MoMA's new admission price $20???

I think the bigger public funding crisis in NYC right now (that nobody will talk about) is the starving of the MTA by Pataki. They're going to raise fares AGAIN, y'know.

Plus if Bush gets re-elected and re-configures the determination for granting public housing subsidies, NYC is really gonna be fucked. We're gonna have far more problems than just a too-expensive art museum.

-- nabisco (--...) (webmail), October 5th, 2004 1:28 PM. (nabisco) (later) (link)

of course, but as far as prestige/money/power goes, moma:art museums::yale:universities

i dunno, my gut tells me that's a grotesquely large salary, but plenty of people make that kind of money, and i guess the moma director deserves it more than a lot of them

nabisco otm

hstencil nutso

xxxxxxpost

hstencil and amateurist in total agreement shocka!

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

they've shown about 70 films in the 'sidebar' for this series, many of which are explicit on US/bombs etc.

I haven't seen the gallery exhibit cuz I fucking hate crowds, and it's always crowded.

I've seen the show twice and though I get your point, I think the artwork's placards make it pretty clear that this is reactionary work and that the historical importance of WWII and Hiroshima and Nagasaki IS a given.
But I really liked the artwork and it was all totally new to me so maybe I just wasn't looking for any other agenda.

as someone who likes to cruise around with headphones on & not necessarily read the text is this a good exhibition, y/n

yes the art is good

I only saw the top floor, and I think there was also stuff on the fifth floor, yes? I was in kind of a hurry. Anyway I liked the art, and it was kind of refreshing since, at least until the recent Yayoi Kusama exhibition at the Whitney, a casual art fan like myself could kind of get the impression that Japanese art went straight from Hokusai-type prints to cartoony stuff like Murakami.

so Matisse Cut-Outs is running 24hrs this weekend, which means in my zombified state i might make it at 2a.m., waving my membership card.

$12 afterhrs for nonmembers (still need timed tix)

so you still need a timed ticket for like 4 in the morning...

that's my understanding, for nonmembers

http://news.artnet.com/art-world/how-will-momas-bjork-debacle-impact-klaus-biesenbach-279582

As recounted by anonymous sources, Biesenbach interrupted Abramović's precisely-timed 736-hour-and-30-minute marathon action in order to bask in some of the artist's accumulated megawatt company. Scheduled to endure the performer's gaze for a quarter of an hour, the curator lasted just eight minutes.

After vacating the chair, applause followed; but it was obvious from Abramović's expression that something had gone wrong. The problem: Biesenbach had cut the performance short by throwing off its strict time signature. As relayed to artnet News, Abramović was livid.

According to Artforum's Linda Yablonsky, things quickly went from bad to mortifying at Abramović's celebratory dinner. Writing in the “Scene & Herd" column, Yablonsky described the excruciating series of events that followed as “the tippling Biesenbach took the podium" to kick off of the evening:

“He didn't thank anyone. Instead he used the moment to make public his two-decade-long unrequited love for Abramović. ‘Look at me, Marina,' he began. ‘Listen to me, Marina,' he went on. ‘Why don't you look at me? You know,' he then said to the guests, tossing aside his prepared remarks, ‘she can't see anyone without her glasses,' thereby negating the experience of all those sitters who thought she was paying special attention to them. This brought loud murmurs… Recalling how he had fallen in love with Abramović, twenty years his senior, at first sight, he said that he believed she had fallen in love with him, too. ‘Biggest mistake of my career,' he said.”

Aghast at the spectacle, Yablonsky added her own lapidary rejoinder. “Though clearly, not bigger than this one," she wrote, channeling the gathering's dazed chagrin.

big lolz there

A MoMA curator who hangs around with celebrities? Well I never!

a curator who subverts the message of a major artist's retrospective in the closing party by pointing out that she couldn't see anybody anyway and then avowing his love is big lolz

anything that takes that con job down a peg is to be cheered

this is the best

How, for example, does one begin to explain the institutional relevance of the band Kraftwerk's eight-gig show “Retrospective 12345678" staged inside the museum's atrium in 2012? How, one might ask, do you account for the 2013 spectacle of actress Tilda Swinton sleeping inside a glass box at MoMA—

Presumably the same criticism would apply to the Tate Modern who also ran Retrospective 12345678 to near unanimous five star reviews and the Serpentine Gallery who originally did the Swinton piece.

yeah the linked article goes into that

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

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

Lol, tradition