“I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse.” 

Don Vito Corleone to Johnny Fontane, The Godfather (Paramount, 1972) written by Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo, from the novel by Mario Puzo, directed by Francis Ford Coppola. 

As visitors to this blog are aware, I’ve posted at some length on this subject before—and if you want to re-scan my thoughts and reservations about it, by all means feel free.  Lane Barden also weighed in on it in the pages of the current issue of the magazine, which I also encourage you to have a look at. 

Michael Govan and A. Jerrold Perenchio at LACMA, November 6, 2014 (Photo by Stefanie Keenan/Getty Images for LACMA)

Michael Govan and A. Jerrold Perenchio at LACMA, November 6, 2014 (Photo by Stefanie Keenan/Getty Images for LACMA)

Between massive scheduling snarls and a bout of illness, I was unable to make the November 6th official announcement of the Perenchio promised ‘gift’ to LACMA and Los Angeles County’s initial commitment of $7.5 million for preliminary planning and studies, which once passed (and repaid), are to be followed by its initial outlay of $125 million towards the projected Peter Zumthor-designed museum complex.  The press teasers the day before heralded the gift by an “anonymous donor” as the “largest gift to LACMA in its history,” though this is clearly not the case.  As Christopher Knight pointed out in his terrific November 20th piece in the Los Angeles Times, the Janice and Henri Lazarof collection, gifted to the Museum more than six years ago, included 130 pieces (mostly paintings and drawings, but also including sculpture.  Might the LACMA crew have based that description on their own appraisal or assessment of the collection’s worth?  As Knight pointed out, even by today’s market reckonings, that number may be “aggressively optimistic,” and—as he also notes—“pretty much beside the point.” 

The gift, as described at the announcement ceremony and press conference, comprises 47 works, mostly paintings, including three important Monets, the first Manet to enter the Museum’s collection, an important Bonnard, a Degas, three significant Pisarros, a couple of major (“exceptional”) Légers, as well as an equally “exceptional” Magritte or two.  There’s no disputing that the dozen or so paintings itemized in the press release by themselves constitute a major gift.  For all I know they might be worth $125 million.  (Then, given the $500 million” overall appraisal, I guess they would have to be.)  But—while we’re looking at the math here—are we in fact looking at the calculations behind this ‘gift’?  From what is admittedly my own perspective, this ‘gift’ starts to look more like a purchase

Which leads me to another question:  why is it so important to Mr. Perenchio that a new gallery—ooops, excuse me—museum—be built to accommodate his admittedly significant, even sizable gift?  The obvious answer is that it simply isn’t

Chris Knight reminds us that the Zumthor plan only adds about 40,000 additional square feet of exhibition space to what is now available (roughly equivalent to another Resnick Pavilion).  If you were looking for some connection between these dimensions and the promised Perenchio gift, you would look in vain.  I’m guessing the 47 works might comfortably fit in less than half, perhaps a third, of this space.  In other words, the disconnect between the scope of this ‘gift’ and the scope of such a building project could not be more emphatic. 

A 40,000 square foot pavilion is no small thing, of course—and so much the better if there’s additional exhibition space.  But, as we know, the Zumthor/Govan plan goes no further; and in fact the Zumthor plan allows for no further expansion or addition to the museum building.  We’ve already gone over Govan’s obsession with the horizontal; but really—assuming we’re looking at billion dollar pricetag—is this wise?  I mean, what are we talking about here?  If Govan, the LACMA board, and the County are looking at the existing east campus as one big tear-down today, only 50 some years since it went up, who’s to say we won’t be looking at the Zumthor museum as a tear-down before the end of the century?  (Assuming Los Angeles—or humanity—sees the end of the century.)

I’ve already suggested that the Zumthor/LACMA architecture team devise some kind of virtual tour through the projected gallery layout before committing to the Zumthor design in its present form.  But even assuming we get past the ‘rat’s nest’ impression of its densely massed white cube/cubicle spaces, this inflexibility—doubly absurd given its rubbery, squiggle-like shape—is a liability-in-the-making and simply unacceptable.  One other little thing:  I assume structural, mechanical, and uh, geological engineers have been working closely with the Zumthor/Govan team on this for some time.  Anything we should know about in that department?  Bottom line:  just how well is this funhouse going to come through the Big One?

And while we’re on the subject of structural engineering, just how did the structural engineers and accounting people arrive at the $300 million-plus price tag attached to the estimated cost of renovations, restoration and refurbishment of PereiraPlatz. (Knight uses the word ‘crumbling’ in his feature.)  To what can we attribute this degree of deterioration?  1970 or 1992 earthquake damage?  Intervening and/or subsequent temblors and tremors?  Or were there structural flaws we weren’t aware of?  Was LACMA or the County insured for any of this?  What about the original construction team, building contractors, executing architects and structural engineers?  Is there some liability here that needs to be litigated?  I have to think LACMA or the County has some serious damages coming their way.  In other words, these are costs that should be substantially covered.  

