Interview of Elizabeth Burton

1.1. TAPE NUMBER: I, SIDE ONE MAY 4, 1988

RATNER

Before we begin our discussion of the Pasadena Art Museum, I was hoping that you might tell me a little something about your family background, where they're from, when and where you were born and educated.

BURTON

Well, I was born right here in Pasadena.

RATNER

Oh, really!

BURTON

I'm one of those strange natives! And I was raised in Altadena, went through the Pasadena school system, then went to Stanford [University], and graduated from Stanford. That's where I met my husband [Eugene Burton]. We got married, and I worked in San Francisco for a little while and then came back to Pasadena. Do you want to know any more about—?

RATNER

What did you major in at Stanford?

BURTON

I majored in journalism. Interestingly enough, I always had a deep interest in art, but when I was in junior high school I had a professor that told me that I would never be a good artist—

RATNER

[laughter]

BURTON

—so I sort of gave that up, and if I knew and was as sophisticated then as I am now, I would have been a director or curator or something of that kind, but I really didn't know about those kinds of educational opportunities, and, actually, at that time I think the only school in the United States was Yale [University]; other than that you had to be trained in Europe. So my interest has always been really more in the academic part of the art world, I guess, rather than the actual creative. The professor was right; I really don't have the talent. It doesn't get from my head to my hands!

RATNER

What inspired your interest in the arts?

BURTON

Well, I don't know exactly what inspired—I've always just enjoyed the arts. I am never going to be really successful at anything because I'm a generalist; I enjoy lots of things. I enjoy music, I enjoy art, I'm very interested in reading—I love to read—and I'm also involved in different activities here in Pasadena. Soon after I was married and living and working in Pasadena, a friend of mine, Betty Lochridge, who was doing publicity for a group called the Artists Associates, asked me if I would take over her job since I had majored in journalism. It was just a volunteer job. This was a group of artists. I don't know if you've come across them yet in your interviews. It was a group of artists that was organized in Pasadena as sort of a loose group. Jirayr Zorthian was in it. He's still around. Most of the others that were in it aren't around anymore. They either have died or moved away. Nishan Toor, who was a sculptor, Paul Coze, who was a painter, they were all involved in this group. I started doing publicity for them, and that's how I became involved in the art community here. They were really not connected with the Pasadena Art Museum; they were pretty much separated from that. Until I joined the Art Alliance [of the Pasadena Art Museum], I really didn't have any specific connection with the museum. So I wasn't there in the earlier days.

RATNER

I know that you were both a member of the Art Alliance as well as a trustee, but I wanted to begin by asking you some questions that related to your experience as a member of the Art Alliance.

BURTON

Sure.

RATNER

As you just said, although you weren't actively involved in the museum prior to becoming a member of the Art Alliance, what was your perception of the museum before you actually became an active participant?

BURTON

Long pause! [laughter] Well, as I say, I was involved in this group, the Artists Associates, and I don't know that I had any concrete, really concrete perception of the museum. I think my main perception of it was that it was evolving out of an institution that had been a very generalized museum. There was evolving an interest in contemporary art, which was basically my interest. I really wanted to further that direction in the museum so that rather than having it be a provincial museum that exhibited local artists and a museum that had a few oriental artifacts and a few of this and a few of that, it would hopefully develop in the contemporary field. I don't know if that answered your question.

RATNER

Yes, it did. You joined the Art Alliance in June 1961, according to the—

BURTON

'Sixty, I think it was.

RATNER

'Sixty?

BURTON

I think so. I think I just looked back. I think it was '60. I'm not sure.

RATNER

What was your perception of the Art Alliance prior to joining that group?

BURTON

Oh, I think that actually it was Liz [Elizabeth] Hanson that sponsored me for that group, and that it was a group of women that were doing—I was interested in doing some volunteer work. I had done work with children and the Pasadena Settlement House and some other different things that were not really my bag. I was interested in doing volunteer work that was connected with the art field, and this was a group of women that were doing that, and they all seemed to enjoy it, and it seemed to be a very creative group that did things maybe a little differently. I found most women's groups rather boring, and this was a group that seemed to have a little more creativity and a little more excitement going with them and were doing something that was different.

RATNER

What was the philosophy of the Art Alliance in regard to the Pasadena Art Museum at that time?

BURTON

Well, it was definitely—I'm not sure what you mean by "philosophy" of it.

RATNER

I guess I'm asking, how did they see themselves in relationship to the museum? What was their function in relationship to the museum?

BURTON

Because philosophy, to me, means more ideas, and that would be a little hard, because I'm sure that every member of the group had a different idea about why they were relating to it and what they were doing. I have to think back, because so much has happened since then, and I've been involved in so many other things. When I first joined, I think it was basically—I thought of it as a group that raised funds to support the programs of the museum and, really, they were quite actively involved— because the museum was still small at that time—in a lot of the functions of the museum itself, and they worked quite closely with staff. I remember one thing I did at one time—I don't remember how long I'd been a member—but we were doing a show at the museum that was a juried show of—I'd have to have been a member for a while to have done this—a juried show of California artists, local California artists, and my job at that time, along with Betty Elliot, was to receive all of the artwork. We cataloged it, and then we helped prepare the catalog for the show. So actually we did become involved in a lot of functions. Working on catalogs was the sort of thing that normally would be handled by staff. Another thing that I did also with Betty Elliot for quite a while, we did all the cataloging of the collection that was down in the basement. She and I spent absolutely hours in this little, sort of, cell in the basement, cataloging all the Netsukes and a lot of the very small oriental items that had never been taken care of. So I think that I thought of the Art Alliance in its connection with the museum as a fund-raising group also as a hostessing group—I don't think I mentioned that—for events, being a liaison group between the museum and the public, and thirdly, as an adjunct, a volunteer adjunct, to the staff.

RATNER

What was the size of the membership when you joined?

BURTON

Oh, I think it was probably around seventy-five. I'm not really sure. But I think it would be around that.

RATNER

And what was the criteria for membership?

BURTON

I don't think there was too much criteria! Well, I think the criteria basically—There was a criteria. I shouldn't say that. It was partly personal, knowing somebody that would sponsor you. You had to be sponsored by someone and [have] a willingness to work and an interest in the museum and an interest in the programs that they were putting forth. I was very thrilled to be invited to join. I felt it was an honor.

RATNER

How, if at all, did the nature of the membership change over the next, I guess it was about, thirteen or fourteen years?

BURTON

I don't know that it really changed, that the nature of the membership really changed all that much. The people who were members changed, but the Art Alliance is a very interesting group. It's divided up into people who really have a deep interest in contemporary art, people who joined because they enjoy the social contacts and because they enjoy working with other people, people who joined for the educational contacts, and then a few people who joined it, why, I don't know, because they don't do anything, just to have their name on the roster. Some people just like to join things. And I think basically over the years we've really had those different kinds of members, the ones that were very involved in the museum and in its activities and those that took advantage of the programs, of hearing the lectures, going on the trips, those that really enjoyed the very social part of it, and those that just showed up once in a while. And I think basically it's the same kind of a membership today as it was then. Different actors, same play!

RATNER

What was the level of your early involvement?

BURTON

Well, I am a person—I guess this is supposed to be personalized; how else can you tell it?—who, if I say I'll do something or I want to do something, I want to do it well, otherwise I don't do it. So I immediately became quite involved and held different positions along the way. I'm not into the entertaining and that part, so my positions were mainly things like secretarial. I was secretary for a couple of years; I was treasurer for a couple of years. I don't remember some of the jobs I have had before or after. I think it's been since I was a chairman. I've done nominating; I've done membership. I can't remember whether those were prior to my years as chairman or not. I was in charge of the Sam Francis [fund-raising] project when we did that. Then I did lots of small jobs, as I said, or ancillary jobs like working, doing different things at the museum itself, different volunteer tasks. And I worked on all the benefits, naturally. But I was never, I never chaired the Treasure Chest or anything like that; that wasn't my bag. So I think, like most really active people in the Art Alliance, I've held a rather large spectrum of jobs! Usually the new members start out doing hospitality so I probably did that, too. I don't really remember.

RATNER

As you mentioned, you were the chairperson for two years, from 1967 to '69, I believe. That was found in the Art Alliance minutes.

BURTON

Mm-hm, mm-hm [affirmative].

RATNER

And that was two separate terms. How often did that happen, that somebody would be reelected for a second term?

BURTON

Oh, that was fairly common. The chairmen right before me, they had co-chairmen; Carolyn Farris [then Rowan] and Sarah Gregory were the chairmen, and they only did it for a year. When I became chairman of the Art Alliance, the organization was really not very healthy. There'd been a lot of attrition, and there had been people who really weren't too interested in its programs. There wasn't a lot of activity going on, and when they asked me to be chairman, I really wasn't sure I wanted to do it, because it was not, as I say, very healthy. But I thought about it and I thought, "Well, I've been there on the other side being critical of what's going on, and if you're going to be critical of something, you'd better get in and do something about it." So I decided to do the chairmanship. One of the things I remember doing, the first thing I did was, before the fall meeting, I wrote a personal note to every member of the Art Alliance saying something personally to them and asking them to come. And there was one person that I'd never heard of named Peggy Grannis. Anne Ferrier was active in the Art Alliance, and I said to Anne Ferrier, "Who is this Peggy Grannis? I've never heard of her, and she's been a member for years." And Anne said, "Oh, she's somebody I brought into the membership because I thought she'd be a good member, but she really hasn't been active at all." I said to her, "Well, here, you write her a note and tell her to get in here and be an active member," which she did. Peggy came, and Peggy is still a very, very active member of the Art Alliance and, as a matter of fact, she's going to be vice chairman next year. So that was, to me, a very satisfying experience. I felt, when I left my years as chairman of Art Alliance, that it was in a much healthier, more vital position than it was when I started, because the two functions, basically, the goals that I wanted to achieve, were to get it back so it was really vital and also, naturally, to raise as much money as we could for the museum, because at that time, as at all times, they needed it.

RATNER

So what were your responsibilities as president?

BURTON

Well, the same as the chairman of any group, I think. Basically, to see that the people that are working with you perform their jobs and see that those jobs are done well, and if they aren't, to encourage them to do them properly, and to oversee the activities of the group, to run a meeting that's lively and productive and be in control of the fund-raising activities to see that they happen and are successful. I was very fortunate because the two activities that they had during my chairmanship raised more money than any had previously, or also did afterwards for a little while, actually. So I would say it is basically to encourage your officers to do a good job. And most of them did.

RATNER

I made a list of some of the things that happened during your term. And one of the things you just mentioned was the Sam Francis suites. Although the project began in '62, I guess—

BURTON

The project began quite a bit earlier.

RATNER

Right.

BURTON

It began very much earlier.

RATNER

In '67, though, apparently, I read in some minutes that that's when it, I guess, finally came together. And since you had mentioned it, I didn't realize that you'd been the person who had organized that. I wonder if you could tell me about that whole project.

BURTON

Well, it was a very interesting project. It was when Walter Hopps was director of the museum. And this was a rather a new and creative idea, to have an artist do a set of prints that could be sold for a profit for the museum. Walter was a friend of Sam's, and he set the whole thing up. But I assume you probably learned from other people that Walter had a very unusual way of working. In the first place, he was a night person and usually didn't get to work until very late in the day. Betty Elliot was his secretary at that time, and I can remember times when we went over and—he lived at the Rose Tree Tea Room—we used to go and throw stones at his window to try and get him up to come over to the museum so that we could accomplish something. Walter's a very, very bright man, but he really functions differently from the rest of us. So while we were working on this project, it was very, very difficult, because Walter pictured Sam to me as this man that I must not, the Art Alliance people must not, go near. We would upset this artist; he was such a fine artist and he was willing to do this, but he couldn't stand volunteers, and we must never go near Sam. We must have nothing to do with Sam himself. Everything had to be done through Walter with Sam. Well, that was why it was started in 1962 and absolutely nothing happened for years, because going through Walter was just impossible! We knew that Sam was doing these prints, lithographs, but there were all sorts of things that had to be done in connection with them. There was a box that Sam was designing in Japan to hold them. It was a white plastic box. Everything was supposedly being done, but it was just going on and on, and Walter would always say, "Yes, it's getting done, don't worry about it, but don't go near Sam." Well, finally I took the bull by the horns and decided that I was going to—I made an appointment with Sam and I went down to Santa Monica to meet him and see him and talk to him about it, and, of course, he couldn't be nicer.

RATNER

[laughter]

BURTON

He's one of my best friends today! I mean, he's a very good friend of mine today. We're both trustees on the MOCA [Museum of Contemporary Art] board. We went on at the same time, and Sam is a wonderful person, he couldn't be nicer! He doesn't mind, or, at least our connection, the volunteer connection, was absolutely no problem whatsoever. Then I became more involved with the production of the suites, and we got everything finally put together, and I worked with a very small committee, because it was something that was very specific that had to be done. We packed the boxes and got everything ready to sell. And then the problem arose in that they did not sell very well. The market research had not been, I guess, very well done on it. I think today they probably would be worth quite a bit, but at that particular time we had a problem selling them. Attitudes have changed toward contemporary art a lot since then. We did brochures that we mailed out. We did not have the best mailing list. The idea of the suite was fairly new at that time, I think. Not too many people have done it. MOCA did a portfolio of artists on the same principle, and I said, "I don't think you should do it." And they shouldn't have; it was not really all that successful, either. So while it was a wonderful idea, it was not a successful fund-raiser. (However, now the value of the MOCA suites has increased a great deal.)

RATNER

So the idea was as a fund-raiser; that's how the idea came up?

BURTON

Yes, it came up as an idea, a way of generating funds for the museum. These would be prints, lithographs, a set of limited edition would be produced, and that we would sell them. Part of the agreement was that if they weren't sold by a certain time, Sam got them back, and he did. I must ask him, next time I see him, whatever he did with all those, because he did get them back, the ones that hadn't been sold. And they contained I think it was seven lithos, and then there was one very small gouache in it that was an individual piece in each one. They were packaged in a white plastic box. We did all the packaging, putting the tissue in between and everything. It was a handsome—There was a screen, a triptych, in the set and then lithographs of different sizes. It was nice.

RATNER

What did it sell for?

BURTON

I maybe shouldn't say because it's been so long, but I think it was $1,500, but I'm not sure. Maybe it was $2,500. I really shouldn't say; I really don't remember now. I can tell you what the MOCA suites sell for, that's more recent in my mind! [laughter] But I really don't remember what it was now. It must have been more than $1,500. I really don't remember. I'm sorry.

RATNER

I think I read in some later minutes that maybe a set of the suites had been broken up at the end because they hadn't—

BURTON

Right. Part of our agreement with Sam was that we would not break the suites up, that they would be sold completely as suites. But at the very end, when he was going to take the ones that had not sold, he did give us permission to break up, I think it may have been three suites, I can't remember exactly. But one of them the Art Alliance took, and we had a party, and we bought raffle tickets, a drawing for it, and so all the numbers were tossed in a hat and you drew out, and that was the object you got out of the suite. I have one over there on the wall, the one I got.

RATNER

I think I'll look at it!

BURTON

Yes. It was the one. And I remember Mibs [Maybelle Wolfe] got the gouache, and we were all quite envious of her. And Martha [B. Padve] got the triptych, I remember that. So we did raise some funds that way.

RATNER

So that was really a pretty ambitious project.

BURTON

Yes, it was. And it was something that we really weren't, the marketing, we really weren't set up to do. The art market was not all that strong at the time, either. We really didn't have the expertise, the marketing expertise, that we really should have had to do it.

RATNER

But still, I think it's interesting, and it says so much about the Art Alliance as a group, that they were interested in taking on that kind of a project. It wasn't your traditional fund-raiser, and it was so focused toward the interests of the museum. Just seems like a really terrific idea.

