Archive for January, 2008

I am Not the Met

January 11, 2008 at 2:33 am · Filed under Art, Museums ·Tagged , , , ,

Phillipe de Montebello has been director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art for thirty years, but announced on Tuesday that he will step down by the end of the year.  “After three decades, to stay much further would be to skirt decency,” he told the NY Times.

While he claims that he is “not the Met,” de Montebello’s career has truly been synonymous with the institution as any long standing director would be. Under his leadership, the Met has grown in all key areas. De Montebello has been instrumental in increasing attendance (which peaked at 5.1M visitors before 9/11) with world class exhibitions of work by da Vinci, Velazquez and Vermeer and was the driving force behind major acquisitions such as the purchase of important paintings by Duccio, van Gogh and Vermeer.  The long time director also oversaw impressive gallery renovations that show the permanent collection to it’s best potential.

But de Montebello’s tenure was not without controversy. He has come under fire for not paying enough attention to contemporary art. De Montebello seemed to be addressing these concerns in recent years dwith the Museum’s purchase of Jasper Johns’ White Flag, survey of Chuck Close the three year loan of Damien Hirst’s “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living” installation of a shark preserved in formaldehyde.

The question now turns to who the Met will choose as his successor. Obviously the search is important as the new director will be charged with preserving and continuing to grow one of the world’s most prominent art institutions. Yet, the pool of candidates is dwindling. Efforts such as the Center for Curatorial Leadership are underway to increase the numer of qualified museum directors, but those are long term solutions in their nascent years. And the Met will need to compete for candidates with other well known institutions such as the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden in Washington and the Nasher Sculpture Center in Dallas.  The search committee definitely has a challenging job ahead of them and has big shoes to fill.

Comments (1)

Stingy Eli Broad’s Most Generous Gift

January 9, 2008 at 2:50 am · Filed under Collecting Art, Museums ·Tagged , , , ,

Eli Broad’s recent decision to keep his collection intact with the Broad Art Foundation is the latest way the collector is shaping the art world. Broad has been one of the most influential patrons of the arts and Los Angeles has benefitted most from his generosity from donations to found MOCA, completing the Disney Concert Hall, donations to build the Broad Contemporary Art Museum at LACMA and the Grand Avenue project downtown (to name a few).  But this time, the collector is being stingy.  Ironically it could prove to be his most generous act.

Mr. Broad just announced that he will not be donating any works from his collection of over 2,000 top notch contemporary artworks to museums. While the NY Times seems to imply that this is a slap in the face to LACMA who was the anticipated recipient of the collection, the move could actually have a much broader impact on the institutional art world as a whole.

Most museums only show a small fraction of their collection at a given time.  They don’t have room to show some amazing works that end up in the basement hanging on racks or stacked on shelfs for several years. (It always amazed me when I worked in the museum industry how many quality pieces we simply collecting dust.)  Mr. Broad relizes this and doesn’t want his collection to share that fate.

“We don’t want it to end up in storage, in either our basement or somebody else’s basement,” Mr. Broad said. “So I, as the collector, am saying, ‘If you’re not willing to commit to show it, why don’t we just make it available to you when you want it, as opposed to giving it to you, and then our being unhappy that it’s only up 10 percent or 20 percent of the time or not being shown at all?’”

This makes the collection accessible to infinitely more museums around the globe and will allow the public to see works that would otherwise be invisible.  If other major collectors follow suit we could be seeing the beginning of an easier free exchange of work and improved museum exhibitions world wide.  Imagine any of the ArtNews 200 top collectors establishing similar foundations whose primary goal is to make sure the work is seen and enjoyed.  We wouldn’t have to turn to books to see seminal works; we could easily find them on view and see them in person.

Leave a Comment

Monopoly on Warhols

January 7, 2008 at 4:52 am · Filed under Art, Collecting Art ·Tagged , , ,

For anyone with a few hundred million dollars lying around and an interest in art, try reading Kelly Crow’s article in the Wall Street Journal.  She highlights Jose Mugrabi’s singular collection strategy that allowed him to control nearly 10% of all known Andy Warhol works.

Mr. Mugrabi, a former Columbian textile merchant now residing in Manhattan, first became interested in collecting in 1981 when he bought his first painting, a Renoir, for $121,000. He bagan buying paintings he liked whether or not he knew the artist. (Crow describes an early auction where Mugrabi bought an Yves Klein and after he was awarded the work turned to the person next to him and asked “Who is Yves Klein?”)  In 1987 Mugrabi bought his first Warhol and became so enamored with the work that he sold his other works and collected only Warhol for the past 20 years and now owns 800 works by the artist.

Of course owning so many works by one artist puts Mugrabi and other Warhol collectors in an intersting position. Mugrabi bids on any Warhol that appears on the auction block often driving up the prices in the process. Some have accused Mugrabi of doing so to increase the prices of his own collection. Mugrabi says he is just trying to buy more Warhols. In any event this practice does keep Warhol prices moving up and keeps them out of reach for several collectors. But the important thing to note here is that Mugrabi still buys several of the works on which he bids. He has a passion for the artist that first drove him to visit gallery back rooms and auctions to snap up any Warhol he could find at a time when the artist’s work was unpopular and relatively inexpensive.

Mugrabi has the passion (and the bank account) to collect Warhol exclusively, but that potentially leaves him and other Warhol collectors vulnerable to market corrections. Crow poses the question of what will happen if Mugrabi falls on hard times personally and needs to liquidate his collection. It would cause an influx of Warhol inventory and ultimately drive down prices (especially with Mugrabi not bidding on his own works). In essence the Warhol market is somewhat tied to Mugrabi’s personal financial stability. And if Mugrabi needs to sell off his collection, he will do so at a great loss.

But what can we learn from Mugrabi? Is it that we should snap up as many works by one artist as possible? Not really. What is most impressive about Mugrabi is his passion for Warhol and drive to collect his work. Yes, there are financial implications, but there are just as many negatives for Mugrabi as there are positives.  The bottom line is if you have the passion and the means to collect a single artist, then it pays to put all your energy into it.

Leave a Comment

Why credit MOMA for ignoring Latin American Art?

January 7, 2008 at 4:12 am · Filed under Art, Museums ·Tagged , ,

I’m confused.  Chris Kraul’s article in the LA Times yesterday gave praise to MoMA NY on their dedication to Latin American art. 

Yes, they deserve credit for their new show “New Perspectives in Latin American Art 1930-2006: Selections from a Decade of Acquisitions” but the question that kept running through my mind is “Why applaud something they should have been doing for the past sixty years?” Kraul quotes Luis Perez-Oramas, MoMA’s recently appointed Latin American curator (their first ever) “”the intensity of the attention given to Latin American art slowed [after WWII].” 

Perez-Oramas acknowledges the gap in their collection and is beginning to correct MoMA’s inattention after six decades, but other institutions like the Santa Barbara Museum of Art, Los Angeles County Museum of Art and Archer M. Huntington Art Gallery at UT Austin (among many others) overcame this slowed intensity in the early nineties with major acquisitions and significant shows. MoMA is woefully behind in their representation of Latin American Modernists like Otero, Soto, Gego and Herrera who Kraul mentions as the highlights of MoMA’s show.

Latin American artists have been at the forefront of international modernism and have been among the most influential members of the major modern art movements.  Diego Rivera was an influential cubist painter while he studied in Paris.  It wasn’t until he returned to Mexico that his interest shifted back to Mexican Muralism. Joaquin Torres Garcia was an important member of the Circle and Sqare group alongside Piet Mondrian. And Wifredo Lam and Matta are inextricably intwined with Surrealism. Those are only a few well known Latin American modernists.  There are uncountable others I could mention.

Reading between the lines, the real hero of MoMA’s renewed interest is Patricia Cisneros, wife of a Venezuelan media mogul, who also recently began giving generously to LACMA celebrated by an eye-opening show of colonial Latin American art.

So, yes, we should absolutely give MoMA credit for a magnificent show and a serious renewed interest in Latin American art, but let’s give some perspective and credit to others who have been contributing to the field for several years.

Leave a Comment

Getty wakes up with Iturbide exhibition

January 5, 2008 at 12:00 am · Filed under Art, Museums ·Tagged , , , ,

Reading Lynell George’s recent LA Times article on Graciela Itrubide’s show at the Getty I was shocked at what this might mean for her career.  Imagine images of Juchitan, Mexico and East LA gang members hanging on the marble walls of the Getty adjacent to classical Greek and Roman sculptures and across the coutyard from medieval manuscripts.  Looks like the Getty read Christopher Knight’s article on how the their collection has been lagging woefully behind their stature as a world class arts institution.  Hopefully this show helps the Getty’s photography department finally gain the recognition they have fought for over the past decade.

But then, my surprise turned to horror when I wondered what this meant for Iturbide’s career. As perhaps the most prominent post WWII Mexican photographer, Iturbide has been producing amazing images since studying under Manuel Alvarez Bravo. Is a show at the Getty a sign that she is no longer on the leading edge of photography? Is it an acknowledgement that she is far too mainstream?

And my horror turned to dismay when I realized that she has not had a solo show in Los Angeles – ever.  How can someone with her stature be overlooked in one of her most depicted cities?  Hopefully the Getty show will open our eyes to a true talent.

Leave a Comment