Art Market Monitor

Global Coverage ~ Unique Analysis

Making a Mountain Out of Molesworth

by

The LA Times doubles down on the LA MoCA story with a broader look at the reaction to Helen Molesworth’s departure. The second-day story continues the framing presented by Christopher Knight, who broke the news, that pits Molesworth against director Philippe Vergne in an supposed battle for inclusion:

“I can’t help but feel like there’s something else behind this and that she’s taking the fall for bigger problems in the institution,” Hammer Museum chief curator Connie Butler said. “I don’t think it has only to do with Helen’s curatorial agenda.”

Readers of Christopher Knight’s story  also believe there is “something else behind this” but they suggest the problem is located in Molesworth’s behavior. If that is indeed the case, the fault here is in Vergne’s inability to make the dismissal in a manner that would not blow up in his face as it undoubtedly has:

  • “she was extremely disliked for good reasons. now she is desperately trying to co-opt the whole “diversity” movement as the reason she was canned. Philippe Vergne is actually the one i have the most compassion for through all of this. he has been the true champion of diversity since his career began. remember, even the director has people to answer to. firing her was something he should have done over a year ago but he was too nice. Christopher Knight is a disgrace to journalism. doing NO investigative reporting, he simply parroted the mouthing of ONE board member sycophant of Molesworth who used the most juvenile, unfounded, baseless accusation of “non-diversity” as the grounds for her termination. are you serious?? how about “non-likability” or “genuinely undermining the vision of the DIRECTOR of the museum?” she is a curator…nothing more.”
  • “Christopher Knight SHAME on YOU and everyone else reading this. For believing such one sided garbage and not knowing all of the facts. Three Cheers for Phiippe Vergne for firing someone he should of fired along time ago. Helen Molesworth made peoples lives at the museum a living hell. In the long run MOCA will be a better museum without her. She might of had some good exhibitions but she was true poison to the Museum.”
  • “Just getting the chance to sit down and read through all the news about the director of MOCA’s decision to fire it’s chief curator and I couldn’t agree more with his decision. Christopher Knight, if you wanted a real story you should’ve done your research because there’s a long list of former employees that could tell you the REAL reason as to why she was fired. Helen Molesworth was a tyrant who made it her goal to ruin the lives and careers of people at MOCA, some who were employed there for 20+years.”
  • “Molesworth is widely known for her torture of employees and controlling behavior. Just a few more phone calls needed to get that scoop. Take a gander at who disengaged from the ranks in the past 3 years, or was fired by her. All approved by the director. Could this be a career pattern? More importantly, we need to talk about toning down righteousness and think about the real legacy they leave behind by their actions with other humans. And the Director Vergne clearly let this go on and on and on. If he felt he was bulllied by the board directors, then why not take a stand himself and step down. But no. Weakness and ego abounds in the contemporary platform on all fronts, and the place still is dead. Third rate events, galleries, and press handling. What a waste of a most wonderful collection.”

Firing of MOCA’s chief curator triggers worry over the future of an artist-centric museum (LA Times)

The New York Times Art Critics Don’t Seem to Know Much About the Met’s Finances or History

by

It’s rare to see two smart, thoughtful writers blurt out such ill-considered thoughts on a subject they refuse to think seriously about. It’s a cliché to talk about the entitlement of the art world.

And yet in response to the Met’s new admission’s policy, The New York Times asked its art critics, Holland Cotter and Roberta Smith, for their thoughts. What followed is a contradictory set of emotionally-driven politically-naive opinions.

Those opinions range from silly solutions to complex problems to irresponsible political analogies. Let’s start with Smith’s belief that the suggested admissions price would work if only the Met were better at selling it:

So hire a really good design firm to formulate some kind of counter campaign, signage with tons of jokes cajoling people who have the means to pay the suggested fee. Like “If you’re wearing mink, or a bespoke suit, or if your entire outfit totals out at more than $3,500, think about dropping $25 to visit the greatest museum in the world. You’ll be helping others who can’t afford your wardrobe.”

From there they veer into overblown political comparisons that denigrate the very real issues they are trying to graft upon this civic one. Cotter thinks asking people for identification is a threat to the undocumented. Smith follows up on that comparing the effort to Nativism:

So I worry that the Met’s plan is classist, and nativist. It divides people into categories — rich and poor, native and foreign — which is exactly what this country does not need right now. I think this is tied to the abstract way wealth is accrued these days. In the last Gilded Age the rich had a much more literal sense of the suffering their fortunes were built on and a greater need to give back.

Calling discrimination against non-New Yorkers Nativism, at a time when the country is witnessing a virulent spread of bigotry and fear, diminishes the term. Is it wrong to ask non-residents to help subsidize the pay-what-you-wish policy for locals who need it? And Smith should really read up on the history of the Met and its founding before she makes an ignorant statement about the Gilded Age’s self-awareness.

The Met was explicitly founded as a means to control immigrant working class New Yorkers, to suppress their folk cultures and political resistance with the ruling class of New York’s values and cultural ideas.

The Met Should Be Open to All. The New Pay Policy Is a Mistake. (The New York Times)

Louvre Abu Dhabi Announces Salvator Mundi “is coming”

by

What this Instagram post means is anyone’s guess. We’ve asked Christie’s for clarification as to whether this is a loan or something else.

Berkshire Museum’s Lawyers Want to Know If Berkshire Eagle Has Conflict 

by

It’s been pretty obvious that the Berkshire Eagle has taken a stance on the Berkshire Museum’s decision to sell art to fund its future operations. Good newspapers do that. They find a cause and pursue it.

The lawyers for the museum are beginning to feel there might be something else to the Eagle’s attention. The museum’s press people circulated this letter on December 1st:

In response to attempts by the newspaper to gain access to certain documents ordered under seal by an Appeals Court judge, the museum’s lawyers ask for information “relevant to the [newspaper’s] motivations” in taking legal action against the museum to seek those documents.

Specifically, the letter sent today asks the newspaper to disclose information related to an offer relayed to the museum by a BerkshireEagle reporter on behalf of an “anonymous group” with certain conditions. http://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/donors-offer-1m-to-delay-study-art-sale-berkshire-museum-board-president-says-no-to-the-proposal,517755/p/stories/berkshire-museum,514928

Among the information sought by the letter is:

  • The members of the “anonymous group,” and the “spokesperson for the group of donors” as reported by the newspaper, and any relationships they may have with the newspaper or its owners;
  • All individuals involved in making the determination to communicate the offer and what information they considered in making that determination;
  • The identities of all individuals involved in determining to keep secret the identities of those in the “anonymous group”;
  • The involvement of the “anonymous group” in reversing the newspapers support for the Museum’s plans; and,
  • Communications by Fredric D. Ruthberg, President of New England Newspapers which owns the Berkshire Eagle, regarding the $1 million offer.

bos30ky.wilmerhale.com_Exchange_12-01-2017_09-22-54

Louvre Abu Dhabi Reveals UAE’s Art Buying

by

Gustave Caillebotte, Game of Bezique, 1880.

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal’s Kelly Crow published a long look at the Saadiyat Island, Abu Dhabi museum showcasing the region’s cultural prowess. This weekend, the public will get a chance to see the combined display of the Abu Dhabi’s own art and works on loan from the Louvre. But the museum isn’t so much a replication of the western museum model as it is an attempt to create a global art history, according to Manuel Rabaté, the museum’s director:

Mr. Rabaté said the museum’s mix-and-match approach is meant to counter conventional ideas about art-history hierarchies. That’s why an 8,000-year-old figure with two heads from Jordan will get the same treatment as a Benin bronze head or Leonardo da Vinci’s “Portrait of a Woman, also called La Belle Ferronnière.”

Bloomberg’s James Tarmy offers a list of some of the museum’s acquisitions now revealed as works advantageously purchased during the art market slump in 2009:

  • There’s a 3.75 foot high work by the Dutch painter Piet Mondrian, Composition with Blue, Red, Yellow, and Black, which the lot notes indicate was acquired in 2009.
  • Gustave Caillebotte, Game of Bezique, which was painted in 1880, was also purchased by the museum in 2009
  • as was Eduoard Manet’s The Gypsy, painted between 1862 and 1867
  • A year later, the museum scored a coup by acquiring a work by Paul Gauguin’s Children Wrestling from 1888
  • a 1928 René Magritte, The Subjugated Reader
  • a blue and white series of nine, eight and a half foot-high panels by Cy Twombly, which the artist painted three years before his death in 2008

Rochester’s MAG Commissions Video Work by Dara Birnbaum, Javier Téllez & Isaac Julien

by

Since Jonathan Binstock became the director of the Memorial Art Gallery at the University of Rochester for three years ago, he has been looking to capitalize upon MAG and Rochester’s strength in the history of image making. Binstock also had the unusual opportunity to work with John G. Hanhardt, a leading curator of film and media arts who has held key positions at MoMA, the Walker Art Museum, the Whitney and Guggenheim museums.

Together, Binstock and Hanhardt have commissioned a series of works that will both capitalize upon Rochester’s history of image making with Kodak and the George Eastman house as well as extend that tradition by helping establish MAG as a center of film and video art:

Memorial Art Gallery (MAG) of the University of Rochester announces today a series of media art commissions inspired by the City of Rochester, New York. “Reflections on Place” will feature the work of three international artists: Javier Téllez (Venezuela, b. 1969), Isaac Julien (U.K., b. 1960) and Dara Birnbaum, (U.S., b. 1946). These works will be individually presented from April 8, 2018, and will enter MAG’s permanent collection at the end of the exhibitions.

Roberta Smith Thinks Out-of-State Visitors to the Met Will Be Oppressed

by

The art critic takes to the pages of the New York Times to compare the deficit plagued Met’s idea to make the museum’s entry fee mandatory for out-of-state visitors to a dystopian prison:

Mr. Weiss seems to be restoring some financial sense to the Met, but he has helped hatch one really bad idea: a proposal that, if approved by the city, would allow the Met to charge out-of-state visitors a fixed $25 entrance fee instead of letting them pay what they wish, like everyone else. This could be a logistical nightmare. Those who retain the privilege of paying what they wish will still have to have their papers to get in — which papers has not been worked out. The jobs of ticket sellers and others at the museum’s entrances will become more complicated and stressful; they will in all likelihood sometimes end up functioning a bit like border guards, adjudicating who has proper New York identification and who doesn’t.

The Fall’s Most Fascinating Art Show? The Met Trying to Fix Itself (The New York Times)

Billionaires Turn Down Met Bid to Revive Contemporary Wing

by

The New York Times continues its coverage of the Metropolitan Museum’s leadership transition and struggle to shore up its position as New York’s pre-eminent cultural institution—as it tries to attract donors among the world’s wealthiest persons who have turned toward Modern and Contemporary art away from other collecting categories—by framing an interesting news story in the oddest way.

The news in the story is that the Met approached—and was turned down by—David Koch and Steven Schwarzmann to donate $300m to kickstart the languishing plans to rebuild the museum’s Contemporary art wing.

Oddly, though, the Times makes the story a question of whether Leonard Lauder will go through with his gift of Cubist art if the museum cannot build a new home for the collection:

Is Mr. Lauder’s gift, valued at more than $1 billion four years ago, now at risk? If the Met takes too long to resurrect the project or ultimately scales it back, might Mr. Lauder take his collection elsewhere?

Worry not, the story tells us. Lauder will indeed give the art to the Met. Did anyone ever doubt it? Although the story tries to raise the idea that Lauder could give the art to other institutions, the collection was assembled for the purpose of enhancing Lauder’s reputation as a gift to the Met. It is silly of the Times to pretend otherwise.

It’s also silly of the Times to value the collection at $1bn. That’s simply not true. Lauder did not spend $1bn assembling the collection. It is being donated to a museum where it will not be sold. So the collection has no market value any longer. Lauder’s accountants may be working with $1bn to offset his taxes in other areas.

The Times’s long-standing skepticism about the art market isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It does act as a tonic to the market fixation on these notional values. Why the Times abandons that market skepticism precisely when it is most appropriate—Lauder’s gift is meant to be a measure of his art historical acumen and cultural beneficence, what’s a $1bn to the cosmetics magnate, after all?—is one mystery of the story.

The mystery is what’s happening at the Met. The story doesn’t tell us whether the approach to Koch and Schwarzmann was a thought out strategy or a desperate move to reclaim lost momentum. The Times doesn’t say whether the approach was made by the museum’s new president, Daniel Weiss, or the board. Either way, the story suggests the museum is still far from setting itself back on track.

Mary Weathford Enters Anderson Collection at Stanford Among First Gifts

by

Mary Weatherford’s, “black painting” a gift of Debra and Steven Wisch’83, in honor of the Anderson family.

When Hunk and Moo Anderson gaive their art collection to Sanford University, it was a bit of surprise. The collection was much sought after by major museums and Stanford had no permanent collection. Now the first new works have been added to the 121 originally.

Among the 86 artists the Andersons collected were Bill Jensen and Manuel Neri, whose trust donated 11 works. Mary Weatherford is a California painter whose work is being donated by two Stanford graduates:

New to the collection is Bill Jensen’s watercolor and gouache Study for Denial, 1985-86; three sculptural works and eight works on paper ranging from 1958 to 1997 by Manuel Neri; and Mary Weatherford’s black painting, 2017..

The Anderson Collection at Stanford University receives new gifts of art  (Stanford News)

twitterfacebooksoundcloud
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Advertise on Art Market Monitor