2015-11-04 - de Young Museum San Francisco facade
,

The Business of Museums: Mismanagement at the de Young in San Francisco.

2015-11-04 - de Young Museum San Francisco Dede Wilsey

de Young Museum CEO Dede Wilsey. Courtesy: Panache Privée.

Ruth Osborne

We often forget that museums are a big business. They draw in millions annually, contribute billions to the national economy, transport major works of priceless artistic value miles around the globe, and provide jobs for hundreds of thousands in the U.S. alone.

 

Most of this work is done behind gallery walls – from conservation labs to accounting offices to research libraries. According to an AAM study, museums are also believed by visitors to be “one of the most trustworthy sources of objective information.” If we are to uphold the character of the museum as an expectedly trustworthy institution, then the public must also know what goes on behind the scenes.

Last month, news emerged surrounding a new financial scandal at the de Young Museum in San Francisco. The origin of the scandal was a complaint by the CFO of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco (the umbrella over the de Young and the Legion of Honor, proudly self-proclaimed as “the largest public arts institution in the City of San Francisco”). According to the CFO Michele Gutierrez, CEO of de Young and FAMSF Board President Dede Wilsey initiated an order to pay a retired staffer $450,000 for a “disability severance payment” sanctioned by the City Charter. This retiree, reportedly, already collects a $56,580 annual pension from the city. The payment was signed off by the Gutierrez but, she supposedly found out later, was not given final approval by the entire board before the check was issued. Mind you, the FAMSF is an institution that receive $16 million in city funding each year.

This was not the first time that the FAMSF have been in the news for mismanagement. In the past few years, the museums have gone through a series of high-profile firings, a wrongful termination lawsuit, a deaccession and sale against a living donor’s bequest, and another scandal involving items from Wilsey’s personal collection being handled and prepared for shipment during business hours on museum property and with museum personnel. For a museum that receives millions in public funds annually, especially in a climate in which arts funding is increasingly rare and precious, one would hope that such an institution is being run in an ethical manner.

Just a few days after news of this new scandal involving Wilsey hit the newsstands, the FAMSF issued a statement denying any wrongdoing on behalf of their CEO or the disapproval of her actions by the board at large. Their defensive statement appears to gloss over the large staff turnover that has occurred over the past year, arguing that as the result of recent evaluation by management consultants they have “[reorganized] the institution and [changed] personnel and job responsibilities.”

It should also be pointed out that, since Wilsey has been Board President two decades ago, sudden changes in its bylaws enabled the new president to remain without a term limit. These don’t seem like ideal procedures for a well-run public art collection.  And yet, the FAMSF remained on the American Alliance of Museums’ list of accredited institutions in 2014.

Another accredited institution that has recently seen itself through financial mismanagement and shaming (it actually did receive an AAM sanction) is the Delaware Art Museum. News of the board’s bad stewardship over the collection – by means of selling art to make up for a bond debt – developed over the course of last year. The $19.5 million in debt was no doubt assisted by the $32.5 million the Museum shelled out for a 2005 expansion. As a result, the Museum took a blow to its artistic legacy as well as to future precedent for collections management practices.

With museums spending millions on expansions, additions to their collection, traveling exhibitions, transparency is not to be taken for granted. There is a higher and higher demand for institutions to be constantly spending in order to draw attention and relevance in an increasingly competitive art world.  At the same time, those funding art institutions are failing to see their benefit to the local community and society as a whole, thus causing museums to strive to keep what little funding they have and remind people that art and history is relevant.  The same week that this (most recent) scandal in SF emerged, the AAM announced it was putting the Illinois State Museums on probation as a result of their closure on September 30th after state budget decisions reached a stalemate. AAM Commission Chair Burt Logan took issue on how this closure would “impact […] the long-term viability of the museum, including affecting its ability to retain a professional staff and operate at the highest professional level […]”. The closure has caused museum staff to seek refuge for their collection during the interim, certainly not ideal care for the works being shuttled back and forth.  The State Museum’s director of science Eric Grimm has commented on the situation that caused the closure: “It’s a travesty […] I think it’s political corruption and malevolent anti-intellectualism.”  In an atmosphere like that of the past fifteen years, the need for greater oversight in the arts is becoming more and more evident.

By Ruth Osborne

/0 Comments/by
2015-09-25 - Palmyra Giovanni Battista Borra

The Battle to Remember Palmyra: Daniel Johnson Speaks Out For the Artistic Heritage Lost in Its Destruction.

2015-09-25 - Palmyra Syria ruins

1st century city of Palmyra in Syria.
Courtesy: Standpoint/The University of Heidelberg (CC-BY-SA-3.0). © ZELEDI/GNU 1.2

Ruth Osborne

Earlier this month, news of the destruction of the ancient Temple of Bel at Palmyra by ISIS militants was confirmed.

