Some pretty exciting new stuff!
Newsweek: One of Us? (Astronomers have made an astonishing discovery—a new planet that sounds a lot like Earth. Maybe we aren’t alone, after all.)
NYTimes: New Hampshire Senate Approves Civil Unions
NYTimes: Hollywood’s Shortage of Female Power
NYTimes: Bees Vanish, and Scientists Race for Reasons
Washington Post: Panel Urges Schools To Replace Junk Foods
Slate Magazine: Mind Reading-- Slate's special issue on the brain, neuroscience and neuroculture
Slate Magazine: Energy Deficit Disorder-- Examining the latest trend in extreme dieting.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
Project Proposal
Here is the proposal that I just wrote for my final project. The presentation is due in three weeks, and the paper in four. Let's hope it works out!
Avant-Garde at the Hirshhorn: Cutting Edge or Behind the Curve?
Since opening in 1974, the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden has been the beacon of international modern and contemporary art for the Smithsonian Museum. With a collection of over 14,000 works from renowned artists such as Henry Moore, Alexander Calder, Barbara Hepworth, Willem de Kooning, Sol LeWitt, Anneé Olofsson, Joan Miró, and Dan Flavin, the Hirshhorn has served as a forum for artistic and intellectual dialogue, inquiry, and presentation over the past thirty-three years. Benefactor Joseph H. Hirshhorn donated his extensive and incredibly sought after collection to the Smithsonian, and an Act of Congress established the Museum as a part of the Institution in 1966. Hirshhorn’s collection of exquisite sculpture and paintings helped lay the groundwork for the creation and continual refinement of a space devoted completely to contemporary works. But the question remains: is the Hirshhorn, as seen through its exhibitions and presentations throughout history, on the cutting edge of the contemporary art world, or does it merely act as a showcase for what had recently been coined “avant-garde?”
Before delving into the posed question regarding the Hirshhorn’s exhibition history, one must first define what is meant by the word “avant-garde.” The word comes from the French language and in its most base form means “front guard,” or “vanguard.” However, the word has been appropriated to refer to the experimental nature of a subject, idea, or media, mostly pertaining to the arts. When discussing what it means to be avant-garde, one hears words like, “unorthodox,” “daring,” or “radical,” which present an edgy side to innovation. Does this mean that any new artistic, literary, or musical material that is produced is necessarily avant-garde? Absolutely not. In order to be authentically avant-garde, a work must push the boundaries of art, and by extension the public’s concept of what is art. Avant-garde art is most certainly tied to time and history, in that works that had once been considered daringly innovative are now in the canon of the contemporary.
To get a sense of the avant-garde, look at the work of Pablo Picasso or Marcel Duchamp. Picasso was one of the leaders of the Cubist movement of the early twentieth century, which sought to deconstruct representational portrait techniques by painting a subject from multiple points of view. Planes and angles intersect, objects within the subject are dissected, and most pieces of the work are rearranged, and hence recontextualized. The reason for doing this was to spark the discussion of paradigm and point of view—obviously a piece, scene, or subject can be seen from multiple viewpoints, but what happens when these views penetrate each other? By reordering the elements of the painting, does it bring clarity to the subject in a larger context? And then in 1917, Marcel Duchamp employed a urinal from a public men’s restroom, laid it on its side and displayed it as a piece of art. Why is this radical, daring, or innovative? It challenged the conventions of art and its conceptualization. The important aspect of the avant-garde that one must remember is that it represents the novel within its relative context.
US Cartoonist Al Capp once said, “[Abstract art] is a product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered.” Utilizing this logic, Joseph Hirshhorn was simply a man with too much money and too little knowledge, thereby motivated by a force that made him spend lavishly and with abandon. It negates the idea that Joseph Hirshhorn was actually a rather educated, thorough and thoughtful collector of international modern and contemporary art. Starting out collecting French Impressionist pieces, he soon moved to start collecting works by living artists throughout America and Europe. Also, what distinguishes Mr. Hirshhorn from many of his collecting contemporaries is the fact that he would build relationships with young artists, and then would buy out all of their exhibited works in gallery shows. This motion to buy each piece could be interpreted as carelessness; however, Mr. Hirshhorn saw incredibly potential and promise from these artists, so he was hoping for two things: first, that they would be better off financially so that they could continue creating, and secondly that when they became famous he would be the owner of many of the coveted works. While this didn’t always work, it is how we have such a large amount of works by luminaries of the past century.
My project is going to look at three facets of the avant-garde in relation to the Hirshhorn Museum. First, I want to examine Joseph Hirshhorn’s role in selecting these pieces that he thought were innovative and radical. I plan on conducting interviews with the head librarian, sculpture conservator Lee Aks, and hopefully registrar Barbara Freund. By focusing in on Mr. Hirshhorn’s relationship to the avant-garde will, I believe, lead to many interesting discoveries in regards to the early exhibitions at the Museum.
The next phase of the project will look at the first four years of exhibitions at the Hirshhorn Museum. It will proceed from the Inaugural Exhibition (10/4/74 – 5/12/76) to the Louis M. Eilshemius exhibition (11/9/78 – 1/1/79). I will only examine the exhibitions that were organized by the Hirshhorn Museum, because that will give a good look into the minds and ideas of the early curators. While I would love to be able to examine the non-Hirshhorn organized exhibitions, I do not think they will yield as fruitful information as the internally driven exhibitions. Even so, I will make a point to mention them and give a quick overview, because otherwise it would create an incomplete portrait of the first four years of the Hirshhorn Museum’s exhibition calendar.
The last phase of this project will focus on the exhibitions of the last four years at the Hirshhorn. It will begin with the Hirshhorn-organized “Gyroscope” exhibition. This exhibition celebrated the Museum’s permanent collection and included exhibition titles, “Why do some artists use universal symbols?” “How can an artwork exist in more than one place at once?” “How are bronze sculptures made?” and “Why do many artists work without color?” For this part, I will try to conduct interviews with current curators Kerry Brougher, Anne Ellegood, Kristen Hileman, Valerie Fletcher and Milena Kalinovska. Also, I will try to email and get in touch with Professor Alan Wallach from the W&M Art History Department, as well as his wife, who had been a curator at the Hirshhorn for quite some time. Also, I look forward to talking with my editor Vanessa Mallory, web specialist Jennifer Wentz, graphic designer Bob Allen, communications director Gabriel Riera, and my immediate supervisor Gabriel Einsohn to get a better look at how the Museum portrays itself through marketing and the internet. By doing this I will get a better sense as to the art historical reasons behind the exhibitions, and then the ways in which the Museum wants to present itself publicly.
