The New MoMA: a
roundtable moderated by Aaron Yassin with Rocio Aranda-Alvarado, Deven
Golden, Susan Jennings and Christian Viveros-Faune
To
join round two of this discussion, send your comments to aaronyassin@artcritical.com
photograph by Aaron
Yassin
The place of contemporary
art in New York City is changing. With the scheduled reopening this
November of the Museum of Modern Art on 53rd Street, the $858 million
project will create 125,000 square feet of new and renovated gallery
space, and a new era for the museum will begin. It will unquestionably
be an event to remember, and will reaffirm MoMA's primary mission to
be the foremost museum of modern art in the world.
This is only one of many New York art museums where significant changes
have recently occurred, are in process or have just been announced.
In fact, all of the major museums are in various stages of planned projects.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art will expand its modern art department,
a decision triggered by its upcoming $155 million remodeling project.
The Whitney has recently announced that it will hire architect Renzo
Piano to design an expansion for its permanent collection. Construction
is underway on the New Museum's new $35 million 60,000 square foot facility,
which is scheduled to open in the spring of 2006. Although no additional
gallery space will be added, the Guggenheim will spend an estimated
$20 million on restoring its landmark Frank Lloyd Wright facility.
All of this activity totaling over $1 billion of construction will change
not only the physical structure of these institutions, but also the
way they operate. There will be a need to raise more money annually
as general operating expenses will increase for a larger facility. The
size of the staff will also need to grow and likely so too will the
bureaucracy, and the need for continued patronage will place greater
demands on the museum's administrations. There can hardly be a question
that big donors will have their sway.
Although it's unlikely the museums themselves would admit it, these
institutions compete not only for patronage and prestige, but also for
the millions of visitors that make their way through their doors each
year. In most cases a decent argument can be made that competition is
good, but when MoMA reopens the competition may be over. The result
will have a definite effect on other museums and, in addition, everyplace
else that shows contemporary art.
Now, on the eve of MoMA's reemergence in Manhattan, it's important to
ask questions about what this means for this institution and more broadly
for contemporary art in New York.
Aaron Yassin:
What are your expectations for MoMA when it reopens?
Susan Jennings:
I am very pleased to hear that the bulk of the additional space that
MoMA will acquire through this renovation and expansion will be dedicated
to contemporary work. I expect that there will be regular temporary
exhibitions of new work. I think MoMA's commitment to showing both Modern
and Contemporary art is very intelligent. Showing the work of artists
who are still working keeps the museum alive. I hope that exhibitions
of contemporary work will be more heterogeneous in terms of their media.
Painting, video, sculpture, photography and other media should co-exist.
It is anachronistic to separate curatorial efforts by media, and to
separate media with walls.
From what I understand,
the floor plan is much more open to an organic circulation, rather than
a fixed route of passage. I think this is very wise. To attempt to tell
the story of Modern and Contemporary Art linearly is probably impossible
and definitely an ill-advised task.
Christian Viveros-Faune:
My expectations for MoMA's reopening are simple: it looks like it will
finally become possible for the museum to reengage itself with the business
of being a dynamic museum of contemporary art as opposed to being a
museum of historical art exclusively. The original mission of the museum
as set forth by Alfred Barr, the museum's founding director, was for
MoMA to act as a laboratory for the new. He not only purchased contemporary
work for the museum in a wide-ranging way, he also aimed to deaccession
work that was 50 years old or older to pay for the museum purchases
of the future. That policy went out in 1953 and we're probably all glad
the museum decided to hang on to most of its treasures. Nonetheless,
the museum clearly suffered from curatorial schizophrenia from the moment
it shuttled its explicit interest in the art of today. Its purchase
on the new, on the nominally modern, began to quickly slide into a closed
canonical past as soon as it disengaged from the tradition of Modernism.
Leaving aside significant purchases, its "Projects" series
of small if important contemporary exhibitions and the museum's somewhat
ambiguous partnering with P.S.1, MoMA has largely found itself at odds
to explain its position vis a vis contemporary art. I honestly look
forward to the museum returning to a sustained and growing level of
interest in the art of today, and I say this not only because I aim
to sell the museum more work, but because I genuinely think that this
city and the world deserve a more energetic and ambitious institution
than the one we've had for the last 20 odd years. MoMA's present curators
clearly think it's possible to be both historical and contemporary.
