Art’s Power to Mediate:

The Outcomes of a Multi-Voiced Process of

Cultural Production

Christopher Contompasis
Substantial Research Paper
Professor Robert Albro
May 5, 2008
 2

Table of Contents

I. Introduction- 3

II. Significance of Research- 5

III. Review of Literature- 7

IV. Framework- 17

a. Part I- 17

b. Part II (theory)- 23

c. Part III (methods)- 25

V. Analysis- 33

a. The artist- 33

b. The critics- 41

c. The curator- 48

d. The public- 55

VI. Summary of Findings- 64

VII. Conclusions- 65

Appendix A: Bibliography
 3

INTRODUCTION:

Even before Fernando Botero, Latin American’s most successful and popular

living artist, published photographs of his latest collection in the Colombian magazine

Diners in April 2005, questions had already arisen about his decision tackle such a

controversial subject matter. Skeptics quickly called attention to the manner in which he

customarily depicted “the placid, pastoral scenes of the small-town Colombia of his

childhood, featuring ordinary people, aristocrats, military officers and nuns, all of them

extravagantly corpulent” (Forero, 2005) and wondered whether he was the ideal artist to

document these atrocities in the established record of artist testimonials during times of

crisis. Although briefly in the early 1970s and then again in the late 1990s Botero used

his work to address the futility of armed conflict and the drug-related bloodshed in his

homeland, these topics failed to receive the explicit international indignation that

occurred when the world learned of the U.S. torture at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.

Considering their concerns, these critics could not have expected the graphic, detailed,

and prolific account of “man’s inhumanity to man” that the artist portrayed in Botero:

Abu Ghraib.

When the collection finally premiered in June 2005 at Rome’s Palazzo Venezia, it

is only natural that viewers, despite any earlier doubts, began to speculate about these

paintings’ potential effect as they pondered: “What is the power of art?” Most likely, the

more knowledgeable consumers thought of Guernica, Picasso’s famous antiwar statement

which serves as the archetype for present-day discussions on art’s ability to intervene in a

public debate or to act as a social change agent relating to the understanding of charged

historical events. However, all too often the credit for this possible, but far from
 4

guaranteed outcome, is uncritically bestowed upon the artist while the contributions from

other, equally relevant cultural producers are ignored. In actuality, the production of art

and culture is a public process where co-producers collaborate to create meaning and

value for a particular work. Therefore, in order to understand the agency of art, we must

resist the temptation to hold the artist in a privileged position and instead consider the

multiple layers of the cultural production process.

With regard to Botero: Abu Ghraib, this process has just begun. Hence, it would

be premature to attempt any final conclusion concerning this collection’s overall effect. In

response, this paper focuses on a single exhibition in Washington D.C. and explores the

extent to which art mediates a historical narrative in contemporary society. In other

words, did these works influence the way viewers negotiate the issues and debates, such

as the Iraq War, human rights, and U.S. foreign policy in general that pertain to the Abu

Ghraib incident?

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH:

This paper acknowledges the catch-22 of the current situation where individuals,

organizations, and institutions recognize culture as a valuable resource for achieving

social, political, and economic objectives, while at the same time failing to fully

comprehend the extent and manner to which they are actually able to employ it to achieve

a desired effect. In response, this research utilizes an approach, stemming from

contemporary scholarly discussions, for analyzing artistic and cultural productions. It

rejects the notion of the artist (or any other person or agency) as a sole creative genius

and highlights a more appropriate framework based on the multi-voiced process of

 5

cultural production. This paper provides a timely investigation that contributes to larger

ideas about ones ability to effectively comprehend and exploit artistic and cultural

creations to achieve success in the area of strategic communication. Whether you are a

corporation building community social capital, a national government amplifying your

dialogue with foreign publics, or an activist seeking social change, you must understand

this process, which is best understood as an ongoing process of construction, with

multiple contributions, rather than a discrete intervention by a single visionary.

LITERATURE REVIEW:

This research examines the ways and extent to which artistic and cultural

producers communicate with publics.1 I explore how the creation of cultural products is a

public process with many co-contributors. There is no such thing as an individual

producer of culture; rather products are formed through participant collaborations in the

multi-voiced process of cultural production. Thus, this review of the literature is situated

within the ongoing “cultural industries” conversation regarding the effects and

interpretations of cultural products.

Steeped in a Marxist tradition, a group of social theorists collaborated in

Frankfurt, Germany in the 1930s to provide the central critiques of mass culture and

communication from which past and current debates derive. These individuals, who

became known as the Frankfurt School,2 coined the term “cultural industries” to signify

1
By “publics,” I am referring to the community of cultural consumers that engage with a
particular artistic or cultural production.
2
A survey of relevant texts reveals a lack of consistency regarding the Frankfurt School’s
actual members. However, individuals affiliated with the group include Max Horkheimer,
Theodor Adorno, Leo Lowenthal, Herbert Marcuse, and Walter Benjamin, who was
loosely associated with the school.
 6

their concern with the commoditization of mass-produced culture. Embodied by

Horkheimer and Adorno’s 1945 essay The Culture Industry: Enlightenment of Mass

Deception, the group saw this post-Industrial Revolution practice as a degradation of the

creative or high arts, which led to the creation and perpetuation of the passive

consumption of hegemonic messages. Much of their work was influenced by their

experiences with the way Nazi party leaders used media and culture for propaganda and

mass ideological persuasion. When they fled to the U.S. to escape persecution, these

individuals observed a similar system that also exploited mass entertainment and culture

to extend the positions and beliefs of the dominant or ruling elites. Their work serves as a

precursor to later studies, which investigate the relationship between cultural production

and capitalism by emphasizing the underlying issues, such as economics and power, in

their analysis of texts.

Based on the framework provided by the Frankfurt School critiques, one can track

the progression from these earlier positions. For example, in the 1960s, scholars with ties

to the University of Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies successfully

challenged and updated the conversation.3 The efforts by the Birmingham Group, as they

are known, laid the groundwork for the present perspectives, which explore many of the

same issues that concerned the Frankfurt School scholars, but within the context of

globalization and new media and technologies. As a way to explicate the development of

related critiques, I highlight six issues that evolved from the Frankfurt School’s original

analysis of the cultural industries: cultural production and capitalism, “good” vs. “bad”

cultural productions, active vs. passive audiences, mass culture as an extension of the

3
Scholars affiliated with the Birmingham Group included Richard Hoggart, Raymond
Williams, E.P Thompson, Stuart Hall, and Dick Hebdige.
 7

ruling class, the notion of a multi-voiced process of cultural production, and the effects of

globalization and new technologies on cultural production. I also emphasize scholarly

texts that explore alternatives for viewing the production of art beyond the free-market

forces associated with the cultural industries.

Cultural Production and Capitalism-

In their condemnation of mass produced culture, Frankfurt School scholars as

well as others viewed the capitalist affect on culture as a detriment to society (Greenberg,

1939; Carey, 1992; Horkheimer and Adorno, 2002). They believed the rise of

consumerism decreased the uplifting nature that was once associated with artistic and

cultural productions. In its place, they saw a celebration of capitalistic modernization and

the dumbing down of public minds and creations. Today, this perspective advocates a

“European notion of culture,” which values cultural production as an inseparable entity to

national identity.4 This approach to culture embraces state intervention as a way to offset

the uncontrollable effects of free-market capitalism.

Although universal agreement does not exist in present-day texts (Cameron, 1990;

Becker, 1994, Kagan, 2003),5 the consensus within the field of contemporary media and

cultural studies acknowledges both sides of the argument, while at the same time

advocating for the positives within the cultural industries (Cowen, 2002; Florida 2002;

4
The “American approach to culture,” which relies on free markets and resists strong
state oversight, represents the opposing perspective.
5
Cameron presents an argument that reverses the Frankfurt School’s penchant for the
European notion of culture. She sees the European model as too restrictive and the
American approach as more sympathetic and nurturing to the avant-garde or high art. On
the other hand, Kagan challenges the contemporary contention that these two
perspectives are converging, while Becker asserts that when it comes to the artist as
cultural producer, neither choice is ideal.
 8

Yúdice, 2003, Hartley, 2005). They stress the blurring nature between the American and

European positions on culture, as the creative arts and cultural industries continue to

converge. Furthermore, these individuals reject the Frankfurt School approach that

assumes cultural products are only or primarily significant as commodities. Instead, they

highlight an understanding of culture as a “resource” offering a variety of instrumental

possibilities and with the potential for both constructive and damaging consequences on

society. Thus, artistic and cultural productions warrant proper analysis in order to

determine the true nature of their effect since they are no longer believed to have a pre-

determined outcome in the way that Frankfurt School scholars prescribed.

“Good Culture” vs. “Bad Culture”-

As part of the Frankfurt School’s cultural industries critique, scholars tended

either to assume or to actively reproduce a distinction between high and low culture

(Greenberg, 1939; Carey, 1992; Horkheimer and Adorno, 2002). This division was

consistent with the partitions between the European and American notions of culture.

Advocates, who strongly favored the former, questioned society’s unsuspecting

acceptance of new modes of mass production. Even though similar assertions are still

made today, for the most part this type of analysis has been deemed “manipulative,

reductive, and elitist” since it assumes that there is only one perspective on how to define

“good culture” (Durham and Kellner, 2001, p. 5).

Despite his ties to the Frankfurt School, Walter Benjamin represents one of the

individuals who helped catalyze the shift away from such a basic distinction. He

optimistically viewed the cultural industries as having the potential for a demystification
 9

of the type of culture that was usually only reserved for the elites. Thus, he predicted the

formation of a new kind of cultural consumer, who could not only embrace mass media

and culture as a way to adapt to a modern, industrial lifestyle, but also possibly to utilize

them as instruments for political enlightenment and social change (Benjamin, 1969, p.

217-251).

Beginning in the 1960s, scholars associated with the Birmingham Group, adopted

Benjamin’s positive outlook and worked to further reject high/low cultural boundaries

(Hebdige, 1979; Hall, 1980). These academics introduced “class” and “popular culture”

(e.g. punk style) into the discussion and offered a variety of critiques of cultural elitism.

Their research greatly facilitated the current position, which emphasizes issues of cultural

politics and representation as well as a general reassessment of culture as it was

understood by Frankfurt School followers to cast cultural productions’ effects on publics

in an encouraging light (Ginsburg, 1991; Myers, 1991; Kondo, 1997; Mahon, 2000;

Cowen, 2002; Miller and Yúdice, 2002; Lewis and Miller, 2003; Yúdice, 2003). In other

words, they shifted the conversation away from the above “manipulations” and onto the

“appropriations” as described below.

Mahon encapsulates this position when she writes, “departing from the traditional

view of culture as stable, coherent, and bounded, scholars working within the rubric of

cultural politics recognize” it as a contested arena where marginalized groups can

challenge social divisions and social inequalities, which traditionally are perpetuated

through culture (Mahon, 2000, p. 470). Regarding matters of representation (i.e.

identities, consciousness, and social categories), contemporary texts further situate

culture as a site of struggle, since cultural representations are never innocent or pure.
 10

Thus, understanding culture as the result of active everyday engagement illustrates the

problems with the Frankfurt School’s desire to privilege one form of cultural production

over another. This also begins to recognize the potential for artistic and cultural

productions to contest established conceptions and mediate public perceptions.

Active vs. Passive Audience-

As part of his departure from the prevailing Frankfurt School critique, Benjamin

conceptualized a new type of active spectator, who derived from the cultural industries

and challenged the previous idea of “passive consumers of hegemonic texts.” Benjamin

focused on the recent technological innovations that facilitated the mass reproduction of

culture products (e.g. photography, film and, radio) and argued that they produced “more

critical individuals able to judge and analyze their culture just as sports fans could dissect

and evaluate athletic activities” (Durham and Kellner, 2001, p. 4). Birmingham Group

members capitalized on this understanding of “active spectatorship” and demonstrated

the extent to which audiences create and reconfigure cultural messages. Their research

acknowledged the semi-autonomous relationship between production and consumption,

where the audience could act as both a receiver and a source for meaning and value

concerning cultural productions (Hebdige, 1979; Hall, 1980). Thus, these scholars helped

consumers realize that they had some control and were not solely subjected to the

dominant messages in society.6 Moreover, this insight altered subsequent analyses of the

cultural production process, since it forced researchers (myself included) to consider

6
It is important to note that even though audiences are able to mediate their own
understandings, they are still subject to prevailing meanings from dominant institutions,
such as corporations or mass media (Schiller, 1989; McLuhan, 1994), which compel them
to interpret messages in certain ways. Hall highlights this conception by describing it as a
semi-autonomous relationship.
 11

audiences as both consumers and producers of culture.

Mass Culture and Hegemony-

By dismissing the distinctions between high/ low culture and active/ passive

audiences, scholars, spurred by the Birmingham Group’s understanding that cultural

consumption is a form of production, have also been able to redefine notions of public

resistance to the dominant class ideologies that appear in mass media and entertainment.

They revisited Antonio Gramici’s conception of hegemony, which was embraced by the

Frankfurt School and expands on Marxist notions of societal power and control to include

civil society. Gramici argued that cultural production and consumption are best

understood as an extension and legitimization of ruling class beliefs. These ideas still

drive contemporary critical analysis (Bourdieu 1993; Becker 1994). Even though this

literature acknowledges consumer agency, they adhere to the notion that dominant

institutions socialize public tastes and practices in ways supportive of those in power or

that maintain an inter-class social status quo.

