• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
    • Real Clear Arts
    • Judith H. Dobrzynski
    • Contact
  • ArtsJournal
  • AJBlogs

Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Museums

A Question to Nobelist Kandel Reveals A Big Gap At the Met

Last week, I was honored to sit opposite Nobel-prize winner/neuropsychiatrist Eric Kandel at a small dinner. Kandel, seeking to understand how memory works, figured it out by studying its physiological basis in the cells of sea slugs. For that, he won the Nobel in 2000. More recently, he has turned some of his attention to art. In 2012, he published The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind, and Brain, from Vienna 1900 to the Present.

Munter_BlueMountainKandel and his wife, Denise, go to museums a lot. “I would say art is our greatest passion,” he told Science Friday in 2013.

So I asked him, to make conversation, which department at the Metropolitan Museum of Art* he would go to first if he had just one hour and could go to only one. His answer surprised me. He wouldn’t go to the Met, he said, because his favorite kind of art is German and Austrian Expressionism. So he would go to the Neue Galerie, he said.

Ouch. I was reminded of that conversation today when I received a press release from Everard Auctions in Savannah. In a sale now on the internet though Oct. 7 are two paintings by Gabriele Munter (1877-1962), whose work I like (the best trove I’ve seen is at the Milwaukee Art Museum). Now, the two up for sale at Everhard probably are not museum-quality (Der Blaue Berg (The Blue Mountain) [top], from 1908, is estimated at $200,000-300,000, while Im Uhrmacherladen (The Watchmaker’s Shop) [below], from 1916, has a presale estimate of $100,000-150,000), and I am not suggesting that the Met run out and buy them. But the release sent me to the Met collections database to see if Kandel could have gone to the best, even for a less-rich experience. 

Here is a sampling of what I found:

  • Munter: 0
  • Franz Marc: 0
  • Ernst Ludwig Kirchner: 5 works on paper, none major
  • August Macke: 2 works on paper
  • Wassily Kandinsky: 1 work on paper
  • Gustav Klimt: 2 paintings (yeah!) and more than a dozen works on paper or textiles
  • Egon Schiele: some 3 dozen works on paper (none major?); no paintings
  • Alexej von Jawlensky: 3 works on paper
  • Max Pechstein: 8 works on paper, none major
  • Oskar Kokoschka: more than 3 dozen drawings, lithos, etc., none major 
  • Otto Dix: 14 works on paper, one painting (not on view)
  • Max Beckmann: about 4 dozen drawings, two paintings, one on view

I suppose the message here is a simple one: even the glorious Met has big gaps, and Austrian and German art is one of them. Perhaps I/we knew this intuitively, but a tally makes it really clear.Munter-Watchmaker

Should it actively acquire in this area, when it already has so many riches, or leave it to the Neue Galerie? I think the former; there’s no gallery for this work and that’s a shame. But then again, like Kandel, I’d call this area is a favorite.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of Everard Auctions

* I consult to a foundation that supports the Met

What’s It All About, Jean Nouvel? A Pace-Setting Museum?

Of course he wants it to be one: he’s an architect. But the project announced by Jean Nouvel last week, plans for a National Art Museum of China, won’t just be innovative in design; it seems–from the announcement and resulting press coverage–that the Chinese, with Nouvel’s help, will be out to establish new practices in museums, or at least to confirm what other museums have been trying, as standards.

NouvelNAMOCNAMOC, as it has been dubbed, seems to be aiming for upending the museum world a bit. Aside from gallery spaces, a research and education center, an auditorium, NAMOC will have many public spaces plus an interior garden. All told, it will be 1.4 million square feet. By comparison, the Louvre has 652,300 square feet; the Metropolitan Museum of Art has 2 million square feet. NAMOC’s collection will extend from the Ming era in the 14th century to the present, and it seems they will be mixed together.

From the Nouvel press release (a bit jargon-y, but I wouldn’t dare “translate”):

…The museums should become lively places, resonating with invention where exhibits prove that sensations and emotions triggered by art are amplified by time, by the complicit juxtaposition of works from various times, and all the eras of invention. The most sincere inventors of our time must absolutely find in these moments a place for expression. It is our responsibility to invite the creators into a place where they can dream, in which they can be recognized, and offer the artists the means to express themselves better than ever, to reveal themselves more clearly and intensely than anywhere else.

