June 2010 Archives

Other iconic drums now on view in the Met's galleries: Kettle Drums, Franz Peter Bunsen, 1779, Hanover, Germany

I have a confession to make that will make me seem even more dorky than you already think I am: Ringo was my favorite Beatle. That's probably because he was no one else's favorite Beatle. (I'm a contrarian to the core.)

Still, I had to rub my eyes in disbelief when the latest press dispatch from the Metropolitan Museum hit my inbox yesterday. I was sure it had to be a spoof, or else it had unaccountably been sent with the wrong museum's name affixed to it. It had actually originated from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Experience Music Project or (less likely) the Brooklyn Museum. Right?

No, art-lings. Brooklyn's taste runs more to hip-hop than British Invasion. The Met, however, is totally fab:

On July 7, Ringo Starr's 70th birthday, the Metropolitan Museum of Art will inaugurate a special display of his gold-plated snare drum that will remain on view to the public through December 2010 in the Museum's second-floor Musical Instruments Galleries. On loan from Ringo Starr, it was originally presented to him by the Ludwig Drum Company during The Beatles' 1964 visit to Chicago when the legendary rock group, in which Mr. Starr was the drummer, was on its first tour of the United States.

"This special presentation drum--made for the most influential [?!?] drummer of a generation and representing the highest-end production of the most important drum manufacturer of the 20th century--holds iconic stature," stated Jayson Kerr Dobney, associate curator in the Metropolitan Museum's Department of Musical Instruments. "We are so pleased to be able to display in our galleries this spectacular loan from Ringo himself, who has owned it since it was first presented to him in September 1964, for thousands of visitors to see during this landmark birthday year."

Gee, Jayson, Stevie Wonder is also having a "landmark birthday year": He turned 60 last month. Can we please see his harmonica? Janis Joplin's Mercedes Benz? Elvis' blue suede shoes?

Yes, I'm losing it. So is the Met. But what I'd really like to know is whether Ringo ever played his iconic "special presentation drum"---something the museum doesn't tell us in its press release. Nor did the Met provide an image of it with the press release (nor could I find one on the website).

For now, fellow Beatles fans, if you want to see it, you'll just have to click on this account of "The Night that Changed the Music World," which, at the top of that page, has a black-and-white image of the Met-worthy rare instrument with the Lads from Liverpool. (There's also a cop in the picture. I'm not sure whether he's there to guard the Beatles or their gold drum.)

The caption for the photo is at the bottom of the page:

Bill Ludwig and his daughter, Brooke, present a gold-plated snare drum to Ringo and the Beatles before the band made its first Chicago appearance in September 1964.

Alas, no gold-plated Bic pen (my instrument of choice) has ever been presented to me. But I do want to warmly thank Repeat CultureGrrl Donors 135 from Boston and 136 from Cincinnati.

Do you think my former idol might read this and send me one of his iconic rings?

The BP Grand Entrance at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art

Cultural institutions in Great Britain and the U.S., which had until now relied on BP, the British oil company, as a benevolent, generous patron, are now faced with decisions about how to deal with the public-relations dilemmas posed by accepting support from a company that has been demonized, due to the horrific Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the company's much criticized handling of the aftermath.

The issues now faced by previously grateful recipients of BP's philanthropy were underscored last night by a protest demonstration against a party held at the Tate Britain for the opening of a show of work by Fiona Banner. Agence France-Presse reported that "a group of artists, calling themselves 'The Good Crude Britannia,' poured a black substance---thought to be molasses---from cans emblazoned with the British oil giant's logo outside the...museum." The event was also billed as a celebration of 20 years of support for the Tate by BP---a dubious party theme, given the widespread outrage sparked by the Gulf Coast disaster.

So far, British art institutions are hanging tough. John Vidal and Owen Bowcott reported last Thursday in the Guardian:

The main recipients of BP's corporate largesse---the Royal Opera House, Tate Galleries, British Museum and the National Portrait Gallery---today issued a joint statement defending the connection and signaling their determination to preserve the commercial relationship.

I'm going to catch some flak for this, but I think they're right not to sever ties with BP. Cultural institutions have long been the beneficiaries of do-good aid from do-bad moguls and businesses---from the robber barons to manufacturers of cancer-causing cigarettes. Refusing their benefactions so as not to burnish their tarnished reputations is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

With the possible exception of a direct conflict between the practices of the funder and the mission of the recipient, there should be no ethical litmus test for arts support, so long as donors don't expect paeans to their business practices along with recognition of their generosity. Some cringe-worthy exhibition press materials that I've seen extol at length the virtues of the supporters' business activities, unacceptably crossing the line from grateful acknowledgement to commercial endorsement.

That said, there SHOULD be an ethical litmus test for an institution's trustees, who must be carefully vetted for probity during the selection process, to avoid the future embarrassment of time served on the board being followed by time served in jail. That unfortunate sequence of events occurred for former Whitney Museum trustee L. Dennis Kozlowski, then chairman and chief executive of Tyco International.

In an interview for my 2002 Wall Street Journal profile of him, Max Anderson, then the Whitney's director, conceded that the Kozlowski debacle was a "sock in the eye" that would "change the nominating process. The trustees and I have to be much more methodical in evaluating people's intentions in joining the board, what they bring to it and what their background is."

Naming opportunities can be especially fraught with peril: Enron Field, the baseball stadium in Houston, was prudently renamed after the eponymous corporation's ignominious meltdown. The Los Angeles County Museum of Art, on the other hand, has shown no inclination to rename a component of of its 2008 expansion---the BP Grand Entrance (aptly likened in appearance to a gas station by the NY Times' architecture critic, Nicolai Ouroussoff).

But the recently opened BP Sea Otter Habitat at the Aquarium of the Pacific, Long Beach, CA, has a dicier problem: The oil spill's destruction of aquatic habitat runs directly counter to its mission, making its name sound like the punchline of a bad joke. One can easily envision an editorial cartoon featuring an oil-soaked otter in the BP Habitat.

As reported by Mike Boehm and Louis Sahagun in the LA Times, the aquarium's president, Jerry Schubel, has stated that there is no interest among his colleagues in deleting BP's name. The situation was uncomfortable enough, however, to prompt the aquarium to append this statement to the Sea Otter Habitat's homepage (which bears an image of BP's corporate logo):

The nonprofit Aquarium of the Pacific is passionate about the environment, and we as an organization are focused on helping to reduce our nation's thirst for oil. We are very concerned about the disaster in the Gulf. As we have done in past oil spills, we will be sending our experts in wildlife rescue to assist the Association of Zoos & Aquariums in its Gulf efforts and will be hosting a forum in the fall to explore our nation's dependence on oil.

Four years ago BP funded the creation of the enhanced otter exhibit, which focuses on sea otter conservation. This funding allowed us to provide important ocean education and conservation information to our members and the public and the space and systems to house additional rescued sea otters. This exhibit will continue to educate millions of people and serve as a home to stranded otters for many years to come.

Going forward, I think it unlikely that art museums will need to confront the dilemma of whether to accept new BP sponsorship. That's because the company's shareholders, hit by the freefall in its stock price and the suspension of dividends, are unlikely to stand for such nonessential expenditures. If BP knows what's best for its tattered reputation, any future philanthropy will target efforts to improve the Gulf Coast's quality of life, which the oil spill has so grievously harmed.

"Apollo Sauroktonos" (Lizard-Slayer), ca. 350-275 B.C., attributed to Praxiteles, featured in newly renovated galleries at the Cleveland Museum of Art

In his June 8 article about the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority's plan (now realized) to issue $75 million in tax-exempt bonds to help finance the Cleveland Museum of Art's expansion, Steve Litt of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that those bonds "will be backed by donations made for the museum's project."

That's true. But it's not the whole story.

I couldn't help but notice that the stated amount of the bond issue was identical to the $75 million for which the museum had successfully sought court permission to divert to the capital project. The money freed up by the court would, if needed, come from four funds that, according to the donors' written stipulations, were meant to applied solely to art acquisitions, not bricks and mortar.

Is it a coincidence that these two figures---$75 million for each---are identical? I think not.

Caitlinn Devitt's June 15 article in The Bond Buyer about the issuance of the bonds reports that the income from the art funds will indeed provide backing for the bonds.

Devitt reports:

The borrowing will nearly double the museum's outstanding debt. The bonds will be backed by future donations and a reserve account funded by endowment earnings. The reserve account typically funds art purchases, [emphasis added] but a Cuyahoga County court ruled last year that the museum could tap the fund for capital projects....

Standard & Poor's downgraded the museum's outstanding debt ahead of the sale to AA-plus with a stable outlook, from AAA with a negative outlook. Analysts cited operating and fundraising uncertainties amid the capital program and the museum's heavy reliance on endowment to fund most of its operating budget.

At the same time, Standard & Poor's noted that the AA-plus rating "remains among our highest for U.S. cultural institutions, reflecting core credit strengths."

Christa Skiles, the museum's spokesperson, informed me in an e-mail last week that "the museum has not yet used income from the art fund." She added that "no specific date or amount for future use of this income has been set" and that "there is no plan for the income from the art fund to be repaid" if that money is indeed diverted to the expansion

But it now appears that, while not yet spent, the partially repurposed income from the art fund is (contrary to what Skiles said) already being used---to back the bonds. If donations to the capital campaign fall short, up to $75 million in money that was meant to be applied to art purchases may instead be diverted to the building project.

While this is not the same thing as using works already in the permanent collection to back a bond issue (which would be widely frowned upon), this IS sacrificing works that would otherwise have been part of the future permanent collection---the objects that the museum won't be able to buy if the $75 million goes towards enhancing and expanding the facility designed to accommodate them. As I've previously stated, I regard this gambit as the most egregious disregard of donor intent by an art-displaying institution in recent memory.

Paradoxically, Cleveland's legal argument for violating donor intent was that the four long-ago benefactors hadn't envisioned the pressing need to provide more space for the collection and new acquisitions. In its successful Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Cleveland argued in Cuyahoga County Probate Court that of all the funds that the museum might have chosen to tap for construction, the art purchase fund "would be most frustrated as to purpose in the event the Museum does not expand."

