MAN reveals the news that an Anne Truitt sculpture at the MoMA has been damaged. As Tyler notes, he's been concerned over the situation at the newly reopened MoMA for a while, and in light of events demands:
MoMA must lower the number of people allowed in the building. They must ban strollers and cameras from the building and they must train their guards better -- and hold them accountable for the flashes that go off and the damage that occurs in their galleries.
It's hard to comment on the situation without knowing more - MoMA's security arrangements and policies, crowd control strategies and how these are implemented (or not), to say nothing of how exactly the sculpture was damaged. There are always risks, especially to the sort of contemporary work that doesn't have a space clearly separated from the audience. I don't know how many people are allowed into the MoMA at once, and can only speculate as to how difficult it would be to cut back at this time. As one who has worn the polyester prophylactic, let me stick up for my brethren by saying that all the training in the world won't stop some things from happening. There can be a lot of ground to cover and people sometimes move suddenly and unpredictably. That said, more training can't but be a good thing - more guards might be even better.
On a more general level, I like using a camera in museums. In most institutions it's not hard to implement a "no flash" policy, but if what Tyler reports is accurate, the crush in the MoMA has made the job impossible. I think some of the answer may lie at the gate: expressing the policy more emphatically, possibly even threatening consequences for noncompliance. In general, people need to be reminded where they are and what they are surrounded by when in a museum.
Let's also keep in mind that as big and bad as the MoMA may be, it is probably still grappling with the reality of its new situation. The excitement over its reopening, the holiday season and the logistics of the whole affair have no doubt put a great strain upon the institution. That doesn't excuse any harm done, but it has to be factored in when assessing matters. And always remember: any art on display is at risk, no matter how secure the environment or professional the staff. One hopes that damage done can be repaired, but the only way to ensure that it doesn't occur is to keep everything in storage - and even that's not completely safe.
In most institutions it's not hard to implement a "no flash" policy, but if what Tyler reports is accurate, the crush in the MoMA has made the job impossible.
That may be. Still, read this passage from Tyler's original post on the subject:
"And in the works on paper galleries, one visitor was taking repeated flash photos as a guard stood and watched, doing nothing. A friend of mine asked why he was being allowed to do that. The guard replied that it was New Year's Eve and he didn't want to ruin anyone's day."
Works on paper! Repeated flash photos! Perhaps Tyler exaggerated some but, good Lord.
Cameras in a museum? By all means. Flash photos? Absolutely not.
Posted by: Dan | January 15, 2005 at 01:01 AM
My initial reaction to this back when Tyler brought it up the first time was to raise the entry fee. If the problem truly is too many people in the galleries, then that seems to be a quick fix. On further reflection, however, I think MoMA is probably resistant to the effects of rising admission prices, as evinced by the current situation. It's further exacerbated by the various schemes that MoMA has put in place to extend the amount of time visitors spend at the museum, such as Starbucks.
Posted by: Todd W. | January 15, 2005 at 01:41 AM
Oh, by the way, according to the New York Review of Books, MoMA can accomodate 2000 visitors/day. That means it can handle about three-quarters of a million visitors each year.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17675
Posted by: Todd W. | January 15, 2005 at 01:51 AM
Some people have cameras where you can't turn the flash off, or they don't know how to. I was at museum recently where I forgot I had it on "auto" (ie, can't turn flash off) mode, snapped a pic, and had 2 guards simultaneously leap toward me, saying "no flash". I wonder if they can say it in 20 languages, since AIC seems to get mostly international viewers.
Maybe sign at door should remind people. Maybe it should also remind people to turn the f*ing cell phone off, too.
Posted by: Cynthia | January 15, 2005 at 10:29 AM
Maybe it should also remind people to turn the f*ing cell phone off, too.
Ooh, yeah. I've been guilty of that one. Even worse, I actually took a call while in the Roman galleries of Harvard's Sackler Museum. I was mortified, but there was no one around except me and a guard. And it was important!
Posted by: Miguel Sánchez | January 15, 2005 at 10:36 AM
No exaggeration at all. In fact, on Monday I'll probably run a post of egregious behavior I've seen that's gone uncorrected at MoMA.
Posted by: Tyler Green | January 15, 2005 at 11:13 AM
I'll probably run a post of egregious behavior I've seen that's gone uncorrected at MoMA.
Good. I didn't think you were exaggerating. This is an uncomfortable topic for me in some ways, and I don't want to imply that these sorts of issues are only the MoMA's problem or that everything can be prevented. But if there are serious, persistent issues, attention must be paid. And those involved in security or collection care at any institution should consider carefully how they can do better as well.
Posted by: Miguel Sánchez | January 15, 2005 at 11:50 AM
I took a call on my cellphone while inside a gallery on W 22nd Street and was asked to leave the gallery and not return until my call was finished. This request came from a visitor, not a gallery employee.
An extreme response, but perfectly understandable.
Posted by: María Elena | January 22, 2005 at 02:55 PM