Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Museum Funding-Fundraising

Corcoran Catch-Up: Lesser Of Two Evils Or A Third Choice?

Last week, the group called Save the Corcoran (a museum which as you’ll all remember is suffering from poor leadership, lack of ideas and perhaps lack of convictions) emailed me their endorsement of a man named Wayne Reynolds to become the Corcoran’s new board chair. Now that I’ve had time to see what this would mean, I wonder if they have read the fine print.

The ReynoldsReynolds, the husband of Catherine Reynolds (both are shown at right), who some years back got rich on student lending and attempted to give millions of dollars to the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of American History. There was a kerfuffle about her wanting to influence the content of the Hall of Famous Americans and whether it could be named, etc. and I think the donation was retracted. That may be immaterial, but it might say something about the Reynolds brand of philanthropy.

Her husband recently stepped down as chair of Ford’s Theater, where he helped raise $54 million in a capital campaign and became a local hero. Now he is making an activist bid to chair the Corcoran board. As Save the Corcoran’s release said:

Wayne Reynolds has a vision for a future Corcoran. His track record at Ford’s Theatre and other endeavors indicates that he can take on a struggling institution and create something thriving,” said Jayme McLellan, former adjunct faculty at theCorcoran and a founding member of Save the Corcoran. “He believes in theCorcoran and has a desperately-needed vision to transform it into an innovative creative center dedicated to art and arts education.”

Yes, but what is the vision?

According to a March 5 article in the Washington Post, Reynolds

proposes what he calls the Corcoran Center for Creativity. He would expand the Corcoran College of Art and Design, adding a stronger focus on technology and new media, along with the traditional arts disciplines. He would de-emphasize the gallery, arguing that it can’t compete with the free, federally funded galleries in town.

Most controversially, he proposes selling hundreds of millions of dollars worth of art that rarely, if ever, gets displayed and is not central to founder William Corcoran’s original charge in 1869 for the institution to encourage “American genius.” The money would establish a huge endowment for the first time in the Corcoran’s history.

What? Save the Corcoran opposed the current regime for trying to sell the building, but endorses a new guy who wants to sell the collection? That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Reynolds has financial clout, and other people are backing him. The Post even endorsed him in an editorial. It began:

THOUGH UNORTHODOX, the unabashedly public bid by Wayne Reynolds to take over leadership of the troubled Corcoran Gallery of Art cannot and should not be dismissed. The philanthropist has credentials and resources in getting struggling institutions to thrive — as evidenced by his work in turning around Ford’s Theatre. More importantly, he has articulated a much-needed vision for the Corcoran that would bring it into the 21st century while still staying true to the 19th-century charge of its founder.

But the Corcoran’s current board is balking, no doubt put off by his charges that “It’s shameful what’s happened there.” Trustees are on their own track and don’t want interference — or some newcomer coming in with a broom to sweep clean.

Maybe if they would hurry up and decide what they’re going to do, and start raising some money, they can prevent Reynolds from taking over. If not, not.

I’m not sure which is the lesser of two evils. I’d like a third choice.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Washington Post

Indianapolis Retrenches — Deep Cuts

VEnableAs predicted here last week, mostly by my commenters, the Indianapolis Museum of Art announced deep personnel cuts today. According to the press release, this “strategic restructuring” involved “an 11% reduction in personnel” at the museum:

…Eight open positions will not be filled, while 19 full-time positions and two part-time positions were eliminated across all departments of the Museum.

Among those losing their jobs, I understand, are a registrar, an art handler with a 30-year tenure, the chief photographer who’s been there 20 years, one curatorial assistant, and — soon — members of the conservation staff. Savings, once severance is digested, an estimated $1.7 million a year.

The museum also said that it will henceforth place “a greater emphasis on donated and earned revenue” and less on the endowment. In recent years, the museum has depended on it endowment to fund more than 70% of its operating budget.

I agree, 70% from endowment is too much. The museum’s director, Charles Venable says it should not top 50%. That’s not a bad goal. (For more discussion of what’s optimal, see this post on the Peabody Essex Museum.)

