当前位置:首页>> >>


博物馆新镀金时代收集器展览在纽约艺术博物馆.rar

收藏

资源目录
    文档预览:
    编号:20181101170118480    类型:共享资源    大小:46.90KB    格式:RAR    上传时间:2019-04-04
    尺寸:148x200像素    分辨率:72dpi   颜色:RGB    工具:   
    15
    金币
    关 键 词:
    博物馆 镀金 时代 收集 展览 纽约 艺术博物馆
    资源描述:
    Museums in the New Gilded Age: Collector exhibits in New York art museums, 1945–2010Richard Lachmann , , ,Emily Pain ,Anibal Gauna Department of Sociology, University at Albany, State University of New York, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222, USAAvailable online 2 March 2014Choose an option to locate/access this article:Show more Show less http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2014.01.004Get rights and contentHighlights•We traced special museum exhibits from 1945 to 2010.•The fraction of exhibits devoted to patron collections declined in the 1960–1970s.•Despite cuts in government funding, collector exhibits did not increase after 1980.•Professionalized museum curators retained their autonomy.AbstractHow have museums in the United States been affected by the concentration of wealth and the decline in Federal support for the arts in recent decades? We address that question by tracking special exhibits at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art, and the Guggenheim and Whitney Museums in New York from 1945 to 2010. We find that the fraction of special exhibits devoted to and organized around patron collections declined in the 1960s and 1970s. Despite the subsequent decline in government funding and growing concentration of wealth, patron exhibits did not increase in recent decades. The autonomy that professionalized museum curators achieved in the 1960s and 1970s to determine the themes and content of exhibitions has been sustained, even as organizational norms were transformed in most other realms.KeywordsMuseums;Wealth;Exhibitions;Professionalization;Government1. IntroductionHow have museums in the United States been affected by the concentration of wealth and the decline in Federal support for the arts in recent decades? American art museums were founded in the Gilded Age, a period from the 1870s to the end of the nineteenth century, which was marked by high levels of wealth concentration and during which wealthy benefactors and collectors exerted a high degree of control over museums. That era was followed by a long mid-twentieth century interlude of greater equality and a growing role by government in financing and influencing museums (see Section 2). We ask if the beneficiaries of the recent growth of inequality are reasserting control over what museums exhibit in the current era of great wealth, which has been dubbed the “New Gilded Age.”We begin by reviewing the literature on the initial organization of U.S. art museums in the nineteenth century and then trace the effects of twentieth century governmental funding on the organization and curatorial decisions of those museums. We next identify the bases of curatorial professionalism and autonomy. We then present a dataset on special exhibits at the four most prominent New York City art museums and use it to test hypotheses on the changing influence of rich collectors from the end of World War II to the present. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for U.S. museums as a whole and suggest avenues for future research.2. U.S. art museums: from elite control to professional autonomyThe influence of wealthy benefactors and collectors in the original Gilded Age has been documented by DiMaggio, 1982a and DiMaggio, 1982b; see also Temin, 1991), who shows that those initial generations of donors were not hesitant to make clear to museum administrators their preferences for the styles of art they wanted in museum collections and exhibits—including their expectations that museums show works owned or donated by benefactors and that museums should take measures to limit their visitors to an educated, middle-class, Protestant audience. These elites sought to exclude “new waves of Irish and German immigrants…[by replacing] the relatively undemanding leisure activities of the first part of the [nineteenth] century…[with] a more demanding, austere, and uplifting kind of art. They…founded or transformed existing museums and orchestras by excluding crowd pleasing music and visual art” (Zolberg, 1990, p. 140). Thus, reproductions of famous paintings and sculptures were banished from U.S. art museums as benefactors and museum curators devoted their energies to procuring, through donations and purchases, original works of art (Levine, 1988). Museums measured themselves largely by the quality of the art in their collections rather than by the number of visitors (Zolberg, 1981).Rich benefactors’ control over art museums began to be undermined in the 1920s, as some municipal governments (most notably New York City and Detroit) began to provide funding to museums for “building, maintenance, and educational budgets, while trustees financed the collections, salaries, and scholarship” (DiMaggio, 1991a, p. 273). The Great Depression, by cutting into the fortunes of many wealthy Americans, reduced their ability to fund the museums they or their ancestors had founded, forcing