MoMA's new admission price $20???

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (155 of them)

by "market logic" i just mean, supply and demand, more or less. there are certain attributes demanded of the head of a major cultural institution that are in fact somewhat rare, so it makes sense that they should be paid a lot. as far as how much is too much, i'm perfectly willing to accept that this is relative. if every other head of every other museum in new york is making under $100,000, then $570,000 would seem, er, unseemly. but i'm guessing the salaries paid to people in similar positions in new york are comparable to that paid the moma director.

xxxxxxpost

hstencil and amateurist in total agreement shocka!

i was putting "market logic" in light-ironic quotation marks btw :-)

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:35 (nineteen years ago) link

xpost

But geez, Stencil, I don't think you quite need to damn all reference to markets in order to avoid being a Republican; it's not as if we're locked in some epic deathstruggle between mega-cutthroat capitalism and socialism. I mean, as a point of principle: if you're trying to judge whether a person's salary seems appropriate, it seems pretty necessary and non-political to me to look at whether there's any concrete arrangement of supply and demand that justifies it. After all, the whole problem with CEO salaries is that in the end you can't justify them by examining the CEO's "value" in any kind of job/talent marketplace.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:38 (nineteen years ago) link

xpost to amateur!st - well it sounded like you were serious, then you followed up with that completely ad hominem "nutso" comment, amateur!st. If you want to talk about how the markets for just about anything are completely irrational (and they are, just don't ask an economist), that's fine. That's all I was trying to say.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:38 (nineteen years ago) link

nabisco, supply and demand is clearly not what determines a salary, or most things not only in the labor market, but in most markets in general. If markets worked solely on supply/demand terms, we'd have no "irrational exuberance," etc.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:41 (nineteen years ago) link

I don't think that "irrational exuberance" disproves supply and demand. What it shows is that demand can be inflated by psychological factors that do not reflect the true value of the assets. However, the bubble prices of Internet stocks was very much a supply and demand driven phenomenon.

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:46 (nineteen years ago) link

The old MoMA was a bit overpriced. This is ridiculous. (Although people pay $20 to go to the Experience Music Project, right?)

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:49 (nineteen years ago) link

I guess I'm not articulating what I mean, and it's probably going to be difficult for me to, but what I'm trying to say is that "irrational exuberance," "terror premiums," and all sorts of other forms of "market logic" aren't actually logical when analyzed in terms of value. And saying that markets dictate prices and salaries, on objective and logical terms, just seems like giving far too much faith to intrinsically human (ie. flawed) systems. However, that faith seems to me to have justified all sorts of behavior that has hurt the average American citizen, from government deregulation to real wages remaining stagnant, yet is still part and parcel of how we talk about policy, how we vote, and how we even argue silly stuff on the internet in this country. It's sickening to me, frankly. And if that makes me "nutso," so be it. Maybe I just shouldn't even live in this country any more (but where would I go? I dunno).

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:54 (nineteen years ago) link

Hstencil doesn't believe in the New Economy! Stone him!

― Gold Teeth II (kenan), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:59 (nineteen years ago) link

No, Stencil, I think we're just talking about different things -- and maybe that you're being a little bit dogmatic about this today. Nobody's sitting here defending the efficacy of all markets in the universe, yet it feels like you're sort of goading us to. The only reason the issue came up was as a way of talking about whether there might be any actual talents and skills that high director salaries might reasonable be intended to court of attract. Which wasn't even to say that the market for director-type salaries is a perfectly-functioning one, obviously it's not -- by its very nature the position creates a kind of sky's-the-limit salary market. But that wasn't what anyone was talking about -- we were just discussing whether salaries like that might not just be a matter of stuffying your director's pockets full of pork, but that they might reasonably be -- in the maybe-flawed market as it exists -- the only way to attract people with certain talents or experience. Which is basically just a way of saying, you know, don't be surprised or blame the institution, as paying any less really would diminish the quality of director they could acquire. Don't know if that's the case with MOMA, but it's worth talking about -- not as a question of whether markets work, but whether those salaries are a reasonable interaction with those markets.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:01 (nineteen years ago) link

In other words, all Amateurist said is sorta, well, "in the market for director/president talent it turns out you sorta do have to pay ridiculous amounts to attract the most desirable people," which isn't a defense of the market but a defense of the institutions shelling out the salaries.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:03 (nineteen years ago) link

you are amazing, nabisco. You are taking me to task even though, as I go back and read this thread, you were the first person (besides Phil just posting "holy shit. 570,000?") to rip on the director's salary. Remember this:

Well, you know, quality of director's suit = prestige of institution, right?

-- nabisco, October 5th, 2004.
That's the logic that made America.

-- nabisco, October 5th, 2004.

