You Review: Artomatic 2004
Hosted by Maura McCarthy
washingtonpost.com Museums and Galleries Editor
Friday, November 12, 2004; 7:00 p.m. ET
Artomatic 2004 is the fourth edition of the city-wide, non-juried, open
showcase for the arts. This year more than 1,000 artists will
participate, with visual art, music, dance and spoken word performances
inside the former Capital Children's Museum. (Visit the official Artomatic Web site for a full schedule of events.)
In the past, Artomatic has drawn more than 50,000 visitors in its four week run.
Artomatic bills itself as "a forum for all of our area's artists to
convene, perform and exhibit, strengthening...Washington's arts
community." After paying a visit to this year's installation,
Washington Post art critic Blake Gopnik declared "Artomatic isn't only
good for nothing. It's bad for art that matters." (Read Gopnik's full review.)
Share your thoughts on Artomatic 2004 in our discussion forum. Does
Artomatic matter? What have you experienced at Artomatic? Is the
democratization of art essential or is this show just a dud?
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Washington, D.C.:
Yes Art-o-Matic does matter. The quality of art in the show is entirely dictated by the participant artists. NOBODY is preventing the best artists from the area from entering the show if they can pay the registration fee of $60.
Artomatic 2004 Reviews:
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Peter Scherdahl at the inaugural Renwick Gallery Clarice Smith Lecture Series last month, said that the role of a critic is to LOOK, LISTEN and to UNDERSTAND WHAT ARTISTS ARE DOING. If B. Gopnick has done more than try to assuage a toothache he would SEE the beauty of Artomatic and the incredible transformation of the site into a real art exhibit by real artists. I have been interviewing Artomatic Artists and can attest to their dedication and to their credentials.
:
_______________________
Washington D.C.:
Such a vituperative jeremiad I have seldom seen. Mr. Gopnik demonstrates more clearly than ever that Claire Booth Luce was correct in her assessment that “there is no such thing as bad publicity.” Is Mr. Gopnik so great a nit-wit not to believe that his seemingly premeditated attack on Art-O-Matic would arouse the curious to see the source of his rant? Fool. You should have kept your paws off your word processor and let Art-O-Matic die a deserved death of simple neglect.
:
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Of course a show like Artomatic is going to have a lot of wonderful and a lot of not so wonderful work. It's called variety. Besides, people have different tastes in art (surprise!), making it a sure thing that there will be something for everyone.
The main point that is missed in the article is that this is the most fun art show in the world. Take art too seriously and it will die of its own weight. Enjoy it with a light heart and an open mind, and see what happens!
:
_______________________
Washington D.C. 20007:
I think Artomatic is a microcosmos where, instead of species there are different genres, different art proposals, different levels of "evolution" and for 3 weeks, they all cohabitate this space.
You go there and get a sample of everything. This is an alternative space to show art that you might see in a gallery or in an attic that is everybodies own opinion.
To jugde it for something else like a Biennale, Documenta or another big art event is not fair.
:
_______________________
Washington, DC:
As you often find art critics lack imagination. I walked the halls of Artomatic and just like any "fancy" Gallery opening there was a mix of art. Some I wouldn't think to line my garbage can with and others far more imaginative brave than I ever would dream. It's forums like these that dare artists to go out on a limb with care or concern for what a gallery owner thinks or wants.
Exhibiting at Artomatic
:
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Where's the harm in Art-O-Matic?
Art-O-Matic no more threatens "real art" than an amateur swim team "threatens" Michael Phelps, or the orchestra at the 92nd St YMCA in NYC "threatens" the Philharmonic, or a local production of "Annie" at a university, dinner theatre, summer stock or high school poses a danger to Broadway.
:
_______________________
Washington DC:
Regarding Gopnik's Review: As we all know, there's a fine line between art and crap whether at Artomatic or the Whitney Biennial or the College Art class critique. But there's also an equally fine line between criticism and professional pooh-poohing. Whether a critic or an artist, we are all guilty of crossing that line at least now and then. I guess, the key and struggle in both fields is to remain open.
:
_______________________
Arlington, VA:
Sadly, I must agree with Mr. Gopnik. Having just recently moved to the D.C. area from New York City, I was happy to hear about Artomatic and anticipated its opening; however, I was completely disappointed with the calibre of work it presented. It reminded me of work made by freshman in art school. I also agree with Mr. Gopnik's point that not everyone can (nor should) be an artist. I look forward to the raising of the bar--till then I'll continue with my monthly trips to Chelsea.
