Should Art Museum be Latest Forum in Move for "Equity"?

[jbg]

Shouldn't decisions on what works to place in art museums be based on merit rather than politics? This article, The Philip Guston Hoard: A Boon or Overkill? (link) in today’s New York Times poses that very question. Indeed, it seems that all of society is being bent away from any focus on merit and accomplishment, and towards pandering to the most vocal, even violent, "leaders" in "underserved" groups. Excerpt:

How much is too much? It’s a question that consumers should ask themselves every time they shop, build or step onto a fuel-guzzling jet.

It is also a question that museums might raise before adding works of art to their collections. This does not seem to have happened when the Metropolitan Museum of Art decided to accept 220 works by the celebrated — and prolific — American painter Philip Guston (1913-1980) from the personal collection of his daughter, Musa Guston Mayer.

The gift came with a big bright bow: Mayer and her husband, Thomas, are also giving the museum $10 million to establish the Philip Guston Endowment Fund to support Guston scholarship, which will instantly make the museum the world’s center for Guston studies.

***********

Accepting so many free Guston paintings flies in the face of the challenge that many museums face right now to redefine their missions in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement. Practically, and symbolically, it takes up too much of the oxygen in the room. To broaden their collections and audiences, museums should be seeking to avoid, not reinforce, the so-called master narrative that has largely excluded the achievements of women and artists of color.

This raises a few questions:

1. What does "Black Lives Matter" have to do with museums?
2. Should not the focus of fine arts be what the public wants to see, and the quality of the works?
3. Can't society identify "achievements of women and artists of color" and display them, as well as other quality works?

We must continue America's tradition of fostering excellence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Shouldn't decisions on what works to place in art museums be based on merit rather than politics? This article, The Philip Guston Hoard: A Boon or Overkill? (link) in today’s New York Times poses that very question. Indeed, it seems that all of society is being bent away from any focus on merit and accomplishment, and towards pandering to the most vocal, even violent, "leaders" in "underserved" groups. Excerpt:

This raises a few questions:

1. What does "Black Lives Matter" have to do with museums?

BLM is kind of just a stand-in for the cultural shift towards acknowledgement of marginalised voices in various corners of American cultural history. I think it tends to be evoked often in a signal-y kind of way in instances like this, though.

1. Should not the focus of fine arts be what the public wants to see, and the quality of the works?

Er, no. That has basically never been the "focus" of the fine art world. They almost always want to evoke, challenge, and bring to the fore new ideas.

1. Can't society identify "achievements of women and artists of color" and display them, as well as other quality works?

Yes. The issue is that they largely haven't been (at least, according to the person quoted in the article). I can't corroborate, though. Art history isn't my specialty.

We must continue America's tradition of fostering excellence.

The question is whether or not it has actually doing that by ignoring or marginalising "excellence" that comes from disadvantaged groups. Consider the history of rock music and how little we talk about or acknowledge African American culture in its germination, for example.

 

[sun rise]

What does "Black Lives Matter" have to do with museums?

The quoted section had nothing to do with Black Lives Matter. If you want to ask a question or make a statement, quote the section you are thinking about. Otherwise, it's just a random diss.

Should not the focus of fine arts be what the public wants to see, and the quality of the works?

That's part of it. "Fine art is art created for aesthetic or intellectual purposes..." The intellectual purpose goes beyond what people want and is intended for higher purposes such as challenging perspectives.

Can't society identify "achievements of women and artists of color" and display them, as well as other quality works?

How is that related to the quote? I see no connection.

 

[PureX]

The art world has never been especially biased against women or people of color or gays or punks, or whomever. It really hasn't been. All have long been represented in galleries and museums in the U.S. to the extent that they chose to make fine art, and did it well. Where that system tends to fall down is in it's inability to identify new significant artworks and artists, and being willing to take a chance on displaying and promoting it. They all want the other museums and galleries to do it, first. So they can make sure it's bonifide artwork before associating with it. And as a result they all tend to way over expose a very small group of 'bonifide" artists while neglecting everyone else. And the same is true of styles and kinds of artworks. Or they will go the other direction and want to show the most unlikely and outrageous and controversial artworks to gain attention and a reputation for being mavericks. And again a lot of good art goes unnoticed as a result.

In all honesty, the 'art world' was "woke" way before anyone had ever even heard of that term. That's not it's problem.

 

[PureX]

This raises a few questions:
1. What does "Black Lives Matter" have to do with museums?

Nothing beyond the museum or art gallerie making sure the public has equal access.

2. Should not the focus of fine arts be what the public wants to see, and the quality of the works?

No. Art and entertainment are different human endeavors. Artists don't make art to "please the public", and art galleries and museums should not show art to "please the public". Also, the public has no idea what quality art is.They don't even know what art is.

3. Can't society identify "achievements of women and artists of color" and display them, as well as other quality works?

The U.S. art gallerie and museum world already does that, and has for long time. It has its issues, for sure, but that sort of bigotry has never been one of them.

We must continue America's tradition of fostering excellence.

America has never fostered excellence. It fosters and rewards greed and stupidity, mostly. Which is why having access to real art is so important in this culture. Real art is not about greed and stupidity. Its about sharing something that cannot be bought: insight.

 

[icehorse]

Wow, I find this interesting.

I'm asking myself how I'd go about choosing art if I was the director of a museum. Yikes! What a mind bender, gotta ponder this one.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Indeed, it seems that all of society is being bent away from any focus on merit and accomplishment, and towards pandering to the most vocal, even violent, "leaders" in "underserved" groups. Excerpt:

This raises a few questions:

1. What does "Black Lives Matter" have to do with museums?
2. Should not the focus of fine arts be what the public wants to see, and the quality of the works?

The Indianapolis Museum of Art posted a job description seeking a director that could maintain its 'traditional, core, white art audience'
That's where 2 gets you.

 

[PureX]

Wow, I find this interesting.

I'm asking myself how I'd go about choosing art if I was the director of a museum. Yikes! What a mind bender, gotta ponder this one.

An art museum is different from an art gallery. Museums have their own collected artworks to show, and will trade with other museums for works to show. Museums often put together shows from within their own collections and send them out 'on tour' to other museums. So most museum artworks are by older, or often dead, "bonefide" artists. And different museums will have different missions as assigned by their benefactors.

Galleries, on the other hand, usually show contemporary artworks by living artists for the purposes of sale and reputation. So they have the difficult task of seeking out new artists and taking a chance on showing them. It's an extremely difficult and risky job as there are no rich benefactors providing ongoing support for the endeavor. They have to develop a clientele of collectors to buy enough of what they show to keep the lights on.

Museum directors need to be knowledgeable in art history while gallery directors need to be very good at finding new talent and trends in art. And both need to know how to shmooze with the rich. Because that's who supports it all. And unfortunately, they tend to become the gatekeepers.

Certainly not ideal.