First let me say that I thoroughly enjoyed the entire experience, and I look very much forward to having some more in-depth conversations in person at the March 5 event. I feel that I learned a great deal about the dynamism and eclecticism of the Las Vegas art world, and was honored to have been invited.
As for the selection process, first among our concerns with a group that large (the final count of 58 pieces came from something like 189 entries) were the logistics—the math, if you will. The results testify to more than a simple yes/no moment. Certain things were early choices, made nearer to the outset, but as to which was cut first and which was cut with difficulty later in the process, let’s just say that things became increasingly competitive as the group shrank. With a pool that size it’s not possible to judge each thing in a vacuum; as wall space became premium, I had to start asking whether works in similar idioms demonstrated equal amounts of proficiency and innovation in terms of freshness or refinement of technique or imagery. In other words, it’s not that what ended up in the show is good and what didn’t is bad. It is nothing like that simple. Certainly everything in the final group I believe is well-made, well-conceived, perhaps ambitious or perhaps subtle, surprising or masterful, haunting, insightful, even beautiful—and that includes work in genres that are not at the center of the urban art storm, that reject fashion in favor of more traditional visions.
I pride myself on having an ability to appreciate the well-executed even when it falls outside my personal tastes, when it doesn’t resemble the art on my walls or even the art I myself would make if I knew how. I tried to stick to appreciation alone, but every once in a while a spark of love flared up, as the work in the show is in many cases breathtaking. For example, and I’m not saying this is exactly what happened, but when choosing between say five painters all working in abstract expressionism, if it’s me – which it was – I’m going to lean toward the most confident, bold, sensual brushwork with the most intense (as distinct from colorful) palette, instead of the thinner, more chaotic or finely wrought paint application, because that style speaks to me and I believe to art history, and in the end some call had to be made.
That said, I also tried to remain respectful of the vernacular, and the long traditions of art both regionalist and academic in the Las Vegas part of the world. So there’s some marquetry, which I happen to know is really hard to do well, and I thought such talent needed to be acknowledged. Also there’s a desert landscape that shone out from among its competitors in the same genre, because of certain technical flairs and color deployment and other formal advances that separated it above the rest in its category—one which I knew in a desert city I ought not to dismiss out of hand despite my personal leanings of taste—and this one added to the formula in a memorable way.
I respond to humor, but I’m a big fan of art history, politics, and pure aestheticism. I love good draftsmanship. I love a compelling narrative and rich symbolism, ritual, and spiritual explorations, subversion, arte povera and lavish production value. I often respond emotionally as well as intellectually to abstraction. My tastes are far-ranging and I keep my mind open as well as my eyes, and I think that shows in the final choices. I’m really looking forward to coming back and responding to any questions (I’ve heard there are many) that folks might have, thanks for your interest.
XOSND
LAS VEGAS City Life, Interview with Beate from CAC
LAS VEGAS City Life, the one where the reviewer loves the show
VERY VINTAGE VEGAS, where the writer calls me "brilliant". I know, I'm a dork, but it made me feel warm inside
LAS VEGAS WEEKLY, Susan Forestieri's very insightful coverage of the show