Greater New York 2005: Art School Art in New York

by Alex Russel
alex.russell@artschoolreview.com
Art School Review Columnist

Five years ago, PS1, a subsidiary to New York's Museum of Modern Art, opened Greater New York. This was a showcase for New York's emerging talent, many still in art school, and to capture any aesthetic trends coming to life in New York galleries.

Unlikely as it may seem, nothing like that had been done before. These "booster" shows, exhibitions intended to promote local artists, were thought to be the mainstay of "lesser" cities trying to make a play for a piece of New York's cultural grandeur.

MOMA Helps Young Artists

The show was a huge success. No one was offended that New York artists needed a leg-up from MOMA. So now, five years later, the MOMA and PS1 have mounted another Greater New York exhibition in an effort to tell us what has changed in the art coming out of art schools and the streets of New York City.

Organized by six curators, Greater New York 2005 features 162 artists. The show uses every nook and corner of PS1, a barely refurbished high school in industrial Queens, just over the East River from Manhattan's midtown skyscrapers.

Art from Art Schools in New York

The show hasn't quite been as well received as the previous one. A main complaint is that too many artists come from the same art schools; apparently Yale and Columbia are disproportionably represented.

Another complaint is the gender breakdown. There are two male artists for every woman in the show, which motivated a small demonstration by local women artists at the show's opening in early March.

Art School Artists Sell Themselves

Overall, the biggest problem seemed to be that critics are not quite as forgiving of naked "boosterism" as they were five years ago. In 2000, conventional wisdom said that local artists, even New York artists, needed the institutional plug from the MOMA and PS1. Despite the criticisms of the art itself, observers wished Greater New York 2000 well.

In 2005, consensus says the pendulum has swung too far. Artists have become too savvy at selling themselves and their work. Marketing, critics argue, is trumping art. In describing this proclivity towards salesmanship, Michael Kimmleman, chief art critic for the New York Times writes: "There's something rather depressing about such youthful professionalism, even while it is undeniably impressive."

Art School as a Launching Pad

So we might be able to conclude that art schools are doing their job. When art critics criticize the marketing success of art school graduates, in a sense that means the art schools are doing something right. Evidently, exciting and energetic work is coming out of art schools.

About the Author
Alex Russel is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn, NY. Lucky enough to grow up in Europe with family all over the world, he has been a consummate traveler his whole life. Since graduating from Syracuse University he has worked at many different media companies in fields as diverse as film, TV, advertising, and journalism. He holds a dual bachelor's degree in English and History.

Sources

• http://www.nytimes.com

Posted on May 19, 2005 at 01:28 AM