• Home
  • About
    • diacritical
    • Douglas McLennan
    • Contact
  • Other AJBlogs
  • ArtsJournal

diacritical

Douglas McLennan's blog

When The Mob Turns Angry, What's A Museum To Do?

June 4, 2009 by Douglas McLennan 6 Comments

mob.jpg

A week ago New York Magazine art critic Jerry Saltz launched a bomb on his Facebook page:

“The Museum of Modern Art practices a form of gender-based apartheid. Of the 383 works currently installed on the 4th and 5th floors of the permanent collection, only 19 are by women; that’s 4%. There are 135 different artists installed on these floors; only nine of them are women; that’s 6%. MoMA is telling a story of modernism that only it believes. MoMA has declared itself a hostile witness. Why? What can be done?”

After hundreds of comments from his Facebook Friends, he re-posted the original entry three more times to make it easier for readers to follow the discussion. Three or four additional follow-up posts on the topic brought in hundreds more comments and Saltz told his community that:

In the next month I plan to write a cover letter and amass all of your FB comments in regards to the paltry percent of women artists on the 4th
& 5th floors of the permanent collection and send the package to the following MoMA officials…

Before he had the chance,the museum responded, sending a note to Saltz to post on his page:

“Hi all, I am (Kim Mitchell) Chief Communications Officer here at MoMA. We have been following your lively discussion with great interest, as this has also been a topic of ongoing dialogue at MoMA. We welcome the participation and ideas of others in this important conversation. And yes, as Jerry knows, we do consider all the departmental galleries to represent the collection.  When those spaces are factored in, there are more than 250 works by female artists on view now. Some new initiatives already under way will delve into this topic next year with the Modern Women’s Project, which will involve installations in all the collection galleries, a major publication, and a number of public programs. MoMA has a great willingness to think deeply about these issues and address them over time and to the extent that we can through our collection and the curatorial process. We hope you’ll follow these events as they develop and keep the conversation going.”

This in turn let loose a whole new flood of comments, many criticizing the idea of a “Modern Women’s Project.” And the debate rages on as Saltz explained that now that the group has MoMA’s attention, it should press the museum to rectify an injustice. Saltz has nearly 5,000 Facebook friends, and he’s built his community by positioning himself as much as a discussion leader as a traditional critic.

There was a time when arts organizations (following good corporate example) stayed aloof from criticism, preferring not to respond publicly when criticized unless forced. Many’s the time that the subjects of negative arts stories we have posted on ArtsJournal have contacted me to try to correct the record as they saw it. In each case (maybe 20 over the years), I offered a chance for the institution to write a rebuttal to the story and said I’d post it on AJ. How many do you think took me up on the offer? Three.

Most figured that even though the story was wrong, it would blow over more quickly if it was ignored. But in the digital age these stories stay out there forever, and besides, I’d argue, responding is an opportunity to engage.

And so it is. And so MoMA engaged with Saltz’s group, and good for them. Except.

One of the great things about social media is that it encourages personal interaction. One of the challenges for institutions is to not sound so institutional. In MoMA’s official response, the unnamed “we” have been “following your lively discussion” with “great interest” could hardly be more institutional. Then there’s “this has been a topic of ongoing dialogue at MoMA” and the even more co-opting “we welcome the participation and ideas of others in this important conversation.” And finally: “We hope you’ll follow these events as they develop and keep the conversation going.”

Could it be any more condescending?: “We noticed you’re having this lovely little discussion over here at the kids’ table… pat, pat, pat… How charming of you…” If someone spoke to you like this in real life you’d roll your eyes and walk away. Moreover, the response doesn’t address the issue with either a direct acknowledgment of it (you’re right, only four percent of the artists represented on those floors are women) or that there really is a real disparity of gender. Instead, it’s an attempt to deflect the criticism by appealing to a broader context and sidestepping the issue as it was raised.