However, cultural and media studies scholars working in the latter half of the 20th

century counter these discussions by demonstrating this proposed supremacy over

cultural productions is actually less deterministic and never permanent (Hebdige, 1979;

Hall, 1980). Their work reveals “an unstable relationship between intention, text, and

effect,” which supports claims for consumers’ potential to manipulate cultural products to

subvert dominant messages or representations (Mahon, 2000, p. 470-471). For example,

Hebdige’s research on subcultures shows how these groups re-position cultural meanings

through their cultural engagements (e.g. the punk movement’s adoption of the swastika)
 12

in ways that differ greatly from the understanding in mainstream society (Hebdige, 1979,

p. 116-117).

More recent studies on the ability of cultural productions to counter hegemony

underscore notions of culture as a contested arena,7 while still recognizing “the semi-

autonomous relationship between production and consumption” (Ginsburg, 1991; Myers,

1991; Kondo, 1997). They highlight the potential for social transformation, but within the

context of creating new social and political subjectivities, rather than the replacement of

the existing ideology. In addition, contemporary scholars, who focus more on the

capitalistic side of the cultural industries,8 present related arguments regarding the extent

to which individuals, acting as active consumers within the framework of dominant

institutions, can contest their culture in ways that the original Frankfurt School arguments

never perceived as achievable (Cowen, 2002; Florida, 2002). Both of these present-day

perspectives provide support for the ability of cultural producers (through their creations)

to mediate understanding even if it conflicts with the established opinions of those in

power.

Creativity and the Process of Cultural Production-

As a result of scholars’ work to discredit the excesses of the initial Frankfurt

School’s critique of mass cultural production, new insights have emerged. Cultural

production is no longer viewed as a private, individual practice, but rather as a public

process with many co-producers contributing to the creation of actual products (i.e. the

7
By “contested arena,” I am referring to the absence of a single definition of culture,
which means it is possible for individuals and groups to challenge dominant perceptions.
8
The above authors (i.e. Ginsburg, Myers, Kondo) are primarily interested in the efforts
of marginalized factions to dispute prevailing ideas concerning issues of representation.
 13

material production) as well as their meaning and value (i.e. the symbolic production)9

(Bourdieu, 1993; Mahon, 2000; Cowen, 2002; Florida 2002; Miller and Yúdice, 2002;

Lewis and Miller, 2003; Yúdice, 2003, Hartley, 2005). This conception of cultural

production denaturalizes the notion of the artist (or any other person or agency) as a sole

cultural producer and recognizes their combined contributions as both beneficial and

detrimental depending on the position one takes. For example, Cowen’s investigation of

the effects of trade between cultures, which isolates cross-cultural exchange as a

significant contributor to the creative process, highlights what he calls the “paradox of

diversity” in the current commercial era. He seeks to balance the popular contention that

the commoditization of culture is destroying the distinctiveness between societies by

illustrating how at the same time there has been an increase in the number of cultural

choices within a particular society (Cowen, 2002, p.70-72).10

Another aspect of Cowen’s central examination of global commerce is “how trade

shapes artistic creativity in the marketplace” (ibid, p. 5). This reflects the conception of

creativity that rejects the idea of instant ingenuity and instead describes it as a process in

which individuals combine existing elements from their immediate social environments

in new and useful ways (Lévi-Strauss, 1966; Hebdige, 1979; Cowen, 2002; Florida,

2002). Although this notion of creativity dates back to Lévi-Strauss’ usage of “bricolage”

in the 1960s, it still appears as part of present-day discussions. For instance, Florida

writes: “Creativity involves the ability to synthesize. Einstein captured it nicely when he

called his own work ‘combination play’” (Florida, 2002, p. 31). Moreover, this

9
A detailed explanation for this distinction between the “material” and “symbolic”
aspects of the cultural production process exists in this paper’s framework section.
10
However, it is important to note that these are not “new choices” per se, but rather ones
that exist in the already available range of “consumer choices.”
 14

conception situates cultural producers in specific historical and sociological moments of

creation. Thus, enabling scholars to present a framework from which to analyze the

material and discursive aspects of the cultural production process in contemporary

society (Bourdieu, 1993; Mahon, 2000). With regards to Botero: Abu Ghraib, this entails

the multi-voiced process of cultural production, which highlights the variety of

contributors who collaborate to create this collection’s meaning and value.

Effects of Globalization and New Technologies on Cultural Production-

Unlike the Frankfurt School portrayal of mass culture and society as about

incorporating “individuals into a more homogenized culture, controlled by big

corporations, the state, and centralized media,” the contemporary era of consumer

capitalism is recognized as “more fragmented, specialized, aestheticized and eroticized,

and celebratory of difference, choice, and individual freedom” (Durham and Kellner,

2001, p. xxxv). One explanation for this is the way new technologies and increased

global communication has shifted the production, distribution, and reception of cultural

productions (Cowen, 2002; Florida 2002; Yúdice, 2003; Hartley, 2005). Today, culture is

increasingly recognized as a “resource” that can facilitate social and economic objectives

through its capacity to govern.11 As a result, the ability to creatively exploit the potential

of present-day cultural productions is considered an important attribute of social and

economic endeavors, which in turn situates creativity as a significant contributor to the

continued development of technology and wealth.

11
Yúdice contends that this notion of “culture as a resource” is a product, at least in part,
of globalization, which he describes as “a process of economic expansion datable from
sixteenth-century European exploration and conquest and of modernization” (Yúdice,
2002, p. 28).
 15

As part of this shift concerning the value of culture, scholars acknowledge how

more and more marginalized and minority groups are utilizing cultural productions to

contest dominant images and ideas (Ginsburg, 1991; Myers, 1991; Kondo, 1997; Mahon,

2000; Cowen, 2002; Miller and Yúdice, 2002; Yúdice, 2002; Lewis and Miller, 2003).

Again, this is possible because of the reassessment of culture, which, thanks in part to the

Birmingham Group’s research, treats culture as a malleable source of meaning for matters

of representation. However, it also reflects new patterns of consumption, where the line

between the private consumer and the public citizen is becoming harder to discern

(Cowen, 2002; Florida 2002; Hartley, 2005). Evidence for this development exists in the

media, which now broadcasts issues of citizenship (e.g. identity) alongside and as part of

the more traditional commercial programming. Hartley contends: “Throughout modernity

various forms of identity politics have advanced their cause in the public domain,

bringing into the realm of citizenship important attributes of what had until then been

thought of as entirely private matters” (Hartley, 2004, p. 17). As issues of gender,

ethnicity, sexuality, etc. continue to gain mainstream credence, this contemporary era

further reveals itself as one that is amenable to the challenges of what were previously

thought as established truths. Therefore, enhancing the value of cultural productions with

the potential to alter existing perceptions.

Cultural Producers outside the Cultural Industries-

Due to an emphasis on the Frankfurt School perspective of the cultural industries,

this literature review has primarily focused on cultural producers driven by market forces.

Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge the existence of, and consider other

 16

motivations for, producing art and culture. The above discussion regarding the extent to

which minority or indigenous groups employ cultural productions to contest issues of

representation signifies one instance; other examples include: governments

communicating with foreign officials and publics through public diplomacy (Nye, 2004)

and artists creating for themselves (Becker, 1994).

Joseph Nye’s conceptualization of soft power provides a theoretical basis for the

notion that cultural producers have “the ability to attract, and attraction often leads to

acquiescence” (Nye, 2004, p. 6). Soft power is about establishing mutually beneficial

relationships by acknowledging shared goals and building trust. In the context of public

diplomacy, art and culture facilitate this process since cultural productions have the

ability to breakdown cultural barriers and enhance cross-cultural communication in ways

that traditional diplomacy cannot. Although this approach to cultural production is most

often associated with national governments, business councils and benevolent citizen

groups also employ it as part of their overall efforts to achieve certain higher priority

objectives, whether they are economic, social, or political.

As part of Carol Becker’s analysis of the relationship between the artist and

society, she includes a piece by Ewa Kuryluk that challenges the cultural industries as

well as the soft power justifications for cultural production. Kuryluk condemns the idea

that producing politically correct art for the state (i.e. propaganda) is a more-desirable

option than creating commodities for the cultural industries (i.e. soap operas) (Kuryluk in

Becker, 1994, p. 13-19). She views both of these approaches as harmful to the

development of a sophisticated society and believes that artists should only be

responsible for their own work. In the end, Kuryluk is not rejecting the value of art
 17

produced for social or public purposes, but rather the idea that the artist should be

expected or required to produce a certain type of art (e.g. politically correct art).

This review of the literature situates my research within the relevant field of

cultural production. By illustrating the problems with the Frankfurt School’s belief that

mass produced culture is always detrimental to society, it reveals the ability of cultural

producers to contest dominant meanings and provide new cultural insights. In addition, it

highlights the unpredictability of cultural production’s effects, which supports my

examination of the outcomes concerning consumers’ engagements with a particular

artistic creation (i.e. Botero: Abu Ghraib). Finally, this literature review emphasizes the

value of the multi-voiced process of cultural production as the proper framework for

analyzing cultural productions, since it underscores the need to view consumption as a

form of production and to view creativity as a result of synthesized collaborations. In

summary, the above background presents my research as an appropriate and timely

investigation of artistic creation’s capacity to mediate understanding.

FRAMEWORK:

(Part I)

This paper explores art’s ability to influence publics, a notion substantiated

through historical and contemporary examples. In order to better situate my analysis of

Botero: Abu Ghraib within the context of artistic intervention through public art, I present

a few instances that demonstrate the different ways cultural productions mediate public

debates. Guernica, the Muralista Movement, Urban Renewal Art, and the works by the

graffiti-artist Banksy are relevant points of reference for understanding how cultural
 18

productions become and remain publicly resonant- my present concern.

Picasso painted Guernica, the famous mural depicting the Nazi aerial

bombardment against civilians living in the little Basque village in northern Spain, for the

1937 World’s Fair. Initially, when government representatives asked him to create a

visual protest against the fascist onslaught of General Franco and his Nazi allies for the

fair’s Spanish Pavilion, Picasso was unmoved and unsure of what to paint. Although he

had previously condemned General Franco in his satirical illustrations and poem titled

The Dream and Lie of Franco, Picasso was not overly political or keen to mix art and

politics. However, when news of the Guernica bombing reached his Paris home, Picasso,

enraged and inspired by black & white newspaper photographs portraying the death and

destruction, knew that he had document these atrocities if only at the very least to serve

as a reminder of what had occurred.

After the World’s Fair ended, Guernica toured North America and Europe

highlighting the threat of fascism.12 Picasso even acknowledged the painting as an

obvious anti-war statement, even though the artist stated throughout his career that

publics should personally view and interpret his work for themselves. For others,

Guernica has become “visceral, visual evidence of the true nature of war, a perspective

very unlike the heroic and optimistic one so often presented by politicians who have

never seen war close at hand” (Walker, 2003). Maybe this is why a blue curtain covered

the large tapestry reproduction of Guernica that hangs outside the entrance of the United

Nations Security Council when former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered his

historic 2003 speech persuading countries to join America’s war against Iraq. UN
12
Picasso vowed to someday present the painting to the Spanish people, but not until
General Franco’s abdication or removal and the country’s adoption of democratic
principals.
 19

officials cited the mural’s location over the exact spot where Security Council members

typically conduct their post-assembly TV press conferences as the reason for the

censorship (Ibid). Guernica’s public resonance as a political statement still exists more

than sixty-five years after its production. It serves as the standard-bearer for art’s

potential to affect public understanding and as illustrated below, it was referenced

throughout my investigations of Botero: Abu Ghraib.

Led by Diego Rivera, the early 1920s muralista movement “played a major role

in reshaping the popular history of revolutionary Mexico” (Skidmore and Smith, 2005, p.

269). Shortly after the country signed the Mexican Constitution of 1917 ending its latest

civil war, the government commissioned muralists, including Rivera, José Clemente

Orozco, and David Siqueiros,13 to educate and reassure the country’s terrified and largely

illiterate population. They helped situate the revolution’s meaning by creating massive

wall paintings on pubic buildings, which “idealized the pre-Hispanic past, empathized

with Mexico’s masses, heaped derisive scorn on Spanish conquerors and Yankee

capitalists, and elevated popular leaders like [Emiliano] Zapata to a pantheon of heroes”

(ibid). Their work established murals as a popular art form used to attract public attention

to social and political issues.

The paintings of Rivera, Orozco, and Siqueiros even prompted a Muralist

Division when the U.S. established the Federal Art Project (FAP) of the Works Progress

Administration (WPA) in 1935. By the program’s end in 1943, over 2,500 murals were

created with respective publics in mind. WPA officials encouraged its artists to spend

time in the communities where their murals would reside. Despite the program’s success,

13
These individuals, who were also known as los tres grandes (the three great ones), are
three of the country’s most important artists.
 20

controversy followed the Mexican muralists, especially in the case of Rivera whose

penchant for Communism led to the destruction of his famous Rockefeller Center mural

in 1933. When asked by Nelson A. Rockefeller, son of John D. Rockefeller Jr., to paint

over the head of Russian Revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin, Rivera refused and the

entire mural was destroyed. The incident acknowledges the public art debate regarding

issues of artistic autonomy verses public responsibility when murals are created for

public, rather than private viewing. In addition, these muralists who took the reality of

their country as a subject matter, serve as a defining influence for Botero and his decision

to portray the prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

The Bilbao Effect, urban revitalization propelled by the construction of an iconic

cultural building, represents a newer way for cultural producers to impact publics. In the

early 1990s, Bilbao, a grey, damp city located in the Basque territory of northern Spain,

transformed its “fraying postindustrial infrastructure and reputation for terrorism” by

reaching out to the art world (Yúdice, 2003, p.19). Local authorities’ decision to

collaborate with the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation and architect Frank Gehry

placed the city on the world cultural map virtually overnight. Aided by previous urban art

initiatives, such as Santiago Calatrava’s bridge and Norman Foster’s metro, the

Guggenheim Bilbao’s success had “cities worldwide scrambling to build new museums

with attention-getting designs, dreamed up by top-flight architects, in hopes of generating

urban renewal” (Grose, 2006, p. 44).

