Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Museum Funding-Fundraising

Can There Be Too Many Museums?

In a controversial move, Washington, D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser last week killed plans to open an Institute of Contemporary Expression at a disused, rodent-infested, leaky-roofed historic school in the city’s northwest quadrant. Predictably, she was pummeled by critics, some of whom say she would rather have a commercial venture in that space (which is protected and cannot be razed).

imrsIt may be that politics influenced her decision, but a look–at least from afar–at the dynamics give me pause too. Sometimes, there can be too many museums–if those museums don’t come with stable financing. A recent study in Philadelphia, more about which in a moment, suggested that. And just look at the Corcoran situation in Washington: why couldn’t that board raise money to support a great collection and school?

The Washington Post laid out some of the ICE issues in a Feb. 5 article. Taking a look at the previous administration’s plans for the Franklin school, Bowser

…set the project aside, withdrawing legislation that would authorize it and firing the project manager overseeing it.

Her staff asserted that the project’s supporters, led by local art collector and businessman Dani Levinas, had missed fundraising deadlines, which Levinas and his supporters steadfastly dispute.

Levinas and his allies wanted to create a place for “large-scale, highly visible temporary exhibitions that traditional museums are often unable to accommodate.” His model, apparently, was the Park Avenue Armory in New York, among others.

Levinas and EastBanc [the developer] committed to raising $13.2 million for the project, and planned to generate future revenue by charging patrons for entry after the museum opened.

As the Post points out, they planned to charge and rely on admissions, yet the District is full of free museums (which, btw, are sometimes rather empty despite that). And even if the ICE were successful at getting people to pay, admissions never bring in the bulk of a museum’s earned income. There is mention of an endowment, in theory, on the ICE website, as a “key goal.”

Over on that website, a petition drive to get her to reverse her decision is on. The suggested letter reads in part:

…ICE-DC is a project that will have significant impact on our city. As a center for creativity, education and innovation, it will also serve as an economic engine and driver of development in the neighborhood. Critically, ICE-DC has the unique capacity to simultaneously use and preserve the Franklin School’s historic and beautiful interiors as originally conceived. This significant and sensitive alignment of resources and vision will provide education and programming to the children of Washington and citizens of all ages.

I am all for historic preservation, and I’d like to believe that the founders have, as they have said, been raising money–perhaps as much as $7 million. But $13 million, if they get that, is not enough to support a museum. What about that operating budget? Back in 2011, when I did a Cultural Conversation with Rebecca Robertson at the Park Avenue Armory for The Wall Street Journal, the Armory’s operating budget was $8 million–it has, I would bet, gone up. The New Museum’s–another model cited–is more, $12- to $13 million.

Too many non-profits are started (or operated) nowadays without financial stability: we have overcapacity.  A new William Penn Foundation study of 160 groups documents that in Philadelphia, which has a broad and deep cultural sector. Among other things, it found that:

  • Many organizations remain financially weak and under-capitalized, hampering the sector’s ability to sustain itself, let alone grow.
  • Growth (and sustainability) is dependent on external factors including audience demand. Artistic quality alone will not guarantee increased attendance, especially in an environment with increasing competition for leisure time.
  • Growth is largely driven through investment from a relatively small group of philanthropic investors. Funders and organizations both have a responsibility to evaluate when growth is wise and sustainable; and how best to plan or support downsizing, mergers, or appropriate exits for nonprofits where appropriate.

The Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance, an advocate for the arts, applauded the William Penn Foundation for undertaking its study. It also directed people to look at the results in its 2014 Portfolio, an analysis of a larger sampling of the city’s arts and culture sector.

A word of caution, no matter how motivated, isn’t always bad. Sometimes, it’s downright warranted.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Washington Post

 

The Story Behind LACMA’s Saudi Partnership

Press releases often provoke more questions than they answer. That was certainly the case when one from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art issued one on Jan. 6 about its new collaboration with Saudi Aramco’s King Abdulaziz Center for World Culture. It said that LACMA and the Center:

damascusroom3are pleased to announce that the Center will exhibit more than 130 highlights of Islamic art from LACMA’s renowned collection on the occasion of the Center’s opening. The installation will include works of art from an area extending from southern Spain to northern India along with a never-before shown 18th-century period room from Damascus, recently acquired by LACMA.

“This is a landmark project for the museum,” said LACMA CEO…Michael Govan.

While the release mentioned “a significant partnership” with the Center “to restore and conserve the room,” details were scarce. What was the Center, which has no permanent collection at the moment–it won’t open until next year–giving in return?

I agree with LACMA’s goal to have its collection seen more broadly around the world–as long as the works of art are safe (see some listed in the press release). But was LACMA emptying its galleries of “masterpieces” and for what? Was this a “rental” deal?

A conversation with Islamic Art curator Linda Komaroff on Friday, just a day before she was head to Saudi Arabia, cleared up many questions. The answer, I think, is no.

The partnership arose after LACMA hosted a visiting curator from the Center in 2013, just when it was assessing whether to  buy a large, largely complete, lavishly decorated reception room that had been rescued from demolition (for highway construction) by Lebanese dealers in 1978. They held onto it for decades, moving it to London, and it was offered to LACMA by dealer Robert Haber.

Dated 1766–67, the room measures 15 x 20 feet (“comparable in size to the one at the Met”) and was where the head of the family would have entertained honored guests. “She fell in love with the room,” Komaroff said, referring to the Saudi visitor–and the idea of a two-pronged partnership arose. The room (detail at right) was expensive and needed extensive restoration, plus the armature to hold the many pieces in place. The Center would pay for a large part of that in return for having the chance to show it and those 130 other objects from LACMA’s 1,700-item Islamic collection.