:
_______________________
Germantown, MD:
Two years ago I read a negative review of Artomatic. I am glad I went to the exhibits anyways. I was inspired and this year I am exhibiting in the show.
When I read the disparaging review this year I was initially angry then sad. But now I am starting to appreciate the opposition.
Bring it on. You keep writing your scathing accounts and we will continue to attract hundreds of artists and tens of thousands of viewers to sleeping buildings living a dream.
:
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
The fact that we're even discussing Artomatic is problematic. It's giving it more attention than it deserves. I hope people go to it and see how bad the work is and then make up their minds not to go back and realize how right Gopnik is!!
:
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Artomatic is exactly what Gopnik states in his review. A forum for mediocrity. It redirects the discussion from those serious artists making a career out of their art to this manifestation of art as spectacle, as commodity, as a circus. The show should be juried or curated for it to be given any serious consideration. Otherwise, many of us artists here in DC agree that Artomatic does a disservice to the quality and reputatation the DC art world has been building in the past few years.
:
_______________________
Takoma Park, MD:
As I read Mr Blake Gopnik's review I couldn't help but think his words sounded like the same beliefs that kept the Impressionist out of the salon shows. Art-O-Matic does the same thing as the Impressionist, putting on their own exhibitions to let the public choose what is art instead of over educated critics. Not all art is good, that is true but almost always new visions are looked down on by those who are in the power to choose. The idea of Art-O-Matic is to let the public choose what is art.
:
_______________________
Mt Vernon, VA:
I have never participated before because I always thought AOM to be more on line with a giant craft bazaar.
:
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Do all responses ( barring profanity) get posted?
washingtonpost.com: All responses void of profanity that stay on topic will be posted. So let's keep talking about Artomatic and lay off personal attacks.
_______________________
Takoma Park, MD:
Blake Gopnik’s rant on Artomatic seems ill advised considering the long history of art critics who got it wrong. Admitting that: “there may just be a few decent things hidden in the mix,” he should recommend the show outright, but instead, Gopnik, mounts such a mean spirited attack it almost stinks with an undisclosed agenda.
No one could defend the all the art in a non-juried show, but I can hardly see how providing a forum for celebrating of the art of Washington’s citizens is bad for the “Artworld”. When the art “that matters” becomes as stale as the Academic work of the late 19th century, shows like Artomatic are modern “Salon Des Refuses” where new directions can be tried, young artists can learn, and the public at large can be challenged to think for themselves.
:
_______________________
New York, NY:
I agree with what M. Gopnick wrote, but he shouldn't have written it. It's a damn shame DC won't / can't support a show like Artomatic. The same thing happened to the Source Theatre's summer festival: it started with hip young artists, then degenerated to a place where quality folks dare not treat. But, why? Artomatic should / could be a place where professionals and amateurs alike are able to try new things; to experiment without the usual pressures. But freedom of this sort is seen as a liability in DC; a town where "Arrogance without Portfolio" rules the day. Where an opportunity as golden (and therefore threatening) as Artomatic, must, I guess, be left to rot. Glad I moved to NYC.
:
_______________________
Washington, DC:
The idea of art and democracy is an ongoing problem in contemporary art which arises in shows such as Artomatic accross the country time and time again. Inclusiveness and good intentions as most of us know, doesn't always produce good art--and as Gopnik precisely points out--it manifests only in a show where the majority of the work is mediocre at best. People will always want to have inclusive shows like this to give a forum to the disenfranchised artists who aren't accepted into the more prestigous art competitions and juried art shows and we can ask, why not? On the other hand, people will always reject this idea as low culture and vehemently oppose anything that isn't done by an MFA graduate or shown in a museum or gallery setting. That is the duality and reality of contemporary art...and certainly not as simplistic as I'm making it out to be. But for the most part, the community is divided and it isn't such a bad thing. The bad thing is that the public should know what they're getting into. I have no doubt that much of the DC community regards Artomatic as nothing but an amateur art fair whether they like it or hate it. And that's exactly what it is and as much as I agree with Gopniks review of the actual art and the show, I think his decision to review it has caused it to become more of a focus than it should be. Please go back to writing about serious art that is being made all over DC!
