What About the Collection? The Rise of the Kunsthalle in America by laura james kosakow

What About the Collection? The Rise of the Kunsthalle in America

Laura James

Savannah College of Art and Design March 2015

Introduction to the Kunsthalle Many contemporary art museums in America are forgoing the work of acquiring

art, and thus the need to build and care for a permanent collection, as they are modeling their institutions on the German kunsthalle. Like traditional museums, these institutions organize exhibitions that are open to the public, but they are known as non-collecting museums as they do not purchase art or accept donations of art for the purpose of building a permanent collection. The lack of a permanent collection seems to defy one of the most important traditional roles of a museum: how can an art institution call itself a museum when they do not have a collection? The foundations of these kunsthalles are rooted in exhibitions and related programs, creating an institution characterized by constant change and fresh vision. This mission, rather than following that of a traditional museum to “collect, preserve, and interpret,” mirrors that more commonly associated with a commercial art gallery, especially in the focus on the cultivation and exhibition of emerging artists. Where, then, does the kunsthalle, defined as a “non-collecting contemporary art museum,” fit within the historically separate spheres of the non-profit art museum and the art gallery? As the twenty-first century opens, the dominance of collections in museums is certainly fading (and has faded). What are the implications for this change? What is the impact on the fundamental definition of a museum absent collections? If museums abandon their commitment to collections, will it be necessary to create another institution to assume that role; another “museum?”1 – Edward P. Alexander

1 Edward P. Alexander, Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Functions of Museums, 2nd ed. (Lanham: Altamira Press, 2008), 16.

3 In this thesis I will define, question, and examine the rise and role of the kunsthalle as the newest category of museum acknowledged by the field's governing organization, the American Alliance of Museums (referred to throughout this document as AAM). I will analyze how the functions of American contemporary art museums have changed in the twenty-first century, as well as the steps taken by the AAM to expand their definition of museums to include the kunsthalle. This thesis will consider, enumerate, and establish how these institutions with no collections have come to be categorized as museums. In addition, this thesis provides a basis for future study of the rise of the contemporary art museum as kunsthalle in America through providing data on the number of institutions currently operating under this model as defined by the following parameters: non-collecting contemporary art institutions referring to themselves as a museum in their name or in their mission statement. The American Alliance of Museum’s (AAM) accreditation program, which was inaugurated in 1970, defines a museum as “an organized and permanent nonprofit institution, essentially educational or aesthetic in purpose, with professional staff, which owns and utilizes tangible objects, cares for them and exhibits them to the public on some regular schedule.”2 Since 1970 those guidelines have changed, and in 2005 the AAM’s definition was updated to specify that, in regards to collections, a museum’s mandate is limited to: 1) “Use and interpret objects and/or site for the public presentation of regularly scheduled programs and exhibits.” 2) “Have a formal and appropriate program

2 Stephen E. Weil, Rethinking the Museum: And Other Meditations (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1990), 23; italics mine.

4 of documentation, care and use of collections and/or objects.”3 The word “own” in regards to objects has been removed by the AAM, thus making it possible for a noncollecting museum to fit within the parameters of a museum according to the AAM. In response to my query regarding the AAM’s definition of a museum, Elizabeth Merritt, Founding Director for the Center for the Future for Museums, stated, “AAM has never had an official definition of a museum. We have only had eligibility requirements for accreditation, which are as much practical/programmatic as they are philosophical.”4 What, then is a museum? The standard definition states that the care and presentation of the permanent collection is an essential part of a museum’s mission. However, in a recent press release the New Museum in New York City, which was founded as a kunsthalle, was asked, “What is the reason behind the New Museum not having a permanent collection?” The New Museum’s reply, which might apply to all American kunsthalles, was “Our resources are dedicated to our dynamic exhibition programs, public programs, and special commissions, which are ever evolving and focused on presenting emerging and established contemporary artists from around the world.”5 These attributes come perilously close to the role of the art gallery, as defined by museum studies scholar Stephen L. Williams: “An art museum without a collection is only a gallery… A museum without a collection is not a museum.”6 3 Lauren Silberman, “American Alliance of Museums,” Program Officer, Museum Assessment Program, e-mail with Author, December 22, 2014. 4 Elizabeth Merritt, “American Alliance of Museums,” Founding Director, Center for the Future of Museums, e-mail with Author, January 27, 2015. 5 New Museum Press Release, http://www.newmuseum.org/files/nm_press_faq.pdf, New Museum, 2010. 6 Stephen L. Williams, quoted in Edward P. Alexander, Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Functions of Museums, 2nd ed. (Lanham: Altamira Press, 2008), 16.

5 A robust exhibition schedule supported by extensive educational programming is just one of the characteristics of the increasingly popular contemporary art museum in America modeled after the German kunsthalle, or “art hall.” A kunsthalle is a noncollecting institution that presents art on loan from other institutions or individuals.7 Many kunsthalles in the United States refer to their institution as a non-collecting museum and the terms are often used interchangeably. Kunsthalles emerged in Europe in the mid-nineteenth-century as contemporary exhibition halls with no permanent collection.8 Within the last fifteen years, kunsthalles have gained popularity within the field of contemporary art in America and these non-collecting museums have been founded nationwide in buildings designed by famous architects such as Zaha Hadid, David Adajye and Farshid Moussavi. Though these institutions — the Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art, the Aspen Art Museum and the Museum of Contemporary Art Denver, respectively–refer to themselves as museums, they base their mission on the aforementioned German model of the kunsthalle, a facility that mounts art exhibitions but does not have a permanent collection. The kunsthalle in America has been receiving frequent press attention and the role of the kunsthalle has been a theme at recent conferences and in on-line forums for museum professionals.9 As of October 2014 the Association of Art Museum Directors reports that eleven of its two hundred and twenty two United States-based members are classified as kunsthalles. These members include the Aspen Art Museum, the Museum of 7 Jori Finkel, “The Future of the American Kunsthalle,” ARTnews, October 2014, 80. 8 Ainsley K. Wagoner, "The Kunsthalle: A Study in Contemporary Art Display Archetypes," Kaleidoscope 10 (2011): 20. 9 Beatrix Ruf and Amy Sadao, “CAM in Context: the Non-Collecting Museum.” (Panel discussion, Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis, St. Louis, March 10, 2014).

6 Contemporary Art Denver, the Institute of Contemporary Art [at the] University of Pennsylvania, the Contemporary Arts Museum Houston, the Wexner Center for the Arts (Columbus, Ohio), the Drawing Center (New York, New York), the Santa Monica Museum of Art and the Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis.10 Also included are the Contemporary Arts Center Cincinnati and the Frist Center for Visual Arts in Nashville, Tennessee. Some if the institutions mentioned above do not consider themselves museums, even as they are members in the AAMD. In fact, some of these institutions ensure that the line between their non-collecting contemporary art institution and a museum is clear. The Drawing Center does use the term museum in their mission or in their name. Susan H. Edwards, Ph.D., Executive Director and CEO of the Frist Center for the Visual Arts, made the distinction between a museum and an arts institution explicitly clear in a letter posted on the center’s website when she stated the following, “When our institution was founded, it was determined that it was to be a “center” rather than a museum… Our goal was for the Frist Center to become a community resource for seeing and learning about art as well as a gathering place where one can experience a broad range of cultural offerings.”11 Although they are members of the AAMD, The Drawing Center, the Frist Center for the Visual Arts, and the Wexner Center for the Arts are not included in the list of kunsthalles in Appendix A. Although these centers are non-collecting contemporary art institutions, they are not museums, a distinction made clear in their mission statements. 10 Finkel, 80; AADM membership is by invitation only. 11 Susan H. Edwards, Ph.D., “From the Director,” Frist Center for the Visual Arts, http://fristcenter.org/about/from-the-director (accessed January 27, 2015).

