GMOA Docents

   Every Wednesday at 2 p.m., one of the museum’s 24 active docents leads a tour of the permanent and temporary exhibition galleries. Volunteers range from students to retirees but share a love of art and people. Although no formal experience is required, volunteers are required to go through an application and interview process, and typically maintain a personal interest in art. They then make a minimum two-year commitment to represent the museum by giving tours, among other activities. The first year consists solely of a training program that continues throughout their relationship with the docent program. During this first year, volunteers learn tour techniques, shadow experienced docents and eventually practice their own tours. Because tours bring in a variety of visitors, this time and practice allow docents to be flexible enough to alter and adjust tours to suit the visitors’ needs.

 

Julia Sanks, a veteran docent at the museum, quickly realized that a small group of two young boys and their mother would appreciate a different approach to the typical “Tour at Two” than a larger, adult audience. Sanks smoothly set her more in-depth notes aside and engaged the young visitors by asking them to verbalize their responses and observations. After close to 11 years of affiliation with the museum, Sanks is comfortable molding herself to the needs of her audience.

“I’ve been here for around 11 years, but all docents, including myself, have to commit to training every week; there is always more to learn,” said Sanks.

Kitty Donnan utilized this same flexibility when she gave a tour of the permanent and temporary galleries to around 15 visitors from Hong Kong, China. Donnan gave an eloquent synopsis of art composition and history; because the visitors were interested in local history, she also drew attention to local artists and subjects like George Cooke’s “Tallulah Falls” and a self-portrait of Lamar Dodd. As an avid traveler, Donnan easily connected with the group not only as an art enthusiast, but also as a visitor to Hong Kong. She has traveled to places like the Louvre in Paris and the Vatican, although her favorite visit was to the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, Russia. Donnan looks forward to the exhibition “Exuberance of Meaning: The Art Patronage of Catherine the Great,” and its display of Russian art.

Docents don’t always wait for visitors to come to the museum. Docents participate in “suitcase tours,” an outreach program that caters to grades K-3 in the Athens-Clarke County area. These programs consist of volunteers literally packing up a suitcase of art reproductions, games and interactive activities to evoke students’ interest in art. On a more social level, some docents also choose to participate in the docent book club, which meets once a month to discuss books relating to art and art history. Both activities reflect the heart of the program, which consists of a love of art and a desire to share it.

For students interested in becoming docents, Carissa DiCindio, curator of education, will be teaching the special topics course ARED 5230/7230: Engaging Art Museum Audiences as Student Docents in the fall. The course will not only focus on the museum’s collections, but also on the complexities of art interpretation and how to facilitate interaction and dialogue within tours. The one-year commitment for students includes a semester of training within the course and a semester of participation at the museum. The special topics course will frequently be held in the galleries to encourage comfort and familiarity with the collection. 

Those interested in becoming a student or community docent should visit the GMOA website for more information: http://georgiamuseum.org/give/volunteer.  

Exhibition: Fashion Independent: The Original Style of Ann Bonfoey Taylor

From June 1^st through Sept. 15^th, the Georgia Museum of Art will showcase the personal wardrobe of sportswoman, socialite and fashion icon Ann Bonfoey Taylor.  The nearly complete collection comprises custom-made day and evening wear from renowned couturiers such as Charles James, Cristóbal Balenciaga, Hubert de Givenchy and James Galanos.  Myriad pieces literally tailored to fit the life of this 20^th-century Renaissance woman are juxtaposed with large-scale photographs by Toni Frissell. 

The museum’s director, William Underwood Eiland, initially saw the exhibition at the Phoenix Art Museum (PAM), and was captured not only by the impressive display of textiles and design, but also by the clearly educational focus of the show.  Dennita Sewell, curator of fashion design at PAM, organized the exhibition. 

“I think what really drew Bill and the museum to this show in particular was its educational quality.  It is really a comprehensive survey of 20^th-century design.  While the general public will be enthusiastic, true scholars of fashion history will be incredibly excited to see these designs; it is so much more than just a fashion show,” says the in-house curator, Mary Koon. 

Textiles dating from the mid-1940s to the 1970s required special hands for transport and display. Four couriers, trained for the special handling necessary, helped install the exhibition.  Italian mannequins appear in everything from cocktail dresses to riding boots—each piece custom made. Aside from the close to 200 items of clothing and accessories included in the exhibition, visitors will have the opportunity to study Taylor’s sketches of her own skiwear designs, a display of erudition and natural talent.  The integrity of the collection lies in its multifaceted testament to the quality of design in 20^th-century art and fashion.

