Lawrimore Project is an odd gallery, but for a reason. It was founded four years ago on a basic, timely principle: that the local and the international could feed each other—that by giving Seattle artists the rockingest possible space to create in, their careers would have the best chance of taking off into the larger marketplace of ideas and commerce, and meanwhile, local audiences would get awesome shows for free. It was about more than selling the work of local artists. It was about deepening the conversation around art in Seattle, while keeping it fun and sexy. The place itself, designed by two artists (Lead Pencil Studio) in an old sign company on Airport Way South, is 5,000 square feet of pure personality. And proprietor Scott Lawrimore established a weekly Art Klatch on Tuesday mornings, open to anyone and he pays for the coffee, at Cafe Presse, where broad art-world issues are thrown into the mix with dialogue about local shows and situations. But last week, Lawrimore sent out a private SOS e-mail to supporters. It began with the title “Where’s All the Arts Patrons At?” It went on to say that Lawrimore Project as it’s currently configured might be closing.
The gallery’s five-year lease with real-estate company Urban Visions (a supportive and patient landlord, Lawrimore notes) expires on Halloween. Lawrimore’s weighing his options: buying a building of his own, renting a smaller space, augmenting more modest regular shows with less frequent blowout events in locations around the city. Either way, if he moves, the new place will most likely be smaller than this one—Lawrimore Project is larger than any other commercial gallery in the city and feels like an alternative space, not a retail shop—and the rich, elaborate design of this place will be lost forever, a creative work of interior architecture just gone.
“I thought the space was really big for a gallery in such a small city—I mean, I admired it,” says Chris Perez, who has established a major gallery in a minor art city: Ratio 3 in San Francisco, which has similarities to Seattle in terms of its distance from art centers.
On Slog, The Stranger‘s blog, a commenter wrote in response to Lawrimore’s SOS: “I’m a big fan and semi-regular visitor of the Lawrimore Project and Western Bridge. Some of the most creative and thought-provoking pieces I’ve seen in Seattle have been in those spaces. However, I am merely a spectator and in no position to purchase. I’ve often wondered how either space makes ends meet.”
And therein lie several truths about Lawrimore Project.
First, because it stages such huge projects—real events: a giant, double-height room transformed into a walk-in camera, a simulated rainstorm, a rock/performance-art stage featuring a costume metal band facing a miniature mountain with a woman tethered to the ceiling jumping on it—people don’t realize they can, or should, buy anything at Lawrimore Project. Smitten with spectacle, it’s easy to miss the fact that smaller works are available: The current show with Indianola native Eli Hansen, who is about to have a prestigious solo debut at a gallery in New York (which will drive his prices right up), has pieces for as low as $300.
Second, Lawrimore Project is seen as a place that, because it is staging such huge projects, must be doing just fine in the money department. But Western Bridge, a space where leading contemporary collectors Bill and Ruth True share their personal holdings with the public, is based on an entirely different business model than Lawrimore Project. In fact, Western Bridge has no business model because it is not a business. It is simply the pet project—a generous pet project, for sure—of a wealthy couple. Meanwhile, Lawrimore Project is the one-man business of a guy who grew up in a California trailer park, learned the ropes by working the desks of Seattle galleries for years, and still has to work just to make rent.
And the third reality is that the recession makes the gallery business in Seattle—already a calling, not an industry (you think these guys make big bucks? This ain’t Chelsea, people)—a total slog. The last decade has seen a steady expansion in the size and number of contemporary art galleries in the city, but the economic crash has poked holes in all ships. Howard House, a risk-taking venture that began in the home of Billy Howard and then moved into a proper art venue in Pioneer Square, has struggled to stay afloat in its soaring-ceilinged location on Second Avenue. Greg Kucera Gallery has been open for 27 years and is the steadiest gallery in Seattle art. But even Kucera has begun to draw attention to the fact that he is running a business that needs supporting: Kucera’s current group show is called Made in U.S.A., with the intention to highlight that galleries and artists, too, are fragile mom-and-pop shops.
Kucera is the godfather of the high-profile, high-concept contemporary gallery in Seattle, and Lawrimore has expanded upon what Kucera started back in 1983. Kucera, one of the most regular collectors at Lawrimore Project, is upset that more buyers don’t recognize its value.
