October 2009 Archives

Chief curator Ann Temkin, flanked by Peter Reed, MoMA's senior deputy director for curatorial affairs, left, and director Glenn Lowry, at the museum's recent press breakfast

The expected has now happened: The NY City Council yesterday afternoon voted overwhelmingly (only three dissenters) to approve the Jean Nouvel-designed MoMA Monster, now reduced in height to a "mere" 1,050 feet. If and when this tower actually gets built (after economic conditions improve, according to Hines, the developer), the new space will expand the displays of MoMA's permanent collection.

We can only hope that somewhere within the 40,000 square feet of additional gallery space they will find a permanent home for important, rarely seen monumental works in the collection, including those by Richard Serra and Martin Puryear, which were specifically mentioned by director Glenn Lowry in his testimony to a City Council subcommittee. We also need to see more of James Rosenquist's "F-111," Ellsworth Kelly's "Colors for a Large Wall" and Claude Monet's "Water Lilies" triptych.

The Monet mural, now temporarily back on display, had been accorded its own permanent space for peaceful contemplation in the more homey MoMA of fond memory. Finding a place to show off its megaworks-in-storage had been one of the selling points for the recent Taniguchi-designed addition. Having failed to realize that supposed goal, MoMA's expansionists have trotted it out yet again. Maybe this time they really mean it.

Speaking of installation ideas for the permanent collection, Ted Loos wrote an excellent piece for last Sunday's NY Times about Ann Temkin's provocative plan for continually rehanging MoMA's trove of modern and contemporary masterpieces.

But wait! There's more to the story: Late last month, when MoMA's chief curator of painting and sculpture took a group of us on a tour of her work-in-constant-progress (after a recent press breakfast, where Lowry's discussion of the new permanent-collection philosophy was captured in this CultureGrrl Video), Ann informed us that about a quarter of the painting-and-sculpture galleries (which have now become more hospitable to related works in other media) will be rehung every 18 months or so. A full rotation of the galleries, she said, would take about five years. (Actually, an 18-month schedule would take six years to cycle through the entire space, but these are all approximations.)

Here's the shocker: She said that only about 10 works---TEN WORKS!---would be considered inviolable: so important and iconic that they would always remain on view.

Okay, I'll bite: I asked Ann to intone the names of the Sacred 10. Prudently declining to divulge the entire list, she did offer a few obvious examples---van Gogh's "Starry Night," Picasso's "Girl Before a Mirror," Dalí's "Persistence of Memory." Those of us who know and love the collection could probably come up with a lot more than seven additional works that we need to see, whenever we want.

For that reason, I'm ambivalent about Ann's plan. On the one hand, if any museum's collection is rich enough to support a constant reshuffling of the deck, it's MoMA's. It will be exciting to be constantly challenged---exposed to different works in creatively rethought relationships. Ann was justifiably proud of her "little experiment," juxtaposing German Expressionist portraits with related photographs.

But when I was a young D train-riding museum brat from da Bronx, I was comforted and edified by my repeated contact, over many years, with paintings that I loved and knew would always be there for me (the Monet triptych, among them). Art-savvy tourists are also likely be distraught if works they expect to see on their rare visits to New York are nowhere to be found.

I was therefore pleased to learn from Loos (notwithstanding Temkin's Rule of Ten) that "Room 2 on Floor 5, with Cubist works by Picasso and Braque, won't be morphing radically." I'm not sure why they ditched the original plan for the Taniguchi expansion, which had called for suites of fixed galleries, surrounded by related changing galleries. That had sounded like a good idea to me.

Why not the best of both worlds?

Timothy Rub, speaking to the press outside the entrance of the Philadelphia Museum's Gorky retrospective

I was grateful that Timothy Rub, director of the Philadelphia Museum, was willing to talk to me at all, given my harsh criticism of the Cleveland Museum's decision (made during his directorship there) to funnel to its expansion project up to $75 million in income from funds that donors had designated for acquisitions, not for bricks and mortar.

I began safely, by chatting about his plans for Philadelphia---increasing its operating budget to be on a par with outlays at comparable institutions, such as the major institutions in Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles; and getting his museum ready, in terms of both architectural plans and financial resources, for its own coming expansion, designed by Frank Gehry.

Through his own comments, Rub managed to give me the perfect opening for the question that I'd been afraid to ask and that I suspected he wouldn't answer. As you will see, he pleasantly surprised me, responding cautiously but substantively.

In discussing Philadelphia's expansion plans, Rub rhetorically asked:

How do you get an institution ready for that [a major building project], at a time when the future of the American economy is still uncertain and the capacity of any community to make capital gifts that in aggregate will support a project of this size is something that you have to look at very carefully?

With that, the following Q&A about Cleveland's complicated financial situation was off and running. (I'm the "Q"; Rub is the "A"):

Q: Philadelphia is in a fortunate position, compared to the institution that you just left, which was in the middle of the project when the economic crisis hit. Here, at least, you have the luxury of waiting for the right moment.

A: Yes, but these are long-term projects, and no matter how carefully you plot the course, it's going to cross times when the economy is good and when the economy is bad, and you have to figure out ways of sustaining it across time. There's no doubt about that.

Q: I understand that what happened to the economy was almost unprecedented and no one could have foreseen it. But to get that far along [in Cleveland's capital project] and to have that much of a shortfall---is that something that should have been guarded against, in some way?

A: I think if you look at the way Cleveland has dealt with its campaign and the capital budget, it proceeded in a very prudent way. I talked with our president and board chair before I left [and said]: "I'm going to another institution, and I'm reluctant to really speak about Cleveland unless you would want me to do so." These are questions that I think you need to address to Cleveland at this point....

I'm in an odd position. I could map out the whole scenario for you, but I'm not sure that I should speak for Cleveland at this point. But it's a much bigger and more interesting and complex picture than I think has been described thus far.

Q: Did you approve the decision to use the income from acquisition funds for the building project?

A: I concurred with that. This was a decision that we made together. We looked at the options for being able to continue to move the project forward at a very difficult time economically and came to the conclusion together that this needed to be done as a short-term measure....

My point to you is it's a really interesting and very complex calculation that has to do with things as varied as bond ratings and cash flow from pledges that we currently have or that we might anticipate in the future. It has to do with bonding capacity and with calculating the cost of capital. It has to do with the institution's willingness to take on risk in terms of future obligations. It has to do with whether you resolve to pay for something now as opposed to having the institution pay for it much later.

Q: Was slowing the project down an option, and why was that not done?

A: The museum is basically half complete. If you slow a project like that down, several things happen: You push the completion date out far in the future and until you complete the project, you will not have sufficient room to show your collection or do your work....

Cleveland took on a grand and comprehensive project and the trustees felt, when that decision was made in the earlier part of this decade [before Rub arrived] that it was important to renovate and expand the museum comprehensively. I think when it is done, it will have been worth the wait, because it will allow for Cleveland to completely rethink and re-present its collection, which before was not a possibility. How many big art museums can actually do that?

Q: What about the museum ethics question: Do you feel comfortable with taking money that was designated by donors for acquisitions?

A: There are legal means that have been in place for a long time to ask courts to determine whether or not funds that have been contributed for one purpose can be utilized on a permanent or temporary basis for another purpose. There are legal mechanisms and a significant body of law that leads to this.

Secondly, I should say that the board of the Cleveland Museum of Art is a tremendously responsible and resourceful group of people who are fiduciaries for the institution. And it's their responsibility to make thoughtful and prudent fiscal decisions on behalf of the institution. I think the trustees discharged their responsibilities extremely well. I really do.

Q: But what about the ethics question? Is it proper to take funds that were designated for a specific purpose and apply them to a different purpose?

A: I don't think that in normal circumstances you would want to do that, to be sure. But these are exceptional circumstances.

You already know how I feel about Cleveland's actions. I don't need to belabor it. Acknowledging Timothy's forthcomingness and candor, let's move on: In case you haven't had enough of him yet, below is a CultureGrrl Video of Rub addressing the assembled journalists at the luncheon celebrating the opening of the current Gorky show.

It's standard museum-director boilerplate---high praise for the exhibition and for those who organized it. But I do make it interesting near the end, by turning the camera on my tablemates---Maro Gorky, the artist's daughter, and her pal, Lisa de Kooning, the daughter of you-know-who.

Rub begins here by talking about the show's companion exhibition, which puts Gorky's work in the context of European, Russian and American modernism, by drawing on works from Philadelphia's own rich collection:

Timothy Rub, left, former director of the Cleveland Museum, and Terence Riley, right, former director of the Miami Art Museum

Museum directors know that an important part of their job description is raising big bucks from culturally-minded and civic-minded donors. But few (none that I know of) become directors because soliciting money is their passion. It's a means to an end, but it often ends up taking much (if not most) of their time and energy.

When major capital campaigns are in progress, fundraising exigencies sharply escalate. And when those demands coincide with a major economic recession, this difficult assignment gets much harder.

Such was the case at both the Cleveland Museum and the Miami Art Museum, where the directors, Timothy Rub and Terence Riley, precipitously and surprisingly announced plans to jump ship immediately on the heels of celebrating milestones in their institutions' development---the completion of the first phase of Cleveland's expansion and the unveiling of the design for Miami's new building.

Neither of the congruently initialed TRs said anything about wanting to flee their institutions' financial situations. Rub professed his lifelong, undying love for the Philadelphia Museum, which he now directs; Riley averred that his first love is architecture, to which he will now return.

