When the Richard Prince show closed at the Guggenheim after being up for four months, I solicited mini-reviews as comments, and didn’t get a single one. I did, however, receive at least 10 emails from people, mostly fellow artists, telling me that they didn’t see the exhibition because of disinterest or lack of time, which is disinterest in disguise because if they really wanted to see it they’d find the time. But the other unspoken reason has to be the entrance fee. Duh! Because I have a press card I just never think about it. The Guggenheim doesn't put their entrance fee on their Web site that I could find, but I think it’s $17. The Whitney is $15 and MoMA is $20. And again, if people really wanted to see something, they’d shell out whatever. However for an artist to keep up-to-date with everything that’s going on in the four major New York museums, not to speak of places like the Cooper-Hewitt ($8), the Jewish Museum ($12), the New Museum ($12) and the Brooklyn Museum ($8), it gets very pricey. The Met’s “suggested” fee is $20, which is nice—try making a "suggestion" to MoMA sometime. So the question then becomes, who are museums for? If a museum does not exist to stimulate the art of its time, what is its purpose?
Comments
MOMA offers artist's memberships at reduced rates ...
The admission price is hard to pin just on a museu...
Ought there be a price and how high? - are a bit like asking the same of education. The funding does not come (just) from the government, so a museum can reason that it has to raise revenue somehow.
But actually I wanted to get back to Prince's survey at the Gugg. I too noted the lack of enthusiasm, somewhat at odds with the honor conferred by such a show.
He's had the Art 21 treatment, a slightly reluctant review by Eleanor Heartney in AiA, but I think there's the nagging suspicion that he's really second rate, that the text works come in way behind Ruscha and others, that the photography was just a couple of paces behind Appropriationists like Levine or Bidlo, and that the Nurse things are never going to 'bad' enough, or Prince a good enough painter.
But the guy is obviously connected, well liked in important places, so we all go through the motions of a Gugg retrospective, for someone whose work only looks a little scattered or thin for it.
I'll second what CAP said -- there is a nagging su...
I see everything at MOMA because I have an artist'...
To me museums, while nice, are more to enshrine a ...
I think artists want to be inspired for free they should just look at the world around them.
If museums really are that important to an artists inspiration they should move down here to DC, all the museums are FREE!
Add new comment