For this week’s blog, Lizzy and Yasmine invite you to consider the importance of art museums and the role they play in our perception of the art they present.
In class, we had an opportunity to visit the Phoenix Art Museum and witness what it has to offer. Drs. Hall and Cleworth invited us to join them on a ‘tour’ of the museum, where a few of us walked around the galleries and identified what appealed to us the most. The word “museum” originates from Greece, specifically the nine Muses (goddesses of inspiration), but also referring to the Museion of Alexandria, essentially a university library that housed manuscripts. Traditional art museums, as we know them today, originated in 18th and 19th-century Europe. For instance, the Louvre in Paris officially became a museum after the Revolution in 1793. Hence, museums have a rich history. The overarching purpose of art museums, throughout history and currently, is to collect, preserve, interpret and present works to visitors, and encourage visitors to re-contextualize what they see “in novel and enlightening ways” (The Art Assignment, 2019).
Today's art museums grapple with ethical dilemmas that did not concern museums of the past. These include: 1) the overabundance of works to display, compelling curators to “pick and choose” what they will feature and which works they should de-accession (sell to raise funds); 2) increased pressure to justify the fact that the preponderance (87%) of exhibited works were created by white men; 3) growing public scrutiny over major donors' ties "to everything from climate-change denial to sexual harassment issues," and pressure to refuse new gifts and/or return previously donated works (Washington Post, 3/29/19); 4) in the wake of the #MeToo movement, an internal debate about the appropriateness of showcasing works by known misogynists; and 5) increasing pressure to repatriate works (which form the bulk of many famous collections) that were obtained through conquest (many years ago).
With all this in mind, we would like you to respond to (at least) one of the prompts below (and suggest you take a look at the links associated with them to get some more perspective). As a group, we hope you will cover them all, so please consider a prompt that has not been addressed (or has fewer posts).
In class, we had an opportunity to visit the Phoenix Art Museum and witness what it has to offer. Drs. Hall and Cleworth invited us to join them on a ‘tour’ of the museum, where a few of us walked around the galleries and identified what appealed to us the most. The word “museum” originates from Greece, specifically the nine Muses (goddesses of inspiration), but also referring to the Museion of Alexandria, essentially a university library that housed manuscripts. Traditional art museums, as we know them today, originated in 18th and 19th-century Europe. For instance, the Louvre in Paris officially became a museum after the Revolution in 1793. Hence, museums have a rich history. The overarching purpose of art museums, throughout history and currently, is to collect, preserve, interpret and present works to visitors, and encourage visitors to re-contextualize what they see “in novel and enlightening ways” (The Art Assignment, 2019).
Today's art museums grapple with ethical dilemmas that did not concern museums of the past. These include: 1) the overabundance of works to display, compelling curators to “pick and choose” what they will feature and which works they should de-accession (sell to raise funds); 2) increased pressure to justify the fact that the preponderance (87%) of exhibited works were created by white men; 3) growing public scrutiny over major donors' ties "to everything from climate-change denial to sexual harassment issues," and pressure to refuse new gifts and/or return previously donated works (Washington Post, 3/29/19); 4) in the wake of the #MeToo movement, an internal debate about the appropriateness of showcasing works by known misogynists; and 5) increasing pressure to repatriate works (which form the bulk of many famous collections) that were obtained through conquest (many years ago).
With all this in mind, we would like you to respond to (at least) one of the prompts below (and suggest you take a look at the links associated with them to get some more perspective). As a group, we hope you will cover them all, so please consider a prompt that has not been addressed (or has fewer posts).
- How do museums shape the way we view art? Does the way in which collections were created reveal the collectors’ bias? If so, do you think this detracts from our viewing experience? Why or why not? See The Case for Museums and Historical Overview
- This article from the New York Times reveals that “most museums display only a fraction of the works they own.” For instance, the Indianapolis Museum of Art possesses so many works that it’s curators have developed a ranking system (whereby they give each work a “grade” —A, B, C, D) in order to determine which to display. Is this system the best way to decide? Why? If not, what alternatives can you suggest?
