Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

A Rebellious Exhibition At the Delaware Art Museum

3_kasebier-photos-in-nyt_webHere’s a change of pace from my last three posts, about museums.

In the “the more things change” department: The Delaware Art Museum recently opened an exhibition that underscores the verities of the art world — maybe the whole world. Called Gertrude Käsebier’s Photographs of the Eight: Portraits for Promotion, it reveals how those artists used photopgraphic portraits and other media to promote themselves and their groundbreaking 1908 exhibition at MacBeth Gallery.

Of course, it was a different age, and they couldn’t hold a candle to artists like Jeff Koons and Damian Hirst. And they didn’t have powerful dealers like Larry Gagosian and Arne and Marc Glimcher to do it for them.

So the Eight — Robert Henri, John Sloan, William Glackens, George Luks, Arthur B. Davies, Everett Shinn, Ernest Lawson, and Maurice Prendergast — turned to Gertrude Käsebier and asked her to create “emotive and atmospheric portraits,” according to the museum’s press release. They mounted an aggressive year-long effort with the press, and the resulting articles in newspapers and magazines bore headlines like “Secession in Art,” “New York’s Art War and the Eight Rebels” and “A Rebellion in Art.” Käsebier’s portraits provided the illustrations. The articles talked about the Eight’s work and ideas about modern art. As for the show, it ran for 13 days and contained 63 pictures — but it was a watershed.

Kasebier_Sloan_webThe Delaware museum is also home to a large archive whose contents include postcards between the artists, exhibition catalogs, press clippings, and a complete set of Käsebier’s portrait photographs — which are of course being used to tell the story.

Käsebier (1852-1934), the museum says, “bridged the worlds of fine art photography and commercial portraiture, exhibiting her work in galleries while maintaining a portrait studio on Fifth Avenue in New York. She is considered one of the most influential American photographers of the early 20th century and is known for her powerful images of motherhood and portraits of Native Americans.”

Käsebier took up photography in her late thirties while studying portrait painting at the Pratt Institute. She worked with a chemist and a professional photographer to learn the trade and opened a New York studio in 1897. She experimented with different printing techniques and her photographs resembled works of art. Seeking to capture the individuality of each sitter, Käsebier eschewed standard studio props, relying on pose and lighting to convey character. Käsebier also participated in important photography exhibitions at a time when photographers, artists, and critics were arguing for the artistic potential of the medium.

Their composite portrait is above, and at right is one of John Sloan. The Delaware museum was also kind enough to send me a wall text that tells much more of the story, which is available here.

This show, which opened on Feb. 23, runs through July 7. And the museum is presenting a talk tonight and symposium tomorrow on the show.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of the Delaware Art Museum

 

Did Michael Govan Really Say This?

It was a typical museum director panel last week in Georgia, at the Savannah College of Art and Design’s deFINE Art conference. I wasn’t there, but thought I’d read the account of it on Hyperallergic, which carried the perfunctory headline, Museum as Tool: Directors on How They Run Their Art Institutions.

GovanThen, I read this: “Universal museums were the result of colonialism. The Metropolitan Museum’s narrative is false. It’s a creative act to assemble the narrative of the past.” [Boldface mine.]

Wow. It was attributed to Michael Govan, the director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The only context given was this:

Govan thinks of LACMA as a “civic museum,” an institution that “can impact a city.” He wants to adapt the form of the encyclopedic museum into a new era, emphasizing multiculturalism and forming a “contemporary point of view,” connecting with the city of Los Angeles. It’s a revision of the encyclopedic museum’s history.

Now, I have high respect for Govan — he’s a very sharp thinker and doer. And he’s not afraid to break a few eggs — this would not be the first time.

But seriously, false? All of it? I wonder what Tom Campbell has to say about that.

This has certainly been a wild week for museums.

*I consult to a Foundation that supports the Met.

 

Leaderless In San Francisco, And The Ensuing Turmoil

It just keeps getting worse at the San Francisco Museums of Fine Arts. When the late director John Buchanan was alive (he died in December 2011), the museum fared well — by the numbers at least. He was somewhat controversial, having too much affinity for fashion and jewelry exhibitions, for example, and spending too freely, some people said. But he didn’t make a mess, there, as I recall.

LynnOrrNow there is a mess there — and people are wondering not only what’s up, but who’s in charge, and why — 14 months after Buchanan’s death — no director is in sight.

Last December, the museum terminated curator Lynn Orr, who specialized in European art, because of her performance; that followed the firing in November of the museum’s photographer Joe McDonald, who’d worked there for 27 years. Now, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, the museum has dumped Bill White, the exhibition designer who has been there since 1977, and his assistant, Elizabeth Scott.

Orr’s case is amplified in this article:

“When I asked how my performance was deemed lacking, they refused to offer any specificity or further information,” Orr said in an e-mail.

“I have never received any indication of dissatisfaction with my performance, much less a degree of dissatisfaction that would warrant terminating me without any prior notice or even an explanation. The Museums’ refusal to provide any explanation or details, or even to give me an opportunity to respond, further confirm that my performance had nothing to do with the termination decision.”

She said, instead, that her behavior in support of union employees at the museum last fall during negotiations — she attended a rally but did not, as asked, carry a sign or speak out publicly — was the probable cause. She apparently alienated a trustee — or two. More juicy details at that link.

The last line of the story is important: it says the search to replace Buchanan continues.

I think these searches are getting ridiculously long. Why does it take more than a year to fill an executive position? A year is now the norm at art museums, and then there’s a lapse between appointment and taking the job. As a result museums are tossed around for, say, 18 months, leaderless. Can you imagine a company that would allow that?

 

Trouble In Indianapolis: Does The Job Change The Man?

When Charles Venable got the job as director of the Indianapolis Museum of Art last August, I thought it would be a good thing. Now I am not so sure.

VEnableVenable came from the Speed Museum, where he had done several things of which I approved — mounting a series of one-painting (masterpiece) exhibitions, for example, and launching a comprehensive review of the Speed’s permanent collection.

But a recent article in The Indianpolis Star has me rethinking; was I fooled, has Venable changed his spots, or is he obeying a board that has its priorities in the wrong order?

The Star article shows Venable to be more concerned about money than about art and quality. It begins this way:

Charles Venable, the new director at the Indianapolis Museum of Art, envisions a giant car show — right there in the museum — an automobiles-as-art thing. Picture super high-end rides like Bugattis. Maybe it’s timed to coincide with an Indianapolis 500.

People would come, Venable is certain of that. They would come in the hundreds of thousands.

Customers. Dollars. Please exit-through-gift-shop. Cha-ching.

An art museum may be a place of beauty and truth and inspiration and epiphanies.

But it’s also about money.

Later it says:

In an interview with The Star, he voiced his displeasure at a recent exhibit of Islamic art because it drew 7,000 people but cost $500,000 to stage. He talked about the importance of packing the house.

After mentioning a coming Matisse exhibition, the article continues:

He sees the Matisse exhibit as the first of many blockbuster shows.

He plans to meet soon with Ken Gross, curator of last summer’s “Speed: The Art of the Performance Automobile” at the Utah Museum of Fine Arts. A highlight of the exhibit was a public chat between Gross and talk-show host Jay Leno, a noted car collector; museum patrons ponied up $200 to see that.

Ken Gross, a guest curator, is described on his Amazon page as the former “Executive Director of the Petersen Automotive Museum, in Los Angeles, California, for five years following a career in advertising and marketing. His car, travel, and motorcycle writing has appeared in Robb Report, The Rodder’s Journal, Automobile Magazine, and Road & Track.” No mention of concerns about the design of cars.

The article continues:

[Venable] rearranged the [IMA’s] organization chart so that all curators now report to Preston Bautista, who joined the staff in 2011. Bautista has a Ph.D. in art history but also studied advertising and knows statistics.

Ok, there’s nothing wrong with concern about the audience for art. It’s when audience considerations drive the art choices that things are out of whack.

The Star reveals Venable as a prodigious fundraiser and that’s good — the IMA, it says, overspent and drew down too much from its endowment during the tenure of former director Max Anderson.

I agree with Venable that the way back to balance is through programming. He should not cut back on programming; but it’s possible, even in a sports-crazy town like Indianapolis, to organize exhibitions that will be big draws. I’ve seen other museums do it; why not Indy?

Here’s another sad comment, though: The Star article — which should have had an impact on the city’s art lovers — was published on Feb. 21. Five days later, not a single comment was left beneath it, whether refuting, agreeing, showing concern, or applauding.

Is Indianapolis really that apathetic about its art museum?

Photo Credit: Matt Kryger, Courtesy of The Star 

 

Deaccessioning Thomas Cole: Seward House’s Folly?

With the blockbuster movie “Lincoln” in cinemas around the country, his secretary of state William Seward has returned to the country’s collective consciousness. Aside from aiding Lincoln, he engineered the purchase of Alaska, you’ll remember from grade school.

ColeSeward’s residence in Auburn, N.Y. — a house museum — has been the home to Portage Falls on The Genesee by Thomas Cole – until last Thursday.  That’s when trustees of the Fred L. Emerson Foundation, which owns the painting — which was a gift to Seward — decided to remove it to a safe place so they could sell it. Why?

In a letter to museum members, which was printed last week in the Auburn Citizen, foundation president Anthony Franceschelli wrote that the board had only recently become aware of its value and therefore the need for greater security at the house. So they are selling the painting to increase security — or so they say. From the Citizen:

The letter explains that the home was left to the Emerson Foundation in the early 1950s by William H. Seward III, the former secretary of state’s grandson. In 2008, the foundation transferred the home, property and contents to the Seward House Museum to comply with new state regulations related to museums. But one item retained by the foundation was the Cole painting.

…Because of the Seward House painting’s potential worth and the need for greater security, the foundation and museum decided to remove it from the museum and agreed to sell it through a public auction or a private sale.

Officials said they will attempt to sell it to another museum…but it could also be sold to a private dealer depending upon the offers. There is no set timetable for when a sale may occur.

Proceeds from the sale of the painting will be split between the Emerson Foundation and Seward House Museum, according to Franceschelli and Seward House Museum President Dan Fisher.

Sound fishy? Does to me. The article found a comparable painting that sold for  more than $1 million.

According to its most recent 990, the Emerson Foundation has assets of about $75 million. As part-time president, Franceschelli receives about $25,000 a year — and there’s an executive director who receives nearly $200,000 a year. Other directors of this non-profit are also paid. Its grants, about $3.5 million a year, go to many local causes — and that’s good.

But it seems to me that the board had such an inkling of the value in 2008 — if they had transferred ownership to the museum, they could not deaccession it without raising eyebrows. So they thought they’d get around it this way.

As one of the Auburn Citizen commenters wrote:

When it comes to appreciating and preserving our local history, and in this case, the history of our country, we as a community have just taken a major step backwards. The Cole painting belongs at Seward House. Period.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Auburn Citizen