Posted by unregistered user at 9/28/07 7:32 a.m.

Um, Carolyn's last name is Zick. Maybe you've confused her with Jennifer Zwick from Soil. . .

Posted by Betsey at 9/28/07 8:39 a.m.

Um, yes. And you could have gotten Carolyn's name right by quickly opening up a new window and checking out her blog.

Meanwhile, as for your jab at the Henry, there are loans and donations from all over the country, all over the museum, almost all the time. The Trues have a truly remarkable collection of artwork, one that merits a show all to itself. The Monsen Photography Collection is part of the Henry's permanent collection, gifted to the Henry with the mandate that part of it is on view in the museum always. In Viewfinder, alone, the loans, gifts, and donations include Casteel, Valentine, Berman, Martin, Norton, Bloom, Plestcheeff, Johnson and Sudol, Harris and Garcia, along with the Monsens, Stewarts, and Trues.

Don't be so MEAN!

Posted by Betsey at 9/28/07 8:57 a.m.

PS. Tell me about these important pieces of contemporary art in our back bins.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/28/07 9:02 a.m.

Regina,
As you've seen over the years the Henry does not display its collections in a standard way -- we don't devote galleries (except one for Monsen photographs) to the permanent display of the collection. It is mandated by our strategic plan to utilize the collection in creative ways. To say we don't show works from the collection is just wrong: Viewfinder represents several donors to the collection including those that you mention, not to mention last years 150 Works of Art. We also have lent works to SAM for their opening installations, to WSU's museum and upcoming to the Frye.

There are many reasons why someone gives a work of art to a museum – to see it on the wall is just one. Does it make sense for all the museums in a region to maintain similar collections and programs? It seems like that's what you're advocating. I think we have a wealth of resources in the region from PAM to SAM, TAM and the Henry. Diversity of interests and patronage is key for us all to stay healthy.

Sara Krajewski

Posted by unregistered user at 9/28/07 9:26 a.m.

To get back to what for me is the most interesting part of this discussion: credit. I don't think I could be a working artist without the tremendous support of my family. (In fact, I made the transition from wannabe shortly after meeting my husband.)

Art is a really challenging endeavor and financial, emotional and intellectual support are essential. On the one hand, the art I make is clearly mine alone, and I'm the one who puts in those long hours; on the other hand, I'd like see a convention for regularly and publicly acknowledging that I couldn't do it alone.

Posted by Ries at 9/28/07 9:29 a.m.

"Burdensome attribution problem"?

C'mon Regina- those poor curators can type an extra name, it wont kill em.

Nancy deserves half credit- she was not the docile helpmate- she was involved in every aspect of the work, as well as physically removing other women from Ed's lap as a full time job.

Artists love the solitary genius theory as much as the Warren report loved the single bullet theory.

But on large complex works, it often takes more than one person, and in cases like Christo and Keinholz, the volume of work and the scale of the ambition means that other people besides the primary artist are making important decisions all along the way.

The Art Guys have been a collaborative team for years.
Gilbert and George too.
Vito Acconci credits his entire staff these days.
Many of the big name artists have large full time staffs, and the ones who dont share credit are lying to both us and themselves.
Olafur Eliasson has something like 50 people working with him.
Cai Guo-Quaing has photos and bios of his 10 plus person staff on his website-
http://www.caiguoqiang.com/shell.php?sid=5

I know, it goes against the romantic myth of the artist, but some artists actually do better work with partners than they do alone.

As for dissing the Henry- look, I like and respect both you and Betsey- I aint picking sides- but its obvious that the Henry is not a collecting, permanent collection exhibiting type model. Yes, they have a permanent collection, and sometimes call on it- but their main focus is changing shows of a variety of artists.
If you wanna call somebody out for not owning a Keinholz, it should be SAM.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/28/07 10:54 a.m.

I loved that post at Dangerous Chunky on Keinholz. And I do tend to think of Keinholz as "Keinholz" nowadays, a collective name for two people. I agree with Ries above - it is no burden to give proper attribution... the artist is right.

Keinholz is the tip of the iceberg in a situation where more than one person made it all happen. In so many cases, it is indeed not just one woman, but maybe an army!

Eva

It is great to have carolyn Zick back.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/28/07 11:16 a.m.

I'd like to see all the region's museums exhibit more work from their permenant collections. SAM's expansion starts to address their own issues, but neither the TAM, Henry, or MONA really do alot. You can search the SAM website to see every piece of work in their collection, or at least every piece up to the last year or two. Their are many treasures that have never been shown or haven't been shown in decades. None of the other museums have any real space allocated for their collection. As an artist as well as a patron, this concerns me. The only works I have in a museum collection were actually exhibited but for all I know they may never see the light of day again for 30 years. I'm not sure I want my work ending up in collections if they are not shown for several decades. The only solution I can see is bigger museums, or alot more deaccessions.

Posted by zick at 9/28/07 12:34 p.m.

Yowie, I sit down to eat my lunch at my desk this afternoon and open my browser to this maelstrom. Holy S!
Well first -thanks Regina for all the ink.

I have strong feelings about the Kienholz crew, having spent a weekend at their house once in Idaho. Both Ed and Nancy made indelible marks on my life from this encounter, as anyone can imagine. I would love to talk to Nancy again to see how she feels about all of this discussion regarding attribution years after.

