18 responses so far ↓

• 1 City Hall Insider // Sep 27, 2010 at 7:20 pm

  I have heard she is making Penny Ballem type money to run the AG while people are getting canned. Why not come clean on this?

• 2 Roger Kemble // Sep 28, 2010 at 5:31 am

  . . . impertinent . . .

• 3 Roger Kemble // Sep 28, 2010 at 6:11 am

  . . . Kathleen Bartels that is . . .

• 4 Dan Cooper // Sep 28, 2010 at 9:24 am

  If someone offered me money to buy a new house, but I did not have enough money to maintain my current house – or even to buy enough food – I would probably ask the kind person if they would donate the money for my immediate needs instead. Otherwise, I would end up in a house that I could afford even less, and still have no food.

  Financial term for the day: fungible. (Money that is, not Madame Director.)

• 5 David Allison // Sep 28, 2010 at 9:38 am

  Frances:

  I’m unsure what you are saying here. It’s pretty clear that the gallery operating budget and the relocation budget are two different pools of money, and you can’t just dip into donations to pay staff. So, the argument that people are losing jobs while fundraising for a relocation is underway seems, to me, like two unrelated facts being crafted into a flawed statement.

  As I understand it, a few people were laid off…a very few. My own company laid off close to 75% of our workforce during the recent economic troubles. I know the union folks think that even one job lost is too many, but really, what institution wasn’t faced with some shrinkage given the global economic collapse? And how does that relate to a desire to have a better gallery; one that will employ more people and create tax revenue via tourism and other initiatives for decades to come?

  And I really don’t get why the union (or anyone) is trying to make this about the Director? Bartells grew the gallery and the funding exponentially since her arrival. She created the jobs for these folks in the first place, through growth. Is the collapse of the global economy her fault?

  I don’t know where to go with this. If you could explain the logic behind this to me, I’d love to know more.

• 6 B. Summers // Sep 28, 2010 at 10:08 am

  Mr Allison: Ms Bartels didn’t create the jobs for the gallery workers – the gallery was there before Ms Bartels. It appears to me that the staff – union or not – have been used as the ‘contingency fund ‘ while Ms Bartels and her management team pursue a vision that is costing far too much. The City of Vancouver owns the VAG’s collection and I think it high time they take a close look at the managing of the VAG.

  Why is the collection only collected and not exhibited in these challenging economic times? Other art museums are being economical and not bringing in expensive travelling exhibitions. It would appear that Ms Bartels vision is clouded by some needs of the ego and the staff are, quite literally, paying the cost.

  Frances: Thank you for presenting another side of the situation at the VAG. The press has been far too full of the new building stories. You are the only one who has given any attention to the human beinings who are the staff members of the Vancouver Art Gallery. This weeks AGM is likely to be a sorry affair.

• 7 Dan Cooper // Sep 28, 2010 at 10:22 am

  @David.

  It looks to me like Frances is not pushing a point of view, as you suggest, but just letting us know what others are saying, and mainly M. Bartels’s position. Perhaps, however, I can clarify at least some of the concerns for you (if my previous post didn’t):

  Saying that one pot of money is for one thing and another pot of money is for another is always – within limits, if any, of trustworthiness, law and ethics – arbitrary, because money is fungible. This is especially so when the question is current donations like the one for the advertisement referenced by M. Bartels. In principle, even past donors could be asked to allow the repurposing of their donations.

  Some may feel that current staffing and other cuts due to budget constraints are not concerning enough that VAG should stop spending money on political advertising supporting a new building campaign, or stop actively encouraging the donation of money designated for such advertising and the building campaign itself. They may further feel that there is not an inability to staff and maintain the current building, and that paying for staffing and maintenance at a new, larger building would not be a problem. Others, however, may feel differently.

  Hope that helps!

• 8 Roger Kemble // Sep 28, 2010 at 11:54 am

  I am not impressed by Director Bartel’s condescending talk-down to her staff.

  IMO there are many pressing reasons why VAG should not contemplate a move now apart from the new building cost, current civic and provincial debt loads: the expense of the move and dislocation of staff, to say nothing of disruption.

