The George Lindemann Journal by George Lindemann

Welcome to the intersection of art, ego, philanthropy and jealousy. It’s where you’ll find the Jorge M. Perez Art Museum of Miami-Dade County.

My initial reaction to renaming the Miami Art Museum for Jorge Perez was negative. Why should our stunning new $225 million civic art museum — with $103 million coming from taxpayers — be named for any individual, no matter how generous his donation? The decision by MAM’s board of trustees to change the name struck me as weak-kneed and wrong-headed. And the requirement by Perez to do so as arrogant and self-aggrandizing. I said as much on TV.

But I’ve reconsidered. After speaking to Perez and looking at how other arts institutions are funded here and across the country, I’ve concluded that Perez should be thanked, not condemned for his $35 million gift to MAM. If the price is for the museum to bear his name, hang his art and be his legacy, well, why not? He’s certainly not the first South Florida art patron to make a deal like this. The Arsht Center? Taxpayers kicked in about $440 million toward the PAC and Adrienne Arsht got her name on it for $30 million, supplanting Carnival Cruise Lines, which had given $20 million.

The new Frost Museum of Science, to be built across from the Perez Art Museum, honors Pat and Phil Frost for their $35 million contribution. There appears to be a $35 million threshold here for naming rights, and Perez has met it, although he’s doing it on the installment plan — $20 million over 10 years and his $15 million art collection. Still, it all adds up to the requisite magic number. You can’t really change the rules in the middle of the game, which is what his critics seem to want.

Like those critics, there’s part of me that rebels against having Miami’s main civic art museum named for anyone except those who mainly paid for it. But we can’t really call it the Taxpayers’ Art Museum of Miami-Dade, can we? Many years ago when the Metropolitan in New York or the Art Institute of Chicago or the Louvre in Paris or Prado in Madrid were created they were paid for by the cities that built them because they were tangible symbols of culture and achievement. Wealthy art lovers contributed money and works of art, but didn’t expect civic museums to carry their names. A wing, a gallery, a plaza, yes. The entire museum, no.

But times have changed. Museums along with other cultural, academic, medical and academic institutions are now more often than not paid for by a major donor who gets his or her name on the edifice. Locally, think of the Miller School of Medicine of the University of Miami ($100 million from the Lennar founder Leonard Miller and family); The Frost Art Museum at Florida International University (Pat and Phil Frost once again), the Lowe Art Museum at UM and the Bass Museum on Miami Beach. Joe Robbie Stadium. There are, of course, exceptions. Lin and the late Ted Arison started and continue to sustain the New World Symphony.

Jorge Perez tells me some of the furor over the MAM renaming may have to do with his Hispanic heritage. “You know, the name Perez is new to Miami’s philanthropic society,” he said. “I think we need names of Latin descent to go hand in hand with great Anglo and Jewish names that have shown generosity in the past.”

It’s possible there could be an anti-Cuban tinge to the criticism, although I don’t see it. Carlos and Rosa de la Cruz, prominent art collectors who’ve been outspoken about the MAM name change, are proudly Cuban American. I suspect some part of the criticism is because of Perez’s role as a major real-estate developer who got very rich by helping overheat the housing market . But as he points out, when it cooled down he lost three-quarters of his wealth. And still ponied up $20 million in cash and art worth $15 million. “That’s art I look at every day,” he says, “art that I have an emotional attachment to.”

He’ll be able to see it, as will we, at the Jorge M. Perez Art Museum of Miami-Dade County. Got a problem with that? I did at first, but I’m OK with it now.

Damien Hirst with one of his spot paintings. He is reviving this earlier genre with a bang.

By CAROL VOGEL
Published: December 13, 2011

LONDON — Just as the financial markets were heading for disaster in 2008, the British artist Damien Hirst snubbed his dealers and persuaded Sotheby’s here to sell 223 primarily new artworks. There were dead animals — sharks, zebras, piglets and even a calf — floating in giant glass tanks of formaldehyde; cabinets filled with diamonds; and cigarette butts. And paintings galore: spin paintings, spot paintings, paintings with butterflies pinned under glass...

