The effects of Globalization on Museums

Think of the best and most well-known museums in the world and you’ll probably think of examples like the Louvre in Paris, the British Museum in London, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. We tend to overlook, however, that some of the world’s most precious and valuable works of art are not in these museums at all but in much smaller galleries in countries that are often overlooked when it comes to their contribution to the art world. Countries like Bangladesh, Thailand, and much of sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America are the birthplaces of some of the most spectacular art in history. A great deal of this art, however, is exhibited not in its home country but in another country in museums like the ones mentioned above. If you think about it, these countries are getting the short end of the stick in more ways than one. These smaller countries were all at one point owned by the great superpowers of the world and had much of their historical artistic legacy stripped. The quintessential example of this practice is the abundance of Egyptian art to be found in London. Great Britain, of course, could not be farther from Egypt in terms of culture and heritage, and even though Britain did once talk about Egypt as a colony or “protectorate,” those days are long over and yet Britain still houses the collection of Egyptian art that it unceremoniously confiscated and branded as its own.

Last year, a museum in Bangladesh generously loaned 180 pieces of art to the Musée Guimet in France. I would assume that Bangladesh thought it would benefit from this showing in a region of the world much more recognized as an artistic and cultural center as a sort of advertising; seeing what Bangladesh has to offer may spur Western tourists to that country itself. Keep in mind that Bangladesh is a developing country which needs all the money and attention it can get. It turns out that the Guimet had vastly under-insured the precious artifacts, some of which were crafted more than 1700 years ago. The museum had then planned to “lose” the works of art, pay the small insurance fee, and sell the works to other museums for much larger sums of money. Luckily this plot was discovered by the right people at the right time and prevented. But the smaller museums may not always be so lucky. As a developing country, a sense of shared culture and history is crucial to nation building and art from a bygone era is an important part of that project.

Personally, I think the way that smaller museums from smaller countries are being taken advantage of is an abomination to the purpose of art museums in the first place. Countries like Bangladesh are being screwed over in enough ways. Why does the art world have to get involved?

(information from ArtNewspaper)

Can Immortal Works of Art Last Forever?

Perhaps no painting captures the torture of existential angst as well as Edvard Munch’s “Shrik” (”The Scream”). One has to wonder if that was the emotion being felt by two masked thieves in 2004 when they broke into an art museum in Oslo, Norway to steal one version of Munch’s haunting depiction, apparently dating from around 1910. Two years later the piece was recovered by police and earlier this year it returned to the museum on permanent display, as good as new.

Almost.

Apparently the thieves were a little careless with the priceless work of art when stowing it away because it apparently showed some tears, scratches and humidity damage. The museum employees were then faced with a choice: leave the painting as it was, tears and all, or attempt a restoration which if successful, could take away most of the damage, but if unsuccessful, could hurt the painting even further. They elected to perform restoration on the whole canvas except for a small part of the lower left corner which they considered too risky to restore. Now when patrons visit the museum they see an almost perfect version of this classic, which was probably the best they could have hoped for given the circumstances. This begs the question: when is it worth it to perform a restoration? Several factors influence the decision of whether or not to undertake this act: the value and fame of the piece itself, the level of damage or pollution on the work, the length of time it would take to complete, and not insignificantly, the cost.

One of the more controversial restorations in recent memory was that of Leonardo Da Vinci’s last supper, which lasted from 1978 to 1999. The before and after differences are startling. In the 1970s, the painting’s appearance was unrecognizable. 21 years later, when the restoration was finished, it looked better, but…different. Colors, tones and facial shapes were altered to the point where some art historians claim it had become a different painting altogether. Of course, some wear and tear should be expected of a 500 year old painting, and no critic alive today is aware of how the painting originally looked. Restoration often includes some significant tampering and if something goes wrong, the world could lose a treasure. But this rarely happens. Today, restorations are done by very skilled professionals who know what’s at stake. It’s hard to imagine even the most hardcore art purist finding fault with the retouching of the Sphinx in early 20th century Egypt; after all, if steps hadn’t been taken to restore it, it would probably be unrecognizable today, not enjoyed by anyone at all.

The truth is that restoration may cause some irreversible changes to a classic work of art, which may not sit well with some art historians. However, most patrons would likely agree that slight to moderate alterations of the original work are well worth preventing the complete deterioration of these paintings. It just seems a bit selfish that we can enjoy a work 500 years after its completion and not do our part to help it last another half millennium.

Big Shorts: A Look at the Oxymoronic direction some artists will go to get attention…

A great man (OK, the mediocre Irish dramatist Brendan Behan) was once heard to remark “There’s no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.” While he may have had a point, some artists in any and all mediums have recently been taking this sentiment altogether the wrong way. Take the recently completed CCTV Headquarters in Beijing, China. I think it’s safe to say that there has never been a building quite like this one anywhere in the world. With globalization in full force, and China in the spotlight as a burgeoning economic superstar among nations, it’s only natural for the Chinese government to want to make as big of an impression as possible. Emerging superpowers have a habit of doing this: France did it with the Palace at Versailles, America did it with the Empire State Building. And though beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, it is my opinion that the CCTV building is a clear artistic success. But hate it or love it, that building will be turning heads for years to come.