But the subtext to the departures of the two directors is hard to miss: Riley appears to have been experiencing increased frustration in coping with cuts in government funding and in securing the financial support of Miami's collecting community: In his follow-up article today in the Miami Herald (linked directly above), David Chang quotes major Miami collector Martin Margulies on the subject of Riley's quandaries:

He comes from a New York institution [the Museum of Modern Art, where he was architecture curator], and he's used to seeing big money. And there's no such thing in this community. [No rich Miamians?] And that's why the big collectors are not involved with that institution.

As for Rub, there was the much publicized shortfall of funds (potentially $75 million) for the second phase of Cleveland's expansion, which prompted a decision by the trustees to seek court permission (now granted) to raid the income of four funds that the donors had designated for acquisitions, not bricks and mortar. Rub had participated in and concurred with that decision.

But wait, there's more! I was in Philadelphia just a short time ago, as you may remember. Do you think I set foot in the Philadelphia Museum without requesting some one-on-one time with its director? My art-lings know me better than that!

COMING SOON: Philly's TR speaks softly...and very carefully,

Terence Riley, former director of Miami Art Museum

This is a shocker.

I know nothing about the resignation of Terence Riley from the directorship of the Miami Art Museum, other than what's in the press release that just hit my inbox with a loud thud. What makes this even more surprising is that he resigned "effective immediately"---usually a sign that something is amiss.

According to the press release:

He will be resuming his role as partner at Keenen/Riley Architects, with various design and consulting projects in New York, Spain and Mexico, and will continue to work with MAM as a consultant through June 30, 2010.

Here's the quote from Riley:

Since becoming director of MAM [the Miami Art Museum], I have worked closely with the trustees and staff to energize the museum's programming, build its collections, and design a new home of remarkable distinction that has garnered the broad endorsement of Miami's civic leaders and citizens. We are now ready to break ground on a building that is poised to be one of the greenest art museums ever built in the Americas. As such, this is the right moment for me to pursue other interests and for MAM to smoothly transition to a new leader who will see this project to its fruition.

The museum's chairman, Aaron Podhurst, praised Riley for doing a "superb job" in "focusing MAM's mission and creating a clear vision for the development of the museum's new building."

This unexpected news comes just five days after the MAM released its Renzo Piano-like design by architects Herzog & de Meuron for the museum's new building.

Riley assumed his Miami post less than four years ago---in March 2006.

UPDATE: The Miami Herald couldn't reach Riley or museum trustees for further comment, but in its just posted article reporting the news, Daniel Chang does give some background on fundraising difficulties for the planned new museum.

Philippe de Montebello, left; his successor, Tom Campbell, right, speaking at the Met

The Metropolitan Museum's illustrious director emeritus, Professor Philippe de Montebello, is well into his fall semester course, "The Meaning of Museums," at the NYU Institute of Fine Arts.

But what will he be teaching this spring? Let's go to the prof's NYU webpage:

Spring 2010 Colloquium: Issues of Cultural Property

Who am I to talk about an "unsustainable business model"?

Only one CultureGrrl reader got this message of a week ago and actually decided to act upon it. I've run out of ideas of how to impress upon those who appreciate the blog how loath I am to continue this work merely for the love of it.

In the meantime, though, many warm thanks to CultureGrrl Donor 78 from Little Compton, RI.

Little Compton? I'm very tempted to make a French pun on that (compte: "account"---as in CultureGrrl's petit PayPal account).

Speaking of puns, I love that Rocco Landesman delights in his new "Art Works" slogan for the National Endowment for the Arts because of its triple entendre (which he described in his recent Brooklyn speech). But I still think it's a lame slogan. It sounds pedestrian and grim, not uplifting or inspirational.

"Work" is what people do for needed income, not necessarily for love or inner necessity.

Why haven't I learned that yet?

Curator Michael Taylor at the Philadelphia Museum's recent press lunch

Let's remain in Philly, but switch moods from my habitual skepticism to unmitigated pleasure and admiration: The Arshile Gorky retrospective (to Jan. 10) that opened this week at the Philadelphia Museum is one of my favorite kinds of exhibition: It greatly strengthened my appreciation for an artist whom I'd previously underestimated.

Michael Taylor, the museum's indispensable curator of modern art (fresh from his Venice Biennale triumph), is deliberately setting out here to prove that Gorky deserves a "place alongside Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning as one of the most daring, innovative, and influential American artists of the 20th century." In that mission, he largely succeeds.

The large gallery that you'll come upon about two-thirds into the show, with works from 1943 and 1944, is an audacious array of breathtakingly lyrical beauty. The dark paintings in the final galleries are heart-rendingly tragic---saturated with the angst and despair caused by a 1946 fire (two and a half years before his suicide) that destroyed the works in Gorky's studio:


"Charred Beloved," I, II and III, 1946, David Geffen, National Gallery of Canada and Mr. and Mrs. Meredith Long, respectively

The early galleries clearly demonstrate Gorky's intense study and close imitation of modernist forebears (including Cézanne, Picasso, Miró). But in case that's not enough, the museum also draws upon its own rich collection in a meaty related exhibition, contiguous with the retrospective, that puts Gorky's work in the context of European, Russian and American modernism (including some specific works that he likely saw and studied).

Taylor is also intent on some revisionism---a scholarly agenda that's emphasized more in his catalogue essay than in the wall text: Traditionally lumped with the Abstract Expressionists, Gorky, in Taylor's informed opinion, belongs instead with the Surrealists. He was no "action painter," but meticulously prepared for his major paintings in suites of detailed drawings, many of which are in the show.

This obsessive preparatory work came as a revelation to someone who knows his oeuvre intimately---Gorky's daughter, Maro, one of my tablemates (along with the always ebullient Joe Rishel) for the press lunch. Also with us was Maro's friend, Lisa de Kooning, daughter of Willem, an undisputed member of the Abstract Expressionist club.


Maro Gorky, right, with friend, Lisa de Kooning

Site of the planned Philly Barnes: demolition of juvenile detention center completed; zoning use permit at lower left.

At some point, I owe you a report on the Barnes Foundation's recently released conceptual designs for its planned migration from Merion to Philadelphia. More detailed designs must yet be submitted, probably in very late 2009 or early 2010, for approval by the Philadelphia Art Commission.

But there's some news to break, art-lings, so let me tell you this immediately, before someone else does:

Invitations are going out to Philadelphia's political and cultural VIPs for groundbreaking on Nov. 13 (not yet publicly announced) for the planned new Barnes facility. What's more, a new chief curator, soon to be announced, has been selected. When I know more, you'll know more.

But there are a number of details about the Barnes' progress (or lack thereof) that I find problematic.

As far as I know, no other commentators have remarked on the fact that the 93,000-square foot facility about to be built represents a significant downsizing from the original 120,000-square-foot facility, which Barnes executive director Derek Gillman had described to me in his office, back in February 2007.

Gillman and William McDowell III, the Barnes' senior building project executive told me in a joint phone interview today that in order to shrink the building (to control the costs), office space and the gift shop were reduced in size, conservation for metal objects was shifted to the Barnes' current Merion site, and some storage will shift there as well.

More alarmingly (and this is NOT new information), the projected endowment for the new facility has also been shrunk---by half. Previous plans (announced in May 2006) had called for $100 million to be raised for the cost of the new building, with an additional $100 million for endowment. Now it's $150 million for the building and only $50 million for endowment. I had previously called the $100 million building cost "a wishful-thinking budget." (I got that one right.) Now there's more wishful thinking---that increasing the building budget by 50%, while reducing the endowment by 50% is a formula that will work.

Slashing the resources that had been deemed necessary for the Barnes to function well in its new home gives me traumatic flashbacks to the lack of adequate resources to run the place in Merion---the ostensible reason for trashing the clear written instructions of founder Albert Barnes, by moving to a location more appealing to Philly-centric philanthropists.

Gillman says that $50 million won't be the end of the endowment story: Fundraising will continue. But what are we to make of the fact that Derek had told me back in February '07 that $150 million had already then been raised, and the total today is stuck at mere $156 million? Where's that additional $44 million going to come from? Will even that be enough?

As of now, construction is scheduled to be completed in 2011, with opening scheduled for 2012.

Derek assured me that the unveiling of Tod Williams' and Billie Tsien's design and model for the new facility has stimulated strong interest among potential benefactors. Fundraising, he declared, will now intensify. But the strategy of "start building now, hope to raise the rest of the money later" did not serve Cleveland well. The current economic climate makes that optimistic strategy even dicier.

If Derek builds it, will they fund? The last thing the Barnes needs is another unsustainable business model.

The design (to be further refined) of the planned new Miami Art Museum was revealed yesterday at a public conversation in Miami among Terence Riley, the museum's director (who was formerly chief curator of architecture and design at the Museum of Modern Art) and two architects for the project from the firm of Herzog & de Meuron---Pierre de Meuron and Christine Binswanger.

Here's what the new MAM will look like:

The image that Sam Sifton chose for his Twitter page

Today's review of a mogul-filled Manhattan restaurant, Marea, by the NY Times' fledgling restaurant critic, Sam Sifton (formerly the paper's culture editor), shows that you can take the writer out of the Culture Department, but you can't take the Culture Department out of the writer. It looks like he's decided that food belongs on the arts beat. Sam writes:

Restaurants are culture as sure as music or paintings.

But apparently restaurants are better than certain theatrical offerings. At the end of his review, Sam gratuitously trashes my musical!

It [Marea] is not cheap nor meant to be. Art [there he goes again] in Manhattan can be like that. Life is balance. You read the notices for "Bye Bye Birdie" on Broadway? Better dinner here than tickets there.

