An interesting aspect of living in a crowded city is that you often hear the most intimate details of inter-personal relationships.  For this we can thank the cellphone. These conversations usually take the form of Partner A ranting at Partner B about Partner B’s attention to Outsider C.  (In many cases, you can substitute xBox for Outsider C.)  And thanks to the cellphone we always have overbearing bosses, intrusive parents, sleazy bill collectors and irate lovers in our pocket. 

What is this constant assault on our emotions doing to our brain? 

Current technology is designed to adroitly take advantage of how our brains function.  In the past, luddites have bemoaned the moral effects of the non-stop exposure to radio, television and film.  Today maybe we should start worrying about the capacity for the brain to handle it.  As waning television ratings and CD sales have shown, these traditional forms of media have nothing today’s shiny toys.  New technology doesn't just push our buttons as uninvolved observers it gives us emotional rewards for active participation.  We become Dukes for checking-in and we raise virtual corn from virtual seeds. 

The creators of new technology are becoming amazingly adept at co-oping our brains’ emotional highways.  In the process they construct complex new systems of intermingling footpaths and byways.  Activities that had limited linkage now flood our head with ever strengthening networks in constant search of emotional rewards.  One of my online bills gives me points for early payment.  It has a cute little expanding bar that sparkles when I earn a get new point.  I love it when it does that.  I don’t know what I can do with the points but I’m hoping I can buy a virtual steak.

Now I am not one of those aforementioned luddites.  I am a tech junkie.  Right now I have a dozen web pages open on my dual screens.  Soon I will play a little Angry Birds on the iPhone before I fall asleep listening to a Twit podcast.  The powers and joys these new tools provide are often beyond yesterday’s science fiction.  But is there a point when we become emotional gluttons?  Will doctors someday spend more time trying to weaken calcified brain connections than unclogging arteries?

The brain is magnificent in its ability to link emotions, actions and thoughts.  The facility for making these connections has made us what we are.  But remember, the parts evolution provided us by chance were added to the mix when man was still trying to decide which limb gave a better view of the water hole.  The extra capabilities we have developed are serendipitous.  Being clever little primates, we were able to overclock our fat new heads to create language and pilates.  Imagine if our emotional response to sound stopped at reacting to a child’s cry or sensing the approach of a potential lunch.  Would John, Paul, George and Ringo have spent their life selling tyres in Liverpool?   When was the last time you saw your dog dancing to “Johnny Be Good”?

Is the cerebral cortex like the earth's oil supply?  Is there a day we will use up the brain’s capacity for new connections?  Or will these connections become so strengthened that they will no longer function?  Already, there is a theory that the recent growth in autism is due to an assault on the senses when the brain is most plastic.  And who is to say that increased input won’t have increase dementia and mental illness?  I have no idea what it all means but I find it hard to believe that we have an unlimited capacity mental button pushing.  One thing we are good at is overusing stuff.  Today we flush our Twitter accounts; tomorrow maybe we will flush our brains.

I have got to go because I have to dump a bunch of programs from my hard drive.  You see my computer is running really slow.

(As always, I am not a scientist.  I just buy their books.) 

Addictions to drugs, alcohol and gambling have powerful systematic holds on the brain.  Luckily, the efficacy of recovery programs has increased over the years largely through trial and error.  The 20^th century saw the noticeable rise in recovery success using, among other things, step programs.  

Alcoholics Anonymous, founded by Bill Wilson and Bob Smith in 1935, is recognized for making step programs popular. Wilson may not have known it at the time but his plan was a multi-front attack on the brain of the addict that has some justification in modern science.

Addicts constantly repeat their behavior.  Repetition strengthens the myriad of connections in the brain that the behavior has created.  The strength of these connections is of supreme importance to the brain’s search engine algorithms.  They also reward the number of links.  As addicts link their behavior to other activities it becomes connected to new networks of connections.  Think of the football fanatic who can’t enjoy a game sober.  Soon this addiction has physically built an unimaginable number of links.

An examination of Wikipedia's overview of AA’s program brings to mind several possible scientific reasons for success.  The program employs powerful tools that are in the brain’s arsenal.  A quick look at AA’s tenants shows examples of emotional rewarding (spiritual belief and fellowship), game mechanics (rewards for length of sobriety), connection building (adding negative aspects to the addiction by confronting past sins), connection strengthening (building the power of the new structure with regular meetings and step repetition) and social bonding (mentoring). 

