Target Marketing

You will be automatically redirected to targetmarketingmag in 20 seconds.
Skip this advertisement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
 
 

Busybodies, Hoarders and Egomaniacs

You do whatcha gotta do, no matter how distasteful

Vol. 4, Issue No. 68 | December 9, 2008 By Denny Hatch
12

IN THE NEWS

Here's How to Rescue a Museum at the Brink

The first thing to be said about the fiscal crisis facing the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, horrendous as it is, is that it could be a lot worse. The museum regularly overran its budget and dipped into its endowment to cover operating costs, which is scandalously irresponsible. But let's keep some perspective. The museum needs to raise roughly $25 million and embrace a new strategy to stabilize itself. And it can do it. This institution has to be born again, wrestled into a new phase of its marvelous history by the people who brought it into being in the first place, with help from the rest of the art world. But first there needs to be a truce. Both the siege and the bunker mentality must be suspended. People have to set aside their rage at one another and at outside critics. They should stop fretting about their reputations or grudges. Egos have to be left at the door.

—Roberta Smith, The New York Times, Dec. 7, 2008


The Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) in Los Angeles is broke, and a lot of folks are in high dudgeon.

Its profligate and irresponsible director, Jeremy Strick, classically trained and hired in 1999 out of the Art Institute of Chicago, has burned through $44 million of the museum’s endowment, leaving it with a paltry $6 million.

This is a major scandal.

Museum management is dithering over how to quickly raise the $25 million needed to keep the doors open and some of its programs going. Do they merge with another museum? Do they hit up some big donors? Do they hire Carl Bloom Associates to launch a direct mail campaign?

Uh-uh. No time.

The sentence that follows this one will be the most blasphemous concept that could ever be promulgated in the eyes of the ego-driven elitists who run art museums.

To get on its feet, MOCA needs only to sell two paintings from its permanent collection; fire the director; put some responsible, competent people on its board; suck it up and start over.

Sell two paintings out of its permanent collection?

AAAAaaaaaahhhhhhheeeeeeee!!!!

The Worst Web Site in the World
In creating this cranky e-zine, I visit hundreds of Web sites every day. If the competence of an organization can be measured by the quality of its Web site, the Museum of Contemporary Art belongs in the Cloacus Maximus—the giant sewer that runs deep under Rome. MOCA has the worst Web site I have ever seen. Period.

How bad is it? Start with light-blue sans serif mousetype on a light-blue background.

But squinting into the computer screen, it's possible—with great difficulty—to discern that the permanent collection of the Museum of Contemporary Art contains works by Roy Lichtenstein, Claes Oldenburg, Robert Rauschenberg, James Rosenquist, Mark Rothko, George Segal, Julian Schnabel, Frank Stella, Cy Tombly, Alberto Giacometti, Piet Mondrian and Jackson Pollock.

Individual works by these artists can go for tens of millions. An example: In November 2006, Hollywood’s David Geffen sold “No. 5, 1948” by Jackson Pollock to financier David Martinez for $140 million—the highest price ever paid for a work of art in the history of the world. (See the illustration at the end of this issue.)

Quietly selling off two paintings means MOCA would lose a couple of trees, but the forest would be saved.

You Do Whatcha Gotta Do
When you are running a business that is going south, don’t dither. Remember Lord Horatio Nelson’s rule for winning a sea battle: “Nevermind the maneuvers. Go straight at 'em!”

What triggered this screed was a story earlier this week that the National Academy—a relatively unknown school and museum in New York City—was in desperate need of dough ($800,000 deficit on a $3 million budget) and stealthily sold from its collection two 19th century landscapes by Hudson River School artists for an estimated $14 million and change.

So what’s the big deal?

It turns out a bunch of nosey-parkers operating under the banner of the Association of Art Museum Directors issued the following press release:

The National Academy is now breaching one of the most basic and important of AAMD’s principles by treating its collection as a financial asset, rather than the cornerstone of research, exhibition, and public programming, a record of human creativity held in trust for people now and in the future.