I guess he never read Bloomberg's John Simon's appreciative notice for "Birdie." And, in a late-breaking development, here's the end of the just-published review by the New Yorker's John Lahr, who (like me) also saw the original "Birdie":

Those who weren't born when "Bye Bye Birdie" was first performed won't recognize a world without cell phones and cynicism, and won't register some of the popular references of the day. No matter: they'll know a good time when they see it.

Take my advice, Sam: Before you pan my musical (or another one, for that matter), see it yourself, instead of judging it based on Brantley's rants. What's more, you'd better enlist some of your theater contacts to help you with your costumes and makeup. (Or else, you should consult Gawker). Sifton writes:

I was dining anonymously, but was recognized at the door.

I guess he wasn't actually "dining anonymously." He just wished that he was. Is it any wonder that he found Marea to be "as welcoming as a luxe clubhouse" and its service to be "superb"? He blew this assignment at "Hello."

Speaking of assignments, my husband this morning managed to get a reservation for six at Jean Georges for my (Very Big) upcoming birthday. It's the kind of restaurant where you have to call at precisely 9 a.m., exactly one month in advance, if you hope to get a table.

Maybe he should have told them he was Sam Sifton!

The new logo for the National Endowment for the Arts

In his keynote address at Grantmakers in the Arts' 2009 Recession Conference: Navigating the Art of Change, which I attended in Brooklyn today, Rocco Landesman was his usual combative self, acknowledging the "reconstructive" work of predecessors, Dana Gioia and Bill Ivey, in "build[ing] strong relationships on Capitol Hill" and " re-establish[ing] the NEA as a respected, bipartisan agency," but letting us know that he's now going to "move the ball down the field."

He emphasized the role of the arts in "economic growth and urban and neighborhood revitalization" but made no mention of two controversial initiatives that he previously revealed he advocates---grants for individual artists (which I strongly support) and home equity loans and rent subsidies for artists' housing (which I believe are---and should continue to be---outside the purview of the arts agency).

Rocco's big applause line, which you will hear him deliver in my excerpted video below, was:

The days of the defensive NEA are over.

That remains to be seen.

Speaking of "defensive," I just hope I'm not one of those "quote-unquote 'journalists'" that he refers to in these remarks:

NY Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, would-be slayer of the MoMA Monster

At its review session Monday, New York's City Planning Commission gave its go-ahead for Jean Nouvel's MoMA/Hines tower, as modified by the City Council's Land Use Committee. The project still needs to be approved by the full City Council, which may well happen at its Oct. 28 meeting.

The full Council almost never goes against the decision of its Land Use Committee, which on Oct. 8 approved a somewhat shortened version of the proposed tower (1,025 feet high, instead of 1,250 feet). This means that the strong, vocal protests of the neighbors, the neighbors' City Councilman (Daniel Garodnick), the Community Board, and both the State Senator and State Assemblyman (Liz Krueger and Richard Gottfried, respectively) who represent the Manhattan district of the MoMA/Hines site are likely to be unavailing.

The bottom line is that this building---now reduced to the height of the Chrysler Building instead of the Empire State Building---is still way too tall for the small footprint of its midblock site. As Assemblyman Gottfried declared in a statement submitted to the City Council's Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises:

Unlike other skyscrapers, the MoMA/Hines site is not on a wide avenue or a wide crosstown street; it is mid-block on a narrow mixed-use side street with its back on a residential street [W. 54th St.].

No other New York art museums seem to feel compelled to accompany their expansions with tall commercial structures that are out of character with their immediate surroundings, not to mention with the proper pursuits of nonprofit cultural institutions. If the MoMA Monster gets built, the Museum of Modern Art (whose current chairman is real estate mega-developer Jerry Speyer) will have violated the lowrise character of its midtown side street three times---the Cesar Pelli-designed Museum Tower luxury apartment building; the Yoshio Taniguchi-designed office building; and now, Jean Nouvel's Tower Verre.

These may have been clever financial deals, but MoMA's erections notwithstanding, the commercial real estate business is not a compatible fit with the mission of museums. As David Penick, managing partner for developer Hines on this project, previously told me, the Nouvel tower won't begin construction until financial conditions in the real estate industry improve. This means that MoMA's expansion, dependent upon Hines' construction, could be stalled for a long time.

In the meantime, maybe the museum can use that empty lot (which it has sold to Hines for $125 million) for a few more innovative architecture exhibitions, like this one:

It's not on the website at this writing, but the Center for Curatorial Leadership has just announced its 2010 fellows. (How did the Metropolitan Museum gets TWO spots?)

Here are the chosen dozen, who intend to hone their "administrative, managerial, and fundraising expertise":

Christophe Cherix, Curator, Department of Prints and Illustrated Books, Museum of Modern Art, New York

Deborah Cullen, Director of Curatorial Programs, El Museo del Barrio, New York

Malcolm Daniel, Curator in Charge, Department of Photographs, Metropolitan Museum of Art

Kristina van Dyke, Associate Curator for Collections and Research, Menil Collection, Houston

Kathleen Forde, Curator of Time-Based Visual Arts, Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center, Troy, New York

Alison de Lima Greene, Curator, Contemporary Art & Special Projects, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston

Frederick Ilchman, Mrs. Russell W. Baker Curator of Paintings, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Chiyo Ishikawa, Deputy Director for Art & Curator of European Paintings and Sculpture, Seattle Art Museum

Alisa LaGamma, Curator, Department of the Arts of Africa, Oceania, and the Americas, Metropolitan Museum of Art

Lisa E. Rotondo-McCord, Assistant Director for Art & Curator of Asian Art, New Orleans Museum of Art

Trevor Schoonmaker, Curator of Contemporary Art, Nasher Museum at Duke University

Stephan Wolohojian, Landon and Lavinia Clay Curator and Department Head, Department of Paintings, Sculpure and Decorative Arts, Harvard Art Museum/Fogg

Merryl H. Tisch, Chancellor, NY State Board of Regents

The NY State Board of Regents yesterday bought more time: It unanimously revised and extended its emergency rules on deaccessioning by museums and historical societies, postponing the adoption of final rules, which had previously been planned for this month's meeting. This is is the latest of six emergency actions on this issue. It will be effective for 60 days, beginning Nov. 14.

In their "Statement of Facts and Circumstances Which Necessitate Emergency Action," the Regents revealed:

Some 37 institutions in New York in 2006 [can we get an update?] reported deficits of $100,000 or more. The Department is concerned that, in the absence of an express prohibition in Regents rule section 3.27, museums and historical societies in financial distress will deaccession items or materials for purposes of paying their outstanding debt.

What's new and problematic in the latest version is that the list of allowable reasons for deaccessioning has been sharply curtailed from the longer list in the previous version. This is important because the Regents' rules say that institutions may dispose of objects ONLY if one or more of the listed criteria are met. In this, the Regents are being far more stringent than the Association of Art Museum Directors, which only SUGGESTS appropriate deaccession criteria, but doesn't insist upon them.

I'm a hardliner on museum deaccessioning and I do believe that deaccession criteria should be requirements, not suggestions. But even I believe that the Regents are going too far in their decision to DELETE the following reasons why deaccessioning would be acceptable:

---The item has been established as being inauthentic.

---The institution is repatriating the item or returning the item to its rightful owner.

---The institution is returning the item to the donor, or the donor's heirs or assigns, to fulfill donor restrictions relating to the item which the institution is no longer able to meet.

---The item presents a hazard to people or other collection items.

Perhaps all of the above are deemed by the Regents to be encompassed by the broader provision allowing deaccessions of material "not relevant to the mission of the institution." I think that the greater specificity of the previous version is necessary.

In the emergency rules just passed, these are the only allowable reasons for deaccessioning by museums and historical societies that are governed by the Board of Regents:

---The item or material is not relevant to the mission of the institution.

---The item or material has failed to retain its identity, or has been lost or stolen and has not been recovered.

---The item or material duplicates other items or material in the collection of the institution and is not necessary for research or educational purposes.

---The institution is unable to conserve the item or material in a responsible manner.

Proceeds from deaccessions may not be used, according to the Regents' rules, for operating expenses, capital expenses (except for certain designated historic buildings) or payment of debt.

What I AM happy about is the elimination of the previous version's permission for deaccessions that are intended "to accomplish refinement of collections." As I previously noted, that broad brush could whitewash a multitude of sins.

So when do we finally get some FINAL action?

The rules' "Timetable for Implementation" tell us:

We anticipate the Board will pass a permanent rule at a Regents meeting in the near future, after publication in the State Register and expiration of the 30-day public comment period for revised rule making pursuant to the State Administrative Procedure Act.

In the meantime, deaccession legislation is still awaiting action in the state legislature.

Click above, to show you care.

I'm not wealthy and I don't make many donations. I give almost exclusively to entities that have greatly enhanced my own quality of life---primarily the educational institutions that I've attended. And as soon as I finish writing this post, I intend to make a contribution to WQXR, the New York classical music station that I listen to daily and rely upon for constant cultural sustenance.

As you know, that station, formerly owned by the NY Times, recently became a public radio station, acquired by WNYC. My fears about possible poor reception at the new frequency or off-putting programming have (for me, at least) proven unfounded. I am relieved and very grateful.

CultureGrrl is not a nonprofit organization. It's just me, doing something that makes no financial sense because I like doing it and know (from the feedback I regularly receive) that it has value to a sophisticated visual-arts audience. I could spend the same time writing mainstream-media articles for which I get paid. And I probably should.

