Date: Fri, 2 Feb 96 13:59:26 EST
From: spurlock-AT-lehman.com (Michael Spurlock)
Subject: Re: dry-hump: was public (fwd)



----- Begin Included Message -----


From: { brad brace } <bbrace-AT-netcom.com>
Subject: dry-hump: was public (fwd)
To: avant-garde-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu


OK then, why continue to support and seek validation from the crusty 
gallery-curator-museum triumvirate? Start over! (*gasp!*)


----- End Included Message -----
Here's one support scenario that came to me. 
1) There are plenty of artists who yearn for an alternative to showing their 
work in galleries and winding up in museums. They start alternative spaces,
cooperatives and the like. But, these require income to run just like your mean
old regular gallery. With limited funding for arts activities, the big museums
and more successful galleries seem to get a lot of what is available. So, you
could maybe choose to shift your support from the old guard art institutions to
newer alternatives. This might cause the old places to either shrivel up and die
or curatorially follow the money trail to figure out what they need to do in the
way of what they offer to entice the people back. I could see this levelling the
playing field for those people and places that want to try and grab some of the
attention from the established culture community. It could also smack of new
spaces wanting to either knock the old guard on their ass or elevate themselves
to the level of the big boys with all the trappings of prestige and potential 
funding that shifts like that might hold. 

I think there are other possibilities, this one just came to mind first.

Michael 



     --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------