The New MoMA: a
roundtable moderated by Aaron Yassin with Rocio Aranda-Alvarado, Deven
Golden, Susan Jennings and Christian Viveros-Faune
page
2
left to right, original
townhouse at 11 West 53 Street in 1932; Philip L. Goodwin and Edward
Durrell Stone building in 1939, photo by Eliot Elisofon; New west wing
and renovated and improved facilities, designed by Cesar Pelli, open
in 1984, photo by Adam Bartos.
Aaron Yassin:
While the large museums plan construction projects smaller non-profit
galleries struggle to survive. With the current downward trend in public
as well as private arts support what does it take to foster growth in
non-commercial galleries and how can they sustain themselves in the
shadow of the big museums?
Rocio Aranda-Alvarado:
Fortunately, there are funders (such as the Dodge Foundation and the
Warhol Foundation, for example), who really understand the importance
of supporting smaller, alternative art spaces. It is unfortunate for
many of the smaller institutions, however, that the largest museums
with the largest budgets continue to get the lion's share of funding
from corporations. Non-commercial galleries and alternative art spaces
end up relying a great deal on the generosity of artists, who are willing
to give time and even donate work when necessary. These kinds of relationships
between smaller spaces and artists are essential to their growth.
Christian Viveros-Faune:
Let's face it, public support for the arts is going the way of the Dodo.
It's a crying shame, but the survival of not-for-profit spaces today
depends largely on private monies, which fortunately I do not see shrinking.
You may have information that I have yet to see, but the growth of the
number of galleries in New York also includes its share of not-for-profit
spaces. An important number of historical not-for-profits survive and
do quite well. On the other hand, I do think an examination of the role
of the not-for-profit space is under way right now. It's entirely possible
that the default mission of not-for-profit spaces, to show emerging
art, may be done better and more efficiently by commercial spaces or
that, to the degree that not-for-profits insist on this as their primary
mission, that their exhibition programs ratify the tastes of the commercial
gallery world. As for smaller not-for-profits sustaining themselves
in the shadow of big museums, well, frankly they're two different beasts
altogether. There's room for carnivores and herbivores on the meadow.
Deven Golden:
With nearly $1 Billion in museum building going on in New York alone,
is there really a downward trend in support for the arts? In any case,
institutions, large or small, are going to be successful in direct proportion
to their ability to clearly define and implement their mission. Large
institutions by their very nature are exceedingly slow moving. One of
the recurring jokes of the Whitney's Biennial is that by the time it
opens the artists selected are old news. Small non-profit galleries
have a distinct advantage in this regard, and if they have a curator
or exhibition committee with a dynamic vision, and are willing to act
on it, they should be able to attract the necessary patronage. I would
point to the Drawing Center in Manhattan, L.A.C.E. in Los Angeles, and
the Renaissance Society in Chicago to name but three excellent examples
of this point.
Susan Jennings:
If New York can continue to thrive as an art center I think the non-profit
spaces will survive and thrive. Artists love the small non-profit spaces.
Many artists received their first opportunities to show at Artists'
Space, White Columns, Exit Art, and Momenta. We do whatever we can to
help them survive. We give art and time and whatever else they want.
Of course these spaces cannot expect to survive solely through artist
donation, but these places are much beloved by artists. I see no problem
with museums getting bigger. Presumably we will see more well-curated
shows. There is nothing better for artists and their practice of art
making than seeing art. But MoMA's patrons should be aware that the
contemporary artists MoMA has collected and/or exhibited recently -
artists like Cindy Sherman, Chuck Close, John Currin, Elizabeth Peyton,
either had their first shows at White Columns, or curated shows at Artists'
Space or simply admire and support Exit Art or Momenta. New York would
not be what it is, a rich center of art, without these spaces. It is
very important that these places exist outside of the commerce of art.
They need to be supported, and not only by artists, if New York is going
to continue to be vital. MoMA and the other New York City Museums could
and should encourage its patrons to support these smaller institutions.
Much more concerning
to me for the health of the New York art community is the problem artists
are facing finding affordable studios and living situations. If young
artists cannot work in or near New York, the city will become a showroom
rather than a thriving art center. MoMA will be only a tourist destination
and not part of the circulatory system of art making.
Aaron Yassin:
I agree that the health of small non-profits does depend on artists'
support. So, I'd like to pick-up on this issue of affordable housing
for artists, because I think the two are related. There is no question
that New York continues to get more expensive. It used to be easy to
find cheap loft space and artists lived nearby local non-profit galleries
and supported them. Now, artists that are relocating or coming to the
city are moving to places like Bushwick, the Bronx and Newark. How can
artists, who are so important to this dialogue, survive and prosper
in this increasingly expensive environment?
Deven Golden:
I guess we'll have to see what will happen with artist spaces in New
York, but it's hard for me to see affordable space as an "artist"
problem. If you want to start freaking out about space, try having a
3 year old in New York when you don't already own your own building,
loft, or apartment. If the real-estate market continues the way it has
for the last few years, it'll be interesting to see just who can afford
to stay in New York - and not interesting in a good way. The vitality
of New York, for me at least, has always been defined by its mix of
people from all economic strata living side by side - much more than
in a city like Chicago, where I'm from. Artist's can and do live anywhere
and everywhere, but if they can't afford to live in New York anymore,
that bodes far worse for the city than the artists.
Susan Jennings:
The developer Bill Ehrlich has gambled on the idea that Beacon, NY where
DIA is located should be an artist outpost of New York City. Not a bad
idea. DIA draws visits from art lovers, curators and artists. It's a
short Metro North train ride from the city. The problem with Beacon
is that Ehrlich bought most of the available real estate and is renting
the spaces for prices that are too high. Art centers are not something
that developers can create like the Spice Girls. Artists move to places
the mainstream considers undesirable like Beacon, with its aluminum
siding, down-and-out bars and distance from the city, because there
are large spaces available that are very cheap. If we are going to find
nearby outposts the deal has to be really good. And we have to do it
ourselves. Soho and Williamsburg had huge spaces for very little money
with no developer schemes.
I think a great
idea that has been discussed a bit amongst artists I know would be for
one or many groups of artists to organize and convince art loving patrons
to buy a building with live/work spaces. The artists would "buy"
their spaces but their payments would go into a fund to be used as seed
money for the next group of artists to do the same. The original patron
investment would start a chain of building buying in and around New
York. Artists would have the option of selling out and they would receive
what they paid in as the new artists pay into the fund. Nobody would
make a profit on these spaces. Everyone would pay fair prices and over
time New York would have a large number of artist-owned buildings.
Rocio Aranda-Alvarado:
This is an extremely important issue, and one that cities and their
governments don't seem to appreciate. How can it be that when it has
happened time after time, in various places, there is no understanding
of how significant artists are for neighborhoods, businesses and urban
living? It is extremely disheartening to see the vitriol that is launched
against artists who are merely attempting to eke out a living in a city
the size of New York. Many young artists are poor, just like others
living in New York; why should their housing not be subsidized? Here
in Jersey City, artists have made the waterfront a space that has become
attractive for business owners. But instead of continuing to support
them and their work, they are treated like pariahs.
continued...
To
join round two of this discussion, send your comments to aaronyassin@artcritical.com
