I cannot agree, except to say that money __rarely__ trickles down.
Anonymous said…
Pittman, NY Times: Collectors will always want the power to decide whether to leave their collections to museums or their families or to sell them when they are ready. [End quote]
I recall seeing an article from years ago (don't recall if it was in a library's periodical collection) that mentioned how the development of LACMA on Wilshire Blvd would stem the loss of major collections based in LA.
But I also recall reading about a collector in Chicago around 10-15 years ago, physically very close to the Art Institute of Chicago, donating her collection to the Met in NYC.
Of course, Walter Annenberg - although not necessarily connected to LA - gave his major collection to the same museum. Given how much the place on 5th Ave has squirreled away in storage, I do wonder what goes on in a collector's mind when it's the idea of "strength to strength" versus "giving coals to Newcastle."
When Jerry Perenchio conditioned his donation to LACMA on the Pereira-era buildings being replaced, I realize I was way too complacent about the museum. I had become used to not realizing just how weak it really was. It was the opposite of "familiarity breeds contempt."
christopher.knight.7, Thread: LACMA only has one of its two Rembrandt portraits on view in its new Geffen Galleries for the permanent collection. Don't know why, but apparently two is one too many.
paul.lehman.2021, Thread: What an odd take. You know art museums display only a small percentage of their holdings at any given time. By your logic, you may want to hound Tje Metropolitan Museum. They don’t have all of their Rembrandt paintings on display, either.
christopher.knight.7, Thread: Nah. What's odd is comparing LACMA's holdings to the Met's. The Met has about 18 Rembrandt portraits. LACMA has 2. (And the one not on view is quite good.) Crazy.
paul.lehman.2021, Thread: ...I think you have to give the curators time to adapt and adopt the space . The Modern Art Museum in Fort Worth is essentially a concrete bunker. The art looked disastrous when it opened but the curators figured it out over time and it’s a compelling space. The Getty had growing pains, too, but it’s become one of LA’s great experiences.
christopher.knight.7, Thread: I agree that it takes time to learn use of a new space, and opening the Geffen was rushed (two months later, installation is still under way), but that's irrelevant to choosing what objects to show. Too many excellent things languish in LACMA storage.
paul.lehman.2021, Thread: True. I expect that to change and evolve... One benefit of the new LACMA, though, is that the stereotype of tight-fisted LA donors and collectors is outdated. Although some have pulled back, more are stepping up. The old museum was a dowdy visitor experience and it constrained giving.
tomknechtel, Instagram: My first visit to the new LACMA. It’ll be very popular and make a great tourist destination, but it’s very problematic as an actual museum. Tons of wasted space outside and in (frustrating since the actual footprint of the museum is smaller than the previous one), enclosed rooms that are claustrophobic and tomblike, chaotic hangings with no way to find anything specific you are looking for.
...And the lighting is awful. That said - there are still wonderful things to look at, and some old friends to visit in their questionable new surroundings. [End quote]
I've yet to see signs that Michael Govan and his staff, when it comes to the Geffen in particular, are more sophisticated (or more competent) today than they were a few months ago.
For example, the Diego Rivera artwork isn't so great that it deserves an entire wall devoted to it. Or treatment similar to the way that da Vinci's Mona Lisa is given by the Louvre. Even more so when, at the same time, LACMA's few Rembrandts are not fully on display.
Incidentally, even though more of the collection has been added to the Geffen, plenty of wall and floor space remains reminiscent of a barren parking garage.
Again, Govan and his staff come off like latte-sipping rubes.
Re "Given how much the place on 5th Ave has squirreled away in storage, I do wonder what goes on in a collector's mind when it's the idea of "strength to strength" versus "giving coals to Newcastle.": Because "Best" beats "Better." The Muriel Kallis Steinberg Newman Collection (Chicago) and the Annenberg Collection (California) are both second to none in their respective fields of focus. Surely neither collector seriously feared that their pieces would be shunted offsite.
For further information, in the Kallis Steinberg Newman Collection, examples of the New York School are rife. So leaving it to the Met was not illogical.
Anonymous said…
^ I couldn't recall the collector's name, so I knew you probably would.
Some people are more into the details of artworks and artists themselves, whereas the technical, financial and operational aspects of a museum interest me more. But W Poundstone's blog deserves as many visitors as possible posting their opinions.
Christopher Knight's Thread account or various Facebook or Instagram accounts help add to what's going on at LACMA, which has long been LA's proverbial fly in the ointment.
I recall Michael Govan in an interview several years ago mentioning this blog. I'd think anyone interested in LACMA and the local museum scene overall would click on this site. Some Facebook account generated quite a few replies when the Geffen had a preview last year, but I've never come across that site since then.
Of course, Knight's articles in the LA Times and other writers dealing with LACMA have focused for years on the shortcomings of Govan and his staffers, but the publicity has never moved the needle. That's why I realize Govan must be a rube at heart. lol.
Anonymous said…
Why is Pittman complaining about money? ... Pittman is a well-established artist. His large/multi-panel paintings cost between $200 to $400K.
Of course, he doesn't get to keep all of it --- typically only 50%. And, it's also the case that his market has peaked.
But, that's just how the game goes. Would Pittman's work sell at the the same prices without gallery representation? Unlikely.
--- J. Garcin
Anonymous said…
One of the conditions of the Annenberg bequest was a gallery or galleries dedicated to the collection.
... The Annenberg collection consists of what I would call a lot of pretty pictures (e.g., vases with flowers). With the context of the Met Collection, the frivolity of those pictures is not as apparent as it would be if the pictures were given to a lesser collection. I always wonder if the Annenberg's were aware of how frivolous their selections were? By giving the works to the Met, was it also their aim to mitigate the effect?
Of course, that's the catch, isn't it? How much do wealthy collectors know about the art they acquire? I tend to admire the ones who buy the "ugly" or difficult pictures that reveal themselves as true masterpieces over time. See, for example, Stephen C. Clark. To the Met, he gave Cezanne's Card Players and Seurat's Circus Sideshow. To Yale, he gave Night Cafe. Amazing to think that all three pictures resided in the same collection.
Calling the Annenberg Collection frivolous implies that Impressionism entirely is frivolous. If you affirm that, then I find your assessment wholly unserious. The Met's losing the Stephen C. Clark Collection and the Kress Collection has caused vast gaps that I fear the museum will never recover from.
For readers with an open mind, visit the Met website and enter in the search box "The Walter H. and Leonore Annenberg Collection", which represents the core gift of the donors' personal collection. One can plainly see how catholic their tastes were in their field. Of the 53 paintings given, six only could be thought of by some as "frivolous" vases with flowers. Don't dump nonsense on the Annenbergs. I'm so angry I could spit!
Anonymous said…
I know what is in the Annenberg collection. And, I stand by my argument --- portraits of pretty ladies and vases with flowers.
Some Impressionist pictures are provocative and smart. Some are repetitive and self-indulgent. To me, in general, art is frivolous if it doesn't push beyond the obvious cliches. Vases with flowers are cliche. So are portraits of pretty ladies. Very few of the Annenberg pictures push beyond the cliches.
... Stephen C, Clark also owned Hopper's."Rooms by the Sea." That's a "smart" picture. It makes you think. Clark gave "Rooms by the Sea" to Yale.
It's something at least that you buttress your argument by adding on beautiful portraiture along with floral still-lifes as not worth the time of day. Mona Lisa, your time is over.
Comments
Collectors will always want the power to decide whether to leave their collections to museums or their families or to sell them when they are ready. [End quote]
I recall seeing an article from years ago (don't recall if it was in a library's periodical collection) that mentioned how the development of LACMA on Wilshire Blvd would stem the loss of major collections based in LA.
But I also recall reading about a collector in Chicago around 10-15 years ago, physically very close to the Art Institute of Chicago, donating her collection to the Met in NYC.
Of course, Walter Annenberg - although not necessarily connected to LA - gave his major collection to the same museum. Given how much the place on 5th Ave has squirreled away in storage, I do wonder what goes on in a collector's mind when it's the idea of "strength to strength" versus "giving coals to Newcastle."
When Jerry Perenchio conditioned his donation to LACMA on the Pereira-era buildings being replaced, I realize I was way too complacent about the museum. I had become used to not realizing just how weak it really was. It was the opposite of "familiarity breeds contempt."
christopher.knight.7, Thread:
LACMA only has one of its two Rembrandt portraits on view in its new Geffen Galleries for the permanent collection. Don't know why, but apparently two is one too many.
paul.lehman.2021, Thread:
What an odd take. You know art museums display only a small percentage of their holdings at any given time. By your logic, you may want to hound Tje Metropolitan Museum. They don’t have all of their Rembrandt paintings on display, either.
christopher.knight.7, Thread:
Nah. What's odd is comparing LACMA's holdings to the Met's. The Met has about 18 Rembrandt portraits. LACMA has 2. (And the one not on view is quite good.) Crazy.
paul.lehman.2021, Thread:
...I think you have to give the curators time to adapt and adopt the space .
The Modern Art Museum in Fort Worth is essentially a concrete bunker.
The art looked disastrous when it opened but the curators figured it out
over time and it’s a compelling space. The Getty had growing pains, too,
but it’s become one of LA’s great experiences.
christopher.knight.7, Thread:
I agree that it takes time to learn use of a new space, and opening the Geffen was rushed (two months later, installation is still under way), but that's irrelevant to choosing what objects to show. Too many excellent things languish in LACMA storage.
paul.lehman.2021, Thread:
True. I expect that to change and evolve... One benefit of the new LACMA, though, is that the stereotype of tight-fisted LA donors and collectors is outdated. Although some have pulled back, more are stepping up.
The old museum was a dowdy visitor experience and it constrained giving.
tomknechtel, Instagram:
My first visit to the new LACMA. It’ll be very popular and make a great tourist destination, but it’s very problematic as an actual museum. Tons of wasted space outside and in (frustrating since the actual footprint of the museum is smaller than the previous one), enclosed rooms that are claustrophobic and tomblike, chaotic hangings with no way to find anything specific you are looking for.
...And the lighting is awful. That said - there are still wonderful things to look at, and some old friends to visit in their questionable new surroundings. [End quote]
I've yet to see signs that Michael Govan and his staff, when it comes to the Geffen in particular, are more sophisticated (or more competent) today than they were a few months ago.
For example, the Diego Rivera artwork isn't so great that it deserves an entire wall devoted to it. Or treatment similar to the way that da Vinci's Mona Lisa is given by the Louvre. Even more so when, at the same time, LACMA's few Rembrandts are not fully on display.
Incidentally, even though more of the collection has been added to the Geffen, plenty of wall and floor space remains reminiscent of a barren parking garage.
Again, Govan and his staff come off like latte-sipping rubes.
Because "Best" beats "Better."
The Muriel Kallis Steinberg Newman Collection (Chicago) and the Annenberg Collection (California) are both second to none in their respective fields of focus. Surely neither collector seriously feared that their pieces would be shunted offsite.
Some people are more into the details of artworks and artists themselves, whereas the technical, financial and operational aspects of a museum interest me more. But W Poundstone's blog deserves as many visitors as possible posting their opinions.
Christopher Knight's Thread account or various Facebook or Instagram accounts help add to what's going on at LACMA, which has long been LA's proverbial fly in the ointment.
I recall Michael Govan in an interview several years ago mentioning this blog. I'd think anyone interested in LACMA and the local museum scene overall would click on this site. Some Facebook account generated quite a few replies when the Geffen had a preview last year, but I've never come across that site since then.
Of course, Knight's articles in the LA Times and other writers dealing with LACMA have focused for years on the shortcomings of Govan and his staffers, but the publicity has never moved the needle. That's why I realize Govan must be a rube at heart. lol.
Of course, he doesn't get to keep all of it --- typically only 50%. And, it's also the case that his market has peaked.
But, that's just how the game goes. Would Pittman's work sell at the the same prices without gallery representation? Unlikely.
--- J. Garcin
... The Annenberg collection consists of what I would call a lot of pretty pictures (e.g., vases with flowers). With the context of the Met Collection, the frivolity of those pictures is not as apparent as it would be if the pictures were given to a lesser collection. I always wonder if the Annenberg's were aware of how frivolous their selections were? By giving the works to the Met, was it also their aim to mitigate the effect?
Of course, that's the catch, isn't it? How much do wealthy collectors know about the art they acquire? I tend to admire the ones who buy the "ugly" or difficult pictures that reveal themselves as true masterpieces over time. See, for example, Stephen C. Clark. To the Met, he gave Cezanne's Card Players and Seurat's Circus Sideshow. To Yale, he gave Night Cafe. Amazing to think that all three pictures resided in the same collection.
--- J. Garcin
The Met's losing the Stephen C. Clark Collection and the Kress Collection has caused vast gaps that I fear the museum will never recover from.
Of the 53 paintings given, six only could be thought of by some as "frivolous" vases with flowers.
Don't dump nonsense on the Annenbergs. I'm so angry I could spit!
Some Impressionist pictures are provocative and smart. Some are repetitive and self-indulgent. To me, in general, art is frivolous if it doesn't push beyond the obvious cliches. Vases with flowers are cliche. So are portraits of pretty ladies. Very few of the Annenberg pictures push beyond the cliches.
... Stephen C, Clark also owned Hopper's."Rooms by the Sea." That's a "smart" picture. It makes you think. Clark gave "Rooms by the Sea" to Yale.
--- J. Garcin
Mona Lisa, your time is over.