Guggenheim museum decides money isn't everything and sends billionaire pac

Independent
By David Usborne in New York
22 January 2005


A long-simmering conflict between the director of a leading museum and its most generous benefactor - who also happened to be its chairman - came to a head in New York this week. But when the dust settled and the gladiators disengaged, something unexpected had happened: the rich guy had lost.

The battleground was the Solomon R Guggenheim Museum in Manhattan, which, like most other arts institutions in America, depends on the generosity of philanthropists. So it seemed certain that when Peter B Lewis, a trustee since 1993, decided to lay down the law on the institution's direction he would get his way.

Mr Lewis, who runs a car insurance company in Ohio, had been arguing for some time that the Guggenheim's director, Thomas Krens, was erring by striving to build satellite facilities in countries all around the world. He wanted him to focus more on its New York home.

Normally, Mr Lewis should have held all the cards. Over the years, he has given $77m (£41m) to the Guggenheim - four times as much as any trustee in history. That largesse included a donation of $15m just last year to renovate the spiralling rotunda of the museum's beehive-like base on Manhattan's Fifth Avenue, opened in 1959 and designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=603452

i'm a big fan of the guggenheim -- and mostly agree with what it's done.
i love the statellites -- they done a lot to promote the modern history of art.
it should be the directors and curators who determine a museums direction -- the benefactors should remind themselves that the importance of their role is that of ensuring longevity.

Therefore accepting the money would have lost money for the museum. Ergo, the rich guy might have won had he had more money to give. Money still won that fight.