The Elusive “Banksy” Strikes Again

The graffiti artist and prankster Robert Banks, aka “Banksy” recently installed four temporary exhibitions at the Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Brooklyn Museum and the American Museum of Natural History. Each were eventually removed but not before a few unsuspecting visitors happened upon them and not before an accomplice of Banksy’s was able to snap off a few photos of the works being installed.

When asked whether the new Banksy additions were a concern to museums in terms of security, museum officials indicated that it was not an issue and that sufficient security was in place.

The unauthorized presence of works of art in museums is not totally uncommon and the response to such works varies from amused to indignant. In a typical haughty-taughty response to Banksy’s new addition, Elyse Topalian, a spokeswoman for the Met, said “I think it's fair to say that it would take more than a piece of Scotch tape to get a work of art into the Met." A similar response came from Sally Williams of the Brooklyn Museum, stating “I think the immediate issue was just to get it out of the gallery and tucked away somewhere where it couldn't be seen." When a dead rat complete with sunglasses, rucksack and mini-microphone appeared in a glass-fronted box at the Natural History Museum last year, the Museum’s response wasn’t nearly as harsh, indicating that if the artist wanted to reclaim the piece it was there for him to pick up.

I think Banksy’s art provides a much needed (humorous) critique of the art world. Indeed many of the well-known artists exhibited in museums would probably have appreciated Banksy’s commentary on the art establishment. The idea that only art historians can decide what is “museum-worthy” art is at the heart of Banksy’s crusade to infiltrate museum collections. Of museums, Banksy believes "these galleries are just trophy cabinets for a handful of millionaires. The public never has any real say in what art they see." While I think this may be a bit of an overstatement, his point is clear—there is a definite bias in terms of what works a museum exhibits and what works they choose to ignore. The question of inclusion for a work in an exhibition can come down to complex circumstances such as prospective donations from wealthy trustees or donors and the stroking of egos, to practical reasons like a work’s size. For whatever reason they were chosen, their inclusion is often unquestioned and ultimately accepted. Banksy’s often humorous inclusions remind us that art can be democratic and the museum is not a shrine or imposing temple to art…it’s a place of contemplation, entertainment, and appreciation.

Ward Churchill: The Copyist?

(Apologies for the delay in new posts)

Most of you are probably already aware of the ongoing saga involving Ward Churchill, professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, and his 2001 essay "The Ghosts of 9-1-1." For an introduction or recap of that controversy see archived posts at Das Haus (scroll down for additional posts).

Unfortunately for Churchill, conservative bloggers have been conducting an investigation of their own in an attempt to besmirch his reputation. One such investigation has resulted in allegations of copyright infringement as a number of Churchill's artworks have revealed glaring similarities to those of earlier Native American artists. In one case, a serigraph by Churchill called "Winter Battle" appears to be an almost identical reversed image of a 1972 painting by the late artist Thomas E. Mails titled "The Mystic Warriors of the Plains."

Churchill defended his works by providing the following explanation:

"It is an original art work by me, after Thomas Mails. The fact that the purchaser was ignorant of the reality of what was perfectly publicly stated at the time the edition was printed is not my responsibility."

Another point of contention is that Churchill signed the work as his own (which it is) but failed to give credit to Mails by indicating something like "Winter Battle after Thomas E. Mails's painting 'The Mystic Warriors of the Plains." The evidence against Churchill in this case is overwhelming, it's just too bad that this guy's entire life is being dissected and reviewed over an essay that was written over three years ago. Might Churchill be a copyist? Sure, but it's certainly plausible that he did obtain permission to borrow parts of or entire images from other artists to translate them into either a new medium or create a variation of the original artist's work (although Churchill is certainly not among the following artists in terms of artistic talent or creativity, it is worthy to note that van Gogh, Rembrandt, Reubens, and Michelangelo were all proficient copiers). In any event, it's no small coincidence that Churchill's art is coming under such scrutiny now, well into the investigation being conducted by the Board of Regents at the university.

Vandalism or Art?

Last week a two-part article ran in the San Francisco Chronicle by Steven Winn that looked at graffiti, vandalism and public art. The articles can be found here and here (the second article is the better of the two).

Unfortunately, Winn raises the question but fails to take a firm stance one way or the other. If we accept that public art is, quite simply, art that exists in public spaces than the term acts as an umbrella under which graffiti and vandalism are covered. What is absent from Winn’s explanation is a differentiation between what is authorized and what is not. This, I believe, is what distinguishes between what is vandalism and what is not, however it does not identify whether something is a work of public art or not. That determination is part of a much greater discussion.

