In 2014, there was an insistence on anthological
exhibition and a shift of attention in the works for attention on the artist.
Arguably the many levels and this year will be marked
by the end of BES and for any consequences that end. In the visual arts the
bank's failure brought the end of Avenue 211, one studios and exhibition space
with outstanding quality, diversity and where they could watch the remarkable
exhibition that hardly find another context to develop.
What prevails is the crisis and in this scenario the
question that more recurrently all ask is: how long? And this is not only a
question for the recovery of health and dynamism of the art market, but
essentially a question by another institutional context in which works, authors
and public can relate to a freer way, diverse and risky. And one of the
expressions of this lack of risk is the lack of group exhibitions, research,
where monographic attention on the authors gives way to the construction of a
thought to and from unique works of art.
There are known exceptions in other geographies of art
and the world are brought to debate, but in general we are witnessing a shift
of attention in the works for attention on the artist and an insistence on
anthological exhibition, in affirming the authority of an author, in
confirmation of a route.
This is not to diminish the individual authors and the
key role that some of them have to get through their works, brighten any time
and a generation together with his afflictions and transformations, but it is
to note the domain of a typology expository and draw consequences. This is a
situation to which all contribute - newspapers and their idea of information,
criticism, the directions of museums and art centers and the predominance of
the statistical analyzes, their obsession with the public as the main criterion
of cultural management and programming etc. - And where predominates the
prejudice of success: the exhibition spaces are now places of the success
stories of where they are absent experimentation, research, exploratory
projects and the risk associated with them.
The first consequence of this transformation is that
the art exhibition are today mainly reflects the market dynamics and not
expression of the uniqueness of artistic proposals, nor does it materialize
lines of thinking about reality, which is questioned, investigates and attempts
to change . And often driven by strong financial constraint, it is the market
that enables exhibitions, are their agents that through generous sponsorships
allow and enable exhibitions, catalogs pay, offer works in return for the promotion
and enhancement of certain set of artists. And the exhibits that require more
research, more time, greater risks are placed second and forgotten. It is the
predominance of the successful artist (where the success criteria are many and
varied) and the absence of exposures to think our present condition, i.e.
exhibits that without security and without the guarantees of art history, of
its established events and away from the main protagonists to risk thinking the
paradoxes of everyday life.
In an important text Alison Gingeras, known historian
of American art, said a major art magazine, ArtForum, about an artist: as far
as thinking about his works, they are immune to all that they say about,
because the person who through the mythology about him forged and succeeded,
managed to make his works indifferent to any dispute and thereby ensure the
history of Olympus a prominent place for all his work. The text of Gingeras is
about Jeff Koons, but it serves here as an illustration and symptom of
displacement of the attention we have been describing in which the authors put
under his shadow his work and thus the eclipse.