The double July/August international edition of The Art Newspaper stands out with two pieces of news from Australia, which epitomize the contradictions and oddities in the global art scene. There is, first, a most telling report on the inconsistencies within the aboriginal art scene that become apparent when looked at from up close. Recently, street sellers and local galleries are in conflict in Alice Springs Town, Northern Territory, over the permits to indigenous artists. Michael Hollow of the Aboriginal Desert Art Gallery in Todd Mall complained to the City Council that he was “constantly loosing business to street sellers. There are Aboriginal people selling art right outside my shopfront.” Paul Sweeney, from the Aboriginal-owned Papunya Tula Artists gallery, however, said, one should support the artists. Many of them create and sell their paintings on the lawn between the Mall and a nearby church whose minister argued, “the lawn artists provide a unique tourist experience and are gainfully self-employed” (Elizabeth Fortescue, p. 44).

The other news seem to come from the opposite end of the art world spectrum. They concern the most unusual art museum of the world, which will open in the next month on the island of Tasmania, south of the Australian continent. The owner, and collector David Walsh, mathematician, professional gambler, vineyard and brewery owner describes the “Museum of Old and New Art” (Mona) as both an “unmuseum” and a “subversive Disneyland.” Mona is huge, with around 6,000 sq. m of display space and is, among other things, very smelly as it will show Wim Delvoye’s Cloaca, the machine, which creates excrements. Walsh will present first the antiquities, which he started buying 20 years ago, followed by Australian modernists. The third part of the collection is dedicated to contemporary art of which Walsh owns some 300 works. “When Mona opens it will include four signature pieces from Charles Saatchi’s 1997 “Sensation” show of works by the so-called YBAs,” among them Ofili’s Holy Virgin Mary, which caused a political storm when it was shown at the Brooklyn Museum. “Australia has never had a YBA show,” says Mark Fraser. “It’s interesting that 15 years later Australia is getting access to this material where it will be tested in a fresh place, in an Anglo-Saxon context but one that didn’t see the work when the artists were young.” The article is worthwhile reading for many reasons. The museum “overturns virtually every accepted notion of institutional practice” and represents not only the idiosyncrasies of the collector, but also a very relaxed, if not arbitrary handling of contemporary art (Cristina Ruiz, p. 30f.).

We remain in the Saatchi shadow when we read about a wedding party in which works of art crossed the boundary line to entertainment. Simon de Pury, the auctioneer and some time DJ, used the Saatchi Gallery for the 600 guests celebrating his wedding with Michaela Neumeister, Philipps de Pury’s head of art for German speaking countries. “The guests hurled champagne glasses over the balcony,” as the event was orchestrated by Jennifer Rubell. The ensuing shower of glass led to the shattering of the showing case of Hirst’s Shark. The organizers also paid homage to another Saatchi-owned piece by filling the entire suite of first floor spaces with Tracey Emin’s 69 unmade beds (Louisa Buck, p. 35).

It is a strange experience to encounter in the same edition of The Art Newspaper a report on the vandalism against a part of the Berlin Biennale in the Kreuzberg Künstlerhaus Bethanien. The contemporary art scene became the target of activists who accuse it of “gentrification and eliticism. Galleries were wrecked, art destroyed and “wanted” posters were put up around the neighbourhood, with photos, e-mail addresses, and mobile numbers of biennale organizers.” Biennale spokesman Denhart von Harling defended the Biennale that it was political enough and therefore did not deserve such opposition (Robert Rigney, p. 8).

Other stories add to the confusing mosaic of the international art world. In Italy a prestigious order was awarded to Lamees Hamdan, “spearheading the campaign to bring the first United Arab Emirates Pavilion to the Venice Biennale in 2009. The Dubai-based skincare entrepreneur sits on the board of the Dubai Culture and Arts authority and is an avid collector of contemporary Middle Eastern art. Turkish writer and curator Vasif Kortun was recently selected to curate the UAE pavilion at the 2011 biennale” (E.S., p. 9).

Concerning the art market, there is a new development in the effort of the two largest auction houses “to make enquiries about the feasibility of obtaining insurance for the difference between a work’s guaranteed price and its actual sale price.” If this becomes possible, the auction house would obtain more safety in offering guarantees. Guarantee insurance could threaten the dealers of the secondary market. Louise Hallett of Insurers Hallett Independent is quoted as saying “many of them are already struggling to compete for the resources and global reach of auction houses.”  During the boom years, “both auction houses laid out hundreds of millions in guarantees they were offering themselves,” mostly for contemporary art. “This all changed with the credit crises in autumn 2008. At the time both auction houses said they would stop giving guarantees themselves and look to third parties to provide them.” A representative of Christie’s argued that “any discussions regarding insurance for our global business needs are confidential” (Cristina Ruiz, p. 44).

