Big changes at Taubman Museum of Art: Taubman and Fralin take over, Mickenberg steps down, museum admission now free
UPDATE 10/10: Read today’s follow up story, “Taubman says art museum won’t fail,” and let me know what you think in the comments.
UPDATE 10/9: Read today’s full story on the changes at the Tuabman, Founders take helm at struggling Taubman Museum of Art, and look for even more updates tomorrow.
Here’s today’s evolving news story on the Taubman Museum’s big announcement. Have any thoughts on what’s happening? Share them in the comments.
The Taubman Museum of Art’s biggest donors have taken over its board of directors, while the museum’s president is stepping down.
Former Advance Auto Parts President and CEO Nick Taubman – who along with his wife, Jenny Taubman, gave the largest single donation toward the museum’s construction – is the new board president. Heywood Fralin, chairman of Medical Facilities of America, is the new vice president. Through the Horace G. Fralin Charitable Trust, Fralin has been responsible for providing the museum with the bulk of its American art collection.
Museum President and CEO David Mickenberg, hired in 2009 at a salary of $180,000 to lead the financially struggling museum, will stay through Nov. 8 to help the museum make its switch to new leadership. Mickenberg said he will remain in Roanoke, where he and his wife recently closed on a house.
In announcing the changes this morning, Nick Taubman said Advance Auto Parts has made a $150,000 donation that will allow the museum of offer free admission to all starting Tuesday.
And here’s something of special note: The new board consists mostly of the businessmen who floated the museum loans to help pay off its construction debt, whom the museum has been unable to repay. (Click here for more details on that arrangement.)
October 8, 2012 - 1:36 PM
Other than donations, where does the museum get its income? If they could not pay off construction debt, how will they pay back the loans?
I think this has doom written all over it to be honest.
@David: the museum has other income streams, but donations comprise the largest portion by far. The answer to your question might be hinted at by the fact that the museum’s two biggest financial supporters now run the board. I’ll see how far I can get acquiring more specifics.
Until this place becomes a restaurant and bar I don’t see it surviving.
@Adingo: There is a restaurant in it. For the entire thing to be a restaurant … well, $800,000 a year for maintaining the building makes for a lot of overhead.
What a shock to hear this today, as I felt there was a clear effort being made to close the income / expenses gap and to involve more of the artists in the region in supporting the museum and their playing a bigger role in the exhibitions of art from the region. I hope that the new board will resolve the economic problems and continue the trend to become a strong “regional” arts institution, that serves our region. One of the concerns from the outset was the grandure of the design & the costs of construction of the building, and the fact that it had limited exhibition spaces compared to it overall dimensions, seemed a problem from the outset. The idea that just because we had an new building with an unusual design was never enough, in my mind to draw the “national visitation” that was hoped for. Also, without significant exhibitions of quality offered on a regular rotation, why would someone come to visit us in Roanoke. I would like to believe that there is a brighter future for the Taubman Museum, but I will have to wait and see how the coming months unfold, and the decisions that are made by the new board members. I am sorry to see David Mickenberg leave so soon, I applaud his efforts.
Does the Taubman receive government aid of any sort?
Please post the new members of the Board of Trustees as soon as you can. Thanks.
Let’s see. It’s the wrong building. It’s in the wrong place in so many ways:
It’s in a flood plain.
It’s shoehorned in among architecturally incompatible buildings.
It’s in Roanoke, which has neither the money nor the inclination to support it.
In addition, the museum has damaged other worthy cultural institutions by siphoning off money from them. It is also severely lacking in art to display…
So how is this latest change going to fix all those problems?
One should never confuse wishful thinking with planning.
What else can be expected, when the building is made to be the “visual” and not the art?
@Belle: They’re not subsidized by the government the way an official state museum would be. They do receive state and local grants. They also receive money from Roanoke city and county that allows them to be open free to public school students.
What is one to make of the coup of the elites? The first victim – David Mickenberg. The second? Watch to see if the commitment to “transparency in all of our financial and professional endeavors” disappears from the mission statement and practice of the new regime.
