luis de Jesus Seminal Projects in Little Italy whose work already bridges a certain West coast/East coast aesthetic – ripe for cultivating. But that’s about it. Who succeeds, who fails, who gets to decide, difficult to say. I do know of one thing that insures the survival of a gallery, beyond the quality of work being shown, that’s clients who buy – not just collectors but buyers like you and me. It takes money honey; it takes money to put on a show, promote it, pay the rent & utilities, and the artist if something sells. These are the hard labor costs, the real price of doing business in the arts. The price of doing art business here in San Diego, specifically in North Park and on Ray St. is high, but the prices you’d find for some first rate artwork hanging on the walls at the Rubber Rose or along the street’s other galleries is very low and reasonable. This is a little known secret about San Diego’s art market, at least in this neighborhood.

So where is the problem? First, there is an abundance of good work and even great work being made in San Diego, the opposite is also true. A gluttony of very poor work being shown in maladapted or “mixed” commercial spaces – especially true of many of the businesses found on Ray St., which are required to participate in the monthly art events – leads to a certain level of quasi importance and professionalism. It’s difficult to determine, I believe, what art is for sale and what is simply background decoration. Secondly, there is a shortage of spaces designated as “galleries” that function as one. The fact that the Rubber Rose is closing decreases that number significantly. The opening and closing of galleries is nothing new, however, we’re not talking about one out of say 50 other galleries where such a closure would not have an impact on the community. North Park does not have that luxury.

Thirdly, the branding of Ray at Night has in recent years, been focused less on the art and more on the event. The initial draw to go see art, has been replaced by come and socialize with friends. This is all fine to a point, but has the adverse affect of regulating the art to the backroom. Art is now entertainment. I believe we often forget that an artist has spent time, money, and resources to put on a show, and other than friends & family, would like some feedback and potential sales from it. This is all perfectly normal and vitally necessary for their survival. Art making is a profession and not a hobby, it should be remunerated as such.

It’s easy to start pointing fingers at this point, perhaps we are all partly responsible for the closing of the Rubber Rose Gallery, but let’s try to learn from it and prevent it from happening again – we can at least try. I believe once again, it’s a question of numbers. Fewer galleries mean fewer venues and outlets for artists to show, which means little to no exposure for what does get shown and no possibility to see the entire overview of what is being created in the studio. Fewer artists showing due to a limited amount of galleries and a limited selection process based on likes & dislikes, doesn’t always mean the best work is being exposed. Fewer selections and choices leaves a range of artwork potentially less appealing to a discriminating public that may or may not have the wherewithal to purchase, or is purchasing for the first time. As fewer buyers who are unsure of what they are buying, or an artist’s or gallery’s reputation, or simply don’t see what they like, leads them to infrequently buy or at least, adopt a wait & see approach. Fewer sales=no rent money. Unless a gallery owner has deep pockets or a list of clients worth its weight in art sales, survival becomes increasingly difficult. You could take a Darwin-esque approach to small business and argue that the Payless shoe store on the corner of Ray St. isn’t catching any slack or sympathy for being open; it is after all, survival of the fittest and a good business plan that dictates success. True, but most everyone needs shoes, not everyone needs art.

Galleries need artists in order for them to exist and vice versa. It’s a simple fact. They don’t always have an exclusive symbiotic relationship because their wants and expectations are different. The one thing they do have in common is that they both require sales to continue their activities. I’m purposely being redundant and overtly didactic with this money issue to make a point: everyone should buy more art. At some point, something has to give – a gallery closes or your wallet opens. Those who do buy are of course, excluded from my diatribe. As I mentioned earlier, I’ve been to a few Ray at Night festivities and have witnessed the crowds who stroll in and out of each gallery, who are for the most part – young, well dressed, likely gainfully employed and university educated, and are having a good time. Their passing through Ray at Night is generally part of a larger plan of dining out, drinks and frivolity. It is a perfect match for an affluent crowd and reasonably priced artwork for sale.

So, if we want to avoid perpetuating a system of art marketing that only benefits a few at the exclusion of many, we need to overhaul the current structure so that it extends beyond the walls of the gallery and into the public domain. I’m not looking to mainstream, conform, or aspire to YouTube popularity, or for that matter, Democracy – at least when it comes to what gets shown. This would be extremely detrimental. I’m advocating stronger support for galleries and artists and sometimes it takes leaders to do this, meaning a larger infrastructure that comes directly from the individuals involved in its advancement. Galleries need the support of their local constituents and buyers and each other, and also the support and interest from their local museums. I believe museums should find the balance between archiving the history of art and setting trends, by putting the ascent on education (not just kids or art appreciation for the masses) but by emphasizing and showcasing local talent with yearly regional or biennial exhibits with the option to buy work.

A stronger gallery and artist’s scene also needs to be established here beyond the habitual expectations of Ray St. Give the public something more to come out for and tell them that they too, have a stake in the success of the art community here, encourage responsibility and ownership over vanity. If we can share this knowledge and experience with one another, reduce the feeling of isolation financially and visually, and create a supportive community, we will cease to be all an army of one and become an army of thousands and prevent huge mistakes like the Rubber Rose Gallery closing. It might be as simple as creating the desire.