CULTUREPHILE: PORTLAND ARTS

Comments

By Calvin Ross Carl on Aug 17, 2009 at 10:46AM

Shows like this are poisoning the well and help in maintaining Portland’s appearance as a haven for scrappy amateurs, and we are much more (and better) than this. My heart goes out to Chris Haberman and Gavin Shettler for successfully arranging such a huge behemoth of a show, but I wonder if that kind of tenacity and energy is misplaced and should be directed towards more critical exhibitions. I realize this largely served as an introduction to Milepost 5 for many people, which is good, but the show may have given the wrong kind of impression.

By Good Causes in Portland on Aug 17, 2009 at 10:57AM

You can find a taste of what you’ll see at the Manor of Art here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi7qsPfBkmE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rco0naR1F2c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK0wwYsy4ws

Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/GoodinPDX

Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/goodcausepdx

By Lisa Radon on Aug 17, 2009 at 11:56AM

Good Causes, thank you for posting links to more photos.

Well, Calvin, I think “poisoning the well” is overstating it. But I appreciate your concern that Portland not solely be considered a “haven for scrappy amateurs.” I ask you to consider that the reviews of Portland shows that will appear in Artforum, say, will not include the Manor. I think what I was getting at in my review here is that there are many slices of the art pie; the slice you are interested (as am I) has its own exhibitions, reviews, institutions. That doesn’t mean there should be no Art in the Pearl/Manor-type events, it just means to each his/her own.

L

By Calvin Ross Carl on Aug 17, 2009 at 12:00PM

I am completely aware of my snobbery, but I just love this town to damn much! :)

By Mark Randall on Aug 17, 2009 at 1:41PM

I applaud the hard work put in by all the artists and the milepost and city art folks. If the only place to show is in a"serious" gallery then that leaves out a lot. Lots of great art in history was only appreciated, purchased, supported etc, by a select few and in offbeat, underground, DIY whatever… show situation. (Joseph Cornell was making boxes in total obscurity until he visited the surrealist show in NY and realized what he and others were up to.) people start somewhere to get their feet wet and to put their work out in the public sphere. Critics ALWAYS dislike group shows for their “lack of message” or…" focus "or whatever.. Just relax , have some fun , buy some art and spend time really looking at what each person has to say. You might put a smile on your face or think a different way. I am one of the artists and I have had a ball the last 2 weeks.. people are actually taking the time to converse and opine about this show. That’s always a bonus.

By mark Randall on Aug 17, 2009 at 1:43PM

ps. sat nite was a cmpletely different.. ie quieter experience. easier to view etc. I recommend 2nd visit or go on the docent tours at 2pm each day. Thx for the blog

By Lisa Radon on Aug 17, 2009 at 2:32PM

Calvin, it’s not snobbery. We should talk about this sometime. Somebody has to push for quality and say that good enough isn’t good enough or all we’ll get is good enough. I’m with you all the way on loving PDX and wanting best for it. We always say we’re here for the long haul so want to make it Good.

And Mark, congrats on the hard work you put into the show and yes, artists need gateway venues to get their work out seen, get feedback, and maybe even connect with collectors, curators, etc. That’s why things like this are important part of the arts ecosystem in PDX.

L

P.S. critics don’t “ALWAYS” do anything.

By g to the m on Aug 17, 2009 at 4:27PM

Portland is not elitist! Everyone is welcome, except for the bad drivers! ;-)

Looking forward to seeing miss Rauer’s installation!

By Michael Fields on Aug 17, 2009 at 11:12PM

Calvin, I believe that The Manor of Art is in fact a “critical exhibition” serving to redefine your proverbial “well” as a reservoir. Portland is overflowing with creative energy and this event seeks to display as many different flavors of this energy as possible. The rooms were filled with art from fifteen-year-olds exhibiting for their first time to un"scrappy" professionals doing what they do best… not to forget – everyone in between. I love this city as much as you, but when speaking for the city one must take into account all of it’s parts; not just those which exist in our own fields of vision.

Michael Fields
Room 254

By Jonathan Stanish on Aug 17, 2009 at 11:46PM

All you silly fools and your stupid reviews. “Poisoning the well” please no need to be pretentious like every other critic in Portland. I dare you to say something like that to my face or any other person in this amazing show. This is one of the best things Portland has seen and I hope everyone can come to this show. Don’t listen to these pricks they have their dicks jammed so far up their own asses they can’t even shit. Jonathan Stanish room 248/247.

By Richard Schemmerer on Aug 18, 2009 at 2:59PM

Boy what can I say?
That sucks
I feel guilty poisoning the well for a small self nominated elite
even thou I showed here long before they had an art scene worth writing/complaining about
The funny thing is that Art is always in the now otherwise its yesterday’s art
and like my room 257
inspires everyone to reflect in the now about their compulsion to judge
what belongs , what is art what is not

This city does not deserved to be loved if it can’t provide positive feedback for all of its artists
and yes it is snobbism the worst kind the self absorbed ignorant kind

reading some of the statements make me sad
because it shows me that nothing has been learned

I congratulate Jonathan for his courage
honesty is also in the now and an art form
So I say wake up or stay irrelevant

The rest of the international art scene has long understood that the next art movement comes out of the urban element the amateurs that dare to question stagnation and concepts that have long expired but are dredged out in Portland as if they invented them.

By Lisa Radon on Aug 18, 2009 at 2:59PM

Hi Jonathan,

Don’t you think that the minute that we get our work out of the studio we have to be ready for reaction? It’s kind of what showing it is all about, isn’t it? Do you really want to intimidate a viewer into not reacting to your work? (I’m thinking of your “I dare you to say something…to my face.”)

I know for sure that when I write something here, I have to be ready to talk about it. I think it’s the same thing with putting your work in an exhibition.

Do you want to talk about your rooms? Let’s do it. Do you really think that every room is equally “amazing”? Thinking that through can be really interesting.