And all that recent “community” openness and inclusiveness talk? We’ll get a chance to see how sincere that was now that the puppeteers have come out from behind the curtain
@Chris: All of them are listed in the breaking news story except for new members Nancy Agee and Tammy Finley. I don’t recognize either as having any connection to the guarantor loans.
UPDATE: Agee is the CEO of Carilion Clinic (The Carilion Foundation is also one of the museum’s gaurantors.) Finley is vice president of Advance Auto.
One could argue that the best thing to do with the Taubman Museum would be to bulldoze it. As someone once said, “If you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging.”
What membership drives have they attempted? I allowed my membership to lapse because they never even contacted me for renewal.
Later on I heard through the grapevine that Mickenberg didn’t believe there was much value in memberships and focused the museum’s efforts on large donors instead.This sort of takes the common man out of the equation, and here we are…..
@Mortimer: I can tell you that there have definitely been membership drives (I’ve reported on them, and I’ve certainly gotten the letters and cards) but I’m not the one who could explain why you specifically weren’t contacted. I do know that the income the museum receives from memberships isn’t the majority of its revenue. There’s charts here. (See page 70 of the PDF.)
The museum’s exhibits and programming improved vastly under Mickenberg’s tenure, in my opinion. I hope the new board continues this momentum, plus I hope they retain the adjunct curators to continue their fine work in exhibitions.
So the Carilion Foundation is also one of the museum’s gaurantors? How is this in keeping with the stated mission of the Carilion Foundations’s mission? May be off subject but I am still curious.
Location, location, location. I love modern architecture, from day one this building cried out to be in a setting surrounded by green grass, tress, fountains and flowers. I said in an article a wrote some time ago, this idea was conceived by the Rich and famous of Roanoke’s artsie tarties as a play house for them to hang their play things, thinking if they build it they will come.
This goes back to what’s wrong with Roanoke. Roanoke needs to be Roanoke and stop trying to be something it will never be. Let’s be all we can be with all our rich history, beautiful streams and valley’s, and make it the best it can be, spit and polish clean and green and then they might come.
Just one example….Look at the Taubman, the Market Building, the Center in the Square and more to re do the Market Square itself, the millions upon millions and yet the place always looks dirty and filthy. They allow the business and restaurants to put their trash and garbage out on the sidewalks for pick up. Nasty, dirty, disgusting and visitors and guest must walk around this. Plus you can’t walk the sidewalks, what’s left of them, due to the restaurants having taken them over. Most areas a wheel chair could never get through.
How dumb to drop all admission. Like adding weight on a sinking ship….Bring in the Roanoke Symphony and let them play, “Nearer my Got to thee”
@Debby: I’m going to share a snippet with you from a previous story:
I had just read that previous story. Still does not match well with the stated mission of the foundation on the website. There is a new push for donations, even from Carilion employees. I would feel better contributing if the resources were more direct-patient vs recruitment of employees. I don’t think the Taubman has yet proven to be an effective recruitment incentive.
I live in the New River Valley and visit the Roanoke Valley on occasion. I can tell you that the consensus among people in the NRV is that the Taubman was an overpriced structure with little art inside. I know one person who went and has been adamant about not going unless there is no admission. Hm. Maybe now I’ll check it out …
I was afraid the Taubman would be turned into yet another Thrift Shop. We have an amazing building in our midst…it houses amazing art…lets hope the new Board of Directors takes it under their wing and keeps the museum abreast….it was their baby and it apppears they will once again nurture it. Lets wish them well and continue our support….I love the Taubman Museum!
From a business perspective offering your product for free is bad business as it does not ask a buy in from the community or customer. The museum asks for community support then asks for no admision fee which is a form of financial support. They, in essence, are saying what they are offering is not worth the price of adimission.
As a side note – there is no current alternative for downtown businesses to put there garbage but on the street waiting for the garbage truck to pick it up.
Eric,
There are a number of options that have been discussed before city council, but they won’t act on any of them.
Mine is, If you want to do business in the area, YOU ARE responsible for getting rid of your trash….It’s really not all that complicated.
The record shows that many of the “new” Taubman Museum Board of Trustees members were involved with the board back when the plans for the museum were being developed.