A last glimpse goes to the newly established literature on the art market which experiences a boom, as it seems to advise buyers on how to deal with the art market. There is Iain Robertson’s The Art Business (2007), and there is Don Thompson’s The $12 Million Stuffed Shark. The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art (2008). There is further James Goodwin’s International Art Markets: the Essential Guide for Collectors and Investors (2008). The review in The Art Newspaper now recommends a new book, edited by the experienced expert Clare McAndrew, Fine Art and High Finance: Expert Advice on the Economics of Ownership (2010). The contributors to the book, in one section, deal with the practice of art banking and its dangers. One of them, the art lawyer Ralph Lerner of Withers, discusses “art and taxation in the United States.” “McAndrews, more than her predecessors, makes a convincing case that art–while perhaps not a market in the conventional sense–is still an asset class worthy of economic analysis” (Melanie Gerlins, p. 38).

The June edition of The Art Newspaper brings something to the fore, which often carefully remains hidden from the debate of contemporary art’s globalization. It is the fact that important museums still remain reluctant to open up their collections to Non-Western art. There are countless exhibitions, which take pride in their choice of Middle Eastern or Indian art etc. But what about the museum collection, which still pretends to represent what matters in the history of art? The issue became public when Tate Modern proudly announced the purchase of 13 works (not a very impressive figure to be sure) of artists with Non-Western origin, thus indicating their intention “to broaden the collection” (RS, page 17). Broaden yes, but in what direction and with which intention?

The second reason for touching this embarrassing topic was a speech given by David Barrie, former director of the Art Fund, at the School of World Art Studies at Norwich. The speaker accused UK museums of “insularity” and funders of a “heritage mind set.” He also criticized the fact that the Tate will only select works with certain “connectivity” with its existing collection of Western art. Additionally, he added that the approach “could be wider still” (Javier Pes, p. 17). Barrie also wrote a feature in the same issue in which he welcomes Tate’s initiative and mentions the efforts of the British Museum and the Victoria & Albert Museum “to build a shared collection of Middle Eastern photography.” However, such plans are no solution to the problems that are still ahead of the present practice. “There are complex choices to be made in building the new collections – choices that have ethical and political as well as aesthetic dimensions. The issue of “connectivity” may turn out to be crucial. Curators may feel more comfortable acquiring works that are connected stylistically or intellectually with our present, Eurocentric collections.” And then Barrie adds: “Religious divisions and economic inequalities lie at the heart of many of the most serious challenges facing us. And yet the inexorable processes of globalization at the same time make this an increasingly inter-dependent world. If we are going to solve our problems, we must learn to work together” (David Barrie, p. 38).

The case of the biennial scene is different for sure. But biennials have their own problems, according to what the geographical position and the cultural background at the site is they are linked with. Thus, Australia has the problem of indigenous art, which, despite or because of political correctness, is usually treated in a half-hearted manner. The report from the latest edition of the Sydney Biennale, curated by David Elliott is clear proof of such problems. “Some of the biennale works by Australian artists dealing with history are disappointing in their simplicity and execution. The most beautiful Australian work here is the art produced by indigenous artists: a striking installation of intricately decorated burial poles by Yolngu artists from North East Arnhem Land at the MCA.  It says much about prevailing hierarchies in the art world, so that Elliott felt it necessary to justify the inclusion of the burial poles at the biennale press conference. “You can’t help showing indigenous art in Australia,” he said, adding: “It’s good. It measures up.” The poles, once an integral part of Aboriginal funerary rites, are now produced as sculptures; the examples on display at the biennale are on loan from the broadcasting billionaire Kerry Stokes in Perth” (Cristina Ruiz, p. 9).

This month’s edition has less to offer on the global art world but is nevertheless most interesting for different reasons, as it documents the continued erosion of the definition of art even in the Western context. This becomes evident with terms such as “elite art”, a protective notion within the primary art market of dealers, “high art” or, conversely “outsider art”. Equally revealing are the promotion strategies of “Goldsmiths College’s aspiring art stars” on British TV. The American designer Wendell Castle who is also very popular in Asia, is quoted with the statement that “furniture is just high art, like sculpture” (p. 49, Brook S. Mason). The reader wonders whether art’s notion still follows an independent thought, or if it has become a mere market concern with nothing beyond this. It still affects the general public’s taste, though sometimes in a negative sense. An example is the debate about Italy’s first national museum of contemporary art and architecture in Rome, which is scheduled to open on May 30^th. Amidst much confusion as to its true mission, Anna Matirolo, the director of MaXXi Arte, deplores “the huge lack of sensitivity towards the contemporary art world” in Italy (p. 13: Federico Castelli Gattinara).