On the contrary, it seems to me axiomatic that these funds would be "most frustrated as to purpose" if they weren't used for their intended purpose---art acquisitions, not construction.

Commenting on the diversion of acquisition funds, Deborah Gribbon, the museum's interim director, said this to me in a written statement:

This action was not necessitated by imprudent planning, it was taken only after full consideration of every other option, and it was pursued with complete transparency [emphasis added]. To the extent that these funds are used, it will be to the direct benefit of the museum's collection and its public.

But "complete transparency" did not extend to full public disclosure that the diversion of the art funds was being sought to bolster a bond offering. That information is contained in one short phrase in the court petition, which states that, among other things, the money might be used "to service debt that is now or will be outstanding." Timothy Rub did allude briefly to the issue of "bonding capacity" in his Q&A we me about the diversion of Cleveland's art funds. (We spoke about this after he had left the Cleveland directorship and assumed the top post at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.)

As for paying off those bonds, Standard & Poor's has warned (as also reported in The Bond Buyer's article) that the museum's future debt burden could exceed 20% of the museum's budget. In 2005, the museum issued $90 million in bonds through the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority. The total fundraising goal for the project is $350 million, of which $220 million has thus far been raised. On June 14, the museum's board green-lighted the final phases of the expansion designed by architect Rafael Viñoly, scheduled for completion in 2013.

On Saturday, the museum opened 17 newly renovated galleries, completing the restoration of its original 1916 building. These spaces house art from the ancient Near East, Greece, Rome, Egypt and Africa; works from late antiquity, the Byzantine Empire and the European Middle Ages; and prints and drawings.

The installation of ancient art, Litt reports, includes restitution replacements---objects sent by Italy on long-term loan, in return for Cleveland's givebacks of antiquities that the Italian government had claimed were illegally removed from that country.

According to yet another report by Litt, Cleveland still rejects Greece's claim to one of the most important antiquities in the museum's collection---"Apollo Sauroktonos" (pictured at the top), a life-sized bronze attributed to Praxiteles, now featured at the entrance to the newly renovated galleries.

CLARIFICATION: The actual par value of the bonds, as stated in the June 17 offering circular, is $70.43 million.

Rocco Landesman, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts

If you liked the first Rocco Show---the online webcast of the meeting of the National Council on the Arts (advisory body for the National Endowment for the Arts)---you won't want to miss the return engagement, tomorrow (Friday) from 9-11 a.m., viewable here. On the agenda: a report on how technology influences arts participation, as well as the announcement of the latest round of NEA lifetime honors (already named here).

Speaking of online CultureChats and the influence of technology, my first attempt to have an online exchange with CultureGrrl readers went well, once my technological cluelessness finally got solved. I managed to sabotage my audience by announcing that the software wasn't working, only to discover that it was functioning after all and we could proceed. If you missed it in real time, you can replay it here (scroll down). Our next live chat should go more smoothly. I'll announce the time and the hot-button topic soon.

I was very impressed with and gratified by the quality of the comments and questions of those who did participate this afternoon. I like the idea of getting closer to CultureGrrl readers in this way.

It made me think that museum curators and directors should also do this---talk with their audience in real time about exhibitions and scholarship. It's not all that difficult or time consuming, and it could be rewarding and fun for both sides!

Then again, maybe some of your are doing this already: I'm just catching up!

UPDATE 3: It worked! You can replay the chat below!

UPDATE 2: Wait a minute! I think it's working! (Oh no, maybe not!) It was working for a moment.

UPDATE: Curses! Foiled by technology again! I''ve done everything right (I think), and even see the proper dialogue box in my posting platform's "preview" view, but it does't post to CultureGrrl. All you can see is that useless box below.

I'm apologize to those art-lings who were primed to chat, but I'll have to consult with my technological better and see if there's something I can do to fix (and reschedule) this. Perhaps the chat software I'm using doesn't like the "Moveable Type" posting platform. Or maybe it just doesn't like ME!

Okay, art-lings. We'll be ready to roll (maybe) in just a short while---at 3:30 p.m. I'll be seeking your views (and you can seek mine) about this blog---what's good, what's not so great, and how it can be enriched and improved. And we can also discuss the function and merits (or lack there of) of art blogs in general.

This is an instant message-type format. Please keep it succinct; keep it civil; keep it on topic; and keep it interesting! You don't have to pre-register. When we go live, you can simply type your comment in the box at the bottom and click "Send."

While you wait, you can prepare by clicking the "Reader Information" link (below) to see how this works (or maybe doesn't).

Are you back from Art Basel yet? Are you still in London for the big auctions?

What if I throw a party and nobody comes?

Readers' questions and comments on "The State of the Blog" (both CultureGrrl and art blogs in general) are invited at 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time. I've got it all set up. I've practiced with the software. But there will be a big moment of technological suspense (if not panic) when I click the link to go live and see if it actually does.

If this does work (and if there's reader interest), we can move on, in future chats, to discuss the hot-button issues of the day. It seems to me that some of the topics explored during the recent closed-door annual meeting of the Association of Art Museum Directors might be good fodder for open discussion on CultureGrrl.

This is an instant message-type format. On the upcoming post for the first CultureChat, you will see a space at the bottom of the dialogue box where you can type your remarks and hit "Send." Simple as that.

 At about 3:15 p.m., I will publish on CultureGrrl the post on which our 3:30 chat will take place. That way, you can click the "Reader Information" link to learn more about how this will (or maybe won't) work. For example, I can see your comments/questions in advance, and decide whether to post them and/or edit them.

Please keep your comments brief (which will be a challenge for loquacious me), civil and on topic.

Speaking of editing, if blogging is journalism without a net, live chat is blogging without a net. On my side of the discussion, there may be typos. There may be too-hasty comments that I'd like to take back or refine. There will be technological trauma.

But it's an experiment. Maybe it will be fun!

Do we have a date, art-lings?

Today was a good-news day for me, personally and professionally.

I accompanied my close friend, who had lung cancer, for her post-chemotherapy scan, and her doctor pronounced her cancer-free, predicting she'd live to be 100. (The latter declaration may be slightly exaggerated, but the former was sufficient to make our summer.)

I returned home to this e-mail from the J. Paul Getty Trust's press office:

ProQuest, an information technology firm supporting global research, and the Getty Research Institute (GRI), dedicated to advancing understanding of the world's artistic heritage, announce an agreement that will allow ProQuest to take over the indexing of the International Bibliography of Art (IBA), providing a secure future for a resource considered central to the study of art history. The agreement assures the database's continuing development and accessibility to researchers around the world.

ProQuest will retain the editorial policies which made IBA one of the most trusted and frequently consulted sources in the field, continuing to provide full abstracts and subject indexing for its wide international and multi-lingual range of periodicals, monographs and catalogues. Over time, ProQuest also intends to expand coverage of art from Asia, Latin America and Africa in response to requests from art librarians and researchers.

IBA, which began in 2008, was the successor to the Bibliography of the the History of Art (BHA) (already available through ProQuest). A few months ago, the Getty created dismay among art scholars and librarians by deciding that it would not longer provide financial support for updates to this important art historical research tool. (I wrote more about this contretemps for the Wall Street Journal, here.)

Best known to web surfers as the paywall portal for the digital archives of newspapers, dissertations and journals, ProQuest also publishes databases in the arts, including ARTbibliographies Modern, Design and Applied Arts Index and the International Index to Music Periodicals.

Kudos to the Getty Research Institute for persevering to make this happen. Now there's some catching up to do: Updates to the database stopped after December 2009.

Thomas Gaehtgens, director of the GRI, said that the Getty "will continue to
make the historical BHA and RILA data available on the website free of charge to researchers
who access it." I assume that means that accessing new content to be created under ProQuest auspices will incur a fee (as did the BHA, until the Getty withdrew its support for updates).

There's more about this laudable development in the press release, here.

National Academy's spiral staircase

The National Academy, New York, which famously ran afoul of the Association of Art Museum Directors because of its stealth deaccessions to pay for capital expenses and operations, has just announced that its exhibition galleries and lobby (including its shop) will be closed next month and remain so until September 2011. The stated reason is "to renovate its exhibition galleries and create a new visitor center and a school studio gallery." The Academy's current juried student exhibition closes this Sunday.

The renovations are being funded through recent bequests by Eleanor D. Popper, a former Academy student, and author Geoffrey Wagner, in memory of his wife, painter Colleen Browning Wagner, a National Academician. The renovated galleries will "for the first time in over 100 years provide space dedicated to the semi-permanent exhibition of notable works from the Academy's collection of over 7,000 paintings, drawings, prints, and sculptures by American artists and architects," according to the announcement.

One of the reasons given for the secret deaccessions had been to pay for the creation of permanent-collection galleries.

The Academy's museum never regained its previous momentum after it was censured by AAMD in December 2008 for the Sotheby's-brokered disposal in November of two of its greatest American masterpieces---paintings by Frederic Edwin Church and Sanford Robinson Gifford. (I broke the story of the deaccessions, and subsequently speculated about the buyer, who has never been publicly identified.)

The Academy's director, Carmine Branagan, had originally told me that the sale agreement, at the Academy's request, had stipulated that the deaccessioned paintings were to be hung publicly, probably on long-term loan. But in the year and a half since the sale, they still haven't surfaced.

Wait a minute! What's this I see in the "collections" section of the Academy's website? The deaccessioned Church and Gifford are still listed as being in the collection! (Wishful thinking, perhaps.)

AAMD's censure of the Academy, advising the association's members to cease all art loans and scholarly collaborations, effectively scuttled a planned show of Zorn, Sargent and Sorolla that would have included loans from several major museums. Subsequent Academy exhibitions have been drawn from works in its own collection, art by its members, and pieces by contemporary artists participating in its annual invitational exhibition.

In its report after this month's annual meeting, AAMD seemed to allude to the Academy's situation, stating that it would "provide guidance by which institutions may redress the cause for sanctions or censure, obtain AAMD's professional assistance to restore financial viability if necessary, and rejoin the community of North American art museums." Thus far, however, there's been no indication of a change in the Academy's status.

