I’m currently in a self-diagnosed professional existential crisis, which is not surprising given the phase of program we’re currently in…sort of like being on a plane in-line to take off after waiting on the tarmac for hours. In the back of my mind, I know that the hands-on work will begin in earnest, but in the meantime, that means I have too much time to think and continue to plan for the next exhibition. A wise man once told me, sometimes, the best thing you can do is sit back and wait, and this is definitely one of those times.So, back to the too much time thinking and the professional existential crisis…I find myself reflecting on the past six months and am realizing that I’m feeling somewhat removed from what originally brought me to this unique position. In a sense, I feel as if I’ve lost the social work side of the community engagement, so in the next few blogs, I plan to address this point by point in hopes that you might have thoughts, advice, and reflections that will ultimately help me find my way back to my core mission.

Point One: Evaluation.  Are we making an impact with what we do, and how do we measure that impact? One of the primary reasons for the merging of the applied social sciences and the arts is to further develop and refine the use of evaluation in community programs implemented by cultural institutions. There are a few sources out there that provide a framework for the discussion, one of which being Gifts of the Muse, a report released by the Rand Corporation in 2004 that proposes approaching the discussion about the benefits of the arts from a different perspective. The same tools, methods, and challenges are faced by social service providers, as they seek to justify the relevance and effectiveness of their work. While there are easily quantifiable measures of success, the qualitative effects of programs are more difficult to firmly grasp. Add to that the difficulty of proving causality, bias, and other perils of human subjects-based research, it becomes all too easy to lose yourself in a land of meaningless data collected through ineffective measures. I’m sure this won’t be the last time I blog about this, and the issues of effective evaluation are weighing heavily upon my mind at the moment. Do you have any ideas on what a good measure of impact of the arts might look like? If so, I’d love to hear them. Then we can get down to a discussion about methodology, instrumentation, and implementation.

Last Thursday - since it was the first Thursday of the month - the Pulitzer was open from 6-9pm so visitors could view the Flavin works at night.  My parents and grandmother came out for dinner (at Hodaks! Another St. Louis must-visit, if you’re unfamiliar) and to see the exhibition.

It was really nice outside, so we went out on the watercourt patio to enjoy it for a little bit.  The colors bouncing off the water were so incredible, I had to run to my office and grab the camera and take a picture.  As with most photographs of Flavin, the picture doesn’t do it justice - but I wanted to post it anyway:

It seems like the “re-creation” of Dan Flavin’s 1964 Green Gallery show now at Zwirner & Wirth is on the mind of half the critics in New York. In the weeks since the Village Voice reviewed the exhibition, it has been written up in the New York Times and New York Magazine.

The Zwirner & Wirth show was also a major topic at the Pulitzer’s recent Flavin symposium for graduate students and their professors. Most of the participants felt, like Jerry Saltz, that Z&W should be thanked for allowing Flavin enthusiasts a chance to step back in time. I agreed. But this discussion also brought us to a key fact, which reviewers seems to keep overlooking:

the show only follows the original checklist, not the original installation!

Just compare the installation photos of a primary picture at the top of Saltz’s article. By departing from the original installation plan, Zwirner implicitly denies one of the most radical, if latent, innovations of the Green Gallery show (Flavin’s first show using only fluorescent light): “situational” art — the dissolution of discrete objects into an experiential field.

Of course, by straying from the particulars of the Green Gallery installation Zwirner also prevents the show from being one giant representation. And what ’s more in the spirit of Dan Flavin than keeping works like a primary picture obstinately, ironically abstract?

In connection to Maria’s post today about Google Earth, I also have a weakness for looking up places.  You can really get sucked in, exploring areas, finding your childhood home, etc.  Also on Google Maps (speaking of, something I only recently tried out because it’s not up and running in St. Louis - have you used the Street View option yet? It’s crazy! Click here and try it on the Art Institute of Chicago).

