Gallery Chronicle (October 2013)

Loren Munk, Bushwick, 2013. Prints available through Supreme Digital.

THE NEW CRITERION

October 2013

Gallery Chronicle

by James Panero

On Art on the Block: Tracking the New York Art World from SoHo to the Bowery, Bushwick and Beyond by Ann Fensterstock; “Will There Be Any Stars in My Crown?” at Storefront Bushwick, Brooklyn; “Tom Evans: 1981” at Sideshow, Brooklyn; “Chuck Webster: Blessing” at Betty Cuningham Gallery, New York; and “Paul Resika: 1947–48” at Lori Bookstein Fine Art, New York.

Following the gallery trade is sometimes less about looking at art and more about studying the map. Galleries are the art world’s fluid dynamic. In the cities where they concentrate, they flow in unexpected ways, collecting and pooling in places you would never otherwise see or even imagine to exist. To be sure, these migrations are compelled by the need for space, the mandates of rent, and the effects that galleries have on the neighborhoods they occupy. A trickle of galleries is often followed by a deluge of gentrification that eventually washes out the artistic energy the galleries helped create. But economic imperatives explain only part of the cycle. Somewhere in the data points of a gallery’s who, what, where, when, and why, there is a story of the art itself and how it evolves within a mesh of creative networks connecting the landscape of a city.

For New York, this story is now told in a book called Art on the Block: Tracking the New York Art World from SoHo to the Bowery, Bushwick and Beyond.1 The author, Ann Fensterstock, has compiled a near-encyclopedic account of New York’s gallery movements over the past forty years. The narrative is dizzying and not altogether easy to follow, especially for anyone unfamiliar with its long stream of artists, galleries, and locations. Yet the book does a good job of identifying those early arrivals that shaped New York’s artistic neighborhoods, such as Artists Space in SoHo, Fun Gallery in the East Village, and Four Walls in Williamsburg.

In her introduction, Fensterstock rightly observes that galleries are driven by more than mere economics. Some of the galleries that owned their spaces in SoHo, for example, nevertheless decamped during the area’s mass exodus to Chelsea. What most determines the life and death of great artistic neighborhoods, she finds, is their concentration of artists, galleries, critics, and collectors—and the absence of everyone else. “One of the strongest factors that surfaced during my five years of researching this topic,” writes Fensterstock, “is the notion of arts professionals colonizing in like-minded communities.” Once a neighborhood becomes diluted by tourists, bargain hunters, and hangers-on, she adds, its creative essence moves off.

A hundred years ago, the modernists of Paris decamped from the overrun northern hills of Montmartre to the opposite southern pole of Montparnasse—a newer, less charming district, but one where they could more fully saturate the studios and cafes with their own artistic culture. The same thing happened in New York as galleries left SoHo in the 1990s, but here they split in two different directions. The more commercial gallery scene moved west, taking over the large garage spaces of far Chelsea by the Hudson River. The more experimental, alternative scene moved east, largely following the migration of artists in that direction. Each had a place, and the split hastened a dynamic that had already been set in motion in the early 1980s, when a flash of alternative galleries arose out of the punk chaos of the East Village. In the 1990s and early 2000s, their eastern momentum pushed galleries over the East River to Williamsburg, Brooklyn. In the last five to ten years, as the Williamsburg scene imploded through rapid gentrification hastened by an industrial rezoning, this eastern edge pushed further out to East Williamsburg, Bushwick, and Ridgewood. Meanwhile, a scene mixing aspects of both east and west, with more boutique commercial galleries, emerged on Manhattan’s Lower East Side.

Art on the Block ends where Bushwick begins, but when the chapters about that neighborhood are written, the gallery known as Storefront will occupy an important part of it. At the time that Storefront opened on Wilson Avenue in January 2010, a dozen or so apartment galleries and alternative spaces were already spread across Bushwick (see “Gallery Chronicle,” February 2010). Many of these important early spaces were dedicated to showing the artists working in the area’s converted loft buildings, but they were also art projects in themselves, often hidden away, with little commercial intent. Founded by the curator Jason Andrew and the painter Deborah Brown, both Bushwick-based, Storefront aimed to be the neighborhood’s first truly professional outlet. Located in a tiny converted accountant’s office (the old signage remained for years), Storefront brought the Bushwick art scene out into the light of day with regular monthly exhibitions. It mixed in work by an older generation of artists (many of whom came of age in Williamsburg) and served as an access point for collectors entering the scene. This is not to suggest Storefront was a profitable enterprise. I would imagine that with art selling in the three-figure range, the economics were never there, even for a tiny Bushwick shop. Nevertheless, Storefront exposed Bushwick to a wider audience, collected many of its important early reviews and critical attention, and built a market for the art.

