Après Philippe: Whither the Met?

The Signature Now On the Met
Charles McGrath‘s Sunday NY Times article focused on Philippe de Montebello‘s formidable accomplishments as director of the Metropolitan Museum, as well as on people’s fear of “le déluge” after he retires.
One thing that everyone, including de Montebello, surely knows is that there are likely to be many changes under a new leader. But that’s not necessarily all bad. Here is my list of five positive changes that I hope may be considered by a new director seeing the institution with fresh eyes:
—A more vigorous and extensive program of collection sharing. The solution to too many works in the storerooms is not deaccessioning; it’s lending those objects to the many institutions around the country that would be happy to show them.
—Cooperative ventures (including companion exhibitions) with other New York City museums. I’ve touched on this previously, here. Too often, our great institutions see each others as rivals. They should develop greater synergy for their mutual benefit.
—A posture of more friendly openness, instead of aloof guardedness, towards the public. There should be more opportunities for interaction between the curatorial staff and visitors. (The lecture series, Inside the Met, is a start.) The policy of not allowing anyone, not even curators, to talk to the press without going through the press office may be appropriate for a major corporation, but not for a scholarly institution that exists to edify the public.
—Appointment of a real specialist in contemporary art, with a good eye, good instincts and strong contacts with artists, collectors and galleries, who will invigorate the contemporary art program and ditch the shortsighted 50-year rule for acquisitions. The curatorial staff should be encouraged to judiciously acquire the art of our own time.
—A higher public profile for the director as forceful spokesperson on important issues affecting the profession. The reticent de Montebello used his bully pulpit only rarely and reluctantly, when his professional clout and personal prestige were the only things that could defend museums during crises that endangered their good names—most notably on the issues of Nazi-loot restitution and antiquities repatriation. The director of this country’s premier art museum should be in the forefront of the national discussion on cultural issues, institutional practices and government policies affecting the arts.
That said, I must also state that you only have to visit other museums around the country and abroad to realize what a preeminent treasure we have in the Metropolitan Museum.
And we all know to whom, in large measure, we owe its supreme excellence.