Comments on: From Facebook to MoMA Execs: Jerry Saltz Sends Letter to Ann Temkin

By: Jim VanKirk

Jim VanKirk — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:37:57 +0000

“…but rather honesty, openness, and experimentation.”

Baloney! And how does one discriminate among these things. Jerry and his band of sycophants are full of hot air.

“(of all places!)” give me a break. Do all NY pundits think the world is stupid?

By: Jim VanKirk

Jim VanKirk — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:37:00 +0000

“…but rather honesty, openness, and experimentation.”

Baloney! And how does one discriminate among these things. Jerry and his band of sycophants are full of hot air.

“(of all places!)” give me a break. Do all NY pundits think the world is stupid?

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:41:16 +0000

How many times does the bogus “boo-hiss-PC” argument have to be trotted around like a show pony past its prime before folks like wwiiggss (dig the name BTW) get that Saltz’s criticism is not some kind of affirmative action for art but rather a call for new ideas and interactions with art (as Alice pointed out so well!). And sure, the Guerilla Girls pointed it out a decade or two before Saltz did- but what is egregious is not in the style in which GG or Saltz critiques MoMA but that the gender divide still visibly exists in MoMA’s hangings. Big time! This may be more about systemic inequity than quotas. I, for one, applaud Saltz’s continued attention to this serious lack in MoMA’s ability to conceptualize and present a (mostly) pale male history of art. If he sounds like a parrot it’s because he realizes to say that women contributed to the multiple stories of modernism is one thing, and to display/conserve/research their contributions is quite another. You shouldn’t “front-load” women, but neither should you *consistently* erase their contributions to the history of modernism and postmodernism. Your final question, wwiiggss is a good one though, and maybe we’re of differing opinions here, but I actually think it could begin to change/revise/add to the histories that we think we already know.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:41:00 +0000

By: Alice

Alice — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:55:14 +0000

First of all it should be pointed out that there is never one history, but many. By making an effort in recognizing woman artists that have been overlooked because of the “male-centric major movements” – and let’s face it, there hasn’t been many art movements that weren’t male-centric – that they were pigeoned-holed into, curators and museums (i.e. the establishment) are putting out questions and challenging the view of womans’ role in art making. This in turn heralds new scholarship which offers even more insight and discovery.

By: Alice

Alice — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:55:00 +0000

By: wwiiggss

wwiiggss — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:00:48 +0000

While I applaud certain sentiments at play here, curating by committee is rarely a good idea especially when driven by bougie guilt and political correctness.\n\nOne could map out a chart of increasing womens liberation and the subsequent increase in noteworthy women artists (as defined by art history know-it-alls and critics. You know, the establishement). I am sure its almost an exponential curve starting at about the post-WWII era and then shooting up in the late 1960s. Sadly, a low percentage sounds about right given the history of the 20th Century and how male-centric major movements were. Should you front-load the number of women Conceptual artists, say, due to the lack of women Cubists or Abstract Expressionists? Its a tricky task.\n\nThe Guerrilla Girls beat you by a few decades to the observation that women and minorities are disproportionally represented throughout 20th Century art in major NYC museums (more cleverly, I should add). In a few decades, someone else will point it out again, which begs the question does changing the number threaten to revise history?

By: wwiiggss

wwiiggss — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:00:00 +0000

While I applaud certain sentiments at play here, curating by committee is rarely a good idea especially when driven by bougie guilt and political correctness.nnOne could map out a chart of increasing womens liberation and the subsequent increase in noteworthy women artists (as defined by art history know-it-alls and critics. You know, the establishement). I am sure its almost an exponential curve starting at about the post-WWII era and then shooting up in the late 1960s. Sadly, a low percentage sounds about right given the history of the 20th Century and how male-centric major movements were. Should you front-load the number of women Conceptual artists, say, due to the lack of women Cubists or Abstract Expressionists? Its a tricky task.nnThe Guerrilla Girls beat you by a few decades to the observation that women and minorities are disproportionally represented throughout 20th Century art in major NYC museums (more cleverly, I should add). In a few decades, someone else will point it out again, which begs the question does changing the number threaten to revise history?