August 2010 Archives

Michael Kimmelman: Tennis, anyone?

Is the peripatetic Michael Kimmelman here in New York to review some art? No, he's actually here to cover tennis---the U.S. Open, to be exact. This is not a first: We've seen him cover that sport before.

This time, the NY Times' chief art critic-in-absentia will be double-teaming Federer, Nadal and the women's first-seed, Caroline [Who's That?] Wozniacki, along with another Timesman not customarily seen on the sports beat---Gerry Marzorati, now on the verge of leaving his post as editor of the NY Times Sunday Magazine for a somewhat nebulous new assignment.

Will the expatriate Michael be tempted to stray from Flushing Meadows to catch up on the stateside arts scene? Only culture editor Jon Landman knows for sure.

What we really want to know is, does Roberta Smith secretly yearn to cover football?

In the meantime, as an accredited temporary tennis critic, Kimmelman says he's looking forward to "the free lukewarm Diet Coke."

You mean they don't serve that in Europe?

Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle

In its well-meaning Statement Regarding Stieglitz Collection at Fisk University, issued today, the Association of Art Museum Directors (like several journalistic commentators) has misconstrued last week's ruling by the Davidson County Chancery Court regarding the university's $30-million collection sharing deal with Alice Walton's planned Crystal Bridges Museum.

Here's AAMD's statement in full:

AAMD is gratified that the Chancery Court Judge has issued a ruling that recognizes the importance of the Stieglitz collection to Nashville and the South. In ruling that Fisk University may not pursue an agreement to sell a half share of the Stieglitz collection in ways that undermine the purpose of Ms. [Georgia] O'Keeffe's gift [emphasis added], the Court affirms the importance of respecting donor intent.

AAMD believes that art collections owned by colleges and universities are an irreplaceable component of academic and community life and that they should not be treated as disposable financial assets. In support of the Court's request that the Tennessee Attorney General propose alternative solutions for the management of the collection, several AAMD members have offered their help to identify options that will preserve the Stieglitz collection and uphold the standards of professional practice in the museum community.

The court, in fact, has not prohibited Fisk from pursuing the $30-million sale of a half-share of its collection---a transaction that would not just "undermine" but decimate O'Keeffe's written no-sale stipulation. What the court did say in its 21-page decision is that it will not "approve the Crystal Bridges Agreement, as written [emphasis added]."

Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle, in her decision, indicated a preference for a Nashville-only remedy for Fisk's inability to continue caring for and exhibiting the collection. But she added that if no viable local arrangement emerges by her Sept. 10 deadline, "the only available alternative is for the Court to attempt to rework the Crystal Bridges Agreement to more closely approximate Ms. O'Keeffe's intent. Certainty and closure must be brought to this matter."

On pages 13-15 of the above-linked decision, the judge clearly delineates the eight changes that she seeks in the Crystal Bridges deal, the first of which involves insuring that the Bentonville, AR, museum does not eventually acquire more than a half-share in the Stieglitz collection, by lending money to Fisk and "obtain[ing] a security interest in the debtor's [Fisk's] undivided 50% interest of the artwork." She warns of the possibility that, if Fisk were to default on such loans, Crystal Bridges could eventually seize 100% ownership of the collection:

Over time, especially considering Fisk's financial circumstances, Crystal Bridges could obtain much more or full title to all of the Stieglitz Collection. This result must be removed from any modified Joint Ownership Agreement.

Provided that her eight conditions are met and that no local solution for care of the collection is found, Judge Lyle indicates that she would allow Crystal Bridges' $30-million purchase of a half-share of the collection to go forward.

What concerns me about the decision is that the ball has now been thrown in the Attorney General's court: He's been charged with finding a way to keep the collection in Nashville or risk losing it. But while AG Robert Cooper has encouraged local heroes to step forward, it's not really part of his job description to go around to local donors and institutions, hat-in-hand, soliciting funds and exhibition space. Any rescue may have to be engineered by local patrons and institutions, perhaps with assistance from the city's and/or the state's executive branch (or even AAMD).

I hope that the Frist Center for the Visual Arts (or why not Vanderbilt University?) will step up as a new custodian. Frist, thus far, has refused to comment on the decision or its own possible future role.

Meanwhile, Chancellor Lyle's 20-day clock is ticking and the Court of Appeals is waiting: That's likely to be the next scene in this never-ending legal drama.

Orange "A" marks the spot: The planned site for the Broad Collection

Eli Broad's decision, announced yesterday, to build in Downtown LA a Diller Scofidio + Renfro-designed museum for his collection should be a cultural and a civic boon for the city: It will help to anchor a tripartite arts district---also including the Gehry-designed Walt Disney Concert Hall (the big white building at the top center of the above map) and the Isozaki-designed Museum of Contemporary Art (near the lower left corner). And it will help to energize urban redevelopment in an area that needs a boost. The announcement came as the project was officially greenlighted by the city.

Below is the street (currently with scant foot traffic) where the new Broad-bankrolled facility, costing some $80-100 million, will rise:


Broad Collection facility will be built to the left of the Disney Concert Hall (above), home to the LA Philharmonic.  MOCA banner is on lamppost to the right.

Back in 2008, when Broad defied expectations by announcing that he would not donate his collection to the new Broad Contemporary Art Museum at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, I wrote that it would "be interesting to see if Broad eventually goes the same route as [Donald] Fisher, endeavoring to establish a single-collector museum."

Ironically, it now turns out that the late Fisher's contemporary collection has been committed as a 100-year loan to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (which recently selected the Snøhetta architectural firm to design an expansion to house it). Meanwhile, despite his historically strong patronage ties to both LACMA and MOCA, Broad is forging ahead independently, with a 120,000-square-foot museum of his own.

Questions have been raised (in David Ng's and Jori Finkel's LA Times report) about whether this is one too many contemporary art museums for LA. I say, the more the merrier, particularly since this newcomer comes with a strong collection and sizable endowment---some $200 million---to secure its future beyond the lifetime of its tireless founder, the 77-year-old megacollector/philanthropist. LACMA's and MOCA's loss---an important collection that both may have coveted---is still LA's gain.

According to the Broad Foundation's announcement (linked at the top):

The Broad Collection [as the new museum is called] will include approximately 50,000 square feet of sky lit galleries, a lecture hall for up to 200 people, and a public lobby with display space and a museum shop. The project will also include state-of-the-art archive, study and art storage space that will be available to scholars and curators who want to research works in the collection and borrow artworks for their institutions through The Broad Art Foundation's worldwide lending program.

About 300 of the 2,000 works in the Broads' personal and foundation collections will be shown at any one time, leaving plenty of inventory still available for the loan program.

There will be no director's search for this new museum: Joanne Heyler, the Broad Foundation's longtime director and chief curator, steps up to oversee a staff of "about 100 positions, including contract and part-time," the foundation's spokesperson, Karen Denne, told me. "It will have a core staff of 15 to 20."


Joanne Heyler, director, the Broad Collection

Denne said that while "exact programming is still being developed," the single-collector museum may occasionally "exhibit works from other collections. But the focus will be on our artists."

Among those represented in depth: Joseph Beuys, Cindy Sherman, Jeff Koons, John Baldessari, Mike Kelley, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Eric Fischl, Leon Golub, Andreas Gursky, Damien Hirst, Glenn Ligon, Sharon Lockhart, Lari Pittman, Charles Ray, Ed Ruscha, Philip Taaffe, Robert Therrien, Terry Winters, Christopher Wool, Richard Artschwager, Chuck Close, Jasper Johns, Ellsworth Kelly, Roy Lichtenstein, Robert Rauschenberg, Frank Stella, Cy Twombly, Andy Warhol.

