More on Media Bias

There's an interesting parallel between the dialog in the US about race and the dialog in the art world about artwork media. The parallel centers, IMO, on the difficult tying up of loose ends in seeking meaningful equality. We have declared for quite some time in the US, for example, that "all [people] are created equal" but it took over 200 years for that statement to bear fruit in the form of the first non-white President. Even still, we see (through issues raised by events such as the Gates Crowley he-said--he-said kerfuffle, if not the actual arrest itself) that there's quite some distance between such milestones and true widespread acceptance/implementation of equality.

Likewise in the art world, the era of Post-Modernist production and current media pluralism has made it rather un-PC to dismiss work created in media other than painting or sculpture, at least openly. Still, the lingering bias tucked away in the recesses of our discourse won't disappear it seems without shining a very bright light on some rather ossified, if only whispered, opinions. As with the arrest of the Harvard professor in his own home, it often takes a public scuffle to even begin that process.

In the art world, one such scuffle is currently taking place in L.A., where the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) recently canceled (to reconsider) its highly regarded weekend film program, which has reportedly lost $1 million over the past decade. That decision alone has led to a high-wattage outcry (and much to LACMA's credit, they've encouraged an online discussion about the changes), but it was the stated rationale behind the decision that promises to crack open a real debate. From a statement by the museum to the staff of the film department (PDF file):

As part of [the planned changes], and for the present, we will certainly place greater emphasis on artist-created films reflecting the museum’s growing relationship with contemporary artists and the contemporary art world. [emphasis mine]

While I'm sure that sentiment was designed to comfort the museum's film department, it struck some in the film industry as a snub, including celebrated director Martin Scorcese:

I do not understand why this approach to programming needs to be re-thought. I am puzzled by the notion of pegging future film programming to “artist-created films,” as stated in the letter announcing this shift – to do this would be tantamount to downgrading the worth of cinema. Aren’t the best films made by artists in the first place?

I find it somewhat unfortunate that LACMA chose that wording too, especially as the "fine artists" I know who work in video and film often cite the influence of directors and other filmmakers who wouldn't necesssarily be classified as "fine artists" in discussing their own work. Indeed, as I noted a while back the lines between "fine art" film and other film are increasingly being blurred. What should be screened in a gallery or museum (in the context of "art") versus what should be shown only in a cinema will become ever more difficult to distinguish, IMO, and that's OK. Why should art not be viewed as far and wide as possible?

That, actually, the is heart of the matter for me. By insisting on a delineation between "fine art" and "other cinema" the big loser stands to be fine art film and the potential public that will never see it. A context in which contemporary art is seen as including contemporary film seems the appropriate path forward for museums and cinema houses alike.

UPDATE: In thinking this through a bit, I realize my logic is faulty. LACMA's decision isn't so much based on a bias against a medium, but rather the handling of that medium. I do think these issues are tangentially related, but...