I’m definitely willing to debate the “stupid”-ness of my review (after I get back from camping). I won’t even call you names or talk about your ass (well, I might). See you around,

—L

By Lisa Radon on Aug 18, 2009 at 3:11PM

Hi Michael. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say, “Portland is overflowing with creative energy and this event seeks to display as many different flavors of this energy as possible.” And as I say, that’s a necessary part of the arts in Portland. I’m sure that both you and Richard have had conversations with folks about work you liked (or responded to) and work you didn’t and why. It’s all part of the conversation that’s initiated when anyone puts brush to canvas or pen to paper. I welcome all to let us know what rooms you responded most strongly to, what was great about work you saw, or simply what you liked. Take care, Lisa

By Lisa Radon on Aug 18, 2009 at 3:34PM

One last thing. Richard, I worry that I didn’t make clear what I meant. You respond to a lot of the kinds of work that I do so I know you know what I mean about art that moves art-as-a-whole forward (vs. just being right now). There are many channels, all moving, but some consciously seek to pick art up and move it forward, to investigate new terrain, while some channels are more about making pictures. I like pictures, but I want more. L

By Calvin Ross Carl on Aug 18, 2009 at 4:41PM

Perhaps I should clarify something. My complaint is not with the art in the Manor of Art. Yes, some of the work sucks (in my opinion) and some of it is great (also in my opinion), but my complaint is with the presentation. Richard, you a perfect example of an artist this show works against. Your work is strong and intriguing, but the presentation of this show doesn’t allow the viewer to even see your work, let alone attempt to understand it.

So to the artists that exhibited in the Manor of Art, I am not fighting against you. Rather I am fighting for you. Your work deserves to be seen in a place it can be focused upon, and where its contribution to the Portland art scene can be perceived. And the Manor of Art was not the right place.

By The Man on Aug 18, 2009 at 6:17PM

I think Jonathan has every right to be confrontational, frankly Im sick of every artist needing a den mother style atmosphere to be heard. So yes, go ahead and confront the world in the name of art. Pissed off is fine, in fact its a good thing as it creates urgency. Still, there has to be thought behind it all so that it isn’t just a single flailing gesture.

Manor of Art was fine but it isn’t the singular act of showing in a group show that will get you anywhere, you need to follow through. So yes Calvin is right, was it a wasted effort? No, but MP5 won’t be able to do it again and one wonders what was gained by it all? Is this just a desperate half-assed advertising stunt or a growth opportunity for some younger artists?

I think it was both

By Eva on Aug 18, 2009 at 6:51PM

Every year or two some big, messy group show happens. If something shakes out, then it’s for the good. So what was it here that defintely shook out? I ask because I’m having MP5 on KBOO next week. What would you ask of them? If it sparks conversation, it’s not all misguided. In general I am with Calvin – funnel all that energy into a committed statement. And no, we don’t don’t have to like everything.

By TJ Norris on Aug 18, 2009 at 10:44PM

“How do I say, de-gorgeous?” I can’t begin to tell you how weird, wonderful and whatever my experience has been as a participant in ‘The Manor of Art’ (rm222). Initially I was asked by two folks separately to participate and turned down the opportunity because of other (curatorial) commitments. Heck, after ‘The Modern Zoo’ and other warehousy shows I figured, do I really need to be seen to be part of the scene? That wasn’t by any stretch in my intent. But this came at a time when I’ve parted ways with my commercial representation and felt like a defining, yet unpredictable and possibly vulnerable moment for me — and this is how I want to work as a creative, soulfully, as someone who actually feels what I do. The expression ‘Can you feel me’ was born out of this basic urban need. And I think hacking a nursing home is quite urban, and this one was extremely welcoming – especially to newbies (and pre-pubees perhaps). That said, while herbal wafts and other mishigas took place over the two weeks of installation things came together slowly, some very last minute additions (those rooms are kinda obvious to an extent). But, even though I’m a critic like the next guy/gal, I honestly can say I witnessed some incredible intent going into this effort, whatever the outcome has become – some will be quite memorable – some will have gone completely missed (due to the sheer volume of square feet you must cover to view it all). There were several diamonds in the rough, and some real clear promise for this next generation of urbanite graphic artists, installationists and other ists. Piecing my ‘_transmission’ together took over a week, piece by piece, with regard to angles and observations — and it has ended up as something rebelling against a certain architectural formality construct. Punning, if you will the space its seen in and one that it might be perceived as. A middle ground, a limbo. The arts are mirroring the economy, there’s a sense of crisis, of honing in and lashing out simultaneously. I think that is what was so refreshing about that room balancing Heaven + Hell – the bloodbath/confessional room (you know the one). I think that’s what made the quiet moments in works so potent – Rhoda London’s lines and forms, Kelly Rauer’s delicate (yet ‘aggressive’) gestures were so silken and aerobic, Jim Neidhardt’s room with it’s big ole ‘DYI’ facing uncertainty, Matthew Haggett’s repeated, inverted and removed circular forms using found and fabricated materials, the ease and plein-aire feel of a personal studio space in Gabriel Liston’s space, and the quirky dark yet glitterific debauchery of Brooke Weston…oh and lest I mention that crazy/wonderful collab of husband and wife team Felicity Fenton and Michael T. Hensley? And Tiffany Lee Brown had a radiant red room giving tarot card readings, Gary Wiseman and Meredith Andrews extremely provoking mirrored space reclaiming creepy remains from the hallowed halls, the smart animated character drawings of Edward Juan, Brennan Connaway’s complex yet minimal structure with a single flared light chopping the room apart. There was the room where the carpet was sliced in half and pulled up by some well hung neon yarn strands, and an evening viewing of Cris Moss’ video window breakthrough piece was the altogether stand-out. The ‘something-for-everyone’ term only skims off the top. This thing is huge. Some presentations are a lil’ sloppy, some a lil’ timid, some bombastic, some maybe even a bit too conceptual (did i say that?), and others look like performative spaces where the players have now left the building. All in all this is the behemoth of the Summer, period. …(breath).

By gabe flores on Aug 19, 2009 at 12:56AM

Just as a note my installation title is “Greener than You?” not “Green Apples.” I put up a few pics at gabeflores.blogspot.com of the show. For myself art is always a confidence building exercise where I try to be as vulnerable as possible and if it is deemed as art hurray if it isn’t it was still a great exercise because it gave me an opportunity to try.

