This is how you get into an art fair

I first published this over a decade ago, in two parts, and it has been completely ignored by all the art and artists' organizations to which it was aimed... here's the gist of it and I've refreshed it a little, updated it, and combined the two parts:

Let us start...

Over the last two decades, I've written many times before about art fairs and Art Basel Miami Beach week in the Greater Miami area - this is the world's "big dance" when it comes to the visual arts; this is the big party and everyone is invited. However, it is a matter of how to get into a reputable art fair that's the issue to many artists and galleries.

Art fairs are very expensive. As I've noted before, many galleries risk everything to come to Miami or New York, or London to do an art fair, and I suspect that many are financially destroyed at the end of the week. And yet, many do well and return year after year.

Between my years with the Fraser Gallery and now with AAAP, we've been returning to Miami for two decades now. Other DMV and regional galleries that keep coming back are my good buds at Connersmith, sometimes also Hamiltonian. They consistently take the financial risk and venture to Miami (and in some cases all over the US and Europe). Some other participants have been Morton Fine Arts, Zenith, and Adah Rose.

Others have tried a year or two, crashed and burned and never return to the party.

Is there a formula to this? What the the magic that makes this work for some and not for others?

I know of at least two galleries in the Mid Atlantic who have "financial backers" who absorb most or some of the financial risk involved in doing an art fair. Since these sort of galleries are very limited (who wouldn't love to have a financial backer?), they are the "outliers" in the formula for clicking the right button in the art fair game.

Some non-profits have the economic stability to play consistently in the art fair game; and to make it easier for them, many art fairs have special, lower pricing for non-profits. So they are also a special case, I think, because in most cases, the financial risk is absorbed by the state of their income-gathering to stay afloat as a non-profit.

It is a mystery to me why not more DMV area non-profits go to the art fairs. Hamiltonian is a notable exception, as has been Honfleur Gallery in Anacostia.

And the WPA did use to participate in the DC-based and fabled (e)merge art fair... and it did really well!

But I would submit that there are several area non-profits that could, and should participate in Miami and New York art fairs as part of their business model; if a local non-profit can afford to pay $70-$80,000 a year to its executive director (and several DMV non-profits are in that range), then it can certainly afford to budget $12-18K to participate in an art fair outside of the DMV. 

I think this as an outsider - completely ignorant to the money shell game that running a non profit must be, and I tip my hat to them.

I'm not saying that all visual arts non-profits should do this - I am sure that the mission of some of them are strictly focused on "local" only, rather than expanding their artistic presentations outside the capital region.

But that still leaves several key ones that (if I was the DMV art dictator) should be in NYC and Miami during art fair times.

This also applies to some of our large membership-based visual arts organizations and cooperative galleries, such as The Art League.

I'm a big fan of The Art League, and when I lived close to Alexandria I was a member for many years, and I have been honored multiple times by being selected as a juror for them.

And thus I am going to use them as an example, but this example applies to the multiple "other" art leagues, groups, clubs, cooperatives, etc. that exist around our region and which are important and significant components of our cultural tapestry. I could just as easily have picked the Rockville Art League, or the League of Reston Artists, or Tephra ICA, Waverly, WPA, Touchstone, Fairfax Art League, CHAW, etc.

The money part is always an issue, but when the money risk can be divided into several (rather than one) entities, then the overall financial risk is reduced, because it is spread, rather than concentrated into one (the independent commercial gallery) bank account.

So let's proceed with this possible example using The Art League.

They have several thousand members and run a very successful and important program in their space inside the Torpedo Factory and assorted classrooms all over the area. So successful in fact, that changing that model (or expanding it...) must seem anathema to their leaders.

So the issue is, how does The Art League (again, you can fill in any of multiple DMV area membership-based art organizations) pick or select the 3-5 artists to take to an art fair?

The "good" art fairs are nearly always tightly juried. There are many art fairs where one just pays and anyone and everyone can go - those usually suck as some DMV galleries and many DMV solo artists will unfortunately discover when they suddenly decide to jump into the art fair arena of without research.

