Text from New York Times, Sunday Oct. 31, 1999October 31, 1999
Exhibit Was Heavily Financed by Those With Much to Gain
By DAVID BARSTOW
NEW YORK -- Far more than has been previously disclosed, the "Sensation" exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum of Art has been financed by companies and individuals with a direct commercial interest in the works of the young British artists in the show, according to court documents and interviews with people involved in the exhibition.
Faced with rising costs and the unwillingness of major corporations to support the show -- whose works have provoked furious protests in London and more recently in New York -- Arnold L. Lehman, the museum's director, embarked this summer on an aggressive campaign to finance "Sensation" by other means.
He and his assistants raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from those who stood to profit most from the exhibition of contemporary art, a practice that other museum executives say was practically unheard of and ethically problematic.
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said as much when he began a legal campaign to close the show, accusing museum officials not only of recklessly staging an exhibition of vulgar and sacrilegious art, but also of conspiring with the owner of the "Sensation" collection, Charles Saatchi, to inflate the value of the works on display.
Giuliani's lawyers have dropped the conspiracy issue, but the financial arrangements behind the "Sensation" exhibition, which have surfaced in the court battle between the museum and the mayor, are highly unusual.
Lehman and his assistants solicited donations of at least $10,000 from dealers who represented many of the artists whose works are on display. They offered Christie's special access to the museum to entertain clients in the market for contemporary art. They secured a pledge of $160,000 from Saatchi and then they attempted to conceal his financial support from the public.
In an interview on Thursday, Lehman insisted that commercial considerations had never entered his discussions with those who donated money to the exhibition, which he estimated would cost the museum $2 million. He said those who agreed to give money were motivated by their enthusiasm for an important body of art, not by any desire for profit. In any event, Lehman asserted, the exhibition has not increased the market value of any works by the "Sensation" artists.
The dispute has highlighted the hidden conflicts confronted by museum executives who struggle to finance exhibitions with donations from corporations, foundations and wealthy individuals. At stake is nothing less than the museum's independence and integrity, experts in museum ethics say. Museums have a public trust to display art on the basis of merit, and they are sure to suffer if they are viewed as instruments for private financial gain, those experts say.
This is why many cultural institutions, including the Brooklyn Museum, have rules against displaying works that are for sale. At the same time, the line between art sponsorship and corporate profits appears to be eroding, as some art critics noted when, for example, the Metropolitan Museum of Art held an exhibition in 1997 of Cartier jewelry from the early 20th century. The show was sponsored by Cartier.
The "Sensation" exhibition, however, has blurred the line between art and commerce to a highly unusual degree, several current and former museum officials said in interviews last week. Neither they nor officials at the Brooklyn Museum could cite another exhibition that so directly linked the art on display with the financial interests of the exhibition's major underwriters.
At one point, according to a letter written by Lehman, a representative of the museum asked Saatchi to guarantee the entire cost of the exhibition. Saatchi, who has earned substantial profits buying and selling contemporary art, declined but agreed to cover the insurance for the exhibition. Art experts said such insurance could cost tens of thousands of dollars.
David Bowie, the popular rock musician, pledged a personal donation of about $75,000 and agreed to provide the voice-over for the exhibit audio tour without charge. Soon after, his private, for-profit Internet company was given the right to display the "Sensation" exhibition on Bowie's personal Web site, -www.davidbowie.com, which sells art, clothing and memberships to Bowie's fan club. While Bowie's financial contribution has been kept in confidence by museum officials, traffic on the Bowie Web site has more than tripled.
Larry Gagosian, a prominent contemporary art dealer in New York City who is a friend of Saatchi's and who also represents several of the artists in "Sensation," said he had paid $10,000 for tickets to a "Sensation" fund-raising dinner. Museum officials solicited contributions from other major contemporary art dealers. In a letter to an associate, Lehman wrote that the dealers' contributions were in "their own best interests."
And while it has been known for months that Christie's contributed $50,000 toward the exhibition, the documents reveal for the first time the extent to which Christie's was allowed to use its sponsorship to promote sales in its coming auction of contemporary art. The auction will include works by some of the "Sensation" artists, and for its donation Christie's was given, among other benefits, "unlimited opportunities to entertain in the museum during the run of the exhibition with the $5,000 rental fee to be waived," according to an internal Christie's memorandum.