But as I recently told Deanna Isaacs of the Chicago Reader:

Blogging is an addiction. I'd still like to cut back on the amount of time I'm devoting to it, but it's a great genre, and I feel a particular affinity for it. It's hard to break away from that.

If you are among the devoted readers who have come to value CultureGrrl's journalism, commentary and comedy, I hope you'll do for my blog what I'm about to do for the radio station that I greatly value---help keep it going.

I've been blogging up a storm over the past couple of weeks, but there are currently no ads in my righthand column, no classifieds in my middle column, and no new clickers on my "Donate" button in the last two weeks. (That said, many thanks to CultureGrrl Donor 76 and Repeat Donor 77---whom I have not previously acknowledged---from Atlanta and Lafayette, LA.)

I know that online news and blogs are traditionally free and that getting people to pay for them is an uphill battle. Why shell out money for something when you don't have to? But even some online readers of the NY Times, concerned about the newsroom buyouts and possible layoffs that it just announced today, have (according to Gillian Reagan's report in the NY Observer) made it known that they WANT to pay money to read the Times online, because they value it and want it to continue in the style to which they're accustomed.

If what I do is worth something to you, I hope you'll consider letting me know that...in a tangible way. Large or small, all manner of support is a form of encouragement. If there's some foundation or guardian angel interested in underwriting what I do and receiving credit as a major sponsor, so much the better.

I do want to keep CultureGrrl alive, but not for nothing.

As I drove back up the westside from that hearing, I passed by the remains of the late, lamented Knox Martin "Venus" mural, all but obliterated by the in-construction Nouvel luxury apartment tower that the French architect probably visited while he was in New York.

Wait a minute! When we last saw Martin's mural, it had been reduced to a mere sliver:



But when I most recently viewed it, the 85-year-old artist's oeuvre had been reduced to a mere signature---the mega-letters that Knox had added last year to his 1970 mural, in a stealth protest. Here's what "Venus" (which should now be retitled "KNOX") looked like a couple of weeks ago, when I took a passing shot at it through my car's sun roof:

They trashed my show!

If reviews could kill, Bye Bye Birdie would be posting a closing notice. Fortunately, the power of the NY Times reviewer to make or break a production is diminished in this era when word of mouth (and tweet of smart phone) can have a bigger impact on theatrical fortunes than Brantley rants or Teachout clouts. I hope there are enough people who felt about the revival as I did.

For Ben Brantley, the just-opened "Birdie" is a flop that will cause theatergoers to "feel an empathetic urge to rush home and bury their heads in their pillows." For Terry Teachout in the Wall Street Journal, "the Roundabout's revival of "Bye Bye Birdie" is the worst-sung musical I've ever seen on Broadway.... I only wish it had been overdubbed."

For me (and I should add, for CultureSpouse, attending his first "Birdie"), it was electric and energizing---a high-spirited, brightly entertaining and (with the exception of the universally panned Bill Irwin) well acted, winsomely sung Broadway romp. John Stamos' singing, on the night I attended (but apparently not on the night when Terry was there), hit all the right musical and comical notes. His deft dancing, to my surprise and delight, did not make me experience wistful longing for the inimitable Dick Van Dyke, who I thought might have owned the role of the manager for the play's Elvis clone, Conrad Birdie.

Not one but two musicals now revived for the first time on Broadway were watershed cultural events for born-and-bred New Yorkers of a certain age (mine) in our early theater-going days---"Hair" (which I have yet to see in its current incarnation) and the earlier "Bye Bye Birdie," which arrived for me at the perfect preteen moment. To this impressionable (but even then, Broadway-savvy) young critic, this light-hearted look at youthful and adult relationships and misunderstandings was the height of musical-theater perfection.

I didn't take it seriously as a celebration of teenage enthusiasms: I understood it, even then, for what it was---an affectionate, whimsical send-up of what later came to be known as the "generation gap." We and our parents (and their parents) were being lightly made fun of, but we were in on the joke. I bought the album. I soon knew (and sang) every word. My best friend Hazel and I were inspired to create our own musical send-ups between homework assignments---the precursors, of course, to the beloved CultureGrrl Singing Podcasts.

Not wanting to bump into the Great Wall of Price Resistance (as has happened with "Hair"), I grabbed two lower-priced tickets for a late preview of "Birdie." I arrived at my side-orchestra seat with trepidation, knowing there was a good chance that the jaded, sophisticated CultureGrrl, revisiting a touchstone of her youth, would experience a wave of "what could I have been thinking?" revulsion.

Instead, I found myself nodding in agreement with another woman of my ripe vintage, whom I overheard at intermission exclaiming, "I'm in heaven!" "Birdie," for us, still worked. I still knew all the words to the songs and anticipated most of the punch lines. And I still loved it. Although they didn't slavishly reproduce the original staging, they were true to the spirit of it.

I did long sometimes for Chita Rivera---both her singing and, especially, her dancing, in the role of the put-upon secretary and girlfriend of Birdie's manager. Still, Gina Gershon made a fine (although occasionally vocally challenged) night of it. Gerard Funk as Birdie was appropriately feral. When I heard him (pre-tonsillitis), he was firm of singing voice and wiggly of body. Acting's not his strong suit, but his manager (Stamos) mostly muzzles him anyway. He easily met the sexual-charisma requirements of his three big numbers.

The only "what were they thinking?" clunker was Bill Irwin's barking, authoritarian take on the clueless father of the Birdie groupie (a star-is-born turn by Allie Trimm) who was chosen to receive the teen idol's last kiss before his army gig. Where was Paul Lynde when we really needed him---especially in the father's big number, "Kids" ("I don't know what's wrong with these kids today")? Lynde had perfected a very campy, hilarious take on the baffled, bemused but kind-hearted and loving dad. You wanted to hug him, not (as with Irwin) throttle him.

At least we've still got Bloomberg's John Simon, who I'll bet saw (and loved) the original. He welcomed the new "Birdie" as "a show both for the kid with you and the kid within you." That gets it about right.

But don't worry, Ben: Back in 1960 when the original "Birdie" premiered, Brooks Atkinson of the Times didn't get it either.

UPDATED: I guess the theater audiences DID get it: Roundabout has announced a new block of tickets, through April.

Arthur Fitzwilliam Tait, "The Life of a Hunter: A Tight Fix," 1856, Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art

CultureGrrl readers are a devoted, savvy bunch: Two different museum curators wrote to inform me that BOTH Crystal Bridges-owned works in the Metropolitan Museum's current American Stories exhibition were previously owned by mega-collector Richard Manoogian---not just Richard Caton Woodville's "War News from Mexico," as I had reported on Monday, but also Arthur Fitzwilliam Tait's "The Life of a Hunter: A Tight Fix" (above).

A Crystal Bridges official confirmed to me that the Tait is indeed the same painting that had been previously exhibited in museums that had publicly identified it as belonging to the Detroit industrialist. But my Crystal Bridges contact would not say whether Alice Walton's planned Bentonville, AR, museum had acquired the Tait directly from Manoogian.

Leslie Newell Peacock of the Arkansas Times also recently reported about the Woodville's ownership history (which I had first recounted here) and then went off in a new (and I think, unfounded) direction:

Now, speculation is that Walton---or, more accurately, the Crystal Bridges Museum foundation that she created---purchased from the [National] Academy Church's "Scene on the Magdalene" and Gifford's "Mount Mansfield, Vermont" last year. While the museum is in hot water for selling the pieces, some critics in New York have bemoaned the fact an Arkansas institution may have acquired two Hudson River school pieces.

My contacts have indicated that it's Manoogian, not Walton, who accessioned the Academy's 2008 deaccessions. When I broke the story of the sales of the Church and Gifford last December, I immediately asked John Wilmerding, a close advisor to Walton, whether she was the purchaser. His reply:

To my knowledge, neither Alice Walton nor Crystal Bridges bought those pictures. I don't know where they've gone.

I believed that he was telling the truth, and I also believed that he would have known if Walton had been the purchaser.

The name that has had traction among knowledgeable experts as being the purchaser of the Academy painting is Manoogian. I've long hesitated to publish that, because I'm still two degrees of separation from a firsthand, unimpeachable source: A contact whom I've previously found to be reliable got the lowdown from someone with direct knowledge of the transaction. I haven't been able to get that direct-knowledge source to talk to me, however. Both Carmine Branagan, the Academy's director (who was NOT my source's source) and Jonathan Boos, Manoogian's curator, have been unwilling to speak.

When I asked her a few days ago whether Manoogian was the buyer, Branagan prudently advised me: "You may wish to speak directly with the party you believe purchased the paintings."

I've tried: Months ago, I left a voice message with Boos. Since last Friday, I've sent numerous e-mails and voicemails to Boos and to Cheryl Robledo, who works with him. I've received no reply, other than an acknowledgement from Robledo that she had indeed received my initial e-mail. in which I asked her and Boos whether Manoogian was the Academy paintings' buyer and whether he is planning to publicly exhibit the two works, as the Academy had originally announced would happen.

If I hear more, you'll hear more.

My guess is that if Manoogian wasn't the buyer, his advisors would have had no problem about responding to me. If he WAS the buyer, he was the other side of a dicey transaction for which the Academy was severely censured by art museum professionals. He might be reluctant to out himself, at least until time assuages the outrage and the Academy is back in the good graces of the Assocation of Art Museum Directors.

But what if, as suggested by the Woodville and Tait transactions, Manoogian's holdings sometimes function as a feeder collection for Walton's? Might the Academy pictures eventually migrate south?

