Metropolitan Museum of Art President Daniel Weiss Opens Up About His Plans to Save the Museum
In June of this year, Daniel H. Weiss, 60, was appointed president and chief executive officer of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In this role he is charged with leading the museum and guiding the search for a director to report to him, an about-face from the Met’s previous hierarchy, which had the president-COO reporting to the director. This makes Weiss a rare example of someone from the business side of the museum world to be tasked with such leadership.
Recently he sat down with Town & Country for an exclusive, wide-ranging interview to discuss the state of the Met, the troubles it has encountered, and his vision for the institution going forward.
The Met has been described as a great institution in decline. How do you respond to that?
I don’t believe that the Met is in decline. If one looks at any measure of institutional performance, we are thriving. Our exhibition program is award-winning, our visitor numbers have never been better, and we have, for the second year, been named the best art museum in the world. We faced a financial challenge, but we faced it head-on and publicly, because we think that’s the most productive, responsible manner. In some ways, the Met has never been stronger.
Is that how you’d describe the current state of the museum?
We have work to do, but it’s doable. A lot of what we do isn’t obvious to the public, but it’s what makes the Met a world class institution.
What kinds of things do you mean?
When people come into the building they see beautiful works of art, but they don’t see that we have arguably the largest conservation facility in the world, or a scholarly publication program that is commensurate with a world class university press. If you count all the special events we do here, there are more than 30,000 a year. When people walk through our door, they see a fraction of that, but for us to sustain it all requires investment.
The Met has been described as a great institution in decline. How do you respond to that?
I don’t believe that the Met is in decline. If one looks at any measure of institutional performance, we are thriving. Our exhibition program is award-winning, our visitor numbers have never been better, and we have, for the second year, been named the best art museum in the world. We faced a financial challenge, but we faced it head-on and publicly, because we think that’s the most productive, responsible manner. In some ways, the Met has never been stronger.
Is that how you’d describe the current state of the museum?
We have work to do, but it’s doable. A lot of what we do isn’t obvious to the public, but it’s what makes the Met a world class institution.
What kinds of things do you mean?
When people come into the building they see beautiful works of art, but they don’t see that we have arguably the largest conservation facility in the world, or a scholarly publication program that is commensurate with a world class university press. If you count all the special events we do here, there are more than 30,000 a year. When people walk through our door, they see a fraction of that, but for us to sustain it all requires investment.
Before coming to the Met, you were president of Haverford College. How did academia prepare you for this position?
My background taught me about how you do high-level leadership at an organization committed to an educational mission. That said, it’s a different ballgame when you get to the Met. There’s no institution like it.
Considering some of the issues the museum has—the deficit, the layoffs—why did you want to come here?
I had no plans to come here. I was a college president, liking my job, but I’ve had a lifelong relationship with this institution—it’s been my favorite art museum since high school. When the Met called, it seemed to be a remarkable opportunity to be part of an institution that I value above any other.
You’ve mentioned the museum’s strengths, but it has also had rough patches. What has caused the financial troubles?
Great institutions have challenges. Our deficit happened in three ways. The first is that our retail operations weren’t doing as well as they should, and our restaurant business and admission revenue were flattening. At the same time, about five years ago the museum leadership did a master plan for this 2.1 million-square-foot building to determine what kind of infrastructure problems we have. They identified things that need to be addressed and issued $250 million in bonds to begin to deal with some of them. For example, we have skylights that date from the 1930s that will cost almost $150 million to repair and replace. And that’s just one small piece of the museum. We probably took on more than we should have in the face of flattening revenues.
The third part is more our fault. We have been building our programming, lots of special exhibitions, lots of ideas—all good, all successful—but we probably took on more than we should have in the face of flattening revenues. We began to see that our costs were growing more rapidly than our revenues.
Has the Met been through a period like this before?
I am a historian of this institution, and I’ve read reports from 1970, when there had to be great cutbacks, and there were layoffs. In the age of social media there’s just more transparency, which is a good thing.
Really?
It’s a moral issue. I think we have a responsibility to be transparent to the extent that we possibly can to the people who have a vested interest in us. For all of the criticism we took, I would have it no other way.
You were named president and CEO of the museum, and the director, when one is hired, will report to you. This is a change from how things were previously done. Why?
It’s not what most museums do, but we are not like most other museums. We’re more than twice as large as the next biggest art museum in the Western Hemisphere. What we want in a director is someone compelling, committed to advancing our art historical mission, who understands the role of museums in society, who is a high-functioning, well-respected curator and scholar. And our view is if that’s what they’re focusing on, then the CEO can focus on other aspects of what the museum has to do. The role of director today is not very different from the role of director 20 years ago.
The job is still open. What are you looking for in a candidate?
It’s a big job; it’s the largest directorship position in the country. We want someone who has a commitment to the art historical, museological function of this museum, who understands the role of our museum in society. We want someone who is able to work productively with the resources that are available in this museum, because there’s so much talent here to be harnessed. If we have someone who doesn’t get that, they’re not going to do a great job.
Thomas Campbell aimed to diversify the museum’s audience, make a push into contemporary art, and increase digital outreach. Where do those endeavors stand?
Tom’s agenda, which he developed in concert with the board when he was hired, has been advanced in significant ways. During the years that he was directing, attendance increased by almost 50 percent. Tom was successful in creating a greater sense of access to the place. I think his vision around digital has been spot-on; there are more than 32 million visits to our website each year, and many of the people who come to the website will never set foot in this building, so their connection is entirely through our digital presence. In regard to contemporary art, Tom led a really thoughtful process about what our approach ought to be. More than 100 years ago, when we collected works of art by John Singer Sargent, he was a contemporary artist. We made an investment in his art because we thought it was of enduring importance, and we were right. How do we make those important decisions today?
When this museum no longer is important in the world, I tremble for civilization, because what it represents is the capacity to learn from one another, to build empathy, and to develop shared understanding. Without that, all bets are off.
How do you?
One always has to rely on one’s own judgment and discernment. Works of art that we believe are worthy of acquisition have to withstand certain levels of critical judgment, review, and scrutiny. They need to have enduring importance—though it’s not always easy to know what that is.
Does an interest in contemporary art create pressure for the museum to keep up?
We don’t have the resources to be buying works of art in the contemporary field at present day prices. So what we do is try to make thoughtful acquisitions that we can afford and work with donors who are committed to helping us. For example, the extraordinary gift of Leonard Lauder’s Cubist collection a few years ago immediately gave us one of the strongest Cubist collections in the world.
If one were to walk through these doors in 10 or even 50 years, how would the Met be similar to and different from what it is today?
When your grandchildren walk through this museum, they’ll see many of the same works of art that I saw as a child, and they’ll see them displayed, exhibited, and interpreted at the highest level. At the same time, the place won’t be a mausoleum. The exhibitions will be different, the scholarship will change, the technology will be different, but the mission will be the same.
Today, people who could be donors are opening private museums. How does that affect a museum like the Met?
There’s no threat to us. I think our society benefits in myriad ways by having more museums.
Why does the Met still matter?
I think about that a lot. If we look around the world today, what we see are the ways in which we are at odds with one another as human beings. What this museum represents is a commitment to the shared values of humanity. When this museum no longer is important in the world, I tremble for civilization, because what it represents is the capacity to learn from one another, to build empathy, and to develop shared understanding. Without that, all bets are off.
This story appears in the October 2017 issue of Town & Country.
