Would you say a few words about your background, and about what
led you to open a gallery in New York, after some years spent in the
Parisian art world?
Well, I went to Paris when I got out of college because I wanted to
discover the world of art. I knew I'd be moving on to New York, which
I did at the end of 1980. Paris-New York, that's the trajectory of modern
art, right? Actually, it's a little more complicated than that! My
early experience gave me extraordinary insight into the contemporary
art world. Having a gallery puts you in direct contact with artists, who
can be very interesting people. You get to directly handle works of
art, to live with them. You can lay hold of freedom of thought outside
the class room and the institutions. You can be your own person.
Your gallery feels very different to the visitor. Much of your activity
seems to take place in your private viewing gallery which is larger
than the public exhibition area. Are you looking for a different
approach to the marketing and sale of contemporary art?
Yes. I have come to think of myself as less of an 'art dealer' and more
of a private agent for modern artists. I think it is perhaps time to shift
the model of the art dealer, which is based on a shop window mentality
emphasizing marketing and sales volume. The physical space
of my gallery is flexible. I may open it up to do a big public exhibition,
like I did recently with Peter Sacks. Or I may divide the space and
create a large private viewing area, as I am doing now for Joseph
Marioni during the summer of 2011. This current installation of Marioni's work is only available for viewing by private appointment.
It announces his one person museum exhibition at the Phillips Collection,
Washington DC, opening in the fall, October 22nd. Of course,
the gallery remains open and in the public area work by other artists
is on view.
What pushed you in this direction?
Thinking about how to best serve my artists and my clients. I think
it is becoming increasingly clear that the current gallery model has
turned art into nothing more than a commercial product. Built into
contemporary art is a planned obsolescence. After five years, the
work of art exceeds its 'use by' date and the collector replaces it with
the next thing. What then becomes of the long-term value of art?
I sense a lot of frustration among more sophisticated collectors about
this situation. Serious artists are also frustrated.
So tell me more about your artists...
Well, they are not pop culture icons. They are mostly not media
names. They tend to be well-established but are better known to specialists.
They are artists who have a long-term view. Their work is
made to be collected and held. It's my belief that they are among the
significant artists of their time. To give an example, it's well-known
that I have a very strong involvement with the work of Simon Hantaï,
who died September 2008, based on a close working relationship
and friendship with the artist which began back in the mid-1970's.
Your recent exhibition of Simon Hantaï was specifically titled: 'Simon
Hantaï - Not for Sale in New York.' It is rather a-typical in the world
of contemporary art galleries, wouldn't you say?
Yes, I guess so. First of all, I was showing very rare paintings. We can
say 'key works' or 'museum paintings'. I had to borrow them from
private collectors who were not interested in selling them. There is a
general understanding among collectors who own Hantaï's work that
prices are extremely low for work of this importance: $350,000-$1.2
million in the current market. For a major figure of the 1960's and
'70's international art world, which is the case for Hantaï beyond any
doubt, these are beginner prices. There is, however, another more
substantial issue. Hantaï memorably withdrew from commercial exhibition of his work in 1983, after he represented France in the
Venice Biennial of 1982, on the grounds that the art world had substituted
commerce for aesthetic integrity. Hantaï was interested in
making paintings not printing dollar bills. He didn't want to pre-empt
the Federal Reserve, like Andy Warhol apparently did! You know,
I wrote a catalogue for that exhibition entitled: 'Simon Hantaï & Andy
Warhol - the Fate of Modern Art in the Post-Second World War Era'.
There is a lot to compare in the two artists. I share Hantaï's view
about the integrity of art but that does not mean that I don't want to
sell his paintings. I have since found other paintings for the collectors
who wanted to buy from that show. The thing is, when you buy an
expensive car, you expect it to drive well and it will. When you buy
an expensive work of art today, what do you expect? My sense is
that a lot of people don't know. There is a professional expression
that you don't want the work of art to "fall off the wall". However,
most contemporary art does, sometimes literally! I am interested in
recommending art that does not "fall off the wall"; work that has
some background.
Up front you are showing a painting by Simon Hantaï in close proximity
with a work of Joe Diebes. The least one can say is that they
are pretty different. How do you make the connection?
I am glad you asked that. Joe Diebes is a wonderful young artist who
comes from a musical background, having trained in composition at
New York's Julliard School. He is interested in how sound and visual
elements interelate and exceed each other. Needless to say he is a
cyber-technology whizz. The piece you are referring to is called 'one
to one' and evokes Bach's Cello Suites. You see the artist's hand
transcribing Bach's score on a video monitor while the music is heard
on headphones. It's an extraordinarily beautiful work. It's about the human hand and its ability to feel and create. Joe was trying to
explain to me what an 'algorithm' was and how the concept was
present in his work. He said, pointing across at the big Hantai Tabula
painting: "well, that's an algorithm"; I said: "I guess that's why I put
your work next to it!"
Is this way of working easy to maintain in the context of Chelsea's
galleries?
It may feel like a slightly different approach. Art dealers used to be
engaged in the work they represented. They would be aware of the
evolving history of art. There was a context. You would go to them
to learn about the issues. Nowadays, that's not always the case.
Today one of the major art dealerships is proud to state that it doesn't
show abstract art because it doesn't want to have to explain anything
to its clients. I want to go on showing abstract paintings because
I believe that Barnett Newman, Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko
are the great artists of our time. Since their day, Simon Hantaï, and
now Joseph Marioni, among others, have continued to make paintings
of the same integrity which continue this legacy. I am happy to
talk to collectors about these issues. Such collectors are looking for
authenticity in art.
Morgan Labar
Paul Rodgers 9/W
529 west 20 street,
New York, NY 10011
phone: 001 212 414 9810
fax: 001 347 438 3309
info@paulrodgers9w.com
