The "Native Informant" in the artworld has been described as the local who is regarded as having insider access and knowledge merely by virtue of their national origin. As has been stated elsewhere, this role is similar to that played by the "native" that assists an anthropologist doing field work, acting as a translator of language and cultural norms. This position of albeit limited privilege is enjoyed particularly in situations where a so-called mainstream institution/collector seeks to access the "right" person to help them to represent a formerly excluded "minority" group. Such notions also dovetail with cultural essentialism whose flip side is of course racist stereotypes because both imply that one has unchangeable innate traits that are derived from a place of origin, ethnicity or gender. Often some of us will willingly adopt the position of "Native Informant" as a way to disseminate information about our culture in contexts that formerly excluded its production, others seek to gain access to the artworld. The "Cultural Broker" is a related role, one that exploits the "Native Informant" paradigm to their own ends, to be a player in the global art market/cultural industries.
Problematic is the fact that art historians, curators, collectors and others may view areas outside the narrow Eucocentric canon in broad geographic terms, the better to quickly understand them so "Africa" or "Latin America" rather than individual countries, cities, artists, movements, historical periods, etc. etc. etc. What may get lost is that someone from a particular country needs to go to school and get work experience as much as the next person, and that the person who has the expertise may not in fact be of the same national origin as the artists she/he works on as a scholar. Why couldn't a white person be the leading expert on art from Cuba, say? Yet given the PC identity politics that still reign in the USA, where one is expected to represent a Category before being viewed as a person (unless of course one is White, in which case one is a person and not part of any category) so one has to "speak for" Latinos, African Americans, etc. An example of the latter was the "Global Feminisms" exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum, where women from Non-Western countries, Latinas, African American or Asian American women among others were relegated to a section about "Identity" as if Whiteness, Westernness and Europeanness were not identities and as if that is the only subject the "other" women can/should talk about in their work.
In the globalized art world there are related categories that intersect with the Native Informant and Cultural Broker, citing Gerardo Mosquera's term the Marco Polo Syndrome and also one may refer to it as the Christopher Columbus Syndrome. The terms describe the activities of certain individuals in the artworld. The latter two are often white, European or US men that travel to a country not their own and enact behavior that could be regarded as parodic of the Ernest Hemingway model except translated to the nerdy pursuits of the artworld. Described in gossipy artworld accounts as intrepid explorers traveling to remote regions in helicopters and the like, their junkets with corrupt local administrators and their sexual exploits with exotic native women (I am inspired by a particularly lurid set of accounts about one curator/journalist), such Marco Polos/Christopher Columbuses enact the fantasies of frustrated nerdy intellectuals.
And all of us want to see ourselves in a more glamorous light. Female curators getting loans of designer dresses, the better for the latter to get product placement in VOGUE or artforum diary. Trips abroad to billionaire collectors' homes, which I myself have breathlessly described in Vanity Fair/HOLA language to riveted colleagues, all of us wishing to escape our normally bureaucratic experience.
And although others will most likely have been researching, writing and curating in this allegedly remote country for many many years, the arrival of this representative of the Metropolis suddenly brings this nation's art into prominence, puts them on the map. For many many years scholars, and curators both from a particular country and outside of it, struggled to document the art there, ignored by the art market and cultural centers of Europe and the US. Until, suddenly, a series of factors converge and this formerly "remote" country becomes "fresh" "sexy" and indispensable, the hottest new market - such as China, or Argentina or India, or Brazil.
Perhaps assisted by eager Native Informants or Cultural Brokers, the Marco Polo/Christopher Columbus arrive (belatedly) to such countries. The latter due to their sense of privilege and entitlement believe that they have "discovered" this country's art and return to the Metropolis as "the expert and go-to scholar/curator/writer/interlocutor/fixer." Even better if he gains a "walking dictionary" or native girlfriend, as one man described his ex to me once.
Of course there is always a flip side, for example when a "non-native" has spent decades in a "remote" area working on learning its language, culture, and art history but as soon as this region becomes "hot" then "Native Informants" who may have far less knowledge and experience of their own culture of origin suddenly become the go-to "experts" in the West, eager to have not only the exotic but even better: the exotic (re)presented by an "authentic exotic Native Informant."
For more on this topic:
Miriam Basilio "Field Notes from a `Native Informant,'" in None of the Above, Contemporary Work by Puerto Rican Artists (Hartford: Real Art Ways in collaboration with the Museo de Arte de Puerto Rico, 2005).
Oguibe, Olu, "Prologue," in his The Culture Game (University of Minnesotta Press, 2004).
