Celebrating ....

CELEBRATING The PJ's 50th YEAR! * www.junto.blogspot.com * Dr Franklin's Diary * Contact @ WritersClearinghouse@yahoo.com * Join WritersClearinghouse at Facebook, Instagram, etc. *Meeting @ Philadelphia * Empowered by WritersClearinghouse.
Showing posts with label Rub Timothy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rub Timothy. Show all posts

Thursday, 2 May 2013

Comprehend This

Cleveland Museum Gets it Right
By Richard Carreño
The author and a new friend
Photo: Joan T. Kane/Writers Clearinghouse News Service
Cleveland
[Writers Clearinghouse News Service]
Now, there are two.
I arrived at the Cleveland Museum of Art, thinking that its well-respected core collections in Egyptology, Greco-Roman classics, armour--and, you know, the other stuff from the Old Masters to Impressionism and beyond--would reaffirm its status as one of a dwindling, few 'encyclopedic' museums in the United States. Three, in fact, along with Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. (The Boston Museum of Fine Arts lost its 'encyclopedic' title when fire ravaged its Egyptian holdings many years ago).
'No,' I was told by my Cleveland guide, Richard. 'We don't call ourselves that (encyclopedic) anymore. We're now what we call "comprehensive."' Why the coy turn in terminology? Something to do with a competition thing, Richard added vaguely. Competition? Surely a losing battle with the Met; even the Philadelphia Museum.'What we're focusing is quality. The best of its kind--that we can acquire and afford .'


Tuesday, 8 February 2011

Art Review

Now you see it. Now you don't. The Card Players from Barnes, in photo, at  the Met. Actual painting not on view at Barnes. Photo: Richard Carreno/Writers Clearinghouse
At Met 'Party,'
Barnes Cézanne is No-Show


By Richard Carreño
[Writers Clearinghouse News Service
Imagine if the Metropolitan Museum of Art gave a party for Paul Cézanne and two celebrity guests, one from Philadelphia, failed to show up.

hat's what happened this week when the Met, in New York, tried to narrate Cézanne's iconic Card Players compositions in a one-all, tell-all installation. The result was well-conceived, ill-executed; two of the five paintings in the thematic series, including the one held by the Barnes Foundation, weren't there.

In place of the real thing, full-sized photographs of the works figure in the show. Moreover, these MIAs, depicting the largest canvases in the series, are also positioned on featured wall space.



Was the Met's Gary Tinterow, who curated the show in concert with The Courtauld Gallery, in London, trying to tell us something?

Could be. But nuance doesn't come easy to Tinterow, whose personality is as starchy as his title, Englehard chairman of the Department of Nineteeth-Century, Modern, and Contemporary Art. In other words, he's a one-man band.

The show, titled 'Cézanne's Card Players,' is really a mis-nomer, given that the Met and The Courtauld, where the exhibit was first installed through early this year, knew all along that a more appropriate title would have been 'Cezanne's Card Plays -- Minus Two.' The exhibit runs through May 8.

Actually, it gets worse.


As part of the over-all story line, Tinterow had also hoped to include Cézanne's The Smoker in the show. But that canvas, owned by the State Hermitage Museum, is also missing-in-action, caught up in a diplomatic squabble involving government-run Russian museums over a ruling in a American court. At the heart of the dispute is whether a cache of orthodox Jewish documents in Russia should be transferred to a Hasidic sect, the Chabad-Lubavitch movement based in the United States. Until that issue gets resolved, the Russian-owned works are staying put.

Why the five Cézanne pictures, depicting peasants from Aix-en-Provence intently playing their card games, have not been reunited also involves legalities -- as well as a stifling misunderstanding of public service. Yes, the specter of Dr. Albert C. Barnes (1872-1951), the eponymous founder of the soon-to-be Philadelphia-based museum, again rears his head. The Grinch who won't go away.

'It'd take a court order,' Tinterow told me, when I asked whether he actually had sought the Barnes work. 'It's not going to happen.'

Well, maybe.

