It's Getting Scandalous!

Tyler Green on Modern Art Notes discusses today's edition of the Washington City Paper where an article on the Barlow firing appears. Here's the key point of the article:

Corcoran President and Director David C. Levy had heard personally from [District of Columbia Commission on the Arts and Humanities] Chair Dorothy McSweeny about Barlow's comments. "She was kind of unhappy about it," [Levy] says. And Levy, in turn, called up [WPA/C boss Annie] Adjchavanich.

Tsk tsk tsk... I'm not at all optimistic that the Gehry building will ever be built. But it seems that the Corcoran (specifically David Levy) will try his hardest to maintain relations with the city. So why not sacrifice principles and integrity? Heck, $40 million is a lot of money, it's worth it right? Wrong... Levy's actions need to be investigated. Seems that after a bunch of bad decisions Levy's trying to save his own neck. We said over a week ago that this issue had a foul stench about it and slowly it will come out. Levy has many, many questions to answer. I'm all ears!!

UPDATE

Questions: Why did it take an article in the Post and a little prodding from the DCCAH to get Mr. Levy to fire Barlow? If it were so wrong (we know that the WPA/C had knowledge of Barlow's stance), shouldn't a man of Levy's position made this decision long ago? If it were so wrong, why was Barlow hired in the first place? Is there some hand-holding going on between the government and Corcoran? Who is leading who?

Debate: Which is closer to actually being art: J. Seward Johnson's sculptures or the Pandas/Party Animals? My brain hurts just thinking about that one. And consider yourself lucky I don't throw in the handbags of Judith Leiber for consideration.

Comments

[Lenny]

Good questions...

For what it's worth:

1. I don't think that the DCCAH has the power to terminate the $40M gift to the Corcoran for their origami add-on.

2. I don't think that the WPA/C and Options 2005 was in the Levy "radar" until he received a phone call from DCCAH. In fact I'm 97% sure that's the case. He'd probably never even heard of Barlow until then. Of couse she was unhappy!

3. Once he heard about it from DCCAH, then the shit started flowing downhill. Not because of the $40M gift (my opinion), but because of a misguided sense of what's fair or not... etc.

To me the controversy has a new twist: Why has the Washington Post ignored all this?

Answer: They don't give a rat's ass about the visual arts. If this was Placido Domingo firing a choreographer at the Wash Opera because the choreographer had excluded all left handed (footed?) dancers from a dance routine from an opera, then we'd be reading about it everyday in Style.

[Joseph Barbaccia]

I can't help myself.

I continue to have an important question unanswered. How long does Mr. Barlow plan to continue Blacklisting the artists (yes I use the word artists) who participated in the Animals projects. Was it just for this show? Will it be for one year? Two years? Forever? Until I cry uncle? Does Mr. Barlow plan to disregard all the future art created by these 300 people whenever he sees their names? PLEASE someone tell me so I don't have to go through the trouble and spend the money to enter a show that he curates.

Mr. Bailey, you've been defending Mr. Barlow's stance. I ask you; should there be a time limit? Can I go on parole in six months? How long should Mr. Barlow's "artistic freedom" last before he considers the art on my website worthy to look at? Would he change his mind about my work (other than the Animals) if I renounced the DCCAH? Will he consider my work for a future show if I become a "Born Again" artist? Hallelujah!! What do I have to do, now that I've sullied my career by participating in 2 controversial projects, to gain favor?

Doesn't make sense, does it?

I understand being rejected because my work doesn't fit, or is not up to "standards". But I don't understand this. My work was never even considered.

How Long, Mr. Barlow?

[J.T. Kirkland]

Joseph,

I think that your question definitely deserves an answer. Hopefully Philip will come back from the sidelines just briefly to answer that. We'll see.

[philip]

Only for you J.T. - I am not a curator, I can be content to never curate an art exhibit (especially after this one). Even though my vision of Options was not realized, the Party Animals and Pandamania part of my statement was made and I see no reason to make it again. It took all of the parts to make my vision for Options complete, so I do not think I would try to curate the remaining parts somewhere else.

Unfortunately the rest of my vision was not discussed as much, although I am glad to see J.T. has mentioned some of it here. I will continue to advocate and work for the things I think will make the DC arts community better (at least as I see it) - mostly through my efforts with the District of Columbia Arts Center, with which I have been involved since 1990. I probably won't be named a DCCAH Commissioner or Corcoran Trustee any time soon.

[Mary]

Hello, does ANYONE know that the Corcoran, subsidized by the city's 40 million, will most likely effect the closing of a homeless shelter in Southwest Washington when they commence their use of the former Millenium Arts Center during the Gehry renovation? Oddly enough, this is the cover story of Thursday's Washington Post District Extra print edition. As much as the Panda-Options-Corcoran-DCCAH conundrum intrigues and affects us, should we be paying a little attention here? In parting, I must identify myself as a non-Panda artist who hosted Mr. Barlow in her studio at the very beginning of his curatorial endeavor.

