The Art World: What If…?!, Episode 5: Sandra Jackson-Dumont
What if we reimagine the role of the museum? What if we bring more intention to what culture can be and do—and by whom and for whom? What if we tell ourselves different stories? In this episode, host Charlotte Burns talks to Sandra Jackson-Dumont, the CEO and director of the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art—a new museum founded by filmmaker George Lucas and his businesswoman wife, Mellody Hobson. The institution, which is set to open in Los Angeles in 2025 is one of the most potentially exciting museums in America or around the world, given the scope of its ambition and size. Sandra says: “We’re building an institution, a 200+ year proposition. And we’re doing it amidst the most uncertain moments in our time.” Who better to help us tackle hypotheticals— including dismantling the idea of high and low art, and entirely new ways of thinking about art? Join us and tune in.
Transcript:
Charlotte Burns:
Hello and welcome to The Art World: What If…?! I’m your host, Charlotte Burns, and this is the podcast all about imagining different futures for art and the art world.
[Audio of guests]
So far, we’ve spoken to some wonderful guests about their “what ifs”—and this episode is no exception. We welcome Sandra Jackson-Dumont, the CEO and director of the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art. The institution, which is set to open in Los Angeles in 2025, is one of the most potentially exciting museums in America or around the world, given the scope of its ambition and size. A one billion dollar, five-story, 300,000 sq ft building that sits within an 11-acre campus. The museum aims to take a new approach to narrative art. Sandra has said of it, “we’re building an institution, a 200-plus-year proposition. And we’re doing it amidst the most uncertain moments in our time.”
So, this whole conversation is a “What If”. What if we reimagine the role of the museum? What if we bring more intention to what culture can be and do—and by whom and for whom? What if we tell ourselves different stories?
Charlotte Burns:
Sandra, welcome. Thank you for joining me today. We have been through trial and tribulation to get here, and I appreciate your perseverance.
[Laughter]
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
Thank you. [Laughs]
You're a good partner.
Charlotte Burns:
We do stick together.
I've written three different openers for this show. And I'm really glad that we have rescheduled, because I found myself just doing more research in those windows of time that we've had. And I found myself on a completely new path, having a kind of unusual experience while doing some last-minute research for the previous scheduled recording.
I had interviewed another guest on the show, Kemi Ilesanmi, and I was mentioning to her that I was interviewing you. And she said, “You have to watch Sandra's talk in Venice. You will cry. We cried.” And so I watched your talk. And I watched it just before our last scheduled interview. And I was so glad that we had to call that one off because I was a mess! I was like, “How can I interview someone? I am, like, crying.” I found your talk so moving. I haven't stopped thinking about it since. I haven't stopped talking to other people and telling them to listen, and I will tell people now; if you haven't seen it, look up the Loophole of Retreat summit in Venice. Sandra speaks on day two, it's about 20 or so minutes. And you won't have heard a director of a museum speak this way before because, Sandra, what you did is you create this space of vulnerability. And you move us through this very intimate but structured talk and you speak about Miss Edie Mae Jackson also known as “Sweet” also known as your mother and maker, and you talk about packing up her apartment because her health has been declining. And you talk about paying attention to what the apartment contains. Realizing that this home, this intimate space that you've just thought of as a domestic space, as a familiar space, is an installation and you're standing in the contours of your mother's memory, the loophole of her retreat. And you move through this personal story, and then bring us to museums and say, as someone “whose work is about museums, about making meaning in these places, making them functional and deliberately usable for our everyday existence, and bound up in the everyday lives of people, I am moved by my mother's deep and incisive understanding of how to make lives relevant through things.”
I was so impressed by the power and strength of the vulnerability and the space that you opened up for other people. It was such an act of generosity. And I also felt like it was a shift in how museum directors, how figures of authority in our institutional world, might speak. It felt like a medicine, like a new way forward. Did you feel vulnerable, doing that? Did you feel emotional preparing to give such a personal talk?
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
The answer was yes. But I always feel vulnerable. I always feel kind of emotional about the work that we're doing. And I don't mean in that nostalgic way but I mean, in that critically-urgent, it's important-work-kind of way. It's not frivolous-work-kind of way.
And I'm super grateful that people actually heard it as an art historical talk, and a personal talk and a timely talk at the same time, in the same space, in the same moment, because I think that's what museums should be and have been, or have the power and potential to be.
Charlotte, I thank you for saying that because I'm still wearing my Loophole of Retreat bracelet for those that spoke and I was like, well, I'm gonna treat this like one of those red bracelets that people wear and when they break off their wish will be made, because that was such a powerful, powerful moment. And I felt like people could hear the various contours of how people really exist in the world. And I felt heard for one of the very first times in such a critical and amazing way. So yes, vulnerable, but also, that's a continued part of my existence, you know?
