Robber Barons, Marcel Duchamp, and Big Museums’ Dirty Little Secrets

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Eunsong Kim (00:00):
So then the idea of, like, this is, in the
democratic marketplace of ideas,this was the best idea, or this
was, like, the most democraticor the most inventive or the
most expressive, like, I thinkthat's a mythology.

Hrag Vartanian (00:11):
Right. And I

think that we can push that mythology, and I think
that the discourse is strongenough to be pushed.

Hello, and welcome back to the
Hyperallergic Podcast. Today,we're talking with essayist,
educator, editor, and poet,Eunseong Kim, a professor at
Northeastern University. She'sthe author of a new book, The
Politics of Collecting, Race andthe Aestheticization of
Property. We're gonna talk alittle bit about a few of the

(00:41):
large museums and their dirtylittle secrets, the racism,
capitalism, and colonialismthat, as the book's description
says, situated the rise of USmuseum collections and
conceptual art forms. Shechallenges our understanding of
Marcel Duchamp, one of the socalled greats of 20th century
art and conceptual art ingeneral as something that's not

(01:04):
separated from the racialcapitalism that defines American
society.
She challenges our ideas of whatartistic success is and
advocates for a new vision ofart beyond cultural
institutions. What I love aboutthis book is it really pushes us
to think beyond what we think istrue. Is that idea you heard in

(01:27):
college or read in a booksomewhere, is that really what
is happening here? Then she goeson to challenge some thinkers
who might think that they got itright. And after reading this
book, you kinda wonder whetherthey do.
That's what we want in a book,isn't it? Something that really
confronts the reality in a newand fresh way. We have a lot to

(01:50):
talk about from the craft ofwriting to union busting steel
titans who determined what wascanonized in the modernist
archive. So let's get started.So today, we have a very, very
special guest, Eunseong Kim, whois somebody I've been following

(02:12):
for years and whose work Igreatly respect and is a
professor in the department ofEnglish and Northeastern and,
has a new book, Politics ofCollecting, which I cannot wait
to talk about.
I will say first thing well,first of all, welcome.

Thank you so much for having me. I'm so excited to
be here.

Well, I think I was telling, Viken, my partner
yesterday that there is an artworld before this book and an
art world after. Oh, no. And Ireally believe that because I
think it's rare to find someonewho really engages with these
ideas in a full frontal way,like in this way of just like
you're dealing with themdirectly. But I think

(02:54):
generously, I think veryarchival, like strong archival
research. You're bringing yourinterest in this breadth of the
art world that I think onlycomes from this kind of being
able to work in different,modes.
I don't think it's a coincidenceyou're a poet because I think
poets have this incredibleability in the history of art,

(03:17):
to sort of see things for whatthey are.

Interesting. I mean, I should say that I don't
think any, I I do not claim tobe an art historian, and I do
not think they want to claim me.So I I think, I write about my
interest in aesthetics, but itis not through the discipline

Right.

The disciplinary structures of art history. I
should make that clear.

Absolutely. And I don't think anyone thinks it
does. So I I I think, the beautyof this book, in my opinion, is
the fact that you take on thesebig ideas and you do merge art,
contemporary art, and modern artwith poetry as well. Right. And
you don't see these as separate.
You don't sequester them becauseyou don't use a market thinking.

Right.

Which I really appreciate.

Well, I I I always tell my students and I tell
people that, I don't do PR.Like, I'm not in public
relations. So there's no reasonfor my thinking and my argument
to be market specific.

Right. Absolutely. There's so many
directions, but I'm gonnaprobably concentrate mostly on
some of the big ideas. So, youknow, because people should read
the book. Right?
And I think as I as I saidbefore interview, I think I'm
gonna have to read it 3 times.You know?

Well, I should say that you actually you were
formative to the book becauseyou read a very early version.
Yeah.

I mean comments That's so kind of you. The

criticisms really did shape how I thought about,
structuring the book. So

thank you. That's I mean, that's very kind.
But, you know, what I read wasnot exactly what I had read read
this in this book is not exactlywhat I read initially. This is a
whole different book. And and Ithink even more in-depth than,
you know, we initially talkedand, I mean, the amount of
things you found and okay.
Let's just start. Okay. BecauseI think this is where this comes

(05:06):
from. So let's just start withthe title, you know, because one
of your one of thespecializations you have is
talking about racialization andaesthetics Mhmm. And how those
intersect.
Mhmm. Do you wanna talk to us alittle bit about your your own
sort of history in terms of howyou got to that place where
those topics are of interest toyou?

So I think that maybe people, might be more
familiar in terms of discussing,discourses of race in terms of
inclusion and exclusion.

Mhmm.

So, you know, I I it's not that I'm not a fan of
this methodology, but themethodology of trying to figure
out, like, how many non whiteartists, how many x number of
artists are in a show in theanthology. Yep. And I don't
think that, counting is trivial.I I do think it matters. But
something that I thought a lotabout throughout my studies, but

(06:01):
also in my teaching, is how raceis not just a matter of counting
the number of people in theroom, But the ways in which
certain kinds of ideas and ahierarchy of ideas or how
ideology, becomes naturalized asjust the way that things are.

Right.

So that is something that I'm trying to
grapple with in the book, that,what we think of as property or
what we think of aestheticproperty is actually firmly
rooted in an understanding of acolonial dynamic of race.

Yeah. Right. So tell us a little bit about your
own writing. Because I I think,you know, I think understanding
your own writing

Mhmm.

Is going to help people understand this. But I
also want people to know thatyou're also a poet, and you've
written a book of poetry. Mhmm.And you've published many
places, And you've written artcriticism, and you've also
written, you know, othercritical essays of all sorts. So

Who am I as a writer? I mean, I was so
generously mentored, I shouldsay, as a student by my
dissertation advisors, Fatima AlTalib and Paige Dubois, who
really encouraged me not tothink of disciplines as
boundaries. Mhmm. But also, butnot in this way where I am
entitled to everything becausethrough a kind of narcissistic

(07:23):
entitlement, but more so that,like, that I should I should
honor and observe, like, the theways in which my interest
through poetry actually mightextend to the ideas that I'm
interested in in terms of mycritical thinking, and then how
what those relationships are tomy, art writing. So, I think

(07:43):
when we first met, I was doingkind of, like, early writing.
Mhmm. Like, I did, like, a very,very early review of the Whitney
Biennial. I wanna see

But, I mean, it was an incredible review.