:
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Mr. Gopnik claims that, because amateur dentists shouldn’t be allowed to ply their trade, amateur artists shouldn’t either. Leaving aside the fact that equating scientists and artists, with their vastly different professional and intellectual demands, is foolish, I think we’d all agree that a dentist’s mistakes are potentially far more harmful than an artist’s – which is why we don’t all line up to get our wisdom teeth pulled for free.
:
_______________________
Washington, DC:
There have been jewels in every Artomatic so far... why would this be any different?
Yes - it's hard to find the pearls amongst all the dreck - but that's the fun part!
Gopnik got it wrong, and the main reason that he thinks it's bad is simply because it is in D.C. If Artomatic was in Berlin or L.A. or London - he'd be praising it as a great new version of the "Salon des Refuses."
I've read that past Artomatics have yielded artists who are know well-known DC artists are represented by established DC galleries, as well as artists who have been selected for the Whitney Biennial, Corcoran Biennial, Hirshhorn and Corcoran and Rencwick and Whitney Museum shows.... that legacy is in THIS Artomatic as well, and I am sure that some of these new pearls amongst the dreck will be future art stars as well.
:
_______________________
Washington, DC:
Mr. Gopnik has failed in his role as critic, which is not to “criticize” art but to celebrate it. Artomatic offers DC a chance to revel in the creative impulse and to explore the ten thousand forms it can take, not to pass judgment on what’s good or bad. The art in DC’s museums and galleries usually makes its viewers marvel at the genius of its creators. You look at a painting, you wonder how Monet could have been that good, and you generally walk away thinking “Now there’s an artist, and I am nothing in comparison.” The art in Artomatic, however, like the art in the American Visionary Art Museum, inspires its viewers and reminds us of our own creativity – even if when we leave the building, the only place we use that creativity is when we settle our next patient into the dental chair.
:
_______________________
Reston, VA:
I am amazed at the knee-jerk reaction among so many artists to Blake Gopnick's opinion about Artomatic.
Gopnick is an art critic, not an art reporter; and that is too bad in my opinion.
Perhaps if art were elevated to a serious level of news, by moving it out of the art critical tomb of the Sunday Arts Section and Thursday Style Section to the front page of the nation’s second largest daily newspaper, the Washington Post, perhaps art would become more part of and integral to the life of Americans and would be subject to a more critical approach and increased level of appreciation by a far wider audience.
:
_______________________
Washington, D.C. :
It could very well be that the art at Artomatic is atrocious. I haven't seen the show yet, so I'll assume for the sake of argument that Mr. Gopnik is correct and it is. Where Mr. Gopnik's review goes wrong in my opinion is that it goes beyond criticizing the art (the review actually does very little of this), and instead soldiers ahead to criticize the very existence of the show. The Washington area has plenty of museums, fancy private galleries, and other art fortresses carefully guarded by the aesthetic and cultural elite. So do other cities. Why can't Washington have its very own catch-all, crappy art fantasia as well? Comic strips, grafitti art, punk music, and hip hop all emerged from a do-it-yourself primordial ethos. These genres have produced work with genuine artistic insight. Isn't creative energy for its own sake a good thing? Shouldn't it be supported and occasionally showcased in run-down buildings that would otherwise be empty? What's the harm with a little "bad art" in Washington? Who knows, atrocious art might even might lead to works even Mr. Gopnik might find "good" later on down the road.
:
_______________________
Vienna, VA:
Beginning with the rediculous comparison between dentists and artists (When was anyone killed by an incompetent artist?), Blake Gopnik misses the point about artomatic; which is that being an art exhibit in any traditional sense is not what anyone involved intends it to be; so applying the same standards to it is absurd. It is more like a three week community party and performance with art on the walls being only one of the hundreds of things going on.
:
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Mr. Gopnik's review is bizarre in that he assigns aspirations to the event and its artists that neither has made any claim to, and then criticizes them for making them. An analogy would be if he had criticized a local community theater for not being on TV. Artomatic has different goals, different standards, and different audiences than the traditional DC gallery system. For Mr. Gopnik not to grasp those fundamental differences is quite surprising.
:
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Artomatic is a lovely complement to the existing DC art scene. Sure, there's a lot of junk there, but artists have to start somewhere. Where does Mr. Gopnik think a city's art community comes from? It doesn't just spontaneously appear on gallery walls -- it has to develop and grow. DC's gallery system does a woefully inadequate job in this respect. If it was a permanent fixture, I could understand the criticism, but as a bi-annual event, it should be applauded and supported as a well needed shot in the arm.
