Almost exactÂly a year ago, I caught up with Jori Finkel, a jourÂnalÂist who covÂers the Los AngeÂles arts scene, and we talked about an art-world conÂtroÂverÂsy that she first wrote about in The New York Times. The conÂtroÂverÂsy focused on museÂums seekÂing fundÂing from art galÂleries, which can be a direct conÂflict of interÂests, and her lead examÂple was L.A.’s MuseÂum of ConÂtemÂpoÂrary Art. Well, it turns out now that MOCA is in seriÂous finanÂcial trouÂble, with its annuÂal operÂatÂing costs runÂning up to $20 milÂlion and its endowÂment plungÂing below $10 milÂlion. It also turns out that last year’s scanÂdal should have sent up some red flags. So we decidÂed to do a folÂlow-up interÂview with Jori and get her take on MOCA’s fisÂcal criÂsis and bailout plans.
DC: We’ve seen a lot of banks and finanÂcial instiÂtuÂtions lookÂing for bailouts, and the more we invesÂtiÂgate them, the more we realÂize these instiÂtuÂtions were simÂply actÂing reckÂlessÂly. When the hisÂtoÂry of this criÂsis gets writÂten, I imagÂine that we’ll realÂize that it wasn’t just the banks that misÂmanÂaged their funds and got caught on a limb. Is that what we’re seeÂing here with MOCA?
JF: I’m not aware of any crazy execÂuÂtive bonusÂes or expenÂsive comÂpaÂny retreats if that’s what you mean. No, what we’re lookÂing at here are two rather clasÂsic nonÂprofÂit manÂageÂment probÂlems: under-fundÂing and overÂspendÂing. L.A. Times critÂic ChristoÂpher Knight took MOCA trustees to task for not coughÂing up enough cash, and I’ve also writÂten a lot about the criÂsis in culÂturÂal philÂanÂthropy in L.A. The biggest probÂlem is that HolÂlyÂwood types would rather give monÂey to a cause, enviÂronÂmenÂtal or politÂiÂcal, than to the arts.
But it’s naĂŻve just to say the museÂum is under-fundÂed. They were clearÂly overÂspendÂing. Their staff balÂlooned to 200 while their endowÂment was shrinkÂing, and museÂum ambiÂtions clearÂly outÂstripped their actuÂal, legitÂiÂmate sources of fundÂing. In most busiÂnessÂes, that would be reaÂson to rethink, retrench, downÂsize. That apparÂentÂly hasn’t hapÂpened on a large enough scale here. They seem to have put artisÂtic ideals ahead of finanÂcial realities–putting what the museÂum should exhibÂit ahead of what it can afford to exhibÂit.
DC: DurÂing our interÂview last year, you raised some doubts about how MOCA was fundÂing its major MurakaÂmi show. In retÂroÂspect, was that an earÂly sign that things were going wrong at the museÂum? Were there othÂer red flags?
JF: Yes, I think the fact that MOCA was husÂtling monÂey for its MurakaÂmi show from comÂmerÂcial dealÂers who repÂreÂsent the artist was a sign of finanÂcial trouÂble and maybe even desÂperÂaÂtion. It looks in retÂroÂspect like a bright red flag. You raised the perÂfect quesÂtion last year: Why was MOCA engagÂing in this pracÂtice when so many othÂer museÂum leadÂers spoke out against it as unethÂiÂcal?
AnothÂer earÂly warnÂing sign came when the museÂum startÂed closÂing down the GefÂfen ConÂtemÂpoÂrary for a few months at a time. Some reporters are treatÂing this fact like it’s new. It’s not. There was even a time three or four years ago when the MOCA web site carÂried a notice to film scouts—essentially sayÂing the GefÂfen is yours for the right price. Can you imagÂine the MuseÂum of ModÂern Art in New York doing this?