It was, me and a friend of mine, Maya Mac
MacKendall. We reviewed theWhitney Biennial, and we did,
something that I just spokeabout a few minutes ago of we
counted, really. We counted thepresence of, you know, artists
of color in particular, but wealso had a critique of Joe
Scanlon's project

Yes. In

that. The

now Woolford.

Yes. And we really tried to take apart what it
meant for his, you know, Avatarproject, to be included in the
biennial with the picture of ablack actress. And I I think
that it was described as a kindof polemic. I was young enough
then and maybe even now that Idid not really know that, you

(08:38):
don't publish essays that reallysay things explicitly. That
you're supposed to write in away that's massaged and,

layered and and nuanced. Right? That's the
that's the favorite word.

Right. So it was like, it's easily dismissed if
you do not have this kind of,like, nuanced, like, self
apologetic, self effacing, butalso, like, understanding of
mode of address. And we wereyoung enough that we were just
like, this is what we think,everyone. And then the new

(09:12):
inquiry published it. Yeah.
And we were like, oh, okay. Idon't know. I think that a lot
of my impulses still remain.Like, I I I was telling someone
the other day that I think I'm,like, missing an enzyme or
something. I'm, like, missingsomething that seems to exist.
Like, I can't get pastsometimes, like, the first
question. Like, with a JoeScanlon's Donna Wolfe for

(09:35):
project, I I just reallycouldn't get past I could not
get past the first descriptionto the other thing. So it's like
I have a very hard time gettingto, like, the thing that
apparently, like, the curatorswere very comfortable being in.
Right? Like, this, like, what isthe artist's persona?
And, like, art what is thehistorical mechanisms in which

(09:56):
the artist takes up like, Ican't get past that first step.
And so a lot of my writingactually, grapples with this
kind of a priority question of,like, what is considered the
foundation? Like, how do how howis it that, Duchamp becomes the
author of this form that,apparently is so liberatory. And

(10:17):
so, I mean, I do think thatthere's something about the way
that this book is also written,but perhaps the way that I've
been writing, which is, like, Ijust I want more discourse on
the the thing that, like, is theconsidered the foundation. Like,
this is the foundation in whichwe have the conversation.
I'm like, well, I don't know.Like, I I I I have so many

(10:38):
questions actually.

Right.

And I know that I'm not the only one.

Absolutely. Yeah. You know, I'm gonna read
little things, and I want you torespond to them because, I mean,
they're pretty provocative. Andjust also, I just want people to
know that she's a really goodwriter. So, you know and that's
what the pleasures of thisbecause there are some sentences
that are like, oh, just hits youin the gut.
So I'm gonna start with thisone. This is in the introduction
on the racial politics of theavant garde. The desire to leave

(11:04):
behind older traditions in thepursuit of newer ones should be
understood as part of thetheoretical justification of
colonization?

I mean, yes. You are it is so much it's
fundamental to how colonialthinking operates that it's a
program of assistance. Right?That's why they always talk
about, you know, the traininfrastructure or sometimes
like, a kind of militaryinfrastructure and they they

Avant garde. The word itself, right? Exactly.

You know? It's always, it's narrated as there
is a kind of good involved andthe good is is that you were no
longer in the past and that youare now through colonialism,
you've moved into the present.And without colonialism, it's
unclear if you will move intothe present. I don't know if

(12:00):
aesthetics, the way that it'scurrently narrated as a sort of
like avant garde. What isconsidered avant garde is
critical of the ways in whichcolonial dynamics have existed
in the past.

Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. And we should
probably explain a little JoeScanlon for those people who
don't know who he is. He's ahe's a professor of art at
Princeton.
Princeton. Right? A white middleaged, professor, American who,
in the work work, DonnellWolford, hires black women,
black middle aged women to playan avatar as a artist. A Richard

(12:36):
right. Who then, you know, ispresented, and in the case of
the Whitney Biennial, wasactually counted as an artist of
color.

Yes. Because only appeared as Donna Wolford. When
we were looking through thecatalog, it was clear that,
like, there was a picture, anartist picture of, you know,
this person who was supposed tobe Donna Wolford. And then the
curators sort of cited, like,arts and, like, death of the
Author as a way to sort ofreally, like, think about the
excitement of Joe Scanlon. So,you know, upon further research,

(13:07):
it became clear that, JoeScanlon himself, he says, like,
Donald Wilford was a characterthat he invented, an artist
persona he invented.
The name is taken from afootball player, actually.

Mhmm.

And, the character was imagined as a like, a
undergraduate student of his whois his assistant, who makes art
because, like, they're in JoeScanlon's studio and then, like,
sees, like, the leftovermaterials and then uses those

(13:43):
materials to, like, make art,and that's how they become an
artist. Right. So there are,like, layers and layers that I I
just think would be reallyimportant to, like, untangle,
such as, like, what does it meanfor this white artist to take
the name of a football playerand then imagine, like, an

(14:04):
undergraduate student doingthis? But also this isn't just
any football player. It's ablack football player.

That's right.

And it's, like, it's through his, like, garbage
or, like, the scraps in his art,like, studio in which, like,
this character becomes birthedas their own artist, but then it
really turns out, like, the artthat they do is, like, great
paintings. It's, like, the most

Right.

White man paintings.

And corporate. Corporate. And the most
corporate. Yes. Yeah.

It's like a kind of, like, you know, a kind of
Frank Stella, like, 4 point otype of painting. Right. Right.
And then beyond that, like, inthe performances, this character
was to do, like, Richard Pryorjokes. And I think, like, what
really made me wonder I mean,all of this made me wonder, but

(14:53):
it's how proudly he proclaimedthat he hires different
actresses, different blackactresses to play this
character.
So, I mean, I think that thatthat project onto itself is like
a is a case study for a bookthat needs to be written, which
is what is the kind of art thatso many institutionally

(15:14):
recognized curators think isimportant? Like, what is it
about? Like, how did death ofthe author become a way to no
longer ask, like, questions of,like, ethics, questions of
employment, questions of laborRight. Questions of race,
questions of power? I I don't Iall I also think, like, I'm not
even that much of a Foucauldian,but after Bard's, there's also,

(15:37):
like, Foucault's response, whatis an author?
Right?

