The Show at the CAM

[Marie Weichman]

I went to the CAM with my friend yesterday and downstairs is a show by Xaviera Simmons that involves wall after wall of old album covers and a video of a concert.

So here is my question: What makes this exhibit art? I consider myself a fairly open minded individual when it comes to accepting something as art, but this doesn't qualify in my opinion. I know, I know... the original exhibit included live d.j. activity and performances, but does that make it art? My friend commented that it looks like every vintage music store in the country. Does that make it art? The musicians on the albums are all ethnically african american. Does that make it art? It is clearly a cultural statement. Does that make it art? It just was simply a lack luster attempt at what another artist has been doing very well for years.... altering the albums and music industry equipment into something of form and substance. If the installation at the CAM evoked a strong emotional sensibility from me or caused me to feel as if I had entered a completely altered space, then I might have been more willing to accept it as art, but that did not happen. I think it is nothing more than a trite display of one part of recent music history.

So I'm asking.... have you seen it? What did you think?

[DUNE-MICHELI PATTEN]

First of all, I'd have to point out that not all of the musical artists displayed on the album covers are African-American. There are first generation African [ Eddie Grant (Edmond Montague Grant)] and Jamaican [Peter Tosh (Winston Hubert McIntosh)] and Spanish-Town, Jamaica [Grace Jones (Grace Mendoza )]. However, it does seem to be a little more culturally indigenous from a distance perspective; but to look at it this way is a rather myopic. Upon closer inspection, and looking at the larger picture [such as your friend suggesting the vintage music store environment- or even a teenage-to-young adult sibling's room], there is ideal that is formulating; the love of music, the sound of music, the influential power of music. Then you start to realize, and get the nostalgic feeling of the times, that yes this can be an Installation Art- an Installation of Sight [represented by the brightly colored and artistically designed LP covers] and Sound [the video of the concert]; a work of art. And we all know that an installation is anything that is artfully done to fill a space; you know, incorporates almost any media to create an experience in a particular environment. And the experience is quite possibly that 'vintage music store' environment. Of course, the particular environment of this installation suggest a more indigenous culture [as most cultues readily possess objects that reflect their particular culture- which seems to be the irony of American Culture; but I digress]; but again, that just might be the point. And the fact that the artist is, or was, a DJ herself is telling. To have the music hold a broader representation of musical influence, culturally, would place it more suitable for a Music History Museum instead of a Contemporary Art Museum; but that is only my opinion. It seems to me to be more of a question of experience and the effectiveness of that; rather than being a question of Art. But I do agree that it isn't very imaginative; although, it can be seen as an installation. As it were, here it seems that the difference between Installation Art and the way that works of art are 'installed' in a space is blurred...you gotta squint :P. It's interesting

I found a link to a site posing the same question you have. check it out: http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue3/butisitinstallationart.htm

[Marie Weichman]

Well Dune, thanks for the clarification on the musicians included in the collection of album covers as well as your perspective. But I'm still not convinced. First, I don't think the boundary between Installation Art and installed works of art is blurred what-so-ever. We simply still have a huge level of misunderstanding that exists regarding the definition of Installation Art. That being said, if - and I stress "if" this show was to be accepted as installation in the way it rubs shoulders with the feel of vintage music stores, then I think the show is even more of a let down than ever. Where is the rest of the vintage store? Can you image how exciting that could be? A music store that is not a music store and exists in the basement of a contemporary art museum? Besides, why would a vintage music store be so ethnically selective? I still think that this big display of old album covers is nothing more than that. Certainly it is not art - in my opinion.

[melindap]

I haven't seen it and frankly, won't waste my time going to see it. We used to have a name for that kind of art at the Art Institute and it wasn't a nice name. Oh sure you can call it art and in some iterations it is art, but really now, how creative is it? What did it take to create it? Could the creator have made the exhibit without the efforts of many others and the music industry in general? No. That makes it rip-off art.
There is too much wonderful art being created from whole cloth that deserves our attention. This does not.

