MOCA Update: Where are we now? What next?

Nearly a week ago, Eli Broad dropped a $30 million bombshell on MOCA. So far, MOCA has not publicly responded, no trustee has made a public pledge of dollars, and, remarkably, MOCA's director failed to show up for what was effectively a 'save MOCA' (and his own job) rally at his own museum.

(Heck, MAN's DonorsChoose.org arts education-in-public-schools challenge has raised more money from more donors this week than MOCA's board has... And you can help show 'em up by clicking on that link and supporting America's arts educators!)

Instead it has been a week of fundraising stasis. In a situation such as this stasis leads to terminus. It's time for some game-changers. Here are two suggestions.

First, MOCA director Jeremy Strick (above) should announce to his board that he has decided to pursue the vacant Hirshhorn directorship. The MOCA angle: It is unlikely that if MOCA survives, that Strick will survive as its director. Nearly every involved figure with whom I've spoken in the last two weeks speaks of MOCA's eventual "new leadership." (Obviously: The museum's fundraising has been non-existent, it has spent far beyond its means, strategic planning has been nil, the museum's permanent collection is not on permanent display, and, well, look at the mess they're in.) If MOCA survives -- and that's still very much up in the air -- I can't imagine a scenario under which Strick sees the end of his contract. If Strick makes it clear to his board that saving MOCA is different than saving Strick (or that Strick has a landing spot), then I think the 'save MOCA' cause is furthered. His potential departure removes an obstacle to giving. (Also true: It's not as if MOCA's trustees or large Los Angeles institutions are rallying around Strick's leadership.)

From the DC side of the equation: Would Strick make sense for the Hirshhorn? Yes. The Hirshhorn has been effectively without a director for 442 days. (And how's that search coming? As recently as last week staff was still being asked for candidate recommendations.) The Hirshhorn search has turned into a very public institutional embarrassment. [Photo]

Strick would be a strong candidate. Over the last year or so, numerous Hirsh donors and potential Hirsh donors have told me that they're disappointed with the condition of the institution: It isn't scholarly enough. The museum's public programs have oft been uninteresting and even inappropriate. The Hirshhorn needs professional upgrades in almost every department. Meanwhile, at MOCA, Strick ran the most important, impressive, scholarly contemporary art museum in America. He'd be the right guy to upgrade the Hirshhorn's programming. He has a long-standing relationship with ex-MOCA curator and current Hirshhorn chief curator (and acting director) Kerry Brougher. The transition to new leadership would likely be smooth.

But what about Strick's apparent ineffectiveness as a fundraiser? Wouldn't they be a problem for the Hirsh? Well, yes and no. The Hirsh's federal appropriation covers most museum costs. With the Smithsonian Institution in the quiet phase of a ~$1 billion fundraising campaign, it's not clear that individual Smithsonian museum directors are going to be able to raise much money in the next few years anyway. The Hirshhorn is also in a chicken-and-the-egg situation: It won't be able to successfully raise money until it upgrades its programming. I say start with the programming.

Finally, why would the Hirshhorn trustees hire a candidate whose current museum is approaching failure? A key endorsement would help. Eli Broad is a Smithsonian regent. Broad could quietly vouch for Strick to the Hirshhorn trustees, perhaps even with some cash attached. (The Hirshhorn director's salary and related package has not been competitive with other 'top' jobs. Broad could help with that, and by so doing express confidence in Strick.)

Second, it's time for the MOCA trustees who want to save the institution to stop being so deferential to the trustees who want to kill it. MOCA trustees who are willing to put money on the table should make their pledges public. They should do it in a way that excites the institution's supporters in a way that could translate enthusiasm into an increase in memberships. (And in a way that might put peer pressure on the lagging trustees...) So instead of leaking word of, say, $1 million or $2 million pledges to the usual place, the LA Times, a few trustees should jointly 'announce' their pledges on the 2,200-strong 'save MOCA' Facebook group. (At least one trustee is a member of the group: Beth Swofford.) What could be more 'contemporary?' And of course the LAT (and MAN) will pick up the story anyway. Here's the link, trustees...