CultureGrrl

Saatchi Gallery, London

This is an "I told you so" post.

When I skeptically inquired last July whether MOCA London---Charles Saatchi's announced gift to Great Britain of more than 200 artworks from his collection (as well as his Saatchi Gallery building}---would definitely happen, Rachel Duffield, the megacollector's spokesperson, replied:

The gift has definitely been made.

Maybe "offered," not "made" would have been the more accurate word. Calling the announcement "premature" in my earlier CultureGrrl post, I questioned whether that gift had actually been accepted by its intended recipient. Saatchi's original July 1 announcement had hedged, stating that the Saatchi Gallery was "in discussion with potential Government departments who would own the works on behalf of the nation" [emphasis added].

Now Farah Nayeri of Bloomberg reports:

Charles Saatchi, who in July said he was giving the British nation his London gallery and more than 25 million pounds ($38 million) worth of art, is seeking other takers after talks with a state-linked body broke down, his gallery's associate director said....

Saatchi Gallery Associate Director Rebecca Wilson said talks with Arts Council England, which manages the funding of cultural bodies on the government's behalf, had ended.

Wilson told Bloomberg that those talks had ended on July 23, only about three weeks after the "gift" was announced. Other possible recipients have since been approached.

As to the reasons for the impasse, Tom Peck of the London Independent reports:

It is not clear why the talks failed, but it is understood that the idea of part-financing the institution after it had been handed over by buying and selling items from the donated collection runs against the code of ethics set out by the Museums' Association.

Other problematic aspects of the proposed gift, to my mind, were the utter lack of any operating endowment and the implied challenge posed by the new museum to the other public institution in London dedicated, in part, to contemporary art---the Tate Modern (currently trying to engineer its own expansion).

Speaking of implied challenges, it appears that there already IS a MOCA London in London! Doesn't adman Saatchi respect the sanctity of brand names? Maybe (as I suggested in my July post) this collector-centric institution should be more accurately (and non-competitively) named: "London Museum of Saatchi Art."

I wanted to acknowledge publicly (as I have in private messages) how very grateful I've been for all your expressions of support during this difficult time for me.

I'm still discombobulated by the loss of my father and the aftermath, but I've got another post in mind (although not yet in type) that I may manage to get up tomorrow, before the Jewish High Holidays put CultureGrrl to rest until Monday.

In the meantime, thanks for your kind wishes and for bearing with me during this time of mourning and healing.

Derrick Cartwright, Seattle Art Museum's new director, inheritor of its expansion-related financial problems

The story of the Seattle Art Museum's expansion-related financial shortfalls---largely the result of the collapse of Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu), its development partner in the mixed-use building project---keeps getting worse.

On Aug. 30, the museum filed a 27-page petition in Kings County Superior Court, requesting approval of a plan to make a 10-year loan to itself from its own endowment. The loan, not to exceed $10 million, would help SAM meet its obligations to pay, as rent, debt service for bonds issued by the city's Museum Development Authority.

The revenue from WaMu's lease on eight floors above SAM had previously been counted upon to pay the more than $4 million a year in debt service for the expansion bonds. JPMorgan Chase, which acquired WaMu in 2008, declined to honor the defunct bank's lease, but instead offered the museum a $10-million grant, to be paid over five years.

Because "SAM always respects its donors' intentions" (in the words of its court petition), its loan to itself will be drawn from the portion of the $96-million endowment that is designated for general operations (i.e., not for acquisitions or other specific purposes). As of June 30, SAM's general operating endowment amounted to about $32 million. A $10-million loan would therefore represent a draw-down of nearly one-third of those general operating funds.

This in an already challenging fiscal year for all museums, when financial shortfalls have resulted in SAM's 7% reduction in staff, a plan to close the museum's three buildings for two weeks beginning Jan. 31, and a 10% reduction in some administrators' pay. Director Derrick Cartwright "has planned for a still larger reduction to his own executive compensation next year," according to the announcement of these cutbacks.

Vanessa Ho of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports [via] that Nordstrom, the department store, now leases six of the eight floors directly above SAM, "but the rent will not cover the museum's debt. And fundraising has been slow." (A new fundraising campaign is planned.) In the Comments section attached to her story, Ho reports that the top four floors of SAM's 16-story building, which had been owned by WaMu, are now owned by Northwestern Mutual Life, whose Russel Investments will move this fall into the former WaMu Center---the 42-story office tower that was built behind SAM's 2007 expansion, as part of the development project.

I had previously written that this debacle, conceived and implemented under the museum's previous director, Mimi Gates, might inspire "second thoughts in the museum world about teaming up with commercial entities for future expansions."

