Tyler Green
Art-focused Journalism by Tyler Green

Tyler Green Modern Art Notes

Archive for the ‘Breaking news’ Category

MAN Podcast + Martha Rosler: Live in Baltimore!

I’m excited to announce something new for The Modern Art Notes Podcast: Please join Martha Rosler and me at the Baltimore Museum of Art on May 2 for the first-ever live-audience recording of The MAN Podcast. The taping is part of the Open Walls Baltimore festival. Rosler and I will tape her appearance on The MAN Podcast at 7:30 pm. It will be published on the program’s usual distribution points on May 10 (iTunes, RSS, MAN, MANPodcast.com).

Over the last three decades, few American artists have been as sociopolitically engaged as Martha Rosler. Her work is especially concerned with challenging traditional gender roles, the media, war, violence and consumer-driven capitalism. Her importance as a pioneer of feminist and conceptual art is evident in “State of Mind: New California Art Circa 1970,” on view now at the Berkeley Art Museum, and in “The Deconstructive Impulse: Women Artists Reconfigure the Signs of Power 1973-1991,” now at the Contemporary Arts Museum Houston. Rosler will receive her first solo show at the Museum of Modern Art this fall when her Meta-Monumental Garage Sale takes over MoMA’s atrium for 13 days at the end of November.

Also: If you don’t subscribe to Rosler’s Facebook updates, you’re missing not only the best Facebook page in the art world, but a site that could almost be considered the daily continuation of Rosler’s If It’s Too Bad To Be True, It Could Be DISINFORMATION (1985).

If you live anywhere near Baltimore, I hope you’ll join us on May 2 for the live taping! Tickets will be free, but first-come-first-served. As always, please subscribe to the program via iTunes or via RSS. You can always find the program here on MAN via this handy link.

Image in the banner: Rosler, The Gray Drape (detail), 2008. Collection of the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Washington.

Indy Museum of Art becomes an art consultant

Should a non-profit art museum hire out its curatorial staff as art consultants to a collector or a corporation?

That question has emerged in the wake of the Indianapolis Museum of Art ‘leasing out’ its contemporary art curators as art consultants to a museum trustee’s business, a construction and real-estate firm called Buckingham Companies, for a reported $350,000 fee. IMA senior curator and contemporary art department chair Lisa Freiman selected 20 artists whose work Buckingham will purchase or commission for a hotel development in downtown Indianapolis. An IMA spokesperson said that the museum had also hired an “adjunct curator” to work on the project. Buckingham’s founder and president, Bradley Chambers, is an IMA trustee. The museum said that while Buckingham is its first client, that its new art consultancy is available to other potential customers as well. [Image: The Indianapolis Museum of Art via Flickr user Intiaz Rahim.]

The arrangement, which has been publicly announced but which is in the process of being contractually finalized, is apparently a first for an American art museum. It provides a non-traditional way for the museum to leverage Freiman’s status as the curator of the American pavilion at the most recent Venice Biennale.  (Asked if “art consultant” was a term with which the IMA was comfortable, spokesperson Katie Zarich said that it was.)

MAN contacted numerous experts, including the Association of Art Museum Directors and the American Association of Museums, and found no clear precedents for the IMA’s endeavor. Elizabeth Merritt, the director of AAM’s Center for the Future of Museums said that the only comparable analogy of which she was aware was the Cincinnati History Center’s hiring out its archivists to local corporations that wanted to improve their record-keeping.

“It seems to me that this is in many ways the exact opposite of the primary mission of art museums, which is to focus on education, on their collections and scholarship,” said Christine Steiner, a former general counsel at the J. Paul Getty Trust who has an extensive background  in non-profit issues that includes working at the Smithsonian Institution and for the state of Maryland. Today Steiner’s private law practice works with artists and commissioning entities and she often works with art consultants. “To engage a curator who is presumbly is remaining on the museum payroll because the fee is being paid to the museum, to provide precisely the same curatorial services a curator is obligated to provide to the museum, that strikes me as an entirely new thing.”