And thus for Miami/NYC fairs I am thinking (in no particular order) about Art Miami, Context, Aqua, Pulse, NADA, Untitled, Volta, Affordable Art Fair(s), Scope, Miami Project, Frieze... some of these are very, very hard to get in, but they're listed nonetheless, because there is a "food chain" of art fairs, and the bottom-feeders usually spell disaster for the participants.

And thus The Art League would need to establish a process to pre-jury its membership to 3-5 artists and apply with those artists to an art fair. I would start with The Affordable Art Fair in New York. They are close by and they are a "proven" fair which has been in operations over 25 years. I have done it many times and consistently recommend it to any gallery that asks me about art fairs in general.

And thus The Art League would need to canvas their membership and find out who is interested in being juried for possible selection for further jurying into an art fair. I would make this process independent from the Art League itself - just like they do for their monthly juried shows, and have interested artists bring their work in to be juried by an independent juror.

That juror has to be a very special juror - in fact 98% of your standard-issue visual art jurors (art professors, art critics, art writers, art center directors, artists, etc.) would guarantee a disaster to this process. In the DMV the jury pool for this process is very limited and its members are only those gallerists who have participated in multiple art fairs. In fact I can't think of anyone better to jury this part than me! Or Leigh Conner or Adah Rose...

This is a critical point, so I'm going to repeat it: The DMV the jury pool for this process is very limited and its members are only those gallerists who have successfully participated in multiple art fairs. In fact I can't think of anyone better to jury this part than me!

Let me repeat another key point: The Art League would need to canvas their membership and find out who's interested in being juried for possible selection for further jurying into an art fair.

Everything that I'm going to discuss below has to be clearly explained in the prospectus for this process, so that each applying artist knows exactly what this would involve.

I suspect that a large number of artists would find this attractive, and perhaps a small jurying fee ($10?) could be applied to subsidize the art fair costs (I would budget anywhere from $12-20K, depending on booth size).

Whatever you do, DO NOT use an art fair director as a juror! They are usually interested in what would make the fair look good (usually from an unsellable trendy perspective) , rather than understand the delicate balance of good art, finances, and peripheral issues that come to play into this process.

The juror would pick 3-5 artists and 2-3 alternates. This is because some art fair processes do have the option to accept an application while at the same time rejecting some of the artists in that application.

So now we have a group of artists, culled from applying Art League members, ready and willing to participate in an art fair.

The actual application process is easy, so I'm not getting into that - be aware that deadlines are usually months before the actual fairs.

If accepted, the next step is transporting the artwork to the art fair, and then returning the unsold artwork back to the owners. For this, the Art League has various options.

One option would be to hire a transport company. There are dozens and dozens of specialized carriers that do this and they pick up and transport the art to your booth at the fair, and at the end pick it up from your booth and transport it back. This is the easiest and the most expensive. From here to NYC and back I would budget $1200-$2000 depending on volume. Packaging also becomes an issue here.

Another option is to rent a truck or van and schlep the work to and from the fair yourself. This is what I usually do for New York and Miami.

A third option is to have each artist (or teamed artists) bring their own work in their own cars, vans, etc.

In this example, I would offer each accepted artist the choice to come to the fair, and help hang and help to sell their own work. This should be an option, not a requirement, as some artists would rather spend a week in Baghdad than a long weekend in an art fair dealing with art collectors; but some artists do like doing that. In any event, just "being" and seeing what goes on at an art fair is a spectacular learning opportunity for anyone involved in the visual arts.

The Art League has the luxury of having a very skilled "front desk" team that is already well-versed in the arcane art of selling artwork - so they could and should also come to the fair to handle questions and sales, etc. DO NOT send your executive director or curator to handle sales - that would be a disaster!

We're getting dangerously close to having a lot of people crowding the booth, so let's please keep the number of people hanging around the booth at all times to less than three; the artists can "float" in and out.

There is strength in numbers in many other aspects: transporting artwork, hanging it, packing it, splitting costs of hotel rooms, etc.