Charlotte Burns:
Mmm-hmm.
You began that talk by saying that you felt seen and “that is pleasant.” And I wonder, for you, there was such a power that you gave to people through that, but it seems like you gathered your own strength from it. It's sort of sad in a way that you say that this is one of the first times that you felt seen in that capacity. Why is that? And how can that change?
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
Well, you know, it's interesting. I was having breakfast with the great Lorraine O’Grady. It wasn't planned or anything like that. A lot of the speakers, we were staying in the same hotel, and I was sitting by myself at breakfast, and she came and she sat with me and she says, “Can I just ask you something?” She said, “What’d you think about the conference?” and I told her what I thought and I said, “What did you think?” And she said it was one of the first times that she felt like everything she said landed with this group. Like it was as if she was talking to herself, is what she said and I was just like wow, and that really resonated with me because there are so many times in my career where I've sought to marry the personal with the private, and the mundane with the academic and we're kind of taught to have those be apart. But even if you're studying [Walter] Benjamin, I’m like can we study Benjamin, but talk about that kind of theory through the lens of Toni Morrison? You know what I mean? Like, how can these things coexist in the way that feels like it’s popular knowledge, or our popular information or popular experiences.
So for me, when I said, I felt really seen, because the moments where people rose to their feet and stood there, when I put the pictures of my mother's walls up—and I could see people, like they were reaching for the screen, like pointing to it, but also like, “I know that”—and these were people from across the world, you know, and people I respect and adore and love.
And so it was to be seen in the nuanced way is what I meant. To be seen as a whole person, not just someone who has to tuck away a piece of themselves. You know, being a professional in so many ways, and also being a Black woman oftentimes is about practicing the highest level of restraint. It's a skill that no one talks about.
And that moment was wonderful, because I felt like I was my professional self, my personal self, my friends’ self, my performance self, my sermonic self—the churches I grew up in—but I was my mother's daughter in that moment, too. And she was present with me at work in ways that I just never imagined her to be. So that's why I felt that people got it in the nuanced way. And that was powerful, really powerful.
Charlotte Burns:
There’s so much there. I mean, this idea that you feel the sense of restraint, I think is a loss to the field because you bring so much. It's a shame that you have experienced that.
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
Oh, I think everyone has.
Charlotte Burns:
I think you're right, but it scales, right? What was so refreshing about that talk you gave was the freedom of it, was the wholeness of it, was the full person. And I know this is something that's really important to you as a museum director. How do you do that when you're managing a billion dollar building and something new, and that doesn't exist yet that you're trying to bring to life with founders’ visions, with city and municipal logistical things, with new staff that you're onboarding? How do you keep grounded within the middle of that, the full sense of self that you're trying to bring to the role and encourage those around you to do too?
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
I'm constantly trying to figure out how one—me, anyone—crafts a space that feels humane. How does one do it, is not alone. I think that's the biggest piece of it. Constantly seeking counsel but be full of research and understand that everything is not a grand experiment. There are just some things that just are, and everything isn't always up for discussion. How we treat people is not up for discussion. Sometimes that can be uncomfortable, having honest conversations, but also be very congratulatory around the things that deserve it and really shine and lift people up in many of these spaces and help other people understand that it's everyone's responsibility to do that.
I have to say I'm very clear that Mellody Hobson and George Lucas are also that way. They are really interested in people bringing their best selves into the space. And so what does it take to create a best selves kind of space and encourage that, that coupled with the highest level of accountability.
Lots of people talk about, like, “Oh, our workplaces, we spend so much time there, it should feel like family.” And—I can't believe I'm gonna say this on this podcast, but I'm gonna say it—I'm like, I have a family. I think also, not all families are healthy.
And so like, if we create a workplace of standards, and those standards will change and evolve over time and look differently. But I don't want to bring my own home values and all that stuff into the workspace all the time, because my values are not necessarily such and such’s values. So we have to create a shared ecosystem, that's called labor, work. And there's value in that. And there's pride in labor. There's pride in creating spaces.
And so I think just continuous discourse, but at the same time, lots of reading and trying things on and rapid prototyping things and admitting when we didn't get it right. But also saying, “Hell yeah,” when we got it right. You know what I'm saying?
So, I wish I had a better answer for you, because it is one that is not static. Creating space is not static. And I think that's where we've gotten it wrong oftentimes in workplaces, and in community building or engagement with anyone else other than yourself, is that sometimes we think there's a one shot wonder, or we got it right this time, we should just always keep doing it that way. And I'm just like, oh, no different circumstances, and different individuals require different things.
