Page 23 - Studio International - June 1971

the trustees have established policies that the public records of the County Clerk's It was only during this past January that I
exclude active engagement toward social and office). The works contain no evaluative learned, for the first time and after working
political ends. It is well understood, in this comment and are legally unassailable. on the show for more than 6 months, that Mr
connection, that art may have social and Political assertions made by an artist in a Messer had any qualms about my work with
political consequences but these, we believe, are museum may not commit the museum to identical social systems, and it was not until mid-March
furthered by indirection and by the generalized, views but make it a place for political that he told me specifically that the
exemplary force that works of art may exert controversy. The Trustees of The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum had a strict policy of
upon the environment, not, as you propose, by Guggenheim Foundation have clearly refused such barring work that referred to the social
using political means to achieve political ends, a role for this museum. —I have not maintained environment in other than symbolic, indirect or
no matter how desirable these may appear to be anywhere that Mr Haacke's pieces advocate a generalized ways.
in themselves. We maintain, in other words, political cause. I have maintained that they There was no question of 'reference to the
that while art cannot be arbitrarily confined, our pointed to alleged social malpractices and that social and political environment.' I did explain
institutional role is limited. Consequently, we they attempted public exposure of individuals the that by trustee directive this museum was not to
function within such limits, leaving to others, artist believed to be at fault. engage in extra-artistic activities or sponsor
areas which we consider outside of our The objection to possible libel was not removed social or political causes but was to accept the
professional competence. by thinly disguising particular identities. While limitations inherent in the nature of an art
From earlier conversations we had on this the principal's family names were changed in museum. The Hans Haacke exhibition was
subject, it was my understanding that our Mr Haacke's 'modified' version, their first names recommended to me by associate curator,
premise would be acceptable to you and I still were retained and attached to an address that Edward F. Fry. Mr Fry therefore was in charge
hope it is. In itself, the presentation of systems, dropped the house number while indicating street to the limit of his curatorial competence. This
whether physical, biological, or social, poses no and East or West side. With the picture in limit was exceeded last January when Mr Fry
problem and your capacity as an artist to imbue evidence and the full names of other company quite properly informed me of implications beyond
such orders with symbolic significance renders officers the ' disguise' becomes a mockery. his original understanding. During a subsequent
each of them esthetically susceptible and lunch in January, Mr Haacke, Mr Fry and I
thereby a fit subject matter for a museum. By The third work is a poll of the Guggenheim tried to reach agreement. I had occasion then to
contrast, the implied charge that you propose to Museum's visitors, consisting of ten spell out the Foundation's position much along the
inject would render the same displays demographic questions and ten opinion lines of my subsequent letter of 19 March, 1971.
inappropriate for presentation in this museum questions on current socio-political issues. The The possibility of abandoning the show was
though not necessarily elsewhere since it would answers to the questions are to be tabulated considered and the consequences for both parties
hopelessly confuse assumptions under which we and posted daily as part of the piece. weighed. It is untrue therefore that Mr Haacke
now function. The questionnaires are not mentioned in my was kept uninformed about the museum's policies
Please let me know as soon as possible what letter of cancellation and were not a determining and procedures.
your intentions are. I hope very much that we issue. It is true however that the poll appeared to
can proceed with the Haacke show without us inappropriate and the polling under museum If I wanted to remain true to my philosophical
diluting your creative intentions but also without auspices of a public that by and large comes for premises, I could not comply with Mr Messer's
prejudice to our institutional role. other purposes than to divulge its income, its demands to eliminate the three works from my
Yours very sincerely, political convictions and its attitude toward extra- exhibition. Verifiability is a major ingredient of
Thomas M. Messer, Director artistic issues seemed an imposition to be avoided. the social, biological and physical systems
cc: Mr Peter Lawson-Johnston, President which I consider as mutually complementary
The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation The three pieces in question are examples of parts of an encompassing whole.
the 'real-time systems' which have constituted Whatever one's aesthetic opinion may be,
On 3 April, 1971, Hans Haacke made a my work for years. A brief statement about my it is obvious that the Museum has no right to
statement on the cancellation. Two days work was contained in the announcement for ban any part of the work of an invited artist.
later this was answered by Thomas M. my last New York show at the Howard Wise By doing so, Mr Messer is guilty of censorship
Messer. The passages in Roman setting Gallery in 1969: and infringes on the artist's right to free
below constitute Mr Haake's statement; `The working premise is to think in terms of expression within the walls of the Guggenheim
those in italics, Mr Messer's reply of 5 April systems; the production of systems, the Museum.
to Mr Haake's points interference with and the exposure of Mr Messer has taken a stand which puts
On 1 April, 1971, I was informed by Thomas existing systems. him completely at variance with the professed
Messer, Director of the Solomon R. Such an approach is concerned with the attitudes of all of the world's major museums,
Guggenheim Museum, that he had cancelled the operational structure of organizations, in except for those located in countries under
one-man exhibition of my work scheduled to which transfer of information, energy and/or totalitarian domination and must put him in
open on 3o April, 1971, because three of the material occurs. Systems can be physical, potential conflict with every artist who accepts
fifteen works for the show dealt with specific biological, or social, they can be man-made, an invitation to show his work at the
social situations. In his opinion, such subjects naturally existing or a combination of any of Guggenheim Museum.
do not belong in museums unless they come in the above. In all cases verifiable processes are Mr Messer's repressive policy condemns
a generalized or symbolic form. referred to.' Frank Lloyd Wright's structure to be a shell for
Cancellation was indicated in my above A 'verifiable process' does not necessarily tasteful recreation rather than a forum for the
mentioned letter and reaffirmed by telephone on contain accusations against individual parties. To exchange of ideas of the present and for the
1 April, 1971, after the artist's 'modifications' the best of my knowledge Mr Haacke's show at the future.
had been considered by myself and by legal Howard Wise Gallery did not and we therefore HANS HAACKE
counsel and judged ineffective and inadequate. were not forewarned in this respect. co-signed: Edward Fry, Curator of cancelled
Since the Guggenheim invitation resulted exhibition
Two of the three works are presentations of from that show, Mr Messer could have no
large Manhattan real-estate holding doubts about the nature of my work. In turn, I When I received Mr Fry's written outline
(photographs of the facades of the properties had no reason to suspect that any of my work describing specific exhibits, I took the matter to the
and documentary information collected from was unacceptable to the Museum. Foundation's president and conferred with some
249