LA Weekly

Gary Garrels is a sign, an omen. Two years ago, he was ensconced at the Museum of Modern Art as chief curator of drawings and a curator of painting and sculpture. Maybe, as you’ll hear, he wasn’t so happy there, but 10 years ago the person with that sort of job at MoMA wasn’t leaving New York for L.A., never mind how unhappy he was. No way. Not 10 years ago, maybe not even two years ago. But that’s what Garrels did, right in the middle of the Brice Marden retrospective he’d organized. Right in the middle of a bigtime New York art career. His reasons: the artists living and working in Los Angeles. And the Hammer Museum, where he is now chief curator, a limber, creative institution driven not quite so much by the numbers, or hindered by the weight of history or expectations, as MoMA is. And a thriving artistic ecosystem, not yet overwhelmed by the money interests — as, he says, it is in New York.

Two years ago, at the urging of Hammer director Ann Philbin, he made the leap, but it is only recently that his presence has been felt publicly. Museums have long lead times, and Garrels’ first move — to call the Pompidou Centre in Paris — did not reap benefits until early this year, with the opening here in Los Angeles of the Vija Celmins drawing retrospective (organized by the Pompidou). On that occasion he appeared onstage at the Hammer in conversation with Celmins — not a simple assignment — and impressed with his easy articulation. If anything, Garrels seems comfortable — in attire (dark suit, green shirt open at the collar, soft black shoes, bluish designer frames, discreet right-earlobe earring), in person (approachable, friendly, and he actually turns up at gallery openings) and in the city: Although a native Easterner, he spent six years in San Francisco — at SFMOMA — during the ’90s, long enough to feel at home in California, but not long enough to feel, or understand, the Bay Area enmity for all things Los Angelean. He lives in Silver Lake.

Garrels seems a man excited to be here, doing what he’s doing. His first real project, the annual Hammer Invitational, opened this past week. Called, somewhat unfortunately, “Eden’s Edge,” it features 15 L.A. artists, from the elder ceramist Ken Price to the younger collagist Elliott Hundley, and has to do with a certain “unsteadiness, a sense of open possibility of change, and transformation” that Garrels sees in the L.A. Zeitgeist. If that seems not terribly original (glad he’s getting that out of his system!), it’s nevertheless exciting to see Jim Shaw, Monica Majoli, Mark Bradford, Ginny Bishton, Rebecca Morales and Hundley in an L.A. museum show. (See critic Doug Harvey’s review below.) Garrels recently sat down at the Coffee Table in Silver Lake to discuss the show and his decision to leave MoMA and New York for the Hammer and L.A.

L.A. WEEKLY: You left a major position at MoMA to come out to the Hammer. Why?

GARY GARRELS: I was beginning to feel some discontentment at MoMA, and was out here having dinner with Annie Philbin, grumbling a little. And Annie literally kind of looked at me, turned on a dime and said, “Would you ever consider working at the Hammer?” And I said, “Let’s talk about it.” You know, I lived in San Francisco for years — I was chief curator at SFMOMA [1993–2000] and I came down to L.A. a lot. I liked the city, got to know some people here, and was interested in the art scene. And when I was at MoMA, I bought a lot of drawings by L.A. artists. A lot. Everything from Raymond Pettibon to Lari Pittman to Ingrid Calame to Jorge Pardo to Paul McCarthy to Mark Grotjahn . . .


Are you responsible for the surprising Grotjahn presence at MoMA?

Yeah, I am. I visited his studio several years ago and saw his first show at Blum & Poe. Here was a guy making really interesting abstract art — not so easy.


Were you unable to do as much as you wanted to do at MoMA?

No, I went to MoMA with two exhibitions that I cared about deeply — a Dieter Roth retrospective, and the Brice Marden retrospective — and was able to do both of them. My other goal had been to make the second half of the 20th-century drawings [collection] as important and solid as the first half, because MoMA has the best collection of the first half of the century. I feel like I made huge progress on that in five years. So I had accomplished the things I set out to do. But I think there are a lot of problems with the new [MoMA] building; I think there are a lot of problems with the curatorial structure. There are some very difficult personalities at MoMA. And I also think that New York is certainly the commercial center of the art world, but I’m not sure it’s the creative center. It’s a center. But the kind of creative dynamic atmosphere here in L.A., I think, is really better than New York at this point.


How so?

There’s an openness. I don’t think the art making has been completely overshadowed by the commercial world here. Artists are more willing to talk about art here. The gallerists are more open to talking, they’re not just selling. There’s just a very lively, spirited community here.

This is not to paint a black-and-white picture — it’s not either/or. The market isn’t great here: There aren’t hordes of collectors, you know, standing in front of the door before the show opens. In New York it’s just insane, the collecting frenzy, and the money is staggering. Artists in L.A. are certainly ambitious for their careers, and it’s not that they’re not competitive, but I just don’t think it totally overwhelms or subsumes the work in the same way.