Tyler Green
Art-focused Journalism by Tyler Green

Tyler Green Modern Art Notes

Archive for the ‘Policy’ Category

“Zoe Strauss” is a good start, PMA must do more

The striking, sad irony of the exhibition “Zoe Strauss: 10 Years” at the Philadelphia Museum of Art is that the people Strauss photographs cannot afford to go see the museum’s exhibition of her work.

Strauss’s pictures typically features people and communities on the margins of American life, people who aspire to the lower-middle-class and neighborhoods that have been forgotten by most Americans. [Image: Zoe Strauss, We Love Having You Here, Ocean Springs, MS, 2008. Collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.]

The PMA, along with New York’s Museum of Modern Art, the Museum of Fine Arts Boston and the Art Institute of Chicago, is one of America’s most class-exclusive museums. It costs a family of four $56 to enter the PMA and an almost-mandatory $10 or more to park a car. A family of four that wants to see the main exhibition on view must fork out $104 (plus parking). That’s beyond the reach of the overwhelming majority of Philadelphia families. Along with those three peers, the Philadelphia Museum of Art has been on the vanguard of keeping great art and a great art collection inaccessible to the audience it’s supposed to serve. (Reminder: The PMA is not a business; it’s a non-profit with a mission statement that calls for it to “extend the reach” of art.)

For a couple days over the last week, Strauss, her roots in the community and her art have helped to dissolve the PMA’s insistence on exclusivity. Tickets to the Strauss opening, which sold out, were just $8. This past Monday, the PMA opened on a holiday Monday and was effectively free. Furthermore, the PMA has spread Strauss’s work throughout the city by partnering with two billboard companies to erect 54 billboards showing Strauss’s art. These are not ads for the show, they’re Strauss’s pictures out in the city.

To new PMA director Timothy Rub’s credit, “Zoe Strauss” was the first exhibit that he approved after becoming director. It was a great decision: It used important art that happened to be made by a Philadelphian to connect  the museum to its city and to audiences the museum has traditionally excluded.

But it is not enough for an art museum to show art that features audiences that the museum fails to welcome. Rub’s next step should be to address the PMA’s longstanding failure to fully live up to its mission, to ensure that the museum is accessible to the entire region. Rub and the PMA face a special imperative to address their admissions issue: The city of Philadelphia contributed $2.3 million in operating funds to the museum in fiscal year 2011 and another $2.4 million in capital funds. So long as the city’s taxpayers are a major contributor to the museum, the museum should be accessible to the city’s residents. [Image: Strauss, We Will Win, Las Vegas, 2004. Collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.]

Fortunately, this is within the PMA’s reach: In its last fiscal year, the PMA brought in $3.9 million in admissions revenue. The museum’s operating expenses were $51 million. The PMA’s audience-restricting admissions fees made up a little more than seven percent of its revenue. Ergo, a director who values making art and his museum accessible to the broadest possible audience, a director who believes in better fulfilling his museum’s own mission, isn’t far from a major success.

Rub should start by making the PMA free to everyone under 21 years of age and to anyone with a student ID. Then he should start in on making sure that the rest of Philadelphia can enjoy their museum.

Related: My 2009 Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed about the PMA’s admissions fees. A personal story about why museums that charge high admissions fees are making a big mistake.

Waking up the White House on arts policy

When it comes to arts policy, the Obama administration has been a disappointment. It has helped to eliminate arts-related jobs by proposing spending cuts for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. After saying that art education would be a top arts-policy focus, the Obama administration has allowed art education funding to be slashed. Obama has failed to pursue most of the arts-related campaign promises he made in 2008. Instead, tokenism: The White House has been good at letting us know when it’s hung some new art. [Image: President Obama straightens Thomas Moran's The Three Tetons (1895) in the Oval Office. Photo by Pete Souza via the White House Flickr stream.]

No one in the White House seems even remotely interested in arts policy or arts-related jobs. Given that Obama was the first presidential candidate to offer a set of arts-related policy proposals, the White House’s shrug at the arts has been all the more glaring. However, a new initiative just-launched by the White House may provide a way for frustrated and disappointed arts lovers to get some answers — and to put some ideas in front of the White House staff.

