The Museum Is the Refugee’s Home

A worthwhile exhibition, but why was it acceptable for the curators to appropriate the title of Isabel Wilkerson’s book? The full title of Wilkerson’s book is “The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America’s Great Migration.”

Does this not illustrate the folly of political art? All it can do is offer the bourgeoisie a poignant ache of conscience before consumerism, the worship of comfort and stability return the museum goer to their default setting. What does it do for the drowning refugees? Conversely, what does the safety and stability that the refugee longs for, provide once it were attainted- if it could be- but simply a trading of places with the comfortable. Perhaps suffering and death are the human zenith, and prosperity and comfort it’s lost years.

Does this not illustrate the folly of political art? All it can do is offer the bourgeoisie a poignant ache of conscience before consumerism, the worship of comfort and stability return the museum goer to their default setting. What does it do for the drowning refugees? Conversely, what does the safety and stability that the refugee longs for, provide once it were attainted- if it could be- but simply a trading of places with the comfortable. Perhaps suffering and death are the human zenith, and prosperity and comfort it’s lost years.

Wish I could see this show, but I wonder how accurate it is to lump all refugees and undocumented immigrants throughout time when so much of the xenophobia today (and historically) also intersects with racism and Islamophobia specifically affecting Black, Brown and Muslim bodies. (A similar argument could be made of anti-Semitism and U.S. reluctance to initially accept Jewish refugees during WWII/the Holocaust.) One only has to look at U.S. immigration policy to see how race, as well as global political interests, have played into who is seen as a foreign threat or eligible for citizenship. It's a nice argument but lacks attention to how identities affect the fear of who is different and thus into the neglect of refugees (mostly from the Global South) today.

jason go visit a refugee camp. this article and all that it entails - rhetoric and concept as empathy, funded by multilateral banks- is disturbing and offensive.

This is very hard to read. What does the refugee crisis being visible in the elite art world actually do for the refugees?

I cannot in any way agree with this reviewer. I spent half a day here trying to figure out what was going on, only to come to the realization that this show is a pedantic collection of mediocre pieces held together by some truly absurd curatorial claptrap. The only strong works are those from the museum’s permanent collection, most notably the Lawrence pieces. The rest will most assuredly fade away with the passage of time, leaving future curators to wonder, “What the heck were they thinking?” The organizers of this exhibit (which must have cost the Phillips quite a bit considering the amount of reconstruction and reconfiguring it required) could have made their point much more eloquently had they simply written and published a coherent essay, which quality (coherence) is sadly lacking here. (And by the way, dear reviewer, considering the Rothko’s as part of the exhibit is a bit of a stretch.)

I recently saw this show. It is moving and thought provoking and particularly topical in view of our present world situation and domestic administration. I have been telling everyone I know to go see it so am very glad that Mr. Farago wrote this piece; I feel the exhibit has not gotten the press or recognition that it deserves.

Well done, Phillips Collection!

This is an important topic, and I'm not saying the following to diminish or distract from it, but to address this piece as an art review I assume is based in fact. You say: "Two years ago I was disgusted by Olafur Eliasson’s 'invitation' to refugees, mostly Africans, to labor inside a Venice Biennale exhibit, like at human zoos of the past. Marc Quinn, a British shock artist, has repulsively promised to freeze a block of refugees’ blood and plop it down in front of the New York Public Library." When you read both sources, you see that 1. Eliasson's piece was far from a human zoo. It was an educational workshop specifically structured to be social and collaborative -- so that the Biennale visitors would join with migrants to create the lamps, the profits from which were donated to migrant causes. The point was visibility and work toward a good cause. Not to recreate their exotic and mysterious lives for Western eyes. And you point out the # of "Africans" to make it seem even more heinous. And then, like his methods or not, Quinn froze 2 blocks, 1 of migrants' blood and 1 of celebrities' blood, all volunteers, to make the (established but important) point that we're all humans and we all bleed red. The blocks weren't even labeled, also the point. Your summaries of both are misleading so you can make your argument, contrasting "important" work with "tasteless" work.

Beautifully written piece putting our times in perspective of history. Eager to get to DC now to see the show. Does great art always rise from some form of peril?

Not ever, any bit of comfort or luxury can be obtained without the exploitation of the less fortunate. Art in modern times serves as pure exploitation as its commercial utility far outweighs its ability to communicate human suffering to affect change especially when compared to high resolution photo and video that exposes the true nature of human suffering. It’s no wonder that abstraction of suffering (painting) is worth much more because we would rather bask in the notion of acknowledging suffering and feel romantically ‘just’ than to be confront by it and be forced to make wrong into rights.

Anyone who would seriously suggest that there is no modern culture without exiles and émigrés has a very limited definition of modern culture.

Unless we see ourselves , our ancestors or our loved ones as the refugee, we are vulnerable to fears perpetrated by those who deny our common humanity .

"Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were all refugees." Moses, OK, one can argue it. Born in Egypt. But he would not have considered himself for one second a refugee from Egypt. Jesus? Refugee?? Born, bred and died the the Land of Israel, Provincia Judaea (after 6 CE). Just how is he a refugee? (Later for Galilee as Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great was still ruling there and in Peraea=Transjordan. He died only in 39 CE). Muhammad? Born in Mecca, migrates to Medina. The Hijra makes him a refugee? As for Arendt, Einstein, Freud, Adorno, Claude Lévi-Strauss and Eric Hobsbawm, Said etc. etc., how many of them came to the US illegally sneaking in or did they go through whatever channels were necessary legally? Nobody doubts the invigorating power of migration and immigrants. That is why there are laws, rules and regulations. No country has open borders. Immigration and anarchy are not synonyms.

No modern culture without exiles and emigres. That is stretching the truth. Exiles and emigres have certainly helped modern culture but none without them?