What We Talk About When We Talk About MOCA

Patting herself on the back in a way that would make a Cirque du Soleil contortionist jealous, CultureGrrl's Lee Rosenbaum declares herself clairvoyanter than thou in one of the more obnoxious commentaries I've read about the upheaval at MOCA. Responding to an op-ed by Roberta Smith in which she outlines how MOCA should move forward, Rosenbaum rubs The New York Times art critic's nose in it:

Face it, Roberta. What you say ought to happen won't. On this call, you (and the other proponents of Deitch's appointment) were wrong.

I made the right call, more than two years ago.

The problem with Rosenbaum's declaration, however, is that she (Lee) is actually wrong. She did not make "the right call." Yes, she objected to Jeffrey Deitch's appointment (in two posts that revealed her bias via their shared headline: "Dealer-to-Director"), but she objected back then for reasons that have not actually been directly tied to the current upheaval or even proven to have come true at all.

In fact, most of the "I told you so" chest-thumping about MOCA I've read online has fallen into this same pattern: "If you had only listened to me back then, when I told you how appalling it was that they would let a *gasp* art dealer become director...I warned you of a) the potential for conflicts of interest... b) the potential for financial shenanigans... c) the risks of letting the fox into the hen house...and, well, as you can plainly see...I was right...look at how 1) he can't raise money; 2) he's vaingloriously taking over the curatorial mission; 3) he's not supporting the vision we associate with MOCA; 4) he's lowering the standards... 5) he's smitten with celebrities....."

You'll notice a clear reconciliation problem between those two lists, though.

The closest Lee has come to being right two years ago was, as Roberta pointed out, when the "'Art in the Streets' exhibition...included several artists whom Mr. Deitch had represented as an art dealer — at-best a sloppy-looking overlap between his former role as a dealer and his current one as a custodian of a public institution." But it would seem a stretch to suggest that one overlap is directly responsible for the museum's current crisis. Is anyone claiming that? If so, why not clearly? Lee?

Indeed, in the absence of any significant consistency between her predictions two years ago and the reality facing MOCA today, Rosenbaum's subsequent engagement in a bit of a mind-reading seems particularly unwarranted:

[Smith] concludes her piece by helpfully providing a laundry list of things that the floundering director must now do (and not do) to set things right: "stop organizing exhibitions---in part to create more of a firewall between his new job and his previous identity [as a commercial dealer], ...hone his fundraising skills and hire and cultivate curators, including...a new chief curator---which of course will take money" (resources which, of course, Deitch has been insufficiently able to raise and his board has been insufficiently willing to provide).

Roberta's action plan is truly "a kind of mission impossible": Deitch must suddenly and miraculously transform himself into someone he is not and has no desire and/or aptitude to be. [emphasis mine]

Rosenbaum cannot seriously claim access to Deitch's desires or aptitude (unless she's hiding some former training as a high-school guidance counselor...or, as any teenager can tell you, even then...). Deitch is a man who has reinvented himself successfully again and again. I think it's fair at this point to say he is not off to a stellar start, but Rosenbaum offers no evidence of the objections she listed two years ago (that Deitch would problematically privilege his inner circle and their interests, and that he would maintain some degree of financial interest in his gallery and its art) as the cause of the museum's current problems. If she can produce such evidence, then I'll agree she was right two years ago.

What she really seems to be talking about when she talks about MOCA is her own bias against art dealers becoming museum directors because of apparently uncontrollable desires to engage in conflicts of interest. It's an offensive position.

UPDATE: In the comments, Lee Rosenbaum rightly points out that I failed to discuss a distinct objection/prediction she had made two years ago. Lee notes that indeed she had written:

The main reason why hiring Deitch to direct LA MOCA seems like a bad idea is that it's another wild fling for a museum that urgently needed to sober up. LA MOCA got into trouble and almost went under because of its deviation from time-honored museum management practices. It's now hitched its star for someone known for throwing financial caution to the winds when an attractive project beckons. Good for him. Not good for MOCA....

MOCA can't afford to take another flyer. It needed a serious, seasoned museum professional, without commercial baggage and with a proven track record of keeping the proper balance between exciting programming and a balanced budget. The risks to its operations and reputation from its eccentric choice are too high.

I apologize for not being more thorough in discussing her original post, but I don't actually agree that even this objection/prediction validates Lee's position that she made "the right call" two years ago. In short, my position (as noted in the comments) is that the current upheaval (including the artists resigning from the board and the overall sense that Deitch has failed) is directly related to the decision to let Paul Schimmel go. While I agree that was a horrendous mistake, only someone who predicted that Deitch would not fulfill his responsibilities, as Robert Smith phrased it, to "encourage and cultivate curators much the way an art dealer encourages and cultivates artists" can stake claim to having made "the right call" in my opinion.

Indeed, the notion of financial recklessness being involved here is countered by facts supplied in Eli Broad's op-ed in The Los Angeles Times:

It took some time to get the right team in place. MOCA now has a strong chief operating officer in Michael Harrison and a good development operation. And with the recent personnel changes, Deitch and the board expect the team to work together more effectively. By demonstrating that MOCA has a prudent financial and exhibition plan, the museum is expected to attract an even greater number of members, trustees and donors.

MOCA's endowment is now pushing $20 million; next year its budget is $14.3 million, and in 2011, attendance was more than 400,000 — 2 1/2 times what it was when the budget was $24 million.