No sooner than I published yesterday's MOCA post, parts of it were practically obsolete. The latest: Yesterday afternoon MOCA's board began serious consideration of its fiscal crisis, a.k.a. the board's years-long failure to adequately plan for MOCA's then-present, for the current present, and for the future. MOCA director Jeremy Strick sent out a we-still-have-a-pulse email to the museum's supporters.
As luck would have it, I happen to be in Los Angeles spending a day with the Getty/USC Annenberg School of Communications arts journalism fellowship program. We spent the afternoon at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, including 30 minutes with LACMA director/CEO Michael Govan. The vast majority of the conversation was about MOCA.
I asked Govan: If it becomes possible or 'necessary,' would LACMA be interested in purchasing or otherwise acquiring MOCA's collection?
"Last I checked, we didn't have the money," Govan said with a laugh.
But LACMA's board is loaded with billionaires, and there's every reason to believe that should MOCA's superb collection of contemporary art become available, that LACMA has both the engaged trustees and the institutional capacity to make that kind of substantial acquisition both happen and work. (Remember: The major Govan-driven successes of the Govan tenure have been acquisitions.) So I pushed.
"We all want MOCA to exist with its spirit intact," Govan said, adding that he understood and admired the MOCA's regional role and national import.
But, I countered, there's a difference between existing with 'spirit intact,' and existing with
collection intact. And was LACMA interested should MOCA decide that it has to sell its collection and, say, become a kunsthalle (or, gulp, less)?
"I don't want to say I'm open to [MOCA's] collection coming here because their process is underway," Govan said. (MOCA's board meeting was taking place as we were meeting at LACMA.) "They've got to figure out what their spirit is."
We went back and forth like this for a few minutes. I noticed that every time I re-asked The Question, that Govan found a smart, careful way to leave the door open. Govan could have said that LACMA had no interest, or that it was working with local government in support of MOCA, or so on. But he didn't. After much conversation, Govan acknowledged that LACMA could ultimately be open to buying/absorbing MOCA's collection.
Later, Govan stressed that the most important thing was that the MOCA collection stay together as a unit, that it not get broken up into pieces. And LACMA contemporary curator Lynn Zelevansky, who participated in the meeting, pointed out how many great Los Angeles-built collections have left the Southland over the years. "I feel the collection has to stay in Los Angeles," she said. Govan agreed.
Especially interesting: Govan made the point about MOCA's entire collection staying together
as a whole at least three times. I don't know whether or not Govan meant to imply that LACMA could be/would be/might
only be interested in MOCA's collection as a whole: paintings, sculpture, works on paper and photography. But I got that impression.
So it's up to you MOCA trustees: Honor the artists, trustees, donors, staff and community who preceded you by saving the museum that was entrusted to you (translation: write checks, finally, and big ones), or think about how 'your' art would look in BCAM.