[Scott]

Hi JT,

I've got to agree with Lenny on this one. I don't believe DCCAH has any authority over the $40 million for the new Corcoran wing. Thus, I don't believe there is anything more nefarious here than Dorothy McSweeney complaining about the WPA/C and Philip pissing all over DCCAH's pet project. If you were her, wouldn't you? I hope you are not suggesting that Ms. McSweeney has any less right to complain to David Levy than a certain experimental Mississippi artist.

And then Mr. Levy did what any boss does when he finds out that one of his underlings has screwed up -- he told her to fix it. (I suppose I could make an argument regarding the artistic freedom of museum directors to fulfill their vision regarding the artistic direction of the organization they run, but that would probably be pushing it). :)

I think the "fix," however, was pretty shabby -- Annie A. should have taken some (most) of the heat. After all, she's the one that made the mistake. Philip, while I disagree with his plan, did everything right as far as notifying the WPA/C of his intent and gaining their support. He put in a ton of work, was totally upfront, and they hung him out to dry.

In my opinion, that's the real story here.

[J.T. Kirkland]

Hi Scott,

Lenny and I have exchanged some emails about the $40m. I agree, I don't think the DCCAH has any direct control over the $40m. However, the DCCAH is a government commission and therefore in the same family as whoever it is with direct control of the funding. Here's how I see it though. Perhaps Levy viewed DCCAH as a cousin to the guy with $40m. If Levy took a stand against the DCCAH more than likely a nasty little quibble would have occurred. The DCCAH would be unhappy. Perhaps even the Panda and Party Animal artists would go protest at the Corcoran. I could see how it would get messy real quick. If Levy upset that distant cousin, and a big enough fuss was raised, I could see the risk in angering the $40m man. The Gehry building is in my mind far from a reality, so I would be tempted to kiss any city person's butt I could!!

I never suggested that the DCCAH should not complain. In fact I respect them for doing so. I don't think they have any solid ground to stand on, but I believe they have the right, in fact obligation, to complain. I'm not sure how you could think that I would think otherwise.

And of course I think a museum director has the right to fix "problems." But the WPA/C didn't screw up until they failed to support Barlow. It also seems that Annie was keeping a secret until the WP article came out... and that was a mistake.

We've read many Levy quotes now and none of them make any sense. There was no problem in my mind so I'm not sure what Levy thought he was fixing. It would almost make me feel better if he only had the $40m in mind when he had Barlow fired.

I'm not surprised Barlow was hung out to dry. As this story becomes more well-known, can you honestly say you are shocked? The story here remains the stifled vision of a dedicated curator and the mysterious appearance of a museum director only after a call from a government office.

[Jame W. Bailey]

Dear Scott,

Your argument for artistic freedom of museum directors to fulfill their mission would not wash; nor would it necessarily be legal.

The reason: The mission of a not for profit 501(c)3 can theoretically be in conflict with the law.

Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Directors of Corporations, including an incorporated not for profit 501(c) 3, which The Corcoran Museum of Art and the WPA/Corcoran Association are, and in the capacity of President and Director of the corporations, in which positions Dr. Levy serves, his obligations and responsibilities to The Corcoran Museum Art and the WPA/Corcoran are fiduciary in nature, not artistic.

Here is the link to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act: http://www.aicpa.org/info/sarbanes_oxley_summary.htm

If you find anything in it about art or artistic direction, please let me know; that would be news to me.

The question of who did what and who should take the heat for it in firing Mr. Barlow is interesting.

They are, however, a couple of more interesting questions: Who really controls the WPA/Corcoran Association? And for whose financial benefit does the WPA/Corcoran exist?

Go to guidestar.org and take a close look at the mandatory required IRS Form 990 for The Corcoran Museum of Art and the WPA/Corcoran Association.

Then read the full text of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Then decide if you think something inappropriate was done or not in the firing of Mr. Barlow; and if so, who actually did it.

Indeed, under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, decide if the firing of Mr. Barlow was even the worst thing done in this whole sordid episode.

Sincerely,

James W. Bailey
(A VERY certain experimental Mississippi artist.)

[Scott]

JT,

The problem Levy was fixing was the blacklisting. I realize you don't view that as a problem, but Levy apparently did (as do I).

I think Philip really gave Levy the rope to hang him by insisting on the blacklisting. It would have been interesting to see whether the same thing would have happened if Philip had made criticized the DCCAH projects without engaging in blacklisting. If so, I would view that as being a much bigger issue and attack on curatorial freedom.

And I agree with you. I was pretty shocked by Annie A.'s statements in the Washington City Paper. But more for going along with Philip's idea and assuming it would be kept silent, which smacks of the same artworld backroom favoritism, blacklisting and elitism that many other posters on this site recently criticized (and, ironically, which I think Philip himself was trying to criticize).

[Scott]

James,
Do you REALLY expect me to read Sarbanes-Oxley? This sounds like some kind of sneaky lawyer's trick. Can you give me the Reader's Digest version?
Scott