Over the past few years there has been increasing discussion in the arts and cultural community about the shifting roles and expectations of audiences, and how they impact the creation of art as well as the relationship of cultural institutions with their audiences. Last year, for example, ARTnews published “Reshaping the Art Museum,” a story [...]
Over the past few years there has been increasing discussion in the arts and cultural community about the shifting roles and expectations of audiences, and how they impact the creation of art as well as the relationship of cultural institutions with their audiences. Last year, for example, ARTnews published “Reshaping the Art Museum,” a story that covered myriad strategies that arts institutions are experimenting with to attract and engage audiences. In that article I mentioned the Walker’s ongoing experiments with the presentation of its collections and the desire of our staff to advance more relational forms of engagement that invite increased viewer participation.
More recently, the Wall Street Journal’s story, “No More ‘Cathedrals of Culture’,” reported on changes that a new and younger generation of museum directors are making. (The writer, Judith Dobrzynski, also wrote a post on her blog at Arts Journal, “Why Must Our Cultural Cathedrals Be Replaced by Town Squares?”)
In the "cathedral": Guillermo Kuitca installing his survey at the Walker, June 2010
As director of the Walker, I was quoted briefly in both stories, but I thought I would take the opportunity here on our blogs to present my views on the subject in greater detail. On a fundamental level, it seems unnecessary to create such a strict dichotomy between the idea of arts institutions as “cathedrals” or “town squares.” This need not be an either/or proposition, in my view, particularly if you think back historically to the adjacency of the cathedral and the town square in the heart of any city center. Located facing the main public plaza and proximate to open air markets, cathedrals were often at the hub of community life. In addition to their public convening function, they were also centers for the recording of history, the preservation of culture and the commissioning of art, as well as scholastic centers for the dissemination and debate of knowledge.
Not to take the metaphor too far, but our dual mission at the Walker—to serve as “a catalyst for the creative expression of artists and the active engagement of audiences”—does reflect the importance of these kind of adjacencies in a community, and also the rather fluid boundaries that I believe should exist between them. Just as many contemporary artists are increasingly developing communal art-making practices and activating new kinds of relationships with audiences, the Walker too has been finding innovative ways to offer greater access to a broader range of visitors, to create increased points of entry, and to help them feel more engaged and invested in the Walker as an institution. These kinds of efforts have been most prominent in the current Open Field program taking place right outside our Vineland Place entry. In this summer-long experiment, we have not only invited the Twin Cities community at large to activate our “backyard” but have also partnered with a range of community groups and artist collectives from around the country to curate events and programs.
In the Walker galleries, we are also showcasing a significant number of the contemporary artists who have been directly or indirectly engaging with the public, and doing so for decades. Take two large-scale installations by Hélio Oiticica (from 1973) and Rirkrit Tiravanija (2006) currently on view in the Burnet Gallery, which both require audience participation; or The Talent Show, an exhibition that just closed, which examined complicated relationships that have emerged between artists, audiences, and participants over more than 40 years. One of its most popular works, by Peter Campus, was first installed at the Walker in 1971.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqxBgbVgmVQ[/youtube]
As contemporary artists seek to activate new relationships with their audiences, museums and arts institutions help to foster these kinds of conversations. I’m proud to say that the Walker is uniquely positioned in this regard, not only as a platform and as a convener, but also as an instigator and catalytic voice. Indeed, we remain deeply committed to our mission and to developing our core, committed audiences while also seeking to broaden and diversify them.
The Walker’s efforts to encourage a “town square” atmosphere—in certain contexts and at appropriate times—does not signal an a priori abandonment of the institution’s commitment to quality, scholarship, stewardship, and presenting timely exhibitions of important artists and artistic movements (the traditional role of a “cathedral of culture.”) Currently on view is Guillermo Kuitca: Everything—Paintings and Works on Paper, 1980-2008, a survey and catalogue that find new meanings in this artist’s singular painting practice. The Walker has also organized From Here to There: Alec Soth’s America, the first U.S. survey of work from this contemporary photographer, opening next month; and co-organized Yves Klein: With the Void, Full Powers, the first U.S. retrospective for this artist in nearly 30 years, opening in October. (The Walker has also published catalogues for both of those exhibitions.)
