November 2006 Archives
I need to get far away from the world of allegedly stolen antiquities: to a museum that has barely begun to form its own permanent collection, most of which is art from the 21st-century; to a place whose scheduled opening was delayed (but not nearly as delayed as the Museum of Modern Art's new education and research wing).
I'll bet you've all got it. What you may NOT have is much (or any) posting from me until Monday. However (and I may live to regret this), I do now own a laptop, so I may not be able to restrain myself. We'll see how obsessive-compulsive I am about feeding the blog-beast!
Tom Hoving, director of the Metropolitan Museum when it was considering a joint acquisition with oil mogul J. Paul Getty of the celebrated Greek bronze statue of an athlete, discusses the historical background of the current ownership controversy:
The old man, J. Paul, insisted before he purchased the bronze (to share with the Met in exchange for the Met's lending the Boscotrecase frescoes the the Getty indefinitely) that the Italian government grant permission in writing [for the two U.S. museums] to acquire and exhibit it.
My negotiations with Artemis and Heinz Herzer [who eventually sold the bronze to the Getty alone] collapsed when Herzer insisted on $4.2 million. Getty wanted to pay $3.9 million. [The Getty Museum paid $3.95 million for the bronze in 1977, after J. Paul Getty's death.]
I had already informed Artemis and Herzer that the Getty and the Met would not complete the transaction until the full papers were in hand from the proper Italian authorities. All this is in the Getty files.
Jiri Frel [the Getty's then antiquities curator] pushed for the purchase after Getty's death, even though he knew of the old man's demands.
The return of this illicit work of art has nothing to do with legal issues or with how many inches within international waters the bronze was situated in when it was snagged in the nets of the boat, the "Feruccio Ferri." It has to do with the wishes of the man whose largesse paid for everything at the Getty---including [director Michael] Brand's salary, the expenses for the Trust officers and the fees for their platoons of lawyers.
Why can't the Getty simply respect the donor's [J. Paul Getty's] wishes and hand it back to Italy?
Christian Kleinbub, assistant professor of art history at Ohio State University, published a pro-Getty letter to the editor in yesterday's LA Times. Here's a somewhat more pointed letter that he wrote on Tuesday to CultureGrrl:
I write to share my own feelings on the recent negotiations between [Italian Culture Minister Francesco] Rutelli and American museums, for I believe it has gone too far. Too many members of the Italian elites view Americans (as many do) as barbarians, unworthy and uncomprehending of their art. It is ironic that, given the many things that Americans have done to enhance the accessibility of artworks in Italy, the Italian Cultural Ministry cannot work itself towards a compromise over a statue on which it has dubious claims. I, like many of my colleagues, sniff opportunism and even nationalism at work here.
I hope that I am not the only person who finds it ironic that the Getty Bronze, a Greek
statue, sank while being borne to Italy---the spoils of Roman power.
COMING NEXT: Tom Hoving blogs back on the Getty.
Terracotta Kylix, Greek, Laconian, ca. 560-500 B.C., composite of a man, a sea creature and snakes, attributed to the Typhon Painter from Cerveteri, necropolis of Bufaloreccia, lent by the Republic of Italy
Size and ceremony aren't everything, but the low-key loan by Italy to the Metropolitan Museum of an 8 1/2-inch wide drinking cup (above), displayed inconspicuously today in a case with other small objects, contrasted sharply with the dramatic public unveiling yesterday of the colossal statue of "Eirene" at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.
Italian journalists and CultureGrrl tagged along this afternoon as the Met's director, Philippe de Montebello, and Italian Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli met face-to-face for the first time. Rutelli, an urbane, articulate and media-savvy politician (married to a prominent Italian journalist) was formerly mayor of Rome and since April has been Italy's culture minister and, more importantly, its deputy prime minister.
After exchanging pleasantries in Italian, French and English. and admiring objects arrayed in the Met's galleries, de Montebello and Rutelli held a brief closed-door meeting, after which Rutelli pronounced himself completely satisfied with Italy's cooperative relationship with the Met, and de Montebello recited a list of the many loans made by the Met to current exhibitions in Italy. When I asked Philippe whether the subject of Italy's designs on certain objects from the collection of Met benefactor Shelby White came up during the private discussion, he shrugged and was silent.
Journalists got a better sense of Rutelli's determination to repatriate illicitly exported antiquities at an event earlier in the day at the Italian Cultural Institute. To general applause from the mostly Italian audience, he publicly declared: "All works of art that have been stolen have to come home!"
In conversation with me afterwards, he reiterated Italy's position that the Getty's bronze statue of an athlete should be regarded "stolen," because it was "smuggled" out of Italy without an export permit. He also took issue with the Getty's assertion that the statue had been found in international waters. But more important to him is what he described as the "moral aspect" of the controversy.
Mixtec Bell, Mexico, c. 1200-1521
The show was so nice, I'll say it twice: I adored "Gold" at the American Museum of Natural History. It came across like your best 8th-grade science and social studies teachers combined---plying you with fun facts; dazzling you with fascinating illustrative materials (huge, fancifully shaped gold nuggets, gold ingots, gold jewelry, Beyoncé's gold Grammy, and, let us not forget, the gold penis shield); and illuminating, in the liveliest possible way, everything you could possibly want to know about this versatile mineral. On top of all that, the curators found creative ways to tangibly illustrate gold's unique properties---from a 12-by-12-by-8-foot room entirely lined with just three ounces of gold leaf (to demonstrate the metal's malleability) to a scale that informs you how much you'd be worth if your weight were in gold instead of mere flesh and blood.
So why am I mildly disgruntled? When I got to the museum shop (brandishing the wrong metal---a platinum credit card), I found that although I could buy all manner of gilded geegaws, there was no catalogue for this show. I had wanted to bring all those chunks of gold and knowledge home with me in one sumptuously illustrated volume. But all the the shop clerk could offer me was a lackluster "companion book," bearing no specific connection to the show. The best "catalogue" turns out to be the extremely rich website for the show.
The strong publishing program that I've come to take for granted at major art museums is missing from the AMNH: Steve Reichl, the museum's director of media relations, told me that producing catalogues, which had been tried for a few previous major shows, had proven to be "too much work and not worth it. We're not set up for it." Maybe they should pick the brains of the publications department at that big art museum across Central Park.
And while they're at it, AMNH should sometimes try to borrow some objects from the Metropolitan Museum's extensive collections. The historic gold artifacts from around the world that are displayed in the AMNH's exhibition are mostly drawn from that museum's extensive collection---appealing but not of the uniformly exceptional artistic quality that is standard at the Met.
Better yet, New York museums should go a step further and consider coordinating major exhibition projects. Several institutions in the Berkshires are doing just that, in jointly planning next summer's Season of Dutch Arts.
I have previously mentioned how desirable it might have been for the Museum of Modern Art and the Met to have presented "Dada" and "Glitter and Doom" simultaneously, to allow the public to compare two very different takes on the same historical period.
