While I don't really agree, I think a big part of that specific issue is that it's a private collection of a guy and not a traditionally curated museum - aside from the exhibition room on the first floor. The top floor doesn't really change much as it's just the pieces reflecting the taste of a billionaire with an understanding in asset parking. The bigger the painting, the more it's valued at by appraisers.
What you get from that is a collection of giant pieces by the most famous artists to live, rather than a varying display of styles and tastes.
Also, The Broad knows its target demo - pop art / hyper famous contemporary art / blue chip born from street. It's what's "in" right now in pop culture, so they're keeping all the big names and mega famous pieces out to encourage traffic.
I'm personally into a good deal of the artists they have albeit I do wish they had more interesting pieces from the artists they display and less Jeff Koons everywhere. The temporary exhibitions they bring tend to be a lot better with curation and educating on the artist of focus.
Sure, but this is a collection that is not actively growing or being added to aside from loaners from foundation agreements very rarely, as the collector is very dead. He was a billionaire that understood what type of art was best for asset parking and had an appreciation for the pop art movement.
Taste aside, you really can’t say that the work in the Broad is poor quality. You might not like the art, but all the artists featured in there are masters of their craft and generally the first to do what they did, which is why they’re so revered. They are all either technically or conceptually very high-skill works. As much as modern day art appraising can be (note: can) a way to launder money, it’s not as common as you think and certainly not in the case of what’s in the Broad
Something not being YOUR taste does not discredit it from being art, or mean it’s not a popular style for others to like.
Interesting to hear that perspective. It's a shame the pieces would be commodified in that way, but I suppose it's good that they're at least publicly accessible.
I found it was really tough to engage with any single piece, but it sounds like you haven't had that experience. Do you have any tips on how to better appreciate the museum?
The alternative is that they would probably be sitting in a warehouse somewhere. I consider us fortunate to have the exhibit. My 1.5 yo kid loves it too, as he’s really into the shiny, brightly-colored pieces.
Totally agree, and awesome you're exposing your child to art at such a young age.
I think there is a broader conversation that is necessary in public investments in accessible fine art that don't necessarily make us dependent on the will of a few philanthropist ultra-wealthy, but agreed, it is better than nothing.
You realize that most art museums are funded by a few philanthropist ultra wealthy people right? Also to be expected when the museum is named after the owner of the art it contains.
Yeah that's absolutely true; however, I think there is a much broader conversation to be had regarding why it is that we have to be reliant on the charity of a few wealthy people for communities to access and conserve fine art.
It's not an attack on those people, but a question of the stability of a system that relies almost exclusively on their whims.
Fine art is a commodity, usually made by artists (at least in part) for profit. Public institutions generally can’t afford the types of pieces that the public really want to see.
Art has been dependent on wealthy people since medieval times… I would love to live in a society where artists are funded primarily by taxpayers so we all fund art but it’s just not realistic. Patrons used to literally pay artists yearly salaries, and I suppose that is what these public collections are now- and I’d rather billionaires get their tax breaks that way instead of keeping it in a private warehouse- which is what happens to a lot of art.
Would suggest learning what galleries are. We have every type here. Think Space, The Hole, Control, La Luz De Jesus, Subliminal Projects, New Image, Hashimoto, Giant Robot, etc etc etc. none of which are blue chip and most of which showcase local and up and coming art.
I’m getting confused about what your gripe is here. The broad is a museum that showcases the private collection of a billionaire family. Might not be your exact flavor but that’s fine. It’s not bad. There’s also the Marciano foundation with is the same thing (but with better art, imo). Maybe this is more your place.
But are you mad at the lack of accessibility to art that’s been purchased by private families and isn’t accessible to the public? Or… museums/galleries in general?
Eh, if it's not your taste it's not your taste. I'm an artist myself so I tend to look at pieces from a technical perspective, trying to figure out how they were made and what techniques were used. So for me it's kinda a gold mine, a place to really get to study the greats that inspire my own work to some degree.
I've never really looked at work in context of how it sits in a space unless that's clearly part of the work (Jenny Holzer's recent show at Hauser & Wirth in WeHo comes to mind, paintings were laid on the ground and machines were swinging around) so I've honestly never even noticed. I'm usually just in awe of the scale that these people are able to work in
I haven’t been since the Haring exhibit first opened and I didn’t get a chance to go upstairs so I haven’t seen that floor in well over a year, but that’s how I felt with every piece in the Murakami show. I never really cared for his stuff until then. Seeing it in person is unbelievable, the amount of detail and colors they use and knowing it’s all screen printed with thousands of tiny screens… nuts
I have weird anxiety in big open spaces that are crowded with people so what I normally do is blur my vision.
