In 1999 a controversial art exhibit was held at the Brooklyn Museum,
in New York City. The exhibit, “Sensation: Young British Artists from the
Saatchi Collection,” was criticized by many people, most notably New York’s
Mayor, Rudolf Giuliani, for its obscene content. Several works in this
exhibit were condemned for glorifying violence, celebrating death, and
slandering religious beliefs. One work in particular, “The Holy Virgin
Mary,” was attacked for its vulgar portrayal (with fecal matter!) of the
mother of Jesus Christ. Now, I do not want to enter into this controversy
directly. But, I do want to discuss the reasons why this kind of “art”
exists. I think the real problem is the inherent conflict between the culture
of the bureaucracy and the culture of the artists. It all began about two
hundred years ago with the development of the state funded art museums.
Or, looking at things more fundamentally, about 5000 years when the first
examples of the fine arts appear (understand, art predates the fine arts
by several dozen millenia - people have been creating artworks for tens
of thousands of years). So, I will start with a little history, and an
explanation of what the fine arts are. Then, I will go on to deal with
modern “institutionalized” art.
What are the Fine Arts
The development of the fine arts started about 6000 years ago, with
the consolidation of the first agricultural city-states and kingdoms. As
these early states evolved, their societies became more and more stratified
into classes, and then into casts (the nobility, the priests, the warriors,
the merchants, the artisans, the urban workers, the peasants, and the slaves).
Over time the castes became increasingly segregated (the members had little
to do with each other socially). Individuals usually remained in the cast
that they were born in for life. However, an exceptional person could occasionally
climb one notch up the social ladder. Climbing two notches was generally
very difficult, and it was very easy to fall all the way to the bottom
(slavery). Economically, all wealth flowed up to the nobility, and all
laborious obligations flowed down to the peasants and slaves. Naturally,
the upper classes had the resources to buy beautiful things for themselves,
and had the free time to enjoy the works. Eventually, the rulers came to
see a need for artistic glorification. For art forms that glorified the
things the rulers saw as important, for example; the art in temples that
glorified the ruler's gods, the art in palaces that glorified the rulers,
and in the monuments that were commissioned to glorify the virtuous acts
of the rulers (victorious wars, the destruction of enemies, the building
of temples, the founding of cities and castles, etc.). Of course the lesser
nobles joined in, commissioning works of art to glorify themselves and
their class. There are two important things to note here. First, these
works of art were funded by tax revenues and rents from the peasants who
worked the land, who gained nothing from the art works created. This kind
of art for funding was totally new. Second, art for the explicit purpose
of glorifying someone, or something, totally outside of the artist’s personal
cosmos was new (note, I am assuming that the subjects of religious art,
while occasionally alien, exist essentially within the artist's cosmos).
In earlier times people had created art for personal or communal reasons
apart from the expectation of an explicitly financial reward, or for the
glorification of something explicitly alien. So, a new age arrived in the
art world, the age of the fine arts, and of the art patrons who supported
the artists.
The fine arts were a new variety of art forms that existed to glorify the
patron, the patrons as a class, their values, and their deities.
Examples of the Fine Arts
The most basic purpose of the fine arts is to glorify something valued
by the patrons. For example, Michelangelo’s David, was created to glorify
King David, a man many people in the sixteenth century Catholic Church
thought highly of. This statue was not created for personal or even religious
reasons, Michelangelo
was given a commission and other perks for completing the monumental work.
Would Michelangelo have even considered creating such a work if there had
been no funding available? Curiously, Michelangelo made his David uncircumcised.
This might have been because he held to classical (ancient Greek and Roman)
notions about the perfection of the (idealized) “natural” human form, and
he was really doing a sculpture of a classical Greek or Roman hero. Or,
perhaps he made his statue so because of the rampant anti-semitisim of
his day, David was, after all, a Jew. In another case, archaeologists digging
in the ruins of the ancient Roman city of Pompey have found paintings depicting
Alexander the Great (usually in one of his battles), a great hero to the
ancient Romans. Then again, sometimes art works were commissioned to glorify
the current leaders, or the nobles. There are many examples of this. In
other cases, art works are commissioned to educate as well as glorify.
In the middle ages the churches commissioned various kinds of icons to
educate the (mostly illiterate) lay people about the life of Jesus Christ
and the lives of the twelve apostles, the prophets, the patriarchs, the
saints, and the martyrs. More recently, there has been a revival of the
fine arts in the modern totalitarian
regimes. The totalitarian states sponsored art styles (like Socialist Realism
in the old Soviet Union) to preach and glorify the one true ideology and
exult the leaders of the regime. For example, in Iraq, there is a giant
sculpture of Sadam Hussien’s finger (with a correct fingerprint), and smaller
imitations in several cities (also with a correct fingerprint). That is
the story, the fine arts exist to glorify what the patrons want glorified,
to preach what the patrons want preached, to excoriate what the patrons
want vilified, and to glorify the patrons themselves.
