On 25 Sept 1994 Eileen Mak wrote:
A group of drunk college profs, museum people or artists is just as
likely to ruin a reception as a group of college students.
 
I agree absolutely, and would add: a group of drunk wealthy donors.
        But one does not have to be drunk to be a danger to works of
art--ignorance works just fine.  I have seen, with my own eyes:
        1) Caterers sauteing (sp?) foods in oil, over a gas jet, within
six feet of important, unprotected paintings.
        2) Caterers pushing serving tables up against walls with unprotected
paintings hanging on them, where splashes from a dish could easily land on
a work of art.
        3) Guests using sculpture pedestals (with sculptures on the pedestals)
as tables or shelves for their dishes and/or glasses.
        4) Guests become irate when asked by guards to move way from paintings,
or to stop waving their wine glasses at sections of a painting (presumably as
they explicate some passage).  [move away--sorry]
        5) Guests lean against paintings inadvertently, absorbed in conversation
I'm sure others could add their own observations.  The point is that receptions
with food and drink are filled with hazards.  With respect to our colleagues
at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, who seem to think that training is the answ
er--who will train the guests?  The person from the MFA who shared her experienc
es (sorry, I deleted her message too quickly) talked exclusively of the money
to be raised by allowing receptions with food and drink in the galleries--but
the money's supposed to be raised to protect and share the art--the art's
not there for the development efforts.  I think it is particularly telling
that the MFA does not allow food in galleries with loan shows (at least,
that's what was said), but will allow it with the works in the Permanent
Collection if there's money to be made.  Why not with loan shows?  Because
they'd never get another loan again from a museum, presumably.
        Can there *never* be an exception to a no food/drink policy?  I think
it's best to avoid making exceptions, simply because it's so difficult to
explain the rationale for each nonstandard activity.  But, of course, common
sense and political facts of life might prevail in some cases.  A *very* small
and controlled group is, of course, easier to justify than a situation where
guests outnumber guards 25 or 50 or 100 to 1; and when the Board insists, despit
e rational argument against it, that food be served or wine poured, I'll have
a towel on my sleeve.