Art Becomes Propaganda
Using art to erase history
I must confess that I'm not a fan of much abstract art. I love the lush, haunting beauty of the Pre-Raphaelites and the particularly American loneliness of Edward Hopper. I love the dreamlike intensity of Klimt. Abstract does nothing for me. I find it irritating and pretentious. Thankfully, art doesn't have to be beautiful, it only has to be created. Like soulmates, there is an artist out there for everyone, and may you find each other.
Art is subject to fads and trends, not unlike its close relative, fashion. It is fickle and convinced of its own importance, and, like anything else on the periphery of the entertainment-industrial complex, often ridiculous. Funded in part by governments, it still affects the role of the outsider, and attacks the very conventions that actually hold it dear. This is part of the reason that I like my artists like I like my novelists — dead and oftentimes male. But to each his own, right?
To that end, I don't like Warhol — he was the personification of the pretentious celebrity art scene. But I appreciate his understanding of the intersection of consumerism and art, and the coarsening of culture to the point where anything can be sold to the masses, as long as they're told they need it. That it will elevate them. That it will define them.
The idea of selling Warhol’s work to create funds with which to acquire minority artists is not appalling to me. What is disturbing is this statement by the director of the Baltimore Museum of Art:
“The decision to do this rests very strongly on my commitment to rewrite the postwar canon,” Bedford told artnet News. And while institutions sell art to fund new acquisitions every so often, the BMA’s latest deaccession stands out. While museums usually sell work to trade up, angling for major pieces by the hottest artists, the BMA is instead expanding out, redirecting the funds to correct the historical record. “To state it explicitly and act on it with discipline — there is no question that is an unusual and radical act to take,” Bedford says. [emphasis mine]
Down the memory hole
Let's get this out of the way: I absolutely agree that minority artists have been overlooked throughout history. Featuring minority artists alongside their better-known contemporaries would be exceptional. It would help educate the general public, and bring a fullness to the “postwar canon.” It would be as easy as placing the Harlem Renaissance in its rightful historical context. But this is very much not about that.
What we’re witnessing is an attempt to erase parts of history that have been deemed unacceptable by the post-Marxist, activist consensus. Minimizing or editing out Western contributions to culture are necessary to change the narrative from one of exceptionalism and drive to one of oppression and greed. The removal of the Waterhouse painting in Manchester with its problematic nymphs was just a step toward the rejection of mainstream Western culture.
With the right almost completely checked out of art and much of culture, we can’t say that this is surprising. If you don’t fight for a thing, you will lose it, and we lost art decades ago.
History is written by the winners, and we’re not even participating.