“I think this is very grave,” Kucera wrote in an e-mail. “I can honestly say that I think Scott is doing the most exciting shows right now [in Seattle], doing the most to elevate his artists, working tirelessly on their behalves.”
“Why don’t collectors really see the whole range of art [in Seattle] in any given month? Laziness and self-satisfaction,” Kucera wrote. “Why don’t they see the need to support the businesses, like Scott’s, that are probably doing more good for Seattle’s prominence as an art city than all the house-decorating, tchotchke shops put together? More of same.” He added in a later phone conversation, “There’s no limit to what collectors here could do or spend.”
Less than half of the money Lawrimore takes in comes from Seattle buyers, a condition that’s common for Seattle galleries, but should be changing as galleries like Lawrimore Project, Howard House, Ambach & Rice, and James Harris have increasingly and successfully promoted artists abroad, proving local artists to skeptical local buyers, in recent years. At Ambach & Rice in Ballard, 75 percent of sales are to collectors outside the city.
John and Shari Behnke are exemplary collectors and supporters of art in Seattle. Last year they established and funded the $12,500 annual Brink award at the Henry Art Gallery, for a promising artist who receives the money and a show at the Henry. The first winner this year is Isabelle Pauwels, whose exhibition has been up at the museum since January.
“I am amazed at the number of people I know in my art social circle, and I say to them, ‘Have you gone to see the Brink?’ and their answer is no,” Shari said in a phone conversation last week. “It blows me away. I just go, ‘You haven’t seen it? What exactly is your reasoning behind this?’ I think Scott has in some ways single-handedly tried to change art appreciation in Seattle, and he can only do so much.”
“It’s incredibly frustrating that there’s only a handful of people collecting good art in this city,” Ruth True said. She also admitted she hasn’t been to Lawrimore Project often enough herself: “Guilty as charged.”
For every opening, Lawrimore Project attracts hundreds of party people to its space—a warren of rooms including a white cube, a black box, a skylighted warehouse, a den with a fireplace, and an office sitting on cinder blocks that’s a tribute to Lawrimore’s childhood. It’s not suffering for popularity. “But there tends to be a lip service to it,” says artist Susie Lee, who was responsible for the “rainstorm” in the gallery a few years ago.
Like several artists at Lawrimore Project, Lee’s work has landed in prestigious shows (a recent one put her video Consummation next to pieces by Eve Sussman and Bill Viola) and collections while being represented by Lawrimore Project. There’s no question his roster is hot: Artists include Anne Mathern (now at the Mountain School of Arts in L.A.), Alex Schweder La (shown recently at San Francisco Museum of Modern Art; aside: He recently married and added his wife’s last name, La), SuttonBeresCuller (working on an entire pocket park in Georgetown), Susan Robb (her solar-and-wind-powered performance sculpture Toobs has traveled the country), and Caleb Larsen (whose Tool to Deceive and Slaughter, a box that sells itself continually on eBay, has been widely discussed since it made its debut at the gallery last year and is about to be featured in the New York Times Magazine).
“People are like, ‘Wow, great shows,’ but it’s like, we can barely pay the rent—and that’s not just for Scott, that’s for the artists,” Lee said. “It’s kind of sad that you can’t have a space like that in Seattle. We saw it with ConWorks and CoCA, too.” ConWorks and CoCA were thriving nonprofit alternative spaces, while Lawrimore Project is set up to be for-profit. Lawrimore says he’s not interested in going nonprofit: Applying for grants to survive would take time away from promoting the art.
Even in a smaller space, artists including Lee, John Sutton, and Lead Pencil Studio (Annie Han and Daniel Mihalyo) say they’ll stick with Lawrimore—they signed on for his vision, not his physical space. (Han and Mihalyo are Zen about their architecture being abandoned—it happens all the time in the commercial world, they say. The lights just go down, and someone else comes in and changes everything, and that’s it.)
But the larger point is that, while Lawrimore Project is unique, it is also emblematic of all serious contemporary art galleries in Seattle. They are all ambitious, because simply representing cutting-edge contemporary art is still an ambitious thing to do in this city. These really are hardworking mom-and-pop shops worth visiting, and considering supporting. Kucera’s advice about how to survive?
“For myself, I go to work every fucking day,” he says. “I don’t skip work, I don’t take time off. You have to be committed.”
Your galleries are here, committed, ready, and waiting. 