7 With this established, the next question that further confuses the museumgoer is raised: how the institution is affiliated with the AAMD? The answer is membership in the AAMD is by invitation, whereas the AAM accredits institutions that meet specific standards by means of a lengthy and arduous process of evaluation. Another AAMD institution that it is important to consider as part of the futurescape featuring an increasing number of kunsthalles in the United States is the Institute of Contemporary Art Boston. The ICA Boston was founded as The Boston Museum of Modern Art in 1936, and in 1948 changed its name to become the Institute of Contemporary Art. At the time, ICA’s mission included functioning as a laboratory to champion innovative and experimental approaches to art and the institution became known for known for identifying and exhibiting new artists. In 1948 the ICA Boston decided that classification as a museum was not appropriate for the institution and its mission. At that time the name was changed from the Boston Museum of Modern Art to the Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston.12 Additional changes came in the mid 2000s when ICA Boston decided to start collecting again. On November 18, 2005, Assistant Curator Emily Moore stated the following reasons for the ICA’s change in collection policy: The ICA has decided to begin acquiring art in order to provide visitors to the new building with broader and more lasting experiences. By establishing a permanent collection, the ICA can install long-term exhibits of contemporary art that enhance and complement the ICA's primary area of focus: temporary exhibition programming. The board's Collection Policy Committee identified several specific objectives for establishing a collection policy: to provide a context for traveling exhibitions; to familiarize the visitor with recent 12 Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston, “ICA History,” Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston, http://www.icaboston.org/about/history/history-of-ica/ (accessed January 27, 2015.)

8 developments in contemporary art on an ongoing basis, bringing continuity to what has been until now a sequential series of experiences; to selectively document the ICA's exhibition through acquisitions from exhibitions the Institute has presented; to provide New England's contemporary art collectors with an appropriate institution to house selected gifts from their holdings; and to allow for cost-effective long-term education programming that is prohibitively expensive. By establishing a Collections Policy, the ICA would be the only public institution in Boston devoted to exhibiting and collecting contemporary art, and become a major resource for promoting and circulating contemporary art throughout New England and beyond.13 Replacing the term “museum” with “institute” runs contrary to some examples we see where the art institution modeled after the kunsthalle, adopts the term “museum” or forms their non-collecting institution as a “museum” from the onset.14 This contradiction in an institution’s name is exemplified by Aspen Art Museum Curator Courtenay Finn when she stated “the Aspen Art Museum is committed to presenting group exhibitions on a salient theme, artist’s first solo museum exhibitions, and bodies of work by artists that are unrecognized and/or unknown.”15 This closely parallels the reason that the ICA changed its name from the Boston Museum of Modern Art. When discussing the programming of a kunsthalle, Finn explained: I would argue that a non-collecting contemporary art institution’s program – a constantly changing exhibition schedule, robust educational programs, and public programs – lectures, performances, films, and talks, are similar if not on par with contemporary art museums that do have permanent collections. Look at the New Museum’s program in relation to the MCA Chicago, the Aldrich or The Studio Museum in comparison to ICA Boston or ICA Philadelphia. While all

13 Ariel Pittman, “The Institute of Contemporary Art: History and Future,” Big Red & Shiny, no.1 (2006): 46, http://www.bigredandshiny.com/cgibin/BRS.cgi?section=article&issue=46&article=THE_INSTITUTE_OF_2416027. 14 This is seen in the rebranding of the Salt Lake Art Center, founded in 1931, which became the Utah Museum of Contemporary Art in 2011. 15 Courtenay Finn, email interview by the author, January 12, 2015.

9 different, individualized and tailored to location and audience, these programs share more than they differ.16 It is notable that ICA Boston is listed by Finn as a non-collecting contemporary art museum when in reality ICA Boston no longer falls into that category; they are an institute of contemporary art that does now collect. This exemplifies the fluidity of the term “museum;” with the rise of the non-collecting contemporary art museum, even fully engaged members of the field can confuse a contemporary art center or institution and a non-collecting contemporary art museum. Some kunsthalles have even received accreditation by the AAM; these accredited institutions are listed and critically considered in my thesis. However, the overwhelming majority of American contemporary art museums that operate on the non-collecting model are not accredited by the AAM. In Appendix A I have compiled a comprehensive list of American Kunsthalles which includes twenty-six non-collecting museums; only two of them are AAM-accredited. To determine the number of kunsthalles currently in the United States, I evaluated data from the list of museums accredited by the American Alliance of Museums as of January 2014. To establish the criteria that differentiates collecting versus non-collecting museums, I set following parameters in order to determine the current number of kunsthalles in the United States. These results are compiled in Appendix A. First and most importantly, the institution must actively exhibit contemporary art. Next, the institution must have the word “museum” in their name or classify themselves as a museum in their mission. Non-profit, non-collecting contemporary art organizations that do not refer to themselves as a “museum” or have the word in their institution’s name 16 Courtenay Finn, e-mail interview by the author, January 12, 2015.

10 or mission were not included, and no virtual museums were taken into consideration. Although there are many private kunsthalles in the country, they are not included on this list nor are they a focus of this research. These institutions are most frequently made up of the private collection of an individual and offer limited access to the public. With the aforementioned exclusions made, it is public non-profit, non-collecting contemporary art museums incorporating the term museum in their name or mission statement that are the focus of this research. These meet the criteria of a kunsthalle, and that is the term that will be used to refer to these institutions in this document. As two of those museums that fit the parameters stated above are accredited by the AAM, it raises the question of the authority behind establishing the standards for these institutions and the way that they are operated. In 2014 the AAM listed 1048 accredited museums in the United States, and out of 779 self-reporting museums, 41% of those institutions were listed as an “Art Museum/Center.”17 These institutions are not currently categorized by the AAM regarding their status as a collecting museum versus a kunsthalle. According to a Program Officer in the AAM Museum Assessment Program, “I also don’t believe that our organization is currently collecting broader demographic information specifically on non-collecting art museums.”18

17 American Alliance of Museums, “Accreditation Statistics,” http://www.aamus.org/resources/assessment-programs/accreditation/statistics, (accessed December 15, 2014). These statistics are based on 779 self-reporting museums as of January 2014. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. 18 Lauren Silberman, “American Alliance of Museums,” Program Officer, Museum Assessment Program, email with Author, December 22, 2014.

11 The following case study focuses on the Aspen Art Museum as a representative for the new model of the non-collecting contemporary art museum, hereafter referred to as a kunsthalle, in the United States.

