Gem Nauseum
By Cory Dugan
DECEMBER 8, 1997:
Im afraid I wont be
visiting the Jewels of the Romanovs exhibition. Call
it a solo boycott if you wish. Although, by all early accounts of
record attendance, the folks at the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art
probably wont miss me. (Some of them wouldnt miss me
if I never darkened the doors again, but thats another
story.)
But, you know, Im pretty sure I wont be missing
anything either. Nothing that matters.
What would I see? The fruit of human intellect and creativity? An
expression of profound or original insight? Could I anticipate
being challenged by new ideas or educated in the contemporary
ramifications of historical thought and aesthetics?
Or would I just gape at some of the purtiest and fanciest little
baubles you ever did lay your eyes on?
While its tempting to dismiss Jewels of the
Romanovs with the easy gibe, there is a rationale behind
such exhibitions. Exhibitions like Jewels and
Wonders and the historical precedents of King Tut and the Vatican
Treasures and the British Treasure Houses have nothing to
do with art or even history. They are about surprise!
money. And money alone.
On one level, they are about money in the form of box-office
receipts. The agenda of the Brooks in exhibiting Jewels of
the Romanovs is obvious. This is less an exhibition than a
fund-raiser, much in the same fashion as The Orpheums
presentation of Phantom of the Opera empty spectacle, big
investment, and hopefully bigger returns. An endeavor such as
Jewels is a little risky, what with exhibition costs,
insurance, and as we learned in D.C. those testy
Russians. But who can blame an arts organization in this day and
time for taking a chance? Moneys tight, the government
purse strings are being gradually frayed through by the dull
right blade of the congressional scissors, and the corporate
Medicis are being solicited from every quarter.
Which leaves the unattractive alternative of actually attracting
the public. And what better way to woo us away from Baywatch than
to wow us with a live version of Lifestyles of the Rich and
Famous? The only bait as alluring as sex is wealth.
Making a risky buck is one thing; but pandering is quite another.
The true sin of exhibits like Jewels of the Romanovs
is that they are little more than pornography for the
product-obsessed, crass manipulations of consumerist greed and
envy. We are not so much drawn to the beauty of the objects as to
their imagined worth. Look at that big honker sapphire, whatcha
think that babyd cost?
These exhibits pretend to be historical, but they are history
rewritten as spectacle preferably as a parade of gaudy
trifles (although, as seen in the recent Titanic exhibit, it can
also be a cortege of the mundane made melodramatic). The Romanov
exhibit, for example, surrounds its jewels with a few
ecclesiastical objects in an attempt to temper its hedonistic
appeal with higher motives. But the pendants and icons and altar
books are not humble church goods; they too are, of course, gilt
and adorned with gemstones.
The exhibit, after all, is not titled The Religion of the
Romanovs. The principal faith celebrated here is an
ideology of cultural property divinely granted to the idle
inbred. The royal family may indeed have harbored pious
believers, and they have certainly been romanticized (Im
waiting for that Anastasia tie-in) in the wake of anti-communism.
But the harsh fact is they ruled despotically over a nation of
millions of enslaved serfs for 300 years, overseeing pogroms and
religious persecutions and the brutal suppression of laborers.
(The so-called emancipation of the serfs by Alexander II in 1861
wasnt exactly the enlightened or benevolent act its
made to seem. The serfs traded servitude for lifelong debt and
half the land they previously cultivated.)
From the Romanovs to Ramesses, there is a disturbing link in
local blockbuster exhibits treasures accumulated through
autocratic rule. (Apologists can call it patronage, but patronage
is no favor when used as a tool of social control. The jewels
have also been excused by explaining that they actually belonged
to the state, that they werent really the personal property
of the Romanovs. But, wait the Romanovs were the state.
The state was their personal property.)
Wonders used to claim that its profits went to housing, but we
havent heard much about that in recent years, especially in
the aftermath of an apparently successful Titanic.
Museums like the Brooks usually excuse themselves by claiming
that this ill-gotten gain will provide real art for the future.
Kind of like Pat Halloran saying that Phantom will eventually be
good for local theatre.
Trickle-down doesnt work in economics and theres no
reason to think itll work in the arts. Plus, hey, the
Brooks doesnt have much of a track record in recent years
to lend credence to the argument is Jewels
going to finance more duck decoys?
I would never set myself up to define something as elusive as
art. But if I tried, it would involve something higher than
simple objects, much higher than shallow spectacle; its worth
would be valued in something other than monetary terms.
But, back here on earth, and speaking in monetary terms,
Ill be taking my $15 (does no one else find that admission
price obscene?) and contributing it to some worthy organization.
Are the Bolsheviks still around?
|