Thursday, November 10, 2016
Ethics and Exhibiting Collections
Having read the Philip Kennicott article criticizing the exhibition of works from the collection of Bill and Camille Cosby, as well as the piece by Charles Desmarais on the strings attached to the SFMOMA's acceptance of the Fisher Collection, SELECT ONE OF THE TWO ARTICLES. Use it to describe in your own words your position on museums exhibiting works from collections where the collector's ethics are in question or where the gift is contingent upon collector curatorial control. Please mention details from either case, citing examples where there appears to have been breaches of ethics according to AAM standards. Respond thoughtfully in at least 4 sentences by 5:00 pm, Monday, November 14, and thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that when museums display works from a collector whose ethics are in question, it's a risky game to play. If the museum feels that the exhibition would be incomplete without the addition of the collection, measures could be taken in an attempt to ensure that what visitors get out of the exhibition is not merely that the collection is steeped in questionable ethics: in the case of the Smithsonian displaying the Cosbys’ collection, the museum made the claim of the exhibition being only about the art and the artists who created it, not about the people who own the art. Yet Bill Cosby’s name and personal quotes are in several places around those works, which, at least in part, does make the exhibition about him. This makes it hard for any visitor aware of the allegations around Cosby to look at the exhibition solely appreciating the art for what it is. The AAM Code of Ethics requires that museums “must take affirmative steps to maintain their integrity so as to warrant public confidence” – to maintain that integrity and be true to their claim that the exhibition is just about the art, the NMAAHC shouldn’t have included so much in the exhibition directly leading back to the collector in question; mentioning his name and emblazoning the walls with his projected ‘family values’ celebrates his character and can only remind the visitor of the murkiness around his name, which puts the art itself in a murky light.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that museums who have exhibited works from collections where the collector's ethics are in question are walking the fine line between causing public controversy or having a successful, intellectual exhibition. In the case of the exhibition featuring Bill Cosby's art at the National Museum of African Art, the public was disturbed, to say the least. Not only was the exhibition full of Cosby's name and several quotes, but also seemed to celebrate his life which contradicts reputation-damaging events that the audience is already fully aware of. Further, the museums director, Johnetta B. Cole was a longtime family friend of the Cosby's and this displays how she was able to look past the controversy and still put up the exhibition. This exhibition in particular was curious in that underlying meaning that resided in the wall text contradicted and created new meaning in the art that wouldn't have existed otherwise. However, the museum did release a statement in order to aline with the AAM Code of Ethics to maintain their moral principles and stated that the exhibition is "fundamentally about the artwork and the artists who created them." For an exhibit to be successful where the collector's ethics are in question, I believe that the art and their ideas should be focused on rather than quotes from a collector that will greatly effect the artist's original intention.
ReplyDeleteI think that having the agreement with the Fishers is a not a right decision made by the SFMOMA. I can’t agree with what Desmarais says in the article more: “What we see in art museums is the art of the rich.” Around 60 percent of artworks on view in the SFMOMA are the collections from the Fishers. It means that the people who know little about art can control what audience thinks about contemporary art. Moreover, it violates the Code of Ethics for Museums stated by AAM: “It (the governing authority) ensures that all these resources support the museum's mission, respond to the pluralism of society and respect the diversity of the natural and cultural common wealth.” The mission of the SFMOMA is being “a dynamic center for modern and contemporary art.” It failed to undertake this mission if it has to show so many collections from the Fishers once every 10 years. Some of the collections can’t represent contemporary art few decades later. If these works are still on view, the museum might give the false concept to the audience. Moreover, the Fishers’ collections are mostly made by male artists and Europeans, not very diverse. People trust museums that the shows are made by well-trained staffs and respect the society instead of considering one particular collector. Therefore, I think most of the collections from a single donor should not be encouraged. Museums should make efforts to find more sources of collections and use their own professional curatorial experience to design exhibitions.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that, with any sizable donation along the lines of the Fisher one discussed in Dsmarais’s article, there is bound to be some kind of catch. In most cases, I would assume that the museum would happily take on conditions (such as a loose display schedule, keeping a collection together, etc.) because of a donation’s overwhelming impressiveness and ability to further the museum’s mission. The ethical dilemma comes into play, as it does with the Fisher collection, when the curatorial side of things becomes compromised. As Desmarais points out, actively displaying the Fisher collection with little or no room to edit and update interpretation presents a distinct challenge for keeping the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art at the forefront of education for its audience. Part of the AAM’s standards is staying to true to what best serves the audience, and it seems to me that knowingly constricting the museum’s own ability to control its interpretation fails in this ideal. It is difficult because most would agree that the Fisher collection has a great many wonderful works, so it seems like a no-brainer for the museum to take it on. However, its scope is also extremely limited (mostly white, male, European painters represented), so the dynamism and diversity the museum is seeking is difficult to support with this collection. The point where the mission is being sacrificed for the works is the point where there needs to be distinct discussion of whether the works are worth it. For me, mission should trump all, so there wouldn’t be a collection that would make it worth it to ignore the mission.