Before you book a hotel room anywhere in the major US cities (especially NYC) always check www.bedbugregistry.com. Again, I kid thee not. Pick a hotel that is walking distance from the fair or public transportation to the fair.

The elephant in the room here is cost(s), but again there is strength in numbers.

Art fairs often offer discounted prices to non-profits; Honfleur Gallery in Anacostia (in the past) has participated in The Affordable Art Fair in NYC and takes advantage of this special pricing. WPA participated (and had great success) at (e)merge and Hamiltonian is often somewhere in Miami.

Art fair prices are different depending on the fair. You can see the booth prices for the next Affordable Art Fair New York here. 

I'm my head I have this concept of having the selected Art League artists have a "financial stake" in this process by having them contribute some funds towards the art fair fees. Nothing works like putting your money where your mouth is. But then again, as a large organization, perhaps a more artist-friendly model would be for the Art League to cover all the art fair costs from a combination of jury entry fees and their own budget.

Of course, the Art League would also keep their usual commission on sales, so this also has a money-making angle for them.

What are the art fair costs? There are direct costs and associated costs.

Direct costs are:
(a) Cost of the basic booth
(b) Cost of additional booth stuff (extra walls, extra lights, storage)
(c) Some fairs have a "shared" advertising cost (AAFNYC doesn't)

Associated Costs are:
(a) Cost of required insurance (Art League would be able to use their current insurer or buy insurance directly from the art fair)
(b) Cost of transportation of the art. If using own vehicle, then also cost of parking it
(c) Cost of Art League staff at the fair (bus to NYC and shared hotel room and per diem for food)
(d) Cost of the juror to select the artists

Funding sources for all these costs are:
(a) Art League budget
(b) Nominal jurying fee for applying artists
(c) Commission on sales at the fair (this, of course, is putting the cart ahead of the horse)

Commercial galleries take huge chances at art fairs. My very first art fair all around cost was about $8,000 almost two decade ago - all that was charged on the gallery's credit card and we held our breath while at the fair. We sold about $30,000 worth of art, and thus after commissions to the artists we cleared $15,000 and paid off the credit card and then had $6,000 to put towards the next art fair fee.

I can count on one hand the number of times that we sold that much in any gallery art show in the DMV; and I've had a gallery here of one sort or another since 1996.

What's in it for the artists?

Usually a lot more than for the gallery. I will repeat this: more often than not, an artist reaps more good things out of an art fair than the gallery does.

These things include:

(a) Exposure to more art collectors, curators, press, etc. in a few days than in years of exhibiting art around the DMV. You will see more people in 4-5 days than in five hundred years at a gallery in the DMV. Statistically (and yes I do have an undergraduate Math degree in Numerical Analysis in addition to my Art degree), the sheer number translates into sales. Since my first art fair in 2006, I have sold over 500 works of my art.

(b) Exposure to other galleries who may be interested in your work. I have multiple examples of this - Just ask DMV area artist Judith Peck what has happened to her career once she started showing at art fairs.... or read the example of my dear friend Sam Gilliam!

(c) A significantly higher chance of getting critical press.

(d) A significantly higher chance of getting your work noticed by both freelance and museum curators and art advisors, etc. Since 2006 I've had over twenty commissions via art advisors and several pieces acquired by multiple museums. The chance of getting your work noticed by a DMV museum curator is probably higher than the chance of winning the lottery. Most DMV area museum curators (AU's Jack Rasmussen being the brilliant exception) would rather take a cab to Dulles to fly to Miami to see emerging artists' works at fairs than taking a cab to see a gallery show in Georgetown.

(e) Being part of the art fair "wake effect" --- Read about that here.

(f) A much better chance to getting invited to participate in other shows such as university shows, themed-shows, group shows, etc. Ask Virginia artist Sheila Giolitti about that.

I hope that I've made my point, and I hope that some visual art groups and organizations are reading this.

WPA, Tephra ICA, Blackrock Center for the Arts, Touchstone, Art League, Washington Project for the Arts, Maryland Art Place, Multiple Exposures, Gallery 10, Washington Sculptors Group, VizArts, Artomatic, Waverly Street Gallery, DC Arts Center, DCCAH, Target Gallery, Torpedo Factory, Montgomery Art Association, Workhouse Arts Center, Art Gallery of Potomac, Rockville Art League, The Artists' Undertaking, Glen Echo... I'm looking at you.