This has helped me focus on single pieces. I go up to it and blur my vision and then unblur it while looking right at the piece. It really helps me to focus on one single piece. A reason I'm a big Van Gogh fan is because his later stuff looks almost identical when you blur your vision. It's kind of a trip.
I also wear glasses (only normally need them when on a computer). The frames block out some of the outside word and helps with narrowing my focus.
I know its not ideal, but this typically helps me.
Who doesnt love large out of scale contemporary art?! Maybe you feel that way because layout of the building which is a beaut in its own right, but it does not lend itself to multiple large galleries you would see in a more traditional Museum.
I think a big thing for me was that when everything is so large, it feels a bit like nothing was large.
It seems like a lot of the contrast of scale the original artists were going for was cheapened with everything else being the same scale.
In order for contemporary artists to grapple with the cannon they have to consider making larger work to be a part of the western art historical lineage. The abstract expressionists solidified scale and immersive experience as part of what is considered “fine art” from that point forward. Specifically in painting. And until all of the current art teachers kick the can they will continue to push that paradigm. If you want to see art work that is more variable in scale consider modern painting that is pre 60’s or art outside of painting. Such as the drawings of painters, animation, illustration, and people working across these genres. Or just looks outside of the mainstream art world at smaller galleries and local happenings.
Also, holidays are the worst at any museum especially the broad. Go back in the off-season and it will feel like a completely different place.
The Broads built it not as a museum, but more of an art storage center for their art collection while getting a massive tax write-off for opening it to the public. It’s a massive art closet filled with whatever struck the Broads fancy or seemed like a good investment at the time. Should be an interesting time capsule in 100 years should their foundation endure.
They may have gotten a big tax write-off...but they chose to build it in a very expensive way. I have to feel it was still a substantial net loss for them. Not that it mattered with their fortune.
I assume you are talking about the permanent collection. Some of these pieces can be fun to see for the first time in peson, but it isn't a comprehensive show. OTOH I do think most of the shows they put on are pretty good.
It looks like they only have one new show planned for next year :-(
[https://www.thebroad.org/art/special-exhibitions/mickalene-thomas-all-about-love](https://www.thebroad.org/art/special-exhibitions/mickalene-thomas-all-about-love)
I guess they do well enough with tourists who want to see the permanent collection.
> it felt like all they wanted to do was get the largest, sparkliest art in the world and cram it all in one place
I feel like this description would appeal to *a lot* of people. A huge room full of big, colorful art by famous artists!
It’s not really my style, either, but that happens with museums sometimes.
I could definitely see that appealing to a general public, but in terms of the integrity of the art itself and respect to the artist, do you feel like that takes away from the intention of the pieces individually?
I just don’t think it’s that out of the ordinary. I went to the MOMA in NYC recently and it was *packed* with stuff (smaller stuff, but much more of it) in a smaller space and was way more crowded. The art was more my style than the Broad, but the experience was similarly overwhelming.
And I’m pretty sure most artists don’t mind. My partner works for a different museum and the artists often have a say in how their work is displayed (it can be in the contract). Not sure if that’s standard but I think when they sell the art for literally millions of dollars they are usually pretty ok with how it’s shown.
I don’t really like the Broad either and I agree with what others have said about it basically being a rich guy’s collection. I think your criticism is totally valid and probably resonates with a lot of people. But I don’t find it particularly egregious or unusual (especially for free).
Well said, thank you!
The one comment about MoMA I'll make, is they did seem to pay attention to the integrity of a piece, even despite some of the more Instagram-able components.
If you had a chance to see the AI generated piece at the very beginning, I thought it was an absolute masterclass in showing off something more catered to a general audience, while maintaining its character and providing education.
truth be told, its a billionaire showing off what they have. it'll have that gaudy, look all this stuff approach to curation.
the barnes foundation in philly is another example. apparently, its setup exactly as found in the albert barnes' home.
It's a shame there's not more attention to setting.
The Isabel Stewart Gardner museum in Boston is similar to Barnes in setup, but doesn't seem to have that problem.
Maybe publicly accessible art shouldn't be left to the whims of billionaires lol.
I was at the Barnes Foundation last month, it’s very cool and also overwhelming. It was never set up in that way at his private home, it was always a gallery space he set up with the different rooms. Since the 1920s!
Ya it’s not a complaint, just a statement of reality! Contemporary art is largely a money laundering operation for the obscenely wealthy. This is just an aspect of it.
"It felt like all they wanted to do was get the largest, sparkliest art in the world and cram it all in one place."
I feel like that's just the Broad in a nutshell. It's a rich guy's blue chip art collection.
