ART BAR
ART BAR
Hi there:
I understand there was a discussion about the Art Bar this morning… I want to give you my 2 cents….for what its worth… please accept my stream of thought with out edit. Also, please keep in mind I am not suggesting you solve this but as you are assistant curator, I want to share this.
Art Bar is successful on many levels and has potential as a revenue generating installation. It is indeed drawing people in to dialogue about the gallery and its exhibitions, and yes I believe we can frame the installation as art/design/idea because of its conceptual framework….location. The artist and crew have certainly created an installation to be reckoned with. They’ve transformed the space and have turned people’s perceptions of art on their ears. ….However it’s performative / technical aspects have some flaws which I’m sure you are aware of. There are many unresolved components…for me they are as follows:
- Technical problems with regard to live video / audio playback component make it a bar and just a bar. The experience is lost without the ongoing video documentary component… I hope jesse resolves it because last night we ended up just playing music and yes I emphasize that it was a bar without any art aspect.
- ventilation is poor and air circulation make it an uncomfortable experience after a short while. But, the building temperature in general needs help.
- Art Bar could require educators to be on site for interpretive support. In my opinion, bartenders who have to explain the concept to customers/viewers break the wall of performance as server when interrupted by discussion about what we’re doing. It’s a stage and the bartenders shouldn’t have to explain… perhaps didactic panels on the exterior could also help the viewer.
- sound quality is terrible making it not the greatest experience.
On a positive end note…we are breaking some new ground by bringing people in for this type of experience and we provide a very hospitable and quality venue for our guests… everyone is happy and it is very provocative….
Thanks for letting me rant.
vg
posted by Unknown @ 12:19 p.m.
19 Comments:
Thanks vg – I really appreciate your thoughts, esp. the point about the 4th wall and the bartenders – that’s quite interesting, to think of it as theatre: as a performance.
Jesse Sherburne's work reminded me of Canadian artist Vera Frankel's "The Transit Bar," which is about lost art. In an interview about Transit Bar, Frankel stated: "The work oscillates between worlds. Is it a bar? A work of art? True or invented? When I listen to the fifteen interwoven narratives of displacement on the video monitors dispersed about the bar, am I hearing fiction? Drinking art? Are these the faces of actors or just people telling their stories? Are the stories true? And if they are, do they belong to these people? The questions keep coming. I found my niche in life as bartender. I loved it, especially when no one knew that I was the artist."
The "Art Bar" creates an "opening." It meets the visitor half way. It is an intermediary space in which the visitor, or "patron", can contemplate how the physical space of a gallery and the social interactions that take place in that space contribute to the overall experience of seeing works of art.
I'm glad to see the AGA bring in new audiences... even if it takes alcohol to attract them!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
A few suggested corrections to the preamble for this page:
Calling those with a negative assessment "nay-sayers" is a bit like calling them "kill-joys", or "party-poopers". To avoid these implications of bias, the phrase "nay-sayers" should be changed to the less pejorative and prejudicial 'critics'.
Also, it would be more accurate to note such critics insist "it fails as an artwork", or "it doesn't work as art", as opposed to your current simplistic and imprecise formulation, "it's not art". One needn't deny something status as art to deny it value as such. This should be obvious.
Also, it would be nice, if possible, to ascribe to the ARTBAR "fans" a somewhat less juvenile assessment than "cool place to relax, it’s a readymade, and it breaks down entrenched social codes." Regardless of whether this actually represents the positive viewpoint of ARTBAR, it makes such "fans" look like ignorami. Such characterizations, while arguably intended to be positive, are embarrassingly sophomoric, and hardly amount to a serious defense of the work's artistic merit.
Mind you, pompous pontification over questions of such 'merit' isn't likely to make anyone look intelligent, either.
I'm glad to see the AGA bring in new audiences... even if it takes alcohol to attract them!
Indeed. Perhaps the gallery should sell hamburgers as well... people like hamburgers. Ooh, and cigarettes! They're addictive, so that'd be sure to increase attendance figures!
Well said, EAG!
