Glenn Adamson says artists shouldn’t be anxious about AI

Depending on where you are in the world, the museum business has never been better — or more precarious. China logged a record 1.49 billion visits in 2024, opened 213 new institutions in a single year, and claims 10 spots in the world’s top 20 most-visited museums, according to the 2024 TEA Global Experience Index. In the US, the American Alliance of Museums’ 2025 Annual Snapshot found that nearly a third of institutions reported falling attendance. “Museum fever,” as it’s being called in China, has no clear Western equivalent. To make sense of that shift, we spoke to Glenn Adamson — a curator and historian who has spent 25 years arguing for the irreplaceable power of physical objects, and the institutions that showcase them. His work now spans three continents: he’s Artistic Director of Design Doha in Qatar, curator-at-large for the Vitra Design Museum in Germany, and editor of Material Intelligence, the Chipstone Foundation’s quarterly online journal. Current projects include an exhibition at the Vitra Design Museum and Keith Haring in 3D at Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art. His latest book, A Century of Tomorrows, was published in December 2024. Before these roles, he was Director of the Museum of Arts and Design in New York and Head of Research at the V&A in London. Amid the ongoing global recalibration of cultural institutions, we spoke to Adamson to understand what it means for the luxury brands operating in that space. Jing Daily: Which artists are you most excited about right now? Glenn Adamson: Funny you should ask! I’ve just started doing a new monthly column for Puck, the widely distributed newsletter. It’s called “Hot Hand” and gives me a chance to look at emerging figures who have an imaginative foundation in craft, the area that most interests me. So far, I’ve looked at the London-based furniture maker Rio Kobayashi and the design team of Meyers & Fügmann. JD: Did your research role at the Victoria and Albert Museum change how you think about public engagement? GA: Absolutely. Because most major museums in the UK and Europe are publicly funded — the only comparison in the US is the Smithsonian — there is a very different attitude. The public really is the most important stakeholder, not trustees or other funders. And I think you feel the democracy of that approach throughout the museum and its programming. The V&A Storehouse and new V&A East Museum are perfect examples of this — I often call it “the good populism,” as opposed to what we are seeing in our politics. Admittedly there are increasing pressures on museums here in the UK, and I worry it may shift toward an American funding model, with private interests having more sway. Even if that transition does need to happen, I hope the V&A will continue on the pathway it’s been on. I haven’t worked there for a decade, but it is still my favorite museum, hands down. JD: What’s one thing museums still misunderstand about engaging young people? GA: Because of understandable generational differences, I think a lot of curators resist the idea that museums are there to be photographed and translated to social media. To some this feels inappropriate; to me, every selfie taken in a gallery is a vote for art. When I curate, I think very carefully about how the show will come across in images – after all that is how many people are going to experience it, from afar. And any time we spread the word about museums is a good thing. JD: How have you seen the sponsorship landscape change in recent years? GA: I only began working as a fundraiser in 2013, when I was director at the Museum of Arts and Design. So I don’t really have a long term view on this, but my sense is that the attitude toward corporate sponsorship, especially, has become much more explicit. I am under the impression that not so long ago, branding an exhibition was considered poor taste. Now the transactions between the corporate and non-profit world are there for all to see and judge. When companies have problematic ethical records, that becomes a problem for the museum, too. Similarly, we’ve had protests directed toward individual trustees, most famously Warren Kanders at the Whitney a few years back. Meanwhile, government funding in the UK and US has also sharply declined, which is again a political dynamic. Some see all this debate around funding as a bad thing — as it might cheapen museum experiences and discourage philanthropy on the other. I share those concerns to some extent, but my general feeling is that people should know how the things they care about are paid for. Honesty, here, seems to me absolutely the best policy. JD: Do you think ‘craft’ is becoming a luxury marketing tool, rather than a cultural value GA: To some extent it has always been that, and justifiably so — craft is an inefficient way of getting things done, better suited to bespoke and small batch production. So, it