Collecting Art Is Easy. Running a Museum, Not So Much.

At some point this fall, a new art exhibition space devoted to contemporary Native American art will open in Katonah, New York, with the name of the place yet to be determined. “We’re in brainstorming mode,” Laura Phipps, the recently named director of the as-yet-unnamed space, told Observer. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this art space—beyond the fact that there will be no admissions, café, gift shop or other typical revenue producers—is that the entire 750-piece collection of paintings, drawings, sculpture, prints, installation, film, textiles and wearable art comes from a single collection: the Gochman Family Collection. The Gochmans join Albert Barnes, Henry Clay Frick, Eli Broad, Peter Brant, Norton Simon, Christian Levett, Henry Walters, Raymond Nasher, David and Carmen Kreeger, Sterling and Francine Clark, Emily and Mitch Rales and quite a few others who chose to erect their own museums to display their collections rather than donate the works to an existing institution.

The Gochmans could have followed the example of New York Historical board of trustees chair Agnes Hsu-Tang and her husband Oscar Tang, who donated 150 works of contemporary Native American art to that museum. Donations solve a problem for aging collectors whose children may not want what their parents collected and do not want to pay a substantial inheritance tax; selling everything generates a capital gains tax that may reach 40 percent. (Donating works to eligible nonprofits also allows collectors to deduct a substantial portion of their value from their taxable income and estate, keeping many accountants and museum officials busy around this time of year.) But the family decided to keep their collection together, refusing to let museum curators pick and choose what they wanted or thought important to display, leaving other objects—perhaps most—to languish in storage. Their vision and support of contemporary Native American artists proved more important than dollars and cents. That said, the Gochman Family Collection space will not be a museum, although, according to Phipps, it will have “exhibitions, as well as programming like readings, performances, concerts, workshops, sort of a wide gamut of different types of programming.” And like a museum, it has a mission, which is to generate “visibility for the artists in the collection.” The galleries will also serve as a sort of showroom. “We work really hard to make the collection quite accessible for lending and easy for institutions and other spaces to borrow.”

Many other art collectors have taken this path, not all of them successful. Chicago businessman and President Reagan’s ambassador-at-large for cultural affairs, Daniel Terra (1911-96) created a museum—actually two museums, one in Chicago and the other outside of Paris—to showcase his 750-work collection of Hudson River Valley and American Impressionist painting. Both closed, the result of a failure to achieve financial viability. The Terra Foundation for American Art then donated the bulk of its collection to the Art Institute of Chicago and shifted its focus to grantmaking. Donald and Shelley Rubin, collectors of Himalayan art, opened a museum to display their 1,000-plus objects in the Manhattan building that had been the department store Barneys, but 20 years later, they shut down the venture due to budgetary shortfalls. The Rubin Museum of Art now operates as a “museum without walls,” lending objects to institutions that seek to display and research Himalayan art.

Another cautionary tale is the Hammer Museum, opened in 1990 by Occidental Petroleum Corporation chairman Armand Hammer (1898-1990) three weeks before he died. His large collection of Old Master and 19th-century European paintings and drawings was acclaimed, but by 1992, those in charge of the museum negotiated with the University of California, Los Angeles, to take over the whole thing. Running a museum cannot be just a vanity project for someone with money and ego.

Having your name on the door of a museum is one thing; keeping the place open and financially sustainable is quite another. The Barnes Foundation was established by Dr. Albert Barnes (1872-1951), who set up his collection of 2,500 works of Impressionist, Post-Impressionist and Modern art in a museum in the town of Merion, Pennsylvania, and required strict adherence to his often unwelcoming rules. The museum was available to visitors by invitation only, open just two days per week. Prospective visitors needed to apply for permission to come, swearing to certain art theories held by Barnes. In the 1960s, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office prodded the Barnes, as a tax-exempt educational institution, to be more accessible to the public, but entry was still quite limited—100 visitors per day. As a business model, it hardly looked promising.

By 2002, the Barnes’ board, facing a rapidly declining endowment, petitioned the courts to amend the institution’s charter to permit a move to Philadelphia, where several foundations and philanthropists had pledged $150 million to erect a new building and endow the transplanted institution. That new building opened to the public in May 2012, without those restrictions, and could not have been further from the wishes of Dr. Barnes, who wanted nothing to do with Philadelphia society—but continuing the course Barnes had originally set was no longer possible. Today, there is a lot of engaging programming at the Barnes, including a monthly First Friday evening program featuring music and access to the collection, a film series, a lecture series and classes and workshops. Highlighting Barnes’ commitment to racial equality and social justice, exhibitions and films celebrate artists who are Black, indigenous, people of color and women, many of whom were “overlooked during Dr. Barnes’s time,” said a spokeswoman.

The experience of these single-collector museums has taught other wealthy collectors to plan ahead and perhaps be a bit more humble. In 1955, 68-year-old socialite and philanthropist Marjorie Merriweather Post (1887-1973) bought a 36-room Georgian-style mansion on a 25-acre estate in the northwest section of Washington, D.C. to showcase her collections of Russian Imperial art, Sèvres porcelains, vases and chalices, as well as English and French paintings, sculptures and tapestries. Her initial plan was to donate her entire collection to the Smithsonian Institution, and the Smithsonian did hold onto the collection for four years, but in 1977, the estate reclaimed everything and set up her house and grounds as a museum. “Making Hillwood into a museum was Plan B,” said Kate Markert, executive director of Hillwood Estate, Museum & Gardens, and that required a complete rethinking of what should take place there and how it should be supported.

Post left a $10 million endowment that covered the operating budget of Hillwood into the 1990s, but at some point, interest on the endowment could no longer keep pace with the costs of maintaining the building and grounds. The museum began fundraising, seeking memberships, holding special events, charging admissions and producing exhibitions that not only displayed objects Post had collected but also others borrowed from institutions elsewhere. Most importantly, Hillwood dropped its admissions policy that had limited the number of visitors—110 in the morning, 110 in the afternoon—who were required to make prior reservations, in the style of the Barnes Foundation. This new business model helped it earn more money and more repeat visitors.

More in Museums

• Rotterdam’s Reopened Photography Museum Celebrates the Medium’s Material Nature

• Inside the Complex (and Pricey) Business of Museum Rebranding

• Between MoAD and SFMOMA, Cornelia Stokes Charts a Unique Curatorial Path

• JD.com Bets on Art With an Ambitious New Museum in Shenzhen

• A Museum Lover’s Guide to Toyama Glass Art Museum