That truly IS mere speculation. Walton wants her nascent institution to be welcomed collegially by the rest of the nation's art museum community, so she needs to be careful about acquiring works that have been engulfed in a firestorm of artworld controversy.

Dana Schutz, "How We Would Drive," 2007, purchased with funds from the Rose Purchase Fund Endowment and funds from the Rose Museum Board of Overseers (image courtesy of Zach Feuer Gallery)

This just in from the Boston Globe:

A Suffolk Probate Court judge denied yesterday a motion [by Brandeis University] to dismiss a lawsuit filed by three members of the Rose Art Museum's board of overseers to prevent Brandeis University from closing the museum and selling the artwork, said Edward Terry Dangel, attorney for the plaintiffs.

At the hearing, the university agreed it would not sell any of the artwork donated by the plaintiffs, prominent museum benefactors Meryl Rose, Jonathan Lee, and Lois Foster. Brandeis also agreed to give the attorney general a 30-day notice and an opportunity for review if it decides to sell any artwork donated by others.

But what about artworks that were not donated but purchased, including works bought with funds donated by the museum's founder, Edward Rose? A number of purchased works, including the Schutz pictured above, which will be displayed at the museum's special exhibition opening later this month.

The longer account of the legal developments in the university's student newspaper, The Justice, includes comment from the state attorney general's office that the plaintiffs will be allowed by the judge to argue why "their gifts to the Rose should be returned to them [rather than sold] under theories known as equitable reversion and fraud."

While the court sorts all this out, a "celebration of the Rose Art Museum's permanent [or not] collection" goes on display there Oct. 28, in celebration of the new Abrams-published "permanent" collection catalogue, authored by Brandeis non-person Michael Rush, the Rose's deposed director. Rush had strongly opposed the university's previously announced plans (now being rethought) to close the museum and sell the art.

Dietrich von Bothmer, about 1980 (photo courtesy of Metropolitan Museum)

The Art History Newsletter reports that Dietrich von Bothmer, 90, the Metropolitan Museum's former chairman of Greek and Roman art, has died. He enriched the museum's collection during an earlier era of antiquities collecting practices that was characterized by "don't ask, don't tell" when it came to issues of provenance.

He was perhaps best known for his involvement in the acquisition under Tom Hoving's directorship of the celebrated Euphronios krater, which the Met recently relinquished to Italy.

At the time of his death, von Bothmer held the Met title of "distinguished research curator" of Greek and Roman art and was also a lecturer at the NYU Institute of Fine Arts.

Thanks to the Met, I've updated this post with the above photo.

The one section of the large site for the planned Downtown Whitney that has thus far been cleared for construction, as seen from the High Line

Carol Vogel optimistically reported in Monday's NY Times that the Whitney Museum is "forging ahead with plans to build a second museum at the entrance to the High Line, the abandoned elevated railway line that has recently been transformed into a public park."

But the city's Economic Development Corporation, not the Whitney, appears to be doing most of the "forging ahead," having at last forged an agreement for the Whitney to pay $18 million to purchase the city-owned land.

Vogel writes:

The Whitney has up to four years to close on the purchase of the land and five years to begin construction of the building, designed by Renzo Piano. The museum will make nonrefundable monthly payments of $50,000 to the city until the closing date, which has not been determined.

"Five years to begin construction of the building"? This project was supposed to have begun construction last spring and opened in 2012. The capital campaign for this project has been in the "silent phase" since the Downtown Whitney was conceived in late 2006. The Whitney still won't say how much it has actually managed to raise towards the $680-million goal.

When I visited the High Line on Labor Day Weekend, I observed that demolition of the building at the end of the Whitney's site adjacent to the High Line had at last been completed (above). I sent an e-mail a couple of weeks ago to Stephen Soba, the Whitney's press spokesperson, inquiring about the status of the project. Soba wrote:

The empty lot next to the High Line is part of the Whitney site; the support building for the High Line will be located on the northern part of it. Demolition of a building on the site was completed by the City [i.e., not by the Whitney] in June. As for next steps, we are in the midst of reviewing our timetable.

Here's another view of the cleared lot, as seen from street level. The High Line is above it, to the right:



I hope that the Whitney has included funds for pigeon abatement in the capital campaign. There's a large avian population currently in residence on the former Gansevoort Pumping Station (to the west of the now empty lot), which will be demolished if and when the Downtown Whitney truly does "forge ahead":



Not amusing at all---the displacement of this woman, also perched on the Downtown Whitney's site, to the right of the orange portrait of a nude (which we last saw here):



While wandering around the Downtown Whitney's site, I revisited my beloved Premier Veal (Lamb Too) building, also slated for demolition. But for the first time, I walked around to its north side and discovered some artistic treasures that I'd previously missed.

An eponymous lamb:

Hilt Fitting from the Staffordshire Hoard

I've given up trying to sell you links: No one's buying Lee's List, my failed quest for micro-donations. The best links in life are (alas) free:

---To Catch a Looter: On today's NY Times Op-Ed page, Roger Atwood, citing a Peruvian model as an example for Iraq, calls for citizen patrols of artifacts-rich sites as the best means to keep looters at bay. But nowhere does he say anything about compensating these antiquities vigilantes with anything other than "binoculars, cellphones, maybe a few dirt bikes and some basic training." They're supposed to be gratified by the notion that their locale may "benefit from the archaeological tourism that often follows such discoveries."

This brings to mind the happy news of Terry Herbert, a citizen archaeologist (more accurately, a metal detectorist) in Great Britain who stands to have a megabucks payday as a result of his spectacular find of Anglo-Saxon treasure, which he dutifully reported to the authorities. Here [via] is some of the professionally excavated Staffordshire Hoard that Herbert discovered. The British system of compensation for amateurs' finds is the best incentive against looting. (I discussed the citizen-archaeologist solution towards the end of my LA Times Op-Ed, Make Art Loans, Not War.)

---The highly controversial proposed Philadelphia art sales tax is (thankfully) dead. The Greater Philadelphia Arts Alliance has the story. As Gary Steuer, Philadelphia's chief cultural officer, writes in his blog, Pennsylvania's FY2010 budget, nearing passage, "is very much a "good news/bad news" scenario" for the arts:

The "arts tax" has been removed, and that is a good thing, and PCA [Pennsylvania Council on the Arts] has been preserved, which is also a good thing, but on the expense side the arts funding areas of the budget have seen some pretty significant cuts, and that of course is bad.

---Zahi Hawass got his five fresco fragments from the Louvre. Now the head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities craves a long-term loan of the Rosetta Stone. Samer al-Atrush of the Telegraph reports that the British Museum "promised to consider Mr Hawass's request." Here's why Neil MacGregor, the museum's director, might think more than twice about it.

The American Stories exhibition that opened today at the Metropolitan Museum is an astonishing display of the museum's masterpiece-borrowing macho. Time and again I caught my breath at the audacity of the New York museum's requests for other institutions' signature works---Copley's Paul Revere from the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and his Watson and the Shark from the National Gallery; Eakins' Swimming from the Amon Carter Museum; Anshutz's The Ironworkers' Noontime from the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, just to name a few of the many icons. Only the Met (okay, also the Philadelphia Museum's Joe Rishel) can call upon so many institutions to part with such key masterworks.

And then, there's this painting:


Richard Caton Woodville, "War News from Mexico," 1848, Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art

As CultureGrrl readers doubtless remember, this once belonged to the National Academy in New York, which sold it in the early 1990s---a precursor of last year's sale of the Church and Gifford that got the Academy in big trouble with the Association of Art Museum Directors (because proceeds were used to pay for operations and reduce debt, not for acquisitions). The deaccessioned Woodville was acquired by Richard Manoogian, the major American art collector from Detroit. The Academy's current director, Carmine Branagan, now tells me that 1994 was the year when her institution sold it (long before she arrived).

The real shocker is the Woodville's credit line in the Met's current show: It's now owned not by Manoogian, but by Alice Walton's Crystal Bridges Museum, Bentonville, AR. Crystal Bridges announced this purchase on Oct. 1, four days before the press preview for the Met's show. But Chris Crosman, Crystal Bridges' chief curator, informed me that "War News" had entered his museum's collection in late 2004. He declined to say whether Manoogian was the private collector from whom Crystal Bridges bought it. A second Crystal Bridges acquisition, also announced on Oct. 1, is also in the Met's current show---Arthur Fitzwilliam Tait's The Life of a Hunter: A Tight Fix, 1856.

The most famous Crystal Bridges holding now on display at the Met (but not part of the new exhibition) is Asher B. Durand's "Kindred Spirits," which was originally to have remained at the New York museum until last May, but now seems to be there indefinitely, while construction of Crystal Bridges continues. One of the Met's curators for "American Stories," Carrie Rebora Barratt, had once hoped her institution would have been given the opportunity to acquire that quintessentially New York painting from the NY Public Library. Instead, it was controversially sold to Walton for about $35 million at a sealed-bid auction conducted by Sotheby's (in which a joint bid by the Met and National Gallery fell short).

Ironically, "American Stories" has on display another former NY Public Library work, with a credit line that demonstrates the sort of arrangement that, to my mind, should have happened with "Kindred Spirits":


Eastman Johnson, "Negro Life at the South," 1859, collection of the New-York Historical Society, on permanent loan from the New York Public Library

For more on "American Stories," below is a new CultureGrrl Video starring Barratt, who co-organized the show with H. Barbara Weinberg, the Met's curator of American paintings and sculpture. Barratt's poised presentation is newsworthy because she got a big promotion last month from her post as curator of American paintings and sculpture. She's now director Tom Campbell's righthand woman as associate director for collections and administration. Still to come, she told me, is another key appointment---associate director for exhibitions.

