November 2008 Archives

Virginia Curry, a retired FBI agent who was involved in art-crime investigations in Los Angeles, responds to Italian Museum "Super-Manager": Illustrious Artworld Signatories Oppose New Profit-Driven Post:

The Italian museum system has no money, save what they receive for the foreign loans of their collection. Italy is proof that under socialism there is barely money left for government programs, and the arts are left to forage for themselves. When staff is poorly compensated for their education and skill, they look elsewhere for compensation, sometimes even exploiting the poorly curated collections.

I applaud any effort to make the enjoyment of Italian cultural patrimony as accessible as a Big Mac. If you have ever tried to access, for example, the collections of Italian archaeological museums online for study, you would know that access is virtually non-existent.

Robert Henri, "Jessica Penn in Black with White Plumes," 1908, Crystal Bridges Museum

I recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal about how art auction houses report results in a way that make their sales appear more successful than they really are.

But thanks to a tip from a reporter in Arkansas, Leslie Newell Peacock of the Arkansas Times, I recently came across one way in which a house reported results in a way that made a sale seem LESS successful:

A Robert Henri (above) that was top lot at an American art sale at Christie's on May 19, 2005, is not, at this writing, included in that auction's online price list. Setting an auction record for the artist, it was purchased by Alice Walton's planned Crystal Bridges Museum in Bentonville, AR. (The painting is reproduced here on its website.)

To see Christie's online price list for the sale, which may have been amended by the time you read this, go here, search for May 2005, scroll to May 19, click on "Important American Paintings." Then sort by "Price realized (high to low) and see if the Henri is on top, as it should be. When I looked this morning (see below), top lot was a painting by Julius LeBlanc Stewart, selling for $2.31 million.

How could this omission have happened? The only reason I know for an auction house's not including a lot on its list of sale results is if that object failed to sell. The Henri sold spectacularly---$3.6 million, including buyer's premium, against a hammer-price estimate of $1-1.5 million.

Since (as you may have noticed) CultureGrrl is naturally suspicious, I wondered if some list-editing could have been done as a favor to a highly important client. Regarded by some as playing a major role in inflating prices for American art, Walton could be understandably averse to having the amount of her outlays made public. Her museum has very selectively disclosed acquisitions on its website, recenty adding a Sargent and a Benton.

But according to Christie's. Erin McAndrew, who handles the public relations for the firm's American art sales, it was an innocent mistake. She told me:

We checked. The Henri omission is an oversight, nothing more. We will work with our online media team to rectify it. I'm not aware of any other instances [of failure to list sold lots].

Chris Crosman, chief curator at Crystal Bridges (but not there at the time of the Henri purchase), told me he had heard that the omission was a "technical glitch." After checking with the museum's executive director, Bob Workman, Crosman added:

No one at Crystal Bridges has ever requested that any work purchased at auction be left off their online (or any other) post-auction price lists.

Peacock's story is expected to run tomorrow (online later today), so we'll see what she makes of all this. She graciously gave me the go-ahead to run my post ahead of her piece. I'll update here with the link to the Arkansas Times, when it's up. UPDATE: Peacock's story is now here (second item).

Meanwhile, here's what the top of that online price list still looked like when I checked this morning. Peacock had contacted Christie's on this some days ago:

I.M. Pei's new Museum of Islamic Art, Doha, Qatar

In one of the more puzzling turns by an architecture critic, Nicolai Ouroussoff in yesterday's NY Times published a 640-word dispatch from Qatar, in which he described but never really evaluated the much anticipated new Museum of Islamic Art in Qatar, opening to the public next Monday. According to Ouroussoff, architect I.M. Pei "has described it as his last major cultural building."

So how was it? Ouroussoff describes it but never really tells us if he likes it. His most judgmental words about the new museum were "imposing simplicity" and "powerful Cubist composition." The critic did give I.M. Pei an opportunity to favorably review his own building.

The architect informed Ouroussoff:

The architecture is very strong and simple. There is nothing superfluous....The museum is an object. It should be treated as a piece of sculpture.

Does the critic agree? We don't really know. Was he trying to be kind? Was he censored? Perhaps time (and a subsequent full critique) will tell.

This sparse commentary seems all the more inexplicable in light of the same critic's detailed rave review, published just a day later, of the proposed new Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive, designed by Toyo Ito.

In today's Times, Ouroussoff opines:

The three-story structure suggests an intoxicating architectural dance in which the push and pull between solitude and intimacy, stillness and motion, art and viewer never ends. Its contoured galleries, whose honeycomb pattern seems to be straining to contain an untamed world, would make it a magical place to view art.

That's more like it (although it's always a bit dicey to review the unbuilt, which is subject to substantial revision, especially in today's challenging economic environment).

Speaking of iconic architecture for cultural institutions, the definitive word comes from the indispensible Witold Rybczynski, in his piece for Saturday's Wall Street Journal---When Buildings Try Too Hard.

Rybczynski writes:

Perhaps the Bilbao effect should be called the Bilbao anomaly, for the iconic chemistry between the design of building, its image and the public turns out to be rather rare---and somewhat mysterious.

Meanwhile, for the titilating backstory about "the billion-pound shopping spree" of the "Sheikh who shopped" for the collection now at the Qatar museum, scroll down to the bottom of this article by Riazat Butt in today's Guardian.

The deepest concern in art circles centers on the government's apparent shift from a constitutional mandate to protect Italy's cultural heritage toward an entrepreneurial model that exploits it....

"I'm an outsider, and I know that there are concerns---it's enough to read the papers," he [Resca] said, referring to the deluge of indignant editorials that have been published since he was nominated last week....Italy's cultural patrimony is a "strategic asset like oil, with zero costs because it's there," Mr. Resca said. "Of course, you have to protect it, and care for it, but it has a value that we can leverage and develop."...

Despite the furor, Mr. Resca said he was optimistic about his prospects. "I need time to learn," he said. "Maybe in six months I'll say something completely different."

Let's hope so.

"Mummy Mask of the Lady Ka-nefer-nefer," Egyptian, Dynasty 19, St. Louis Art Museum

The fight over the St. Louis Art Museum's "Mummy Mask of the Lady Ka-nefer-nefer"
continues, with the stakes raised higher by the recent appointment of the museum's director, Brent Benjamin, to the U.S. State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee, which considers (and usually grants) source countries' requests for heritage protection.

Through the press, Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt's antiquities authority, has just renewed his previous threat to try to force Benjamin to face charges in Egyptian court. And on its website, the St. Louis museum has posted provenance details about the piece, including references to documents about its recent history. The museum bought the mask from Phoenix Ancient Art in 1998. (To see the provenance details, go here, scroll down to "search ancient objects," then click the second page, then click the image of the mummy mask.)

Today's Associated Press publicizes Hawass' renewed threat and gives a detailed run-down of the arguments on each side of this dispute.

AP reports:

[Mohammed Zakaria] Ghoneim [an Egyptian archaeologist] registered his discovery [of the mask} in the official ledger at the government warehouse, or magazine, at Saqqara. The page in the ledger book, a key document Egypt has presented to St. Louis to stake its claim, shows a high-quality photograph of the mask, the finder's name and ID number, and a detailed description.

In 1957, Ghoneim published his discovery in a book showing him and the mask at the site, which Egyptologists view as important evidence for Egypt's claim. A second record from Saqqara given to St. Louis showed the artifact was packed in a box with other antiquities in 1959 for a shipment to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo....

Because records were not kept or are lost, Egypt has not determined exactly when the mask was lost. Egyptian research concluded it was stolen in 1959, most likely from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo or en route to it from the Saqqara storeroom.

The [St. Louis] museum said it checked with the [Art Loss] registry before buying the mask to see if it was listed as stolen. It was not. St. Louis also sent a letter to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo saying that it had acquired the mask and that in its response, the Egyptian museum did not indicate the item was stolen. Egypt accuses St. Louis of falsifying the provenance, which documents the history of an artifact's ownership.

The museum's provenance puts the mask in the possession of a Belgian art dealer in 1952. However, Egypt can show that it was in the Saqqara storeroom in both 1952 and 1959, making it improbable it ever left there, especially to a foreign country, in the intervening years.

In an Op-Ed piece to appear in tomorrow's (Saturday's) LA Times, businessman/collector Eli Broad, who was the founding chairman of LA MOCA, challenged the Los Angeles philanthropic community to join him in stepping up to the (collection) plate for the financially beleaguered museum.

Broad writes:

I'd like to make a proposal to the MOCA board and to the civic angels of Los Angeles. I'll step up if you do too. The Broad Art Foundation is prepared to make a significant investment in MOCA---$30 million---with the expectation that the museum's board and others join in this effort to solve the institution's financial problems. It is vital that the museum remain on Grand Avenue, keep its collection and continue its tradition of world-class exhibitions....

