When it was founded in 1977 by the legendary Marcia Tucker, the New Museum in New York was one of the first museums dedicated exclusively to contemporary art. (You might say that the name and concept of a "new museum" are contradictions: aren't museum's meant as repositories for art and artifacts, to be preserved for the ages?) Anyway, the New Museum bills itself as "a leading destination for new art and new ideas." Are new art and new ideas largely produced by artists in their twenties and thirties? A forty year old artist would have been excluded from the New Museum's original 2009 triennial as well as the second, recently opened iteration.
The art world understands the concept of a Biennial or Triennial as a general survey of significant art produced over the last two or three years--sometimes the art is unified by a theme, sometimes not. In both cases--particularly 2009's "Younger Than Jesus" (according to the Bible, Jesus died for the sins of man at age 33)--the prevailing theme of the New Museum's triennial seems to be youth. This year, the selection of artists is at least contextualized by historical events--"“The Ungovernables” is an exhibition about the urgencies of a generation
who came of age after the independence and revolutionary movements of
the 1960s and 1970s," the Museum says. But the oldest artist is 39, suggesting an age-based criterion was in play.
Is this superficial? What is the relevance of age? Do you find the "revolutionary movements of the 1960s and 1970s" to be a convincing means of bracketing artists under forty?