Concerning the art museum, with its new links to the market, we read in a most illuminating feature by Lindsay Pollock that “all the angling and manoeuvring to place and essentially to protect a work is aimed at eventually landing [it] in museums, not in auction catalogues” (p. 41). The feature describes the ups and downs of the dealers’ game to protect the primary market in the age of the auction houses and thus to create something like “elite art.” Art adviser Allan Schwartzman recognizes new strategies of dealers to protect their artists against the threats of the secondary market. At the same time they are secretly cooperating with the auction sale, a sale well above their own price level. Their new concern is to what extent, and to whom, they make prestigious artists’ works available. Thus, dealers look for a proper “context” for the work they want to sell, and be it a collector considered to be a taste maker. “The art placing strategy can sometimes turn heavy-handed,” and this is reflected in the “complex mating rituals of art acquisition” (p. 42).

We  also meet the phenomenon of “elite art” under odd circumstances such as in the “Elite Art Club Unesco” at Bucharest, founded in 2003 and focusing on the task of stimulating “young people’s creativity” in Romania. Another example is provided by the agency “Elite Art of Africa,” which has been in business in Florida for ten years. The agency promises to sell “the best quality African art for your money whether the piece is an artefact or a contemporary art work” (www.eliteartofafricagallery.com).

Returning to The Art Newspaper, we learn that Goldsmiths College has initiated a TV program that launches an instant success for its students (BBC 4: But is it art?). The London art school, which has a reputation for training a global crowd of students and, incidentally, has produced 20 Turner Prize nominees, is anxious to break down the remaining limits of the acceptance of art, whether it comes to “steal a rhododendron planted by 2005 Turner Prize winner Simon Starling” in Spain or to other acts by artists normally considered illegal. Two ex-students have occupied a disused office/factory as a studio space for 80 artists. They complain that “of the 2009 MA graduates only two had gallery representation” so far (Jain Millar, p. 53).

In the meantime, the global art market continues to expand and to be frequented by clients or bidders with a new prominence. An example is the 102-lot auction of modern and contemporary Turkish art at Sotheby’s in London in the spring of 2010. Sixteen artists achieved record prices but 34 lots went unsold. “But the climax came with the sale of Fahrelnissa Zeid’s overpowering Untitled canvas, 1954, a heady mix of Fauvist and Cubist influences that slowly climbed to  Puond 657. 250, the highest selling lot, was sought after by four bidders. Among the bidders was Aziz Karadeniz, managing partner of the Turkish auction house Beyaz Müzayede. “The painting, consigned by Prince Raad bin Zeid Al-Hussein of Jordan, ‘effectively becomes the first modern Turkish work to exceed the $ 1 million mark in an international auction with international bidding’” (G.H., p. 69). At the same time, an exhibition of “215 Islamic embroideries” ranging from the 17^th to the 20^th centuries was organized in Abu Dhabi in order to prepare the ground for a revaluation of embroidery as an “important craft within the Muslim world.” The local Tourism Development and Investment Company (TDIC) launched this program with the hope of uplifting native aesthetics and cultural heritage (Emily Sharpe, p. 81).

By far the most interesting news about the art market comes from the six-day sale at Sotheby’s in Hong Kong. They mark a shift in the provenance, and taste, of buyers. “The main story was the dominance of Asian bidders including super-collector Wang Wei, who snapped up the top-lot, Liu Ye’s Bright Road, 1995,” for more than $ 2 million. According to Anders Petterson, founding director of market analyst Art Tactic, “up to 2008, speculative western buying fuelled the drive but now non-western houses are stepping up, and there is increased domestic buying.” Thus, he predicts “a second cycle in the Chinese art market” (Brook S. Mason, p. 69).

The 17^th Biennial of Sydney, which opened on May 12, is described by its curator David Elliott as “the level playing field of the cross-cultured international art scene,” while equally “acknowledging the brutal history of Australia’s colonization.” The sites include the historic prison, Cockatoo Island. The ambiguous title “The Beauty of Distance: Songs of Survival in a Precarious Age” was intended to emphasize the survival of traditional cultures in a global age. Here again, boundaries are an important issue which have to be dealt with. As if in self-defence, the curator insists on the need of recognizing quality despite its loss of meaning today. And quality also should be applied to artists beyond the accepted art scene. 67 artists from Australia are participating in the show, among whom 42 artists are from indigenous communities (William Olwer, p. 75). It is a strange coincidence that the University of Sydney is establishing a research program for “bringing the study of outsider art into the academy” (Elizabeth Fortescue, p. 10). Outsider art, once synonymous with art brut or Raw Art,  has undergone many changes in its meaning in the meantime. Today, it refers to almost any untrained artist or artist outside the realm of mainstream art. Thus, the question “Is it art?” proves to be the underlying pattern of the May edition of The Art Newspaper.

