Postcard — September 23, 2016, 12:00 pm

The Transhistorical Moment

A museum’s misguided attempt to rescue the past

The Met Breuer. Photograph by Ed Lederman

The Met Breuer. Photograph by Ed Lederman

The Breuer building, a mean pile of granite and concrete that squats darkly on a corner of Manhattan’s Upper East Side, was built as a kind of monument to the Metropolitan Museum’s long-standing distaste for contemporary art. In 1929, the Met refused Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney’s gift of more than five hundred contemporary American works by the likes of Edward Hopper, George Bellows, and John Sloan. The Met’s refusal precipitated the founding of the Whitney Museum, which outgrew its row houses on West 8th Street and some time later commissioned Marcel Breuer, a Hungarian architect who had been part of the Bauhaus, to design what is commonly described as an inverted Babylonian ziggurat as its new home. Built in a neighborhood otherwise known for its Beaux-Arts and Renaissance Revival mansions, the Breuer opened in 1966 to near-universal derision. (Ada Louise Huxtable, though herself a fan, said at the time that the Breuer was “the most disliked building in New York.”)

Housed just half a mile from the Met on 5th Avenue, the Whitney served for a generation as a kind of poor relation to America’s largest and most visited museum, which for most of its history has preferred European traditionalism to the gut punches of the avant-garde. Early in their careers, Jackson Pollock and Louise Bourgeois joined sixteen other American artists, who would become known as the Irascibles, to write an open letter, calling the Met “notoriously hostile to advanced art.” The museum’s stance was unchanged as late as 1999, when its director sided with Mayor Rudy Giuliani, an irascible of another sort, in his condemnation of a contemporary show at the Brooklyn Museum that featured supercharged works such as Mark Quinn’s Self, a frozen cast of the artist’s head made from ten pints of his own blood. The director, Philippe de Montebello, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times dismissing the Brooklyn show as “sick stuff” and complementing the mayor on his “acute critical acumen.”

When the Whitney abandoned the Breuer in 2014 in favor of a lavish new downtown home, the move reflected an unsettling of the art-world pecking order. Contemporary art, and its golden halo, had become impossible to ignore. At auction houses and galleries, contemporary works are practically the only ones being bought or sold, and some are changing hands at stratospheric prices, feeding the big business of art and powering a gilded carousel of festivals, galas, and sales from Miami to Hong Kong. The market’s massive sums have drawn the art world into their orbit so violently that museums and even universities have been swayed by their force—as has the public. Dozens of new spaces dedicated to contemporary art have opened in the last several years, and, in 2015, eleven of the fifteen best-attended shows in the Western Hemisphere featured modern and contemporary artists. More than a million people saw Jeff Koons’s suspended basketballs and Play-Doh mound at his retrospectives in Bilbao and Paris, and hundreds of thousands turned up for MoMA’s homage to the Icelandic musician Björk, despite the protestations of nearly as many art critics. These days, contemporary art is king, and it is the people and museums devoted to historical art that are scrambling to maintain their place in the world. The full extent of the change was starkly, almost poignantly, captured by the Met’s announcement that it would lease the Breuer building for at least eight years to showcase—what else?—its contemporary collection.

As the Met completes a screeching pivot to the present, Sheena Wagstaff, the museum’s chairman for modern and contemporary art, has tried to cast its vast holdings of art from earlier periods as a strength—a frame that creates unique conditions for reimagining the contemporary. She has described the new Met Breuer as a place where contemporary art can be seen within the context of five thousand years of history, as an experimental space that would create links between past and present. It is a genuinely exciting vision, if carried out successfully. But the Met Breuer’s first attempt to deliver on that promise—“Unfinished: Thoughts Left Visible,” a mammoth show of 197 works that moves from the Renaissance to Urs Fischer’s 2014 sculpture of a blue nude disintegrating on a chaise—fails both to unsettle the contemporary canon and to reanimate the art of the past.

“Unfinished” begins with an imposing trio of sixteenth-century paintings. At center, Titian’s Flaying of Marsyas shows the faun strung up by his hooves with scarlet ribbon, as Apollo’s wreathed attendant takes a knife to his chest and a musician plucks a lyre in the background, evoking the contest that led to Marsyas’s death. Titian painted his Marsyas non finito, a technique of leaving a work unfinished that was much debated in the Renaissance, and the raw dynamism of his choice is immediately apparent. The canvas bristles as though it contains hot summer breezes. For this work and its neighbor, Agony in the Garden, Titian combines large areas of gestural painting, seemingly unfinished, with moments of precise and delicate brushwork that draw the eye to key narrative elements, such as the chain mail on the Roman soldiers who wait in darkness to arrest the praying Christ. It is a first impression not easily forgotten.