The question is always how the museum increases earned income. Mounting “popular” exhibitions purely to draw big crowds rarely works. It cannot be sustained, the museum tends to lose some core visitors, and costs mount to do the big shows.

That’s my early thinking on this.

UPDATE: I’ve reread the press release carefully, and in it, Venable announces a shift in focus to more audience-centered thinking about programming and including two minor moves: the relocation of “the welcome desk to the Efroymson Family Entrance Pavilion and a shift in training for the Gallery Guards to become Gallery Guides are meant to create a more welcoming atmosphere.”  Basically, he is saying “stay tuned.” The museum is using audience research to tell it what to do. I predict rough days ahead. Audiences are fickle. It’s best to pay some attention, perhaps, but to do what you (the expert) know is right.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Indianapolis Star 

Tacoma Goofed. What’s The Deaccessioning Lesson?

We all make mistakes. The Tacoma Art Museum, I believe, just made a big one — and since it’s about deaccessioning, it’s worth some examination.

iLbG3.St.5As chronicled in the Tacoma News-Tribune, the art sales in question began because a few years back the Tacoma museum decided to refocus on Northwest art. In its collection was a cache of Qing dynasty robes, scroll paintings and silk purses, and 41 pieces of jade jewelry.  The collection, described as “richly embroidered…silk jackets, robes and skirts” and “jade items varied from shades of green to white and yellow, many exquisitely carved” had been exhibited at the museum a couple of times and the jade had once been on permanent display. The items had been donated by a Chinese-American couple, named Young, in 1976, and they were supposedly valued recently at about $70,000. 

But when a third of the trove was sold recently at Bonham’s, bringing $230,000, museum officials were ecstatic, but eyebrows went up elsewhere.

The descendants of the Youngs had been notified before the sale, and they apparently agreed to it (the museum had sold some of the jade  in the 1990s without consulting the family). The money from this sale was to be used to buy works by Northwest Chinese -American artists.

But the family had been told the items were in poor condition plus, they learned after the sale, the museum’s website had once labeled them as not-of-museum-quality. If so, why the high prices? Other discrepancies, such as an incomplete inventory and exaggerated talk of trying to place the items with other museum, contributed to the mess. They led to charges by the Youngs of cultural disrespect and lack of appreciation for the Chinese presence in the northwest since the 1800s. A group is now trying to halt the sale of the rest of the Young collection, which is set for March 12.

121RMZ.St.5That’s an incomplete summary of a long article that you can read here.

What should the Tacoma museum have done? For one, it’s unclear to me whether or not the Young collection fits the new mission, which neither defines Northwest art nor limits it to a certain period. Here’s what it says:

Tacoma Art Museum serves the diverse communities of the Northwest through its collection, exhibitions, and learning programs, emphasizing art and artists from the Northwest. Our vision is to be a national model for regional museums by creating a dynamic museum that engages, inspires, and builds community through art.

True, the art involved was not made in the Northwest, but “emphasizing”  does not exclude art made elsewhere, especially if it “serves the diverse communities.”
 
Second, it does sound — if the Youngs are to be believed, and they are not contradicted by the museum on several points — as if the descendents were not given full information before they acquiesed to the sale. That’s always a bad policy — the coverup is usually worse than the crime.
 
Third, when a museum changes its mission — and one hopes that is not too often — I do believe it is incumbent upon the museum to place the collections that no longer fit at other public institutions — even if the only possible arrangement is a long-term loan. That was not done in this case.
 
The museum says it will lose money if it stops the sale; it should have thought about that before consigning.
 
Photo Credits: Courtesy of Bonham’s, via the Tacoma News-Tribune
 
 

The Tate’s Tanks: Three Steps Forward, Two Back

I was all set to compliment the Tate for creating a new space on YouTube called The Performance Room. It is meant to show performances designed specifically for online viewing, all commissioned, and “the first artistic programme created purely for live web broadcast.” (I’m not sure about that, but that is what the Tate claims.)

Joan Joanas (below) will be starting things off on Feb. 28:

Referencing previous works such as Vertical Roll 1972, in which she performed directly to the camera in her studio, and drawing on mythology, Jonas will create a live tableau using sculptural props, costumes, masks, music, her voice and her students.

joan_jonas_mirror_performanceThat Tate channel has nearly 13,000 subscribers and has had more than 3.2 million viewers for its other videos, which include the Tate’s performances in The Tanks. On Feb. 3, that meant a live, unscripted performance conceived by artist Suzanne Lacy, Silver Action. 

