Wal-Mart Seeking Curator
Remember last week (I can barely, so it's not a rhetorical question), when we bounced around the question of whether the Extreme Right Wing of US politics would ever embark on an effort to infiltrate the world of fine art (see post here)? I think collectively we might have underestimated how this could actually come to pass (hint: they could do it the old-fashioned way: buy influence).
Via artinfo.com, we learn that the Wal-Mart family's upcoming Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, in Bentonville, Arkansas, (see design concept in image above) is conducting a search for a curator:
HOUSEKEEPING SIDEBAR: Out of sheer frustration with chasing away the cockroach-like critters (I'm talking about those filthy spambot commenters who destroy the pleasure of blogging for the rest of us and should be hounded out of the blogosphere), I've turned on the word verification tool for comments. You'll have to type in the secret code word you'll see to leave a comment now. I apologize for the inconvenience, but the vile spambots were really out of control. Please do let me know if making comments now is too bothersome this way though.
Via artinfo.com, we learn that the Wal-Mart family's upcoming Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, in Bentonville, Arkansas, (see design concept in image above) is conducting a search for a curator:
Of course there's no word yet as to whether the position will include health care benefits, but...A nationwide search for a curator...is underway, [museum project director Bob] Workman said. The curator would have to be a specialist in the museum's focus, American art, and have 10 years of art museum experience.
"Hiring a curator is a lot like hiring a dean or a department head at a university. It can be a very time-consuming process," Workman said.
Alice Walton, Sam Walton's daughter, announced plans for the museum in May after she purchased the famous painting Kindred Spirits by Asher B. Durand.
HOUSEKEEPING SIDEBAR: Out of sheer frustration with chasing away the cockroach-like critters (I'm talking about those filthy spambot commenters who destroy the pleasure of blogging for the rest of us and should be hounded out of the blogosphere), I've turned on the word verification tool for comments. You'll have to type in the secret code word you'll see to leave a comment now. I apologize for the inconvenience, but the vile spambots were really out of control. Please do let me know if making comments now is too bothersome this way though.
posted by Edward_ at
8:56 AM
44 Comments:
Re: Housekeeping... I don't mind them personally, but I should note that such visual Captchas pose a hurdle for the blind and dislexic in addition to the spam bots.
Didn't know that Dan...thanks for pointing it out.
I hate the word verifyier too, for aesthetic/speed reasons, but I'm clearing out 15 or so spambot comments each morning now, and as soon as I post a new post, there are immediately 3-6 spambot comments hurled in there immediately. It's very annoying.
I'm considering migrating the site to typepad anyway, but not sure how to export my archives.
This somewhat refers back to your question yesterday... what if you were given hundreds of thousands of dollars... but you are forever known as a walmart fellow?
It is almost as bad as being awarded something with George W Bush tacked on the end.
I imagine that the curator that is awarded the job will be ok with this?
or they will have an ingenious way of making the point mute.
or they will have an ingenious way of making the point mute
The only way to make the point mute is to offer the world a first-class museum.
I'm a bit partial to the Butler myself (despite its lame website), so I'm not sure the Crystal Bridges (good God, I hope that's a geographical or family name and not someone's idea of a conceptual moniker) will ever be "the" small town museum of American art in my eyes, but I'll wait to see what they do to pass judgement.
Why are we assuming that a museum of 19th-century American art is a right-wing, NEA-hating, Jesse Helms-inspired institution that seeks to turn back the clock to 1859? Did anyone accuse the Neue Galerie (which focuses on a comparable time period) of being a right-wing reactionary museum. I don't understand....
Hmmm...well, I wasn't aware their collection and exhibitions would be limited to 19th Century work. If so, then mea culpa.
But why the alarm, if they were to branch out into contemporary American Art (which I had assumed they would for some reason...not sure why now), is I loathe and distruct the money that's funding it, and suspect I always will.
But another concern here for me is what kind of influence that much money could buy with regards to the dialog/canon/art history. If you minimize the influence of those radical Europeans within the American dialog, you can still tilt our history toward the right. Given that the Neue will not minimize European influences, I don't see where that's a good comparison. What am I missing?