As the show unfolds through the Breuer’s third-floor galleries, the works themselves continue to delight—El Greco’s stormy Vision of Saint John, a lovely da Vinci drawing, one of Klimt’s ecstatic portraits of Ria Munk—but the concept of the unfinished starts to sputter and lose momentum. To interrogate the question—When is a work of art truly finished?—the Met’s curators have gathered works that were left unfinished purposefully and accidentally by their makers, and in many cases there is debate about which is which, creating an unsteady conceptual foundation. Unlike the non-finito technique, a precise, culturally and historically bounded idea established so well in the opening sequence, the Met Breuer’s definition of the unfinished becomes shapeless and vague as it struggles to unify so many objects so distinct in period, method, and argument.

Upstairs, as the show moves toward the present, the definition of the unfinished balloons even further to encompass infinity and boundlessness, audience participation, and decay and destruction. Standing in front of Picasso’s Woman in a Red Armchair or Luc Tuymans’s Untitled (Still Life), the latter an enormous jug and stone fruit medley created in response to 9/11, it is hard to rank unfinishedness among the works’ most salient or interesting aspects. The two-tiered structure of the show presents contemporary art as a revelation, Old Masters’ promises fulfilled by the gospel of modernism. What is missing is the promised attempt to put these modern and contemporary works in meaningful dialogue with their distant antecedents downstairs. And connections could have been made. Donatello’s fifteenth-century Lamentation in bronze, Jacques Louis-David’s Death of Bara, and Alice Neel’s portrait of a Vietnam draftee, who came once to her studio and never returned, all demonstrate the power of an unfinished aesthetic to communicate mortality, especially the lost potential of young lives.

With “Unfinished,” the Met brings historical objects into the Breuer, but history itself remains absent. The brief references to the Vietnam War on the white placard beside Neel’s portrait of James Hunter or to the drummer boy Bara’s death in the French Revolutionary War are tantalizing reminders that art is created within a time and place, under certain conditions and constraints that form its character. Such a sprawling, thematic show as “Unfinished” has little room to provide that context, but that sort of knowledge is what prevents art objects from becoming mere curiosities. Titian’s Flaying of Marsyas, for example, was painted only a few years after a Venetian military commander, Marcantonio Bragadin, was flayed alive, his skin stuffed and paraded through the streets, by an Ottoman army as it captured the island of Cyprus. Whether or not the event directly inspired Titian’s painting, as some claim, the alarming immediacy of gruesome punishment to the artist’s own experience alerts viewers to the ways that trauma is reworked and managed through the realm of myth, and the ways that art participates in the shaping of history.

If “Unfinished” is any guide, contemporary art is not only colonizing space on the walls of museums, but its dominance is changing the way that the art of earlier periods is displayed and interpreted. Encyclopedic museums, understandably unsure how to pursue their educational missions in an era of expanding audiences and shrinking attention spans, are turning to the hipness of contemporary art as an answer, and doing what “Unfinished” tries to do, that is, use the present as a gateway to the past. (As an art-history graduate student, I once participated in a semester-long workshop to develop a new version of Art History 101, taught in reverse, so that contemporary art could come first, to captivate the students.) Celebrity artists, rather than art historians, curators, or even critics are now considered the arbiters of taste and teachers of art, regularly asked to curate exhibitions of historical works. The Met itself has produced a video series—now with more than a hundred episodes—of contemporary artists talking about objects in its collection.

Since the 1980s, when hedge-fund investors discovered the art market, a corporate mentality has held sway in many museum boardrooms that equates expansion with success, encouraging a construction boom. (The Met has leased the Breuer building for at least eight years while British architect David Chipperfield completes a $600 million renovation of its contemporary wing. In April, however, the Met paused the project, disclosing a $10 million deficit that was partly due to falling admissions at the main building.) Like big brands, many museums seem willing to change in whatever way ensures their continued existence with a healthy cash flow, which in some cases has meant transforming into entertainment centers with restaurants and observation decks, where no one need look too long at the art. Renzo Piano’s new Whitney building on Gansevoort Street, for example, is more adult playground than art museum, a warehouse for Instagrammers, serving up views of the Hudson River.

Museums can hardly be surprised that their audiences, adapting to this mentality, have shown a preference for spectacle art, which requires no context because it produces an immediate reaction in the body. One of the easiest ways to elicit such a reaction is through the manipulation of scale, so we are seeing a trend toward bigness and participatory or immersive environments. Random International’s Rain Room at MoMA, with its motion-sensor sprinklers, was noteworthy for having a nine-hour wait time on some days, and the Renwick Gallery in Washington has drawn crowds with “Wonder,” an exhibit whose vast installations in rainbow colors are ideal for picture-taking. Well-meaning art historians and museum directors have been united in promoting the idea that art needs no intermediary, that the best thing to do is hang the paintings and step aside, which works better for a Basquiat than it does for a trecento painting or a Buddha image from Dunhuang. Of course, our need for context increases the farther we drift from the anchor of our own experience, but presentist shows that seek to view historical works through the eyes of contemporary art or artists often fail to provide it. “Not everything of value is self-evident,” wrote the late critic Robert Hughes, “and there is no reason in the world why art should be.”

