Museums

What kind of museum donor hosts a visit in her home with the museum’s director, as she is nearing death, and asks him to read aloud the list of artworks in her final bequest? What kind of donor had let the previous director choose which works the museum would want and then, when it was not enough, ask why he didn’t ask for more? And then give them? What kind of donor offers to match money for acquisitions and lets the other donors take all the label credit? What kind of donor gives omnivorously, not just to the departments for which she collects, like European paintings? And what kind of donor want the bequeathed art stripped from the walls of her home as soon as possible after her death so that it can go on view quickly?

That would, of course, be Margaret McDermott, patron of the Dallas Museum of Art, who died on May 3 at age 106.

She got that last wish: An Enduring Legacy: The Eugene and Margaret McDermott Collection of Impressionist and Modern Art opened on 14 June and will remain on view until February 17, 2019. (She got the others, too.)

I wrote about McDermott recently for The Art Newspaper, in an article headlined Dallas Museum of Art says thank you to a life-long patron. 

As Augustin Arteaga, the current DMA director, said, this final gift was transformational for the museum, which could definitely use the infusion, especially because many of its European paintings are sequestered in a separate period-room environment dictated by a previous and less impressive gift. What is, in the museum’s words (but I agree) “staggering,” however, is that the sum total of all the acquisitions she (and her long-dead husband) either made or made possible with contributions amounted to about 3,100 works.

“Her understanding of art went well beyond what was her taste at first,” Arteaga said. She was, he said, instrumental in reimagining the museum and giving it the aspiration of being an encyclopedic museum. And in the meantime? “It was her view,” said John R. Lane, the museum’s director from 1999 to 2008, “that the Dallas Art Museum should not only be bigger, but better and better.” She made it happen with “her money, her enthusiasm and her inspiration,” he added.

I hope you will read my article, as I’m not repeating everything here, and I’m adding things.

Such as: McDermott actually went to work for what became the DMA in 1949, later married Eugene, a founder of Texas Instruments, and soon became a trustee. She remained on the board for 57 years. Now, normally, I might quibble with that long tenure, but everyone I’ve spoken to about her–not just quoted–has good things to say and nothing bad, so…

Arteaga tells a story about her that made me like her, even though I’d never met her. On his first visit to her home, after his appointment was announced in 2016 but before he took up the job, he enthusiastically started talking about a Monet still life from 1872 there. She let him go on and on and then she said, “do you know that all these works are going to the museum–all but that one. It’s going to the Kimbell.” Arteaga said he felt a bit sheepish, until she added, “And then it’s going to you.” She was lending it to the early Monet show organized by the Kimbell and San Francisco’s Legion of Honor.

I asked Jack Lane if he could think of a parallel donor, and he did–but different. Dominique de Menil. She created a private museum for her collections.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of the DMA

Put yourself in the position of a member of the Metropolitan Museum’s search committee: Despite all the pressure to choose anyone but another white male–somewhat wrong-headed pressure, imho–I think you’d have picked Max Hollein (at left) to be the next director of the museum too. For many reasons–as I will outline.

I’ve commented favorably and specifically about Hollein here before–let me go through some of those posts quickly.

In 2012, I noted the way he had expanded the Städel Museum in Frankfurt to accommodate modern/contemporary art. I cited four reasons, including his approach to fundraising. At the time, I had not seen the addition, but last year I did visit Frankfurt and I saw it. While I know that some people, some curators, do not like it–one told me it looked too much like a shopping center–I disagree. It is a bit white-boxy, but so are most contemporary art museum that were built from a scratch. This one was inserted underground. I think it is about the best suite of galleries that could have been built on that spot.

In 2013, I cited the Städel’s exhibition for Hans Thoma, a once heralded but lost forgotten artist born in 1839. As wrote then:

I commend the Städel for going against the crowd, digging into its collection — it owns nearly ninety paintings and several hundred works on paper by Thoma — and showing an artist that seems so retro. Max Hollein, the museum’s director, said he was doing it because Thoma, “in his day, played a central role in German art and society.”

