Labeling the Met

In partnership with

_{Sign up to receive Surface Area or follow me on Linkedin or Twitter. Book a meeting here to talk about ghostwriting from my agency, Principals Media}.

Visiting the Metropolitan Museum of Art was one of the few pleasures of the Covid era.

It’s unlikely anyone will have a similar chance in the future to stand alone in Gallery 825, which boasts seven Van Goghs on a single wall.

I saw the Alice Neel show and another on Dutch Masters. It felt unreal to be in a hall of paintings by Rembrandt and Vermeer without even a guard.

Covid forced the Met to close 202 days following the pandemic, slashing attendance to 1.2 million visitors, down from 6.5 million in 2019.

One of the notable changes the Met has made in recent years is the addition of labels that provide historical context and facts about the work.

It’s a major departure from simply providing a title, date and the name of the artist.

Also gone is the ostentatious language. Artist Isabel Kim parodied that vernacular when she created a computer program to generate random faux descriptions:

“This work is a fantastical, environmental machete consisting of drab, cluttered office which is reminiscent of the subject-object hierarchy being destabilized.”

For the most part, the new labels stick to facts, jamming in trivia about the artists, the historical era or the collectors. The details make it memorable.

You walk away with mini-history lessons and a greater appreciation of the art and artists. Practically every label has some extraordinary tidbit. Some I noted during my last visit:

-Gaugin acquired two Van Gogh sunflower paintings and hung them over the bed in his Paris apartment. He sold them to finance his trip to the South Seas.

-Sargent’s portrait of Madame X was ridiculed when it was shown at the Salon of 1884 so the artist kept it for thirty years until he sold it to the Met.

-Sorolla’s portrait of his wife Clotilde was acquired by the Met in 1909 after a legendary show of his work at the Hispanic Society in New York City.

-Renoir married the model he featured in his painting By the Seashore.

-Ilia Efimovich Repin painted a Russian author who committed suicide by throwing himself down a staircase four years after painting was completed.

-Filippino Lippi’s Madonna & Child was painted for the Florentine banker Filippo Strozzi who insisted he use ultramarine blue because it was expensive and would illustrate his wealth.

Some labels are more evocative than others. And the change is not without controversy.

There are critics who argue art “should speak for itself.”

Others say the labels are problematic for what they leave out. For example, there is no mention that Picasso, Gauguin and Balthus preyed on young girls. In a 2012 exhibit the Met was criticized for failing to point out Gertrude Stein’s Nazi sympathies

The Met has obviously gone to great effort to update the labels in the collection. A design firm named Think Design was hired to map out a project that required editing software, templates, a database and printing system to attach them to the wall.

Not every museum agrees it is a good idea. Other museums have taken a stance that art shouldn’t have descriptive texts.

That may be more “pure,” but I doubt its the future.

People generally want to know more, not less.

I left Gallery 825 at the Met recently having learned that Van Gogh painted twenty self portraits during the two years he spent in Paris because he couldn’t afford a model.

It’s the kind of detail that changes how you feel about the painting. It sticks with you.

It is also the kind of experience that encourages you to come back.

Smarter Investing Starts with Smarter News

Cut through the hype and get the market insights that matter. The Daily Upside delivers clear, actionable financial analysis trusted by over 1 million investors—free, every morning. Whether you’re buying your first ETF or managing a diversified portfolio, this is the edge your inbox has been missing.

Subscribe for free and invest with confidence.

BRIEF OBSERVATIONS

BLOOMBERG: Perplexity founder Aravind Srinivas has mentioned a number of times he wants to displace the Bloomberg terminal. It’s harder than he seems to think.

1-on-1 MEETINGS: I agree with Zuckerberg on this one. I always thought one-on-ones were a waste of time. It’s better to work on a project together.

MEDIA ERAS: I liked the way Hamish breaks down three eras of media history. I think we are still so very early in the

KIERKEGAARD: Provides some real perspective to realize you can be a world famous philosopher and still want to kill yourself after doing to a dinner party.

DESIGN 101: You have to be a certain age to recognize this design. It takes me back. I miss the simplicity.

P.S. Hit reply if you have something to share about today’s newsletter. Did anything stand out? Are there any stories or themes I should cover? You can also click on the poll below. I review every reply - so say hi!