Lee Bontecou, Untitled, 1959. Image via: markstarkenburg.com
Reacting to the ongoing discussion on Jerry Saltz’s Facebook page about the lack of women artists featured on MoMA’s fourth and fifth floors, as well as MoMA Chief Communications Officer Kim Mitchell’s response to commenters, Saltz has written a letter to Curator of Painting and Sculpture Ann Temkin. A copy of the letter, also available on Saltz’s Facebook page, is below.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Dear Ann,
As I'm sure you know there's been a substantial discussion on my Facebook page (of all places!) about the lack of women artists in the current hanging on the 4th and 5th floors of the Permanent Collection of Painting & Sculpture. By my count (May 10 & 11, 2009) the total number of art works by women is four percent and the total number of women artists, six percent. The new building has been open for four-and-a-half years and the percentages have not yet been higher than this.
I know that the photography department plans an “all woman hang” this year, that you've been rotating work into and out of the 4th & 5th floors, and that the museum is publishing a book on all of the women artists in its collection. I'm also aware that MoMA considers the entire museum (minus special exhibitions) as the Permanent Collection. I don't. And I don't think many others do, either. I think that the Story of Modernism is told primarily on these two all-important floors.
I know you're caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand MoMA should exhibit its masterpieces. On the other it lacks the necessary space to install 'other work' without removing many of the works that are crucial to the Modern. In this economic climate, waiting for the new building to be completed is not an answer. I'm sure you're as eager as anyone to see more work by women on view on the 4th and 5th floors and are aware that this has nothing to do with “quotas” or “fairness,” but rather honesty, openness, and experimentation. I hate harping on this point all the time. I love MoMA. As I've written, “It's the garden we all come from and must return to in order to commune with the ancestors.”
Kim Mitchell was kind enough to give me your email and say she'd bring you up to speed on this on-going Facebook/blog discussion. Even though I assume you're as frustrated with the problem as anyone, I'm sure you'll agree that something has to be done — soon. I've suggested a total rehang on the fourth floor devoted to a condensed period (say 1945 to 1959; although I didn't want it to be just the story of Abstract Expressionism; but that's me). Others have made other suggestions. Regardless, as a number of the commenters have pointed out, if we can try to close Gitmo we can try to close this sad gap at MoMA.
I'd love to know what you think can be done, how to do it, and even when. If responding on Facebook seems too personal and weird, please Ann, feel free to email or call me. As I wrote to you in my private email, I am posting this letter to you on my Facebook.
Best,
Jerry
Jerry Saltz
Senior Art Critic; New York Magazine
{ 8 comments }
While I applaud certain sentiments at play here, curating by committee is rarely a good idea especially when driven by bougie guilt and political correctness.nnOne could map out a chart of increasing womens liberation and the subsequent increase in noteworthy women artists (as defined by art history know-it-alls and critics. You know, the establishement). I am sure its almost an exponential curve starting at about the post-WWII era and then shooting up in the late 1960s. Sadly, a low percentage sounds about right given the history of the 20th Century and how male-centric major movements were. Should you front-load the number of women Conceptual artists, say, due to the lack of women Cubists or Abstract Expressionists? Its a tricky task.nnThe Guerrilla Girls beat you by a few decades to the observation that women and minorities are disproportionally represented throughout 20th Century art in major NYC museums (more cleverly, I should add). In a few decades, someone else will point it out again, which begs the question does changing the number threaten to revise history?
While I applaud certain sentiments at play here, curating by committee is rarely a good idea especially when driven by bougie guilt and political correctness.\n\nOne could map out a chart of increasing womens liberation and the subsequent increase in noteworthy women artists (as defined by art history know-it-alls and critics. You know, the establishement). I am sure its almost an exponential curve starting at about the post-WWII era and then shooting up in the late 1960s. Sadly, a low percentage sounds about right given the history of the 20th Century and how male-centric major movements were. Should you front-load the number of women Conceptual artists, say, due to the lack of women Cubists or Abstract Expressionists? Its a tricky task.\n\nThe Guerrilla Girls beat you by a few decades to the observation that women and minorities are disproportionally represented throughout 20th Century art in major NYC museums (more cleverly, I should add). In a few decades, someone else will point it out again, which begs the question does changing the number threaten to revise history?
First of all it should be pointed out that there is never one history, but many. By making an effort in recognizing woman artists that have been overlooked because of the “male-centric major movements” – and let’s face it, there hasn’t been many art movements that weren’t male-centric – that they were pigeoned-holed into, curators and museums (i.e. the establishment) are putting out questions and challenging the view of womans’ role in art making. This in turn heralds new scholarship which offers even more insight and discovery.
First of all it should be pointed out that there is never one history, but many. By making an effort in recognizing woman artists that have been overlooked because of the “male-centric major movements” – and let’s face it, there hasn’t been many art movements that weren’t male-centric – that they were pigeoned-holed into, curators and museums (i.e. the establishment) are putting out questions and challenging the view of womans’ role in art making. This in turn heralds new scholarship which offers even more insight and discovery.
How many times does the bogus “boo-hiss-PC” argument have to be trotted around like a show pony past its prime before folks like wwiiggss (dig the name BTW) get that Saltz’s criticism is not some kind of affirmative action for art but rather a call for new ideas and interactions with art (as Alice pointed out so well!). And sure, the Guerilla Girls pointed it out a decade or two before Saltz did- but what is egregious is not in the style in which GG or Saltz critiques MoMA but that the gender divide still visibly exists in MoMA’s hangings. Big time! This may be more about systemic inequity than quotas. I, for one, applaud Saltz’s continued attention to this serious lack in MoMA’s ability to conceptualize and present a (mostly) pale male history of art. If he sounds like a parrot it’s because he realizes to say that women contributed to the multiple stories of modernism is one thing, and to display/conserve/research their contributions is quite another. You shouldn’t “front-load” women, but neither should you *consistently* erase their contributions to the history of modernism and postmodernism. Your final question, wwiiggss is a good one though, and maybe we’re of differing opinions here, but I actually think it could begin to change/revise/add to the histories that we think we already know.
How many times does the bogus “boo-hiss-PC” argument have to be trotted around like a show pony past its prime before folks like wwiiggss (dig the name BTW) get that Saltz’s criticism is not some kind of affirmative action for art but rather a call for new ideas and interactions with art (as Alice pointed out so well!). And sure, the Guerilla Girls pointed it out a decade or two before Saltz did- but what is egregious is not in the style in which GG or Saltz critiques MoMA but that the gender divide still visibly exists in MoMA’s hangings. Big time! This may be more about systemic inequity than quotas. I, for one, applaud Saltz’s continued attention to this serious lack in MoMA’s ability to conceptualize and present a (mostly) pale male history of art. If he sounds like a parrot it’s because he realizes to say that women contributed to the multiple stories of modernism is one thing, and to display/conserve/research their contributions is quite another. You shouldn’t “front-load” women, but neither should you *consistently* erase their contributions to the history of modernism and postmodernism. Your final question, wwiiggss is a good one though, and maybe we’re of differing opinions here, but I actually think it could begin to change/revise/add to the histories that we think we already know.
“…but rather honesty, openness, and experimentation.”
Baloney! And how does one discriminate among these things. Jerry and his band of sycophants are full of hot air.
“(of all places!)” give me a break. Do all NY pundits think the world is stupid?
“…but rather honesty, openness, and experimentation.”
Baloney! And how does one discriminate among these things. Jerry and his band of sycophants are full of hot air.
“(of all places!)” give me a break. Do all NY pundits think the world is stupid?
Comments on this entry are closed.