In 2014, I called attention to two articles, one interviewing Hollein, one Philippe de Montebello, on the job of a museum director. Aside from offering a pretty good (short) definition, Hollein appropriately mentioned local context.

In 2016, when he was appointed to his post at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, I called attention to a video that also outlines his views. also commenting on the individuality of museums, among other things.

In 2017, Hollein commented in a San Francisco Chronicle article about cuts to the NEA budget, which I reported here.

Also last year, I commented twice about one of Hollein’s digital efforts. once at FAMSF, the online guides to an exhibition that visitors can read before they go (and why he believes in them), and later noting how the Städel continued with what he started there after he left.

Taken together, those posts–and I had no intention to be definitive; there may have been other even more incisive interviews of him and/or actions to note–give us a pretty good view of his approach to his job, his museum and artistic philosophy and, in some ways, his character. I do not think the other candidates in the running have be so transparent.

Also, remember that he was initially a “student” of former Guggenheim director Thomas Krens (he began his career as chief of staff and executive assistant to him). Krens is known for playing a bit fast and loose, but–since we’ve seen no evidence so far that Hollein does the same–it’s good experience to have had. If nothing else, Krens knew how to raise money. He also knew how to think big, and reinforced Hollein’s own tendency to do so.

Hollein, too, is experienced at raising money (important for the Met) and has completed a building project (ditto). He has successfully gotten along with FAMSF’s key donor, Dede Wilsey, who likes to rule the roost there. SF sources tell me he has charmed many locals and I’ve heard no tales of alienation. Curators, mostly, seem to like working with him (ok, I heard one complaint, but there’s always one.)

Hollein knows his art history and understands the need for a mix at the Met. (Further evidence of his interest in a broad art program is here). 

He is, I think, press-savvy and that is a big plus because other people at the Met (I shall hold my tongue for the moment) are not.

At 48, he is the right age. If he makes no disqualifying mistakes, he’ll be there for 20 years–long after Met President/CEO Daniel H. Weiss (at right), who is 60, leaves and allows Hollein to take the CEO title. The board won’t have to go through another tedious search for years.

Reviewing all these items, as a trustee, wouldn’t you have picked Hollein?

There is a risk and it’s the relationship between him and Weiss. Weiss has asserted his superiority in a few subtle–starting with the announcement itself, which he made. In the past, since the board did the hiring, the announcement would most likely been made by the chairman of the board.

UPDATE: Interestingly, I just noticed that it was only the email sent to the press that began “Met President and CEO Dan Weiss announced today that Max Hollein has been elected the tenth Director of The Metropolitan Museum of Art….” The press release posted online begins “The Metropolitan Museum of Art announced today that Max Hollein has been elected its next Director….” I am not sure what all that is about, unless someone remarked about the email release.

Now, back to my original post: Further, Weiss reportedly told one journalist that he was an art historian with an MBA and that Hollein was an art historian with an MBA–which seems to me a laying down of facts, yes, but in a way that reinforces the idea that Hollein has nothing on Weiss and that, despite the similarities, they are equals: Traditional syntax would have placed the speaker second in the sentence, not first, unless a message was being conveyed.

And, truth be told, Hollein can one-up Weiss in certain ways. As The New Yorker put it:

Equally notable, Weiss never let the impending appointment of a director stand in his hiring path–he has already filled some jobs that, I am sure, Hollein would have liked a say in. Most notably, there was–just last month–the appointment of Michael Gallagher as Deputy Director for Conservation and Sherman Fairchild Chairman of Paintings Conservation.

On the other hand, I do give Weiss credit for taking the fall on the change in admissions policy (which went into effect Mar 1). It was good to get that over with long before Hollein arrives.

The board, in my opinion, made a mistake a year ago when it gave in to Weiss’s request (demand?) to be CEO. I understand the need for stability at the Met, someone to make decisions while trustees took their time finding the right director. The board has semi-redeemed itself with the choice of Hollein.

Now the questions are: how will they get along? Can they be “partners”? Or has the Board created another muddle?

 

I have not waded into either of the debates that are raging across the art museum world at the moment. So far, I’ve avoided commenting on the deaccessions planned by the Berkshire Museum in Pittsfield, Mass., which has been tied up in the court system for months, and the LaSalle University Art Museum in Philadelphia, which has enraged the art world. And I’ve not said anything about the Met’s new admissions policy either.

The explanation–two cliches. First, it’s deju vu all over again. Second, quoting Shakespeare, “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”

Neither explanation means that I agree with the decisions of these museums–though I have more nuanced views than some critics. But the question, really, is what can be done. In at least two cases, not much. So is outrage the right response? Each case is distinct.

The Met first: some people have muddled the issue with extraneous “arguments,” for example that David Koch’s donation to build the fountains out front should not have been accepted but should instead have been used to cover admissions. I wrote here in 2014 that they were a mistake–but the mistake was the museum’s, not Koch’s. To cite him as the villain here–partly because most of the art world disagrees with his politics–is not helpful. Donations to museums by people with strong political views–yes, those you disagree with–are necessary, and those kinds of comments will only make matters worse. Besides, givers have every right to decide how they want their money used; it then becomes the museum’s decision whether or not to accept. Period, full stop.

Here’s another fallacy regarding the Met’s policy: that admissions fees are keeping people away. Well, yes and no. As the research cited by this article in ArtNet indicates–and other research I am familiar with–fees are not the main issue here. Focusing on them distracts museums from the bigger issues, which involve peer group perceptions, lack of education, misunderstanding about what to expect in a museum, and much more.

Second, the deaccessions: I believe in the end that the Berkshire Museum will, unfortunately, get a go-ahead from the courts. The problem there began when trustees changed the mission statement, moving away from art and more toward history and natural science. I’ll bet that decision, too, was made because art can be a hard sell (especially when trustees have a cursory knowledge of how to change that) and the trustees/director wanted high visitor numbers. The rewriting process they used seemed to lack transparency and community involvement, but–sorry to say–I don’t believe that is illegal.

LaSalle is more egregious–selling art to fund other aspects of a university’s operations. LaSalle is a member of the American Alliance of Museums, which has condemned the sale along with the Association of Art Museum Directors (of which it is not a member), and they have begun talks. Persuasion–or a revolt by donors and alumni, as happened with the Rose Art Museum at Brandeis a few years back–is the only tool available right now. I hope for the best but have my doubts that it will work.

Most unhelpful at this time was Glenn Lowry’s comment to Charlotte Burns on her podcast on Jan. 11. He said:

I have very strong opinions about de-accessioning…I don’t believe you should de-accession to fund operating costs. I think that is a categoric mistake.

But I do believe that one should de-accession rigorously in order to either acquire more important works of art or build endowments to support programming. Because for me, in the end, it’s all about being sufficiently well-capitalized to program intelligently and to have as few works of art in storage as possible. It doesn’t benefit anyone when there are millions of works of art that are languishing in storage. …we would be far better off, in my opinion, allowing others to have those works of art that might enjoy them, but even more importantly, converting that to endowed funds that could support public programs, exhibitions, publications.

…there isn’t a single museum in this country—and I put The Museum of Modern Art in that—that is doing a great job of programming, because we don’t have the resources to do that. What we should be doing should be ten times what we’re currently doing.

I’m glad he opposes deaccessioning to fund operations, that he agrees that collections should be shared with less-well-off museums (something I have written here many times), and that museums should (try to) do more programming.

But what I fear about his deaccessioning endorsement is that we will have more Albright-Knox examples–selling off the old to buy the new. Rather, as many museum directors have told me, museums should be deaccessioning many of the mistakes they made acquiring 20th century and maybe even 21st century art, decisions influenced by market forces rather than curatorial judgment. (Just try separating them!).

But museums won’t do that for fear of offending living artists and/or living collectors, who may be donors now or some day.

That would take real courage.

In the meantime, I fear that Lowry’s comments will be misused by those who do not understand museums to allow cases like LaSalle.