Archives for December 2011

Tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal carries my review of the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, Alice Walton’s excellent adventure in building a world-class collection in less than a decade. It’s online now.

Unlike many others in the art world, I have always believed that Walton was doing a good thing, bringing art to an area that sorely lacked the real thing. I have never understood the logic of those who complained about her efforts, as if non-city-dwellers should be content to travel to see art, and then, at the same time, argued for bigger government budgets for art, namely at the National Endowment for the Arts. Don’t they see the connection between knowledge of real art and support for more? I have no problem with the fact that she bought Kindred Spirits from the New York Public Library.

But that doesn’t mean I gave Crystal Bridges a positive review. It’s good, but not great — at least not yet. For a start, the building has major flaws. I mention a few (the review is less than 1100 words), starting with an awkward entrance. Visitors are met by a graceful semicircular curve inscribed with the museum’s name, only to find that they must walk past this faux entrance, around the corner to an elevator that descends to the lobby. Yes, the museum is lodged in a ravine, but surely a more elegant entryway could have been found. How about escalators, which can be beautiful?

Once you’re inside the galleries, the flow is mostly good — except you can’t get out without retracing your steps or rushing to the finish. Thoughtfully, the building does provide rest areas, filled with art books and seats, and opportunities to go outside. But those grace notes lengthen the time of a visitor’s stay — nothing wrong with that, except for those with limited time.

The “mostly” qualifier above was necessary because of the so-called 20th Century area, which has, as I wrote, side galleries that function as “tributaries off the main rivers of art history.” These are easily missed. The gallery suites for earlier art also have side galleries, but either their location, the lighting, or the hangings somehow lead visitors to them.

On to the collection: Walton has delivered, as I wrote, “great moments” in some galleries (a beautiful Arthur Dove, above, is a promised gift from Walton), and strange ones in others. Despite all the commentary that she was driving art prices through the roof, she didn’t pay out in several areas when the opportunities arose. Here’s one paragraph:

Critics will go through Crystal Bridges looking for gaps, and there are many: J.A.M. Whistler and Edward Hopper are among those represented by token works, for example. There’s no late Winslow Homer, no Willem de Kooning, no combine by Rauschenberg. Ms. Walton passed on recent opportunities to purchase excellent Rothkos, Warhols and Clyfford Stills, to name just three.

But, as I add, Crystal Bridges is still in the making. It will grow and change. Meantime, it’s a darn good start.

More on what else CB does right another time, soon.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Crystal Bridges Museum

The antiquities crowd was abuzz this weekend about the top lot at Sotheby’s Thursday night sale: a marble depiction of Leda and the Swan, circa 2nd century Rome, fetched $19.1 million. The presale estimate was $2- to $3 million. (Pictured at left)

Sotheby’s said four bidders competed furiously for the piece, which came from Aske Hall (below), a Georgian estate in North Yorkshire, England. It was listed as the property of the 3rd Marquess of Zetland Will Trust, and was recently “rediscovered” there — though it had been the property of Zetland since 1789, the year George Washington was inaurgurated as President.

Hence, no running afoul of the current strictures on antiquities collecting, which puts a pox on anything whose provenance was unknown before 1970.

Yet the piece was unknown to scholars; Sotheby’s says it appears in none of the major surveys of ancient marble sculpture in English country houses, nor anything else. And though the subject figures in several other ancient marbles, this one appears to be in the best condition. See the Sotheby’s catalogue entry, here, for more information.

Sotheby’s listed the buyer as “anonymous,” but speculation among antiquities curators and collectors suggests that the piece will stay in Europe.

Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Museum of Art* purchased the second most expensive lot: it paid nearly $3.6 million for a marble head of Zeus, circa 120-160 A.D., estimated at $800,000 to $1.2 million. It, too, had an uncontroversial provenance. Sotheby’s says it was on the market in Rome in 1931, was received as a gift by the Art League of Daytona in 1954,and ended up in the collection of Dodie Rosenkrans, who lent it to the Met, from March 2007 to April 2008.

