By Patricia H. Kushlis
The New York Times March 16 Arts Section featured the remarkable story of the White House’s art collection and how it has changed under the Obamas. The collection is, according to reporter Randy Kennedy, not just a collection but also a museum under federal legislation that dates back to 1961.
Say It Isn't So
Well and good, but then why are the photo rights owned by the nonprofit White House Historical Association which forbids Internet distribution. Website use by other nonprofits - apparently for single digital image - is a whopping $50 and for commercial enterprises $75. Or maybe I have it wrong - but if I’m right this looks akin to highway robbery. Who bought, paid for or donated those paintings anyway and what gives the White House Historical Association the right to play gatekeeper and charge such exorbitant fees.
Admission to the museum for the public is free – this is, after all, not a private residence - but the wait time to enter takes as long as six months – so don’t expect to knock on the White House door some morning and be instantly ushered in to see these little seen works of American art by Thomas Hart Benton, Ed Ruscha and Georgia O’Keeffe among the many others mentioned in the Times story. Admittance takes patience and perseverance. Moreover, you can pretty much kiss off viewing the collection on line. The Association seems to be more into selling Christmas ornaments and turning a profit than anything else.
Yet it wasn’t long ago that Ruscha would not have appeared in the White House Museum and who knows what would have happened to the O’Keeffe. In fact, Kennedy tells us that until the Obama administration made needed changes, the collection did not even include abstract expressionists. Even today it does not contain purely abstract work – although an O’Keeffe donated in 1998 “plays with it.”
In comments on a recent post of mine, John Brown argued that the wonderful collection of American art assembled by US Ambassador and Mrs. Susman in their London residence needs much greater public access - as a matter of course. John and I have been going back and forth on this question since then. Partially as a result of the dialog I have come to the following conclusions:
- US Ambassadors and former American Ambassadors to London should spearhead a public/private sector fund-raising initiative to establish and maintain a permanent museum of American art in a historical home with American connections along the lines of the Lauder Museum in New York or the Phillips Collection in Washington, DC before the building was expanded and modernized. This “home” museum for American art needs to be in the city’s center – not the leafy green suburbs on some commuter rail stop. I begin with London because it seems to me – despite the nearly century long “special relationship” –the US continues to be treated by British officialdom as the red haired stepchild in comparison with the more favored treatment of the more compliant ex-colonies that continue to pay obeisance to the crown, even though America’s departure from the Empire occurred more than two hundred years ago and Americans themselves have been fascinated with the antics of the royals ever since.
- I don’t care what excuses are being used to exclude the US president and the first lady from the royal wedding invitation list. Times of austerity or other equally lame excuses don’t cut it with me. I think President and Mrs. Obama should have been on that invitation list. I don’t consider the fact that they were overlooked has anything to do with them personally but I do think it has much to do with the way the British royalty as well as certain other Brits sans blueblood in their veins still strangely view our errant nation. Nevertheless, or perhaps because of this, I think it’s even more important for the US to establish a permanent physical presence in an increasingly multicultural London that goes well beyond the moated fortress to be tucked away in a redeveloped warehouse district on the south side of the Thames (and hence further away from the seat of power) plus the itinerant art show in the suburbs or dramatic productions of American works that grace the London stage.
- At the same time I agree with John that the “public areas” of US Ambassadorial residences should become far more accessible to regular people like you and me than normally is the case. One way to make this happen would be to pass a law that instructs the State Department and the White House to enforce a provision that two afternoons per week at a minimum, official Ambassadorial Residences must be available to admit guided tours of the art collections by school classes, art students and clubs. Yes, viewing paintings and other art work in a home is far different from seeing them in a museum – but, in the end, such special arrangements will never permit the easy access that public galleries provide to a many more people. To expand those art collections reach further, digital images of some of the works should be made available free on the appropriate embassy websites so that art lovers of all ages and places with access to a computer can at least get a sense of the richness of the collection through the digital media. This goes for the White House Museum Art collection as well.
- And finally, I think that the legal niceties that govern the State Department’s Art in Embassies program should be rewritten to make it possible for paintings on loan in US Ambassadorial residences to be truly available for public viewing - beyond the walls of Fortress Americas. Approved facilities should include free-standing American Centers as well as appropriate local museums with demonstrable anti-theft protection systems in operation, good public access and climate control.
Thank you John, for the stimulating dialog. Would anyone else care to join in?