I wish I had something to help sustain the Seattle galleries besides my presence at openings. I am not in any position to be purchasing artwork myself, but I lend my hand at installing or promoting. More people could be doing this.
And this may seem absurd, but when was the last time anyone thanked the owners and operators of Seattle’s galleries? Art galleries and their receptions are free – but who is thanking anyone for them? Live music, theater, dance, books: we are used to paying for these; but we can’t even thank the artist/proprietor by making a purchase now and then? How about throwing some bread in the jar at a reception? You looked for free!
And it’s wonderful thing to have artwork in your home. Treat your guests to hours of looking at things.
I have collected a lot of art (nearly all local artists) over the last 15 years. but as much as I love art and to support artists, I just got sick of the lookie loos and hipster artist wannabes who don’t know crap about art but act like they do. just hanging out and never buying anything, taking up space and trying to get laid. Its not like some of them can’t afford to buy, but I think the art scene is more about being seen than supporting the artists, or even appreciating the art.
Two points: I don’t think that there is anything wrong with being seen. Art Galleries mutually coordinating First Thursday openings has created a kind of de facto monthly promenade, something which Seattle sorely needs. There is nothing wrong with establishing and occupying rituals of social display. I also don’t think there is anything wrong with trying to get laid. It’s a good thing when you get lucky. Everybody needs love.
However, this brings me to my second point: Perhaps the world has moved on from the art historical paradigms that Greg Kucera and Scott Lawrimore find important and laudable. It has certainly happened before. Paradigm shifts occur under the radar, and often those most engaged in “the present” fail to see that new background scenery and a different patois have slipped into place while they weren’t looking.
Lawrimore Project:good. Greg Kucera:good. First Thursday:good. Occupying Rituals of Social Display:really good. Getting Laid:good. Historical Paradigms:good. Different Patois:gooder.
these comments exactly confirm the point I’m trying to make; the gallery environment is no longer the correct forum in which to support art or artists. therefore the secondary function first thursday provides by creating the opportunity for ‘the defacto monthly promenade ritual of social display’ will cease to exist (or transition to a different forum) as galleries fail. the new paradigm that supports artists and art hasn’t fully emerged yet, from what I can tell. unless jacques boot and husky quarter, you’re saying you actually buy any art? do you?
Back to topic, folks. What can any of us do to better support Lawrimore Project or any of Seattle’s galleries that are showing each of us what we want to see?
The answer is simple. It takes very little to support such small businesses. Buy art; support artists.
If Seattle’s several major collectors would empower Seattle’s gallery scene with more than just the occasional purchase, you’d see these dealers better able to bring world class art to Seattle and better able to create a context for how local artists fit into that larger art scene. The more numerous, but nonetheless valuable, group of gallery goers should realize how even small purchases in shows such as Lawrimore does regularly can help to make the rent each month for any of these galleries.
And to those that say, “we’d love to support these galleries but don’t have space for this kind of contemporary art,” I’d like to remind them they could always buy just to give it away to museums if they truly want to help Seattle’s galleries and artists flourish.
In this town of very wealthy people we should be able to support such admirable ventures as Lawrimore, Harris, Ambach & Rice, or Howard, as well as long term staples to the scene as Seders and others.
Jim Harris and I are both at ArtChicago this week. Both of us are featuring Seattle artists alongside their more nationally known counterparts.
We’re doing our part of the equation.
@whatevercathy – I both make art and buy it. I also teach art privately, have done so for regional institutions for 40 years, and having done all of these have probably provided more support for “art” (whatever you might construe that to be,) than my fair share. And I wonder if “correct” is an appropriate descriptive when talking of the support of art and artists. There are a number of viable options for such support, and I think galleries will continue to play a vital role, if they are willing to reassess what that role should be in changing times.
and @Greg Kucera, i believe that you miss my point. Should artists and galleries really go begging? The great folkster and raconteur U. Utah Phillips once said “if your art isn’t making it, you must be doing something wrong.” Or Robert Graves, who when asked whether he liked supporting his poetry with potboiler fiction like “I Claudius” replied “writing for an audience helps keep me honest.” Either the art is compelling or it isn’t. No amount of browbeating and guilt-tripping your audience can change that.
