Memo from the World: Sensationalism

by Anna Roxas

The panel discussion, The Politics of Sensation: Censorship and the Arts, organized by The New School's Vera List Center for Arts and Politics in New York City, began with a moment of silence, in the dark. It was 1 December, commemorated as A Day without Art in honor of World AIDS Day.

Judith Mara Gutman, a writer and critic, introduced the evening's discussion, pointing out that, while the audience for art has become more diverse, the art museum has moved closer to the mainstream, no longer the "holier-than-thou" place apart. She mentioned "Monet scarves," emblematic of the flood of money, merchandise, and advertising that transformed the museum world over the past fifteen years.

Ms. Gutman noted that when the Brooklyn Museum had just begun to promote its forthcoming Sensation exhibition, the Mayor of New York immediately attacked the Board of Trustees at the Museum. Since it was a publicly funded institution, the City argued, by agreeing to host Sensation the Museum had broken the rules of the game. The involvement of the advertising executive and collector Charles Saatchi, and the financial support of Christie's, had further blurred the line between commercial and non-commercial institutions exhibiting art. Ms. Gutman asked the panel: How would they react to Sensation as a charicature of freedom of expression?

Floyd Abrams, the attorney representing the Brooklyn Museum, noted that even if the Museum prevails in court (the City is appealing its initial loss), this controversy could be a deterrent to other museums around the world. Of all the players, Mr Abrams said, the one benefiting most is the Mayor - politicians usually don't suffer when they oppose the First Amendment.

Roger Bowen, President of the State University of New York at New Paltz, viewed the whole controversy as political: the Mayor's public responsibility was displaced by his public morality. To Mr. Bowen, the question distills to this: Who decides what has merit? The academic, the curator, or the policitian? He believes the loss of power to politicians is a moral outrage.

Archibald Gillies, Director of the Andy Warhol Foundation, related the Sensation debate to the "NEA wars" over US Government funding of controversial art. The result of the NEA's trying not to make mistakes, Mr. Gillies argued, has been that an inappropriate kind of self-censorship has developed.

Lee Siegel, a critic for The New Republic, began his remarks saying, "I personally think that nothing is at stake here. Who is suffering? what's the big deal?" He declared that the "rambunctious democratic society" in which we live has produced the drama that is the Sensation controversy. Disagreeing with the previous speakers, he declared that no one was in trouble, that the artists in Sensation hide behind Faustian notions, coming up with notions that are not shocking, but in various ways dehumanizing. Mr. Siegel went on to say that when Jackson Pollack's drip paintings were attacked, the powerful critic, Clement Greenberg came to the artist's defense. He asked "What about the Sensation artists - no one came to their defense."

Willie Williams, Chair of Photography Department at Haverford College, focused on the public funding questions. The moment a museum receives public funding for a show, he said, it automatically sets up a new dynamic, leaving its Board open to attack. When an institution's funding is at stake, the Board of Directors, not the curators, are scrutinized the most. As a consequence, the authority of the curator has been stripped by policies coming from above. Mr. Williams questioned all the fuss over the exhibition, concluding, "It's just art."

The auditorium was filled mostly with people from the art community, who actively participated in the discussion. The general mood in the room was support for Mr. Abrams, still fighting for his client's rights under the First Amendment. Mr. Siegel certainly added some spice to the panel of speakers. Other than that, it was listening to people from various institutions venting their frustration with restrictive government funding policies. Mr. Siegel caused a bit of a stir when he voiced his opinion that the whole idea of sensationalizing the Sensation show was not worth his time. His candid remarks made him look more of a charicature - quite the sensation of the whole evening.

About our Correspondent:

Anna Roxas is completing her Masters Degree in Gallery and Art Administration at Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City.