By Ken Tanaka
Did you ever wonder how a major photography exhibit (or any transient art exhibit, for that matter) gets produced at a museum?
Who does what? Who pays for what? Who gets paid for what? How do the pictures ultimately get put onto the museum gallery walls?
There is no standard formula. Each exhibit presents curatorial staffs with unique mixtures of challenges that can seem more kindred to a Broadway theater production than to a museum exhibit. Indeed, to attract more visitors, major exhibitions are becoming multimedia extravaganzas often involving published catalogs (which are often completely authored books), various presentations by the artist and curators, video presentations, commemorative posters, dinners, community outreach tours, etc. The Jeff Wall exhibit that recently toured through the Art Institute of Chicago, and is now in San Francisco, is a good example of just such a complex show.
But what about the money? Even modest exhibits are far more expensive than most people realize. As a small sampling, budgets must be allocated for matters such as assembling, insuring, and transporting the art, preparing the gallery (painting, graphics, electrical requirements), and publicizing the exhibit. If the exhibition is a significant one-person show at a larger museum there will probably also be a budget for travel and per diem expenses, as well as an honorarium, for someone (the artist, an archival curator, a scholar of the work, etc.) to present a lecture or attend some similar event at the museum. These are generally not lavish sums (unless the museum is in the Middle East). The spirit of museum exhibitions tends to be one of academic recognition and retrospection rather than loot.
Where does the money come from? The answer will vary for each museum and each exhibition. Sometimes a single corporate sponsor will foot nearly the entire bill for an exhibit, particularly if the artist’s work can relate to promoting the company. But more often a museum will have to quilt together patches of funds to make an exhibit happen. Museums, particularly the larger ones, have multiple pockets of funds from which a department can draw for an exhibit. Private donors, for example, sometimes establish departmental-level funds directed towards supporting exhibition expenses. A photographer’s gallery, as another example, might be coaxed to pick up travel expenses and schedule other events in the area to promote the photographer’s work to collectors.
The expense and complexity of major exhibitions is greatly diffused when several museums collaborate. The Jeff Wall exhibit is an excellent example. The Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Art Institute of Chicago, and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art collaborated to put this large, expensive show together. Each museum is hosting the show for several months. But each shared in, and benefited from, the logistical equity established by the group.
The people to truly salute for a good exhibit are the museums' curatorial staffs. From afar you might have the impression that they live in an insular world where they spend their days walking about stroking their chins and saying "Hmmmm" a lot. Some do. But most are up to their necks in alligators every week chasing down the thousands of details required for nearly every exhibit. In their "spare" time they’re responsible for other jobs such as courting and catering to donors (who can be a prickly lot), giving talks, mastering knowledge of the museum’s collection, and keeping abreast of their respective segments of the art market. A strong, savvy, imaginative curatorial staff can propel a museum to new stature in just a few years.
So there's a very cursory glimpse under the skirts of museum exhibitions. It's actually a fascinating, nerve-wracking undertaking not meant for the squeamish.
_____________________
Ken
Ken Tanaka is a semi-professional photographer whose work was shown most recently in a Frank Gehry retrospective exhibit at Toronto's Art Gallery of Ontario. He is also actively involved with the Art Institute of Chicago's Department of Photography.
Ken,
Very nice article. One other comment is the lead time necessary for an exhibition; years rather than months.
Bron
Former museum employee, independent work for museums, and married to a museum directer.
Posted by: Bron Janulis | Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 11:23 AM
Thanks Ken.
That answers part of my query on the story about the Joel Meyerowitz exhibition and exhibitions in general at http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2472056/23106638
If anyone can put some figures to a photo exhibition or details on does the photographer get paid for anything?
The only thing I know is that an agency such as Magnum charges £x for an exhibition but I don't know if that is just for supplying X number of prints or whether they supply the images framed. I had also heard from a gallery assistant that the gallery was paying an amount per day to have a particular exhibition.
Thanks again.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 01:09 PM
Ken,
I have an acquaintance who loaned his collection of artifacts to the Smithsonian for a number of years. Upon return they were worth considerably more given the distinction of being displayed at the Smithsonian. I wonder what the added line to the description of a photograph, "Displayed at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Art Institute in Chicago, and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art" would be worth... a bit more than "academic recognition and retrospection" I suspect... certainly worth a little wracking of the nerves?