I think that if the Broad is to always remain a vital museum, not a collector's mausoleum, it will need to Broad-en its sights---developing dynamic programming that views the collection as a springboard, not a straitjacket. This will mean bringing in some new curatorial blood and admitting outside loans into the mix.

[UPDATE: Here are LA Times art critic Christopher Knight's suggestions for keeping the Broad Collection vital.]

Details about the architectural design for the new facility will not be released until October, when construction of a three-story parking garage will begin. Museum construction is expected to begin in 2011, with completion in late 2012.

The LA Times' architecture critic, Christopher Hawthorne, got an advance look, a few weeks ago, at the designs submitted by the six finalists for the project, including the winners, Diller Scofidio + Renfro, who had also been on the shortlist for SFMOMA's Fisher-related expansion.

In an article for today's paper, Hawthorne writes:

The news that New York firm Diller Scofidio + Renfro has finally, officially been named architect of the new Broad Collection museum in downtown Los Angeles proves a couple of things quite clearly. One is that in a design competition as constrained and carefully controlled as the one Eli Broad has been running, a few big conceptual ideas dramatically presented---rather than an inventive treatment of a building's shape---can go a long way....

The most dramatic element of the firm's proposal---its wow moment---is a lobby space that will bring pedestrians entering the museum from Grand Avenue face to face, through glass, with drivers on their way down to the museum's parking garage.

Yikes! A drive-through museum. "This ain't no disco. This is LA." No runaway cars, please. And make sure to budget in some very effective shielding of the museum from exhaust fumes and traffic vibrations.

From his tentative appraisal of the tentative design plans, it appears that Hawthorne shares some of my misgivings about the architects, whose best moment, for me, was the Whitney Museum's engaging and absorbing 2003 exhibition devoted to their inventive conceptual projects.

According to Hawthorne:

The firm hasn't always proved that it can turn that flow of ideas into convincing, rigorously built architectural space, as least on an entirely consistent basis. Doing so in this case will be complicated by having the passionate and highly involved Broad as a client.

If he was hands-on during the planning of the lackluster Renzo Piano-designed Broad Contemporary Art Museum at LACMA, imagine how "highly involved" Broad will be in conceiving his own collection's permanent digs. In the dance between client and architect, Broad, a construction mogul, likes to lead.

...Judith Dobrzynski in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal---No More "Cathedrals of Culture". It couldn't happen to a better reporter or publication: "Journalist X" (as I had dubbed my then unknown competitor) is my respected colleague at both the WSJ and Arts Journal (with her Real Clear Arts blog). I blame neither Judith nor the WSJ for accepting a first shot at the Association of Art Museum Directors' new president. And Judith, of course, carried if off with her usual aplomb.

But I do blame AAMD for allowing this: keeping other reporters (including me) at bay from the time of the June 9 appointment of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts' director, Kaywin Feldman, until the WSJ's Aug. 24 publication of Dobrzynski's take on her.

When I was informed that I'd have to take a number, I chose to get off the line.

I then wrote:

Playing favorites in the first weeks of this new assignment is contrary to the public-spirited nature of her [Feldman's] position as de facto spokesperson for American art museum directors....For what it's worth, I have formally withdrawn my request for an interview.

I do hope that if I place a future call to Kaywin to ask about specific museum-related issues, she'll now feel free to pick up the phone. Still, she's lost her chance at the much coveted CultureGrrl Q&A. (Small price to pay, undoubtedly, for the much larger, more coveted WSJ cynosure.)

Those grapes sure do taste sour.

So to cleanse my palate, I need to thank CultureGrrl Donor 143 from Oak Park, IL, Repeat CultureGrrl Donor 144 from Santa Monica and super-generous Repeat CultureGrrl Donor 145 from Brooklyn. (No, it's NOT two-part Q&A recipient Arnold Lehman, nor anyone else from his Brooklyn Museum!)

In a statement posted this evening on its website, Fisk University demonstrates a serious case of delusional wishful thinking in its characterization of today's court decision that nixed the $30-million Fisk/Crystal Bridges Museum collection-sharing plan as currently written. The court did say that if no alternate Nashville-based plan for the collection could be put forth within 20 days, it would consider a revised Crystal Bridges plan that would more closely adhere to Georgia O'Keeffe's stipulations for the care and display of the Stieglitz Collection that she donated to Fisk.

But Fisk, rewriting the ruling to its own liking, incorrectly and misleadingly declared the following:

The ruling...gives the Attorney General until September 10, 2010 to craft an alternate proposal providing Fisk with $30 million [emphasis added] and an alternate Nashville location for display and maintenance of the [Stieglitz] Collection.

Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper

[UPDATE: Fisk's reaction is here.]

This just in from Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper, responding to today's decision in the Fisk/Crystal Bridges case:

While the Court acknowledged that Fisk University is facing financial difficulties, the Court found no precedent that would allow an institution to sell a charitable gift to generate money for the institution.

We are grateful the Court agreed that this unique collection of art belongs in Nashville and that the proposed sale would undermine future charitable giving in this state. We hope all those in our community who care about the future of this collection and Fisk University will join us in seizing this opportunity provided by the Court to look for constructive and creative alternatives.

They'd better "seize this opportunity" quickly. They've got just 20 days to come up with a locally based alternative to the deal with Alice Walton's planned Bentonville, AR, museum. Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle didn't rule out that deal, but said that it would, at the very least, need to be modified before she could consider approving it, if no an acceptable local alternative materializes. (More on this next week.)

Meanwhile, Ellen Pryor, spokesperson for Nashville's Frist Center for the Visual Arts, which was cited in the court decision as a possible key player in a Nashville-only solution, told me only this:

As the matter between the parties in the suit is not yet resolved, it is inappropriate for us to make any comment.

Davidson County Chan­cel­lor Ellen Hobbs Lyle has just handed down her decision regarding the $30-million Fisk/Crystal Bridges collection-sharing deal.

I've only just skimmed the decision (accessible at the top link), so you you can read along with me. But if you skip to P. 20, you'll see that the judge accepted the university's argument that "due to Fisk's unstable financial condition, it is unable to literally comply" with donor Georgia O'Keeffe's conditions for maintaining the Stieglitz Collection.

HOWEVER...she did NOT approve the agreement with Crystal Bridges, because it "does not closely approximate Georgia O'Keeffe's intent." Accordingly, Chancellor Lyle has given the office of the State Attorney General until Sept. 10 to come up with a Nashville-based solution (discussed earlier in the decision) for display and maintenance of the collection, possibly involving the Frist Center for the Visual Arts. After that, Fisk will have until Oct. 8 to "file any responses to the other side's proposal, and/or any additional proposals Fisk has."

I'd call it a qualified victory for the AG. But unless he's already got a good Nashville-based plan up his sleeve, he's got a narrow window to craft a new solution to the intractible Stieglitz problem.

Whatever happens, this may not be the last word. You've heard of appeals, haven't you? The Court of Appeals is an option, if either side chooses to extend this never-ending legal battle.

I'll have more, including comments from the combatants, if and when I get them.

[UPDATE: Reactions from AG and Frist are here. Fisk's reaction, here.]

