Friday, September 19, 2008

beware the "proliferation of 21st century art" !

For those of you who don't know, the Vieux Carre Commission is like a neighborhood association for the French Quarter. Yesterday's Times-Picayune reported about the commission's meeting with artists G.A.S. and Dawn Dedeaux on the front page. The artists are hoping to place their works in the French Quarter; Matt Vis and Tony Campbell's proposal is specific to Bourbon Street, and is about as inconspicuous as public art can be, a series of manhole cover-like pieces to be set into the sidewalk. Dawn Dedeaux's work is a revisioning of the venerable stoop. The Veiux Carre Commission rejected the artists' proposals for their temporary installations, the main reason seeming to be a fear of "a proliferation of 21st-century modernist works that would screw up the square." (There are certainly precedents for contemporary art mixing with history in exciting and successful ways, such as the Venice Biennale...) So, amidst the painters with permits, tarot card readers and the guys who paint themselves silver and stand still, contemporary art has no place? Amidst t-shirt shops and strip clubs on Bourbon Street, a little humor can't be installed in the sidewalk? What is notable, is that this may be the first time contemporary artists have approached the Vieux Carre Commission to do installations in the Quarter. This is artist-initiated, with support from granting agencies, and not solicited by the Commission, and I don't think they've had to deal with such initiatives in the past. Feel free to call in your comments to the commission and support some trailblazers. and thank you to Joan Mitchell Foundation, again.

2 comments:

Lana Gramlich said...

"...amidst the painters with permits, tarot card readers and the guys who paint themselves silver and stand still, contemporary art has no place?"

The difference being, of course, that all of those things go home at the end of the day. They're not permanent fixtures that will be there for years.
Sorry to play devil's advocate, but I can understand where the commission is coming from. It'd be like someone wanting to change a historical building. The proper channels & permissions must be gained & if they're not there's probably valid reasons why.

Anonymous said...

I love the artists involved, JMF, and this project as a whole. I do though, like Lana, have to play devil's advocate:

The fact that the neighborhood has reacted this way tells me that they weren't polled or included in the process of conceptualizing these projects at all (either by the artists or the Arts Council). This to me is why the n'hood is so furiously against it - and part of a general growing "beef" with contemporary artists who SEEM TO assume that just because to them an idea is exciting and important that it will be to the community it proposes to serve.

I dunno, I just think that "site specific" and "community based" should inherently mean that the site/community is considered when artists conceptualize what they want to do "for" the site/community.

There's no doubt that the ideas are smart and the work would be stellar. I am a big supporter of contemporary public art, these artists, and these organizations. I just think that this conflict could have been predicted (with just a little bit of sensitivity) and prevented (with just a little bit of advance communication/inclusion). Hopefully all parties involved will consider this to avoid this frustration and waste of time & money.

Elizabeth.