More People Disagree w/ Barlow Firing

You know the story by now... fortunately a couple of other Web sites have jumped on the story of the Barlow firing and they are as baffled as Bailey, Lenny and me. Check out Grammar Police for their thoughts and also Tyler Green's Modern Art Notes.

Tyler makes incredibly important points. He states that Annie Adjchavanich, Executive Director of the WPA/C, knew from the start what Barlow's intentions were. It took pressure from David Levy, Corcoran Museum of Art Director, to put the heat on Ms. Adjchavanich to fire Barlow. The point I want to make, in addition to this being just plain wrong, is that Ms. Adjchavanich should receive the same angry emails that Barlow and Bailey are receiving. Clearly, by agreeing to hire Barlow she bought into his stance. She in essence agreed with him. If it were so blatantly wrong from the start, she wouldn't have hired him. This is a significant point that I hope all Panda and Party Animal artists understand. Barlow isn't the only one you should feel slighted by.

Go read Tyler's post. Like he says, of all museums to put the heat on a curatorial decision it's the Corcoran in this case. Tyler states very clearly why this is a joke.

Look for stories from the Washington Post and the Washington City Paper soon!!

One other note, off the subject, is that this story demonstrates the value of "blogs." Tyler very likely knew about this firing long before I did, but Lenny at DCArtNews and me first reported this story ONE WEEK AGO. Tyler's first post on the firing came today as reported above. Like I said, he's known about the story for a while now but was likely waiting to filter through all of the information to write one thorough and thoughtful commentary. And it is a great post. Still, there have been approximately six sites to carry this story now. For a lot of us, when the story finally reaches traditional press, it will be "old news." Power to the people!!

Comments

[Scott]

JT,

Thanks for the link to the Tyler Green article. It's very interesting and raises some good points. One issue that was left wanting, however, and that really nobody has ever explained adequately is: "Where was the curatorial decisionmaking here"?

As far as I can tell, the justification for excluding the Party Animals artists goes something like this: (1) it's not really "art"; (2) DCCAH should not spend money on it; (3) if artists boycott, it would disappear; (4) anybody who didn't boycott will be publicly punished when I get a little power to decide their fates.

Maybe you guys can piece together some type of curatorial decisionmaking from that, but it strikes me as pretty close to "I don't like broccoli so I'm excluding anybody that eats broccoli from the exhibit." It's basing one's decisionmaking on something that is completely extrinsic and unrelated to the project. If that's curatorial decisionmaking, then curators are much flakier than I ever imagined and curated shows aren't worth much consideration.

If the DC art scene is willing to defend random, political payback as legitimate curatorial decisionmaking -- all because people despise the Pandas and Party Animals projects -- maybe this place really is as screwed up as people say.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Hi Scott,

The way I see it, your proposed 4-part decision-making process for Barlow is pretty accurate. And so far I haven't heard anyone agree with Barlow on his approach. I wouldn't have done it. But I think he has the right to implement his vision the way he sees fit. And apparently the WPA/C agreed.

A key point to remember is that Barlow is not a professional curator. He has never curated a show. He is a collector who was asked to curate a show. I wouldn't judge all curators by Barlow's example. But I also wouldn't be naive and think that this type of thing never happens.

I'll defend Barlow's right to implement whatever vision he wants for his show. As Tyler said, a vigorous debate is needed about Barlow's approach. You clearly disagree with his approach and so do I, but I don't wish to silence him. The WPA/C needs the attention now. The fact that the Executive Director is now running away from the problem raises a red flag. That's the problem with this city... not taking accountability for your actions. Barlow isn't running from anything. He's a principled man.

[Scott]

Hi JT,

Thanks for the response. I am actually disagreeing with Philip on a more fundamental level than you are suggesting. It's not really "do I agree with his message or not"; "would I have done it this way or not"? I agree with you that these types of issues can all be debated after the fact. And, as I've said before, I actually agree with him that the Panda/Party Animals are pretty ridiculous.

What I am saying is that political payback is not really a curatorial vision any more than hating broccoli eaters is. Maybe that's where the disconnect is. You see this as part of some legitimate curatorial enterprise that you may disagree with; I see it as something completely outside of any legitimate curatorial vision (even though I agree with it).