UK-based women who took part in significant activist movements and protests from the 1950s to 80s will share their personal stories in a series of workshops, culminating in a day-long public performance on 3 February. Visitors to The Tanks will hear diverse groups of women engaged in discussion about their experiences and the impact and results of their actions as they walk among them. Live documentation – film, social media and text – will also be projected in real time onto the walls of The Tanks.

You can read more about that here. I saw a video of a previous work by her in the Tanks last fall, and I quite liked it.

But while I was on the subject of the Tanks, I learned that the Tate did it again with regard to an overbearing corporate sponsorship — not just with BP, as I mentioned here. A recent missive from the Tate talks about the BMW Tate Live program, a four-year partnership between BMW and Tate now in its second year that “focuses on live performance and interdisciplinary art both in the gallery and online.” No amount for the gift was specified, and a quick Google search didn’t turn up anything either. Here’s the BMW version of the partnership.

Of course, BMW also forged a deal with the Guggenheim Museum in 2010, putting its name first and foremost on the BMW Guggenheim Lab. That’s a mobile structure, intended as a place to exchange talk (aka ideas), though — and somehow seems less offensive than the Tate deal.

Still, it makes one wonder — are we next going to have the BMW (Fill in an artist’s name)? A piece of conceptual art, sure, and also a very bad idea.

Why is the Tate allowing this, the thin end of the wedge, to use a British phrase? Don’t they have better negotiators in their development department? It’s hard to roll any of these abuses back. They should remember another Britishism, from their own history with the Vikings: Once you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Tate

 

The Hirshhorn’s Bloomberg Bubble: Updated And Deflated

When I last wrote about Richard Koshalek’s plans to build a seasonal blue bubble atop the Hirshhorn Museum — in fall, 2010 — he had disclosed to me a $1 million-plus naming gift from the Bloomberg Foundation as well as his goal of creating a “cultural think tank” that would combine elements of the World Economic Forum at Davos and TED (Technology Entertainment Design) conferences, and thereby insert art into to the national and international dialogue. I laid out those plans and more in a Cultural Conversation with him in the Wall Street Journal. At the time, he needed to raise about $5 million for the bubble, pretty small for a museum addition, despite the expansive if nebulous thinking behind it.

HirshhornBubbleMany people were negative about the idea, however. But Koshalek was sure, and he told me that programming would begin in late 2012, pending his fundraising success.

Fast forward to now: not much has happened. The new launch date is fall 2014, and according to recent press reports the go or no-go date will occur soon.

Worse, the Inflatable Seasonal Structure, AKA the Bloomberg Bubble, has caused division at the museum. A recent article in Washington City Paper says “Three trustees have left the Hirshhorn’s board of trustees, with rumors of divisions caused by the Bubble following them through the doors of the Gordon Bunshaft–designed concrete donut.”

Ever brash and ebulient, ever more interested in architecture than art, ever ambitious — and those aren’t necessarily critical descriptions — Koshalek is still determined, but the time gap and other considerations (earthquake-proofing, for example) have sent the price tag to something on the order of $11.5 million. It has $4 million, plus another $4 million from the Smithsonian itself for programming, which doesn’t count against the capital cost.

The City Paper article suggests that trustee are worried about the costs of staffing the Bubble, though Koshalek basically shoots that down. I’d guess they are more leary about the very concept of the museum-as-policy-think-tank. From the beginning, Koshalek has never been able to articulate why the dialogue he seeks to start there would matter. It might be educational, as he argues, but would it change anything or be another elitist boondoggle?

The Washington Post, cited by City Paper, has covered the Hirshhorn developments here,  here, and here. I remember the first, disclosing that board chair J. Tomilson Hill had resigned, but did not see the others, about the Bubble’s fate.

If I had to guess now, I’d say it’s over. It’s pretty hard to pull that much money out of a hat in a couple of months, especially when the structure has already been named.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Hirshhorn