He spoke, or rather he read
off a laptop for over an
hour. It was a careful speech
that had been edited and
partly written by his lawyer.

not acknowledge what, if any of these anecdotes
relate to my experience at the galleries in which |
have worked. Therefore if my insights cause any
discomfort to anyone, | sincerely apologize, that
is not my intention."

We all sort of laughed cynically at the beginning
but it died out over a series of realizations: 1) he
wasn't really joking, 2) he was going to keep
reading, 3) and then most importantly, he felt he
had to read this. This non-charismatic recitation
set the tone as he spent the better part of his
speech with his eyes glued to his laptop. But this
tone somehow didn't seem to fit the man using
it. Rather than being irritated, | sat there won-
dering how he would make this speech if he
weren't bound to read it verbatim out of the fear
of saying something that could be cited as
libelous. (Later he would mention several times
the Canadian adoption of the American model in
our galleries, and | thought, “That's not the only
thing we're adopting.")

During the hour-plus that he spoke, | went from
feeling duped to feeling disillusioned. Since his
resignation, Bogusky has been interviewing
gallery directors across Canada to try to illumi-
nate the problems that directors face, as well as
to try to identify some potential solutions to
those problems. He gave a small history of how
working in the gallery world has changed over
the last 25 years, and then he outlined what he
felt were the difficulties today. Not surprisingly,
he talked about the need to put some decision-
making power in the hands of the gallery direc-
tor. He described the need to clarify the roles of
the people that make a gallery work. And he dis-
cussed the relationships between those roles
expressing particular concern about "...losing
support staff and volunteers unless the situation
was addressed meaningfully." It also came as no
surprise that he spent a lot of attention focussed
on the function of a board. In outlining what he
saw as the problems the board needed to con-
front, he said,

"It is my observation that many, upon entering
the boardroom of a museum, seem to lose those

analytical abilities that must surely characterize
their work in the corporate or for-profit ‘real’
world when they enter what to them might con-
sider to be the ‘unreal’ realm of the arts. It seems
that the subjectivity of the enterprise can some-
times overshadow the objectivity that they bring,
which is sorely needed...Then of course, there's
the opposite problem, of those who insist that it
must run like a business."

He also gently criticized the board's dedication
saying, "...for board members, while there are
exceptions, things at the gallery are not a matter
of daily interest and involvement." But his
strongest critique came in an innocuous little sta-
tistic; Board fund-raising accounted for only 2%
of the VAG's budget in 1999. It's a funny thing
about a statistic, it's like an atom bomb — there's
a tremendous discrepancy between the size of its
package and the size of its bang. | suddenly
found myself asking the question "How come a

Board fund-raising
accounted Tor -only
2% OFfe-the VAGS
budget in 1999

body that only brings 2% of the money to the
table can wield so much power?" And then
another statistic | had heard earlier came to mind,
"The VAG has had 14 directors in 65 years, 4 of
them in the last 10." And again | said to myself
"How come a body that only brings 2% of the
money to the table can wield so much power?"
But no voice in my head answered the question.

There were other statistics he shared with us that
night:

- 25 years ago galleries were 87% funded from
tax-based government support, over 50% of
which came from federal sources.

- Today, federal government support accounts for
6.3% of the total VAG budget, or $150,000,

—@

NZ
He spoke, or rather he read
off a laptop for over an
hour. It was a careful speech
that had been edited and
partly written by his lawyer.

not acknowledge what, if any of these anecdotes
relate to my experience at the galleries in which |
have worked. Therefore if my insights cause any
discomfort to anyone, | sincerely apologize, that
is not my intention.”

We all sort of laughed cynically at the beginning
but it died out over a series of realizations: 1) he
wasn't really joking, 2) he was going to keep
reading, 3) and then most importantly, he felt he
had to read this. This non-charismatic recitation
set the tone as he spent the better part of his
speech with his eyes glued to his laptop. But this
tone somehow didn’t seem to fit the man using
it. Rather than being irritated, | sat there won-
dering how he would make this speech if he
weren't bound to read it verbatim out of the fear
of saying something that could be cited as
libelous. (Later he would mention several times
the Canadian adoption of the American model in
our galleries, and | thought, “That's not the only
thing we're adopting.”)

During the hour-plus that he spoke, | went from
feeling duped to feeling disillusioned. Since his
resignation, Bogusky has been interviewing
gallery directors across Canada to try to illumi-
nate the problems that directors face, as well as
to try to identify some potential solutions to
those problems. He gave a small history of how
working in the gallery world has changed over
the last 25 years, and then he outlined what he
felt were the difficulties today. Not surprisingly,
he talked about the need to put some decision-
making power in the hands of the gallery direc-
tor. He described the need to clarify the roles of
the people that make a gallery work. And he dis:
cussed the relationships between those roles
expressing particular concern about “...losing
support staff and volunteers unless the situation
was addressed meaningfully." It also came as no
surprise that he spent a lot of attention focussed
‘on the function of a board. In outlining what he
saw as the problems the board needed to con-
front, he said,

“It is my observation that many, upon entering
the boardroom of a museum, seem to lose those

analytical abilities that must surely characterize
their work in the corporate or for-profit ‘real’
world when they enter what to them might con-
sider to be the ‘unreal’ realm of the arts. It seems
that the subjectivity of the enterprise can some-
times overshadow the objectivity that they bring,
which is sorely needed...Then of course, there’s
the opposite problem, of those who insist that it
must run like a business."

He also gently criticized the board's dedication
saying, ‘...for board members, while there are
exceptions, things at the gallery are not a matter
of daily interest and involvement." But his
strongest critique came in an innocuous little sta-
tistic; Board fund-raising accounted for only 2%
of the VAG's budget in 1999. It’s a funny thing
about a statistic, it’s like an atom bomb ~ there's
a tremendous discrepancy between the size of its
package and the size of its bang. | suddenly
found myself asking the question "How come a

Board fund-raising
accounted for only
2% —o1e=-the  VAGs
budget in 1999

body that only brings 2% of the money to the
table can wield so much power?" And then
another statistic | had heard earlier came to mind,
"The VAG has had 14 directors in 65 years, 4 of
them in the last 10." And again | said to myself
“How come a body that only brings 2% of the
money to the table can wield so much power?"
But no voice in my head answered the question

There were other statistics he shared with us that
night:

- 25 years ago galleries were 87% funded from
tax-based government support, over 50% of
which came from federal sources.

- Today, federal government support accounts for
6.3% of the total VAG budget, or $150,000,