Case Study: Aspen Art Museum

13 This case study was prepared in order to examine the foundation of a noncollecting contemporary art museum whose mission is modeled on that of a kunsthalle. The Aspen Art Museum was founded in 1979 but changed its structure and growth plan between 2005 and 2014 to keep pace with an art world increasingly interested in contemporary art. This is an impartial account of the administrative and curatorial practices of the Aspen Art Museum and is based on Aspen Art Museum public tax records, annual reports, public statements from the museum board, published articles and an interview conducted via e-mail with Aspen Art Museum Curator Courtenay Finn, the full transcript of which can be found in Appendix B.19

Mission

The Aspen Art Museum is a non-collecting institution presenting the newest, most important evolutions in international contemporary art. Our innovative and timely exhibitions, education and public programs, immersive activities, and community happenings actively engage audiences in thought-provoking experiences of art, culture, and society.20

19 I would like to thank Courtenay Finn for her invaluable contribution to this case study through her interview. 20 Aspen Art Museum, 2011-2012 Annual Report: Aspen Art Museum (Aspen: Aspen Art Museum, 2012), 65.

History In 1979 the Aspen Art Museum opened in the former hydroelectric plant building

near the confluence of Hunter Creek and the Roaring Fork River, after seven years of designing and construction. In 2014 the Aspen Art Museum moved its location to a new forty-five million-dollar building in the center of town.21 Designed by Shigeru Ban, this thirty-three thousand-square-foot structure allows the building to exhibit art, both indoors as well as outdoors on its roof and exterior façade (Figure 1). The museum is bringing national attention to the discussion of the interchangeably used terms kunsthalle and noncollecting museum via its new building and successful fundraising, which included over one-hundred-million-dollars for the new building and the museum’s endowment.22 Aspen Art Museum Director Heidi Zuckerman directly credits the use of the kunsthalle model with assisting in her ability to raise the money stating, “My first idea was that we could be the best mid-sized museum in America, but that’s not so sexy. Then I realized we could be the best non-collecting institution and write our mission around it…”23 Since the museum moved to its new home it has received press as the subject of articles in such publications as ARTnews, The Aspen Times and The New York Times.

21 Aspen Historical Society, “Modern Aspen 1961 – Present,” http://aspenhistory.org/aspen-history/modern-aspen-1961-present/ (accessed November 3, 2014). 22 Rick Carroll, “Aspen Art Museum Exec Drew Nearly $900k in 2013,” The Aspen Times, November 20, 2014, http://www.aspentimes.com/news/13873792-113/museumaspen-art-zuckerman (accessed, December 15, 2014). 23 Finkel, 80.

The Building Shigeru Ban, the architect of the Aspen Art Museum, which opened in the

summer of 2014, said of the building he designed to house a museum with no collection that: I always strive for a unified relationship between the structure and its surroundings. The design for the new Aspen Art Museum is a very exciting opportunity to create a harmony between Aspen’s existing architecture and the surrounding natural beauty. In the design, I wanted to create a site-specific sequence that took into account the mountain views and the building’s purpose as an art museum…I feel that sometimes people are a little intimidated to go into a museum, so the outside space around the building is very important. It is the breathing room around the building. The experience is not sudden, it happens like an introduction. The space around the museum is where visitors and residents of Aspen can sit, talk, eat lunch, rest, and watch the activity and excitement around the museum. This can also attract them to go inside…I hope that when people come to the new Aspen Art Museum they will feel that this building is very much at home in Aspen and could only live here.24 The new Aspen Art Museum home is a building that is one-hundred-feet by onehundred-feet by forty-seven-feet making the museum’s total square footage thirty three thousand square-feet; of the total square footage, 17,500 square feet are available as exhibition space. The Aspen Art Museum regards its five key architectural elements as the grand stair, glass elevator, woven screen (exterior made of a composite material named Prodema, a dual-sided wood veneer with a substructure of an amalgam of paper and resin), wood roof truss and “walkable skylights,” which let light into the galleries.25 The museum has four levels; two function as aboveground exhibition space. One level is 24 Shigeru Ban, Aspen Art Museum Design Statement, (Aspen: Aspen Art Museum, 2014), 2008–2014. 25 Aspen Art Museum, Aspen Art Museum At A Glance, (Aspen: Aspen Art Museum, 2014), 2014.

16 an outdoor roof deck, which includes space for outdoor works of art; another exhibition space is below ground. In total, the museum has eight exhibition spaces including six galleries, the sculpture garden on the roof deck, and the common area inside the main floor (Figure 2). There is also an area of approximately two or three feet in depth, surrounding the façade of the building, which also functions as a surface for display. In addition to these exhibition spaces, the museum also contains a café, education workshop, and museum shop. My evaluative visit to the Aspen Art Museum took place in December 2014. The arresting quality of the building’s design made an impact, but some of the building’s key architectural elements were beginning to fail in the harsh cold of winter at an elevation of almost eight thousand feet. Many of the “walkable skylights” on the roof deck had cracked in the freezing temperatures, and other debris had built up in the visible space between the concrete stairs and walls of glass which comprise the grand stair. This ambitious design, where all infrastructures are visible, may not allow access for proper cleaning and maintenance. These “growing pains” are usual and common in new buildings and are mentioned to draw attention to the primacy placed on the building. As so much focus and attention has been given to the building and its status as an architectural innovation, one must also question how this building serves the art that it was designed to display. This experience has been replicated elsewhere by other writers embedded in the art world. Javier Pes, now Deputy Director of The Art Newspaper, wrote about the boom in expansion of oversized museum spaces designed by famous architects in his 2007 article entitled “Art Museums in the Age of Expansion.” The experience that Pes had in

17 the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art left him with questions similar to those which emerged during the evaluative visit to the new Aspen Art Museum building: It is all about size-of the new wing or refurbishment, the increased number of visitors who will come once it is open, and the capital campaign to raise the money to build and maintain it. Often, the collection seems rather an afterthought in the rush to gain visibility and secure a position in the big league. Typically, much of the space gained seems devoted to cavernous lobbies–spaces designed to impress visitors and please the donors whose largess made it possible. You cannot but admire the dramatic, soaring atrium of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, designed by Mario Buatta. But after the spectacular entrance, topped by a vast circular skylight, the galleries feel an anticlimax.26

26 Javier Pes, “Art Museums in the Age of Expansion,” World Literature Today 81, no. 1 (January–February 2007): 38–42.

Leadership Since she was hired in 2005, Aspen Art Museum Director Heidi Zuckerman has

raised the profile of the museum from a small town contemporary art museum that most people had not heard of, to a kunsthalle that has received a large amount of national press since relocating to its new building. The process of raising the reputation of the museum to one with national renown has not come without controversy. Every decision that Zuckerman, who also fills the role of Chief Curator and CEO, makes is closely watched. Prior to 2014 Zuckerman’s was the sole curatorial vision of the museum; she now shares these duties with Aspen Art Museum Curator Courtenay Finn. The director’s actions have been questioned, condemned, praised and, more often than not, received media attention. In November of 2014 the Aspen Art Museums Form 990 Tax Records for 2012 (the tax year ending September thirtieth 2013) were publically released, as the museum is a non-profit. Zuckerman is one of the highest paid museum executives in the United States with a total compensation package of $864,034 which is comprised of a base salary of $355,916, bonuses and incentive compensation totaling $307,618 and another $200,500 in other reported compensation; this was in a year that the museum brought in 14 million dollars in revenue with 3.9 million dollars in expenses.27 Much of the discussion over Zuckerman’s salary is due to the fact that it is disproportionate with director’s salaries at other non-profit cultural institutions of the Aspen Art Museum’s size, specifically museums. In October of 2014 Charity Navigator issued a Charity CEO Compensation Study based on 2012–2013 tax years which showed 27 Rick Carroll, “Aspen Art Museum Exec Drew Nearly $900k in 2013,” The Aspen Times, November 20, 2014, http://www.aspentimes.com/news/13873792-113/museumaspen-art-zuckerman (accessed, December 15, 2014).