Throughout these phases I will make sure to retain the focus of refining, defining, evaluating, and analyzing the role of the avant-garde to the art works and exhibitions. I am especially interested in seeing two types of exhibitions: retrospectives and brand new shows. For example, the “Ana Mendieta” exhibition that ran from late 2004 into early 2005 looked specifically at the work of her career from 1972 until 1985. However, the recent “Directions—Virgil Marti and Pae White” was an exhibition where two contemporary artists were invited to transform the Hirshhorn lobby with new artwork. One of the questions that I hope to tackle is this: can works in a retrospective be seen of as avant-garde in the present, or are they only historically avant-garde? Because the nature of the avant-garde is temporal, can it extend a short time period and still be totally significant? These questions will be focused through the lens of the Hirshhorn Museum, and I look forward to understanding the presentation and distribution of modern and contemporary art over the past thirty years in Washington, DC.
Avant-Garde at the Hirshhorn: Cutting Edge or Behind the Curve?
Since opening in 1974, the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden has been the beacon of international modern and contemporary art for the Smithsonian Museum. With a collection of over 14,000 works from renowned artists such as Henry Moore, Alexander Calder, Barbara Hepworth, Willem de Kooning, Sol LeWitt, Anneé Olofsson, Joan Miró, and Dan Flavin, the Hirshhorn has served as a forum for artistic and intellectual dialogue, inquiry, and presentation over the past thirty-three years. Benefactor Joseph H. Hirshhorn donated his extensive and incredibly sought after collection to the Smithsonian, and an Act of Congress established the Museum as a part of the Institution in 1966. Hirshhorn’s collection of exquisite sculpture and paintings helped lay the groundwork for the creation and continual refinement of a space devoted completely to contemporary works. But the question remains: is the Hirshhorn, as seen through its exhibitions and presentations throughout history, on the cutting edge of the contemporary art world, or does it merely act as a showcase for what had recently been coined “avant-garde?”
Before delving into the posed question regarding the Hirshhorn’s exhibition history, one must first define what is meant by the word “avant-garde.” The word comes from the French language and in its most base form means “front guard,” or “vanguard.” However, the word has been appropriated to refer to the experimental nature of a subject, idea, or media, mostly pertaining to the arts. When discussing what it means to be avant-garde, one hears words like, “unorthodox,” “daring,” or “radical,” which present an edgy side to innovation. Does this mean that any new artistic, literary, or musical material that is produced is necessarily avant-garde? Absolutely not. In order to be authentically avant-garde, a work must push the boundaries of art, and by extension the public’s concept of what is art. Avant-garde art is most certainly tied to time and history, in that works that had once been considered daringly innovative are now in the canon of the contemporary.
To get a sense of the avant-garde, look at the work of Pablo Picasso or Marcel Duchamp. Picasso was one of the leaders of the Cubist movement of the early twentieth century, which sought to deconstruct representational portrait techniques by painting a subject from multiple points of view. Planes and angles intersect, objects within the subject are dissected, and most pieces of the work are rearranged, and hence recontextualized. The reason for doing this was to spark the discussion of paradigm and point of view—obviously a piece, scene, or subject can be seen from multiple viewpoints, but what happens when these views penetrate each other? By reordering the elements of the painting, does it bring clarity to the subject in a larger context? And then in 1917, Marcel Duchamp employed a urinal from a public men’s restroom, laid it on its side and displayed it as a piece of art. Why is this radical, daring, or innovative? It challenged the conventions of art and its conceptualization. The important aspect of the avant-garde that one must remember is that it represents the novel within its relative context.
US Cartoonist Al Capp once said, “[Abstract art] is a product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered.” Utilizing this logic, Joseph Hirshhorn was simply a man with too much money and too little knowledge, thereby motivated by a force that made him spend lavishly and with abandon. It negates the idea that Joseph Hirshhorn was actually a rather educated, thorough and thoughtful collector of international modern and contemporary art. Starting out collecting French Impressionist pieces, he soon moved to start collecting works by living artists throughout America and Europe. Also, what distinguishes Mr. Hirshhorn from many of his collecting contemporaries is the fact that he would build relationships with young artists, and then would buy out all of their exhibited works in gallery shows. This motion to buy each piece could be interpreted as carelessness; however, Mr. Hirshhorn saw incredibly potential and promise from these artists, so he was hoping for two things: first, that they would be better off financially so that they could continue creating, and secondly that when they became famous he would be the owner of many of the coveted works. While this didn’t always work, it is how we have such a large amount of works by luminaries of the past century.
My project is going to look at three facets of the avant-garde in relation to the Hirshhorn Museum. First, I want to examine Joseph Hirshhorn’s role in selecting these pieces that he thought were innovative and radical. I plan on conducting interviews with the head librarian, sculpture conservator Lee Aks, and hopefully registrar Barbara Freund. By focusing in on Mr. Hirshhorn’s relationship to the avant-garde will, I believe, lead to many interesting discoveries in regards to the early exhibitions at the Museum.
The next phase of the project will look at the first four years of exhibitions at the Hirshhorn Museum. It will proceed from the Inaugural Exhibition (10/4/74 – 5/12/76) to the Louis M. Eilshemius exhibition (11/9/78 – 1/1/79). I will only examine the exhibitions that were organized by the Hirshhorn Museum, because that will give a good look into the minds and ideas of the early curators. While I would love to be able to examine the non-Hirshhorn organized exhibitions, I do not think they will yield as fruitful information as the internally driven exhibitions. Even so, I will make a point to mention them and give a quick overview, because otherwise it would create an incomplete portrait of the first four years of the Hirshhorn Museum’s exhibition calendar.
The last phase of this project will focus on the exhibitions of the last four years at the Hirshhorn. It will begin with the Hirshhorn-organized “Gyroscope” exhibition. This exhibition celebrated the Museum’s permanent collection and included exhibition titles, “Why do some artists use universal symbols?” “How can an artwork exist in more than one place at once?” “How are bronze sculptures made?” and “Why do many artists work without color?” For this part, I will try to conduct interviews with current curators Kerry Brougher, Anne Ellegood, Kristen Hileman, Valerie Fletcher and Milena Kalinovska. Also, I will try to email and get in touch with Professor Alan Wallach from the W&M Art History Department, as well as his wife, who had been a curator at the Hirshhorn for quite some time. Also, I look forward to talking with my editor Vanessa Mallory, web specialist Jennifer Wentz, graphic designer Bob Allen, communications director Gabriel Riera, and my immediate supervisor Gabriel Einsohn to get a better look at how the Museum portrays itself through marketing and the internet. By doing this I will get a better sense as to the art historical reasons behind the exhibitions, and then the ways in which the Museum wants to present itself publicly.