Similarly, what if several New York City museums had simultaneously mined their golden riches to enrich their audiences? Admittedly, this might require a more cooperative spirit than this big city's highly competitive cultural institutions usually manage to muster. But the synergistic rewards might be well worth the effort.
Maybe they can get together to explore the theme of AMNH's next show in what seems to be its continuing series devoted to the material used for jewelry (diamonds, amber and pearls, thus far). What's likely to be next? (CultureGrrl consults her jewelry box.)
Silver!
I surmise that this statue from Italy...
"Eirene" (Goddess of Peace), Roman, Imperial Period, late first century B.C. to early first century A.D., (Height: over 9 feet) Marble, body from Mt. Pentelikon, Greece, head from the Greek island of Paros, Lent by the Republic of Italy
...is intended to substitute for this statue, returned to Italy on Sept. 28 by the Boston Museum of Fine Arts:
"Sabina," Roman, Imperial Period, ca. 136 A.D. (Height: 79 1/2 in.) Marble, probably from the Greek island of Paros
Italian Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli and Boston Museum of Fine Arts director Malcolm Rogers, last seen together in Rome, had another joint photo opportunity at a press conference today at the museum, where the colossal Goddess of Peace, to reside in Boston for three years, blessed the auspicious beginning of Italy's promised loans of works of comparable importance to the 13 pieces that Boston relinquished in response to Italy's ownership claims. According to today's press release:
In Italy, the head and torso [of "Eirene"] had been displayed separately, but MFA conservators have joined the two pieces together for display for the first time in modern history.
Michael Brand, the beleaguered head of the Getty Museum, knows no peace and has brought his angst to the pages of today's LA Times. His Op-Ed essay largely recaps previous statements (here and here), giving his side of the reasons for the breakdown of negotiations with Italy.
He ends, in time-honored Op-Ed fashion (and I should know) with a pointed dig at his adversaries that will not win him any points at the negotiating table (if he ever manages to get back there):
We acknowledge that the Getty must do its part to resolve this matter. But Italy must resist the temptation to allow political concerns to eclipse the goal of art museums around the world to give the public access to our shared art and cultural heritage.
I feel Brand's frustration, but calling his opponents names---politically motivated or, even worse (as he does), "emotional"---is never a good strategy for restoring an atmosphere of cooperation and goodwill.
Architecture critic James Russell, in today's Bloomberg, has the guts to publish what CultureGrrl thought but dared not say: Renzo Piano may not be the Whitney Museum's best choice as architect, as it relocates its proposed expansion from well-mannered Madison Avenue to the gritty High Line. Russell writes:
The Whitney has pledged to continue with Piano, but his Madison Avenue design expressed constraint rather than aspiration. The museum's intentions would be more convincing if it chose an architect who could create the robust presence the Gansevoort setting demands. It does not need another of the spindly glass-and-metal pavilions---impeccable in their way---that Piano has reproduced in an increasingly formulaic way since Houston's brilliant Menil Collection of 1987.
The problem is: How, at this late date, could the Whitney possibly dump Piano, who has patiently devoted so much time to designing, tweaking and defending the most recent of the museum's three aborted expansions? And how could you pitch this project to other big-name architects, given the Whitney's dithering track record? Has anyone contacted Diller Scofidio + Renfro, who are already at work reimagining the High Line?
Can Christie's claim a new auction record for a Qing Dynasty ceramic without appending a big asterisk, when the buyer turns out to be the consignor's own sister?
Bloomberg reported that Alice Cheng was the Hong Kong auction's winning bidder today, at $19.5 million, for the Qing porcelain bowl sold by her own brother, 80-year-old Hong Kong art dealer Robert Chang. The final price (which includes the buyer's premium) trounced the top end of bowl's presale hammer-price estimate, $7.8 million.
This brought to mind another Great Moment in Auction History, when a "record price" for contemporary art was set by Willem de Kooning's ''Interchange,'' auctioned at Sotheby's, New York, for $20.7 million in 1989. The only problem was, the dealers who won the bidding, Mountain Tortoise Company of Tokyo, couldn't pay for it. Nonetheless, this dubious record continued to be trumpeted by the auction houses for years to come.
It's a variation on the old philosophical question that begins, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it..."
The question raised by the current Roundabout Theatre production of George Bernard Shaw's "Heartbreak House" is:
If a character is excised from a play and no one notices, does it nevertheless violate the author's intentions?
The answer: YES.
Ever the college English major, I decided to prep for my recent night at the theater by re-reading the play, which I had seen many years ago. Imagine my surprise when "The Burglar" (aka "The Pirate" or Billy Dunn) never appeared, let alone served his literary purpose as a comically pragmatic foil to the charmingly frivolous, self-indulgent members of the Shotover household. He is also meant to be correlated with the real pirate of the piece, the self-important but eventually unmasked Boss Mangan, Shaw's stereotypic capitalist. At the end of Shaw's full version of the play, the thief and the businessman together meet a violent death, as they seek shelter from bombs in a gravel pit. Mangan blows up alone in the current production. The rest of the characters, fully exposed and energized by the excitement, are spared. (Have I just spoiled the ending?)
Nowhere is this textual expurgation mentioned in the program distributed to audience members. Nor have I seen it discussed in any of the several reviews I have read. Admittedly it's a long play, and more than one audience member gave up after the slow first act (in which Billy Dunn does not appear). But if they're going to shorten it, they should at least tell us.
Although Dunn is a secondary character, Shaw puts him to good use, intertwining his checkered past with the histories of the master of the house, Captain Shotover (who talks about him, early in the play), and his servant (to whom the burglar had once been married). Dunn provides both comic relief and additional insights into the character of the Captain, whom he says "can divine water, spot gold, explode a cartridge in your pocket and see the truth hidden in the heart of man."
Such an otherwise splendid production should have given Shaw his full measure of verbiage.
Fourth time (Graves, Koolhaas, Piano, Piano) is the charm? Carol Vogel of the NY Times gets the High Line scoop (to be published in tomorrow's paper, but online tonight). CultureGrrl gets to link. (What, me jealous?) The Coalition of Concerned Whitney Neighbors, as well as the Defenders of the Historic Upper Eastside and the Hotel Carlyle Owners Corp., get to pop the champagne corks and focus their wrath on Aby Rosen's proposed 30-story tower, instead of on the Whitney's aborted nine-story addition.
No details about the new plans yet on the Whitney's website, even though, according to Vogel's exclusive and highly detailed report, the museum "reached a conditional agreement" five days ago to buy the property for its new building from the city. Why should this information vacuum surprise me? The most recent press release posted under Expansion News is "Landmarks Preservation Commission Unanimously Approves Whitney Expansion and Renovation," May 24, 2005.
No matter what happens, there's always something for land-use lawyer Sandy Lindenbaum to do. I'll have to remember to ask him sometime if he bought that Klimt I caught him ogling!
The disturbing breakdown in negotiations between the J. Paul Getty Museum and the Italian Culture Ministry revolves around competing claims for one object---the ancient Greek statue of an athlete---formerly dubbed "The Getty Bronze." Purchased by the museum in 1977 for $3.95 million, it is now called the "Athlete of Lysippos" by the Italians and described by the Getty as the "Statue of a Victorious Youth" (probably not by Lysippos but by a later Greek sculptor working in the second or third century B.C., according to the Getty).
