after re-reading, this review does come off as possibly a very big grudge, and not sure why

it does mention that the donor's art represents 6% (again only 6%) of the permament collection.

reading the article, one (I did) might come away with the impression the bulk of the museum is the donor's art. Well, if it's only 6%, that's not like the donor's art dominates

will definitely want to go at some point, but there's something behind this article that has another agenda than to review the Museum, because the writer doesn't mention much of the NINETY-FOUR % of the museum that is NOT the donors. to not even review or provide insight on the museum in total seems disengenous to me

it's a bit sad given the impressions I've read in the past that the Long Beach State art museum has been well regarded and even somewhat unique for a University.

the couple times I had gone in prior to the update were interesting.

sad