Shotgun Review: A Show to Show How a Show is not Only a Show

A Show to Show How a Show is not Only a Show at Lobot Gallery

by Sarah Lockhart

Note: This critique doubled as my contribution to the exhibition. When asked to select "6 Oakland artists," I sent a copy of this critique to 40 people, soliciting a response. The responses I received were printed out and installed in the gallery.

This is the title of this "viral curation" exhibition that you are attending, and this title is as misleading and problematic as the rationale given for this exhibition. Misleading, how? It is misleading in that it is only a show, though it is a show on several levels, its showiness obscures just about all else.

This is spectacle, pure and simple, a veritable clusterfuck of small works from floor to ceiling, that does as little to make the art on display "available to the world" as geographic photos taken from space do to reveal details of the lives of those who inhabit said places. What one gets from this exhibition is quantity and density - things that regularly impede introspection, considered analysis, and close viewing - doing a disservice to the art on display. Perhaps this piece will be installed so high up the wall, it will be illegible.

I can only conclude that we aren't meant to see the art works as art works, but as signs - a show of hands engaged in making art, manifested through a display of objects. As the objects, themselves, are poorly shown due to the exhibition design and the minimal window of time in which this exhibition was put together, thus this show is not about the objects, not about the art, but about the showing.

If the purpose is to show that there are a large number of artists in Oakland, then why this construction - this exhibition of objects? As large as Lobot is, they are only displaying 1554 works, which according to the much bandied-about statistics represents only a small fraction of "Oakland artists," (less than 1% of the city's population).

Also, by limiting the sign one can use to signify oneself as an artist to a wall-based square, one eliminates a significant number of artists, and disadvantages many others. If the goal is to "make connections," why restrict how many connections can be made? Why not invite as many people who identify as "Oakland artists" over for a party and give them nametags, play icebreaker games, and call it "social sculpture," if the goal is to "make connections"? That the exhibition and its stated purposes are a bit misaligned, leads me to regard it even more as just a show, a show of last-minute cleverness that wasn't thought through well enough.

And finally, let's look at this restriction to "Oakland artists," an arbitrary category, for a city with arbitrary borders on all sides, save for the water. There isn't anything akin to the Berlin Wall separating Oakland from nearby cities, and there is an incredible amount of mobility among its population, especially the "artist" population. This isn't even considering the issue of where one's work is shown, and what informs on its manufacture. Why tag oneself an "Oakland artist?"

The term "Oakland artist" is itself a construction, and a term I'm reticent to use to describe myself, as Oakland doesn't inform upon my work, and I was born and raised elsewhere, like the majority of the people in this exhibition.

Why the regionalism in this exhibition?

Why make this show about "Oakland artists?" Is it to cultivate the "buzz" or the "scene?" Is it out of a desire for somewhere to be from and a team to root for? Is it a straight white hipster wish for an identity politik to ride to the next Whitney Biennial? Is it a political manoeuver to increase the visibility and influence of the arts in the eyes of Oakland's city government? This is something the exhibition doesn't address in its rationale and description, and it would feel less vapid had it done so. But, honestly, this is only a show.

Posted July 30, 2006 1:31 PM (662 words)

« Somewhere In Space | Home | Panic In Detroit »

This review is complete BULLSHIT. Not only does Sarah not engage the idea of the show, she wrote the review before it was even hung!

Furthermore, this show was a response to the YBCA's Sampling Oakland show - it was our original idea for the show - which we thought would be more interesting and equal than picking a few white artists from the popular Oakland hipster pool.
They liked the idea but couldn't produce the show b/c of institutional limits (insurance, installation, registrar...)- So we did it, with no funding and a staff of 2 people including myself - a fascinating lesson on how art can be limited by the well funded museum/gallery.

The purpose of the show is exactly as the title suggests - (which I appropriated from Jens b/c its a damn good title) - to illustrate the multiple levels an exhibition operates on beyond the visual. It wasn't about trying to name or show only Oakland artists or be regionalist in my viewpoint. There were people in the show from all over the country, there were pieces that broke the size limit. I had laid out the 'rules' and watched it manifest, out of my control. People chose their own work and I believe the show was beautiful and a huge success. From 4 to 70, of every color, rich and poor, established or dabbling. It was a sampling of Oakland organized in the most organic and freeform way I could manifest. As for Sarah Lockhart of 21 Grand - shame on you for being presumptuous and irresponsible in your "review".

