The Hugo Boss Prize Long-range Vision
The result of what was a rare choice at the time (1996), namely to take part in the highly exclusive world of international awards for the discovery and promotion of artists, the Hugo Boss Prize has proven its visionary mettle, also thanks to the formula of partnership with a leading museum that hosts an exhibition of work by the winner, the Guggenheim in New York. After the announcement of the recipient of the Prize for 2018 – Simone Leigh – L’Officiel Art met with the artist, as well as Richard Armstrong, director of the museum, and artistic director Nancy Spector.
Simone Leigh
WINNER OF THE HUGO BOSS PRIZE 2018
On being awarded.
Winning is like a beginning, after which you have to figure out what you are going to do about it. Because it comes with responsibility. It’s like I’m standing on a lot of people’s shoulders – there are so many other women who should have received such awards, had we had a different history. I feel a responsibility to them. Hilma Af Klint [on show at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum until April 23, 2019], for instance, should have won this award.
On the decision to get into art.
I was reluctant to become an artist. I have a very religious family, my father is a minister and my family are missionaries. They are Jamaican
immigrants, which I think fostered a sort of attitude of always being on the outside, and I think that is useful for an artist. I went to a Quaker college, and there was a very good ceramist, Mickael Biderman, who was an apprentice of Warren MacKenzie, who was an apprentice of Bernard Leach, so I have this kind of old school background that is quite unusual in the art world. From there I went to the Smithsonian, to do research on West African ceramists. At that point I was really young and just following my interest. I think I decided I was an artist when I was 5 years old; I got up earlier and earlier, even at 3 am so I would have time to study, and I realize I was pretty serious about it.
On choosing clay as the initial medium.
It was almost by accident. There is a tradition in American studio pottery that has been largely influenced by Bernard Leach: at my Quaker school I was studying techniques from Japan, with glazes and brushes and tools, and I was curious about the existence of this Japanese studio in the middle of Indiana. So I plunged into it and I enjoyed it. I also enjoyed the fact that being a potter is a complete lifestyle… it is not just about the objects, it is also about how you live, in a community or not. The way of life of an artist.
On the process of firing clay.
II like the lack of control, it is wonderful. I think that’s why a lot of people get so engaged with clay.
On other artists giving voice to the “invisible man”: Jean-Michel Basquiat, Kerry James Marshall, Theaster Gates, Arthur Jafa…
All the people you mentioned are men, which is significant. There is an expression that says: “all the women are white and all the blacks are men,” and I think people have not accepted the intellectual contribution of black women. We have been ignored, but we are there. Now I think people are coming to understand, that things are shifting, little by little.
Nancy Spector
ARTISTIC DIRECTOR OF THE GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM
L’OFFICIEL ART:
How does the Guggenheim Museum approach the Hugo Boss Prize, besides ensuring the production of the winner’s exhibition? In this historical relationship that links you to Hugo Boss, do you have the latitude to exercise your own curatorial expertise?
NANCY SPECTOR: Every two years we bring together a jury, which includes members of the Guggenheim, as well as curators and directors of museums and international institutions. Each member presents a choice of ten artists they feel are interesting; after an initial meeting, the jury narrows down the selection to six names. Over the last 20 years the prize has really served us as a kind of barometer for both exhibition making and acquisitions, so we’ve tried every year to acquire works by all the finalists. The members of the jury represent a broad cross-section of the art world, and they really do provide guidance as to which contemporary artists we should be looking at. We have tried to build on the legacy of the Hugo Boss Prize by having works coming into the collections, and the exhibitions have become a central pillar of our contemporary program.
In addition to the funding of the prize itself, how does Hugo Boss support the process?
Besides the financial prize, they cover the expenses for the jury and the exhibitions of the winning artists. But we also use the prize as a way to formulate guidelines on collection strategies, since the jury allows us to bring together people from around the world: experts, museums directors, museum curators, critics bring their collective knowledge, and we are able to learn from them. In some cases we become aware of artists with whom we are not familiar, because the jury members may suggest talents from Africa, like this year, or artists from Asia. It’s a wonderful tool for us to gain knowledge, which we can then activate through other funds to make acquisitions. I’ve been working on the prize since its inception so I have seen every single one; we have brought in younger curators, because it’s very important for the prize to stay fresh.
The Hugo Boss Prize is one of the only awards that sets no limits on age, nationality or medium.