Is this on new president Kaywin Feldman's to-do list?

How meaningful is this blog's two million-hit milestone, which has just been attained this morning?

Not very: Due to the vagaries of Internet searching, a great many people arrive at CultureGrrl by sheer accident, Googling things like "museum of murder and mayhem" (having to do with some TV show episode) or "rose image" (wildly popular around Mothers Day), they arrive at the right blog for the wrong reasons.

I wish I could identify today's two millionth visitor. I'd like to give you (a devoted art-ling, I hope) some kind of prize---a CultureGrrl Cap? Should I make one? Would you wear it?

I haven't stooped to hawking merchandise (yet). But while the blog keeps evolving in both style and substance (better photos, more videos, more focus on my own reportorial and analytical strengths, rather than news aggregation), my business acumen hasn't. I can't troll for ads (and ArtsJournal blogs' righthand columns, where AJ used to place ads for us, have remained dormant). I don't like nagging for donors (though I really do need some).

So I post and I wait.

What I'm waiting for (probably in vain) is to be "discovered" by some media mogul or a sympathetic backer who appreciates the value of what I've built---a loyal following of the most savvy, sophisticated art professionals and art lovers around the U.S. and, to a lesser extent, abroad. CultureGrrl's got Google power, pundit power, staying power (blogging for more than four and a half years and counting). What I need is support.

But enough self absorption. Back to you, loyal readers: At 3:30 p.m., Eastern time, on Thursday, we're going to try a technological experiment---CultureChat, a live instant message-type discussion, right here on the blog. Given my usual technophobia, I strongly fear that this is not going to work. So I'm starting small, with a relatively inconsequential topic---"State of the Blog." I'll be interested in getting your feedback about CultureGrrl---what you like, what you'd like to see in the future, what you don't particularly care for (civility, please!). More generally, let's also talk about the roles (or lack thereof) of the art blog.

Withdrawn Lot: Chuck Close, "'5 C' (Self Portrait)," 1979, estimated at $50,000-70,000

An 11th-hour agreement has been reached between the seller---PBE Corporation---and some of the photographers whose images are being offered at Sotheby's four-session auction of works from the Polaroid Collection. The disposals begin today at 5 p.m. As part of the agreement (which former federal judge Sam Joyner and two other lawyers retained by the photographers helped to forge), nine works are being withdrawn from sale.

The highest-estimated withdrawn work (above) is by Chuck Close, who was the highest-profile critic of the sale. (It's the same close portrait that you saw behind Sotheby's photography specialist, Denise Bethel, in this CultureGrrl video.) Two other Close self portraits remain in the sale.

Sotheby's press office has released this statement regarding the agreement:

John Stoebner, trustee of PBE Corporation, which is the consignor of the Polaroid Collection, has confirmed that nine lots have been withdrawn from the upcoming sale of 482 lots of photographs from the Polaroid Collection at Sotheby's, to be held on June 21 and 22.

The withdrawn works will be reunited with the balance of the Polaroid Collection currently housed in Somerville, MA, and will further enhance its appeal. The Trustee will be working with Sotheby's and a representative of certain of the artists in the Polaroid Collection to try and find an institutional home for the remaining approximately 10,000 works in the Polaroid Collection.

Here's the list of the eight other works (in addition to the Close) that have been withdrawn from the sale (presale estimates in parentheses):

---Lot 145, Mary Ellen Mark, " Selected New York Portraits" ($8/12,000)

---Lot 154, Andy Warhol, "Martha Graham" ($2/3,000)

---Lot 170, Laurie Simmons, "Selected Photographs from The Education Project" ($4/6,000)

---Lot 218, Joel Meyerowitz, "Selected Images" ($1,500/2,500)

---Lot 223, Aaron Siskind, "Selected Mexican Portraits" ($1,500/2,500)

---Lot 234, William Wegman, "Selected Figure Studies." ($5/7,000)

---Lot 445, Various Photographers, "Selected Self-Portraits" ($2/3,000)

---Lot 462, Danny Lyon, "Selected Images" ($5/7,000)

UPDATE: The sale has now begun. Close's "9 Part Self Portrait," Lot 3, has made a mockery of its $50,000-70,000 presale estimate, going for a whopping hammer price of $240,000. It was the work that had introduced the presale exhibition:



Robert Rauschenberg's "Japanese Sky 1 (From the 'Bleacher' Series)," Lot 5, came close to Close, with a final bid of $220,000 (est. $40,000-60,000). But wait a minute! For reasons unexplained by Bethel, who is serving as auctioneer, the Rauschenberg was re-offered directly after the conclusion of bidding for the next lot. This time it fetched slightly less than before---$200,000.

So far, it looks like dealer Janet Borden may have been right when she told me back in February that the works in the same seemed "undervalued" by Sotheby's.

This is not a CultureGrrl parody. It's an actual headline and photo from an authentic MOCA press release! (NOT kidding!)

Move over, Jerry Saltz. Jeffrey Deitch is coming to a boob tube near you.

From that most soap opera-ish of art museums (The profligate former director! The brash upstart director! The manipulative megabucks collector!) comes a soap opera-related press announcement from LA MOCA that had me rubbing my eyes. It hit my inbox (as all e-mails from that museum do) with a pop-up from my e-mail provider, warning me that "Thunderbird thinks this message might be an email scam."

It does read like a spoof press release. But art-lings, this one's for real (I think). The online version hails from the moca.org web address. Some excerpts:

MOCA announces the taping of a special episode of ABC's Emmy Award-winning daytime drama General Hospital on the occasion of the return of character Franco the artist, played by artist and actor James Franco, on the Pacific Design Plaza next to MOCA Pacific Design Center. Conceived by James Franco as part of a performance work titled "SOAP at MOCA: James Franco on General Hospital," the taping will be observed by a select live audience. [I don't think I'll be "selected."]

In this special episode, Franco, James Franco's character from General Hospital, will be having an exhibition at MOCA Pacific Design Center, during which time Jeffrey Deitch, the new director of MOCA, and the characters from Port Charles from General Hospital wil [sic] be making their West Coast debut.

I assume this means that Deitch appears on the show, The wording of this press release is so murky that it's hard to make sense of anything that's going on in this sudsy enterprise.

But wait, there's more:

The character's [Franco's] exhibition will include full-scale models of the locations in which he encountered mobster Jason Morgan (Emmy winner Steve Burton). To the musical accompaniment of his artistic collaborator Kalup Dashinel, played by critically acclaimed video and performance artist Kalup Linzy [at least they kept the artist's first name], who will perform live during the taping, Franco will attempt to lure Jason and others into his art-trap [huh?]. If all goes to plan, mastermind Franco will turn both Jason Morgan's life and his own death into art, a performance to end all performances.

Will this nefarious "art-trap" also end Deitch's performances? Does he get to keep his full name? Time (and the show's airing on July 22) will tell.

I've already forced myself to sit through one episode of Bravo's The Next Great Artist reality show. Do I now have to endure a soap opera?

Speaking of Deitch, he is one of the artworld luminaries who contributed detailed, revelatory statements to the highly engrossing special section---The Museum Revisited---of this summer's issue of Artforum. This tour de force, overseen by Tim Griffin, represents his swan song as editor of the magazine. The essay by Deitch and many others are tagged: "As told to Tim Griffin."

One of the nuggets that Deitch shares with Griffin is his belief that his recently shuttered commercial gallery, Deitch Projects, "operated as a private ICA [Institute of Contemporary Art]....It's almost like I've been running my own private museum and using the art market to fund it." Looked at from Jeffrey's perspective, I guess almost any dealer---even Larry Gagosian (or maybe especially Larry Gagosian, with guest-curated shows of late Picasso and late Monet to his credit)---could make that strained claim.

Deitch also observes in Artforum that there is "great potential for [museum] parterships with luxury and consumer brands." Could it be that Vuitton-at-MOCA may not have been a regrettable one-off, but a prototype? I'm hoping this is all just a bad dream (or maybe a loopy soap-opera episode).

Maxwell Anderson, director of Indianapolis Museum of Art

Max Anderson, director of the Indianapolis Museum of Art, responds to MeTube: "Populist" Arnold Lehman Strikes Back:

Arnold's comments are on target. I was quoted in the NY Times article about exhibitions that lack merit, but certainly didn't intend to single out Brooklyn. As you note, several leading institutions found themselves unable to resist the Star Wars exhibition, which in the end contributed little to their financial or reputational health. One museum's attendance or another's is, in fact, rarely a key indication of institutional health, with admissions revenue accounting for less than 4% of art museum income nationally.

The media's fascination with attendance, which creates a reward system at odds with our educational mandate, tempts directors to make choices that are short-term and at the expense of more adventurous, engaging exhibitions--which Brooklyn stages regularly and to acclaim.

Speaking of "fascination with attendance," Anderson tweeted last night:

Some 10,000 visitors today for the opening of 100 Acres: The Virginia B. Fairbanks Art & Nature Park.

Margot Adler, NPR correspondent

[UPDATE (and a second update below): You can hear me now, by going to NPR's online audio. (My remarks begin at about 1:21 into the piece.) I recommend that you listen to Margot's commentary, rather than just reading the text posted last night online (which I link to here, two paragraphs below this one). The radio report offers greater detail and more flavor.]

In a piece to be aired tomorrow on NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday, 8-10 a.m., Margot Adler (whose voice you can hear on my CultureGrrl Video at the bottom of this post) discusses next week's controversial auction at Sotheby's of photographs from the Polaroid Corporation's collection.

The text related to tomorrow's piece is online today, with a brief quote from me, discussing a deckle-edged Ansel Adams photo of a stream that had caught my attention at the presale exhibition. It arrested me not only because of its quality but also because it reminded me of my own family's snapshots from the '50s, when deckle-edged borders were all the rage.

Below is an inadequate image of the photograph---actual size: a mere 2 7/8 by 3 7/8 inches---that I referred to in my comments to Margot. (She had asked me which works in the presale exhibition had particularly stood out for me.)