At the "town square": Kuitca and other participants at the Walker's Drawing Club
And yet, even as Kuitca was helping to install his exhibition inside the Walker, he enthusiastically participated in Drawing Club, a weekly “town square” event outdoors, which brings together artists and others to make collaborative art works. As an avid draftsman, he was happy and even eager to meet fellow artists and non-artists at this convivial gathering. Soth, who is always interested in engaging with his audiences, is creating an online photography project for the public in conjunction with his exhibition.
In short, arts institutions need not make either/or choices when it comes to the cathedral vs. town square metaphor. They can – indeed, I believe they must – take a both/and approach, and strive to have these roles converge in bold, imaginative ways that not only extend creative practice but also include the public in the creative economy. Embodying the notion of a town square does not have to involve pandering or diminishing the loftiest ideals about art, arts institutions, or the intimacy of the experience of art for the public; it’s simply making room for everyone, and making efforts to welcome them.
I hope that more voices will join in this ongoing conversation. Please share your thoughts and comments in the box below.
Arts Institutions: Cathedrals, Town Squares—or Both?
Over the past few years there has been increasing discussion in the arts and cultural community about the shifting roles and expectations of audiences, and how they impact the creation of art as well as the relationship of cultural institutions with their audiences. Last year, for example, ARTnews published “Reshaping the Art Museum,” a story [...]
Over the past few years there has been increasing discussion in the arts and cultural community about the shifting roles and expectations of audiences, and how they impact the creation of art as well as the relationship of cultural institutions with their audiences. Last year, for example, ARTnews published “Reshaping the Art Museum,” a story that covered myriad strategies that arts institutions are experimenting with to attract and engage audiences. In that article I mentioned the Walker’s ongoing experiments with the presentation of its collections and the desire of our staff to advance more relational forms of engagement that invite increased viewer participation.
More recently, the Wall Street Journal’s story, “No More ‘Cathedrals of Culture’,” reported on changes that a new and younger generation of museum directors are making. (The writer, Judith Dobrzynski, also wrote a post on her blog at Arts Journal, “Why Must Our Cultural Cathedrals Be Replaced by Town Squares?”)
In the "cathedral": Guillermo Kuitca installing his survey at the Walker, June 2010
Not to take the metaphor too far, but our dual mission at the Walker—to serve as “a catalyst for the creative expression of artists and the active engagement of audiences”—does reflect the importance of these kind of adjacencies in a community, and also the rather fluid boundaries that I believe should exist between them. Just as many contemporary artists are increasingly developing communal art-making practices and activating new kinds of relationships with audiences, the Walker too has been finding innovative ways to offer greater access to a broader range of visitors, to create increased points of entry, and to help them feel more engaged and invested in the Walker as an institution. These kinds of efforts have been most prominent in the current Open Field program taking place right outside our Vineland Place entry. In this summer-long experiment, we have not only invited the Twin Cities community at large to activate our “backyard” but have also partnered with a range of community groups and artist collectives from around the country to curate events and programs.
In the Walker galleries, we are also showcasing a significant number of the contemporary artists who have been directly or indirectly engaging with the public, and doing so for decades. Take two large-scale installations by Hélio Oiticica (from 1973) and Rirkrit Tiravanija (2006) currently on view in the Burnet Gallery, which both require audience participation; or The Talent Show, an exhibition that just closed, which examined complicated relationships that have emerged between artists, audiences, and participants over more than 40 years. One of its most popular works, by Peter Campus, was first installed at the Walker in 1971.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqxBgbVgmVQ[/youtube]
As contemporary artists seek to activate new relationships with their audiences, museums and arts institutions help to foster these kinds of conversations. I’m proud to say that the Walker is uniquely positioned in this regard, not only as a platform and as a convener, but also as an instigator and catalytic voice. Indeed, we remain deeply committed to our mission and to developing our core, committed audiences while also seeking to broaden and diversify them.