This simple list only scratches the surface of how these programs attempt to modify the brain.  While the long term success rate for participants in these programs is low, it is significantly higher than the rates achieved from the techniques that preceded it.   

But what happens when the wizard behind the curtain is exposed? Someday soon understandings of how the brain works will become common knowledge.  Will the belief in the magic of the step plans weaken?  Is the belief in the process an important component in making it effective?

While breaking the brain’s loyalty to fully packaged belief systems seems to be hard, it certainly happens.  Look at the effects of social upheaval during the French Revolution on religious beliefs in France.  At the same time, Lenin discovered that completely resetting a pre-revolutionary Russian mindset was impossible.  Large changes in cultural viewpoints, thanks to our pesky brain structure, tend to happen generationally. 

While a greater understanding of how the brain works may not undermine effectiveness for the current 12-step adherents, is it possible it will for future addicts?  If an addict knows how the brain responds to spiritual belief, game mechanics, public confession and repetitive behavior could that understanding make the process less effective?  Of course, we don’t know yet.  But many addiction experts preach that success only happens with complete mastery of a program.

Smith penned his 12-steps when the brain was a black box full of mystery.  The only way to understand how this box worked was to send in stimuli and then see what popped out.  The lid is starting to slip off the box and we are beginning understand how its components interact.  Scientific discoveries hopefully will bring more focused approaches to recovery. Possibly unused tools in the brain will be discovered that can join the battle.

I certainly would not want to discourage anyone who is suffering from addiction from taking advantage of what we have available today.  And I really have no position on the various viewpoints about the best approach to achieving recovery.  Most likely we will discover that it depends on the individual.  But at some point in the future we should be able to map the unique structure of the connections in an individual’s brain.  With a map we could possibly find ways to dissolve bonds that give life to addictions.  But those days are still very far away.

One thing is clear, brain science in the future will have an invaluably role in addiction recovery.

Note: I am in no way a scientist. In as such, I used highly inexact phrases like “brain connections” in place of scientific terminology (that I would most likely misuse anyway.)  I love reading books on science and there are many wonderful ones by those who practice it.  From time to time my readings will trigger thoughts about real world issues.   My purpose is to engage in discussions with the similarly curious.  

blog comments powered by

I attended a studio preview for the Seth Rogen movie “The Green Hornet”. This non-3D version lacked titles and was still being edited.  I am sure there will be significant differences in the film when it is released on January 14. 

Here is a summary of my reactions:

Faithfulness to the source – Superficially, it honors some of the varied sources of the Green Hornet (semi) legend with a strong tilt towards the 60's TV version.  But the approach is sure to turn off any hardcore fan. Does the target audience really care?  I doubt it. I personally think it’s not an issue.
Script – A complete and total mess.  It does have many funny lines but the script style has rendered the plot meaningless.
Leads - Seth Rogen (Britt Reid - The Green Hornet) and Cameron Diaz (Lenore Case) do what they do and if you like that then they won’t disappoint. Jay Chou (Cato) is another story.  Is his a he a comic prop for Rogen or the partner in a comic duo?  I don’t expect that this is a career elevating moment. 
Supporting actors -Tom Wilkinson (James Reid), Edward James Olmos (Axford) and Christoph Waltz (Chudnofsky) make for a heavyweight supporting cast.  Wilkerson and Olmos do their thing seemingly without reference to the rest of the film.  The effect is jarring.  Waltz is asked to straddle the film's poorly defined line between realistic action and silly comedy. In the process the audience is left confused.  I blame these issues on the script and the director.  This incredibly talented trio seemed to give it their all.  Frankly, I felt sorry for them.
Action – When action takes center stage we see little that we haven’t seen before.  Maybe the makers are trying to do something new with the final action sequence but in the edit I saw it was so muddled in presentation and moral mapping that the audience was completely lost.  Is this “Ghostbusters” or “The French Connection”?  Don’t go see it for the action.
Comedy  - There are sporadic bursts of genuinely funny moments.  But there are more frequent periods of comedic deadness.  Hopefully, the final edit will tighten this up. The comic elements are the only reason to see this film.
PC Quotient – Hollywood has created its own moral code and it tends to follow it rigorously.  Rogen has made a career of tweeking these dictates of right and wrong.  I usually am amused by his characters’ amorality but here I find Britt Reid’s misogyny unfunny.  Whatever satirical bite this film was trying to achieve is undermined by a very late (and convenient) comeuppance.  I guess if I was crushing on Rogen, like my roommate, I would have been more forgiving.  
Direction – I get it, let’s hire the guy (Michel Gondey) who was able to make movie magic with a lovable duffus comic in “The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.”  But that film was intentionally dark and unfunny.  Also, it was penned by Charlie Kaufman.  Lead writer on “The Green Hornet?”  Seth Rogen.  So what we get is a darkly shot film with a very comedic script.  Look at Gondey’s IMDB headshot.  Would you hire this guy to direct a comedy?  (Yeah, I see they list it as an action, crime, thriller but let’s see how far that gets them.)
My roommate’s recommendation (She is a die-hard Rogen lover who hates action flicks.  She also is comfortably in the target age range) -  "Definitely go see it!  Better than “Pineapple Express”!  It’s very funny and I have already added it to my Netflix list!  Plus that Seth Rogen is so lovable!"  OK, she didn't exactly put it that way.  Also, there were many others in the audience who seemed to feel the same way.
My Advice (I am not in the target age range) – Stay away, very far away.  It is not in the same league with the flawed, but very entertaining, “Pineapple Express.”  If you Netflix it, have your iPad nearby, you’ll want the diversion.