Right.

Where he, like, very explicitly points out,
like, the death of the authorcan't be the entitlement of the
reader to bypass the author. Imean, I'm like once again, like,
thinking about it, it's like I'mmissing some kind of enzyme
where I'm like, so many people,like, seemed so okay to, like,
rush past that. Well And and Ijust think that those are the

(16:01):
fundamental questions thatactually ground so much of, the
ways in which art continues tobe taught and made.

Right. Well, I mean, the reason I sort of
hesitate there was not I don'tthink there's necessarily, like
I just think there areprofessional pitfalls when you
do raise those questions. Ithink for some people because
and this is, I think, somethingI've been really eager to sort
of explore myself, which is, youknow, we have to get to a place
where we can acknowledgemistakes, even those we make

(16:32):
ourselves

Mhmm.

And get to a new place. And I feel like there
isn't a mechanism because allwhen we ever we, you know, we
admit that there's a mistake,it's almost like we're penalized
for it. Right. Right? It's apunitive sort of, like,
mentality.
Right. And I do think we have toget to a place. Like, if Joe
Scanlon woke up tomorrow andsaid, you know what? You're

(16:54):
right. You're right.
That would that sucks. Well, heis not a year.

You know? He has 10 year then. He has 10 year now.
And and the last I heard fromhim is, was an article, from the
Princeton University studentnewspaper where he assigned a
series of books that had racial,like, racial slurs, or, like,
the author, the poet themselvesuses, like, you know, the n word
and other dynamics. And he hadstudents, like, read it out

(17:20):
loud.
He he himself read it out loud.And I I feel like this current
generation, they maybe also alsowere, like, no to Right. To this
in the classroom. But as to theas to the conversation around,
like, okay, will you be excludedfrom future shows as an artist
if you criticize or you critiquethe curator? I mean, I think

(17:43):
criticism is actually, like, avery close and deep inspection
of something.
It's a close examination. It isnot the process of dismissal.
It's, like, really examining thestructures that produce,

I I'm with you.

It's a

form of love even.

I mean, yes. But it's it's like whether it's love
or whether it's, like, deepfeeling

Well, love for a field. I mean, I don't mean for
the person. I mean, for thefield. Absolutely. The the love
of wanting to make a fieldstronger, better, more more
representative of Right.
Your actual ideas and the truthsthat we see in front

of us. Absolutely. And I actually even wanna say,
like, maybe it isn't always theresponsibility of individual
artists. Yep. But, like, at somepoint, it's like, okay.
Well, then who is going to talkabout this? Like, who is it the
person who says they studymuseums? Is it the person who
study says that they study,shows? Is it the person who
studies publishing? Is it thetenured faculty?

(18:37):
Is it the people who just writeabout it because this is their
community? Yeah. It can't justbe that, like, you know, it's
the fear of rejection fromcommunity or from spaces that
make it so that you never sayanything. I have a hard time
with that. Yeah.

Yeah. Absolutely. So I'm gonna read
something else because I lovethis. I mean, the introduction
was great in general. So youknow?
But it's it's blows my mind.After I read the introduction, I
had to read it again. And thenjust I was like, so much. The
way in which US and Europeanmuseums are not collections that
hold proof of their crimes, butrather that their continued

(19:12):
spatial existence constitutesthe crime. They do not hold the
proof.
They are the proof. And, ofcourse, all these are footnoted
and discussions of these areelsewhere as well, but you sort
of condense this. Mhmm. One ofthe things about that that I
loved was people really strugglewhen you criticize museums.

They struggle.

They struggle. Like, the struggle is real. And
and they often try to demonizeyou, you know, when you when you
criticize, you're like, butthat's where I would escape to,
or or that's where I came ofage, or, you know, I took an art
class there and it changed mylife or something. And you're
like, but that's not what we'retalking about.

Right. I mean, the the same person who gives this
story, the former CEO of theGetty Museum, he also, in a
piece where he argues againstartifact repatriation

Right.

He gives the story of being in Paris and, like,
looking at all the objects andthinking, like, of course, like,
you know, museums must holdthese objects so that we can all
be connected to each other. Andhe says this. He gives this
personal anecdote about being inthe museum space and being able
to encounter these objects as away for colonial legacies to

(20:23):
continue. So if if for those forfor others who want to use
personal anecdotes like that,like, just know that that's the
company in which you might findyourself.

Right.

I think that museums are some of the most,
vibrant places in which it canaccept critique. As in, like

I'm with you.

They are they're financially and institutional
history wise, have have some of,like, the I think that they're
actually strong enough. They'renot fragile. This

is Especially not art museums. Art? Maybe some
of the history museums and thesmaller ones Maybe.

But even then, I think, like, I I actually I I
have a I have trouble with, kindof, like, defense of abstract
institutions. Like, I I feellike, it's one thing to, like,
defend a person who you trust oryou're in a relationship with
for whatever reason, publicly,if that's what you want to do.

(21:18):
But, like, when you defend amuseum, you're defending, like,
an institution that, like, isliterally it's like a it's an
abstraction of, like, thevarious people who work there.
And so and and then secondly,it's like just because we have
like individual encounters inthe museum that are profound, it
doesn't mean that like thespaces aren't robust enough for

(21:40):
like very rigorous critique.Like rigorous beyond like let's
do another show or let's do 2shows or let's hire, like, a
handful of people.
I actually think that all thepeople who work there and the
various artists that might flowin and out of the space, it
would be more conducive to theworld if we can have, like,

(22:01):
conversations around, like, theway that certain things were
founded and the land, laborhistory of the particular
places.

I think you're right. And I think people have
maybe adjusted to deal withmaybe historical objects. But I
think what your book does thatreally is gonna be a huge
contribution is you bring it tomodern art. Do you know in a way
that I think, you know, I I sawGlenn Lowry at a panel, you
know, in, like, I think it wasin Abu Dhabi, like, arguing,
like, well, that doesn't reallyconcern us because we're a

(22:32):
modern art institution. Right?
Because I think it's the ideathat somehow in the modern era,
those objects are notproblematic because they've all
been built for the market or forwhatever. And I think what
you're saying is actually muchmore complicated.

