Art with Salt

Art as Propaganda Part II

A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about the Holocaust Museum's current exhibition about Nazi Propaganda, and the current Occupy Wall Street's various posters. It seems that there is yet another new piece of art as propaganda hitting the streets.


A few days ago, Shepard Fairey released a new poster for the Occupy Wall Street movement. It is a play on his 2008 Obama "Hope" poster, although this poster incorporates the masked image of Guy Fawkes. By modifying the Obama poster, this new version is a direct call to the president to support the movement. The image of Guy Fawkes has been incorporated into the movement already, with protestors donning the mask.  

Courtesy of Obey Giant

The image was released on Obey Giant's website on November 18th. Below is Fairey's comment on the poster:


"This image represents my support for the Occupy movement, a grassroots movement spawned to stand up against corruption, imbalance of power, and failure of our democracy to represent and help average Americans. On the other hand, as flawed as the system is, I see Obama as a potential ally of the Occupy movement if the energy of the movement is perceived as constructive, not destructive. I still see Obama as the closest thing to “a man on the inside” that we have presently. Obviously, just voting is not enough. We need to use all of our tools to help us achieve our goals and ideals. However, I think idealism and realism need to exist hand in hand. Change is not about one election, one rally, one leader, it is about a constant dedication to progress and a constant push in the right direction. Let’s be the people doing the right thing as outsiders and simultaneously push the insiders to do the right thing for the people. I’m still trying to work out copyright issues I may face with this image, but feel free to share it and stay tuned…"


Interesting to note is the last sentence, in which Fairey makes reference to his legal issues with the original poster. The Associated Press alleged that Fairey used one of their photographs to create the poster image of Obama. The issue boiled down to copyright infringement versus fair-use. 


Is the image merely a source of inspiration, or is it a direct violation of artistic ownership? This was the issue with the 2008 poster, and based on Fairey's statement above, it seems that he is anticipating similar backlash from this new poster as well. 


Additionally, this poster is a direct message to President Obama. The poster reads, "Mister President, We HOPE You're On Our Side." This message, paired with the image, makes the poster particularly powerful. It also begs for a response from Obama.


Will this poster garner a response? And, because of the legal battles Fairey has faced before, is this image more prone to interrogation?

When Authenticity is Challenged, What Happens to "Quality"?

Art forgery is an area that I found absolutely fascinating. The desire to not only duplicate techniques, but to entirely assume another artist's style as ones own is interesting. There are artists who do so with the intent of passing the work off as another's (i.e. John Myatt), but there are artists whose work is incorrectly assigned to someone else.
It seems that this issue still persists even with today's technology. The Puskin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow is currently featuring an exhibition, "“Paris School: 1905-32," in which a work of art's authenticity is being questioned. "Portrait of Maverna" is attributed to Modigliani, but recently there have been conflicting debates as to its authenticity.

Portrait of Marevna; Marevna in 1919

Courtest of The Art Newspaper

On the one hand, the president of the Modigliani Institute, Christian Parisot, has authenticated the work. In addition to his legal right to declare the work as genuine, he also provided documentation as proof. This included a statement by Maverna stating that she had posed for Modigliani.

On the other hand, the Swiss Institute for Art Research analyzed the pigments and stated that several of the components were not manufactured until after the 1940s (and certainly after the artist's death in the 1920s). This analysis was done at the request of a Russian collector when it was available for purchase in 2006. The results disuaded the collector from the $3 million purchase.

It seems like these issues of genuine artwork always have competing sides, each with reasonable arguments for authenticity. Do you trust the experts, who know in their gut that something is/is not genuine? Do you trust scientific tests on the materials? Or do you rely on the provenance of a work to determine its place in history?

After everything is said and done, though, does it matter who the artist is? If this work is considered the same "quality" as a Modigliani, and has the similar if not the same alluring compositional, aesthetic, or subject aspects, does it matter if it is in fact the work of an unknown artist? This is of course assuming that the artwork is being unintentionally attributed to the wrong artist.

It seems like the artist, more often than not, defines the "quality". In fact, artists are in many cases the "brand" that museums and collectors covet. It is these same "brands" that define blockbuster exhibitions -- Picasso, Degas, Monet, etc. Are we concerned with the brand more than the product?

