Ok - I'm still gathering my notes about London and Madrid and plan on posting some interesting bits, but I had to mention this article in the Times by the sublime Holland Cotter.

He discusses some of the current issues facing the institutional corporate art world. Holland's article is mainly about Chris Gilbert a curator who quit his job over artistic control - the museum wanted one thing - he wanted another. So with giant balls and integrity to match our hero walked. KUDOS! Holland then plots the state of things and lets us know..."Now, as we approach the 20th anniversary of the stock-market plunge that brought the art market to its knees, money is again in truly fathomless supply. People think about it constantly, about how much there is of it, spilling out of pockets, oozing from hedge-fund accounts." This is a well known thing in the art world - and it's something that no one seems to want to do anything about. Money rules and in the institutions that beg and scrape for lucre..."the more successful a museum grows, the more elitist it tends to become. Social distinctions based on money and patronage can assume the intricate gradings of court protocol. At street level, admission prices climb, reinforcing existing socioeconomic barriers. Programming grows more cautious. If you’re laying out $20, you want to see “the best” art, which often means art that adheres to conventional versions of beauty, authority, “genius” (white and male) set in a reassuringly familiar context."

MOMA - the handmaiden to corporate largess - is the best example of the overweening spending habits of the elite and malfunctioning. It no longer provides the history of Modernist triumph, only a bad slide show - all the granduer and experience is gone. What they've done to Matisse is horrible. I never thought I'd say this but William Ruben really knew his stuff compared to this. Modernism was rebellion not institutionalization.

Finally he lets us know about today's artists..."A good number of artists today self-consciously position themselves both inside and outside the mainstream. This is true of many new collectives, clusters of artists who have formed their own creative environment, their own audiences and distribution systems, even — very important — their own economy. Unsurprisingly, they have historically had an indifferent reception from museums and the market in thrall to the “genius” cult. So, by design and by default, they maintain a maverick way." I think this is the way we must go. Away from the Saatchis, Chelseas and Fairs. Innovation is not appreciated by the market unless it benefits what's there. We must be more daring!