I walked north and west, leaving the gray face of the Breuer behind. Despite the missteps of “Unfinished,” the Met Breuer has not yet fallen prey to the trend of the theme-park museum, at least partly because of its original architectural vision. Unlike the openness of Renzo’s Whitney—all white paint, metal, and glass—Marcel Breuer sought a clear distinction between his ziggurat’s cave-like interior and the distractions of the street and sky outside. If you come to the Breuer, you are coming to see the art. “Unfinished” closes this month, and the Met Breuer’s upcoming retrospective of Kerry James Marshall marks a return to the strictly contemporary, but plans are in the works for a second transhistorical show that may reach as far back as antiquity. Given the uncertain atmosphere, the Met has every incentive not only to showcase contemporary art at the Breuer, but also to use the space to advertise its historical collections on 5th Avenue. At the Breuer, the Met should keep experimenting, by treating history as urgent and open to question, conveying its complexity in a way that is engaging, and making clearer and bolder arguments—not by using the past as a foil for the present.

Share
Single Page

More from Rachel Poser:

From the September 2019 issue

Common Ground

The politics of archaeology in Jerusalem

Weekly Review December 6, 2016, 4:22 pm

Weekly Review

Donald Trump fills his cabinet, Prince Harry announces a “Housing and Hospitality” scholarship, the San Francisco airport hires a pig to relieve travelers’ stress

Weekly Review August 30, 2016, 5:32 pm

Weekly Review

An earthquake kills 290 people in Italy, Egypt’s police use Grindr, and a dog is elected mayor of a town in Minnesota for the second time.

Get access to 169 years of
Harper’s for only $23.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2020

Trumpism After Trump

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“My Gang Is Jesus”

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Cancer Chair

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Birds

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Skinning Tree

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Interpretation of Dreams

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dearest Lizzie

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Trumpism After Trump·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The city was not beautiful; no one made that claim for it. At the height of summer, people in suits, shellacked by the sun, moved like harassed insects to avoid the concentrated light. There was a civil war–like fracture in America—the president had said so—but little of it showed in the capital. Everyone was polite and smooth in their exchanges. The corridor between Dupont Circle and Georgetown was like the dream of Yugoslav planners: long blocks of uniform earth-toned buildings that made the classical edifices of the Hill seem the residue of ancestors straining for pedigree. Bunting, starched and perfectly ruffled in red-white-and-blue fans, hung everywhere—from air conditioners, from gutters, from statues of dead revolutionaries. Coming from Berlin, where the manual laborers are white, I felt as though I was entering the heart of a caste civilization. Untouchables in hard hats drilled into sidewalks, carried pylons, and ate lunch from metal boxes, while waiters in restaurants complimented old respectable bobbing heads on how well they were progressing with their rib eyes and iceberg wedges.

I had come to Washington to witness either the birth of an ideology or what may turn out to be the passing of a kidney stone through the Republican Party. There was a new movement afoot: National Conservatives, they called themselves, and they were gathering here, at the Ritz-Carlton, at 22nd Street and M. Disparate tribes had posted up for the potlatch: reformacons, blood-and-soilers, curious liberal nationalists, “Austrians,” repentant neocons, evangelical Christians, corporate raiders, cattle ranchers, Silicon Valley dissidents, Buckleyites, Straussians, Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Tories, dark-web spiders, tradcons, Lone Conservatives, Fed-Socs, Young Republicans, Reaganites in amber. Most straddled more than one category.

Article
The Cancer Chair·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The second-worst thing about cancer chairs is that they are attached to televisions. Someone somewhere is always at war with silence. It’s impossible to read, so I answer email, or watch some cop drama on my computer, or, if it seems unavoidable, explore the lives of my nurses. A trip to Cozumel with old girlfriends, a costume party with political overtones, an advanced degree on the internet: they’re all the same, these lives, which is to say that the nurses tell me nothing, perhaps because amid the din and pain it’s impossible to say anything of substance, or perhaps because they know that nothing is precisely what we both expect. It’s the very currency of the place. Perhaps they are being excruciatingly candid.

There is a cancer camaraderie I’ve never felt. That I find inimical, in fact. Along with the official optimism that percolates out of pamphlets, the milestone celebrations that seem aimed at children, the lemonade people squeeze out of their tumors. My stoniness has not always served me well. Among the cancer staff, there is special affection for the jocular sufferer, the one who makes light of lousy bowel movements and extols the spiritual tonic of neuropathy. And why not? Spend your waking life in hell, and you too might cherish the soul who’d learned to praise the flames. I can’t do it. I’m not chipper by nature, and just hearing the word cancer makes me feel like I’m wearing a welder’s mask.

