William Powhida’s cartoon attacking the New Museum is terrific as a cartoon. As he points out in his blog, in case the audience is too dim to see the connection, it derives from the slashing wit of Ad Reinhardt, who terrorized reactionaries in the late 1940s.
Cartoons are supposed to be unfair, one-sided and vehement. Powhida delivers on all counts. Less successful is the journalism that has risen like a surface to air missile to share in the attack. I’d like to propose the Dick Cheney rule for art writers. Is the subject under investigation poisoning the waterways, stealing from the poor to serve the rich, starting wars and trampling the Constitution? In short, is that person Dick Cheney?
If not, wouldn’t it be a good idea to explore the issue with a little more dispassion? In spite of what a handful of art bloggers insist, there are many sides to the so-called ethical questions raised by the museum’s decision to feature the collection of one of its trustees, curated by Jeff Koons. (Good overview from the New York Times here.)
Purity police chief Tyler Green would prefer that we not see this show. I don’t know Dakis Joannou and am not likely to be invited to his house. I do know about his collection and am grateful it will be on view to the public.
About those ethical problems: I have them with museums featuring trustee collections only when the collections are mediocre. In that case, the exhibit is just flattery. Joannou’s collection is remarkable. I want to see it and don’t care whose board he’s on.
The hip bone’s connected to the thigh bone. O, the horror. Trustees know collectors who know artists who know dealers who know museum curators. Some of them sleep together. Some of them are married. Rather than slamming Elizabeth Peyton and Urs Fischer for being connected, how about looking at the work? Both of them are extraordinary artists. I saw the New Museum’s Peyton show. Like almost everything else at the the new version of the New Museum, it was badly installed (tough space), but I welcomed the chance to see that much of her work in one place.
There is no rule against museums devoting shows to the work of a single collector. If there were, that rule would be made to be broken. Yes, the rich and powerful are involved in museums. Those for whom this information is a shock and an outrage are too pure (and rigid) to live in the world. If New Museum founder Marcia Tucker did not have them on her team, her enterprise wouldn’t have launched or lasted.
I’m afraid your devil’s advocate position falls flat in this case.
The New Museum enjoys non-profit privileges that are suppose to compensate for the work they do on behalf of the public.
Board members of such institutions and organizations are supposed to serve in the spirit of philanthropy, even if as an offshoot of their personal interests and pursuits.
Seems you suggest all these factors be thrown out since it’s “a good show”.
There’s also the denegration of the role of curator in this package, and an overall “Let them eat cake!” bent that I don’t think serves the valuable discussion this instance has generated too well.
I wouldn’t go see the show, even if it was free, which it should be.
So much for serving the public interest.
You have revealed your bad taste in artists. Thanks, I can discount considering your opinions from now on! Your acquiescence to cynical derivative art like that of Fischer and the inept posing of Peyton is part of the problem. Critics like you endorse the hackwork on display available in every contemporary museum around the world. Wake up.
I don’t understand how this is different that Meyerhoff/Broida/Pinaut/Panza et al.?
Do you want other bloggers to hate you? You are guilty of the same thing you say they do. This is a one-sided argument. I agree that Tyler Green writes like a cop handing out tickets. You write like somebody who’d tear the ticket up.
Thank you for this well-reasoned piece. Never in years of reading you at the PI did I think of you as the voice of reason, but, hey, maybe I got distracted by the eccentricities of your criticism. You go from fact to dreaming without transition. I notice Paddy Johnson is backing away from her totally negative tone toward the New Museum. I like Tyler Green’s blog but I wish he’d calm down. If he gets so extremely up uptight about little things, he won’t have much left over when big things happen. And the self-congratulations. Whew!
The Meyerhoffs, to pick one example, gifted their collection to the National Gallery. An exhibition of the gift, of the additions to the museum’s collection, is appropriate. Ditto Broida, or the various gifts/purchases of Panza works at various museums.
Wendy. If you wouldn’t go see Dakis Joannou’s collection, even if it were free, then I hate to break it to you, but you’re not interested in contemporary art. You are interested in the use of tax dollars and maybe populist moralism, but you and art have yet to be introduced.
When would these cozy relationships be a problem for you? Marcia Tucker did not use the space to support the already supported. She was open to the wild thread. When Roberta Smith called the New Museum a showroom, she got it right. I don’t mind if these individual artists get shows, but I’d like to see some effort to honor Marsha’s vision.
Ann. Excellent points. What I wrote was in response to the scorched-earth tone of New Museum critics. I agree that the museum could do more for worthy paths less traveled.
I have been stewing over this New Museum show for days. For me the issue is not about this show being seen, or the value of the collection/collector or Jeff Koon’s eye as an artist/curator. The issue is the New Museum was founded on certain principals and this show marks a radical swing to the dark side. Put it at almost any other Museum in New York and we would not even flinch, their programatic leanings have been mediated by the market and donors for decades.
I remember walking into the New Museum as a young girl, and having my first experience with contemporary art. I remember it felt new, messy and bombastic. I kept returning because I was confused and delighted. Later, Marcia Tucker came to my college to speak and her simple lecture about staying artist focused, curating on instinct and not obligation/trend and seeking reward for risk, shifted my thinking about art institutions forever.
When the new building was being built, I had this naive and romantic notion that it meant that her ideas and the Museums mission were finally valued. This show has lifted the veil, the founding principals of the organization are now nothing but a mirage. The whole thing makes me profoundly sad. In this age of discourse around the “public/private” partnership, should we be misson or market driven?
Marcia Tucker! RISE UP and haunt that place! It needs a good ghost.