Tolbert on the Torpedo Factory
I asked for input on the issue facing the Torpedo Factory and I continue to receive good constructive comments and suggestions and opinions.
Norfolk artist Susan Tolbert has the following to contribute:
I have been following the discussion about the Torpedo FactoryWhat do you readers and TF artists think?
and Kevin Mellema’s observations seem right on the money.
Though I have never been to the Torpedo Factory, I did have a studio for several years in Norfolk’s original D’Art Center, which claims to be modeled after the Torpedo Factory, and am familiar with the problems. So here's my two cents.
Professional artists have degrees and resumes and after browsing their website, the work of the Torpedo Factory artists sure looked to me like that of “Professional Amateurs” -- artists interested in producing work that would sell to the tourists.
In fact, the work at the Torpedo Factory was remarkably similar to that of Norfolk’s D’Art Center.
I think it would be safe to say that most of the artists showing in the Target Gallery have degrees and resumes while the Torpedo artists, like those at the D’Art Center, have taken a class here and there but have avoided any real intellectual discipline and rigorous criticism.
Kevin hit the nail on the head when he by described the studios as little commercial stores. And that’s a problem, as stores are not studios. The word studio implies that there is creative work in progress — ideas are being played with, risks are being taken, things are in a constant state of flux.
If the city is subsidizing the Torpedo Factory, it would seem that the best artists should have subsidized studio space rather than the merely mediocre. After my experience with the D’Art Center, I don’t think you can have a small shakeup and achieve any real change. It’s not a matter of getting in a few younger artists—will they just be younger Professional Amateurs — degreeless wonders. The same boring work would be produced by younger versions of the artists that are there now.
Norfolk’s D’Art Center did give studio spaces to younger artists with degrees and most left in about 16 months, though the ones without art degrees did seem to last longer.
Having the artists re-jury for studio space every two years on a point system would change the dynamics of the spaces dramatically. The best studios would go to the artists with the highest number of points, with major points being awarded for BFA and MFAs.
Artists would be required to have their work selected in a state or national juried exhibit at least once every two years.
Will this idea be popular with the artists at the Torpedo Factory? My prediction would be hell no, and I hope I’m far enough away so they can’t find me for even suggesting this. But then change is never easy.
Best,
Susan Tolbert
Norfolk VA
9 comments:
Hi Lenny,
I agree that the Torpedeo Factory should be shaken up some. I think that the TF should have a 2 year and you are out rule - no exceptions. The TF is really an incubator of talent not a masuleum of talent. Just like a business incubator in the commercial world, there is a length of time that you can stay, then it is time to go out on your own and sink or swim.
I would strongly disagree with Susan on her statement though: "The best studios would go to the artists with the highest number of points, with major points being awarded for BFA and MFAs". The TF system should be apportioned so that BFA's and MFA's are represented fairly along with others. Some of the most unapproachable and ugly work has been done under the guise of "art" by MFA's.
The fact is that the TF is a tourist destination. Major dollars are generated for Alexandria by the TF being a tourist destination. Tourists and other casual visitors are easily turned off by copious amounts of weird, unfamilar art. This turn-off will not help keep the doors of the TF open.
Turning the TF into a center of "exploratory" or "cutting-edge" art that widely appeals to a small clique of artists and art critics would defeat the purpose of the TF. Then, the end result would be a center where potential clients hurry through to leave. Thereby defeating the purpose of being an art center that appeals to a wide swath of people in the metro area.
Trying to entice the public with closed doors (Star Trek Effect) will pale compared to a bastion of unapproachable art with irate artists that think "the public does not get my work". Contrast the current condition of the TF as "small artist shops" to a potential future of a totally quiet building - think monastary - of artists flinging their flaccid mediums at the walls and each other arguing over art minutiae (sp).
There is a happy medium, just not favoring one group over another. There needs to be a mix of talent, college degrees, and also remeber that the TF has to appeal to people that are unsure of their artistic likes and dislikes (these people are called potential clients). These people scare easily and can also complain to the landlord that the center is not being true to its purpose.
Is that the endgame? I don't think so.
Have a great day and a wonderfu week Lenny. Welcome back to the big city.
Carl
Carl Wright
330 Winchester Avenue
Martinsburg, WV 25401
www.wsggallery.com
The overemphasis in this post on whether an artist has "degrees" is truly weird. It's of course true that most serious, professional artists these days have MFAs. But an MFA is certainly not a sine qua non for top-notch professional work of the first order. There are lots of terrible, non-serious artists who have MFAs, just as there are still quite a lot of important, serious artists without MFAs--including artists with international profiles.