Nomenclature is the least of the disagreements between the Italians and the Getty. Here's a rundown of the arguments on both sides of the Battle of the Bronze:
THE ITALIAN ARGUMENT
According to an Italian-language article from the ANSA news agency, which the Italian Culture Ministry says accurately represents its position, the ministry asserts that the bronze was stolen and illegally exported. The article points out that that the claim of a fisherman (who died in 2004) that he had found the bronze in "extraterritorial waters...has never been proved." Even if it was found in international waters, Ugo Zottin, head of Italy's Carabinieri for Cultural Property asserts that the statue was illegally exported from Italy, traveling from there to Switzerland and Frankfurt before arriving in the United States. "There are no documents that prove its legal exportation," Zottin said. (The 1977 NY Times article by Grace Glueck that reported the Getty's purchase said that the bronze had been held "for the last six years" by Heinz Herzer, a member of the international dealers consortium Artemis. Herzer was based in Munich, not Frankfort. A New York spokesman for Artemis, asked at the time of the Getty's purchase if there might be a "patrimonial challenge" to the bronze, replied, "No country has exercised a claim to it.")
THE GETTY'S ARGUMENT
On Nov. 20, the Getty sent Italian Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli a 20-page memorandum to "clarify why we believe the Getty's ownership of the Bronze is not subject to challenge." Some excerpts:
In 1964, the Bronze was pulled up in Italian fishermen's nets 30-40 miles off the coast of Italy, well outside of Italian territorial waters, which at that time extended only 6 nautical miles from shore. Over the years the fishermen who found the statue have offered to guide governmental archaeologists to the findspot. The Italian Ministery of Culture has never acted on this offer, despite the possibility that the lower legs and feet of the Bronze possibly could be recovered there. Had the government believed the statue was found in Italian territorial waters, it is unclear why it did not attempt to find the missing portion of the statue for scientific purposes, let alone to support its claim of ownership....
The Italian government alleges that the Bronze should be transferred to the Italian State because it must have been exported from Italy without a proper license sometime before 1972. However, Italian, U.S., and international law do not (and did not at the time of the export) require the transfer of the statue to Italy solely on the basis of possible violations of Italian export regulations, particularly given that the Bronze [being Greek] is not part of the Italian cultural patrimony....
The discovery of the Bronze did not result from the intentional pillaging of an archaeological site within national boundaries....The rationales behind the measures to stem the illicit trade in antiquities are not implicated in this situation.
What does seem clear, among all the brickbats and caveats, is that a cautiously cooperative relationship has degenerated into an adversarial one. It now appears that that the objects that the Getty had hoped to return in exchange for a far-reaching accord, including loans of Italian antiquities, may instead be used as courtroom evidence against the Getty's former curator, Marion True, now on trial in Italy on charges of trafficking in illegally excavated antiquities:
"The pieces will come to Italy not as a concession on the part of the Getty but as a seizure, the result of a procedure that is part of our legal process," Maurizio Fiorilli, a lawyer for the Culture Ministry, told Elisabetta Povoledo of the NY Times. Fiorilli indicated that the returned objects would be used to support the charges against True.
Michael Brand, director of the Getty Museum, had invited Minister Rutelli to stop by for a chat during his trip this week to the U.S. But the detailed schedule supplied to CultureGrrl today by the Ministry lists no such visit.
So much for goodwill and cooperation.
Italian Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli is in Washington today to hold a press conference and to meet with government officials in the White House, Congress and the State Department, as part of a whirlwind three-city tour. Tomorrow he meets with officials of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and Wednesday he is scheduled to meet in New York with the Metropolitan Museum's director, Philippe de Montebello, according to a spokesperson for the Italian Culture Ministry.
Presumably, he will be nailing down the specifics of the accords forged between Italy and the two museums, in which Boston and the Met will relinquish objects claimed by Italy in exchange for loans of comparable Italian antiquities, as yet unspecified.
UPDATE: Rutelli and Boston MFA director Malcolm Rogers will hold a press conference tomorrow afternoon "to unveil a major antiquity loaned from Italy" to the Boston museum.
COMING SOON: More details on the battle over the "Getty Bronze."
While you impatiently await my first post of the new week, please note that I did hit the keyboard over the Thanksgiving weekend. (So catch up, if you've been away.)
More importantly, please scroll down my righthand column, where you will see, for the first time, links to some of my articles published in the Mainstream Media---the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, LA Times and Art in America magazine.
That should keep my groupies busy, while I laboriously translate some Getty-related material in Italian:
"Nel mezzo del camin di nostra vita, mi ritrovai per una selva oscura che la diritta via era smarrita..."
(Brush up your Dante.)
MY BOOK
The Complete Guide to Collecting Art (Knopf)
IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA
NY TIMES OP-EDS:
For Sale: Our Permanent Collection (museum deaccessions)
Fashion Victim (Chanel at the Met)
Destroying the Museum to Save It (Barnes Foundation)
Reassembling Sundered Antiquities (Parthenon marbles)
WALL STREET JOURNAL:
Making Sales Look Stronger
Lee Krasner's "Little Image "Paintings
Ando-Designed Stone Hill Center for Conservation and Clark Exhibitions
Los Angeles' New Broad Museum of Contemporary Art
Philadelphia's New Perelman Building
The Walton Effect: Art World Is Roiled by Wal-Mart Heiress
The Seattle Art Museum: A Work in Progress
Upside Down and Backward, Yet Tame (Boston ICA)
Edith Wharton's Library Is Now an Open Book
Extreme Makeover: Smithsonian Edition (American Art and Portrait Gallery renovation)
This Museum's Expansion is Simply Effective (Minneapolis Institute)
Truth in Booty: Coming--and Staying--Clean (antiquities controversies)
A Betrayal of Trust (NY Public Library's art sales)
The Lost Museum (MoMA's art sales)
Endangered Species (single-collector jewel-box museums)
Money in Motion (the Guggenheim's finances)
The Fine Art of Genocide? (appraisals of Hitler's art)
LA TIMES OP-EDS:
Make Art Loans, Not War
Museums Can't Compete (public collecting endangered)
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER
Her Art Came First: Anne d'Harnoncourt's Labor of Love
ART IN AMERICA:
Refreshing the Smithsonian (the renovated SAAM and NPG)
The Atrium That Ate the Morgan (Renzo Piano's addition)
Hot Pots and Potshots (controversies over museum antiquities)
Musings on Museums (book review of "Whose Muse?")
NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO:
Criticism of AAM's Cultural Diplomacy Initiative
NEW YORK PUBLIC RADIO:
Museum of Arts and Design Opens
New Met Director, Brian Lehrer Show
Tom Campbell Named Met Director
Whitney Museum's Expansion
Fake Coptic Art at Brooklyn Museum
Spring '08 Art Auctions
Should Veterans or Newcomers Lead Arts Organizations?
