Tyrants will fall?

Late yesterday afternoon I saw the Carole Vogel article (link is below), announcing the departure of Thomas Krens, in my email inbox and I must say I was surprised. Vogel is a bit like PRAVDA, she announces the things museums want to announce, yet she does raise questions from time to time. In any case, I thought Krens had dodged the bullet. Imagining the perspective of someone who had once lived under a dictator's yoke, I had waited for John Elderfield or better yet, Glenn Lowry to depart MoMA. The former is "retiring" while the latter has re-upped for FIVE more years. There are at last count at least two dozen museums seeking new Directors, so perhaps the MoMA trustees decided that the devil they know is better than.... Many observers had been convinced that Lowry was to go to the Met, but apparently the messy situation involving congressional inquiry into "bonuses" added to his obscenely huge paycheck scared off the museum. Recent conversations I have had on and off the record as well as articles about the recent history of both the Gug and MoMA have led me to begrudgingly question some of my, conventional, wisdom - the commas of course to indicate that I was parroting the prevailing artworld orthodoxy.

What if, as many claim, Lowry was brought in to clean house? If his authoritarian methods and the ruthless back-stabbing, paranoia, territorial competitiveness and lack of collegiality that prevail in some (but not all!!!) curatorial departments since he joined the museum are actually a reaction against his efforts to change the Museum's culture, and not an outgrowth of his highly hierarchical corporate management model? On the one hand, the museum has become more and more corporate, but one could argue that so have most museums, and this one is the most powerful so by extension it should be the most corporate, especially given the Forbes 500 composition of its board. Might some of this corporate re-organization be part of his mandate to make the museum more centralized and to dilute the power of individual Chief Curators (who many have compared to dictators of small Eastern Bloc nations) by creating a massive layer of middle-managers in administrative departments that are organizationally above the curatorial departments like some kind of bureaucratic superstructure?

And what about Krens? Hated for his crass corporate rhetoric and brash marketing strategies designed to promote the museum as a global franchise, despised for popularly-successful exhibitions and financially risky undertakings, other museum curators and directors gleefully cited him as the example of the ethical quagmire museums have become. But might he have been, with all of his admittedly problematic fiscal tactics, a convenient scapegoat for those who perhaps with more subtlety, emulated many of his activities? Have not most museums privileged crowd-pleasing exhibitions over other programming? And what is wrong with crowd-pleasing exhibitions, if they are also scholarly as is the case with many organized by the Guggenheim. For every "Art of the Motorcycle" you have a "Russia!" or a "Norman Rockwell" and many others that shed light on less examined areas of art history that other museums ignore. And as far as the fiscal issues: many museums have created branding/franchising agreements with museums abroad? MoMA and Mori to cite just one, and Vogel mentions the Tate and Louvre's recent activities as well, are examples of such agreements, and look at what is happening in the UAE..... Krens was perhaps too transparent, by using words like "branding," his arrogance led him to be brash, but isn't it better to see someone be frank about their strategy over the hypocrisy demonstrated by many other museum directors doing similar things?

What about the Guggenheim's scholarly focus, survey and historiographic exhibitions featuring their collection and the institutional history of the museum? Few talk about those programs which may attract less critical attention or even perhaps attendance, but one could argue that their curators have more opportunity to work with and research their collection than the hypercompetitive, hierarchical and scleorotic MoMA, whose collection after MoMA 2000 has gone back to business as usual? There, junior curatorial staff no longer get the chance to curate small shows from the collection, thereby learning more about it and being mentored by senior staff. The focus is largely on temporary shows, although there is now an emphasis on collecting contemporary art, by which they mean, as they do when they program Projects (formerly created to showcase emerging artists) "artists that appear in Chelsea and in the art fair/biennial circuit." Where are many of the works that appeared in Robert Storr's brilliant "Modern Art Despite Modernism"? Where are works by US artists from the 1930s - 1940s that are figurative? Where are the Latin American works that don't fall into the new canon of Southern Cone abstraction?

