Midwestern - Contemporary Art Case Study

Midwestern:: Contemporary Art Case Study

BA 322, 001

October 6, 2018

Introduction

The Midwestern:: Contemporary Art (MCA) museum in Chicago is nationally known for its modern art exhibitions. Since its foundation in 1945, MCA has grown from a small showroom into a fully equipped museum. In its new space, MCA has a gift shop, bookstore, restaurant, 300 seat theater, terrace sculpture garden, and a view of Lake Michigan. MCA is the museum that it is today because of its board of trustees and museum directors. Its fast and successful growth hasn’t come without conflict; board members and museum directors have had different visions of how the museum should grow. This case analyzes how MCA lost a board member who pledged $5 million, but never followed through due to conflict with board members and the museum director. After analyzing the conflict, this case will make recommendations on how to recover the $5 million in pledge money.

Main Issues/ Problems

It is 1977 and MCA faces financial problems because former board chairman, Peter Smith, has not followed through with his $5 million pledge that would enable the museum to build their new building. This problem is a culmination of years of past conflicts between Smith and Keith Schmidt, who became the executive director of MCA in 1929.

Smith and Schmidt worked together at MCA for two years. The two butted heads over all decisions regarding the museum. Smith felt that he had the right to approve everything as chairman of the board. However, Schmidt felt that he should be able to make decisions for the museum since he was hired as the executive director. The two disagreed about art, artists, and exhibitions. However, the conflict that caused Smith to quit as chairman was because he disagreed with MCA’s plan for expansion. Smith thought that the museum should be conservative by not rushing into expansion. With years of experience in his carreer, Schmidt thought that MCA should go full force into expanding the museum.

Smith and Schmidt became increasingly frustrated with each other and started to complain to other board members. Schmidt had approached Richard Lang, council to the board, with concerns regarding his job. Schmidt said, “I have never had so much interference from the board and chairpersons…Especially Peter, seem to be downright intrusive and skeptical of my day-to-day management”. Smith approached Jennifer Lee, another board member, to explain that he was concerned with Schmidt’s financially ambitious plan to expand the museum. Moreover, Smith felt that he should approve every decision that is made since he was appointed chairman of the board. It seems that Smith’s micromanaging of Schmidt was a result of a power struggle conflict between the two. Since Schmidt was hired by the board of trustees, he is the director of the museum. From this case, it seems that Smith is overstepping by trying to be the museum director. In reality, Smith is part of the board, which overlooks and makes big decisions for the museum, such as who to hire to be the director. Smith should not have been involved with every decision that Schmidt took. In 1991, the museum’s board of trustees decided to take a vote whether to go Schmidt’s route of aggressive expansion, or Smith’s route of being conservative. This vote should put the conflict to an end. The vote resulted in the decision to go Schmidt’s route of aggressive expansion. Smith reacted to the result by disappearing from the board and art community. As chairman, Smith should have either gotten on board with expansion or announced that he was leaving and give the board time to find a new chairman. It was unprofessional for Smith to suddenly leave because he did not like the outcome of the vote.