People

As I indicated in yesterday’s post, the Metropolitan Museum of Art* is in for a bit of a rough patch–but let’s not overdo it (as some people have). The Met’s exhibitions program–its core–is still packed with excellent offerings. Great curators still want to work for the Met–or will, once things settle down. It goes without saying that its collections are the best in the land.

But the Met has gone wrong in not playing to its strengths. Supposedly pulled by moneyed trustees who collect contemporary art and–this must be said–definitely by many critics and others in the media pushing in the same direction, Tom Campbell has tried to make the Met more contemporary.

Let me say right here that I have nothing against contemporary art: I like a lot of it.

But no one complains that the Louvre has missed the boat on contemporary art; no one says the Louvre can’t expect to draw crowds unless it updates its offerings. In 2015, 8.6 million people visited the Louvre, even though there they don’t even see Impressionism or other 19th century art (according to statistics compiled by The Art Newspaper). That is the province of the Musee d’Orsay. And if in Paris you want to see contemporary art, you go to the Pompidou Center. It had 3 million visitors in 2015. The Orsay, by the way, had 3.4 million.

Likewise, no one says the National Gallery in London or the British Museum must move foursquare into contemporary. The National Gallery attracted 5.9 million people in 2015, and the British Museum 6.8 million. Both outdrew the Tate, with 4.7 million, just as here the Met (6.5 million) outdraws the Museum of Modern Art (3 million).

You can say that most of those visitors are tourists. Fair enough. And maybe some are going simply to see the Mona Lisa in Paris or the Raphaels, Titians, etc. at the National Gallery.  But such people will always exist. And museums are not just about the numbers–they are also about the experience, the stimulation, the uplift, the internal, often inexpressible reaction that people have to great art. Yes, I know, museums are also social–but they can’t be only social experiences or they lose their raison d’etre (and maybe tax status).

Now I’m not letting Tom Campbell off the hook–if he was pushed by trustees, he also put many of those contemporary collectors on the museum’s board. He recruited them. (I cannot account for the media influence, but I am guessing it was far from nil.)

Board composition must therefore also be on the reform agenda. Many collectors still buy beyond contemporary–some collect contemporary AND. Let the Met find them and give them voice.

Which brings me to the subject of board leadership. Daniel Brodsky has been chair since 2011. At the time he was elected, he told The New York Times that “he did not have a deep knowledge of art history or a favorite piece in the museum’s collection, although he prefers modern art.”

He was also said to “get along with everybody.” That’s a great trait–until courageous action is required. It is, I’ve been told, a reason Brodsky did not attempt to remove Campbell before now. If he had, some damage may have been avoided. And he had to be pushed, my sources say, mainly by Hamilton (Tony) James, the finance committee chair, to act now.

These are the people on the executive committee: Candace K. Beinecke; Russell L. Carson; Richard L. Chilton, Jr.; Jeffrey W. Greenberg; J. Tomilson Hill; Hamilton E. James; Bonnie J. Sacerdote; Alejandro Santo Domingo; Andrew M. Saul; James E. Shipp, and Lulu C. Wang. These are the people we will have to look to most to safeguard the Met.

Chilton, btw, heads the nominating committee–I hope they he will help recruit trustees who are not only contemporary collectors to the board.

But back to what the Met should do: New York is just as big a cornucopia for art as Paris or London. I believe the museums here should emphasize their uniqueness, not blur the lines among them–so that the public does not where to expect what, where an exhibition of an artist is likely to be.

Museums thrive when they have distinct identities, not when they are shopping-mall mishmashes.

And what should the Met specialize in? It’s a universal museum, for sure, and should remain so. It should not be specialize in periods as do the Louvre and the National Gallery. But perhaps it should specialize in what, for lack of a better word, can be called canonical art. Art, even art of today, that will most likely be considered as part of the canon 100 years from now. Does that mean it will not show some hot artists that get a show in Chelsea? Yes, it does. But it doesn’t mean that it would not have shown Kerry James Marshall. He is likely to last.

The Met will miss some artists this way–but it already has and it always will. No curator is infallible, and neither can the Met be.

This doesn’t mean that the Met will ossify. The Met can and should still have digital programs, for example. It should still devise innovative ways to show great art. It should still educate visitors and students. It can and should experiment. But let’s rebalance. Let’s move away from the idea that contemporary art is the only entry point for “the masses.” How elitist.

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tom Campbell’s forced resignation from the top post at the Metropolitan Museum of Art* yesterday was both expected and shocking at the same time. Given the museum’s financial woes–most of which Campbell is responsible for–and internal morale, especially among curators–ditto–he could not last. He is just 54, and normal retirement would be years away.

Campbell knew it: he applied for and did not get the directorship of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, I’ve been told by reliable sources. That job went instead to Tristram Hunt, a former Labour MP. I’ve heard he has made inquiries about other top jobs as well.

