Carolina Arts Unleashed

On my recent delivery trip - what we now call - The Search For Gas In The Carolinas - I got to see two exhibitions by Columbia, SC, area photographers. One of the exhibits was in Columbia and the other was in North Charleston, SC. Both exhibits fell into what seems to be a developing trend in photography - as least in recent exhibits I’ve seen - a move toward abstraction or near abstraction in the imagery offered. Both artists demonstrated that the camera is but a tool in the creative process - not a machine that takes pictures. The artist using the camera is the creative force.

Don’t get me wrong, I love straight photography, whether it be nature photography, portrait photography, journalistic photography, architectural photography, etc. Good photography takes skill and creativity. Otherwise anyone could do it. And believe me - everyone can’t.

With the invention of digital cameras and computer programs like Photoshop - photographic imagery can be manipulated in numerous ways - even creatively in some people’s hands, but they are only tools.

You can put a paintbrush in my hands and it is the same tool an artist uses, but the results will never be the same.

“Overflow” by Todd Oelze

While delivering papers in Columbia on a Sunday, I ran into an unexpected - open door - at Gallery 80808 at Vista Studios, at 808 Lady Street in the Vista. The exhibition was, Strokes of Light, featuring abstract photography by Todd Oelze (Blythewood, SC), on view from Sept. 26 - 30, 2008.

It’s not that I don’t read my own paper - I process a lot of information and usually by the time I’m delivering one paper, I’ve been working on the next month’s calendar of exhibitions. It’s hard to keep it all straight. What’s not a problem for me, but still seems to be for a lot of people in Columbia, is the fact that I know that Gallery 80808 is open when exhibits are taking place - even on the weekends. Not many galleries are open on Sunday in Columbia.

It was not too long ago that I did a review of another photography exhibit at the Saul Alexander Foundation Gallery at the main branch of the Charleston County Public Library in downtown Charleston, SC, It was abstract photography too. So here was another very interesting exhibit of more abstract photography.

“Cosmic Sneeze” by Todd Oelze

When I later checked the Vista Studios/Gallery 80808 web blog (http://www.gallery80808.blogspot.com/) I found this statement offered by Oelze. “Strokes of Light is a result of my recent endeavor to produce digital photographs that convey movement, while accentuating color and displaying the illusion of depth. I achieve this look by employing uncommon camera and lighting techniques, while keeping post-production effects to a minimum. My ultimate goal is to establish a recognizable style that I believe is extremely difficult to accomplish in photography. This collection of photographs is my first step in achieving this vision.”

I believe Oelze was very successful in pulling off his stated goal and look forward to seeing where his work goes in the future. I got him to send us a couple of images (another post exhibit review) and you can see more work on his website at (www.toddophotos.com).

My drive on Sunday started Saturday night and lasted well into the afternoon, but the short break in viewing Oelze’s works stayed with me a long time.

James Cheatum

On Monday, I was roaming from Calabash, NC, through Myrtle Beach and the Grand Strand, eventually making my way down the coast to Mt. Pleasant and Charleston, SC. Some of my last stops were in North Charleston where I ran into the exhibition, Lens Paintings, Flower Photography by Jim Cheatham, from Columbia, at the North Charleston City Gallery at the Charleston Area Convention Center Complex, 5001 Coliseum Drive. This exhibit started on Oct. 1 (put up just hours before I arrived there) and will be up through Oct. 31, 2008.

In this exhibit, the images were sort of straight photographs, but taken so close in that they were abstracts of the real thing. They are images of objects, in this case flowers, that can’t be seen by normal vision - well maybe if you get real close and squint your eyes.

In a handout offered at the exhibit, Cheatham offered the following statement about his work. “My photography of flowers attempts to give expression to what might be called the spiritual dimension present in all living things - to the reality ‘behind’ the reality. In doing so, I am not concerned with presenting images that are photographically ‘correct’, but images that are ‘painterly’ as well as beautiful from a textural standpoint. I also strive for a strong graphic quality. Particularly in the collage mosaics.”

The results is a presentation of “sort of” straight photographs of flowers with the abstraction being offered by the closeness to the subject. In the photography world this might be considered “macro” photography - using lenses which are designed to take crisp images - real close in on subjects, but focus in not a goal here by Cheatham - delivering that “painterly” look - which is soft and sensuous.

You can see more images of Cheatham’s at (www.lenspaintings.com), but the exhibit will still be up through Oct. - so you can go see this one.

Both results seen in both of these exhibitions are nothing new in photography, the techniques have been seen before, but these two artists are taking the techniques to different levels - using their cameras and subjects as just tools to achieve abstracted imagery which reach beyond traditional photography.

I know some people in the art community don’t respect photography too much - they think it’s easy. Photography is an evolving fine art medium. If you’re not threatened by it, you might be able to see the possibilities and recognize that in the hands of the right people it can be as creative as any art medium.

Keep an eye out for further exhibits by Todd Oelze and Jim Cheatham - I know I will.

Home

Back on Aug. 20, 2008, I posted my opinion on the future of the SC Arts Commission’s Leveraging Investments in Creativity (LINC) program. I wasn’t too optimistic - based on my experience. In that posting I mentioned the Canvas of the People process. Some readers didn’t know what I was talking about. Surprise! Here’s a little sample.

This is one of the sections from the Ten Year Plan which deals with the part of the arts I’m involved in. Our paper, Carolina Arts, promotes the visual arts in North and South Carolina - in SC, in NC, and around the world on our website. So we’re into marketing the visual arts in the Carolinas.

As far as arts advocacy goes - many say I’m no advocate, but I dare to disagree. I wouldn’t be doing this - all that I do - if I didn’t love the arts and wanted others to love them too. But, I’m not the love em or leave em type. Not everything is good about the arts. Some people just don’t like you to draw attention to that - so when I do, they say I’m against the arts. Next they’ll question my patriotism.

So here’s one slice of that Ten Year Plan. I’m sure you can find the whole report somewhere on the Arts Commission’s website. My copy is from eight years ago.

Taken from the South Carolina Arts Commission’s Ten Year Plan - Canvas of the People 2001 - 2010 report.

Marketing and Advocacy

In order to build an environment in which the arts can thrive, we must deliberately raise the profile of arts providers and supporters in South Carolina. We must increase the public’s understanding and appreciation of the artistic process and gain more and better coverage and criticism of the arts through all media outlets. We must build understanding of the relationship between community development and the arts until the arts are regarded as a vital resource for prosperity and health by the businesses, citizens, and government leaders of South Carolina. We must keep the arts on the public agenda at the local, state and national levels and influence public policy in favor of the arts.

Objectives:

1. Develop marketing and information systems that help citizens easily identify and connect with arts resources that fit their needs and interests.

2. Train artists and arts organizations in professional marketing techniques, and build skills throughout the arts community in obtaining press and media coverage.

3. Build public understanding and appreciation of the “behind-the-scenes” creative process through which works of art are produced.

4. Monitor and communicate the public’s opinions and values regarding the importance of arts in the schools and communities and their desire for public funding to support the arts.

5. Understand and document the economic impact of the arts themselves and the influence of the arts on general economic development. Share this information with all potential partners, and publicize it broadly.

6. Develop ongoing relationships with local, state and federal legislators and legislative staff, and cultivate two-way communication that increases their understanding of the arts and the legitimate role of government in their support, while providing arts advocates with greater access to and better understanding of the legislative process.

7. Engage business leaders and other influential allies to advocate for arts and arts education.

8. Influence public policy at all levels including city, county, state, and federal, in support of the arts and public funding of the arts.

OK - so let’s take a look.

On the Marketing and Advocacy statement, I’ve seen none of this in the last eight years directed at me or our paper. We are the only publication covering the visual arts in both North and South Carolina. They may have spent a lot of time developing a relationship with other media outlets in SC, but not with us. But, I also haven’t seen any increase in arts coverage in the media. The Arts Commission no longer has a publication of their own so they have done little other than setting up Arts Daily, a website used by some arts groups throughout the region and artists around the country - because they make no effort to make it a SC only resource.

As far as making the arts regarded as a vital resource - even the media is cutting back on arts coverage while they try to keep their readers and viewers.

I love this statement, “We must increase the public’s understanding and appreciation of the artistic process and gain more and better coverage and criticism of the arts through all media outlets.” Have we not provided enough, if not the most criticism of the arts - mostly the SC Arts Commission - in South Carolina. I don’t know where they have done anything on this goal.

I have suggested in the past that they could have started a program where they would make funds available for art critics to write reviews of the visual arts that would appear in our paper. They would also have to pay for that space, but that was a none starter because it might benefit me or our paper (a commercial enterprise), but they had no problems doing that many years ago - paying a publication based in Chicago to include reviews of exhibits in SC. The problem there was that this national publication wasn’t available many places in SC. But they paid the money for years. And, have you ever seen an ad about any of the Arts Commission’s exhibits in our paper?