Fisk attorney John Branham of Bone McAllester Norton law firm, Nashville

If the Nashville Tennessean were issuing the court decision that's expected tomorrow, Fisk University would not be permitted to sell a half-share in its Stieglitz Collection to Alice Walton's Crystal Bridges Museum for $30 million.

In its Tuesday editorial, the newspaper declared:

Let's hope that Chan­cel­lor [Ellen Hobbs] Lyle's deci­sion will be to keep the Stieglitz Col­lec­tion at Fisk, and that the uni­ver­sity gets on with the busi­ness of rais­ing funds from all around, to keep the school open, well-managed, and thriving.

So ordered.

During this week's testimony, Fisk President Hazel O'Leary asserted that the university would "bleed to death" without the $30-million infusion but declined to say how the money would be used. (The above links are from the coverage in the Nashville Tennesean.) The Attorney General argued (according to the Associated Press report) that violating the wishes of one donor, Georgia O'Keeffe, would have a chilling effect on future benefactors.

All of these arguments were expected. The trial's shocker, though, was supplied by Fisk's attorney, John Branham, who (as reported by the Tennessean) argued that the works in Fisk's celebrated Stieglitz Collection were "ugly" and "didn't move people."

Then it got uglier. As reported by Travis Loller of the Associated Press, Branham went on to deliver this astonishingly reverse-racist rant:

Branham...downplayed the importance of the collection to the historically black university, displaying two large color reproductions of abstract paintings from the Stieglitz Collection and saying the works by "Caucasian" artists had "nothing to do with Fisk."

He juxtaposed them with a more realistic religious painting by Henry Tanner called "The Three Marys," saying, "This is a real prize. This is a prize by a black artist. This is a prize that really needs to be kept in Nashville, in the South, in this community." Branham claimed the painting would be "auctioned off to pay for toilet paper" if Fisk were to shut down.

These objectionable arguments should be flushed down with the toilet paper. Is Fisk's attorney suggesting that Alice Walton is a fool to shell out $30 million for such "ugly" art? With friends like Branham, Fisk doesn't need enemies.

The bit of trial coverage that most appealed to me was the commentary published Tuesday by Tennessean columnist Gail Kerr, who detailed the discussions between Fisk and the Frist Center for the Visual Arts:

[Frist Center] Board member Tommy Frist testified that, in a meeting with Fisk, he had the idea to form a new sort of partnership with the university. The Frist Center would display the collection in a gallery at the center and pay for its upkeep and security. Fisk officials flatly refused. Wouldn't even discuss it. They wanted a buyer or nothing.

Fisk lost a tremendous opportunity.

The Frist Center, in the restored art deco post office on Broadway, is magnificent. People there know what they are doing---Fisk's collection would have been better presented and marketed than has ever been attempted. Fisk could have taken advantage of crowds who come to see other splashy exhibits to draw attention to the university. It could have raised money---Frist officials are masterful at holding large, after-hour events to showcase exhibits.

The Frist Center gift shop could have sold all manner of O'Keeffe and Stieglitz merchandise, with a portion of the money going to Fisk. Think donation boxes. Tour groups. And, most importantly, using the collection as Georgia O'Keeffe wanted: to teach.

If Fisk's $30-million deal is disallowed, maybe it's still not too late for the Fisk/Frist "marriage made in heaven" (as Kerr---and CultureGrrl---call it) to be consummated.

One ominous note: If you click the link for "Alfred Stieglitz Collection List" at the bottom of the university's Collections webpage, you get this message:

We're sorry but the page you requested could not be found. It might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable...

...like the Stieglitz Collection itself could be, if it leaves Nashville, half time, for Bentonville.

Sean O'Harrow, director-designate of University of Iowa Museum of Art

After visiting Iowa in April 2009 to give a talk on deaccessioning at the University of Iowa, I wrote this about my impression of Sean O'Harrow, director of the Figge Art Museum in Davenport:

I got to chat at length with Sean at the dinner that followed my deaccession lecture...and I was impressed by his knowledge and his ideas for energizing the Figge. I've got a feeling that his current position will not be his gig for life.

Little did I know that he would relocate very soon, but not very far away. Last week, the University of Iowa, Iowa City, announced that O'Harrow would leave his Figge gig to become director of the University of Iowa Museum of Art (UIMA), effective Nov. 15. The university museum's interim director, attorney Pamela White (who has staunchly defended its celebrated 1943 Pollock "Mural" from those who had wanted to monetize it), did not apply for the permanent post, according to O'Harrow. (One who did apply was Kent Lydecker, the Metropolitan Museum's former associate director for education.)

O'Harrow, as you may remember, was the white knight who gave shelter and exhibition space at the Figge to the UIMA's homeless collection after that museum was flooded by the Iowa River in June 2008. The works (other than those that can be displayed on the university's campus) will remain at the Figge until a new campus facility opens, O'Harrow said.

When asked last week by B.A. Morelli of the Iowa City Press-Citizen for his views about selling the Pollock to help fund the university's flood recovery efforts, O'Harrow replied:

That was one of the most ludicrous ideas I've ever heard. That would be like selling your grandmother.

Jackson Pollock, "Mural," 1943, as installed at Figge Art Museum

Last week, O'Harrow told me that the university was still "going through the funding application process with FEMA, so there is no timetable [for building a new museum]. Having said that, everyone wants to move as quickly as possible, so until we have money for a new museum building, I expect that we will need to get creative with our exhibitions and programming."

He hopes eventually to convert the museum's calamity into an opportunity:

It was a horrible flood, but I believe this disaster gives the institution a unique chance to reinvent itself for the new era. Most museums, if not all of them, have enough legacy infrastructure to prevent them from properly serving the new generations of museum visitors.

I will work hard to make sure we have as forward-thinking and as flexible a museum as possible, both in terms of physical infrastructure as well as organizational structure, so that we are prepared for the changes in the museum world that are guaranteed to occur.

The solemn photo at the top is the official university portrait, but I much prefer my shot of the unharrowed O'Harrow, cheerfully showing me the level to which Mississippi River flood waters had previously risen beside (but not inside) the Figge, and assuring me that the David Chipperfield-designed building had been engineered to defeat deluges:

Given recent news stories about its financial difficulties and production controversies, the Metropolitan Opera jumped at the chance to report some good news this week.

This hit my inbox yesterday:

The Metropolitan Opera set a new record for opening day at the box office when single tickets for the 2010-11 season went on sale to the public yesterday. Total sales reached $2,653,676 (24,087 tickets) as compared to $2,505,793 (23,766 tickets) on the equivalent day last season, which was the previous record.

So let's crunch those numbers: A mere 321 more tickets sold on Sunday than on last year's opening day at the box office---a paltry 1% increase. But the financial take increased by $147,883---a 6% increase.

Only 6%? According to Daniel Wakin's recent NY Times article, the average increase in ticket prices was 11%. I can only think that buyers sought out locations with smaller increases in price, but I'll let someone else crunch those numbers.

I was one of those who bought tickets on Sunday by using one of "five convenient ways to order"---going online. Trust me, this was not convenient. The Met's server couldn't handle the first-day load, and it was a long time before I finally got to the ordering page for the first production I wanted to attend. Then, with two more operas that I wanted to add to my cart, I was informed I had 14 minutes to complete the order. So I scrambled to click my operas, pick my seats and enter my information. I chose the option to print my own tickets, figuring that saving the Met mailing charges would save me some service fees.