We can trace the downfall of the galleries credibility back to the "tattoo" show from years back.. the gallery gave up its commitment to visual art a long time ago, and now embarrasingly, slavishly, follow the international fashions as dictated to them by the glossy artmags they so desperately wish to appear in.
I won't even get started on that pseudo-brit-pop Jesse kid... man, that's just too easy a target for mockery.
"The country's arts culture, if it is to be about ideas and values rather than celebrity and consumption, needs independent, honest criticism that passionately asserts standards of excellence and tackles significant issues."
I couldn't agree more... thanks for this forum!
Dear Anonymous,
Thanks for the suggestions, but I will beg to differ. As I understand it, you are put off by the ‘low-minded’, populist voice I deployed to set the scene. I suppose it’s true that high, canonical, even (especially) avant-garde art is conventionally framed by rarified language and discursive idioms. Personally, I believe that there is often a very good case to be made for articulating complex and difficult ideas in complex and difficult language - but not this time. To me, the ART BAR suggests an other way of experiencing and processing art. No more raised pinkies, and ten-gallon words, so familiar in the white cube (and so deeply intimidating and off-putting to a vast majority of people). Here distinctions between wall, ceiling and floor become blurred – a sign of blurred boundaries on many fronts: the most obvious ones for me being: art and life, high brow and celebrity culture, objets d’art and industrial design, etc. The language used in the preamble was quite deliberate and, I would claim, more precise than any formalizing translation would have rendered. In fact I heard many more reactions that actually denied the work’s status as art, than criticized it for being bad art. I believe my categories are widely understood and appropriate. Not one “nay-sayer” has complained (unless you count yourself in that camp), and fans (my camp), as you know, are so clouded in their zeal that they don’t notice.
Wow, looks like anonymous touched a nerve...
"As I understand it, you are put off by the ‘low-minded’, populist voice I deployed to set the scene."
Wha? Didn't you read the comment? She's objecting to the (obvious) bias expressed by the loaded word 'nay-sayers' in place of the neutral, widely-accepted-in-the-arts term 'critics'. Is it really difficult for you to understand that as a self-proclaimed "fan", you might not be in the best position to correctly characterize your opposition's argument? Come on, man! "Complex and difficult language"? Who's asking for that? "Raised pinkies"? Man, what's next, you're gonna call her a fag? You weren't kidding about being 'low-minded', were you? Shameless!
In all seriousness, I agree with critic Bill Marx, that art should be about "ideas and values, rather than celebrity and consumption"
"The language used in the preamble was quite deliberate and, I would claim, more precise..." Sure, you can claim anything, but backing up that claim is what counts. So, please explain, for example, why "nay-sayer" is a more approprate word than "critics", exactly? Who gets to say what words are 'rarified', and which ones aren't... you?
"In fact I heard many more reactions that actually denied the work’s status as art, than criticized it for being bad art." Ok, so both these critical viewpoints clearly view the work as unsuccessful as art... so this is a trivial quibble.
"... fans (my camp), as you know, are so clouded in their zeal that they don’t notice."
You said it, I didn't.
if this is a blog, why is there only one post? what kinda lame-ass site is this? GET WITH IT!
he he he... according to 'miller's' profile, he doesn't "really read books"... geez, who hired this dude anyway? he doesn't have a leg to stand on... he must hold himself up with his PINKIES!
You guys is hilarious.
I think Marcus was trying to start an argument. It seems to have worked.
In any case, "critics" is just as loaded as "nay sayers," if somewhat more formal. It has a different set of connotations, but they are still present. But if you allow your arguments about the art itself to be waylaid by the semantics of another speaker, you only prove that he has a better grasp of rhetoric than you, and nothing about the work.
Oh yeah: I quite like the Art Bar. It clearly makes people look at the gallery a bit differently, as evidenced by the crowd who show up. Art should be more fun. That is something that seems to be missing from many of the shows at our gallery, at least (BODY has that benefit going for it too, to a certain extent).