They don’t even send us press releases about exhibits they are involved with. We found one on the official SC Press site about an exhibit of ceramics from the State Art Collection taking place in Clemson, SC. We posted it on our website. Their idea of improving relations with the media and arts coverage is to have them go find it on their website or the State’s website. At least that’s the case with us. Again, I don’t know how they are treating others in the media. Well, I know they have a very good relationship with an arts reporter at The State newspaper in Columbia, SC.

On the part of the statement that says, “We must keep the arts on the public agenda at the local, state and national levels and influence public policy in favor of the arts.” They may be doing that in Columbia, SC, where they all live and work and by going to lots of national arts conventions and gathering, but they have little if any presence on the local level in SC - other than hanging arts grants over the heads of local arts groups. They don’t reward grassroots movements in South Carolina like they do in North Carolina.

What about the Objectives?

Under Number 1

They created Arts Daily and maintain a website. That’s it on this objective. The artists of SC don’t know what resources are available, nor does most of the public know what’s being offered - by their efforts.

Under Number 2

A few days ago I received a press release about an art exhibit from one of SC’s medium sized art museums, by snail mail - after our deadline. The press release had only the reception date (no ending date making the info unusable for our readers) and no phone number to call about further info. I was referred to a website address for press images.

The year is 2008, most of the information we receive is sent by e-mail so it can be received almost instantly. Images are sent with the press release so I don’t have to take time requesting them or searching for them on a website. Obviously this museum has fallen through the cracks of the Ten Year Plan. We received a press release about this same exhibit, a month earlier, from the commercial gallery who represents the artist presented in the exhibit.

But, they are not the only arts organization unable to communicate to the media. I’m shocked at how much info I have to pry out of some of these groups. Most are lucky that their cultural offerings may be the only events taking place in their own hometowns and cities. So they get coverage in small hometown media, but they can’t compete in the wide-world of arts media coverage - which is in decline in the Carolinas. So you have to be very competitive to get coverage.

Over these last eight years, I haven’t seen the Arts Commission do much to improve this situation in SC. They have a hard time communicating themselves. That’s my experience.

On our website we offer opportunities to all in the visual arts in every part of North and South Carolina, but when some learn that some things won’t be included in our printed version of the paper - they lose interest in sending information. How short sighted can they be? Apparently the Arts Commission hasn’t gotten across how useful a website and the internet can be in spreading information - since that’s all they use for communications. But then again, many of the arts groups who don’t send us info, don’t send it to Arts Daily either. So how should we judge the Arts Commission on their plan to increase arts coverage and communication? Poorly in my opinion.

We have exhibit spaces in NC that never miss a month in sending us press releases about their exhibits - and some have never been printed in our paper. But they keep sending them and they take advantage of our worldwide readership. They appreciate our efforts in including them.

Under Number 3

I haven’t seen much done on this objective. The Arts Commission started an audience building program for some arts groups in Columbia, SC - their own backyard. But I don’t think it really covers the behind the scenes process of creating art. And, when will they get around to the rest of the state with this program?

Under Number 4

I wonder how they have been doing this monitoring of the public’s opinion and communicating it to anyone, but I bet you they tell everyone who matters that the public really is BIG on supporting the arts - especially on the issue of increasing the funding for the Arts Commission - so they can trickle it down to the artists.

Under Number 5

This one they work on all the time. They’re always releasing any report that claims to know the economic impact the arts have on the economy - national, regional and local. Unfortunately they tend to use formulas that are so outrageous that most people don’t believe them. They usually tell people that for every dollar put into the arts, it generates 3, 4, or 5 dollars into the economy. Sometimes it’s 6, 7 or 8 dollars. What they never tell you in these reports is that the dollar is being subtracted from the economy to begin with. That dollar is a tax dollar. Some taxpayers might feel that arts funding is having a negative effect on their economy.

The other thing that is very funny about these “economic impact of the arts” is that these reports always use money that is generated in the commercial sector of the arts, but these same commercial enterprises never get to benefit from public funding. Commercial money is good when it’s needed to pad the total figures, but they don’t want to give any money to those greedy commercial people. Nice!

Under Number 6

Here is another objective the Arts Commission spends a lot of time doing. Kissing up to and whispering in the ears of the people who control their funding.

Remember the 40 list - part of the Arts Commission’s 40th Anniversary celebration. Somehow State Legislators from most counties in SC got nominated to be on this list - even though there weren’t that many people participating from those counties contributing items for other lists. And, their names were just given - no one seemed to have any comments to offer about these supportive legislators. It’s like the names just appeared out of nowhere.

I bet you they spend more energy on this objective - more than all the others combined.

Under Number 7

How would we judge their efforts on this objective? Should we check out the list of Verner Awards winners? Or, try and find out how many consulting jobs they have done for businesses - helping them select art for their offices? Should we ask for a list of which businesses are donating to the SC Arts Foundation? Or, count up the number of press releases they have issued about partnerships with businesses in SC? How do we learn about how well they have done with this objective?

When it comes down to it - they don’t really like talking about this subject at all.

On Number 8

Well, we know they influence State policy on the arts, after all they are a state agency, but I don’t know of any dealings with city, county or federal policy - unless you’re talking about being involved with governments in the Columbia, SC, area again.

Actually, I’d like to see some disclosure on this issue. I’d like to know all the boards and committees staff members of the SC Arts Commission sit on.

So what can we say about the Arts Commission’s leadership in pulling off some of these Ten Year Plan objectives.

Marketing

In my opinion the overall marketing of the arts in SC is substandard - especially when I compare it to what’s being done in NC. Artists and arts organizations know very little about marketing themselves. Of course the LINC programs will solve this - right.

When these people and groups get public funding from the state of SC - they should be required to do statewide marketing of their events - not just local promotions.

Advocacy

Well that’s kind of simple - has funding for the arts increased or decreased in the last eight years?

Most daily newspapers are cutting back on arts coverage - so they must think their readers are not interested in the arts - or why would they be making cuts there?

Of course I’m sure they would give themselves a higher grade on these objectives. And why not? Isn’t that what people do when they get to self-analyze their own efforts.

How about the idea of an outside audit or a public survey on the results of the Ten Year Plan. Of course you’d have to explain to most people who and what the Arts Commission is first.

Well, this leaves a lot of work that has to be done in the next two years. But remember - this is just one slice of the Ten Year Plan. There are a lot more objectives.

P.S.
Hold the presses. I’ve just discovered a press release which informs those who visit the SC Arts Commission’s website that Suzette Surkamer, Executive Director, South Carolina Arts Commission, has just been awarded the 2008 Gary Young Award at the latest NASAA gathering - by her peers - the 2008 Gary Young Task Force. Made up of other state art agency Executive Directors from Vermont, Maryland, Alabama, Ohio, and Washington State. I’m sure all are very well versed on what’s going on in South Carolina - by what they read in the report made by whom? SC Arts Commission staff?

NASAA is the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies.

The Gary Young Award recognizes the individual who makes an extraordinary contribution to public support for the arts in his/her state or region. Ideal candidates exhibit exemplary leadership, innovative thinking and dedication to diverse artistic expression.

The press release notes that, “Guided by her vision, the Commission has achieved success and national recognition in areas such as arts education reform, arts advocacy, and public participation.”

Darn - I might be way off base in my comments about the lack of such things taking place in SC. This award proves it. I’m sure these objective observers from across the nation are more aware of what’s been going on here in South Carolina than I am. I mean come on. You don’t think a group of executive directors giving other executive directors awards is bogus - do you?

What’s that thing about putting lipstick on a pig?

Oh and please don’t try and accuse me of trying to smear the Governor of Alaska or Sen. John McCain. I’ll do that in another posting. I’m saying the SC Arts Commission, the 2008 Gary Young Task Force, and NASAA - are the pigs in a poke here.

We’re the suckers!

Home

South Carolina’s individual artists working in visual arts or crafts, who wish to receive an award of $5,000, can apply for the 2009-2010 Fellowships. The deadline to enter the Fellowship sweepstakes or to apply for this award is Oct. 1, 2008. Applications can be found at the South Carolina Arts Commission’s website at (www.southcarolinaarts.com) - look under the heading “For Artists”.

The application may seem like a lot of trouble to go through, but it’s cheaper than buying lottery tickets and the odds are better - especially in the crafts category. But, you can’t win if you don’t fill out an application and send it in by deadline.

For a related point of view check out our posting on June 28, 2008 - “Oh the Difference”.

Home

After directing the South Carolina Watermedia Society (formerly Watercolor Society) down a steady path of growth and solid leadership, Kim Richards has left the organization to move back to Washington State, where she once ran the SCWS long-distance. Richards has been living in Georgia since coming from Washington. You’ve got to be good to run an organization from several thousand miles away and with several time zone differences. And, she was - very good.

Richards also had the yearly challenge of organizing the Society’s annual member exhibition in a different part of South Carolina with the help of different leadership each year.

It was a real pleasure and a great help in being able to work with the same person for many of those years. It’s something you don’t see in many other organizations in this state. It is one of the reasons - probably the main reason - the South Carolina Watermedia Society is the largest visual arts organization in South Carolina, and most successful one too.