The NAMOC represents an incredible opportunity for the most ambitious materialization of a place for expression, of communication and attraction, a place that witnesses the vitality of a civilization, the civilization of the greatest people on earth. Our proposal is the result of one year of catalysis, of immersions, of dialogs and explorations to translate, synthetize, symbolize and materialize the spirit of the Chinese civilization… our goal is to protect the miracles created with ink throughout the centuries, to reveal the force of a living art… to welcome the artist of tomorrow. The museum is a milestone that now establishes architecture as a civilizational medium, as the memorial symbiosis of nature and human expression. These exceptional conditions are able to elicit this rising attitude, this symbiotic response, and goes beyond being just a traditional competition of established styles. Today, the role of architecture is to catalyze, to precipitate the spirit of a situation should it be individual, plural or civilizational.

 A few pictures might help; from them, it seems somewhat attractive. I like the perforated facade, and the internal garden, especially in fall–as shown above. 

Here is a longitudinal.

Longitudinal

The Summer  Hall, with its gold ceiling:

SummerHall

The Grand Terrace:

GrandTerrace

 

Notice anything odd? I did. Why no pictures of the galleries? Where the, um, art goes. There wasn’t a one in the press release. It seems, alas, that this is another example of a starchitect museum that will be far more about the building than about the art inside.

The Beijing Institute of Architectural Design is collaborating with Nouvel on this 21st Century museum; neither a cost nor a timeline for completion was disclosed. 

Photo Credits: © Ateliers Jean Nouvel

More Triumphs And Woes For Frank Gehry

BioMuseumHe’s called (by some) the most important architect working today, which is debatable, but there’s no question that Frank Gehry is one of the world’s most innovative and creative architects. In the U.S., he’s still having trouble with the Eisenhower Memorial in Washington, despite a revision in his design delivered earlier this month. According to the Associated Press,

In the revised design, Gehry’s Los Angeles-based team eliminated two large, metal tapestries on the sides of the memorial park, along with some large columns. One long, stainless steel tapestry would remain as a backdrop, depicting the Kansas landscape of Ike’s boyhood home. The park would also include statues of Eisenhower as president and World War II general and inscriptions from some famous speeches.

But if he can’t get traction here, two other big Gehry buildings are opening this fall. Biomuseo, his only commission in Latin America, opens Oct. 2 month at the entrance to the Panama Canal, Pacific Ocean side, in Panama. This museum looks familiar — except for the wild and playful colors. Frankly, pun intended, it looks attractive and, if designed to attract families, inviting.

Biomuseo, btw, is a joint venture with the Smithsonian — specifically, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institution. The other parters are “the non-profit Amador Foundation, established by private citizens of Panamá to raise awareness of the country’s natural and cultural history and encourage preservation of its extraordinary biodiversity, and the Government of Panamá, which contributed the site for the project and adjacent revenue-producing properties,” according to a press release.

BioMuseum-aerialThe museum is centered around an outdoor atrium, covered by the canopies, which refer to local buildings and Panamá’s neotropical habitat. Seems fitting to me.

Meanwhile, in Paris, Fondation Louis Vuitton opens on Oct. 27. It’s definitely a Gehry building but a little different from the others too. It’s supposed to resemble a cloud, and it’s on the northern edge of the Bois de Boulogne.

A few words, but not much, about the exhibitions program are here.  It has 11 exhibition galleries, for permanent collection display and special exhibits–the first about the construction of the building.

Here’s a look at that.

fondationLV

Photo Credits: Courtesy of Biomuseo (top) and Fondation Louis Vuitton (bottom)

 

Answer to the Ever-Present False Dichotomy About Museums

It’s very trendy these days to insist that museums should be visitor-centered, not art-centered. Most recently, I was called on the carpet yet again for suggesting that art comes first, but not just that; in fact, someone I do not know accused me a restarting the culture wars when I wrote here about the Portland Art Museum’s Parklandia. The blog post was called “The Value of Museum Selfies.”

WGriswoldI’m not going to provide the link, partly because the writer misconstrues and mixes up ideas illogically and uses as justification for selfies that they are “pretty awesome” (not to mention badly misspelling my surname and assuming a familiarity that we do not have). It doesn’t get better, and it’s not worth your time. (You can easily find it if you search for it.)

Whether a museum pays attention to art or visitors is a false dichotomy.  They must do both, and the questions are always: which is the driver and what is the balance. Some museums manage to do it well; others go astray.

