Having read the Philip Kennicott article criticizing the exhibition of works from the collection of Bill and Camille Cosby (on view at the National Museum of African Art until January 2016), describe in your own words your position on museums exhibiting works from collections where the collector has been accused of sexual assault or other crimes. Should museums show works from collectors of questionable ethics, even if the works are of high quality and might not otherwise be seen in a public setting? Do you agree with the museum's statement that the show is "fundamentally about the artworks and the artists who created them, not the owners of the collections?"
There is also in this case the fact that the couple donated $700,000 in support of the show, essentially paying to enhance the value of the collection, which itself has not been promised to the museum. How do these facts shade your position on the museum's decision to exhibit works from the collection? Respond thoughtfully in at least 4 sentences by 5:00 pm, Monday, November 16, and thanks.
I think I should preface what I'm about to say with a simple statement, that I am an avid and occasionally irate feminist. Of all of the issues that face women today, the prevalence of rape culture in our world is something that REALLY eats away at my soul....so I have followed the Cosby situation very closely...Before reading the article, I read the question that was posed by this blog entry and so I tried to approach the article and the concept of Cosby's collection on display with an open mind...."It's about the art" I told myself...
ReplyDeleteHowever, as I read on I became infuriated with the way the Smithsonian....one of my very favorite institutions has handled this situation.
The Smithsonian wants to contend that the exhibition is entirely about the art...and bears no relevance to the Cosby scandal...yet as the author of the piece for the Washington Post points out, the Cosby's name appear AT LEAST forty times...who knows how many more times they appear?
I've actually taken an initiative to reach out to Kennicott to find out if a sign has ever been put in the display space, commenting on the scandal.
The total lack of empathy that the Smithsonian seems to be exuding is overwhelming. If the cards and displays didn't emphasize the role of Cosby so heavily within the collection, I could overlook it...
However it seems to me that the Smithsonian is more concerned with bragging about this man who donated $700,000 to the museum. It's troublesome, because while I agree that money like that is beneficial to museums, I worry that the Smithsonian is more concerned with money than dealing with the emotional and physical damage this man has caused to people.
As of August the director, who happens to be long time friends with the Cosby family was still defending the show was about the art, and not the collector. She commented that she was devastated when she heard about the allegations, but nothing more.
I just can't help the sickening taste of the whole situation. The art needs to be shown, especially if it is of high quality, but there was no reason the Smithsonian could not have handled this situation better.
There's no reason for Cosby's name to appear at least 40 times, and likely more times in the exhibit.
The Smithsonian does a disservice to itself by not removing the Cosby's names from the exhibit, because instead when someone walks into the exhibit, average people are not showing respect to the art that it needs...instead we're all upset and concerned about the recurring presence of this vile man.
The Smithsonian does a disservice to the collection, that they claim to be the focus. They do a disservice to average pedestrians, the 40 women that Cosby assaulted, and to sexual assault victims and survivors throughout the United States.
Kennicott's closing paragraph particularly spoke to me: "If you invest in these images, they will grow in value, especially if you can persuade a respectable museum to display them. And as they grow in value, so, too, your stature will grow. And who would believe a woman’s testimony next to that of a successful art collector?"
In a world where 68% of sexual assaults are not reported, because women are made to believe that NO ONE will believe them, we have to stop belittling their experiences.
This really is an incredibly difficult, complicated, and sad kind of predicament. I most certainly think that the show was a bad idea to begin with (not only for being the Cosbys, but also because it seems honestly like kind of an empty show in terms of concept, etc.), but it was then exacerbated by the awful handling of it by the museum. What might bother me most about what the museum did is just how much they seem to have tried to hush things up, such as the financial situation, or not acknowledging the scandals. If museums want to continue to be places of learning and of high culture I think it is so important that they maintain an air of transparency. They are public and need to act like it.
ReplyDeleteIn general, it does seem like just about everything about this show was misguided. Perhaps in the long run it will prove to be important as part of a conversation about things not to do and the inherent misogyny in the arts, but it definitely was not a good thing to happen. What makes it especially sad to me is that the artists’ works got dragged into this. Kennicott talks about how everything in the show now becomes a window into the rape culture of the arts, when I would imagine that the people who made those works really did not anticipate that. Kennicott says that even the most innocent pieces can be viewed with sinister content purely by association. To put that kind of burden on these works of art, avoidable except by act of the museum, is just unfair to the artists.
Museums should not use exhibits to showcase celebrities or any other people, if those people have been accused of horrible crimes, especially those in such a bright light, like Cosby is. By keeping this show up and running, the Director is making a statement whether or not she wants to admit it. The Director believes her close friend Cosby, and his accounts of the acts- not the victims that have come forward. A museum should not interject their personal beliefs into such a public space. By allowing the show to stay up, this is what has happened.
