Investigating the (financial) meaningfulness of art within museums and galleries
In his 1986 essay titled, “Museums: Manager’s of Consciousness,” author Hans Haacke addresses the idea of industrialization within museums and galleries throughout the world. Previously, these buildings and spaces served solely as opportunities to display artworks for public viewing. Now, the concept involves a process tainted with social expectations, traditional beliefs, and cultural concerns.
By observing the architecture of a museum, a viewer acknowledges the large, towering columns and marble staircases. Based on its architecture and grandeur, museums now resemble holy sites where artists may endure either repentance or salvation for their work. This perception ties into Haacke’s essay where he states that directors and curators of museums often force their own propaganda into the work.
The infrastructure is also mechanized with arts managers acting as chief executive officers running a business, which involve large amounts of money and personal interests. Their organizational goals involve budgeting time and finances as well as providing price categories for each artwork. Haacke’s essay brings up questions such as: How is art valued? How much is an artwork worth? Why do social mentalities influence this decision?
According to Haacke, these institutions involve a tangled political system where open interpretation in the social arena does not exist but rather a museum director will make decisions based on ideological bias. Often, a board of trustees serves as the ultimate authority but their credentials could be questioned. Is senior leadership within museums trained in the arts or in financial motives and management?
Throughout the country, universities are adding arts management to their curriculum in an effort to make the artwork of students more marketable. Haacke states that museums are constantly looking for more “censored” work and thus, the work becomes more appealing to corporate sponsorship and public grants. As a result, art students strive to receive recognition and funding from their sponsors by manufacturing what Haacke states as “social products.” Therefore, the traditional system continues where art students become more like public relations executives, in an effort to represent their work to the world.
Haacke said that museums and galleries have a dependency on economic vitality and try to attract as many tourists and attention as possible. This is seen in museum biennales and retrospective shows, which receive a lot of hype to generate funding for both the individual artist but also the museum or gallery representation.
Artists are now marketing themselves with a greater street presence, using vibrant posters and print materials to advertise their gallery shows as well as expanding their audience with websites and blogs online. The show itself becomes a stage production with a paid staff who set-up, takedown, and accommodate viewers during the opening. Perhaps this is part of the grand scheme to draw in more attention and potential art collectors to purchase works. In his essay, Haacke describes a certain “dependency on economic vitality” that occurs with a successful show in a particular area. The entire community benefits from a collection that receives high appraisals and funding. According to Haacke, in these situations, “art for art’s sake” does not exist because the artworks created are solely for financial gain and strangely, that becomes a form of validation.
With Haacke’s essay on meaningfulness and propaganda, Jackie Stevens presents another example of personal agendas benefiting a third party. In Stevens’ 2000 essay titled, “Why are biotech companies suddenly sponsoring art about genes?” Stevens states that some artists, curators, and stockholders are avoiding market crashes in other countries by expanding artistic endeavors to “misunderstood industries.” In doing so, artists reach out to various science-related organizations in an effort to receive funding, space, and sponsorship.
Stevens also said the purpose of the show is to generate reassurance that public concerns are heard and being addressed. By placing an “industry-friendly spin” on hot-button topics, artists are generating more revenue for themselves and those who are invested in them. Towards the end of the essay, Stevens notes that the content of the show is irrelevant since the purpose is to exchange mediums and create financial gain for both parties involved.
According to Stevens, one stockholder in the arts said that he became aware of biotech stocks because he followed where the government was funding programs. As a result, he became conscious as to what products or services that had a future beyond the duration of the art show. One aspect is to provide morbid visuals to add a sense of shock value to the public. Stevens wrote that since the government spends funding on genetic research, it makes sense for artists to invest in the same realm. Suddenly, non-profit spaces become real estate as long as “educational” values are attached to the show and it somehow raises awareness to a social issue.
By generating “worthwhile associations” and using better marketing tools, artists become the public relations executives as discussed by Haacke in his essay. The value of the artworks themselves may diminish but at least the objective was executed to put on a production in the gallery space. According to Stevens, these shows feed into “troubling and dangerous corporate agendas,” rather than encourage pure artmaking that possesses a deeper meaning from the artist.
The two essays from Haacke and Stevens raise awareness to the financial appraisals that museums and galleries place on artworks, which are based on third party agendas. Both authors describe the cyclical nature of art shows where sponsorship and funding is required to become more successful and ultimately receive more validation from the surrounding community. Stevens wrote that by supporting art shows about genetics, collectors themselves buy into the deceit because they believe they are investing in educational endeavors that heal social issues.
Both essays investigate the political agendas of museums and galleries, which often cater to public grants and corporate sponsorship. By tying in a controversial or environmental issue, artists may succeed better when it comes to receiving funding from other organizations. Although more than two decades have passed since Haacke’s essay in 1986, the ideas still resonate that artists are becoming more and more inundated with marketing tactics and business-savvy practices in order to display their work to the general public. Rather than creating art as a response to nature or to emulate nature, artists become cut-throat businesspeople who abuse political power for economic gain. More recently, Stevens’ essay in 2000 examines how a financially-powerful third party gets involved by investing stocks without an interest in the artwork itself or its meaningfulness.
No comments:
Post a Comment