BURTON

Yes. Well, I think the Art Alliance, I think that's one of the wonderful things about it, and it's still true today. They have the Treasure Chest sale every other year, because it's a known—

RATNER

Earns a lot of money!

BURTON

It earns a lot of money, and it's a known factor. But we were always trying to come up with different ideas. The year before I was chairman we had the art auction, and then the first year I was chairman we had the Treasure Chest sale, and then the next, the second year I was chairman, we had the, what did we call it? Something green.

RATNER

"A Party Slightly Tinged with Green."

BURTON

"A Party Slightly Tinged with Green," which was an auction of services and that sort of thing, and I think, as far as I know, I don't know that that had been done really much before that. Now it's very, very common as a fund¬raiser, but at that particular time it was a very innovative idea.

RATNER

And I think you cleared about $40,000 on that also.

BURTON

We did, we did. And people, everybody—I guess you got it from the minutes, did you?—gave their services or, for example, vacation time at their mountain cabin. One of the best parties, I think, that was given was Dick [Richard P.] Feynman, who just died, the Nobel Prize winner—his wife was a member of the Art Alliance at that particular time—and he and the [Richard] Haydens and another couple, I can't remember who the third couple was, sold themselves to give a dinner party at which he played the bongo drums! So those parties were a lot of fun. I was in a group that did a brunch for somebody, and different people did different things, did all the work, the cooking and everything. So it was a very successful party.

RATNER

When you say a "benefit," what exactly do you mean by that?

BURTON

Well, when I say a "benefit," I mean a fund¬raiser, basically, something that is done to raise funds for the museum, as opposed to an event that is done just for publicity for the museum or to entertain a certain constituency of the museum or to attract people who are potential donors.

RATNER

If you say something is a "benefit of membership," that's a different thing?

BURTON

Yes. I really should probably call them fund¬raisers rather than benefits, because "benefit" can, as you're right, a benefit can be a privilege of membership or used in that sense also, certainly. If you become a member or part of a group, you have certain benefits. So really, fund-raiser is a better word.

RATNER

That's what I thought, but I just wanted to clarify—

BURTON

Yes.

RATNER

—because in the minutes they do talk about the various "benefits," and I just wasn't exactly—

BURTON

Right.

RATNER

—clear.

BURTON

There are two ways to use it.

RATNER

Right. Some of the other things that happened during your term, in office: the Art Alliance consistently gave funds for the exhibition budget. And at the very beginning of your term, the Art Alliance had agreed to underwrite up to $20,000 for—and I don't know if these were the three exhibits—the Allan Kaprow exhibit, the "Cezanne Watercolors," and the "Ellsworth Kelly Retrospective." Did the Art Alliance select the exhibitions they wanted to underwrite, or how did that work?

BURTON

Well, basically, in most institutions, if you have an organization like the Art Alliance, the hardest thing to raise funds for in a museum is general operating expense. And so basically your group that is most closely attached to the museum, your fund-raising group, is raising funds for general operating, and by creative bookkeeping you give them exhibition credit or some other credit. I mean, really, the funds are for general operating. They went to that part of those different exhibits. And those, I believe, I'm trying to think back, were the three big exhibits of the year that needed the most. It's done mainly so that women that are working feel that they have a goal and a recognition, so when you tell them that you're sponsoring those exhibits, you are generally paying for the nuts and bolts of running the museum. So I don't know that we especially chose those; I think those were just the three things that year.

RATNER

Another thing that was mentioned in '67 for the first time was that for $25,000 the Art Alliance could be a founding member of the new museum. How were those funds raised?

BURTON

We raised those funds—I'm trying to remember now. I think the funds were raised by donations from individual Art Alliance members, although, you know, a lot of us became founders on our own. I think we had a campaign within the Art Alliance and raised the majority of those funds through contributions of individual members, but I'm not positive. I've sort of forgotten. We may have had some activities, too. I really don't remember! I'm sorry. I just don't remember.

RATNER

Well, that's all right.

BURTON

Maybe it will come back to me.

RATNER

I will ask you some more questions about the new building in a little while. But when I got here you showed me the picture of, was it from the groundbreaking?

BURTON

Oh, yes.

RATNER

Yes, the groundbreaking. That was on October 17, 1967. What was the Art Alliance's involvement in those ceremonies?

BURTON

Well, they hosted, hostess, hostess-ed—!

RATNER

[laughter]

BURTON

—they were the hosts for the event! [laughter] Was it the groundbreaking when we did all the balloons? No, that was the opening. I'm trying to separate the things, separate the different times. The groundbreaking was quite a simple event, as I recall. And the Art Alliance as they did for so many of the museum events, supplied the volunteers that acted as hostesses. I don't think they were active in any other way at that particular time in the event. I remember we had a big party at the old house that was at Carmelita [Park] before the ground-breaking. As a matter of fact, we had a Treasure Chest sale there. But that wasn't connected with the groundbreaking itself.

RATNER

Nobody had mentioned that, that anything on that property had been used.

BURTON

Oh, yes. There was a big, old frame house that was on the property that had to be torn down. And before it was torn down, the Art Alliance had their Treasure Chest sale there one year, and the lights—I'll never forget it, because the lights went out. It was just the fuses, they kept blowing, and this one time they blew just when all these people had swarmed in and we had this one room that had all the expensive jewelry!

RATNER

Oh, no!

BURTON

Everything in it, the really expensive items—Rea Taylor always did the expensive jewelry and when the lights went out, she was gathering all this stuff in and just in an absolute panic! And Ted [Fitch] Behr was always our "resident electrician." He and George Yewell were the husbands of two of the Art Alliance members, and also Ted became a trustee later on. They were frantically running around trying to get the electricity to go on again, which it did. It was one of those situations that was a panic for a moment. We didn't lose anything, I don't think. Nobody fell down the stairs! It was just one of those things that happen that make it fun, interesting, and exciting!

RATNER

Why don't we go ahead and talk a little bit about the Treasure Chest sale, which was one of the main fund¬raisers for the Art Alliance and had been held fairly consistently, I guess, since the early fifties even.

BURTON

Mm-hm [affirmative].

RATNER

How was that all organized?

BURTON

Well, it started out, it was organized by appointing someone who was a chairman for the sale. And they in turn would organize different committees who would take on different responsibilities for the collecting of the "treasures," and then the invitations, the party and all of that, and each one would work on their own particular thing. I think what made the treasure sale rather unique from other activities of that kind where junk and everything else, from good to bad—All of us have Treasure Chest items in our home, I mean, things have recycled three and four times. I see an old mahogany breakfront of mine whenever I go to Patty Burschinger's, and Martha has a sofa that used to belong to us.

RATNER

[laughter]

BURTON

There are pieces here that are early Treasure Chest. That secretary that's in there, the Queen Anne one, came from a Treasure Chest sale. So we did have some really nice items. We also had a lot of not-so-nice ones. What I was going to say was what made it really different was the displaying of the items. This is the real creativity of the Art Alliance. One of the wonderful things was that each room was assigned to a room mother. Each room had a room mother who was a member of the Art Alliance, and they got together their own committee, and we would have, for example, the dining room and the living room area and sort all of the different items into those different rooms. New members always got the "garage," which was all the junk that was left over. You were sort of baptized by fire by getting that! And then it was up to you to organize it to make it look as presentable as possible. You know, it's just absolutely amazing what all—I was not very clever at that, so I never was too involved. But they made it really look salable, and people just loved it! [They] ran in, and you'd be amazed what they bought! It was rather amazing what we had sometimes, always some really very unusual items along with the usual ones. For example, we tried to set up the room to look as much like a bedroom or whatever, then in the bedroom you'd have all the linens artistically falling out of drawers and things like that, and flowers in the vases. Then it would be presented to the public. When we were in the old museum building we also at times sold off certain things for the museum, too, items that had been given that weren't in the permanent collection that could be sold. One time, however, again Betty Elliot and I were in this room, and all of a sudden we looked and somebody on the staff had put out these wonderful old Roman, this Roman glass and Greek glass. And I mean, well, we rescued it so it wasn't sold. But things like that—

RATNER

It has been put out to be sold? Oh, my goodness!

BURTON

Yes. There was a little problem there of things that were in the collection for a while getting sold that shouldn't have been.

1.2. TAPE NUMBER: I, SIDE TWO MAY 4, 1988

RATNER

We were talking about the treasure sale, and you were telling of an incident where some Roman glass had accidentally been put out. The items that you sold for the museum, those are items that had never been accessioned?

BURTON

Well, in the earlier days of the museum, the records were not kept very well. That was why Betty and I were cataloging a lot of the items down there [in the basement], and a lot of the items had gotten into the collection without being accessioned. Basically, in a museum—I think this is true of most museums; I'm not positive—there is the permanent collection, which you really have to go through a process for deaccessioning, and then you have a lot of other items that don't have the restrictions on [them] that the permanent collection does, and these would fit into that category. I mean, small things that had been given along the way. The museum was changing direction from just being a local city museum to one with more of a direction.

RATNER

And so the staff, was [it] the staff that was selecting the items?

BURTON

Well, there was a little problem there at that particular time! [laughter]

RATNER

What point are we talking about here?

BURTON

Oh, let's see. This would be, well, '69, '70, in that area, I think. There wasn't as close a watch kept over some of the things that were in the museum as perhaps there should have been. That's all I'd like to say! [laughter]

RATNER

Okay. But I mean, even as late as '69 or whatever, some museum items were sold in the Treasure Chest sale? That's really just what I was trying to get at.

BURTON

Yes, and on the whole, most of the things that were sold in the Treasure Chest sale, they were—I would say the things that were sold in the Treasure Chest sale were supposed to be sold in the Treasure Chest sale. There was no problem there. No, it was other things that weren't sold in the Treasure Chest sale. But the things that were sold in the Treasure Chest sale, I think yes, that was the point. They were supposed to be sold there.

RATNER

And that, of course, raised lots of money every year?

BURTON

Yes, it was a very good fund-raiser.

RATNER

Continuing on with your term as chairman—did they call it chairman or president?

BURTON

Chairman.

RATNER

Chairman? In 1968, you made an announcement which I found kind of surprising that late, that all Art Alliance members had to also be members of the museum, which I thought was kind of surprising, that that wasn't maybe a condition of Art Alliance membership or something from the very beginning.

BURTON

Right. Well, I think it had always, was a condition of membership; I think it probably had not been enforced. I think at that particular time, when we were going to be moving on to the other building, it became more important. I think it's just reiterating, probably, something that wasn't enforced as much as it should have been earlier on, and we just cracked down on it, basically.

RATNER

Here I have a note that from 1964 to '68, between the treasure sale and the auction, the income earned was close to $136,000. That's pretty terrific in four years!

BURTON

Nineteen sixty-four to '68? Well, I think the Treasure Chest sale the year I was chairman was around $25,000 or $30,000, and the auction was around $40,000. And then the year before, we'd had the art auction, which was, of course, very successful. I think it raised around $40,000, also. There was quite a big jump in the amount of funds that we were raising from the previous years where they were lucky if they raised $10,000 or $15,000.

RATNER

What accounted for that difference?

BURTON

I don't know. Harder work, maybe. I think that that was the time when we started doing the Treasure Chest sale maybe every other year instead of every year. And, as I say, the "Party Slightly Tinged with Green" was a new concept that we hadn't done before, and it was very, very successful. Other than the art auction, which was something we couldn't really repeat—we could do that that year mainly through Carolyn Rowan, I mean, Carolyn Farris, who was then Carolyn Rowan and had a lot of contacts. That was what made that successful, and obviously it could not be repeated two years later. The other idea that we came up with happened to be very successful. And we worked very hard.

RATNER

I thought that we might go ahead and talk a little bit about the new building and the move to the Carmelita property. Begin from your perspective as a—

BURTON

The Art Alliance?

RATNER

Right.

BURTON

I'll try and separate them out!

RATNER

If you can! If you can't, that's fine, although the questions are geared in that direction. The decision had been made to return to the original site of the museum at Carmelita, I think prior to your joining the Art Alliance.

BURTON

I'm not sure.

RATNER

I think it was early in 1960 that that decision was made.

BURTON

It was about, I think, at that time.

RATNER

Yes. You joined shortly thereafter, or maybe you had already joined. But at any rate, the project was still in its very early stages, and at the time the announcement was made, the Art Alliance was asked, as I imagine they did with many things, to assist with the related parties and invitations and refreshments. And I wondered what kinds of promotional or fund-raising events you recall from that early period as a kickoff for this whole project.

BURTON

I don't really remember the Art Alliance being that involved—You mean in relationship to fund-raising for the new building? Is that what you're talking about?

RATNER

Right.

BURTON

I don't really remember a lot of fund-raising parties. Basically, the people that were doing the fund-raising weren't—I don't think they were doing it that way. They were going after individuals, people on an individual basis, and we did things, but they were more like membership things, like we did something—I'd forgotten about it completely, I can't even remember which year where we spread out all over town and had little booths, but that was basically for membership. We also had a soup kitchen on New Year's morning up on the Carmelita property one year. I remember that we sold soup and all to the people that were there for the parade. I think it was about the time of—It was Andy Warhol's tomato soup!

RATNER

[laughter]

BURTON

I remember these as functions, but I don't especially remember them being tied into fund-raising dinners. At the moment I can't think of—We did lots of, you know, we did parties, like we did the party for [Marcel] Duchamp at the old Green Hotel, which was one of the greatest parties. It was wonderful. But that again was a reception for an artist, and I don't really think of them so much as fund-raising. Later on, well, of course, just before the museum closed we were trying to do that big party the night it was announced that Norton Simon—I really am sorry, I can't—

RATNER

Well, maybe there weren't any?

BURTON

I just don't relate to any right now that were specific parties that we invited people to because we thought they were going to give money.

RATNER

I just wondered, because there was this line out of the minutes that that's what they would be asked to assist with, so I wondered if anything of that sort had happened.

BURTON

Well, as I say, we hostess it, host, we were hostesses—I have trouble with that word, I guess!—at a lot of different events. But I can't remember any specific ones. There may have been.

RATNER

During those early years, early sixties, how was the site discussed? As a whole cultural center? Because that was an early idea. Or simply as a place for the museum?

BURTON

Well, I think the concept of having a whole cultural center there was brought up at several different times, but I think basically we zeroed in on it being just a site for the museum. I know that the concept was certainly there, and there were organizations like the Coleman Chamber [Music Association] orchestra that were to hopefully be included, and the idea, of course, of having the auditorium, that was the ideal concept, but then it sort of shrunk down to just the museum itself.

RATNER

At a meeting in October '65, the Art Alliance board visited the offices of [Thornton] Ladd and [John] Kelsey. I wondered, what was the nature of this kind of visit? Was it for an update? Or was the Art Alliance asked for their input on anything for the new building?

BURTON

We weren't asked for our input, I don't believe, on anything in the new building. It was probably just a program for the Art Alliance to go and see what was going on and keep them informed. I don't happen to remember that particular incident, but I don't [believe] the Art Alliance really, basically, as far as I can recall, was asked for any input on the building. Of course, there were several designs that the building went through. I guess you've been all through that. I don't think we were really asked our opinion that I can recall.