When I hear folks like Calvin speak of poising the troff or when others speak of lowering the bar it’s just so off putting and it is an easy dismissal. He makes it sound as if the Manor is Portland and it most definitely is not. There are a lot of scrappy amateurs like myself who just gave it go because someone was kind enough to ask to be a part of it. There were several well known in Portland names, but there were many of us who might not show as often. I guess what Calvin is really asking for is for the curators to have a heavier hand in directing the process and I guess that is the part that I don’t really agree with. Chris, John, and Gavin put total trust in the artist by allowing them to do whatever the f"ck they wanted with the room and the only rules were that you couldn’t take out the carpet and there could be no large holes. I really appreciate the trust they had because it became less of a curator’s show and more of an artist’s because it was artist directed. Some efforts weren’t as affective as others but it was refreshing seeing what people developed without rules. I love even the art fair style rooms because of this; it’s what they wanted to do for 10 days. The new folks in most situations are always the ones supposedly lowering or poisioning and that’s kind of messed up. Folks like Calvin really give scrappy amateurs a lot more power than what they actually have, which is very little. I was just happy people were in my room taking it in. Art shows are not a cost/benefit analysis and a show cannot be seen on a spreadsheet to see where the bar is now and we can’t test the troff’s water to see if it’s been poised. That all sounds so dramatic and whiny and hopefully folks will trust the process of letting everyone add to the troff and drink from the troff to not be afraid that our precious Portland will be contaminated because of it’s openness.

By Nick Reibel on Aug 19, 2009 at 4:37AM

I think it’s a good idea to consider what Calvin is thinking, as any comment is a worthy comment. Initially, it was something along the lines of this show not being “critical”, as in “important” (I’m assuming)? It was then followed up by a clarification; it’s not the work, it’s the space. If I’m taking this all in correctly, Calvin meant that because of the space, the work is not seen in the best possible light (not light literally of course, but I can see good criticism in speculating that a poorly lit show does not allow the viewer take in the piece). This is in comparison to the more traditional space – white walls, high ceilings, bright, uncluttered? Or do you mean – located in a building that was designed specifically to house “contemporary art” and whatever those accepted design limitations are? Or is it more about the process involved in selecting what (and whose what) goes into that space?

I can’t say for certain what Calvin means, but it probably entails a combination of these parameters we accept as defining a space for art. Unfortunately, if an artist’s work is not seen in a space where a few of these things can be checked off, it tends to marginalize or negate the work….and maybe the artist. Is the space really that important Calvin? How weak is an artist’s work if it needs to be propped up by the traditions of art to legitimize it? to recognize it? Yes, to those that don’t drag around with them the history, traditions, legends, and prejudices of art history (the public) a work will definitely gain “something” from sitting between those four large white walls. Some don’t feel art needs/deserves that kind of wrapping, and others believe it hinders open criticism of art from the viewer who rarely enters that space. In fact, much of the public avoids that space, it’s uncomfortable. I want to differentiate here, the institution is uncomfortable or intimidating, not necessarily the work. It’s very important to see these as two completely different entities. I am all for making art uncomfortable or intimidating, but it can’t be sitting on the shirt tails of a gallery for it to be this.

If we accept that art reflects society, then I think it’s important to identify that society. This is also inclusive of how that art is presented. I believe Portland is not representative of a typical American city. It may not even be representative of a typical West coast city. People who come to Portland see this, they feel this, and they comment on it. Many return to stay, others stay away. What has been happening in the Portland art scene must be a reflection of this. Gavin Shettler has been pushing for Portland art for a quite a few years (Everett Lofts, Modern Zoo, Portland Art Center, Manor of Art…), all of which are critical in making the Portland art scene important. Portland art is being defined, don’t be surprised if it does not take a traditional role in the art world, as “traditional” does not define Portland’s unique place in American.

Besides, once art’s placed in an institution, it’s dead.

By Room 119 on Aug 19, 2009 at 2:49PM

We’ve enjoyed reading this comment thread. First of all, we are a room at “The Manor” – just a museum of dust called “Manor Experience” – we’ve been Twittering about Manor artists, sponsors, critics, etc. http://twitter.com/room_119 posting on FB http://facebook.com/room119.PDX and on Craigslist. It has been great that @LisaRadon has been interested in #ManorPDX and it is fitting that The Debate is getting ranted in her comments. We [Room 119 along w/ The Manor] are going to end on the 24th, and go from “Museum” to “Mausoleum” as it were, so it is kind of like we’re having a mid-life crisis today :^) Anyhoo, for the record, we wanted to say (and not to offend) that Calvin Ross Carl is either 1) being provocative, 2) talking out his (expletive deleted), or 3) misapprehending The Manor of Art. If he wants Cultural Elevation, I think TBA is happening soon. Isn’t PICA more about that kind of art that horrifies common folk by getting N.E.A. grants? Erudite art. Fancy art (like me, actually)… Portland City Art, on the other hand, is a 501(3)© non-profit with a good mission. http://portlandcityart.org/about/ A good amount of raw DIY, unschooled, early-career, punk, outsider, etc. is what one would expect. A real cross section of Portland’s creative people. Kidding about PICA aside – The Manor really dovetails wonderfully with “High Art” like TBA – IMNSHO – and creates an honest, rounded picture of Portland’s (vital and vibrant if not invariably high brow) creative community. I can’t believe this show “poison(s) the well and help(s) in maintaining Portland’s appearance as a haven for scrappy amateurs” – like Manor just should not have been put on! No way! While Lisa Radon’s comparison between Manor and an open poetry night is true enough, and there is certainly something for everyone to hate, The Manor is a cultural moment, a sprawling, 10-day snapshot of Portland Oregon, Art City USA, August 2009, in a real, raw form – punk rock in one room, High Art in another, passionate outsiders, small businesses, some very successful artists, some superunknowns, design and performance collectives, and just an incredible amount more. Something for everyone to love, too, even if the kitchen sink & dozens of toilet bowls have been thrown in as well. PICA / TBA / N.E.A. types of Culturally Elevating art – if we are correctly categorizing what Calvin Ross Carl likes better – is exclusive and national / international while this Modern Zoo meets the Chris Haberman Art Machine event is inclusive and local. It is apples and oranges. And we, at Room 119, think it rocks. To Calvin Ross Carl’s later point about Richard Schemmerer: We sincerely disagree again. We think that Mr Schemmerer is kind of perfect @ the Manor – he is pivotal in his connectedness to the Portland Art Community – as a blogger, documentarian, and commentator – as well as being, of course, gifted and talented in a range of disciplines. [dont say that! were not kissing his (expletive deleted)!] We think it is perfect how he has curated the Manor’s (wild) altar space outside the chapel and – in his own suite – deconstructed himself in a way that one would not see in another context. 10X more work than you’d see in a gallery show – at least – exposing a range of expression and illuminating his voice in a way that a more formal presentation would not. Not a better way. Not the only way. But in a very interesting way that – if The Manor had not been put on as is – we would never see. Thanks to all involved! Our best, Room 119, room119(at)milepostfive(dot)com