Murakami at Brooklyn Museum
Whitney Biennial
Guggenheim Director Steps Down
Philippe de Montebello's Retirement
Fall '07 Art Auctions
Metropolitan Museum's "Age of Rembrandt" Show
Commentary on the Art Market
Tour of Sculpture Gardens, with Slideshow
Audio Commentary on the Met's New Greek and Roman Galleries
Glenn Lowry's Unorthodox Compensation Package
Commentary on Fall '07 Art Market
PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC RADIO:
Philadelphia Museum's "Gross Clinic" Deaccessions
Museums' Purchase and Sale of Eakins' Works (about one-third of the way into the program)
Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts' sale of Eakins' "The Cello Player"
Do not miss...I SAID, DO NOT MISS Tom Wolfe's electric kool-aid acid bath for real estate developers, on Page 10 of today's NY Times "Week in Review" section. Aby Rosen, who rallied artworld support from such luminaries as artist Jeff Koons and dealers Lawrence Salander and Larry Gagosian for the 30-story Norman Foster glass tower he wants to build over five-story 980 Madison Avenue, gets the Sherman McCoy treatment from Wolfe as the author's new version of the misguided Master of the Universe.
This cannot be mistaken for a fair-minded treatment of the battle between preservationists and developers: Foster, a celebrated architect whose recently completed Hearst Tower in New York received almost universal acclaim, is nowhere mentioned as the architect for Rosen's "Mondo Condo glass box." But, boy, Wolfe sure writes the hell out of this hot-button issue and it's a potent polemic!!!!!
(By the way, the best vantage point for gazing upon an unobstructed Hearst Tower is the upper deck of the ferries traveling from Weehawken, NJ to midtown Manhattan. Its facets glisten in the sun.)
We breathlessly await Norman Mailer's, Gore Vidal's and John Updike's responses to their authorial rival in letters to the editor. Power to the writers!
Or, as we said in the '60s, "Write On!"
Maxwell Anderson, director of the Indianapolis Museum, responds to CultureGrrl's previous post, identifying him as "a key advisor to Barbara and Lawrence Fleischman, whose extensive collection of ancient art was later given to the Getty":
While serving as a curator in the Metropolitan Museum's Greek and Roman Department until 1987, I actively encouraged the Fleischmans to donate their collection to the Met (certainly not to the Getty!). Even after leaving the Met to become a museum director, I wrote entries for the touring exhibition of their collection, believing then as now that objects lacking provenance are no less deserving of being published.
But I also believe it's important to distinguish between past practices, which were inadequately rigorous in pursuing provenance, and improved current practices, which the Getty was instrumental in fostering (even if, admittedly, after acquiring the bulk of the Fleischman collection, most of which was unprovenanced).
Leading U.S. museums once made a distinction between antiquities already in private collections and antiquities bought directly from the trade. That distinction has, over the last few years, become viewed by many of us as arbitrary, and a growing number of art museum professionals today believe that a bright line must be drawn when considering acquisitions from any source, so as not to unintentionally foster looting or the illicit trade.
Maxwell L. Anderson, director of the Indianapolis Museum of Art, leaped to the defense of Michael Brand and the J. Paul Getty Museum in a news report broadcast Wednesday on NPR.
Unmentioned in the radio report is that Anderson, a Greek and Roman specialist, played an important role in the development of the Getty's antiquities collection: He was a key advisor to Barbara and Lawrence Fleischman, whose extensive collection of ancient art was later given to the Getty. Anderson wrote a number of the entries for the Getty-published catalogue of their collection, "A Passion for Antiquities." Among the 26 objects that the Getty has now agreed to return to Italy is the object on that catalogue's cover---a South Etruscan terracotta of a Maenad and Silenos dancing (see Item 20 on this illustrated list of the 26 objects).
Here's what Anderson said on NPR, reacting to the breakdown of negotiations between the Getty's director, Brand, and Italy's culture minister, Francesco Rutelli:
I suppose the Getty makes a convenient foil by virtue of its extraordinary wealth and the fact that it has a past, in the 1970s and early '80s, of behaving with less than exemplary standards. But I think that all changed, ironically, under Marion True's tenure as curator and under John Walsh as director, and Michael Brand is simply trying to think to move the ball down the line to a kind of reciprocal approach of understanding that the past practices of the museum were not on par with what is expected today.
The Fleischman Collection was acquired by the Getty on John Walsh's and Marion True's watch.
UPDATES: Those of you linking to this post from ArtsJournal, please see my updates here and here.
A little Thanksgiving news bite with your turkey:
Italian Culture Minister Francesco Rutelli today held a press conference in Rome, where he "pinn[ed] the blame on the John [sic] Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles for a halt in the return of pillaged art treasures," according to the Italian news agency ANSA.
"The talks broke down because they suspended them. It was a unilateral decision," Rutelli charged today. To which the Getty's director, Michael Brand, replied, in a promptly drafted, detailed response to the press conference: "We remain open to resuming discussions with the Ministry at a moment's notice."
As explained in its press release on Tuesday, the Getty is refusing to return what Italy now says it must have as a condition for signing an agreement: the bronze sculpture that Italy calls "the Athlete of Lysippos" but that the Getty calls the "Statue of a Victorious Youth," (which is probably not by Lysippos but by a "later Greek sculptor working in the second or third century B.C.," according to the Getty's latest research). The Getty argues that there is no legal basis for relinquishing the sculpture, which is believed to have been found in 1964 by fishermen in international waters but which may at some point have been illegally exported from Italy. The Getty acquired it in 1977 and it promptly became the museum's signature work, dubbed "The Getty Bronze."
Meanwhile, ANSA reported, Rutelli is preparing to meet with Metropolitan Museum director Philippe de Montebello in New York on Nov. 29, "to go over some of the fine print of the February accord." In that agreement, the Met agreed to relinquish 21 objects in return for long-term loans from Italy of works "of equivalent beauty and importance."
In his response to the Italian press conference, Brand wrote:
During our meeting with Ministry officials on November 17, we offered substantial compromises, including the immediate transfer of full title to the Cult Statue of a Goddess [which Italy calls "the Morgantina Venus"], if the Italian government would join the Getty in conducting further research. We also were prepared to offer additional compromises, but unfortunately, our discussions ended when the Ministry issued an ultimatum that any agreement must include the return of the Statue of a Victorious Youth.
We remain open to resuming discussions with the Ministry at a moment's notice. I know the Minister is coming to the United States next week, and if he believes further discussions might allow us to find a way to reach a comprehensive collaborative agreement, I stand ready to meet with him. In fact, my hope is that the Minister might visit the Getty Villa, the only museum in the United States dedicated to Roman, Etruscan and Greek art and culture, so he can see for himself the impact the magnificent works of art displayed there have on the American public. It is for the people who value art and history that we must find a mutually satisfactory solution.
Or, as the Pilgrims said to the Indians, let's talk turkey.
(Click the link below to see the entire Getty press release, responding to Rutelli's news conference.)
I'm a bit late opining on the Gold show at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, but I did already tell you it was "extraordinary" and give you a tantalizing preview.
