Noah Fischer, Zinc Scans, 2011. Image courtesy the artist
If anyone figures out the answer, please let me know! In what may be the largest misstep of the Occupy Wall Street campaign, protestors are now “occupying” New York City museums. Starting today with a teach-in at Zuccotti Park at 3PM, protestors will next “occupy” the 4 train to occupy MoMA, the M3 Bus to occupy the Frick, and finally the 6 train to occupy the New Museum at around 7PM. The movement is organized by Claire Oliver-represented artist Noah Fischer, and publicized on Paddy Johnson’s Tumblr. According to their manifesto, Occupy Museums is dissatisfied with the general cultural elitism of the art world and pandering to rich trustees that museums often must go through in order to be given donations to make ends meet. They write:
The game is up: we see through the pyramid schemes of the temples of cultural elitism controlled by the 1%. No longer will we, the artists of the 99%, allow ourselves to be tricked into accepting a corrupt hierarchical system based on false scarcity and propaganda concerning absurd elevation of one individual genius over another human being for the monetary gain of the elitest of elite. For the past decade and more, artists and art lovers have been the victims of the intense commercialization and co-optation or art. We recognize that art is for everyone*, across all classes and cultures and communities.
While rightfully expressing frustration with societal norms has been the forté of Occupy Wall Street since its inception, it seems obvious that “Occupy Museums” is wide off the mark in occupying museums rather than the galleries and art fairs propagated by multi-millionaires. Talk about a case of historical amnesia! Do we not remember that 2009 saw the closing of various museums around the country, including the Rose Art Museum, which Johnson herself covered with much diligence and candor? Why would you occupy a non-profit institution over a for-profit one in the same sector? And further, museums are exceedingly bureaucratic and held responsible for using tax payer dollars, albeit often the tax money they receive barely keeps the lights on. The museum world is one that I actually have a little bit of faith in–unless you’re a director of a handful of institutions across the US, employees of museums are generally underpaid cultural workers that in my opinion, should be supported in weaving art into our cultural fabric.
To be fair, frustrations with the art world and its elitism is a justified qualm. Art students around the country are paying over a $100,000 for an education they most likely will never use in an art world context. But are museums to blame for this? Should they be occupied because their curators and directors are arbiters of taste, or should someone else be held responsible for this financial injustice? (Mayhaps, bankers whose actions have dramatically increased the class divide of the last ten years?) And what distinguishes museums in our current moment from those in times past, which were always Enlightenment-era projects designed to usher transcendental experiences in for the already-learned and elite?
Rather than targeting museums, it seems more pertinent to take action through creation of art reacting to its market catering to rich and elite–or maybe even occupying super rich galleries and art fairs. How about the notably evil David Zwirner, anyone? And further, Noah Fischer, why create art (seen above) that is tailor-made to exist in a Chelsea gallery and sold to rich people? Is YOUR art for everyone? I think not. Rather than villainizing poor museums and distracting minds from the real problem, which is Wall Street, why not create projects in the name of art that instill new ways of viewing the economy–such as e-flux’s Time/Bank project–that may have some real impact in the culture at large? Or could it be possible that, even though the motivations and frustrations of OWS protestors are generally productive, this specific project is born out of misdirected bitterness toward an institution that has yet to accept you in the way that you want?
*Coincidentally, “Art for Everyone” is the same motto used by Jen Bekman of 20×200, who not only frequently sponsors Art Fag City but also was lauded by Johnson for raising almost a million dollars of venture capital for that business. So I’m a little confused, are exceedingly large amounts of money in the hands of people that control the art world bad or good? I guess it depends on the day.
Disclaimer: I “interned” at AFC in 2009.
What role do women artists play in the fight to reclaim the gender-biased, heteronormative, brick and mortar institutions of our great city? I think that is the real issue here. Women artists don’t get paid as much as their male counter-parts.
That you think a million dollars is an exceedingly large amount of money in art world terms is ample evidence that you’re utterly misinformed about the business of art, and apparently oblivious to the fact that museums and institutions are deeply influenced by the big bad Wall Streeters you reference.
[...] I did not publish the press release of a protest so that my friend could sell more art prints. [ArtInfo]James Wagner likes Eve Sussman’s whiteonwhite:algorithmicnoir [James Wagner] [...]