- Why do you think such a large majority of works in art museums are by white men? Is this issue something that should be addressed? Why or why not? And if so, how could it be rectified? For stats, see Dead White Men
- Regarding the acceptance of donations, do the ends justify the means? Should museums care about the political leanings and/or moral failures of its benefactors? Donors
- Should art museums respond to #MeToo issues by removing works with sexualized or objectified subjects or those by known misogynists? In other words, does this matter in terms of a work’s overall merit? Why or why not? See #MeToo and #MeToo
- Many museums’ collections have large holdings of works obtained through previous conquest and/or looting of archaeological sites. Should they repatriate the works to their points of origin? What are the ramifications of doing so? What happens if museums maintain the status quo? Repatriation
Lizzy and Yasmine, thank you both for this week's blog prompt. I am excited to dive into the prompt that you two listed, which asks "Should art museums respond to #MeToo issues". I feel as if this topic has many layers.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, it is hard for me to definitively state whether or not I believe that art museums should remove works of art that contain sexualized subjects. This is due to the fact that there is no way to conclusively define what "sexual subjects" are for every work of art. When I think of "sexual subjects" I immediately think of nudity and or images of individuals having intercourse. However, some people might believe that the umbrella of "sexual subjects" reaches further, and that anything that is even remotely sexually suggestive should be removed. In my opinion, this creates a major problem because so much of art (past and present) presents some sort of "sexuality". For example, the Greeks and Romans sculpted nude figures often, and this subject matter in art is still something that is practiced today. Likewise, many famous works of art such as Botticelli's "Birth of Venus", Caravaggio's "Amor Vincit Omnia", and Leonardo da Vinci's "Vitruvian Man" showcase nudity. I do not think that these works of art should be "banned" from art museums because, despite what they look like, they still contributed greatly to the progression of art. I also do not believe that these forms of art (where the subjects are nude) are in and of themselves offensive. However, if there ever was a work of art that used sexual subjects to be destructive in that it degraded whoever was depicted, depicted someone sexually without the person's consent, and or the sexual message behind the painting was meant to be discriminatory in any way, I would support them being taken out of art museums.
I also have a hard time answering whether or not misogynist artists should have their art removed from museums. The sad reality is, just about every male artist we've studied in class (and i'm certain the horizon reaches further) has been a misogynist. I'm afraid that if we removed every work of art that originated from a misogynistic artist (and let's go ahead and take it further, let's remove every work of art from anyone's who's ever been prejudice) we wouldn't have very much art to look at. I'm almost entirely certain that it would be impossible to find any person, let alone a person that falls into the small category of being an artist, who isn't prejudice in some way. Because of this, I think that we almost have to find value in art that came from misogynistic artists, even if we do not personally agree with their beliefs. If anything, what art museums can do is let the public know that these artists had problematic views so that we can collectively learn from our past and stop idolizing artists who, depending on how you look at them, might not have been the best people.
Josh, I too had a hard time approaching this topic, as to me it feels almost controversial. One one hand I think it would be good to put away the art that is only meant to idolize or use the woman's body as an object, but that would also decrease the amount of art significantly. A phrase that comes to mind is "separate the art from the artist", which is something that I've heard often in reference to problematic celebrities of the present day. People like XXXtentacion, Melanie Martinez, Johnny Depp and Jennifer Lawrence are people who receive praise and fame for their acclaimed talent, but have also done some pretty horrible things such as attacking a gay man because of his sexuality, raping a friend, domestic abuse and defacing a sacred Hawaiian landmark. despite their actions people still invest themselves into their work because they think that their art and the celebrity are separate entities. Although I don't agree with this phrase in the present sense, I think that the artists of the past could be granted a little wiggle room. The misogynistic feelings were so rooted in their time, that anyone who dared express their opposition to it were immediately deemed no longer credible. I like your compromise of museums displaying a disclaimer of sorts to say, "Yes this person created great art but he was also kind of awful to anyone who wasn't exactly like him! Don't look up to this guy!" It would also be refreshing if museums moved to display more of the art created by those who weren't a white male from that same time period.
DeleteBryson, In regards to your last point about displaying art from people who weren't white males, I completely agree. It might be more difficult to find works of art from individuals who were not white males because their works were not as visible, and thus were likely not as "popular" but, I do think that their art works are just as important as those that were more critically acclaimed. I also think that it would be interesting to see their perspectives due to the fact that one of the things I love most about art is the "story" it can tell.
DeleteGoing off of what you stated about "separating the art from the artist", I have never much cared for this argument. I have also seen many celebrities (Chris Brown and Tim Lambesis come to mind first) who have done terrible things but are still able to live lavish lifestyles because they have money and a large fanbase. Tim Lambesis specifically, who is the lead singer of the metal band As I Lay Dying, attempted to kill his wife in 2012 but was never charged because he was able to pay his way out. This is an extreme case of course, but nevertheless it was extremely shocking to not only see so many of his fans supporting him, but that many of them actually idolized what he did and stated that they wished they could do the same in the future. To me, this shows why it is so problematic to "separate the art from the artist". It often times gets to the point where anything a famous person does is eventually forgiven without any real repercussions (I don't think that slamming someone on twitter is not a real repercussion). I also agree with your point that in today's society we need to hold people more accountable with real repercussions. None of us may be perfect in terms of our current or past actions but, our society has the ability to look back in history and to learn from our mistakes; which I wish we would do more often.
Hey Josh and Bryson! It would be hard to find other artists that fall into one category and something that Lizzy and I read in the "Dead White Men" article (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/survey-finds-majority-artists-represented-major-museums-are-white-men-180971771/) stated that the way they deem 'known' artists is by having enough information but they don't state what information makes a known artist. At least to me, a known artist is just having one piece with the artist's full name or pen name. However, the way professionals deem it could be having more than one piece of artwork which could possibly leave other artists in the dust.
DeleteI agree with you all the way. History cannot just be erased because of the #MeToo movement. It is just not realistic.
