So you know, at the time you called me last week, I was not in a position to announce any information about this project as agreements had not be signed regarding the inclusion of the store as an integral part of the exhibition.

The previous pieces you referred to were inaccurate in that they did not explain the curatorial context of the store as a part of the exhibition - rather they suggested that it would be a free standing commercial venture at the museum.

Here's the item in question. Winter's defense is that the museum didn't see a certain qualifying adjective anywhere in a news report, therefore that news report was wrong. In other words: The news report didn't hew to our communications strategy, so we didn't mislead the public by saying that the news report was inaccurate. I think that LA Observed's Kevin Roderick got the it right this morning when he wrote: "MOCA admits what [it] denied last week."

MOCA continues with its communications strategy today. The relevant press release seems not to be online, but check out the phrases that introduce its key sentences: "Curatorially initiated..." and "Complementing several paintings in the exhibition..." Or, in other words, MOCA is trying mighty hard to present an ethically-iffy commercial intrusion as a natural outgrowth of curatorial thought.

Bottom line: MOCA has repeatedly acted like it has something to hide. LVMH isn't sponsoring the show... but it is sponsoring the opening gala? Fine line. Telling me that reports of the boutique were wrong simply because the news reports didn't use MOCA's preferred descriptive adjective? No fine line there: That was misleading at best, and dishonest at worst.

If a museum is going to dance around -- or over -- the line between ethical behavior and bald commercialism, it has to explain itself carefully and thoroughly. That museum has to be careful to make the endeavor as ethically clean as it possibly can be. And MOCA has fumbled this one at every turn.

(All this and we haven't even started discussing whether or not curatorially MOCA has a case here.)

Previously: Don't believe everything you hear, MOCA edition; Shop at the museum, see art at the store?

Posted August 9, 2007 2:32 PM

Tell A Friend