Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Since We’re Voting, There’s This Artistic Conundrum

Lest you think I have no sense of fun from my last post, which chastised the Indianapolis Museum of Art for outsourcing its exhibition planning to the public, I thought I would mention an instance where I think engaging the public is fine.

YoungMan-1497It has been taking place at the Royal Academy since mid-March, in connection with the exhibition, In the Age of Giorgione. The show sounds terrific–you can read this Guardian review of it–and the RA added to it by focusing public attention on a painting that has mystified art historians. Made in the late 1490s,  Portrait of a Young Man has alternately been attributed to Giorgione and to Titian.

So the RA is seeking public opinion in a vote–but not after giving three or four sentences of explanation. I do not know what information has been given in the galleries, because I have not seen the show, but online there’s a wealth of it.

Here, for example, Peter Humfrey makes the case for Giorgione. He talks about line, texture, composition, visage of the youth, and so on–with illustrations for comparison. Paul Joannides argues for Titian, citing the composition, the skill of execution, and so on. You don’t have to be an art historian to read either one.

The RA also posted an article from its magazine headlined The Enigma of Giorgione. It posted another magazine feature–two art historians debating whether attribution matters, and another about other artists in Venice at the time.

Now people have a sense of the artist, the times, and the stakes. Now they might cast informed votes.

At the time of this writing, the vote was… I don’t want to say, but only 2% of the participants voted “neither.” You can go to this link to find out (at the bottom).

Either author, it’s a pretty gorgeous picture.

Photo credit: Courtesy of the RA via The Guardian

 

Indy Decides to Outsource Exhibition Decisions

For the last few years, the Indianapolis Museum of Art has, it seems to me, been on a crazy trajectory. As soon as it does something smart, it turns around and undermines itself. Now it seems to be hitting a new low.  Not content to anger its local constituency in 2014-15 by attempting to charge $18 in admissions to enter its grounds and restricting entry to one point (leading to charges that the museum was becoming “a fortress”), the IMA is now attempting to assuage–and presumably please–the crowds in a way that should anger the museum profession.

The museum is using a public web-based survey to decide what exhibitions to present, thus turning over its curatorial expertise and prerogative to the public. And what is likely to be a random, perhaps even misleading, public at that. This museum, with an excellent and encyclopedic collection of more than 54,000 works of art, is now taking the low road to high attendance.

The proximate cause of my distress was posted on Facebook several days ago by none other than its director, Charles Venable. “Those of you in the Indy area please take this survey about what exhibitions you would like to see at the IMA. Thanks, Charles,” he wrote.

robotWell, though I don’t live anywhere near Indianapolis, I quickly clicked on the link–and there’s no way to see what’s in the survey without taking it. So I did. And that’s the first fault with this online survey. Are all answers valid? How do they know if I was honest or not? How do they know if I live in the Indy area?

But the survey itself was offensive. It listed and described, in three or four sentences and with a few illustrations, six exhibitions and asked “Based on the description above, how likely would you be to visit the IMA to view this exhibition? Exhibition is included with general admission to the IMA ($18 adults, $10 ages 6-17, free children 5 and under, free IMA members).”

And what were the exhibitions? Here are excerpts from the descriptions.

The Art of Forgery, with examples from Roman days through “more recent” ones. “The fake artwork will be displayed alongside an original piece so guests can examine the differences.  Learn about some of the most common techniques employed to create these forgeries, as well as methods used to unmask forgeries in museum collections including pigment analysis, carbon dating, X-rays and more!”

Japanese Paintings, “signature paintings by notable Japanese artists from this [Edo] period. The stunning works in this exhibition have been on display in Japan and will not be on display again in the U.S. until after 2021.”

Joris Laarman Designs, “an overview of the work of Dutch designer Joris Laarman. He is best known for his innovative, experimental designs inspired by emerging technologies like 3D printing and robotics.”

Rise of Robotics “ is comprised of a multitude of objects such as robots from the domestic sphere, industry and medicine, as well as media installations, video games and examples from films and literature. It will also address some of the moral, ethical, and political questions intertwined with robotics today.” (See one object to be shown above.)

Hot Cars, High Fashion, Cool Stuff  “is a history of our times as embodied in the art of design objects, fashion and cars, …[with pairings] representing each decade’s unique style, from turn-of-the-century art nouveau to postmodernism. These vignettes will be accompanied by videos to provide context about the time period when these objects were created.

Orchids “will showcase a range of orchids of different colors, shapes and patterns…highlight the history of orchids and …ways in which they have traditionally been used (e.g., medicinally, in food). Orchids of all shapes and sizes will also be available for purchase in the Greenhouse and a dedicated shop.”