The virtue of my procrastination is that when Roberta Smith of the NY Times weighs in before me, I have the luxury of linking to her and saying, "ditto."
However, she did not have the luxury, in a family newspaper, of zeroing in on the provocative object I highlighted last week. And since she focused, at great length, on the ways in which the show was more than worth its weight in gold, she leaves me with little more to do than what I do best: quibble.
That, however, will have to wait till next week. Right now, I've got to hug the visiting Joyce with the Golden Hair, Gild the Turkey and braise the cardoon.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING FROM CULTUREGRRRRL!
MoMA's new Archive Reading Room, with a view of St. Thomas Church © 2006 Timothy Hursley
From the fleeting impressions I got during yesterday's brief press tour of the public spaces in the Museum of Modern Art's new Lewis B. and Dorothy Cullman Education and Research Building, it appears that architect Yoshio Taniguchi's design concepts for MoMA work better here, on a more human scale, than they do in the monumental gallery building that opened two years ago. The less cavernous atrium of the education wing echoes the prior wing's vocabulary of white slabs, interrupted by glass-walled overlooks, staggered at different levels. But here, it comes off as visually interesting, instead of oppressively intimidating.
The education wing boasts what the gallery wing was originally supposed to have but didn't: abundant natural light and breathtaking views of the sculpture garden, unimpeded by fritted or extremely darkened glass or by overhangs from lower-level canopies that frustratingly obstruct so many of the views from the gallery wing. The reading rooms feel so invitingly scholar-friendly that I can't wait to do some of the preliminary research on the book that I'm thinking of writing, for which I will need to troll MoMA's archives.
There was one embarrassing glitch on the press tour: I was in director Glenn Lowry's group, and our merry band had to disband from the elevator, which beeped and refused to move, despite the departure of a few volunteers who significantly lightened its load (maximum: 5,000 pounds). Betraying not a bit of the annoyance he must have felt, Glenn cheerfully led us down the decidedly unglamorous fire stairs.
This prompted me to ask Arash Yaghoubi, who was on hand as a representative of Structure Tone, the general contractor, whether there had been many glitches during the construction of the education building. He surprised me by launching into what was apparently going to be a detailed recital of the many construction complications, which was soon overheard by a representative of Kohn Pederson Fox, the executive architects. In a few moments, we were intercepted by PR people, who spirited away the young and imprudent Yaghoubi.
From this I surmise that the cause of two-year delay in completing the education wing, which was supposed to have opened simultaneously with the gallery wing, may have been more than the official explanation: slowdowns in fundraising and the decreased availability of construction personnel, caused by 9/11.
Incidentally, I now perceive that museums are probably way ahead of me when it comes to resourcefulness in fundraising: Yesterday I suggested that museums should allow donors to make online gifts, as is being done in Philadelphia's save-the-Eakins campaign. I now see that MoMA (and probably lots of other institutions) already does this, in connection with its capital campaign.
The link to the Getty's full press release on the antiquities stalemate with Italy is now posted here.
The following are excerpts from a press release just in from the J. Paul Getty Museum (and not yet up on its website):
The Getty has decided to return to Italy...26 objects---including a number of highly significant works of art---despite the [Italian Culture] Ministry's apparent repudiation of an agreement signed jointly by representatives of the Ministry and the Getty in Rome on October 5. Among other points, that agreement would have guaranteed long-term loans to replace certain of the objects being returned by the Getty, as well as establish a framework for long-term collaborative efforts.
Dr. [Michael] Brand [the director of the Getty Museum] said he made a renewed effort to revive the October agreement during a meeting held on November 17 in Rome, but the Ministry instead continued to press for additional concessions, including the return of the Statue of a Victorious Youth, often referred to as the Getty Bronze.
Dr. Brand informed Minister of Culture Francesco Rutelli that the Getty would not return the Getty Bronze given the substantial evidence that this statue was found in international waters in 1964 and was obtained by the Getty Museum only after Italian courts had declared that there was no evidence that the statue belonged to Italy. He advised the Minister that the Getty believes its ownership of the statue is not subject to reasonable challenge....
The document signed by representatives of the Getty and the Italian Ministry of Culture in October included an agreement by the Getty to return the 26 objects, which it intends to honor. That signed agreement also included the Getty's suggestion of an innovative joint ownership approach to the Cult Statue of a Goddess. This proposal was designed to allow both sides to collaborate on scholarly research and further investigation, with neutral binding arbitration available at the end of a four-year period to decide the issue of ownership should research fail to produce conclusive evidence as to whether the Getty Museum or Italy was the rightful owner of the statue. Dr. Brand said the Ministry rejected this approach.
During the November 17 meeting, the Getty offered to transfer full title to the Cult Statue during the study period, but this approach was also rejected. Therefore, the Getty has decided it will conduct the additional research itself, but will still transfer title to Italy if this research supports the Italian claim. This research will be completed within a year....
"While we continue to hope that the Italian government will honor its commitment to work collaboratively with the Getty in the future, as it agreed to do in October, the Getty's transfer of objects is not conditioned on any such arrangement. Quite simply, we believe that transferring these objects to Italy is the right thing to do, whether or not we now receive anything in return," said Dr. Brand.
As previously reported by CultureGrrl, Rutelli last month took the occasion of the signing of an antiquities agreement with Switzerland to declare that negotiations with the Getty were on the verge of "rupture" because of the museum's unwillingness to return the aforementioned sculptures of the youth and the goddess, called by Italy "the Athlete of Lysippos" and "the Morgantina Venus." Now, it appears, the "rupture" has occurred.
In its just-issued press release, the Getty listed the 26 objects it had agreed to return, but it has not, at this writing, posted on its website detailed information and photos, as did the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, when it concluded its amicable agreement with Italy in September.
This seems like the worst possible outcome for the Getty: giving up objects from its collection without getting any closure, let alone important objects that were to have been loaned to the Getty by Italy (as in separate agreements with Boston and with the Metropolitan Museum). The LA Times recently reported that Italy was threatening a "cultural embargo" of the Getty if negotiations broke down.
And this is also bad news for the sacrificial curator, Marion True, still on trial in Italy for her actions at the Getty and, just today, hit with more legal woes: According to Reuters, Greek prosecutors today charged True "with knowingly buying an ancient artifact which had been illegally dug up and smuggled out of Greece 13 years ago."
A Greek police source told Reuters that the former Getty curator, "as well as two Greeks and two other foreigners...are charged in connection with [a 4th-century B.C.] golden wreath which was sold to a Getty representative in 1993 for $1.15 million."
MoMA's New Lewis B. and Dorothy Cullman Education and Research Building
Did you maybe think that the new mega-MoMA (with its new eight-story, 63,000-square-foot Education and Research Building poised to open next Tuesday) was big enough to accommodate its needs for the rest of this century?
Clearly you lack the vision and expansionist appetites of Glenn Lowry, director of the Museum of Modern Art, who told me this morning at the press preview for the new wing that real estate movers-and-shakers are already salivating over the vacant lot that MoMA has created to its west, after acquiring and demolishing three neighboring properties. Several developers are in preliminary discussions with MoMA, he said, about the possibility of constructing a mixed-use building that would combine private commercial functions with more space for MoMA, probably to be used as galleries.