[Marie Weichman]

I don't mind when art involves the work of many or is an evolution and interpretation of something that came before... I whole heartedly accept appropriation as an art form. But your question "what did it take to create it" has me shaking my head, Ya, man! I can take my sister's big-ass collection of Who Albums which is currently worth a lot of money for all the bootlegs it includes and hang them on a street fence near some music store, but not in the music store and it would exhibit more thoughtfullness in presentation than this show has. Hmmmm... maybe I can get a gig at the CAM???! :)

[DUNE-MICHELI PATTEN]

HAHAHAHA; TOO FUNNY MARIE[on the 'gig at the CAM' remark] :PPP. However, I think Xaviera's work in the CAM is more of a personal attachment to the art; so its aims are probably geared toward that end- to show it as a personal response piece- more about how she reacts and response to the stimulus of music and not so much our affects of it. I never thought that Duchamp's urinals were ever art; but that does not mean it is not regarded as art. We have our own tastes- which is our right. But again, I do agree that the installation in the CAM is not very imaginative; just more peronal for the artist.

[Dean4Hire]

But is it art?
===
Literally, yes it is. It follows in a long line of artist that attempted to re-present objects, environments, historical scenes, mythical stories, etc. This artist just used a short cut and decided to employ copies of/the real thing itself (i.e., albumn covers) to represent album covers.

mediocre for the masses
===
I agree with Marie, Dune, and Melinda. It may be art but it's uninspired and uninspiring. I'm not so concerned about "what did it take to create it" as I am about how little the creation affects me and the masses. It's works like this that fuel the phillistine, "my 4 year old could do that." (See the movie, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912592/).

I don't blame the artist as much as I blame the curator: such a prestigious stage, such a meek presentation. I'll bet there's a lot of donor money that can wander down memory lane in that installation, wonder as we do "Is it art," but breath a sigh of relief that they're not be offended.

Meta-art
===
Dune, thanks for the link to the Tate and the article about the Installation Art work as a reflexive statement on Installation Art.

Admission
===
Oh and no I haven't seen the show but I did view the image on line (http://www.camh.org/exhib_MAIN.html). May be the essay by Contemporary Arts Museum Houston curator Valerie Cassel Oliver, sheds a little more light on this. It better be a damn big light.

[Marie Weichman]

OH MAX!!!! I love the way you think!!! :)

[DUNE-MICHELI PATTEN]

I think what's done is done. There, have now trudged the vessel through the 'sea of mediocrity' and in sight is the shore of 'consciousness awaits;' so can it finally be reached???? I'm there with some fish on a fully-stoked barbie and some loaves of bread...can you see me?? Max, I think that conjuring up and suggesting a weak idea for an installation project to offset another weak installation project is rather perverbially 'beating the dead dog with a stick.' So what if the curators of the CAMH missed on this current Perspective; previous Perspectives have been quite worthy of even our peripheral scope. However, in my humble opinion- and I have it on high authority, it does illustrates the willingness of the 'quit pro quo' <---as my meaning, 'quit being professionally excellent with art--->; to 'wink' an eye at art that is mediocre, or unimaginative at least. It just goes to show how far a master's degree can 'push you through'; which is an interesting 'perspective' by Kerry James Marshall...A brief message to all those artists wih Master degrees: 'Don't be mastered by the degree'.

[Buffalo Sean]

Yup. It's not art. Too boring.

[Victoria Lewelling]

I feel bad for the "artist", to get your "art" in such a place and be throughly trashed would be like finally getting an Oscar and told you look like crap in that outfit and sound even worse with your acceptance speech. It would be a bummer. At least though, the artist probably thinks everyone is jealous...or he's just laughing his butt off for pulling this one off...

[DUNE-MICHELI PATTEN]

Xaviera Simmons is a 'she'; and I'm sure that she's not thinking anyone is jealous; not worried about that at all. The installation seems to be of a personal reflexion of music as an historical stimulus for her. She's made her statement and money. Maybe we should look at ourselves as the ones who are 'jealous'....We can appreciate an attempt without liking the outcome.....MESSAGE!!!

[Victoria Lewelling]

I was referring to the HE in general, sorry for the confusion. You're probably right about being "jealous" and about making the money/statement.