Throughout these phases I will make sure to retain the focus of refining, defining, evaluating, and analyzing the role of the avant-garde to the art works and exhibitions. I am especially interested in seeing two types of exhibitions: retrospectives and brand new shows. For example, the “Ana Mendieta” exhibition that ran from late 2004 into early 2005 looked specifically at the work of her career from 1972 until 1985. However, the recent “Directions—Virgil Marti and Pae White” was an exhibition where two contemporary artists were invited to transform the Hirshhorn lobby with new artwork. One of the questions that I hope to tackle is this: can works in a retrospective be seen of as avant-garde in the present, or are they only historically avant-garde? Because the nature of the avant-garde is temporal, can it extend a short time period and still be totally significant? These questions will be focused through the lens of the Hirshhorn Museum, and I look forward to understanding the presentation and distribution of modern and contemporary art over the past thirty years in Washington, DC.
News: Monday, April 23
Influenced by the recent events and releases surrounding Earth Day (April 22).
Energy/Environment:
NYTimes: Climate Change Adds Twist to Debate Over Dams
NYTimes: Bloomberg Draws a Blueprint for a Greener City
NYTimes: In Speech, McCain to Push for Cap on Emissions
NYTimes: You Are What You Grow
NYTimes: Bush Aide’s Celebrity Meeting Becomes a Global Warming Run-In (Karl Rove and Sheryl Crow at the White House Correspondent's Dinner)
Other:
NYTimes: Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s First Post-Soviet Leader, Is Dead
NYTimes: Spitzer Plans to Introduce Gay Marriage Bill
NYTimes: Africa’s Crisis of Democracy
NYTimes: When David Faced a Wounded Goliath (Theater Review)
Energy/Environment:
NYTimes: Climate Change Adds Twist to Debate Over Dams
NYTimes: Bloomberg Draws a Blueprint for a Greener City
NYTimes: In Speech, McCain to Push for Cap on Emissions
NYTimes: You Are What You Grow
NYTimes: Bush Aide’s Celebrity Meeting Becomes a Global Warming Run-In (Karl Rove and Sheryl Crow at the White House Correspondent's Dinner)
Other:
NYTimes: Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s First Post-Soviet Leader, Is Dead
NYTimes: Spitzer Plans to Introduce Gay Marriage Bill
NYTimes: Africa’s Crisis of Democracy
NYTimes: When David Faced a Wounded Goliath (Theater Review)
Thursday, April 19, 2007
News: Thursday, April 19
I will be gone for the weekend visiting Williamsburg, VA, so I've added a few extra news articles and editorials for today.
Washington Post: 'That Was the Desk I Chose to Die Under'
Washington Post: Breast Cancer Drop Tied To Less Hormone Use
Washington Post: Drinking Age Paradox
Washington Post: High Court Upholds Curb on Abortion
New York Times: Colleges Need a Reply. May I See Your Notes?
New York Times: The Biggest Sell Is the Audition (QVC in West Chester, PA)
New York Times: No Spitting on the Road to Olympic Glory, Beijing Says
Philadelphia Inquirer: Zoo ready for cubs of a different stripe
LA Times: Hands off my chocolate, FDA!
LA Times: When ethnicity brings an unwelcome focus
Washington Post: 'That Was the Desk I Chose to Die Under'
Washington Post: Breast Cancer Drop Tied To Less Hormone Use
Washington Post: Drinking Age Paradox
Washington Post: High Court Upholds Curb on Abortion
New York Times: Colleges Need a Reply. May I See Your Notes?
New York Times: The Biggest Sell Is the Audition (QVC in West Chester, PA)
New York Times: No Spitting on the Road to Olympic Glory, Beijing Says
Philadelphia Inquirer: Zoo ready for cubs of a different stripe
LA Times: Hands off my chocolate, FDA!
LA Times: When ethnicity brings an unwelcome focus
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Remembering Virginia Tech
I want to start out by taking a moment to reflect on the events that transpired on the Virginia Tech campus on Monday, April 16, 2007. To say I am horrified, disgusted, upset, and enraged would really be an understatement.
I really can't imagine such intense hate and cruel passion. The incredible men and women, professors, staff members and students alike, are all making a difference in the world. In the case of the students, they're going to college so that they can one day make a dent in our lives that, hopefully, makes it a bit better than it was before. They're the next generation of intellectuals, engineers, lovers, actors, writers, musicians, philosophers, professors, historians, activists, and everything in between. They are believers. They believe that they can, through hard work and struggle, change the world around them. And then there are the professors who hope to be able to impart some knowledge that will in turn help infuse the world with hope, optimism, love, and intellect. And now 33 of those voices have been violently stripped from this world.
Maybe I'm slightly more emotional than usual because of Cristin Duprey's memorial service on Saturday (Cristin is a St. Andrew's alum from the Class of 2005 who died in a car accident in February). Will Speers and Tad Roach each spoke at the service and delivered beautiful speeches about Cristin, her life, and her impact on SAS and the world around her. Really, there is no comparison that can be made for Cristin and the VT victims, except that I really have a hard time justifying my own space in the world. We're consistently searching for an answer-- some higher logic-- to why we are here on Earth and why we're in the situation we are. Some chose to believe in a higher being(s), (a) God figure(s), and some chose to believe in the orders of nature, family, or personal spirituality. I have my own beliefs, but it is in times like these that they are absolutely rocked to the core.
My W&M in DC classmate Megan Henry '08 lost a friend in the Virginia Tech massacre. I can only imagine the turmoil of emotions that she must be feeling-- I hope I can be strong enough to be a rock upon which she can re-ground herself. I'm trying, but I also feel that we need to be able to emote. Breaking down during Cristin's service, which at the time was terribly embarassing, was a great release of so much of what I've been thinking about over the past two months. I really felt cleansed and OK at the end of it. Maybe we just need to let ourselves feel during these times before we close ourselves back up.
Just like all the other things that have tested our individual and national beings, like Hurricane Katrina, Columbine, numerous wars, etc. the VT tragedy will end up being a statistic. But we need to remember the voices, the love, and the souls that were lost on Monday. So, I'm holding those 33 individuals in the light. May they be at peace, and may we never forget.
Every moment marked
With apparitions of your soul
I’m ever swiftly moving
Trying to escape this desire
The yearning to be near you
I do what I have to do
But I have the sense to recognize
That I don’t know how
To let you go
-Sarah McLachlan
I really can't imagine such intense hate and cruel passion. The incredible men and women, professors, staff members and students alike, are all making a difference in the world. In the case of the students, they're going to college so that they can one day make a dent in our lives that, hopefully, makes it a bit better than it was before. They're the next generation of intellectuals, engineers, lovers, actors, writers, musicians, philosophers, professors, historians, activists, and everything in between. They are believers. They believe that they can, through hard work and struggle, change the world around them. And then there are the professors who hope to be able to impart some knowledge that will in turn help infuse the world with hope, optimism, love, and intellect. And now 33 of those voices have been violently stripped from this world.
