hyde or die

About

I consider myself an artful blogger. What more can I really say?

    Designed by Josh. Powered by Tumblr.

    How LACMA got The Wrestlers…

If Fort is right, homophobia landed LACMA the best American painting  west of… uh, another Eakins painting of naked guys in Fort Worth. But  with Eakins, nothing is simple. His homosexuality (like that of John  Singer Sargent) is a matter of plausible conjecture, not fact. In  fairness to Columbus, they swapped The  Wrestlers for Schiller works by Tooker and Paul Cadmus, who have  to qualify as “gayer” than Thomas Eakins. It’s great that LACMA  isn’t ducking the gay angle, but like all great works of art, The Wrestlers resists any single  reading. It’s a “queer” picture in the original sense of the word — five  figures, and nobody’s face is visible. That kind of pictorial puzzle  was ahead of its time.

1. Los Angeles County Museum of Art is on Fire slays me.
2. Eakins is so hot right now.

    How LACMA got The Wrestlers

    If Fort is right, homophobia landed LACMA the best American painting west of… uh, another Eakins painting of naked guys in Fort Worth. But with Eakins, nothing is simple. His homosexuality (like that of John Singer Sargent) is a matter of plausible conjecture, not fact. In fairness to Columbus, they swapped The Wrestlers for Schiller works by Tooker and Paul Cadmus, who have to qualify as “gayer” than Thomas Eakins.
    It’s great that LACMA isn’t ducking the gay angle, but like all great works of art, The Wrestlers resists any single reading. It’s a “queer” picture in the original sense of the word — five figures, and nobody’s face is visible. That kind of pictorial puzzle was ahead of its time.

    1. Los Angeles County Museum of Art is on Fire slays me.

    2. Eakins is so hot right now.



    July 25, 2010, 9:02am  

    “Is the deaccessioning debate the same when valuable art is not involved?”

    — Giles Waterfield in an interesting article about the controversial topic of deaccessioning.



    October 24, 2009, 12:03pm  

    Deaccessioning…

    Everyone is talking about it. And I mean everyone.

    I’m not sure how I feel about this yet.  We are in unprecedented economic troubles, but there is something sad about the idea of a museum raiding it’s permanent collection and getting rid of things that they don’t need at the time.

    Of course, what’s the point of having the art if you can’t afford to run the place and keep the doors open?

    It is definitely a gray area.



    July 01, 2009, 11:18am  

    Frederic Edwin Church’s “Scene on the Magdalene” was recently sold by the National Academy Museum to raise money. Image and caption via Health Care Fine Art. 
Normally, I’m not so big on Art Fag City, but this time they hit the nail almost entirely on the head. It was like a 75% hit with no bending.  Probably because it’s an intern who wrote it and not the usual…anywho.  Here we have it.

On the subject of a New York Times article titled, Bill Would Limit How New York Museums Could Use Money From Sales of Artworks, Art Fag City intern Karen Archey has this to say:


A shortsighted article on deaccessioning work from museums to pay operating costs. The government may pass a bill that puts strict regulations on deaccessioning art, yet museums are struggling to pay their bills from a lack of government and private support. What Pogrebin didn’t mention is that oftentimes museums are “forced” to accept additional donations with major donations (like 50 of your aunt’s paintings paired with one Koons) so the donor will get additional tax write-offs. Thus, the museum has to pay the overhead for the 50 bad paintings to be able to get the Koons, but can’t deaccession them even years later because of laws like this. via…

While this is completely on point, it neglects to acknowledge the rich as shit old people patrons who put these bills into motion for the  “the benefit of our future generations” while fresh, smart, eager graduates working in archiving or conservation that get laid off because the Institution can’t cover the expense of having them on staff. 
The truth is in every Museum, gallery, and even  personal collections, are going to be some pieces that will stay, in the dark, stored away, never to be seen again.  They aren’t as relevant to the program anymore, or personal taste, or change in curators, and it is destined to be tucked away and forgotten.  These pieces, while no longer applicable to the current curatorial intentions, might be just perfect for some wealthy woman’s entryway, the waiting room for someone’s office, or the permanent collection of another museum. 
My point is, that while it might not be the most ideal situation to deaccession one’s collection, there is an inherent advantage in having that art and it is expensive and silly to keep pieces just for the sake of keeping them. 