In the notification of its decision to AAMD last evening, the National Academy voluntarily withdrew from membership in the organization. It is not, however, membership in AAMD per se, but rather a broader commitment to ethical museum practice that demands adherence to the principles governing deaccessioning. Therefore, we have no choice but to censure the National Academy for this action. Consistent with AAMD’s Code of Ethics, we call on our members to suspend any loans of works of art to and any collaborations on exhibitions with the National Academy.

Had the two pictures not been sold, Academy Interim Director Carmine Branagan told The New York Times’ Randy Kennedy, “the academy would close—and that is a sincere and honest statement.”

The National Academy owns a hoard of more than 7,000 works of art, the lion’s share hidden away and never seen by the public. What’s more, in my opinion, the sale of a couple Hudson River School landscapes is a big ho-hum. Whenever I'm in a museum and stumble into a room with Hudson River artists, I turn tail and go elsewhere—anywhere. Same thing with Ruisdael, Constable, Corot and Andrew Wyeth.

It's also my opinion that if I have clear title to something, I can sit on it, sell it, eat it or give it away to the Salvation Army—especially if that will save an institution, put bread on the table or enable loyal people to keep working and customers to be served.

I once knew a lovely couple who inherited a beautiful house stuffed with family heirlooms—magnificent antiques worth millions. They didn't have much money, worked hard, scrimped to send their kids to college—all the while surrounded by this extraordinary, museum-quality collection.

I remember a Christmas gathering at their house when I brought along my friend Charlie, an art collector and a denizen of auctions and up-market antique stores. As we were chatting, Charlie’s eyes suddenly narrowed and he said, “Holy smoke, that guy across the room is sitting on a Duncan Phyfe chair! ... and so is Peggy ... Good God, so am I! ... The stuff in this room is worth a fortune!” He counted a dozen matching Duncan Phyfe chairs.

As the owner’s wife once said to me, “We could have sold one of those big old Chinese urns and put all the children through college, fixed up the house and had money left over, but the family wouldn’t hear of it.”

They were free from the guilt that would have come from selling off their patrimony, but they struggled and essentially let life pass them by so their kids could inherit this stuff.

As I recall, the kids sold off a ton of it.

 
A Culture of Hoarders
The sanctimony of the Association of Art Museum Directors is pompous, patronizing and disingenuous. For many of them, their basic business is hoarding:

  • The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York houses more than 2 million art objects. The vast majority of these will never be seen.
     
  • The Met’s collection is dwarfed by the 7 million pieces at the British Museum in London, much of it the treasures spirited out of unsophisticated, unsuspecting countries by crafty adventurers and archaeologists. The collection of Egyptian artifacts alone totals 110,000—100,000 of which will never see the light of day.
     
  • A number of years ago, I was in London and paid a call on the new Tate Modern, a magnificent facility on the banks of the Thames. Alas, the permanent collection is a bunch of second-rate work by first-rate artists. Yet all over the world, great art is hoarded and hidden away from public view in museum basements that the ego-driven curators and greedy directors are unwilling to deaccession.
     
  • This is key: A work of art on the wall of a private home or a business enterprise—where it gives continual joy to all that behold and love it—is far more in keeping with the intent of the artist than relegating it to the black hole of a museum basement for eternity. It was painted to give pleasure, not to give bragging rights to curators and museum directors because, “The collection in my cellar is bigger than yours.”
     
  • Saturday night, I had dinner with good friends who told me of a mutual friend in the South, not particularly affluent, who bought himself a 1931 Rolls-Royce. “What are you going to do with it?” they asked. “I’m going to own it,” he said with a smile.

The Barnes Mess
A major brouhaha in Philadelphia is the fate of the Barnes Foundation—the greatest hoard of privately held modern art in the world—some 2,500 objects with an estimated value of $6 billion that include 180 Renoirs, 69 Cézannes, 44 Picassos and 18 Rousseaux. This private museum is flat broke, the result of poor investments and lawsuits caused by onerous “indentures” decreed by the nutty founder, Albert C. Barnes, who was killed in an automobile accident in 1951. Nothing can be sold from the collection, Barnes decreed, and none of the exhibits can be rearranged. Barnes’ will has finally been broken, $150 million has been raised and this extraordinary collection is slated to be moved to flashy new digs on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway a few hundred yards from the massive Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Some years ago, I got chatting with one of the guards at the Philadelphia Museum, who told me that the most valuable work of art in the entire collection is Cézanne’s "Bathers."

Cézanne painted three huge canvases of bathers. One is in the National Gallery on Trafalgar Square, London. The remaining two are 5.65 miles apart—one at the Philadelphia Museum, the other at the Barnes in the suburban town of Merion Station.

All of this angst and horror of the Barnes situation could have been avoided if the directors, lawyers and Montgomery County Orphan’s Court had figured out a way to allow the foundation to sell one painting. My pick: Cézanne’s "Bathers," which would have raised $100 million and allowed the funky Barnes to remain in situ with plenty of money to comfortably operate in perpetuity. Philadelphia doesn't need two of the world’s three Cézanne "Bathers."


Takeaway Points to Consider

  • When running a business, you do whatcha gotta do to keep it going—so long as it’s legal—no matter how distasteful, no matter how bruising to your ego.
     
  • Had the National Academy knuckled under to the Association of Art Museum Directors and not sold two paintings out of its hoard of 7,000, it would be forced to close its doors, abandon its programs, lay off the entire staff and ultimately give away its entire collection (under AAMD you can’t sell anything) to other museums that would hoard them in basements along with the thousands of other works hidden from public view.
     
  • If the folks at the Museum of Contemporary Arts in Los Angeles sell a couple paintings, they can keep the doors open and, with creative management and curatorial wizardry, could start attracting gifts of art that would more than replace those sold to get through this rough patch.
     
  • Why shouldn’t a museum be treated as a business? To stay alive, Ford sold off Jaguar, Aston Martin and Land Rover. Donald Trump sold off the Plaza Hotel, the grandest piece of real estate in New York, if not the entire East Coast.
     
  • When Edward VIII (later Duke of Windsor) abdicated the throne in order to marry American divorcée Wallis Warfield Simpson (“The woman I love”) on Dec. 10, 1936, the great sportsman, polo player and racing stable owner Foxhall Keene ran into my father’s house, tears streaming down his cheeks. “I can understand giving up the title of king of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas,” Foxy wailed, “but I can’t imagine anybody giving up being emperor of India!”
     
  • I would feel the same way about giving up Aston Martin or the Plaza Hotel. But you do whatcha gotta do.
     
  • “Nevermind the maneuvers. Go straight at 'em!”
    —Lord Nelson
     
  • This is key: A work of art on the wall of a private home or a business enterprise—where it gives continual joy to all that behold and love it—is far more in keeping with the intent of the artist than relegating it to the black hole of a museum basement for eternity. It was painted to give pleasure, not to give bragging rights to curators and museum directors because, “The collection in my cellar is bigger than yours.”

Web Sites Related to Today's Edition

Museum of Contemporary Arts, Los Angeles
http://www.moca.org/
 

“Here's How to Rescue a Museum at the Brink”
http://tinyurl.com/562phx

National Academy
http://www.nationalacademy.org/

“National Academy Sells Two Hudson River School Paintings”
http://tinyurl.com/5mz74v

AAMD Statement
http://tinyurl.com/6fbs6l

Metropolitan Museum of Art
http://www.metmuseum.org/

British Museum
http://www.britishmuseum.org/

Tate Modern
http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/

The Barnes Foundation
http://www.barnesfoundation.org/

“Fight to halt move of Barnes Foundation ends”
http://tinyurl.com/6d7l8w

“Opening the Barnes Door”, TIME, May 10, 1993
http://tinyurl.com/64lwcc

Philadelphia Museum of Art
http://www.philamuseum.org/


 
12

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
Bill - Posted on February 18, 2009
Denny-
Excellent piece, and eminently reasonable. I lived in Villanova for years, and loved the Barnes. I thought the mess they went thru was disgraceful.
Dr Barnes collected one of the all-time great art collections, and he did it not thru sheer wealth a la Getty et al, but by having an incredible eye, world-class taste, and he got stuff none the "art biggies" appreciated at the time. (I had a neighbor— whose name you would recognize— who did the same, helping out starving impressionists as a young rich Philadelphia woman well traveled abroad.)
But I think if Dr Barnes wanted his museum to run a certain way and said so clearly in his will, and left the funds to carry that out, his will should be respected. Going the Barnes was a special experience, even if (maybe because) you needed an appointment.
When we disrespect the will of a wealthy philanthropist, we establish a precedent that tells future well-off folks not to try to do what they would like for posterity's benefit, for their will will be twisted by knaves to make a trap for the very causes dear to the heart of the late donor. Look at what the Ford Foundation does today. Poor Henry must be turning over 1000RPMs in his grave. The same is true of so many Foundations established by successful Free-Enterprisers, which now seem bent on destroying Free Enterprise, and the Constitution that establishes it.
As for the Art Museum Mucky-Mucks who couldn't see that selling 2 pictures to keep the boat afloat was a no-brainer, I say that the criticism of a fool is praise indeed. Next time I'm in LA I want to visit that spunky little museum.
Carl Bloom - Posted on December 09, 2008
Richard Sutherland - Posted on December 09, 2008
Denny, how about selling off a couple of pieces of art for a whopping sum of money, and then coaxing the buyers to donate them back to the museum, taking a very hefty income tax deduction in the process?

Richard Sutherland
David - Posted on December 09, 2008
With the exception of a few paintings, the stuff on display at MOCA, especially the sculpture, is preposterous pretentious garbage. The place has b een run by clowns for years, and I am not surprised at their present behavior, with an unusable website and a financial mess.
But then, much of modern art is nonsense. $140 million for that Jackson Pollock? Come on, you could teach a sheltered workshop of retarded adults to do dozens of them in an afternoon. Fifty bucks of paint and canvas, and the rest is PR and capitalist speculation. In contrast, the Hudson River School did gorgeous and moving work requiring both vision and great skill in detail.
Johh M. Prophet - Posted on December 09, 2008
Is there a pattern here? I keep wondering what they teach in the business schools: How to Wreck a Business 101? or How to Make a Million in One Fell Swoop or How to Mesmerize Your Board of Directors (who are already mesmerized) or How to Ride in a Private Jet or Enriching Your Greed Complex. These CEOs are supposed to be the cream of the crop. How come so many of them go sour. It's not just the museums, it's GM et al. They don't seem to know survival techniques. I'd hate to be stranded on a deserted island with any one of them. I would like to see their resumes, have them printed out for everyone to see to see who would hire them.
Terry Kovel - Posted on December 09, 2008
Donna - Posted on December 09, 2008
More than a message for art museums - it's about the message to the "Big Three" (who have buried ideas for clean, fuel efficient cars in their basements), the UAW (who would hide their common sense in a basement and fight for benies that will cost thousands their basic jobs) and to Congress (who would hide their responsibility to their constituents in a basement rather than push Paulson to do what the bailout was intended and to press the big three to sit at the table, in front of them, WITH THE HEAD OF THE UAW.) Why is there not an uprising by the public to say "Enough!"

An annual $1.2 million retirement package for the former head of Fannie Mae. Can you please spell "O-B-S-C-E-N-E???

CEO's that don't perform continuing in their jobs and making a healthy salary to boot??? I think we are all burying our heads in our basements!!
Robert - Posted on December 09, 2008
I'll bet that it's not the stuff hoarded in the cellars that will bring in the day-saving big bucks. Just sayin'
Bob Paroski - Posted on December 09, 2008
Denny:

Great insight.

It never ceases to amaze me how both people, organizations and institutions fail to do what is necessary for their own survival.

MOCA is probably looking for a donor or donors to come along and bail them out without even thinking of what they might sell from their collection to generate the funds they need.

Do you think that they may go before congress and petition for some of the Bailout money?
Carolyn Hansen - Posted on December 09, 2008
I couldn't agree more! I visited the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg in 1991 (when St. Petersburg was still Leningrad). Apparently, they didn't care much for impressionist art there. All the Monets and Renoirs were on the fourth floor -- the windows were open, the heat and humidity that August were overwhelming and there was no crowd control. I wondered out loud why they didn't just sell a Van Gogh and put in some air conditioning!
Judy Smath - Posted on December 09, 2008
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees! Gee, sell a couple of paintings that are stashed in the basement and have never been seen or have the entire museum shut down and no longer serve the community? What happens to all the paintings that are in the museum after it shuts down? Oh... that's right.... they will be sold to another museum, or to private collectors, which is what they were trying to avoid in the first place. Stupid and short-sighted.

But isn't this they way America is in general. We buy, buy, buy things we may never use and we don't get rid of old stuff to make way for the new. We continually pile more crap into our lives just because we have to have it whether or not we use it or need it.
James Hood - Posted on December 09, 2008
Denny, once again... right on target. I own a company that produces "high impact" advertising campaigns for retail stores. When business is good many retailers consider what we do distasteful and some think it even harms their reputation... Nothing is further from the truth, yes some people who do what we do, or claim to do what we do, run distasteful and mindless events, but what we do is create traffic in stores with real themes, sales themes consumers can believe in.
Recently, stores are again coming to realize that they have to do what they have to do to stay alive, to live to fight another day... to do business!
Thanks for pointing that out to those who need to hear ... do what you have to do!
Scott Hood
Cosec International, Inc.
Tulsa, OK
www.cosecinternational.com
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
Bill - Posted on February 18, 2009
Denny-
Excellent piece, and eminently reasonable. I lived in Villanova for years, and loved the Barnes. I thought the mess they went thru was disgraceful.
Dr Barnes collected one of the all-time great art collections, and he did it not thru sheer wealth a la Getty et al, but by having an incredible eye, world-class taste, and he got stuff none the "art biggies" appreciated at the time. (I had a neighbor— whose name you would recognize— who did the same, helping out starving impressionists as a young rich Philadelphia woman well traveled abroad.)
But I think if Dr Barnes wanted his museum to run a certain way and said so clearly in his will, and left the funds to carry that out, his will should be respected. Going the Barnes was a special experience, even if (maybe because) you needed an appointment.
When we disrespect the will of a wealthy philanthropist, we establish a precedent that tells future well-off folks not to try to do what they would like for posterity's benefit, for their will will be twisted by knaves to make a trap for the very causes dear to the heart of the late donor. Look at what the Ford Foundation does today. Poor Henry must be turning over 1000RPMs in his grave. The same is true of so many Foundations established by successful Free-Enterprisers, which now seem bent on destroying Free Enterprise, and the Constitution that establishes it.
As for the Art Museum Mucky-Mucks who couldn't see that selling 2 pictures to keep the boat afloat was a no-brainer, I say that the criticism of a fool is praise indeed. Next time I'm in LA I want to visit that spunky little museum.
Carl Bloom - Posted on December 09, 2008
Richard Sutherland - Posted on December 09, 2008
Denny, how about selling off a couple of pieces of art for a whopping sum of money, and then coaxing the buyers to donate them back to the museum, taking a very hefty income tax deduction in the process?

Richard Sutherland
David - Posted on December 09, 2008
With the exception of a few paintings, the stuff on display at MOCA, especially the sculpture, is preposterous pretentious garbage. The place has b een run by clowns for years, and I am not surprised at their present behavior, with an unusable website and a financial mess.
But then, much of modern art is nonsense. $140 million for that Jackson Pollock? Come on, you could teach a sheltered workshop of retarded adults to do dozens of them in an afternoon. Fifty bucks of paint and canvas, and the rest is PR and capitalist speculation. In contrast, the Hudson River School did gorgeous and moving work requiring both vision and great skill in detail.
Johh M. Prophet - Posted on December 09, 2008
Is there a pattern here? I keep wondering what they teach in the business schools: How to Wreck a Business 101? or How to Make a Million in One Fell Swoop or How to Mesmerize Your Board of Directors (who are already mesmerized) or How to Ride in a Private Jet or Enriching Your Greed Complex. These CEOs are supposed to be the cream of the crop. How come so many of them go sour. It's not just the museums, it's GM et al. They don't seem to know survival techniques. I'd hate to be stranded on a deserted island with any one of them. I would like to see their resumes, have them printed out for everyone to see to see who would hire them.
Terry Kovel - Posted on December 09, 2008
Donna - Posted on December 09, 2008
More than a message for art museums - it's about the message to the "Big Three" (who have buried ideas for clean, fuel efficient cars in their basements), the UAW (who would hide their common sense in a basement and fight for benies that will cost thousands their basic jobs) and to Congress (who would hide their responsibility to their constituents in a basement rather than push Paulson to do what the bailout was intended and to press the big three to sit at the table, in front of them, WITH THE HEAD OF THE UAW.) Why is there not an uprising by the public to say "Enough!"

An annual $1.2 million retirement package for the former head of Fannie Mae. Can you please spell "O-B-S-C-E-N-E???

CEO's that don't perform continuing in their jobs and making a healthy salary to boot??? I think we are all burying our heads in our basements!!
Robert - Posted on December 09, 2008
I'll bet that it's not the stuff hoarded in the cellars that will bring in the day-saving big bucks. Just sayin'
Bob Paroski - Posted on December 09, 2008
Denny:

Great insight.

It never ceases to amaze me how both people, organizations and institutions fail to do what is necessary for their own survival.

MOCA is probably looking for a donor or donors to come along and bail them out without even thinking of what they might sell from their collection to generate the funds they need.

Do you think that they may go before congress and petition for some of the Bailout money?
Carolyn Hansen - Posted on December 09, 2008
I couldn't agree more! I visited the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg in 1991 (when St. Petersburg was still Leningrad). Apparently, they didn't care much for impressionist art there. All the Monets and Renoirs were on the fourth floor -- the windows were open, the heat and humidity that August were overwhelming and there was no crowd control. I wondered out loud why they didn't just sell a Van Gogh and put in some air conditioning!
Judy Smath - Posted on December 09, 2008
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees! Gee, sell a couple of paintings that are stashed in the basement and have never been seen or have the entire museum shut down and no longer serve the community? What happens to all the paintings that are in the museum after it shuts down? Oh... that's right.... they will be sold to another museum, or to private collectors, which is what they were trying to avoid in the first place. Stupid and short-sighted.

But isn't this they way America is in general. We buy, buy, buy things we may never use and we don't get rid of old stuff to make way for the new. We continually pile more crap into our lives just because we have to have it whether or not we use it or need it.
James Hood - Posted on December 09, 2008
Denny, once again... right on target. I own a company that produces "high impact" advertising campaigns for retail stores. When business is good many retailers consider what we do distasteful and some think it even harms their reputation... Nothing is further from the truth, yes some people who do what we do, or claim to do what we do, run distasteful and mindless events, but what we do is create traffic in stores with real themes, sales themes consumers can believe in.
Recently, stores are again coming to realize that they have to do what they have to do to stay alive, to live to fight another day... to do business!
Thanks for pointing that out to those who need to hear ... do what you have to do!
Scott Hood
Cosec International, Inc.
Tulsa, OK
www.cosecinternational.com