How could the museum think that anyone would be placated by such a statement? Indeed, I think it made things worse because the museum looks intellectually dishonest in front of a core audience that really cares.

My purpose here isn’t to debate the gender issue, but to point out that traditional PR notices are not only ineffective in this new era of many-to-many communication, but can make things worse. And what might have been a real opportunity to meaningfully engage this community   has been lost. Just because this conversation didn’t bubble out in public earlier doesn’t mean that people haven’t been having it privately for years. To not confront it honestly  and openly now that it has gone public this way does real harm to MoMA.

Not surprisingly, the debate roars on on Saltz’s page, and he’s even created a new group on Facebook Jerry Saltz; Seeing Out Loud to continue to press the issue. A day or so after it was created, it already has 587 members.

Share:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Related

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Comments

  1. Bec Thomas says

    June 4, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    I have noticed that many institutions and companies have been a little slow on the internet uptake. They don't seem to understand how an issue can stay active for long periods of time and that a wider audience can now get involved. It may be the downfall for some…

    Reply
  2. Alice says

    June 4, 2009 at 10:10 pm

    I think that the rush to indemnify impedes genuine communication. In addition to create an Us/Them dichotomy (or, at least, formalizing one), the tone screams, "I will only write things for which we cannot be sued. I will appease the heaving masses by telling them that we think they are brilliant and special and that we agree to whole-heartedly that we are going to do a special show about the special group they think is special."
    As such, the line from the MoMA can't possibly address the actual content of the criticism. They cannot take it on directly, because it would require agreeing: that there's been an undervaluing of art created by women (in this case); a specific plot to exclude; a subconscious internalization of Men Do Real Art; or simply a lack of consciousness. None of these is an appealing admission and the institution may fear that to cop to any (or some variation) would only add fuel. It might, though I suspect it would be of short duration and could be cleansing–and lead to innovative collaborations and expanded thinking.
    Unfortunately, the approach selected says, "We have more power than you do. You come to us to see art. You will get tired of this fight. We will do what we see fit. Acknowledging you makes it so that you can't say we ignored you. Buh. Bye." They may or may not realize this. If they do, they simply don't care. If they don't, they need to hire a new PR person. 🙂

    Reply
  3. Kim says

    June 4, 2009 at 11:32 pm

    Now we are picking apart press statements? There must be something more important to speak about or at least more productive.

    Reply
  4. Jim VanKirk says

    June 5, 2009 at 9:21 am

    Jerry is doing little more than indulging in E-demagoguery and blackmail. The Arts including museums have collectively done more for the women's movement than any other single segment of culture over the past 30 years. That there is further to go is without question. It remains however that Jerry is attempting to achieve a position in the contemporary scene through pandering.
    His sophomoric enthusiasms could only succeed in a cultural environment as dysfunctional as that in NY.

    Reply
  5. Roy says

    June 8, 2009 at 1:00 am

    Anyone interested in a discussion of anti-institutional bias among outraged self-appointed critics?

    Reply
  6. SJ says

    June 10, 2009 at 2:18 am

    He wanted a response/acknowledgment from MoMA and he got one. Sounds like he has personal beef for whatever reason, and nothing they say will appease him.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Douglas McLennan

I’m the founder and editor of ArtsJournal, which was founded in September 1999 and aggregates arts and culture news from all over the internet. The site is also home to some 60 arts bloggers. I’m a … [Read More...]

About diacritical

Our culture is undergoing profound changes. Our expectations for what culture can (or should) do for us are changing. Relationships between those who make and distribute culture and those who consume it are changing. And our definitions of what artists are, how they work, and how we access them and their work are changing. So... [Read more]

Subscribe to Diacritical by Email

Receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,819 other subscribers
Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterFollow Us on RSSFollow Us on E-mail

