eye on brooklynEye On Brooklyn

Williamsburg, Brooklyn Art Scene: “…the guy on the bike that takes pictures at all the openings”

Print the article

This entry was posted on 10/5/2006 9:29 PM and is filed under Art History.

by Larry Walczak

On Friday the 13th  of October gallery goers will be treated to a different kind of exhibition/installation titled "We Are Our Own Art History" by artist/writer Loren Munk.  Munk, a Brooklyn resident of nearly thirty years, has created an installation of documentation, participation and a kind of performance that focuses on the evolution & workings of the visual art community of Williamsburg, Brooklyn.  The installation can be found at Dam Stuhltrager Gallery at 38 Marcy Ave. in Williamsburg & will run through November 13.



WE ARE OUR OWN ART HISTORY (work-in-progress), Loren Munk

     Some know Munk as "the guy on the bike that takes pictures at all the openings".

And he has been doing just that for some eight years now, socializing, looking and documenting openings and exhibitions through a collection of invites, press releases and snapshots. He was one of the first to regularly review the so-called second wave of Williamsburg galleries under his pen name James Kalm for publications like NY Arts and later The Brooklyn Rail.  Munk admits that this installation is a culmination of a "twelve year process of observing the evolution of this community of artists". First and for-most, he sees this as an " educational installation with historical implications, a snapshot of a neighborhood now & recent past". Although he initially was interested in the (personal) business aspects of the Williamsburg art scene he became fascinated with the notion of an art scene or movement as a kind of organism that he wishes to dissect and examine. As a writer and artist he relishes delving into the history of the New York City art scene. He is interested in each  " major epic of artistic innovation-modernism, abstract expressionism, pop, the east village, etc.".  He enjoys the process of "tracing back to the neighborhoods of artists". This has manifested itself in his upcoming installation that promises to be a hodge-podge of finished layouts on board (see above reproduction)  that resemble a cross between a diagram and a circus poster with anticipated attachments of local paper ephemera and photographs. The final presentation will list names and studio address’ of hundreds of visual artists among other things.

 

     Before Munk’s fascination with the neighborhood,  New York magazine, in June of 1992, had pronounced Williamsburg "The New Bohemia" in a cover story by Brad Gooch that featured color photographs & articles in a splashy spread showcasing the underground scene as well as Annie Herron’e Test-Site, located on North 1st St., the first commercial gallery to open in Williamsburg.

 

     In 1998 UTNE magazine, a monthly collection of the best of alternative reporting, declared Williamsburg, Brooklyn as one of the "hippest neighborhoods in the United States". UTNE with editorial offices in Brooklyn also reported that Williamsburg "had the greatest concentration of (visual) artists per square mile(s) than anywhere in the world". It’s unsure how anyone can make such a statement but the quote quickly made the rounds in the neighborhood and seemed to empower artists and gallery folks alike. Sometime thereafter, however, Time Out New York magazine came out with their infamous "Williamsburg Party" issue showcasing a cover of young generic models whooping it up in some lounge. For many artists this spelled the end of life as they knew it on the Northside and the Southside.

 


WILLIAMSBURG TIMELINE-Ward Shelley 2002

      Munk’s focus on this neighborhood may call to mind artist Ward Shelley’s "Williamsburg Timeline" print completed in 2002. In fact, Munk credits himself with the first major review of it for NY Arts magazine in 2002. He goes on to say this print was one of the inspirations for his upcoming project. Shelley’s TIMELINE started as a drawing at eyewash gallery during the ELSEWHERE weekend of September 23-24, 2000. This was a highly successful two-day event featuring lectures, openings, performances etc. organized by the then consortium of 28 local galleries. An event that makes the current Williamsburg Gallery Association’s AFTERHOURS evenings pale by comparison. In any event, Shelley would construct his timeline listing galleries, performance venues, happenings, etc. and carry on a dialogue with on-looking local artists and make notes and notations as he constructed his large composition. Folks videotaped and photographed the artist as he pushed himself at the drawing table, talking and drawing & talking and drawing. Shelley set-up shop once again later at Perry Hoberman’s so-called "cranky space" on North 9th St.  This served as an open call for last chances for artist/resident input.  "Last chance to kibbutz" stated an invite Shelley sent out in hopes of enlisting final notations and future sales of the then proposed print.  Although my attempts to get Brooklyn Museum of Art to purchase the drawing for their permanent collection failed (Charlotta Kotik, curator of contemporary art came and perused it carefully) they did eventually buy a print as did many local art personalities as it became something of an official document for the Williamsburg art scene ending its timeline at the year 2000.  
 

 

     It’s years later from the ELSEWHERE weekend, Angela Wyman’s Williamsburg Art Guide, Roberta Smith’s  1998 New York Times article "Brooklyn Haven for Artists"(the one that brought stretch limo’s waiting in tow in front of humble Williamsburg galleries) and the steady attention of the New York art press & collectors but Loren Munk continues to carry a keen optimism  about the future of  contemporary visual art in Williamsburg and Brooklyn in general. He sees the Brooklyn scene as "larger...more dynamic with increased professionalism across the board".  He declares that "Brooklyn has found a place in the food chain of the New York contemporary art world".  He further states "parts of it remain widely risky and edgy...it’s growth has provided a wider gambit for different types of visual art".