However, Bilbao’s economic and cultural explosion did not occur without debate.

The city has a long and proud history of fervent Basque nationalism and many citizens

saw the move to bring in an outside architect and a foreign museum to house non-Basque
 21

art as a threat to their collective identity. This highlights one of the potential drawbacks to

this type of cross-cultural exchange that occurs in the contemporary era. Then again,

there are also benefits and in this instance they included an increase in the available

cultural options for local consumers as well as a boost to the city’s cultural tourism.14 The

Bilbao Effect illustrates artistic intervention as an instrument to revitalize a city and

improve its quality of life by attracting and retaining the innovators needed to exploit the

potential of the new “creative economy” (Yúdice, 2003, p. 19-20). Furthermore, this form

of public architecture supports the need to employ a framework for cultural production

analysis that recognizes the existence of multiple producers since it illustrates how urban

renewal art is created by a host of invested stakeholders, including the architect, city

planners, and municipal authorities.

Although not much is known about the graffiti artist Banksy,15 the art world

increasingly feels the impact of his work. Banksy’s spray-painted murals, which elicit

criticisms from city officials and comparisons to Jean-Michel Basquiat and Keith Haring,

have been popping up first in the United Kingdom and then all over the world since

around 2001. He is famous for his “art terrorism,” artistic pranks that deconstruct the art

industry. In March 2005, he attracted worldwide attention when he managed to sneak

four of his works into four New York City museums – the Metropolitan Museum of Art,

the Museum of Modern Art, the American Museum of Natural History, and the Brooklyn

Museum – on the same day (Howe, 2005, p. 1). By hacking into the “established system

of art exhibition, Banksy is drawing attention to its shortcomings;” the artist sees the

14
See Cowen’s analysis of the “paradox of diversity” in the above literature review.
15
Banksy’s anonymity is so compelling that The Times (London) wrote an article the first
time someone supposedly caught the artist at work on camera. The picture was taken by a
passer-by with a camera phone (Foster, 2007).
 22

museum as an institutional barrier between art and society, so he attempts to make his

work more accessible by communicating more directly with publics (ibid).

The irony of Banksy’s work is how it lampoons the same Establishment that

embraces it. Despite his outsider status, his paintings are sold alongside other

contemporary works at auction houses, such as Sotheby’s and are bought by a long list of

Hollywood VIPs, including Jude Law, Keanu Reeves, and Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.

In 2007, he set a personal record when his painting titled “Space Girl and Bird” sold for

$575,000. Banksy’s art strives to alter public perceptions and it is obviously having an

effect. Similar to his 2005 New York Museum feat, he created and surreptitiously placed

a cave painting, Early Man Goes to the Market, credited to “Banksymus Maximus” in the

British Museum later that year. Despite the museums dismay when they realized three

days later that the piece of rock depicting a Stone Age hunter pushing a shopping cart was

not a genuine artifact, they subsequently added it to their permanent collection.16

Although it appears Banksy and Botero have little in common, the former provides a nice

contrast to the latter who willingly embraces the art world that Banksy claims to reject.

(Part II- Theory)

To explore the extent that art mediates a historical narrative in contemporary

society, I employed Fernando Botero’s Botero: Abu Ghraib as my case study.

Specifically, I analyze the work’s effect during an exhibition at the American University

Museum at the Katzen Arts Center in Washington DC. The show ran from November 6

16
Clearly, the museum is capitalizing on all the media attention that this prank has
received. After deciding to keep it (no explanation could be found), they have since
loaned it to other museums with a sign reading “on loan from the British Museum.”
Video of Banksy’s museum exploits is posted on his website: http://www.banksy.co.uk/
 23

until December 30, 2007 and it appeared concurrently with two other collections,

consisting of paintings by Irving Norman and 1970s feminist art from nineteen different

artists.17 United around themes of political and social protest, the exhibition was

presented to the public as “ART of CONFRONTation.”

Before arriving in Washington DC, Botero: Abu Ghraib appeared at the

Marlborough Gallery in New York City in 2006 and at the University of California,

Berkley in 2007 as well as at venues outside the United States in countries including

Italy, Germany, and Spain. It traveled to Mexico after it left the Katzen in January 2008.

Since my analysis is situated in the context of this particular exhibition’s cultural

producers, my findings are not necessarily applicable for Botero: Abu Ghraib’s other

showings. However, the framework that I employ is relevant for all other examinations of

cultural producers.

Stuart Hall’s understanding of the encoding/ decoding process for artistic and

cultural productions suggests that there is an unstable, somewhat autonomous

relationship between what a creator intends, a producer constructs, and an audience

receives (Hall, 1980). Thus, consumers “interpret works in unpredictable and

destabilizing ways” (Mahon, 2000, p. 471). This establishes reception as a form of

cultural production in its own right and illustrates the need to consider multiple cultural

producers when analyzing the effect of artistic and cultural texts.

As illustrated in the Mass Culture and Hegemony section of the literature review,

contemporary research reveals the potential for artistic and cultural productions to create

17
Each collection had its own floor within the Katzen Museum. Serving as the primary
draw, Botero: Abu Ghraib had the top floor. Additional information about the other two
shows can be found at:
http://www.american.edu/cas/katzen/museum/exhibitions_past.cfm
 24

new social and political subjectivities. As a result, dominant ideologies are never

permanent and culture should be seen as a site of ongoing struggles, where individuals

and groups not only contest issues pertaining to cultural politics and representation, but

also contend for the right to impose the principal definition of art. Pierre Bourdieu argues

that appreciation for modern art and culture requires a comprehension of the “proper”

way to decode a particular work as defined by the artistic field i.e. the set of objective

social relations that govern relevant agent’s actions (Bourdieu, 1993). Thus, relevant

players, including artists, critics, dealers, etc., partake in a constant struggle to contribute

to the process of defining meaning and value for artistic and cultural productions in

concert rather than in isolation, which in turn legitimizes their own productions (ibid).

Furthermore, these scholars (e.g. Hall and Bourdieu) argue that proper analysis

requires more than just consideration for authors and audiences; it involves the

examination of all participants contributing to the struggle to identify art as art. Bourdieu

expands on the nuances of this process:

Given that works of art exist as symbolic objects only if they are known
and recognized, that is, socially instituted as works of art and received by
spectators capable of knowing and recognizing them as such, the
sociology of art and literature has to take as its object not only the material
production but also the symbolic production of the work, i.e. the
production of the value of the work or, which amounts to the same thing,
of belief in the value of the work. It therefore has to consider as
contributing to production not only the direct producers of the work in its
materiality (artists, writers, etc.) but also the producers of the meaning and
value of the work- critics, publishers, gallery directors and the whole set of
agents whose combined efforts produce consumers capable of knowing
and recognizing the work of art as such (Ibid, p. 37).

Analysis must distinguish between the material and symbolic aspects of cultural

productions, acknowledging them as interrelated social processes and cultural products.

In fact, scholars place greater emphasis on the symbolic production as opposed to the
 25

material, since the former reveals the work’s value concerning its ability to construct,

articulate, and disseminate meanings and ideologies as well as impact social relations and

understandings (Mahon, 2000, p. 469).

This approach demystifies the artist (or any other individual or agency) as the sole

creator of art and culture, a conception that is perpetuated in contemporary society by the

mass media’s celebration of individual talents and achievements. Instead, there are many

participants collaborating in a multi-voiced process of cultural production. To this end the

present framework dissects the cultural production process, which permits a much richer

analysis of the effects of Botero: Abu Ghraib.

With regards to my case study, I focused my data collection on four specific

cultural producers: the artist, the critic, the curator, and the public. I also acknowledge the

contributions of several other cultural producers, such as the museum and monetary

concerns. However, it is important to make clear: This research is about the public

process of collaboration, rather than any particular individual producer. Even though at

times I analyze individuals’ contributions, this is necessary in order to reach larger

conclusions about the effect of Botero: Abu Ghraib and it should not discourage a

reader’s acceptance of cultural production as social process.

(Part III- Methods)

For the most part the artist’s contributions to the material aspects of cultural

production, as author, are obvious, but his/her participation in the symbolic production

may be less apparent. After a work is created, artists remain active in the creation of

meaning and value and to some extent can even decide their role. In the case of Botero:
 26

Abu Ghraib, the artist participated as critic and curator. Through his collaborations with

the Katzen’s director and curator, Jack Rasmussen, Botero more directly affected how the

public would receive his work. And as illustrated in the following section, he also

personally influenced how they appreciated it by attending the exhibit’s opening and

partaking in an extended Q & A session to answer public inquiries.

Even if artists anonymously create cultural products and then disappear, they still

contribute to the process of shaping their symbolic production. This is exemplified

through the notion that other co-producers will most likely present the work as a more

valuable, unadulterated creation, since it was formed outside the boundaries of the artistic

establishment. In addition to Banksy, Henry Darger, a recluse whose work was

discovered posthumously and is now recognized as one of America’s greatest examples

of outsider art, provides evidence for artists’ contribution to the process of symbolic

production, no matter what role they play, including in the absence of an artist’s public

profile or biography.18 Thus, understanding who an artist is facilitates the comprehension

of their work’s meaning and value.

Due to Botero’s worldwide fame and high-profile status, I was unable to

personally interview him regarding his contributions to the meaning and value of Botero:

Abu Ghraib. Instead, I rely primarily on two 90-minute conversations with the artist,

which coincided with the exhibition’s openings at Cal Berkley and American University.

I attended the latter moderated by the Dean of AU’s School of International Service Louis

Goodman, and I watched a webcast of the former moderated by U.S. Poet Laureate
18
After Darger’s death in 1973, his landlord found in his apartment a typed 15,000 page
manuscript, entitled The Story of the Vivian Girls, in What is Known as the Realms of the
Unreal, of the Glandeco-Angelinnian War Storm, as caused by the Child Slave Rebellion,
accompanied by hundreds of illustrations, which included drawings and watercolor
paintings. Today his work is exhibited in museums worldwide.
 27

Robert Hass.19 Even though I was unable to secure an interview with Botero, these

sources of data provide unfiltered access to the artist’s public thoughts and motivations

concerning Botero: Abu Ghraib.

Typically, artists are not always in the best position to speak about their work,

which is why Fred Myers contends the process “of making art requires the establishing of

a sensibility, a way of appreciating different forms of cultural activity” (Myers, 1991,

p.47). Thus, the role of the critic is necessary for public understanding of a work’s

symbolic value. Clement Greenberg’s promotional work, which created a public space for

the Abstract Expressionist movement in the 1940s -50s exemplifies the critic’s potential

impact as a public framer of the cultural production process for potentially relevant

consumers. He was one of the first critics to praise the work of painter Jackson Pollock.

Greenberg even coached the deeply insecure and depressed artist, providing the support

and reassurance Pollock needed to continue his groundbreaking artistic development (J.

Clark, 1992, p. 199).

The field of artistic criticism is also a field of power struggles, where individuals

are not just selflessly concerned with the promotion of artistic merit. Bourdieu writes:

“All critics declare not only their judgment of the work but also their claim to the right to

talk about it and judge it. In short, they take part in a struggle for the monopoly of

legitimate discourse about the work of art…” (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 36). As with all cultural

producers producing within the cultural industries, critics can be motivated by capitalistic

concerns. And clearly, their celebrations of certain trends and styles sometimes reflect it

(Myers, 1991, p. 47). Powerful critics who shape the tastes of cultural consumers affect

19
The video from the Cal Berkley program is posted on the University’s Center for Latin
American Studies website: http://socrates.berkeley.edu:7001/index.html
 28

the creative output from artists, such as Botero, since these individuals have the public in

mind during the creative process.

The sources of data I analyze regarding Botero: Abu Ghraib derive from critical

reviews, which appear in newspapers and magazines.20 Originally, I had planned to only

focus on coverage of this specific show. However, my initial interviews with public

viewers at the Katzen revealed that many of them had first encountered this art when the

media first reviewed it during its appearance at the Marlborough Gallery in 2006. As a

result, consumer’s cited earlier articles in the New York Times and The Nation magazine

in addition to the Washington Post, which focused exclusively on the “ART of

CONFRONTation” exhibition.

At first it may seem like the curator has less of an effect on the material aspects of

cultural production, especially in comparison to the artist, the critic, or the public.

However, curators have the ability to significantly alter a work’s meaning and value in

between the artists’ creation and the publics’ viewing. The work of curator Fred Wilson

illustrates this level of curatorial authority. In 1999, Wilson received the MacArthur

Genius Award acknowledging his museum installations that create awareness for “the

way hallowed cultural institutions tend to marginalized or ignore non-white cultures”

(Newkirk in Lewis and Miller, 2003, p. 192). Artistic and cultural producers must

consider how their creations could be displayed even before they begin to produce them.