While the MOCA board evaluates its options, the overarching priority should be to keep MOCA independent. Being merged into another institution would destroy the fabric of a great museum and would sacrifice the independent curatorial vision that has created an extraordinary collection and many unparalleled exhibitions.

If that doesn't start the fundraising ball rolling, nothing will. Good for Broad. Good for Los Angeles.

It's a wall label so small and inconspicuous near the beginning of the Metropolitan Museum's just opened Beyond Babylon show (to Mar. 15) that if you didn't look for it, you would probably miss it:



What IS that recent U.S. legislation referred to in this cryptic label, and how did it make it "too difficult and risky" for Syria to lend to the Met 55 works, already published in the exhibition catalogue?

It's the section on "Terrorism Exception to Immunity" in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008, signed by President Bush on Jan. 28. While it doesn't specifically apply to museum loans, it compromises the State Department's ability to guarantee immunity from seizure for objects loaned to museums by countries that are on the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism---defined as "countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism."

Syria is on that list.

As explained to me by the Met's spokesperson, Elyse Topalian, the new law "permits private plaintiffs who were victims of state-sponsored acts of terrorism to file liens against certain property belonging to that state, while the property is in the United States....As far as the Museum is aware, the intersection of this law and the immunity from seizure protection offered under 22 U.S.C. §2459 has not been tested."

You legal eagles can find an explanation of the nettlesome §1083 here, by scrolling to p. CRS-48 (which is the same as p. 52 of the PDF file).

In her catalogue acknowledgements, Joan Aruz, curator in charge of the Met's department of ancient Near Eastern art, singled out Syria for special thanks because of its "extraordinary efforts...to realize this project." I'm no fan of state sponsors of terrorism, but I am a big fan of cultural exchange, regardless of the strained relations among nations. This is an issue that cries out for future clarification and resolution.

In the meantime, American museumgoers will be deprived of the chance to see 55 objects (the most to have been lent to the show by any country except Turkey) that were to have been in what is still a splendid 350-object display of objects from the second millennium B.C.

Here's just one of the show's no-shows, described in the catalogue as "a masterpiece of Late Bronze Age art in Syria":

LA MOCA's Geffen Contemporary: Closing Jan 6 to June 30

Because there's been so much concern and speculation about the endangered LA MOCA, I thought I'd publish the fact sheet just issued by the financially beleaguered institution. The clinchers, which come at the end, are these:

MOCA is exploring several options, and in doing so talking to many partners in the Los Angeles community....All options entail MOCA retaining its identity, programing and expanding its permanent collection....Internal board discussions will continue with no fundamental resolutions determined at this time.

Here's the full fact sheet, including some frightening financials:

• MOCA Today
MOCA has achieved unparalleled success since its inspired founding in 1979, and the museum continues to fulfill its mission "to be the defining museum of contemporary art." For three decades, MOCA has realized an acclaimed program of ambitious exhibitions, and our renowned permanent collection of nearly 6,000 works is among the finest in the country. Today, the museum is proud to present Louise Bourgeois, "Martin Kippenberger: The Problem Perspective" and "Index: Conceptualism in California from the Permanent Collection," and MOCA continues to tour our groundbreaking monographic and thematic exhibitions, "WACK! Art and the Feminist Revolution" and "©MURAKAMI," to prestigious institutions worldwide.

Like many cultural, retail, banking and automotive institutions, MOCA's financial stability is vulnerable as a result of this unprecedented economic climate. In evaluating our long-term sustainability, MOCA first and foremost acknowledges that we have a responsibility to safeguard the museum and its collection against the difficult times the country is experiencing now and ahead.

To this end, the MOCA Board of Directors are currently evaluating several scenarios that could lead to securing long-term viability for the museum, and plans to reach a solution within the next 90 days. Until that time, MOCA is functioning at its full capacity, welcomes the community to visit its world-renowned contemporary art collection, and is fundraising and conducting business as normal.

• Financial Information
The financial information that is currently publicly available through Guidestar (2006 990) represents MOCA's most recent audited financial information for MOCA's Fiscal Year ended 6/30/07. MOCA's auditors have not yet completed their review of the last completed fiscal year ending 6/30/08. 2007 990s will be available March 2009.

• Status of Endowment Borrowing
As per the 2007 audited financial statement, current level of endowment borrowing is ($17,167,257). Please note that Unrestricted Net Asset deficit of ($7,526,799) as reported in the 2006 990 and quoted in the Los Angeles Times article of 11/19/08, is inclusive of the book value of MOCA's property and other assets valued at $9,640,458, which are illiquid.

• Invested Value of Endowment
As per 2006 990, invested value of endowment at 6/30/07 is $19,799,926 Funds related to investments in the endowment have been affected substantially by the downturn in the economy.

• Current Fiscal Year 2008 Operating Budget
$21 million after cost saving measures

• Current Fiscal Year 2008 Estimated Deficit
MOCA's goal is to close the fiscal year with a balanced budget.

• Fundraising
Since spring 2008, MOCA was working actively on a plan for a campaign to launch in the fall 2008. With the dramatic change in the economy, it was clear that the plans could not be realized and therefore MOCA is accelerating its fundraising to ensure its continuing health.

• Proposed Budget Cuts
MOCA has made a 10% reduction in fiscal year 2008 operating budget. The Geffen Contemporary will be closed from Jan 6 to June 30, 2009. "Morphosis" moves to August 2009 from Spring 2009. "MOCA FOCUS Drew Heitzler" moves to June 2009 from Spring 2009. Luisa Lambri moves to 2010 from spring 2009, "Dan Graham: Beyond" moves to MOCA Grand Avenue and opens same time in February 2009.

• Staffing
Each year, MOCA's staffing needs fluctuate based on the exhibition schedule. Part-time staff is relied on for these exhibitions, based on areas of expertise. Currently, 47% of MOCA's workforce is made up of part time staff. There are no planned staff reductions at this time, but the specter of further cost reduction is real as MOCA moves toward its long-term viability.

 • Proposed Partnerships
MOCA is exploring several options, and in doing so talking to many partners in the Los Angeles community. With its reputation, MOCA has a great variety of opportunities to jointly serve contemporary art in LA with a variety of LA partners. All options entail MOCA retaining its identity, programming and expanding its permanent collection.

• Meeting of the MOCA Board of Trustees 11/19/08
The Board met on 11/19/08 to discuss status and options. Internal board discussions will continue with no fundamental resolutions determined at this time.

Relinquished by Cleveland: Apulian Volute-Krater, Darius Painter, ca. 330 BC

Steven Litt, the Cleveland Plain Dealer's art critic, is the go-to person for the full details on yesterday's agreement by the Cleveland Museum to relinquish 14 objects to Italy, in exchange for collegial cooperation on various projects, as well as "13 antiquities similar to those being returned to Italy, for a renewable 25-year period."

Did he say "25 years"? That would appear to be a sea change in Italian policy---one that American museums have long desired. As I wrote in my LA Times piece, Make Art Loans, Not War, Italy's previous policy had been to make loans for a period of only four years.

As Michael Brand, director of the Getty Museum, previously told me:

Four years is not quite long enough to work really well....Ultimately I think it would be nice if you could have a category where things could be on almost permanent loan, but whenever the Italians wanted to get them back, they could. You could then build educational programs around them. You could build exhibitions around them.

Now Cleveland can.

Missing from the Cleveland Museum's press release announcing the accord was an explanation of why, after 18 months of discussion, the museum concluded that evidence indeed suggested the objects should be relinquished.

Litt gives us the back story:

Italy originally presented the Cleveland museum with a list of 42 objects about which Italian authorities had questions....The list ultimately was whittled to 14, including many from South Italy, formerly a hotbed of looting.

[Maurizio] Fiorilli [the Italian state lawyer] said that evidence connecting the Cleveland artworks to illegal activity included photographs, letters and other documents obtained in a 1995 raid on a Swiss warehouse.

That evidence and information from subsequent investigations linked the artworks to convicted antiquities smuggler Giacomo de Medici and others in his circle, Fiorilli said.

They include the American art dealer Robert Hecht, the English dealer Robin Symes, and Fritz Burki a Swiss art restorer close to Medici, who restored the famous Euphronios Krater, a large ceramic vessel returned to Italy recently by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

Along with getting Italy off his back, Cleveland's director, Timothy Rub, got a pat on the back. Fiorilli told Litt:

The director is an exquisite person. This was a negotiation among gentlemen. They always collaborated and exhibited great openness. Therefore, I am content.

For now, at least. Litt reports that two more Cleveland objects are still in play: a small ancient bronze chariot ornament in the form of a winged victory, and the famous Apollo Sauroktonos (Lizard Slayer).

If figures that on my birthday, when I wanted to blog lite, there are more major news stories than candles on my cake. (Well, not quite.) I may flesh out some of these later.

But for now:

---Bloomberg and the NY Times (on the web only) both report that collector Eli Broad has changed his mind about not opening a museum of his own.

