metropolis m

Art fairs are more popular than ever. If in the 1990s every city wanted a biennial, today they all want an art fair with international allure. It seems just a question of time before the art fair pushes the biennial out of everybody’s mind. ‘Sometimes I wish [art fairs] would just go away.’ – Roberta Smith in Art & Auction, 2006‘Artists who satirize the pretensions of the art world (the now disbanded collective Bank) and those who nakedly pursue enrichment (like Koons, Murakami, or Hirst) may both be seen as signs that the high status of art, and its apparent separation from vulgar commerce, are no longer secure.’ – Julian Stallabrass in Art Incorporated (2004)‘The art world is completely sick. It is one big market.’ – Anna Tilroe in METROPOLIS M, No. 6 2007/2008It is relatively standard to hear overwhelmingly negative stories about the art market and the art fair as a phenomenon. The claim that fairs are taking over the art world is then quickly dismissed as a foolish defence of neoliberalism. Nonetheless, it is high time for a more nuanced debate on this subject, one that also has an eye for the positive aspects of the art fair. Compare this subject to the debate on globalization, in which again only the negative sides are discussed, as Jagdish Bahagwati demonstrates in his study, In Defense of Globalisation. Do not forget the fact that critics of capitalism, such as those cited above, also have their own relationship to uphold with the market, but they are normally situated on a moral high ground. Do they not also regularly publish articles in newspapers and write books, and do they not also themselves curate or organize exhibitions?I do not simply want to take a wild shot at defending art fairs. My position is that in this time of ‘the new spirit of capitalism’ (Luc Boltanski & Eve Chiapello), in which there is still a question of endless accumulation of capital, and ‘solid’ structures and forms are making way for ‘fluid’ relationships (Zygmunt Bauman), art fairs are the domain par excellence in which the new paradigm of globalization takes place. As can no other venue, they give shape to the experience economy, which in its search for ‘spiritual consumerism’ wants to engage its clients and keep them involved.Whether we believe that art is just a luxury product or that it also has inherent qualities in the intellectual, spiritual and personal sense, it is a fact that in our neo-capitalistic society, it is a product that sells well, that enjoys the interest of new Western and non-Western collectors, amongst whom are the many new hedge fund millionaires. The fact that art is good is no longer sufficient to get it sold. For it to be a success, it needs a podium where it can be ‘experienced’. That desired entourage, where art is at its greatest advantage, is not only exotic and pleasantly kitsch, but also offers amusing parties and after-parties, the delightful-to-visit homes of private collectors and, preferably, also fabulous weather. This in any case seems to be the most important explanation for the recent successes of Art Basel Miami Beach, MACO (Mexican Contemporary Art Fair) and ART Shanghai (and maybe to be followed by Art Dubai).The term Urban Entertainment Center (UEC), which originated in architectural circles, seems a very appropriate one to explain these new art fairs and the consumer behaviour they generate. Even if the art fairs and the UEC are not in the strictest sense entirely comparable, both nonetheless offer memorable shopping experiences. In the case of the art fair, I would like to further define the experience with the phrase ‘good shopping’, in resonance with the 17th -century concept of the ‘good merchant’.[1] In the middle ages, the marketplace was not only seen as a place of commerce or theatre, but a place of justice. The profession of merchant was a noble occupation. Greedy dealers were not worthy of the name ‘merchant’. Every individual was expected to behave virtuously, and not run the risk of being labelled a ‘bad’ merchant. Applying this to today’s consumer society, we could introduce a dichotomy between good shopping and bad shopping, in which the first applies to transactions that can be advantageous for personal development – such as books, music, et cetera – and the other has to do with pretence, with fashion, trendy cars and hunting. If art is purchased just for showing off, you would speak of a case of bad shopping, but when art is purchased for reasons of content and substance, it is about good shopping.