"distruct" being the Pennyslvania Dutch spelling of "distrust," of course
Actually, Crystal Bridges' website suggests they have designs beyond the 19th Century:
Housing a permanent collection of American masterworks that will grow and evolve, Crystal Bridges will provide the visitor with unique presentations of well-known works ranging from portraits from the Colonial era to modern masters of the 20th century.
And even though the site suggests the bulk of the permanent collection will indeed be 18th and 19th century works (as we would expect any museum of "American Art" to be), they note that "It is anticipated that Crystal Bridges will accommodate frequent exchanges of touring collections and provide visitors with a variety of art offerings." so clearly they won't limit themselves to older works.
There will also be retirees in blue coats at the door, welcoming you to Crystal Bridges. Crystal Bridges, Crystal Cathedral, "the hour of power of art".
WTF?
What does the museum have to do with "the EXTREME right wing"?
Hi Mac
Did you read the other post? The question is whether the Extreme Right Wing is interested in making in-roads via the channels of the fine art world that are currently heavily liberal. Can the Extreme Right Wing (and you may disagree, but I consider the Walton's "Extreme") infiltrate that system and affect the direction of art, the way they're attempting to influence the direction of school curriculums in science, for example?
The parallels drawn so far include attempts to infiltrate NE college politics, the MSM in general, and rock music. It's a stretch, as we admitted on the previous post, but it's still a concern for those of us on the Left who feel under seige (and more importantly feel "art," more than most other arenas, requires the sort of open-mindedness the extreme right wing seems to dispise).
With regards to this particular Museum, I suspect it will reflect the same cultural attitudes one sees in Wal-Mart's business practices, which personally, I find abominable. YMMV.
Dude,
What do you know about Alice Walton's politics? How do you know they are Right? And then how do you know they are Extreme Right?
(and more importantly feel "art," more than most other arenas, requires the sort of open-mindedness the extreme right wing seems to dispise).
You misspelled "left" and "despise"
;-)
I can't spell, it's true.
Re: Alice's politics...glad you asked.
Miss Alice has donated millions (you read that right, millions) to the Progress for American (PFA) Voter Fund, a self-declared "conservative issue advocacy organization."
Miss Alice's other contributions can be found here. Very few Dems among them (but even those are the loose-change contributions compared with the treasuries-worth she showers on the GOP, and it's not like she doesn't have the cash to hedge her bets).
With regards to whether that makes her "Extreme" or not, I'll quote the PFA Voter Fund website:
The liberal politicians are working overtime to push their failed policies on America and distort the accomplished public policy records of conservative leaders across this nation. Everyday their campaigns engage in double-speak designed to bring us back to the days of tax-and-spend, government-knows-best policies. These policies thwart the ability of American families to keep more of what they earn and provide a safe environment for educating their children and growing the economy.
That may sound just about right to some folks, but it may as well have been written by Pat Buchanan to my ears.
The question is whether the Extreme Right Wing is interested in making in-roads via the channels of the fine art world that are currently heavily liberal.
Time will tell regarding what instution, the when, the where. But, in reference back to the first thread in this series:
When I was teaching my way through grad school, I had a couple students make a work that was unflinchingly pro-life and demonized the pro-choice position. One of these students subscribed to a "young earth" form of creationism which found its way into most of her work.
As a teacher, I found myself in a quandry. Personally, I wanted to dismantle their perspective with clear solid topical debate. But at the same time, formally, technically, and conceptually, these two students' work was some of the strongest in the studio class. I didn't want to alienate them from the learning process or the rest of the class, as they often contributed to class discussions. So sadly, I found myself gently challenging the assumptions present in their work in a way that echoes the softball interviews that many far righties enjoy from the modern press. *sigh*
I've wondered when someone on the right would take a look at wealthy east coast collectors and model themselves after them in every way, except for which work they celebrate. These two kids would be perfect candidates for a hipsters who are also born again Christian with an almost militant evangelical determination. It's gonna happen. Look at Christian rock and hip hop. The work itself may never be great, but it has a convincing taste and texture for those that consume it. The Splenda and Equal of contemporary music... ...and maybe now, of contemporary art?
Man, now I'm bummed on this rainy afternoon.
