hyde or die

» Ten US Museum Exhibitions to see in 2010

This is a pretty good list that isn’t even NYC-centric! Of course it has the Marina Abramovic show at MOMA that I couldn’t be more excited about and the John Baldessari show that is travelling to LACMA, but it also has the Cattelan show at the de Menil in Houston that I was so upset about missing.

Here are a few more shows that I am also looking forward to seeing this year…

• Robin Rhode, the South African photographer who’s pieces are too creative to describe, will be showing at LACMA.
• Rachel Whiteread’s drawings will be shown at the Hammer. Do I even need to explain why? She’s above and beyond ethereal.
• Mi Casa es Tu Casa: A Land Project at MOCA.
• I know I still need to make it down to San Diego to see the Tara Donovan they have up at MCASD, but at the end of February they are opening the exhibition which highlights the highlights of their acquisitions over that time period.  And we all know how I feel about Pleasure Point: Celebrating 25 Years of Contemporary Collectorsmuseums showing their permenant collections. Very good.
• I don’t know much about Urban Panoramas: Opie, Liao, Kim at the Getty, but it sounds good to me.

January 15, 2010, 1:43pm  

» Museum attendance rises as the economy tumbles

It may be because of the relative bargain of a museum ticket, an increased popular interest in contemporary art, or just a rainy summer, but admissions at the majority of art museums in the US have been holding steady through the recession—and many are dramatically on the rise. A survey by The Art Newspaper of 20 museums across the country found that two-thirds have experienced a clear increase in visitor numbers over the past three years.

The trend holds for institutions with free and paid admissions alike, and institutions that show contemporary art have seen the most clear-cut increase. New York’s Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), one of the nation’s most expensive museums at $20 per ticket, had the best year in its 80-year history, bringing in 2.8 million visitors between 2008 and 2009. The size of its membership rose to a record 120,000. The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum’s Frank Lloyd Wright retrospective was its best-attended show yet, attracting 372,000 people. The New York museum has also broken its 2008 attendance record of just over one million.

I’m not surprised by this, museum tickets are often less than a movie ticket and popcorn and can be much more stimulating, but this is exciting news isn’t it? People spending their money on more “quality”* experiences, where one could go off in solitude and think or with friends and start lively discussions about what they are experiencing, is a lovely trend.

*Just my opinion.

December 10, 2009, 1:41pm  

» Is this a Michelangelo?

I don’t know much about this stuff but it’s interesting to read about the arguments of whether it is or not.

October 30, 2009, 2:05pm  

I would like to go to The Museum of Arts and Design in NY, soley so I can get my life-sized abacus on.

July 31, 2009, 1:21pm  

Everyone is talking about it. And I mean everyone.

I’m not sure how I feel about this yet.  We are in unprecedented economic troubles, but there is something sad about the idea of a museum raiding it’s permanent collection and getting rid of things that they don’t need at the time.

Of course, what’s the point of having the art if you can’t afford to run the place and keep the doors open?

It is definitely a gray area.

July 01, 2009, 11:18am  

» Celebrities Might be Barred from Next Year's Met Gala

The next Costume Institute Gala is over ten months away, but the fashion media is reporting on it in earnest. May as well fuss over it now, because, according to Fashion Week Daily, there could be much less to fuss over when it actually happens! For the event may not uphold its standing as the Oscars of the East Coast in 2010. Supposedly, next year’s fund-raiser will be far less boldface. Insiders say the guest list will consist mostly of people who may not be famous, but are able to cough up the cash for full-price tickets…And then there are people like Michael Gross, who wrote Rogues’ Gallery: The Secret History of the Moguls and the Money That Made the Metropolitan Museum and argues the celebrity-driven party makes the museum lowbrow.

I hope that this is a sign of things to come.  I am so sick of celebrities driving every magazine, event, dinner, and opening. I feel as if it’s to the point that if there was no one famous there, it didn’t happen.

