Nagler resigns from iMOCA

May 2, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Kathy Nagler has resigned as executive director of the Indianapolis Museum of Contemporary Art to "pursue personal passions and spend more time with her family." She had been with the organization for three years.

iMOCA curator Christopher West will serve as interim executive director until further decisions are made. In the meantime, iMOCA, which operates a small gallery at 340 N. Senate Ave. while also partnering on exhibitions elsewhere, has a number of projects in the works. These include a Jen Davis photography exhibition opening May 8 and a DVD to introduce IPS students to contemporary art.

For more information on iMOCA, click here

Your thoughts? What has iMOCA done right or wrong in its short history? What should it be looking to do in the future? And don't be shy if you haven't even heard of iMOCA. I'd like to hear from you as well.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • What's the rumor I heard about the iMOCA moving into a new digs in Fountain Square?
  • Kathy Nagler is an outstanding colleague. She made great contributions to iMOCA building its visibility in the community.

    I wish Christopher the best in this leadership position and expect he and iMOCA will continue to do well.

    On behalf of Indianapolis Opera, I want to thank them both and the organization for the fun collaboration we had this past fall when they presented Hansel and Gretel: Never Eat a House - with artworks by NEW YORKER artists in conjunction with our production of Hansel and Gretel, the opera.

    Thanks, Kathy, for the great leadership you provide Indy's cultural community!

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

  2. It's good to hear that the festival is continuing to move forward beyond some of the narrow views that seemed to characterize the festival and that I and others had to deal with during our time there.

  3. Corner Bakery announced in March that it had signed agreements to open its first restaurants in Indianapolis by the end of the year. I have not heard anything since but will do some checking.

  4. "The project still is awaiting approval of a waiver filed with the Federal Aviation Administration that would authorize the use of the land for revenue-producing and non-aeronautical purposes." I wonder if the airport will still try to keep from paying taxes on these land tracts, even though they are designated as "non aeronatical?"

  5. How is this frivolous? All they are asking for is medical screenings to test the effects of their exposure. Sounds like the most reasonable lawsuit I've read about in a while. "may not have commited it" which is probably why they're suing to find out the truth. Otherwise they could just ask Walmart, were you negligent? No? OK, thanks for being honest.

ADVERTISEMENT