Downtown L.A. is officially a contender for Eli Broad's art museum

Here's the latest installment in the courtship of Eli Broad -- and the art museum he aims to plunk somewhere in the Los Angeles Basin, complete with big-name architecture, a spiffy $200 million endowment and the 2,000 works of contemporary art held by his Broad Art Foundation.

Downtown L.A. is officially making a play, courtesy of the Grand Avenue Authority, which today authorized negotiations with Broad toward a possible deal that would wrest the museum from Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, which are also in the running.

After a closed session today of the Grand Avenue Authority, L.A. City Councilwoman Jan Perry, a member of the joint city-county authority that's overseeing development of vacant land and parking lots in the heart of downtown's arts district, said it will deploy a negotiating team "to proceed with discussions with the Broad Foundation to consider his proposal and reach a mutual agreement."

The Grand Avenue project, of which Broad himself has been a leading advocate, is considered the centerpiece of downtown's revitalization. Designed by Frank Gehry, it includes two towers, condos, hotel rooms and a shopping center. The project, which involves public land and a private developer, stalled last year after the developer was unable to secure a multibillion-dollar construction loan amid the global credit crunch. A Broad Museum launch there would be a coup that could help rebuild momentum for the plan.

Until recently, Broad, who has painted a redeveloped Grand Avenue as L.A.'s answer to Paris' Champs-Elysees as a cultural hub, was a member of the committee overseeing the project on behalf of the Grand Avenue Authority. Officials said today that Broad had resigned from the committee in November in order to avoid any potential conflicts of interest as the negotiations move forward.

Broad has said that he deliberately has kept his options open for a museum site, hoping that competition will prevent plans from getting bogged down by bureaucratic delays in any single government jurisdiction. Beverly Hills was the first contender to surface publicly, in 2008, with talks centering on a parcel at Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard, and Santa Monica stepped forward late last year with what appears to be the most advanced plan: the City Council is expected to vote in February on a nonbinding "agreement in principle" that would allow the planning, permitting and environmental review process for the museum to go forward.

The basic outline of the proposed deal: the Broad Foundation would get a $1 a year, 99-year lease on 2.5 acres of city-owned land next to the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, plus $2.7 million from the city in project funding and site-work. Broad would pay to build and operate a museum costing an estimated $40 million to $60 million to build and $12 million annually to run.

It would house at least 30,000 square feet of exhibition space for his collection, plus  space for storing the art not on display or out on loan to other museums. The museum building also would include offices of the three-pronged Broad Foundations for art, science and education, which now occupy a 1927 vintage building in Santa Monica that lacks the parking needed for a public museum.

Jeffrey Deitch, recently announced as the next director of L.A.'s Museum of Contemporary Art, where Broad is the leading donor, is among those who have asked the billionaire philanthropist to locate his museum on Grand Avenue, where its cultural neighbors would include MOCA, Walt Disney Concert Hall and the rest of the Music Center, the Colburn School of Music, and the Los Angeles Unified School District's new arts high school.

Reiterating past statements from Broad's camp, Broad Foundation spokeswoman Karen Denne said today that “we are considering multiple locations and look forward to making a decision this spring.”

-- Mike Boehm, Ari B. Bloomekatz and Cara DiMassa 

Related:

Eli Broad and the mysterious third museum site

Santa Monica to vote on proposed Broad Museum deal

Cities compete for Broad museum

Eli Broad on new museum: 'Our first choice is the Beverly Hills site'

Photo: Artist's rendering of proposed Grand Avenue project. Credit: Grand Avenue Authority

Comments

[None]

Mr. Wray, I think you've created a mythology where contemporary artist don't know how to draw. Last I've checked almost every school requires drawing classes and currently the contemporary art world seems to be inundated with figurative work. The problem is they don't draw or don't draw how you'd like them to. To continue my rock analogy, you're a bit like a classically trained guitarist telling a rock drummer he can't possibly know how to play.

I understand why you have a chip on your shoulder. I also know it's easier to blame the entire system, the tens of thousands of historians, curators, gallerists and other artists, rather than yourself. How could you be wrong, well it could be that your work isn't good enough or maybe you're in the wrong place at the wrong time or most likely you're just looking for validation from the wrong source.

