THE ALBRIGHT-KNOX ART SALE

The Albright-Knox Art Gallery has a special relationship with the Buffalo community.

The director and the voting board of the Albright-Knox Art Gallery (A-K) have, by their secretive process in deaccessioning parts of the collection, exposed their arrogance and their belief that the A-K is a private club and that they are the only ones who can decide what is best for Buffalo’s great cultural treasure. Actually, the director and the board have a responsibility to make the best decisions possible and to help plan for the future. However, they are merely entrusted with the collection. They have no ownership.

The collection is not owned by its director or its board. The A-K is a quasi-private cultural institution that sits on public land. It is an institution that has been built by the many people who came before them. They cared not only for its past but for its future as well. It is a cultural institution that exists because of its history with the community and the financial support that the community has given it.

Members of the Buffalo community have maintained this unique cultural institution for decades. The present director and present board have decided to redefine the role of the A-K. Their decision may indeed jeopardize its future position. In the past there have been dedicated directors and board members who have brought A-K to its present recognition. Support has come from its membership, from foundations, and financial institutions who have always believed in the diversity of the A-K and have given their time and their money to help support its strong collection. The secretive deaccessioning process is insulting to those who have supported this institution in the past and to those who are still giving.

When I was in the US Navy, when our ship approached waters that contained enemy ships, the captain signaled that we were to make smoke. The dense fog-like smoke hid the ship and did not allow the enemy to figure out our maneuvers or what new direction we would take. The people who have created and supported this institution for many decades are not the enemy and deserve better treatment than the present deceptive process. Without the continued love and support of the Buffalo community, there would be no A-K.

That the A-K explores and purchases contemporary art is a healthy process. What is not healthy is to presume that constantly bringing in new works and removing many of our own is proper for the A-K. Private galleries on 57th Street in New York City do, in fact, buy into constant change. It is the major way for galleries to survive in the competitive art world. We are not a private-for-profit art gallery. We believe in our history of collecting, holding, exhibiting, and educating the present and future generations.

The A-K has always been a supporter of new art through its purchases and exhibitions. It is arrogant to presume that we must de-accession 200 pieces of artwork created before 1800 to help finance the purchasing of contemporary art. The decision is presumptuous and demeaning to all of those past directors, curators, board members, foundations, families and financial institutions who have continued to support the A-K’s continuing international recognition. Mostly, this act is a denial of the real and actual continuum that art represents in the history of mankind.

Some deaccessioning is useful in a healthy institution, but the present administrative approach to deaccessioning a very large quantity of its holdings seems excessive. It has been published in the Buffalo News that 200 items are to be auctioned. Furthermore, the refusal for the director and the board to inform the community of what is to be deaccessioned further adds to the alienation.

Because many of us in the community do not wish to see the A-K further alienate itself from those who support the arts, a committee should be formed to help maintain clarity for now and the future. The committee should comprise foundation members, financial institutions, both past directors and previous curators, collectors and donors. Its formulation would help engender openness and future support by modifying the present policy. Such a group could help prevent a growing schism between the supporting arts community and the present administration.

The statement recorded in the local press by Richard Armstrong, the Henry J. Heinz II director of the Carnegie Art Museum in Pittsburgh, said that “The gallery’s decision was made in an elegant and open way that sets the national standard.” Information to the membership was provided long after the decisions and contracts with the auction house were made. The Buffalo community was not informed. The process was neither open nor elegant. It was disingenuous.

It is critical that the Albright-Knox and the community provide for an open and honest process which would prevent further alienation. Openness in informing the membership about the de-accession would have produced a more positive response. Right now, as expressed by many in the press, there is a schism. The community is not the enemy and the present administration should reconsider how it handles this important issue.

We must make every effort to strengthen the relationship between the community and the Albright-Knox Art Gallery. Regrettably, the present decision has been insulting and destructive. The challenge is to provide openness and to help make the process work.

Harold L. Cohen

Honorary life member on the Board of the Buffalo Fine Arts Academy since 1977

Buffalo

I enjoyed your article “Going, Going…” (Artvoice v5n47). It was informative on both an educational and emotional platform. What I find most compelling about the need to liquidate some of the permanent collection to fund expenditures for new acquisitions is that there is uncertainty of the “contemporary” artist and his or her artistic value. It is far more risky to purchase their works than to keep and safeguard our pieces of the permanent collection that have proved their worth and artistic value.