I have strong feelings on the Henry too, and before Western Bridge would have died for the sheer lack of contemporary art in this town. An unfair attack.

Moving forward. I feel the Kienholz contribution is important and it would be honorable for Seattle to have them somewhere in it's holdings. I am not a fund raiser, a donor or a Curator, but I do know the complicated path items take getting into a collection.

A few words of logistics, when I am tapping these things out I am up at an hour no one would be answering phones. Then I get ushered into the world of a day job. Ce le vive.

Finally, yes my last name is Zick. Thanks Unregistered User and Betsey for clarifying on my behalf!



-Carolyn

Posted by unregistered user at 9/29/07 10:26 a.m.

don't forget to mention Chihuly Inc, when talking about teams, crews, and support people who create art, everyone should know by now that Dale does not do his own art work but owns every thought that his minions should ever conceive about glass!

Posted by unregistered user at 9/30/07 3:05 p.m.

My my the Henry folks are very testy these days .. and I suppose they should be given the possibly dismal and somewhat depressing situation there these past years. Perhaps rather than having a conversation on whether they show art that is donated or how to credit art teams we should all be discussing what is going on at the Henry in a much larger way? What is happening with the search for a new director, what is the board searching for, do have they a small list of contenders they might trot out for a night to give presentations (ala Seattle library arch competition or Seattle public schools superintendant)? It would be nice to be excited about the Henry again and some obvious sign that the Henry wants us to be excited and engaged would be most welcome. Defensive posturing and prodding at a tiny detail while the larger question of "how does Seattle's contemporary art museum become relevant?" seems a bit of a waste of energy.
Sorry to change the subject but I just couldn't help myself.

Posted by haroldHollingsworth at 10/1/07 2:26 a.m.

I had a fun encounter once with Nancy a couple of years ago, and was fortunate enough to drive works of hers and Ed's back from Idaho to Seattle for a show that was slated in London. She was, and probably still is a firebrand, it was a memorable couple of days...nice to see the discussion...

Posted by Kristy Gledhill at 10/1/07 8:50 a.m.

BTW, "unregistered user," regarding your comment #54726, a brief history of Tacoma Art Museum's collection on view (at least since the move to the new building): "Telling Stories: Selections from the Tacoma Art Museum Collection," on view October 14, 2006 - Autumn 2008 (with pieces regularly changing out over that period); "36 Views of Japanese Woodblock Prints from the Tacoma Art Museum Collection, on view June 23 - September 16, 2007; "A Sense of Place: Selections from the Tacoma Art Museum Collection," on view September 11, 2005 - January 22, 2006; "Building Tradition: Gifts in Honor of the Northwest Art Collection," on view in three installations from May 3, 2003 to July 18, 2004. And our entire collection of Chihuly glass - the premier collection of his work, (dating 1977- present)- is on public long-term display. So you see, you really have no reason to be concerned, as far as the exposure of Tacoma Art Museum's collection is concerned.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/1/07 11:25 a.m.

Kristy, TAM has been better at displaying portions of the collection than most of the others, although hopefully that is changing at SAM. Still, I like the way museums such as the MOMA or Met operate. Their major works are on permenant display unless they happen to be part of some travelling exhibit or something. I suppose some might consider such a permenant non rotating exhibit to be stale, but I love the fact that I can go to the MOMA and know that I'm going to see Stary Night, or Pollock's Full Fathom Five.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/1/07 8:54 p.m.

People look for blockbusters. We're a blockbuster minded society and each of us, to a greater or lesser degree, is a part of it whether we admit it or not. Shows from a collection sound dusty and people attend them, often for their accedemic appeal alone. "Cutting edge contemporay art" is the mandate of the Henry. It's oxymoronic to demand that an institution the size of the Henry display cutting edge from a museum collection. For the most part, works are gifted to museums by collectors. The pieces are enjoyed by the collector for some years, then gifted. By the time of the gift transaction, the work, while hopefully still a quality piece, is no longer cutting edge. The only place to go for collection shows of cutting edge contemporary art, is into private collections. The Henry has gathered relationships with some adventorous collectors. It's great to see their collections. So what if one show was around a single collector's pieces? It was a cool show. I regularly see pieces from other donors and collectors on display at the Henry. As far as the Monsen works go, what is the museum to do? The works are gifted with the requirement that they be shown. It seems to address the concerns expressed about museums not showing their collections, the Monsen photographs wil always be on display.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/2/07 12:51 p.m.

#55304, "Cutting edge"? Defined as "cutting edge - the position of greatest importance or advancement; the leading position in any movement or field." By it's very nature, cutting edge work should not be irrelevant or loose it's luster by the time it goes into a collection. Work that does that was by definition, misattributed as cutting edge. I don't care if the Henry or any institution wants to have their unique mission statement, albiet I think it's an abuse of the term "cutting edge". I'd replace that with the term "new and flashy." I'm just bemoaning the fact that there are so many great works burried in collections that are never shown. There is nothing wrong with an arts patron wanting to see more great works from the local museum collections is there? All I'm saying is "Hey, I wish you'd show 10% less flashy new stuff and 10% more of some of the wonderful works that have been collecting dust for several decades." Rather than saying "thank you for your feedback mr. museum patron." some people seem to be getting defensive.

Posted by unregistered user at 10/5/07 12:25 p.m.

hi, it's jen zwick! I just came across this and I am flattered to have briefly lent my name to such an artist.