Twenty-one years is a long time. It’s the same time Linda and I have been doing an arts newspaper.

When Richards first called to tell us the news my first reaction was - “No, No, No - you can’t leave!” My second reaction was - “Good for you. You’re getting out!” It’s a love/hate thing. You love what you are doing, but you hate the environment you have to work in sometimes. South Carolina is not an easy place to be working in the arts - especially the visual arts. There are many challenges that just shouldn’t be that hard to deal with.

Richards, like an old war veteran, has many decorations for valor and just as many scars from her battles, but she is leaving victoriously. Let’s just hope the Society does her proud in making sure the organization grows and prospers in her absence.

The Queen is dead - long live the Queen. Only in this case no queen has died. The society has hired a new director, Damita Jeter, from Lexington, SC. Jeter earned her BA in Journalism and Mass Communications from the University of South Carolina and has extensive experience as a meeting and special events planner.

Although Jeter has big shoes to fill, she’ll have one big advantage - she lives in South Carolina. That’s got to count for something. Let’s all help her make this transition as easy as possible and I hope Jeter finds the shoe size a perfect fit and we have her for 21 years - ’cause I hate change.

If you want to give Jeter a big welcome to the art community, you can e-mail her at scwatermediasociety@gmail.com or visit the SCWS website at www.fineartsemporium.com.

Home

As I have mentioned before in a review of exhibits held during the 2008 Piccolo Spoleto Festival, the exhibit space at the Charleston County Public Library’s Main Branch, while small, is an excellent opportunity for any artist in SC to mount a small exhibition. It is located in one of the highest traffic areas in downtown Charleston, SC. This gallery also has the longest open hours for viewing in Charleston. Free parking for the first hour too.

Apparently over the years Charleston’s local visual artists have decided that the space is too small or not suitable - as more and more artists from outside the area are being featured there each month. Folks at the library say they are just not receiving a lot of applications for exhibitions. So, I guess that leaves open another opportunity for artists throughout South Carolina.

I rarely miss an exhibit taking place in this space as I have to visit the library several times a month. I have to - I can’t do without my public library fix.

I have to admit that we don’t always receive info about these exhibits to include in our printed version of the paper - artists do have a habit of dragging their feet in getting info to the library staff for publicity, but even so, the volume at the library provides a very large viewing audience. A high caliber audience too. Well rounded people put libraries on their regular schedules. These are people who will stop and look at art.

So below is the library’s call for application ideas for exhibitions.

The Saul Alexander Foundation Gallery in the Charleston County Public Library’s Main Branch in downtown Charleston, SC, announces a call for entries for monthly exhibitions, solo or group, beginning Dec. 2008 through Dec. 2009. Preference is given to work reflecting experiences and viewpoints of South Carolina residents. Deadline for completed applications is Sept 5, 2008. Applications are available at the Main Library, in the Administrative Office, or on our web page at (www.ccpl.org) under the heading About Us, Saul Alexander Gallery. For further information, contact Becky Melancon at 843/805-6951.

Home

The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has released a report on Artists in the Work Force based on US Census data. Translation - another bunch of guesses made by computer formulas - no hard facts.

A headline in the Post & Courier newspaper in Charleston, SC, on 6/14/2008 reads - “Statistically, S.C. not too creative.” The article says that less than 1 percent of SC’s workers are artists - 19,118 in all. That figure includes designers and announcers? Not political spindoctors? They’re some of the most creative people I know.

I wonder when they say designers are they talking about the people who have their pictures included in full page ads run in the Post & Courier for Southeastern Galleries - a furniture store - that announces a new shipment of Charleston Art has just arrived - to their West Ashley store - less than 20 miles from Charleston.

This report is trying to do research without hard numbers. Numbers I don’t think anyone knows. Local art agencies in Charleston don’t know how many artists are here making a living. The state arts agency doesn’t know how many artists are here making a living. So why should we think federal census takers got it right?

Every art study ever done is written to generate more funding for arts agencies. When you take a closer look at them - they don’t make sense. I’m sure the NEA is fishing for more funding.

The Post & Courier article offers some figures reflecting Charleston’s numbers (I guess - it’s not that clear) which when looked at closely really open your eyes and sets you a thinking. Like Charleston has 1,090 designers, 495 architects, 385 fine artists, 300 musicians and singers, 175 producers and directors, 160 photographers, 90 performers, 80 announcers, 45 dancers, and 15 actors.

If you add up the musicians, singers, performers, dancers and actors, you get 450 performers - that makes 5.14 performance workers per producer and director - that’s if you figure each performance has a producer and a director. That’s a pretty high number of producers and directors per performers, and remember these people are making a living as an artist. Compared to what I know the Charleston Symphony Orchestra pays their professional musicians - I’m not sure I’d call that a living, but then we don’t know what basis the NEA is using either.

That 385 figure for fine artists in the Charleston area - I’m not sure about - it could be lower. There are a lot of artists here who couldn’t live on their sole income. Without the income of their spouse I don’t think they could make it. A lot of people in Charleston call themselves an artist, but I don’t think they are selling that much art to make a living at it.

In the article a director for the Charleston Artists Guild said their membership has soared to 725 in recent years. But, I doubt all those members make a living at art. As far as I know, I could pay dues and be a member of the CAG.

Here’s another nugget from the NEA report. It says that there are more artists in Charleston than cities like Asheville, NC, Columbia, SC, Myrtle Beach, SC, or Savannah, GA, but per capita Asheville and Wilmington, NC, are rated as two of the most creative cities - per this report. I’m not so sure about that.

I wonder if the report took into account how many artists may live in one city but sell most of their art in another city or several other cities - so where exactly, or in which city are they making a living - the city they make the art in or the city they sell the art in? Why are they ranking the cities and states at all? How many artists make a living by traveling to art and craft fairs all over the country - every weekend? Yet don’t sell much work in the city they live in?

This issue is too complicated to glean from census reports - that haven’t been too accurate as is. And, what do we really learn form this report? That the arts are a very small part of America? I think we all knew that - even in Charleston. It’s something most artists know.

So, I wonder how much money the NEA spent on this report? How much less is now available for the artists after this ground breaking report?

One day, I’d like to see a report that tells us how artist’s incomes compare with those of arts administrators. I doubt they’ll be working on that one any time soon.

Home

OK, here we go - my review of the SC State Museum’s 20th Anniversary Juried Art Exhibition, on view in Columbia, SC, through Sept. 7, 2008.

This should not be taken as a “professional” review, done by someone who has a degree in art history, art criticism or was educated in writing art reviews. It should not be taken as a review by someone who has been writing reviews for some time. It’s almost a first for me.

Right off the bat I can tell you I liked the exhibit and enjoyed viewing it. I think that it is one of the best examples of a cross-section of the kind of art which is being produced in South Carolina by a wide variety of artists in a variety of media and subjects.

As a juried show where artists had to enter to be considered for inclusion, I realize the exhibit’s limits to be all inclusive or have examples of the best work being done in various media, but since 500 artists submitted 1000 works - I’ll accept the two jurors’ judgment as to what they selected to be in the exhibit - as the only work I see. I know who the two jurors were - Brian Rutenberg and Lia Newman - both I feel make good judges for such exhibitions. I don’t always feel that way about some jurors - some are the last people who should be a juror for an exhibition.

I’ll also add that I have never had a problem finding the SC State Museum (the building, the entrance, the restrooms, or the Lipscomb Gallery) since before it’s opening in 1988. We did a special issue just on the Museum’s opening back then. I’ll also thank the Museum for the free parking - right in front of the Museum. I even found a spot in the shade. A real bonus on the 95 + degree day I was there.

I paid my $5 admission and learned that what used to be Free Sundays, on the first Sunday of the month, was now $1 Sundays, but still only on the first Sunday of the month. But with a little planning you can save $4. It’s all a deal. Try finding a parking space in downtown Charleston, SC, Columbia, SC, or Charlotte, NC, and if you do - hope you get back in time before your meter runs out of time. With free parking it’s almost like free admission.

by Tyrone Geter

This was my second visit to this exhibit, so my eyes were already expecting some works as I walked in the door of the gallery. Tyrone Geter’s work, Is This Who You See, jumps right out at you. That title starts you wondering right away. This mixed media piece is an image of a black man in what I say would be African clothing. The work is done in layers of paper, placed in a box frame with items assembled at the bottom. There are several simple drawings of images in the background suggesting - other personalities. As the title might suggest - if we see a black man in African dress - do we form an instant opinion of who he is or what kind of man he is? The objects assembled at the bottom of the box remind me of items that may have been owned by a black child and items that might have been found in a yard - like artifacts found on a visit to an old homesite after being away for many years. Does our dress make us who we are? Do our possessions make us who we are? Does our past make us who we are? The work definitely had me thinking. And, since the piece was dated 2004 - 2008, I imagine Geter had put a lot of time and thought into the work over time too - wondering.

