Katelijne De Backer, the director of The Armory Show 2006: International Fair of New Art, wrote in her catalogue notes that the ‘Selection Committee is the heart of our fair’. Further, ‘their ideas and perspectives insure The Armory Show’s ability to connect the best galleries with the best collectors’. The Selection Committee’s selection criteria or ideas and perspectives are not disclosed. My initial reaction is to wonder how The Armory Show’s internationalism and sense of the new could fit with their claim for representing the best galleries; does the former define the latter?


The Armory Show 2006 is not like other recent efforts on behalf of the art fair. The Frieze Art Fair in London, for example, is accompanied by lectures and symposia. A columnist claimed recently in Art Asia Pacific, ‘As biennials give way to attention-grabbing contemporary art fairs…’ and some fairs now employ curators. John Wesley’s colored stylized drawings bracket the catalogue and, we are told, provide ‘a vital identity for the fair’. But the identity of the fair is not as such elaborated; however, the images of interracial coupling are striking.


To make a point about internationalism and the new quickly, a qualitative response is appropriate (to be followed by critical indecision!). Out of the 153 galleries represented there are only 9 from outside Europe and North America. For the publications listing no magazines from Asia are mentioned, there are two from South America and one from Australia. In terms of the new, all but three illustrated artworks date from before 2000 with the majority at 2004 and 2005.



Of course the significance of these figures is easily contested. An increasingly global view of art production and the migratory patterns of artists perhaps renders locality less significant than previously. Though while the evocation of the ‘local’ is problematically entwined with notions of authenticity and the periphery, there is much happening in my region which would fit well with the information represented. The newness of the artworks is blandly signified by the dates, though the term ‘new’ is actually used ahistorically. Many of the artworks illustrated could have been produced decades before and, further, the standardized, repetitive layout of the catalogue cannot do justice to all the artworks as individual pieces.



There are overlapping agendas and identities for the fair, stemming from an apparent failure to acknowledge or clearly delineate its own terms. The fair is commercial, it is also representative: NYC is evoked as a center in terms of internationalism: the art is new but actually only recent: a selection committee critically choreographed the proceedings though the interests of the galleries leave the most lasting impression. The catalogue does not ‘answer’ any of these points.



It is outside the scope of this response to suggest alternatives, as such. In comparison, maybe the broader contexts of events like the Frieze Art Fair are just being disingenuous about vested and commercial interests. The question of ‘identity’ is overarching, as is the prominence that art fairs have gained. A greater transparency, sense of critical dialogue, and more encompassing scope in terms of the information presented is desirable. The Armory Show 2006: International Fair of New Art and its representation by the catalogue will not truly engage the necessary audiences unless this occurs.




Brian Curtin, Thailand, March 2006