This is my third and final installment in a special series of articles discussing the process of curating at various types of venues. For this issue, I have chosen to focus on corporate curating and collecting. For quite some time now, I have wanted to profile the unusual and staunchly pro-artist practices of Altoids, The Curiously Strong Mints, and its Curiously Strong Collection, which it began in 1998. In only a short time, the Altoids Collection has become one of the most visible, as well as one of the most provocative, showcases for emerging visual artists currently working in the U.S. Unlike other companies that prefer to keep their distance by passively supporting the arts, Altoids believes in establishing long-lasting relationships with artists through the financial support and visibility of its collection. According to Erin Brennan of Altoids/Hunter Public Relations (all of their endeavors in the arts are handled by Hunter Public Relations), the company also believes that "solid relationships with artists will resonate within the visual arts community far more than an accumulation of museum sponsorships and ‘presented by . . .’ taglines." I undoubtedly agree. The article that follows is intended to provide some insight into Altoids’ brand of corporate art collecting and touches on many of the major issues raised by visual artists who have contacted the Hotline over the past several years.

To get started, I bet you are probably wondering how and why a 200-year old mint company decided to assemble a collection of contemporary art in the first place. Well, it all goes back about ten years to the early 1990s, when Altoids’ Curiously Strong Mints enjoyed a sudden rebirth in popularity among an urban, culturally-engaged youth culture of Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. Realizing that strong market support for their mints was coming from young, art- and culture-loving consumers, Altoids began in 1996 a proactive campaign of lending financial support to the arts, especially the visual arts, as a way of strengthening its relationship with both artists and consumers. At the time, Altoids began by sponsoring a variety of contemporary artist-centered enterprises, such as the multi-city emerging artist organization GEN ART, the non-profit exhibition space White Columns, and the public art presenter Creative Time. However, after two years of seeing that further direct support for individual artists was still needed, Altoids took its engagement with contemporary art one step further. So, in 1998, Altoids began building what is probably one of the most creative corporate collections of contemporary art in the U.S.: The Curiously Strong Collection. From the very beginning, Altoids decided to focus solely on collecting works by emerging artists; by the end of its first year, its collection consisted of works in almost every medium, including photography, video, mixed media, sculpture, painting, and digital art. In addition to providing direct financial support to these artists through purchases, Altoids also decided to do something extraordinary for a corporate collection. Acting against prevailing corporate practices of trophy collecting (or assembling high-end boardroom décor), Altoids chose to step forward and become directly involved in the developing careers of the artists in their collection—artists just beginning to get a foothold in the art world. The company ventured to give the artists broad public visibility by organizing (and intensely promoting) multi-city traveling exhibitions of the collection on a national level.

I’m sure you’re now wondering how the process works for selecting and purchasing art for its permanent collection. Altoids has developed a unique, collaborative process for acquiring works for its collection, a process that also falls outside of the status quo. Each year for the past four years, Altoids has formed a ten-person selection committee comprised of prominent contemporary artists, critics, curators, and gallerists. Individual committee members are chosen primarily for their thorough knowledge of the art being produced by emerging artists. Altoids also deliberately selects committee members from organizations nationwide in order to ensure a panel with diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives. The company then engages the expertise of committee members by charging them with the task of finding artists whose work represents some of the most "curious, strong and original" work being created today—three qualities taken directly from the Altoids slogan. These criteria have partially led to the selection and inclusion of many works in the collection that "possess a certain sense of humor and optimism," according to Ms. Brennan.

There are two other fixed rules for nominating artists and their work. First, only emerging artists are eligible, and they must be living and working in the U.S. As an aside, Ms. Brennan noted to me during our interview that the issue of what constitutes an "emerging" artist has been a hotly debated topic among committee members, especially in relationship to an artist’s age and the amount of national exposure an artist has received in the past. The second fixed rule pertains to the purchase price of the work; all artworks must cost $2,500 or less. This price limit has led to the inclusion in the collection of a proportionately greater number of works on paper and/or editioned photographs and videos. The next major step in the process falls on the shoulders of individual committee members, who comb through her or his local art haunts in an effort to identify five artists each for consideration during the formal panel process. Generally speaking, committee members put greater emphasis on identifying particular artists rather specific works of art for purchase. It should be noted that gallerists are not allowed to nominate any of the artists they work with or represent. Also, an artist’s affiliation with a commercial gallery, or lack of affiliation thereof, plays no role in the selection process. After identifying five artists, each committee member then works with the artists she or he selected in order to choose up to two works of art to bring back to the table for the entire selection committee to review. All works must, of course, be available for purchase at the time of the panel meeting. (Just as a brief warning to all artists reading this article, individual artists not nominated by a committee member may not openly apply to be considered for the collection. Nomination is completely up to individual committee members, and their names are not formally announced to the public until after the panel process.) The final step in the process involves the formal meeting of the selection committee as a whole in order to review all nominated works and select the most compelling pieces for the collection; each year, Altoids purchases between 20 and 25 new works.

