For it’s first time ever, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has teamed up with another institution to buy a contemporary art installation. When “The Refusal of Time,” another work by William Kentridge, who also directed “The Nose,” premiered in Kassel, Germany, two museums expressed interest in acquiring it. Both the Met and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art already had several pieces by Kentridge and were looking to add to their collection. In collaboration, the two museums have agreed to co-own the installation and determine a mutually acceptable schedule to split show times. “The Refusal of Time” will display through May 11th after Kentridge’s production of “The Nose” winds down. The San Francisco museum will wait until their museum expansion is finished to display the video projection in 2016.
Neither museum points at a lack of funding as a cause for this new co-ownership. Rather, the idea to share the piece simply came from practical motivations. Unlike many arts partnerships before, sharing “The Refusal of Time” is not likely to damage the artwork. Because it is a contemporary video installation there is no worry about harming the canvas during transportation. Furthermore, neither museum anticipates continuously showing Kentridge’s video work because it requires an entirely empty room and clamorous echoes.
This joint acquisition seems to hint at what to expect from the Met’s new modern and contemporary gallery (at Madison Avenue and 75th Street). Their expansion for a space devoted to works like Kentridge’s “The Refusal of Time” tells me that the Met is hoping to gain a new circle of support with, perhaps, a focus on a younger audience. As Thomas Campbell, director of the Met, says, “The new building will give us space to be experimental.” I think the Met is trying to experiment with reaching a younger platform of art enthusiasts who feel more connection to digital forms of art. By designating a new location to play around with sufficiently satisfying those interests, the Met can retain their distinction as having a great collection of what generally comes to mind when one thinks of art while offering a quality space to present modern pieces.
My hope is to see the new Whitney building offer a more open style of viewing art. Like what we did at the Brooklyn Museum, I hope to be able to openly discuss what we view there without the pressure to whisper. Because art is so subjective there is always something someone else will feel for a piece that didn’t stand out in your mind. There’s more to be learned when you can freely discuss those aspects of art that stand out to you in front of the piece than try to recall the work in memory. Therefore, by making the discussion of ideas more accessible, the general understanding of why art is amazing will reach more people. I think the limitations to enjoying art come from restrictions in accessing and discussing it. If what we know about Kentridge’s work and “The Refusal of Time” holds true, I think the Whitney building is already moving to create a more immersive environment of viewing art. I’m excited to see how the new building’s approach to art will differ from the main Met building and how partnership with other museums will play into new exciting exhibits of artwork.
Vogel, Carol. “One Met Isn’t Enough.” NYTimes. N.p., 16 Oct. 2013. Web. 24 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/17/arts/design/one-met-isnt-enough.html?src=recg>.
I think it’s very interesting how the MET is looking into displaying a digital and more interactive work of art to cater to younger audiences. You also make a good point on how students at the Macaulay event were able to openly discuss art at the Brooklyn Museum to make it a more engaging experience. If executed correctly, both of the things aforementioned will help attract more audiences to museums. I personally think that museums and other venues of cultural art do not engage enough audiences because many people are under the impression that museums are only for elitist, rich people who have expensive taste. Because of this, many people would feel excluded from museums. A good way to break this impression is to start with something that many people are familiar with: video. This would involve more people in the arts since platforms like video are more representative of the current generation and times.
In addition, more people would be able to better appreciate works of art if they were allowed to openly express themselves in an open environment where no one is judged. This would encourage more people to give their attention to the arts and more likely to continue to stay involved.
I appreciate both the review and comments to this NYTimes Article because it is a very accurate example of the changing viewpoints that people have nowadays about the function of a museum. Before the internet, museums were the only way people can just see images of important art in accurate color, size and texture. Now that virtually all information is available to us via the internet, the sort of need for physical objects and thus, large holding houses for images are much more arbitrary. The shift of art to more of an experience rather than a visual display has been very prominent in the work of artists like Ann Hamilton, Kara Walker and, as the article featured- Kentridge. So, in fact, it makes perfect sense for the Metropolitan to develop this ‘experience’ building spaces for installation artwork. Maybe in the future, thats the only type of art that people will even recognize.
