A new curatorial team has taken over the reins at the Cafesjian Art Trust in Shoreview.

Jill Ahlberg Yohe, a former longtime curator at the Minneapolis Institute of Art, is the CAT’s curator of modern and contemporary art, and Linnea Seidling, an art and glass historian who has overseen communications and events for the museum since it opened in 2022, is now the assistant curator of glass.

Kathie Cafesjian Baradaran, the museum’s founding trustee and daughter of the late philanthropist and art collector Gerard Cafesjian, has taken on the role of museum CEO. Previously, the role of curator and executive director were both held by Andy Schlauch, who quietly departed the museum in August 2024.

At left, Cafesjian Art Trust curator of modern and contemporary art Jill Ahlberg Yohe. At right, assistant curator of glass Linnea Seidling. Since opening in 2022, the Shoreview museum has showcased aspects of philanthropist Gerard Cafesjian’s personal collection. (Courtesy of Cafesjian Art Trust)

In its first two and a half years, the museum has gained a reputation for a series of popular and highly focused exhibitions showcasing aspects of Cafesjian’s personal collection, and as one of few museums in the country with a dedicated studio glass focus.

But now at the helm, Ahlberg Yohe and Seidling are aiming to broaden the museum’s presence to a variety of modern and contemporary art styles, they said during a joint conversation.

“There are a lot of private collections that are wonderful, but there are very few opportunities to shift what was a private collection into a museum collection,” said Ahlberg Yohe, who holds a doctoral degree in anthropology from the University of New Mexico. In making that change, she said, an institution takes on a certain responsibility to reflect and respond to the community in ways that are different from a private or personal collection.

“How are we going to fundamentally build something that is stewarding all of our collection and acquiring new things that complement our holdings, in ways that connect to the wider…conversations happening in the Twin Cities, in the region and nationally?” she said.

The museum is not stepping away from glass — far from it, Seidling said — but rather questioning the best way to elevate mediums, styles and movements that have historically been sidelined. It’s a thorny question: Might glass-specific exhibitions inadvertently contribute to the perception that glass art should remain separated from other art forms, rather than being in conversation with them?

“We have a lot of ideas about how to harness that strength in a different way, how to weave in our awesome glass collection with other media,” said Seidling, who before coming to the CAT was an assistant curator at the Corning Museum of Glass in New York, home to one of the world’s top glass collections. “Instead of having a glass show, or a painting show, or a textile show, (we are) creating exhibitions that put all of that together.”

And that goal — to “really uplift the artists on their own terms, rather than being defined by their medium,” as Ahlberg Yohe phrased it — is precisely her wheelhouse. When she left the Mia in Minneapolis last year, Ahlberg Yohe was associate curator of Native American art. One particularly groundbreaking exhibition under her leadership, 2019’s “Hearts of Our People,” included painted works, textiles, basketry, mixed-media sculpture and a custom-built car.

“I have heard over and over again how some visitors feel when they go into a museum, and it’s not always a great feeling — especially people who don’t see art that speaks to them, people who are told that art is something for elite people,” Ahlberg Yohe said. “I think we’re offering a contemporary space that feels intimate, warm, welcoming — and that you leave refreshed and feeling as if modern and contemporary art is for you.”

Currently on view at the CAT is “Echoes of Life: Paintings from the Collection,” which runs through Sept. 6.

Up next, a traveling exhibition called “Collidoscope: de la Torre Brothers Retro-Perspective,” is set to open in October as the first show under Ahlberg Yohe and Seidling’s leadership.

Entrance to the museum is free; guided tours must be booked online for Thursday and Friday visits but no reservations are required for Saturday visits. Closed Sunday through Wednesday.

Cafesjian Art Trust: 4600 Churchill St., Shoreview; 612-359-8991; https://cafesjianarttrust.org/

Related Articles

Stillwater man who invented the pop-up toaster to be celebrated at toast fundraiser

Goalie mask designed by Dakota artist and worn by Wild’s Marc-André Fleury acquired by MN Historical Society

Man accused of hiding stolen ‘Wizard of Oz’ ruby slippers to plead guilty, attorney says

New Minnesota Military and Veterans Museum taking shape next to Camp Ripley

10 years of wonder: Gingerbread Wonderland is back at Norway House

Watching Elon Musk and his band of young acolytes slash their way through the federal government, many observers have struggled to understand how such a small group could do so much damage in so little time.

The mistake is trying to situate Musk solely in the context of politics. He isn’t approaching this challenge like a budget-minded official. He’s approaching it like an engineer, exploiting vulnerabilities that are built into the nation’s technological systems, operating as what cybersecurity experts call an insider threat. We were warned about these vulnerabilities but no one listened, and the consequences — for the United States and the world — will be vast.

Insider threats have been around for a long time: the CIA mole toiling quietly in the Soviet government office, the Boeing engineer who secretly ferried information about the space shuttle program to the Chinese government. Modern digital systems supercharge that threat by consolidating more and more information from many distinct realms.

That approach has delivered obvious benefits in terms of convenience, access, integration and speed. When the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission described how segmentation of information among agencies had stymied intelligence efforts, the solution was to create integrated systems for collecting and sharing huge troves of data.

Running integrated digital systems, however, requires endowing a few individuals with sweeping privileges. They’re the “sysadmins”, the systems administrators who manage the entire network, including its security. They have “root privileges,” the jargon for highest level of access. They get access to the “God View,” the name Uber gave its internal tool that allowed an outrageously large number of employees to see anyone’s Uber rides.

That’s why when Edward Snowden was at the National Security Agency he was able to take so much information, including extensive databases that had little to do with the particular operations he wanted to expose as a whistleblower. He was a sysadmin, the guy standing watch against users who abuse their access, but who has broad leeway to exercise his own.

“At certain levels, you are the audit” is how one intelligence official explained to NBC News the ease with which a single person could walk off with reams of classified data on a thumb drive. It’s the modern version of one of the oldest problems of governance: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” as the Roman poet Juvenal asked about 2,000 years ago. Who watches the sysadmin?

Consider the outrage that is the federal employee retirement system, a clunky program that Musk recently highlighted. The entire operation runs almost solely on paper, each retirement file hand-processed by hundreds of workers — in a limestone mine 230 feet underground — who ferry pieces of paper between the caverns to put them in the right manila folder. Since there couldn’t be an open flame in the mine, The Washington Post reported in 2014, all the food had to come from the outside. So the pizza guy had a security clearance. Multiple attempts at modernization failed, resulting in a frustratingly sluggish process in which simple searches often take months.

Not so the hiring and firing process at the Office of Personnel Management, where all employment records have been neatly digitized in an uber-human resources department for the entire federal government. That’s why a team from Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency headed straight for OPM, dragging in sofa beds to sleep on so they could be there round the clock. OPM is root access to the entire United States government.

With that kind of access, even a small team can search the entire government for employees whose job titles contain suggestions of wrongthink, or who might resist takeovers or wield bureaucratic tools to slow the pace of change.

In effect, this small DOGE crew has become sysadmins for the entire government. Soon after OPM, they descended on the Treasury Department, where every payment the government has made is stored: root access to the economy (including many companies that are direct competitors to those of Musk). Their efforts expanded recently to the IRS and Social Security Administration, both of which hold extremely personal, sensitive information: root access to practically the entire American population.

Related Articles

Charley Walters: Not so fast on Twins’ sale by Pohlads

Other voices: Refugee ban betrays a promise to Afghan allies

Noah Feldman: Trump’s Justice Department crisis was an unforced error

Felsted, Jarvis: Big food wants to feed our protein obsession

Andrea Felsted: Dry January is the least of big booze’s problems

The Atlantic reports that a former Tesla engineer appointed as the director of the Technology Transformation Services — a little-known entity that runs digital services for many parts of the government — has requested “privileged access” to 19 different information technology systems reportedly without even completing a background check, making him less vetted than the person delivering pizza to that mine.

All this has merged with and amplified another kind of insider threat brewing for decades on the political side: the expansion of unchecked executive power.

“With money we will get men, said Caesar, and with men we will get money,” Thomas Jefferson once wrote, to warn against the ways that what he called elective despotism can become a self-feeding cycle. He had feared that an elected authoritarian would not just pulverize the institutions meant to limit his power, but take them over to wield as weapons, thus further entrenching himself.

Even Jefferson couldn’t have imagined a future in which the arsenal being deployed included centralized databases with comprehensive records on every citizen’s employment, finances, taxes and for some, even health status.

After a judge blocked a Trump executive order, Musk shared a post with his more than 200 million followers on his social platform X that included the judge’s daughter’s name, photo and job, allegedly at the Department of Education. There’s no indication he got access to government databases about her, but how would we know if he had, or if he does so in the future?

How many people are now wondering about private information about themselves or their loved ones? How many companies are wondering if their sensitive financial data is now in the hands of a rival? How many judges are wondering if their family is next?

It didn’t have to be this way. Over the years, expert after expert and organization after organization warned about the dangers of consolidating so much data in the hands of governments (and corporations). As far back as 1975, Jerome Wiesner, then the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, warned that information technology puts “vastly more power into the hands of government and private interests” and that “the widespread collection of personal information would pose a threat to the Constitution itself,” risking the rise of an “information tyranny in the innocent pursuit of a more efficient society.”

It’s not a choice between efficiency and manila folders in underground mines. There have been plenty of promising efforts to develop digital technologies that preserve our privacy while delivering its conveniences. They have names like zero-knowledge proofs, federated learning, differential privacy, secure enclaves, homomorphic encryption, but chances are you’ve never heard of any of them. In the rush to create newer, faster, more monetizable technologies — and to enable the kind of corporate empires whose chief executives stood beside Donald Trump at his inauguration — privacy and safety regulations seemed like a bore.

Now we are stuck with a system that offers equal efficiency to those who wish to exercise the legitimate functions of government and those who wish to dismantle it, or to weaponize it for their own ends. There doesn’t even seem to be a mechanism to learn who has gained access to what database with what privileges. Judges are asking and not always getting clear answers. The only ones who know are the sysadmins, and they’re not saying.

Zeynep Tufekci writes a column for the New York Times.

Related Articles

Noah Feldman: Trump’s Justice Department crisis was an unforced error

Felsted, Jarvis: Big food wants to feed our protein obsession

Andrea Felsted: Dry January is the least of big booze’s problems

Tyler Cowen: What’s the best way to reveal a government secret?

Bret Stephens: Vance’s Munich disgrace