Quotes of the Day: Queen Latifah and Aaron Betsky
 |
| Kelly Freas, Alternate Universe, 1957. Lucas Museum of Narrative Art |
"Paris has the Louvre. New York has the Met. And now L.A. has its artistic equal."
—Queen Latifah in The New York Times
"I believe I can ground my judgement not only in a critique of the combination of what I think is a demeaning populism behind which a lavish elitism and self-aggrandizement of a person who might make good movies, but seems to have sponsored a monument that displays no discernment in the field of art, hides, but I also full well recognize that the Lucas Museum will without any doubt in my mind be much more popular than the Geffen–which, in the three times I have been there, was nearly empty despite the splash its recent opening made."
—Aaron Betsky in Architect
Comments
> the splash its recent opening
> made."
Because of LACMA's pock-marked history for over 60 years - unimpressive layout, uninspiring exhibit areas and a generally non-must-see collection - and LA being one of the few major cities of the US to not have a free-standing public art museum until as late as the 1960s, 5905 Wilshire Blvd will always be playing a game of "oh noes!"
The Museum of Fine Arts Houston, which is now the 2nd largest art museum in America, isn't necessarily a place I'd treat as more than a slog. But it's better than the so-so visceral reaction that many (most?) visitors to LACMA through the decades must have long had.
Areas like the Ahmanson's notorious ground floor, with its dark tile floor and short ceiling height, were a series of disappointments. So the museum since 1965 has traditionally been visually or tactically a case of one and done.
In 2026, the Geffen now comes off as too much like a parking garage with a lot of blank gray concrete walls and empty floor space. And probably for budgetary but also creative reasons, LACMA's director and staff keep installing way too much generic, non-must-see, hipster-contemporary-deconstructionist art.
My conclusion after spending several hours there last week: Lucas has brought the history of the Western art museum to its inevitable conclusion. Centuries of efforts to democratize the experience have come to fruition, in a gigantic, magnificent, messy, maddening absurdity.
That, however, is not the conclusion of one of the gallery guards who was on her second day of employment. “I’ve never been to an art museum before,” she told me. “I love it.” I believe her.
…With a few exceptions, this is a relentlessly patriarchal, heteronormative and often misogynistic world dominated by fair-haired, prosperous white people.
No museum I’ve ever visited is so committed to the anti-intellectual proposition that art is about feeling and experiencing, not thinking. If you divorce art from history and context, devalue the artist’s power of invention and idiosyncratic insight, and privilege only draftsmanship, any effort to distinguish between good and bad art — art that elevates and art that degrades, art that provokes and art that merely affirms — is moot. I suspect Lucas would happily agree.
Representational art was beleaguered in the 20th century, by critics committed to abstraction, conceptualism and a morbid fear of the finer emotions. It’s good to see artists who resisted the straitjacket of ideology given the respect they deserve.
But they are famous, and at some point you realize that Lucas doesn’t just want a comprehensive museum of images that illustrate stories, he wants to own as many icons of representational art, especially ones that circulate in popular culture, as he could possibly acquire… Lucas’s deep pockets have allowed him to collect an astonishing pantheon of disparate but recognizable images, and that almost guarantees that this museum will be successful.
But if you believe that art is meant to do more than tickle the eyeballs and warm the loins, you will walk away more than skeptical of Lucas’s agenda. There are some 1,300 works on view and the treacle, the clichés, the repetition and the limited ambition of too many of the artists become overwhelming.
Some of it is conventional patriotic stuff, and much of it comes from the political left, including protest art. But given Lucas’s definition of narrative art, what would preclude Nazi imagery, the “children, kitchen, church” images that celebrated racial purity? The galleries devoted to Everyday Life and Civic Life are stuffed with American works that would be hard to distinguish from sugary genre scenes of Germany in the 1930s.
Which is why this museum will be extraordinarily popular and successful, and pose an intellectual and existential challenge to museums with more substantial ambition. [End quote]
That review is all over the creative and political map. So much so, I got whiplash.
> 65.
Ted G, I sure wish W Poundstone's site got as much back-and-fro as it deserves, such as the over 130 comments posted to Washington Post's website. So reader replies are more than just you, J Garcin or a few other anonymous posters like me.
Kennicott's review was summed up by that newspaper's AI program as most readers not being too impressed by the reporter's critique.
Sgt. Saunders, Washingtonpost.com: Kennicott’s curmudgeon mode on display. If it was up to him, that is all that would be displayed.
Man from Munich, Washingtonpost.com: Near Munich, in Bernried, is the Lothar Günther Buchheim Museum. He collected all kinds of things… While it was constructed there was a discussion: Is this an Art Museum or just a memorial for the patron. It is both, and imho thats Ok.
Paul in Minnesota, Washingtonpost.com: "We don’t need more stories; we need better ones. We need less entertainment and more disruption." Kind of a weird critique of a museum founded by a man who made a career inspired by myth, comic books and pulp adventures.
KennyD33, Washingtonpost.com: As for the criticism in this piece, little seems to relate to Lucas' mission or the museum itself, while most of it seems misplaced, as it stems from the author wishing it was a different museum altogether.
