NEW YORK
-- Far more than has been previously disclosed, the "Sensation"
exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum of Art has been financed by companies and
individuals with a direct commercial interest in the works of the young British
artists in the show, according to court documents and interviews with people
involved in the exhibition. Faced with rising costs and the unwillingness
of major corporations to support the show -- whose works have provoked furious
protests in London and more recently in New York -- Arnold L. Lehman, the
museum's director, embarked this summer on an aggressive campaign to finance
"Sensation" by other means.
He and his assistants raised
hundreds of thousands of dollars from those who stood to profit most from the
exhibition of contemporary art, a practice that other museum executives say was
practically unheard of and ethically problematic. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said
as much when he began a legal campaign to close the show, accusing museum
officials not only of recklessly staging an exhibition of vulgar and
sacrilegious art, but also of conspiring with the owner of the
"Sensation" collection, Charles Saatchi, to inflate the value of the
works on display. Giuliani's lawyers have dropped the conspiracy issue, but the
financial arrangements behind the "Sensation" exhibition, which have
surfaced in the court battle between the museum and the mayor, are highly
unusual. Lehman and his assistants solicited donations of at least $10,000 from
dealers who represented many of the artists whose works are on display. They
offered Christie's special access to the museum to entertain clients in the
market for contemporary art. They secured a pledge of $160,000 from Saatchi and
then they attempted to conceal his financial support from the public. In an
interview on Thursday, Lehman insisted that commercial considerations had never
entered his discussions with those who donated money to the exhibition, which
he estimated would cost the museum $2 million. He said those who agreed to give
money were motivated by their enthusiasm for an important body of art, not by
any desire for profit. In any event, Lehman asserted, the exhibition has not
increased the market value of any works by the "Sensation" artists.
The dispute has highlighted the hidden conflicts confronted by museum
executives who struggle to finance exhibitions with donations from
corporations, foundations and wealthy individuals. At stake is nothing less
than the museum's independence and integrity, experts in museum ethics say.
Museums have a public trust to display art on the basis of merit, and they are
sure to suffer if they are viewed as instruments for private financial gain,
those experts say. This is why many cultural institutions, including the
Brooklyn Museum, have rules against displaying works that are for sale. At the
same time, the line between art sponsorship and corporate profits appears to be
eroding, as some art critics noted when, for example, the Metropolitan Museum
of Art held an exhibition in 1997 of Cartier jewelry from the early 20th
century. The show was sponsored by Cartier. The "Sensation"
exhibition, however, has blurred the line between art and commerce to a highly
unusual degree, several current and former museum officials said in interviews
last week. Neither they nor officials at the Brooklyn Museum could cite another
exhibition that so directly linked the art on display with the financial
interests of the exhibition's major underwriters. At one point, according to a
letter written by Lehman, a representative of the museum asked Saatchi to
guarantee the entire cost of the exhibition. Saatchi, who has earned
substantial profits buying and selling contemporary art, declined but agreed to
cover the insurance for the exhibition. Art experts said such insurance could
cost tens of thousands of dollars.
David Bowie, the popular rock
musician, pledged a personal donation of about $75,000 and agreed to provide
the voice-over for the exhibit audio tour without charge. Soon after, his
private, for-profit Internet company was given the right to display the
"Sensation" exhibition on Bowie's personal Web site,
-www.davidbowie.com, which sells art, clothing and memberships to Bowie's fan
club. While Bowie's financial contribution has been kept in confidence by
museum officials, traffic on the Bowie Web site has more than tripled. Larry
Gagosian, a prominent contemporary art dealer in New York City who is a friend
of Saatchi's and who also represents several of the artists in
"Sensation," said he had paid $10,000 for tickets to a
"Sensation" fund-raising dinner. Museum officials solicited
contributions from other major contemporary art dealers. In a letter to an
associate, Lehman wrote that the dealers' contributions were in "their own
best interests." And while it has been known for months that Christie's
contributed $50,000 toward the exhibition, the documents reveal for the first
time the extent to which Christie's was allowed to use its sponsorship to
promote sales in its coming auction of contemporary art. The auction will
include works by some of the "Sensation" artists, and for its
donation Christie's was given, among other benefits, "unlimited
opportunities to entertain in the museum during the run of the exhibition with
the $5,000 rental fee to be waived," according to an internal Christie's
memorandum. Museum scholars have reacted to the arrangements with dismay.
"If I was on that board, I'd either resign or have the heads of all the
staff who are involved," said Marie C. Malaro, who retired last year as
director of the graduate program in museum studies at George Washington
University in Washington, D.C. Ms. Malaro, a lawyer who has written books and
papers on museum ethics and governance, described the financing of
"Sensation" as an extreme example of a pattern that emerged when the
notion of corporate philanthropy gave way to corporate sponsorship.
"The old idea of corporate
philanthropy is that it's supposed to be a gift to the public, and once you
cross that line, it's no wonder you get into situations like this," she
said. Lehman, known for being adept at boosting museum attendance through
aggressive marketing tactics, defended his fund-raising as no different from
what other museum directors have done. It is naive, he said, to think that
banks, insurance companies or utilities sponsor art exhibitions without any
thought to the business benefits.
"Corporations are giving
money for marketing purposes, for publicity purposes, for promotional purposes,
for whatever reason that is ultimately going to support their business, and
that's nothing to be ashamed of," he said. "I'm not ashamed of it,
they're not ashamed of it, and if they didn't do that, if they didn't believe
that they were going to somehow be able to put themselves forward, whether it
is to their client base or the world at large, they wouldn't give this
money." In court papers, Lehman has identified several other instances
where private collections have been exhibited in public museums. He named the
National Gallery of Art, in Washington. A spokeswoman there, however, said the
gallery forbade auction houses and dealers from contributing money to
exhibitions of private collections. "We are careful to avoid even the
appearance of a conflict of interest in dealing with or accepting financial
support from the commercial art market," the spokeswoman, Patricia
O'Connell, said.
Lehman also named the Virginia
Museum of Fine Arts. Last week, officials for the museum, in Richmond, reviewed
the last 10 years of exhibitions there, encompassing 168 shows. "In none
of those exhibitions," said Suzanne D. Hall, a spokeswoman, "do any
of the museum staff see an occasion when we received money from a private
collector or an auctioneer or a gallery owner to help mount the exhibition."
Some authorities on museum ethics say that potential conflicts of interest are
best handled when they are fully disclosed to the public. While officials at
the Brooklyn Museum of Art made Christie's involvement public, they tried to
conceal Saatchi's financial support, documents show. Peter B. Trippi, vice
director of the museum, was asked by a reporter for The New York Observer last
month whether Saatchi had contributed money toward the exhibit. At the time,
Saatchi had already sent $50,000. In a memo to several museum officials,
including Lehman, Trippi described his response to the reporter. "I said
no," Trippi said, underlining the words for emphasis and adding at the end
of the memo, "I hope this works for you." Lehman enthusiastically
endorsed Trippi's response to the reporter. "Peter -- great," he
wrote on the memo, twice underlining the word "great." In Thursday's
interview, Lehman said that museum officials concealed Saatchi's involvement
not out of discomfort about how the public might view the arrangement but
simply to honor Saatchi's wish to remain an anonymous donor. Saatchi's
ownership of the collection proved a major obstacle to Lehman's fund-raising,
documents show. Lehman described the problem in a memo to Robert S. Rubin,
chairman of the museum board. "Almost no private individual wants to put
money into Saatchi's pocket," he wrote, explaining his dismal success in
persuading wealthy philanthropists to support the exhibition. Asked by city
lawyers about such statements, Lehman said, "Their response was, 'We are a
private collector; he is a private collector. Why would I give money to show
his exhibition?"'
Lehman, impressed by the huge
crowds that attended "Sensation" in London and Berlin, said he was
determined to create the same buzz for the often-overlooked Brooklyn Museum. He
joked in the interview that he still has scabs on his knees from begging
Saatchi for financial support. Within days of Saatchi's $160,000 commitment,
Lehman announced plans to mount the exhibit. Both men vehemently denied that
Saatchi's financial backing was in any way motivated by a desire to increase
the value of Saatchi's considerable investment in contemporary art.
"Saatchi is clear that if he wanted to collect cash instead of art, he
would have spent 30 years buying Picasso and Matisse -- infinitely more
prestigious, a safer and much more profitable investment," Jenny L. Blyth,
curator of the Saatchi Gallery in London, said in a written statement on
Friday. "There are no plans, and never have been, to sell any works in
'Sensation,' either now or in the future, through Christie's or by any other
means," Ms. Blyth said.
Her statement, however, did not
address the question of whether Saatchi planned to sell other works produced by
the artists in "Sensation." He did just that in 1998, after
"Sensation" had been seen by 300,000 people at the Royal Academy in
London. Using Christie's as his auction house, Saatchi sold 130 works for $2.7
million. Saatchi gave a small portion of the proceeds to finance scholarships
at London art schools. But most of the money, several London newspapers
subsequently reported, was spent on commissioning new work for Saatchi's
collection. In her statement, Ms. Blyth said Saatchi "sells art in order
to buy more art, or to finance his museum, or as in the case of the Christie's
auction last year, to create scholarships at five London art schools and to
offer commissions to artists recommended by those art schools." She added,
"It is hoped that some of those commissioned works will be successful,
enter the collection and be exhibited." Christie's history with Saatchi
has raised questions about the company's motivations for sponsoring
"Sensation" in Brooklyn. Christie's also sponsored the show in
London.
Andree B. Corroon, a spokeswoman
for Christie's, said the company's $50,000 donation had nothing to do with
increasing Christie's profits. "Our sponsorship was in support of the
Brooklyn Museum of Art," she said. "They contacted us." And
Edward Dolman, Christie's managing director in New York, said in court papers
that the $50,000 was not a lot of money compared with Christie's donations to
other museums. But according to an internal Christie's memorandum, the $50,000
"represents Christie's most significant financial commitment to an external
exhibition to date." "I would like to see us capitalize on it as much
as possible," Allison Whiting, director of museum services at Christie's,
wrote in the memo. Ms. Whiting proposed several ways of using Christie's
sponsorship to generate interest in Christie's annual November auction of
contemporary art, which will include works by some "Sensation"
artists. She suggested placing an advertisement and an essay in Christie's
catalog for the November auction. She proposed mailing exhibition invitations
to some 700 of Christie's biggest contemporary art clients in London and the
New York region. The "benefits of sponsorship," Ms. Whiting wrote,
included special acknowledgments on exhibition signs, in the museum's monthly
bulletin, on the invitations and in advertisements. At the opening night gala
at the museum, hundreds of guests were handed Christie's bags. Inside each was
a certificate good for a free catalog to Christie's contemporary art auction
next month. Although Lehman aggressively solicited Saatchi and Christie's for
financing, it was David Bowie who sought out Lehman first. In April, days after
the museum's plans to mount the exhibit were revealed, Bowie's business manager
called Lehman. Without identifying Bowie, the business manager, Bill Zysblat, said
he had a client who was interested in backing the exhibition. Zysblat said in
an interview that Bowie offered a donation because he liked the art and felt
strongly that Americans should see it. Bowie is also a friend of Saatchi and
some of the "Sensation" artists. He owns some of their art, including
an early Damien Hirst painting, Zysblat said. Hirst is better known in New York
for dead animals suspended in formaldehyde.
Lehman was delighted, and when
Zysblat subsequently revealed his client's identity, Lehman asked whether Bowie
would like to do the voice-over for the audio tour of the exhibition. Bowie
agreed to do it without charge. While the museum was still waiting for Bowie's
donation to arrive -- museum officials initially were hoping for $100,000 --
Zysblat began asking about the possibility of putting the "Sensation"
exhibition and Bowie's audio tour on Bowie's web site. The site is owned by
Ultrastar Internet Services, a company Bowie formed with Zysblat and several
other associates last year. Zysblat said Bowie wanted to use the Internet to
expose more people to the art. "We're always looking for content," he
said. Zysblat said that although Ultrastar paid nothing for the right to put
the exhibit on Bowie's Internet site, it spent about $70,000 on the technical
cost of doing so. It has been a huge success for Ultrastar. Bowie's Web site
averages two million visitors a month; in the first three weeks after
"Sensation" opened, his site was visited by 7.5 million users,
Zysblat said.
Lehman said that the museum
recently received Bowie's donation, but he would not specify the amount. He
said he did not know whether Bowie wanted the amount to be made public, but he
emphasized that there was no connection between the donation and the decision
to give Bowie's Internet company rights to "Sensation." Lehman argues
that such unorthodox intersections of art and commerce benefit the public.
Without them, he said, museums would find it difficult to finance major
exhibitions of controversial works, particularly by new artists. Museums are
already criticized for cashing in on blockbuster shows by crowd-pleasing
artists like Monet and Cezanne. "What happens is we then move into the
sphere where museums get criticized similarly for doing the safe, and the easy,
and the sure-fire," he said. "You know, it's the kind of argument
that is so self-defeating."
|
|