• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
    • Real Clear Arts
    • Judith H. Dobrzynski
    • Contact
  • ArtsJournal
  • AJBlogs

Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Museum Funding-Fundraising

The Fisher Folly: SFMoMA’s Bad Deal

We’ve never known exactly the details of the deal that the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art made in 2009 with the Fisher family to get its collection (better described, actually, as access to the family’s collection–at first for 25 years and later changed to 100 years). And we still don’t. But an article by Charles Desmarais in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, Unraveling SFMoMA’s Deal for the Fisher Collection, bares more about it than I’ve ever seen before. What he reports is troubling, very troubling.

FisherCollection-SFMoMAI urge you to read it. But because it is behind a paywall–and you may not have access to it–let me post some key elements here, counting down to the worst part, in my opinion:

  • A grouping of Fisher collection works must hang together in the galleries once every 10 years.
  • The museum’s partnership is with an entity called the Fisher Art Foundation, but Doris Fisher actually owns most of the works. Like any lender, she can recall a work on loan to the museum any time she wants. Only those owned by the Foundation can’t have “private use.”
  • Of about 1,100 works in the Fisher collection, about 260 are on loan now to the museum—and only five of them are owned by Doris Fisher. But how many others in the whole collection does she own? We don’t know.
  • The Doris and Donald Fisher Collection Galleries—occupying the museum’s fourth, fifth and sixth floors–are required to contain primarily Fisher works at all times. No more than 25 percent of what is on view may come from other lenders or donors.

The final bullet point is critical. As Desmarais wrote:

It means that something like 60 percent of SFMOMA’s indoor galleries (not counting free-admission areas that serve as combination lobby and exhibition spaces) must always adhere — or, at least, respond — to a narrative of art history constructed by just two astute but obdurately private collectors…

[Thus] for the next 100 years, [museum curators’] job will be limited in those galleries to a kind of scholarly embroidery, filling in around the edges of a predetermined scenario with works by other artists, such as women, artists of color or California artists.

Devoting that much space, 60 percent, to the Fisher collection is way too large a proportion of the museum. The Lehman wing at the Metropolitan Museum* is most analogous; the collection must stay together as it was at the time of the gift. But, while I don’t know what proportion of the Met’s total space the wing occupies, but it must be paltry by comparison with the Fisher deal–and yet it was controversial.

And at SFMoMA, the provision lasts for 100 years, no less–which creates another problem. The Lehman collection was older art; it had weathered centuries of exposure and criticism and emerged as museum-worthy. The Fisher Collection is contemporary art: who knows how it will be viewed in 100 years? Take a look at the list of artists written about by Vasari. Where are some now? And whom did he leave out?

Desmarais didn’t mention the financial part of the deal in his story, but at the Met, the Robert Lehman Foundation provides a substantial annual payment to help defray the cost of the wing.

I understand the pressure that SFMoMA director Neal Benezra must have been under to cut a deal with the Fishers. But it seems to me that he and the museum’s board were out-negotiated. I–and, I think, others–will have to look at the museum differently, knowing these details. I hope other museums do not emulate Benezra and the museum’s trustees.

I commend Charles, a friend, on his digging. We need more of it.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of SF MoMA

 

Met Layoffs: “Nobody is Ruled Out”

My Friday post about staff shrinkage, from buyouts, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art* set off quite a stir: Emergency meetings were held inside the museum to discuss what was going on and the press office ramped up to get information and interview opportunities to various news outlets with Daniel Weiss (pictured), the Met’s president, and Thomas P. Campbell, the director. In that order, which itself says something.

Weiss-MetThe upshot, as I predicted, is that not enough people took voluntary buyouts to achieve the necessary cost savings and that therefore there will be involuntary layoffs, starting in the fall. And who would that entail? Weiss gave The Wall Street Journal the most interesting statement: “Nobody is ruled out.”

That is a good thing, probably. Buyouts were available only to those aged 55 and over who had at least 15 years of experience at the museum. Some 56 people signed up, and with them goes a lot of expertise and institutional memory. Some departments, notably technology, apparently escaped unscathed because they have few to no people with 15 years of experience, and these departments will have to slim down, too. The Met is seeking to trim at least 100 people, all told, from its payroll (though some will clearly have to be replaced).

The “nobody” quote, however, raises questions. I presume, for now, that the Met will not fire Campbell (trust me, for a bit). Certainly not as part of the layoffs.

But my sources have frequently mentioned that Sheena Wagstaff, whom Campbell hired in 2012 as chair of the department of modern and contemporary art, is vulnerable. For one, few people consider the Breuer building to be a rousing success. Many have noted that attendance is often mimimal–sometimes the galleries are nearly empty–though the museum told The New York Times  that attendance (185,000 in the first four months) had exceeded its target (155,000).

(That, btw, would make an annual target of just 465,000 people–which is smack in the middle of the Whitney’s experience there. In the late ’90s, the Whitney attracted 650,000 to 670,000 visitors a year, but by the time it announced its move downtown, that had slipped (in 2009) to 322,000.)