Art as Propaganda

Last week's visit to the Holocaust Museum to view its current exhibition, "State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda," really showed how much needs to be taken into consideration when planning an exhibition. Particularly for an institution like the Holocaust Museum, which must deal with increased sensitivity given the subject matter, exhibition planning can be a tricky business.

"State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda"

Courtesy of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

http://www.ushmm.org

I thought that the exhibition was fascinating, if not a little overwhelming. I spent roughly 45 minutes in the exhibition, and I only made it through 3/4 of it. Granted, I am a "reader", and tend to stop at most if not all of the wall labels, but I could have easily spent another 30 minutes.

While discussing the exhibition with the curators and my classmates, it struck me how much propaganda still dominates much of our society. From last election's Obama Hope posters, to the current Occupy Wall Street posters, art can definitely become an influential tool.

Interestingly, both the Obama Hope posters and the Occupy Wall Street posters were created by Shepherd Fairey. Like the Hope poster, Fairey continues to create posters with overtly political themes. The Occupy Wall Street poster looks to the past for inspiration, reminiscent of the 1960s and 1970s. This poster, like many of Fairey's work, rouses emotions and encourages the involvement of a younger generation. It is meant to be all-inclusive, open to people from all backgrounds.

But is it propaganda? It simplifies a complicated issue, it is biased, and it employs symbols to achieve a particular goal. But to me, "propaganda" has such a negative connotation. But advertising is just that: a method employed to sway public opinion. Can something be both art and propaganda, though? Art often has an opinion -- political, religious, etc., and it intends to influence people.

"Let the Occupy movement's camps and protests and marches continue generating such art -- art that inspires interracial unity where it may not yet exist, art that reminds us of the voices unheard, art that galvanizes practical social change when nothing seems to give, art that, in Du Bois' words, tries to make the world both beautiful and right." - CNN, How Art Propels Occupy Wall Street

A Goddess Goes Home

I have recently started reading the Smithsonian magazine cover-to-cover. Usually with magazines, I skim through the pages, looking for interesting articles and dog-earing the pages as I go along. With the Smithsonian magazine, however, it seems that more and more of their articles touch on a topic explored in one of my classes. 

The November issue, which arrived in my mailbox over the weekend, has a cover story that instantly sparked my interest. "Journey of a Goddess: A Case Study" discusses how The Getty's 2,400-year-old statue of Aphrodite was returned to Italy this past March. One of the crown jewels of the Getty, this statue in many ways represents recent issues of repatriation. The statue was acquired with insufficient provenance, and after years of back-and-forth, it has now been returned to the legal and/or rightful country of ownership.

This conflit is not unique to The Getty -- in the past 5 years, The Met, The Boston MFA, the Cleveland Museum of Arts, and the Princeton University Art Museum have all been forced to return artifacts. More than 100 artifacts have been returned, in total worth almost $1 billion. 

Although these artifacts have been acquired in a dubious manner, it is interesting to me that the museum often does not admit its direct fault. In addition, many countries provides substitutes, or offer an extension for the object in question. The Aphrodite statue, for instance, remained on view at the Getty until December 2010, even though they completed their agreement in August 2007. Is this just a way to soften the blow of losing an important piece of the collection? 

Although it seems only right that artifacts acquired illegally be returned to their country of origin, there seems to be one major issue: at what point do you stop returning plundered goods? 

And, if an artifact is receiving the conservation and security required in its current location, what happens when it is to be relocated to a facility which is unable to maintain those standards? The Aphrodite statue, for example, was housed in a museum with over 400,000 visitors annually. Now, it is in the Aidone museum which received about 10,000. Although there are plans to try and increase attendance, the museum cannot accommodate any more than 200 visitors at a time.

I think that it is only right to return these items, but it is definitely comes at a cost. Hopefully Aphrodite will attract visitors to Aidone, and receive the care it deserves.

"30 Americans" at the Corcoran Gallery

Kehinde Wiley, "Sleep", 2008. Oil on canvas, 132 x 300 inches.

Courtesy of Rubell Family Collection, Miami.

It seems to me that fewer and fewer exhibitions have a profound effect on me -- I am not sure if that is a reflection on the quality of the exhibitions, or if my standards have changed over time. I really wish that I left more museums with that feeling of euphoria. It reminds me of knowing a secret, or discovering something new about yourself or society. I usually end up leaving feeling either neutral or disappointed. Maybe it takes more to "wow" me these days, which I hope is the case instead of lackluster exhibitions.

