The Role of the Contemporary Arts Institution
Case Study: MoMA PS 1
Gertrude Stein is often quoted as having observed, “[y]ou can be a museum, or you can
be modern, but you can’t be both.”1 Defining the role of the contemporary arts institution
continues to be a matter of debate as scholars, critics, artists, collectors, curators, museum
directors, and others clash over the proper balance to be struck between preservation of the
historical and promotion of the modern.
The central function of a museum in the traditional sense is the collection and
preservation of objects that have ‘stood the test of time,’ which, ‘given the fallibility of aesthetic
judgment,’ has long been considered the least controversial means of isolating quality in art and
thus a sound basis for a museum collection.2 This model fails to guide the contemporary arts
institution, whose mandate by definition requires a more forward-thinking ethos, and where
most, if not all, of the work it collects or displays will be no older than 20 years.3
Nonetheless, the role of the contemporary arts institution reflects some parallels to that of
the traditional museum. Its pedagogical function as a resource for public education remains,
though altered: rather than displaying works that can ‘be located within a fixed art historical
narrative,’4 it projects upon the works it displays the potential of becoming part of that narrative
at some point in the future. The contemporary arts institution is no different from a traditional
museum in acting as ‘exemplar of civic pride,’5 as government funds continue to support these
institutions as they convey the cultural richness of cities, regions, and nations on a global stage.
Bruce Altshuler, “Collecting the New: A Historical Introduction” in Bruce Altshuler, ed., Collecting the New
Museums and Contemporary Art, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2005, pp. 1 – 13, at 1.
2
Altshuler at 1.
3
William Sloane Coffin: “[T]en or twenty years should be the limit of modernity.” In Altshuler at 7.
4
Altshuler at 2.
5
Altshuler at 3.
1
1
Indeed, many contemporary arts institutions in the United States serve this ambassadorial
function even better than their traditional counterparts, being founded by ‘an enlightened leisure
class of women who substituted the eccentric, astonishing, ungroomed art of their unfolding
century, and even their own country, for the stately spoils of the Grand Tour.’6
In contrast to traditional art museums, modern institutions face many challenges that are
unique to their status as contemporary art museums. First, for works that are deliberately or
unintentionally composed of ephemeral materials or concepts, conservation (a principal role of
the museum) can be difficult if not impossible.7 Second, the responsibility for selecting works
lies subjectively with the individuals who run the museum, whose choices are largely
unsupported by the rich legacy of art history and sometimes lack the objective check of market
forces to provide benchmarks for the value of acquisitions. Third, even as contemporary art
continues to gain value and appeal to a broader audience, the circle of dealers and collectors
intimately involved in its trade and display remains terrifically small, with their roles overlapping
substantially.8
A prominent example of a successful contemporary arts institution, the MoMA PS 1 was
founded in 1971 as the Institute of Art and Urban Resources by Alanna Heiss as ‘a public place
for exhibiting contemporary art,’ modeled after the European kunsthalle.9 The initial idea arose
out of the desire for a divorce from the traditional museum model and a consequent unburdening
of budgets, markets, agendas, and collections.10 Michael Brenson stated its unique purpose as
Jeffrey Weiss, “9 Minutes 45 Seconds” in Bruce Altshuler, ed., Collecting the New Museums and Contemporary
Art, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2005, pp. 41 – 54, at 43.
7
Glenn Wharton, “The Challenges of Conserving Contemporary Art,” in Bruce Altshuler, ed., Collecting the New
Museums and Contemporary Art, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2005, pp. 163 – 178, at 166167.
8
Jennifer Steinhauer, “Iron Checkbook Shapes Los Angeles,” New York Times, 7 February 2010.
9
Susan Canning, “P.S. 1: Contemporary Art Center,” New Art Examiner, 28 no5 F 2001.
10
Canning.
6
2
follows: “It defined ‘alternative’ as anything outside the sphere of art-world power at a given
moment.”11 Now affiliated with the Museum of Modern Art, PS1 has managed to maintain this
enterprising spirit, defying doubters who questioned whether it could preserve its integrity after
joining forces with the comparatively stodgy MoMA. The arrangement allows PS 1 the benefits
of access to MoMA’s holdings as well as its globally renowned brand to assist in marketing and
development, putting PS 1 in a unique position for a contemporary institution, effectively having
its cake and eating it too.
