YOU CAN’T SEPARATE THE ART FROM THE ARTIST

She’s My Muse | Kathleen Lew

---

In October 2017, #MeToo was filling social media feeds and I suggested the museum as a space for dialogue beyond our screens. Almost a year later, I find myself continuing to grapple with this idea in the context of the current #MeToo & the Arts display at the ROM (if you are unfamiliar, read Amy’s Muse News coverage here).

#MeToo & the Arts at the ROM. Photo courtesy of Kathleen Lew.

After attending Modernism on the Ganges: Raghubir Singh Photographs and its accompanying installation #MeToo & the Arts, I was enthralled in the debate that museums are facing: Can you separate the art from the artist? My short answer is no, but I’ll try to provide greater nuance to this through analyzing the ROM installation and current art world events.

The ROM is the only institution exhibiting Modernism on the Ganges that has addressed Jaishri Abichandani’s rape allegations against Singh. The installation responds broadly, by encouraging conversations about museums, #MeToo, social media, and censorship. This is a valuable example of a museum confronting difficult conversations and not sweeping an artist’s violent past under a rug. However, it is not without its shortcomings, which highlights how much more there is left to do.

Seating for discussion at #MeToo & the Arts. Photo courtesy of Kathleen Lew.

A troubling shortcoming of the display is expressed by Abichandani in an interview for Canadian Art. Abichandani explained that discussions with the ROM were frustrating and made her feel “invisible.” The ROM decided not to incorporate Abichandani’s suggestions to feature images from her protest at the Met Breur (an outpost of the Metropolitan Museum of Art), exhibit her sculptures, or use a portion of the space for art by sexual violence survivors. The ROM also resisted using the word ‘rape’ in their description of Abichandani’s allegations, opting for “sexual harassment” to be used more broadly (source). Abichandani was not invited to speak at any of the #MeToo & the Arts programming.

This was a difficult project for the ROM, with a tight 6-month timeline, a pre-packaged exhibition from the Met, and many stakeholders to consider including Singh’s family. The ROM formed an advisory council to assist with the installation and its programming. The installation was placed just inside the museum entrance, allowing it to be accessible to visitors without admission charges. Meanwhile, Modernism on the Ganges was left untouched on the third floor, with only a small sign featuring #MeToo & the Arts outside its doors.

#MeToo & the Arts sign outside of Modernism on the Ganges. Photo courtesy of Kathleen Lew.

My greatest concern with the physical separation of Modernism on the Ganges and #MeToo & the Arts was that visitors could view the photographs without knowing about the rape allegations against Singh, or how gender-based violence is ever-present among artists. Would adding a sentence to Deepali Dewan’s (ROM curator of South Asian Art & Culture) curatorial statement force a larger number of visitors to confront Singh’s history of violence or misogyny in the arts?

Modernism on the Ganges and Dewan's curatorial statement. Photo courtesy of Kathleen Lew. 

Art can bring difficult conversations to the public, but this is not without hard work, multiple voices, and empathy. Context allows visitors to explore the social structures that create objects, and how that work can be understood in relation to our contemporary experiences.

Art is more than precious objects to be viewed isolated from reality on white walls. Interpretation goes beyond artists’ intentions, especially in a museum. By exhibiting objects, an institution is making a very public decision about its priorities. Photographer Nicholas Nixon pulled his show at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston 10 days early following sexual harassment claims against him. He stated:

“I believe it is impossible for these photographs to be viewed on their own merits any longer.” (source)

I think the fatal flaw in this statement is the belief that his art was ever viewed solely on its merits. Visuals and technique are important, but they will never be the only aspects of art. Visitors were looking at Nixon’s work through the lens of their own experiences and perspectives of contemporary photography long before allegations hit newsstands. Sexual assault allegations are contexts that needs to be added to our interpretations--carefully. Simultaneously, we need to increase equitable representation on gallery walls, in our vaults, and with our staff and collaborators.

I gained clarity after reading Thersea Sotto’s (educator at the Hammer Museum) essay for Walker Art:

“When a work is already available for public viewing, the decision to keep it on view should be weighed based on whether the work and the institution have the capacity to elicit productive discourse.” (source)

View this post on Instagram

New @guerrillagirls poster #metoo #notsurprised at @factionartprojects NY and @subliminalprojects LA. From @theartnewspaper.official: The group exhibition Visual Language at Faction Art Projects (14 September–6 October) presents a series of text-based works by more than 10 contemporary artists and art collectives. Among the highlights is Jenny Holzer’s Inflammatory Wall, a celebrated series of rapturous essays the artist produced from 1979-1982 that critiques power structures. The show also features works by Wayne White, Betty Tompkins, Ramsey Dau, Ed Ruscha and the Guerrilla Girls, including a series of posters by that feminist art collective that deal with sexual harassment in the art world and a lack of diversity in museums. The show is running simultaneously in Los Angeles at Subliminal Projects, where it opened last week.

A post shared by Guerrilla Girls (@guerrillagirls) on Sep 15, 2018 at 12:24pm PDT

Museum professionals can believe in the power of context to inform public interpretations while still acting consciously. For example, museums can have sensitivity with timing for individual cases or wait for due process. This may mean replacing abusers’ art with work that will provide productive dialogue-- but is that censorship? This is where hopefully more nuance (and complexity) enters.

Is your institution capable of productive dialogue? Can the art provide critical understandings of our world? Are the parties involved still alive, what is at stake, and who is benefiting? Are your staff trained to facilitate safe interactions? If an institution does not have the “capacity to elicit productive discourse” then it’s time to ask yourself why.

No, you cannot separate the art from the artist. However, institutions can evaluate their capacity to provide visitors with context, facilitate dialogue, and position themselves as agents of social change.


Please note that Musings allows (and encourages) you to post anonymous comments!