A Brief History of Exhibition Controversy
Planning an exhibition is no easy task. There are many factors to take into consideration during the development and organization of an exhibition, so as to avoid any ethical dilemmas that might occur during this process. This could be anything from presenting a bias on a particular issue to accidentally sending the wrong message to visitors.
The American Alliance of Museums (AAM) Code of Ethics for Museums outlines a museum’s legal responsibility to the public, stating, “Museums in the United States are grounded in the tradition of public service. They are organized as public trusts, holding their collections and information as a benefit for those they were established to serve. Members of their governing authority, employees and volunteers are committed to the interests of these beneficiaries.” This is the most important area of the AAM Code of Ethics in regards to maintaining a positive relationship with the public. The public audience should be one of most important concerns for any museum or institution, as the audience not only is a major contributor to a museum’s revenue, but also can make or break a museum’s public reputation. A good museum director should enforce this idea when planning their programs, and ensure that the rest of the board and faculty, including volunteers, are on the same page. For a successful exhibition, it is extremely important that museums know and understand their audience when planning and designing the show, so that the audience can take away a positive message.
Controversy never played an extreme role in the museum world until the last half century. Up until then, the major criticisms on museums came from artists and art critics, rather than the general public as we often see today. When controversy did arise, it was generally rooted in the quality of art objects, and not in exhibition subjects. It was common for an exhibition to receive complaints about the radical contemporary work for not complying with traditional artistic canon.
The 1913 International Exhibition of Modern art, better known as The Armory Show was an example of this type of controversy. Taking place at the Art Institute of Chicago, The Armory Show showcased 634 works from the most radical and progressive artists of the time, including Henri Matisse, Pablo Picasso, and Marcel Duchamp. As a result of the New Deal, the government became involved in the arts. After the opening of the Armory Show, politicians and the public alike were critiquing the exhibition, questioning its decency, authenticity, comprehensibility, and patriotism. On the final day of the exhibition, a large group gathered to protest the show and the radical content it promoted.
The 1960’s were a period of radical global change; so it’s no surprise this progressive era is when we began seeing real change in the way that museums act and how that behavior can affect their relationship with the public. In 1965, the National Endowment of the Arts was established to provide support and funding for arts programs nation-wide. Museums were entering the market force for the very fist time, and were provided with the resources to develop new programs, and expand their collections, gallery and storage space. During this time, museums were redefining themselves, affecting both their internal structure and public image.
One of most controversial exhibitions in U.S. history was Harlem on My Mind: Cultural Capital of Black America, 1900–1968, which took place in 1969 at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Organized right at the end of the Civil Rights movement, Harlem on My Mind sought to explore the history and value of the predominantly black community of Harlem, New York. The controversy arose when the Metropolitan Museum made the choice to exclude all Harlem residents from participating in the exhibition, and refused to show any artwork from Harlem artists.
The public, particularly the community of Harlem, was outraged at the Met for choosing to represent Harlem without incorporating the actual community. Boycotts took place before the opening of the exhibition. Choosing to outline black culture for ethnographic study rather than for creative purposes, the Met defended their exhibition, arguing that Harlem itself was a work of art, and that by including actual art pieces, the focus would be taken away from the main focus of the exhibition. Although the Harlem on My Mind exhibition was intended to increase interracial communication, it was the public response that did this rather the exhibition itself. Regardless, Harlem on My Mind spurred black activism in the New York community as well as the art world, influencing mainstream art institutions to feature black art exhibitions and increase their overall representation of black artists.
In the 1980’s we also see museums pushing boundaries for art’s sake. Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment was a traveling exhibition planned for a total of six different museums across the U.S. Organized by the Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) in Philadelphia during 1988, The Perfect Moment was a retrospective exhibition designed to cover all phases of photographer Robert Mapplethorpe’s career. Because of sexually explicit content of his work, ICA took precautions by ensuring that a warning sign would be posted at gallery entrance, reading, “The Robert Mapplethorpe exhibition includes material that may be inappropriate for children.”