19 the median compensation for a non-profit executive in the Mountain West Region as $101,589 and the maximum was $729,337.28 Close to the home of the Aspen Art Museum, the Denver Art Museum generated 34 million dollars with thirty million dollars in expenses and the museum’s director, Christopher Heinrich, had a total package of $248,723. In the same tax year ending June 30, 2013 the nation’s largest art museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, brought in a revenue of $631,000,000 and had expenses totaling $462,000,000. In that year, Director Thomas Campbell’s total compensation package was just over 1.2 million dollars. Another example of Zuckerman’s salary discrepancy is evident in the comparison to that of the compensation for the leader of the Guggenheim Museum in New York City. In the same year, Director Richard Armstrong led the Guggenheim to a revenue of 80 million dollars with 72 million dollars in expenses and Armstrong received a total compensation package of almost $750,000.29 These comparisons demonstrate that the Aspen Art Museum, a kunsthalle in a small resort community in Colorado with six gallery spaces, offers its director a compensation package over three times that of the Denver Art Museum’s director and almost $150,000 more than the director of the Guggenheim in New York City. This disparity seems hard to explain, but the co-presidents of the board, John Phelan and Paul Schorr, spoke to the press on the director’s behalf, citing the following factors to justify this level of compensation.

28 Rick Carroll, “Aspen Art Museum Exec Drew Nearly $900k in 2013,” The Aspen Times, November 20, 2014, http://www.aspentimes.com/news/13873792-113/museumaspen-art-zuckerman (accessed, December 15, 2014). 29 Ibid.

20 Phelan and Schorr issued the following statement regarding Heidi Zuckerman: “Her fundraising and leadership successes have had an impact on her compensation commensurate with this level of growth,…”. They also stated that reviewing Zuckerman’s salary annually includes “multi-year performance incentives–all of which Ms. Zuckerman has met and/or exceeded in her tenure.”30

Directors Compensation Comparison 9,000,000

$8,000,000

8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000

$4,100,000

4,000,000

$4,000,000

Compensation ProFit (Revenue Minus Expenses)

3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000

$864,034 $248,723

$700,000

0 Aspen Art Museum

Denver Art Guggenheim Museum (NYC)

30 Rick Carroll, “Aspen Art Museum Exec Drew Nearly $900k in 2013,” The Aspen Times, November 20, 2014, http://www.aspentimes.com/news/13873792-113/museumaspen-art-zuckerman (accessed, December 15, 2014).

21 Financials

As stated in the 2011-2012 Aspen Art Museum Annual Report, the museum board is made up of thirty-four members, including co-presidents John Phelan and Paul Schorr. Admission to the Aspen Art Museum is free, courtesy of John Phelan, who co-hosts the annual fundraiser “artCRUSH,” which raised close to two million dollars in 2012. The Aspen Art Museum ended the 2011-2012 fiscal year with a surplus of over thirty eight million dollars.31 Seventy three percent of the Aspen Art Museum’s annual revenue in 2011-2012 came from the museum’s capital campaign to raise funding for its new building. Its successful completion is a reason that the director, Heidi Zuckerman, is now one of the highest paid museum executives in the country.32 The Aspen community is one of extreme wealth, and has responded to the museum’s fundraising attempts with enthusiasm and generosity. Forbes places two Aspen zip codes in the “2014 List of America’s Most Expensive Zip Codes.” Woody Creek, 81656, an enclave of Aspen, comes in at number seven and the zip code of downtown Aspen, 81611, is listed as number fifteen.33

31 Aspen Art Museum, 2011–2012 Annual Report, 50. 32 Ibid., 58. 33 Forbes, “2014 List of America’s Most Expensive Zip Codes,” October 8, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/10/08/new-york-dominates-2014-list-ofamericas-most-expensive-zip-codes/ (Accessed January 19, 2015).

Exhibitions and Educational Programs Aspen Art Museum spent forty seven percent of its annual budget on exhibitions

and programs, and twelve percent on education. These two categories comprise 59 percent of the total budget.

2011–2012 Aspen Art Museum Expenses Diagram

2011–2012 Aspen Art Museum Expenses

Exhibitions and Programming Fundraising, Capital Campaign and Auxillary Services Management and General Education

The Aspen Art Museum offered eleven educational and outreach programs for the years 2011–2012. 34 These programs range from lecture series for visiting art critics and curators to address current exhibits to children’s summer workshops and cycling tours where the participants visited off-site art installations and projects.

34 Aspen Art Museum, 2011-2012 Annual Report, 58.

23 Seven museum partnerships with external companies were recorded for the 2011– 2012 year. These included collaborations with the Aspen Skiing Company and a grassroots startup where the museum director interviewed artists and curators.35 The Aspen Art Museum provides extensive community outreach and extends the impact of its offerings by producing extensive literature to accompany each program. Visitors to the museum are offered educational literature on each exhibition. The texts for each artist, exhibit, or particular piece of art are available at the entrance of each gallery or space within the museum. These accompanying texts are a fundamental and extremely necessary aspect to the exhibit of artwork in a kunsthalle as the viewer only has the timeframe allotted by the museum for the exhibition to learn about the artwork. They cannot come back to visit a piece on a leisurely basis over a long period of time, as can often be done with an artwork in a museum’s permanent collection. The Aspen Art Museum exhibition pamphlets are full of information that enhances the viewing of the artwork in a manner unhindered by wall text adjacent to the art.

35 Aspen Art Museum, 2011–2012 Annual Report, 3-39.

Curatorial Staff Aspen Art Museum Director Heidi Zuckerman, who also acts as the museum’s

Chief Curator and CEO, leads the staff of the Aspen Art Museum. In the fall of 2014 Courtenay Finn was hired to join Zuckerman in fulfilling curatorial duties at the museum. As Curator, Courtenay Finn, who was named one of the “Ten Cutting Edge Curators from Around the World” by Blouin Artinfo online magazine, brings a young, fresh, contemporary spirit to the curatorial direction of the museum.36 Finn came to the Aspen Art Museum following three years as Curator at Art In General, a non-profit, noncollecting, arts center in New York City. In Appendix B, I have included the transcript of an interview, conducted via email, with Finn. This material enhances and informs my case study and contributes Finn’s expertise and observations to the consideration of the initial question, “what about the collection?”

36 Travis Chamberlain, “10 Cutting-Edge Curators From Around the World (Part 2),” Blouin Artinfo, July 3, 2013. http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/923687/10-cuttingedge-curators-from-around-the-world-part-2 (accessed December 10, 2014).