New Fairism

Everyone is aware of the recent discussions about the new institutionalism (see METROPOLIS M, Nr. 3, 2007). The museums are in crisis and biennial exhibitions can even more or less be perceived as passé. There are various reasons for this. One is the fact that the biennials were traditionally at the centre of the discourse, but with today’s biennials, the peripheral areas (Sydney, Guangzhou, Yokohama) are those attracting the attention. Biennials are expected to put cities on the global map, turn them into world metropolises, but at the same time, they lack sufficient local interest, from local authorities with non-cultural agendas, so that they can quickly fall out of favour with each change of political power. Add to this the fact that many biennials continue to invite the same small clique of curators, who continue to show the same artists. Biennials are, moreover, less and less successful at concealing their lack of field research. Too many biennials are involved in a purely mannerist global dialogue, without building up any real connections with local audiences or paying attention to local needs. The biennial exhibition, in short, is a concept that was suitable for the 1990s, not for the first decade of the new century. It is therefore not so strange that many have been discontinued (Valencia, Melbourne, Johannesburg), or are of reduced significance (Havanna, São Paulo, Santa Fé, Dakar). And let us be frank: who can still identify the difference between the Venice Biennial and an art fair? What I refer to as the Art Fair Age goes hand-in-hand with the Age of the Curator. There are many reasons why curators are so well loved. Museums have to make the switch from collecting to the idea of showcasing temporary exhibitions. For this, they want curators, always new ones, in order to maintain the dynamic. Within this tendency, the difference between what is being offered at the private and public levels is becoming less significant. This is for example evident in the rise of artistically high-level art fairs, such as the Frieze Art Fair in London, the VOLTA Show in New York and Art Basel Miami Beach. Fairs of this kind couple a profile that conforms to the marketplace with an experiential art program. They are in fact taking over the job traditionally carried out by a government-subsidized arts sector. More and more, these high-ranking fairs are attracting all the attention and are the axis around which an economy is developing. Take the nonstop growth of private and company collections, which are opening spaces of their own, and the reductions in subsidies and public institutions. Art fairs recognize their leading role and are binding more and more intellectual capital to themselves, for example by way of curators who work for them – the so-called art fair curator, including for example, Andrea Bellini, who works for Artissima, Amanda Coulson for VOLTA NY, Neville Wakefield for Frieze Projects and Sophie Cay Rabinowitz for Art Basel. Thanks to these curators, step by step, the fairs are moving towards the contemporary art discourse, as evident in discussion programmes and films (see Scope at Basel, Black Box at ARCO Madrid) and the special assignments and exhibitions programmes, such as those of Frieze Projects, which is moreover more exciting in its own right than the Unilever Series in the atrium of the Tate Modern. I foresee a future in which curators for art fairs are involved with ‘relational curating’, with public participation in the presentation process. The art fair is a beautiful platform, one in which many projects can be realized on site, with the work that is available for exhibition. I think there is a great deal of potential for experimentation. Art fairs are not good or bad by definition. It is what you make of them. This greater concern for the substance of art fairs deserves more stimulation. Some fairs respond conservatively and continue hanging on to their traditional intentions, but now that the public has found its way to them, why can’t we make some small adaptations to the concept of the art fair and bring in more curators, in order to present their total vision? Why not create an art fair that is intelligent and funky? For me, involvement with art fairs is an exercise in social activism and an ‘opportunistic responsibility’ (Cauhtemoc Medina), joining with galleries and artists to bring about slight micro-changes and expand the concept of what an art fair can be. In other words, is it not time for a ‘new fairism’? Paco Barragán is the author of The Art Fair Age: On Art Fairs as Urban Entertainment Centers: Art Fair Curators, Expanded Painting, Collecting and New Fairism, to be released by CHARTA in June, 2008.Art Fairs mentioned in this article:VOLTA44-7 June 2008www.voltashow.comArt Basel4-8 June 2008www.artbasel.comFrieze Art Fair16-19 October 2008www.friezeartfair.com/Artissima 157-9 November 2008www.artissima.itARCO911-16 February 2009www.ifema.es/ferias/arco/default.htmlArt Dubai17-21 March 2009www.artdubai.ae