The Black Von Scrolls

I would have liked to attend Ed Winkleman’s on the 30th to help bridge the gap on #rank, but unfortunately I will be out of town. And although I did not formally submit any project for #rank (other than assisting Greg Allen on “The Gala As Art”), had the last 45 days of insanity flared up prior to Miami, I would have done.

Somehow in the last several weeks, we’ve gone from the usual art world shenanigans to issues which have rattled my cage: a) the removal of an artwork at the National Portrait Gallery b) a whitewashed public artwork commissioned by MOCA c) the removal of protesters by cops inside Gagosian gallery.

I suppose I could add in the Russian and Chinese incidents as of late, or the complex and ongoing Wikileaks fiasco… but global censorship is not my immediate focus (yes it sucks). But there are two smaller, more local issues at hand: the loss of stewardship to the artist and controversy in the face of commerce.

The Smithsonian/National Portrait Gallery had a responsibility to the legacy of David Wojnarowicz. Sure, there are many other negative issues attached to the removal of the artwork, but what does this mean now for his legacy? As he is dead, how can he defend himself? It seems as if AA Bronson is speaking on his behalf somehow, yet the Smithsonian is turning its back on Bronson, Wojnarowicz estate via PPOW, the Transformer gallery, the New Museum, the Andy Warhol Foundation and everyone (many artists) who have spoken out in protest. It’s like the Smithsonian is sticking their fingers in their ears when artists complain, but pull them out for the GOP or the Catholic League? Who are they protecting? Who’s job is it to protect the artist? An institution as top-dog as the Smithsonian can’t stand up to GOP threats and protect dead-David’s art which was taken out of context? GOP: 1; Artist: 0.

Then right on the heels of this, Jeffrey Deitch whitewashes a mural by Blu on an exterior wall of MOCA. I think Hyperallergic did a great job reporting about this incident, and obviously I don’t need to retell it. But again my question lies at the end of my last post on the issue, who is protecting the artist? If Deitch wants to have an autocratic role in selecting artists to present their art inside or outside MOCA walls (without drawings and let them freely express their ideas), then he needs to be their layer of protection. But he became uncomfortable by Blu’s piece, and even with no complaints from neighbors, had the mural removed without trying to address the community and explain the art. At the time, it seemed like the easy choice – calling it a “curatorial decision” after the art was created/presented. Blu was commissioned and then whitewashed by the museum. Deitch dropped him on his face, but claims he’s “championed street artists for years.” Well, until he has to defend them in the face of potential controversy, with his job and professional reputation at risk.

Paddy from Art Fag City posted a troubling blog about how she didn’t see it as censorship (it was, the piece was already produced and displayed), and that Blu’s piece sucked anyway. Blu’s mural wasn’t good in her eyes, so she can barely discuss the issue? Huh. I’m not a huge fan of “A Fire In My Belly” on a formal level, but who cares. Isn’t this about something else?

Choosing to be a contemporary artist is a mostly uphill battle within a backwards industry. The satisfaction is personal, there is no other reason to do it (surely not the money). Most artists don’t have a Richard Serra kick-ass(hole) lawyer for protection, most artists are winging it out there solo. So within this cracker-jack system, stewardship of the arts/artists is a necessary element as the arts progress. An understanding between artist and museum, artist and non-profit org./space, artist and gallery. Deitch and Clough failed both artists miserably; this sets a nasty example and will be repeated if we let them off the hook.

On Twitter yesterday, art folks were talking about the Gagosian protest; what it was, and was it justified? It comes down to one thing: it was uncomfortable. And after 2 hours or so, an important collector complained which prompted the Gogo staff to intervene. You can get some info. & commentary via Mira Schor (although I have a friend who was on the scene and said the police weren’t as bad as they were made out to be). Whatever, NYC police were called – and my hunch is they responded in predictable Homeland Security style.

Gogo staff had the right to ask them to leave, it’s their business/work place. Just like my local gift shop can ask a homeless person to leave the store – that homeless guy smelled bad around paying customers (not saying it’s OK, just pointing out the motivation). But if we weigh art the same with all goods for sale (luxury items such as fashion, jewels, cars, etc.) – it becomes problematic. I think folks can forget (Gogo staff) that art is much more than just an item of value. It can ignite, deeply offend and unsettle. Or it can strongly communicate a message. Those protesters had the right to make a comment-via-tshirt back at the art, that’s rad. And in the spirit of art and not commerce, the Gogo staff could have handled the situation by schooling their uncomfortable collector regarding this peaceful response of Anselm Kiefer’s show. Engage and educate, don’t call the cops.

But then this rang a bell for me; the gallerists/collectors at Seven were uncomfortable by a lobster-clawing-fake-boob-wearing performance artist walking around the building. She unsettled them, the collectors and intention to sell art. It sounds like that was the point of her work, although this took everyone by surprise. However, the booths are expensive and most galleries are there to make a profit, or at least market their name. #rank was caught in a weird spot, as guests of Winkleman gallery. Rebecca seemed to be an eye-sore, and she wasn’t ready to give up her post. That’s pretty funny. But after the day wore on, they grimaced and did not seem happy to face the artist’s statement or create any dialog, they just wanted her to wrap it up. Like Paddy finding it hard to seriously discuss the Blu-Deitch issue because she finds his work poor. Was her project successful or not? Hey, had Rebecca pulled a sexy Julie Atlas Muz look in a lobster claw performance, would it have been a different story? Not sure, but it would be great to see the photos of her costume.

Although I can’t raise these questions at the Dec 30th discussion, I hope it’s addressed with Winkleman and other Seven galleries. These are my concerns as we continue to create art through 2011: what happens when commerce is disrupted by art? How is the establishment protecting the artists? Who are the stewards? Who is responsible?