Maybe I'm slightly more emotional than usual because of Cristin Duprey's memorial service on Saturday (Cristin is a St. Andrew's alum from the Class of 2005 who died in a car accident in February). Will Speers and Tad Roach each spoke at the service and delivered beautiful speeches about Cristin, her life, and her impact on SAS and the world around her. Really, there is no comparison that can be made for Cristin and the VT victims, except that I really have a hard time justifying my own space in the world. We're consistently searching for an answer-- some higher logic-- to why we are here on Earth and why we're in the situation we are. Some chose to believe in a higher being(s), (a) God figure(s), and some chose to believe in the orders of nature, family, or personal spirituality. I have my own beliefs, but it is in times like these that they are absolutely rocked to the core.
My W&M in DC classmate Megan Henry '08 lost a friend in the Virginia Tech massacre. I can only imagine the turmoil of emotions that she must be feeling-- I hope I can be strong enough to be a rock upon which she can re-ground herself. I'm trying, but I also feel that we need to be able to emote. Breaking down during Cristin's service, which at the time was terribly embarassing, was a great release of so much of what I've been thinking about over the past two months. I really felt cleansed and OK at the end of it. Maybe we just need to let ourselves feel during these times before we close ourselves back up.
Just like all the other things that have tested our individual and national beings, like Hurricane Katrina, Columbine, numerous wars, etc. the VT tragedy will end up being a statistic. But we need to remember the voices, the love, and the souls that were lost on Monday. So, I'm holding those 33 individuals in the light. May they be at peace, and may we never forget.
Every moment marked
With apparitions of your soul
I’m ever swiftly moving
Trying to escape this desire
The yearning to be near you
I do what I have to do
But I have the sense to recognize
That I don’t know how
To let you go
-Sarah McLachlan
News Roundup
I'm going to start a little project for this blog. I've been discussing my time here in Washington, DC for this semester, but I realize the need to look beyond this sphere as well. I'm going to start doing a little project where I post the three news articles (or so) that I've found most interesting from that day. Since I only get the Washington Post and New York Times every morning, don't be surprised if they come straight from those sources. However, I'm hoping it's not solely dominated by these outlets. Anyhow, here are some articles I found really interesting:
NYT: The Power of Green
NYT: Almost Human, and Sometimes Smarter
NYT: Is Justin Timberlake a Product of Cumulative Advantage?
NYT: The Power of Green
NYT: Almost Human, and Sometimes Smarter
NYT: Is Justin Timberlake a Product of Cumulative Advantage?
Urban Development and the U Street Corridor
Rick Reinhard, the Deputy Executive Director of Planning and Development for the Downtown DC Business Improvement District (BID), was the leader of our most recent excursion out into the streets and institutions in and around Washington, DC for our Friday class. However, instead of relying on a carefully planned lecture, PowerPoint presentation, or other media, Rick brought us face to face with the heart of our discussion—U Street, and by extension, the trials of urban planning and development.
Before getting too entrenched in the debate of urban planning, development, and revitalization, one must realize the historical significance of the U Street area to Washington, DC. Throughout the early to mid 20th Century, the U Street Corridor was the home for much of the African American communities’ cultural institutions. Nightclubs, swanky bars, jazz and music clubs, shops, exciting restaurants, and galleries packed the area with stimulating options for artistic and cultural inquiry, expansion, and growth. Also, commercial ventures sought the U Street Corridor as an important outlet for their services, so many car dealerships, boutiques, shops, and community-serving agents (lawyers, etc.) moved into the area to capitalize on the market potential. However, following the 1968 race riots that occurred throughout the United States as a reaction to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the U Street Corridor quickly declined into a state of disrepair, turmoil, and neglect. Continuing until the late 1990s, the area was home to mass violence and crime, which merely perpetuated the derelict nature of the once revered section of Washington, DC. It wasn’t until the mid to late 1990s that the area began to move away from this state through much movement for revitalization, rebuilding, and gentrification on the part of the city and the community.
We began our tour of this historic area by first stopping by the Frank D. Reeves Municipal Center. This large building was one of the first initiatives made by the government to try and revive the U Street area. Important to note is the name of the Center, as Frank D. Reeves was one of the leaders in pressing for the desegregation of schools throughout America. The dedication in Reeves’ honor aligns well with the fact that U Street was a predominantly African-American community. The Center thereby does not work to negate the rich cultural history of the area; rather, it aims to re-establishes the esteem of the area.
Ruminations on The Municipal Center began our discussion of urban planning and development with Rick. He began by referencing much of the literature we had been given to read in preparation for our U Street venture by he delving into the points made by Lynch regarding the physical layout of cities. Instead of merely commenting on the general feel of the area, Rick invited us to dissect all parts of the street corner of U and 14th Streets. How tall are the buildings? What are the materials used to make them? How many windows do they have? Are there any public benches or rest areas? These are the things that one must look at to truly analyze the execution and planning of urban development.
We continued on our walkabout of the U Street Corridor by walking along U Street between 12th and 14th streets. During this point, we touched upon the role of public transportation and apartment housing on a neglected area of the city. While it may seem to be a mistake to put a Metro stop in a place that is incredibly impoverished, due to high crime rates and low usage, it actually raises the value of the surrounding land. However, the issue is usually that the government doesn’t want to take sole responsibility of funding the revitalization effort, so private investors, corporations, or apartment building complexes will often take up the effort alongside the government in funding the Metro. Because land is inexpensive, developers can purchase a large amount of space in which to place their new buildings. This then leads to increased interest in living in the area (due to new and well furbished apartments and condominiums), which breeds greater awareness from businesses, and all of a sudden you have a bustling and revitalized portion of the city.
While this may be one of the main formulas for re-establishing and gentrifying a certain part of the city, who is responsible for bringing the neglected area into the attention of entrepreneurs, developers, and government officials? According to Rick Reinhard, as well as Richard Florida, the “creative class” is the main reason these areas become spots of interest. The “creative class” has much breadth in demographic, but its main constituency is that of young professionals and artists. These people are willing to move into more derelict and ignored areas of town in order to capitalize on the cheap rents of the area, in order to establish their work places, whether they be small, independent shops, boutiques, studios, galleries, or restaurants. By spending less on their living arrangements, they can pump more money and focus into their professional ventures. They are also dubbed the “creative class” because they infuse contemporary thought and creativity into their work and community. They’re responsible for mural painting, compelling visual design, and community-strengthening events. The more interest that the “creative class” brings to an area the more the location becomes revitalized and is soon hailed as “up and coming.”