Quite a nice addition to the collection, no?

Whether the Leda will soon be shown in a public collection remains to be seen — it probably wasn’t purchased by one, but a couple of sources suggest that the buyer has close ties to more than one museum in Europe.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of Sotheby’s, top and bottom

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met

Many exhibitions seem too big, sometimes exhaustive — not as bad as a dry academic biography, which records all the facts but leaves out the life, but in need of editing that shows an artist at his or her best. For example, the J.M.W. Turner exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum in 2008 was exhausting and overstuffed with too-similar works. (And I am not the only one who felt that way.)

I have read of one — granted, I’ve not seen it — that seems to have the opposite problem. Images of the Artist, at the Getty Museum, contains only 41 works, and yet it has four sections that seem enlightening (and acessible).

Yes, the first section consists of self-portraits — that’s the part you’d expect, given the title. But from there the curators go to The Artist’s Life and Space, Allegories of the Artist, and Traces of the Artist. (That’s Goya’s Pygmalion and Galatea at left.) These are themes that illuminate art and artists in a human way.

The trouble is, you can’t really develop these themes with such few works. Especially when, the Getty says, the works span 500 years. Further, 35 of the 41 come from the Getty’s permanent collection. Only six are on loan.

So the good theme seems, from afar, a bit wasted.

It’s a good guess that the show was circumscribed by costs, in these difficult economic times, and driven by the need to use the permanent collection in new ways. But you have to wonder what this exhibit could have been, fully-formed.

Read more about the show here.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of the Getty Museum

Today The New York Times rendered its version of the controversy wracking the Miami art world: Should the Miami Art Museum renamed itself the Jorge M. Perez Art Museum, in recognition of his contributions to the capital campaign and donations of art?

The article follows several in the Miami Herald — see here and here.

But essentially, the articles all say the same thing — Perez (left) is giving a total of $35 million, if he gets the naming rights. The board approved, in a 30 to 4 vote, and the deal is set. But others, including some trustees who resigned, disagree with the naming. They call it inappropriate, saying that it sends the wrong signal “as to what the museum is all about.” Some may reneg on promised gifts.

I side with the dissidents, for several reasons, beginning with proportionality. The new museum is said to cost about $220 million — Perez is giving $20 million total, in cash, including a past pledge of $5 million. The rest is art. That is less than 10% of the capital cost — not enough for the whole building. A wing, yes.

Second, the naming is in perpetuity, Bad decision. As the Times pointed out, enlightened donors are realizing that non-profits must continue to raise money in perpetuity. They need to recycle naming rights. Fifty years should be the limit in most situations, especially one like this where Perez has not given that much.

Third, a question: is Perez liked in the donor community? If not, the Miami Art Museum should prepare to be turned down by donors who think he bought the museum, or held it up.

Fourth, does the museum and its board realize that they have slapped a ceiling on future giving? if naming rights for the whole museum cost $35 million, by generous count, what can they offer someone who comes along in three years, say, and has the capacity to give more?

We’ve seen this play out in New York in recent years. A few years ago, the New York Public Library received a $100 million donation from Stephen A. Schwarzman, chairman of Blackstone Group. The NYPL engraved his name FIVE times on its historic Fifth Avenue building, which was renamed for him. Trouble is, Schwarzman has manifested a devil-may-care streak for conspicuous spending and earned a lot of enemies along the way. Some people have stopped, or cut back, their giving to the NYPL as a result: they find the excess engravings to be tasteless.

And there’s that ceiling. Sure $100 million sounds like a lot of money; but the NYPL is a big organization, a top-notch place that earns donors much standing even in tough New York.

No one is going to give more than $100 million to it, because the NYPL has little in its arsenal of rewards for that now.

Too bad the Miami Art Museum didn’t think this all through before negotiating with Perez.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of The New York Times