ArtNews recently presented a series on how to fix the art world.
Dear ArtNews,
You asked 50 individuals—artists and curators, critics and
historians, art dealers and an art fair director—to gather a range of
perspectives. As I read the offerings you shared, I was struck by the
limits in what I saw.
It was interesting that you asked only people in the art
world but one of the largest contributors to the arts is NOT in the art
world.
The consumers, clients, and collectors. Overlooking these "outsiders" points to an art world that behaves with a "diversity" that is most true only to the original meaning of the word. The word "diversity" isn’t a word based solely upon race or origin, though many have forgotten. It comes from the Latin word “divertere” and it means to “turn aside.”
The consumers, clients, and collectors. Overlooking these "outsiders" points to an art world that behaves with a "diversity" that is most true only to the original meaning of the word. The word "diversity" isn’t a word based solely upon race or origin, though many have forgotten. It comes from the Latin word “divertere” and it means to “turn aside.”
In its positive quest for diversity, however, the art world
has managed to simply turn aside. The word we really want to employ is “inclusion.” Right now, the art world is not
an inclusive world. It has no real language outside of itself and it speaks to few
people outside of its protective walls. It is careful about what sorts of
people it lets in those walls. Some people simply are not welcome. In fact,
the art world has waged a cultural war on those “types” of people.
To test if this is true, help me to understand where you
support Republican artists. Or the artists that voted for Donald J. Trump. I know
some of those artists. They are artists who must maintain their silence lest
they be demonized and cast aside by the art world. The art world is harsh with
those that do not conform. Think about that.
Klaus Biesenbach, affiliated with MoMA, said in your article, “I am looking to the artists I know and the artists I work with to offer different ways of looking at a very challenging national and international political, economic, ecological, and societal situation.”
Klaus Biesenbach, affiliated with MoMA, said in your article, “I am looking to the artists I know and the artists I work with to offer different ways of looking at a very challenging national and international political, economic, ecological, and societal situation.”
I hope he means with a hearty welcome and an
open door policy but I fear this is not the case. As for me, I'm tired of watching people be insulted or revolted by art but I'm not sure the practice will cease anytime soon.
For another example, we talk about women in the arts, yet the rules by which we assess art are based in the patriarchy’s history. It started in 1568 with Giorgio
Vasari. He’s the accepted father of art history who first began making distinctions
between artists and their work. In his book, Lives of the Most Eminent
Italian Painters, Sculptors, & Architects, he listed 160 artists but he
gave a passing nod to only 4 women. It was these 160 artists and their eminence
that started the standards that brought us to the present day world of art.
Why haven’t the rules of what defines art been expanded to
address the way a woman’s mind works? We’ve learned a lot since 1568 and science
proves that a female brain is different than a male’s. Physically, men lead
with the left hemisphere of the brain, while, typically, women use both sides
with reliance on the right side. The left side controls logic, structure,
spatial relationships, and objective thinking while the right side is more
intuitive, thoughtful, and subjective. Accordingly, a woman’s art is being
asked to fit itself into the narrower box influenced by the classic patriarchy
that founded the art world.
The Great East London Art Audit revealed that an
analysis of the 100 highest grossing auctions in 2012 contained zero women. We're not inclusive.
My conclusion is that a woman’s mind and her creativity are
bigger than the scope the art world currently offers. What do we offer them? Let’s
remember, 53% of Caucasian women voted for Trump. Are we planning on starting a
dialogue with them?
Right, now, the language of the art world mostly includes only
those within the art world. People who study and work within its enclave.
David Levi Strauss recognized the issue when he said, "The art market became increasingly separated from the actual making of art, to the point where artists and consumers of art are now living in two entirely different realms."
Where is the welcoming invitation for those who don’t speak our language? We
ask a veterinarian, a car mechanic, a lawyer, or a doctor to “give us the news
in laymen’s terms” but when will the art world offer them the same in return?
Professionals that can and would sponsor art, artists, and their work are
rarely spoken to in language sets they can easily comprehend. Naima Keith also
touches on this idea when she said, “[Museums]
need to do the hard work of determining how they might expand their mission to
truly benefit new segments of society that might, in turn, also become
patrons—constituents that institutions may historically have overlooked.”
Would an invitation and a sincere welcome be a lowering of the
art world’s lofty standards or would it be an expansion of those standards? If
we refuse to value a differing mind than our own, how will we expect those
minds to value our differences?