(I’m not even really thinking about the Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer disaster that fronts Wilshire.  I’ve always thought that should be demolished the way the Berlin Wall was.  Forget Jeff Koons’ dangling choo-choo.  Stage the tear-down of the HHP/Anderson space as a public performance.  With any luck it will turn into a Day-of-the-Locusts conflagration and kick off a second American revolution.)

Getting back to the space issues, a separate capital campaign was announced to begin next year to fuel the purchase of “50 masterpieces for 50 years.”  You have to give Govan credit for some degree of self-consciousness.  He must get how crass and cynical this must all look.  “Fifty masterpieces”?  I should bloody well hope so.  But again, this just underscores the naked hype behind the announcement.  Isn’t it just a bit peculiar that a complete inventory of the 47 works in the bequest is still unavailable?  And let’s look at the size of this gift relative to what’s being essentially demanded (whether by Perenchio or Govan, who can be sure?). 

I will say it might be nice not to lose a gift for a change.  Fifty seems to be a witching number for LACMA—e.g., the number of paintings and watercolors in the Annenberg collection that LACMA might have had, but instead went to the Metropolitan in New York.  And it didn’t need a dedicated gallery or museum wing, either.  One collection that did (though not a tear-down of the McKim, Mead & White Fifth Avenue landmark) was the Robert Lehman collection.  But we’re looking at a slightly different scale:  300 paintings; a total of some 2,600 paintings and objects (sculptures, tapestries, textiles, illuminated manuscripts, etc.) spanning 700 years from the 14th through the 20th centuries.  

The original major benefactors to the Met certainly craved recognition (and it was given: there are galleries that bear their names); but they were conscious of and dedicated to the museum’s core mission.  Benjamin Altman also donated roughly 50 paintings, but this was in addition to 450 other objects (on top of 400 Chinese porcelains, yet another of Altman’s passions).  And what paintings:  there were 13 Rembrandts alone; a Vermeer; a Botticelli; and works by Mantegna, Hals, Holbein, Titian, Velasquez, Durer and Memling.  

The original (Henry and Louisine) Havemeyer bequest to the Met comprised 142 works (Dutch masters, Goyas, Degas, Monet, Mary Cassatt, etc.); but by the time their heirs had made their own donations from the inventory of their house, the accumulation numbered well over 1,900 works.  No conditions were attached to these gifts. 

Same with the Morgans—though of course the elder J. P. Morgan already had his own Library and art collections to be separately bequeathed to his foundation. 

Yes, ‘those were different times’—which raises the question of how the collector’s relations to institution, community, and society are defined in this century.  Should this be treated as a private contractual exchange, which includes the museum’s core constituencies and the general public only as incidental third parties?  You could be excused if you formed this impression.     

As Knight reported, “When asked whether the deal included any other provisions – especially any related to the art’s display – Govan declined to answer.  The document is private.”

Declined to answer.  The document is private.  Yet LACMA is asking for $125 million and a $300 million note from the County of Los Angeles. 

There’s probably more transparency to Perenchio’s political donations—and they’re not pretty.  Federal Elections Commission records reflect in excess of $2.6 million in recent election cycles donated to super-PACs mostly committed to Republican candidates and causes, including Karl Rove’s American Crossroads.  (And yes—Perenchio, his family and foundation have given much, much more over the years to such causes.)

We can set aside questions of character and associations.  The fortunes (Carnegie? Frick??) that built some of these great collections and cultural institutions were not necessarily ‘clean.’  But again—there was a different relationship to society and community that seems to have withered in this century. 

There are other things withering around us, too.  One thing I will say about the Zumthor design is that it’s beautifully contextualized with the La Brea Tar Pits.  You have to wonder—given the condition of Los Angeles, California, and the rest of the warming planet—if that’s where it’s all headed.  So, again—is this the wisest use we can make of these kinds of investments?  

You had to be a bit dazzled (if dismayed) by the sheer stagecraft of it all.  Then there was the legalistic gloss:  Perenchio would execute on the gift only with the ‘stipulation’ that the Zumthor museum be completed.  I wasn’t there, which probably made it easier for me to visualize it as if it were a scene in a grim but gorgeous movie.  ‘We’re gonna make them an offer they can’t refuse.’ 

TheGodfather-JohnnyFont2For some reason, I kept coming back to a couple of scenes from Francis Coppola’s 1972 film, The Godfather.  I’m not sure I see Michael Govan as a ‘consigliere’ or Jerry Perenchio as a ‘don’ in this scenario.  But this is a bad deal all around.  It effectively holds the entire County of Los Angeles collectively hostage to a massive and disruptive building project that has yet to be fully articulated—all in exchange for a promised ‘gift’ that may or may not even be fully transferred to LACMA.  Inflation is very low at the moment; but even now, “$500 million” is starting to look like chump change.  It may be too late for the County to back away from its financial commitments; but this is one offer that should be refused.