In an earlier blog post I mentioned that the American Folk Art Museum was experiencing financial difficulties and seriously considering dissolving and transferring its collections to another institution because of them. According to this article in today’s New York Times, however, the museum decided on Wednesday evening that it would continue to operate at its current location at Lincoln Square in Manhattan with the help of financial infusions from trustees and the Ford Foundation. At the board meeting on Wednesday, the trustees of the museum created a strategy to increase the museum’s visibility–the lack of which was cited as one of the reasons for the museum’s troubles–and to extend its brand. Additionally, the museum will try to expand the loans of its collections to other New York City museums and to mount traveling exhibitions of the collections. Other museums, which are mentioned in the article, have expressed interest in working with the Folk Art Museum to identify potential collaborations to this nature. The new museum president, Edward Blanchard, says he is still uncertain of the budgetary implications involved in keeping the museum open but that the trustees are using the crisis the museum has just been through “to stimulate them to do things in creative and innovative ways.”
The Arts in NYC, Professor Smaldone, Fall 2011
Queens College
I’ve been to this museum, and frankly, I wasn’t surprised to find out that it was closing. I cannot help but wonder, why work so hard to keep it open? As far as museums go, especially in New York City, it isn’t very impressive. Although I’ve got to say, it has an awesome gift shop.
With so many museums in New York and the attention that is given to blockbuster shows, it is not surprising that a quiet little museum like this does not get the attention (or respect, or money) that it needs. It is a valuable corner of the art world and worth preserving, but the museum will need to think creatively to justify its continued existence. Just preserving the art on the walls and unlocking the doors is not enough. there are many corners of art/culture that need to examine the way they do business in a similar way. Classical orchestral music is another example.
Its no wonder that when a museum is in crisis, it takes a rich person or company to save it. I Have had previous posts about how the occupy wall street protestors address this facet of the “1%”. Most museums are only made possible by the contributions from wealthy philanthropists. If there were no philanthropists, its unlikely that people would ban together to raise the funds for keeping a museum open. With all the artwork and music that the protestors are invested in, why don’t they show some gratitude towards the 1% who made New York city the artistic capital of the world? The art and music produced in response to Occupy Wall Street is certainly evidence of the occupiers’ dedication to art. Have they taken into account how much the arts would suffer if the incredibly wealthy were not as wealthy? Kiss Carnegie Hall, The Rubin Museum of Art, The Folk Museum, and countless other art centers goodbye.