The Development of the Art Museum and the Curator
In the last two centuries there has been a new movement in the arts,
the state funded art museum. And, with emergence of the museums a new kind
of “institutional” patron, the curator. The museums were first created
in Europe when wealthy patrons donated their art collections the nation,
and later as political upheavals put private art collections in the hands
of government. Originally, the museums were probably seen as warehouses
for storing the excess artworks that accumulated in the mansions of the
elite. However, as society became more democratic, the museums came to
be seen as repositories of history and culture, and more recently as educational
institutions. However, the issue is not the museums, but the curators who
run them. There are several important things we must understand about curators.
First, a curator is usually a political appointee. So, everything a curator
does in an official capacity has a political angle. Second, while a curator
usually has some background in academia, or the arts; personal credentials
are not necessarily what got the appointment as an official art patron.
Third, a curator is always a bureaucratic art patron. And, regardless of
what the curator may think about it, the duties of the position include
regulating art. Why? Because, the curator has to decide how the museum
spends it’s money. What artworks should the museum buy? Is the artwork
“significant” enough for funding? Understand, these are ultimately regulatory
decisions, because the artworks a museum tends to buy determines the kinds
of artworks artists creates. If there is no funding, there is no art. Perhaps
this even amounts to inverted art censorship (or direct in the case of
the totalitarian states). This creates a terrible problem for the curator.
The position of “Official Patron of the Arts” forces him, or her, to have
to decide what is art. A decision that must be made, repeatedly, on some
sort of political, bureaucratic, or regulatory basis. Unfortunately, the
question has no rational answer. The decision can only be based on personal
viewpoints (I’ll know it’s art when I see it). But, personal viewpoints
are not enough for the curator. Art has to have a legal definition within
the bureaucracy. If art cannot be defined, how can it be regulated? If
art cannot be defined, how can it be bought, legally, for the museum? Art
has to have a rational set of definitions to exist in the museum. But,
the curators have no rational basis on which to make artistic decisions.
The Basis of Decision
How is a curator to decide what is art? I suppose a curator could try
to make this decision on a political, bureaucratic, or regulatory basis,
but the results would be ludicrous. Imagine the contents of a regulatory
guide for artists; it will not work. So, it is more likely that the decision
will be made for personal reasons (at least covertly). Please note, if
the curator is an honest individual, this decision can only be based on
personal reasons. But, “Art is what I think it is,” brings us back to the
issue of regulation, for the curator is a bureaucrat and must have logical,
rational, and legal reasons for official acts. Then again, the curator
could say that art is what the artist says it is. After all, art is a personal
creation, and the artist is (usually) a very talented and creative individual.
But, that still leaves the curator with a problem, “how do I define artistic
value?” After all, embossed mud pies can be a legitimate artwork, if the
artist thinks so. But, should the curator ask for a financial appropriation
to buy the mud pies? What will the state legislature think? To define artistic
value, the curator must first decide, “What is art?” And that brings us
back to the old rationale for the fine arts, glorification. Glorification
of what? Of the state, perhaps? But, that could be difficult in a democracy.
How about glorification of the curator? It could be done, at least covertly.
Understand, glorification is a rational (if extra legal) basis for making
curatorial decisions. It fits in well with the inner emotional reasonings
of the patron. And, it can be politically useful too. So, perhaps we should
not be asking, “what is art?” But, instead, “what is curatorial art?”
What is Curatorial Art?
Curatorial art is simply the art styles that curators tend to support.
I think this art can be divided into five rough categories. Which, unfortunately,
include most of what is called “Modern Art.”
1. Art that glorifies the curators as highly erudite patrons. That is, art that has deep or inscrutable philosophical meaning. The best example I can think of for this is Abstract Expressionism. The Abstract Expressionists created technically well done works that had no meaning whatsoever (for example, a painting that contains black and white rectangles). And, why were the artworks created? Officially, the Abstract Expressionists claimed their works were a statement of existentialist philosophy. But oh! The intelligent things a curator can say about such art works. Also, Abstract Expressionist works (for example, a collection of chromed metal spheres on a plastic sheet) usually have no negative political meanings or consequences.
