The Need for Transformational Leaders

The museum director, Miguel Zugaza, who has presided over the operations of the Prado Museum since 2002, has transformed what was once a stagnant mausoleum of Western art into a cultural art institution of the modern era. In an ARTnews article, “Making a More Modern Prado,” George Stolz shares the remarkable story of Zugaza as the director of the Prado. During Zugaza’s directorship, the Prado has witnessed changes in all sectors of the make-up and inner workings of the museum. In 2003, the administrative statues were rewritten, drastically changing its internal operations, and in 2007, added a Rafael Moneo designed extension to the museum space, increasing its size by 50 percent. In turn, the Prado saw new additions to its operation, including a development office, expanded press and public relations programs, a comprehensive conservation studio, education program, greater public accessibility through the extension of operating hours, etc. And to top it all off, Miguel has incorporated into what was once an institution of tradition, modern and contemporary shows.

Before Zugaza’s arrival, the Prado was stagnant in what has been a fast paced and growing museum world. With a system of bureaucratic procedures in place, little movement could be made in the advancement of the institution, its operations, and in its aim for what comes with time, the need for CHANGE. Until Zugaza, the museum was as Stolz puts it, “lost in time.” There were no public toilets until the 1960s, no air conditioning until the 1970s, no microscopes in the conservation lab until the 1980s and no temporary exhibition programs until the 1990s. It was not until 2002 that the Prado was finally freed from the constraints of direct supervision, though still funded by the federal government, and under the direction of Zugaza, was transformed into an institution revered and in line with the need for change in the museum world, and a museum to “watch.”  

Zugaza is clearly, a leader, innovator and voice for change. His innate ability or keen Emotional  Intelligence in regards to his leadership style, which Copper, Sawaf, Glynn and Pennar describe as a combination of self control, zeal, persistence, the ability to motivate oneself, a basic flair for living, the ability to read another’s innermost feelings and handle relationships smoothly seems to have worked quite well for Zugaza. Museums, McCaughy states, tend to fragment without good direction as they are volatile organizations. He, like Zugaza, feel that a successful museum depends upon the interaction of many, e.g., community, audience, staff, and that primarily it is about relationships and how they are managed. For Zugaza, the Prado and its transformation was not so much to present a “modern” institution per se, but rather, to provide a more suitable space to house the already great collection of art while formulating and building upon programs and resources to better inform the public, to engage and educate them and ultimately, to give the public a place to appreciate and connect to the treasures the Prado houses time and time again.

Zugaza’s passion for the arts and community outreach is clear, as he states “education is what will carry us into the future.”  Museums of the past were at one time “passive” institutions for scholars and the elite and it is the museum of now as Theodore Low contends, that aims to serve the total population of their respective communities. It is here that we will truly see whether Zugaza and the Prado will succeed in moving forward and serving the community while continuing to modify as needed, their internal structure, their ideas and their goals to accommodate and contribute to the ever changing world. At the rate he is going, there is much promise.

There is a clear and evident need now more than ever for transformational leaders within the museum community. In this ever changing world that we live in, coupled with the stagnation of many museums, the goal should be to put transformational leaders at the helms of these institutions to combine the old with the new and create a more vibrant, interactive and community involved experience.

http://www.artnews.com/2013/09/23/making-a-more-modern-prado/

Low, Theodore. “What Is a Museum?”

Suchy, Sherene. “Emotional Intelligence, Passion and Museum Leadership.”

Looted Art: To What Lengths Must We Go?

Throughout history, ancient artifacts have been both legally and illegally obtained and acquired by both private collectors and public institutions. According to a recent news article written by Vincent Noce of The Art Newspaper, the return to Cambodia of two tenth-century Khmer sandstone sculptures, which had been displayed for nearly 20 years at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, have some critics wondering to what lengths should art institutions and governments go to help preserve and curtail the illegal looting and destruction of these ancient and historic artifacts. The Met announced its decision to return the sculptures on May 3rd, which was one year after the Cambodian government had requested such. Although Cambodia's government praised the Met for its “high ethical standards”, in other parts of the world, museums, auction houses and governments don't always see eye to eye in regards to protocol and procedure pertaining to the return of questionably acquired artifacts. The case of Sotheby's vs. the US Attorney's Office shows just that.