DeleteHello everyone! My sincerest apologies for not getting on this blog sooner. This past weekend was the Phi Theta Kappa International Convention (also referred to as "Catalyst") and so I was in Orlando up until this afternoon.
DeleteWe had a wonderful time!
Now, on to each of your individual posts. Josh: first of all, you make a very good point that the concept of 'sexual' art is highly, highly subjective. Therefore, as you alluded to, it is very difficult to come up with a precise definition for it. In addition, I admire how you used several examples to illustrate the universality of sex in Greek and Roman art alike, and I agree that they serve to demonstrate art's evolution. I am curious as to how one would be able to tell that an artwork is deliberately depicting someone in a degrading, sexual way. I don't imagine this is something the original artists would openly admit about their work...but I could be wrong.
Furthermore, the very last sentence of your response is so powerful because it ties directly into something Yasmine and I had touched upon when we met to create our prompt: the notion that museums 'recontextualize' history for their viewers. This was also mentioned (almost verbatim) in the Case for Museums video. I would second your statement that we should be careful not to completely idolize these artists with problematic views. However, this too is complicated, and I like what Bryson brought up about separating the art from the artist. Many artists of the past (da Vinci, for example), created highly skillful works of art. In separating his 'risky' behaviors from his skilled artwork, we would continue to acknowledge such mastery while at the same time recognizing his (and other artists of his time)'s 'shortcomings'. I feel like this would be a good 'middle of the road' approach.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLizzy and Yasmine, all these topics are great, thank you for such great conversation for this week’s blog! I will be approaching the last topic that talks about stolen art that is far from home.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about this on the surface, but the more I think about it the surer I am about what “side” of the argument I would be on. In theory, I think that it would be a tragedy to be stripped of the great ethnic art from other cultures and countries. To be able to see such grand art from different minds, different races and religions can place such a profound impact on an individual. I think a greater tragedy is the fact that some of these artworks were stolen and never returned. In such a social world as ours, it would make much more sense to reach out to the countries that these stolen pieces came from and return them. In class Dr. Hall mentioned a piece painted by Jean-Francois Millet that got sold to a person in America, and the French were so hurt by this that they bought it back. I think that this mentality of “returning art to its origin country” should be universal to all art. The article that Lizzy and Yasmine provided does make a good point asking if “conditions can be met and parties claiming ownership are able to demonstrate that they can keep the artwork safe… then you have a very strong argument for why the work are better held in Africa and the West.” (Scher) This brings me to a concept that is well known in the art museum industry; a concept of traveling art exhibits. In fact, there’s a whole floor dedicated to art in the Phoenix Art Museum for that exact purpose. Granted, some art is to fragile to be transported, but even then, there is art that could be moved around. It would make more sense to be able to share art, and in the end return it to the original home. Not only is it fair to the people who the art belongs to, but it also protects the art. There is a surplus of African sculptures that have been “de-africanized” to make the subject look European. This occurs through the reshaping of facial features, recoloring of statues, or to even the extent of breaking off the noses of busts (Ampim). This fact within itself should be convincing enough to return all art to the original source.
http://www.raceandhistory.com/manu/vanish3.htm
http://www.artnews.com/2018/06/26/back-belonged-proponents-repatriation-african-artworks-take-issue-past-present-future/
Bryson, I have to admit that I really have never thought about this topic before. I guess I never knew that this happened in the world, but now that I have read about it briefly I understand that it happens quite frequently. In regards to your post, I agree that stealing art from its native country is wrong under the circumstances you listed. However, I must play the "devil's advocate".
DeleteDuring the Second World War both the Allied and Axis powers often stole and destroyed works of art. Both sides had different reasons for doing such, the Allied powers mainly (this is a brief summary for a very broad topic) wanted to destroy Nazi propaganda. In contrast, the Axis powers mainly wanted to destroy/steal art that they deemed as "degenerative" and against the overall framing of the Third Reich. "The Stone Breakers" by Gustave Courbet was actually one of the many pieces of art that was destroyed by the Nazis.
In both instances art was destroyed, but for very different reasons. Do you think that the context under which both sides destroyed art matters? Or more specifically, "is it okay for one and not the other" and why?
Hey Bryson! The last topic was one of my personal favorites! I feel that traveling galleries are great but I also have a feeling that some of the artifacts and art end up being stolen. I can only hope that the exhibit gets entirely returned to its rightful owner. I too feel that ALL art should be returned to its origin country but to also be displayed in other countries so that they too can learn about the art and the story that comes with it. Although I'm fully against altering what a sculpture looks like, I'm sure that the Europeans only altered it so that it can become something that the Europeans can relate to. However, if they're making changes to the original that shouldn't ever be allowed. Only changing the copy is somewhat tolerable, as long as the people changing it aren't using it to be disrespectful.