  1. The proposed location at the ex Larwell bus depot is not a cultural centre. The Shark Club may be Vancouver’s measure of culture but the lazy QE, CBC’s discombobulated glass and concrete and the old monstruo post office do not a cultural centre make! Sandwiched between ingress to the viaduct and egress from the viaduct hardly makes for pedestrian or tourist compatibility, nor an environment for contemplation.

  2. I advise Director Bartel take a good look at her collection. If a burgeoning inventory is crowding the space, maybe a thinning out is appropriate. No need for me to tell her, the art world is awash in forgeries: maybe some of her collection is not worth keeping.

  3. Take note of the crowded collections at the Louvre and Vatican: I am sure she has. There, crowded art forms an ambience way beyond each piece.

  4. Whereas the art we admire so much today was essentially a medium to instruct the illiterate perhaps the art of today should seek to awaken the a tv-drugged complacent population. But I fear your board would not dare concede such potent communication media!

  5. May I suggest you take a look at the collection: having, as you boast, the largest number of Jeff Wall pieces may not be prudent. Jeff’s stuff is essentially perishable techno-gizmos: take note Damien Hirst’s dilemma facing law suites over his deteriorating techno-gizmo dissected sheep in formaldehyde.

  6. There is the perception that a cultural center is an after thought in so far VAG was slated to be where the new casino is looming: but then opiate for the masses come in many forms and may places.

  7. Art today is a perilous business. Stay cool, be kind to the staff, and enjoy were you are and what we have . . .

• 9 David Allison // Sep 28, 2010 at 12:06 pm

  Dan:

  I understand your point that the VAG could ask current donors to support the operating budget instead of a relocation budget. There are a few realities that I can offer to this conversation, based on fundraising work I’ve done for arts institutions in a volunteer capacity.

  1. Corporate donors don’t donate to operations. Many even have donating rules to this effect…no donations for operation expenses. Every arts group I’ve ever been involved with has wished it was otherwise. But it isn’t. I’ve tried. So I suppose you could call up XYZ Inc. and ask if they’d mind their money, which they gave for specific purpose, being used for other purposes. But I bet you a dollar they’d say no.

  2. Most wealthy individual donors are the same. They are intrigued and excited by the idea of new projects, new shows, new programs. I count myself in this bunch. While my donations to the gallery are very small, I’d rather not see them used for overhead expenses.

  3. If the Gallery needs to shrink a bit now, due to the economy, then so be it. That shouldn’t stop the plans for the future. My personal income has gone down during the recession, and I’ve had to cut back on things that I used to enjoy, but it didn’t stop me from putting money into my RRSP, and saving for a better tomorrow.

  My two cents.

• 10 Scott Carroll // Sep 28, 2010 at 4:08 pm

  David:

  Yes, the VAG and many other arts institutions are commonly faced with the situation where new money is available from government and corporate or individual donors for capital projects (e.g. a new building), but not for operating expenses (maintaining the current building, paying staff, and running programs). This is a shame, because often less money could be spent by improving what you have than by moving or building new–even it if is less exciting!

  I would like to see the VAG and other institutions encourage their funders to redirect contributions to operating budget, but as you say, it is difficult or impossible to achieve this. Isn’t it ironic that an institution that appears to be healthy and popular, and that attracts big crowds, somehow can’t keep their staff paid or the collection safe from damp. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had sponsors / donors who would contribute towards admission to the permanent collection (or parts of that collection)?

  Why would any donor contribute to a new building for the VAG if they can’t afford to run their current one? Because they want to create something new without being encumbered by the past (or present).

  A thoughtful philanthropist should work with the board and management to establish an operating endowment fund. Maybe a new building is warranted, but I think getting your current house in order is a better and necessary first step, rather than moving one’s problems down the street.

• 11 Chris // Sep 28, 2010 at 5:37 pm

  When someone tells me, as they chew a mouthful of caviar, that they cannot give me something to eat because the food they’re eating is private or is otherwise unfit for the likes of me, how am I supposed to react?

• 12 Frances Bula // Sep 28, 2010 at 7:39 pm

  @David. I’m sure what you mean to say is: “I’m unsure what the union is trying to say here.” I didn’t actually say anything, in my usual diffident way. I just posted the internal memo from Kathleen Bartels to staff. Or maybe you’re saying: “Why is this newsworthy and why are you posting it?”

  I’ll leave you to make your arguments about the union’s points. You have provided some excellent counter-information and people are now weighing your arguments and information against what they have heard elsewhere. (For every opinionated commenter, there are 500 curious and undecided readers of this blog.) As for why I posted it: The gallery’s potential move is interesting and significant and potentially an expense we will all bear. It’s a subject of public debate. The gallery’s staff are raising these issues as are those who know the gallery’s business. I can either pretend those people don’t exist and not accord them any air time or I can give them space, let them make their argument, and we can all see whether readers and the general public think it’s a valid one.

• 13 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Sep 29, 2010 at 12:11 am

  What’s not clear to me is whether the VAG is laying people off because they don’t have the money to pay them, or they are laying people off because, well, they just aren’t all that busy and their programs aren’t as wildly successful as they want us to believe, so they don’t need the staff anymore? Either way, it’s not good optics.

  And while it’s certainly true that funds earmarked for one project shouldn’t (and often can’t) be used to fund another project (or operating expenses), the reality is that this happens all the time in non-profits to cover cash flow deficits.

  But it works both ways. Scarce operating funds (the 28% noted from Government) or earned revenues should not be diverted/allocated to pet projects, and an operating budget should not be sacrificed or staffing made skeletal to ensure an “external” project gets fully funded. If private sector fundraising makes up so much of the VAG operating budget, and funders are now being directed to put all their donations into relocation rather than gallery programming, then that’s a big problem that’s likely only going to get worse over the next few years as the relocation/ fundraising deadline gets closer.

  “In the case of the full page ad that was referred to in your Union communications, this was specifically requested and paid for by a private donor.”

  If this is really the case, it needs to be proven to the satisfaction of employees and union, so that trust can be rebuilt between management and employees. But, given the Director’s insistence on hiding behind weasel words like…

  “As a registered not-for-profit society and as is the case with most major Canadian art museums, we are governed by privacy laws pertaining to the public disclosure of certain financial information, including salaries.”

  …my guess is there won’t be a lot of openness, transparency or accountability shown by the board or management to their employees any time soon.

  Unfortunately, they’ve botched the relocation badly so far, have proven to be totally inflexible regarding their plans (the moon or nothing), and are sounding like arrogant stuffed shirts trying to defend themselves from their own employees, who seem to be turning on them. On top of that, the local collection in the basement that they say they so desperately want to show the public isn’t getting seen not because of the limitations of the gallery space, but mainly because of the programming decisions being made.

  Maybe staffing changes are more needed at the top end than the bottom.

• 14 David Allison // Sep 29, 2010 at 4:24 pm

  Well, there’s certainly a lot of opinion around this issue. Everyone is entitled.

  I know a few things for sure — I’m going to go out on a limb and call them facts:

  1. The current gallery is too small, and was never designed as a gallery, so it has limitations.
  2. Galleries bring tourists and tax revenue.
  3. There’s a lot of private money willing to pay for a new gallery.
  4. A new gallery means more opportunities for more staff, more shows, more school groups, and more of the aforementioned revenues into civic and provincial coffers.

  All the “who did what to who and when” stuff really boils down, for me anyway, to one simple thing.

  If we believe the visual arts are important to everyone (and the economy), and we can get a better gallery through donations, why wouldn’t we?

  Best regards all,

  David

• 15 Dan Cooper // Sep 29, 2010 at 4:57 pm

  @David A:

  Speaking for myself, if the VAG were proposing to pay for the new gallery – including the land – completely from donations, I would say, “more power to you!” If they were even willing to consider options (e.g. sharing the new site/building) that would minimize the cost of the gift they are asking for from the government, I would be much more favourably disposed. My understanding, however, is that neither of these is the case. Rather, the VAG leadership has decided it wants what it wants, it expects the public to fund much of it, and it has no particular interest in negotiating details or considering the needs or even opinions of others affected. Because of this (and frankly, as I wrote on another thread some time ago, because I had a very bad experience with a nasty door guard and uncaring reception staff the first time I ever tried to visit the place, and have never gone back), I would rather see the government put its money toward other arts venues and institutions that I do attend and that seem to care more about the public.

• 16 Bill Lee // Sep 29, 2010 at 6:57 pm

  from Cannibal Tours and Glass Boxes: The Anthropology of Museums
  By Michael M. Ames. UBC Press 1982 2nd rev. ed. 212 pages

  page 101
  …”A large museum of art is a necessary part of a city’s image of sophistication. When the art gallery of Vancouver recently moved into a newly renovated heritage building, for example, the city celebrated as it had finally come of age. This move to the impressive old buliding with its modern renovations, the local newspaper proclaimed (McMartin 1983), ‘places the city [of Vancouver] on an equal footing with the best the country has to offer.’

  It took four evenings to celebrate the opening of the new Vancouver Art Gallery, with crowds of excited people each evening. The first to come were members of the local establishment, who rolled up in Rolls-Royces, Mercedes, Jaguars, BMW’s and Cadilac limosines, parking on lawns and sidewalks with ‘bravado,’ the local newspaper reported (McMartin 1983), ‘where only the rich and powerful would dare.’ Five hundred guests in formal attire attended on that first night, paying $250 each for champagne, dinner and a string orchestra. The more ordinary memmbers of the public visited the newly opened gallery during the next few days, the first two of these days by invitataion only, and the last day for everyone else still interested.

  For the first time in Vancouver’s history, the local newspaper said (Johnson 1983), the city will have a ‘real art gallery.’ What is a ‘real’ art gallery? Vancouver actually had an art gallery for over fifty years, but until this move it was in an ordinary building. It now has a facility of monumental stature, though the quality of its collections remains the same. A real art gallery, a newspaper reporter explained, ‘is a gallery in a gracious and dignified bulding. A real art gallery desplays entirely too much for anyone to see and absorb in one visit. A real art gallery provides that delightful experience, hitherto available only in more sophisticated urban centres, of visual overload’ (Johnson 1983)”
  —
  And that would be Pete McMartin and Eve Johnson of the Sun.
  I remember Eve Johnson wrote a lament on art fights in the city when she left the beat.

  And there vast accounting of their collection is numbers. Most could not be shown and would not be shown in a coherent way.
  Much of it is of its time, vastly dated Victorian pieces from grandmother, or 1960’s light abstracts that don’t many any viewer say ‘hmm’
  See the various VAG annual reports such as
  http://www.vanartgallery.bc.ca/pdfs/Annual_Report_2008_2009.pdf and other years for their recent donations/received listings.
  More bad news at http://www.vanartgallery.bc.ca/media_room/news_about_annual.html
  ====
  Wednesday, September 29, 5:30pm
  ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING in the Gallery
  The AGM for the Vancouver Art Gallery’s 2009/2010 fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 will be held in the forecourt of the Vancouver Art Gallery, 750 Hornby Street, Vancouver, B.C. Gallery Members are invited and eligible to attend.

• 17 Frances Bula // Sep 29, 2010 at 7:01 pm

  @David. A very succinct summation of the arguments, thank you. Those arguments have been made and published here and in the Globe. When I go out to public meetings, those points are frequently made by panel and audience members. I think they are arguments that weigh with many.

• 18 Bill Lee // Sep 30, 2010 at 4:12 pm

  More bamboozling of the public with “Aht” (actually of no monetary value as with most of the Dali prints received this year in the VAG)

  The Early Edition live from the Vancouver Art Gallery http://www.cbc.ca/bc/community/blog/2010/09/the-early-edition-live-from-the-vancouver-art-gallery.html

  ” September 29, 2010 Rick_cluff.JPG This Friday, October 1, join CBC Radio One’s Rick
  Cluff and The Early Edition as they broadcast live from the Vancouver Art Galley. Join in the debate on the future of the art gallery and take part in the public forum. Both proponents and opponents of moving the gallery to a new space will be there, so bring your questions.

  Doors open at 5:30 a.m and the broadcast wraps at 8 a.m. Come grab a free coffee and muffin. Then, get a sneak preview of the retrospective Robert Adams photography exhibit and the brand new Song Dong’s “Waste Not” installation.”