kzphoto
Well-known
An acquaintance of mine had her statement pulled and her work removed from Ritual Coffee roasters for being too serious. I'm ashamed to say that I frequent that coffee shop most weekends. They have since lost my business.
Letter from Ritual to the artist in question:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/varese/5878290237/
The work shown:
http://vareservoir.com/making-room-up-now--
The statement:
http://vareservoir.com/making-room-up-now--/statement
Draw your own conclusions, I disagree with the coffee shop and prefer to think when I drink.
Letter from Ritual to the artist in question:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/varese/5878290237/
The work shown:
http://vareservoir.com/making-room-up-now--
The statement:
http://vareservoir.com/making-room-up-now--/statement
Draw your own conclusions, I disagree with the coffee shop and prefer to think when I drink.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
It's a shame.
TXForester
Well-known
Well, the owner does have a right to decide what kind of art to be displayed in her cafe. But, she went about this wrong. I don't know what kind of agreement was made prior to the work being displayed. She may have reneged on the agreement.
She should have made it clear to her "curator" what was acceptable. That would have prevented this.
There is no right or wrong on the serious vs. light side of work shown in this type of location. Only the owner can decide. An owner of another establishment might decide that thought provoking work is what he/she wants. If it is too much for patrons, then they'll just go someplace else.
She should have made it clear to her "curator" what was acceptable. That would have prevented this.
There is no right or wrong on the serious vs. light side of work shown in this type of location. Only the owner can decide. An owner of another establishment might decide that thought provoking work is what he/she wants. If it is too much for patrons, then they'll just go someplace else.
Melvin
Flim Forever!
I like those photos. The work is too good to be in a coffee shop. It's no biggie, just not the right place. The owners probably listen to Phish (that's a put down btw). I don't think 'banned' is the right word, they proably just want a painting of a chicken or something. I wouldn't stop going there, unless the coffee is bad...
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
Contracts go both ways until the one with the upper hand decides to back out.
The shop owner had(has) the right to pull the photos but with such a shallow excuse (too serious??) I'm left a little puzzled. I always thought its the customers who tell you what they want, not you the shop owner telling the customer what they want.
Good thing I don't drink coffee.
The shop owner had(has) the right to pull the photos but with such a shallow excuse (too serious??) I'm left a little puzzled. I always thought its the customers who tell you what they want, not you the shop owner telling the customer what they want.
Good thing I don't drink coffee.
Graham Line
Well-known
How humiliating. Dissed by the queen of the coffee shop. Does she allow the Chron or the NYT in there? 'People' mag can also be distressing.
kzphoto
Well-known
The 'wine and cheese' comment seemed snide. But then again, it's the internet and tone / intent are difficult to decipher.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thardy
Veteran
Not a chicken ...birds on a wire. And to think the artist invested $3000 for this show.
huntjump
Well-known
edit: I think the $300 was ridiculous considering she spent $3000. I didnt see that the first time.
EDIT: after reading how much your friend spent, i would be pissed too!. Obviously the cost of framing and all that isnt completey sunk, but if she has no other gallery planned, then she spent $3000 needlessly. Sure she could get another gallery (or try), but there is no gaurantee and the exposure from the cafe would have been possibly 10-fold. Secondly, the CONTRACT. people are so quick to discount the law as taboo or "only for jerks". Well the law protects everyone, even artists, and they should have a right to hold someone to a legal agreement.
I wonder if the owner really was trying to say, "hey your work is TOO good for my coffee shop, you deserve a real gallery opening". Why else offer a contact who could help her? I'm curious to know if your friend took her up on that offer and called.
By the way, I like your friend's work.
ps. If your friend actually has a signed contract, she should be compensated. Her $300 is too little, her offer to get her into a "real gallery" is weak and her attempt at acting like "firing the curator" is some how a nice thing for your friend is a joke. She I'm sure isn't thinking a little photographer would sue, but imo she has a small claims argument. $3000 + time.
EDIT: after reading how much your friend spent, i would be pissed too!. Obviously the cost of framing and all that isnt completey sunk, but if she has no other gallery planned, then she spent $3000 needlessly. Sure she could get another gallery (or try), but there is no gaurantee and the exposure from the cafe would have been possibly 10-fold. Secondly, the CONTRACT. people are so quick to discount the law as taboo or "only for jerks". Well the law protects everyone, even artists, and they should have a right to hold someone to a legal agreement.
I wonder if the owner really was trying to say, "hey your work is TOO good for my coffee shop, you deserve a real gallery opening". Why else offer a contact who could help her? I'm curious to know if your friend took her up on that offer and called.
By the way, I like your friend's work.
ps. If your friend actually has a signed contract, she should be compensated. Her $300 is too little, her offer to get her into a "real gallery" is weak and her attempt at acting like "firing the curator" is some how a nice thing for your friend is a joke. She I'm sure isn't thinking a little photographer would sue, but imo she has a small claims argument. $3000 + time.
Last edited:
bensyverson
Well-known
Well, the one thing that's certain is that this is bad PR for Ritual. Very shortsighted.
The owner is right that the work belongs in a gallery, but you wouldn't catch me complaining about seeing quality work at my coffeeshop. It's not like they're graphic war photos. No one is going to be traumatized by subtext.
It's the owner's prerogative, just like it's their right to refuse service willy nilly. But in the age of Facebook, Twitter and Yelp, word gets around fast.