Then came the kicker: $45 in services charges ($7.50 per ticket) plus a $15 facility fee---a total of $60 added on. The service charge for mail orders, which I assume are more expensive for the house to process than online orders, would have been far less---a mere $2.50 per ticket. (Until this year, I had ordered by mail.) The ticket price increase was 12% for the Saturday evening tickets that I ordered.

I've been in the Met audience all my life, but I'm starting to hit the Great Wall of Price Resistance. Maybe I'll move to a higher-level, lower-priced location next year...and certainly revert to snail mail.

Egon Schiele, "Portrait of Wally," 1912

Tomorrow (Wednesday) is the last day to see Schiele's much litigated "Portrait of Wally" at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York, before it is released to its owner, the Leopold Museum. That Vienna museum, which houses the Expressionist collection of the late Rudolf Leopold, recently agreed to pay a $19-million settlement to the heirs of Lea Bondi Jaray, from whom the Nazis expropriated the painting in 1939.

At 7 p.m. Wednesday, a three-member panel, moderated by the Museum of Jewish Heritage's director, David Marwell, will publicly discuss the painting's tangled history, the protracted litigation over its ownership and the broader implications of that vexing case.

If all goes according to (vague) plan, I may have a soundbite later today or early tomorrow on the moribund Brodsky Bill, which was designed to regulate museum deaccessions in New York State.

The segment might be included in either the New York (WNYC) version of National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" (beginning 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. at 93.9 FM), or on tomorrow's "Morning Edition" (5 a.m.).

You can listen live on WNYC online here (in the righthand column), or you can wait for my update, after the airing, when I'll give you a link to the audio.

UPDATE: I'm on WNYC's website now, but not as a soundbite: There's a written feature (no audio) about the deaccession legislation, which includes a few slightly scrambled quotes from me. No need to explain myself further, since you already know my frequently enunciated views on deaccessioning in general and the Brodsky Bill in particular.

Arnold Lehman, director of the Brooklyn Museum

It's taken almost a week for me to post the second part of my Q&A with Arnold Lehman, the ever controversial (never dull) director of the Brooklyn Museum. (Here's Part I of our conversation.)

Now there's a new news peg---the opening last weekend of "Work of Art: Abdi Farah," the exhibition that the museum promised to the winner of the The Next Great Artist, Bravo's reality show, which many art critics (but not juror Jerry Saltz) loved to hate. I was a first-episode dropout and never looked back (nor did I ask Lehman about it; I focused on matters more substantive).

In its description of the exhibition, the museum gives this rationale for embracing this dicey enterprise:

Contests such as "Work of Art" are not unfamiliar to art museums. In 19th-century France, the principal route to prominence for an artist was to enter his or (rarely) her work in a competition held every year or two at the Louvre...."Work of Art" is a direct descendent of the juried-exhibition tradition...

...except that the Brooklyn Museum didn't oversee the jury selection and had only an advisory role (via curator Eugenie Tsai) in the final selection. We aren't told, though, if the chosen artist was favored by Tsai.

But let's get back to basics: During our June discussion, Lehman addressed in advance the chief issue---privileging the permanent collection---that was later raised by Philippe de Montebello, the Metropolitan Museum's former director, who was one of the participants in the astonishing outpouring of unsolicited advice from 17 variously qualified commentators, published on Aug. 8 in the NY Times' "Arts & Leisure" section.

While Arnold told me (in Part I of our Q&A) that the Brooklyn Museum lacked a sufficient advertising budget to mount promotional campaigns highlighting its highly distinguished permanent collection, Philippe may be gratified to learn that much work is in progress to display the museum's rich holdings to greater (and more copious) advantage.

But first, let's talk about ductwork.

Lehman: We are now---because Boston jumped ahead---the last major museum in the United States that is not fully climate-controlled. That's where we've been putting our money, with the very great support of the [NYC] Department of Cultural Affairs.

Q: What areas of the collection still don't have climate control?

A: Asia, the arts of Islam, Africa, America, decorative art---they're air conditioned, but not controlled for humidity. Only half of Egypt---only the newer part of Egypt---is climate-controlled.

There's an old museum joke: Years ago, when people were in the Egyptian galleries and it was very hot, the guard would come over to them and say: "We try to simulate the climatic conditions of the country where the materials come from."

Someone once said to me that I'm going to have on my tombstone: "He Loved Ductwork." It's been an issue that no one wished to tackle: We've got this gigantic building, and our temporary-exhibition galleries are climate-controlled, but, basically, our permanent-collection galleries aren't. So we started about seven to eight years ago with something that's really important to do---the library. The first thing that "Mr. Populism" wanted to do was to get the library in correct condition.

Q: Why was that more important than the artwork?

A: It's not more important, but the library is totally fragile. It's all paper. We have a great collection---not just reference works, but unique materials. It's one of the great art reference libraries in the United States.

Then we did part of the fourth floor and we're just opening climate control on the third floor in the Great Beaux-Arts Court [where European paintings are displayed]. What we used to call the Hall of the Americas, on the first floor, is being climate-controlled as we speak.

It's an extraordinarily complicated project that has required tens of millions of dollars and it's the kind of investment that people don't even notice. We ultimately will have to provide a stable environment for all of these great works of art.

No one has ever written about this: "Arnold, I'd like to come in and interview you about climate control!" It's going to take maybe six more years to get this done.

Q: What other plans and strategies are you thinking about for the future?

A: It has to do with reinstalling the collection in new ways.

Q: With the American collection [a chronological but also thematic installation] as a prototype?

A: I think the American collection has helped us to better understand complex collections and complex cultures. The key here is that the museum has such incredible holdings and that we know a lot more about the world now. We know so much more about the cultures and about the interactions of cultures over the years. Our hope is to reflect a more global approach to the history of art, highlighting these great collections in ways they've never been highlighted before.

Q: Are you talking about mixing different cultures and different areas?

A: We're looking at it. It has to make sense and it has to reflect reality. It can't be our reality. It has to be the reality of what in fact happened. People are taking a new look at the history of art, and if we have that ability to look back with much more information, we have a responsibility to reflect that information within the context of a museum.

Q: What kinds of new information are you talking about?

A: In the ancient world, we certainly know a lot more about where various peoples lived, coming from other nations. We know more about trading, in terms of the patterns and flow of objects all over Europe and the Middle East and Far East and part of Africa. We know more about what came to the United States and about the artisans of America looking at all this material in different ways and then trading back to the countries of origin. It's very complex and I'm sure there are a million and one voices to be heard on all of this.

Q: Are you saying that instead of segregating Egyptian and African art, for example, you might show the intermingling, the affinities?

A: I don't see a day in which the major collections are not identified as such. But I certainly see the day in which the corners of different cultures are brought together according to the historical record. One of the issues that is really important, when you plan this, is having the collections to fill in the lines of those affinities. This is a possibility here and at the Met and Boston and a few other places, because the collections are so incredibly rich and broad. We can make those connections.

For instance, we have a new curator who specializes in Spanish Colonial art. We have a fabulous Spanish Colornial collection, but we've really not had anyone with the expertise to deal with it. We're going to show the public what extraordinary holdings we have and the relationship of Spanish Colonial art to the rest of Latin America and to the United States. We hope we'll be able to start having more interchange with the Latino community, to increasingly diversify our audience.

We don't have to borrow things from people. We just have to have the time, the faith and the money to be able to look within.

I came away from our talk with a greater appreciation of the more serious, less publicized aspects of Lehman's long tenure. That said, I haven't brightened my dim view of many of his wayward directorial directions (some of which I've already mentioned in Part I of our Q&A). Like Philippe, I'm no fan of the discordant shingled-glass entrance by Polshek Partnership, tackily tacked onto the Beaux-Arts façade. I believe that construction money would have been better spent on more ductwork, allowing areas of the collection that should always be on display (such as pre-Columbian and American Indian objects) to be seen elsewhere than in storage.

Quibbles and misgivings aside, Arnold deserves full credit for staying the difficult course and maintaining his joie de Brooklyn for 13 years, while facing down challenges (and media sniping) that would have caused less feisty aesthetes to throw in the towel. Arnold is Brooklyn-tough.

Or, in his own words:

We do some stuff that's different from what other people do, and when you don't do what everybody else does, you take a chance that it's not going to be as widely accepted. We're fine with that.

You gotta problem with that? Get used to it!

Michael Maharam, co-organizer (with bicycle maker Sacha White) of Bespoke: The Handbuilt Bicycle (closing today at New York's Museum of Arts and Design), responds to Bicycle Madness at MAD:

Very thoughtful, entertaining and bright observations about "Bespoke." Wish we could have indulged your [guest blogger Lee Gorny's] technical tendencies more effectively, but the need for broad legibility and a sensible common denominator were an essential mandate.

Keep up the smart work!

Guest Blogger Lee Gorny

NOTE from CultureGrrl: Last weekend, while my family gathered for CultureNiece's wedding, CultureDaughter vanished for bridesmaid beautification rituals (hair, nails, whatever) and I tried to exploit those hours by demonstrating to her visiting boyfriend the joys of eventually living in the NYC area. (He's a sophisticated but small-town boy.)

He loves museums and is passionate about cycling, so figuring out what to do was a no-brainer. What I hadn't anticipated, though, was how illuminating the experience would be for me, because Lee the Younger gave Lee the Elder such a wealth of interesting, informative tidbits not found on the labels.

I decided that a guest blog was in order.

By Lee Gorny

As an avid amateur cyclist and bicycle enthusiast, I was both fascinated and frustrated by Bespoke: The Handbuilt Bicycle at New York's Museum of Arts and Design (to Aug. 15). On display is an ecletic assortment of road, cyclocross, track, randonneur (long-distance), commuter, child and mountain bikes, assembled by New York cyclist and bicycle collector, Michael Maharam, and Sacha White, one of the six internationally esteemed bicycle designers featured in the show.

I'm a mechanical engineer with a recent Ph.D. and a current post-doc assignment at Penn State's Materials Research Lab. But what I really want in life is to find the perfect bike. I began riding seriously about seven years ago, spending thousands of hard-earned grad student dollars on eight bicycles (four in my arsenal now). I've begged and borrowed (but not stolen) about 20 more in my search for The One.

The perfect bike is hard to find, particularly when you can't afford a custom machine like the ones in this show. But my time there allowed me to "possess" these beauties in my imagination. White's Speedvagen Road Machine, enticingly perched in the window of the museum's lobby, is a hard-to-resist temptation for a bike-aholic like me, who would like nothing better than to hop on and ride off into nearby Central Park.


Sacha White, "Speedvagen Road Machine," 2006

A beautifully crafted machine, designed with an intentionally minimalist approach, the bike-in-the-window achieved elegance with its integrated seatpost, flattened S-bend seatstays, understated paint job and perfectly smooth TIG welded joints. (Tungsten Inert Gas welding creates stronger joints, because inert gas is blown into the welding area to prevent metal from oxidizing.) This bike was modern despite its classic steel material, and, what's more, it was just my size! Proper fit, imperative for comfortable riding, is one of the many attributes that make custom frames like these so desirable.

Having ridden steel frames and considered custom bikes, I was already familiar with White and the show's five other chosen designers. But I knew only a little about each maker's style and history. I left the museum with more information, but still wishing it had provided more details about the design aspects that go into making a frame. I build my own bikes from the frame up, with old and new components, so the missing piece of my own bicycle-related knowledge is frame building.

When I headed upstairs after lingering in the lobby, I found many more objects of desire among examples by White, Dario Pegoretti, Richard Sachs, J. Peter Weigle, Jeff Jones and Mike Flanigan. Flanigan, formerly a part-owner of the Massachusetts custom bike company Independent Fabrication (one of whose bikes I once had the pleasure of riding), decided to go it alone, deviating from that company's relatively modern styles by creating historically-inspired bikes that appear to be built for solid workhorse commuting. His creations include whimsical details like card-suit cutouts in the chainring. (Carved chainrings were common before cranks were redesigned to increase stiffness and reduce weight.) Other retro details include now seldom-used bells and kickstands.
Mike Flanigan, "Basket Bike," 2010

One bicycle that particularly captured my imagination was Sachs' Cyclocross Racing Bike, still caked with mud from its outing at the 2009 USA Cycling National Cyclocross Championship. In the midst of all those pristine, seemingly sterile bicycles, with no wear on the tires or componentry, this seemed to me what a bike is supposed to look like. Although it is more difficult to see the designer's work under a quarter-inch layer of mud, scrapes and tar, a committed cyclist couldn't help being a little put off by bikes that seemed sadly unridden.

Richard Sachs' dirt-encrusted "Signature Cyclocross Bicycle," 2009-2010
The examples by Jeff Jones, a custom builder who really breaks with conventional component-oriented mountain bikes, included one of the bikes that I felt most tempted to test-ride. From an engineer's perspective, Jones' SpaceFrame bike looks awesome, having long, curving unpainted titanium tubes connecting both wheels to the bike's head-tube rather than (as customary) to its seat-tube. This likely results in a great deal of compliance over bumps, without the active suspension used in most current bikes. Simply the fact that it is so different from what now qualifies as a mountainbike would make this an exciting ride.



The exhibition included a short video, showcasing each builder, with memorable helmet-cam footage of Jones riding out the door of his shop into some beautiful singletrack (narrow trail in the woods). That's the life! The video gives viewers some sense of the personal connection meant to be felt through a hand-built bike---a bond between builder and bike and, ultimately, between bike and rider. This is something that no factory in Taiwan can replicate and, unfortunately, something that the exhibit could not quite capture for me.

The bikes were all aesthetically appealing. But the real test of a bike is how well it rides to get someone to work, haul the groceries and carry the camping gear, while going around a high-speed corner or making it, as painlessly as possible, over that next ridgeline or down a steep technical descent. This is impossible to discern by sight alone.

I left "Bespoke" longing to interact with those bikes and craving the opportunity for a quick spin through some of the rocky sections of Central Park on one of Jones' creations or to Queens for a lap around the Kissena Park Velodrome on White's elegant Vanilla Track Bike. Sadly, it is unlikely that a museum could send enthusiasts out on demo models to navigate the challenging thoroughfares of midtown Manhattan.


Sacha White, "Vanilla Track Bicycle," 2006

Upon returning to the lobby I stared one last time at the Speedvagen Road Machine, alone by the window, so close to the doors. I could remove it from its stand, get it through the door onto Columbus Circle and disappear into the park amongst other cyclists on that beautiful summer day. No one could catch me on a bike this nice! Alas, the tires looked a bit flat and my plan was foiled. Next time I visit a show like this, I'll have to remember to bring my CO2 pump!