One last thing - Beyond it's merit, I would suggest that art reviewers, write the review AFTER the show has been installed. It's an abuse of information to put this poor attempt at criticality on the web.

Posted by: AZH | August 29, 2006

It's important the readers know this review was written before the show was fully installed. And that is a petty action by Sarah Lockhart against LoBot caused by her anger at not being selected to curate anything Visual in the YBCA show "Sampling Oakland".

Posted by: Adam | September 1, 2006

Actually, the review was written after seeing a partial installation of the exhibition, in which there was work installed in the manner described. Prior to publishing the review, I had the opportunity to see more of the installation in progress, and it did indeed merit the description of "a veritable clusterfuck of small works from floor to ceiling." On this second viewing, the show was close to fully installed.

In retrospect, after discussing the show with several participants and viewers, I feel that the show succeeded in its implied goal of social networking, creating connections, and so forth. I think it was a valid experiment, though I do wish that the language used in the premise and rationale had a bit less "swagger." I also feel that such an ambitious endeavor would have been better served by more advanced planning and consideration of exhibition design.

I appreciate Adam's decision to let people break the rules, though the imposition of said rules only becomes clear with his explanation that the exhibition was what had been proposed for the YBCA "Sampling Oakland" exhibition. If this had been stated somewhere in the explanatory text about the show, that would have been useful to me.

I've seen some good shows at LoBot and some mediocre shows. I felt that there were issues and fodder for discussion with this one that it was worth writing about. In that way, it was more than a show.

As far as Adam's accusations about this being some sort of act of retribution for being excluded from the YBCA show or an act against LoBot, these are quite false. I'm sorry to say, Adam, I found the show problematic entirely on its own merits.

Posted by: Sarah Lockhart | September 6, 2006

As far as Yerba Buena's rejection of your show concept, perhaps it would have been better to do this show at LoBot first, then cull from it for the Yerba Buena proposal, still replicating or representing the desired process, but constructing an exhibition that would be feasible to pull off at said institution.

