Pictures of Paintings: Cheapening Art

Photo Courtesy of Danika Jensen

Taking photographs of artwork during a visit to an art museum has become as ubiquitous as purchasing a postcard or other souvenir from the gift shop. Within the halls of any institution, guests are using their phones, cameras, even iPads and game consoles, in order to capture images of their museum visit. This increasingly popular trend raises some interesting questions regarding the visitor experience, as well as the respect for and ownership of art. With many institutions offering high quality images of their artwork on their websites, or even in the gift shops on postcards, magnets, and other tchotchke, why do visitors feel the need to reproduce or obtain their own images? This often occurs at the risk of being reprimanded by security, being forced to hold the camera at an angle, or making due with a blurry photo taken over someone’s shoulder, among other difficulties. With such nuisances involved, why do these personal images play such an integral role in the modern museum experience? In addition, does an individual taking an iPhone picture as he or she admires a piece of art suggest that he or she is not truly looking at said piece of art? These questions still remain contested by those who study museums and how their guests interact with art. 

A recent article in the Washington Post discusses the prevalence of picture-taking in museums, and what this suggests about the ways in which people look at art. Anne Midgette, author of the article “On the Prowl for Memories, Museumgoers Resort to Snapshots,” acknowledges that taking photographs of art often suggests the idea of cheapening the image, as well as what museums stand for as institutions. This practice also raises the question of whether a guest is truly “seeing” the art through the lens of their camera, or if it is just a technological distraction, adulterating the purity of the museum experience. Without a camera, would a museum visitor be forced to see the art in a different or more meaningful way? As Midgette explains, “we should celebrate the sense of participation and excitement that the art may be inspiring in those people who looked at an artwork, and smiled at it, and took a picture. Because while the snapshot they take, the reproduction, closes the door on the dialogue between the viewer and the work of art, the act of photographing may, in some cases, open it.”

Photos Courtesy of Danika Jensen

Personally, in the pictures section of my iPhone, I have photos of two Monet paintings, a Frida self-portrait, a Diego Rivera painting, an installation by Nam June Paik, and multiple images of the architecture of the Library of Congress, among other artworks. Personally, I do not believe that my capturing these images with my phone detrimentally affected my appreciation of the art. Rather, I wanted celebrate these pieces by being able to relive them again, lest I never have another opportunity to see them in person. Similarly, in his essay “The Object of Art Museums,” James Cuno reflects “on the experience of engaging with works of art, especially in their most fundamental sense-- as objects, manufactured things making claims on our close and sustained attention” (53). While some may argue that photography takes away from the purity of experiencing art, it more often than not allows individuals to connect, appreciate, and interact with art in a way they may not otherwise have been able to. Ultimately, photography enables visitors to take art home with them and revisit these pieces time and again. 

Check out this link that helped inspire this entry of Museum Musings! 
Washington Post Article

The Enigmas of Exportation

Photo Courtesy of the Getty Museum

The process by which American art museums acquire their pieces from other nations can often be very complicated, and sometimes dramatic. However, with the rampant worldwide looting of cultural objects that is currently taking place, and the subsequently black-market sale of these items, it is not very surprising that foreign export processes are usually extremely intricate. As time consuming and convoluted as they can be, these stringent processes and policies ultimately decrease the illegal exportation of artwork, which also indirectly assists in the prevention of further illicit looting around the world.

The difficulties associated with foreign purchases and exportation can be seen in some of the Getty Museum’s past attempts to purchase art from Great Britain. According to an article in the Arts and Culture section of the Los Angeles Times, the Getty has just recently won a small-scale struggle with the British authorities regarding the purchase of a Rembrandt self-portrait titled “Rembrandt Laughing.” Soon after the Getty announced its purchase of this painting, “British authorities put a freeze on the export license for the work. British law allows for the veto of foreign purchase of artwork if a British institution can at least match the purchase price and the work is deemed of significant cultural value.” This is not the first time that the Getty has been prevented by the British authorities from completing the purchase of an artwork. This also occurred in 2002 with the attempted purchase of Raphael’s “Madonna of the Pinks,” which is now located in London’s National Gallery. The British authorities having the power to veto foreign purchases of art in order to retain items that possess a powerful cultural value demonstrates the extent to which art is esteemed and cherished in our society.