Ponce de Leon, Carolina, "Random Trails for the Noble Savage," in Gerardo Mosquera, Beyond the Fantastic: Contemporary Art Criticism from Latin America (MIT Press, 1996)
Ramirez, Mari Carmen "Brokering Identities: Art Curators and the Politics of Representation," in Thinking about Exhibitions. ed. Reesa Greenberg, Bruce W. Ferguson, and Sandy Nairn (London: Routledge, 1996), 21--38.
Yang, Alice Yang, Why Asia? Contemporary Asian & Asian American Art. Edited by Jonathan Hay and Mimi Young. (New York and London: New York University Press, 1998)
Sunday, March 2, 2008
To Have and to Hold?
Antonio Berni. (Argentine, 1905-1981). New Chicago Athletic Club. 1937. Oil on canvas. 6' 3/4" x 9' 10 1/4" (184.8 x 300.4 cm). Inter-American Fund.
This past weekend I attended a very enlightening symposium organized by the Frick Center for the History of Collecting in America "Turning Points in Modern Art Collecting 1913-present." The brilliant Rob Storr, one of the curators I most admire, bracketed the talks presenting a keynote and moderating a discussion at the conclusion of the panels. In his lecture, "To Have and to Hold," he described the Ganzs' attitudes to collecting as a pointed contrast to the investment-oriented approach common to today's speculator buyers. He reminded us that the "history of collecting is a social history" (which is why it fascinates me) and referred to MoMA's conservative policy on de-accessions when he was working there.
It was this section on changing taste that thrilled me most as he argued that Greenberg's idea of "quality" was a "homogenizing term" which he has spent years challenging, since it has created an idea of a "mainstream" which has led to a "cleaning up operation." He cited his exhibition "Modern Art Despite Modernism" for me one of the best MoMA catalogues which continues to inspire me in my writing and teaching. Among other things, Storr referred to the works he included there as "prematurely Post-Modern" and "modern art that was not Modernist."
When I heard the phrases "prematurely Post-Modern," and "cleaning up operation," my mind immediately went to the Americans who volunteered to fight for the Spanish Republic, who came home and were persecuted by the US government during the McCarthy era, often prohibited from fighting in WW2, from having passports, and a long etcetera, for being "premature anti-Fascists." I think the political analogy might not have been accidental, given the political references and figurative content of much of the art he selected for his show, and which is now considered "dead wood" (this is a "technical" term actually used within MoMA) since it does not conform to the formalist Modernist canon. He mentioned collectors who championed art that was not considered of interest until recently, naming Ron Lauder and Patty Cisneros. I must add that ALL of the papers were very helpful and shed light on various aspects of the history of exhibiting, collecting, the art market and art criticism and I do hope that they publish the talks.
As I said, during the concluding discussion the issue of de-accessioning came up again. Rob spoke about a museum's collection as its "historical memory," as a "history of taste," as a "cultural value that is greater than the sum of its parts," The question, what happens when a museum sells unpopular works was raised. I was left wanting to ask if any of the panelists, particularly Rob, had any ideas on what could be done to stop these rash de-accessions from taking place. I wanted to ask about the irony that I see in the fact that given the astronomical prices of contemporary art, museums feel forced to sell modern "masterpieces" in order to pay for newer works (ie. an early modernist work to buy a post-war American one by a living artist). Linked to this is the irony that as long as the so-called "dead wood" has no market value, it is safe in the archive that is the collection storage (ie. Latin American artists of the 1930s-1950s). However, once the canon is revised, a museum can now sell off things that are not to today's taste (in the case of Latin American art, today's canon is 1950s-1960s Southern Cone Constructivist-related abstraction, and, to a lesser extent, Conceptual practices), because today these 1930s-50s figurative works do have a value on the art market.
Finally, I wanted to ask, since de-accessions are difficult to prove because in many cases they are sold privately and not by auctions as is the generally accepted ethical manner to proceed (but as has been reported, not all museums proceed in this manner). For MoMA, the traces that remain may be found in Barr's Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art, old catalogues, the Registrar or Curatorial files, photos in the Archives, or visitors' memories. There is also the booklet produced by Michael Asher for the exhibition The Museum as Muse, for which he conducted the kind of painstaking research needed to re-construct which works have in fact been sold, and an annotated and expanded copy of which is kept in the Painting and Sculpture department curatorial files - an indication of the difficulty of this type of research even for staff - demonstrates how the public trust is not being kept by museums when they de-accession largely in secret.
Also ironically, Glenn Lowry gave a talk at his alma mater, Williams, a few days ago, the article from the University newspaper is below. According to the article, Lowry discussed the MoMA's renewed focus on the art of our time, contemporary art, and its need to constantly reinvent itself. The quotes below particularly fascinated me.
