In His Own Words: The Life of William S. Rubin

The Art Newspaper's article is here. It is a wonderful inside look at one man's impact on the art world and his methods of collecting during his tenure at MoMA. The article speaks for itself however, I must comment on the title of the article, "The memoir MoMA declined to publish," which I think unnecessarily attempts to weaken Rubin's legacy with MoMA and undermines the passion Rubin had for the Museum. An excerpt from the article provides MoMA's explanation:

When asked to comment, MoMA publisher Christopher Hudson said: “The Museum’s publishing programme presents books that are mission-related in nature, i.e. with specific art historical or educational content. The Museum therefore does not publish personal memoirs of past or current staff or Trustees, no matter how influential and/or long-standing their relationship with the Museum has been.”

It is hard to find fault with this line of reasoning. MoMA could not possibly risk compromising their very important relationships with trustees and other wealthy individuals by having to determine which memoirs are worthy of publication and which are not. Remember, memoirs are generally written by old people. In this case we are talking about wealthy and important old people, the sort of old people you don't want to cross, particularly when you've spent years cultivating a relationship with them that will ultimately yield an important and valuable bequest. Indeed, it is just these sorts of longstanding relationships that Rubin sought out, developed and nurtured over many years, which is evident by the incredible works he brought to the Museum of Modern Art. The current policy protects the Museum from having to make judgments of quality, importance, etc. about memoirs, and the decision to reject all such books in order to avoid risking important relationships should be commended, not criticised.

On Duchamp's Fountain

I don't always agree with Jerry Saltz, art critic for The Village Voice, but his insightful explanation of one of art history's most important and controversial works is worth reading. Since its inception, Duchamp's Fountain has fueled the philosophical debate about the nature of art and what constitutes an original work of art. Saltz's interpretation gives the artist the benefit of the doubt.

Visitors on the Rampage

First I'll apologize for the unexpected and unannounced hiatus from posting. I'm hoping to continue posting with some regularity soon.

Back to business...

Two recent acts of visitor damages to works of art in museums have been covered by the media. The first involves a special event gone awry at the Milwaukee Art Museum that left a trail of booze, food and vomit throughout the museum, which purportedly included damages to works of art. For reasons including security and the general welfare of art, I am typically very against these types of events at museums. Unfortunately, they provide a significant portion of the museum's annual revenue and potentially bring in an otherwise untapped population of visitors with the hope that they will return as a paying customer in the future. Ideally, museums will open themselves up to large corporations or very wealthy individuals when they allow their spaces to be rented, the expectation being that the attendees are an intelligent and responsible group. Other methods of limiting who attends special events include attendance by invitation only and ticket prices that might deter undesireable crowds. The Milwaukee's biggest mistake was opening the event up to a younger crowd which paid a mere $30 to get in for unlimited martinis (Ok - New Yorkers, do the math).

The other damage occurred at the sticky hands of a 12 year old school kid who decided he had to take his gum out of his mouth and stick it on a painting at the Detroit Institute of Art. As annoying as school groups may be, it is good that kids are getting exposure to art and museums and are encouraged to think about the visual arts. That said, educational programming is a tremendously expensive endeavor for art institutions and they cost far more money than they might ultimately generate. They are provided by museums, in part, with the hope that encouraging an appreciation for the arts at an early age will plant a seed that will further develop into their adulthood. They are a privilage, not a right. Although most museums provide them, there is no requirement, as a non-profit institution, that they must. As dumb as some kids may be, its hard to come down on them entirely when something like this happens (and it does happen, more often that you think). This incident is the result of poor supervision. The Detroit Press felt that "boys will be boys," essentially shrugging off the seriousness of the situation. The boy is 12, not 6. A 12 year old boy knows exactly where he should put his gum and where he should not. Improper supervision around extremely valuable, if not priceless, works of art is inexcusible.