CultureGrrl

Edward Hicks, "The Peaceable Kingdom with the Leopard of Serenity," 1846-48, from Ralph Esmerian's collection
Photo: Sotheby's

The Wall Street Journal's new lifestyles magazine, WSJ, which debuted Saturday, had already gone to press when news broke that the record auction price for American folk art---$9.67 million for an 1846-48 version (above) of Edward Hicks' "The Peaceable Kingdom"---was never actually paid by the successful bidder at Sotheby's May 22 auction. That price figured prominently in the new magazine's piece about the burgeoning American folk art market, The Lion's Share.

One day before the inaugural issue of the 100-page magazine hit the stands, Felicia Lee of the NY Times reported that Sotheby's was suing the bidder who reneged, Halsey Minor, for $16.8 million. (Minor told Lee that he intended to countersue.)

The Hicks already had a troubled market history going into this aborted sale: It was unsuccessfully offered privately by Sotheby's from the collection of the financially beleaguered benefactor of the American Folk Art Museum, Ralph Esmerian. When the undisclosed minimum bid was unmet, the painting was put up for public auction.

This, of course, reminds me of the infamous "auction record" set in 1989 (since broken) by de Kooning's ''Interchange,'' knocked down at Sotheby's, New York, for $20.7 million. The Tokyo dealers who made the winning bid failed to pay. Nonetheless, that artist's "record price" was cited for years to come.

Another iteration of "Peaceable Kingdom," this one from the collection of the late arts benefactor J. Irwin Miller and his wife, is being offered for an estimated $4-6 million on Sept. 25 at Christie's. It is anomalously inserted in the American furniture sale (where it is the highest-estimated lot), rather than the American paintings sale being held earlier the same day (where estimates top out at a mere $100,000).

In case you'd like to hear some of the outtakes from my brief remarks aired Thursday on WNYC about Ann Temkin's promotion at the Museum of Modern Art (and also my unaired comments about Richard Armstrong's expected appointment as next director of the Guggenheim), the radio station has posted two audio segments from my commentary on its culture blog, here.

Oops, he did it again.

In May I reported that Francesco Rutelli's penchant for repatriation through the press, rather than through quiet diplomacy, had survived his terminated tenure as Italy's culture minister: He had, at that time, told the credulous Associated Press that Italy had reached a verbal agreement with the Cleveland Museum for the return of objects, which the museum's spokesperson emphatically denied when I did my fact-checking.

Now, in a phone interview published yesterday in Il Messaggero, the Rome-based newspaper, Rutelli claims:

[Italy's] accord with Cleveland has been concluded. I have handed over the documents to my successor. They now need to be carried out.

So I contacted Cleveland for verification and its answer was much as it had been in response to Rutelli's previous jump-the-gun pronouncement:

Information that is currently appearing in Italian media sources is incorrect with respect to works in the collection of the Cleveland Museum of Art. The Cleveland Museum of Art continues to hold discussions with Italian officials; however, no agreement has been reached to transfer any objects from the collection of the Cleveland Museum of Art to Italy and no timetable for conclusion of these discussions has been set.

A spirit of cooperation and confidentiality has informed the discussions between the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Italian government to date, and we look forward to this continuing.

Aside from the controversies it stirred up---not only with the Cleveland Museum but also with Sandro Bondi, the man who, after the recent Italian elections, usurped the politically appointed post that Rutelli clearly relished---I enjoyed the Italian newspaper piece because it taught me that my soubriquet for Rutelli is "il Grande Rimpatriatore" in Italian. I also now know that Italian for "blogger" is "blogger" and that Rutelli knows how to work the press (as if I didn't know that already).

The spouse of a journalist, Rutelli first got his PR guy to alert me that the Great Repatriator was putting in an appearance at the Getty Museum. Then he made sure to inform Fabio Isman, the "Messaggero" interviewer, about my nickname for Rutelli, which I had included in my post about the planned visit. Isman led with my ironically intended soubriquet (which I suppose Rutelli likes, even though he's smart enough to get my satiric edge):

A New York blogger who for years has, with great persistence, followed "stolen art" [Isman's word for antiquities illegally removed from source countries] has called him "the Great Repatriator" and announced his visit with a "peace pipe" [Isman's term, not mine, even though he put it in quotes], intending to smoke it [!?!] with Michael Brand [the Getty's director], who was at the door waiting for him.

What I REALLY want to know is: Did they inhale? And what's Rutelli smoking?

And in related news: Arts funding in Italy, post-Rutelli, has apparently fallen on hard times, according to this piece by Elisabetta Povoledo in yesterday's NY Times.

Okay, enough with health care, the housing crisis, the economy and Iraq. Let's focus on what really matters:

I've already posted about Barack Obama's arts policy, and in the interests of equal time, I've been scouring the web, trying during this Republican National Convention week to find John McCain's cultural stance. On this, the celebrated POW appears to be MIA.