I’m glad to see Google Earth is updated with our current buildings at the Contemporary and the Pulitzer - I think the last time I checked us out on Google maps, it showed the Contemporary still under construction! It’s fun to look at Joe from that view….awhile ago, I wrote a post about Twain downtown too, which is pretty interesting to view from that angle as well. Take a look here.

Last week, Tyler Green posted some suggestions for museum blogs, which is always nice to read - it’s important to take a step back every once in awhile and give your blog a good hard look. And his posts came at a perfect time - Maria (on the Contemporary’s side of the blog) and I already had a meeting scheduled to discuss some new ideas. Tyler’s suggestions reinforced exactly what we were thinking.One thing we often hear that people like about our blog is the fact that we’re two very different institutions contributing posts on the same page. It gives readers a chance to see the differences and similarities in our approaches to art and museum-related topics. We thought it would make sense to highlight this even more - so cue a new series of posts we decided to call “Two Takes One Issue” (get it? two buildings one blog? We’re also really clever around here…).

This series will take a certain issue, news article, administrative approach, curatorial practice, what-have-you, and have someone related to that issue at each of our institutions write about it from their perspective. We’re hoping it will not only emphasize our unique qualities, but also raise questions and start conversations. Expect the first posts coming soon….and let us know if there’s a topic you’d like us to address!

A view of the back of the Pulitzer building, with trees in bloom:

The Pulitzer’s current exhibition has an interesting twist: it is two exhibitions in one. The registrars’ department is now preparing for the installation of phase two of Dan Flavin: Constructed Light to be completed by May 16, 2008.Part of the installation process is as simple as changing lamp colors in several of the Flavins. It is more complicated in the lower level hallway where the objects’ fixtures will be reconfigured and the lamp colors will be changed. In all cases, the resulting objects are different works of art, creating different effects within the building’s spaces.

We will be making these changes over a few days the week of May 12. On Wednesday, May 14, the Pulitzer is open as usual and phase one of the exhibition will still be on view except in the lower level hallway. We will still be installing in that hallway so that all will be ready for the phase two “opening” at the Grand Center Arts Walk at 5 p.m. on Friday, May 16.

Both yesterday and today, sculpture students from Washington University have been busy installing the Bruno David Gallery (across the street from the Pulitzer) in anticipation for tonight’s exhibition of their artwork.

And we’ve been busy videotaping the whole process - we’re getting footage of the installation, tonight’s performances (there will be a few) and interviews with each of the students about their works.  They all relate to the Flavin exhibition in really interesting ways and deal with the idea of objecthood.  We’re continuing to post updated information on our website here – check back for the videos and further info soon.  On that page, you can also take a look at our past collaboration with Wash U art students for the Portrait/Homage/Embodiment exhibition.

In addition, the St. Louis Beacon posted a wonderful article this morning about tonight’s opening, which is from 6-9pm.  Click here to read.

David Bonetti wrote a great review of our Flavin exhibition in yesterday’s Post-Dispatch.  Click here.

Also - our exhibition print booklets (which complements our website catalogue) were literally JUST delivered to our doorstep.  So be sure to visit Wednesday to pick up your very own copy, and let us know what you think.

Next week the Pulitzer building will resonate with the sounds of intellectual conversation as we host a student symposium for the Flavin exhibition. This private event will pull together graduate students and professors from the Center for Curatorial Studies at Bard College, University of Texas-Austin and Washington University, along with Tiffany Bell and Steve Morse from the Dan Flavin Studio and the Pulitzer’s director Matthias Waschek, founder Emily Rauh Pulitzer and curatorial assistant Camran Mani.Over the 2 days the group will wind its way around the galleries, stopping to talk at strategic points. Camran is organizing the program and does a great job of explaining the intent of the event: “The kind of symposium we are hosting is almost an inversion of traditional academic exchanges: the emphasis is not on presenting findings but posing questions that might generate work later on. The program is primarily a series of open-ended conversations about aspects of art, architecture, and exhibitions with our Flavin exhibition as their point of departure.”

For those of you who are nosy and want to know what is discussed during these closed door sessions: never fear, the conversations will be recorded and portions will be posted on our website for your voyeuristic pleasure.