HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2006, 11:01 PM
bobcat bobcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by svs
LA is comparible to London and NY in the number of productions performed yearly in the city. When you add in the audience seats for the TV shows, it probably beats them in total numbers. I admit the productions play longer and are more elaborate in London and NY, but they are supported by tourists from all over the world. Most tourists have no idea of what is available in LA.
Having attended a number of TV tapings before, I can't honestly call that attending a cultural event. The experience seems more technical than artistic.

Quote:
As for Opera, while admitting no one in the US can hold a candle to the met, I would point out that this week there are four operas playing locally, Don Carlo, Manon, the Peony Pavillion, and Porgy and Bess, (multiple companies including touring productions), and The Kirov "Ring" all of it is coming to Orange County next week.
That's great. But there are also numerous weeks throughout the year when there isn't any opera offered at all. It's something LA needs to work on.

Quote:
I would rather hear the LA PHil under Essa-Peka in the Disney Hall than the NY Phil at LIncoln center under anyone. Just a personal opinion.
I'm in agreement.

Quote:
As for popular music, comedy, and performing arts LA is the equal of London and NY. Check the listings. The only place LA really is behind is dance. No real classical ballet company, and we tend to depend on visiting troups. Still there is a lot more performing art in LA than most people realize. If the tourists would catch on, we could have a theater scene better than New York or even London.
You are contradicting yourself. First you say that LA is equal to NYC and London in performing arts, then say it's not quite as good in opera, dance and maybe theater. What's so wrong with admitting LA not quite at their level yet? No need for this defensiveness. LA will get there in time, and sooner than most people think I reckon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2006, 11:45 PM
Infestma Infestma is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 220
I just read on Fortune that Broad, LACMA, and some others had offered a bid for all the Klimt paintings... The price they offered was $150 million for all of them and they refused to go more because their higher priority was the new building expansions plus they thought the owner of the paintings would give them a bit of a break since LACMA paid for all the costs to have it get to LA. I thought I'd let you guys know, in case you weren't aware of this and that apparently some work was done by our guys to try to keep those paintings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2006, 4:08 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperial Teen
I can't speak with any expertise on molecular biology, cell biology, biochem depts. So I absolutely believe that UCSF is as outstanding as any in the world.

I'd like to think I don't buy into the "east coast = good, west coast = not as good" mentality, but I think I must kind of do as I look at my colleagues who grew up in So Cal and went to Cal tech with a MD/PhD from UCLA in not the same light as the ones who grew up round here and went to Princeton and got an MD/PhD from HMS. The latter have a much brighter glow to them in my eyes.

But back to Brigham. Brigham competely overmatches UCSF, and that's quite impressive that a single man can out compete a university of 1000s of students, faculty and staff.
Harvard over UCLA med school, definitely. But Princeton over Caltech? "The "glow" is not so agreed upon. Princeton has a more famous "brand" among the American civilians, but internationally and among educators/academics, I'd say Caltech is more prestigious and impressive. I'd bet that there is a different type of "snob" factor of those who cater to Caltech's crowd over Princeton's. . And keeping in mind that this is a discussion about perception of prestige beyond the reality of whether Caltech and Harvard is better than UCLA/Princeton in whatever academic areas.

Last edited by ocman; Sep 29, 2006 at 4:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2006, 5:21 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by svs
LA is comparible to London and NY in the number of productions performed yearly in the city. When you add in the audience seats for the TV shows, it probably beats them in total numbers. I admit the productions play longer and are more elaborate in London and NY, but they are supported by tourists from all over the world. Most tourists have no idea of what is available in LA.
As for Opera, while admitting no one in the US can hold a candle to the met, I would point out that this week there are four operas playing locally, Don Carlo, Manon, the Peony Pavillion, and Porgy and Bess, (multiple companies including touring productions), and The Kirov "Ring" all of it is coming to Orange County next week. I would rather hear the LA PHil under Essa-Peka in the Disney Hall than the NY Phil at LIncoln center under anyone. Just a personal opinion.

As for popular music, comedy, and performing arts LA is the equal of London and NY. Check the listings. The only place LA really is behind is dance. No real classical ballet company, and we tend to depend on visiting troups. Still there is a lot more performing art in LA than most people realize. If the tourists would catch on, we could have a theater scene better than New York or even London.

LA Phil, ever since the new concert hall, has become the hottest ticket among symphonies. It's all about the conductor, and LA has the most acclaimed conductor, atleast here in the US. So I'd say that it's just recently reached that elite level with the NY Phil. With the LA Opera, it was founded in the 1986 and still has some ways to go, but the amount of attention and philanthropy behind it is enviable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2006, 6:30 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infestma
I just read on Fortune that Broad, LACMA, and some others had offered a bid for all the Klimt paintings... The price they offered was $150 million for all of them and they refused to go more because their higher priority was the new building expansions plus they thought the owner of the paintings would give them a bit of a break since LACMA paid for all the costs to have it get to LA. I thought I'd let you guys know, in case you weren't aware of this and that apparently some work was done by our guys to try to keep those paintings.
whatever, LA had a 200 yard head start and Neue still beat them to the finish. LA is weak sauce.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2006, 7:10 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,690
Can anyone really justify paying $100 million dollars for a single painting? That's just ridiculous. LACMA came to it's senses. That's probably about 10 times their endowment. That would have been completely irresponsible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2006, 9:02 PM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
adele bloch blauer wasn't just a single painting. It might have done more for LACMA than the current 175 million dollar expansion ever will. And the fact that Broad is our only philanthropist to fall on. Michael Govan said it right - in NY, the billionaire class competes to see who can put more money into the arts. Not so in LA. Civic culture is really important. LA is has grouping of billionaires who happen to live in a single place. Just like the rest of the city, it's schizophrenic and dissociative. NY, in contrast, has an actual society.

Last edited by edluva; Sep 29, 2006 at 9:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2006, 11:26 PM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,690
If would have done more for LACMA, but it still isn't worth the price. It had a disappointing amount of visitors during it's stay at LACMA, when we had all 5 or 6 paintings. If the tourists didn't come for 5, why would they come for 1? It's different if it was the Getty who could actually afford it. But for LACMA, it'd be a better museum if it spent that money expanding it's collection with ten good paintings that would improve the overall experience of LACMA, then cashing out on a one trick pony. 175 million on the museum infrastructure on the other hand, is a good investment. LACMA' biggest problem is that it's a jumbled mess that is anything but fun to navigate. LA's biggest problem isn't the people willing to spend money on art, it's that musuems like the Getty don't care to form relationships with people who have good collections who could potentially donate their art. It's about donation. They jump ship and donate to NY museums. The fact that LA could even think about spending 100 million on a painting says that money isn't the issue in LA's art world (even the Met wouldn't pay that much), it's LA's inability to get mentioned in a dead collector's will, who live in our own backyard.

