The hype leading up to the 2008 Olympics in China coincided with a number of art events and exhibitions in Beijing, many of which were sponsored by major corporate brands, ranging from Adidas and Nike to Max Mara and Christian Dior. In the midst of a global economic slowdown, conversations about the relationship of corporate sponsorship and the display of art have begun to question the role, mission, and nature of art institutions in Beijing. Below are excerpts from the discussion that occurred among RedBox Review Contributors following the display of Chinese artworks alongside Christian Dior haute couture at the Ullens Center of Contemporary art (Nov 2008 – Jan 2009).
STEPHANIE TUNG: I’d like to know your thoughts on the slate of recent corporate exhibitions – Christian Dior at Ullens, Max Mara at NAMOC, Mercedes-Benz at Today Art Museum. How are these spectacular shows impacting the art scene here?’
HONORA SHEA[Jan 27]
Thinking about the UCCA Dior exhibit reminds me of a review of Chanel’s recent Mobile Pavilion designed by Zaha Hadid, written by the New York Times’ architecture critic Nicolai Oroussoff titled “Art and Commerce Canoodling in Central Park“. He says things that we’d all agree upon regarding exhibits of this nature – that they’re superficial “marketing gimmicks” that are distasteful, “delusional” exercises in such trying economic times (and that they do nothing to further the intellectual progress of art and design).
Oroussoff says: “For strivers aching to separate themselves from the masses, the mix of architecture, art and fashion has had a nearly irresistible pull, promising a veneer of cultural sophistication.” This is undeniably true about many of the art and fashion worlds’ partnerships – they are attempts to appeal to the superficial side of aesthetic appreciation for commercial interests, preying upon glamour hounds who want the thrill or perhaps cachet, of being surrounded by sexy, sleek, expensive things; all while claiming to be art lovers because of it.
This brings us to this ubiquitous idea that art, fashion, design and architecture are seamlessly related disciplines – they’re not (and Oroussoff bemoaned this as well in his piece). Though all three are quite meaningful, art demands a different form of consciousness than fashion, as do both from architecture, not to mention that the three forms have completely different societal functions and significance. The pieces in Dior and Chinese Contemporary Artists are cheeky in their absurdity, and to me are enjoyable and lighthearted stylistic experiments (a giant Dior bag in flashing lights? Fun. An AK-47 portrait of John Galliano? Obnoxious, but funny.) But the show lacks any curatorial unity or engaging intellectual meaning – what do the selected dresses actually have to do with any of the artists’ oeuvres, or really, with the pieces they ended up creating?
My point is that this is not necessarily a bad exhibit, but it’s for stylites and scenesters, not art lovers. That distinction really should be obvious to the public, but the UCCA’s involvement makes that difficult – as Angie alluded to, what is a “non-profit” art organization that claims to be curatorially progressive, doing hosting this? It hinders the positioning of art as a critically important and intellectually distinct discipline within the public realm – something that I think we’re all working to promote. Art is hard enough to grasp already, and this just leads people down the wrong path.
In my opinion, Quentin Shih’s piece, which was the final one in the exhibit, was the most meaningful in an artistic sense. Having gone to Paris to photograph a recent Dior runway show, he shot models in interesting, bold poses backstage, then, encasing them in glass boxes, transplanted them into bleak industrial landscapes, and positioned photographic images of normal Chinese citizens – schoolchildren, soldiers, etc. gazing at the models from outside the boxes. It works as a simple metaphor for how objectified and oddly contrived their high-fashion presence might be (and Dior’s might be in an art exhibition?). It also works because it seemed like the only piece in the show that had an organic narrative – this wasn’t about starting with a Christian Dior dress, or Christian Dior’s face, and making a stylized visual project out of it – it was a photographer traveling, doing his job, and then coming home and telling a story about it.
Where does one draw the line for art exhibitions that have blatant commercial interests? Headlines attaching the art market to the global financial crisis and various market reports that look like stock portfolio readings make it evident to me that we are responding to a change in art’s viewing audience, and more importantly in today’s economy, its patrons. As we are repulsed by the “marketing gimmicks” that spawn exhibitions in fine art venues like the Dior show at UCCA, Adidas Sport in Art exhibition at TAM, and Max Mara coats at NAMOC, we are forced to reconcile with who is paying for these fine displays.