While I certainly agree with Rick on these parts, he failed to mention an incredibly important demographic in the creative class that Richard Florida does mention: the gay community. It is established that white gay males have an incredible economic potential, above many other social demographics in the United States. Not only are they often economically viable, they also really value strong communities that are focused on being tolerant and open to their lifestyles. This may seem antithetical to their mission, since more often than not neglected areas are places that breed intolerance and hate. However, it is shown historically that the gay community often moves to these spots to escape the heteronormative and hegemonic gentrified areas of the city in order to build a community that respects their ethos. They value the cultural qualities of areas, and so often the gay community and the artistic side of the “creative class” go hand in hand. Examples of these in Washington, DC are the Adams Morgan and Dupont Circle areas. According to Richard Florida, other cities around the United States that have benefited from large outpouring gay revitalization efforts include San Francisco, Austin, and Madison, Wisconsin. Christopher Swope from Governing magazine wrote a large feature article titled “Chasing the Rainbow: Is a Gay Population an Engine of Urban Revival?” in which he borrowed heavily from Florida’s postulations on urban development. He writes, “Gays, it seems, are good at playing the role of “urban pioneers,” making sketchy neighborhoods feel safe enough that young professionals and others will follow.” This builds on Florida’s statement regarding the relationship between gay identity and cultural diversity. He states, “Homosexuality represents the last frontier of diversity in our society, and thus a place that welcomes the gay community welcomes all kinds of people. Openness to the gay community is a good indicator of the low entry barriers to human capital that are so important to spurring creativity and generating high-tech growth.” (Florida, “The Rise of The Creative Class”) I find it quite interesting that Rick relatively ignored the tremendous power in urban revitalization of the gay community. While we were not studying Adams Morgan or Dupont Circle, there is lots of influence from gay people on the new look of U Street. The New York Times article “U Street: The Corridor is Cool Again,” by Alicia Ault makes a point to expose the main appeal of the new U Street look: the diversity of the crowd.
Rick Reinhard definitely led us on an interesting tour, not only through the physical U Street manifestations, but also the theoretical and intellectual approach to urban development, planning, and revitalization. While his main focus lies in the Business Improvement District of DC, often known as “Downtown”, (which is crowded with lots of big name corporate stores interspersed with cultural offerings), Rick showed a great grasp on what it takes to rekindle interest in areas of cities. However, perhaps I side more with Richard Florida than Rick Reinhard, in that I believe the bulk of urban development should be based around the unique forces of the “creative class.” Even so, I know I’ll be traveling back to U Street quite a few more times during my time in Washington, DC. Whether it’s to take advantage of the late-night club activity at Bar Nun or Tabaq, concerts at the Lincoln Theater, a great meal at Ben’s Chili Bowl, an open mic night at the Langston Hughes-inspired Busboys and Poets, or for new shoes at Shoefly, the U Street Corridor offers a diversity of artistic, social, and cultural choices from which to choose.
Before getting too entrenched in the debate of urban planning, development, and revitalization, one must realize the historical significance of the U Street area to Washington, DC. Throughout the early to mid 20th Century, the U Street Corridor was the home for much of the African American communities’ cultural institutions. Nightclubs, swanky bars, jazz and music clubs, shops, exciting restaurants, and galleries packed the area with stimulating options for artistic and cultural inquiry, expansion, and growth. Also, commercial ventures sought the U Street Corridor as an important outlet for their services, so many car dealerships, boutiques, shops, and community-serving agents (lawyers, etc.) moved into the area to capitalize on the market potential. However, following the 1968 race riots that occurred throughout the United States as a reaction to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the U Street Corridor quickly declined into a state of disrepair, turmoil, and neglect. Continuing until the late 1990s, the area was home to mass violence and crime, which merely perpetuated the derelict nature of the once revered section of Washington, DC. It wasn’t until the mid to late 1990s that the area began to move away from this state through much movement for revitalization, rebuilding, and gentrification on the part of the city and the community.
We began our tour of this historic area by first stopping by the Frank D. Reeves Municipal Center. This large building was one of the first initiatives made by the government to try and revive the U Street area. Important to note is the name of the Center, as Frank D. Reeves was one of the leaders in pressing for the desegregation of schools throughout America. The dedication in Reeves’ honor aligns well with the fact that U Street was a predominantly African-American community. The Center thereby does not work to negate the rich cultural history of the area; rather, it aims to re-establishes the esteem of the area.
Ruminations on The Municipal Center began our discussion of urban planning and development with Rick. He began by referencing much of the literature we had been given to read in preparation for our U Street venture by he delving into the points made by Lynch regarding the physical layout of cities. Instead of merely commenting on the general feel of the area, Rick invited us to dissect all parts of the street corner of U and 14th Streets. How tall are the buildings? What are the materials used to make them? How many windows do they have? Are there any public benches or rest areas? These are the things that one must look at to truly analyze the execution and planning of urban development.
We continued on our walkabout of the U Street Corridor by walking along U Street between 12th and 14th streets. During this point, we touched upon the role of public transportation and apartment housing on a neglected area of the city. While it may seem to be a mistake to put a Metro stop in a place that is incredibly impoverished, due to high crime rates and low usage, it actually raises the value of the surrounding land. However, the issue is usually that the government doesn’t want to take sole responsibility of funding the revitalization effort, so private investors, corporations, or apartment building complexes will often take up the effort alongside the government in funding the Metro. Because land is inexpensive, developers can purchase a large amount of space in which to place their new buildings. This then leads to increased interest in living in the area (due to new and well furbished apartments and condominiums), which breeds greater awareness from businesses, and all of a sudden you have a bustling and revitalized portion of the city.
While this may be one of the main formulas for re-establishing and gentrifying a certain part of the city, who is responsible for bringing the neglected area into the attention of entrepreneurs, developers, and government officials? According to Rick Reinhard, as well as Richard Florida, the “creative class” is the main reason these areas become spots of interest. The “creative class” has much breadth in demographic, but its main constituency is that of young professionals and artists. These people are willing to move into more derelict and ignored areas of town in order to capitalize on the cheap rents of the area, in order to establish their work places, whether they be small, independent shops, boutiques, studios, galleries, or restaurants. By spending less on their living arrangements, they can pump more money and focus into their professional ventures. They are also dubbed the “creative class” because they infuse contemporary thought and creativity into their work and community. They’re responsible for mural painting, compelling visual design, and community-strengthening events. The more interest that the “creative class” brings to an area the more the location becomes revitalized and is soon hailed as “up and coming.”