The new Diane Arbus show may change that, but it’s a photography show–different department from Wagstaff’s. Maybe the Kerry James Marshall exhibition, which opens in October, will help. Interestingly, the Met in early July changed the Breuer building hours, adding Saturday, and forgoing Thursday, as one of the two nights it is open until 9 p.m., along with Friday–just like the Fifth Avenue building.

But back to Wagstaff: if people are unhappy with her leadership–and they are–she, I’m told, isn’t a happy camper at the Met either. Her husband still lives in London and a A daughter who wanted to live here, near her, could not extend her necessary work permit. UPDATE: Wagstaff’s husband, Mark Francis, now informs me that he lives in New York now. My apologies for using old information.

I’m sure Wagstaff is well paid, but she is not listed on the Met’s tax return as among the highest paid employees either.

On that list for the year ended June 30, 2015, ten of the 20 have already departed or are in the current buyout class. (I am excluding Campbell and Emily Rafferty, Weiss’s predecessor, from the number: They would bring the total to 22–but the percentage gone is the same, as Rafferty left last year, too.)

Let’s keep some perspective, here: 100 cuts from a 2,300-strong workforce is not devastating, in and of itself. It all depends on which people are going.

It was worrisome, though, that Campbell said exhibitions would be cut to 40 per year from 55 to reduce costs. That’s more than a quarter.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of GW Magazine

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met.

More Major Met Museum Departures–And More Woes

The exodus, and the troubles, continue at 1000 Fifth Avenue: announcement of the departure of Carrie Rebora Barratt (below), a deputy director of the Metropolitan Museum* and longtime close associate of director Tom Campbell, is imminent, I hear. In 2009, Campbell called her “the Director’s right hand.” It will probably come on Monday, my sources tell me–or leaked on Sunday night.

Carrie BarrattBarrett’s exit won’t be the only one, of course. In April, the museum announced that, as part of a cost-reduction plan, it would offer voluntary buyouts to staff member aged 55 and older with a certain amount of service. The deadline for applying–and hearing back–was this week.

I understand that 50 to 60 people are taking the offers, including many curators. Some feel that they were pushed to take the offers, as the museum’s president (for one), Daniel H. Weiss, has said that layoffs would likely be necessary if not enough people take the current offer. That is standard corporate behavior: take the buyout and get a financial reward or risk not taking it and getting fired with no financial package.

So who, among the curators, is leaving?  Naturally, I could not get official confirmation for any of this. But among the names I hear are Timothy Husband, Peter Barnet, Charles Little (all in the medieval department) and Kenneth Moore (head of the musical instruments department). I also hear that some people in object conservation and, possibly, public relations are going, perhaps Elyse Topalian, the vice president of communications.

Also, probably, Donna Williams, in multicultural audience development, and Linda Sylling, manager for special exhibitions, gallery installations and design.

Remember these are rumors, but these are big losses.

But the most “meaningful,” in one way, is Barrett’s departure. Campbell plucked her from the curatorial ranks in 2009, elevating her to the position of Associate Director for Collections and Administration. It was always a controversial promotion, but Campbell promoted her again in 2014 to Deputy Director for Collections and Administration, when he called her an “essential manager and spokesperson whose expertise lies in the areas of digital media, the collections, and the long-term feasibility of the institution.” She started at the museum in 1984.

You can bet that he did not want her to go. That means that Weiss is in control here, not the CEO. We’ve known that, but this confirms it.

The big question: did enough people volunteer? I understand that there was no “target” number, but also that no one who applied for the buyout was turned down.

But the Met is trying to save on the order of $20 million in expenses annually. This doesn’t seem to do that. How else can the museum save? Have fewer and longer exhibitions is one ploy. Skimp on design, delay maintenance, postpone as many expenses as possible. We’ll see if those things start to happen, too.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum 

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met.

Museum Admissions: Better Than Free

Over the years, so many people have advocated for free admissions to art museums that one cannot keep track. I have almost always disagreed, with an  exception possibly being federally supported museums like the National Gallery of Art. Somebody has to pay, after all, and the same advocates of free admission often oppose donors who want their names on galleries and buildings, corporate support, retail stores at the end of exhibitions and so on.

View-of-the-Yosemite-ValleyAdmissions bring in only a small part of museum revenue, most of the time, but it can be a critical support.

But I also believe in wide access to museums, and that is why I like what the Milwaukee Art Museum announced the other day. Starting May 15, it will offer a “Family Access membership” costing a mere $20 a year for “families who qualify for specific forms of public assistance.” According to the announcement:

Typically $85 for a family membership, the new Family Access level grants two adult admissions plus children 17-years-and-under for one year for $20. The membership also includes other benefits such as a 10% Museum Store and Café Calatrava discount, reduced parking rates, a yearly subscription to the Member Magazine and more. Families are eligible with proof of public assistance from WIC, FoodShare and BadgerCare.

A grant from Nordstrom is paying for part of the program, though the museum did not say how much of it.

