The River North Galleries

The excerpt from Winkelman's "How to Start and Run a Commercial Art Gallery" attempts to make a scholarly synopsis of the skills and know-how necessary to operate an independent art gallery, beginning with the history of such galleries. Winkelman explains that in the old days it was more common that an "art dealer" rarely dealt in the buying and selling of art exclusively - often they were sellers of all manner of home decor aimed primarily at an affluent clientele. It is pointed out that the romanticized vision of an art dealer elevating the relevance of some underground artist is often a gross misrepresentation of how the art trade really is. There is, however, a certain degree of truth in regards to the shift in consciousness from being curio salesmen to legitimate patrons of the arts, as cited by the example of Paul Durand-Ruel who helped establish Impressionism as a permanent fixture in the art world. Yet in the end, both aspects (sales and patronage) play a large role in the modern art gallery by incorporating blue chip artwork from reputable and well established artists as well as taking certain gambles on new up-and-coming talent.

Winkelman transitions from history into a rough but practical guide to climbing the ladder to gallery success, as well as ways for enterprising individuals to work their way into the gallery circuit. This section boils down to Winkelman explaining the essentials of running a gallery, such as deciding how one markets their specific art market, branding oneself, forging an identity, and how to physically exhibit work inside the gallery.
In general I feel Winkelman speaks to the reader as a season colleague offering advice to the young art enthusiast with big dreams. He does a decent job of keeping things seem attainable and give the up and down nature of the art market some sense of order and patterning. At least in terms of how to make oneself fit the mold of what is expected of all dealers.

To supplement our reading, we took a trip down to the Catherine Edelman and Stephen Daiter Galleries. Seeing the two side by side offered an interesting opportunity to compare and contrast the various types of personalities and ideologies that are active in the art world today. What made the double visit particularly relevant was the fact that both galleries were in the same category of art, with slightly different views. For the purposes of this blog, I will not go too much into the variables of physical layout, because both galleries share a nearly identical architectural style and geographic location.
To me the Edelman gallery definitely exemplified the contemporary eclectic photography/fine art gallery. Our tour guide was able to explain to us how the Edelman Gallery was really built from the ground up for the sole purpose of forwarding photography as a legitimate art form. Catherine herself seemed to take special interest in local and emerging artists who work in a primarily fine art style. We learned that throughout the gallery's history, Edelman sought to bring cutting-edge photographers and artists into the mainstream, as well as marketing these artists to the appropriate clientele seeking new and trendy forms of photography. Seeing the gallery's current and past shows, I can definitely see that Edelman is keen on artists who find  their own creative niche rather than those who are outstanding among many others in their field. In essence the gallery draws its strength from providing the public with new progressive takes on photography, while putting it into the context of a museum-like experience as a way of subliminally legitimizing its quirky relevance.

The Daiter Gallery, on the other hand, was vigorously dedicated to exhibiting highly prominent documentary photojournalists of the past century. I would not categorize the Daiter Gallery as being cutting edge in terms of it's subject matter, since they clearly pride themselves on exhibiting what they consider to be the best of the best photography. While the Edelman Gallery has a mix of contemporary photography and mixed media artwork, the Daiter Gallery specializes in only one thing. That's not to say that specialization is a bad thing, but the atmosphere of the Daiter Gallery was definitely more museum-like in it's layout and mission statement. The main difference I noticed was that the Daiter Gallery only exhibits the work of one photographer at a time, choosing to display a "greatist hits retrospective" of that artist's career.

I feel like getting the chance to see both galleries offered an interesting cross-section of the fields in which we artists can apply ourselves, and what types of art we can hope to sell if we seek a gallery as a creative outlet.

The Universal Survey Museum

Scholars Carol Duncan and Alan Wallach produced an article which primarily seeks to explain how the true nature of art museums is similar (or in some ways identical to) "Ceremonial Architecture" dating back to ancient times. This includes both conceptual and architectural references to "temples, palaces, treasuries, and tombs". They pose an interesting argument in how the practice of ritualistic processions through sacred structures for a means of moral or spiritual enlightenment was an common practice amongst a large majority of ancient cultures. The fact that spiritual megaliths were constructed from the neolithic age right through to the modern day, manifesting as grandiose temples or churches.
To a certain extent this does hold true throughout much of recorded history, however as Duncan and Wallach point out, there was a gradual shift in how these "Temples of Art" went from being theological epicenters to secularized cultural hubs. As religion gradually became more interwoven with politics during such times as the reign of the Holy Roman Empire under Constantine, the line between religion and monarchy began to blur dramatically. In order to legitimize their reign as god-king to the commoners, theocratic monarchs funded the construction of massive cathedrals filled with lavish art and decor, meant to leave the common man awe-struck and humbled by the experience.
After the Renaissance the theocratic political system began to gradually dissolve into more conventional monarchies. However the focus did not stray too far from it's origins. Rather than being strictly religious in purpose, the cathedrals and holy sites were annexed by the royal family and used to impress foreign dignitaries and enrich the upper class. During this time much of the world's classical art fell into private collections that were only seen by the common man on rare occasions. However this phase too, was to be short lived.
The prime example of a major reclamation of the "Temple of Art" for the common man was during the French Revolution, as cited by Duncan and Wallach. When Napoleon seized control of the monarch's estates, he began to make the once-hidden fine art available to the masses. In direct opposition to the French Monarchy, the royal grounds were opened to the public (albeit on a limited basis). This set the stage for what has become one of the world's most highly regarded artistic institutions: the Louvre in Paris. Combining all the elements of Classical, Medieval, and Renaissance architecture, the "New Temple of Art" was an amalgamation of all the influences preceeding it.
However what brings the essay full circle is the inclusion of the American adaptation of the Neo-Classical styles found in Europe, and our unique approach to what we consider public art. Being founded on an entirely anti-monarchy platform, America (striving to compete with it's European forebearers) wanted to again reinvent the concept of widespread culture. Rather than utilizing preexisting palaces or holy sites, the American museum was generally founded on entirely secular spaces, but seeks to evoke the same sense of awe and inspiration the first temples did. Only this time, all people are welcomed into it. No longer is the museum relegated to preists, kings, or even the upper class.
Which begs the question - what will be the next incarnation of the "Temple of Art"? Only time will tell.