Page 47 - Studio International - July August 1971

Guggenheim has presented recently as art ? curators' intentions, as it was installed and should be furthered by indirect and generalized
TMM: Well, I think the public would quite presented itself in this museum, there was very exemplary force rather than political means to
naturally go to a museum and expect to find that little doubt in my mind that this is legit as of achieve political ends ...
kind of art that in their own experience, now. TMM: Well that's exactly what I do mean. Art
traditionally, was so named. If they go to a BR: Is it true that people asked for their money has in the past, and I am not sure that it will not
museum and suddenly find that objects or back ? continue to do so, had the capacity to summarize
non-objects are presented no longer in their TMM: Yes, this is true. and to sharpen reality through metaphoric
traditional posture and appearance, they have BR: Did you give it to them ? means, through a symbolic language which was
two possible reactions : one is to accept the TMM: No, we told them that this would set the larger than particular issues.
museum's argument that this is art and enlarge most undesirable precedent by which anybody BR: Can you give some examples ?
it with respect to their own understanding, or would pay only if they agree with us, that we TMM: I think that the examples that I always
else to reject it and accuse the museum of had done this in good faith and with conviction, quoted, famous war paintings by Goya, even
presenting non-art. and felt no reason to renounce our posture. Picasso's Guernica—which of course did have a
BR: It seems to me much of the public's BR: And after all they had received an experience very special application if only through the
understanding of what a museum presents as which they paid for, the International ... title— dealt with the question of violence and
art is really based on an assumption that it's TMM: Yes, they claimed that the experience human misery and aggression, on the level of
going to present paintings and sculpture or was insufficient... symbols. The Guernica was not in itself a bull,
something that can be associated with things BR :.... but they did get it. it was a work of art bespeaking the condition of
that museums have conserved from the past. TMM: They did get it and we feel also that hatred, humiliation, war and devastation.
Do you think that this is an assumption which 5o cents is a rather small amount. BR: Would you exclude an unloaded gun that
it is now possible for a museum founded and BR: How far do you feel that the artist can go was un-loadable as part of a materialization of a
concerned with contemporary art and with within the definition of art as provided by concept or as a potential art work ?
educating the public to maintain ? exhibition in an art museum ? TMM: No, if an unloaded gun found itself in a
TMM : No, I don't think it is possible. I think TMM: I don't know how far he can go but construction as a symbol of violence it certainly
that a museum concerned with current art obviously there are limits. If you accept the would belong. The insistence that it be unloaded,
must exercise its inherent responsibility to thesis that anything an artist does in a museum incidentally, is not beside the point, it's very
commit itself according to its best judgement is therefore art, you could, by carrying this to its important. I would exclude a loaded gun.
and then present its convictions to a public. absurd conclusion, arrive at the point where a BR: Yes. I think that's relevant to the direction
I'm not trying to say that this is necessarily murder committed by an artist in a museum taken in the art forms of the Guggenheim
easy or simple because what is or what may be would become a work of art. Whether it is or International—of numbers and words as being
art tomorrow may in fact not yet be art today. isn't at that point is not the question; at that more direct than a painted metaphorical
Art is a changing concept, and the whole point, the question is the consequence. composition—as in the Guernica, say. Now
history of art proves that its boundaries have BR: And the consequence to the museum through would you exclude from 'metaphor' a
been expanded from decade to decade, from its ratification as well as to the artist for doing it ? photograph ?
century to century. At what time something is TMM: As well, yes. Because obviously if TMM: No, I would not. I'm not talking about
comprehensible to ourselves, in the first place, somebody commits murder in the museum, the differences of medium; I think that obviously
as art—which thereby gives us the moral right museum would not be liable for this; but if the any medium is permissable, if it is used as a
to present it to others as such —is of the very museum is party in planning a development that work of art such as works of art are understood
greatest importance. You can miss both ways. will eventually result in murder, it becomes an at a particular moment.
BR: You have presented things which have been accomplice. BR: Now the Haacke 'social system' constituting
criticized as being non-art. In the recent BR: This obviously raises questions about the photographs and verbal descriptions of alleged
Guggenheim International you presented such art museum's relation to the culture-at-large in ownership of what the photographs represented —
things as numbers and numerical systems and areas that are controversial in or legislated by the this manifestation of two systems or inter-
linguistics and clocks and pencil lines on wall culture-at-large. And I think it relates directly connections of socio-political situations such as
and photographs and slide sequences. Why ? to the problem of working with judgements of property ownership—would you consider this an
TMM: The intellectual argument, which you social or political issues, which is obviously unloaded gun ?
know well, is that a work of art is essentially a something operating in your decision to cancel TMM: No, I would consider it a loaded gun.
materialization of ideas which does not have to the Hans Haacke exhibition. Could you Simply because the simultaneous presence of
be limited to the painting or sculpture in its elaborate on your statements made in letters to recognizable photographs and recognizable
traditional guise, but may assume different him and to the trustees about the character of identities is aimed at a particular individual or
materials, appearances, and objective forms. political commentary in relation to artistic group of people and by implication accuses
All the work in the International was objective work ? them of undesirable acts.
even though it did not have the appearance of TMM: These things did figure in the decision and BR: Do you think that ownership of property is
the traditional object. This is an argument it would take the following form. I don't want to an undesirable act in and of itself ?
which you may accept or not. Beyond this of argue that social or political circumstances are TMM: The misuse of property is.
course is an emotional and individual decision unrelatable to a museum. Obviously art, and BR: Do you think that the photographs
for those who take the responsibility for the therefore an art institution, reflects a reality demonstrated misuse of property ?
work within the museum—the curatorial staff, level, and if the socio-political scene is TMM: Yes, I think so; I think it was intended to
the director, and by implication the trustees. providing this element of reality it would be be and was effectively a slum-lord exposé; and
Eventually somebody in a position to make such impossible and undesirable to try to remove the if it was not this, then I don't know what Haacke
a decision has to be convinced that what he sees museum to some aesthetic never-never land and wished to achieve. Obviously this is what he was
is, as far as he is concerned, relatable to his thereby thin its vitality. So this was not the aiming at, and I think effectively.
comprehension of art. And in the case of the point. The accusation that we have excluded BR: If it was effective in doing that, do you think
Guggenheim International I will not say that I social or political reference in that sense is unjust. that it was therefore an art-work, achieving its
never had any qualms about this decision; but BR: In your letter to Hans Haacke you stated aims ?
as I became acquainted with the material, as I that 'it is well understood ...that art may have TMM: I understand your question. You're asking
saw it come together, as I understood the social and political consequences' but that these me whether if it dealt no longer with a symbolic
35