We Got Yer Holiday Spirit Right Here
Sweeten Your Online Shopping: Compartes 'Brown Friday' Sale
Local High Schooler Launches 'Hug a Ginger Day' Campaign
Eat My Blog: Blogger Bake Sale Will Benefit LA Foodbank
Sobriety Checkpoints Tonight, Saturday Night
We're just not able to get upset by another story of fat salaries and benefits for museum heads. The latest kerfluffle in the LA Times is about the housing expenditures for the new Getty Museum director, whose rental is $15,000 per month, which is $180,000/year. The Getty purchased a house for him that (oops) was mold-ridden so they're putting him up elsewhere. But if we want to have world-class museums we have to pay world-class salaries & bennies, just like they do in sports, right? The director of MOMA in NY made $617,000 in 2004 and had more than $100,000 in expenses. That same year, NY's Met spent almost $250,000 in expenses for its director, footnoting that most of that was for housing. So we're in the ballpark. What's the big deal?
art.blogging.la has the line on artist appearances this week. Tonight the Clayton Brothers will be speaking at Art Center's Williamson Gallery, $20 at the door. And tomorrow LA artist Tofer will be signing his new book of photos at the MOCA/Geffen.
Today is the last day of early registration for Coagula's Art World Boot Camp which will take place over 4 weekends in the spring. The art journal is likely a bit sarcastic as it writes, "accelerate your comprehension of art, the art business and how the two will ultimately benefit you," but we think it's serious in promising to teach you the Ten Things Art Colleges Don't Want You to Know.
image is detail of Floret by the Clayton Brothers
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
In regards to the Getty home-buying mess in today's L.A. Times, the big deal goes something like this:
An extravagant chief (now forced to resign after a board of trustees made up of his own cronies turned on him) causes his organization to be investigated by the state attorney general because of his exorbitant spending and is under scrutiny by the L.A. Times, the New York Times, and the Chairman of the Senate-Finance Committee. He presumably runs off the former museum director because of his arrogance, bad management, and apparent lack of concern for the integrity of the museum or the trust itself.
So, when it comes time to hire a new director, he offers to buy the guy -- who can't be bothered to live in a home the trust already owns -- a home that could cost as much as four million dollars? Then the trust screws up and buys an uninhabitable one and doles out $15-grand-a-month in rent? Then puts in a bid on a $5.5-million house, which is $1.5-million over the board-sanctioned limit? This doesn't strike you as problematic, careless behavior for a non-profit institution? Especially one as embattled as The Getty has been for over a year now?
If these people had any sense at all they would not give the L.A. Times any new reasons to embarrass them. It's almost happening on a daily basis now. And the fact that new museum director Michael Brand would walk into such a political minefield and permit this kind of fiscal recklessness to occur on his behalf makes me worry that the messes Barry Munitz has made will not be cleaned up anytime soon.