In addition to purchasing works directly from artists, one of the major goals of the Curiously Strong Collection is to provide meaningful exposure to the artists in the collection. This happens each year with a five- or six-city tour across the U.S., which is intended to reach the broadest audience possible for the work. Selection committee members also assist Altoids in identifying potential exhibition sites where the collection would best fit in and receive the most public exposure. According to Ms. Brennan, during the first year, locating sites willing to exhibit the new collection was "admittedly challenging." But in only a few short years, the collection’s reputation has caught fire and now receives strong backing from the arts community at large. Since that time, the collection has been exhibited at a variety of commercial, non-profit, and university galleries, as well as a handful of museum venues and public spaces. The 25 artworks included in last year’s 3rd Annual Collection have already started their U.S. tour at the New Museum of Contemporary Art in New York, and will continue to travel through January 2002 to the following destinations: Consolidated Works (Seattle); The Lab (San Francisco); Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitions (Los Angeles); Art Center/South Florida (Miami); and DiverseWorks (Houston). Touring their collection is, of course, a costly undertaking, and Altoids takes on all of the expenses associated with it, including framing, crating, shipping, storage, marketing, and staffing. All of these expenses come in addition to the approximately $50,000 Altoids spends each year on purchasing artwork.

The company has recently decided to donate its entire Curiously Strong Collection (including this year’s 4th Annual and next year’s 5th Annual Collections) to the New Museum of Contemporary Art at the conclusion of its current U.S. tour. The New Museum, founded in 1977, is a premier destination for contemporary art from around the globe. Its annual exhibition schedule presents some of the most innovative and experimental work being produced today. Frequently, the New Museum is the first major museum venue in the U.S. to showcase certain emerging and/or established artists. Over the past three years alone, the New Museum has given groundbreaking retrospectives to contemporary artists such as Paul McCarthy, Martha Rosler, David Wojnarowicz, Martin Wong, Mona Hatoum, and Cildo Meireles. Altoids therefore felt that the New Museum was a perfect fit for its collection. Lisa Phillips, Director of the New Museum, commented on the donation, saying, "Altoids has succeeded in assembling a unique collection of contemporary art that is unparalleled in the corporate world. The level of innovation and risk-taking inherent in this commitment to contemporary art perfectly compliments the mission and programs of the New Museum." Andrew Burke, former Brand Manager of Altoids, added, "From the beginning, one of the goals of the Curiously Strong Collection was to generate well-deserved exposure for these talented artists and their works through highly-visible public exhibitions. We are thrilled about this partnership with the New Museum and pleased that we can offer our talented artists the opportunity to be exhibited at one of America’s foremost contemporary art museums. We are fortunate to be donating the collection, in its entirety, to a museum that we know will be dedicated to garnering meaningful visibility for these emerging artists."

By the way, the donation to the museum is the first corporate gift, as well as the biggest collection, the New Museum has received in its 25-year history, and it is conservatively valued at $175,000. According to Anne Ellegood, Assistant Curator at the New Museum, the donation has also led the museum to reexamine its currently ‘semi-permanent’ collection. Ms. Ellegood explained that in the past the New Museum never considered itself a collecting institution, but rather focused solely on its exhibition programming. Traditionally, the museum had only passively acquired art works that had been included in exhibitions at the museum. However, for the past five years, the museum placed a moratorium on the acquisition of new work until it was able to formalize a clearer collection strategy. Quite by chance, the Altoids donation earlier this year was the perfect impetus for the museum to finalize many of the lingering issues still surrounding its collection. Among them were how to function as a contemporary art museum with a permanent collection, how to handle art works in a permanent collection that are older than 20 years (i.e., donate them to other museum institutions, sell them, or give them back to the artists), and how to coordinate the museum’s exhibition programming with the specific scope of its permanent collection.