Right.

You're saying that, actually, these are about
labor, and you're talking aboutthe managerial aesthetics

Right.

Of of these and how they're they're mimicking a
a type of capitalism that thepatron class appreciates.

Well, yes. I think that the best way to think
about, the you know, I don'twanna say the word, but also I
will. Like, the best way tothink about, like, NFTs or,
like, a kind of digital,digitized forms of property is
actually to understand thehistory of modern art.

And it's isn't it amazing how many people are
pulling up Duchamp for NFTs?It's incredible. It's
incredible. They're obsessedwith Duchamp as if he's, like,
the only person too.

Well, it's

And that's the only way to see art.

Yes. And but but also, I think you mentioned this
the last time we spoke that hesold air. Like, he sold bags of
air. So I I do think that he isthis kind of useful vehicle to
discuss a kind of like longduration of how people begin to
think about what it means tosell something. Like, are you
selling something because thisis your idea?

(23:52):
Right. And then who how doesthis become metastasized? And
how does the patron classinteract with these ideas?

Right. You write, in making connections
between the personal artcollections as museum and the
procedure of donating one's artcollection to an established
museum, you're looking at theparallel histories of scientific
management, conceptual art. It'sthrough scientific management

(24:23):
that the materialist historiesof, in this case, the Frick
collection and the Ariesbergcollection of works by Duchamp,
which is at the PhiladelphiaMuseum of Art, those seemingly
disparate in aesthetic stylesare crystallized.

Okay. So I think, I think that there's a I once
again, I'm not an art historian,but the way that I understand
art history is periodizationand, classification through
forms. Would you agree?

Yeah. I think so.

We're like, thinking about forms is
important. So, like, somethinglike The Frick Collection is
different from the Arensbergcollection of modern art,
especially like Duchamp, becauseThe Frick Collection has, like,
the old masters.

Right.

Maybe. Like, maybe this is how, like, someone might
differentiate the 2 of them.

Right.

I think it's less, obvious that both collections
are financialized through steel.So Mhmm. Orangeburg Walter
Orangeburg's grandfather, alsooperated a steel foundry, within
the the same, like, area inwhich, like, Carnegie and Frick
operated their steel foundry.Theirs was smaller. The

(25:35):
Orangeburg family's was smaller.
But it's the same kind ofmaterial, like, or extractive
capitalism that makes it so thatart collecting becomes something
that both families participatein. That's not how I think
aesthetic history or, like,aesthetic understandings of
collections are thought of.

Right.

And and I do think that that's a really important
thing for all of us to justthink about is, like, what does
it mean that so much materialhistory actually comes from
extractive industries,particularly steel, in that
moment in time?

And then you talk about the rise of Frederick
Winslow Taylor's scientificmanagement and how it was made
possible by deunionization andanalyzing the colonial history
of it, which you say is modeledpartly after his deep admiration
of the slave plantation Yes. Asthe most efficient site of
management.

Yes. Caitlin Rosenthal has a great book
called Accounting for forSlavery, where she looks at
Taylor's admiration of the ofthe plantation site and and
charts that kind of history thatthey thought it was the most
kind of, structurally soundplace where managerial studies
could really be invented. So Itry to put together, like, this

(26:52):
kind of history that I thinkthat, you know, I would love to
hear, like, your thoughts andother people's thoughts on this.
But so I trace in the firstchapter how frickin' Carnegie
deunionized the the steelindustries in which they are
they are at the helm of thesteel industries. And Carnegie,
at the time of the HomesteadStrike of 18/92, was the richest

(27:13):
man in the world.
Mhmm. But it's really post thatstrike, and it's when the
dehumanization happens, that USCarnegie's, steel company goes
from him being the richest manin the world to the 1st
$1,000,000,000 company, underwhat is considered US Steel. And
now there's a different historyof US Steel. That's, like, the

(27:34):
end of chapter 1. In chapter 2,I take up how the deunionization
of the steel industries makes itso that someone like Frederick
Taylor, who thinks that actuallythe slave plantation is the site
in which, like, we can reallyreimagine efficient scientific
management.
Right. And he tests these ideason steel and, like, mills that

(27:57):
are no longer unionized. So hedoes things like he it's called,
like, time motion studies, wherehe tries to like time workers. I
should also say that all of theworkers refused. Like they
refused all of the experimentsand it's like not a science.
Right. And it's unclear ifanyone even thinks that it's
ever been done. However, it'sstill cited and, people still

(28:21):
kind of like teach theseprinciples. And something like,
central planning really comesout of his ideas that, like, you
can move all of the process workto management. So the management
decides how it's going to bedone.
And the worker is no longer,quote unquote, thinking, but
they are just using their hands.So they are called, like, hand

(28:42):
workers versus, like, the mindworkers. And it's only at the
site in which, like, unions nolonger exist that he can do
these experiments.

So now let's talk about I mean, we're not
gonna go into all the artistsbecause you've talked about a
number of them. But Duchampfigures large in this
conversation. And the part thatreally clicked for me was when
you talked about the use ofDuchamp as a shield Mhmm. And
not just him, but in general,there's certain kind of ideas,
even sometimes the concept ofdifferent concepts or

(29:11):
understandings of Marxism, forinstance. But these things are
being used as shields to stopsome of the conversations Yes.
That we should be having. Yeah.So how does that work in your
opinion? Like, how is Duchampbeing used? And I do I see it.
I see it. I NFTs was a greatexample. Right? Like, it's it's
almost like NFTs. Soon assomeone cited Duchamp, everyone

(29:33):
sort of, like, bowed their head.
Yes. Do you know in this kind ofreferential way? And you're
like, wait. Why are you doingthat? That's like I mean, you
can see why some people think ofcontemporary art or modern art
as kinda cult y that way.
Because it does sort of it does.I mean, he's like the holy book.
Right?

Yeah. I mean, he's a very fascinating figure. Not
him, the person, but him, thethe critical narrative rendition
of him and that, like, he'salways contemporary.

Right.