As the Met returned its piece, the spotlight was then given to Sotheby’s who had recently withdrawn from sale of a Cambodian statue that was believed to have come from the same temple as Met's piece, beginning private negotiations instead with the Cambodian government for its return. According to a piece published this week by Helen Stoilas of The Art Newspaper, both Sotheby’s and the US Attorney’s Office filed law suits against one another after the Cambodian government pulled out of negotiations. Sotheby’s claims that an agent with the Department of Homeland Security pressured the Cambodian government to end talks with the auction house, which was trying to broker a $1m private deal to return the statue of the Hindu warrior known as Duryodhanna. Documentation shows communication from the agent stating that the US government should be the vehicle for its return, not the auction house. The US Attorney’s office in turn filed suit claiming Sotheby’s director of their worldwide legal compliance department provided “false and misleading provenance information to the government” and discouraged federal officials from obtaining documents. Clearly there is more to this than meets the eye. 

The sculpture’s current owner, Decia Ruspoli di Poggio Suasa, argued in court that even if the statue had been removed from Koh Ker, Cambodia had failed to demonstrate the legal grounds for its claim. Her complaint argued that there was no indication of when the sculpture had been removed from Prasat Chen, and asked "on what legal grounds modern-day Cambodia considered itself the heir of everything a long-defunct, tenth-century regime had made." Counsel also wrote:

 “The [US] government’s continued failure to identify a clear and unambiguous ownership law… means that the motion… should be denied. The absence of such a law also prevents the government from calling into question the good faith of either Ms. Ruspoli or Sotheby’s. Both were entitled to conclude from the absence of any clear law vesting ownership in Cambodia that the statue was not stolen when removed from Cambodia. And both were certainly entitled to conclude that it did not remain stolen at the time of import into the United States, almost two decades after the period allotted by English law for Cambodia to make a claim had expired.”

Marilyn Phelan argues that it is the obligation of public and private institutions to prohibit the direct or indirect illicit trade in cultural properties, and urges them further, to not “employ legal principles, such as burden of proof or statute of limitations defenses, to prevent the true owners the right of redress,” bringing up a difficult challenge that we as museum professionals must face. We must ask ourselves, to what extent is the museum to uphold this role against illicit trade if to uphold it could very well mean the removal of most, if not all, cultural properties in the US. I do not say this to condone the illegal trafficking in cultural property, but where is the line drawn in the laws that govern what is ultimately decided as illegal cultural properties? What should return? Who decides?

As in the case of United States v. Schultz and United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, the former of an art dealer, Schultz, found guilty of conspiring to receive stolen property and the latter, of an art collector who imported a looted Philae from Sicily, it is important to look at the ramifications of cases like these.

A group of twenty-seven individuals, including nine present or former curators, members of museum boards, and counsel for museums, submitted an Amicus curiae brief in support of Schultz, and the AAM in support of the art collector. And what could possibly justify their support? AAM stated the following:

“The decision of the district court ‘threatens the ability of U.S. museums to collect…and make available for public exhibition objects from around the world”’ that are ‘the subject of sweeping foreign cultural patrimony laws’…these cultural patrimony laws ‘are, in significant respects, antithetical to fundamental principles of U.S. law and public policy…the effect of the indiscriminate application of these laws will be to jeopardize existing museum collections and the future ability of our museum to continue to collect and exhibit cultural objects for the public.’” (415)

Although it may come to many as a surprise to see museum officials and leaders supporting the illicit trade of cultural objects, one must also take into consideration, the effect cases like this will have on the future of America’s holdings of cultural property. As the AAM states, the return of cultural property will “amount to a judicial fiat…that often will preclude responsible museums from acquiring cultural objects from other countries” and ultimately, the return of some, if not, all cultural property to their countries of origin.

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Cambodian-restitution-case-takes-surprising-twist/30438

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/The-smuggling-scandal-thats-ready-to-erupt/30304

Is Vermeer a Cheat?

There has been much debate as to whether Johannes Vermeer enlisted optical aid in the creation of his paintings. And surprisingly, this has become accepted by most scholars since the issue was first presented and published in the 1960s.