I say bring it on. I couldn't think of anything more salutary.
Rocio Aranda-Alvarado:
To be honest, I'm uncertain. I took part in a panel discussion held
earlier this year at El Museo del Barrio, during the run of MoMA@El
Museo exhibition and it was surprising in many ways. One of the young
curators from MoMA showed installation images from the mid 20th century,
in which Latin American artists were integrated in galleries with their
American and European colleagues. It was refreshing to see this kind
of installation, rather than the one seen at MoMA in the recent past,
in which the same seven or eight Mexican works were always on display.
I asked one of the panelists from MoMA about the re-installation in
the new building and he said that he believed that, once again, objects
would be installed by department rather than integrated in a more eclectic
fashion.
Aaron Yassin:
Do think that the new MoMA building will allow more space for experimental
works to be shown, which is good. Their Projects series, I think, will
have a stronger presence.
Deven Golden:
From looking at the original model, and the exterior of the newly completed
building, I expect to find a physical space that is open and visually
sophisticated. In fact, my initial overall impression of this expansion
is how seamlessly, how organically, the new addition appears to grow
out of the earlier building - and, in its understated elegance, how
this expansion is kind of the antithesis of the Guggenheim idea of the
"blockbuster" destination building.
Now, don't get me
wrong, I'm a big fan of Frank Gehry, and I haven't been inside the new
MoMA yet, but it appears that Taniguchi's design is going to be less
about the building and, perhaps, more about the art inside.
I am, of course,
as curious as the next person to see how they re-install the collection.
Is there any museum as famous or, depending on your view, infamous as
the MoMA for its unwavering hieratical take on art of the 20th century?
Aaron Yassin: There is obviously tremendous interest in the reinstallation
of the collection. The key Modernist galleries set the stage for everything
else that is shown and as a result significantly influence our understanding
of contemporary art. If you could make one suggestion to the curators
about installing the collection what would it be?
Susan Jennings:
Concerning the Modern collection, I have a suggestion for John Elderfield,
the chief curator of Painting and Sculpture. There is a debate at MoMA
about which painting to "start" with, meaning which painting
should appear on the opening wall of the permanent collection of painting
and sculpture. The painting and sculpture curators seem intent on beginning
at the beginning of Modernism and the question is: "Which painting
in their collection represents the nascent movement?" Should it
be Cezanne's "The Bathers," an 1890 Paul Signac portrait of
Félix Fénón, or even a Manet or Seurat, though
the museum doesn't own good examples of these artists' work?
But I say hang an
Ad Rienhardt black painting in this spot. Then let the story unfold
to and from it. How did we get to the point where painting progressed
from areas of slight flatness within a narrative depiction to flatness
alone? How did story and color flee the canvas? What led to this pregnant
pause and how did we proceed from there? Why and how did we find our
way back to narrative meaning and expressive use of color? And how is
where we are now different from where we would have been without modernism
reaching its ultimate conclusion? Reinhardt's work represents the conundrum
of art from 1889 until now. His work is the quintessential fold at the
center of the page. It is the story of Modernism in a nutshell. We somehow
found our way to black emptiness and then had to figure out how to continue.
How did this evolve? Let that be the question asked of the viewer upon
entry to the permanent collection, the work for which the museum is
named.
Rocio Aranda-Alvarado:
I agree with Susan's remarks earlier in her hopes that the new installations
will feature a variety of media, though I'm not sure this is their plan.
I found the modern starts series particularly interesting because of
the unorthodox installation of a selection of works in the same gallery.
I think that many people still favor chronology for a variety of (legitimate)
reasons; however, some very interesting installations could be made,
given MoMA's collection. I would also urge curators to think about changing
the permanent collection galleries more frequently and, particularly,
to vary the kind of work seen in them. As MoMA@El Museo proved, the
Museum of Modern Art has one of the best collections of modern art of
Latin America and much of it has never been seen. I would love to see
more of these works integrated into the new installation.
As everyone else
has also pointed out, by maintaining a relationship with living artists
and their work, MoMA will continue to flourish and to provide new audiences
with the opportunity to experience wonderful and challenging works.
