The New York Times has been on a rampage with the new Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) over the past week or so. Last Sunday they ran a story about Eli Broad, the patron saint and namesake of LACMA’s addition (appropriately called the Broad Contemporary Art Museum) deciding not to donate his entire collection to LACMA. When I say the entire contemporary art collection of Eli and Edythe Broad, I mean 2,000 pieces of art. Yes, 2,000. And apparently it’s a slap in the face for the museum and according to the Times, the entire LA/West coast area because that donation would have allowed Los Angeles to rival New York as being an art center.
Yawn. Where to begin with this one. First off, I will never understand the entire West Coast/East Coast rivalry with every and anything. I thought the rap/hip-hop world decided this was an unproductive battle after all, as fun as it may be to write rhymes about it. I guess I’m coming from the perspective of Chicago, who has the proverbial “Second City” (“Third City”?) chip on its shoulder that I find incredibly boring. So boring that to hear the Times refer to the East/West coast art rivalry was nearly coma-inducing. Yet I read on.
The Broad’s gave LACMA $56 million dollars to help build the new museum. That alone deserves naming rights, but I don’t think that giving LACMA $56 million also means they get to give the museum their entire collection as well. Eli Broad says (and rightly so) that to give the museum 2,000 pieces of art means 80% of it will always be in storage. He feels that if they keep the collection in control of their foundation, it will mean dispersing it to a wider audience through loans for exhibitions at other institutions and museums. I have to wonder if it’s easier for another museum (say, uh, a small remotely located university art museum) to borrow work from a private foundation than from another museum? I can’t say for certain, but probably yes. Hopefully yes.
So to that whole article, I think the Times needs to relax and tone down the conspiratorial tones. Having a large portion of a permanent collection constantly in storage is a problem for all museums. Perhaps trying something different and (gasp!) non-traditional could be a good thing in the long run.
Yesterday, the Times ran two more articles on LACMA, an architectural review of the building and a review of the first exhibition in the new Broad Contemporary Art Museum. Nicolai Ouroussoff’s review of the Renzo Piano-designed addition was pretty scathing, saying the pavilions at the front entrance may bring to mind gas station design. He goes on to say “I’ve seen gas stations in Southern California with far more architectural ambition.” Yeouch. He also goes on to claim the museum knew the building’s shortcomings, so much so they tried to HIDE the building with ART! Imagine that! Using the building to showcase the art! Chris Burden used rows of vintage streetlamps from surrounding LA neighborhoods to create an installation at the entrance that apparently hides the pavilion entrance. For shame, to make the art the focal point.
The other article in yesterday’s paper, a review of the exhibition by Roberta Smith, critiques the fact that the show was too much like a “trophy case” from the Broads collection (the Broads loaned 150 of the 180 pieces in the exhibition) and lacked curatorial focus. Well, this is probably because the museum was trying to organize an exhibition as a way to please the donors who gave the museum FIFTY-SIX MILLION dollars. This is the first show, and for $56 million, I’d let Eli and Edythe curate an entire year of exhibitions! This is the reality of the museum world people! Museums need to please the private donors and foundations in order to stay afloat and be able to grow. It just seems that the old way of thinking about museums as being a traditional model of publicly-funded (and free from the will of private interests) institutions still has a stronghold on a lot of people. Well at least a lot of the people who write about art anyway.
I do think Ms. Smith ended her review with a sense of reality and optimism though, referencing back to the Broad’s decision to not donate their entire collection to the LACMA:
“In the end the Los Angeles museum doesn’t need to own all of Mr. Broad’s art; better that its curators have a chance to choose a few really great works. Public and private collecting has the best results when approached, like making art, as an act of individual imagination spurred by the desire to be different. The goal should be to do something that no one else is doing, not the thing that everyone has already done.”
Whew, there is some hope left for poor little Los Angeles after all. With that trifecta of articles in the past week, it still looks as though New York still rules the art world though, which is incredibly convenient for the writers on that coast.