Like, I think there's something so fascinating
about, like, appropriation artor conceptual art and found art
and the avant garde, which is,like, definitely even over a 100
years old at this point. But andwhen he's invoked, it's, like,
always, like, for a contemporarypurpose or, like, you know, to
explain the NFT or to critiquethe NFT. Like, it's the the fact
that he might be that thecritical framing of him could be

(30:24):
pushed doesn't seem to he's notlike no one lampoons him the way
that I think, like, some of,like, the quote unquote older
people kind of get thistreatment. But my interest in
him, there's, like, a multifoldinterest in him in using sort of
the critical narrative aroundhim, but also the patronage
relationship that you can reallyunderstand through the permanent

(30:46):
collections that house his work.So the the first thing that I
say in the second chapter is Idon't mean to say that, like,
found object art is onlyscientific management, but it is
something to think about thatthe 2 are happening at the same
time.

And And I do think some people are gonna read
that going, well, that's whatshe says and dismiss it because
it's like, no. You're actuallysaying let's complicate this.
Yes. You know, let's make thismore complicated in some ways,
but also let's acknowledge thatcertain things are not the way
they're presented.

Well, let's acknowledge that there is a
movement towards this thingcalled the managerial class.
That's true. That there is thisthere there is something that's
happening where a notion of amind work, a notion of a work
that's elevated that is not ofthe body is being formed
simultaneously, that that, like,the found object happens. So

(31:38):
economically, that is somethingthat is happening. There's,
like, congressional hearingsaround this.
There's worker protests aroundthis. Like, I don't think that
these are inconsequential. Ithink that they are
fundamentally related. I alsothink, I chart, like, in the 3rd
chapter that Duchamp comes tothe US through patronage
support. Right?
So, like, Walter and Sharnsberg,they invite him. They, house him

(32:00):
in they're, like they own, like,I think the studio in which he
lives. He lives, like, abovethem. And, then they support
him. They support him to be anartist, and they collect his
work.
And the thing that I really kindof trace is how finding a
permanent collection for theircollection or a permanent museum

(32:22):
home for their personalcollection becomes like a like a
mission, a life mission forthem, but also something that,
they ask Duchamp to do. Like,they they give him, they finance
these endeavors so that, thiscould be part of, like, his life
and their life together. So Ithink that, like, all of this

(32:47):
is, something that might beuseful when we're thinking about
how museums are shaped and whois in the collection, who is not
in the collection, how docollections become made. So,
like, if I received a version ofmodern art history, modern
aesthetic history, that is,like, this is, like, really

(33:09):
exciting ideas, and these arethe ideas that then we, like,
study and we learn about andthen we, like, make art from, I
think that's one way to reallyvery quietly and explicitly
discuss how these are the bestideas, these ideas have merit,
and also, like, these are theobjects that have merit. I
wonder in this conversationthen, in the questions around

(33:33):
merit, what it would do for theconversation if we were to talk
about how these were the objectsthat the patron, those who had
wealth and access to certainforms of wealth and certain
forms of collections, pushedfor.
So, like, I also, like, describehow in the archival
correspondences, Duchamp ismeeting with, like, people at
the MET, people at the ArtInstitute of Chicago. He's also

(33:56):
meeting people at thePhiladelphia Museum of of Art,
as you mentioned. And, also,like, Arensberg is, like,
talking to UCLA's, like,ArtPlace and, like, Walker. And,
you know, there becomes a littlebit of a what could be
considered a bidding war, where,like, the Met and Art Institute,
they're like, okay. Well, wewill accept your collection, and

(34:17):
we won't break it up for, like,5 years or 10 years.
And then the Philadelphia Museumof Art, they offer 25.

Right.

So that it's not only that they will accept the
donation, it's that they willhold the collection as is. They
will not break it up. So it'slike the way that he conceived
of the collection, the patronsconceived of the collections,
will be on view that particularIntegral. It's integral. 5
years, and everything wasdiscussed, like real estate,
like where which rooms

Right.

Which ceilings, which windows. Like, I think
that the technical kind ofparameters of this like, there's
an economist that I admire verymuch, Joon Chung, and he says,
like, there are politicaldifferences embodied in what
looks like a technicaldifference. And I think that,
like, you know, if we're reallythinking about, like, the
history of art, I think it's soimportant to think about or the

(35:08):
history of aesthetics, becauseI'm not just thinking about art.
Mhmm. I think we should thinkabout, like, what are the
acquisition policies of eachmuseum, and what does it mean
for some people to have accessto the curators you have who
oversee the acquisition policy?
And this is not a democraticprocess. No. Not at all.

So it's presented that way, isn't it?

Absolutely presented.

And a meritocracy.

A fundamental meritocracy.

It's Right.

Present. And I think that that is actually a
travesty to say, like, if youare a passionate artist, then
you can make the

kind of You can do it. You can do it. You can do
it.

And the thing is is that I think that that's a
separate conversation from thefact that, like, I do think
expression is a part of life.

Sure.

So so, like, should ever should it be democratic?
That's a separate conversationfrom what are the institutions
and what are the ways in whichone is collected in the
institution. And sometimes beingcollected by the institution
doesn't even mean something likewhat the Arensbergs negotiated
for their collection, which is25 years of uninterrupted. And I

(36:11):
think they haven't actuallybroken it up.

No. I think it's actually been longer than that.

Yes. Absolutely. I I mean, I went a few years ago,
and it was still intact. So I II just think that there are
layers to the conversation thatmy book only sort of started
researching. There we might needto do more research

Right.

Into these processes.

Of course. Yeah. And, you know, it's it's funny
you say that because when I gointo that room now, it feels
almost like going into theBritish Museum. Do you know
these sort of, like, exhibitsthat don't change? Yes.
Do you know? And you're, like,back okay. And I'm here again.
And they feel the same, andthey're still and they feel a
little vintage. Right?
They're not they it's not quiteit's not quite up to, like,

(36:51):
2024. You know?

There's a letter, I can't remember if I took it out.
Maybe I did, where they WalterArensberg is very upset because
they are going to have, like, anopening. But the opening is
going to be for, like, themodern art section, and there's
no separate party for hiscollection. And this this also
creates a series of back andforth

Right.