Now, not even four years after Storefront opened, Bushwick is a very different place. Upwards of fifty exhibition spaces are spread across the neighborhood. Galleries now concentrate in converted loft buildings such as 56 Bogart Street and 17–17 Troutman (just to indicate Bushwick’s fungible borders, the former is technically in East Williamsburg; the latter, in Ridgewood, Queens). The Chelsea gallery Luhring Augustine has opened a cavernous satellite space and storage facility in the neighborhood. One of the local restaurants serves a prix-fixe dinner for $195 per person.

Donald Roller Wilson, Beverly, 2005; oil on canvas, wood, frame with naturally shed deer antlers, 28" x 40"; collection of James E. Byrne and John C. Daniele, image courtesy of the artist  

Now under the sole direction of Deborah Brown, who took the helm in 2012, Storefront Bushwick (as it is now known) has recognized these changes and is moving up. The current exhibition, “Will There Be Any Stars in My Crown?,” will be its last on Wilson Avenue before Brown relocates the gallery to a sweeping new venue on Ten Eyck Street in East Williamsburg.2

Curated by Todd Levin, Storefront’s most ambitious exhibition to date is also its most elegiac. With grayed out walls and a heavy curtain hanging over the shop window, the show feels like a melancholy send-off for a time that has already passed. The title of the exhibition comes from an 1897 hymn by Eliza E. Hewitt, which begins “I am thinking today of that beautiful land/ I shall reach when the sun goeth down;/ When through wonderful grace by my Savior I stand,/ Will there be any stars in my crown?” Different versions of this hymn play over a gallery boombox, with the work of three artists arranged on the walls like altarpieces.

Donald Roller Wilson paints meticulous portraits in a northern-renaissance style, with details down to the reflections in the drips of water. Yet his subjects are monkeys, not people, whom he depicts in elaborate frames (one is made up of naturally shed deer antlers), dressed up and smoking over-sized cigarettes. Jim Nutt, a Chicago artist who emerged in the 1960s with a group known as the “Hairy Who,” provides his own oddly precise black and white portrait drawings to the mix (here courtesy of Chelsea’s David Nolan Gallery). Jennifer Wynne Reeves rounds out the program with enigmatic abstract collages of spent pencils and daubs of acrylic paint. Taken together in this chapel-like space, the show falls somewhere between the sacred and the profane. The only certainty is the question mark of its title, with an answer that may only come in time.

Tom Evans, Feast, 1981; oil on canvas, 62" x 80"; image by James Panero

Richard Timperio’s Sideshow Gallery, a Williamsburg holdout, is dutifully dedicated to showing the work of artists who came out of the SoHo studio scene of the 1970s. Two years ago, Sideshow brought out the latest work of Tom Evans, a terrific abstractionist who had shown little in decades. Now Evans returns with a show of his work from 1981.3

Evans is a process painter. In his working loft in Tribeca, he has poured toxic metallic paint over canvases wrinkled on the floor, painted mind-numbing pointillist screens, and most recently swirled galaxies of color. For a brief moment in 1981, however, the fugitive images that are hidden in these abstractions came forward with monstrous intensity. Shapes and colors suddenly became grinning lips, crooked teeth, and bulging eyes. Some of this strange work was quickly snatched up and exhibited at The New Museum, but much of it has never left the studio until now. Truthfully, I doubt I would want one of these terrors above my sofa, but they are fascinating for what they reveal about the underlying forces of abstraction. Fortunately, we now have another chance to look at them, and for them to look at us.