The painting you see behind Carrie, to the left, is George Caleb Bingham's The Jolly Flatboatmen, 1846, on loan from the Manoogian Collection.

Glenn Ligon, "Black Like Me #2," Hirshhorn Museum, chosen for the Obamas' personal quarters at the White House

Did Scott Veale, the NY Times' "Arts & Leisure" editor, and/or Jon Landman, the paper's new culture editor, get Ted Gallagher's memo? In a response to my two-part critique of the Times' cultural coverage, CultureGrrl reader Gallagher had criticized the paper for a bias towards performing arts over visual arts coverage. He urged the editors to "nurture long-form art criticism and reviews---3,000 words, even."

I'm joking, of course, about the supposed influence of Gallagher (or CultureGrrl, for that matter) over what the Times deems fit to print. There's no question that the three substantial, absorbing visual arts-related reads that enrich today's "Arts & Leisure" section were in the works (if not already edited and ready to go) before Ted and I vented our gripes, a couple of weeks ago.

Whatever prompted it, I hope that this beefed-up visual arts coverage is a trend, not a fluke:

---Carol Vogel's comprehensive update on the state of the Louvre (2,161 words). The article itself could have used some updating, but I assume the section's closing date precluded that.

---The always interesting and lively Jori Finkel's in-depth report on a Charles Burchfield exhibition, curated by artist Robert Gober, at the Hammer Museum, Los Angeles (1,546 words).

Deborah Sontag's informed look at the reimagined Museo del Barrio, which reopens this week (1,575 words).

For good measure, in today's "Week in Review" section, the Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning art critic, Holland Cotter, opines on the works selected to be displayed in the Obamas' White House. (The online version of his piece also includes a 12-object slideshow, drawn from the group.)

Other critics have weighed in on the merits or lack thereof of the Obamas' choices. Jerry Saltz of NY Magazine has a good recap of the range of critical opinion.

I think that Barack and Michelle are entitled to their personal taste. They and their advisors appear to have done a creditable job in their selections. I was partially right in my prediction last May on New York Public Radio's Brian Lehrer Show about Glenn Ligon, one of the artists whom the Wall Street Journal had then revealed were being considered.

I told Lehrer:

Some of his [Ligon's] work is really tough on the racial issue and that's the kind of thing that, at least in the public quarters, they [the Obamas] may be steering away from.

They did select Ligon's "Black Like Me #2," above (better image here), but for their private delectation, not the public spaces. (In fact, 36 of the 45 objects, listed here by the Associated Press, were for the Obamas' personal quarters.) Cotter, in today's piece, helps us parse the meaning of the obscure phrase, "All traces of the Griffin I had been were wiped from existence," which is repeated over the entire 80 1/8-inch-high canvas.

I am a bit disappointed, though, that the arbiters of White House taste didn't take my advice to go beyond the Beltway and the mega-museums, seeking counsel from such places as the Studio Museum of Harlem and the Museo del Barrio (which could have addressed the noticeable omission of Latino art), for more diverse perspectives. With one exception---Harry Truman's portrait---all the chosen White House art came from Washington museums---the National Gallery and several Smithsonian constituents.

I was particularly struck by the new arrivals' focus on Native Americans---both objects created by them and George Catlin's depictions of them.

Is this a "change-has-come" reaction against the previous occupant's predilection for cowboy art?

Without yet saying when the transfer will take place, the French government has agreed to hand over to Egypt five fresco fragments in the Louvre that were recently demanded by Zahi Hawass, the head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities. The French museum said it had acquired them in good faith in 2000 and 2003.

The BBC, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse have the story. The government's press release, for you French-language readers, is here [via].

Not a word has been publicly said during this latest contretemps about the Louvre's very major Egyptian antiquity that has long been on Hawass' must-have list---the celebrated Zodiac of Dendera. That would be a much more difficult discussion:


The Zodiac of Dendera, Ptolemaic Period, reign of Cleopatra VII, 50 BC, the Louvre

Michael Sillerman, attorney for the planned MoMA/Hines tower

The NY City Council's Land Use Committee today approved by a 12-2 vote the City Planning Commission's reduction of the height of the MoMA/Hines tower from 1,250 to 1,050 feet. The developer, Hines, acceded to this reduction during negotiations with Council members after the hearing held Tuesday by the Council Land Use Committee's Subcommittee for Zoning and Franchises.

As luck would have it, Michael Sillerman, attorney for the project, sat down next to me in the meeting room. So I asked him after the vote if the project would go forward under the conditions approved today by the Committee (which still have to go back to the CPC, and then back again to City Hall for a vote by the full Council).

His answer was, "Yes."

It appears, therefore, that Tuesday's lament by David Penick, managing partner for developer Hines on this project, about the loss of financial viability if the building height was reduced was just a step in the negotiation dance.

The Council members and the developer hammered out a plan for the Jean Nouvel-designed tower to have less than 100,000 square feet of hotel space. This would mean that the tower would not be legally required to have a loading dock with curb cut---a concession to neighborhood opponents who are concerned about increased activity on their street. The Museum of Modern Art's space on the new building's lower floors would remain the same---about 52,000 square feet, connected seamlessly to the existing galleries.

Melinda Katz, chair of the Land Use Committee, said before the vote that residential space in the tower would total 495,000 square feet. This would make the maximum square footage almost 647,000 square feet. But Sillerman told me afterwards that the actual agreement is for a maximum of 658,000 square feet---the SAME AMOUNT that was to have been encompassed by the proposed (now shortened) 1,250-foot-high building.

Since this could mean squashing the same floor area into a shorter building, I asked Sillerman if the slender structure would grow fatter, or whether ceiling height would be reduced. He could only say that a significant redesign would now ensue, and he didn't yet know what exactly that would entail or what the actual square footage total would turn out to be. He assured me that architect Jean Nouvel is on the case.

While we await further developments, here's one bit of good news: MoMA has committed to improving the visibility of the sculpture garden from the street and "enhancing the pedestrian experience on W. 54th Street"---an amelioration of what I had previously dubbed (scroll to #7) "the 54th Street Prison Wall."

Old (awkwardly) meets new at the partly expanded Cleveland Museum

This just in from the Association of Art Museum Directors, regarding the Cleveland Museum of Art's court-approved plan to divert up to $75 million of the income from acquisition funds to defray building costs for its partially completed Rafael Viñoly-designed expansion:

The Association of Art Museum Directors respects the judicial process the Cleveland Museum of Art has undertaken in requesting the court's permission to use income from four acquisition endowment funds to provide financial support for the museum's expansion project. The Cleveland Museum of Art has pursued a public and legally recognized process for review and judgment of their proposed plan.

The museum's action does not violate AAMD's current [emphasis added] Professional Practices. The Cleveland Museum of Art and the court have identified specific precedent in the museum's history for taking such an action, thus making the ruling particular to this case.

While every museum must determine how to fund its activities in light of varied internal conditions and external realities, we encourage all museums to honor not only the letter, but also the spirit of their donor's intentions as they pursue their institution's mission.

It's clear to me (and I think also to AAMD) that Cleveland's actions do NOT honor "the spirit of their donor's intentions."

You'll note that I highlighted the word "current" in the second paragraph if the above statement. AAMD's "Professional Practices in Art Museums" is revised every 10 years. The most recent update was published in 2001. I trust that this sin of omission will be remedied in the next edition.

What's the position of Deborah Gribbon, the interim director of the Cleveland Museum? I don't have a direct quote. In response to my request for her comment, this statement was relayed to me by James Kopniske, the museum's spokesperson:

Prior to making a commitment to lead the museum on an interim basis, Debbie spent time discussing with our board and senior staff leadership many current issues including using the income from the art funds for financing. She believes it [the court-approved diversion of acquisition funds] is a reasonable financing strategy, given the extraordinary circumstances we currently face.

It appears that she has no desire to try to reverse a decision taken before she got there, when Timothy Rub (now at the Philadelphia Museum) was director.

Deborah Gribbon, Cleveland Museum's new interim director

With no one to argue for the dead donors in court (since the Attorney General had declined to do so), the Cleveland Museum of Art today got its wish: It received court approval to beef up its capital campaign with up to $75 million from the income of two bequests and two trust funds that the donors had designated for art purchases. The money would be withdrawn over a 10-year period to help pay for the museum's expansion.

Donald Rosenberg of the Cleveland Plain Dealer writes:

Permission to deviate from the original purposes of two funds from the museum's endowment and two outside trusts was granted Wednesday by Judge Anthony J. Russo in Cuyahoga County Probate Court.

Janet Landay, executive director of the Association of Art Museum Directors had told me (scroll down) that AAMD was reviewing the situation but wouldn't "have anything more to add until the court decision." The leading arbiter of museum ethics should have taken a position before this, but it should certainly do so now.

As I said in my original post about this lamentable development:

AAMD's response to this breach of good faith with donors will be crucial: Without a swift, forceful corrective, Cleveland's action could make benefactors around the country doubt that museums can be trusted to honor their wishes. Cleveland's second thoughts may well give rise to second thoughts by potential donors.