By Heidi Elise Wirz on Aug 19, 2009 at 3:26PM

Well. To be honest, reviews scare the heck out of me, and reading them is sort of counterproductive. You do what you do because you love it. Being an artist means exposing your self, all the tender gooey parts, all the dark parts. You put yourself up for criticism every time you hang a piece, paint a mural, design anything really. So, I feel it is in every artist’s best interest, to put their best foot forward. And, after spending the last two or so weeks out at the Manor more than I care to mention, this show did just that. Huge, big ol’ stinky best foot forward. All involved have put their best efforts in. As a result, its’ a huge amount of the Portland art community standing up yelling, “hey look at what I can do!”. That, I feel should be applauded. I think the Manor kicks ass, and am damned proud to be a part of it! Great job all of you who worked..worked on it. xo Heidi Elise Wirz Room 216.

By stephen Plount on Aug 19, 2009 at 4:18PM

I think artforum sucks.

By Felicity Fenton on Aug 20, 2009 at 10:17AM

I wonder what this conversation would be like around a camp fire.

By Shelly W. on Aug 20, 2009 at 10:54AM

Let the critics will say what they will…all I know is that I saw many, many people that were excited and in awe. Plus a lot of art sold, is always a + and a pos. sign.

By wednesday on Aug 20, 2009 at 12:24PM

a couple days late and perhaps a dollar short, but this conversation is exactly what the art community needs. artists need to put their work out there and reviewers/critics/observers need to react. is calvin’s initial comment snobbery? no, he is merely stating his opinion based on the detailed observation of the work produced for the show. if you don’t like it don’t worry about it, or better yet react artistically to it. a lot of artists didn’t like what greenberg ever had to say and, as a result, he provoked/challenged many an artist to create more.

is it so much to ask for our curators to ‘push for quality’? while MP5 is an alternative venue and less of the ‘serious’ gallery setting that many are used to, it still requires the delicate orchestration of curatorial guiding. in my opinion, the show looks as if a gaggle of artists were invited, given a room and set free to do with as they pleased. which i think was in fact the case. however, there was no common thread. no focus. unless that is the common thread or message is, as Heidi Elise Wirz pointed out, “look what we can do?!”

a group show deems that the show be reviewed as a whole and as a whole i think it was successful in some ways. the people came, they saw and they bought. we witnessed a community in full support of its art. the show provided many people a first chance at putting something cohesive together whether it be hanging large amounts of work or an installation. perhaps it also provided veteran artists a platform to put something out there that they wouldn’t normally have a chance to. but i can’t shake the overarching feeling that i had walking through that show…“this is all you got? i know we can do better.” while i love and appreciate the effort, failed and successful, i also want more.

so what was gained from this show? 1) conversation. this one in particular sparked some interesting ideas and hit on some very sensitive emotions, which i see as productive (so long as we keep the hostility out of it). 2) this show provided a platform for many artists to try something new or do something for the first time. 3) we were also show that our community is interested in art…of all kinds

i suppose this is the question. is the ‘look what we can do’ free for all beneficial in the long run to the portland art scene?

why don’t we all get together and talk about this over pancakes?

By Calvin Ross Carl on Aug 20, 2009 at 5:13PM

Glad I could get everyone worked up. I may have disliked some aspects of the show, but we still documented it for OPENWIDEpdx. So go check out the pics and videos. Some of you may even notice your work: http://www.openwidepdx.com/?p=1250

By Skinny_Jeans_Ironic_Moustache on Aug 20, 2009 at 7:07PM

Gross! Carl – don’t post that crap! You’re poisoning the well & making it look like P-town is a haven for rank amateurs. I love this town to much to sit by while you disgrace us by validating this Not Culturally Significant tripe! You’re better than this! Lets focus on putting our effort behind Worthwhile Art, hopefully even some day filling the Portland Art Museum with cement – the sheer density of which will bring Portland the Cultural Acclaim it deserves – making us the hip small city that every other small city wants to be (or to be with rrawr!). Lets stick to close-in / down-town Coolness – like The Picas and Galley Homepad – and not commit High Cultural suicide – not void our proverbial bowels into Beloved Portland’s maw as it yodels along with some Important “Art Based in Time” – by making Important Blog Posts about these East County Yokels and their dreary, un-degreed, possibly located in Gresham or Clackamas nonsense! These 150 clowns probably don’t have a dozen MFAs between them! I can’t believe you’re chiming in with this Hugs All Around / You’re A Winner If You Tried doctrine that is destroying Our Art Scene! Call me a snob if you must – and maybe it is true – maybe my Refined Sensibilities, my MFA in Installation Art, and my belief that uncultured yokels should NOT be allowed in the Portland Fancy Art Club means I’m a snob – and so be it! But I most certainly DO NOT plan on visiting http://www.openwidepdx.com/?p=1250 and – again – having to see (and validate with my Erudite Cultured Gaze) the gauche, pedestrian, ham-fisted low art that Haberman and Shettler are using to choke the very life out of our once vibrant Intellectual Art Scene with this HORRIBLE “Manor of Art” business.

By Ashley Sloan on Aug 20, 2009 at 11:14PM

Oh sweet, I was waiting for this to turn juvenile. And it just did. Thanks Skinny_Jeans_Moustache. Seeing how OPENWIDEpdx supports all galleries in town, if not much more the alternative spaces, your comment makes very little sense.

By gabe flores on Aug 20, 2009 at 11:18PM

For some reason I’m not able to post on here, but if this goes through on Saturday at 5pm I would like to have a Culturephile Comment roundtablish tour where we can further discuss the Manor in all ways. I’ll bring rice crispy treats and maybe lemon bars. We can meet at the entrance and I’ll hold a sign saying, “Culturephile Comment Tour.” See you at 5pm on Saturday.