Article
“My Gang Is Jesus”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

When Demétrio Martins was ready to preach, he pushed a joystick that angled the seat of his wheelchair forward, slowly lifting him to a standing position. Restraints held his body upright. His atrophied right arm lay on an armrest, and with his left hand, he put a microphone to his lips. “Proverbs, chapter fourteen, verse twelve,” he said. “ ‘There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is . . .’ ”

The congregation finished: “ ‘Death.’ ”

The Assembly of God True Grapevine was little more than a fluorescent-lit room wedged between a bar and an empty lot in Jacaré, a poor neighborhood on Rio de Janeiro’s north side. A few dozen people sat in the rows of plastic lawn chairs that served as pews, while shuddering wall fans circulated hot air. The congregation was largely female; of the few men in attendance, most wore collared shirts and old leather shoes. Now and then, Martins veered from Portuguese into celestial tongues. People rose from their seats, thrust their hands into the air, and shouted, “Hallelujah!”

Article
The Birds·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On December 7, 2016, a drone departed from an Amazon warehouse in the United Kingdom, ascended to an altitude of four hundred feet, and flew to a nearby farm. There it glided down to the front lawn and released from its clutches a small box containing an Amazon streaming device and a bag of popcorn. This was the first successful flight of Prime Air, Amazon’s drone delivery program. If instituted as a regular service, it would slash the costs of “last-mile delivery,” the shortest and most expensive leg of a package’s journey from warehouse to doorstep. Drones don’t get into fender benders, don’t hit rush-hour traffic, and don’t need humans to accompany them, all of which, Amazon says, could enable it to offer thirty-minute delivery for up to 90 percent of domestic shipments while also reducing carbon emissions. After years of testing, Amazon wrote to the Federal Aviation Administration last summer to ask for permission to conduct limited commercial deliveries with its drones, attaching this diagram to show how the system would work. (Amazon insisted that we note that the diagram is not to scale.) Amazon is not the only company working toward such an automated future—­UPS, FedEx, Uber, and Google’s parent company, Alphabet, have similar programs—­but its plans offer the most detailed vision of what seems to be an impending reality, one in which parce­l-toting drones are a constant presence in the sky, doing much more than just delivering popcorn.

Article
The Skinning Tree·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Every year in Lusk, Wyoming, during the second week of July, locals gather to reenact a day in 1849 when members of a nearby band of Sioux are said to have skinned a white man alive. None of the actors are Native American. The white participants dress up like Indians and redden their skin with body paint made from iron ore.

The town prepares all year, and the performance, The Legend of Rawhide, has a cast and crew of hundreds, almost all local volunteers, including elementary school children. There are six generations of Rawhide actors in one family; three or four generations seems to be the average. The show is performed twice, on Friday and Saturday night.

The plot is based on an event that, as local legend has it, occurred fifteen miles south of Lusk, in Rawhide Buttes. It goes like this: Clyde Pickett is traveling with a wagon train to California. He tells the other Pioneers: “The only good Injun’s a dead Injun.” Clyde loves Kate Farley, and to impress her, he shoots the first Indian he sees, who happens to be an Indian Princess. The Indians approach the Pioneers and ask that the murderer give himself up. Clyde won’t admit he did it. The Indians attack the wagon train and, eventually, Clyde surrenders. The Indians tie Clyde to the Skinning Tree and flay him alive. Later, Kate retrieves her dead lover’s body and the wagon train continues west.

Cost of renting a giant panda from the Chinese government, per day:

$1,500

A recent earthquake in Chile was found to have shifted the city of Concepción ten feet to the west, shortened Earth’s days by 1.26 microseconds, and shifted the planet’s axis by nearly three inches.

A decorated veteran of the American wars in Vietnam and Iraq had his prosthetic limbs repossessed from his home in Mississippi when the VA declined to pay for them.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Jesus Plus Nothing

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

At Ivanwald, men learn to be leaders by loving their leaders. “They’re so busy loving us,” a brother once explained to me, “but who’s loving them?” We were. The brothers each paid $400 per month for room and board, but we were also the caretakers of The Cedars, cleaning its gutters, mowing its lawns, whacking weeds and blowing leaves and sanding. And we were called to serve on Tuesday mornings, when The Cedars hosted a regular prayer breakfast typically presided over by Ed Meese, the former attorney general. Each week the breakfast brought together a rotating group of ambassadors, businessmen, and American politicians. Three of Ivanwald’s brothers also attended, wearing crisp shirts starched just for the occasion; one would sit at the table while the other two poured coffee. 

Subscribe Today