Nevermind Mitt and Rudy, how about Michael Govan?

As LAO's Kevin Roderick put it, "LACMA director even talks to some local rag."

After oddly choosing not to talk to the LA Times when news of the Broads' collection decision broke -- he talked to the paper the day after the NYT story, but not in time for the paper's arts section's deadline -- Govan's thoughts on the Broads-related developments were in a Christopher Reynolds story in yesterday's LAT. And they're bizarr-o.

"Eli has never changed his story with LACMA," Govan told the paper. Well, except he has: In 2004 Broad told the LAT that he wouldn't be building BCAM if he didn't intend to donate part of his collection.

Then: "I do imagine that many of these works will live at LACMA," said Govan. "Will they be owned by LACMA? I'm not sure it matters."

Really? Isn't collecting exactly what museums exist to do? Quick refresher course: Museums collect important cultural objects, conserve them, provide the public with access to them, and enable scholarship around them. I mean, if it doesn't matter if LACMA owns anything, why doesn't the museum turn its acquisition monies into the Free Chocolate Sundaes for Schoolkids fund, and just show borrowed works in perpetuity?

Furthermore, if there's one art museum director in America that should know how much it matters that a museum own the art on its walls instead of someone else, it's Govan: When he was the director of Dia, the Judd Foundation sold work off the walls of Dia: Beacon. (Yes, I know that in this specific case that the Broads have committed to not selling TBAF art.)

I understand that Govan is spinning furiously. He's got Mitt-mentum.

Related: I loved LACMA president Melody Kanschat's article-ending confession: That BCAM is just like LACMA's other buildings, "except it's newer and it doesn't leak."