July 19, 2008 Meeting

From Minnesota Artists Exhibition Program

Artist Community Meeting Regarding the Future of MAEP
Saturday, July 19, 2008
10:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Pillsbury Auditorium
at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts

The MAEP Artist Panel met with MIA Director & President, Kaywin Feldman on Tuesday, July 15. All artists were invited to attend a subsequent meeting to discuss the future of the MAEP in the face of proposed changes. It took place on Saturday, July 19 at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. Below are notes from the meeting, updates and comments.

Contents

[edit]

Advisory Panel

At the July 19 meeting it was determined that an Advisory Panel of past panel members be established to continue working on the issues described below. Early in August, five nominees were self-nominated and an online vote took place, ending Sunday, August 17.

Voting is now complete. Meet the new Advisory Panel.

[edit]

Your Comments Here

All points of view are welcome. They must, however, comply with the Terms of Use. Log in or create an account to begin adding to the MAEPedia.

Click this edit button. Begin your comments after one of the *s below. Don't forget to save. The Save button appears at the bottom of the editing box on the left-hand side of the page. Email maep_info@artsmia.org for more help.

  • [add your comment]
  • [add your comment]
  • [add your comment]
  • Though there are some major changes happening, I don't think the sky is falling. I think MAEP will weather this just fine. It's more...this situation may force the museum to be clear about their intentions and in so doing, they will have to more consequences to deal with if they do not adhere to their promises. As much as Stewart's quitting saddens me, I am confident that he built such a successful program that even the museum has to acknowledge it. I am one of the few who don't think being under the umbrella of contemporary art is a negative thing as long as that director is not dictating how MAEP is run.Such a director could be an advocate for what we do and actually bring more visibility to a very successful program that mainly gets local attention. --alexa


  • Dear MAEP Artists:

After attending the July 19th meeting, I came away with the following thoughts.

There is no doubt that the MAEP Program is wonderful, cherished and unique. I have been fortunate to show in its spaces twice and those experiences will likely be the best I will ever have.

However should the MAEP as we now know it dissolve soon or at some later date, the real loss will be to the museum and therefore the entire community it serves. Our loss as artists will be great, no doubt, but the MIA’s greater. This is the point we need to make persuasively. This is our basis for negotiation and substantiation. This is something we can leverage. Clearly, we have not yet articulated the MAEP’s value to the MIA effectively or completely. We need to talk in terms of what MAEP does and not in terms of what we will miss about it.

Most of the fears expressed at the meeting are well founded and not unlikely if we let our guard down. And the core spirit of the program will definitely be challenged by the proposed new structure, that I believe strongly. (Does that necessarily mean its spirit will be defeated? I‘m not so sure). That said, we should still strive to operate in a spirit of good faith and in a symbiotic as opposed to parasitic fashion. For many years, the MIA has given us much. I personally feel a great amount of gratitude for the MIA for my own experiences and for thrill of seeing my peers work exhibited in this grand museum. I think we owe it to the museum to maintain an air of civility and a mindset of cooperation.

At the meeting, Wayne Potratz, Kinji Akagawa and others astutely articulated the differences between the horizontal MAEP and the more vertical museum curating process. These differences are at many levels obvious but the most important distinctions are more complex, subtle and far reaching. For example, the difference between being judged by peers who make and critics or historians who don’t make is profound. It’s these less obvious differences that are at the heart of our concerns and fears but I suspect they may not be as high, at this precise moment, on the museum’s presumably large list of goals and objectives. We need to bring them, in a non-combative manner, to the forefront of everyone’s thinking and understanding.

We cannot afford to come off just as artists (only one small part of the broader community served by the MIA) fearful of losing a great gig. If we do, we operate from the position of squatters who think they have achieved some special form of eminent domain. We have occupied this museum for many years probably because Stewart was able to convincingly make our case for us year in and year out. Stewart and Cynde did the difficult wheeling and dealing for us. A great part of our fear and unease now is due to Stewart being gone and realizing we must, as least temporarily, take on his job. Truthfully, and in spite of the fact that we have done great work for the MIA for no pay, we have been in this museum for the good graces of the MIA. Until now it has obviously been mutually beneficial. It is possible now that something has changed. Knowing what that something is would be helpful but probably is not critical. The best case forward would be for the museum to change its mind about the proposed changes to the MAEP after a rethinking prompted by our thoughtful and compelling arguments.

But let’s say we cannot change the nature of the proposed changes and we do not want to sever our relationship with the MIA just yet. And I do not think we should. The MIA has no strings attached to this artistic community to pull hard enough to cause us to compromise unduly. The panel that represents us can alert us to any questionable business at any point without fear of whistle blower reprisals. We as a body of artists can meet to discuss the implications and we can choose to no longer to participate in the program if need be. While the example of censorship, Emerson Wells described was disturbing, I trust that the panel and Stewart did not judge it to be so egregious that that they needed to make it public when it was happening. Should a future panel see differently about a similar or more heinous situation I trust they would let us all know.

At this point in time, I do not think the museum and its directors and curators are evil, sneaky or underhanded. I actually want to believe Kay Feldman and Liz Armstrong; believing in a person of power would be such a welcome change. I am not completely naive however and I have some fear of the typical and unfortunately natural drift towards a more traditional curatorial mode the new structure would allow. And I would hate to see us only able to pick up table scraps in our own town as Ruthann Godollei, in essence, described our relationship with the with many other presenting institutions. So we do need to be vigilant.

Regardless of what eventually happens, our integrity is always possible to maintain. Even in the worst-case scenario, we will continue to make our art.

Yours,

Irve Dell 7/22/08

[edit]

MIA Statment Issued July 23, 2008

Click here to view a pdf of the latest statment from the Director regarding the future of MAEP. Full text below:

July 23, 2008

To: Members of the Artists Panel
From: Kaywin Feldman

Several messages sent to me from members of the artist community since the public meeting last Saturday have commented that the language of the MIA’s previous statement was “too vague” and did not address the primary concerns to the community in a direct manner. That was certainly not our intention. In an effort to be as straightforward as possible, the following five statements reflect our stance on these primary concerns. There may be other issues, which we are happy to address, but for now we wanted to dispel any remaining confusion or misinterpretation.

1. Organizational Chart
The MAEP coordinator reports to the Assistant Director for Exhibitions and Programs. This arrangement is due to the unique nature of MAEP since (1) exhibitions are selected by an outside artist panel and not by museum staff, (2) the coordinator does not research and propose objects for acquisition, and (3) there is no collection to care for, publish, and catalogue—all primary duties of curators. Nevertheless, the museum values MAEP as a curatorial department, and the coordinator is employed by the museum at a rank equal to that of a curator. Curatorial departments are indicated on the organizational chart in blue type.

2. The Artist Panel
A panel of seven artists elected by the Minnesota’s artist community selects MAEP exhibitions. This unique arrangement ensures that MAEP exhibitions are community driven.

3. Exhibition Space
Artists selected by the panel currently exhibit their works at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts in galleries 264 and 265. There are no plans to change the location or scale of the MAEP galleries.

4. MAEP Exhibitions
MAEP presents five exhibitions annually. There are no plans to change the frequency or duration of MAEP exhibitions.

5. MAEP Coordinator
The MIA values and respects the state’s vibrant community of artists. We welcome recommendations and input about candidates for the position of MAEP coordinator. As an MIA employee, the MAEP coordinator is hired, evaluated and compensated in accordance with policies and procedures that govern all museum employees.

[edit]

Reivised Organizational Chart of MIA released July 23, 2008

Click here to view a pdf of the revised organizaitonal chart featuring the new placement of MAEP.

