Buster Simpson, as seen on Facebook.
Over on FACEBOOK, I got into an argument with Jen Graves, a local art critic, about the work of Buster Simpson. I know that Mr. Simpson is successful in the “art world.” That does not change my opinion or answer my question. Rather it evokes references of “”The Emperor’s New Clothes.”
OF COURSE, this my be my fault. De gustibus nom esse disputandum!” However, if I do not like shlocky oil paintings or slick Mad Ave design, why should I be influenced by professional art taste makers of any kind?
I am not utterly naive as an artist or art watcher. I own a Rauschenberg. I recognize the methods used by Rauschenberg in this print but what I see is a hodge podge that anyone with Photoshop and a camera might make.
I realize that denigration is tiring. So I will stop dissing Buster Simpson. Instead I want to dump on another .. more serious art issue. That issue is the poor choices of art made to adorn the new waterfront. .
James Corner, the architect who was paid $4,000,000 to design the waterfront, has as little knowledge of our art history as I do of the food from his native land, England.
Corner’s image of our taste likely reflects encounters with Seattle’s Art Established. I can see the SAE’s taste in the amounts of third rate art that SAM buys (or gives a tax deduction for) and then loads up on in its front hall and entry gallery.
In a city and region with our own impressive traditions .. from Mungo Martin and Bill Holm to Callahan, Tobey and Lawrence, to Horiuchi and Kurasawa to current workers in glass and ceramics AND to innovation derived from all this earlier art, WHY does SAMland look so dull?
Lets take your questions in order-
First- why “poor” choices are made-
obviously, this is subjective- one mans ugly is another mans dream bride.
But in the realm of public art, we have a couple of structural problems.
A- Public Art is funded by the government. So it has to please everyone, or, at least, offend a minimum number of people. It is usually selected by committee, another factor that tends to round off any sharp edges.
We have a committee that usually includes the architect, whose main goal is to keep anybody from obscuring his genius, a couple of mid level bureaucrats who want to avoid controversy at all costs, and the random flower lover or citizen who thinks every artwork in Seattle should include salmon and trees.
We have a process that does not choose from every artist in the world- no, it is an “open call” which means artists have to apply.
Rauschenberg never applied to stuff like this, nor do many successful artists, who are selling work in galleries. These application processes are time consuming, pedantic, and annoying.
Every one seems to have a different format, often times you need to have paperwork notarized, write self agrandizing narratives, and compile images in a unique size, shape, and delivery system.
So we have the luck of the draw of who applies.
Post Recession, it can often be 200 to 400 artists, but thats still a very small pool to draw from, and to pick good artists who are also good businessmen.
Unlike most public tenders for concrete work or new bridges, these are fixed budget, no change orders allowed, no inflation allowances, open ended time wise- no reasonable contractor would ever bid on one of these jobs- it could easily run 4 years longer than expected, feature complete redesigns 2 years in, and require all kinds of unexpected and unannounced changes.
Nobody makes any money making public art.
95% of all creative work is crap.
This ratio applies to artists as well.
Many times a good student, who can fill out forms, read instructions, and not cause trouble, is picked over a creative loose cannon who happens to be a genius.
Its business, as administered by government- in other words, the worst possible combination for quality.
I would encourage you to volunteer to be on a jury sometime- with 4 Culture (King County) or the City of Seattle, or other local agencies.
Its a real eyeopener.
My only consolation is- add up all the money spent on public art I, personally dont like, and it doesnt approach ONE nuclear aircraft carrier or F35 fighter, and we pay for those all the time…
Please forgive my lack of editing- obviously, its been a while since I wrote a term paper…
Given my well know typos I am in position to criticize.
Well sure … but. (The always present but)
I am equally pessimistic about pubically fnded museums. SAM uses taxes from the middle clas to subsidize the questionable taste of Seattles often gauche and newly wealthy. Dare I mention the hanging carsor the dreary EMP?
As for the F35 .. I think it is lot better Art than most anything in the sculpture garden. Hell, I wouod pay taxes for a collection of great art made for non art purposes. Yeh I would serve on thayt jury. Lets start by rebuilding the Winona!
It seems to me that there is a death of clever approaches … maybe the great deity form the machina, Internet, can help.