Satellite imagery showed the area had been laid completely to rubble, only a few months after satellite footage recorded the Temple of Baal Shamin as the first architectural casualty under ISIS at Palmyra. These temples have been joined also by, according to more satellite imagery, six tower tombs at Palmyra. Before these ravages took place, an even more disturbing one occurred – the beheading of the chief of antiquities at Palmyra, Khaled al-As’ad, who spent the last forty years of his life working to preserve and protect the city’s remains. Despite videos of questionable veracity that emerged earlier this year showing the supposed smashing of antiquities at the Mosul Museum (largely plaster cast fakes) and the ancient city of Nimrud (not confirmed), the 1st century city of Palmyra is indeed at great risk to complete decimation. But why should the destruction of ancient ruins matter, beyond a shocking news story? Why should those opposed to ISIS make an effort to protect these works?

2015-09-25 - Palmyra Giovanni Battista Borra Robert Wood

One of Giovanni Battista Borra’s drawings from Robert Wood’s 1753 “The Ruins of Palmyra”. Courtesy: The Royal Collection Trust, UK.

This question is just what Standpoint editor Daniel Johnson finally answers in his recent piece “Why Palmyra Should Matter To The West”. He points out the understandable argument against such action by political leaders – that saving lives in the struggle against ISIS militants should take precedence over saving artifacts: “To have committed even a handful of troops to save Palmyra, rather than to rescue refugees, might have implied that buildings mattered more than people. No politician dares risk a charge of lacking compassion. Hence one of the greatest surviving relics of antiquity has been sacrificed without a fight.” But he also demands the reader understand just why Palmyra should not be dismissed as a casualty in the current crossfire.

2015-09-25 - Palmyra Giovanni Battista Borra

Courtesy: The Royal Collection Trust, UK.

The 1753 study The Ruins of Palmyra, which featured 57 impressively technical architectural renderings of the site by Giovanni Battista Borra, set a precedent for Western art and culture that has been far too overlooked. Borra’s attention to archeological accuracy served to depict the ruins in a way that conveyed their features for future artists beyond the romantic veil of the picturesque so admired by contemporaries like Piranesi. Influential eighteenth-century architects, from Robert Adam in England, to Thomas Jefferson in the U.S., were inspired by Borra’s depictions of Palmyra for their own respective work. Johnson argues “the debt is so extensive that a major Anglo-American exhibition is overdue. It is time that the great museums and libraries of London, New York and Washington joined forces to highlight what has been lost in the destruction of Palmyra.”

If this is so, then cultural patrimony is the driving force that has the power to draw out architectural historians and archeologists to do something about Palmyra. While such expertise may not aid in rescue missions for human lives in this crisis, it could very well serve essential in rescuing ancient cultural heritage from further destruction. In fact, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in conjunction with the U.S. State Department, are hosting a panel next week (Sept. 29) entitled “Conflict Antiquities: Forging a Public/Private Response to Save the Endangered Patrimony of Iraq and Syria”.  We hope to report back on this panel, and recommend you take a look at Johnson’s informative article.

2015-09-25 - Palmyra Ruins Giovanni Battista Borra

Courtesy: The Royal Collection Trust, UK.

/0 Comments/by
2015-09-04 - Grand Central Station Chrysler Building
,

Punishing Preservationists for their Lack of Resources? The Dangers of the Proposed “Intro 775” Landmarks Legislation.

Ruth Osborne

 

2015-09-04 Empire State Building

The Empire State Building, one of the landmarks that took longer than 1 year to secure.

I recently attended a lecture on the survival of one of New York City’s landmarked sites (now a professionally-staffed museum), and the speaker was very reluctant to answer mine and others’ questions about the politics behind historic preservation and the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s authority. He did, however, acknowledge that public opinion and testimony truly is the most effective thing in his experience of advocating for preservation.

Public outcry was the reason New York City Landmarks Law was enacted in the first place, and the LPC was created for the fundamental purpose of providing a voice for the historic integrity of a neighborhood or building that would otherwise be overlooked and forever wiped out by new development. But now, in the same year that we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Landmarks Law and the rich history it has helped preserve – places like Grand Central Station, 30 Rockefeller Center, and the Empire State building – proposed legislation now threatens to put a muzzle back on that voice.

Major news outlets this week have finally turned to acknowledging the Intro 775 bill, which will be scheduled for public hearing next week on September 9th. This bill is both unnecessary and unreasonable, as many preservation advocates have argued. It will essentially serve only to punish historic landmarks and the LPC for having been provided inadequate resources with which to do their job of thoroughly researching and considering potential landmarks. It could create an environment in which developers again have more say, and preservationists are no longer able to effectively do their job. Intro 775 proposes to implement a strict timeline on the designation of landmarks (both interior and scenic), as well as historic districts. It will, in effect:

(1) Impose a shorter calendaring timeline of for the LPC to hold a public hearing (180 days for individual landmarks, 1 year for historic districts).

(2) Impose a follow-up timeline after the public hearing within which the LPC must take final action (180 days for individual landmarks, 1 year for historic districts).