25 Analysis of Appendices A, B, and C

In order to establish a deeper understanding of the means by which a kunsthalle can fulfill the traditional role of a museum, a selective list of the question posed to Finn was provided via email to Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art Development Associate Randee Toler. The Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art, in Boulder, Colorado, is one of the twenty-six kunsthalles included in Appendix A and Toler serves as their Development Associate. Toler’s statement that “Artists, audiences, and institutions are comfortable with contemporary art living on through documentation so I think there is less reliance upon a single object of appreciation and less of an emphasis on preserving contemporary art in general” encapsulates a guiding principle of kunsthalles today––that the documentation of a work can often take the place revisiting the original. Toler’s statement is a direct answer to my overall question “What About the Collection?” The kunsthalle is community-focused, of the moment, and the majority accepts documentation such as website timeline, images, and scholarly text, as a substitute for preservation of the original. Though the types of documentation used by kunsthalles are presented in many different formats, it is important to acknowledge that the concept of exhibition documentation was not created by the kunsthalle but is an idea adopted from mainstream museums. After a kunsthalle exhibition there is no further chance to study or revisit the object that was on display so the nature of a kunsthalle has heightened the degree of importance for documenting exhibitions. Documentation includes readily available printed materials, exhibition brochures and on-line documents such as lesson plans.

26 In addition, there is a much greater emphasis on documenting the exhibitions online as evidenced by the kunsthalles that are working on putting their entire exhibition history online, quite often in a timeline format as exemplified by the website of the Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati, Ohio.37 The CAC Cincinnati is the third oldest kunsthalle in Appendix A and has documented almost every exhibition that they have coordinated since 1939 on their website.38 This detailed style of exhibition documentation is a crucial aspect of the kunsthalle as once the exhibition is over one cannot study the pieces that made up the whole of the exhibition. It is the documentation that then becomes the permanent record for providing information about the exhibition. While mainstream museums have been providing such information to their visitors for as long as it has been possible, especially in the case of a loaned or travelling exhibition, it is crucial to the foundation of the kunsthalle that every aspect of every exhibit is available for public and scholarly study; once the exhibition is over there is no object, no original work of art to study from. The relationship between the kunsthalle and the art gallery can be a very complex one where the boundaries are hard to define. Toler addresses that, stating: I think the relationship between the gallery and the non-collecting art museum can be mutually beneficial: galleries bring attention to hot artists and trends and have the financial resources to support artists and move art around, while an art museum can help increase the value of an artist’s work or heighten the visibility of a private collection or collector by including these works in an exhibition.39

37 Contemporary Arts Center, “Timeline,” http://contemporaryartscenter.org/about/timeline (accessed February 12, 2015). 38 Ibid. 39 Randee Toler, e-mail interview with the author, January 9, 2015.

27 As reflected in the list that comprises Appendix A, kunsthalles have been recorded in the United Sates for one hundred years. The oldest institution is The Renaissance Society, “an independent, non-collecting museum of contemporary art located on the campus of the University of Chicago. Founded in 1915 to encourage a greater understanding of culture––in the broad sense of the term “renaissance”––we present exhibitions, public programs, and publications that advance the ideas and expressions of our time.”40 However, the 1970s were the most intense time of growth for the kunsthalle in the last century with seven of the twenty-six kunsthalles formed during that decade. It seems clear that the kunsthalle’s increase in popularity during the 1970s coincided with an increase in the interest of contemporary, conceptual, and site-specific art being made. Many of these kunsthalles set aside space for, and have a strong exhibition history of, performance art and site-specific installation. For instance, the Mattress Factory in Pittsburgh was founded in 1977 for the sole purpose of allowing artists the space to create site-specific work.41 Founding Dates of Kunsthalles in the United States

The Renaissance Society, Chicago, IL

Founded in 1915

Utah Museum of Contemporary Art, Salt Lake City, UT

Founded in 1931

Contemporary Arts Center, Cincinnati, OH

Founded in 1939

40 The Renaissance Society, “About Us,” http://www.renaissancesociety.org/about/ (accessed January 12, 2015). The Renaissance Society is the forerunner of kunsthalle in the United States, being followed by the formation of the Utah Museum of Contemporary Art (formerly the Salt Lake Art Center) and the Contemporary Arts Center in the 1930s. 41 The Mattress Factory, “History,” http://www.mattress.org/content/history (accessed February 3, 2015).

28 Contemporary Arts Museum Houston, Houston, TX

Founded in 1948

Virginia Museum of Contemporary Art, Virginia Beach, VA

Founded in 1952

Institute of Contemporary Art, Philadelphia, PA

Founded in 1963

Museum of Contemporary Art, Cleveland, OH

Founded in 1968

MOMA P.S. 1, New York, NY

Founded in 1971

Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art, Boulder, CO

Founded in 1972

Atlanta Contemporary Art Center, Atlanta, GA

Founded in 1973

Museum of Contemporary Art Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA

Founded in 1976

Mattress Factory, Pittsburgh, PA

Founded in 1977

Aspen Art Museum, Aspen, CO

Founded in 1979

Delaware Center for the Contemporary Arts, Wilmington, DE

Founded in 1979

Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis, St. Louis, MS

Founded in 1980

Contemporary Art Museum Raleigh, Raleigh, NC

Founded in 1983

Santa Monica Museum of Art, Santa Monica, CA

Founded in 1984

Blue Star Contemporary Art Museum, San Antonio, TX

Founded in 1986

The Contemporary Museum of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD

Founded in 1989

Museum of Contemporary Art Tucson, Tucson, AZ

Founded in 1996

Museum of Contemporary Art Denver, Denver, CO

Founded in 1996

Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, North Adams, MA

Founded in 1999

Indianapolis Museum of Contemporary Art, Indianapolis, ID

Founded in 2001

Station Museum of Contemporary Art, Houston, TX

Founded in 2001

Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit, Detroit, MI

Founded in 2011

Institute of Contemporary Art Miami, Miami, FL

Founded in 2014

Conclusion In Rethinking the Museum: And Other Meditations, Stephen E. Weil begins chapter titled "An Emerging New Paradigm” by discussing the April 1970 Museum News “Museum Manifesto” of Joseph Veach Noble, an administrator of the Metropolitan Museum of Art who later served as Director of the Museum of the City of New York and as the President of AAM. Noble described what he felt were the five responsibilities of every museum: to collect, to conserve, to study, to interpret, and to exhibit. Noble believed of the five responsibilities that “They form an entity. They are like five fingers of a hand, each independent but united for a common purpose. If a museum omits or slights any of these five responsibilities, it has handicapped itself immeasurably.”42 Weil ends that chapter of his book with the statement that, “ If we can craft a new paradigm even nearly as sturdy as the one that Noble contributed to the museum field in 1970, we will indeed have performed an important service.”43 Perhaps Noble would say that we are now immeasurably handicapped as a field, due to the collecting “finger” having been removed. This then leads one to think about Weil’s statement regarding a new paradigm that is to replace the one established by Noble; what is that new paradigm? The twenty-first-century model of the kunsthalle in the U.S. is often rooted in community and experimentation. Upon the conclusion of a museum exhibit these institutions are left with the future application of exhibition information and documentation as the substitute for the original, and memories as a substitute for permanence. When asked about the absence of a permanent collection at the Aspen Art 42 Weil, 57. 43 Ibid., 65.