UPDATE: Cristina Salmastrelli, the energetic Regional Managing Director for Ramsay Fairs, pipes in with some terrific comments:

My comments, in no particular order:

I love that artists should not be required to come to an art fair if they do not want to. There are some artists that cannot stomach the fast pace of a fair or the harsh realities that comes with it. This is why artist representatives are so important, in my opinion. Visitors and potential art buyers can be quite harsh and sometimes artist cannot hear negative feedback. I never want an artist to hear negative feedback unless it’s filtered through their representation or a proper lense. In my opinion and in the most idyllic sense, the entire gallery system is there to protect the artist and their creativity from external messages. I have seen artist wilt when representing their own work and that makes me really upset, so I love the fact that the artist onsite requirement theory can be eliminated.

The formula for art fair success is an ever changing one. It more and more reminds me of early motherhood or Instagram’s algorithms every day. Once you feel like you got your system down pat, CURVEBALL STRAIGHT AHEAD! And the only way to properly prepare for this is to come in feeling strong and excited to talk to people at every opportunity. Every edition needs to be your first and there can be no assumptions that you will be as successful as your last. And with that theory, the fair experience never ends on the last day and that constant follow up and dedication to build relations with new clients, old clients and potential ones will pay off down the line.

It never hurts to take time to try and understand the different motivations when it comes to purchasing art. From there, take time to practice how to close deals based on the variety of reasons why someone buys an artwork. In the end, this exchange is about emotions and this purchase is emotive, so understanding people really helps to make your experience a successful one.

The non existing formula for pricing art

 Over in FB land, artist Bardia Jaan asks an often-asked question:

Easy easy question: how do you price your art? 

Material cost + (hourly rate * number of hours * 2)?  Plus studio cost Plus Misc stuff like going to Sushi?

That’s what I thought someone said.  This might be for artists who have just started selling.

In my opinion, there's really no formula - art for sale is a commodity; therefore, ECON 101 tells us about how prices in most cases is driven by supply and demand, but that doesn't work for 99.999% of us because it only works for that art that is very limited in supply but in high demand. 

About a decade ago, you could pick up a painting by my good friend Sam Gilliam at a local DC area auction house for hundreds of dollars, because there was no "demand" and buyers were not willing to pay above a few hundreds for a Gilliam canvas from the past. 

Ten years ago this Gilliam painting from 1972 was estimated at $1000-2000 and sold for $600. That painting is now probably worth several tens of thousands of dollars if not 100s.

Why?

A couple of things happened driven by art galleries (not in DC) "discovering" Gilliam and suddenly there was a demand, and his prices skyrocketed and it couldn't have happened to a nicer person! 

Or take the case of Carmen Herrera, for decades and decades her canvasses sold for practically nothing (if they even sold) - then a curator from the Tate "discovered" this artist who had an amazing pedigree (she showed alongside some of the greats of art in the 40x, 50s, etc.) and organized a retrospective for Herrera at the Tate, and suddenly the world art collectors discovered her work and rushed to buy it - creating the demand and thus a huge rise in prices. 

More examples? 

In the 60s Alice Neel was on welfare and traded her paintings to Lida Moser for Moser to take slides of her work so that Neel could try to get galleries interested in her work... then... go back to the top of this post and substitute "Neel" for those two artists... cough, cough...

RIP Sam Gilliam

 Just heard the sad news that the great artist Sam Gilliam has died.

Last week I wrote about Sam's first ever major museum show in DC area. My feelings here.

Hirshhorn’s Sam Gilliam Exhibition

Over the decades that I have lived in the DMV (an acronym that I invented), one constant of the DMV's museum art scene (with the exception of the beautiful American University art museum and most recently the Phillips Collection) has been the immense apathy that art museums located in the capital region show to their area artists.