Ansel Adams, "Ocean and Tidal Stream," late 1940s or 1950s

Actually, this is my photo of the image of Lot 67 from the auction catalogue. It doesn't begin to do justice to the quality and detail of the original (but you can clearly see the deckle edge of the border). The catalogue informs us that this is "among the earliest Polaroid photographs" from the company's collection.

What amazed me was the texture of the water and the sweep of the composition that Adams was able to capture through such modest means in such small space. And that, of course, was the reason why Polaroid's founder, the inventor Edwin Land, had involved Adams and other artists in the use of Polaroid's products---to explore the potential of instant cameras. Those somewhat clunky contraptions were, in a sense, forerunners of today's sleek instant-gratification digital devices that allow us to see images as soon as we shoot them.

I'll update this post tomorrow with NPR's audio, once it's available online. [Now done, at the top of this post.]

ADDITIONAL UPDATE: If you read the comments at the end of Adler's online piece, you may see that mine was removed and flagged as "inappropriate." I had merely linked to the CultureGrrl post that you're now reading---something I had done previously on NPR's site without incident. Who knew?

Denise Bethel of Sotheby's at the presale exhibition of of the Polaroid Collection

At the press preview yesterday for Sotheby's highly controversial upcoming sale, June 21-22, of selections from the Polaroid Collection, the director of the auction house's photography department, Denise Bethel, fielded reporters' questions about the dispersal of more than 1,000 works (presale estimate: $7.2-11.1 million), including more than 400 by Ansel Adams, that has been strongly opposed by some of the contemporary artists whose photographs are going on the block.

Bethel countered that other photographers are pleased to be in the sale. One of those, evidently, is David Levinthal, who participated in the Sotheby's promotional video.

Ironically, the the most high-profile opponent of the sale, artist Chuck Close, has been tapped by Sotheby's as its poster boy: His monumental "9-Part Self Portrait" (presale estimate: 40,000-60,000) is both the page-one image for the press release and the work that greets you, front-and-center, when you enter the presale exhibition:


Installation shot at Sotheby's

On the CultureGrrl Video below, you'll hear Bethel explain that Polaroid has been through two bankruptcies and that this sale is being conducted by court order (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota), to help pay the creditors of Petters Group, Polaroid's former owner. Its founder, Tom Petters, "was convicted in December of fraud and money laundering, among other charges," according to Carol Vogel's report last February in the NY Times. Warren Richey of the Christian Science Monitor later reported that Petters was sentenced in April "to 50 years in prison for carrying out a 16-year Ponzi scheme that netted an estimated $3.7 billion."

Charlotte Burns reported in April's Art Newspaper that there had been talk among some of the photographers (who had given works to Polaroid in exchange for materials and equipment) about mounting a legal challenge to the sale. It now appears that no lawsuit has materialized. Sotheby's spokesperson Lauren Gioia told me yesterday that no court papers challenging the sale had been filed. Critic and scholar A.D. Coleman has much more about this saga in numerous posts on his Photocritic International blog.

But for now, let's listen to Bethel of Sotheby's, double-teamed by me and Margot Adler of NPR. (My voice---closer to my recorder---is the louder of the two off-camera questioners.) In response to our queries, Denise compares the quality of the works selected for the sale (of which about 70% were made with Polaroid products, the rest with traditional cameras) with that of the thousands of works remaining in the Polaroid Collection. She also mentions the uncertain fate of those works not selected for auction and touches on the controversy over the dispersal. (The image you'll see behind her is another work by Chuck Close.)

The person who intervenes at the end of this clip is Sotheby's press officer Dan Abernethy, calling a halt to our interrogation:

George Goldner, chairman of drawings and prints at the Metropolitan Museum and drawings curator at the Getty Museum from 1984-93, succinctly responds to After the Mourning: Reimagining the Getty (in which I quoted his prior comments criticizing the J. Paul Getty Trust's priorities and administrative structure):

The issues I brought up in 1998 still hold true and the sad results are there for everyone to see.

The new Rick Mather-designed McGlothlin Wing of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts

I've gone far afield from Richmond since I began fleshing out my Wall Street Journal article about the 165,000-square foot expansion of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. But I've still got one more CultureGrrl photo essay to go, in completing our tour of the recently renewed and reopened VMFA. This one takes a closer look at the architecture.

Below are some illustrations that serve as companion to my WSJ descriptions of the design by American-born, London-based Rick Mather---his first major project in the U.S.

As I stated in my review, the genius of Mather's achievement is his enhancement of the visitor experience through ease of circulation and navigation. In this regard, his work far outstrips the similarly long but much less visitor-friendly courtyard of the Renzo Piano-designed Modern Wing of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Mather fulfills the practical requirements of the VMFA's "main street" with flair. Here, flanked by one of the gray-carpeted stairways, are two of six glass-walled bridges---four in the atrium, two in the entrance hall:

The Getty Villa, Malibu

In his LA Times piece today, Jason Felch returns to his Getty beat, reporting that Getty Foundation director Deborah Marrow would be named today (as has now been officially announced) as the J. Paul Getty Trust's interim president and CEO. Felch also provided details on the cause of death of James Wood, the president and CEO of the Trust: He died in his sauna of a heart attack.

Most importantly, Felch discusses the issue raised in April by the LA Times' art critic, Christopher Knight, which I touched on in my CultureGrrl appreciation of Wood and also at the end of my KCRW radio commentary on his passing.

Felch writes:

Current and former Getty officials, most speaking on background to avoid offending Wood's family, said Wood's passing presented the Getty with a unique opportunity to resolve a longstanding issue.

The Getty's unusual organizational structure---a nonprofit trust run by a chief executive who oversees four operating programs, the largest of which is the museum---has been a source of internal conflict over the years. Given the completion of the Getty's ambitious building projects and recent budget struggles, many said Monday that it [the organizational structure] should be reconsidered.

As part of this exercise, it would be useful to look back at the Getty's founding principles and how far the Trust diverged from them when it grew from a relatively modest museum in Malibu to a two-campus institution, with the December 1997 opening of its six-building, 24-acre Los Angeles facility.

Back in those heady, sky's-the-limit days, the Getty wasn't merely a quadripartite institution; it had seven different programs: the Museum, Research Institute and Conservation Institute (all still active), as well as a Grant Program (now the Getty Foundation), an Information Institute (using technology to disseminate art knowledge), Education Institute, and Leadership Institute (which was later folded into the Foundation and has recently moved to Claremont Graduate University, with financial support from the Getty).

This proliferation of programs, since trimmed back but still far-reaching, bears little ressemblance to what megabucks founder J. Paul Getty had in mind---a mere art museum. But at his death in 1976, he left to it such a superfluity of resources---some $700 million in Getty Oil stock (which grew to $1.7 billion in 1983, when Getty Oil was acquired by Texaco)---that responsible museum professionals felt impelled to devise myriad ways to spend this windfall, to the benefit of art, culture and the public.

It's worth noting that back in 1998 (when I wrote a long article for the May issue of Art in America about the Getty and its new Richard Meier-designed facility), the Trust's endowment was about $4.5 billion---the same amount as in its most recent annual report (for fiscal 2009). When I wrote my AiA article, the Getty's endowment was about five times that of the Metropolitan Museum; now it's less than two and a half times the Met's reported $1.86-billion total endowment funds.

The Getty has recently made many recession-driven emergency cuts. But going forward, it needs to reimagine itself more comprehensively for the new century, coming up with an institutional and programmatic structure that functions smoothly---something more workable than the current four-headed monster. Any new plan, as Christopher Knight has already suggested, should be based upon the principle that the museum---founded by J. Paul Getty and now possessing important and valuable collections---needs to be first among equals, driving all the programs.

In rethinking the Getty, the comments made to me long ago by George Goldner now seem particularly prescient. Goldner was the Getty's drawings curator from 1984-93, before assuming his current post as chairman of drawings and prints at the Met.

Some Goldner outtakes from my 1998 article, which still resonate today:

---The money left behind by J. Paul Getty should have been used principally to build great collections. The Getty should have been the greatest museum in this part of the historic evolution of museums. Instead, it has become a very good one.

---Far too much money has been spent on the building [$1 billion] and on programs which have had limited success.

---They should have 2,000 drawings instead of 500 [and] more than one van Gogh painting, three Cézannes and one Manet. [That was in 1998.]

---Most of the interaction [among the institutes] was not positive. They competed with each other for money.

Moving forward, the Getty should no longer be a loose federation of separate and sometimes skirmishing fiefdoms. Its components should be entirely collaborative and coordinated, under the auspices of an outstanding museum professional---someone capable of engineering this overhaul, who is likely to stick around for the long haul.

James Wood

If all goes according to plan, I'll be sharing my thoughts about James Wood, the late president of the J. Paul Getty Trust, on Warren Olney's Which Way LA?, broadcast over public radio station KCRW, 7 p.m. LA time (10 p.m. on the East Coast). My segment is supposed to air at 7:19 p.m. [See update below.]

You've already read some of my reminiscences about this consummate museum professional here.

UPDATE: You can hear me now, by clicking the arrow below and then (after the brief ad for the station) scrolling the red marker below Warren's image to about 19:28 into the program. You'll hear a brief mention of the death yesterday of another important LA cultural figure, former LA Philharmonic executive director Ernest Fleischmann, after which begins the discussion of James Wood.

Today's a good day to think about the theater, post-Tony Awards, and it's a particularly good day to think about the state of American musicals, which both Charles Isherwood of the NY Times and Charles McNulty of the LA Times criticized, in their pre-Tony musings, for "stitch[ing] together new narratives with already recorded (and popular) music" (Isherwood's words) so that "there's rarely a true marriage between storytelling and music" (McNulty's words).

As it happens, the day before the Tonys (Saturday), I attended one of the most critically acclaimed new musicals now running in New York (Off-Broadway---not Tony territory). Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson (at the Public Theater to June 27) bucks the play-it-safe trend by marrying a brash and inventive original score, composed by Michael Friedman, with a clever, sharp, but intentionally tasteless and occasionally offensive (in deriding gays and the wheelchair-bound) political satire, both written and directed by Alex Timbers.