I think it’s good that the Met board acted–a bit late, imho, but still–it’s was an unprecedented move on their part, one that means the Met will remain unsettled for months if not years to come. I also agree with the temporary elevation of COO Dan Weiss to CEO. While he may want the job–I have heard mixed views of that–I think it would be a mistake to name him director.

Before trustees write the next job description and begin assessing candidates, they should–we all should–understand why Campbell failed.

One of Campbell’s biggest mistakes (we’ll get to the financial issues later) was losing the support of the museum’s curators–even those he hired or promoted. Remember that he was their choice when Philippe de Montebello retired in 2008. The search committee was looking at two other internal candidates–Gary Tinterow, who later left to head the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, and Ian Wardropper, who later took the job at the Frick Collection. (Both are flourishing, though Wardropper has faced push-back on his expansion plans and has had to drop one set of them for a less ambitious plan, still in the making.)

Curators pushed Campbell’s name then–they thought he was a good curator and, as one told me recently, they did not know his failings.

But he has regularly disappointed them. His offenses are many–including his lack of interest in their acquisitions (he doesn’t even want to look before the meetings, some curators say–a distinct contrast from PdM); his closed-door, appointment-only policy for one-on-ones; his predilection for hiring British curators who (supposedly) would be loyal to him; his hard-edged privileging of contemporary art and the need to be “hip” over the art in the Met’s collections; his over-the-top hiring in the digital media department, which meant that curatorial jobs (mostly assistant level) could not be filled; and the way he treated many curators who he ushered, sometimes prematurely, out the door of the Met so he could make his own choices.

Oh yeah, and he openly disparaged them in public, telling Deborah Solomon “You tell your American curators to stop being such whiners.”

And while they were not curators, it was stupid of Campbell to “encourage” the departure of former president and fundraiser par excellence Emily Rafferty and Harold Holzer, the snior vice president for public affairs, who managed the Met’s image. Campbell made life difficult for both (and others), apparently in the belief that they were too close to de Montebello.

That kind of behavior can not go on in an institution like the Met, which shines mainly because of the expertise of curators and the exhibitions and scholarship they produce.

So, I would say, the death knell for Campbell really began pealing loudly–as I wrote here on Jan. 10–when the Forum of Curators, Conservators and Scientists voted on and sent a letter of complaint to Campbell, Weiss and board chair Daniel Brodsky. That was triggered, as I wrote, by cuts in their benefits late last year but it was about so much more. And it was so explosive that even board members who wanted to see it had to visit the General Counsel’s office–Brodsky refused to circulate it lest the contents leak to the press.

Years ago, the director of the Met (and other museums) was really chief curator as well as chief executive. The job’s expanded duties now have made that difficult, but it’s worth remembering when the board considers whom to hire next.

If the search committee–yet to be named, another good sign, I think–cannot find someone who can live with and encourage curators, rather than demoralize them, they should consider creating the job of a chief curator who will be their advocate.

Photo credit: Courtesy of the LA Times

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Met

 

 

 

I’m not sure, but I just received an email announcing that Nancy Spector, who had joined the Brooklyn Museum* just last April as Deputy Director and Chief Curator, is moving back to the Guggenheim Museum–from whence she came.

At the Guggenheim, she will be in a “new position” as Artistic Director and Chief Curator. Her last job at the Guggenheim, before the Brooklyn post, was Deputy Director and Chief Curator. So this is a new title, and the Guggenheim is construing the job as something new and different, and expanded role. But, really?

According to the press release, Spector will handle:

conceptual and strategic leadership of collections, exhibitions, and curatorial programs at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum on Fifth Avenue in New York and at all Guggenheim museums internationally. Through the new position of Artistic Director and Chief Curator, the Guggenheim will unify and strengthen artistic activities throughout its international constellation of museums and initiatives, both existing and in development, while accommodating the particular collections, initiatives, and audiences of each.

Before leaving for Brooklyn last year, lured by the new director Anne Pasternak, she had been at the Guggenheim for 29 years.

Maybe the transition was difficult. Maybe she didn’t have the resources she wanted at Brooklyn. Maybe she wanted to return her focus strictly to contemporary art. Maybe the Guggenheim’s director, Richard Armstrong–to whom she’ll again report–was very persuasive.

Her official line was in the release:

I’m grateful to Anne Pasternak, the Trustees and the wonderful staff of the Brooklyn Museum for giving me the opportunity to work with them and learn from them in their great institution. It has been a privilege to participate in the museum’s vital engagement with its community and to address the possibilities of its encyclopedic collection. But when Richard Armstrong approached me with the new position of Artistic Director at the Guggenheim, I simply could not let this extraordinary opportunity—which is truly unique to the Guggenheim—pass me by. I look forward to working with my Guggenheim colleagues in New York and around the world in envisioning the many innovative programs and initiatives we will create together in the coming years.

We shall see what this really means–but for now, Pasternak will have her hands full filling the job. And it’s yet another NYC-area museum in turmoil.

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Brooklyn Museum.