Comments on: On Invisibility

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:11:51 +0000

I’m one of the Met guards in the new magazine. As part of their coverage of the accompanying Gallery Exhibition of our work, I recently had a painting (a portrait of E.A. Poe) appear in the NY Times. This has been a wonderful experience in an “art” way — but I have to say — I’m so happy to see its also got people putting themselves, however temporarily and imaginarily, in the beat-up shoes of the guards at their favorite museums!

Mac – I’d guess that 20% of the workforce at any museum… in any department… will be comprised of people with an interest in creating art; not just appreciating it. We do have a LOT of talent in our group though… a few, genuine, stand-outs…

Nancy – So sorry your experience wasn’t what you’d hoped, talking to the guards at SFMOMA. The longer a guard works at ANY institution… the less likely they are to want to speak to the public. Try and find someone who looks new! New guards are still relatively affable, b/c they haven’t been mistreated or condescended to, the way the old-timers (inevitably, always) have been. One word “questions,” barked at you day after day… “BATHROOM!?” or “EXIT!?” wear you down. They chip away at your trust in the civility of your fellow man… until you, yourself, become a 1-word-barker. But give it another try! Somewhere in SF MOMA there’s a guard who WANTs to talk to somebody. Who can’t wait until the next break… so she can sit down and tell someone about the crazy conversation she just overheard in front of the Rubens’ oil-sketch…

By: Nancy

Nancy — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:28:19 +0000

I tried talking to the guards at SF MOMA and it was a complete bust. I like knowing what people who stand in those rooms all day long think but conversation seemed impossible. I didn’t bother them when there were a lot of people around. I didn’t want to impede with them doing their jobs but the guards were not very friendly and certainly not interested in any conversation. The only significant interaction that I’ve had with any of them was when I pulled out a small ball point pen to jot down some notes on a painting. I got a scowl, a stern warning, a hostile look and the offer of an even smaller pencil which was worn down to a stub. So, when I read the article about the museum guards in NY, I was amazed. But maybe the guards in NY are artists first and guards second while “our” guards are guards and not artists at all – although some of them may be. I haven’t taken an sample and this is by no means a comprehensive survey, just an observation.

By: Mac McGinnes

Mac McGinnes — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:07:51 +0000

The Metropolitan isn’t the only museum to have a roster of painters as guards. In the early 60s, Robert Ryman, Dan Flavin Robert Huot and several others toiled as guards at the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

I suspect other institutions have a contingency of guard/artists.

By: Vance Maverick

Vance Maverick — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 07:30:05 +0000

I like the photo of the dead space in front of the white door. The way we ignore that, and the guards, is easy enough to understand in terms of the elevation of the singular object. If the Matisse or whatever in its frame is the reason for the existence of the building, and for our gathering there, then the space is instrumental — a mechanism more or less efficient for mediating between us and the object. And if it needs to be guarded like a jewel, then we need people to watch over it; and this static function, and the location in the midst of that merely instrumental place, will tend to relegate those people to instrumentality too.

So does this inevitably follow? I’m as devoted as anyone to the fetish of the Great Artist and the Great Work: is the only space for them and me a gappy incoherent one, staffed by silent anonymous guardians with whom I stand in a relation of tacit mutual disregard?