So, you've heard me say before, Charlotte, it's imperative that we focus on skill sets, versus just tactics only. I think that if we have skill sets in the people who are employed, and are places that are both empathetic, that are, you know, full of robustness and quality of listening, then we’ll be in a different place. That's a long answer to your short question. But it's nuanced.
Charlotte Burns:
Well, I think museums are at such a complicated moment. What you're saying makes a lot of sense. But it's still not that common as a practice, to talk that way about empathy, about skills.
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
Yes.
Charlotte Burns:
Okay. So let's talk about your board. You have an unusual board. In addition to the founders, the board of directors, includes Henry Bienen, the president emeritus of the Northwestern University; the sociologist Arne Duncan, who was secretary of education during the Obama admin; Michael Govan the director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art; Andrea Wishom, the president of Skywalker holdings, Lucas's real estate company; and the filmmakers Steven Spielberg and Guillermo del Toro. You obviously have been inside other major institutions and senior roles, like the Met[ropolitan Museum of Art]. So how is this different as a kind of governance structure for you as a director, as someone in a senior position in that way? What are the different accountability models? And what are the different questions that the board asks of the institution, from your perspective?
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
When I think about other boards I've sat on, I mean, they've been made up of people like this. If you think about the Met’s board, it has different types of people from different, you know, sectors.
I think one thing that sets us apart, and museums are trying to do this more, is having artists on their board. So we have filmmakers, creatives on our board. I think this board is also made up of people that have a real appreciation for getting things done. So that is a difference, I think, between this board.
It's a small type board that will grow and evolve over time. But right now it's made up of people—when I think about it in the way that you're asking this question—it's made up by people that have a background in production, that are filmmakers, that are policy people, as you mentioned, university folks. All those folks are folks that are deeply thoughtful, cerebral, think about how big ideas can get consolidated and made actionable by people and/or put in a framework that can be tackled in a very public and expeditious way, in concrete ways. So that, to me, is interesting.
It's very different than just like, “we could just be at this forever” kind of institution. You know what I mean? Like that treadmill of, this is how things are done. They're like, “Oh, it didn't work? Go. great.” I mean, I never get questions about trying something new or different. It's never like “whoa”. It’s never like, “Hold up, Sandra”.
It's a very generative board. It's a very busy board, too. So a lot of my interactions with them are individually set up, where I'm talking to someone one-on-one. I have two or three people engaged in conversations. They're all heavy hitters in their own right so they bring a certain level of confidence and resource to the table and they just don't have time to be meddling, if you will, in simple things that should be left to the staff. But the most powerful part of them is, one, their brains, which they lend to me all the time, and we have intimate conversations. But they're both strategic and tactical, but they are so busy, they don't really have time to get involved. And I don't think they would, because they respect the staff so much that they are responsive as partners and critical friends, versus getting involved in the day-to-day operations. They are really fantastic partners to us.
Charlotte Burns:
So the whole institution is a kind of “what if”, because you're looking at this idea of narrative art. And I guess it's something of a dream job, if you're a museum professional to be kind of given the reins of something as imaginative as this. Like, is it a bit like being a kid in a candy shop? Where do you decide to prioritize? How exciting is it to have to have that potential to shape an institution of this scale with those resources and ambitions?
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
It is daunting in many ways to think that we have an opportunity to build, as I've said publicly a great deal, a 200+ year proposition versus we're building a building or opening a major exhibition or creating a project or an initiative. This is so much bigger than that. So the idea, I've never thought of it as a kid in a candy store, because that's not my experience. Because that just assumes a certain level of jovial, just playfulness that I think is, no pun intended, full of saccharin. [Laughs] But I think we have moments and days like that, but even those are shaped by the current contours of responsibility. It’s a huge responsibility.
And so I think it also ties to this notion of narrative art, because there is this grand narrative that we're creating about the realization of this institution because narratives are the stories we live with, and inform how we view and understand the world and it gives shapes to our real events, and our hopes and promises in many ways, our imagined realities, and also systems of power.
When I gave the talk in Venice, just to go back to that, one of the things that I thought was so interesting is that as much time as I've spent around my mother's walls my entire life I, as an academic, never saw those as installations. If I took her house and put it in a museum people would be like, “Oh, wow.” I mean, even people just looking at the photographs were doing, like critical race theory commentary about the images on the walls, right? How they were structured, the juxtaposition of image to image but I had been indoctrinated to decouple, almost by osmosis, that part of the visual landscape from my academic pursuits. And it wasn't…I'm very proud of who I am, proud of where I'm from. I've always talked about those things in every space I've been in. But this high/low thing seemed like it had gotten, in that moment, some of the best of me as someone who promotes the dismantling of the high/low.
