January 2004 Archives

UPDATE: The first person to send me a photo (JPEG) of Adam Weinberg or Larry Rinder in a Whitney yoga class will earn some kind of prize.

Thank God for Carol Vogel. The dirt-digging New York Times arts journo is a reporter's reporter, digging deep into the complicated details of visual arts stories all over Manhattan. (Vogel is on a first name basis with museum directors all over America. She's one of the few people close enough to Barnes Foundation director Kimberly Camp that she can call her, "Beverly.")There is no journalist in America better at sitting by the phone, waiting for auction house publicists to call her with juicy, arcane tidbits of auctionana. We should be all the more impressed that Vogel apparently turned off her cell phone long enough to squeeze some embarassing news out of Whitney director Adam Weinberg. I can see the interview now, Weinberg squirming in his seat, Carol Vogel doing her best Mike Wallace impersonation, putting the screws to him, interrupting his every utterance trying to get to the heart of the story, trying to understand what the Weinberg Whitney (the Dub-Squared!) will emphasize in the coming years.

Whatever you think of Vogel's methods, they worked. Yesterday Vogel delivered a major scoop about the new Whitney. Weinberg, reported Vogel, is offering yoga classes to the Whitney staff. I'm sure that we can all rest easier at night knowing that a soothing yoga class will help take the edge off of Larry Rinder's hatred of America. Maybe this means that Larry's next exhibit won't loathe all of America, maybe it will just confine Rinder's repugnance to North Dakota.

Yoga at the Whitney! This is such a good idea! It's obviously helping Weinberg be Weinberg. If firing a curator (Marla Prather) who was on leave caring for a seriously ill child was harshing Weinberg's mellow, he could always just sign up for the 4:30 Ashtanga class. Of course, before firing a key curator, you know Weinberg wasn't just relying on yoga to soothe his nerves -- he must have known that the board was behind him. They are.

"We were looking for someone who understood the key mission of the Whitney: to champion American art and living artists," Whitney chairman Leonard Lauder said. "Plus, Adam's Namaste gesture truly represents the belief that there is a Divine spark within each of us that is located in the heart chakra."

There is no better example of the Divine spark within each of us than the spark I want to light on each of those hideous John Currin paintings. I think I speak for everyone when I saw that after looking at the much crappy art that a little post-exhibit meditative experience would get me ready to spend big bucks in the Whitney store.

But I digress. Mostly I was complimenting Vogel for helping Weinberg open up. I mean, that little thing in The Art Newspaper about Weinberg maybe replacing the 2006 Biennial with some type of permanent collection hanging? Not important. (UPDATE: The Art Newspaper has run a correction of this item.)The Biennial might be moving to the Armory? Just not newsworthy. Weinberg's comment that while the Whitney has two-to-three years of shows on the schedule only "many" of them are good ones? I'm sure Carol found out which upcoming Whitney shows Weinberg thinks suck but didn't tell us because, because... well, why was that again Carol?

At least Vogel succeeded at one of the most difficult tasks in journalism: getting employees to open up and compliment their boss.

"[He's a] curator's director," curator Chrissie Iles said between bites of lunch in the Whitney's new vegan cafeteria. "He understands the mechanics of making an exhibition from an insider's point of view because he's done it. And for an institution as small as the Whitney, that's important. He's also a good listener. He's a people person. Except to Marla. Then he's kind of like those lions that eat their young."

Judge Stanley Ott has decided to allow the Barnes and its suitors to provide to him the following:

• A business plan outlining why a Parkway museum would fix the Barnes' financial problems; and
• An analysis of the value of the Foundation's assets, especially Ker-Feal.

Many Barnes observers, including me, had expected to charge some kind of special master or outside auditor with these kinds of chores. But Ott is allowing the Barnes (read: the Phoundations) to have a second chance. It was obvious from Day One in court that the Barnes should have done this before now. So why is Ott giving the Barnes a second chance?