Since when did having a more accesible art piece in the gallery make it irrelevant. Jesse Sherburne has succeeded in getting the response he wanted to start off with. He asks the question 'is it art?' Anything that ilicits this kind of pompous elitist kind of criticism must be art or you wouldn't be wasting your time. And what purpose does it serve to judge the Artbar based solely on your personal feelings about the artists fashion sense. To be a functional working artist and manage to garner this kind of interest not to mention pull this off in the limited time available shows some balls.
Are we going to have to go back to the 'is industrial design art?' question again? I believe that the role of observer and participant is equally important in this piece and I do agree with VG in that the use of video and audio playback (if it's up and functioning now I'm not sure) tells a better story of how we function in social situations within this space. The strange beings we become when alcohol is involved is more of the story.
Jesse has created a space that puts us under the microscope. If you want to talk about the culture of celebrity there is no better example then some of the silly posturing and fashion forward antics of those few lustily posing for the video camera on opening night.
I feel a little bit of a 'sour grape' vibe going on here.
"Also, it would be more accurate to note such critics insist "it fails as an artwork", or "it doesn't work as art", as opposed to your current simplistic and imprecise formulation, "it's not art". One needn't deny something status as art to deny it value as such. This should be obvious."
It might be more obvious if it were true. I give tours of the gallery and upon asking a patron and her daughter if they would like a tour I was very rudely answered with "a tour of what there isn't any art in this gallery." As a young artist I question whether "is this art?" is even a valid question perhaps we should be less concerned about what is and isn't art and more concerned about what's thought provoking and interesting to us as humans. I could understand this reaction 30 years ago but in a society where technology, design, and "high art" combine in many facets of our livesand popular culture it is hard to beleive that so many people have difficulty accepting this as artwork. The only reason that i could see for not accepting this as art (whether you beleive it is good art or bad art is a completely other issue) is to maintain the classist ideas that has made art unappealing to the masses for so long.
anyway that's my rant and i'm sticking to it
and just remember it's easier to blur boundaries when you're drunk ; )
Hi! I'm the first "Anonymous" commenter. I thought I'd reply to a few of the comments made since then.
Bill, too bad you're not working in Edmonton instead of Boston. Of course, I don't blame you. The visual art scene is Boston is at a whole different level than here. This stuff is like amateur night... like others have implied, it is embarrassing when you compare it with the great work shown in the world class galleries of the world. What can you say: this is Edmonton.
Anonymuse, thank you for the spirited defense. You seem to understand exactly what I am talking about (although you mis-guessed my gender).
threedeeglasses writes, "I think Marcus was trying to start an argument. It seems to have worked."
According to Marcus, he "set up a blog in the hopes of capturing some of the dialogue and providing a forum." Naturally, some of that dialogue will take the form of an argument, in favor of one viewpoint or another. But, regardless of who started the argument, in any debate it is which argument is more convincing that matters.
Also, it seems like you are misunderstanding the point about "critics" versus "nay-sayers", which I think is an important one, that has nothing to do with 'formality'. One is a negative term, and one is a neutral term. So, as a 'discussion facilitator', do you pick the word with bias, or the word without? Of course, as a 'fan', Marcus is arguing for the work, and others are arguing against, naturally he would prefer to paint all 'critics' as 'nay-sayers' (if he wanted to be MORE obvious, he could call us 'fudy-duddies', or some other coloured term). That's fine, just as long as nobody is under the impression that Marcus, or his language, is striving for neutrality or fairness of viewpoints in this debate. Make sense?
3DGlasses, have you ever been to any other art galleries and museums in other parts of the world? If so, which ones do you think were the most 'fun', and why? Can art be something more than just 'fun'? I'd be curious to read what you think.
Kiki D writes "Since when did having a more accesible art piece in the gallery make it irrelevant"?
Who said it did, kiki? Nobody here.
Jesse Sherburne has succeeded in getting the response he wanted to start off with. If, for the sake of argument, we say this is true, so what? Is that the only measure of success, or even a relevant one, for that matter? I don't think you've thought this through.
He asks the question 'is it art?' Anything that ilicits this kind of pompous elitist kind of criticism must be art or you wouldn't be wasting your time.