"The real estate market is hot, and we're not in the real estate business," he told me. "We might see if it makes sense to sell it [the property to the west]....We would retain space for the museum's use and sell the balance to a commercial developer." He added, though, that this was "not an urgent issue," and that nothing had been decided.
Is Glenn too smitten with his role as Master Builder? On the one hand, I think MoMA is already dauntingly large. On the other, I can think of goals I had hoped the last expansion would accomplish that still remain unrealized:
---Exhibiting more of the permanent collection of painting and sculpture: The new galleries display approximately the same number of objects as were shown pre-expansion (although they are arrayed more spaciously).
---Allowing more creative (if temporary) reconfigurations of works from the collection: While the idiosyncratic installations of the experimental MoMA 2000 series were probably too quirky and controversial to be institutionalized, some of that provocative rethinking of the permanent collection could become a regular and enlightening exercise, given the space in which to achieve it.
---Providing permanent space for some of MoMA's monumental icons: Rosenquist's "F-111," Kelly's "Colors for a Large Wall" Serra's "Intersection II" and (if they finally get around to restoring it) Matisse's "The Swimming Pool" ought to be always on view, not just sporadically trundled out for special occasions.
(For a more extensive CultureGrrl critique of the new Mega-MoMA, go here , here and here.)
I would have thought that Lowry, a self-confessed Maalox addict during the prolonged and stressful construction period, had seen enough hardhats to last him the rest of his professional life. But he assured me that the next project would be easier on the nervous system, because it would be largely conceived, executed and worried over by whatever outside developer got the job.
While unable to predict how many stories the new construction might rise, he did say that it would be a vertical building, due to the nature of the site, and its only entrance would be from 54th Street. (I can already hear the rumblings of residents in the nearby apartments, who have endured years of jackhammers.)
He also confirmed that I was right in my recent surmise that he had no desire for Philippe de Montebello's directorial job at the Metropolitan Museum. Maybe, if Glenn just can't stop himself from building things, he should assume a new post as coordinator of cultural construction at Ground Zero. Heaven (and Mayor Michael Bloomberg) knows that troubled project could use someone with Lowry's fearsome energy and indomitable can-do spirit.
You thought perhaps that I'd tell you something about the new Education Wing? Patience, MoMA-ologists!
Here's an enterprising use of the Internet: The fundraising campaign, led by the Philadelphia Museum, to keep Eakins' "The Gross Clinic" in Philadelphia now has a website for online donations. Thomas Jefferson University has given local institutions and the general Philly community until Dec. 26 to match the $68 million jointly offered for the painting by Wal-Mart heiress Alice Walton's Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, Bentonville, Ark., and the National Gallery of Art, Washington.
But stop the presses: Mayor John Street has just nominated the Eakins "for protection under the city's historic preservation ordinance, noting the painting's deep historical and cultural resonance throughout Philadelphia," as reported in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer. I first came across Stephan Salisbury's article as a link in The Art Law Blog and it will be interesting to see what attorney/blogger Donn Zaretsky makes of the conflict between the property rights of the would-be seller and the public interest in "historic preservation."
Whatever the legalities, which may have to be resolved in court, there is a danger that the fundraising momentum may be slowed by the expectation that the city may be able to step in and stop the sale. A similar Philadelphia case, over a Maxfield Parrish/Louis Comfort Tiffany mural, resulted in a three-year court battle, according to the Inquirer.
Whatever happens, the online fundraising strikes me as a resourceful approach. Maybe the Friends of the Barnes Foundation should try this.
Maybe ALL museums should.
Before yesterday's happy news about the FBI's recovery of the Toledo Museum's Goya, a CultureGrrl reader employed at an art museum (not Toledo or the Guggenheim) shared his reactions to the shipping slip-ups that reportedly contributed to the theft. His own museum, he said, had a previous incident in which art transporters had wanted "to stop at a motel under non-emergency conditions." According to my source (whose identity I know):
Our head registrar hit the roof when they said that, and told them to keep driving. Part of the point of having two drivers is that one can sleep while the other drives, switching back and forth for the whole trip. Nothing should get in the way of delivering art as fast as possible. They never should have stopped overnight unless it was an emergency--and even then, at least one person should have been with the truck at all times.
I know drivers often dislike having to wait at a museum (especially in New York), but I have trouble believing that if their dispatcher had notified the Guggenheim the delivery would be in the morning that there would have been a problem. In any event, scheduling a stop of that kind should have been handled and agreed to by the two museums and the shipper in advance---and I can't imagine the museums agreeing to it if they had known.
People doing exhibition budgets often complain that couriers represent one of the single biggest expenses in getting loans and request that institutions only resort to using them when they really need it. I bet the Toledo Museum wished they had had one on the truck. I also bet that everyone else will be taking this incident into account when deciding whether to send a courier with a loan.
Art lenders have a legitimate interest in knowing the name of the shipping company that lost the Goya, even if, as a Guggenheim official told me yesterday, it turns out to be a transporter of high repute. In the fullness of time, the truth may out.
But if I were that shipping firm, I'd out myself now, rather than wait for law enforcement officials or others to do it for me. And I'd elucidate, in great detail, the stringent new safeguards being instituted so that such a thing won't happen again.
Thanks to tips received as a result of "comprehensive media coverage of the theft," Goya's "Children With a Cart," stolen en route from the Toledo Museum to the Guggenheim Museum, has been recovered in Newark and "appears to be unharmed," the FBI announced today. Previous news reports that suggested the theft had probably been an "inside job" were incorrect, federal agents said.
According to the just-published AP story, FBI spokesman Steven Siegel indicated that "the thieves apparently did not know what was inside the truck when they broke into it. 'It was a target of opportunity. They probably thought it was a truck full of PlayStations,'" Siegel said. He added that there had been no arrests, but the investigation was continuing, according to the AP's Wayne Parry. Few other details were released.
Glad to get back its Goya, the Toledo Museum is taking it home, rather than allowing it to be displayed, as planned, in the Guggenheim's Spanish Painting from El Greco to Picasso.
The name of the shipping firm whose truck was burglarized has still not been released, but a Guggenheim source told CultureGrrl that it specializes in art transport and "our registrar says it is a company that everybody uses and will still have to use, because there are so few of them and it's the best."
If this is the best, CultureGrrl is depressed!
Go here to find links to letters recently sent to the Senate Finance Committee by the Association of Art Museum Directors, Art Institute of Chicago, Guggenheim Foundation, Los Angeles County Museum, Whitney Museum and Metropolitan Museum, requesting changes in the newly restrictive tax law provisions affecting fractional gifts of artworks to museums.
You can read them along with me.
The detailed article in Saturday's NY Times on the theft of Goya's "Children With a Cart" from a truck that was transporting it from the Toledo Museum in Ohio to the Guggenheim Museum in New York discusses important questions raised by law enforcement officials, who spoke to reporter David Johnston "on condition of anonymity." The painting was en route to the Guggenheim's Spanish Painting from El Greco to Picasso.