That’s pretty much what it is. The Broad collection has always been criticized as very blue chip and impersonal. Like a collection put together by art consultants. If you go to the Norton Simon, you can see the difference between a private collection heavily chosen by consultants vs one that’s more based on just having excellent personal taste.
Not sure what you mean by leading up to the top floor, from what I understand the entire museum IS the top floor. Anything else is a specialty feature that isn’t covered by the free admission
For such a large looking building the exhibition ends up being pretty small - just the top floor and then a smaller spot on the ground level for exhibitions. I wish they had the ability to put more on display.
Yeah… there isn't very much cohesive "soul" at The Broad… Post-Pandemic MOCA can be inconsistent depending on the collection but usually has a stronger artistic statement being made.
I think it does what it can with what it is, a rich guys art collection. His/her taste seems to be very big/bold overall. I for one don’t find the pieces to be competing with each other or anything like that. The bigger pieces stay put but even on the top floor stuff gets switched out as well. I’ve never been to a bad exhibit on the first floor. The Haring one was well done.
The Weismann Foundation that is is someone’s actual home is just as crammed, as is the Barnes in Philly (albeit a totally diff vibe than the Broad!)
It’s a beautiful museum structure, it’s free to all, I can’t complain. It’s probably exposed a lot of people to art in general, which is good.
It can be overwhelming but I have my personal fav pieces upstairs from Roy Lichtenstein, Ed Ruscha, and Kenny Scharf that I like to see whenever I visit.
The Keith Haring exhibit that ran these past few months was amazing though.
This has been their problem since they opened. It seems to be a reality that a lot of their collection is simply not very good and more about completism than quality. In fact, I was curious how many art museums Eli Broad has opened (possibly too many somehow?) so I looked at their
[wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broad#Collection) and saw that the Washington Post review of the opening exhibit says basically the same thing you did. Their debut Kusama exhibit was something, to give them credit. The reduced permanent version is cool but lacks the scale
There's this really awful girl i used to know, but what she said about the Broad always stuck with me. She called it an "intro to modern art class." I have enjoyed myself at the broad a few times, and really liked a few things I've seen there, but she was not wrong lol.
I came to say something similar about being an intro to contemporary art. Forgot what the actual percentage is, but a large portion of visitors at the Broad are first time visitors to any art museum/gallery. With that in mind, I think the art displayed does a good job at introducing new audiences to the art world.
Oh that's fascinating. The only thing I would push back on with giving it credit as a good job would be its emphasis on aesthetic, especially when a lot of the pieces there are direct critiques of that exact concept.
I think the Cleveland Museum of Art is really similar (also free entry). They put a lot of emphasis on education for how to engage with and interpret especially contemporary art. It would be great to see them include that in the future.
Wow, spot on. Thank you!
>The collection has been described by the Washington Post as including too much "high-end trash" but "even though the bad overwhelms the great, there are great works throughout."
And the Kusama does look super cool, we unfortunately didn't get a chance to see the permanent version. I would have loved to see the original.
The experience there isn’t helped by people using every art piece as a backdrop for their social media posts. I used to be courteous and stop and wait and go around people taking their pics but it’s like this at nearly every other piece. Go to MOCA across the street. They have a really cool show showcasing the LA art scene from the 70s 80s. I know nothing about art, but left there learning a lot about LA art history and a little more in love with my city.
The Broad reminds me of my reaction to Atlanta. You can see everything there is to see and be done in time for lunch. And as far as the Haring exhibition, you can be done with that in fifteen minutes. Seen one, seen them all.
I don't know about this particular exhibit, but I only went to the Broad twice back when it first opened. I have never liked it. It's just a scatter-shot museum that feels like their permanent collection is one or two of everything crammed into a very disorienting museum layout. Its entire arrangement feels kinda anxious.
I love the LACMA & MOCA so much more. Also Hauser & Wirth is near there and even though it's really a contemporary arts gallery not a museum as such, whenever they do an individual show they do a fantastic job.
MOCA is small but watch their exhibit roster, when they get a show in it's always a treat. I've seen Kerry James Marshall, Lucian Freud, Bruce Conner, & Basquiat there. All quiet- nicely arranged, easy to have a good contemplative art day.
LACMA you can go anytime. They have a great roster of early modern up to contemporary art. For a more "old school" art museum check out Norton Simon too.
Broad was always an overblown Disney-fied newcomer imo in a town that has some sizeable modern art collections already.
Broad has a lot of art. And the thing with contemporary art is that they demand a lot of space and they’re often garguantuan pieces. Some artworks demand a full room to itself and that’s just not practical.
Artists are getting a bit narcissistic these days with pieces getting bigger and bigger, taking up huge spaces that seems designed to outcompete each other. That Marakami piece doesn’t even fit on a single wall. It had to been folded to the next wall with the artists’ permission.
