Archives for May 2010

If you read the papers on Friday morning, before getting away for Memorial Day weekend, you know that Brandeis University has a new plan to raise money from the Rose Art Museum collection. The Boston Globe’s article reveals that the administration has engaged Sotheby’s to explore “options other than sale” of works from the collection, as a way of plugging the university’s budget gap.

Sotheby’s, which approached Brandeis, appears to be thinking about a loan-show tour, perhaps like the one the Barnes Foundation did a few years back. Brandeis, for its part, said discussions were in initial stages and it would be premature to come to any conclusions.

So I won’t. But none of this is the most interesting part of the story. That would be the quote Globe reporter Geoff Edgers ended his story with this:

Brandeis has to set its priorities and decide how the museum fits into the long-term purpose of the university. They would be fools not to explore this.

The source? Not some unschooled philistine, but Peter C. Marzio, director of the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston.

Marzio is now the elder statesman of museum directors, having taken his post in 1982. The others in his “class” have are all gone: Philippe de Montebello retired last year, Marc Wilson is stepping down from the directorship of the Nelson-Atkins Museum as of this week, and Anne D’Harnoncourt, who took the top job at the Philadelphia Museum in 1982, died in 2008.

Marzio is secure in his job, and his skin. He may have a bit of Texas in him, too.Or he may figure that, given his stature, he can afford to break some eggs, offer new thinking, get practical — like Nixon going to China.

Good for him. I’d like it if the Rose were preserved as is (university officials have told me that it continues to make loans, by the way). That may yet happen. But loans are better than sales anyday. 

But assuming he has been quoted accurately, Marzio is a breath of fresh air, in a community that doesn’t tend to welcome new ideas that go against the “museum culture.” Just try, for example, talking about the need for different museum hours matching changing lifestyles…see how far you get.  

As Marzio said about the museum community right before the quote above: “They will be against anything except the status quo.”

Photo Credit: Museum of Fine Arts, Houston

I’m happy to report that I’m not the only one worried about what happens to permanent collections when museums build new buildings to show special exhibitions, solely or mainly. Lots of examples come to mind, including the Denver Art Museum, the High Museum in Atlanta, and — as I wrote in my last post — now the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth.

The problem is simple and obvious: visitors are drawn to the new buildings and the special exhibitions, and the permanent collection, sequestered in old digs, gets lost in the shuffle for attention.

Jessica Brandrup, the Kimbell’s Head of Marketing and Public Relations, wrote to me after that post, and said the the Kimbell staff has given “a lot of thought” to the question “how to keep original museum buildings alive when new galleries open? … how can our landmark Louis Kahn building (above) remain a lively hub for the appreciation of art once the museum facility by Renzo Piano opens across the way?”

So, a bit contrary to the generalizations in the press release and articles about the plans for a Renzo Piano building/addition, Brandrup says this:

In fact, we will often exhibit portions of the permanent collection in the Renzo Piano building. For instance, the Asian Collection, with its many light sensitive scrolls, will be especially well suited for the southwestern gallery of the new building, which has no natural light. (When the Asian Collection is exhibited in the Kahn building, we have to block out all of the natural light, which detracts from Kahn’s architecture.) Likewise, we will occasionally feature special exhibitions in the Kahn building.

I’ve already mentioned that the stairs/escalators from the parking garage are positioned so that visitors come up facing the Kahn building — though the Piano building is closer — but Brandrup adds another feature:

we are intending to keep a number of our most popular visitor amenities (such as our restaurant and museum store) in the Kahn building.

Fine, but the Piano building, according to the press release, will also house “a cafe, exhibition store, and coat-check.”

I’m not playing gotcha here, and I appreciate Brandrup’s email, with the additional information. At least the Kimbell is thinking about such matters. It’s still something of a problem for several museums. The Piano building won’t be open for a few years, but it will be interesting to watch what happens in Fort Worth.

I’ve poured over the materials sent by the Kimbell Art Museum on its new expansion, designed, as you probably know by now, by Renzo Piano. The accolades have come in already, but — truth to tell — from the drawings in the press packet, I can’t tell what this wing will really look like. Or whether, and how, it will really pay homage to the Louis Kahn masterpiece.

One good thing: As visitors come up from the parking garage, they will face Kahn’s intended front entrance, whereas now they come in what was to be the back door.

On the other hand, now they come up from underground into the new building, and seem to be directed to go there.

Which brings me to a key question: what will this do to the permanent collection?

The Kimbell is erecting the Piano building “to provide extra galleries to be used primarily for exhibitions, allowing the Kahn building to be devoted to the permanent collection.” Says Director Eric Lee in the press release: “The Kimbell has never been able to present a major exhibition and a full display of the permanent collection at the same time.”

In theory, that’s great — no more moving art from the Kimbell’s stellar collection into storage for what is sometimes lesser art.

But in practice, judging by what happens at many museums, visitors come to see new buildings and special exhibitions. They skip the permanent collection, for a variety of reasons, including “it’s always there…”

So why do museums so frequently put special shows into the new buildings? The Kimbell’s collection is so good that maybe the Kahn building won’t be empty, as so many permanent collection galleries are (and as many museum directors, privately, admit).  

Why doesn’t someone do something counter-intuitive and plan a new building for the permanent collection?

Just asking. 

Photo Credit: Courtesy Kimbell Art Museum

Since the end of April, I’ve been waiting for news from Gothenburg, Sweden, about the fate of the Peruvian textiles at the Museum of World Culture there, which are owned by the city.

Discovered on the Paracas peninsula in Peru at the beginning of the 20th century and dated to 2,000 years ago, they are funereal bundles, take from ancient graves. The dead, experts say, were generally buried in a seated position, wrapped in many layers of these woven and embroidered textiles.

The Gothenburg city council was supposed to vote on Apr. 26 about whether they’d be sent back to South America, in response to Peruvian requests for its cultural patrimony. Peru attended the meeting called by Zahi Hawass in early April (one account here), and put the textiles on its wish list of things to be returned. Hawass has his own account of the meeting, which he says was attended by 25 countries, here.

But while I haven’t seen any reports in English, a couple of Peruvian news sources have reported that the textiles will be returned to Peru. Here’s one of them, which in translation includes this sentence: “‘Is a moral obligation to restore archaeological relic in the country of origin” said Mrs. Helena Nyhus, from the ranks of Swedish social democracy and president of the cultural section of the city.”

It’s possible that the decision was indeed made, but the announcement was put off until fall, when an exhibition on the textiles at the Museum of World Culture — called “A Stolen World” — closes. The show states its position pretty baldly: “This is the story of how an unscrupulous policy, the illegal commerce and hunting for antiques strip some cultures of their identity.”

It’s also possible that exactly how to return them is an issue. According to a short item last January on the website of the Museum Security Network (here), “the delicate nature of Paracas textiles makes them extremely sensitive to the environment such as light and vibrations. And to move them could mean damage beyond repair.”

As with many issues of cultural patrimony, there’s no easy answer.

And Peru’s bigger dispute is with Yale for artifacts from Machu Picchu.

  

 

Lots of little things have been happening and here are a few:

**Yinka Shonibare has won the next commission for the Fourth Plinth in Trafalgar Square, London. It’s called Nelson’s ‘Ship in a Bottle’ and it’s the first work to actually relate to the symbolism of Trafalgar Square: a representation, to scale, of H.M.S. Victory, Admiral Nelson’s flagship at the Battle of Trafalgar, set in an oversized, transparent receptacle.  

**Pronounced swings on Wall Street don’t seem to be slowing down the art market: 58% of the lots at recent contemporary art auctions were sold at the high-end or above the estimate, according to ArtTactic. And, “Average auction prices for the contemporary evening sales …are now standing at £2,903,583, up from £1,382,841 a year ago.” Of course, other sectors — American art for example — aren’t doing as well; sell-through rates were in the 60% range.

**The electronic publishing revolution is starting to affect the art world, but illustrated art books won’t be on your Kindle anytime soon — at least not in color. While Apple’s iPad does allow color illustrations, Amazon chief Jeff Bezos told annual-meeting attendees the other day that a color Kindle screen is “still some ways out,” says the Seattle Times.

**The European Museum Forum has given the “European Museum of the Year” prize to the Ozeaneum in Stralsund, Germany — part of the German Oceanographic Museum. The citation rewards an institution for attracting and satisfying visitors with imaginative presentations and interpretations, plus the creation of educational and social responsibility efforts. That probably puts art museums at a disadvantage.