blog comments powered by

Steroids were the sports scandal of the last decade (and if football comes clean the topic could dominate this decade too).  For the athlete, steroids and hormone therapies provided growth, healing and stamina in the muscles.

Will policing sophistication and fan acceptance ever reach the point where a science degree is not needed to understand the latest sports headlines?  Probably not.

Athletes often talk about building muscle memory.  The term muscle memory brings visions a tiny cortexes embedded into massive biceps.  While optimizing the structure of a muscle to execute specific skills is often referred to as developing muscle memory, the real action is in the brain. 

And a brain scandal is sure to come.

It’s not like the pharmaceutically-minded in sports have been ignoring the brain.  Greenies (amphetamines) to promote focus have been almost as easy to find as sunflower seeds in the dugout.  And the products of big pharma have long replaced the Rorschach tests for “helping” troubled players.  But these are largely outside the black box approaches to brain manipulation.  It's like using a large woolly blanket to warm one cold toe.

So what happens when we find ways to enter the brain and mess around with its individual connections?  Snipping off the irksome connections and building ones we prefer.  Or maybe we alter the connections that regulate the connections.  What happens when we can design a brain that is optimized for mood, focus, consistency and, most importantly, skillset activation?  Imagine if you could construct the mental mechanics for the perfect curveball in every situation. Or imagine being able to efficiently rewire the brain to shorten the time that it takes for a batter to recognize a pitch.

This is still sci-fi.  The complexity of making these type brain alterations is unimaginable.  And even if we had the tools we wouldn’t know where to use them.  But neuroscience is the science of now.  And discoveries that can make incrementally more precise adjustments to the brain are happening every day.

So don’t be surprised if the newest assistant coach has a degree in neuroscience.

NOTE:  I love reading books about neuroscience.   There are a growing number of excellent books in the fields that study the brain in an increasingly large number of specialized areas.  A great place to start are with books that take a broader view on neuroscience (How we Decide by Jonah Lehrer and Your Brain is (Almost) Perfect by Read Montague), genetics (The Agile Gene by Matt Ridley) and brain evolution (Big Brain by Gary Lynch and Richard Granger).  

blog comments powered by

For the past two years, I have been obsessively reading through the growing library of general neuroscience books (the ones that don’t cost $80 – those are for people who know science.)   To get a sense of how quickly this field is exploding search Amazon and sort the results by the year published. 

The most recent addition to my bookshelf is Gary Lynch and Richard Granger’s book “Big Brain: The Origins and Future of Human Intelligence” (2008).  “Big Brain” is an easy to understand and often fascinating explanation of the evolution of the brain.  While general neuroscience books are usually written from the perspective of neuroscientists and their lab work, “Big Brain” is structured like a really good university course for non-majors.   One teaching method used by the book is including comparisons, when appropriate, between human brain function and computers.   This technique is refreshing because most neuroscientists seem wary of the approach because it is often misleading.  But this approach effectively reframes these complex ideas into something understandable for the non-science minded.