Deven Golden:
In the end, the presentation of the permanent collection and the various
temporary exhibitions define (or at least should define) the museum
more than any building. In this regard, I would say the insightfulness
of the Tate Modern's installation of its collection is what makes it
a pretty fantastic museum, even if it is its bombastic home that draws
in the massive flow of visitors.
As much as I like
Susan's suggestion for a Reinhardt-centric installation, it sounds more
like an exhibition (albeit a fun one with a potentially great catalogue).
Unfortunately, for me, it's a little too linear in its thinking, echoing,
as it does, the basic historical problem of Barr's MoMA: too neat. Which,
of course, is kind of what Rocio is getting at: MoMA has traditionally
sidelined art of the Twentieth century that didn't fit into their straight
and narrow path from Monet to Pollock. And not only have the great Latin
American artists been marginalized by MoMA, in some cases relegated
to the hallway spaces, but to a very real extent so have the German
Expressionists, Dadaists, and Surrealists.
If I were to pick
an overall model for how I'd like to see MoMA's permanent collection
installed, I'd have to point to the Art Institute of Chicago's re-installation
of their modern collection under then 20th Century curator Charles Stuckey.
Stuckey went for a fairly straightforward, room-by-room, chronological
installation: placing, say, the Picasso paintings from 1927 in the same
room as Stieglitz photographs, Klee watercolors, and Thomas Hart Benton
paintings from the same year. The effect was cacophony, to be sure,
but, for one thing, those artists really were all working at the same
time. More importantly, I believe that cacophony is far more reflective
of what the 20th Century was about than order. Order and progress were
what people wanted to believe the 20th Century was about, but wars and
chaos did far more to define it.
So while I think
exhibition's like Susan proposes are great for looking at a particular
train of thought in art, I'd be much more in favor of less dogma and
more democracy when it comes to the re-installation. But like everyone
else, I can hardly wait.
Susan Jennings:
I would like to clarify that I do think the work from the permanent
collection should be seen chronologically, but I think that it is impossible
to do this linearly since so many things were happening at the same
time. A more open floor plan, which I believe renovation includes, would
allow for viewers to wander around looking at work all made at generally
the same time.
And I love the idea
of changing the galleries of the permanent collection more frequently.
I want to see more of MoMA's Latin American collection.
Aaron Yassin: How do you feel about the phenomenon of the mega-museum?
What practical and psychological effect will the new MoMA have on the
Guggenheim, the Whitney and the other museums that show contemporary
art?
Deven Golden:
I'm not sure that, after visiting the Tate Modern in London, one can
refer to the new MoMA as "Mega". Considering the vast wealth
that has been accumulating to certain individuals in our current time
- witness the new condominium tower being designed by Spanish architect
Santiago Calatrava at South Street Seaport that will cost $30 million
per unit - and considering the unarguable importance of MoMA's collection,
it seems to me that their new building is more aptly described as being
appropriate.
Will the new MoMA
bring a renewed focus on New York's cultural scene? I'm not sure. The
building itself, again unlike the Tate Modern or the Guggenheim Bilbao,
does not advertise itself as a new "must see" piece of architecture.
And MoMA's collection is, well, MoMA's collection. So we'll have to
wait and see how the curator's use the new space and exhibition program
to re-invigorate the collection's dialogue.
For the Whitney,
I would think the new MoMA would help them make the case to their Board
for their much needed expansion, although I would have to add that the
Whitney's problems would seem to have more to do with their mission
- being a museum dedicated to American art in an international time
- than to their physical space.
Conversely, with
their global strategy, Gehry building in Bilbao, and thwarted (temporarily
at least) Gehry building for Manhattan, one might say that the Guggenheim
has practically invented the idea of the "Mega" museum. So
in their case, I'd say if anything, the new MoMA is a response to them
and not the other way around.
Rocio Aranda-Alvarado:
The mega-museum seems to be a fact of life, particularly since the American
obsession with entertainment seems limitless. The mega-museum is one
of the many results of this cultural phenomenon, the quest for being
constantly engaged in some seemingly important activity. The contemporary
art world is large enough and rich enough in our region, I think, so
that MoMA will fall into place as another significant part of it. Without
eclipsing any of the other institutions that work in this same arena,
MoMA will continue to contribute to the dialogue of contemporary art,
its presentation and its function in contemporary society. One of the
most essential programs has been the artist talk series. With its reputation,
MoMA can continue to bring some of the most interesting artists working
around the world to speak before packed audiences in New York.