CultureGrrl readers will remember that shortly before the opening of the Broad Contemporary Art Museum at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Broad issued a press release, stating:

We have developed a new paradigm by creating a common collection [to be loaned out widely to museums] at The Broad Art Foundation. We would expect that other major collectors might choose a similar route, rather than creating their own museum or donating works to one or several museums.

I guess the paradigm didn't shift after all.

What I'm still trying to find out is whether Broad has also changed his mind about another important statement he made at the time (reported in my Wall Street Journal article last February about the opening of BCAM):

During our conversation, Mr. Broad responded with an unequivocal "yes" to my question about whether he would allow BCAM to keep works from his collection on display for as long as it wished.

---LA MOCA, perhaps this country's most prescient and perceptive promulgator of the new, apparently has more curatorial than financial acumen. Mike Boehm reports in today's LA Times that this preeminent contemporary art institution been going through its money faster than you can say "Murakami," and is now in dire straits. Director Jeremy Strick, according to Boehm, "would not disclose more recent financial figures" than those in the 2007 tax return.

Someone needs to bail this place out (and put better business management in place): Like AIG, it's too big (and too important) to fail. But if (as Strick declared) they want an infusion of city funds, they need to provide full public disclosure about their current financial position.

---This press release just in from the Cleveland Museum:

After nearly two years of discussions, the Cleveland Museum of Art has agreed to transfer 14 works from its antiquities collection to the Italian Ministry....The Italian Ministry has agreed to loan a similar number of works of equal aesthetic and historical significance from its State collections for study and display in Cleveland.

The two parties have also agreed to organize cooperatively at least one exhibition and create a close association between the Cleveland museum and a cultural institution in Italy for curatorial and research exchanges in areas such as conservation and exhibition design and planning. Discussions between the Cleveland Museum of Art and Italy are anticipated to continue in the coming months to finalize these arrangements prior to the transfer of any objects to Italy

....Sandro Bondi, Minister for Cultural Assets and Activities, and [Timothy] Rub [Cleveland's director] reached the agreement today at a meeting in Rome and expressed their mutual hope for the success of these collaborative endeavors.

Here's the list of objects. (Images can be found here.)

Sicilian Plastic Vase in the Form of a Pig, Sicily, provincial Greece, 5th Century BC (ca. 425 BC)

Donkey-Head Rhyton, Greece, 5th Century BC (ca. 475 BC)

Warrior, Sardinia, 9th-8th Century BC (900-700 BC)

Apulian Volute-Krater, Darius Painter (Italian) (ca. 330 BC)

Red-Figure Duck Askos, Italy, probably Chiusi (ancient Clusium), Etruscan, 4th century BC (ca. 350 BC)

Campanian Bird Askos, South Italy, northern Campania, late 4th-ealy 3rd Century BC (ca. 310-280 BC)

Apulian or Campanian Red-Figure Lid with Bowl, South Italy, Apulia, 4th Century BC

Apulian Gnathia Flat-Bodied Epichysis, Italy, Middle Gnathia, 4th Century BC (340-320 BC)

Apulian Gnathia Round-Bellied Epichysis, Italy, Middle Gnathia, 4th Century BC (ca. 340-320 BC)

Apulian Gnathia Lekythos, Italy, Middle Gnathia, 4th Century BC (340-330 BC)

Campanian Red-Figure Acorn Lekythos, South Italy, Campania, 4th Century BC (ca. 350-320 BC)

Column Krater, Greece, Late Early Corinthian-Early Middle Corinthian (ca. 600-590 BC)

Bracelet, pair, Italy, Etruscan, 6th Century BC

Processional Cross, Italian, 14th c AD

---Speaking of Italy, the France-based Art Tribune today reports that an appeal has been sent to international art scholars to express opposition to a plan to exploit Italian museum collections as cash cows (the rent-a-Louvre model), to be implemented by Mario Resca, who has been appointed to the new position of "super manager" for the nation's museums. The Art Tribune reports that Resca, a friend of Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, was "head of McDonald's Italy (yes, the hamburger chain) until 2007 and...has since directed a gambling casino. He of course has no knowledge or experience in museums or art history."

Catherine Opie talks about her day job on NY Times video of Guggenheim Gala

While we're on the subject of the Guggenheim: Do you wish you could have attended last week's Guggenheim Gala? Now you can---via video on the NY Times website.

Listen in as the Guggenheim's new director, Richard Armstrong, entertains the assembled swells with his dry wit, saying that he's "very happy to have this job. In fact, I'm glad to have a job, period!" Watch Christie's Christopher Burge as he energetically wields the gavel at the benefit auction, which "raised $635,000 in 15 minutes," according to the Times' Melena Ryzik.

It seems that the artists at the gala, like everyone else in the artworld, were keeping a wary eye on the market. Ryzik made the slump the subject of her interviews with partying artists. Catherine Opie said this:

With anything where there's a huge economic rise and then an economic fall, what happens is people who were just in it only for the money get weeded out and there is actually a good side to that....It's going to hurt a lot of people and it's going to hurt me. But that's why I have a day job: I'm a full-tenured professor at UCLA and I'm not giving up my day job any time soon!

And here are Cai Guo-Qiang's market musings:

I won't mind if it [the market] goes down a little. When prices are lower, more museums and public institutions will be able to acquire them [artworks].

But for the last word on the contemporary art market, let's go across the pond to Mr. Good Timing himself, quoted by Arifa Akbar in an extensive interview for the London Independent. Damien Hirst told Akbar:

I think it's quite good [the adjustment in art market prices] because it became unreal....If I want to sell new work, I'll price it lower. If people have got less money, you can either just shut your door and say, "Screw everybody," or I can wait until everyone can afford my work or price it cheaper.

Easy for him to say. His audacious one-man auction of new work on Sept. 15 at Sotheby's was the last running of the art-market bulls.

Jennifer Stockman, above, the president of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, responds to Conflicts of Interest: Museum Trustees Play the Market:

The director and the curators, not the trustees, of the Guggenheim make all decisions as to the exhibitions that are shown at the museum. I in no way influenced the Guggenheim's decision to hold the 2007 retrospective of Richard Prince's work. In fact, at the time I purchased Lake Resort Nurse in 2003, I was not aware that the Guggenheim would hold the retrospective and had been collecting works by Richard Prince since 2000.

"Lake Resort Nurse" was not loaned to or included in the Guggenheim's Prince exhibition. The Guggenheim's conflict-of-interest policy for trustees provides that no confidential information may be used by a trustee for personal gain. I did not act upon confidential information.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Chancellor of the Smithsonian's Board

Billed as its first public meeting, the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents' question-and-answer session yesterday with Smithsonian-ologists may have been therapeutic but it wasn't a sufficient step towards greater transparency: It didn't reveal to the public what goes on at the closed-door meetings where the Smithsonian's business really gets done.

The public Q&A's unasked question that needs an answer is this:

Since the Smithsonian is a quasi-federal agency, created by Congress, subject to Congressional oversight and primarily funded from federal tax dollars, why aren't those business meetings required to be open under federal open-meeting laws?

Some matters, such as personnel issues or litigation-related discussions, would have to go into executive session. But why the secrecy surrounding discussion about such matters as "Gift and Endowment Actions" and "Deaccession of the National Air and Space Museum's B‐17G Aircraft"?

Here's the complete agenda for yesterday's closed business session (which included the above items). You tell me why these discussions should be entirely concealed from public view.

If the Smithsonian is truly serious about improved transparency, its own board meetings are the place to start.

The lawn to the west of the Kimbell Art Museum, site of its planned Renzo Piano building

The Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, has opted to court controversy with plans (to be announced at a 9 a.m. press conference today) that will plant a new 90,000-square-foot, Renzo Piano-designed building just west of Louis Kahn's 120,000-square-foot 1972 masterpiece.

According to the press release (not online at this writing):

Mr. Piano's new building subtly mirrors the Kahn building in height and scale and in the span of the façade, as well as in its tripartite plan and use of travertine and concrete as primary materials. From its glazed front, which faces Kahn's stately stone-clad portico, the roof of the addition gently recedes under a berm at the rear....

[Piano's plan] restores the threshold experience of the Kahn museum to Kahn's original vision, so that once again the majority of visitors will enter as intended through the main west entrance and tree-lined court, flanked by pools and vaulted porticos. In recent years most museumgoers have entered through the back door on the east side because of parking requirements.

Plans are still preliminary and, to my knowledge, there are no detailed renderings yet available for the press of what the building will look like. But here is Piano's site plan, showing where the new building will be located in relation to the original one. The gray rectangle in the center is the Kimbell; the gray area to its left is the planned building. Tadao Ando's Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth is located in the top right corner of this triangular site.:



Back in April 2007, when an expansion to be designed by Piano was announced under the administration of former director Timothy Potts, the press release had stated:

The addition will comprise a separate building located across the street from the current Museum, on land acquired in 1998. [That scruffy site is in the lower right corner of the above triangle.]