Over the summer, the New Museum reconciled many of these issues, thereby laying the groundwork for an ongoing permanent collection. Highlights from the New Museum’s permanent collection will go on view there in early October, and the exhibition will feature several works from the Altoids donation.

During its short history, Altoids has collaborated with a total of 45 selection committee members and purchased works by over 90 emerging artists. Each year, the selection process itself fosters professional connections among individual committee members, as well as among individual artists. Artists selected for its annual collection are akin to a graduating class at a university, and Altoids continues to foster further relationships with its alumni. Over the past year, Altoids again began to expand its support for artists; the company recently consulted its collection and commissioned three artists—Virgil Marti, Dario Robleto, and Jessica Craig-Martin—to design limited-edition mint tins featuring their artwork on the covers. Additionally, Altoids has built an interactive Web site (www.altoids.com) that features its collection, as well as original works of digital art it has commissioned from more than a dozen illustrators, programmers, writers, and sound artists. Through its Web site, Altoids has encouraged collaborations among artists and has even begun documenting their artistic process by providing artists with disposable cameras, conducting weekly interviews with artists about the challenges they face during the process, and posting the artists’ scrapbooks and journals online as they translate their works and processes for the Web.

During its first three years of collecting, Altoids purchased works from over 70 artists: Ethan Acres, Laylah Ali, D-L Alvarez, Phillip Avila, Sanford Biggers, Natalie Bookchin, Nina Bovasso, Andrea Bowers, Todd Brandt, C5/Lisa Jevbratt, Jane Callister, Beth Campbell, Seong Chun, Jessica Craig-Martin, Santiago Cucullu, E.V. Day, Sue de Beer, Lucky DeBellevue, Steve DeFrank, Brian Dewan, David Dupuis, Sam Durant, Reanne Estrada, Eve Fowler, Jerald Frampton, Frank & Ippolito Cohen, Tim Gardner, Max Goldfarb, Michael Gonzalez, Gregory Greene, Danielle Gustafson-Sundell, Jack Hallberg, Rachel Harrison, Shane Hassett, Frederick Hayes, Michelle Hines, Jonathan Horowitz, George Kimmerling, Paul Kittelson, Jim Lambie, D’nell Larson, Joseph Lee, Miranda Lichtenstein, Mark Lombardi, Kristin Lucas, Susan Lutz, Euan McDonald, Virgil Marti, Barry McGee, Julie Mehretu, Patrick Miceli, Jason Middlebrook, Yunhee Min, Helen Mirra, Michael Pierzynski, Paul Ramirez Jonas, Dario Robleto, Jason Rogenes, Michelle Rollman, Marina Rosenfeld, Susie Rosmarin, David Scher, Michelle Segre, Susan Smith-Pinelo, Stephanie Syjuco, Vincent Szarek, Fatimah Tuggar, Clara Williams, William Wood, and Almond Zigmund.

For additional information about corporate curating and collecting, please contact NYFA Source at our toll-free number (800) 232-2789, or by email at source@nyfa.org.

Matthew Deleget, Visual Artist Information Hotline

(In this column I discuss a letter of rejection NYFA received back from an applicant to the Artists’ Fellowship Program. The applicant wrote "FUCK YOU" in large letters with a black marker across the rejection letter.)

When I first saw this letter, I was speechless. It is an arresting visual/verbal expression of utter frustration and thorough disappointment, and I am sure that the artist who wrote it is not the only one feeling this way. (This year, NYFA’s Artists’ Fellowship program received 3,376 applications in eight discipline categories, and awarded 158 grants, which means 3,218 artists did not receive a grant this year.) At one level, I found the letter irritating, but I also wondered to myself what would make an artist reach this point of combustion. In my imagination, I tried to retrace the steps this artist took in articulating such an angry response: receiving and opening the envelope with great anticipation; reading the letter; growing consumed with anger; grabbing a large black marker; writing commentary directly on the letter; stuffing it back in an envelope; and mailing it off.