ReplyDeletePhilip Kennicott’s discussion of the Cosby family’s donation to the Smithsonian collection presents two primary issues with the institution’s acceptance of the works. To begin, the pieces may have been given and received in good faith with nothing but the best intentions by both parties, though it appears as if Bill Cosby’s history as an alleged sexual predator had not yet garnered the momentum it eventually did in the media at the time of the collection’s disclosure. From that standpoint, I understand the institution’s drive to take on the works offered by a celebrity with (then) so much public clout. That said, the second and foremost concern I would voice against the Smithsonian’s ethical considerations harks back to the poor judgement of previous secretary Wayne Clough in reference to pulling the 2011 exhibition of Gay and Lesbian portraiture likely due to concerns raised over public image; in not relinquishing exhibition rights on the work, the institution is likewise perpetuating the marginalization of an already marginalized group—victims of sexual assault. In this manner, the Institution may be in violation of the AAM’s “Collections” guidelines to “promote the public good rather than individual financial gain” as stated directly on the Alliance’s “Code of Ethics” webpage. As it stands, the Smithsonian’s lack of action insofar as even removing quotations from the donor himself so as to appear at least somewhat sensitive to potential members of their audience strikes me as an outright action against the public trust.
ReplyDeleteIt's a difficult decision for many museums exhibiting works from collections where the collector’s ethics are in question or where the gift is contingent upon collector curatorial control. On one hand the museum wants to respect the collector and the works but sometimes this limits what they are able to exhibit and interpret. For example, in the case of the SFMOMA, the contract with the Fishers to exhibit their work hinders the mission of the museum. For the next 100 years, “their job will be limited in those galleries to a kind of scholarly embroidery, filling in around the edges of a predetermined scenario with works by other artists, such as women, artists of color or California artists.” Although the museum had good intentions, it placed limits on their freedom to exhibit any work of their choosing. The selections of an exhibit made are a direct reflection of the values of the museum therefore they must be careful that the message of the works reflects the best values of the museum. If the works or exhibit doesn't correlate it places the museum in a tough situation to forgo the exhibit or display it knowing that it could be controversial to the audience.
