Well, I didn’t expect last week’s newsletter to be plastered all over The Australian, but I understand how Greg Bearup must be looking for a little support by now, as other media outlets continue to ignore his big APY investigation. This is an issue that needs to be sorted out, not swept under the carpet, because the longer it hangs around the more it will undermine the image of the entire industry. The NGA has a huge responsibility to be rigorous in its “independent review” into the charges, as a whitewash will merely keep the story rolling.
Just to turn up the heat a little, in the Weekend Australian my old buddy, Christopher Allen, launched a scathing attack on Australia’s art museums. I might have reservations about his turn of phrase, but I can understand his frustration. The killer line was to say that our art institutions are “largely populated by a sub-intellectual class.” Sub-intellectual! Ouch! Alongside Christopher, I feel like Talleyrand.
I’d be a bit more generous with the museums as there are many curators of proven intellect and ability, even if they do seem to be a dying breed. There is, however, a distinct worry about the next generation, whose knowledge of art history is patchy at best, and who turn up their noses at the very idea of connoisseurship. The void is being filled with a load of narrow-minded beliefs about identity politics, effectively valuing artists by race and gender – which is exactly what they complain about with the regimes of the past. The only difference is that instead of discriminating against women and Indigenous people, now they are discriminating in favour of women and Indigenous people. It’s not a progressive strategy, it’s mere revenge.
What’s more, it’s a recipe for intellectual laziness. Rule out most of art history and a large part of the human race and it makes one’s job a lot easier. One may bask in the glow of saintliness while only reading books that reiterate your firmly held beliefs. This is what Chris means by “sub-intellectual” – it’s the pretence of an intellectual stance with no genuine dialogue or argument. Certain classes of artist are held to be sacred and beyond criticism, others are baddies who will not even be considered for exhibition or acquisition.
It’s profoundly repellent and hypocritical. All the talk is about being “supportive”. To be critical is not an option, as those things one doesn’t like are simply cancelled. Christopher refers derisively to “people like this” (!)
If criticism is banished, doesn’t this mean that our institutions and their leaders are never to be held accountable for anything? Are we to believe they are all loyal, honest, brave and true? We’ll just have to take their word for it, as related by spin doctors and PR departments.
Let’s take Dr. Nick from the NGA. Unlike Christopher, who wrote his PhD on French art commentary of the 18th century – in French – Nick has only recently acquired an honorary gong. As far as I can tell, he is not much of a reader or a writer, or an art historian. He is an entrepreneur. If he is a shrewd, successful entrepreneur there’s nothing wrong with that. Museum directors should be judged by their achievements, not their pretentions.
When one reads of Dr. Nick telling Senate Estimates “there is an extraordinary history both in Australia and overseas of… art critics getting it wrong about museums and galleries.” I could easily reply: “There’s also an extraordinary history of critics getting it right, and museum directors getting it wrong.” Such statements are utterly fatuous. It gets even sillier when he says that running a museum is “a science”, whereas other people only have “opinions”. It seems that his new PhD is in science! I wonder what the CSIRO would say about adding “museum direction” to its roster.
The Doctor continued.. “generally art critics have got it wrong and institutions have got it right, because they continue to flourish” – which seems rather a big call from someone who has just asked the government for a $265 million bail-out. If this is ‘flourishing’ I’d hate to see what he calls a crisis.
When this flourishing institution has just had its winter blockbuster hit for six by Greg Bearup’s APY investigation, it’s even harder to give much credence to Dr. Nick’s brave words. Did the senators take his comments seriously? I haven’t read the transcripts but I’d be surprised if any of them put him on the spot. So long as politicians consider the arts a soft touch they can expect to keep having to find millions in emergency funding. Both museums and their political masters need to get real about the basic cost of keeping institutions afloat. No more exaggerated good news stories, and no more expectations that it can all be done on the cheap – or funded by the private sector.
If this means taking what my intemperate friend Christopher sees as a more rigorous “intellectual” approach, it’s hard to disagree. He denounces gimmickry, populism, “ideological self-fashioning” and creeping corporatisation as the enemies of museum culture. I’m right in line with this, although far more sympathetic about contemporary art and major fashion exhibitions. To deny these things a role in the present-day museum is to proceed with one hand tied behind one’s back. It’s strange, for me at least, that the AGNSW has no time for haute couture while it embraces all forms of fashionable contemporary art. It seems futile to cultivate a strain of aesthetic snobbery when you’ve already allowed the most shallow tendencies to take up residency in the collection.
A museum director today has to get the balance right: one need not be crassly commercial but it’s necessary to maintain a proactive approach to commercial opportunities. Go too far into gimmickry and fund-raising antics and you begin to alienate long-term supporters. At the moment, no gallery gets anywhere near the National Gallery of Victoria in its ability to combine quality exhibitions, innovative displays and popular appeal. The NGV may not be perfect – to give KAWS a show was a step too far for me – but for the most part they are streets ahead of the competition and are reaping the rewards. In terms of resources the only two art museums that can compete at this level are the AGNSW and the NGA, but both institutions have threadbare exhibition programs for 2023.
One of those rare exhibitions – held at the AGNSW, the MCA, Carriageworks and Campbelltown Arts Centre – is the contemporary survey, The National 4: New Australian Art. I wrote a piece for last week’s paper but it was squeezed out by all the John Olsen tributes. As usual, The National is a mixed bag, presented with all the fine sentiments we’ve come to associate with contemporary art exhibitions. There’s much I could say about the thinking behind the show, but it’s difficult to be precise when there are 80 artists and four venues involved. Following an editorial suggestion I’ve focused on ten artists, and kept my reservations to a minimum. As most artists, and all five curators, might be classed as “emerging”, there’s little point in being overly critical. I prefer to keep my powder dry for larger, more challenging targets.
Nothing could be more challenging than this week’s movie. Ari Aster’s Beau is Afraid is three hours of surreal trauma inflicted on the wimpiest character you’ll see in a movie this year. What made it even worse for me was the sense that Aster knew exactly what he was doing. I could handle the trauma but the air of self-conscious cleverness is another matter altogether. I’m afraid that directing a movie is no more of a science than running a museum.