C91 Columns
VISUAL ARTS/NORTH
Same thing, different city
In the last issue of CIRCA I wrote about the furor surrounding the Gilbert and George show at the Ormeau Baths Gallery. Little did I know that I would soon be in New York reading about even more famous names creating media attention over visual art. Sensation had arrived in town and was doing its usual job of upsetting people. This time it was not the Myra Hindly image that upset: Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary, 1996, was getting people all worked up. This is a painting of a black Madonna with elephant dung and some body parts. Do these people ever go to the zoo? As for the black Madonna, one has been in Le Puy, France, since Roman arches were still used in architecture.
Still I imagine the whole exercise was really about grabbing media attention. The director of the Brooklyn Museum of Art, Arnold Lebman, had billed the show "Health Warning: The contents of this exhibition may cause shock, vomiting, confusion, panic, euphoria and anxiety." And get attention he did. New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani threatened to close the show and did manage to temporarily stop the museum's grant--gaining the show instant media attention with everyone and their dog giving an opinion.
Lebman, who had originally exploited the show's sensational aspect, then in time-honoured liberal fashion shouted censorship-First Amendment-lack of freedom of expression. The do-gooders of the art world, with a glimpse of the moral high ground, threw themselves behind him. Some important museums, however, showed some reluctance. It wasn't through their doors the extra visitors would flow and Giuliani does kick butt in his town.
When it got to the lawyers it was not the show's content that was questioned. Money became the focus of attention. The lawyers argued that public funding was being used to increase the value of the Saatchi collection. They went on to say that after the works had increased in value, they would be sold by Christie's, one of the sponsors of the show. Perhaps this should not be too surprising given that many people feel that Saatchi spent his time on the board of the Tate Gallery promoting and increasing the value of artists he had in his private collection.
All this controversy must have delighted Mayor Giuliani of zero-tolerance fame. Right-wing voters were falling in behind him boding well for the future Senate race. Hillary Clinton, who will almost certainly contest the Senate election, had to take up the liberal stance and back the museum--though seeing the dangers she said she did not intend to see the show.
How did the Ofili respond to all this? He sat in London hoping that the controversy would do for his sales what the controversy over Tracey Emin's drunken 'I want to phone my mum' speech at the Turner Prize did for hers.
The idea of promoting the controversy not the show and of promoting the artist not the work is gaining momentum. A recent ArtNews had as its cover story What's so Good about Being Bad? The article was about the promotion of women artists with the Bad Girls shows featured. That titillating little title certainly did great things in promoting the artist and the various shows but what did it do for the art? We also learnt that Cecily Brown has spoken publicly of wearing lipstick whenever she paints, and Emin had noted that she favours plunging necklines because she thinks she has great breasts.
Promotion is important but we are in danger of loosing sight of the art. The Brooklyn affair has shown that the art can be forgotten and the only people to benefit are politicians, collectors and curators. Closer to home, questions are still being asked about the promotion of the Gilbert and George show. I have heard the rumours but have no hard facts, so if any one knows for certain who sent Ian Paisley that now infamous invitation, would they please let me know.
Brian Kennedy
Column reproduced from CIRCA 91, Spring 2000, p. 11
Sensation/New York links: 1, 2, 3
