Curatorial Matters

Denver’s Long-running And Contemporary Commitment to Native American Art

As I’ve mentioned here before, the Denver Art Museum has a long historical record of paying attention to Native American art and valuing it for aesthetic rather ethnographic reasons. That’s a big plus for me because it gives museum a specialty that cannot be seen at every museum–and differentiation among museums is a big attribute. But I’m not so sure that the DAM has been recognized for its efforts in contemporary Native American Art, which goes hand-in-hand with the historical collection.

And that’s why I proposed an article on this to The New York Times; it will run in the Fine Arts & Exhibitions section to be published on Sunday. But, as is custom nowadays, some articles are being posted in advance online. My piece, headlined Denver Art Museum Strengthens Commitment to Native American Work on the webÂ (the print headline will be different), Â is there now. It outlines the museum’s programs–which include artists-in-residences, acquisitions and a lot of gallery space for this work. Here’s the nut:

At a time when many Native American artists still hold grievances against mainstream art museums, the Denver museum is proving itself to be different, winning favor from many, but not all, Indian artists and curators….

…â€œOur collectionâ€™s approach is to expand the recognition of contemporary art by American Indian artists; engage local, regional and national American Indian artists; and highlight the artistic mastery from the past,â€ said Christoph Heinrich, the museumâ€™s director, â€œbut always with an eye on ongoing creative tradition.â€

The piece is pegged to a current exhibition,Â Super Indian: Fritz Scholder, 1967-1980, which will travel to the Phoenix Art Museum and to theÂ Nerman Museum of Contemporary Art in Overland Park, Kansas. I didn’t love Scholder’s work on first sight, but it’s growing on me. Aside from this show, which I have seen only in jpegs and and in the catalog, I saw paintings by Scholder “in the flesh” on my recent trip to Santa Fe, in both theÂ Museum of Contemporary Native Arts and the New Mexico Museum of Art. I did not have room to mention the museum’s recentÂ acquisitions in this area, which includeÂ 25 Hopi and Navajo katsina figures, four Micmac quilled boxes (1825-1975), 12 contemporary ceramic works and a 2012 ink and tissue collage on paper by artist Rose B. Simpson (Santa Clara, b. 1983) titled Transparency Self Portrait. Nor did I mention that I’m not the only one who has been paying attention to these efforts at the DAM: Last year, First Tribal Lending, a subsidized loan agency for Indians, named the museum among the top five Native American museumsâ€”the only one not specifically an Indian or Western museum. AndÂ CNN Travel also listed it as the only general institution among the â€œbest places to experience Native American culture.â€
The Times has posted several good photos on the link above and I’ve put a few more on my website; above is Scholder’s Indian and Rhinoceros.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Denver Art Museum

A Good Show Spoiled

With the weather in New York still fine–and warmish–on Saturday, I ventured up to the New York Botanical Garden for FRIDA: Art, Garden, Life, one of the Garden’s hybrid exhibitions that combines plants and paintings. This one, much like the Garden’s 2012 exhibition titled Monet’s Garden, offers about a dozen works of art, exhibited in the library building. Many more specimens of the plants Kahlo grew at her home, Casa Azul, on the outskirts of Mexico City, are there in the Garden’s Conservatory. The show went on view on May 16 and remains there until Nov. 1.

The art star of the show isÂ Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird, painted in 1940, perhaps followed by her portrait of Luther Burbank and a couple of still lifes. The stars of the gardens are too many to mention. Another nice touch: a desk of Kahlo’s paints and brushes.

I like these exhibitions, in part because gardens attract a different, if overlapping, crowd than art museums. Plus, the exhibits are small enough in the art category not to threaten museums. The NYBG clearly has no cards to play in the sense of being able to lend paintings, so it borrowings depend on good will.

But the show was spoiled by, of all things, the stanchions. The Garden’s gallery has, in part, insets along the walls and the stanchions sit on the edge of the inset. I could not see the drawings in one inset. They were, say, three feet away. Drawings are meant to be viewed closely. Maybe others could see them (the galleries were, of course, dim), but I couldn’t. I simply moved on.