As Honora concludes, such events are not just for art lovers–those genuinely involved patrons and informed enthusiasts– but for a wider range of visitors who may not have the background or yet the time to manifest their interest in the arts. Where traditionalists may argue that a commercial approach dilutes the position of art “as a critically important and intellectually distinct discipline within the public realm”, it begs the question: Is art is for the public after all, or is it for a “smart” public only? How else does one engage a public if not presented in familiar terms or settings? (The dresses were not trying to be artworks, and artworks included Dior references but maintained the integrity of the artist’s characterized style. Under the Dior exhibition umbrella, and as part of the LVMH collection, this was a beautifully installed, brand display that presented art works in a different context for enhanced aesthetic appreciation of both fashion and art.)
The Dior show recognized a number of leading Chinese artists that we admire for the development in their artistic career, does it really “lead people down the wrong path”? Doesn’t it attract more people to the arts by speaking in familiar terms? In reading an ArtTactic market research report, like the “hot or not” list of February 2009, it concludes that painters Zhang Xiaogang, Yue Minjun, Wang Guangyi are OUT and the mixed media artists Zhang Huan, Cai Guoqiang, Ai Weiwei are IN. The latter artists placed in the top five of the confidence ranking, not “because of their record prices, but because of the content and quality of the work.” These days, we are tired of seeing the same pop-revolutionary icons (Wang) and smiling grins (Yue) that mock our understanding Chinese culture, therefore can we agree with the survey in its assessment of appreciating more conceptually engaging art works.
These corporate shows and reports are just repackaging the already curator/critic-approved artists who have established their careers–for those who do not have the broad perspective or vision of those involved in the arts. They are not trying to present fresh, young, emerging talent and brand them as fine art without curatorial approval of the art community. We shouldn’t be afraid or discouraged by commercialism, undoubtedly at some point for all of us we must embrace the inner capitalist and cannot be idealists forever, but should seek comfort that critics, curators and art professionals still hold the upper hand for making the decisions in the arts. (What is frightening is when artists themselves may assume such roles, and then the playing field is monopolized…)
In reference to Holland Cotter’s NYTimes article “The Boom is Over. Long Live the Art!“, while “the boom is over” and such corporate art shows may suffer from budget-cuts, this an opportunity for those dedicated to the field to see if we will sink or swim.
For all that’s been said for the Dior show on the whole I enjoyed it – or the experience of it. I found the installation breathtaking and as someone who designs exhibitions, quite inspiring in being able to see the
possibilities of really thinking out of the box and working with an enormous budget.
If we look at the exhibition from the organizer’s perspective, I’d say it was a success. It seems to me though the real question that we’re facing is whether or not a museum (UCCA) should have organized this show. I agree with both Angie’s and Honora’s criticism that the show lacks curatorial direction and this is disappointing.
Kat’s right, we have to face the facts and acknowledge why UCCA agreed to do this exhibition, a point I think missing from Angie’s review in ArtForum, Money (and publicity)! Even museums, pure as we might like to think of them need hard cash to stay open. Does UCCA propose an alternative viable model for operating a museum?
I agree with Honora that it’s important to position art as a critically important discipline on its own I don’t think that this precludes using other discipline as an entry into it. Sometimes I think that contemporary art falls into this trap thinking that it can be understood on its own, separated from the cultural context but I simply don’t think is realistic. If in thinking critically about art of previous eras we unhesitatingly draw on social history, religious trends, and technological developments why can’t the dialogue around contemporary be as all encompassing? Bauhaus, Minimalism, Pop Art, Neoclassicism are just a few movements/styles that we’d be hard pressed to fully discuss by isolating the visual arts.