ReplyDeleteA museum should not keep the works in their museum if they are not promised to them or given to them- because they are at the whim of the collector. Let the collector publicly display the work then – if they really want the public to see their collection. As well, I absolutely do not believe that the show is fundamentally about the artwork and not the collector, because there are quotes on the walls by Cosby. These quotes frame the show. His name is all over the show. This controversy, and attention, have all been displayed all over the show. The show has been stripped of all dignity and there are few links left to the artists. At least take the vinyl stickers off the wall of the collector’s quotes if the show really isn’t about him.
After understanding how much money the Cosbys have given to enhance their collection’s value, I am so disappointed in the museum. They have truly sold out, in my opinion. What matters to them is money- not educating the public and focusing on art. The museum wants to keep the Cosbys happy, and continue to collect their money. This makes my stance even more-so against the National Museum of African Art, and I can truly say that as long as this exhibit is up, remembered highly after it is taken down, and this Director is running the museum – I will not be in attendance
I think the question of whether or not museums should show works from collectors of questionable ethics is a difficult one for most institutions. I believe a smart way to think about it is that, whether they want it to or not, the institution must accept that whether or not they show (or continue to show) an exhibit of this nature does in fact make a public statement. The museum then has to think about what kind of a statement they wish to make to the public. Personally, I know that I would be deterred from visiting an institution that continued to display an exhibit of this nature, which makes a statement that they are tolerant Cosby’s actions- and I absolutely know that I am not alone in this method of thinking. The Smithsonian stated that the show was "fundamentally about the artworks and the artists who created them, not the owners of the collections.” While I believe that this is what the show SHOULD be about, the fact of the matter is, that’s not the case. When people view this exhibit that is so clearly connected to the Cosby name (as it appears dozens of times within the exhibition), they’re not thinking about art anymore. The viewers are clearly associating the exhibit with the museum’s endorsement of Bill Cosby, and in my opinion, that is not okay. Added to the fact that the Cosbys donated $700,000 in support of the show, it seems like the Smithsonian was just doing the show for the monetary gain, ESPECIALLY since they were in fact promised NONE of the collection itself. If they were doing the exhibit because they truly saw value in the art, I feel that they would have gotten a more secure promise of the donation of the WORKS themselves, not just a promise of a check.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to situations like this, I feel like there is a wrong way of doing this, like in the case of the Cosby collection, and there is a right way to go about this touchy subject. The whole problem I have about the idea in general is that museums should not be praising the collector in the first place! The museum is a place for learning about the material itself, regardless of who is keeping it. Along these lines, I agree with the idea that it is not about the owners. HOWEVER, it is difficult to swallow this idea when quotes and pictures praising the collector appear alongside the art, leaving a sour taste for visitors. The donation of large sums of money somewhat change things. A REPUTABLE donor would donate for the reason for promoting the well-being of the establishment, but in the case of the Cosby collection, it seems like the large sum of money was given to cover up the controversy behind the family.
ReplyDeleteThere is no right or wrong answer to a situation like this. No matter how you view it is unfair in some type of way. If you put it up, then the association of the Cosby family is there. And in some ways it is a public statement. Some might see it as if they put their work up then the Smithsonian is accepting, if not agreeing, that it is okay to assault women, even if it isn’t the Smithsonian’s intention. On the other hand if you don’t put the work up then how is that fair to the artist? The point of artwork itself is to be seen by an audience, and to be experienced. It’s wrong to keep a work of art behind closed doors because the collector is not good news. In my opinion, it is the museums job to show works of art. Where I think they went wrong is by putting Cosby’s name left and right on the museums walls. If the collector is truly an advocator of art, then they won’t need their name all over the art. They will strip away “Cosby” from the show and put an emphasis on the art and the artist. If not, the Smithsonian should have a paragraph or something saying that they do not support what the Cosby’s have done, that they wish to present the art because art is meant to be seen and experienced. This is a very difficult situation of ethics versus art. It is the Smithsonian’s decision to which one is closest to their mission.
ReplyDeletePutting up works that have connections to people with questionable ethics depends on the situation in which the museum decides to display the works of art. WIth the Cosby collection the museum put up multiple quotes by Bill Cosby himself, which directly connects the works to the the collector. This does not display a separation between collector and art and is bring in the question of morals of the museum. If a museum were to not explicitly state where the works came from and tried their hardest to not connect the collection to the collector of questionable morals, it would not be as controversial. However with the donation of $700,000 it puts the museum in a very tricky situation. They could reject the donation but with the struggle museums already have with raising funds it is not surprising that they would except it.