The NYBG is far from the only place that ruins art experiences with aggressive stanchioning. Many museums erect these barriers. Sometimes, at a special loan exhibition, you can identify the ones that insist on stanchions.

I’ve asked many museum directors and curators about this, and I’ve been told that formulate their own policies for stanchions.Â Some have said that insurance companies sometimes require them–which doesn’t make much sense, because then why don’t all museums have to use them?Â At the Met, I was told recently by a high-ranking official, whether or not to use stanchions is the call of the department head.

I can hear you saying, they’re for safety–to protect the art. But haven’t we seen people fall over the stanchions and into the art? With few exceptions, perhaps where the art work is so popular that crowds are unmanageable, I can understand their use. But I wish museums would think a little harder about the barriers to looking that they create. And banish them.

A few pictures of them, followed by more NYBG pictures from Kahlo.

I could keep going, but let’s go back to the NYBG:

What I Learned This Summer: Philadelphia

I’ve been visiting a lot of museums this summer, on more than my usual share of travels. Sometimes I’ve picked up ideas worth sharing–for example, at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. There,Â Discovering the Impressionists: Paul Durand-Ruel and the New Painting—which runs only through Sept. 13, so hurry to see it–has been pulling in crowds. Tickets are timed for crowd control, though, so visitors can actually see the paintings–or could while I was there on a Tuesday in July.

It’s an excellent show that explicates how a dealer was critical to the story of art history–and is full of wonderful paintings, like Renoir’s portrait of Durand-Ruel, at left, and the Mary Cassatt at right.

But I also like how the Philadelphia museum extended the exhibit to its permanent collection galleries. There, during the run of show, paintings that passed through Durand-Ruel’s galleries have special labels.

Each painting in its collection has a special label, that says “This object was sold by Durand-Ruel Gallery” and “Discovering the Impressionists.”

It’s unobtrusive, but adds another layer of meaning for those who’ve been to the special exhibition. And almost seems a bit like a treasure hunt.

Here’s a closeup of one label and pix of how they look on the walls.

Looks good, doesn’t it?

And it’s a way to get visitors from special shows into the permanent collection.

Kudos, Philadelphia.

A Museum Innovation With Legs–And Twists

Way back in September 2010, I applauded an innovative initiative by the Detroit Institute of Arts, but noted that I thought more could be made of it. Now, I learn these five years later, more has been done with the idea.

At the time, the DIA was celebrating its 125th anniversary by putting up 40 framed, life-sized digital reproductions of works in itsÂ collection onÂ street locations all around its four-county area. It was a big hit–the DIA has continued it ever since–so big that the Knight Foundation is putting $2 million into helping it spread to other museums in eight cities. Among them are the Akron Art Museum and the Philadelphia Museum of Art this summer and, in the fall, the Perez Art Museum Miami.

And as Knight recently wrote on its website, Inside|Out, as these program are called, has changed in Detroit too:

To date, the DIA has installed more than 800 Inside|Out reproductions in 100 neighborhoods in and around Detroit. Six years later, there is still a waiting list for the program.

What truly makes Inside|Out so incredible is that residents have taken ownership of the program. Community members organize everything from bike tours, wine tastings, photo contests and even zombie runs around the reproductions. Inside|Out makes people feel connected to these works of art, to their community and to their museum.

In Akron, the museum is drawing people into the museum with a lure, according to Crain’s Cleveland Business:

To encourage visitors to see all the artworks, neighborhood-specific stickers are available at local libraries in Cuyahoga Falls, Highland Square and the University of Akronâ€™s Bierce Library. Residents who collect all three stickers receive free admission for two to the Akron Art Museum.

Good idea. And there’s more, Knight says:

Residents and local businesses have activated the work in new and exciting ways. The International Institute of Akron, a nonprofit that welcomes immigrants and refugees to the city, have been incorporating Inside|Out installations into their English classes. In the Akron Art Museumâ€™s Inside|Out Tour App you can listen to Poet Laureate and Akron native Rita Dove speak about The Eviction by Ray Grathwol, which is part of this summerâ€™s exhibition.

I liked this idea from the start, and I life it even better now.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the DIA via Knight Foundation

Fun And Games In Art Museums

There is absolutely no point in saying something isn’t offensive if you’re not a member of the offended class, but let me say right off that I don’t quite understand the uproar over letting visitors try on kimonos at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. Yet that doesn’t much matter here. I’m more puzzled over why museums like the MFA are offering dress-up opportunities in the name of audience engagement. Engagement with what?

In case you have not heard, the MFA decided to have “Kimono Wednesdays” to teach visitors aboutÂ Japonisme, the European affinity for Japanese goods and styles after Japan opened to the West in 1853. It invited visitors toÂ invited try on a made-in-Japan kimono near its 1876 painting at right, La Japonaise (Camille Monet in Japanese Costume) by Monet, which shows his wife Camille dressed in a kimono and wearing aÂ blond wig, â€œto emphasize her Western identity,” the museum said. Some people, presumably Japanese-Americans, saw this as racist and as appropriation. They began demonstrating in the museum and accosting other visitors with their complaints. You can read more details here, on ArtNetÂ and on BigRedandShiny.

What happened next? The MFA cancelled “Kimono Wednesdays” and decided to let people touch, but not try on, the kimonos–which were, incidentally, made in Japan. As the Boston Globe reported:

The kimonos, which are replicas of the garment in the painting, were commissioned by the Japanese broadcaster NHK to accompany â€œLa Japonaiseâ€ for the recent traveling exhibit â€œLooking Eastâ€; visitors to museums in Tokyo, Kyoto, and the MFAâ€™s sister museum in Nagoya could try them on as part of the exhibit.

â€œIt was very successful in Japan, and we wanted to provide an opportunity to further the visitor experience in Boston,â€ said [deputy director Katie] Getchell, who added that the MFA presented an educational talk on the eventâ€™s inaugural night. â€œPeople really appreciated the opportunity to see the kimonos, to try it on, to feel it, to appreciate its craftsmanship, and to think about what it would be like for a Parisian woman to have worn that at the time for her husband to paint her.â€

I’m confounded by the whole thing (after all, museums rarely back down over a work of art that offends–and they show plenty).

But while the museum called this an educational effort, it really wasn’t–or maybe “hardly was” is a better way to put it. As the MFA told the Associated Press, “it had hoped to create an “interactive experience,” helping museum goers appreciate the rich details, embroidery and fine materials of the garments.” Notice that word “interactive.” Translation: “fun.” And trying to make your museum “fun” is, as they say, as slippery slope.

I ran across this dress-up nonsense in May in, of all places, Madrid, where the Thyssen Bornemisza museum also invited visitors to take selfies of themselves dressed up in clothes from two 16th century portraits by Hans Mielich. See my pictures below (I think the gentleman is bewildered, but the guard told me that people were taking the museum up on its offer and laughing all the way through it).

And more recently, I learned of a cousin to the dress-up corniness at the Crystal Bridges Museum:

As part of the exhibitions Warholâ€™s Nature and Jamie Wyeth, weâ€™ve created a self-portrait photo booth where you can fashion your image as a Warhol- or Wyeth-inspired portrait! Choose between the Pop-Art designs of Andy Warhol or the mysterious stylings of Jamie Wyeth for a one-of-a-kind photo experience. Recreate Wyethâ€™s Pumpkinhead â€“ Self Portrait, or add some pop with Warholâ€™s signature style. Once youâ€™ve created your picture, weâ€™ll email you a copy with the opportunity to share on all social media outlets.

I know, light up! It’s just the dark age we are in. But IÂ always ask the same question about these “initiatives” — what have they got to do with art?

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the MFAÂ (above); Judith H. Dobrzynski (below)

« Previous Page