Art under Attack: Does Tate Britain's new exhibition on the history of iconoclasm have anything to say?

The Tate is becoming overly comfortable in its role as the quiet arbiter of British art

Share

Just over a year ago, I found myself sharing a large portion of McDonald’s fries with one of the most hated men in the art world. This was Vladimir Umanets, who, a month or so previously, had scrawled a ‘new title’ across one of Tate Modern’s celebrated Seagram Murals, painted by the abstract expressionist Mark Rothko. Umanets (tried in court under the Polish spelling of his name, Wlodimierz Umaniec), frustrated at a number of limitations that he believed were inherent in contemporary art and the world which envelopes it, had worked to create a new form of visual expression to sit alongside art, which he called ‘Yellowism’. The title he wrote across Rothko’s Black on Maroon was ‘A Potential Piece of Yellowism’, before signing it with his own name in permanent marker.

In the furore following the event, commentators struggled to make sense of Yellowism, and the reasons behind the ‘attack’ on the painting. I went on to make a short film on the subject, and, despite spending two days with Umanets and his fellow Yellowist Marcin Łodyga, still couldn’t quite work out what led Vladimir to commit such a direct and destructive action.

The restoration project, we were told, would take approximately eighteen months. Vladimir was given a hefty prison sentence of two years. Yet the confusion surrounding his action, and others of its kind, still remained. Will Gompertz of the BBC, in an interview with the Today Programme, described the difference between the Yellowist ‘act of vandalism’, and the work of artists such as Chapman brothers, who in 2003 added grotesquely comic faces to a series of prints by Goya in terms of ownership: if it’s yours, he seemed to say, you can do what you like with it; if it’s not, it’s vandalism. In the discussion of whether it is ever right to alter a work of art, and in what circumstances it might be, however, the Tate stayed mysteriously silent.

When it announced in May of this year that it would be presenting an exhibition called ‘Art Under Attack: Histories of British Iconoclasm’, then, it seemed as though the Tate might be bold enough to face up to a debate which is not only ever present in contemporary art, but which blurs into questions of copyright and plagiarism. Yet as the reviews began to dribble in, it looked like something had gone wrong. Each one seemed uniform in its expression of boredom, disappointment, and even anger.

I hoped that the critics themselves were to blame – that their approaches were too staid for them to appreciate a show that might itself be iconoclastic. I expected something audacious and new from Tate: a deftly assembled physical essay about the nature of and motivations behind the destruction of art. But the critics were spot on. The reviews printed in the last week have already covered much of what’s wrong with the exhibition: it’s a limited display of arbitrarily selected artefacts, scaffolded by dull, prosaic captions. It’s an astounding lack of confidence from a gallery that should have one of the best curatorial teams in the country.

It’s in the third of the exhibition rooms, which skims Suffragette attacks on artworks, that it becomes unavoidably apparent that this exhibition is going to leave you unsatisfied. Since the response of the art world to attacks on its possessions is to restore them, there’s not much to show from here on in. We’re given three pre-Raphaelite paintings whose glass frontings were smashed in Manchester in 1913, there’s a photograph of the slashed Rokeby Venus, and there are a few associated objects such a police reports from the time. In sections of the show, which deal more explicitly with aesthetics, artworks that have been attacked in more recent history are shown restored to a point where it would be impossible to know that they were ever damaged.

This, in my view, is pointless. Showing a fixed-up work of art next to a photograph of what it looked like when damaged, or accompanied by a small block of explanatory text, has effect of stripping away any sense of what it is as an object of admiration or political action. In this state, the works seem vacant: Equivalent VIII by Carl Andre, which was once splattered with blue ink, really does look like nothing more than pile of bricks.

Iconoclasm is an action. The destruction of art is controversial. A show of this sort should court this controversy, spurn the museum’s usual ‘look, but don’t touch’ policy, and give visitors the opportunity to feel what it’s like to at least handle, if not actually attack, some of its exhibits. This wouldn’t be difficult: half the exhibition seems to consist of photographic reproductions of artworks.

