My 2¢ (In Defense of MASS MoCA)
By now I think everyone in northern Berkshire county has heard of the ongoing feud between the museum MASS MoCA and artist Christoph Büchel. And now that the case has been settled by the courts what can anyone possibly add to the mix? Well, here we go…
In a September 16th 2007 article for the New York Times Roberta Smith ranted about MASS MoCA’s behavior. Smith states that MASS MoCA, in opening Büchel’s “Training Ground For Democracy” to the public prematurely, covered in tarp and re-titled “Made At MASS MoCA”, has insulted the artist and damaged the museum’s image in the eyes of the art world and the general public. Smith gives MASS MoCA credit for being the first U.S. institution willing to work with Büchel, but suggests they ultimately bit off more than they could chew. Smith also argues that an artist alone should have the ultimate right to say when a work of art is a work of art.
Smith asserts that “The museum deserves to be scathed” because “by opening this show without his assent, the museum has broken faith with the artist, the public and art itself.” That “what is visible above and below the tarps today is barely the skeleton of a Büchel. It’s just a lot of stuff.” Smith continues “You are reminded of Hollywood, where directors (that is, artists) are routinely denied ‘final cut.’ Of course, Renaissance popes often had final cut too.” Of course this isn’t the first time a work of art has been shown altered or unfinished. Finally Smith drags Robert Rauschenberg into the fray by quoting him in support of her “art isn’t art until the artist says it is” argument. Rauschenberg is an artist with whom (we are reminded in the exhibit “Made At MASS MoCA”) the museum worked successfully with to install his mammoth “2 Furlong Piece”.
While I don’t disagree with Smith and others that the “Made At MASS MoCA” exhibit is ultimately a confused mess. Could they make it any harder to find? Do they want me to see it at all? Why is this guard yelling at me for looking at what I was invited to see?
Smith’s view, however, totally disregards the fact that when an artist accepts support from an outside source in the form of money that artist is then obligated to deliver something in return. In refusing to finish his work Büchel has not only bitten the hand that feeds him (and other artists), he has damaged the system that funds the arts and everyone who appreciates art. Büchel’s display of endless ego has hurt not only MASS MoCA as an institution but the entire region. Individuals and businesses of northern Berkshire county, many of whom support MASS MoCA and their programming, have suffered from a drop in visitors to the area because Büchel’s no-show is a profound disappointment on every level. Will these patrons continue to support the arts when the bad taste of Büchel lingers on their palettes?
Büchel is not a Hollywood director being denied his ‘final cut’ because MASS MoCA has given Büchel every opportunity to come back and complete his unfinished business. Unlike MGM, Universal or Paramount, MASS MoCA is a non-profit institution that relies greatly on public funds to produce and display art. There are limits to MASS MoCA’s resources and to their ability to accept a loss. Should they sink themselves so that one unreasonable man can have his way? Hollywood studios are self-sufficient commercial entities capable of accepting an occasional loss, and I might add, rarely do they make valuable art. Even if no public funds were used to produce “Training Ground For Democracy” MASS MoCA invested in Büchel, and he owes them a finished work of art.
Coppola remarked of the famously bad “Apocalypse Now” shoot, “We had access to too much money, too much equipment, and little by little we went insane.” Büchel is no Coppola though because ultimately Büchel was not personally invested enough in is own work to get it done. Even if “Apocalypse Now” had tanked at the box office, at least Coppola delivered something to the studio. If Büchel was as truly committed to finishing “Traning Ground For Democracy” as artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude where to completing their massive art project, “The Gates”, Büchel would have found the necessary money to buy his bombed out 737 and complete his grand scheme. Surely if Christo and Jeanne-Claude can raise $20 million for “The Gates”, Büchel can beg, borrow or steal a few grand to complete his grocery list.
Any reasonable person recognizes that when you collaborate with an outside entity the work that is generated will inevitably be a compromise. If Büchel’s visions exceeded what MASS MoCA was able to provide and he could not find areas of compromise in his art then he must either raise the additional funds himself or in the future work completely within his own means. Büchel must also recognize that when you spend money to create on this scale the end result is business as much as art. Just ask any Hollywood director.
Until Büchel proves he is truly committed to finishing this project one way or another, and that this isn’t just another of his stunts against the art establishment, then he isn’t (in my eyes) entitled to say “my art isn’t finished until I say it is.” And until Büchel steps forward to complete his work it will remain “not even art, but simply a compilation of materials” as MASS MoCA contends in their lawsuit. A better fit for a landfill than an art gallery. It’s time to stop blaming MASS MoCA for the failings of an artist to pull it together. MASS MoCA has simply asked the court to provide a way out of this stalemate.
-Matt