OK, so my last statement needs clarification because the totals at the top of that page I linked to would suggest Alice spreads her money evenly between Democrats and Republicans. Examining the list of names (in order of date contribution was made) would suggest her contributions to Dems must have decreaesed as the GOP gained power.)
$100,000, $50,000, and $20,000 to the DNC are "loose change donations"? Sure looks like Blanche Lincoln (D) is mightily grateful for Ms. Walton's largess.
However, what does her donation record have to do with it? What if ALL of her money went to evil republicans and conservative 527s? You'd still know almost nothing about her personal views, and where they might fall on the "extreme" scale.
Mac,
she has an insane amount of money by my standards, so I can't project reasoning onto her actions with any credibility, but the two $1 million donationa to the PAF indicates a general political leaning, I think it's fair to conclude. In other words, that's not a candidate, but an anti-liberal organization she's propping up there.
Besides, if she were not the sort of extremist I shudder to think would use her money to influence the art world, she'd do something about the shameful way the business that feeds her treats its employees and business partners. Or publicly distance herself from them, anyway.
Besides, I'm still pissed at her for conspiring to whisk that Durand out of New York City.
Yeah, I figured you're still pissed, but this is a bit strange:
she'd do something about the shameful way the business that feeds her treated its employees and business partners. Or publically distance herself from them, anyway.
That's the extreme left view of Walmart. The fact that most of the rest of America doesn't share that view doesn't make them or her part of the extreme right.
That's the extreme left view of Walmart.
Heh.
It might just be that neither of us is central enough to judge from our vantage point, but there's nothing moderate at all about Wal-Mart's politics IMO (being opposed to union busting or supporting decent benefits for workers is not extreme left), and there's most definitely nothing moderate at all about the PAF Voter Fund.
Ironically, the only folks I've seen obsess about Wal-Mart are the pros (unions) and the extremes. The urban far left for workers concerns and the Buchananite isolationist right because they have scary nightmares about China.
No offense, but the middle doesn't give a shit…
…worse actually, they're the ones who made Wal-Mart numero uno in the retail world.
No offense, but the middle doesn't give a shit…
…worse actually, they're the ones who made Wal-Mart numero uno in the retail world.
That's the sort of thing I was taught to be ashamed of in Church, Mac: profiting from other people's unfair treatment and not giving a shit about it.
That's the extreme left view of Walmart.
Are we so skewed rightward these days that mainstream American Labor is lumped in with the black bloc? Even so, while I wouldn't necessarily characterize the company's business doings as "extreme right" (more like "maximal laissez-faire"), there are plenty of good liberals around who find it plenty disgusting.
I for one think Edward may be right in at least worrying about what the Walmart vision of American art might be, depending on the credentials of their eventual hire.
OK, I hear you on 19th/20thC -- I mentioned 19th because to the best of my knowledge that's what the collection is at the moment.
Regarding "But why the alarm, if they were to branch out into contemporary American Art (which I had assumed they would for some reason...not sure why now), is I loathe and distruct the money that's funding it, and suspect I always will."...
You would not have loved (and probably still don't!) Andrew Mellon or his politics either. Or Barnes. Or Morgan. Or Hearst. Or Annenberg. Or the Rockefellers. I get what you're driving at, but I just don't see how our shared distaste for Wal-Mart really matters in terms of how people spend their money or how they give it away. (See Ford Foundation, Pew, etc.) Or how the display of art in Arkansas skews history.
Tyler,
I think those collections were amassed in a very differnt way, though (mostly through the tastes of one dealer, Joseph Duveen, if I recall correctly), and so you still had that "educated" buffer (also, most of those collections are of works by artists who were dead at the the point of purchase, I believe). Things are much more collector-controlled now though, and collections reflect the tastes of the collectors now, a growing number of whom are making rash choices, IMO.
I really only care which of New York's treasures Walton whisks away by dead artists. But if she's gonna spread her loot around snapping up contemporary art, she could have a signficant impact.
Maybe the establishment, not to mention the established collectors, are powerful enough to to have more of an effect on her than she does on the establishment, but I don't like even the potential for her politics (yes, Mac, what I assume to be her politics...although I've shown a good deal more evidence to support my assessment than you've shown to counter it) to end-up influencing the market all the same.
