Sydney media are abuzz with stories about the lavish taxpayer-funded expenses bill run up by Art Gallery of New South Wales director Dr Michael Brand.
First Daily Telegraph reporter Christopher Harris dug up the statements of Brand’s public-purse credit card, which listed several restaurant bills of more than $1,000, payments to his local bottle shop of up to $718 a time, and a taxi fare of $420. Then 2GB’s Ben Fordham weighed in, and got NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet on his program to say such behaviour was “completely out of touch”, “has no place in government and… has to stop”. By now the story was running hot across the country in Murdoch-syndicated news outlets. Andrew Hornery of the Sydney Morning Herald also led his “Private Sydney” column with the story, referring to the “seismic shift in culture” that took place when Brand replaced the late Edmund Capon as director in 2012, following the latter’s retirement after 33 years in the job.
The question arts insiders are asking is: Why now? Of course, such extraordinary use of public funds is offensive at a time when the vast majority of the population face rapidly escalating cost-of-living pressures. The expenses come on top of the director’s salary, listed in the most recent annual report as $487,002. But rumours about Dr Brand’s expenses – including his travel costs, yet to be disclosed – have been circulating for years. Freedom of Information requests prior to the Daily Telegraph’s – including from the Sydney Morning Herald – had revealed nothing. Meanwhile careful book-keeping, listing expenses under headings such as “fund-raising for Sydney Modern”, kept them from the probing eyes of the Auditor-General, who signed off on the accounts with a disclaimer concerning both the effectiveness of oversight by the Trust and the assumptions in formulating budget figures. The story has now broken just six months before the opening of the Gallery’s grandiose Sydney Modern extension, scheduled for 3 December (aerial view above).
Background to the scandal
Could it be that the penny has finally dropped, in high places, that there are serious problems with the sustainability of the new glass-walled palace on the Harbour – supposedly Dr Brand’s crowning achievement? Ever since the Board of Trustees announced its intentions in 2013, Sydney Modern has been the subject of controversy, with the Trust accused of delusions of grandeur.
First came the issue of funding the construction. It took some time, and the best efforts of David Gonski, returning as President of the Board of Trustees in 2016, to get the NSW Government to commit to $344 million of the anticipated $450 million cost; it came with the proviso that the remainder should be raised by the Gallery. That has taken nine years, and considerable expenditure, including millions on “consultants”. As Sydney Morning Herald art critic John McDonald wrote in his weekly newsletter, that “looks a bit pathetic when one considers that in April, the National Gallery of Victoria received a single donation of $100 million from transport magnate, Lindsay Fox”, ascribing the NGV’s relative success to its high attendance and quality shows.
Next came the furore over the design by Japanese architects SANAA. When the development application was lodged in November 2017, objections were lodged by 170 individuals and 17 organisations, among them distinguished architects, arts professionals and heritage experts. They were all ignored.
There remains the issue of recurrent funding for the Gallery. In 2020-2021 it stood at $33 million (the NGV had $51.4 million from the Victorian Government in the same year). No plans have been released for increasing funding to meet the huge running costs of the new building. The air-conditioning alone, in Sydney’s climate, will cost a fortune. Then there’s the doubling of the workload for curators, conservationists, installation crews and cleaners.
Delusions of grandeur
The business case for Sydney Modern remains a secret, deemed to be covered by “in-Cabinet confidentiality” at a time when Gladys Berejiklian was Premier and Don Harwin – now pensioned off, with a plum job on the board of the Australia Council – was Arts Minister. It’s widely believed, however, that the projections were for two million visitors a year; any failure to reach that number will now be attributed to Covid and the world economic crisis. But the high numbers were always going to be a big ask, when bricks and mortar were prioritised over curatorship, innovative exhibitions and care of the collection. There will be a rush of visitors when the new building opens, but ongoing audience figures were exaggerated and will depend on the quality of what’s on offer.
Premier Perrottet was never a fan of former Minister Harwin’s ambitions to be Sydney’s arts Tsar. They were from different factions of the Liberal Party – Perrottet a right-centrist, Harwin a “wet”. Now, with a looming black hole in his budget and pressing demands from all sectors, the Premier may be thinking twice about bumping up recurrent funding for arts institutions.
If there is no major funding increase announced in the budget handed down on 21 June, the Gallery will be left with the prospect of a white elephant on the Harbour – not so much a great cultural centre for the people, as a venue where corporate bosses and Government ministers can rub shoulders, drink champagne and admire the view. In that case Dr Brand could be the fall guy for the failure of the grand project.
In 2017 I wrote in my book Culture Heist: “Public museums and galleries are not the property of those entrusted with their care. They do not belong to the directors and executives who manage them, nor to the boards who oversee them, nor to the governments responsible for their care. They belong to the people – and not only to existing audiences, but to the multitudes who have yet to claim their right to experience the transformative power of art and culture.”
To restore that mission requires not only a funding increase and a change of leadership, but a complete review of arts policy, funding priorities and the role of arts boards.
CULTURE HEIST – CLICK HERE FOR THE BOOK THAT GIVES THE BACKGROUND
Sources for this article include:
Christopher Harris, “Art Gallery boss spent thousands wining and dining at Sydney’s best restaurants” Daily Telegraph 7 June 2022
Ben Fordham, “NSW Premier blasts ‘completely out of touch’ Art Gallery boss” 2GB, 10 June 2022
Andrew Hornery, “After having the cake, critics dine out on gallery director’s restaurant bill”, Sydney Morning Herald 11 June 2022
John McDonald, Newsletter 443, 13 June 2022
Art Gallery of New South Wales Annual Report, 2020-2021
National Gallery of Victoria Annual Report, 2020-2021
Great article Judith. It does seem unique to have all that glass in SMP What about light damage on paintings?
Good point, Marie!
How can paintings be hung on glass walls in the first place? Sydney Modern was always going to be a function centre is my humble opinion.
Quite right, Brian!
Paul Keating had it right the first time when he predicted the Sydney Modern would end up as a glitzy (and lucrative) function centre*. Many experts pointed out design issues – like the acres of glass – which would affect its capacity for displaying delicate and vulnerable artworks. But perhaps it was never intended primarily for display purposes.
Was there really a need for second gallery on the Domain site? It has meant the loss of a massive chunk of public space and an indelible impact on the outlook from the existing Gallery and across Woolloomooloo Bay from Potts Point.
Other sites were suggested, for example Barangaroo, to house perhaps a great First Nations Gallery designed to attract returning visitors as well as locals. But no, the structure had to adjoin the existing classicist building, with minimal regard for harmonious visual connection or public amenity.
*Keating took a more benign view of the building after a ‘briefing’ by fundraiser-in-chief David Gonski.
Your criticisms have been consistently to the point all along, Gil. And that’s a good point about how Keating’s view was modified.
Lovely piece Judith. Pity about the waste.
Yes, think what $450 million could have done for the visual arts if better spent.
Judith- this is illuminating.
Thank you.
I acknowledge that raising money from the dulcet Silvertails and cultural illuminati
does require meeting, greeting and hosting prospective philanthropic donors.
I have done my fair share in the past.
Sometimes just hanging on as one carried out the necessary glad-handing.
The master at such things was Fred Millar- a total, dedicated, unsung hero- and some of the MAAS Trustees.
I sang for my supper.
They were spectacularly effective, thank goodness.
And philanthropic donations are essential to any museum and gallery operation or project.
Some questions are: what for (pro bono publico?), how much and what are the criteria and conditions attached?
With that said, in Toronto and London,
I often provided the wines from my collection for dinners and fund raisers.
In Sydney we were exceptionally fortunate to be sponsored in kind by a wonderful, traditional vintner at the opening events of the Powerhouse Museum.
Here the issue, rather, is the amount of such expenses and the resulting benefactions.
Cost, benefit?
The Lindsay Fox donation stupendously moves Australia’s goal posts in this department.
Closer to those in the USA, Canada and UK.
How does AGNSW compare?
Thus the issue is effectiveness and, on that, I can make no comment since I do not know the facts.
The claims of ‘5 star sustainability’ for new museum or arts projects usually do not take into account the carbon load/lifecycle of the building’s lifetime including construction.
Or ongoing Government subsidy.
Consolidated Revenue is critical.