    Frederic Edwin Church’s “Scene on the Magdalene” was recently sold by the National Academy Museum to raise money. Image and caption via Health Care Fine Art.

    Normally, I’m not so big on Art Fag City, but this time they hit the nail almost entirely on the head. It was like a 75% hit with no bending.  Probably because it’s an intern who wrote it and not the usual…anywho.  Here we have it.

    On the subject of a New York Times article titled, Bill Would Limit How New York Museums Could Use Money From Sales of Artworks, Art Fag City intern Karen Archey has this to say:

    A shortsighted article on deaccessioning work from museums to pay operating costs. The government may pass a bill that puts strict regulations on deaccessioning art, yet museums are struggling to pay their bills from a lack of government and private support. What Pogrebin didn’t mention is that oftentimes museums are “forced” to accept additional donations with major donations (like 50 of your aunt’s paintings paired with one Koons) so the donor will get additional tax write-offs. Thus, the museum has to pay the overhead for the 50 bad paintings to be able to get the Koons, but can’t deaccession them even years later because of laws like this. via…

    While this is completely on point, it neglects to acknowledge the rich as shit old people patrons who put these bills into motion for the  “the benefit of our future generations” while fresh, smart, eager graduates working in archiving or conservation that get laid off because the Institution can’t cover the expense of having them on staff. 

    The truth is in every Museum, gallery, and even  personal collections, are going to be some pieces that will stay, in the dark, stored away, never to be seen again.  They aren’t as relevant to the program anymore, or personal taste, or change in curators, and it is destined to be tucked away and forgotten.  These pieces, while no longer applicable to the current curatorial intentions, might be just perfect for some wealthy woman’s entryway, the waiting room for someone’s office, or the permanent collection of another museum. 

    My point is, that while it might not be the most ideal situation to deaccession one’s collection, there is an inherent advantage in having that art and it is expensive and silly to keep pieces just for the sake of keeping them. 



    April 10, 2009, 3:42pm  

    Joshua Reynolds
So the news is going around that LACMA is deaccessioning some of it’s collection.  First with two paintings (including the Reynolds above) then with around 100 pieces from the costume/textile collection.  Now, I have no problem with museums doing this, ideally they would never have to, but realistically storage and funding is finite. 
Is it a gamble? Yes.  They are getting rid of their only Cranach the Elder painting in possession.  Trends (even in art) come and go and in 20 years Michal Govan could be kicking himself (if he’s still there) for making that decision, but most art is a risk.  Just because it is hot today, doesn’t mean it will be tomorrow. 
I do agree though with Tyler Green though, that if museums were more open and honest about these practices it wouldn’t be such a controversial issue.  It happens, and people do take things personally when pieces they are attached to are sold, but it would be much smoother if different institutions didn’t play the whole cloak and dagger routine. 
Honesty is the best policy, my mom said that, and don’t pretend like your mom didn’t say that to you.  

    Joshua Reynolds

    So the news is going around that LACMA is deaccessioning some of it’s collection.  First with two paintings (including the Reynolds above) then with around 100 pieces from the costume/textile collection.  Now, I have no problem with museums doing this, ideally they would never have to, but realistically storage and funding is finite. 

    Is it a gamble? Yes.  They are getting rid of their only Cranach the Elder painting in possession.  Trends (even in art) come and go and in 20 years Michal Govan could be kicking himself (if he’s still there) for making that decision, but most art is a risk.  Just because it is hot today, doesn’t mean it will be tomorrow. 

    I do agree though with Tyler Green though, that if museums were more open and honest about these practices it wouldn’t be such a controversial issue.  It happens, and people do take things personally when pieces they are attached to are sold, but it would be much smoother if different institutions didn’t play the whole cloak and dagger routine. 

    Honesty is the best policy, my mom said that, and don’t pretend like your mom didn’t say that to you.  



    January 15, 2009, 10:07am  

    Promote blog