Museums Are on a Mission, but Is It Art?

I read with genuine surprise and disappointment Christopher Knight’s commentary on the Los Angeles County Art Museum (“Who Should Run an Art Museum?,” Sept. 10). My surprise and disappointment was not that he attacked new director Andrea L. Rich, but that he had such little understanding of how a museum works.

When Rich became president of LACMA, the museum was clearly reeling out of control. It had operated since Rusty Powell’s departure without strong professional leadership. Its finances were in chaos; in fact, the entire infrastructure of its operation was in serious jeopardy. Rich understood clearly that whether its mission was natural history, science or art, her obligation was to fix the infrastructure, shore up the finances and make the machine of the museum function properly.

In the four years since she accepted the job, she has made a turnaround of epic proportions. If she had achieved the same in the business world, she sure would be on the cover of business magazines.

Los Angeles should give a sigh of relief that one of our foremost art institutions is in such good hands.

DOUGLAS R. RING

Los Angeles

I have been a LACMA member for years. Under the stewardship of Andrea Rich, the museum and its collections have never looked better. Congratulations to LACMA’s board for a good choice in Rich. She has destroyed the myth that only someone from the art establishment can run an art museum.

Knight, one of the priests of the Temple of Art, is understandably upset by the success of Rich, an ostensible outsider with limited art experience. Acquiring the “internal gyroscope” (Knight’s term) should be easy enough for a person as brilliant as Rich. When we examine the practices of corporate America, we frequently see outsiders coming in, taking charge and succeeding by all objective criteria.

STEPHEN HUBERT

Camarillo

Stephen Weil, “America’s leading museum theorist,” tells us that “museums today are not about collections of art; museums are about public service in the cultural field” (“LACMA Chief to Add Role of Art Director,” by Suzanne Muchnic, Sept. 9).

In that case, why don’t we just sell that pesky art and create more funding for the “cultural field,” with maybe a hefty chunk set aside for further studies in museum theory. Obviously, there’s plenty of work left to be done.

JUDY FISKIN

Los Angeles

Knight’s piece on the Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao, argues that public art dollars are wasted on distinctive museums and better spent on works of art (“It’s All a Big Facade,” Sept. 7). The faulty premise here--that art and architecture are categorically different endeavors--is clearly absurd and draws readers into a trumped-up debate too irrelevant for further discussion.

That great paintings, sculptures, and conceptual installations benefit from a brilliantly designed setting should go without saying. Would Knight suggest that the treasures of Gothic art housed in Chartres cathedral could be just as well appreciated in a smartly refurbished warehouse?

Having spent a truly inspiring day, just a month ago, within and around Frank Gehry’s incredible structure, I can assure Knight that far from overpowering or marginalizing the works installed there, the “art” was made all the more powerful and stimulating. Indeed, Gehry’s building is itself a work of art; it is an inspiring sculpture that prepares us and piques our interest for the treasures within.

CHARLES CLOUSE

Santa Barbara

Knight creates a false polarity between the art within and the aesthetic of the building itself. The accompanying photo of the Bilbao museum demonstrates that the edifice can be a magnificent sculpture in itself that doesn’t compete with the art it holds but rather works synergistically with it. With our city already gone mad with rectangles, are we to continue that pattern by consigning art to warehouses?

As to the matter of allocation of funds, Bilbao would most certainly not be a destination had the city fathers settled for a converted box. Over time, the investment will prove a sound one. Yes, the money is finite, but the possibilities for stretching the imagination with astonishing new designs in our public spaces is infinite.

NORM LEVINE

Santa Monica

After reading Knight’s article, I was left with the disturbing revelation that the artist should fear the architect. Until now, I never knew there was a difference between the two.

WILLIAM E. NILES

Malibu

I’d like to thank The Times for providing its readers with Knight’s brilliant art criticisms. Reading Knight is the elitist’s equivalent of listening to Vin Scully telling you what he really thinks about the Dodgers. I’m sure it would be graceful and damning at the same time. But it would never happen.

ED BOSWELL

Long Beach