Note from the eds: This was the first “thread” of discussion on Glasstire responding to something we published, and inspired us to launch the longstanding Message Boards. – January 2007
Why is the Lawing Gallery show “daring” in any real sense? The stuff in it might not sell, right? Whoop-tee-doo, now that’s a radical risk to take. You might not get your bucks. You might go out of business. So in effect, the risk is the possible loss of integration and stability within the economy if the people ensconced in it reject your wares. What you don’t like might not like you, though you want what you don’t like to pay for your complaints. Well, as long as what you don’t like is paying the bills, it will always have the real power anyway, and maybe even let you say whatever the f**k you want as long as you pose no real threat. Pseudo protest indeed.
Sweet Girls
Given the structure in which we work, what is the real difference between iconoclasm for iconoclasm’s sake and supposedly “true” protest art that just ends up being for iconoclasm’s sake anyway, given the way it is consumed?
Tired of Irony, tire iron. All you artist types might try to look deeper, beyond the playground of the gallery system — which at best is just the court for the jester. Or maybe you like that jouvenile, subservient position.
– Paul “The Lima” Lima
**********
Dear Mr. Lima:
you’ve got it all wrong!
The risk that Lawing gallery is taking is an artistic one, not a commercial one. Giving a show to untried young artists might make your gallery look dumb.
There’s no risk that it might not sell since no one ever expected to make any money off it anyway. The Sweet Girls don’t expect to be paid for all the time and effort thay spent installing the show. Lawing Gallery isn’t expecting a fat commission on the sale of foam deer and tree branches. Its going to be a bitch to paint over all those pink walls. I got a pittance for my review, and probably made more money than anyone else involved.
Yes, Sweet Girls is pseudo-protest. Even the Sweet Girls know that. You are the one who is cynical. Gallery art can address real political issues, but it doesn’t have to, and usually doesn’t want to, preferring to deal with more individualistic concerns.
You use the term “gallery system” like it was all one vast conspiracy. It’s not, although it can seem that way. The “gallery system” is actually just thousands of individual people: artists, dealers, collectors, critics etc. Among them are moneygrubbers and altruists, sleazebags and straight arrows, snobs and real people, just like anywhere. True, slippery standards and glamourous mythology attract more than a fair share of poseurs to the artworld, but look at music! Yet good music and good art get made in spite of them.
Cheer up! Shows like the Sweet Girls prove that it’s NOT all jaded plutocrats and slick salesmanship; now, if only it was great art, too…
**********
Bill and random angry guy,
Somebody seems to have missed the point entirely! The Sweet Girls put tons of effort into making a hilarious event incorporating elements of an over decorated prom, an elks club meeting, and a slumber party. Why did Doug [Lawing] do it? I don’t know, or care. Why did the Sweet Girls do it? It sounded like fun. Are the Sweet Girls pissed at men, the “gallery system”, their role in society, and the notion of femininity? Duh, No. Do the Sweet Girls celebrate things that are juvenile, playful, girlish, and silly? Definitely. Its called fun, boys. It’s not trying to be some kind of protest art. The only reason people go to art openings is to see people, so why not just have a fun party ever once and awhile? If you think that’s snobbish, you’re right. So go home. It’s nice to go to a show that is not attempting to be great art, just a good time.
Lighten up,
Scott Calhoun
**********
Attention Mr. William Davenport, Esq and Lima Bean,
Will you all get off this protest crap? There is nothing, not one iota, of protest in the Sweet Girls show. We are mystified as to why you critics think we are political, or are angry. Why is it that when a group of girls get together and do something, the public assumes it could only be because they’re angry? We take great offense to being called “pseudo-protest”.
We are not angered by the Y chromosome. In fact, we have bevies of suitors outside our doors. And they can wait. We do not live in the world of academia where the male gaze oppresses us. Let em look!
We have been treated very well by the gallery system. Mr. Lawing asked us to do something and it sounded like fun. We consider the show to be successful. Five times the people that normally attend Lawing openings showed up. We’re more infamous than we were before. Thank you.
Why are we a gang? Because it’s fun! The exhilaration of a secret, the intricate web of feminine social rituals, the delights of drunken crocheting! We look to elk lodges, indian sweat lodges, ladies auxiliary clubs, men’s friday night poker games in basements.. all these are our inspiration. We have gang colors, secret handshakes and initiations.
We have actually beaten up people who have messed with us. We have actually executed counter attacks on rival gangs. Several of us actually have survived fist fights with sharks. There’s nothing pseudo about our smoke bombs and firecrackers. So watch out. The aggression in the show is against sitting at home being bored. Of course the show does not meet the artistic merits of protest art. It’s not trying to. It does try to overcome the obstacles between female friendships, which are notoriously difficult.
The history of social clubs goes back much farther than the fifties. Those images of femininity are trite, of course, but their history is part of a long history of female companionship. Women’s social aid and crafting/pleasure/art clubs date back to the 1800’s. We try to redeem all such activities, but in a gang context. It’s more interesting to find similarities across history than to endure the constant dissection of recent french intellectual theory. How boring!
Thank You, The Sweet Girls
**********
That response borders on mock-manifesto manifesto there Sweet Girls.
I wonder about the “just to have fun” thing. If that was the endeavor it probably would have been both riskier, and maybe better art. It turned into a sweet and innocent index of conventional installation tropes. I think the Girls figured out that it was in a gallery, then felt compelled to make ” an installation.”
But, you can’t beat the artists/organizers/promoters actually serving the drinks at the opening. I seriously can’t wait for the Sweet Girls Party Firm: we decorate and bring the crowd!
– Todd Hebert
PS- I suggest coasters should be added to the choices of party favors.
**********
Has anybody heard of this gang – they’re called the Latin Kings? I hear that they’re really mean and stuff. There are these poor kids that join, because they think it is their only means of survival, but really it’s this dead end, and they all end up in prison and stuff.
Or, like – there’s this band called the Donnas. they’re really fun. They sing about having a good time. When I listen to their music, I have a good time, too. But, it’s kindof neat, because it sort of challenges my expectations of what “girl bands” are about. they’re pretty cool.
I just saw a great show at Rudyards – this woman that calls herself “Peaches,” she does hyper-sexual rap that’s really intimidating but also entertaining. I’ve been thinking a lot about Peaches.
Or, there’s this artist named Tracy Emin – I don’t know too much about her, but her work sounds kind of provocative. She made this tent with all the names of the guys she slept with on it. I guess it kind of deals with “girl” issues and also installation issues. I haven”t seen it, but it sounds really interesting.
I guess there’s a lot of interesting stuff out there to check out. Some of it raises a lot of issues. Some of it is really fun, too.
Party on, Sweet Girls,
David Harrison
Bill Davenport is an artist and writer and was one of the first contributors to Glasstire.
