Andy Colquitt and Frank Haines at Lisa Cooley. Installation Shot
This week at ArtReview.com I speak about a couple of the smaller galleries outside Chelsea, and why you might want to check them out. A teaser below.
The reasons innovative galleries often begin in obscure locations are many, but it has less to do with the romantic idea of escaping the system than with the economic practicalities of running a business without a financial backer. Rent is cheaper outside of Chelsea, and successful galleries like Canada and Jen Bekman (both on the Lower East Side), can afford the drop-off in foot traffic in their out-the-way locations in part because they can rely on meeting collectors either at art fairs or online instead. This may offer some explanation to the seemingly endless proliferation of galleries in New York. ArtCal, an exhibition listing service for New York City, reports over 835 galleries in their database, a huge number even when you consider the fact that some of them are no longer in business. There must also be many more new galleries and provisional spaces not yet accounted for. The true number of galleries in New York might be an unknowable Borgesian riddle.
The appeal of these smaller outfits however has remained much the same over the years. A little like discovering Hospital Productions, a music store deep in the East Village requiring patrons to squeeze through a trap door in the floor to view its inventory, finding an unknown gallery outside Chelsea can make you feel as if you’re in on something special. While an exhibition that requires a GPS system to find it might not be that great, the bittersweet allure of these out-of-the-way galleries lies in the fact that for all the crap you’ll see, there are usually one or two galleries doing something you’d never see elsewhere.
To read the full piece click here.
{ 23 comments }
since when is jen bekman is a successful gallery?
since when is jen bekman is a successful gallery?
since when is jen bekman is a successful gallery?
since when is jen bekman is a successful gallery?
Even if you don’t like the programming, I think having shows written up in the New York Times, the New Yorker, being quoted in the economist, having five billion profiles written about you over the course of a year is a fair indication of success. But past that, I think simply running a gallery for more than five years is a mark of some success. It’s not easy.
Even if you don’t like the programming, I think having shows written up in the New York Times, the New Yorker, being quoted in the economist, having five billion profiles written about you over the course of a year is a fair indication of success. But past that, I think simply running a gallery for more than five years is a mark of some success. It’s not easy.
Really?
Last I checked it seemed that traditionally, a large percentage of businesses (read: galleries mostly) involved in the arts were straight vanity projects, run by well to do people with large collections and few other interests.
I haven’t seen any serious research committed to the subject, but in reading books like The Art Dealers, it basically seems like an old boys club for a moneyed class. Obviously the internet, and modern society have changed that. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some sort of perfect bell curve, with one gallery hemorrhaging money for every other raking it in, while the majority break even.
In this second, in our superheated market where new galleries open every day to cash in, where we acheive record prices at each auction, and where mainstream press covers more than just YBA’s, it still seems like a perfect inverse of 89-92, when 30 percent of SoHo galleries (the chelsea of the time) went out of business. It’s all documented in the Times.
The subject has to viewed in the context of it’s day. And, while I don’t think it’s possible to overstate the difficulty of running a gallery, it’s also impossible to know how much attention is given to galleries based on PR contracts (is that the new overhead, much the same as printing catalogues and turning on the lights?) so I am loathe to judge them based on reviews, and attendance at openings.
When there is a publicly traded gallery, we’ll see where the money goes, and even more importantly, where it comes from. As for Jen’s you are likely correct, in that I am too quick to judge based on my personal taste in the program and dirty rumors. She’s certainly contributed to the arts in NYC, by providing a place for contemporary photography, and trailblazing new territory for gallery spaces, while at the same time, refuting the notion that they need to be a large cement room. However, if you were to start a gallery today is her gallery the model you would pick to accomplish success for yourself?
Really?
Last I checked it seemed that traditionally, a large percentage of businesses (read: galleries mostly) involved in the arts were straight vanity projects, run by well to do people with large collections and few other interests.
I haven’t seen any serious research committed to the subject, but in reading books like The Art Dealers, it basically seems like an old boys club for a moneyed class. Obviously the internet, and modern society have changed that. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some sort of perfect bell curve, with one gallery hemorrhaging money for every other raking it in, while the majority break even.
In this second, in our superheated market where new galleries open every day to cash in, where we acheive record prices at each auction, and where mainstream press covers more than just YBA’s, it still seems like a perfect inverse of 89-92, when 30 percent of SoHo galleries (the chelsea of the time) went out of business. It’s all documented in the Times.
The subject has to viewed in the context of it’s day. And, while I don’t think it’s possible to overstate the difficulty of running a gallery, it’s also impossible to know how much attention is given to galleries based on PR contracts (is that the new overhead, much the same as printing catalogues and turning on the lights?) so I am loathe to judge them based on reviews, and attendance at openings.
When there is a publicly traded gallery, we’ll see where the money goes, and even more importantly, where it comes from. As for Jen’s you are likely correct, in that I am too quick to judge based on my personal taste in the program and dirty rumors. She’s certainly contributed to the arts in NYC, by providing a place for contemporary photography, and trailblazing new territory for gallery spaces, while at the same time, refuting the notion that they need to be a large cement room. However, if you were to start a gallery today is her gallery the model you would pick to accomplish success for yourself?