[J.T. Kirkland]

Scott,

This is a tough one. I think excluding broccoli eaters could be a cutorial vision. I think Barlow's vision required that the Panda artists be excluded from the show. For his vision to be successfully implemented it had to be without those artists. He was not out to select the best art in DC. How often is that achieved anyways? His vision was to produce a great show while at the same time commenting on the current state of the arts in the DC area. It may not be "fair" but his vision would have accomplished this.

Just the same, if a curator wants to exclude broccoli eaters, I will support his/her right to do so. However, if the curator's vision was to comment on feminism, I would not support excluding broccoli eaters. There would be no correlation. But I would give the curator a chance to make his/her case about it.

I think there is a strong correlation between the Pandas and Party Animals and the DC art scene. Again, it's not "fair" but a valid curatorial vision that deserves our support.

[jojo]

As stated in Modern Art Notes, I think a lot of the desicion to exclude Party Animal/Pandamania artists was based on the "Options" goal of showing artists that hadn't exhibited before. If your art has been part of a high-profile program that puts it on the street, you've exhibited prominently.
I'd also like to point out that virtually any curatorial desicions are personal and subjective, and deciding to exhibit only paintings or only modern art is no more or less valid than deciding to exhibit those who haven't had the opportunities Party Animal/PAndamania artsts have had.

I'm not involved in this situation directly, just a local artist and curator (yet too new to have shown here).

[Lenny]

I was glad to see MAN finally pick up the story and frankly had been somewhat surprised that Tyler had not jumped on it earlier.

As a firm believer in the theory of chaos, I think two people have become small celebrities from this controversy: Barlow and Bailey.... :-)

[James W. Bailey]

Dear Lenny,

Hey, I'm not small, Lenny, I'm 6'1"!

Seriously, Mr. Barlow is an Art Saint as far as I'm concerned. It would have been very easy for a person of no integrity and few principles to have backed down, issued a public apology and pretend like he might have been misqouted by a newspaper reporter.

Supporting Mr. Barlow's fundamental right to freedom of artistic expression through his vision for OPTIONS 05 is easy compared to what he has probably been through with the pressure that was put on him to back down from his beliefs.

I only hope that somehow, by some means, that somebody will step up to the plate and financially underwrite an opportunity for Mr. Barlow to realize OPTIONS 05 as he saw it.

And I also consider you a hero of the 1st Amendment, Lenny, for being brave enough to break this story on your site.

Thank God for people of integrity. We need more of them in the art world.

Sincerely,

James W. Bailey

[Lenny]

Funny you mention that you "only hope that somehow, by some means, that somebody will step up to the plate and financially underwrite an opportunity for Mr. Barlow to realize OPTIONS 05 as he saw it."

Damn right! This is a dream come true for some large non-profit art space to step up to the plate and let Barlow (if he so desires) organize the show as he envisioned it --- Where are you Ellipse Arts Center? Where are you McLean Center for the Arts? Where are you University Galleries?

[James W. Bailey]

To The Readers of Thinking About Art,

I have distributed the following Letter to the Editor to the national arts press, as well as the general mainstream media.

I am very appreciative of Mr. Kirkland allowing me to post this Letter to the Editor on Thinking About Art.

Sincerely,

James W. Bailey

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Should Art Curators Enjoy the Same Basic Rights of Freedom of Artistic Expression that Artists Enjoy?

by James W. Bailey

I am an experimental photographer from Mississippi who currently lives in Reston, Virginia. I am also a member of the WPA/Corcoran.

I have taken a very strong public stand in support of freedom of artistic expression for curator, Philip Barlow, who was recently fired by The Board of Trustees of The Corcoran Museum of Art and the WPA/Corcoran. Mr. Barlow was hired by the WPA/Corcoran to curate a cutting-edge exhibition called OPTIONS 05.

D.C. art critic, Mr. F. Lennox Campello, first broke this story on his blog, D. C. Art News, a week ago. The story was immediately picked up by D. C. art critic, Mr. J. T. Kirkland, on his blog, Thinking About Art, which has featured an ongoing debate over this issue. Mr. Tyler Green, national art critic for the Bloomberg news service, has come down firmly in support of artistic and curatorial freedom for Mr. Barlow on his site, Modern Art Notes, and opposes the actions taken by the Board of Trustees of the Corcoran Museum of Art and the WPA/Corcoran. The story is now entering into the mainstream media.