That's why the relevant metric has to be some kind of juried or nominations-based process, just as it is for programs like Skowhegan, Whitney ISP, or Sharpe, residencies like McDowell or Headlands, art prizes (including our local Sondheim prize), grants, and survey/biennial exhibitions. In all of these processes, the focus is on the work and nothing but the work--regardless of academic degrees.
Well, I strongly disagree with the position that a formal degree in arts automatically makes for a superior artist. However, I do think it is mandatory to take classes in all mediums and continue to take classes and study your particular medium and exhibit as much as possible.
A real artist will have that love and passion for a particular medium regardless of the degree (and you will not be able to hold these people back from pursuing opportunities to advance their art). But for some of us who have multiple degrees (non art) and discover art at a point when we cannot get "another formal degree", the wonderful classes in this area fill that void.
Now, I recently had an acquaintance tell me how great a photographer she was and that her work was as good as "in any gallery." But this person has never taken a class (had no interest in doing so)and does not even know basic photography terms let alone anything about art. And her work was poor by anyone's standards.
But this is not the average torpedo factory artist who has a lenthy resume whether via informal or formal means.
Sometime the most obvious solution to a perceived problem is the best. Add a few studios for very short term residencies, perhaps a cafe and maybe weekly talks on art topics.
CAC
Please ask Susan Tolbert to look at my resume on my website: www.huddy.com. I am a TF artist (of 28 years) and certainly do not consider myself she calls a professional amateur. I don't have an MFA. How come, then, the State Dept. sent me to Paraguay as "An American Artist Abroad" where I taught at the University and the school of architecture in Asuncion, the students from the Catholic University in Missiones and in Ciudad del Estes. I've been granted three residencies, two at US National Parks and one in the City of Dinan, France. I have a painting going to Japan in the spring as part of an exchange program with artists from the Watercolor USA Honor Society. Could it be that they just recognized talent rather than a piece of paper?
I have been in some of the same exhibits as Ms. Tolbert yet I have no MFA....interesting. And I know that my work sold before hers at a certain invitational. Hard work and talent gets one into certain exhibits, not the degree. I guess my recent art grant is a fluke also ;)
Miss Anonymous
The TF certainly needs changing. There are artists there who are producing the exact same work they created 15 years ago. That is unacceptable. There are a few artists there who are doing really nice work, but they are the minority by far (I can think of exactly 4). Old Town in general is laughable as an arts destination. The only notable gallery there IMO is the Target Gallery.
If the TF became a serious studio organization, they would not become a building filled with "weird art" but a historic building filled with serious artists doing interesting things. It would attract more visitors, serious art visitors who spend money on food and stylish things (think art fair crowd). If the tourists want the easy stuff, there are galleries on King Street for them. Let's encourage the TF to bring some real initiative and vision to it's studios.
Personally I would love to have a studio in such a great building in such a beautiful location but I don't want to associated with its mediocrity.
What is the primary role of the TF?
According to the website, it seems to be a venue with the primary purpose of tourist attraction, and if it does attract the 500,000 annual visitors noted by the website, isn't it successfully fulfilling its vision?
It seems like a lot of the commenters have a different idea about how the TF should function: space for artists to sell their work, location for cutting edge-contemporary work (whatever that is), educational institution? Or is the issue at stake here that the TF needs to have more visitors?
What is the role of the TF? Who decides this, and is it time for TF's focus to change?
P.S. I do not think that designating whether TF artists should or should not have a particular degree will solve anything.
What twaddle. A degree has no relevance to the quality of an artist's work. The relevance is in the pursuit and perseverance in exploring your medium/s.
Education does count, however, it does not necessarily mean you need a degree - studying with other artists, taking classes and workshops, retreats all add to an artist's knowledge and experience. It is your experience over time, your reaching out to new ideas and mediums, your constant search and exploration of these ideas and mediums that make you an artist. To ask the obvious - Picasso, Michelangelo, Raphael - degrees -no. Experience and training yes. I once had an instructor point out that it is 95% sweat equity and 5% talent. The sweat equity is, of course, the practice, practice, practice that any dedicated and professional artist does to grow as an artist.
"Mozart composed his first symphony at eleven. Did you ever hear of anyone painting Rembrandt's "Night Watch" at eleven? Or carving Michelangelo's "Moses" at eleven? Good painting starts late. With adults. It's a long apprenticeship."...Irving Stone
"Have you noticed that there are no child prodigies in painting? You have them in music and math, but not in painting. Painting is the sum total of the human being.” Strisik
Newly minted MFA's and young artists haven't lived long enough to have enough life experiences
Post a Comment