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.