After reading Charles Giuliano’s piece, found here:
A few (hah! You should know me better!) thoughts I have, on reading this piece. I’d have submitted the list to the Eagle’s “Letters to the Editor” section but it’s too long to publish. Anyway, here they are:
I grew up in Pittsfield and have been following this story pretty closely for several months. As a kid, I eagerly looked forward to Friday’s and my after school art classes at the Berkshire Museum. And I still think of myself as an artist. Actually, I like to refer to myself as an illustrator, as I once heard Norman Rockwell define himself. And I am concerned about the outcome of the current controversy surrounding the Museum. I think, as you clearly do, the recent article in The New Yorker was a good piece and representative of the quality I expect to see on their pages. But, damn, man! I had to read this piece twice, I was so distracted by the errors in grammar, basic punctuation, and syntax! After graduating from Pittsfield’s now closed Sacred Heart Elementary and St Joe’s High schools, my guess is you attended public schools. (The teaching that we parochial school kids were somehow superior to public schoolers still courses through my veins.) The good Sisters Of St. Joseph would never have allowed this to see the light of day! Or go unpunished! Surely they would have required heavy editing on your part, which they would gladly not assign until ten minutes before the last bell rang. On a Friday. Before a long weekend.
Seriously, though, this is a pretty good analysis of not only what HAS happened but continues to happen in what appears to be one man’s attempt to see his own distorted vision come to fruition, consequences be damned. (Sorry, Sisters. If you hadn’t scared the Catholic out of me I would surely be atoning for that cussing.) I am left wondering if ol’ Van Shields is trying to compensate for something. A failed career as an artist? A continued inability to color between the lines? A mother’s refusal to display his “artwork” on the family fridge? Something must be driving this man to push through his agenda, again, consequences be damned. (That reiteration would likely have earned me at least another ten Hail Marys and an Our Father.)
I can only hope that enough people, both in and from Berkshire County, feel as you,
my family and friends, and I do about this attempt at an end run around everyone except, it seems, the Board Of Trustees. As you wrote, at least two of the members seem to have resigned in protest, though, at least in my opinion, it seems a stronger stance would have had them vote AGAINST the plan rather than abstain, and perhaps remain on the board to continue to represent our interests. That’s their call, though. I, we, have no idea the toll that might have taken on their personal or professional lives. Even so, I respect their decisions and am grateful they had the good conscience to make them.
I guess the deaccession IS a foregone conclusion, unless somebody is able to get some kind of last-minute reprieve, an injunction preventing the sale. I have no idea if that is even possible. At the least such an act might see the museum being sued by Sotheby’s for unrealized commissions. At worst, the injunction could be denied only to be appealed at great cost to whoever petitioned for it, and a final loss, allowing the deaccessioning to go forward. BTW, am I the only one who had never heard the word “deaccession” before? I feel I have been seeing it rather too much as I follow this story. I tend toward writing in a conversational style, though I’m mixing that with my “scholar’s voice” here, and would love to see a few “sell off”, “dumping works on the market”, and “eradicate the collection” phrases thrown in there, if just to stanch the monotony of repetition. (Again, the influence of the good Sisters at work!) Deaccessioning seems to sanitize the whole affair, and place it out of the realm of “all us regular folk” in whose hearts the museum holds a special place. I sometimes feel Like I am intruding far too much into the world of museum professionals or benefactors, as if I’m eavesdropping on conversations I am not supposed to hear, or accessing sites not intended for me, a mere museum-goer. I mean, if writers of the many articles I’ve read intended to reach people like me, who prefer to just enjoy museums rather than get involved in the goings-on behind the scenes (or full-scale diorama, as it were) of any museum, than using plain-speak would seem the better route. And I think we are an important audience. A target market as, together, we have the ability to spread the word and build an army of support. Perhaps that could influence members of the board to reconsider their position. It may be too late to stop the selling off of these important works, but that doesn’t mean we can’t band together and try. We may not succeed but our efforts could cause other museums to sit up and take note. And we could serve as a lesson to all the other museum patrons across the country to take more notice of what the people entrusted with the care and oversight of THEIR “little”
museums are doing; to be aware that some nefarious activities are afoot when their own boards fire a director or curator who has shown they have not just the museum but the community’s best interests in mind, even if their well-intentioned actions have unintended consequences.
Let me use this last paragraph to introduce two more angles from which to view this debacle - I mean, issue-
First, I honestly don’t see WHY the museum needs to be torn apart and rebuilt to make it “interactive”. After all, isn’t a museum supposed to be a testament to the history of some thing, or person, or region? Would it not be more appropriate to redesign existing exhibits, if bringing the museum into the 21st century was truly the intent? (This early in the millennium makes the term 21st century museum seem like an oxymoron!) That would leave the existing collection to do as intended, to honor its existence, its creators, and its donors (especially the world-renowned and beloved Norman Rockwell, illustrator of mid-twentieth century America, in all its faults and glory), and to share it with generations to come, so that they may enjoy and learn from it just as many of us have. Adding newer items to the collection makes sense. Showing those by way of interactive exhibits makes sense if that is what’s necessary to capture the minds and hearts of our children, and theirs. If feasible, adding on to the existing structure makes sense. Even adding a secondary site to house new acquisitions, and to exhibit items from the collection now in storage, like The Smithsonian’s Air and Space Museum has done, to great success, makes sense.
Second, how would selling these valuable pieces affect future fundraising efforts? I have seen the possible effect on future donations of museum-worthy collections addressed. But what about monetary donations? Not just endowments from benefactors but federal, state, and municipal funding? Not to mention responses from the general population during fundraising drives? I don’t think PBS would raise much money during its telethons if it “deaccessioned” shows like Sesame Street, Antiques Roadshow, or Julia Child’s iconic shows. And what of people drawn to the Berkshire Museum BECAUSE OF some of the many works it seeks to dump on the open market? With the Norman Rockwell Museum so close by, one can’t help but think people who tour it would also make a stop in Pittsfield to see the very paintings the director now wants to get rid of. Not only could that be a source of many, albeit smaller: monetary donations but those people might then make a weekend of their visit, contributing to the Pittsfield and Berkshire economies.
Lastly, here’s where I come from, what forms my opinion on the matter: I’m not a museum professional. I’m not an accountant. I’m not even very good at math. But what I AM pretty good at is problem solving by way of looking at a challenge from many angles. I don’t pretend to cover all of them. I am what you might call a jack of all trades but master of none. I have eclectic interests. I am a “Renaissance Man” wannabe. And I’m pretty logical. I approach each situation trying to understand different people’s motives, their opinions, their intent. Much like the Supreme Court considers the intent of our Founding Fathers when deciding the Constitutionality of laws and judgements, so should we consider the intent of those who donated valuable works to the good people of Berkshire County, while trusting all directors, curators, and trustees, past, present, and future, to honor those intentions. We would dishonor them by not fighting for them.
Barb Wallace
Sacred Heart Elementary School, class of 1970
St. Joseph High School, class of 1974