Of course it's "Art". He made a bar in an art gallery and, along with the gallery, and its assistant curator of course, have promoted it as an 'art installation'. That would lead the rational person to conclude that they are not asking the question, but answering it: clearly, THEY think it is art, or they wouldn't be showing it as if it was. Many of the other staff at the gallery, on the other hand, don't think it is (or, don't think it's very good, which amounts to the same thing). Many other, average 'art viewers' have a similar reaction. You fail to show why this very common, perhaps majority response to the work is "pompous" or "elitist".
As for "wasting my time", it's my time to do with as I please, thank you very much.
And what purpose does it serve to judge the Artbar based solely on your personal feelings about the artists fashion sense.
None at all. I didn't do that. Surely, many people who have seen the installation and come out disappointed have never met the artist. I certainly haven't. Commenter Nipper's remark about Jesse being "pseudo-brit-pop" was a pretty lighthearted aside to an otherwise serious observation that had to do with the real problems with the gallery. It seems to me, the point is that Jesse, whatever his 'fashion sense', and this particular exhibition itself, are just symptoms of a larger problem at the AGA.
Are we going to have to go back to the 'is industrial design art?' question again? That's funny. You were just praising Jesse in your preceeding paragraph for 'asking' that very question.
The strange beings we become when alcohol is involved is more of the story.
It is a shame though, that interaction to such an 'exhibition' is practically 'off-limits' to minors and other non-drinkers (not to mention the possibly upsetting effect on recovering alcoholics, perhaps looking for a form of entertainment NOT sponsored, endorsing, or related to alcohol). I think an argument could certainly be made that the gallery is neglecting its responsibilities to those sections of the population. To put in the simplest terms, they shouldn't be in the business of promoting alcohol use in the place (and guise) of 'art'.
Mind you, that's not the argument I'm making, but it certainly could be made.
In my earlier comment, I wrote "One needn't deny something status as art to deny it value as such. This should be obvious."
The last anonymous commenter (no relation) thinks:
It might be more obvious if it were true.
I really don't know what to say to that. It should be obvious because it DOES happen to be true. Re-read that line, brother anonymous, and think a little harder.
I give tours of the gallery and upon asking a patron and her daughter if they would like a tour I was very rudely answered with "a tour of what there isn't any art in this gallery."
Good for them! I hope there was more to this visitor's alleged "rudeness" than simply her suggestion that there wasn't much worth looking at in the AGA. Most of the time, it too happens to be true.
As a tour guide, you really should be more open to other critical points of view. This viewer's response to the work is at least as important as your own, and at least as valid.
In conclusion, let me see if I can clear up some of this lingering confusion about the threadbare, 100 year old "Is It Art?" question which, no matter how many times it is asked and answered, keeps getting reheated, recycled, ad nauseum, ad infinitum...
"Art" is a word that has a variety of related meanings and connotations. It can mean "anything displayed in an art gallery", OR, it can mean "something with great, lasting, human value". Sometimes, when we talk about art, we mean the first thing; sometimes we mean the second; sometimes we mean both.
So, when people go into a gallery and say, "This isn't art!", they are not insisting that it isn't "anything displayed in an art gallery", but rather that it isn't "something with great, lasting, human value".
"Literature" is a similar word. It can refer to basically "anything written", like reading the literature about a new time-share condo, or it can mean "written work with lasting human value". Therefore, when someone suggests that a book they're reading isn't "literature", they don't mean that's it's not written, just that it's not written well.
So, yes, if anything in a gallery displayed as art is "art", then what the average viewer MUST mean, when he insists that ARTBAR isn't "art", is that it does not succeed in doing that extra thing that art is expected to do, besides simply reside in a gallery; namely, to express, contain, manifest, "something with great, lasting, human value.
Anyone who says that ARTBAR is "art" in this second, deeper meaning, is most likely selling something. Maybe it's just the price of admission. Well, folks, I ain't buying.
There are plenty of bars in town.
"I give tours of the gallery and upon asking a patron and her daughter if they would like a tour I was very rudely answered with "a tour of what there isn't any art in this gallery."
