With the Salon des Refuses show(some rejected work from Lawndale Art Center's 'Big Show') approaching, I thought I'd take a few minutes and revisit the origin of the concept of such a show, for those of you who have not had any art history classes, and my thoughts on how it is relevant today. This is the entry for 'Salon des Refuses' on Encyclopedia.com:
"Exhibition held in Paris in 1863 to show work that had been refused by the selection committee of the official 'Salon'. In that year there were particularly strong protests from artists whose work had been rejected, so the emperor Napoleon III, 'wishing to let the public judge the legitimacy of these complaints', ordered this special exhibition. It drew huge crowd, who came mainly to mock, and Manet's 'Dejeuner sur l'herbe' was subjected to particular ridicule. Other major artists represented included Cezanne, Camille Pissarro, and Whistler. In spite of the unfavorable reaction to the works shown there, the Salon des Refuses was of great significance in undermining the prestige of the official Salon. After this, artists began to organize their own exhibitions(notably the 'Impressionists' in 1874) and art dealers became of increasing importance. The Salon des Refuses is thus regarded as a turning point in the history of art and 1863 has been described as 'the most convenient date from which to begin any history of modern painting'(Alan Bowness,
Modern European Art, 1972)."
Now I'd like to share my thoughts about how this invention is relevant in our current society. The controlling structure(Salon) that was in place in 1800's France is still very much around except it's name has changed and it looks a little different. Now, instead of one central control mechanism we have a control system(galleries and 'non-profit' art centers). It's a system created by our Capitalistic society. Some people who love art, but may or may not be able to actually create any, bought into the sales pitches of our higher education system and paid tremendous amounts of money to gain a Masters degree that they believe qualifies them to dictate to the public what 'good' art is.
Unlike other art forms, such as music, visual artists have been at the mercy of those who own spaces with walls if they wished to get their art out to the public. Thankfully, this system is quickly becoming as threatened an institution as the recording industry. With new options such as youtube, facebook, and other social media outlets becoming more and more ubiquitous, artists are now able to circumvent the stranglehold of the current establishment. The more screens that appear in public(laptops, Iphones, Ipads) the more options expand for artists. Granted, I am forming my opinion based on my desire to create art that people want. Some people create art for the sole lofty purpose of creating art(a modern day luxury with no historical precedent) and that is fine if you are A. rich or B. an art professor. Lofty/heady/mental masturbation art appeals to a very small percentage of the public and it generally doesn't pay bills.
Now I would like to bring this discussion specifically back to the Lawndale Big Show and the Salon des Refuses produced by Gallery 1724. The purpose of the 'Big Show' according to Lawndale Art Center's own website is: "an annual open-call, juried exhibition. It has been an important venue through which emerging and under represented Houston area artists gain exposure since the show's conception in 1984." If this is indeed the case then why can I google the names of the accepted artist list from their page and find many artists who have either shown in galleries around town very recently or currently have gallery representation? Furthermore, why were 114 works selected from only 83 artists? Multiple pieces from the same artist take up room that could have otherwise been used to expose another's work. This can not be blamed on the institution itself, rather the juror- the LONE juror. At least the artists who submitted their work to the Salon in Paris in the 1860's had the benefit of more than one set of eyes either accepting or rejecting their pieces.
Last night I discovered a link to CultureMap's interview with the Juror of this year's Big Show, Paul Middendorf. Much of it is relatively boring(you can google it and find it if you have nothing else better to do), but the thing that grabbed my attention was a phrase he kept repeating while explaining his process for jurying the show. "A lot of it had to do with my aesthetic...." ".. some pieces that just didn't fit the aesthetic of the show.." " a lot of it was weeding out the work that didn't fit.. that didn't meet the aesthetic at all.." " I tried to get a bit of a .... not necessarily a theme, but definitely an aesthetic." These are words directly from the mouth of the juror from the interview. Now, the definition of the word: aesthetic.
Aesthetic: 1 a: of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics or the beautiful. b: a work of aesthetic value. c: pleasing in appearance
2: appreciative of, responsive to, or zealous about the beautiful; also: responsive to or appreciative of what is pleasurable to the senses.
In other words, he chose art work that he 'liked' regardless of the talent, skill, or technical abilities of the artist. Who should care about this guy's opinion? His credentials aren't necessarily awe- inspiring and neither is his work in my opinion. EVERYONE chooses art that they LIKE. For this reason, I am grateful to Emily Sloan and Gallery 1724 for giving us rejected artists an opportunity to show in a physical space. The public can decide for itself. I think this very old idea is coming back in the new forms of ever evolving technology. It just takes some courage and ingenuity(both things I am struggling with learning along the way) to get around this archaic art system that so many of us are/have fallen victim to. I encourage all artists to investigate ways of becoming their own agents. For juried shows, why be subjugated by another's opinion which is just as valid as your own or put up with typical 50/50 gallery sale splits that will leave you financially in the red or broken even at best?
The ONLY value art possesses is the ability to connect emotionally to the viewer, listener, etc. Why do artists clamor to get into a show that doesn't even serve it's original function? I deem these types of shows obsolete in their own time. Times are changing and the system is crumbling. It is time for the independent artist to rise again. Did Leonardo Da Vinci have gallery representation or an art agent? Did Michelangelo? I think it's time to release great art into the world.
