I hope that after this review, the galleries that participated in Minor Attractions will still want me to come to their exhibitions.
The start wasn't great. I received a press release with an invitation to a "Free and accessible to all" event with information that registration is required if one wants to come to the opening. I don't think this email reached everyone, as on the opening night I received DMs on Instagram from people asking whether everyone could come. The answer was no; they were checking if you confirmed your attendance. I know that the galleries that took part in it have a very supportive community, but this does not go hand in hand with the desire to create an event that opposes the "exclusionary nature of invite-only art world events during Frieze". It slightly put me off. At least I would have published the reason for such a decision somewhere, because now everyone who wasn't invited thinks this "non-fair" does exactly the same thing as Frieze. However, if the RSVP information was published somewhere, I apologise for the bucket of slop I spilt on you.
Nevertheless, I believe Jonny Tanna and Jacob Barnes, co-founders of Minor Attractions, started a very important conversation about the future of galleries and art fairs which I hope they will develop even further - not only by organising fun events for the public but perhaps educative talks for those young ones that can actually change the art market.
Another part from the press release that confused me was, "The non-fair is composed of a selling exhibition spread across two spaces in central London: the eponymous Minor Attractions in Soho, and Cornershop in London Bridge" I'm not sure if I don't understand the difference between a fair and a group of galleries occupying one space with artworks for sale. I think I wouldn't be so picky if, like the Vilma Gold's gallery's owner, Rachel Williams, I hadn't hoped that "[Minor Attractions] will inspire new ways for artists and galleries to exhibit". In my opinion, it didn't. There was absolutely nothing experimental in the presentation. I am shocked at how not interesting the London Bridge site is. Maybe I'm being too harsh but I visited most of the galleries that participated in it and they had shows that made my jaw drop. So what happened there?
It seemed to me that it was more a "look what cool artists we present" show rather than "look how we can manage the space and art to create new worlds". Maybe that's just what I'm into but I don't think the Cornershop challenged a traditional way of presenting works at all. Following the thought of presenting cool artists, I was surprised there were so many big works. If the idea was to make buying art more accessible, the amount of big paintings was striking.
The Collective Ending saved the honour and hung some small works around the pillar, ZERUI presented used towels and underwear, and studio/chapple presented, among others, a glass sculpture with a video inside and a sound piece.
Another phrase that caught my attention while reading about Minor Attractions was „risk-taking galleries". I hope it's not only about presenting cool works because to me, the biggest risk these gallerists are taking is actually setting up a gallery in post-Brexit London. I must admit that I am very impressed with those who decide to do it. I really enjoy looking at weird artworks presented in super cool ways but paying for the gallery space, working on putting all these shows together, invigilating, having 5 additional jobs and finding clients is mad. I think this should be addressed more often.
I know that I certainly didn't manage to get a full grab of the Minor Attractions - I could only stay at the Soho exhibition for a few minutes - but I would love to spend a lot more time discussing it. I think there is a huge potential - even just gathering all these galleries in one place is MASSIVE! Thanks to that event, I discovered new galleries and can't wait to visit them. Unfortunately, I don't have more time, but the investigation continues...
Comentários