2. Art that glorifies the curators as fearless members of the avaunt guard. This type of art can vary from being simply strange (for example, the Pop Art of Andy Warhol), to disturbing (the Surrealism of Salvador Dali), to shocking (many schools, starting with the Dadaists in the 1920’s). But, in glorifying the curators as the fearless members of the avaunt guard, there are limits. For example, one of the works displayed at the Brooklyn Museum, “The Holy Virgin Mary,” might have been acceptable in Great Britain because the Anglican Church has so discredited Christianity. The Anglican Church (or, the Torys at Prayer) is a taxpayer funded state church. The problem with state funding is that the church cannot speak out on moral issues without offending someone political, someone able to cut the funds, so it cannot speak out at all. Of course, this inability tends to alienate people to Christianity. Jesus once said something about how “Salt that has lost it’s saltiness” is only good for being thrown out and walked on (see Matthew 5:13). Unfortunately, this has made the Anglican Church a legitimate target for artistic attack (but why attack the beliefs Christians as a whole?). So, a British curator could justify the work as more of an anti-establishment than an anti-Christian statement. In the United States we never had a state church to discredit Christianity, so here this work is simply an offensive statement of irrational religious bigotry and hatred.
3. Art that glorifies the curators as courageous exponents of democracy and free speech. For example, Pablo Picasso’s “Guernica,” can be seen as an antiwar, anti-fascist statement. However, more usually this type of art tends to glorify of political radicalism (but not to a politically incorrect degree), and political violence (happening elsewhere). But, there are limits. For example, a work glorifying the lynching a black man in Alabama might be acceptable to a British art curator as an attack on American racism, but a work glorifying the lynching of a Pakistani in Liverpool would be unacceptable. Then again, a work glorifying the deeds of Lee Harvey Oswald (the alleged assassin of President Kennedy, and accused of the murder of a Dallas police officer) might be acceptable as a protest of the sad political conditions in the United States, but a work glorifying the exploits of an IRA gunman in Belfast would not be acceptable. The point, this art exists primarily to glorify the virtues of the curator.
4. Art that glorifies the intelligence of the curator. That is, art works that are childish or irrational (this kind of art is so common that I won’t even bother giving examples). This art is created to prop up the ego of the curator as an educated teacher and patron. It has the advantage that it can be made so meaningless that many erudite things can be said about it (see category 1), and it can be created to have no serious political problems. But, there is a very dark side to this kind of art. In supporting it (that is, indirectly asking artists to create this art by offering a subsidy), the curator is asking the artist to pee on himself, or herself, as a competent, rational adult. To relate as a child to the curatorial adult. To deny the real spiritual possibilities of art in favor of junk. So, naturally this art tends to generate a lot of anger in the artists. Or, it may be the outlet of deep seated rage in the artist’s personality. In fact, this art may actually attract people who are filled with unresolved rage and pain from childhood, because the rage in this art is usually childish. So, in asking the artist to be a curatorial child, the curator is asking the artist to handle rage in childish ways. Understand, anger in children tends to be misdirected and covert. That is, away from what the child perceives as being strong and threatening, and towards what the child perceives as being weak or harmless. In some abusive families there is an aggressive (abuser) parent and a passive (abusee) parent. The children naturally “love” the violent parent (in spite of repeated abuse) to protect themselves, and turn all their anger towards the passive parent (and are quick to invent reasons why). Attacking the strong parent is dangerous, but the pain he (usually he) creates will not go away. So, attacking the passive parent is a natural outlet for this pain. The weak parent becomes the delusional cause of every trouble in the child’s world. Also, attacking the church can be a natural direction for this sort of art. First, because God is seen as a parent. Second, because Jesus commanded his disciples to turn the other cheek and love thy enemies (making the church a passive parent in the psyche of the artist). Then again, in some case the rage is covertly directed towards the curators as art that attacks the “establishment” (see category 3). Finally, sometimes the artists realize what the curators really want, and create “art” simply to see how much ick and goo the curators can stand before they cut off the money. Then laugh at the curator’s foolishness. Perhaps I should add a sixth category to this list, Deliberate Ooze.
5. Art that glorifies the political establishment that appointed the curators. This art is usually highly realistic, and tends to make moral statements about the things the regime in power currently supports. But, otherwise tends to be non-disturbing and non-controversial. The best example of this kind of art is probably the “Socialist Realism” style that was supported by the old Soviet government. Also, the Americana style of Norman Rockwell (and some other artists) might also be included in this category. However, this style was originally supported by the Saturday Evening Post, a private business, and by other publications, so it did not start out as curatorial art.