While I certainly agree with Rick on these parts, he failed to mention an incredibly important demographic in the creative class that Richard Florida does mention: the gay community. It is established that white gay males have an incredible economic potential, above many other social demographics in the United States. Not only are they often economically viable, they also really value strong communities that are focused on being tolerant and open to their lifestyles. This may seem antithetical to their mission, since more often than not neglected areas are places that breed intolerance and hate. However, it is shown historically that the gay community often moves to these spots to escape the heteronormative and hegemonic gentrified areas of the city in order to build a community that respects their ethos. They value the cultural qualities of areas, and so often the gay community and the artistic side of the “creative class” go hand in hand. Examples of these in Washington, DC are the Adams Morgan and Dupont Circle areas. According to Richard Florida, other cities around the United States that have benefited from large outpouring gay revitalization efforts include San Francisco, Austin, and Madison, Wisconsin. Christopher Swope from Governing magazine wrote a large feature article titled “Chasing the Rainbow: Is a Gay Population an Engine of Urban Revival?” in which he borrowed heavily from Florida’s postulations on urban development. He writes, “Gays, it seems, are good at playing the role of “urban pioneers,” making sketchy neighborhoods feel safe enough that young professionals and others will follow.” This builds on Florida’s statement regarding the relationship between gay identity and cultural diversity. He states, “Homosexuality represents the last frontier of diversity in our society, and thus a place that welcomes the gay community welcomes all kinds of people. Openness to the gay community is a good indicator of the low entry barriers to human capital that are so important to spurring creativity and generating high-tech growth.” (Florida, “The Rise of The Creative Class”) I find it quite interesting that Rick relatively ignored the tremendous power in urban revitalization of the gay community. While we were not studying Adams Morgan or Dupont Circle, there is lots of influence from gay people on the new look of U Street. The New York Times article “U Street: The Corridor is Cool Again,” by Alicia Ault makes a point to expose the main appeal of the new U Street look: the diversity of the crowd.
Rick Reinhard definitely led us on an interesting tour, not only through the physical U Street manifestations, but also the theoretical and intellectual approach to urban development, planning, and revitalization. While his main focus lies in the Business Improvement District of DC, often known as “Downtown”, (which is crowded with lots of big name corporate stores interspersed with cultural offerings), Rick showed a great grasp on what it takes to rekindle interest in areas of cities. However, perhaps I side more with Richard Florida than Rick Reinhard, in that I believe the bulk of urban development should be based around the unique forces of the “creative class.” Even so, I know I’ll be traveling back to U Street quite a few more times during my time in Washington, DC. Whether it’s to take advantage of the late-night club activity at Bar Nun or Tabaq, concerts at the Lincoln Theater, a great meal at Ben’s Chili Bowl, an open mic night at the Langston Hughes-inspired Busboys and Poets, or for new shoes at Shoefly, the U Street Corridor offers a diversity of artistic, social, and cultural choices from which to choose.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
"The President's Own"
After a few months of venturing into the Washington, DC concert realm, our Friday venture to the United States Marine Band rehearsal was a harsh awakening to the contextualization, presentation, and execution of music. I’ve been to the Verizon Center to see huge pop and rock stars, to the Kennedy Center for more vernacular and educational performances, and to small night clubs for intimate jazz, blues and laid back shows. I’ve passed countless street performers and heard anti-war songs booming from peace rallies. I have even been involved with late-night jamming sessions with my friends at GWU—creating music as the spirit moved us. I would say I have gotten a good taste for much of the more commercial aimed music throughout Washington, but seeing the Marine Band made me redefine my concept of music in Washington.
The Marine Band is a music ensemble that helps form “The President’s Own,” which also includes the Marine Chamber Orchestra and Marine Chamber Ensembles. On July 11, 1798, The United States Marine Band was created via an Act of Congress, thereby establishing it as the oldest professional musical organization in the history of the United States. Its rich history is scattered with famous names, such as John Philip Sousa, and important duties during war and peace time, but the one unifying thread for the history of “The President’s Own” is its dedication to excellence in musical technique and performance. Members of the United States Marine Band hold advanced degrees, Ph.D.s, and teach their craft. They come from some of the most selective schools and conservatories in the world. Virtuosity is basically considered a given with any member of the Marine Band. Being in the presence of such accomplished musicians is certainly awe-inspiring, if not slightly intimidating.
It was noon on Friday, and our class processed into the very larger rehearsal room. Immediately, we were met with about eighty musicians milling about, talking to one another, laughing, and tuning instruments. They all were dressed in normal, pedestrian clothes, which greatly contrasted with the pomp and circumstance of the United States Marine Band uniform. Also, everyone seemed to be fairly relaxed and laid-back. I almost didn’t believe that this group of people could be considered some of the finest band musicians in the world—where were the long, black dresses and beautifully tailored dinner jackets? Or rather, where were their uniforms, with the gorgeous gold buttons, black and white ornaments and rich red coats? The lights were all lit, thereby neglecting to bring attention to the performers. It all seemed a bit sacrilegious—we were witnessing the inner workings of one of the most highly respected ensembles in American music history without being able to pay proper homage to their ability and virtuosity. After each piece they finished, we didn’t know whether to applaud or stay silent, so the most prudent response seemed to be to stay quiet. But, shouldn’t be showing our appreciation for their musical gift?
One of the most impressive parts of the Marine Band is their transcription of classical pieces into a band setting. There are no violins, violas, or cellos in the Band, which therefore presents an interesting observation and question. One is so used to seeing the violins, violas and cellos sit closest to the audience and circling the conductor, so does the removal of these instruments juxtaposed with the presentation of the same music decrease the legitimacy of the United States Marine Band? Does simply recontextualizing the music into a band setting decrease its effectiveness, beauty, and authenticity? At first I would have answered with a “probably,” but after seeing the rehearsal I would answer with a resounding “No!” From the first few notes of Debussy’s “Premiere Rhapsodie,” to the commanding movements of Borodin’s “Polovetsian Dances from Prince Igor” and finally to the sweet melody and beautiful backdrop of Strauss’ “Allerseelen” and “Zueignung,” the United States Marine Band provided the same aesthetic of a full-fledged orchestra. There were quiet moments full of introspection and prudence, wild timpani-led movements, brilliant arpeggios, honeyed melody lines, carefully executed harmonies, luminous counter-melodies, and amazing climaxes. I felt the same gamut of emotions that one experiences at a concert of Tchaikovsky, Brahms, and Copeland.
