Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Museum Funding-Fundraising

Defending Melissa Chiu…UPDATED

When the Hirshhorn Museum, which has been led for the last year by Melissa Chiu, late of the Asia Society Museum, announced that its 40th anniversary gala would be held in New York, not in Washington, D.C., I too raised my eyebrows. That is a slap in the face to the hometown crowd, I thought. I have revised my thinking.

110412_Melissa_ChiuImmediately after the announcement, Chiu was blasted in the local papers. Said the Washington Post:

The decision to hold the Hirshhorn’s 40th-anniversary gala in New York is deeply troubling and raises concern about where the museum’s new director, Melissa Chiu, is taking the organization…it is a snub, and a distressing indication that she doesn’t understand the purpose, the history or the identity of the museum she now leads….

[President] Johnson helped facilitate the gift of Joseph Hirshhorn’s collection to the Smithsonian, telling an adviser: “I want the American people to see this stuff.” Placing it in Washington, which was a tourist magnet but far from a cultural capital in the 1960s, was part of that vision.

And throughout its 40-year history, the Hirshhorn has played an essential role in elevating the cultural conversation in the nation’s capital.

The article conceded that Chiu had to go where the money was–New York, etc. And in her response, according to Washington City Paper, she offer no apology but rather context:

We started our 40th celebration last October in Washington with the opening of our newly renovated third floor for our permanent collection and an opening celebration dinner.

I still thought it was a blunder. Then, on Tuesday, came an announcement that changed my mind. The press release said:

The Smithsonian’s Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden announced today that it has received a substantial gift of $2 million—the single largest individual donor gift in the museum’s history—from Joleen Julis, who joined the board of trustees in October 2014, and her husband, Mitch Julis.

I applaud the Julises. But seriously, the largest-ever individual gift is $2 million, 40 years on into the museum’s history?

The Hirshhorn’s annual budget, including funds allocated by the Smithsonian, is about $20 million. The museum cares for about 12,000 objects, offers many special exhibitions and public programs, and is open daily (except Christmas). Joleen Julis is one of 12 new trustees that Chiu recruited to the Hirshhorn board.

Washington area residents need to be jarred–especially those who say they care about contemporary art, those who are offended by Chiu’s call on the location benefit.

If they don’t like it, they should step up to the plate and give.

UPDATE: AS of Oct. 28, the Hirshhorn has said this gala in NYC has raised more than $1.55 million–a record for the museum. Read the press release here.

Tom Krens: At It Again?

Tom Krens, the museum consultant formerly known as the director of the Guggenheim Foundation and booster of multi-branch museums, has always lived by the philosophy of “Go Big or Go Home.”

2013_WCMA_KrensNow, he is at it again. Last week, the Berkshire Eagle reported that Krens–who first proposed the creation of Mass MoCA in North Adams, Mass. nearly three decades ago–wants to start another massive art venue nearby. The new art palace would create 160,000-sq. ft. of gallery space on North Adams’s Harriman-West Airport grounds.

Said the Eagle:

The idea for the museum, which would be privately owned by a for-profit group of investors and cost an estimated $10 million to $15 million to build, was presented to the city’s Airport Commission during a special meeting on Tuesday. It would be named the Global Contemporary Collection and Museum and contain a collection of about 400 works of art, according to Krens.

“The basic concept is to work with a group of, essentially investors, to put together a world-class collection of contemporary art,” Krens said.

The idea was a hit. The Airport Commission unanimously voted to begin lease negotiations with Krens.

Krens said that construction could begin next year if the idea gains financial backing. The article also said:

The 68-year-old Krens said he’d been working on the concept for about five years. It was originally planned for China, he said, but “the idea of spending a little more time in the Berkshires was attractive to me.”

This proposal can be viewed in two ways. As I wrote just about a year ago in The New York Times,  Mass MoCA is also expanding, doubling its exhibition space to 260,000 sq. ft.  The state of Massachusetts provided money for the expansion on the theory that a bigger Mass MoCA, along with the expanded Clark Art Institute and the Williams College Museum of Art, both nearby, will be too much to see in one day and thus turn day-tripping tourists into over-nighters.

That’s believable if you think the audience for art is pretty big–and likely to want to spend two full days in a gorgeous setting inside looking at art.

Krens, in the Eagle, also argued that his GCC will be complementary, not competition for Mass MoCA. “pointing out that Mass MoCA does not have a collection and his museum would not have exhibition programming. The Global Contemporary Collection and Museum would be ‘positioned to complement the Clark, to complement Mass MoCA,’ not compete with them…”

Krens has pulled off many long-shots before, and lost some too. Who knows whether he can persuade investors to give him money for this. He does have a personal motivation: ” A graduate of Williams College, Krens still owns a home in Williamstown that he purchased in 1972.”

Photo Credit: Courtesy of Williams College Museum of Art

 

When Is A Sanction Not A Sanction?

The answer, it seems, is when one member of the sanctioning organization decides to ignore the punishment meted out to an offending member.

brounI am talking about the Delaware Art Museum, which was sanctioned last year by the Association of Art Museum Directors for deaccessioning art works to raise money to pay off debt and add to its endowment. It’s unclear if the second part of that happened, as the museum has declined to provide a detailed accounting of the money raised when it sold four works of art. But I digress.

The AAMD statement said:

Consistent with AAMD’s Code of Ethics, we ask our members to suspend any loans of works of art to, and any collaborations on exhibitions with, the Delaware Art Museum, until notified by us that the sanctions have been suspended or removed.  While each of our members needs to consider this request individually and make its own decision, it is AAMD’s strong belief that the actions of the Delaware Art Museum are contrary to the long term interest of each and every art museum.