The music of  "Jackson" derives from the whiny "emo" subdivision of punk rock, so you are not likely to leave the theater humming show tunes (which are not even listed in the program, as is the Broadway custom). But these lyrics---"Life sucks! (and my life sucks in particular)"---from the mouth of the petulant, later-to-become 7th U.S. President, did stick in my mind like a burr.

What really stuck, though, was my (very) personal participation in this drama. Previously unbeknownst to me (where's Ben Brantley when we really need him?), there's a moment during the uninterrupted 90 minutes when the "fourth wall" is rudely shattered by the title character, played by the charismatic Benjamin Walker as a lubricious punk-rock star and populist political heartthrob.

In the middle of the action, he descends from the stage and walks over to Seat D2. Before I knew who was hitting on me, there was CultureGrrl in the spotlight, the object of an Obama-esque pick-up line:

How would you like some of my stimulus package?

Whereupon, not heeding my startled (and lame) negative reply, Old Hickory commenced grinding against me. Where is the National Organization for Women when we really need it?

Saturday happened to be my wedding anniversary, and my co-celebrant was seated in D1. Neither of us particularly minded this unexpected visit, but I'm not sure that my right eye was comfortable, less then three weeks after cataract surgery, in the bright spotlight (not to mention the mist that permeated the theater for much of the time, lending the play a phantasmagorical atmosphere).

I'm relieved to report that the eye seems okay today, but it was tearing all day yesterday. Perhaps I should stay in museums and galleries, where I belong. (I did manage to squelch my desire to stand up, turn around and take a bow during the curtain calls.)

Back to the Tonys: You already know what I think about the safe-choice winner for Best Play, "Red," and its highly accomplished supporting player whose name starts with the eponymous color---Eddie Redmayne, the deserving winner for Best Featured Actor. I think "Red" owes its success more to cultural correctness than dramatic excellence.

Meanwhile, a far superior play was largely snubbed, not just by the Tonys but also by American audiences: Enron, a big hit in London, closed in New York almost as soon as it opened. But to my mind, it is much better written and more powerful than the pale paean to the wroth Rothko.

To me, Lucy Prebble's amorality tale for our times had the stuff of Shakesperean tragedy, with Jeffrey Skilling as the flawed, hubris-heavy hero with great gifts, whose heady, heedless rise is followed by the inevitable, catastrophic fall. I felt the requisite pity and awe, but there's no sense of redemption, let alone catharis, at the finish. Shakespearean tragedy would have called for the hero to gain belated insight and self-knowledge---not possible in this tawdry true-to-life saga.

Enron's fallen and now incarcerated "hero" is appealing his conviction to the Supreme Court (decision expected this month). And he is unrepentant, as evidenced by a prison interview just published today, conducted by Archelle Georgiou for Fortune magazine. What's more, the business headlines keep bringing us fresh evidence that the lessons of Enron have not been learned by the business or financial communities. There is no comfortable conclusion to this modern tragedy.

To appreciate this American tale (writ by a Brit), theater critics would need a head for business and finance, or at least a willingness to get beyond econo-phobia. The NY Times' Ben Brantley, who was (dis)credited by some London critics for bringing down "Enron," candidly acknowledged in his review that he's "admittedly not a biz whiz." Similarly, if you can't stand punk rock (or perhaps more intimate assault), you won't want to be in the same room (or in Row D) with Benjamin Walker.

We don't know if Ben Brantley had the power to kill "Enron." But could CultureGrrl have saved it? I intended to publish my praise, but my usual art beat took precedence, and before I could say "mark-to-market," I had missed the bubble.

Wait a minute! My gig is visual arts, not performing arts. No one cares what I say about the theater. Let's get back to business-as-usual.

But first, speaking of high-finance, my warm thanks go out to CultureGrrl Repeat Donor 133 from New York and CultureGrrl Donor 134 from San Jose, who hit on my "Donate" button without the stimulus of one of my nagging reminders. For those of you sitting complacently in Seat D2, it's time for me to assault you: If my posts click with you, please click me back (yellow button, middle column).

I never have gotten a Tony. And it's unlikely I'll get an Obie for my part in "Andrew Jackson." But I did, after all, win an award for Best Blog!

James Wood, 69, the late president of the J. Paul Getty Trust

The best obit I could write for James Wood, the late president and CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust, Los Angeles (formerly director of the Art Institute of Chicago and St. Louis Museum of Art), is something that I've already written---my Solid Wood profile that I produced on the occasion of his ascension to the Getty position.

Getty chairman Mark Siegel yesterday announced that Wood had died "suddenly of natural causes" at the age of 69. Mike Boehm of the LA Times quoted Getty spokesperson Ron Hartwig saying that Wood's body was found late Friday at his home.

My brief 2006 profile of him included this tribute, which still stands:

He conceives his artworld role not so much as that of a brilliant scholar, a high-profile spokesman or a social schmoozer, but as a public servant in the best sense.

Without grabbing headlines, Wood has quietly sought to do the right thing, through the conscientious exercise of his institution's civic responsibilities as a good local, national and world citizen. He projects an unflashy but solid integrity and decency.

The Getty staff collectively issued a deep sigh of relief when it was announced four and a half years ago that Wood would be steadying the helm of the controversy-tossed Trust. Succeeding Barry Munitz, who resigned under pressure in February 2006, Wood brought a sense of probity and normalcy back to the beleaguered quadripartite institution's operations and presided over improved relations with Italian cultural officials---now largely characterized by cooperation, rather than confrontation. He also led the Trust through a series of painful, sometimes controversial cuts that were prompted by the current recession.

Even on an issue about which I had recently disagreed with him---the Getty's termination of updates to the Bibliography of the History of Art (BHA) that had been under the auspices of its Research Institute---Wood acted with due consideration, weighing support for this important scholars' tool against what he considered to be the Trust's more pressing priorities.

Here is an outtake from my last conversation with Jim---an Apr. 15 phone interview that I did for my Wall Street Journal article on the BHA. This excerpt (not in my article) is an example of his good-faith efforts to balance competing interests during a difficult time of fiscal austerity (and also of his willingness to explain himself to critics):

At the end of the day, everyone has the right to ask us, "Did we pick the right thing? Should we have done less school busing and kept BHA? Should we have reduced the size of the grant program for some of our initiatives?

They're valid questions. We looked at all of that....If we said that BHA is sacrosanct---that [for example] we're going after buildings and grounds for another cut---you would have seen it somewhere else. Maybe it would have affected the general public more than a group of scholars; We had to take that into account.

Taking everything about Jim Wood into account, I'd call him a consummate museum professional who made major contributions to the smooth functioning and high distinction of the cultural facilities he led. You could disagree with him (as I did), on some issues of style and substance, but you could never doubt his motives or his integrity: What he did was executed with the best interests of his institution at heart.

The Getty has now lost two class acts in rapid succession: In January, the Getty Museum's director, Michael Brand, resigned amidst differences with Wood. With the untimely passing of the Trust's CEO, the recent suggestion by LA Times art critic Christopher Knight---that the Getty rethink its problematic administrative structure---now becomes all the more timely.

Stephen Talasnik, discussing his bamboo "Stream" sculpture

One of the more popular of recent CultureGrrl Videos (we're not talking about Gaga numbers here) features me not climbing the Starn Twins' Big Bambú at the Metropolitan Museum.

How much more exciting, then, to watch me actually "climb" the smaller bamboo construction, now open for exploration by the cultured (and the clumsy) at Storm King Art Center, the idyllic, mountain-surrounded sculpture retreat in Mountainville, NY. The occasion was the recent press preview for 12 new or newly loaned recent works that are now on view as part of the center's 50th-anniversary celebration,

Stephen Talasnik's "Stream: A Folded Drawing," a commission, was conceived before the Starn project and also before Herzog & de Meuron's "Bird's Nest," the stadium for the Beijing Olympics, which it immediately brought to mind. Talasnik did tell me, however, that his final creation was, in a sense, influenced by "Bird's Nest": He decided to differentiate his by tilting it:

J. Paul Getty Trust's endowment (in billions), from fiscal '09 annual report

Nearly a full year after the June 30, 2009 close of its annus horribilis, the J. Paul Getty Trust has just published online its Annual Report and Financial Statements for fiscal '09. Although, percentage-wise, the endowment decline is in line with that at other recession-hit institutions, the numbers, because it's the megabucks Getty, are staggering.

Some red-ink facts:

The Trust's endowment declined from $6 billion on June 30, 2008 to $4.5 billion on June 30, 2009 (as shown above). The Getty's vice president for communications, Ron Hartwig, told me today that the endowment as of Dec. 31, 2009 (the most recent figure available) had increased to $4.9 billion.

Fiscal '09 expenses totaled $300.75 million, against revenues and other support totaling only $28.9 million. Budgetary cutbacks resulted in a reduction in expenses of $47.81 million from the previous fiscal year.

"Total revenues, support and losses" were in the red to the tune of $1.26 billion, largely due to a $1.25-billion net investment loss. As in the previous fiscal year, the Trust still had a hefty percentage of its portfolio in alternative investments---some $2.9 billion of its $4.59 billion in total assets as of June 30, 2009. According to the financial statements, "a significant portion of the Trust's alternative investments portfolio is made up of limited partnerships, which include private equity, venture capital, hedge funds, distressed debt, real assets and other funds."

The Trust capitalizes its collections, unlike most major art museums, which do not regard permanent collections as financial assets and don't assign values to them on their balance sheets. The Getty valued its collection at $1.9 billion at the end of fiscal 2009; $1.83 billion the previous year. The fair market value of its holdings was probably higher, however: The trust values objects at cost, if purchased; at the appraised value at the time of contribution, if donated.

Purchases of collection items in fiscal '09 totaled $24.01 million, compared to a heftier $81.35 million the previous year.

On a more positive note: Fabio Isman reports (no link) in the June issue of the Art Newspaper that the defense lawyer in Rome for former Getty Museum curator Marion True intends to request that Italy's prolonged antiquities-trafficking trial against her be ended on the grounds that the statute of limitations has run. True's U.S. counsel, Harry Stang, told me today that if any such motions are filed, this would likely occur in September, in anticipation of the court hearing scheduled for Oct. 13.