The small show, of only about a score of major oils and drawings displayed a foyer and two gallery rooms, is the little engine that could. Despite the contretemps over the missing pictures, Tinterow & Co. were able to enlist other loan-friendly museums in fleshing out Cézanne's exploration in composition, color, and size in the five similar pictures. Two line drawings are on loan from the Philadelphia Museum of Art, an institution whose director, Timothy Rub, appreciates the operative maximum, 'If you don't give, you don't get.'

Credit for getting it also goes to the Worcester Art Museum; the Pierpont Morgan Library; and the National Gallery of Art, Washington. The three Card Players oils are from the Musée d'Orsay (its version, circa 1892-1896), The Courtauld (also circa 1892-1896), and from the Met itself. The Met's version was created by Cézanne (1839-1906) late in his life, sometime between 1890 and 1892.

A fourth in the series is privately held.


The fifth, created about the same time as the version at the Met, is squirreled away at the Barnes, where it remains grounded, quarantined by of Dr. Barnes' injunction that pieces in his collection never be loaned. The work, amazingly enough, is among about 60 works by Cézanne owned by the Barnes.

Bad guys? Dr. Barnes is surely one. Could his will have been over-riden, as was done allowing the museum to move to the Benjamin Franklin Parkway? Probably. But Barnes director Derek Gilmore and foundation trustees are between a rock and hard place. With the controversy surrounding the museum's Center City move still an open wound, it's likely been decided that over-turning Dr. Barnes' mean-spirited, anti-loan policy needs to wait until the dust settles around the relocation issue.

Yet one wonders, if the Cézanne show had been organized by Michael Taylor, the PMA's modern art curator, whether the Barnes picture would have at least been in the exhibit. An example of Taylor's skill in assembling complex exhibitions, highlighted by a complicated web of loans, will be on display next month when his Marc Chagall show is launched. Taylor is a brilliant tactician. And a master schmoozer.

Meantime, if you hope to round out the Met's 'Cézanne Card Players' experience with a side visit to the Barnes, don't plan on an excursion any time soon. The Barnes' Joueurs de cartes is, according to the museum's website, 'not on view.'

Thursday, 22 July 2010

Philadelphia Museum in Context

Context Cues: Philadelphia Museum's Michael Taylor Busts the Blockbuster
By Richard Carreño
Junto Senior Staff Writer Bio
'I'm all about context,' says Michael Taylor, modern art curator at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Part scholar, part art historian, and part sleuth -- he's run down paintings throughout the world with the skill and patience of cold-case investigator -- the cherub-looking Taylor is also all about the serious study of art. By the public. By the masses.

'You don't bring in the masses by dumbing down,' he told me recently. 'The public will come to see great art,' he added, stressing 'great.' 'Unfortunately, marketing has taken over the art.'

Step forward a new breed of the curatorial anti-hero, of which Taylor represents its vanguard. Pedagogical. Pensive. And patient.

A properly mounted show, from initial conception, to research, funding, to hanging the pictures and selling the popcorn, takes about five years, according to Taylor. Minimum, four years, if you cut corners, he says.

'I've felt like I've spent my entire career in undoing what that man did,' Taylor quipped.

That man was the late Thomas Hoving, the show-boating director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art from 1967 to 1977, and, most significant, the putative creator of what has become known as the art exhibit 'blockbuster.' (One of Hoving's first blockbusters was 'Kings and Things,' for which he commanded the Met's 18 curatorial departments to conceive and deliver within 30 days!)

If Hoving was the 'hero' of that mega-show movement, you can easily see why Taylor is its anti-hero -- balding, professorial, and erudite. And jolly. Taylor smiles a lot. And chuckles. He's also having a good time.

Not that Taylor, in his 13 years since arriving at the PMA from his native England (he holds a doctorate from the Courtauld Institute in London), hasn't his share of 'rilly big shews.'

Under his belt in recent years have been well-received exhibitions dedicated to Duchamp, Matisse, Cezane, Dali, Gorky, and, earlier this year, Picasso. None was simply a broad-brush retrospective, but rather 'slices' in the artists' lives that emphasized a contextual and supportive narrative. If an individual artist, say, Duchamps, highlighted that context, as was the need in the 'Picasso and the Avant-Garde in Paris,' then Talyor offered viewers that perspective. (Nude Descending a Staircase in this case).