is inherently more expensive and that propels it more into a luxury space (though of course, it occupies many other cultural spheres, too). I admire companies like Hermès, which admittedly make exclusive products, but are also investing in makers’ know-how and livelihoods. What I don’t like is the casual use of craft as an empty term of praise. It should be respected as a lifelong pursuit. I once saw a sign in Manhattan advertising “homemade condominiums,” which sort of said it all. JD: How do you make handmade objects feel relevant in a digital-first culture? GA: It’s really not too hard. People have an intuitive and immediate relationship to the handmade – it’s at the scale of a human being. And the more virtual the culture becomes, the more people seem to seek it out. It’s worth remembering the very word “digital” refers to our fingers — how we count to ten. Compared to the millennia that we have explored the world with our hands, all this technology we have today, as powerful as it may be, is just a passing thing. It’s the handmade that has staying power. JD: What’s one audience insight you learned at the Museum of Arts and Design that still holds true? GA: That people really do love craft. One thing we did a lot at the Museum of Arts and Design when I was there — and which has continued since — is to open up the process to the audience. A good example is a show we did on the mannequins created by Ralph Pucci, often in collaboration with leading designers. We actually recreated the workshop where the mannequins were made from plaster and wire. That behind-the-scenes view is so interesting to people. JD: What’s one idea from your work at the Chipstone Foundation that museums aren’t using enough? GA: Definitely the idea of material intelligence. I worked for Chipstone a while ago (2000 to 2005) but have rejoined them recently to create a quarterly online publication — simply called Material Intelligence — which looks at different substances from a wide range of perspectives. Whether it’s linen, lead, rubber, obsidian, whatever, looking at all the facets of a material turns out to be a great way of illuminating complex cultural narratives, and also exploring human connections that otherwise may be hidden. JD: You've been working on a number of monographic shows recently — with the fiber artist Lenore Tawney, the ceramicist and weaver Toshiko Takaezu, the Dutch designer Hella Jongerius, and the artist Keith Haring. What have you learned from these experiences? GA: I feel so fortunate to have these opportunities to learn about an artist’s life and work. It’s a little like being a biographer (and the books I’ve done have an aspect of that), but the exhibition is a totally unique means to explore a single person’s creativity. It’s like giving the audience a chance to walk into their mind. In the case of the Jongerius exhibition at the Vitra Design Museum, I was also able to work with her directly — it was such an exciting collaboration. With someone like Haring, whose 3D work we’ll soon be featuring at the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, it’s more a matter of bringing his extraordinary energies alive again and connecting him to new audiences. I think of him as one of the great communicators of the 20th century, and that show felt almost like it was curating itself. JD: You are also the Artistic Director for Design Doha, a biennial in Qatar. Can you tell us what’s happening there? GA: That has been an amazing experience, as I had previously not known much about design in the Arab world. Creating this platform for hundreds of design studios to gather, meet one another, and gain visibility — well, it’s been a deeply moving experience, and one that feels tremendously consequential in its long term implications, not just for Qatar, but the whole region. Due to the US-Iran war, we were forced to postpone this year’s edition to November, but it will be even bigger and better than the inaugural biennial in 2024, so I hope people can make the journey and join us. JD: What is your advice for artists anxious about AI? GA: I have a perhaps counterintuitive feeling about this: I don’t think humans are ever going to care about the creativity of AI. To me, it’s a little like sports: nobody thinks that Usain Bolt is slow just because he can’t outrun a bicycle. We humans are ultimately interested in ourselves, and one another. If AI is used effectively as a tool by artists, great — and I do understand that it’s a more powerful tool in some ways (though much worse in others) than a pencil or a paintbrush. But at the end of the day, it’s the person behind the work that will always be the focus of attention, and that’s as it should be.

Glenn Adamson says artists shouldn’t be anxious about AI

How Bottega Veneta weaved China’s forever it bag

Upgrade to Pro

Sectors

Insights

Company

Glenn Adamson says artists shouldn’t be anxious about AI

How Bottega Veneta weaved China’s forever it bag