Why a San Francisco art teacher gave up on 'stingy' SFMOMA

"We want to give back to the city we love," reads a quote attributed to Doris and Donald Fisher at SFMOMA

Aug. 12, 2021 6 AM PT

‘Stingy’ SFMOMA

Thank you for Carolina A. Miranda’s incisive piece about the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) [“At What Expense?” Aug. 5]. I have been a San Francisco resident since 1983 and an SFMOMA member since before the museum was moved from the Herbst Building on Van Ness Avenue to the Mario Botta-designed building on 3rd Street. As a public high school art and photo teacher I used to take my students to the museum on annual field trips.

I have felt the museum has always been a bit stingy with its outreach to educators, and its curators and directors were generally lacking in originality — what they show could be seen anywhere.

After the local drama of the Fishers seeking a home for their collection at the Presidio I had thought it a coup for the SFMOMA to acquire it, but I didn’t realize it is only a loan. After visiting the expanded building and seeing the Fisher collection occupying so much of the new real estate, like a collection of “greatest hits,” I see that the installation does neither the museum nor the artworks any good.

I haven’t re-upped my membership in several years because I felt, as Miranda does, that repeat visits aren’t worth the time or money.

I’m a letter writer, but I have long sensed that there is no one at the museum who would give two straws about what one San Francisco art lover has to say about the institution’s sad trajectory.

Emily Faxon
San Francisco

I read Carolina A. Miranda’s article on the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. They’re having their problems, but ultimately, I envy them.

They didn’t demolish their buildings in order to replace them with a one-story wonder lunging across Market Street that has less storage space than what they tore down.

They can still undo any harm that may have been done. We can’t.

Eric Wilson
Santa Monica

An Olympic failure

Fireworks over National Stadium during the closing ceremony of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics on Sunday

What a pathetic full-page article by four reporters sitting in front of their TVs whining about situations that didn’t fit their spoiled lives [“NBC, Up Your Game,” Aug. 9, by Greg Braxton, Tracy Brown, Thuc Nhi Nguyen and Eric Sondheimer].

NBC was in a no-win situation but certainly tried its best to deliver programming during a world pandemic. We know the ratings were low. We knew no in-person audience. We knew zero tourism. But we also know 14 million people watched daily. These reporters didn’t need to do the glass-half-empty routine.

Mike Garnet
Palm Desert

The four staffers who contributed to the article appeared to have problems accessing the Olympics coverage. I found it easy to see the events I wanted using the schedule provided daily in the L.A. Times and my DVR device.

I was able to program my DVR to record the events I wanted to see in advance each day, and then watch the events at my leisure. A bit of work but easy to do. Not sure why your staffers had the problems they did to see the events they wanted.

Overall, nice work by NBC to report on 11,000 athletes from 206 countries (including the ROC); 339 events; competitions 16 hours ahead of Los Angeles local time.

Shame and double shame on NBC Sports for cutting the closing speech of Thomas Bach in favor of another Dwayne Johnson commercial.

Fred Reimer
Los Angeles

Jackson Browne ‘keepin’ on’

So nice to see Jackson Browne “keeps on keepin’ on” [“It’s Never Too Late,” Aug. 1, by Amy Kaufman]. And great to find out his head is still in the right place. Thanks for the update.

Peggy Jo Abraham
Santa Monica

A British delight

Assad Bouab and Lily James smile at each other in Amazon's new miniseries "The Pursuit of Love."

This reader thoroughly appreciated Robert Lloyd’s review of [the adaptation on Amazon Prime of] Nancy Mitford’s novel “The Pursuit of Love” written, directed and acted in by Emily Mortimer [“Whimsical ‘Pursuit’” Aug. 9].

As a PBS regular who has watched so many “Masterpiece Theatre” productions since their inception, including the 1980 and 2001 adaptions to which Lloyd referred, I eagerly anticipated this rendition and was equally pleased with every facet of the result.

As a British American and one who was raised to admire and read Brit literature, this culture so well presented in this production was very familiar to me. It reminded me how insufferable the upper class could be, yet I was so immersed in the extravagance of the language, dress and behavioral customs that I felt quite at home during its passage, which proved to be such a delight.

Elaine Livesey-Fassel
Los Angeles