The exhibition was off to a good start with the success of both the Philadelphia and Chicago shows. It was not until June of 1989 that the exhibition encountered controversy. Upon viewing the exhibition material, the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. cancelled their showing, critiquing The Perfect Moment for being openly explicit, and overall too inappropriate for the general public. Subsequently the Corcoran cancelled their contract with ICA, and ICA was nationally critiqued for their involvement with the exhibition. The National Endowment for the Arts had previously given ICA a grant of $30,000 to support the Mapplethorpe retrospective. Acting chairman of the arts endowment, Hugh Southern commented, “this is a legitimate area of public concern — the matter of free expression is complex and with Government funding it becomes even more complex.”
The cancellation of the Corcoran show raised questions about censorship and artistic freedom, in addition to the question of appropriateness and what taxpaying dollars should or should not be spent on. From ICA’s point of view, it was their duty as an art institution to represent Mapplethorpe’s work in its entirety, and felt that it was their responsibility to be true to the artist. Jock Reynolds, director of the artist’s organization The Washington Project for the Arts, supports ICA’s honesty to Mapplethorpe’s work, stating, “It is an outright cave-in to conservative political forces who are once again trying to muzzle freedom of expression in the arts. The Corcoran should look to the inscription that is carved over its entrance: ‘Dedicated to Art.’ They should stand by their motto and let Mapplethorpe’s work speak for itself.”
The ICA ultimately lost a large sum of their funding after the incident, but The Perfect Moment controversy was important for the art world because it brought to attention the question of how a museum defines its audience, and what the museum and curator’s responsibilities are to their audience.
We are seeing more and more ethical dilemmas in art exhibitions today, as many contemporary artists push boundaries by basing their work around controversial issues such as politics, gender, or race. Exhibit B, created by white South African artist Brett Bailey, is an example of an exhibition controversy that went so far that the show was actually cancelled before the exhibition was even able to open. Traveling exhibition Exhibit B had been shown in 12 other cities, and was to take place at the Barbican Centre in London during September of 2014. The idea behind Baily’s exhibition was to create an installation performance piece using black actors as live models to recreate the “human zoos” of 19th and 20th century Europe, which put enslaved Africans on display for public spectacle. Bailey’s intent with Exhibit B was to put viewers into the context of the terrible incidents that have actually occurred in history as a comment on society and race equality.
The artist’s exhibition backfired once its publicity spread to London, announcing the upcoming show at the Barbican Centre. Before Exhibit B had even opened in London, massive protests ensued and petition letter signed by 23,000 people was written to the Barbican Centre to cancel the show. As a result, the Exhibit B exhibition was canceled the day before it was scheduled to open due to the Barbican’s concern for the safety of their performers, audience and staff members, as the protesters were extremely aggressive in nature. Additionally, the decision was made to cancel all future performances of Exhibit B due to pre-scheduled future protests.
The cancelling of Exhibit B has generated major debates revolving around racism and artistic censorship. The protesters of the exhibition were upset about extreme realism and misrepresentation of race in the exhibition, arguing that Exhibition B is just another example of a white man trying to send a message about race, in a space dominated by white men. In the petition letter, Sara Myers, who identifies herself as a black African mother, writes “We wish to register our utmost disgust at what we consider to be an outrageous act of complicit racism with the Barbican agreeing to the housing and display of this production. White South African Brett Bailey claims his human zoo vanity project is “art”; just how are we as Black African’s supposed to respond to this? We think the response of several of the participants in his project is telling. This is simply an exercise in white racial privilege — if it isn’t, then perhaps Bailey can explain why he didn’t use white people in his zoo. After all, wouldn’t him doing so be both more striking and send a clearer message?”
Barbican director Nadia Latif defends the artist via twitter post. She asks the public: “Are we saying that only certain people have the right to tell certain stories? Are we only allowed to tell stories that lie directly within our own experience? …Are the protesters punishing Brett Bailey for telling the story because he is a white man?” Head of theatre at the Barbican, Toni Racklin assures the signers of the petition that “the piece aims to empower and educate rather than exploit” He explains that “the Barbican made the decision to program the work based on its artistic merit and we appreciate that the work tackles controversial and sensitive issues.”
