Real Clear Arts

Judith H. Dobrzynski on Culture

Oddly, Bush’s Art Gives Reason To Cheer

ad_131588191I’m sure you all saw coverage of the exhibit showing portraits painted by former president George W. Bush. The show at the George W. Bush Presidential Center at Southern Methodist University was front page news, pictorially, in New York — here in The New York Times and here in The Wall Street Journal — and probably elsewhere too.

It was criticized as amateurish by some — most? — and I don’t disagree. So was Winston Churchill’s art, but it was still interesting that he could as well as he did, given all the other things Churchill did so well.

eeeeBush’s art, meanwhile, bears a lot of similarity, to me, to that of the overrated Elizabeth Peyton, whose work has sold for more than $1 million. Her portrait of Elizabeth II at sixteen, below left (versus Bush’s view of Angela Merkel, at right), fetched $518,500 at Christie’s. Others I know see Alex Katz in there and one misguided soul sees “a touch of Beckmann.” It would be a very tiny touch, imho.

So why cheer? The answer it in the NYT article:

Now on some days [Bush] spends three or four hours at his easel. The man who never much cared for museums — he rushed through the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 30 minutes flat — told a private gathering the other day that he now could linger in art exhibits for hours at a time studying brush strokes and color palettes.

Bush’s newfound feelings underscore research findings that getting people to participate in art themselves leads them to visit museums. If we teach children to make art, no matter how primitive, a good proportion are likely to grow up to appreciate art and be museum visitors. That’s a better strategy for museums, it seems to me, than attracting those elusive young people with dance parties and other activities that have little, or nothing, to so with the art on view.

 

How Do We Feel About Killer Heels?

As the subject of an art exhibition, that is — not on what to wear. That’s the question I’ve been mulling since yesterday, when the Brooklyn Museum* sent out a press release announcing Killer Heels: The Art of the High-Heeled Shoe, which opens there in September.

killerheelsFashion exhibits are popular these days, and many are fine considerations of costumes old and new. I’ve lauded some here, and panned others. With a name like Killer Heels, you know the marketing folks have been involved. That’s not a bad thing, depending on how deep it goes. Curators shouldn’t feel pressure to change what they’re doing for marketing reasons, though it’s fine to take marketing into consideration.

Which way will Killer Heels go? Hard to say at this point, but some elements of art — beyond the shoes themselves — are part of the show, which is billed this way:

Through more than 160 artfully-crafted historical and contemporary high heels from the seventeenth century through the present, the exhibition examines the mystique and transformative power of the elevated shoe and its varied connections to fantasy, power, and identity.

The art additions (except for those of you who do not believe that film is art) are:

The exhibition also features six short films inspired by high heels that were specifically commissioned for this exhibition from artists Ghada Amer and Reza Farkhondeh, Zach Gold, Steven Klein, Nick Knight, Marilyn Minter, and Rashaad Newsome.

And a few more details about the contents:

The objects [i.e. shoes], both traditionally made and conceptual in nature, explore and play with the elevated shoe’s sculptural, architectural, and artistic possibilities. Early shoes on view include mid-seventeenth century Italian chopines made of silk, leather, and wood, European leather and metal pattens from the eighteenth century, and nineteenth-century cotton and silk embroidered Manchu platform shoes from China. Other highlights of Killer Heels are Marilyn Monroe’s Ferragamo stilettos (1959); stiletto mules of silk, metal, and glass by Roger Vivier for House of Dior (1960); and a wool “heel hat” made by Elsa Schiaparelli in collaboration with Salvador Dalí (1937-38).  Contemporary heels in the exhibition include “Printz,” from Christian Louboutin’s Spring/Summer 2013-14 collection; Zaha Hadid’s chromed vinyl rubber, kid nappa leather, and fiberglass “Nova” shoe (2013), made in collaboration with United Nude; Iris van Herpen’s 3-D printed heel, “Beyond Wilderness” (2013); a black leather platform bootie with an 8-inch heel designed by Rem D. Koolhaas for Lady Gaga (2012); and Céline’s fur pump (2013) covered in mink.

Need I say, this show will travel?  Destinations undisclosed at this point.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Brooklyn Museum

*I consult to a foundation that supports the Brooklyn Museum

 

San Francisco Museums Land A Great Gift

There are at least three notable aspects of the gift announced the other day by the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco: the Thomas W. Weisel Family has donated about 200 objects of Native American art to the museum. They were amassed over three decades by Weisel, an investment banker who profited mightily as a pioneer of the tech industry in Silicon Valley.

  • NavahoSerapesIt’s a good match for the FAMSF. The gift includes works that span nearly a thousand years, “from 11th century Mimbres ceramics to 19th century works,” according to the press release (not yet posted on its website). FAMSF’s current Art of the Americas collection lacks many things that the Weisel gift has, such as two Navajo first-phase blankets (ca. 1820s‒1850s) and Plains ledger drawings. As a result, “the gift will enable a new presentation of the art of the Americas, including major pieces of monumental Northwest Coast art…” and those ledger drawings.
  • The gift came with an endowment that “will enhance our capacity to study these objects from a variety of perspectives and to develop educational and scholarly programs around the collection.”
  • The “carefully chosen artworks can substantiate the emerging scholarly theory that, through technical analysis, archival research and visual comparisons, it may be possible to recognize the hands of the individuals who created many of these works.” This is a subject I have written about, here in The New York Times in 2011 and in several places here on the blog (here, for example, and here, too).

About 70 of the artworks, said to represent the collection’s entire range, will go on view beginning May 3 in an exhibition titled  Lines on the Horizon: Native American Art from the Weisel Family Collection. Arranged “by culture and chronology,” it “explores important themes in Native American art including floral, animal and landscape motifs and symbolism, and examines the long history of changing regional styles throughout the American Southwest.”

Colin Bailey, the museums’ director, called this “a transformative gift of art, of an unparalleled depth and scope.” From afar, I tend to agree.

Photo Credit: Courtesy of FAMSF 

Betsky Asked To Leave Early?

The situation at the Cincinnati Art Museums gets stranger and stranger. Director Aaron Betsky, who was pretty much forced out at the beginning of the year, will leave on May 1 — instead of his earlier plans to stay until his successor was named.

betsky_aaron_jan07This move, my sources suggest, reflects deep turmoil within the museum caused by Betsky, who is a polarizing figure, if nothing else. His tenture there has been marked by turmoil.

In a statement sent by board president Martha Ragland to employees yesterday, she said: “The Director has asked us to leave on May 1 instead of Sept. We have granted his request.  Dave Linnenberg (the COO) will be the interim Director. Let us support him at this time, especially with our limited budget.”

But these statements rarely reflect the whole story, and one source tells me that the search firm looking for the new director “will not send candidates until he left and is not apart of the decision making process.” I hope that is not entirely correct — if the search firm, which in this case is Russell Reynolds, is driving the decision instead of trustees, that is a big problem.

I hope to have more on this later.

Meantime, here is the press release from the museum; here is my post from last May outlining some of the problems; and here’s what the Cincinnati Enquirer had to say.

 

Definitions: Two Experts Opine On What Museums/Directors Should Do

When Philippe de Montebello was about to retire five or so years ago, one of his rumored successors was Max Hollein (pictured), the director of the Städel Museum in Frankfurt. The job went to Tom Campbell, of course, and I am  not sure if Hollein was seriously considered or if he wanted the job.

HolleinNonetheless, the two names came together in a funny way in the last few weeks, thanks to two completely different articles. In the U.S., the East Hampton Star interviewed de Montebello and in Germany, Deutsch Well interviewed Hollein.

When asked about his combination of talents, in both art and finance, Hollein responded, in part:

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.

And asked about his tactics beyond Frankfurt, he said:

We would definitely act differently in another city. However, as a cultural institution we’re generally faced with a situation in which the public authority has not been the single source of financing for a long time – and it also doesn’t want to be. That’s something you simply have to realize and you have to find creative solutions that can be different depending on the city and the cultural sphere. But what’s the same everywhere is the direction of the action and the necessity to act.

Back in the U.S., a profile of de Montebello noted a few pertinent notions:

“I think the role of the museum is to make things accessible, make it as attractive as possible, make engagement with the work as comfortable as possible, and as rewarding as possible, both intellectually and visually. Once you’ve established lighting, text, the conversations among the works, the way you place them side by side and the distance, then it’s up to the visitor. I don’t think curators should go around with bludgeons and compel people to do anything.”

And:

“Obviously you need to balance the budget if you can and be run efficiently. Yet, there is a major difference between being run in a business-like manner and being run like a business.”

Somewhat unrelated, but something I feel the same way about:

“There was never a favorite work for 31 years and there isn’t one now,” not even a shortlist when he visits now for pleasure or brings classes. “I move around. I’m not tied only to paintings, either. I go to the Islamic galleries, the Egyptian galleries. I am eager to see what the new curator will do with the European decorative arts and sculpture galleries. I’m watching it. I’m only one block away.”

Read the rest of the article here.