The section of the “Art Market” is of special interest again in the April edition of The Art Newspaper. Of considerable importance is a report from China which reveals the prevalent taste of important Chinese collectors. There is a quote from Hurun founder Rupert Hoogewerf that “Chinese collectors are becoming more interested in traditional Chinese art. For the rich it has become a dream to buy art – to become a noble.” China’s Hurun organization “has found a marked increase in sales of traditional Chinese art at auction at home and abroad in the last year.” As a result, a top artist such as Zhang Xiaogang fell from the first to the 13^th place in the price index while Zeng Fanzhi’s 2009 sales totals were only a third of that of 2008. Hoogewerf is also compiling a list of the top collectors of Chinese art – “people who are traveling abroad and seeing the effect of art museums on society.” Traditional art certainly was always of more importance in China than on the international market even though its sale was under pressure of work from contemporary artists for a while. Now, traditional art seems to be gaining back its predominant position on the market in contrast to the international taste (Chris Gill,p. 67).

The fourth edition of Art Dubai that was held between March 17 and March 20 is worth mentioning for other reasons. Georgina Adam sees “a radical transformation” in the choice of artists. Nevertheless, “Indian and Middle Eastern artists sold the best, while international names did not find many buyers” at the first Abu Dhabi. Last year, the fair faced a new challenge “when the Abu Dhabi government poured money into its own ambitious art event”, including acquisitions for Saadiyat island and its new museums. Thus, Art Dubai has become a largely regional fair, with the exception of the hype around a group of Chinese artists along with some Western representatives. The author quotes Renuka Sawhneyas saying that “this fair is a growth engine for the local area and local artists.” The most expensive work on show was a tapestry by African artist El Anatsui. Sultan Sooud Al Qassemi, a 32-year-old local collector, has built up a collection of some 200 works in the last three years, which focuses on changes in the region. “The collection has been placed in a new foundation in Sharjah.” However, after the financial crisis broke out “there seems to be a new climate of conservatism in Dubai.” Before the visit of the ruler, the cultural authorities removed a work by the Dubai-based, Iranian artist Ramin Haerizadeh. The same happened to a work by the Iranian artist, Sara Rahbar, which was however sold by a collector from Kuwait. Additionally, the Canvas fair daily paper “was threatened with being withdrawn because it featured another Haerizadeh on the back cover”. This implies that the balance between economy and politics is still not in sight (Georgina Adam, p.71). Yet, censorship is also an issue in other areas of the world. Thus, at the Arco Madrid the Israeli embassy was upset by a sculpture of Eugenio Merino, whose work “Stairway to Heaven” showed a Muslim, a Christian, and a Jew, each at prayer, forming a human tower together. Another aspect worth being noted here is the idea of the new director of Art Paris, Lorenzo Rudolf, former director of Art Basel from 1991–2000, to create “platforms” with areas devoted to art from Africa, Indonesia, Finland, and the Ukraine (Anna Sansom, p. 71).

In the same section, there is a report on the controversies surrounding the recent exhibitions at Versailles that are curated by Jean-Jacques Aillagon, former director of Pinault’s Palazzo Grassi in Venice, and thus linked to the art dealer Emmanuel Perrotin who, in turn, lists Pinault as one of his most important clients. The controversies were sparked by the decision to stage a Jeff Koons exhibition at Versailles last year. The exhibitions to follow next will feature works by artists Takashi Murakami and Maurizio Catalan, who are from “the stable of Paris dealer Perrotin.” The gallery owners defended their position with the argument that “Pinault is among Versaille’s most important donors.” When the show opened, “the 20 biggest collectors in the world were all there – immensely wealthy people.” The business aspect is enforced even more by the nomination of James Murdoch, chairman of a UK television network and director of News Corporation, for election as a director of Sotheby’s. The auction house has “been losing ground to rival Christie’s in online sales.” And Sotheby’s, therefore, counts on Murdoch’s expertise in new media (C.B., p. 65).

One article in the section “Art Market” reports on the controversy around the purchase of the Haunch Venison Gallery by Christie’s in February 2007. British artist Keith Tyson has now announced that he is to leave the gallery that “has changed beyond recognition. As a subsidiary of an auction house, Haunch of Venison – which has branches in London, Berlin, New York and Zurich – is excluded from participating in the main contemporary art fairs” (L.B. p. 8).

