Further to Wayne's comment

I assume this means that any institution holding a retrospective of the work
of any living 'artist', using the term in its broadest definition, is
'stupid' .  'Costume and textiles' is a major area of human interest and
creativity, involving ritual, status, magic-working, glitz, glamour and
aesthetics, so why not celebrate the work of a living designer?  Or is it
only respectable when its tribal art or a dead artist?

Heleanor Feltham
Sydney Mint Museum
15 October 1996
[log in to unmask]
 ----------
From: daemon
To: MUSEUM-L
Subject: Re: NY Historical Society/Scaasi
Date: Friday, 11 October 1996 4:11PM



At 02:08 PM 10/11/96 -0500, you wrote:
>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.
>

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

Pat,
        Just because an institution has been stupid in the past is no reason
for any instution to be stupid at a later date.  Isn't the preservation of
history most useful when used to educate the present for the future?

Wayne Hart
Museum of Valor