Susan Jennings:
A problem with large museums with large spaces is they limit themselves
in the type and scale of work that can be shown. I am hoping that the
plans for MoMA will have circumvented this issue by incorporating into
the design galleries of varying sizes. MASS MoCA, for example, is an
impressive place, but the curators are limited in what they can exhibit
because the spaces are monumental. Not all great art is huge. And obviously,
not all huge art is great. It becomes a challenge simply to find work
that can hold the space.
In the best possible
world MoMA's expansion and greater commitment to showing contemporary
work will create an atmosphere of healthy curatorial competition. The
branches on the tree of contemporary art are growing exponentially.
We need the space to reflect the explosion in the making and public
interest in art. New York City is full of artists who should be having
mid or even late career retrospective shows. Chuck Close at MoMA was
terrific. I want to see more of these shows at MoMA, the Guggenheim,
the Whitney and the New Museum. It's time.
Christian Viveros-Faune:
Frankly, this is not an issue that bothers me with respect to MoMA,
though admittedly it did very much in relation to the botched opening
of Thomas Krens' Guggenheim in lower Manhattan. The latter would have
been a disaster because the Guggenheim under Krens has been, above all,
an institution devoted to the spectacle of architecture as opposed to
art and it has also been speculative in the extreme (the man nearly
ran the museum into the ground!). MoMA, it is fair to say, has always
been a more buttoned-up institution, an organization that keeps its
eye firmly on the bottom line and also on its mission of cultural stewardship
(which, as I've argued previously, should only be part of its mission).
It is, essentially, a conservative institution loosening up its tie.
Its expansion has been in the cards for a while (this is, after all,
part of what big museums do), and I would guess that the expansion of
the Tate in Britain lit a serious fire under its elegantly appareled
keister. The thought of having the story of 20th and 21st century art
yanked out from under its nose by those gate-crashing Brits is too bitter
a pill to swallow. The psychological effects of the MoMA's reopening
I can only judge, again, to be salutary in the extreme, and that's so
for everyone involved: artists, galleries and perhaps especially other
museums. The prospect of even one major museum in this city getting
it mostly right might rub off. The one issue I'm not so optimistic about:
how a $20 entrance fee will square with students. They may quit coming
altogether. God knows $20 buys a lot of, well, you fill in the blank.
Aaron Yassin: I, too, am optimistic about MoMA's expansion. Yet, I am
still concerned about their motives. The new whopping $20 entrance fee
heightens my concern, and I'm certain that the museum will be filled
with "profit centers" on every floor. There is no question
that MoMA has adopted a new business model. We have begun to expect
this from our museums, but I wonder, is there a point when museums can
just be too big?
Rocio Aranda-Alvarado:
The admission fee is frankly ludicrous. I don't know how they expect
people to pay that. I, too, am certain that the museum will be filled
with little black holes of business. Working in a small institution,
I understand the need for income at every level. However, if having
those little sales shops means that the museum can bring works that
we might otherwise not get to see, perhaps it has to be a trade-off.
I don't think a museum can be too big. Some of the best galleries in
large museums are the ones rarely visited - such as the period rooms.
Like Susan, I also hope that they have created smaller gallery spaces
for smaller works that are just as significant and gratifying as larger
works.
Deven Golden:
Honestly, I don't quite know what to say about the $20 visitor's fee.
I, too, would hope they either have a student price or, better yet,
free admission with college i.d. and for younger students as well. When
I think of the dozens of times I went to the Art Institute of Chicago
when I was a teenager and paid "what you wish" - usually a
nickel - I'm saddened to think that the new MoMA might reduce the viewing
of art for students to a special event. On the other hand, I think $10
is too much for the movies as well - even when things blow up really
well.
Susan Jennings:
I think MoMA should charge $10 or $15 for students, and as they have
done in the past, give artists a reduced rate membership if they supply
an exhibition announcement card within the last year. As I have said
before, MoMA should not be only a tourist destination, but should be
a vital component of the art-making process and this should include
affordable access to those who are making art.
continued