An even earlier plan under director Ted Pillsbury to add an extension by Romaldo Giurgola to Kahn's building aroused such strong opposition that it was abandoned. In a 1989 letter to the NY Times, nine prominent architects and architectural historians had called that plan "a disservice not only to Kahn's memory and to the wishes of the museum's founders, but also to American culture as a whole." They added that the expansion would deprive Kahn's structure of "the intensity of its present situation in relation to the park."

Speaking of that park: Reporting last August on a lively discussion about the Kimbell expansion at the Dallas Architectural Forum, Scott Cantrell of the Dallas Morning News wrote:

Although it's a sort of dead space between the Kimbell and the Amon Carter Museum up the hill, the lawn is much beloved by Fort Worth residents. And many locals feel the Kimbell should not compromise either Kahn's building or the lawn by attaching a new structure to the old.

Although the new building will be occupy the lawn, it will not (under current plans) be attached to the old, except for an underground tunnel for transporting art. The public will step outside to get from one building to the other.

Quoted in the press release, Malcolm Warner, the Kimbell's acting director, argues that the new plan "echoes Kahn's early vision for the Kimbell, in which the museum was to be much larger and extend into the area the new building will occupy." (Speaking of Warner, acting director for more than a year, when will the Kimbell board name him, or someone else, as permanent director?)

The new two-story, three-bay building will contain new galleries for special exhibitions---an improvement desperately needed by a museum that must take down its superlative permanent collection whenever it opens a major temporary exhibition. The new building will also have an education center, library and auditorium.

Hard costs for construction are expected to total $70 million, all funded by the Kimbell Art Foundation itself. Groundbreaking is projected for late 2010; the hoped-for opening is in 2012.

Below is an aerial view of the site as it appears now. The Kimbell is the structure with the barrel-vaulted roof in the center; the verdant area behind it is the planned contruction site; the greenish area in the left center of the photograph, in front of the Kimbell, is the museum-purchased site formerly considered, under Potts, for a Piano annex:


Let the architectural and land-use debates begin!

UPDATE: Gaile Robinson of DFW.com (part of the website of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram) has more details this morning, including interactive graphics that give some idea of the tentative plans for the arrangement of the interior spaces of the new building. She also tells us about plans for the lot across the street that the Kimbell had previously acquired for its expansion:

Kimbell officials have said the Darnell Street auditorium will eventually be demolished and some of the parking lots removed so the Frisbee players and dog walkers will have an expanse of park-like lawn on which to play.

I suppose this is the museum's way of compensating for taking away the parkland on its other side.

SECOND UPDATE: Jerome Weeks, ArtsJournal's book/daddy blogger and producer/reporter for KERA, the NPR/PBS station for Dallas-Fort Worth (for which he produced this today about the new Kimbell proposal), wrote to remind me that "it wasn't just architects and art historians who protested the 1989 Kimbell expansion proposal. It was also Kahn's widow."

But in her letter to the NY Times, the architect's widow seemed to favor a plan similar to what is now being proposed by Piano. Esther Kahn wrote:

If more space is needed, there is room on the site for a separate building, which could be connected to the present museum,

At the end of my last post (on Sotheby's losses from contemporary art guarantees), I noted that "since Christie's is not a publicly traded company and doesn't have Sotheby's financial reporting requirements, we don't know whether its experience with guarantees this month was similarly unfavorable."

Now Carol Vogel has weighed in with her market-crash post mortem in the NY Times. She reports that Christie's, while not giving out specific figures, "also admitted to having lost millions of dollars [on guarantees]" and will also be cutting back sharply on guarantees and expenses. Sotheby's announced a similar change in policies and practices more than a week ago, in its conference call with securities analysts.

Edward Dolman, Christie's CEO, told Vogel that his firm would be relying on "the three D's---death, divorce and debt" to bring it future consignments. You'll note that he didn't mention the fourth D---discretionary sellers. As Bill Ruprecht, Sotheby's president and CEO, indicated in the conference call, collectors who are not compelled by circumstances to sell and can wait out the bear market probably will. This is a buyer's market, but there may be fewer top-quality works to buy.

I need to hammer one point home about my Wall Street Journal article that was published on Saturday: Several readers wrote to ask me what's wrong with reporting final auction prices, including the premium. Nothing's wrong with that, as I explicitly state in the last paragraph. But if the auction houses (and/or journalists) are going to compare prices with presale estimates, they MUST use HAMMER PRICE (without adding on the buyer's premium), because presale estimates are predictions about HAMMER PRICE. The apples-to-oranges comparison of final price to presale estimate makes the sale look more successful than it really was.

Enough said (I hope).

Form 8-K
Current Report

Filed Nov 14, 2008

As I previously reported, Sotheby's announced on Nov. 7 that it was predicting a loss of about $17 million on its contemporary art sales this month.

Now that the sales are over, Sotheby's has reported that the actual loss on contemporary art guarantees was much worse:

On the Form 8-K that it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, the auction house revealed that the $17.6 million in predicted losses (related to guaranteed property scheduled in the Nov. 11 and 12 contemporary sales), which it had recognized in its financial report for the third quarter of 2008 (ended Sept. 30), were underestimated by about $10.6 million. The actual loss on guarantees in these contemporary sales totaled a whopping $28.2 million.

The 8-K also revealed:

If I've been blogging lite since the big auctions, it's because I've been on desperate deadline for an article on p. W11 of the "Weekend" section of tomorrow's Wall Street Journal. It concerns an auction-related pet peeve of mine, already quite familiar to CultureGrrl readers. I'll link to it when it's up, probably late tonight.

UPDATE: You can read me now---Making Sales Look Stronger: The auction houses have an interesting way of reporting their auction results. If you've been following CultureGrrl, you already know what I'm hammering away at in this piece.

And while you're at it, take a look at Kelly Crow's round-up and analysis (also in tomorrow's WSJ) of the evening auctions of the last two weeks.

Tom Campbell, back in his open-collar days

I couldn't get a good shot of Tom Campbell at the Metropolitan Museum's press lunch earlier this week, because I was seated at the far rear, facing the back corner. (Are they trying to tell me something?)

So since he recently said he's an "open collar kind of guy" and since I'm tired of running the same old headshot, I thought I'd show you his hometown newspaper's open-collar photo of the Met's future director, from back in the day. I won't credit the newspaper, because that would tell you the town where he lives and the man's entitled to some privacy. The official accounts just say that Tom lives in Westchester. I imagine that with two children who have established roots in the community, he could find moving closer to the Met a difficult decision.

I did get a shot at chatting with him before the lunch, and he told me he's been attending all the museum's important meetings and conducting his own tête-à-têtes with the various department têtes. He assured me he'll have much to say about his vision going forward at the appropriate moment---once he's in charge. Fair enough.

This is what he told the assembled scribes at the press lunch:

You haven't heard very much from me recently because this is very much a time for me to be asking questions and taking stock. Of course I do have some ideas about where I may build on Philippe's legacy. It's a question of evolution rather than revolution. When the time is right, I very much look foward to meeting with you and working with you all, as we carry on the next story.

Philippe de Montebello gave his final press-lunch rundown of upcoming exhibitions and it was announced that he would become the first "director emeritus" in the Met's history. When I shook his hand afterwards, he indicated to me that his first teaching stint at New York University's Institute of Fine Arts, a course on the history of museums, won't begin until next fall, because he needs six months to prepare. Can I audit?

But back to the future: The article in Tom's hometown paper about his recent Met appointment, which was published along with his younger-days photo, informs us that "Campbell brings a kindly attentiveness and English charm to interviews." Looking forward.

Joseph Cornell, "Pharmacy," 1943, subject of a rare bidding war
Is there an art-market anodyne in there?

Let's put me and this season of lackluster evening sales to bed quickly, if not painlessly.

First, the good news:

The chief excitement at Christie's contemporary sale tonight was for Yayoi Kusama's "No.2" (one of her white dot paintings). It was the only work that soared above its presale estimate, in an intense bidding duel that set a new auction record for the artist. It fetched $5.79 million, with the buyer's premium, and its $5.1-million hammer price more than doubled the low end of the hammer-price presale estimate of $2.5-3.5 million.

Another hotly contested piece was Joseph Cornell's "Pharmacy," above (a prototype for Damien Hirst pharmacies?). It was hammered down at $3.3 million, against an estimate of $1.5-2 million. Its final price of $3.78 million, with buyer's premium, set an auction record for the artist.

The two top lots (of those that sold) hit their presale estimates: Richter's "Abstraktes Bild (710)," estimated "in the region of $13 million," was knocked down at $13.2 million. (Its final price with premium was $14.87 million.) Basquiat's "Untitled (Boxer)," at $12 million ($13.52 million with premium), nailed its "in the region of $12 million" estimate.