	A Show to Show How a Show is not Only a Show at Lobot Gallery by Sarah Lockhart Note: This critique doubled as my contribution to the exhibition. When asked to select "6 Oakland artists," I sent a copy of this critique to 40 people, soliciting a response. The responses I received were printed out and installed in the gallery. This is the title of this "viral curation" exhibition that you are attending, and this title is as misleading and problematic as the rationale given for this exhibition. Misleading, how? It is misleading in that it is only a show, though it is a show on several levels, its showiness obscures just about all else. This is spectacle, pure and simple, a veritable clusterfuck of small works from floor to ceiling, that does as little to make the art on display "available to the world" as geographic photos taken from space do to reveal details of the lives of those who inhabit said places. What one gets from this exhibition is quantity and density - things that regularly impede introspection, considered analysis, and close viewing - doing a disservice to the art on display. Perhaps this piece will be installed so high up the wall, it will be illegible. I can only conclude that we aren't meant to see the art works as art works, but as signs - a show of hands engaged in making art, manifested through a display of objects. As the objects, themselves, are poorly shown due to the exhibition design and the minimal window of time in which this exhibition was put together, thus this show is not about the objects, not about the art, but about the showing. If the purpose is to show that there are a large number of artists in Oakland, then why this construction - this exhibition of objects? As large as Lobot is, they are only displaying 1554 works, which according to the much bandied-about statistics represents only a small fraction of "Oakland artists," (less than 1% of the city's population). Also, by limiting the sign one can use to signify oneself as an artist to a wall-based square, one eliminates a significant number of artists, and disadvantages many others. If the goal is to "make connections," why restrict how many connections can be made? Why not invite as many people who identify as "Oakland artists" over for a party and give them nametags, play icebreaker games, and call it "social sculpture," if the goal is to "make connections"? That the exhibition and its stated purposes are a bit misaligned, leads me to regard it even more as just a show, a show of last-minute cleverness that wasn't thought through well enough. And finally, let's look at this restriction to "Oakland artists," an arbitrary category, for a city with arbitrary borders on all sides, save for the water. There isn't anything akin to the Berlin Wall separating Oakland from nearby cities, and there is an incredible amount of mobility among its population, especially the "artist" population. This isn't even considering the issue of where one's work is shown, and what informs on its manufacture. Why tag oneself an "Oakland artist?" The term "Oakland artist" is itself a construction, and a term I'm reticent to use to describe myself, as Oakland doesn't inform upon my work, and I was born and raised elsewhere, like the majority of the people in this exhibition. Why the regionalism in this exhibition? Why make this show about "Oakland artists?" Is it to cultivate the "buzz" or the "scene?" Is it out of a desire for somewhere to be from and a team to root for? Is it a straight white hipster wish for an identity politik to ride to the next Whitney Biennial? Is it a political manoeuver to increase the visibility and influence of the arts in the eyes of Oakland's city government? This is something the exhibition doesn't address in its rationale and description, and it would feel less vapid had it done so. But, honestly, this is only a show. Posted July 30, 2006 1:31 PM (662 words) « Somewhere In Space \| Home \| Panic In Detroit »		Comments This review is complete BULLSHIT. Not only does Sarah not engage the idea of the show, she wrote the review before it was even hung! Furthermore, this show was a response to the YBCA's Sampling Oakland show - it was our original idea for the show - which we thought would be more interesting and equal than picking a few white artists from the popular Oakland hipster pool. They liked the idea but couldn't produce the show b/c of institutional limits (insurance, installation, registrar...)- So we did it, with no funding and a staff of 2 people including myself - a fascinating lesson on how art can be limited by the well funded museum/gallery. The purpose of the show is exactly as the title suggests - (which I appropriated from Jens b/c its a damn good title) - to illustrate the multiple levels an exhibition operates on beyond the visual. It wasn't about trying to name or show only Oakland artists or be regionalist in my viewpoint. There were people in the show from all over the country, there were pieces that broke the size limit. I had laid out the 'rules' and watched it manifest, out of my control. People chose their own work and I believe the show was beautiful and a huge success. From 4 to 70, of every color, rich and poor, established or dabbling. It was a sampling of Oakland organized in the most organic and freeform way I could manifest. As for Sarah Lockhart of 21 Grand - shame on you for being presumptuous and irresponsible in your "review". One last thing - Beyond it's merit, I would suggest that art reviewers, write the review AFTER the show has been installed. It's an abuse of information to put this poor attempt at criticality on the web. Posted by: AZH \| August 29, 2006 It's important the readers know this review was written before the show was fully installed. And that is a petty action by Sarah Lockhart against LoBot caused by her anger at not being selected to curate anything Visual in the YBCA show "Sampling Oakland". Posted by: Adam \| September 1, 2006 Actually, the review was written after seeing a partial installation of the exhibition, in which there was work installed in the manner described. Prior to publishing the review, I had the opportunity to see more of the installation in progress, and it did indeed merit the description of "a veritable clusterfuck of small works from floor to ceiling." On this second viewing, the show was close to fully installed. In retrospect, after discussing the show with several participants and viewers, I feel that the show succeeded in its implied goal of social networking, creating connections, and so forth. I think it was a valid experiment, though I do wish that the language used in the premise and rationale had a bit less "swagger." I also feel that such an ambitious endeavor would have been better served by more advanced planning and consideration of exhibition design. I appreciate Adam's decision to let people break the rules, though the imposition of said rules only becomes clear with his explanation that the exhibition was what had been proposed for the YBCA "Sampling Oakland" exhibition. If this had been stated somewhere in the explanatory text about the show, that would have been useful to me. I've seen some good shows at LoBot and some mediocre shows. I felt that there were issues and fodder for discussion with this one that it was worth writing about. In that way, it was more than a show. As far as Adam's accusations about this being some sort of act of retribution for being excluded from the YBCA show or an act against LoBot, these are quite false. I'm sorry to say, Adam, I found the show problematic entirely on its own merits. Posted by: Sarah Lockhart \| September 6, 2006 As far as Yerba Buena's rejection of your show concept, perhaps it would have been better to do this show at LoBot first, then cull from it for the Yerba Buena proposal, still replicating or representing the desired process, but constructing an exhibition that would be feasible to pull off at said institution. Posted by: Sarah Lockhart \| September 6, 2006 these conceptions of sarah's motives just might say more about the conceivers than it does about her. Posted by: GORdon \| September 6, 2006 Post a comment Name: Email: Comments: