At times artists get to see all the submissions prior to a juror’s
call, then scratch their heads when they see what was chosen to hang
on the walls. With time, most artists get used to unexpected juror
decisions, and Mr. Hensel’s experience could only have added to his
jury selection learning curve.  Being a curator and selecting is,
after all, an art in itself; a creative process of orchestrating
individual art works to end up as visual music-- hopefully.

Among the better practitioners of this art is Shana Nys Dambrot, a
remarkable peripatetic curator, reviewer, author, and managing editor
of Flavorpill.  A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to see the
results of her curator skills at a show she had juried, titled “The
Bigger Picture Show” at Edgar Varela Fine Arts (EVFA) which shares
exhibition space at the Bert Green Gallery in downtown L.A.  Dambrot,
with the help of Edgar Varela, selected eight artists for this
exhibit.

She chose each artist based on her familiarity of his or her previous
artwork.  The stipulations came with few strings attached; they had
three months to make and present one piece for hanging, but (here’s
the catch) the work had to be big, the bigger the better. Dambrot’s
thinking went like this: The current poor art market coupled with the
summer gallery doldrums (difficult even for small works of art to
sell) could be a wonderful time for artists to put away concerns of
profit and simply concentrate on the making of really big stuff. The
worry would rest on Dambrot’s shoulders since she would see the works
only when each artist brought their completed art into the Gallery. In
other words, she was making a decision based on faith. Fortunately,
she was well rewarded. The result? A rather gutsy show put together by
a rather gutsy juror. Unfortunately, space does not permit me to do
justice to the work of eight artists but suffice it to say they were
well worth seeing. These “magnificent” eight are Rick Robinson, Kim
Abeles, Max Presneill, Jennifer Wolf, Benjamin Pezzillo, Terrel Moore,
Britt Ehringer, and Roman Bluem.

For me, however, this exhibit provided a chance to explore at least
one curator’s mind and I was not going to let this opportunity slip
by. All right, I’ll admit that Dambrot’s personality, a fusion of
incredible mental focus and speed coupled with a deep sensitivity, had
already charmed me way before I saw her curated show, but these very
qualities comprise the tool kit she brings to her curatorial
decision-making. I also knew that with Dambrot, I would get candid and
honest answers to whatever interrogatories I tossed out.

Thus over lunch at “The Nickel Diner” downtown, I discovered that for
her, being a curator is not just another exercise in reportage, but a
way to teach, to expose, and to create dialogue about art. Being
extensively and rigorously trained in the field of art history at
Vassar and reinforced by her vast experience writing about art, she
possesses an authoritative voice sans ambivalence. But don’t be
fooled, that voice is without a need to be didactic, demagogic, or
pedantic. To her, this “authority” is not considered a final voice but
rather an effort to provide a jumping off place for art discussions.
As she put it, “I think and see, what do you think and see?” She can
respect and dispute with anyone who takes a differing stand because,
again, it’s all about dialoguing.

As a non-artist, Dambrot understands that her authority has a certain
degree of limitations. To fill this gap she sometimes has artists
accompany her on her curatorial rounds (often the marvelous artist
Jennifer Wolf) because she understands that an artist’s eye may see
things that she might miss and she has enough respect for artists to
seek their feedback. I have now offered Dambrot my own artist’s eyes
as a backup should Jennifer Wolf be too busy to accompany her-- I have
no shame!

When you read a Dambrot review, timid is not the word you tend to come
up with:  For sure, the emperor’s clothing status will be in the
article. She does not entertain the notion that anything can be
considered art, and she made it perfectly clear to me that “There is a
bottom line where something is good and something is bad.” She
mentioned that the currently shown work of Dennis Hopper would be an
example of art not meeting her threshold, (he doesn’t meet mine
either) adding that “…at some time food is bad and it has to be
admitted, at times art is bad.” For Dambrot, critiquing is far less a
matter of splitting philosophical hairs over axiological issues and
far more the making of honest aesthetic calls. With great passion she
told me she worries that our current society has swung too far to the
point where critics feel a need to be politically correct and that
there is now a real need for some sort of paradigm: Put in my own
words, the art woof needs a sturdy art warp!

One last issue that arose as the dishes were being unobtrusively
removed from our table was how difficult it was for a critic not to
hurt, alienate, or anger admired artists who for one reason or another
were not juried into a show. So I asked her hypothetically, if you had
to have chosen only one of the eight artists in your current show,
which artist would still be standing? Her answer came without
hesitation: No, I’m not going to name the artist because I’m just
making a point. Translated into juror speak, Dambrot would have then
made one artist happy and seven unhappy. Fortunately or unfortunately,
someone has to do this sort of dirty work. Shana Nys Dambrot not only
does it but also does it well!