Last week the Obama administration announced a new public-input initiative called We the People. The idea is astonishingly straightforward: The White House promises a response to any online petition that gains 5,000 signatures. (Or at least that’s the “initial threshold.”) We the People is modeled after a program in the UK called e-petitions (which has a 100,000 signatures threshold for response). The White House program has yet to officially launch, but you can read more about the process here.

It remains to be seen how the new initiative will work, but in launching it the White House has already found art useful: In an effort to create a link between its new idea and the beginnings of American democracy, the new We the People website features a famous painting: Howard Chandler Christy’s Scene at the Signing of the U.S. Constitution. (The painting, commissioned by Congress and painted in 1940 and at left, is located along the East Stairway in the House of Representatives wing of the Capitol.)

Given that the White House has been substantially disinterested in arts policy, here’s hoping that a few arts lovers or a few arts institutions come up with petition ideas, promote them among their social media followers and put them in front of the White House. I’d particularly like to see the White House formally establish a White House arts adviser, to create an office that would put consideration of the arts inside the rooms where policy is made. (Bonus: The White House doesn’t seem to support arts-related spending and this office would be inexpensive.) I’ll keep my eyes open for good ideas to feature here. As ever, feel free to use MAN’s comments to bat around some ideas.

Barack Obama and the arts: A disappointment

In 2008, when Barack Obama was running for the White House, arts lovers believed that he was one of us. We thrilled to the story of how he took one Michelle Robinson to the Art Institute of Chicago on their first date. He was the first presidential candidate to offer up a set of arts policy proposals. But how has President Obama done on arts policy? [Image: President and Michelle Obama applaud the performance of Harry Connick Jr. and the Big Band in the East Room of the White House on Feb. 21, 2010. All images via the White House Flickr stream.]

The Obama record on the arts comes to the fore today because the venerable Museum of Fine Arts, Boston is closing so that the president can visit. Well, not exactly visit, more like preside… as in, preside over a big-dollar Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser. According to the White House, the president is scheduled to make remarks at the MFAB at 7:05pm and to be at Logan Airport by 8:00.

The MFAB shutdown reminds us that the president talks a good game on the arts — he’s visiting MFAB so he must love and value art! — but that when it comes to the details, his administration has a lot of work to do. (Metaphor-alert: The museum is closing on a day it would normally be open, and the president is not there to see art, he’s there to milk fat-cat donors).

When we look at the Obama administration’s recent record on arts policy, we first see a Democratic president talk about how important jobs are to America’s economic recovery, but then offer a federal budget in which he cuts federal support for arts jobs around America.

In his just-released fiscal year 2012 budget, the White House proposed 13 percent funding cuts for both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. This gave Congressional Republicans an opening: Noticing that the White House wouldn’t to take a stand on arts funding, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives promptly doubled the president’s proposed NEA and NEH cuts to 26 percent each, the deepest decline in 16 years.

Just as troubling: The White House has not slowed Congress’ penchant for cutting art funding wherever it finds it. Candidate Obama said that supporting arts education funding was one of his top arts policy priorities. So much for campaign promises, because the White House just stood idly by as Congress cut art education funding earlier this month. As part of passing a continuing resolution to keep the federal government functional while Congress works on a FY 2011 federal budget, both the House and Senate cut $40 million in funding for art education.

Let’s look back at Candidate Obama’s much-vaunted, eight-part arts policy campaign platform. Candidate Obama proposed new art education programs, including an “artist corps,” but has offered nothing of the sort — yet. Candidate Obama said that he supported increased NEA funding, but after supporting modest increases in the NEA’s appropriation earlier in his presidency, President Obama just proposed that big funding cut. Candidate Obama proposed an increased focus on cultural diplomacy, but so far the president’s most significant effort on that front has been a tiny $1 million program. (See my column in the February issue of Modern Painters for more.) The Obama campaign pledged to streamline the process for artists needing visas to enter the United States, a situation which is hard to measure but which administrators report has improved. Obama promised health care for artists. We’ll see how that works out. And finally we’re still waiting for the Artist-Museum Partnership Act to be approved by Congress so that artists who donate their work to cultural institutions receive a fair tax deduction. Judged against Candidate Obama’s own plans, President Obama still has a way to go — and has even taken some steps backward.

