07 April 2010
Art Power
Been reading Art Power from Groys. His On the New section brings another example of ethics v. morals. The collecting museum needs to protect, present, and keep the object alive for an unnaturally long period of time. From a handbag made of an emu shell to an egg tempera painting, all objects are ethically cared for. This, again, does not mean that the collections manager or the conservation specialist uses holy water or prays for the soul of the object. The conservation of objects, their upkeep has to fit within the objectives and responsibilities of the museum, the conservation staff, and the public. As conservators have worked with contemporary and ancient works longer than the average curator/other art professionals, and should have a deeper understanding into the issues of how an object should be preserved, one should listen to the conservator and trust in their abilities to pursue the correct actions.
As every Pollock is supposedly about to fall off their supports, and keep the conservation staff busy, we can look to them as an example. Each "new" Pollock that enters the world is quickly given a few tests on a physical level. These tests are non-intrusive and are compared to the texts that increase daily. Sometimes it becomes obvious that the former conservation needs to be removed in order for the work to be revealed to the viewer. The earlier conservation is not morally questionable, but rather indicates that the conservators professional ethics and material sciences are growing closer.
This gap is real, and you can see this in most conversations with conservators. They are often using jargon like "pre-established methodology" which means "I like using certain toys in the lab" or asking "Whose responsibility is it to authenticate artwork?" which means "Don't blame the conservator if the curator presents this as a real Pollock, we're pretty sure it's not real". But, again, this is not a question of their moral fortitude. It's a question of their professional methods and goals. Their participation in the museum's ethics is to keep the work on view as much as possible and as close to how the artist intended, however they interpret that goal.
As every Pollock is supposedly about to fall off their supports, and keep the conservation staff busy, we can look to them as an example. Each "new" Pollock that enters the world is quickly given a few tests on a physical level. These tests are non-intrusive and are compared to the texts that increase daily. Sometimes it becomes obvious that the former conservation needs to be removed in order for the work to be revealed to the viewer. The earlier conservation is not morally questionable, but rather indicates that the conservators professional ethics and material sciences are growing closer.
This gap is real, and you can see this in most conversations with conservators. They are often using jargon like "pre-established methodology" which means "I like using certain toys in the lab" or asking "Whose responsibility is it to authenticate artwork?" which means "Don't blame the conservator if the curator presents this as a real Pollock, we're pretty sure it's not real". But, again, this is not a question of their moral fortitude. It's a question of their professional methods and goals. Their participation in the museum's ethics is to keep the work on view as much as possible and as close to how the artist intended, however they interpret that goal.
06 April 2010
Ethics v. Morals
As this is de rigueur to recent posts and I'm trying to put together a writing sample for grad school soon, I figure that I should try to get some basics down on screen so you could laugh at me and tell me that I'm wrong.
I'm going to be focusing mostly on ethics, but let's describe the difference first between ethics and morals. It's unethical to put your self into an exhibit that you curate. It's not immoral though. Morality is a question of right and wrong. A state of being and if it's right or wrong for your soul-- usually tied to a religion or creed. The religious stuff, don't kill, sleep with your neighbor's wife et cetera has nothing to do with the professional ethics of a curator. Usually there is not much of an overlap, so this question doesn't come up often.
For some it's both immoral and unethical to have sex with a museum professional in order to get your show on the schedule. Christianity says you shouldn't do that for moral reasons and the ethic of your profession says your show should be scheduled because it's a good show, not because you are good in bed.
There is nothing immoral to showing a work from a member of your board. It is usually considered outside the norms of museum ethics though to show a collection from a board member though. Even if the show is outside the norms of museum ethics, we can still view and critique the show as a show.
When the MoMA was founded, they expected to deaccession work regularly. Needless to say that they changed that as soon as they had some work worth a significant amount of money. There is no argument to the morality of collecting work but there is one for the ethic. A collecting museum has a different relationship to work than a non-collecting one but no one asks if they are breaking rules that will keep them from heaven.
What would the MoMA be today if they sold off all of their mid-century work and purchased work produced from 1990- 2010? Imagine if they couldn't own anything from before 1960. This is not a question of right/wrong, but rather questions how a professional would and should engage in their job. Is it ethical to show art work from 1945 in 2010 at a museum that wants to define and explore modernism? The founders thought it was unethical and put it into the rules of the MoMA. Should the public complain about the work that they hold from the 40's? No. But should they consider selling some old stuff that may be looking less modern by the day? Sure.
In the coming months I would like to explore some of the details I just glossed over. From the non/collecting issue, the deaccessioning of works, the sourcing of curators and collecting of collectors, to the gray ethical ares for specific museums. There are unending examples to talk about.
I'm going to be focusing mostly on ethics, but let's describe the difference first between ethics and morals. It's unethical to put your self into an exhibit that you curate. It's not immoral though. Morality is a question of right and wrong. A state of being and if it's right or wrong for your soul-- usually tied to a religion or creed. The religious stuff, don't kill, sleep with your neighbor's wife et cetera has nothing to do with the professional ethics of a curator. Usually there is not much of an overlap, so this question doesn't come up often.
For some it's both immoral and unethical to have sex with a museum professional in order to get your show on the schedule. Christianity says you shouldn't do that for moral reasons and the ethic of your profession says your show should be scheduled because it's a good show, not because you are good in bed.
There is nothing immoral to showing a work from a member of your board. It is usually considered outside the norms of museum ethics though to show a collection from a board member though. Even if the show is outside the norms of museum ethics, we can still view and critique the show as a show.
When the MoMA was founded, they expected to deaccession work regularly. Needless to say that they changed that as soon as they had some work worth a significant amount of money. There is no argument to the morality of collecting work but there is one for the ethic. A collecting museum has a different relationship to work than a non-collecting one but no one asks if they are breaking rules that will keep them from heaven.
What would the MoMA be today if they sold off all of their mid-century work and purchased work produced from 1990- 2010? Imagine if they couldn't own anything from before 1960. This is not a question of right/wrong, but rather questions how a professional would and should engage in their job. Is it ethical to show art work from 1945 in 2010 at a museum that wants to define and explore modernism? The founders thought it was unethical and put it into the rules of the MoMA. Should the public complain about the work that they hold from the 40's? No. But should they consider selling some old stuff that may be looking less modern by the day? Sure.
In the coming months I would like to explore some of the details I just glossed over. From the non/collecting issue, the deaccessioning of works, the sourcing of curators and collecting of collectors, to the gray ethical ares for specific museums. There are unending examples to talk about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)