F.B.I. investigators have been looking into why a truck bearing such precious cargo was left unattended and why it stopped at a motel overnight, when the trip could have been easily made in one day.
But the article implicitly raises two other important questions, both unanswered: First, why did the unnamed law enforcement officials leak so much sensitive information to the newspaper when, according to Johnston's own account, "the F.B.I. office in Philadelphia, which is in charge of the investigation, has released few details about the case, hoping to use information about the theft to evaluate any tips." (Johnston's piece originated in Washington, not Philadelphia.) Has the Times piece now compromised this investigation?
And the second unanswered question, of crucial importance to the artworld: What shipping company was involved in this debacle? Clearly anyone in need of art transport has a keen interest in knowing the answer. But although they divulged a surprising number of details to Johnston, "law enforcement authorities did not identify the shipper."
Paradoxically, Johnston wrote a piece just two weeks ago about concerns over news leaks of confidential information from F.B.I. investigations:
Director Robert S. Mueller III of the F.B.I. has issued a stern message to the bureau's nearly 30,000 employees warning them against leaks of confidential information after recent news articles disclosed criminal inquiries involving incumbent lawmakers, mainly House Republicans.
''There have been a number of recent stories in the press attributing sensitive law enforcement information to 'federal law enforcement officials,''' Mr. Mueller said in an Oct. 26 e-mail message. ''While I cannot say they have come from F.B.I. employees, such disclosures do serious damage to our investigations and risk unfairly tarnishing the subjects of our investigations who enjoy the presumption of innocence.''
Also sadly damaged in this unfortunate episode is the reputation of museums for safely borrowing and returning valuable works owned and cherished by others.
My answer to this burning question: I don't know and I don't much care.
What's more interesting to me is that NY Times art-market reporter Carol Vogel felt compelled to defend her reputation for accuracy by repeatedly asserting that Mexican financier David Martinez, whom she called "obsessively private," is now the proud owner of ''No. 5, 1948.'' Vogel says that painting was recently sold by David Geffen "for about $140 million."
Through his lawyers (as reported Nov. 9 in Bloomberg and two days later in the Times), Martinez has explicitly denied making the purchase.
Yet, in last Saturday's NY Times Vogel again (previously here), asserted that Martinez bought the Pollock.
I have to assume that Vogel is certain that the unnamed sources she has cited are reliable and are in a position to know the truth about the transaction. How else could she stand by her story, in the face of denials by spokespersons for the very man in the best position to know whether he owns "No. 5, 1948"?
What I question is whether the public has such a compelling need to know the buyer's identity that Vogel is justified in privileging anonymous sources over Martinez's own spokespersons. This is not a matter of national security: If Martinez IS the buyer, but prefers anonymity, there's no compelling public interest served by outting him. To call him or his spokespersons liars (which is, essentially, what Vogel is doing), one needs, at the very least, to do better than rely on mere "artworld sources" or even (in her first article) "art experts with knowledge of the transaction." Is that "knowledge of the transaction" direct or indirect, unimpeachable truth or hearsay? Only "sources with a direct role in the transaction" would be strong enough to convincingly override Martinez's denial.
Here's what the Times' own guidelines on Confidential News Sources say on this subject:
Whenever anonymity is granted, it should be the subject of energetic negotiation to arrive at phrasing that will tell the reader as much as possible about the placement and motivation of the source -- in particular, whether the source has firsthand knowledge of the facts.
"Firsthand knowledge," in this instance, would mean a direct role in the transaction.
And here is what the Times' executive editor, Bill Keller, says about the appropriate circumstances for using confidential sources:
Our policy on anonymous sources is a good one, and bears repeating. It begins: "We resist granting anonymity except as a last resort to obtain information that we believe to be newsworthy and reliable." The information should be of compelling interest, and unobtainable by other means.
The question of who owns the Pollock is interesting in the same way that any gossip about the rich and famous holds a certain fascination. But "compelling interest"? The only people who arguably have a compelling interest in the whereabouts of the Pollock are the scholars who might want to study it or the curators who might want to exhibit it---and they probably have access to "artworld sources" that is equal, if not superior, to Vogel's.
The fate of the world, or even the artworld, does not depend on answering, "Who owns the Pollock?" But there's another question, raised by another NY Times article, that we DO urgently need someone to answer. (Coming Next)
Who need's Otto's Pizzeria? On this, my actual birthday, I headed to the local supermarket to buy myself a present. ("Cardone," on the label, is a variant of "cardoon.")
Admittedly, my example is not nearly as attractive as the one I first spotted at the Guggenheim. It does not sport any of the pinkish tint that helps make Juan Sánchez Cotán's vegetable so strangely alluring.
Still, it's mine all mine, and since the abundantly stocked produce department of Fairway Supermarket, Fort Lee, labels its offerings with more information than the Guggenheim's Spanish show provides for its paintings, I now know that the cardoon, at 99¢ a pound, is "very closely related to the artichoke" and "even tastes like it. It has its own special way of cleaning and preparing it. [You mean I have to cook it?] It's very popular in Europe and it's gaining popularity here because of its deliciousness."
And just think how much more popular it's going to become now, thanks to Cotán and that other old master, CultureGrrl!
An important cardoon update from faithful CultureGrrl reader Rob Krulak, a development officer at the Brooklyn Museum:
Cardoons are on the menu almost every fall (including this one) at Otto Enoteca/Pizzeria on East 8th St. They taste kind of like artichokes, but crunch kind of like celery---in case you want to round out your Cotán experience.
Sounds like a perfect birthday-weekend culinary adventure. Do I have to order them on pizza?
Juan Sánchez Cotán (1560-1627), "Still Life with Fruit and Vegetables," ca. 1602, Collection Várez Fisa, Madrid
In his NY Times review today of the Guggenheim's just opened Spanish Painting from El Greco to Picasso, Michael Kimmelman leads with three paragraphs archly questioning the museum's motives. Then he finally gets around to calling the show "very grand and quite marvelous."
CultureGrrl would lead with the "grand and marvelous" part. Who can be meanspirited about a show that gives us the rare chance to feast on 11 Zurbaráns, not to mention 12 Velázquezes, 22 Goyas and 35 Picassos (although only four by the show's other title artist, El Greco)?
True, I might have preferred the hypnotic power of the 11 Zurbaráns to have been concentrated in one place. But the Guggenheim opted for a meritorious curatorial concept of demonstrating affinities among Spanish artists tackling the same themes across five centuries. It's a sometimes chaotic but rich mix, with resonances that are sometimes superficial but often illuminating.
Had I but time, I could have spent a few hours absorbing every luminous detail in Velázquez's "Peasants at the Table," which journeyed to New York from the Szépmüvészeti Museum in Budapest.
And part of the fun of such a broad-ranging exhibition is developing a new appreciation for artists you previously knew little about. For me, that was still-life painter Juan Sánchez Cotán. He also introduced me to a new vegetable, the cardoon (that pinkish stalkish thing on the right in the above image).