Theory: In his ruling, Ott sounds reasonably open to the idea of moving the Barnes if the need be. Except for this paragraph:

"Dr. Barnes' indenture does not specifically state that the gallery must be maintained in Merion or cease to exist. Nevertheless, it is difficult to dismiss Dr. Barnes' choice of venue as a minor detail. Dr. and Mrs. Barnes lived on the site, in the administration building adjacent to the gallery. Dr. Barnes' indenture provided for the administration building to be used as classrooms for the art education program after his and Mrs. Barnes' deaths. The focus of the education program is the ensembles of art in the gallery... We need to be persuaded that the move to Philadelphia is the least drastic deviation that will stabilize The Foundation's future."

Ott then outlined what the Barnes can do to show him the move is imperative. He gave the student a make-up homework assignment, a generous second-chance.

In a backhanded way he acknowledged that the Barnes' management has underwhelmed him. If they couldn't do the right and obvious thing the first time, does Ott really think they'll get it right now? Ott chose not to simply rule against the Barnes, but I wonder if (instead) Ott is giving the Barnes leadership the rope with which to hang itself...

From around the web on the Barnes: The Philly Inky on Ott's spanking of the PA AG. The Inky's main story. LAT's Suzanne Muchnic here. Jumps to here.

Board may be expanded, the rest must be studied. Whether or not the move would help sustain the institution must be studied. No move allowed yet. From the decision:

"To that end and pursuant to our broad supervisory powers in the area of charitable trusts,[1] we direct The Foundation to undertake an analysis of its assets other than the works in the gallery in Merion.  The goal will be to ascertain whether $50,000,000 or more can be raised for The Foundation’s endowment through the sale of non-gallery artwork and/or the real estate in Chester County."

Basically, the court is asking: Would selling Ker-Feal (and a few other things) fix the problem and keep the Barnes in Lower Merion?

Anyone who wants an MSWord copy of the decision should feel free to email me at the address on the upper right. I have no way of posting the whole thing here... Much more later today...

There are no two art critics in America more different than the Washington Post's Blake Gopnik and the New Yorker's Peter Schjeldahl. Gopnik writes strictly, cautiously. (Well, except about JSJ.) Schjeldhal writes poetically and directly. Gopnik looks at art head-first, Schjeldahl heart first. This has never been clearer this past weekend when Gopnik penned an essay about neuroesthetics and the neuroaestheticians who love it headlined, "Science, Trying to Pick Our Brains About Art." Gopnik gives us a rundown of the conference, becomes quite excited about the prospect of neuroesthetics helping us to understand much about our response to art, and finally concludes that Duchamp will always defy neuroaestheticians. (Gopnik quite often prefers the idea behind an art object to the object itself.)

Meanwhile, the day before Gopnik's essay ran, Schjeldhal, who once wrote an essay titled, "Theory-itis," was speaking down I-95 in Richmond. Schjeldahl talked about the joy of basking in the full-body sensation we feel when we are in the presence of great art. I don't recall hearing Schjeldahl spend any time whatsoever on neuroesthetics. Then again, I don't recall Gopnik writing much about joy. So here follows a comparison of Gopnik and Schjeldahl (forgive the paraphrases of Schjeldahl -- there is no transcript of his remarks)...

Gopnik: "If our brains determine how art works on us, what does that tell us about art, or us -- could studying the way we're wired determine crisply that the "Mona Lisa" is truly great, or do we need some history to tell us how a complex painting speaks, or not, to all its different viewers?"

Schjeldahl: When I first saw great art, that moment I died and came back as someone else.

Gopnik: "For instance, if you stick people into a machine that does functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI -- a brain scan, in layman's terms) and then show them paintings they find beautiful, you can see certain characteristic bits of their brains going wild with delight -- or so suggests the recent research of Semir Zeki, an eminent neuroscientist at University College London who's recently also become a leader in neuroaesthetics."

Schjeldahl: When graduate students come out of lectures, where they see lots of slides, and go to museums, where they see actual art, they are often shocked. They are used to being academic participants, not personal, eyes-on participants.

Gopnik: " The old notion that art is centrally about making an "aesthetic" object whose "beauty" is supposed to strike a chord in us has started to look pretty thin, as we've begun to think about how a broad spread of human beings respond and have responded to a vast range of art objects."

Schjeldahl: I know something is beautiful when I am sure that it must not be violated, especially by me.