Here's some more food for second thoughts: In New York we now have the example of the Museum of Modern Art's planned westward expansion on land that it sold for $125 million to real estate developer Hines. MoMA's growth has now been stalled by the financially driven delay in the construction of a controversial Jean Nouvel-designed mixed-use tower. That 1,025-foot-high skyscraper was to provide, at its base, room for MoMA's hoped-for expansion. There's been no word yet on if or when this project will proceed.

There are various figures with artworld connections on Vanity Fair's annual list of the world's 100 most influential people (to be published in the October issue, but online now). Only two, however, were selected expressly for their visual art creds.

This VIP roster is peopled by moguls and mega-celebrities. Influential visual artists, museum officials, scholars and critics need not apply.

You're likely to guess the first artworld luminary on your first try.

The second may come as a surprise.

But wait a minute! There are two other artworld figures on the magazine's companion list of up-and-coming members of The Next Establishment. Occupying the #10 slot is none other than LA MOCA's dealer-turned-director Jeffrey Deitch, who stands out as not being as young, rich and/or famous as most of his fellow aspirants. Coming it at #39 is Dasha Zhukova, Russian gazillionaire Roman Abramovich's 29-year-old curator/girlfriend. She perfectly fits the Vanity Fair mold and has the added attraction of being gorgeous.

Are Tom Campbell, Neil MacGregor and Henri Loyrette unworthy of mention in this company? They're as gorgeous as Jeffrey Deitch; they must be rich enough, since they don't seem to feel compelled (as Deitch has said he may) to sell art from their personal collections to make ends meet; and they have lots more clout in the artworld as the directors of three of the world's preeminent museums (Metropolitan Museum, British Museum and the Louvre, respectively).

Then again, Deitch's neighbors are reportedly the movie stars who rank #75 on VF's Top 100, and he's recently appeared in a soap opera episode. Celebrity points count...at least on the pages of Vanity Fair.

Michael Kimmelman: Tennis, anyone?

Is the peripatetic Michael Kimmelman here in New York to review some art? No, he's actually here to cover tennis---the U.S. Open, to be exact. This is not a first: We've seen him cover that sport before.

This time, the NY Times' chief art critic-in-absentia will be double-teaming Federer, Nadal and the women's first-seed, Caroline [Who's That?] Wozniacki, along with another Timesman not customarily seen on the sports beat---Gerry Marzorati, now on the verge of leaving his post as editor of the NY Times Sunday Magazine for a somewhat nebulous new assignment.

Will the expatriate Michael be tempted to stray from Flushing Meadows to catch up on the stateside arts scene? Only culture editor Jon Landman knows for sure.

What we really want to know is, does Roberta Smith secretly yearn to cover football?

In the meantime, as an accredited temporary tennis critic, Kimmelman says he's looking forward to "the free lukewarm Diet Coke."

You mean they don't serve that in Europe?

Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle

In its well-meaning Statement Regarding Stieglitz Collection at Fisk University, issued today, the Association of Art Museum Directors (like several journalistic commentators) has misconstrued last week's ruling by the Davidson County Chancery Court regarding the university's $30-million collection sharing deal with Alice Walton's planned Crystal Bridges Museum.

Here's AAMD's statement in full:

AAMD is gratified that the Chancery Court Judge has issued a ruling that recognizes the importance of the Stieglitz collection to Nashville and the South. In ruling that Fisk University may not pursue an agreement to sell a half share of the Stieglitz collection in ways that undermine the purpose of Ms. [Georgia] O'Keeffe's gift [emphasis added], the Court affirms the importance of respecting donor intent.

AAMD believes that art collections owned by colleges and universities are an irreplaceable component of academic and community life and that they should not be treated as disposable financial assets. In support of the Court's request that the Tennessee Attorney General propose alternative solutions for the management of the collection, several AAMD members have offered their help to identify options that will preserve the Stieglitz collection and uphold the standards of professional practice in the museum community.

The court, in fact, has not prohibited Fisk from pursuing the $30-million sale of a half-share of its collection---a transaction that would not just "undermine" but decimate O'Keeffe's written no-sale stipulation. What the court did say in its 21-page decision is that it will not "approve the Crystal Bridges Agreement, as written [emphasis added]."

Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle, in her decision, indicated a preference for a Nashville-only remedy for Fisk's inability to continue caring for and exhibiting the collection. But she added that if no viable local arrangement emerges by her Sept. 10 deadline, "the only available alternative is for the Court to attempt to rework the Crystal Bridges Agreement to more closely approximate Ms. O'Keeffe's intent. Certainty and closure must be brought to this matter."

