Glenn Ligon, Untitled, (I Sell Shadow to Sustain the Substance) 2005, Neon sign and paint, Ed. 3/3, 7 1/2 x 192 1/2 Photo: AFC, Courtesy of the Rubell Collection
Jonathan T.D. Neil asks a question I had considered myself while writing about The Rubell Collection for ArtReview.com in Miami: Can anybody be against the Rubell Collection?
The Rubells state at the outset of the same introductory text that ‘We only show art we own.’ This means that all the art in 30 Americans is theirs. And thus, in a way, to criticize the art is to criticize the Rubells themselves. Of course it could be argued that this would not be against them, the Rubells, so much as against their tastes in art or their intellectual interests or their curatorial sensibility. But one can have such things without the intermediary of private ownership. This is what museums do, lest we forget: show a wide range of work, some which they own (and buy with both private and public funds), some of which they do not. And there is a rich history of people being ‘against’ museums, to which the genre of institutional critique itself attests.
Perhaps the problem arises then when institutional identity — The Rubell Collection — becomes so closely aligned with personal identity — the Rubell family — and the explicit fact of ownership becomes a revolving door between the two. In this sense, criticizing the Rubell’s collection might be as petty as criticizing someone’s choice of home décor; we do it of course, just not necessarily in public, because to criticize someone’s personal choices is tantamount to criticizing them. But to criticize the Rubell Collection as an institution is seen as petty as well, because as a publicly accessible but fundamentally private museum, it stands as a supremely generous gift, and so remains beyond reproach.
To add to this, typically collections donated to museums are fair game for critics, as are those simply exhibited in public institutions. Nobody had any problem pulling apart collector Charles Saatchi’s touring exhibition Sensation (AKA Dung Deal), in part due to the obvious economic gains the collection made after being housed in so many well known museums. The problem of critical engagement comes from the collector’s ownership of the exhibition space itself, which, as Jonathan T.D. Neil notes, takes on all the issues entailed in criticizing someone’s home after they’ve generously invited you to stay.
{ 22 comments }
I’m glad that we’ve decided that hotel magnates who shuffle money through the largest unregulated (legal) market in the world get to be rewarded for their generosity by being above reproach, beyond criticism, immune to inquiry, etc.
I guess the rest of us have our work cut out for us. Coffee break’s over, back on your heads!
I’m glad that we’ve decided that hotel magnates who shuffle money through the largest unregulated (legal) market in the world get to be rewarded for their generosity by being above reproach, beyond criticism, immune to inquiry, etc.
I guess the rest of us have our work cut out for us. Coffee break’s over, back on your heads!
Exhibitionism can always be criticisized, as when seeing some terrible mime perform, or any performance artiste.
Having your own museum and own collection and inviting people invites criticism, stop the PC nonsense. If someone goes public, them public criticisms, good, bad, or in this case complete indifference, is perfectly acceptable.
Public “taste” is terrible these days, a little constructive criticism, as in pointing out why it fails, is not just appropriate, but important and necessary to get our concepts of quality and important back in line, getting our priorities in order, the sense of privileged entitilements that led to our current decadence need to have a light shown on them. PC is a way to cover it up, as is saying anything is art, Which is the height of absurdity, and buffoonery.
art collegia delenda est
Exhibitionism can always be criticisized, as when seeing some terrible mime perform, or any performance artiste.
Having your own museum and own collection and inviting people invites criticism, stop the PC nonsense. If someone goes public, them public criticisms, good, bad, or in this case complete indifference, is perfectly acceptable.
Public “taste” is terrible these days, a little constructive criticism, as in pointing out why it fails, is not just appropriate, but important and necessary to get our concepts of quality and important back in line, getting our priorities in order, the sense of privileged entitilements that led to our current decadence need to have a light shown on them. PC is a way to cover it up, as is saying anything is art, Which is the height of absurdity, and buffoonery.
art collegia delenda est
Exhibitionism can always be criticisized, as when seeing some terrible mime perform, or any performance artiste.
Having your own museum and own collection and inviting people invites criticism, stop the PC nonsense. If someone goes public, them public criticisms, good, bad, or in this case complete indifference, is perfectly acceptable.
Public “taste” is terrible these days, a little constructive criticism, as in pointing out why it fails, is not just appropriate, but important and necessary to get our concepts of quality and important back in line, getting our priorities in order, the sense of privileged entitilements that led to our current decadence need to have a light shown on them. PC is a way to cover it up, as is saying anything is art, Which is the height of absurdity, and buffoonery.
art collegia delenda est
The problem of critical engagement comes from the collector’s ownership of the exhibition space itself, which, as Jonathan T.D. Neil notes, takes on all the issues entailed in criticizing someone’s home after they’ve generously invited you to stay.
Oh, one just needs the right sort of personality for the job.
The problem of critical engagement comes from the collector’s ownership of the exhibition space itself, which, as Jonathan T.D. Neil notes, takes on all the issues entailed in criticizing someone’s home after they’ve generously invited you to stay.
Oh, one just needs the right sort of personality for the job.
The problem of critical engagement comes from the collector’s ownership of the exhibition space itself, which, as Jonathan T.D. Neil notes, takes on all the issues entailed in criticizing someone’s home after they’ve generously invited you to stay.
Oh, one just needs the right sort of personality for the job.
The problem of critical engagement comes from the collector’s ownership of the exhibition space itself, which, as Jonathan T.D. Neil notes, takes on all the issues entailed in criticizing someone’s home after they’ve generously invited you to stay.