Last edited by ocman; Sep 29, 2006 at 11:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2006, 6:52 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
LA didn't think about paying 100m for a painting. Eli Broad did. The painting was willed to the family of the painting's subject, and that family happened to move to LA when the Nazi's invaded Austria. It was never intended to be willed to a US museum. The Altman family sold this painting to a NY buyer who was willing to pay the price. In this case, no LA collector would. That's the disappointment.

But yeah, I wouldn't ever have expected LACMA to put up that kind of money for it. It's a poor museum. But I knew a private collector would. Only this one lives in NY.

Either way, LACMA can gain patronage through publicity. And there are 2 ways it can gain publicity - through the fanfare that only McRenzo can promise, or through the fame of having our very own Mona Lisa...our very own destination piece. We landed an expansion. I was hoping for both. It takes the city and the museum for both.

Last edited by edluva; Sep 30, 2006 at 7:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2006, 1:21 PM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,610
'This is our Mona Lisa'



Ronald Lauder's acquisition of Klimt's 'Adele' was the most expensive known purchase of a single work of art. Can it propel his museum to greatness?

By Tyler Green, Fortune
September 28 2006: 8:13 AM EDT
(Fortune Magazine) -- At about midnight last July 5, the New York Police Department closed Manhattan's East 86th Street. Billionaire Ronald S. Lauder walked back and forth in the street, waiting. Employees of his boutique museum for German and Austrian modern art, the Neue Galerie, waited too.

They were expecting a specially appointed 18-wheeler, arriving from Los Angeles after a three-day, three-night trip. Operational details were precise: The rig stopped only for fuel, and it regularly radioed its location. Just before midnight it called from New Jersey, then from the George Washington Bridge, and then from Harlem.

The military-like operation was designed to protect the rig's cargo, "Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I" by turn-of-the-century Austrian artist Gustav Klimt. Lauder had just purchased it for the Neue Galerie, a museum he co-founded with his late friend Serge Sabarsky. The painting reportedly cost Lauder $135 million, probably the greatest sum ever spent for a work of art.

When the truck arrived, Lauder took a deep breath. "I realized that the picture was here," he says in the café of his museum. "This is our 'Mona Lisa.'" The painting's crate was unbolted from the sides of the truck and whisked upstairs, and "Adele" was installed behind bulletproof glass.

Lauder is right to be proud. "Adele" is a first-rate work of art, one of the most famous portraits of the 20th century. It shows one of fin-de-siècle Austria's wealthiest women, the wife of banker and sugar baron Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer. She rests against a dazzling haze of gold, wearing a silver choker and dressed in a golden gown ornamented with byzantine motifs and swirling designs.

The painting would attract plenty of attention just for all that precious metal, but there's more. Klimt's rendering of Adele's full red lips and distant, heavy-lidded, sexed-up look have generated 100 years' worth of whispers. "Klimt started this painting in 1903 and finished in 1907," says Renee Price, the Neue Galerie's director. "What were they doing? It makes it kind of ..." Price looks at the floor, then back at me. "It makes it kind of spicy."

The Klimt purchase was coup
Lauder and the Neue Galerie hope so. For Lauder, the purchase of "Adele" marks the apex and nexus of his business, philanthropic, and public careers: His wealth, an estimated $2 billion, comes mostly from his stake in cosmetics giant Estée Lauder (Charts), of which he was once chairman (his brother, Leonard, holds that title now, having served for many years as CEO).

His philanthropic background includes not just founding the Neue Galerie but also a decade as chairman of New York City's Museum of Modern Art, and decades of leadership in charities that focus on Jewish life and post-Nazi restitution issues. Twenty years ago he represented the U.S. as its ambassador to Austria. (And as the closing of 86th Street demonstrated, Lauder is well connected in New York politics: In 1989 he ran for mayor of New York City, and he remains a prominent Republican donor.) With the purchase of "Adele," Lauder's lives came together. And he knew it.

"I want to be buried right here," he says, gesturing to the fireplace in the café of his museum.

The "Adele" purchase is more than a coup for Lauder. It is hands down the biggest American museum purchase of the past 100 years, on a par with the Metropolitan Museum's $5.5 million purchase of a Diego Velázquez portrait in 1971 (that would be $26 million today) or Henry E. Huntington's $729,000 purchase of Thomas Gainsborough's "The Blue Boy" for his Huntington Library in 1921 ($6.7 million today).

With "Adele," Lauder and the Neue Galerie are making a grand gamble: Can a splashy, nearly unimaginable art acquisition turn an obscure museum into a must-see destination? Can a single painting - even a $135 million one - lift a museum to prominence?

Throughout the late summer, other museums - and especially their wealthy donors - have been considering this same question. Four other Klimts from the Bloch-Bauer family collection are on the market and are expected to sell for a total of $100 million to $150 million. With those sales likely to come in the next month or two, the art world is buzzing about how Lauder scored his masterpiece, a story told here for the first time.

In recent years museums have pursued a different strategy for raising their profiles: Hiring star architects and asking them for splashily distinctive new buildings. While many donors and trustees are motivated by a passion for art, in many cities art museums are the most desirable charitable boards on which to sit. When museums choose to build, their trustees don't just want to serve art programs but to increase the prominence and profile of their city.

Business and art enthusiasts benefit from the relationship in many ways. When Minneapolis's Walker Art Center opened a $70 million expansion designed by Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron last year, the museum and its new building earned the city unprecedented international press attention.

The Minneapolis business community anticipated it: Target (Charts), General Mills (Charts), Medtronic (Charts), U.S. Bancorp (Charts), Cargill, and Best Buy (Charts) (either directly or through their foundations) each gave more than $1 million, and the leaders of other Minnesota-based businesses, such as Coldwell Banker Burnet's Ralph Burnet, UnitedHealth Group CEO Bill McGuire, former Valspar CEO C. Angus Wurtele, and others, gave millions more.

"I think every CEO here would tell you that one of the reasons they support the cultural institutions in this community is that it helps them attract bright employees," Walker director Kathy Halbreich says. "The wind could sweep through here pretty fast if there weren't extensive facilities to harbor people, to let them enjoy those months that we can't enjoy the outdoors."

And a high-profile new cultural facility can market a city to outsiders more effectively than just about anything else. "People are profoundly pleased when they're sitting in some café in Paris and someone overhears that they're from Minnesota and says to them, 'The only thing I know about Minnesota is the Walker Art Center,'" Halbreich says. "And that's happened."

One painting or one building would not have such an impact on New York City, but trustees at other museums will be paying attention to the impact the Klimt has on the Neue Galerie. In many ways it is a perfect test case.

Even Lauder describes the pre-"Adele" Neue Galerie as a "cult kind of thing." Only about 350 people visited the museum each day, one-fortieth the attendance of the nearby Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Neue Galerie isn't listed in the Michelin Green Guide to New York City, while the Met receives 13 pages. The Neue Galerie's Austrian restaurant, Café Sabarsky, is better known than the museum that surrounds it. ("Perfect period piece," Zagat says. "Interminable waits.")

So far, the Klimt bet is paying off. Since "Adele" has been on view, the Neue Galerie's attendance has nearly sextupled, to around 10,000 visitors a week. In each of the past three weeks the museum has set at least one single-day attendance record.