Komaroff says the room’s bright colors (the room was unvarnished) are mostly still there, though covered with dust. Here’s her description from a 2012 blog post:

As is typical, the room has colorful inlaid marble floors; painted and carved wood walls, doors and storage niches; a spectacular stone arch that serves to divide the upper and lower sections of the room, which are separated by a single high step; and an intricately inlaid stone wall fountain with a carved and painted limestone hood…

Komaroff won’t say how much it all costs, but she did say that the conservation costs were about equivalent to the purchase price, and that the whole effort was “a multi-million-dollar project.” LACMA has no acquistions fund, so she had to raise a lot of money for it, beyond what the Saudi oil company contributed.

She describes the current conservation efforts in another post, here.

The Saudis are also paying normal exhibition/loan fees for the 130-object exhibit; after the staff work, including research, required for sending the show, Komaroff says, “it’s a wash”–LACMA doesn’t make a profit on this deal. “That’s not why we’re doing it,” she added.

Lending the room next year “is okay because we don’t have a place to show it yet,” Komaroff said–it requires high ceilings; even LACMA’s Resnick pavilion, which has the highest ceiling of all its buildings, stretched only to 20 feet high.  But the expansion Govan is contemplating should have room for it.

Komaroff compare the loan to “sending the art of the Roman empire to Rome”–a coup of sorts and something of a compliment to the collection. Saudis, she added, don’t learn visual art that goes with their history. They’ve not been exposed to much visual art.

The Center (more about which tomorrow) is also partnering with a couple of European museums.

Clearly, given the recent destruction of cultural heritage in Syria, this is a worthy effort.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of LACMA

No So Fast: Private Art Museum Under Scrutiny

“I’m not against it being done, but it’s got to be done well,” [Rob] Storr [dean of the Yale School of Art], said. “If there’s to be a public forgiveness for taxes there should be a clear public benefit, and it should not be entirely at the discretion of the person running the museum or foundation.”

BrantFdnThat statement sums up my thoughts about the phenomenon described in Sunday’s New York Times, in the business section. Writing Off the Warhol Next Door: Art Collectors Gain Tax Benefits From Private Museums, by my friend Patricia Cohen, describes not just the well-known trend for big collectors to start their own private museums, but more importantly the tax benefits they receive when they do. As she point out, “their founders can deduct the full market value of any art, cash and stocks they donate, even when the museums are just a quick stroll from their living rooms.”

More important, just how open the museum must be to the public is very unclear. Regarding Glenstone, owned my Mitchell Rales, Cohen writes that it had only “10,000 visitors from 2006 to 2013,” while the Hall Art Foundation in Vermont has had about 1,500 since its opening in fall 2103.

Consider this from the article:

…among the charitable activities that specifically involved the Greenwich [Brant Foundation Art Study] center and were highlighted on his foundation’s 2012 tax return (the most recent publicly available) were visits by Larry Gagosian, Mr. Brant’s superpowered art dealer, and his fellow billionaire collectors, Victoria and Samuel I. Newhouse Jr.

In fact, museums don’t have to be public at all. They can fulfill public interest requirements by lending art, letting researchers in, or giving grants.

There are lots of ins and outs on this issue, and there’s much more in the article–but I also worry that these collectors may be skirting the “public” purpose, following the letter but not the spirit of the law, as one critic noted.

It’s more worrisome in recent years as the IRS, which governs these foundations, has lost staff for reviewing these (and other) private tax returns. Perhaps we need clearer, more stringent rules about public purpose.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Brant Foundation Art Study Center

Court Orders Tate To Provide Funding Details, Pronto

The Tate museum has been ordered to reveal the details of its sponsorship deals with BP, the oil company–and that, I think, is a good thing.

Tate-Britain-012This all happened just before Christmas, and according to The Guardian’s article on the ruling by a court:

Tate has been ordered to give details of its BP sponsorship between 1990-2006, in a case brought by environmental campaigners.

An information tribunal has ruled against the art institution, which was refusing to give details, claiming the information could intensify protests and harm its ability to raise money from other companies.

The case had been brought by the environmental campaigner Brendan Montague, supported by the arts and activism charity Platform, which argues that only when the sponsorship sums are in the public domain can informed debate take place.

I don’t see anything on the surface with museums’ accepting sponsorship from oil companies. But I wince at the way BP has arranged to have its name before the art, as in “BP British Art Displays.” So it would make sense to see how this happened, and what precisely the Tate does not want to disclose. Other museums, including the National Gallery, have disclosed all requested sponsorship information.

The Tate opposed the order, obviously, arguing that BP would be offended by the disclosure and that would affect the company’s willingness to give in the future. But why? Isn’t it a good thing to support the arts? The tribunal didn’t buy that argument either.

Some of those siding with the Tate are saying that the arts need money wherever they can get it–I agree, for the most part. But I’d still like to know what the deal is between the two sides. The Tate has 35 days from the ruling to provide the details.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of The Guardian

 

 

More on That Indy Admission Fee

The reaction in Indianapolis to the museum’s decision to go from free general admission to an $18 general admission has been very instructive. I’ve been watching local comments, and–not statistics, just my impression–the tally is overwhelming against. Again, the opposition is not necessarily against all museum admissions, it’s opposed to the gigantic jump and the way it was announced. Some commenters continue to blast Charles Venable for saying nothing since the press release was issued.

IBJAgain, I have to ask, what board dynamics is he dealing with? And who are his public relations advisors?

To get a glimpse of what I am talking about, take a look at the dialogue on the Indianapolis Business Journal website. On Sunday, it asked, “Indianapolis Museum of Art admission charge: Where do you stand?”

The comments are enlightening for all museums. Have a look.

And good for the Indianapolis Business Journal for asking for a dialogue.