This article has me shaking my head, and I cannot let it go unchallenged. Bushwick Open Studios is about artists’ opening their studios. The event offers artists without power or connections a chance to show their work and to get an audience. It has a horizontal structure, and the organizers have strongly resisted efforts to filter or curate it. To critique the studios in a building as if it were Documenta seems misguided. You are entitled to your view that most of the art being made out here, or in 1717 in particular, is forgettable. There is not that much memorable art being shown in commercial galleries, too. If it wastes your time to wade through an unmediated experience, then wait for the consensus to serve it up to you in another venue. I dispute the assertion that Bushwick and 1717 Troutman is populated largely by hobbists. Many good artists have worked there and continue to work there. Whether the landlord at Troutman is discouraging serious artists from staying, the turmoil there is also hurting young artists who are just starting their careers and for whom the verdict about their work is yet to be rendered. They are more apt to be sub-letters rather than lease holders, and they are even more at the mercy of the market than their better-known peers. As for your observation that well-known artists do not participate in BOS, they have never participated. They don’t need to. This piece struck me an example of art world elitism. The premise is that BOS is so popular it must mean that no serious people are involved and it’s time for the cognoscenti to move on. Shame on you, Art F City, I thought you were more on the side of the underdog.
Posted on: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 23:19:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015