By Joel barber on Aug 21, 2009 at 1:20AM

There’s plenty being discussed here, but there are some key points that come to mind: First of all, WHO SAID IT WAS A GROUP SHOW?? Nobody told me it was a group show! None of the posters say “group show”. I think the press release says 100 plus artists in 100 rooms. That’s not a group show. Maybe think of it as 100 shows in one building. The point is that we all were able to do ANYTHING, and better yet, we had WEEKS to do it. Most art shows hang one day, and show the next. Just the flexibility to add-on, change it, paint the walls, mural, install, all on our own schedule and own terms. In that sense, the show is a treat for the artists. But really, what kind of group theme do you want? I can’t imagine somebody criticizing the Everett station lofts for not all being properly curated around a cohesive motif. If you take each Manor room as it’s very own little gallery, you will find that each one has it’s on curatorial theme. Wow, and all under one roof. (even if it smells like old people)

Personally, I put much thought into the concept and visual presentation of my room, without considering or even really looking at other rooms until I was near completion. Also, I might ad that many of us were still hammering out the details on Friday night, when many of the people here saw the show. What was scrappy then, may be tighter now.

Thanks for discussing. Critique is important.

~Joel (room 232)

By RE:photos on Aug 21, 2009 at 1:30AM

Most people don’t mind; however, Oregon law states that it is illegal to photograph artwork, without the express written permission by the artist. 8)

By derek franklin on Aug 21, 2009 at 2:34AM

First off, I think Pica needs left out of this conversation on all levels it is a bare bones non profit that does an amazing job programming on their budget. This is accomplished through extremely hard work and a DIY attitude that few people have the determination to pull off. Also they are open to allowing anyone in on the process and I do mean anyone. I am a young artist and amateur art historian at best, but I see some major issues with the Art Manor show at MP5. The first is that this is a real estate ploy to sell condos that artists would have a hard time affording, and uses artists as a marketing scheme. Second, being a member of the neighborhood surrounding MP5 the community engagement almost does not exist. So, attacks about this criticism being about which neighborhood it is in has no validity, because MP5 is a gated locked community within another community. The Montevilla neighborhood is rich with many forms of culture that was generally not tapped into for the exhibition. Unfortunately, creating an isolated site much like that of the white box gallery just more DIY. This put everything there in an art context and under the discourses of art, which I believe made everyone in the show happy and excited until now. I believe that poisoning the well were poorly chosen words, but it is also rude to assume that any artist today does not know about or have some respect for artists on the fringe of the white box system. It is not this outside community or artist, which are the aim of Calvin’s criticism. It is that as a rigorous working artist I have put in a massive amount of time researching, making, and fighting against the stereotypes of the artist madman, idiot savant, lazy, unprofessional or alcoholic vision seeker. I have fought for people to look at my work in a certain way and respected the history of my craft along the way whether it be intellectual or purely studio based. To walk into a show with so many styles, genres, movements and mentalities appropriated and repackaged as original with no new context built around them was really disheartening. It shows little respect for the hard work of artists and historians of the past and displays a lack of due diligence on the artists behalf. Only the artists is responsible for the way their work is viewed and understood in public. Defend your work, do not start dissing people for what they have most likely worked really hard for. You do not know what all fancy pants downtown artists have been through or done in their past, and right now it appears that MP5 gave a lot of artists a chance to show off their soon to be renovated space to potential buyers, and that is irresponsible of the artists. You have been used by real estate investors and they did not even give you a good place to show your work. I think exploitation of artists does poison the art well and only makes it easier for artists to be used or ask for free labor by wealthier entities in the future.

By Adam Bailey on Aug 21, 2009 at 6:03AM

I’m so curious as to what you mean about my piece being “troubling”? It’s interesting to me because the experience I had in envisioning it was troubling in itself. The place brought back many memories of my own elders that had spent their own twilight years in similar places. All of the clothes were sold to me by a woman who had carefully collected them from the closets of her deceased relatives. We spent over an hour talking about the clothes and her family from which they came.
The microphone and delayed playback system is meant to encourage the sense of time having passed and then re-evaluated. It’s effect is thoroughly diminished by the live music in the courtyard, so much so that the feedback already destroyed the system once! Please tell me more about how it troubled you, I’m sincerely intrigued.

I also think that only part of it may have been a nursing home, (as evidenced by the large metal security doors hiding in the hallways). The building probably evolved it’s purpose during its many phases and expansions.

Kind Regards,

Adam Bailey

P.S. The individuals who choose to inject disapproval to the collective efforts of the artists (amateur and deft alike), in this event are suspect in their own competence. The wanton bashing of amateur artists is the effortless stain of dilettantes.

By Calvin Ross Carl on Aug 21, 2009 at 9:33AM

RE:photos: Threatening OPENWIDEpdx with legalese seems like a bit of faulty logic. It is a not-for-profit website whose sole purpose is documenting, supporting, and exposing contemporary artists working within the Portland art scene. However, if you wish to not have your work included on the site, feel free to send an email to info@openwidepdx.com

By Calvin Ross Carl on Aug 21, 2009 at 10:05AM

In an effort to continue the debate… It sounds like many people agree that the Manor of Art is less of a group exhibition, and more of an art fair environment in spirit. Perhaps that is a new and important point of discussion. If the Manor of Art is similar to an art fair (or even a loosely juried one-time “biennial” of emerging, and some mid-career, artists), then maybe everyone can add their input on the positives and negatives of the Manor as an art fair. Art fairs play an important role in developing and acting as a symbol of what is currently happening on a local, national, or international level. Art fairs and biennials are always hotly debated because many people feel they occasionally misrepresent the artists, and the very art scene they are meant to represent. I’m not even saying that the Manor misrepresented the artists, or even our art scene. Instead I am saying that the size, lack of curatorial focus on themes throughout the work, and even the space itself, made it very difficult to create a show/fair that seemed cohesive in any way. There were some fun, intriguing pieces in the show, but I felt that they were placed in the wrong context, and that tainted the Manor experience. I understand the excitement of all the artists involved, because I was invited to be involved in the show (but decided against it due to lack of available time) and was genuinely interested in the possibility of taking over a whole room. And most people obviously had fun and created interesting rooms, but I will say what I have said before, my problem was not with the art in the rooms but the overall organizing of the show and its intention, because it seemed like there was no intention other than putting a lot of artwork in a space. Which is not the right kind of intention to ever create a truly successful show/fair/whatever you would like to call it. And on one last note, and then I am likely done involving myself with involving myself with this internet discussion, I agree wholeheartedly with Derek Franklin… Leave PICA out of this. PICA is one of the few groups in town that presents Portland very successfully on an international level. Every single one of us (myself included) could learn from the way their incredibly strong work ethic results in high quality exhibitions of visual art and performance. I can’t make it to Gabe Flores’ roundtable event because I am booked up all weekend, so does anyone want to get drinks and talk about this another time?

