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]
>
|