MMMirage:
The Art Pyramid

By Margarita Kuleva

8 July 2020

Tags: art pyramid / cultural labour / inequalities in the arts / the right to be creative

This short essay explores the pyramid as a spatial metaphor for making social inequalities in the arts more visible. It argues that visual art as an industry has a more complicated structure than other corporate worlds, so the pattern of social inequality and exclusion practised in art can’t be fully analysed through more traditional concepts of ‘glass ceiling’, ‘sticky floor’, and ‘underrepresentation’.

This model is based on empirical observations on contemporary art institutions in large cities of Russia, drawn in comparison with those in the UK. The ethnographic study was carried out in 2015-2018 (with some later additions) and included over 70 in-depth interviews and a number of informal conversations with workers of cultural institutions, a series of observations in the offices and at public events of these MoCAs or art centres.

The contemporary art world – and cultural industries in general – are well-known for their high degree of social inequality: while a tiny minority of the artistic community shares most of the visibility and cultural and economic capital, the rest is excluded from the process of these opportunities’ distribution (Cattani and Ferriani, 2008; Bull 2011). However, this observation has primarily been based on studies of the art market’s free, individual agents, such as artists, with the role of formal institutions rarely being considered.

I take as a case a particular kind of art institution in Russia. I will call them MMMirage institutions. In the late 2000s and early 2010s, a new generation of predominantly private cultural institutions appeared in big cities of Russia. These institutions not only called for a change in the way that culture operates, but also in how the museum should look, by contrast with previous generations of public museums. Setting global MoCAs such as Guggenheim, MoMA and Tate as the best examples, they experimented openly not only with exhibition formats but also with the organizational identity of the classical museum. They implemented numerous projects related to new technologies and digital capabilities, innovative architectural solutions and organizational novelties.

As a result, MMMirage institutions managed to become a noticeable class of urban objects as they represented an aesthetically distinct environment. In many cases, these new urban areas are gated territories: located in former factories, parks, sometimes on islands, they are separated from the cityscape. ‘A piece of Europe’, ‘oases’, ‘islands of contemporary art’ – as dwellers (both visitors and employees) of these places put it in their conversations with me and other sources. By naming them MMMirage institutions I develop this metaphor of fantastic separation, borrowed from my informants. Additionally, I argue MMMirage proposes not only a visual or consumer experience, but a different, ‘Western’ way of life which it is possible to ‘acquire’ by entering these sites, located in the heart of a big cities in Russia. The MMMirage works miraculously not only for the visitors (or ‘tourists’) of these areas, but it also deploys its magic powers on the workers of the institutions. The workers not only find themselves caught by the seductive design of the institutions, but they also see it as a possible locus of belonging. The MMMirage dwellers do not only work long hours, but they believe in MMMirage as a safe space to invest their ideas and emotions.

In the following section, I develop a hierarchical model (a ‘pyramid’) using my data to show how resources of visibility, pay and ‘creativity’ are spread among the workers of MMMirage institutions. The art-pyramid is phantasmal: new workers’ responsibilities often bear no relationship to their job contract; the prestige they are able to accumulate doesn’t always correspond with their current job title or a prospective promotion. The art-pyramid is unsteady: while its foundation (the lower strata) and top (art-centre CEOs) are relatively stable, the layers in-between are volatile. From this point of view, the pyramid is reminiscent of the ‘sandpile’ metaphor vocalized by Katherine Giuffre:

‘сareer ladders in the art world are not so much ladders as they are sandpiles. The movement of actors within the field changes the shape of the field’ (Giuffre 1999:829).

Curator/Director. The peak position consists of formal work that is considered creative, ideally with the names of workers credited, for instance, a worker who holds the title ‘curator’ is responsible for the conception of new exhibitions. This kind of work is a particular rarity – in each institution I surveyed there were not more than five to ten people working under such conditions. These high-profile creative professionals often represent the institution in the media.

‘An Occasional Creative’. The second-best opportunity is informal labour that is considered creative. For example, a person employed as a manager or coordinator who undertakes some research for a new exhibition. This work is usually performed in addition to the responsibilities that this person already formally has. This work is anonymous and unpaid.

‘A Technician’. Formal, and according to the interviewees, non-creative work has a lower status as all full-time employees already perform this kind of work.

‘An Intern’. Informal non-creative work, usually described as ‘help’, is left for the interns and volunteers. Commonly, this position is called the lowest strata of the pyramid.

‘An External’. This position was added to balance the existing classification, although high-profile external collaborators are beyond the actual scope of this paper. Indeed, while externals are not involved in financial exchange as institution employees, they do impact the hierarchy of prestige and visibility. Additionally, they are a potential human resource for curators/directors.