(3) Require the LPC to make determination on current items on the calendar within 18 months (that is, 95 total properties and districts).

(4) Barr a property or district unable to pass designation by the LPC from reconsideration of landmark status for another 5 years.

This is essentially imposing unrealistic time limits on the Commission for doing their work well and thoroughly. It acts almost as an inadequate performance review, but without any true understanding of what it really takes for the Commission to do their job properly. An interview earlier this summer with Andrew Berman, the Executive Director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation,  gave ArtWatch some insight into the dangers this legislation could pose to the future of historic preservation in New York.

RO: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me about something both the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation and ArtWatch is passionate about: proper stewardship of our cultural and artistic heritage. As ArtWatch is New York-based, we are currently expanding to cover issues regarding historic preservation of the city’s cultural landmarks and neighborhoods and are therefore interested in connecting with organizations like yours that work tirelessly towards such efforts. You spoke of a major issue of current concern for GVSHP: Intro 775 and the landmarking process. Can you elaborate briefly on GVSHP’s position on this?

AB: We’re definitely very concerned with Intro 775. It’s being portrayed as aiming to ensure there aren’t these delays or backlogs at the preservation commission but it doesn’t really do anything to ensure the commission would move forward in a timely fashion. It just penalizes the public if they don’t. Ninety-percent of recent designations do move within timing the bill proscribes. And in cases that don’t, there are understandable reasons why. This bill would essentially throw the baby out with the bathwater. It creates pocket veto: if the LPC doesn’t act within this tight time frame, the proposal will be rejected automatically. The bill doesn’t do anything to help get rid of some things that can be reasons why designations can take so long. The LPC is the smallest of all the city’s agencies – but the bill doesn’t improve funding or staffing. What it would really do is encourage developers resistant to their sites being landmarked to come up with as many ways as possible for delaying designation. Designation can drag out and be prohibited from happening for an extensive period of time. We’re also concerned because it’s been introduced by chairs of landmarks committees who we hope would have a more balanced approach. There are also instances in which developers have tried to prevent landmarking from taking place. This would just give them another tool to do that.

2015-09-04 - Merchant's House East Village NoHo construction

Merchant’s House Museum in NoHo, a landmark now endangered by construction next door. Courtesy: Herrmann Fan.

A letter recently sent to City Council Members from GVSHP and other preservationists does well to call out the inconsistencies of the proposed bill and why it should not be passed:

“Our research shows that the LPC has a solid track record of timely designation, if not within the strict litmus described by Intro 775, then nonetheless within a reasonable period of time. […] In the instances where LPC has failed to act within the proposed time

limits, this failure has been in part a result of the Commission’s limited resources. Designations require heavy investment of staff

time towards extensive research, in-depth examination of boundaries, a full airing of all information and viewpoints on a subject,

and the production of highly-detailed reports. […] it would force LPC to make decisions before all information has been

contemplated and all discussions have taken place.”

Does the City propose that their smallest agency do their work with an eye for speed and quantity instead of quality and thorough consideration of all parties involved and affected? How does it expect the LPC carry out their mission without having adequate time and resources to bring full attention to the task at hand? Or would it prefer they were less effective in considering a conscientious approach to city planning that often gets in the way of developers’ interests? Would it prefer the Commission had less and less power as if it weren’t even part of the dialogue in the first place? How would this help create discussion amongst all parties and interests involved? Would it not simply allow developers to have less restrictions and checks on their actions?

A recent New York Times article quoted Michael Slattery, senior VP for research at the Real Estate Board of New York: “The problem is it’s open-ended and indefinite if your building is calendared. […] If you want to sell your building or develop it, it makes that very hard. Property owners deserve to know what is in their future.” But then, don’t the residents of New York also deserve to have the cultural and historic integrity of their city’s landscape properly cared for and taken into account when a change is about to occur? This was the whole basis for the founding of the Commission in the first place – that the growth of the city should be a conscientious, thoughtful effort; one that recognizes the impact a building has on the city around it, and how it fits in with the character of that city. It was about growing respect for what has gone before and taking responsibility for new progress. Buildings – both old and new ones – have character and heart to them, and if we forsake that, then will we even recognize our city anymore?

By Ruth Osborne

/0 Comments/by
,

Betraying Bequests and Selling Art to Pay…Nonexistent Bills?: Thomas Cole’s “Portage Falls” Still at Risk.

Ruth Osborne

2015-08-27 - Thomas Cole Portage Falls on the Genesee Seward House Museum

Thomas Cole, “Portage Falls on the Genesee,” 1839. Courtesy: Emerson Foundation / Seward House Museum.

An important Thomas Cole painting (valued recently at appr. $20 million) owned by the Seward House Historic Museum in Auburn, NY is still under risk at being sold against the donor’s bequest.

The culprit is the Emerson Foundation, a private family charitable trust whose philanthropy focuses on education, arts cultural institutions, health and human services, and other similar civic and youth-oriented efforts. The foundation received the Seward House and its contents in a bequest from William H. Seward III, the original Seward’s grandson, in 1951, under which they were charged with the preservation and maintenance of the entire collection. However, in a clever move, when they transferred the property and collection back to the newly renovated museum in 2008, they retained ownership of the Cole painting. Were they expecting to use it as a liquid asset in case they decided they needed more money in the future? It seems quite likely, as 2013 news of its proposed sale would reportedly give the proceeds to “the Seward House and the Emerson Foundation” (emphasis mine).

 

The foundation decided in February 2013 to first remove Cole’s “Portage Falls on the Genesee” (1839) from view after statements of concern about the painting’s wellbeing and security in the small staffed museum. Lee Rosenbaum reported on this in September of 2013, when NY state attorney general sought to prohibit the sale of this painting on the grounds that it would go against donor William H. Seward III’s will. The painting was originally commissioned from Cole as a special gift to the original Seward, after which it was given a central place of honor in his home in Auburn. Its place up until two and a half years ago, in the home of the former governor who oversaw the construction of the Genesee Valley Canal that the painting commemorates, connects it with the history of the house and its illustrious resident, as well as with a significant moment in local and national history. Just how often is it that a work of art with such thoroughly known provenance and historic connection remain in its original housing for future generations to see and remember and learn? And how could it be argued that the “museum quality replica” with which it was replaced (and which likely also cost a pretty penny) could do this justice? Does that not strip away the very value of an original work of art and the artist’s hand altogether? Does that not throw a proverbial slap in the face of those tasked with caring for the House, whose responsibility it is to remind the public that history through objects is significant and unique and worth preserving? Is not the discovery of the original artist’s hand and brushwork the central reasoning through which museums all over the world garner millions of visitors to see the unique and authentic works in their collections?

 

This is a rather interesting predicament, because most cases of boards going against donor’s bequests are made with the argument that the collection needs those proceeds to survive. However, according to a 2013 review of the Emerson Foundation’s most recent tax return, the attorney general’s office found that:

“the Foundation is financially able to continue to provide the necessary financial support for the memorial.  Accordingly, we do not see any justification for the sale of the Painting or why the Painting has not yet been transferred to the Seward House Museum.”

Imagine that! What could the foundation possibly be interested in doing with the millions in proceeds? Is it not a bit ironic that the museum board’s reasoning for its removal from public view (it is now in a private, undisclosed location) was that the small museum – which the foundation was still tasked to provide resources for – did not have enough resources to ensure “its long-term security and proper care”? The Board provided this statement in 2013 as to its support of the foundation’s proposal to sell the painting via Christie’s:

(1) Concerns over the safety and security of the painting as its value became more publicly known, and the liability of the Seward House if it could not properly maintain the painting; and

(2) Proceeds from the sale of the painting would contribute to the long-term financial viability of the Seward House and advance its mission of preserving the Seward legacy.

 

Where will this money go? Will it actually go to possibly helping securing the museum’s financial future? Or will it go to the Foundation at large? There is no certainty with which the board nor the foundation has stated this. However, we hope that this will not turn out to be like the disasters that happened to the Barnes or Burrell Collection. Is not the motive quite clear?

 

As of June 2014, the lawsuit against the museum and foundation’s administration of the Seward Estate was dismissed in NY Appellate Court. The decision has yet to be made, however, regarding the return of the painting to the museum and until then, the foundation is apparently holding it in limbo. Has the foundation been waiting years for the fury to die down so they can get the sale approved without public knowledge? A recent news story in Auburn proves otherwise. Local residents are still infuriated and are calling for an end to this stand-off:

 

“[…] as we approach the two-year anniversary of that filing, the same sad state of affairs is in place. “Portage Falls on the Genesee” is in an undisclosed, non-public location. A reproduction hangs in its place. And the public is being deprived of the ability to see a piece of art that holds a high place in our city, state and nation’s history.

The status quo cannot be allowed to stand any longer. Judge Thomas Leone should grant the attorney general’s September 2013 request.

And the Seward House Museum and Emerson Foundation should be planning for how it can put the painting back on display in a secure manner.”

We have recently contacted the staff and board president at the Seward House with questions, but have not yet heard back.

2015-08-27 - Seward House postcard

Postcard of the Seward House, 1905. Courtesy: Seward House Museum.

 

 

/0 Comments/by
2015-08-17 - Vatican Patrum App

Fundraising for Art Restoration? There’s an App for That!

Ruth Osborne

ArtWatch spoke out concerning the fundraising schemes at the Vatican back in November 2013. But now it seems they have gone beyond their annual five-day VIP tour of the Vatican’s historic buildings and collection to appeal to donors for big conservation projects, and have thought up an enterprising new way to generate support via social media. The Vatican just came out with a new smartphone app that donors can use to connect with each other and learn of new funding opportunities for restoration projects at the Vatican Museums.

 

2015-08-17 - Patrons of the Arts in the Vatican Museums

Image from the PAVM website showing staff presenting to patrons on recent restoration make-overs.

The 32 year-old “Patrons of the Arts in the Vatican Musems” program has successfully created multiple opportunities for the restoration of works of art in the collection. Each year the Vatican Museums produce a “Wishbook” that highlights major restoration projects they’d like funding for. It serves as a kind of gift list for American patrons wooed by the glamour of associating themselves with a fine centuries-old arts collection such as that held by the Vatican; a book filled with unending avenues by which one may enter into an “influential community of art philanthropists.”  There is an entire website and 7-person staff devoted to pursuing of deep-pocketed Americans looking for a tax break and a private service at the Sistine Chapel. And now, members of the various chapters throughout the U.S. can use their smartphones through the app “Patrum” to find out about new high-profile restoration projects that will serve to enhance their reputation as international arts ambassadors. According the Juliana Biondo at the Vatican Museum patron office, Patrum is “the first cultural institution app bringing together instant chat technology, crowdsource fundraising, and online community building.”

According to its description on the Apple website:

2015-08-17 - Vatican Museums Patron Patrum App

Patrum screenshot. Courtesy: Apple iTunes Store.

On Patrum, one can:

*Discover the Vatican Museums collection behind the scenes
*Receive daily updated “in the know” Vatican Museums news
*Comment on your favorite works of art
*Interest your favorite works of art and news to receive tailored alerts
*Chat fellow art lovers
*Donate to restoration projects
*Instantly chat Patrons staff curators
*Connect with current Patrons (or become one!)

Once you download “Patrum,” you are immediately thrust into a kind of restoration game in which donors of larger amounts are awarded “gold” status and can directly message the patrons office curators. The app also offers quicker updates on restorations in progress, giving the Vatican collection immediate access to your attention wherever you may be roaming.
Is this strategy what is really needed to maintain the best quality of preservation for priceless works of art at the Vatican? Or does it simply serve as a constant stream of funds by which the white-washing of such significant works as the Sistine ceiling are accomplished? Director and member of the fundraising religious order known as the Legion of Christ, Father Mark Haydu, says annual revenues from PAVM average about $5 million.  In fact, the Museum itself is the main generator of income to support the Vatican City State itself. Prodej ready made . How did art become the funder for a government? How has this altered how the art is treated, if the Vatican is only able to run based on how many visitors they can get to walk through the doors? Ticket sales for 2014 totaled around $87 million, from which the State took half for its operations.
What we would like to know is: are works of art not really needing conservation treatment being pushed for it just to cultivate donors who can give to the Museum in other forms? Are works being unnecessarily touched by conservators and, thereby, forever altered? If the PAVM is able to crowdfund millions per year for treatments, what does this mean about the conditions of the works at the Vatican that they “require” such attention?
By Ruth Osborne

 

 

/0 Comments/by
2015-07-20 - Penn Station demolition
,

To Protect and Preserve: A Discussion on the Ethics of Caring for Art & Historic Landmarks.

Ruth Osborne

Last Wednesday evening, I had the opportunity to present on past, present, and future wrongs done to art, before an engaged and impassioned audience at The Coffee House Club in midtown Manhattan.

Historic preservation and issues of transparency and careful stewardship of the arts are inherently linked with the original aims of ArtWatch International, an organization founded when a renowned art history scholar was taken to court for “aggravated slander” against a harmful conservation treatment upon a significant work of the Italian Renaissance. That scholar was Professor James Beck, and the work was the tomb of Ilaria del Carretto by Jacopo della Quercia. Beck ultimately came out the victor, but the opposition was strong and well-connected.

Beck’s final statement at the trial read:

“The possibility that the considered observations of art critics and art scholars should not be aired, or that their judgments need to be cloaked in palliative euphemisms if they are expressed at all, is a dangerous precedent for the principle of free speech and free criticism. If such rights, which are guaranteed by the world charter of the United Nations and by the constitutions of both the United States and Italy, among others, were qualified, the effect would be chilling, and certainly the true losers would be the art objects of the past and future generations who have every right to expect to enjoy and learn from the treasures of the culture, conserved and preserved, in the best manner possible.”

The ultimate goal of the Ilaria case and other such struggles ArtWatch International has subsequently undertaken is not only to argue for the care of these sites and objects in the proper way, and thus ensure the history they represent is not carelessly swept away. It is also our aim to heighten transparency and create a dialogue about the treatment (or damage) done upon works of art, something often amiss in public statements by those placed in roles of protecting and preserving our cultural heritage. When there exist such individuals as Beck and others who are willing to speak out against wrongdoing and injury, the memory and enjoyment of our cultural heritage has hope of protection.

The issues of the Barnes Collection (1990-2012), Corcoran Gallery of Art (2012-2014),  the Merchant’s House Museum (2012-2015), and the Delaware Art Museum (2014-2015) relate the disconcerting fact that there is a growing need to fight against damage to art and history. From these examples, one can also see how the law protecting art, collections stewardship, and historic preservation has attempted to help, but unfortunately in many cases has lost the battle. Awareness about the dangers posed to historic preservation and good collections care and management is a necessity. Collections are being separated from original donors’ intentions, from their historic environments, sent around the world incurring damage in transit. Historic structures are being discarded and treated as second-class citizens of a city’s landscape in the face of new development. There must be individuals who remind those in power – board trustees, directors, museum professionals, city planners – that they also have a responsibility to provide protection for our artistic and cultural heritage. By disregarding it, they are doing their work without heart. They are doing a disservice to both their industries and themselves. These paintings, sculptures, and historic sites are delicate and require careful stewardship and attention in order to be honored and preserved for discovery by present and future generations.

The hope of ArtWatch is that we can provide a platform on which concerns can be aired and best practices championed and maintained

/0 Comments/by
2015-07-10 - Delaware Art Museum

Disasters of Deaccessioning: Delaware Art Museum’s Final Blow to its Collection.

Ruth Osborne
2015-07-10-Winslow-Homer-Milking-Time

Winslow Homer, Milking Time (1875).

Just last week, the Trustees of the Delaware Art Museum announced the private sales of two paintings from its permanent collection as they closed “one of the most difficult chapters in the story of the Delaware Art Museum,” according to its CEO Mike Miller.

He asserted in the Press Statement that the goal for all this deaccession and auction debacle – which we have discussed since its beginning last year here, here, and here, was finally accomplished through the sale – “protecting and preserving this beautiful Museum for our community.” So what is gaining precedence here – the historic collection for which the Museum was founded in the first place, or the building with its 21st century $32.5 million expansion?

The paintings just sold for undisclosed amounts were Milking Time (1875) by Winslow Homer and Arthur Cleveland (1946) by Andrew Wyeth, two of the museum’s most central artists to its original founding circle. But if the Museum had announced its debt was eliminated last September, why was there need to sell two more such important works to beef up its endowment?

It is this kind of serious Board mismanagement of collections stewardship that ArtWatch fights to speak out against. Without the standards set up by the American Alliance of Museums, the Delaware Art Museum would not have suffered a sanctioning as punishment for these actions. Furthermore, as Judith H. Dobrzynski has keenly pointed out, will this even stop other respected institutions from collaborating with a museum that has lost its accreditation?

Mismanagement and other issues will be the topic of the evening at an upcoming lecture hosted at The Coffee House Club in midtown Manhattan next Wednesday. Historic Preservation and its connection with collections stewardship will be explored. An overview of recent gains and losses of this and the last century reveals how closely linked the issue of preservation is with caring for cultural sites and artistic heritage. Collections being dismantled, art being damaged in transit, extreme conservation measures wiping away the history of centuries – these are the cost of not caring for art.

Details for the lecture are as follows below. Please RSVP via coffeehouseclub@hotmail.com or 212-391-5609.

Historic Preservation & the Cost of Caring for Art in the 21st Century

Wednesday, July 15

6:00 p.m. cocktails + lecture ($10)

8:00 p.m. dinner ($40)

* you must reserve for dinner 24 hours in advance

/0 Comments/by
2015-06-18 - New York Landmarks Conservancy panel

NYLC Panel: Is There Room for Both Historic Preservation & New Development in NYC?

2015-06-18 - New York Landmarks Conservancy Morgan Library

NYLC Panel at The Morgan Library & Museum, May 27, 2015.

Ruth Osborne

The New York Landmarks Conservancy recently hosted a panel with a title that posed the question:

“Preservation and Development: Is there room in this town for both?”

The discussion that followed was informative about the current opinions towards the importance of historic preservation and the hope to strike an understanding balance with new development in New York, the city that served as a birthplace of sorts of the modern preservation movement.

The NYLC, which has been instrumental in providing support for researching and designating landmarks in the city since 1973, gathered the following members of both the preservation and development “camp” for the discussion:

2015-06-18 - New York Landmarks Conservancy panelMorris Adjmi, Founder & Principal, Morris Adjmi Architects

Richard Anderson, President, The New York Building Congress

Ingrid Gould Ellen, Director, Furman Center for Land Use and Urban Policy, New York University

Roberta Gratz, Writer and Preservationist

Michael Sillerman, Land Use Attorney, Kramer Levin

The evening began by the moderator acknowledging at the outset the growing anxiety in New York City over historic preservation in the midst of rapid new development, despite the Landmarks Law celebrating 50 years of preserving history in the city this year. Why has anxiety over the destruction of the city’s history continued to be such an anxiety-inducing topic?

One reason could be that, with New York City experiencing an all-time high in its population (nearly 8.5 million as of 2014), and with the greatest volume of construction in its history, we are seeing developers feeling threatened by any measure of historic preservation or districts designation. As Ms. Gould pointed out, matter-of-factly, this sense of limited space is simply because we are in a city and cities have boundaries. There is going to have to be a limit to the development that occurs; Manhattan is an island. But what exactly is the point that threatened developers are making and that prevents the preservation of historic and culturally significant areas of our city?

Developers insist that historic preservation limits affordable housing opportunities for low-income families and seniors. But, as an audience member pointed out, only a small fraction – 20% – is portioned out for “affordable” housing. The rest goes to luxury housing, oftentimes to foreign buyers who are either gone most of the year or who have legally-questionable reputations. Then there is the “poor door” – the door through which residents of the affordable units are permitted to enter. Is this new development truly beneficial for New Yorkers? Are they the ones who are able to have a say in how their city grows? Or will they be allowed to speak out for what they want for their own neighborhoods instead of being walked over by outside developers?

The panel discussion made it clear that historic landmarking and district designation have not had a negative impact on the availability of affordable housing – in fact, it is new development that has. A member of the audience brought up the fact that, in neighborhoods  with a proliferation of new high rises, the prices of pre-existing housing raise dramatically, thus forcing out old residents for which housing is no longer affordable. This is contrary to the point of developers that historic designation and contextual zoning of neighborhoods gets in the way of the citizen’s interest.

According to Mr. Anderson, an authority on construction and the city’s recent growth, “There is $38 billion of development in the City right now. So, no, historic districts haven’t stopped growth.” Meanwhile, architect Mr. Adjmi scoffed at the supposition that landmark regulations prohibiting new construction. Long-time preservationist Ms. Gratz emphasized that landmarking is not about avoiding change or growth, which is inevitable for a city. Rather, it is about being able to question what kind of change we do want to happen, because those who live here can and should have a say in it. In the past, preservation was feared in poorer neighborhoods because they saw it could bring gentrification. But in actuality, residents of neighborhoods up for designation – such as Crown Heights – sought it for the protection it could bring against the higher rents brought on by new development that would push them out. Ms. Gould reminded the audience that landmarking does not prevent what is appropriately scaled growth in each neighborhood, but rather allows for the historic and artistic context of those neighborhoods and the residents in them to have as much say as a developer does.

Ms. Gould Ellen, an experienced researcher in urban planning and land use, argued that the role of preservation in the debate over affordable housing has been greatly exaggerated. Instead of being unconscionably frightened by preservation and the new responsibilities it brings to home owners in those areas, that is the trade off that comes with it and there are still many benefits it can bring in the interest of maintaining affordable housing in the city. It is less costly, after all, to renovate than to demolish and build anew), so can we save neighborhoods by rebuilding what is already there instead of flattening them with bulldozers? So how do we best accommodate both the city’s growth and appreciate and preserve its history at the same time?

The panel discussion ultimately reached what could be a compromising point – that historic districts and landmark designation should be considered in city planning so that development and preservation are treated hand-in-hand with finding a balanced approach to each as the city continues to grow. But preservation must be considered in such a way that it is respected for the history and culture it seeks to make part of the city’s future, not as an afterthought. These buildings and neighborhoods are part of this city’s character and what it has become today. They represent the many ethnic communities, economic growth periods, and cultural and artistic movements for which New York served as the center. As we enter a sixth decade under Landmarks Law, with developers and preservationists still butting heads, the proof of its impact will be in the small decisions that are made, in the number of citizens who rally for preservation and the contextual growth of our city, in the level of engagement we have with how our city is changing before our very eyes.

Places like the Tenement Museum, Merchant’s House Museum, and Mount Vernon Hotel Museum have taken the piece of history upon which their building stands and have worked for decades to preserve it as best possible for interaction with the modern public. In their efforts, these small but vital institutions are able to relate to residents and visitors today crucial stories about the development of New York that have impacted the character of this city and the rest of the country. Can you imagine New York without its history? Without the visual and visceral links to the people and industries that were an integral part of its growth throughout the centuries? We certainly cannot.

/0 Comments/by
2015-06-04 - Frick Collection

Support for Landmarks in New York Prevails: Frick Decides Against Proposed Massive Expansion

Ruth Osborne
2015-06-04 - Frick Collection

The Frick Collection from 5th Avenue.

It appears the Board of The Frick Collection in New York has decided against its 2014 proposed expansion plans to build the equivalent of a ten-story tower atop their original 1911 landmarked museum building on 5th Avenue.

Culture reporter at The New York Times, Robin Pogrebin, has reported that the Board decided it was up against far too much opposition to go forward with their current plan and seek Landmarks approval.Among the expansion’s opponents were the group Unite to Save the Frick, several prominent New York artists – including Cindy Sherman, Jeff Koons, and Chuck Close  -, and a latecomer to the fight, the Municipal Arts Society. Their letter to Director Ian Wardropper argued that the currently proposed expansion plan would be inappropriate to the treatment of the Frick as the historic landmark it is:

The issue is not the number of gardens at the Frick, or if the same number will be retained going forward. More is at stake; the current proposal risks undermining the singular essence of the Frick Collection by erasing a masterpiece of landscape design—a landmark in its own right.

Questioning the aims of modern development that impact the historic fabric of a city or the exhibition of works of art is an essential part of good stewardship of our cultural and artistic heritage. The groups and individuals who spoke out against such a prominent cultural institution as the Frick are not frightened by the big wigs of the Board. Rather, they are acting on their larger role as artists, architects, makers of culture, and are taking their responsibility to care for their New York City’s heritage to heart. It is crucial to ensure we have a balanced approach to respecting the history that has gone before us that has made us what we are today. It is forsaking a city – and a society’s – cultural development if we forget to preserve important parts of its history that has allowed New York City to become what it is today.

It is the aim of ArtWatch to support that critical voice, to question the aims of those entrusted to protecting and maintaining our artistic and cultural heritage, and not simply accept things as they would seem. We are appreciative of those who do not shy away from asking the hard questions and looking under the surface of bureaucracy and policy that is all too often automatically accepted as infallible. We are humans; we make mistakes. Without actively engaging in dialogue with those in positions of authority, we are not taking ownership of our future but instead accepting fate as others decide it for us.

We look forward to seeing the new plans that are reportedly in the making for another attempt at The Frick’s expansion, and we hope this news encourages our readers that something indeed can be done.

/0 Comments/by
2015-05-20 - Alexander Eliot Frank Mason

A Powerful Advocate for Art: Celebrating the Life’s Work of Alexander Eliot.

Ruth Osborne
2015-05-20 - Alexander Eliot Frank Mason

Frank Herbert Mason, Alexander Eliot (1997). Courtesy: The Salmagundi Club.

This week we are saddened to announce the recent passing of writer and painter Alexander Eliot, whose effort in the battle against the controversial Sistine ceiling cleaning had a major impact on the founding of ArtWatch and our continuing efforts to provide a voice for artistic heritage where it is all too often overshadowed by greed and prideful motivations.

Former Director of ArtWatch International, Einav Zamir, was able to interview Mr. Eliot just two years ago on his experience covering the Sistine Chapel for the landmark the 1967/68 documentary “The Secret of Michelangelo, Every Man’s Dream.” This film, at the time both groundbreaking and immensely popular when it broadcast, was created thanks to a tower that moved the researchers along the entirety of the ceiling over a six-week period. Just a few decades later, another scaffold tower would set about erasing the work of Michelangelo as it moved slowly along the immense canvas of ceiling like an eraser across a chalkboard. What Eliot and his colleagues were able to capture for the public eye via film now serves as a rare testimony to the original work of the artist before it was scrubbed by cleaners in the 1980s and 1990s.

“almost everything we saw on the barrel  vault  came  clearly  from  Michelangelo’s  own  inspired  hand.  There  are  passages  of  the  finest,  the   most  delicately  incisive  draughtsmanship  imaginable.”

Eliot’s view of the frescos before the cleaning demonstrated they were in “fabulous condition…the painting itself was all there…extremely subtle, rich, fresh, and pure.” As one given a rare opportunity to record them up close less than two decades before the cleaning commenced, his eyes, and those of his wife Jane and others working on the documentary, served as the best proof there could be that the cleaning had white-washed Michelangelo’s a secco detailing atop the under-painting.

It was Eliot’s involvement in this documentary, and his care and concern for better stewardship of our artistic heritage, that connected him with Beck at the beginnings of ArtWatch.  Eliot’s efforts with great New York classical painter Frank Mason, and later ArtWatch, against the destructive cleaning of the Sistine ceiling by Colalucci and his chemists was something only to be taken on by those who viewed art as something above their own sense of pride and name. Instead of sacrificing what was handed down from Michelangelo over centuries, at the risk of coming up against the Vatican authorities, Eliot with Mason and Beck pursued a tireless campaign for the voice of art in the face of great opposition.

Anne Mason speaks of Eliot’s efforts with her husband:

“those years when Alex, Jane, Frank and so many others were desperately trying to prevent the destruction of the Sistine Chapel…those devastating years.  That’s the only word that comes to mind — devastating.”

And yet, though their efforts did not change the unwilling minds of those involved with the cleaning, stubbornly standing behind their spun stories of a “new Michelangelo,” Anne still spoke with hope in the greater purpose behind their campaigning. She saw what this effort was evidence of – that people like Eliot were passionate enough to rally for the art itself, for something greater than themselves that need not be wiped out for the sake of a PR campaign.

Eliot wrote of the value of art that:
“…every genuine work of art exists in more than the material sense…To maim or destroy a work of art is reprehensible in the same degree that its creation was admirable. A masterpiece by Shakespeare or Beethoven or Michelangelo, say, deserves a natural life of centuries, not years, because it has so much to give. By the same token, it deserves to be kept free of alien encroachments if at all possible.”

His testimony is also recorded in the full-length biography A Light in the Dark: The Art & Life of Frank Mason (2011), which documents his efforts with Frank on the Sistine. His daughter, author Winslow Eliot, will continue to maintain the website devoted to her father’s writing.

 

By Ruth Osborne

/0 Comments/by