 

detail of WILLIAMS'BURG MEMORIAL 2002-2006-William Powhida


     William Powhida, another artist & writer, presented a very different view of the future of the Williamsburg art scene. This summer as part of an exhibition of large installations in an eyewash gallery exhibition titled "Big Stuff" that appeared at the Supreme Trading Project Space he created a huge tombstone as a send-off to the "dead art scene" of Williamsburg that among other things cited the directors of Roebling Hall Gallery as "dicks" (They have since deserted their Wythe Ave. exhibition space.) In an evening of performance that accompanied a busy opening reception that included no less than 15 local gallery directors he delivered his verbal eulogy to the neighborhood.  In his heart-of-hearts Powhida sees this art scene as out-of-steam & very "over". In all fairness one should keep in mind Powhida arrived in Brooklyn four years ago and never really experienced the Williamsburg art neighborhood in its more bustling times.


 

THE WILLIAM'SBURG MEMORIAL 2002-2006 -William Powhida, 2006

 

     Months ago ArtNet editor Walter Robinson insisted that writer Stephen Maine write a article on the state of Williamsburg art scene. Maine reluctantly solicited comments from various neighborhood art personalities in a column he titled "Whither Williamsburg?".  Many of the responses were predictable with current gallery directors defending their turf despite drop-offs in gallery attendance, L-Train nightmares, continued real estate dilemmas and ongoing defections to Chelsea. We may also have seen the end of Maine’s infrequent "Dateline: Brooklyn" column as it is rumored that Robinson feels that Brooklyn, Williamsburg in particular, is simply not that newsworthy these days.

     In the October issue of MODERN PAINTERS New York City art critic Jerry Saltz discuss’ in an article titled "No Next Chelsea" the very real future of not having a "one-stop art district" like Soho or, of course, Chelsea. He further goes on to discuss alternatives to this such as non-Manhattan neighborhoods but is quick to add "I’m not talking about Williamsburg, which is already too expensive for real growth".

 


INVASION OF THE ART SCHOOL GRADUATES-Nelson Bradley 2002


     Will Munk’s project be of interest to the ‘johnny-come-latelys’ (post 2000) of the Williamsburg art scene? Munk feels "..younger artists have no memory" & he maintains " you don’t know where you are going if you don’t know where you’ve been.  Memory = tools"that help solve some of the mysteries of contemporary culture".  Hopefully, many will go look at Munk’s installation out of pure curiosity. A larger question may be ‘will the pioneers of the neighborhood and the "old-guard" that regularly fill Pierogi Gallery’s openings check it out, or even care?’  When I mentioned Munk’s upcoming installation to an artist who wishes to remain anonomous, a resident of twenty years on the northside, she seemed apathetic and apparently never even heard of Dam Stuhltrager Gallery, the venue for Munk’s installation. Reviews and more importantly good old word-of-mouth can solve these problems and it will be revealing to learn of how Munk’s efforts are finally received.

 

 

detail-INVASION OF THE ART SCHOOL GRADUATES-Nelson Bradley


     Will Munk’s "We Are Our Own Art History" be seen as a kind of  FINAL TIMELINE and a last wave to an art neighborhood that may never be thought of as "special" again? Will viewers go visit as a kind of exercise purely in nostalgia?  A younger, untouched and innocent Williamsburg is remembered. Artist Fred Tomaselli a resident since 1985, says "It might have been a bit more special when it was being ignored by the art world. Marginal places are good for experimentation."  Artist Mary Ziegler agrees, she moved to the southside  with Greg Barsamian twenty years and says "It was a wider and freer place than the East Village or Soho and because of this it was fertile ground in many ways. The large abandoned spaces lent themselves well to overt and covert experimentation".  Artist and performer David Kramer set-up his studio in 1990 in Williamsburg & remembers "It was exciting when galleries like Ledis-Flam, Test-Site & Pierogi started doing shows & taking notice of everything going on around us...it gave me hope that I wasn’t entirely in a vacuum." He adds "I moved to Williamsburg to be an outsider from Manhattan & when I got here I found a whole bunch of outsiders who wanted to be with each other."  Artist David Brody also moved here in 1990 recalls "Yes, it was a special time here because it was non-competitive yet ambitious".  Ziegler adds "It might have been the largest concentration of artists anywhere but it was still a tight knit community". Artist & Musician Ken Butler, a resident of the neighborhood for some twenty years says "A genuine spirit of collaborative cooperation was the focus, and it was very stimulating to be a part of". Finally, Artist Daniel Rosenbaum, a sixteen year resident of the southside comments "Everyone knew everyone and acknowledged each other & the ego’s weren’t as pronounced because hey, you were in an edgy, possibly dangerous fairly unpopulated spot, so it behooved you to get real. There was some real talent around, and people had the time & place to develop it".