But don't listen to me. Listen to an Attorney General who does take his watchdog role seriously---Robert Cooper Jr. of Tennessee, who wrote the following in his recently filed brief in the ongoing court battle over the fate of the Stieglitz Collection that was given to Fisk University by Georgia O'Keeffe:

The statutory obligation of the Attorney General's Office in this case is to ensure that the charitable purposes of Miss O'Keeffe's gift are carried out in a manner that is most consistent with her intent, that protects the interests of the citizens of the State, and that does not discourage future charitable giving [emphasis added].

The key person whom we still haven't heard from on the Cleveland situation is Deborah Gribbon, who recently came on as the museum's interim director and had a reputation for probity when she directed the J. Paul Getty Museum.

Just because Cleveland got the court approval, doesn't mean it has to use it.

Zahi Hawass and mummy he believes is Queen Hatshepsut

He's threatened to do something like this numerous times. Now Zahi Hawass, the combative head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, has apparently done it---severed ties with a major museum, the Louvre, over an antiquities ownership dispute.

Paul Schemm of the Associated Press reports:

Egypt said Wednesday its antiquities department severed ties with France's Louvre museum because it has refused to return what are described as stolen artifacts, one of the country's most aggressive attempts yet to reclaim relics from some of the world's leading Egyptology collections....

The Louvre's press office said that a national committee made up of specialists from France's museum world and other experts will meet by the end of the week to decide the issue, with final approval given by the Culture Ministry.

With ambitious plans for a Louvre Abu Dhabi designed by Jean Nouvel, the Paris museum has strong motivation to cultivate good relations in the Middle East. An Abu Dhabi newspaper, The National, has already posted the Agence France-Presse version of the Hawass story.

What about all those other Hawass-harassed museums? Is this just the beginning?

Aerial rendering of Tod Williams' and Billie Tsien's design for the Philly Barnes

Stephan Salisbury of the Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

Many opponents of relocating the [Barnes Foundation's] collection attended the [Philadelphia Art Commission's] hearing, chaired by artist Moe Brooker of Moore College of Art and Design. Brooker kept a tight rein on public comment, seeking to limit remarks to the architectural design---which is what the commission is charged with reviewing---rather than on the ethics of moving art collections.

The Commission's approval was unanimous.

Meanwhile, Nancy Herman, a member of the Friends of the Barnes (the group opposing the move of the Barnes Foundation from Merion to Philadelphia), writes:

[The hearing] was held in a very small room with people hanging from the rafters. Most people could not hear or see the presentation, as the microphones did not work.

Speaking of transparency, here's the information on the new facility that the Barnes has now posted on its website. But why haven't they posted their 17-page submission that informed the Art Commission's approval? I keep pleading for it, but all they've e-mailed me so far is this press release.

Derek, pretty please?

Bob Workman at his previous post

What's the Flint Hills Discovery Center, we all wonder.

According to its website, it will be "a focal point of the South End Redevelopment [that] will offer a unique tourism experience that celebrates the history, culture and heritage of the Flint Hills and Tallgrass Prairie." It's in Manhattan. (That would be Manhattan, Kansas.)

Although Bob Workman won't assume his new post as director of the center until January, he will (according to Monday's press release announcing his appointment) "immediately become an active participant in key discussions while he completes his transition from Arkansas."

That would be Bentonville, AR, where he was executive director of Alice Walton's Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art until his surprise resignation last January. There he was overseeing creation of a facility to house the megabucks Wal-Mart heiress' masterpiece collection.

In Manhattan, he'll be overseeing "all aspects of building and exhibit design and
construction of the Discovery Center....Workman will also lead an approximately $4-5 million fundraising campaign to generate the remaining funds needed to complete the facility as envisioned."

According to a document on its website, Flint Hills' capital budget is $22.9 million for a 35,000-square-foot facility. By contrast, as of about a year ago, Alice, members of her family and a family foundation had given $317 million to Crystal Bridges for the development of the 100,000-square-foot museum, as Workman revealed in his deposition in the court battle over the fate of Fisk University's Stieglitz collection (in which Crystal Bridges seeks to purchase a half-share).

This downsizing is a homecoming of sorts for Bob, who will assume his post in January: He's a Kansas native.

Williams and Tsien describe their Barnes design in video posted by the Philadelphia Inquirer

Architect Robert Venturi's letter (e-mailed to me by the Friends of the Barnes early this morning), opposing the planned move of the Barnes Foundation to Philadelphia, states:

The current building in Merion was designed specifically for the Barnes collection by Paul Cret, in collaboration with Dr. [Albert] Barnes as owner/curator.

Nowhere in his letter (discussed today by Christopher Knight of the LA Times) does Venturi note that the Barnes' current building in Merion underwent a $12-million renovation and systems upgrade in 1995, for which the architect was...none other than Robert Venturi. I wrote about that renovation on Nov. 28, 1995 for the Wall Street Journal (in an article for which I cannot find a link).

This is not to discredit Venturi's argument that separating the collection from the building "vastly diminishes the value and purpose of both." It's just to say that when he's defending the sanctity of the Barnes' current facility (which I have also vigorously defended), he's also defending his own work---an interest that should be publicly disclosed. Venturi and the Barnes go back a long way: He attended grammar school and high school next door.

Meanwhile, Inga Saffron, the Philadelphia Inquirer's architecture critic, has given Tod Williams' and Billie Tsien's just-released design plans for the Philly Barnes (described by her in detail) a rave review. But CultureGrrl, despite having sent requests to the Barnes, the Barnes' lawyers and the Philadelphia Art Commission, has still not managed to get hold of the 17-page submission and images to be discussed an tomorrow's meeting of the Art Commission.

It's a public document. (Just not for me!)

UPDATE: Nicolai Ouroussoff, architecture critic of the NY Times, has a very different take from Saffron's:

The result is a convoluted design. Almost every detail seems to ache from the strain of trying to preserve the spirit of the original building in a very different context. The failure to do so, despite such an earnest effort, is the strongest argument yet for why the Barnes should not be moved in the first place.

At the hearing, left to right: Architect Jean Nouvel, David Penick of Hines, MoMA's Glenn Lowry, project attorney Michael Sillerman

I'm going to leave the story of the Barnes' design plans to the Philadelphia Inquirer's Inga Saffron for now. (Her expanded report is here.)

That's because I've got to bring you the news from the hearing I attended today on the MoMA/Hines tower. As your may remember, Jean Nouvel's skyscraper had grown, in stages, to 1,250 feet (the height of the Empire State Building, without its antenna). The City Planning Commission cried out, "Too tall!" and lopped off 200 feet.

But look out, earthlings...

...it's BA-A-A-A-CK!

MoMA's four heavy hitters (architect Jean Nouvel, Museum of Modern Art director Glenn Lowry, and the project's lawyer and its developer) were at City Hall today, trying to revive their 85-story giant. This would require convincing the NY City Council to overturn the City Planning Commission's mandate.

At today's hearing held by the Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee of the Council's Land Use Committee, David Penick, managing partner for developer Hines on this project, argued that the undertaking might not be financially viable at the reduced height, which would also undermine its "architectural integrity."

Near the beginning of his testimony, Penick said that the shrinkage would force the tower to lose its 150 luxury condominiums, which were planned for the top floors. Later, he said it would keep the condos but lose the 120 hotel units. The Council's Land Use Committee chair, Melinda Katz caught that self-contradiction, whereupon Penick stated that the hotel units would probably be eliminated, not the potentially more lucrative condos.

During a break in the action, I caught up with Penick and Nouvel outside the meeting room. Penick told me that lopping off 200 feet of height (a loss of 100,000 square feet from the building's proposed 658,000 square feet) would mean a loss of 16 of the planned 85 stories. He conceded that the project, even if it got government approval, would not start any time soon; it would await improved economic conditions.

Nouvel told me he was uncertain whether he would continue with the project if the tower was shortened to 1,050 feet (which would make it the height of another skyline icon, the Chrysler Building). At the hearing, Nouvel unveiled "a new proposal for the top," including reflective "fins" that would be be seen from certain vantage points around the tower, but not others. "There would be strong differences of experiences of the top as you moved around the building....It is a very elegant building."

In addition to affecting the architecture, a smaller project would mean less of a windfall for the nonprofits (St. Thomas Church, the University Club, the American Folk Art Museum) that have agreed to sell air rights for the project, because less space would be needed. MoMA may also sell air rights for the project, which it had previously acquired from the University Club.

No vote was taken by the subcommittee today. Whatever happens, MoMA already has in hand the $125 million that Hines paid for the land adjacent to the museum---the site of the proposed tower. The new building would include on its lower floors space for MoMA's next expansion. Considering what's happened to the real estate market since that land sale, it now looks like a great financial deal for MoMA, not so great for the developer.

In his testimony, Lowry explained his previously unsupported claim that the new expansion would not cause a significant attendance jump (which would further rile the neighbors): He argued there was a limited audience for modern art and that he believed MoMA, at about 2.5 million annual visitors, is now "very close to the maximum size of our audience."

Councilman Daniel Garodnick, whose constituents include neighborhood opponents to the project, declared that proponents' claims that the tower would have minimal impact on the surrounding area were "hard to follow and hard to swallow."

I'll have more on this project in subsequent posts. But for now, here's Garodnick peering out from behind the MoMA Monster Model:

"Jamie Houghton"---Met Chairman's Signature

In a letter e-mailed last night to its members, the Metropolitan Museum's board chairman, James Houghton, revealed that final audit results are expected to show an operating deficit that totals a whopping $8.4 million for the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2009. This compares with a deficit of $3.2 million in fiscal 2008 and a SURPLUS of $2.6 million in fiscal 2007.

