A new report from the Joan Mitchell Foundation has turned a spotlight on the systems that decide which artists live on after they die — and which ones disappear. The report, titled “Creating Future Memory,” argues that the field of artist legacy work is deeply underdeveloped, underfunded, and often completely inaccessible to artists and professionals working outside the mainstream.
The foundation’s Director of Artist Programs, Solana Chehtman, and art writer and DEI metadata consultant Sharon Mizota, a Hyperallergic contributor, co-authored the report. It draws on contributions from 145 artists, family members, curators, and other arts and legacy workers, and runs 80 pages. It was published September 15.
The report zeroes in on three primary challenges faced by those stewarding artist legacies: access to knowledge, funding and resources, and coordination and collaboration. These obstacles are not abstract. They determine who gets remembered, and who does not.
Kikuo Saito’s Words
One of the report’s most powerful moments comes from Mikiko Ino, president and director of the New York nonprofit KinoSaito. She lost her husband, the late abstract painter and the organization’s co-founder Kikuo Saito, and turned to the words he had often repeated.
“Kikuo always said there are two deaths: the first is physical, and the second is when nobody talks about you,” Ino recalled. “I decided to never give him the second death.”
That decision shapes the entire project. The report is not just a document of findings. It is a call to action, rooted in grief and determination.
The Three Challenges
The report identifies three main areas where the legacy field falls short. Each barrier compounds the others.
- Access to knowledge
- Funding and resources
- Coordination and collaboration
The State of the Systems
Chehtman describes the systems underpinning artist legacy planning as “deeply underdeveloped, underfunded, and oftentimes completely inaccessible to artists [and professionals] working outside the mainstream.” That framing is the report’s central argument.
The report’s contributors come from across the arts sector, and their collective testimony paints a picture of a field that is fragmented, uneven, and often invisible to those who need it most.
What the Report Does
“Creating Future Memory” builds on the Foundation’s Creative a Living Legacy (CALL) program, which dates back to 2007. The new research expands that work by examining the broader structures that shape legacy stewardship.
The report gathers voices from across the sector to show where the cracks are deepest.
Why It Matters
The stakes are personal. An artist’s legacy is not just a matter of art history. It is a matter of memory, of identity, of the stories a society tells itself about its creative past.
When an artist is remembered, their work lives on. When they are forgotten, their work becomes invisible. The report makes the case that this forgetting is not random. It is systemic.
What Comes Next
The report’s release is a step. But it is not the finish line. Changing the state of legacy systems takes sustained effort.
The report’s contributors have done the groundwork. Now the question is what happens with it.
A Call to Action
The report ends where it began: with the idea that an artist’s second death can be prevented. Mikiko Ino made that choice for Kikuo Saito. The report makes the case that preventing the second death is possible, and that it requires action.
The report is a reminder that legacy is not something that happens automatically. It is something that has to be built, maintained, and defended. And the people who do that work deserve better systems to support them.
The report’s message is urgent. The systems that govern artistic memory are broken. Fixing them requires acknowledging that fact, and then acting on it.
Source material: “An Unequal Artist Legacy Field Defines Who Gets to Be Remembered,” Hyperallergic.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.