From" Where did all this art come from?" In 5 parts
4. From community to commerce
How the art's are used to make corporations' respectable
Club art CCA (The art gallery)
2002. Some literature, for the new refurbished Center for Contemporary Art, (CCA) in Glasgow, read:
"Five different buildings have been combined to create one complete artistic space with a bang- up- to- date contemporary twist’. ‘The priority was always to create an open space that people would enjoy hanging out in’.’ CCA's commitment to fusing night clubs with other art forms’ ‘an essential destination for Glasgow’s clubbers’ ‘Artists will really be able to play here.’
‘His art transcends definitions of sculpture, architecture and interior design; its an art – instillation bar.’ ‘Tempus (bar and restaurant) will provide the key dancing area as seats, stools and tables are shifted for the event’…’ flexibility is the key word. So is innovation. Why do people come to exhibitions? Why look at an object sitting in an art gallery? Why an exhibition? Not just an empty space waiting to be filled with art works, the CCA aims to inspire artists to create something unique. Expect the unexpected."
Above are comments from a brochure on the CCA's re-launch, produced by the List magazine, (events guide) which is housed within the CCA, among other commercial businesses. The CCA, to accommodate the above, has the ambience of a fashionable shopping arcade, complete with expensive food and drink. Not really the kind of place, the uninitiated public would wander into, but very well suited for dancing, drinking, artists to play in, and corporate functions.
The art school, perspective on the warring corporations
Two worrying examples I experienced recently that illustrates, the increasing singularity of contemporary art. One was in Glasgow School of Art, and the other took place at the above CCA.
After walking around the art school degree shows (1993), I couldn't help being struck by the almost complete absence, in the work on display, any reference of the recent war in Iraq. If there were, it was well hidden from view. I saw one students work in the graphics department which reflected on branding and corporate logos. The product design department, showed a collective of work, dealing in perceptions of ugliness and torture, some important issues of our times. Apart from that, I could see nothing, that reflected on this major infringement of liberty, and the democratic process, namely the invasion of Iraq.
Artistic priorities
OK these were students, submitting their final year show, with jobs and careers to think about. Maybe the four months since the end of the war,(or the real beginning), wasn't enough time to come up with a few ideas on this important issue. (What an historical theme to miss). Maybe you don't get any points in art school, for being a human being.
I am not suggesting here, that every art student should drop everything and concentrate their work on the death and destruction created by their government in an illegal war. (well maybe I am) The thing that is worrying is, none of them did.
Is corporate sponsorship killing the arts?
The second thing that concerned me around the same time. I attended a discussion at the CCA, shortly after my visit to the art school. This further convinced me of, the disconnection of the art scene, from what is happening in the world. The topic of the debate was, ”Is Corporate Sponsorship Killing the Arts” A more fitting title could have been have been, “Stop corporate sponsorship killing the arts” or maybe,“Corporations have nothing to fear from the Arts”.
At this event I felt like someone from another planet, who had a completely different value system, to the assembled panel and, audience. There were about 6 people on the panel, consisting of a cross section of the "art" world, artist, media, lecturer, arts' council.
Here again the War hadn't’ happened. The audience and panel alike, ignored and seemed to be ignorant of two facts, as they discussed the ups and downs of corporate sponsorship. One is, the president of the United States far from being, democratically elected, was put in power by corporations, and the other, the recent slaughter in Iraq, was perpetrated at the behest of corporations.
Is the artist ignorant of how corporations work? If so, he or she should try a search on the internet, just type in “corporations, arts” and in a short time the artist, will have some serious concerns and reservations, (if they are not psychopaths) concerning, the aims of arts sponsorship, by corporations, like the following passage.
...Among Neuron’s woes surrounding its collapse last year was the loss of its ambitious $20 million program for the purchase of contemporary art and... Cultural capital is especially important for companies that make things that can hurt people, such as tobacco and alcohol. It's no accident Philip Morris and Sidearm have two of the most respected corporate art collections...The problem for art in all this corporate activity, however, is that the art usually represents the corporate image and interests rather than the other way around. Art that facilitates a productive work environment or solid investments usually does not include controversial social criticism, nudity or political statements of any kind...Such appropriation of the popular conception of artist as innovator is rarely described as image enhancement by corporate spokespeople. Instead, it is often placed in a philanthropic context. The company has a “deep commitment” to the arts, or it wants to make a “lasting contribution” to its local and national cultures. The fact that such commitments and contributions often require millions of shareholder dollars, shift the focus of culture from public domain to private enterprise and turn tax-supported museums into tax shelters for big business seldom gets mentioned. (See link below)
Who are the real sponsors?
How can artist's teachers, and the discerning art public, discuss different ways to get into bed with corporations (which was what most of the above panel discussion was about) and completely ignore these facts?
Interestingly enough, the show on at the CCA at the time was "New Contemporary" art winners, sponsored by Beck's beer. It turns out, from what the CCA curator had to say, that the gallery receives very little funding from Beck's, to put the show on and basically it relied on the hard work of the staff. (nothing new there) So probably the CCA was sponsoring Beck's not the other way around. And the final irony was: the talk, I attended, was also sponsored by Beck's -That's why it cost £3 to get in.
I mention this to an artist friend who said he was going to go to the event, but "wouldn't give them £3 admission." I didn't notice, though, (unfortunately) any concerned artists outside, demanding to get in for nothing.
_________Links_______________
Everybody profits as corporations spend millions to collect art