With 30 Americans" at the Corcoran, though, I was definitely "wowed". I can't stop thinking about the pieces in the exhibition, and I also can't stop raving about it. I have already highly recommended the exhibit to several AMUS students, and I only saw the show a few days ago!

Although entitled "30 Americans", the exhibit actually features 31 aritsts, which leads me to believe that there was a last-minute addition to the show...otherwise I can't think of why you would intentionally miscount the arists...plus, I haven't gotten a straight answer from the Corcoran staff in regards to the title. It is intentional to call them American artists, and not African-American artists. I think that this choice resonates with the works and themes presented. Racial, sexual, and historical identies are just a few of the themes explored through over 70 pieces. The mediums represented are as diverse as the artists: painting, sculpture, drawings, photographs, and videos are all exhibited.  

Xaviera Simmons, "One Day and Back Then (Standing)", 2007.

Color Photograph, 30 x 40 inches. Courtesy of Rubell Family Collection, Miami

One way that I gauge an exhibition is by how many "favorite" works you can pick out. While at the Corcoran for my internship on Wednesday, my supervisor Tiffany let me go take a look at the exhibition. When I got back, she wanted to hear which piece was my "favorite". I honestly couldn't pick just one -- there were too many pieces that were moving, interesting, or emotionally charged. The range of artists, styles, and themes makes the show incredibly interesting -- each gallery was almost a mini-exhibit in itself.

There were even a few "extras" that made the visitor experience even more interesting. The gallery is distributing postcards that read, "Say it loud, I'm ___ and I'm proud!" along with the exhibition title. I think that this is a gerat marketing tool -- you get a "souvenir" from the exhibition, but you can also send the postcard to friends, thereby encouraging them to visit as well. It also helps visitors create a connection by allowing you to fill in "what" you are.

They also have slips of paper that read, "Say it Loud: What is your reaction to 30 Americans at the Corcoran?" There is a table and chairs set up with writing utensils where visitors can reflect and share their opinions. Alongside the exterior of one of the last galleries, the wall is covered in black paper and is used as a bulletin board where you can post your reactions.

Although I am hesitant to ever "love" an exhibition, this one definitely came close. I am thrilled that the Corcoran is presenting an exhibition with this kind of depth, and I think that they did a phenomenal job. But...if I had to raise one issue, it would be that the entire exhibition comes from the Rubell Family Foundation. Drawing from one foundation is a tricky business, and there is always a risk that the exhibition is more than strictly mutually beneficial. In the Rubell's case, they rarely sell portions of their collection, so the chance that the exhibition is purely an economical ploy seems minimal. However, is the Corcoran setting a standard for future exhibitions?

"The Great American Hall of Wonders"

Charles Willson Peale, The Artist in His Museum, 1822, oil on canvas, 

Courtesy of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia. 

Gift of Mrs. Sarah Harrison (The Joseph Harrison, Jr. Collection)

Last week, our Museum Foundations class went to SAAM to meet with the director, Betsy Broun. While meeting with Dr. Broun, we had the opportunity to visit the current exhibit, "The Great American Hall of Wonders".

The exhibit theme seemed much too complex for the average visitor, though. The exhibition examined the 19th Century American belief that we are at our core an innovative people. I think that this mentality is still present today. We think that as Americans that we are naturally more creative, more self-reliant, harder workers, etc. But where did this idea come from?

SAAM examines this inventive energy in the 1800s through the exhibition of over 160 objects. Featuring objects ranging from paintings to patent models, the exhibit focused on six themes. To me, six themes is far too complex when considering that most visitors spend about 45 minutes in an exhibit and usually only take away three themes.

Also, I think that some of the themes were only evident after having Dr. Broun point them out. Although some -- such as the role of guns, which had its own room -- were easy to identify, a few were not quite as obvious. It was definitely an ambitious exhibit, and I am not so sure if all of its goals were achieved.

One of my classmates questioned Dr. Broun about the title of the exhibition. The title to me does not necessarily indicate what the exhibit is really about. I would have thought that the title would be something along the lines of "The American Spirit of Invention."

It definitely makes me wonder if visitors judge an exhibit by its title. Should the title entice? Should it provide a preview of the exhibit? Should it explain the theme? In this case, I think that the exhibition title did not accurately portray the exhibit, and if anything was detrimental to the theme of the exhibition.