This month, the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation* announced the awards of its very prestigious, much-coveted Guggenheim Fellowships. It gave the laurel to 180 people, including 20 in the “Fine Arts” — aka visual arts — category (plus more in photography and dance/performance art). I got to wondering, who are the winners? And what kind of work is being chosen for support?

One image can never portray the work of an artist. But there is a limit to how much time you’ll spend here, so here’s a look at one or two works per artist — a teaser, so to speak — plus links to their websites or galleries for further viewing:

–Michael Ashkin,
of Ithaca,
N.Y., is Director of Graduate Studies and an Assistant Professor in Cornell’s Department of Art whose work has been shown at Andrea Rosen Gallery. Right is Prison ( No. 3), from 2008. You can view more works of his works on his website.  

 

 

 

 

 

–Dike Blair, of New York, is an adjunct professor at the Rhode Island School of Design. Here are two untitled gouaches from 2008, and there’s more at his website.

  

 

[Read more…] about A Gallery of Guggenheims

It seems that writing about deaccessioning can be as troubling as doing it. This time, it was James Panero’s essay in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal that
set tongues wagging and bloggers blogging. Panero, managing editor of The New Criterion, accused the Montclair Art Museum (right) of cleaning house with art sales to shore up its endowment and satisfy the banks. He quotes museum director Lora Urbanelli:

“We took out tax exempt bonds at a certain time in our history. And when you do that — we are diligently paying them off — but whenever you do that, as part of the agreement, you agree to have a certain amount on hand in an endowment fund. At times when our endowment is flagging, we go below that line. So this is a creative way to keep the endowment full and to stay above the water line to grow our endowment for acquisitions — just so we are in the good graces with the bond covenants. All the bank wants to know is that the endowment is a healthy one for the size of the institution. There’s nothing untoward.”

But even anti-deaccessioning writers took offense at the essay. And Christopher Knight of the Los Angeles Times, who acknowledges that deaccessioning is sometimes necessary, labeled it a “hit job” — full of innuendo and no proof.

The museum has announced its plans in a press release, but I’m not sure we know all the facts yet.

I am not, as others are, against all deaccessioning, though I deplore many of the recent museum sales. I’m more in tune with the letter that David Ross wrote to the WSJ, published today. The former director of the Whitney and SF MoMA, ever quick with a quote, wrote in his key passage:

The sale of works from a permanent collection should be surgical, not wholesale, and should be done only to enhance the collection — not to satisfy bondholders or bank lenders.

Regardless of how one generation (or administration) feels about the relevance of a particular aspect of the museum’s collection, it should not assume the right to alter the character of the museum, or simply erase the work of previous curators and donors.

Amen. 

His whole letter can be read here.

Photo Credit: Montclair Art Museum

The Wall Street Journal has an entertaining article this morning on the popularity of, and a worldwide movement to ban, a typeface. Yes, people apparently so dislike

COMIC SANS that they want to outlaw it.

 

I love the idea that people care so much about a typeface. I, for one, am tired of Verdana and Arial. I can no longer write in Times Roman. I always switch to 

Palatino Linotype

or

Book Antiqua.

 

And the idea of a movement to ban one tickles me, though I disagree with it. What’s so bad about Comic Sans? To find out, read Emily Steel’s article.

 

Now, if we could only get more people to care as much about other aesthetic issues.

 

 

While I was away, the White House did it again — made a stealth arts appointment. Actor Kal Penn (right), who served on candidate Obama’s arts-policy committee, is the new “associate director of public liaison” in the White House, focusing on Asian & Pacific communities and arts communities. The Washington Post had a gossip-column item on this earlier this month, crediting Entertainment Weekly, and yesterday I confirmed it with the White House press office. There’s been no announcement, and spokesman Shin Inouye said he did not know when Penn would start.

But, Inouye said, Penn will be doing “a little of everything.” As examples of the kinds of organizations Penn would liaise with, he cited the New England Federation for the Arts and the Southern Arts Federation. Plus, of course, the public.

When I previously wrote about the arts czar here, Kareem Dale was holding down a mini-version of the post as well as that of special assistant for disability policy. That, I’d been told, would be a temporary situation and a new appointment would be made. This is it. “Kal will be the primary point person to the arts communities,” Inouye said.

But Penn, 31, is also a bit of an odd choice. He’s been starring in “House” on TV and acting in “Harold & Kumar” and other low-brow movies. He has a BA from UCLA in sociology and film, Inouye said, as well as attendance at performing-arts high schools in New Jersey. As the Post reported here, Penn will be earning about $60,000 a year vs. about $50,000 an episode for “House,” where his character recently committed suicide.

Inouye described the liaison office as “the front door” to the White House for groups that want to have input on policy as well as the conduit to get information out. Doesn’t sound as if Penn will be the arts czar or even a mini-czar that arts groups had been seeking, let alone the kind of appointee who could broker deals on complex issues like copyright and media ownership that affect the arts.

Penn recently did an interview about the appointment with The New Republic, but he said little about how he feels about the arts or how he’ll handle the post. Here’s the link.

  

The Chicago Opera Theater is back with what it calls the “People’s Opera,” which I wrote about here a few weeks ago. For $1 a vote, the COT allows people to choose one of three operas that will be performed during, in this case, its spring 2011 season.

This year, COT director Brian Dickie has proposed Mozart’s Magic Flute, Richard Strauss’s Capriccio, and Shostakovich’s Moscow, Cheryomushki. Voting began yesterday and continues through 5 p.m. on June 12.

Dickie, in a press release, said “I chose these three works because each one has such a unique and diverse character, yet each fits in beautifully with COT’s distinct vision and aesthetic. I’m anxious to see what the opera fans of the world decide!”

It’s just a gimmick, but the People’s Opera does raise money and, perhaps more important, involves people in the opera. You can vote online here, after reading the plot summaries and listening to an excerpt.

Populism is certainly “in” these days — should museums and orchestras and theaters try a variation of this? Or, is there a downside to allowing people to help make artistic decisions?

I think there is — but that it can be controlled.