Now for the bad news (unless you're a buyer, not a seller or member of the trade):

The hammer-price total for the auction was a paltry $98.48 million ($113.63 million, with premium), against a presale estimate of $227.15-327.55 million. The 75-work sale was 68% sold by lot; 55% sold by dollar. Hammer prices for the majority of the 51 works that did find buyers fell short of presale estimates. The complete results of tonight's sale are here.

Several works that were estimated to fetch the highest prices of the evening failed to sell (estimates in parentheses): a Brice Marden ($10-15 million); a Lucio Fontana ("in the region of 12 million"); another Richter ($10-15 million); and, most disappointingly for Christie's, a Francis Bacon "Study for a Self-Portrait" ("in the region of $40 million"). All landed with a thud---not even close to the "region" of their presale estimates.

And what of the works that were famously consigned by a trustee of the Museum of Modern Art and by the president of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation?

Almost all of the 16 drawings sent to Christie's by Kathy Fuld, a MoMA trustee and wife of Richard, CEO of the failed Lehman Brothers, sold below estimate. Three didn't sell at all. All had been given auction-house guarantees.

As for Richard Prince's "Lake Resort Nurse," consigned by the Guggenheim's Jennifer Stockman, its hammer price was a mere $2.9 million, against an estimate of $5-7 million. It also carried a guarantee, which Stockman had told Carol Vogel of the NY Times, made it "almost impossible not to take advantage of the sale." (Speaking of Carol, I KNEW that she would identify for us the art-buying sidekick of Valentino! Was I supposed to know who Giancarlo Giammetti was? Maybe so.)

If Christie's decides to follow Sotheby's lead, this may have been a last-chance sale for generous auction-house guarantees, until the economy improves and art prices stabilize. This month's sales may also have been a last chance for Impressionist, modern and contemporary auctions of significant overall quality, as sellers of major works wait for better times, if they can, or consider whether disposing of their possessions discreetly through dealers (who can purchase the art themselves or wait for the right price) might be a more attractive choice.

Michael Kaiser

The New York City Opera, urgently needing to stop the press-fed rumors that it might cease to exist after the sudden departure of Gerard Mortier, must have rushed right out to the bookstore to pick up Michael Kaiser's new book on "The Art of the Turnaround," after reading about it yesterday in the NY Times. (Just kidding about the last part.)

They liked it so much that they engaged him to help "to identify new leadership and to craft a practical and comprehensive plan for the 2009-2010 season and beyond---a plan that respects City Opera's past while initiating a creative and entrepreneurial vision for the future," as stated in the announcement posted on the company's website.

Strangely, that announcement doesn't identify Kaiser as president of the Kennedy Center, Washington's counterpart to Lincoln Center where City Opera resides. It just calls him "one of America's leading arts management advisors." Maybe New York cultural institutions aren't supposed to need help from officials at institutions outside the Cultural Capital.

One of Kaiser's previous books is, "Understanding the Competition: A Practical Guide of Competitive Analysis." Could he have an ulterior motive? He's now going to understand Kennedy Center's competition SO much better!

Attention Firefox Devotees:

If you want to watch tonight's contemporary evening sale on "Christie's Live" tonight and your default browser is the latest version of Firefox, dial this number immediately: 877-641-7704. The very helpful tech support agent, David, or one of his colleagues, will walk you through a complicated procedure (which you could never have figured out by yourself) to get into the virtual saleroom through Internet Explorer (assuming you also have that on your computer).

It's not as simple as just going to IE and following the prompts, because the software you download will still want to go through your default browser, Firefox. You will need to go through some other arcane machinations to get your screenside seats.

Now I don't feel quite as idiotic as I did last Wednesday, when all my (meager) technological skills failed me. It's the technology, stupid! (or the stupid technology)

Edward Ruscha's "Strength," selling below-estimate last night at $1.14 million.
It's a good visual metaphor for the art market's downward slide.

At the press conference last night touting Sotheby's contemporary art results, auctioneer Tobias Meyer expressed gratitude to the "collector community" who had "supported the sale."

It was actually life support---enough to maintain a weak pulse. Some veteran American collectors, including Eli Broad and Peter Brant, were present and taking advantage of attractive price markdowns. Broad's curator Joanne Heyler, who had sat beside him in the saleroom, told me immediately afterwards that they had purchased a Ruscha (estimated at $4-6 million; hammer price---$2.1 million) and a Rauschenberg (estimated at $3-4 million; hammer price---$2.25 million). [UPDATE: Carol Vogel of the NY Times reports that Broad also bought a Judd and a Koons.] Brant told me that he had picked up a couple of works, but wouldn't say which ones.

"It was obviously a challenging night," admitted Sotheby's contemporary specialist, Alex Rotter, before announcing to the press the sale results, This auction was 68% sold by lot, 71% by value---a little better than figures for last week's Impressionist/modern evening sales at Sotheby's and Christie's. He announced the total with buyer's premium---$125.13 million, but not the hammer total, which I later learned was $108.92 million---only slightly above half of the low end of the $202.4-280.4 million presale estimate of hammer total.

Another big collector/buyer at the sale, who was sitting in the front row with fashion designer Valentino, placed winning bids on two Warhols and one Joan Mitchell. Outside the saleroom afterwards, Valentino said he had not been the purchaser and the man (still beside him) who had done the bidding told me that he was a collector but if I didn't know who he was, he wasn't going to tell me. (I assume I should have known who he was, and that Carol Vogel and/or Lindsay Pollock will identify him in their reports.)

Two of the three auction records achieved during the sale were disappointing, when compared to presale estimates for those works: Phillip Guston's "Beggar's Joys" fetched a hammer price of $9 million ($10.16 million with buyer's premium), nowhere "in the region of $15 million," which had been its estimate. Richard Serra's "12-4-8" was hammered down to dealer Larry Gagosian (who also bought last night's other Serra) at $1.4 million ($1.48 million with premium), below its estimate of $2-3 million.

John Currin's previous auction record of $847,500 was easily smashed by "Nice 'n Easy," hammered down at $4.8 million ($5.46 million with premium), exceeding its $3.5-4.5 million estimate.

The biggest failures were Lichtenstein's "Half Face with Collar," unsold at $11 million (estimate: $15-20 million) and Freud's "Naked Portrait Standing," unsold at $6.75 million ($9-12 million). The top lot, Yves Klein's "RE 11 Archisponge," fetched $21.36 million, with premium, short of the artist's $23.56-million record and (at a hammer price of $19 million) below its estimate, "in the region of $25 million."

You can find the complete results here.

Anthony Grant, Sotheby's senior specialist for contemporary art

In CultureGrrl, I commented last week on such arcane, mysteriously coded auction-house initiation rites as "irrevocable guarantees," "third-party guarantees," "interested parties" and house "ownership interests." I nostalgically asked:

Whatever happened to auctioneers' time-honored role as impartial brokers between buyers and sellers?

Sotheby's has apparently asked itself that question too: In a conference call Friday with financial analysts, the publicly traded auction house (Christie's is privately held), reacted to its guarantees-gone-bad and disadvantageous deals with sellers by announcing that it was back-to-basics time. Bill Ruprecht, Sotheby's president and CEO, announced:

The best practice for our organization right now is to hold onto our capital and be an agent rather than a principal in transactions.

He declared that Sotheby's would be "reducing our guarantee portfolio as well as any other special concessions we grant to sellers, in order to obtain a fair return for our services." Toby Usnik, Christie's head of public relations, asked by me if his firm would follow suit, responded:

As a standard business practice, we regularly review our pricing and financial terms in light of market conditions and the competitive environment. Any future change would be announced once the change has been decided.

In recent year, the seller's commission has been increasingly reduced to zero for important consignments, and in some cases, a portion of the commission paid by buyers has gone not to the auction house but to the sellers, allowing them to take home an amount greater than the hammer price.

Sotheby's just filed 10-Q quarterly report makes it clear why a strategic u-turn is urgently needed: The firm reported that it had experienced, for the first nine months of this year, a $60-million loss on guarantees (amounts promised to consignors, whether or not the bidding actually reaches that level). Losses on guarantees included $15 million on sales in Hong Kong and $10 million on last week's Impressionist/modern sales. The company is also forecasting a $17-million loss on this week's contemporary sales.

Why guarantees are so risky in this down market was make very clear by financial details revealed in the 10-Q: As of Sept. 30, the company had outstanding auction guarantees totaling $319.6 million, on property with presale estimates totaling $298.7-$403.5 million. With so many lots in recent auctions selling for considerably below their presale estimates or not at all, it seems clear that guarantees pegged above the low estimate are very dicey.