I’ve always found that the first work that grabs my attention in an exhibition stays with me the longest. But, then again, most of Geter’s works that I have seen are very striking - they demand your attention. When you’re finished seeing this exhibit, go over to the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center - not far away on Lincoln Street. They have another large work by Geter, as well as many other works worth seeing. And, it’s free.

But I have to say, out of the corner of my eye a large work way across the room is calling, but I’m trying to proceed in some order.

If you turn right around you’ll see a couple of examples of Doug McAbee’s brightly painted steel sculptures. I’ve seen his work all over the Carolinas in outdoor settings. They’re always amusing and sometimes a puzzle to figure out what they are or are supposed to be.

Next on the attention radar is the piece Where Were You When the Moon was Full, by Aldwyth. This is a large collage on Okarawa paper. I had to look that up when I got home. Okarawa paper is Japanese paper suitable for student work - according to the internet. I’m not sure that particular type of paper added anything special to the work. If it wasn’t in the title I don’t think I would have wondered what kind of paper it was. Well, here was an image which could have hundreds of stories. The collage consists of cutout images of boats, sea creatures, eyes (1,000s of them), planes, birds, balloons, and hands - which all seemed to be surrounded by a circle of stages of the moon. The entire work was bordered by faces in droplet shapes over some sort of measure of time. There’s a lot of imagery to absorb. I know this was a piece which would be popular with children as the guard had to tell several not to touch it while I was in the gallery.

by Lee Sipe

From there was Vessel No. 60 by Lee Sipe. This was an egg shaped vessel open at the top, made of what looked like copper wires wrapped with thread - which was a crimson color. The wires ran from bottom to top. The vessel was sprinkled with what looked like small copper coin-shaped pieces. I’d like to be able to add that work to my collection, but have you seen the price of copper these days?

by Lynne Riding

Now I’ve entered what seems like a section of abstract works by a number of artists, with the most dominant work being an oil painting on linen by Lynne Riding entitled, Concerning Hope. This is a 7 ft. by 9ft. abstract work with a large orange shape - which looks like a big glob of the stuff in a lava lamp floating against a milky gray background with some white markings. Before you even enter the gallery you can see this work and it’s saying - look at me! It’s like the 900 lb. gorilla in the room - no matter what you’re looking at - out of the corner of your eye you can see it — demanding your attention.

This is what’s great about the Lipscomb Gallery space. It has big wall space which can take big works of art - look normal - until you get up in front of them. Concerning Hope is not the biggest work in the exhibit, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

At this point I want to revert back to my blog entry on June 6, 2008. This 7′ x 9′ piece is just one of two works Riding had to rent a truck in order to deliver her work to Columbia from Charleston - just for the chance to enter this show. I guess it’s debatable if this work would have had the same impact on the jurors if they saw it as a small jpeg or a slide, but I still think it is unnecessary to ask artists to deliver works to an exhibit space to be juried. We should all know how big a 7′ x 9′ painting would be - the smallest side is way over most of our heads - I mean way over.

In this abstract section was another work which was a surprise. I had to read the label twice but I was looking at a very large mixed media work by Gene Speer, entitled Highway 101 Series. Most of the work I’ve seen by Speer was colorful geometrically designed print works. But, the more I looked at it I could see the abstraction of these works into this painting. I really like it. I’d like to see more of this kind of work. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - I’ve got a thing for abstracts. It doesn’t mean I like them all, but I do like them.

Moving on we come to the largest work in the exhibit, About SC, an acrylic on canvas by William Thompson. I’m sure this work came to the Museum rolled up, but it still couldn’t have been easy to deliver - it had to be at least twice the size of Riding’s work - if not bigger. The image is a history lesson of South Carolina by Thompson - as he sees it or knows it. I guess you have to give credit to people who feel driven to create such works, but I just can’t seem to get into “visionary” works of art. In this piece I just don’t think Thompson is skilled enough to pull it off. The images painted on the map are not easy to recognize and there is a lot of writing, which is not all that easy to read. So if there is a message - it is probably lost on viewers who just don’t want to commit the time to figure it all out. There’s a lot of art in the room which is not that hard on the eyes. Other people really get into this kind of work - I just never have. It’s probably my problem and I have no problem with it being included in the exhibit. These artists are part of South Carolina’s visual art community and they should be included in exhibits that are featuring a wide variety of works. Like the WWII movie, A Bridge Too Far, this work may have been too big for Thompson to handle in his normal style.

Man Power, an etched copper and brass half sized figure of a man by Mana Hewitt was a clever reproduction of one of those old time illustration of looking inside something to see how it works. It’s usually a machine, but this man was full of gears and machine parts. His brain was filled with the word “Power” and some other sections, but I was too short to be able to read them. (The work could have been hung a little lower.) His heart was money. Is this an indictment on man? Is it the way employers see their workers or is this a look inside the head of the boss man?

I’m not mentioning some works in the exhibit because I feel I’m too biased towards these artist’s works - some are in our art collection. Some of the artists I consider friends. This may not be fair to them, but I think most of them know how I feel about their work and I hope they can understand me not gushing about them here. It’s also nice to see that my own taste in art is matched by a couple of good jurors too. Besides I’ll find other ways to express my support for their art.

There are 122 works in this exhibition and I’m not trying to write a catalogue - I want people to go see it themselves. So here are some general thoughts on the exhibit.

To me, the abstract works were the strongest group of works in the exhibit. There was also a strong group of sculptures of all sorts. There is an excellent grouping of portrait paintings and drawings. Also there were some very interesting baskets and pottery pieces, but I felt that overall crafts might have been under-represented. And, I hate to say it but the photography in the exhibit - to me - was the weakest medium in the exhibit. There were some good photographs, but some not so good too.

Some works, I don’t mind admitting - go right over my head. They’re interesting to look at in an exhibit - they add the spice of life. I know they have a message, but I’m not receiving it. That’s OK with me. Like the work Future Dust by Mike Lavine. It’s a button on the wall - like a campaign button with Future Dust printed on it and below is a child’s chair. That’s the work. Maybe someday I’ll be somewhere and the light bulb will go off and I’ll get it - maybe not.

There were some surprises in the exhibit. They shouldn’t be a surprise, but with the history of the Triennials (see previous blog entries) behind us and track record of other institutional exhibitions I hate to say it, but seeing some works in this exhibit did surprise me. More to the point - it was certain mediums and subject matter. That’s a good thing.

But, my biggest surprise was when I turned a corner and was facing a work rarely seen in our state in the last 38 years. It was Wisteria at Rose Hill State Park, a mixed media work by Bill Buggel. I came to South Carolina in 1974. In a few years I was working in a custom black and white photo processing lab. One of my bosses was Bill Buggel, who also operated a t-shirt printing business next to the lab. I knew Buggel was an artist and at one time worked at what was at the time the Gibbes Art Gallery in Charleston. He once told me he was no longer an artist because he could make more money designing and printing t-shirts. A few years later I got an opportunity to see some of the work he created and learned that in 1970 Buggel was named one of South Carolina’s most promising artists. That promise led to frustration - in playing the game - the art game. The game of it’s not what you create - it’s who you know and kiss up to.

I knew Buggel has been creating works again in the past five or so years, but he was having a hard time breaking back into the art community. So, there was a Bill Buggel on the wall in front of me. He made the cut of 116 out of 500. I bet you Buggel couldn’t get a return call from the SC Arts Commission. They don’t know any artists who may have been in their heyday in the 1970’s.

And, that’s another good thing about this exhibit - it seems the State Museum has thrown out all the old prejudices of the past 20 years dictated by the SC Arts Commission as to what art can be shown and what art will get grants. Let’s just hope we don’t have to wait another 20 years for another exhibit like this.

by Peter Lenzo

OK, against better judgment I’m going to name (some) of my favorite works in the exhibit not mentioned previously. They include: Red Chair Alter - Jim is Dead by Peter Lenzo; SC Woman No. 2 by Meg Gregory; Three Receptivity Markers by Robert Lyon; Universal Bouquet by Enid Williams; Three by Brittany Bagwell; Weather Worn Boulder by Clay Burnette; Peaches by Wanda Steppe; and American Idle by Anthony Conway.

American Idle is like a portrait of a really nice young woman, but she’s probably a trailer park gal. In the background is a billboard, a water tower, power lines and a trailer. A nice pun on America’s top television show.

That’s it folks - go see this show. And, if you like it, let the SC State Museum know so they’ll be encouraged to do more like it.

Also since you’re going to Columbia, if you don’t already live there, plan for a day and go visit the Columbia Museum of Art and some of Columbia’s commercial galleries too.

Home

There were some other issues I wanted to touch on about the 20th Anniversary Juried Art Exhibition taking place at the South Carolina State Museum in Columbia, SC. The Triennial vs. Juried Show installment was long enough without going into some other subjects. This piece will be much shorter, and I hope to write a review soon. Yes, my own personal review. I also hope others will offer their reviews of this show which can be included here. (Send them by e-mail to info@carolinaarts.com - mention blog in the subject line.)