In addition, when curators also serve as gallery or museum directors, as is the case

at the Katzen, financial concerns become even more significant. Recalling Bourdieu’s

portrayal of the field of cultural production as a field of struggles for legitimacy, these
20
The decision to focus solely on published articles was in response to my interviews
with individuals viewing the exhibition at the Katzen; I realized that a significant
majority of consumers first learned about Botero’s works from printed sources.
 29

individuals must recognize the external pressure to maintain their allied institution’s

economic standing along with the noble desire to portray an artistic production with as

little interference as possible. My discussions with Katzen Museum curator and director,

Jack Rasmussen, who organized the Botero: Abu Ghraib show, reflect these added

concerns that affect the curator’s contribution to the process of cultural production. The

data I collected for my analysis of the curator as cultural producer comes from an

informal conversation followed by a formal interview that I conducted with Rasmussen in

February 2008.

Support for the public as a relevant co-contributor to the material aspects of

cultural production exist through the understanding: “No artist can exist without a patron”

(Kuryluk in Becker, 1994, p. 14). Since the 19th century when the bourgeoisie and the

state began to replace the aristocracy and the church as the arts’ primary benefactors, the

public has increasing affected the type of creations that are produced (Ibid). With regard

to Botero: Abu Ghraib, its artist maintains that he created this collection to publicly

document the Abu Ghraib atrocities to serve as a reminder for society’s future

generations. This illustrates the extent to which he had the public in mind while

producing the collection. Furthermore, the contemporary understanding that situates

audiences as active producers of meaning and value corroborates the potential for public

contributions to the symbolic production of these works.

As a way to gauge the public’s affect as cultural producers, I completed informal

interviews with more than fifty individuals who visited the Katzen to view Botero: Abu

Ghraib. They were conducted in-gallery, after patrons had finished examining the art, and

on random days from December 5 to December 28, 2007. I spent about two to four hours
 30

interviewing individuals each time I visited.21 This approach enabled me to accumulate an

impartial sampling of the general attitudes of the individuals who attended this

exhibition. Furthermore, hand-written remarks about the art left in a comment book

placed on the gallery’s front desk corroborated my interview findings.

Beyond these four specific cultural producers that I collected data on, there are

many other co-contributors, which affect other cultural producers as well as the process

as a whole. For example, the art world as an established institution, has traditionally

shaped cultural production, in that it expects a producer associated with an artistic field to

follow a particular career trajectory:

…the ideal-typical career course is for an artist to become taken up by a

gallery, who shows his/her work and gets it placed with select collectors,
gradually encouraging and establishing recognition of it sensibilities and
gaining a reputation for it with reviews. After a series of exhibitions, the
next step would usually be placement with collectors and then with
museums… (Myers, 1991, p. 46)

However, in recent years, a “new type of cultural broker” has emerged, who is blurring

these historically distinct boundaries between the roles of cultural producers (Tompkins,

2007).22 This individual capitalizes on today’s culture-based economy that rewards

creativity (i.e. in the sense of Lévi-Stauss’ notion of bricolage) and through his

participation at different levels of the art industry; he is able to mediate by bringing

people together. To some degree even Botero symbolizes the shifting nature of the art

21
The questions that I asked included: what they thought this collection was about; how
did it affect what they already believed or understood; why did they come see it; where
did they hear about it; and were they familiar with Botero’s previous work.
22
In this New Yorker article, Tompkins acknowledges the hybrid nature of the
contemporary global art scene through his profile of Jeffery Deitch, who represents this
notion of the new cultural broker. Deitch contributes to the cultural production process
through his work as an artist, a collector, a curator, a critic, a gallery owner and an art
dealer.
 31

world, since he intervenes throughout process as an artist, critic, and curator.23

An additional cultural producer relevant to this analysis is the museum. Although

for the most part this institution is intertwined with the curator, my analysis reveals it as

having a distinct affect on the production of Botero: Abu Ghraib’s meaning and value.24

As a cultural producer in general, the museum represents a contradiction in contemporary

society. In theory, museums should embody the democratic principals of a publicly owed

and operated institution. However, in practice, they serve as a socializing institution that

favors individuals based on class or social group status (Bennett in Lewis and Miller,

2003, 180-187). This is important when considering the audience for an exhibition, such

as Botero: Abu Ghraib.25

Money also functions as a dominant authority throughout the process of cultural

productions. For example, it presented a major obstacle that the Katzen show’s curator

had to overcome before he could bring Botero’s art to the museum. The show cost

approximately $120,000, which is much more than the Katzen typically spends.26 Thus,

Rasmussen had to convince the museum’s board of directors and American University

officials, who as a result also appear briefly in my analysis of cultural producers that this

show was worth the additional upfront cost. Eva Hauser provides further support for the
23
However, it is important to note that the main reason why Botero and Deitch are able to
have a larger affect on the cultural production process is due to the economic (i.e. money)
and cultural (i.e. recognition and fame) capital they both have amassed.
24
Nevertheless, my analysis of the museum primarily exists in the section that
investigates the curator’s role in the cultural production process.
25
Even though my investigations failed to uncover any specific examples of how the
Katzen “served as a socializing institution,” it still contributes to the understanding of
who did and who did not attend this exhibition, especially since the museum is located in
an affluent region of Washington DC and is not overly accessible through public
transportation (e.g. you need to take a special shuttle in order to get to the museum from
the Metro).
26
This amount just involves the cost of shipping the collection from Switzerland, where it
was being stored in-between exhibitions. Botero agreed to do the show for free.
 32

role of wealth in the cultural creation process. In her analysis of a political climates’

control over artistic creations, she contends: “True artistic freedom only exists when you

don’t have to live by your art” (Hauser in Becker, 1994, p. 93). This statement evokes the

Frankfurt School’s original concern that capitalism and commercialization were

subverting the artistic process. Thus, the desire for greater economic capital also appears

in the following analysis of Botero: Abu Ghraib.

Although the subsequent analysis section is organized around the four primary

cultural producers that I collected data on, contributions from other cultural producers

appear throughout. This emphasizes the extent to which one must account for the

multiple contributors in the artistic and cultural production process. Thus, the multi-

voiced process of cultural production represents the ideal theoretical framework for

analyzing their effects within the context of artistic intervention through public art, a

notion that is substantiated by both contemporary and historical examples (e.g. Guernica,

the Muralista Movement, Urban Renewal Art, and the works by the graffiti-artist

Banksy).

ANALYSIS:

Who the artist is-

Fernando Botero does not fit the prevailing definition of a contemporary artist. At

times shunned by critics and fellow artists who criticize his subjects, style, and most often

his prolific commercial success, Botero exists as an anachronistic outsider. He prefers the

traditional mediums of painting and sculpture and derives inspiration for his signature

“boteriano language” (i.e. volumes in space, proportion, and scales exaggerated to

 33

extremes) from artists dating back to the 14th century. Botero explains: “I’m attracted to

painters of the Trecento and the Quattrocento- Giotto, Masaccio, Uccello, Piero della

Francesca- and to such later artists as Rubens and Ingres. They all depict figures of a

certain fullness; they paint what is referred to as ‘fat people’” (Spies, 1992, p. 161).

Despite his fondness for the classics, Botero maintains a devoted modern

following that extends beyond his Latin American heritage and encompasses supporters

worldwide. My discussions with Botero: Abu Ghraib viewers at the Katzen and

observations of individuals’ inquiries at the Katzen and Cal Berkley exhibition openings

confirm the publics’ esteem for the artist. In fact, my investigations revealed that fans

admire Botero no matter what type of work he produces.27

One reason for this involves Botero’s uncommon approach to artistic production,

which enables publics to enjoy his works on multiple levels. For individuals steeped in

art history, they appreciate Botero’s reverence for his artistic predecessors, which include

the Italian painters of the Trecento and Quattrocento as well as Picasso, Velázquez, Titian,

and many others, not to mention his superior command of form, color, and style.

Conversely, Botero attracts individuals who typically avoid genuine engagement with art

due to the popular notion that artistic comprehension exists as a prerequisite for

enjoyment. He permits this type of viewer to feel more comfortable confronting his

works because they are figurative, possess a cartoonish quality, and typically portray the

underdog in present-day situations. As a result, his paintings, drawings, and sculptures are

adept at attracting approval from the masses.

27
This was illustrated through my conversations with several museum visitors who were
not aware that Botero’s new exhibition explored the Abu Ghraib torture; they just came to
see his latest work. Needless to say, they were slightly shocked when they realized the
collection’s subject matter.
 34

A different explanation for Botero’s popularity stems from his emergence as truly

a global artist. Born in Colombia, Botero currently resides primarily in Paris and has

spent or spends significant time in Mexico, Italy and New York City. Botero considers his

experience growing up outside of the Western art world as an advantage:

If I’d been born in Paris, in Germany, or in Spain I’m sure I wouldn’t paint
the way I do. On the other hand, we’re [Colombian artists] at an advantage
because, not possessing anything ourselves, we have panoramic view of
all cultures. If you come from a country with a strong culture you are so
dominated by that culture you can’t view other countries with anything
like objectivity. But if your native country has no cultural tradition then, in
a way, the culture of the entire world belongs to you. It’s good to be able
to pick and choose from cultures at will (Ibid, p. 157).

His art reflects this sense of cosmopolitanism. It draws from native Latin American

folkloric traditions, most noticeably through his admiration of the Mexican Muralistas’

subjects, as well as pre-Renaissance to modern European practices, which are

exemplified in his aesthetic choices. While Botero’s strict adherence to his figurative

approach acknowledges his struggles in New York City during the height of abstract

expressionism.

After spending time in Mexico and Colombia, Botero arrived in New York in

1960 and lived there for the next thirteen years. He saw the city as the center of artistic

creation and wanted to be a part of it. However, it took him ten years to gain any

recognition, which finally occurred when a German museum arranged an exhibition of

his work. Botero describes these challenging times in New York City: “If you were not

abstract art, you were nothing. You were like a leper. You couldn’t get a gallery… it was

very difficult to stay there.”28 Following his breakthrough show in Germany, some of the

28
This quote is from Botero’s participation in “A Conversation with the Artist,” at Cal
Berkley on January 29, 2007. As previously mention in the framework section, the video
from this event can be found at: http://socrates.berkeley.edu:7001/index.html
 35

world’s most prestigious galleries began courting the artist, including New York’s

Marlborough Gallery, which has exhibited his work ever since. Botero’s NYC experience

serves as a defining moment in his artistic career because it tested his convictions.

Abstract art was at its peak, but he remained true to his self and what would soon become

known as the “boteriano language.”

Another significant time in Botero’s life began when he won Colombia’s National

Prize for painting at the age of eighteen. Botero used the prize money to travel to Europe

to complete his education. He realized that an artist had to understand the techniques

before he could properly express himself. Eventually, Botero ended up in Madrid and

worked as a copyist at the Prado Museum. Echoes from this experience appear in

Botero’s subsequent productions, particularly in Botero: Abu Ghraib, where viewers can

make connections between the bloody violence and Christian iconography from this

collection and the masterworks that hang at the Prado.

From Madrid, Botero relocated to Paris, a move that he justifies through his

fascination with Picasso: “In my time the dream was to go to Paris and become Picasso.

That’s what everybody wanted” (“A Conversation with the Artist,” Cal Berkley, January

29, 2007). However, Botero only stayed in France for a few months. The way he

describes it, his plans changed abruptly when he saw a book on Renaissance art by

Lionello Venturi while walking alone one night. It was the most beautiful thing he had

ever seen. The next day he bought the book and realized that he wanted to be in Florence

(Ibid). Botero exchanged his lifelong aspiration to follow Picasso for a new and defining

desire to delve deeper into art history learn about the early Italian masters.

Further evidence supporting the artist as an anachronism exists in his approach to

 36

production. He employs indirect painting, a technique that was much more popular prior

to the mid-19th century and the iconoclastic and direct paintings of Gustave Courbet. It

involves the slow process of applying multiple layers of paint, which permits Botero to

criticize and make changes to his productions. It often takes him months to finish a

painting and in the case of Botero: Abu Ghraib, he worked on several pictures at once.

This technique also reflects his understanding of art because it allows him to

produce the best works that he possibly can. Botero views art as beauty, a notion that

dates back to his earliest experiences in Colombia when the only paintings that he saw

were in churches. Botero explains:

When Colombian children go to church they see all these Madonnas, so

clean and perfect. In South America, chinalike perfection is very much a
part of the ideal of beauty… So, in contrast to Europe or North America,
you connect the notions of art and beauty at a very early age… All my life
I’ve been trying to produce art that’s beautiful, to discover all the elements
that go to make up visual perfection (Spies, 1992, p. 156-157).

Thus, it is easy depict Botero as an artist interested in classical beauty, which is why his

Abu Ghraib collection can be so compelling: it presents horrific images in a beautiful

way.

What the artist did-

In collaboration with the decisive factors that define Botero as a cultural producer,

the artist’s conscious efforts to situate Botero: Abu Ghraib as the ideal artistic

representation also influences the work’s symbolic production. Drawing on Bourdieu’s

portrayal of the field of cultural production as a field of struggles, Botero seeks to

establish legitimacy for his art within the field of cultural production and hence, society

in general. He realizes that the other cultural producers (i.e. the individuals and entities
 37

with a relevant stake) who provide the context for Botero: Abu Ghraib accept a romantic

notion of art and the artistic process, since it facilitates their efforts to maintain their own

authority within their respective fields. As a result, Botero perpetuates the popular myth

that the artist, as author, exists in a privileged position compared to other contributors in

the cultural production process.