Good for them! I hope there was more to this visitor's alleged "rudeness" than simply her suggestion that there wasn't much worth looking at in the AGA. Most of the time, it too happens to be true."
I'm up for critical debate but that's hard to do when someone yells at me and storms off. I would have liked to have seen what this woman had to say and what caused such a harsh reaction for her. In some ways it's good to see that people have strong reactions to artwork but when that reaction closes dialogue it becomes a problem.
Holy cr@p, anonymous, you are an incorrigable snob. I would not argue that either literature or art need to be defined as "something with great, lasting, human value"--what narrow boundaries you place on them. Art and literature are also defined by culture, time, and place. "Great and lasting human value" is as subjective a statement as "poodles are the best dogs in the world". Would you have all art be judged by a single denominator, whether or not each work fits a pre-defined mold or aligns with a certain set of cultural mores?
I also have to say, the way you argue, I have a sneaking suspicion that you are a troll.
Anonymous12:02, wouldn't every visitor to a one-post blog be a troll? Or are you just trying call "ad hominem" on Anonymous 5:13?
"Great human value" means, assuming I understand anonymous5:13 correctly, that [at least one] human values [it] greatly; while "great, lasting, human value" means that humans have valued [it] for a very long time.
Like any human in any culture, time or place, the things I greatly value hold great appeal for me. I value a good tavern, for example; and artbar, relative to other bars I've had drinks in, is rather unappealing. And it doesn't hold a candle to other artworks I've stood near with drink in hand, in fact come to think of it, I've placed my drinks on better artworks.
To appreciate artbar must I deliberately forget all the best experiences I've ever had at a bar or looking at art or looking at art in a bar? Are subjective statements a thing to be avoided? Each memory of a good bar or a great bit of art was formed under the influence of a particular "culture, time, and place", how much more subjective can it get?
By calling it "artbar" the artist set the mold and pre-defined the narrow boundaries by which I should judge the experience of the installation. Just as it is legitimately a bar, where drinks can be drunk, so also is it art, which can be looked at; my judgment is that it fails as both.
Would you have all art be judged by a single denominator...?
"He who truly thinks for himself is like a monarch, in that he recognizes no one above him. His judgments, like the decisions of a monarch, arise directly from his own absolute power. He no more accepts authorities than a monarch does orders, and he acknowledges the validity of nothing he has not himself confirmed."
- Arthur Schopenhauer
well, I guess this is all about collapsing categories. sort of like model-slash-actor, jesse is a designer/artist. if you can hang artwork in a bar, why not install a bar inside a gallery? I mean - who is it hurting? Why stop at installing a bar? I think there should be a newstand too, and maybe a small grocery store cause theres nothing downtown.
Seriously though, I do hope this conversation can loop round to what appears to be an appalling absence of something in a lot of artwork that is being produced AT THIS VERY SECOND. For instance, just today I read about a woman who is going to be decorating the "grey, industrial" exterior of a gallery with cake frosting, used for its "similarity to plaster". There was a picture, and sure enough, it looked sort of like a decorated cake. I ask the question - why. Why do these people make art? What is their motive? I don't get it. There's better entertainment out there - and smarter ideas too. These artists with their really mediocre, unimaginative and not very smart ideas bore the crap out of me - it must bore them senseless to make the stuff.
Just goes to show - there aren't too many genius people walking about, which is not an issue unless they decide to be artists and then I feel somewhat implicated as specatator, or tax payer - and I really start resenting their not-very-smart and more to the point, irrelevent --ideas. Sad but true. I'm all for art as an elitist enterprise because in my mind I hope that means -- no dumbos. But that's just the kind of romantic I am. When art starts to be evaluated -- as art -- on the basis of its (I'm quoting someone here, and I mean -- here, on this blog) "revenue generating potential" - that isnt' art, that's business. And while art is a business -- sorry to say, business is not art and no poit trying to make it so by putting it in a Gallery. Last I looked, that's what a bar was in the business of doing - business, I mean.
Post a Comment
<< Home