So the Lucas Museum becomes this incredible crucible for these discussions to break open through it to the point where narrative art becomes one of the most important art forms, because it's shaped society. It has shown itself to have done good and bad things. And I think it's such an opportunity for us to look at this institution as one that really allows us to unfurl who we are as a people. It also kind of critiques the art historical canon for a lack of inclusion, whether it's the maker or the subject matter. So there are certain stories and ideas that have not made their way to the quote, unquote, kind of halls of the institution. I mean, right now, I could not be more happier than to say that next to the great American [Emanuel] Leutze painting at the Met is the Robert Colescott George Washington Carver Crossing the Delaware [Page from an American History Textbook] (1975), which does exactly what we're talking about. So when I think about narrative art, it actually kind of labors on behalf of people.
Charlotte Burns:
It's also interesting, what you just said reminded me of something that came up in a podcast with Naomi Beckwith, where we talk about this idea of, kind of the high/low, and that mundanity has always been the basis of the Modernist movement. It's just a question of who was allowed to be mundane. So this idea of the high/low, for the past, more than century, the low has been the high. It's just not everybody's.
It is a daunting proposition. It's a big responsibility. And you're setting it up for a 200-year proposition. So how do you do that? How do you future proof those conversations of who we are?
I mean, the Colescott's a great example, because that's the founding of America. So that's tackling a foundational myth. But how do you do that in terms of, you know, there's more than 100,000 works in the collection? I'm imagining you really do have to be strategic when you think about those questions.
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
I mean one of the things that is powerful about this moment is the fact that museums are willing participants with each other, I think in ways that they weren't always. There's this incredible opportunity to collaborate.
So the work of the Lucas Museum and the work of narrative art is not just the responsibility of the Lucas Museum. Just like the work of modernity is not just the work of The Museum of Modern Art. The work of supporting and celebrating and doing scholarly work around Black and Latinx artists, they're not just the responsibility of El Museo [del Barrio] and The Studio Museum [in Harlem]. It is everyone's responsibility. They are going deep and they are ensuring that that work gets done. We will do the same.
But how do you future proof it? You don't. You actually allow it to grow and evolve and shift and change and reconfigure itself. And so the Lucas Museum is taking an inclusive approach to this notion of visual storytelling, and really unpacking and exploring academically rooted and mass produced art forms, as well as new modes of creative practice. So that evolves over time. But our work will encompass all forms of visual narrative, including painting and sculpture and photography, video, all those things.
But the thing that future proofs it, really truly, Charlotte, is that narrative art provides a window into lived experiences, and as long as people are alive, [laughs] honestly, narrative art is going to be the thing that elicits emotion, ignites the imagination and we hope moves us to action. And I think what we're trying to do is empower diverse constituencies and artists and audiences to connect and engage with artworks and each other, through these compelling stories that the work contains, and also just have a level of criticality about these things.
I mean, I've said it before, I think museums should be used. And I also think we should respect them as places that challenge us.
Charlotte Burns:
So, two really specific questions here. One is about the institution. One is about you. How far along, in the nuts and bolts of things, do you know the opening shows yet? Can you talk about them? And if you can't reveal them, can you tell us what you're hoping to communicate with them?
And then the second question is for you. You talked about it being a 200-year-plus proposition. For you, I imagine that when you're thinking of this job, you're imagining it's going to take many years to see certain things that you're putting into place now come to fruition, like how long it will take to bed down, bring the audiences, when you'll figure out the cadence, that kind of stuff. So the first is the opening and the second is the continuation of the cadence.
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
So the first, the opening, we're saying 2025, which I am very excited about. In terms of the opening shows, I am not going to share those yet. I do think that there's this idea of having people understand how nuanced narrative art is. That's what people will see—this incredible range of narrativity that is across time and place. It's incredible. Because when you see it all bound up together in the same building, you start to realize, “Wow, what have I been looking at? How have we not looked at these things together, or put them together?”
The third thing I would say about that is because the gallery spaces are so expansive, it's not going to be a single single show. There are many shows that will be opening at the same time. And so my hope is that people will come back and over and over and take in pieces of it, and explore it through different vantage points. And we'll have a whole series of programs and activities that really tie to those things. But then also, a lot of the efforts that will roll out will be standalone, that type of narrative art, but not necessarily wholeheartedly to the exhibitions that are on view. So that's that piece.
I usually come into jobs and gigs and I would normally say I know within the first five years, I will really start to see the fruits of one's labor—my labor, our labor—because you really have to put things in place, bring people along, be brought along yourself. But in this moment, I've only been here during Covid. So that has thrown everything into, like, a different way of being, a different way of working. We had our first holiday party in person last week. I've been here almost three years. That's unbelievable.
