Flash Art January-February 2000 (pg. 55)

Van Gogh’s Ear

Dear Mr. Politi,

The mission of the Museum of Contemporary Art has always been to encourage dialogue.  As the public’s perception of contemporary art has become more and more uncertain, dialogue has often seemed more like negotiation, hard fought and hard won.  Unfortunately, in many ways, contemporary art is still considered art outside the mainstream, actively challenging a comfortably established art world. 

Nearly two years ago, I was approached by the Detroit Institute of Arts to research, explore and reflect upon the art of this century, of this decade, and finally the direction art might take in the new millennium.  An enormous undertaking, begun with some basic questions: What is art now?  What has art been?  And who decides art? Too big for one exhibition in a gallery 16 by 20 feet, I separated it all into twelve weekly exhibitions, each unique to different trends and issues in the art world.  What I never expected was that simply examining and referencing the “beast,” the exhibition itself became the “beast.” 

Three das after the opening of the initial 5 day installment, “Van Gogh’s Ear,” the issue suddenly became a museums unwilling to come to terms with the art of its time.  The public was never allowed to become a quotient, never given a voice in the decision process of what is or isn’t art.  The show was shut down without notice.

My art isn’t on trial here.  The show was once-removed, merely referencing other artworks and artists.  And yet, the public was barred.  The press was barred.  By definition, the visual arts are meant to be seen.  Contemporary art is on trial; because those attitudes are perceptions that “Van Gogh’s Ear” had hoped to soften into dialogue have instead become all the more hardened and inflexible.

The visual arts are meant to be seen.  Otherwise, how can they be judged – or condemned.  The world is changing rapidly, so art is always in need of new contexts, new expression, new understandings.  When the art world responds too slowly, too late r not at all to the art of its time, all is lost to art’s intended audience, to the public, and its potency is forfeited forever.  Contemporary art is a social exchange played out in the here and now.  It doesn’t take long for new art to out of synch.

Does contemporary art set itself outside deliberately?  Or, is there a real resistance, a protective impetus from within the art museum to preserve art’s “dignity” and “meaning,” by allowing art only to address its already initiated audience?

When a museum plays into the logic of the spectacle (Egyptian; Van Gogh) and attempts to attract larger and larger number at the gates by promoting themselves as artistic Disneylands, the laws of marketing have taken precedence over that of art.  By any art museum refusing to come to group with the art of its time, it refuses to allow for interpretation and further alienates and polarizes the public from this art.

If current art is truly controversial, the DIA’s new director’s action to cut short controversy only provoked a much graver scandal within the art world itself.  Museums everywhere are essential to a more complete understanding of contemporary art.  To have one act so irresponsibly at this critical juncture, deliberately narrows the enormous variety possibly to art as we move into the next century.  Such a forced closing not only narrows the gate, but, more direly, sets a dangerous precedent: where museums directors not only decide art but censor it to suit the presumed tastes of “important parts” of the community.

Sincerely,

Jef Bourgeau

Director, Museum of New Art

I am Pro-Censorship

Dear Jef Bourgeau,

I would have preferred a letter clearly explaining what actually happened rather that a dissertation on art and its role.  Your letter, in fact, fails to explain the facts but presumes that everything is already known.  In short, as is so often the case, we have the narcissism and ego of the artist rather than facts.

Why did you not send me a photo of the work instead.  I would have understood so much more.  And this late conceptualism of the artist who appropriates the roles of others would seem to me to be a little dated.

As you know, contemporary art is always on trial, like all aspects of our actions and behavior.  And I believe that this is only right and proper, as art itself is an examination of reality and life. 

I also believe that censorship (that is to say selection) is an important element in the freedom of each one of us to accept or reject a form of expression or a work.  Just as it is important for the artist to impose his work.

There director of a museum has the right to censor (that is to say, not to exhibit) any work he doe not consider worthy of exhibition, although it would perhaps be preferable for the censorships to be applied to the initial project rather than a work ready to go on show.

However, I would also like to hear the museum director’s version of the facts.  The examination of all the information is of course indispensable. 

Yours,

Giancarlo Politi