"If you have a relatively small collection and you acquire a big painting that has been in the public's attention recently for reasons in addition to its beauty and quality, it's likely to make a big difference," says the director of the Art Institute of Chicago, James Cuno. "Adele" is just such a painting. It is a great work of art, to be sure, but it is also one with a remarkable history - and not just because of all those years it took Klimt to paint it.

Lauder's fascination with "Adele" goes back to when he visited Austria as a teenager. On his first morning in Vienna he walked over to the Belvedere, the 18th-century palace that houses the Austrian Gallery.

"When it opened, I was the first one in," Lauder says. "I'd seen 'Adele' in pictures and I'd read about it before, but nothing prepared me for how it looked. It was the first thing that I really saw in Vienna. And it was something that symbolizes so many things to me. It was just me, traveling without my parents. It symbolizes that moment of my growing up." It was the first of 40 years of encounters Lauder would have with "Adele."

When the painting was completed 100 years ago, Vienna, along with Paris, was the cultural capital of the world. As was the custom among the Viennese elite, Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer wanted to celebrate his (much younger) bride, Adele, by commissioning a portrait.

Ferdinand hired an artist who had spent the past decade setting Vienna abuzz with his sexually outré takes on classical themes: Gustav Klimt. There were details about Adele Bloch-Bauer and the artist that Ferdinand may not have known: His wife had almost certainly modeled for Klimt since at least 1899, and the two had probably been carrying on an affair. Adele sat for hundreds of drawings in the years before Klimt finished his portrait in 1907.

Nazi expropriation
If Ferdinand knew, apparently he didn't mind: Adele's portrait immediately became the most prized object in his art collection. Sadly, Adele died in 1925. Then, in 1938, the Nazis annexed Austria. Ferdinand, one of Austria's most prominent Jews, fled to Switzerland, leaving behind palatial estates and his art collection.

Nearly all of it was stolen by the Nazis, whose Moravian and Bohemian governor, Reinhard Heydrich, even took Ferdinand's grandest home outside Prague for a residence. (Heydrich, one of the key planners of the Holocaust, also gave some of Ferdinand's art collection to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels. The SS stole the family's jewels and gave them to Hermann Göring.) The portrait of Adele ended up at the Austrian Gallery, which still "owned" it when Ferdinand died in 1945.

Ferdinand's will specified that the paintings, presuming they were recovered from the Nazis or the Austrian state, go to his and Adele's niece Maria Altmann and two of her siblings. But during the decade after the war, Austria found reasons to deny the heirs' claims on six Klimt paintings and on Ferdinand's other property. (The Austrian state railway office, for example, was housed in one of Ferdinand's palaces until just a few months ago, when his heirs recovered the building. During the war it was the depot from which the Germans sent Austria's Jews to death camps.)

Austria's strangest reason for not returning "Adele" and five other paintings was this: It claimed that Adele herself wanted the paintings to be given to Austria upon Ferdinand's death.

In the late 1990s, however, when Austria began to open Nazi-era records to scholars and other interested parties, a journalist named Hubertus Czernin learned otherwise. He was among the first to gain access to the Bloch-Bauer records, and he found that neither Ferdinand nor Adele had specified that any Klimts go to the Austrian state.

More shocking: The "donation" record that consigned "Adele" to the Austrian Gallery was dated 1941 and was signed "Heil Hitler."

Altmann, who during the war had fled to Los Angeles along with her husband, Fritz (whom the Nazis briefly imprisoned at Dachau before allowing him to be ransomed), saw that the family had a chance to reclaim the paintings.

Earlier this year nearly a decade of legal maneuvering paid off, and Austria returned five of the six paintings. The family decided to sell them. Enter Ronald Lauder-again. The collector had enjoyed a brief encounter with "Adele" in 1986, when he was ambassador to Austria and helped arrange a loan of the painting to the Museum of Modern Art. Now he saw the opportunity to buy it. "It wasn't until the paintings left Austria that I believed I might have a chance," Lauder says.

He called MoMA director Glenn Lowry and asked him if he thought Lauder should buy it - not for MoMA, but for the Neue Galerie. Lowry flew to Los Angeles, saw "Adele," and reported back, yes.

It was a shrewd move: Intentionally or not, it eliminated a potential competitor by making it clear that Lauder, MoMA's biggest art donor, wanted this one for the Neue Galerie. "It clearly was a picture destined to be at the Neue Galerie," Lowry says.

Lauder called Steve Thomas, an attorney at Irell & Manella, whom the Bloch-Bauer heirs had retained to handle the sale of the Klimts. In early April, shortly after the Klimts went on temporary exhibit at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Lauder flew to L.A. for a 7 A.M. breakfast with Thomas.

The art of the deal
Lauder got right to the point: "If it's ever possible, I would like to consider getting 'Adele Bloch-Bauer' for the Neue Galerie," he told the attorney. Thomas said that the heirs might be interested. Lauder made an offer. "The price," Thomas recalls with a distinct pause, "was not close." Lauder asked him to express his interest directly to the heirs, Thomas agreed, and Lauder returned to New York.

Lauder wasn't the only interested party. Eli Broad, a billionaire philanthropist, an art collector, and the founder of both SunAmerica and KB Home, was spearheading a bid by the Los Angeles County Museum for all five Klimts. He organized LACMA donors to make a $150 million bid for the paintings. As word of the bid traveled through the museum world, people were shocked; $150 million would have been the largest sum an American museum had ever paid for art. Still, the heirs said no.

"It became clear that they were looking to get the greatest number of dollars they could," Broad says, adding that LACMA had hoped that the family would combine a sale with a partial gift - a recognition of LACMA's help in getting the paintings from Austria to Los Angeles, for insuring them, and the like.

Broad's team was unwilling to go higher because the Klimts weren't LACMA's only big project: In 2005 the museum kicked off what will be at least a $182 million, Renzo Piano-designed expansion. The building project had priority.

A couple of weeks after Lauder visited California, he called Thomas for an update. The attorney told him that the heirs had authorized him to have "more serious" talks. Ecstatic, Lauder suggested that Thomas fly to New York. "I have business in New York anyway," Thomas replied - as if finalizing the biggest art deal in memory wasn't the most important thing on his desk.

The two men had dinner at an Austrian restaurant. Thomas was blunt: "I told Ron that if he wanted to control the painting, the terms would have to be more serious."

He laid out the heirs' conditions. The family was intent on selling "Adele" to a museum, not to a private individual. The painting would have to be put on permanent display. The family would have to approve certain details of the display. "Adele" could never be deaccessioned. The painting's complicated history would have to be publicly acknowledged by the museum. The purchase price could not be made public. On and on.

Finally, Thomas said that the museum to which "Adele" was sold would have to have a secure, long-term future. (Lauder says that never came up, but Thomas mentioned it to me in two separate conversations.)