Chuck Webster, Untitled, 2011-2012; oil and spray paint on panel, 48" x 48"; image courtesy Betty Cuningham Gallery

Betty Cuningham, a SoHo pioneer, today runs one of Chelsea’s best spaces for intelligent painting and sculpture, representing William Bailey, Philip Pearlstein, Rackstraw Downes, and the estate of Christopher Wilmarth. With “Chuck Webster: Blessing,” in cooperation with the gallery ZieherSmith, she incorporates a younger generation into the mix, and the addition is a worthy one.4

Chuck Webster, Sleeping Giants, 2013; oil and spray paint on panel, 84" x 120"; image Betty Cuningham Gallery

Webster is an expert paint handler who works his open, enigmatic abstractions down as much as he builds them up. He sands, cuts, and scrapes into his layers of gesso. Just when this manipulation might seem too mannered, he adds a few sprays of paint, like a bad touch-up job to a rusted-out car door. The effects give the paintings a rich patina. For “Blessings,” Webster draws from a visit to the Rothko chapel in Houston to paint glowing work that often references the space’s octagonal floor plan. Some of these paintings, such as Sleeping Giants (2013), rely too heavily on gothic effects. A smaller but more worked-over Untitled painting from 2011–2012, of a boxy red outline over a white ground with bits of blue popping through, is more enigmatic—less for what it depicts, and more for how it is depicted.

Paul Resika, Motor Shop, February 1948; Oil on canvas, 69 x 85 inches; Photo: Etienne Frossard, New York. Image courtesy of the artist and Lori Bookstein Fine Art, New York  

The title of “Paul Resika: 1947–1948,” now on view at Lori Bookstein Fine Art, should alone provide a burst of excitement.5 Born in 1928, today Resika remains a consummate painter, with a masterful feel for oil on canvas. Since the 1950s, much of his work has come out of studying the Old Masters, but as a twenty-year-old prodigy in the late 1940s, he was painting in the thick of the New York School under the direction of Hans Hofmann, the influential teacher. The work from this period, now brought together at Bookstein, reveals an artist influenced by Matisse and Braque, but also one striking out on his own, with an edgier style ready to take on his American vision. Granted, some of these period works are more School of Paris studies than independent paintings—often admittedly so, as with the color-rich Dreaming (Matisse) (1947). Yet Motor Shop (1948) is definitely his own: a grisaille of roughed-out hooks and widgets, vice clamps and fan blades, and a raunchy pinup calendar. For an artist later known for his Italian influences, what surprises here is how rooted these paintings are in mid-century New York—with the Harlem River bridges, scenes of the Hudson, and the rattling doors of the subway. It wasn’t long after this moment that Resika realized there was an entire world beyond the city limits. Soon after these paintings were done, he went looking for it.

Paul Resika, Dreaming (Matisse), October 1947; Oil on canvas, 46 x 55 1/2; Photo: Etienne Frossard, New York. Image courtesy of the artist and Lori Bookstein Fine Art, New York  

1Art on the Block: Tracking the New York Art World from SoHo to the Bowery, Bushwick and Beyond, by Ann Fensterstock; Palgrave Macmillan, 288 pages, $28.

2 “Will There Be Any Stars in My Crown?” opened at Storefront Bushwick, Brooklyn, on September 6 and remains on view through October 13, 2013.

3 “Tom Evans: 1981” opened at Sideshow, Brooklyn, on September 7 and remains on view through October 6, 2013.

4 “Chuck Webster: Blessing” opened at Betty Cuningham Gallery, New York, on September 5 and remains on view through October 12, 2013.

5 “Paul Resika: 1947–48” opened at Lori Bookstein Fine Art, New York, on September 5 and remains on view through October 5, 2013.

Beat Nite All Stars, curated by James Panero

BeatNiteOct2013_web

Beat Nite 9: All Stars
art spaces and galleries stay open late
curated by James Panero

produced by Jason Andrew
organized by Norte Maar

Fri, Oct 25, 6-10pm

After party at English Kills, 10pm-12am

Beat Nite …the most underground, exciting, and fiercely independent pockets of the New York art world. -ARTINFO

Beat Nite… Best Neighborhood-Wide Gallery Nite. -L Magazine

__________

Jason Andrew and Norte Maar bring back the late night in Bushwick with a limited edition of Beat Nite, featuring just 10 art spaces selected by guest curator of the night, James Panero, art critic and Executive Editor, The New CriterionBeat Nite: All Stars will be held Friday, October 25, and selected spaces will be open 6-10pm followed by a huge after party at the venerated English Kills Gallery.