Similar to his account of the incident that prompted him to leave Paris and Picasso

for Florence and its Italian masters, Botero idealizes his comprehension, motivation, and

contributions relating to the production Botero: Abu Ghraib. He first learned about the

Abu Ghraib incident from Seymour Hersh’s now famous May 2004 New Yorker article.

Afterwards, he became obsessed and began consuming all the available information on

the scandal. He was “surprised, hurt, and angry” that America, a model for compassion

and human rights, tortures its prisoners. He had always viewed the U.S. as a “beacon of

light” in the world, but after Abu Ghraib, he started to associate it with hypocrisy. Like

Picasso after the bombing of Guernica, Botero could not stay silent.29

A few months later while on a plane returning to France, he revisited Hersh’s

article and almost immediately started sketching. After arriving at his Paris residence, he

continued to draw and eventually started with oils.30 His obsession grew and he worked

on nothing else for the next fourteen months. Botero admits that it was not easy living

with these horrifying images in his head for such an extended period of time. But it was

29
Unless otherwise stated, Botero’s conceptualizations of Botero: Abu Ghraib and his art
in general are based on his remarks from his participation in extended formal
conversations and audience Q & A sessions that were held in conjunction with his
openings at Cal Berkley and American University.
30
Despite Botero’s efforts to portray the events leading up to his decision in an idealized
fashion, it is important to note that this undertaking did not interrupt an ongoing project.
In reality, Botero had been returning from a trip and one can surmise from his Berkley
conversation with Robert Haas that he was probably looking for a new project to start.
 38

something he said that he had to do. Finally, in September 2006 he realized that he had

nothing left to express; he now felt peace in his soul.

Based on his examination of the Abu Ghraib photos and interpretation of articles,

Botero depicts the Iraqi prisoners and the U.S. soldiers as an unambiguous contrast

between dignity and ignorance. Regarding the victims, Botero saw older men with

beards, which symbolized their religious devotion. Thus, he conceptualized the prisoners

as noble, pious individuals, who kept their self-respect in spite of the soldiers’ torment.

Botero believes that it was important to give dignity back to these individuals and said

that he even tried to make some of them look like prophets.

Conversely, Botero views the soldiers as teenagers from lower income brackets,

who had no knowledge or respect for these men or anything else that was not American.

They put on green latex gloves to touch the prisoners, a lasting impression that Botero

highlighted by only painting the perpetrators’ hands and boots. Plus, he did not want the

victims to have to share his canvas with the “unworthy” U.S. soldiers. Botero’s

understanding and public portrayal of Abu Ghraib, situates his work as the artistic

representation most in sync with the overriding social and political perspectives regarding

the incident in the U.S. and especially abroad. Strategically, he aligns Botero: Abu

Ghraib with the individuals and groups who are most likely to adopt it and propagate its

meaning and value.31

Botero also attempts to strengthen his position among his contemporaries, i.e.

popular, commercially successful figurative artists. He expresses shock that more of them
31
Botero would probably take issues with this last point since in his efforts to maintain
the romantic notion of artistic production he argues that when he paints he is unable to
knowingly separate himself from his work. He says he paints without considering the
implications of the choices that he makes. Yet, at the same time he admits his conscious
desire to portray his characters in a certain way (e.g. prisoners with dignity).
 39

have not come forward and confronted the Abu Ghraib incident. In fact, he is not familiar

with any figurative American artist who has commented on this issue,32 which he

describes as the biggest damage ever done to America’s image abroad. He even cites the

Vietnam War and points to the greater extent to which artists intervened in the era’s social

and political debates. Botero situates himself as the socially responsible artist, whose

work is steeped in the historical context of artistic mediation in times of crisis.

By highlighting his uncommon, anachronistic approach to art, Botero also

distinguishes himself from another group of cultural producers, namely artists who

employ abstraction. Throughout his career Botero has received criticism since his works

fail to acknowledge the conditions of the modern era from which abstract art emerged.

Furthermore, Botero’s efforts to enhance the value of his figurative style is especially

noteworthy when placed in the context of his earlier struggles in New York City when

abstraction dominated the field of artistic production. Concerning Botero: Abu Ghraib,

Botero continues to stands firm and seeks to establish figurative art as the ideal artistic

approach. He argues for its capacity to clearly and directly communicate with the work’s

audience, which is primarily comprised of individuals existing outside the art world, in

ways that abstract art cannot. Botero believes his art can mediate understanding through

its unique ability to awaken publics from their “desensitized” perceptions of the issues

surrounding Abu Ghraib.

Despite Botero’s consistent efforts to perpetuate the romantic notions associated

32
In order to clarify this observation, there have been several other artists who have
tackled the issues surrounding Abu Ghraib and the Iraq War. For example, Richard
Serra’s powerful silhouette “Stop War” (2004) appeared in the 2006 Whitney Biennial.
Other relevant artistic commentaries include productions by Thomas Hirshhorn, Hans
Haacke, and Gerald Laing. However, Botero is most likely not concerned with these
individuals since they do not employ a figurative style and subsequently, do not present a
direct threat to his economic or symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 15-16).
 40

with the artist’s role in the cultural production process, he backs away from these myths

when he discusses Botero: Abu Ghraib’s overall effect. He acknowledges his limitations

as an individual cultural producer and concedes his inability to predict or control how

time will treat his work. He cites the myriad of past Venice Biennale winners who have

been forgotten despite their distinction as the finest creators at that specific moment. This

represents one of the only instances when Botero recognizes the significance of the other

contributors in the symbolic production process.

Moreover, this admission also challenges Botero’s stated value for his work,

which presents it as a testimony that compels people to remember. He believes that art

has this power and references Guernica as evidence for this effect. However, Botero

seems to imply a reckless comparison to Guernica, especially since he concurrently

recognizes the power of time to alter and shape a work’s meaning and value. Guernica

does not symbolize the same thing as it did when it was first painted and its symbolic

production did not develop simply because its artist depicted violence and suggested

political and moral crises. Instead, it is the product of collaborations from a variety of

actors and happenings that occurred over a sustained period. Thus, in order to truly

understand Botero: Abu Ghraib’s effect on how Katzen exhibition consumers view the

issues and event surrounding the Abu Ghraib incident, one must acknowledge Botero’s

dissemination of an idealized portrayal of the artistic process, even if, as illustrated in the

following sections, other cultural producers willing accept and perpetuate it.

Who the critic is-

In conjunction with their efforts to establish sensibilities for different forms of

 41

cultural activity, critics help publics make choices. They provide the necessary context

that influences individuals to engage with specific artistic and cultural productions. It is a

service that patrons expect and demand, especially in the modern era where technological

advances have increased the variety of choices by decreasing barriers to access. However,

critics do not exist to exclusively serve publics, but rather a cultural industry in which

capitalistic concerns are inseparable from the other factors determining the works they

discuss and the position they adopt.

The critics who reviewed Botero: Abu Ghraib were no different. Exploiting

Botero’s global popularity with individuals existing outside the established art world,

they represented a wide range of regional, national, and international media outlets. For

example, the particular show at the Katzen received coverage from sources including the

DCist.com, Washington Post, and Toronto Star, while exposure for the collection in

general appeared in The Nation, New York Times, and San Antonio Express-News.33

Even the Associated Press and Reuters covered the exhibition, which is unusual since

these two news agencies typically avoid artistic and cultural critiques. Nevertheless, they

begin to illustrate the style of reviews that Botero: Abu Ghraib received.

The critics who covered this exhibition did not approach it in a manner that is

typically employed in critiques of more-conventional, contemporary artists. Most likely,

this had to do with these individuals’ position within the field of cultural production, as

opposed to their actual judgment of the work. Many of the critics who reviewed Botero:

Abu Ghraib lacked the necessary symbolic and cultural capital, especially in comparison

33
These examples highlight my emphasis on published reviews. However, Botero: Abu
Ghraib also received coverage on broadcast media, including National Public Radio,
CNN Espanol, and Telemundo.
 42

to the artist whose collection they were evaluating.34 This evokes Bourdieu’s

conceptualization of the field of artistic criticism as a field of power struggles. These

critics are contending for their right to review the work, not just state their opinion of it,

and so it is clearly in the interest of these reviewers to align themselves with Botero.

Furthermore, Bourdieu writes, “a critic can only ‘influence’ his readers in so far as they

extend him this power” (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 96). Thus, critics must consider their

audiences’ social and political views as well as their cultural and aesthetic tastes since

critics feel pressure to maintain the readership that provides them with the authority

required for their participation in the field of artistic criticism. With regard to Botero: Abu

Ghraib, this meant perpetuating the artist’s idealized portrayal of the artistic process.

Additional support that these reviews were a product of a lack of symbolic power

rather than artistic judgment relates to the critics’ dependence on the show’s curator, Jack

Rasmussen, to situate the work’s meaning and value. Publications, such as the Toronto

Star and Associated Press, quoted the curator in the same way that they quoted the artist;

highlighting the extent to which these individuals did not possess the cultural capital

needed to independently evaluate Botero: Abu Ghraib.35 This also illustrates how cultural

producers collaborate when it is advantageous for all parties involved. Moreover, the

critics’ reliance on the curator resulted in the further dissemination of Botero’s romantic

depiction of the artistic process. As demonstrated in the following section of analysis, the

curator (who also serves as museum director) willingly adopts this perception, since it is

34
In the field of cultural production, symbolic capital indicates a producer’s “degree of
accumulated prestige, celebrity, consecration or honour,” while cultural capital refers to a
producer’s “cultural knowledge, competence, or disposition of cultural relations and
cultural artifacts” (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 7).
35
Rasmussen corroborated this notion during our interview regarding the curator’s
contribution to cultural production process.
 43

in his interest that the show succeeds in the media.

Through Bourdieu’s examination of the critical reviews from a Francoise Dorin

play, he illustrated how newspaper affiliation influences a critic’s assessment of cultural

and artistic productions (Ibid, p 86-93). This was also the case with the individuals who

covered Botero: Abu Ghraib. The majority of these critics work for publications that are

concerned less with contributing to contemporary art history debates and more with

reporting on newsworthy issues and events as a way to sustain a level of readership. This

is evident through the Associated Press’ and Reuters’ interest in the show; other examples

include the Middle East Times, Foreign Policy in Focus, and Blogcritics Magazine.

Consequently, these critics embraced a mainstream, rather than overly intellectual,

approach for their coverage, which seems sensible considering Botero’s ability to

traditionally attract a non-art crowd.

Even the Washington Post adopted this technique, despite their reputation for

reputable arts commentary. The paper had Erica Jong, the well-known author and

educator who famously coined the term “zipless fuck,” review the show, which is worth

mentioning since she is much more of a feminist social and cultural critic than an art one.

Also, Botero: Abu Ghraib viewers cited this article the most when I asked them where

they first heard about the exhibition. Thus, one can assume that this particular review had

the greatest impact with regard to the critic’s contribution to the exhibition’s meaning and

value. Moreover, it is symbolic of the type of review that this collection received since it

embraced the artist’s idealized portrayal and presented the show as a mainstream, cultural

event.
 44

What the critic did-

A survey of the articles written about Botero: Abu Ghraib reveals the

reoccurrence of a particular perspective that draws on certain issues and ideas in a way

that confirms how critics presented the show as a relevant cultural happening as opposed

to deconstructing its aesthetic worth. By highlighting themes such as Botero’s signature

volumetric style, his “usual” choice of subject matter, and the paintings’ value in the

context of the original photographs, critics carved out a niche for this exhibition around

the idea of a unique and consecrated artist who abandoned his traditional lighthearted

focus to address our era’s most pressing political and moral crisis.36 They further

emphasized the last part of this portrayal by connecting the show to stories that

concurrently appeared on the front page of newspapers worldwide. Most notably, they

referenced Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s refusal to unequivocally declare

waterboarding illegal, the interrogation technique used by U.S. soldiers that Botero

represented in one of his larger works. As a result, critics easily depicted this art as

political, controversial, and contemporary, which not only appeased publishers’ monetary

concerns since it is a good formula to attract readers, but also heightened the importance

of Botero: Abu Ghraib to individuals interested in consuming a cultural event.

References to Guernica, as the defining illustration of political art, represent

another reoccurring theme in the majority of the show’s coverage. Critics employed it to

facilitate their efforts to present these works as significant from a cultural standpoint and

cited it as a historical example demonstrating the extent to which art has the power to

mediate understanding. As a result, it is conceivable that readers of these reviews

36
In addition, almost all of the reviews that dealt specifically with the Katzen show noted
the museum’s close proximity to the individuals and agencies responsible for Abu Ghraib
(in Washington DC) as a way to enhance the show’s meaning and value.
 45

formulated their own connections, whether legitimate or imagined, between Botero: Abu

Ghraib and Picasso’s famous work. Evidence for this finding exists from my interviews

with Katzen viewers during which many of them mentioned Guernica as they spoke

about Botero’s work.

Within the parameters of a mainstream, cultural event, the critics who reviewed

Botero: Abu Ghraib by and large presented it as a success; they positioned it as a

powerful collection that has the potential to affect public understanding of the issues

surrounding the Abu Ghraib incident. In her Washington Post review, Erica Jong declares:

I think that most of the people who see these Botero images will be as
horrified as I am. Complicity in torture is invisible to most people. They
do not know what they can do to prevent it- hence their passivity. Botero,
inspired by Picasso’s Guernica, broke through his passivity by making
these works (Jong, 2007).