RATNER

I wondered if they'd been asked about maybe the kitchen or anything, because they were—

BURTON

Well, the Art Alliance was very unhappy about the kitchen. I guess you may have come across that. Because they put in what was a caterer's kitchen rather than a functional kitchen, and later on, after the building was built, with the caterer's—If they'd asked the Art Alliance originally, they would have solved a big problem I think, because they had to redo the kitchen because it was not the kind of a kitchen that was really useful for the building. It's a case where they should have asked them, and I think the Art Alliance would have loved to have given its input about space for volunteers, an office and all, but I don't really recall ever, personally, having been involved in any situations where we were asked or it was discussed especially. The museum, along the way, was very—The board of trustees was fairly open to the support groups, much more so, I think, than most museums are. The chairmen of the groups were invited to sit in on trustee meetings, and then, of course, later on, which we'll probably get into, they were given half a vote, too. But even way before that and before all the problems that developed in the new building they were, when I was chairman, still meeting in the old building. I can recall going to meetings. So they were fairly open, and we were kept informed of what was going on. I think input was more on a one-to-one basis, maybe, than as an organization.

RATNER

You mentioned that the people were unhappy with the kitchen. What was the general consensus amongst the group regarding the facilities overall?

BURTON

You mean other than the kitchen?

RATNER

Mm-hm [affirmative].

BURTON

Well, I think just like everything else, as many members as there were, there were different opinions, probably. I think on the whole they found it an exciting building. I think they felt perhaps it didn't function as well as it could. I don't know that they were highly critical of it. We're talking about the new Ladd and Kelsey building, right?

RATNER

Correct. Yes.

BURTON

After having worked in what is now the Pacific Asia [Museum] building [the Grace Nicholson Building] in the old museum building and down in the basement, where you were in these cold, damp rooms doing things, it was quite a pleasure to be up there. Well, there was that one room that was a meeting room for the volunteers, but I think they would have liked—I know they would have liked—to have had a space where they could have had their own office, their own little territory. But you don't get that in any museum, really, or not many, certainly. You're always scrunched into something, a corner. Some people didn't like the tiles on the outside, some did. It was just that each one had their own particular aesthetic judgment of the building, I think, and of its functioning. And again, it's like most volunteer groups: you have a nucleus that are working and are concerned, and most of the members just sit there. It's very easy to be critical of something, but to actually do something, that was always one of my favorite ploys. If somebody was highly critical, I'd say, "Well, if you don't like it, would you like to take on that job?" Usually they didn't want to.

RATNER

[laughter]

BURTON

I'm not very informative there.

RATNER

That's fine. What role did the Art Alliance play in the opening ceremonies and parties? What were those festivities like?

BURTON

Well, the opening itself—I'm trying to separate the opening from—I can't remember whether it was the opening or the groundbreaking where we all went up there early in the morning and blew up thousands of balloons.

RATNER

I think that was the opening.

BURTON

I think it was the opening. We blew up thousands of balloons forever and then cut them and let them go. So basically for the opening and for the groundbreaking, the role that they played was planning the festivities, the party part of it, as opposed to the ceremonial part of it, doing all the logistics, being sure [of] having the food there, acting as volunteers to serve the food. Then there was the opening dinner for the, I guess it was for the founders, the donors, and specially invited guests, and there the Art Alliance—I don't think as an organization we worked on it, but certain members of the organization did. Basically, volunteers did the dinner. I know the table decorations were done by Art Alliance members, and the planning of the food and the party was all done by Art Alliance members. So I don't know that it was officially an Art Alliance function, but it was done by Art Alliance members, maybe under the aegis of a trustee. [phone rings; tape recorder off]

RATNER

Prior to moving into the new building, some concern was expressed by some members of the Art Alliance regarding the possible changing role there might be for the Art Alliance once the museum had moved because of the expanded facilities and staff and programs. And I wondered what, if anything, that you recalled about those discussions and how they were resolved.

BURTON

I don't really recall too much about it. I think as any institution becomes larger and their staff expands, you lose that intimacy that you have in an organization that is small. You have a lot of volunteers doing work that would normally be done by staff. There was a loss of intimacy when we moved up there, I think, but of course, because of the financial problems that developed later, we got it right back again! There was the involvement which I'm not sure was really healthy— Staff-volunteer relationship is a very difficult thing, because some volunteers are very businesslike and tackle it as a job and are worth their time, whereas other volunteers you might as well not have because it takes more time to get them to do what they're supposed to do than to do it yourself, and then they do not take the responsibility of a position. I think this is something that all organizations have a problem with, and the Art Alliance did, too. I've sort of lost my train of thought, but basically, moving up there, it was a more formalized situation, so that volunteers probably didn't move quite as freely as we did in the other museum. It was something new, a change you always have to get used to, and I think it went fairly smoothly. I think that a lot of the things that people were concerned about perhaps didn't develop, and perhaps one reason they didn't was because volunteers did have to become so closely involved because of unfortunate situations. I'm trying to think back. There was some difficulty then and there was quite a bit of concern. After my chairmanship, Rosemary Sadler was chairman. That was one of the wonderful things that happened with being chairman of the Art Alliance. When I was appointed chairman, Rosemary was my vice-chairman, and I had never met her before. She and I worked together and became very, very close friends, and she was just a wonderful person, just a wonderful person. I think the fact that she was chairman at that time was very, very helpful with the moving, because she had a lot of tact and a lot of social grace and was a very hard worker, and I think she really helped make the move a smooth one. She was able to be a good liaison during that particular period.

RATNER

Before we go on—and I think that was all I wanted to ask you about the building at this point—before we go on and talk about the staff, there are just a couple of other projects I'd wanted to ask you about. We're kind of backtracking a little bit. One of the other projects the Art Alliance was involved in was providing a purchase prize for the San Gabriel Valley Exhibitions that were held at the museum for many years. Initially, the Art Alliance paid for the work and also gave some prize money to the artists, so later they simply paid for the work. And from reading the minutes, it appears that the Art Alliance had trouble at some point getting the membership to come and vote. I guess that was the procedure: the membership voted on the work that was to be given to the museum. I just wondered what you could tell me about this project.

BURTON

When was that? What year, do you know?

RATNER

I don't know what year it stopped. It's not clear.

BURTON

It stopped before I was chairman.

RATNER

Oh, did it?

BURTON

Yes. Because it was not going on when I was chairman. The only thing I can remember was that I was talking about the involvement in doing that show, but I don't remember ever being involved with the Art Alliance when we were voting on—

RATNER

Oh, really?

BURTON

—an art—No, I really don't. I think that must have been something quite early on.

RATNER

Must have been early.

BURTON

I really don't remember that.

RATNER

Then the other thing was the Art Alliance gave a series of Japanese prints to the museum that had once belonged to Frank Lloyd Wright.

BURTON

Mm-hm [affirmative].

RATNER

Okay. What can you tell me about that project?

BURTON

Not much! I think basically we just raised the money for it.

RATNER

How did the idea come about?

BURTON

Well, I can't remember whether it was presented to the Art Alliance as something the museum would like to have and they raised the money to buy them. It seems to me it came about through a member of the Art Alliance who was familiar with them. But I really don't remember.

RATNER

So at that point, though, the museum apparently was still interested in collecting oriental objects? Because otherwise it doesn't seem to really fit the exhibition focus.

BURTON

Right. Well, the museum was interested in collecting oriental objects up to a point because there were certain people that were giving money to the museum at that point that still thought it was going to have an oriental wing, and as you recall, our opening show there was an oriental show, so the museum was still definitely, even up until that time, going to be a bifurcated museum where they would have both the oriental and the contemporary. I think basically it wasn't until maybe they changed their name to the Pasadena Museum of Modern Art that they really gave up the thought of having the oriental wing.

RATNER

I thought we'd go on now and talk a little bit about the staff and the board. Throughout your involvement with the museum you saw several directors come and go—

BURTON

I was counting the other night—I think, five! [laughter]

RATNER

—and I'm interested in the kind of relationship they had with the Art Alliance, so I thought we'd start with Tom [Thomas W.] Leavitt. He was the first director, I believe, when you were in the Art Alliance. How responsive was he to the needs and interests of the Alliance?

BURTON

Well, Tom was the director when I was first a member of the Art Alliance, so I was sort of young, the new kid on the block, and I think probably Liz [Elizabeth] Hanson—You're going to interview Liz Hanson?

RATNER

I've spoken to her once and will speak to her again.

BURTON

She would probably be able to tell you a lot more about that than I. I found Tom a charming person. He seemed to accept the group, and I don't know that he especially had a close relationship to it. As I say, that was in my early tenure, so I have no feelings that there was any problem.

RATNER

What was the reaction to his resignation?

BURTON

With the Art Alliance? Well, I think that people were sorry to see him go, that everybody liked Tom very much, but I think that they understood his reasons for leaving and were sympathetic toward them.

RATNER

We've already mentioned Walter Hopps, and he, of course, followed Tom Leavitt, and you mentioned his comment to you about volunteers and Sam Francis. How, if at all, did that reflect his own attitude?

BURTON

Well, I think Walter felt that volunteers definitely had a place, and the place was away from the art part of the museum and the art community. I like Walter, but he was very, very difficult to work with, because as I say, he marched to the beat of a different drummer, he kept entirely different hours. When he was working, he was very demanding. I would say that Walter, though, definitely felt that the volunteers had their place in the museum and the staff had their place, and that volunteers could get in the way of staff, which they can! I can certainly agree with him on that. They can get very much in the way of staff. And I think he sort of accepted them as a necessary evil! [laughter] I don't think he especially enjoyed working with them on the whole. I think he enjoyed some of them individually, and again, as I say, I think he thought of them more as the people to give the parties and to raise the funds but to stay out of the general day-to-day working of the museum. There's nothing wrong with that. A lot of directors feel that way.

RATNER

How did the Art Alliance feel about that sort of attitude?

BURTON

Well, the Art Alliance—Again, you're talking about a group where you have a nucleus that for over many years worked very hard and did a lot of things and had a very intimate involvement with the staff. I happen to be one of those, and there are several others, maybe ten or twelve I could name, but the Art Alliance as a whole was sort of divorced from that whole scene.

RATNER

I see.

BURTON

They were doing their thing, they were raising their money, they were having their little parties. I mean, they couldn't care less, really, whether they could meet with Sam Francis or not, except for the fact that maybe they would like to meet him socially. But on the whole I think they were fairly unaware of that part of it. It was just the small working group that was involved but the general membership had their meetings and programs and only when they were doing the Treasure Chest sale—in those days we used to do it in the museum—at times there might be some conflict, because they wanted to have space for a longer period, or conflicts would arise where different people would want different things at different times, or maybe make a demand on staff time that was unreasonable. But on the whole they were doing their own thing and not that involved. Then you had people like Eudie [Eudorah] Moore who was in all camps. As I mentioned, Betty Elliot became Walter's secretary, and, of course, she happened to do that through being a member of the Art Alliance and being involved in the Art Alliance. So you did have people that were doing two things, so there was more of a connection, but it was more of a personal one rather than the entire group.

RATNER

So in some ways, who the director was didn't—Not that it didn't make a difference, but they weren't that involved?

BURTON

Right. I would say that we've had questionnaires in the Art Alliance off and on through the years as to "Why do you belong to the Art Alliance? What is your reason for belonging?" And the largest percentage of answers, I think, are, "I enjoy the joie de vivre of the group; I enjoy the social contacts." And I think it would be even larger if people were more honest about it. Some people say that they belong for some more altruistic reasons, but a lot of the success of the Art Alliance is the social rapport. Now the Art Alliance is completely removed from an institution, but then when they had their Treasure Chest sales in outside homes, after we could not have it in the museum any more—this was when we had the new building—the Art Alliance was still connected with the museum. But it became its own little enclave, its own little group, and existed autonomously, by itself, doing its thing. I think some members perhaps were disturbed by the program at the museum, that they didn't get enough credit for the money they gave or they weren't recognized enough. Those would be the basic complaints.

RATNER

Jim [James T.] Demetrion followed Walter Hopps as the director. What was his relationship like with the Art Alliance?

BURTON

Well, I would say also, he had a good relationship with the Art Alliance. Jim was socially a more withdrawn person than some of the other directors, perhaps, and because of that, I think his relationship perhaps was a little more distant, mainly because of personality. But I think that it was always a healthy relationship. I don't know what the directors have told you about the Art Alliance! I'm sure they found them an aggressive group of women that were a necessary evil, probably, at times, because they are; some of them are very aggressive. Again, it's hard to separate the Art Alliance as an organization from the individuals that overlapped in so many different ways, because they did so many jobs. As I say, some of them were quasi-staff or staff, and some of them were trustees. I'm sure the directors found them aggressive but a needed group. I'm not sure, but I think, in relationship to most directors of most museums and most professional staff, they would love not to have them, just like they'd love not to have a board of trustees if they could function without them. But they accept the fact that they are there.

RATNER

What do you recall, if there was any discussion, about the timing of Demetrion's departure? Of course, he announced it about a year, well, not quite a year before the new building opened, and then left in June, and the museum was set to open in November.

BURTON

Well, you mean from an Art Alliance standpoint?

RATNER

Well, maybe I'm just asking you that generally.

BURTON

Generally?

RATNER

And was there discussion amongst the Art Alliance about that?

BURTON

Oh, there's always discussion! I mean, the Art Alliance talks about anything and everything. They could tell you every personal—if we wanted to go into that—there'd be a lot to expose of characteristics in people and who did what with whom and all. So naturally, there was all sorts of discussion! On the level you're speaking about, I think there was great concern because of the fact that a new building was going to be opened and we were without a director at that particular time, which takes a little bit away from the credence of your institution. It would have been so interlaced, though, with all the other problems that were going on at that time. They're all so interrelated. The fact that the funds were not there for the building, I think it was just one more thing that was a problem, one more concern at that particular time. Jim, I think, was very well liked, but again, as I say, he was, perhaps personality-wise, a little more withdrawn. He was more of an academic person, so I don't think he had the interplay and all with the group, and he wasn't director for that long, either.

1.3. TAPE NUMBER: II, SIDE ONE MAY 4, 1988

BURTON

I don't know how relevant a lot of this is.

RATNER

It's very relevant.

BURTON

I mean, with all the big problems and everything, I don't know. It seems like a lot of little—

RATNER

Well, you know, it was a pretty important place in its day, and it's good to have everybody talk about it before people forget or aren't around any longer to talk about it.

BURTON

Right, especially that!

RATNER

Before we flipped the tape we were talking about Jim Demetrion and his departure. Was there anything else you wanted to mention about him?

BURTON

No, I can't think of anything right now. Probably tomorrow I'll think of a lot.

RATNER

So he was followed by Tom [Thomas G.] Terbell, who happened to have been a member of the board of trustees. And his wife [Melinda Terbell, now Wortz], in fact, was an Art Alliance [of the Pasadena Art Museum] member. How did the group feel about his term as director and his relationship with the Art Alliance?

BURTON

Well, I think, it was a very interesting concept at that time to go away from a director who was art-oriented, who had come out of the art history background, to a director who was business-oriented. It was the feeling of the board of trustees, and I think that was passed on to the Art Alliance—at that particular time, we had a lot of monetary problems that we were all aware of—that maybe this was a good solution, because really, a lot of the problems that needed to be solved were not so much artistic as monetary. And then they had John [R.] Coplans as the curator, who was supposedly taking care of the artistic choices or decisions. Because Melinda and Tom were closely related to the Art Alliance, I think it was a little difficult, perhaps, for a lot of the members to set him aside as a director, and I think that the relationship was perhaps a little more personal than it was healthy to be because of that. Not only was Melinda a member of the Art Alliance, but her stepmother [Elizabeth Farris] had been, basically, and there was quite a lot of personal contact there and more later on, so I think it was a little hard for the ladies to separate him out as a professional.

RATNER

What kind of reaction was there to his resignation?

BURTON

Well, I think the reaction was that you did need somebody that was a little more art-oriented as the director. And I don't think the reaction was so much to Tom as to John Coplans, who was not one of the more popular people who was associated with the museum. I think that there was much more feeling about John than there was about Tom.

RATNER

Speaking of John Coplans, he was certainly a controversial figure.

BURTON

Controversial is right, yes!