By Meg Scheminske on Aug 21, 2009 at 10:06AM

I would just like to point out, since I didn’t see it mentioned here by anyone, that I absolutely loved Troy Briggs’ upside down room. It was one of the “quiet” spaces that I appreciated very much.

By Calvin Ross Carl on Aug 21, 2009 at 10:29AM

I know I said I wouldn’t add anything more to this discussion… but Meg you are so right about Troy Briggs’ room. I was an entrancing experience.

By Joel barber on Aug 21, 2009 at 10:45AM

As a participant, it was obvious to me from the beginning that the event would be helping promote MP5. Everyone has an agenda. I understand, I think, what some are getting at when debating the fact that the manor was not the ideal venue and scenario. Please consider these points: Nobody has attempted to pull this many artist together before, there was no entry fee, there are no other venues that allow the amount of preparation time as the manor. Maybe a very important thing that we are learning here is that Portland does not have enough spaces for emerging artists to be shown in a group setting. The white walled galleries wouldn’t have shown some of these artists and/or would want to direct what is shown. That would take away our important context. I say bring on the venues! Sign me up, who wants to give us the same sort of show in the Pearl? (silence? oh, that’s what i thought). The Manor has been a wonderful cross section of what is going on that I may not otherwise see (good and half-ass, alike). I challenge those who are complaining, to offer ideas to improve the scenario. We are often quick to criticize because things don’t live up to our ideal situation, but maybe that wasn’t possible so creative people are making the best of what we have. So what do we need to do to make it better?

visit 619 Market building in Seattle on a First thursday. It’s 6 floors of artist studios having openings. It’s a good model for what portland needs. The manor is the closest thing to that that i’ve seen here.

By Lisa Radon on Aug 21, 2009 at 11:32AM

Whew, excellent. Leave town for a couple days and conversation blows up. Thanks everyone for your thoughts. There’s so much here! Thank you TJ, especially, for taking time to walk us through work that mattered. Gabe, apologies for getting the name of your room wrong (fixed), and I’m thrilled you want to continue the conversation. :::One great thing is that we can consider what we mean by curation. As Seth Nehil pointed out in a comment on my post previewing the Manor, “To ‘curate’ implies some kind of thematic, conceptual or aesthetic grouping, some kind of thesis or statement which unifies the work (or at least points to fruitful differences).” A well-curated show can add layers of meaning/conversation/inquiry/art-historical connectivity to works by individual artists. In a way, an artist’s work is ill-served by being jumbled in with all different kinds of work. It is very hard, as a viewer, to clear the perceptual slate before entering each room to approach it with fresh mind. Hard not to consider work in relation to work around it. The experience of the Manor, for better or worse, is cumulative. :::I’m willing to be that Chris Haberman wouldn’t suggest that he was making a curatorial statement with this show, rather a heroic organizational effort. For the record, I do not agree, though, that it is impossible to curate a show with 100 artists. :::Derek, I’m glad that you raised issues about artists being used to sell condos and the fact that in order to work, Milepost 5 is going to have to reach out to and integrate with its surrounding community. :::Adam, thank you so much for commenting. I didn’t hear the sound component of your piece at all. Without it, the room felt like a glib rather than thoughtful comment on the site. I often think about how much extra info should I have, or give, in addition to the work itself, to be able to appreciate a work of art. Knowing about your process adds so much to understanding the piece. Hopefully the sound component will do this for all viewers. I’ll look forward to hearing it. :::and finally, wednesday, I couldn’t agree more that this conversation is exactly what we need.