 

     Loren Munk’s "We Make Our Own Art History" begins October 13, 2006 with an opening reception between 7 & 9pm.  For additional information on dates & gallery hours go to www.damstuhltrager.com

    

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

    • 10/6/2006 4:42 PM William Powhida wrote:
      I actually lived in Williamsburg for 8 years, and for the first three I was buried in Grad School land at Hunter College. It was in early 2002 that I started writing for the Rail, and really began to experience the gallery scene, which was vibrant and community oriented.

      Following the Parker's Box, IAM 5 show, many of the galleries that I wrote about left for Chelsea. What I hoped to convey in the Eulogy was the personal sense of loss I felt, when the gallery community thinned out. James Wagner and Barry Hoggard recently told me that they felt like they need a car to see the shows in Williamsburg now, as the old art crawl is no longer possible. The reality of the exodus has greatly reduced the accessibility of art in the neighborhood. It was a thing of beauty to be able to see thirty shows on a Sunday afternoon in Williamsburg, and know the people involved. It's a far cry from the overwhelming and impersonal density of Chelsea. I guess I wasn't trying to be a dick by writing a eulogy, but to examine the cause of death. Having been so connected to the neighborhood and the community from the Rail meetings to the old art crawl, it was hard to move to Fort Greene last month and not feel a loss.

      I wish the galleries still in Williamsburg the best, and hopefully new galleries will open their doors. It's just a shame that there is little support from the borough and the city to keep Williamsburg a viable alternative to Chelsea. The low rents that sparked the opening of so many spaces a decade or more ago have soared and the impending development of the waterfront doesn't seem to have any place for an artistic community.

      Anyway, it was an amazing and intense four years of artistic and intellectual development. It's something I hope all young artists and writers will have a chance to experience wherever they are; Bushwick, Berlin, Singapore...

      -Cheers,
      William
      Reply to this
    • 10/24/2006 11:45 AM Edward Monovich wrote:
      The evolving story of Williamsburg seems like an allegory for contemporary art in the United States. Not to generalize, but most artists I know feel communities are at their best when saturated with new ideas, experimentation, geographical closeness and a salient absence of self-interested competition, (as it was in Williamsburg at its crescendo). So hard to build, so easy to tear down.

      Edward Monovich
      Reply to this
    • 10/26/2006 4:37 PM Loren Munk wrote:
      There is no artist’s utopia, the good old days are good because they’re gone. What’s happening in Williamsburg is what happens to every neighborhood that becomes desirable, people want to live there. It happened to East 10th Street during the late fifties, people said the scene was dead the “10th Street Touch” was passé. Little did they realize that twenty some odd years latter another group of outsiders would move to that grungy old thoroughfare and start a whole new East Village scene.

      An artist’s community isn’t so much about the buildings and roads and trees, it’s about the people, their relationships, and the energy that they transmit to each other and to the world. Anyone who decides to become an artist has to know it ain’t going to be easy, little job security, no health or dental care, crap for a retirement pension. Artists have to be adaptable and inventive. In the art jungle, it’s the strong who survive.

      Building might fall down, streets change names, but it’s the artists who make the community. Nothing stays the same except the fact that every thing changes, Even Chelsea’s not permanent, get used to it.
      Reply to this
    • 10/26/2006 6:17 PM larry walczak wrote:
      In this week's Village Voice (October 25-31)a writer named R.C. Baker reviewed Loren Munk's Dam Stuhltrager installation/exhibition "We Make Our Own Art History". Is it possible to review an exhibition by ignoring the main thrust of the show? R.C. Baker makes a case for that by barely mentioning Williamsburg in the short essay. Is this another example of Williamsburg being just an after-thought to contemporary art in New York City. Also brings to mind William Powhida's revealation of Voice critic Kim Levin's failure to mention Williamsburg even once in her exhibition of letters & writings recently shown at Ronald Feldman Fine Arts in Soho. Manhattan-based art critics seem prone to write about Manhattan-based art/artists even when in Williamsburg confronted by a wall of photographs of Brooklyn artists & scads of documentation of a Brooklyn art neighborhood. Not only is it difficult to get such writers to cross the East River, it appears to be even more difficult to digest that there is actually an art community here. Years ago I asked the long-time photo critic of the Voice Vince Aletti why he never reviewed Brooklyn photo exhibits and he snapped at me, saying "I don't have enough time to cover all the shows in Manhattan and now you want me to come to Brooklyn?" Just thought I'd ask.
      Reply to this
      1. 11/12/2006 3:24 PM Carmen Einfinger wrote:
        Ola Larry,  I thought I would respond to your comments on R.C. Baker.
        It must be such a hard battle, to compete with new york's city financianlly strong art market. As you know, it never is about the art, but where the money is. Chelsea has the money and so it goes.... But if it makes you feel any better, I AM a New York City artist, and it didn't make a difference for me either...... I guess it might be about, finding out where we belong as artists, and what we want for ourselves from our work and then things fall into place. I just returned from China, and the creative energy over there is BUZZING. Comparatively there is no BUZZ in Chelsea, even though that still is the leading art market in the world, however only for it's Wall Street and foreign investments.
        If you are curious to see my exhibition I just had in China, please go to: www.nyartsbeijing.com

        Carmen
        Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.