Oh, one just needs the right sort of personality for the job.
I really liked the 30 Americans show @ The Rubell Collection.
Not only the art is a reflection and expression of the times we live in but , it is also about time that all the artists featured were all put together in a single show.
I think it was a great statement and one the Museums and galleries need to follow. Anybody going to Miami should see this show and the Margolis Collection!
I really liked the 30 Americans show @ The Rubell Collection.
Not only the art is a reflection and expression of the times we live in but , it is also about time that all the artists featured were all put together in a single show.
I think it was a great statement and one the Museums and galleries need to follow. Anybody going to Miami should see this show and the Margolis Collection!
The reason people care about these collectors is that they influence other collectors and will make certain artists “hot”. Remember the LA red-eye show, lots of artists got great careers after that. They are “hip” collectors others like to imitate, and galleries obviously listen to the money trail. It’s not a coincidence their shows are on during basel. They are putting their money where their mouth is, without the fake do-goodness of museums. We all know collectors, as trustees, for the most part influence A LOT of what is shown in various places.
The reason people care about these collectors is that they influence other collectors and will make certain artists “hot”. Remember the LA red-eye show, lots of artists got great careers after that. They are “hip” collectors others like to imitate, and galleries obviously listen to the money trail. It’s not a coincidence their shows are on during basel. They are putting their money where their mouth is, without the fake do-goodness of museums. We all know collectors, as trustees, for the most part influence A LOT of what is shown in various places.
The reason people care about these collectors is that they influence other collectors and will make certain artists “hot”. Remember the LA red-eye show, lots of artists got great careers after that. They are “hip” collectors others like to imitate, and galleries obviously listen to the money trail. It’s not a coincidence their shows are on during basel. They are putting their money where their mouth is, without the fake do-goodness of museums. We all know collectors, as trustees, for the most part influence A LOT of what is shown in various places.
The reason people care about these collectors is that they influence other collectors and will make certain artists “hot”. Remember the LA red-eye show, lots of artists got great careers after that. They are “hip” collectors others like to imitate, and galleries obviously listen to the money trail. It’s not a coincidence their shows are on during basel. They are putting their money where their mouth is, without the fake do-goodness of museums. We all know collectors, as trustees, for the most part influence A LOT of what is shown in various places.
We can be against the Rubells if they cannot produce the cancelled checks to prove they completed payment for all of their art.
We can be against the Rubells if they cannot produce the cancelled checks to prove they completed payment for all of their art.
We can be against the Rubells if they cannot produce the cancelled checks to prove they completed payment for all of their art.
Yeah, saying they are above criticism is a spurious apology. The Rubells are placing their collection at the center of discourse, and there were plenty of people that had questions with this selection of 30 artists as being representative of so-called ‘Black Art.’ The framing and flow of the work had some problems, e.g. the pairing of Mark Bradford with Basquiat.
One thing to remember also is just because the Rubells are rich and connected they don’t always get the best examples of an artist’s work; whether that’s due to the work’s availability or the collector’s taste is yet another question. There was some really good stuff in this show, and more than a few pieces which were mere boilerplate.
People take the word ‘criticism’ to automatically mean ‘bad’; art criticism can and should be a little more discursive, open-ended…even in a Greatest Hits show like ’30 Americans.’
Yeah, saying they are above criticism is a spurious apology. The Rubells are placing their collection at the center of discourse, and there were plenty of people that had questions with this selection of 30 artists as being representative of so-called ‘Black Art.’ The framing and flow of the work had some problems, e.g. the pairing of Mark Bradford with Basquiat.
One thing to remember also is just because the Rubells are rich and connected they don’t always get the best examples of an artist’s work; whether that’s due to the work’s availability or the collector’s taste is yet another question. There was some really good stuff in this show, and more than a few pieces which were mere boilerplate.
People take the word ‘criticism’ to automatically mean ‘bad’; art criticism can and should be a little more discursive, open-ended…even in a Greatest Hits show like ’30 Americans.’
An apology of my own: by “so-called Black Art” I am referring to this particular selection of Black American artists, alive and working since the 70s and mostly younger, which were assembled in this collection without a visibly coherent curatorial mission.
I defended the show to an artist friend (who was one of many clear choices to be blatantly excluded from this survey, if we are to assume in simplistic terms that this means being an artist of African descent who is creating work that deals with issues of culture, race, class social identity or Blackness in a discursive way). I suggested that the cacophony of the show was in fact the thesis: that the diaspora of voices in black America (and not all these artists were American-born) precluded the notion of a themed identity politics that could provide a stable theme.
But that’s the mission of the curator, to thread the needle; raising the problem of “why pursue such a reductive and unstable criterion to start with?”
An apology of my own: by “so-called Black Art” I am referring to this particular selection of Black American artists, alive and working since the 70s and mostly younger, which were assembled in this collection without a visibly coherent curatorial mission.
I defended the show to an artist friend (who was one of many clear choices to be blatantly excluded from this survey, if we are to assume in simplistic terms that this means being an artist of African descent who is creating work that deals with issues of culture, race, class social identity or Blackness in a discursive way). I suggested that the cacophony of the show was in fact the thesis: that the diaspora of voices in black America (and not all these artists were American-born) precluded the notion of a themed identity politics that could provide a stable theme.
But that’s the mission of the curator, to thread the needle; raising the problem of “why pursue such a reductive and unstable criterion to start with?”
Comments on this entry are closed.