Photo By Jymi Bolden

The Cincinnati Art Museum was enhanced significantly under Timothy Rub's direction with the creation of the Cincinnati Wing, which opened in 2003.

I am an unabashed lover of art museums. For me, they are magical places where the visitor is offered the dueling experiences of total escape and heightened awareness. All of us are invited to leave our own worlds behind and to enter that of other cultures and other times. If we look closely, we discover ourselves while also getting to know others through the insights provided by diverse cultural and historical perspectives.

All this happens through the magic of beautiful objects displayed for our visual enjoyment. Museums are by definition repositories for art objects. The history of world culture is contained in these objects, and it is the responsibility of all museums to preserve, exhibit and interpret them for generations to come.

But museums no longer have the luxury of this directed focus. Since the 1980s, art museums have expanded exhibition and education programs. As the public has responded to this outreach, crowds have swelled and the notion of the museum as a gathering place for more than viewing art has taken hold. Museums have become destination locations, requiring expanded visitor amenities and activities that take place alongside the primary art viewing experience.

New buildings are being created in cities across the country, including Cincinnati, and museum architecture has become a public draw in and of itself. With this has come lots of talk about museums being the economic engines of community revitalization and the symbols of a city's health, wealth and sophistication.

Within just a few decades many museum board members and civic promoters with good intentions have become so wrapped up in the potential for arts and culture as an economic tool and so absorbed in the magic bullet provided by so-called signature architects that many museums have lost sight of their original missions. Some in the art profession have gone so far as to state that museums in the United States are in crisis, for as they grow to meet the demands of the public and the high expectations of donors and community leaders, they have been corrupted.

Today's museums are challenged to collect responsively, mount special exhibitions based on scholarship, develop new audiences through outreach and education, hire and nurture professional staff, and -- first and foremost -- maintain an environment where the visitor can meditate upon works of art. This is true for museums everywhere, and thus it is true for Cincinnati.

In early December, Philip Long, the director of the Taft Museum of Art announced his retirement after a highly praised 12-year term during which time the Taft underwent an extensive renovation and expansion. Long will remain as director until his replacement is hired; he will most likely stay closely tied to the Taft.

This announcement had been expected, as Long had spoken openly about his intention to serve for a decade and step down once the goals of the strategic planning process that he lead were achieved. When Long took over as director, the Taft's annual operating budget was $1 million. For 2006, that budget is now $3.4 million, supporting a staff of 25.

On Jan. 6, Timothy Rub announced that after six years he was resigning in April as director of the Cincinnati Art Museum (CAM) to become Director of the Cleveland Museum of Art.

While Rub might have shared the fact that he was negotiating with Cleveland with a few insiders, his resignation on that particular day, just a few weeks before CAM's board was scheduled to endorse the first steps of his ambitious museum overhaul, came as a surprise to many. When Rub arrived the CAM budget was $9.4 million. He leaves with it at $10.4 million and a staff of 100.

This is a crucial moment for our city's two art museums. The impact of this simultaneous change in leadership cannot be overestimated. In fact, some of the spin to downplay the significance of this moment is unfortunate. Comments suggesting that the hard work of improving the Taft is over, or that CAM is ready to move forward with the master plan without missing a beat despite the departure of the plan's architect and champion, are counter-productive. Individuals making these pronouncements underestimate the enormity of the tasks ahead.

Both the Taft and CAM are stronger institutions now than when they last searched for new directors. They both should be able to attract strong candidates. This is good news. It is also essential. Both institutions require a multi-talented and dynamic individual with strong leadership skills.

As this story was being written, the Taft and CAM are forming search committees and considering hiring search firms. (I hope the institutions' board presidents talk about working with the same firm.)

Who sits on the search committees is extremely important. Selection should not be based on a person representing a constituency: a few board members, a donor or two, a leading corporate executive, a staff member, a local political official and so on. Instead, involvement in the search should be based on in-depth understanding of the institution's recent history and current needs. At least a few committee members must have some knowledge of the museum world outside of Cincinnati and a true love and appreciation of art.