I couldn't bring myself to read the entire Republican Party Platform, so I performed a search on the word "arts" came up with "counterpARTS." Searching for "culture" brought up many more choices: "military culture," "culture of radical terror," "shared culture and values," "entrenched culture of official Washington," "entrepreneurial culture," and that old favorite, "agriCULTURE"...but nothing about the culture we all know and love.

Greg Allen in his greg.org blog observes:

John McCain's arts policy is apparently not to have one. His website doesn't mention the arts, arts education, or federal arts organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts at all.

And this from Jerome Weeks in Texas' Art and Seek blog:

In 1999, he [McCain] said, "I have opposed federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts because I believe it is not proper to use tax dollars for what many Americans feel are the obscene and inappropriate projects this organization has supported. I support providing federal block grants to the states for arts education and artistic endeavors pursued by state and local authorities, while assuring that federal tax dollars are not spent on obscene or offensive material."

Hopefully, he has by now gotten over the NEA Four.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution gives us a glimpse of the kind of art McCain likes, as photographed in his office: unidentified "Southwestern artwork" selected by wife Cindy (photo #3 at the link); black-and-white photos of Native Americans by the late Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater" (photo #9).

The Atlanta newspaper also shows us Obama's office, which includes a painting of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall by Chaz Guest, on loan from the DuSable Museum of African-American History in Chicago (photo #4); a seascape painted by Ted Kennedy (photo #7).

I was, of course, just kidding in the first paragraph. The fate of the world doesn't rest on the candidates' arts policies or lack thereof. Still, it's a matter of some interest.

Ann Temkin

Yesterday's chosen sound bite on WNYC focused on my mild misgivings about Ann Temkin's appointment at the Museum of Modern Art. So I feel it's worth reiterating what I posted on this blog, before I spoke on the radio: I think she's a solid choice, with a creditable track record of acquisitions and exhibitions. What's more, I think there's a good chance that she'll rise to the challenge of her new position as chief curator of painting and sculpture.

My qualms have to do with the fact that, so far, I don't see her playing in the same league as her illustrious predecessors, John Elderfield, Kirk Varnedoe and William Rubin---all legendary artworld luminaries of formidable intellect who were deeply immersed in the modernist canon that was the foundation of MoMA's collections and exhibitions. Temkin has indeed organized some shows of earlier art (such as Brancusi and Duchamp, back when she was at the Philadelphia Museum), but she has more consistently focused on more recent contemporary art.

The shows that she's done at MoMA have, by and large, not been much of a curatorial stretch: the UBS corporate collection (only some of which was given to MoMA), the collection donated to MoMA by Edward Broida, and her recent Color Chart eye-popper---pleasing enough, but lightweight. Happily, Elderfield, in his new emeritus role at MoMA, has Matisse and de Kooning productions in the works. Anything he puts his mind to provides us with revelatory insights about artists we thought we knew. (But has he yet gotten Matisse's condition-compromised "Swimming Pool" ready for prime time?)

As for Richard Armstrong, Tom Krens' heir apparent at the Guggenheim, by all accounts he's done a fine job at the Carnegie Museum of Art. But he hasn't really played in the big leagues. He was a young curator at the controversy-prone Whitney Museum, who eventually became director of an admirable but comparatively modest institution in Pittsburgh. Is he ready for the Global Guggenheim, which will remain a high-profile, international institution, even if part of his mandate is to scale back and return to core values?

I'm cautiously optimistic that both seasoned professionals have what it takes to grow into their new assignments and do a fine job. We can only hope.

Some time after 4 p.m. today, you can hear my brief comments on on WNYC's "All Things Considered" about the news of Ann Temkin's and Richard Armstrong's appointments at the Museum of Modern Art and the Guggenheim Museum, respectively.

Before the taping, I contacted the Guggenheim for an update on the status of Armstrong's expected designation as director of both the international Guggenheim Foundation and the Guggenheim Museum in New York. (There will be no separate director for the New York flagship facility, as there was during Lisa Dennison's brief tenure in that spot.)

I was told that Armstrong is the Guggenheim's "leading candidate" and "contract negotiations are in progress." Furthermore, Eleanor Goldhar, the museum's deputy director for external affairs, told me that she had spoken to Armstrong for the first time "12 hours ago....He's really nice. Everybody loves him!"

How long will that honeymoon last?

The Guggenheim's board is scheduled to meet Sept. 23 on the directorship and other matters, but is thinking of finalizing Armstrong's appointment earlier, now that the cat's out of the bag.

If all goes according to plan, my comments will be part of the in-rotation segment on the museum appointments, which you can hear in the New York metropolitan area on 93.9 FM and 820 AM, or live on the web here (click the red-boxed arrows on the left).