Beat Nite made its neighborhood debut in February 2009, featuring all of Bushwick’s alternative art spaces and galleries—at the time, only seven. The event grew into a biannual occurrence offering an awesome neighborhood-wide event that many have labeled “half art stroll, half bar crawl.” With over 50 galleries and alternative spaces now in Bushwick/Ridgewood, since 2012 Beat Nite has focused on a selection of the community’s many great offerings.

Beat Nite: All Stars highlights the new and emphasizes the alternative. Continuing these intentions we invited noted art critic James Panero to select spaces. Beat Nite: All Stars features just 10 art spaces and reflects his decision to include new spaces that have opened in the past year with some of the neighborhood’s veteran galleries: an “all star” lineup representing the art nexus of Bushwick / Ridgewood at its best.

__________________________Selected Spaces

Centotto

250 Moore Street, #108
Brooklyn, NY  11206
www.centotto.com

English Kills
114 Forrest Street, #1
Brooklyn, NY  11206
www.englishkillsartgallery.com

Lorimoto
16-23 Hancock Street
Ridgewood, NY  11385
www.lorimoto.com

Outpost

1665 Norman Street
Ridgewood, NY  11385
www.outpostedit.org

Schema
92 St. Nicholas Avenue
Brooklyn, NY  11237
www.schemaprojects.com

Signal
260 Johnson Avenue
Brooklyn, NY  11206
www.ssiiggnnaall.com

Silver Projects
796 Broadway, FL2
Brooklyn, NY  11206
http://silverprojects.org/

Storefront Ten Eyck
324 Ten Eyck Street
Brooklyn, NY  11206
www.storefrontbushwick.com

Theodore Arts
56 Bogart Street
Brooklyn, NY  11206
www.theodoreart.com

Valentine
464 Seneca Avenue
Ridgewood, NY  11385
www.valentinegallery.blogspot.com

A Beacon Diminished

PJ-BQ408_onewtc_G_20130910165906
At left, the Skidmore Owings & Merrill design of One World Trade Center with the radome; at right, without it

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
September 11, 2013

A Beacon Diminished
by James Panero

The 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is the first that will see One World Trade Center, formerly known as Freedom Tower, topping out at a symbolic 1,776 feet. After years of missteps and inaction, the building's completion, now scheduled to take place in early 2014, will be a welcome end to a fraught project that has long weighed on the national consciousness. Yet just as construction costs have ballooned to nearly $4 billion, making this by far the most expensive new office building in the world, its developers—the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, along with the Durst Organization—have decided to cut one last corner, blunting the building's most prominent and important symbol.

In 2005, once David M. Childs of Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM) took over the design of One WTC, he devised a brilliant solution for balancing the building's monumental and memorial demands with its practical and commercial needs. He took a chaotic jumble of ideas left by Daniel Libeskind, the site's quixotic planner, and compressed them into a shimmering crystal, one that reflected the scale and volume of the original Twin Towers while also recalling the tapered facets of the Washington Monument. From a solid, cube-shaped base (regrettably made more bunkerlike over time), the edges of Mr. Childs's One WTC chamfer in so that halfway up it becomes a perfect octagon and, at its top floor, the building faces 45 degrees off its base.

Two of Mr. Libeskind's proposed symbols remained through Mr. Childs's redesign: the building's 1,776 foot total height, and an illuminated beacon at the top to allude both to the torch of the Statue of Liberty and to the soaring skyscrapers of the Manhattan skyline. To accomplish this, SOM brought in the sculptor Kenneth Snelson to design what was meant to be the building's most visible element: a spire to rise 408 feet from the center of the building's 1,368-foot-high roof, bringing One WTC to 1,776 feet. Through Mr. Snelson's knowledge of tensegrity structures—designs with "floating compression," where solid forms are suspended in a tensing web—SOM crafted the spire, 40-stories tall and made of a shell of interlocking fiberglass triangles, into an elegant, tapered sculpture known as a radome. Since the radome is transparent to radio waves, it was meant to conceal the broadcast equipment mounted to an antenna mast inside.