Further thoughts on Deaccessioning Bernard Smol



One of the reasons I was interested in organizing this exhibition was the complexity of the issues involved. Deaccessioning is becoming an ugly word and not without cause. When it comes up in the news, it is almost always in the context of works being "monetized," sold to cover operating expenses or to support a parent institution. We have addressed this topic before in this blog, often while covering our director, who is active in his opposition to such monetizing approaches through his role in the Association of Art Museum Directors. This topic is fascinating and critically important, but it is not what I am addressing here. While certainly relevant in a general sense, the monetization of our collection isn't in any way at issue here. I am confident in saying that any money realized from the sale of these paintings is a minute part of our considerations and will, in any case, be used only for (or toward) another purchase of art.



My point today is this: the Smol show isn't about deaccessioning alone, it's about collection management in general. It's not just about what we get rid of and why, but also what we accept or buy and why. Different museums have different collecting strategies at different times, even when decided by committee and when following best practices. Put briefly and generally, my predecessors and I have been trying to build an encyclopedic collection that supports instruction at the University of Georgia and learning in general while at the same time building upon certain areas of strength in our collection and in our scholarship (Smol does none of this). When adding to the collection, we are most often called upon to evaluate proposed donations of works of art to the museum, deciding whether to accept them or not. When funds are available, curators propose purchases to the museum's collection committee. Most often, we use the opportunity to acquire work by an artist that fills a "gap," say a key figure in an important artistic movement where we have works by others but not her, or, as is sometimes the case, where we have no representative whatsoever of an important artistic movement. Other times, we have an opportunity to purchase work by a less-established artist (at a low price; we're talking hundreds of dollars, not thousands) who seems to have potential for art historical significance. 



This collecting philosophy for contemporary art means taking risks on unestablished or emerging artists if the cost is nominal. It is important then to cull at a later point. Who ended up mattering to other artists, critics, the public? Who fell off the map or quickly fell out of favor never to return? Who quickly became and remains unappealing to most viewers? Even if you've got a great eye, you are going to make at least a few mistakes if you buy as much art as Alfred Holbrook did. We've got catalogues full of the wonderful paintings he bought for this collection, but you won't find Smol in any of them. You most often find work by artists Holbrook purchased after they were well established, having demonstrated a strong resonance with the public, with critics, with other artists, thinkers and creators. You also find a few works purchased before their creators came to their full stature, before their page in the history books was written. I think of our Jacob Lawrence, which Holbrook purchased in the 1940s, or our suite of Warhol soup cans, an acquisition initiated by his predecessor, William Paul in the 1970s. Neither artist was unknown, of course, but each was still something of a risk at the time. We rely upon each and every one of those soup cans today, the Lawrence painting too, and have many times in the past, but we would be hard pressed to afford even one of the Warhol prints today, at more than 20 times the price. Even an occasionally correct decision works out in the collection's favor with this strategy, and we've had far more "wins" than "losses." I believe in this approach on a limited basis for the acquisition of contemporary art, and I believe our founder did as well, so I think it would be irresponsible of me not to cull from his riskier choices with the hindsight of history. I hope a future GMOA curator will reevaluate my choices, and I believe it is time to fulfill the other side of the strategy put into place by our founder and deaccession from the collection where the artist just didn't cut it. Or at least, as in this case, deaccession the majority of works by the artist. In a collection of more than 10,000 objects, you can be certain that at least 100 don't belong. Here, at least three or four of them are by Bernard Smol.