30 Museum, Finn stated, “I think rather than collect objects or works, we collect artists. Everyone who shows with us becomes part of the ‘collection,’ part of our program, and as such, part of the dialogue of contemporary art itself.”44 When asked the same question in regards to the Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art, Randee Toler responded that, “…the absence of a collection enables an organization to be more adventurous and experimental in its exhibitions, to engage diverse audiences, and to exhibit the art of more artists who are living and working today.”45 These museum professionals’ statements urge reflection on Noble’s five-finger paradigm and raise the question of whether collecting experiences has replaced the collection of objects. Does the kunsthalle ask its visitors to collect memories, interactions, and human exchanges in lieu of the collection itself? As it is clear that the museum field is in a time of transition, to fully understand the role of the kunsthalle we may have to alter our traditional associations with the word “collect.” The kunsthalle is asking us to think less about the physical object and delve deeper into the collection of experiences, interactions, and memories. Fundamental to the discussion of the state of museums and the idea of the collection is James Cuno’s 2006 book Whose Muse? Art Museums and the Public Trust. In the introduction Cuno states, “The museum as a discursive text would not be a collection of objects but a site of competing discourses about objects, objects being necessary only in so far as they occasion debate and provoke discourse.”46 Furthermore, Cuno reiterates that, “Elsewhere I have addressed our art museums’ reliance on 44 Courtenay Finn, e-mail interview by the author, January 12, 2015. 45 Randee Toler, e-mail interview by the author, January 9, 2015. 46 James Cuno, ed., Whose Muse? Art Museums and the Public Trust (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 20.

31 temporary exhibitions and on the way they hype the museum experience and emphasize the fleeting over the permanent and the experience of the museum as a destination over the experience of works of art.”47 The rise of the kunsthalle in the United States has transpired for many reasons; some of them are financial but more often than not, the ability to be experimental with exhibition programming has been a leading factor.48 2015 marks the one hundredth anniversary of the first kunsthalle in the U.S. and it is clear that a century later, there is a place in the field for this type of institution.49 Reflecting upon the words of Edward P. Alexander quoted at the beginning of this thesis, “If museums abandon their commitment to collections, will it be necessary to create another institution to assume that role; another “museum?”50 Alexander’s question can be answered with an affirmative yes; it seems clear that the kunsthalle is that institution. This document outlines the potential for future discoveries and discussions about the role and history of the kunsthalle in the United States. It is anticipated that these studies will further inform the field about this compelling model for the museum of the future.

47 Cuno, ed., Whose Muse? Art Museums and the Public Trust (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 21. 48 James Cuno, ed., “A World Changed? Art Museums After September 11,” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 55, no. 4 (2002): 18. 49 See Appendix A entry for The Renaissance Society. 50 Alexander, 16.

Appendix A: Kunsthalles in the United States Arizona Museum of Contemporary Art Tucson, Tucson, AZ Founded in 1996. California Museum of Contemporary Art Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA Founded in 1976. Santa Monica Museum of Art, Santa Monica, CA AAMD Member. Founded in 1984. Colorado Aspen Art Museum, Aspen, CO AAM accredited. AAMD Member. Founded in 1979. Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art, Boulder, CO Founded in 1972. Museum of Contemporary Art, Denver, CO AAMD Member. Founded in 1996. Delaware Delaware Center for the Contemporary Arts, Wilmington, DE Founded in 1979. Florida Institute of Contemporary Art Miami, Miami, FL Founded in 2014. Georgia Atlanta Contemporary Art Center, Atlanta, GA Founded in 1973.

33 Illinois The Renaissance Society, Chicago, IL Founded in 1915. Indiana Indianapolis Museum of Contemporary Art, Indianapolis, ID Founded in 2001. Massachusetts Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, North Adams, MA Founded in 1999. Maryland The Contemporary Museum of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD Founded in 1989. Michigan Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit, Detroit, MI Founded in 2011. Missouri Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis, St. Louis, MS AAMD Member. Founded in 1980. New York MOMA P.S. 1, New York, NY MOMA affiliation in 2000, and merger in 2010. MOMA is AAM accredited. Founded in 1971. North Carolina Contemporary Art Museum Raleigh, Raleigh, NC Founded in 1983. Ohio Museum of Contemporary Art, Cleveland, OH Founded in 1968.

34 Contemporary Arts Center, Cincinnati, OH Founded in 1939 Pennsylvania Institute of Contemporary Art Philadelphia, PA AAMD Member. Founded in 1963. Mattress Factory, Pittsburgh, PA Founded in 1977. Texas Blue Star Contemporary Art Museum, San Antonio, TX Founded in 1986. Contemporary Arts Museum Houston, Houston, TX AAMD Member. Founded in 1948. Station Museum of Contemporary Art, Houston, TX Founded in 2001 Utah Utah Museum of Contemporary Art, Salt Lake City, UT (Formerly Salt Lake Art Center. Changed name in 2011) Founded in 1931. Virginia Virginia Museum of Contemporary Art, Virginia Beach, VA AAM Accredited. Founded in 1952. List Statistics – 26 museums AAM Accredited – 2 museums AAMD Member – 6 museums

35 Appendix B: Interview with Aspen Art Museum Curator, Courtenay Finn Laura James–LJ Courtenay Finn–CF LJ: The lack of a permanent collection seems to defy one of the most important traditional roles of a museum: how can an art institution call itself a museum when they do not have a collection? CF: The thing that strikes me most about this question is the use of the word traditional. The question implies that we, as a general public, are accustomed to a museum having a permanent collection, and that over time it has become expected for an institution that calls itself a museum to collect, and that this act is intrinsically related to the function of the institution itself. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a museum as “an institution for the acquisition, preservation, study and exhibition of works of artistic, historical or scientific value.” Yet nowhere in this definition does it say that a museum must do all of these things. I bring this up because I think that a non-collecting art museum exemplifies many of the things listed above – we present, while in our care preserve and care for, study and provide platforms for studying, exhibitions of work. I also think that there is more to the definition of collecting than acquiring physical objects, an institution like the Aspen Art Museum collects the artists it shows, it collects the ideas it presents, it contributes and becomes part of a collection of thoughts within the field of contemporary art. Perhaps alongside thinking through how the definition of a museum continues to shift, we must in turn examine how the notion of collecting has changed as well. The role of contemporary artists is push us forward, to reveal new ways of thinking, to push against the status quo, challenge traditions, and as such, the institutions

36 that work with contemporary artists and show this work must be willing to adapt and change. I think it is especially poignant to be a platform for artists to experiment, to be able to show new work as it is developing, and to be able to an active participant in the conversation around art and ideas. This platform is all the more important and pivotal given the fact that there are museums whose role is to historicize and contextualize. Contemporary art has shifted the role of the museum and I think, will continue to do so as we move forward.

