Results tagged “Museum of Fine Arts-Boston” from Real Clear Arts

In July, I traveled up to Boston, and then Marblehead, where I interviewed Rose-Marie and Eijk van Otterloo, and if their names don't ring a bell, they will soon. My article about them, just published in The Art Newspaper's September issue, calls them "The Most Important Collectors You've Never Heard Of." If and when it is published online, I'll update this post.  Meantime, here's a bit about the story:

In their charming tale, the van Otterloos began collecting by buying horse carriages to fill a barn they owned in Vermont. It was only at the suggestion of Peter Sutton, then a curator at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and now director of the Bruce Museum in Greenwich, CT, that they started to collect Dutch Old Masters. Now they own what many believe is the best collection of them in private hands -- excepting the Queen of England and the Prince of Lichtenstein, if you call their treasures private.

The van Otterloos own Rembrandt's 1632 Portrait of Aeltje Uylenburgh, Aged 62, seen here (but on loan to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston), and about 70 other master works. As the article reveals, most of them will go on view next year in an exhibition that starts at the Mauritshuis in the Hague, then moves to the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, MA. and two other American museums.

And in the article, the van Otterloos say definitively -- for the first time, a few sources told me -- that they will eventually put the collection into the public domain.

UPDATED: Here's a link to the article on my website.

It all sounds so simple: The Cleveland Museum of Art has petitioned the court for permission to use money generated by four funds within its $558 million endowment that are currently restricted to art purchases to complete its expansion plans. The museum wants to take $75 million over ten years to finish construction of its $350 million building by 2013, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. It quoted the museum's lawyer, Stephen J. Knerly Jr., and other officials as "expecting no controversy" over the request. They have previous experience:

The only precedent came in 1955, when the county probate court granted the museum permission to use income from art-purchase funds to build an expansion completed in 1958 (since demolished).

Why the request?

The museum needs access to the art funds because it's in a financial squeeze. So far, it has raised $212 million for construction. To finish by 2013, it needs another $138 million. The museum is confident it will raise the amount, but not by 2013, because the poor economy has slowed donations.

But, the article explains, if construction doesn't proceed on schedule, the whole effort will cost more. (You can read more details here.)

It's true, the Cleveland Museum is one of the nation's better-endowed art museums. But I still have worries.

Bloomberg published an article the other day about the pay afforded by some large museums, and although the reporter, Philip Boroff, was measured, the story obviously raises questions about whether such pay is appropriate. As it happens, Charity Navigator just released its own pay survey for non-profits, including arts groups, that put the Bloomberg piece in context.

To review, according to Bloomberg, Glenn Lowry, director of the Museum of Modern Art* (left, in 2005), took home the biggest pay-and-benefits packet last year: $1.32 million -- "down from $1.95 million the year before, as the museum cut costs amid the recession."

Elsewhere:

• Philippe de Montebello was paid $818,935, up 7 percent, in his last year running the Metropolitan Museum.*
• James Wood pocketed $1.1. million as CEO the J. Paul Getty Trust in the year through June 30, 2008.
• James Cuno received $626,175, as president of the Art Institute of Chicago.
• Malcolm Rogers was paid $719,621 to run the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.*

How does that stack up against other non-profits and other arts non-profits? 

When was the last time you went to the movies on a weekday between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.? How about a concert, a dance performance or a play? If you can't remember, I am not surprised. Most of us are working during those prime hours. We simply don't have the luxury of taking time off from work to go to a matinee. 

So why is it that 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. (or, worse, 4 p.m.) are the most common hours for art museums to be open?

To save money, many museums are trimming back hours -- incredibly, some are cutting out evening hours. The Cincinnati Art Museum (left), for example, recently announced that it would no longer be open on Wednesday nights and said the decision was taken "to maintain the highest possible levels of service in programming and exhibitions."

Sorry, but I can't fathom decisions like that, which seem to me to be more for the convenience of staff than for the convenience of visitors. Traffic patterns at museums probably vary from city to city but, except for school groups, I'd bet that most museums see the bulk of their visitors on weekends and in the evening, if they are open. The Brooklyn Museum recently disclosed numbers showing that nearly 20% of its visitors come to the museum on just 11 nights of the year -- its Target First Saturdays, when the museum remains open until 11 p.m.

Cutting back on evening hours seems clueless, and self-defeating.

A few museums do seem to get this basic fact. When Seattle Art Museum recently cut hours, it announced that it will be closed on Tuesdays, beginning the week of Sept. 7 -- but according to its website, SAM remains open on Thursday and Friday nights until 9 p.m.

Who else is on this honor roll?  

Titian, Tintoretto, Veronese: Rivals in Renaissance Venice has been on view at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,* since mid-March, and reviewed with high praise elsewhere. But I was able to go to Boston to see it for myself just this week, so I'll simply concur with any and all of that praise. It's a lush, revealing exhibit, not to be missed if you can get to the MFA before Aug. 16, when the show closes and moves to the Louvre.

As Holland Cotter said in his review, the exhibition consist of "56 grand to celestial paintings -- no filler here, not an ounce of fat." But as he also wrote:

You can pretty much kiss goodbye, at least for now, the prospect of more exhibitions like "Titian, Tintoretto, Veronese: Rivals in Renaissance Venice."...Transatlantic loans of the kind that make this show the breathtaker it is are a big drain on strapped museum budgets. Boston was lucky to partner with the Louvre on this project, but such masterpiece gatherings are likely to be rare in years to come.

I hadn't read Holland's review until after I saw the exhibit. Nonetheless, while I walked around it, studying the pictures, I couldn't help but think that, if exhibits do have to contract, Titian, Tintoretto, Venonese also proves a model for the future. (Perhaps I was still thinking about the coming one-woman La Velata exhibit, which I wrote about here over the weekend.)

Within Titian, Tintoretto, Veronese, there are several smaller, less grand but no less satisfying exhibits -- two in particular are spectacular.