The Webby Awards — the “best of the web” trophies given by the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences — were announced the other day, and this year, only a few cultural institutions were named winners.

In the “Art” category, the winner is the Adobe Museum of Digital Media, a self-described “ever-changing repository of eclectic exhibits from diverse fields ranging from photography to product development to broadcast communications.” YouTubePlay was the People’s Choice in this category.

In “Best Use of Animation or Motion Graphics” categoy, the winner is Monet2010, the site created for the exhibition held last year at the Grand Palais. It’s worth exploring, definitely, but don’t go there a quick look. Give yourself some time to see the paintings, the tour, etc.

Monet2010 also won the “Best Visual Design – Aesthetic” category.

People’s Choice awards in those categories went to the Adobe Museum and Life.com, the magazine website, respectively.

The “Best Cultural Institution” website winner this year was the Anne Frank House, with the People’s Choice award in this category going to the Smithsonian Institution. Why these two were singled out is a bit of a mystery to me: they seem fairly ordinary, no better nor no worse than many other cultural institution websites.  

The entire list of nominees, winners and People’s Choice winners is here.

The news is just in. Here’s the link.Quoting from the release:

The Board of Trustees of the J. Paul Getty Trust announced today that James Cuno, recognized both nationally and internationally as a noted museum leader and scholar and an accomplished leader in the field of the visual arts, has been named president and CEO of the J. Paul Getty Trust. Dr. Cuno, who comes to the Getty after serving as president and Eloise W. Martin Director of the Art Institute of Chicago since 2004, will assume his position August 1.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the J. Paul Getty Trust
 

Last Thursday, the National Archives announced the launch of a new website, the International Research Portal for records related to Nazi-era cultural property. By joining the state archives of several countries in one place, and thus making millions of records related to Nazi-era cultural property available online for the first time, it’s a step forward in the continuing saga of looted art.

Aside from the National Archives, participating institutions include the state archives in Belgium, Ukraine, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and others. As archivist of the U.S. David Ferriero (pictured, left) said in a press release, “researchers from all over the world will now be able to use a single point of entry to gain digital access to these widely dispersed archival materials.“

That’s the good news; the drawback is that users can’t cross-search. I sampled the site, and it seems that users must go to each of the institutions and search. Another drawback is that the records are not complete; Belgium, for example, specifially states what is missing now, but may be available at a later date. And, Austria and the Netherlands do not seem to be participating — a big loss.

Still, this is some progress.

Over this past weekend, the National Archives also hosted a research seminar on World War II provenance; other sponsors included the Association of Art Museum Directors, the American Association of Museums and the Smithsonian. It was sold out, and last Friday was not accepting additional applicants.

But you can see some of what was discussed from the program, which is posted here. I was pleased to see that Lynn Nicholas, the independent historian who started this work in earnest with the publication of The Rape of Europa in 1994, was an introductory speaker — and she was given the honor of making concluding remarks.

I did not see any coverage in the America media, but The Guardian provides some British perspective on the portal here.

Photo Credit: Courtesy National Archives

 

In this week’s Saturday’s Wall Street Journal, I’ve got the space devoted each week to the marvelous Masterpiece column, where I have written “an anatomy” of Stuart Davis’s The Mellow Pad (at left). The Brooklyn Museum owns it, and it hangs in the American galleries, grouped among a few other works and furniture (I wish it had a space of its own, but that’s another story). Here’s the link to the WJS article.

Davis started in the painting in 1945, but went back to it in 1947, and finally finished it in 1951. It’s a high-spirited, cheerful work and, more important, is his last riff on his earlier work, House and Street, which is in the Whitney’s permanent collection.

I’ve placed both paintings here. It’s much more fun if you take a hard look at them before reading my piece.

Before writing the article, I naturally read a lot about the painting, including several articles provided to me by Teresa Carbone, the American art curator at the Brooklyn Museum — which, i say with thanks, saved me some time.

Then I found something that, not too long ago, wouldn’t have been available to me, at least  not in my own home: I listened to Davis himself.

The Walker Art Center has posted online, in MP3 format, a recording of an interview with Davis conducted by curator Sidney Simon, on the occasion of a 1957 show of Davis’s work there. It’s broken into tracks, which are described, for easy access to sections that you’re interested in. How great is that?

Photo Credits: Courtesy of the Brooklyn Museum (top), the Whitney Museum (bottom) and the Stuart Davis Estate

 

Fear not, all you RCA readers who think the younger generations want only to play games at museums, or take pictures of the art with their cell phones, or socialize in the galleries.  

The teen curators at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, which I wrote about here last year, are proving that they are more interested in “old-fashioned” museums than some people think.

Every year, you’ll remember, the AK’s teen curators curate an exhibition from works submitted by area teenagers. as last year, more than 400 submissions, in all media, were considered. (That’s a work by Megan Krug at left, and one by Shannon McDonald below.)

Here’s the “surprising” part. This year’s exhibition, which opens tomorrow and runs through July 3, is called “raw,” and according to the press release has this theme:

…citing the widespread influence of technology and the difficulty in imagining the modern era without it…they have selected works that delve into the realm of introspection, and that represent a specific emotional state, incorporating motifs that are both organic and visceral. The works, and the messages they evoke, correspond to an era before mass communication. The result is an exhibition with an atmosphere free of the pollution of technology–a sort of sanctuary from the mechanics of everyday life. The works reject the recognizable and commercial: each is, in itself, raw.

Gosh: “pollution” and “sanctuary”? Strong words. Do today’s teens see museums as sanctuaries, as many adults do? I asked the Albright-Knox teen curators that, and I asked why they chose this theme.

From Future Curator Benjamin Almeter:

The theme for our exhibition was selected to give our viewers an atmosphere free of technology. The purpose of our exhibition was to bring this idea that nature is the foreground and beginning to everything, to showcase the interaction of nature in our everyday lives.

From Future Curator Chelsea Butkowski:

The future curators chose this theme because many of the pieces that we received deal with a common idea, the organic core inside all humans, something that many of us forget in this era of computers and technology. We wanted to honor the earthy colors and natural forms that many of the submitted works display. The word, “raw”, is meant to remind those who attend the exhibiton of raw materials and nature. We tried to achieve a balance between the natural world and the technological one. It’s also a bit ironic because most artworks require some sort of munipulation of raw materials to achieve the artist’s desired affect.

To my question, “should museums be sancutaries (most of the time)?” she answered:

I think so. A museum is a place to appreciate. The most important conversation to be had there is within a person’s own mind. By using a museum the right way, people can learn volumes about themselves in a calm enviornment. That is what a sanctuary is all about. Our lives are too encompassed by habit; a lot of people are thirsty for the challenge that a museum presents. I am sure that raw presents this challenge.

From Future Curator Leigh Ann Gantz:

..our theme was chosen in an attempt to coordinate all the works we wanted to include in our show. That being said, it wasn’t done in a patchy attempt to connect unrelated items. it really was something that took us weeks to come up with because we were determined to do justice to the pieces we loved, and simultaneously connect with the community. It really wasn’t easy. but in the end, we feel the adjective we chose to describe the whole thing is truly fitting. “Raw” is the most honest way to refer to all these things, not only as individual pieces but also as a show, in its entirety, as objects that work together and communicate with each other through the use of the theme. Hopefully the audience sees it that way.

To my “sanctuary” question:

I don’t think this statement always applies to art museums; I believe it can, and often does, but doesn’t necessarily have to. It is often the case that art applies the mechanics of every day life, to make a statement, and the idea of removing one’s self from the real world in order to create is unrealistic to many artists. At times, art museums reflect this view, and the “sanctuary” idea is lost. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, though. I think the idea of twisting the world of every day things into art is brilliance, it’s just not what we chose to do here. There are lot of ways to present art. This way just happens to be ours. We’re very proud of it. 
 

There’s hope.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Albright-Knox