DeleteThis is a very complicated issue due to the fact that older pieces of art are definitely more fragile and are not worth the risk of accidentally harming. I can agree that a traveling gallery could be a great solution to those pieces of art that are still in good enough condition to be brought back to its original home.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBryson, first of all, I support the fact that you chose the last prompt, as like Yasmine, I find it so interesting! You have touched upon several very interesting concepts here. I was not aware that traveling art exhibits exist, much less that they have them at Phoenix Art Museum. From your description, I think they would serve as a great solution for stolen art. However, as you mentioned, special caution and care should be given with fragile artworks. Another concept I was not aware of is this 'European-ization' of African sculptures. I am with Yasmine on this one; I do not come close to supporting it. To me, it is the art version of ethnocentrism (basically when people of a culture act superior to those of another), and that's just not right. Furthermore, an additional question I might ask of you is why do you think, in our largely interconnected world, that more countries have not reached out and returned the works to their original owners?
DeleteI personally do not believe that museums should respond to #MeToo issues by removing works of art that do not please a curtain, sensitive group of people. I understand that there are some exceptions of paintings such as the Thérèse Blanchard by Balthus which is quite disturbing. However, the main problem with removing all offensive content to the #MeToo movement is how some pieces of art that are considered misogynistic obviously come from a time period in which that was the norm. If one does not like that type of art, then they really do not have to look at it. Even though the content is not necessarily right, some pieces are too important in a historical standpoint to be removed from viewing.
ReplyDeleteNohely, I am completely on board with your notion that museums are not required to take away 'offensive' artworks unless (perhaps) they cause great distress to their viewers (through being exceptionally disturbing). Sometimes, getting exposed to things outside of our comfort zone is beneficial in making us less sensitive. You bring up a good point in establishing the big difference between our time period and the time periods in which these works stemmed from. Like it or not, misogynist men were not regarded with half as many negative feelings then as they are now. I am not saying this is a bad or a good thing; it is just the reality.
DeleteI also support the argument that people who do not like something (in this case, a work of art) can just not look at it. With that in mind, however, can you think of specific examples that are "too important" to be removed from viewing?
You bring up a good point; it was a point in time where misogyny was the norm. As someone stated above, if we get rid of all the work from problematic people all art would be gone. That doesn't mean we can't speak up about their racism or misogyny or antisemitism, however. I believe you can acknowledge the wrongdoings of your favorite artists and that you shouldn't try sweeping it under the rug. For old artists, it's too late for them to right their wrongs, but for modern day artists? They have the ability to unlearn their problematic viewpoints.
DeleteI too understand that if 'misogynistic' art was taken down that we could be left with few art but something that I would like to propose is what about the other artists that depict their home country or those whose art never got displayed. Would we really be left with few art pieces left? I would like to think that if offensive art was taken down that it would create a possibility for other artists and art forms to emerge and make their presence known.
DeleteNohely, I understand your point of view and agree with it in some ways. It's definitely important for art to express the views from the time period they are created, and it's important to preserve and display these artworks. I also think it's important to account for the views and overall beliefs of the time period they are being displayed in. The #MeToo movement sparked a particularly significant time for the voices of women to be understood and heard. Although museums shouldn't be required to remove artwork because of it, I think they should at least take it into account.
DeletePersonally, I think sexualized and objectifying subjects shouldn't necessarily be removed because, as you said, they were once part of the norm. I think the problem mostly lies in artwork by known misogynists. I'm a firm believer in supporting the right people. Why would we support misogynistic artists, when we could support the artwork of people that didn't famously have a prejudice against women? I think, for a season or two, museums should look at their artwork and see what can be switched out in support of the people fighting for important causes happening in our society.
It isn't surprising that white men make up 87% of museums today. Historically, who has ran museums and art schools? Men. Throughout history we see a pattern of white people preventing people of color of prospering, and even white women's art is not able to be created. We see few prominent women in art history, due to the fact it was seen as scandalous if women went to apprentice for a man. Those few women are white, as well. Women and men of color do not see the same representation as men in nearly all platforms. I believe there needs to be representation, especially in the art world, so little kids of color or little girls can think that they can do that too. Representation of all types in all careers will only allow children to dream bigger in regards to their future.
ReplyDeleteA push is definitely needed in regards to representation. Some may claim that representation is forced, and claim it is an attack on white transgender men, but it really isn't. White people, straight people, and men don't know what it is like to not have representation in the media or in certain careers. It is important for there to be representation of all types. Museums should be accepting art enriched with culture of every background, even if it doesn't fit the standards. But based off the grading system referenced in another prompt (that I did not know about!), it may be difficult for this to happen.
I was logged into my personal Google account when I posted this, my apologies.
DeleteHannah, I completely agree that there should be more representation of people of color! A great one that you may be familiar with is Kehinde Wiley -- he is the same artist who created the Obama Portraits, and has another work featured in the Phoenix Art Museum. Although he is still a man (of course), he is a man of color, and this is a good start. But I concede with the notion that women and people of color continue to be underrepresented in art, and that should change. Additionally, it is interesting how you mention the grading system as a 'barrier' for museums accepting works from artists of all backgrounds. It made me think back to the New York Times article, particularly the little quiz portion where you get to guess whose artwork received an 'A' (*Spoiler alert*: it is the Georgia O'Keefe painting.) Now, just based off of her name, I honestly thought she was black. She was not. (Which, in retrospect, makes sense given the time period in which she lived.) I actually looked up a picture of her today and, in my view, she is pretty masculine-looking. But I digress.