But as I was reading the most recent publication sent to me from the Cleveland Museum of Art, I was taken by the way its new director, William Griswold (at left), framed the “issue.” Here is what he wrote:

Cleveland is simultaneously the quintessential connoisseur’s collection and one of the most community-focused museums in the country. At first, this might seem a contradiction; however, it is not if one embraces the premise that the greatest art is great, in part, because it embodies the most eloquent communication of the most universal human experiences. Cleveland has always demonstrated its faith in art to communicate and in audiences to “get it,” and the museum has seen its role as facilitating that connection through beautifully designed galleries, thoughtful interpretive materials, and–in recent years especially–the innovative and intelligent use of technology.

That is exactly right. If curators and museum administrators do their job well, art will do the rest of the job. We need to repeat this, or something like it, again and again.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Cleveland Art Museum

Is It Time To Break Up Overcrowded Museums?

Hrag Vartanian, whom you may know as the editor-in-chief and co-founder of Hyperallergic, had a very interesting opinion piece published on Al Jazeera America the other day. The headline was Break up the major museums to save them, with a deck saying “August institutions should build more outposts rather than cloister themselves in big cities.” 

LouvreQuite a proposal. His thoughts seem to have been triggered by attendance at the Louvre (12 million a year by 2025), and the experiences of many museum-goers — who can barely get near the art because the galleries are so crowded. He recapped some of the complaints contained recently in a New York Times article,  Masterworks Vs. the Masses, which noted “soaring attendance has turned many museums into crowded, sauna-like spaces, forcing institutions to debate how to balance accessibility with art preservation.”

Most of the comments agreed that conditions for real art-lovers are now horrible. Vartanian went beyond “us,” though, to look at museum reviews on Trip Advisor, where he found that the “masses” tended to agree. Wrote one of the Vatican Museums: “Seriously, it would only take one person to trip or to cause some kind of mild panic or corridor rage … it doesn’t bear thinking of.” And another of the Louvre: “There was absolutely no way that myself and my family members could enjoy the museum. There are so many people that all you have time to do is make sure you aren’t trampled by the mass coming at you from every direction.”

Hence his proposal: “I’m suggesting not that museums sell off their collections but that more museums consider aggressively building outposts or prioritizing longer-term partnerships with smaller or newer institutions that could benefit from such relationships.”

But that’s like destroying the village to save it. I disagree, mostly, but not entirely:

  • Building outposts is not the answer for virtually all museums. I admit to a few possibly exceptions, perhaps cities that not only have little art but that have no viable museum building. But most do. We don’t need more museum buildings, for the most part. As Vartanian himself wrote in another part of his commentary, “We need to fight the idea that museums must keep growing to stay relevant or survive.” Amen to that.
  • Rather, I prefer the sharing model — but not necessarily in long-term partnerships. I believe that strong museums, like the Metropolitan and the Modern here in New York, the National Gallery of Art, the MFAs, etc., need to remain strong and universal, special places that both locals and tourists will go to and return to, again and again, because of what’s dependably inside (not because of some event).
  • But they could easily share some more with museums that own less spectacular art. I know, art should not travel that much. But some art can — some works can be special visitors, perhaps “on tour” or in a single-picture exhibition; some can remain on extended loans (12 months?). Making these loans a special occasion — unless a museum truly has a spectacular collection in storage, which is doubtful, but which could be lent long-term — adds to their allure in attracting visitors.

Museums talk so much these days about “new audiences” and about “experience.” Judging by the commentaries I read and the press releases and emails I receive, every museum in the country seems to be trying to attract more visitors and to create more experiences.

I wish, as this opinion piece indicates, they would focus more on the experience of the art their current visitors are getting. A lot of art-lovers are truly unhappy with it — and, just to ward off the criticism comments like that seem to provoke, there’s nothing elite about being an art-lover. They can be — and are — anyone and everyone.

Photo Credit: Courtesy Daily Mail

 

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

About Judith H. Dobrzynski

Now an independent journalist, I've worked as a reporter in the culture and business sections of The New York Times, and been the editor of the Sunday business section and deputy business editor there as well as a senior editor of Business Week and the managing editor of CNBC, the cable TV

About Real Clear Arts

This blog is about culture in America as seen through my lens, which is informed and colored by years of reporting not only on the arts and humanities, but also on business, philanthropy, science, government and other subjects. I may break news, but more likely I will comment, provide

Archives