ReplyDeleteThe San Francisco MOMA may have expanded its collection by taking in the objects from Doris and Donald Fisher, but they limited the type of narrative of art history they can tell through future exhibits. This gain, though, is not one that contributes to the institutions advancement as a place meant to serve the public and to educate the public, but rather it was a loan agreement that compromised the museum's unbiased display of art. Now, the art on display is biased and must follow guidelines, such as the requirement to have 25% of the Fisher collection on display, that hinder the interpretive jobs of curators and educators. Desmarais' article points out how the Doris and Donald Fisher galleries can't answer the question that is at the core of museums: how does this serve the mission? This speaks measures because the mission statement of the museum is a guiding force for each decision members of the staff make. Also, this deal was hidden from the public and took some digging to find out basic information about the loan agreement. A collection that will last SFMOMA 100 years will only continue to restrict each new exhibit.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the SFMOMA's acceptance of the Fisher Collection, I believe it is the duty of the gifter to respect the institution's autonomy, and the institution's responsibility to display the gift(s) in the best way possible. I believe the SFMOMA was right to initially reject the Fisher collection on the condition of giving them "full autonomy" because it is the museum's job to create an exhibit for the public, not the private owner, and this would have set a dangerous precedent. I think the SFMOMA is going to have a difficult time in the future, now that they have accepted the gift after all -- especially concerning ownership; the Fishers gifted the collection, but the article brought up the issue of what if they would like some of their pieces back from the SFMOMA. I think gifts are fine to accept (because there are some excellent private collections, and they are not being appreciated by the public) however gifts given for ulterior motives (like wanting control on the curatorial aspects) leads to a slippery slope, where the curator may meet other issues. If the balance between the gifter and the curator is thrown off, and the curator has lost control of the exhibit, the gift should not be accepted. Curators have a duty to display art in the best way possible for the public; giving this duty to a non-employee (no matter how prominent they are) is irresponsible.
ReplyDeleteWhen a museum features a collection where a collector’s ethics are in question, it undeniably causes controversy. At the National Museum of African Art, an exhibition of art owned by Bill and Camille Cosby is shown. The museum states that, “This is about the art, and the artists, not the collector, who is accused of sexually assaulting more than 40 women.” While the museum has good intentions in exhibiting important art, they need to realize that the name Cosby holds a terrible reputation. Even though they want visitors to focus on the art, it is difficult to disassociate the name of its collector. Especially when his name is emphasized and can be seen in dozens of places around the exhibition. In regards to the AAM standards of ethics, this situation could disrupt this standard, “it is responsive to and represents the interests of society.” Many questions can be brought about by this statement. Is society interested in a collection owned by an accused rapist? What does that say about the museum itself? I think the museum could be potentially breaking the public trust with this exhibition.
ReplyDeleteWhen in 2005 Donald Fisher expressed a wish to display his collection at the SFMOMA, the director of the museum Neal Benezra rejected the offer because he wasn’t comfortable with the idea of giving a curatorial power to Fisher. I think at a time Benezra made a good decision. Undoubtedly, it is generous of art collectors to provide their artworks to be displayed in museums; however, they already have some curatorial powers to begin with, after all, they acquired specific art pieces that they liked. By giving even more curatorial power, museums are at risk of not telling the full story through pieces in the collection. For example, a collector might want to include the piece because they are not satisfied with the work’s provenance and want to increase its value. This object might be exhibited at the expense of showing another object, which would be more interesting for viewers. However, in 2009 the SFMOMA and Fisher reached an agreement and the Fisher collection was displayed. Fisher eventually got some curatorial powers, since there were some conditions in order to display the objects, including the provision that Doris and Donald Fisher Collection Galleries must contain pieces from the Fisher collections at all times and only 25 percent could be objects from other collections. Thus, nowadays about 60 percent of the SFMOMA’s galleries is occupied by the art, collected by two individuals. One of the museum’s mission is to uphold public trust. It can become problematic, when more than a half of the works in the museum represent the limited view of collectors, who were primarily interested in art by European men. This creates gaps in telling the complete story and undermines the educational mission of the museum.
ReplyDeleteThe SFMOMA is now completely controlled by the Fisher collection. The Fisher “gift” to the SFMOMA is a very interesting one, with lots of strings attached. To fully understand this collaboration I wish I could see all of the works that are included in the Fisher collection. However, I am overall concerned about what this partnership will do to the future of this museum since it controls what can be shown for the next 100 years. I am especially concerned because this is a modern art museum and I believe that this deal will not allow this museum to be the best contemporary art that it can be. This deal breaks several breaches of ethics including the museum’s mission, the director’s determination to preserve its integrity, our understanding of art and art history, the Fisher family being on the SFMOMA board, the constraint of no more that 25% of what is on view may be outside of the Fisher collection, and more! I don’t this was a good decision for the museum. Instead, it would’ve been best for everyone involved if the Fishers continued with their hope of founding their own museum. But no the SFMOMA is left with these constraining consequences.