So, what was the real effect of witnessing a rehearsal, rather than a full performance? For one, much of the pomp and circumstance of the band’s physicality and stage presence was lost. Also, much of the standard performance conventions for this type of music were not adhered to, such as lowered lighting, usher staff, and an intent and quiet audience. We witnessed multiple times when Assistant Conductor Captain Michelle A. Rakers stopped the band to work out the kinks in certain passages, which would never have happened during a performance. Also, at one point soprano soloist Staff Sergeant Sara Dell’Omo (the first featured female soloist for the United States Marine Band) remarked on how “nervous” we made her, thereby creating a concrete and weighted relationship between us as audience and her as performer. However, these minor distractions and technicalities did not at all detract from the performance, and the reason for this lies in the virtuosity and sheer skill of the musicians. The music stood on its own and provided the legitimacy for the performance. I really didn’t feel it was a rehearsal as much, simply because everyone knew their part so well that they didn’t need to stop to work out difficult sections too often. It was a mind-blowing experience—not only because we were so close to one of the most important and the oldest professional musical organization in American history, but also because it was a band rather than an orchestra. This rehearsal definitely taught me a very important lesson for musical expression: forget the pomp and circumstance and just listen. You may be pleasantly surprised.
The Marine Band is a music ensemble that helps form “The President’s Own,” which also includes the Marine Chamber Orchestra and Marine Chamber Ensembles. On July 11, 1798, The United States Marine Band was created via an Act of Congress, thereby establishing it as the oldest professional musical organization in the history of the United States. Its rich history is scattered with famous names, such as John Philip Sousa, and important duties during war and peace time, but the one unifying thread for the history of “The President’s Own” is its dedication to excellence in musical technique and performance. Members of the United States Marine Band hold advanced degrees, Ph.D.s, and teach their craft. They come from some of the most selective schools and conservatories in the world. Virtuosity is basically considered a given with any member of the Marine Band. Being in the presence of such accomplished musicians is certainly awe-inspiring, if not slightly intimidating.
It was noon on Friday, and our class processed into the very larger rehearsal room. Immediately, we were met with about eighty musicians milling about, talking to one another, laughing, and tuning instruments. They all were dressed in normal, pedestrian clothes, which greatly contrasted with the pomp and circumstance of the United States Marine Band uniform. Also, everyone seemed to be fairly relaxed and laid-back. I almost didn’t believe that this group of people could be considered some of the finest band musicians in the world—where were the long, black dresses and beautifully tailored dinner jackets? Or rather, where were their uniforms, with the gorgeous gold buttons, black and white ornaments and rich red coats? The lights were all lit, thereby neglecting to bring attention to the performers. It all seemed a bit sacrilegious—we were witnessing the inner workings of one of the most highly respected ensembles in American music history without being able to pay proper homage to their ability and virtuosity. After each piece they finished, we didn’t know whether to applaud or stay silent, so the most prudent response seemed to be to stay quiet. But, shouldn’t be showing our appreciation for their musical gift?
One of the most impressive parts of the Marine Band is their transcription of classical pieces into a band setting. There are no violins, violas, or cellos in the Band, which therefore presents an interesting observation and question. One is so used to seeing the violins, violas and cellos sit closest to the audience and circling the conductor, so does the removal of these instruments juxtaposed with the presentation of the same music decrease the legitimacy of the United States Marine Band? Does simply recontextualizing the music into a band setting decrease its effectiveness, beauty, and authenticity? At first I would have answered with a “probably,” but after seeing the rehearsal I would answer with a resounding “No!” From the first few notes of Debussy’s “Premiere Rhapsodie,” to the commanding movements of Borodin’s “Polovetsian Dances from Prince Igor” and finally to the sweet melody and beautiful backdrop of Strauss’ “Allerseelen” and “Zueignung,” the United States Marine Band provided the same aesthetic of a full-fledged orchestra. There were quiet moments full of introspection and prudence, wild timpani-led movements, brilliant arpeggios, honeyed melody lines, carefully executed harmonies, luminous counter-melodies, and amazing climaxes. I felt the same gamut of emotions that one experiences at a concert of Tchaikovsky, Brahms, and Copeland.
So, what was the real effect of witnessing a rehearsal, rather than a full performance? For one, much of the pomp and circumstance of the band’s physicality and stage presence was lost. Also, much of the standard performance conventions for this type of music were not adhered to, such as lowered lighting, usher staff, and an intent and quiet audience. We witnessed multiple times when Assistant Conductor Captain Michelle A. Rakers stopped the band to work out the kinks in certain passages, which would never have happened during a performance. Also, at one point soprano soloist Staff Sergeant Sara Dell’Omo (the first featured female soloist for the United States Marine Band) remarked on how “nervous” we made her, thereby creating a concrete and weighted relationship between us as audience and her as performer. However, these minor distractions and technicalities did not at all detract from the performance, and the reason for this lies in the virtuosity and sheer skill of the musicians. The music stood on its own and provided the legitimacy for the performance. I really didn’t feel it was a rehearsal as much, simply because everyone knew their part so well that they didn’t need to stop to work out difficult sections too often. It was a mind-blowing experience—not only because we were so close to one of the most important and the oldest professional musical organization in American history, but also because it was a band rather than an orchestra. This rehearsal definitely taught me a very important lesson for musical expression: forget the pomp and circumstance and just listen. You may be pleasantly surprised.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Creating an Elite in a Public Art Institution
The Smithsonian Institution is meant for public consumption—the museums stay open for roughly 8 or 9 hours a day, many programs and lectures are constantly held in the spaces, and the collections and exhibitions are on view almost 365 days a year. The motivation behind the Institution is to impart artistic, scientific, and human excellence to every person that walks through the doors of each museum, whether they’re a DC local, tour group from Japan, student class trip, a couple from Eastern Europe, or a random straggler from the Midwest. The art and science is meant for everyone—a completely inclusive experience for all types of people. However, many times there is a divide drawn between the common man and the member, donor, or associate. This divide breeds exclusivity in a sphere supposedly dominated by an inclusive ethos.
To become a member of the Hirshhorn Museum & Sculpture Garden, one joins the “Annual Circle.” The fact that the membership has a separate name is an interesting question in and of itself—by linguistically delineating a difference between membership and this new title does one gain increased agency? By changing the name, is the creation of a membership not seen as a membership, but rather is elevated to a symbolic donor level? While it is hard for me to answer these questions definitively, from my point of view, memberships to museums are inevitable. Perhaps I feel this way because of my capitalist background, but because the government funds the arts so pathetically I believe it’s only logical that museums seek the financial support of individual donors. To quote the Hirshhorn’s website on the role of membership funding, “Although federal monies provide partial funding for daily operations, contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations extend the museum's ability to present the art of our time to the greatest number of people. The importance of giving to the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden has never been greater.” Therefore, museums create memberships that give special access to people who are willing to sustain the museum. However, in a way to create a heightened exclusivity under the guise of nonchalance, many institutions adopt new names for their membership program. So, the Hirshhorn Museum calls their members “Annual Circle members.” If one really wants to be fastidious, one could analyze the usage of the word circle as metaphorically created an “in” group and an “out/beyond” group.
