Image

OUR COLUMNIST RANDALL COMMENTS ON JULIA PEYTON JONES AND HANS ULRICH OBRIST’S ‘BONUSES AGAINST FUNDRAISING’ POLICY. IN RANDALL’S WORDS:

‘…“bonuses against fundraising”

I think most of these ‘donations’ probably come from private individuals who profit from the Serpentine’s ‘legislative’ services / exhibition agendas on a rolling basis.

Isn’t ‘the Serpent’ basically an outsourced, executive wing of Christie’s and Private individuals/galleries trading through them? – Why else would their Summer Party look the way it does?

Doesn’t the exhibition programme resemble a well-timed art fair booth? – At worst essentially bookable floorspace for commercial interests represented by the main multinational dealerships?

Isn’t HUO simply an institutional avatar for ‘criticality’? – symbolically, desperately circulated just enough to suggest the rampant horse of capitalism not be leading the wagon of critical-awareness in the case of his workplace.

Why else would there be such contradictory pay structures, if the Serpentine wasn’t institutionally conflicted? Why else would it resemble both a ‘Public sector’ operation (i.e. unpaid internships / low wages toward the ‘public service’ end) and a ‘Private sector’ profit-building platform (i.e. six-figure sums, parallel individual interests, bonuses etc. at the Private wealth end)?

Just a thought!

SUBSCRIBE TO THIS BLOG