Propery Values

Question 1: The article discusses that the museum is supposed to be "a neutral area cleansed of social and political concerns. The museum's white walls, signifier of the art institution's supposed purity" (615). Yet, I find it troubling that other paintings, photographs, or other displays in a museum are able to depict and convey a political or social commentary. However, the poll regarding Rockefeller that Haacke placed in the MoMa just seems to explicitly raises such concerns and questions to its participants and audience members be not allowed? To me this poll and other pieces of art are essentially performing the same task and that art is subjective. The artist can incorporate a commentary in any form of art for the viewers to pick up on and eventually consider what the artist is trying to convey. So, how are these two scenarios different? And why would other works that may n0t be free of social and political commentaries be allowed just because they are not stated explicitly?

Question 2: Haacke's response to Messer's statement regarding potential legal suits that could come as a result of his proposed exhibit . It seems that Messer objects to the fact that Haacke's exhibit would be too provocative and demand too much attention, which the museum did not want, especially legally. Yet, many pieces of art are made to be provocative. Isn't art supposed to create a discussion and stimulate the audience's thought processes? Haacke created a new form of art and demonstrated news moods of thought surrounding what defines art . Art is often created to test boundaries. The museum claimed Haacke's work possessed "ulterior motives," but don't many artists' creations? Can't art be intended to have ulterior motives and provoke the audience to further consider the piece after viewing it? Artists often create work to impact the audience and make a statement about society to society, especially about capitalism. How is Haacke's case different? Why is he ulterior motive discriminated against?