Zarich said that she was unsure whether the museum had consulted AAM’s ethical guidelines in formulating its art consultant program, but that the museum had consulted AAMD’s guidelines. (The IMA is without a director or an interim director. The IMA’s board recently appointed a nine-person management council to lead the museum until a new director can be hired.) A MAN review of the ethical guidelines published by each institution failed to find anything that directly anticipates this particular situation. “The only AAM ethical guideline that would be relevant is whether there’s any potential conflict of interest,” Merritt said. [Image: Alyson Shotz, Geometry of Light, 2011.]

So far, the IMA’s art consultancy has made one recommendation that coincides with the museum’s own exhibition program. The IMA’s art consultancy recommended that Buckingham commission an installation by New York-based artist Alyson Shotz. Earlier this month, the museum announced that it will be installing numerous Shotzes, including a site-responsive work in its Efroymson Family Pavilion in May. The Shotz example raises questions about whether the museum might exhibit an artist to promote the IMA’s art consultancy business or a client’s project, whether the museum’s exhibition of a consultancy-recommended artist could enhance the value of art to which it leads a client, or if the museum would work with an artist at the museum in order to ‘protect’ its art consultancy’s selection of an artist.

“The problem for me is that museums lose their way in baby steps,” Steiner said. “They do something that seems appropriate and right, and before you know it you’re in the kinds of obviously conflicted arrangements that we thought were successfully addressed a couple of years ago, like the Guggenheim’s Armani show or the Metropolitan’s Chanel exhibition. Those all began with the right instinct and the right purpose but quickly went down the wrong path.”

In 1999 the Guggenheim accepted an eight-figure check from Giorgio Armani just as an Armani exhibition went on view at the museum. In 2004 the Metropolitan Museum of Art presented a Chanel exhibition that was closely tied to the company: The Met’s exhibit was sponsored by Chanel. The Met’s annual Costume Institute Benefit Gala was co-chaired by Chanel designer Karl Lagerfeld. The Met’s web page for the exhibition was hosted on Chanel.com, which provided visitors with ready access to Chanel’s e-commerce offerings. More recently, the Metropolitan presented an Alexander McQueen exhibition that was sponsored by Alexander McQueen, a subsidiary of French multi-national PPR. [Image: Rendering of the proposed Alexander Hotel, via CityWay.]

Zarich, who is one of the staffers on the IMA’s interim management council, said that the museum’s commercial relationship with Buckingham is the byproduct of the museum’s recent attempts to develop new revenue streams. In 2010 the IMA launched IMA Lab, making the museum’s pioneering and widely-praised technology department available to other non-profit institutions for a fee.  IMA Lab has taken on work for non-profits such as the Atlanta History Center and AAMD. According to Zarich, all of IMA Lab’s clients have been not-for-profit institutions.

Steiner said that the IMA Lab example is in keeping with industry-accepted norms. “There you are doing your work in support of a mission-related purpose for a fellow non-profit,” she said. “That’s the right way the museum lends you to the broader art or non-profit world.”

Steiner felt that the extension of the IMA Lab example into the for-profit sphere, where it would compete with independent art consultants, was problematic, but AMA’s Merritt suggested an analogy: “In the most general way it’s a second-cousin to this: Making their expertise available through speaking engagements.”

Zarich said that Buckingham and the IMA began talks with Buckingham in 2010, when Maxwell Anderson was the IMA’s director. Anderson left Indianapolis at the end of 2011 to become the director of the Dallas Museum of Art.

Anderson said that there was one substantial difference between the arrangement he began to negotiate and that the IMA concluded after he left. “I saw it as an opportunity to do something to reach out and then get something that would come back as a promised gift,” Anderson said, adding that while his conversations with Buckingham included that idea, negotiations between the IMA and Buckingham did not advance to the point where the two parties developed contractual language before he left the museum. [Image: Sol LeWitt, Wall Drawing No. 652, Continuous Forms with Color Acrylic Washes Superimposed, 1990. Collection of the Indianapolis Museum of Art. Image via Flickr user Shih-Pei Chang.]

Through a spokesperson, Chambers did not address the evolution of the negotiation between his company and the IMA. “Buckingham developed the agreement with the IMA to simply pay for curatorial services for consultation on the art acquired for The Alexander Hotel,” Chambers said in an emailed statement. “That agreement was made without any expectation that these works would be donated to the IMA. At this point, the agreement between Buckingham and the IMA only relates to the curatorial consulting services.”

