Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Uncategorized

Mistaken At The Getty, And Grateful About It

I’ve been out to the Getty twice in recent months, both times to see (and review) interesting, ambitious exhibitions–one piece, about Eyewitness Views: Making History in Eighteenth-Century Europe, will be in tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal (and is online, in its slightly longer version, now), and the other, for Shimmer of Gold: Giovanni di Paolo in Renaissance Siena, ran last October.

And of course, I’ve been watching from afar as the museum presents exhibitions, makes acquisitions and plans programs. Without jinxing it, I hope, I’m glad to say that the Getty Trust’s messy structure, which has often caused problems in the past, particularly between the Trust’s president and the museum’s director, seems to be working well now.

I was among the skeptics several years ago. When James Wood, the president, died unexpectedly, not long after troubles erupted between and the then-museum director Michael Brand, who left, I felt the Trust’s structure needed to change. It had frequently been a source of friction–generally between those two officials–and possibly the cause of its under-performance over the years. Somehow, the research, conservation and foundation heads got along with the Trust’s president, and it should have been okay for the museum director, too–in theory–but somehow it never had been. I therefore thought the trustees might take the opportunity to restructure.

I did, however, say, when Timothy Potts was appointed as museum director–following the appointment of James Cuno as Trust president, that

…whether it works or not has always depended on the personalities involved. It remains to be seen whether the five people now in place, James Cuno at the trust, and the heads of four divisions will work together nicely.

Enough years have passed–Potts took the job in 2012–to make an assessment. So, I say now, maybe the structure is fine–the errors in the past really were mostly about personality. I hope I haven’t missed signs of turmoil.

But back to Eyewitness Views–a show of view paintings that chronicle events, festivals, ceremonies, etc. in history. They served to record the commissioner’s view of that history for contemporaries and for generations that came later.

The exhibit includes pictures you’ve probably never seen before, at least not on these shores. Certainly, not every one is a masterpiece–but they are, the exhibition argues–the best of the vedute paintings because they were (in my words) “bids by the painters to vault themselves into the ranks of history painters, who occupied the highest rung of the art historical hierarchy” at the time. Their other view pictures, which lacked the historical content of these works, were disdained as souvenirs by the academy.

Interestingly, to me, you and I have probably walked past these paintings at museums and on to other, nearby works that seem more interesting. But at the Getty show they somehow become more visible, more interesting, surrounded by like works.

Even if you can’t go, the Getty–like an increasing number of museums these days–is making it easier for people to get a glimpse of what they are missing. If you go to this link, you will see parts of the exhibition and its themes. Go to this link, and you can hear the audio guide. I rarely take the audio guide, but I did listen to this one once I returned home to New York, because the curator, Peter Bjorn Kerber, had told me that the Getty had used real archival descriptions of the events in some of the paintings, read by actors, in the guide. Very interesting. And not too long.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of the Getty, top to bottom: 

 

 

If This Can Happen at the Met and the British Museum…We Have A Big Problem

Two completely unrelated news items have prompted this post.

It has become pretty clear of late that many people do not know how to behave (gosh, is that too old-fashioned a term, even?) in art museums.

On May 4, the New York Post reported that celebs at the Met’s* recent Costume Institute gala had smoked cigarettes, vaped and in general misbehaved, blocking access to the stalls and upsetting trustees and other donors. It quotes one source saying:

“As a donor to the Met, I was so insulted to see all these ‘celebrities’ smoking and taking selfies of themselves in the bathroom. Mostly, it’s disrespectful to the art collection, which needs to be kept 100% smoke-free. I would honestly like to see these people fined by the city.”

And another said:

…that one buttoned-up female board member was horrified when she went into the ladies’ loo and found a host of celebs cavorting around inside, including Sean “Diddy” Combs, Kylie Jenner, Paris Jackson, Kim Kardashian, and Kendall and Kylie Jenner, who took an epic selfie.

Time to rethink Anna Wintour’s concept for the gala?

Add to that this, which The Art Newspaper recently reported:

The British Museum has more than 50 incidents a year of pencil graffiti on its ancient sculptures. The London museum uses the term “graffiti” to refer to any marks drawn by visitors (not just written letters), and in most cases they are accidentally applied, usually by schoolchildren. Pencil is removable, but with one case a week, this raises serious concerns about the protection of the collection and the way the galleries are monitored.

…Pencil is removable, but with one case a week, this raises serious concerns about the protection of the collection and the way the galleries are monitored.

Last year, the UK’s Telegraph discovered that nearly 1,000 “precious” items in British museums had been damaged over the last decade.

I’ve increasingly noticed the posting of Don’ts, and sometimes Dos, at museums. They do not seems to be enough.

*I consult to a museum that supports the Met.

NY Historical Society’s Renovation Opens a Debate

Is more always better? Is it better when it comes to seeing art and artifacts? That’s the question I’ve been pondering since last week, when the New-York Historical Society* opened its new fourth floor. The renovated and recast floor includes a dazzling, two-level display of 100 Tiffany lamps (at left) and a gallery whose exhibitions will focus on women’s history, as produced by the new Center for Women’s History.

The floor, whose renewal was led by Louise Mirrer (below right), NYHS president. also houses the NYHS’s permanent collection galleries–the part of the museum known as the Henry Luce III Center for the Study of American Culture. From the press release:

…The striking space increases public access and engagement with treasures from New-York Historical’s holdings to illuminate aspects of New York and American history….

The North Gallery—a grand double-height expanse of the floor—features 15 themed niches with a variety of artifacts and artworks that illustrate aspects of urban life through generations, contrasted with six soaring vertical cases that feature dense presentations of objects. Objects relating to themes of recreation, the port of New York, Hudson River School artists, slavery in New York, and 9/11, among other topics, will be on view. The central corridor of the North Gallery features 10 historical artifacts that chart key moments in history, including a copper globe (1542) detailing Giovanni da Verrazzano’s exploration of the New York area; a draft wheel used in the lottery that sparked the Draft Riots in Civil War-torn New York in July 1863, one of the worst urban riots in American history; and a silver subway controller handle used by Mayor George McClellan to drive the first subway car on its maiden voyage from City Hall in 1904.

The Hall of American Silver will showcase a display of silver and jewelry by the New York retailer Tiffany & Co.—including the monumental punch bowl presented by five-and-dime magnate Frank W. Woolworth to architect Cass Gilbert upon the opening of the Woolworth Building in 1913—as well as highlights of the Museum’s collection of early American silver.

All good, and all true. But as my colleague James Panero pointed out in his review of the new space in The Wall Street Journal:

…tens of thousands of objects that had been on permanent view—treasures that have defined and described local history—have been taken down, with many of them shipped offsite to storage in New Jersey….

The society has chosen to destroy its fourth-floor display of “visible storage”—the unmediated assembly of its trove of objects—which had made a majority of its collection of 70,000 objects publicly available. Known as the Henry Luce III Center for the Study of American Culture, this award-winning, floor-wide installation, completed in 2000, was a place to become lost in the rich material of New York’s history….only a fraction of the collection [is] left on view.

Also true. Which raises my question, is more always better, or is the idea of open storage still as attractive as it once was?

Panero notes that “A truly radical approach to museum presentation, visible storage emerged in the 1970s as an effort to open museum collections to a broader public.” It became even more popular around the time of NYHS’s 2000 installation, as recounted in a 2001 article in The New York Times. It described the trend, saying that the NYHS installation followed the Met:

The first example in New York opened in 1988 on the mezzanine of the American Wing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where the Henry R. Luce Study Center for the Study of American Art keeps 18,312 objects on display, or roughly 80 percent of the Met’s collection of American art and decorative objects. (The rest is on regular exhibition in the American Wing or is away on loan.)

The Luce foundation also funded open storage galleries at the Brooklyn Museum and the Smithsonian American Art Museum.

Even in 2001, though, some people were beginning to question the value of open storage–which seemed geared more toward the experts who know what they’re looking at than at the general public. People were wowed by the sheer volume of things, true, but they did not necessarily actually look at them individually. If the average amount of time spent in curated galleries has now shrunk to two or three seconds per object, what must it be per item in open storage rooms? My experience at the Met and the Brooklyn is too minimal to make a judgment, but I have rarely seen someone spend a lot of time in either.

People do often want to know what’s in museum storerooms; they think museums are hiding riches beyond compare, whereas in truth many museums own a lot of items that have not stood up to the passage of time. But once the public sees the rooms for themselves, is their attention held? Might a smaller, more selective array actually serve the public better now? Sad as it is, fewer people read long articles now than before, and younger generations especially feed on Twitter and other bite-size bits of information.

I don’t know the answer to my question, but I suspect more museum-goers need “mediation” with the objects these days.

At the NYHS, there is another hope, though–if the themes/objects are indeed rotated more frequently, at least every two years, we may have the best of both worlds. Right now, museums simply need to get more people into their permanent collection galleries; let the NYHS try it this way and see what happens.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of NYHS (bottom)

*I consult to a foundation that supports the NYHS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sotheby’s Pumps A Nascent Market

It may have been just a matter of time: today Sotheby’s announced an inaugural sale of contemporary African art, saying that this market in recent years has undergone “a long-overdue correction.” Then the press release added, but “there’s still a considerable way to go towards addressing the underrepresentation of African artists, who account for just 0.01% of the international art market.”

It is not just El Anatsui, though he and Yinka Shonibare are perhaps the best known contemporary African artists. Their work will be in the sale, which will take place in London (?) on May 16. So will works by 58 other artists from 14 countries. Some works will tour to Paris, New York, Johannesburg and Capetown before the exhibition in London.

By way of further explanation, Sotheby’s said:

Modern and Contemporary African Art spans many different decades, themes, cultures and geographies– we’re not suggesting that the art included in our sale forms one cohesive body, but hope that the auction and our international exhibitions will provide a fresh platform for these artists, attracting the interest of new collectors and enthusiasts who have not yet explored this field.

Both Christie’s and Sotheby’s have sold in this category before, but I am happy about the dedicated sale–because I like much of the art I’ve seen coming from Africa, not because I believe in identity sales per se. Here’s the catalogue link, if you’d like to take a peek.

The sale mixed work by the “giants” who have “established auction prices over $1 million” with many “little-known artists who have never, or barely, appeared at auction before.”

“This is our opportunity,” Sotheby’s said, “to redress some of the current price anomalies; to identify those artists who we think currently undersell but have huge potential.” And to make some money, of course.

The two works I’ve posted here are by Aboulaye Konate, “Composition No.25 (Soleil)” (top) and Chari Samba, “Une Vie Non Ratee” (bottom).

Photo Credits: Courtesy of Sotheby’s 

Who Gets What? David Rockefeller’s Art Bequests

Of all his art interests, we have long known that the Museum of Modern Art came first for David Rockefeller, who died last month. But there were in his will a few other bequests for museums.

MoMA is to receive $125 million overall; he had already begun giving MoMA annual $5 million installments to fulfill the $100 million pledge he made to MoMA in 2005.  Now it seems, according to his will, that the total will be bigger.

The will, which Forbes looked up for us, was filed in Westchester County Surrogate’s Court; it splits up his fortune, estimated at $3.3 billion.

Aside from MoMA, no arts institution was given cash. Rather, Rockefeller also gave MoMA some of his art works–some details below–and he left a few of his paintings, as follows, for others, Forbes said. Most of the collection will be auctioned–and I’ve heard but have not confirmed that Christie’s has the trove locked up.

  • “Paysage de Banlieu” a painting by Maurice de Vlaminck to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.
  • “Landscape Near Pontoise” a painting by Camille Pissarro to the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.
  • “River Cove” a painting by Andrew Wyeth to the Portland Museum of Art in Portland, Maine.
  • “La Brioche” a painting (above right) by Edouard Manet to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
  • “Death of the Virgin” a painting by Martin Schongauer to the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York.
  • Four reverse painted portraits entitled “Somer”, “Elizabeth”, “Betty”, and “Laura” as well as “Clarendon Dix” and “Othello and Desdemona” by Michele Felice Corne to the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in Williamsburg, Virginia.
  • Various “oriental sculpture” located in the Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Garden will be divided up and given to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and the Mount Desert Land and Garden Preserve in Seal Harbor, Maine.
  • A collection of Native American paintings and artifacts originally assembled by David’s parents, John D. Rockefeller Jr. and Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, are to be maintained in their current state inside one of Rockefeller’s Maine homes by the Mount Desert Land and Garden Preserve.

MoMA, meanwhile, will receive:

  • The Promenade” by Bonnard
  • “Landscape at l’Estaque (1907)” by Georges Braque
  • “Boy in Red Waistcoat”, “La Montagne Saint Victoire” and “Still Life with Fruit Dish” by Paul Cezanne
  • “Charing Cross Bridge” by Andre Derain
  • “Le 14 Juillet au Havre” by Dufy
  • “Portrait of Meyer de Haan” by Paul Gauguin (at left; already a fractional gift)
  • “Interieur a la Fillette (La Lecture) (1905-1906)” by Henri Matisse
  • “Le Coq (1938)”, “Woman and Dog under a Tree” and “The Reservoir, Horta (1909)” by Pablo Picasso
  • “Portrait of M. Felix Feneon in 1890” by Paul Signac.