[Previous entry: "Wake-Up Call!"] [Next entry: "Doubts, Questions & Certainties"]

09/17/2006: "Is Rome bad for itself?"

Last year, I spent six months in Rome as part of a student exchange. I was able to really become an inhabitant of the Eternal City and not just a tourist. During my thesis research on a contemporary art exhibit on show in the city, I came to realise the major difficulties that Rome has with its art. All the reasons for which millions of foreigners flock to the city have now become a real problem for the aspiring contemporary artists.

As an example, on the first weekend of the opening of the exhibit « Burri. The artists and the matter 1945-2004 », there were barely fifty people spread out through the different rooms. The publicity surrounding this particular exhibit was huge as well, all over the subway and the buses. But still, barely a few people « braved the crowds » and came to admire the Rauschenbergs, Burris and Dubuffets.


I attribute this lack of interest to the artistic monuments that dominate the city’s landscape. Wherever you walk, every ten or twenty metres, you come across a sign of the glorious past of the Eternal City, have it be from Ancient times or the not-so-distant Renaissance. Anyone who sets foot in the town is blown away by the sheer quantity of artistic artefacts and therefore doesn’t waste any time by looking at contemporary art. When you have the Villa Borghese and the Sistine Chapel to stare at, there is no time for modernism.

Rome is world famous for its artistic history and benefits economically from the huge touristic affluence, but the city has been unable to move foward, unlike Paris for example, and create a basis on which contemporary art could evolve. The museums that defend this era are few and far between, relegated to the outskirts of the city and visited by only the loyal and passionate few.

Rome is an artistic reference, a source of constant inspiration and an ideal display of the important times that were the Roman empire and the Renaissance. But the up-and-coming artistic hopes have great difficulty breaking through into the limelight. Can a source of inspiration also become an obstacle ?
The question is : is Rome bad for itself ?

Replies: 14 Comments

on Tuesday, October 3rd, rachel said

I am in the same boat as Mark as I live and maitain a studio in Southern NJ where if one does not represent marshlands in garish tube colors (no body mixes anymore) one is not in the loop so I go elsewhere.
Alice, I have been to Rome many times and you can be sure any time you go to Rome you will see Buri and the rest. Romans support contemporary art more than any city here. You can always catch a Dali show as well. So any day of the week...hanging behind your bankers head....in a remote place of business anywhere in Italy you will see prints of Klee, Miro, etc. In our banks we are lucky to get a local artists rendering of a local building!.
So my feeling is that Rome is not bad for Rome but good for the world.
My Italian artist friends find it daunting admittedly working in Florence, Rome, Italy in general because there is too much to live up to.
But once an artist overcomes that obstacle, you can imagine how she excels...Clemente...Cucchi, etc. ciao ciao

on Wednesday, September 20th, Frank Ettenberg said

Hello Alice C. In the recent Stevens/Swan biography about de
Kooning, it impressed me how de Kooning always seemed to have
good times and good reception to his work in Rome. I see from my own very subjective experiences of living in different places how I
can develop prejudices about some of these locations. I still have to admit that some places seem to favor my existence, others don't. Sometimes no matter what I might do or try, the timing isn't right. Nor is my attitude always very positive, wherever I might be.
So I have to weigh & measure my experiences very carefully before
I blame my failures on the place....Just my .02. FE

on Tuesday, September 19th, HARRY said

MORE ON FAME ,FORTUNE AND HYPE

Recently , in the last few years, the San Francisco Museum of Art had a retrospective of one of the Bay Areas top artists, RICHARD DIEBENKORN- I was surprise on the day of my visit , very few people in the galleries in the musuem for the DIEBENKORN EXHIBIT, however, at the same time there was a CALDER exhibition. IT WAS PACKED WITH PEOPLE--MOSTLY CHILDREN-- SCHOOLS HAD CLASSES VISITING THIS CALDER EXHIBIT.

WHO IS MEISSONIER, DID YOU EVER HEAR ABOUT THIS ARTIST IN YOUR ART CLASSES OR ART HISTORY CLASSES?

MEISSONIER WAS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL, RICH FAMOUS ARTIST IN PARIS AT THE TURN OF THE 19TH Century.

He had the biggest MANSION IN THE CENTER OF PARIS AND WAS FAMOUS FOR HIS PAINTINGS OF HORSES AND NAPOLEON. Then he went into oblivion- it seems some photos were taken of horses trotting by Edward Muyerbridge at Stanford University in America. It showed that Meissonier had painted the horses running incorrectly. END OF CAREER!