LJ: The foundations of non-collecting contemporary art museums are rooted in exhibitions and related programs, creating an institution characterized by constant change and fresh vision. This mission, rather than following that of a traditional museum to “collect, preserve, and interpret,” mirrors that more commonly associated with a commercial art gallery, especially in the focus on the cultivation and exhibition of emerging artists. Where, then, does the kunsthalle, defined as a “non-collecting contemporary art museum,” fit within the historically separate spheres of the non-profit art museum and the art gallery? CF: I would argue that a non-collecting contemporary art institution’s program – a constantly changing exhibition schedule, robust educational programs, and public programs – lectures, performances, films, and talks, are similar if not on par with contemporary art museums that do have permanent collections. Look at the New Museum’s program in relation to the MCA Chicago, the Aldrich or The Studio Museum in comparison to ICA Boston or ICA Philadelphia. While all different, individualized and tailored to location and audience, these programs share more than they differ. I would

37 also argue that a non-collecting contemporary art institution’s role or mission is very different from a commercial gallery, whose role is to support artists in the sale of their work. Also while some galleries and non-collecting arts institutions have missions to uniquely support emerging artists that is not exclusively the case. For instance the Aspen Art Museum is committed to presenting group exhibitions on a salient theme, artist’s first solo museum exhibitions, and bodies of work by artists that are unrecognized and/or unknown. While this commitment might overlap with a commercial gallery’s roster of artists or interests, the museum is a platform to present work without consideration of the market. The Kunstverein / Kunsthalle / Kunsthaus model, has in Europe, been around for quite some time, but within Museums with collections, the presentation of temporary exhibitions has been a continued practice. One can look also at the rotating of permanent collections, in which new exhibitions are created and produced, allowing for works to be viewed in different contexts, for works paired with other works to produce new site lines and meanings. One can also look at the robust alternative space moment across the US, institutions that offer space and time to artists who don’t have commercial representation but whose work has yet to be shown in a contemporary art museum. The landscape of the type of institutions dedicated to presenting contemporary art to the larger public is as varied as the art itself.

38 LJ: How do you see the functions of the American contemporary art museums changing in the twenty-first century? CF: I think the American contemporary art museum continues to shift in response to artistic practice, curatorial practice, and exhibition making itself. Museums now commission work, co-produce, tour exhibitions, present performance, dance, music, and spoken word. As art changes, the way the museum adapts to be able to present, preserve, and discuss this work. Yet the heart of your question resides in the word function. What is a museum’s function – do you mean fulfilling its mission? Its commitment to its public/publics? Its responsibility to the artist or artworks? Its role within society? I think each institution functions differently, both in the sense that their mission and goals are different, but more importantly in how they go about achieving said goals and mission.

LJ: What do you see as the most important function of the non-collecting contemporary art museum as the “collect” has been removed from the theory that a museum is to “collect, interpret and preserve?” CF: I said before that I think it is worth reexamining what it means to collect – especially given new technologies, the rise of the Internet, and virtual worlds – the idea of ownership continues to be discussed and debated. In terms of the ‘function’ of a noncollecting museum, I would say again, that I think this differs from institution to institution, but what I will say is that I think it is especially important for non-collecting contemporary art institutions to be in direct dialogue with artists and artistic practice.

39 LJ: What is going to happen to contemporary art objects if they are not being collected and preserved by museums? CF: Well I think contemporary art museums that collect have in no way ceased collecting–look at the expansion of contemporary art museums in the US alone – the Cleveland Museum built a new contemporary wing, The Whitney is relocating downtown with more space, SF MOMA is building a new building, the Metropolitan Museum will take over the Breuer to showcase their modern and contemporary collection. Not to mention the rise in the individual collector of contemporary art, and their personal impulse to build institutions (The Broad, The Peter Brandt, The Rubells) and or donate their collections posthumously to museums. I think this might also be the point to think about what has changed in the field of art and artistic practice.

LJ: One of the great aspects of visiting a museum is going back to visit your favorite pieces time and time again and through multiple visits, forming a relationship with that artwork. How is a museumgoer expected to form this emotional bond with contemporary artwork when the museum is non-collecting and does not have a permanent collection? CF: Yes, this is one of the great aspects of visiting some museums, but even those institutions change their collections and rehang- pulling works from storage and giving works of art a much needed break. I don’t think prolonged visiting is necessary to have an emotional bond or reaction to a work of art. Some of the works of art that I love, I have only ever had the chance to see once. This is also the beauty of the pilgrimage – of making the journey to see art, and of the discovery that lies at the heart of every museum

40 visit. If one compares it to literature, it is like being offered the choice of only reading certain books. The advantages of museums with permanent collections and those without, is that you can reread your favorite book while also having the opportunity to discover your new favorite.

LJ: If the trend in American contemporary art museums is that they are modeling themselves after the idea of a kunsthalle and becoming, or opening as, non-collecting museums, what do you feel needs to be done to ensure the preservation of contemporary art? CF: I think I answered this in question 5. I think it is great that contemporary art discourse is expanding and as such is allowing for new platforms and avenues to see, learn about, and experience contemporary art.

LJ: What do you say to the museumgoer that says, “How can the Aspen Art Museum be a museum as it has no objects in its collection?” CF: I would say that as contemporary art changes so do the spaces that the show contemporary art. We take great care and pride in working closely with artists to produce and present new work, to show and highlight different ideas and aspects of their practice, to allow them a space to respond to what is happening in world as it is happening, and to think through what they are making as they are making. I think that rather than collect objects or works, we collect artists. Everyone who shows with us becomes part of the ‘collection’, part of our program, and as such, part of the dialogue of contemporary art itself.

LJ: What are the advantages of being a non-collecting museum? CF: For me as a contemporary curator, the advantages are the focus on working with contemporary arts, the emphasis on exhibition making, and the ability to help artists produce or create work that they would otherwise not be able to do.51

51 Courtenay Finn, e-mail interview with the author, January 12, 2015.

42 Appendix C: Interview with Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art Development Associate, Randee Toler Laura James–LJ Randee Toler–RT LJ: The lack of a permanent collection seems to defy one of the most important traditional roles of a museum: how can an art institution call itself a museum when they do not have a collection?” RT: An institution can call itself a museum because the focus is on presenting exhibitions and mission-aligned programming rather than selling or preserving art. The role of a museum in contemporary society is different than it was 30+ years ago and the definitions of what makes it a museum have also changed. I think that the perception that a museum is where art goes to die is very much tied to an institution having a permanent collection and being beholden to the needs of that collection rather than the needs of the community in which the museum lives.

43 RT: Simply put, the priority of a museum is not to sell art or represent artists. The kunsthalle can and should work in partnership with commercial galleries to bring international artists to their communities. I think the relationship between the gallery and the non-collecting art museum can be mutually beneficial: galleries bring attention to hot artists and trends and have the financial resources to support artists and move art around, while an art museum can help increase the value of an artist’s work or heighten the visibility of a private collection or collector by including these works in an exhibition.

LJ: How do you see the functions of the American contemporary art museums changing in the twenty-first century? RT: I see contemporary art museums continuing to function in a similar way that they have been for many years now: 1) Make art accessible; 2) Emphasize access and participation; 3) Conduct outreach in their communities; 4) Innovate educational tools; and 5) Serve as social, civic, and cultural anchors in their communities.

LJ: What do you see as the most important function of the non-collecting contemporary art museum as the “collect” has been removed from the theory that a museum is to “collect, interpret and preserve?” RT: I think the most important function of the non-collecting museum is to present exhibitions that respond to the needs and interests of their communities, and to highlight topics and trends that are relevant to viewers in real-time. By doing so, the museum will support the important role that artists play in helping us see ourselves and others and understand the world around us.