Archives

@AJDoug

Tweets by @AJDoug

Recent Comments

  • Douglas McLennan on Still Amusing Ourselves to Death: Information as Cautionary Tale: “Hi John: Yes – remember over the last decade how Big Data was going to change everything and drive every…” Nov 26, 07:46
  • John McCann on Still Amusing Ourselves to Death: Information as Cautionary Tale: “I haven’t read this book, yet your review triggered an insight about information shared within organizations and how so much…” Nov 26, 03:57
  • Richard Voorhaar on The UnderTow: The High-flying Oil Industry fears “Demand Destruction.” Should the Arts?: “We have reached the point where the average American has no attention span. A 3-4 minute pop tune is all…” Jun 10, 11:22
  • Alan Harrison on The UnderTow: The High-flying Oil Industry fears “Demand Destruction.” Should the Arts?: “Brilliant piece, Doug. It’s why, in my own columns on LinkedIn and Medium, I may have become more strident recently…” Jun 8, 15:46
  • Tom Corddry on The UnderTow: The High-flying Oil Industry fears “Demand Destruction.” Should the Arts?: “Slick analogy. Social scientists estimate that 95% of everything we do is basically done out of habit, because it’s an…” Jun 7, 21:04
  • sandi kurtz on The UnderTow: Subscriptions are the New Business Model of Choice. So Why are Subscriptions Failing in the Arts?: ““As for seat licenses in the arts – I think it doesn’t work unless demand is so spectacular you can…” Jun 1, 23:19
  • Douglas McLennan on The UnderTow: Subscriptions are the New Business Model of Choice. So Why are Subscriptions Failing in the Arts?: “I think the membership model is an interesting variant. And the web has gone back and forth on labeling its…” May 31, 07:42
  • Douglas McLennan on The UnderTow: Subscriptions are the New Business Model of Choice. So Why are Subscriptions Failing in the Arts?: “Thanks Gary. I originally had a section in this podcast discussing why the NYTs’ success hasn’t worked its way down…” May 31, 07:19
  • sandi kurtz on The UnderTow: Subscriptions are the New Business Model of Choice. So Why are Subscriptions Failing in the Arts?: “A couple of thoughts. The single subscription model, where you sign on to the entire run of the season, curated…” May 30, 23:57
  • Gary P Steuer on The UnderTow: Subscriptions are the New Business Model of Choice. So Why are Subscriptions Failing in the Arts?: “Loved the podcast Doug. Glad you included newspapers as an example of another business type that has pivoted towards subscriptions.…” May 28, 12:11

Top Posts

  • Too Many Artists Or Not Enough Value?
  • "Art Is Good?" Not Much Of An Argument For Art Is It?
  • If Dance Can't Pay Its Dancers What Does It Mean To Be A Professional Dancer?
  • We Asked: What's the Biggest Challenge Facing the Arts?
  • Still Amusing Ourselves to Death: Information as Cautionary Tale

Recent Posts

  • Still Amusing Ourselves to Death: Information as Cautionary Tale November 25, 2022
  • The UnderTow: What the new Edinburgh Fringe Tells us about a Post-COVID World June 26, 2022
  • The UnderTow: The High-flying Oil Industry fears “Demand Destruction.” Should the Arts? June 7, 2022
  • The UnderTow: Subscriptions are the New Business Model of Choice. So Why are Subscriptions Failing in the Arts? May 23, 2022
  • This Week’s UnderTow: Why are Police Playing Disney Songs? And Why did this Orchestra Fire its Conductor for… Conducting? April 23, 2022
June 2009
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  
« May   Jul »

An ArtsJournal Blog

Recent Posts

  • Still Amusing Ourselves to Death: Information as Cautionary Tale
  • The UnderTow: What the new Edinburgh Fringe Tells us about a Post-COVID World
  • The UnderTow: The High-flying Oil Industry fears “Demand Destruction.” Should the Arts?
  • The UnderTow: Subscriptions are the New Business Model of Choice. So Why are Subscriptions Failing in the Arts?
  • This Week’s UnderTow: Why are Police Playing Disney Songs? And Why did this Orchestra Fire its Conductor for… Conducting?

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in