Comments on: Facebook Status Update Sparks Discussion: MoMA’s Fourth and Fifth Floor Lack Women

By: david mcneil

david mcneil — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:56:04 +0000

Hmmm. We have a complaint on behalf of women representation, we have a complaint about queer representation. I have to wonder about non-white males or female representation. Are artists of whatever non-white colour or background being represented? And if not, why the lack of overall diversity not only at MoMA but in the art world in general.

By: chris

chris — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:53:55 +0000

Thanks for bringing this issue out into the open.

By: BLGAMI

BLGAMI — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:47:35 +0000

I recognize I am very late to the debate, but what I find most troubling in these conversations is the failure of the analogies employed. “Pollock space shouldn’t be reduced for a Krasner”—the art world equivalent of, “Our wait staff shouldn’t have their wage reduced to pay the Mexican cooks fairly.” These kinds of comments, which are unnecessary in illlustrating your larger point, smack of the very privilge and entitlement one is trying to de-bunk here. Equity and parity in labor is the very same as equity and parity in institutional representation.

By: Brainstormers

Brainstormers — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:19:58 +0000

Hi there AFC,
I did actually post the link to Greg Allen’s article in my contribution to Jerry’s post. It’s not surprising that it was lost in the midst of the gazillion comments! I also posted a link to the Brainstormers research page…
http://www.brainstormersreport.net/Reseach.html

let’s hope somthing good comes of the converstaion!
Danielle

By: carey

carey — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:26:16 +0000

Thank you for raising this debate in such a public and persistent form.

By: Elizabeth L

Elizabeth L — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:13:02 +0000

To comment on your comment. The majority of museum goes are not artists. Tourists is a fine lable. I really think that today in America 2009, art tourists would be surprised and unhappy if they became aware of the 4% number. 4% women sounds crazy. We know art history, we learned or grew up with this telling of art, but it’s not of the times. I think it’s bad business. If another large business, re Coca-Cola, Starbucks, Fed-Ex, had these types of sexist numbers out there the general public would be angry.

By: clafleche

clafleche — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:00:07 +0000

I haven’t read the facebook messages, so perhaps this was mentioned, but wanted to add my thoughts here…

One thing that frustrates me about MoMA, and is the main reason that I rarely go there, is that it is essentially a tourist attraction. I of course don’t have any sort of data on this but I imagine that the majority of their visitor income is derived from tourists… with that in mind, it would make some sense for them to exhibit work that is well known and concretized as ‘good,’ so that the tourists paying $20 per head are reasonably pleased with what they get. A shift in the display of their permanent collection might frustrate many who visit the museum expecting Starry Night, etc. Because galleries don’t rely on visitors to make money, they can take risks, show young artists, etc., but MoMA is too shaky financially to make the same kind of leaps. I think a decent example of a show of new, interesting work that could have been great but was ruined by an institution is Younger Than Jesus… although this is getting off topic. I guess the point is that my impression has always been that MoMA is run like a business, not an institution in pursuit of pushing the boundaries of what art can be.

I recently heard that in 2010 the Centre Pompidou will only be showing female artists from their permanent collection, as a side note. Just goes to show that New York may be the center of the art world economically, but certainly not intellectually.

By: ML

ML — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:16:08 +0000

I would love to see Jerry Saltz step up on behalf of other equally if not more marginalized demographics. Let’s subject Saltz’s record to his own sanctimonious filter - how many times has he reviewed any type of queer art? In the few instances in which he has reviewd a gay or lesbian artist, how many times has he taken the opportunity to relate them to any sort of queer genealogy? A yearly count of the pictures at the MOMA rehashes what the Guerilla Girls told us 20 years ago. Saltz needn’t abandon the cause of representing and championing female artists in his articles but he should acknowledge the relationship between gender-based discrimination and sexuality - the vapid cure-all of “add more women” tends to ignore the alternative expressions of gender or sexuality that are completely sublimated in modernist dialogues (Johns, Rauschenberg, Warhol) or ignored outright (everyone else).