In place of policy achievement, the Obama administration’s support for the arts has been mostly attendance, which isn’t unimportant. To much praise, the president and the first lady hung a lot of art in the White House. There was that well-publicized visit to the Pompidou (image above) in Paris and the Obamas have hosted regular concerts at the White House, events typically programmed to appeal to the president’s progressive base (Joan Baez sang “We Shall Overcome.” Bob Dylan received a presidential embrace. And so on.) The First Lady has been at the Right Arts Events too, including  presiding over a ribbon-cutting at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Of course, these are the kinds of things George and Laura Bush did too, which reminds us that so far the Obama arts policy has been much symbolism, not enough substance.

Barack Obama is only two years into his first term. There’s still time for him to fulfill his own promises and to emerge as an important supporter of the arts in America. But it hasn’t happened yet — and the recent signs aren’t encouraging.

Also: Shame on the MFA for turning away its community today so a bunch of brahmins can rent access to politicians. The closure is entirely inappropriate.

But is it legal? I asked Andy Finch, the Association of Art Museum Directors’ co-director of government affairs, if the closure was within federal rules for non-profits. Via email, he said: “As far as I understand it, a [501(c)3 non-profit] absolutely may allow its facility to be used for a fundraiser, just as long as a) the organization itself doesn’t endorse the candidate/committee and b) it makes its facility available on the same terms to other candidates/committees. So if [Sen.] Scott Brown [R-Mass.] wants to have a fundraiser there, as long as he pays the same as the DCCC did and as long as the museum treats him exactly the same, it’s perfectly OK.” Finch also pointed to this guidance from the IRS.

Update: If MFAB has anything to add, I’ll publish it here. As of publication time, the museum hadn’t replied to an inquiry.

White House proposes cut to NEA budget

The White House released its FY 2012 budget this morning. It included a request for $146.3 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and the same amount for the National Endowment for the Humanities.

There is still no FY 2011 budget — the federal government is operating under a continuing resolution — but in FY 2010, the NEA and NEH each received a $167.5 million appropriation from Congress. The Obama administration’s request represents a 13 percent cut from the NEA’s and NEH’s FY 2010 appropriation.

The Obama administration’s budget appendix, which includes funding request details for the Smithsonian, the National Gallery of Art and more, is here.

The White House has requested $636 million in operating funds for the Smithsonian, almost exactly what the Smithsonian received in federal appropriations in FY 2010, plus $225 million in facilities capital, $100 million more than the Smithsonian received in FY 2010. That line item would support infrastructure improvements at the Cooper-Hewitt, to research facilities at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and to begin construction of the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The White House’s request would continue support for long-term projects already underway, including  renovations at the National Zoo, the National Museum of American History and the National Museum of Natural History.

The White House is also asking for an $8 million increase in operating funds for the National Gallery of Art, from $111 million in FY 2010 to $119 million in FY 2010. The budget also supports the continuation of the NGA’s infrastructural capital projects already underway at both the East and West Buildings.

The latest sign that the Smithsonian appropriation is not a GOP target

The latest federal budget news from Capitol Hill is more evidence that Smithsonian Institution secretary G. Wayne Clough miscalculated when he ordered the removal of an artwork from an exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery. After Clough censored David Wojnarowicz’s “A Fire in My Belly” from “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” he suggested he was worried about the Smithsonian’s federal funding.

For the second time in a month, House Republicans have sent a clear signal that they don’t intend make “Hide/Seek” an appropriations issue. Yesterday Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, announced proposed cuts of $40 billion to about 70 government programs in the fiscal year 2011 federal budget.

If Rogers proposal is enacted by the Appropriations Committee, the full House and the Senate and is signed into law by the President, the cuts would trim the Obama administration’s proposed FY 2011 $797.6 million outlay for the Smithsonian to $790.3 million, a cut of nine-tenths of one percent, roughly in line with the cuts Rogers has proposed for dozens of other discretionary programs. (Previously the Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus, had proposed deeper budget cuts that left alone the Smithsonian’s appropriation.)