But Tate doesn’t have the guts to do this. It’s comfortable in its role as the quiet arbiter of British art, and doesn’t want to let us engage with it, or question it. This is even more obvious in the absence of what, in this exhibition, should be the jewel in Tate’s crown: Umanets’s ‘A Potential Piece of Yellowism’/Rothko’s ‘Black on Maroon’, which is still undergoing restoration. Displaying it – perhaps as the restorers are working on it – would have allowed viewers to see how iconoclasm is dealt with in the present day, and to see art as a continuing site of debate. It would also have forced the Tate to make a firm statement about the circumstances in which iconoclasm is acceptable, and when it is just vandalism. Somewhere along the line, though, someone must have decided that it would be inappropriate to include it. It’s been censored.

What we’re left with is an impression of an institution that, while posturing as a enlightened, progressive and unafraid of controversy, is either happy to keep us in the dark about its views and opinions, or is impotent to the extent that it has none.

Jack Orlik is a writer and digital researcher who has recently completed UCL's M.Sc in Digital Anthropology.

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

SQL Implementation Consultant (VB,C#, SQL, Java, Eclipse, integ

£40000 - £50000 per annum + benefits+bonus+package: Harrington Starr: SQL Impl...

SQL Technical Implementation Consultant (Java, BA, Oracle, VBA)

£45000 - £55000 per annum + Benefits + Bonus: Harrington Starr: SQL Technical ...

Head of IT (Windows, Server, VMware, SAN, Fidessa, Equities)

£85000 per annum: Harrington Starr: Head of IT (Windows, Server, VMware, SAN, ...

Lead C# Developer (.Net, nHibernate, MVC, SQL) Surrey

£55000 - £60000 per annum + Benefits + Bonus: Harrington Starr: Lead C# Develo...

Day In a Page

 

i Editor's Letter: Still all to play for at our live iDebate

Oliver Duff Oliver Duff
'I’ll tell you what I would not serve - lamb and potatoes': US ambassador hits out at stodgy British food served at diplomatic dinners

'I’ll tell you what I would not serve - lamb and potatoes'

US ambassador hits out at stodgy British food
Radio Times female powerlist: A 'revolution' in TV gender roles

A 'revolution' in TV gender roles

Inside the Radio Times female powerlist
Endgame: James Frey's literary treasure hunt

James Frey's literary treasure hunt

Riddling trilogy could net you $3m
Fitbit: Because the tingle feels so good

Fitbit: Because the tingle feels so good

What David Sedaris learnt about the world from his fitness tracker
Saudis risk new Muslim division with proposal to move Mohamed’s tomb

Saudis risk new Muslim division with proposal to move Mohamed’s tomb

Second-holiest site in Islam attracts millions of pilgrims each year
Alexander Fury: The designer names to look for at fashion week this season

The big names to look for this fashion week

This week, designers begin to show their spring 2015 collections in New York
Will Self: 'I like Orwell's writing as much as the next talented mediocrity'

'I like Orwell's writing as much as the next talented mediocrity'

Will Self takes aim at Orwell's rules for writing plain English
Meet Afghanistan's middle-class paint-ballers

Meet Afghanistan's middle-class paint-ballers

Toy guns proving a popular diversion in a country flooded with the real thing
Al Pacino wows Venice

Al Pacino wows Venice

Ham among the brilliance as actor premieres two films at festival
Neil Lawson Baker interview: ‘I’ve gained so much from art. It’s only right to give something back’.

Neil Lawson Baker interview

‘I’ve gained so much from art. It’s only right to give something back’.
The other Mugabe who is lining up for the Zimbabwean presidency

The other Mugabe who is lining up for the Zimbabwean presidency

Wife of President Robert Mugabe appears to have her sights set on succeeding her husband
The model of a gadget launch: Cultivate an atmosphere of mystery and excitement to sell stuff people didn't realise they needed

The model for a gadget launch

Cultivate an atmosphere of mystery and excitement to sell stuff people didn't realise they needed
Alice Roberts: She's done pretty well, for a boffin without a beard

She's done pretty well, for a boffin without a beard

Alice Roberts talks about her new book on evolution - and why her early TV work drew flak from (mostly male) colleagues
Get well soon, Joan Rivers - an inspiration, whether she likes it or not

Get well soon, Joan Rivers

She is awful. But she's also wonderful, not in spite of but because of the fact she's forever saying appalling things, argues Ellen E Jones
Doctor Who Into the Dalek review: A classic sci-fi adventure with all the spectacle of a blockbuster

A fresh take on an old foe

Doctor Who Into the Dalek more than compensated for last week's nonsensical offering