Fresh Links!

by Art Fag City on June 14, 2010 · 9 comments Fresh Links!

Populism Hasn't Boosted Brooklyn Museum's Attendance – NYTimes.com

No surprises here.

{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }

David June 15, 2010 at 12:16 pm

This article frustrates me to no end. While I agree that there’s DEFINITELY room for debate about Brooklyn’s choice of exhibitions (as is true with any large institution), this article is essentially reporting one bar chart. Yes, attendance dropped massively last year, but that has more to do with them struggling to stay alive. But the two years prior had an impressive increase, the goal of tripling attendance was never going to be reached. Corrected headline: “Museum doesn’t reach ridiculous goal and barely stays alive during enormous financial catastrophe. Trustees get grumpy and Robert Storr complains”. Go back to writing your annual article about the new web “site” ICANHAZCHEEZBURGER, NYTimes.

Reply

David June 15, 2010 at 12:16 pm

This article frustrates me to no end. While I agree that there’s DEFINITELY room for debate about Brooklyn’s choice of exhibitions (as is true with any large institution), this article is essentially reporting one bar chart. Yes, attendance dropped massively last year, but that has more to do with them struggling to stay alive. But the two years prior had an impressive increase, the goal of tripling attendance was never going to be reached. Corrected headline: “Museum doesn’t reach ridiculous goal and barely stays alive during enormous financial catastrophe. Trustees get grumpy and Robert Storr complains”. Go back to writing your annual article about the new web “site” ICANHAZCHEEZBURGER, NYTimes.

Reply

David June 15, 2010 at 8:16 am

This article frustrates me to no end. While I agree that there’s DEFINITELY room for debate about Brooklyn’s choice of exhibitions (as is true with any large institution), this article is essentially reporting one bar chart. Yes, attendance dropped massively last year, but that has more to do with them struggling to stay alive. But the two years prior had an impressive increase, the goal of tripling attendance was never going to be reached. Corrected headline: “Museum doesn’t reach ridiculous goal and barely stays alive during enormous financial catastrophe. Trustees get grumpy and Robert Storr complains”. Go back to writing your annual article about the new web “site” ICANHAZCHEEZBURGER, NYTimes.

Reply

Ese June 15, 2010 at 3:49 pm

It’s valid to criticize the Brooklyn Museum’s exhibition choices, yes, but WOW the New York Times repeatedly writes insulting unbalanced pieces about them. It’s hard to trust their criticism.

Reply

Ese June 15, 2010 at 3:49 pm

It’s valid to criticize the Brooklyn Museum’s exhibition choices, yes, but WOW the New York Times repeatedly writes insulting unbalanced pieces about them. It’s hard to trust their criticism.

Reply

Ese June 15, 2010 at 11:49 am

It’s valid to criticize the Brooklyn Museum’s exhibition choices, yes, but WOW the New York Times repeatedly writes insulting unbalanced pieces about them. It’s hard to trust their criticism.

Reply

Giovanni June 15, 2010 at 5:03 pm

I think the article actually makes some very valid points. I simply can’t see how Arnold Lehman can say “We don’t start with the fact that it could draw a lot of people,” and then justify the museum giving a solo show to the winner of Bravo’s Work of Art reality show.

David above just responds to the headline while Ese makes some vague claims about “unbalance,” but neither is actually engaging with the important issues raised in the piece.

Reply

Giovanni June 15, 2010 at 5:03 pm

I think the article actually makes some very valid points. I simply can’t see how Arnold Lehman can say “We don’t start with the fact that it could draw a lot of people,” and then justify the museum giving a solo show to the winner of Bravo’s Work of Art reality show.

David above just responds to the headline while Ese makes some vague claims about “unbalance,” but neither is actually engaging with the important issues raised in the piece.

Reply

Giovanni June 15, 2010 at 1:03 pm

I think the article actually makes some very valid points. I simply can’t see how Arnold Lehman can say “We don’t start with the fact that it could draw a lot of people,” and then justify the museum giving a solo show to the winner of Bravo’s Work of Art reality show.

David above just responds to the headline while Ese makes some vague claims about “unbalance,” but neither is actually engaging with the important issues raised in the piece.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: