Comment Options

  1. zenfur

    1 ratings12345
    Jun 30th, 10:03

    I have seen the new installation from the permanent collection three times now. The first two times I mostly was scratching my head at many of the pieces. The third time I spent more time to read the signs and got one of those interpretation wands, and had a blast. I really enjoyed hearing the meaning and intent behind the pieces and saw them all in a different light. Would I hang some of the pieces in my home? No...but I enjoy questioning my perceptions on art.

    And the Stienkamp show was AWESOME. Best show I've seen in years.

    Report this

  2. EricOak

    1 ratings12345
    Jun 30th, 11:12

    This is an intelligent move but it doesn't begin to clarify the fog that the museum has been drifting in since it went to market to sell its riches. The problem with this constantly shifting repertoire is that the museum seems to have no foundation anymore; one almost feels that there are two entitites now: the actual physical museum itself, and the ever shifting displays and exhibitions that pass through it like carnival acts.

    The Albright-Knox has no discernible profile now, and that has made going there an ambivalent experience: we get stimulated by by the stunt-art (Andrea Zittel & co.) and the showy 3-D installations, but I think many people are leaving the museum somewhat hungry. It has become a delicious but not filling experience.

    Report this

  3. Sundial

    5 ratings12345
    Jun 29th, 09:29

    They already had a pretty diverse collection until they chose to get rid of those masterpieces.

    Report this

  4. impressingagent

    2 ratings12345
    Jun 29th, 23:06

    i went to the knox and just about threw myself out a window.

    Report this

  5. BuffaloBloviator

    1 ratings12345
    Jun 30th, 22:55

    I think that the modern art experiment was interesting but now it belongs to history.

    Lets lead the next trend by going to realism before the modern art investment bubble bursts.

    Report this

  6. sonyactivision

    1 ratings12345
    Jun 30th, 11:33

    ^ Pretty accurate EricOak. Sadly, the difference is more money than focus. In this hyperextended art market, if you lack the requisite funds, even a well focused museum might only be left to collect regional artists or prints by more well known artists. That's what's happening around the country. Only a few museums can raise the money needed to bid at auctions. Others rely on local benefactors just as the A-K did. In some cases, I wonder if museums approach their mission as educating novice art buffs with money and grooming them into collectors. Then, as they "ripen", cajole them into donating. Some museums have accomplished 'hearse chasers' on their boards.

    Report this

  7. Perry

    0 ratings12345
    Jun 30th, 07:36

    The Knox is always an invigorating place...but the collection on the walls the last few months was pretty weak...in fact, I was embarassed when I took my friends there. However, the Steinkamp show was great.

    Report this

  8. PaulBuffalo

    0 ratings12345
    Jun 30th, 10:35

    This museum must expand to better balance its permanent collection and the temporary exhibitions. There just isn't enough room to do both effectively. The Albright-Knox is one of the smaller prominent art museums, based on square footage, in the country.

    Report this

  9. davvid

    0 ratings12345
    Jun 30th, 23:43

    we should lead the next cave painting trend too

    Report this