Even the reviewers, who just submitted the facts (i.e. Botero’s conceptualization) and

refrained from making a final judgment, still portrayed the exhibition in a positive light

since their allegiance to the artist denotes respect for him. The bulk of these critical

reviews serve merely as an advertisement for the exhibition.

However, Botero: Abu Ghraib did have its detractors. Deborah K. Dietsch, arts

and cultural critic for The Washington Times, condemns the entire “ART of

CONFRONTation” when she writes: “Few of these works addressing war, capitalism and

sexism are truly moving or memorable.” She then goes on to specifically call Botero’s

work “propaganda” and “a morality play staged for those who already oppose the Iraq

War” (Dietsch, 2007). Furthermore, she acknowledges many of the same issues as the

other critics, but instead adopts alternative positions and cites them as her rationale for

why the art fails. She argues that Botero’s paintings “lack the stomach-turning immediacy
 46

of the infamous Abu Ghraib photos” and his signature style “works against his violent

subject matter” as some of his figures “appear more comic than distressed” (Ibid).

Despite a shortage of symbolic and cultural capital when compared to Botero,

Dietsch is still able to make these arguments because she writes for a newspaper as well

as an audience that shares particular political views and cultural tastes. Unlike the other

publications mentioned, The Washington Times is recognized for its Conservative

perspective, which in turn implies a readership that is expecting viewpoints of a similar

persuasion. Thus, it is in her interest to challenge artistic or cultural productions that

might threaten this viewpoint. In support of this tactic, Bourdieu writes:

Critics serve their readerships so well only because… they most sincerely,
and therefore most effectively, defend the ideological interests of their
clientele when defending their own interests as intellectuals against their
specific adversaries, the occupants of opposing positions in the field of
production (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 94-95).

This article not only affected Botero: Abu Ghraib’s meaning and value, but also possibly

prevented other cultural producers (i.e. publics) from visiting the exhibition and

challenging her representation. My interviews with individuals at the Katzen confirm this

notion since none of them cited Dietsch when I asked them where they first heard about

these works or what made them decide to come see the show. This finding is also

significant when analyzing who actually attended the show.

Although rare, there were a few critics, such as Kenneth Baker, Arthur C. Danto,

and T.J. Clark,37 who presented more autonomous challenges to Botero: Abu Ghraib.

37
Baker is the art critic for the San Francisco Chronicle, Danto writes for The Nation and
teaches philosophy at Columbia University, and Clark is an art history professor at Cal
Berkley. Clark provided his critique as part of a panel held in conjunction with the
opening of Botero: Abu Ghraib at Cal Berkley. A webcast video of the event can be found
at: http://www.clas.berkeley.edu:7001/Events/spring2007/01-31-07-
artandviolence/index.html
 47

Unlike Dietsch, these individuals appear to possess the necessary symbolic and cultural

capital and were not constrained by publications that adhere to a certain political or social

perspective, such as The Washington Times. Thus, they had the authority to judge

Botero’s art in a more conventional way and in their analysis these individuals did contest

aspects of Botero’s romantic portrayal.38 For example, Baker questions the effects his

volumetric style, Danto rejects comparisons to Guernica, while Clark believes Botero

missed the significance of Abu Ghraib by making his paintings part of a familiar narrative

that relies too heavily on art history. Even though these critics may have provided what is

considered in the established art world as a more legitimate critique, in the case of

Botero: Abu Ghraib, they did not represent the norm. Instead, critics accepted Botero’s

interpretation and hence, perpetuated the idea of the artist as creative genius.

Who the curator is-

When asked about his understanding of the curator’s role, Rasmussen presented

the romantic notion that the artist exits in a privileged position and minimized his own

contribution. He said:

The curator is just somebody who tries to get out of the way and let the
artist be seen in the best possible way. Sometimes that means trying to
provide some contextual information that will enable the viewer to come
more prepared to an artist’s work and other times it literally means getting
out of the way. If you find a good artist to work with that’s about 90% of
the job. So, I think it’s less about the curator and way more about the
artist.39

This response reflects the established workings of the contemporary art world; it is only

natural for a curator to defer to an artist, such as Botero, in an industry where the latter’s
38
However, none of them flatly rejected the collection in the manner of Dietsch.
39
Unless otherwise cited, all quotes from Rasmussen are from an interview that I
conducted with him on February 27, 2008.
 48

contributions are exploited and celebrated for material (i.e. financial) and symbolic (i.e.

cultural authority) gain. However, Rasmussen immediately acknowledged that others

might disagree with this perspective and as illustrated later in this analysis, he contradicts

his idealized depiction and recognizes his role as equally relevant in the cultural

production process.

Similar to the critics who reviewed Botero: Abu Ghraib, the alliance between the

curator and the artist exists because it serves both of their interests. Although it may seem

like the curator and the museum had much more to gain by exhibiting these works due to

Botero’s consecration throughout mainstream society, the artist also benefited since his

efforts to mediate understanding fail unless his creations are publicly displayed.

Expanding on Ewa Kuryluk’s previously mentioned statement that no artist can exist

without a patron, in the case of Botero: Abu Ghraib, this essential relationship required a

venue, which Rasmussen was able to provide. Bourdieu advances the significance for the

venue in the cultural production process when he writes:

Choosing the right place of publication, the right, publisher, journal, gallery
or magazine is vitally important because for each author, each form of
production and product, there is a corresponding natural site in the field of
production, and producers or products that are not in their right place are
more or less bound to fail (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 95).

Considering the issues and conditions surrounding Botero: Abu Ghraib, the

Katzen mainly because of its Washington DC location, could exist as this art’s “natural

site.” In fact, besides a showing in Iraq, there probably is not a better setting to enhance

the development of its meaning and value. All four of the cultural producers that I

analyzed highlighted the implication of exhibiting these works in the city where much of

the world’s scrutiny and condemnation has centered. Botero even publicly acknowledged
 49

his own satisfaction with the show’s proximity to the U.S. government, especially the

White House, when an individual asked him who he would most like to have view his

latest collection and he answered, “Bush.”40

Additionally, Botero benefited from the size of the Katzen’s gallery space since it

permitted the artist to exhibit his entire Abu Ghraib collection, consisting of 79 drawings

and paintings for the first time in America. The previous two U.S. venues, the

Marlborough Gallery and the Doe Library at Cal Berkley, were only able to

accommodate forty-five and forty-three respectively. As a result, viewers were able to

experience the full extent of Botero’s self-described “obsession” that resulted in the

production of this remarkable volume of works. Several individuals who viewed the

exhibition at the Katzen cited Botero’s prolificacy as evidence of his anger and thought it

heighten the power of these works. This analysis also supports claims for the museum as

a relevant producer in the field of cultural production since its location and size altered

the viewing of these works.

As much as any other cultural producer, Rasmussen exemplifies the blurring

nature of the present-day cultural industry where distinct, individual roles no longer exist.

This may even explain his initial attempt to play down his own significance, since his

responsibilities as museum director have the potential to complicate his curatorial desires

to exhibit a certain type of art. As director, Rasmussen depends on the museum’s board of

directors as well as other American University officials and committees, which contribute

to the cultural production process by providing him with the authority to exhibit a show,

such as Botero: Abu Ghraib. As a result, he must consider additional matters relating to

40
This question was asked during the artist Q & A session that coincided with Botero:
Abu Ghraib’s opening at the Katzen.
 50

the museum’s financial standing, including marketing and attendance, as well as its

connections to the greater university community at large. Rasmussen’s collaborations

with Botero facilitated his efforts as both curator and director.

The Katzen is a relatively new museum, struggling to establish itself in a city

whose art and cultural institutions are dominated by the U.S. government funded and

administered Smithsonian Institution, which describes itself as the world’s largest

museum complex and research organization. Thus, Botero: Abu Ghraib presented an

opportunity, similar to the Guggenheim’s affect on the city of Bilbao, for Rasmussen to

help cement the Katzen’s status as a museum with a reputation for more than just student,

alumni, and local art exhibitions. Although it is still too early to determine whether or not

this show created this kind of ripple effect, evidence exists in its favor; namely that it was

able to attract recording-breaking turnouts, including 1,347 individuals for the show’s

opening as well as the nearly universal positive press that the museum received in

publications worldwide. Furthermore, Botero: Abu Ghraib extended beyond the

University’s arts community and enabled the participation of all six of AU’s schools and

colleges in programs developed around the collection’s social and political

underpinnings.41 Moving forward, it will be interesting to see if the museum can

capitalize on the symbolic capital its association with Botero: Abu Ghraib provided and

continue to exhibit art with the potential for similar effects.

Despite the international attention that this art received, it initially struggled to

find U.S. venues willing to take a chance and exhibit these controversial works. For six

41
For example, the School of International Service led the Q &A forum with the artist at
the show’s opening, the Kogod School of Business presented a training symposium
concerning professional responsibility after Abu Ghraib, while the Washington College of
Law facilitated a panel discussion on torture around the world.
 51

months, they were offered to several American museums, but only sites in Europe

expressed any interest. Finally, the artist’s own gallery agreed to display his paintings in

New York (Kaufman, 2006). Clearly, the potential backlash of showing art with alleged

anti-American themes weighted heavily on the minds of curators and museum directors

across the country, even to the extent that it overshadowed the admirable desire to present

challenging art in times of moral crisis. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that

Rasmussen’s curatorial authority greatly increased since for the most part he receives the

credit for bringing this show to the capital of the country that made these works possible

in the first place; not to mention it is also the site where the repercussions could be the

greatest. One viewer reaffirms this perspective when she wrote in the exhibition’s

comment book: “Kudos to AU for having the courage to show the Boteros. No public

gallery- publicly supported- would have taken the risk!” The Katzen still exists as the

only U.S. museum to exhibit the entire collection.

What the curator did-

As the curator of an exhibition that displays art as recognized as Botero: Abu

Ghraib, Rasmussen automatically receives a high level of symbolic and cultural capital,

since other cultural producers (i.e. critics, exhibition viewers, etc.) expect him to provide

context for how to view these works. In fact, with regard to this specific show at the

Katzen, he arguably has as much authority as anyone including Botero. Evidence for his

power exists in the numerous articles that associate Rasmussen with these controversial

works by mentioning his role or citing his expressed value for the art, which mostly

consisted of the perpetuation of romantic notion that situates Botero as creative genius.
 52

In his efforts to enhance the meaning and value of these works, Rasmussen

conveys his fascination with Botero’s use of symbols that are traditionally employed for

“the martyrdom of Christian saints and the humiliation of Christ” to facilitate western

audience connections to the Abu Ghraib torture. He also uses Guernica as “the perfect

example of political art” to help situate the potential impact for Botero’s work.

Furthermore, Rasmussen relies on his blog to directly communicate with potential

viewers without having to go through traditional media. On December 28, 2007, he

wrote: “I think this is an important exhibition for Washington. A great artist has done

inspired work. It will challenge you, and maybe change you.”42

Despite his earlier attempt to minimize his contribution, Rasmussen’s influence

did not diminish once he secured Botero’s art for the Katzen. He revealed himself as a

significant contributor to cultural production process through his decision not to provide

didactic material on the walls of Botero: Abu Ghraib’s gallery. For the most part,

presenting educational text is standard practice for museums since it provides a deeper

context for viewing the art, especially for individuals who are not familiar with the artist

or did not read an exhibition review beforehand. Moreover, audiences expect it; this was

certainly the case at the Katzen where consumers would not only mention their

disappointment during my informal interviews, but also went out of their way to ask me

questions about the art once they realized why I was there.43 At first, Rasmussen tried to

justify his choice by stating that unlike the other two concurrent shows (i.e. Dark

Metropolis: Irving Norman’s Social Realism and Claiming Space: Some American

Feminist Originators), which both received a lot of accompanying text, Botero: Abu
42
His blog titled “At the Katzen” can be found at:
http://art_at_thekatzen.typepad.com/art_thekatzen/
43
Thus, I also contributed to the symbolic production of Botero: Abu Ghraib.
 53

Ghraib was different because “…everybody has seen the photographs, everybody knows

what Abu Ghraib is, and I don’t think there was any need for words. Plus, there is

something about, when you don’t have to, not mediating the experience.”

Although some truth may exist to support this rationale, it falls short when

analyzed through the framework of cultural production as a multi-voiced process. To

begin with, Rasmussen’s adopts a reductionists view and ignores the myriad of other

factors, besides the photos and the torture, which are required to fully comprehend the

actual meanings as established by cultural producers of Botero: Abu Ghraib.44 Also, he

disregards the notion that there is no such thing as an unmediated experience when

dealing with an exhibit and an artist of this magnitude. He may have not realized it at the

time, but he had already shaped how individuals would view these works through his

decision to market the show as “ART of CONFRONTation.”

In addition, Rasmussen added that the museum offered the exhibition catalog, so

if an individual really wanted to know more, the opportunity was there. However, the

catalog cost money. Thus, it should not serve as a replacement for educational text in a

public university museum, such as the Katzen. It seems reasonable to question the

existence of financial motivations behind this decision not to provide didactic material,

especially since Rasmussen serves as both curator and museum director. Even though in

all probability this was not the case, the potential for it should still be acknowledged

considering the defining role that capitalism plays within the cultural industries.

