Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

People

The Debate About Criticism Flares Again

I so entirely disagreed with Lee Siegel’s piece on criticism last September, posted on The New Yorker website, that I ignored it, unwilling to give it more atttention. But the subject — he argued that negative criticism was bad (“I intend never to write a negative book review again”) in this day and age — keeps popping up. Siegel wrote:

Critics-PR…We now live in a critical age, liberating and discombobulating, where everything is allowed but nothing is permitted to take root in a deep or lasting way. Yet even our rapidly proliferating criticism has started to be outpaced by creation—or at least by innovation, in the way that technology is shaping the way we write, think, and disseminate our writing and our thoughts to other people. That inspiring, devouring, confounding breathless flux is the source of our modest and generous criticism.

Applying old standards to a time when everyone is throwing everything they can at the proverbial wall to see what sticks is like printing out a tweet, putting it in an envelope, and sending it to someone through the mail. The very fact that reading and writing are in jeopardy, or simply evolving, means that to try to put the brakes of old criteria on a changing situation is going to be either obstructive or boring. …

Etc. Better, he said, to ignore bad books and, presumably, bad art, bad opera, etc.

I had already taken the opposite view, writing here in February, 2012 — in response to the same opinion piece in The New York Times that prompted Siegel to write — that the art world needed more, not less, “learned, thoughtful, well-argued” negative reviews. There’s too much herd mentality among art critics today.

In the last few weeks, I received reinforcement. The Feb. 16 issue of the Times’s Book Review section, published two opinions that disagreed with Siegel, too. Granted, they are speak books, but the sense is the same for art.

Here’s Francine Prose:

…It depresses me to see talented writers figuring out they can phone it in, and that no one will know the difference. I’m annoyed by gossip masquerading as biography, by egomaniacal boasting and name-dropping passing as memoir. It irks me to see characters who are compendiums of clichés. …writing a negative review feels like being the child in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Few of us remember how the tale ends: The child cries out that the emperor is naked, which the emperor knows, but the procession continues anyway, “stiffer than ever.” This might cast some doubt on the efficacy — the point — of the negative review, but it also casts some light on the child in the story, who isn’t necessarily trying to expose the dishonest weavers or the hypocritical courtiers or oblige the emperor to get dressed. He just can’t help telling what he believes is the truth.

And here is Zoe Heller:

…most writers do not write merely, or even principally, to escape from or console themselves. They write for other people. They write to have an effect, to elicit a reaction. That is why they scrap and struggle, often for years, to have their work published. Being sentient creatures, they are often distressed by what critics have to say about their work. Yet they accept with varying degrees of resignation that they are not kindergartners bringing home their first potato prints for the admiration of their parents, but grown-ups who have chosen to present their work in the public arena. …

…It is a mistake, then, to characterize the debate about bad reviews as a contest between humane impulses and coldhearted snark. Banning “negativity” is not just bad for the culture; it is unfair to authors.

It’s sometimes hard to write negatively and sensitively, but that is the job of the critic. They — that’s the key, because there’s rarely one critic — need to get on with it.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Paris Review

Breaking: Malcolm Rogers Announces Retirement

There’s a big job opening in the museum world: today Malcolm Rogers, director of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, said he would retire as soon as the museum’s board identifies and appoints a successor. My guess on the timing — late this year.

02_20Malcolm20Rogers20opening20doors20(2)20small20crop_showcase_2Rogers, 65, has run the Boston museum for nearly 20 years — in May, he’ll become the MFA’s longest-serving director – and in many ways he transformed the museum, not just physically but in mindset. He’s been planning this, now that much of his vision has achieved. The museum prepared a list of his milestone accomplishments, here. And just before the Art of the Americas wing opened in fall 2010, I wrote a Cultural Conversation piece about him for the Wall Street Journal. It outlines much of his philosophy.

Even as he informed the board of trustees today of his decision, Rogers announced two big promotions: Frederick Ilchman, the Mrs. Russell W. Baker Curator of Paintings, has been promoted to Chair of Art of Europe and Benjamin Weiss, the Leonard A. Lauder Curator of Visual Culture, will become Chair of Prints, Drawings, and Photographs.

The list of Rogers’ accomplishments in the press release is formidable, among them:

  • Rogers has expanded the Museum’s encyclopedic collection with nearly 68,000 acquisitions, enhancing the breadth and importance of the Museum’s holdings with major additions of 19th and 20th century photography, paintings and works on paper (Lane Collection) and West African art from the Kingdom of Benin (Robert Owen Lehman Collection).
  • Individual masterpieces acquired during Rogers’ tenure include Edgar Degas’ Duchessa di Montejasi with Her Daughters, Elena and Camilla (about 1876), Gustave Caillebotte’s Man at His Bath (1884), a monumental silver Cistern and Fountain (1708–09), Piet Mondrian’s Composition with Blue, Yellow, and Red (1927), David Hockney’s Garrowby Hill (1998) and Ellsworth Kelly’s Blue Green Yellow Orange Red (1968).
  • More than 375 exhibitions have been held, including acclaimed shows such as Degas and the Nude (2011), Titian, Tintoretto, Veronese: Rivals in Renaissance Venice (2009), Americans in Paris, 1869–1900 (2006), Pharaohs of the Sun: Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Tutankhamen (1999), Monet in the 20th Century (1998) and Tales from the Land of Dragons: 1000 Years of Chinese Painting (1997). Rogers also broke tradition by creating exhibitions that redefined “fine art” and appealed to new audiences, including Chihuly: Through the Looking Glass (2011), Speed, Style and Beauty: Cars from the Ralph Lauren Collection (2005), Dangerous Curves: The Art of the Guitar (2000), and Herb Ritts: Work (1996).
  • In addition to the Ann and Graham Gund endowment of the Museum Director’s position, 39 staff positions have been endowed during Rogers’ tenure—28 in curatorial, nine in conservation and two in education.

The museum says it will “celebrate Rogers’ 20th anniversary this fall with a series of events, including lectures, community programs and a gala event—to be held September 6.”

Although this is not a complete surprise, it’s still a little shocking. I am not sure who would best fill his shoes.

I have spoken with both Ilchman and Weiss, and approve of their promotions.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the MFA

 

 

Fundraising Tactic Worked!

MEDIA CONFERENCEDo you remember last December, when I wrote here about Allen & Co., the financial company headed by Herbert Allen, which had decided to give up the naming of the Allen Room, one of three performance spaces at Jazz at Lincoln Center, so JALC could resell it to another donor? Allen gave $10 million for the name “in perpetuity” in 2004, and I guess he figured it was worth more now.

He was right. On Monday, JALC announced that Robert J. Appel, Jazz at Lincoln Center’s Chairman of the Board of Directors, had given $20 million for the naming rights. So the Allen Room will now be called The Appel Room.

This is great news: I would like to see other donors be as creative as Mr. Allen.

For more details, go here, which is the 2014-15 season announcement.

 

 

Museum Secrets: Instructive Audit In St. Louis

St. Louis Art Museum director Brent Benjamin (below right) receives $670,000 in pay, “slightly more in annual compensation than the heads of similar art museums.” The museum has an endowment of $140 million and an operating budget of about $30 million. In 2012, it spent $1.4 million on exhibitions that yielded only $320,000.00 at the gate. The museum’s restaurant is losing money — $260,000 last year.

SLAMWhy do we know all this? As a government entity, publicly-supported, museum, the St. Louis Art Museum is subject to regular audit, and late last month, the most recent results — including those facts above — were published. SLAM receives about $20 million each year from local property taxes (much like the Detroit Institute of Arts…more about which in a minute). Interesting and instructive.

The audit also noted that SLAM was under budget by $1 million on its recent $130 million expansion, and that the museum is great at collecting on pledged donations (Of more than $10 million in pledges at year-end 2010, it wrote off just $12,000 as uncollectable), and — according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch account of the audit, “has millions of dollars more than it needs to pay its bills” — “more than 16 times the current assets needed to cover liabilities — basically, enough cash in the bank to pay bills 16 times over.” That last quote is from an earlier P-D account, here.