In the section “Museums”, we find a long discussion on the situation of art museums in Miami Beach. Against the current interest of the local and visiting dealers and clients, the director of the Bass Museum, Silvia Karman Cubiná, believes that the collector’s museum “has to ask questions about the past”. In fact, the museum is inaugurating the first permanent gallery of Egyptian antiquities in Florida. Cubina is quoted as saying that the “museum’s voice is in this community.” “You can be really exciting and dynamic with art that isn’t contemporary.” On the other hand, the director is trying to create a dialogue between the permanent collection and contemporary art, especially in the exhibition “The Endless Renaissance” (2009). She entertains the notion “that all art is informed by art that came before it” (Cristina Ruiz, p. 20).

A note on Damien Hirst concludes our look at the April edition of the Art Newspaper. In a defensive mood because of his badly received Wallace Collection show, Laurie Taylor interviewed Hirst on UK satellite channel Sky Arts 1. In the interview he argued, “Money’s a fantastic tool to get people to take you seriously. Walking down Bond Street after the (2008) auction, I’d get recognized by business men.” On his work in general, Hirst said: “I always try and say something and deny it at the same time … my responsibility is to hide from the viewer.” (I.M., p. 53)

The March edition of The Art Newspaper stands out by allowing a debate to unfold which is of special interest though it only indirectly touches the globalization issue and takes place within Western institutions and among Western art critics. The debate is about a crisis of the art concept in the light of contemporary art and its economics, a crisis that is not unexpected, given the encounter with the total commodification of art on the new global art markets. Two examples illustrate the case in this month’s Art Newspaper issue.

First of all there is the discussion about the destination and the collection of the National Museum of 21^st century art in Rome (MaXXi) built by Zaha Hadid due to open in 2010 after a delay of several years. The appointment of Vittorio Sgarbi as supervisor of acquisitions “is dividing the Italian art world, thanks to his well known antipathy to contemporary art.” Sgarbi is quoted as saying that the new museum “should concentrate on the generation in its fifties,” and a museum in Italy “should be different” from other museums in Europe. Anna Mattirolo, who is in charge of acquisitions of the art works, argues that “Sgarbi will not directly acquire works.” But the concern to take risks and engage in experiments is obvious. There is no open reference to globalism in this Italian debate but we may ask ourselves whether the new hype of art production worldwide is causing a new turn of the fashionable struggle between conservative critics and their opponents (Alessandro Martini and Gareth Harris, p. 1 and 3).

The second example is placed very prominently in the section Features. Here, Jean Clair, former director of the Picasso Museum in Paris strikes out against the loss of culture and cult in today’s world. He is answered by Robert Hewison, member of the think tank Demos, with an attempt to defend today’s world and the continuity of spiritual and aesthetic values. Jean Clair has a lot to complain about what he argues to be a descent to the banal. “From cult to culture, from culture to the cultural … we have descended to the cultural: businesses, products, activities, cultural pastimes.” He sees no solution for the problem of building and defining “a museum of low art.” “The shape of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Metz (opening May 12) resembles the Bufallo grills one sees along the French motor ways.” In fact, he asks the question of what a museum is for if art can no longer be defined with any confidence. “The techniques for promoting and selling a work termed contemporary art are like those for selling anything at all. Hedge funds and securitisations have illustrated how financial manipulation can make something out of nothing.” Clair is, expectedly, most unhappy about Damien Hirst. However, he touches upon the globalization issue when he writes that “the Louvre lends its name and hires out its collections to a country in which the workers are cruelly oppressed,” referring to the forthcoming Abu Dhabi Louvre (p. 30-31).

Hewison readily admits that “the art market is one of the least regulated forms of commodity exchange: greed, snobbery, and corruption are powerful forces at work in it,” and he continues that Clair “is right that ‘value’ has lost its value.” But he argues that the commodification of culture calls for a redefinition of cultural value “not by denying the economic and social impact of the arts, but by arguing that these can only occur when the aesthetic and spiritual aspects already exist.” In my view, this is a kind of non-answer that also applies to his conclusion when he writes that “culture constantly renews itself, and so must its presentation and interpretation.” And then he turns the table by defending Damien Hirst by saying: “What could be more metaphysical than the questions posed by Hirst’s art?” (p. 31).