Steiner said that if the works were to come to the IMA as a contractually pledged gift, that it would substantially change the situation from objectionable to innovative. “That has some legs,” she said. “And in some way it make sense. I had wondered if there were certain things we didn’t know after the museum made its announcement, and that would be a big one.”

Both Anderson and the IMA said that the art consultancy is related to the IMA’s mission. The IMA’s mission statement says the museum “serves the creative interests of its communities by fostering exploration of art, design, and the natural environment. The IMA promotes these interests through the collection, presentation, interpretation and conservation of its artistic, historic, and environmental assets.”

Zarich said that the new business fit the IMA’s mission statement because, “it was a way that we thought we could expose more people to art, that we could bring some more art to the city.” However, the museum said it would take the fee it is being paid as unrelated business income, a tax-law category that puts the arrangement in the same sphere as the museum bookstore.

Both the IMA’s past and present leadership cited what they described as contemporary art’s marginal status in Indianapolis as a reason for the museum to engage in outside consulting activity. However, the museum was unable to explain why a local business needed the local museum to provide those services instead of a traditional art consultant.

“I understand why commercial art consultants do this work,” Steiner said. “I don’t understand why a non-profit, an art museum would.”

“I think we also have a lot of activities — every museum does — that are ancillary and that are in support of its mission,” Anderson said. “Not every activity that any museum undertakes can be seen as a direct extension of the mission but, in theory, it is in support of it or otherwise. But in terms of how museums raise money, I don’t think the Armani show was in support of the Guggenheim’s mission. I think that was a commercial deal for the promotion of another entity, where this is a provision for the access to art and being remunerated for the expertise provided for it.”

MOCA show coming to furniture dealer’s space

The Museum of Contemporary Art has announced that it will present an exhibition at the Hollywood space of furniture dealer Joel Chen. MOCA said that Chen was a donor to the exhibition and that his donation included both sponsorship and made an in-kind donation and that he is contributing his space at a reduced rate. In a press release, MOCA described Chen’s business, J.F. Chen, as “a newly emerging contemporary art and design space.” Donors to the exhibition include Gucci, Seven For All Mankind and Samsung. [Update, 10:15pm EDT: A MOCA spokesman emailed to clarify the museum's characterization of its relationship with Chen. MOCA now says Chen is not a financial contributor to the exhibition, but that he "is an in-kind donor and is contributing his space at a reduced rate."]

While museums often participate in activities off-site, it’s extremely unusual — and perhaps unprecedented — for a museum to put an exhibition in a space owned by a dealer or to accept funds from a dealer.

The exhibition, “Rebel” will be on view from May 15 to June 23. A museum spokesperson said that the show did not have a traditional curator, but that it was put together by actor James Franco in conjunction with artists Douglas Gordon, Harmony Korine, Damon McCarthy, Paul McCarthy, Terry Richardson, Ed Ruscha and Aaron Young. The museum’s press release describes the exhibition as:

“‘[A]n interrogative ode to Nicholas Ray’s masterpiece Rebel Without A Cause (1955), conceived by Franco to embrace and mine the main themes and events in the original film. The exhibition reinterprets the film’s legends, the people involved, its place in Hollywood, film as a medium, and behind-the-scenes footage, in a new, fresh, and unconventional presentation of film, video installation, photography, painting, drawing, and sculpture, housed in and framed by iconic Hollywood structures.”

A MOCA spokesperson said that Chen will not be selling any of the objects in the exhibition. “Joel Chen is very interested in and supportive of contemporary art and design, and he’s been incredibly collaborative with this project,” MOCA spokesperson Lyn Winter told MAN. “The project is being presented by MOCA in conjunction with the artists and J.F. Chen has been very supportive in hosting the exhibition.”

MOCA has recently come under fire for its unusual associations with commercial figures. Earlier this month Los Angeles Times art critic Christopher Knight criticized the museum for presenting an exhibition of vintage clothing curated by the owner of a clothing store. That exhibition, titled “The Total Look,” is on view at MOCA’s Pacific Design Center outpost through May 27.

“Whether MOCA’s vintage [Rudi] Gernreich presentation is an actual museum show or a bid for business is anybody’s guess — which is why a general prohibition prevails among nonprofit art museums for shenanigans like this,” Knight wrote.

