museum of modern art

museum of modern art

The Evolution of the Museum of Modern Art: A Comprehensive Analysis

1. Introduction to the Museum of Modern Art

In the development of the Museum of Modern Art, each of these repeatedly intersecting interests would struggle for supremacy, be variously reshaped or reshaping, and, in part or in whole, would be left, for the moment, to further systemic development. This reshaping of past modes of operation by past modes of self-benefit shaped the comprehensive character of the institution whether or not it satisfied any or all the participants. Yet its possessive and institutional growth through self-interest should give us a clue in the search for any highly probable and repeated modes of positive function. There would be comparisons of new and proposed museums located near or within large numbers of populous centers and large or especially wealthy colleges and universities. We commonly measure the nearness by recognized miles of distance. But there are museums in Europe established in conjunction with a college or university, defined as a recipient of moneys in some established form, and they were being established in the United States in sufficient number so that their absence from the presence of the tiniest school of any scale or umbrella university.

Just how the Museum of Modern Art was observed by its founders is clearly stated in the published documents from the earliest years of the development of the idea. Its directors and curators, as well as outside observers, have given, or would give, their varied explanations. They may be as complex and as interwoven both in joint and separate operation as the motivations of the many American artists for wishing an institution open to the public that would be staffed with people separately trained in the visual arts and willing to devote themselves to the establishment of an art museum of the stature of others of the not-for-profit-long-open-to-the-public principal art museums of the United States during the nineteenth century.

2. Historical Development and Significance

Up through the 19th century, artists had maintained that their knowledge was from within and that art was only for its own sake. However, as the 20th century began, Rodin was among the first to elevate the status of the worker, to forge the age of man and to make a place for the individual. Pare Lorentz believed that “art for art’s sake has never meant much more than bread for bread’s sake.” At the same time, the first major exhibition of modern art was held in 1913 in New York. Reflecting Pierre Luger’s proven ability to play to the crisis in taste, the Armory Show soon became a symbol, as well as a synthesis, of French art’s surrender of traditional values. Once the Americans had their eyes opened to a more liberal freedom, early members of the New York School began to feel confident that they could influence contemporary art. In Lisbon, Moinho Perdido and Miro’s paintings were exhibited as examples of this all-embracing new vision.

The Museum of Modern Art stands as a provocative symbol of changes in 20th-century art and the culture which it defines. MoMA, through its mainstream focus on modern art, has not only launched an art movement but it has transcended its original objectives to become an agent of historic and social change. Time magazine proclaimed in 1930, “There is no reason why New York should not hold the position that Paris has long held – as the world center of modern painting and sculpture… it has begun to assume”; while historian Lewis Mumford in 1947 praised “the greatest institution of its character in the world.” The establishment of the Museum as a cultural institution is a recognition of the contingent evolution of this associational-cultural phenomenon.

3. Architectural Design and Renovations

Following the acquisition of the Dorset and Cone Collection of Cubist Art in 1951, the museum officially expanded into the Russell Sturgis and Bushnell Building on 54th Street. Postwar gifts from Peggy and David Rockefeller, Terry Dittman, and Mr. and Mrs. R. H. Donnelley helped these expansions occurred. After 13 years of negotiations, the Rockefeller family, as trustees, gave the museum $5,908,458, the sum finally required to buy the land. The initial portion of the land that was bought had become more valuable over the years through the advances of the 1920s and proved sufficient to pay off the bonds. A fearsome art collection had to dwell in its small 12,000 square-foot headquarters on the four upper floors of the Heckscher Building. Every inch was maximized, with a library, Art Lending Library, and program offices occupying the lobby. Many of the most significant masterpieces were hidden from public view, either in storage or in the museum library.

MoMA has undergone a substantial number of architectural renovations and redesigns since its inception in 1929. To begin, a brief overview of the museum’s architecture and history is presented. Since MoMA first opened its doors, the museum has been expanding and contracting, redefining old spaces while creating new ones, both within its pre-existing building and through construction of new ones. These funds were used in large part to double the museum’s exhibition space in the 1939 Goodwin and Stone building containing the 13,600 square-foot Sculpture Garden. Alterations to the 56th Street building were also made to accommodate MoMA’s Educational and Circulating Departments. Six decades later, led by architects Yoshio Taniguchi, Toshiko Mori, and Klaus Herdeg, the institution launched an architectural renovation and expansion, reopening its doors on its 75th anniversary. Prestigious architects Cesar Pelli and Foley and Cox, Ron Radziner began work on MoMA’s 75,000 square-foot addition known as the David and Peggy Rockefeller Building.

4. Exhibition Curation and Collection Management

Non-fine arts exhibitions were curated both from within and outside the museum. The first museum teachers were hired in 1928 to provide its members with a better understanding of the types of art on display and they were generally quite capable of organizing non-commercial exhibitions for interested members. They began with a tapestry exhibit and an exhibition creating modern color scheme applications sponsored by Cartier. Sculpture exhibitions were arranged that featured both modern artists and classical and avant-garde students from the nearby Art Student League of New York. Some artists who established regional reputations during the mid-1920s very often cooperated in lieu of exhibitions and, since similarly flexible arrangements typically produced less awe-inspiring results, the history of non-fine arts exhibitions at the museum tends to read somewhat unspectacularly. When not relying on the gentle sponsorship of Walter Pach and his committee’s robust taste in selecting what should be on display, non-fine arts exhibitions have been held in tandem with artists’ groups showing their work at the museum. These exhibitions – which generally utilize the museum’s auditorium – have also given other groups leverage in manipulating the museum’s exhibition schedules when approval of their own exhibitions became tied up in details.

While all of MoMA’s administrative departments were being watched over by their various heads, so much of the museum’s life and production revolved around its exhibitions and collection that it makes sense to discuss these facets of the museum separately. There was no formal structure to exhibition selections until 1931, when the museum established the Advisory Committee on Painting and Sculpture, the first departmental committee authorized to operate, and therefore the museum’s first curatorial committee. This committee, initially led by Michigan’s H.W. Henderson and resulting in an exhibition in 1931 that named the museum as “one of the temples of culture,” led by Walter Pach and later Karl Loth, decided essentially who was to be shown and when and relatively quickly established the structure that would practically imitate the museum’s organizational chart. Meanwhile, selecting subjects for smaller exhibitions was designated to members of the museum council and once again, William R. Valentiner took the lead in filling the museum’s galleries in 1930.

5. Impact on Contemporary Art and Cultural Discourse

MoMA’s influence on the art community has been particularly effective for several reasons. The museum has a tradition of top-down leadership followed by serious engagement by trustees and staff with the issues at hand. It has been recognized as a world-class treasure house. Consequently, MoMA’s opinions are influential with the wealthy, influential, and powerful regarding contemporary art matters. MoMA offers a practiced ear for emerging artists’ voices. Museum support can be a stabilizing influence on an emerging talent fearing obscurity, economic impoverishment, or capitulation to outside market forces. MoMA’s infrastructure, promotional outreach expertise, and high-profile programs provide a very broad stage upon which the youngest artists’ expressions can be conveyed.

The Museum of Modern Art has influenced the way contemporary art is conceived of, created, and circulated. From its inception, MoMA has been active in amassing and promoting new art and architecture. As a laboratory for avant-garde policy, it has afforded visionary exhibition opportunities, served as an educational resource, a monetary oxygen supply, and a bridge of support over the all too frequently treacherous period of development that transpires prior to initial economic return. MoMA’s stated goal has been to sustain the dialogue between high art and the public, and one strong path of this exchange has been a mandate to foster the development of contemporary art.