Au Revoir, Chevalier Gordon

Was being knighted by the French government one of your career highlights? It was very nice, but when I told Norman Rosenthal, my previous colleague at the Royal Academy, he said, “Umm, well, after chevalier there’s another rank, and then there’s another rank called commandeur—and I am a commandeur.”

So he put me in my place!

Where will you go from here? I’m starting a new career as an adviser to foundations, art museums and arts organizations, giving them some sort of high-level view of the direction of their institution. Is it going in a sensible direction? Does it make sense from a mission point of view? Does it tie up with the finances? Does it tie up with the resources available and the external environment? And if that sense of direction is sensible, is it actually shared by director, staff and trustees? So it’s sort of consultancy that looks at strategy, planning, vision, governance, financial equilibrium— pretty much a bird’s-eye view.

Do your experiences reveal a need for this kind of holistic view? Absolutely. It’s quite clear that not-for-profits are much more difficult to run than for-profits. In a for-profit you have a single goal of measurable bottom line. In an arts org you have a variety of objectives that are sometimes in conflict with each other. You have a variety of stakeholders who are likely to be in conflict with each other. You have a professional staff and a governing body of well-meaning amateurs who may be professional in their own lives, but when it comes to governing a museum or hospital or theater, that’s not their area of expertise.

So you have an inherent instability that requires great effort and training to overcome.

Did working in Milwaukee pose teething problems? Yes. Those teething problems still continue. I like Milwaukee a lot and we’ve decided to settle here. It’s a great city to live in, but it has those classic Midwest virtues: being moderate in all things, doesn’t like boats being rocked, doesn’t like confrontation, rather happy with the status quo, finding change somewhat difficult; and I’m basically a change-maker, so yes I’ve had lots of frustrations. I think a lot of people in Milwaukee have found me refreshing and some have found me deeply irritating, because I’m like a terrier—if I get hold of something, I shake it. And the local customs are you don’t do that—you put up and shut up.

Was London the same? I think you find the same everywhere. Perhaps not in Chicago and New York—these are cities known for good knockabout stuff, where people are very direct and they don’t mind a bruising confrontation because the end result is going to be better than by not dealing with truths.

Is the art-going public different here compared to London? Yes. Oh yes. We’ve got the Gilbert and George exhibit coming up. Their work is currently in the Tate in London and some paintings are very large and they use rude words that are accepted in great metropolitan museums. In America in general you have to be more careful.

It’s a much more prudish country.

What more would you have done during your tenure, given the opportunity? I would have done rather more in making it a place for debate on issues that are not necessarily to do with art—architectural issues, town planning issues, racial issues. It’s a difficult thing to pull off with an art museum.

Words of advice to your successor?Enjoy it.

What should your successor avoid at all costs? Playing it safe. The museum has to be a little bit dangerous—a little bit irreverent. If you say “museum” to most people, it conjures up negative connotations. An art museum should be a place of life and excitement and a bit of danger and controversy.