[Donald Frazell]

I have written postive of many on this blog, though certainly not as many as I would like too, because so few have obviously done their work and studied, paid their dues(an obsolete term to kids who never learn) incorporated real life into their work. Which is what creative art does, reflect the life around us, not just the wealthy and their issues, which are many and completely detached form the mass of humanity. Therapy is usually called for, but they have taken unto art to feel better about themselves. About once a month I give a postive review, the woman who was ghettoized across the street from LACMA in the Craft Museum, the woman below who painted thick eyed monkiees and clowns. The German art teach at UCLA who has devoled since the art that was shown from the 80s. And others.

There was severl Attemtps to vote me off SoCalHoops when I coached mid school travel ballers, but always had an avalanch of the silent comptents folk for me, met many AAU shoe company coaches and college coahes through it. Because I attacked both the wannabes and arrogant pushers of unformed adolescent talent, leeches and hardwood daddies. I have gotten many emails form people, even kids in art school using my blog for their papers. The revolt is brewing, they simply hahvent had a voice, and accepted what was, but feeling the emptiness. They are now standing up, and things ARE changing. They must, as Obama has pointed out. Art is about Us, the days of Meism and Excess are over.

As long as I dont make things personal, I am sure CM will allow me to post. They have'nt a few times when I got close to the line or even over it, to which I apologize, but they have never posted those few. The rest are opinion of course, but backed up with data and examples, have you? No, just wanting me to go away becasue I disturb your comfortable view of the world and yourself. Truth is seldom an easy fit, we must adapt to it, or die. And truth is here, the economic collapse exposed their mouthpieces, that of Contempt art. There are artists who are good these days, but their purpsoe is not that of the Academic/Gallery/Museum complex, of commerce, of career, and lifestyle over humanity, god, and nature. Arts true Purpose.

ACDE! if that makes you feel better.
have a nice day!

[Charles J]

Hey Cult Monst Folk! Isn't it time you opened an on-going Frazell Forum? That way we could go at our leisure to a specific place to be constantly treated to his grunts & grumblings, rants & ramblings, and attack/support as we please, i.e., without having to wade through all the art postings. A suggested symbol: A big, constantly swinging broom, in honor of his non-stop sweeping generalizations.
Pet peeve: Anyone who tries to 'define' art. Really, now... (Is that a generalization? Hmm...)

[Donald Frazell]

All artists must define art for themselves, or they are not artists. All have, they may not force it on others, but there are always close similarities amongst those whose works survive. Start reading them, instead of noncreative academic types. Many have written, Gauguin, Klee, Kandinsky, and many been interveiwed, like Cezanne. THOSE are the teachers, not some dressed up pony. In the arts, those who can do, those who cant teach.

How is that for a generality, one easily proven by reality. The very few who have taught quit quickly, like Matisse. Klee only did theory in a school that was truly a applied arts school, not a fine arts one. The Bauhaus was NOT a fine arts school. Another is no great artist ever graduated from an art school, or took years to get the crap out of their systems. Picaso said he had to throw out everything he had been taught. I got verifiable data, what you got?

ACDE!

[BT]

Donald Frazell: In my view, the reasons so many people are fed up with your participation here are: 1. Your posts are extremely frequent and often belligerent. 2. The content of your posts is repetitive and rarely responds to the topic at hand except to use it as a springboard for your standard schtick: the art discussed here is worthless junk for spoiled rich fools, the king has no clothes, art schools must die, and so on. This has nothing--zero--to do with some discomforting truth you are revealing, as you seem to think. Assuming that you sincerely want to take part in a discussion and not simply get attention, I suggest you limit your posts to those times when you actually have a thought about the subject at hand, not just another assertion that the sky is falling (or has fallen). As to the person who suggested a seperate column, "Frazell's Fulminations," or whatever, that sounds like something you might want to try, though the LA Times isn't the place for it. But you can easily enough start your own blog, and I'll bet you'd attract some supporters and sparring partners there.

[Donald Frazell]

Already did, click on my name below. And on other blogs, some that actualy agree, well, most of the time. No ones perfect:)
I actually only do respond to something that actually deserves a comment, sorry you dont get it. I leave many alone, far too many to waste time one, except the extraordinarily good(the few)the bad(far too often), and the ugly, lord knows that is all the rage. Dorian's mirror and all that.

Save the Watts Towres,
Tear down the Ivories.

