|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
*CRITICS
(*means we recommend it.)
June 1 - July 1, 2002
A group exhibition of paintings by Robert Hardgrave, Emily Waybright, Keven
Furiya, Cassandria Blackmore, Randy McCoy, Rich Lehl, Jeff Milhalyo, L.Kelly Lyles,
Meghan Trainor, Leiv Fagereng, Sam Trout, Jason Puccinelli, Ursulla Gullow, Robert
Adams, Greg Lukens, Jennifer Lundgren. James Jaxxa, Angel Abreu, Iris Stevenson,
Tim Marsden, Damian Puggelli and Randy Wood.
Curated by Greg Lundgren |
|
 |
|
| Art critics- love them, hate them, or ignore them, they play an intrinsic role
in the dynamics of the art world, and like it or not, they can be the angel on
an artists shoulder, or the bone crusher of your ego. Their praise can deliver
a hundred new visitors to your gallery and their disapproval can dissuade even
the aggresive arts enthusiast. Often the shadow in the corner, or a faceless name
in a newspaper, we decided to explore the terrritory of the art critic, flip the
table around and see how the art community viewed their critics. We counted seven
major art critics that lived, worked and reviewed Seattle based visual art on
a consistent basis. They were Cynthia Rose(independent), Emily Hall (the Stranger),
Regina Hackett (Seattle Post Intelligence), Sheila Farr (The Seattle Times), Matthew
Kangas (independent) and Karla Esquivel (Tablet), Anna Fahey (The Seattle Weekly).
Whether they are invisible and unsupportive, or instrumental in bringing to
light the new talents and worthy events, the critic is often the conduit between
the artist and the general public. The final tone and statement of CRITICS was
left to the forty artists invited to participate. It was uncensored, with the
explicit instructions to paint who you like and depict them in the manner of your
choosing.
One of the main questions placed on the table was how artists would respond
to painting the portrait of a person that could influence the media exposure of
their work. Was everyone going to kiss ass and court the art critics? Or was it
payback time for the viciously negative review that tripped you so bad you didn't
paint for three months afterwards.
I think it presented an akward moment for all parties involved, from curating,
to painting, to the art critics targeted in the show. It was a raw nerve, a show
that wasn't supposed to happen, a misdirected spotlight and a great success. After
all, how can an art critic view an exhibit bearing their own portrait with any
sense of objectivity? |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
| « previous page |
|
next page » |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
© Copyright 2003, Vital 5 Productions. All rights reserved.
|
|