Many museums enter a decline after the initial excitement fades following renovation and expansion. Fortunately, this is not the case at the Taft, but it could be if the right person is not appointed. The galleries at the Taft have never looked better. There is expanded special exhibition space, rooms for public programs and adequate administrative office space to handle additional staff. The Taft needs a leader who is ready for a challenge and for action, and is not lulled into believing that he or she can move at a leisurely pace because the prior director, who's not leaving town, has left the Taft in a strong position.

The Taft's new director needs to start the process of creating and then executing a new 10-year plan. This should set forth a comprehensive program that maximizes the potential offered by Long's accomplishments. This plan must make the case for additional curatorial staff or a regular stream of significant guest curators, enabling the Taft to originate stellar small exhibitions that will keep the public coming back time and again. Such programming can elevate the Taft's regional and national profile.

In addition, the Taft has to continue to focus on audience development in a push to widen its reach. Despite the excellent media attention this gem of a "house museum" received for its renovation and expansion, the Taft is still undervalued. This has to change. New leadership will bring a fresh approach to these challenges.

CAM is in much better shape on a variety of levels now than it was when Rub took over. He can list many accomplishments, including renovated and reorganized permanent exhibition spaces and improved staff morale. Rub's major achievement has been creating a greater sense of ambition for the museum itself and for getting its board to endorse the premise of a major expansion based on a professional facilities analysis. This is significant, but nonetheless it's just the first step in a long process. Many more decisions have yet to be made to determine CAM's future course.

CAM's leaders can talk about how a plan is in place, simply requiring a new director to execute it. But that's simply not the case. If Rub had stayed, CAM was not going to bulldoze the empty Art Academy building tomorrow. Rather, they were going to begin a 20-year program that will be carried out in stages, in tandem with major fund-raising. The shape of this process and what scale it will take will be based on the thinking, ambition and skills of CAM's new director.

In addition to the dealing with how to move forward with the master plan, the other pressing challenge that CAM faces is the limitation of a too-small annual operating budget. Rub would have had to deal with this sooner rather than later if he had stayed, and it will hit the new director the day she or he arrives.

For years it's been recognized that CAM's annual income is not enough to sustain a museum of its size. Increased annual funding is required for additional staff and programs. To mount a top-notch exhibition program, CAM is in dire need of an infusion of curatorial expertise. And to create the management team required to move the long-range plan forward, CAM will need a variety of experienced management personnel.

Photo By Cameron Knight

Under Philip Long's direction the Taft Museum of Art underwent extensive renovation and expansion, including a new gallery for temporary exhibitions.

Rub made the first move in this direction in October 2006 when he created the position of Deputy Director for Institu-tional Advancement and filled it with a seasoned professional. More hires would certainly have been forthcoming. If the community is to see results in the next three to five years, it will now be the role of the new director to find the funding to cover costs related to these positions and to fill them as quickly as possible.

I have lived in Cincinnati for 14 years; I served as CAM's first curator of contemporary art from 1991 to 1997. When I arrived, the museum was in the process of renovating its second floor. I looked forward to a period of revitalization which began but stalled until Rub took over. He was a man with a vision, but he leaves CAM with a plan that is merely an unfunded dream.

Now Rub must be succeeded by a strong and sensible leader who has the ability to fill in the details. The CAM's new director will have to get behind a realistic fund-raising goal and hire and lead the staff who will see not only that the building plan is realized, but most importantly, that the art it showcases remains the institution's primary focus. This is an enormous challenge, but surely a gratifying one for a museum professional who has the insight to recognize a great opportunity when he or she sees it. ©

The Mission of the Taft Museum of Art is to preserve, exhibit and interpret its unique collections and historic house in a way that exemplifies artistic, intellectual and professional standards of the highest quality; fosters the pleasure and understanding of art; embraces diverse audiences; maximizes its human, financial and physical resources; and enhances the cultural, educational and economic climates of our city and region.

The Mission of the Cincinnati Art Museum: We will actively engage a diverse and growing audience with great art for their enrichment and enjoyment. We will collect, preserve, study, and exhibit art in accordance with the highest professional standards. We will operate in a fiscally responsible manner.