them to share control with wealthy people of different ethnicities and backgrounds with the means to contribute to museums (Ostrower, 2002, Chapter 3) and to encourage broader attendance by the growing middle class as a way to raise revenues through admission fees (Blau, 1991 and Zolberg, 1984). These more inclusive museum policies continued in the decades after World War II, as New Deal programs and progressive taxation prevented the rich from recovering their pre-1929 share of national income and wealth (Piketty and Saez, 2012).At the same time, universities created or expanded their art history departments and “developed programs to train potential museum workers in connoisseurship and art history” (DiMaggio, 1991a, p. 273). Graduates from these programs were employed by museums and banded together to form the American Association of Museums, which received substantial funding from the Carnegie Corporation to foster professional standards for museum curators and exhibits.By the middle of the twentieth century, curators achieved the bases to define themselves as professionals and to assert a degree of autonomy from trustees and donors in decisions about what art should be displayed and how exhibits should be organized (Zolberg, 1984). Through their own efforts and those of foundations like Carnegie, “the belief that certain work is so specialized as to be inaccessible to those lacking the required training and experience” (Freidson, 2001, p. 17), which is the conceptual basis for assertions of professional autonomy, was extended to museum curatorial work. Trustees came to “recognize…[that curators] insist on autonomy and authority within their professional domain. As one trustee said, ‘A great museum has great curators.’ For this reason trustees are willing to cede a certain degree of authority to professionals” (Ostrower, 2002, p. 94). As the trustee's quote indicates, individual museums are part of a field that defines excellence, and curatorial skill and autonomy are part of the measure of museum quality.Museum curators are professionals to the extent that they are able to uphold the claim that their training in art history and museology makes them the most qualified to determine what works should be exhibited in museums and to determine how those works should be selected, displayed and interpreted (Zolberg, 1981). In other words, museum curators assert that they are the only people with the expertise to organize museum exhibits, and for that reason they should have the autonomy to make those decisions without interference from donors, funders, museum trustees or the non-curatorial administration of their museums.At the same time, museum curators’ autonomy and ability to exercise their professional judgment is challenged by the need to secure funding for exhibits. Funders can use their financial leverage to challenge curators’ autonomy. Yet, as Alexander, 1996a, Alexander, 1996b and Alexander, 1996c has shown, the growing diversity of funding sources that opened up in the 1970s reduced the leverage of any particular funder and opened new strategies for museum curators to plan and mount exhibits according to their professional standards. Alexander finds that “multiple potential funders with competing agendas can allow organizational managers more room to maneuver” (Alexander, 1996c, p. 831).Old sources of funds for exhibits (mainly rich benefactors and foundations) were supplemented by the rise of governmental spending on museums through the National Endowment for the Arts and state Arts Councils and by corporate giving to museums. DiMaggio (1991b, p. 145) finds that “Support from independent foundations grew from about $12.6 million in 1955 to approximately $350 million in 1984. Corporate assistance, negligible through the early 1960s, rose to nearly $400 million by the mid-1980s. By 1988, federal assistance—virtually nonexistent before 1965—stood at more than $160 million, while state government subsidies amounted to about $300 million.” DiMaggio argues that “the major national foundations and the public agencies, believing that art is a good thing and that it should be spread around, have encouraged cultural institutions to evince some interest in expanding their publics and serving their communities” (DiMaggio, 1986, p. 5; see also Martorella, 1986)—priorities at odds with the exclusiveness desired by rich benefactors in the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries and desired by some wealthy patrons in the latter half of the twentieth century.Alexander specifies the effects of new funding sources, and the conflicting priorities of old and new funders, on museum curators’ autonomy by tracing changes in the sorts of exhibits museums mounted from 1960 to 1986. She finds that, while museums did increase the number and proportion of exhibits that Alexander categorizes as “popular” and “accessible” to attract governmental and corporate funds, scholarly exhibits increased as well during the 1970s and 1980s because curators were able to tap internal museum funds and to present proposals for exhibits they were planning to mount in ways that governmental, corporate and foundation funders would see