In all, the company experienced a third-quarter net loss of $46.2 million or 71 cents per diluted share, more than twice the loss of $20.9 million or 33 cents per diluted share for the same period last year. (The third quarter, with few auctions scheduled, is usually a loser.) Still, Ruprecht maintained that his firm is "highly liquid and open for business" and added that Sotheby's is "clearly the strongest organization in this business." (Usnik of Christie's declined to comment on that claim.) Sotheby's intends to institute "global cost reduction initiatives," including job cuts.

So what does this mean (aside from less job security) for auction-house specialists on the ground? At the exhibition on Sunday for tonight's contemporary evening auction, senior contemporary art specialist Anthony Grant (above) told me:

The business model will be a return to the old days....That's not to say that there are not deals to be made [with consignors], but they will be really selective.

Similarly, Ruprecht said:

As customers' confidence in the marketplace returns, ...estates may be in a position where they'll continue to be afforded some level of guarantees.

Speaking of consumer confidence, $40 will get you into the audience on Feb. 3 for a New York debate, pro and con, on the proposition, "The art market is less ethical than the stock market."

Arguing for that proposition will be dealers Richard Feigen and Michael Hue-Williams and collector Adam Lindemann. Those who think that the stock market is less ethical than the art market are artist Chuck Close, critic Jerry Saltz and Christie's deputy chairman and contemporary art specialist Amy Cappellazzo.

Maybe your view depends on which market downturn has caused you more angst---art or stocks.

You may well have missed this, but buried on p. 24 of the special "Giving" section in today's NY Times (not linked on the "Arts" web page) is Robin Pogrebin's article, The Nonprofit's Guide to Surviving a Downturn, which draws attention to two timely new books by long-time masters of cultural fundraising. From her description (and considering the prestige and experience of the authors), these appear to be must-haves for nonprofits (including museums) trying to weather these troubled financial times.

They are: Yours for the Asking: An Indispensable Guide to Fund-Raising and Management by Reynold Levy, president of Lincoln Center in New York; and The Art of the Turnaround: Creating and Maintaining Healthy Arts Organizations by Michael Kaiser, president of Kennedy Center in Washington. I've never met Kaiser, but I've heard Levy speak and was greatly impressed with his vision and ability to realize it. (He spearheaded Lincoln Center's drive to raise more than $1 billion in five years.)

I have not yet seen these books. Although I assume they are performing-arts oriented, they set forth strategies that can be applied across the cultural spectrum. Maybe we need a master museum fundraiser to author the visual-arts equivalent.

Speaking of fundraising challenges, Alexandra Peers recently detailed in the Wall Street Journal how art museums are trying to grapple with such issues.

Gerard Mortier, subject of yesterday's "SundayArts" profile that was overtaken by events

Metropolitan Museum director Philippe de Montebello's first outing as a TV host, on New York Public Television's (WNET's) SundayArts program yesterday, turned out to be an extended infomercial for his institution, with a focus on its current exhibition, The Philippe de Montebello Years. He highlighted his cherished 2004 acquisition, Duccio's "Madonna and Child."

It was another edifying explication from the Philippe we know and love. But what will be really interesting is seeing what happens if he ventures out of his comfort zone. Will he leave 1000 Fifth Avenue to give us insights and appraisals concerning objects and exhibitions at other institutions? Qui vivra verra.

But wait! Stop the video! Can't a program that purports to be a news show (even if that news is "merely" cultural) manage to substitute a different segment for one that's been completely overtaken by events? Unfortunately, Philippe's debut occurred on an installment of SundayArts that included a major gaffe.

De Montebello's Met tour was followed by a "feature profile," introduced by co-host Paula Zahn, of Gerard Mortier, described as "the new general manager and artistic director of the New York City Opera, who will take up residence at the start of the 2009 season."

Not any more: As Daniel Wakin reported in Friday's NY Times (Dan had a very busy day), Mortier announced that he had decided to leave before he started. He complained that the company couldn't give him the money he needed to realize his vision.

In the pre-recorded segment, he spoke of "always reject[ing] what was done before me," and "rejecting the hypocrisy of a bourgeois world" (as long has he has the money to realize his non-bourgeois vision, it would seem). He even rejected his would-have-been counterpart at the Metropolitan Opera:

Where I have a completely different opinion from my colleague Peter Gelb...is that I never would think of bringing people to the cinema to discover opera. It's completely wrong. The importance of opera is that, as public, you feel the stage people singing, so you feel your reaction will have a consequence on the singer.

Whatever people think of Gelb's other innovations at the Met, his Live in HD initiative, begun almost two years ago and extended to a large number of theaters here and abroad, has been a tremendous hit and an almost universally acclaimed outreach program.

Maybe Gerard just wasn't right for City Opera. Judge for yourself. You can see the complete (outdated) Mortier profile here. But at this writing, I couldn't find a Philippe video on the SundayArts website.

Robert Lepage, director of Metropolitan Opera's "The Damnation of Faust"

I am a disgruntled survivor of the tacky, ugly and gratuitously busy staging of "The Damnation of Faust" that opened last night at the Metropolitan Opera. It's bad enough to inflict such shallow shenanigans on the lush, lyrical score of a Berlioz opera-house rarity, but I'm horrified by the prospect, reported on Friday by Daniel Wakin in the NY Times, that they're planning to give the same director's techno-drecko treatment to opera's holy grail, Wagner's Ring Cycle.

I'm in favor of innovative productions. But I think the Met should consider engaging professional artists (as the Met tried decades ago, with great success, when it worked with David Hockney) to reimagine its sets. Instead, it chose Cirque du Soleil's director for its Las Vegas production, Robert Lepage (who also has theatrical and operatic productions to his credit). In this projection-happy staging, the JumboTron images of the protagonists floundering underwater brought to mind how much better this would have been pulled off by Bill Viola.

A few memories I'd like to forget: hyperactive soldiers, endlessly marching backwards and, later, falling from great heights into damsels' laps, only to rise again on pulleys (and then fall down again, and then rise again, and then...); poorly choreographed dance sequences; a final scene where the hapless but undaunted mezzo-soprano Susan Graham was made to climb up to Heaven on a very high, very flimsy-looking, shaky ladder, cautiously feeling her way up each rung in a flowing gown that brushed the top of her slippers. I feared for her life too much to pay any attention to the concluding music.

The only way to enjoy the evening was to stop looking at the stage and focus all attention on the superb James Levine, who, despite his recent health problems, conducted with an energy that put to shame the young Alan Gilbert, whom I had witnessed at the Met two weeks ago, conducting John Adams' "Doctor Atomic" with his head buried in the score.

Aside from doing a disservice to the music, the production seemed heedless of the viewing experience of those of us sitting higher than the orchestra. From my dress-circle box (two levels below the top boxes), there were long stretches where the heads and upper torsos of cast members populating the upper tier of the set were completely cut off from view. The mirrored back wall, as seen from my seat on the side, reflected a frontal view of the brilliantly illuminated conductor in action, which was an unintended but welcome diversion from the onstage action.

And every time there was a "silence," I heard a very loud hum that appeared to be coming from the projection equipment at the upper reaches of the auditorium.

My memo to the Met:

Leave the Otto Schenk production of the "Ring" alone for now. Rethink who should be chosen to rethink it.

UPDATE: Veteran music critic John Rockwell gives his take on the production. Great minds think alike.

Philippe de Montebello and Paula Zahn, cultural co-anchors

You mean they hired Philippe and not me?

Back in February, I received an announcement about a casting call for a "female arts reporter" for Channel Thirteen's (New York's public television's) new culture program, SundayArts. I figured that that since I'm an established radio star, I'm SO ready for television!

I e-mailed my résumé, photo (my downfall) and a short paragraph detailing my experience and background.

Here's the kind of candidate they were seeking:

We are looking for someone who is intelligent, effusive and has a love of the New York City arts scene. [That's so ME!] Ideally, you would be female [check], between the ages of 26-40. [Can I fake it?] A fine arts background is a must and on-camera experience is a HUGE plus. [Does appearing once on BBC-TV count?]

I never got the call for my close-up. The show premiered without me on Mar. 23. (What does Christina Ha have that I don't?) Now I hear that Philippe de Montebello---male, over 40, but very well preserved---has gotten himself a co-host gig on the show, starting this Sunday at noon. I'm certain that he needs a veteran art-museum correspondent. (Do I need to do botox?)

And what's his opinion of the mini-series that appears, from the trailer, to be a soap-opera treatment of "The Impressionists," airing on this week's show? Judge for yourself:

Auctioneer Christopher Burge consults with Guy Bennett (left), Christie's international co-head of Impressionist/modern art, before last night's auction.

In a kind of French poetic justice, yesterday's big Impressionist/modern sale at Christie's was another gray night, except for Gris. Pun intended, for those of you who know what "Livre, Pipe et Verres" means. That's the title of Gris' widely exhibited 1915 Cubist work that sold tonight for $20.8 million, setting a new auction record for the artist.