[edit]

Resolution I submitted by Artist Community July 19, 2008

A RESOLUTION

Whereas the Minnesota Artist's Exhibition Program [MAEP] was established in 1975 as an independent and unique program whose purpose is to support and exhibit the work of Minnesota artists regardless of style, genre, or content…

Whereas the relationship between the MAEP and the Minneapolis Institute of Arts [the MIA; a public institution situated on Public land] has been a partnership since May, 1975 and whereas the MAEP has been supported with public funds…

Whereas the organization of the MAEP is open to members who identify themselves as artists [within the State of Minnesota], and who come together yearly to elect a panel of artists to curate exhibitions within the MIA. And whereas the panel’s decisions are made without the interference or censorship of officials or trustees of the MIA…

Whereas the MAEP is the only “major” gallery in a “major” institution in the country where exhibition opportunities are juried by a peer group of artists…

Whereas the Coordinator of the MAEP has also been an artist whose responsibility is to guide the program and panel in its partnership with the MIA…

Whereas this unique partnership and relationship has brought distinction, honor, and a national reputation to both the MAEP and the MIA for more than 30 years…

Whereas the art exhibited within the MAEP program is not "contemporary" art, but the art of Minnesota artists...

Be it therefore resolved that we, the artists of the Minnesota Artists Exhibition Program, object to the placement of the MAEP under the purview of the Curator of Contemporary Art within the organizational structure of the MIA and propose a continuation of the original agreement with the Institute, thus allowing the MAEP to organize, determine representation, and make curatorial decisions without interference, and for the Program Coordinator to report directly to the Director of The Minneapolis Institute of Arts.

Drafted by Lee Bjorkland, Judy Onofrio, Doug Padilla, and Wayne Potratz

[edit]

Resolution II submitted by Artist Community July 19, 2008

A RESOLUTION

Whereas Stuart Turnquist has ably and honorable served the artists of Minnesota and the Minneaapolis Institute of Arts with great skill and distinction as co-coordinator of MAEP for 30+ years…

Be it resolved that Stewart Turnquist is returned to his position as MAEP co-coordinator to lead the search for and hiring of a new co- coordinator and start the transition to a new era in the life of the MAEP at the MIA.

And, be it also resolved that the MIA publicly honor Stewart Turnquist for his years of distinguished service in support of the MAEP, the MIA, Minnesota artists, the people of the great state of Minnesota, and all the visitors that have enjoyed MAEP exhibitions at the MIA.

Drafted by Lee Bjorkland, Judy Onofrio, Doug Padilla, and Wayne Potratz

[edit]

Meeting Synopsis from July 19, 2008

Images from the meeting at www.carney.com

Hi, I’m Tamatha Perlman, the MAEP Associate. Director Kaywin Feldman and the MAEP Artist Panel have asked that I act as liaison between the museum and the artist panel in the absence of a Coordinator.

Part I
We are here today to discuss face to face some of the concerns about the future of the program and the changes it has been going through. The MAEP is well respected and nationally acclaimed for which everyone in this room should be extremely proud. For the past 30 years the MAEP has maintained a unique partnership between you, the artist community of Minnesota, and the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. The two sides are linked by a jointly selected Program Coordinator who is employed by the museum at a rank equal to a curator. Both partners are here today to discuss how the relationship can move forward

Before we open the floor for questions, I would like to introduce everyone.

First our panel:

Gina Dabrowski

Tom DeBiaso

Jim Denomie

Bob Finkler

Megan Rye

Gerry Smith

Bill Wormley

We have MIA Director and President Kaywin Feldman. Kaywin is here to make a statement regarding MAEP and answer a few questions.

I am going to be a stickler regarding time today, as it is a short meeting and we have many, many issues to cover.


Part II

With that, I would like to welcome Kaywin Feldman to the stage.

(Click here to see the pdf of this document.)