I never even questioned that the MoMA director should make $570K, I explicitly stated:

"Museum director and college president salaries are not the problem. CEO salaries are. I actually think that salary for MoMA director isn't unrealistic for what MoMA is and wants to be, but still."

So don't tell me I'm being dogmatic, okay? Especially when you're not even bothering to read what I write.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:07 (nineteen years ago) link

The director's salary is really irrelevant to this discussion. It's a very small portion of the money MoMA needs to operate -- I don't have the stats but I'd imagine it only takes around a day's visitors to pay that salary at $20 each, and that's not taking account of all the public and private funding.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:11 (nineteen years ago) link

Yeah, see, Stencil, we were all making vague non-dogmatic jokes right up until you got sort of a bug up your ass and called us Republicans. And I made that joke based on the same logic you may have noticed in my last post: part of the reason there's an exaggerated market for director salaries is that it's one position where institutions can't seem to justify settling or risk-taking, where there's a genuine sense that the quality of that individual defines the quality of the institution as a whole. I dunno, I feel like you're trying to pick a fight but I have no idea what it's about.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:12 (nineteen years ago) link

I dunno, I feel like you're trying to pick a fight but I have no idea what it's about.

you must be new here...

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:13 (nineteen years ago) link

I dunno, I feel like you're trying to pick a fight but I have no idea what it's about.

this is exactly how I feel!

I don't think you're understanding what my point has been, which was, afterall, about the larger American culture shift towards illogical, possibly rigged-but-declared-free markets over the past 30 years, which has been EXPLICIT Republican policy (and co-opted on occassion by Democrats as well) -- and how the privatization of arts subsidies, CEO salaries, industry de-regulation, etc. (NOT museum director salaries) fit into that. Hell, the only reason that dude's salary was in there was because I didn't edit it out of the Post editorial I was quoting from!

And if you're really going to claim an "us" (who got called Republicans) vs. me, then I dunno anymore. If you truly don't believe "free market" Republican rhetoric (as I don't), then why get offended?

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:19 (nineteen years ago) link

Plenty of Republicans are against inflated CEO salaries by the way. It's because they also tend to own stock.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:24 (nineteen years ago) link

I'm sure there are quite a few pro-choice Republicans too, but they haven't exactly been running policy these past 30 years.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:24 (nineteen years ago) link

Well Stencil I wasn't particularly offended, actually -- just sorta weirded out, cause it seemed like you were taking me and Amateurist to task for having even mentioned words like "market" and "supply and demand" in the fairly innocuous, non-political, and even kind of ironic ways we did. Cuz see you got kinda sniffy up there and called everyone crypto-Republicans, or whatever. It's like someone said "cookie" and then you got really heated up and kinda "how can you say that about cookies, you terrible person," and we were all, "I dunno, we were just mentioning cookies, it's not a big thing."

Back to the issue: I don't have $20, and therefore won't be going to MoMA.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:27 (nineteen years ago) link

The two issues aren't parallel-- only CEOs benefit from inflated salaries and everyone else loses. The vast majority of people, even Republicans, aren't CEOs. Many ordinary people, on the other hand, are pro-life.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:27 (nineteen years ago) link

no, the issues of CEO salaries and abortion aren't parallel, and that was clearly not the point I was trying to make. The point is that there are many disparate elements in the Republican Party, but that doesn't mean those elements have any political power, ie. Log Cabin Republicans just for starters.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:31 (nineteen years ago) link

shocking admission: i haven't actually visited the museum part of moma for over 10 years. i've been at the movie theater a bunch of times though.

let's drop this republican red herring back in the water shall we?

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:34 (nineteen years ago) link

Yes, the issue is not CEO salaries, though I think the larger issue of market infiltration of everything is relevant.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:35 (nineteen years ago) link

I think Hstencil is making some interesting points about free markets and how they've become accepted conventional wisdom. It would be interesting to start a thread about it, but I don't want to belabor the issue on this thread.

BTW, it appears that they are keeping the policy of free admission on Friday evenings from 4-8pm.

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:40 (nineteen years ago) link

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever been during the free Friday thing? (I haven't) Was it already horrifically crowded? Do you think it will get even more crowded now with the upped admission?

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:42 (nineteen years ago) link

With this and the recent "rockist" threads it seems were entering a postNuILX phase.

― Loose Translation: Sexy Dancer (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:43 (nineteen years ago) link

Personally, I have no problem paying $20 for admission to MoMA. Actually since membership is $75 ($60 for people who live 150 miles or further from NYC) I'll probably pay less than $20 per admission during a year.

― mcd (mcd), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 19:00 (nineteen years ago) link

Out of curiosity, has anyone ever been during the free Friday thing?

