IT was the best of art fairs, it was the worst of arts fairs. OK, it was NOT the worst. I paraphrase Charles Dickens because of people's tendency to think in terms of extremes. Most of the time, life and events register in the in-between. It's just catchier — and far fewer words — if we say it was terrible — the Lower Depths — or fantabulous — Heavenly.

But an art fair is like a high-end supermarket. One does not expect to like or want to buy everything at a supermarket, so why does anyone expect that for an art fair? Also, art fairs are not curated — one person or group has not selected every work to reflect a unified theme or trend — so if they're a hodgepodge, that's par for the course. (Of course, some shows are "vetted" to be sure that the works to be presented attain a certain level of quality, uniformity, or authenticity determined by the organizers. For example, a mid-century or Modernist show would want to determine that the applicant deals mainly in that period.) Since I am not in the market for pricey — or non-pricey — art, I rate my art fair experiences aesthetically and presentationally rather than acquisitively or even curatorially. If I find enough of interest to look at and merit a revisit to the fair, I consider that a success. By that measure, the Los Angeles Art Fair was very successful, and art LA less so.

To view the rest of this article, pick up a copy of Artillery Magazine your local art gallery or subscribe now for home delivery.

written by Ezrha Jean Black

TWO very obvious facts emerge in the aftermath of the year's first round of art fairs, which — as they have for the last few years — took place right here in LA. First, setting aside the most basic economic parameters, i.e., the minimum critical mass required to sustain an art (or for that matter any other trade) fair or market, size no longer seems to be relevant. Even geographic diversity takes a back seat to what is the single most important factor in the market: quality. Subsidiary to that most basic criterion are a number of related aspects: rarity or singularity; relevance, or what constitutes the work's particular resonance with the contemporary cultural context, and what might be alternatively called the innovative or novel aspects of the work — in other words, its "paradigm-shifting potential," its ability to advance the cultural dialectic, or, more simply, its ability to hook the viewer with a new technique or effect.

It's enough to be "hooked" — the modus operandi of any commercial entertainment — by the sheer distraction of the "new." We're American consumers, after all; it's what we're here for. Or is it? Here, the fairs may have given viewers an opportunity to discover that our old (mostly bad) consumer habits may be going the way of old-fashioned, unregulated investment banking. No — we don't really need to look for the paradigm shift; it's already here — sliding in so easily after so many years of bad choices in the marketplace of governance, consumer goods, and ideas — and possibly not-so-fine art. Which may be why several galleries, both in FADA's somewhat overblown Los Angeles Art Show, sited downtown this year at the Los Angeles Convention Center, and art LA, more cozily situated at the Santa Monica Airport's Barker Hangar, chose to leave their own artist rosters out of their exhibition spaces entirely and curate a show of essentially secondary market material. This is to be expected from a fair like the Los Angeles Art Show, many of whose galleries more or less specialize in 20th century modern or antiquarian work. But most of us go to fairs like art LA to view something new, whether out of a gallery's existing stable, the debut of a new artist, or an installation created specifically for the fair.

To view the rest of this article, pick up a copy of Artillery Magazine your local art gallery or subscribe now for home delivery.