In the interests of full disclosure, I believe that I was under consideration for this major exhibition by Mr. Barlow.

Mr. Barlow is, in my opinion, a victim of curatorial censorship committed by the Board of Trustees of the Corcoran Museum of Art and the WPA/Corcoran. I believe that both artists, and curators, deserve to be protected by the same basic principles of freedom of artistic expression.

I subscribe to a definition of freedom of artistic expression that can be read on the web site of The National Campaign for Freedom of Expression: http://www.thefirstamendment.org/ncfe1.htm

"Freedom of artistic expression is the principle that an artist should be unrestrained by law or convention in the making of his or her art. Artistic freedom is vital to both the cultural and political health of our society. It is essential in a democracy that values and protects the rights of the individual to espouse his or her beliefs.

Just as our nation’s free speech heritage protects the rights of artists to create, display, perform, and sell their artwork, so too does it protect the rights of the general public to dislike, criticize, and be offended by artwork. What we will call a 'challenge' to the freedom of artistic expression is more than mere criticism or commentary. A “challenge” arises when the critic takes the significant leap from merely voicing distaste of the art to questioning its right to exist or be seen, and seeking to stop its exhibition or performance.

Artistic freedom is threatened when art is challenged because of its content, message or viewpoint, rather than because of its aesthetic qualities or artistic merit. A challenge may be motivated by disagreement with the perceived message or the fear of negative public reaction. A challenge may be part of an organized effort to protest specific social issues. Challenges may come from members of the general public, representatives of organizations, or governmental officials. Challenges may also originate from within the arts community—for example, from curators, artistic directors, or funders."

The WPA/Corcoran issued a press release that justifies in their mind Mr. Barlow’s dismissal as follows:

"While it is the responsibility of a curator to exercise both professional and personal judgment in the selection of works of art, this process must be based upon the artistic merit and suitability of the works in question to the themes or purposes of an exhibition or its related materials. It is inappropriate to base curatorial decisions upon the political, social or intellectual opinions an artist may hold, upon an artist’s personal behavior, personal life, or relationship to the curator or to the institution."

My Words:

I ask your readers to substitute the word curator in the above WPA/Corcoran response with the word artist, and the word selection with the word creation. I do not know a living artist on this planet with any intellectual credibility who would embrace such a definition of artistic freedom as an artist.

I have taken a very activist stand concerning what I believe to be a blatant act of curatorial censorship regarding the WPA/Corcoran’s actions taken against Mr. Barlow.

My argument is very simple: I believe that curators should enjoy and be protected by the above definition of artistic freedom of expression and that this definition of artistic freedom for curators should be embraced by the visual arts community.

Dr. David Levy, President and Director of The Corcoran Museum or Art, and Ms. Annie Adjchavanich, Executive Director of the WPA/Corcoran, and I have agreed to disagree on this subject. I have deep respect for both of them and respect their opinions.

I firmly believe that curators should not have to operate under a different definition of artistic freedom than that that all artists of integrity would claim for themselves.

I am convinced that a national dialogue needs to take place in the art world on this subject. If anything positive comes out of this episode concerning the WPA/Corcoran and its relationship with Mr. Barlow, it will be a resultant dialogue that I hope will lead to an expansion and embracing of a consistent definition of freedom of artistic expression for both artists and curators.

I am urging The Board of Trustees of the Corcoran Museum of Art and the WPA/Corcoran to reverse its position and reinstate Mr. Barlow as curator for OPTIONS 05.

I am also offering to withdraw my name from consideration as an artist for OPTIONS 05.

Artists and curators have given their lives for the cause of artistic freedom of expression around the world.

My potential sacrifice is but a fraction of a molecule of a single drop of water from the ocean in this cause; but I will willingly make it, and more, to see the right thing be done.

Rules, policies, procedures, guidelines and laws do not create great art; nor do they inspire great artists or great curators.

Freedom of artistic expression inspires...

Sincerely,
James W. Bailey
Experimental Photographer
Force Majeure Studios
2142 Glencourse Lane
Reston, Va 20191
Ph: 703-476-1474
Cell: 504-669-8650
Email: jameswbailey@comcast.net
URL: http://jameswbailey.artroof.com