RATNER

[laughter] How, if at all, did he interact with the Art Alliance? What was that relationship like?

BURTON

Well, I would say of all of the relationships of staff to the Art Alliance, probably John's relationship was the least successful. I don't think that John had any feeling at all for the organization. I think that he really felt that they were just a bother. He tolerated them, barely. If he wanted something, he would use them, but other than that, he would just as soon they were not around at all. And he was not terribly forthcoming in helping them with their programs or doing anything for the organizations, the docents, any of them. We have been talking all about the Art Alliance; of course, there were other organizations involved, too. I was a docent also, and it was a tough time for them, because he was not the most cooperative, and he was not overly fond of ladies' groups—or any groups.

RATNER

[laughter] So the reaction to his resignation might have been relief, I guess!

BURTON

I don't think anybody was really very sorry that he left. John also did not really have the background to be—I guess he was, officially, the chief curator. I don't remember. But his background—He was a printer from South Africa, and when he wrote, he used all these big terms. I think the feeling of most people was that he used big words and obfuscation because he really didn't know what he was saying! And that was basically the reaction to him. No, I don't think people were very sorry to see him leave.

RATNER

So when he left, the museum was without a curator, and that was when Bill [William C.] Agee came in. And then he later became director when Tom Terbell resigned. What was the nature of his relationship with the Art Alliance?

BURTON

Well, I think Bill had a very nice relationship with the Art Alliance. Everybody was very fond of him, and they were very fond of his wife, Elita [Taylor Agee]. It was one of the customs of the Art Alliance to have the director's wife as an honorary member. Of course, Walter didn't have one. Barbara Demetrion was very quiet. Melinda [Terbell], of course, already belonged. But Elita was a very charming person. And when Bill first came, they stayed in the guest house of Peggy [Margaret] Phelps. So he became involved socially and personally with the group in the earlier years, but again, as all staff and directors are to all organizations—And you can't be a generalist, but this is pretty much, I think, across the board, there is a point in that relationship that again, I think they'd probably rather do without volunteers if they didn't have to have them. But for having to have that relationship, I would say it went along very well. With every one you had your differences, because you're coming at the same problems, maybe, but from different angles or different interpretations.

RATNER

And then he left just slightly before the announcement was made that [Norton] Simon was coming in?

BURTON

Right.

RATNER

What was the feeling about the timing of his resignation?

BURTON

Well, at that point, everything was up in the air. I would say that people were very sorry to see him go, but they certainly understood why he was doing it. In all of these questions you're asking me, it's very hard for me to separate what was the feeling of the group, what was my feeling as an Art Alliance chairman, or what was my feeling as a trustee, or what am I seeing in hindsight? So some of these answers, I wonder—I'm sure they're colored by all of these things, so how exactly true a response they are to your specific question, I don't know. But I think that we would have preferred if he hadn't left, certainly, at that time, but we understood it.

RATNER

And finally I wanted to ask you about Barbara Haskell, who started out as an assistant curator, and then, when Bill Agee left, she became the chief curator, although she didn't really have an opportunity to—

BURTON

Do anything with it.

RATNER

Right. What kind of interaction did the Art Alliance have really with the curatorial staff?

BURTON

Well, again, I would say, it was more on an individual basis, as it was all along. Your chairman probably had a relationship, and some of the other members that were involved in certain projects where they had to interrelate, but as a whole, the only other relationship they would have would be when the curator came to meetings to present programs and tell them what was going on on the curatorial side of the museum, the exhibitions. Other than that, I don't think it was too much.

RATNER

Were there any other staff members that you recall as particularly helpful or difficult?

BURTON

Well, I don't especially recall any as being difficult. Again, I'm trying to separate my Art Alliance—

RATNER

Well, don't separate it; just—

BURTON

—from some of the others.

RATNER

We'll just speak in generalities here.

BURTON

Yes. I think that Hal Glicksman was always very helpful and cooperative; Barbara Berman, the different curators—I'm probably leaving people out because I don't remember everybody who was there. But on the whole, I think the staff relationship to the Art Alliance was quite—Of course, the Art Alliance was very closely connected with California Design because of Eudie [Eudorah Moore], and I probably should bring that in a little bit, the fact that a lot of the people in the Art Alliance, they really would like to have seen more of a relationship with California Design. A great many of them worked on that phase of the program, and there was some conflict within the Art Alliance because of this, because there were some that felt so strongly for the California Design program while others of us were more interested in the overall, especially the contemporary part of the museum program. And when funds—Sometimes there was a conflict of who was going to get the funds and perhaps who was going to get the energy of some of the workers, and this did cause some conflict within the group. Other than that, I don't—Carol Marsden, did I mention her?

RATNER

No, not yet.

BURTON

[She] was more or less the business manager. She worked very closely—I suppose we'll get into this in the next taping, when the volunteers worked at the museum, so that would probably relate more to that than really the Art Alliance.

RATNER

Finally, because of the Art Alliance's long history of support of the museum, what was its—we talked about it a little bit—but what was its relationship with the board of trustees, which at various times included members of the Art Alliance, yourself included, as we've mentioned, and/or their husbands. I'm wondering what kind of influence the Art Alliance maybe was able to have.

BURTON

Well, again, I think they had quite a bit, but it was mainly, I think, through the interrelationship between the members of the board of trustees and/or husbands that were on it, perhaps to the point where it might have been a bit unhealthy. I have been chairman of a group at the [Los Angeles] County Museum [of Art], and I am a trustee at MOCA [Museum of Contemporary Art] and am the trustee that formed all the support groups there. I've also been to the Volunteer Committees of Art Museums of North America, several of those, and was on the steering committee. The Art Alliance was an unusually powerful group, I think. They had a great deal more influence than most support groups do. I think this was due a lot to the circumstances, the fact that the museum was very small in the beginning, so you had a lot of interrelationship, and then when it became larger, due to the financial problems where, again, you became very dependent on this group of supporters, because the museum did not have a broad enough appeal to people to have a broad support group, it was sort of like intermarriage! [laughter] I think they had too much power, probably, were too intimately involved with a lot of things, and got into policy situations where they shouldn't have been involved. I think the California Design thing that I mentioned was really something that shouldn't have been as much at the Art Alliance level as it should have been at the trustee level. And involvement with some of the personalities—! think they had more power than they should have had. They were more intimately involved than they should have been at the particular time I was involved. Now, before that, I don't know. And again, also, I would say that this varied, too, depending on who was the chairman that year and who was involved in the nucleus of the organization.

RATNER

Of the board of trustees or the Art Alliance?

BURTON

Of the Art Alliance, which Art Alliance members were tremendously involved at that particular time. I think in your early history you may find even more involvement because of the composition of the board of trustees early on, but maybe not. I don't know.

RATNER

How frequently was an Art Alliance member invited onto the board of trustees?

BURTON

Well, I think we have to break that down maybe into two classifications: people who were Art Alliance members who were invited onto the board of trustees because of what they did as an Art Alliance member; or people that happened to be Art Alliance members and maybe weren't such active Art Alliance members but happened to have other qualifications, such as being a large donor or had some other attribute to give.

RATNER

Well, just, you know, I don't know how many, but I mean just—

BURTON

Well, I would say, let's see—Before I became involved, [there was] Eudie Moore, I think. Was Liz [Elizabeth] Hanson on the board of trustees?

RATNER

For a short time.

BURTON

For a while. But of chairmen that were on it, Martha [B.] Padve—not an Art Alliance chairman—Peggy Phelps, myself, and Rosemary Sadler were all on it, and then later on, toward the very end, Kay Files—who was never a chairman but she was an Art Alliance member—I think was asked on probably because of her activities in the Art Alliance. There were other Art Alliance members that were on the board of trustees, like Adelaide Hixson, but I would say she was not asked on because she was an Art Alliance member; it was for other reasons.

RATNER

That's really what I was wondering, from the level of their involvement in the Art Alliance, what, you know—So maybe about five or six, something like that?

BURTON

Yes, probably.

RATNER

So it was quite an honor?

BURTON

Well, I don't know! [laughter] It depended when you were asked, or what they needed.

1.4. TAPE NUMBER: III, SIDE ONE MAY 17, 1988

RATNER

I'd like to begin our discussion of the Pasadena Art Museum today with the opening party for the Marcel Duchamp exhibition ["Marcel Duchamp Retrospective"], which you mentioned last time. You had said it was* a particularly wonderful party, and I just wondered if you could tell me about that.

BURTON

Well, it was a very exciting party. We took over the Green Hotel, which, at that time, was in great disrepair, and nobody ever went to the Green. And we did it in the ballroom there, and it just fit in so beautifully with what Marcel Duchamp was doing at that time. One of the things I remember particularly about it was that he was there, and Walter Hopps I guess was the director then, because at least he was in charge of the show, and Marcel Duchamp picked up a sign that was in the shape of a hand that was pointing to the men's room at the Green Hotel and signed it and gave it to Walter Hopps so that he had a souvenir of the show. Everything—It was just one of those evenings that was really sort of magic, because everything worked right because of the feeling and the ambience of the place. And it was very creatively done. It was one of the more fun times at the museum. And it was an exciting show because Duchamp was not well known in Pasadena, and it was really introducing him. It was the kind of thing that many of us at the museum wanted the museum to stand for, and this was a very successful symbol of the direction the museum was taking.

RATNER

People always talk about that party, so I wish it could have been videotaped or something!

BURTON

Uh-huh [affirmative]! It's really sort of hard to say why it was such a great party. It was just the people that were there and the place. Some things sometimes just click and have magic, and that was one of them.

RATNER

What other openings and exhibitions stand out in your mind as particularly wonderful or interesting?

BURTON

A lot of them were great fun. The Art Alliance [of the Pasadena Art Museum] was often hostessing many of the different openings, and we had certain members that were really very, very creative, so they did very interesting things for the different openings. One I remember in particular was the Andy Warhol opening, and he was there, and we served Campbell's tomato soup! That was the main thing that we served. And I remember afterwards some of us getting the large cans that we had served the soup out of and having Andy Warhol sign them for us, so we had those as souvenirs! I gave mine to my daughter, unfortunately, and I don't know what happened to it, because as I looked at this last Warhol auction, I thought, "Gee, I may have had a very expensive piece of art," or a souvenir. He was such an interesting, different person, and he was there with his entourage of all the unusual people that he usually had in tow. That was when we had moved up in the new building. That was an evening that was different and a lot of fun. I can't really think of any more right off the top of my head now. Did you want me to discuss the party when we opened the museum, when we went up to the new building at that time?

RATNER

Yes, we started to talk about that a little last time, but if you have more to say, that would be great.

BURTON

I mean, is this the place?

RATNER

Perfect! This is a perfect place!

BURTON

Because that was a very lovely evening. Again, the Art Alliance was in charge of it, although there was catering. One of the things I remember particularly about it were the table decorations, because Sally Kubly, whose husband was president of Art Center [College of Design], did the table decorations. She had taken broken pieces of plastic, all different sizes and shapes, and glued them together so they were abstract mounds in the middle of the table, and then we put candles on them, and they were very, very effective table decorations. It was a very lovely dinner, and more formal than most of the affairs. Then, of course, there was the last dinner we had, the party that was to be a fund-raiser. That was the night we all discovered that Norton Simon was indeed going to take over control of the board. We had this great party that had been planned, and we had caviar that had been flown in from Russia. It was a very, very marvelous party also, but the evening was sort of—It was a great farewell, but we hadn't planned it as being that way. All of the openings that we did, even when our budget got tight and we got down to the wine-and-cheese kind of openings, we really tried to be creative and tie in in some way with the artist that was involved. After we moved up to Carmelita [Park], up to the new museum, the Art Alliance did not do all the openings because other groups wanted to do openings. The San Marino League would do one, and the Art Workshop [Council] would do one, because it was always great fun to do an opening and be there to meet all of the honored guests.

RATNER

Any exhibitions that stand out in your mind as special or unusual or created a lot of controversy?

BURTON

Well, there were a lot that created a lot of controversy. We had some wonderful exhibitions. What used to disturb me was the fact that people didn't come to see them, and I would think of the cost of the exhibition and, figured out by our attendance, think of how much it was costing per each person seeing that exhibition. That really bothered me. One of the exhibits I really enjoyed was when we had the [Richard] Serra trees, the trees that were chopped down. They were in a back gallery all by themselves, and I used to love to docent that because I used to love to have these people come in. They would always say how awful it was, and why weren't the trees left in the forest, and then you could really teach them how to look by saying, "Do you know, if these trees were in the forest, you wouldn't really look at how beautiful the pattern of the bark was and all of these things that you can see in them you really wouldn't see in the forest," and they'd go away somewhat convinced that maybe there was something to it after all. At least they weren't hostile to it any more as they were in the beginning. I don't know about any special exhibitions because I think there were a lot of them that were— Each one of them was special in its own way. The Bauhaus exhibition ["Fifty Years of Bauhaus"] was, I thought, wonderful, and as I say, each was special in its own way.

RATNER

We briefly mentioned—and you just mentioned now—docenting [and] the docent program last time. I hadn't realized when I was preparing the interview that you had been a docent at the museum. Do you recall what year you joined?

BURTON

No, I don't. I really don't. I'm sorry.

RATNER

Was it fairly early on with your involvement?

BURTON

No, it would have been after I had been chairman of the Art Alliance. Because when I was chairman of the Art Alliance—I was very active in the Art Alliance prior to that—that really took all of my volunteer time. And then, after I'd done my stint there, I think the docenting is one of the most "selfish" jobs that you can do as a volunteer, because it's one of the things that you really get so much out of yourself, and it's a very educational program for you. In return for the amount of time you give to a docenting program, you get such a great deal more out of it, certainly, than stuffing envelopes or licking stamps or doing some of the other things you have to do in other jobs. When I became a docent, it was at a time when I didn't have the obligations I'd had before, and really enjoyed it because of the opportunity to learn a lot more.

RATNER

So what did the training involve for that?

BURTON

Well, the training involved reading. We'd have reading lists of materials on the up-and-coming exhibition, and then we'd have talks by whomever curated the exhibition. If there was an artist involved and it was possible for them to speak to us, they'd come and speak, and then we'd have discussion periods among ourselves, exchanging ideas, and sometimes, but not always, we would do sample tours and work on those together. But it was basically just pulling together your own materials along with information that you got from whomever on the staff was involved in the particular exhibition.

RATNER

What kinds of groups were you taking through the museum?

BURTON

Well, we were taking all kinds of groups through. We were taking a lot of school groups through. I did some children's docenting, but I didn't do that as much as some of the others. There were some that were really good with the children. And then also some of those groups were taken through by people from the Art Workshop. I'd say the bulk of our tours were probably with children's groups. The other tours were with different art-related groups from out of the city, from Los Angeles, like a group that was affiliated with the [Los Angeles] County Museum [of Art], the La Jolla [Museum of Art], or the Santa Barbara [Museum of Art], that came into town. Quite a few of those were even from out of state. We did those. Then we did them for just local groups, women's groups mainly, that wanted some kind of a program for the enrichment of their group. And we did public tours. We would do, usually, I think our schedule [was], we had two public tours a day that we did for whomever walked in at that particular time. That was basically it.

RATNER

I thought we'd move on today and talk about the trustees, your experience as a trustee, and talk a little bit about the various museum policies and issues that confronted the board. During your term, which began in 1970 and concluded when Simon took over the board in 1974, during that four-year period, what was the composition of the board in terms of diversified interests and capabilities?