The Walker’s efforts to encourage a “town square” atmosphere—in certain contexts and at appropriate times—does not signal an a priori abandonment of the institution’s commitment to quality, scholarship, stewardship, and presenting timely exhibitions of important artists and artistic movements (the traditional role of a “cathedral of culture.”) Currently on view is Guillermo Kuitca: Everything—Paintings and Works on Paper, 1980-2008, a survey and catalogue that find new meanings in this artist’s singular painting practice. The Walker has also organized From Here to There: Alec Soth’s America, the first U.S. survey of work from this contemporary photographer, opening next month; and co-organized Yves Klein: With the Void, Full Powers, the first U.S. retrospective for this artist in nearly 30 years, opening in October. (The Walker has also published catalogues for both of those exhibitions.)
At the "town square": Kuitca and other participants at the Walker's Drawing Club
And yet, even as Kuitca was helping to install his exhibition inside the Walker, he enthusiastically participated in Drawing Club, a weekly “town square” event outdoors, which brings together artists and others to make collaborative art works. As an avid draftsman, he was happy and even eager to meet fellow artists and non-artists at this convivial gathering. Soth, who is always interested in engaging with his audiences, is creating an online photography project for the public in conjunction with his exhibition.
In short, arts institutions need not make either/or choices when it comes to the cathedral vs. town square metaphor. They can – indeed, I believe they must – take a both/and approach, and strive to have these roles converge in bold, imaginative ways that not only extend creative practice but also include the public in the creative economy. Embodying the notion of a town square does not have to involve pandering or diminishing the loftiest ideals about art, arts institutions, or the intimacy of the experience of art for the public; it’s simply making room for everyone, and making efforts to welcome them.
I hope that more voices will join in this ongoing conversation. Please share your thoughts and comments in the box below.
I’m very happy to read your thoughts on this topic. I must admit, before the creation of Open Field, I was very much in the cathedral camp when it came to thinking about the Walker. To my mind, it was a beautiful, world-class museum but not necessarily a place for a non-artist like me. Open Field really opened my eyes to the myriad roles a museum can play in the community, both as a cultural institution and as an everyday gathering space–as a result, I now feel much freer to go to the Walker spontaneously, and without wearing my dressy “museum” clothes!
A museum of contemporary art is a relatively new type of institution. A sort of curious paradox is built into a contemporary museum it is of the moment and it collects this moment along with older moments of contemporary kind ( like Yves Klein an artist who died 49 years ago showing now at full power)so a historical record of contemporary art requires some history be taken into account. The living artist is the primary focus of contemporary art museums. Martin Friedman built a mighty fortress,a sort minimalist cube that was less than inviting, as Buckmister Fuller used to ask “How much does this building weigh?” Indeed the idea of a series of loft size galleries made of concrete seems like a disaster movie WHEN MUSEUMS COLLAPSE.. The real problem of course was one of exclusion, what you didn’t see(at Walker when Martin Friedman was czar was as important as what was chosen to be see ie. minimalism – Judd, Flavin all the usual suspects. It was a contemporary museum with a narrow gauge viewpoint. As the institution changed with Kathy Halbreich’s administration the Walker began to look elsewhere. And Walker became much more approachable, much more friendly to artists who lived in it’s shadow. I agree with Olga Viso that the museum does have an influence on artists, my ambitions have always been in relation to Walker not as a cathedral but rather as a center for contemporary arts like a resource, a sort of model for examining ideas,a secular haven. As the new building is more indefinite more complex in it’s structure than the Barnes building so too the future is unknown save that it will be primarily about the art of our time. AT THE START OF A new century the adaptations institutions must make include inclusion, make themselves more attractive and make the experience deeper. It’s not about meaning as much as it’s about enlightenment. Walker needs to be always changing and becoming and always ready for something we’ve never seen before. Who knew David Wojnarowicz would come back so vividly , the future remains unwritten. And you can take that to the bank.