[William Wray]

Mr. None,

If the contemporary art world is inundated with figurative work, why is it so rarely reviewed here? While there is a resurgence of the figure, it’s rare to find it at the top cutting edges galleries or covered in the most contemporary magazines. Doesn’t it seem like the most commonly reviewed art here is based of found objects re- imagined, imagery collage and pattern? Start looking and tell me I’m wrong.

How about examples of figurative artists you like? All I ask is they don’t trace photos or appropriate their work.

and for the second time, what is your name?

[Naomi Treblaine]

Mr. Frazell - you tell Gabrielle to make an argument – why should she craft one when you’re just going to yell incoherently and for a long time at her? Good arguments are wasted on the belligerent. Why waste the energy or time? You’ll notice that we are spending our energy and time trying to convince the LAT to only post your comments when they are relevant to the article at hand.

Cate – if this is where you learn about art then you are receiving a bad education and your idea about how to get an education is very strange. I suggest you read a book or even several about art and history. In fact most people learn about art by looking at it and forming their own ideas, not by reading the comments section in a newspaper.

Also Cate - freedom of speech arguments makes me yawn. This isn’t a city square or a public space. It is the “Comments” section of a privately-owned newspaper. Neither you nor anyone else has a “right” to have your comments published here. One would think the LAT would use their EDITORS to edit this section for content relevant to the article about which people are commenting. That is why newspapers have editors – because a newspaper is not a free-for-all.

And that is exactly why Mr. Wray’s demanding someone’s “real” name is really beside the point. If you knew none’s name – what would you do? Would you get his address and go throw rocks at him. You’re obviously angry – I don’t blame him/her for not responding to your school-yard bullying tactics. Why don’t you discuss the facts and stop menacing people?

Mr. Frazell – why not concentrate on your blog and build there an interesting argument for your position? Surely you would have many fans. Ask yourself why you need to comment on nearly every article with the SAME nasty, rude and very angry tirades. And the LAT should ask the editor of this section why he/she has allowed the comments section to become an open forum for a bully.

[Cate]

Naomi addressed me and said: "In fact most people learn about art by looking at it and forming their own ideas"

Naomi, you must be the new kid on the block. I have read many books on a wide range of subjects, and at one point in my life I was a student of art. Recently I began to take an interest in art again. I have occasionally made comments about the articles and reviews on Culture Monster by forming my own ideas and recalling things I've learned in the past about art. Unlike you, however, I rarely comment on the people making the comments. I'd rather discuss the reviews and the art itself. I base my ideas on facts that I've learned in other subjects and on my own life experiences. If a commenter makes a suggestion or answers a question I've asked, then I will take the information I've been given and research it further.

Sometimes my opinions about art are wrong or at least a little off base, and this is usually when they are based on gut feelings and uncontrolled emotion. William Wray and Donald Frazell are both very opinionated, but they have some valid arguments. When I'm wrong, I'm willing to admit it.

If free speech arguments make you yawn, then take a nap. When you wake up, let's hear you comment on some of the art reviews. Talking about people is boring. A discussion or debate of ideas is interesting.

[BT]

Mr. Frazell: I took the time to make a sincere attempt to explain to you why you are being received with such agitation here, and your response is patronizing: "sorry you dont get it." I submit that the problem here might just be that YOU don't get it, namely how to behave appropriately and constructively in a public forum like this one.

Times personnel: While I hate to suppress anybody, I've got to join the group asking the Culture Monster editor's to consider placing some limits on a user who has persistently hijacked the comments boards as a soapbox for his own cranky views, wrapped in hostile outbursts toward anybody who expresses an interest in a topic he doesn't value. You folks can see what's gone on, for months and months. I hope we readers will at least hear from you on this issue, even if only to state your position about standards for the use and abuse of these reader comment areas.

[BT]

Mr. Wray: Appropos your question, "why is it wrong to know how to draw?" I doubt you'd find any art professional of any stripe who says drawing skills are "wrong": have you ever encountered that? What I surmise you're really asking is "why aren't traditional drawing skills more central and highly valued in the contemporary art world and art education?" (Have I got that right?) A complete answer to that one is more involved than a message board post can accommodate, but I'll offer a start: it's because the kinds of contemporary art Christopher Knight is typically drawn to write about place more value on properties like playfulness, unfamiliarity, imagination, social engagement, and social criticism than on skillful replication of the drawing or painting techniques of the past. In other words, art is understood as a broad field that explores ideas--about artistic categories, about the experience of beauty, about individual consciousness, about politics, etc.--through visual display. The question of what an artist should do, in terms of their material practice, is often among the ideas that are questioned by artists. In other words, it isn't assumed that every artist needs to draw according to the rules of linear perspective (though many still find this important), or to draw at all, or to engage in any hands-on, artisanal practice handed down across the centuries. I'm not suggesting that you have to agree with this understanding of art and the art discourse, but does that make sense?