BURTON

There are going to be some long pauses because I'm going to really have to think about this. The board had representatives of the local business community; it had people on it who were collectors and were interested in contemporary art; and it had on it people like myself who had been active in a lot of volunteer work in doing different things for the museum. I'm trying to remember—There was discussion about—I'm trying to separate it from the MOCA [Museum of Contemporary Art] board and the composition of that—and I'm trying to remember if they ever did put an artist on the Pasadena board. I think they did. I think there was finally an artist on it. I really can't remember. And then at one point in time, because of the activity of the volunteer groups in the museum—and this was when they were really becoming involved much more than volunteers normally become involved in a museum because of the financial problems—the chairman of each one of those groups was given half a vote. So they were basically on the board. Before that, they had always been invited, even when I was chairman, back then, the chairmen were invited to board meetings, but we could not vote on any of the issues. But then, when they became more actively involved in the museum, they were given half a vote.

RATNER

What kind of resistance was there, if any, on the part of the other trustees to allowing the chairs of the standing committees to have a vote?

BURTON

I know it wasn't unanimous, and I know there were discussions. The majority, I think, believed they should have the votes. I really don't recall exactly what the resistance was to it. I think there was fear that the trustees themselves, who really had the fiduciary responsibility—Maybe that was being diluted by these other votes, and I think that the main resistance was there, in that responsibility and whether they would share in this responsibility or not. I think that was the main problem and the main resistance: who was ultimately responsible? Which is an important point. And who has the fiduciary responsibility? Because you, as trustees, do have it. And I think that the resistance came from some of the men, probably, that were in the business community that were concerned about that issue. Also, there was some concern that it would supply a large block of voters that might feel a little differently about some issues—again, issues that would be in the financial field—that might make it difficult for some trustee decisions to be made. I think that was one reason they were given half a vote instead of a full vote. Then just the probably general feeling of sort of guarding your little place in your entity and not wanting somebody else intruding on it. I'm sure that had something to do with it, too.

RATNER

How would you characterize the ability to raise money in Pasadena?

BURTON

When you're saying that, that's a broad statement. The ability of these particular people, or are you talking—I don't quite understand your question, I guess.

RATNER

I guess what I'm asking is how you would characterize it in terms of raising money for a contemporary or modern museum of art.

BURTON

What you're asking is how receptive the Pasadena community was to fund-raising efforts by the members of the board of trustees, or whomever was trying to raise funds for it? I would say, "Not very!" [laughter] I'm sure you've gotten that from a lot of people. The museum, as a contemporary art museum at that particular time, was really not in the right place. There just was not the interest in Pasadena, and of course, that's one of the reasons it had a lot of its financial problems. Basically, some of the fund-raising by some of the people on the board was done by asking people to become involved in something that would be the best for the community and promising, I think, in some ways that the museum was going to be something that it wasn't going to be, and that caused many problems later on. Pasadena basically was then and still is a conservative community, and it was not a fertile field for looking for funds. There were some really wonderful people that believed in the art, and there were also some wonderful people that believed in it as enhancing the community, even though it was not what they were interested in, that did give. But on the whole there was a great deal of resistance to the fund-raising.

RATNER

Of course, the museum would have been different, but had the emphasis been broader, do you feel the community might have been more forthcoming?

BURTON

Well, as you know, there was always the thought that it would have an oriental section and an oriental wing, and that did seem to get quite a bit of support, and, of course, the program of Eudie [Eudorah] Moore's, the California Design, was always very, very popular with people in the community. So I would say, probably, yes, if you're going to make a statement and you believe in something, you shouldn't be diluting it any more than you have to make it more broadly accepted. Once we had decided that the direction was going to be a modern, contemporary museum, and one reason for doing this is that even then—now it's a lot more so—is that the prices of art, fine art, in other than the contemporary field—of course, even now in the contemporary field it's gone sky high—but the availability, not only the cost, but the availability of good art of other periods just didn't exist! To try and build that kind of a collection, to even think that you could have anything other than just a regional museum, would be foolhardy. We couldn't compete, for example, with the County Museum, let alone any of the other great museums around the country. But we could compete on a contemporary basis. That art was available, and the county at that time had a very weak contemporary program. There was no place around here that really had a strong contemporary program. So we would be able to offer the public something that they couldn't get anywhere else or see anywhere else, and we would be able to build a collection that would be exceptional. We could buy the fine pieces, the hopefully future masterpieces; we could afford to do that. So instead of seeing second-rate pieces from Renaissance England or whatever, you could see first-rate contemporary work. And this had a great deal to do with the decisions that were made by the board to take that direction, that it was better to be first in what you were doing than just trying—We did not want to be a regional museum. So unfortunately, the support from Pasadena for that kind of museum was not as forthcoming as we had hoped it would be, and, unfortunately, it was not as forthcoming from the rest of Los Angeles. We had hoped along the way to attract people from other areas—Beverly Hills and the Westside of town and throughout all of Southern California. At that time, there wasn't the interest. You have to put it into perspective that there just really wasn't the interest in contemporary art than as there is today. You didn't have all of these young people that were interested in it. You look at the gallery scene then and now and it's an entirely different situation. Whether the Pasadena Art Museum could exist in Pasadena today or not, I don't know. I don't know if it would still be too far from the center of the community or not, too removed from the art community. I have great concern today with a lot of the proliferation of the contemporary art scene, of people opening their own individual museums, and that could dilute the really fine collections at MOCA and at the County Museum. I think if Pasadena were open again, it would be further dilution. But I think that if these others had not come along, it could probably exist today, although it still always interests me that friends on the Westside of town think nothing of my coming over there, but the freeway is much longer to Pasadena! It's twice as far this way as it is that way. [laughter] And that attitude exists—[tape recorder off]

RATNER

We were talking about the ability to raise money in Pasadena and the location of the museum. Did you just want to finish up that thought?

BURTON

Well, basically, I think what I was saying, as far as the location, is the attitude just did exist that Pasadena was not in the center of what was going on in the art world. And it isn't. It's true! Just recently we have gotten some contemporary art galleries in Pasadena, but basically they are on the Westside, and if you look at the collectors, certainly the large majority of them are on the Westside of Los Angeles. So I think that there is a lot of truth in the fact that they aren't here, and this probably wasn't the best location for a contemporary museum, although we would like to have thought it was.

RATNER

At that time, what would the pros and cons have been of locating the museum on the Westside?

BURTON

Well, as far as the Pasadena [Art] Museum itself existed, we were a Pasadena group, and this was our museum. So we weren't about to move over to the Westside of town. I think that's basically it. I think there were probably a lot of pros and cons if you could have gotten another group of people interested as we did later on when MOCA was formed. The original ad hoc committee was made up of people from all over, all different parts of Los Angeles County, and it brought together people from all different areas. But Pasadena grew out of a small, provincial Pasadena museum. And that's what it was. Therefore it was the Pasadena museum, and then it became a museum of modern art. If those that were involved in the museum were going to continue, that's where it was going to be, in Pasadena.

RATNER

The reason I'm asking these questions regarding the board's level of commitment and the ability to raise money in Pasadena is because, as you well know, as the building progressed and once the building opened, the financial situation rapidly deteriorated. And I'm wondering how you might rate the board in terms of financial management.

BURTON

Do you mean by that managing the money that they had already raised? We discussed and approached the subject of the ability to raise money from the fact that the community was not receptive, but we didn't also look at the other side of the coin as to how good the trustees were or the people who were doing fund-raising, how effective they were in their particular function, which was also, I think, definitely a problem. We had a problem area to work with, so you have to work that much harder to raise money. I don't think that we had on the board an adequate number of people who were good at fund-raising, who were dedicated enough to the museum to really go out and spend the hours and time necessary for the fund-raising and were powerful enough in the corporate community and had enough clout to go out and raise the kind of money we should from the corporate community and the business community. So I think there were two problems, not only the problem of Pasadena, but also the lack—well, I don't want to say "lack" of ability—but that there really weren't enough involved trustees that were that dedicated and that good at fund-raising and had the power to go out and raise the funds. We didn't have a Rockefeller, for example, as the [Museum of] Modern [Art in New York City] did. We didn't have one particular person like that who could really—We didn't have a Buffy [Dorothy Buffum] Chandler as the Music Center [of Los Angeles County] did. We had no one of that nature to do it. And then also we really didn't even have the level below that—trustees don't have the kind of clout of a Rockefeller or Buffy Chandler, but are the CEOs [chief executive officers] of corporations or in powerful business and political situations. So this definitely restricted what we were able to do in fund-raising, because those of us that were working on it did not know the right people, and we had hired a professional fund-raising organization [the Brakely Company] that I felt was a disaster. Maybe the company itself was very good, but the man that was running the campaign—I happen to have a bias against professional fund-raising groups anyway, because I think all they do is supply you with a lot of statistics that anybody with any brains can figure out anyway. If you know what your constituency is, you can figure those things out, but they don't really get down to the personal nitty-gritty. Fund-raising basically is personal contact and telling your story and convincing whomever you're speaking to that this is the best place for them to put what money they have, to interest them in your project. Again, this related to part of the disaster later on, because the project by some of the people that were doing the fund-raising was presented in, well, "colored," I guess would be a good word, colored to convince the person that that was the way the museum was going to be when really it wasn't quite the direction that the museum was going to take. So we were lacking in all of these abilities and these raw materials of just working for the museum, raising the funds. There were some very dedicated people that worked very hard and did the best they could, but there weren't enough of them, and we, as I said—I'm repeating myself—but [what] really was terribly, terribly important is [that] we were lacking those people that could really get out and get the money from the community.

RATNER

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but how would you say then, what was the main reason that the situation got so out of hand? For those reasons you just described, or—?

BURTON

You mean the financial situation got out of hand?

RATNER

Yes.

BURTON

Well, I think it got out of hand, no, not only for that, but I think it got out of hand long before that. I think it got out of hand because they built a building that they really could not afford to maintain without thinking in terms of endowment and how they were going to take care of this building which is very, very important. And there was a reason for it, because there was this grant of land by the city, which I'm sure has been probably discussed before, so there definitely was a time frame for moving ahead to build the building. Now, I was not involved at a policy level when all of that was decided. I came into it much later. But believe me, if I had been, even now having the advantage of hindsight, but even not having that vantage of hindsight, I certainly would have tried to slow down the process, reach some sort of an agreement with the city if that had been at all possible, so that we wouldn't have had to move ahead and build the building before we had a stronger base of funding. I was also not involved in the cornerstone pledges and with the policy-making that was done before I became involved on the board of trustees. I really don't know what caused the failure there, for example, with Wesley [I.] Dumm, why he never paid his pledges. However, I do know that it wasn't the first pledge he had reneged on; he had turned down on others. So it causes one to wonder if the people that were doing the fund-raising at that time were just so eager to get the pledges that perhaps they didn't concern themselves with such things as who's going to pay them and when, and how firm is this particular pledge. I don't think you should be building a building with a pledge that nothing has been paid down upon. I think it got out of hand when they started constructing the building before they had adequate financing for it. And somehow along there, somebody should have stopped. How it could have been done I don't know, because, as I say, I'm not privy to that information. But once it was done, we had to accept it and hope that we could—because we all believed in it—hope that we could, in some way or other, salvage this situation. Obviously, we couldn't. And as far as managing the funds themselves that were available, I really couldn't answer that. I know as far as the museum budget, being careful with what funds we had, of course, we kept cutting it down and cutting it down, but along the way, especially in the beginning, when we first moved into the building, I think there were projections made that were false projections on costs of shows, and so that caused even more problems. One of them, as I recall, was the fact of insuring the Andy Warhol show that went to Europe. It was just way out of line with what the fee we had asked for, and that was just certainly mismanagement on the part of the staff at that time to have a show that you were going to lose money on by sending it to another museum, so there was that kind of mismanagement, yes. Not careful thought. I think there were some problems with some of the loans, too. But again, that's just something that you sort of felt, rather than from what knowledge I had, that I could give you any concrete information on.

1.5. TAPE NUMBER: III, SIDE TWO MAY 17, 1988

RATNER

We were talking about the financial situation. Had you finished up on that, or did I cut you off?

BURTON

No, I think basically I had said what I was going to say and probably repeated it a couple of times, too! [laughter]

RATNER

At what point would you say it became very evident that the museum was really in serious trouble?

BURTON

From the beginning, I think, from the beginning of the starting of the building, or certainly midway into the building.

RATNER

The building process?

BURTON

The building process. Certainly it was evident there were problems even before it was completed, although I don't think any of us realized it was quite as serious as it was. And I think some of the trustees deluded themselves as to the seriousness of it. But I would say from the conception.

RATNER

I thought we'd move on and talk a little bit about the acquisition policy and efforts, and as we've just said, during your term on the board, the financial situation was such that I imagine a lot of effort was made in terms of—I'm sure there wasn't any discretionary income for—

BURTON

Right.

RATNER

—the board to be acquiring things. But I know that the Fellows [of Contemporary Art] was active at that time. That was a group formed to raise money for acquisition funds. And I was wondering what kind of discussion you recall in terms of making an effort to round out and enhance the permanent collection.

BURTON

Well, as you just stated, there wasn't a great deal of money for acquisitions. In fact, there was no money for acquisitions, so, of course, our concern was just raising general operating funds. And acquisitions really took a back seat at that particular time. The only acquisitions that we could get would be mainly soliciting gifts of art from different people. And as far as rounding out the collection, I think we were concentrating not on modern art but on contemporary art, what was really happening at that particular time, and trying perhaps to build up some of the art from the Los Angeles artists, people that were working in the Southern California area. There really wasn't all that much. There were things offered to the board that really were not contemporary art. They were in other fields, and there was always discussion about whether to accept them. For example, oriental art, or art that is not really museum quality of different kinds. But there was not a lot of—I don't remember, and I was not on the—I don't think I was ever on the acquisition committee of the board. I don't think we were concerned too much with the philosophy and the direction of the museum especially. It had been pretty well established that we were going to be representing and doing shows that were more current. If we were to acquire art, it should be in that segment of time. But other than that, I don't think there was any great, that I can recall, philosophical discussion about direction.

RATNER

How well did the board pull its weight in this area in terms of soliciting other collectors or perhaps giving things from their own collections?

BURTON

In the acquisitions? Well, when we had the opening of the museum up on Colorado and Orange Grove [boulevards], at that particular time, artists were solicited and asked to give paintings to Pasadena for their collection for the opening. So that was, I would say, medium successful, maybe. It certainly wasn't—I don't believe you'd say it was a tremendous smashing success, but they were able to get some very nice works given at that time. Bob [Robert A.] Rowan, who was the chairman, or past chairman I guess by then, was quite generous in giving works. He gave many things to the museum. Gifford Phillips gave some. The Weismans [Frederick and Marcia] tried to make some deals to give some, but they are not exactly—It didn't work out, their giving. And then there were some other people that gave something here and there. Mrs. [Elizabeth] Crossett, I believe, gave some work, and Gordon Hampton I know gave some work in memory of his wife. So there were different things along the way, but I wouldn't say it was greatly successful. Again, your energies are being diluted by constantly having to raise operating expenses so that you're really not spending your time going out and getting paintings, and it was more or less the directors who were constantly looking. And if there was an opportunity to pick something up or have something given, they certainly were going to try and convince that particular person that Pasadena was the place to give it. I think people were nervous about giving, too, although at that time I don't think the general public was perhaps as aware of the instability of the museum as later on. I think people were a little wary about giving because of the instability of the museum.

RATNER

I guess that's understandable. [laughter]

BURTON

Right.

RATNER

You mentioned earlier that you, that the Pasadena didn't want to be a regional museum, but I'm wondering, in terms of the contemporary acquisitions, whether there was a special effort made or an interest in collecting works from local artists.

BURTON

Well, it depends on how small you define "local."

RATNER

Well, Southern California.

BURTON

Well, Southern California to me, when I said "regional, 11 I meant smaller than Southern California. I was thinking where you show the works of the local Pasadena watercolorists or the Arcadia artists—these are just names that I'm sort of making up—or something like that. That was the sense in which I meant they didn't want to be regional. No, I think they were very supportive of the Southern California art community, and there are a great many very good professional artists in this area. I think there are more now than there were then, but even then there were a great deal. A lot of them have gone on to have national reputations and international reputations. I didn't mean "regional" in the sense of not supporting that area, because I definitely think that they were very interested in doing it. I can't remember if I said this before, but the opening show, one of the big mistakes—Did we discuss that before? One of the big errors in the opening show was dividing the show. Many people felt that dividing the show into two different groups and making part of it the West Coast artists and lumping them all together, and then having the New York part separately, that because of the way it was done, the West Coast artists really got the short shrift on it, and there was a great deal of resentment from the California West Coast art community about that. I think they had a good reason. However, again, I think it could have been, if it had been handled properly—It's one of those things that sort of gets out of hand. I think there was a lot more controversy out of it perhaps than need be, that it could have been handled tactfully and the show could have been done a little differently so that that problem wouldn't have existed. And so then I think after that, perhaps even more, the museum was concerned with smoothing over the feelings that were injured by this mistake, which wasn't easy to do.

RATNER

I know you weren't on the board when the decision was made about which shows would open the museum, but do you know why the decision was made to have, it was called "Painting in New York 1944-1969." What was the reason to have the main show be a New York painting show?

BURTON

I really don't know! I wouldn't even want to hazard a guess because it would probably be my interpretation of something I really know nothing about. If I were to guess [laughter]—just since I said I wasn't going to!—I would guess that maybe they felt that it would be more prestigious, that it would attract more people in this area just because these were artists that had not been seen as much locally as some of the artists around here. And there probably were, at that time, as there probably are now, more artists in New York who have names, larger names internationally, but there are certainly artists in Southern California or on the West Coast who have reputations that would equal any of those in New York. And so I think it was maybe sort of an arbitrary decision that was made, thinking of areas rather than the quality of the work. But as I say, I don't know the thinking behind it.

RATNER

I also wanted to talk a little bit about deaccessioning. Over the years, deaccessioning occurred on several occasions, and from what I can gather, a clear-cut deaccessioning policy did not exist, and it's perhaps because that policy was unformed that there were several incidents prior to your being on the board—and I think we discussed a few last time—that many board members later regretted. And just one example was—I found in some board minutes from June 1969—that the board discussed selling objects from the permanent collection in order to partially meet an operating deficit of approximately $95,000, a practice that's considered unethical by most museum professionals. This decision was unanimously approved, and that, of course, is even months prior to the museum even opening, the new building even opening. And then deaccessioning continued to be raised as an option on more than one occasion until it seemed, according to many trustees, I'm quoting here, "the only means of meeting our financial obligations." And then, as a late example of this, in January of 1974, Bill [William C.] Agee wrote a letter to the board formally stating his opposition to this practice, as did trustee Dr. Shirley Blum. Then an article appeared in the Los Angeles Times. I guess they'd gotten wind of—

BURTON

Mm-hm [affirmative].

RATNER

—what the board's intentions were, which at that time was to deaccession about $200,000 worth of art to meet the deficit for the next six months. Probably the most startling thing was that also that same month—this came up in an executive committee meeting—they decided to look into the legal aspects of selling part of the [Galka Scheyer] Blue Four Collection and, I'm quoting here, "the possibility of turning the entire collection over to another museum, accompanied by an appropriate price tag." I'm wondering what kind of discussion, what the reaction was amongst the board to all this.

BURTON

Well, let's go back to the beginning. They did not have a formal deaccession policy. There are two kinds of works, basically, in a museum, I think: those that belong in the permanent collection, and those that have been given to the museum that you accept but you really don't want to put in the permanent collection. It's a very difficult thing, of course, also with living artists, because it really makes a difference to their careers very often. They say they're in a museum's collection, and all of a sudden they aren't. But you have to struggle with this, of having perhaps things that you accept with the thought that you are going to sell them later on because they don't fit into the museum collection. Ideally, you would sell those to buy other works of art and fill in gaps, and you might even sell something that is—or "deaccession," I should say, not "sell," excuse me—deaccession something—and all museums do this—to balance a collection, because you have, for example, three of one period and nothing of another. So you have to have deaccessioning, and you have to have some flexibility there. Because the Pasadena Art Museum had really changed the kind of museum it was along the way, there were quite a few things that they had in their collection that really didn't belong there, that belonged someplace else. Selling them to pay operating expenses is really a desperate, last thing that you should do, and I think that the idea of— The board was very, very split on this, and I'm trying to think, take it more chronologically. Originally, there were certain things that I think the board generally agreed were not necessary for the collection, and unfortunately the trustees and those that were involved in fund-raising were not able to meet the deficit in other ways, so these were being deaccessioned to meet the deficit. That is not right, but to me, that probably could be acceptable, because at that point everything isn't black and white; there are grays. But then, when it came to the point where we had one trustee that felt we should sell a Picasso painting from the Blue Four Collection, I would say—I don't know in figures—but a lot of the trustees were opposed to that. Only one trustee was promoting the sale of the Picasso, and those of us that were really interested in art were really opposed to it. I think one of the problems, really, going back, which we discussed—and this sort of relates back to that, the composition of the board—and I think one of the problems of the board, and again this also goes back to the problems of the fund-raising and why the museum got into the financial problems it did, is there were some people on the board [who] really did not know how to be museum trustees. They had not had any experience in being a museum trustee; they were not especially interested in art or in the institution. They saw that big building on the hill and they thought, "At any cost we have to save that building because that's this wonderful thing that was built in Pasadena," and they were involved either because a friend had gotten them involved or because of some civic interest. But they really had a great lack of understanding of museum ethics and of procedures and thought of it as a business and just didn't see the other side of the fence. Then there were those of us that were on the other side of the fence that felt, "Forget the building. Walk off and leave it. Find a space like an old abandoned supermarket or something—but the collection is the museum; the collection is the Pasadena Art Museum. It's not a building. The collection is what you have to save." It is absolutely ridiculous to sell the collection to save the building. What is really important are these works of art. The Blue Four, of course, that collection doesn't even belong to the Pasadena Art Museum. I'm sure that in other discussions you've gone into all the ramifications of that. This was a futile effort on the part of one trustee, but because he was very insistent about it, it certainly appeared on-again-off-again along the way, and he had support from some of the other members of the board. I'm not saying he was completely alone in that feeling. A lot of us felt at the end, forget the building, walk away. And I think that was why we acquiesced to Norton Simon taking over the board, because we couldn't walk away from the building because we had these debts. There was no way of paying the debts, and we were going to lose the collection. It was a catch-22. There was no way you could—Although we said, "Walk away and rent a supermarket and have the collection and cut way down and do this and save that," we couldn't because of these obligations that were against the museum. So it meant that no matter what we did at that point, since we could find no knight in shining armor to come in and take over and give the money that we needed to save it, it was just down to—Well, at least if Norton Simon took control of the board of trustees, the agreement was that he would keep the Pasadena collection intact for at least a certain length of time, and the hope was that at that time perhaps some arrangement could be worked out that he would continue, and the arrangement was made that he would show it in a certain portion of the museum. To those of us that were involved in that, it was the least worst of possible alternatives! [laughter] Because the other alternative was that the collection was going to have to be sold, whether it was ethical or not. I mean, they were probably going to come in and take it! And it would be lost completely. This way there was at least some hope it would be held together. You sometimes have to make decisions that you don't want to make and are not very popular because the alternatives are worse.

RATNER

That was a tough one, I'm sure. I do want to talk about the whole situation with Norton Simon a little more, but let me just go ahead and ask you a little bit about some of the key trustees and their effectiveness. You had just mentioned Robert Rowan, and he was president of the board, or chairman of the board for quite some time and then went on as—I guess he was president, and then he was chairman.

BURTON

Chairman, and then, I think past chairman—

RATNER

Past chairman or something else. But he was very involved for a long time. And I wondered how you would rate him as both a leader and a troubleshooter.

BURTON

Well, Bob is very involved in art itself, in the art market. I know there was a lot of feeling—and some of it had good basis—that it was Robert Rowan's museum and he was using it for his own personal gain, that he was seeing that the artists that he wanted would be exhibited so that the art he had bought would go up in value, and then he would make a profit from it. There was a lot of that feeling. And, I'm sure, not without a certain amount of reason. But I think Bob, in his way, which is a little different from some other collectors, is very dedicated to contemporary art. He's quite honest about the fact that he really treats it like a lot of people treat the stock market. Rather than buying and selling stocks, he buys and sells contemporary art. It isn't a matter of finding a piece that he absolutely loves and living with it forever. He thinks about it as a commodity. However, I think he studies it very carefully, or he did study it, and he still does, very carefully, and his selections are good. I think that he's interested in the quality. If there was this buying art and promoting his own artists and all, he certainly wasn't picking just somebody that was a good friend. It wasn't done at random. It was done with artists that he really felt had a fine talent, and a lot of them certainly have proved that he was right. He makes mistakes, too; we all do. Or the public's eye changes, and sometimes some of the things that people thought were great then they don't later on, and the art market fluctuates tremendously. So his interest in that part of the museum was very strong, in developing it as a contemporary museum and interest in showing the right, the high-quality art and all. He's always admitted, I think, that he's not a fund-raiser. He was very generous, certainly, with his own money, and his wife [Carolyn Rowan, now Farris]'s, and generous in giving the art, but he was not effective in asking other people to give art, and I think he'd be the first to admit that, probably. I was not on the board when he chaired the meetings. I was on it when he—I think, as Art Alliance chairman, I was at meetings he chaired at that particular time. I think anybody can be critical of any chairman of any meeting. If I was asked to rate any of them, of chairmen of different meetings, I think that you can certainly find things to be critical of most of them. I think Bob suffered from what a lot of people suffered from who are chairing meetings, of doing a lot of the talking themselves and not listening to other people. Believe me, he's not alone in that. But I certainly think that that was something that was happening. I also think that perhaps running the nitty-gritty of the museum, the delegating of jobs to people, that he perhaps did not spend as much time as he should on thinking about the organizational part of the board of trustees and, "How can I get these trustees to be more effective in what they are doing, and how can I get the most out of them?" We were always hampered—and I don't think it was his problem especially—by trying to get—and I think this is, again, true of all institutions—trying to get the trustees, the right trustees, the trustees that would do the work and/or the trustees that have clout. You know, you can't always prejudge these people. [laughter] You get them, and you think somebody's going to be great, and they turn out [to] just want their name on the wall or something. So I think that he was, as I say, very involved with the curatorial staff and that part of it, and perhaps not enough on the organizational side of it and the management part of it.

RATNER

Then Alfred Esberg followed Bob Rowan—

BURTON

Right.

RATNER

—as president. I believe he was responsible for substantially cutting the museum's deficit. He was the person who was at the helm at the time that a lot of cutbacks were made. I wonder how you would rate his impact on the museum.

BURTON

Well, it's like the pendulum swinging. You have someone who is this art-oriented leader, and then these problems had developed. Alfie's background was that he took sick companies—I don't know if this has been discussed before or not by some of the others, has it?

RATNER

Just mentioned.

BURTON

He took sick companies and hoped to make them profitable, and I think, in most cases, did. But he was lacking in the understanding of the curatorial side of the coin. Again, the balance was not quite there. So he, using the type of management principles that you would use in a business, he applied those to the museum, and as a result of that, of course, he was able to more efficiently run the museum and to make cuts and to reduce the deficit. But how you balance that with having the kind of a program that you want, it's tough! It's tough to do both. And again, you're hampered with this huge debt and a board of trustees that just isn't raising the necessary funds and a museum that isn't generating the necessary funds. So unless you have—It's just like the United States's deficit! It's hard to get out of it! And you just have to make some real tough decisions to cut it, but in doing so, you sacrifice a lot, too. And with the deficit in the United States, at least they can do something like raising taxes, but there's no way you can force people to give to a private institution. Not even like a church and get them to tithe! So you have to appeal and to appeal to people to give. You have to offer them something, because nobody's going to give to something that doesn't offer them anything in return. They may want different things from it, and some may be more altruistic in their giving than others, but you have to offer something. And we had, at that point, very little to offer. So again, whereas I say the trustees were not raising funds, they also had a very difficult thing to sell, too, so it wasn't entirely their fault. It wasn't a bright, clean package.

RATNER

I'm fairly certain that it was during Esberg's term that the museum put into effect their contingency plan, which was, I believe, coordinated by you and Martha Padve—

BURTON

Right.

RATNER

—in which the volunteers—There were staff cutbacks, and then the volunteers assumed a much greater role. Could you tell me about how that came into being and what the plan was?

BURTON

Well, it came into being basically because we couldn't pay the staff salaries. So Martha and I acted, I guess you would call it, as office managers, or I suppose, maybe a little higher up than that on the scale, executively—We coordinated—The contingency plan was to take as many positions that had paid staff as possible and fill them with volunteers. Martha and I took it upon ourselves to try and fit the right volunteer into the right staff job, and believe me, we had some very, very dedicated volunteers that were para-staff. They kept the same hours as staff; some of them, I think, even worked a lot harder than staff. They would come in every day and they would do their job. Again, because we did have some paid staff, one of the problems is that being a volunteer, even though you have the professional attributes for doing just as good a job or perhaps better than someone that's being paid, you're not being paid and you're always looked upon as not doing quite the job that the paid professional does. We filled as many staff positions as we could with volunteers, and on the whole, most of them worked out fairly well. You always have the people that say they'll do something and then they don't show and they don't do it, but then you eliminate those and try to improve. That was part of our job: if somebody didn't work out or wasn't doing what they were supposed to, to find someone else. In Pasadena, we were very, very lucky to have some volunteers, basically women, that were really willing to put in a five- or a six-day week, and full time or close to it. It's like a nine-to-five job that they took on. I don't know if Martha discussed with you the different ones that did different things or not.

RATNER

No, I didn't get into it too much with her.

BURTON

For example, the bookstore. Vicki Baker took over the bookstore. I think we had one paid in help there, but she did all the buying. She took the bookkeeping home and did that at night, and then we found another volunteer to help her with the bookkeeping. Nancy Yewell did all the publicity for the museum. Lois Boardman worked for the California Design part of it. Anne Lasell and Grace Narver coordinated all the volunteers that were doing staff jobs, such as admissions and jobs that were the lower-level staff and office jobs. I can't remember who else was involved, but they came in and worked hard.

RATNER

So I guess that kept things afloat for a little while longer than it might have otherwise.

BURTON

Yes, it did. It made the assets we did have, or the income we did have, stretch a little bit farther. And it was at that time—I don't know if we discussed that later—[tape recorder off]

BURTON

I was going to say that it was at that time that Rosemary Sadler and I decided—Well, actually, it was my husband [Eugene Burton]'s suggestion. He said, you know, "You're having trouble raising $100,000," which was what we needed at that time. "Wouldn't it be easier to get $1,000 from a hundred people rather than trying to get $100,000 from one person?", which we had not been able to do. And so Alfie was able to—Mrs. Crossett had always been a wonderful, wonderful supporter of the museum, never wanted anything, one of these angels that institutions don't often have [who] are very willing to give and expect very little in return. I wish every institution had lots of Mrs. Crossetts. They wouldn't have to have anyone else. Anyway, she was quite elderly at that time, and, through her daughter, Alfie Esberg arranged for a $50,000 gift if we could match it. So then Rosemary and I took on the job of matching it, and we did it by asking people to give $1,000, because at that time we felt that while only a Mrs. Crossett would give $50,000, there were people in the community and in the art world that would give $1,000. We were able to raise the matching $50,000 by going out and getting $1,000 from fifty people. I was looking the other day at the list; it was very interesting who we got it from. Some people gave because of interest in the community, and some people gave because of their interest in the art museum. Not all the trustees gave; quite a few didn't. That money gave us another little boost for a little while, gave us some operating funds so that we could carry on, but it was just a constant patching up of things along the way. You were putting Band-Aids in place but you really weren't solving the basic problem, because that wasn't paying off the debt; it was still there with the interest eating away at you. So it was just putting, as I say, Band-Aids on the wound rather than actually solving the deep-lying problem, as was the contingency plan. Obviously, a museum could not continue on that basis. You can only ask volunteers, no matter how dedicated, to work that hard for so long, and you just can't keep on. So we were not solving our basic problem.

1.6. TAPE NUMBER: IV, SIDE ONE MAY 23, 1988

RATNER

I'd like to begin our discussion of the Pasadena Art Museum today by following up on a few points that we talked about last time. Regarding the exhibition program, you had mentioned that part of the budgetary problems resulted from false projections on the part of the staff, and you mentioned specifically, I think, the insurance on the Andy Warhol exhibition. I wondered what sort of checks and balances system was with the staff and the board had that something like that was able to happen.

BURTON

Well, I think it was fairly nonexistent! I think that's probably why. I think the board really relied much too much on staff figures, which is normal. I think it happens because they don't have the expertise to really check them, but maybe if somebody had looked very carefully and had some logical thinking, they might have come up with, "Well, this doesn't seem quite right, and maybe you should reinvestigate it." The function of the board of trustees, besides their fiscal responsibility, which of course includes checking the staff's figures, is to evaluate what the staff does and do this through the director. I firmly believe that trustees deal directly with the director, and then it's up to the director to monitor his staff and what they're doing, and if you don't like what's happening, then you fire the director. That's your privilege as a trustee. But you don't have the privilege to actually interfere within the working process of the museum. Of course, these were unusual times, when half of the staff were volunteers and involved trustees, so it made our contacts more intimate than they normally would be.

RATNER

Also regarding the exhibition program, I'd wanted to ask you, when a museum is privately funded, as the Pasadena Art Museum was primarily, to whom is it responsible in terms of its exhibition program?

BURTON

Well, let's see. You mean, like to the audience, to the trustees, that kind of an entity? I think it's responsible to the philosophy of the museum, the broad plan that the museum has set forth in its goals as to the kind of art it is going to present to the public. I don't think it's so much responsible to a specific body of people. I think it's more responsible to its ideas and its goals. And sometimes that has to be tempered, because you have to think of things such as the finances of the museum. You see events in all museums' exhibitions that are, quote, unquote, "crowd-pleasers," and you probably do have to have those once in a while for financial reasons. But certainly you shouldn't concentrate on that, and when you have them, they certainly should be worthwhile in an art sense, also. That answer your question?

RATNER

Mm-hm, mm-hm [affirmative]. Thank you. As a final follow-up to our last meeting, we had discussed the board of trustees, and you had said that you felt that the board lacked an abundance of committed trustees—that there were few, if any, CEOs [chief executive officers], or people with political clout, and you gave an example of a solicitation effort that you and Rosemary Sadler made in order to match a gift from Mrs. [Elizabeth] Crossett, and you said even in that instance many trustees did not give. I'm wondering how you explain this lack of passion, it would seem, on the part of many trustees towards the museum and its programs.

BURTON

Well, I don't think it's unique with the Pasadena Art Museum; I think this is true of many institutions. I've been a trustee at other institutions, too, not only art museums but other types of educational institutions. I just think that this is a fact of boards of trustees. The more prestigious boards can choose trustees with greater care and have them accept. There are a certain number of people who are interested in being trustees and are committed to a particular institution. Then there are people that are interested in being trustees because they like the prestige of it, so that you get that kind of people taking places on your board, and I think this is true of any board of trustees. Of course, the more trouble the institution is in, or the weaker the institution is at a particular time, the less likely they are to get people that are passionately involved in it and really want to be working trustees. I don't think that's endemic of Pasadena, especially. I just think that's endemic of all boards of trustees, so that your institution that has the higher prestige usually gets the trustees with more clout and more power. And let's face it, contemporary. or modern art is not such a broad-based subject that people are rushing out to support us. Perhaps some educational institution or something of that kind. So you're competing with that, too.

RATNER

When we wrapped up last time, we were discussing some of the key trustees, and we had already mentioned presidents Robert [A.] Rowan and Alfred Esberg, and I wanted to go on and ask you a little bit about Gifford Phillips. And he was at the helm when the museum's control was turned over to Norton Simon. And I wondered how you would rate his effectiveness.

BURTON

Well, I think Gifford is a very charming man, a gentle man, gentle in being a gentleman and a gentle person, and he certainly had the background in art as a collector, but I don't think he had, perhaps, the toughness that could have been necessary at that particular time. He had not been an executive in the business world or had the personality to be basically, maybe the son of a bitch you needed to be to deal with someone as strong in personality and as strong in ideas as Norton Simon. I think that he was just not tough enough at that particular time for that particular job. I can't think of any other trustee that was on the board at that time that would have been, either, so I'm not saying that someone else could have done a better job than he could. I just don't think that we had the manpower at that particular time to really, perhaps, make a better deal, and, of course, when you're dealing from weakness, it's very hard, and we were pretty much backed in a corner at that time.

RATNER

Then I also wanted to talk about Harold Jurgensen, and although he served as president during the early sixties before you were on the board, he was definitely a key player in the fund-raising for the new building. How would you rate his effectiveness in that regard?

BURTON

Well, I think the main problem with Harold was the fact that, from my point of view, he really wasn't interested in contemporary art and that he really wasn't interested in art, period. He was doing this because of his love of Pasadena and of the community and to establish his position in the community. He worked very hard at it, and he certainly, as far as I know, did bring in some of the pledges and brought people in. But I think the problem was that, because he did not have the sensitivity toward the goals of the museum as an art museum and perhaps the background of—I don't want to use the word "ethics," that's not quite the right word, but I can't think of one word that expresses what I want to say. I think he basically promised some of the donors things that the museum was not going to be able to deliver. I think that put the fund-raising in a rather precarious position and the museum in a rather difficult position, because they just really were not going to be able to deliver some of the promises that he made. That was the basic problem with his fund-raising. I think he was much more oriented to the programs such as California Design than he was toward the more, the purer art—the painting and the sculpture and the purer shows that would be really considered more—[pause] Well, scratch that! [laughter] I can't finish that thought!

RATNER

Are there any other trustees that you would consider key?

BURTON

Well, I think there were other trustees that were very key. Eudie [Eudorah] Moore, certainly, whom you've interviewed, and Martha [B.] Padve, I think were two that were very key to a lot of the things that went along. When the negotiations with Norton Simon were going along, Coleman Morton, I think, was quite key in working on those negotiations. I can't speak back to the times before I was on the board, but I'm sure that there were others in that particular period. Those are the ones that sort of come to my mind on the museum when I served on the board.

RATNER

I thought that we'd kind of go back to an Art Alliance [of the Pasadena Art Museum] perspective for just a minute here and talk about the impact of the museum's deteriorating financial situation on the Art Alliance. It became evident rather quickly that the museum, as we've mentioned, was facing serious financial problems. From reviewing the Art Alliance minutes, it seems that the Alliance really went the distance for the museum in terms of both financial and volunteer support the entire time. Just for example, in addition to the $25,000 that they donated to become a founding member, the Art Alliance gave an additional $40,000 during the June 1971 negotiations with the county of Los Angeles as well as loaning another $25,000 at the same time. This doesn't even include the approximately $45,000 given between 1971 and 1973 for the exhibition budget. And so, while the dollars given and the time given make clear the level of commitment, I'm wondering, especially with the mounting deficit and the staff cutbacks, whether or not there was some dissension within the Art Alliance about whether they should keep giving money to the museum even though it was apparently in—

BURTON

Well, basically they had no choice, because the Art Alliance was a support group of the museum under the umbrella of the museum. So the money that they had, that they were giving, was museum money. It was not their money; they were just allocating it out at that particular time. They had no legal way of walking away from the museum and taking that money with them. As a matter of fact, when Norton Simon took over, all of the monies from all of the support groups stayed with the museum, and that was a rather bitter pill for the Art Alliance to swallow. The only thing they went away with at all was their dues money that they had just collected, because it happened at that time of year that the current treasurer was keeping it in a shoebox. But other than that, as it works with a lot of support groups in the bookkeeping, the money was given for specific things, but basically it was going to underwrite the overhead and the expenses of running the museum, which are, of course, the hardest things to fund, because people don't want to give to that. It's not very glamorous, so you can always position it as a gift to an exhibition or something of that type so that you have some recognition for the group that's giving. It had always been a rather interesting relationship between the museum and the Art Alliance, because the Art Alliance did guard the money very jealously, and hold on to it, and many of the members did feel that that it was Art Alliance money and they didn't need to give it to the museum. But those of us that were leaders realized that it was the museum's money, and no matter how we fussed and kicked and screamed, it had to be given to the museum. And there was dissension sometimes within the group: "Let's hold. on to it; let's not give it," but it legally was impossible not to. The majority of the group felt it should be given, keeping the museum afloat for as long as they could. And, hopefully, some knight in shining armor might come along and rescue it. The knight came along, but, unfortunately, his armor wasn't very shiny as far as we all were concerned, [laughter]

RATNER

Well, speaking of that knight, I thought we'd go ahead and talk about Simon taking over the board from both perspectives, as trustee, and how it affected the Art Alliance. In reading the minutes from the board of trustees, the museum board of trustees, I noticed that occasionally some other options were mentioned prior to Simon coming in. I wondered what some of those were that you recall.

BURTON

Well, a lot of them were probably sort of pie in the sky, but you always try for options if you possibly can. One of them was a hope that maybe the Museum of Modern Art in New York might want a West Coast branch, which they obviously didn't. The other one, of course, [was] the negotiations with the [Los Angeles] County Museum of Art, which did not bear fruit in any way. There were complications from the county's side of it. Besides taking over the financial burden of the Pasadena museum, there were also structural problems that the county had in their infrastructure, of personnel and their arrangements with the county, that made that situation a very difficult one. There were things that probably could not be worked out because the county would lose some of its privileges that it had, and they did not wish to give those up.

RATNER

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art?

BURTON

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art, yes. Sorry. And basically, I think those were the two main options. The other one, the third option was, I guess, the idea of abandoning the building and taking our collection and going someplace else, which was very appealing to a lot of us, because we felt, as I mentioned before, that the collection was the museum, not the building. But that legally could not be done, so we had hoped to get more support from the city of Pasadena. That was sort of a half-option, I guess you would say, that maybe with more support from the city of Pasadena, we could continue. I think at one time we even discussed the fact that maybe part of the building could be taken over as a science museum by the city of Pasadena or something else, because they were looking for a space for a science museum, or that maybe the science museum could take over the whole building and then we could take the collection and move to a less expensive facility. There was always, as I say, the hope that somebody, an individual, might come. along and be generous enough that we could raise money some way to continue. Not as we were, but as we should continue. That's all I can really think of right now.

RATNER

It has been suggested that Mrs. [Dorothy Buffum] Chandler might have influenced the negative decision when the county supervisors voted because she didn't want any of the county art funds diverted from the Music Center [of Los Angeles County]. How much credibility would you give that?

BURTON

Well, I suppose it's a possibility. It was certainly a rumor that I heard at that time, too. I'd sort of forgotten about it. I don't think that was—I don't know. I just wouldn't have a clue, but I would sort of doubt it. I really don't know. Her daughter [Camilla Chandler Spear] was a member of the Art Alliance at that time. And her daughter-in-law [Marilyn Brant Chandler] had been. I don't think she was a member at that time, but she had been in the past. So I know there was always a rumor in the background going around that there was some feeling between some of the people that were connected with the Pasadena Art Museum and Mrs. Chandler, but I was never aware of it, and it wasn't anything I knew anything about. I would think the reason that they didn't want to do it was because the Los Angeles County Museum of Art had a board of trustees that did not have a county representative on the board. And they were afraid, if they changed, that the county would step in, because they had evidence in the past that the county would like to have a representative on the board, and the board of trustees didn't want this. They didn't want that additional influence. It was bad enough to have civil service, I think, and cope with that. Basically, that was one of the main reasons I heard that seemed fairly logical as to why the County Museum didn't want to negotiate, plus the financial burden of it. It's easier to open some¬thing of your own than take over something that's in a hole and in debt. It's easier to start level than down below!

RATNER

So the county option is out and several members of the Pasadena board begin having some negotiations with Norton Simon, though I guess he had been spoken to even—

BURTON

Oh, I think these were going on all the time simultaneously. I think it had gone on for some time. It had been mentioned for some time.

RATNER

What were the events that were leading up to the final set of negotiations? Did a series of, kind of, specific things happen that made the trustees go in for really serious negotiations with Simon?

BURTON

It was just the deteriorating financial prob¬lems. I don't think it was anything specific. It was just obviously—There were some things that were very bother-some, like loans, and I think that this was at the time that—What was his name in San Diego? [C.] Arnholt Smith had the bank down there. Anyway, he was involved with some of our loans, and he'd gotten in a lot of trouble, a lot of trouble! [laughter] I think at that time there was a great concern about our loans going to be called, and the immediacy of our having to pay off the loans I think pressed perhaps on us a little harder as far as events are concerned at that time. We were not being able to negotiate with the bank that had our loans as we had in the past, so that was increased pressure. But other than that, it was just, what is the light at the end of the tunnel? You have to find some light or we were going to have to close the museum.

RATNER

So at what point in the Simon negotiations was the entire board apprised of this option?

BURTON

Well, we knew it was going on, but I don't know that—We really didn't know that an agreement had been reached until the night of the party we were having, the fund-raising party. And that was basically when we found out about it. I was on the executive committee at that time, and I didn't know. You knew that things were happening, but it was really that night that it came out that an agreement had been reached as far as I can remember. If I knew about it beforehand, it was just / beforehand. It may have been just beforehand, right there, that night. But somehow it seems to me it was right there that night. I may have dramatized that in the past!

RATNER

What was the reaction then at that party if people think they're giving all this money to help keep it afloat?

BURTON

Well, let's say people were a bit unhappy. It was not the happiest party in the world. It was quite a shock, and I think there was bitterness on the parts of some, and I think some people felt that they'd been very misled. But I don't think it was intentional. I think it was just one of these things that was an ongoing thing, and you can't stop trying to raise money thinking that an agreement is going to be signed if you have no idea when or where that agreement is going to be signed. So you always have these overlapping things, and you just have to take that as a fact of life that that's going to happen. Maybe it doesn't happen the way you want it to, but neither do a lot of other things in life happen the way you want them to. As I say, as long as people learn from experiences, they aren't all bad. Somebody, I don't know who it was, said, "You would never know you were happy unless you were sad sometimes."

RATNER

So then after it was announced at this party or wherever it was that you found out, was it presented to the board as a fait accompli, basically?

BURTON

Basically it was presented to the board as a fait accompli. I think we could have probably voted;. we had the opportunity to vote against it, but the agreement was a fait accompli. There was, of course, great discussion, but there really was not an alternative road to take at that point. So it more or less had to be accepted.

RATNER

What was that meeting like?

BURTON

Well, as I recall, it was rather tense, but by that time I think the trustees that were aware of what was going on and were thinking people had come to the conclusion that, although it was not what we would have liked to have seen happen, it was better than having to sell off the collection to pay the debts at the bank. I think we all were, perhaps, a little naive, or just wishful thinking, that when it came under the control of Norton Simon there would be more respect for the Pasadena collection, and it was in the agreement that it did have to be shown for a certain length of time. I think we all hoped that within that time frame he would perhaps become interested in that phase of art, too. Someone had told us that his wife, Jennifer [Jones], was interested in contemporary art and was buying contemporary art, so we had hoped that maybe with her influence—and the difficulty of adding to collections of past masterpieces nowadays—that perhaps he would turn his money toward the more contemporary and add to the collection and preserve it. As I say, it was probably wishful thinking. I did not know him personally. I just knew [him] by hearsay and knew he was certainly a very tough bargainer and operator. And then he also had representatives at that time, Robbie [Robert] McFarlane, who sold it a little softer than the actual. I think we were a little misled, perhaps. Maybe it was our fault that we were misled because we wanted to be, and in accepting this solution we accepted the idea hopefully, because we didn't have anything else to turn to.

RATNER

So when you say that maybe they sold it "softer," you mean in terms of how they were willing to treat the collection?

BURTON

Yes, I think that they were—[pause] I think in how they were going to treat the collection, and also I think they did not come out quite so strongly at that particular time about how they were going to dismiss all of the support groups from the museum, and that we would really be completely—I remember the question being asked, as a matter of fact, and the answer being that, "Well, we don't know at this particular point what position these different groups will take, that perhaps we hope"—I can't remember how it was worded, but they were given a certain amount of hope that perhaps there would be some way for them to continue being involved with the museum, and in that way, of course, they would be supporting the Pasadena collection rather than the Norton Simon collection. We weren't summarily dismissed at that particular point. I also think that with the collection, there was a little more enthusiasm expressed toward it, perhaps, than was felt.

RATNER

So was that the last meeting for the board of trustees, when you voted to—I guess three members of the Pasadena board—

BURTON

Yes. I happened to be chairman of the nominating committee at that particular time, and what occurred at that meeting, all the trustees were asked to resign, and I, as chairman of the nominating committee, was asked to appoint—I can't remember exactly how, but Alfie Esberg and Bob Rowan and Gifford Phillips were to be going on to the board of trustees of [the] Norton Simon [Museum], and Norton Simon would be the chairman. And yes, that was, I think, the last meeting, certainly the last formal one that any of us attended,

RATNER

And how did you feel about the selection of those three to go on to the Simon board?

BURTON

Well, I think it was probably the logical selection. Of course, at that time, I think, knowing what I do now, I don't think it made any difference at all who went on it and who didn't. I think at that particular time we hoped that maybe somebody that was a little more of an activist might be able to go on the board, hoping that they might be able to promote more exhibition and more interest in the contemporary art collection. I don't think it would have made any difference, but at that time we hoped that that might happen. But they were the logical ones.

RATNER

Then the Art Alliance learned at its meeting on April 24, 1974, that Norton Simon—Maybe they knew beforehand, but it was officially announced that Norton Simon would be running the museum. And Alfred Esberg came and told them that the role, as you just mentioned, at this point the role of the support groups looked good. What do you remember about that meeting?

BURTON

I really don't remember very much. I think at that time there was still a great deal of—because the Art Alliance had been very much involved in that final party—I think a lot of the ill feeling from that and what had happened had sort of spilled over into the group. I think they felt a tremendous letdown and maybe felt a little bit as though they were betrayed. I think that a lot of the members really didn't understand, really understand, the circumstances and the necessity for doing it, and I think until today some of them still don't understand why we couldn't have picked up the paintings and gone off and done something with them. So it certainly was not a happy meeting. I don't think the group looked forward. at all to this new association with great glee, even though they thought they might have it, but I think they looked forward hopefully, that they would have a place in the new organization and could continue their strength and power. It became very obvious later that they couldn't. The Art Alliance in the Pasadena museum really had a rather unique place in that it had a lot more, because of all of the problems that had occurred financially and otherwise, had a lot more power than most support groups have in museums. I can't remember if I've mentioned that before or not. But we were all kind of spoiled by the attention and the amount of say that we had, not only as a group, but a lot of the individuals, because there was a lot of overlap between members of the Art Alliance and trustees and staff. So I think that they had, I don't want to exactly say an inflated idea of their importance, but I think they were well aware of how important they had been, and I think they perhaps did not realize that in other situations they might not be that important. Does that make sense?

RATNER

Mm-hm, mm-hm [affirmative]. So what can you tell me about the discussions to file their own articles of incorporation? They discussed that for a few months apparently before they decided to do that.

BURTON

Well, along the way it became apparent, there were more and more signs, that Norton Simon was not interested in the Art Alliance. Then there was also feeling on the other side that even if he were interested, was this what the Art Alliance really wanted to do? Associate themselves with a museum that would not be entirely contemporary? And then [there were the] advantages and disadvantages of incorporating and being on their own. There was a little history of it, because the San Marino League, which was affiliated with the Pasadena Art Museum, was incorporated separately, and so they looked at that and to the advantages they had had by having their own incorpora¬tion. I think the feeling was that maybe if they stayed with Norton Simon, and also, of course, there was this great bitterness in the group that we had had a certain amount of money—or "resentment" would maybe be a better word for it—that we had money in the treasury that we had not spent yet, or not yet given—I should say "given" to the museum, that "given" again in quotes, because it was basically their money—but the Art Alliance felt that it was really their money, [They were] very protective of that money.

RATNER

Well, it was about $50,000, I think.

BURTON

Right. It was about $50,000, and they did not want to see it go to Norton Simon. This was a very difficult pill to swallow, that it was going to go to him, because they did not feel that the direction he was going to lead the museum in was the direction that they wanted the museum to be led. So I think there was a hope that if we stayed affiliated with the museum, we would maybe still have control over this $50,000, and would be able to direct it to the contemporary art part of the museum. So that was one reason they were anxious to stay, plus the fact that it's always easier for a support group to be connected to an institution because there are certain privileges and perks you get by being connected to an institution. If you're going to visit in another city, it's a lot more meaningful, if you're going to museums, if you say you're affiliated with the Pasadena Art Museum as opposed to just being a separate group out on its own that no one has heard about or knows anything about. There are the perks of being affiliated with an institution.

1.7. TAPE NUMBER: IV, SIDE TWO MAY 23, 1988

RATNER

We were talking about the perks of affiliation.

BURTON

Yes. It's the prestige of the institution and the affiliations they have with other institutions so that you have different entrees. So it is nice for an organization to be connected with an institution. It's also the communication you have with the staff of that institution, being able to have the curators talk to you about the different shows, the association with the director, and all the intimacy with the different people on the staff [that] is certainly part of why you belong to that kind of a group. Obviously everybody that belongs to a support organization and is volunteering their time is doing it for some reason. You don't do it and not get anything out of it. There are lots of different things that you can get from it, but certainly one of them is your education and the enjoyment you get from being with an institution.

RATNER

So they did finally, however, decide to incorporate separately, I guess, because they made that decision in October of '74.

BURTON

I think that's right. I know we had to look into all the legal responsibilities of it, and this again was another thing that delayed the decision somewhat, the responsibilities that the organization would be taking on for [itself] that previously had been assumed by the museum. Legally. Insurance. A lot of those things.

RATNER

And, as you mentioned, there was this issue of money that they were very upset about.

BURTON

Right.

RATNER

I found in some minutes that they were interested in having the money used for the Galka Scheyer Blue Four [Collection] catalog—

BURTON

Mm-hm [affirmative].

RATNER

—that I guess during Bill [William C.] Agee's term, money had been committed or promised or something for that project. And then when Norton Simon came in, that project was put on hold, and I had some notes that the Art Alliance sent a letter to Mr. [George] Peters, who, I guess, was the director at that point, requesting that the Art Alliance money held by Norton Simon should be used for this catalog. And then they received a letter back stating that this wasn't possible because the project was on hold and that the funds would be used for operating expenses. Then the Simon people offered to put an Art Alliance plaque on the bookstore, which was formerly the kitchen. The Art Alliance found this unacceptable, and then they sent a letter back asking that their plaque be restored to Gallery Nine, which, I guess, was the gallery they had chosen—

BURTON

Right.

RATNER

—as theirs when the museum opened. Then the catalog is finally published in 1976, and the Art Alliance gets a line of thanks in it at that date. What was the discussion surrounding that situation?

BURTON

Their getting a line in it at that date, you mean? Or the whole situation?

RATNER

Well, I meant just the whole situation with the catalog and everything.

BURTON

Well, they kept pushing for the money to go toward a catalog. Several members of the Art Alliance felt very strongly about the Galka Scheyer collection and the Blue Four, and publishing a catalog was a condition that had to be fulfilled by the museum in order to keep the collection, and it was very nervous-making those last few years because it wasn't being published. There was great concern that the state might step in, since this collection was in trust to the Pasadena Art Museum, not owned by them, which I think is something a lot of people don't realize. So the museum was very anxious to secure that collection. I think involved Art Alliance members were disappointed with the quality of the catalog that Norton Simon published. Most of us were expecting something better. But at that point, the Art Alliance was beginning to get interested in other things, and I think some of the strong feelings, although they were still buried there, were not surfacing as much because they were looking for other outlets for their energies.

RATNER

Well, by its ultimate date, the Pasadena Art Museum made their significant contributions to the cultural life of Southern California in general and really, more specifically, in terms of the acceptance of contemporary art. I just wondered how you might summarize those contributions.

BURTON

That the Pasadena museum made to Southern California? Well, I certainly think it created an awareness of contemporary art in Southern California. I think because of it there was a colony of artists that lived in Pasadena and developed because of the museum's presence here. It made a contribution, I think, on a national scale, international scale, with some of the innovative shows that it had. I think they really had some very, very classic shows there, certainly things that I'm very proud to have been associated with, and certain things that people that I know today say, "Oh, I remember that when it was at Pasadena." And there was an awareness of what was happening in the art world that the Los Angeles County Museum and none of the other institutions were fulfilling at that particular time in history. I think it paved the way for the Museum of Contemporary Art [MOCA] in Los Angeles, because there still was a residue of people that knew that a contemporary art museum had existed. Although the time at which it had existed and the place at which it had existed had not been conducive of having it become a success, the germ of the idea was there that a contemporary museum was certainly a possibility. The galleries at that time had flourished more, and then there was sort of a letdown, and now again, of course, we have a lot of galleries of art. In a positive-negative way, it certainly taught lessons to those of us that were the founders of MOCA, because we learned from mistakes that were made in Pasadena and are trying very hard not to emulate those mistakes and not have the same things happen to us. And one of the great things, of course, with MOCA was the fact that the building was paid for, because that is really the big difference. I just think it gave an awareness, in many ways, that we really don't realize. Pasadena had a wonderful education program, the [Pasadena] Art Workshop, which, after Norton Simon took over the museum, went, and a marvelous children's program was established in Pasadena that I'm sure would not exist if it hadn't been nurtured in the Pasadena Art Museum. It's a very successful program, a very innovative program. I'm sure that wouldn't have existed if it weren't for the Pasadena Art Museum. Even the support groups like the Pasadena Art Alliance, which now gives grants to other institutions—they raise money and give grants to institutions that are concerned with basically the visual arts in Southern California—out of it grew this source of funding. The Fellows of Contemporary Art which gives money for exhibitions of different kinds grew out of it. The Men's Committee, although it's never been as active, still raises funds for the art community. So all of these things, I think, were contributions that the museum made. Also, it was a great place for those of us to be involved. I made wonderful friends. I enjoyed it. It was exciting. If you want to look back selfishly at what you got out of it as a person, although times were tough and things were rough, I think we all personally benefited. I got a great deal of growth out of it myself. I met wonderful people. I had wonderful exposure that has certainly added to my growth in the community and in the art world. I would never be a trustee of MOCA if I hadn't been a trustee in Pasadena. A lot of the Art Alliance ladies would not have their interest in contemporary art and have gone on to do a lot of the things they have done as individuals. Trustees on the board have continued involvement in the art world. It was a very exciting place to be associated with, despite all its problems. And stimulating. As I think I've said before in this interview, the reason I really like contemporary art rather than old masterpieces, whereas I love to go and look at them and see the wonderful paintings, it's the vitality and living of contemporary art and its mirroring everything that's going on today that to me is very important. And a museum is an educational place. Despite the fact that some of the people around didn't want to be educated, they couldn't ignore it, and they got some education anyway! And it did bring the Norton Simon collection to Pasadena. While that was a negative for us, it was very definitely a positive for the community. Pasadena is very fortunate to have that collection here. It is a very fine collection, and to have that art here for the community of Pasadena, that certainly is a plus.

RATNER

You just mentioned briefly that the Art Alliance has continued to support the arts by contributing to various organizations. But could you just tell me a little bit about what happened to the group after they decided to incorporate separately and went off on their own?

BURTON

Well, after they decided to incorporate separately and went off on their own, they were really searching for another institution with which to become associated. The time frame I don't remember exactly, but they did become associated—after looking around at different institutions and the possibilities—they did become associated with Baxter Art Gallery at Caltech [California Institute of Technology]. They supported that for a period of time until the administration at Caltech decided they preferred to have their funds that were involved in the joint sponsorship go to other projects for other needs. So Caltech closed the gallery. Again the Art Alliance was left without a home, which is a rather difficult thing for an organization. They have their office, but as I was talking earlier about the perks of being involved with an institution, it's also—which I didn't mention then—the physical thing of having a place to meet, too. And just having sort of a center of your operations helps to hold the organization together. And so, again, they investigated different institutions and were not able to find one that the members all agreed upon supporting. So they have continued basically with their fund-raising activities. The last one they just had probably raised between $70,000 and $75,000, so they raise an amount of money that's considerable and can be very helpful. They have the system where institutions that are interested can write in and apply for grants, and then they have a grants committee that decides on the distribution of the funds to the different organizations. And so that's what they are doing now.

RATNER

Great! Well, we've talked at length about your involvement with the museum, and you did mention you were a trustee at MOCA, but could you tell me a little bit about what you've been doing since the museum closed its doors?

BURTON

After the museum closed its doors, the first thing, I think, I did, in a volunteer sense—I'm assuming that's what we're speaking about, or related to the museum—I decided to go over to the [Los Angeles] County Museum of Art and do my volunteering over there. I was a member of the Costume Council, and then I became the chairman of the Costume Council at the County Museum, which tied in somewhat with the art, but also with the fact that my husband [Eugene Burton] is in the retail business in ladies' ready-to-wear, so that I have some interest, too, in costumes and fabrics and clothing and that field. But I found out I really didn't find that as exciting to me personally as the contemporary art field. I became involved in their Modern and Contemporary Art Council, and I was the chairman of the Young Talent Committee, which I enjoyed very much, going out and choosing for the Young Talent Show. Then I was called, as I mentioned earlier, I think, and asked to be on the ad hoc committee of Mayor [Thomas] Bradley that was looking for a space for a contemporary art museum. So I was doing that and still involved somewhat at the County Museum, and at that time, or I guess it was a little later maybe, I became more and more involved with the ad hoc committee. And as things developed there, I still became more involved. It turned from being an ad hoc committee into being—Some of the people—not the ad hoc committee, because most of them did not become trustees—but the progress was that MOCA was established, and we had to form a legal board of trustees. There were three originally, and then six, and then it was raised to nine, and I was in that group when it went to nine, which was, I guess, within the first six months. At that time I had been asked to be chairman of the Modern and Contemporary Art Council at the County Museum, but I felt that I couldn't do both. So I came over and devoted my time to MOCA, and that really has been a full-time volunteer job. I was also on the board of trustees at Westridge [School for Girls] in Pasadena and a community adviser to the Junior League, and I am a little involved in my husband's business, so it all kept me busy.

RATNER

Very busy, it sounds like! [laughter]

BURTON

Right! Time to retire now. So that's pretty much up-to-date, I think.

RATNER

Well, those are really all the questions I have, unless there's anything else at all you can think of that you'd like to add.

BURTON

No! I can't think of anything.