Critical Review - Frieze Art Fair 2010

For my critical review, I have chosen the Frieze Art Fair. Held every year in Regents Park, London the fair takes up one short weekend in October. I have chosen the Frieze Art Fair because of the vast collection of work on show and because of the quality of artists that presented within the Fair.

The importance of looking at Contemporary Art is to see whats happening in today’s Art Scene and to enquire how artists approach the vast array of subjects. Exploring these issues of contemporary art is central to becoming a relevant artist; the combination of our own experiences and intentions with what we learn develops our practices and understanding. The Frieze Art Fair is then a perfect example of work from a range of artists all with different practices, presenting in very different ways. The purpose of my Critical Review is to question whether the Frieze Art Fair enables artists to exhibit work effectively.

My intention during this critical review is to reflect on my own experience of the fair and to analyse critically, as a whole, the Frieze Art Fair.

On entering the Frieze Art Fair I expected a celebration of artwork from around the world. I expected to be inspired by video and sculpture, by prints and painting. What I experienced was a circus: an IKEA art department. I had entered a tent into which someone had decided, beyond all sanity, to cram as many pieces of art work as possible. I was looking forward to what Dennis Scholl had described as ‘the best galleries’ who bring ‘the best art’. Sadly this was not my experience of the Frieze Art Fair. Neither was it the experience of Sarah Kent, writer for the arts desk who wrote:

‘With the Frieze Art Fair now upon us, the only sane response for anyone interested in art is to leave London until the wretched event is over. Art fairs are for art what pimps are for virgins, to misquote Barnett Newman. The work, in other words, doesn’t stand a chance. And just as supermarkets don’t give shelf space to products for you to admire the packaging, art fairs don’t display work for you to look at and enjoy.’

This inability to create an environment suitable for work to be respected and considered without distraction is the main focus of Kent’s article. Understanding how art is viewed and judged is vital to my own development as an artist, in particular understanding the role of the audience is important in any practice which forces the question: why are the best artists and artistic institutions in the world ignoring such an important facet of art?

It seems that Frieze look beyond this deficit. Artist Yinka Shonibare hails Frieze as much more than just a fair but as a ‘festival of art’. Praise also came from periodicals and newspapers such as La Stampa, The Times and International Herald Tribune. La Stampa overlooked these flaws in presentation and remarked on the energy and the promotion the fair brings to London and its contemporary scene. This view was supported by artists from around the world reflecting on how the fair draws in international galleries and collectors to invest in the exhibiting work.

Support on such a large scale means events such as Frieze are vital organs for the publicity and rejuvenation of contemporary art. This in turn is supported through Frieze’s official press release and the long continuous record of quotes from respected artists and periodicals. Highlighting the investment the Fair brings to contemporary art in London is Nicholas Logsdail from the Lisson Gallery, Logsdail commented ‘The fair gets more solid and mature every year. We made a straight £1million in the first three days.’ with Gregor Podnar, Galerija Gregor Podnar, Ljubljana adding ‘What is very good is that I have made important sales to museums as well as to private collectors’.

However, what events such as Frieze bring to the city is much more than just a weekend of art. The International Herald Tribune writes:

‘Monday was the start of ‘Frieze Week,’ the unofficial name of the week defined by Britain’s major contemporary art fair, Frieze…. Such is the draw of the fair that museums, dealers and auction houses all want to attract the international community, who are in town for the fair.’

The cultural benefit the fair may supposedly bring does not necessarily outweigh the suffocation of the art within the fair itself and, overall, it must be asked if the fair does anything for new developing artists that exhibit within it. Alexandra Peers from the Wall Street Journal talks about the repetitive nature of Art Fair programmes:

‘In the art world, art fairs are the equivalent of those chain stores, speeding up another trend cycle... Images and themes are repeated so often that you can feel you are looking at posters.... At some fairs, it seems that every booth is showing Andreas Gursky; at others, that "everyone" has Anish Kapoor or Andy Warhol's 1970s portraiture.’

This continuous revision of ‘well-established’ artists within art fairs hinders the break-through of new artists so much so that when it does occur their success is limited, overlooked or in danger of being overexposed. Artist Lisa Ruyter expressed her changing views of art fairs through ArtworldSalon.com:

‘On the one hand, fairs have given her "an opportunity to develop a broad and solid international system of support," and to "take much larger risks with my artwork." But at art fairs, "the work will likely be sold and scattered . . . before it is given a chance to stick to anything." She frets it may be more easily forgotten.’

This hindrance of artists is surely an unintentional outcome; however, combined with the inadequacy of showing the work and the overbearing quantity of it, Frieze is a confused fusion of contradictions. On one side the continuous presence of established, eagerly sought after artists means being forgotten or lost in a sea of artist names and on the other a sudden breakthrough and the glamour of recognition could mean being yesterday’s news.

I had come away from the Frieze Art Fair with a narrow view of the aims and intentions of Art Fairs. Originally my intention throughout this critical review was to question whether the Frieze Art Fair enables the successful exhibiting of work effectively, and it is my view that Frieze crams in too much work into tiny cubicles as to detract from the art. However, on reflection, the Frieze Art Fair is much more than just a simple exhibition displaying art. Its purpose is not just to show the work of artists but to engage with a city wide audience and bring investment from around the world into the contemporary art world. There is however a problem with this conclusion and a new question to answer: Who is Frieze aimed at?

If Frieze exists to promote art and to invite investment, then the sheer size and quantity of work present at the fair enables any investor to reflect and analyse on an array of work they might want to exhibit. If Frieze exists to make art history and show the work of contemporary artists, then there is certainly more than enough: too much in my opinion as It is east to miss work and the public loses out because the sheer amount of work is overwhelming, so much so that there is little time to stop and reflect on the work without continual interruption by other visitors looking at other art.

The purpose of my Critical Review is to question whether the Frieze Art Fair enables artists to exhibit work effectively. My response is no, Frieze suffocates the work on show and doesn’t allow the artists to show their work effectively. Although Frieze itself is structured in a large building there seems to be no space at all to look around and the event becomes more of a nightclub scene with everyone knocking into each other than a gallery space.

From my work and previous research the role of the audience and how they react to the work can be just as important as the work itself. If they are unable to have enough space to see the work then what is the point of exhibiting the work; and to an extent what is the point of Frieze itself! My view is that the amount of work at Frieze is reflective of the variety within contemporary art and therefore my only suggestion is that the space is not big enough and that each work should be given the same consideration as they would in gallery spaces such as the Tate or Nottingham Contemporary.

Bibliography

http://www.theartsdesk.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2398:opinion-frieze-art-fair&Itemid=23 [accessed on 22 October 2010

http://www.friezeartfair.com/assets/images/press_releases/FAF06_End_of_Fair-2.pdf [accessed on 22 October 2010

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121254549428343819.html [accessed on 28 October 2010]

Rosalind Furness and Anna Starling, Frieze Art Fair Yearbook 2010-2011, Frieze, 2010

Paco Barragan, The Art Fair Age, Charta, 2008