[arely villegas]

I really want to know why DF hates Xenakis?!

Sometimes we all have to learn that time moves forward!!

P.S. Support our museums, galleries, ART COLLECTIVES, artists, art writers.... support all!!

[None]

Your wrong,
figurative - "representing forms that are recognizably derived from life."
From just the last art 10 reviews you have LaDuke, Sola, Fairey, Manis, Ebner, Schulnik, O'Marah, Heitzler. That's 80%. Now they're obviously not doing it the way you want them to but they are artists. The don't fall into your Frank Burns "individuality is fine, as long as we all do it together" school of thought.

And sorry, I don't have any recommendiations, I haven't really been into figurative work lately. I'll have to think about it.

and my name, I like Mr. None anything else would be a distraction.

[William Wray]

BT—I enjoyed you post and how you very rationally set forth some well-articulated, calm and thoughtful explanations to counter my often slightly hysterical delectations. Kudos for a beautifully conductive interpretation of the motives of the art reviews confabulated here. HOWEVER. ;-) I find most (not all) of the work reviewed and promoted in the art world today to be stuck in a shallow and repetitive cycle of clever visual arrangement that while valid (in it’s best examples) has way to much of a monotonous approach to achieve all the goals you mentioned consistently. We need variety of different art to give the accepted forms of contemporized art valid context. If we have visual art over emphasized to the point of total domination, it loses its power.
I’ll be the first to admit that there is an argument the ton of skilled art is pretty shallow, but I don’t think it’s fair to say it all automatically is. When Wayne Thiebaud is in a major local exhibition here and not reviewed by this paper, I have to wonder if it’s because of his drawing skills.

Drawing is not something that lessons the attributes you list… it can enhances them. I don’t believe Picasso would have been as good if he didn’t study the old masters. Deliberately stripping away technical skills to achieve abstraction is a far deeper commitment to art that not bothering to learn the fundamentals.
It is my belief that inherent prejudice comes out in every debate on the subject with some one inevitably declaring that all skilled artists are the same as Thomas Kinkide. I know your didn’t make that delectation, but in the contemporary art world it’s wildly espoused as gospel.

[William Wray]

Farley is derivative and all the articles are about his legal troubles that are not a review. I asked you to site a figurative that’s not appropriated. Be fair. I’d like La Duke, but he’s really using a lot of cast sculpture and photography for his figurative work. Not exactly a painter of the figure. I also like to disqualify built up forms of fish or cute animals. Maybe technically it fits the dictionary… But in a more specific sense I’m talking about painting of the human form in some kind of traditional context that shows somebody knows how to draw. The others are photography and film? PLEASE!!! Come on your being coy. The reviews here are 80% figurative? I say to you: HA! You perfectly well know that most reviews here are just like the last 4 most recent reviews. Schulman comes closest to what I’m talking about. I find her work refreshing and said so. So that’s one clear example. Hardly a majority, scarcely a movement.

[BT]

William Wray: Thank you for your acknowledgment of my post. I agree with you that a lot of the work in galleries reviewed here falls short, but I think that's the nature of new art. I don't know why you think that "inevitably" the view that "all skilled artists are the same as Thomas Kinkide" comes from those who value the kind of stuff reviewed in these pages. That isn't my experience at all. I can't think of anyone who would say that Wayne Theibaud or Lucien Freud are the same as Kincaide. I'm confident the Times' reviewers wouldn't. Somebody might be equally uninterested in all three, because none of those artists are engaged in an artistic discussion that they find compelling, I guess that's one sense of them being "the same." But anybody who is used to looking at art can see that three have different artistic goals (not to mention different levels of technical fluency). If the LA Times didn't review the Thiebaud show in Pasadena, that is a conspicuous omission--it certainly deserves coverage. However, it may be that they reviewed the same Theibaud show earlier, when it originated at the Palm Springs Museum. I haven't researched this, just a thought. If they've never reviewed it, yeah, that's a serious gaffe.

[Donald Frazell]

See you at the PDC, should be good for a laugh or two.
Have a nice day!