On another note, I've been following with frequent delight and only occasional horror the coverage this exhibition has garnered on other blogs (for instance, Jillian Steinhauer on Hyperallergic or Judith Dobrzynski’s Real Clear Arts). The main point of the exhibition is to stimulate dialogue about collections management, accessioning and deaccessioning, as well as issues surrounding lesser-known artists, issues of what constitutes artistic merit and historical significance, issues like novelty and innovation and to what extent that matters or not and why, so anybody talking about the show, good or bad, is fulfilling its mission to some extent. The exhibition hopes also to show that, while taste is subjective, quality does vary. I have to say that I am baffled by the seemingly paradoxical comments opining that I should not take into any consideration whatsoever the comments and opinions of others. Why bother commenting if that's true? I think we've been clear about that fact that viewers aren't making the final decision here, but why on earth wouldn't the museum's committee want to hear what people think and take that into consideration? While I think it's irresponsible not to deaccession a small number of objects after careful consideration (and after more than 50 years), I think a conservative approach is always best. If there is an outpouring of love and appreciation for a second painting of the five, I would gladly support keeping it. These paintings are otherwise going. It seems some criticism is being leveled simply because we are being utterly transparent, in fact vocal, where the majority of institutions deaccession as quietly as possible. I'd ask certain naysayers to please keep in mind that I am not inviting people to vote on proposed acquisitions, or to sticker any of the labels of other works in our collection, just the Smols. Nobody is getting voted *off* the island here. At most, one more of these turkeys will get pardoned, if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors. And, if you'll excuse a final one in response to a phrase that seems to be gaining popularity, calling this “crowdsourcing a collection” is fine if it helps attract attention to these issues, but I hope in the end readers understand that such a statement is sort of like calling a blog a wiki because it has a comments section.

Deaccessioning Bernard Smol

La Forêt Enchantée (The Enchanted Forest)

The Georgia Museum of Art currently owns the five paintings by Bernard Smol (French, 1897–1969), all currently on display in museum’s Martha Thompson Dinos Gallery. As the museum’s curator of European art, I have proposed removing four of them from our collection. The paintings do not align with the collection goals as defined in the museum’s mission statement and acquisition policy, the paintings have not generated any scholarly interest or interest from the public in more than 50 years, and they have not been exhibited during this time.

Les Pleureuses (The Mourners)

About the artist

“His is a world of color and dreams, of design and poetry, of music and the daily round of the circus and magic, of dance and religion.” George Huisman, Directeur Général Honoraire des Beaux-Arts, Paris, 1958

Smol worked in a late post-impressionistic idiom, creating encaustic paintings with vibrant colors. Encaustic is a technique of painting with hot beeswax mixed with pigments that creates a translucent but textured surface. The jewel-like quality of Smol’s paintings often drew comparisons to stained-glass windows by critics of his day. His typical subject matter included romantic landscapes and interiors populated with harlequins, dancers, bohemian poets and mystical figures that give the viewer a sense of experiencing a dream. Still relatively unknown in the United States, Smol exhibited widely in Europe in the mid-20th century. The artist came to the attention of the Georgia Museum of Art's founding director, Alfred H. Holbrook, during a 1958 exhibition at Chase Gallery in New York, after which Holbrook visited Smol’s studio in Paris.

Le Prophète Job (The Prophet Job)

Deaccessioning

Deaccessioning is the legal and permanent removal of an object from the museum's collection in accordance with policies and procedures defined by the Board of Regents, the University of Georgia, the laws of the State of Georgia and the United States and the standards of the American Alliance of Museums and the Association of Art Museum Directors. The museum received authorization from the University System of Georgia Board of Regents to deaccession objects starting in 2011, after a process involving formal vote and input from staff members, outside experts, the Board of Advisors, and the university’s provost. Whenever possible, works chosen for deaccessioning are sold at public auction. Proceeds are reserved in a designated account to be used only for the acquisition of new objects into the collection and never for operations or other expenditures. If the work to be deaccessioned was a donation to the museum, the donor or donor’s heirs are informed, whenever possible, and the credit for the gift is applied to any new acquisition made with funds from the donated work’s sale.

Deaccessioning is a carefully and necessarily lengthy process. At this point, the Georgia Museum of Art has yet to deaccession a single object from its collection of more than 10,000 objects in the museum’s 55-year history, although other objects are currently under consideration. I am recommending the deaccessioning of all but one of the paintings by Smol in our collection, all on display in this exhibition. During the course of the exhibition, other members of the museum’s collections committee and I will pursue subsequent steps in the deaccessioning process, making all documents and information available as part of the exhibition.

Le Village Inondé (The Inundated Village)

What do you think?

We would also like your input going forward. Which paintings or paintings would you keep? Which would you deaccession? Come visit in person to vote or tell us what you think in the comment section here.