IMA also asked if adults would attend a Murder Mystery interactive experience at its Lilly house, but that’s another topic altogether.

Now which do you think will appeal to the general public? Hot cars and robots, probably. Will that mean no more real art at Indy?

I am equally concerned with the ethics and the implications of this outsourcing its curatorial duties. Why would a curator want to work at IMA? Shouldn’t curators believe that they can, with their specialized knowledge and research, make their subject compelling to the public? Shouldn’t the director make choices among curatorial options? Isn’t that what he or she is paid for? Should that pay drop if such decisions are outsourced? Are three or four sentences, plus a few pictures, enough for the public to weigh in on whether they would attend?

Maybe a robot could be tasked with these decisions,

Venable didn’t say what the IMA would do with the results of this unrepresentative survey. It also asked questions about ethnicity, income, ages of children in the respondent household, whether the respondent would take their to the museum for each exhibit, etc.  Maybe it’s a foil to ask those questions (but I doubt it.)

Whatever happens, no copycats, please! This is a bad idea, even if the results are ignored.

Photo Credits: Courtesy of the Museum of Modern Art (top)

 

 

A Closer Look At Max Hollein, New Director in San Francisco

Yesterday the trustees of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco announced that they had selected Max Hollein, currently director of the Städel Museum in Frankfurt, as their new chief. I’d say that was a good move, based on what I know about Hollein. I’ve have only one long in-person discussion with him, plus over the years a few email exchanges. But Hollein has left plenty of other clues about his museums philosophy and there’s much on the record about his tenure in Frankfurt.

MHolleinOne way to get to know him is to look at this video posted on You Tube last week. In it, he talks about the Städel, its place in a Frankfurt that wanted to up its cultural appeal, its program of adding contemporary art to the museum’s collections, its support from private donors (an experience many European directors who might want to come to the U.S. lack), its use of the web and educational gaming, etc.

In one spot (c. 7 min.), he talks about the Liebieghaus, which is part of his current domain. A collection of 5,000 years of sculpture, Hollein says something very important indicates he understands that museums have, and should continue to have, distinct personalities and offer distinct experience.

That bodes well for him in San Francisco. Well, anywhere. Let’s hope the FAMSF directors let him do this job, instead of trying to do it for him (FAMSF is certainly know for an intrusive board).

Beyond the video, there is this excellent interview Hollein did in 2014 with Deutsch Well. At the time, I quoted this passage, still relevant:

I think the job of a museum director is, on the one hand, to define the programmatic identity of the institution, while on the other hand also to make sure that the museum has the potential to develop and evolve – when it comes to the program and the collection as well as the financial circumstances and the culture of support that is directly linked to that. From the beginning on I saw that as one of the main tasks, and I hope I accomplished that to a certain degree.

The interview goes on to talk about different strategies for different circumstances in different places–which he echoed in the more recent video.

And then the German interviewer asked him about attracting young audiences, a question that often brings out the worst in some museum directors. Not Hollein, who said:

The most important realization certainly is that our audience is not a single unit. On the contrary, it’s a very heterogenic group with a different knowledge and expectations when it comes to visiting a museum. If you want to try to appeal to certain parts of the audience more, then you have to develop specific communication initiatives for them, meaning you have to differentiate, or as you would say in economic terms, diversify.

I wish him the best in San Francisco.

Photo Credit: Deutschlandfunk

How Korea Spreads Its Visual Arts — And Diplomacy

Like many good articles, the one I wrote on Korea’s investment in having its visual arts seen in this country for The New York Times‘s recent Museums section began years ago with a conversation. It wasn’t a pitch. I was visiting the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston, and then-director Peter Marzio–who died in 2010–was walking me around the museum. He stopped at the museum’s Korean arts gallery and said that the Korea Foundation had provided the money for it and, if memory serves, Korean museums had lent objects to be displayed there.

I had not, at that time, heard of the Korea Foundation, but I was impressed. And I have since watched as museum after museum has created or improved Korea art galleries with its support; individual press releases fell on fertile ground with me.

In my article–headlined All That Korean Art Is There for a Reason–I focused on U.S. museums, but the KF has provided support to museums in many countries, as you can see on this map. The support went to museums that were recommended by Korean embassies, cultural centers to other third parties, those that applied directly to the Korea Foundation, and those the Korea Foundation directly approached, based on its own surveys or advisers. (At right, A Joseon Dynast figure from the Met’s collection.)

And other Korean entities are active abroad too. The Philadelphia Museum of Art pointed out support from the The National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage, which Korean officials told me primarily funded conservation projects and conducted surveys/studies of Korean art collections outside of Korea. In 2012, a new organization, the Overseas Korean Cultural Heritage Foundation. took over those duties.

Yoon Keum-jin, the executive vice president in the Korea Foundation’s Washington office, also responded to my questions about coordinated support:

On numerous occasions, the KF has joined hands with leading museums in Korea, such as the National Museum of Korea, National Folk Museum of Korea, National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Korea, to promote cooperative projects. In particular, whenever a U.S. museum plans to organize a large-scale exhibition, the KF and national museums work closely together to supply notable artworks, including originals in certain cases.

In addition, the KF has also collaborated with foundations and corporate enterprises in Korea which have expressed an interest in making various contributions to selected museums, for a variety of purposes.

When the Korean Gallery was established at the Metropolitan Museum of Art Samsung and the Foundation collaborated. Samsung made an endowment for Korean art while the Foundation supported the construction costs.

Park_Geun-hyeAlthough Dr. Yoon said that “At this time, no new Korean art gallery projects are being developed with the support of the Korea Foundation,” there is an application online for other kinds of support–exhibitions, visiting curators, etc.

This is very impressive to me. The fact that it extends into contemporary art makes it all the more so. And that it extends to the highest levels of government. Director Seung Je Oh of the Korean Cultural Center New York wrote this to me in an email:

President Park [Geun-hye] (at left) has stressed cultural enrichment as the 4 key policy priorities during the duration of her term. Her recent visit to the Korean Cultural Center last September of 2015 further serves to stress this point. The Korean government has announced its aims to establish culture as a key diplomatic platform, and since 2013 has even created the Presidential Committee on Cultural Enrichment. By various governmental arms, Korea’s continued expansion in support for Korean arts worldwide is a reflection of its direction to contribute to the global economy in creative ways, taking advantage of our human capital as cultural assets and supporting international exchange.

The cultural and creative industries are labor intensive, and their development at times not easily observable or measurable. Nevertheless, I believe that that these areas play critical roles in propelling in economic development in a way that impacts the public in meaningful and beneficial ways.

 

Critical Takeaways From The Taft’s Daubigny Show

“The puzzle I had was, how did an artist who grew up studying Rembrandt and observing the landscapes of Corot and Rousseau end up painting like an Impressionist?” That is Lynne Ambrosini, the director of collections and exhibitions and curator of European art at the Taft Museum of Art, speaking. She is talking about her exhibition, “Daubigny, Monet, Van Gogh: Impressions of Landscape,” which opened on Feb. 20, which is the subject of the narrative I wrote about the show for The New York Times‘s annual Museums section, published in print on March 17.

AmbrosiniThe story shows all the frustrations and all the joys of curating a major exhibition at a small museum–and that’s why I loved doing it. Going behind the scenes helps the public understand museums, and spotlight a small museum like the Taft makes it even better for me. This country has many good to great museums, and they receive too little attention, imho.

For this show, the Taft partnered with two much larger institutions–the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam and the Scottish National Galleries in Edinburgh. Both museums, knowing little if anything about the Taft, sent their own staff to the Cincinnati to inspect the Taft. It’s natural that they wanted to see the physical place and get a feel for the culture of a partner. They are known world-wide.

But as I made that point to Larry Nichols, the senior curator of European and American painting and sculpture before 1900 at the Toledo Museum of Art, he agreed but added perspective. “Those are big-deal museums,” he said. “But the Taft is a big-deal small museum. Most things hanging in the Taft could hang in the Louvre.” I’ve visited the Taft once–not for this article–and was indeed impressed. You can see some of its collection online.

Aside from showing that little museums “that could” should go big when they can, the story makes several other points, including:

  • The importance of conservators’ views; ,many time, Ambrosini mentioned to me how key her discussions with them were. They helped her make discoveries about Daubigny’s techniques and his influence.
  • Just how critical being in the network of curators is; I hope this encourages small museums to let their curators travel.
  • The passage where Ambrosini hears from trustees on the need for Impressionist paintings to make her point about Daubigny is important: she knew, and I believe told them, that costs would rise because of it. But they all wanted to do it right–taking as few shortcuts as possible.

Unfortunately, I have not seen the show in the flesh–just in the catalogue. But Deborah Emont Scott, the Taft’s director, who first visited me about the show in October, 2014, wrote yesterday: “The show is doing so well — everyone loves it, and many visitors leave telling us that they need to see  it again and again.  Some have already seen it  two and three times!  Many are thanking us for introducing them to Daubigny!”

Somewhere in his grave, Daubigny is, finally, smiling.

I want to add another point about museums: in researching the story, I recalled the Origins of Impressionism exhibition at the Met in the 1990s. Looking around my bookshelves, I could not find the catalogue, which means I didn’t buy one. But the Met has put the book online for free and I was able to read the sections I needed to without leaving my desk! What a great help that was.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of The New York Times