I mean, what does Reese Witherspoon have to do with fashion that is putting her on the cover of Elle? It’s not that I don’t appreciate her as an entertainer and actress, but she doesn’t make the most exciting fashion choices (in my opinioni) to even be considered for such an honor. What did Blake Lively and Leighton Meester do to be relevant enough to be at the Met Costume Ball this year?  Did they purchase their tickets? Donate to the Museum? Even own their outfits? Probably not, but there they were, posing for the pictures and enjoying thier evenings respectively.

It’s not that I don’t want people to attend these events, but it really gets under my skin that there are certain people, who happen to have a career in the movies, attend these functions for free while there are trustees and donors, who work tirelessly for the cause of art, who get no recognition whatsoever.

I guess all I’m really trying to say is that the oversaturation of celebrity culture is getting mindnumbingly boring and hopefully, the raising of the standards at this event will catch on like wildfire* for future events.

*I am aware that there are plenty of high-profiled people who attend these events and donate to the arts and believe in these institutions, and I am not referring to them.  Just a clarification.

June 29, 2009, 12:07pm  

So good ole Sarkozy and Sheikh Zayed are breaking ground on this new Louvre in Abu Dhabi…this will be interesting.  Not sure about the Nouvel design, but I will reserve passing judgement until it is at least half way built.

Or if I get bored and feel like trashing some architecture I don’t approve of.

May 27, 2009, 11:38am  

» Put Restrictions on Museums Collections Sales

The proposal asks that state museums adopt and publish a collections policy, and record all items in their possession. Museums would be able to get rid of items only if certain criteria are met, such as when an item doesn’t fit with the museum’s mission, is found to be a duplicate or when the museum cannot preserve it.

Significantly, any museum that disposes of an item must make a “good-faith effort” to sell or transfer the item to another state museum, and the proceeds from the sale would be used to acquire or preserve another item for the museum’s collection. The Board of Regents would enforce the law.

While I understand why it is important to make sure our public institutions keep their collections, sometimes extreme circumstances call for extreme measures.  It’s not that the Getty should start selling off their collection haphazardly to make-up for the budget gap necessitating the laying off of quite a few disgruntled employees.  There has to be a middle ground to protect not just the museum or institution, but the people who work to keep the institution running every day. 

What’s the advantage of having a collection if you can’t staff the space to show it?

The bill in its entirety can be viewed here.

May 06, 2009, 1:27pm  

Frederic Edwin Church’s “Scene on the Magdalene” was recently sold by the National Academy Museum to raise money. Image and caption via Health Care Fine Art.

Normally, I’m not so big on Art Fag City, but this time they hit the nail almost entirely on the head. It was like a 75% hit with no bending.  Probably because it’s an intern who wrote it and not the usual…anywho.  Here we have it.

On the subject of a New York Times article titled, Bill Would Limit How New York Museums Could Use Money From Sales of Artworks, Art Fag City intern Karen Archey has this to say:

A shortsighted article on deaccessioning work from museums to pay operating costs. The government may pass a bill that puts strict regulations on deaccessioning art, yet museums are struggling to pay their bills from a lack of government and private support. What Pogrebin didn’t mention is that oftentimes museums are “forced” to accept additional donations with major donations (like 50 of your aunt’s paintings paired with one Koons) so the donor will get additional tax write-offs. Thus, the museum has to pay the overhead for the 50 bad paintings to be able to get the Koons, but can’t deaccession them even years later because of laws like this. via…

While this is completely on point, it neglects to acknowledge the rich as shit old people patrons who put these bills into motion for the  “the benefit of our future generations” while fresh, smart, eager graduates working in archiving or conservation that get laid off because the Institution can’t cover the expense of having them on staff. 

The truth is in every Museum, gallery, and even  personal collections, are going to be some pieces that will stay, in the dark, stored away, never to be seen again.  They aren’t as relevant to the program anymore, or personal taste, or change in curators, and it is destined to be tucked away and forgotten.  These pieces, while no longer applicable to the current curatorial intentions, might be just perfect for some wealthy woman’s entryway, the waiting room for someone’s office, or the permanent collection of another museum. 

My point is, that while it might not be the most ideal situation to deaccession one’s collection, there is an inherent advantage in having that art and it is expensive and silly to keep pieces just for the sake of keeping them. 

April 10, 2009, 3:42pm