James Cuno Discusses the Met’s Directorship

James Cuno, right, shows donors a model of the Art Institute of Chicago’s planned new Modern Wing
James Cuno, president and director of the Art Institute of Chicago, hosted a press lunch in New York yesterday to whet our appetites for his museum’s new Renzo Piano-designed Modern Wing, which is still more than a year away from opening.
But although I was interested to hear about the greatly expanded opportunities to exhibit modern and contemporary art, as well as the plans to do a sweeping reinstallation of the AIC’s entire collection, I couldn’t resist the opportunity to ask Cuno, who is on some journalists’ shortlists for the next director of the Metropolitan Museum, whether that’s a position he covets.
His reply? “The Met is a great museum.” I took that as an oblique “yes.” But he hastened to add that his AIC is a great civic museum and that he finds the intense local involvement very appealing.
Reasonably convinced that Jim would leave Chicago’s chill winds for New York’s thick smog if summoned, I did the job interview and asked where he thinks the Met should go from here. Expanding its modern and contemporary collection was his first priority, because those collecting opportunities are more abundant than in other fields.
Then he mentioned the need for more space. I asked if that meant a satellite museum, since the Met’s on-site possibilities are nearly maxed out. He replied that the Met has already turned down opportunities to create satellites (in the manner of the Guggenheim and the Louvre) and that if current director Philippe de Montebello doesn’t think that’s a good idea, then “it must not be a good idea.” I asked if there should perhaps be other facilities built within New York, following the model of the Met’s own medieval art outpost to the north, the Cloisters. His reply: “I don’t know.”
I did agree with him on one thing: He mentioned that Philippe’s retirement will likely free him to speak out more forcefully on important museum matters. And that’s probably the one area in which Cuno would outdo his predecessor, if he did ascend to this country’s top art museum spot—serving as an outspoken advocate on hot-button issues.
What he might lack, though, is Philippe’s tactful discretion. At the end of the press lunch, Jim made a remark that sounded like an implied putdown of the Broad Contemporary Art Museum, about to open at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (which is directed by another name on some people’s Met shortlists, Michael Govan.)
It [Chicago’s new building] is called the Modern Wing because the principle donors who gave more than $50 million to the project did so on the condition that their names not be attached to this building. That’s in keeping with the character of the city of Chicago.
Does this mean that Daniel F. and Ada L. Rice should now be deemed insufficiently public-spirited, because they attached their names to the building that was added to the Chicago museum in 1988?
Naming opportunities are a fact of museum life. As I’ve said previously, the mildest sin in the nine circles of hell that are nonprofit fundraising is allowing benefactors to attach their names to new construction.