You definitely chose a very relevant and interesting topic for our class, since we focus on art in our city. I really enjoy going to the MET, and honestly one of the things I like is that it focuses mainly on older art because I can’t really seem to grasp certain aspects of modern art. For instance, I remember a vacuum simply standing as a piece on display at the MOMA. At the same time, I do think it’s a good idea for the MET to acquire more modern art work in their Whitney Building. The MET is a huge museum, visited by many tourists, and so it’s a great idea for it to show all art types on display. I would definitely like to be someone who appreciates and accepts all art forms, so it would be great if the museum would add more modern art, so as to expose me and everyone else more evenly to all the art types that are out there. I like this idea, nice article choice.
I found it really interesting that two museums could have such a form of collaboration. Before reading this I figured that with most art pieces, once a museum snagged a popular piece they would keep it because it would mostly likely attract a large audience. So, the fact this art piece is so popular and yet the two museums are willing to move the piece is great. I think that art should always be shared and that it isn’t fair to keep a particular piece in one place because it limits the amount of people who can actually view it. Although sometimes it can be necessary for a museum to hold a piece, like when wear and tear is a concern, I really admire the fact that the two museums are working together to display Kentridge’s work. I think that through situations like this where institutions are sharing art 3000 miles away from each other, people will have greater access to a wider range of art forms and eventually expand their definition of what they consider to be art.
I find it very interesting that the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art decided to share William Kentridge’s “The Refusal of Time.” Before this article, I have never heard of museums sharing an artwork and transporting the piece between them. I find it very mature and generous of both parties to reach an agreement and collaborate. I believe this decision is a smart one because it expands the audience. Since the two museums are located on opposite coasts, more people will be able to have access and view Kentridge’s work. Art should be open to everyone and not limited. In addition, I’m glad the MET is considering displaying more digital works. Personally, for me, I enjoy when art is interactive because I find it more interesting and engaging. I think this idea of expansion will attract a whole new audience. Art is constantly changing and museums need to adapt to these changes.
After reading this article, I think art is a form of creative business, which places more emphasis on consumer satisfaction than competition between two or more entities involved in the transaction. Nevertheless, it still surprises me that Metropolitan Museum of Art and San Francisco Museum of Modern Art have become parties in a joint venture, perhaps because I have not heard of such collaborations lately. In a world of cutthroat business, where corporations fiercely compete to dominate the market, it is refreshing to come across an instance where two entities willingly collaborate without any ulterior motive, like compensating for budget problem. I would like to follow up on this joint acquisition to see what it amounts to.
As far as the art itself is concerned, I agree that Metropolitan Museum of Art is using a wise marketing strategy by including digital works in their exhibition. This generation of the Information Revolution is full of tech-savvy people who can genuinely appreciate digital arts. Further, by adding William Kentridge’s “The Refusal of Time,” the Met will attract a larger pool of contemporary audience. The shared venture will allow more people the opportunity to see the work and feel inspired. Lastly, in choosing to exhibit Kentridge’s visual project, the Met will be taking a two-in-one approach of diversifying its collections, (thereby becoming more versatile) and attracting younger audiences to build and secure funding for the institution in the near and later future.
I really like that you mentioned the museum’s attempt to appeal to a younger audience. Whenever I visit a museum, I feel a bit out of place because most pieces seem like they can only be truly appreciated by older people who have more extravagant tastes. It’s refreshing to learn that institutions like the Met are trying something new to engage people like us. I also found your post very interesting because I didn’t know that it was possible to co-own a piece of art. I think this is a great idea because both museums not only get to experiment with modern art, but also allow Kentridge’s work to be shared with a larger and more diverse audience. I’ve always found contemporary pieces to be more intriguing to view, so I’m excited to see what will come of the Met’s new gallery.
I think this article is relevant to all of us at Macaulay, especially when you mentioned the Night at the Museum event. I like the way you addressed the issue of us being able to voice our opinions without any judgement.
Its strange, but exciting, that both of these venues have such a large dedication to Kentridge’s work that they are agreeing to share it. Luckily, transportation of this piece will evidently not be a problem. I agree that it is very mature for both museum’s to do this; they’re allowing people from totally opposite sides of the country to be able to view the piece without the travel. I think that this collaboration will also inspire other museums to share their pieces, allowing for more audiences to be targeted, and thus allowing for a great audience in the arts in general. Personally, I believe that art is meant to be shared and brought to people all over the world- so I am happy with both museums decision.