Resolutions for MOCA and the new year
Art Scatter has taken an obsessive interest in watching the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art as it tiptoed along the crumbly edge of the abyss. After all, MOCA is an internationally important arbiter and collector of new art with big curatorial ambitions (at this point, some might say too big), and its effect on how we consider the general “drift” of art in our times is out of proportion to its $20 million per year budget. Which is to say the museum gets a lot for its money.
Somewhere along the line, both the board and museum director Jeremy Strick made a nearly fatal error — when their income didn’t reach $20 million a year, they didn’t adjust. They just covered the shortfall from their endowment, which had peaked around $40 million and by this fall had dwindled to $7 million or so. Strick didn’t cut expenses sufficiently. The board and development staff didn’t find new sources of income — even during the height of the LA real estate bubble. And so, the museum found itself near extinction in November.
When Art Scatter last checked in, MOCA had two proposals in hand. First, an offer of $30 million (half to rebuild the endowment, half to support exhibitions for the next five years) from Eli Broad, who has a convoluted relationship with MOCA, the LA County Museum of Art (LACMA) and many other art institutions in the area. Lots of money. Lots of opinions. Lots of personality. Second, LACMA offered to merge with MOCA and take all that pesky fundraising off its hands and give it room to show its huge collection of art — wall space is at a premium at MOCA’s two primary exhibition sites.
On Dec. 22 (see, we’re a little late on this) the MOCA board chose the Broad option, Strick resigned from his position and a new CEO was put in charge. The museum says it has already raised more than enough to cover Broad’s $15 million challenge grant for the endowment. The LA Times, which has covered the story closely, has a good account of the final deal. LA Times art critic Christopher Knight, whose commentary on events has been sharp and well-reasoned, criticized the deal on a three grounds: 1) it sets annual dues for trustees at $75,000, which limits board membership to the very wealthy; 2) by discarding only Strick, the board didn’t take responsibility for its own failings; 3) the new CEO position might turn into something unfortunate if it’s not temporary. But he still favored it over a merger with LACMA.
So, back to our obsession with it all. We watch MOCA here in Portland (or wherever you are) as a sort of case study. In this case, the “lesson” seems to be pretty clear: arts organizations have to live within their means. Artistic success and standing aren’t substitutes for the hard day-to-day fundraising and penny-pinching that must go on, even in a rich place like LA.
Then we look for local analogs. Even though I can’t think of a local parallel off hand, I know that the boards of our cultural institutions get tired of writing checks and cajoling others for money. They lose the sense of urgency that they must have, because the lights can go out on almost any arts organization in town in a heartbeat. And the staffs get tired, too — of making do with what seems so little, of keeping their spirits high when money, and the appreciation it implies, is so hard to come by. Which makes it all the more important for those of us who “get” this, to do something about it, to show both our appreciation and give what we can.
Fortunately, we in Oregon have an excellent avenue for giving, the Oregon Cultural Trust. Make a donation to any of the state’s arts, humanities or heritage non-profits, match that with a donation to the Cultural Trust, and you can receive a tax credit that reduces you taxes owed by 100 percent of your Cultural Trust gift. For info, visit the Cultural Trust online.
December 28th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I wonder if some of these problems stem from the focus on major donors, made necessary by big money exhibitions. At this point, so much depends on big checks and, as with politics, the potential payoff for spending effort on the big contributors is so much higher that most of the attention goes to them.
I’ve spent a lot of time at the various LA museums, especially when I was there on an arts journalism fellowship last year. I’ve enjoyed going to MOCA for at least 20 years, though its cramped space makes every visit a crapshoot, because there are so few choices — especially if one of the spaces is under installation, as happened when the wonderful Rauschenberg exhibit was going up a couple years back. But MOCA’s massive Geffen/Temporary Contemporary space affords the kind of room for blockbusters like Wack!, the amazing overview of feminist art that couldn’t be shown in its entirety anywhere else, not even in NY.
But as amazing as the scope of LACMA (which is really several museums in one) and the Getty and the ambition of MOCA are, I usually seem to have a better time at the smaller, specialty museums , like the Hammer (where I met Christopher Knight and Peter Plagens to talk about LA arts issues) and Museum of Jurassic Technology. And part of it, I think, is the attitude that the bigger institutions display toward regular visitors. So often, everything seems to be geared toward the big donors, and there’s little sense of outreach or even welcome, especially to newbies. Not that I want a Wal Mart greeter or condescending primers, but maybe cultivating a little more sense that these are places for everyone would expand the donor / customer base.
I was startled at how differently I experienced the museums when I was part of a handful of national arts journalists, compared to how they felt just walking in the door over the years. Of course no museum can afford to spend that amount of effort on every patron, but in truth it wasn’t the lunches with the directors or donors that made me feel more comfortable so much as the introductory material and the welcoming attitude we encountered, neither of which is necessarily that expensive.
I have to say I’ve occasionally sensed some of this snootiness at PAM as well, although less so in recent years. Maybe I’m imagining it, and I don’t think it’s intentional by any means, but museums can be intimidating places, especially if you seldom go, so I can only imagine how it feels to first-time or infrequent visitors.
I hope that some of Mr. Broad’s largesse can be used to make MOCA a more inviting place. This is about more than just arts lovers; by virtue of its location near Disney Hall and the rest of the Music Center and planned condos and retail construction, I think MOCA’s going to be a key to the much-longed-for redevelopment of downtown LA as an arts destination.
December 28th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Thanks, Brett. I remember going to the original Temporary Contemporary close to when it opened and thinking how perfect a place it was for the rough-and-tumble of sculpture/installation/mixed-media/video art. And I agree both about what museums do (or don’t do) to make visitors feel at home and about the sweetness, comparatively, of the smaller, specialty museums. What sort of introductory materials should the Portland Art Museum offer visitors?
December 29th, 2008 at 10:33 am
And I remember Eli Broad addressing the National Critics Conference I attended in the city Todd Bolender used to refer to as El Lay. Broad’s ambition for the city as a cultural tourist destination put some blinders on his own eyes I must say–he seemed to think it was already an improvement over London, Paris, New York and several Asian cities. This was greeted with some skepticism by the representatives of dance, film, classical music, theater and visual arts criticism. But I quite loved MOCA, that part that wasn’s under installation which was most of it–they’re permanent collection is quite choice. You know, we periodically in Portland go through this business of why do we need more than one, fill in the blank, ballet company, art museum, chamber music group, etc. etc. Or more than one newspaper if it comes to that. The arts dollar is spread exceedingly thin here and everywhere else now, but you know what? It ain’t new, folks. And the Oregon Cultural Trust is all well and good, but I’d feel lots better about it if I weren’t supporting rodeos for god’s sake with a donation that I want to go to really hard pressed fine arts organizations like Conduit. I like rodeos, really I do, but they’re sporting events are they not?
December 29th, 2008 at 11:43 am
AND FURTHERMORE!! I just looked up the list of organizations in Portland that are eligible for matching funds at the Trust and it includes the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Colonial Dames. Talk about what in the pluperfect hell…
December 29th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
The wider their net, the more money they bring in for distribution. The Trust won’t give the money the Daughters donate to the Trust to the Daughters, in other words. It will go to lots of organizations…
December 29th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I understand that Barry, but just how exactly is that a “cultural” organization? Rodeos I get; libraries I get; but the DAR? The organization that wouldn’t let Marian Anderson sing at Constitution Hall?
December 29th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Well, the DAR didn’t stand alone in those days. The state of Oregon didn’t pass a law making discrimination in public accommodations illegal here until 1953. A Fair Employment act didn’t pass until 1949. The DAR “counts” as a heritage organization, but my point is simply that if I support the DAR with a $100 donation and send another $100 to the Trust, to double dip on my tax benefit, then that second $100 is distributed to a broad range of organizations. So, even if you disagree with my donation to the DAR (don’t worry, it hadn’t crossed my mind until you brought it up!), you should applaud my $100 gift to the Trust, because it might fund… Conduit!
December 30th, 2008 at 2:59 am
What sort of introductory material should PAM offer visitors? Well, it depends on the exhibit, of course. At the risk of sounding Scatter-centric or self interested, how about hiring some those underemployed arts journalists I keep hearing about to write actual stories that tell us about the artists’ lives and the works’ artistic and social context, rather than grad school, in-group Art Speak that obfuscates more than it enlightens? One of the better press kits I received from the Hammer museum’s exhibit of contemporary LA artists did a great job of putting them in context. And I think the explanations should go way beyond paper — so first and second millennia, that medium — and even the standard audio tour to interactive web content, accessible from home or the museum. But don’t get me started on PAM’s website…. And please don’t let the O Live people get ahold of it.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Two things: It never crossed my mind Barry that you were a supporter of the DAR and I yield to your better wisdom on this matter, especially since the urgency is great. I will write my check today, okay okay. I did it last year too in case you’re wondering.
And Brett, PAM has a very active and well-informed group of docents who definitely don’t speak acababble, a language I can’t bear either. Of course I’m all in favor of employing under-employed arts journalists in the way you suggest–many long years ago when I was writing half a weekly newspaper in NY I did a series on paintings in the permanent collections of New York City museums such as you suggest. Picasso’s portrait of Gertrude Stein was the most fun!
December 30th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Yes, I think a media-rich website would be a step up for most museums. They could stream their content if they are worried about “theft” of images of their objects (which most of them are). And good, jargon-free background material on the life and times of the artists involved — both on the website and in hand-outs, which don’t have to be “fancy” in the museum proper — is also a fine idea. Martha, I think you’re off the hook for contributions to the arts this year (as you have been for many years!)…
December 30th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
The MOCA lesson for Portland is, “Good arts patrons place demands upon art institutions and ask them to clarify their missions… mediocre arts patrons simply write checks and attend social functions. Overall, clarification of goals and an honest assesment of resources is the key to institutional health.” Up till now MOCA has been playing a shell game and Im truly excited they have turned this corner.
Locally, PAM turned this same corner when they hired Brian Ferriso (and made PAM a bit of a sober trendsetter after a decade of somewhat flashy museum practices, here and abroad). We have only seen the first steps but in the next 2 years we should see a real difference in how museums behave both here and abroad.
P.S. Broad has very active presence in Portland
December 30th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
A very good lesson indeed. I think the subject of what makes a good arts patron is worth several posts all by itself. I guess I see the patron of an institution as someone who collaborates with other patrons and staff — in other words, it’s not a binary relationship. So, a good patron is different things at different times, I suppose, depending on what the institution needs. I have absolutely no inside info on Eli Broad’s performance behind the scenes at MOCA, LACMA or even his own foundation. I’m really interested in what his involvement here is, though… I’m equally clueless about that!
December 30th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Broad helped found MoCA but has stayed away as of late (probably not thrilled with fiscal policies)… till it became do or die.
Look at the exhibition history at PAM in the past 2 years. Broad’s collection has been essential to PAM’s programming.
You want to talk collectors, let’s have coffee… Im a historian and I specialize in the history of how they (and other roles) interact with the rest of the cultural ecosystem. The discussion needs to get more ink/photons beyond the veneer of publicity around writing checks.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
You too Mr. Johnson are off the hook and have been for many years for contributions to the arts. Anybody know the origin of the lyric, “the underground hideout of the DAR there?” It’s been skipping around what passes for my mind these days and is driving me bonkers. Happy New Year Art Scatterers! muw