In January 1990 I met with the committee. I remember feeling I couldn’t possibly convince that group of anything, that their minds were made up. After the meeting, I made notes only of my concern about how the Museum could survive with a split board, whether the “losers” would leave the Museum, how to heal wounds made by cruel words and deeds. Jules and the other members told me, emphatically, that everyone they’d spoken with insisted I remain central to the Museum’s future, no matter what happened. But why, when they disagreed so profoundly with my views? I asked. “You are the only one who can heal it. You are the soul of the Museum,” they said oxymoronically, each in his or her own way, knowing that for me the Museum would always come first.
Frances and Sydney Lewis sent me a copy of her letter to Bill:
“How does one get rid of a person when there are no valid charges? Smear tactics!
“The unfounded rumors that Tom Armstrong is an anti-Semite and ‘elitist’ are good indications that there are probably no solid grounds for his dismissal.
“Tom is not an anti-Semite. He is a true egalitarian. If you have any real charges against him, let’s hear these, instead of the character assassination being leaked to the press. As long-time supporters of the Whitney Museum, we’re extremely embarrassed.”
In despair over inaccuracies in the press, and also over quotes from insiders who had promised silence, Tom and I decided to talk with Kay Larsen of New York magazine. On the cover of the February 12 issue, Tom, cheerful in a polka-dot blue bow tie and a pin-striped suit, in front of Jasper Johns’s Three Flags, faces the art world. Heavy black print proclaims “WAR AT THE WHITNEY: Whose Museum Is It, Anyway?” Inside, five revealing photographs:
On the Whitney’s fifth-floor terrace, an oversized statue of a nude male towers over Bill Woodside, who’s smiling grimly.
Larry Tisch smirks in his leather office chair, hands folded over his stomach.
Seemingly entangled with Eva Hesse’s poignant Untitled—Rope Piece, I’m gazing sadly from its webbed and dripping ropes, looking as old and tired as Tom was accused of being.
All three Michael Graves building designs.
Finally, the Henri portrait of my grandmother, all sensuous silks and languid pose. But look again: see Gertrude’s unflinching gaze, belying her vulnerability. See the focus in those large lovely eyes. Was I betraying her dream, or protecting it?
Kay’s article was long and detailed:
Museums are legally governed by boards of trustees, and museum directors can be fired at whim. Directors describe a “tremendously uneasy, often hostile relationship” with trustees, one that is “inherently adversarial. …”
Whatever their motives, the Whitney trustees who back Woodside apparently didn’t consider the potential damage. One board member who heard about the attempted coup after it happened was horrified. “A very small group of people exercised a force majeure that came as a surprise to most of us,” he said. “I was shocked most of all at their attitude toward the museum. They acted as though it was a fait accompli; they expected you to think there was a consensus when there wasn’t one. It’s a very dangerous thing to do. When a not-for-profit organization breaks stride, it’s much harder to recover itself. …”
The Whitney’s troubles are both personal and institutional. “Every trustee on the Whitney board has a different opinion of what the museum should be,” said a fellow director. “There is one person in the middle — Tom — who has to keep them all smiling. Trustees keep score of social slights and decisions they don’t agree with. People have been keeping score on Tom.”
The personal side is hard for outsiders to glimpse, but it will be the deciding factor in the struggle for control of the museum.
After describing several board members, Larsen concluded that “Woodside, Lauder, and Ehrenkranz are the most visible members of the anti-Armstrong faction.” She confronted the anti-Semitic question, recounting Larry Tisch’s visit to me. Tisch, in her interview with him, denied saying he’d destroy Tom. “But does he deny saying anything about Armstrong? ‘I won’t deny or confirm. I’m not a person who goes out to destroy people. I figure that things take care of themselves.’” But Larsen’s investigations showed that Tisch had at least threatened other co-op board members. As for Tom: “‘I don’t say anti-Semitic things,’ Armstrong insists. ‘I don’t know how to. I say things like “The patronage of twentieth-century art is primarily Jewish,” but you can document that. It’s not anti-Semitic; it’s just fact.’”