This type of exhibit (i.e., retrospective of a living clothing designer)
is by no means unprecedented--the 1983 Metropolitan exhibit of Yves Saint
Laurent comes to mind; there have been others.

Perhaps I am too expectant of the need to be defensive, but I sense a
negative tone (not necessarily Mr. Siegel's).  Why would a retrospective
of a well known designer be objectionable, any more that a retrospective
of a living architect or painter or sculpter?  Because it's clothing?
Because it's "glitzy" and glitz does not belong in a historical society?
(There are many historical periods in which glitz played an important
role--what does "Rococo" bring to mind?)  Would it be ok to do an exhibit
of a dead designer's glitzy clothes?

Just curious as to other opinions out there...

Pat Roath
Elizabeth Sage Historic Costume Collection
Indiana University, Bloomington
[log in to unmask]


On Fri, 11 Oct 1996 [log in to unmask] wrote:

>    I would recommend anyone who is interested to read a front-page
>    article in the New York Observer about a new exhibition on Arnold
>    Scaasi at the New York Historical Society.  The article is entitled:
>    "*Schmatte Macher* Arnold Scaasi Maneuvers His Own Glitzy Tribute" I
>    will quote the opening line:
>
>    "The women who wear my dresses don't have to wear underwear."
>
>    The Society, which Betsy Gotbaum was hired to rescue from near
>    oblivion,  was encouraged to do this exhibition by individual and
>    very wealthy sponsors who are Scaasi's customers.  Ms.  Gotbaum is a
>    very connected woman who used to fundraise for democratic candidates,
>    helped to move the Parks Department toward privatization, and is now
>    working to bring glamour and money to the Historical Society.
>
>    The article has her discussing the pro's and con's of the Society's
>    presenting an exhibit about a commercial designer who is quite alive,
>    sponsored by the money of women socialites who wear his very flashy
>    dresses.  She said that she "anticipated some resistance from people
>    who are not accustomed to glitz at the society." but the show
>    "appealed to [me] because of the role that Arnold has played in social
>    history."  She goes on to say: "Look I have to be realistic.  We don't
>    have enough money some months to pay for lightbulbs.  When Gayfryd
>    [Steinberg, a NYC socially active woman] asked me to do this, I
>    thought 'Why not?'"
>
>    The funders include Hearst Corporate, Arnold Scaasi Inc, and several
>    of the top names in the NYC corporate/social nexus.
>
>    The article is pretty balanced, despite the critical tone of the
>    title.  There is certainly a widespread recognition of the necessity
>    of keeping {or making} the Historical Society solvent.
>
>    I certainly do not want to editorialize in this forum, since we all
>    can empathize with how difficult it must be to do what Ms. Gotbaum is
>    doing.  However, this article casts some of the issues of sponsorship
>    that have been discussed here into high relief.   Like all museum
>    people and all New Yorkers who care about these things, I hope that
>    the Historical Society survives and thrives.  Ms. Gotbaum is very
>    committed to her strategy of livening the place up (what with
>    transvestite portraits and Madonna-artifacts), and I'm sure her
>    successors will thank her.  But she definitely is making a definitive
>    statement, and a controversial one at that.
>
>    I don't know whether the text of this article is available
>    electronically...maybe some kind soul can find out...
>
>    Eric Siegel
>    [log in to unmask]
>