Cheers,
-Yamo-
Posted by: Yamo | Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 02:06 PM
There's a large article in last month's PDN that talks about the same thing.
Posted by: Jason | Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 03:54 PM
"There's a large article in last months PDN that talks about the same thing."
Jason,
I'd be interested to read that--do you remember the name of the article? Is it available on the PDN website? I couldn't find it there....
Mike J.
Posted by: Mike | Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 04:28 PM
My bad - it was the Sept. issue, all dedicated to the fine art business. The article is called "Show Business" I believe.
Posted by: Jason | Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 05:35 PM
Nice piece ken,
All I can say is I'm glad you guys got it (AIC) and not the MCA......giggle giggle.
I enjoyed it twice and it's one of the few photo exibits that was hard to ruin with people stanging in the way of the image. They actualy worked kind of nicely with some of them. Bigger ain't always better in my book and usually worse, but it was a treat to see those pics in all their ginormous glory.
Posted by: charlie d | Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 05:49 PM
@Bron: Thank you for adding that comment! I was meaning to mention that aspect of museum exhibitions. Even a simple exhibit can require a year or more of planning. (The Jasper Johns GRAY show currently at the AIC required over four years of planning.)
This breathtaking delay is generally the consequence of two factors. First, and sometimes most significantly, there's gallery space. The amount of space available for transient shows (versus permanent collections) is limited at every museum. Scheduling for these spaces is quite tight, similar in logistics to scheduling parking space for guest cars ...where the guests plan to stay for 2-4 months at a time.
The second delay comes from the complications inherent in assembling the works, usually from many sources. It can be easier if the artist is still alive and/or has gallery/agent representation. If not, however, finding pieces can be a real detective task. A two year planning cycle might seem like just-in-time planning for some shows.
@Yamo: I've never heard of works appreciating solely on the basis of being displayed at a major museum, although I am sure that in some niches (such as the decorative arts) such history might be an attractive tag. Artists, in general, benefit from having a resumé sprinkled with prominent museum show participations. But most museum exhibitions feature well-established artists whose works are already highly valued in the art world.
@ Louis: There really is no universal answer to your question concerning artist compensation for shows. As I noted, the spirit of museum shows tends to be recognition rather than profit. Museums do pay artists fees for making public appearances.
Private galleries, however, are a completely different matter from museums. Museums' primary mission is that of education. Private galleries are sales showrooms devoted to the promotion of the artists they represent. An artist gets paid for having a show at such a gallery when his/her work gets sold. Generally speaking, it can cost a photographer a great deal of time and money just to prepare work for such a private gallery show since s/he is, in effect, creating new inventory.
The snippet of the Meyerowitz show that I saw in the HP promo suggested that his Jeu de Paume show followed more of a sponsored private gallery model that a conventional museum exhibition model. I could, however, be very mistaken.
Thank you all for adding your comments to this topic!
Posted by: Ken Tanaka | Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 06:07 PM
Thank you, Ken; this post was quite educational.
Posted by: Ben Rosengart | Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 07:23 PM
"Private galleries are sales showrooms devoted to the promotion of the artists they represent. [...] Generally speaking, it can cost a photographer a great deal of time and money just to prepare work for such a private gallery show..."
And then there are community galleries and similar non-profit places. Now, _that_ also costs money. Let's say you want to exhibit 30 photos in 40x60 format. Here in Zagreb, it will cost you something like $20 to print one photo in good quality. All together, $600. Such galleries don't have money...
Posted by: erlik | Friday, 16 November 2007 at 12:30 AM
Thank you Ken
Taking the example of a corporate sponsored show. Would the photographer get paid for the prints and their preparation?
At the end of the show who owns the prints (and or special frames if any)?
I guess once again things may vary a lot but I was wondering would the corporate sponsor or the museum or the photographer own the exhibition once it was taken down.
Cheers
Louis
Posted by: Louis | Saturday, 24 November 2007 at 12:12 PM
Louis,
I think it depends on who owns the prints when they went up. Museums do mount shows of work from their own collections, but they don't magically acquire prints they don't own simply by showing them.
Mike J.
Posted by: Mike | Saturday, 24 November 2007 at 12:15 PM