Meanwhile, the Getty has just put on view the Gela Krater, a monumental red-figure vase, ca. 475-425 B.C., loaned as part if the museum's long-term collaborative agreement with Sicily.


Attic Red-Figured Volute Krater, Greek, About 475 - 425 B.C., attributed to the Niobid Painter, Museo Archeologico Regionale Agrigento, Agrigento, Italy

Arbiters of "Artist": Jeanne Greenberg Rohatyn, Bill Powers, China Chow,
Jerry Saltz

After reading two favorable reviews of the first episode of Bravo's "The Next Great Artist" (as well as Christopher Knight's unfavorable take), I decided it was possible that my revulsion at the show's trailer might have been more a function of Bravo's misguided marketing campaign than of the tenor of the show itself. So I gave the first episode the benefit of the doubt and watched.

I won't make that mistake again.

I don't want to waste any more valuable time on Artist Idol than I already have. So aside from remarking that the squirm-worthy, end-of-show put-downs of the three candidates for expulsion were more "snit" than "crit," I'll leave the last word to others:

Laurie Fendrich, painter and professor of fine arts at Hofstra University, wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education that if those involved in the show had the "slightest sense of shame, ...they would have run as far and as fast as possible to get away from this dog of a program."

And here's a BlogBack from CultureGrrl reader Kate Bennet, an artist and arts administrator from Golden Valley, MN (sent to me after my preview post, but before the show aired):

Although I agree that this is pretty much a train wreck waiting to happen, I do take issue with one small phrase in your post. "I take the roles of artists and art arbiters too seriously to go along with this gimmick."

This show seems like the televised version of what already happens in museums, galleries, and juried exhibitions. It seems to seldom be about the quality of the art, and much more about who you were able to impress at a party, who has spread your name through word-of-mouth, and how supposedly avant-garde the art is.

And no, I'm not an embittered artist-failure. I love to create art, but I have never attempted to get into a show. I see this "artworld" as just that---a world unto its own where there are rules that must be followed in order to "become someone." Too often, pure talent is overlooked because it didn't get the approval of the right people, or wasn't pushing the limits enough.

Maybe a small part of what makes this televised train wreck so disgusting (other than all the very good reasons you already pointed out) is that it is bringing to light that which already exists in society. Who knows, maybe I will actually learn something about what it takes to be "The Next Great Artist".

That is, assuming I were to ever watch.

As to Fendrich's questioning whether anyone involved in the show has the "slightest sense of shame," it appears that art critic and "Great Artist" judge Jerry Saltz does: He wrote for today's online NY Magazine that he intends to "hide the DVD" from his (unidentified) wife, the thoughtful and insightful NY Times art critic Roberta Smith, whom I suspect would rather be caught with shopping-mall art on her walls than as a participant in this artworld embarrassment.

For its next reality show, Bravo ought to turn the premise around, selecting a jury of artists to trash their tormenters---"The Next Great Critic."

In a press release issued after today's conclusion of its annual meeting, the Association of Art Museum Directors praised its own conclave as "noteworthy for the unprecedented membership-wide discussion of issues and opportunities facing the museum field."

As I reported earlier today, the association certainly seems to have grappled with the controversial issues of the day. Whether this will result in substantive action on those issues remains to be seen. The chief actions reported in the post-conference recap were "adoption of a new strategic plan and an updated policy regarding deaccessioning."

The deaccession policy (as described in the release) states that colleges and universities (Randolph College, Fisk University and Brandeis University come to mind) must "adhere to professional standards and ethics [regarding art sales] when operating a museum." The policy also stipulates that "fractional deaccessioning [as occurred with a Charles Deas painting at the Denver Art Museum] is prohibited, except to other public organizations that are committed to keeping the work in the public domain." (Denver relinquished a share in its Deas to the private Anschutz Collection.)

In a provision that seems directed at the ostracized National Academy, AAMD states that it "will provide guidance by which institutions may redress the cause for sanctions or censure, obtain AAMD's professional assistance to restore financial viability if necessary, and rejoin the community of North American art museums." Carmine Branagan, do you copy?

My hope is that these proceedings will be published in greater detail, including complete copies of the updated deaccession policy and the new strategic plan, and the complete texts of the four presentations by museum directors on "new visions for financial stability, publications, collecting, and new practices for art museums."

We still don't know where AAMD stands on other hot-button issues that were discussed: Brandeis "loans"; monetization of collections, honoring donor intent, exhibiting private collections.

The press release blows the cover of the pioneering tweeter for these proceedings: It was, as suspected, the meeting's host, Max Anderson, director of the Indianapolis Museum of Art.

But Max, you never did tweet the anointment of Kaywin Feldman as AAMD's new president! Did it happen?

Or did Zero-to-Forty Conforti refuse to hand over the keys?

AAMD members on the fast track (site of the Indy 500). Zero-to-Forty Conforti in the driver's seat. (Couldn't they get the Jeff Koons racecar for this occasion?)

I've always wanted to be a fly on the wall of the Association of Art Museum Directors' national meetings. In one of the most infamous moments of my so-called career, I went undercover, grabbing an unclaimed name badge and attempting to infiltrate.

That was the meeting, many years ago, for which the press had been urged to trek up to Worcester, MA, for a brief public session---a panel including (to the best of my recollection) Philippe de Montebello, Glenn Lowry and James Wood, discussing museums' reponses to the issue of possible Nazi loot in their collections. Craving more of a payoff after my long drive, I penetrated the inner sanctum for the regular closed-door meeting and scrunched down, as unobtrusively as possible, in the rear of the auditorium.

But I had foolishly neglected to don my blond wig, phony nose and dark glasses. Spotted immediately, I was promptly ejected. (What was I thinking? Many profuse apologies ensued.)

I was disappointed but not surprised when, a few days before this week's conclave, I received this reply from AAMD's executive director, Janet Landay to my query about the agenda:

As usual, we will be addressing a number of different issues, including the work of the Deaccessioning Task Force. But as you know we do not share the meeting schedule publicly.

But I WAS surprised---pleasantly---to discover that AAMD has now, in essence, shared its agenda via its Twitter page. What I've learned is that two of the three hot-button issues that I had suggested they should address (exhibition of private collections in museums, Rent-a-Rose), and many more, have indeed been matters for discussion.

Here are some key tweets from "AAMDIndy" (most recent to earliest):

2010-14 Strategic Plan under discussion in plenary session--packed room, engaged group.

Wrapping up discussion about honor donor intent [emphasis added] and the recent history of decisions that have challenged AAMD policies as written.

Public criticism of collection-based exhibitions as recession concessions.

Collections-sharing models.

Brandeis "loans."

Exhibition of private collections in museums: clear protocols and guidelines needed [emphasis added].

Breakdown of mainstream media coverage. [Long live the blogs!]

Cultural property claims and legal proceedings against museums and staff.

First hot topic: attempted monetization of collection.

First morning session ending. Next up: "Hot Topics."

Artist-Museum Partnership Act: seeking tax vehicle so charitable provisions can be attached to restore tax-deducts for artists.

Now I REALLY wish I could have been be a fly on the wall!

I've saved the first substantive tweet for last:

Janet Landay announces that Deaccessioning Task Force has completed new version of policy; will be voted on by members on Weds. [That's today.]

After its mid-winter meeting, the Deaccessioning Task Force had issued an interim edict (scroll down), reaffirming the principle that art-sale proceeds should be used NOT for "operating or capital purposes," but only for "the refinement and expansion of the collection." This issue has gained greater urgency in the current financially challenging climate.

I am hoping that the full report of that task force, if approved by the members, will soon be released to the public. What I really hope is that the New AAMD Transparency will extend to keeping us all in the loop about the association's thoughts on all the "Hot Topics" listed above. I'm encouraged by the latest dispatch from Tweet Central:

Committee reports and board actions being presented; results to be announced by AAMD in aftermath of Indpls mtg.

Above all, I hope that the AAMD will issue clear, forceful guidelines---not just suggested considerations---to be followed by member directors who are grappling with these issues.

Speaking of member directors, the one hot-button topic I had raised that was not on AAMD's tweeted agenda was dealer-to-director. But I had the opportunity to discuss this Jeffrey Deitch-inspired issue with AAMD's outgoing president, Michael Conforti, at the donors' party for the Clark Art Institute's soon-to-open Picasso Looks at Degas, the night before he flew to Indianapolis.

While not specifically discussing the LA MOCA situation, Conforti did tell me that AAMD's membership committee, in vetting new directors, would take into account that these are changing times. That means, he said, that people who would not formerly have been considered "director material" might now be deemed appropriate candidates.

Conforti added that AAMD does not stipulate certain credentials as prerequisites for membership, specifically mentioning that a PhD was not necessary. (If it were, not only would Professor Philippe have been disqualified, but also 61% of AAMD's current members, according to statistics provided in the tweets from Indianapolis.)

Conforti did mention that potential new members are judged on "values and standards," as well as "character." Here's what AAMD says on its own website about its qualifications for membership:

Eligible individuals will be professionally qualified for their positions by a sufficient combination of art historical training, museum experience [emphasis added], demonstrated ability and adherence to the Code of Ethics of the Association.

"Museum experience"? As self-described during his Guggenheim talk, the museum experience of LA MOCA's new director, Deitch (who is not yet an AAMD member), consists of a short stint at the Cordova Museum, Lincoln, MA, at the very beginning of his otherwise commercially oriented career. I'll leave it to AAMD's elders to decide whether Deitch's stated intention to sell works for business purposes from his former gallery's inventory constitutes "adherence to the association's Code of Ethics." (The guidelines stipulate, in the second paragraph on P. 20, that "a director shall not deal in works of art.")

But enough of this caviling. The most entertaining AAMD tweet, so far, was this:

Majority of current AAMD directors will retire within a decade. Imagine the unreasonable demands on THAT assisted care facility!

Will the final tweet, at today's conclusion of the annual meeting, be that non-nonagenarian Kaywin Feldman has ascended to the presidency?

Will Kaywin tweet?

