Criticism of Museum

The recent letters to the Times criticizing the art critic, Leah Ollman, for her (July 23) review are at best amusing and at the very least self-serving, since they were written by either the director of the Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego, or by members of the museum’s board of directors.

While each writer qualifies that they support the right of a critic to critique, they all attack the critic for lack of objectivity and hostility to the institution. In other words, “How dare you write anything negative about MOCA?”

Well, I say “bravo!” The review in question was clearly on target in its evaluation of William Koch’s eclectic, undisciplined private collection. An individual’s right to collect art for his or her personal enjoyment within the confines of their home is admirable, but when the doors are opened for public viewing under the auspices of museum sponsorship, the rules change. The critic identified the collection as “a bland and at times a foul stew of art.” I agree.

Within the walls of a museum that identifies itself as “a major cultural institution in the United States” with “international respect for risk-taking and vanguard exhibitions,” the critique has recognized the relinquishment of their stated purpose with the acceptance of this exhibition.

In MOCA’s anniversary campaign brochure, Hugh Davies, director, states: “We’re not a passive repository for objects as some encyclopedic museums are, but an active laboratory for encouraging artistic experimentation and fostering creativity.” Laudatory goals, but recently where has this purpose been evident? Certainly not with the Koch exhibit nor with the baseball or sailboat exhibits in the past. There are many of us who have not forgotten the outstanding exhibits of yore; but unfortunately, in the last few years, these have become less frequent. In fact, programming in general has become less frequent. One exhibit from January to July is hardly a public service.

While changing the museum’s name and hiring an out-of-town graphic designer may be creative packaging, one can only question the lack of contents. The perception of elitism and arrogance by this institution prevails in these three letters. Their time would have been better spent analyzing their financial statements, which show a decreasing revenue stream in membership, admissions, and fund raising events. Have the trustees asked why? The public could give them some insight.

I look forward to future critiques by Leah Ollman in The Times. May they continue to be as enlightening and thought-provoking as they have in the past.

PAULA SIEGEL, San Diego