It’s a fun exercise: looking at trends over the past couple years and predicting how they’ll take shape in the coming one. I suspect many feel similarly in hoping that art is some how above the sort of trend cycle fashion is subject to. Still, some cycles are persistent. Thus, it’s easy for this sort of thing to degenerate into a Joan Rivers style snark party. To that end, I’ve included some lessons I’ve learned from the review and goals of personal improvement as an art appreciator.
This year’s James Turrell was last year’s Gerhard Richter and will be next year’s Paul McCarthy
Gerhard Richter and James Turrell are artists that have enjoyed a largely pleasant relationship with the art world for considerable portions of their respective careers. However, over the course of a year the said art world seems to have overshot love and landed in obsession with each artist – a sort of reputation bubble, minus the popping. It seemed, for a bit at least, Richter’s paintings couldn’t sell for enough then Turrell’s reviews couldn’t stop short of orgasmic. So who’s up next?
I predict Paul McCarthy reluctantly. “Reluctantly” because two other people would’ve nearly been a better fit. Frank Lloyd Wright has upcoming exhibitions at both the MoMA and Guggenheim – that sort of cosmic alignment slash institutional validation is often all that’s needed to precipitate an art world freak out. Additionally, the work of Mike Kelley has deservedly been gathering momentum over the past couple years. It’s difficult to not tumble into thinking about what he would have accomplished had he been alive. Regardless, he would’ve likely been one of the most important working artists for years to come. That said, I went with Paul McCarthy because of the similar point in his career and his two high-profile pieces during 2013 – his giant balloon dog at Frieze and saucy Snow White of ‘WS’. In the past McCarthy’s work may have perhaps been too irreverent to ever characterize him as an art world darling. However, both of these pieces were both very well received. If 2014 sees a genuinely great piece from McCarthy, he may enjoy the same critical near-infallibility recently afforded to Turrell and Richter.
The lesson I learn here is to be wary of getting caught up in my own words and the words of others. These artists all create great work. However, as a writer in a world of sound bytes and hasty judgement its easier to repeat whats heard than generate new discussion.
This year’s Bushwick was last year’s Williamsburg and will be next year’s Ridgewood
I believe the rise in awareness of hipsters can partly be tied to Williamsburg’s popularity. The neighborhood is not unlike Haight-Ashbury to the hippies, just much less romantic and much more ironic. Though the tide of hipsters hasn’t waned, gentrification has pushed back (though an argument can be made that hipsterdom is gentrification). Many art galleries obviously arrived to Williamsburg with the low (relatively speaking) rent and influx of creatives. Perhaps partially due to the aforementioned gentrification some importance in Brooklyn visual arts has since shifted to Bushwick. Some of the off-Manhattan NYC art world already seems to be seeping into Queens. Specifically, Ridgewood may soon find itself the inheritor of a considerable portion of Brooklyn’s art scene. The recent closure of 3rd Ward is definitely ominous for those clinging to Kings county.
I mention this all because we have Tampa Bay neighborhoods that we hold dear. Though the sluggish real estate market spares us from the sort of gentrification chasing the creative community out-of-town in New York, we aren’t spared entirely. Last year’s battle between Seminole Heights’ locals and the Family Dollar chain highlighted this issue. Perhaps more importantly, it underscored the nature of the fight and the near impossibility of artists ever winning in the long-term. The way the rules are set, we are necessarily an exodus-prone bunch. The rise and fall of New York’s neighborhoods illustrate this clearly. The struggle against gentrification and being pushed out needs to start early and be thoroughly tenacious or just not be struggled against at all.
This year’s Marina Abramovic was last year’s Damien Hirst and will be next year’s…I have no idea.
This is a very specific sort of artist/set of circumstances and is why I didn’t think I could make this prediction well. It requires a respected artist making a series of poorly regarded decisions, followed by one surprisingly bad one. Remember Hirst’s multi-Gagosian solo exhibit (aka Art Scavenger Hunt for the Rich)? This year Abramovic produced a gala performance that seemed to unnecessarily denigrate the performers. Her piece “The Artist is Present” seemed powerful to some, pretentious to others – caused uncontrollable crying in both. Finally, there is her collaboration with Jay-Z – a marathon performance of his song Picasso, Baby. However implausible, the performance seemed to cheapen both performance art and hip hop simultaneously. This was followed by a Kickstarter project that was largely viewed as borrowing from the poor to build a vanity institution. In the eyes of many, this left Marina at the end of the year bereft of much of the authenticity she had at the beginning of 2013.
Though I sincerely hate seeing reputations take a tumble like this, they are inevitable. Thus, who has set themselves up to make a surprisingly bad call in 2014? Well, the nature of it makes this prediction difficult. Part of what makes these decisions so bad is that they come from artists that we were sure knew better. That’s why Jeff Koons wouldn’t fit the prediction. We weren’t surprised by his boring and tasteless Lady Gaga album cover. Had Cindy Sherman, for example, produced that cover, we’d have next year’s prediction.
The lesson I learn here is that authenticity is valuable. Further, authenticity squandered draws the ire of the critical art world. Remaining authentic may be difficult but ultimately leads to success…whatever that is.
This year’s “sloppy” abstraction was last year’s geometric forms and will be next year’s figuration
No more crystalline shapes, no more stripes. There was a moment in the recent past when you could not throw a stone at an art fair without hitting a triangle on a canvas. This is the bizarre world of painting, where shapes fall in and out of style. Seriously, though, this at least gave way to the paradoxically sloppy yet well thought out abstraction that seemed to dominate painting this year. More importantly it made painting in general interesting once again. Artists and viewers alike seem ready to explore the nuances of the medium, to take the medium seriously in a way that hasn’t been done in a very long time. I may sound like I’m overstating it, but I don’t think I am.
It is because of this more deliberate approach that I think that fans of the medium are ready to consider figuration again. For a long time figuration has been a sort of conceptual obscenity in painting. Thus, I’m excited for its return. This is the prediction I’m probably most confident with. I’m pretty sure before you get to Miami in 2014 you can say something like “NADA is definitely going to be dominated by figurative/representational painting this year” and not look like a fool. If I end up being totally off, send me angry email – I’ll promptly
read it delete it.
The lesson I learned here is how much a medium can conceptually blossom once given the consideration it’s due. Great art seems to be the product of an animated give and take, the result of boring things like accountability, refinement, conversations, practice, persistence.