In today’s New York Times, Roberta Smith makes an impassioned plea for the Folk Art Museum. She says New York needs to have access to its vast and unusual collection of objects and that it creates a counterpoint to the kinds of exhibitions shown at other institutions around town.  She criticizes the board of trustees for mismanagement and worse, but praises the exhibition program and curatorial bravery of the museum.  The current plan seems to be to sell off the collection to the Smithsonian or another institution, or even give the collection to one of them so that the trustees can just close the whole operation and get out of the business of folk art all together.

When a museum fails to pay its bills, fails to attract an audience, fails in every way but the art, what is the answer? One might ask the same questions about the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, another time-honored institution with a timid and unsophisiticated board of trustees who would rather sell off the collection than pony up the funds to keep the institution alive and whole.

Yesterday the Independent newspaper in London published an article with the headline “It’s Oil Money that Fuels our Museums” by Tiffany Jenkins that discusses the pros and cons of museums accepting money from oil companies and others who may not always take the high ground when it comes to the gathering of wealth. This has been a conversation in non profits as long as they have existed. In fact, it is a conversation in every situation where fund raising occurs. Think about political fund raising and how many politicians have shamefacedly had to hand back donations from crooks. Bernie Madoff was a trustee of several charitable organizations, and Enron senior executives were pillars in their communities. What’s a non profit to do?

Typically Jenkins suggests that arts organizations should take the money and run. Take it and turn lemons into lemonade. Others, including protesters at the Tate Modern and other museums around the world take a different view and believe that tainted money perverts institutions and should be avoided at all costs. What do you think?

Ai Weiwei in his studio March 7, 2011

Perhaps we were just dreaming that China, the economic tiger, the cultural dragon, would allow freedom of speech and political dissent now that they have relaxed economic laws and allowed private citizens to amass vast fortunes. But no, it seems that the year of the rabbit is also the year of the backlash against artists, writers and others who dare to criticize government corruption and strictures. According to the New York Times, over the last two weeks many prominent filmmakers, lawers, writers and artists have been detained, some simply disappearing into custody. Mr Ai is perhaps the most prominent of those arrested–and shortly after his capture his studio was raided and many of his assistants, both foreign and Chinese, were also detained.  

And what could be a more blatant illustration of the government’s unwillingness to face it’s compromised present and uncomfortable truths from its past than the exhibitions in the new $400 million National Museum, just opening in Beijing? According to reports, the museum, the largest in the world,  has barely a mention of the Cultural Revolution, no exhibitions about the halting and sometimes violent aspects of communist rule or the difficult changes in leadership over the years. 

Any hope in the West of China emerging as a new democractic partner must certainly be tempered by these signs. The government is prepared to grant extensive economic freedom and reap the substantial financial benefits, but cultural freedom is not to be tolerated. It will be interesting to see how the United States and other Western powers respond to this new crack down. So far, it has been met with silence.

Finally another art museum is remounting the National Portrait Gallery’s groundbreaking and excellent Hide and Seek exhibition. The exhibiton, which was about gay and lesbian identity in portraiture, drew much  praise from art critics but created a nightmare for the Smithsonian. In response to the religious right wing and Republicans the Gallery removed from the show a small exerpt of David Wojnarowicz’s video, Fire in My Belly, that depicted ants crawling on a crucifix. That decision set off protests on the left and demands for the resignation of the Smithsonian Chairman, Wayne Clough. On the right Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to defund the institution entirely.  When I asked museum officials last year why the show wasn’t traveling, they responded that no other museum had expressed an interest. Now, however, after the controversy made the show a blockbuster, the Brooklyn Museum of Art and the Tacoma Museum have decided to cash in on the opportunity. The New York Times reported the story this morning and you can read it HERE.