Memberships to the Hirshhorn Museum start at the $100 level. From then up, there are amount divisions, each with a separate name. So, if one gives $150, one is labeled part of the Associate’s Circle, $1000 allows entry into the Friend’s Circle, and $25,000 and above is part of the Director’s Circle. Each continues to use word “circle” to create a sense of friendship, community, and intimacy. However, at the $2500 level, one becomes privately invited to our wildly popular “Meet the Artist” series, which is open free to the public. I got to witness the result of this on my third day of work during the Matthew Barney lecture. People traveled five hours or more to come see experimental guru Matthew Barney speak at the Hirshhorn about the theatricality and vision for his most recent works in his Drawing Restraint series, as well as the influence of Joseph Beuys on his work. Because the event was open to the public, people began showing up five hours early to secure a place in line, and hence a ticket to the event. The lecture was held in the Hirshhorn’s Ring Auditorium, which seats 272 people, in order to maintain a level of intimacy requested by Barney and co-lecturer Nancy Spector. About 60 tickets were reserved for staff, press, and friends of the artists. Then, about 60 tickets were held for trustees, donors, and any members above the $2500 level. This left 150 tickets for the public. The tickets were being distributed to the first 150 people in line at 5:45 PM. By 5 PM, about 200 people were lined up in the lobby. By 5:45 PM, about 500 people were waiting for tickets to the event. I had to act as crowd control and bouncer for the event (slightly ironic, I realize!), but all I could offer was for the people who were turned away to watch the simultaneous live webcast of the event. While it was a poor consolation, the capacity limits did not allow us any other choice. In the end, about 900 people had showed up for 150 seats. Some people were understanding, but many were angry, pissed off, and downright rude. I had to deal with many heated situations, including one where two girls had skipped college classes to travel to DC to see the event. They were art students, idolized Matthew Barney, and said they couldn’t really afford to come, but they sacrificed to see him speak. When they found out that a number of seats had been reserved for high-level donors, they flipped out. They were absolutely fuming, saying that those donors were just rich assholes who didn’t really realize the power of art. The girls continued by saying that the Hirshhorn was corrupt for catering to donors because of its status as a public arts museum. While I certainly can sympathize with their anger, I started to question if they were onto something. Are we breeding elitism by separating donor and public? Are we saying to the public that they’re not good enough because their pockets aren’t as deep as others?
It’s a hard break—museums cannot afford to run themselves on federal budgets alone, so they have to in turn cater to their financial supporters by granting special access and privileges. Is this antithetical to their mission as a public institution? Not necessarily. But it’s a very careful line that museum administrative officers and staff must walk—show your donors how much their donation means by providing benefits while also remaining focused on the public. It’s hard to play two games at once, and this conflict can often lead to incredibly contempt and enmity.
To become a member of the Hirshhorn Museum & Sculpture Garden, one joins the “Annual Circle.” The fact that the membership has a separate name is an interesting question in and of itself—by linguistically delineating a difference between membership and this new title does one gain increased agency? By changing the name, is the creation of a membership not seen as a membership, but rather is elevated to a symbolic donor level? While it is hard for me to answer these questions definitively, from my point of view, memberships to museums are inevitable. Perhaps I feel this way because of my capitalist background, but because the government funds the arts so pathetically I believe it’s only logical that museums seek the financial support of individual donors. To quote the Hirshhorn’s website on the role of membership funding, “Although federal monies provide partial funding for daily operations, contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations extend the museum's ability to present the art of our time to the greatest number of people. The importance of giving to the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden has never been greater.” Therefore, museums create memberships that give special access to people who are willing to sustain the museum. However, in a way to create a heightened exclusivity under the guise of nonchalance, many institutions adopt new names for their membership program. So, the Hirshhorn Museum calls their members “Annual Circle members.” If one really wants to be fastidious, one could analyze the usage of the word circle as metaphorically created an “in” group and an “out/beyond” group.
Memberships to the Hirshhorn Museum start at the $100 level. From then up, there are amount divisions, each with a separate name. So, if one gives $150, one is labeled part of the Associate’s Circle, $1000 allows entry into the Friend’s Circle, and $25,000 and above is part of the Director’s Circle. Each continues to use word “circle” to create a sense of friendship, community, and intimacy. However, at the $2500 level, one becomes privately invited to our wildly popular “Meet the Artist” series, which is open free to the public. I got to witness the result of this on my third day of work during the Matthew Barney lecture. People traveled five hours or more to come see experimental guru Matthew Barney speak at the Hirshhorn about the theatricality and vision for his most recent works in his Drawing Restraint series, as well as the influence of Joseph Beuys on his work. Because the event was open to the public, people began showing up five hours early to secure a place in line, and hence a ticket to the event. The lecture was held in the Hirshhorn’s Ring Auditorium, which seats 272 people, in order to maintain a level of intimacy requested by Barney and co-lecturer Nancy Spector. About 60 tickets were reserved for staff, press, and friends of the artists. Then, about 60 tickets were held for trustees, donors, and any members above the $2500 level. This left 150 tickets for the public. The tickets were being distributed to the first 150 people in line at 5:45 PM. By 5 PM, about 200 people were lined up in the lobby. By 5:45 PM, about 500 people were waiting for tickets to the event. I had to act as crowd control and bouncer for the event (slightly ironic, I realize!), but all I could offer was for the people who were turned away to watch the simultaneous live webcast of the event. While it was a poor consolation, the capacity limits did not allow us any other choice. In the end, about 900 people had showed up for 150 seats. Some people were understanding, but many were angry, pissed off, and downright rude. I had to deal with many heated situations, including one where two girls had skipped college classes to travel to DC to see the event. They were art students, idolized Matthew Barney, and said they couldn’t really afford to come, but they sacrificed to see him speak. When they found out that a number of seats had been reserved for high-level donors, they flipped out. They were absolutely fuming, saying that those donors were just rich assholes who didn’t really realize the power of art. The girls continued by saying that the Hirshhorn was corrupt for catering to donors because of its status as a public arts museum. While I certainly can sympathize with their anger, I started to question if they were onto something. Are we breeding elitism by separating donor and public? Are we saying to the public that they’re not good enough because their pockets aren’t as deep as others?
It’s a hard break—museums cannot afford to run themselves on federal budgets alone, so they have to in turn cater to their financial supporters by granting special access and privileges. Is this antithetical to their mission as a public institution? Not necessarily. But it’s a very careful line that museum administrative officers and staff must walk—show your donors how much their donation means by providing benefits while also remaining focused on the public. It’s hard to play two games at once, and this conflict can often lead to incredibly contempt and enmity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
