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.
