One of the ugly truths I've begun accepting in a belated flail towards adulthood is this: if there's a significant cash advantage in manipulating a situation, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the situation is being manipulated.
Lisa Hunter comments at Edward Winkleman's blog that
...many CEOs sit on museum boards, where they influence what will be shown in museums (thus raising the profiles and value of their favored artists), while simultaneously being able to buy the emerging artists that curators identify as the next big thing.I've always suspected this but had nothing more to go on. I'll have to hit up Lisa for more info.
This comment was in response to a posting about art as investment, a topic I find interesting if only because investors wield disproportionately great power in our culture. They induce a whirlwind of decidedly mixed emotions.
I resent their ability to distort just about everything they touch. Apparently I still harbor adolescent notions that art can be inherently pure, because investor influence in the art world offends me personally; it feels like the defilement of a sacred realm. Simultaneously I have to face the fact that investors have done a lot of good in the world, and also that it would probably be a fairly irresistible blast to have them interested in your work.
EDIT 5/27
This, ladies and gents, is a travesty. Thanks, Lisa! Sphere: Related Content
11 witty retorts:
Bill -
Check out "Guerillas in Our Midst" a 1992 documentary of the Guerilla Girls by Amy Harrison. It gives a quick synopsis of what they call "insider trading" in the art world.
Thanks for the tip! I'm on it - B
Bill - Are you really surprised by Lisa's assertion? Tickets at MOMA are $20 - that's just the starting point.
The board at MOMA had a major desire to brand like Guggenheim during its 'rebuilding' a few of years back. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were earmarked to 'explore' this.
Again its the right money and the right curators determining the right course. Not sure that is anything new really. I'm of the opinion that an extreme populist course would wield unattractive results too. The artwolrd is a crooked line and this is not new. The CEO's are no more suspect than say a certain Larry Gagosian. It does make you wonder if a visual artist union could be possible and would it have any collective bargaining power on important issues? How would that be structured and who would be in charge? This point by Lisa also makes me wonder why artists don't question where the money comes from to support musuems or the purchase of their own works for that matter. Now I don't say that so much to demonize but as a call to educate oneself on the reality out there.
HighLow, I didn't find it surprising; I'd come to the same conclusion Lisa wrote about. But my conclusion was based entirely circumstantial evidence: Pixar in MOMA, for example, and the MOMA show called Contemporary Voices that featured a giant Twombly from the 1970s. In an earlier posting I'd decided that museums had outlived their contemporary relevance for precisely these kinds of reasons. I'd just never heard anyone state it so plainly, as a given fact, regarding CEOs on museum boards.
I'm interested in what the specifics are -- which CEOs are serving on which museum boards. I'm sure this is available info. Also, I'm thinking that it's not even necessarily CEOs; that any collector serving on the board of an art museum has a conflict of interest.
So I'd agree that I need to educate myself more about which specific interests are involved in which institutions. It's almost amusing, this tawdry commercial feeding frenzy of an art world infrastructure. Amazing that anything good ever comes of it.
I hear you. We all need to educate ourselves. Its standard folks I'm sure from Deutche Bank to HSBC, etc. I think it may be less about the CEO's and more about the collectors - the Horts, The Butlers, etc. The other reasons for the corporate participation is for public relations and profile, not just "insider trading". Look how much money the cigarette industry pumps into the visual arts - its considered a good deed and humane. All those Altoid sponsorships? This brings us to why America doesn't support the arts. Where's the tax base for the humanities? No where. That's why we need corporate sponsors and stewardship - there's no other port to dock to.
It gets worse. An art consultant told me that some of the new "art investment funds" have dealers on their corporate boards, helping to choose which art to buy. I find that quite disturbing, if it's true. (I haven't yet checked into it myself.)
Here is MoMA’s board – a quick scan turns up a few CEOs (and many collectors):
http://www.moma.org/about_moma/trustees/
Richard Parsons is chairman and chief executive officer of Time Warner, which tried to buy Pixar at one point.
Porcupine -
Fantastic, thank you for the link. I guess in a way it was probably a pretty obvious conclusion to check their website, and it didn't occur to me that that level of information would be there.
Here's an interesting question: Who would you want serving on your museum board -- someone with an armchair interest in art, or someone whose passion for art drives them to collect it?
Not really a tough call, in my book. But it looks to me like even though you'd want the passionate art collectors on your board, if you want a museum that curates based on art concerns and/or their relationships with the rest of society or history, you'd still want some oversight of their decisions.
Maybe in the end what's wrong is my own idea of what a museum is, or what it should be. Since their earliest days I'd guess that museums have been designed by wealthy benefactors for greater purposes than simply providing the public with unique first-hand educational experiences.
We're the gate monkeys, after all. Our role is to unquestioningly accept the benevolence of these ascendant beings who, in their pity for us, allow us to walk among their sacred objects.
Thanks again -- good call.
This is a big, and interesting topic. I'll have a post tomorrow on my blog about these conflicts of interest, now that you've raised the issue. Stop by.
A travesty? I hope you mean evil market manipulators and not my humble little blog!
Thanks for starting the dialog.
Lisa
No no no no no, Ms. Hunter, your blog ROCKS THA HOUSE!!! Can't tell you how long I've needed some of the insights you provide. Thanks.
Post a Comment