Apart from its hybrid status as avant-garde museum with unfettered access to institutional
‘comforts,’ PS1 has several additional strengths. Its unique physical location in an old red-brick
school building in Queens lent it a ramshackle charm also known as “the Apotheosis of the
Crummy Space,”12 and inspired the seminal inaugural exhibit, Rooms, which featured artists
such as Gordon Matta-Clark transforming spaces in the physical building into site-specific
works. Under Heiss’s direction (she retired in 2008 after nearly 40 years at the helm)13 PS 1
launched a series of innovative Special Projects, including Volume: Bed of Sound, Urban Beach,
Warm Up, and the Greater New York exhibition, all of which have played with traditional
notions of ‘art’ and ‘viewer’ to critical acclaim. PS1 is interactive in other ways, standing apart
from other contemporary institutions by its ‘combination of a studio program and active
exhibition space [which] was unusual at its inception and…remains so today.’14 It has a tradition
of discovering new artists and rediscovering old ones,15 and it operates a suggested $10
Peter Plagens, “Subway Series,” Art Forum, vol. 37, issue 9 (May 1999), p. 55.
Eleanor Heartney, “The Return of the Red-Brick Alternative,” Art in America, vol. 86, issue 1 (January 1998), p.
57.
13
“P.S. 1 Founder Steps Down,” Art in America (February 2009), p. 152
14
Canning.
15
Andrew Goldstein, “Like a European Summer Academy: Klaus Biesenback on P.S. 1 as a place for artists to
interact with curators, critics and the public,” Art Newspaper 19 20 F (2010).
11
12
3
admission policy, maintaining its free admission policy for Long Island City residents and NYC
public school students, thereby strengthening its position as a valuable community asset.16
The avant-garde and experimental nature of PS1 is central to its function and continuing
success. One of PS1’s directors, Klaus Biesenbach (who is also a curator for MoMA), states the
contrast between the two museums as follows: ‘PS1 is really a participatory experience. At
MoMA most people don’t look at the works as if they were a question, they look at them as if
they were an answer….At PS1 the work comes with a set of questions, and the viewer could
agree or disagree.’17 By blending its unique contemporary vision with the functions and
advantages of a more traditional museum, PS 1 has emerged as a model for new contemporary
art institutions worldwide.
16
17
Bill Syken, “Take the E Train,” Art News, (March 1999), p. 47; http://ps1.org/visit/.
Goldstein.
4
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. “P.S. 1 Founder Steps Down,” Art in America, (February 2009), p. 152.
2. Altshuler, B “Collecting the New: A Historical Introduction” in Bruce Altshuler, ed.,
Collecting the New Museums and Contemporary Art, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey, 2005, pp. 1 - 13.
3. Canning, S “P.S. 1: Contemporary Art Center,” New Art Examiner, 28 no5 F (2001).
4. Goldstein, A “Like a European Summer Academy: Klaus Biesenback on P.S. 1 as a place
for artists to interact with curators, critics and the public,” Art Newspaper, 19 20 F
(2010).
5. Heartney, E “The Return of the Red-Brick Alternative,” Art in America, vol. 86, issue 1
(January 1998), p. 57.
6. MacAdam, B “A Space for the 90’s With the Spirit of ’76,” Art News, vol. 96, issue 10
(November 1997), p. 82.
7. MoMA P.S. 1 Website: http://ps1.org/.
8. Plagens, P “Subway Series,” Art Forum, vol. 37, issue 9 (May 1999), p. 55.
9. Steinhauer, J “Iron Checkbook Shapes Los Angeles,” New York Times, 7 February 2010.
10. Syken, B “Take the E Train,” Art News, (March 1999) p. 47.
11. Weiss, J “9 Minutes 45 Seconds” in Bruce Altshuler, ed., Collecting the New Museums
and Contemporary Art, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2005, pp. 41 –
54.
12. Wharton, G “The Challenges of Conserving Contemporary Art,” in Bruce Altshuler, ed.,
Collecting the New Museums and Contemporary Art, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey, 2005, pp. 163 – 178.
5