Category Archives: art fairs

Affordable Art Fair: Rosé, Pluralism, and Urban Outfitters

Posted on by

The Affordable Art Fair opens today, and, as its name suggests, it is a pandemonium of booths representing art on the lower end of things, from $100 to $10,000 (75% of the art is under $5,000.) At the cocktail reception last night, I had three things on my mind: pluralism, Urban Outfitters, and rosé. The rosé explains itself, I suppose, and the other two–pluralism and Urban Outfitters–were all I could afford to take away. Not to mention, as a warning to those of you who go, fairs are like speed dating, which can be daunting if you want to fall in love.


Pluralism, while not quite anything goes, describes a variety of styles being pursued alongside each other in the art world. The evidence that the art world is pluralistic mounted from gallery to gallery. (See Wikipedia on it here, and interesting recent discussion of it on Edward Winkleman’s blog.) Between abstract painting and small sketches, to some castings and interesting mixed media panels, it was quite a whirl. There was even a Native American–although he himself wasn’t for sale. There were some very good pieces last night, especially (predictably) on the higher end of things. I also had the pleasure of seeing some New York galleries I was unfamiliar with. This review would of course be more interesting if I had taken some semblance of notes; you know, put specifics to generalities. Unfortunately, I did not and yet I will forge onward to make what is no doubt a very gauche point.

Urban Outfitters, a trendy clothing store not entirely devoted to teens, has a rather good looking selection of things for the apartment. Among curtains and teacups, they have wall art. If you wondering what on earth this had to do with the Affordable Art Fair last night, let me explain: Urban Outfitters did not have a booth. But what they do have are a lot of pieces in similar styles to what I saw last night.

Like H+M to high fashion, Urban Outfitters is able to ape some of the many styles represented last night. That’s a commendation to Urban Outfitters rather than a sleight to the Affordable Art Fair, but I do think its telling that the pluralism that I thought was so varied on an individual level could actually be codified in a department store. Good art, of course, transcends such classifications and there were many great pieces at the fair. Also, Urban Outfitters (or Art.com or Target or whatever) aren’t as well-made in terms of material, expression, the technique and work put into them, or originality. But they look rather similar.
Between the rosé and the Urban Outfitters comparison, you might decide I have abominable taste and stop reading this blog. Maybe I do; I didn’t fall in love with any of the pieces and found the fair bewilderingly fun. Basically, it has original, well-made artworks for every taste and every price point. And that makes for a good art fair, and one that can’t be replaced by a visit to the decorative prints at Urban Outfitters.
For a nice review of the Affordable Art Fair, check out monkdogz’ artblog.

Ravels in Review Friday

Posted on by


We’ve hop-skipped-and-jumped around this week, leaping off cultural juggernauts to cultural lows with some harmless light entertainment in between. I expected this week to be more about the art fairs New York had last weekend, but I was underwhelmed by a lot of what I saw and there’ll be no dearth of opinions elsewhere, I’m sure.

Peak: Shakespeare, who’s apparently a babe
Trough: Paying for ersatz art of yourself. No one has yet risen to my bait of ‘why, in this post-Warhol age, the things I mentioned are not art?’ Hint: I do believe there is a reason why.
Middling organisms of cultural evolution: Noel Coward singing and my guilty pleasure reads, art heist books. Suggestions welcome.

Volta Vs. Bridge

Posted on by

The art fairs kept me busy this weekend, but not necessarily happy. The hip little cousin of the Armory show, Volta, a 7 W. 34th St. shows a respectable amount of polished, cutting edge talent that runs the gamut. Bridge seems more open to a gamut of artists that ranged from polished, impressive works to not so much in a variety of styles. Both left me underwhelmed in terms of originality, and not to mention I dislike the quietly desperate hawking air.


And I said cutting-edge, didn’t I? I don’t mean that. While the works were of higher quality than the random gallery crawl often provides, the ideas behind them weren’t. Make patterns out of florescent bulbs, write funny, insolent things about art on pieces of cardboard, sculptures out of everyday objects, fur-covered totem poles on the ceiling, tufted rugs on the floor (who hasn’t done that before?), painting over vintage black and white prints to create cheeky, absurdist scenes, painting of large abstractions in the style of photography and, god save us, paintings of colors. Black and gold for example. My point is, this territory has already been covered. People are doing these things all over the streets of Brooklyn and in MFA programs. Kudos to Bridge for offering something a little different, even if different in some cases meant loud and kitsch in an uncool way.

There were exceptions, both in terms of the works and in terms of the events. The Williamsburg Gallery association put on a fun Saturday night walkabout, and the Lower East Side gallery tours going from the New Museum to the LaViola Banks Gallery on Sunday put some local pride in my heart. Yet I’m disappointed that I didn’t fall in love with anything. Did I go to the wrong shows? Would the Armory have been better?

I’ll tell you what perked up my weekend; this great article about Larry Gagosian’s wheelings and dealings in the New York Times.