After reading Carol Vogel's article, "Armani Gift to the Guggenheim Revives Issue of Art and Commerce", I have come to several conclusions. First, I agree with Marie Malaro. (She is a former director of the graduate level curriculum for museum studies at George Washington University in the District of Columbia.) "If it looks bad, it is bad." Case in point, the "Sensations" exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum. This was an exhibition of "young British Artisits from the Saatchi Collection".
Initially, the museum failed to disclose this show was funded by sources that stood to profit commercially from these artists works being on display. First, I believe the public needs to be made aware of such potential conflicts of interest in advance. For instance, Charles Saatchi, who owned the collection, put up $160,000. The contribution of Christie's, a British auction house, was $50,000.
A high profile exhibition, such as this one, would cause these artworks to appreciate in value. So, these contributions would seem to be for commercial rather than community benefit. Shouldn't the artwork showcased in these exhibitions be selected solely on artistic merit rather than personal profit? How many artists of equal or greater talent will not be exhibited to a large public audience because
of a financial "quid pro quo"? Second, I believe an independent board of art critics, artists, curators, and the public should recommend who gets exhibited. The museum curators alone, should not be allowed to decide who are the "winners" and who are the "losers". Finally, my answer to the title of my blog post is: There needs to be a "Chinese wall" between the borders of Art and Commerce to ensure a "level playing field" for all artists. In other words, the artists with the richest financial backers should not be almost guaranteed success. (Many of these people are business men and women first; not traditional "patrons of the Arts"!)
No comments:
Post a Comment