On pages 13-15 of the above-linked decision, the judge clearly delineates the eight changes that she seeks in the Crystal Bridges deal, the first of which involves insuring that the Bentonville, AR, museum does not eventually acquire more than a half-share in the Stieglitz collection, by lending money to Fisk and "obtain[ing] a security interest in the debtor's [Fisk's] undivided 50% interest of the artwork." She warns of the possibility that, if Fisk were to default on such loans, Crystal Bridges could eventually seize 100% ownership of the collection:

Over time, especially considering Fisk's financial circumstances, Crystal Bridges could obtain much more or full title to all of the Stieglitz Collection. This result must be removed from any modified Joint Ownership Agreement.

Provided that her eight conditions are met and that no local solution for care of the collection is found, Judge Lyle indicates that she would allow Crystal Bridges' $30-million purchase of a half-share of the collection to go forward.

What concerns me about the decision is that the ball has now been thrown in the Attorney General's court: He's been charged with finding a way to keep the collection in Nashville or risk losing it. But while AG Robert Cooper has encouraged local heroes to step forward, it's not really part of his job description to go around to local donors and institutions, hat-in-hand, soliciting funds and exhibition space. Any rescue may have to be engineered by local patrons and institutions, perhaps with assistance from the city's and/or the state's executive branch (or even AAMD).

I hope that the Frist Center for the Visual Arts (or why not Vanderbilt University?) will step up as a new custodian. Frist, thus far, has refused to comment on the decision or its own possible future role.

Meanwhile, Chancellor Lyle's 20-day clock is ticking and the Court of Appeals is waiting: That's likely to be the next scene in this never-ending legal drama.

Orange "A" marks the spot: The planned site for the Broad Collection

Eli Broad's decision, announced yesterday, to build in Downtown LA a Diller Scofidio + Renfro-designed museum for his collection should be a cultural and a civic boon for the city: It will help to anchor a tripartite arts district---also including the Gehry-designed Walt Disney Concert Hall (the big white building at the top center of the above map) and the Isozaki-designed Museum of Contemporary Art (near the lower left corner). And it will help to energize urban redevelopment in an area that needs a boost. The announcement came as the project was officially greenlighted by the city.

Below is the street (currently with scant foot traffic) where the new Broad-bankrolled facility, costing some $80-100 million, will rise:


Broad Collection facility will be built to the left of the Disney Concert Hall (above), home to the LA Philharmonic.  MOCA banner is on lamppost to the right.

Back in 2008, when Broad defied expectations by announcing that he would not donate his collection to the new Broad Contemporary Art Museum at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, I wrote that it would "be interesting to see if Broad eventually goes the same route as [Donald] Fisher, endeavoring to establish a single-collector museum."

Ironically, it now turns out that the late Fisher's contemporary collection has been committed as a 100-year loan to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (which recently selected the Snøhetta architectural firm to design an expansion to house it). Meanwhile, despite his historically strong patronage ties to both LACMA and MOCA, Broad is forging ahead independently, with a 120,000-square-foot museum of his own.

Questions have been raised (in David Ng's and Jori Finkel's LA Times report) about whether this is one too many contemporary art museums for LA. I say, the more the merrier, particularly since this newcomer comes with a strong collection and sizable endowment---some $200 million---to secure its future beyond the lifetime of its tireless founder, the 77-year-old megacollector/philanthropist. LACMA's and MOCA's loss---an important collection that both may have coveted---is still LA's gain.

According to the Broad Foundation's announcement (linked at the top):

The Broad Collection [as the new museum is called] will include approximately 50,000 square feet of sky lit galleries, a lecture hall for up to 200 people, and a public lobby with display space and a museum shop. The project will also include state-of-the-art archive, study and art storage space that will be available to scholars and curators who want to research works in the collection and borrow artworks for their institutions through The Broad Art Foundation's worldwide lending program.

About 300 of the 2,000 works in the Broads' personal and foundation collections will be shown at any one time, leaving plenty of inventory still available for the loan program.

There will be no director's search for this new museum: Joanne Heyler, the Broad Foundation's longtime director and chief curator, steps up to oversee a staff of "about 100 positions, including contract and part-time," the foundation's spokesperson, Karen Denne, told me. "It will have a core staff of 15 to 20."


Joanne Heyler, director, the Broad Collection

Denne said that while "exact programming is still being developed," the single-collector museum may occasionally "exhibit works from other collections. But the focus will be on our artists."

Among those represented in depth: Joseph Beuys, Cindy Sherman, Jeff Koons, John Baldessari, Mike Kelley, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Eric Fischl, Leon Golub, Andreas Gursky, Damien Hirst, Glenn Ligon, Sharon Lockhart, Lari Pittman, Charles Ray, Ed Ruscha, Philip Taaffe, Robert Therrien, Terry Winters, Christopher Wool, Richard Artschwager, Chuck Close, Jasper Johns, Ellsworth Kelly, Roy Lichtenstein, Robert Rauschenberg, Frank Stella, Cy Twombly, Andy Warhol.