Back when I worked at White Columns, Bill Arning commented that with just a quarter of a million dollars to spend on art annually someone could shape emerging art in New York. That figure may have gone up but it's still essentially true. You, Edward, are wise to worry about the influence of the Walton fortune on art. But the truth is that most of us produce art for reasons other than money and patronage which used to be so critical has been replaced with day jobs.
How can I offer evidence of what I don't know? How would I know what Ms. Walton's politics are? Sort of the point actually...
Back when I worked at White Columns, Bill Arning commented that with just a quarter of a million dollars to spend on art annually someone could shape emerging art in New York.
Bill was right. In fact, my partner and I figured out a way one could do it with far less money than that, but we're not sharing that idea. (Just in case we come up with the spare cash to try it.)
God I loved White Columns in Bill's day. Not that Paul or Lauren or Matthew don't have their own gifts and visions, just that back then it seemed the space held such power (it might be revisionist memory).
How can I offer evidence of what I don't know? How would I know what Ms. Walton's politics are? Sort of the point actually...
Fair enough. To a point. But I wouldn't worry if George Soros opened a museum, which is sort of my point...
But I wouldn't worry if George Soros opened a museum
Why not? Does he strike you as being "openminded"?
I can understand a concern for a political view dominating art or its direction, but I can't understand a parochial concern centering only on the potential of the "other" guy's politics. If your characterization of Ms. Walton's politics is a correct one, I'd think you be just as alarmed if Mr. Soros did the same thing.
(Not to mention having a bit of concern about who might have suffered along the way as Soros lined his pockets)
Why not? Does he strike you as being "openminded"?
I knew I had reached too far with that...now I'm gonna have to defend Soros against criticism.
Or not.
You may be right. Soros may not seem to me to propose a challenge because I happen to feel his worldview is more inline with mine than Walton's, but he may end up using his money to influence art's direction as much as Walton might, which I'd have to agree was wrong.
I guess I trust the Liberals more to not do that. Of course, that generally comes from their loyal support of the arts when Gingrich et al. were on the warpath, so it's not without reason.
In other words, conservatives have earned my scepticism wrt the arts.
Conservatives conserve - museums need conservatives. Society needs conservatives. But I'd rather not have 3,000 years of images of the ruler as god. For stirring things up, the troublemakers are needed. Liberals tend to find troublemakers interesting more than dangerous.
God bless Liberals.
Of course, that generally comes from their loyal support of the arts when Gingrich et al. were on the warpath
LOL. You mean their loyalty to the idea that other people should be compelled to support the arts via their tax dollars…
You mean their loyalty to the idea that other people should be compelled to support the arts via their tax dollars…
No, Cap'n Skeptizmo...in the way they rallied around the artists under attack. Take this example, as evidence.
In June 1989 the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington cancelled its scheduled exhibition of the Mapplethorpe works. The DC artists' community retaliated by giving a late-night slide show of the most explicit photos on the Corcoran's marble facade. Because of the controversy, demand to see the exhibit exploded, The Washington Post reviewed the show from its catalog, and the Washington Project for the Arts, at great expense, picked up the exhibit.
Liberals put their own money where their mouths were, and continue to 'til this day, where art's concerned.
As for tax dollars, isn't more like tax pennies?
"Cap'n Skeptizmo"
Heh. Me like.
As for tax dollars, isn't more like tax pennies?
Inefficient pennies at that. That is one of the reasons for eliminating government involvement in the arts (other than as a customer), it's horribly inefficient and ill-suited to the task. Well that and the fact that people like me are just evil.
That is one of the reasons for eliminating government involvement in the arts (other than as a customer),
Not even sure how much I like the gov'mint as a collector. I was invited the US embassy in a foreign capital once (won't say which to avoid being sent to Gitmo) and their collection of American art was downright archaic. Here I was at a contemporary art fair, invited along with other contemporary art dealers, and we all get there and see the most contemporary art they had was over a century old (not counting the Dale Chahuly chandelier, which I won't). Grrrr.