Yeah, I've been in years past 4 or 5 times. One of those times it was almost unbearably crowded. The other times it was like a weekend's volume, not too crowded that I didn't enjoy myself.

― mcd (mcd), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 19:03 (nineteen years ago) link

good first date idea, or alternatively, bad first date idea.

― Loose Translation: Sexy Dancer (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 19:05 (nineteen years ago) link

It's weird for me to go to museums here in Chicago after living outside of DC for so long and getting used to free admission. The aquarium is like $20, the Museum of Science and Industry is about $10 plus more if you want to see any of special exhibits, etc. The Art Institute is just a "suggested donation" of $5 though, which is worth it.

― n/a (Nick A.), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 19:06 (nineteen years ago) link

too low

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 19:12 (nineteen years ago) link

Our cultural history should only be exposed to those who can afford to appreciate it.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 19:19 (nineteen years ago) link

Our cultural history is only made for those who can afford to appreciate it.

― Loose Translation: Sexy Dancer (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 19:25 (nineteen years ago) link

My MoMA art installation would be to take every $20 bill that comes in during a day and tape it to a wall of the museum. The wall would start out empty and then be covered in $20s by the end of the day.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 19:37 (nineteen years ago) link

My art installation would be to take all the $20 bills and spend them on hookers and drugs.

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 19:39 (nineteen years ago) link

And THAT's why you're a Republican!

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 19:42 (nineteen years ago) link

Apropos of nothing else being discussed here, they've also chopped down all of, or most of, the trees in front of the building. On the day that they were doing so, I was walking past and overheard one of the workers saying "My god, today's the day they're cutting them all down." He sounded so shocked. I hope, that with the new fees, they can afford to replace them.

― Nermina (Nermina), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 19:43 (nineteen years ago) link

they will be replaced with giant plastic phalluses designed by matthew barney

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 20:48 (nineteen years ago) link

And they will be scratch & sniff.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Tuesday, 5 October 2004 21:32 (nineteen years ago) link

I was just in Boston and went to their MFA. It was $16 for entry and $22 for entry with admission to the special art deco exhibit. I searched in vain for a "suggested donation" clause and couldn't find one. I figured if I was going to pay $16 I may as well pay $22 and see the special exhibit.

― Mary (Mary), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:16 (nineteen years ago) link

Last time I was at the MoMA i bought fake tickets off some sketchy dude outside for $5. Walked right in.

― Velveteen Bingo (Chris V), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 13:19 (nineteen years ago) link

http://www.rit.edu/~ayh3152/images/futurism.jpg

― kephm, Wednesday, 6 October 2004 16:22 (nineteen years ago) link

IM TOO LAZY TO READ THIS WHOLE THREAD.

But anyone that goes to Moma at any other time then Friday evenings...i.e. PAY WHAT YOU WISH. deserves to get gauged.

― DEEBZ (ddb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:14 (nineteen years ago) link

there are always cute artfags on friday nights. thats why i go

― phil-two (phil-two), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:15 (nineteen years ago) link

I think that's what DDB was saying, Phil.

― why do old people and old users of ILX such bastardos (deangulberry), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:16 (nineteen years ago) link

I nearly take offence at DDB's e-mail address.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:19 (nineteen years ago) link

WORD.

It's funny...most of the people that are bitching dont even go to MOMA all that frequently...so what's $20. and the membership is staying at $75 for all y'allz that go a lot.

BUT FRIDAY IS THE JUMP OFF @ MOMA & WHITNEY.
& THURSDAY AT THE GUGGIE IS FREE.
AND PAYING FOR PS 1 IS JUST DUMB.

― DEEBZ (ddb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:22 (nineteen years ago) link

XPOST TO CASUISTRY

WHY?

― DEEBZ (ddb), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:23 (nineteen years ago) link

$20 is not a lot. END OF STORY.

― why do old people and old users of ILX such bastardos (deangulberry), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:54 (nineteen years ago) link

it is to me! I'm fucking broke.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 20:58 (nineteen years ago) link

If you're broke, you need to focus on something other than art. Therefore, an art museum is a non-issue.

― why do old people and old users of ILX such bastardos (deangulberry), Wednesday, 6 October 2004 21:04 (nineteen years ago) link

Skipping 55 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

@NickPinkerton
Anyone got any good tips on tonight's mentally-ill hobo fights at MoMA?

― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Monday, 9 May 2016 13:43 (eight years ago) link

apparently that was real (far from unheard of at the theaters there), and might've happened at a Straub-Huillet film.

https://twitter.com/NickPinkerton/status/729063029615284226

― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Monday, 9 May 2016 13:45 (eight years ago) link

Lol, tradition

― i believe that (s)he is sincere (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 11 May 2016 12:42 (eight years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.