“IT was an honest gesture at the moment Kris gave it to me, so I feel the ring is mine,” said Kim Kardashian, or anyway Metisha Larocca, who happened at that particular moment to be channeling the tabloid staple at an art party staged by MoMA P.S. 1 in the waning hours of Art Basel Miami Beach, the art world’s version of a reality television show....

Jorge Pérez has made what appears to be a generous gift to the Miami Art Museum, an act that has been billed as one of the most generous in the city’s philanthropic history. In return, the museum sold him its name. Before we break out the Champagne, let’s do the math on this gift.

The headline gift totals $35 million: $20 million in cash and $15 million in art from his collection. Let’s start with the cash, because that’s what the museum needs immediately to fund construction of its new building. When the project began in 2005, Mr. Pérez made a $5 million pledge, which remains part of the $10 million cash gift he proposes to pay by 2012. He also proposes to pay another $10 million in 2022, 10 years from now, so let’s say the present value is $5 million. That’s a cash total of $15 million. This compares to Miami-Dade giving $100 million of its citizens’ money and the city giving land worth $50 million for a total of $150 million. Mr. Pérez’ gift amounts to 10 percent of Miami’s gift and he gets the name of the museum. And this doesn’t consider the risk of a substantial loss of funding from existing and future donors. Something doesn’t compute.

The $15 million worth of art was added to bring the headline gift to a level commensurate with the Frosts’ and Adrienne Arsht’s recent cash gifts. Until now, MAM’s capital campaign policy was “cash only.” Any professional fund raiser will tell you that a gift of art (which the museum can’t sell for ethical reasons) doesn’t pay for construction costs and doesn’t count towards naming rights.

When the MAM board approved the renaming there was no discussion of the longterm implications of the name change. No one mentioned that the American Association of Museum Directors, which accredits MAM, cannot find a single instance of a civic art museum selling its name to a donor, for any amount of money.

MAM’s leadership and Mr. Pérez have turned a deaf ear to the outpouring of negative responses to the name change, ignoring the constituency they ostensibly serve. The citizens of this great community paid for the museum and it should bear their name. How about a wing, Mr. Pérez? That would compute.

Howard S. Frank, Miami

Anti-casino advocates gathered in Miami’s artiest neighborhood Saturday morning and warned that bringing mega-casinos to South Florida threatens to reverse the city’s cultural progress.

“Downtown is finally becoming what we want downtown to be,’’ former Miami-Dade commissioner Katy Sorenson told a crowd of about 120 people at the Light Box Theater, a performance space in Wynwood. “We’ve got some unique, funky Miami kind of things going on. Why do we want to these huge mega-resorts to come in?”

The speakers at the Urban Environment League forum covered the full range of anti-casino arguments, from worries over gambling addictions to traffic woes if Florida approves a bill designed to bring three $2 billion casino resorts to South Florida. But the setting — the Goldman Warehouse, home to art non-profits and owned by Tony Goldman, the developer behind Wynwood’s emergence as a gallery district — highlighted the role the arts are playing in the debate.

In May, Genting Group announced its $236 million purchase of The Miami Herald site at an Adrienne Arsht Performing Arts Center conference room. The chairman of the center’s board, Mike Eidson, joined executives of the Malaysian casino company at that first press conference, and later talked about the center running a 700-seat theater for Genting.

But after the friendly debut, Eidson and others in the Arsht leadership backed off, voicing worries about Genting’s plan to build the world’s largest casino across the street. In an interview Saturday, Eidson, a prominent lawyer, spoke in the harshest terms yet on the Genting resort’s potential impact on the county-owned Arsht center as a cultural hub for downtown.

“It’s too big. It overwhelms the entire arts concept we had there,’’ Eidson said. “We could never come up with a plan that could accommodate that.”

He said the center’s initial willingness to work with its new neighbor in developing the neighborhood turned to “grave” concerns at a subsequent lavish dinner on an Arsht stage when Genting executives outlined just how big the resort would be.