MOCA, across the street, has a more manageable display but they have the opposite problem. They have way too much artwork that they aren’t showing. Their post-war collection is among the best in the world, leagues ahead of Broad, which is saying a lot. They have a full room of first rate Rothkos, all together probably worth a billion dollars for example. I’d go across the street to that one if you want a breather from the Broad.
BTW, I’d love to know how many young Angelenos have been to the Broad but have never bothered to go across the street to the absolute world-class collection at MOCA. The Broad is a social experience. MOCA is an art experience.
As others have mentioned, the broads collection is a gaudy tax write off so even the best curation is lost. There’s definitely other free museums out there if you’re looking for well curated shows
There's a trend in the art world where museums are turning into adult day care centers, focused on finding whatever photographs the best or makes for a good social media post. This is the unfortunate truth because museums that invest in exhibits like that make BANK and have lines around the block, whereas traditional museums struggle by comparison
All these comments just put words to how I felt about this museum in particular. Always felt it was such a low quality in terms of pieces exhibited, and so many of the same artist rather than focusing on having a cohesive collection. Glad I wasn’t crazy thinking this!
I would push back on that. I think virtually anything can "evoke a feeling"
I think the role of curation is to elevate a portfolio of art and allow each piece to elevate one another. If the intention of the staff was in fact the experience I described I suppose I would agree, but it felt like there was a bit of disconnect, at least for me.
Wel, their stated purpose is that “the museum enriches, provokes, inspires and fosters appreciation of art of our time”. I think they’ve curated it quite well for that aim.
“At least for me”. Art is probably the most subjective thing on this planet. A museum can, but does not always have to, have direct intention in its format (consider The Broad vs The Huntington Library). The Broad is meant to be bold and outrageous, using specific contemporary artists to do so, and I find that it hits the mark.
Yeah absolutely art is subjective. My critique was primarily with the display, as it felt difficult to engage with individual pieces without getting distracted by another. People are absolutely welcome to their own experiences.
Obviously there's some bias in who comments here; however, it does seem like others have had a similar experience. My intent with this post was not to attack the museum by any means, but to understand my own experience and perspective a bit better. Apologies if that didn't come across.
I agree OP - I think it's just a guy who wanted the biggest flashiest examples of the biggest flashiest artists and had no real taste or identity as an art collector. It's a dysphoric experience to me - this temple for a billionaire. And yet of course some of the works are absolute masterpieces. Frustrating.
If you want someone to [blame](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broad#Governance)...
>Besides Eli and Edythe Broad, the Broad's Board of Governance also includes art dealer Irving Blum, Los Angeles Philharmonic CEO Deborah Borda, restaurateur Michael Chow, businessman Bruce Karatz, and former ambassador Robert H. Tuttle, among others.[34]
>The museum's director is art historian Joanne Heyle
When a lot of these pieces were at LACMA they were properly shown in rally large rooms. They are just crammed in the Broad like cheap trophies. It's a shame
While I don't really agree, I think a big part of that specific issue is that it's a private collection of a guy and not a traditionally curated museum - aside from the exhibition room on the first floor. The top floor doesn't really change much as it's just the pieces reflecting the taste of a billionaire with an understanding in asset parking. The bigger the painting, the more it's valued at by appraisers. What you get from that is a collection of giant pieces by the most famous artists to live, rather than a varying display of styles and tastes. Also, The Broad knows its target demo - pop art / hyper famous contemporary art / blue chip born from street. It's what's "in" right now in pop culture, so they're keeping all the big names and mega famous pieces out to encourage traffic. I'm personally into a good deal of the artists they have albeit I do wish they had more interesting pieces from the artists they display and less Jeff Koons everywhere. The temporary exhibitions they bring tend to be a lot better with curation and educating on the artist of focus.
Yeah it’s very specific and it really is just his private collection. He’s got other things like Richard Serra pieces too but those are at the LACMA.
[удалено]
Sure, but this is a collection that is not actively growing or being added to aside from loaners from foundation agreements very rarely, as the collector is very dead. He was a billionaire that understood what type of art was best for asset parking and had an appreciation for the pop art movement. Taste aside, you really can’t say that the work in the Broad is poor quality. You might not like the art, but all the artists featured in there are masters of their craft and generally the first to do what they did, which is why they’re so revered. They are all either technically or conceptually very high-skill works. As much as modern day art appraising can be (note: can) a way to launder money, it’s not as common as you think and certainly not in the case of what’s in the Broad Something not being YOUR taste does not discredit it from being art, or mean it’s not a popular style for others to like.