[...] • Karen Archey at ArtInfo.com: “Why is Occupy Wall Street Protesting NYC Museums, and Not Super Rich Galleries and Art Fairs?r” [...]
Getting really tired of hearing about elitism in museums. If there weren’t we’d have all kinds of crap in there. Museums for the most part try to show the excellence of every moment in art history, not every Tom Dick and Harry that think they are an artist.
[...] Occupy Museumsby Will Brand on October 21, 2011 · 0 comments Noah Fischer, in full regaliaIn a piece yesterday at artINFO, Karen Archey asks, “Why is Occupy Wall Street Protesting NYC Museums, and Not Super Rich [...]
Better to protest the economic conditions that make NYC, home to some of the best museums and art in the world, too expensive for artists to live in.
Why does it cost $100,000.00 for an art education, or any education short of medicine, for that matter? Can’t people see that they are fools for spending that kind of money on an education? The institutions of higher learning are taking ADVANTAGE of the ease in which the banking institutions make of lending huge sums of money. Why do young people want to take on that kind of debt/slavery? Give me $100,000.00 as an entrepreneur to start my own business. That’s money well spent.
I think that art museums have been commodified like everything else. The larger and more successful private museums have an entrenched corporate hierarchical structure, with those at the top bringing in close to six figures while those at the bottom making a little above minimum wage.
Boards of Trustees are made up of the elite. That needs to change if we want a more egalitarian system.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Museums are struggling to exist. I’m sure some galleries are too but, hey, that’s business. Museums are for everybody, even though admission has recently become quite expensive for some of us. Museums have to beg for every penny they get. Most galleries are supported by the consumers, so they behave in a businesslike manner. It’s to their benefit to charge as much as the market will bare.
I agree that of all the evil targets, nonprofit museums are one of the most absurd choices. As artists, we have a lot of gripes. It is a quirky market and some of the least worthy seem to get rewarded, but I’m not sure that is so much about the rich controlling the rewards as the nature of the beast. We need to stay on target. This is an incredible opportunity to bring attention to the wrongs that are being visited on the 99 or 98% of all of us. What the banks and major corporations have done to all of us is a more critical issue — It is the issue. How can galleries that promote artists and middle class individuals who keep the majority of artists solvent support artists if the galleries are closing their doors and working people worrying about keeping their homes and feeding their children? Or even themselves? This is a brutal situation and I’m afraid issues with the boards of museums is a trivial matter in comparison with the big picture. Bottom line, for goodness sake, back off the museums! We need to support them, deal with them, join them and work to see our masterpieces on their walls.
Go, Girl!
On behalf of myself and my wife – both run-of-the-mill arts administrators – we cheered your column this morning.
We are advocates and supporters of the #OWS movement but find the “Occupy Museums” initiative way off the mark. “Distractions” such as these really do not help build momentum for the movement.
Were I the director of the MOMA I’d invite them in for a sit-down, ask them to turn off all the cameras (!), and say: “Yes, I’d love to waive the $25 fee and have the museum open to the public a few days a week. However, can you please tell me how I will pay my security guards, pay my facilities staff, and pay for the light bill? Shall I appeal to your beloved banks then for another healthy subsidy?”
Thanks for giving them the business!
Regards,
JN
The difference between museums and commercial galleries is that commercial galleries are for people to go look, and buy, whereas museums are (at least since the 19th century) places of education, refinement and expanding one’s horizons. They have completely different purposes.
People are protesting at museums because they are (often even physically) like modern-day Grecian temples to learning and democracy. You wouldn’t expect people to protest at the Gucci store, a Porche dealership or their nearest Tiffany’s, so why should they bother with commercial galleries, where they were never welcomed anyway?
As a museum professional, I can personally attest to the fact that we are “underpaid cultural workers.” If the Occupy Museums movement wants to support something, let it be the routinely thwarted unionization efforts of museum employees across the U.S.
I think your argument is a little incoherent because, well… because it feels like you have an axe to grind against Paddy Johnson (what does it mean to “intern” at AFC?) and also because you’re mistaking OWS and its splinter missions for classic protests with a distinct “pro” side and a distinct “anti” side.
The most interesting thing about the OWS movement is that it’s discourse-based and transactional. It’s not about getting a bunch of people together to yell “Down With X” together. It’s about collecting people who sense the same constellation of problems in order to generate actions and discourse that make meaning out of those problems and a host of potential solutions.
