A Superficial Critique: Musings on the Façade of the New Museum

 

Failure and Frustration

I thought my trip home to New York City would present an opportunity for me to see postmodernism in action. Sadly, my eagerness to head downtown to the New Museum on the Bowery hindered my usual organizational tendencies. Yesterday, while I idiotically forgot to check museum times online, I discovered that the New Museum is closed on Mondays and Tuesdays. As I stood outside in the unwelcome cold and indulged in my New Yorker tendencies to rant about minute inconveniences, I was also able to engage in an abridged, begrudging, critique.

Soon, my frustration with the New Museum's two day-a-week closure translated to a broader apprehension with the museum itself. From the location, to the architecture, to the fellow, aggravated museum goers outside, my first encounter with the New Museum, rather its façade, was troubling. Within the Godeau article we read for class, the author exclaims "imperialism breeds imperialistic tendencies." I can't help but wonder if this aphorism applies to the institutions behind modern postmodernism.

While postmodernists such as David Hammond and Jeff Koons provocatively engaged in a critique of identity politics, commodity art, and art institutions, the New Museum's location does not seem to question institutional norms, but rather instill them. Yes, this museum is rooted downtown, a deliberate dislocation from the traditional modern art institution MOMA, which is situated in the hectic, tourist trap of midtown Manhattan. However, the New Museum has not constructively embraced its neighborhood's troubled reputation. Yes, the Bowery has less crime and homelessness today than twenty years ago, but the New Museum and the new artistic crowds flooding the area do not offer an inspiring alternative environment for neighborhood residences, only disjointed change. As I stood outside, I couldn't help but notice how the headphone-wearing pedestrians blocked out the calls of the homeless on the street, and the New Museum looked architecturally inspired by the Whole Foods down the block. I am not compelled to interpret these changes moralistically and spout about the implications of gentrification. Simply, my observations outside the New Museum made me question the progress of art institutions since the heyday of MOMA. Wouldn't Hammond want to relieve himself on the New Museum, in addition to Richard Serra's art? Isn't this an elitist interjection of ideas that facilitate unfair disparities?

Again, I did not go inside. In the New Museum, I could have found the most inspired, creative work yet. However, outside on the Bowery, I was reminded of Martha Rosler's work that highlighted institutional failures in the exact area the New Museum stands today. Mayor Bloomberg helped contribute to the millions it took to construct this museum. Couldn't our billionaire mayor also have chipped in for more affordable housing as well?

While my failed attempt to visit the New Museum biased my external interpretation of this institution, this venture was at least thought provoking. In the future, I hope to go back to the Bowery when I'm home and debunk my own hostilities. For now, I'm only left with the lingering reception that this institution does more harm than good.

What are your thoughts? Has anyone been to the New Museum?