Taking on the position of the sixth director of the MoMA in 1995, Lowry he said that being museum director at the beginning of a new century and a new millennium allowed him the liberty to redefine the definition of what art is “modern.” For his answer, Lowry quoted the mission statement of the MoMA, stating that modern art is “the progressive, the challenging and the difficult.”
Isn't the art that Rob discussed in "Modern Art Despite Modernism" precisely "progressive (politically), challenging (as it both challenges Greenbergian dogma, leads us to consider another, broader, notion of taste proposed by Barr himself), and is today quite difficult?
And finally, I find it ironic and devastating that he should make reference to a notion of "undermin[ing] its own core ideals."
In this shifting world, Lowry sees the MoMA’s role as that of a “disruptive innovator” that must strive to stay current and open to change. “If the MoMA is going to remain disruptive as an institution, it’s only going to do so by being willing to […] undermine its own core ideals,” Lowry said.
Is anyone out there asking what exactly is being sold by museums? Some know but have no evidence that isn't confidential. So how can the public know where the works are now?
_____________________________
Lowry redefines modern art
Christopher Fox - Staff Writer
Often misunderstood and generally underappreciated, the broad genre of modern art occupies an uncomfortable and largely inaccessible space in the cultural landscape. Glenn Lowry ’76, director of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York City, expressed similar sentiments in his lecture, “Pursuing the Modern,” which he delivered to a packed audience in the Brooks-Rogers Auditorium on Monday evening. This lecture, the first in the Class of 1960’s Art Scholars of the art department lecture series “Art in 4 Dimensions,” was a compelling dialogue about both the MoMA and the state of the art world today.
After graduating from Williams, Lowry got his M.A. and Ph.D. in art history from Harvard University, and went on to work as a medieval Islamic art historian, published multiple books and served as director of several museums.
To Lowry, directing the MoMA poses a unique challenge of maintaining accessibility and relevancy for esoteric subject matter, allowing it to be “engaging and interesting to a local audience.”
In particular, he cited the difficulty of expressing the principles the MoMA is founded upon: “Modern art is every bit as important as art of the past,” he said. It is not only the collection that manifests this idea, Lowry said, but also the space where people see and experience the collection.
Initially, the MoMA had no competition in the market for modern art, and between the enthusiastic Rockefeller family and the brilliant Alfred Barr, the museum was able to collect a number of notable pieces that at the time were truly “progressive.”
Taking on the position of the sixth director of the MoMA in 1995, Lowry he said that being museum director at the beginning of a new century and a new millennium allowed him the liberty to redefine the definition of what art is “modern.” For his answer, Lowry quoted the mission statement of the MoMA, stating that modern art is “the progressive, the challenging and the difficult.”
This definition can be directly linked to four major changes in the art world, detailed by Lowry, all of which relate to diversification and expansion of modern art and its audience. First, there is no singular epicenter to the art world, but rather multiple locations where creativity flourishes and art originates.
Additionally, the audience for modern art has grown so much as to double the number of visitors to the MoMA since the beginning of Lowry’s tenure as director.
Lowry also attributed the increasing popularity of modern art to fairs that encourage flexibility in appreciating the artwork, as well as the mobility of artists to have a more global perspective in their creations. The combination of these factors has resulted in museums like the MoMA trying to appeal to these audiences and provide them with a more diverse and “non-hierarchical” experience.
In this shifting world, Lowry sees the MoMA’s role as that of a “disruptive innovator” that must strive to stay current and open to change. “If the MoMA is going to remain disruptive as an institution, it’s only going to do so by being willing to […] undermine its own core ideals,” Lowry said.
Because, as he explained, “it is the present which informs our understanding of the immediate past,” museums need to “make space, intellectually and physically” for new art in a way that does not diminish the importance of what was achieved in the past.
In order to do this, Lowry said, “the very space of the museum needs to be rethought to make room for these new ways of thinking.” Ultimately, Lowry expressed his hope to the audience that the MoMA will remain a place where art and its audience can have a “fair exchange” – a place where “the viewer has to come to his or her own terms with that object, and the object makes the best argument for itself.”
Lowry ended his talk by quoting a remark of Gertrude Stein: “A museum can either be modern or a museum but not both at the same time.” “Our challenge,” Lowry encouraged the audience, “is to prove her wrong.”
http://www.williamsrecord.com/wr/?section=arts&view=article&id=9579
Copyright © The Williams Record 2000 - 2007. All Rights Res
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
