ON CULTURAL PROPERTY by Manuel Borja-Villel - artforum.com / i...

1 de 4

diegoparrad@gmail.com log out

ARTGUIDE

IN PRINT

search

ADVERTISE BACK ISSUES CONTACT US SUBSCRIBE

IN PRINT
DIARY

https://artforum.com/inprint/issue=201604&id=58713

500 WORDS

PICKS

NEWS

PREVIEWS
VIDEO

BOOKFORUM
FILM

PASSAGES

A&E
SLANT

APRIL 2016

P U R C H A S E
SUBS CRIB E

recent issues
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016

Thomas Bayrles Euro,

1998, as installed in the
Albertinums Baselitz
Room after Georg
Baselitzs work was
removed and returned to
the artist at his request,
Dresden, Germany, 2015.

December 2015
November 2015
Archive to 1962

NEOLIBERALISM, a synonym for privatization and the progressive reduction of the public in favor of the
private, has become our condition, the social, economic, and political dispensation within which our
activities have unfolded in recent decades. Opposed to any type of government interference in the life of
citizens, neoliberalism believes utterly in the self-regulation of the market, and it perceives any form of
administration by the state to be a stumbling block, an obstacle to economic growth. Nevertheless, reality
shows us that this ideology, both in its classic nineteenth-century version and in todays counterpart, has in
fact never ceased creating norms and structures, consolidating power over a society that has become
increasingly authoritarian and single-minded in its goal of preserving the free market, and whose control
apparatuses have been implacable in carrying out their paramount objective: the defense of capitalover
and above the common good.
Expropriation is one of the pillars on which capitalism rests, though it also spreads beyond economics, as it
is consubstantial with other modes of social organization. It operates through the pillages of war and
conquests of peoples and civilizations on the peripherypractices made habitual by successive
empiresas well as by means of the processes of enlarged reproduction, whereby capital accumulates
wealth. The dispossession takes place in the first instance in areas lacking in legal regulation, and in the
second arises from the connivance between state and capital that characterizes neoliberalism today. The
two forms of expropriation are not exclusive but complementary, usually acting in concert to spin a complex
web of social subordination.
In this order of things, culture occupies a position that is both central and marginal at the same time.
Everyone is aware of the importance of the information and communication industries to the world economy
and to our system of values. We know, too, that this preeminence has led to the absorption and subsequent
negation of a whole series of practices that were critical in their day. The marketing arms of large
corporations continually appropriate artistic styles and strategies for ends that have little to do with the
desires of the artists who conceived them, some of whom occasionally fall into a kind of self-inflicted
absorption. Artists such as Sebastio Salgado and Damien Hirst, to mention two extreme cases, exploit the
most wretched labor conditions or the art market itself to criticize or parody the system. The result is
generally the opposite of that intended. On the one hand, the aestheticization of misery and the
decontextualization of labor lead to the fetishization of the artwork and the transformation of the suffering of
others into a commodity. On the other, sarcasm becomes an exercise in cynicism that does little more than
ratify the very dynamic emptying the work of content.

03-05-2016 11:19

ON CULTURAL PROPERTY by Manuel Borja-Villel - artforum.com / i...