Michael Botwinick, director of the Hudson River Museum and an outspoken supporter of the Brodsky Bill that would have regulated museum deaccessions in New York State, responds to this recent post on the bill's unfortunate fate in the state legislature:

I think it is problematic to say the bill was killed by the "museum lobby." I think the vast majority of museums in the state supported the bill, and the vast majority conduct their affairs in accordance with the bill's principles. I believe that the greatest concern came from the NYC institutions that received their charters from the legislature, predating the State Board of Regents [i.e., those institutions that were chartered before 1889]. Some of younger NYC museums rode on those coattails.

Tom Campbell [director of the Metropolitan Museum] was quite correct to point out the Met more than meets the requirements of the proposed bill. All of the large NYC museums absolutely practice what Brodsky preaches. And from my experience, the prevailing attitude among museums nationally is firmly opposed to deaccessioning for operating expenses.

I can only conclude that the "legacy" museums saw no good reason to allow the Regents any authority over them. Their reservations may not, from their point of view, be misplaced. But the irony is that those reservations have stopped a bill that would have served New York well. The Regents have worked hard to address this issue in a constructive way and spent a great deal of time listening to the profession.

We will, as Brodsky has pointed out, now have a two-tier system in New York, instead of a single standard and that would have been model legislation for other states as well.

Susan Edwards, director of the Frist Center, Nashville

At 12:30 p.m. today, Round Four in the never-ending legal battle between Fisk University and Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper over the university's Stieglitz Collection is scheduled for a return bout at its original venue, Davidson County Chancery Court, after detours to the Tennessee Court of Appeals and the state's Supreme Court (which left standing the Court of Appeals ruling).

At issue is whether Fisk should be allowed to enter into a $30-million collection-sharing deal with Alice Walton's Crystal Bridges Museum, Bentonville, AR, despite written instructions by the collection's donor, artist Georgia O'Keeffe (widow of photographer Alfred Stieglitz), that the university "not at any time sell or exchange any of the objects."

Notwithstanding all the legal lingo that's been slung at this case in countless lawyers' briefs, there's a completely new and intriguing argument buried on P. 16 of the 22-page brief filed Monday in Davidson County Chancery Court by the Tennessee Attorney General's office. [NOTE: For some reason, the above link for the AG's brief is calling up a blank document, but if you click the "Download" button to the right on that screen, you can access the brief as either PDF or text.]

As CultureGrrl readers may remember, I had suggested back in February 2008 a possible remedy for Fisk's inability or unwillingness to commit its own financial resources to maintaining the collection---a partnership with the Frist Center for the Visual Arts (which had previously stored the Stieglitz Collection for Fisk, until the the renovation of the university's gallery was completed). Such an arrangement would keep the art in Nashville, easily accessible to Fisk students (for whose benefit it was intended) and perhaps also more accessible to the local community.

Now comes this surprise revelation from Attorney General Robert Cooper:

The donor's intent...can be accomplished with the assistance of a new steward that can carry out the charitable intent. The proof will show, in fact, that another Nashville institution, the Frist Center for the Visual Arts, met with Fisk in May 2008 [three months after I had planted the seed?] and suggested to Fisk that it would be willing to discuss displaying the Stieglitz Collection in space at the Center dedicated to Fisk.

A spokesperson for the AG's office confirmed to me that this was the first time that the Frist was mentioned in the legal briefs. But neither the AG's spokesperson nor Ellen Jones Pryor, the Frist's communications director, would tell me anything more about the current status of discussions, if any. Pryor did emphasize that the Frist is "a non-collecting institution," which I presume was intended to suggest that there would be no $30-million purchase of a half-share in the collection. One can speculate (although Ellen declined to comment) that the Frist's resources and expertise might be available for the care and display of the collection, should a physical transfer of the 101 objects occur.

From Fisk's point of view, of course, finding a local home for the collection is beside the point: The university says it needs a major cash infusion to help address its dire financial condition.

According to Fisk's Aug. 9 trial brief: 

Fisk has become financially unstable and it is now in danger of having to suspend its operations.

This argument, should it become common knowledge, could backfire: A near-insolvency admission is not likely to boost student admissions.

In any event, both sides, at this writing, are packing up their briefcases and preparing to square off over whether it is "impossible or impracticable" for Fisk to adhere strictly to O'Keeffe's instructions, and whether the $30-million Crystal Bridges deal is the solution that would "most closely approximate" donor O'Keeffe's intent. Presiding will be Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle, the same judge who had issued the initial ruling in this case.

New York State Assembly Chamber

When it comes to the Brodsky Bill to regulate museum deaccessions in New York State, it appears, alas, that the museum lobby has gotten its way.

Robin Pogrebin writes this for tomorrow's NY Times (online now):

A bill to prohibit cultural institutions from selling pieces from their collections to cover operating costs has all but died in the New York State Legislature, in the face of opposition from major cultural institutions like the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the withdrawal of support from the bill's Senate sponsor....

Some [actually, most] museums are already precluded from such sales by the State Board of Regents, but the bill would have made the practice illegal and expanded the prohibition to all museums.

Pogrebin mentions that museums chartered by the State Legislature, rather than the Board of Regents, are not subject to the existing Regents regulations governing deaccessions. But she never specifies which institutions those are: It's not "New York's largest museums," as her article suggests. It's the most venerable cultural nonprofits---those that were chartered before 1890, including the huge Metropolitan Museum and the small, deaccession-compromised National Academy.

But wait a minute! Who's that familiar-looking lady gazing down perplexedly at a piece of electronic equipment (probably a glitchy mini-camcorder), seated next to the microphone-wielding Michael Botwinick, on the right side of the photo accompanying the online version of Pogrebin's article?

Why that's CultureGrrl herself, making a stealth appearance in a piece by the reporter whose articles on the Brooklyn Museum I had criticized earlier today. Botwinick, as it happens, is a former director of the very same Brooklyn Museum (and now directs the Hudson River Museum).

I was on the scene that day to report on a State Assembly Committee's Jan. 14 Deaccession Roundtable, where Botwinick spoke in favor of the Brodsky Bill (while starring in a CultureGrrl Video).

Meanwhile, Assemblyman Jonathan Bing, who opposed the Brodsky Bill (and also figures in a CultureGrrl Video recorded at the same Jan. 14 event), won the gratitude of the museum lobby by achieving passage of a bill that he sponsored (co-sponsored by Assemblyman Richard Brodsky) that would allow financially challenged nonprofits leeway in withdrawing funds from "underwater" endowments---those that are valued at less than their original amounts at the time the money was given. (More about this bill in an article by Erica Orden of the Wall Street Journal.) That potentially perilous but needed legislation passed both houses unanimously but, to my knowledge (still checking), has not yet received the Governor's expected approval.

UPDATE: This just in from Adam Brickman, Bing's deputy chief of staff:

As of this morning, the UPMIFA Legislation [as the "underwater" bill is known] (A. 7907-D) is still waiting to be sent to the Governor's office. 

In response to my query, Brodsky tonight sent me his comments on the fate of his deaccession bill and his plans for regulating disposals from museum collections if he succeeds in his current bid to become New York's next Attorney General:

Nothing is dead forever, but the opposition of some of the large cultural institutions that are chartered by the Legislature has made it unlikely that the bill will move this year. The Regents' regulations [my link, not his], warts and all, will provide significant protections for 98% of cultural institutions.

As AG, I will maintain my positions on deaccessioning for operational expenses and will have additional supervisory authority over not-for-profits and charities, which will be carefully used to assure conformance with the law.