Smartly, the museum is actively launch it:

The Museum will host a Family Access Membership kick-off during the Kohl’s Art Generation Family Sundays event May 15, 10 a.m.–4 p.m. Family Sundays is the perfect time for families to visit the Museum, and includes hands-on art activities, interactive performances, family tours and more. Staff will be on hand that day to help register qualifying participants for the new membership. Community partner groups have been invited to participate in the celebration.

Why is this better than free? Research has demonstrated that people value what they have to pay for; they also use what they pay for more often. $20 for so much benefit is not a stretch. I understand that people are poor, but even poor people reserve funds for leisure time.

Right now, one of the special exhibitions these family members could see is Nature and the American Vision: The Hudson River School, which includes Thomas Hill’s View of the Yosemite Valley, shown above. What a great match–showing the country’s beauty.

The announcement said that this family membership program is “based on a number of successful national models,” but I know of no others. If you do, please leave a comment below. I’d like to learn how such programs are doing.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the New-York Historical Society via the Milwaukee Art Museum

Trading Places: The Met Museum and–Not MoMA

The news late last week twinned the Metropolitan Museum of Art* and the Museum of Modern Art,* making them a study in contrasts: The Met had just announced programming cutbacks, buyouts and other financial woes, while MoMA was basking in the glow of a $100 million donation from David Geffen.

MetGreatHallBut I’ve been thinking for a while about a more apt pairing: Have the Met and the Whitney Museum* traded places?

There was a time not so long ago, you’ll recall, when the Whitney was the enfant terrible of the New York City museum world. It could barely do anything right. Its biennials were almost uniformly blasted by the critics (for a reminder of the infamous 1993 version, see last week’s New York magazine), and so were many of its other exhibitions (“too trendy” or “too P.C.”). The board was unruly, and directors inevitably turned over after a clash about something (Tom Armstrong, David Ross, Max Anderson…).

Whitney curators and other staff were frequently unhappy. Attendance dropped. Opening hours shrank. Leonard Lauder, the Whitney’s biggest financial backer, failed to receive the respect he should have had, as the new wanted to sweep out the old and move downtown. And other things like that. In 1999, The New York Times Magazine published an article headlined The Curse of the Whitney—and that curse seemed to live on and on.

And now? The Whitney has just come off a highly successful first year in a new building that, while not the most beautiful on the outside, has been wonderful for showing art. The inaugural exhibit featuring its permanent collection, America is Hard to See, was highly praised, and so have the museum’s other exhibitions this year, for Frank Stella and Archibald Motley, among them. People have been lining up to get in. I’ve even heard good things about the restaurant! Next Saturday, to celebrate, the Whitney will be free to residents of its four neighboring zip codes and other celebratory events. Curators there seem happy, even though director Adam Weinberg has made changes that might have created turmoil.

Meanwhile, uptown, it seems that the curse has passed to the Met. Its exhibitions have, for the most part, been up to snuff–or better–with the exception of the Unfinished and other exhibits at the Met Breuer. Insiders tell me that curatorial morale is at an all-time low (and perhaps no wonder, after director Tom Campbell publicly told them to stop whining). After emptying out the Asian galleries last year for the costume institute exhibition, this year the Met will empty out much of the Lehman wing for the soon-to-open costume show on technology and fashion (some Lehman paintings have been hung elsewhere in the museum; others are in storage). While most curatorial departments have shrunk (except for Modern and Contemporary, which expanded), the technology/digital staff has shot up to about 80 people, I’m told.

WhitneyAs for the costly new logo and branding efforts, well, you’ve heard how much it’s disliked by many. Yes, the Met has managed to, well, manage its image with some publications (and also here), but the jig may be up.

Last week, the Met said it went public with its cutbacks to be transparent, but was it? And are the troubles really a result of the times and the Met’s “need” to compete in the contemporary art arena, or are they a reflection of poor management decisions? Among the questions that come to my mind

  • What is the total cost of the Breuer building to the Met, lease plus renovation expenses plus operating costs?
  • How much did the logo/rebranding cost? The number I’ve heard from several good sources is $3 million, but the Met has denied that.
  • What is the cost of that technology department? Will it, too, be cut back?
  • If admissions are down, how much of the decline can be attributed to the free admission given to holders of the new New York City ID cards, a pet project of the de Blasio administration?
  • Retail revenue is supposedly down–but what about retail profits (which I’m told are non-existent, though that is not unusual in the museum world)?
  • Will the Met finally close, as is rumored, its high-rent Rockefeller Center store?
  • In the cutbacks, what will happen to acquisitions?
  • Can we be assured that the endowment principal will not be invaded or become a source of borrowed money?

I could go on…

*I consult to a foundation that supports these institutions

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

About Judith H. Dobrzynski

Now an independent journalist, I've worked as a reporter in the culture and business sections of The New York Times, and been the editor of the Sunday business section and deputy business editor there as well as a senior editor of Business Week and the managing editor of CNBC, the cable TV

About Real Clear Arts

This blog is about culture in America as seen through my lens, which is informed and colored by years of reporting not only on the arts and humanities, but also on business, philanthropy, science, government and other subjects. I may break news, but more likely I will comment, provide

Archives