Artinfo reports that Zach Feuer is dropping artists from his gallery due to the weak economy. He's quoted as saying, "Now is the time to have a lower overhead and be small and lean." Because, after all, keeping an artist's name on your Website costs money. Why move to a smaller space or a less expensive neighborhood when you can tell artists to go scratch? Especially when you can swap out a potentially cranky living painter for a nun who's been dead for 20 years.
My favorite part, though:
Feuer’s old roster was heavy on painters, while the pared-down group contains only three. “[I] wanted to make sure there were no redundancies, with two people covering the same area,” he said.
Because, after all, one painter's pretty much the same as another.
Dear Zach: May you choke on your Rainbow Backwash.
Maybe he goes out of business.His artist for the most part were petty mediocre.
Much as I did with the whole Brandeis Rose Museum flap, I didn't really consider the art and artists involved. To me this is more a problem of attitude. And while it might be nice to imagine that Feuer would go out of business for selling bad art badly, we know it doesn't work like that.
Well with him no, he comes from money, he has trust fund I think.You are right though his wording is not very sensitive to the plight of his artist or artist in general.It's a pretty nasty statement.If you compare him to Leo Castelli, whom I have no great love for, but he was known to be very loyal to his artist. When they were not selling he would give them money to live on. He did this in economic downturns and in good times.
Seems that some of them will be better off one moved to Boone which has to be a step up.
That is a bad quote but your facts are off - Leo was accused of helping kill abstract expressionism when he kicked out most his artists to make room for the new pop artists. From what I've read - Fuer had no trust fund and had investors to help him get started after doing shows in his apartment in Boston.
I've worked with journalism enough to know it's possible Feuer was misquoted and also out of context -- hard to do both, but journalists are professionals -- so there is that mitigating factor. If Feuer doesn't have a trust fund and is trying to run a profitable business, that's even better.But I think I must be missing something really important here. What's the cost of keeping an artist on your roster? I went back through Feuer's shows for the past three years and it's not as if he's giving every one of his artists a show a year or even every two years. So it's not that the gallery is required to invest that way. So where's the expense? Does Zach personally buy supplies for his artists? Send out weekly postcards from each artist to collectors?Or is Feuer freeing his artists to explore other opportunities? Maybe it's good for them! Maybe he's helping to advance their careers by putting them out on the street. "Here, go, I can't devote the proper resources required for an artist of your stature. You may now freely find a patron more suited to your brilliance."Sounds like a stretch, though, don't it?
Chris most of them found other galleries, sometimes it does not work out. As for Feuer's money thing this was rumor so I don't how true it is.Like most people who go or went to the Museum School in Boston he was pretty well off. He does seem to have a good idea on how to make money and getting Dana Schutz into his galley was a smart thing as he has made a lot of of her.
Anons in my view don't really count.You can say what you want but it's not going to be taken seriously by me.
In the article one of the artists is said to have been hurt by being dropped, emotionally I assume. I'm taking that to mean being dropped by Feuer was bad for most of the artists.And what's with taking on the dead nun? That's just crass commercialism -- even if she's a good artist (which I can't say, not having seen her work), she's obviously got a brand already and won't be making anything new. Which makes her a cash cow and an insult added to the injury on the dropped artists.
hmmm, I don't know what to make of the Dead Nun, very weird.He's a businessman and you can see he sees the whole art thing like a hedge fund manager. That's how I read him.His gallery is full of toxic assets...
I don't think he'll be the only one to look at cutting 'overheads' and 'downsize'. I think the art market is going to really nosedive this year. Even holding onto his top or pet ten may not save ZF - new times may bring new tastes - you put all your eggs in a smaller basket, you better be sure the appetite is still for eggs.
Yes this will be an interesting year.The Japanese economy fell by over 12% and is in the worse rescission since the 70's. We are going to have the same issues, although not as severe I hope. But it could be a another depression in which case all bets are off. I'm planting a lot tomatoes and beans as well as other eatables this year myself, ripping up the front lawn and most of the backyard. I hope to grow a lot of my food for late summer and for the fall and winter. As far as galleries go, well if it gets much worse than it is now I think art will be the least of what people will be needing or looking for.
Some of Feuer's choices were surprising - like dumping Ofili but keeping Shishkin. Strictly from a business point of view.Although I can understand a dealer only wanting a stable of say 10 artists rather than 30 or 40.
It seems that the drop was more about using the economy as a chance to fix your brand. Art dealers often drop groups of artists. His brand was mixed and maybe even a little commercial, by cutting now, he's able to do a quick improvement and blame the economy. I doubt it's about money, since all those cut living artists make more work and have higher prices then the Nun. This is clearly a branding move hidden as a cost cutting measure.
It seems to me Zach would be better off being honest. But clearly honesty and integrity are not valuable in the art world.I saw Ofili at Zwirner, anyway. And to keep Shishkin over Ofili -- well, I can't be sure from the JPEGs, of course, but it looks to me like Ofili paints rings around Shishkin."Branding move." If that doesn't sum up the problem in the art world right there, I don't know what does.
Totally agree.
Like I said he's businesses man, he could be selling cars, furniture or washing machines. In this case it's art.
No-one on this blog seems to have any clue about the art world outside of NJ. Zach never showed Ofili.
As I wrote, I saw Ofili at Zwirner. I didn't follow up on whether he'd ever been at Feuer. Apparently not. Kind of beside the point, really.
P.S. I have no clue about the art world inside of NJ.
"like dumping Ofili but keeping Shishkin"
Yes, CAP wrote that. In the comments. Beside the point. The main point is, Feuer dropped a bunch of artists in favor of a dead nun.