Museums: Managers of Consciousness, Hans Haacke, 1986

Why are biotech companies suddenly sponsoring art about genes?, Jackie Stevens, 00

Haacke begins his article by classifying the art-world as the “consciousness industry.” He says that art is created from one conscious to another. That it is not a physical product and its worth or meaning can change depending on the spotlight it receives. Suggestive of religious connotations, art, the production and the object itself has a mystical inference. Because of these “romantic” ideologies there is no concrete assertion when it comes to art, or so it was believed. With the 19^th century credence that art is made for arts sake, reinforces the magical aspects of art that alludes to a higher power, and because of this allegation asserts it has little bias. Haacke says this is contradictory to the nature of art, and the meaning behind art. Because art is not “independent” it will always have a certain bias. The consciousness is a result of environment and social proclivity. Haacke goes on to suggest that the art world is more business than pleasure or romance. That there is a lot of money riding throughout the art world and most of it runs counter productive to the entire meaning of art and what art is suppose to represent, but not recognized. That by merely acknowledging the industrial aspect of art would ruin the “mystic” that is art. He indicates that new job titles have emerged into the forefront of the “industry”. From business schools, Art Managers are beginning to transcend into the art world like never before. These Art Managers care more about the branding, production and marketing of art, than arts nature. Haacke believes this could turn problematic for artists and the arts in general. It is the board member and top executives with business backgrounds that have the ultimate say in what gets shown and what gets dismissed. Haacke denounces this, and asserts it becomes similar to the way dictatorships and totalitarian governments publicize government propaganda. He concludes that if art is shown in this way it will push forward certain people’s personal gain (corporations, powerful collectors, or certain political views), instead of arts ultimate goal in allowing information to dredge the public in a more democratic fashion. It is because of the millions of dollars at stake, that the business aspect of art begins to impede upon the meaning of art. Haacke makes monetary connections from real estate to city government shows, as a way of “using” artists and art for the personal gain of profit. Using examples of small poor towns in Germany attempting to bring “cultural” changes into economically depressed cities is just one instance where art collides with business to engage profit. Haacke says art by nature is not an actual commodity, its meaning changes due to the amount of exposure it receives. He believes this to be the way to take down corporate conglomerates using art for personal gain. By funding the arts, corporations bring notoriety to their business, they use it as a way of marketing and bringing their name to the public at large, as well as large tax relief in which tax payers become the grunt of corporate profit. In the article “Why are biotech companies suddenly sponsoring art about genes?” has similar results. As a way to spread the word about biotech technologies, these large companies are funding art shows directly encouraging their own expansion of biotech information. Even if the art show condemns the companies themselves, their marketing still works, their work is still brought out into the public eye. As long as the attention is brought to the public, the biotech marketing has worked and at the expense of the tax payers once again. Haacke exclaims that artist can take back the power of art by using alternative showing spaces. That artist bypassing museums and corporate art funding all together, they can take back their meaning and their power. Haacke believes that by doing this art can remain democratic as it was intended to be. He concludes that corporations don’t have control over the consciousness, that they have to play by the rules of the “consciousness industry” which means that ultimately the artist has the power.

The Museum of Modern Art as Late Capitalistic Ritual: An Iconographic Analysis, Carol Duncan and Alan Wallach