The exhibition will be on view through Sept. 7, 2008 - so there is still time for those who are interested in making an effort to go see a group of diverse works by 116 SC artists. Now, you must remember that this was a juried show - so in no way should it be compared to or thought of as the “best of the best” or a major survey of SC visual art. Although 500 artists submitted 1000 works for two jurors to look at - this show is in no way a result of a major effort to show works spanning the diverse creative product of SC’s artists or the best examples of the variety of media being used by SC’s artists. It’s a selection from a pool of 1000 works by 500 artists - chosen by two jurors. Which brings up one of the first problems with this show - notice of opportunity.

The opportunity to enter this show was not widely known by a lot of SC’s visual artists - until it was too late to enter. Yet almost twice as many artists responded to this opportunity than any of the previous five Triennial exhibitions sponsored by the SC Arts Commission. It’s really hard to blame the organizers at the State Museum for this - it’s a statewide problem in the arts and a problem all over. I saw the call for entry in a publication the State Museum puts out for membership. I did not receive a press release from the Museum directly to place in our resource database on our website. And, as the person at Carolina Arts who receives these call for entry notices or info about other opportunities for visual artists in the Carolinas I can tell you that this is a big problem - all over the board.

I have received call for entry notices within ten days of the deadline to enter a juried show. Many more give less than a month’s notice and it’s a rare moment when artists are given 90 days notice. This just isn’t enough time for artists to respond. Now at the same time I think that artists could also do a better job of being prepared for “annual” juried shows or opportunities which take place in the same exhibit space, during the same time of year - every year. But getting the word out to the artists is a big challenge for the people presenting these opportunities.

For one thing there is no statewide database resource of contacts (e-mail or mailing address) for visual artists, at least in SC and I doubt there is one in NC either. Young artists are constantly on the move. Older artists retire or in some cases pass away. The SC State Museum used the SC Art Commission’s list for visual artists - which is a list, but not an accurate or updated list. For one thing, they never mail anything first class so they can purge names of addresses the Post Office returns because they could not be delivered. So the list is full of old address and has people on it that have left the state or left this world as we know it.

There also doesn’t seem to be a list of visual art organizations that could be sent these notices of opportunity to spread to their membership. If there is, it’s not being used as some also never heard of this juried show - until it was too late.

Since we didn’t receive a press release, I can only assume that other publications were not sent a notice. After all, we are the only monthly visual arts publication in North and South Carolina. And, I’m not sure this is info many other weekly or daily publications would find necessary to publish.

And, I’ll rule out the question that some people wondered, “Did the organizers really want all artists to enter?” I’d say by looking at the work included in the final exhibition - there was no effort to exclude any kind of art from being entered in this show - as is the case with some organizations. Some of these messages are sent subliminally by past experiences, while others are down right offensive like (no photography) (sculptures must be under 50 pounds and the artist must supply their own stand) or (no student work). I have seen some people make a Herculean effort to tap into all resources, but many times a full blown effort is not made.

Is this the problem of the organizers or the lack of a useful network? It’s hard to say, but from the word on the street - a lot of people just didn’t hear about this opportunity until it was too late.

So what if more people had entered? Well according to one SC art critic - it might have driven the jurors blind or stark raving mad. But then again how do some organizations handle national juried exhibitions or exhibit opportunities? They must get thousands of entries.

The second major problem was that artists entering the show had to deliver their entries to the SC State Museum in Columbia. Although Columbia is centrally located in the state - it’s hard to believe that in the year 2008 - this show couldn’t have been juried by slide or digital images. I hate shows that require artists to take their work to the exhibit location, wait for the show to be selected, and then - if you don’t make the cut - go back and pick your work up and take it back home. Some don’t even jury works on the same day it has to be delivered - causing two trips. It’s as if the organizers of these shows don’t want other artists (from far away) to enter - just the ones close by or willing to make the trek.

Some say you really can’t judge artwork by looking at slides or digital images - especially 3-D works. Fine - jury by slides or digital images - ask those people selected to bring their works in, and if they don’t meet the juror’s standards or match what was seen in the first selection process - tell them to take it home. And, tell them to make better images next time. But don’t make everyone deliver their works in person. There are several works in this show that required a truck for delivery. One work which made the show was 7 ft. x 9 ft. That’s stupid to have to make arrangements to deliver that kind of work - just to be juried.

Some say many wouldn’t be able to deliver decent slides or digital images of their works. I say - that’s part of being an artist today - it’s 2008. If this is a major problem - and I know it is - like I’ve said several times before. This is exactly a problem the SC Arts Commission should be solving for these poor artists. They should be providing a service, directly, or through their partner arts organizations, to copy artworks at least twice a year for our state’s media challenged artists.

Imagine how much gas was burned up by 500 artists delivering their work for this show - just to be juried. This is the age of technology - we have to start using it and be more concerned about the impact this practice has on the environment. That gas needs to be conserved so people can go view the exhibit.

These two issues were an obstacle for many of SC’s visual artists - first not knowing about the opportunity and second, not making the effort or being able to deliver their works to the museum to be juried, but what’s amazing is that with these two hurdles - 500 artists did. That says something - something that seems to be shooting over many people’s heads in this state. South Carolina’s visual artists want more opportunities to exhibit in the state’s better exhibitions spaces - even if it’s a juried exhibit - with “no depth, no context, no concept…” as Jeffrey Day of The State newspaper said of this exhibition.

More on this subject zooming over people heads in another installment. And, hopefully a review and some images from this show.

Home

Good Bye Triennial - Good Riddance (parts printed in the Editorial Commentary from the June ‘08 issue of Carolina Arts)

Let me warn you this is going to be a long piece - there is a lot of material and a lot of years to cover.

On Apr. 14, 2008, Jeffrey Day in The State newspaper offered what can be only seen as a “whine” piece on the loss of the SC Arts Commission’s Triennial exhibition at the expense of the SC State Museum’s 20th Anniversary Juried Art Exhibition - which wouldn’t open at the time until Apr. 25, 2008. While Day cherry-picked comments by artists (shown in past Triennials) and curators around the state on their feelings over the loss of the Triennial or their dislike of juried shows, he almost implied that this upcoming exhibition just couldn’t be any good - before he or anyone else saw it in place. Well, he wouldn’t say it - he got others to say it for him and his buddies at the Arts Commission.

While the Triennial was always dished up as a survey or snapshot of contemporary art being made in SC - it was always a picture with the lens turned toward the SC Art Commission and how they wanted people to see art in SC. It was never really a view of the wide spectrum of art being created in SC. At times it was just a look at what college and university art professors and their favorite students where doing in SC - before many left the state for greener pastures.

If a juried exhibition is such a flawed format for a statewide exhibition - tell me why 500 artists from throughout SC, hauled 1000 works of art to the State Museum for a chance to get in the exhibit? Why would they do that?

And, the funny thing is - many of the artists who have been lucky to be selected to be in past Triennials entered their work and many got in the exhibition. The good thing - the really great thing is - many other artists who would never get a chance to be in a Triennial - also got in this exhibit. And, in my opinion - this juried exhibit is one of the best views of the type of art being created in SC. It doesn’t represent every aspect of SC’s visual art community, but like all juried shows - the jurors could only select from the works entered.

The exhibition might have drawn more entries if the jury process was done by a digital process - after all this is 2008. And, a wider variety of artists working in mediums and subjects which have been “deemed unworthy” by the SC Arts Commission might have entered work if they knew that the Arts Commission had taken their bat and ball home since the State Museum no longer was willing to let them dictate what art was going to be seen in SC. That’s why there will be no 1/2 inch full-color catalog for this exhibition. The State Museum doesn’t have the deep pockets the Arts Commission does.

The really sad thing for artists around SC is that the State Museum doesn’t have any plans for doing more statewide juried exhibitions anytime soon.

Jeffrey Day’s article seemed more like a warning to the art community than newspaper reporting. The warning is - if you don’t play ball the way the Arts Commission wants - you might get chewed up in the press. It’s not the first time he has acted as an attack dog for the Arts Commission.

The whole piece was also designed to mask the real issue - that the Arts Commission had dropped the Triennial from its project list - not the State Museum. The Museum was still offering opportunities for SC artists - all its artists.

Go see the exhibition - you’ll be glad you did. I was. And, don’t forget - most of the works in the exhibit are probably for sale. So you could go home with some great art and a piece of history, from the show that couldn’t be any good, but was.

One final thing - Jeffrey Day offered a - surprise - negative review of this exhibition on May 11, 2008. The headline was, “Too much to see, too little to appreciate”.

New comments for this blog.

With a headline like this - “Too much to see, too little to appreciate” you have to wonder why Day is an arts reporter working for one of the state’s largest newspapers. He should just go to work directly for the SC Arts Commission.

Day, like me, has a large body of opinions he has written about art in SC. I keep copies of most of his articles about the visual arts. This review is one of the strangest - it contradicts many things he has said in the past about the Triennial.

It seems his goal is to tear down the SC State Museum for substituting this statewide juried show in place of a sixth Triennial exhibition - his favorite type of exhibit. As I said earlier, the death of the Triennial can only be blamed on the Arts Commission - they pulled out of this project on the State Museum. They took their funding with them too.

