Brand Guggenheim
What’s the world coming to when the Guggenheim starts selling the rights to its name? Yes this icon of the visual arts world is stitching up deals left, right and centre, and the end result will see the name Guggenheim attached to a range of home furnishings, jewelry and eyewear products. What’s more the museum expects to earn at least $500,000 in royalties from that deal, which it will use for its education program. Money for a name? What has the arts world come to?
All kidding aside, the deadly serious announcement of the Guggenheim’s foray into advertising officially ran in the New York Business magazine recently. And although the details are sparse, contextually this particular Guggengeim deal is one of a long line of efforts to transform the museum into a global brand with ‘outlets’ worldwide and a strong web presence. This global marketing move has been so smooth that one might begin to question the Museum’s Director, Thomas Krens’ motives.
In January this year Peter B. Lewis, the museum’s biggest benefactor, resigned citing ‘differences in direction’ between himself and Director Thomas Krens. Lewis had been a trustee of the museum since 1993 and most recently its chairman, and has given the institution about $77 million – nearly four times as much as any other board member in the history of the Guggenheim.
The remaining board members have insisted however that they will rally behind Krens. Their intention is to provide for the shortfall following Lewis’ departure, and they appear to be unquestioning in their support of the Director’s vision to create branches of the museum in countries around the world, including Mexico, Brazil, Spain and Japan.
It was this controversial move towards global expansion that saw Lewis publicly declare he would prefer plans for expansion to be scrapped except for operations that are currently profitable. An important and noticeable delineation. If Krens is carrying out increased commercial activities that might be making a loss, or have even ceased operating, can he and his board’s actions simply be condemned as being purely fiscally motivated? Where has the art gone in this equation?
Village Voice art critic Jerry Saltz argues the what is behind the increasing commercialisation at the Guggenheim is Thomas Krens’ desire to ‘reach more people, and make more money.’
Saltz adds, ‘Some have gone so far as to say that Krens ‘articulated a vision of the art museum in the 21st century.’ But this isn’t ‘a vision’ it’s a ruse masquerading as a wow. The only thing Krens did was cross Museum Mile with Broadway: he created glitzy palaces and high-concept productions dependent on onetime, out-of-town visitors.’
And there’s the rub. Thomas Krens has created a brand capable of attracting tourists, internet art afficionados and one-off consumers who not only visit but actually feel good about making a purchase in the museum shop (which visitors incidentally have to pass through in order to enter the Soho Guggenheim, a move that garnered criticism before it closed down).
Indeed with the opening of more Guggenheims outside America, more people have been able to visit the collections owned by the museum. And Krens’ eye for the popular spectacle could also be argued to have increased the sense of accessibility engendered by the ‘Brand Guggenheim’. Could this be at the heart of the Guggenheim’s transmutation? And is a healthier bank balance merely a happy consequence of greater public awareness and patronage of the Guggenheim?
Popularity Contest – Cash to the Winner
If we pretend for a moment that Krens’ activities had not reduced the Guggenheim’s endowment by over $10 million since 1998 and that Lewis had not been repeatedly required to bail the museum out of dire financial consequences, then couldn’t we say that in an ideal world, (if the books balanced), Thomas Krens has done a wonderful job in delivering this great institution to the hands of the people – yes all the people, everywhere? And isn’t this arts-altruism of the highest order? After all wasn’t Krens selflessly creating a global museum to suit his global community? In this age where the value of global positioning is touted as being of the highest order, all Thomas Krens was doing was finding a global home for his American Museum. He wasn’t afraid to present differing cultures with exhibitions they could and sometimes could not relate to, even if the critics were derisive.
So was Thomas Krens onto a good thing? Well it seems, according to the critics, the answer is still no.
In 2002 Patricia Bickers examined the alliance between art and fashion and art and money during the New York Guggenheim’s exhibition of Armani. Bickers noted that in all probability Armani ‘bought’ a show at the Guggenheim by donating a cool $15 million over three years. Worse, she recalls that Krens had been selling off paintings by Chagall, Kandinsky and Modigliani, raising $47m, in order to replenish cash taken from the endowment.
In essence it seems that Krens and the Guggenheim appear to have ‘sold-out’, ‘dumbed-down’ and ‘snuggled-up-to’ the money.
But seldom is anything so cut and dry.
Art analyst and consultant Jess Harris recognises that arts institutions operate as commercial enterprises and are dependant on visitor numbers and shop sales, as well as benefactors, to survive. If exhibitions of fashion or BMW-sponsored motorcycles for a historical showcase keep the cash flowing then isn’t there a case for ignoring accusations of dumbing-down. Instead why not focus on the survival of the institution and its ability to provide strong exhibition.
Jess Harris’ analysis follows the reasoning that, ‘it is important to remember that museums themselves have long-since realised the economic benefits of looking like exclusive boutiques and have adopted approaches to display originally developed for the retail sector. Indeed, the relationship between culture and commerce is closer than either party may wish to admit.’
New York University offers a course, Financing Cultural Institutions in an Uncertain Environment, which covers the strategies employed by cultural institutions to secure income revenue. Topics include ‘how institutions price services, auxilliaries (including food service, retail, etc.), and membership programmes as a fundraising tool.’ This is a clear indication of the complexity of the strategies that must necessarily be employed by any large arts institution in order to sustain itself commercially.
Dumb and Dumber
The Guggenheim Museum is far from being the only institutional brand to be accused of dumbing-down and pandering to visitor’s pockets in an effort to keep afloat. This is an accusation that has been leveled at any and all cultural institutions across the board. See the list of critical analysis below:
The author picks up cultural analyst Frank Furedi’s (author of Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone? (2004)) assertion that: ‘intellectual life has been undermined by the pursuit of inclusion for its own sake, by the desire of the ‘cultural elite’ not to exclude anyone (with the result that universities and museums alike adopt policies that ‘flatter’ students and visitors), and most especially by the public policy of broadening access to higher education.’
The argument asserts that cultural institutions are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to please the punters, because in doing so the punters expect to be entertained with what they already know and like instead of challenged by what they don’t know that might actually inspire them.
Furedi would probably be less inclined to criticise the Guggenheim for making visitors walk through the shop to reach the main attractions, as he might suggest the Museum has a responsibility to ensure the main attractions are of such a standard that visitors would be running through the shop to see them.
Cultural institutions, who are they for?
Somewhat further away from the Guggenheim, in Australia research has indicated that museums are mostly visited by affluent middle-aged, well-educated white collar workers. In this context the populist appeal of the Guggenheim under Krens leadership has probably had a positive impact (by getting them to attend the Museum) on younger people who may not be from such privileged backgrounds.
What is the role of cultural institutions in modern times?
Check out the following for a snapshot of what the arts community is saying:
Show me the money!
Those wonderful stories of artists starving in Parisian garrets, and those romantic notions of artists and arts organisations remaining committed to pure art at the cost of financial gain are more likely to have arisen from the difficult road those in the arts community have to travel when attempting to break into the industry, than a blind pursuit of art with barely a nod to economics.
So the good times might currently be rolling along for the world of contemporary arts, but what happens when the bubble bursts?
And for some institutions the bottom dollar might actually have to be the primary concern. Take the story of the Barnes collection for example.
To say that arts institutions or artists or any person shouldn’t take advantage of a prominent position when they find themselves in one, is likely to be a view taken by someone riding very high on an extremely tall horse or else someone who is simply naive.
But with so many competing pressures to contend with – is there anything cultural institutions should be striving for?
Well it seems that the Detroit Institute of Arts (DIA), has the answer – and it is simple. Let the people decide.
