The art world and much of the political world got all tangled up over the past week about the Hide/Seek controversy at the National Portrait Gallery, but I have to say that I’ve not been thrilled with the level of discourse. Much of it has been knee-jerk, a “whose ox is gored” and “where you stand depends on where you sit” stance that sheds little light on anything and does not advance the ball.

In that vein, it troubles me that the Association of Art Museum Directors — issuing what many described as an unusally tough statement on Friday — threw around of the term “censorship.” As in:

More disturbing than the Smithsonian’s decision to remove this work of art is the cause: unwarranted and uninformed censorship from politicians and other public figures, many of whom, by their own admission, have seen neither the exhibition as a whole or this specific work.

I commend the group for acting swiftly, but I beg to differ with that comment.

It’s unclear to me, having read much but not all of the reporting on the subject, whether NPG director Martin E. Sullivan (below) acted alone in removing the “offending” piece (not having seen it, I have no idea if I would be offended) or whether he was ordered to by G. Wayne Clough, Secretary of the Smithsonian.

If he acted alone, there was no censorship — and AAMD’s beef is with Sullivan, seems to me. If Clough ordered it, one could make a case that it was censorship — though there was no prior restraint.  

To imply, as AAMD does, that incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner and incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor practiced censorship is misconstruing their protests. Yes, they have leverage over the Smithsonian budget, but they can’t control it on their own — what they can do is stir the nation, yet again, against art.

Yet they, and others who called the work offensive, are just as entitled to free speech as was artist David Wojnarowicz. The very next line in the AAMD statement says this:

The AAMD believes that freedom of expression is essential to the health and welfare of our communities and our nation.

If so, it’s free speech for all, including those one vehemently disagrees with — isn’t it? Their right to free speech should have been acknowledged in the statement. The art world does not cover itself in glory by implying it is sacrosanct and that art (especially political art, which this was) can not be criticized.

It’s also unclear to me whether Sullivan himself saw the entire 4-minute video piece in question, including the 11 seconds in questions, before the controversy. If he did not, he set himself up for criticism.

Sullivan’s short statement about removing the work may have been designed to put an end to the controversy, but it leaves open exactly what happened.

Call me conservative, but I do believe that national institutions like the Smithsonian should play by slightly different rules than museums that draw no funds from the public purse. That’s not to say controversial art should be avoided — how could it be? — but that costs must be weighed. Trying to say, as the NPG did, that exhibitions are privately funded, while the staff and buildings are not, is no excuse. (Logically, that would lead to firing the curator…) 

I have another question that I have yet to see addressed: the NPG show has been on view since October, but it was only last week that the flareup erupted — and not on Fox News. I believe it came first on CBS. CNS [Please see comment from Michael Botwinick below]. Who, in particular, is trying to re-ignite the culture wars? And why is the art world playing into his or her (actually probably “their”) hands?

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the NPG (bottom) 

 

Has it come to this? Vandalism against property of Friends of the Barnes Foundation members?

That’s what artist Nancy Herman is reporting today. For years, she and her husband Walter have planted large signs opposing the move to downtown Philadelphia on their property on Latches Lane, where the Barnes is located. 

Last night, someone defaced the newest sign, which was on a fence, with red paint. It showed Dr. Albert C. Barnes, surrounded by many artists whose work he collected, and read: “Why spend hundreds of millions on a faux Barnes when we have the original?” Another sign, on their lawn, which read “Join the Fight to Save the Barnes” had been torn away and thrown over the fence of the Barnes Foundation, which is directly across the street, Herman says.

Friends’ members are calling it an act of intimidation — which is possible, though not the only possibility. It might simply be vandalism. However, it is curious that just this week, state politicians gave opponents of the move a glimmer of hope, saying that they may not approve a $1 billion bond issue that included funding for the move. Friends also note that the Barnes Society was having its annual holiday party in the galleries this afternoon.

The Hermans attached temporary signs to the defaced poster saying “The Barnes Belongs In Merion” and “Join The Fight To Save The Barnes.”

I sure hope the fight isn’t getting physical, and it’s sad that I have to even express that.

Photo Credit: Courtesy Friends of the Barnes Foundation

 

Some self-portraits stop people in their tracks; you have to look. Max Beckmann’s 1927 Self-Portrait in Tuxedo is one of them.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, for the Saturday “Masterpiece” column, I analyze that painting, which was once owned by the National Gallery of Berlin, but — thanks to Hitler — was sold and now is the propoerty of Harvard’s Busch-Reisinger Museum.

