By Patricia H Kushlis
The March 2 Arts Section of The New York Times showcased the contemporary American art collection of the US Ambassador to the UK extolling its quality and importance to the London arts scene.
On the one hand, the collection sounds terrific; on the other hand, I have my doubts about its public accessibility and hence impact beyond the select few. The residence collection is a combination of works from the private collection of Chicagoans Ambassador Louis B and Marjorie Susman and those from galleries, museums and other collections through the State Department’s Art in Embassies Program which helps US Ambassadors decorate their official residences with borrowed works from important American art collections.
Decorating Ambassadors' residences and displaying art for the public are not the same.
That’s well and good, but I have never thought the decoration of Ambassadors residences equated to public access to the works of art hung on their residence walls. This just doesn’t compute. True, Ambassadors need to hold receptions for guests of particular importance to the US government –foreigners, visiting American officials, and others and they certainly need appropriate places - at taxpayer expense - to do so.
When Henry Catto was Ambassador to London at the end of the Cold War, for instance, he entertained journalists at the residence to excellent avail. I attended - and helped organize - any number of cultural functions at US Ambassadorial residences when I was in the Foreign Service. But never have I seen US embassy residences open to the public. And they weren’t before 9/11 either.
So if anyone thinks he or she can just walk up to Winfield House, the residence of the American Ambassador to the UK's residence in London, and be let in for a tour of the art objects inside, think again. It’s not in the cards. This is far from Pemberley where Elizabeth Bennett and her aunt and uncle in Pride and Prejudice petitioned for a tour of the estate - and was immediately invited in by the housekeeper.
Where is American art permanently on display in a coherent collection?
Having spent nearly a month in London last year, I came away with the impression that American art is not all that available to the public there – nothing like the wonderful French impressionist collection at London’s National Gallery for instance.
Rather American art shows up in bits and pieces here and there and at special exhibits that come and go in small museums in the near suburbs as opposed to permanent collections of enough heft in the city center to make lasting impressions on anyone.
I’ve written about this topic before on WhirledView and to my knowledge nothing has changed. The US government still lacks a robust program to showcase American arts or artists – at least not enough to make an impact. It merely plays at it. The problem is worldwide - not just London. The State Department is excellent with press releases, I’m told - to announce not very significant events and does not really go about displaying American cultural genius the way it could and should be done. And lest I forget, did, during the Cold War.
Doing it right
To do this right would take a steady infusion of money and talented staff –not just one shot sporadic deals. I'm sure that money could be found - a slim shaving from the Pentagon budget surely would not be missed.
And not to forget but while Americans may have forgotten about World Expositions, the rest of the world has not – and the State Department needs to start planning for America’s participation in the 2015 world exhibition in Milan. To do it right, however, will require both public and private financial support.
The World Expo Conundrum - part of the same
I’ve learned that the Department still thinks it can throw up a pavilion without public support just like this past year’s one in Shanghai. Fine. I guess if one thinks that an exhibit in a world class exhibit setting can be comprised of videos and company logos designed by a Canadian architect is the appropriate way to present this country to the world.
Sadly, I understand the State Department thinks, I’m told, that it can do just that for 2016 – and get away with it.
Now I realize that art exhibitions and world trade exhibitions are not the same - but it seems to me that both are important enough in terms of American image building among the public and the elite groups –in a non-propagandist way – to be taken seriously and handled right.
What could and should be done - to be shared with the Susmans
It’s nice that the Susmans want to decorate their walls with fabulous paintings, but wouldn’t it be far more effective if they launched a public-private sector initiative that established a permanent collection of American art in a gallery in London like the Lauder one in New York or the Georgia O’Keeffe in Santa Fe, New Mexico with room for traveling exhibitions and the possibility of holding programs on America on premises? It wouldn’t have to be huge –just something small, classy, and accessible to a discerning public that stays permanently.