On the one hand, I completely understand this artist’s sentiment. As a working artist myself, I have received dozens of rejection letters after applying to similar programs. I can honestly say from first-hand experience that there is definitely no worse feeling than receiving an SASE back in the mail and being able to feel my slides through the envelope. Who wouldn’t be upset by this? I have also felt myself reach the point where I could barely control my impulse to shred the rejection letter to pieces, or, even worse, to fire off a revengeful letter of my own back to the organization rejecting their rejection of me. However, thinking about something and actually doing it are two entirely different matters.

I feel that this artist clearly crossed a line into unprofessionalism. Being "creative" doesn’t justify acting unprofessionally. Letters like this one can and will burn bridges; they can even jeopardize a career trajectory. This letter, driven in part by a feeling of self-entitlement, is, in many ways, a classic case of biting the hand that feeds you. More importantly, its comments are not only directed at NYFA, but at the arts community as a whole: individual artists, arts professionals (arts administrators, curators, gallerists, and critics) and arts organizations (non-profits, private foundations, government arts agencies, and corporate sponsors). Supporting an individual artist takes an entire arts community, and running support programs always requires the participation of individuals working in each of these areas. To be sure, most arts organizations out there are not pleading with artists for assistance, but the opposite is almost always true. Thus, when an artist responds by saying "FUCK YOU" to a program—any program set up to assist individual artists—its repercussions can be severe and more widespread than initially realized. It’s important to remember that the art world is hardly a "world" at all; rather, it consists of a relatively small community of individuals. And these individuals are in constant communication with each other. It has been known to happen that problematic artists—meaning artists who are consistently difficult to work with—can and do get blacklisted. I have seen this occur to several artists I know, some of whom have even lost their gallery representation as a result. The message is clear: no one wants to work with an artist who is a constant hassle.

Now, on to some solutions. After speaking with literally thousands of artists from around the country who have called the Visual Artist Information Hotline, I have begun to see a very particular behavioral pattern surface among them. I have noticed that artists tend to place all their efforts into a single application (think eggs in a basket). It’s no wonder, then, that a rejection letter can set an artist into a tailspin. A single rejection should never be so upsetting that it causes an artist to lash out against her or his colleagues and the support mechanisms around her or him. Successful artists—I mean here those artists who are able to maintain a healthy career and state of mind—have no doubt developed a thick skin due to years of rejection. I’ve also noticed one thing that they all share in common. Successful artists are continually juggling many balls in the air at once. They are constantly sending out a steady stream of applications and proposals from their studios, applying and reapplying to each and every program every year they are eligible. It goes without saying that the more balls an artist has in the air, the less significant one ball becomes when it falls to the floor. Artists who consciously choose to juggle only one ball at a time are sentencing themselves to a lifetime of frustration and, most likely, failure.

Being an artist in the year 2001 requires much more than just making great work in an isolated studio. It also means branching out and applying to support programs and other opportunities, networking and sharing ideas with peers, and maintaining a professional approach. If not, to quote Jackie Battenfield of the Artist in the Marketplace Program at the Bronx Museum of the Arts, "You are not doing your job as an artist." Personally, I have discovered that the best way to exorcise the rejection demons is simple. Every time I receive my materials back in the mail accompanied by a rejection letter, I send them back out again to a new program or venue. Similarly, I recommend you have your materials in constant circulation. Slides sitting on a shelf in the studio are literally not going anywhere. Being an artist is a choice for life, so over the course of a lifetime, an artist is undoubtedly going to receive a lot of rejections. Remember to stay positive, be professional, and keep applying.

For additional information about corporate curating and collecting, please contact NYFA Source at our toll-free number (800) 232-2789, or by email at source@nyfa.org.

A project of the New York Foundation for the Arts, the Visual Artist Information Hotline is made possible through the generous support of the Hotline’s Consortium: Albert A. List Foundation, Inc.; Basil H. Alkazzi; The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.; The Elizabeth Foundation for the Arts; Independence Community Foundation; The Joan Mitchell Foundation, Inc.; The Judith Rothschild Foundation; Lily Auchincloss Foundation, Inc.; The Liman Foundation; Virginia Manheimer; The Marie Walsh Sharpe Art Foundation; Pew Fellowships in the Arts; The Pollock-Krasner Foundation, Inc.; and The Richard Florsheim Art Fund.