Top Exhibits of 2008. ORLY?

            This week, Time Magazine and CNN published their Top 10 of Everything for 2008. Included in this myriad of lists was the “Top 10 Museum Exhibitions of 2008.” The 10 exhibits chosen are:

•  Sol LeWitt: A Wall Drawing Retrospective – MASS MOCA
•  Gustave Courbet – The Met 
•  El Greco to Velazquez: Art during the Reign of Philip III – MoFA Boston
•  Terra Cotta Warriors and the First Emperor – The Bowers and the High
• Moore in America – NY Botanical Garden
• Louise Bourgeois – Guggenheim and LA MOCA
• Kirchner and the Berlin Street – MOMA
• Bernini – The J Paul Getty Museum/Nat’l Gallery of Canada
• Tara Donovan – Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston
• William Eggleston: Democratic Camera – Whitney Museum of American Art

             I have not seen these exhibits, by virtue of economics, time and geography. It would be unfair for me to make judgments on them by virtue of a small photo and a short review in Time Magazine. Nevertheless, I will now proceed to lump them into a group and talk about them.

             All ten exhibits are art exhibits of some sort (One could argue that the Terra Cotta Warriors exhibit is a cultural/ethnographic/history exhibit, but it is presented as art). The brief write-ups on each exhibit focus on the content, and on the importance of the artist/culture, rather than the exhibition itself.   It would seem these shows are large – words like “monumental,” “exhaustive,” and “sizeable” pepper the reviews. 

             I would assume, unfairly perhaps, but experience dictates my assumption, that these exhibits are completely object centered, with little to no interactivity. I imagine them littered with lengthy text panels and dense quotes from the curator. I imagine that the point of the exhibit was to highlight the tremendous work done by the artist. And I imagine that for the most part, these exhibits are well outside the comfort level of potential visitors.

             In effect, all of these shows continue to lend credence to the idea of the museum as an impenetrable ivory tower, where the masses come to learn from the learned curators.  I wonder if, and indeed hope that, the top 10 list is not based on audience feedback, earned revenue, visitation, blog posting, etc, but rather on the opinions of a small group of art critics at Time and CNN. It seems more than likely. However, the public does put trust in the recommendations of art critics at such media institutions as The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Time Magazine. If the well-educated critics there think an exhibit is exceptional, it must be so, right? So, I should visit these exhibits if I can, and will try to make myself seem brilliant and cosmopolitan. Even if I really don’t get it.

             And now we find ourselves in a cycle. Museums produce more of the same – object centered exhibits, as opposed to visitor centered ones. Even Time notes that the Coubert exhibit was “old fashioned,” albeit “in the best way — rich, thorough and smart.” So, old-fashioned exhibits are lauded in the press, which gets the attention of donors, visitors, board members, etc. So if Museum A has earned kudos for this sort of exhibit, why couldn’t it work for Museum B? All the while the Community Museum of XYZ is producing groundbreaking programs and exhibits, but is all but invisible to the world at large.

            It brings back to mind the “chain” museum. These 10 exhibits are so homogeneous that they could all be on exhibit at any of the 10+ museums mentioned. There is nothing about any one of these exhibits that speaks to a specific space, community or audience. These are McExhibits. I can only hope that the smaller museums of the world begin to experience the resurgence that “mom and pop” style diners have, or boutique shops and hotels. Wouldn’t it be nice to see one of these on the top 10 for 2009?