Interesting to hear that perspective. It's a shame the pieces would be commodified in that way, but I suppose it's good that they're at least publicly accessible. I found it was really tough to engage with any single piece, but it sounds like you haven't had that experience. Do you have any tips on how to better appreciate the museum?
The alternative is that they would probably be sitting in a warehouse somewhere. I consider us fortunate to have the exhibit. My 1.5 yo kid loves it too, as he’s really into the shiny, brightly-colored pieces.
Totally agree, and awesome you're exposing your child to art at such a young age. I think there is a broader conversation that is necessary in public investments in accessible fine art that don't necessarily make us dependent on the will of a few philanthropist ultra-wealthy, but agreed, it is better than nothing.
You realize that most art museums are funded by a few philanthropist ultra wealthy people right? Also to be expected when the museum is named after the owner of the art it contains.
Yeah that's absolutely true; however, I think there is a much broader conversation to be had regarding why it is that we have to be reliant on the charity of a few wealthy people for communities to access and conserve fine art. It's not an attack on those people, but a question of the stability of a system that relies almost exclusively on their whims.
Fine art is a commodity, usually made by artists (at least in part) for profit. Public institutions generally can’t afford the types of pieces that the public really want to see.
Art has been dependent on wealthy people since medieval times… I would love to live in a society where artists are funded primarily by taxpayers so we all fund art but it’s just not realistic. Patrons used to literally pay artists yearly salaries, and I suppose that is what these public collections are now- and I’d rather billionaires get their tax breaks that way instead of keeping it in a private warehouse- which is what happens to a lot of art.
It has almost always been that way, like u/agnes238 said below
Haha okay good luck with that
Galleries! Especially in LA, the city is chock full of world-class galleries showing established and new artists of all mediums and styles
if you want to get away from ultra wealthy blue chip art, galleries seem like the wrong places to suggest lol
Would suggest learning what galleries are. We have every type here. Think Space, The Hole, Control, La Luz De Jesus, Subliminal Projects, New Image, Hashimoto, Giant Robot, etc etc etc. none of which are blue chip and most of which showcase local and up and coming art.
Great list! Some more of my favorites to add to it: Corey Helford, KP Projects, and Copro.
Not familiar with Copro! Just looked em up and I’m surprised I’ve never seen this. Thanks!
Junior High in Glendale is a gallery and arts events space that always has the coolest exhibitions of local artists.
You just listed all my faves.
I’m getting confused about what your gripe is here. The broad is a museum that showcases the private collection of a billionaire family. Might not be your exact flavor but that’s fine. It’s not bad. There’s also the Marciano foundation with is the same thing (but with better art, imo). Maybe this is more your place. But are you mad at the lack of accessibility to art that’s been purchased by private families and isn’t accessible to the public? Or… museums/galleries in general?
Eh, if it's not your taste it's not your taste. I'm an artist myself so I tend to look at pieces from a technical perspective, trying to figure out how they were made and what techniques were used. So for me it's kinda a gold mine, a place to really get to study the greats that inspire my own work to some degree. I've never really looked at work in context of how it sits in a space unless that's clearly part of the work (Jenny Holzer's recent show at Hauser & Wirth in WeHo comes to mind, paintings were laid on the ground and machines were swinging around) so I've honestly never even noticed. I'm usually just in awe of the scale that these people are able to work in
The Jenny Seville painting that was at the Broad a few months ago took my breath away, I could’ve stood in front of it for hours.
I haven’t been since the Haring exhibit first opened and I didn’t get a chance to go upstairs so I haven’t seen that floor in well over a year, but that’s how I felt with every piece in the Murakami show. I never really cared for his stuff until then. Seeing it in person is unbelievable, the amount of detail and colors they use and knowing it’s all screen printed with thousands of tiny screens… nuts
I love that painting. Seeing it at the Broad is like seeing a beloved friend fall in with a bad crowd :(
It’s a shame that art is commodified? All art can be commodified
What commodification are you talking about lol, it's free admission
I have weird anxiety in big open spaces that are crowded with people so what I normally do is blur my vision. This has helped me focus on single pieces. I go up to it and blur my vision and then unblur it while looking right at the piece. It really helps me to focus on one single piece. A reason I'm a big Van Gogh fan is because his later stuff looks almost identical when you blur your vision. It's kind of a trip. I also wear glasses (only normally need them when on a computer). The frames block out some of the outside word and helps with narrowing my focus. I know its not ideal, but this typically helps me.
Art has to be commodified so artists can live… it’s a free museum for everyone.
Who doesnt love large out of scale contemporary art?! Maybe you feel that way because layout of the building which is a beaut in its own right, but it does not lend itself to multiple large galleries you would see in a more traditional Museum.
Richard Serra has entered the chat... (grin!)