You have to read the entire review to get the full impact, but you’ll have to pay The State to see a copy from their archives or go to a public library in SC - or maybe do a Google News search. The article was on Apr. 13, 2008. But let’s start with the headline, “Too much to see, too little to appreciate” .

“Too much to see”. The SC State Museum’s 20th Anniversary Juried Art Exhibition has 122 works by 116 artists (6 artists have two works each in the show). The last Triennial, shown in 2004 in the same gallery space had 128 works by 29 artists (11 only had 1 work and 3 had only 2 works). Most of the Triennials had at least 100 or more works on display.

So as I get it, according to Day - more is less. More works to see in the Triennial was easier to see than less works in the juried show. I guess because they were made by fewer people.

Day also offers early in his review this statement, “But this first-time exhibition (named for the 20th anniversary of the museum) has little to offer after the initial surprises - no depth, no context, no concept and, when it finally comes down to it, not all that much good work.”

In the State Museum’s juried show, 25 of the 116 artists included have been in one or several of the previous 5 Triennial shows. That’s 21 percent of the exhibit. And since these artists represent most of the positive comments in his review - we get the point that he really likes the Triennial. And, we get the point that he doesn’t care for a lot of the other artists’ work presented in the exhibit. They’re clearly not his kind of artists, clearly not producing the kind of art he cares for and not the kind of art which a major museum should be showing in this state - in his opinion.

Day ends his review with this statement, “As it is, this isn’t really an art exhibition. It’s a display.”

So between Day’s preview article and his review - it’s clear he doesn’t like the juried show format and the art presented in this exhibition. OK, all art is subjective. I didn’t fall in love with every work I saw either, but it also didn’t make my skin crawl as I can imagine Day’s skin was doing as he moved throughout the exhibit - seeing works by artists he didn’t know or knew but didn’t care for. After all, he knows all the important artists in the state.

Where I have a real problem with his two pieces is the comparison factor. Even though the State Museum’s show is clearly a juried exhibit - Day keeps comparing it to a curated exhibition - to the Triennials. But, I don’t see where he is coming from when he says this exhibit has - “no depth, no context, no concept…”

About half of the artists in the Triennial 2004 exhibit had only one work or at best two works in the show. Where is the depth in that? Jane Nodine had one work in the Triennial 2004 and one work in this juried exhibit. How is that different - other than Day’s point that curators pick artists’ work better than the artists do - meaning a curator would be more familiar with the context of Nodine’s work than she would. And, as you’ll read later - Nodine is a perfect example of a perfect Triennial artist.

I’ve seen these Triennial shows and even after reading the in-depth comments written in the catalogues offered - I still didn’t see any connection between what I was looking at and what was written about it. Then again, I’m not as educated as Day is on the arts. I know I can’t compare art degrees with him. It should also be noted that the SC Arts Commission didn’t offer to fund a catalogue for this exhibit like they did for the five Triennials. Perhaps that would have offered the context and concept for this exhibit.

In fact, Day makes a lot of complaints and comparisons about this juried exhibit which I haven’t seen in many exhibits offered in a lot of art museums - except when it comes to major retrospective exhibits on individual artists. And, he’s made the same complaints about other Triennials in past reviews.

Day also offers the following questions he claims are unanswered in this exhibit, “What are the artists’ backgrounds? How many make a living from the art? How many are teachers? How many are students?” As if all those things really matter on deciding whether art is good or not.

Is Day trying to tell us he thinks that the artists who are making the most money are the best artists in this state? I never got that impression before from his writings. Do only art teachers make good art? That would be a message you would walk away with after reading the Triennial 2004 catalogue. And, I guess no student art can be good enough to be in these exhibits - even though you couldn’t tell who was or was not a student by looking at the work in the exhibit. Do these questions really matter?

I have always thought that the art works should speak for themselves. Why should we have to read something to get the artists’ meaning or intention. Shouldn’t it be there in the art?

In an Apr. 19, 1992 article about the first Triennial, Day offered this criticism, “A serious omission is the lack of any text panel explaining the show. A few lines would help the viewer - and the exhibit - considerably. As it is, the viewer has no way of knowing that the artists are even from South Carolina. While the work speaks for itself, as it should, the lack of a basic introduction shows the museum and Arts Commission making too many assumptions.”

This exhibit had work included by people who have had no formal training in the arts. Should that matter? And, if it’s a factor that should count - how did they fool the jurors? They had 1000 works to select from. Should we wonder what kinds of works were in the 878 not selected - whether those works were made by artists who made a living by selling their art or teaching art, whether they were made by students or teachers, or whether they were ever in a Triennial exhibition before. Would it matter if some of the artists were former convicts, made a living as a plumber, or worse - were voting democrats?

Doesn’t the work speak for itself - as it should?

In the past we are told by the Arts Commission that the purpose of the Triennial format is to show works by “contemporary” emerging artists or artists who are not often seen. Yet many of the artists whose works have been included in the Triennials - were neither emerging or hardly artists not exposed to SC’s exhibition scene.

I’ll cherry pick one artist who represents this hypocrisy - Jane Allen Nodine - she’s sort of an Arts Commission superstar. She also entered and was selected to be in the SC State Museum’s 20th Anniversary Juried Art Exhibition. She has also been in four of the five Triennial exhibitions. Nodine has also been awarded two SC Arts Commission Fellowship awards. She’s in the State Art Collection and has benefited by many programs sponsored by the Arts Commission. Nodine is an art professor at the University of South Carolina - Upstate in Spartanburg, SC, and is also the director of the USC-Upstate art gallery. She is a well exposed artists with a lot of connections.

Nodine is also a very good artist. I’m not attacking her as an artist or someone who has taken advantage of every opportunity available to her. My problems is that she is one of a very small group of artists which the Arts Commission seems to be focused on - at the expense of many others who just don’t seem to get the same exposure.

Just to show you how well exposed Nodine was in exhibitions, I went to her website and copied the list of exhibits she has participated in from 1978 - 2004, the last year the Triennial took place. Among this long list are 32 exhibits which took place in SC alone. And, as you will see there are many more - all over the region, nation, and out of the country. She was hardly a case of being either emerging or not often seen.

2004
traces, solo installation, University of South Carolina McMaster Gallery of Art, Columbia, SC

Figure 8; Lee Hall Gallery, Clemson University, Clemson, SC

Southeastern Louisiana University Invitational, SLU, Hammond, LA

SECAC 2004 Members Exhibition, Jacksonville Museum of Modern Art, Jacksonville, FL

TRIENNIAL 2004, South Carolina Arts Commission & South Carolina State Museum, Columbia, SC

2003
Digital Exhibition, WomanMADE Gallery, Chicago, ILL

SECAC 2003 Members Exhibition, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

Tribute to Trees, Outdoor Sculpture Invitational, Wofford College, Spartanburg, SC

2002
traces, solo Installation, Thompson Gallery of Furman University, Greenville, SC

traces, solo installation, Milliken Gallery, Spartanburg County Museum of Art, Spartanburg, SC

Vision’s International Competition, Art Center Waco, Waco, TX

Photo-Based Competition Exhibition, WomanMADE Gallery, Chicago, IL

A Sense of Place; Continuity and Change in the New South, Gertrude Herbert Institute of Art, Augusta, GA

SECAC 2002 Members Exhibition, Gulf Coast Exploreum, University of Alabama, Mobile

2001
Spartanburg Views Winterthur, Artist Photographer Exchange, Spartanburg Museum of Art, Spartanburg, SC

Spartanburg Views Winterthur, Artist Photographer Exchange, Alte Kaserne, Winterthur, Switzerland

SECAC 2001 Members Exhibition, South Carolina State Museum, Columbia, SC

TRIENNIAL 2001, South Carolina Arts Commission & South Carolina State Museum, Columbia, SC

Winterthur Artist Photographer Exchange; Alte Kaserne, Winterthur, Switzerland

2000
American Identities, Gibson Gallery, The Art Museum of State University of New York College, Potsdam, NY

What is Drawing Now, Weber State University, Ogden, UT

34th Annual National Drawing & Small Sculpture Show, Del Mar College, Corpus Christi, TX

SECAC 2000 Members Exhibition, Hite Art Institute, University of Louisville, KY

Upstairs Photography Biennial, NC & SC competition, Upstairs Gallery, Tryon, NC

Views from the Edge, Computer Art-Future Art, Florence Museum of Art, Florence, SC

1999
USC International Digital Works on Paper Competition, McKissick Museum of Art, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC

Sanctity of the Family, Hunger Artist Gallery, Albuquerque, NM

33rd National Drawing & Sculpture Competition, Del Mar College, Corpus Christi, TX

Womanscape ‘99 National Competition, Collier County Arts Council, Village Galleries, Naples, FL

SECAC 1999 Members Exhibition, Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, VA

Southern Visions Photography Competition of SC and NC, York County Museum of Art, Rock Hill, SC

