Imagine pouring millions into a brand revamp, only to have it overshadowed by a scandal involving a fired CEO and a lawsuit accusing the museum board of corruption. That's the reality facing the Philadelphia Art Museum right now. The museum's new image, splashed across the city and beckoning visitors up the iconic "Rocky Steps," is struggling to shine amidst allegations of mismanagement and a power struggle at the highest levels.
The museum's recent rebrand, a stark, monochromatic affair, was designed by the Brooklyn-based firm Gretel and aimed to revitalize the institution's image. It features a slightly altered name and logo, a subtle shift from the "Philadelphia Museum of Art." While students on school trips may have been oblivious as they admired the Jasper Johns exhibit, some staff members privately expressed their confusion and dissatisfaction, deeming the rebrand financially wasteful or simply aesthetically unappealing. One staff member even described it as "bewildering." (Staff members were not named to protect them from potential repercussions.)
But here's where it gets controversial... The rebrand itself has become a point of contention. Online critics have likened the new logo to that of a sports team, even coining the mocking abbreviation "PhArt." And this is the part most people miss... The decision to hire a New York firm, rather than a local Philadelphia agency, further fueled discontent within the city's vibrant art scene, which prides itself on the museum's significance as a premier visual arts institution. As Zara Anishanslin, a University of Delaware art history professor and consultant for the museum's early American galleries, pointed out: "It is a real shame that, with the long history of talent in Philadelphia, you would not go to Philadelphians for a rebrand that purportedly was responding to their desires."
However, the rebrand is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. A leadership crisis, with a Canadian curator at its heart, is threatening to overshadow the museum's artistic treasures, including its reconstructed Japanese temple and extensive Marcel Duchamp collection. In October, the museum proudly unveiled its new brand identity. Just weeks later, director and CEO Sasha Suda was abruptly fired by the board of trustees, allegedly "for cause." Suda, formerly the head of the National Gallery of Canada, had served only three years of her five-year contract. Now, she's fighting back, filing a lawsuit against the museum in Pennsylvania state court, seeking damages and two years' severance pay.
Depending on who you ask, Suda's dismissal may be directly linked to the controversial rebrand. But the lawsuit reveals a more complex picture. It suggests that the investigation leading to her ouster, conducted by an unnamed law firm, centered on expenses that Suda claims were pre-approved. These included a US$39,000 cost-of-living adjustment to her salary, which she asserts was consistent with raises given to unionized employees. The lawsuit paints a broader picture of Suda as a leader at odds with certain members of the museum's board of trustees. According to the filing, the board was "constantly changing the rules for management," as allegedly stated by the chief financial officer. The suit details numerous instances of conflict and "interference," including a dispute over simultaneously scheduled events with Philadelphia's city council president and the museum's largest corporate donor, Bank of America.
"A small cabal of trustees commissioned a sham investigation to create a pretext for Ms. Suda’s termination,” stated her lawyer, Luke Nikas, in an email. “Ms. Suda fought for and believed in a museum that would serve Philadelphia and its people, not the egos of a handful of trustees.” The museum, in response, acknowledged the lawsuit but dismissed it as "without merit" and declined further comment.
Suda's career has spanned both the United States and Canada. Educated at Princeton, Williams College, and NYU, she previously led the National Gallery of Canada from 2019 to 2022, leaving before the end of her five-year term. Public records indicate that her salary at the Philadelphia Art Museum was significantly higher, reportedly tripling to US$729,000.
Her tenure at the National Gallery was not without its challenges, marked by staff disaffection and the dismissal of several senior employees, including Greg Hill, the former Audain senior curator of Indigenous art. Hill described a "culture of fear and intimidation" among staff, afraid to speak out or face restructuring. Despite these past issues, Suda's lawsuit highlights her efforts to strengthen the Philadelphia Art Museum's ties to local schools and reduce its US$6 million deficit by two-thirds. She also championed programming and equity initiatives, including the establishment of the Brind Center for African and African Diasporic Art.
And here's another potential flashpoint: Suda's lawsuit alleges that her exit terms were less favorable than those offered to a male former CEO and other "male individuals who were pushed out of the Museum for engaging in actual wrongdoing." The lawsuit further claims that Suda's efforts to modernize the museum clashed with a "small, corrupt, and unethical faction of the Board intent on preserving the status quo." This raises serious questions about fairness, transparency, and the direction of the Philadelphia Art Museum.
What do you think? Was the rebrand a misstep? Was Suda unfairly targeted? And what responsibility do museum boards have to their staff and the communities they serve? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