In fact, the cut Rogers is proposing to the Smithsonian budget is far smaller than suggested cuts to other cultural funding. Rogers also proposed appropriating $6 million less to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities than the White House had requested. Rogers’ budget would roll back NEA and NEH appropriations to the FY 2009 level of $155.3 million each, a nearly four percent cut from the administration’s requested figure.

The White House art installation is nice, but…

HirshhornLigon.jpgLast week, just before the Human Rights Campaign’s annual Washington fundraising dinner, President Obama nominated a gay man to be ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa. The appointment was transparent: For the better part of the last year Americans who care about gay equality have been disappointed with the Obama administration’s failure to act on campaign promises and to eliminate a host of discriminatory laws and federal policies. Well-aware of this, just before Obama was to speak at the annual dinner of the nation’s biggest gay-equality organization, the president tossed gay equality supporters a bit of tokenism.

Last week the Obama administration made another symbolic gesture: It hung modern and contemporary art in the White House. Just as the HRC go-alongs decided that an ambassadorial appointment bought Obama some time, art lovers celebrated the Obamas’ embrace of art. [Image: Glenn Ligon, Black Like Me #2, 1992. Collection: Hirshhorn.]

Several critics examined what Obama’s selections may mean. Jerry Saltz was particularly thoughtful. Holland Cotter discussed Alma Thomas. The Washington Post’s Blake Gopnik said something about prostitutes and fascists and had a dialogue with himself over whether the White House picks were safe or bold. (Meta-fun: Saltz noted that even as Gopnik was pointing out that the White House art selection was sometimes contradictory, that Gopnik was sometimes contradictory.)

I’m glad the White House is hanging modern and contemporary art. But consider the White House art hang within the context of the New Zealand-Samoa ambassadorial nomination: It’s nice and it means something, but it’s a gesture rather than a commitment.

Consider: Despite the unprecedented involvement of art communities and an artist in the 2008 election, the White House has done little to support or create art-focused/included policy. Art organizations received a measly $50 million in the $787 billion stimulus package, a percentage so infinitessimal that Google’s calculator barely knows what to do with it. (Just as the HRC leadership welcomed a president who has done little for gay equality, Washington’s art lobby was ecstatic at receiving weak tea.) The Obama administration has introduced no significant initiatives around cultural diplomacy, cultural exchange or arts education.

And that’s the easy, obvious stuff. Instead of congratulating ourselves that the Obamas are art people, we should be demanding that the White House innovate, that it create new, progressive federal arts policies and initiatives. Maybe the White House should make it possible for every museum in America to offer free admission to its permanent collection? Maybe there’s room for the humanities in a new Peace Corps or Americorps program? In Buffalo and Detroit, two of America’s greatest museums, two places that hold some of the world’s most important cultural treasures, are struggling to remain vibrant — even open — in the face of massive regional economic struggles. There is room for a new federal initiative to safeguard struggling-but-internationally-important cultural storehouses in a new way, in a way that emphasizes how the arts are a fundamental part of America’s urban fabric… but no, nothing. The much-lauded General Services Administration program that sought to ensure that the government architecture was progressive and bold has languished for several years. And shouldn’t there be art in every elementary, middle and high school in America?

The White House Art Hang is nice. We should be glad the Obamas like paintings. Now we should demand substance.

Related: Just after Obama took office, I argued in favor of a White House arts adviser.

A proposed Obama Admin. cultural policy list

On Friday I mentioned that former Whitney and SFMOMA director David Ross had started Twittering. Since then Ross has been tweeting ten cultural policies that he thinks the Obama administration should adopt.

The list (which I hope Ross is developing into an op-ed) is well worth a look. A couple of the provisions (1, 7) already have a good amount of support in Washington. Many of the rest are notably progressive (3, 6) and would re-inject the government in the direct funding of the creation of culture (2, 4). All should be examined by the Obama Administration’s cultural transition team, which is led by former NEA boss Bill Ivey.