Thursday scatter: church blues, high spirits, NW Biennial
So, what does a possible breakup of the Episcopal Church in the United States have to do with the price of tickets in Portland? Nothing, maybe. Then again, maybe something, after all.
At first blush this morning’s news in the New York Times that a small group of conservative bishops has declared itself divorced from the American branch of the church (though not from global Anglicanism) doesn’t seem to have much to do with the world of art. The dispute seems to be mostly over American Episcopalians’ welcoming of gay and lesbian parishioners, and conservatives’ continuing disgruntlement over the ordination five years ago of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire. The temptation is to scratch your head over how, in a supposedly sophisticated spiritual communion in the year 2008, homosexuality can still be a bitterly divisive issue, to declare that 20 years from now the children of the breakaway churchmen and churchwomen will be similarly scratching their heads trying to figure out what in the world their parents were thinking, and move on. Their church, their problem: Every great social movement has its backwater of protest.
But. If this really goes through, almost inevitably there will be lawsuits over which faction owns church property when a local church breaks away from the larger group. And because churches enjoy tax-exempt status, the possibility of spillover to the nonprofit world isn’t out of the question. When this fight hits the courts the question of why churches aren’t taxed will be raised in a lot of quarters. And although we all complain about the lack of public support for the arts, the fact remains that our local and national governments do provide nonprofit arts groups (which in a city like Portland means just about all of them) with the very big financial advantage that nonprofit status entails — a public underwriting, in the fine print of the ledger books, of the arts and other community-based endeavors. Don’t expect, in our current atmosphere of bailouts, defaults, rising unemployment and scary recession, that this form of public spending won’t be challenged, too. Especially amid the rising libertarian movement, which looks suspiciously on any and all hands it thinks might be dipping into its pocket.
With the recession already coming down heavily on arts groups – for instance, Oregon Ballet Theatre has dropped live music from the majority of this month’s performances of The Nutcracker, a major step backward for a company that’s been making a name for itself nationally — an added hit in the tax and underwriting pocket could be devastating. And don’t think it can’t happen. A few years ago a judge on the Oregon Coast decided that the tax breaks to a small community theater in Lincoln City weren’t legal. If he’d prevailed (he didn’t) the entire structure of arts support in Oregon would have been jeopardized. So, onward, cultural soldiers. Don’t take anything for granted. Keep in touch with those city council members and state legislators. And keep making your case.
***********************************************
On a bubblier note, a friend points out that Prohibition ended 75 years ago Friday — on Dec. 5, 1933 — and we’ll drink to that. The 18th Amendment, which ironically put a lot of the roar into the Roaring Twenties, had gone into effect on June 16, 1920, and had the effect mainly of manufacturing a lot of criminals out of previously law-abiding folks. It also led to a thriving moonshine industry, the possible naming of the great Li’l Abner character Moonbeam McSwine (and the comic strip’s house tipple, Kickapoo Joy Juice), and those eventual twin pillars of American pop culture, the movie and song versions of Thunder Road.
So, celebrate — quietly, moderately, enjoyably — tomorrow night. We’re putting a bottle of Saint-Hillaire 2004 Blanquette de Limoux brut in the Art Scatter refrigerator right now.
******************************************************
It’s no secret that the old Oregon Biennial was about as high on Bruce Guenther’s list of priorities as his shoelaces: Asked once what he’d like to do with the Biennial, the Portland Art Museum’s chief curator grinned and said, “Kill it off.”
Eventually, he did.
But if the state of Oregon doesn’t have a broad-overview showcase of the visual arts any more, or even the more narrowly focused showcase that the Biennial became before it quivered and died, the Pacific Northwest does. Today the Tacoma Art Museum announced the featured artists for its ninth annual Northwest Biennial, and followers of the Portland art scene will recognize a lot of the talent.
Michael Brophy (that’s his highway scene above), Linda Hutchins, Victor Maldonado, Stephanie Robison and Susan Seubert all made the cut of 24 (from 543 entries), as did Tannaz Farsi and Chang-Ae Song of Eugene. All of the others are from Washington state, mostly Seattle: Rick Araluce, Gala Bent, Jack Daws, Eric Elliott, Sarah Hood, Denzil Hurley, Robert Jones, Michael Kenna, Doug Keyes, Isaac Layman, Zhi Lin, Micki Lippe, Margie Livingston, Deborah Moore, Susan Robb, Ross Sawyers, Scott Trimble. No one from Idaho or Montana was chosen.