Our topic, however, is directly addressed by a report on a debate in China, which concerns the role of public museums in the representation of contemporary art. We sometimes are tempted to judge art’s success only by its success on the market, without taking into account its institutional and public context in its country of origin. Thus, we should be attentive to a recent controversy in China, which is caused by “the art museum assessment report”, launched in December by the Chinese Ministry of culture and concerning the state of contemporary art collections in its museums. The debate is about “museums’ inadequate acquisition budgets, self-censorship and caution. Most museums, critics claim, have missed the boat on collecting China’s biggest contemporary artists.” Part of the problem is that the ministry has set a bar for annual acquisition budgets. The Swiss bank Sarazin, for instance, sponsors the Shanghai biennale. At a forum held at the new privately managed Minsheng Art Museum in Shanghai, backed by the bank of the same name, Chinese collector Guan Yi has argued that “there is a perception that contemporary art is anti-government.” Guan has collected 800 contemporary works that he intends to make accessible to the Chinese audience. The Minsheng Art Museum is currently showing part of the British council’s permanent collection; the largest exhibition of the council’s collection ever shown. Director Zhou Tiehai hopes that the show “would be enlightening for the Chinese” (Chris Gill, p. 11). The report gives a picture that markedly differs from our expectation of art’s presence in today’s China. The part of private collectors certainly helps in making art accessible but also leaves many open questions about the impact of private taste in this context. To summarize the different contributions to the March issue, it seems that we are facing a lot of questions and problems, which are usually covered by the rhetoric used for art’s economy.

One of the key issues of the February edition is the appointment of the New York art dealer Jeffrey Deitch as director of the MoCA in Los Angeles. Lindsay Pollock reports that one of the arguments was that Deitch „ran a business for a long time.“ He regards „finding money“ as an important goal. Though he feels „obliged to sever all ties to the commercial art world,“ he does not rule out exchanges with his own art collection (p. 18). The same issue reappears in an editorial by Edward Winkleman, a gallery owner from New York. He chides the criticism in that it almost has become a rule that people change from non-profit institutions to the commercial sector. Though he has no objections against this appointment, he admits that the downturn in the art market may be a reason for dealers to change sides. He also admits the existence of long-term relations to MoCA Trustee and super collector Eli Broad (p. 27).

In the art market section, one of the more interesting news is the appointment of Francois Curiel, Christie’s president of France and Europe, to the position of president of Christie’s Hong Kong. Curiel explains that one of his reasons is the fact that the Asian art market “is the only area to have seen growth of 2,4 % last year.” Christie’s have connections with the Mainland Chinese auction house Forever that may serve to improve the Chinese trade (Georgina Adam, p. 46). Also a small note on a Chinese art fund may be added here. A Shanghai bank’s “second art investment scheme for private investors sold out within days.” The minimum investment for the fund was set at USD 73.000. The fund does not serve to buy art but to profit from revenues of the fund (p. 46).

Amidst the glamorous tales of contemporary art’s globalization in today’s art worlds, one often forgets that there is a second area with global aspirations. Here, the main player is Neil McGregor, director of the British Museum. He is planning, after exhibitions of the Chinese terracotta army and the creation of Persia, an exhibition on the Hajj, the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. The BM exhibition would probably be the first museum exhibition “devoted to the Hajj from a global perspective.” Venetia Porter, a curator in the Middle East department who, as a non-Muslim can never visit Mecca, is curating the exhibition. The date of the Hajj ceremonies will be in 2011 in November, shortly before the BM show (M.B., p. 12). Such projects should be seen with the ambition of the BM to develop a new concept for telling the history of civilizations. The same Neil MacGregor created a new series for BBC radio. “A history of the world in 100 objects” covers “two million years of human history interpreted through the museum treasures, from Stone Age axes to 21^st century credit cards.” MacGregor’s global reach rebalances the story begun by Kenneth Clark, director of the National Gallery who did the landmark 1969 TV series Civilization through fine art and architecture (Judith Bumpus, p. 36). It seems to me that world (art) history is in competition with the global art world here.

A full-page feature is dedicated to the Saudi Arabian artist Abdulmasser Gharem, (Henry Hemming, p. 32). He is having his first solo exhibition in Dubai at the moment, but he had suffered from the lack of an art scene in his country as well as from religious or national censorship for a long time. It thus makes sense that the artist explains his decision to remain in the Saudi Arabian army as lieutenant colonel as a possibility to use his military rank for personal prestige and access to a lot of information. He voted to remain “among the people” despite the accompanying limitations to his existence as an artist. It is interesting to learn that he could only become an artist due to the growth of the Internet, given the lack of art education in his country. His difficulties were partly due to his being a conceptual artist who addresses very sensitive subjects in Saudi Arabian society. Thus, his participation in the exhibition Edge of Arabia at London’s School of African and Oriental Studies forced him to withdraw certain works, which were justified with the argument that these works were “religiously insensitive.” But the visit of the Saudi Arabian deputy minister of culture to Venice changed his status as artist considerably, since the minister liked his controversial work The Path (2007). Almost immediately, collectors of the region became attentive of his art. This incident proves that art collection in such places is full of uncertainty and surprises.