You’re right about the many galleries supported as trust funds – I guess I hadn’t been thinking about those when I pulled out the 5 year mark number. B. also reminds me that 7 years is the length of a typical lease, so that might be a better average number to apply to galleries. I do think that reviews are one of many ways to judge a galleries success though, because no critic is going to review something positively they think is shit just because their friend runs a gallery; their name is on the line. Undeniably though, many galleries seem to largely fly under the radar; the mainstream press has yet to get a clue.
You’re right about the many galleries supported as trust funds – I guess I hadn’t been thinking about those when I pulled out the 5 year mark number. B. also reminds me that 7 years is the length of a typical lease, so that might be a better average number to apply to galleries. I do think that reviews are one of many ways to judge a galleries success though, because no critic is going to review something positively they think is shit just because their friend runs a gallery; their name is on the line. Undeniably though, many galleries seem to largely fly under the radar; the mainstream press has yet to get a clue.
You’re right about the many galleries supported as trust funds – I guess I hadn’t been thinking about those when I pulled out the 5 year mark number. B. also reminds me that 7 years is the length of a typical lease, so that might be a better average number to apply to galleries. I do think that reviews are one of many ways to judge a galleries success though, because no critic is going to review something positively they think is shit just because their friend runs a gallery; their name is on the line. Undeniably though, many galleries seem to largely fly under the radar; the mainstream press has yet to get a clue.
I’m not sure what retortage’s point is other than to be snarky and perhaps speaks of some personal bias (dirty rumors?! ha!). The article was about less mainstream galleries that have established a track record/good reputation for discovering and promoting artists and being innovative and all the galleries mentioned do exactly that.
On one hand retortage implies that he wouldn’t want to follow the jen bekman gallery model which was created outside the moneyed art system that is Chelsea. On the other hand he slags that system as being full of straight vanity projects and fly by night galleries created to cash in and get out.
Jen Bekman came to the art world with few art world contacts and very little money (She’s from Queens.) and has managed to stay in business through pluck and good taste. She’s always stayed true to her mission of selling affordable art and seems to have a good time doing it. Staying open for 5 years, building a profile amongst emerging artists, and getting good press is enormously difficult for a small gallery like hers. I’m a big fan of the gallery and of her 20×200 project and will remain a loyal fan/customer. Here’s to the next five years and I hope many other galleries do learn from her example.
I’m not sure what retortage’s point is other than to be snarky and perhaps speaks of some personal bias (dirty rumors?! ha!). The article was about less mainstream galleries that have established a track record/good reputation for discovering and promoting artists and being innovative and all the galleries mentioned do exactly that.
On one hand retortage implies that he wouldn’t want to follow the jen bekman gallery model which was created outside the moneyed art system that is Chelsea. On the other hand he slags that system as being full of straight vanity projects and fly by night galleries created to cash in and get out.
Jen Bekman came to the art world with few art world contacts and very little money (She’s from Queens.) and has managed to stay in business through pluck and good taste. She’s always stayed true to her mission of selling affordable art and seems to have a good time doing it. Staying open for 5 years, building a profile amongst emerging artists, and getting good press is enormously difficult for a small gallery like hers. I’m a big fan of the gallery and of her 20×200 project and will remain a loyal fan/customer. Here’s to the next five years and I hope many other galleries do learn from her example.
I’m not sure what retortage’s point is other than to be snarky and perhaps speaks of some personal bias (dirty rumors?! ha!). The article was about less mainstream galleries that have established a track record/good reputation for discovering and promoting artists and being innovative and all the galleries mentioned do exactly that.
On one hand retortage implies that he wouldn’t want to follow the jen bekman gallery model which was created outside the moneyed art system that is Chelsea. On the other hand he slags that system as being full of straight vanity projects and fly by night galleries created to cash in and get out.
Jen Bekman came to the art world with few art world contacts and very little money (She’s from Queens.) and has managed to stay in business through pluck and good taste. She’s always stayed true to her mission of selling affordable art and seems to have a good time doing it. Staying open for 5 years, building a profile amongst emerging artists, and getting good press is enormously difficult for a small gallery like hers. I’m a big fan of the gallery and of her 20×200 project and will remain a loyal fan/customer. Here’s to the next five years and I hope many other galleries do learn from her example.
obviously, if it wasn’t clear enough, more props to her for doing it from beyond the system and for doing innovative things with her space.
obviously, if it wasn’t clear enough, more props to her for doing it from beyond the system and for doing innovative things with her space.
obviously, if it wasn’t clear enough, more props to her for doing it from beyond the system and for doing innovative things with her space.
Just some props for showing artist Frank Haines!
Just some props for showing artist Frank Haines!
Just some props for showing artist Frank Haines!
Just some props for showing artist Frank Haines!
Another whoop for Frank Haines. and art galleries.
Another whoop for Frank Haines. and art galleries.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }