Judging by the pile of text that’s been written in just days about Eli Broad’s decision to not gift his collection to LACMA, but rather to keep the works within the Broad Art Foundation, it seems like the underpinnings of the relationship between the collector and the museum have just been eradicated. Either that or Broad is such an unusual character, an art world whale in a Los Angeles ocean where he has no peers, that his legacy might simply to be an odd appendix to the collector-museum dynamic.
One of the issues Broad has raised, and that I feel completely comfortable drawing a line on is the suggestion by Broad that museums should collectively share works shows a frightening amount of naivete on his part. I don’t even belong to a collecting or lending institution, and the very idea of it scares the poop out of me. If this became the norm, I really have trouble seeing a museum curator of contemporary works in say 2030 being able to build a really concise and meaningful permanent exhibit. Identity, that is the identity of the collection, is what makes museums work. Were collectors en masse to follow Broad’s proposed model, the long term development of comprehensive and meaningful collections could become a Sisyphean task. I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, but I am saying that I don’t see how Broad’s suggestion either contains the momentum to reboot it or to transform it, only to disrupt.
Given that the Broad Contemporary Art Museum at LACMA is just about to open to the public, the timing on this un-gift seems horrific – I can only presume that someone figured it was better to do this now, rather than after the museum opened, but given the expectation that the majority of Broad’s collection was destined for LACMA, and therefore BCAM, isn’t this a decision that should have been made much, much earlier. One thing I do know about Broad as a person, from people who have worked with him in a non-arts capacity, is that he’s notoriously inflexible, and wants things his way or no way. My impression that his role and interest in any cultural endeavor would be primarily motivated by his wants and needs, and not necessarily that of any public institution.
Here’s a list of relevant and interesting reading on the subject. As of yet, I don’t think there’s anything conclusive out there, but there is a ton of chatter and a lot of thought.
Edward Wyatt, New York Times – An Art Donor Opts to Hold On to His Collection
Christopher Knight, LA Times – Will LACMA’s reputation suffer from Broad’s change of heart?
Richard Lacayo, TIME – LACMA Goes Lacking
Tyler Green – The Future of the Broad Art Foundation, Broad Art Foundation Bullet Points
Lee Rosenbaum – LACMA Lays an Egg: Broad Reneges
Edward Winkleman – A Seismic Shift in the Landscape in Los Angeles
Curbed LA – Bad Day for LACMA. Broad Keeps His Art
I’d hate to be Michael Govan right now. He’s doing a great job of
gritting his teeth, but I’m sure he’s surrounded by people saying “How
did you let this happen on your watch?” It’s not just Broad’s legacy that has been put into flux, it’s the future of LACMA, Los Angeles and Govan.
Technorati Tags: Eli Broad, BCAM, LACMA, Eli Broad Fountadion, contemporary art, museum
For Broad, it seems to be all about wall space:
“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?’”
For the Broad Art Foundation to make choices about what goes where seems to take away that last shred of autonomy that museums appeared to have. No longer independent arbiters of anything, the museum has become a lender of wall space.
Exactly – Broad’s business style has always been to emasculate his partners/opponents and then roll over them. He’s had the benefit of being such a massive figure that he can steamroller anyone in town.
It’s only in LA, where he has no peer, that makes this situation possible. In any other city the maneuvering of other donors would blunt his impact and relevance. I’m tempted to view anything he does as purely idiosyncratic and not representative of industry trends.
Well, this is very much Eli Broad’s style. He certainly has put LACMA in a bind. If this trend spreads, although I doubt it will, it’s going to force museums to be far more agressive about the pieces that they add to their collections. My concern is that by making museums compete even more with the private collecting market (which reducing donations of major collections will do) that they will have to focus more on selling tickets and shows with mass appeal. I’m hoping you are right, Marshall and that this is not a sign of things to come.