Interestingly, the situation inside these museums is not known to the general public and falls outside the scope of most art writers. Who cares about the rank and file museum workers? What about the strike at MoMA? Has anyone thought to follow up on the status of workers since? The rates of promotion, or lack thereof? The fact that most entry-level curatorial staff (women by and large) are now apparently let go after 3 years as a way to keep to the letter of the union contract, intended originally to protect staff that had gone years without evaluations leading to promotion, but now means there is no chance of a promotion.

At the Guggenheim, however, staff are apparently evaluated annually, not just by their supervisor, but by colleagues, and they have a chance to respond. They are regularly promoted, and have opportunities to curate even at junior levels. So ironically, at the evil, corporate, mercenary, dysfunctional Guggenheim, staff are treated with respect and there is a level of collegiality across the board that is found at MoMA only in small pockets of the institution.

So ironically, I now wonder, is it a bad thing or a good thing that Krens goes and Lowry stays?


ARTS / ART & DESIGN
Guggenheim’s Provocative Director Steps Down
By CAROL VOGEL
Published: February 28, 2008
The move comes three years after Thomas Krens won a showdown with the foundation’s biggest benefactor.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/arts/design/28muse.html?ex=1361854800&en=01f3a5fca79ff06b&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Xenophobia and Racism in the USA: The Obama Case

I was stunned by a BBC news article (below) about the circulation of a photo of Barack Obama wearing Somalian clothing. Apparently, the Clinton campaign disseminated the image in the hopes of dissuading voters from choosing Obama, due to his African ancestry. In addition, the Clinton campaign had allegedly made erroneous claims that Obama is a Muslim. Besides the fact that if true (and I don't doubt it, that Clinton's campaign attempted to highlight the photo and false religious affiliation stories as a way to torpedo Obama), this indicates an extreme and repugnant degree of sleaze and desperation on the part of her floundering campaign, I also wonder, why is it viewed as a liability for Obama to rock the African gear or to worship Mohammad? That both things are taken-for-granted items that are assumed to deter potential voters is to me the most disturbing part of this story. And although probably accurate, given what is known about the vast majority of people in the USA, it still manages to outrage me. I hope they are all wrong, and that Obama wins.



Robed Obama picture ignites row

The photo of Barack Obama was taken during a 2006 trip
US Democratic front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have traded accusations over a photo of Mr Obama circulating on the internet.
The picture, sent to the Drudge Report website, shows Mr Obama wearing traditional African dress during a visit to Kenya in 2006.

The Obama camp said it was circulated by Mrs Clinton's staff as a smear. Mrs Clinton's team denied the accusation.

The row comes as the rivals campaign for two crucial primaries next week.

Analysts say Mrs Clinton needs to win the contests, in Texas and Ohio, to remain in the race to choose the Democratic candidate for November's presidential election.

'Fear-mongering'

The photograph shows Mr Obama - whose father came from Kenya - wearing a white turban and a white robe presented to him by elders in the north-east of the country.


Her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election
David Plouffe, Obama campaign chief, accusing the Clinton camp
According to the Drudge Report, which published the photograph on Monday, it was circulated by "Clinton staffers".

Some Clinton aides have tried in the past to suggest to Democrats that Barack Obama's background might be off-putting to mainstream voters.

A campaign volunteer was sacked last year after circulating an email suggesting, falsely, that Mr Obama was a Muslim.

But the BBC Justin Webb in Ohio says the photograph - coming at this pivotal moment in the campaign - is being seen by the Obama team as particularly offensive.

His campaign manager, David Plouffe, accused Mrs Clinton's aides of "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election".

The accusation was dismissed by Mrs Clinton's campaign manager Maggie Williams.

"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed," she said.

"Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely."

Mrs Williams did not address the question of whether staffers circulated the photo.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7263783.stm

Como se dice, como se llama: OBAMA!