HOW DID I LEARN ABUTR MEISSONIER? DALI said of MEISSONIER -I LEARN A LOT FROM MEISSONIER'S PAINTINGS- I AM AN AMATEUR COMPARED TO MEISSONIER!

CLAUDE MONET BECAME VERY FAMOUS WHEN HE WAS IN HIS 60'S Soon however his reputation went into oblivion VINCENT VAN GOGH AND PAUL GAUGUIN created POST IMPRESSIONISM and MONET was forgotten until the 1950's when the NEW YORK SCHOOL OF ABSTRACT PAINTING DISCOVERED MONET'S WATERLILLIES.

Painter BERNARD BUFFET DIED A MULTIMILLIONAIRE IN FRANCE. Never recognized in his own country during his lifetime.

OF COURSE- THERE ARE LOTS AND LOTS OF OTHER STORIES
OF ARTISTS AND EXHIBITIONS , FAME AND OBLIVION--

on Tuesday, September 19th, josé said

I pretty much agree with Harry on this one. There is too much hype, and not just in Rome or Paris or London but in general. The sanest attitude is to concentrate on what has endured the test of time and Rome has an abundance of that. One can't blame the romans or the tourists, or Rome for that matter.

on Tuesday, September 19th, mario said

Dear Alice possibly it s true that Rome has been unable to move foward, or that the tourists are owerwhelmed by the artistic monuments that dominate the city’s landscape. Certainly those are some of the reasons why some major arts events have failed to attract large crowds.
However it is one of my dreams to enter a great exhibition and find the gallery or museum half empty. Ahh the only chance to see the paintings.
I believe ourdays (or maybe it was the same in the past) the very successfull arts events are those that have been declared fashionable, and when that happen the real looser are the people with a real interest in the event (more it is fashionable more it is impossible to see the paintings)
Thanks for all the interesting observation of your blog (I hope you enjoyed Burri's as much the city)
Mario

on Tuesday, September 19th, Mark said

Harry brings up a good point, might not be Alice's intention for the blog to go this way but here goes. Hype! Yes it does work, can work to make an artist a success, even a super star, if it will work for singers and actors with no talent then why not artists as well. True their fame will be only fleeting but if it last thier life time they will not care in the end, if not, well that is another blog (fame and how to handle life when its gone). Like it or not art is like fashion, the public (what little looks at art) is swayed by what is popular, so are museums (I like the impressionists, but I am tired of them as well, time for them to take a vacation). Art has lost its place in the world, it does have a glummy outlook for now though I think that will in time change. When? I don't know but I think it will. In the meantime we must just go on doing what we do if we need to, or go do something else if we can not handle the glummy outlook.

on Monday, September 18th, HARRY WEISBURD said

Dear ALICE CAVENDAR:

In response to your article, Is Rome Bad for Itself, did you ever consider the response to the Burri exhibition including Rauschenberg and Dubuffet, that perhaps these artists are irrelevant in todays society. Just as the artist of the Salon in Paris are considered irrelevant in American history classes. I never heard of some of the great painters of the Salon such as J. Waterhouse or Alma-Tadema,mentioned in my art history classes until I discovered them in Art books in a bookstore. My Art professors only PUSHED FOR THE BAUHAUS, and the ISM OF THE DAY IN 1950'S promoted by king of the art critics, CLEMENT GREENBERG who is now on the trash heap of American art critics thanks to the French philosophy of Deconstruction-- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOOD OR BAD- TALENT OR NO TALENT-- EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE IS EQUAL - ha ha ha .

Is it possible that you and I were hyped into believing that Dubuffet is great and Alma-Tadema is a hack, by the art world and its critics.

I recommend you read a book about what Major New York Art Gallery dealers have to say about Art and artists.

Did you know that the todays superstar of giant outdoor sculpture Mark di Suvero was rejected by almost every major Art gallery in New York until his dealer,Bellamy, took him him on and promoted him Bellamy promoted and hyped Di Suvero to produce the artist superstar of today --- he didnt discover him-- he HYPED HIM-- WITH ENOUGH MONEY YOU CAN SELL AND PROMOTE ANYTHING INCLUDING A ROOMFUL OF DIRT OR SHIT AND CALL IT ART IN TODAY'S SOCIETY.

The problem is as you have seen in ROME the public has had it with all this crap promoted as Art.

In today's art world (small letters please!) you can buy some toilet paper and stack the rolls up IN A ROOM (called an ART GALLERY) and declare it Art and sculpture or buy rolls of fabric- and lean them up against the wall in various colors and patterns - in groups of 2 or 3 or 10 -whatever and declare this group of rolls of fabric is
ART and yet in the fabric store it still ROLLS OF FABRIC!

