Rotterdam
Kunsthal
12/02/09 -
01/06/09
If the measurement of creative talent, integrity and success could be demonstrated in the form of pure sportsmanship, strategy and relentless persistence to win, then the Prix de Rome was once, and still remains, the most competitive and eagerly anticipated recreational contest of the Dutch art world.
Upon entry to the exhibition space in Rotterdam’s Kunsthal one is greeted with a comprehensive timeline depicting this transformation, chronologically, with a list of all those who have claimed fame and fortune.
Dating back to when the prestigious art prize was first introduced in 1808, during the French occupation of the Netherlands, the prize has since undergone an expansion of categories, branching out from it’s original four (painting, sculpture, graphic design, architecture) since 1984 to encompass film, photography, theatre and performance.
It’s not so surprising to think that it was once common practice for an artist to be subjected to an assessment of competence as a testament to their artistic agility.
Finalists of the Prize were imprisoned for weeks during examinations, fed meals through a door, completely isolated to retain anonymity. How fitting that this tradition seems carried on from its ancient Roman ancestors; celebrators of some of the greatest global contests in sweat shed heroic gestures in art and athleticism.
Now all has changed. The Dutch art system is notorious for its generosity towards international artistic opportunists, making cities like Amsterdam such alluring destinations to inhabit. Many of the foreign artists (namely, Alicia Framis, Ryan Gander, Mariana Castillo Deball and Agata Zwierzynska) who were awarded the prize were also incidentally past students or residents at art institutions such as De Ateliers, Jan Van Eyck Academie, and of course the Rijksacademie – the prime prize co-ordinators since 1870.
As a prize winner’s retrospective (a prize that once saw the glory of a funded residency in Rome itself), the exhibition successfully manages to categorically display work according to the various disciplines as well as exposing the transition from it’s extremely laborious standard of art production in the nineteenth century to the more concept-based art of the past century.
In a first reaction, I am amazed at the superficiality of the review on the Prix de Rome and the overview show hosted by the Kunsthal. Isn't it curious that the Prix de Rome lacks on receiving in depth criticism in most reviews? Isn't that something to take into consideration as being a clear sign of indifference towards the thing in itself?
Obviously the Prix de Rome has hosted a range of successful artists, domestic and international, but that does not in any way comment on its nature or status. One can't infer status or quality based on the attraction any prize exercises on otherwise not wealthy artists; financial potential not being equal or similar to quality. I would propose comparison with the Turner prize, a similar prize which however does stimulate reaction, on each occasion, and that throughout the years has become an international symbol of 'status'. Although the Prix de Rome is more potent in its approach, being not a 'lifetime achievement' award, but upholding an otherwise interesting 'work-in-progress' approach, still it does not reach international acclaim on the same level. Personally I would appreciate critical inquiry into these subject matters, rather then a brief and shallow historical survey.
Sincerely yours,
Conrad Jacobi
2 years ago
by Conrad Jacobi