« Sign of the Times Part II or if you prefer - "Controlled Spin" | main.jpg | Sushi Red Ball »



Homing In at Quint

by Richard Gleaves





The current show at Quint is billed as an exhibition of San Diego's 50 top-tier contemporary artists, which immediately begs the usual question “1: Why X and not Y?”. Here there be dragons, so let's instead home in on "top-tier" and see how it holds up. Eleanor Antin, David Avalos, Robert Irwin, James Luna: they're not on the list, which effectively toasts “top-tier”. Nobody’s perfect — let’s hope they were invited.

Once past that, writing about a 50-artist group show is not unlike seeing one: disorienting, especially in where to start. The best way to make sense of it all is to frame the event not as an art show, but rather as a diverse (and crowded) ecosystem within which the players adopt various strategies to survive and thrive.

Start with institutional taxonomy: given artist as species, the genera are Quint, Seminal Projects, Scott White, R.B. Stevenson, UCSD, and the extinct Zapf. This family tree covers the vast majority of invitees (and is perhaps a good first-cut solution to equation 1 above).

[Side note: it’s good to see social progress ongoing in the age of post-multiculturalism, as the show discriminates neither on the basis of race, creed, or pulse. RIP Italo and Manny, may your art be ever restless. End of side note.]

On to survival: besides the usual snagging of real estate in the coveted front room, a number of ingenious adaptive strategies were on display:

  • Roman de Salvo and Michael James Armstrong secured unique and visually distinctive niches in an otherwise monotone ecosystem of wall-oriented work: Roman swinging from the rafters, Michael lodged in the entry to the back room, which scored him the architectural perks accruing from intelligent siting.
  • Perry Vasquez and Adam Belt sacrificed the opportunity to show new work (the conventional move for an art show) in favor of recycling signature images that have received maximal airtime in other venues real and media (a shrewd move in an event devoted to niche reinforcement and network extension).
  • Brian Dick took the characteristically hilarious direct approach (a kind of artworld diamond cutter sutra) of entering one of his headshot works — what better way to connect with the other five hundred people in the room than to show photos of yourself? Brilliant, except for the complicating factor that the room was so crowded no one could see the art.
  • Louis Hock deftly sidestepped his forty-nine close neighbors by deploying Farber’s third space to remake a world of his own. Infinite vistas of Monument Valley are disrupted by what first appear to be animated inverse Irwin filters, but then gradually evolve into carefully calibrated erasures of classic Hollywood westerns. I think I saw a scene from The Searchers. Only work in the show I got lost in.
  • Quint was not above a bit of adaptive strategizing itself, clearing out the parking lot for people room, and hiring a band to compensate for the compromised sightlines.

And finally, the art:

  • David Adey bravely took the risk of using a networking event to stretch his recent strong body of pincushion work from magazine beauties to a Shepard Fairey-ed Obama. In concept it should have worked, but the Fairey palette zapped the push in the push-pull.
  • Barry Bell needs to check out K.V. Tomney’s work, which achieves the same perceptual effect with breathtakingly superior material economy.
  • Tom Driscoll used protective coloration to branch off MCASD’s David Hammons innertube (Hammons being a worthy model for anybody).
  • I like Kim MacConnel’s recent work, but am starting to wonder if it works better in units of shows than in single works (but then I remember this is not an art show).
  • To the other masters in the room (who know who they are): your work honored itself and you.

See you all in 2033.

Comments

Hi Richard,

No, I wasn't invited....

Richard,

Based on your remarks about Adam Bell and me sacrificing "the opportunity to show new work in favor of recycling signature images" I thought I'd give you a behind the scenes peek at the shaping of the show from my POV.

After Quint Contemporary approached me about participating in this show there was an exchange of emails before we settled. I informed QC that the painting requested was explicitly not for sale but curator Ben Strauss-Malcolm decided to show it anyway, because in his words "it fit in with the collection." So I guess this is evidence "Homing In" wasn't all about the market after all (as some have suggested).

Perry,

Thanks for your perspective on this - one can never have enough when trying to figure out the world.

In this spirit, regarding your closing hypothesis I do need to note that "sales" and "marketing" are distinct components in a bigger whole.

Today Pincus checked in with his take, which — combined with mine, Sweetman's, and Freitas' — pretty much covers the elephant.

Thanks Richard. Insightful and entertaining as usual.

50 talented artists, but no there, there. No sense of place. No reason to Google "San Diego Art," let alone go see the show. No curatorial spin that puts San Diego art on the map. No aesthetic satisfaction beyond cultural cronyism & the emptiness that comes from mutual masturbation. Where is the explosive ejaculation of something coming to life? Why are the innumerable feet only to be found in the wine & cheese line & not on the battle line? Why is Mother Courage in the kitchen & not on the walls? Why is the San Diego art community a myth of its own creation, without an entry under "Art" or "Community"? Why do I need to say anything more?

Brilliant! "Ejaculations"...an opened ended visual snapshot of San Diego's seminal art scene. I would be quite prepared for that eventuality...imagine the PR campaign.

Post a comment