As Houghton's letter indicates, this is not for lack of trying to cut costs:

A number of substantive cost-saving measures, including reducing staff [here and here---my links, not his] by 14 percent through a combination of means, have greatly improved the Museum's financial outlook....Affecting this budget are revenue streams as well as endowment income. Endowment income, which is averaged over a five-year period, has traditionally provided approximately 30 percent of the Museum's operating income. Compared with the previous year, the long-term endowment generated a negative return of nearly 20 percent for fiscal 2009. In addition, the Museum experienced a roughly 10 percent decline in revenues from government support, private donations, Membership, and ancillary activities (such as merchandising and restaurants).

Nonetheless, we have had encouragement on many fronts. Members, donors, and funding entities have worked hard to maintain previous giving levels and even to stretch their commitments. I am especially pleased to note that the City of New York, which provides vital annual support toward energy and direct operating expenses, had earlier projected cuts of at least 25 percent, or $3.25 million, in fiscal year 2010. The city now estimates that the Museum will receive only a 3 percent reduction in operating support for the year, though, of course, this appropriation is subject to continual review based on the city's own financial situation.

Yesterday I questioned why the Barnes Foundation's plans for its Philadelphia facility, filed Friday with the city's Art Commission, were being withheld from the public in apparent violation of the state's Right-to-Know Law.

I guess someone had a look at the law and agreed with my interpretation.

This hit my inbox late this afternoon from William Burke of the Art Commission:

The Barnes Foundation has withdrawn its request that submission materials not be made public prior to the Art Commission meeting.

Regarding your request, we do not have extra copies for distribution to the public. The materials are available for examination here in the Commission office.

Okay, I'll just hop in the car and take that scenic two-hour drive to Philly, so I can inspect the materials. I do have a request in to the Barnes, asking to be sent a copy of the 17-page document that's now in the hands of the Philadelphia Inquirer's architecture critic, Inga Saffron. She's already posted a brief preview, with images. (She promises a longer story tomorrow.)

Saffron had a slightly different account from Burke's of how the secret plans came to be released:

After the city received several requests under the Freedom of Information Act, the law department concluded that the public had the right to review the documents before the commission convened.

Excellent conclusion. Two days ago, Inga had reported:

In an unusual move, Barnes officials asked the [Art] Commission to consider the plans "proprietary" and withhold them from public scrutiny until Wednesday. A city solicitor approved the request.

On what legal grounds did he approve it, we all wonder. It shouldn't have taken a Freedom of Information request to get the city to do the right thing. This kerfuffle can only reinforce the impression of conspiracy theorists (given full voice in the Art of the Steal documentary, which I'll eventually quibble with) that the Barnes has friends in high places who are willing to bend proper procedure on behalf of facilitating a Philly facility.

When I know more, you'll know more. (I suspect Inga will know more before I do.)

Hey, I didn't start this: Highlighted as "the latest museum 'interactive'" on both the Getty Museum's twitter page and the twitter page of Max Anderson, director of the Indianapolis Museum, is the purported museum initiative described in a tongue-in-cheek send-up today by The Onion, a spoof publication where every day is April Fools.

Struggling Museum Now Allowing Patrons To Touch Paintings breaks the (phony) story, complete with an on-the-scene "photo," of how the Metropolitan and other museums are allowing visitors to paw the paintings and even hoist them off the walls.

But CultureGrrl readers know that it's really Philippe who started all this. Remember this widely published don't-drop-that-Duccio photo?



And what about Walter Liedtke's (almost) fondling "The Milkmaid"?

Two big Pennsylvania arts-and-government stories are unfolding simultaneously, so I'm going to mash them together in one post:

First, the Philadelphia Museum's architecture critic, Inga Saffron, reports that the Barnes Foundation for the first time will make public architectural plans for its planned Philadelphia facility. This will occur on Wednesday morning, when the Barnes makes a presentation to the city's Art Commission, which must approve its plans.

Saffron writes:

Several key city officials already have reviewed the architectural design by the New York office of Tod Williams and Billie Tsien, and the commission is widely expected to sign off on the general massing and site plan....

In advance of the hearing, foundation officials submitted a packet of documents yesterday containing the site plan and various architectural drawings so commission members can have time to review the details. Ordinarily, such documents are also available to the public. But in an unusual move, Barnes officials asked the commission to consider the plans "proprietary" and withhold them from public scrutiny until Wednesday. A city solicitor approved the request.

Question: Doesn't Pennsylvania have a Right to Know Law?

Answer: Yes. Here it is. It applies to local, as well as state, agencies. Isn't the Barnes' report, to be considered in public by a public body, a public document? There are exceptions to the state's requirement for disclosure, set forth in the Right to Know Law's Section 708, (starting on p. 12 of the above-linked PDF). I see nothing in that section that would justify non-disclosure of the Barnes-related information. (I have a query pending about this with the Art Commission.)

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania's culturati and the nation's arts luminaries are mobilizing against the proposed imposition of an 8% sales tax on admissions to performances, museums and zoos in the state. That plan sparked much controversy, not only in Pennsylvania, but also nationally. On Friday, the Association of Art Museum Directors sent a letter to Gov. Edward Rendell and Pennsylvania legislative leaders, urging them to abandon the arts tax proposal.

AAMD stated:

The proposed expansion of the sales tax will erode the substantial positive economic impact of your state's cultural institutions: Non-profit organizations in Pennsylvania generate $1.99 billion in economic activity each year. Taxing the capacity of museums and other organizations to make these vital educational and financial contributions to the state makes neither fiscal nor practical sense.

Happily, the state's House on Thursday removed the arts tax from the tax code bill that now goes to the Senate. The Philadelphia Arts and Cultural Alliance has issued an alert that summarizes the issue and includes a sample letter to be sent to legislators.

That letter concludes:

There are plenty of options for revenue---and putting the theaters, historical sites, artists, and museums at risk that make Pennsylvania so unique is not one of them.

Gary Steuer, Philadelphia's chief cultural officer, who directs the city's Office of Arts, Culture and the Creative Economy, came out against the proposed arts sales tax more than a week ago, on his Arts, Culture and Creative Economy blog. In an extended post, Steuer got to the heart of the bigger problem faced by cultural organizations in their efforts to secure and keep government support:

It appears this tax was "easy" to impose because of the perception that the arts are an activity benefiting the wealthy, educated elite who can easily pay the extra tax. This tax was not seen to affect a broad public constituency, and therefore was seen as politically easier and less painful to impose because it would have minimal impact on the average citizen. This is one of the biggest challenges our field faces---changing this perception. An even bigger challenge is that for many institutions this perception may be accurate. Demographically arts patrons ARE richer, more educated and---frankly whiter---than the average population.

We tout the wealth and education of our patrons when we want to secure a sponsorship from Lexus or BMW, and we love those black tie galas, but when we advocate with the government we are transformed into champions of average folks, school children, diverse populations, the elderly, neighborhood transformation. And we ARE those things as well---the arts touch every citizen whether they know it or not, and have a profound effect on our communities and our lives.

We are both sides of that coin, Janus-like, and that makes for very complicated messaging, and challenging advocacy.

Here's my second video from the new CultureGrrl YouTube Channel. It's not appealing (like Glenn Lowry's star turn), but appalling. It's the most inane moment in the insipid installation of the "Lucy's Legacy" show is at New York's new schlockbuster venue, the Discovery Times Square Exhibition Center.

You enter a stygian tunnel to get to the famous (and truly impressive) fossil---your reward for enduring the inept exhibition that leads up to it. I promise you: I did not add the "am-I-really-hearing-this?" soundtrack to this video. This is truly what you'll experience if you dare to enter this corridor of gloom (and faux Ethiopian art). I wasn't permitted to photograph the real artifacts. But there was nothing real, only surreal, in this cheesy lead-in to one of the world's most treasured archaeological finds---the 3.2-million-year-old skeletal remains of Australopithecus afarensis:



I was almost alone in the "Lucy" show, save for the guards, so this schlockbuster was no blockbuster. Things were a bit less dreary and deserted, though, at the "Titanic" exhibition on the other side of the Discovery facility. That extravaganza provided visitors with a "you are there" feeling of being passengers on the doomed vessel.

When I'm back to blogging next week, I may go into greater detail about what's wrong with the Discovery Center's presentations. Or maybe it would be merciful to avert my eyes from this misconceived venture and stick to the real deal---serious museums whose shows are grounded in deep scholarship.

What I don't understand is that "Lucy's Legacy" did originate at a museum---the Houston Museum of Natural Science. I'd like to assume the presentation there was more professionally proficient than what I saw in the repurposed former NY Times building.

UPDATE: Lucy's just been upstaged by an older woman---Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus)! Suggested new exhibition soundtrack: "Ob-La-Di, Ardi Da."

Ted Gallagher, an attorney with a self-described "strong amateur art historic streak," responds to my two posts (here and here) critiquing the NY Times' cultural coverage:

There is a marked preference on the part of the Times' editors for coverage of performing arts over fine arts in the cultural pages. My dream for a new NY Times is that editors nurture long-form art criticism and reviews---3,000 words, even---in the great tradition of such papers as The Guardian of London and the defunct New York Sun.

One need only look back in The Times's distant archives and see how the paper gave enormous depth to its fine arts subjects---far more than we see today. I know the paper has it to give.

Flood the zone.

I'm not blogging this week. Glenn Lowry is!

I've got a new tech toy and (with MoMA's permission) I'm posting a video in which I captured some interesting comments made by the director of the Museum of Modern Art at the conclusion of Tuesday's press breakfast. (Next time, I'll even try to hold the camera steady!)