Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

People

Corcoran Catch-Up: Lesser Of Two Evils Or A Third Choice?

Last week, the group called Save the Corcoran (a museum which as you’ll all remember is suffering from poor leadership, lack of ideas and perhaps lack of convictions) emailed me their endorsement of a man named Wayne Reynolds to become the Corcoran’s new board chair. Now that I’ve had time to see what this would mean, I wonder if they have read the fine print.

The ReynoldsReynolds, the husband of Catherine Reynolds (both are shown at right), who some years back got rich on student lending and attempted to give millions of dollars to the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of American History. There was a kerfuffle about her wanting to influence the content of the Hall of Famous Americans and whether it could be named, etc. and I think the donation was retracted. That may be immaterial, but it might say something about the Reynolds brand of philanthropy.

Her husband recently stepped down as chair of Ford’s Theater, where he helped raise $54 million in a capital campaign and became a local hero. Now he is making an activist bid to chair the Corcoran board. As Save the Corcoran’s release said:

Wayne Reynolds has a vision for a future Corcoran. His track record at Ford’s Theatre and other endeavors indicates that he can take on a struggling institution and create something thriving,” said Jayme McLellan, former adjunct faculty at theCorcoran and a founding member of Save the Corcoran. “He believes in theCorcoran and has a desperately-needed vision to transform it into an innovative creative center dedicated to art and arts education.”

Yes, but what is the vision?

According to a March 5 article in the Washington Post, Reynolds

proposes what he calls the Corcoran Center for Creativity. He would expand the Corcoran College of Art and Design, adding a stronger focus on technology and new media, along with the traditional arts disciplines. He would de-emphasize the gallery, arguing that it can’t compete with the free, federally funded galleries in town.

Most controversially, he proposes selling hundreds of millions of dollars worth of art that rarely, if ever, gets displayed and is not central to founder William Corcoran’s original charge in 1869 for the institution to encourage “American genius.” The money would establish a huge endowment for the first time in the Corcoran’s history.

What? Save the Corcoran opposed the current regime for trying to sell the building, but endorses a new guy who wants to sell the collection? That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Reynolds has financial clout, and other people are backing him. The Post even endorsed him in an editorial. It began:

THOUGH UNORTHODOX, the unabashedly public bid by Wayne Reynolds to take over leadership of the troubled Corcoran Gallery of Art cannot and should not be dismissed. The philanthropist has credentials and resources in getting struggling institutions to thrive — as evidenced by his work in turning around Ford’s Theatre. More importantly, he has articulated a much-needed vision for the Corcoran that would bring it into the 21st century while still staying true to the 19th-century charge of its founder.

But the Corcoran’s current board is balking, no doubt put off by his charges that “It’s shameful what’s happened there.” Trustees are on their own track and don’t want interference — or some newcomer coming in with a broom to sweep clean.

Maybe if they would hurry up and decide what they’re going to do, and start raising some money, they can prevent Reynolds from taking over. If not, not.

I’m not sure which is the lesser of two evils. I’d like a third choice.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Washington Post

Way-Out Solution For LA-MOCA: Dump Deitch And Hire…

I’ve been thinking about the Museum of Contemporary Art’s struggles in Los Angeles since news broke in the Los Angeles Times on Thursday that the LA County Museum of Art had essentially made a takeover bid for the troubled museum. In case you missed it:

…The acquisition offer was made in a letter from the leaders of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, or LACMA, to the co-chairs of the MOCA board.

LACMA would preserve MOCA’s two downtown locations and operate them under the MOCA name. With money an obvious issue for MOCA’s future, the letter guaranteed that LACMA would raise $100 million for the combined museums as a condition of the deal.

“MOCA has a great brand, a great history and its art collection is known and loved internationally,” Michael Govan, LACMA’s executive director, said. “Combining the two museums would create one of the largest and most significant art museums in the U.S.”

It’s not a bad idea. Govan argues, in a post on LACMA’s website, that

Combining LACMA and MOCA would strengthen both. LACMA’s mission is to share world-class art with the widest array of audiences possible. MOCA’s downtown location, extraordinary collection and devoted constituency, combined with LACMA’s modern art masterpieces, large audiences and broad educational outreach (especially in schools near downtown L.A.) would create a cultural institution that is much more than the sum of its parts. LACMA’s strong leadership, its history of fundraising, and its support from Los Angeles County and other donors will provide MOCA with the stability it deserves.

It’s not the best solution, either. I’d rather have more, rather than fewer, views of contemporary art. I think Govan has plenty on his plate already without adding MOCA.

So how to preserve MOCA’s independence? First, Jeffrey Deitch has to go. Now. The museum cannot afford to lose any more people, and it must return to a respected exhibition program.

KoshalekThen, it needs a new director who, with the board, will be able  to stablize the museum. Someone who knows the lay of the land. Someone with directorial experience. Now, what experienced director would take this job? Only one: former MOCA director Richard Koshalek, now running the Hirshhorn Museum. Soon, Koshalek’s contract will expire, I understand. His dream of erecting an Inflatable Seasonal Structure at the Hirshhorn for programming and creating a culural think-tank, is all but dead. He has no reason to stay, ifhe;s asked, so he’ll be free to leave Washington.

But Koshalek, I’m guessing, is thinking about his legacy. He’s past 70. Although he had a troubled time as president of the Pasadena Art Center College of Design, when he left MOCA in 1999, after 20 years, it had a healthy endowment (about $50 million, I’m told), and was well-respected for its collections and its exhibitions. And his hires, including Paul Schimmel and Ann Goldstein.

Sure times have changed since  he left LA,  but his return to MOCA for the next couple of years might be just the way to stop the civil war at the museum, get it back on its feet, raise a substantial amount of money, take its time developing succession plans, etc.

Would Koshalek take it? I’m betting yes.

 

 

Did Michael Govan Really Say This?

It was a typical museum director panel last week in Georgia, at the Savannah College of Art and Design’s deFINE Art conference. I wasn’t there, but thought I’d read the account of it on Hyperallergic, which carried the perfunctory headline, Museum as Tool: Directors on How They Run Their Art Institutions.

GovanThen, I read this: “Universal museums were the result of colonialism. The Metropolitan Museum’s narrative is false. It’s a creative act to assemble the narrative of the past.” [Boldface mine.]

Wow. It was attributed to Michael Govan, the director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The only context given was this:

Govan thinks of LACMA as a “civic museum,” an institution that “can impact a city.” He wants to adapt the form of the encyclopedic museum into a new era, emphasizing multiculturalism and forming a “contemporary point of view,” connecting with the city of Los Angeles. It’s a revision of the encyclopedic museum’s history.

Now, I have high respect for Govan — he’s a very sharp thinker and doer. And he’s not afraid to break a few eggs — this would not be the first time.

But seriously, false? All of it? I wonder what Tom Campbell has to say about that.

This has certainly been a wild week for museums.

*I consult to a Foundation that supports the Met.

 

Leaderless In San Francisco, And The Ensuing Turmoil

It just keeps getting worse at the San Francisco Museums of Fine Arts. When the late director John Buchanan was alive (he died in December 2011), the museum fared well — by the numbers at least. He was somewhat controversial, having too much affinity for fashion and jewelry exhibitions, for example, and spending too freely, some people said. But he didn’t make a mess, there, as I recall.

LynnOrrNow there is a mess there — and people are wondering not only what’s up, but who’s in charge, and why — 14 months after Buchanan’s death — no director is in sight.

Last December, the museum terminated curator Lynn Orr, who specialized in European art, because of her performance; that followed the firing in November of the museum’s photographer Joe McDonald, who’d worked there for 27 years. Now, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, the museum has dumped Bill White, the exhibition designer who has been there since 1977, and his assistant, Elizabeth Scott.

Orr’s case is amplified in this article:

“When I asked how my performance was deemed lacking, they refused to offer any specificity or further information,” Orr said in an e-mail.

“I have never received any indication of dissatisfaction with my performance, much less a degree of dissatisfaction that would warrant terminating me without any prior notice or even an explanation. The Museums’ refusal to provide any explanation or details, or even to give me an opportunity to respond, further confirm that my performance had nothing to do with the termination decision.”

She said, instead, that her behavior in support of union employees at the museum last fall during negotiations — she attended a rally but did not, as asked, carry a sign or speak out publicly — was the probable cause. She apparently alienated a trustee — or two. More juicy details at that link.

The last line of the story is important: it says the search to replace Buchanan continues.

I think these searches are getting ridiculously long. Why does it take more than a year to fill an executive position? A year is now the norm at art museums, and then there’s a lapse between appointment and taking the job. As a result museums are tossed around for, say, 18 months, leaderless. Can you imagine a company that would allow that?

 

Trouble In Indianapolis: Does The Job Change The Man?

When Charles Venable got the job as director of the Indianapolis Museum of Art last August, I thought it would be a good thing. Now I am not so sure.

VEnableVenable came from the Speed Museum, where he had done several things of which I approved — mounting a series of one-painting (masterpiece) exhibitions, for example, and launching a comprehensive review of the Speed’s permanent collection.

But a recent article in The Indianpolis Star has me rethinking; was I fooled, has Venable changed his spots, or is he obeying a board that has its priorities in the wrong order?

The Star article shows Venable to be more concerned about money than about art and quality. It begins this way:

Charles Venable, the new director at the Indianapolis Museum of Art, envisions a giant car show — right there in the museum — an automobiles-as-art thing. Picture super high-end rides like Bugattis. Maybe it’s timed to coincide with an Indianapolis 500.

People would come, Venable is certain of that. They would come in the hundreds of thousands.

Customers. Dollars. Please exit-through-gift-shop. Cha-ching.

An art museum may be a place of beauty and truth and inspiration and epiphanies.

But it’s also about money.

Later it says:

In an interview with The Star, he voiced his displeasure at a recent exhibit of Islamic art because it drew 7,000 people but cost $500,000 to stage. He talked about the importance of packing the house.

After mentioning a coming Matisse exhibition, the article continues:

He sees the Matisse exhibit as the first of many blockbuster shows.

He plans to meet soon with Ken Gross, curator of last summer’s “Speed: The Art of the Performance Automobile” at the Utah Museum of Fine Arts. A highlight of the exhibit was a public chat between Gross and talk-show host Jay Leno, a noted car collector; museum patrons ponied up $200 to see that.

Ken Gross, a guest curator, is described on his Amazon page as the former “Executive Director of the Petersen Automotive Museum, in Los Angeles, California, for five years following a career in advertising and marketing. His car, travel, and motorcycle writing has appeared in Robb Report, The Rodder’s Journal, Automobile Magazine, and Road & Track.” No mention of concerns about the design of cars.

The article continues:

[Venable] rearranged the [IMA’s] organization chart so that all curators now report to Preston Bautista, who joined the staff in 2011. Bautista has a Ph.D. in art history but also studied advertising and knows statistics.

Ok, there’s nothing wrong with concern about the audience for art. It’s when audience considerations drive the art choices that things are out of whack.

The Star reveals Venable as a prodigious fundraiser and that’s good — the IMA, it says, overspent and drew down too much from its endowment during the tenure of former director Max Anderson.

I agree with Venable that the way back to balance is through programming. He should not cut back on programming; but it’s possible, even in a sports-crazy town like Indianapolis, to organize exhibitions that will be big draws. I’ve seen other museums do it; why not Indy?

Here’s another sad comment, though: The Star article — which should have had an impact on the city’s art lovers — was published on Feb. 21. Five days later, not a single comment was left beneath it, whether refuting, agreeing, showing concern, or applauding.

Is Indianapolis really that apathetic about its art museum?

Photo Credit: Matt Kryger, Courtesy of The StarÂ