Newark & MoMA Review/Analysis/Reaction

Kristy Lopez

(Warning: this is a long entry :/ ...)

My experience at the Newark Museum was a fresh one, since the only time I had been there was too long ago to remember, except when seeing the Ballantine House. Our tour guide, Patricia Wessel, told us all the fun facts about the museum. It is endowed by the state to run - as the endowments get cut, so do the jobs, exhibitions and programs. They are built on 30 foundations, members, and volunteers for support. Much of the collections are from wealthy collectors who "left" them their collection. The original building was built in 1926, and annexed around with new wings.

John Cotton Dana is the founder of the museum, whose collection has filled up 7 major galleries. His motto was very educationally based. The objective of the museum was not an exclusive view but more about the everyday accessibility from the community. While the community has changed over the years since the founding of the Newark Museum, its dedication to the Newark community is prevalent in the functions it holds. While passing the Englehard Court, senior citizens tailed a long line for coffee and lunch; this was for Senior Friday.

           Technology had a minimal presence at the Newark Museum, but in some rooms there is an electronic label copy with images of the opposite side of glass-cased objects, more information, and videos. Technology at the MoMA was the complete opposite; in fact, the Applied Design Exhibit that was in the process of being installed was dedicated to technology. From solar panel prototypes, to drones, to video games, technology was the main focus of this exhibit. I learned about the acquisition of the video games, which essentially is a code; this is changing how art is perceived.  

            My experience at the Moma was significantly different than that of the Newark Museum. The MoMA is privately owned and funded by a board of directors; therefore there are more liberties in receiving funds, mandatory admissions, and no state endowments. The mood in this institution was much more prestigious (nice way of saying pretentious) among the visitors. The community was NYC, meaning one out of every two people was probably a tourist from out of state or country. The guides were printed in seven different languages. The coatroom line was long at the MoMA while the Newark Museum it was empty.

            Behind the scenes was a privileged experience. Part of what I experienced at the Newark Museum was seeing a new exhibit under construction (a girl painting and art handlers moving things around). It looked very similar to the Applied Designs environment at the MoMA; there was hardware and disorder on the floor. I felt more of a sense of "chaos" at the MoMA – only two weeks to open the show; it made the museum feel more human. Steven Wheeler, our guide, to us about his job and duties; this also made the exhibition feel more human. Several issues can arise when determining how to exhibit works. For example, the issue with sunlight is very real when dealing with sensitive works of art. Steven has to find the right people to figure out why the plastic in the solar panel prototypes was reacting a certain way in front of the window and how to diminish that effect, or where else to hang it. There is an agenda, opinions, suggestions, and decisions behind everything that is eventually neatly and strategically placed; this is hidden very well through presentation.

               There were two, maybe three, exhibitions/rooms where I saw Picasso as the first thing you see when walking in – smack in the middle. This reminded me of Duncan’s chapter “The Modern Art Museum.” He mentioned how in the MoMA:

“Usually it is Cezanne who takes the most significant first step toward modernism- in the MoMA installation, this happens almost literally: Cezanne’s Walking Man greets the visitor at the very threshold of the permanent collections, as he has in MoMA installations for the last two decades” (104).

I remember previously entering the permanent collection and Cezanne’s The Bather had greeted me; now that it was Picasso and I was aware of “the walk through”, I can agree more with Duncan’s statement on Cubism…

“In the MoMA, as in many other museums, it is Cubism that most heralds the future. In the MoMA’s version, it commands the narrow passage through which visitors make the first turn in the prescribed route. The layout of the galleries allows visitors few options” (104).

MoMA’s “walk through” feels more present and planned than in the Newark Museum. Every room in the MoMA flows in to the next, and the big names get the big spots. At Newark the exhibitions are closed off in rooms with few connecting. Space is an obstacle in this case, where the walls confine the fluidity of the walk-through. The Newark layout offers the visitors few options but feels more uncontrolled; like they crammed in as much as they could in one space to separate it from the others, however the space permitted does not allow for more control in what flows in to what. Control in the layout can be expressed through chronology, geography, and movement, among others. Newark is dominated mostly by chronology while MoMA is mostly laid out by movement and, in Inventing Abstraction’s case, geography (often the homeland of where movements sprout).

        When looking back at both, I felt more excited at the MoMA- not because of the art so much, but because of the vibe. The hum of people echoing through out the museum, the buzz of the city outside, the light coming through the windows… really the possibilities excited me. At Newark, I felt less on edge since I wasn’t bumping in to people or excusing myself, so I was able to take my time and feel more relaxed, at times, even bored or uninterested because there were pieces I knew nothing about.

          I think interest is an important concept that will ensure returning visitors. Newark and MoMA are both rooted in education for their prime focus in exhibiting. At Newark, there is more culture and worldly information to learn that, because most may not know, they lose interest in finding out. At the MoMA, their education is rooted in modern art, so this is art all children across America are learning in their schools. Each institution has a different presentation of history; Newark is more aesthetically based, while MoMA is more conceptually based or in other words, focused on perspectives of viewing art. While Newark does have a modern art collection, the whole museum does not solely support just that gallery. Educationally, I think Newark offers a better scope for learning. The logistics, partnerships, and departments running MoMA as an organization are much more successful, especially since people all around the world come to see that museum. Perhaps private ownerships allows for more possibilities that an endowment to a museum cannot afford. Thus, it is extremely important to have a range of funds, whether it is from donors or fundraisers, etc. For an institution to be successful it first needs to still exist; the threat of being shut down will definitely disturb the institution’s motto (like programs no longer available for schools and educational purposes).

           I want to see more support for Newark Museum. As a future Art Teacher, I expect it to be a very valuable resource. The MoMA is also a valuable resource, however the challenges in accessibility are cumbersome when organizing a migration of 25+ students. Unlike MoMA, at Newark I am less likely to lose my students physically and to the buzzing distractions. Newark is also more ideal for the classroom in teaching more disciplines other than art: MoMA has less cultural preservation and solely has ART. After this experience, I am greatly interested in public programmer/educator position of a museum. I think it’s a great combination of the museum environment, the teaching philosophy and planning, and the history of art. If I had that job – I’d be the happiest person.