One misperception about how evolution works is the widely held belief that evolutionary changes in a species are direct responses to preexisting needs.  The reality is that genetic changes are random.  When a change occurs in some creature’s DNA that benefits the survival and also gives it an advantage in the mating game, it has the possibility of becoming permanent addition to the (new?) species.  (OK, there is the new field of epigenetics but I have not found a good book on the subject for under $30, so it’s like it doesn’t exist to me.)  While nature may have rewarded this change because of a specific advantage it provided, nothing stops the new set of instructions from serendipitously enabling other capabilities that may not be realized for tens of thousands of years. 

This leads me to the Kinect.  Microsoft’s new peripheral for the Xbox 360 is a clever amalgamation of relatively simple technical components and innovative software.  The Kinect was designed to sell a whole new set of games for the Xbox using hands free interaction.  Microsoft, typically late to the party, finally realized the importance of including a certain level of flexibility in its design in the age of open source.  I doubt Microsoft envisioned how quickly users would find fascinating ways to adapt the Kinect.  In fact, Microsoft has only blessed an elevated openness to the API in the last few weeks. The next year will undoubtedly unleash a flood of innovative uses for the Kinect platform. 

This leads me to one of those awkward comparisons between the brain and the computer universe.  While specific changes were brought to our DNA by selection, nature has access to its API.  While we may not have the same survival needs of the first Homo Sapiens, the incredible adaptability of our species allows for the emergence of unexpected new capabilities within this platform.  But sadly, our current brain has its limits.  I don’t expect x-ray vision ever to work on our current system.  I guess we will just have to wait for the release of Homo Sapiens Brain version 2.0.  And you think Microsoft is slow with updates…  

(Misrepresentations of the science are not intentional, just acts of ignorance by a science fan.) 

Two of my plays that are influenced by my interest in neuroscience are available on Amazon for the Kindle:
The Lurid Art and Cells

blog comments powered by

You know it’s coming.  When it does, the effect on Twitter could be disastrous. 

It will happen something like this – First, there will be a news report that some political candidate is following a skinhead or anarchist (take your menace to society of choice) on Twitter.  Second, public horror will be displayed.  Third, the candidate, who probably has never seen hers/his twitter account, she/he will blame a campaign worker and then promise a thorough review of their follow list.  Fourth, within 24 hours the only accounts the politician follows, if any, will be charity groups.  Finally, the 90% of the country that doesn’t use Twitter and has little understanding of the mechanics of following and re-following will now have the politician rebranded in their mind as a skinhead/anarchist lover.

At that point, the days of freely following without the potential of recrimination are over.

We already see accounts in the media on a regular basis of politicians who are called out for some unacceptable donation from some nefarious sort.   Usually the information has been passed along from political opponents or their supporters who have poured over campaign finance reports thousands of individual donations.  This isn’t new.  Data mining on opponents has been around since the days of Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson.  Today we just have better tools.  And the internet is a political ops dream.

There is no doubt that finding out who a politician friends on Facebook and follows on Twitter is already a part of the dirt digging process.  I am sure that questionable connections have been forwarded to the media in the past but, as of yet, there has not been a follow-gate.  This may be in part because the media is pretty savvy when it comes to Twitter and they realize that the emerging etiquette of the Twit-verse is to re-follow.  Plus, the best way to keep something out of the press is to do something the press does too – in this case, indiscriminate following.  But there are too many outlets and too many media people who let their own feelings advance a story.  So the day is coming.

When that day comes it will change forever how we use Twitter.  Companies will not only read your tweets but they will search your followers.  Start-ups will be created to rate the nature of your followers and give you a score based of words and phrases in their tweets.  Jobs will be lost or never offered, and another aspect of freedom on the web will be lost.

Some hardcore tweeters won’t mind because they see this huge grown in the size of follower lists as the antithesis of why they came to Twitter.  They came to communicate with people they know in a public but personal way in 140 characters or less.  How can you having a conversation when 2,000 people are talking at you at once?  They blame this trend on the commercialization of Twitter.  But the other great aspect of Twitter is finding people around the world who share your interests.  You can’t do this with a background check.  (The whole issue of how Twitter is at a crossroads will be the subject of another blog).

The majority of politicians I see on Twitter already don’t follow.  That just takes another way for a constituent to speak to their elected official (or the intern who handles the Twitter account).  Still, I see a few brave politicians who do follow.  But there are many future politicians who don’t realize somewhere in the cloud is a database of all of the Twitter hook-ups. Twitter, in its unending search for a monetization model, have recently announced what they are going to sell – us. 

