Madeleine Grynsztejn of the Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago
What are you going to preserve?
"FEARLESS CREATIVE LEADERSHIP" PODCAST - TRANSCRIPT
Episode 216: Madeleine Grynsztejn
Here’s a question. What are you going to preserve?
I’m Charles Day. I work with creative and innovative companies. I’m asked to coach their leaders to help them succeed where leadership has its greatest impact. The intersection of strategy and humanity.
This week’s guest is Madeleine Grynsztejn. She’s the Pritzker Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago.
She sees society from a distinctive vantage point, through the lens of an organization that exists to generate inquiry. Her work is to encourage communities to learn from themselves and from each other. To help us examine our past and be intentioned about our future.
“We are asking ourselves, what are we going to choose to preserve? We are asking ourselves, what are we going to choose to take care of? These are fundamental, existential questions that happen after a plague, whether in the 1200s or in 2023. Where are we going to choose to put our attention?”
Leading a creative business demands that we look ahead, vigorously, bravely and relentlessly. Where are we going, how will we know when we get there, and who’s joining us on the journey?
We hold on to the past at great risk. Risk to our success and sometimes to our survival.
But Madeleine’s point frames the future through an important question. Because, while we must fight the status quo, our future is built on the pillars of the past.
You can’t build a monument to modern thinking on sand. You need substantive foundations and platforms. You need to bring lessons from the past forward with you, so that we don’t make the same mistakes twice, and so that we have something to lean on that we can trust.
Which parts of the past do you need to let go of?
And which parts are you going to preserve?
Here’s Madeleine Grynsztejn.
Charles (02:08):
Madeleine, welcome back to Fearless. Thank you so much for coming back on the show.
Madeleine Grynsztejn (02:13):
Charles, thank you so much for inviting me back.
Charles (02:16):
What has surprised you most about 2022?
Madeleine Grynsztejn (02:22):
I would have to say it's resilience. I would have to say that people are certainly altered by the era of reckoning. And at the same time, folks in general, certainly in my workplace, the audiences that we're observing, also and at the same time, seem to be coming back to themselves and to each other.
However, two words stay with me with regard to this year. One is fragility. I think that people are still feeling very fragile in their bodies, which is the first house, as well as in their spaces and when they go out. And, we need to respect that we are all fragile. All of us, even those of us with a great deal of income. Even those of us who are very, very strained. We are all feeling fragility.
And then the other word that comes to my mind is remote. I think if I were asked what the word of the year is, I would say that it's ‘remote’. And by that I mean in several ways. There is still a kind of preoccupation with internal dynamics as opposed to external impact. I'm still seeing that in our workplaces, where there's a lot of preoccupation on operational justice, and where we are still working on getting our staff back to pivot out away from themselves and onto the world where we have to do our work.
Another word for remote is ‘distant’. And we are still distanced from each other, due to Covid. And we are still distanced in terms of Zoom and in terms of the way that we communicate on social media platforms. And that, in turn, creates two challenges. One is that we are unable to focus as we used to. And if you can't focus, you can't change. You can't make change. And the other is that if you are working through social media channels, you are going to, I think, be less empathetic towards the point of views of others. And I think that our ideological slant at this moment in time, in the way that we believe, in the way that we communicate, I think that there's a bonds of negativity that arise from, as a result of over-reliance on social media and their doom loops.
Charles (05:09):
Do you think as a society we have become more used to being apart? I mean, obviously, we've all experienced coming back together, and the holidays certainly have created an opportunity for us to be together. But do you also think that we have more used to being apart? Do you think that's going to become a part of sort of the structure of society?
Madeleine Grynsztejn (05:27):
Unfortunately I do. And I do because coming together presumes that we have consensus. And staying apart is encouraged by fanning and presuming strong positionalities. And unfortunately I do think that the fragmentation of knowledge, the fact that the center is really not holding these days, in turn makes it very difficult for all of us to hold a universal position that then also bridges differences. I live in a culture of inquiry. My museum is about generating inquiry. My museum is about generating nuance. My museum is the opposite of assertion. And that position, for some reason, is being perceived as kind of weak, as opposed to strong.
And again, going back to this word ‘fragility’, I think that you can have a lot of strength in the condition of fragility, in the condition of vulnerability, because it then leads to bridging differences. And in surfacing those differences, that entails curiosity, which then might generate momentum, which then might generate change. This strongly inward predilection that we are experiencing is not going to help bridge differences.
Charles (07:13):
I was watching something just this morning, actually, which talked about diamonds being the hardest substance on earth, that made the point that hard does not mean strong. And I think your point about fragility being a place of strength, actually, is a very important reference point from a leadership standpoint. What do you think leadership needs to be focused on as 2023 arrives?
