Home > Around Town > 2006 Biennial: Contemporary American Realism

2006 Biennial: Contemporary American Realism

Fort Wayne Museum of Art’s Biennial expands beyond regional scope

By Jack Cantey

Fort Wayne Reader

2006-06-05

Realism was a dirty word in the art world during the twentieth century. Faithful representation of the “without” gave way to the dynamic possibilities of expression of the “within.” Is the art world ready once again to embrace clear representationalism?

The Fort Wayne Museum of Art believes that it is, and they're willing to bet their Biennial on it.

The institution's newest exhibition, 2006 Biennial: Contemporary American Realism, opens June 10 and surveys recent work created by 53 artists from around the country (including 18 from Indiana). The selections were juried by Executive Director Charles A. Shepard III, Curator of Collections Sachi Yanari-Rizzo, and Registrar Leah Reeder.

In addition to the juried artists, six invited artists are featured: Janet Fish, Martin Grelle, Woody Gwyn, Alan Magee, Jeremiah Patterson, and Satana.

Since 1990, the Museum's Biennial has focused on a wide range of work done within a 150-mile radius of Fort Wayne. The decision to expand the exhibition beyond a regional scope, while simultaneously narrowing its focus to contemporary realism, has taken this traditional show is a different direction.

I talked with Shepard about this new course and also about the state of realism in the multi-faceted art world of the twenty-first century.

_ _ _

Fort Wayne Reader: Tell me about the decision to alter the Biennial's format to one that is both nationally and thematically driven.

Charles A. Shepard III: The notion on my mind for the Biennial, and for a variety of other things we're doing, focuses on American art. And American art, to me, happens everywhere in America. If we're going to focus on [American art], we need to be more inclusive of people making art everywhere, and from different generations—historical and contemporary artists.

We, as a museum do not get as much play because we're in Fort Wayne. Who gets the play are the big places in the big cities. But does that mean that we're not doing things that are the equal, if not even the leader in some zones? Geography should not play the determining factor. Are you doing good stuff, or are you not? In that vein, I aspire for our whole institution to do things that are relevant to the country. And I don't feel out of line with those aspirations.

When you take that facet of wanting to do things that are relevant to the country in some way and combine it with wanting to be inclusive of artists making art everywhere, then the Biennial seems a natural to say if we're going to do a survey every two years, then it should be a survey of what's going on nationally. And it should have some relevance to the rest of the country. Could we search the horizon of what's being done today—which a Biennial must address—and find something that's relevant?

Finally, after looking around at a variety of different things, it occurred to me that realism has had short shrift, at least in the last 100 years. And it's logical that it did, it's logical that we moved away from realism. There was an oppressive nature to academic realism...and that break-away was the correct thing to do. That opened the door for a whole range of expressions that are not describable in representational terms. We've learned that we would never want to close the door on that again, but we can open another door, too. It's time to take that second door and open it a little wider and not be afraid of things that are representational. And let's expect that, as we open the door to view those things, it's going to reveal things that are more than just charming or cute or sentimental.

FWR: So you opened the door to realism. What did you find during the jurying process?

CS: We found that, in a healthy way, there is no one realism. We found probably nine—maybe as many as a dozen—approaches to realism. Is the show focused more on tight realism? Yeah, a little more to that.

FWR: What limitations, if any, did you place on the entries in regards to media?

CS: It's predominantly a drawing, painting, sculpting show. No prints, no photographs.

FWR: What was the thinking behind those restrictions?

CS: The photographic world is a realm unto itself and, depending on your definitions as you're jurying, if being realistic is the key...photographs definitely have the ability to be more realistic than anything else. Then, in terms of prints and other media, I guess what helped me exclude that realm is that there's many people working who actually make paintings but turn them into giclee or other types of prints, and that's not what we're after. The works in this show are originals. It's a pretty purist approach. It seemed a fair way to do it.

FWR: You've talked about this show's national relevance—how does it relate to the regional community?

CS: When I said that I wanted the Museum to aspire to have a national relevancy—no matter what our size—I also believe that that is a metaphor, a beacon for the [local] arts community to say, “We don't have to settle, either.” There's a lot of talent in this region and you hear people talk all the time about needing to get outside of here. Your work has to go outside this region, that's true. But you don't have to go outside here at all. It's one of the happiest places to live and work, but you've got to get your connections out there. Then your work can go anywhere. I think this show can illustrate to people that we as an institution can do it. Anything that brings attention, nationally, to the relevancy of the art in Fort Wayne also brings attention to the artists in Fort Wayne. If you look at it that way, I think people are going to like the show.