The picks were made by Tacoma museum curator Rock Hushka and Alison de Lima Greene, contemporary curator for the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston. You can zip up the freeway and see the show between Jan. 31 and May 25.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
[...] Go here to read the rest: Art Scatter » Thursday scatter: church blues, high spirits, NW … [...]
December 5th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Museums are most effective when they act in a very considered manner… not as abbreviated tour guides of scattered ideas and preapproved names. For example; Wild Beauty, the CNAA’s and the Apex series by being more focused and exhaustive give us something meatier to consider, rather than the inevitable name check emphasis from a more potpourri biennial where the goal for the artists is just “getting in” instead of really showing the artist’s true range.
It is true that biennials are convenient for the press and those who don’t see every major art show (which is a better barometer but can’t be expected either).
The main problem with biennials at major institutions is they almost always fail as shows, because it’s a token grab at relevance to an art scene. Besides museums aren’t supposed to take the “throw a bunch of art at the wall and see what sticks” approach… which is what a biennial with 30+ artists can’t help but do.
BTW Tacoma’s last NW biennial was an overstuffed namechecking disaster and had virtually no influence on the region. Will the latest one have a similar effect? Is their offering just a way to remind Seattle and Portland that Tacoma has a nice art space? I hope this one is good but the format doesn’t instill much confidence.
What I liked most about the CNAA’s was the way each artist was allowed to fully clear their throats and succeed or fail on their terms (both of which are helpful to an artist and the development of their audience/patrons).
It all depends on the institution too, younger institutions use biennials to grow and focus themselves. For instance, I planted the idea of the Portland Art Center taking on a biennial because it is more productive for a young institution and a goad for them to grow up (something which sadly never occurred).
December 5th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Thanks, Jeff. Excellent perspective. I’m not saying I disagree with Bruce Guenther, by the way. I understand his point of view. I think he felt (although I don’t want to put words in his mouth) the museum had outgrown the Biennial. Certainly with the explosion of the gallery scene in the past few years anyone who wants to keep up with what’s going on regionally has ample opportunity.
If there IS a reason for a museum to continue to do an old-fashioned, scattergun regional showcase, it’s to get casual viewers in the door, where you can hope to turn them into less casual viewers. General museums have a tough role — to provide art that interests a general audience, but at the same time to lead the audience rather than playing down to it. How you handle that push-pull is never easy.
I think a defensible point of view for a general regional museum in terms of regional art is to exhibit liberally but buy conservatively. Over the years the Portland museum has seemed on the whole aloof from regional artists, as if nothing local measured up to its high standards. A more regular practice of devoting small but serious shows to regional artists of merit, historical and contemporary, I think would do much more to tie the museum in to its community than a Biennial would. APEX, of course, is a step in that direction.
Still, the old-fashioned big umbrella show has some allure. I agree with you, it may be something better handled by a smaller, younger institution. But it also has to be an institution with enough resources to actually do the job: It takes more than a shoestring.
December 6th, 2008 at 10:33 am
An Oregon Biennial by itself is not enough. For many years, PAM had the biennial and that was it for the art of the region. So, it became “important” to Oregon artists and to the public, too, I think, at least the “general” public that Bob is talking about. In those years, the idea that there was enough activity here to fill the museum’s walls came as something of a revelation, especially since it was often interesting. But then (as now) that’s no substitute for careful curating of the regional scene. Tacoma, whether you like the biennial format or not, does attempt to make “statements” or “judgments” about the art here. And in that context, their biennial makes sense to me as a broader description of the state of things now.
December 6th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
It’s a good conversation to have and I enjoyed being on Think Out Loud with Jennifer and Dan Attoe last August… the discussion sparked some interesting debates.
PAM has been acquiring regional/national stars with much greater frequency in the past 2 years. Ferriso’s presence has definitely given the curators more latitude to build the collection with.
Another important thing about the Oregon Biennial… many already established artists began to avoid it. It simply wasn’t seen as very important in their eyes. Many artists simply stopped applying and concentrated more on their international careers.
Also, the previous Tacoma Biennial did not make a statement and was massively criticized for it. I found the strong criticism of it refreshing though, expectations have risen.
December 8th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
You’re absolutely right about established players ignoring the biennial. And when that happens, unless the curator goes out and begs them for something, the possibility of a comprehensive overview is down the drain, anyway. The one thing you do get is a lot of young hopefuls (or artists who aren’t from the Portland metro area), and maybe the discovery of a few good people who haven’t hit the spotlight yet. But there may well be better ways to draw those people out.