Of course it’s an arguable position that the wealthy should be compelled to support the arts as a matter of conscience and social responsibility, much the same way that in Bali the well-off are expected to underwrite the costs of the annual Ramayana celebrations. I don’t see anyone attempting to establish a platform for that position in a positive way.
However, I want to restate my original thought: I don’t think that the galleries that are squawking the loudest about this are necessarily showing the art that is relevant and compelling to our era.
Galleries struggling to sell high-end art to wealthy collectors in the Seattle area have always faced this problem: If the clients are wealthy enough to afford this art, why would they buy it here? A weekend trip to NY, London, et. al., to buy art is simply more fun and interesting for these people than a trip to Pioneer Square and environs. It is a personal choice on the part of the collectors where to buy their art, just as it is a personal choice on the part of the gallery owners what art they choose to feature. To complain about a business decision you made and call collectors “lazy” and “self-satisfied” is just as silly as calling the gallery owners themselves naive and unsophisticated.
Look people. We don’t want to lose any more galleries or art spaces if we can help it. Just in the last year and a half: Davidson Contemporary, Bentham Gallery, Foster White’s uptown space, Garde Rail, Crawl Space and I am sure there are a couple of others I don’t recall at the moment. Also, our Seattle galleries did NOT go to Miami this last time around. Times are tight. That said, sometimes I wonder if the local moguls intentionally do things to annoy the gallerists and artists, just because they can. You get to breathe when I say so. Seattle loves her artists, that’s why the Bowen goes to Portland, and the first Brink goes to Canada. Come on.
If SF is a minor art city then…art is more dead than usual.
I think Scott is doing an amazing job for the Seattle arts community, but the reality is that if he can no longer afford to keep that space, his business model is simply not sustainable. While I feel bad that he may need to close up shop or move to smaller quarters, that is the reality that many businesses face. I think appeals for the general public to be more charitable is misplaced here. If a restaurant fails, no one goes around asking people to be more charitable about supporting the local food culture of Seattle, that would be ridiculous. It failed because it simply did not find a niche, or the business model was wrong. Big banks failed. Entropy happens. Scott needs to find a business model that is as innovative as the artists he supports.
@icare: Your restaurant analogy is an interesting one, though slightly flawed. In case you didn’t notice, a whole swarm of Seattle restaurants got together JUST LAST WEEK to offer up three course meals for 25$. I don’t think Canlis was involved. Maybe you are trying to be funny.
Where’s Siggie when you need her????
@12 I don’t see a lot of $25 art in these struggling galleries…
I’m always suggesting to painters that they consider smaller, more affordable works. Something around $100 or so, but everyone wants to pay a month’s rent with one painting. Of course, they can’t sell a $1000 painting every month, but hey–at least they’ve got their integrity.
There’s a story by Roberta Smith in the New York Times this morning about the first gallery week there. This would not be a bad idea for Seattle – a week of events both during the day (promoted as a lunch-hour activity downtown – tours, talks, snacks) and at night (night out, cocktails, talks, spectacle). Granted there’s already the Thursdays, but you could build it around a first Thursday and have that be the apex of the week. The goal would basically be to raise awareness, to just get new people into the galleries. Most people won’t buy anything but people need to think of galleries as a possible activity on their list of leisure time activities, and if they do, eventually they will buy something when it grabs them. At least, that’s what happened to me.
There are a few problems in the comments above. The restaurant comparison doesn’t work, I won’t go on and on about why, it just doesn’t – the commerce that takes place is just different. And the idea that if people can afford to go to NY to buy art, they will only go to NY to buy art, does not hold water (I saw more inspiring work in Seattle on a recent walk than I did on my last walk through Chelsea; sometimes the opposite is true but not always). Also – there is nothing wrong with charging $25 for a piece of artwork that is worth that, but for more expensive pieces, you have to ask yourself about the time, skill, knowledge and references that went into their making. Complaining about prices without really thinking about why something costs what it costs can get dangerously close to Giuliani saying “If I can do it, it’s not art.” I am sometimes surprised that things don’t cost MORE (Dan Webb for example).
It is just plain true that the majority of people who go into galleries will not be able to afford to buy (myself included most of the time). But the point of going is to be inspired by ideas, to aspire to have a more interesting life. I think a lot of people, including people with money, are just not aware of that as a choice. So my thought is that it needs to be promoted better.
Compelling art at affordable prices has always sold well. Everything else is a gamble. Stop your whining and deal with it.