I should mention here that I don’t think there’s any reason to go into whether graffiti or vandalism may have artistic merit since one only needs to look at the works of Keith Haring, Jean-Michel Basquiat and other artists to see that graffiti/vandalism may have aesthetic or artistic merit. I should also mention that acts of vandalism or graffiti on private works of art, for example, an attack on or alteration of a work in a museum, are excluded from this discussion for I believe they present some other problems other than those raised by such actions on works in public spaces.

Graffiti and vandalism can be public art but all public art is not necessarily graffiti or vandalism. I believe the extent to which graffiti or another kind of art form is vandalism is determined by whether it is an authorized or unauthorized work of art. If we can agree on this, then vandalism can not be an authorized act of public art. Graffiti and other works of art can, depending on whether it is authorized or not, be an act of vandalism. An act of graffiti or the “creation” of a work of art that defaces or alters a pre-existing work of art is an act of vandalism. Might it still be art itself? Sure, I suppose it could be (perhaps some kind of appropriation art or performance art if the actual act of vandalism is intended to be considered the work of art).

As a result of his lack of differentiation between what is authorized and unauthorized art, and his subsequent his use of the terms “graffiti” and “vandalism” rather liberally, Winn suggests that Christo’s and Jean Claude’s Gates were “a kind of benign vandalism, a willed and somewhat arbitrary alteration of a public space that can inflect a viewer's perceptions of that space years after the artwork itself has vanished." Yes—it changed the nature of the public space it was exhibited in and perhaps people’s perceptions of that space were changed but that is not a defining characteristic of vandalism. It is however, even according to Winn, what is to be expected from public works of art. The Gates were no act of vandalism because they were an authorized, temporary installation of public art.

Since I’m on the topic of changing perceptions of public spaces, Winn also mentions the public sculpture Tilted Arc by Richard Serra. Although he doesn’t go so far to suggest that that was vandalism (fortunately), he uses the work as an example of the impact public works of art have on the community and the reactions and emotions they evoke. Now, before I said that in order for something to qualify as vandalism it had to be an unauthorized act. I stand by that assertion; however as an exception to that rule I would be willing to concede that the destruction of Serra’s sculpture was an act of authorized vandalism of the grossest proportions, legitimized by the same morons who commissioned the work in the first place. As Winn professes, “the vandalizing of freely accessible, open-air artworks carries its own set of meanings and effects,” and that, “public sculpture and other forms of outdoor art are clearly more vulnerable than a museum's protected holdings.” Public works of art ARE more vulnerable and their vulnerability is not solely a function of opportunistic graffiti artists or even two lovers wanting to scratch their names into the side of something. For some reason the fact that Serra’s work was a public work of art contributed to the apparent acceptability of its authorized destruction. This, I believe, is the result of some warped logic that minimizes the egregiousness of the act of destroying art for the sake of convenience by framing it in terms that attempt to distinguish it from what it really is: vandalism.

NPR Correspondent Fired Over Report That Revisits the Seizure of Works on Loan to the Museum of Modern Art Years Ago

Due to my affiliation with the museum I will refrain from commenting on the story, but the following are some links to various articles or comments made about the situation throughout the duration of the case. I should note that D'Arcy's firing is only one small piece of a much larger story that has been ongoing since the initial attempt by the U.S. to sieze the two Egon Schiele works in 1998. Decide for yourself what the issues at hand are and I will facilitate the discussion as (if) it evolves.

Here you can find the NPR report by David D’Arcy, that aired on December 28 2004, that has led to his dismissal. Note also the correction posted by NPR regarding D’Arcy’s report.

Artnet first ran the story about D’Arcy’s firing in the article found here.

To take a step back, here are some articles that discuss the history of the work's seizure, its ownership and the lawsuits which followed:

Art in America: February 1998 by Raphael Rubenstein

The Art Newspaper, July 21 2000, The Art Newspaper by Martha Lufkin

On February 10 2000, MoMA director Glenn Lowery gave an address to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, United States House of Representatives. Of notable interest is the following excerpt:

“Our point was not that one side or the other was the proper owner -- a museum is neither equipped nor empowered to serve as judge and jury in a dispute over other people's property -- but rather that current New York State law protects works of art on loan for public exhibition from any kind of seizure.”

Unique Donation to the Tate Raises Important Issue Facing Museums Today

It is the rare occurrence that an individual goes to an art museum and finds themselves pondering something other than the art on display. In a unique attempt to change this, an anonymous donor has given the Tate a donation of toilet paper in an attempt to raise the public's awareness of the financial strain operating costs place on museums. As part of the agreement, visitors will notice that each bathroom stall is adorned with a sign which reads “Tate relies on benefactors / The paper in this facility has been donated by an anonymous donor.” Andrea Nixon, the Tate’s director of development, points out that “the money spent on toilet paper for over 4 million visitors a year is not insignificant.” The same donor previously financed the redesign of gallery collection boxes, making them transparent, reportedly resulting in a small increase in donations.