100 Years; 100 Artists, South Carolina State Museum & South Carolina Arts Commission, Columbia, SC

SELECTIONS from 100 Years; 100 Artists, Bank of America Plaza, Columbia, SC

Potent Figures, Views from the Edge of the Century, Winthrop University Galleries, Rock Hill, SC

1998
contentions, solo exhibition, Slocumb Galleries, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN

Paper Constructions, solo exhibitions, Georgia Southern University, Statesville, GA

Manipulated Photography, solo exhibition, USC Spartanburg
Americas 2000, Works on Paper, Minot State University, Minot, ND

Women’s Art Works 7, Bausch & Lomb Inc., Rochester, NY

Paper Works: On and of Paper, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL

32nd National Drawing & Small Sculpture Exhibition, Del Mar College, Corpus Christi, TX

Mixed-Media National, Slidell Cultural Center, Slidell, LA

Drawn from Nature, Dalton Galleries, Agnes Scott College, Atlanta, GA

98 Photography Biennial Exhibition of NC & SC, The Upstairs Gallery, Tryon, NC

VOICES, 701 Gallery, Columbia, SC

TRIENNIAL ‘98 South Carolina Arts Commission & the South Carolina State Museum, Columbia, SC

TRIENNIAL ‘98 Satellite Exhibit, NationsBank Plaza Gallery, Columbia, SC

1997
connections, solo exhibition, Appalachian Center for Crafts, Smithville, TN

BANG! The Gun as Image, 621 Gallery and Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL

1996
connections, solo exhibition, University of Arkansas, Monticello, AK

Scissors, Paper, Stone, Lexington Art League, Lexington, KY

Women’s Art Works 6, Women’s Foundation, Rochester, NY

Lagrange National XIX Biennial, Chattahoochee Valley Art Museum, Lagrange, GA

Visionary Women National, WomanMade Gallery, Chicago, IL

Icons National, 800 East Gallery, Atlanta, GA

Rutgers National ‘96 Works on Paper, State University of New Jersey, Rutgers, Camden, NJ

Women by Women Invitational, Salem College Art Gallery, Winston-Salem, NC

A’ LA ALBERS, Black Mountain College in CONTEXT, Context Alternative Space, Charlotte, NC

KY/SC/nyc Invitational, The National Arts Club, New York, NY

1995
Wichita National 1995, Wichita center for the Arts, Wichita, KS

Through the Looking Glass National, Photography Exhibit, Fuller Lodge Gallery, Los Alamos, NM

Texas National ‘95, Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX

Texas National ‘95, Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX, Second Place Cash Award, Leon Golub, Juror

1994
28th National Drawing & Small Sculpture Show, Del Mar College, Corpus Christi, TX

LaGrange National Biennial XVIII, Chattahoochee Valley Art Museum, LaGrange, GA

Visual Voices; The Female, University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL

Dakotas International Exhibition of Artwork on Paper, University of South Dakota, Vermilion, SD

1993
Wichita National 1993, Wichita Center for the Arts, Wichita, KS

27th National Drawing & Small Sculpture Show , Del Mar College, Corpus Christi, TX

Americas 2000: Works on Paper, Minot State University, Minot, ND

14th Annual Paper In Particular, Columbia College, Columbia, MO

Revising Boundaries: Southern Women Artists, 1993 CAA Conference, Seattle, WA

1992
Jane Nodine Solo Exhibit, Meteor Gallery, Columbia, SC

Art by Women in the South, Havens Galleries, Columbia, SC

Kentucky/South Carolina Exchange Exhibition, South Carolina State Museum, Columbia, SC

TRIENNIAL ‘92, South Carolina Arts Commission & South Carolina State Museum, Columbia, SC

TRIENNIAL ‘92 Traveling Exhibition, Gibbes Museum, Charleston, SC & Stanback Museum, Orangeburg, SC

South Carolina Expressions, Columbia Museum of Art, Columbia, SC

Southern Exposure, 101 Wooster Street, DNC Exhibition Space, New York, NY

1991
Kentucky Exhibition of South Carolina Artists, Owensboro Museum, Owensboro, KY

This Year’s Model: Upstate Artists, Greenville County Museum of Art, Greenville, SC

1990
Southeastern Juried Exhibition, Fine Arts Museum of the South, Mobile, AL

40th Annual Exhibition, Guild of South Carolina Artists, SC State Museum, Columbia, SC

South Carolina Arts Commission Artists Fellowship Retrospective, SC State Museum, Columbia, SC

1988
Ten Years of Southeast Seven, SECCA Fellowship Retrospective, Winston-Salem, NC

1985
5th Biennial Paper and Clay Exhibition, Memphis State University, Memphis, TN

Gallery Artists Exhibition, Heath Gallery, Atlanta, GA

South Carolina Arts Commission Annual Competition, Gibbes Museum, Charleston, SC

1984
Rutgers National Works on Paper, Rutgers University, Camden, NJ

Women in the Mainstream, National Women’s Art Exhibition, 1984 Worlds Fair, New Orleans, LA

31st Arts Festival of Atlanta, Traveling Exhibition, Atlanta and Southeast

25th Annual Springs Mills Traveling Exhibition, North and South Carolina

1983
SPAR National Art Exhibition, SPAR Gallery, Shreveport, LA

4th Biennial Paper and Clay Exhibition, Memphis State University, Memphis, TN

11th National Exhibition of Works on Paper, Second Street Gallery, Charlottesville, VA

Second Annual Spoleto Arts Competition, Marble Arch Gallery, Charleston, SC

2-D National, Angels Gate Cultural Center, San Pedro, CA

Drawing Southeast, Arts Festival of Atlanta Invitational, Atlanta, GA

1982
Southeastern Spectrum, R.J. Reynolds Gallery, Winston-Salem, NC

On of and About Paper, Columbia Museum of Art, Columbia, SC

Magic in Art Invitational, Spirit Square, Charlotte, NC

23rd Annual Springs Mills Traveling Exhibition, North and South Carolina

Anuszkiewicz Shows and Selects, Marble Arch Gallery, Charleston, SC

1981
5th National Drawing Exhibition, State University College, Potsdam, NY

9th Annual Exhibition of Prints and Drawings, Second Street Gallery, Charlottesville, VA

Southeast Seven IV NEA/SECCA Artist Fellowship Exhibition, SECCA Winston-Salem, NC

Southeast Seven IV, Traveling Exhibition, Huntsville Museum of Art, Huntsville, AL

WEEA Project Invitational, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA

22nd Annual Springs Mills Traveling Exhibition, North and South Carolina

1980
Mixmaster National Mixed Media Traveling Exhibition, Kentucky Arts Commission, Louisville, KY

Appalachian National Drawing Competition, Appalachian State University, Boone NC

1979
Art on Art of Paper Art, Illinois State University, Normal, IL

Southeastern Invitational Paper Exhibition, University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Mint Biennial Exhibition of Piedmont Painting and Sculpture, Mint Museum of Art, Charlotte, NC

1978
SECCA 46th Drawing, Photography & Print Competition, SECCA, Winston-Salem, NC

12th Dulin National Print and Drawing Competition, Dulin Gallery, Knoxville, TN

Nodine is just one of the many reasons I’m glad the Triennial is dead, but I’m concerned that they are already drawing up new plans for a new format to feature the same group of artists - over and over again. Frankly, I don’t think the SC Arts Commission should be presenting any exhibitions.

I know this is upsetting to Jeffrey Day, as it seems like he has lived from one Triennial to the next - as if he was a part of them himself. Which he may have been.

In an article Day wrote for The State on Dec. 14, 1997, he describes what it was like to be the only other person to view the slides entered for Triennial ‘98, other than the jurors and Arts Commission staff members. He goes on to say he made a list of 88 artists out of the 270 who had entered - who were “worth looking at more”. Once the 35 artists were selected to be in the Triennial - Day gives readers his 2 cents worth and gives the exhibit his stamp of approval with this statement, “Looking at the list makes me feel very good about art in South Carolina”. That’s the list the jurors made.

It just seems to me Day has just too cozy a relationship with the people he is supposed to be reporting on objectively.

But, like most of us who follow Day’s writings know, his mood can change quickly. When he gets around to reviewing the Triennial ‘98 exhibition in an article on June 21, 1998 in The State, he offers this final summation: “The exhibit provides a look at artists who haven’t shown much in South Carolina; it also brings back artists we’ve seen often, who aren’t doing much new; and introduces some who aren’t ready to be seen. While this year’s show is stronger than the previous three, it is still amazing how much undeveloped work finds its way into the exhibit. It’s always difficult for anyone who is intimate with the state’s art scene to view shows like this without a little cynicism and frustration about the good artists who didn’t get in the show. In the end, what this exhibit shows - which is what it should show - is that regardless of what anyone may say to the contrary, there’s good art being made in South Carolina.”

I think this statement says a lot about Day. First, he would like to be in the position to select who would be shown and who wouldn’t. After all, he made his list of 88 worthy artists. He also feels he knows all the good artists out there. And, it also shows he doesn’t keep track of things too well. This Triennial was the third version - there were only two previous exhibitions in 1992 and 1995. And, you have to wonder what happened between the day he looked at the entry slides and when he made the statement that this was a good list of artists. Perhaps the curators selected the wrong works to show. Could that happen?