See Gopnik on Sunday at Faith Flanagan's monthly MUSE salon. Gopnik will share a stage with Hirshhorn board chair Robert Lehrman and gallerist George Hemphill. Showtime is 730pm at the DC Arts Center at 2438 18th Street NW, Washington, DC.

I think that today's Barnes ruling is just.

The ruling, issued today by Montgomery County (Pa.) Orphans' Court Judge Stanley Ott, reached several conclusions:

• The Barnes may expand its board to 15 members and may do so immediately;
• The Barnes may not move -- yet;
• The Pennsylvania Attorney General was derelict in its public duties in siding with the Barnes;
• The Barnes' neighbors are sniveling crybabies whose mania "border[s] on hysteria" (how can you not love that?);
• Ott wonders why can't an educational institution sell its art to raise money? Ott indicates that he understand the ethical considerations regarding a museum not selling art, but what about an educational institution?;
• Ott wants to see a business plan for the proposed Philadelphia location; and
• Ott seems to agree that the Barnes has been mismanaged and he won't allow a move unless the Barnes demonstrates that moving is the only option left for the Foundation to remain viable.

Ott ruled that the Barnes wasn't even close to making its case on this last point. For several years I have prattled on about what seems to me a dereliction of duty by the Barnes board and mismanagement by the administration. While Ott didn't use the phrase, "But at least you found the piano," (scroll to a posting from 12/10 in the archives) it's clear that these points bothered him too. He was amazed that the Barnes hadn't studied the financial implications of the move. He was surprised how thoroughly the Philly foundations were calling the shots. He wondered why no one had put actual financial figures before him, deriding the "guesstimates" of the Barnes team. Put most simply, he told them to go back and take their exams before demanding to pass the class. For proof he means it, here's testimony from Ott's ruling (emphasis added):

"We begin our analysis of this evidence with the observation that the fact-finding in this case has been seriously hamstrung by the total absence of hard numbers in evaluating these proposals. We have only a preliminary "guesstimate" about the real cost of constructing the new venue. We have no concept of The Foundation’s operating expenses at the new space. There have been no feasibility studies or pro formas projecting the success of the proposed venture. We don’t know how much it would cost to maintain the Merion facility for administrative purposes and for the horticultural course. And The Foundation’s plans for Ker-Feal are far too rudimentary and amorphic to assign any costs to them. 

"On the opposite side of the coin, we have no hard numbers to evaluate options other than the Pew/Lenfest/Annenberg plan. Other than the offers for the land surrounding Ker-Feal, we have not heard even a wild estimate of the value of the items owned by The Foundation but not on display in the gallery in Merion. Nevertheless, the possibility of selling some of these holdings has been dismissed by The Foundation as too little, too shortsighted, or unethical. The move to Philadelphia has been floated as the only lifeboat in the entire sea. Since the outside charities are footing The Foundation’s legal bills in these hearings, we accept their single-option theory as the product of zealous advocacy. We find nothing, however, to commend the Office of Attorney General’s actions in this regard."

For all Ott's knuckle-rapping, he seems open to the eventual possibility of allowing the Barnes to move if financial analysis indicates no other option. "[T]he present location of the gallery is not sacrosanct, and relocation may be permitted if necessary to achieve the settlor’s ultimate purposes," he writes. Later on, he adds:

"The financial exigency having been demonstrated, there are still issues of necessity and the least drastic solution. There has not been an adequate showing that sufficient revenue can not be generated by other means. We need to be persuaded that the move to Philadelphia is the least drastic deviation that will stabilize The Foundation’s future. As we stated above, there is a dearth of hard evidence on the value of the assets that are not displayed in the gallery and could be sold. We heard from several witnesses about the ethical implications of deaccessioning in art administration. However, we are not here focusing on the gallery collection, and we are not convinced that the prohibition is or should be absolute in a non-museum setting. Otherwise stated, we question whether the same constraints on a museum not to sell its art bind an educational institution with works of art among its assets. On these unanswered questions, The Foundation must produce additional evidence."

