Museum Ethics and Show Business

(AMPAS / November 3, 2013)

The city of Los Angeles will experience the addition of two major museums within in the next few years. The Broad, a new contemporary art museum, will be opening in downtown LA in late 2014 across from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. In 2017, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences plans to open its Academy Museum of Motion Pictures in a building that is currently unused next to LACMA. The Academy Museum aims to be a valid and respected cultural institution that will be able to attract visitors that possess a wide range of familiarity with cinema and its history. In order for the Academy Museum to be successful, this prospective institution must take many factors into consideration, including ethics, funds, and education. A recent article in the Los Angeles Times, titled “The long Yellow Brick Road to Hollywood’s new museum,” likens the goals and intentions of the Academy Museum to the three essential characteristics attributed to Dorothy’s sidekicks in the film “The Wizard of Oz.”

According to author Mike Boehm, the Academy Museum must possess the “brains to deftly balance entertainment with scholarly heft. The courage not to be manipulated by studio executives, actors or directors who might view the nonprofit museum as a tool for boosting box-office returns, gratifying egos or controlling artistic and historical interpretations that are supposed to be up to the curators. And a heart — Hollywood's collective philanthropic heart — that's eager to express itself by giving the museum the money and collection items it needs to thrive.” It is only with these qualities that the Academy Museum will be able to thrive and succeed as a new cultural institution in the heart of Los Angeles. Otherwise, the threat of failure is very tangible, as revealed by the fate of the Hollywood Entertainment Museum, which was forced to close its doors in 2006 due to low attendance and lack of funds. 

The courage to avoid manipulation by donors is yet another aspect of ethics that is important to be considered in the museum profession. In situations similar to the Guggenheim putting on an exhibition titled ‘Armani’ after a supposed donation of $15 million from the fashion house, it can be very difficult to discern when the focus or design of an exhibition leaves the control of the curators and is instead skewed in favor of appeasing the donors or funders of the show. This represents a very real danger for the Academy Museum, whose potential donors will include studio executives, actors, and directors that may retain certain expectations regarding their influence on exhibitions. According to the article, the “ethics and standards code of the American Alliance of Museums, a leading nonprofit trade organization, insists that the equivalents of script approval, final cut and the authority to green-light a project must reside with museum professionals, not with an exhibition's subject, financial contributors or artifact lenders.”  

Museum ethics is not limited to situations involving looting, repatriation, and acquisition. The ethics associated with curating are also extremely significant, and it will be essential for the Academy Museum to remain unadulterated by the politics and egos so prevalent in show business. As Boehm asserts in the article “Who's in control of the portrayal is as crucial in museum ethics as what's being portrayed.”

Los Angeles Times Article

Bidding on Beauty

(Christie's / Associated Press / November 13, 2013)

In the past few weeks, both Christie’s and Sotheby’s have had incredibly successful and lucrative auction sales. These auctions have consistently been bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars, often for the work of modern and contemporary artists, not just that of the old masters. For example, on Tuesday, Francis Bacon’s “Three Studies of Lucian Freud” sold for 142.4 million dollars as part of a postwar and contemporary art auction at Christie’s in New York. This three-panel piece of art has broken the monetary record for a work of art sold at auction at this institution, and this particular event at Christie’s represents the auction with the highest sales total in history. Similarly, on Wednesday, Andy Warhol’s “Silver Car Crash (Double Disaster)” sold for 105.4 million dollars, as part of Sotheby’s auction of contemporary art, which represents a record amount for this pop artist.

In addition, earlier in the month of November, Christie’s sold a Picasso piece titled “Claude et Paloma” to Wang Jianlin, the president of the Dalian Wanda Group and the richest man in China. This piece sold for 28.2 million dollars, nearly 20 million dollars more than what Christie’s estimated it would sell for (9-12 million dollars). The Warhol piece mentioned earlier also sold for a much higher price than what was originally estimated by Sotheby’s, which was between 60 and 80 million dollars. Many pieces of artwork at these auctions have been selling for incredibly large amounts of money, and the Los Angeles Times even claims that Wang Jianlin overpaid for his Picasso. 

These recent major sales of art, and many others that have occurred in the last few years, really exemplify the shifts that are taking place in the contemporary art market. As I mentioned in my previous blog post concerning the emerging art market in China, art is now becoming a type of currency, used by the wealthy and powerful of some countries to enhance their status in society as connoisseurs of the arts. According to the LA Times, Wang Jianlin “flexed his muscles on the international art market Tuesday by purchasing a Picasso painting for $28.2 million.” To me, this statement implies that Wang Jianlin’s purchase was more of a display of his wealth and power, rather than his appreciation of Picasso’s work. 

Art is also now considered a considerable and conservative investment due to the fact that most art increases in value with the passage of time. This tendency to treat art and artifacts as commodities has the potential to become an unnerving issue in the near future. Art will always be highly valued and subsequently sold on the international art market and at auction houses around the world. However, as soon as art becomes a small piece within a larger financial vehicle, it ceases to be art and is in danger of losing its aesthetic worth. I do not believe that art will ever be realistically separated from commercialism, nor do I believe it should it be. However, art is meant to be enjoyed and respected, not treated as a substitute for stocks and bonds. 

