The post of the day belongs to Tyler Green who assiduously digs through the longstanding institutional malaise that is the Corcoran
. It's obvious from reading the piece how the lack of decisive long range planning has hamstrung the institution's ability to even make short term decisions like programming work. It can never be just the building or just one show... it is game of chess and a series of long term strategic moves, not checkers.
It reminds me how the MoCC faced a similar situation and has made a merger with PNCA work
by not hamstringing key staff members like Namita Wiggers (disclosure board members are friends and we did talk privately). In that situation I decided to play the skeptic to give that key staff leverage because allowing your curatorial/fundraising staff to plan effectively is essential... they are the captains that pilot the ship away from deadly reefs. Also, having a board that can make tough decisions is equally key in the long term and it is clear from Tyler's piece that there is a complete disconnect between the board and institutional leadership... I fear it wont end well for the Corcoran. Personally, I hope the National Gallery ends up with the building and perhaps even the collection. Suburbia isn't a good place to move to once you've been in the heart of the nation's capital. I see this as a cautionary tale... an institution has to be always moving forward, with a good board. Recently PICA "learned that lesson"
, though YU should take heed
... by having a board and solid programming rather than opportunistic programming and an undeveloped board consiting of the founders who have admitted publicly that they don't have the "credibility" needed. Without those things you simply don't exist as the Corcoran is about to find out.
Thanks for signing in,
. Now you can comment. (sign
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by
the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear
on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)