As I said earlier, I think that this is a fair ruling. The board expansion was an easy call. The move is a tough call and Ott signaled that the Barnes shouldn't expect a cakewalk just because the Commonwealth and institutional Philadelphia wants it to happen.

I am concerned that Ott appears willing to allow the sell-off of non-gallery-hung Foundation assets to raise money. With the exception of Ker-Feal, I'm absolutely opposed to this. I hope arts institutions that have backgrounds somewhat similar to the Barnes -- I'm talking about the Phillips, the Gardner and the Huntington, for example -- file briefs with the court in opposition to this possibility. The Barnes' archives and Barnes' papers should stay at the Barnes.

(However, if Ott is bound and determined to sell off Barnes' papers or other archival information, I would hope that the Phillips Collection would find a way to buy them. The Phillips is building a new Center for the Study of Modern Art. Being home to the papers of both Barnes and Phillips would be a coup for them.)

More in the days to come, including links to tomorrow's LA Times and Philly Inquirer coverage.

Earlier today: Terrie Sultan on Chuck Close.

This is the best idea any museum director has had in months. Most museums are guilty of failing to provide places to rest one's weary feet (Ed: Isn't that what the cafe and $4 lattes are for?), but because we delight in being snarkily specific: SF MOMA is the worst offender in the U.S. On my last visit there wasn't a single bench or resting place in the galleries on three entire floors. I see other art lovers have become rather fed up with SFMOMA's hospitality as well.

Speaking of SFMOMA, arts organizations should know better than to come between patrons, their alcohol and their parties. Say it ain't so: SFMOMA has cancelled its Valentine Ball.

The real reason for the brouhaha is that SF's socialite class apparently has nowhere else to pick up taffeted boink buddies: "What they didn't take into account was how many people had counted on the ball," one donor told the Chron. (Of course a good man in the SF collecting class can skip regionalist balls and find dames on 57th Street.)

Or, an alternate translation: There are a lot of SFMOMA men whose wives don't know that they hang out at The Loading Dock and Daddy's and those men had promised to take their boys to the ball. Or maybe it wasn't about their boys, it was about their toys... after all, SFMOMA isn't all that far from California Hall...

It gets worse! Apparently the ball often features a fashion show and this year the ball was to feature sartorial splendor from Wilkes Bashford. Yes, that's right, the ball was to be the debut of Willie Brown's new career as a model. (Ed: Apologies to our East Coast readers, but we gotta throw some inside jokes to the Ess Effers amongst us.) And last year, guests received free Chanel fragrances. This was not mere Prada-class vanity: Given the near-total darkness inside SFMOMA's new James Turrell installation, it's helpful to be able to find the exit just by following the trail of Chanel wafting in from the nearest gallery. 

"This is a scandal within the museum," another donor told the Chron. If this is a scandal, I can only wonder what that donor thinks of that gallery of awful Still paintings up on SFMOMA's second floor. Or of the museum's failure to own a single major figurative Diebenkorn.

But just as we were beginning to doubt that the SFMOMA bunch has its priorities in order, along comes Cathy Post, the head of the museum's fundraising arm. "This decision was fiscally responsible and demonstrated the integrity of SFMOMA," Post said. That's right, in case you thought that the integrity of museums was based on exhibition programs or their permanent collections (sorry, Ned), you've been set straight. Museum integrity is a direct function of the ability of a museum to cancel a party on which people were counting.

Some donors aren't buying Post's line. "It reflects badly on the museum," one said. And you thought a museum's reputation had something to do with art. No, no, naive MANpals, if you think that you're not reading your Charlie Finch. Never forget, the art world is about three things: money, sex and access to money and sex. Oh yeah, and art.

(Ed: Are those all legit quotes? Me: I stole them directly from the Chronicle. Somewhere Herb Caen is cackling in his grave.)

(In a related note, I'm tired of seeing only bad wine at art openings. From now on galleries that serve me decent scotch or good vodka at their openings will be guaranteed a mention on MAN.)

I've wanted a reason to link to this fine review of Robert Hughes' Goya, but I decided I didn't need a reason.

