Tuesday August 21, 2007

Advertise! (on the walls of Fredric Snitzer Gallery)

Snitzer walls for rent

Our pal Bert Rodriguez is having his solo show at Snitzer in October, and he’s decided to sell the wall space for advertising. Behold the lavish PDF spec sheet Package.pdf (and really do try to download and check it out — it’s a pretty central component of the project). Now, art has drawn on the world of advertising for decades. What’s interesting about this project is that it takes the idea to a it’s logical extreme.

This is spelled out most clearly in the pricing structure: it’s not cheap. Anyone buying ads in the show will have to mean it, because they’re spending real money on a real ad. It’ll be real interesting to see what ends up in the show — more art-leaning interests? Liquor? Clothing? Obviously Snitzer is a very prestigious location, and I have no doubt of their 5,700 visitors/month (plus media exposure) claims, but this is a highly unusual proposition, and most advertisers like to play it safe most of the time. I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens.

Tags: ,

comments powered by Disqus
  1. Billermo    Tue Aug 21, 07:36 PM #  

    who knows what will end up on those walls, but I can say a gallery on a certain 24th st is to have a curious ad on said wall…

  2. Pain of Death    Wed Aug 22, 05:29 PM #  

    I don’t understand the pricing. Does “$1200 Rental/$500 Production” mean that the ad costs $1700? Can you buy one without the other?

  3. swampthing    Wed Aug 22, 09:31 PM #  

    today the space between fine and commercial is a greige area the size of texas. At one time there was a clear division, corporate-joe advertisers stayed on madison avenue and serious painters would seldom sell-out to be labeled commercial. thanks be to warhol, fine art is not just for elite but for mass consumption. sales-man-sam got hip to nirvana, appropriating cool and recruiting artist to secure future markets, branding youth. who can say no. knowing how much is spent on advertising makes these prices look like pocket-change. it’s all about the eye-balls and very unapologetic. yet, bert is desert.

  4. cohen    Mon Aug 27, 02:04 PM #  

    everyone wins with this piece,,, the artist the gallerist other artist advertizers the advertisements. moreover most people understand ads ,,, hence the work will be approachable…. winwwiwnwiwnwinwiwnwin work of art

  5. ;)    Mon Aug 27, 11:04 PM #  

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it seems like the idea has already been done. Either Burt is Plagiarizing it (unlikely) or it is just another victim of coming up with the same idea that someone else has already executed, and executed better (likely).



  6. cohen    Tue Aug 28, 09:00 AM #  

    very diffrent piece,,, the book you linked

  7. alesh    Tue Aug 28, 11:18 AM #  

    Yeah, seriously. I said: “art has drawn on the world of advertising for decades. What’s interesting about this project is that it takes the idea to a it’s logical extreme.”

    Nice try finding something close to what Bert is doing, but I think you could do a lot better and still not have the grounds for accusations of plagiarism.

  8. ;)    Tue Aug 28, 11:10 PM #  

    I don’t think there is grounds for plagiarism just that what he is going is just about exactly what Ryan Mcginness did, the book is a supplement to his exhibition where is leased wall space take a look at this slate article from 2003:


  9. I think so.    Wed Aug 29, 07:18 AM #  

    Bert is young.
    His work is young.
    His ideas are the ideas of a young man living in Miami.

  10. alesh    Wed Aug 29, 07:48 AM #  

    Damn, ItS, that is some faint-ass praise.

    The second link is better, and Mcginness’ project seems like a notable precursor, but I still think Bert is pushing the idea further. The way it’s set up is far closer to “real” advertising. Again: check the spec sheet.

  11. knowless    Wed Aug 29, 11:18 AM #  

    “pushing the idea further”

    blah, nobody owns this strategy of contempt but bert’s approach is hardly innovative. “real advertising” is any advertising, whether it works or not, doesn’t make it (more or less) real. whether art’s at the helm of it or not, the design makes is artful, hence it’s confused with art…art is whatever a human makes and decides to call it so, it’s that easy…the question of it being good or bad is where a variety of thoughts and discussion may convene, or not..

    this work doesn’t make me think about anything compelling, or subversive, or whatever else. it just makes me re-realize that the art market, not the art world, is game for everyone willing and able to play THAT game, and though it’s so awful it’s cool, and it may take talent or perseverance, and/or it receives lots (overload) of attention it doesn’t make it worthwhile. just another (con)temporary hyped idea.

    good thing snitzer, and other middle aged or older, or younger, business idiots are into it…

    it makes it so GREAT and profitable.

  12. alesh    Wed Aug 29, 04:30 PM #  

    Well, I wouldn’t argue whether it’s innovative or not. I’m saying it hasn’t been done before quite in that way. But look, what to me is really great about Bert’s project is the earnestness and literalness of it. Mcginness’ project and other precedents spin all sorts of “why this is art” excusification. Bert’s project is refreshingly free of all that, and sells itself exactly for its advertising value.

    The artistic content of whatever the ads end up being is a completely separate issue, not relevant really to Bert’s piece.

    Agree that it’s not subversive. Re “compelling” — did you read the spec sheet? And even if so, you haven’t seen the show yet, right? Would you judge any other exhibition based on the written proposal? (It makes more sense to do that in this case then in most, but still.) Not at all sure that it’s profitable — compared to the typical show at Snitzer?