Through our discussion concerning the exhibition’s lack accompanying texts, it

appears that Rasmussen reassessed his understanding of the curator’s role. He recognized
44
For example, individuals who I spoke with at the Katzen wanted to know who the artist
was (e.g. his nationality) or what these paintings were based on (e.g. did he actually visit
the prison or just read about it).
 54

that there is more than one way to display Botero: Abu Ghraib and referenced the

subsequent showing in Monterey, Mexico, which provided text as well as dramatic

lighting and a set route for viewers to experience the art.45 He goes on to admit that it was

unfair to present Botero without any didactic material and acknowledges the extent to

which the curator truly orchestrates an exhibition even if it is not a conscious effort: “…in

my mind I may think I am stepping out and being neutral, but you’re really not, you’re

still putting it together in the way that you feel like it should be done.” This illustrates

that the curator does indeed have a significant impact in the cultural production process.

Thus, his amplification of an idealized notion of the artistic process is publicly resonant.

Who the public46 is-

Based on a simple survey of the people I spoke with and observed at the Katzen,

the audience for this exhibition consisted mostly of elderly individuals, students,

foreigners, and self-described political and social activists. There were also many viewers

who were familiar with Botero and his past productions as well as individuals who had

never heard of the artist and were unaware of his past efforts. In fact, one couple even

thought that he was dead. Although this last point may seem like a digression, it

illustrates the breadth of diversity regarding the viewers of this specific Botero: Abu

Ghraib exhibition.

Furthermore, admirers of Botero greatly outnumbered those individuals who

45
With regards to the Katzen show, viewers were free to consider the works in any order
since the gallery has an oval shape. Also, I would not characterize the lighting as
dramatic; it seemed standards compared to other similar museums.
46
By “public,” again I am referring to the community of cultural consumers that engaged
with Botero: Abu Ghraib at the Katzen. Throughout this analysis I use the terms
“publics,” “viewers,” and “consumers” interchangeably.
 55

represented the established art world perspective, which refuses to take this artist

seriously because of his cartoonish style (e.g. an art professor from a school in Florida

called it “goofy”), mass popularity, and commercial success. Botero’s “fans” fell into two

groups: individuals who love and are always going to love everything that he produces

and others who were not expecting this particular subject matter and prefer his lighter,

more uplifting creations. Even though this is somewhat of a generalized portrayal of the

Botero: Abu Ghraib’s audience, its purpose is to not only reveal who attended the show,

but also, and perhaps more importantly, who did not.

Several of the cultural producers involved, including the artist and critics,

acknowledged their desire for politicians, specifically ones who have played a significant

role in the current Bush Presidency, and other powerful individuals (i.e. opinion shapers

with the ability to affect public policy and understanding) to view this show. However,

my research revealed that this did not occur. Although it is possible that a person with this

level of authority visited the Katzen anonymously, I doubt this was the case considering

the extent to which I explored this exhibition through multiple channels.47 The absence of

this variety of individual is relevant since it highlights the limitations of public art like

Botero: Abu Ghraib; meaning it can be the most original and compelling production ever

created, except if nobody or the “wrong” crowd (i.e. individuals who were not primarily

targeted) comes to see it, the work’s value is neutralized. Cultural producers cannot fully

control which and in what way individuals experience their art. Thus, investigations into

a cultural production’s effect must take into account both who did and did not engage

47
For example, besides attending related events, observing individuals in the gallery, and
interviewing the curator, I also spoke with many of the Katzen’s employees as well as
American University students and professors involved with the exhibit.
 56

with a specific artistic or cultural creation.48

Another limitation of this art that my research uncovered concerns its ability to

intimidate some consumers through the belief that a particular level of artist competence

is required for genuine engagement. Even though Botero has historically counteracted

this constraint through his signature style and subject matters,49 there were a few

individuals who seemed uncomfortable discussing these works and one couple that

responded politely, “if you could just not…we are not the intellectual type” when I asked

them if they would not mind answering a few questions about this exhibition. However,

for the most part this was not the norm. The majority of people enthusiastically chatted

about this collection, since it gave them a chance to ask questions about the show. In fact,

there were only two other instances when viewers preferred not to participate in my

research; one gentleman was in too much of a hurry, while a foreign couple could not

understand my questions due to a language barrier.

Overall, the people who I spoke with viewed Botero: Abu Ghraib from

contemporary political and social perspective rather than one steeped in art history or

aesthetics.50 They relied on many of the same present-day issues and debates (e.g. the Iraq

War, waterboarding, human rights, this art’s connection to the actual Abu Ghraib

photographs, Guernica, the exhibition’s location in the U.S. capital, etc.) that, as

48
Despite this lack of “key” viewers, this does not imply that Botero: Abu Ghraib failed;
in addition to pointing out the problems with assuming that art has this kind of
straightforward, immediate effect, one can argue that these works were intended for the
general public as much as they were for political and social leaders.
49
See the section that specifically analyzes Botero for a more detailed explanation.
50
Nevertheless, there were a few viewers with the knowledge to place these works into
an appropriate historical context in the same way as Botero, Rasmussen, and some of the
more established art critics. For example, these consumers referenced the connections to
Goya’s depiction of brutality in The Disasters of War as well as Christian iconography
from Medieval and early Renaissance creations.
 57

demonstrated throughout this analysis, have been perpetuated by other cultural producers.

Evidence for this finding appeared through my conversations with publics at the Katzen,

during which individuals referenced all of my previously identified co-contributors as

well as the mass media51 as having an effect on how they interpreted this art. For

example, Botero influenced viewers because many of them said they were familiar with

his work and thus, had certain expectations. Furthermore, even consumers shaped the

experiences of other consumers by telling friends and family to visit the Katzen; I

frequently heard, “I am here because I was told that I had to see this exhibition.”52 These

findings not only suggest that this specific audience consisted primarily of a non-art

crowd, but also further establishes the extent to which relevant cultural producers,

including viewers, congregated around a similar understanding of Botero: Abu Ghraib.

One explanation for this involves the emergence of the mass media as relevant

contributor to Botero: Abu Ghraib’s meaning and value.53 In particular, the news media

and Hollywood shaped how people interpreted this exhibition by providing a context for

them to confront several of the broader themes that pertain to these works, including U.S.

foreign policy and human rights. For example, one couple mentioned how Botero’s work

reminded them of the torture that takes place in 1966 film The Battle of Algiers, which

they had just watched. They went on to discuss the differences between the two and how

51
By “mass media,” I am referring to the media’s general coverage of the issues and
debates surrounding this art that did not directly acknowledged Botero: Abu Ghraib; the
mass media is separate from the critic who specifically acknowledges this exhibition.
52
Other examples regarding my identified cultural producers’ affect on how individuals
interpreted this collection exist throughout this paper’s analysis of the artist, critics, the
curator, and the public.
53
This serves as one of my more unexpected findings. When I first started this project, I
did not realize that the mass media would have such a significant effect on how viewers
interpreted these works. However, in retrospect, it makes sense considering the
undeniable role that it plays in contemporary society.
 58

the torture in the Abu Ghraib paintings was so much more powerful because the issues

and debates (e.g. the Iraq War, waterboarding, etc.) relating to it are concurrently

appearing in the news. Thus, this couple, as well as the many other viewers who relied on

the mass media, was able to engage with this art at a deeper level.54

Although the mass media played an important role in shaping a collective context

for consumers’ interpretation of Botero: Abu Ghraib, one can argue that a more

significant explanation for this finding is the publics’ adoption of the idealized notion of

the artist as creative genius.55 Evidence for this exists through viewers’ eager acceptance

of the way other cultural producers (i.e. Botero, the critics, and Rasmussen) perpetuated

this myth as they presented these works. For the most part, everyone who I spoke to at

the Katzen that discussed the value of this collection celebrated Botero’s contributions

without acknowledging the other relevant participants in the cultural production process.

In summary, the above analysis situates the romantic notions associated with the artistic

process and the mass media as explanations for why viewers adopted the same issues and

debates that appeared throughout my analysis. This highlights the extent to which this

exhibition’s co-contributors were able to construct a shared meaning and value for

Botero: Abu Ghraib.

What the public did-

54
This idea of “a deeper level of engagement with this art” appears in more detail below.
55
The reason why this is more significant is because more individuals explicitly
mentioned how other cultural producers shaped their interpretations compared to any
references to the mass media. Plus, my identified cultural producers reflected many of
same issues and debates in their depictions of Botero: Abu Ghraib that also exists as part
of the mass media’s discussion of the Abu Ghraib incident; not to mention how publics
might not have been able to make the connections to these broader themes, such as the
Iraq War, if it had not been for the efforts of the cultural producers to present this work as
relevant to contemporary issues and debates.
 59

As referenced above, viewers demonstrated their adoption of this general

comprehension regarding Botero: Abu Ghraib through their descriptions of what this

exhibition is about. Individuals easily made the connection between Botero’s paintings

and drawings and the events surrounding the 2004 Abu Ghraib scandal, which served as

the motivation for the artist to produce these works. When I asked consumers for their

thoughts concerning this show’s subject matter, their responses predominantly included:

the Iraq War, torture, human rights, U.S. foreign policy, and “man’s inhumanity to man.”

Several people even looked at me like I was crazy and then just pointed to the wall that

read “BOTERO ABU GHRAIB” in big red letters.

After this apparently obvious initial response, some consumers went on to extract

deeper meanings from this art. A few of the consumers who possessed the necessary level

of artistic comprehension drew from their understanding of aesthetics and art history to

underscore appropriations that not only connect these works to past creations, but also

situates them in a way that enabled these individuals to obtain specific meanings. For

example, an older Latin American male pointed to the painting that just depicted a

prisoner’s hand bleeding from the rope tied around it (Abu Ghraib 67) to described the

exhibit as “giving dignity to those who suffer” because of the stigmata’s significance

throughout early art history. Without this appreciation for art’s subtleties, this individual

might have struggled to conceptualize this richer meaning in such an articulate manner.

Consumers also employed their knowledge gained from the mass media’s

perpetual coverage of the relevant stories to negotiate a context for these works. As

referred to above, publics enhanced what they were viewing by drawing on specifics

from the issues and debates that were concurrently printed and broadcasted by the news
 60

media or appeared in Hollywood productions. For example similar to the critics who

reviewed this exhibition, quite a few individuals spent a significant amount of time

discussing waterboarding, which at the time represented “front-page” material. These

viewers utilized their comprehension of this particular torture technique and related it to

the collection as a whole; one gentleman told me he didn’t know why this scandal was

such a big deal since U.S. soldiers have always “poured water down prisoner’s throats” in

times of war, while another onlooker mentioned how before seeing this art he struggled to

imagine what politicians and journalists exactly meant when they discussed

waterboarding. As a result of the mass media’s ability to establish a relevant public

understanding, a non-art crowd was able to engage with these works more thoroughly

than just considering the single acts of suffering that each piece displayed.

Moreover, my findings revealed that individuals created new and expanded

meanings for this art, which did not emerge in my investigations of other cultural

producers. As part of her own analysis on cultural producers, Maureen Mahon provides

support and an explanation for this discovery when she writes, “social actors manipulate

these [cultural] products, often for purposes of resistance and political expression that

their producers may not have intended (Mahon, 2000, p. 468-469). With regards to

Botero: Abu Ghraib, this conception mainly applies to political and social activists who

used these works to confirm what they already believed. For example, two ladies

concluded that Botero’s decision to vary the color of the prisoners’ skin56 symbolized a

“multicultural resistance to America’s actions.” Although other producers acknowledged

international outrage over U.S. involvement in the Abu Ghraib scandal, none of them

56
A survey of these paintings illustrates how Botero used at least three different colors,
light brown, dark brown, and greenish khaki, for the prisoner’s skin (see Abu Ghraib 53).
 61

related this to the prisoners’ skin color or even offered an account for what it might mean.

This finding not only presents further evidence that publics confronted these works at a

deeper level, but also it highlights the extent to which consumers can act as cultural

producers.

In addition to demonstrating how publics adopted a shared understanding for this

art as perpetuated by other cultural producers, my findings also suggest an effect for

Botero: Abu Ghraib concerning its viewers. Although this is difficult to prove since it is

possible that individuals were affected and did not realize it or could not express it during

our short conversation, support for this contention exists through both their comments

and actions. For example, many consumers displayed emotion during our discussions. At

one point, I was speaking with an older lady who was becoming so passionate and

distressed as she telling me how this same kind of torture was happening right now at the

Guantanamo Bay prison that I had to end our conversation to avoid possibly upsetting her

even more.

Another reason for believing this art had an effect relates to the way viewers

acknowledged Botero: Abu Ghraib’s controversy by partaking in the relevant debates that

were introduced by other cultural producers. For instance, some people said Botero’s

volumetric figures made the paintings more beautiful, while others argued that his “fat

people” did not make sense since prisoners are suppose to be skinny. Moreover,

individuals disputed whether or not Botero’s art had always been political and over the

extent to which Botero’s perspective was based on reality. In his analysis of aboriginal

paintings, Fred Myers contends that this type of disagreement is “a good thing… if there

is no controversy that means nobody is thinking about it” (Myers, 1991, p. 46). Myers
 62

provides support for this link between controversy and evidence of an effect.

Consumers further recognized the influence of this art by their willingness to

return for a second look. Quite a few of the individuals that I interviewed echoed the

appeal of other cultural producers and thought every American should see this show.