DeleteHannah, I agree with your point about representation being necessary in the art world. As a future teacher I want children to be able to pursue their dreams and be encouraged to do so. If they are not accurately represented or not represented at all they may feel devalued and that they cannot achieve what their peers can. Art can be a powerful vehicle to empower and inspire children and really anyone and there are opportunities that allow for that if the art world will choose to accept it.
DeleteHannah, I agree 100% that there needs to be a push for representation. Those who feel it's forced clearly never faced discrimination for their gender, sexuality, or color of their skin. Art definitely has an impact on children and they have every right to be represented.
DeleteHannah, I'm absolutely for more representation for other communities in the art world! I feel that those artists that are trying to make themselves and their community known should be one of the strong focuses. I feel that when communities are represented that people could be prone to want to know more about them. Especially in today's world, it's easy for one community or group to not be heard and when they're in time of great need, few people will be there.
DeleteThe prompt I chose is how do museums shape the way we view art? This seemed like an interesting idea to think about. Both the video and the article assigned made good points about this idea. The video from the Art Assignment mentioned how when individual art pieces are taken from their original homes and surrounding cultures they are harder to interpret. Placed in a large open room, they are not as powerful. Some of their story is missing. We are forced to take in the art for what it is with little context. Museums give us a view of art that limits the exposure to certain cultures due to the way they are displayed. However, I feel that having these pieces displayed, though we are not always able to experience them fully, is valuable. If the only way to view art was in its original home, one would have to travel the world to experience different culture’s art.
ReplyDeleteThe article by Khan Academy focused on the history of the Louvre Museum. I thought it was interesting that originally the Louvre was not made to be a museum but was home to the French monarchy. During a revolution in Paris in 1789 it was turned into a museum and what was inside was put on display. It was common for monarchs to collect art and the Louvre had a great collection that was I’m sure easily turned into a museum. However, it got me thinking, if his palace was just turned into a museum, what was the standard for a “museum” at the time? Was it because it contained a certain type of art? Was it art that spoke of wealth and riches?
Regarding bias due to the way the collector displays the art I think it depends on the museum. When the Louvre was first opened there would have been a lot of bias to the collection because the art was whatever the monarchs liked to collect. Today it displays many different artists’ works and is less biased in its collection. I think one reason for this is because of the development of authorities for choosing art such as museum boards. With varying opinions and backgrounds art can be represented from many places and peoples. The museum is not just a display of one person’s favorite artists, but a diverse, unique collection.
Hi Ashlynne. I like how you talked about the impact that art has once it has been taken from its original home. I have never really thought about this in depth, but it does take a huge part of the context away and leave a large whole in the background of the art and what it means altogether. Although, I do also understand why it is important to have works located in museums, so art does not have to be traveled to, and can instead be viewed and appreciated altogether. I think this is a largely important competent in art history and culture, as museums have played a huge role in art influence. I think it is also interesting how the Louvre was converted into a museum. I believe the origins or rich art helped play an influence in the art style at the time, setting a royal standard for artists. I do also appreciate that you mentioned the widened diversity in the Louvre, I also spoke about diversity in art in my original post. It is great to see more diversity and "color" in art as time goes on and different styles are appreciated more than others. Thank you for your post Ashlynne, I really enjoyed reading and responding.
DeleteAshlynne, it is so true that if museums did not incorporate works of art from other countries, we would have a much harder time getting to see them! In addition, I too found it interesting that the Louvre was not originally a museum. You raise some very good questions. Given the fact that the Louvre was previously a palace, and one for the French monarchy, I think there was a very high standard for the art it was to display when it first became a museum.
DeleteI really like the fact that museum boards exist, and it is not just one person choosing the featured works. As you said, this allows many styles of art, from artists of many different backgrounds, to be showcased.
Museums do at times make it harder to interpret a piece of art. In a short outsider's view a museum might just be some place that people go to see art. Most of the labels on many of a museums collections are facts about who made the art piece or if it's an artifact it gives a short summary of what it is. It's hard to tell what the overall message is of the piece when you're given only a description about the person that painted it. Those paintings do have half of their story missing.
DeleteThank you Lizzy and Yasmine for your post. I will be addressing the second blog prompt, regarding the ranking of art in museums, as it seems this topic has not been discussed as of yet.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the system used by the Indianapolis Museum of Art, and I'm sure many other curators, is pretty inexpressive and does not show the range or potential of a gallery. As previously mentioned above, the goal of a museum is to present work to be interpreted by others, hopefully inspiring and encouraging new artists or ideas to flourish. Compared to what is expected at a gallery, you would anticipate the use of all possible works to spread influence of art and different style across many mediums to an audience. But, it is found that some museums curate certain sections and styles, "only displaying a fraction of their work." I do not think this should be the practice, as it seems to restrict influence and creativity; only spotlighting what is popular or liked personally by a curator. I would suggest an alternative that rotated different galleries for a wide range of styles and diversity among the art. It could rotate periodically with the seasons or bimonthly, whatever is chosen and best for the museum and the amount of works the curator posses. I believe museums and curators should make an effort to exhibit all of their work to best influence the community and those that are inclined to view. This would result in a wider range of diversity among the art to be viewed and interpreted with greater appreciation.