In his attempt to attract Latino voters, Obama's campaign has recruited musicians to create campaign jingles appropriate for the musical tastes of various nationalities. This morning my friend shared with me a mariachi type band in Texas singing about Obama. I am a fan of his on facebook and his profile is totally nerdolicious, his musical tastes include classical music, and the hippest he gets is listing the Fugees. I wrote my friend suggesting that what I'd like to see is Calle 13 do a reggaeton version and two seconds later I get the video above, which is completely laughable and ridiculous, as much as the tejano one I'd seen earlier. The lyrics say absolutely nothing, but that's politics, people.

Persepolis

A few days ago I went to see Persepolis the film based on the graphic novel by Marjane Satrapi which I hope wins the Academy Award. It is absolutely beautiful in every way: the animation, the story, the music. I was struck by the fact that the main character is at the same time a survivor and witness of the Shah's dictatorship, of the Islamic dictatorship and of the first Gulf War, she was however, also a grandchild of someone that suffered repression under the Shah, and was the child of someone suffering such reprisals as well. So one person occupies all of the generational positions discussed in analyses of family transmission of trauma simultaneously. One of many scenes that moved me took place early in the film where Marjane goes to visit her uncle in jail. Incarcerated for being a Communist under the Shah, his brief bout of freedom comes to an end as the Iranian revolution consolidates its power. He tells her to remember always their family's political struggle for justice, and to live a life of integrity. Marjane's grandmother also reminds her again and again to keep her dignity as a woman and to refuse to live in fear or succumb to her internal censor, to look the other way in the face of sexism and injustice.

Even though she is a young child, she seems to realize the great responsibility her uncle places on her, to keep his memory alive and to testify to others about the values he and his father fought for, like her grandfather before him, the uncle is killed, in this case, by the Iranian revolutionary government.

This scene and the entire movie made me reflect on my own family history and reminded me of my responsibility to write my book and to dedicate more of my publications to the memory of my grandfather and other family members who fought, were incarcerated, suffered repression and died fighting for social justice and against Franco.

FILM WEBSITE: http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/persepolis/

UPDATE: I am OUTRAGED that "Persepolis" did not win the Oscar. I can't believe that a movie about rats won out over Marjane Satrapi's masterpiece. But then, that's the US of A for you, isn't it?

Mr. Darcy

I have been watching "Pride and Prejudice" again. (is this my third time?) I love it when Jane Bennett tells him off, letting him know that he has "behaved in most ungentlemanly manner." And then Mr. Darcy realizes the error of his ways.

What a housewife's work is worth

I saw this on BBC news while drinking my coffee today and this reminds me of the flurry of comments related to my post "The Good Wife's Guide" (see below, under REAL NEWS) in particular the fantastic and right-on comment by "Taina" which listed jobs where being a woman is regarded as an advantage. This, in response to my original account of several recent conversations I have had with my very accomplished women friends about the dilemmas faced by us, the fallacy that we can "have it all," the struggle for parity with men including partners or husbands, and finally, the fact that some men suffer from a sense of entitlement that often coincides with a misguided arrogance.


From BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7252504.stm?lsm

Nearly three-quarters of those polled said it was a full-time job

Housewives would be paid more than the average worker if they received the going rate for their household chores, a survey has suggested. A poll of 4,000 housewives for networking website alljoinon.com suggested that the average mum worked for nearly nine hours a day every day.

The website said a housewife would earn almost £30,000 a year if she was employed to do all the same errands.

The average annual UK wage is £23,700, according to official figures.

Some 71% of those polled agreed that successfully running the family home was a full-time job.

"The survey clearly demonstrates that not only do housewives deserve a wage for their efforts, they also need a break from the daily grind," said Carolyn Morris, spokeswoman for alljoinon.com.

The chores are yours

An average mum would spend 273 minutes every day looking after the children, according to the poll. Based on an hourly rate of £8, a nanny would earn £36.80 a day for the same job.


The survey claims 71 minutes a day is spent cleaning and tidying
Cleaning and tidying for 71 minutes would net a cleaner £7.10 a day. For more than an hour of cooking a head chef would get £17.30.

Fourteen minutes making the beds is worth £1.29 for a chambermaid, and a kitchen assistant would be paid £2.57 for a housewife's typical 28 minutes of washing up.

