Sure there were people there and the mood of gallerists seemed pretty upbeat.  But I think what I mean by ‘underwhelming’ is that it all, for the most part, felt pretty safe.  Sure there were a few new and interesting things here and there but most of the art felt like I had seen it before.  Actually, some of it I had seen before.  One of the shows most heavily represented artists this year was Robert Rauschenberg.  The most impressive piece of which was a 35 million dollar wall-sized monster at Gallerie Faurschou in Copenhagen.  Now that I am thinking about it I am wondering what made the piece so impressive.  It’s size?  It’s price?  Or it’s artistic merit?  Ah, the psychology of buying, selling and owning art.  A conversation for another time.  Regardless, Rauschenberg is a blue ribbon artist to be sure.  But definitely not ‘new’.  And safe in that the investment value of his art has long been established.

Also in the ’safe’ category were familiar looking pieces by well known artists.  Or should I say by well known artists’ assistants.  There was a wall of Damien Hirst skull pieces at Paul Stolper, screen printed in glittery metallic inks.  Affordable butterfly kaleidoscopes.  And a few pieces scattered about the show by Hirst and American art powerhouse Richard Prince that looked like a patchwork of several past series all thrown together.  A jumble of pills, dots and skulls or nurses and cowboys.  Take your pick.  Safe investments all.

British art-diva-with-issues Tracy Emin was, as usual, very visible with pieces at several galleries, but all that I saw was neon and embroidery from past years.  Of course it is possible that maybe I missed something, but I worry if it seems like an artist’s output starts to dwindle once they are able to pay their rent on time.  And speaking of artists that have fizzled, why have I not seen anything from Matthew Barney lately?  Sure the Cremaster Cycle was an epic amount of work.  And he scored creative volcano Bjork in the process, but when can we see some new stuff?

Also oddly absent from the festivities were work by both Takashi Murakami and patron saint of the New York art world, Andy Warhol.  As prolific as both of these artists are/were, and as revered as they continue to be… where was their work?  The only piece that came close was a Warhol / Jean-Michel Basquiat collaboration painting.  Was it that all of their work is so tied up in private collections or auction houses that no galleries have any pieces?  Maybe that’s a good sign for Warhol at least.  But for Murakami it would signal the same issue that I fear has overcome Emin and Barney.  Once life gets posh the new work output slows down.

Thankfully there were a few gems in the rough-and-tumble of the show.  Hernan Bas continues to grow in visibility, popularity and acclaim with pieces on display at several galleries.  My favorite of which was ‘For Isadora Duncan’, a little painting, pictured at left, at Victoria Miro Gallery.  Unfortunately it was from the long-ago days of 2005, but it was charming and really lovely.  Another very nice painting that we came across, shown at the top of this post, is ‘Untitled’, 2009 by artist Carla Klein at Tanya Bonakdar Gallery in New York.  We were told that Klein travels around the United States and takes photographs.  She then prints them herself, joins the photographs with adjacent shots and then proceeds to paint from the patch-worked image, printing blemishes and all.  The resulting paintings tend to produce haunting images of austere landscapes.  An America that, despite all of our best efforts, is relatively devoid of meaningful content.  But, nevertheless, an America of our own making.  If trudging up and down all the aisles of the Armory show were meant for me to only come to be introduced to this one artist, then it was worth it.

One last highlight was a piece by artist Sue Williams entitled ‘Age of Aquarius’.  Represented by ‘hot young thing’ New York art powerhouse 303 Gallery, Williams’ painting was a vibrant eye-catcher.  Spending any amount of time in front of it made your brain think that the image was actually out in front of the canvas.  Vaguely reminiscent of Warhol’s camouflage paintings, Williams’ work knows how to make the most of visual stimulation.  My only critique would be that her forms tread relatively close to the forms in the early work of Inka Essenhigh, a personal fave.  Both artists push and pull the boundaries of anthropomorphic association with their blobby form-making.  Sure their work differs in thesis and direction but a visual similarity is there.  Also interesting that they are both represented by 303.  Either way, Essenhigh’s work has developed in a different direction, they are both great artists and 303 is a very good gallery.

The Armory Show always ends for me in a tumult.  There is so much art to see in such a short time that I am left in a mix of emotions.  Redundancy and disappointment annually take their toll.  But thankfully, there are always a few pieces, artists and galleries at the Armory Show that give me hope and keep me coming back for more.  What I would like to see, though, is the organizers of Armory foster an excitement about art and the show that overtakes the entire city.  Not just the Piers.  The argument could be made that if you are not an art-scener you might not have known that there was a major art fair happening in New York City that weekend.  Where are the art installations in public spaces, the parties in hotel lobbies, the strategic placement of guerrilla art by as yet unknown young artists, the celebrity art-buying shopping sprees or the retail brands trying to get a piece of the art-frenzy action?  I am sure it is there in some fashion.  But it never feels as energetic or as urgent as the scene surrounding Art Basel Miami.  But then again, this is New York.  The only things we feel urgently are that our dinner at that new restaurant had better be superlative or that our co-op board approve our renovation plans.  Well… maybe a few other things.  But my point is that I think the Armory Show could do a lot more to bolster its reputation as one of the premier art fairs in the world.  But for now it is what it is.  And I will continue to meet Brian and go check out all of the art at the Armory Show.  Tracy Emin could not have said it better than with her neon piece… ‘I Keep Believing In You”.