Terrie Sultan is the director of the Blaffer Gallery at the University of Houston and is the curator of Chuck Close Prints: Process and Collaboration, which recently opened at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Sultan is also the author of the show's catalog. The show opened in Houston and will travel to nine more cities, thus possibly becoming the only show on the planet to visit anywhere near as many cities as the Corcoran's Gordon Parks photo retrospective. (Sultan used to work at the Corcoran...) MAN asked Sultan five questions about the show:

MAN: Do you think of the show as primarily a show about the art of printmaking or as primarily a Chuck Close show?
TS: I think of the show as being about the art of Chuck Close's printmaking, which is perhaps different from many other approaches, because he is very much involved with the process and the collaborative nature of his experimentation, and he is really pushing at the boundaries of what traditional printmaking can be.

MAN: What do you think of the installation at the Met?
TS: I think the installation at the Met is beautiful, very linear in a good way. Nan Rosenthal set up some interesting juxtapositions that are different from what we presented at Blaffer Gallery. Each time a new curator works with this material the interpretations will deepen, and that's one of the things that is so rich about this exhibition. One can see it in different museums and have different experiences.

MAN: In addition to the Close show, there will be a Jim Dine prints show opening at the National Gallery in March. Is there a surge of interest in printmaking (among either curators or collectors) and if so, why?
TS: I think that many curators have realized just how important making prints are to a number of important artists who might be better known as painters or sculptors. In addition, I feel that there is more recognition that prints can be equally compelling as "unique" works.

MAN: What attracted you to the idea of doing a Chuck Close prints show?
TS: I have known Chuck for ten years, and had often talked to him about process -- which is something that really interests me as a curator. Philosophically, I think of my curatorial work as being an effort to enhance an audience's understanding of what an artwork is, and the expectations of what an artist can do. When I saw the progressives and proofs of the big Alex reduction linoleum cut, it was something of an epiphany. Chuck has always wanted to do a show focused on the process and collaborative nature of his printmaking practice, and in a way this project was a partnership made in heaven.

MAN: In 50 years, when the world has had a little distance from which to evaluate Close's work and career, how will his printmaking factor into our assessment of him?
TS: Chuck once said to me that any innovation that is evident in his paintings is a direct result of something that happened in the course of making a print. I hope that this exhibition will provide audiences the opportunity to make that same voyage of discovery. 50 years from now, I think that it will be impossible to separate Chuck's innovations in printmaking from the overall assessment of his career as an artist.

Multiple people telling MAN: Barnes Foundation decision to be announced around noon tomorrow.

My best guess: Move denied -- for now. A special master will be appointed. Ker-Feal will be sold. Renoirs to be burned and mulched in the arboretum. Move to Parkway will be studied by master, who will report to the court on finances and outlook in 12 months.

Just kidding about the Renoirs. (Damn.)

The Boston MFA continues to take heat for renting out Monets to a commercial art gallery in Las Vegas. The Boston Globe ran a fine story on Sunday, a MAN must-read. While the Globe and Newsweek have weight in on the issue, it's not over -- MAN hears that prominent art writers will continue to unload on the Boston MFA's deal.

To be clear, this is a rental and not a loan. This story in the Las Vegas Business Journal makes that clear.

Admin note: There's something goofy with my hit counter, so if you've linked to MAN and I haven't sent you a thank-you note, I apologize. I just can't see it in my stats (which seem to be counting backwards)...

1. The Whitney's PR office has been very quiet since yesterday's The Art Newspaper/MAN item. Haven't heard a word. (How can I claim credit for it when it was in their story? Easy: I know what should be in Paragraph One and apparently they don't.)
2. The upcoming Sally Mann show organized by the Corcoran will not travel. This is too bad. (Yes, I know the Corcoran website says that there will be a national tour. Who you gonna believe, me or the museum that brought you J. Seward Johnson?)
3. Robert Lazzarini (discussed a screen or two down the page) is no longer represented by Pierogi. He is a free agent.
4. Did you know that SF MOMA is working on a Richard Tuttle retro?
5. Choire Sicha dislikes those Patrick Mimran billboards in Chelsea too. (Choire also dislikes crappy galleries. Well, you know, it's like with Paris Hilton: Sometimes you know it's gonna be bad, but you gotta pay attention just in case you miss something fascinat