Like Fiskimball, like, you know, there's, like,
another series of back andforths. And I think that if we
look at it that way, then thehistory of scientific management
or who becomes the managerialclass because I should also say,
like, Walter and LouiseArensberg, they did not work.
This is what they did. Theyspent they spent time, you know,

(37:35):
cultivating a collection oramassing a collection that would
one day be donated. I don'tthink that, economically
speaking, they would be removedfrom the the people who have a
vested interest in separatingmind and high hand.

Absolutely. And I do wanna say that part of this
has to do with the mythologies.Right? Yes. That's what you're
that's what you're alsodissecting.

Yes.

Because, you know, there's this great line
here, and I'm only gonna readpart of it because I think it's
relevant to this is to untanglethe conflation of modernist and
avant garde, origin myths.

Yes.

Do you know? And I think this is part of what
you're saying is, you know, weare actually not looking at the
things except for thesemythologies.

Yes. Yes.

Do you know? And that's the part here that I
think is really importantbecause it's not like you're
saying, no. These are notlegitimate, you know, artworks
or something. But you're sayingthat they're being seen through
this lens, and no one's actuallyscrutinizing why they came to be
that way.

Right. Right.

Do you know? And I think that's am I am I
understanding? Yes.

Absolutely. Right. So then the idea of, like, this
is, in the democraticmarketplace of ideas, this was
the best idea or this was, like,the most democratic or the most
inventive or the mostexpressive. Like, I think that's
a mythology. Right.

And I

think that we can push that mythology, and I think
that the discourse is strongenough to be pushed.

Right. I'm gonna read something else. So I have
all these little tabs, so I'mjust sort of, like, conjuring
them up as we go along. Toassert that there are common
objects waiting to be discoveredby someone who could see their
potential, quote, unquote,potential demonstrates the
paradox that art historians,artists, and writers continue to
make about the politics and notthe labor of avant garde art.

(39:14):
The avant garde artist is theartist against tradition, a
position that is ethically andpolitically superior to the
traditional artist whilesimultaneously above the quote,
unquote common and politicallyremoved from work.

Yes.

I mean, I think what I like about that sentence
is partly that you sort of showthe fact that, you know, that
already suggests a certainidentity

Right.

Right? Of the artist. Who would be above work?
Mhmm. Right?
We already know who that is.Mhmm. At least in the in the
hierarchy of American laborTrue. And racialized
hierarchies. Yeah.
You wouldn't think that that's awoman, for instance. Do you
know?

Yeah. I mean, work and labor are racialized this
way. I mean, there's a separatebook on, like, where craft would
fit into this conversation.Right? And also, like, I had to
try to make clear that I'm notI'm not romanticizing No.
Like, the work, or I'm not I'mnot trying to romanticize this
act of making because I I alsothink that that's, that would be

(40:19):
its own kind of mythology.Right. However, like, what does
it mean to set up certain avantgarde artists, certain modern
artists as politically, radicalor politically liberatory or
politically Marxist or, youknow, in that threshold. I think
I'm once someone has describedDuchamp as someone who, like,

(40:41):
was the artist who refused towork. You know, like, he's
radical because he, like,refuses to work.
And I'm like, but the refusal ofwork is not a refusal of work.
And so it's the abolition ofwork. It's, for a kind of
critique of capitalism orcolonialism. It's a way in which
the work and the labor becomesalighted for something else, for

(41:05):
the maintenance. Outsourced.

Which is a term you use a lot Yes. Which I
appreciate particularly becauseyou talk about the outsourced
labor and how, you know, theposition of the authorship is
completely dependent on thecelebration of displaced risk

Yes.

Precisely mimicking our financial and
political structures.

Right.

And you say I would extend this to argue that
all phenomenon are dependent onwhiteness as property. So you
talk about how the fact that thetransfer of risk can only take
place when a property eligiblesubject is present to receive
its gains. Yeah. Oh, throughoutmodernist and contemporary
discourse, risk taking becomesaestheticized and risk transfer

(41:47):
becomes, quote, innovative andlaudable.

Whiteness as property is a legal framework
that Cheryl the legal scholarCheryl Cheryl Harris takes up.
And, The Aestheticization ofRisk and Wartime is an essay by
Jane Blocker. So I'm pullingfrom both of those, thinkers as
I work through this idea. Butright, like, this this is
another mythology. It's like, isthe person who has the idea, is

(42:11):
that the most is that theartist?
Is it what is so difficult abouthaving the idea? What is the
idea actually? Like Well, it'salso

the idea. It's like I mean, I think there's
this thing in the in the fieldof art where the I the idea that
the idea is original

Yes.

And as opposed to you're laying claim to an
idea Yes. That someone else mayhave also had or you heard.

Absolutely.

Do you know? I mean, as a writer, I know that
sometimes you overhear asentence somewhere, and you end
up incorporating it into yourtext. I'm not the person who
owns that. It's not an origin,but I think somehow in the art
world, it's like laying claim.And I think it's true of art
history too, I'm gonna behonest, and scholars.
So, like, sometimes there's thisidea of laying claim to
something, which as we canimagine, very much fits into,

(42:56):
your argument.

Right. I mean, I listened to many lectures
thinking about this chapter, andthere's one that I think I cite
or maybe it was cut from thecitation because the quote was
cut. But the Khan Academy, Ithink that they make all these,
like, educational videos. Intheir overview of Duchamp,
they're talking to a curator,and they're talking about

(43:18):
particularly the snow shovelpiece. Yes.
And, I see the the person who's,like, interviewing the curator
was, like, well, what if I go toHome Depot and I buy a stubble?
Like, can I also be an artist?Like, can I you know, is that
the same? And the curator isastonished and is like, no.
Like, what Duchamp did is, like,priceless.

(43:38):
It's like there's no price onthis. Like, what you do is not
the same. And but, like, okay.Like, but really let's think
about this. Like, what does thatmean?
What does it mean that, like,this what what the real thing
that perhaps was was donethrough this thing called found
or through the avant garde,moments around this mythology is

(44:00):
that the person who isrecognized as the artist, as the
property eligible subject, theyare granted a wider spectrum of
objects to propertize. It is notthat the category of artist
actually broadens, or the thethe ways in which one becomes an
artist becomes broad. And itisn't that that the person who

(44:24):
made the snow shovel isincorporated into a community
of, makers who considerthemselves as, like, part of the
expression of life or modernism.It is it's that the subject of
the artist and, like, the realmin which they're able to move,
becomes bigger.