In a new film directed by Teller, “Tim’s Vermeer”, Tim Jenison, who is untrained as a painter, creates a near perfect replica of Vermeer’s The Music Lesson. How is it that an untrained painter is able to create something as magnificent and precise as a Vermeer? Camera Obscura. Using his own version of a camera obscura in his studio in Texas, Tim is able to trace a precise replica of Vermeer’s painting. Jenison’s experiment has bolstered the view that Vermeer used the technology of lenses to enhance what can be seen by the naked eye.

Camera obscura refers to a darkened room (“camera”) into which a small opening of light projects an inverted, often unfocused image in color onto a wall or screen. These pinholes, in the mid-16^th century, were substituted with glass lenses, giving clearer projections. As one can guess, the thought that a revered artist like Vermeer could have actually traced or even copied an image is of concern. If this is in fact true, does this make Vermeer a cheat? And does the use of such technology diminish his achievements as an artist? Will the public’s opinion remain in awe of his talent in knowing this?

I personally don’t find the idea of Vermeer using lenses as cheating or a diminishment of his achievements as a painter. Rather, I find that his use of the lens to be clever if in fact, he did use them. Much of art today is not created by the hands of the artist, but by others like production teams who have the needed skills to produce what the artist has imagined in his or her mind. And some of the greatest artists of our time use technology to assist them in producing a work of art.

As John Walker of the National Gallery of Art stated in Roberts’ “Changing Practices of Interpretation”, “a work of art is not a specimen, not primarily an historical document, but a source of pleasure, analogous to, say, a musical composition,…to communicate to the spectator.” Regardless of whether or not he used optical aids in producing his paintings, art is at its core, a means for its viewer to connect to, identify and be inspired by it and Vermeer's paintings, I believe, will forever remain loved and appreciated by the public.

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Vermeers-visual-magic-is-tested-in-new-film/30412

De Chirico Authentication Board

A recent launch by an independent organization challenging the De Chirico authentication board brings much attention and question regarding the issue of authentication of an artist’s work. Two former friends and De Chirico foundation board members, current President Paolo Picozza of the De Chirico foundation and Paolo Baldacci, former board member of the De Chirico foundation and now Vice President of the independent organization challenging the De Chirico authentication board, are at a standoff about several works of art by De Chirico.

Giorgio de Chirico received much praise for his metaphysical paintings. However, De Chirico’s style changed significantly in the 1930's, moving away from the metaphysical to a newly adopted style heavily influenced by Rubens that did not receive the same praise his metaphysical art did. In response to the lack of recognition of the maturity of his art, and an evident resentment towards the public, De Chirico began producing back-dated paintings of his earlier style to benefit from his earlier success and followed this with denouncements of many of his paintings as forgeries, creating further spectacle and controversy regarding the authenticity of his art.  

As the Art Newspaper states, “Baldacci believes the artist made “around 140” of these backdated paintings, but Picozza estimates that there are only “around 40”. Baldacci says that he and Roos are now working on the second edition of a monograph on De Chirico’s metaphysical period, to include all works from 1909 to 1942 with “ascertained dates.” The debate between these men is something to consider when looking at the issue of authentication. Are there limitations to the authority of a foundation and its determination of authorship and authenticity? What constituents define and ultimately determine who has the final say-so in matters of authenticity?

This new publication is Baldacci’s final attempt to set right what he believes the foundation had done wrong. A few years after Baldacci resigned from the De Chirico board, the foundation sued Baldacci for “knowingly attempting to sell fake paintings by De Chirico.” The case, which went to trial in 2009 in Milan, found Baldacci guilty and sentenced him to 20 months in jail, charges of which Baldacci vehemently denies. Baldacci is now considering taking his case to the Supreme Court.

This brings to mind the concern among experts and foundations in the U.S. who have grown increasingly silent for fear of legal repercussions. In 2011, the Andy Warhol authentication board, for example, dissolved after several costly lawsuits including the battle over the authenticity of Joe Simon’s 1864-65 Red Self-Portrait that cost nearly $7 million in legal fees, according to ARTnews. With lawsuits against experts and foundations growing and the risks and potential costs in determining authenticity so high, it should be asked, would I be willing to risk financial prosecution or even imprisonment if my testimony as an expert was challenged and over ruled? And what, if any, safeguards could be established in the future so that authentication boards and even those of us entering into the museum art field might be protected from these types of occurrences?

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Challenge-to-De-Chirico-authentication-board/30326