Once, while a guest at the old Kojo Nmandi radio show on NPR (WAMU), i noted that it was "easier for a DC area museum curator to take a cab to Dulles to catch a flight to Berlin to visit some emerging artists' studios in Berlin (or London, Madrid, wherever) than to catch a cab to Adams Morgan to visit a DC area emerging artist studio."

Years of communicating this frustration to "new" museum curators and directors as the wonder in and out of their positions at the Hirshhorn, the old Corcoran, various Smithsonian museums, all area University museums, etc. have yielded zero response -- since 1992 or so, the only museum director who ever met with me to discuss why their museum ignored local artists was Olga Viso when she ran the Hirshhorn decades ago.

And it takes an artist of the stature of Sam Gilliam, whose career was almost extinguished by apathy just a decade or so ago... until "rediscovered" by New York and other forces and placed where this great artist always deserved to be - at the top - the "break" into a local museum with an exhibition which should have happened years and years ago.

Hirshhorn: Thank you for exhibiting Sam Gilliam and shame on you that it took outside forces to make this happen.

Hirshhorn’s Sam Gilliam Exhibition Will Spotlight His Decades-Long Investigation Into Abstraction

“Sam Gilliam: Full Circle” Will Debut New Paintings, May 25–Sept. 4

This spring, the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden will present an exhibition by pioneering abstractionist artist Sam Gilliam. Between May 25 and Sept. 4, “Sam Gilliam: Full Circle” will pair a series of circular paintings (or tondos) created in 2021 with “Rail” (1977), a landmark painting in the Hirshhorn’s permanent collection. Filling the museum’s second-floor inner-circle gallery, Gilliam’s first solo exhibition at the Hirshhorn will reflect the breadth of his multilayered practice and mark the first exhibition in Gilliam’s chosen hometown of Washington, D.C., since 2007. “Full Circle” is organized by Evelyn C. Hankins, the Hirshhorn’s head curator.

In the 60 years since moving to Washington, Gilliam has produced a prolific body of abstraction across media through which he has continually pursued new avenues of artistic expression. He initially rose to prominence in the late 1960s making large, color-stained manipulated, unstretched canvases. Gilliam continues to experiment with staining, soaking and pouring pigments, elaborating on the process-oriented tradition of Morris Louis, Kenneth Noland and other Washington Color School artists. In 1972, Gilliam represented the United States at the 36th Venice Biennale, and returned in 2017 with “Yves Klein Blue,” a draped work that welcomed visitors to the Venice Giardini. Gilliam’s approach focuses keenly on the cornerstones of abstraction—form, color and material—from which he creates artworks that reflect his career-long engagement with art history and the improvisatory ethos of jazz.

“The Hirshhorn’s institutional support for Sam Gilliam began with the acquisition of his landmark painting “Rail” within a year of its creation,” said Hirshhorn Director Melissa Chiu. “The museum has since championed his practice by presenting this and other major works in exhibitions. “Full Circle” shows Gilliam’s most recent works in recognition of his indefatigable vision, presented in his chosen hometown on the National Mall at the national museum of modern art.”

“I am greatly looking forward to premiering this new body of work,” Gilliam said. “The tondo series introduced in this show encapsulate many of the ideas that I have been developing throughout my career. Just as importantly, they reflect my current thinking about color, materials, and space. These spaces determined by color and texture are limitless.”

Sam Gilliam’s most recent engagement with the Hirshhorn reflects his tireless propulsion of the through lines of abstraction. His tondos expand the body of beveled-edge abstract paintings that Gilliam first pioneered in the 1960s. Ranging in size from 3 to 5 feet in diameter, each tondo begins with a beveled wood panel, which the artist loads with layers of dense, vibrant pigments, their aggregate effect heightened through the addition of thickening agents, sawdust, shimmering metal fragments, wood scraps and other studio debris. Using a stiff metal rake along with more traditional tools, Gilliam then abrades, smears and scrapes the coarse surfaces to reveal a constellation of textures and colors below.