Yeah. You talk about that in the book too that
all these kind of innovation inthe field hasn't really
broadened the notion of theartist, really. I mean, it has,
but it hasn't at all. Like, youknow, because it's sort of like
the artist still becomes thisvery special creature

Yes.

Who mimics the patron in many ways. Yeah. Do
you know? And I think that's thepart we we don't wanna talk
about, you know, where where theartist does become very much a
mirror of the patron. Right.
You know? Or at least a certainkind of a lead patron.

Right.

You know? The question would

be, like, are ways in which expression is
understood and expression istaught Mhmm. Culturally and
structurally across the world?Like, what is our relationship
to expression as people who callourselves, like, humans? What
Right. With all the fraughthistory of that, what's the
relationship between, like, theways in which, like, artists
become respected or artistsbecome more designated in

(45:39):
society that, like, expressionis, like, understood as
something that's integral tolife.
Yeah.

Right. And actually, let me correct myself
because you actually talk aboutthe expansion of the notion of
human. Yes. That was it morecorrectly. So I I take that
back.
It's not just artist. You weretalking about human. Like, the
artist hasn't really expandedour notion of human.

Yes.

Yeah. And that's actually so. Correction.
Apologies for that. So now whatwhere do you hope this book will
land?
You know, who how how do youthink it will help people
expand? Because one thing I'mlearning as I'm in this field
long enough is every generationreinvents things. And I think in
the most wonderful ways that wecan never imagine, and if we

(46:19):
ever try to control it, we'rejust idiots, honestly, because I
I I I wanna be wrong. I want tobe able to learn something. I I
hope we're all working towardstruth Yeah.
And we're not working towardsthis idea of property of, like,
this is mine. This is yours.This is but, you know,
unfortunately, not everyonethinks like that. And how how do

(46:40):
you hope people will sort oftake this? I hope with
generosity, because I think thatwhat you've done is very
generous here, to be honest.
I think that the archival work,I mean, the ideas, that you've
sort of introduced as well assort of amplified. What do you
think? There's always this,like, trickiness where, like,
What do you think? There'salways this, like, trickiness
where, like, if

we talk about, like, interdependency or if we
talk about, you know, like,abolishing property, like,
OpenAI basically thinks like,oh, you're talking about, you.
Like, I I feel like like there'sa way in which, like, notions
and critiques become, like,weaponized against the people.
It's not like we're saying thatall language is shared and

(47:19):
expressions and ideas are sharedso, like, a corporation gets to
claim ownership. Like, I thinkthat that is actually often what
happens.

That's what's happening.

Yeah. Like For

those of us who are very pro, like, you know, I
was very anti copyright, butthen I realized that that just
created this thing wherecorporations just took over
everything.

Right. I I I think that this kind of, there is this
thing that hap that I have beenfeeling for the past, like, few
years where critique ofhistorical formations, cultural
formations, it almost makes itso that the corporate sectors
figure out how to, like, rebrandor re like, renary what exactly

(47:57):
that, like, it is that they'redoing. And it's like but I don't
want my critique. I don't wantour critique to just be, like,
more fodder for them to topropertize. So I yeah.
I should I just I wanted to saythat. But I, I watched this
YouTube review of my bookactually by this creator named
Shannon Kim. Think

Oh, I I watched it too. Really. I

loved it. I loved it so much. Yeah.

Me too.

I loved it so much. I loved it so much because I
thought that she well, I was so,like, I was so grateful that she
read it. And I think that shewas also, like, trying to really
wrestle with, like, how perhaps,like, there are questions of
labor, but then how doesquestions of, like, you know,
new forms, new technologicalforms, like, play into this? And

(48:43):
I thought, like, I think theseare the questions that will be
taken up, which is, like, how dowe conceive of of expression and
what kinds of expressions are weinterested in, and why might
questions of labor be importantin this moment? I think, like,
she pointed to this, but also,like, I know that, students I
speak to, not when I teach this,but when I teach, like, other

(49:03):
kind of historical examples of,like, you know, the Ford
Foundation and their experimentsin scientific or, like, you
know, the sort of Taylorexperiments that they were
involved in, that Grace Hongwrites about in ruptures of
American Capital.
Like, I think that they'reinterested in the ways in which
things are divided, as a way tosort of exploit their labor. So

(49:26):
I'm hoping I can hear from,like, other young people who
read this book and, like, let meknow, like, what they're
thinking about in terms of,like, how they imagine the
world. I also saw in that reviewthat she said she paid, like,
full price. And I was like, ohmy gosh. I wonder, like,
reimburse this person.
Like but also, like, why didCity Lights, like, give her a
discount?

That's right. That's where she bought it. It's
City Lights. I love that. It wasso true.
Worth every penny though. Oh.Worth every penny. So I don't I
think it was worth it. I meanYou know?

But I I say this in the book and I mean it that,
like, I really hope that it canprompt more research into, like,
histories of collections. Maybenot just museums, but, like, how
different archives are built. Idid, like, a little bit of
financial overview of thevarious, like, poetry archives
in the US. Yep. But, I I thinkright now, like, as culture has

(50:19):
once again becomes, like, thissite of contestation as it
always will Absolutely.
I really am hoping that we canhave, like, interconnected,
like, material histories. Ithink that perhaps, like,
configuring artists not as,like, an individual who's, like,
attached to a patron, but, like,thinking about the community
that this person is configuredinto.

Well, which I think is really an important
part that you you also talkabout, which is we focus so much
on the individual, and it sortof almost becomes like a sin.
You know, like, the idea of sinor somehow as opposed to, like,
there's a whole structure. Yes.That puts people in a position
where they actually may not, Imean, have a choice. And also,

(51:00):
sometimes the underlyingrealities aren't apparent.
Yeah. Do you know what's goingno one's sitting there and knows
what the board meetings are areabout. Right? No one knows how
they set that up.

I'm really hoping that there could be a history of
how boards, 501c threes, likemuseums and other, like, arts
organizations, literaryorganizations, like a historical
charting of how they were, like,made. So I look at, like, The
Frick Collection, but, like, whoare the primary founders or
board members of thatcollection? It's, all the robber

(51:31):
barons.