ReplyDeleteThere is also the issue of if the controversy comes before or after the donation is given. If the donation is given before, the museum should reject the collection as it will bring along with it a negative connotation. If they museum already has the collection on display they should alter how it is displayed or completely take it down depending on how severe the allegations are. Overall the decision a museum makes on whether to display a certain collection is very situational, as there are many factors, such as the intensity of controversy, the amount of money or art donated, and how this collection with affect the overall mission and reputation of the museum if they do decided to display it.
This is a tough predicament the museum has put themselves into. However, the museum should not show any collections connected to a collector of questionable ethics. It does not matter whether the pieces were of high quality or not, it was still shown with a connection to the owner which overshadows the works presented. The museum began showing the collection and accepted the donation before the controversy had come out. But after it had, the museum still continued to show it, stating the works were fundamentally about the artists and artworks presented. If this is what the museum fully believed, then the all connections made throughout the show linking the collector to the works should have been removed. What is also sad is the artists being presented in the show having their works connected to this situation. It feels like the museum is not thinking about the art, but focusing more on the money. Overall, the situation should have been handled with the collection being taken down.
ReplyDeleteI believe that, in general terms, it is a situational decision to showcase work from a collector that has been charged with a crime. However, I honestly find it idiotic of the Smithsonian to showcase the collection from the Cosby's after his charges of sexual assault. It would have been one thing for the Smithsonian to showcase the artwork without pulling so much attention to the Cosby name, but the fact that the name was show cased (I'm sure at the request of the Cosby's themselves..) more than 40 times is insane. Not to mention that the artist work that was showcased is now indirectly in connection with the Cosby sexual assault charges. Sure, $700,000 is an impactful donation, but it is money gained under an extremely offensive and sensitive situation. It's not like Bill Cosby stole a pack of gum from a convenient store... He sexually assaulted and multiple women, which is an extremely severe and traumatic crime.
ReplyDeletePersonally I don't think the National Museum of African Art handled the Cosby exhibit at all. When ethics are in question and the collector has donated a large amount of money to have a show, you try to direct attention from the situation at all costs. In a perfect world the Cosby show should have been removed in my eyes but with the money situation/time it couldn't be done. I sympathize the most with the artists though because unfortunately they have to be associated with the situation and I feel as if the museum could have done a better job handling the situation by not focusing on the "celebrity" aspect of it all. It is definitely a tough situation for the curator because they have been getting to know collectors for a long time and trying to made exhibition happen. They are close and they have been working to get the money for the museum so that can definitely cloud their decision to pull a show as well.
ReplyDeleteI have come back to writing this bog post a number of times since it was first assigned, and now with only a few moments left to spare, I cannot say that I have a definite opinion on this situation. The accusations made against Bill Cosby are too serious to be overlooked in this case. With that being said, I am ashamed of the Smithsonian for lacking to address Cosby's actions in a public statement and refusing to take his name off of the walls in the exhibit. But when I take a step back and look at the entire picture, I can see why the Smithsonian did not choose to take the entire exhibition down before it's end date. My first reason is that the Cosby's, but Bill AND Camille, were generous enough to donate an absurd amount of money, and agreed to loan their collection to the museum BEFORE all of these accusations were made. The Smithsonian had no way of seeing the future and could not stop their process in any way before the accusations against Bill were made. I do agree with those who say, "It's about the art," this late in the game. Had the accusations been made during the first month of the show being up, then I think the Smithsonian absolutely should've considered canceling the show more strongly than they did with only a few months of the show left to run. Also, in the end, half of the collection belongs to Camille, and if she still stands behind the running of the show until the end date, then I don't have a strong problem with it either.
ReplyDeleteHey I bel, thanks for the post, and could you let me know which student you are for the Intro to Museum Work class? Thanks! Prof. Stoddard
DeleteWhile I agree that the show should be "fundamentally about the artworks," it is difficult to overlook Cosby's name in a show like this. The museum can talk all they want about the artists and their personal works, but as long as the exhibit keeps the Cosby name and mentions him throughout, it will always be associated with him. It is also extremely generous that he donated $700,000 but I think the Smithsonian should look at more than just they money when thinking about the exhibit. There are artists in the show who probably won't get their works seen simply because someone doesn't want to go to a show with Cosby's name on it. If they claim to be so concerned about artists and their artwork then you think they would've seen how this could be hurtful for the artists too. I think it may be difficult to just cancel the show all together in such a short time, but perhaps there should be some reworking of the exhibit to limit the Cosby name throughout and actually make it about the art.
ReplyDelete