Archive for ‘Art & Culture’

July 31st, 2025

On Anniversaries

There’s a line from the John Lennon song “Beautiful Boy (Darling Boy)” that has been running through my head recently: “Life is what happens to you / While you’re busy making other plans”.

July, this month that is nearly over, saw two big personal anniversaries that did not get the attention I had initially expected to give them. Alina and I were discussing these in the spring, thinking how we might want to celebrate the second of them, but (thankfully) work and life have been very busy and … well, here we are and the month is just about over.

The first anniversary was July 8. Ten years ago on that day, my then-boss fired me. I was the firm’s Executive Vice President and had been there for 14 years. I recall being more confused than stunned—he offered no meaningful explanation—but I was an at-will employee and that was that.

Except that wasn’t that. Fifteen minutes later, he fired Alina, then a vice president and five year employee. 

In the time since, Alina has often joked that firing me at the same time was the best gift our former boss could have given her. It certainly changed everything: whatever ideas either of us might have had separately about job hunting or doing solo work started to shift rapidly when we realized we had both been fired. The fact that I was belatedly offered a severance package (12 months of non-compete in exchange for four months of salary; I did not accept this offer), while Alina was not, also helped with decision-making.

That gets me to the second anniversary: July 15. Ten years ago on that day, Alina and I launched PAVE. In the seven days between the 8th and 15th, we built our website, wrote our marketing materials, got our banking and bookkeeping set up, worked with attorneys to file the formal paperwork with the state, and then took several deep breaths.

To say that I was gratified by the response would be an understatement. Indeed, I remain gratified by the response, even a decade later. In short order, we heard from a range of people asking about our services, set up meetings and calls (a pre-Zoom world), and lined up some clients. There are three people in particular who responded early and enthusiastically (they know who they are) and signed with us quickly—a confidence boost for which I will always be grateful.

It is not quite right to say we have never looked back. Certainly for me, after 14 years in one place, losing some workplace friendships was rough. But I have not looked back with regret. Only occasional amazement recently that it’s now been 10 years.

So: life is what happens while you’re busy making other plans. We had talked about some kind of celebration for PAVE’s anniversary and perhaps we will get back to planning that. For now, before the month is out, it’s enough just to acknowledge these moments—to pause long enough to remember them, and appreciate them. And to remember to put that bottle of Prosecco in the fridge for tonight.

Tags:
October 18th, 2023

Sometimes silence is golden

For Artnet News, I wrote an opinion piece headlined as:

Enough With the Solidarity Statements. Why Art Institutions Should Stop Taking Positions on Geopolitical Events They Have Nothing to Do With

I am grateful to Artnet for their quick response and helpful edits, and very happy to have this published. I think (alas) that as an issue, this is not going away any time soon.

December 8th, 2013

Circus Maximus

ABMB

It has been clear for a while now that we as a culture have embraced celebritism as a most essential element and vehicle of success. We chase, photograph, Tweet, talk about, and otherwise fixate on people who in many cases are famous just for being famous. Even worse, we give nearly unlimited veneration to people who pretend their life experience confers expertise and has relevance and value in any sphere in which they choose to dabble. The culture of celebritism risks taking over and toppling the culture of expertism, and much else along with it—all supported by a commercial model from which very few of us benefit.

Thus at the recent Art Basel Miami Beach (ABMB), one of the highlight events was rapper Kanye West taking center stage to discuss design with a famous architect, under the auspices of a famous curator. Yes, West says he was an artist as a young(er) man, but still: there is a difference between having an interest in architecture and being an architect or a critic prepared to attack or defend from a position of knowledge. Might Mr. West have interesting views or perspectives? Sure. But alas, what validates them is his celebrity as a rapper, which hardly seems like the right credentializing process. Gone, it seems, is even the vague glimmer of skepticism that followed U2’s lead singer Bono when he began exploring global economic issues more than a decade ago. Bono, meanwhile, has proven himself a terrific student of the subject, having invested copious time in the hard work of learning. So far, the evidence of similar behavior by Mr. West seems thin; it is more about grandstanding than impact.

I’m not here to criticize Mr. West, however. It’s hardly his fault that the rest of us are so willing to submit ourselves to such silliness. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…

After a visit to ABMB this week, I cannot help but be more than a little depressed at the circus that it was–and the way the social imperatives overwhelmed everything else. Walking around, people seemed consistently more interested in the see-and-be-scene and celebrity sighting aspects than in the art. What could encapsulate the absurdity of that better than the story of Jeffrey Deitch apparently mistaking Sean “Diddy” Combs for Kanye West?