Kyle, thank you for addressing this prompt! You provide an interesting analysis of the ranking system; I had not thought about it in this way but I would say your notion is pretty accurate. In addition, I agree that museums should not only display a portion of their collections, and totally embrace your idea of rotating galleries! I feel that rotating bimonthly would provide a greater variety of artworks, but it also could be seen as 'too much change' by some (especially if one gallery is much more popular than others). So, I would say that I personally like the seasonal approach better. As you said, though, it would depend on the particular curator.
DeleteKyle, the prompt you chose is very interesting and honestly, I did not know that museums had more pieces of art stored away. I agree with you that they should not just keep them hidden and only display their certain sections and styles but should share all kinds of art. Thinking about all the art that is hidden, I was reminded of the Salon. In a Salon, the works were displayed close together and it seemed as if they were displayed to fit as many works as possible on the walls with little space between each work. I wonder when this method of displaying art changed to displaying just a few works. Only displaying a few works, while it might provide a better experience to a viewer, only allows for a small number of works to be seen. Your idea of switching out the galleries at different points in the year I think would serve well since museums do not display artwork “salon style.”
DeleteKyle, you had me hooked when you mentioned the idea of having a rotation for different styles and diversities! I really like this solution! It would defiantly change the rating style that many museums go by. I also think that the way pieces are judged are unfair because some judges could have a certain style that they favor. The only thing that could stop this from happening is that the public would need to encourage artists from different styles and diversities to make art. I feel that they would be slightly pressured because when you normally go into a museum, you see top notch artwork and hardly anything else. Museums seems very salon style nowadays.
DeleteAll of these prompts were really great! However I am choosing the second, at first glance the answer quickly came into mind. After the reading the link provided, I was not so sure. There is no question that the white race has been in the majority for quite some time, especially white males. To me it is not very surprising that the majority of the works of art in our museums are created by white men, their works were the most popularized, the most known. I will say that is unfair for the many other artists who worked so hard to achieve what seems like the impossible to achieve. Today it would only seem fair to display their works and to give them the praise they worked hard for but never received in their life time.
ReplyDelete-NOEMI RAMIREZ
It's never really surprising to me anymore but I believe that the reason why we don't see a variety of artists from all walks of life because of the way museums rate paintings. It seems to go back to the salons, where only certain styles and themes are selected to be displayed. In regards to old paintings, they seem to be strict on what makes the cut there too. They only select paintings that have a 'well known' creator but they don't share what makes someone 'well known'.
DeleteNoemi, you made really good points. I believe the reason why the art of primarily white men in museums is because their point of view has been enforced to be the 'normal'. The perspective of women and POC has always had the potential to be considered controversial. Great response!
DeleteNoemi, I second the notion that it is not surprising that the works of white men make up the majority of a museum's collection. After all, as Hannah previously mentioned, so many of the early leaders in art museums, as is characteristic of so many of the early leaders of pretty much anything, were white men. I would ask you to think about why women and people of color have not been able to 'make it' in the art world on a level even somewhat comparable to that of white men. How do you think the overarching stigma behind female and colored artists could be further reduced?
DeleteI find it to be very harmful to many cultures and communities when art in museums consists of more white male art pieces than those of women or people of color. It’s understandable that there is more male art than women art; however, that doesn’t mean art pieces made by women shouldn’t be included in more museums. It’s harmful to not include more art made by women because people who go to art museums and see an absence of women-made art, they might not think there was such thing. Informing people in 2019 about past society, in regards to women, through art is very helpful to them so they understand how skillful women could be. Another area I want to point out is artwork made by non-white people. I went to the Phoenix Art Museum and didn’t see much art made by people of color from hundreds of years ago. The main art pieces from POC I saw were pottery and rugs and even then it didn’t seem like enough or really show how life was for them. I understand most of the art was destroyed or stolen by conquerors, but I still think museums could do more to retrieve and display art pieces made from people of color. White men aren’t and weren’t the only ones capable of making art, so I believe minorities deserve a chance to have their art displayed.
ReplyDeleteMinorities do deserve a chance to have their art displayed! The main reason why most art is from white males might come from the way museums rate their paintings and how they deem artists to be acceptable. It gives museums somewhat of a salon style where they could be choosing one style over another or if they get an old painting they might deem the artist as an artist because of how many paintings they've created. I completely agree on your stance of the issue. I even felt that when I went through Phoenix Art Museum's Islamic art. There were a few paintings but a majority was just pottery, rugs and a few outfits. I want to see through women's eyes on what times were like back then, what their daily route looked to them and the things that inspired them to be an artist.
DeleteDamaris, you made some really good points in your response. I agree, just like the media, the lack of representation is harmful.