The poll said the average mum trawled the family finances for 39 minutes, which would cost £12.50 if an accountant did it.

A taxi driver would earn £2.53 for the 23 minutes of ferrying children around, and a mystery shopper £2.10 for the 18 minutes a day of grocery shopping.

Single women 'do less'

HAVE YOUR SAY
Would you really want to put a price on your wife? I'd rather pitch in and do my fair share.
James, Belfast
Send us your comments
Last year, a study said that employed women living with their employed partner spent more time doing housework than single women.
Labour economist Helene Couprie, of Toulouse University, concluded that on average, an employed woman does 15 hours a week of housework when she lives with her employed partner, up from 10 hours when single.

Men, on the other hand, see the hours they commit to housework decline once they begin living as a couple, she found.

In the year to April 2007, average earnings of full-time male employees were £498 per week, while for women it was £394, according to the Office of National Statistics.

Panda porno

As usual, I woke up to NPR and to the BBC news. This story of an experiment to encourage the dwindling population of pandas to mate, using panda porn videos, made me smile. (rare event lately) If only humans had how-to videos to show them how to treat mates with respect, what roles to take, when and when not to give up on someone of interest....


Here is the BBC story (photos above, also BBC):

Sex videos fail to engage pandas
By James Reynolds
BBC News, Chengdu, China


Pandas are only sexually active for a few days each year
The video is pretty graphic. Qing Qing and Ha Lei tangle and slither about awkwardly on the floor of their panda enclosure.

Their encounter is filmed by one of the keepers. And scientists at the Chengdu Research Base for Giant Panda Breeding now play this mating tape to other pandas in the hope that it will encourage them to do the same.

"Here you can see the female is very co-operative," says reproduction specialist Hou Rong - who is known here as the Goddess of Fertility. She watches the video closely.

The two pandas writhe about for a bit longer. Then they untangle. It may be best to stop male pandas from watching what comes next.

"The female is not co-operative," says Dr Hou laconically.

That is an understatement.

The tape shows the female, Qing Qing, attacking the male, Ha Lei. He runs off to the corner, looking sheepish.

Qing Qing looks angry. Apparently this is normal behaviour for pandas after mating.

Still at least Qing Qing and Ha Lei get their job done. That is quite something.

Crucial timing

Some species cannot seem to stop mating, but pandas cannot seem to start.


Females commonly attack males after mating
Female pandas are only interested in reproducing for two or three days a year. For males it is the same.

Luckily for the survival of the panda species, these days of interest happen to coincide.

Scientists here have to make the most of this brief mating season. There are only around 2,000 pandas left in the world - including about 250 in captivity.

So the trick for everyone here at the Chengdu reserve is to get their pandas together on the right days, and then nudge them along a bit by playing them the video of Qing Qing and Ha Lei.

No one here can remember who came up with the idea - it was possibly a behaviour specialist from abroad, they say.

And there is one problem - no one is sure whether or not the mating tapes make any difference.

"We don't know if its useful for pandas or not," says Dr Hou. "Some pandas are interested. Others are not interested. They prefer to eat or rest - and not pay attention to the video."

So the reserve lets us play the video to the pandas ourselves.

Headache?

We get together a small monitor and some loudspeakers, put some plastic bags onto our shoes and head into a small enclosure.

One panda lies on its back among piles of bamboo leaves. Another is asleep. It does not look like they have mating on their minds.

We set up a small TV screen in front of a seven-year-old female panda called Shu Qing. She is busy crunching her way through an apple.

We play her the tape of Qing Qing and Ha Lei. Shu Qing shows no interest. She is much more concerned about finishing her apple.

After a couple of minutes she glances over at the TV monitor. Then she seems lost in thought. She vaguely waves a paw, but nothing more.

So the video does not appear to work. Perhaps Shu Qing has a headache, or perhaps she just prefers apples to adult videos.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7250657.stm

Llegaste Tarde Los Amigos Invisibles

New York Mag - another brilliant move....