Charlotte Burns:
It's all an exercise of future thinking. It's not grounded even in meeting each other in the office. It's such an interesting, difficult way to work, I imagine.
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
So how I have kind of come into understanding time right now, it's just so elastic. It’s almost like there are days when I feel like it's so long, like I pulled the rubber band really far, and when I look at either end of it, it feels like “Oh, my goodness, I've been here, like, I've been here three to six years.” But then, when it snaps back, I'm like, “Oh, wow, so many of these things happened in such a compressed state of being.”
So as I'm thinking about my time here, I'm excited about the opening. In the most unusual way, I almost have to push myself back from being like, “the 10-year plan.” Because we've been living in such uncertain times, what I thought was a 10-year plan has actually expanded and contracted in ways that I just never imagined. So I have to say, you gotta come back to me in a couple of years on that one.
But I'm always thinking about how we succession plan, from the moment I walk in a door, whether or not it's my role, or a different role, or our partners, I'm always thinking about that. I really see us as a launching pad for careers and opportunities, and people will become versions of themselves here in ways that they may not be able to become versions of themselves in that same way at another place, only because of the timing, the approach, and the scale of this project. And what it is in the world. It’s just such a unique all-around opportunity.
Charlotte Burns:
Is that happening to you? What you want for your staff and everybody else associated with the museum, becoming more themselves? Are you experiencing that within the years that you've already done this job?
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
So the answer is yes. Because of the circumstances we've all lived through, you know. So that's one piece of it.
When I look at the director role, specifically, there are things that I've learned. I've never been the director of a museum before. I've been the director of what has been the equivalent of a museum scale and scope-wise but I've never been the person that is the final say at the institution, if you will—if there's such a thing, honestly.
And that is a different kind of responsibility, which requires a different type of awareness and communication. And understanding that even though I think I'm the coolest kid, I think I'm the person who gets on with people, I think I'm the person that “my door is open,” we all have worked in places where leaders have not been that. And so we all bring baggage to the table. And so I have grappled with the notion of power dynamics, even though those power dynamics aren't ones that I buy into. But we all come with stuff. Does that make sense?
Charlotte Burns:
Yeah, so like you're trying to deal with other people's perceptions of your role as well as your own.
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
Exactly. That's like a very succinct way of putting it. My perception of myself and how I want to be and who I am and how I want to lead is different from maybe, even if I were a younger version of Sandra coming to the table, I might not believe that I am who I say I am.
Charlotte Burns:
Right. Yeah, it makes sense.
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
Yeah, I'm always very committed to the process of learning and listening and mentorship but also recognizing I've been hired here because I bring certain skills and competencies to the table. And recognizing where it is truly my responsibility. It's been wonderful. And I feel like I've been built for this, not the least of which I'm the fifth of five children. So there's that. But I actively seek opinions and ideas from people.
It's one of my favorite things about Mellody Hobson is that she really, truly respects people who have a point of view. One of my favorite things about being in spaces where I'm making decisions, that I love when somebody has an idea that changes my mind. I respect it, I appreciate it and I really truly believe that good ideas come from everywhere.
Charlotte Burns:
I mean, so much of that is you being you but a lot of it also is your background in education. It's such a different way of existing in the museum, than a curatorial role, for instance. And we spoke about this before the shift that that has on the field, that there are leaders, including you, who come to those positions from an educative background.
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
Yeah, when I think about my background as an educator, I think that when people hear that they really think, “Oh, wow, she might understand the public in a different way.” And there are so many amazing educators that do; they pay attention to the public, they understand. But then there's also educators who are just translating other people's ideas.
The educators I respect and adore the most are those that really do have points of view but they also demonstrate behaviors that include fairness, respect, inclusiveness, empathy, integrity. They have ethical content depth at their core, but their ego is around making sure people understand the ideas. Their ego isn't about just spewing their own point of view. Does that make sense?
Charlotte Burns:
Mmm-hmm.
It's a real complex layered thing where you're trying to translate ideas to so many different people who are interacting with you in rigorous debate, whether that's academic debate, or you're getting feedback from your public.
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
Yeah, that part that you just said, the rigorous debate and the skills to do that, instead of being shut down. I don't think even the field really understands how nuanced the practice of an educator of a public programs person is. It's such an interesting thing to have that skill set. And how that plays out with me as the director is the same exact way. Like leaning into that level of discomfort and having the conversations to respond appropriately to someone and not just say, “okay,” all the time. But saying back to someone, “say more.”
Charlotte Burns:
That is what's so interesting about it is that it's a much more active position, in a reaching forward and reaching back kind of way. Much more mutually engaged.