One-Word-Trade-Center-9a
The Stuttgart-based engineering firm Schlaich Bergermann & Partner helped turn this complex idea into reality. WTC.com, the website maintained by Silverstein Properties that chronicles the overall site reconstruction, continues to advertise the many benefits of the innovative design: The radome would "resist wind loading, and create a protected maintenance area" for workers attending to the broadcasting equipment contained inside it. Much like the building itself, the radome would serve the building's functional needs while also completing its aesthetic mandates.

Nevertheless, in 2012 the owners of One WTC announced a stunning last-minute design change: They would eliminate the radome and leave exposed the antenna that was meant to be hidden inside. The owners cited the radome's supposed cost—$20 million—to bolster their decision. Inquiries to SOM concerning the spire were referred to their "clients" at the Port Authority, who in turn referred them to Durst.

"The architects wanted more heft," said Jordan Barowitz, a Durst spokesman. "So they proposed the radome to give it more surface area so it could be seen from a greater distance. But it was impossible to maintain"—a claim that its designers have refuted.

This newspaper and other media outlets have reported that since taking an ownership interest in One WTC in 2010, Durst has been agitating for the radome's elimination—a push rejected by the agency's executive director at the time, only to be approved by his successor. "I don't think it will affect the visual appearance," Douglas Durst, the chairman of the Durst Organization, said regarding the radome's elimination. "I try not to get involved with the aesthetics." In fact, the financial incentives of Durst's co-ownership deal, it has been reported, are structured in such a way as to prioritize cost-saving construction over aesthetic concerns.

Much of the controversy over the elimination of the radome has focused on One WTC's final height and whether the exposed antenna would count toward its total. The difference would be between "the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere" (including the antenna) or merely the third-tallest in the U.S. (without it). The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the nonprofit organization recognized internationally as the arbiter of construction height, states that it considers spires in calculating architectural height but not "antennae, signage, flag poles or other functional-technical equipment." In May 2012, shortly after Durst and the Port Authority announced their change order, the council referred to several articles concerning the "questions on One World Trade Center height" on its website and issued an early warning about the 1,776-foot designation if the antenna is left without its radome skin.

It could be that Durst and the Port Authority have a plan to win the council's approval through a technicality, such as by leaving the very tip of the radome in place while eliminating the rest. But any way you measure it, they plan to rob the skyline of a promised symbol and leave it with a structure that, at its best, resembles a 400-foot umbrella stand. The results of their decision are now apparent, as the spire's internal sections, assembled in Montreal and shipped to New York, have been hoisted atop One WTC.

In a 2012 statement, Mr. Childs called the radome an "integral part" of the building's design. He also offered to find a suitable compromise. "We stand ready to work with the Port on an alternate design that will still mark 1 World Trade Center's place in New York City's skyline." Unfortunately, it appears the owners have chosen to follow the cheapest and worst of all possible routes. Rather than design a new spire, they are instead using the older design, minus the sculptural shell, in a way that was never intended.

Just imagine constructing the Statue of Liberty but then, for cost reasons, forgoing its sculpted copper skin. Of course, as nothing more than an exposed metal skeleton and a spiral staircase, Lady Liberty wouldn't be the same. In certain ways, the current short-changing at Ground Zero is even worse. One WTC rises over hallowed ground, pointing to the heavens from the place where over 2,600 souls lost their lives. The substitution of its graceful spire with a radio antenna reduces the building to the mundane and diminishes its meaning as a monument and memorial.

 

UPDATE: Douglas Durst responds to the article on the WSJ comments page:

Durst is an advisor, not a developer of 1WTC.and has no decision making authority on construction matters. PANYNJ made the final determination to eliminate the radome not to save money, but because the radome structure could not be maintained. Durst tried for several months to find away to maintain the radome, but the building was nearing completion and it was too late to engineer a new structure. Incidentally, radome is put on after an antennae is installed. The radome structure designed by SOM would have made broadcast antennas infeasible depriving PANYNJ of much needed revenue.