|
 Private Museums Going Public Panelists: Anne Hawley, Raymond Nasher, and Emily Rauh Pulitzer Moderated by Jennifer Dowley The following white paper is drawn from the remarks of the panelists and moderator for this session, along with the questions and responses from members of the audience. This document is intended to reflect the variety of viewpoints offered during the discussion, and to frame broadly the issues discussed; it should not be taken as a formal statement of opinion by the panelists. In contemporary terms, "collecting" art tends to be seen through one of two lenses: either individuals collecting objects for themselves, or museums collecting objects to serve their audiences. What is sometimes overlooked is the strong tradition that marries individual collecting with service to the public—and which takes place outside the standard model of the donation of collections to existing institutions. The Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston; Barnes Collection, in Lower Merion, Pennsylvania; the Pulitzer Foundation in St. Louis; and the Nasher Sculpture Center in Dallas: these are just a few of the museums that have their roots wholly in private interests "going public." These institutions typically share a strong public service mandate, an extension of their founders' vision and desire to engage and educate the public using the objects that enchanted their collectors. Moreover, the creation of these museums provides an unexpected service, returning to the public—and to curators and scholars—collections of objects that may have been inaccessible for years. Although these founders are typically wealthy, successful, and inspiring in their overall vision, it is nonetheless difficult to anticipate the future —the needs of the institution, the needs of the surrounding community, or the changes in both that may affect what an institution becomes over time and how (or whether) it remains true to the vision of its founder. In Trusts We Trust In deciding to create a private museum, one early challenge is to define the terms under which the institution will operate, how it will manage and sustain its collections, build and maintain audiences, and what, if any, operational restrictions will be in place. A century ago, this likely sounded very straightforward, but as recent history has shown—and as current projects suggest—that sense of simplicity is sometimes illusory. For example, for many years institutions such as the Gardner and the Barnes operated successfully under the terms of their founding trusts—until the money ran out. Although both donors had been quite wealthy, and left significant endowments to accompany their collections, few could have anticipated the hidden dangers and blunt realities of the future: endowment funds must be properly and carefully managed to ensure growth; costs will always go up; and visitorship will not be a sustaining source of revenue. Most museums, when faced with these challenges, have sought to draw on their other built-in asset—their collections—to maximize their value and generate revenue. For the museums founded by individuals, they have in many cases come face to face with the terms of the donors' conditions, which may restrict the deaccessioning of objects from the collection, limit their use in contexts outside of the institution's walls (e.g., a traveling exhibition), or even prohibit them from being moved from the wall to make room for new objects that might attract new audiences. In response, these museums have sought varying solutions. Some have tried to maintain their founder's intent while reading between the legal lines, enabling the creation of new programs in education or putting to use additional space for changing exhibitions—activities that can attract outside financial support and build visitorship. Others, meanwhile, have attempted full-scale rebellion, going to court to argue that a donor's restrictions are unrealistic and impractical, and that the greater good for an institution's community is more important than the intent of the founder; the results of these legal jousting matches have been mixed, and as seen so prominently with the Barnes Collection, have sometimes left the museums even more imperiled than they were. Newer institutions have, hopefully, learned lessons from their older peers: they may have less restrictive terms generally, offering greater flexibility for facing future challenges; and while they may not have more money in the bank, these institutions and their founders often have the benefit of a business plan—a map for the future—that can help them weather fluctuations in funding. Artistic Judgment, Aesthetic Control Financial sustainability is important, but money isn't everything. In turning private collections into public museums, there are other matters to consider, as basic as how to preserve and display the art itself. Moreover, although these matters may be legally predetermined by their founding trusts, there are aesthetic and curatorial issues that can arise, and which must now be dealt with—often in view of the public. In seeking to establish an institution for their collections (or parts of it), most founders are motivated by precisely these concerns: they want to ensure that their objects are well cared for, and envision that a public-oriented institution may offer better solutions for this than the eventual dissolution or dispersion of the collection after their death. For a contemporary institution such as the Nasher Sculpture Center, the creation of a publicly-accessible center not only helps to ensure the care and maintenance of the collection, but turns it into a research asset and educational tool for scholars, schoolchildren, and the public at large. Similarly, the Pulitzer Foundation's interplay between art and architecture creates a unique institution that not only serves to house and preserve its objects, but offers a transformative experience for visitors. There may also be other, more specifically aesthetic issues, as in the case of the Barnes and the Gardner. Both institutions' founders had very definite visions for the artistic experience they wanted to provide—for very different reasons. Gardner was inspired by her visits to private homes in Italy and elsewhere; Barnes sought out thematic and visual relationships in art that he found under-represented in more established museums. Both envisioned their institutions as somehow unchanging—in each, objects may not be moved from the positions established by their founders—which preserves their vision and yet also inhibits the same experimentation, innovation, and art-historical exploration that Gardner and Barnes enjoyed while alive. Whatever the challenges, these private museums typically become important resources to their community, providing alternatives to encyclopedic collections and showing the strengths—and idiosyncrasies—that can coexist within one person's vision. Even when these institutions face threats to their livelihood, and to the collections they keep, few doubt that the benefits of public accessibility far outweigh the continued cloistering of precious objects by other private collectors. For citation, please reference: http://berkshireconference.org/content/2004-private.cfm
|