The thing is, Day’s mood changes and he has been inconsistent in his support of this exhibit format. He’s currently in the - I can’t believe there will never be another Triennial and there will never be anything worthy of replacing it - mood.

By the time 2001 rolled around Day’s mood about the Triennials was still cool and the public’s taste for them had soured too. In an article titled, “A Triennial Simply Isn’t Enough” written for The State on June 17, 2001, Day states: “With the dearth of venues in South Carolina where the state’s best artists can exhibit, the once-every-three-year survey of the state’s art at the State Museum - the Triennial - just isn’t enough.”

Day goes on to write, “The current Triennial is refreshing with much srong work, but enthusiasm for it has not been high. This might be because the museum and the co-sponsor, the SC Arts Commission, did almost no promotion.” Adding, “It might be because there are so many new artists in the show. Those who have long supported the show, be they artists or patrons, stayed away because the work is unknown and everyone is more comfortable with the known.”

Now there’s a couple of gems. The show is failing to attract viewers due to a lack of promotion and the show’s regular supporters stayed away - because they did not know the artists or the work being presented. So people have to be sold to go see this show with a big promotional campaign and supporters are not interested in seeing it unless it includes the same old artists they like and know. This is the Triennial he’s talking about. The greatest show on earth.

Day offers his review of the exhibition in another article offered that same day on June 17, 2001. That’s because at The State - they seem to only offer arts coverage in Sunday’s paper. In this article Day writes: “As is usually the case, this year’s Triennial is not sharply focused. Still the exhibit at the State Museum provides a fair representation of our art at this particular moment.”

Wait a minute - “As is usually the case, this year’s Triennial is not sharply focused.” Isn’t that one of the complaints Day makes about the current juried show being featured at the State Museum? But in 2001, Day says that up to that point (four Triennials) they have not been focused either.

In Day’s review of the SC State Museum’s 20th Anniversary Juried Art Exhibition, one of his main complaints it that the exhibit has - “no depth, no context, no concept”. So what, apparently neither have the Triennials - according to Day.

He goes on in the 2001 review to say, “If all the works are not tightly connected, one nonetheless can find webs of continuity throughout the gallery.”

Well, here’s another revelation - if you go to see an exhibit that you already have negative feeling about - you won’t see anything positive. But, if you’re trying to find something good about an exhibit format that you want to support - you’ll look hard to find the silver lining - the webs of continuity.

This is the core reason readers of art news presented in The State newspaper have a hard time figuring from article to article where Jeffrey Day is coming from - hot then cold - about the same issues - never a bit of consistency to hold on to - other than his desire to protect the Arts Commission, promote contemporary art (his version of it) and keep happy what few friends he has in the art community in SC. It’s not easy being an arts writer - you never know who your friends really are. I know - believe me - I know.

Day offers another insight about the Triennials in another statement at the end of this review. “Although this Triennial suffers from the same weaknesses as many juried shows - lack of focus, important artists missing, not enough work by some of the artists - it is also one of the strongest.”

So, the Triennial 2001 was no better than another juried show, but yet the strongest to date of all the Triennials.

There were five Triennials and at the end of all five reviews Day states that each one was the strongest to date - that one thing was consistent - even if he had major problems with the shows. As if that statement was needed for this format to go on in hopes that one day the Arts Commission and the State Museum would get it right - or to Day’s liking. If only they had put him in charge of organizing it and selecting the artists - that might have resulted in a perfect review by Day.

For the final Triennial held in 2004, Day writes an article in The State on Nov. 14, 2004 - a real tuneup piece for the exhibit and a historical overview. This was what I called the professor and student version of the Triennial format. According to Day, “Many of the Triennial artists are united in academic training - 20 of the 29 hold master of fine art degrees.”

It should also be noted that several of the remaining 9 were current or former students of these professors.

Talking about the Triennial’s track record over the years, Day offers the following: “After five Triennials covering 15 years of work, many of the picks have held up. About half of the 130 artists who have been in the five Triennials work in South Carolina.”

How lucky we are that 65 of these artists are still with us. While on the other hand, 65 left SC - some shortly after they were given this important opportunity - others at the end of their part time jobs at colleges and universities and some just drifted to the next state’s arts agency who would be impressed with their resume or work. In my book that’s 65 slots that could have gone to artists who had no intention of leaving this state.

That’s one of the problems when you have outside jurors selecting works for a survey of a state’s art community - they have no historical perspective. They could be selecting an artist who has just moved to the state six months previous to entering the show. That was the residency requirement for the Triennial - just six months in the state.

OK - on to the review. On Dec. 17, 2004, Day offers these two contrasting statements in his review. First: “This year’s show at the SC State Museum looks good: The varied and accomplished works are well displayed.” At the end of the review Day tell us this: “Certainly there’s some work that is not as good as the best or not shown to its best advantage. But this is certainly the most consistently strong work in any of the five Triennial exhibitions.”

What is it? - “well displayed” or “not shown to its best advantage”. Are the works “accomplished” or “not as good as the best”? Hot and cold at the same time.

By the end of the exhibit run of the 2004 show, Day writes on Feb. 25, 2005 - what might have been the swan song of the Triennial. I called it the lame excuse article. He starts off with: “The every-three-year show of contemporary art in South Carolina, the Triennial, keeps getting better. The 2004-2005 show, which closes Sunday, is well displayed. The jurors picked good artists, the curators selected great individual works, and the artists rose to the challenge.”

The show has gotten stronger since the Nov. review. And, I’m not sure how the artists rose to the challenge? They were selected by slide review, then curators selected works to be in the show - where was the challenge? By sending in their slides by deadline? Nowhere in any mention of the entry or selection process did I find that artists were creating works specifically for the exhibition.

In the next sentence Day claims: “Still there are plenty of ways in which the Triennial fails - and they have nothing to do with the art.”

Day goes on to explain that the main problems is that not enough people have seen the exhibit - much less than the number of people who go and see other exhibits showing at the Columbia Museum of Art - less than a few miles away. He blames the State Museum and the Arts Commission for not having enough money to promote the exhibit. (Didn’t The State ever consider being a media sponsor for this important exhibition?) He says one of the problems is that people who want to go see just the art exhibit have to pay the Museum’s full admission (currently $5 for adults and $4 for seniors) - which just happens to be less or the same as any other art museum in SC that requires an admission - including the Columbia Museum of Art (currently a $5 admission). People holding a museum membership get in free and for those who are financially strapped - admission is $1 on the first Sunday of every month. I don’t see the problem.

I was almost brought to tears when I first read of the other problems Day offered in these two sentences: “To see an art show, one has to pay full museum admission, then negotiate the state revenue office, a gift shop and a busy lobby…then go down a hall past the elevator where people climb on board to look at Civil War rifles, palmetto tree forts and dinosaurs. The art gallery is literally in a corner beyond the elevator.” That’s tears from laughter. I laughed so loud I almost wet myself.

When you walk into the main entrance of the building where the SC State Museum is located - the state revenue office is on the left and the entrance to the state museum is on the right. Both are clearly marked and I doubt few have been confused. As you walk in the museum - yes, the gift shop is right ahead but the admission desk is clearly marked and just to your left. After paying that horrendous $5 admission (in a few years I can get in for just $4) you walk about 20 feet to a doorway on the ground level of the museum into a hallway. The art gallery is directly to the right - past the elevator where people have to go up a floor or two to see rifles, forts and dinosaurs. Day forgot to list as problems that people would also have to get out of bed, get dressed, drive to the museum’s location and figure out how to walk up the steps from the parking lot to get to the building’s entrance. Then there is the problem of remembering where you parked your car.

I never knew Jeffrey Day was so challenged in doing his job - especially after covering this show for 15 years. Wouldn’t this have been a problem from the start - from the very first Triennial? I don’t remember hearing him voice these major problems before - or could it be that the art and the fact that the same kinds of artists were being shown over and over again - could that be a problem?

The rest of the article is hard to comprehend after those ridiculous statements - he even goes on to blame the state’s artists, art supporters, and people who work in the arts for not bothering to see this show. At the end of the article, Day puts on his thinking cap and says: “One has to wonder if the State Museum is still the proper place for the Triennial. It might be better served by being at another museum - an art museum or at least a place that’s about art.”

That could be considered a threat.

We can only conclude that in the last four years there have been no takers at any of SC’s art museums. There is only one in Greenville, SC, that doesn’t charge admission and I think the others may have read Day’s articles and couldn’t afford to host the Triennial either - since no one cares to make the effort to go see it anymore.

So now, four years later Day is taking out his frustrations on the State Museum for daring to offer a juried exhibit - how dare they!

Go see this show and go see what Jeffrey Day is all about in panning it. But then again - a lot of people in SC’s visual art community know what he’s all about.

I have one correction to this piece - it seems a few years back the SC State Museum changed it’s free admission for the first Sunday of the month to $1 - which still is a bargain any way you look at it.

Home