Furthermore, several viewers mentioned their desire to bring a friend or family member

or cited this as the reason for their current visit. Clearly, people would not spend the time

and effort required for an extra trip, if the exhibit had not affected them. In addition, some

viewers even explicitly acknowledged that Botero: Abu Ghraib altered their

understanding of relevant issues and debates. For example, individuals remarked that this

art: provided new visuals, presented new information, intensified their conception, and

even challenged their understanding of what they previously believed.

In conclusion, my examination of publics as cultural producers situates the

viewers of this Katzen exhibition as a predominately non-art crowd that recognized this

collection’s significance as purported by the artist, critics, and the curator. Specifically,

this involved the acceptance of the romantic notion of the artist as creative genius, which

in addition to the mass media serves as an explanation for the appearance of similar

issues and debates throughout this analysis. Moreover, my discussions with viewers not

only revealed their ability to extract deeper interpretations for these works, but also

provided evidence that Botero: Abu Ghraib enhanced many viewers’ understandings of

the Abu Ghraib incident.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:

All four of my primary cultural producers- the artist, the critic, the curator, and the
 63

public- as well as others, such as the mass media, played a significant role in shaping

Botero: Abu Ghraib’s symbolic production.57 Capitalizing on Botero’s accumulated

cultural and symbolic capital, the other cultural producers, who are indispensable in their

own right since they are the ones who enable Botero to possess this authority,

collaborated with the artist and accepted his idealized portrayal of the artistic process. As

a result, they presented him as the unique and consecrated creator who abandoned his

traditional lighthearted focus to address our era’s most pressing moral crisis. Evidence for

the success of these mutually beneficial relationships appeared throughout my analysis as

these co-contributors were able to construct a shared meaning and value for Botero: Abu

Ghraib. For example, in addition to the collective depiction of the artist as creative

genius, these producers presented tacit comparisons to Guernica (i.e. the defining

example of artistic mediation) and perpetuated the surrounding controversies (e.g.

propaganda vs. reality, value of the paintings vs. the photographs, etc.) all of which have

augmented the development of this collection’s symbolic production. Furthermore, these

findings were corroborated during my discussions at the Katzen with individual

consumers of Botero: Abu Ghraib, which in turn demonstrated a degree of engagement

where at the very least viewers were able to enhance their insight into the issues and

debates (e.g. the Iraq War, human rights, and U.S. foreign policy) relating to the torture at

the Abu Ghraib prison.

CONCLUSION:

The most significant aspect of this analysis of Botero: Abu Ghraib is that it

57
Thus, reaffirming the value of analyzing producers and their creations through the
multi-voiced process of cultural production.
 64

affected public viewers as a result of concerted efforts by cultural producers. Although

explanations for how cultural productions become and remain publicly resonant derive

from a myriad of sources ranging from fortuitous circumstances to strategic calculations,

for this collection it is important to recognize the extent to which individuals willingly

assumed and perpetuated the romantic notions associated with the artistic and cultural

creation process. In fact, these “artificial beliefs” serve as the underpinning for the entire

cultural industries. If people stopped accepting them, the industry side of the cultural

industries might collapse (as it currently exists), since it is predominately based on the

symbolic (e.g. cultural capital), rather than the concrete. However, this will never happen

because cultural consumers want to believe in the artistic and cultural creations that

enable them to create hope and meaning in their own lives; they want to continue to

believe that “good gets better.”

Furthermore, if Botero: Abu Ghraib or at least its central subject matter had not

received the attention that it did from these cultural producers, then it is very possible that

this collection of classical, figurative fine art may have been eventually relegated to a

level where it is only significant to those who have a direct stake in it. In others words,

this art’s value is based on the fact that a variety of cultural producers saw it as relevant.

Although someone might argue, “but it’s a Botero so it’s guaranteed to attract acclaim,”

we must remember that this artist’s authority to command this “acclaim” is “nothing

other than ‘credit’ with a set of agents who constitute ‘connections’ whose value is

proportionate to the credit they themselves command” (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 78). At this

point it might be helpful to recall Myers’ contention that controversy is a good thing

because if the cultural producers associated with Botero: Abu Ghraib had just said,
 65

“Yeah, that’s nice,” then this exhibition for all intents and purposes would have failed.58

As this art continues to travel to museums as an entire collection and when it is

ultimately dismantled and donated to yet-unannounced venues to be put on permanent

display, Botero: Abu Ghraib’s meaning and value will not subside. Although it is

impossible to predict how time will treat this art or its subject matter, I believe that it is

safe to assume because the issues and events relating to the Abu Ghraib incident are not

going away. The U.S. decision to torture, no matter how high in the chain of command it

went, will forever scar America’s international image concerning this particular moment

in history. Abu Ghraib is not significant just because the U.S. tortured; it is significant

because U.S. soldiers possessed and utilized the technological and communication means

necessary to document and disseminate these conscious acts of brutality worldwide that

have since and will continue to play out in the mass media. It does not matter whether or

not a particular individual thinks that Botero successfully captured this or any other

interpretation of importance, but rather that Botero: Abu Ghraib is associated with the

circumstances (i.e. the Abu Ghraib incident) from which these interpretations derive. Art

has the power to mediate. However, it is a result of a multi-voiced process.

Bibliography

Baker, Kenneth. “Botero’s Distinctive Style Evokes Moral Energy.” San Francisco
Chronicle, 29 January 2007, E3.

Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. New York, NY: Schocken Books, 1969.

Becker, Carol, ed. The Subversive Imagination: Artists, Society, & Social Responsibility.
New York, NY: Routledge, 1994.

Eva Hauser. “The Velvet Revolution and Iron Necessity,” 77-94.

58
Myers argued, “If there is no controversy, that means nobody is thinking about it”
(Myers, 1991, p. 46).
 66

Ewa Kuryluk. “A Plea for Irresponsibility,” 13-19.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Randal Johnson ed. The Field of Cultural Production. New York,
NY: Columbia University Press, 1993.

Cameron, Catherine M. “Avant-Gardism as a Mode of Cultural Change.” Cultural

Anthropology 5, no. 2 (May 1990): 217-230.

Campello, Lenny. “Botero’s Abu Ghraib Paintings Should Hang in the Pentagon Art
Collection.” Blogcritic Magazine [online magazine]; posted 3 September 2007
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/09/03/095800.php; accessed 30 April 2008.

Carey, John. The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice among the Literary
Intelligentsia, 1880-1939. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1992.

Clark, Judith. History of Art: From the Renaissance Up to the Present Day. New York,
NY: Mallard Press, 1992.

Collins, Lauren. “Banksy Was Here: The Invisible Man of Graffiti Art.” The New Yorker,
14 May 2007.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/14/070514fa_fact_collins?printable
=true; accessed 30 April 2008.

Cowen, Tyler. Creative Destruction. Princeton, NJ: University of Princeton Press, 2002.

Danto, Arthur C. “The Body in Pain.” The Nation, posted 9 November 2007.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/danto; accessed 30 April 2008.

Dietsch, Deborah K. “Pious Protest.” The Washington Times, 10 November 2007.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071110/ENTERT
AINMENT/111100016/1007; accessed 30 April 2008.

Durham, Meenakshi Gigi and Douglas M. Kellner, eds. Media and Cultural Studies
Keyworks. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2001.

________. “Adventures in Media and Cultural Studies: Introducing the

Keyworks,” ix-xxxviii.

________. “Introduction to Part 1.” 3-8.

Florida, Richard. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2002.

Forero, Juan. “Great Crime at Abu Ghraib Enrages and Inspires and Artist.” New York
Times, 8 May 2005.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/international/americas/08botero.html?_r=1&
scp=1&sq=forero+and+abu+ghraib+artist&st=nyt&oref=slogin; accessed 30
 67

April 2008.

Foster, Patrick. “Banksy, the celebrated graffiti artist, is caught in the act for the first
time.” The Times (London), 31 October 2007.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/artic
le2774359.ece; accessed 30 April 2008.

Frank, Patrick ed. Readings in Latin American Modern Art. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2004

New York Times [author not listed], 10 May 1933. “Rockefellers Ban Lenin in
RCA Mural and Dismiss Rivera,” 36-42.

Garcia, Adriana. “Botero’s Abu Ghraib’s paintings on show in Washington.” Reuters, 9

November 2007.
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0825127120071109; accessed
30 April 2008.

Ginsburg, Faye. “Indigenous Media: Faustian Contract or Global Village?” Cultural

Anthropology 6, no. 1 (February 1991): 92-112.

Goddard, Dan. “A History of Violence in Botero’s Paintings.” San Antonio Express-

News, 17 June 2007, 06J.

Grose, Thomas K. “The Five Rules for a Thriving Museum.” Time International, 4
December 2006, p. 44.

Greenberg, Clement. “Avant-Garde and Kitsch.” Partisan Review 1939.

http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/kitsch.html; accessed 30 April 2008.

Hall, Stuart. “Encoding/ decoding.” Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Love, and
Paul Willis (eds.), Culture, Media, Language, pp. 128-138. London: Hutchinson,
1980.

Harper, Tim. “Art and Abu Ghraib.” The Toronto Star, 24 November 2007.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/279445; accessed 30 April 2008.

Hartley, John, ed. Creative Industries. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

________. “Creative Industries,” 1-40.

Hebdige, Dick. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. New York, NY: Routledge, 1979.

Horkheimer, Max and Theodor W. Adorno. “The Cultural Industry: Enlightenment as

Mass Deception.” In Gunzelin Schmid Noerr (ed.), Dialectic of Enlightenment:
Philosophical Fragment, pp. 94-136. Translated by Edmund Jephcott. Stanford,
 68

CA: Stanford University Press, 2002.

Howe, Jeff. “Art Attack.” Wired, August 2005.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/bansky.html; accessed 30 April 2008.

Inlesias, Lucia. “Bilbao: The Guggenheim Effect.” The Unesco Courier 51, iss. 9
(September 1998): 41-44.

Jong, Erica. “Botero Sees the World’s True Heavies at Abu Ghraib.” The Washington
Post, 4 November 2007, M01.

Kagan, Robert. On Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order.
New York, NY: Alfred A Knopf, 2003.

Kaufman, Jason Edward. “Wanted: a home for Botero’s paintings of Abu Ghraib.” The
Art Newspaper [online], posted 27 September 2006.
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=443; accessed 30 April 2008.

Kondo, Dorinne. About Face: Performing Race in Fashion and Theater. New York, NY:
Routledge, 1997.

Larson, Charles. “Botero Revisits Abu Ghraib’s Horror.” Middle East Times, 15
November 2007.
http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2007/11/15/botero_revisits_abu_ghraibs_horror
/8327/; accessed 30 April 2008.

Lewis, Justin and Toby Miller, eds. Critical Cultural Policy Studies. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing, 2003.

Bennett, Tony. “The Political Rationality of the Museum,” 180-188.

Newkirk, Pamela. “Object Lessons: Fred Wilson Reinstalls Museum Collections

to Highlight Sins of Omission,” 192-195.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press,
1966).

Mahon, Maureen. “The Visible Evidence of Cultural Producers.” Annual Review of

Anthropology 29 (2000): 476-492.

McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA:

The MIT Press, 1994.

Miller, E. Ethelbert. “The Poetics of Botero’s Abu Ghraib Paintings.” Foreign Policy in
Focus, 31 December 2007. http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4856; accessed 30 April
2008.
 69

Miller, Toby and George Yúdice, eds. Cultural Policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 2002.

Myers, Fred. “Representing Culture: The Production of Discourse(s) for Aboriginal

Acrylic Paintings.” Cultural Anthropology 6, no. 1 (February, 1991): 26-62.

Nye, Joseph S. Jr. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York, NY:
PublicAffairs, 2004.

Schiller, Herbert I. Culture, Inc: The Corporate Takeover of Public Expression. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Schuman Stoler, Ben. “Art of CONFRONTation at the Katzen.” The DCist [online blog],
posted 6 November 2007. http://dcist.com/2007/11/06/art_of_confront.php;
accessed 30 April 2008.

Skidmore, Thomas and Peter H. Smith. Modern Latin America. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 2005.

Smith, Roberta. “Botero Restores the Dignity of Prisoners at Abu Ghraib.” New York
Times, 15 November 2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/arts/design/15chan.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=
%22botero%20restores%20the%20dignity%20of%20prisoners%20at%20abu%20
ghraib%22&st=cse&oref=slogin; accessed 30 April 2008.

Spies, Werner. Fernando Botero: Paintings and Drawings. Munich, Germany: Prestel,
1992.

Tomkins, Calvin. “A Fool for Art; Onward and Upward with the Arts.” The New Yorker
83, iss. 35 (12 Nov 2007): 65.

Vallen, Mark. “Pablo Picasso’s ‘Guernica’ Censored at UN.” Art-For-A-Change

[website], posted 5 February 2003. http://www.art-for-a-
change.com/News/guernica.htm; accessed 30 April 2008.

Walker, William. “The Lessons of Guernica.” The Toronto Star, 9 February 2003.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0209-04.htm; accessed 30 April 2008.

Yúdice, George. The Expediency of Culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003.

Zongker, Brett. “Fernando Botero’s Abu Ghraib art claims spot in nation’s capital.” The
Associated Press, 5 November 2007.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/05/arts/NA-A-E-ART-US-Abu-Ghraib-
Art.php?WT.mc_id=rssap_news; accessed 30 April 2008.