By The changing of the CSULB University Art Museum to the Carolyn Campagna Kleefeld Contemporary Art Museum in 2019 has hurt the reputation of the robust art program at Long Beach State.
The museum’s namesake, Carolyn Campagna Kleefeld, is an artist, poet and author from Southern California. The daughter of entrepreneur and philanthropist Mark Taper, Kleefeld had a wealthy upbringing and studied art and psychology at UCLA.
Kleefeld has published multiple collections and exhibited her art around the world. In 2019, she gave a reported $10 million to CSULB.
Following the donation, she “gifted” many of her works, of which became permanently displayed at the museum. This is where the controversy arises.
Kleefeld’s ability to donate money and receive the museum’s namesake while having her artwork permanently displayed does not set a good example for students. Especially when that artwork isn’t considered good.
Members of the art community on campus don’t respect the museum anymore, which leads people to question the validity of the art program.
“It’s embarrassing to be a student at a school that seems to care more about money than the artistic brilliance of the faculty and students,” said Morgan Williams, a student in the Bachelor of Fine Arts program for Art, Option in Animation.
It’s a shared sentiment among many art students that they feel is disregarded by the university.
“It leaves fewer opportunities for students, and it makes the art program look like a joke,” Tattianna Che, an art student majoring in illustration, said.
The museum used to be for the students, and now it feels like Kleefeld’s personal exhibition; her artwork is permanent, and so is her name on the museum.
“The Carolyn Campagna Kleefeld Contemporary Art Museum opened in February 2022 at California State University Long Beach,” is stated on her website, as if the museum has not existed since 1973.
Nizan Shaked, an Art History and Museum Studies professor at Long Beach State since 2006, said, “When I teach the museum, I do it through an assignment written by another entity and I don’t weigh in with my opinions.”
She said, “I let them talk so they can discuss their opinions and feelings about the museum.”
Shaked said it’s up to her students to make a decision about the museum’s ethicality, if the artwork being displayed is of poor quality, or if the pieces are detrimental to the museum and school by proxy.
“Dozens of my students are aware of the ethical conflict at the heart of the museum,” Shaked said.
Despite student awareness, the school has not taken any action, nor acknowledging it is in poor taste.
“Students used to exhibit in this institution, and they don’t anymore,” Shaked said. “There used to be an end-of-the-year student show and graduate students used to curate exhibitions, but those opportunities don’t exist anymore.”
Shaked states that art students rarely get to see their professors’ artwork, if at all. If the school has such a robust art program with highly qualified art professors, why, then, do they not provide a space for students to see their artwork?
The university pocketed a $10 million donation to take the museum away from the campus community and give it to someone in the 1%. Criticism from the museum is not just limited to the campus, with commentary pieces being written in the LA Times as well.
It doesn’t make sense why the museum took so many opportunities away from the students just to display heavily criticized art.
Naming the museum after a rich person while simultaneously removing opportunities for students leaves the impression that administration cares more about money than they do about the students and faculty of the program.
It contradicts the purpose of a museum, and poses a bigger issue for a museum of a university with a prominent art program.