So maybe the answer to your question why not many visitors to famous artist art exhibit-- people just not interested in all the HYPE!

Art gallery attendance in general has gone down and as reported in recent issue of Art in America--September,2006, major art books are no longer being published because public not buying them anymore- only small institutions and the coterie of the elite of the small art world. --- and so called "art scholars" ha ha ha . (the art professors who have to "publish or perish")

VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE- RECOMMEND YOU GET YOUR COPY OF ART IN AMERICA AND READ THE ARTICLE-- GIVE YOU A PERSPECTIVE OF YOUR ROME ART EXHIBITON EXPERIENCE,

on Monday, September 18th, Mira said

I've just exhibited in Rome and I had a strong impression that my work was better accepted over there than in Montreal were I live. Montreal is known as an open city for different new trends as well for contemporary arts. Therefore, I've heard quite often that my work would be better accepted somewhere else than here. Maybe it is all about some stupid prejudices? Italian modern design (like for example Alessi) is world known and for mi is one of the best. They really know how to mixed old and new.

on Monday, September 18th, gabriella said

Alice - No Rome is not bad for itself, it is what it is, layers of history superimposed and having the great weight of tradition. Many of the structures and artifacts are made of materials which have a long life-span in the scheme of things, whereas much of contemporary work is made of relatively ephemeral materials and we have no way of knowing what impact in the long term they will have on the agglomeration of history in a place such as Rome, Paris, London or New York.
Besides which a vast majority of people are comforted by the presence of traditional objects and treasures, while contemporary culture tends to befuddle and confuse them, the very newness causing a turning away from them. I think one needs to be distanced from one's history in order to fully comprehend its specific impacts on the world.

on Monday, September 18th, Mark said

Rome's history has created its reputation as has Paris' and New York's and so on. I live near the town of Gettysburg, PA., it is certainly no Rome, Paris or New York, but its history does dictate what art is here. It is not contemporary. It is historic art, renditions of the Civil War, and other wars and events of primarily, American history. It is a struggle for any local artist to find exceptance if that artist does not paint historic subject matter. I know first hand. So it is my job to go some place else to show my work, but it is also my job not to abandon Gettysburg, so that I show in our small town when I can, even though it means to do so with little recognition. Maybe some day contemporary work will do well here, just not today.

Does Rome (its history) hurt itself? No. If the history of a place sets its reputation in the art world, it is for the artist who's work does not fit in to find other venues and not to just rely on a specific place. Sure being a great success in Rome would be wonderful, but isn't that true any where?

I have been to Rome and it is a city, beautiful in ways and not so beautiful in others. I have been to Paris as well and New York and feel the same about them, but then I am no city boy and that might be why I think little of cities. I think the time of art centers such as Rome, Paris and New York is old world and we must move on. Why does there have to be an "Art Center"? Should not good art be seen even in small towns and cities one would not think of as an "art center"? Bringing art out of the big cities would be one way for artists to find better exceptance from the average guy as well, as has been discussed in previous blogs.

Sorry if this seems disjointed, my mind is on upcoming shows.

on Monday, September 18th, Walt said

Alice,
What if we thought about the problem a different way... ever consider the idea that maybe the work being done by contemporary artists doesn't hold up well next to the classical work that surrounds them in a city like Rome? Even in Paris the contemporary art isn't that strong. Maybe there is some good work in London and possibly some things happening in Berlin again. But I don't think the weight of history dulls down the cutting edge. What dulls an edge is what and how you're stabbing.

on Monday, September 18th, Brenda Harness said

With the glorious past so evident to every day passers-by throughout Italy, I wonder how hard it is for a contemporary Italian artist to come up with new imagery that's not flavored at least marginally by the antique. We are, after all, a product of our own experiences. It must be hard, if not impossible, to divorce the two.

on Monday, September 18th, Matt said

I agree Andrew.

When I think of Rome I tend to picture Renaissance and when I think of Paris I tend to picture cosmopolitan. Each have their particular attributes that attract visitors... of course Rome is dominated by the past and that by no means should truly be looked at as not moving forward. That is Rome, not Paris. Paris, on the other hand, was and is for some the apex of contemporary art.

So, is Rome bad for itself? Absolutely not.

on Monday, September 18th, Andrew said

If a city is known for its glorious past, and people come to see it from far away to taste that, then no, I don't think you could say that Rome is bad for itself. Modernism tends to reject the classical, so why should it be a hospitable place to artists who look down upon it?