The most powerful throwing weapon

Hearing about art conservation being on the agenda is a pleasure. Rare satisfaction, let’s face it. The most recent involved new controversy, now between the Spanish Ministry of Culture and the President of the Regional Government of the Basque Country.

In effect, we realize that the concept of conservation is important, not only for the preservation of the pieces, but also as valid argument in political decisions.

On the occasion of the commemorations of the 90th anniversary of the bombing of the city of Guernica, the Government of the Basque Country requested the painting transfer by Picasso, Guernica, for exhibition at the Guggenheim Museum, in Bilbao.

A and hid itself in technical arguments, related to the preservation of the painting: a transport of risk, which “will cause new crackslifting, loss of pictorial layers or even tears”.

And it’s a fact. Any transport of works of art carries risks, as does simple exhibition or mere deposit. Whether displayed at the Reina Sofía Museum or the Guggenheim Museum, a work of art will be subject to risk – from exposure to light, the endless influx of visitors and changes in its surroundings.

We will therefore be faced with a mere technical issue? Or are political and autonomic issues overlapping?

The painting Guernica was commissioned from Picasso for the great Paris exhibition, with the aim of portraying the brutality of war. Then she traveled and was exposed in more than 40 locations. Until 1981, was in New York; returned to Spain and, in 1992, definitely to the Reina Sofía Museum.

I know that transporting a painting with but 27 m² It’s not easy, but I’m also sure that with all the precautions taken, the risk is minimal.

And if we want to think about reducing this minimum risk – by half, in this case – we can even think about hypothesis of a non-return transport.

And no. It wouldn’t be for the Guggenheim Museum. It would be for Guernica. Celebrating 100 years could very well be the pretext to do justice to the city devastated by war, and show that it is possible to escape the centralism of Madrid and Bilbao, definitively moving the painting to the city of Guernica.

There would be 10 years to build in the city a place that would safely and safely house this important landmark in the History of Modern Art. As a coach, but also as a visitor, I understand that it would be a very interesting decision.

In effect, the “Art for art’s sake”, a 19th century concept that defends the complete artistic autonomy of the work of art, has definitively disappeared.

The art market itself and museums are creating mechanisms that allow the use of works, based on political, ethical and value assumptions. If we prefer, censorship mechanisms, where artistic value will be irreversibly relegated to the background.

Later this year, a series of rules should come into force that define the type of response to be given by a museum, based on an International Code of Ethics, whenever “aa minority demands the removal of exhibited pieces”.

This code, to be approved by the International Council of Museums (ICOM), provides that “the collections of public and private museums will be treated and presented to the public based on sensitivity of minority groupswhich may even prohibit the exhibition of certain pieces or works”.

How this selection mechanism will be managed? What ideologies will be taken into consideration when applying these concepts? Let us agree that, in Art, practically everything can be classified as susceptible to hurting sensibilities.

E That’s what art is for. To mess with susceptibilities. To point out paths. Whether or not they are to our liking. That’s what Picasso did in 1936. That shocking work showed us the horrors of war. Now, on the way to 100 years, is being instrumentalized. Used as a weapon. Political throwing weapon.

Art is like that. It affects society and politics, but should not be subject to manipulation or censorship.