The extent to which operating costs factor into other decisions museum’s make is for the most part unknown to the average visitor. While many are upset about the Museum of Modern Art’s recent increase of its admission price from $12 to $20, few consider the substantial increase in general operating costs associated with the museum’s new 630,000 square-foot facility (the primary reason provided by museum officials for the admission hike; for the most part, figures to follow can be found in the article “The $20 Solution,” by Nancy Cook in the September 2004 issue of ArtNews).

This year MoMA’s operating costs are estimated at $120 million, up from $83 million in 1999 (the museum’s last year in Midtown). MoMA receives less than $14,000 annually for operating costs from the New York Department of Cultural Affairs, whereas museums on city land (e.g. The Met, Brooklyn Museum, etc.) which receive significantly more (in the last fiscal year, the Metropolitan received $20.4 million for operating and energy costs). According to Ruth Kaplan, MoMA’s director of marketing and communications, the museum earned 14% of its operating income from admissions and expects that figure to rise to 17% in the new building.

No one likes when prices go up but it's something we’ve got to get used to, particularly in the non-profit sector where services are being provided either with nominal or insufficient funding at the state and federal level. That said, Glenn Lowery, the director of the Museum of Modern Art, stated that the museum anticipates that just half of the people visiting the museum will actually pay the full admission fee, with the other 50% receiving discounted admission as seniors, students or children. In a recent survey conducted by the Association of American Museum Directors, it was determined that the average visitor who walks in the door costs the museum $46.51. This figure is in stark comparison to the average admission paid by a visitor, which is $2.25. For a museum like MoMA, where most of its funding comes from the private sector, an $8 increase on general admission prices doesn’t seem totally unreasonable, particularly since the museum is fully capable of giving the visitor their money’s worth in terms of the cultural, educational and entertainment experience.

Caravaggio Exhibition Funded By Anti-Gay Millionaire

"Caravaggio: The Final Years" at the National Gallery in London which consists of 15 works by the Italian master, was financed by the ultra-conservative, anti-gay millionaire Howard F. Ahmanson Jr. The funding of the exhibition is particularly noteworthy given Caravaggio's turbulent and self-indulgent lifestyle that includes prostitutes as models, homosexual relationships, and murder. Ahmanson's philanthropic track record (for some insight click here) indicates nothing to explain the recent act of irony, suggesting either that he was simply unaware of Caravaggio's personal life and felt compelled to contribute to an exhibition of an artist whose work tends to be religious in theme or that his support is some attempt to get the National Gallery in his pocket. One could argue that, despite Caravaggio's earlier secular (and overtly homo-erotic) works, Ahmanson was able to appreciate the religiosity prevalent throughout the artist's oeuvre, however I'm inclined to believe Ahmanson was utterly unaware of Caravaggio's lifestyle and secular works and was only familiar with his religious themes.

Some years ago Ahmanson contributed $62,500 to the Western Center for Law and Religious Freedom which, among other legal actions, helped the Kern County school district defend its banning of the book One Hundred Years of Solitude, by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, on the grounds of "profanity" and "vulgarity." When one considers the highly sexualized pose of the young Cupid and the multiple works depicting the decapitation of either Holofernes, Goliath or Saint John the Baptist, one is curious indeed as to what exactly Mr. Ahmanson finds "profane" and "vulgar." While I very much appreciate Caravaggio's work, those in the exhibition are for the most part dark, violent images that, were it not for the fact that they depict religious scenes, Ahmanson would likely find them wholly objectionable, making his support of such an exhibition truly peculiar.

Judge Rules in Lehmann v. The Project Worldwide

The legal battle between leading contemporary art collector Jean-Pierre Lehmann and art dealer Christian Haye and his gallery The Project Worldwide came to a conclusion this week. The dispute arose over a unique contract that was to provide Lehmann with the right of first refusal on any work sold by the gallery in exchange for a $75,000 investment with The Project. Lehmann contended that Haye failed to offer Lehmann works by highly sought-out artist Julie Mehretu, instead providing others with options on Mehretu's work. The judge has ruled in favor of Lehmann, costing the gallery $1,736,148 in damages (subject to appeal). Although it's always difficult to have sympathy for the wealthy when they don't get what they want, I'm sure Lehmann can afford his share of Mehrutu's work now. A previous article in the New York Magazine provides greater insight into the inner workings of the collector-dealer relationship and its impact on an artist's market value.