For the first seven lots (the Gris was seventh), I thought I was back in the heady times when bids were careening all over the room, smashing records. Lot 4, a Henri Laurens white marble sculpture, also set an auction record at $1.87 million, soaring well above its presale estimate of $600,000-800,000. Since I attended today in person, instead of online, I imagined that I had brought auctioneer Christopher Burge some good luck.

Then it started.

"Pahss, pahss, pahss," grumbled an elegant, elderly woman behind me, mocking Burge's British accent as he found no buyers for 36 of the 82 lots in the sale. He did it with his customary elan, seeming almost cheerful as he presided over another eerie evening of art prices following the bad example of the Dow.

The sale's hammer total was an anemic $128.26 million, against a presale estimate of $240.7-337.2 million. (The total with buyer's premium was $146.72 million.) The sale was 63% sold by dollar; 56% by lot. These kinds of numbers are getting numbingly familiar.

You can find the prices for individual lots here.

The biggest failure was Picasso's "Woman in a Corset Reading a Book," 1914-18, unsold at $9.8 million against an estimate of $15-20 million. The same artist's "Man Seated on a Chair" was another expensive failure at $5.2 million against an estimate of $10-15 million. A 1936 Matisse painting of a reclining nude, which had been in the Museum of Modern Art's celebrated 1992 Matisse retrospective, foundered at $8.2 million, against an estimate of $12-18 million.

At the press post mortem, Burge conceded that we are experiencing "a reduced level of prices" and added that the next round of presale estimates is going to have to be "lower than this time." But he argued that the over-$400 million total of this week's evening sales at the Christie's and Sotheby's showed that "there is definitely a market for good works of art."

Maybe, but it's a helluva lot weaker than it used to be.

Burge, who started in the business in 1968 and has survived the art-market slumps of 1974, 1981, 1991 and 2001, managed somehow to seem ebullient during and after this rocky outing. He implored the assembled scribes to be fair in our coverage and headlines, so I asked him what his suggested headline would be:

Remarkable Resiliency in the Art Market, Given Financial Turmoil in the World

I would say that "remarkable resiliency" accurately describes the auctioneer, but not today's market.

Michael Crichton's 1977 Whitney Museum Catalogue

Everyone knows Michael Crichton as the author of page-turners like "The Andromeda Strain" and "Jurassic Park." But the author, who died Tuesday at the age of 66, was also a collector of works by Jasper Johns, who chose Crichton to author the catalogue (revised and reissued in 1994) for his 1977 retrospective at the Whitney Museum.

Crichton then wrote:

With Johns, the issue of perception---of what you see, and why, and how you decide what your are looking at---are not merely questions to be decided in order to produce some final effect. They are instead the focus of the work itself....A painting by Johns, often by its very presence, suggests the question, what is painting?

Those of you who have access to the NY Times "Premium Archive" can find Grace Glueck's article about the Whitney retrospective and Crichton's involvement in its catalogue here.

Alice Neel, "Robert Smithson," 1962

Remember Christie's Wild and Wacky Night? That was then; this is now:

When asked about the prospects for the big New York sales, for an article published earlier today by the Assocated Press, Guy Bennett, Christie's co-head of Impressionist and modern art said:

I think we found the right balance in terms of price points and also the quality of the things we're offering.

Think again.

The 17 lots that failed to find buyers at tonight's 58-lot sale of Impressionist, modern and contemporary works from two collections (the Hillman Family and Alice Lawrence) included the two highest-estimated works: Manet's "Girl on a Bench," estimated at $12-18 million, and former auction star Rothko's "No. 43 (Mauve)," estimated at $20-30 million. Largely because of those two expensive failures, the auction was a paltry 50% sold by value (71% sold by number of lots).

The sale totaled $47.04 million (including the buyer's premium). Hammer total was $40.26 miilion, against a hammer-total presale estimate of $102.39-149.42 million. The numbers speak for themselves. (You can see the prices for individual lots in the two-part sale here and here.)

Of those works that did sell, the majority fell below their presale estimates...often way below, as with Toulouse-Lautrec's "Portrait of Henri Nocq" knocked down at $3.9 million, against an estimate of $6-9 million; and Redon's "Corn-Poppies in a Green Vase," with a hammer price of $530,000 but estimated to bring $1-1.5 million.

One unexpectedly high price (in part, no doubt, due to its subject) was for Alice Neel's "Robert Smithson" (above), which set an auction record for Neel at $698,500 (estimate: $300,000-400,000).

I couldn't "attend" the sale online as I'd planned, because of Christie's very cumbersome registration process, which involves downloading software onto your computer. It's worked fine for me before, but this time, when I followed all the download instructions and still couldn't get connected, I called for tech help (which didn't help), and was told that I might have had problems because the software had been "upgraded." By contrast, Sotheby's auction webcast (where you can view the sale, but not bid online, as you can on the Christie's website) is a model of user-friendliness.

Maybe I'll manage to get things up and running by the time of tomorrow's bigger Impressionist/modern evening sale at Christie's. Maybe I'm better off not watching.

I take it back.

A couple of weeks ago I blasted (without naming it) the new book Loot, a chronicle of the recent antiquities wars, by former NY Times culture reporter Sharon Waxman. The only thing I then knew about the book's contents was the outrageously irrelevant bit of tabloid journalism that was excerpted for advance publication on Tina Brown's recently launched news-aggregating website, The Daily Beast.

To my surprise, after I wrote my diatribe, I was sent a copy of the book. You can't judge an artwork without seeing it, and you can't judge a book without reading it. It turns our that the excerpt was an anomaly and did the rest of the book a gross injustice. That's why I did it an injustice. (But really, Sharon, why sabotage your own book like that?)

"Loot" is a recap and fleshing-out of stories already broken by others, but it's well worth having for its comprehensiveness. It's enlivened by the blunt candor of major and minor figures on all sides of the cultural-property debate who acceded to interviews with this manifestly skilled reporter. Waxman seems to have met with most of the major players in the recent controversies, with two important exceptions. John Walsh, former director of the Getty, and Shelby White, the controversial collector/patron refused to answer her queries. Just about everyone else (except for those under a legal cloud) did, from the directors of the major museums beleaguered by antiquities claims to the cultural officials of source countries to the security guard at the Getty who mourned the departure to Italy of objects that he had admired every day.

Though not breaking new ground, Waxman's book is a journalistic tour de force---an exhaustively researched, even-handed compendium of the disputes roiling museums and source countries, as seen through the eyes of the protagonists. I'm sure that the participants in these struggles will find things to correct. American museum officials will doubtless quarrel with the blanket characterization of their unprovenanced ancient holdings as "stolen."

And there's nothing here about the U.S. State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee, which considers (and usually grants) source countries' requests for heritage protection. Speaking of which, Brent Benjamin, director of the St. Louis Art Museum, was recently named to CPAC, causing some upset in the cultural-heritage crowd because of his ownership dispute with Egypt over the museum's 3,200-year-old mummy mask. At this writing, CPAC has taken down from its website the names of its committee members, promising that "a revised list will be posted soon."

One passage in Waxman's book that caused me to do a double-take was her description of a public lecture by de Montebello two years ago at the Metropolitan Museum. Although the sold-out event was open to any member of the general public who managed to purchase a ticket, Waxman described the audience as "the carefully groomed and heavily jeweled cultural patrons of Manhattan....It was a sea of white hair and fur coats, men with walking canes, rouged women in high heels and elegant hats, air kisses and familiar faces, the upper crust of the city who number among the museum's most important donors." That makes for a dramatic scene-setter, but there were, in fact, plenty of scruffy culture buffs (including me) filling some of those seats.

I could have wished for a better concluding chapter, with more pointed suggestions for deescalating the antiquities wars. But Waxman is more journalist than thinker, and better minds than hers or mine have applied themselves to these vexing problems without solving them. I do agree with her suggestion for museums to provide complete information on their websites about the provenance (or lack thereof) of the antiquities in their collections. But I don't agree that the permanent-collection galleries are the place for those details (other than a general statement, such as that posted by the Brooklyn Museum) or for mea culpas. (UPDATE: More on this issue, raised again in Sharon's NY Times Op-Ed piece of Dec. 1, is here.)

Waxman's main concluding point is this:

What is required most of all is a desire to collaborate rather than excoriate, to take the measure of where a lack of collaboration has led and pursue a different path [which is...?]. It is possible that each side can win in this battle."

Nice thought (and also appropriate for our Democrats and Republicans to ponder, on this morning after). But goodwill alone can get us only so far.

For what it's worth, CultureGrrl's more specific recommendations for a ceasefire in the cultural-property wars are here, here, here, here and here.

(Now if I can only figure out how do deal with Iraq and Afghanistan...)

HELP ME! Auctioneer Tobias Meyer, about to be possessed by the "Vampire" behind him

Fair warning. Last chance. Passed.