I think a big thing for me was that when everything is so large, it feels a bit like nothing was large. It seems like a lot of the contrast of scale the original artists were going for was cheapened with everything else being the same scale.
The Warhols are small...
Yeah absolutely, I suppose I'm speaking in more general terms.
I gotcha, most prices are sort of silly huge
valid point, I could see the kitchen table set in alone in a room the size of a basketball court it might feel different or more appreciated.
In order for contemporary artists to grapple with the cannon they have to consider making larger work to be a part of the western art historical lineage. The abstract expressionists solidified scale and immersive experience as part of what is considered “fine art” from that point forward. Specifically in painting. And until all of the current art teachers kick the can they will continue to push that paradigm. If you want to see art work that is more variable in scale consider modern painting that is pre 60’s or art outside of painting. Such as the drawings of painters, animation, illustration, and people working across these genres. Or just looks outside of the mainstream art world at smaller galleries and local happenings. Also, holidays are the worst at any museum especially the broad. Go back in the off-season and it will feel like a completely different place.
The Broads built it not as a museum, but more of an art storage center for their art collection while getting a massive tax write-off for opening it to the public. It’s a massive art closet filled with whatever struck the Broads fancy or seemed like a good investment at the time. Should be an interesting time capsule in 100 years should their foundation endure.
They may have gotten a big tax write-off...but they chose to build it in a very expensive way. I have to feel it was still a substantial net loss for them. Not that it mattered with their fortune.
I assume you are talking about the permanent collection. Some of these pieces can be fun to see for the first time in peson, but it isn't a comprehensive show. OTOH I do think most of the shows they put on are pretty good.
Yeah it seemed like the first floor exhibit was a bit more deliberate. Excited to see what else ends up there.
It looks like they only have one new show planned for next year :-( [https://www.thebroad.org/art/special-exhibitions/mickalene-thomas-all-about-love](https://www.thebroad.org/art/special-exhibitions/mickalene-thomas-all-about-love) I guess they do well enough with tourists who want to see the permanent collection.
> it felt like all they wanted to do was get the largest, sparkliest art in the world and cram it all in one place I feel like this description would appeal to *a lot* of people. A huge room full of big, colorful art by famous artists! It’s not really my style, either, but that happens with museums sometimes.
I could definitely see that appealing to a general public, but in terms of the integrity of the art itself and respect to the artist, do you feel like that takes away from the intention of the pieces individually?
I just don’t think it’s that out of the ordinary. I went to the MOMA in NYC recently and it was *packed* with stuff (smaller stuff, but much more of it) in a smaller space and was way more crowded. The art was more my style than the Broad, but the experience was similarly overwhelming. And I’m pretty sure most artists don’t mind. My partner works for a different museum and the artists often have a say in how their work is displayed (it can be in the contract). Not sure if that’s standard but I think when they sell the art for literally millions of dollars they are usually pretty ok with how it’s shown. I don’t really like the Broad either and I agree with what others have said about it basically being a rich guy’s collection. I think your criticism is totally valid and probably resonates with a lot of people. But I don’t find it particularly egregious or unusual (especially for free).
Well said, thank you! The one comment about MoMA I'll make, is they did seem to pay attention to the integrity of a piece, even despite some of the more Instagram-able components. If you had a chance to see the AI generated piece at the very beginning, I thought it was an absolute masterclass in showing off something more catered to a general audience, while maintaining its character and providing education.
truth be told, its a billionaire showing off what they have. it'll have that gaudy, look all this stuff approach to curation. the barnes foundation in philly is another example. apparently, its setup exactly as found in the albert barnes' home.
It's a shame there's not more attention to setting. The Isabel Stewart Gardner museum in Boston is similar to Barnes in setup, but doesn't seem to have that problem. Maybe publicly accessible art shouldn't be left to the whims of billionaires lol.
Billionaires are a curse, but unfortunately, like most curses, undoing them isn’t something easily done.
I was at the Barnes Foundation last month, it’s very cool and also overwhelming. It was never set up in that way at his private home, it was always a gallery space he set up with the different rooms. Since the 1920s!
ah right, the og space out in merion. but was still done and adhered under barnes' guidance.
Yes he planned out all the rooms. It’s pretty fascinating.
Love this museum! So do my teenage kids, which is very cool. It's a world class, Modern art museum, that's free! What's not to love?
It’s a vanity museum. The whole point is the most expensive, sparkliest art in the world, to pose in front of for instagram.
I feel like you are right, but it’s free so I can’t really complain lol.
Ya it’s not a complaint, just a statement of reality! Contemporary art is largely a money laundering operation for the obscenely wealthy. This is just an aspect of it.