The series will be shown alongside “Rail” (1977), a stellar “Black” painting by Gilliam in the Hirshhorn’s collection work that marks some of the artist’s earliest experiments with pronounced materiality. With its immense scale of more than 15 feet in length, stained underpinning, pieced canvas structure and deep tones, “Rail” offers a resonant counterpoint to the artist’s recent tondos.

Yuri Schwebler Curatorial Project at AU

My good bud John Anderson passes the following:

I'm pleased to announce that the Yuri Schwebler curatorial project I have been working on the last few years is “open," and that the catalog is now available online. 

Although originally scheduled to open in June, because of the pandemic the American University Museum canceled all their summer exhibitions. As a result, I offered to create a virtual exhibition (fancy words for "slideshow") to substitute for what was no longer going to be on exhibit. You can find links to the slideshow, and the exhibition catalog, on the museum's exhibition page.

This exhibition is, in many respects, an extension of my earlier Jefferson Place Gallery research, which has expanded to included monographs of Hilda Thorpe, Mary Orwen, and Jennie Lea Knight (each at Marymount University, co-curated with Meaghan Kent and Caitlin Berry), and a catalog essay about Rockne Krebs and Sam Gilliam, for Day Eight's exhibition Built and Unbuilt.

On Thursday, at 12:30 Eastern, there is a virtual discussion between the Museum's Director, Jack Rasmussen, and myself. Registration can also be found on the exhibition page.

The Mother-Daughter Duo Who Amassed an Incredible Trove of African American Art

The two Clayton women shared a home and an appetite for collecting, spending nearly 50 years buying works by Black artists from auctions, galleries, and thrift shops.

Read the article in Artsy here. 

The collection includes work by Charles White, Augusta Savage, the DMV's own Sam Gilliam, Laura Wheeler Waring, my former UW professor Jacob Lawrence, Romare Bearden, and Barbara Chase-Riboud.

John Anderson on Washingtonian magazine article on DC galleries

I had my say here a few days ago on the recent article in Washingtonian magazine on DC art galleries.  Below is what former DMV art critic, artist, art historian, and curator John Anderson adds to my observations:

I’m going to argue your point about the halcyon days, Lenny, and say it was during the 1970s..There were about 120 galleries in DC (not DMV) at one point, and GREAT coverage in the Post and Star. (I can’t recall if Washington Daily News was still active, or the Virginia Morning Sun; the area had 4 dailies going into the 1960s, though). Hopps was absorbing DC artist works into the NCFA (now SAAM). Slade made the Corcoran healthy (and did so without breaking anyone’s nose). The Phillips was actively exhibiting local artists. The WPA opened and had three floors of crazy going on. The Hirshhorn opened. The NEA supported several area artists. There were the women’s artists conferences. The Bicentennial. Artists fighting for rights on The Hill. Rockne was shooting his lasers everywhere. The Art Now (1974) scandal. Yuri Schwebler’s Sundial. Exciting times! I won’t disagree that the 80s, 90s, 00s were all interesting, exciting, or brimming with potential. But I think the 70s was peak awesome in DC art history, and it was predicated by a scene that was growing in the 1950s and 1960s (something Andrew Hudson recognized in an exhibition he curated for the Edmonton Art Gallery in 1970, and something another curator in Baltimore recognized for a similar exhibition at the BMA: both opening in 1970, I believe).

It’s unclear from Bourland’s historical synopsis if he deemed the 70s as the hay-day, since he folds the 50s-60s Color School (WCS) in with Protetch, Moyens, Henri, etc... However, the omission of the Jefferson Place Gallery (JPG) struck me as interesting. I mean, if he’s going to mention WCS, he may as well credit the gallery that, at one time, supported Noland, Davis, Downing, and Mehring (the latter of which exhibited at the JPG at least through 1971). If he is going to mention Gilliam, again he may as well mention the JPG since Gilliam showed there from 65-74. In fact, every artist Bourland mentioned had some connection to JPG, whether being represented by or, in the case of Louis, eschewing invitation to do so.

