"In taking political action, writers and artists are likelier to betray than fulfill the demands of their vocation." They are also likelier (unless they're great artists) to be seen as hedging their bets or taking out insurance to "supplement" the fact they're not all that good, let alone great, whether out of opportunism or fear. Yes, even a Picasso can play that game, but in his case it discredited him as a person rather than as an artist. The point is that if your art is good enough, you don't need to be public about anything else, same as any creative person, though your private life is your affair.
Thirty bucks plus possible substantial surcharge to visit your museum? You'd have to guarantee, in writing, that I will not only like but LOVE what you've got on show, and if I don't, you'll not only refund my money but pay me extra for wasting my time. And trust me, even to get me to contemplate paying such an entry fee, you're going to have to do better than Yayoi Kusama or Madame Bourgeois, let alone the flavor of the moment, unless it's my flavor--but I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.
Because, as I've previously analyzed, philanthropy is a bigger fiscal concern than attendance at the art museums, I've wondered how much attendance can drop before it starts affecting operations. We now know at least in the case of SFMOMA that it's less than 35%.
If a museum gets no public money except admission fees, it can do what it wants and then deal with the resulting attendance figures. However, if it gets public funding which taxpayers cannot control, then it is obligated to serve the public by giving it what it wants. If it does not, then we're talking about a swindle, which to me qualifies as a criminal act. I have zero tolerance for any publicly funded museum which operates as if it only needs to serve/please a small clique of insiders, such as its staff, "major'' collectors and other art world denizens. I will not pay a cent to see anything in such a place if I'm already paying via my taxes.
As for SFMOMA, I wouldn't be surprised if their idea of corrective action (besides jacking up entry fees) amounted to more overt pandering, dogmatic orthodoxy and DEI moves, never even considering those were probably all behind the problem in the first place.
"In taking political action, writers and artists are likelier to betray than fulfill the demands of their vocation." They are also likelier (unless they're great artists) to be seen as hedging their bets or taking out insurance to "supplement" the fact they're not all that good, let alone great, whether out of opportunism or fear. Yes, even a Picasso can play that game, but in his case it discredited him as a person rather than as an artist. The point is that if your art is good enough, you don't need to be public about anything else, same as any creative person, though your private life is your affair.
Thirty bucks plus possible substantial surcharge to visit your museum? You'd have to guarantee, in writing, that I will not only like but LOVE what you've got on show, and if I don't, you'll not only refund my money but pay me extra for wasting my time. And trust me, even to get me to contemplate paying such an entry fee, you're going to have to do better than Yayoi Kusama or Madame Bourgeois, let alone the flavor of the moment, unless it's my flavor--but I wouldn't bet on that if I were you.
Because, as I've previously analyzed, philanthropy is a bigger fiscal concern than attendance at the art museums, I've wondered how much attendance can drop before it starts affecting operations. We now know at least in the case of SFMOMA that it's less than 35%.
If a museum gets no public money except admission fees, it can do what it wants and then deal with the resulting attendance figures. However, if it gets public funding which taxpayers cannot control, then it is obligated to serve the public by giving it what it wants. If it does not, then we're talking about a swindle, which to me qualifies as a criminal act. I have zero tolerance for any publicly funded museum which operates as if it only needs to serve/please a small clique of insiders, such as its staff, "major'' collectors and other art world denizens. I will not pay a cent to see anything in such a place if I'm already paying via my taxes.
As for SFMOMA, I wouldn't be surprised if their idea of corrective action (besides jacking up entry fees) amounted to more overt pandering, dogmatic orthodoxy and DEI moves, never even considering those were probably all behind the problem in the first place.