By Tiffany Lee Brown on Aug 21, 2009 at 1:20PM

Oh wow. A loudmouth like me could go off for pages & pages about this conversation! Good stuff, people. First off - thank you, TJ, for props on my piece (room #310)…………. using lots of dots because carriage returns/paragraphs don’t seem to be working on this site?…………. #1) curatorial issues. i agree that this wonderfully mayhemic Manor of Art lacks curatorial focus of any kind. however, i didn’t get the impression that it intended to use that particular curatorial lens. i recently curated a multidisciplinary show of 24+ artists and (subtly, i hope) there was great attention paid to who would be in it, what their work would be like, what i’d ask ’em to do, and what they wanted to present. there was even a theme. i loved how it came together. but guess what? that is not the only curatorial approach in the world or in art history. not at all. i was under the impression that Haberman & company -- including many volunteers who should be thanked here - were letting artists run riot in a nursing home. …………. that’s the only reason i accepted the invitation to present work at the Manor. i was overbooked and exhausted, but i couldn’t pass up the energy of this idea. i loved Modern Zoo, too, and got to show in that space later on but in a more curated show. so to me, as an artist, this presented a fun opportunity………….. #2) crass commercialism: i’d rather have an artist condo space sponsor a raw, down ‘n’ dirty art experience than have NO ONE sponsor that experience. 2 Gyrlz and the Enteractive Language Festival, pre-TBA and pre-Zoo, put on an underground, month-long art/music/film/performance experience every year for four years. raw, sometimes disturbing work occurred, local along with established artists and some international performers. did EL-fest have to “represent Portland to the snooty New York art world types” just because EL-fest existed??? no, and neither should the Manor be saddled with that responsibility. 2 Gyrlz often presented the kind of work no one else in town would show (Ron Athey bleeding HIV blood all over? Kate Bornstein bringing up transgender issues? Combined with a weird experimental filmmaker no one had ever heard of before, while improv-noise musicians you’ve also never heard of created a soundtrack? Pete Kusov pointing his gun? Soriah practically raising the dead? i don’t see that being booked by Portland Art Museum at this point.) …………. sorry to rant, point is that if no one gives space to the raw, the new, the underground, or just Art That Doesn’t Happen to be Fashionable Right Now Especially in Portland, Oregon, then we all lose. …………. #3) bringing up PICA… sure, why not add them to the discussion? PICA is fantastic and i love that we have TBA. however, we cannot and should not expect PICA to support a grassroots, super-risky, alternative, wildass event/exhibition like the Manor. PICA has a job to do. someone else needs to step up and support weirder and more raw work, without the pressure of being an internationally acclaimed festival, supporting a considerable paid staff, etc etc…………. back to commercialism: given that PICA and other orgs have other jobs to do, props to MP5 for marketing itself while letting the community choose a different kind of interesting experience. Corporations and individuals market the hell out of themselves all over this town. Liz Leach wants you to buy her artists’ work (and liz leach rocks, and her gallery should be successful! why not?). PICA and Portland Center Stage and Hand2Mouth and Disjecta thank their sponsors in programs and in introductions… so do all of us, even if the donation was a $10 gift certificate to an appropriately indie-hipster shop on Alberta. we want our organizations, our galleries, our festivals, and our artists to succeed. we accept donations. in this case, the donation was a giant space to freak out in, and yes, MP5 has every right to lure customers with that, just like if you thank Nike or Cute Indie Girl’s Recycled Clothing Boutique on your website for helping you put on some other show. …………. #4) Skinnyjeans’s post. hee hee hee, i love it! anyone who’s having trouble with that post, try reading an issue of Mad magazine, cranking up your sarcasm dial, and giving the post another read. …………. #5) art crit. yep, if you put your work out there, you’re going to hear back from the world. sometimes it can be useful to listen. you might learn something. and it might be self-aggrandizing puffery on the part of the critic. it’s worth listening to and deciding for yourself. i recently got my ASS kicked by people who i thought were an essential part of “my artistic community.” it freakin’ HURT. i had those moments of indignation, moments of “if so many people are going to get angry or dismissive of this work, maybe i should give up.” well, i gotta suck it up, learn something, and keep moving. that’s art and that’s writing. put it out there, get some praise, get some negative responses, keep going, keep going, and, you know, Don’t Stop Believin’…………. #6) i have slipped into second person, as though nagging you all and giving you a lecture. i have no idea why. sorry!…………. #7) does Tiffany Lee Brown ever shut up? yes, and it’s about to happen…………. just about…………. now.

By Lisa Radon on Aug 21, 2009 at 2:10PM

Thanks Tiff! I love you for Journey. We just sang DSB around a campfire. Ha! I just had a conversation with Bethany Ides about MP5 and the using artists-to-make-the-space/‘hood/product-cool-so-you-can-sell-it thing. What I said? While I think it’s a little yucky that, say, Scion sponsors an art thing, so what? We want space to show work. We want someone to pay to turn the lights on. We want people to be able to see/engage with art all over the city. We should welcome every time ZGF makes a gallery in the lobby of its new skyscraper or South Waterfront initiates an artist-in-residence program or CYAN partners with PNCA or Milepost5 lets the artists rock the house. Why not? :::and don’t ever shut up.

By Richard Schemmerer on Aug 21, 2009 at 5:30PM

Manor of Art never pretended to be anything never promised anything
But fun and diversity and okay another alternative to show Alternative Art.

I am sorry that the established art scene and the critics and curators are so helpless in this situation and super imposing their needs and personal pursuits and dependencies on spelled out concepts.
The concept was none concept none conformity rebellion against you “who needs to have a frame of reference” add on as you wish….

Oh yah just one more we hoped you would go leave your american Idol judge/critics hat at home and see, feel and be grateful that 120 artist thought they could please you by working their ass off for an event that goes beyond what’s expected!!! Please get this in your heads.

This was not a group show or an art fair. There is nothing you can compare it too.
Nothing! It doesn’t matter who sponsored it or who profits from it.
Over 100 artists and performers were allowed to have a voice to have fun and believe me lots of them worked 100 hours or more first cleaning and then painting the space not so that a bunch of art snobs can write about it how un professional it is but so 2000 people can see it and 95 % plus of them loved it. Get it loved!!!! Loved the strangeness the crappiness that surprises at every step you took the feeling going from heaven to hell all in one building. Boy I am getting all wet just thinking about it.
The only thing curated was the Alter Nation Part of the event and if that seems like a mess to you you can blame me for it.
One piece was titled turd blossom did you see it?
but it also had as part of its statement the curatorial note you are claiming did not exists and please tell me you all have read the statements yes there are two hyes I did I wrote two because I can
Honestly I am ashamed of so much misconception and so little true understanding of this event and stop calling people scrappy amateurs no matter who it is it shows a fundamental lack of respect
I dare to say it infringes already on our human rights and super-seats the right for free speech this kind of stuff is the virus that later breeds hate speech believe me as a gay man I know what I am talking about it starts that early.
There are good books out on the violence of language
Please stop comparing art events. “Manor of Art” was and is suppose to be like Life it’s beautiful messy chaotic and controversial and last point
it was about not to fulfill anyone’s fucking pipe dreams, excuse my language.

Thanks
Hope to see you all Saturday and please stay for Sam Adams and for the celebration of the last night of Manor of Art.
I love you all even if I don’t understand that you don’t understand
I apologies to all of you
Richard Schemmerer

By Gabriel Liston on Aug 21, 2009 at 6:01PM

With no disrespect to Haberman or Graeter, I was in it for the Brick. While I’m curious to put my pictures into any old trashheap just to see if we survive (the bins or the museum, whatever), I had been waiting to go digging around in the Brick since I first saw it. And unfortunately it pretty much takes a participation invitation to get me out of my house.

There was an organizational challenge or two, but I’m very happy with the rooms I wound up choosing and the conversations I’ve had with people going through. Now I begin to wonder what sort of artist-in-residence programs active nursing homes have set up? I think the shootig gallery, for instance, might go over pretty well.

By on Aug 21, 2009 at 10:18PM

lisa — “and don’t ever shut up.” HA! i will take that to heart, and you’ll be so sorry you ever said it. tee hee. thank you, and i am stunned that you were just singing “don’t stop believin’” around a campfire. wish i’d been there.

reading this thread has been fascinating partly because i don’t think i’ve seen half the rooms mentioned here! and i’ve been out there 5 days so far. i gotta find this shooting gallery.