MoMA actively and positively participated in its occupation. Noah Fischer can lead an occupation and participate in the art world at the same time. Jen Bekman is allowed to make money if that’s what you mean in your last paragraph.
Isn’t this the point of art? Art allows us to hold multiple truths in your mind at the same time–to entertain complexity.
You’re absolutely correct Karen. Fischer’s movement smells a bit too much to me like a preemptive strike to keep the OWS kids away from his favorite super rich galleries. And I’m wondering how many of those super rich gallery owners are praying for your commentary to hurry up and disappear into ozone of the internet?
[...] debate online about the whole Occupy Museums protest (starting with Karen Archey’s piece on ArtInfo, Will Brand’s rebuttal in Art Fag City and Hyperallergic‘s follow-up here). As is [...]
because a 22.50 ticket price at moma is glaring way of saying FU*K YOU to poor people. most normal people don’t really think of art galleries let alone art fairs, and hey at least seeing art in a gallery is still free. btw i have no personal opinion on the matter besides being a fan of the interesting and appreciated roster of the zwirner gallery, but do you have better evidence on which to call someone “notably evil” besides a personal blog of real estate disputes?
Indeed. Here’s a recent blog post about the relationship between the gallery/art fair world and occupy wall street.
http://sameoldart.tumblr.com/post/11958601338/fiac-2011-occupy-wall-street
You can find a nice explanation on Occupy Mueums in Spanish at http://www.partidopirata.com.ar/2121/ocuppy-museums-explicado
[...] Artes y Cultura” de Occupy Wall Street. El manifiesto y sus acciones concomitantes provocaron una reacción inmediata, con un número voluminoso de comentarios online reprobándolo como mal encaminado e [...]
I could not agree more with your post. I came across this interesting article on an art-blog. Whoever wrote it bothered to do some research into how art museums are actually negatively affected by governmental and financial decisions and how they are not comparable to investment banks as “Occupy Museums” suggest. I posted my find on Art Fag City, but only to become a target to an editor who does not seem to be looking forward to an actual discussion. I feel like its the Tea Party over there. Anyway, here is the article:
http://sameoldart.tumblr.com/post/12032429361/occupy-museums-why-noah-fischer-and-art-fag-city-are
In reply to what Jason Nuzzo said:
Were I the director of the MOMA I’d invite them in for a sit-down, ask them to turn off all the cameras (!), and say: “Yes, I’d love to waive the $25 fee and have the museum open to the public a few days a week. However, can you please tell me how I will pay my security guards, pay my facilities staff, and pay for the light bill? Shall I appeal to your beloved banks then for another healthy subsidy?”
Yes I agree that occupy the museums is a misguided distraction of the OWS movement. It’s the government system (and dare I say it the majority of America’s views on socialism) that cause the museum to have to charge $25 entry fee. In the UK public museums and galleries are all free. People’s perceptions need to be changed in order for them to accept higher taxation to pay for things that would better society and make it fairer.
Freedom is costly, yet meaningful and worth-wild endeavor. Freedom offers choices rich in favor. Freedom can be a beautiful or calamitous luxury. Privledge has always known freedom. The collection collection of wealth, knowledge and attention to details were characteristics that separated classes.
Government incentive programs toward charitable contributions relieve taxpayers of things taxpayers could not afford to pay or would not choose collectively to pay. All that is free is cost deferred or otherwise appropriated. Education is a worth-wild endeavor. These incentives help not only to include the public but to educate the public and make such topics of art and culture a collective discussion in classroom and in homes domestic and abroad. Grants, sponsorship, donations, pilot programs, research and testing money have been collected by corporations and wealthy benefactors to medical and educational programs as well as restoration and preservation projects we partake in regularly. A strike towards museums over principle discrepancies about freedom negates progress toward education and the pursuit of inquiry and happiness. Removal of public interest opportunities is misguided call for liberty. Not all corporations need be dismantled, not all houses need to be foreclosed, not all schools need be closed, and not all nations need be in rubble “to produce a change for the better”. Some foundations are good, some roots are strong, some seeds are resilient and much can be restored, made good or new with care and good planning. Even in the time of the Great Depression, art and leisure (motion pictures/baseball) was of national importance.
[...] Archey at ArtInfo cuts to the central irony in Fischer’s criticisms, saying his artwork (pictured here) “is tailor-made to exist in [...]