THE BEAST AND THE SOVEREIGN

Life sometimes brings you some unexpected analogies and metaphors.

Few months after I left the Museum of Contemporary Art of Barcelona (MACBA), where I worked as a fundraiser, the worst crisis in its history profoundly damaged the reputation of the institution and swept away its director and the curatorial team. As I see it now, the beast -the public- knocked down the sovereign -the management.

The facts

On 18 March 2015, the resistance of the curators to remove a sculpture of the former Spanish king Juan Carlos sodomized by a Bolivian Labor leader and a dog, compelled  MACBA’s management to cancel the exhibition “The Beast and the Sovereign” the same evening it was expected to be open.

Meanwhile the curators stated that the management was informed of the content of the exhibition months ago, Bartomeu Mari (MACBA's former director) claimed he did not see the artwork, which he considered ‘’inappropriate and contradictory to the museum's line’’, until a few days before the exhibit were to open.

Pushed by the media attention and the accusation of censorship by the artistic and cultural field, two days later the director announced that the exhibition would open the following day, including the disputed piece. By Sunday March 22nd, MACBA's board of trustees, astonished by the situation, accepted Mari's resignation and fired the curators involved in the exhibition.

The implications

For those who followed the incident in the Spanish media, we observed two polarized frames:  the framed promoted by the art world and the public opinion by which Mari was depicted as ‘’the censor” (and sovereign) who in abuse of power violates one of the most appreciated principles of the art world, freedom of speech; on the other side, the management-PR’s sponsorized frame where Mari, “the pater’’, stood up for the wellbeing of the institution withdrawing a merely provocative unsubstantial piece, which could put in risk the museum’s prestige and hence important donations. Both frames were recognizable and embedded in our culture and according to them the public made sense under their own schemata (experience, knowledge and feelings). The result, we already know, beast 1- sovereign 0.

Furthermore, looking at the ‘’theory of justification’’ of Boltanski and Thevenot, we could also understand that there was a clash between orders of worth. The art world was using the ‘’civic world’’ as a justification for their position, trying to preserve a fundamental right that was on stake (freedom of speech), whereas the management was using the ‘’market world’’ to legitimize their decision of removing the piece (big donors and trustees -among them members of the royal family- could feel offended and then withdraw their partnership). Two months after the attack of Charlie Hebdo in France, the museum PR’s should have guessed which was the preferred order of worth by the public at that time.

And last but not least, the PR’s and communication departments needed a critical reflection, look inside and find out why the director and the curators did not share the same quality and amount of information about the pieces to be included in the exhibition. This might have been brought some discussion and agreement on time, built trust in the management and transparency in their decisions, and eventually more involvement and commitment of the curatorial team. And most important, it would have prevented the crisis and kept them all in their positions.  

About the author: Isabel is a cultural professional doing sometimes PR stuff and currently trying to understand them in a Master of Corporate Communication at UvA.