Art Market Monitor

Global Coverage ~ Unique Analysis

  • AMMpro
  • AMM Fantasy Collecting Game
  • Podcast
  • Contact Us

The New York Times Art Critics Don’t Seem to Know Much About the Met’s Finances or History

January 5, 2018 by Marion Maneker

It’s rare to see two smart, thoughtful writers blurt out such ill-considered thoughts on a subject they refuse to think seriously about. It’s a cliché to talk about the entitlement of the art world.

And yet in response to the Met’s new admission’s policy, The New York Times asked its art critics, Holland Cotter and Roberta Smith, for their thoughts. What followed is a contradictory set of emotionally-driven politically-naive opinions.

Those opinions range from silly solutions to complex problems to irresponsible political analogies. Let’s start with Smith’s belief that the suggested admissions price would work if only the Met were better at selling it:

So hire a really good design firm to formulate some kind of counter campaign, signage with tons of jokes cajoling people who have the means to pay the suggested fee. Like “If you’re wearing mink, or a bespoke suit, or if your entire outfit totals out at more than $3,500, think about dropping $25 to visit the greatest museum in the world. You’ll be helping others who can’t afford your wardrobe.”

From there they veer into overblown political comparisons that denigrate the very real issues they are trying to graft upon this civic one. Cotter thinks asking people for identification is a threat to the undocumented. Smith follows up on that comparing the effort to Nativism:

So I worry that the Met’s plan is classist, and nativist. It divides people into categories — rich and poor, native and foreign — which is exactly what this country does not need right now. I think this is tied to the abstract way wealth is accrued these days. In the last Gilded Age the rich had a much more literal sense of the suffering their fortunes were built on and a greater need to give back.

Calling discrimination against non-New Yorkers Nativism, at a time when the country is witnessing a virulent spread of bigotry and fear, diminishes the term. Is it wrong to ask non-residents to help subsidize the pay-what-you-wish policy for locals who need it? And Smith should really read up on the history of the Met and its founding before she makes an ignorant statement about the Gilded Age’s self-awareness.

The Met was explicitly founded as a means to control immigrant working class New Yorkers, to suppress their folk cultures and political resistance with the ruling class of New York’s values and cultural ideas.

The Met Should Be Open to All. The New Pay Policy Is a Mistake. (The New York Times)

Roberta Smith Thinks Out-of-State Visitors to the Met Will Be Oppressed

September 6, 2017 by Marion Maneker

The art critic takes to the pages of the New York Times to compare the deficit plagued Met’s idea to make the museum’s entry fee mandatory for out-of-state visitors to a dystopian prison:

Mr. Weiss seems to be restoring some financial sense to the Met, but he has helped hatch one really bad idea: a proposal that, if approved by the city, would allow the Met to charge out-of-state visitors a fixed $25 entrance fee instead of letting them pay what they wish, like everyone else. This could be a logistical nightmare. Those who retain the privilege of paying what they wish will still have to have their papers to get in — which papers has not been worked out. The jobs of ticket sellers and others at the museum’s entrances will become more complicated and stressful; they will in all likelihood sometimes end up functioning a bit like border guards, adjudicating who has proper New York identification and who doesn’t.

The Fall’s Most Fascinating Art Show? The Met Trying to Fix Itself (The New York Times)

The New Plan at the Met? Same As the Old Plan But Slower (+ Plus A Lot More Revenue from the Gift Shops)

March 22, 2017 by Marion Maneker

Daniel Weiss, MET CEO
Daniel Weiss, Met interim CEO (Photo: Peter Ross/WSJ)

The Wall Street Journal trots out interim Chief Executive Daniel Weiss to soothe fears about the Met’s leadership provoked by the former director’s ouster and Vanity Fair’s recap of the internal strife that led to it. Weiss pounds his chest a little here:

“This ship was going a little too fast and turned a little too quickly,” Mr. Weiss said, sitting in his airy office that overlooks Manhattan’s Central Park and is decorated with a wintry scene by Alfred Sisley. “I don’t lose sleep over our ability to manage it.”

As implied in the metaphor, Weiss is re-committing to the board’s course. He simply wants to reassure everyone that the institution will go a bit slower to save money. To wit, the museum is now scheduling a series of renovations estimated at $225m to run sequentially rather than overlapping. Budgets have been cut and everyone is being asked to help make up the losses without more layoffs.Continue Reading

Who’s the Best Bet to Be Next for the Met?

March 1, 2017 by Marion Maneker

Their peers think these directors would take, succeed at an ‘up’ job: Benezra (SFMOMA), Benjamin (StL), Marciari (Walters), Rub (Philly).

— Tyler Green (@TylerGreenDC) February 28, 2017

Wildcards: Lentz (ex-SI, Harvard), Reynolds (retiring YUAG), Conforti (retired Clark), Penny (NG UK).

— Tyler Green (@TylerGreenDC) February 28, 2017

Pogrebin on a successor: “Among the names floated” are Govan and Lowry. No hint of who is doing the, er, floating. Two obvz names tho.

— Tyler Green (@TylerGreenDC) February 28, 2017

The announcement that Thomas Campbell would be stepping down as director of New York’s Metropolitan Museum was both a surprise and a shock. But it came at the end of a slow drip of bad news about the museum’s finances and ability to raise money for ambitious new projects that culminated in a prominent New York Times story published nearly a month ago.

As gadfly Tyler Green points out on his Twitter feed, there’s already a great deal of speculation about who might succeed Campbell. Yesterday’s announcement tried to signal that the Met is going to take its time to find a new director. But the market for experienced directors seems to be thin these days with an increasing number of openings.

LiveArt

Want to get Art Market Monitor‘s posts sent to you in our email? Sign up below by clicking on the Subscribe button.

  • About Us/ Contact
  • Podcast
  • AMMpro
  • Newsletter
  • FAQ

twitterfacebooksoundcloud
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
California Privacy Rights
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Advertise on Art Market Monitor
 

Loading Comments...