ART : College Gallery Exhibit Had a Hue of Impropriety

When it comes to everyday dirty dealing, the art world may not rival the savings and loan industry or Drexel Burnham Lambert’s junk bond group. But shady stuff goes on anyway, whether the financial stakes are large or small.

Some art writers become shameless hired guns, touting gallery shows they privately could not care less about in exchange for some badly needed cash. Some dealers have been known to purposely inflate demand for certain artists’ work by announcing that only a few pieces are available. Some museum people have been criticized for relying on the same handful of art dealers in putting together shows that are supposed to be removed from marketplace concerns.

And on and on it goes. In a sphere so dependent on the whims of fashion and so mysterious to the average viewer and buyer, it’s no wonder that not everything is what it appears to be. Still, standards do exist, and upstanding folks in the art world normally take pains to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

So perhaps you can imagine how startling it was to read the following, in a press release issued last month by Saddleback College in Mission Viejo to announce a college art gallery exhibit of graphic works by Ed Ruscha:

“According to Mark Moore (owner) of the Works Gallery, who curated the show, Ruscha is one of America’s most important contemporary artists.

“Moore elected to limit this exhibition to works dating from 1987 because ‘beginning in 1987 Ruscha started experimenting with a new style, shadow imagery, that has solidified his position in art history. His work is now more interpretive, romantic and universal. It is also much deeper.’

“Moore considers the “That Is Right” portfolio to be the ‘finest print ever done by Ruscha. In concept and execution, it is a unique idea in 12 component parts.’ ”

Whoa! What goes on here? A commercial gallery dealer has curated a show for a college gallery of works he sells? (Out of 14 prints in the exhibit, including the 12-part “That Is Right” portfolio, 12 were lent by the gallery.)

Curating an exhibit means determining its theme and purpose, and selecting the actual pieces to be shown. In a museum setting, curating also usually involves writing an explanatory statement that goes on the wall or in the catalogue. Although curators do a lot of grunt work--record-keeping, paper shuffling, cajoling and fund raising--their most important role is scholarly: assembling works of art that present a specific viewpoint about a particular style, artist or historical period.

Curators may reap prestige from a good show, of course, as well as such pragmatic benefits as good will from the lenders of the art, trustees and sponsors. No curator working in a museum, however, is supposed to be in a position to gain financially from an exhibit.

But here is Moore acting as both the presumably “disinterested” curatorial authority for the show (“the finest print ever done by Ruscha . . .”) and the guy who gets to take a cut of the sales price. That’s like the art world’s version of an “infomercial,” that peculiar cable TV phenomenon in which what appears to be a regular program is really a commercial for a particular product.

Now, to be sure, Ruscha is an important, well-known and successful California artist for whom an exhibit (which closed Nov. 16) at Saddleback College Art Gallery represents the tiniest blip in a career studded with major shows. Saddleback needs Ruscha much more than Ruscha needs Saddleback. But Saddleback doesn’t need an art show in the form of blatant horn-blowing for a particular commercial entity.

Confronted recently in the gallery, however, director Patricia Boutelle didn’t see what was amiss.

She explained that when another exhibit planned as an Orange County Festival of Britain event fell through, time constraints obliged her to cobble something together in a hurry. She said she decided to put together an exhibit specifically for printmaking and drawing students on campus, whose primary concern is technical, “how-to” stuff.

But then, why choose Ruscha, whose paintings and prints are important because of the witty way the artist expresses ideas through words and stylized, minimal imagery? The reason Ruscha is so valued as an artist is that he has hit on wonderfully apt formats to express his ideas, not because he’s a whiz at doing pebbled backgrounds or superimposed words and images.

Boutelle said she hoped instructors would also discuss the meaning of Ruscha’s art with the students. (There was no information on the works at the gallery; a notebook held copies of old and not particularly relevant articles about Ruscha’s work.)

Anyhow, the point was to “bring the work of a major contemporary artist to the college,” Boutelle said, and “expose (the students) to people having big shows in L.A.” But she needed help.

“I didn’t know where to go to get the work. Mark had the contacts I didn’t have.” So she let him pick the pieces for the show. “I was pleased to get the pieces we did.”

She claims it was OK because the gallery didn’t hide the fact that Moore curated the show. But the fact remains that she permitted a commercial entity to wield the kind of power that belongs by right only to disinterested parties.

It doesn’t matter whether any sales were rung up (potential buyers were told to get in touch with the gallery directly). It doesn’t matter if nobody from the non-student population except this critic ever saw the show. It just looks bad. Art and commerce are close enough already without marrying them once again in such an inappropriate setting.