Educational art

One of your art reviewers, David Pagel, clearly didn’t like the Los Angeles County Museum of Art’s children’s exhibit titled “nano” (“Without Artists, the Art Falls Flat,” Dec. 26). Fine. He is entitled to his opinion about the exhibit, but I take exception to his self-righteous loathing of one of our precious cultural resources.

His glib denunciation of being asked to register before walking into this free exhibit speaks volumes. But Pagel’s vitriol reaches even greater heights when he compares the museum to a “cigarette company.” Anyone who would take a museum that is trying new techniques for “hooking kids” into coming to exhibits that make them think and experience the world in new ways, and compare it to a pack of Marlboros, has deep-seated issues that should preclude him from reviewing art for The Times.

Gary Levine

Tarzana

*

PAGEL brings up an interesting point in his review of LACMA’s “nano.” In the last decade, not only museums but most not-for-profit art organizations have been obliged to concoct elaborate educational “outreach” programs in order to receive foundation and corporate support. Museum education departments are growing at the expense of curatorial and artistic staff, because fewer donors are willing to support core operational functions.

Executive directors are left scrambling, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

To corporate shareholders, charitable giving to support education is far more palatable than supporting art for its own sake. Similarly, foundations must be seen to be accountable, demanding return on investment. As long as the turnstile is clicking, for whatever reason, funders look good. Whether any of these “educational” programs turn bussed-in kids into long-term museum visitors remains to be seen.

Bianca Roberts

Beverly Hills