Govan: He's got my vote as the most nerdolicious of the bunch.



Cuno: Not only do I like what he says about museums and the detrimental role played by blockbuster inflation, but I also like how he owns his incipient baldness with confidence.




Tinterow: Here's what they DON'T say and which ups his snootieness quotient in a huge way: he has custom-made suits! And they are fabulous.




Lowry: Here's what they don't say about GL which significantly drops his snootieness level: one, he is known for leering at female employees, which is a plus since he is unlikely to recognize them by looking above their neckline, thus making quitting easier, and two, he dresses like a Mafia don




This article made my day: "Who's Snooty Enough to Replace Philippe de Montebello"
and it dovetails nicely with some of my kvetching below in "The Good Wife's Guide" (under Real News) about the sense of arrogance and entitlement some (particularly straight) men in the artworld suffer from.


The Take
1/ 9/081:20 PM
Who's Snooty Enough to Replace Philippe de Montebello?
The Met's departing director, Philippe de Montebello, who was as famous for his patrician air and his mastery of six languages as he was for his impeccable stewardship of the museum, will be a tough act to follow, and this morning the Times discusses several of the potential candidates. We don't know that much about what it takes to run the Met, other than a closet full of bespoke suits, but we'd expect that any potential candidate would need to measure up to De Montebello's aristocratic persona. That's why rather than judge the hopefuls on their qualifications or expertise, we're going to judge them on how snooty they seem based on their photo and résumé. Thankfully, Vulture has just the tool: our Snootometer™, which precisely measures the snootiness of any individual on a scale of zero (John Goodman) to 10 (the maître d' from Ferris Bueller's Day Off).

Timothy Potts. Though he's 49, he looks 22. And though he runs the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, he previously ran a museum in Fort Worth, Texas. We don't care how important the Kimbell Art Museum is, Fort Worth is not snooty enough. Also, he appears to be smiling in this photo: not snooty!
SNOOTOMETER RATING: 4.6

Michael Govan. According to the Times, he's "the dark-horse candidate," and that's certainly true according to the Snootometer as well. His experience running the Dia Art Foundation and, more recently, a museum in (gasp) Los Angeles, suggest glitz and dazzle rather than snoot. Also, while handsome, he looks like a dude you'd see outside Butter on any given night.
SNOOTOMETER RATING: 5.3

James Cuno. Plus: A doctorate in art history from Harvard. Minuses: Runs a museum in Chicago, a city known to most Met board members as a place airplanes are sometimes forced to stop on the way to Tokyo. A "talented and aggressive builder and fund-raiser," which suggests he has to work for funding rather than imperiously demand it. Also, while we appreciate that he is rocking the receding hairline-beard combo, this feels less "snooty museum director" and more "guy your younger sister dates that makes you feel sort of weird."
SNOOTOMETER RATING: 5.5

Gary Tinterow. An influential scholar in European art and the curator in charge of nineteenth century, modern, and contemporary art at the Met, Tinterow certainly has the snooty bona fides. We also love his glasses. On the other hand, we hear he's actually quite well liked inside the Met, which suggests he might not be snooty enough.
SNOOTOMETER RATING: 7.7

Glenn D. Lowry. The hugely successful director of MoMA has all the credentials to be a world-class snoot: He's the steward of a major New York museum; he has a doctorate from Harvard; and he's got a powerful nose, perfect for raising in the air and sniffing. We're a bit worried, though, about his former position before MoMA: running a museum in Toronto. Is he Canadian? If so, major deduction.
SNOOTOMETER RATING: 8.3

Neil MacGregor. While we're a little concerned about MacGregor's pronouncements that keeping art free for the masses is a priority, we're willing to overlook that flaw in light of his British Museum and National Gallery of London directorships; his experience as a university lecturer and an art-museum editor; and the Times reference to "languages," which suggests he speaks quite a few. Also, in this photo, he is pointing at a painting with his pinkie. Ladies and gentlemen, meet your new director!
SNOOTOMETER RATING: 9.8


http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/01/whos_snooty_enough_to_replace.html

The Good Wife's Guide

I am too busy now to comment. More later.