Scoutraveler, Washingtonpost.com: …I think we already have a world full of academic, elitist and intellectually exclusive art institutions, so this one is a refreshing swerve off that road, and the author is clearly bothered. So what.
Peter Burris, Washingtonpost.com: I loved this review. I still want to go and see this museum, as I think a place which affords access to the public all sorts of art counts as a net gain…. I've been to museums on six continents, and I know that reflects the level of privilege I enjoy, but I would say that someone like the guard with whom he spoke, a person who had not been to a museum, would be ill served by the absence of structure and historical gloss that good curatorship affords.
Real Mac1, Washingtonpost.com: To me, the concept and the building are grandiose in the extreme, for a purpose that seems mundane. A story that started out a good yarn but became boring in the weeds, and hardly colossal at any point.
ChopSalad, Washingtonpost.com: …Except that ... there IS NO Nazi imagery, or art celebrating "racial purity.” This is an excellent example, not of the decline of the museum - but the decline of art criticism
RoadKill, Washingtonpost.com: The intellectual snobbery in this so-called review is breathtaking… I consider myself a reasonably well-read, intelligent college graduate who has written some successful newspaper articles, columns, editorials, and a book or two, but I had to look up demiurge and détournement; thanks to Mr. Kennicott for expanding my (obviously limited) vocabulary. Should I ever return to Los Angeles, Mr. Lucas' museum will be at the top of my must-see list.
cmattward; Washingtonpost.com: Philip Kennicott’s review of the Lucas Museum is astute, balanced and well expressed. At a time when entertainment and self-interest so often masquerade as journalism—and celebrity worship and TikTok attention spans shape the broader culture—his sharp, informed criticism is a breath of fresh air.
Sam Damon, Washingtonpost.com: The building looks pretty cool. Every once in a while, arrogant, condescending, disdainful elitists drop the mask and show who they really are. Gone is the pretense that art can be fun and accessible.
MusicToMyEars, Washingtonpost.com: I'd like to be able to walk into a museum and look at it critically like that. Rather than simply as a person who's not very philosophical, who doesn't get very deep into the subjects. Probably doesn't know how. I remember taking some classes in college that had to do with music composition, etc., etc., but it certainly sounds to me like the Lucas Museum would be something I would love to see if I could.
Graycal, Washingtonpost.com: Life does imitate art, as I believe this reviewer is more pretentious than the museum.
W.E. Coyote, Washingtonpost.com: While I was amused by the tone of this review and tend to agree with much of Kennicott's contempt for modern/contemporary art I must defend Mr. Lucas. For starters he has constructed a building that should serve as the setting for every science fiction movie made from here on out. It is clearly not from earth.
From The Uecker Seats, Washingtonpost.com: I'm not sure I've ever read a review that dripped with so much self-importance, or so much anger that people might not want to listen to what the author has to say -- and he's not at all happy about it. It screams "Listen to me! Listen to me!"
SafetyCity, Washingtonpost.com: Traditional art museums are filling up with art that is a nothing without a long explanation about the process and meaning behind it. Mostly an essay with an irrelevant illustration. Nice to see art that is complete in itself and not just a rock on the floor with a long comment about why it is art.
SaG SaG2, Washingtonpost.com: My reading of the article. "This museum isn't anti-conservative/anti-western/pro-elitist enough. So I don't like it."
D8a_Diva2, Washingtonpost.com: This review was dripping intellectual condescension with every sentence. Art does not always have to be a graduate seminar in deconstructionist history and post modern ethics. Curators that approach installations in such a manner may find their dear museums nearly empty and in bankrupcy...
robert.kapler, Washingtonpost.com: Too bad the story has to run the critique through the DEI lens. Can't wait to visit this wonderful place.
I live on Mars thankfully, Washingtonpost.com: Warhol's early Pop Art was dismissed by some critics as a joke. Soup cans? Time has a way of changing perspectives and critic's minds. Suspect that will true here.
dale.hisiger, Washingtonpost.com: Negative article written so smugly. So I get it, you aren’t a fan, it doesn’t meet the standards of what you deem as a traditional art institution. Would you have been a critic of the Guggenheim’s swirling edifice back in 1959? I personally am looking forward to visiting.
Natemurray, Washingtonpost.com: The author is lacking the most important characteristic of an art critic: Openess to new ideas and novelty. Isn't that what are is supposed to be about: Opening us to a new way of looking at the world? He sure failed.
calmNcents, Washingtonpost.com: Oh, come now, Kennicott. Put your snoot back in its place and realize that this museum is hardly "an intellectual and existential challenge to museums with more substantial ambition." Do you seriously think the great museums of the world are endangered somehow by this? Lucas spent his own money and gave the people of LA a chance to see his personal collection. He never implied this was the Louvre.
Islandfox, Washingtonpost.com: As a museum professional for over 30 years, the headline is silly---there are all kinds of museums of the over 600 museums in this country. Lucas had the vision and the funds to make this happen, and it is just as legitimate as any traditional art museum. Bravo for him doing this!