WPA/C Responds About Barlow Firing

Annie Adjchavanich, Executive Director of the WPA/C, today distributed a press release about the Barlow firing. See below:

PRESS RELEASE
15 October 2004

On September 23rd, 2004, an article appeared in the Arts Beat page of The Washington Post in which Philip Barlow, Guest Curator of the Washington Project for the Arts\Corcoran (WPA\C) Options exhibition, stated personal viewpoints and opinions that are in no way reflective of the exhibitions goals nor the WPA\C’s mission. In stating that he would categorically exclude any and all artists who participated in either the city-wide Party Animals or PandaMania programs of the last two years from consideration for Options, he has violated basic ethical norms of curatorial practice, which is in direct conflict with the Corcoran’s policy on Freedom of Artistic Expression, and subsequently the WPA\C’s, mission statement.

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.

The leadership of the WPA\C believes that Mr. Barlow has irreparably compromised his credibility as curator of this exhibition and respectfully accepts his decision to step away from the project and his responsibility as curator.

An announcement regarding the selection of a curator for Options will be forthcoming.

Annie Adjchavanich
Executive Director

A few questions come to mind:

1. When did the WPA/C become aware of Barlow's intent? Did they know about it from the start? Or did they first learn of his stance in the Washington Post article? I feel that either they did know from the start what Barlow's position was, or they should have known it. As James Bailey as said frequently, it was public knowledge. I believe this is a critical point. I have doubts that the WPA/C is as innocent as they would like us to believe.

2. "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."

Where is this written? Is there a rule book for curating shows? How do we regulate this? How is it defined? As Bailey has said several times, curating a show is an artistic endeavor. The goal is to manifest an artistic vision. The "Freedom of Artistc Expression" policy seems to be applied subjectively. Does the same policy not hold for curators?

3. The press release suggests that the show will go on. Will the next curator visit as many artist studios as Barlow did? Will he/she look for artists that are hard to find? Will Ms. Adjchavanich and other WPA/C board members accompany the curator on every studio visit to ensure that artistic censorship doesn't occur? What will the guidelines be for the Options show? Will it be safe, cookie-cutter art that will avoid further controversy?

4. Going back to the "Freedom of Artistic Expression" policy, does that imply that every artist must be considered for a curated show? Or does it mean that artists should be able to create whatever they want? I don't think Barlow's stance infringes on an artist's freedom of expression. Surely Barlow believes an artist can make whatever they want. But that doesn't mean they have some sort of Constitutional right to consideration for curated shows. Maybe it would be wise to publish the "Freedom of Artistic Expression" policy so that the public can read what all it actually addresses. Right now it sounds as if the WPA/C is hanging their hat on a feel good policy that might not be applicable.

I have a feeling there is more to come on this story. I just can't believe that the WPA/C first learned about Barlow's stance from that Washington Post article.

Comments

[Scott]

This is a wonderful description of the line between legitimate curatorial decisionmaking and inappropriate curatorial blacklisting. I completely agree that there are "basic ethical norms of curatorial practice," and I am glad that the WPA/C is (belatedly?) applying them.

I do not believe there is any merit to the argument that the WPA/C "should have known" Mr. Barlow's views based upon a Google search. I Googled him, and the only references to the Pandas and Party Animals I came up with were in the Washington Post article. However, I do believe Philip when he says he told the WPA/C ahead of time. I thus continue to wonder why they hired him as curator in the first place.

I also think the last paragraph of the press release is a little curious -- that they are accepting Philip's decision to step down. According to Philip, he didn't step down; he was fired. Not sure what to make of that one.

Anyway, this gets back to my original question. Are there or should there be rules for legitimate curatorial decisionmaking (and if so, what rules?) or is it anything goes? I completely agree with how the WPA/C came down. However, I am not a curator and would find it interesting to hear the thoughts of some real curators. Lenny?

[Jame W. Bailey]

FREEDOM OF ARTISTIC EXPRESSION

FROM 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.

My Words:

I am arguing and advocating that curators should enjoy and be protected by the above definition of artistic expression and that this expanded definition of artistic freedom for curators should be embraced by the visual arts community.

Mr. 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 artistic freedom for both artists and curators.

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

Artistic freedom inspires...

Sincerely,

James W. Bailey