So I want to ask you, so much of our conversations are about creating new ways of doing things. Or rethinking or interrogating different ways of doing things in the work that you do. The show's called What If. What's the “what if” that keeps you up at night? What's the thing that you think that you worry about that you wish were different? That you puzzle over how to change?
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
This is so sad. I knew you were gonna ask me this question. And I still just, I’ve thought about this every time we've rescheduled this. And I guess I puzzle over the two ways that I think about this. One hand is more of a deficit model, which is, what if people don't buy into this process? What if? And I mean, by people, I mean people that are consuming and active participants, and those that are shaping the field. What if the believers become so skeptical that we remain in this place that museums are for “those people,” whoever those people are? You know? So that is like, what if? And the answer to that is, that would be really sad. So that's one piece of it.
But the other “what if” is one of abundance. Right? One of the glass half full. What if we work together? What if we actually have some shared ideas? What if we actually can address certain structural issues? What if we become, as a creative force, museums become the place that people truly look to as a better business model for certain things? Or a better education model? What if? Do you know what I'm saying? Like that abundance place is so impressive to me. And so what if we could be extremely adventurous and imaginative? And our decisions not be shaped by fear or anxiety or lack of resources? What if we could work from this other place of generosity and being generative? What if? And I just see so much possibility on every front, coming out of that. So I don't know if I'm answering your question, Charlotte. I might need to call you back on that one.
Charlotte Burns:
No, I love that. Because it's both, it's what keeps you up at night and I guess what you dream about. And are you the kind of person who gets energy from thinking in that way, that positive, abundant manner? Does that propel you forward?
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
I do. I mean, it's rooted in reality. I'm the first to be like, I think this is actually amazing, let’s work from a place of abundance. Can we work from a blank page on this, while at the same time, in the back of our heads, we have the knowledge of the history at our disposal, and we really tackle things in that fruitful way. So yes, I'm that person. I'm also the person who is very, very clear about the structural issues that have held institutions and individuals back. I'm very clear about that. And so those things hang in the balance for me.
Charlotte Burns:
What if we could change those structural issues? And I guess that's part of the work. How do we do that? How are you approaching that? How is the museum?
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
When I think about some of the things that have happened in the art world over time, right, women in leadership, they're not dissimilar to what's happening in the rest of the world. We are like a microcosm of the rest of the world, you know, racism, architecture, design, interpretation, exhibition, content, all those things, community engagement, diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging—all those things are happening both in the art world and outside of the art world.
And so when I think about how we address those things, I also think about the episodic revisiting of this stuff over time. How we have a situation, then there's a lull. And then we have another situation and it's the same, and there's a lull. So I'm interested in how do we start to document not just the “how to” but the nuance of how one arrived at those decisions, like the problems and the peril that led to them, and the growth out of it. And having five or six or seven or 20 different versions of it. I think that's interesting to me, like documenting some of those experiences so that we can understand, not through a didactic approach, but even a storytelling approach that people can begin to unpack things through narrative, if you will.
Charlotte Burns:
That's so fascinating. One of the things I had noted down in my prep for this was from our last interview, because I was talking to someone recently about change and they said, just assuredly, “This is a moment of great change, the conversation is absolutely shifting.” And when we look at the data—Julia Halperin and I just did our latest report [the Burns Halperin Report]—the numbers haven't, they're not really changing. And as I was talking to this person, I thought of you and what you said in our last interview, which is this episodic nature of change.
And you'd said to me, which I hadn't been aware of at all, that the Met had done some amazing things a half century ago. It had commissioned a paper on poverty and housing in 1968, Nina Simone performed there in 1969, B.B. King in the 70s, Martha Graham [Dance Company] in the Temple of Dendur. I mean, this is amazing stuff. And you knew this because it was documented. You'd worked at the Met, and I'm sure you delved deep into that history.
Where are we in that cycle of museums and change and this episodic relationship? Because one other thing I would like to say about that is when we talk to people about female artists, for instance, we point out that there's been graduation parity since the 80s. But actually, when we looked at those figures, again, we realized that the time before graduation parity in the 80s, was the 1940s when there was graduation parity. So there was parity and then there wasn't, then there was and then there wasn't in broader society, in education, in access and all of these things. How do we keep moving forward? Where are we in that structural shift?
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
Well, what I always think about when people talk about artists and graduation, I'm just like, since when have all artists come through academia? Like that's fascinating to me, but you know, that those are, okay. It's a good marker. But you could say the same thing in architecture, women who are leading at firms, the number that are principals at architecture firms, pale in comparison to the number of architect women architects that are coming out of architecture school, you know? That is a degree you need to have, right? The same thing with lawyers. There is this idea, there's a great proverb that is attributed to, you know, West Africa, Sankofa, this idea that you don't know your future unless you know your past. And I think that we don't spend enough time really grappling with what has happened. And looking at the future.
I'm interested in that kind of rigorous dialogue that can happen and continue to shape our field, because on the back end of this is this notion of accountability, right? And that's interesting to me. So I love the fact that, you know, Robin Coste Lewis, great poet, is partnering with Julie Mehretu. Two great artists from two different disciplines, fascinated and engaged in issues and ideas. And making sure that that's documented and shared and codified.
And part of the issue is that we haven't seen those moments as being as important as the catalogue for the exhibition, or as important as a different type of scholarship. To me, that actually is a form of scholarship. That's a form of presentation of social history, but also the two of them are doing incredible work together. And I don't know that we always get that. And so much of that kind of work that has transformed how people see art and museums and their role in society is left to a, “you had to be there” only experience, right? I love the “you had to be there”—my whole career was built on that. But if you weren't there, you don't know about it. And so how do we actually ensure that we are codifying those things so that they're reproducible?
It's not just about the presentation of that program. When we did the Kerry James Marshall convening, [A Creative Convening], the thing that people remarked about a great deal was when we did the publication of the convening, that we included when people clapped or the side conversations in some ways. So it's as much about those kinds of things as it is about the presentation.
And I think that's what's going to change in museums. They're going to be the place where you come to see and experience those things. But they're going to become known as the place where you go to participate in discourse or witness something amazing happen or be changed by something that was shaped for you. So I think that's important.
Limor Tomer did a project with Lee Mingwei. I think it was when we were at the Met. I was overseeing the [Met]LiveArts and she was head of that area, and we did a program where Lee Mingwei commissioned a classical vocalist to sing. He created this beautiful throne, if you will, a chair that he would place in the galleries. And this incredible vocalist would go up to someone and ask them, could they gift them a song? And if the person said, yes, they would go sit in his chair, and the vocalist was singing a song directly to them. And one would think that it's just about that gift, but watching the people watch this? Tears in their eyes. I mean, they were having another experience watching all of this happen. And it's that kind of stuff that changes people, truly changes people.
So, anyway, I'm getting a little excited about this.
Charlotte Burns:
I love that. It's all kind of bound up in this shift in that kind of…if museums can exist in a space of uncertainty and flexibility, more so than they perhaps have in recent decades, then they can better embrace the responsibility they have that's being put on them currently.
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
That’s a beautiful way to put it.
Charlotte Burns:
Oh, thank you.
I'm trying to pull together the threads of the conversation and I wish I had a pause button on it and I could come back to you in like 20 minutes. Because there's like thoughts at the top of my brain that aren’t totally permeating down and I know that in the night I'm gonna be like, “I should have asked that.”
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
Well, you can call me back!
Charlotte Burns:
We'll do another dance around our scheduling.
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
Now that we know how to set up the microphone.
Charlotte Burns:
Exactly.
[Laughter]
I'm not going to keep you for much longer because I appreciate the time you're giving me. I've been thinking about this interview in the context of the title of the show, which is a “what if”, and kind of coming back to the same place I started, which is that I feel like so much of the work that you're doing, and the way that you embrace your work is in that position of “what if”, which is both ambitious and imaginative, but also pragmatic and grounded in what has been, and therefore what might be.
And I guess the question I want to leave you with is the art. You've talked to me about artists being the sort of firefighters for justice, the people who have the courage to tell the truth. You spoke about Kerry James Marshall, and said, “Nobody does this better than him. To view his work is to stand in awe of his courage, his intelligence, his integrity, and his humanity.” So I wanted to ask you which artists you're looking at—I understand that you're looking at a lot of different things. Can you name a few of the artists that, when you leave your job as the director running all of these logistics, who are the artists that take up room in your brain at the end of the day?
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
Well, there are quite a few. One of them who I think has been at this forever is great artist, Pepón Osorio. I think he is just rooted in a practice and a way of working that is synonymous with humanity. And you see it in his installations, you see it in the narratives and the stories that he chooses to tell, feels compelled. Just telling the story, he gets at levels of concern that, I guess, resonate with so many people, I would say.
Another artist is Firelei Báez, who is just incredible. It's almost like her work is so imaginative, but rooted in belief systems and religiosity that makes you want to participate and love whatever it is she's talking about, which happens to be also women, particularly Black women.
And then that leads me to Simone Leigh, the great Simone Leigh, who I think has, over time, stood the test of time. And is graceful and functions in this space of gratitude, for being gifted being a Black woman like she, I think that that is definitely the way she sees herself in many ways. So she feels blessed to be able to tell the story, or like hold us up high. So I'm really interested in the story she's telling that she is unraveling around labor and love and sense of self and liberation.
I'm interested in the Hernandez Brothers, these amazing comic artists that are based here in Los Angeles. Love and Rockets and all the other series that they've produced and they sit in the cultural capital of popular culture for so many people.
Miguel Luciano, phew! What an amazing artist who I think is equally humble as he is intelligent; equally intelligent as he is a teacher; equally generous as he is a maker. And his way of working—all these people I'm talking about are great storytellers as well.
I mean, the list goes on. I go to bed also thinking about iconic artists like Artemisia Gentileschi and Faith Ringgold. It’s just like these women, who took up so much space, and take up space. So these are all artists that I think are compelling.
Also I think about artists like Norman Rockwell. And I'm not just saying that because I work at the Lucas Museum. I think about Norman Rockwell and his perceptions of the world at the time he was making works. And him displaying his own reality in many ways. And then reality of those around him.
Yeah, the list goes on.
Charlotte Burns:
Well, Sandra, thank you so much. I think that's a great “what if” to end it on, which is what if people took up more space for that kind of pursuit of creative expression?
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
Yeah, I would say one last thing.
And so when I was thinking just now about “what if”, given some of the things you just said, Charlotte, and things I think about and maybe I haven't been the best at putting words around this. And that is, what if we could live in and through ambiguity? What if we have the skills and competencies to actually live in the interstitial spaces and move through them, as opposed to the binaries that we're kind of forced into sometimes? I think that that would require us to be brave. So what if we actually didn't have all the answers? Or didn't act like we have all the answers or didn't have to behave like we have all the answers, but we actually were actively seeking the creation of these spaces that are ambiguous, that are more akin to the world we really live in? That's my “what if”: what if we were in the interstitial, in those moments, showing our best selves?
Charlotte Burns:
I think as well, George Lucas builds worlds. So many people on your board do the same. You're essentially trying to bring that vision of world building to an audience and you're going to get this audience that comes to you via Star Wars. And you're going to be taking them into these interstitial spaces about humanity. Which is just so fascinating to think of how you can corral an audience and take them into those ambiguous spaces and tell a story through narrative that is not tidy, necessarily. Especially located in LA, which is always very aware of its own past, whilst being geared towards the new.
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
I think the art world and the world needs people who are taking up a little space that allow us to present a more nuanced, “more than one answer” to a single question.
I think everyone thinks it should be tidy. I like that word. And that's not always the reality and so I find it fascinating that the things that should be tidy are the things that are messy. The things that should be messy are tidy. There's some things that should just be, but we make them messy.
Charlotte Burns:
As you were saying that, I started laughing because I started thinking that’s such a good way of describing museums, that the things that should be messy are the narratives, or the ideas that should be rigorous and playful at the same time. And the things that should be more straightforward are the kind of behind-the-scenes logistics and decision-making. And it's kind of the other way around often in institutions.
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
And you know, what, so many PhDs have been, like, had from, “oh, that's actually not what that was about.” This dissertation is built around like, “oh, wow, it was stated that in 1852, blah, blah, blah, did this and this was the purpose of blah, blah, blah. And then like in 1972, such and such wrote that that actually could not be farther from the truth.”
So I love that history also is made by the people who write it. And so we can do our little piece now, I guess, huh?
Charlotte Burns:
And the Lucas Museum is taking the reins of history and moving it in a new direction. I think it's super interesting.
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
Thank you so much.
Charlotte Burns:
Well, Sandra, I can’t wait to catch up with you as you keep all of this going. Thank you so much for being our guest today. Thank you so much for making all of this time and bearing with us on all of our technical challenges. I’m so glad we got this interview. I really, really appreciate it.
Sandra Jackson-Dumont:
I really appreciate it. Charlotte, I want to thank you so much.
Charlotte Burns:
My thanks to Sandra Jackson-Dumont for sharing her “what ifs”—so thought provoking—what if we could reimagine the museum entirely?
Next episode we’ll be tackling the “what ifs” of the art market. Join us for a conversation between my co-host Allan Schwartzman and Joeonna Bellorado-Samuels, director of Jack Shainman Gallery in New York and founder of We Buy Gold.
Joeonna Bellorado-Samuels:
There's so many “what ifs”, so many different directions and so many ways that we can shift our understanding of what's valuable.
Allan Schwartzman:
Change is good.
Joeonna Bellorado-Samuels:
Change is great.
Allan Schwartzman:
Change is good. Volatility is dangerous.
[Laughter]
That’s next time on The Art World: What If…?!
The podcast is brought to you by Art&, the editorial platform created by Schwartzman&. The executive producer is Allan Schwartzman, who co-hosts the show together with me, Charlotte Burns of Studio Burns, which produces the series.