Mercedes Benz event coming to MOCA’s Geffen

A Mercedes Benz-organized event called: “Transmission LA: AV Club curated by Mike D” will fill the scheduling gap left at MOCA’s Geffen Contemporary space by the museum’s postponement of the upcoming “Ends of the Earth” exhibition. Mike D is a founding member of the Beastie Boys.

This morning MAN reported that the exhibition’s opening has been delayed from April 8 to May 27 because the museum said it had to do more fundraising. It is extremely unusual for an art museum to delay an exhibition a month before it opens.

Mercedes’s “Transmission LA” will debut at the Geffen on April 19, with a public opening on April 20. It will continue through May 6. The event was announced by Mercedes Benz in February, but its announcement did not include a venue.

MOCA spokesperson Lyn Winter said that there is no relationship between the unusual postponement of “Ends of the Earth” and Mercedes Benz’s interest in the space. The Mercedes event will take place in the Geffen during the period between when the show was scheduled to open and when it will now open.

“We are opening “Ends of the Earth on May 27,” Winter told MAN. “An opportunity to work with a new corporate partner, Mercedes Benz, which is very exciting for the museum, was presented.”

MOCA delays land art show, cites fundraising

Last week visitors to the ‘future exhibitions’ section of MOCA’s website noticed something unusual: “Ends of the Earth: Land Art to 1974″ was no longer listed as opening in about a month, on April 8. The new opening date was May 27.

Curated by MOCA’s Philipp Kaiser and UCLA professor Miwon Kwon, MOCA describes “Ends of the Earth” as the first large-scale, “historical-thematic” exhibition to deal broadly with land art. (Kaiser will soon leave MOCA to become the director of the Ludwig Museum in Cologne.) One of the most important earthworks, Michael Heizer’s Double Negative (1969), is in MOCA’s collection. [Image: Cover for the "Ends of the Earth" catalogue. Editor's note: A previous version of this post included an earlier cover for the exhibition catalogue.]

Late last night, in response to a query from MAN about why the show had been pushed back, MOCA spokesperson Lyn Winter said via email that the delay was, “[t]o give us time to raise additional funds for the exhibition.” Her email offered no further details. It is highly unusual that exhibitions are delayed within roughly a month of opening — and then for just seven weeks. As of publication time, it was not clear what fundraising would take place during that period.

This latest schedule change appears to have been quite sudden: Ten days ago in a spring art season preview, the Los Angeles Times reported that the show was opening on April 8. The change was so abrupt that this morning one section of MOCA’s website still said that ”Ends of the Earth” opens on April 8.

The delay and the reason MOCA has given for it raise new questions about the museum’s financial health. Earlier this month Mike Boehm reported in the Los Angeles Times that three top finance officials have left the museum in the last three months. Former MOCA chief executive officer Charles E. Young, who ran the institution after former director Jeremy Strick’s departure and the hiring of New York art dealer Jeffrey Deitch told the Times that “[T]he turnover… begins to look like turmoil.” [Image: Michael Heizer, Double Negative (detail). Image via Flickr user Chris Fullmer.]

The exhibition has been on MOCA’s schedule for years. In 2009, after the museum’s board and philanthropist Eli Broad patched together a rescue plan for the museum, MOCA chief curator Paul Schimmel presented the exhibition to MAN as an example of the museum’s intellectual health. A seemingly slightly different conception of the show was originally expected to go on view in the fall of 2010 and included the commissioning of a work by Christoph Buchel. The most recent press release for the show makes no mention of Buchel.

UPDATE, 5:50pm EDT: This post has been updated here with more details from the museum.

Fred Wilson on CICF’s termination of his project

Earlier today I reported that the Central Indiana Community Foundation has terminated Fred Wilson’s E Pluribus Unum project. This afternoon I conducted Wilson’s first interview about CICF’s decision. He sounded both dejected and exhausted.

“I’m disappointed, but that’s as much as I can say at this time about their ultimate decision,” Wilson told me. “I am glad that Indianapolis took it seriously and talked as much about the issues of identity and about the power of the visual image as they did.

