Taking a Stance
Despite the power relations that structure their field, are those active in the art world able to freely take a stand?
This question motivated the call for contributions to our thematic section, which follows critical lines of thought first explored in the Indignation and Spectacle issues on the economic, political, and institutional contexts that, to varying degrees, influence the art scene. But this time, we also wanted to look inward — for, although taking a position seems to be self-evident in the fertile ground of freedom of expression, some are of the opinion that a code of silence has settled in. In an open letter addressing this omertà, a group of artists and intellectuals rebelled against the growing role of financial interests in the art world, stating, “The new masters of the art market have been able to make the most reputable experts and curators redundant by making golden overpasses for them, thus contributing to the intellectual impoverishment of our public institutions.”1 1 - “L’art n’est-il qu’un produit de luxe ?,” accessed July 1, 2015, http://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/les-invites-de-mediapart/article/201014/lart-nest-il-quun-produit-de-luxe (our translation).
The situation that led to this declaration ties in with one of the major areas of focus in the opinion essays published in this issue: “the luxury industry” assaulting the art sector — the other areas in this group being the discourses devoted to art theory and criticism, the persistence of colonialist discourses, and the public funding of culture. The positions taken on these questions will no doubt enable us to broaden our reflection, and perhaps open new debates. But underlying questions, raised by other points of view absent from these pages, are also worth considering. Is it really the financialization of art that causes the above-mentioned intellectual impoverishment? Don’t other factors contribute just as much, if not more? Do closer ties with the public or private sector systematically transform the orientation or the rigour of theoretical or artistic content? The reviled “evil” may also come from elsewhere — for example, from the public’s lack of interest in art, which directly influences the vitality of the field. If the state, in these times of “austerity,” is shamefully disengaging from the funding of culture, it may also be because there is no public pressure expressing disagreement, as the popular discourse tends more to condemn the use of the public purse for works judged hermetic or pointless. Who, in fact, wants this art on which we generate discourse, aside from the circles that creates it, a small number of spectators, and the handful of maligned speculators?
We must also emphasize what it means for us, as a publisher, to take a position. The role that esse has assumed is to observe and transmit the ideas that are circulating and to make space for multiple opinions. Usually, the voices in these pages tend to come from the left. It is important, nevertheless, for us to recognize, on the one hand, that we are contributing to the production of a discourse legitimized by the art institution, and, on the other hand, that we, too, depend on various forms of public and private funding. Some will be happy to point out that organizations like ours have a finger in every pie — partially funded by grants, but publishing essays that point out the faults in the system; partially dependent on advertising and fundraising campaigns directly linked to the decried “marketization.” And yet, we persist in believing that it is possible for us to remain independent and critical — recognizing the importance of the bodies that fund us, while remaining alert to the direct or insidious influences that our different funding sources might have on the orientation of the magazine. And if our positions diverge sometimes from those expressed in the texts that we publish, we assume full responsibility for our editorial choices.
In the wake of the critical reflections presented in this issue, but also those that led to this theme, notably the discourse around the transformation of art into a luxury product, let’s not forget that other practices exist, that more discreet forms are also always active in the art field. Although we cannot deny the existence of a speculative bubble, we can remember all the same that criticism from a posture of authority also contributes, by the brilliance of its distractions, to the spectacular aura around the subjects contested, and that if it is necessary to take a position against what outrages us, it is also essential to take a position for the practices that we feel it is important to make known.
Translated from the French by Käthe Roth