A common museum rubric and its problems

I closed out yesterday's Amy Sillman-at-the-Hirshhorn post by objecting to the increasing museo-trend of dropping commercial gallery shows into their galleries. Picking up from that post...

While the Hirshhorn's Amy Sillman is a perfect example of this trend, I don't mean to pick on the Hirshhorn. SFMOMA, MAMFW, MOCA, St. Louis, and other museums all do these small one-artist shows, brand them as 'Focus' shows, 'Projects' shows, 'Directions,' or what have you. I think it's time for art museums to consider whether they're presenting something up to the standards of the rest of their exhibitions program, or if they're not. And with occasional exceptions, they're not.

These small, immediate exhibitions have special merit when an artist and a museum can work together to present something in an institutional setting that would not have been possible in a commercial setting. I don't particularly respond to Jim Lambie's work and I thought his Hirshhorn 'Directions' show was numbingly decorative, but that was a good example of the proper use of the rubric: The Hirshhorn and Lambie (right) worked with an unusual, architecturally specific space (the gateway-to-utopia Bunshaftian fantasy that is the Hirshhorn lobby) to present a unique project, something that was not possible elsewhere. (The Lambie show also indirectly made the argument that the Hirshhorn should restore their entrance lobby to the condition Bunshaft intended, without a store in the middle of it.)

I admire the way the Art Institute of Chicago uses their 'Focus' program. Last year, while the AIC was in the midst of a series of exhibitions and other programs focusing on the Silk Road, the museum presented the work of Gulnara Kasmalieva and Muratbek Djumaliev, two artists whose work fits perfectly into the museum's focus on the Silk Road. (The artists show with Ed Winkleman. Ed is a blogger and a friend.)

I also liked what the AIC did with its Jana Gunstheimer 'Focus' show: It provided American audiences with the artist's first American exhibition. (That's another way in which these shows can transcend the typical: In best-case scenarios, institutions give their curators the freedom to discover.) Gunstheimer's show also specifically addressed Chicago. Both exhibitions were curated by the AIC's Lisa Dorin.

But too often museums simply present mini-commercial shows by commercially popular, even familiar artists, and then present the work in a way that fails to add context or depth. MAMFW's recent Joshua Mosley 'Focus' presentation didn't attempt to contextualize Mosley in any particular way, nor was there any notable scholarship affiliated with the show. (Again: How could there be?)

Understandably, when I raise this point with curators they typically respond, 'But Culver City galleries aren't in My Town. I'm bringing this artist to my audience.' And that's true. But if the artist is good enough or important enough to bring to their audience, they should do it in a more thorough, more museum-like way. If the museum can't bring some of the museum and its role to the exhibit, it shouldn't do the show. [Lambie photo. Gunstheimer photo.]

Related: Dorin talks with Gunstheimer on a Bad at Sports podcast. Art or Idiocy and James Wagner on Gunstheimer.