And that–individual decision-making–is apparently what is happening now.

For the last year, the Delaware Art Museum has formed an exhibition program from its permanent collection and local loans. The next show, opening in November, will be Poetry in Beauty: The Pre-Raphaelite Art of Marie Spartali Stillman, which–according to an article in the Delaware News Journal–will include loans from private collections and the National Gallery in London.

But, says that article and the museum’s website, next March, the museum will open Our America: The Latino Presence in American Art, which has been organized by the Smithsonian American Art Museum.

Elizabeth “Betsy” Broun is a member of AAMD. The Latino Presence is one of its traveling exhibitions, which presumably is therefore drawn mostly from its collection. So it is lending its works to Delaware. The museum’s website currently lists eight other museum venues for that show, including Delaware.

Now it’s Sunday as I write this, and I have not contacted Broun or her PR staff. Also, that exhibit has been traveling since April 2014 and the AAMD sanctions were announced a little later, in June 2014. So maybe the contract between the Smithsonian and Delaware was already signed–though Delaware’s deaccessioning plans had been an issue with AAMD and others for months before that.

But this situation raises the issue, again, of the efficacy of sanctions. Any museum can choose to ignore them. Moreover, in the past, AAMD has lifted them too quickly. I’m talking about the National Academy Museum, where sanctions lasted just two years. The “punishment” was hardly a deterrent at all. That’s why AAMD’s attempts to help Delaware find a different path to solvency was ignored.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Smithsonian American Art Museum

 

 

Delaware Museum Sells More Art

Homer-MilkingTimeThe Delaware Art Museum issued a statement late yesterday saying that it had sold its beautiful Winslow Homer, Milking Time (at right), and a painting by Andrew Wyeth,  Arthur Cleveland, to pay off its debts.

That makes four art works sold to pay for bad mistakes (overexpansion, imo) by the museum’s board and administration. You’ll remember that the museum has already auctioned off William Holman Hunt’s Isabella and the Pot of Basil, which fetched £2.5 million in London, and Alexander Calder’s Black Crescent. The Calder was sold privately, as were the two paintings just deaccessioned.

Said the release:

The sales mark the end of a process, announced in March 2014, to protect the Museum from closure by retiring its $19.8 million bond debt….No works of art acquired through gift or bequest were sold. With these sales, the Museum was able to fully repay the debt in September 2014 without significantly depleting its endowment—a vital source of funds that allows the Museum to continue to provide its community with access to collections, quality exhibitions, and important educational programs.

“Today, we close one of the most difficult chapters in the story of the Delaware Art Museum,” said Delaware Art Museum CEO Mike Miller. “We reached our most important goal—keeping the Museum open and thriving. We are very grateful for those who have understood the arduous and complex decisions that we encountered during this long and challenging phase. There has been overwhelming and unyielding support for protecting and preserving this beautiful Museum for our community.”

Many questions remain. The museum did not say whether the new sales would do anything to replenish its endowment, which was was drawn down to meet debt payment deadlines. Further, the museum remains without a director. And the museum was sanctioned by its peers last year; what will it do to try to rejoin the art museum community? And when?

 

Badly Bungled Philanthropy

The New York Philharmonic* just gave everyone a lesson in how not to fundraise. I am talking, of course, about the announcement that David Geffen has promised $100 million to the Phil for the renovation of Avery Fisher Hall.  There are two problems with this gift.

2012 Summer TCA Tour - Day 2First, the Phil’s leadership seems to have been enchanted by that number, the same amount David Koch gave to rename the New York State Theater after himself five years ago. (And the same amount that Stephen Schwarzman gave to the New York Public Library before that, but that’s another story.) It’s simply not enough–not for the reason, five years difference in time, mentioned in passing by The New York Times. Inflation is low and using the government’s inflation calculator, there would be only a $7 million or so difference. (Actually, Koch made the announcement in 2008, so I’m not sure how the Times arrived at five years, but…that’s what its story said.)

It’s not enough because of proportionality. Refurbishing the New York State Theater cost about $50 million to start, according to the Times, and another $150 million for Phase II. So Koch provided half of the price tag.

afh-exterior-julie-skarratt-675wNow look at Avery Fisher Hall–the gutting and remaking of it is currently estimated at $500 million, but with construction slated to begin in 2019–still four years hence–that’s a squirrely number, as even Katherine G. Farley, chairwoman of Lincoln Center, has admitted. Geffen is getting his name on the building for providing less than 20% of the cost. Farley et. al. say his gift will galvanize other donors–why? Where are they going to put their names? On the stage? Sure, sell the stage–but it can’t be for much more than $25 million, say. Make it $50 million, fine–how many stages have they got?

That means the NYPhil is left raising smaller gifts–a lot of them. Do you know how hard that is, to make smallish gifts add up to $400 million-plus?

Just as bad, the Phil made the same mistake with Geffen that it made with Avery Fisher. Both got naming rights in perpetuity. So several years ago, the Phil was stuck when it tried to rename the hall and last year it agreed, scandalously, in my mind, to pay Fisher’s heir $15 million. Koch agreed to 50 years; I know other donors who want and get 75 years. But truly in perpetuity? That idea should be buried. No organization should define it as infinity.

Museums should take a lesson here: don’t do what the Phil did. Don’t be that stupid.

No wonder Geffen is smiling.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Hollywood Reporter (top); the NYPhil (bottom)

*I consult to a foundation that supports the NYPhil