Bison in Altamira Cave, Santillana de Mar, Spain

On Sept. 18, 2001, I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal (no online link) about my memorable visit to Spain's prehistoric Altamira Cave. I then described the "intense spiritual charge of being surrounded by the creative aura of our inspired precursors, who, gazing at the bumps, cracks and curves of their abode's inner surfaces, saw in them and brought to life the humps of bison, the curvature of heads, the outlines of bodies."

I also saw firsthand "why visitors are bad for caves," when our elderly guide's flashlight cap came loose and clattered into the pit where prehistoric food had been prepared, whereupon one of the nimblest in our group scampered down (with the guide's permission) to retrieve it, violating the rule to stay on the prescribed path and keep hands off the walls.

Little did I then know that I had managed to explore this cultural treasure just in time: When I perused its 14,500-year-old wall and ceiling paintings (including its famed bison), access was restricted to 8,500 visitors a year, down from 177,000 annually before 1977. Altamira had been closed for five years until 1982. In September 2002, about a year after my visit, it closed once again, because of concern about the deterioration of the paintings due to the effect of people's breath and body heat on the cave's climate.

But if you rue the lost opportunity to see the first discovered prehistoric cave in Europe, you may soon be in luck: Daniel Woolls of the Associated Press reports that visits "will resume next year, although on a still-unspecified, restricted basis," despite the fact that "in April of this year, the government's main scientific research body, called the CSIC, recommended that the caves remain closed."

From the sound of things, is seems that the decision of the site's board to reopen the fabled cave was partly based on economics. Woolls quotes Miguel Angel Revilla, president of the Cantabria region, proclaiming:

Altamira is an asset we cannot do without.

Left to right: Jeanne Greenberg Rohatyn, Jerry Saltz, China Chow, Bill Powers, Simon de Pury

I don't watch reality shows. I couldn't even sit through a full episode of "Project Runway," let alone "American Idol." So despite my artworld interest, I'm not the target audience for Work of Art: The Next Great Artist, premiering Wednesday on Bravo. I take the roles of artists and art arbiters too seriously to go along with this gimmick:

Fourteen aspiring artists...compete for a solo show at the prestigious Brooklyn Museum [now squandering some of its "prestige"] and a generous cash prize.

The judges for this competition, as described in the advance publicity, are "art luminaries Bill Powers, a New York gallery owner and literary art contributor; Jerry Saltz, current art critic for New York Magazine, and Jeanne Greenberg Rohatyn, esteemed curator and owner of Salon94 gallery. World-renowned art auctioneer Simon de Pury [Yikes, there is a Simon!] adds his voice of experience as a mentor to the contestants." China Chow, whose father's New York restaurant "became a mecca to the art world that ruled Manhattan in the eighties," is both host and judge. Her chief credential, apparently, is having "fond memories of learning to draw elephants with their family friend, renowned artist Jean-Michel Basquiat."

And if that's not enough, there will be "a new celebrated guest judge every week." Please tell me that the Brooklyn Museum's Arnold Lehman will not be among them!

Speaking of celebrated guests, Sarah Jessica Parker, an executive producer of the series, shows up to play mother hen to her art-lings:

Be brave, be competitive and be yourself!

Are you sure Picasso started like this?

If I weren't already turned off by this trivialization of the art enterprise, the "highlights" (which to me seem more like low points) featured in the publicity trailer would be the nail in the stretcher.

Here are few excerpts:

One artist/aspirant to another: Was there a vibrator in your piece?

De Pury (straight faced): The vibrator changes everything.

Rohatyn (angrily): You give performance art a bad name. [Does it usually have a good name?]

Saltz (cuttingly): I actually don't think you are an artist. [How many great artists have heard that from the critics?]

Don't take my word about this. You can watch the trailer yourself, and see if watching judges make artists weep is something you really want to spend discretionary time with. You'll first have to endure the commercial message that precedes the trailer for the show.

Then you'll have to endure the trailer:

Wanna follow what's going on at the Association of Art Museum Directors' annual powwow?

Now you can!

The story so far from Indianapolis:

Great gift bags with mugs made from corn by-products!

More excitingly:

127 directors and several guests from federal agencies and foundations arriving today.

And outgoing president Michael Conforti isn't even there yet. He's still home in Williamstown, MA (where I am, as I write this). Will someone please save him one of those great corn mugs?

Why do I think the Indianapolis Museum of Art's director (and incorrigible techie), Max Anderson is behind this social-media stuff?

Because this is the image logo for the "AAMDIndy" Twitter page:


Indianapolis Museum of Art

In an editorial dated tomorrow (Sunday) but online tonight, the Boston Globe has strongly endorsed Rent-a-Rose, demonstrating a shocking lack of comprehension of why Brandeis is seeking to monetize the Rose Art Museum's collection. After the university incurred widespread condemnation for its initial plan to sell all or some of its collection to address Brandeis' broader financial problems, it now has decided to explore the idea of leasing out some of the collection (with Sotheby's help) to those who will pay to display. (The Globe pundits eschew the word "rent," preferring to describe this as "lending" and "collecting fees.")

Here's the clueless editorial's astonishing last paragraph:

Some caveats apply: Brandeis should only lend to institutions capable of caring for its artworks [duh]. And it should use any revenues to guarantee a future for the Rose. Because the economics of maintaining a museum can be forbidding, Brandeis deserves praise, not criticism, for trying to raise revenue through its collection.

Whoever wrote this muddled analysis is apparently ignorant of the fact that monetizing the collection never was and never will be about the "economics of maintaining a museum." From all accounts I've seen, the Rose's operations have been financially sound, not a drain on the university's budget. This dubious expedient was all about milking the collection as a cash cow to address university-wide shortfalls, after Brandeis took a hit that was not only recession-caused but also Madoff-related.

Calling on the university to "use any revenues" for the Rose demonstrates the editorial writers' complete lack of understanding of the trustees' motives. In a concession to Rose supporters, the university now promises to apply some of the rental funds to "directly benefit both the museum and the university's Department of Fine Arts." But the bulk of the money would go towards addressing the university's financial problems.

In his Boston Globe article that broke the story about the new rental plan, Geoff Edgers (who also avoided the "R" word, calling it lending, not renting) got the facts right: He related the art-for-cash gambit to the fact that "the university [not the Rose] has an annual structural deficit of between $10 million and $15 million." The editorial writers should have read their own reporter's account before running off half-cocked.

The fact of the matter is that Rose isn't dragging the university down. It's the other way around. The Globe's wrong-headed, misleading editorial needs to be followed up immediately with a published correction. They are seeking to rally support for the problematic gambit based on mistaken assumptions.

Rent-a-Rose was one of the three hot-button issues that, in yesterday's post, I urged the Association of Art Museum Directors to grapple with at its annual meeting, which starts tomorrow. I first found out about the Globe editorial from a posting on the Twitter page of the director of the museum in the city where the meeting will take place---Max Anderson of the Indianapolis Museum of Art.

This was Max's pithy tweeted response to the Globe's editorial:

Anemic biz model, and bad call to boot.

Michael Conforti, director of the Clark Art Institute, will be scurrying to Indianapolis from this Sunday's Picasso Looks at Degas preview party at his Williamstown, MA, museum, to turn over the presidency of the Association of Art Museum Directors to the Minneapolis Institute's Kaywin Feldman at AAMD's annual meeting, June 6-9.

Will Feldman eye Conforti in the same way that guest curators Richard Kendall and Elizabeth Cowling say that Picasso looked at Degas---"from emulation, to confrontation and parody, to homage"? We'll have a year to find out (and only three months to see the Clark's exhibition, June 13-Sept. 12).

One thing on AAMD's formal agenda is the continuing work (scroll down) of its Deaccessioning Task Force. On the informal agenda, I feel reasonably certain, is a Max Anderson-led preview of his Indianapolis Museum of Arts' new Art & Nature Park, which opens to the public on June 20.

I'm wondering whether the important museum-ethics issues recently raised by this, this and this (New Museum's Dakis Fracas; LA MOCA's Dealer-to-Director; Brandeis University's Rent-a-Rose) will be directly and publicly addressed at the conclave. I hope so. I wouldn't bet on it. Here's Conforti's previous statement (scroll down) related to the Dakis Fracas.

In addition to being Feldman's first meeting as head of the nation's leading professional organization in her field, next week's gathering will be the first that dealer-to-director Jeffrey Deitch of LA MOCA will be eligible to attend.

Will the AAMD elders mentor him?

CORRECTION: This just in from Janet Landay, executive director of AAMD:

Jeffrey Deitch is not eligible to attend [AAMD's June meeting], as he is not a member.

Really? I have a former list (from March 2008) of AAMD member institutions, which I had saved to my computer from the association's own website. LA MOCA was on that list. I have a query in to Landay seeking further clarification. I'll update here, if I receive more information.

UPDATE: Landay explains that a new director "doesn't automatically become an AAMD member, even if his/her institution has been represented in the past. All potential members go through an application process."

When I was at the Museum of Modern Art on Wednesday, I came upon this tribute to sculptor Louise Bourgeois, 98, who died on Monday---an installation of these ghostly sentinels at an entrance to the 4th-floor permanent-collection galleries:


Louise Bourgeois, "Quarantania, I," 1947-53, reassembled by the artist in 1981

In addition to the usual object label, there was this one:

Alex Nyerges, director, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts

"There are two things that I need by the opening," Alex Nyerges, director of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, impatiently told the contractors whose work on outdoor amenities, related to the museum's Rick Mather-designed expansion, wasn't proceeding fast enough to suit him. "I need blue [the reflecting pool] and I need green [the grass]."

Those two things he did get, but (as I noted in my Wall Street Journal article and my CultureGrrl Video, there was still lots of work to be completed both on the outside and within the expanded and reinstalled museum, where, ready or not, an eager crowd gathered at the entrance for the members' opening.



While they waited outside, I was already inside, perusing those parts of the collection that had been installed and observing the staff's intense efforts to get more of it up in time for the preview and public opening. One big delay in the construction project came when a vast expanse of glass, touted by Nyerges as "the largest unsupported glass wall in North America," turned out to be not only unsupported but also insupportable: It cracked upon installation---a $500,000 mishap, not charged to the museum, according to Nyerges.