As inconvenient as these situations were for the Getty, they prove how important it is for museums to respect the export policies of other nations. In addition, they emphasize the fact that museums should operate with a high regard and responsibility for the public trust in mind. Ed Vaizy, the British culture minister that placed the freeze on the export license, had done so in the hope that a British buyer would come forward to “rescue” the Rembrandt self-portrait. Vaizy explains, “I hope that my deferral of the export license will allow time for a buyer to … secure this exquisite painting for the nation, where it can be studied and enjoyed by all.” The public trust, and the overall artistic benefit of the country, were clearly major contributing factors in the British authorities’ decision to freeze the export license.

In the book Whose Muse? Art Museums and the Public Trust, edited by James Cuno, the relationship between the museum and the public is explored in depth through a number of essays written by prominent museum leaders. As John Walsh, former director emeritus of the J. Paul Getty Museum, explains in the book’s introduction, “individual works of art can move people deeply, that museums are places where the public can have that experience as a public experience…” (21). It is one of the main responsibilities of museums to house artwork that fosters national pride and encourages discussion and learning among the public. Though a small squabble with the UK resulted from the Getty purchase of this painting, the American public will ultimately greatly benefit from its display at such a renowned art museum. 

Check out these links that helped this entry of Museum Musings!
LA Times (Rembrandt)
LA Times Article
LA Times Article

Museums Are Businesses Too

 (Los Angeles Times)

In his article “The Mindful Museum,” Adam Gopnik describes the transformation of the museum from its earlier models as a mausoleum, machine, mall, and metaphor to its current state of being ‘mindful.’ Gopnik, however, does not investigate the history of the museum as a business, perhaps due to the fact it fails to fit in with the theme of his alliteration. While these institutions act as storehouses of art and centers for learning and discussion, museums also operate as ceaseless businesses, a role that is not necessarily as publicized as their other more evident functions. 

A recent article in the Arts and Culture section of the Los Angeles Times describes LA’s Museum of Contemporary Art’s search for a new director. Museum directors must often have extensive curatorial experience to build up their institution’s collections, but in order to run a museum efficiently, a keen business sense is also equally imperative. MOCA’s history of directors has largely consisted of individuals with curatorial backgrounds, but with little to no fundraising or administrative experience. Particularly during the tenure of Jeremy Strick, a previous senior curator at the Art Institute of Chicago, MOCA’s endowment was drastically spent down and its budget fell, even running deficits during the period between 2000 and 2009. As James B. Gardner and Elizabeth Merritt explain in their article “Collections Planning: Pinning Down a Strategy,” an awareness of an institution’s financial limitations is crucial to its success. They are extremely accurate in their belief that “Building a compelling vision of the future can help leverage funds and support.” As a result of the immense amounts of money spent on exhibitions and acquisitions, MOCA has spent the last five years struggling to fundraise and boost its endowment back up to 100 million dollars.

In addition, Eli Broad, the primary funder of MOCA for the last five years, announced earlier in September that he would no longer be funding the Museum of Contemporary Art, as the new Broad Museum will be opening in late 2014. This search for a new director comes at a critical time, not only for MOCA, but also for all Los Angeles museums, with the impending opening of the Broad Museum, which will be extending free admission to all guests. It will be interesting to study how free admission at the Broad Museum will affect attendance at MOCA, particularly since they will be showcasing very similar collections (both focusing on contemporary art) and MOCA’s entrance charge is $12. As Merritt and Gardner explain, “Many museums consciously choose not to collect in areas that are strongly represented in other museums, particularly if those museums serve the same audience.” However, both Eli Broad and the MOCA board maintain that the opening of the new museum will only increase attendance at MOCA. At this point, MOCA is not in a financially stable place to more seriously consider the idea of offering free admission to its guests. Free admission would mean that MOCA would need to incentivize the Los Angeles community in a new and fresh way to purchase memberships, of which one of the perks is unlimited free admission.

