Art drain?
After a question from a commenter below, I zapped a note to a few art brains with local connections to ask whether the exits of Nicholas Baume, Bill Arning and, before that, Bennett Simpson and Cheryl Brutvan say something about Boston's relationship with contemporary art. Here are a few excerpts.
Russell LaMontagne, owner, LaMontagne Gallery: Boston has always been a tough town for contemporary art. Half of the contemporary art galleries have closed in the last year and a half and the other half have always done a large part of their sales to collectors outside of Boston. With respect to the recent vacancies at the MFA and the ICA, the good news is that both institutions have very talented people already on staff to fill those roles, in William Stover and Jen Mergel.
Joe Thompson, director, MASS MoCA: Museum curators and directors are curious, migratory creatures by habit, and the migration tends to happen in big waves, (a couple of people move on in California, or a new museum gets built in Texas, and it sets off a two year rotation of musical chairs all across the country). I don't think it is cause for hand wringing at all. Indeed, the fact that Boston's curatorial talent is so much a part of the national current -- and sought out in leadership positions -- can only be a positive indicator that relevant work is getting done in Boston.
That said, it'll be nice to see those slots filled, and soon. Others of us toiling nearby fields need 'em.
Regina Hackett, Another Bouncing Ball: I don't think these three exits mean much. Curators are always coming and going. When three key ones happen to leave at the same time, their departures might appear to be tea leaves sending a message, but no.
On the other hand, Boston has a built-in low ceiling for contemporary art. It's a great city for tradition but not for aesthetic innovation, in spite of magnificent colleges and universities in the area. Beyond the city's partially out-of-date reputation for self-congratulatory insularity, I think the problem is economic. It costs as much to live in Boston as it does in New York. Why would young artists chose Boston? If they're lucky, they go to school there. Then they leave.
Philadelphia's fortunes are on the rise, again for economic reasons. It's close to New York but costs less to be there. It has yet to achieve the kind of art density that marks a major moment, but it's moving in that direction. Boston isn't, although the existence of the ICA is a big positive step.
Kathy Halbreich, associate director, Museum of Modern Art, New York: I am not certain [the exists] mean a whole lot. People such as Nicholas and Bill contributed to the liveliness of the Boston scene and moved on to lead programs elsewhere. They clearly had learned a lot and the field is in constant need of new leaders.
Michael Rush, former director, Rose Art Museum: I really believe these departures are normal. Boston is a thriving place for contemporary art and will continue to be. The great thing about Bill and Nicholas is that they created terrific programs that will be appealing to a new set of significant curators. I'm quite sure that MIT will announce a new curator soon and the ICA should have no trouble attracting someone exciting. So, too, for the MFA. One just hopes they become more explicit about their commitment to the contemporary, which I believe they will. I truly don't believe these departures signal any decline of the contemporary in boston.