If ABMB and all of the attending brouhaha helps living, working artists sell art, then it is worth it. Free markets can be terrific, and this is no less true for artists than anyone else. I begrudge no artist the opportunity to sell their work for the best possible price, and gallerists or dealers make sense as supporting partners for these transactions. Moreover, the marketplace is a common point of entry for emerging artists seeking recognition: galleries present their work, patrons buy it, and word spreads. But it is a bit hard to believe this is really the case here, let alone to take ABMB seriously as a process. Walking around this and other fairs certainly does not suggest a culture of serious art engagement. Instead it feels like a fixation with fashionable art names—and fashionable prices—that is not much different in practice from our veneration of celebrities.

Some aspects of celebritism are unavoidable at a macro level; it might just be who we are as a species. Look back in The New York Times archives and a story from November 29, 1877 about a reception for 3,000 people at the Metropolitan Museum of Art hits the A List names as close to the start as just the third sentence. It’s a question of balance and proportion. Right now what we have is imbalance and disproportion, not just in the world of art and design but in almost every sector of society. The Kardashians and their ilk get as much attention even as celebrity business leaders, despite the fact that the business leaders actually run organizations that create new products and add value to our lives in concrete ways. Google’s Trends tool even bears that out; it took Steve Jobs dying for him to break through to the level of global chatter aroused by Kim Kardashian.

Kardashian_Musk_Jobs

Interestingly, Times coverage for the granddaddy of ABMB, the 1913 International Exhibition of Modern Art (also known as the Armory Show), had reportage focused more on the artists on display than the attendees who came to see it. That seems a shocking and rare example of an ancient restraint, but then, there were fewer Kim Kardashian types in 1913—and fewer rapid-fire outlets to promote and glorify them. Yet that restraint is exactly what is needed all over again. We need to resist this imbalance, this misalignment between celebritism and expertism, and work towards a stronger focus on quality and depth of knowledge, and an appreciation for creativity, innovation, and inspiration that is not confused with simple and often undeserved notoriety.

April 18th, 2013

Arts & Elitism

There was an article in the New York Times on April 14th titled “Is It Art, or Is It Just Real Estate?” But the URL for the article reveals a slightly different view of the content: after the NYT’s domain name, and the relevant date and section folders, comes “the-importance-of-art-in-high-end-condo-developments.html”. That seems a more accurate summary.

Let us not make too much of the possible conflict between reporters, headline writers, and web coders, interesting though that is. Instead, I think it is important for those of us working in the arts (and especially in arts communications) to be aware of the implicit messages this article and others like it may convey to different audiences, and how we can learn from it.

So art is being used to sell very expensive condominium apartments. Who cares? There is nothing surprising about this: art has been used as a symbol of wealth and status for hundreds of years. Real estate developers can afford and surely crave being seen as “elite,” and art can be one component of that. The danger is when that message starts to carry over to perceptions of arts organizations–to how people view non-profit institutions dedicated to serving the public by presenting art.

Which leads to one simple, fundamental question: Is it ok for an arts organization to be seen as “elite”? Maybe.

If an organization can own the use of “elite” and apply it to the arts, to convey that what it has to offer is of the highest quality, that’s great. If the label “elite” evokes for people that the experience they will have at an institution is a great one, that’s terrific too. Quality surely matters to audiences, which is why (despite other institutional considerations and concerns) blockbuster exhibitions of famous art and artists tend to do well, even with admission fees attached. People want to see great art and they understand when this is what is being offered.

On the other hand, if that sense of elitism makes people perceive that an institution is really only catering to the interests of the wealthy, that’s bad. (Isn’t that self-evident?) And if people draw a connection between an institution being “elite” and and limitations on accessibility–essentially, that one must be wealthy to have access to an institution’s art experiences–that is worse.

Few institutions can afford (literally and figuratively) to carry the wrong badge of elitism, and this is an area of constant tension. Certainly an organization should celebrate those whose support, financial and otherwise, helps ensure its ability to operate. Philanthropy has been fundamental to the success and health of America’s arts institutions; if that philanthropy comes from those who sell real estate, or art, or both, that’s fine. Celebrate the right kind of elitism, the kind that encourages participation, and marry that to a commitment to accessibility, and your audiences will know and should respond in kind.