That condition had the potential to be thorny. The Neue Galerie is a mere toddler; its fifth birthday isn't until November. No question, the Lauder family had lavished money on the museum. Between Ronald and his mother, Estée (who died in 2004), the Lauders had given $85 million to the Neue Galerie between its founding in 1999 and the end of 2005. Ronald Lauder has also been unusually aggressive in building its collection through purchases of top-notch German and Austrian modern art.

For example, in May 2001, Lauder purchased one of the last Max Beckmann self-portraits in private hands. The $22.6 million he paid (the figure includes the auction house fee) was far beyond the auction house's $7 million to $10 million estimate, and it was a record for any German painting sold at auction.

But despite such high-profile purchases, the art world still whispered about the Neue Galerie's future for a simple reason: The museum had no major financial donors whose last name wasn't Lauder. The art world thought that Ronald Lauder might get tired of bankrolling his own museum. Several museum directors I talked to for this story asked me if I thought that Lauder would "still" fold Neue Galerie into the Museum of Modern Art.

"Neue Galerie will be very well endowed," Lauder says. "All the steps are being taken to make sure that the endowment is enough for 200 years. And that's about all you can do."

So while the art world buzzed about the Neue Galerie's future, both sides say it quickly became a nonissue for the heirs. Lauder asked Thomas if he could mull over the terms to see if he could make it work. Thomas said that would be fine. A few days later Lauder phoned Thomas and made the deal. Lauder's bet on his museum's future was in place. Now the question was: What impact would "Adele" have on his museum?

Not every expensive painting becomes an attraction. In 2004 the Metropolitan reportedly paid nearly $50 million for a nine- by six-inch painting by early Renaissance master Duccio di Buoninsegna. The painting is more important art historically than it is eye-pleasing, and the gallery in which the painting was installed is usually empty. Perhaps for that reason, in museum circles people still buzz about the Duccio's price more than about the work itself. (Met director Philippe de Montebello knows it - he phoned Renee Price just after the "Adele" purchase and said, "Thanks for making my Duccio look so reasonable.")

And that's why trustees and donors have preferred buildings: immediate gratification, publicity, and civic reward. In Minneapolis the Walker's expansion paid off with 1,100 news stories.

An acquisition doesn't usually have that kind of quick influence, but over time the impact can be greater. "If I had total druthers and could buy a painting for a painting vs. spending it on a building, I might be tempted to say that painting is going to last forever and will always be a draw," says Harry Parker, the recently retired director of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco.

An example of the long-term benefit of an iconic artwork such as "Adele" can be found at the Art Institute of Chicago, home to three of the most famous paintings in America: Georges Seurat's composition of colorful dots, "Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" (acquired in 1926); Grant Wood's portrait of farmer, wife, and pitchfork titled "American Gothic" (in 1930); and Edward Hopper's fluorescent-lit diner, "Nighthawks" (in 1942).

Generations of Chicagoans have grown up with the three paintings and consider Chicago's stewardship of them a point of civic pride. And because each image is in the public domain - anyone from an ad firm to a television producer to a T-shirt designer can use the images without paying for them or needing contractual permission - the paintings automatically market themselves, the museum, and Chicago.

Lauder understands this - when he refers to "Adele" as the Neue Galerie's "Mona Lisa," he's not just referring to the quality of the work of art. The Neue Galerie already intends to make "Adele"-related items available in its design store. It plans a couple of publications that people will be able to buy in its store and perhaps elsewhere.

But beyond that, there's not much the Neue can do. "Adele" is in the public domain too. It is an unusual asset in that how it will impact the Neue Galerie in the long run is up to other people.

What the Chicago examples have in common is that they were acquired about 70 years ago, before America's great museums were good. In other words, the Art Institute acquired them at a point in its development that mimics where the Neue Galerie is now.

Now that Lauder has Adele, he's thinking about what's next. He may make a bid for one or more of the other four Klimts that the Bloch-Bauer heirs are selling. And he may just build a new museum-say, a Neue Galerie Vienna.

"I think that would be a lot of fun," he says, trailing off. "But at this point we have our hands full here."

Substance amid the spotlights at the Clinton Global Initiative.

From the October 2, 2006 issue







Find this article at:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...ion=2006092808
__________________
DTLA Rising

Last edited by LosAngelesBeauty; Sep 30, 2006 at 1:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2006, 5:55 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,453
NY Times, October 1, 2006



Navigating the aesthetic sprawl is easier than it looks. 1. Jason Rhoades’s ‘‘Black Pussy’’ was both an art installation and a great place to hang out and have a drink. 2. Peres Projects, a must-stop gallery in Chinatown. 3. Francesco Vezzoli installation at Gagosian Beverly Hills. 4. Nancy Rubins at her Topanga Canyon studio in front of raw material for her piece ‘‘Big Pleasure Point,’’ recently at Lincoln Center. 5. Mark Grotjahn outside his studio in Hollywood and a painting in progress, 6., for his current solo show at the Whitney Museum. 7. Raymond Pettibon exhibiton at Regen Projects. 9. Aaron Turner, a student in the U.C.L.A. M.F.A. program, in his studio. 10. Installation in progress at the Hammer Museum in Westwood. 11. Ryan Trecartin at QED Gallery in Culver City. 12. Work in progress at Jorge Pardo’s design studio. 13. The artist Doug Aitken in his Venice studio. His first large-scale public work goes up at the Modern in January 2007.


Style
Artquake

By BRUCE HAINLEY
Photographs by ARI MARCOPOULOS

I am amused by fancy art-world types who breeze into Los Angeles planning to “get” the scene in a few days. They would have better luck reading “In Search of Lost Time” over a long weekend. America’s second-largest city sprawls — physically, aesthetically, socially — over nearly 500 square miles, so any attempt to nutshell the burg and its cultural bazaar takes on comic aspects. Note that the Pompidou Center’s recent survey of Los Angeles art was called “The Birth of an Artistic Capital” and that Michael Govan, the new director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, has declared Los Angeles the new New York, forgetting perhaps that Angelenos have never wished to be New Yorkers and that long before the 1955 birth date pronounced by the Pompidou, Hollywood was producing things as provocative, philosophical and influential as anything given the name of, well, art.

Sun, sand, great surf, a climate usually allowing a smooth shift from beachwear to cashmere pullover and until recently — “recently” thanks to no major earthquake in more than a decade and brutalized New Yorkers’ finding respite here — relatively cheap studio and living spaces, all with easy access to the materials of the film, television and porn industries, explain why anyone, not just artists, would wish to live and work here.

“In the 50’s there was no art scene in L.A. at all,” Tom Marioni wrote some 30 years ago in his artist-driven publication Vision. Marioni, that great conceptual troublemaker, encouraged aesthetics to mellow, so that we can all now claim that “The Act of Drinking Beer With Friends Is the Highest Form of Art” (as his 1970 “social sculpture” was titled). By his estimation, “not until about ’64 or ’65 did L.A. become known as an art center.” He also thought that the L.A. scene “burned fast and extinguished itself in 10 years,” but perhaps a few too many brews combined with the weather in his hometown of San Francisco had fogged his perspective.

You would have to ignore that by 1964 Irving Blum’s Ferus Gallery had already put on landmark shows (including Andy Warhol’s “Campbell’s Soup Cans”) and that by 1975 Cal Arts was on fire: the institute could already claim as alums Ross Bleckner, Eric Fischl, Barbara Bloom, Troy Brauntuch, Jack Goldstein and David Salle. But they all quickly decamped to New York — never mind that Robert Irwin, an L.A. native, and Ed Ruscha, a transplant from Oklahoma, had thrived out West long before their alma mater existed in Valencia.

It was some combination of John Baldessari moving to L.A. to teach many of those first Cal Arts grads and, soon after, the Cal Arts graduate Mike Kelley not moving to New York, that significantly changed the situation. Although such a synopsis jettisons all nuance, in L.A. it is not a confluence of museums, auction houses and galleries but the intense nexus of art schools (there are five major players, all vying to win the tartest students) and their renowned faculties (including, to cherry-pick one from each school, Mike Kelley, Catherine Opie, Thomas Lawson, Frances Stark and Larry Johnson) that remain key to challenging what art will be.

Often, an early sign of artistic success in New York is when the artist no longer has to teach to pay the rent; for over 30 years, major artists in L.A. have continued to teach in addition to carrying on stellar careers. Contrary to the air-headed local stereotype, it’s as if to be an artist worth the name means educating younger practitioners how to think critically about what is seen, an education the world, and image-obese America especially, too frequently has abandoned, since images are understood to be, I guess, transparent. (Dude, no way!) Combine this pedagogic tradition with the fact that one of the sharpest art journals anywhere, Afterall, is co-published here, and L.A. can shrug its shoulders.

Of course, no one wishes to be enrolled forever. It would be jejune to think that schools could, or should, provide more than the equivalent of a pair of Ray-Bans to guard against the UV rays of a solar art market. Carefree without major auction action and no distracting art fair (or, at least, not yet), L.A.’s galleries thrive as a system in which smarts and fun are on almost equal footing with business.

The reigning gallery style is brisk and low-key chic compared with Chelsea’s grand, mausoleumlike airs, and its gallerists, with lower overhead, take relatively more risks, mixing things up with bright group shows by nongallery artists. New venues have been springing up like some genetically altered mushroom able to thrive in full sunshine.

The already decentralized metropolis can now boast of galleries in neighborhoods from Culver City (the current center of buzz, if not always daring cerebration) to Chinatown and Santa Monica. Any thinking person would have to count David Kordansky’s and Daniel Hug’s galleries as well as Solo Projects and Sister, helmed, respectively, by Tom Solomon and Katie Brennan, as serious players. There is also Trudi, a brazen, vitrinelike alternative to the Wrong Gallery; the innovative nonprofit Outpost for Contemporary Art; and the inaugural sessions of the Sundown Schoolhouse, spearheaded by the indefatigable architect and catalyst, Fritz Haeg.

And, hey, the artist-impresarios Flora Wiegmann, Drew Heitzler and Justin Beal’s new bar, the Mandrake, gives needed juice to the Culver City drag, a place not only to spotlight what’s really on the local minds (the artist-curator Darren Bader’s bicoastal shindig, “Grupe,” started things off with a bang) or to test with friends the highest forms but also to sit in the corner, sloe-eyed, researching the timely goings-on.

L.A. has been nominated as an art capital before, and it will be again when the spotlight moves elsewhere. (Mexico City? Shanghai?) Gagosian Beverly Hills’s Oscar-week opening remains the only heady swirl of art and industry in Tinseltown. Art making goes on despite it all, behind closed doors, which is why it matters. Party of one — or plus one.

Bruce Hainley is associate director of graduate studies in criticism and theory at Art Center College of Design in Los Angeles. He is the author most recently of “Foul Mouth,” published by 2nd Cannons Publications.




Choose your vehicle of expression. 1. Wendy Yao commissions artists to make limited-edition things like T-shirts for her tiny Chinatown store, Ooga Booga. 2. Ruben Ochoa transformed his father’s van into a groovy mobile gallery, including an exhibition space, an office (in the front seat) and a janitor’s closet (in the back). 3. The artist and designer Jorge Pardo in the industrial work space where much of his furniture is produced. He recently designed a house in Naguabo, Puerto Rico, for a couple who collect his work. 4. The performance troupe My Barbarian in rehearsal at Redcat, an art space located in the Walt Disney Concert Hall complex designed by Frank Gehry. 5. The pioneering L.A. artist Chris Burden at his studio in Topanga Canyon. (He is the husband of the artist Nancy Rubins.) For the past few years, Burden has been collecting and restoring vintage street lamps, 14 of which were installed at South London Gallery last month.




Who wouldn’t want to live and work here? 1. Robert Therrien’s cavernous studio is large enough to accommodate production of sculptures like this supersize card table and folding chairs. 2. Dave Muller is increasingly known for his ‘‘Top 10’’ paintings of record-album spines — not to mention his vast music collection. 3. The Milan-based gallerist Emi Fontana commissions installations in some of the best locations the city has to offer by artists like Olafur Eliasson and, more recently, Monica Bonvicini for her continuing project, West of Rome. 4. Jason Meadows and his sculptural installation at Marc Foxx Gallery on Wilshire Blvd. 5. U.C.L.A.’s is one of several competing Los Angeles art schools that release some 100 aspiring artists into the world each year, including Spencer Lewis, 6. The school has a warren of student studio spaces, 7., in Culver City. 8. An opening for the artist Emilie Halpern at Anna Helwing on Culver City’s gallery strip. 9. The artist and writer Frances Stark in her studio, located in an outdoor mall in Chinatown.




From old guard to arriviste. 1. Mike Kelley is considered one of the quintessential Los Angeles artists. Over the years he has banded up with the likes of Tony Oursler, Jim Shaw, Paul McCarthy and Dave Muller, to name a few. His Highland Park compound, 3., includes a music studio. 2. Like many Los Angeles artists, Pae White has found studio space in the unlikeliest of places. 4. A typical Saturdaynight opening at Blum & Poe in Culver City, where the party spills over into the parking lot. 5. Mark Grotjahn, in situ. 6. The Redcat curator Eungie Joo overseeing a sound installation by the French artist Mathieu Briand. 7. A peek inside the home of Beth Swofford, an agent at C.A.A., whose expansive private collection includes work by contemporary artists like Richard Prince and Luc Tuymans. 8. Justin Beal, along with Drew Heitzler and Flora Wiegmann, both formerly of Champion Fine Art and Williamsburg, recently opened the Mandrake, a bar and exhibition space conveniently located in the heart of the Culver City gallery scene. 9. For 40 years, Gemini G.E.L. has produced limited-edition prints for artists like Richard Serra, Ellsworth Kelly and Robert Rauschenberg.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2006, 3:48 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,690
ike something out of a Jane Austen novel, California's attorney general on Monday named a chaperon to accompany the J. Paul Getty Trust for two fiscal years. The Getty, headstrong and wayward, apparently requires some adult supervision.

Fourteen months after launching a civil investigation, the attorney general issued his findings on the shenanigans that disrupted the Getty Trust with escalating intensity since the elaborate Brentwood campus opened more than eight years ago. The 13-page report can be frustrating to read, since it necessarily hews close to the legal issues of the investigation. Those legalities commonly concern finances, not program goals or institutional ethics.


Essentially, the report's two conclusions confirm what we already knew.

First, former Getty Trust President Barry Munitz repeatedly engaged in self-dealing — the improper use of tax-exempt charitable funds for personal benefit. Second, the Getty's board of trustees repeatedly failed to exercise adequate oversight of the $5.5-billion institution, the nation's largest art philanthropy. Munitz resigned last February and made financial restitution; board Chairman John Biggs left in August.

The 13-page document says no crimes were committed and, with both men gone, no legal action will be taken. But the chaperon will be watching, taking notes and reporting back at regular intervals to the putative parents back in Sacramento. The state has never before had to assign a monitor to a California charity, which at the very least ought to chasten the committee of Getty trustees now engaged in a search for a new president and chief executive.

Beyond the blot on institutional reputation, the bigger tragedy is that eight years have been squandered.

Yes, the Getty Trust's four operating programs have continued on, often to superlative effect. The museum, research library, conservation institute and grant foundation are staffed by some of the best professionals in the field, and they can rightly claim their share of distinctive achievements.

But they operate under the umbrella of the trust — and the trust itself ought to perform an innovative artistic leadership role for Los Angeles and the world. You would be hard-pressed to name many major art initiatives to have emanated from its gleaming Brentwood offices. The trust has mostly been missing in action.

With art, opportunities missed can be opportunities forever lost. A gut-wrenching example unfolded over the last six months, when a rudderless Getty engulfed in turmoil stayed out of the contest to acquire five early Modern paintings by Austrian artist Gustav Klimt. Among the works is a paramount masterpiece of 20th century art.

To acquire the sought-after group, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art put $150 million on the table — a huge sum, surely without precedent in the history of American art museums, but not enough to secure so large and coveted a prize. Had the Getty Trust taken note and stepped forward to add to the pot — something around half of LACMA's ante might well have done the trick — there is good reason to believe the incomparable Klimt ensemble would have stayed in L.A. But the world's richest art institution stayed mum and the paintings left town.


The report absolves the trust from error in selling a land parcel whose market value was in dispute. But it says nothing about the transaction's conflict of interest, in which Munitz improperly steered the deal toward a friend and business associate, Eli Broad, while instructing staff to cover up the fact.

The report absolves the trust for having paid a surprising $3-million severance to former Getty Museum Director Deborah Gribbon, whose sudden resignation in October 2004 broke open the scandal's floodgates. Gribbon is revealed to have had a claim against the trust for unlawful "constructive discharge" — typically, harassment to the point where an employee feels reasonably compelled to resign — and the damages could have exceeded the severance. But the claim's grim details are not explained.

The report absolves the trust of guilt in spending millions of dollars to fund a movie on elementary school teachers, redecorate a new office for a former employee, publicize a White House education initiative about Mars and send an employee to a chess tournament in Israel. The expenditures were legal because they were made to other charities. Understandably, the attorney general makes no comment about those gifts' obvious irrelevance to the trust's own mission statement, which "focuses on the visual arts" so that "cultural enlightenment and community involvement in the arts can help lead to a more civil society." Mars is not mentioned.

With trustees' support, Munitz doubled the size of the Getty's grant-making foundation, even as he cut the museum's art acquisition funds and began corporate fundraising for programs. (Deborah Marrow, who runs the enlarged grant program, is now the trust's acting president.) When you've got big money to give away, you've got endless reasons — or excuses — for lavish globetrotting, while the multitudes hoping for a share of your largess have just as many reasons to blow sunshine your way. These crude blandishments, needless to say, are beyond the scope of an attorney general's purview — and perhaps even a chaperon's practiced eye.

Yet they do go to the heart of the Getty Trust's dysfunction. The trust has taken important steps to reform its governance policies and practices, including new provisions on conflicts of interest and whistle-blowing now posted at its website (www.getty.edu). So far, though, it has declined to issue a report of findings in its own internal investigation, claiming that strict confidentiality precludes it.

That's a big mistake. Legalisms are only part of the terrible story, and the attorney general has now addressed them. As for the Getty Trust, if the federal government can publish the National Intelligence Estimate in a form that does not compromise national security, surely the trust can issue a sober, introspective report that does not betray confidences. For advice on propriety, it could ask the chaperon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2006, 8:45 AM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocman
Munitz doubled the size of the Getty's grant-making foundation, even as he cut the museum's art acquisition funds
That guy sure was a piece of crap. It would be nice & fitting if he were booted out of LA, forever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2006, 2:42 AM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,610
Huntington Library Receives an Electrifying Donation

In an electrifying gift, Edison turns over its massive photographic archive of the region's transformation to the Huntington Library.


By Larry Gordon
Times Staff Writer

October 6, 2006

Photographers for pioneering electric companies documented a sweeping visual history of Southern California, from its 19th century farm days to the suburban sprawl after World War II.

When giant hydroelectric dams were built on formerly wild rivers, they shot. When cocktail lounges added air conditioning in formerly sweltering digs, they shot. When floods and earthquakes ravaged the region, they shot.

The result was an enormous collection for what eventually became the Southern California Edison firm: 40,000 photographic prints, 35,000 negatives and 450 reels of motion picture film. And on Thursday, officials announced that the parent company, Edison International, has donated that archive to the Huntington Library, Art Collections and Botanical Gardens in San Marino, where it will be digitized and made available for historians and researchers.

Jennifer Watts, the library's curator of photographs, described the gift as extremely important to chronicling "the evolution of Southern California."

Although many photos show early generators and transmission lines, they also offer interesting and usually unintended insights into economic and cultural life. In the fashions and streetscapes from the 1880s to the 1950s, "you see a lost era," she said.

For example, a picture of a 1934 fatal car crash into a utility pole in Compton shows the surrounding neighborhood as quietly rural. In promotional scenes from a 1917 cooking school class in Pomona, women in fancy hats watch demonstrations of early electric appliances. Long-vanished poultry farms in Pomona and Fontana are depicted in the 1930s with what were then new-fangled electric chick warmers and egg coolers.

A photo of a sign, thought to be from the 1890s, illustrates how unfamiliar most people were with electric lights. "Do Not Attempt to Light With a Match," it warned, urging people to use the turnkey instead. "The Use of Electricity for Lighting Is No Way Harmful to Health, Nor Does It Affect the Soundness of Sleep."

One of the most engaging images displays a group of nattily dressed young men atop bicycles on 4th Street in downtown Los Angeles in 1912. In the days before lightbulbs could be easily screwed in, their job was to deliver and install free replacement bulbs to homes and businesses.

Edison had stored the collection in various locations over the years but recently became more concerned about proper preservation of delicate items. Discussions began with the Huntington, which has a well-respected curatorial staff, as well as chilled and low-humidity storage vaults.

