"Living With Contradictions"

If it had not been for the events of September 11, 2001 we would have had our affair with Art Basel already. The postponement has made the event of Art Basel one of long anticipation.

Michael Betancourt has recently brought up the topic of South Florida's community in the context of upcoming art events and I would like to continue that dialogue just a bit longer. Betancourt's articles appeared on www.miamiartexchange.com.

It should be clear why Art Basel is in Miami. It is warm, beautiful, fun, and the winter haunt of many of the worlds wealthy. The quantum increase in the scale of the international art market, the unprecedented importance of dealers in creating or managing reputations and manipulating supply and demand, the emergence of art consultants, and large-scale entry of corporations into the contemporary art market, have now brought Miami into focus.

Our megapolis is little more than a microcosm of the larger Euro-American one on which we are modeled. What is important here, not only at Art Basel, but, Art Miami and Art Palm Beach, is the flow of cash, not the flow of art.

This megapolis has been pregnant with potential for a number of years. The emergence of institutions such as MoCA, MAM, revitalized Bass, Lowe, FIU Museum, FAU Schmidt Gallery and others have provided us with all the necessary beginnings of the kind of art community we all hope can come to fruition: a self-supporting, self-loving, self-assured, art community. Right now, we don’t yet have that.

There are various segments and individuals of this extended community that are not participants but, the history of South Florida has not shown its desire to embrace all segments and individuals equally. That’s not an indictment, nor it is a call for an inquiry.

Samuel Keller states: “Miami (Beach) was selected because it is the perfect meeting place to bring together the art scenes of North and Latin America with Europe. We were also impressed with the support of the local art communities, especially the private collectors and museum directors. Miami Beach was chosen as the perfect location to realize our new concept of a contemporary art show with satellite exhibitions and a rich event program.”

* ArtNews: Art Basel is undisputedly the world’s largest and most important annual fair for modern and contemporary art. The reputation of Art Basel is based on the high quality and unique variety of the works exhibited as well as its international visitor spectrum. Art Basel Miami Beach will represent the implementation of an innovative concept centered on a contemporary art fair. 100 to 150 leading galleries, mainly from North America, Latin America and Europe, will be selected as exhibitors. The new art event will collaborate closely with art museums and private art collections in South Florida.

Because we can take this opportunity for self-reflection should be seen as a good thing. However, I’m not convinced that Miami (and the megapolis that extends from it) has moved beyond being the haunt of the rich and famous of the northeast US; into what I call a post-colonial, post-NY/NJ stance. Miami has the lingering ills of its colonial status while it continues to stand in the shadow of NYC.

While it is very true a community does not will itself into existence, South Florida has a long history of balkanization that cannot be willed out of existence, either.

Miami is no art mecca and we all know that. Even though there are wealthy patrons and collectors here, the artists in those collections, if still alive, mostly live elsewhere. That does not mean there is no local support of artists by patrons.

Robert Brustein: “When ruled entirely by profit, the quality of art is bound to the client and so is any openness to risk or to adventure.” [+]

Is it only because of money we are all in frenzy this December 2002? Artists produce commodities. Gallerists sell commodities. Art Basel and the galleries they’ve selected are about one primary thing, money. In the final analysis, the Capitalist as well as Marxist analysis, the market is the ultimate legitimator and leveler. Equality and equity comes with equal amounts of cash. Art is an institution of moneyed culture.

In spite of any previous evidence can this event actually open some critical reception to those the market has overlooked, ignored, or cast aside? Is there critical or financial support for artists that takes an oppositional stance, work that questions this relationship, work that currently finds itself outside the white walls of the gallery? This is a question that begs an answer.

It is doubtful this event will make any difference in the lives of most of the residents of this section of the Atlantic coast. It is not the job of the art fairs to educate the public, that’s the job of the educational system that has shown more than a little reluctance to provide arts education. Politicians and some university administrators would like to downscale art courses so that private schools that specialize in studio art could take it over and they could focus on business courses.

Demographer Kevin F. McCarthy, senior social scientist at RAND, a nonprofit think tank that over the past few years has published a half-dozen major arts-related studies said, “Around the country (US) those who go to the arts still tend to be of higher income and education.” This is because the fine arts attract lower-income, less-educated people in numbers far below their proportion of the population. Even with the lowering of ticket prices, and discounts, some find the arts scene “difficult,” “expensive” and “intimidating.”

Minnesota arts consultant Neill Archer Roan calls where the arts find themselves a “self-reinforcing system” of exclusion. The Miami Dolphins certainly have no trouble selling high priced tickets to low income households but spending $5 to enter a museum would be considered more questionable because of the previously mentioned perceived notions. Granted visual art and sports are not the same but, in the mind of the general public art is elitist.

Arts organizations and institutions have had their financial woes. Contributions are down, available funding has decreased, and the pressure is high for both financial and audience numbers. Corporate donators to the arts aren’t interested unless they are able to find a marketing or political connection. Our entire culture has fallen into the hands of a few multinational corporations, taking with it our right to tell our stories, our right to exchange our information, and our rights to our own selves in some cases (when corporations copyright the DNA from volunteers).

Arts organizations also need to learn to be as clever on the financial side as they do to more familiar artistic side. What could be a possibility is a unified plan that would have arts organizations banding together to provide services such as marketing, fundraising, and other, non-artistic activities that might be duplicated from org. to org.

Individuals seem to be at the mercy of greater forces since they have little clout by themselves.

In the end, our community is a platform for others agendas. We may get a nice ride along the way, however. The in-fighting and petty bickering plays into the wrong hands. At this stage it is unlikely any one individual can change such a system of patronage and support but one must find and follow a line of integrity that one can live with and wrap ones arms around.

Artists cannot force gallerists to do anything. Gallerists will continue to maintain their self-interests and ultimate survival. However, our community goes only as far as it is willing to support itself, no matter what form that support takes.

This article has covered far more ground than it should have but, all of this and more needs to be taken into account with a critical eye.

top of page