“Ultimately I felt it was the decision of the community there to make a determination, and it seemed that some people had differing thoughts about it. I had hoped for dialogue among community members for a long time. I was not intending to be at all these things — in the last few months I’ve not been able to be engaged with the project every day because my father got ill suddenly and passed away. I’ve been dealing with that so I’ve mostly been on the phone with people about how this has been going. As a result, I don’t know very much about it except that they said they’ll send me whatever they have about [their community forums]. I don’t know if that would be considered a thorough conversation or not.”

Wilson said that he was unsure what would happen to the material he created for the piece — he has a document archive related to the E Pluribus Unum, digital renderings, a small maquette and a few other things — except to say that he’d certainly make it available to writers or publishers who may be interested in what happened in Indianapolis. He said he has no plans to show any of these materials — “It’s not really a huge amount of material for a whole exhibition, I’d imagine” — but that he’s considering the idea of making a small-scale version of E Pluribus Unum [below right]. I asked him if he was thinking of something of a size that might be exhibited somewhere in Indianapolis, perhaps at the Indianapolis Museum of Art. (On Tuesday a museum spokesperson told MAN that it was “too early to determine” if it might seek to acquire anything related to E Pluribus Unum.)

“It’s way too early to know,” Wilson said. “I don’t know the scale I’d make it to. I don’t think a public commission is really what I would be thinking about right now, that is I’m not thinking about a scale that would make sense for a public artwork. These are  just things I’ve thought about in terms of whether I would want to have a small version of it just so it exists. Or not. I’m not going to decide that any time soon. I’m going to think about the past few years and think about what has occurred.”

Finally, I asked Wilson if his experience with CICF made him less likely to engage with or accept public art commissions in the future.

“It might be too early to tell,” he said. “If you ask me now, no I dont’ think I’ll be doing another public commission because I just really, honestly do put everything I have into these things. I had not really wanted to do these at all actually, but when I was approached to do this one, but this was something I could really sink my teeth into. I had a great deal of support from [project commissioner and curator] Mindy Taylor Ross, and she understood the work and knows my work, so I really enjoyed working with her and it made sense then to go forward with [what became E Pluribus Unum].  I would say that I’m not going to seek out public commissions, but that’s my feeling at the moment. We’ll see what comes down the pike. I never say never, right?”

CICF kills Fred Wilson project

The Central Indiana Community Foundation announced today that it has terminated Fred Wilson’s E Pluribus Unum project. The proposed sculpture, considered by some critics the most significant public art work proposed in America in many years, had long been on life-support.

Nota bene: I’ll add to this post as information becomes available. Update, 4:40pm ET: Wilson talks with MAN about CICF’s termination.

The backstory: In 2009 a CICF-funded Indianapolis civic organization and project called the Indianapolis Cultural Trail – a pedestrian/cycling path that connects far-flung Indianapolis neighborhoods – commissioned Wilson to create a public artwork. Wilson, who describes himself as being of “African, Native American, European and Amerindian descent,” proposed an artwork that took as its point of departure the city’s Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Monument, a 30-story-tall, neo-classical enormity located at the geographic midpoint of Indianapolis. Designed by German architect Bruno Schmitz, it was erected in 1901-02. One of the figures on the memorial is an African-American man, apparently a former slave (as symbolized by his muscular, bare torso and by the way he is holding a recently broken chain and shackles). Indianapolis has the second-most public monuments of any American city, but according to Wilson this figure is the only African-American depicted in any of them.

Wilson’s proposed sculpture, titled E Pluribus Unum [rendering above via the ICT], would have reproduced that figure isolated and relocated it from its position on the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Monument. Wilson would also have removed the signifiers of human bondage, resulting in his literally and figuratively freeing the African-American figure from references to slavery. Into the figure’s outstretched arm, the arm that the figure uses to reach up toward the white man on the monument, Wilson would have placed a flag that celebrated the African Diaspora. Wilson’s sculpture would have been visible from the existing memorial, thus pointedly critiquing its paternalism.

This past summer, CICF and Indianapolis mayor Greg Ballard announced that they would no longer support citing the sculpture there and the project entered several months of limbo. In the immediate wake of that decision, Wilson initially told MAN he was unsure of whether he was willing to move forward with the project at another site, but in late September he said he’d try to work with CICF on a new location.

“Indianapolis is crazy not to go ahead with it,” Los Angeles Times art critic and three-time Pulitzer Prize finalist Christopher Knight said in July. “Wilson is a first-rate artist. Not only is this one of the most provocative ideas he’s come up with, it’s one of the most compelling ideas for a public art project that I’ve encountered in a very long time.”

