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] >