Glass, concrete and steel modernist arts carbuncles need massive fiscal, commercial and energy inputs.
Where is Government’s published estimates of these matters for the AGNSW expansion?
The same goes for the so-called ‘museum’, aka the ‘Parramatta Powerhouse’.
What will happen both fiscally and in terms of Consolidated Revenue/commercialisation with that carbuncle?
And carbon load/lifecycle for both?
Government Consolidated Revenue uplifts in each case?
Don’t bother to look on line- it’s all ‘Cabinet in Confidence’.
This Government has spent capital like a drunken sailor.
The Powerhouse Museum project was initially costed at less than $200 million (thank you, various consultants and ‘advisers’)
This Baird thought-bubble is heading north of $1.6 billion now- $2 billion, anyone?
The so-called ‘Business Cases’ are hallucinatory- as far as one can tell- and speak to a major issue- the complete commercialisation of ‘culture’.
I wonder how Dom Perignon feels about all this in private?
Over a forty-five year career, with larger projects planned and delivered, I have never seen such flimsy evidential ‘reasoning’.
If the projects stack up…….why the ridiculous secrecy?
Let’s wait and see how much all this will cost the taxpayers of NSW.
And how many ‘white elephants’ are created by this Government?
Meanwhile, our newish Arts Minister appears to have been muzzled and local and regional museums go unfunded or desperately underfunded, despite the propaganda belted out by previous Ministerial communicati.
Of whom Mr Goebbels would have been proud.
If Labor wins the next election maybe time for some evidence-based reviews?
As for NSW Treasury…..and previous responsible administrations ….?
If we had tried to blandish Gerry Gleeson with such fiscal and financial drivel
we would have been marching out the door within the hour
Very important questions raised in this comment. And what a contrast in fund-raising practices!
Dr Brand is a disappointment – “blockbuster” shows weren’t at all (Andy W, Matisse for eg) and certainly nothing in comparison with say, the astonishing Escher exhibit at NGV a few years back. NGV has a pulse, there is excitement in the way things are put together and a cutting edge feel to the curation. Brand comes across as aloof and distracted – the polar opposite of his predecessor. I think the expansion is a colossal waste of money and will ruin an albeit under used area – wasn’t it nice to have a big lazy open space covered in grass. Glad I got to enjoy it.
If only the NSW Government could explain why it is building a second contemporary art gallery in the city centre, when the option of building Sydney Modern at Parramatta was never considered. Let alone the concept of giving the people of Parramatta a say. I know, the Gallery said their donors wouldn’t like it. There were other location options and themes for a new public gallery that should have been independently investigated. But this Government doesn’t do cultural policy. It would rather spend our taxes accommodating the preferences of a handful of donors and influencers, concreting the once lovely topography of the RBG and Domain. The money spent by the AGNSW director wining and dining donors is nothing compared to the opportunity cost of this cultural infrastructure fiasco, and the recurrent costs for NSW taxpayers paying for an impractical function centre masquerading as a gallery that despoils the gateway to the Royal Botanic Gardens.
Kylie, you always put these matters into perspective – yes, it’s the opportunity cost and the cost to the people of NSW that make this such a disaster.
Yes, probably destined to be a glass elephant. Sad that Australia hasn’t caught up with the norm of arts philanthropy in the northern hemisphere. Simon Mordant did his bit with the MCA, and Ros Packer has been generous with her time and money. Perhaps she could persuade son James to direct a few million dollars annually towards maintenance and upkeep of Sydney Modern once the sale of his Crown holdings is finalised. Now THAT would be a proper gift to the people of Sydney.
Instead of these never ending constructed perfumed edifices for politicians to party – where’s the funding for the artists on the street.? There seems to be ship loads of monies for these yet we are starved. If the supply side never gets a look in what will these coliseums end up hanging on there walls? Legacy shows uninterrupted from overseas while the locals missed out…again and again. It’s all show and no go for the artists who have been thrown to the four winds. It’s arse about. It’s beyond frustrating. I sent them this. No response of course. If public galleries are to continue to get these massive funds then they must give back and support the artists on the street. We have no chance to practice inside this property boom. We are dying out here.! https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/article/richard-e-grant-at-the-summer