Now it is later, but way later because I have been busy at work, meetings, more meetings, evening work-related events, out dancing, dinners....my life is busy indeed. And I don't have a "wife" to cook for me, welcome me home, ask me how MY day went. Though most women I know wish they had such a creature. The article above -from 1955 has literally landed in my inbox several times in the past week, sent by several of my incredibly brilliant, well-educated and accomplished women friends! Interestingly, for various reasons lately I have had intense conversations with groups of women I am close to (and their friends) about the same subject: we have come a long way, baby. And then we have not. In more than one of these conversations, at least one woman has brought up the fact that those of us in our thirties or forties who grew up taking women's studies courses never heard about how hard this was going to be: we were told we could "have it all."

I have participated in various versions of a discussion about the reasons why women who have children still have to put their careers on hold. And the men, though they contribute far more to childcare than men of any generation ever have, still have the option of prioritizing their careers and expecting the wife/mother to pick up the slack. The women taking part in these conversations are all highly educated and at high-pressure jobs, some are married, some have children, some have neither but usually when they hear about a friend in such a situation, they all offer to have her back. When her husband or boyfriend does not.

Other recent topics of discussion relate to the sense of entitlement that men display, particularly when they are in professions where they are under-represented. In general many seem to feel they don't have to pay their dues. Yet we as women are coached to develop political tact and extreme deference to those senior to us. Men are excused when they lack such understanding or emotional intelligence. They are ambitious, the reasoning goes. They are expected to be so. However, if you are a woman and are as ambitious you are seen as a bitch or a social climber. This sense of entitlement is particularly true of straight men, who are immediately granted a leg up (ie. not considered for entry level but rather higher ranking positions at museums for example; or disproportionately act as heads of departments, directors and the like) I have been known to be more annoyed by a woman colleague I regarded as overly-ambitious than by a male colleague who was equally if not more of a ruthless competitor. I also was coerced into helping a former colleague with entry-level administrative tasks that he never had to learn because he was brought in one level higher than I was. Though we had the same qualifications and I was older than he. Well, not the same qualifications, he was white, heterosexual, and wealthy.

Related to this is the verbal sense of entitlement. You go to a panel discussion, and one of the least interesting lectures happens to be given by a man who in very condescending and pedantic terms proceeds to go way over the time allotted to him. This type of thing begins in graduate school and continues at myriad conferences, panels and the like. Yet we as women are watching the clock trying to not take up others' time. I remember recently being congratulated for being the ONLY person who kept to the time limit requested by the symposium organizer. Arrogance in men is somehow excused, viewed as natural. This is where I hit the wall with a man. I can't respect anyone who is arrogant, this detracts from my assesment of their "intelligence." Each semester I have to coach more than one female student to teach her NOT to apologize for her statements and thereby undermine her own intellectual credibility.

Apparently, I am told that the more educated and employed you are the more you "price yourself out" of the marriage market. Also, you are older and so it takes years to get the degree and pay your dues and then you are "too old" for men your own age. Who want a twentysomething bleached blond anorexic to bear their children. If you don't want children at all, you are clearly regarded as unnatural. I have discussed with friends the ways in which if you are a successful and smart woman, you have to somehow compensate for this so that potential dates don't feel "threatened" by you. Ways in which to do this vary from praising his intellect and downplaying your own, to displaying your own insecurities and/or emotional vulnerabilities.

Related to this is the often discussed advice that if you are contemplating dating a guy, you have to let him be "the man" and call the shots because they are sadly rendered confused by the post-feminist moment we live in. Men need to feel needed!! This means never asking them out, but rather passively waiting for them to make a move. I have been known to endorse this argument although this means enacting behavior that totally contradicts your view of yourself as an empowered woman. Which clearly you are if you have persevered in obtaining higher degrees and landing a good job in a highly competitive environment. How does one reconcile such contradictions? I have no idea.

All I know is that when I read that article, I wondered: how much have things changed?