LJ: What is going to happen to contemporary art objects if they are not being collected and preserved by museums? RT: I think there will always be museums that collect and preserve artworks but it is difficult to think about contemporary art in terms of preservation, particularly as many works today are purposely created from non-precious materials (and as the overall quality of art materials has improved and as artists continue to appropriate durable materials from other disciplines for their art). But I could see this task trending toward university-campus museums in the near future.

LJ: One of the great aspects of visiting a museum is going back to visit your favorite pieces time and time again and through multiple visits, forming a relationship with that artwork. How is a museumgoer expected to form this emotional bond with contemporary artwork when the museum is non-collecting and does not have a permanent collection? RT: In this environment, the museumgoer is invited to form a bond with the space and the programming instead of a single object or artwork. I think that the museum can substitute the connection with a single object or artwork by giving visitors memorable experiences that foster a long-lasting relationship with the venue.

45 RT: I think there is a substantial secondary art market that can support contemporary art living in private collections and being loaned and/or gifted to institutions over time. The conservation needs of contemporary art are different than those of much older works - they are made from non-precious materials or materials that can withstand weather and changing temperatures or are meant to respond to their environments and change over time. In general, the notion of preserving contemporary art does not seem to be vital to the continuation of those artworks but rather a function of academic study that emphasizes the value of artifacts and objects. Artists, audiences, and institutions are comfortable with contemporary art living on through documentation so I think there is less reliance upon a single object of appreciation and less of an emphasis on preserving contemporary art in general.

LJ: What do you say to the museumgoer that says â&#x20AC;&#x153;How can the Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art be a museum as it has no objects in its collection?â&#x20AC;? RT: This is an excellent opportunity to educate the museumgoer about the many different functions and realities of a museum today. After all, the decision to be non-collecting is intentional. Not having the financial and administrative burden of a permanent collection enables an organization to be smaller and less dependent upon large gifts. It enables an organization to allocate resources to initiatives that serve greater numbers, such as education and outreach programs that benefit underserved youth and adults. Most importantly, the absence of a collection enables an organization to be more adventurous and experimental in its exhibitions, to engage diverse audiences, and to exhibit the art of more artists who are living and working today.

LJ: What are the advantages of being a non-collecting museum? RT: Nimbleness and responsiveness; financial freedom; not being tied down to a collection or a collectors’ wishes; the opportunity to continually seek out and highlight the forefront of contemporary art and emergent practices; relevance in communities.

LJ: What are the disadvantages of being a non-collecting museum? RT: Giving audiences something to connect to and to feel a sense of ownership and pride in; articulating the value proposition of a museum that does not maintain a collection; sustained giving.52

52 Randee Toler, e-mail interview with the author, January 9, 2015.

Illustrations

Fig. 1. Aspen Art Museum, Shigeru Ban Architects, Aspen, CO, 2014.

Fig. 2. Aspen Art Museum, Shigeru Ban Architects, Aspen, CO, 2014.

48 Bibliography Alexander, Edward P. Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Functions of Museums, 2nd edition. Lanham: Altamira Press, 2008. Anderson, Gail, ed. Reinventing the Museum, the Evolving Conversation on the Paradigm Shift, 2nd edition. Lanham: Altamira Press, 2012. Aspen Art Museum. 2011–2012 Annual Report. Aspen: Aspen Art Museum, 2012. Aspen Historical Society. “Modern Aspen 1961–Present.” http://aspenhistory.org/aspen-history/modern-aspen-1961-present/ (accessed November 3, 2014). Bernstein, Fred A. “Now Showing; Some Museums Own Fine Art, Others Use the Fine Art of Borrowing.” The New York Times, March 31, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/31/arts/now-showing-some-museumsown-fine-art-others-use-the-fine-art-of-borrowing.html (accessed, November 17, 2014). Carroll, Rick. “Aspen Art Museum Exec Drew Nearly $900k in 2013.” The Aspen Times, November 20, 2014. http://www.aspentimes.com/news/13873792113/museum-aspen-art-zuckerman (accessed, December 15, 2014). ––––––––––. “Aspen Art Museum Exec Makes More than Heads of Guggenheim, Denver Art Museum.” The Aspen Times, November 21, 2014. http://www.aspentimes.com/news/13887789-113/museum-art-millioncompensation (accessed, December 15, 2014). Cohen, Patricia. “Writing Off the Warhol Next Door: Collectors Gain Tax Benefits From Private Museums.” The New York Times, January 10, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/business/art-collectors-gain-taxbenefits-from-private-museums.html?_r=0 (January 25, 2015). Cotter, Holland. “A Museum Is in Aspen, But Not of It.” The New York Times, September 26, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/arts/design/amuseum-is-in-aspen-but-not- of-it.html?_r=0 (accessed November 17, 2014).

49 Cuno, James. “A World Changed? Art Museums After September 11.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 55, no. 4 (2002): 17–36. ––––––––––, ed. Whose Muse?: Art Museums and the Public Trust. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. Dillenburg, Eugene. “What, if Anything, Is a Museum?” Exhibitionist (Spring 2011): 8– 13. http://www.aam-us.org/aboutmuseums/whatis.cfm Finkel, Jori. “The Future Of The American Kunsthalle.” ARTnews, October 2014, 80–87. Govan, Michael. “The Art Museum Today, in Discussion.” A white paper following the Aspen Institute Seminar for International Art Museum Directors, Aspen, CO, March 7– 10, 2013. Graham, Beryl and Sarah Cook. Rethinking Curating: Art After New Media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2010. Janes, Robert. Museums in a Troubled World: Renewal, Irrelevance or Collapse? New York: Routledge, 2009. New Museum. Rethinking Contemporary Art and Multicultural Education, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge, 2011. Pes, Javier. “Art Museums in the Age of Expansion.” World Literature Today 81, no. 1 (January–February 2007): 38–42. Pittman, Ariel. “Institute of Contemporary Art: History and Future.” Big Red & Shiny, no.1 (August 2006): http://www.bigredandshiny.com/cgibin/BRS.cgi?section=article&issue=46&article=THE_INSTITUTE_OF_2416027 &printView=true. Rosa, Miriam La. “To Collect or Not to Collect, that is the Question: the In-Terms Contradiction of Contemporary Art Museums.” Masters’ thesis, Reinwardt Academy, 2013. Ruf, Beatrix and Amy Sadao. “CAM in Context: The Non-Collecting Museum.” Panel discussion, Contemporary Art Museum St. Louis, St. Louis, March 10, 2014.

50 Smith, Terry. Thinking Contemporary Curating. New York: Independent Curators International, 2012. Travers, Andrew. “Phallic Gourds Replace ipad Tortoises on Roof of Aspen Art Museum.” The Aspen Times, November 20, 2014. http://www.aspentimes.com/news/13480616-113/aspen-museum-bacherart (accessed, December 15, 2014). Viso, Olga. Propositions for the Future of the Art Museum. Executive Summary following the Aspen Institute Seminar for International Art Museum Directors. Aspen: Aspen Institute, March 7–10, 2013. Wagoner, Ainsley K. "The Kunsthalle: A Study in Contemporary Art Display Archetypes," Kaleidoscope 10 (2011): 20–22. Weil, Stephen E. Rethinking the Museum and Other Meditations. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, 1990. –––––––––––––. “From Being About Something to Being for Somebody: The Ongoing Transformation of the American Museum.” Daedalus 128, no. 3 (1999): 229–258.