"We are delighted to be able to give these to the Huntington, to have their professional skills and to make it available to researchers and scholars," said John Bryson, chairman and chief executive of the Rosemead-based Edison International. Bryson noted that the library has other large archives about California history. "It's a natural fit," he said.

Plus, Bryson said that parts of the collection and Edison's history are directly linked to Henry Huntington, the library's founder. Huntington was the backer of the vastly ambitious Big Creek hydroelectric plant, which came online in the Sierra in 1913 to help power his Pacific Electric Railway in Los Angeles. Through subsequent mergers, Edison took over Big Creek and expanded it.

Appraisers have estimated that the collection would sell for about $800,000, not including its future intellectual worth and reproduction rights, according to Edison officials. In addition, the utility is giving about $200,000 for preservation and digitizing. That will take up to two years.

The photos are housed on shelves at the Huntington, in cardboard boxes cataloged by such subjects as steam plants, accidents and sports. Ross Landry, a retired Edison curator who is under contract to help with the project, is painstakingly comparing the prints and negatives for overlaps. He said it is difficult sometimes not to get lost in a past Southern California that was, for example, well served by a network of electric trolleys.

Greg Hise, associate professor of urban history at USC's School of Policy, Planning and Development, has seen some of the collection and predicted that it will be invaluable for him and other researchers.

For example, he said he was drawn to 1916 pictures of power poles in downtown Los Angeles and what they captured of nearby rail yards, workers and housing.

"As is often the case, you think you are collecting one thing and it turns out to be useful in ways you never imagined," he said of the Edison photographers.

The photos of early 20th century utility workers dangling off cliffs and over rivers will remind people of how much fortitude and courage it took to build the region's first dams and power grids, he added. "Today, we flip on a switch and expect the lights to come on, our computers to work," Hise said. "We forget what lies behind that."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
larry.gordon@latimes.com
__________________
DTLA Rising
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2006, 12:29 PM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,610
Broad Buys Koons Egg for $3.5 Million as London Sales Start

By Linda Sandler

Oct. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire Eli Broad bought Jeff Koons's sculpture, ``Cracked Egg (Blue),'' for about $3.5 million from Gagosian's new West End gallery, starting a week of art sales in London.

Broad, whose California art foundation owns about 1,300 contemporary works, began his Koons collection in the 1980s, and has expanded it ever since. He spoke to Bloomberg at Brown's Hotel before taking a cab to the Frieze Art Fair in Regent's Park, which opens to VIPs today for private views.

``Unfortunately, we're paying more for Koons than we did in the 1980s,'' said Broad, 73, a slight, gray-haired man in a suit. ``But if you're a collector, you buy a work when you find it. We don't pause when prices rise. The only thing that happens is our insurance bills go up.''

Broad, among the largest contemporary collectors, helped found Los Angeles's Museum of Contemporary Art, is financing a new modern-art wing at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and is underwriting a new production of Wagner's ``Ring'' cycle at Los Angeles Opera.

Art prices aren't likely to keep rising, after tripling in 10 years, he said.

``I don't think the market can keep going up,'' he said. ``In the U.S., we see real estate not going up -- houses are selling at lower prices. You can't have anything going up 10 percent to 20 percent to 30 percent indefinitely.''

U.S. artist Koons, along with Cindy Sherman and the U.K.'s Damien Hirst, are among the great artists who emerged in the 1990s, he said.

Museum Storage

Asked whether his collection would wind up in a museum, Broad said it would be divided and doled out to institutions that needed the specific works. The risk of donating an entire collection to a single museum was that much of it might wind up in storage, he said.

``Where it goes will depend on who needs what. We don't want them in storage.'' Giving a clue as to possible beneficiaries, Broad reeled off a number of boards he sits on, including MOCA. LACMA would be loaned more than 100 works, he said.

Koons would be an exception to the breakup of the art holdings, he said: ``We would like to keep Koons together. We have his basketballs, his bunny and one of his `Celebration' works.'' The cracked egg, in blue stainless steel, with the severed top beside the larger piece, is one of five, he said. ``There's one left. It will cost more when it's sold,'' he said.

Broad, a founder and former chief executive officer of the homebuilder KB Home and insurer SunAmerica Inc., paid $11.8 million in May for a 1962 Andy Warhol painting of a Campbell's soup can and $23.8 million last November for a David Smith ``Cubi'' sculpture, the highest price ever paid for a contemporary artwork sold at auction.

Leaving London

He'll depart London on Thursday, perhaps leaving some bids at the auction houses, he said, declining to name works he might buy. His trip to Frieze would enable him to see large numbers of works from international dealers in a short time, he said.

``We didn't come with the intention of buying anything specific there,'' he said.

Frieze, with sales last year of almost $57 million, is part of a week of museum and gallery shows of contemporary art, plus some $147 million of auctions. The fair is open to the public from tomorrow through Oct. 15.

To contact the reporter on this story: Linda Sandler in London at lsandler@bloomberg.net .

Last Updated: October 11, 2006 08:18 EDT
__________________
DTLA Rising
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2006, 12:29 PM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,610
LACMA gains three high-profile trustees


A philanthropist, author Michael Crichton and Yahoo's CEO will help upgrade the museum.


By Suzanne Muchnic
Times Staff Writer

October 17, 2006

With a new director at the helm and a major expansion underway, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art has added three high-profile members to its board of trustees.

David Bohnett, a philanthropist and technology entrepreneur who heads the David Bohnett Foundation and the private equity firm Baroda Ventures; Michael Crichton, a bestselling author of such books as "Jurassic Park" and "State of Fear," a television producer and filmmaker; and Terry Semel, chairman and chief executive of Yahoo Inc. and former chairman of Warner Bros., have been elected to a 44-member board, 21 of whom have joined since 2000.

"We grow the collection, we grow the building, we grow the board," said LACMA Director Michael Govan, who took charge of the museum in April. The new trustees are well qualified to help the museum improve its facilities, develop its program and extend its reach into the community, he said.

Among those qualifications is experience on other organizations' boards. Bohnett is on the board of the Los Angeles Philharmonic Assn. Crichton has served on the boards of Harvard University, the International Design Conference at Aspen and the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute in La Jolla. Semel is a trustee of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York, the Museum of Television and Radio in New York and Beverly Hills and Emerson College in Boston.

Bohnett, Crichton and Semel have arrived at LACMA during the first phase of an ambitious project to expand, upgrade and unify the museum's facilities in a comprehensive program designed by architect Renzo Piano. A new building, the Broad Contemporary Art Museum at LACMA, funded by trustee Eli Broad, is under construction. Plans call for renovation of the five existing buildings, including the former May Co. department store at Wilshire Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue.