Having played a role within the walls of the Albright-Knox for over 10 years as the restaurant manager, I have been part of the development and implementation of many ideas the gallery has initiated. During my tenure at the Albright-Knox, I have seen many acquisitions, not all unanimously accepted by the board and staff, but somehow placed within the walls of this great institution. I often wondered, “How in the hell did this piece get in here?” Just because an “artist” may do one or two great or significant pieces, does not mean that everything that comes from their hands is significant. Let’s face it, we all know of at least one musical artist with a “one-hit wonder.” This has to follow through in the museum world as well; it just makes sense. I truly believe that it’s a case of the “Emperor’s New Clothes.” You’re not on the “A” list if you don’t think that a particular artist is hot, even though you know in your heart and mind there is nothing significant about the piece. This was the case of Jenny Holzer, a contemporary artist who specializes in words. During a past, but recent exhibition, her photocopied typeset artwork was displayed on the walls of the gallery. The words were offensive to some degree but what I could not rationalize was that they were simply colored sheets of paper with type from a computer printer. Is this worthy of exhibition space? I would much rather see a piece of our collection that rarely or never makes the viewing process. If the core mission of the gallery is to exhibit contemporary art, then by all means change the name of the gallery to the Albright-Knox Contemporary Art Gallery. That would certainly clear up a lot of misunderstandings, though I think the membership base would falter. After hearing thousands of complaints about the art during the “highly” praised Extreme Abstraction, I was ready to move my business to any museum or gallery that specialized in pre-modernism.

The directors have to be more conscious of their community, the community that has supported and stood by the gallery, in both good and bad times, the community that the gallery is based within. This certainly is a bad time for the Albright-Knox. To sell off priceless pieces that have inspired countless memories is certainly a bad idea. I am sure that during Monet’s and Picasso’s days, there were numerous artists with hopes and aspirations of fame and fortune. Are they all in museums? Probably not. In fact, I’m sure only a handful of their contemporaries ever made such claim. Are we risking certainty for a pipe dream? I think so.

Donald Warfe

Buffalo

No museum can exist successfully by representing one point of view and one short period of history. Art does not exist in a vacuum. The cultural diversity of works represented in the antiquities galleries are representative of periods of art history. Art history provides an arena in which art can be understood, based on the period in time in which a work of art was created, and the reasons why it was made. Prevailing cultural and religious beliefs, the presence and absence of scientific theories, philosophy—the gamut—all can be gleaned by viewing works of art made through the ages. Part of a museum’s job (as opposed to a contemporary art center or gallery) is to create a learning environment for the public. Modern work shown alongside a context of historical development encourages understanding by creating parallels and relationships. Opening the eyes of the public to the beauty of creative ideas, diversity of expression, past and present, serves to validate art as a gateway to humankind’s ongoing need to express and experience the intensity of life experience. Let’s not just blow out the past in favor of some slick, sexy new Art Basel shit (the Cannes Film Festival of the art world) or whatever the current flavor of the month may be, that may or may not come up short in the long run.

Yeah, sure, wow everybody with some new exuberance, some clever materials, some quirky way of seeing. No one’s arguing against the Albright making new and exciting acquisitions. Just don’t do it at the expense of the tried and true. There’s plenty of worthy expression in the terra-sig paintings on the side of Greek vases, and the incredible intricate bronze work in early Chinese vessels, etc. If you want to minimize the sting of selling off poignant pieces, then by all means label them as “provincial.” But they are only as provincial as the viewer would have them be. If you were to interview current day artists, I’m willing to bet that many would admit that they have looked upon works of the past, primitive and sophisticated, as a source of inspiration for their own ideas. We want to be inspired. Looking at and learning from the endeavors of the past, the feat of mastering materials and expression, aren’t remotely provincial, but actually quite monumental. Not everything has to be 20 feet tall and made from chewing gum that was regurgitated by lab rats and sewn together with dried sinew and rubber bands, while a projection of a video tape loop of a shadow passing over an expressionless face…Some things are just cool because they already are.

If the Albright divests itself of its historical collection, it runs a fairly great risk of creating a public who feels more perplexed about art than before, and of creating a greater rift between past and present. Let’s let contemporary art have its day, yes!…but not a dog day.

Kathi Roussel

Buffalo