Although Brett Bailey denies the use of the term “human zoo” to describe his art piece, the realistic representation of these zoos is enough to cause public discomfort, and the term has been tossed around many times in regards to the exhibition. In defense of his work, the artist addresses the term and the notion of white privilege, stating, “Nowhere do I term Exhibit B as a ‘human zoo’. Exhibit B is not a piece about black histories made for white audiences. It is a piece about humanity; about a system of dehumanization that affects everybody within society, regardless of skin color, ethnic or cultural background, that scours the humanity from the ‘looker’ and the ‘looked at’.” Exhibit B performer Stella Odunlami also stands up for the show, defending her role as a voluntary participant in the exhibition, arguing, “This show is not a human zoo. I am not an animal. I am a young, educated black female, I wouldn’t choose to put myself in a human zoo.” Odunlami was to play the role of Found Object #2, a present day Gambian asylum seeker.
Paul Richards from UpRise, an anti-racism campaign argues that Exhibit B is “very one-dimensional.” He explains how “the observer is left with the imagery of the African subjects, or objects — and the perpetrators of the crimes are written on a small piece of paper.” Richards critiques the Barbican for their lack of communication with the black British or African communities prior to the organization of Exhibit B, claiming that “there was no cognitive or cultural diversity in the conversation,” and that “something like this has to be in consultation, or have informed decisions, with the community.” In an official press release statement, the Barbican claims “Exhibit B raises, in a serious and responsible manner, issues about racism; it has previously been shown in 12 cities, involved 150 performers and been seen by around 25,000 people with the responses from participants, audiences and critics alike being overwhelmingly positive.” Although Richards’ point is valid, because of the exhibition’s prior success, one cannot really blame the Barbican for not going the extra lengths to consult the public before deciding to host Exhibit B. The Barbican states, “We believe this piece should be shown in London and are disturbed at the potential implications this silencing of artists and performers has for freedom of expression.”
In hindsight, Exhibit B could have been better addressed by going through with the exhibition, rather than cancelling the show before anyone from the London community actually saw it and was able to form their own opinions on the show. There is a major difference in reading or hearing about an event and actually experiencing it first hand, as second hand information tends to be biased. On the occasion that the protests did continue at such an extreme scale, then it would be an appropriate decision to cancel the show. By cancelling Exhibit B before the opening, the Barbican Centre was simply trying to avoid the issue at, rather than addressing it. Going back to the AAM Ethics Code, “Museums and those responsible for them must do more than avoid legal liability, they must take affirmative steps to maintain their integrity so as to warrant public confidence.” ▲
Bibliography
“Artform Press Release.” Barbican Centre. Accessed March 18, 2015. http://www.barbican.org.uk/news/artformnews/theatredance/barbican-statement-cancellation-
“The Armory Show at the Art Institute of Chicago.” Art Institute of Chicago. January 1, 2013. Accessed March 7, 2015. http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/exhibitions/modernwing/resource/3019.
“Code of Ethics for Museums.” American Alliance of Museums. January 1, 2000. Accessed March 17, 2015. http://www.aam-us.org/resources/ethics-standards-and-best-practices/code-of-ethics.
Cooks, Bridget R. “Black Artists and Activism: Harlem on My Mind, 1969.” American Studies 48, no. 1 (2007): 1–40. https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/article/view/3141.
Gamarekian, Barbara. “Corcoran, to Foil Dispute, Drops Mapplethorpe Show.” New York Times. June 14, 1989. Accessed March 15, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/14/arts/corcoran-to-foil-dispute-drops-mapplethorpe-show.html.
Harris, Neil. “Exhibiting Controversial Subjects.” In Presenting History: Museums in a Democratic Society, 4–10. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1995.
McDonald, Nadia. “London’s Barbican Gallery Shuts down Exhibit B Installation after Protests, Accusations of Racism.” London’s Barbican Gallery Shuts down Exhibit B Installation after Protests, Accusations of Racism. October 1, 2014. Accessed March 19, 2015. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/01/londons-barbican-gallery-shuts-down-exhibit-b-installation-after-protests-accusations-of-racism.
Molloy, Antonia. “Exhibit B: ‘Racist’ Human Zoo Installation Criticised by Protesters outside the Barbican.” The Independent. September 15, 2015. Accessed March 16, 2015. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/exhibit-b-racist-human-zoo-installation-criticised-by-protesters-outside-the-barbican-9732793.html.
Tannenbaum, Judith. “Robert Mapplethorpe: The Philadelphia Story.” Art Journal 50, no. 4 (1991): 71–76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/777326.
Youngs, Ian, and David Sillito. “Exhibit B: Is Controversial Art Show Racist?” BBC News. September 24, 2014. Accessed March 15, 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-29344483.