Taylor was also a major contributor to the Art Museum's Bruce Nauman show at the Venice Biennale in 2009, in which the PMA picked up a covetted Golden Lion.

Further underscoring Taylor's virtuosity is his relative youth. (Only 42). And vigour. He still finds time to teach art history at the Univrersity of Pennsylvania.

Interestingly, Taylor's ruminative approach also runs counter to the flamboyant style of his former mentor, the late Anne d'Harnoncourt, the PMA director who recruited him in 1997 after seeing some of his work at Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris. (He was appointed the PMA's curator of modern art, on a fast track, seven years later).

D'Harnoncourt, who died in 2008, was, like Hoving, a larger-than-life figure and equally well known as a pioneer in staging blockbusters. (As the PMA director's torch has now passed to Timothy Rub, 58 years old, one can't help but think that Taylor also represents a similar generational change).

I met with Taylor not long ago at the main branch of the Free Library, where, he was, of all things, minutely detailing (slides included) his next show, another laser-beam focused exhibit on Marc Chagall (1887-1985). (The show will be titled 'Paris Through the Window: Marc Chagall and His Circle,' and will be installed in the Perelman Building from March to July, 2011).

Taylor was explaining how a major show, as the Chagall head-line act, gets put together. A least, in his adulthood. (He was 17 when Chagall died in 1985, the same year the PMA held its last Chagall exhibit, a retrospective).

It started as a discussion in 2006, and resulted in trips to Paris, Berlin, London, and New York. In all, about 50 works will be displayed, including works by Soutine, Modigiliani, and De Chico drawn from the Art Museum's permanent collection. Taylor said he followed 'context.' 'Again, we were taken on a journey,' he told a smallish audience. 'I didn't know where I would be taken.'

Starting with in-house work, Self-Portrait (1914), he moved to the Tate Modern, in London, for The Poet Reclining(1915), and later to New York, at the Guggenheim, where Paris Through the Window, a 1913 oil on canvas that Talyor branded as the artist's 'masterpiece,' was nailed down as the Philadelphia's show's eponymous signature work.

That last find wasn't easily acquired in that Guggenheim curators, according to Taylor, are 'something like horse traders.' The Guggenheim, he said, is 'notorious' for demanding reciprocal loans to their shows. 'I don't subscribe to this personally. I like to help other curators out,' he said.

Still, Taylor went on, the Guggenheim method is better than that of some French curators, who boldly request payment. ('We never pay for loans,' he said. 'We always say "no" to that. It always sets a bad precedent. Despite how great a work is, I'll walk away.')

On the other hand, private collectors -- one picture in the Chagall show falls into ths category -- are usually 'thrilled' to be counted in a major show. In the eyes of the owner, a loan request from the PMA 'validates' the work's value (and the owner's taste), and 'they also get attention at gala parties.'

One thing that Taylor doesn't have any control over is ticket pricing. 'I often think we charge too much,' he said.

Wednesday, 23 June 2010

Holding Hands?

PMA and Barnes Forge Bond
Rub, left; Gilman, right Photos: Writers Clearinghouse
to Roll Out 'Renoir Country'
By Richard Carreno
Junto Senior Staff Writer Bio

Albert Barnes must be rolling over in his grave. Make that 'roiling.'

In what has been a low-profile reconciliation, the Barnes Foundation and the Philadelphia Museum of Art, once arch enemies, thanks to Dr.Barnes animus against the PMA, have been smoking the peace pipe in recent months. No where has this fraternal inter-institutional cooperation --unthinkable during Barnes' lifetime -- been so evident as during the PMA's current Pierre-Auguste Renoir exhibit, which opened last week.

Both museums have been blowing kisses, what with recently rolled out jointly sponsored tours and lectures. And even Timothy Rub, the museum's director, telling the press, in a pre-show viewing of 'Late Renoir,' how Philadelphia is really 'Renoir country,' due in large part to the Barnes Foundation's unique collection, at 181 works, the largest cache of the French Impressionist anywhere.