Check out these links that helped inspire this entry in Museum Musings! 
Wang Jianlin Article
Christie's Article
Sotheby's article

The Pros and Cons of Participation

Michael Allen Blair/Journal Register News Service

Interactive elements are gradually becoming a major and familiar fixture in modern museums. Some institutions, mainly children’s and science museums, have incorporated interactive learning into nearly every aspect of their exhibition halls. More and more art museums are also electing to integrate these types of activities into their educational programming and exhibit construction as well. When designed and utilized properly, these features can encourage lifelong learning and promote participation and discussion among museum guests. However, when poorly developed or difficult to use, results are usually inconsistent and do not contribute to the museum or to the visitors in meaningful or valuable ways. For it to be constructive and relevant, participatory learning should ultimately benefit both the museum guests as well as the institutions in which the learning is taking place.

In her article “Principles of Participation,” Nina Simon discusses the reasons why successful participatory museum experiences are very difficult to achieve. When designing interactive elements that encourage visitor participation, an institution must be aware of a variety of factors in order to create an effective experience. Simon explains, that in order for a participatory exercise to be successful, “the institution must promise an appealing participant experience. The institution must provide access to tools for participation that are easy to understand and use. And the bargain between institution and participants—regarding management of intellectual property, outcomes of the project, and feedback to participants—should accommodate participants’ needs” (339). If these factors are not thoroughly considered, it will be extremely difficult for a museum to develop interactive projects that will be of use to the participants or support the mission of the museum.

Despite the fact it is very difficult to design effective participatory projects, some institutions have managed to do so with great success. Earlier this year, the Cleveland Museum of Art debuted its new Gallery One, which “blends art, technology, and interpretation to inspire you to explore the museum’s permanent collection.” Gallery one enables users to create their own virtual tours of the museum’s permanent collection, which are then uploaded and made available to future guests within fifteen minutes of being saved. Guests are also able to highlight their favorite pieces within the collection on the Collection Wall (the largest multi-touch screen in the United States), which directly influences what appears within this portion of the museum. According to the CMA’s website, “curators and Education & Interpretation staff members are very interested to see which artworks are popular with our visitors. Gauging visitor interest can help the plan future content for ArtLens and the website.” In these ways, Gallery One presents visitors with a rewarding participatory experience by enabling them to directly contribute to future museum programs, which ultimately asserts that the museum values their input. CMA also benefits from Gallery One by using visitor participation to improve their institution and the museum experience. 

Incorporating interactive elements into the halls of an institution is not necessarily enough to ensure that these activities will be rewarding to the participants or will beneficially contribute to the museum or its mission. However, with proper planning and consideration of goals and outcomes, participatory projects can prove to be incredibly successful to all parties involved, like the Cleveland Museum of Art’s Gallery One. 

Check out these links that helped inspire this entry in Museum Musings! 
CMA/Gallery One
The News-Herald

The Flood of Forgeries in China

Image Courtesy of the New York Times

In previous Museum Musing posts, I have written about the devastating prevalence of clandestine excavation around the world, as well as the ways in which this looting affects the preservation of our cultural heritage. I have also asserted the necessity for and responsibility of modern museums to maintain a set of ethical standards when acquiring new objects, in order to prevent their indirectly contributing to the worldwide destruction of cultural sites. I had yet to truly grasp, however, the extent to which the dark underbelly associated with the black market sale of art truly affects and adulterates the art market and auction houses in major countries all over the world.

A recent article in the New York Times fully exposes the widespread presence of forgery and the countless other issues concerning authenticity that are currently taking place in the Chinese art market. The article “A Culture of Bidding: Forging an Art Market in China,” examines the major causes behind the influx of forgeries in that country, and what is being done to assuage this growing problem. In the United States, the art of the old masters, as well as that of more contemporary and modern artists, represents many popular purchases in auction houses and the items acquired by museums. In China, however, the art market reflects traditional Chinese tastes and is thus inundated with the demand for almost exclusively ancient Chinese art. This incredible and incessant appetite for the art of the 15th century masters, and that of the 20th century artists that imitate the masters, has created an increasingly overwhelming pervasiveness of forgeries being sold in Chinese auction houses. Unfortunately, this means that the market is flooded with mass-produced forgeries in order to keep up with the high demand for this specific type of art. 

The international art market is no stranger to fraud, but the market in China "is particularly vulnerable because, like many industries in China, it has expanded too fast for regulators to keep pace." Contemporary Chinese artists are trained to imitate the old Chinese masters and are capable of producing extremely high-quality copies of ancient works. These copies are so realistic that they are very commonly sold or advertised as authentic, often for hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars. In addition, China has fewer restrictions than the United States and other nations regulating the need for solid provenance before pieces are sold. As a result, China has an increasingly high default rate, with most buyers ultimately refusing to pay for their auction purchases after accusations and questions concerning authenticity are made. 

With a significant increase of newly rich individuals in the country, the Chinese art market has absolutely exploded, with art becoming “a kind of currency,” even being used to bribe government officials. With alarming rapidity, collectors are attempting to possess traditional Chinese art of the 15th century masters as well as the art of 20th century artists who copy old traditions and work in that ancient style. It is this fanatical appreciation and reverence for ancient Chinese culture that is ironically fueling the escalation in forgeries in the art market. Sadly, this desire to promote Chinese culture is, in reality, proving to be just as detrimental as the looting of cultural heritage sites. Ultimately, as I have asserted time and again in my previous blog posts, the need for stringent regulations concerning the provenance of items is of the utmost importance in the fight to preserve our cultural heritage. 

Check out this link that helped inspire this entry in Museum Musings!

New York Times Article