DeleteI wholeheartedly agree with your response Damaris. I think since you're interested art that fits something other than predominantly European, you can visit the Heard Museum. I have been quite a few times and it has a rich and diverse selection from different Native American tribes. It also showcases some of the struggles Native Americans had as colored people different than white Americans and were treated with contempt and disrespect. Back to your post though, I think you're right in the limited variety of painted art from a different ethnicity than white.
DeleteDamaris, I could not agree more that female artists need more representation in art museums! You raise a very good point that people could see a lack of female artists' work as a complete absence of female artists in general, and that is certainly not the case. And to second what Ethan talked about in regards to the Heard Museum, I have been there once before and it is fantastic. It is particularly a great place to go to delve deeper into the perspectives of the 'victims' (who are, in this case, Native Americans).
DeleteThank you Lizzy and Yasmine for this week's interesting blog prompt!
ReplyDeleteI've chosen to discuss museums accepting from controversial donors. To summarize: many, not all, museums are built and sustained by money and artwork donated by billionaires that unethically gained their wealth. Some of these donors include Warren Kander in the tear gas business, the Sackler family in the opioid business, and Hans Sloane who gained his fortune from slave labour.
I think this is a rather tricky subject. It's clear that these people, who profit at the cost of others, are terrible and shouldn't gain any more fame or fortune by working with museums. However, museums are extremely expensive to upkeep and, from the stats presented in the article Lizzy and Yasmine provided, the revenue from attendance is less than the regular costs the large museums spend. They often rely on the donations from the wealthy, and by refusing funds from the unethically rich they are risking losing money.
Overall, I think museums should almost pick and choose from whom they take donations from. This would be a tough process, as to wear to draw the line. It would be extremely difficult for institutions as large and expensive as museums to be completely funded by money that hasn't at all been tainted by a rich person's immoral actions. But at the same time, accepting any and all dirty money only enforces the immoral practices of these people.
I do agree that it would be hard for museums to draw the line at who to get donations from. They're just doing what they have to do in order to stay running. Museums aren't a popular place to go to nowadays, most people turn down any chance they get to go to a museum unless it's on a day where visiting costs go down, which makes it harder if museums were to live off that day by day; without billionaires donating to museums they would've been long gone.
DeleteI think your observations are closely related to my own Erica. I personally believe that yes, there are objections to controversial people owning particular pieces of art and profiting from it. But people have to look at the positive to art being contributed and for public observation. The only question I would have to pose to your blog post, would be what is the parameters for whether a museum decides which of the wealthy they take artwork from whether immoral or moral?
DeleteErica, you are getting at what I believe is the crux of this issue. It is totally a double-edged sword. However, I like your idea of museums becoming more selective about who they accept donations from -- it could almost be like a 'background check' of sorts. As Yasmine stated, though, attendance at museums is not the greatest (and I say that with sadness, because I absolutely love them), and so it becomes a situation where the museum still has to profit from something. In addition, Ethan's question provides a good caveat for this 'background check' idea. I honestly think the parameters would depend on the curators/museum board; they would have to sort of define what 'evils' (of the billionaires) are worse to support.
DeleteI believe museums help viewers create a standard for how they should view art and what type of art they are exposed to.
ReplyDeleteI believe the collector's collection shows their interest and coincidentally a bias as well. I do not think it detracts from the viewers experience. I feel it enhances it, because it provides another persons perspective on life and could introduce the viewer to new things. This was a great question, it really made me think about museums in a new way.
I think you should really use more detail to further explain why and how museums help the viewers. Maybe using personal experience or using your friends experience. Sometimes it helps me to think of me in a museum and see how placement of a collection provides or detracts from the my overall thoughts. I can agree with you that the question did make me think of museums in a new way. Next time I go i'll probably not unsee many purposeful placement for some collections.
DeleteAryanna, I would have to agree with Isac here; you have not given us much other than a very broad affirmation of the collectors' bias. It may be true that the collectors' bias could yield to their perspectives of life and could introduce the viewers to new things, but I feel this introduction would, more often than not, be one-sided. I am glad you found this question interesting, but again, would like to see more specific examples next time.
DeleteI think museums really help us get to know a variety of details of different kinds of art and artists. I think without the way we learn art would be more difficult since many people who owned the art before probably didn't know how to take care of it nor knew the story behind it. I think that the people who set of the collections are bias because they're human. I don't think they intentionally do it or they might but overall it does affect our views on it. Since a lot of people care about what a professional thinks and how a collection are might be better or more representative of the era. They might give one collection more thought and more open and noticeable area while they might give lesser known and less favorite a hidden area. That doesn't change my mind about art but it really does affect how other people see art. I really don't think it detracts from the viewers experience because although placement helps and can influence the viewer, they have their own opinion. While many people sometimes can't have an opinion and always have to be on the "correct side" some of us really like to choose the less chosen side or actually have a good reason of choosing the "basic" side.
ReplyDeleteThis is true, a collection can be a representation of the era it's self and what is most liked. Though collections are biased, they are overall, I guess you could say, the status quo of art for that particular generation. They are a representation of what the majority of people either gravitate towards, or are told the love.