Led by Haywood Fralin, those trustees – in their wisdom and leadership – uncritically promoted the fantastical and absurd projections that the museum would generate $30 million in revenue annually and create 500 new jobs. (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/art-museum/wb/23381)
Such leaders are the best people to fix the museum now?
@Chris: you could argue that they’re the only ones who have the money to do it.
I think opening the Museum with free admission is the key for the public to
embrace the Taubman. The community must now begin to see Art is not a threat
to their existence and it was not built to upset their daily lives. I hope
the Taubman can collaborate more with the Virginia Museum and offer some really wonderful exhibits. As a kid I remember the Virginia Museum would send its “Art Mobile” to Roanoke. Also, the Smithsonian must have similar
programs with regional Art museums. We are so lucky to have such a wonderful piece of Art in the form of this magnificent structure downtown!
My family has a membership to the Taubman and I very much hope it succeeds. However, this apparently “hostile” takeover of the board does not seem to be moving the museum in the correct direction, in my opinion. The letter that the new interim director sent to members offers extremely faint praise of Mickenberg’s efforts; however, I believe that all of the improvements and recent accomplishments listed in the same letter were brought about under Mickenberg’s leadership (the museum school, much-needed redesign of ArtVenture, educational partnerships with local schools, free Saturdays, etc.) I’m afraid that the same people who may have suffered from some delusions of grandeur while designing the museum (though they had good intentions), may not be the right people to lead it through its troubles unless they plan on funding the museum out of their own pockets for the duration. While that may get it though in the short-term, it does not sound like a very sustainable model for the future. Mickenberg seemed to be moving the museum in the right direction and towards the right focus; it is sad that these new board members/donors did offer their full support during his tenure.
I wish David well. He was a tireless worker on behalf of the museum, and I feel that he will be very hard to replace under the current circumstances. He accomplished a great deal with minimal resources, and left the museum in a much better condition than when he arrived. I hope that the museum honors him with a farewell party, open to the public. This will be an opportunity for them to exhibit some class. I have been a member since the beginning, and hope to continue my participation providing that this apparent ‘coup’ does not take the museum in an unanticipated direction. Thank you Heywood and Nick for your monetary support, but please leave the management to professionals from the arts. You need both a full-time director as well as a full-time curator.
Mike,
They’re certainly welcome to incompetently manage their own philanthropic money.
Just saying, given their track record potential donors might best beware when they come prospecting.
Do we have any news on the status on the Museum in terms of Accredition and the current whereabouts, size and condition of the permenant collection?
Damn. When I saw Heywood Fralin on the news last night, I was afraid that we were going to lose David Mickenberg. So I want to say right off the bat that I and MANY others in the SW Virginia arts community will miss him, both professionally and personally. David has imagination, courage, humor, and tenacity, and used them tirelessly on behalf of both the Museum and the region’s artists. This is not to say he didn’t make mistakes, but I never saw anyone affiliated with Museum, before of after it became the Taubman, work so hard and so intelligently on so difficult a project as creating a living center for the visual arts in Roanoke.
David Mickenberg projected a clear and concrete vision of creating in our Valley an inspirational contemporary, regional center for the Fine Arts. He also had the courage to stand up to the Board and tell them what they did wrong not only in building the new museum, but in their very conception of what it could and should become. In losing David,the artists who live and work in Southwest Virginia have lost a real friend.
Mike,
The press release from the new trustees repeatedly refers to “the plan”, as in “the plan we are announcing today ensures a viable financial future for this special place…”
Did they tell you the specific details of “the plan?”
@Chris: “The plan” refers to the guarantors becoming the new trustees and most of the old trustees remaining attached in an advisory committee.
The biggest negative to this is the loss of David Mickenberg. He was a ‘fine art museum’ professional. An Executive Director of his caliber will be very difficult to find, particularly for the current museum environment. Every time I visited the museum I was impressed by the quality of the exhibits and how well they were presented. He had so little to work with. I’m sure he would have loved to replace the permanent exhibit of designer handbags that takes up a small but needed space on the 2nd floor.
Mike,
Thanks. I suppose that’s a “plan.”
I find it interesting the ‘the plan’ speaks only of financial viability without any mention of details pertaining to their mission, which is to show art. What will become of the quality that David implemented?