Museum scholars have reacted to the arrangements with dismay. "If I was on that board, I'd either resign or have the heads of all the staff who are involved," said Marie C. Malaro, who retired last year as director of the graduate program in museum studies at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Ms. Malaro, a lawyer who has written books and papers on museum ethics and governance, described the financing of "Sensation" as an extreme example of a pattern that emerged when the notion of corporate philanthropy gave way to corporate sponsorship.
"The old idea of corporate philanthropy is that it's supposed to be a gift to the public, and once you cross that line, it's no wonder you get into situations like this," she said.
Lehman, known for being adept at boosting museum attendance through aggressive marketing tactics, defended his fund-raising as no different from what other museum directors have done. It is naive, he said, to think that banks, insurance companies or utilities sponsor art exhibitions without any thought to the business benefits.
"Corporations are giving money for marketing purposes, for publicity purposes, for promotional purposes, for whatever reason that is ultimately going to support their business, and that's nothing to be ashamed of," he said. "I'm not ashamed of it, they're not ashamed of it, and if they didn't do that, if they didn't believe that they were going to somehow be able to put themselves forward, whether it is to their client base or the world at large, they wouldn't give this money."
In court papers, Lehman has identified several other instances where private collections have been exhibited in public museums. He named the National Gallery of Art, in Washington. A spokeswoman there, however, said the gallery forbade auction houses and dealers from contributing money to exhibitions of private collections. "We are careful to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in dealing with or accepting financial support from the commercial art market," the spokeswoman, Patricia O'Connell, said.
Lehman also named the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts. Last week, officials for the museum, in Richmond, reviewed the last 10 years of exhibitions there, encompassing 168 shows. "In none of those exhibitions," said Suzanne D. Hall, a spokeswoman, "do any of the museum staff see an occasion when we received money from a private collector or an auctioneer or a gallery owner to help mount the exhibition."
Some authorities on museum ethics say that potential conflicts of interest are best handled when they are fully disclosed to the public. While officials at the Brooklyn Museum of Art made Christie's involvement public, they tried to conceal Saatchi's financial support, documents show.
Peter B. Trippi, vice director of the museum, was asked by a reporter for The New York Observer last month whether Saatchi had contributed money toward the exhibit. At the time, Saatchi had already sent $50,000. In a memo to several museum officials, including Lehman, Trippi described his response to the reporter. "I said no," Trippi said, underlining the words for emphasis and adding at the end of the memo, "I hope this works for you."
Lehman enthusiastically endorsed Trippi's response to the reporter. "Peter -- great," he wrote on the memo, twice underlining the word "great." In Thursday's interview, Lehman said that museum officials concealed Saatchi's involvement not out of discomfort about how the public might view the arrangement but simply to honor Saatchi's wish to remain an anonymous donor.
Saatchi's ownership of the collection proved a major obstacle to Lehman's fund-raising, documents show. Lehman described the problem in a memo to Robert S. Rubin, chairman of the museum board. "Almost no private individual wants to put money into Saatchi's pocket," he wrote, explaining his dismal success in persuading wealthy philanthropists to support the exhibition.
Asked by city lawyers about such statements, Lehman said, "Their response was, 'We are a private collector; he is a private collector. Why would I give money to show his exhibition?"'
Lehman, impressed by the huge crowds that attended "Sensation" in London and Berlin, said he was determined to create the same buzz for the often-overlooked Brooklyn Museum. He joked in the interview that he still has scabs on his knees from begging Saatchi for financial support.
Within days of Saatchi's $160,000 commitment, Lehman announced plans to mount the exhibit. Both men vehemently denied that Saatchi's financial backing was in any way motivated by a desire to increase the value of Saatchi's considerable investment in contemporary art.
"Saatchi is clear that if he wanted to collect cash instead of art, he would have spent 30 years buying Picasso and Matisse -- infinitely more prestigious, a safer and much more profitable investment," Jenny L. Blyth, curator of the Saatchi Gallery in London, said in a written statement on Friday.
"There are no plans, and never have been, to sell any works in 'Sensation,' either now or in the future, through Christie's or by any other means," Ms. Blyth said.
Her statement, however, did not address the question of whether Saatchi planned to sell other works produced by the artists in "Sensation." He did just that in 1998, after "Sensation" had been seen by 300,000 people at the Royal Academy in London.
Using Christie's as his auction house, Saatchi sold 130 works for $2.7 million. Saatchi gave a small portion of the proceeds to finance scholarships at London art schools. But most of the money, several London newspapers subsequently reported, was spent on commissioning new work for Saatchi's collection.
In her statement, Ms. Blyth said Saatchi "sells art in order to buy more art, or to finance his museum, or as in the case of the Christie's auction last year, to create scholarships at five London art schools and to offer commissions to artists recommended by those art schools."
She added, "It is hoped that some of those commissioned works will be successful, enter the collection and be exhibited."
Christie's history with Saatchi has raised questions about the company's motivations for sponsoring "Sensation" in Brooklyn. Christie's also sponsored the show in London.
Andree B. Corroon, a spokeswoman for Christie's, said the company's $50,000 donation had nothing to do with increasing Christie's profits. "Our sponsorship was in support of the Brooklyn Museum of Art," she said. "They contacted us." And Edward Dolman, Christie's managing director in New York, said in court papers that the $50,000 was not a lot of money compared with Christie's donations to other museums.
But according to an internal Christie's memorandum, the $50,000 "represents Christie's most significant financial commitment to an external exhibition to date."
"I would like to see us capitalize on it as much as possible," Allison Whiting, director of museum services at Christie's, wrote in the memo.
Ms. Whiting proposed several ways of using Christie's sponsorship to generate interest in Christie's annual November auction of contemporary art, which will include works by some "Sensation" artists. She suggested placing an advertisement and an essay in Christie's catalog for the November auction. She proposed mailing exhibition invitations to some 700 of Christie's biggest contemporary art clients in London and the New York region.
The "benefits of sponsorship," Ms. Whiting wrote, included special acknowledgments on exhibition signs, in the museum's monthly bulletin, on the invitations and in advertisements. At the opening night gala at the museum, hundreds of guests were handed Christie's bags. Inside each was a certificate good for a free catalog to Christie's contemporary art auction next month.
Although Lehman aggressively solicited Saatchi and Christie's for financing, it was David Bowie who sought out Lehman first.
In April, days after the museum's plans to mount the exhibit were revealed, Bowie's business manager called Lehman. Without identifying Bowie, the business manager, Bill Zysblat, said he had a client who was interested in backing the exhibition.
Zysblat said in an interview that Bowie offered a donation because he liked the art and felt strongly that Americans should see it. Bowie is also a friend of Saatchi and some of the "Sensation" artists. He owns some of their art, including an early Damien Hirst painting, Zysblat said. Hirst is better known in New York for dead animals suspended in formaldehyde.
Lehman was delighted, and when Zysblat subsequently revealed his client's identity, Lehman asked whether Bowie would like to do the voice-over for the audio tour of the exhibition. Bowie agreed to do it without charge.
While the museum was still waiting for Bowie's donation to arrive -- museum officials initially were hoping for $100,000 -- Zysblat began asking about the possibility of putting the "Sensation" exhibition and Bowie's audio tour on Bowie's web site.
The site is owned by Ultrastar Internet Services, a company Bowie formed with Zysblat and several other associates last year. Zysblat said Bowie wanted to use the Internet to expose more people to the art. "We're always looking for content," he said.
Zysblat said that although Ultrastar paid nothing for the right to put the exhibit on Bowie's Internet site, it spent about $70,000 on the technical cost of doing so. It has been a huge success for Ultrastar. Bowie's Web site averages two million visitors a month; in the first three weeks after "Sensation" opened, his site was visited by 7.5 million users, Zysblat said.
Lehman said that the museum recently received Bowie's donation, but he would not specify the amount. He said he did not know whether Bowie wanted the amount to be made public, but he emphasized that there was no connection between the donation and the decision to give Bowie's Internet company rights to "Sensation."
Lehman argues that such unorthodox intersections of art and commerce benefit the public. Without them, he said, museums would find it difficult to finance major exhibitions of controversial works, particularly by new artists.
Museums are already criticized for cashing in on blockbuster shows by crowd-pleasing artists like Monet and Cezanne. "What happens is we then move into the sphere where museums get criticized similarly for doing the safe, and the easy, and the sure-fire," he said.
"You know, it's the kind of argument that is so self-defeating."