Since then, CICF held four community forums on the future of the project, forums that proved to be CICF’s way of distancing itself from the project: “[O]ver 90 percent of the participants requested that the project not move forward.  This was consistent with the other public input that was received by CICF over the past 12 months,” the organization said in a press release.

The vast majority of the fault for the project’s demise goes to CICF, which has done the wrong thing at almost every opportunity. CICF initially pledged to hold community meetings about the project, then failed to do so for 11 months. The original purpose of those public forums was to  foster dialogue about the Wilson project in an attempt to build community consensus around it, but by the time CICF fulfilled its promise, the meetings ended up being used by CICF as a separation mechanism. (Ironically, in its project-canceling press release, CICF said that its “decision came after the conclusion of a two-year community input process,” a period which was dominated by CICF not conducting the community input process it had promised.)

CICF’s delay in holding the promised meetings about the artwork allowed a small but vocal band of opponents to emerge in the summer of 2011, The ad hoc group that called itself ‘Citizens Against Slave Image,’ even though the person represented in Wilson’s sculpture was a free man. That group used racially inflammatory language and imagery and an abundance of outright falsehoods, including a shameful ’slave wanted’-style poster, to oppose the project.

Worse, CICF repeatedly treated the artist poorly: Often Wilson learned what was going on about key details of his project from other people, including journalists.

“We are deeply disappointed that our city will not be able to experience the powerful demonstration of the intelligence, bravery, and leadership of one of this century’s most celebrated and important artists,” Indianapolis Museum of Art director Max Anderson said in a statement. “Fred Wilson’s concept was to make a compelling work for this place, at this time. It is our hope that one day, Indianapolis will have a great work by Fred Wilson.”

As of publication time, Wilson could not be reached for comment.

It remains to be seen if any work related to the project will remain in Indianapolis.

Related: MAN’s complete coverage of the Wilson project is available here.

Will there be a Pacific Standard Time II?

By virtually any measure, the Getty’s Pacific Standard Time initiative has been a hit. It has enabled important new scholarship and it’s pointed the way toward areas of further curatorial and historical inquiry. It has funded at least a dozen major exhibitions to which critics and curators will be referring for years. (Speaking of which: Reviews begin on MAN next week!) At least when I was in the Southland, it filled museum galleries with students, from high school on up.

Pacific Standard Time has been the art world’s anti-Art Basel, an art event built around inquiry and historicization rather than the salesmanship, butt-implant sightings and scenester shindigs that feature  2MANYDJS and a band called “Soulwax.” (In a related story, can someone explain to me why an art museum is throwing that party? I mean, that place was once a shining light on a hill…)

So, will the Getty do it again, will there be some kind of Pacific Standard Time 2.0? For several weeks I’ve been hearing buzz that the Getty is already planning something of the sort. (And no, I’m not talking about the small series of architecture shows the Getty is funding.)

“I think we will do something else,” Getty Foundation director Deborah Marrow told me yesterday. “We don’t know what the something else is and would want to discuss that with our partner institutions.”

I mentioned that the Getty had already plastered the PST logo all over Los Angeles (and, er, this blog post) and that word was that the Getty was planning on maintaining the brand going forward. Marrow said that was correct. “We are reserving the right to use PST with a colon after it and something else,” she said.

While there may be no timeline in place for either a second PST — let alone a year or date picked — a PST II sounds very likely.

Fred Wilson: I’m willing to re-site Indy project

For the first time, artist Fred Wilson has said that he is willing to re-site E Pluribus Unum, a site-specific sculpture he has proposed for downtown Indianapolis.

Wilson designed the artwork, which was commissioned by the Indianapolis Cultural Trail, for a plaza in front of the Indianapolis City-County Building. This summer, the Central Indiana Community Foundation, which is the project’s lead funder, and Indianapolis mayor Greg Ballard announced that they would no longer support citing the sculpture there and the project entered several months of limbo. In the immediate wake of that decision, Wilson told MAN he was unsure of whether he was willing to move forward with the project at another site. Now he is.