A few quibbles: I'm not an audio-guide person, and I would have appreciated a little more text elucidating the relationships among individual paintings and providing more background on some of the greatest masterpieces. Surely Zurbarán's monumental but still intimate "Saint Hugh in the Refectory (Saint Bruno and the Miracle of the Uneaten Meat)," from the Museo de Bellas Artes, Seville, and rarely seen outside of Spain, rates its own descriptive label.
And the quality of chosen examples by some artists, especially Picasso, was uneven, with a surprising number of works in the show coming from private collections. But Spanish museums were also generous lenders: 15 works from the Prado; 10 from the Reina Sofia.
In an ideal world, I would have wished the Guggenheim to have included an ancillary show bringing Spanish painting right up to the present. Why should a museum whose historic focus was modern and contemporary art, and which now has a satellite museum in Bilbao that collects current Spanish work, stop dead with Dalí and Picasso?
And I also would have desired a more agreeable ending: With 15 of its own designated themes to choose from, why leave us (especially those of us who are non-Christian) in the agonies of crucifixion? I'd sooner consume cardoons.
Disappointingly, the Guggenheim still isn't making good on its promise to give credit to curators in the exhibition wall text---an especially unfortunate omission in this curatorial tour de force: All credit, from CultureGrrl, to Carmen Giménez and Francisco Calvo Serraller.
A must read on the Taste page of today's Wall Street Journal: Eric Gibson, editor of the paper's "Leisure & Arts" page, thoughtfully examines the controversy over recent tax-law changes that severely restrict fractional gifts of works of art to museums. And he advances the discussion by considering this hot-button issue in the broader context of museum collection-building and fundraising.
Interestingly, the Chicago Tribune reported yesterday that nonprofits may get "a reprieve from congressional attempts to rein in and further regulate many of their financial practices and governance." That's because of the change in party control of the Senate, which means that Democrat Max Baucus is set to replace the unofficial commissioner of the nonprofit police, Republican Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) as chairman of the Finance Committee.
Diana Aviv, president and CEO of the Independent Sector, a national coalition of nonprofits, told Tribune reporter Charles Storch: "It seems pretty clear that Sen. Baucus doesn't intend to pursue an activist agenda on the non-profit sector."
Gibson would probably say that's a bad thing:
When Congress reconvenes in January, it should agree to revisit the fractional gift provision of the Pension Protection Act as the museum directors are asking--but only as part of a full review of all museum business practices. The point would be to determine once and for all which method of sustaining these institutions is most in the public interest--one tied to philanthropy (and the tax code) or one tied to the marketplace.
Let's put an end to the current practice of mixing non-profit and for-profit. Since the museums won't police themselves, perhaps a little congressional oversight will get their attention.
Gibson is particularly exercised by museums' treating their collections "as financial assets that they can tap at any time"---by selling works as "the tool of first resort" in raising acquistion funds, and by "renting out parts of their collections." He blames the Association of Art Museum Directors and the American Association of Museums for being "toothless watchdogs."
AAMD also has a toothless website: still nothing posted about its position on and its efforts to change the new fractional gift restrictions.
A highly provocative piece, Eric!
(A CultureGrrl conflict-of-interest disclosure: Eric is my favorite editor. But he would strongly disapprove of last night's post!)
That gleaming cone in the center of the photo is a gold penis shield, Sinú culture, Columbia---part of the extraordinary "Gold" exhibition opening Saturday at the American Museum of Natural History. Consisting largely of a vast array of objects from AMNH's own collection, this is the show that tells you everything you wanted to know (and some things you didn't) about how that coveted metal has been used throughout history, around the world. More on this exhibition, coming soon in CultureGrrl.
But gazing from a modern vantage point upon that curiously shaped artifact, one can only wonder: What exactly did the male organ look like in 600-1500 A.D.?
Definitely time that I retired---at least for the night. Bob Dylan's Continental Arena concert, from which I have just returned, was good in surprising ways---but you'd expect no less from the chimerical codger. He always comes up with a new take on songs you thought you knew.
Thanks, Paul and Joyce!
If you've been following CultureGrrl very closely, you probably can guess: I'm going to a performance, and it's a birthday present from my son and daughter (who DO read CultureGrrl closely!).
But do come back late tonight, after the little ones are tucked in, and you will be treated to an X-rated CultureGrrl exclusive. I feel confident in saying that this has never before been posted in blogging history (perhaps for good reason).
Don't worry, though. I promise that CultureGrrl will NOT appear in her birthday suit!
Here's something more for you Metropolitan Museumologists (and I know you are legion, because my lead-off piece this week, Who Should Succeed Philippe at the Met?, was the most viewed post in CultureGrrl's illustrious history).
Just posted online: the Met's fiscal 2006 annual report. For all you museum finance aficionados, here's the Report of the Chief Financial Officer and here are the year's financial statements, which compare last year's results with the previous year's. (J. Paul Getty Trust, please copy.)
You will learn that although "fiscal year 2006 was an exceptional year for the Museum," with "strong endowment growth," the museum nevertheless ran its fifth straight annual operating deficit, with last year's amounting to $3.2 million. Measures adopted to stem the hemorrhage include "increasing recommended admission rates [the now infamous $20 fee], successfully using telemarketing to increase membership, continuing to adjust pricing for many fee-based programs, ongoing aggressive fundraising goals for both operating and capital costs, and reaching out to new audiences through innovative marketing efforts." And how long did the efficiency experts struggle to come up with this one: "combining, when feasible, evening events hosted by the development and membership offices to save on catering and security expenses"?
One of CultureGrrl's favorite reads in each year's report is the semi-enlightening Objects Sold or Exchanged During the Year (scroll down to the bottom of the page), which includes only those works "valued in excess of $50,000." This list is considerably longer than usual this year, augmented by disposals of some selections from the 8,500 photographs acquired in 2005 from the Gilman Collection. The auctioned Gilman photographs were never accessioned, because the Met considered them duplicates of images already in its collection.
The Met uaccountably never reports proceeds for individual works, even though they are sold at public auction. CultureGrrl, as you may remember, hit the auction databases a while back, and came up with these high-ticket items, cashed in by the Met during the past fiscal year: Benjamin West's and John Trumbull's "The Battle of La Hogue," sold at Sotheby's, New York, on Jan. 26, 2006 for $632,000; Benjamin West's "Portrait of Peter Beckford," sold at Sotheby's, London, on Nov. 24, 2005 for $76,364. Surprisingly, the Met doesn't include the latter in its list.
All told, the Met raised $26,829,579 from art disposals in fiscal 2006 (ending June 30), compared to $538,404 the previous year (when only two over-$50,000 items made the published list).
The money spent on art acquisitions in 2006 was $34.83 milllion, compared to $99.21 million the previous year (presumably boosted by the Duccio.)
And for those of you who actually care about art, not money, you can peruse the voluminous lists of Departmental Accessions and Exhibitions and Installations.
I'm a museum wonk. I actually read this stuff. Now you can too.