I do have a few problems with it:

Architecture has the curious distinction of being the only major school of art that requires a practical use for the work or art itself, especially a skyscraper such as this one. The Eiffel Tower was famously derided by half of Paris when it was built in 1888 and now stands tall as the iconic symbol of France. The Eiffel Tower, however, was not built to house 25,000+ workers on a daily basis. The CCTV tower currently is at risk of collapse if a major earthquake hits Beijing (a city with high levels of seismic activity). It takes up an obscene amount of downtown Beijing office space, and it cost a mind-blowing $960 million dollars. I cannot say I have been in this tower but I would assume that getting from one section to another is far more difficult than in a standard skyscraper.

But we all have to suffer for our art, and I can imagine that architect Rem Koolhaas, who designed the project, has endured more than his share of abuse, as well as praise, for his vision. And though the building itself may present a few dangers and inconveniences to those who actually work in it, it has the potential to be as representative of modern China as the Great Wall is of the ancient. Just like every great work of architecture, its distinctiveness and innovation is what makes it so special. A hundred years from now we may be looking at China as the undisputed Superpower on the planet, with the CCTV Headquarters a glowing symbol of might. Just the potential for that kind of glory is reason enough for it to exist.

If it doesn’t get destroyed by an earthquake, that is.

Huang Yong Ping: Generally Unconcerned

I recently read The Art Newspaper’s Interview with Huang Yong Ping, whose travelling show is currently on view at the Kunsthallen Brandts in Odense.

In the interview, Huang Yong Ping expresses his general disinterest in the world at large. Reading the article, one imagines the Xiamen, China-born Huang Yong Ping to be practically asleep in his chair during the reporter’s questioning, waving away questions with a flick of the wrist. But really, what does one expect from one of the paramount figures in the Xiamen Dada movement whose incipient work bore the longwinded and noncommittal title of “The History of Chinese Painting and the History of Modern Western Art Washed in the Washing Machine for Two Minutes”?

A few of my favorite quotations from Huang Yong Ping from the Art Newspaper interview:

On his art: “I never feel strongly about anything.”

On the topic of the commercialized, mass-produced “fake” art currently garnering much funding and attention from foreign buyers in China: “By ignoring them they will die out naturally.”

On politics: “An artist should distance himself from power so that he can think independently.”

Although I must express my admiration for the above stated view on the right and necessity for an artist to think independently, reading this interview mainly made me think about how difficult it would be to host a dinner party full of dadaists. They would be so noncommittal.

Fecal Face dot Com

One of my favorite art blogs for fresh art is FecalFace.com. I know I usually blog about the high-end side of art, FecalFace features some of San Francisco’s most talented young artists, and it is a great digital-meets-brutal interface. It seems like no one’s afraid of anything.

‘Russian Schoolroom’ Teaches New Lessons

Norman Rockwell's 'Russian Schoolroom' (Courtesy: Las Vegas Sun)

Norman Rockwell’s “Russian Schoolroom” typifies the artist’s transition from the production of idealistic, dreamlike American scenes to then modern-day socio-political commentary. Today, the same painting has shifted in representation once again: now, “Russian Schoolroom” stands for modern greed and the ever-spinning, circular financial ramifications of art theft disputes.

The lithograph in question features a room of Russian schoolchildren (male) facing a bust of Lenin. It was produced in an era when the Cold War and the Russian Question in general were at the forefront of global consciousness–quite a leap from Rockwell’s characteristic happy-family-and-turkey productions for which he is mainly remembered in modern cultural recollection.

The plot began in 1968, when Jack Solomon, a lithograph company owner who worked with Rockwell during his heyday, purchased “Russian Schoolroom.” In 1973, after Solomon lent the piece to a gallery, it was stolen. In 1988 Judy Goffman Cutler bought the painting (and then sold it to director Steven Spielberg, whose assistant eventually discovered the stolen status of the painting).

“Russian Schoolroom”’s estimated value hovers around the figure of $700,000, but Cutler and Solomon have already collectively surpassed this amount in legal fees through their litigation. The painting is still in limbo, and the year-long argument over the piece seems to have taken over both of their lives.

Of course, art isn’t about monetary value. This Rockwell piece is a piece of history. But isn’t it also true that during the time this pair spends arguing over a piece of history, they are losing critical moments of history in their own lives?