ReplyDeleteI think the SFMOMA's decision to comply with the stipulations of Fisher collection was unwise, as it prevents the institution from being able to evolve and respond to the needs of a community that will change, and that they have an obligation to serve first. Although it is difficult to dismiss partnerships such as the Fischer collection, it is still the responsibility of a museum to uphold it's mission statement before all else. It would have been in the best interest of the public to continue negotiating or allow the Fischer collection to create its own institution. Hopefully the SFMOMA will find a way to continue to provide quality, diverse, content despite the limiting constraints of their new acquisitions.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the Cosby art collection exhibition, I think the main complaint people had about it had nothing to do with AAM ethics. However, the museum did still use a collector's money and art to host an exhibit which is discouraged by AAM. The reason it is discouraged is because it allows collectors to buy fame for themselves and their collection. Because the museum involved gets money from the deal it's a very tempting offer since exhibits are normally very expensive. AAM is worried that such monetary brides might result in the museums showing biased work or even bad work. It allows any collector with enough money to say "look at my good taste" in the public eye. That being said I don't know if I agree it should always be discouraged. What if a collector with a great collection wanted to lend it to a museum and offered to pay for it? I don't really see the harm in have a good show that's also sponsored by the lender. I think you would just have to carefully screen the offered collection to make sure the work is the kind of stuff you want to be showing.
ReplyDeleteMuseum's dance a fine line when putting up controversial work. They are subject to backlash if the art does not come across to an audience as intended. The article about the Camille and Bill Cosby exhibit criticizes the ethics of the exhibit and the choice the museum made to showcase the art knowing all of the heat surrounding Bill Cosby. I do think that ethically it is not okay to showcase work that directly correlates to the allegations made on Bill Cosby. However, this work may have been collected by the Cosby's, but it is not showcasing the laws that he broke and promoting it in any way. The museum simply wants to showcase the art. This is where it gets tricky on how much art and from who collects it gets displayed.
ReplyDeleteI feel that it is a difficult line to walk when putting up work from a controversial collector. The problem with the Cosby exhibit was that the media backlash happened well after the exhibit was planned. It becomes an issue when curating a show when something in the media happens. It also becomes an issue when the collector is being accused of sexual misconduct. There were a lot of things that were wrong with the Cosby exhibit. The first and foremost problem was the emphasis on Cosby being a family man. There were a lot of allusions that the collection was the reflection of a strong family unit when the man was a womanizer. I think that the museum should have at least removed the "family oriented" quotes from the walls of the exhibit. I think that overall it was a conflict of interest with the director. The director was a friend of the Cosbys and it was publicly known. That is a major conflict of interest for the curation. I think that there should have at least been a disclaimer of what was happening in the media, like the African History museum did for their portrayal of Bill Cosby. I realize that the art itself has nothing to do with the accusations of sexual misconduct, but the show was based on the Cosby family collection. That is where it gets tricky. I think that they most definitely should have at least altered the show to correlate with the media and the ideas of the audience.
ReplyDeleteThe Cosby collection in the National Museum of African Art does not sit well with me, and I am sure many others felt the same as it opened. Of course, the intentions of the exhibition were all good, however the timing of the show was very ill-willed. Just before the Cosby collection of art was opened to the public in NMAA, Bill Cosby was suspected of rape and infidelity. Obviously, with this piece of information pouring through regular media and news, most people were aware of this crime, and so the Cosby exhibition claimed far more controversy than planned. AAM standards mention that a museum should still maintain its integrity in situations such as this, but also to not insult the majoring side of the views. The Cosby exhibition probably would not have received so much backlash if it were not for the fact that the museum displayed so much content describing Bill Cosby in such a positive way, which many viewers would disagree with.
ReplyDelete