“It makes the Arsht Center look insignificant,’’ he said. “All that money we put into that facility, and you wouldn’t even notice it anymore.”

Genting executives were not available for interviews Saturday. But in past statements, the company has argued its 30-acre Resorts World Miami will elevate the city as a global destination by bringing stunning architecture and a new wave of Asian tourists.

It also argues the 5,200-room resort would bolster the Arsht center by delivering a steady stream of guests to the tax-funded facility and paying for permanent shows on slow nights.

Genting’s plan has galvanized many in Miami’s growing arts scene. Norman Braman, one of the city’s wealthiest art collectors, is a leader in the anti-casino movement. Jorge Perez, whose $35 million gift would put his name on the Miami Art Museum’s new home across I-395 from the Genting site, has criticized the plan. Art Basel, the Swiss-based arts show that comes to Miami Beach in December, has privately warned it might seek a different winter home if the casino resorts move in, according to city officials.

 

But not everyone is happy that the institution, now known as the Miami Art Museum, will be recast as the Jorge M. Pérez Art Museum of Miami-Dade County to recognize Mr. Pérez’s $35 million gift in cash and art.

Four board members have resigned in protest. Several are threatening to rescind their contributions. Protest e-mails to museum officials have complained that an institution being built on public land and largely financed by taxpayers should not be named for an individual, no matter how generous.

“Name a plaza or a wing or the building,” said Rubén A. Rodríguez, one of the trustees who resigned, “but not the institution.”

The naming and renaming of institutions, arenas, even bridges, after people, to raise money or recognize civic contributions, typically engender little fuss. (Think of the Guggenheim or the Getty, not the former Brendan Byrne Arena.) There was hardly a peep when the New York State Theater at Lincoln Center became the David H. Koch Theater in 2008, after Mr. Koch’s pledge of $100 million.

But in an era when the need for cultural largesse by the wealthy is only expanding, there has been an unusual level of opposition here to the idea of renaming a community resource after an individual patron of the arts.

Is it the timing? The size of the gift? Mr. Pérez’s career as a major developer here? Or perhaps jealousy on the part of others whose own major contributions to the arts have never secured such a high-profile designation?

Museum officials say they’ve been surprised by the community reaction to the name change, though they caution against exaggerating the response. The change, after all, they said, was approved last week by a vote of the museum board; of the 35 members present, only 4 voted against, with 1 abstention.

Thomas Collins, the museum’s director, said the institution was fortunate that Mr. Pérez, a trustee, stepped up to take a lead role in its $220 million capital campaign to bolster its endowment and construct the new building, to be completed in 2013. Mr. Pérez’s $35 million gift includes a pledge of $20 million, along with $15 million worth of Latin American art, which he collects avidly.

“He has been part of the governance and leadership of the institution,” Mr. Collins said. “He has made a major commitment of fine art to the museum. Institutions have been named for people who’ve done just one of those things.”

Many institutions have taken to naming just about anything — hallways, lobbies, staircases — to raise money. In Miami naming has become something of a rage. In 2008 the Carnival Center for the Performing Arts — named for the cruise line — was renamed for the businesswoman and philanthropist Adrienne Arsht after her $30 million gift. When the Miami Science Museum opens its new building in 2014, it will be renamed the Patricia and Phillip Frost Museum of Science. There is also the Frost School of Music at the University of Miami and the Frost Museum of Art at Florida International University.

Naming is often a prickly issue for an institution, since it links it to a person in the public’s mind.

Michael Kaiser, president of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, said that institutions have to be careful about whom they agree to be associated with. “I’m not sure anyone would want to have the Bonnie and Clyde Opera Company,” he said.

Sometimes property has to be unnamed. The Vilar Grand Tier at the Metropolitan Opera House, for example, went back to being just the Grand Tier after its benefactor, Alberto W. Vilar, failed to come through on his financial commitments.

• 1
• 2

Next Page »