Brooklyn Museum’s Crop of Coptic Art a Historical Farce

One of the earliest Christian carvings, according to Scripture and various Charlton Heston movies, is the Decalogue: the Ten Commandments.  Inscribed by a Divine Hand, the stone tablets revealed a collection of ten laws, including one that the Brooklyn Museum probably wished that their 1960s-era Egyptian art suppliers had followed a bit more closely:

“Thou Shalt Not Lie.”

Before the official revelation of the fake Coptics, Brooklyn Museum was billed as housing the second largest collection of Coptic Art in North America (immediately after New York’s Metropolitan Museum).  With 30 Coptic sculptures, the vast majority of which acquired in the years between 1960 and 1970 from Switzerland and New York, who acquired the sculptures directly from Egypt, the Brooklyn Museum’s collection of Coptics was nothing to sneeze at.

Coptic Sculpture refers to Christian sculpture created in Egypt between the 4th Century Anno Domini and the year of the Arab Invasion, 641 AD.  Carved from limestone, coptic sculpture has served as the artistic bridge uniting the artisan styles of Pagan and Christian cultures.  It is also credited with existing as historical evidence of the continuity of the large-scale sculpture form made standard during the Classical period.

For scholars like Coptic art specialist Thelma Thomas, a professor at New York University, Coptic art represents something besides continuity and cultural conduits–Coptic art has practically become synonymous with “fake,” as more and more supposedly authentic Coptic sculptures, upon closer inspection, prove to be false.

10 of Brooklyn Museum’s collection of 30 sculptures have been officially declared false.  An additional ten have been determined to have been recarved and repainted in the modern era.  The remaining 10 may well be authentic–but the damage has clearly been done.

What is Brooklyn Museum doing in response to the recent official denouncement (rumblings have been heard in the past, but no voice from the mountain had come down quite yet) of the authenticity of their collection?

Why having an exhibition, of course!

On February 13, 2009, the Brooklyn Museum will unveil an exhibition detailing the voyage of the forgeries.  The false sculptures have gleaned their own history from the fraud, and have become valuable in their own right (though clearly  not so much as the 1,000 original, authentic Coptic sculptures which supposedly still exist).

Never underestimate a national art gallery’s ability to spin fraud into profit.

Cydney Payton Moves On

MCA Denver Director Cydney Payton

I’ve followed Cydney Payton’s career for a number of years. It’s always incredible, and perhaps it shouldn’t be, but it is, when a woman of such talent is recognized for her visionary attributes and celebrated.

Cydney Payton took the Museum of Contemporary Art/Denver from a collection of exhibits housed in a converted fish market to a stunning edifice designed by Tanzanian-born British minimalist architect David Adjaye.

As director of the Museum of Contemporary Art/Denver (MCA Denver), Cydney Payton depended on private fundraising (though she admits to first courting the public fundraising angle), a pragmatic switch in financing which not only came more naturally to the museum but also allowed for the eventual showing of more “risky” exhibitions thanks to its private funding.

Cydney Payton’s intricate direction of Denver’s landmark Contemporary Art Museum is illustrated best in the small tweaks she made to her processes. Her attention to detail and consideration of all aspects of a situation make her a remarkable director and an impressive leader in the art world.
It is precisely her sensible realism and practical moves in the art world which separates Cydney Payton from the rest of the pack. When shopping for architects for the new museum building, Cydney insisted that each of the finalists present a public lecture to the community, rather than the traditional closed-door presentations typically requested in these types of deliberative processes. By keeping the community involved, the museum’s planning had a far greater impact, and the greater Denver community felt valued and involved. MCA Denver was also recognized for its environmentally-conscious, progressive design.

In October of this year, Cydney Payton will resign. I hope she will retire to a tropical island somewhere and enjoy her success, but odds are she will probably keep working, subtly tweaking the art world, making it better and better and better.

Discus Throwers Grace China With Their Presence

Photo: EFE / José Álvarez Díaz. (http://www.artdaily.com)

The British Museum allowed a priceless collection of over one hundred sculptures and porcelains to be temporarily exhibited in Shanghai in the months preceding Beijing’s Olympic Games.

The Sisters Koplowitz

Esther Koplowitz is the recluse.  The sister who shies away from media, who keeps to herself, who—even when her Chamartin luxury apartment was burgled in 2001 –refused to speak to the media other than to communicate through a spokesperson that her enviable collection of fine art was uninsured.  Though both sisters married a set of cousins nearly simultaneously and divorced in unison over separate counts of adultery, the similarities between Esther and Alicia Koplowitz are about as rare as the paintings the sisters house in their respective homes.

While both sisters are listed among Spain’s richest individuals, and both are counted among the billionaire socialites of the world, Esther Koplowitz runs FCC, Fomentos de Construcciones y Contratas, and does so remarkably.  Esther’s shrewd business sense has garnered her a position on the board of France’s Vivendi International.

Alicia Koplowitz is considerably more visible in the art world than her sister, recently slated as attending the European Fine Art Fair in Maastricht, the Netherlands.