I hesitate to embrace the idea that viewing publics are demanding or necessitating exhibitions that cloak fine art within the mantle of a commercial brand. Publicity may drive the partnership between luxury brands
and arts institutions for short-term, blockbuster exhibitions, but that is not equivalent to what viewing publics want. A counterpoint to these shows are two examples from America: the Wang Hui exhibition at the Met and ‘Jasper Johns: Gray’ at the Art Institute of Chicago. In particular, ‘Jasper Johns: Gray,’ which also traveled to the Met, was an aesthetically and conceptually difficult show, consisting of numerous galleries (at least the the AIC) composed entirely of gray paintings, etchings, prints and mixed media works. It chronicled John’s career-long investigation of the color and was visually monotuous and often a show visually difficult to access. I loved it and so did viewing publics (non-specialist and specialist) in Chicago and New York; the show won the AICA 2008 Best Monographic Museum Show. Wang Hui’s show met with a similar response. To assume that definitive and divergent realms of understanding exist between specialist and non-specialist audience is a mistake. A larger mistake is to assume that commercial shows, such as Dior’s at the UCCA, are the Trojan horse through art has to infiltrate a media-saturated public.
professionalization/corporatization of the art world. Rather, the sacrifice of an independent curatorial agenda to the highestI don’t think what is at issue here is the partnership between art and commerce nor the bidder, which is particularly disappointing in light of Angie’s quote from Baron Ullens, *“The goal of the center, [Baron Guy Ullens] said, is to provide an exhibition space for artists from around the world but
particularly for those from China who are less commercially oriented…”
I am sorry to bring up the budget card and the rhetorical question again. On Katie’s issue about art shows being dumbed down for viewing publics and disappointment with exhibitions being compromised to the highest bidder, I think we would all agree that this is not the outcome for the arts that we are passionately
dedicated to. In my limited experience, I constantly feel like I’m playing a tug of war with my ideals for standards–on one side is integrity of academic ideals and on the other is practical business practice. And the more projects that come along, I’m not sure where to draw the line. I’m hopeful that these conversations provide me with clarity and hope for what is going to be the future of our art careers…
Upon returning to New York after her first visit to China, Soraya Broukhim provides a review of Wang Qingsong’s "When World's Collide" exhibition of photographs and videos at ICP. (Read more)
Upon returning to New York after her first visit to China, Soraya Broukhim provides a review of Wang Qingsong’s "When World's Collide" exhibition of photographs and videos at ICP. (Read more)
CONVERSATIONS: Corporate sponsored art in Beijing
The hype leading up to the 2008 Olympics in China coincided with a number of art events and exhibitions in Beijing, many of which were sponsored by major corporate brands, ranging from Adidas and Nike to Max Mara and Christian Dior. In the midst of a global economic slowdown, conversations about the relationship of corporate sponsorship and the display of art have begun to question the role, mission, and nature of art institutions in Beijing. Below are excerpts from the discussion that occurred among RedBox Review Contributors following the display of Chinese artworks alongside Christian Dior haute couture at the Ullens Center of Contemporary art (Nov 2008 – Jan 2009).
STEPHANIE TUNG: I’d like to know your thoughts on the slate of recent corporate exhibitions – Christian Dior at Ullens, Max Mara at NAMOC, Mercedes-Benz at Today Art Museum. How are these spectacular shows impacting the art scene here?’
HONORA SHEA [Jan 27]
Thinking about the UCCA Dior exhibit reminds me of a review of Chanel’s recent Mobile Pavilion designed by Zaha Hadid, written by the New York Times’ architecture critic Nicolai Oroussoff titled “Art and Commerce Canoodling in Central Park“. He says things that we’d all agree upon regarding exhibits of this nature – that they’re superficial “marketing gimmicks” that are distasteful, “delusional” exercises in such trying economic times (and that they do nothing to further the intellectual progress of art and design).
Oroussoff says: “For strivers aching to separate themselves from the masses, the mix of architecture, art and fashion has had a nearly irresistible pull, promising a veneer of cultural sophistication.” This is undeniably true about many of the art and fashion worlds’ partnerships – they are attempts to appeal to the superficial side of aesthetic appreciation for commercial interests, preying upon glamour hounds who want the thrill or perhaps cachet, of being surrounded by sexy, sleek, expensive things; all while claiming to be art lovers because of it.
