http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2008/02/27/tom_krens_leaves_the_guggenhei/ Reflections on art and architecture by TIME critic Richard Lacayo. Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:49:16 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2008/02/27/tom_krens_leaves_the_guggenhei/comment-page-1/#comment-205 Anthony Calnek Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:59:12 +0000 http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2008/02/27/tom_krens_leaves_the_guggenhei/#comment-205 Your declaration that “Krens' contribution to the world of museum practice was the franchise” has it wrong – the real lesson from Krens’ tenure is that museums, like art, need to take risks and stretch their own boundaries in order to stay relevant, much less to grow. The biggest problem facing museums today is that most of them are incredibly risk-averse and end up contributing to a tiresome homogeneity – the new Broad Museum exemplifies this problem at a budget-busting extreme, both in terms of its building (same old blue-chip architect) and collection (same old blue-chip artists), as you and other critics have noted. I hope the next Guggenheim director isn’t chosen because s/he politely tells the trustees that the permanent collection is the beginning and end of the museum’s mission, and that every exhibition must fall neatly into some preconceived notion of good taste; New York doesn’t need another MoMA. The Guggenheim thrives globally because it stretches people’s ideas of what a museum can be – and in the process its audience (the biggest and most varied in the world, when you add up visitors to all of the Guggenheim museums and the myriad traveling shows they generate) has a much richer understanding that art itself is dynamic, infinitely variable, and often succeeds merely by being conceived. Your declaration that “Krens' contribution to the world of museum practice was the franchise” has it wrong – the real lesson from Krens' tenure is that museums, like art, need to take risks and stretch their own boundaries in order to stay relevant, much less to grow. The biggest problem facing museums today is that most of them are incredibly risk-averse and end up contributing to a tiresome homogeneity – the new Broad Museum exemplifies this problem at a budget-busting extreme, both in terms of its building (same old blue-chip architect) and collection (same old blue-chip artists), as you and other critics have noted. I hope the next Guggenheim director isn't chosen because s/he politely tells the trustees that the permanent collection is the beginning and end of the museum's mission, and that every exhibition must fall neatly into some preconceived notion of good taste; New York doesn't need another MoMA. The Guggenheim thrives globally because it stretches people's ideas of what a museum can be – and in the process its audience (the biggest and most varied in the world, when you add up visitors to all of the Guggenheim museums and the myriad traveling shows they generate) has a much richer understanding that art itself is dynamic, infinitely variable, and often succeeds merely by being conceived.

]]>