Beckmann was a master of self-portraits. As I wrote, “Over the years, he painted himself with a horn, with a champagne glass, in a hotel, with a red scarf, with a saxophone, in a bowler hat, with soap bubbles, as a medical orderly, in Florence, in front of a red curtain, in a sailor hat, as an acrobat on a trapeze, in a blue jacket, on and on–and, in 1927, in a tuxedo.”

This one is clearly the best. In it, Beckmann “exudes self-confidence, control, power, singularity (brilliance?) and even arrogance.”

To read more, here’s the link. Or you can just gaze at the work yourself.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Busch-Reisinger Museum

 

A report in yesterday’s Philadelphia Inquirer gives new life to those who oppose the move of the Barnes Foundation into downtown Philadelphia (including me).

In fact, I’ve been wondering why this hasn’t happened before: The recession is causing state public officials to review the commitments that would be funded by a $1 billion bond issue, and they include the Barnes’s move.

Politics – and the reality of the recession – might stand in the way of the Rendell administration’s plan to borrow $1 billion to help finance public-improvement and other construction projects across the state.  

The governor has signed off on a $1 billion taxpayer-financed bond issue, but other top state officials, both Democrats, on Wednesday slammed the brakes on it.

 

Pennsylvania Auditor General Jack Wagner refused to approve it, while Treasurer Rob McCord said he wanted first to consult with Gov.-elect Tom Corbett, whose administration would be saddled with helping pay off the debt. Corbett said he would review the matter.

The Inquirer, which has backed the Barnes’s move, says that approval from one of the two is necessary for the issue to move forward.

 

Here’s a link to the article.

 

No surprise that activist and artist Nancy Herman, of Friends of the Barnes Foundation, is calling for a rethinking of the move, since the movers haven’t raised the necessary $200 million yet, even with Rendell’s public funding. As well she should.

It’s a slim hope, but at least it is a hope.

There’s one worry: that saying public money should not go to the Barnes move might jeopardize other funding for the arts during bad times. 

You know the visual art world is in trouble when even “sophisticated” New Yorkers think that art is boring…

At least that is what they (and people around the country who tuned in to closed-circuit showings of the program) said when Steve Martin and Deborah Solomon spent the better part of their program at the 92nd St. Y on Monday talking about art. As The New York Times reported the saga,

Midway through the conversation, a Y representative handed Ms. Solomon a note asking her to talk more about Mr. Martin’s career and, implicitly, less about the art world, the subject of his latest novel, “An Object of Beauty.”…

The audience cheered when Ms. Solomon read aloud the note.

Interestingly, this happened the same week as the Park Avenue Armory is mounting Leonardo’s Last Supper: A Vision By Peter Greenaway, the noted filmmaker’s attempt to make the 15th century masterpiece relevant in a multi-media world. (Though it opens tomorrow, I went to yesterday’s press preview.)

For his work — one of ten such masterpieces he is recreating — Greenaway has used sound, light and video to create the feeling that visitors are in the Refectory of Santa Maria delle Grazie church in Milan, where they view a virtual clone of the painting.

That’s not all they view, of course — and the sound makes the contrast with the real refectory quite stark. Is it beautiful and fascinating? Yes. In this 45-minute experience, Greenaway uses effects, like the sun passing overhead in the course of a day and the outlining of the figures in white, to bring the mural to life. Meanwhile, in the space surrounding the refectory, visitors see extremely close pans of the wall pigments, for example, as the paint flakes and flies away before their eyes. An all-white recreation of the table and its contents stands in the middle, itself undergoing various lighting effects. The music is dramatic.

Many viewers will never get to Milan to see the real thing, where the experience is completely different — and that’s ok. Will this get them to look harder and longer at this and maybe other paintings? Perhaps, in which case it would be a good thing. Spending 45 minutes before a painting is virtually unheard of nowadays.

I think much less of the 6- or 7-minute video prologue, which is more of a travelogue, and serves no purpose in my mind. The epilogue, Greenaway’s take on Veronese’s Wedding at Cana, is a much more serious lesson in art history, with Greenaway explaining the figures, composition, and theories about the painting’s content.

I join the Armory and the Y programs to ask what they mean for art and the public.

Is art boring unless it moves or is controversial? (I could, here, bring in the Hide/Seek exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery, but enough already. To me, once an exhibition is up, the NPG should not have bowed to pressure to remove it. But it’s an open question whether the art work under attack was worth showing to begin with — one with as many answers as there are viewers.)

Art isn’t boring, most likely, to anyone reading this post. Why, then, is it seemingly so uninteresting to much of the public?

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Park Avenue Armory