as furthering their goals. Alexander, 1996a, Alexander, 1996b and Alexander, 1996c findings indicate that museum administrators and curators became increasingly professionalized and gained significant autonomy, at least in the realm of special exhibitions, as a result of the transformation of funding in the 1970s, deepening the original support for professionalization from foundations that DiMaggio (1991b) has found for the 1920–1940 period.Since Alexander conducted her research, the forces that served to broaden the range of museum exhibits and widen the audiences who visited museums have been slowed and then reversed. First, there has been a vast increase in the share of income and wealth going to the richest Americans. The path-breaking research of Piketty and Saez (2012, Table A3) finds that the share of national income received by the top 1% of Americans, which peaked at 24% in 1928, then fell to under 12% by 1944, where it remained until 1984. Since then, the richest 1%’s share doubled to a new peak of 23.5% in 2007. The distribution of wealth is even more unequal. Second, National Endowment for the Arts funding peaked at $176 million in 1992 and then fell each year of the Clinton Administration, bottoming out at $98 million in 2000. In 2012, it was $146 million (National Endowment for the Arts, 2012), which is just 54% of the 1992 peak in inflation-adjusted dollars. These cuts in Federal funding for museums stemmed partly from neoliberal pressures for cuts in non-military spending of various sorts and partly from right-wing opposition to art they deemed obscene or blasphemous (Alexander, 2005), encouraging curators to rely on private funding sources for potentially controversial exhibits that risk evoking the ire of politicians or media commentators. At the same time, the U.S. government encourages private donations by making them deductible from Federal (and most state) income taxes. In 1984, “the United States provided $3 per capita of direct support to the arts [from governments at all levels], but $10 in indirect support” [largely through tax deductions] (Alexander, 2005, p. 24). This indirect system of government support, which is absent or trivial in Europe and Canada (Alexander, 2005), leaves most of the economic leverage over what works will be added to museums collections and what exhibits will be mounted in private rather than governmental hands.Museums look to the rich for gifts and bequests from their art collections, as well as for cash donations. In an effort to secure donations of valuable art, museums place collectors on their boards of trustees, increasing the collectors’ leverage over the museum (Ostrower, 2002, pp. 7–9). Museums have become ever more interested in securing gifts to augment their collections as the concentration of wealth has furthered the escalation of prices for art. From 1984 to 2010, the Art Market Research Modern Art 100 Index, which tracks the sale prices of “100 key mid-20th-century artists,” increased 900% for the most expensive tenth of items sold each year, the sort of works museums want for their collections, and it increased 530% for the middle four-fifths of items sold. For contemporary art, the increases have been 2300% and 2100%, respectively (Brown, 2010). This inflation in art prices has vastly outstripped the growth in museum endowments, though not in the fortunes of the richest actual and potential donors, making it ever more difficult for museums to buy art out of their endowments, and forcing them to appeal to benefactors for additions to museum collections.While museums need the rich, the rich, or at least those rich who want to appear cultured, need museums. Art confers “status honor” (DiMaggio, 1982b and Weber, 1978) on its owners. Donations to cultural institutions, such as museums, are “a symbol of ‘having arrived’ socially…[and sites for] ‘social climbing and networking’…education and culture hold a particularly favorable position in elite philanthropy. Organizations in these areas command great prestige in the eyes of affluent donors” (Ostrower, 1995, pp. 37, 86).Since not all art is equal, collectors look to museums and museum curators to validate the esthetic and financial worth of their private collections: “another goal of elite collectors is having their collections exhibited in museums so museums can conserve, appraise, store, market, or otherwise help them with the care of their art objects” (Alexander, 1996c, p. 801; see also Zolberg, 1981). One way, perhaps the best way, for private collectors to gain validation of their collections and of their good taste in selecting the objects in their collections is with a special exhibit of their collection at a museum. Such special exhibits draw attention to an individual collector and confer a presumption of coherence to their collection—in a way that the selection o
    展开阅读全文
    1
      金牌文库所有资源均是用户自行上传分享,仅供网友学习交流,未经上传用户书面授权,请勿作他用。
    0条评论

    还可以输入200字符

    暂无评论,赶快抢占沙发吧。

    关于本文
    本文标题:博物馆新镀金时代收集器展览在纽约艺术博物馆.rar
    链接地址:http://www.gold-doc.com/p-289013.html
    关于我们 - 网站声明 - 网站地图 - 资源地图 - 友情链接 - 网站客服客服 - 联系我们
    copyright@ 2014-2018 金牌文库网站版权所有
    经营许可证编号:浙ICP备15046084号-3
    收起
    展开