Controversial Exhibition At The Rubin

The newly established Rubin Museum of Art in New York is already taking chances with a controversial exhibition. The museum is dedicated to the art of the Himalayas and is currently hosting the touring exhibition "Tibet: Treasures from the Roof of the World." A significant number of the nearly 200 objects on view come from the Potala Palace, once the residence of the Dalai Lama. The Rubin museum provides the following acknowledgement of sponsorship and affiliation:

"This exhibition was organized by the Bowers Museum of Cultural Art in collaboration with the Bureau of Cultural Relics, Tibet Autonomous Region; the Potala Palace; and the Tibet Museum."

What it fails to clearly indicate is that the objects that have been removed from the Potala Palace are on loan from the Chinese government, which acquired the objects after the hostile take-over of Tibet in 1949-50 (for more info go here). Lhadon Tethong, Executive Director of Students for a Free Tibet, weighed in:

"While the Chinese government is displaying these precious treasures at the Rubin Museum, in Tibet the same government is systematically destroying the very culture that created them. China's policies are reducing Tibetan Buddhist culture to nothing more than a collection of museum pieces."

Other activists and Tibetan rights groups believe the exhibition is an attempt by the Chinese government to improve its image in the West and of its rule of Tibet. While the objects themselves may be extremely precious and rare, with perhaps the same adjectives applicable to the opportunity of seeing them on display, make no mistake about it--these objects are the cultural property of an exiled government and suppressed people. The sculpture of King Songtsen Gambo and other important Tibetan treasures do not belong in the hands of the Chinese government (the same government that attempted to destroy Tibet's very culture and heritage almost 60 years ago) but with the Tibetans.

The lack of outrage in the art world can probably be best explained by its indifference to the methods by which the Chinese government attained these objects and with its focus on the extraordinary objects themselves. Indeed the opportunity to see such relics is appealing, however I doubt the Rubin will offer images, text, or otherwise explanation of how many Tibetans were killed and other artifacts destroyed in order to make this exhibition possible.

The Aftermath of "The Gates"

Central Park is no longer decorated with the large steel and fabric saffron gates that once adorned its walkways. The $21 million dollar project came to an end just three days ago and will be recycled down into soda cans and carpet padding. Some members of the art world provided a rather surprising response to "The Gates'" fate. A New York dealer, acting on behalf of a private collector, offered artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude $10 million for 50 of the Gates. When the initial offer was rejected, the dealer returned with a $20 million offer. This is a perfect example of the wealthy art collector who doesn't understand art and worse, a dealer who knows no better. The Gates were created with the intention of being destroyed once exhibited. They were designed for one place and one place only: Central Park. Their value was in what they offered collectively, not individually. It was in what they offered experientially and not as some physical representation. To attempt to acquire any part of the Gates demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the work of art and to miss the artists' point completely. To attempt to acquire them with the goal of exhibiting them again indicates an general ingorance of the meaning of art. Christo provided the following explanation for their refusal to sell the Gates:

"Nobody can buy this project. Nobody can charge tickets for this project, nobody can own this project -- because freedom is an enemy of possession and possession is the equal of permanence. That is why this project should go away."

A private collector attempting to purchase the Gates is not altogether surprising, but the Brooklyn Museum of Art also made an attempt to acquire four of the Gates. This is particularly troublesome as it indicates a blatant disregard for artist intention and the value of original context. In the end, the artist who retains ownership of his or her art has the right to do with it whatever they please, even if that means destroying it.

For more information about Christo and Jeanne Claude's work or The Gates click here.

Hello & Welcome

In light of my brother's incredible success through his own blog, I have decided to create one of my own. The topics that will be addressed here will primarily deal with art and artists, mass media and culture, museums, and the like. "Elective Affinities" refers to a work by Belgian artist Rene Magritte. Magritte's painting depicts an egg trapped within the confines of a cage. Magritte provided the following explanation for his inspiration for the work:

"I awoke in a room in which someone had put a cage with a sleeping bird. A wonderful aberration made me see the cage with the bird gone and replaced by an egg. There and then I grasped a new and astonishing poetic secret, for the shock had been caused by the affinity of two objects, the cage and the bird, whereas previously this shock had been caused by two completely unrelated objects."

From here Magritte would attempt to find "elective affinities" in other objects such as the door and the window. While my foremost goal is to provide commentary on events occurring in the world of art and museums, it would be a great success if I too could create, or at least identify, elective affinities that might provide new perspectives on art and the world in which it exists.