Generally, every museum possesses a Membership and Development Department that is responsible for major fundraising as well as the acquisition of private contributions from patrons. As the majority of museums rely heavily on donations and membership sales to build up their endowments in order to subsequently fund exhibitions and acquisitions, it is also important to have a financially savvy director. Hopefully, MOCA is able to acquire a new director with both curatorial and business experience, as both are necessary to successfully lead a museum into a fiscally secure future. 

LA Times Article (MOCA Director)

LA Times Article (Broad and MOCA)

LA Times Article (Broad Museum)

Demure Nudity Versus Explicit Nakedness in Art

Photo courtesy of Danika Jensen

Art is no stranger to controversy. Whether it involves a classical Greek sculpture of a female nude, or the homoeroticism and sadomasochism explored in the photography of Robert Mapplethorpe, art, throughout history, has managed to offend or affront through its exploration of what are considered to be shocking and radical topics. Art of all genres can be used as windows to explore the socio-political environments in which they were produced. However, not all agencies approve of revisionist or extreme art, and have diligently worked to stifle the range of artwork that is exhibited in our country’s museums. 

Nudity in art has remained a controversial subject since the art museum was first established in America. When classical Greek sculptures were first showcased in American museums, they were considered highly indecent and inappropriate due to their state of undress. However, with time, the nude form has become one of the most celebrated types of sculpture, with major art museums featuring countless examples of both male and female Classical Greek and Roman nudes. Despite the popular acceptance of these nude forms, demure nudity is still considered very different from explicit nakedness. 

The exploration of human sexuality and nakedness in photography, for example, has yet to reach such a state of appreciation and reverence in American art museums. Viewers often react much more negatively to the explicit nakedness in photographs than they do to the seemingly demure nudity of classical Greek sculptures. A Robert Mapplethorpe exhibit in 1989 brought the controversies surrounding “obscene” art and nudity to the public’s attention. “Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment” included images of nude individuals engaged in sexual acts and elements of sadomasochism and homoeroticism, alongside still life and portrait photographs. This exhibition, funded by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, was ultimately cancelled at the possibility of governmental disapproval shortly before it was supposed to open at the Corcoran Gallery of Art for a touring show. This cancellation of the exhibit was regarded by many as a threat to the arts, and demonstrated the government’s influence in determining what is considered obscene in the art world. 

It should not be the government’s prerogative to determine what types of art are considered obscene or what art deserves censorship. Different genres of art speak to wide and varying audiences, and for the museum to completely cancel an exhibition at the risk of congressional disapproval due to its exploration of uncomfortable topics is self-censorship. Though these issues associated with governmental subsidization of the arts, unfortunately, are still prevalent, artist and museums alike continue to explore the topics of nudity and sensuality. 

A current exhibition at the Musée d’Orsay in Paris titled “Masculine/Masculine” is exploring the role of the male nude in art over the last several centuries, and hopes to dispel the myth that male nudity in art can be elegant and not simply raunchy. As the Musée d’Orsay states “We must distinguish above all between nudity and the nude: a body simply without clothes, that causes embarrassment with its lack of modesty, is different from the radiant vision of a body restructured and idealized by the artist.” The nude male form, displayed in a sexual, violent, or homoerotic manner, can still be beautiful and artistic despite the uncomfortable feelings it is sure to elicit in some viewers. As a result, it is essential for museums to continue to exhibit shows such as “Masculine/Masculine” and explore the human form despite the anticipated objections of government agencies or other groups. 

Check out these links that helped inspire this entry in Museum Musings! 

Musée d'Orsay
The Daily Beast Article 
ICA Article