We haven't had a strong deaccession watchdog in the New York AG's office since G. Oliver Koppell (and, before him, Louis Lefkowitz).

But what we all really want to know is: Will CultureGrrl's photo appear in the hardcopy version of tomorrow's NY Times?

UPDATE: It's there (but only in black and white)!

The Brooklyn Museum

[NOTE: Part II is here.]

Robin Pogrebin's initial NY Times article, imputing "diminished stature" to the Brooklyn Museum, provoked considerable backlash from the museum profession. But Robin didn't back down; she doubled down. In Sunday's astonishing front-page Arts & Leisure piece, she took it upon herself to convene an ad hoc panel of 17 commentators "to start a conversation" about a solution in search of a problem. (Kate Taylor, in yesterday's Times, examined a museum that truly is in urgent need of some good advice.)

This exercise in "helpfulness" was an implied insult to the museum's longtime director Arnold Lehman, whose institution, in less dire straits than many, has been uniquely showered with this torrent of unsolicited advice, proffered by everyone from Brooklyn artist/satirist William Powhida (who gets the first word) to former Metropolitan Museum director Philippe de Montebello (who gets the most words, in his more outspoken critical appraisal of a colleague to date) to Brooklyn artist Rico Gatson (who gets the last word).

What's most surprising about all this is that Arnold's own voice is notably missing. His own comments about his administrative priorities, the state of the museum, and its plans for the future (which in many ways parallel the concerned "advice") were apparently not deemed necessary for Sunday's piece.

Arnold had to resort, instead, to a letter to the editor, in which he took the high road, thanking the Times "for choosing the Brooklyn Museum as the focal point to create a high-level dialogue about some of the challenges confronting cultural institutions" and detailing the ways in which Brooklyn is already addressing those challenges.

So let's give Arnold the space he deserves: CultureGrrl readers may remember my June 18 post, "Populist" Arnold Lehman Strikes Back, published in response to Pogrebin's initial June 15 broadside. My post included a CultureGrrl Video that gave Arnold five minutes to air his side of the story.

What I didn't tell you then is that our impromptu but completely on-the-record conversation in the director's office continued for another 45 minutes---an exchange that was, in many ways, more interesting and revealing than what I had caught on camera.

Here are some excerpts from my June chat with the man who, responding to critics, sardonically called himself "Mr. Populism," while seriously addressing the issues raised and highlighting some of his under-the-radar accomplishments:

Q: [In the posted video, I had mentioned that for as long as I could remember, the Brooklyn Museum has struggled with the challenge of attracting visitors to the outer borough. We continued our discussion about Brooklyn's fluctuating attendance, after I powered down my camcorder.]

A: We cannot count on a constant flow of tourists. That makes up a huge proportion of [the attendance at] our colleague institutions in Manhattan. They [tourists] actually even find their way out to us. Those visitors who are comfortable using the subway come here. Those who are not used to the subway and don't want to spend 20 bucks on a cab don't come. The MTA's weekend work schedule makes getting here and a lot of other destinations in Brooklyn and Queens a nightmare. Believe me, If you have to stand in the subway for two hours and change to this train and that train, that doesn't make it easy.

Because we have such a tiny advertising budget, we don't advertise in a general way. It's always specific to exhibitions. Generic advertising tends to smooth out peaks and valleys [in attendance]. We have a lot of money to be able to advertise Warhol, for example, or Murakami, for which we tend to get a bigger, broader mix of visitors.

But the bottom line is not the number of people we serve, but who we're serving. It's been said that we always have so many people coming for First Saturdays. That's the point. The point is to get people to enjoy a museum experience in whatever way they want to enjoy it. Believe me, anyone who writes about it needs to come here and see that the galleries are crowded with people--adults, families who have kids and senior citizens, people in wheelchairs---and they're not all here to dance. They can look.

Q: How else does the Brooklyn location impact you?

A: To me, this is one of the greatest opportunities in the United States. The diversity of this community, the youth of this community, and the incredible art community that's here all are so important to how we approach what we do. Coming up, the person who's been sort of the dean of the Brooklyn art community, Fred Tomaselli, is doing a big show. We focus in on Brooklyn and the great Brooklyn artists, such as Kiki Smith (now on view). And there are a couple of other shows of major Brooklyn artists who haven't even been announced yet.

Q: Are you thinking of doing more with the borough's community of emerging artists?

A: Yes, absolutely. We're thinking of doing another major show, exclusively focused on Brooklyn. In terms of the younger art community, you don't really have to go any place else. If you could envision a big, incredibly collection-rich institution, some place where you'd have unbelievable opportunities to touch peoples' lives in different ways, Brooklyn is it---the center of creative opportunity and creative capital.

COMING SOON: Planned reinstallations to revitalize the permanent collection, and why Lehman says his tombstone should read, "He Loved Ductwork."

The differences between the "before" and "after" photos that I recently published of Eakins' "The Gross Clinic"---pre- and post-conservation---were indeed "startling," as I had opined in both CultureGrrl and the Huffington Post.

But even more startling was the museum's subsequent admission to me and other art journalists that it had sent us the wrong images. (See, for example, the correction appended at the bottom of this NY Times article.) The images that I had posted on July 20 were described to me the previous day by the museum's press office as "images of the painting both before and after it was restored."

Not so.

The museum now says that that these two images, while dramatically dissimilar, are both photos of the painting BEFORE it was restored. Here's the head-scratching explanation for this, sent to me by Lindsay Warner of the museum's press office:

The "before" and "after" images on CultureGrrl are both pre-conservation images. Your "before" image was taken by our in-house Rights and Reproductions Department, which produces photos for the purpose of press and publications. It is the photo we were providing up until last month, when the restoration was complete.

The "after" photo is a better-quality and color-corrected pre-conservation [emphasis added] image....Your "after" image was taken by our Conservation Photography Department, which produces images for conservation records. The photo taken by Conservation most accurately represents how the painting appeared before [emphasis added] treatment.

In that case, the photo that, until last month, had been sent to journalists must have been a very inaccurate reproduction of "The Gross Clinic," since it differs so significantly from the one that has now been dispatched to us as the truer image.

So, art-lings, let's now try to sort out the three "Gross" photos that have, at various times, landed in my inbox.

Here's the pre-conservation image of "The Gross Clinic" that journalists, until last month, were routinely sent by the museum---the one that I had posted as the "before" photo:



Here's what the museum now says is the more accurate pre-conservation image, as validated by its Conservation Department. It's the one that I had erroneously called a post-conservation image, relying on the museum's say-so:



And here (we can only hope) is the painting as it looks today, after its treatment by the conservators:



Now I can understand why Philadelphia Inquirer art critic Edward Sozanski wrote last Sunday that the differences in the painting, pre- and post-treatment, "aren't startling"---a seeming rebuttal to my own headline announcing its "Startling Restoration."

All of this talk about photo reproductions may be much more than you want to know. But I take very seriously my commitment to accuracy, and I can only say, in this instance, that I was relying on what I thought was an unimpeachable source---the museum itself, which apologized to me (and, I presume, to others) for its unfortunate mix-up.

What I need to do, of course, is make the roadtrip to Philadelphia, to eyeball the newly altered masterpiece myself---on display in a focus exhibition (to Jan. 9).