By brainy smurf on Aug 22, 2009 at 1:01AM

Richard

I think you have a lot of common misconceptions about why critics and other artists are motivated to critique. Also, generally railing against feedback is probably not in any creative person’s interest on a personal growth level.

All artists must be critical at some level to succeed or at least to explore their work more fully. It sounds like Calvin and the other critiques struck a nerve, please consider how that’s a gift to you and the show.

By Seth Nehil on Aug 22, 2009 at 12:39PM

I have to agree with brainy smurf. I believe that art (making and viewing) is an inherently critical activity. Beyond the simple evaluative process – “Do I like it or not?”, art is asking us to consider. The very act of depiction is forming a map of the world, and if we are thinking viewers, we have to decide if the map seems sensually or intellectually accurate. The idea that “thinking” and “fun” are somehow mutually exclusive just seems to create a false division between varieties of artistic engagement……………….
It’s great to hear people arguing about the role of critique – it’s an excellent discussion to be having. Personally, I think a critic should be doing more than just describing the work at hand. It’s not enough to simply use words to illustrate a work for the absent viewer. If the work is worth our attention, then there are deeper layers of meaning to unfold. The act of making something for others to experience can be considered a process of communication. In that regard, we do this activity called art not only to learn about our own feelings or ideas, but also to learn about how others may react. A critic doing his or her job is not just evaluating the work – giving some measure of “quality” (whatever that means), but is actively engaged in understanding. That is indeed a gift………………
As I read through all these comments, I see that very few people are actually looking at individual works, making clear and precise observations. As long as these generalities about “the Portland scene” or “Portland artists” are thrown around, the conversation remains a display of preconceived notions rather than a sharing of ideas. Nonetheless, I’m glad to see this active comment section, and passionate writers. I’m also glad to see a blogger who can undefensively allow the comment section to take on its own life. Thanks Lisa.

By Mark Randall on Aug 23, 2009 at 10:22AM

I was at the front desk fri nite and saw the following;1.) every visitor/customer was happy and smiling. IT WAS FUN, FUN is a good thing. The only vaguely negative comment about the show I heard Was"interesting" (a familiar code word my mom use to utter about my friends in the olden days), my kids say it about me now. 2) I took in salees of about $1000 worth of art in 2 hours. That most likely beat a lot of the downtown gallery sales for last friday. (at least how much they paid their artists that week) 3. There was really good music. 4. Community involvement and interest in the MP5 project. Interest and belief in private investment is .A GOOD THING. Nothing gets done (epecially in the art world) without vision, hard work, involvement and financial support. and 5) cold beer, a PDX necessity. PS Thanks again to PDX ART and MP5. It felt as good as the Modern ZOO.

By magdalen on Aug 25, 2009 at 11:13AM

whhops, this is the URL i meant to post, for “critical quandaries”:

http://www.2gq.org/2008/11/critical_quanda.html

By jennifer gleach on Aug 25, 2009 at 9:47PM

wow. i happened to hear some of gavin’s interview this morning and now i’ve made it through these comments; what a fun/thinking time. (thanks seth nehil for that reminder!)
i found out about this show through being on the volunteer list for the love show- which is also giant, by the way, and possibly scrappy. why is that a bad thing? portland used to be proud of being scrappy and tough. people moved here for that attitude as i recall.
initially i felt only bitter about not getting a room but i did two shifts (friday night and tuesday afternoon) happily. and yes, the visitors did seem excited by what they saw. tuesday’s crowd favorite was the bee room (rebecca shapiro).
i have many thoughts about art, this town, events, and development, and my place as a person confident in my work making my way slowly through the “the scene”. mainly i think the scene only exists as much as you let it define you.
i would rather define myself by the beautiful installation that i work on in my basement even if nobody else ever wants to buy it.
if somebody else judges their work by sales- so be it.
there is room enough in any town for both camps or 17 camps.with fires and marshmallows.

By Josh Pavlacky on Aug 28, 2009 at 10:37PM

I just listened to Gavin’s interview, and was most piqued by the statement: "I kind of thought that going into it, you know, it’s not for everybody. the show was not designed for that specific group in the arts community that understands where we are within the dialogue of art history, and a continuation of ideas and thoughts through images and through expression.

I think that part of the debate over Manor of Art centers around “who it’s for.” Using Gavin’s dichotomy to look at the two camps, you have the “art folk” vs. the “regular folk”(‘egalitarian’ show). Both camps traditionally believe that their own preferred art is in opposition to the others. Fun vs smart, curated vs open, personal vs meta etc. Splitting the world into two groups, one able to understand art history and context, and the other unable/uninterested, fails to consider the 80% of people (think, biological bell curves!) who have varying ranges of capabilities and interest, and who may appreciate and benefit more profoundly by work that engages them on multiple fronts. Running a gallery space that caters the Last Thursday crowd, I can assure you that the most stoned-out, off the wall, completely out-of-the-art-loop person is absolutely capable of nailing challenging work right on the head, and it’s a great thing to experience. There should be more attention paid to the audiences we construct, and a more concerted effort to program shows that break down these barriers.

The “snotty art folk” and “self-expressionist” are not in combat. Art should be viewed ecologically. You have a population, you have speciation, you have development of diversity, you have increases in efficiency, you have catastrophes and you have die-offs. If a show is to be a true cross-section of Portland art it must illustrate this ecology. The arbitrary lines drawn between viewers, both by MP5 and the debate here, are dangerous in that they make themselves real simply by repetition. (I could go on about First Thursday and Last Thursday as prime examples, but that’s another topic)

. What I would be interested in seeing is more experimentation with curation structure, more exploration of the dimension that art takes as an urban/developmental process, and more intervention in the in-between. MOA had some good, some bad, and was no better or worse than countless others, but it stimulated more bickering. Perhaps it was that with 100+ rooms and 100+ artists, it was hard not to hope for a moment that exposed the evolving underlying architectures of art/making in Portland. ( In regards to Seth’s thoughts, I think here lies one reason for the lack of specificity in discussion. It’s much harder to use specifics to talk about something you have no predetermined vision for, but wished had taken form.)

By amry on Aug 31, 2009 at 10:07PM

cheap replica handbags
brand sport shoes
cheap nike shoes
m2GB MP4
ugg boots
Ed hardy Underwear
Home Audio，Video
fashion watches
replica watches
2009 fashion handbags
Nike Air Max 90 Shoes