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