In Seattle, it’s a problem. First, they write about art in their own publication, refusing to let critics interested in participating do so. Second, they’re curating their own shows. What do they think critics and curators are, chopped liver? (Prince Charles is also beset by upstarts, story here. When will it all end?)
Latest outrage: Parallel Universe, curated by artists Francisco Guerrero and Joseph Park at Grey Gallery.
It’s the best group show in the city. The idea came from a deep familiarity with artists’ studios. Guerrero and Park started thinking about what they saw in studio corners, work that represents paths not taken that still could be: ideas abandoned, on hold or too recent to represent anything other than a stray idea.
Claude Zervas shows these lights at the James Harris Gallery. At Grey are lights not found at James Harris, gleaming out of the eye sockets of chainsaw bears.
Jeffry Mitchell‘s touch is a miracle of deft. When he draws, he draws silks in the air. Not this time.
Joseph Park is not a black velvet painter, except when he is.
What is this twerpy little piece by the ever-elegant Leo Saul Berk, something like a diseased mouth and something like a doughnut? Titled Cloud Flower, it’s nothing like a cloud. More like a drain with tea leaves matted around its rim.
Dan Webb is not a cartoonist.
Claire Cowie finishes what she starts.
Dawn Cerny does not do abstract art.
I don’t know Josepf Vascovitz‘s work well enough to know what is and is not his pervue, but these drawings are splendid, with a golden yet mucky glow. (I love the reader, reading water, and Adam with Eve, bulky as the first couple must have been, so recently associated with apes.)
Also scoring in Parallel Universe: Gretchen Bennett, Eric Elliott, Harrell Fletcher, Francisco Guerrero, Alfred Harris, Victoria Haven, Jenny Heishman, Nicholas Nyland, Lead Pencil Studio and Joey Veltkamp.
Through April 2.
Gallery Hours: 4pm – 2am everyday, by appointment and by chance.
such a great idea for a show!
Would you still believe this show is so great if you did not already know the names attached? I saw it and thought “wow they really pulled the B game out for this one”. Sometimes there is a reason some ideas wind up in the corner.
Hi Damion, that’s an interesting question. I think the answer is No, probably not.
I think for this idea to flesh out into a great show, the group of artists would have to already be known in the community hosting the exhibition (which these artists are), and they’d need to be known for making work of a certain nature (which they are), and they’d need to be interesting, respected contemporary artists (which they are).
I think it’s a great show idea because the circumstances are perfect for it. I don’t think it would have worked if these things weren’t in place.
What do you think?
I don’t think the show worked. At least not for me. Alot of the work shown is pretty weak, I know it’s the artists showing what is not usually associated with their “BRAND” but all the same I was not moved in any direction other than meh. What is the purpose other than too indulge the ego’s of these great contemporary artists? Is it to shine a light on the studio practice? if so it didn’t do that. Was it to show the range of the artists talents? Again it would be a fail. If this show was an exercise in demonstrating how with local star power you can show just about anything and the sycophants will eat it up, well this show was a roaring success.
Damion. Dude. When I think of all the exhausted, cliched crap I saw at your gallery when you had a gallery, I’m not sure you’re in such a great position to judge.
Hmmm. So let me get this right. Since anonymous did not like everything I showed I have no right to comment on this…. Ok. I’ll keep that in mind.
Good point, Damion. Anonymous opinions mean less than signed ones, especially spiteful anonymous opinions. Thank you for using your name, and thank you for your thoughtful contribution.