I think that if the Broad is to always remain a vital museum, not a collector's mausoleum, it will need to Broad-en its sights---developing dynamic programming that views the collection as a springboard, not a straitjacket. This will mean bringing in some new curatorial blood and admitting outside loans into the mix.

[UPDATE: Here are LA Times art critic Christopher Knight's suggestions for keeping the Broad Collection vital.]

Details about the architectural design for the new facility will not be released until October, when construction of a three-story parking garage will begin. Museum construction is expected to begin in 2011, with completion in late 2012.

The LA Times' architecture critic, Christopher Hawthorne, got an advance look, a few weeks ago, at the designs submitted by the six finalists for the project, including the winners, Diller Scofidio + Renfro, who had also been on the shortlist for SFMOMA's Fisher-related expansion.

In an article for today's paper, Hawthorne writes:

The news that New York firm Diller Scofidio + Renfro has finally, officially been named architect of the new Broad Collection museum in downtown Los Angeles proves a couple of things quite clearly. One is that in a design competition as constrained and carefully controlled as the one Eli Broad has been running, a few big conceptual ideas dramatically presented---rather than an inventive treatment of a building's shape---can go a long way....

The most dramatic element of the firm's proposal---its wow moment---is a lobby space that will bring pedestrians entering the museum from Grand Avenue face to face, through glass, with drivers on their way down to the museum's parking garage.

Yikes! A drive-through museum. "This ain't no disco. This is LA." No runaway cars, please. And make sure to budget in some very effective shielding of the museum from exhaust fumes and traffic vibrations.

From his tentative appraisal of the tentative design plans, it appears that Hawthorne shares some of my misgivings about the architects, whose best moment, for me, was the Whitney Museum's engaging and absorbing 2003 exhibition devoted to their inventive conceptual projects.

According to Hawthorne:

The firm hasn't always proved that it can turn that flow of ideas into convincing, rigorously built architectural space, as least on an entirely consistent basis. Doing so in this case will be complicated by having the passionate and highly involved Broad as a client.

If he was hands-on during the planning of the lackluster Renzo Piano-designed Broad Contemporary Art Museum at LACMA, imagine how "highly involved" Broad will be in conceiving his own collection's permanent digs. In the dance between client and architect, Broad, a construction mogul, likes to lead.

...Judith Dobrzynski in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal---No More "Cathedrals of Culture". It couldn't happen to a better reporter or publication: "Journalist X" (as I had dubbed my then unknown competitor) is my respected colleague at both the WSJ and Arts Journal (with her Real Clear Arts blog). I blame neither Judith nor the WSJ for accepting a first shot at the Association of Art Museum Directors' new president. And Judith, of course, carried if off with her usual aplomb.

But I do blame AAMD for allowing this: keeping other reporters (including me) at bay from the time of the June 9 appointment of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts' director, Kaywin Feldman, until the WSJ's Aug. 24 publication of Dobrzynski's take on her.

When I was informed that I'd have to take a number, I chose to get off the line.

I then wrote:

Playing favorites in the first weeks of this new assignment is contrary to the public-spirited nature of her [Feldman's] position as de facto spokesperson for American art museum directors....For what it's worth, I have formally withdrawn my request for an interview.

I do hope that if I place a future call to Kaywin to ask about specific museum-related issues, she'll now feel free to pick up the phone. Still, she's lost her chance at the much coveted CultureGrrl Q&A. (Small price to pay, undoubtedly, for the much larger, more coveted WSJ cynosure.)

Those grapes sure do taste sour.

So to cleanse my palate, I need to thank CultureGrrl Donor 143 from Oak Park, IL, Repeat CultureGrrl Donor 144 from Santa Monica and super-generous Repeat CultureGrrl Donor 145 from Brooklyn. (No, it's NOT two-part Q&A recipient Arnold Lehman, nor anyone else from his Brooklyn Museum!)

In a statement posted this evening on its website, Fisk University demonstrates a serious case of delusional wishful thinking in its characterization of today's court decision that nixed the $30-million Fisk/Crystal Bridges Museum collection-sharing plan as currently written. The court did say that if no alternate Nashville-based plan for the collection could be put forth within 20 days, it would consider a revised Crystal Bridges plan that would more closely adhere to Georgia O'Keeffe's stipulations for the care and display of the Stieglitz Collection that she donated to Fisk.

But Fisk, rewriting the ruling to its own liking, incorrectly and misleadingly declared the following:

The ruling...gives the Attorney General until September 10, 2010 to craft an alternate proposal providing Fisk with $30 million [emphasis added] and an alternate Nashville location for display and maintenance of the [Stieglitz] Collection.