Crisis building at Modern

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34132, 20 April 1976, Page 12

Crisis building at Modern

News that the Mus- ( eum of Modern Art; 1 plans to build a 40-story condominium apartment |i tower atop its present i building on West 53rd [ Street was scarcely out' [ last week before the pre-[ dictable jokes began I making the rounds. p “And is it true,” some wag' was heard to ask at an East I Side dinner party the other! night, “that the "tenants will! get to hold their bar mitzvah; parties in the founders’! room?” “Are they going to offer up . a few of their Picassos as a bonus with the bigger apartments?” asked another, reports Hilton Kramer, of the New York Times News Service, through N.Z.P.A. And so it goes. For some people, apparently, there is something infinitely hilarious in the spectacle of the august Museum of Modern Art — for so long America’s leading arbiter in matters of modern aesthetics — having to grub for money in the un-; lovely purlieus of real estate speculation and the luxuryapartment business. But for anyone who has followed the fortunes of the museum over the years, for anyone with a grasp of the central place it has come to occupy in America’s cultural life, its present predicament is anything but a joke. What is at stake in this unexpected construction gamble is the very future of what is universally acknowledged to be the greatest institution of its kind in the world. Although deservedly admired the world over for

[the quality and scope of its ; permanent collections — not I only of modern painting, i [sculpture, drawing and prints. ; '[but also in the fields of [photography, film, architecture and design — the I museum that we see is. in a ■ sense, only the tip of the ■ iceberg. i As the result of several [generations of expert con-, I noisseurship and shrewd; ri acquisition, the museum is I tj already in possession of large 1 r but “hidden” artistic re--1 sources that enable it to ini crease significantly its public ’ functions. It lacks only the 1 money to make a larger share r of these now “hidden” re- =■ sources permanently acces--1 sible to a growing audience i i

This, in essence, is the prob-1 lem that the proposed con■iominmm tower is designed to solve. To understand the scope ofi the museum’s dilemma, it is i necessary to understand that I in some basic respects, it is a unique institution, n v ounded on the daring assumption that among the various branches of visual culture there exists a unity of purpose and aspiration that can be properly illuminated only by showing its diverse creations in close proximity. This commitment to the i whole range of modern visual I culture has inevitably brought the museum its share of headaches, not the least of which is the competition that exists among its various departments for money and space. The single largest share of the gallery space devoted to the permanent collection on the museum’s second and third n ™rs •= devoted to painting and sculpture. Considering e importance >r 'he painting and sculpture collection — the Picassos

land Matisses alone would be sufficient to ensure the worldwide celebrity of any (museum that owned them — this is a division difficult to I argue with. I Yet it means, among other things, that Arthur Drexler. (Director of the Department of Architecture and Design, is obliged to keep the museum’s vast collections of modem furniture and architectural models in storage. The same idea holds true for the Department of Photography. And the Department of Painting and Sculpture, (even with its big share of (gallery space, faces similar problems, and there is in- ‘ adequate space for important portions of the museum’s ( collections of Matisse, Miro and Picasso. If the museum succeeds in realising its expansion plans ( as a result of the condomini- ; um tower project, the public will be given a view of a ■ permanent painting and ; sculpture collection double " the size of what it now secs. ! The Film Department will I also benefit from the expansion, as it will receive its first expansion facilities in 40 years. In the last decade a tremendous amount of gallery building has been done, but in all too many cases the new buildings have been conIstructed to house the hope (of a significant collection — > a hope that has often proved i impossible to realise. The > (situation of the Museum of .(Modern Art is entirely differ- ’ ent. It is not a fantasy of t the future that these in- ' creased facilities are designed 1 to serve, but works of art already in hand — some of 5 them among the greatest pro- : duced in this century. i Does this emphasis on en- - larged facilities for its perr manent collections mean that i the Museum of Modern Art, : which will celebrate its 50th 5 anniversary in 1979. is now primarily a historical mur seum — that it no longer 1 occupies a position in the / front lines of contemporary - (artistic combat? 1 There are many people in s lthe art world who think so. i Certainly, the Museum of (Modern Art is no longer — ajif, indeed, it ever was — the :, place where we now expect e to hear about a new artistic ■ idea first. 1 One thing is certain, how- ? ever, and this is that the muflseum’s greatest single aesthet tic resource is its permanent n collections, and one can only ” applaud the effort it has now - made to place the probienj e of increased accessibility to njfhe collections at the top of eiits priorities.