If I'm reading Eric Siegel's post correctly, his point is not whether a
designer (glitzy or otherwise) should be living or dead before his/her
work is featured in a museum exhibition, but rather whether the
particular combination of high-powered funding and marketing cachet
that led to this designer's work being shown is an appropriate factor in
determining its validity as a museum exhibition.  I.e. (because I have a
penchant for ridiculously long sentences), does the availability of money
determine what goes into our museums?

I haven't seen this exhibition and am in no position to judge whether it
"deserves" to be seen (it may well be fabulous), but Eric is absolutely
right that this situation points to a larger issue that museums are having
to confront more and more.  As purely philanthropic and
few-strings-attached government funding sources fade into the rosy
glow of memory, how beholden are we willing to become to the
interests/agendas of those with money to give?  How much are we
willing to give programmatically in order to secure funding - just to keep
our doors open?  Is it worth it to take money to do a "so-so" show every
now and then so we can devote our precious and dwindling resources
to presenting what we think are more "deserving" exhibitions?  (And I'm
not even going to try to define "deserving," so don't even ask!)  In short,
if a few wealthy socialites are willing to pay to see their favorite
designer's work enshrined in our museums, should we take it?  (And are
these socialites "visitors," "guests," or "customers"?)

Perplexing questions to be sure - as usual, to be wrestled with on a
museum-by-museum, case-by-case basis.  (Ah, what a cop out!)

Nickie
______________
Nicole M. Bouvier
Scheduling & Exhibitor Relations Director
Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES)
1100 Jefferson Drive, SW  MRC 706
Washington, DC 20560
<[log in to unmask]>
202.357.3168 x120 phone
202.357.4324 fax

All opinions are mine.........

Visit SITES on the Web! http://www.si.edu/sites

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>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]
>>