This brings us to this ubiquitous idea that art, fashion, design and architecture are seamlessly related disciplines – they’re not (and Oroussoff bemoaned this as well in his piece). Though all three are quite meaningful, art demands a different form of consciousness than fashion, as do both from architecture, not to mention that the three forms have completely different societal functions and significance. The pieces in Dior and Chinese Contemporary Artists are cheeky in their absurdity, and to me are enjoyable and lighthearted stylistic experiments (a giant Dior bag in flashing lights? Fun. An AK-47 portrait of John Galliano? Obnoxious, but funny.) But the show lacks any curatorial unity or engaging intellectual meaning – what do the selected dresses actually have to do with any of the artists’ oeuvres, or really, with the pieces they ended up creating?
My point is that this is not necessarily a bad exhibit, but it’s for stylites and scenesters, not art lovers. That distinction really should be obvious to the public, but the UCCA’s involvement makes that difficult – as Angie alluded to, what is a “non-profit” art organization that claims to be curatorially progressive, doing hosting this? It hinders the positioning of art as a critically important and intellectually distinct discipline within the public realm – something that I think we’re all working to promote. Art is hard enough to grasp already, and this just leads people down the wrong path.
In my opinion, Quentin Shih’s piece, which was the final one in the exhibit, was the most meaningful in an artistic sense. Having gone to Paris to photograph a recent Dior runway show, he shot models in interesting, bold poses backstage, then, encasing them in glass boxes, transplanted them into bleak industrial landscapes, and positioned photographic images of normal Chinese citizens – schoolchildren, soldiers, etc. gazing at the models from outside the boxes. It works as a simple metaphor for how objectified and oddly contrived their high-fashion presence might be (and Dior’s might be in an art exhibition?). It also works because it seemed like the only piece in the show that had an organic narrative – this wasn’t about starting with a Christian Dior dress, or Christian Dior’s face, and making a stylized visual project out of it – it was a photographer traveling, doing his job, and then coming home and telling a story about it.
KATHERINE DON [Feb 19]
Where does one draw the line for art exhibitions that have blatant commercial interests? Headlines attaching the art market to the global financial crisis and various market reports that look like stock portfolio readings make it evident to me that we are responding to a change in art’s viewing audience, and more importantly in today’s economy, its patrons. As we are repulsed by the “marketing gimmicks” that spawn exhibitions in fine art venues like the Dior show at UCCA, Adidas Sport in Art exhibition at TAM, and Max Mara coats at NAMOC, we are forced to reconcile with who is paying for these fine displays.
As Honora concludes, such events are not just for art lovers–those genuinely involved patrons and informed enthusiasts– but for a wider range of visitors who may not have the background or yet the time to manifest their interest in the arts. Where traditionalists may argue that a commercial approach dilutes the position of art “as a critically important and intellectually distinct discipline within the public realm”, it begs the question: Is art is for the public after all, or is it for a “smart” public only? How else does one engage a public if not presented in familiar terms or settings? (The dresses were not trying to be artworks, and artworks included Dior references but maintained the integrity of the artist’s characterized style. Under the Dior exhibition umbrella, and as part of the LVMH collection, this was a beautifully installed, brand display that presented art works in a different context for enhanced aesthetic appreciation of both fashion and art.)
The Dior show recognized a number of leading Chinese artists that we admire for the development in their artistic career, does it really “lead people down the wrong path”? Doesn’t it attract more people to the arts by speaking in familiar terms? In reading an ArtTactic market research report, like the “hot or not” list of February 2009, it concludes that painters Zhang Xiaogang, Yue Minjun, Wang Guangyi are OUT and the mixed media artists Zhang Huan, Cai Guoqiang, Ai Weiwei are IN. The latter artists placed in the top five of the confidence ranking, not “because of their record prices, but because of the content and quality of the work.” These days, we are tired of seeing the same pop-revolutionary icons (Wang) and smiling grins (Yue) that mock our understanding Chinese culture, therefore can we agree with the survey in its assessment of appreciating more conceptually engaging art works.
