Introduction
For me, hell isn’t fire or punishment. Hell would be a place where nothing can be done, a feeling of being trapped in a space of certainties, knowing exactly what to expect, with absolute tedium being the deepest condemnation. This is the atmosphere today in certain museums and Mexican politics. Is this a coincidence?
The Museum Franz Mayer and Pierre et Gilles Exhibition
The Museum Franz Mayer announced with fanfare that it is embracing “contemporary” art through the Pierre et Gilles exhibition. Director Giovana Jaspersen positions this as a shift towards the future. However, is a fifty-year-old queer discourse from France, now imported, truly visionary? What was once a breakthrough—gay erotism dressed as saints, kitsch pop altars, canonical pop icons—now appears outdated. In Europe, Pierre et Gilles function as a memory of cultural dissent; in Mexico, they’re marketed as novelty.
Corporate Sponsorship and the Illusion of Progress
The contradiction is stark: a museum founded to safeguard Vicereyal decorative arts now showcases French pop altars as disruptive, with corporate sponsorship. Sandoz Mexico, a generic pharmaceutical company, is presented as a “co-sponsor” to join the “diversity and inclusion” wave. Thus, the gesture becomes a double act: the museum dressed as modern and the corporation as progressive.
The Problem with Pierre et Gilles’ Work
Pierre et Gilles may have merit, repeating the same device for nearly half a century: staged photography, decorative painting, pop celebrities with queer discourse framed as sacred. However, what was once a breakthrough has become an aesthetic compulsion. Excessive care and calculated shine are not risks; they’re shields, eliminating the unexpected.
Loss of Critical Edge
When art embraces spectacle, it loses its edge. Pierre et Gilles have portrayed Madonna, Iggy Pop, Stromae, and Dita Von Teese. How can one sustain a critical discourse while working for the pop culture dominating the global market? The supposed rupture turns into an Instagrammable show. Provocation becomes a pose, and the queer disguise functions as photo backdrop rather than a vital fracture.
The Dissatisfaction: Museum Operation as Cosmetic Application
The annoyance isn’t the queerness itself but the museum operation that turns it into superficial adornment. It doesn’t resonate with inner experience or open pathways of uncertainty. Essentially, it’s an act of self-affirmation. Art isn’t for reinforcing certainties; it’s to open the void, placing the viewer in a space without expectations.
Mexican Politics: A Reflection of Stagnation
This repetitive loop isn’t exclusive to art; Mexican politics operates similarly. We have a government presenting itself as transformative and radical, but offering only regurgitated old discourses with new rhetoric. Just like in museums, the spectacle replaces genuine transformation.
The Tedium of False Promises
This boredom isn’t innocent; it’s a form of betrayal. When rupture is promised but spectacle is delivered, unbearable tedium results because it’s disguised as audacity. The real crime is selling this as a future.
The Paradox of Old Gestures in Mexico
What’s frustrating is that in Mexico, an old gesture can still cause controversy, generating censorship, protests, and lawsuits where cultural education is still unstable. The paradox: importing an old gesture and selling it as novelty in a country where cultural education is still unstable, where exhibitions are still banned for “blasphemy”.
Conclusion: The Call for Risk and Future-Oriented Art
The issue isn’t Pierre et Gilles’ continued existence but that in Mexico, they can still be marketed as contemporary or censored as provocative. This speaks not of art but of a cultural education struggling to break free from stagnation. The unforgivable sin isn’t scandal; it’s boredom.
Key Questions and Answers
- Q: What is the main critique of the Pierre et Gilles exhibition at Museo Franz Mayer? The critique is that the museum, which was founded to preserve Vicereyal decorative arts, is now presenting French pop altars as disruptive. The exhibition is seen as a stale formula rather than a bold, future-oriented move.
- Q: How does the corporate sponsorship affect the perception of this exhibition? Corporate sponsorship, in this case from Sandoz Mexico, turns the exhibition into a spectacle of progress, masking the lack of genuine transformation.
- Q: Why is there a problem with Pierre et Gilles’ work being displayed in Mexican museums? The problem lies in the misrepresentation of their work as contemporary or provocative, reflecting a stagnant cultural education rather than a vibrant, future-oriented art scene.