:
_______________________
Silver Spring, MD:
This is a great celebration of visual art in all of it's forms and mediums. Thanks for NOT jurying it--let the viewer be his/her own judge and jury. As such we all get to know the full extent of what the DC art community has to offer: something for everyone!
I found it inspirational that this area has so much creative and expressive energy.
:
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
When I moved to Washington, there was something called the ALL WASHINGTON SHOW. I believe it was in response to the Corcoran not including more Washington artists in its regional surveys.
There was also something at the Ritz, which used to be next to the old F St 930 club. Artists came down from NY and the space was shut down pretty early due to firecode vilations. BUT IT WAS EXCITING!
Blake Gopnik does not understand the history of these democratic types of art shows. They are a good thing. They get people
talking more about art than anything else.
:
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
To the Editor:
The snobbery and close-mindedness of your November 11 story, “Artomatic 2004: Hanging is Too Good for It,” is appalling.
The very premise of Artomatic is that it is a nonjuried, unadulterated art experience. Artomatic provides a no-holds-barred creative space for both professional artists, of whom, contrary to what the article reports, there are many, and amateurs. And, despite Gopnik’s assertion that Artomatic is an unnecessary waste of time and money, the tens of thousands who attend Artomatic show that it is a popular event with proven demand.
I visited Artomatic 2002 multiple times, each time discovering a new musical performance, film, or poet, finding a new surprise at every turn, and viewing art that was sometimes outrageous, sometimes beautiful, sometimes powerful, and sometimes “bad.”
Let the public judge what is “real, worthwhile art” instead of The Post judging this unique and open-minded art experience on whether the artists are professionally trained or world-renowned or if the exhibit space equals that of the National Gallery.
See you at Artomatic!
:
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
I've lived in both New York City and D.C. As far as the art scene goes, I'll take D.C. every time because the accessibility of the art scene here.
Fortunately, people like me who are not trained to appreciate 'real art' can now go to places like Artomatic and enjoy to our heart's content, buy a piece we like, and maybe even look into expanding our knowledge of what this art thing is supposed to be about. And we can do it all without worrying what snooty art critics will think of our clothes.
Gopnik's fury seems to arise from his feeling that Artomatic is essentially stealing resources from deserving artists and artwork. This notion is ridiculous on its face, but is ultimately refuted on the grounds that the Artomatic founders worked harder and better than those 'deserving artists' at getting funding/press/audiences for their show. Capitalism is far from perfect, but it does have a way of rewarding people for hard work.
:
_______________________
Columbia, MD:
The diversity of artistic styles and ideas is stunning. I spent two hours touring the exhibit and had a hard time tearing myself away.
Artomatic is analogous to the early years of the World Wide Web. The idea of just anybody -- without credentials, without a selection process -- being able to post what they had to say on a website seemed outrageous.
We got used to it.
:
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
The person above who suggested that art shows need to be juried made me laugh. Most juried shows consist of log-rolling and back scratching of the juries' friends.
:
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Hello? Artomatic is not the Venice Biennale nor Documenta 2004. If judged by art critics, it has to be with very different rules.
:
_______________________
Baltimore, MD:
I saw the exhibit and I have to say, if Mr. Gopnik's right that it cost $100,000, I think the money would be better spent if a curator, or group of curators, were engaged to screen the artists and oversee the installation.
I like the idea of a spirit of experimentation and the potential for discovering new artists wandering the halls, kind of like the way the East Village was in the 1980s. But even the East
Village spaces underwent a sorting process -- even in that anything-goes atmosphere, the spaces were small and people made selections.
And I did find some quality work here and there at Artomatic. But I don't think those artists benefited by having self-indulgent, carelessly-made work, frequently jarringly installed from floor to ceiling with no eye for editing or presentation, competing for attention nearby.
I'm an artist and while I'd enter a large juried show like Baltimore's Artscape, I avoid showing in places like Artomatic. The overpowering aura of amateurishness drags down the better work. When it takes so much effort for viewers to tune out noise and find the signal, the only work that stands out is the most aggressive, least
demanding in terms of looking or thinking -- which is generally not also the best.
:
_______________________
Automatically Update Page
Get New Responses
Submit Question
| 