Madeleine Grynsztejn (07:37):
Leadership needs to be focused on bridging differences. Leadership needs to be focused on thoughtfully changing hearts and minds by first creating awareness, then creating connection. And then that, in the end creates empathy and engagement and response. So I think that that is the order of things.
I'm often asked, “Can art change the world?” and I like to quote, actually, Patti Smith, who I love. And she said, you know, "Art has the power to transform people. Art has the power to excite people, to incite people. But only people can make change." So, I think that that's where we are. I think that that's where museums are, is creating the conditions for people to experience a sense of wonder, which then makes them curious, which then makes them interested. And then that gets them out of that kind of remote, inward looking culture that we may be in right now, and one which is very much grounded in fear. We don't work from fear. We work from learning another's perspective. If you're not fearful, then you're not going to be violent. If you're not fearful, then you will be open. And this is really a stay against the kind of mechanics I think that the last few years of politics and social media have shown us.
Charles (09:06):
So if we're more used to spending time apart, are you seeing that affects people's participation in museums? Are you seeing that affect the volume of traffic that you have people being interested in what you guys are presenting?
Madeleine Grynsztejn (09:18):
Well, here’s— that's what's so funny is that now I'm going to contradict myself. We have seen a tremendous uptick in attendance at the museums. And I do think that people in small groups are slowly coming back to each other and to themselves. But I believe that they are self-selected, and kind of closed systems of folks that come together, and they are drawn to other folks who are interested in what they do. And so we're seeing, absolutely we're seeing a resurgence of coming back to the social realm, which is truly, truly, truly wonderful.
What I am not yet seeing is that next phase where people make themselves - again, because they're feeling so fragile - even more vulnerable, and open to perhaps hearing other opinions other than their own. I think that these bonds of negativity are still hard to break. But I am hopeful and, in fact, confident that as people come back to themselves and each other, as they start to go out into the world, as I have witnessed, to come to the museum and enjoy an evening of art, an evening of music or great food, with people that they know and trust. It begins with these bonds. Then that experience of generosity, that's what's starts to undermine that deficit mindset that lives in social media.
Charles (10:40):
And what do you think that trend means for the future of the office? What do you think the future of the office looks like?
Madeleine Grynsztejn (10:47):
Hmm. I believe that the future of the office will be hybrid. We, for example, work on site four days a week. We work with a very physical culture, and we work with the culture of ideas. And paradoxically, those require human beings being in a room with each other to generate a narrative, a story that then compels a public. So I believe that there will be a hybrid office future. But I cannot see one that is fully hybrid because I don't believe that human social animals can build culture that way. If we go that way, we are just going to end up in the rabbit hole of an even more precarious gig economy that, than we had, for example, in the oughts.
Charles (11:40):
How do you see people expressing themselves, coming out of the pandemic? Are they more interested or willing to express themselves? Are they less interested? What's your view on personal expression?
Madeleine Grynsztejn (11:50):
(laughs) There is a lot of expression. There is not a lot of creativity.
Charles (11:56):
Hmm.
Madeleine Grynsztejn (11:57):
Those are (laughs) two different things. The definition of popular culture is that it's palatable, it's accessible. And that kind of consensus platform is based on redundancy and repetition. So that's why it is such an incredible moment when an original voice actually breaks through. Whether it's in the arts, whether it's in the visual arts or in music, or in another medium.
So right now, there's a ton of expression happening in the market because of the efflorescence of all kinds of platforms that don't require a middle person like me, an authoritative expert, to be the gatekeeper and allow you in or out. So with the advent of platforms of all kinds, physical and online, that don't require a particular set of criteria, there is a ton of expression. Whether or not that expression is worthy of our looking at, whether it impacts us deeply, that there's a lot less of. So there's a great willingness for all of us to express ourselves. We are inherently expressive, and we have been even more liberated by the tools at our disposal. Real breakthrough is as rare as it ever was.
Charles (13:21):
And what you think would change that equation? Do you think it's the absence of boundaries? Do you think that moving into a more virtual world has sort of taken away some of the restrictions that forces creativity to the surface? I mean, creativity has always been about solving problems, right? Creativity at it's best is when it's put to work.
Madeleine Grynsztejn (13:39):
Mm-hmm.
Charles (13:39):
As opposed to just given absolute freedom. What do you think is going to shift the balance between output and creative expression that's meaningful?
Madeleine Grynsztejn (13:49):
I think that there is going to be a kind of shakedown, where, while there is no longer a universal position, there will be, I think, a set of agreed upon opinions, criteria, call them what you will, that will shake out and that people will recognize as the guardrails, if you will, towards a work of art that changes the world. A work of art that changes your mind. A work of art that changes your heart. I do think that those things still come up, and when you look at them, whether it's a film or a book, they speak to their moment in time, and they are, at the same time, timeless, in that they hook into deep, deep, deep emotions that can resonate with anyone who is reading or seeing or tasting or smelling the thing.
