Charlotte Burns: Hello and welcome to In Other Words, where we discuss everything you ever wanted to know about the art world but didn’t know who to ask. I’m your host, Charlotte Burns, and today we’re joined by Lisa Phillips, the Toby Devan Lewis Director of New York’s New Museum, who was named the most powerful woman in the New York art world by the New York Times last year.
“That’s something that we deeply believe in—which is partnerships and collaboration. I think that was part of the founding DNA too, and I think very much, if I dare say, part of a female orientation in consciousness, that willingness and desire to collaborate.” —Lisa Phillips
We’re also joined by Allan Schwartzman—who is now the co-founder of Art Agency, Partners and a chairman of Sotheby’s—and who was a founding staff member of the New Museum, hired at the tender age of 19 as a curator.
“A lot of the most important art existed in video, and not in the sense of film-like production that we see in video today, but in the most utilitarian sense of ‘get a camera and you can record anything, because it doesn’t cost anything’.”—Allan Schwartzman
Before we begin, just a reminder to check out our In Other Words newsletter, which you can subscribe to at artagencypartners.com.
Now, onto the show.
I thought that we’d begin by talking about something that was the founding spirit of the New Museum and is something Allan talks about a lot in the newsletter, which is “the spirit of the new”. I thought I would ask you both how you would define “the spirit of the new”.
Lisa Phillips: Well, I think “the spirit of the new” is seeing things in a different way. It’s a different point of view. We embrace so many different points of view at the New Museum. That’s vibrancy, that’s vitality, and it’s also history.
Allan Schwartzman: I would completely agree with that. I would add that it’s about curiosity. It’s about challenging.
One could look at the history of modern art or the history of 20th century art as being governed by “the spirit of the new”, that art was always about going into new territory that your predecessors had not, oftentimes in a healthily reactionary way.
At a certain point, this formal language of art had played itself out to the extent that the object was no longer even relevant or present. And so, I think there has been a period of time—certainly when Lisa and I began—that the notion of “the spirit of the new”, of maintaining it or even defining it, was in flux and uncertainty.
Lisa Phillips: It continues to be, and that is part of its definition.
Allan Schwartzman: Exactly, but I would also say that in the last few decades “the spirit of the new” has been renewed and revitalized in so many ways because the world has been opened up to us. I know when we began, we were indoctrinated into the history of post-war art from an American perspective, which was principally a Museum of Modern Art perspective. According to that view, in the post-war period all great art was American art. Since then a much larger global view has come into focus in ways that never could have been anticipated
Lisa Phillips: We didn’t have firsthand experience at that time. We were much more locally focused, which has changed. The New Museum has been part of that change. I think the founding idea was to create a new kind of institution that would not be bound by traditional hierarchies. That meant looking at everything with fresh eyes, whether it was work outside of New York, or from elsewhere, or work by diverse populations, work by women certainly. This is really fundamental to the mission and the founding of the institution which Allan was part of from the very beginning.
Allan Schwartzman: As a pup.
Charlotte Burns: Lisa, you’ve been running an art museum in New York longer than anyone in the city apart from Glenn Lowry (you started there in 1999 and he in 1995, so there’s not much in it).
You’re one of only two directors in the city who’s overseen the construction of a brand-new building. You opened the building on the Bowery in 2007, while Adam Weinberg open the Whitney building in Meatpacking in 2015.
Now you’re in the middle of an $85m capital campaign to double the size of the museum. While you’ve been at the museum, you’ve expanded the idea of what a museum can be and do, from IdeasCity— which is essentially a think tank about urban environments and culture—to technology initiatives.
I read an interesting thing in an interview with Massimiliano Gioni—who’s the museum’s artistic director—said that the first question you asked him when he interviewed for his role was “What do you envision a museum is going to be in the 21st century?” That’s something we talk about a lot in these podcasts, but it’s always been part of the DNA of the New Museum to think about what a museum can be—
Lisa Phillips: Absolutely.
Charlotte Burns: —How do you keep that going? It’s easier, maybe, to be new when you’re new. How do you do that after you’re 40 years old? How do you keep that alive?
Lisa Phillips: Because we’re an institution that is responding to culture as it’s happening. It’s always in flux, it’s always changing. So we can’t remain static; we wouldn’t be fulfilling our mission if we did.
And we’re guided by artists always. This is part of our natural questioning and response to culture as it’s being made, and thinking about always being future-forward and thinking about where culture is going because we’re in the present, but we’re looking towards the future, always.
We have tested many things out. We have the flexibility and the agility to experiment in ways that others don’t or can’t, and we have a mission to do that. We try things out, and often people scratch their heads and say, “Why? Why is a museum doing that? Why would you do that?” Whether it’s IdeasCity—which we got a lot of resistance to initially and now everybody’s doing future city conferences—and we think, well, maybe it’s time to move on
We started an incubator for art, technology and design five years ago. Again, people questioned when we founded NEW INC., why is an institution doing this? Now we get maybe 10 calls a day from other institutions asking, “How did you do that? We’d like to know more,” to the point where I think we could start a consulting business.
Charlotte Burns: As another new way of being a museum, I guess.
Lisa Phillips: Yes.
Allan Schwartzman: I have a question, Lisa, following up on that. You came to the New Museum from the Whitney—
Lisa Phillips: Yes.
Allan Schwartzman: —in the period of time in which we met at the Whitney.
Lisa Phillips: We did too.
Charlotte Burns: You met at the Whitney?
Allan Schwartzman: —When we were both pups. You were at a museum that at that point in time was much more focused on reflecting mainstream thought, initially, than what it had been before. Then in your later years there, the Whitney very much became a leader of advanced thinking in ways that were clearly ahead of the curve but have proven to have been on the mark in the long run.
When you came to the New Museum how did you then define your mandate or your goals for evolving how the New Museum functions in general, how it functions within an ecosystem of other New York museums and museums elsewhere?
Lisa Phillips: Just a point about the Whitney, where I was a curator for 22 years prior to coming to the New Museum. We really had our eyes trained on the New Museum while we were at the Whitney. I would say we were very influenced by the programs and activities there. The New Museum had functioned as a kind of research and development arm for the art world—very inside art world but very important.
When I came in ’99, it was at a crossroads. The founding director, Marcia Tucker, was retiring after 22 years and the institution really needed to grow. It was challenged organizationally at that point but had a very strong mission and history.
There was a lot to build on, but it was clear that in order to grow beyond being an inside-art world establishment we needed to have a headquarters building. We needed to have a freestanding structure that people could identify.
I still believe in that headquarters concept, although I don’t think bricks and mortar is everything. I think we’re going to move beyond it but it was a very important step. It did more than quadruple our audience, our supporters, our network—everything. It transformed the institution in a way that needed to happen if it was going to continue to survive.
Charlotte Burns: To build a more stable foundation. Well, to build roots essentially—
Lisa Phillips: Yes.
Charlotte Burns: —an actual physical foundation.
Lisa Phillips: And Marcia was really happy to see that happen. I don’t know that she could’ve imagined it. They had just finished a renovation on Broadway but it couldn’t remain a storefront institution forever, not with the level of ambition that it had. It was really important to grow.
I think that the board, and Marcia too, were a little surprised that this was even suggested because they were used to a certain level of operation. But then everybody got on board and it was clear that this was the way we were going.
Charlotte Burns: Now you’re in the middle of the $85m capital campaign. You’ve selected OMA as the design architects for the expansion, which is going to double the footprint on the Bowery providing an additional 50,000 sq. ft. What was behind that decision to grow again, to work with a different architect and what are the plans for the space?
Lisa Phillips: Okay…
Charlotte Burns: As much as you can reveal.
Lisa Phillips: Yes. We’re not quite at that point yet, but we will be making a public announcement at the end of January. Stay tuned for that.
Basically, we had the opportunity to buy the property adjacent to us right after we opened on the Bowery, and we did that for future expansion possibilities. We gradually moved into this building over the last decade and started using every available square foot. This is where our incubator lives. It’s where Rhizome lives. It’s where IdeasCity lives. It’s where our artist residencies live. It’s where our archive lives.
It is a fully used structure at the moment, but we have no way of sharing it with the public. It’s limited to the ground floor right now. So we started to explore. How could we renovate the building, make it publicly accessible and make some of these activities visible to the public too?
That led us to where we are now, which is plans for another building. It was a period of maybe three or four years of analysis and study, and we concluded that really, the most functional solution is to start from scratch, as it often is. Renovation is often more expensive than building from the ground up.
Charlotte Burns: I know you can’t reveal much more so we’ll wait with bated breath for the January announcement.
You said just a second ago that you see in the future that museums are going to move beyond bricks and mortar. This is tied to the question I was going to ask you about NEW INC., which recently extended the museum technology focus track thanks to funding from the Knight Foundation. In what way are those things combined—technology in museums and moving beyond bricks and mortar—and how do you see that future?
Lisa Phillips: We have a headquarters building on the Bowery and we do outstanding exhibitions there—like our current Sarah Lucas show—but that’s just one part of what we do. We have many, many programs and projects going on around the world and we’re known as much outside of New York as we are in New York for the things that we’re doing elsewhere.
I’m not sure that everyone is aware of that but we have exhibitions, for instance, a large exhibition “Strange Days: Memories of the Future”, in London at the Strand: 200,000 sq. ft. of space showcasing moving image installations that we have shown over the last decade. It’s an outstanding show. That’s just one example.
We are working with international partners all over the world to present programs and projects on a pretty regular basis. So, that’s beyond bricks and mortar. That’s something that we deeply believe in, which is partnerships and collaboration. I think that was part of the founding DNA too and I think very much, if I dare say, part of a female orientation in consciousness: that willingness and desire to collaborate. I don’t know, I might be getting myself into hot water on that one, but—
Allan Schwartzman: I don’t think so at all. The women’s movement was core to Marcia’s being, to her thinking and to the language that she used to describe her thinking, so I think it’s spot on.
Lisa Phillips: That idea of collaborating has really enabled us to have a much bigger impact than we could ever have at our scale—
Charlotte Burns: Yes.
Lisa Phillips: —And really suggests another model, and I think when people talk about power I’m interested in how we can redefine what that means. Is it just about size? Is it just about money? Or can it be about other things, other kinds of values?
Charlotte Burns: What kinds of values? What kinds of values would you propose beyond size and wealth?
Lisa Phillips: I think collaboration, impact. There are lots of different kinds of impact. In the art world we often talk about financial values as sort of defining success, and The New Museum has never been about that. Even though of course it has a relationship to that, which is inevitable and maybe led to a certain kind of conflict and crisis at a certain point—which we’ve discussed in the past—when the market absorbs everything. And we’re a very important showcase. We present defining exhibitions on artists, so how could it not be related? Of course it’s related.
Charlotte Burns: Just for listeners who don’t know the conversations you guys have had in the past, can either of you tell me a little bit more about that conflict and crisis that you’ve discussed?
Allan Schwartzman: When The New Museum was founded, there was no market for true contemporary art. Most of the art that evolved in the 1970s, particularly in the first half, was immaterial in nature. A lot of it was performance driven. A lot of it was installation driven. Much of it was done on an environmental scale and much of it didn’t even exist in physical form. A lot of the most important art existed in video and not in the sense of film-like production that we see in video today, but in the most utilitarian sense of get a camera and you can record anything because it doesn’t cost anything.
So, when Marcia started The New Museum, it was in the spirit of it being like an alternative space but with certain professional standards. It was always to be out there on the outer edges, looking at new ideas, which was fairly synonymous with “radical” starting around 1980.
Along with somewhat of a migration of key figures from the nonprofit world into the profit sector, everything changed. You had a new generation of artists emerging who were making things that could hang on walls. You had a new generation of collectors evolving, or people interested in collecting art, and now all of a sudden there was product for them to acquire.
Everything changed. Marcia’s notion of a museum that would always evolve somehow had within it an equation of the market with the establishment and with a kind of stability or authority that the spirit of her generation and her times were in reaction to. It seemed to me at a certain point in time—as the market evolved through to the middle of the ‘80s when it could accommodate anything, virtually—for Marcia, I think that pushed her further and further into wanting to react against the norms. I think it started to back her further into a corner.
What started with a very big idea of what it meant to always remain contemporary and at the forefront, all of a sudden started to narrow down because of how that was equated with the anti-commercial.
Charlotte Burns: Right. I see.
Lisa Phillips: But I think that idea of only showing work that was outside of the market system was really an idealistic view from the start, and maybe never was totally enacted and realizable, or realized. But it was a conflict. It was a real conflict about how institutions do play into market forces, and what’s your responsibility and role in that.
Charlotte Burns: You were criticized as a museum in 2010 for the exhibition of works from the collection of the trustee Dakis Joannou curated by one of his favorite artists, Jeff Koons. You’ve always stood by that as being proud of this idea of being radical in thinking about what a museum could do. What are your thoughts on that now, almost a decade after that controversy?
Lisa Phillips: Yes, I don’t think it seems so radical anymore. It quickly seemed not very radical when other institutions were doing the same, and in fact it had happened previously as well.
It’s interesting to think about and something I’ll probably write about, that whole experience, because it was also the beginning of internet and social media conversation. It went beyond journalistic criticism and there were a multitude of voices weighing in on all sorts of things.
My own view about that was that it happened at the time of the economic downturn here, the great recession. That may have been unfortunate timing in that someone who happens to be an outstanding collector and very generous was seen as a wealthy individual profiting from the show—which was not at all the case—and really antithetical to the values that the New Museum stood for which we were just talking about, of being outside of the commercial system. So I think people saw that as a kind of values clash. We didn’t, as the staff of the museum and inside the institution, knowing him so well and his generosity and vision and also admiring Jeff for his vision and his artwork over several decades. And he in fact had his first exhibition ever at the New Museum back in the day, 1980—
Allan Schwartzman: ’80.
Lisa Phillips: —’80, called “The New”, which was a defining moment for him. We felt like it was absolutely the right thing, and a really interesting experiment to take on, to invite an artist to look at a collection and install it and give him total freedom. And he did things that we would never dare to do with works of art in the way that he installed things and put things together.
Now, since that time there’s a recognition that the artist’s viewpoint—the artist as curator—is one of the most interesting points of view.
Charlotte Burns: I’m going to ask you both a question, which is the question that you asked Massimiliano: what do you envision the museum is going to be in the 21st century?
Lisa Phillips: Well, we’re in it. In fact we’re 20 years into it. I think the changing demographics in our country are really going to profoundly shape institutions. It’s already started but it’s inevitable and institutions are not as in touch with the general population as they should be and need to be.
That’s starting to change, and I think just an awareness of that is important. That’s going to lead to different kinds of programs, different leadership. It has to. Diversity is vibrancy and it’s got to be a reflection of who we are as a culture and a society. So that’s one thing.
Beyond bricks and mortar, I think that’s another. And the idea of transmission of the museum as a platform that can transmit ideas and serve as a vehicle for producing new works. That’s what we believe in at The New Museum. We are producers. We don’t collect. That’s a very important distinction about our institution over other museums. This keeps us flexible, keeps us nimble and able to innovate and able to focus on innovation over preservation.
That’s also a challenge. What do we do with ever growing, ever increasing collections? How do we take care of them? How do we show them? How do we share them? Probably digitally. We have a group at the New Museum in the incubator right now that is working on a virtual reality museum. The entire thing is VR. All of the works in the museum are VR. We’ll be seeing that soon.
Charlotte Burns: We had a podcast with a curator of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, Geoffrey Marsh. He’s the curator who’s ran some of those immersive exhibitions like the Bowie Show. It feels like immersive exhibitions are the prelude to virtual reality or augmented reality, that the technology is so close at hand, almost readily available and that it will be as impactful on museums—and the market, and the art world and the production of art and sort of every aspect of culture—as prints were, because people can have things in their own home they can sort of have more power. They can curate things themselves. Which doesn’t necessarily detract from the art itself, that kind of first-hand experience, but will flavor it and will change the way that we see things. That’s his position. He’s looking into how augmented reality is going to change specifically museum shows and how we think about transmitting the ideas in a museum.
Lisa Phillips: Absolutely. I have no doubt about that.
Charlotte Burns: So fascinating.
Lisa Phillips: It’s coming, and it’s coming soon. It’s coming very quickly.
Charlotte Burns: What do you think about that, Allan?
Allan Schwartzman: I have a few thoughts about this question of the museum moving forward and they’re organized along very practical thought lines, but I think that a lot of the pragmatics are the areas of greatest challenge for institutions.
The first issue has to do with money. Even the richest museums in this country, as soon as they end one capital campaign they’re beginning another. In many cases these are $600m campaigns, $1bn campaigns. They’re constantly chasing it down.
There’s virtually no such thing, except possibly with the Getty, or in nations of evolving wealth where governments are flush with cash and are creating museums and other kinds of cultural initiatives. What it will take to sustain these institutions going into the future, I think it’s inevitable that this will be substantially rethought.
Some of it will have to do with the extent to which museums are able to exhibit such a tiny fraction of what they own. Policies toward accessions, whether purchased works or donated works, I think are going to be seriously reconsidered.
What it costs to maintain works of art—to even make them accessible to lend to other institutions—are vast. The very nature of the collections and the museum as a collecting institution while remaining an active institution I think is going to be challenged.
Certainly in this country we’re seeing—well we’re seeing it around the world—the rise of private museums. This is an area that when it was just emerging not very long ago has gone through dramatic change and evolution starting from what were really vanity museums on private property. Now you have very serious fulfillment of an ambitious notion of an institution.
One of the real challenges for museums—which is also one of the greatest opportunities—is to be forging new and inventive relationships between the public institution and the private patron.
I think if you looked at SFMOMA and what was formed there with the Fisher family is a really interesting case in point. The museum has been able to expand its space dramatically. It has had the funds with which to create spaces that focus on concentrated selections of works by individual artists that most museums could never afford to produce or provide. I think Lisa’s maybe disagreeing a little bit over here.
Lisa Phillips: I see the point that you’re making and we have this situation in Dallas too, where private collectors are choosing to partner with existing institutions rather than necessarily forming their own independent structures. But when you think of the genesis of our existing institutions they often came about that way—New Museum being an exception, started by someone who didn’t have a collection or any resources—but that is how many of our institutions started.
Back to the money question. How institutions will sustain themselves in this new century? And what kinds of new models can we imagine for financial stability and sustainability? That is something that we have to look at.
At the New Museum about 50% of our annual operating comes from earned income. That’s unusual. That didn’t used to be the case. It didn’t use to be the case for most museums, but many now have developed different revenue streams that they did not have previously.
Charlotte Burns: So ticket sales and the store and—
Lisa Phillips: —Yes, I would say merchandising, special events, partnerships.
We are doing a fair amount of consulting and work for hire. Now we’re starting to do some partnerships with companies that are in alignment with our mission and interest. Particularly technology companies. These are ways to expand what we want to do with our program but also find a self-sustaining way to keep programs going. And that is a challenge for institutions, but we like a challenge.
Allan Schwartzman: The vast majority of museums that have been created over the last several decades tend to seek to create a new version of an existing form of museum. Some have more money with which to do it. Some have more thought and moxie. But nonetheless we’re winding up with similar kinds of collections in museums around the world, be it in historical realms or contemporary realms.
I think the area where there’s the greatest opportunity and need for growth—and where I see a lot of change—is in niche museums and museums that do take on a unique identity that distinguishes them in the field, that gives them a kind of expertise whether it’s in terms of content or the form of the institution itself that become destination places.
Up until let’s say 15 or so years ago, we placed great value on the idea of the building. Of hiring a very significant architect to create a monument that would define the museum or redefine the museum, and probably the greatest manifestations of that where The Getty, which was referred to as the building project of the of the 20th century, and Bilbao. Which interestingly opened within six months of the Getty but was referred to as the first 21st century museum. Bilbao was very specific a community a city wanting to remake itself saying that culture would be central to it and that that would be a driver of revenue and visitation. And it was a huge success.
My belief nowadays, one needs only look at Abu Dhabi where you have an extraordinary building designed Jean Nouvel for the Louvre Abu Dhabi. It really is one of the great buildings of any kind— especially in the realm of museums of the last half a century—and yet the building isn’t enough to drive it. Ultimately the success of an institution like that will reside in its program, in its relationship to its community and how it can be rethinking what a historical museum can and should be.
Lisa Phillips: A building alone isn’t enough. But architecture is an art. And the ambition to create a place that becomes a catalyst for the community is a great ambition. And it is one that I think will define the 21st century museum. That it’s really a vital part of the community of vital part of culture. We have to continue to advocate for arts’ importance to the culture in general. It’s certainly what makes this city a leading destination for everyone around the world. And we can’t underestimate that.
Charlotte Burns: Also the idea of community—which you brought up earlier too—this idea of a museum having the future being in terms of reflecting the diversity of a population. We recently did a big research project looking at the representation of African American artists and 30 US museums, including the New Museum. One leading director said to us that it’s only fairly recently that the major museums have considered their responsibility to their local community, that he felt it was a somewhat new way of thinking.
Lisa Phillips: The question is, whose history?
Charlotte Burns: Exactly.
Lisa Phillips: Whose history are we writing and what does history mean? Who’s it written for? Whose story is it? And I think that was an essential part of the New Museum’s founding: Marsha as a feminist clearly felt that women had been left out of the history.
Half of the artists that we’ve shown over our 40+ year history have been women, and then that extended to artists of color as well and artists from other places. It is redefining history and rewriting history.
Allan Schwartzman: And it’s next generation directors who are doing so. I think the greatest possibility for moving that needle is going to be over the next 10, 20 years.
I guess this leads to another question: how deep or shallow is the potential talent pool for new directors? It’s always—
Lisa Phillips: —I’m so glad you asked that. I’ve seen a tremendous change at AAMD—that’s our professional organization for museum directors—over the past decade, where I’ve been a member for 20 years. But over the past 10 years we’ve seen a very big generational shift, which you would expect.
Right now one of my primary responsibilities is to mentor and train the next generation of leaders. I feel very fortunate when I look back at my experience at The Whitney to have had a director who nurtured several leading museum directors today that include Richard Armstrong, Thelma Golden, Adam Weinberg and myself. This isn’t a story that’s been told to often. But he did that by letting us do our jobs with very little interference.
He didn’t always understand what we were doing but he gave us the agency when we were in our 20s and 30s. And you had that experience too.
So I remember that, and I think that’s an important lesson to hire good people and then let them do their work and help them get to the next stage in leadership and where they need to be. I see that as a very important role that I can play with the experience that I’ve had and I’m encouraged by what I see. I really am. And it is a changing landscape and this is good. It has to change.
Allan Schwartzman: I look simply at what you’ve achieved and what Thelma has achieved. These are just two examples—but certainly two of the leading examples of my generation and younger—moving into museums that have changed dramatically the way much larger audiences and broader geographies look at contemporary art, look at the institution and look at the population of the viewer, the board and the artists themselves
Charlotte Burns: Lisa, you’ve been a champion of diversity in general. Here I’m going to talk specifically about women in museums. You initiated a study to collect data on salaries by gender for museum directors in the US and Canada. Which, as you might expect, showed disparity. So you’re interested not only in discussing these things but really putting facts out there to try and create a shift. Do you feel that people are more willing to consider that shift—to consider data and disparities—and be welcoming of that? Is change being embraced or is it an uphill battle?
Lisa Phillips: It’s been an uphill battle but I will say that in the last year, since the #metoo movement really gathered steam, there’s a recognition that these inequities are what lead to these terrible situations of abuse. You can’t have a harassment free workplace if you don’t have gender equity.
I think business leaders are recognizing that, and it is now part of unconscious bias training to really examine those hidden biases and where they live. And they’re often in that economic inequity. So I think there is a greater willingness on the one hand.
On the other hand, there’s a tremendous threat to the gains that we have made by the current administration and the kinds of behaviors that are tolerated and accepted.
So, that’s concerning to me. I think we have to remain vigilant and active. I am concerned that rights that we have taken for granted and that we have fought so hard for over the last 40 years could be rolled back really quickly. And that makes institutions like ours even more urgent, because we are advocates for these social issues and for artists that are working to give greater visibility, whether it’s gay rights, trans rights, women’s rights or AIDS activism. The institution has had a history of over 40 years of supporting this and it’s never been more important.
Allan Schwartzman: I think part of what brings it urgency is the political climate and the acknowledgement that all of these issues have been at the forefront of discussion for over 50 years. And there really hasn’t been nearly enough change in a real pragmatic way. I think the acute way in which the society—particularly in liberal realms like the arts—are reacting is triggered by the current political climate. And to that extent, while so many populations in this country feel threatened by how that administration sometimes functions, in the art world it’s been empowering. I think it’s leading to change, real change.
Charlotte Burns: This links to something I had written down. I don’t know how I’m going to bring this in but it’s such a nice quote. I had to find a way and I think here’s my window. In The New York Times profile you talked about a formative experience, which was a sailboat wreckage off the coast of Virginia you had with your family when you were eight years old. Your parents didn’t have life vests on but you all made it back to shore. You say in the Times piece: “the lesson from my family was that you get over it by getting back on a boat and continuing to sail. You don’t let fear get to you.” Which is a nice way of ending the show, unless there are things that you feel that we didn’t discuss that you’d like to. Is there anything we missed?
Allan Schwartzman: Or we could go on for a few more days.
Lisa Phillips: We share so much history. Thank you very much.
Charlotte Burns: Well, thank you both for being here today. This has been really interesting.
Allan Schwartzman: Thank you, Charlotte. Thank you, Lisa.