“I thought I had walked around the Cultural Trail and picked the best site,” Wilson told me in a phone call today. “The [original] site seemed to be perfect for many reasons, but I’m certainly flexible around siting it because I think that getting the sculpture up is the best way to keep the dialogue going around the issues I’m interested in. Indianapolis seems to be fertile territory. So yes, I am open. I will have an opinion if I think there’s a site that I think is not going to be good for the sculpture, but I think that ideas will be bounced around about where might be appropriate or might work is not a bad thing. It is going to be in their city, so yes, I am interested in keeping my artistic opinions and needs on the table as they look at sites.”

Wilson’s made public his decision just after the Central Indiana Community Foundation announced that it would hold a series of much-delayed public meetings about Wilson’s proposed sculpture. CICF first announced that it would hold these meetings last November, but in the 11 months since no meetings have been held. The original purpose of the public forums was to  foster dialogue about the Wilson project in an attempt to build community consensus around it. The project has met with opposition from what seems to be a small but vocal group.

CICF’s first public meeting will take place on October 8. A full schedule of the forums and list of meeting places is available here.

Wilson said that he spoke to CICF president Brian Payne about a week ago and effectively green-lighted continuation of the process, but that he will not attend the public forums.

“From the beginning I was not going to be a part of those community meetings because I did a whole lot of talking about the project for plenty of years,” Wilson said. “They have lots of footage of me if they need it. For me it’s really at the point where I’ve done the work. They have to grapple with it at this point. I’m very pleased that it’s going to be back on track. A lot of time went by, which didn’t help, but it’s back on track. That’s a good thing.”

Related: MAN’s complete coverage of the Wilson project is available here.

Marclay issues statement about MFAB event

This post has been updated twice: On Thursday night and on Friday morning. Please see below.

Through his gallery, Christian Marclay has released a statement in which he appears to object to the way in which the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston plans to use his 24-hour installation The Clock [film still at right] on Sept. 17.

This is the statement from White Cube (in its entirety):

“It has always been my express wish that there should be no additional charge to view my work The Clock, over and above any general admission price to an institution or any other venue, nor should it be used in connection with the promotion, advertisement or sponsorship of any person or business. This is contractually agreed by all institutions who own and exhibit The Clock. It is my intention that my work be made equally accessible to all.”

As previously noted on MAN, the MFA plans to charge  $200 to see a portion of The Clock as part of the Sept. 17  festivities that will open the museum’s new contemporary art wing. The MFA will charge admission on a sliding scale, starting at $200 for entry at 7pm on Sept. 17, ending at 7am on Sept. 18, when entry to the MFA will be free as part of a ‘community day.’ As a result, regularly admitted, non-$200-level visitors will have the opportunity to see only half of The Clock when the MFA debuts the work. (Visitors who pay less than $200 as part of the MFA’s sliding scale will be able to see slightly more of the piece.)

It is unclear whether the MFA’s acquisition contract for the piece addresses the specific use the MFA is planning. Los Angeles County Museum of Art spokesperson Miranda Carroll told MAN today that LACMA’s contract with Marclay for its edition of The Clock covers the environment in which the piece is shown, such as the size of the screen, the number of sofas and so on, but not necessarily its potential use (or half-use, in this case) as a fundraising tool. (Carroll added that LACMA is planning its next 24-hour installation of the piece at the Bing Theater in March, 2012.)

MAN has asked the MFA and White Cube for additional comment. I’ll update this post when more information is available.

UPDATE, 9:05pm EDT: In an email to MAN, the MFA suggested it is moving forward with its original plan, as outlined above. MFA spokesperson Amelia Kantrovitz sent this statement:

The MFA has been in close and frequent contact with White Cube and Christian Marclay regarding the presentation of The Clock. The video will initially be presented during the 24 hour opening celebration for the Linde Family Wing for Contemporary Art on September 17/18, then during regular MFA hours, and later this fall during a free 24-hour screening on Columbus Day weekend.

UPDATE, Friday, 8:30am, EDT: The MFA confirms via an email to MAN that this means it is going ahead with its plan to make half of the work available as part of a $200 event and the other half available for ‘regular’ visitors the next day.

Related: MFA Boston director Malcolm Rogers’ letter to the Boston Globe about the Marclay and the MFA’s Sept. 17 opening.

Previously on MAN: My satirical take on the situation.