So I have a request for politicians – don’t follow me! 

You can read new posts on this blog via the RSS feed.

blog comments powered by

Many art lovers find growing admission prices to be a barrier to exploring the amazing art in the über expensive New York.  Museums have responded by offering different ways to visit for free.  Below is a list of free admittance policies compiled from the various websites of these institutions.  I have included the web address for the museums because there are many nuances to these policies and they change often.  When I could not discern the policy I usually called or e-mailed the institution with varying degrees of success.  So if you see a mistake or an omission please e-mail me.  And note the date of this post because it probably will be updated infrequently.  So use this list as a guide but before hitting the museums I would double check on their websites!

A Note about suggested donations, pay-what-you-can (or will), etc.  While I list the “suggested donations” option prominently in these listings it is usually not the choice that the museums want you use.   A few sites go so far as to give a disclaimer that seems to imply this choice is frowned upon.  I would read the admissions information on the website before taking plopping down a dime at the ticket window.  Pay-What-You-Can (or will) is intended to be just that.  It is often used as a way to bring in new audiences or to serve audiences that can’t afford the regular price.  So feel free to take advantage of this promotion guilt-free.  That said, I always try to pay at least half of the regular admission price.

Here is a pdf version of the list.

NEW YORK’S FAMOUS ART MUSEUMS

The Brooklyn Museum (https://www.brooklynmuseum.org ) Their admissions are always “suggested donations” but they also have a Target First Saturdays program where admission is free for programs of art and entertainment from 5 until 11 p.m.

The Cloisters (https://www.metmuseum.org/cloisters) The Cloisters is part of the Met and like the Met it has no free days.  A badge bought at the met is good at the Cloisters on the same day only. Their admission is “recommended” and their site emphasizes the desire for people to pay the full amount Accompanied children under 12 are free as well as all local public school students and students from select high education institutions.

The Frick Collection (https://www.frick.org ) Sundays are pay-what-you-wish from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Guggenheim Museum (https://www.guggenheim.org ) Pay-what-you-wish on Saturdays from 5:45 p.m. to 7:45 p.m.  Children under 12 always free.

Metropolitan Museum (https://www.metmuseum.org) The Met has no free days.  Their admission is “recommended” and their site emphasizes the desire for people to pay the full amount.  Accompanied children under  12 are always free as well as all local public school students and students from select high education institutions.

The Morgan Library & Museum (https://www.themorgan.org ) Admission is free on Fridays from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Admission to the McKim rooms is without charge during the following times: Tuesday, 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.; Friday, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.; Sunday, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.

Museum of Modern Art - MoMA (https://www.moma.org) Admission is free for all visitors during Target Free Friday Nights which held every Friday evening from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m.  Under 17 are always free.
Whitney Museum of American Art (https://whitney.org) Admission is pay-what-you-wish on Fridays, 6–9 p.m.  Under 19 are always free.

MORE WONDERFUL NEW YORK ART MUSEUMS

OR MUSEUMS WITH ART EXHIBITION GALLERIES

American Folk Art Museum (https://folkartmuseum.org)  Free Admission Fridays 5:30 pm – 7:30 pm.

Artists Space (https://www.artistsspace.org) Always free with a suggested donation.

Asia Society (https://asiasociety.org/) Admission is free to all Friday 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Bronx Museum (https://www.bronxmuseum.org) Free Fridays but regular admission is suggested $5.00 adults and $3.00 Seniors and students.

Chelsea Art Museum (https://www.chelseaartmuseum.org) There are no free days but under 17 always free.

China Institute in America (https://www.chinainstitute.org) Tuesdays and Thursdays from 6 to 8 p.m. are free.  Children under 12 are always free.

Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum (https://cooperhewitt.org)  There seems to be no free dates but children under 13 are free always.

Dia Art Foundation (https://www.diaart.org/) The admissions policies and schedules are somewhat irregular for the various Dia locations so please visit their website for more information.

The Drawing Center (https://www.drawingcenter.org) Gallery admission is free.

El Museo del Barrio (https://www.elmuseo.org) Free on every third Saturday.  Seniors are free every Wednesday and under 12 are always free.  The regular admissions are suggested.

Exit Art (https://www.exitart.org) Their site does not mention any admission price.