The mention of “hard-edged abstraction of the Washington Color School anchored by Louis and Gilliam” also made me laugh. I mean, those are the two guys who are least hard edge (minus Gilliam’s first stripes). Come to think of it, Noland’s targets weren’t all that hard-edged, and Mehring’s best work—his dappled all-overs—also defied hard edges. The three who were most consistently hard edge were Downing, Davis, and most especially Truitt! Can’t get much harder-edged than the side of a rectangular prism.

There are other issues with his historical truncation, which make me wonder if it was just slap-dash editing, or some concession to word count. For instance, why was Bill Christenberry lumped in with the Color School guys? His stuff seems charged by memory, place, nostalgia, and time. In other words: content... which is something that isn’t present in a lot of the WCS stuff (although, Paul Richard will argue that Noland was doing targets because he was driving around L’Enfant’s traffic circles in his cabs way too much… and I really like that read!). When I think of Christenberry I think of photographs that follow in the footsteps of Walker Evans (at times, literally), his haunting Klan stuff, and ink drawings of pear trees. Maybe his assemblages of license plates and tin roofs were informed by WCS, but I think such a connection is a big stretch.

Also, Walter Hopps’ Washington Gallery of Modern Art? Hopps was the fourth director (5th if you count the hot minute Eleanor McPeck held down the fort between Breeskin’s resignation and Nordland’s appointment), and held the post for a smidgen over a year. Yes, he was doing great things. Great big expensive things. It’s partly why the Corcoran bought the property: WGMA couldn’t afford it any longer. Fortunately the Corcoran  had the sense to let Hopps continue doing interesting things there through late 68 and into 69. But, while Hopps may have had the most interesting tenure as director, WGMA was doing interesting things from its founding… back in the days when Alice Denney and Julian Eisenstein took their bar napkin sketch for a museum in 1960 and turned it into a museum showing a Franz Kline memorial retrospective in 1962. And then the Popular Image show, and Pop Festival months later. And, were it not for the Stern Family Foundation, everything that came before, during, and after Hopps wouldn’t have been possible: where’s Leni Stern’s credit?

What I think Bourland’s piece misses isn’t so much how a whimpering boom of three new galleries in the area can possibly excite the scene. Yes. It’s good they’re here. Quite possibly it creates an opportunity for a few area artists to show their stuff. Maybe, if those galleries are lucky, DC collectors will buy from them, too! And, while art is certainly a commodity, it is also one of the humanities. Art galleries are places that can ground us, give us insight into worlds unfamiliar to us, and spark meaningful changes in perception and opinion in the people who visit them. And that can lead to profound actual change in Washington. Were it not for the Jefferson Place Gallery, and the lectures and openings that John Brademus attended, perhaps he wouldn’t have been as successful whipping votes to make the NEA happen. Unfortunately, such touchy-feely things don’t pay the bills. But in a town experiencing such rapid change, having more galleries is a way to reconnect people to a variety of ideas in non-literary ways. Hopefully these three galleries, those that preceded them, and those that come to follow, will inspire.

And, God-willing, they all sell some stuff to go over a bunch of couches so that they can keep the lights on.

Washingtonian on art galleries

"Why DC Needs Art Galleries" is the title of this excellent article in DMV area glossy Washingtonian. The article is by Ian Bourland, who is assistant professor of contemporary art history at Georgetown University and an art critic for a range of international publications.

The past year was a good one for DC’s contemporary-art-gallery scene. It saw the opening of three new spaces. Ryan Dattilo, an attorney and collector from New York, launched the pop-up De Novo Gallery in Union Market, while Todd Von Ammon, a well-known dealer who previously worked at New York’s Team Gallery, debuted Von Ammon Co. in Cady’s Alley. And in October, a collective of mid-career Washington artists opened a sprawling studio complex/exhibition space in Northeast DC, named Stable—which fits nicely with both the structure’s equine history and the group’s aim to provide a reliable node for creators.

Bourland does an excellent job of updating the current gallery around the District (not the DMV). He goes back a little too far in history (for my taste) to recount the halcyon days of the DC gallery scene:

Decades ago, before the economic turnaround transformed Washington, it seemed as though the city might be an emerging art capital. The Corcoran School of Art & Design was thriving, and DC boasted the hard-edged abstraction of the Washington Color School, anchored by now-canonical figures Morris Louis and Sam Gilliam.