Six months later, a replacement arrived from Austria, along with a design fix from the architect and engineers. Here's the finished product, in the background behind modern and contemporary art curator John Ravenal:


John Ravenal on a bridge in the atrium, overlooking Sol LeWitt's colorful "Splotch #22" and the Best Café (on the right)

As I toured the galleries with the director, we came upon Roy Thompson, the museum's lead art handler, hanging the pictures as fast as he could:



This 42-year veteran of the VFMA's staff was still at it the next day:



By the time I left Virginia, the day before the public opening, many objects hadn't been installed in time for me to see them. I particularly regretted missing the very rare original wax models for Degas' celebrated sculptures of ballet dancers and horses, given to the museum by philanthropist Paul Mellon.

All I got to see of them was this...



...and this:



Heather Logue, a conservation technician, was still putting the finishing touches on the opulent Worsham-Rockefeller Bedroom, the "crowd magnet" that I described in my recent WSJ article:



As soon as visitors were admitted, they gathered to ogle this early-1880s agglomeration of international influences that originally occupied a midtown New York townhouse. The bedroom---the VMFA's only period room---was recently given to the Richmond museum by the Museum of the City of New York, which no longer could accommodate it after a recent renovation. The dressing room from the same townhouse was recently transferred to the Metropolitan Museum, and the Brooklyn Museum has the Moorish smoking room.

"To experience the Aesthetic Movement, you almost have to enter a room like this," observed Sylvia Yount, the VMFA's American art curator, who is an expert on that movement and its eclectic embellishments..

Here's a partial view of bedroom, which, despite its New York origins, has a local connection: Arabella Worsham, its first inhabitant, was a native of Richmond who grew up poor but married well.



Here is a better look at the hand-painted ceiling cloth and the opalescent, multicolored glass stones in the monumental brass chandelier:



Below is Yount in the American art galleries, newly housed in the museum's McGlothlin Wing. Paintings, sculpture and decorative arts commingle there. But as is also true at the Art Institute of Chicago and the Metropolitan Museum, the platforms for the furniture frustratingly preclude getting a close look at many of the paintings:



The McGlothlin Collection of American art, which will come to the museum by bequest (but which is now on temporary display in the new subterranean special exhibition galleries), is a mixed bag. Yount agreed with me that the collection (which also comes with a $30-million gift---$10 million already received; $20 million by bequest) is somewhat quirky, with a number of fine works, but also quite a few that are not typical of the artists' most celebrated output. Yount maintained, though, that this eccentric character, partly a function of what was available on the market, also helps to round out what the museum already owns. 

Take, for example, this very loosely painted Sargent, which Yount described to me as "probably the most abstract painting he ever did":


John Singer Sargent, "Gathering Blossoms, Valdemosa," 1908, collection of James and Frances McGlothlin

Here's a work by the same artist, much more familiar in style and subject, that's already owned by the VMFA:


"Mrs. Albert Vickers," 1884

Moving on to the VMFA's other galleries, here's one of the "wow" spaces that I mentioned in my article---a roomful of stone sculptures from India, dramatically installed:



And here's Mitchell Merling, the head of the VMFA's European department (both fine and decorative arts), with one of the highlights from the dazzling and extensive English silver collection---an intricately embellished 1693-94 "Ginger Jar," with scenes from ancient Roman history, by silversmith Anthony Nelme:



Merling also escorted me into the storeroom, to uncover some examples from the just announced additional gift of 50 English silver objects from the museum's longtime collector/patron, Rita Gans.

Here, from that gift, is a Rococo cup by Kandler:



From the new 21st-century gallery, here's one of Ravenal's "ahead of the curve" purchases---a work by Julie Mehretu, acquired when she was gaining recognition, but before her canvases became too pricey for the VMFA:


Julie Mehretu, "Stadia III," 2004

But now let's return to those beleaguered construction workers, who starred in my irreverent CultureGrrl Video of the feverish work in progress at the VMFA. Hours after I shot that clip, the work was still very much in progress, even into the dark of night:



Wait a minute! I haven't shown you much about the new wing's architecture yet...COMING SOON.

Jeffrey Deitch, center, at the LA MOCA press conference announcing his appointment, with (left to right) museum co-chairs David Johnson and Maria Bell; LA Councilwoman Jan Perry; MOCA's founding chairman, Eli Broad

LA Times art critic Christopher Knight offers some practical advice for NYC dealer-turned-director Jeffrey Deitch, as he takes the helm at LA MOCA today:

Change the museum's operating hours and drop the general admission price, from $10 to zero.

I'm in favor of increasing public access, but I've got a more immediately pressing suggestion: Address head-on, with a detailed and satisfying public pronouncement, the serious questions raised by the unorthodox ascension of a commercial dealer to a nonprofit museum's directorship.

Because of the troubling issues raised by dealer-turned-director, Deitch and MOCA's trustees had an obligation to be immediately upfront about how those issues would be addressed. Instead, Deitch was introduced at a no-questions "press conference," followed by piecemeal disclosures of fragmentary information about how he would deal with his art business, his personal collection and his gallery's large inventory.

His answers have not been reassuring. Soon after his appointment, in response to journalists' queries, he revealed that he might occasionally sell some works from his considerable private collection, in order to supplement his (undisclosed) museum salary. Almost two months after his appointment was first announced, he informed me that by the time Deitch Projects shut down on May 31, he expected to fold the remaining works from the gallery's substantial holdings into his private collection, selling off some of that inventory to pay off remaining business-related obligations.

In a nod to museum ethics, Deitch agreed to grant MOCA the right of first refusal on disposals from this inventory-qua-private collection. But that doesn't cure the problem; it only exacerbates it:

Right-of-first-refusal means that MOCA could potentially buy works from its own director to help defray his expenses connected with his business activities. It would be inappropriate for the trustees to become a party to their director's commercially-driven transactions.

Deitch also told me that he would sell works from his former inventory at public auction. But while that has the virtue of transparency, it also opens up another can of worms: Those lots would be hammered down bearing the imprimatur of the director of one of the world's premier contemporary art museums. Again, the museum's good name would be dragged into a commercial transaction.

It gets worse when one thinks about how such sales would affect the programming and authority of the museum. Any time MOCA exhibits works by an artist in whom Deitch holds a personal financial stake (or even works loaned by collectors to whom he might feel beholden for past dealings), questions of conflict-of-interest will arise. Deitch's promised disclosure of his holdings to the board of trustees doesn't solve the problem of public trust. It would be more transparent, but disruptive and unseemly, to indicate on labels which artists on MOCA's walls are represented in the director's personal trove. There is no satifying way to handle this problem.

The continued compromising of MOCA's credibility due to both Deitch's former commercial activities and his ongoing private-collector status was illustrated by Jori Finkel's LA Times recent report on the museum's upcoming Dennis Hopper retrospective, which was intiated by Deitch and is being curated by artist Julian Schnabel, close friend to the late Hopper.

Finkel felt impelled to raise the conflict-of-interest question:

Soon after Deitch accepted the job at MOCA, art critics flagged potential conflicts of interest in part because of his personal art collection. Asked about the artists involved in this show, Deitch said he did not own any works by Hopper or Schnabel. "I have zero commercial involvement in this," he said.

The continuing necessity of dispelling such doubts going forward is one reason why the idea of dealer-to-director almost never flies: The heavy baggage most dealers carry means they probably shouldn't get on the plane. The improbability of this career path may account for the failure of the Association of Art Museum Directors---through either its written guidelines or professional monitoring---to adequately address the ethical red flags raised by MOCA's situation. The directors probably never envisioned something like this happening.

AAMD's code of ethics does say: "A director shall not deal in works of art." Does a director's selling works for business purposes from his former gallery's inventory constitute "dealing"? When I had recently asked AAMD's professional issues chairman, William Eiland, director of the Georgia Museum of Art, for the association's definition of "dealing," he conceded, "That's something we need to work on."

The best plan---to me, the only acceptable course---would have been for Deitch to get his own business affairs completely in order before assuming the museum's directorship, even if that meant postponing his arrival in Los Angeles or hastily completing all his inventory disposals before June 1. If, as he has suggested, he's apt to have trouble making ends meet on a director's salary in the future, necessitating further sales of art from his collection, full disclosure is a minimum requirement.

But being upfront about a messy situation doesn't make it better. It merely acknowledges that it exists. Most of the excitement generated by MOCA's problematic appointment centered on the brash appeal of the streetwise exhibitions and events at the 14-year-old Deitch Projects. But MOCA has never been lacking in transgressive concepts for exciting, edgy programming, conceived by its savvy curators.

What MOCA desperately needed, after a recent financial meltdown that nearly destroyed it, was a seasoned museum professional at its helm---a director with a proven track record for fiscal responsibility and public accountability, possessing the requisite management skills for working with trustees and a wide-ranging staff.

Deitch, in more ways than one, is a wild card.

You can read today's Wall Street Journal "Leisure & Arts" piece now---Virginia is For Art Lovers, about the well articulated Rick Mather-designed expansion of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts.

The photo accompanying the piece, also published on the VMFA's website, makes the atrium appear more barren than it feels when in use:



Just add people (and more sculpture, soon to be installed). Here's a view from essentially the same angle as the WSJ-published photo, taken by me during the well-attended members preview, two days before the public opening (for which the bandstand, below the temporarily purple-lit wall, was added for the members party):


At the other end of the atrium is a Barry Flanagan "Large Leaping Hare" (silhouetted at the far end in the WSJ-published photo). In July, pieces by ceramicist Jun Kaneko will be installed in the atrium and in the nascent sculpture garden, as part of the temporary exhibition (July 17-Dec. 12) of the Japanese-American artist's work, organized by John Ravenal, the VMFA's curator of modern and contemporary art.

There's also a new candy-colored commission in the entrance hall, above one of two entrances to the museum shop---a 32-foot-long, 16-panel mural of pictograms using 200 images from the museum's own art, by Virginia-born artist Ryan McGinness:



COMING SOON: More images to illustrate my WSJ piece, as well as additional commentary (some of it, of course, irreverent).