DeleteIsac, you raise an interesting assertion when you say that collectors are biased because they (and we) are all human. I would say that when it comes to art that they really like, they would probably be pretty intentional about emphasizing it as opposed to others. That said, I totally see what you mean when you talk about this idea of giving one collection a more open area while putting another sort of 'off to the side'. I would say that you are correct in saying that some people are going to think of these artworks a certain way regardless of how they are placed. This goes back to the old expression "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"; what the collectors think is a "C" on the grading scale, for instance, you could think is worthy of an "A". Subjectivity can be frustrating sometimes!
DeleteI chose the second prompt because durring this time, the accumulation of objects has become a luxurious issue we are now facing, due to the popularization of consumerism. I personally, though I do understand the motives behind the "grade" system, do not encourage this process because the idea of hoarding, sometimes, never before seen works is a bit upsetting to me. I read up on the topic with the link provided, and the article also informed me that lots of money goes into preserving these works of art even though they don't get displayed. Instead of keeping these works out of public's view, the could be sent to younger galleries/museums who can rightfully display these pieces of history. I think the issue is fairly clear and these museums are hoarding treasures the deserve to be shown off just like the rest of the pieces so that they may inspire others.
ReplyDeleteJacey, I totally agree with you that bigger museums could send works of art they are not using to smaller museums in order for them to be displayed. After all, I do not understand what the point of having so many artworks is if they are never going to be witnessed by the public eye (which is the purpose of most if not all museums). I think Kyle's previous concept of rotating galleries would be a very good solution for this 'hoarding' problem you describe, or, just downsizing the collection altogether.
DeleteMy Prompt: "Why do you think such a large majority of works in art museums are by white men? Is this issue something that should be addressed? Why or why not? And if so, how could it be rectified?"
ReplyDeleteI think this prompt really speaks for itself. Since wev'e started our Learning Community class, it has been reiterated time and time again that White, European men have dominated society in all aspects. They were no stranger to being the predominant decision makers in "taste" and for centuries they've been at the center. They were generally the ones who would fund and support art. One example would be the Pope of Catholicism at any point in time. It was always a white clergyman who wanted grand and expensive paintings. This indicates the obvious, that white men were the ones with the power. While there were men of color and women in the art industry, none of them were the majority compared to White males.
So in general, modern day art museums might be run predominantly by that demographic based on tradition. Is it an issue that needs to be rectified? Personally I don't think it's an issue at all. While there might have been male prejudice in the Salons of France, I think society is at a point where art is definitely one of those mediums that falls under all demographics. In some ways, if you consider it an issue needing to be rectified, there are already movements such as the feminist movement where they push for women to take the places that men usually do.
I agree, I mean it would be nice to see more women, but art is a reflection of the time, and back then there just weren't as many women artists out there. And i'm sure if we stepped into a more contemporary museum we would see more female artist than we would if we visited a classical one.
DeleteEthan, you make a great point that for the most part, art has evolved way beyond white men and now, women and POC do get involved in it. Even if their works are not shown as often, they do still get involved in it. In addition, I see where you are coming from in regards to the feminist movement as an example of current rectification (in many more aspects than art, I might add). Like the discussion we had about free speech a few blogs back, there are other issues that we can focus more of our attention on than the representation of women/POC in museums.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor my post I chose to respond to the final prompt: Many museums’ collections have large holdings of works obtained through previous conquest and/or looting of archaeological sites. Should they repatriate the works to their points of origin? What are the ramifications of doing so? What happens if museums maintain the status quo?
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting question that I'd never considered. My gut reaction is in favor of the original culture that produced the artwork. Insofar as art is a manifestation and representation of the culture and period within which it was produced, it seems justified that a given culture should have some claim to the art that it enables and influences. That said, art also belongs to individuals: the artists and craftsmen that actually create, and the people who then buy. In the case of artwork that has been annexed through force, well that annexation is very much a part of the historical and cultural context of the artwork. Additionally, when a culture absorbs another (be it through force or otherwise) the absorbed culture indelibly impacts the absorber and vice versa. My point being that when talking about artwork more than a few generations old, there are no individual claims of ownership beyond the current possessor and the cultural claim can be argued from both sides. Therefore, I would have to say that, while emotionally appealing, there isn't an easy way to assign "ownership" to a culture and there is no incentive for the current possessors of art to do the work required to return their property to its "rightful owners." Repatriation of artwork is warranted in many cases, but in general presents a significant logistical problem.
Darrick, I admire how you stated your personal take on this subject but then put it more into perspective! I concede that in addition to the original culture that produced the work, we have to take the individual who owns it into account. I completely see what you are saying about how cultures impact each other when one subjugates the other, but am not as clear about how annexation through force is part of a work's historical context. Do you mean to say that the historical relationship/tension between two countries can lead to works getting annexed by force? In any case, your last statement really resonated with me because prior to reading your post I had not considered repatriation of art to present said problem. I guess it is more complicated than I originally thought...thank you for providing this alternate viewpoint!
Delete