The December issue’s first page opens with an interesting report on the acquisition policies of two London institutions, the British Museum and the Tate. Both activities are directed towards increasing the collections of work by artists from the Middle East. The 22-member Menaac Group (Middle East North Africa Acquisitions Committee) is considering „acquisitions from 1960 to the present day made by artists originating from the region” including communities in the diaspora. The panel is modeled on Tate’s Latin American acquisition and Asia Pacific acquisition committees. The committee is co-chaired by Maryam Homayoun-Eisler, a Teheran-born London based collector who also was curatorial director for the publication Different Sames: New Perspectives in Contemporary Iranian Art (Thames & Hudson 2009).  Her co-chair Maya Rasamny is a juror of the Dubai-based Abraaj Capital Art Prize. At the British Museum, Venetia Porta of the Middle East department says that they will focus on works on paper, including prints made by Palestinian and Israeli artists. The case is interesting since the British Museum owns ethnographic collections whereas the Tate centers on modern and contemporary art. The Tate therefore is quoted as being concerned about a possible overlapping of collections and thus about risking clashes between the two institutions (Gareth Harris, p. 1). It goes without saying that the Tate would not have usually bought Middle Eastern art, and the British Museum would usually not have considered acquiring works from living artists from the region of which they own specimens of world art.

The section Letters to the Editor contains a response to the project of the New Museum of Contemporary Art in New York to exhibit works from the collection of Dakis Joannou (cf  Sept 2009, p. 11 & 35). Almost the whole curatorial team of the New Museum have signed the response and defended their exhibition policy as not being the first to show a private collection. In fact the “boundaries of the public and the private realms of contemporary visual culture” are shifting. As they write, “different kinds of public/private partnerships” are explored. (p. 27)

On page 37, Iain Millar writes a very interesting feature on Saatchi and the BBC2’s recent reality TV show entitled School of Saatchi. The program’s chief talking head Mathew Collings is quoted as saying: “people probably don’t understand the difference between contemporary art and art.” Collings is the head of a group chosen by Saatchi to select “six finalists who will spend ten weeks working on joint and individual projects, leading to one winner who will be included in the latter stages of Saatchi’s Newspeak: British Art Now show at the Hermitage” and will be granted free studio space for three years. The candidates, as we learn, are exhausted of constantly being asked to explain why what they are doing is art. As Collings is reported to have said, the series has succeeded in making “the audience in Britain notice there was such a thing as contemporary art.” In the next selection phase, “the final six are set up in their studio” and are asked to create public works on the seafront of Hastings in teams of two.  “At Hastings the public had the opportunity to vote “ and decide “whether they disliked or liked the works. Despite the absent Saatchi’s exhortation to build works that would be popular with the public, the work most disliked by the public was the one that received most praise from the man himself.” Millar comments that the fact that the show School of Saatchi is aired at 9PM on BBC2 on Mondays “says that this is a program with no populist pretensions. The X Factor and Strictly Come Dancing have nothing to fear from it: this is a bauble for the cultured elite.” In Millar’s opinion there is no doubt that this is a captivating TV event and that its “participants are well versed in the language and devises of contemporary television.” Yet, Millar also feels that the impact of this new series will impede the creation of a program that takes contemporary art serious in the future  but that “Saatchi remains the Kurtz at the dark heart of the art world jungle, too terrible for the gaze of ordinary folks.” The show’s winner was featured at the Hermitage on 16th December, 2009. (p. 37)

In the section Art Market, Georgina Adam reports on Abu Dhabi Art, the new contemporary and modern Art fair in November. Since there is no art market in Abu Dhabi, “ the fair was organized by the government of Abu Dhabi, which is determined to establish one ex nihilo in the tiny Gulf state to tie in with its ambitious multi-billion dollar museum-building projects on Saadiyat Island.” The French project of Art Paris had failed after two editions. Thus the cultural authorities “ brought in an array of art world luminaries, led by art world supremo François Pinault (flanked by the high command of Christie’s which he owns); artists Subodh Gupta and Jeff Koons, architect Jean Nouvel (who is designing Louvre Abu Dhabi) and the Chicago Collectors Stefan Edlis and Gael Neeson.” The timing of the fair was difficult, as it was closely followed by the Frieze Art Fair in London, Fiac Paris and Art Basel Miami Beach. The organizers pointed out “ that the potential for museum purchases was immense. ‘All the institutions exist already; even if these buildings aren’t here yet, the need (for art) is,’” as Georgina Adam quoted a representative of the tourism development and investment company. But according to the dealers “Abu Dhabi essentially only has two major collectors-, the royal family and the government.” Thus, some dealers bemoaned the sparse attendance. Pace Wildenstein was one of the more frequented galleries and. The recession felt far away in the Emirates’ Palace Hotel where the fair was held as for example “Gagosian’s stand was dominated by Koons’s Diamond (Red), 2006, priced at around $12m. Initial sales tended to be of works by Middle Eastern artists,” but international art dominated. Dealers complained that the money spent on the platform would have been better spent on art: “ there were about thirty top class works of art in the fair which would form an excellent nucleus for the new museums.” (p. 52)