The owner is right that the work belongs in a gallery, but you wouldn't catch me complaining about seeing quality work at my coffeeshop. It's not like they're graphic war photos. No one is going to be traumatized by subtext.
It's the owner's prerogative, just like it's their right to refuse service willy nilly. But in the age of Facebook, Twitter and Yelp, word gets around fast.
DNG
Film Friendly
She is better than that !! They had a chance for real art in their pitiful shop, and Fk'd up!
obviously the owner has no REAL ART taste, just wants what the commercial masses like. That is what she wants.... CRAPOLA!
Sorry to read about this, and her experience with morons.
obviously the owner has no REAL ART taste, just wants what the commercial masses like. That is what she wants.... CRAPOLA!
Sorry to read about this, and her experience with morons.
Last edited:
mto'brien
Well-known
Extremely lame.
I hope your friend can parlay this into something good for herself. This type of thing is sometimes more of an opportunity than a setback.
I hope your friend can parlay this into something good for herself. This type of thing is sometimes more of an opportunity than a setback.
fotomeow
name under my name
As a SF coffee geek, this just adds more pretensiousness to Ritual's rep, & more reason not to go there when there are many other great cafe's w/in 10 block radius
Ken Smith
Why yes Ma'am - it folds
I think "too serious" was an PC way of saying "not interesting". Without the commentary I would have just taken them for some poorly shot images. Of course I'm not an art critic nor play one on TV, but they just don't say anything to me. When you have to have a commentary to explain the photos, I think the photos lack the ability to stand on their on.
MichaelW
Established
The photos are good, the cafe owner is a fool. Unfortunately, a fool with the power to derail an exhibition.
Coincidentally, a few days ago I watched the excellent doc about Sally Mann "What Remains" in which Pace gallery in New York cancel her exhibition at the last moment.
Coincidentally, a few days ago I watched the excellent doc about Sally Mann "What Remains" in which Pace gallery in New York cancel her exhibition at the last moment.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Did she really spend $3000 to do a show in a coffee shop? That wasn't too sharp either.
We don't know all the details, only a little bit of one side. Given that the work isn't that strong, but it is depressing, the cafe owner has a good reason to wish it gone. Whether she is violating a contract we don't know... but the artist just got a chance to show in a real wine and cheese gallery -- that's pretty good considering.
It's good to be encouraging and all but frankly, a lot of art photography is just barely.
We don't know all the details, only a little bit of one side. Given that the work isn't that strong, but it is depressing, the cafe owner has a good reason to wish it gone. Whether she is violating a contract we don't know... but the artist just got a chance to show in a real wine and cheese gallery -- that's pretty good considering.
It's good to be encouraging and all but frankly, a lot of art photography is just barely.
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
OK, so I probably just "don't get it" but those images look like bad scans with negative scratches.
Now they do make more sense after reading the artist statement, but it seems more of a personal thing for someone. Not something to look at while you're getting your morning coffee fix.
I spent a week cleaning the family house where we lived for 2 decades or so, and my parents 4 or 5 decades. Didn't take photos, and if I did, wouldn't put them in public. They would have a lot of meaning, but only to our family.
She should buy or run her own coffee shop, then a/b test those photos with snapshots of the GG Bridge ... redwoods, sunsets, and wildlife ...
Now they do make more sense after reading the artist statement, but it seems more of a personal thing for someone. Not something to look at while you're getting your morning coffee fix.
I spent a week cleaning the family house where we lived for 2 decades or so, and my parents 4 or 5 decades. Didn't take photos, and if I did, wouldn't put them in public. They would have a lot of meaning, but only to our family.
She should buy or run her own coffee shop, then a/b test those photos with snapshots of the GG Bridge ... redwoods, sunsets, and wildlife ...
robklurfield
eclipse
What I just posted to Varese's FB page:
"Bummer. But, the way I see it, that letter now becomes part of the work. Run with it. You may be on to something here."
"Bummer. But, the way I see it, that letter now becomes part of the work. Run with it. You may be on to something here."
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
The work is melancholy in tone, but as someone else mentioned so is the front page of most magazines and newspapers. I would love to see this kind of work hanging in accessible venues. Art doesn't belong in a detached gallery. It belongs where people can see it and experience within the flow of their daily lives, as they do with a book or a movie and all the other means of expression we encounter on the street. What a missed opportunity for Ritual.
/
/
PatrickCheung
Well-known
That last line in the letter she received is horrible. "no one should have lead you to believe that this belonged in a coffee shop" is just about the worst thing you could say. And why was the curator fired? Was it not the owner's "mistake" that she didn't let the curator know specifically what she wanted in her cafe?
Though, playing devil's advocate, the artist should have carefully read the contract. Both parties are bound by the contract, and if the owner is allowed to back down from the deal so easily then the contract must've been pretty loose. However, in support of the artist, this means that if the contract prohibited such a withdrawal, then she has all the right to sue the owner's ass. Or at least defend her position based on the term of the contract.
As a childish act of revenge, I'd tell my friends not to go there anymore on the basis that their coffee isn't serious enough.
Though, playing devil's advocate, the artist should have carefully read the contract. Both parties are bound by the contract, and if the owner is allowed to back down from the deal so easily then the contract must've been pretty loose. However, in support of the artist, this means that if the contract prohibited such a withdrawal, then she has all the right to sue the owner's ass. Or at least defend her position based on the term of the contract.
As a childish act of revenge, I'd tell my friends not to go there anymore on the basis that their coffee isn't serious enough.