BBenjaminThe news was all the better for SLAM because the 2011 report, about the St. Louis Science Center, and the 2012 report, about the Missouri History Museum — two of the five institutions that receive money from the tax — turned up more substantial problems. Now about about those exhibition costs; There’s no reason to worry. SLAM is free, except for special exhibitions, and Benjamin, according to a follow-up story, “pointed out that exhibition losses, about $1 million in 2013, were explained in part by the museum’s free-Friday policy. “It’s been successful,” Benjamin said, adding that between one-third and two-thirds of museum attendees came on Fridays.”
Yikes — I’m not keen on that part. I know money is tight, but maybe the museum could make it “pay as you wish” on Fridays instead of free — to even things out. Or, maybe the museum should reexamine its hours: it must be nearly empty at times. Benjamin also said the restaurant — which was apparently praised by local critics for the good looks of its food but panned for its taste — had planned to lose money for a while, in start-up costs. Nevertheless, there will likely be changes, soon.

So Benjamin gets an A, or maybe A-, from me.

But I write this post because it’s revealing to other museums, too, not least the DIA, where The Detroit News recently criticized director Graham Beal’s salary of $455,453. The DIA and SLAM have similar sized budgets, and while that is not the total indicator of a job’s worth, it is one indicator. And there are those hours — if everyone is coming when a museum is free, maybe it’s time to try other options.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of SLAM

Nastiness Starts: DIA Plan Opponents Attack Director

Politics, not to mention bankruptcies, are a nasty business, so perhaps we should have been prepared. Today The Detroit News published an article headlined DIA executives’ pay up 17% since ’10. It puts the museum and its executives under the microscope, probably to undermine the deal reached last week.

bealThe headline doesn’t cover most of the reporting, which may have influence. The article goes on to elaborate on the raise for top museum executives; a loan to Graham Beal, the DIA director; a “discretionary fund” for his business expenses; compensation for his wife’s travel, and a few other things. It also said the Beal has put his house up for sale — signaling, perhaps, his intended departure. (And who would blame him?)

A few choice excerpts:

The Detroit Institute of Arts gave executives pay hikes, and granted a $155,000 loan to Director Graham Beal, while it campaigned for a regional property tax and faced a pension shortfall, according to its financial records….

…“At a time when we are asking for so much from people in Detroit — pensioners, firefighters and police officers — it is outrageous that these individuals are being so grossly compensated,” said state Rep. Kurt Heise, R-Plymouth….

…The DIA’s pension plan has more than $25.5 million in assets but has a $7 million shortfall, according to the museum’s most recent audited financial statement. In 2012, the shortfall was more than $11 million.

…Beal’s total compensation is $455,453. [AnnMarie] Erickson received $270,802, according to the DIA’s most recent tax filing. Four other museum executives are paid more than $100,000….Beal, 66, also received a $155,832 housing loan, according to the 2012 tax filing. He received the loan in December 2011, nine months before voters approved a 10-year, $230 million regional tax to pay for museum operations….Beal still owes the full $155,832 loan.

Although the News compares Beal’s salary to those of other local arts groups, like the Symphony chief’s, which is lower, those salaries don’t seem out of line to me. Nor are the article’s comparisons all apt — running a museum is somewhat more complicated than a symphony, for example. The Detroit Symphony has a smaller budget than the DIA (or did…the DIA’s has shrunk a bit).

And although the AAMD is quoted as saying that there are “only a few examples of museums offering free or subsidized housing for executives, namely the Indianapolis Museum of Art,” I think this requires more investigation. Off the top of my head, I recall that the Metropolitan Museum used to subsidize the director’s housing, though that may have been discontinued with Tom Campbell. So did the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Morgan Library (that ended recently for practical reasons, not on principle). I believe there are others.

What’s clear here is that some politicians (maybe just a few) opposed to the deal to save both pensions and the DIA are going to fight it, perhaps with dirty tactics — just as banks and bondholders are going to fight. The latter don’t have much choice — Kevyn Orr, and his boss Gov. Rick Snyder, along with the court, have the final say. But politics is unpredictable. Let’s hope these issues go away.