In Search of An Updated Website

If there’s news I’ll write about it. There hasn’t been. I can’t make stuff up just to fill pixels…

Just so it’s clear, this wasn’t a post accusing you of not doing enough. It’s a tap on the Museum’s shoulder to say we haven’t forgotten about it.

Ah, gotcha. Yes, that is indeed worthy. (It is also pointing out that the whole thrust of the Saltz-Robinson fibfest was that we’d be distracted from the real issue at the NuMu and that we’d forget about it.)

As perhaps the last unfacebooked person on earth, can someone give me briefly the gist of the flamefest? I’m familiar with Jerry & Tyler’s views, but what was Walter’s take?
Thanks

In an effort to make me look bad/change the subject, Walter ascribed to me views I’ve never held and positions I’ve never taken. Jerry tried to pass them on to a broader public but was told (by plenty of people) that they were inaccurate and that he should reconsider. He did, and deleted the post.

I was just about to concede that if I don’t want to sully myself with Facebook, I don’t deserve to hear the gossip that goes on there, but thanks for the wrap-up, Tyler. I did read Jerry’s comments, with redactions, on the NY mag site.
O

IMO the irony is that the topic died precisely because the art world/NewMu is so insular that the kerfuffle had no hope of having any impact.

A change of heart was particularly unlikely given Lisa’s publicly stated stance that they knew the show was risky and wanted to push the envelope in that questionable direction. Short of Lisa saying “darn it, you’re right! This is a bad idea; I just didn’t realize the full implications” what could happen?

Us plebes sure aren’t about to storm the gates of the NewMu and demand justice for our tax dollars and accountability from culture gurus (the latter being anathema to the arts). But you know what we will do? We just won’t care about their dumb shows and we won’t go. Ha! OR, if we do go we’ll poo-poo it and roll our eyes and maybe write a blog post about rolling our eyes at it. Double-Ha!

As the Whitney has proven, you can be an irrelevant me-too institution, you can have no unique or significant mission and you can have intellectually or ethically questionable shows and you can just keep on doing it forever. As long as there are some bored rich people to support you, you’re fine.

Do museums ever die? Even the Barnes is getting a second Franken-life!

One of the things I like telling people is don’t come to me with a problem; come to me with a solution to a problem. In all the words spilt over the NewMu show I don’t think that a concrete model was presented that would either amend the show to truly remove the ethical conflict or suggest and alternative that would achieve the goal of bringing private collections to the public in a museum setting.

I have no solution other than a highly unrealistic one; hit the “reset” button on the whole museum idea regarding contemporary art. I prefer the much more limited model of government run & funded museum that are meant to preserve already recognized & canonized cultural achievements for the public, like in Canada and Europe. The NewMu, Gugg, Whitney, etc model is a hybrid that functions essentially as a conglomerate to fuel and congratulate the shopping habits of the wealthy. I have no problem with them doing that, but I just don’t want to subsidize it.

Q: of all NYC art museums, what portion of their holding is of, say, pre-1950 work and what portion is post-1950? I bet it’s wildly disproportionate in favor of the latter; the former is just a beard.

Yes. Stunning: Four corrections to that post. (Amazing that got published!) And there should have been two more corrections/clarifications.

Donald Judd said:

“The museums are charities that are monuments to the rich. The increase in the number of museums is evidently not so much an increase in interest in contemporary art as it is an increase in an idea of monuments. As a monument the building is crucial and not its contents. Whether private, partially public, or public, a museum is run by its benefactors and everything goes downhill from there. The museums are always doing artists the favor of showing their work. It’s an honor to be associated with the company and don’t ask for a raise. Museums want to be given work or pay very little because, after all, you’re the suppliant. There’s almost no sign of support or interest in getting work done. If any purpose is mentioned it’s that the museums are educating the public. Museums are show business paid for by the artists and the dealers.”

It’s a relatively topical passage. My two cents, late, which isn’t especially unique, is that the Joannou show is just a nice example of the art world at work in an especially transparent way. The opportunity is there to better recognize what the New Museum is and how it operates, and whether or not that is important to us when we look at what is shown there. Just as an “art show” an ostensibly awesome collection in a neat building curated by Koons seems pretty interesting.

We definitely won’t let this go.

I confirmed Weds with the New Mu that the show is happening, and it has an official title: “The Imaginary Museum: Dakis Joannou Collection.” The show runs March 3–June 6.

the show is listed in their upcoming exhibitions on the website with a full description as of today.