2 de 4

https://artforum.com/inprint/issue=201604&id=58713

The artists role in society has changed, and intellectual activity has lost the almost aristocratic prerogatives
it enjoyed in other eras. The author is no longer the praeceptor. Artistic activity lacks the autonomy it is
presumed to have had for centuries, and the dispossession of our knowledge and experience is constant.
Without nostalgically hankering after a return to the past, we must ask ourselves whether it might not be
possible to devise a system that would boost new forms of distribution and retribution, going beyond
promotion of the media value of a few and confiscation of the labor of a majority.
SOME MONTHS AGO, Jaime Botn, a prominent Spanish businessman and the owner of Picassos Head
of a Young Woman, 1906, which was requisitioned by the Spanish state last summer on the grounds that it
may have left the country illegally, argued that the painting was his to do with as he pleased. The picture is
mine, he declared in an interview in October 2015. It doesnt belong to Spain. It isnt a national treasure,
and I can do what I want with it. Botn professed not to understand why he was being deprived of an
artwork he had acquired legitimately, despite the fact that, for several years, Spanish courts had repeatedly
denied him a permit to export the painting (which he hoped to auction off in London), and yet it had turned
up on his private yacht in a Corsican port, where it was seized by French customs officials on August 4 of
last year. The confiscation was one of the top news stories in Spain last summer, and it saturated the front
pages of the newspapers for a few days. Not long before, the international press had reported on another
controversy having to do with export rights regarding cultural property. In this case, Monika Grtters,
Germanys minister of culture, presented a bill that would have limited the movement of certain artworks.
Although the proposal would ultimately undergo a number of revisions, the first version imposed restrictions
on any piece more than fifty years old and having a value greater than 150,000 ($163,000)a modest
figure by the standards of todays art market. Until then, the law pertaining to cultural patrimony had been
fairly flexible in Germany. It was assumed, of course, that various artworks were to be regarded as
belonging to the national heritage and so declared unexportable. Such cases were, however, exceptional,
and were specified in a list of national treasures, officially known as the Verzeichnis national wertvollen
Kulturgutes (Register of Cultural Objects of National Importance), drawn up and periodically revised by a
committee of experts. Now virtually any artwork of even middling repute, by an artist living or dead, German
or foreign, could be subject to export restrictions. (A revised bill, yet to be voted into law, would cover only
works more than seventy years old and having a value greater than 300,000, and stipulates that the work
of a living artist could be classified as national treasure only with the artists consent.)
Though one wouldnt know it from the fierce debate that subsequently ragedan irate Georg Baselitz
withdrew works from the Albertinum in Dresden and Gerhard Richter threatened to reclaim all of his works
on loan to German museums and sell them before the law could take effectGermany was merely trying to
bring its regulations into line with those of other European governments, which have sought to protect their
treasures from the voracity of the global market by restricting the permanent exportation of works more than
fifty years old (or a century old, in the case of France, Spain, Denmark, and Sweden) and deemed of
national interest. Under these laws, a work is of national interest if the artist was a national or if the object
or document in question is an integral part of the countrys history. The application of such criteria can be a
little convoluted. In 2015, for instance, Italian authorities refused permission to export a picture by the
Spanish artist Salvador Dal (Figura en una taula [Figure at a Table], 1925) because it was deemed to be
related to the painting of the Valori Plastici (a movement whose rappel lordre had transformed Italian art
practices in the years immediately after World War I) and was therefore essential to Italian culture. Just this
past February, British minister of culture Ed Vaizey, on the advice of the United Kingdoms Reviewing
Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest, placed a temporary export ban on
Giacomettis Femme, 192829, claiming that, although the artist was of Swiss origin and worked primarily in
France, this work had had a profound influence on modern British sculpture and should remain in the
country.

Shipping containers in
the yard of Natural Le
Coultre, Geneva Free
Ports and Warehouses,
June 4, 2014. Photo: Hito
Steyerl.

SINCE THE EARLY 1980S, the art market has grown steadily, at times meteorically. Between 2004 and
2014, total annual auction sales of US and European postwar and contemporary art soared from $621
million to $4.5 billion, an increase of 625 percent. With such a precipitous rise in prices comes a high risk

03-05-2016 11:19

ON CULTURAL PROPERTY by Manuel Borja-Villel - artforum.com / i...