Statement from Kaywin Feldman
MIA committed to MAEP, states Director and President, Kaywin Feldman
July 19, 2008
Statement:
Recently there have been various rumors and mis-statements expressed about the status, operations, and future commitment by the MIA to the MAEP. This is surprising because the MIA has not changed its position with respect to its commitment to this important, valued, and long-term relationship. I would like to take this opportunity to formally reiterate our position and support:

1. The MIA is committed to MAEP
2. The MIA respects the integrity of the program
3. The MIA will continue to show Minnesota artists’ work in the Target Wing galleries
4. The MAEP artist panel will continue to operate in its current form, and will continue to be assisted by an MIA coordinator who works directly with the panel

The reporting structure of the MAEP was changed in February 2008 as part of a museum-wide reorganization that resulted in changes across the entire institution. By linking MAEP to our new Department of Contemporary Art at the museum, we intend to further expand the role of Minnesota artists at the MIA.

Elizabeth Armstrong, Director of Exhibitions and Programs and Curator of Contemporary Art, is looking forward to meeting with the artist panel and other Minnesota artists to brainstorm about additional ways to promote the great work of Minnesota artists. We plan to enhance the opportunities for Minnesota artists with our expanded contemporary programming at the museum. We also hope that MAEP artists will be an integral part of our entire contemporary program at the MIA.

Again on behalf of everyone at MIA, I look forward to an exciting and productive future for MAEP.

Part III

I am presenting a staff report and brief timeline on the panels activities for the last six months to bring everyone up to date on the issues the panel has been facing.

Timeline
We welcomed Kaywin in January of ’08.

February 11, 2008: The new Organizational Chart for the museum was released.

In it, the MAEP had gone from a Curatorial Department, on equal standing with other curatorial departments within the museum, to a sub-unit within Contemporary Art. Looking at the chart it appeared we had lost curatorial status. The panel, at that point, directed Stewart to talk to the director about the perceived change.

Stewart reported back to the panel, that indeed, the MAEP was no longer considered a curatorial department.

The panel asked for documentation confirming the MAEP’s curatorial status. The most succinct statement is one that we walk by every time we enter the gallery. The panel that moved from the gallery on the second floor off of the Tange entrance to the wall of the gallery in the Target Wing. The introductory panel in the gallery states:

A curatorial department of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, the Minnesota Artists Exhibition Program (MAEP) is dedicated to the exhibition of works by artists who live in Minnesota.

With this Stewart went back to the Director. The conversation continued.

On February 27, Stewart received a memo from the Director stating:

“I am happy to recognize MAEP as a curatorial Department within contemporary art.”

The panel was relieved to hear of this confirmation of curatorial status.

But began to ask, what does it mean to be within contemporary art. A point they felt was not in keeping with being an independent curatorial department.

Several months later on April 11, when the job description for the Contemporary Art Curator was published it read:

The Curator of Contemporary Art will oversee the activities of the Minnesota Artists Exhibition Program (MAEP). MAEP is an artist-run exhibition program featuring the works of regional artists as selected by a panel of their peers.

Again, the panel noted it does not read as a curatorial department.

On June 23, Stewart and I were called into the Director’s Office and informed that

Liz Armstrong would be the new Contemporary Curator The two offices on the other side of the wall from MAEP would be made into one office for Liz. A door would pierce the MAEP office wall and Liz would now be overseeing these offices.

July 3: Stewart submits his resignation

Next week: work begins on punching a door into the MAEP offices.

Section IV

I would now like to open the floor to questions from the audience. We need to stay focused not he issues at hand:

  • The curatorial status of MAEP both under Contemporary Art and as a peer to other curatorial departments in the museum as it has been.
  • The autonomy of the office space
  • The artist panel’s curatorial control

We ask that you wait your turn at the microphone to keep things as efficient as possible, and to make sure as many questions can be answered as possible.

Also, we are trying to create an audio document of this event so please talk into the wireless mic.

[edit]

External Links

Retrieved from "http://www2.artsmia.org/wiki/index.php/July_19%2C_2008_Meeting"