Museum Highlights: A Gallery Talk, Performance Script, Andrea Fraser, 1989

May I Help You, Performance Script, Andrea Fraser, 1991

Taking a critical look at the implantation and construction of museums from an exterior perspective, Andrea Fraser’s performance “Museum Highlights: A Gallery Talk” imitates the value structure and ideologies that go into the prefabrication of constructing an “Art Museum”. Poking fun at the value structure is only one aspect of Fraser’s piece. As seen within the writings of “The Museum Of Modern Art As Last Capitalist Ritual: An Iconographic Analysis” museums are set up with predetermined values, ideologies and beliefs. Many of which, stem from the view of art as a “mystical entity”, a soul search for the audience for “individuality”, “high culture” and “class”. The creation of art goes beyond its original function as an “art object”, and communicates to the viewer unintended ideologies that the artist may have never anticipated. Fraser uses this to her advantage on her faux-guided tour. She examines pieces of art my insincerely describing only physical, aesthetic aspects of the art. Constantly using phrases such as: “Resplendently….amazing flawless… sumptuous…This figuresis among the finest and most beautiful creations….An image of exceptional rhythm and fluidity..” Fraser leads the public through a museum as a “tour guide,” she then instills upon the public the ideology set-up by the museum’s layout. Fraser plays with this belief system, exaggerating the decrepit state of the “poor”, “classless”, and “dirty”; who are uneducated, un-couth and outside of the museum walls. Those who are blatantly unable to ascertain the dimensions of art and its meaning, because they are not organized like that of the museum, they are not clean and sturdy like the layout of the museum. She inserts the belief system of the “upper-class” by insinuating the organization and cleanliness of the building structure itself. Between both writings there is a sense of astute critical snobbery, on all parts of the museums culture from “members of museums”, the “art directors” and “board members”, all who have the power to weigh in what is important and what is not. It is within this totalitarian set-up that assumption of power occurs from within these fortressed frames. What is created to educate and “culture” the masses has similar effects of religious shrines or ornamental churches. Viewed as a window of access, to invigorate the “norms” of society each museum promises something out of the ordinary, out of the reach of the “mundane”. To conclude the museum set-up is an opposing force to the art that is housed within its own walls. It is up to artist to further the conscious thought and not leave it up to the corporate bias’s of members of the board.

Cultural Pilgrimages and Metaphorical Journeys/ Whose Monument Where?, Suzanne Lacy.

Public Art in a Many-Cultured Society, Judith F. Baca

Suzanne Lacy and Judith F. Baca explore the transformative “New Genre” art development throughout the public art spectrum within the past 40 years. They state that theses pieces play an integral part in the public’s perception of art, its duel functionality, aesthetic, form and meaning as well as how it is perceived from the public domain. Both authors argue the possibilities of change through the New Genre Art movement, the importance of art because of these changes, as well as the revolutionized role of the new “audience”.

Much different than the initial “rational” museum set-up, public art exhibits provides the “community” with alternative views of an “art object”, either because these pieces are time sensitive, they bring about contemporary/political concerns, and integrate the multi-cultural society that is present today or because they transition the entire process of art from beginning to end because of their site specific home. Museums provide an informative outlook on the exhibits they show, they’re role is to educate the public before they step foot within the barriers of the museum. With new genre public art, the artist has to take into consideration their multifaceted audience, as a multiple happening and not as a singular producer usually seen within the museum society. Through the influence of a collaborative process, within community settings, and working within artist and the community’s own realm throughout the entire process has changed the preconceived notion of art’s function within modern day society. Through this new genre dies the old 19^th century view of “art for arts sake”, and births the possibility of art as functional, educational, and beautiful while still taking into account responsibility of a site sensitive community.

Public Art has gone through the reformation process of trial and error throughout the birth of our nation. As brought up within the writings of Judith F. Baca, originally “The purpose was to evoke a time past in which ‘splendid triumphs’ and ‘struggles of our forefathers’ shifted the course of history.” She speaks about the countless Euro-centric statues placed in park settings, outside government buildings and monuments dedicated to the ubiquitous images of white men, cloaked in military garbs, wielding swords, while riding horses. These statues created to improve societal perceptions of our great nation, also entertain the idea of beauty through alienation of those not represented and proof of power by those who are the ones alienating.

Contemporary new genre art assists in changing these ideologies by integrating community awareness within the artists’ process all the way to the final output. It not only changes the way these artist work, who they work with, how they think and where their work will end up; but also changes those criticizing art, the production of art, and processing art for a major public forum. Criticizing art with these new values in mind means analyzing it in a more “challenging and complex fashion”. One must have to take into account a divergent ideal of beauty, the producer’s intentions and the over all effectiveness of the piece. With these things in mind, an art piece can be taken to a broader audience, one that is not as simplistic as the museum audience, but one that has a possibility of setting an actual public agenda.