3 de 4

https://artforum.com/inprint/issue=201604&id=58713

that many artworks will leave their countries of origin, especially in the case of nations with faltering or less
developed economies. Significantly, the art boom has found an echo in the consolidation of free ports
free-trade zones in which goods may be received, stored, and exported free of customs dutiessuch as
Luxembourg, Geneva, and Singapore, where large numbers of collectors warehouse works to avoid duties
and taxes. Under the circumstances, it is unsurprising that states would attempt to protect what they
recognize to be their cultural legacy, either by passing new laws restricting the exportation of national
treasures or by updating existing ones.
These protectionist measures have been questioned by an important part of the sector, which contends that
hindrance to the free movement of artworks would threaten the market and condemn the production of
many artists to a sort of reverse ostracism (whereby the artists work is exiled not from her country but from
all others). Furthermore, the argument goes, collectors, gallerists, and artists will not accept such a loss of
control over their work. Finally, market apologists contend, important collections of national and
international contemporary art have been amassed in countries that have maintained flexible laws in this
area, while such collections are conspicuously absent from countries with more restrictive legislation.
Harald Falckenberg, a collector from Hamburg, pointedly asks, Where are the great collections of Arte
Povera in Italy?1
IF IT IS TRUE that the separation between the public and the private is growing ever more indistinct, and if
it is the case that neoliberalism regards the function of the state as that of guaranteeing access (though not
necessarily for all) to the market, then what is the point of a law like the one they are trying to pass in
Germany? How could restrictions on the exportation of art objects be compatible with a globalized world in
which museums are increasingly delocalized, no longer committed to serving their surrounding communities
but instead concerned with addressing an increasingly generic and diffuse public? How are we to
understand a court ruling that seems to go against the flowagainst the consecration of property rightsat
a time when everything is being privatized? Are we witnessing points of resistance to globalization, with
culture providing a place of refuge, or are these various disruptions of the status quo rather symptoms of a
more complex situation?
Ostensibly, what is rendered explicit by these laws is the states will to protect that which is historic in
character (leaving contemporary art to the vagaries of the market). The historic, whose definition varies
from one place to another, is thus placed beyond the reach of global market forces, safeguarded from the
most extreme speculative tendencies. However, what is concealed in controversies is often more telling
than what is said, and this debate reveals that, despite neoliberalisms claim that the liberty of the individual
is its very cornerstone, the ultimate objective of the system is not freedom but profit, and that, when
necessarycontradictory as it may seemit will not balk at establishing norms and sacralizing certain
cultural artifacts to facilitate control over the population (by reifying the national character, for instance, or
by embodying national or aristocratic virtues). And this contradiction inherent to neoliberalism explains why
the free movement of goods and citizens in the twenty-first century is accompanied by its oppositethe
raising of barriers against their circulation. It is impossible to speak of heritage without understanding it to
be integral to a power structure that feeds off of inequality and thrives on the oppression of certain social
groups by others. To which social class do we refer when we speak of a countrys legacy? To that which
writes history, or to that which suffers it in silence? We have known since Gramsci that the battle for cultural
hegemony is crucial and that it often precedes political hegemony. This is understood by neoliberalism, as it
was by the authoritarian regimes of the 30s and by the superpowers at loggerheads in the Cold War.
Far from manifesting itself in incompatibly opposed positions, the controversy in Germany has evidenced
the two sides complementarity. It has made clear that the problem lies not in the irreconcilable dichotomy
between individual rights and the collective but in the fact that the opposing positions are based on the
same principle: that of property as the essential element in our relations and the germ of competition and
growth. For some, property is predicated on the individual enjoyment of and dominion over the object; for
others, on its collective use.
In Das Kapital, Marx demonstrates that the enclosure of the common lands in Britain at the end of the
Middle Ages was a necessary condition for the emergence of an initial form of accumulation. Today,
knowledge, affections, and our own subjectivities are the new common pastures, and their increasing
enclosure by the ascendant entertainment and communications industries undergirds capitals newest
mode of accumulation. But it is also one of the causes of contemporary capitalisms crisis. In a period when
technology permits all but universal access to cultural properties once the cloistered domain of the elite, the
logic of a new enclosure fails. For, as Christian Laval and Pierre Dardot argue (as did Benjamin Franklin at
a far earlier moment in capitalisms development), intellectual activity is neither extractive nor exclusive; it is
based on cooperation, not competition; and it is not exhausted by use but, to the contrary, gains energy the
more energy it burns.2 Again neoliberalisms contradictions reveal themselves: We pass restrictive
copyright laws and at the same time encourage the expropriation of cognitive labor. We restrict the
circulation of cultural goods while promoting the hegemony of a market that is global by definition. And in
the midst of our pitched battles over property rights, we forget that the yields of an artwork, the narratives
and experiences it generates, transcend its owner or keeper: They are common land belonging to all.
Manuel Borja-Villel is director of the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofa in Madrid.
NOTES

03-05-2016 11:19

ON CULTURAL PROPERTY by Manuel Borja-Villel - artforum.com / i...

4 de 4

https://artforum.com/inprint/issue=201604&id=58713

1. In conversation with the author, Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofa, Madrid, October 2015.
2. Christian Laval and Pierre Dardot, Commun: Essai sur la rvolution au XXIe sicle (Paris: ditions La
Dcouverte, 2014), published in Spain as Comn: Ensayo sobre la revolucin en el siglo XXI (Barcelona:
Gedisa, 2015).

PERMALINK

DIARY

PICKS

NEWS

VIDEO

FILM

PASSAGES

SLANT

ARTGUIDE

IN PRINT

COMMENTS

500 WORDS

PREVIEWS

BOOKFORUM

A&E

All rights reserved. artforum.com is a registered trademark of Artforum International Magazine, New York, NY

03-05-2016 11:19