That, or some variation on that, was heard 25 times as Tobias Meyer dutifully slogged through what must have been his roughest outing ever on the Sotheby's podium. ("Passed," of course, means that the work failed to sell because bids didn't reach the level of the consignor's reserve.)

Of the 70 lots, a mere eight fetched hammer prices that equaled or (in only two cases) exceeded their presale estimates. (Presale estimates are based on hammer price, not on the final price, which includes the buyer's premium.)

There was only one big-time bidding war, applauded at the end, for Munch's iconic "Vampire" (above) which at $38.16 million with buyer's premium easily broke the $30.84-million auction record for the artist and attained its presale estimate of "in excess of $30 million."

An auction record for any Russian work of art at auction, at $60 million with buyer's premium, was set for Malevich's "Suprematist Composition," which had for 50 years been in the collection of the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, and was returned to the artist's heirs earlier this year. But the hammer price (possibly the promised "irrevocable bid") was $53.5 million, considerably below the presale estimate for the work (which Sotheby's had previously said was "in excess of $60 million," but which became "in the region of $60 million" by the night of the sale).

Degas' "Dancer in Repose," sold by MoMA's president, Marie-Josée Kravis, and her financial-mogul husband Henry, broke the auction record for the artist for a second time at $37.04 million. The couple had bought it at Sotheby's in 1999, setting the previous Degas record of $28 million. But again, tonight's hammer price ($33 million) fell well below the pastel's presale estimate ("in excess of $40 million").

The sale total was $223.81 million, including the buyer's premium. The hammer total was a mere $196.9 million, compared to the hammer-price presale estimate of $337.8-475.4 million. You don't need me to interpret this for you. The sale was 64.3% sold by lot; 68.3% sold by value.

I "attended" this sale online, so I'm not yet privy to how this dark night of the market is being explained by the auction house. I'm sure they'll emphasize the records, but I can't imagine how they'll otherwise put a positive spin on this, other than to say that it's a buyer's market.

Speaking of which, Meyer said to the purchaser of a Kandinsky watercolor at $350,000 (compared to an estimate of $550,000-750,000):

Thank you, sir. Well done!

It's the beginning of New York's big auction season, art-lings, and lots more than the lots is at stake. Just remember that in these financially challenging times, anything short of a bloodbath will be touted as evidence that there's still some money around for quality art. The auction houses have reportedly been hammering down consignors' expectations in an attempt to lower reserves to price levels that someone will find attractive. They have to make sure that the buy-in total doesn't look more robust than the sold total, or else the auction block will start looking like a chopping block.

If the market does take a post-bubble bath, auction-house officials will be quick to tell us that prices are returning to more realistic levels and that great opportunities abound for savvy buyers who still have some discretionary bucks. (Does anyone know if Warren Buffett craves Malevich?) My guess is that the auction houses and dealers have too much at stake to permit an unmitigated disaster, but prices will likely become more "reasonable," as the euphemism goes. Comparing presale estimates with hammer prices will give us some sense of where things now stand.

There's a lot more going on behind the scenes, however, than mere adjustment of reserves. To be a true auction-ologist, you'll need to attend CultureGrrl Class to learn the new, arcane code:

Last week, students, I introduced you to this: . Repeat after me: "Irrevocable Guarantee."

This symbol debuted in the catalogue entry for Malevich's 1916 "Suprematist Composition," estimated to bring the highest price, "in excess of $60 million," at Sotheby's auction tonight of Impressonist/modern works. (You can watch it live, beginning at 7 p.m., here.) That lucky horseshoe also appears for James Rosenquist's "In the Red," estimated at a mere $1.2-$1.6 million at Sotheby's contemporary sale, Nov. 11.

So what does it all mean? It's a promise by an outside third party (such as a dealer or collector) to place a bid for the designated work at a predetermined amount. If the price goes higher and someone else buys the work, the Irrevocable One gets to share in the amount above the level of his promised bid. This goes a step further than third-party guarantees, which did not always (but sometimes did) involve a promise to actually place a bid at the sale. Sotheby's used to lump irrevocable bids and third-party guarantees under the same "O" symbol that designated all guarantees, whether offered by the auction house and/or third parties.

The advantage (to both the seller and auction house) of this irrevocability is that it secures someone's definite commitment to place a bid "at a value that ensures that the lot will sell," as Diana Phillips, Sotheby's director of press and corporate affairs, explained it to me. In other words, the highest-estimated work at Sotheby's sale tonight will definitely sell.

Now, let's tackle this one: V.

This, auction-ologists, is Sotheby's new symbol for lots that may receive bids from "interested parties" (previously announced at the beginning of the sale, but not designated in the catalogue). Who are these people? The expanding "Symbol Key" at the back catalogue describes them as "parties with a direct or indirect interest in the lot [who] may be bidding on the lot, including the beneficiary of an estate selling the lot, or the joint owner of a lot....In certain instances, interested parties may have knowledge of the reserve."

In other words, the auction house's level playing field is somewhat tilted. There's another word that's previously been used to describe someone with an ownership interest in an object who secretly bids up its price---"shill."

Phillips wrote this in response to my query:

You are correct that as a general rule we do not allow consignors to bid. There are, however, instances in which a consignor may be allowed to bid, such as a joint owner of property, and in such instances we disclose that person's participation in the sale through either the interested party symbol or a pre-lot announcement.

And let's not forget "∆," which at both Sotheby's and Christie's means that the auction house itself has an ownership interest in the lot.

Sotheby's deserves credit for trying to make its murky practices more transparent through increased disclosure in its catalogue. Christie's as yet hasn't felt the need for new and inventive symbols, lumping all manner of guarantees under the "O" sign. The symbols themselves, in Christie's back-of-the-catalogue explanation of what they all mean, have dwindled in font to near invisibility. Sotheby's explanatory text, by contrast, is a model of readability.

But transparency aside, whatever happened to auctioneers' time-honored role as impartial brokers between buyers and sellers? With all the behind-the-scenes machinations and complications of the bidding process, it will be hard to know exactly what to make of the prices achieved tonight.

The Met's Tom Campbell: Role model for curators-turned-directors

The Center for Curatorial Leadership has just named its second class of curators who wish to be groomed for leadership positions. Actually, two of the 10, listed below, already have "director" in their titles. I guess they're hoping for bigger and better things, or more expertise in handling their current responsibilties.

In its press release (not online at this writing), CCL indicates that it feels validated by the Metropolitan Museum's "widely heralded decision" to appoint one of its own curators, Tom Campbell, to be its next director. Still the Met didn't appoint one of CCL's inaugural fellows, curator Gary Tinterow (who was on the museum's shortlist) to the top spot at his institution.

When I asked Elizabeth Easton, CCL's director, about how the first crop had fared, she stressed that "the goals of the program are long-term---not to find people new jobs, but rather to teach the skills that will help curators embrace the larger concerns of museums."

Three fellows did get promotions: Colin Bailey at the Frick Collection, New York; Jordana Pomeroy at the National Museum of Women in the Arts, Washington; Zoé Whitley at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Three others received job offers, two of which were accepted: Liz Armstrong, assistant director for exhibitions and programs and curator of contemporary art at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts; Silvia Cubina, named director of the Bass Museum, Miami.

Here (drumroll) are the 2009 fellows:

---Valerie Cassel Oliver, curator, Contemporary Arts Museum, Houston
---Gloria Groom, curator of 19th-century European painting, Art Institute of Chicago
---Maxwell Hearn, curator, department of Asian art, Metropolitan Museum, New York
---Robin Held, chief curator and director of exhibitions and collections Frye Art Museum, Seattle
---Eik Kahng, curator and head of department of 18th- and 19th-century art, Walters Art Museum, Baltimore
---Mary-Kay Lombino, curator, Frances Lehman Loeb Art Center, Vassar College, Pougkeepsie
---Kevin Salatino, curator and department head, prints and drawings, Los Angeles County Museum of Art
---Britt Salvesen, director and chief curator, Center for Creative Photography, University of Arizona, Tucson
---Rochelle Steiner, director, Public Art Fund, New York
---Matthew Welch, assistant director for curatorial affairs, curator of Japanese and Korean Art, Minneapolis Institute of Arts

Speaking of being groomed for leadership positions, Tom Campbell revealed to Ann Landi, in an interview (not online) for this month's ARTnews, that he has reluctantly stopped being "an open-collar kind of guy" and is adapting to "a suit-and-tie situation."

In this, he is mimicking Philippe de Montebello, who told me during my first interview with him (also for ARTnews), shortly after he assumed his post:

I don't walk around in shirtsleeves. But it's natural; it's me. I'm not putting on an act. I mean, if it were warm, I would take off my jacket, but you're a lady, and I'm not going to do so.

Come on, Tom, be natural. If you're an open-collar guy, go for it. This "lady" is perfectly fine with that. Maybe it would even signal a more open, less stuffy Met. And then NY Magazine might stop calling you snooty.