These corporate shows and reports are just repackaging the already curator/critic-approved artists who have established their careers–for those who do not have the broad perspective or vision of those involved in the arts. They are not trying to present fresh, young, emerging talent and brand them as fine art without curatorial approval of the art community. We shouldn’t be afraid or discouraged by commercialism, undoubtedly at some point for all of us we must embrace the inner capitalist and cannot be idealists forever, but should seek comfort that critics, curators and art professionals still hold the upper hand for making the decisions in the arts. (What is frightening is when artists themselves may assume such roles, and then the playing field is monopolized…)
In reference to Holland Cotter’s NYTimes article “The Boom is Over. Long Live the Art!“, while “the boom is over” and such corporate art shows may suffer from budget-cuts, this an opportunity for those dedicated to the field to see if we will sink or swim.
HENRI BENAIM [Mar 21]
For all that’s been said for the Dior show on the whole I enjoyed it – or the experience of it. I found the installation breathtaking and as someone who designs exhibitions, quite inspiring in being able to see the
possibilities of really thinking out of the box and working with an enormous budget.
If we look at the exhibition from the organizer’s perspective, I’d say it was a success. It seems to me though the real question that we’re facing is whether or not a museum (UCCA) should have organized this show. I agree with both Angie’s and Honora’s criticism that the show lacks curatorial direction and this is disappointing.
Kat’s right, we have to face the facts and acknowledge why UCCA agreed to do this exhibition, a point I think missing from Angie’s review in ArtForum, Money (and publicity)! Even museums, pure as we might like to think of them need hard cash to stay open. Does UCCA propose an alternative viable model for operating a museum?
I agree with Honora that it’s important to position art as a critically important discipline on its own I don’t think that this precludes using other discipline as an entry into it. Sometimes I think that contemporary art falls into this trap thinking that it can be understood on its own, separated from the cultural context but I simply don’t think is realistic. If in thinking critically about art of previous eras we unhesitatingly draw on social history, religious trends, and technological developments why can’t the dialogue around contemporary be as all encompassing? Bauhaus, Minimalism, Pop Art, Neoclassicism are just a few movements/styles that we’d be hard pressed to fully discuss by isolating the visual arts.
KATIE GRUBE [mar 24]
I hesitate to embrace the idea that viewing publics are demanding or necessitating exhibitions that cloak fine art within the mantle of a commercial brand. Publicity may drive the partnership between luxury brands
and arts institutions for short-term, blockbuster exhibitions, but that is not equivalent to what viewing publics want. A counterpoint to these shows are two examples from America: the Wang Hui exhibition at the Met and ‘Jasper Johns: Gray’ at the Art Institute of Chicago. In particular, ‘Jasper Johns: Gray,’ which also traveled to the Met, was an aesthetically and conceptually difficult show, consisting of numerous galleries (at least the the AIC) composed entirely of gray paintings, etchings, prints and mixed media works. It chronicled John’s career-long investigation of the color and was visually monotuous and often a show visually difficult to access. I loved it and so did viewing publics (non-specialist and specialist) in Chicago and New York; the show won the AICA 2008 Best Monographic Museum Show. Wang Hui’s show met with a similar response. To assume that definitive and divergent realms of understanding exist between specialist and non-specialist audience is a mistake. A larger mistake is to assume that commercial shows, such as Dior’s at the UCCA, are the Trojan horse through art has to infiltrate a media-saturated public.
professionalization/corporatization of the art world. Rather, the sacrifice of an independent curatorial agenda to the highestI don’t think what is at issue here is the partnership between art and commerce nor the bidder, which is particularly disappointing in light of Angie’s quote from Baron Ullens, *“The goal of the center, [Baron Guy Ullens] said, is to provide an exhibition space for artists from around the world but
particularly for those from China who are less commercially oriented…”
KATHERINE DON [Mar 24]:
I am sorry to bring up the budget card and the rhetorical question again. On Katie’s issue about art shows being dumbed down for viewing publics and disappointment with exhibitions being compromised to the highest bidder, I think we would all agree that this is not the outcome for the arts that we are passionately
dedicated to. In my limited experience, I constantly feel like I’m playing a tug of war with my ideals for standards–on one side is integrity of academic ideals and on the other is practical business practice. And the more projects that come along, I’m not sure where to draw the line. I’m hopeful that these conversations provide me with clarity and hope for what is going to be the future of our art careers…