Bruno LeMieux-Ruibal, a New York correspondent for the Spanish-language Lápiz International Art Magazine, comments on Alice Walton, MoMA’s planned skyscraper and Hirst’s shark at the Met. On the shark, I want to clear up one misunderstanding (which other readers shared, because I wrote unclearly in my original post): I don’t object to the photography ban. What irked me was the obtrusive freestanding sign that, when I visited, was positioned right next to the artwork, demanding attention and detracting from the experience of the piece.
Here’s what LeMieux-Ruibal wrote:
It saddens me that your thoughts and ideas are so conservative and traditional. Because Alice Walton has money and is building a fine museum in Arkansas, you call her a “vulture” and beyond in that unhinged WSJ article. (She’s lending art to the nation, giving loads of money to institutions, funding scholarships and creating a first-rate cultural attraction in Arkansas, but all of this is nothing compared to her “vultureness.”)
Then Jean Nouvel plans a beautiful skyscraper for West 53rd Street and this is awful news for you because the area is mostly “residential” and low-lying. Damien Hirst’s shark cannot be photographed because it belongs to a private collection—nothing new here, just regular museum policy—and this is wrong too. Maybe you’d prefer the damaging flashes those tourists routinely use at the Met and MoMA?
And so on. I don’t know if your opposition to advancement, collection-building, personal wealth, good architecture, progress and change are a way of life, but to me the creation of a new museum (Crystal Bridges), philanthropy (Walton), culture-enhancing development (Nouvel) and artwork protection (the shark) are positive things or, in any case, just a sign of our times.
CultureGrrl
Lee Rosenbaum's cultural commentary
an ArtsJournal blog