Love E Duane Howard’s comments. All of them. It has always seemed to me that Roanoke is dying to be something it is not. And thank you, E. Duane, for mentioning the laughable efforts at sidewalk dining. In what world is it a good idea to force visitors to walk in the street just so you can set up a few tables on the sidewalk? Bad idea after bad idea. Be what you are, Roanoke. And if you don’t KNOW what you are, ask someone who has not lived here his entire life. You know, someone with perspective.
Mike,
The new trustees decided that 13 of the 15 previous trustees were not to remain on the board.
Did the new trustees discuss their criteria for who was fit to remain and who was to be deposed?
What is special about Debbie Meade and David Wine that they get to stay?
@E Duane & Old Blue: Regarding outdoor dining and the problems with sidewalk access: that’s why we need to turn the Market area into a pedestrian zone, or at least something more pedestrian-friendly. Those side streets where most of the outdoor dining is are kind of pointless for vehicle traffic anyway. Sure, we’d lose a few *precious* street-parking spots, but we’d gain a viable center for shopping and nightlife, something that ties downtown together and makes the whole thing a significant destination.
As for Roanoke trying “to be something it’s not”: The simple fact is that Roanoke isn’t what it was (a big railroad town), nor will it be again. So if it doesn’t try to adapt and become something new, then what is it? Communities that refuse to change with the times are doomed to die a slow death.
Mark,
Your point is well made, meaningful and makes sense, HOWERE, until they do that, what we have now is simple insane, dysfunctional, unfriendly for all citizens, visitors and above all anyone in a wheel chair which is against the ADA Act, and show’s where the cities administration priorities lye, To hell with everyone else and making money is above everything else, not matter what visitors leave thinking about Roanoke.
As for your statement, “Roanoke isn’t what it was (a big railroad town), nor will it be again. So if it doesn’t try to adapt and become something new, then what is it? Communities that refuse to change with the times are doomed to die a slow death.”
I could not agree with you more. I’m a native, but grew and lived in big cities and a world traveler, been to the great art museum’s in Europe and around the world. Out of touch good people like Taubman and Fralin’s, I don’t think they understand we are just not big enough, nor come close to having enough sophistication in Southwest VA. that doomed their Museum from day one.
Solution? Wrecking ball.
I am confused about the way things have transpired at the Taubman…..The “Board” , if I understand it, called upon Taubman and Fralin to come back and or get more involved. Were they that disenchanted with the all of the Board to let them go the way they did?
Was David let go just to save on his salary or they were not happy with what he was doing?
I’m further confused…..Nothing personal against Taubman and Fralin, but, they did design and build a “Titanic” and as it continues to take on water, they are called on to fix the problem. I guess its me, but something just doesn’t seem to make sense here.
Then, look at the Board of Directors they put together. All, well to do, no question good and great people, but light years away from the mental, lack of intelligence among the major of the cities population. Why can they have a poor’ole common person, like myself, lol, on the Board?
Deja vu all over again.
From the November 21, 2010 Roanoke Times:
The board of trustees is being restructured. What was a 34-member board will become a 25-member governing board that will meet monthly. In addition, there will be an advisory board with at least 30 members that meets biannually. In 2011, the museum will add international advisory board of museum directors, curators, collectors, scholars, and others to help develop collections and exhibitions. That board will meet once year.
It appears from today’s (10 Oct) article “Taubman says art museum won’t fail” (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/315172), that the museum’s board is somewhat pushing the “reset” button. If so, then the board needs to read *all* of the reports and case studies from the study made by the University of Chicago, “Set in Stone: Building America’s New Generation of Arts Facilities, 1994-2008,” that was mentioned in the article.
Website here: http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/setinstone/
I hope at some point they contact the study’s authors:
http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/setinstone/contact.shtml
and talk with them about what they need to do now and what direction they need to take, but I’m not at all confident they will do that.
It’s important that we not lose track of the fact that the Taubman Museum was from the beginning a vanity project for and by, primarily, Mr. and Mrs. Taubman. The fact that it is a failure says much more about their misdirected, inflated, vanity than it does about what Roanoke is or is not or was and will be. When the doors finally are chained the blame will be inappropriately laid on the community and we ( the community) should not accept one nanosecond of that. The Taubmans and the Fralins of the RoVa can go look in their mirrors for the culprits.The rest of us can go back to enjoying a heck of a nice place to live and raise a family.
The problem is there isn’t anything in the museum to draw people there. It’s a huge building with nothing in it.
Roanoke has long been trying in vain to portray itself as an “arts” community. I think the efforts have been misguided however. If you want to have an arts community, you need to focus on local art and promote it. There are a handful of galleries that carry local art, but not many people know about them. Take a look at a city like Asheville. You can’t throw a rock in Asheville without hitting an artist. And Asheville embraces them. Because they started with their roots, they are able to sustain higher-profile art exhibits and museums. They created a buzz about art. Roanoke has not been able to do that. Until they get the area interested in art and support the art that is already here, I don’t see huge, expensive projects like this museum staying afloat.
I dont’ feel sorry for that eyesore or anyone affiliated with it. You get what you deserve when you plan and design a project that was, to begin with, too much money at $20 MILLION and then when all is said and done, the final price tag was $66 MILLION. Can’t wait for the bulldozers to start up. But if Roanoke City Council has anything to decide about it, it will take 15 years to decide to tear down, just like Victory Stadium.
Some good comments here. Chick Chandler, I agree. I think Roanoke is a fine place to raise a family. Decent, affordable neighborhoods abound here. So promote that for crying out loud. What it is not is an art and culture mecca. Nor is it a tourist destination.
The Taubman museum structure is basically the art itself. You can stand on the sidewalk and look at the structure for free. There is nothing on the inside of the museum, which can draw enough patrons or regulars to visit the museum. There is certainly not enough interesting art housed in the museum to revisit. The issue at hand is what can be done to keep the museum operating and most importantly revamp what is going on inside the museum to energize new patrons to visit the museum. It’s needs more art from the locals. Please support the local artist like the city of Asheville does. If you are on the board and reading this, visit the small town of Asheville, NC and talk with the art community on how they make their small town so artsy and vibrant. Asheville is an amazing small city, but you feel like you are in a vibrant large town full of artsy culture. We cannot be a Charlotte NC, which is extremely trendy and classy, but we can be another Asheville, NC which the entire downtown becomes artsy without needing major skyscrapers like Charlotte, NC.
Hans, I am sorry, but no. Roanoke is not another Asheville, and it should not try to imitate Asheville. But you are right about the lack of art inside the Taubman. I cannot think of a reason to return.
Enough with the Asheville envy! Asheville and western North Carolina have a century and a half of being big time tourist destinations and it has never been just about the town. It’s location, location, location. ( and the Vanderbilt mansion )These are things that Roanoke cannot buy or create.
@Gwenda re: your question from Monday. Acting Interim Director Kathryn Garvin tells me this: “The Taubman Museum is still accredited. We are in the process of preparing for a renewal in the future.”
Well that’s a big relief.
@Chick: Perhaps it is to someone! Heh.
WARNING: Long post follows!
One of Nick Taubman’s comments in today’s (10/10) story could be considered problematic, bordering on disturbing; and revealing, bordering on symptomatic. Before I get to the actual quote, some perspective.
The museum’s annual operating cost is the primary (if not determinative) source of its trouble. That cost is at least $3.5 million a year. Realistically, the components of that annual cost are not going to (nor can they) decrease in any significant way in the future. As trustees have said, the annual costs are a “shoestring” budget. Simply put, you’re looking at needing at least $3.5 million a year, every year, FOREVER.
The mythical, some might argue imaginary, “community” that trustees (and editorial writers) appear to be counting on to help the museum survive cannot realistically supply more than 20% of a multimillion dollar operating budget every year based on $40 memberships and $100 or even $1,000 contributions (with admissions now off the table).
As it is now, so will it need to be in the future – as much as 60% or more of that multimillion dollar operating budget must come from a small group of individuals and sponsors, every year, FOREVER. We’re talking annual contributions of at least tens of thousands of dollars from this small group every year to get to roughly $2-2.5 million. How many Roanokers (individual or corporate) are willing to do that every year, forever? 50? 100? 100 giving $10,000 only gets you $1 million; not $2-2.5 million. Do you believe that there is a base that is anything other than a select few that can pull that off?
The FOREVER point is applicable barring the improbable – such as the Taubman’s dying and leaving their entire estate as an endowment. Improbabilities are no basis for planning and operating a business. They have no place in this discussion.
So, what do we have as a reality? That a small group of people / sponsors (likely less than 50?) are going to be responsible for supplying far more than half of the operating expenses of the museum, every year, FOREVER. To posit any other reality would most likely involve fantasy.
So, a key conclusion is that a small group of people need to be persuaded to provide that support. Which brings me to Nick Taubman’s remark.
Mike Allen reported:
However, the board intends for the museum to stay a regional art center. “That among other things,” [Nick Taubman] said. “There’s going to be a lot of education there. There’s going to be a lot of outreach. We will be having more exhibitions than we have been having.”
“That, among other things…”
Huh? Clear?!
Maybe this will help clear things up.
Definition of an Art Center:
An art center encompasses the functions of an art museum but is broader in scope and more of a hybrid non-profit, permanent cultural institution. The collections form one of many equivalent cores around which exhibitions and educational programs are organized. There is however, equanimity between exhibitions, collections, lectures performance, film and video, seminars, symposia, conversations, and other forms of presentation. The art center serves as a focal point of social and cultural engagement, a sort of ‘town hall’ for the arts. It is the ideas and experiences, educational initiatives and learning environments, and community engagement and collaboration that form the core of the art center.
The above definition is from the museum’s mission statement. Is it just me, or is that downright painful to read?
Now let’s tie this all together. Major benefactors give for a number of reasons. Partly, for purely altruistic reasons. Altruism is individual and personal and, as such, not easily generalizable. However, giving, especially big dollar giving, often also involves an element of pragmatism and practicality. Is the gift receiver competent and well enough managed to be counted on to succeed in its mission? Mission is a key word. If the mission is unclear, diffuse, or impractical would you expect big donors to embrace it?
The art center concept, as articulated on the museum’s website, appears to be an elephant described by a blindfolded committee. Is it realistic (or rational) to expect a small group of big-money, business-experienced donors to throw their money at such a mission?
It may be disconcerting truth to some stakeholders (e.g., local art community) but the reality is that a very high deference is due the folks with money on the table. The one who pays the piper picks the tune. If the museum is to succeed it needs a well focused, clearly articulated, practical, and realistic mission that doesn’t sound like a United Nations pronouncement.
I think the Taubman needs to move away from local art. Every time I’ve gone to the Taubman, I always end up leaving disappointed, wondering why I paid to in there. I know I risk sounding like a horrible snob, but often times the work on the inside doesn’t come close to matching the grandeur of the exterior. The architectural structure is so striking, but then inside you are met with amateur pieces that seem like they might have come from a local college art class. Even the text on the information plaques is amateur and ill composed. Last time I went to the Taubman I noticed that someone had decided to hang the Motherwell in the back corner of the “library” section of the museum. Right next to a flat screen TV. How do you make a mistake of that magnitude?? No wonder it’s doing terribly…
Chris VanCantfort. Long post indeed, but well worth reading. The Definition of an Art Center is indeed painful to read. It sounds like it could have been generated by the Dilbert “Mission Statement Generator”.
As a follow-up to my long post above.
“The truth shall set you free…” Hopefully, among other things, free from making poorly considered decisions.
A truth: the Taubman Museum’s annual operating budget (around $3.5 million) requires annual donations of at least $2.5 million which is more than one third – more than one third! – the total amount donated to the United Way from the whole Roanoke Valley last year ($6.2 million).
Let that sink in as you consider the museum’s fate, viability, and place in the big scheme of things.
Very well said, Chris.
i truly hate to say to the city,”i told you so…”
but i did write the roanoke times, early on, way before construction, stating pretty much what is being seen, i.e., a very sad situation, playing itself out.
well… i trust carilion will buy eventually….?
hey! an arts and medical center, using western and eastern medicine,along with art processes and products,performances, etc actually would be pretty cool and might just attract new, talented folks to the valley.