But right now, I think we're in a moment where this is kind of still an open field. And that is very much in the cycle of art history, for example. There are cycles in art history that are with the market, if you will, where it's very, very clear what constitutes good and bad. And there are cycles in our history which blow the market up in a funny way, and where things just still need to settle down until they become history. Right now, it's almost like that move that goes from journalism into history. We're still in the period of journalism. We're still in the period of creativity. And we have not yet consolidated into our criteria for this moment in time.
Charles (15:34):
There was a really interesting article that came out early in the pandemic. I want to say maybe May or June. We'd all taken that sort of massive gasp and deep breath and then frozen in place. And then, it feels to me like May or June was the time we started to understand we weren't necessarily going to die tomorrow, and there was going to be some kind of future, even if we didn't know what it'd look like. And this article came out that talked about how the flu of 1918 and the end of World War had creating the roaring 20s, one of the most creatively vibrant periods of our time. Do you see evidence that we might be about to experience something similar? Or do you think that society has changed, social media has changed the dynamic? That we're not likely to see that concentration, that outpouring of creative expression?
Madeleine Grynsztejn (16:23):
I think we are going to see that. I think that is precisely right. And I also think that it has to do with a generational shift that is here with, you know, there are, what, a rise of Gen Z, Gen X that, you know, let alone the millennials, whose turn it is. So I do think that we are entering into an incredible, incredible period of creativity. And, at the same time, am seeing, at least in my world, I'm seeing a new kind of art history that, again going back to fragility or vulnerability, is very, very interesting.
May I give you two examples? I recently saw an exhibition that began literally with a breath. It began with a recording of people breathing. And it began with a vial that contains someone's breath. That is, to my mind, one of the greatest, most gorgeous symbols of fragility that I've ever seen open an exhibition. And so there is that.
And then the other thing that I've seen that's related to that in art history, is that there is a movement in art history that is happening that is very, very preoccupied with the archive. And it is very, very preoccupied with the first person voice or the first person resource that we see in an archive. And I think that, to my mind, these things are connected. We are asking ourselves, what are we going to choose to preserve? We are asking ourselves, what are we going to choose to take care of?
These are fundamental existential questions that happen after a plague, whether in the 1200s or in 2023. Where are we going to choose to put our attention? I do think that there is an increasing backlash now against social media, in terms of the way that it has rid us of our attention. And so there is a kind of stopping or slowing down that has to do with a… almost like a readying ourselves for a great moment of creativity in poetry, in visual arts, in film, that is going to be very, very grounded, I think, in the vulnerability, in the fragility, of all of our bodies, and in the vulnerability and fragility of history, which is hard to capture when you're not the victor. Hence, many of these archives are archives that are not in any way new, but they are voices that have up until this time been ignored.
Charles (19:26):
That's such an interesting point. I hadn't thought about that. But the fact is, it's hard, maybe impossible, for any of us to believe that we have won this fight. We have survived it but we have not won it.
Madeleine Grynsztejn (19:40):
Mm-hmm, yes.
Charles (19:43):
Such an interesting perspective.
Madeleine Grynsztejn (19:44):
Yes, we're not yet in a moment of thriving, but I don't think we're nihilistic, either.
Charles (19:54):
Right. I think that's true. So as you look at the future, are you an optimist?
Madeleine Grynsztejn (19:59):
Yes, I am. I am. I wish I could live long enough to see it. I am. I know… I know kids, and by kids I mean, you know, birth to 40. Kids are really, really scared right now and they're really, really scared. They're scared about the planet. They're scared about injustice. And this is legitimate, and I believe that they are going to be motivated to make great change.
Charles (20:38):
And what are you afraid of?
Madeleine Grynsztejn (20:41):
Stagnation. (laughs)
Charles (20:49):
Me too.
Madeleine Grynsztejn (20:51):
I am afraid of overextending my welcome. I want to be useful for as long as I can be.
Charles (21:03):
Such an amazing set of insights and perspectives. I so value your perspective, your point of view, and your willingness to share. And I thank you for joining me again today.
Madeleine Grynsztejn (21:13):
Charles, thank you. You always make me think bigger and better. I appreciate it.
—————
Let us know if there are other guests you’d like to hear from, and areas you’d like to know more about or questions you have.
And don’t forget to share Fearless with your friends and colleagues.
If you’d like more, go to fearlesscreativeleadership.com where you’ll find the audio and the transcripts of every episode.
If you’d like to know more about our leadership practice, go to thelookinglass.com.
Fearless is produced by Podfly. Frances Harlow is the show’s Executive Producer. Josh Suhy is our Producer and editor. Sarah Pardoe is the Media Director for Fearless.
Thanks for listening.