If you view the pennies from the perspective of a working artist/gallerist in the rarified cultural centers of NYC/LA, I agree that they are not well spent. But if you view them as anyone living outside those elite centers, then the pennies help fund the less glamorous museums, symphanies, dance.... An earlier post was about Wyeth - how his work allows people unaccustomed to art to begin to understand and appreciate it. These regional/local venues do the same. What seems redundant in NY seems vital in Oklahoma or Georgia.
These regional/local venues do the same. What seems redundant in NY seems vital in Oklahoma or Georgia.
totally agree.
I actually don't see the point of taxpayers' money supporting institutions in towns were artists and patrons flock...clearly those locations can support their own systems (I'm sure my friends who run not-for-profit spaces are lining up to slug me)...but outside the big cities, I feel the government's money is indeed best spent on spaces that can bring some sense of the dialog there...to keep the nation educated and the next generation of artists well fed.
Mellon and Widener (to a lesser extent) bought from Duveen, but I don't think any of the others did. Morgan bought from Wildenstein. Hearst bought from everyone. :-)
And the Waltons are working with John Wilmerding, of Princeton fame.
I still don't understand why we don't want someone whose politics we don't know buying and showing art. I mean, does anyone know Stephen Cohen's politics? I don't hear anyone complaining about his spending spree! ;-)
Not that it changes your point at all Tyler (just that I have to look things like that up or I'll go nuts), but Duveen is credited with being influential in the collections of Rockefeller (encouraging his medieval acquisitions that led to the Cloisters purchase), and of course the Frick, Morgan (who he did manage to pull away from Wildestein for a few purchases, I believe, but who never the less also leaned heavily on a dealer), Huntington, Gardner, Kress, and Bache collections.
And the Waltons are working with John Wilmerding, of Princeton fame.
Fair enough...but he seems to have sacrificed a chunk of his trustworthiness, if not indeed his integrity, for the Durand coup. That comes with the territory, I'm sure, but he's already pissed off Kimmelman and might want to keep a longer-term view of his project.
I still don't understand why we don't want someone whose politics we don't know buying and showing art.
But that's just it. I believe I know enough about her politics from her multimillion $ donations to the PAF Voter Fund. That's like saying you don't know much about the politics of someone who donates heavily to the Heritage Foundation.
And, again, the original post makes clear that this is merely an example of how the extreme right wing could buy influence, not that this is absolutely what Walton's up to. It's a cautionary observation, not investigative reporting.
as a native arkansan (albeit one from the bluest ZIP code we've got), i'd like to agree with and add on to what ml said a post or two ago. wal-mart's business practices may be abhorable, and crystal bridges may be a terrible name (no, it doesn't have local significance), but this museum will still fill a gap in the northwest part of the state.
while small community arts centers (like the arts center of the ozarks in springdale) and the galleries of the univ. of arkansas do a good job of showing working artists and sponsoring performances, there isn't a large permanent collection of works spanning a chunk of art history on display within less than a 3-hour drive. i'm sure that this museum will become a resource for many teachers and students at the university. it may well provide the first art experiences for many young adults, perhaps even foster a desire to support the arts in some of them. and as an artist who relies on such support, i can't think this is entirely a bad thing.
mj,
I'm sorry if anything I've written came off as less than respectful of Arkansas or the value this museum can have locally. As I noted way above, I'll wait to see how good the museum itself is before panning it. It's possible that Alice will bring a first-class institution to Bentonville, and that would be great for everyone. There is something significant to what Tyler pointed about about Morgan and Mellon et al. having business practices I'd abhor as well.
My conern with Alice is what she might do to affect the contemporary market. I like to think the market might do more to affect her, but we'll see.
Do any of you (especially the arkansans) know much about the Arkansas Arts Center in Little Rock? They apparently have a good contemporary works-on-paper collection. Are they influenced by Walmart money?
It seems clear that the museum promises enormous and lasting value to the people in the northwest area of the state. But might not it serve more people in Little Rock? Arguably, the state's small enough that people from throughout the state can reach it on a weekend. But I'm guessing that the greatest concentration of researchers, students, and academic institutions is in Little Rock.
Leveraging the acclaim that Crystal Bridges potentially brings to a relatively unpopulated area against the maximum utility that the institution could bring to the state strikes me as dubious.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home