I'll update this post with a direct link to the audio podcast, if and when it's available.

UPDATE: On a day when everyone is preoccupied with presidential politics and hurricane aftermaths, the news report on museum musical chairs was limited to a New York minute---a brief announcement of the two appointments, with a two-sentence opinion bite from a certain "art critic and regular contributor to WNYC":

I haven't seen her [Temkin] do the kind of sweeping, intellectually brilliant, provocative, eye-opening shows that her predecessor John Elderfield did. He was truly one of the great legendary curators at MoMA, and she's got some very big shoes to fill."

There's a bit more from my commentary on WNYC's website, here.

COMING SOON---a few of my other quibbles, not heard today in drive-time.

The Krensmobile, parked outside the Guggenheim's staff entrance

What's the single laudatory word most often used to describe Tom Krens, whose successor as director of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation is expected to be Richard Armstrong, the director of Pittsburgh's Carnegie Museum of Art?

VISIONARY.

Wait a minute! That's the same word used to describe Armstrong in the first paragraph of this editorial, published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last June, when he announced he would be leaving his Carnegie post at the end of the year. (Did he already envision himself then at the Gugg?)

The Post-Gazette opined:

It goes without saying that, even before the arrival of Richard Armstrong, the Carnegie Museum of Art was a first-rate institution. What it needed was a visionary like him to prod it to the next level.

When Mr. Armstrong leaves his position at the end of the year, he will leave behind exceptionally big shoes to fill....

In addition to an unerring eye, Mr. Armstrong has a talent for managing, organizing and raising money -- an enviable quality in museum directors. Today, the Carnegie Museum of Art is in excellent fiscal health because of it.

And the newspaper's art critic, Mary Thomas, had nothing praise for his myriad accomplishments in her detailed appraisal of his 12-year tenure. I not sure he's ready for the hypercritical New York press.

Wait. What was I thinking? Have I forgotten that he was previously a curator at the Whitney Museum, under the directorship of another controversial Tom (who bore the same last name as young Richard)? Here's an excerpt from a Michael Brenson review in the NY Times of a 1988 David Park exhibition:

The catalogue is not worthy of a major museum. Richard Armstrong, the curator of the show, who has been responsible for two other Whitney exhibitions this year, on Richard Artschwager and Elizabeth Murray, provides plenty of useful information, but his essay is neither probing, nor passionate, nor exhaustive....

When the Whitney has to deal with an artist who falls outside the mainstream critical framework of the last 25 years, the museum's will seems to sag and its intellectual resources dry up.

But what I really want to know is: Will Krazy Krens still get to ride with the Guggenheim Motorcycle Club?

Richard Armstrong

Kate Taylor gets her scoops the old-fashioned way---by working her sources. In a story posted late today, she fingers Richard Armstrong, director of the Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, as the person whom the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation is expected to name as its next director, succeeding Tom Krens.

Taylor reports:

Through a spokeswoman at the Carnegie Museum, Mr. Armstrong confirmed that he is in final negotiations with the Guggenheim....Mr. Armstrong, who is 59, has been the director of the Carnegie Museum since 1996. He announced his retirement in June.

Taylor then repeated the same information that I gave you five days ago (here and here) about the possible Final Four in the Metropolitan Museum's director search, attributing this list to "sources." Kate had directly credited CultureGrrl in previous articles (here and here). Is there now a no-blog-quoting policy at the paper?

Finally, Taylor buried the important new MoMA apppointment at the end of the article. Could it be that she shares my pique?

UPDATE: Carol Vogel of the NY Times catches up with Taylor, but graciously credits her with the scoop.

Get-It-First Vogel

That does it. I've really had it with selective disclosure of important breaking news by cultural institutions. (So has distinguished architecture critic Martin Filler, who previously vented his frustration on CultureGrrl, here.)

I've known major mainstream-media cultural journalists who have boycotted important stories that were spoonfed to the NY Times first and withheld from the peons until later. I also understand that bloggers are lower in the pecking order than major publications. I (very grudgingly) accept that.

But when Carol Vogel this afternoon broke the important announcement of the successor to John Elderfield as the Museum of Modern Art's chief curator of painting and sculpture, I called the press office and meekly requested the press release and a photo. I was told that the announcement was not going to be made until tomorrow.

"The announcement was already made TODAY in the New York Times. It's on their website!" I protested.

"A press release will be sent out at 6 a.m tomorrow," was the final reply.

Trust me, CultureGrrl will not be setting her alarm clock. What's more, she is going to pout, sulk, throw a tantrum and turn her computer monitor to the wall. Sour grapes? No, journalistic principle. I admire Ann. I think she's a solid choice. My beef is not with her but with this misguided attempt to restrict press coverage and play favorites.

End of story.