H ll nd Cot er on the Sm t son an

In Sunday's NYT Holland Carter checks in with a look at the Smithsonian. Or part of the Smithsonian anyway -- in a series of mini-overviews of the SI's museums Cotter leaves out American History, Natural History, Air & Space, the Renwick Gallery (which is sort of part of the American Art), the National Zoo, the National Postal Museum, and the Anacostia Museum. He never says why he doesn't include them.

Cotter's essay has nothing whatsoever to do with the scandals racking the Smithsonian's leadership, the apparent reason that this piece is running on Sunday. But however inadvertent, his approach reflects The Question facing the Smithsonian: Is it possible for the Institution to focus on a big-picture mission and purpose when the Smithsonian is made up of umpteen semi-autonomous fiefdoms? Should it even try? Do we need a national museum that tells our national story?

Yes, there are good programs at some of the Smithsonian museums (and Cotter is particularly astute on the Hirshhorn and the Freer/Sackler) and there are bad programs at others (American Art is a perfect metaphor for W's government), but the Smithsonian problems that need to be addressed first are about governance, accountability, and infrastructure. What's the point of museums strengthening their collections if the buildings that hold them leak so much that repair estimates approach $3 billion? Only when the big questions are addressed can the questions about collection-building, exhibition programming strength, and so on be considered.