Well, why not? Rub and Derek Gilman, the Barnes' director, were both in knickers when the wacky good doctor was fulminating at the PMA and the curatorial elite that mocked his own eclectic curatorial style -- or rather, non-style. Barnes' non-traditional presentation methods are famous or infamous, depending on one's viewpoint.

What isn't in dispute, however, is that Barnes' rage against what he perceived as a fuddy-duddy Philadelphia Establishment was never in the best interests of Philly's arts community and the world-wide constituencies of both museums. Barnes was right about the conservative, uptight Philadelphia Establishment. He was wrong though to hate and to cloister the Barnes Foundation in its Lower Merion compound as if it were a Palm Beach gated-community.

As usual with 'main-stage' shows, the PMA is offering, along with 'Late Renoir,' a series of collateral events, most held at the museum itself.

In what might be a first, however, the Museum is also sponsoring a cooperative venture with the Barnes, including a private, guided tour of the foundation's collection. The tours will be for groups of 15 to 50, on Tuesdays, and will also include a private, guided tour of 'Late Renoir' and lunch at the museum. Total per person cost varies at $140, without museum transport to the Barnes, or $164, with transport.

The Barnes itself is also sponsoring its own Tuesday afternoon tours in 'celebration' of the PMA show. (Did I hear 'celebration'? Take that, Al!) Tours are priced at $75 person, or $65 for a member.

Martha Lucy, an associate curator, will also lecture on Barnes 'obsession' with Renoir at 6:30 pm, Thurday, July 29. The lecture is titled 'A Collector's Obsession: Dr. Barnes and Renoir.' (Lucy has been talkative. Last month, she offered another Renoir and PMA-related lecture, 'Barnes, Late Renoir, and the Modernist Canon.'

How far can this hand-holding go? The PMA is also offering Barnes members $2 off the regular $24 'Late Renoir' fee.

This cooperation is good news. And will probably grow stronger once the Barnes moves to its new home next year on Museum Mile.

Monday, 5 April 2010

PMA's Rub Takes Charge

Gets Serious About Fundraising
By Richard Carreño
Junto Staff Writer Bio
Whether Timothy Rub, the director of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, can be as slick as his predecessor, the late Anne d'Harnoncourt, in courting big donors, time will tell. The museum, suffering from financial doldrums in the after-shocks Wall Street down-turns, needs to reach out like never before.

One sure-fire way of doing that is by inviting, cajoling, and flattering heavy-hitters to join the museum's board. The museum has been weak in doing this. Rather, many appointments seem to smack more of politically-correct marquee placements than what the instituation really needs -- fabulously rich people. Who, by the way, possess fabulously rich art collections.

As for conventional fundraising beyond new strides in expanding membership, the PMA has much its donor base sewn up in our village of Philadelphia. Now Rub, appointed last year just as the museum was hitting bottom financially, now has to open that base to an increasing national, even international, audience.

He got serious last week by appointing Kelly M. O'Brien, who's been cooling her heels as interim development director since October, as the permanent director. In recent years, believe it or not, the development slot has pretty much been dormant.

'We felt it was critical to appoint someone who understands this institution, can build upon our past fund-raising successes, and provide the leadership required to strengthen all aspects of our work in this area, with individuals, foundations, and corporations,' Rub said.

Gail Harrity, the PMA's chief operating officer, said O'Brien will, among other challenges, seek to bolster the museum's endowment 'to strengthen its finances, enhance the collections and programs, address critical capital needs, and renovate and expand the museum's facilities.'

That last challenge target involves the $500-million construction of underground galleries, fanning out in an apron under Eakins Oval. The new facility, to be designed by famed architect Frank Gehry, is technically still a 'go.'

Stephan Salisbury, reporting in The Inquirer last week, noted that the museum's endowment has rebounded from a low of about $250 million at the end of 2009.

'... [T]he museum is depending on it for about 25 percent of the $50-million-plus operating budget,' Salisbury said. 'In addition, city operating support, which has been $3 million in 2008, is down by about 20 percent. Faced with grim numbers, the museum eliminated 30 positions last year.'