The Great Artistic Divide
I think the influence of the curatorial establishment has created a
divide in the art world. Today we have two kinds of art and design. First,
the art works that appeal to people because of beauty, pathos, or some
other quality. Second, the art works that appeal to curators for curatorial
reasons. And, the curatorial ideal has influenced a much larger class of
people who, while not actually curators themselves, came to think like
curators. Over time, this divide has come to cut across the entire world
of art and design. For example, in the December 1998 edition of the National
Geographic, there is a photo (on page 55) of a young female student of
a fashion academy modeling a supposedly daring creation that may eventually
see the fashion show runway. What impressed me was not her diaphanous attire,
but the clothing of the women standing around her. The model was wearing
a garment designed to appeal to the “curators” at a fashion show. And,
I am fairly sure that I will never see a woman on the street dressed as
she was. The women around her wore clothing they chose for themselves (not
a curator) for personal and practical reasons. How the curatorial ideal
has changed the fashion world! It used to be that fashions were created
to appeal to rich young women eager to wear the latest styles and impress
society. Today there are fashions created to appeal to people with curatorial
leanings; that will never be seen off the fashion show runway. And, there
are clothes designed to be worn in the real world by real people, who aren’t
shortening their lives with starvation diets (there is a real concern today
about the health of the models who appear at these shows, and of the young
women who try to emulate them). Of course, there are many other examples
of the curatorial divide in the worlds of art, architecture, and design,
but this one is enough. The real question is simple, is there a way to
close the divide? Is there a solution to the curatorial dilemma?
Is there a Solution?
Yes. Forbid the curators from using public funds to buy, or support,
any artworks less then thirty years old (ideally, this should be done on
a worldwide basis). Why? Art, like most things, is sold on the market.
The birth of the state funded art museum created a new art market, and
a new kind of customer, the curator. As in most successful marketing, the
product is matched to the needs of the buyer. So, this art is matched to
the needs of the curators. But, don’t criticize the curators too much for
their decisions. Their choices here are very limited. Personal, emotional,
or political concerns are as good a basis for making artistic decisions
as any other. Understand, regardless of the rationale the curators use,
the decision is, in itself, a form of indirect art censorship, and is totally
unjust. So, if the curators were forbidden from using public funds for
artwork less then thirty years old, their regime of art censorship would
end; and the market for this junk will dry up. Then again, the state museums
could be turned into nonprofit foundations without government subsidies.
The museums would still have the same curators, with the same basic motivations;
albeit with less funding and perhaps a more realistic attitude. However,
the curatorial extremes could be avoided because the curator’s inner motivations
would have to be balanced against fiscal reality. Finally, the real issue
here is not art, but that government funding and the culture of the bureaucracy
created a dysfunctional situation that has to be corrected.
Some people will naturally object to these proposals. Some may even call it censorship. But, no one is saying what kind of art state curators can support, or not support, with the taxpayer’s money. And, there will still be plenty of material for the curators to make intelligent comments about. Also, this will free them from the worst of the political hassles they face today. On the private side, curators will still be able to support any art or artists they choose to. Naturally, some artists will object for financial reasons. After all, no one wants to be put off the public dole. But, I think removing the influence of the state curators will liberate them by eliminating the spiritual violence curators tend to do to art. And, there will still be private and corporate patrons willing to give support. So, art will still be possible. Why not have art that appeals to people as art?
A Historical Note
Here in the United States the arts were traditionally supported by
private philanthropists and the universities. I’ve read that in Europe,
because of the class system, there was very little of what Americans would
call philanthropy (the idea that the rich have a duty to build up society,
not just make life better for their class and occasionally give a little
something for the poor). So, there was a vast difference between the America
and Europe. An American philanthropist, when supporting the arts, was acting
as traditional, if very civic minded, patron. So, the motives for curatorial
art were not present. On the public side American colleges and universities
were in the business of educating artists, not supporting art for art’s
sake; so the curatorial motive was limited and controlled. And again, I’ve
read that what we in the United States know of as the university (a place
of universal education) was unknown in Europe, until very recently. Originally,
the European university was a finishing school for the sons of the elite,
and art was what the elite bought to beautify their lives. So, state funding
of the arts was probably inevitable in Europe because the cultural motives
for philanthropy were not very well developed. In America the institutions
were different, so state supported art for art’s sake was not very necessary.
Then, Congress created the National Endowment for the Arts, and the curatorial
game (with the taxpayers money) got going big time. Of course, the usual
curatorial abuses soon emerged. And, there were complaints about the outrageous
“art” the curators of the endowment were funding with the taxpayers money
(the same thing happened in Europe a hundred years ago). So, conservative
politicians began trying to shut down the Endowment. And, of course, liberal
politicians objected, calling this censorship (as if the Endowment was
not already practicing art censorship by subsidy). And, today, the arguments
go on. But, as I said before, there is a simple solution. Don’t fund any
art less then thirty years old. That way, we can get the United States
government out of the business of art censorship entirely.
I hope you enjoyed reading this.
Back to Law and Bureaucracy Page
20 December 1999 - 21 October 2000
Revised December 29, 2000