On the same page Chris Gill gives a glimpse into the first edition of Fine Art Beijing that took place in November 2009: “The fair saw a relatively brisk trade. There are about 100 collectors now in Beijing. Many of them are new [and] low profile, said collector and dealer Yan Bing, whose wife’s Aye Gallery was one of the thirty classic and modern dealers … China has a longer history of collecting than in the west – but, traditionally in China, collections are for private viewing,” he added. Fair director Dong Mengyang, who also runs Art Beijing, one of Beijing’s two main contemporary art fairs, is quoted as saying: “It can take 20 years to develop a top art fair … We opened a super market to see who would come.” The first edition was intended to create the market for art with traditional techniques.

The first page of the November issue opens with an article about a new measure of censorship of importing or exporting art across Chinese borders. As Chris Gill reports (p. 1), the so-called “Interim Provisions for Import and Export Management of Fine Art Works,” issued in August 2009, contains an 11-point guideline in which the ministry attempts to clarify rules for the future practice among which an ample documentation of works and exhibitions are requested. Whether this initiates a new policy or not, is not yet clear. Also the results cannot be estimated, since not enough time has passed for judging the application of the new guidelines. There may be more of a bureaucratic aim for control, but it is not out of the question that the new rules will have their impact on the vividly developing, especially international art scene in the country in the long run. (more…)

Middle Eastern Contemporary art remains to be the topic of a hot debate in the September and October issues. In the July/August issue, No. 204, there was an editorial by Anna Somers Cock, founder of the art newspaper who retired in August 2009 as editor of the magazine. It dealt with the question whether the west is still colonizing Middle Eastern art (cf. our remarks from September 2^nd above). In the October issue, there is a reply by Ali Khadra, publisher of Canvas, a magazine for art and culture from the Middle East and Arab World, in Dubai (p. 32). He begins with the argument that patrons and artists who were not associated with the usual Western institutions sponsored Middle Eastern art. He also defends Middle Eastern art against the opinion that it is alienated from itself by westernizing oriental clichés. In his view it has a stand of its own and offers “a unique style born of an intricate mixture of rich history, deep-routed culture and on-going conflict.” Anna Somers Cock answers that her editorial merely “was a warning of the power of major Western institutions to deform that identity, however unintentionally, to suit their own preconceptions of what art should be.” As she writes, she had “clichéd subjects” in mind such as the treatment of the veil issue (p. 32). (more…)

Beginning in September 2009, a new column on our website presents reading materials found in the leading international newspaper exclusively dedicated to art. The reports are linked to the perspective of the project GAM and thus concentrate on the rapidly changing, and expanding, situation of contemporary art in the age of globalisation. The Art Newspaper is issued 11 times each year (no issue in August) and includes sections on museums and on the art market but also “Features” and news in general. It is therefore an important source for looking through our “global window” and may be read as a chronicle of what happens and what changes in the global art world (in our case with respect to contemporary art). The Art Newspaper does not deal with the kind of theoretical exercises of which we already have a confusing abundance, but offers reports of facts in art trade, art institutions and exhibitions that may be regarded as symptomatic for the transformations of the art scene world wide. The newspaper thus serves as a mirror of the ongoing process of globalisation, since the “art news” reach us from many parts of the world, or indicate the rise of new art practices and institutions in familiar places. We do not embark on lengthy commentaries, as our personal selection of brief notes serves the collecting of materials for the study of the new artworld.
Hans Belting, September 1, 2009

Read and subscribe The Art Newspaper at www.theartnewspaper.com

Internat. Edition Vol.XVIII, No.204: July-August 2009

The Middle East, with its rapidly emerging art scene, belongs to the prominent issues in this edition. Sophie Fouquet gives a well-informed description of the projects for the Abu Dhabi Louvre. The laying of the foundation stone (May 26) was attended by Nicolas Sarkozy who was there “to inaugurate a French military basis”. At the time, an exhibition “Talking art” presented “the first purchases by the emirate from a selection made by Agence France-Museums”. The new Louvre branch will not offer the picture that we have of the museum in Paris. The French minister of culture, Christine Albanel, spoke on the occasion of the May meeting of a “completely new concept for a universal museum” from which, according to the terms of the contract, the French will have withdrawn only in 2040 (p.16). Thus, as is to be expected, the Middle Eastern Louvre will also collect modern and contemporary art, as a result of the relentless rivalry with the Guggenheim branch at Abu Dhabi.
(more…)