Egon Schiele, "Portrait of Wally," 1912

At the commemorative ceremony celebrating the settlement of the Nazi loot-related dispute over Egon Schiele's "Portrait of Wally," David Marwell, the director of the Museum of Jewish Heritage (which hosted the event), highlighted a lesson to be learned from "Wally":

She can teach us about justice, even justice that comes after more than seven decades: how fidelity to basic values...and no small measure of hard work can help to get some things right.

But the some things about the resolution still don't seem quite right: While bestowing $19 million on the heirs of Lea Bondi Jaray, the Nazi-era Jewish owner of the portrait, the settlement sends the painting back to reside permanently in Austria, the country that Bondi Jaray had fled and the one from which she had vainly attempted to have her cherished painting returned. It remains in the collection of the Leopold Museum, established by Rudolf Leopold, the megacollector from whom Bondi Jaray had sought her painting.

The person who best expressed appropriate ambivalence about this ironic twist of justice is Edith Southwell, Lea's grandniece. Southwell, who lives in England, is the official representative of Lea's estate (along with Andre Bondi, who spoke at the ceremony).

Southwell sent a statement to be read at the celebratory gathering in New York last Thursday, in which she expressed these regrets:

Despite the great accomplishment this ceremony celebrates, for me this event is tinged with some sadness that my dear great aunt will never know that her struggles to claim what rightfully belong to her...were finally vindicated....

While I personally cannot rejoice that the painting will return to Austria, where [Lea] was so wrongfully deprived of it, it is satisfying to know that her story and that of the attempts to recover it made in the United States will be displayed alongside it, wherever it is exhibited. During this long, drawn-out legal battle, I have found no small satisfaction in the fact that for as long as the Leopold Museum procrastinated [a characterization with which that museum would probably disagree], they remained without the painting, much to their chagrin.

Another problematic aspect of the settlement is the statement issued by the Leopold Museum Private Foundation, acknowledging "moral responsibility to do justice to the history of Austria and of its Jewish citizens," but also expressing confidence that, had it persevered in the 12-year-old case, it "would have eventually won the lawsuit" to retain "Wally." Austrian newspapers report [in German] that the Leopold Museum is financing the $19-million settlement through a bank loan, which it may repay through sales of art from its collection.

The foundation says that collector Leopold, who died before the settlement was announced, "was aware that his strength and health were failing. He desired to see the painting returned to Vienna during his own lifetime, and therefore initiated settlement negotiations of his own accord." But the foundation's statement, posted on the museum's website, reasserts Leopold's contention that he was blameless in acquiring the work:

Dr. Leopold always believed himself to be in the right regarding this case, and up to his final moment, he remained optimistic that justice would ultimately prevail. Those who give close study to the relevant history, documentation and witness testimony will thoroughly understand the way in which the collector acted, arriving at the conclusion that he had acquired the work in justifiably good faith.

But as the press release from the office of the U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of New York states, the sole focus of the case in U.S. District Court, which was on the brink of trial, was the question of whether Leopold had indeed acted in good faith.

According to the U.S. Attorney's Office:

In 1953, Dr. Rudolf Leopold...visited [Lea] Bondi during a trip to London. During this visit, Bondi told Leopold  that the painting belonged to her and asked him to go to the Belvedere and recover it on her behalf. Leopold agreed to help her. Instead of helping Bondi recover her painting, however, Leopold entered into an agreement with the Belvedere [Austria's national museum] whereby he exchanged a Schiele painting from his own collection for "Wally."

When Bondi later discovered that Leopold had acquired "Wally" for himself, she retained lawyers to attempt to convince Leopold to return the painting to her, to no avail. Bondi continued to fight to recover her beloved painting until her death in 1969....

The Court...ruled that the Government had made a probable cause showing that Leopold knew "Wally" was stolen property when it was imported into the United States. Thus, the only issue to be resolved at trial was whether the Leopold Museum could overcome the Government's evidence and prove that Leopold did not know that Wally was stolen property when it was imported into the United States. The Court scheduled a trial for July 26, 2010, to decide this single issue.

The museum foundation's statement, signed by the late collector's son, Diethard Leopold, directs some harsh criticism at the Austrian government for its role in this affair:

In 1998...a settlement would have cost around two million dollars---as signalled to him [Leopold] at the time by Ronald Lauder [the American collector of Austrian and German Expressionists]. But the Austrian Federal Government's representation on the board of the [museum's foundation] urged Leopold to grant his permission to engage in the legal battle that ensued---a battle during which court and legal fees were to consume over twice the original compensation sum. The other side had an easier time of it: Their role in the proceedings was assumed for them by the U.S. Government.

Yet another problematic aspect of the settlement was highlighted by Tom Freudenheim in his July 27 article for the Wall Street Journal---What Is Lost When Works Are Trophies. Rather than being viewed primarily as an entrancing portrait of Schiele's mistress, "Wally" will (in Freudenheim's words) forever exist in an "alternate, extra-artistic perceptual universe," because of "the clause in the legal settlement" stipulating that "Portrait of Wally" must perpetually be accompanied by a wall label that goes into great detail about its complicated, contentious history.

The entire text (agreed to by both sides) of that five-paragraph label can be seen here, The final sentence will be deleted after Aug. 18, when the "trophy" is whisked away to Austria from its current display at the Museum of Jewish Heritage. This lengthy verbiage will likely divert many viewers' attention from this small, exquisite jewel of a painting, which is much more textured and vibrant in person than in flat reproduction (as partially demonstrated by the raking light in the upper left corner of my photo, above). It's the face that launched a hundred lawyers' briefs.

[For my analysis of the settlement, go here.]

Lawyers, prosecutors and a Bondi family member did all the talking at Thursday's commemorative ceremony celebrating the $19-million settlement of the Bondi family's claims against the Leopold Museum, Vienna, in connection with Schiele's "Portrait of Wally," expropriated by the Nazis from Lea Bondi Jaray in 1939 and later acquired by Austrian mega-collector Rudolf Leopold.

But there were some key players, acknowledged with gratitude during the speeches, who stayed out of the spotlight. Chief among them was my ArtsJournal blogging colleague, Judith Dobrzynski, whose 1997 article in the NY Times set the investigative and legal wheels in motion. While the farflung Bondis bonded in the lobby of the Museum of Jewish Heritage before the ceremony, Judith was greeted like an honorary member of the mishpocheh (Yiddish for "family):


Judith Dobrzynski, left, at the Museum of Jewish Heritage on Thursday

As we learned from the speakers, one of Judith's articles caught the attention of the husband of U.S. Customs Special Agent Bonnie Goldblatt, who told his wife that the case might be something to delve into. The rest is history.

Bonnie was repeatedly acknowledged by the speakers and was seated in the audience. When I accosted her afterwards to take her photograph, I found out why she wasn't onstage. She allowed me to take a shot of her beaming face, but when she realized that it was for publication, she warned that I must use only this shot:


U.S. Customs Special Agent Bonnie Goldblatt

After all, the lady's still going undercover!

Also singled out for praise was another member of the audience, Jane Kallir, the New York dealer in German and Austrian Expressionists at Galerie St. Etienne, who provided investigators with letters from her archives that documented Lea's ongoing quest to have the Schiele returned---a crucial piece of evidence in building the prosecutors' case.


Jane Kallir

But the praise that, for me, was totally unexpected was the lengthy tribute to my editor at the Wall Street Journal, Eric Gibson, for his eloquent analysis of why Nazi-loot restitutions are still important, even 70 years after the fact. At Thursday's ceremony, Howard Spiegler, the Bondis' lawyer, read this lengthy quote from Eric's past commentary: