Art Museum's "Collecting For Philadelphia' (2nd comment)

Every three months or so, the Art Museum sends me a glossy circular called Developments, a public relations exercise that celebrates the museum's latest batch of art donors and philanthropists. Since I write frequently about philanthropy and the arts, I usually riffle through it and even occasionally clip and save its articles before consigning Developments to my recycling bin.

Now the Art Museum has taken this marketing concept a step further and has actually mounted it as a show supposedly worthy of a major art museum. "First Look: Collecting for Philadelphia" is essentially a paean to the museum's development staff.

Some great museums mount shows that spotlight specific periods or epochs in the history of art; but "First Look" displays some 125 disparate art works whose only common thread is the time period during which the Art Museum acquired them— specifically, the past five years.

Fund-raising launch

During that period, the museum's website explains, "More than 8,500 new works of art have been acquired or promised to the Museum." This show, we are told, "celebrates the dynamic nature of the Museum's collection with a lively selection of 125 of these treasures, many of which will be on view for the first time. New acquisitions are made in large part through the remarkable generosity of donors, continuing a tradition of philanthropy that defines this institution's history."

The exhibition, the website adds, "will coincide with the launch of the Anne d'Harnoncourt Society, a new effort on the part of the Museum to recognize and honor such donors."

I can well understand why arts administrators, arts journalists, fund-raisers, philanthropists and civic boosters would be interested in a show like "First Look." But why would anybody else? What does an 1870 painting of a fishing village by Cézanne have to do with an armchair designed by Shiro Kuramata and named for the central character in A Streetcar Named Desire?

(I know, I know— Cézanne occasionally sat in an armchair. And A Streetcar Named Desire is set in Louisiana, where people do a lot of fishing.)

Optimism defined

The mark of a world-class museum is its ability to attract a global audience. How many busloads of tourists from Paris or London or even New York do you suppose will descend upon the Art Museum to see an oil on mahogany by the 18th-Century Puerto Rican artist José Campeche along with the blue silk skirt designed and worn by one of Matisse's models?

To my BSR colleague Steve Cohen, whose cup appears to be always half-full, "The breadth and variety of this show proves, more than ever, that beauty is in the eye of each beholder."

That's one way of looking at it. Steve reminds me of the old definition of an optimist: a kid who, having found his Christmas stocking stuffed with horse manure, happily concludes that his parents have given him a pony.

Steve notes that the addition of the early Cézanne painting "adds to the full arc of Cézanne's career." True enough— but in that case, wouldn't it be better to display The Fisherman's Village at L'Estaque alongside Cézanne's later work?

Barry Manilow, curator?

To be sure, this isn't the first time an art museum has rummaged through its basement and repackaged the contents as a new exhibit. But it may well be the first time an art museum has charged admission to the general public for what is essentially a fund-raising promotion. Pack your carpetbag, Professor Harold Hill— fresh pickings await you in Philadelphia.

Also, to be sure, the Art Museum isn't the first arts organization to be infected with what I would call the self-referential virus. "First Look" is the art museum equivalent of all those plays written about putting on plays, or all those songs that songwriters write about themselves— Billy Joel's "Piano Man," say. or Barry Manilow's "I Write the Songs." (If Barry Manilow curated "First Look," he'd probably call it "I Buy the Art.")

It reminds me of the time, some 15 years ago, when the Inquirer devoted its entire Sunday editorial page to profiles of its own editorial writers. David Eisenhower once astutely observed that journalists aren't as interesting as they think they are. The same goes for curators and collectors.

Oh, and to answer your obvious question: No, I haven't visited "First Look" myself. Life is short. I'm a busy fellow. Dozens of awesome cultural riches compete for my attention every day. The question is not why I haven't seen "First Look," but why a major art museum has put its stamp on such a grab-bag.♦


To read a review of "First Look" by Steve Cohen, click here.
To read a response, click here.