I note this because... technically the zenith of the DMV gallery art scene (no pun intended with Zenith Gallery, which coincidentally represents my work) was more around the late 90s to mid 2000s, when the number of art galleries of all flavors: independently owned commercial art galleries (such as Conner, Fraser, eklektikos, Marsha Mateyka, Irvine, Davidson, Anton, Robert Brown, Heineman-Myers, Alex, Baumgartner, Alla Rogers, Veerhoff, Neptune, Aaron, Numark, G Fine Art, Hemphill, Addison-Ripley, Littleton, Parish, and others, as well as the highly survivable artists' cooperatives (Touchstone, Studio, Multiple Exposures, etc.), and the non-profits (MOCA, DC Arts Center, etc.), and all the university galleries plus all the embassy and embassy-associated galleries (Mexican Cultural Institute, Goethe, etc.).

Back in those closer to the present and true halcyon days of the DMV art scene, the number of galleries in the DMV art scene exploded, as galleries colonized areas such as Dupont Circle, Georgetown, Bethesda, Alexandria, etc. At one point there were eight galleries in Georgetown's Canal Square alone!

What happened? It's a well-known neighborhood revitalization model: when rents are cheap, galleries and restaurants and other small businesses move in. Then the neighborhood becomes a visit point for the illuminati, and soon the area's attractiveness begins to improve, as do real estate prices.  Within a couple of decades, the franchise stores begin to move in, and a decade later the galleries and small businesses are gone, unable to afford the new rent realities. Bourland is familiar with this model as he writes:

...this is the now-familiar story of gentrification as it has played out all over the country. Artists flock to areas with low rents—say, Brooklyn’s Williamsburg neighborhood or San Francisco’s Mission District—and spearhead a dramatic transformation. Starbucks and Citibank follow, along with rising costs that push artists and experimental spaces farther to the periphery.

What else happened and what is still happening (and I've been bitching about for decades)? The DMV media completely ignores and treats with immense apathy the DMV art scene. I used to complain in the 90s about the press coverage of the local art scene. Little did I realize back then that we were at that zenith in art coverage, when the WaPo had not only a weekly Galleries column which covered the DMV art galleries, but a separate column dedicated solely to area museums plus a weekly column (then written by Michael O'Sullivan) titled Arts Beat, which covered the DMV's art scene. Add to that the weekly gallery review by the Washington Times authored by Joanna Shaw-Eagle, and the Art in America or Art News coverage by Joe Shannon and others... And the multiple freebie neighborhood newspapers which regulalrly covered their area's art galleries: The Georgetowner, the various Gazette newspapers (owned then by the WaPo), Pitch Magazine, Dimensions magazine, etc.

WETA had Around Town on a weekly basis, and the then emerging local cable stations (MHZ TV for one) had regular visual art show coverage.

Bottom line: we were at that zenith as well.

Then the emergence of the art fair model provided the final kick in the balls to the brick and mortar galleries as they discovered that they could move more art, expose more artists to collectors, and even to museums via the good art fairs in one art fair than in ten years in the DMV.  A few, like Fraser and others, valiantly tried to do both for a few years, but eventually most of them closed their physical doors and went virtual all the way.

A shout out to Washingtonian for this article, and a repeat of a question that by my email count I've now asked (and sometimes received answers from apologetic editors) I've asked Washingtonian for decades: Why doesn't Washingtonian have an art review column in each issue?

And one last point: When you cross the street in many places in the DC "box" on the map, now you're either in MD or VA - that's why we call it the DMV (an acronym that I invented by the way)... when pieces are written about the city's art scene, by default it is about the DMV art scene and includes Bethesda, Alexandria, Rockville, Mt. Rainier, etc. In fact there are more artists' studios in Rockville or Alexandria or Mt. Rainier, than in all of DC!

By the way, I've asked those questions multiple times to all other DMV area monthly glossies... and there are a few.

Update: John Anderson has a great opinion here.