The Forbes Galleries (https://www.forbesgalleries.com) Admission to the galleries is free.

Goethe-Institut German Cultural Center (https://www.goethe.de/ins/us/ney/enindex.htm) The Gallery is only open Thursday – Sunday but it is always free.

Grey Art Gallery (https://www.nyu.edu/greyart) The suggested admission is $3.00. Free to NYU students, faculty, and staff.

The Hispanic Society (https://hispanicsociety.org/) Admission is always free but they also offer free at 2 pm on Saturdays.

International Center of Photography (https://www.icp.org) Voluntary Contribution Fridays 5 – 8 p.m. Children under 12 always free.
Japan Society (https://www.japansociety.org/) Admission is free on Friday nights, 6 - 9 p.m.
The Jewish Museum (https://www.thejewishmuseum.org)  Free Saturdays are 11 a.m. - 5:45 p.m.  In respect for the Sabbath not all aspects of the museum are open on Saturdays.  Also, the museum is often closed on Saturdays so be sure to check the website.
Lever House Art Collection (https://leverhouseartcollection.com) I see no reference to an admission fee.
MoCADA - The Museum of Contemporary African Diasporan Arts (https://mocada.org) Children under 13 are free.
Museum for African Art (https://www.africanart.org/ ) I was unable to discern visitor information on their site but another site said children under 6 were free.
The Museum of Arts and Design (https://www.madmuseum.org) Thursdays 6  - 9  p.m. is pay-what-you-wish. High school students with ID and Children under 13 (excluding groups) are always free.
MoMA PS1 (https://ps1.org ) No free days but admission is a $10.00 suggested donation.
Museum of Comic and Cartoon Art (https://www.moccany.org/) I don’t see a free day but children under 13 are free and some of their Thursday events are free.  See website.
Museum of the City of New York (https://www.mcny.org) If you live or work in East Harlem above 103rd Street the suggested admission is waived.  Under  13 is always free.
Museum of the Moving Image (https://www.movingimage.us) is closed until January, 2011 for renovation but still accepting groups.
The Noguchi Museum (https://www.noguchi.org) On the first Friday of every month the Museum admission is pay-what-you-wish.  Children under 12 are free.  Check the website for a list of select First Fridays that have evening cash bar events.
National Museum of the American Indian (https://www.nmai.si.edu) Admission is free.
New Museum of Contemporary Arts (https://www.newmuseum.org)  Free Thursday evenings (from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.)  Under  19 always free.
New-York Historical Society (www.nyhistory.org)  Friday nights are pay what you wish between 6  – 8  p.m.  Children under 13 are always free 
Nicholas Roerich Museum (https://www.roerich.org) Admission is a suggested donation.
PPOW (https://www.ppowgallery.com) Another gallery that seems to have a non-profit mission but does not seem to be one.  (Let me know if you can clarify this because I want to keep the list non-profit.)  No price listed for the gallery which is open Tuesday - Saturday 10 a.m. – 6 p.m.
The Rubin Museum of Art (https://www.rmanyc.org/) Gallery admission is free to all every Friday from 6 – 10 p.m.  Gallery admission is free to seniors (65 and up) on the first Monday of every month. 
The Studio Museum of Harlem (https://www.studiomuseum.org) Target Free Sunday 12 noon to 6 p.m.  Regular admission is suggested and free to children under 12.
Taipei Gallery (www.taipei.org good luck at finding info at this link about the gallery) I found a site (https://www.virtualnyc.info/directory/museums/tz.htm) that stated that their weekday only gallery was always free.  I would suggest calling ahead at 212-373-1854.
The Queens Museum of Art ( https://www.queensmuseum.org )There seem to be no free days but its only $5 (suggested donation) and children under  5 are free. 
Tibet House (https://www.tibethouse.us/ ) Monday through Friday from 12 to 5 p.m. is a $5 suggested donation.
The Ukrainian Museum (https://www.ukrainianmuseum.org)
Wendt Gallery New York (https://wendtgallery.typepad.com/wendt_gallery_new_york/) its information is spotty at best (like is it a non-profit?) but its hours are Tuesday through Friday from 10am to 6pm and on Saturday from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. and I assume free.

I maintain a list of all of the active twitter accounts of these museums on Twitter at VastineS.

(List creation date - 11/2010)

You can read new posts on this blog via the RSS feed.

blog comments powered by Disqus