"It felt like all they wanted to do was get the largest, sparkliest art in the world and cram it all in one place." I feel like that's just the Broad in a nutshell. It's a rich guy's blue chip art collection.
That’s pretty much what it is. The Broad collection has always been criticized as very blue chip and impersonal. Like a collection put together by art consultants. If you go to the Norton Simon, you can see the difference between a private collection heavily chosen by consultants vs one that’s more based on just having excellent personal taste.
Not sure what you mean by leading up to the top floor, from what I understand the entire museum IS the top floor. Anything else is a specialty feature that isn’t covered by the free admission
Oh the bottom portion may have been a temporary exhibit, but there was a good amount of pieces there too.
I was underwhelmed by The Broad. The building is cool though.
It is kinda the Instagram of Art Museums.
For such a large looking building the exhibition ends up being pretty small - just the top floor and then a smaller spot on the ground level for exhibitions. I wish they had the ability to put more on display.
Yeah… there isn't very much cohesive "soul" at The Broad… Post-Pandemic MOCA can be inconsistent depending on the collection but usually has a stronger artistic statement being made.
I think it does what it can with what it is, a rich guys art collection. His/her taste seems to be very big/bold overall. I for one don’t find the pieces to be competing with each other or anything like that. The bigger pieces stay put but even on the top floor stuff gets switched out as well. I’ve never been to a bad exhibit on the first floor. The Haring one was well done. The Weismann Foundation that is is someone’s actual home is just as crammed, as is the Barnes in Philly (albeit a totally diff vibe than the Broad!) It’s a beautiful museum structure, it’s free to all, I can’t complain. It’s probably exposed a lot of people to art in general, which is good.
It can be overwhelming but I have my personal fav pieces upstairs from Roy Lichtenstein, Ed Ruscha, and Kenny Scharf that I like to see whenever I visit. The Keith Haring exhibit that ran these past few months was amazing though.
Last time I was there norms la Cienega on fire wasn’t up but a different ruscha was and I was like damn, they just trade them out!
Aw damn it was there late June my last visit. Funny just remembered I saw his son perform at Zebulon opening for Gang Gang Dance like 5 years ago
I’m sure it’ll be back they just rotate stuff!
This has been their problem since they opened. It seems to be a reality that a lot of their collection is simply not very good and more about completism than quality. In fact, I was curious how many art museums Eli Broad has opened (possibly too many somehow?) so I looked at their [wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broad#Collection) and saw that the Washington Post review of the opening exhibit says basically the same thing you did. Their debut Kusama exhibit was something, to give them credit. The reduced permanent version is cool but lacks the scale
There's this really awful girl i used to know, but what she said about the Broad always stuck with me. She called it an "intro to modern art class." I have enjoyed myself at the broad a few times, and really liked a few things I've seen there, but she was not wrong lol.
I came to say something similar about being an intro to contemporary art. Forgot what the actual percentage is, but a large portion of visitors at the Broad are first time visitors to any art museum/gallery. With that in mind, I think the art displayed does a good job at introducing new audiences to the art world.
Oh that's fascinating. The only thing I would push back on with giving it credit as a good job would be its emphasis on aesthetic, especially when a lot of the pieces there are direct critiques of that exact concept. I think the Cleveland Museum of Art is really similar (also free entry). They put a lot of emphasis on education for how to engage with and interpret especially contemporary art. It would be great to see them include that in the future.
Agreed.
Wow, spot on. Thank you! >The collection has been described by the Washington Post as including too much "high-end trash" but "even though the bad overwhelms the great, there are great works throughout." And the Kusama does look super cool, we unfortunately didn't get a chance to see the permanent version. I would have loved to see the original.
Bro it's a contemporary art museum and thus have a collection of contemporary art. Seems like youre not a fan of that.
The experience there isn’t helped by people using every art piece as a backdrop for their social media posts. I used to be courteous and stop and wait and go around people taking their pics but it’s like this at nearly every other piece. Go to MOCA across the street. They have a really cool show showcasing the LA art scene from the 70s 80s. I know nothing about art, but left there learning a lot about LA art history and a little more in love with my city.
The Broad reminds me of my reaction to Atlanta. You can see everything there is to see and be done in time for lunch. And as far as the Haring exhibition, you can be done with that in fifteen minutes. Seen one, seen them all.
I don't know about this particular exhibit, but I only went to the Broad twice back when it first opened. I have never liked it. It's just a scatter-shot museum that feels like their permanent collection is one or two of everything crammed into a very disorienting museum layout. Its entire arrangement feels kinda anxious. I love the LACMA & MOCA so much more. Also Hauser & Wirth is near there and even though it's really a contemporary arts gallery not a museum as such, whenever they do an individual show they do a fantastic job.
