Should we be concerned?

This past week, Artforum news issued the article “Credit-Rating Agency Gives Arts Groups Strong Marks,” which declared museums, alongside other cultural institutions, as “stable and resilient.”  I found myself bewildered. 

Over the summer, reviews poured in from the Venice Biennale, one of the leading contemporary art fairs in the world, that remarked on the conspicuous infusion of the global economic crisis—such as in the visitor numbers, the level of festivity extravagances, and the tone of the art.  In September, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, as mentioned in a previous post, chose to dedicate the entire museum space to the collection to both hype its holdings and conserve funds.  Around the same time, author of artmarketblog.com Nicholas Forrest mourned the passing of the Art World Magazine.  October ushered in the Frieze Art Fair in London, which revealed a thirty-percent drop in art prices vis-à-vis prices during leveled economies, and this week we read Robin Pogrebin’s article provocatively titled “And Now, an Exhibition from our Sponsor.” Pogrebin reports on the rise of corporate art collections and their design of “ready-made” exhibitions, which appeal particularly to smaller institutions that seem—to speak frankly—desperate in their willingness to sacrifice autonomy to “opportunity.”  In “The Recession and US Museums,” Adrian Ellis states what Pogrebin only alludes: the “little guys” of cultural institutions confront the toughest roads ahead.  Also, Ellis warns of the retreat of wealthy patrons in failing economies and that the full effect of financial markets lag behind nearly five years in art markets (should we brace ourselves for 2013?).

Exactly what, “credit-rating agency,” seems so very “stable”? (I will give them “resilient,” as I must look optimistically in to my own professional crystal ball!)  Even further, who is “stable”?  They, in a magnanimously presumptuous manner, even offer museums a consolation to the constriction of funds:  “They will likely benefit from an increase in regional tourism, a gain in repeat visits, and government stimulus money for education and science programs.”  Government stimulus money! Ha ha, good one “credit-rating agency,” ha ha!  Both museum students and museum professionals devote countless discussion hours and written pages to the conundrum of achieving the recurrent audience.  Good, a bruised economy solves that quandary!  Of course, the source for this information must be taken into consideration: a “credit-agency” is not exactly a sexy establishment today.  However, I found the article to be not only shoddy but also misleading in its gloss over the museum’s current financial woes.

To end on a lighter note, Ellis proffered three bright, constructive ideas to help combat the depressed market: unorthodox lures for audiences rather than showstoppers, increased exploitation of collections, and a global solidarity (of sorts) among the institutions.  The latter materializes with “collection sharing, joint acquisitions, pooling conservation resources, and pooling curatorial appointments.” A global “museum economy” within a globalized, postmodern, hybrid-to-the-nth-degree, poststructuralist world—that idea, for one, appears reasonable.