I’m really liking the guys at Artlog.com who come up with openings that no one else seems to have – and overall, if there’s one site I’d consider supporting, based on what I’ve seen, it’s ArtLog.   Having said that, due to Artlog.com listing of an opening tonight of Just what is it that makes today’s painting so different, so appealing? @ Gerling & Lopez

I decided to attend.

The Frank Stella piece (Frank Stella – Odelsk III (Polish Village #11), 1971 Acrylic and cloth on plywood 90 x 132 inches) is the strongest in the show, and, it appears, the oldest, as well.  The lighting really worked to heighten the effect (which the photo doesn’t show), along with the textures of the panels – well done.    In a way, this work, appears “safe” and “contained” but satisfying, none the less.

John Tremblay’s canvas was also interesting – though I found after I looked at it a few times, I didn’t feel drawn to it as much as I though I might be (John Tremblay Jazz Hands, 2008 Acrylic on canvas 100 x 94 ½ inches).

The gallery website is frustrating because it doesn’t have pictures of most of the works I’d ideally like to talk about in this post, and, I think the show’s title is a little pretentious, and over the top – the prices of the works in this show ranged from 40,000 – 60,000 USD, and I’m not sure, besides Stella, how many were really that established (though the artist listing and biographies were quite along, for all of the artists in this show).

However, what I really want to talk about is the last point – the biographies of the artists – being so long – I began to wonder if it’s possible that, within the data of all that information on each artist – common elements might be found that led to the artists being selected by this dealer – or any dealer, or a museum, to shown and collected.

For a long time, it’s been assumed, the selection process is guided by instinct are reason, but is private and based on taste of a dealer – or, of the artist community of dealers and curators, at large.   But that might not be the whole story – what about the hidden reasons why artists get selected in the first place – might it not be something in their chronology, where they went to school, where they first showed, who they knew – that accounts for more success, or not?

If so, we are on the verge of having technology that can crawl that data, if it’s online – and find hidden patterns and bias that lead some artists to be favored over others, some styles to be favored over others, some locations to be favored for certain styles, over others – and to my knowledge – such data mining of information about contemporary artists – has never been successfully done before.

But it should be … done.

It’s a shame some of the best work in this show has no visual representations, online, such as Steve DiBennedetto’s Occupant, painted this year – and this artist had a residency in Monet’s chateau outside Paris.   Also, Eric Parker‘s Guru painting was interesting – if a little over psychedelic.

Not the best show I’ve seen, but far from the worst.