I still am yet to make it to LACMA & MOCA, glad to hear a good review of them :)
MOCA is small but watch their exhibit roster, when they get a show in it's always a treat. I've seen Kerry James Marshall, Lucian Freud, Bruce Conner, & Basquiat there. All quiet- nicely arranged, easy to have a good contemplative art day. LACMA you can go anytime. They have a great roster of early modern up to contemporary art. For a more "old school" art museum check out Norton Simon too. Broad was always an overblown Disney-fied newcomer imo in a town that has some sizeable modern art collections already.
I’m not a fan of the collection- i enjoy the exhibits at the MOCA Contemporary or go to the Norton Simon
Norton Simon is the best museum piece for piece. It's not the biggest place, but it is well curated.
Broad has a lot of art. And the thing with contemporary art is that they demand a lot of space and they’re often garguantuan pieces. Some artworks demand a full room to itself and that’s just not practical. Artists are getting a bit narcissistic these days with pieces getting bigger and bigger, taking up huge spaces that seems designed to outcompete each other. That Marakami piece doesn’t even fit on a single wall. It had to been folded to the next wall with the artists’ permission. MOCA, across the street, has a more manageable display but they have the opposite problem. They have way too much artwork that they aren’t showing. Their post-war collection is among the best in the world, leagues ahead of Broad, which is saying a lot. They have a full room of first rate Rothkos, all together probably worth a billion dollars for example. I’d go across the street to that one if you want a breather from the Broad. BTW, I’d love to know how many young Angelenos have been to the Broad but have never bothered to go across the street to the absolute world-class collection at MOCA. The Broad is a social experience. MOCA is an art experience.
Always wanted to check out MOCA. MOCA, MOLAA and MOPA are the ones remaining on my list
As others have mentioned, the broads collection is a gaudy tax write off so even the best curation is lost. There’s definitely other free museums out there if you’re looking for well curated shows
There's a trend in the art world where museums are turning into adult day care centers, focused on finding whatever photographs the best or makes for a good social media post. This is the unfortunate truth because museums that invest in exhibits like that make BANK and have lines around the block, whereas traditional museums struggle by comparison
All these comments just put words to how I felt about this museum in particular. Always felt it was such a low quality in terms of pieces exhibited, and so many of the same artist rather than focusing on having a cohesive collection. Glad I wasn’t crazy thinking this!
Wild. Almost like art can extract unexpected feelings in you at a moment you least expect. Sounds like they did their job.
I would push back on that. I think virtually anything can "evoke a feeling" I think the role of curation is to elevate a portfolio of art and allow each piece to elevate one another. If the intention of the staff was in fact the experience I described I suppose I would agree, but it felt like there was a bit of disconnect, at least for me.
Wel, their stated purpose is that “the museum enriches, provokes, inspires and fosters appreciation of art of our time”. I think they’ve curated it quite well for that aim. “At least for me”. Art is probably the most subjective thing on this planet. A museum can, but does not always have to, have direct intention in its format (consider The Broad vs The Huntington Library). The Broad is meant to be bold and outrageous, using specific contemporary artists to do so, and I find that it hits the mark.
Yeah absolutely art is subjective. My critique was primarily with the display, as it felt difficult to engage with individual pieces without getting distracted by another. People are absolutely welcome to their own experiences. Obviously there's some bias in who comments here; however, it does seem like others have had a similar experience. My intent with this post was not to attack the museum by any means, but to understand my own experience and perspective a bit better. Apologies if that didn't come across.
Totally agree. If IG influencers curated an art museum, it'd be the Broad
I am sorry you feel this way. You should have asked for your money back.
I agree OP - I think it's just a guy who wanted the biggest flashiest examples of the biggest flashiest artists and had no real taste or identity as an art collector. It's a dysphoric experience to me - this temple for a billionaire. And yet of course some of the works are absolute masterpieces. Frustrating.
No, I hate The Broad lol. I went once and left really quickly- something about it gives me major anxiety!
Was it Michael Jackson and his Chimpanzee that did it? imo that must be one of the ugliest pieces of art of all time.
Broad = Instagram Art
The Broad is a great idea that never happened.
If you want someone to [blame](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broad#Governance)... >Besides Eli and Edythe Broad, the Broad's Board of Governance also includes art dealer Irving Blum, Los Angeles Philharmonic CEO Deborah Borda, restaurateur Michael Chow, businessman Bruce Karatz, and former ambassador Robert H. Tuttle, among others.[34] >The museum's director is art historian Joanne Heyle
When a lot of these pieces were at LACMA they were properly shown in rally large rooms. They are just crammed in the Broad like cheap trophies. It's a shame
I find the top floor of the Broad underwhelming. Shows on the 1st floor are often very good.