It is, literally, a trash bag.  Except that it is not.  A neo-realist representation of a trash bag.  But done in glossy treated canvas or super-shiny leather (conflicting reports) with the oh-so-Louis-Vuitton vegetable tanned leather shoulder strap.  So it’s a luxury trash bag?  Well, considering the price tag, yes.  Speaking of, I love the ruckus that is being raised over the price of this bag.  A genius move on the part of Louis Vuitton.  Of course any price that would seem ‘reasonable’ for this bag would be too low and end up killing the hype.  Instead people are shocked and befuddled by the price.  So when they eventually see one on the street they will think either ‘that woman has too much money’, ‘that woman is crazy’, ‘why did that woman spend that much on that bag?  Is it worth it?  Does she know something I don’t??’ or ‘that woman gets it’.  Any of which might be advantageous to the bag owner.

But the ‘Raindrop Besace’ bag is still a trash bag.  So is the reference too literal?  Well, the argument could be made that any more abstraction of the source inspiration and the point would be lost.  Alternatively, it could be looked at as a usable Claes Oldenburg sculpture.  Except that there is no play of scale differentiation from the actual reference object.  So then is the bag Pop Art in the tradition of Warhol?  Take a mundane object like a Brillo box and elevate it to the level of fine art?  The Brillo boxes, although definitely ‘Pop’ seemed to be art for art’s sake whereas this bag seems to have something more to do with branding and consumerism (it is for sale after all) than just art.  If it is art it is definitely ‘low’ art…

As the Brillo was a commentary on ‘art’, is the ‘Raindrop Besace’ bag a commentary on luxury goods?  Is Jacobs saying ’it’s all trash.  Even the expensive stuff’.  Or is it ‘the only distinction between you and a homless person is the logo on your trash bag’?  Is the message actually all about branding?  Is Louis Vuitton saying in effect ‘we can put anything out with our name on it and you will buy it.  No matter the price.”  Hmmm… I would hope that Louis Vuitton would not be so disdainful of it’s own customers as to bite the hand the feeds it. 

But the question remains.  Though, viewed from another angle, the Louis Vuitton trash bag could be seen as just the logical conclusion to the branding path that consumerism has been going down for so long.   The ‘Hello Kitty-ization’ of branding if you will.  The state where a brand is so well established (and idolized) that whatever it puts its mark on sells.  Hello Kitty toast anyone? 

Or… is this the egoism that so many famous designers end up flirting with at some point in their career?  The moment where they think, “I can put my name on anything and the public will eat it up with a spoon”.  Of course they would never admit to thinking that… But the evidence is out there.  Philippe Starck put his name on a series of plastic ‘Gnome’ tables for Kartell.  Damien Hirst has been covering everything in dots, spin paint, pills and skulls for several years now.  All of that stuff sells.  Is taking that step supremely self-assured or lazy?  Calculated or crazy?  Hard to say without knowing the mind of the designer in question.

So could Marc Jacobs simply be reaching that point with the ‘Raindrop Besace’  bag?  Maybe.  Or maybe he is a little more clever than a first glance at this bag would have us believe.  After all… it has immediately gotten lots of people talking.  Love it or hate it they are talking.  And passionately.  The most peculiar and amuzing thing is that I get the sense that even the people that say they think it is a terrible bag… still… kinda… want one.

That is why I think Marc Jacobs is crazy.  Crazy like a fox.  It is extremely hard for a brand like Louis Vuitton, that has had many smart branding moves, from the ‘LV’ logo-ization to Takashi Murakami, to keep producing work at such a high level.  Marc Jacobs had big creative (and brand) shoes to fill.  Because of that, with this ‘Raindrop Besace’ bag, I think he is a genius. 

Now I would love to see a a big glossy ‘LV’ branded garbage truck pull up to the Fifth Avenue curb.  And from it Marc Jacobs and Kanye West in ‘LV’ coveralls are chucking ‘Raindrop Besace’ bags out to the screaming fashionistas.  That would be fun!

The Takashi Murakami pieces in the auction felt like one of the strong points for the audience, as many left after those lots were finished.  And even a couple Murakami’s passed.  The ‘Mamu Came From The Sky, 2007′ (shown) was one of my favorites in the sale.

It seems as though the art world is taking a beating at the moment.  At the very least we can be reassured that what goes down must (eventually) go up….