That's right.

It's Rockefellers. Yes. Yep. It's Andrew Mellon.
They write letters that saythings like, I don't know
anything about this painting,but I would like to have it.
So let's let's get it.

Which is which is so familiar to anyone who's
had to deal with a collector ina contemporary art setting. I
mean, not all of them, but youcertainly do hear things like
that still.

I I think to this day, artists probably make up
the minority of a Yeah. Of aboard

Absolutely.

Of a artistic institution. Yeah. Because the
thing that's prioritized is,like, financial immortality.
Right? So, like, it's the finewell, I think that they might
You

just touched on it, though. Immortality. Right.
I think That's the underlyingpart here. Right?

I think that the they would say it's financial
health.

It's the

financial health of the institution. But I often
think about how, like okay, soif you stack the board with a
group of people who have reallybought into the moralism, the
moral, like, messiah ofcapitalism that says, like,
endless, immortal kind of, like,financial possibility for an art

(52:36):
institution, then they might bemaking investments that actually
undermine the very thing thatthe institution stands for,
including, like, theenvironment.

Right.

So I I think that it would be really wonderful if,
like, we could have, like, morehistories of, like, well, why
does the board look this way?

That's right. Still building pyramids.

We we still and I I would like to not move away from
that question. I would like forinstead of, like, having
conversations around, like,individual artistic
responsibility or, like,individual, like,
responsibility, I would like, ahistory of board formations.
Because I think there'ssomething that happens when each
and every single person who isnot actually making the

(53:14):
structural decisions that end upaffecting everyone has to
explain their decisions. Yeah.It almost makes it so that the
the thing that is the foundationnever gets touched upon.
Then you get to, like, pick yourfavorite player, which I you
know, there are artists that Ireally like Sure.

And that

I respect. But I

And who sometimes make really bad
decisions in my, in my opinion,You know? And that's fine.
That's

the way it works. But the way that they make
decisions, I think that there'san overanalysis of them

and an underanalysis of institutional
knowledge. Opaque. Yes. No oneis gonna give you access, do you
know, to that level oftransparency. And it's great
that you have the papers, but Iwonder how many of those papers
are still being preservedbecause they know that those
decisions are going to bescrutinized.
Yeah. Right? So that also I Iwonder about that.

Like We will have to get creative.

Like Well, we are we are going to.

We we are going to. When we look at the 9 nineties,
I think questions like what'sthe difference between the
acquisitions budget versus thebudget and the payment for the
financial officers. I think,like, things like I think we
will have to, like as theybecome better, and they always
do, about, like, you know,destroying evidence or what, you

(54:28):
know, the other things thathappen. I think that there will
be a way in which we cancontinue to ask questions by
looking to the past, but alsolooking to the present and back
and forth.

Absolutely. Well, this was wonderful.

Thank you so much, Doug. I I really love this
podcast so much. I listened, afew times to the Eli Valley.

Oh, yeah.

That was so fantastic.

He's so great of me.

And I learned so much, and I just like, I
assigned your

podcast and writing. Oh, I'm so kind.

Yeah. And then tomorrow, I listened to that.

Oh, yeah. I mean, you talk about that case
in here extensively. So in thephotographs at Harvard and I
mean, that story, I mean, justbreaks my heart every time. And
but you talk about it so,intelligently because, really,
talk about artwork as property.Right?
The photograph, then who gets toown it? Yeah. And, of course, as
we know, law systems are builtin a certain way to prioritize

(55:19):
certain types of ownership.

Yes. Absolutely.

Do you know? And the racialization of that and
who who gives consent. Yeah. Andwho can actually be seen as, you
know, as who can whose identitycan disappear in the room. Do
you know?
And I think that sometimes isalso the issue.

And that case is like it it's a fascinating case
because it's like this questioncomes up by one of the judges,
like, is the daguerreotype aphotograph?

Right.

And if it's not a photograph, then should the
whole case actually be decideddifferently? But also Harvard
has digitized that image.

That's right. And and it's been everywhere.
And you can get it on Getty. Youknow? So those who don't know,
of course, it's the case ofLanier family is trying to get
the possession of daguerreotypesthat were created by an, Harvard
anthropologist in the 19thcentury on a on a slave
plantation in the south of paparenti and his family.

(56:10):
But at the time, they couldn'tgive consent as enslaved
individuals. And so theirenslaver was the person who gave
consent to photograph them. Andnow the family would like
possession back Right. Of theseimages.

The photographs were, or the daguerreotypes were
made to the continuation ofchattel slavery.

That's right.

So I think that there that all of the elements
of that case and the thecreation of the objects are
something to be contended with.

Right. And they're still but you talk about
how contemporary artists likeCarrie Mae Weems have sort of
used them and reinvented themand expanded our understanding
of them, as well as otherartists. So I just wanna say
thank you for that contribution.Thank you for your time, Kaye.

Thank you for reading it.

Thank you for this book. I'm gonna be
rereading this, and, if I if Istart teaching again, I will be
assigning it, and it will be allthis thing. But, you know and
and I think and I just wanna beclear because I think, you know,
when it comes to this field,sometimes people feel like
they're just staking their flag.And I don't think you're staking
a flag. I think what you'redoing is you're trying to open
up conversations, and and Ithink it really is generous what

(57:16):
you did here.
And and I hope people do expandand and challenge some ideas and
perhaps find things in here thatthey've never thought about
before. So I hope so. And I knowthey will. So thank you,
Insongas.

This is wonderful. I'm so this is so exciting. This
is such a it was such an honorto be a guest, but also to be
read so closely by you.

Thank you. Thanks so much for listening.
You can order The Politics ofCollecting by Eunseong Kim from
Duke University Press. Thispodcast is edited by our
producer, Isabella Segalovich,and our membership is the main
supporter of the show. So a bigthank you to all the

(57:59):
Hyperallergic members out there.
I'm Hragh Bartanya, the editorin chief and cofounder of
Hyperallergic. We'll see younext time.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Robber Barons, Marcel Duchamp, and Big Museums’ Dirty Little Secrets

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

Robber Barons, Marcel Duchamp, and Big Museums’ Dirty Little Secrets

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce