Comments on: Mat Gleason: MOCA’s Murakami Kool-Aid, 5-Minute Ceiling, & Fat Envelopes!

By: Chal Pivik

Chal Pivik — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:41:29 +0000

“I think Mr. Muffin is just referring to the insurance value of the exhibit.”

apples and oranges.

By: marshall

marshall — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:25:50 +0000

jerkmuffin: “…umm, Murakami was exhibited at the Geffen, and was one of the highest value exhibitions in moca history…”

This speaks volumes about the art world in LA.

I think Mr. Muffin is just referring to the insurance value of the exhibit. That the value was exceptionally high speaks more about the overinflated international art market than LA’s priorities.

By: Chal Pivik

Chal Pivik — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:08:42 +0000

jerkmuffin: “…umm, Murakami was exhibited at the Geffen, and was one of the highest value exhibitions in moca history…”

This speaks volumes about the art world in LA.

By: marshall

marshall — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:17:36 +0000

Jerkmuffin – Gleason isn’t totally wrong about the Geffen’s physical problems. From what I’ve heard, there are two problems with the building, one the difficult to insure wooden roof, and two, the building doesn’t have the kind of HVAC/environment control technology for the long-term display of sensitive works.

My understanding of the problem isn’t that MOCA can’t display their own collection there, but that they have trouble borrowing works to exhibit in the building, that there are both collectors and lending institutions that won’t lend important pieces to MOCA for major exhibitions. It isn’t that MOCA can’t show lent work in the building, but that it either takes more begging/cajoling/effort to get a lender to agree, or that MOCA is spending a lot more money to insure loaned works than they usually would, and it adds extra cost to the production of exhibitions.

It is possible that there are pieces in MOCA’s own collection that have restrictions placed on them by their donor, but I’m not specifically aware of any. I’ve heard a lot of chatter on this issue over the years, and I still don’t feel like I have a clear understanding of the building’s limitations.

On Mat’s “dealer collusion” argument, I don’t see it either. I don’t buy the idea of either curators of museum officials getting kickbacks of some kind. The drama of this situation isn’t fraud and crime, it’s just bad management, over years and years, that has brought the museum to its knees.

By: browne

browne — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:01:28 +0000

Thank god for Matt Gleason the only person in LA who has an opinion.

By: greenmedallion

greenmedallion — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:36:30 +0000

Finally some straight talk. And Yes – the organizers of the MoCA Mobilization can be thought of as pro-government; Diana Thater and Cindy Bernard have been well collected by MoCA. But it is nothing new that galleries are completely intertwined with museum finances – this is how it has always worked. We can all wish it worked differently, but the only way to work it differently is to do your own thing – open a space, show some shit, some your friends shit, etc.

Museums in general need to be run by someone other than a CEO – this has become normal in the last 10+ years. Look at all the BS at the Getty a couple years back (which they are still suffering fallout from) – it was because the head of the Getty Trust was from the corporate world. Though it will suck for our LA population of overeducated artists to eat beans and rice for a few years, it can only be a positive for the gallery scene to get a wake up call during this recession. Prices are out of control, careers are inflated that are not even relevant, and the market should not run the museums.

By: jerkmuffin

jerkmuffin — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:47:10 +0000

I agree that MOCA, as a public institution, needs to make better efforts
at transparency. Unfortunately, this post by Mat Gleason is rabid and
factually wrong. There are too many incorrect perceptions written as
matter-of-fact-revelations to list them all, but one that immediately
should jump out is his comment regarding the Geffen:

“ever notice they never exhibit any art there that is worth more than a
few hundred grand? Why? Insurers look at things like fires burning up
expensive paintings. MOCA is not allowed to show its collection in its own
building!!!!”

…umm, Murakami was exhibited at the Geffen, and was one of the highest
value exhibitions in moca history…multi-million dollar individual
paintings, all works on loan by mean, rich, collectors that think a great
deal about building codes being up to museum standards before loaning
their work.

MOCA does exhibit it’s own collection at the Geffen. The current exhibit
at the Geffen is comprised of just such selections, titled: *Index:
Conceptualism in California from the Permanent Collection*.

Kippenberger was not put on for the purposes of some profiteering
collusion between moca and gallerists, in fact, it has been no less than a
seven year effort by the curator, Ann Goldstein,
to plead with private collectors of Kippenberger to loan their works to a
public museum in LA.

Please have some understanding of the complexity of this situation with
MOCA before giving your opinion; you do not make things more transparent
by misinforming your readers.

By: fiver

fiver — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:45:09 +0000

yesterdays rally had the feel of a pro-government rally organized by the ruling party.

By: queequeg

queequeg — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:41:02 +0000

That Luis Vuitton retail shop at the Murakami was a total joke. The idiots lining up to buy the purses and whatnot were a joke, and I include people I know who did exactly this. Although, I guess on a macro artistic level, it could not be more perfect – what better to represent MOCA’s dysfunction than the conflation of a Japanese pop artist who convinces people that his commercialism is unique “art” and Luis Vuitton, once the symbol of excess and now trying to clamor back towards relevance?

By: dgarzila

dgarzila — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:24:31 +0000

If anyone is interested you can look at the IRS 990 that this non-profit has to send to the federal government . You can sign into guidestar.org to see a pdf version of the 990.

Salaries and relationships of people working there are also included in the report . It is interesting to note that tne CEO was given a loan up to 528,000 dollars to find a house .

Jeremy Stricks-ceo executive director SAlary from July 1 2006-june 30th 2007 was 467,523 us dollars.

Chief Curator PAul Schimmel – 209,821 us dollars