*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
suzanne.muchnic@latimes.com
__________________
DTLA Rising
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2006, 6:13 AM
bobcat bobcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,790
THE HUNTINGTON RECEIVES $2 MILLION GRANT FROM
IRVINE FOUNDATION FOR CHINESE GARDEN

Other substantial recent gifts bring the total raised thus far to $15.5 million

SAN MARINO, Calif.– The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens has just
been awarded a $2 million grant by the James Irvine Foundation to help support construction
costs of the institution’s Chinese Garden 漢庭頓中國園. The grant, announced by Irvine today,
puts the total amount in gifts and pledges raised to date at about $15.5 million. The cost for the
first phase is projected to be $18.3 million.
“This generous gift from the Irvine Foundation puts us significantly closer to completing the
funding for the Garden’s first phase,” says Huntington President Steven Koblik. “We’ve had
tremendous momentum in our fundraising efforts; this grant will certainly help us to inspire new
and additional gifts. We are extremely grateful to Irvine for believing in the value of this
important project.”
The $2 million comes to The Huntington as a one to one
matching grant – that is, the Irvine
Foundation is challenging The Huntington to raise an additional $2 million in new and increased
gifts from other donors.
Immediately rising to meet the challenge were the children of Fung Chow 陳鳳儔 and Wai Hing
Chan 陳梁惠卿, who committed $150,000 as a living memorial for their parents just after the
Irvine grant was announced on Wednesday.
The matching grant builds on growing momentum that recently culminated in the first milliondollar
gift from a Chinese family the
Wang family: Vivine, Janice, Dorothy, and H. Roger
Wang 王恆和王徐貞賢夫婦及女兒 王宣懿、王宣琳. “The Huntington's Chinese Garden is truly a
unique endeavor and our family is lucky enough to witness its development from its inception,”
says Janice Wang. “Given the truly international scale of the project, any assistance we can
provide, regardless on which side of the Pacific, is our pleasure.”
Other substantial recent gifts have come from Lily Y. Wong 黃陳月如, Goodwin 吳繼偉 and
Yama Gaw 陳雅文, and MeiLee
Ney 李梅. Fundraising for the project has been extremely
successful, with an overwhelming response from the Chinese community—local, national, and
international. In total, The Huntington has received gifts from more than 200 Chinese donors,
including a variety of leaders, businesspeople, and philanthropists from the region’s growing
Chinese community. Many express delight and gratitude for the opportunity to support this
exceptional Garden dedicated to furthering knowledge and understanding about Chinese culture,

both through the Garden’s physical beauty and through an array of educational and public
programs.
“The response from the Chinese community has been phenomenal,” said Koblik. “This is a
unique project with respect to how it’s being funded and how it’s getting done. It’s a coming
together of community; we’re all working together here in San Marino, in Suzhou, and with the
help of donors everywhere. It’s an extremely powerful moment in the history of The
Huntington.”
The Huntington is constructing the first publicly accessible classical Chinese Garden in
California and one of the largest outside of China. The first phase consists of a 1.3acre
lake, five
bridges, and eight pavilions surrounded by a natural landscape. The ambitious project was
conceived some two decades ago, and work began in earnest in 2001 when The Huntington
received a $10 million gift from the estate of Huntington Overseer Peter Paanakker. Since that
time, it has generated interest and support from governmental and philanthropic leadership both
in China and locally, and has been covered extensively by the media.
The public currently has the opportunity to view the Chinese Garden during a preview period
that runs through February 2007. Viewing the Garden in this initial state will give visitors a
sense of what’s to come. Foundations are in place for the structures that will be built around the
lake in 2007: pavilions, covered walkways, a tea shop, teahouse, and “poetic views” in the
tradition of Suzhoustyle
scholar gardens. The Summer Garden section is expected to open in fall
2008.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2006, 7:11 AM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,610
200 ppl and only $15 million???

Damn, the Chinese are being stingy! I know they got some more money than that up their sleeves! C'mon you rich Chinese living in San Marino! You can do betta than that!
__________________
DTLA Rising
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2006, 7:34 AM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,453
LACMA, Huntington lead in arts fundraising

The two institutions join KCET as the area's top charity recipients on the latest Philanthropy 400 list.

By Mike Boehm, Times Staff Writer

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Huntington Library, Art Collections and Botanical Gardens in San Marino are the Southern California arts community's two entries on the Chronicle of Philanthropy's annual Philanthropy 400 listing of U.S. charities enjoying the greatest fundraising success.

Both museums were raising money for renovation or expansion campaigns during the 2005 fiscal year that generated the rankings. LACMA raised a total of $55.2 million and ranked 290th, the Huntington took in $46.3 million and ranked 335th. LACMA's ongoing campaign actually decelerated from 2004, with private donations slipping 30%, according to the Chronicle. The Huntington boosted its take 139%. Public television station KCET was ranked 264th, with $58.4 million in donations, a 2% drop from the previous year.

The Chronicle came up with its list by analyzing organizations' federal tax returns.

While charitable giving to the 400 top institutions rose 13%, to $62.7 billion, fueled in part by Hurricane Katrina relief, arts and cultural organizations on the list, including museums, libraries, performance groups and public broadcasting, were less favored than in 2004. Their take of $1.47 billion was off 10.6% from the previous year, the Chronicle calculates, and represented a 2.3% slice of the entire 400.

Other leading reapers of cultural largess include:

New York's Museum of Modern Art (No. 57, with $239 million),
Public Broadcasting Service (60, $232.5 million),
The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston (63, $210 million),
The Smithsonian Institution (91, $163.7 million),
Boston television station WGBH (130, $118 million),
New York TV station WNET (151, $102.2 million),
The Metropolitan Museum of Art (162, $96.4 million),
The Metropolitan Opera (165, $93.4 million),
The American Museum of Natural History (182, $84.4 million),
National Public Radio (206, $78 million),
The New York Public Library (231, $69.4 million),
The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (239, $67.3 million),
Arlington, Va., TV station WETA (257, $60.4 million),
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (305, $51.1 million),
Lincoln Center (330, $47.1 million),
The Juilliard School (336, $46.2 million),
Atlanta's Woodruff Arts Center (339, $45.9 million),
Carnegie Hall (345, $45.4 million),
The Philadelphia Museum of Art (358, $43.2 million),
San Francisco TV station KQED (374, $40.7 million),
Minnesota Public Radio (377, $40.4 million),
and San Francisco Opera (385, $39.5 million).

Of the 23 arts and cultural institutions on the 400 list (including the Juilliard School, an arts university that the Chronicle classifies as an educational institution, and excluding PBS and NPR, which are national in scope, and the 225th-ranked William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation, which the Chronicle considers as a library), nine are in New York City, three each in L.A. and the Washington, D.C., area, and two each in Boston, Chicago and San Francisco.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2006, 7:44 AM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,610



LA is the wealthiest area of the USA and we aren't on par with NYC! It just means we don't have the culture yet to really have art in people's faces. Once LACMA is renovated/expanded with the Purple Line outside its front door, and Downtown LA is revitalized (another 5-10 years), I believe philanthropy will actually increase dramatically because people want to give money to institutions that are EASILY accessible to the public.

However, I am not sure why Houston's Museum of Fine Arts received so much money. I mean, it's not like Houston is known of the arts, so maybe there's some more to this.
__________________
DTLA Rising
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:21 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.