Indeed, it’s the only prize in the world that has this kind of very wide angle, with no gender, no age, no country, no limitations, and when it began in 1996 it was very visionary on the part of Hugo Boss to have this initial premise. I think it was a truly inspired sponsorship, and the company has
been an incredibly productive counterpart during all this time. It’s very unusual to have that kind of support over such a sustained period. We have a very long and I think very fertile relationship with Hugo Boss. From the outset they were supportive of the idea of an open prize – and even when Hans-Peter Feldmann won [2010], though he was older than many of winners from the past, there was the feeling that he had never received the attention he deserved. The scope of the prize is so broad that the various juries are able to interpret it on their own terms
How did you personally become involved with the prize?
When Thomas Krens, the previous director of the Guggenheim, began the first discussions with Hugo Boss, and decided that it would be wonderful to come together and create a prize, I was very lucky to have the job of defining what that award would be. I had this inspiring opportunity to build the skeleton of the prize. The Turner Prize was in many ways for me a model at the time. But we didn’t want to limit it to American artists or to create any specific perimeter. We tried to open it up. The idea still contains this emphasis on excellence in contemporary art, though what that means is changing all the time. It is really about trying to identify an artist whose work, even if they are in mid-career or earlier, is going to change the rules, is going to create a legacy and have a kind of impact. Moreover, our purpose is not only to put a spotlight on the award-winning artist, but also to showcase all the shortlisted talents who seem to us to reflect a certain contemporary scene. This is why we produce a catalogue presenting the work of each artist,
which represents an important communication tool for them. Every artist also benefits from an original text written by an art historian, critic or curator.
Would you say that the model of the Prize you contributed to build is now inspiring other fashion brands?
It’s hard to say. I know that there is a proliferation of art prizes, compared to when we began in the mid-1990s. The connection between fashion and art has a long history, and there have been some very meaningful collaborations over the years. I do think that our Hugo Boss Prize furthers that conversation and enriches it, showing how fashion companies can enable us to do really important work that wouldn’t otherwise be possible. I think at Hugo Boss they fundamentally understand that, and appreciate being a part of it, just as we appreciate having this partnership.
What is your analysis regarding the choice of the winner?
Simone Leigh is interestingly not an emerging artist, but her career has reached a remarkable level of credibility right now, also in terms of recognition. This seems slightly overdue, and what is exciting for us is her ability to blend in craftwork, which is probably not usually considered “high art.” Her work embodies incredible aesthetic sophistication, and the fact that she has spoken about making work by a black woman for black women, and what that means in this country at this moment, is extremely important. I think for all of us at the museum and on the jury, this is a statement we want to make. We want to be supportive and to provide a platform for Simone Leigh to make new work, and to have an exhibition in the United States.
Richard Armstrong
DIRECTOR OF THE GUGGENHEIM MUSEUM
L’OFFICIEL ART:
What is your view on the role of private sponsorship in the artistic projects of museums and institutions in the United States and Europe?
RICHARD ARMSTRONG: It is a very common situation in the US. And I think that the French system is evolving. The arrangement the Louvre made with Abu Dhabi is very forward looking and will benefit the museums, especially the regional museums. I also see that big collectors and people with capital are making investments in different places, in Arles, in Paris and elsewhere, and to me it seems to be a more balanced situation, and therefore a better one. It is good for the artists and good for the cities. How and why should the fashion world be connected to living visual artists? I think in the case of this prize, they have done it through us in a very persevering way.
By creating its Prize in 1996, more than 22 years ago, Hugo Boss was visionary. At that time few brands were getting involved in art with such determination.
I think there is a parallel of creativity between fashion and the visuals arts, which perhaps is only natural. Hugo Boss is unusual because they understood this so early in the game. When you look at the records of the Hugo Boss Prize, and consider all the nominees and winners (Matthew Barney in1996, Douglas Gordon in 1998, Pierre Huyghe in 2002, Tacita Dean in 2006…) it is quite amazing that the jury has so frequently chosen somebody who became a very strong figure shortly thereafter. And the museum allows artists to do whatever they want, with complete freedom. To give a couple of examples: Danh Vo made the radical choice of showing the work of another artist, Martin Wong, while Hans-Peter Feldmann literally put the prize money on the wall.
How would you describe the spirit of the Guggenheim in relation to the Prize?
The spirit is to keep a very open mind: we say that we are a museum for the whole world, and we have to demonstrate that in every way. We try to make a big effort to understand Asia, and Latin America. We have gone from being a Eurocentric North American museum to truly being a great museum of the world. So the jury, to my mind, is a reflection of that ambition. One of the great powers of art is to be the demonstration that creativity may be located in a place, but it has connections to the whole world.
“Hugo Boss Prize 2018: Simone Leigh.” Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York. Spring 2019.