Exhibitions

I stopped in at the Guggenheim Museum yesterday to see the James Turrell exhibition and to see how other people were observing Turrell. Surprisingly, there was no line to get in, even on Sunday mid-afternoon — it wasn’t raining, but it wasn’t sunny either. Just a normal museum weekend day. So maybe the show isn’t as popular as I had heard.

Inside, however, was another matter. The rotunda was jammed, as you will see in my pictures. Some people were clearly intrigued, and some people were not paying attention to the changes in the installation at all. They were on their cell phones. It was definitely an “experience” for some people; others — fewer in number, I would guess, based on the noise, the running around, etc. — were having an experience with the art.

People wandered through the upstairs galleries far more quickly — no value judgment there, on my part — but it may have something to do with the fact that they are monochromatic and are not dynamic. The room with Ronin was empty. Some pieces, in my opinion, were better than others — I especially like the cube of light, Afrum I (White),  that hung in the corner of one room. At the top, experience kicked in again. There, the Guggenheim has hung a piece which can be seen by a limited number of people at once, and the line to see it was more than 45 minutes long. I didn’t wait.

I found the centerpiece, Aten Reign, which fills the rotunda, to be less interesting than Turrell’s skyspaces. This seems more like a light show, less like a comment on perception, than the sky spaces. Maybe that had to do with the festival-like atmosphere, I don’t know. But I feel as if I don’t have to go back, sorry to say.

One oddity must mention: everyone was taking pictures with their phones and some even had large cameras, loaded with good lenses. Every now and then, a guard would holler out “no photos.” No one paid much mind.

I do wonder why the Guggenheim — or, if it’s Turrell, why Turrell — would saddle the show with that restriction. Last week, the Getty lifted all restrictions on the images it holds right to — people can use them for free. It was the first step to “open content,” the museum said.

UPDATE, 8/21: This subject was recently taken up on the blog of the Peabody Essex Museum.

Not Detroit, alas — Buffalo. The Albright-Knox is sending some of its best paintings on the road, with stops at the Denver Art Museum, the San Diego Museum of Art, the Milwaukee Museum of Art, and the Crystal Bridges Museum in Bentonville, AR.

This is good for many reasons, starting with the fact that the marvelous collection of modern art owned by the Albright-Knox is not as well known by the general public as it should be — and this will get the word out to four cities/regions. Residents and visitors who may never visit Buffalo will see that art in an exhibit that is being called Picasso to Pollock: Modern Masterworks from the Albright-Knox Art Gallery. Then they might even go to Buffalo to see what else is there.

The show will be “organized” by the Albright-Knox but, if a few hints I have had in the past are correct, it was instigated by inquiries from the Denver Art Museum, where it will go first (March 2–June 8, 2014). It’s based on the Albright-Knox’s 2011 exhibition “The Long Curve,” which occurred at the time of the museum’s 150th anniversary, and will also feature works by Georgia O’Keeffe, Salvador Dali, Mark Rothko, Willem de Kooning, Robert Motherwell and Clyfford Still. Pollock’s Convergence, 1952, shown here, is part of the show.

That bring us to the next reason why this is good: Dean Sobel, director of the Clyfford Still Museum in Denver, is curating the exhibition of about 50 works. Smartly, Sobel is mounting an exhibition at his museum at the same time called 1959. As you know, the Still museum can show only works by Still. But as it happens, the Albright-Knox is one few other museums that owns works by that artist.

1959, which Sobel is also curating, will re-create “Still’s landmark exhibition held at the Albright-Knox in the fall of 1959,” according to the joint press release issued by the DAM and the Still museum. “This exhibition was the largest of Still’s career and the first following his decision to break ties with the art world in 1951. He included works made during the 1930s and major paintings made in New York during the 1950s. These artworks were not well known at the time and had never previously shown to the public. Further connecting the exhibitions and institutions, Picasso to Pollock includes a strong example of Still’s work from this time period, PH-48, 1957.”

That’s the third reason: Sobel gets a special exhibit within his constraints. And the fourth, two neighboring museums are working together in a way that will benefit the public.

Fifth, the Albright-Knox will take in some money for its loans.

All good.

When the triple-play exhibitions of James Turrell this year are over — at LACMA (through Apr. 6, 2014), the Guggenheim (through Sept. 25), and the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston (through Sept. 22) — I wonder how the economics will all play out.

All are critical and (I’ve heard) popular hits, and my question was prompted by the announcement from the Guggenheim last week that it was holdings private evening viewings (one picture of what they’ll see is at left) exclusively for members — but charging them for the privilege. These “member-exclusive Quiet Views” cost $15. They are set for August 12, August 19, September 9, and September 23, and each will have two “sittings,” the first starting at 7:30 pm and the second at 9 pm. More details are here.

I can’t recall a similar situation. According to people I know who’ve gone to the show (I haven’t had the opportunity yet), at some times there are lines around the block, and at others, there’s no line at all. There are limits to the numbers in the museum at one time, though, so perhaps the Quiet Views are one way to recoup some lost money — though I have no idea about the added expenses to offer them.

At LACMA, meanwhile, which has had to limit the crowd at any one time because of the nature of the works, it’s fairly easy to purchase the timed tickets any day I tried. On the other hand, tickets to his two immersive artworks, Light Reignfall from his Perceptual Cell series and Dark Matters from his series titled Dark Spaces, are sold out for the run of the exhibit. They cost $45 to general public and $15 for members, far more than the main show, which is $25 for adults and free to members.

At MFAH, it’s better to reserve tickets in advance — they are timed — but not essential if you arrive when there’s room.

So, popularity versus limits on attendance. I’d bet that LACMA’s and the Guggenheim’s shows are expensive; they occupy huge spaces in the museum, and they cost a lot to build. The MFAH’s — which consists of works it already owned — probably less so.* Its tunnel, the largest piece in the show there, I think, was already installed.

But I am glad that the museums are paying attention to the needs of visitors, and the demands of the art works, by limiting attendance — even if it means they need to seek more support from donors to mount these shows.

If you can’t get to any of these exhibits, you might take a look at the Guggenheim’s video or MFAH’s video preview (scroll down a bit).

*UPDATE: Someone who has seen the Houston exhibition informs me that MFAH has turned over large spaces to the Turrell show there as well — so its costs are probably also very high (except, as I mentioned, the tunnel was and remains in place).

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Guggenheim