Plog: Links, Articles, & Editorial by Perry Garvin

On Curatorial Laziness

“Second Stage” is a music show from National Public Radio with a mission that differs from its manifold peers: it only plays musicians not signed to record labels. Producer Robin Hilton scours CDs sent from musicians all around the country and podcasts a few selected tracks each day. It’s a rare opportunity to listen to “great unknowns.”

Imagine the same thing happening in New York contemporary art museums. What if the Whitney, MoMA, P.S.1, or SculptureCenter did something similar to Second Stage and put on shows by living artists not already represented by a gallery. Not only would it be surprising, it would be shocking.

Chances are very high that all of the artists you see included in exhibitions of “emerging art” have professional gallery representation. There are exceptions, of course. But they pale in comparison to the dominant trend of showing artists with preexisting gallery affiliation.

So why is this?

I am not so cynical as to think that this is motivated out of any payola conspiracy. I won’t take the stance that curators are succumbing to payoffs of some form (although the temptation is certainly there) because I believe that most are honestly seeking to present the art that they like to the public in the hope of informing cultural narratives. And while I acknowledge that there are more galleries than ever before, there are also more unrepresented artists than ever before.

What I believe what accounts for the gallery-ization of emerging art programs at contemporary art museums are three things far more banal and, therefore, insidious: convenience, ease, and safety.

A gallery provides “one stop shopping” for a curator, complete with a roster of artists, a range of works for easy perusal, complete background information on the artists, and a whole staff dedicated to easing the bureaucratic burden of assembling a show. Galleries also mitigate risk, assembling collectors and reviews that make potential criticism easier to bear.

CONVENIENCE

It’s hard to find good art. With so much art out there and so little time, you as a curator will need to see as much as you can in the little time that you’ve got. So why beat the streets and the hassle of traveling from studio to studio on the off chance of seeing something great when you can simply go to the galleries and see so much more work in a far more comfortable context. No awkward talks with artists whom you’re not sure you’re into. No annoying follow-up conversations or calls. Just efficient examination. Get your list. Then do the visits. The tradeoff? You are ceding all the important work of discovering totally fresh, new artists to the gallerist who’s already done the scouting. And you’re doing artists without a gallery a disservice by forcing them through the arbitrary filter of representation. Just because they don’t have marketing muscle doesn’t mean they don’t have talent.

EASE

Putting together a show is hard. You’ve selected your pieces but now you’ve got to get them. And insure them. And then get images of the works. And captions. And credits. And then they have to be shipped. And then installed. And then shipped back. Curating is 20% brainwork and 80% grunt work. If you’re lucky you’ve got a curatorial assistant to do the heavy lifting. Regardless, it’s good for someone to help you out. And that’s, again, where the gallery comes in. Getting an artist into a museum is a big deal. It will increase the visibility of the artist and the gallery and can make a major impact on the gallery’s bottom line. Because it’s in their best interest, (most) galleries will be extraordinarily helpful in making your exhibiting of their artists as easy as possible by providing much of this aforementioned content. When you consider having to do this yourself or interfacing with a possibly disorganized artist more skilled in being creative than in being efficient, there’s another major incentive to go through the gallery system.

SAFETY

Criticism is hard. You’ve worked for months on your show and you unveil your choice to the critical eye of the press, the public, and your peers. If you get a good review – brilliant. No problem. But if you get a bad review, then what? Well, you can always play the “this-artist-is-ahead-of-his/her-time-and-the-avant-garde-is-always-offensive” card, but generally people want to be liked. The possible criticism of showing an artist with representation is a lot easier to bear knowing that somebody else also thinks this artist is good. Enter the gallery. The gallerist believes the artist is good. The artist’s collectors believe the artist is good. And since the gallery almost always has past good reviews of the artist, there’s proof that other critics also believe the artist is good. Simply put, a gallery makes it so that a curator doesn’t have to go out on a limb. Or if they are going out on a limb, it’s a much thicker branch – strengthened by a built-in group of admirers supplied by the gallery.

With the obvious benefits that galleries offer, it’s hard for a curator to go anywhere else. But just because it’s harder doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.

Convenience, ease, and safety breed laziness and curatorial laziness is rife right now among contemporary curators. The cost of this is not just to the artists omitted but also to the reputations of the curators themselves. At best they appear as cowards without strength of vision or an eye to the truly new. At the worst they sacrifice their integrity to the lure of market acclaim.