Will the Minnesota Museum of American Art be the next domino?
Posted by: admin in Ah Minneapolis..., Minneapolis art town blues, Struggling small art organizations, Americans pretty much hate artists, The failure of American Art Museums, Art museums and filthy lucre, Artistic failure in AmericaSummer is usually a dry season for news about local arts. But the past month’s litany of surprise announcements of organizational failures, resignations, firings, and so on has pretty much come (you may have noticed) to dominate the postings on CAFA. I apologize for this, and I’m hoping that I’ll be able to turn my attention more outward very soon.
In the meantime, today, I want to reiterate that a few days ago I laid even odds on the Minnesota Museum of American Art becoming the next victim of artistic failure in Minnesota. There are basically two reasons for this. First, as related in this story by Scott Russell, the museum is facing a “triple whammy of organizational stress” (40 percent reduction in reserves in the past four years and scant opportunity to grow income; the loss of its director after eleven years on the job; and the impending eviction of the museum from its current location). Second, the most commonly suggested solution to the problem–brought up by people over and over–is for the city of St. Paul (the current home-city of the MMAA) to step in a help bail the institution out. This, of course, is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking by people who are unaware of how little real support the Twin Cities lends to the arts. In fact, leaving it up to local city government to bail out an arts organization is, in my estimation, akin to leaving it out in the cold to die.
Perhaps, then, I should be getting better than even odds for my wager…
Entries (RSS)
August 12th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Why are we so worried that all these arts organizations, that used to function, can no longer make it? Art will survive. It has always been and will always be the legacy of a culture. What’s the panic? It seems like the art community has become too dependent on handouts. If you are not getting the support you need, then maybe you aren’t providing a valuable service. Perhaps your method of delivery is no longer relevant. An arts institution going down the tubes is natural. The whole idea of a bunch of arts institutions is what’s unnatural. Artists will continue to thrive. Why? Because they are better than anyone at finding a way. Look closer. These failures could be the herald of a dramatic shift in the way artist and audiences communicate? Do you want to be the ones complaining about changes or do you want to turn around and enjoy the cultural ride?
August 13th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Phew. Lot of tossed off and half-baked ideas here to refute.
To start, the idea of a Free Market is something of a myth. Most industries in the U.S. enjoy some sort of de facto gov’t support or priviledge under the tax code. It was just announced yesterday, in fact, that the vast majority of corporations–both U.S. and foreign-based that do significant business in the U.S.–actually pay no taxes (thanks to tax incentives, loopholes, and offshore shelters) on the billions of dollars of annual income they pull in. Another example of gov’t support: Fannie May and Freddie Mac. ‘Nuff said.
So to free market nuts, I say nuts. You’re delusional if you think that there’s such a thing as a true free market.
You’re particularly deluded if you think that art is a free market. The fact is, the vast majority of arts institutions and artists support mechanisms are not part of the free economic exchange of money–but rather they participate in the nonprofit gray market. That is, if you get rid of the tax code that supports philanthropic support of the arts, or you advocate for people to stop supporting art, then in time you’d kill the vast majority of arts organizations in this country. (And you’d likely end up with what the type of art that Americans tend to support, a bunch of porn websites). Art is indelibly connected, for better or worse, with the nonprofit tax status that institutions and organizations enjoy, and that encourages philanthropic giving from individuals, foundations, corporations, and other institutions. And why shouldn’t art have a tax-free status? After all, corporations do…
To address specific points above:
Why are we so worried that all these arts organizations, that used to function, can no longer make it?
I’m worried about these arts orgs because once they’re gone they cannot be resurrected (except with great trouble). It’s like bankruptcy, say for a big mortgage firm or other company whose demise would devastate multiple people. Orgs like MCP and MAEP support the activities of a lot of artists; once they’re gone, the artists lose that support in a ripple-effect of failure. (Such has already occurred with MCP…)
Art will survive. It has always been and will always be the legacy of a culture. What’s the panic?
I agree art will survive, but I long ago personally tired of hearing artists complain about how difficult it is for them to find ways to support their work. I’m attempting, on this site, to turn this concern around to the system that supports art-making and to raise questions about the overall arts market–as a means of ultimately supporting the production of art. (Many of my questions and concerns are geared toward challenging artist assumptions about the art market and are intended to question artist assumptions about themselves–if only so they’re stop complaining to me and maybe do something about their lot…)
I’m not panicked, but I think the market is–it appears to be facing a 75-year drought in the current economic and social atmosphere, and I’ve been following developments on this front formally since last September. It’s been an interesting challenge to keep up on this stuff–on top of day job and other work gigs and writing projects–and I haven’t always done it perfectly well. But I have to say, I was pretty far ahead of the curve on this (go back and read some of my early posts, if you will…)
It seems like the art community has become too dependent on handouts. If you are not getting the support you need, then maybe you aren’t providing a valuable service. Perhaps your method of delivery is no longer relevant.
Art organizations–of all sizes and across the country–have always been dependent on handouts. It’s likely that with the economic downturn of late, the pool of donated money is shrinking faster than these orgs are able to adapt. Is this not a tragedy? I worry that people are not aware of the valuable services an organization provides until after the organization is gone; by then, it is too late to resurrect it.
The whole idea of a bunch of arts institutions is what’s unnatural.
What? You completely lost me here. You just argued that there will always be art, but now you say having art institutions is unnatural. Doesn’t the art need a venue to be seen? I mean, having an art exhibitions in your basement is probably great for you and your three friends, but why not strive for wider social relevance and larger community rewards for your art?
Artists will continue to thrive. Why? Because they are better than anyone at finding a way.
Artists–at least the ones I know–are not “thriving,” at least not professionally. Losing venues to show work and gain an audience is not going to help them, I suspect.
Look closer.
How much closer can I be looking–after 180 articles in 10 years, as well as 100s of posts on this blog over the past 11+ months? By the way, you might check back to earlier posts, such as this one, for more of my thinking about why I follow these issues regarding “artistic failure.”
These failures could be the herald of a dramatic shift in the way artist and audiences communicate? Do you want to be the ones complaining about changes or do you want to turn around and enjoy the cultural ride?
Hm. I don’t know. Unless you’re talking about the audience shrinking to ever-smaller micro-cliques, and artists settling for less and less of everything (attention, support, relevance), I have no idea what you mean by this…
August 21st, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Very interesting article and I agree with you for the most part. But I do want to say that if an organization is born and then had trouble deciding what it wanted to be when it grew up, changed its focus, art, name, location and vital employees and then battled all the elements of flip-flopping, then it goes with out saying there will be tired out administration and/or board members who give up instead of fighting for its life. Unfortunately the public suffers.
An organization with this type of background has a difficult time gathering a strong loyal following because frankly, who wants to bet on a lame horse? Regrettably, some things should die a natural death. Blame it on Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Very good points, SC. Who are you?