–Lynn Boland, Pierre Daura Curator of European Art

La Robe de la Mariée (The Wedding Dress)

Excerpt from May 20, 2013, memorandum from Lynn Boland to GMOA Collections Committee:

Bernard Smol (French, 1897–1969) was an accomplished artist and should remain represented in the museum’s collection; however, the evolution of our collection and collection plan for European art over the last 50 years makes it unnecessary to have five large paintings by Smol from the same period and in the same style. These paintings are highly unlikely to be requested for loan or for inclusion in any of the museum's exhibitions or other programming in the foreseeable future, with the exception of the upcoming exhibition “Deaccessioning Bernard Smol,” May 25 to July 7, 2013. These paintings have not been exhibited at the museum since 1959, they have not been on view elsewhere since two traveled to Middle Georgia College shortly thereafter, and there is no indication that information about them has been requested at any time since or that they have been viewed by anyone other than museum staff during this time. There is no indication that Smol has been included in any publication since 1959, further demonstrating a universal lack of scholarly interest in the artist and his works. They were considered for inclusion in the 2011 permanent collection reinstallation as part of the European display in the H. Randolph Holder Gallery but deemed of insufficient quality or art historical significance to merit indefinite display, especially given their large size compared to other paintings in the museum’s collection. Their size also makes them a burden on the museum’s already taxed storage facilities. I recommend that the following paintings, all museum purchases rather than gifts, be deaccessioned and, through public auction, made available to other institutions or individuals better able to display and appreciate them:

La Forêt Enchantée (The Enchanted Forest), n.d.

Encaustic on canvas

34 1/2 x 50 3/4 inches

Georgia Museum of Art, University of Georgia; Museum Patrons Fund purchase, 1959

GMOA 1959.683

Les Pleureuses (The Mourners), n.d.

Encaustic on canvas

31 1/2 x 39 inches

Georgia Museum of Art, University of Georgia; Museum Patrons Fund purchase, 1959

GMOA 1959.684

Le Prophète Job (The Prophet Job), n.d.

Encaustic on canvas

31 1/2 x 39 inches

Georgia Museum of Art, University of Georgia; Museum Patrons Fund purchase, 1959

GMOA 1959.685

Le Village Inondé (The Inundated Village), n.d.

Encaustic on canvas

34 1/2 x 50 1/2 inches

Georgia Museum of Art, University of Georgia; Museum Patrons Fund purchase, 1959

GMOA 1959.686

I propose keeping one painting to represent Smol in the GMOA collection:

La Robe de la Mariée (The Wedding Dress), n.d.

Encaustic on canvas

31 1/8 x 36 1/8 inches

Georgia Museum of Art, University of Georgia; Gift of the artist and Chase Gallery, New York

GMOA 1959.651

La Robe de la Mariée was a gift of the artist and the Chase Gallery as well the personal favorite of the museum’s founder, Alfred H. Holbrook, according to a March 25, 1959, letter from Holbrook to Smol. La Robe de la Mariée is also the only painting of the five exhibited in Chase Gallery’s 1958 exhibition featuring Smol, which Holbrook visited. Three of the four paintings proposed for deaccession have no exhibition history other than the 1959 exhibition at the Georgia Museum of Art, and Les Pleureuses (The Mourners) appeared only in the exhibition organized by the museum that traveled to Middle Georgia College.

Wanderer Symposium to Highlight Captured Slaves' Histories

In 1858, around the time the U.S. Congress outlawed the transatlantic slave trade, the Wanderer, a New York pleasure ship, illegally carried a group of 488 Congolese from Africa to the coast of Jekyll Island, Ga.

The yacht, originally intended as one of the most beautiful and luxurious crafts ever built, was bought by southern planters, loaded with zinc tanks and retrofitted with new decks so that nearly 500 enslaved people could be “tight packed” into a craft meant to hold no more than 140.

The stories of these people and their subsequent lives on southern plantations will be highlighted in “‘Where I Come From . . .’: The Wanderer Enslaved and Their Descendants,” an all-day symposium organized by Valerie Babb, director of the Institute for African American Studies and professor of English and of African American studies. The symposium will take place on May 15 at the Georgia Museum of Art and is free and open to the public. The event will conclude with a tour of the exhibition “Face Jugs: Art and Ritual in 19th-Century South Carolina” led by Dale Couch, curator of decorative arts, and a reception. For more information, please contact the Institute for African American Studies at 706.542.5197.

“A lot of people know about the history of the yacht and how it was part of the New York Yacht Club, how it was built, how it was commissioned,” Babb says. “Not so many know about the people that yacht brought over here. So I’m hoping that history becomes highlighted.”

When photographer, graphic designer and researcher April Hynes discovered a face jug that her grandfather had unearthed in Philadelphia in 1950, she contacted archaeologist Mark Newell, who discovered more of the jugs and linked them to the Congolese who came on the Wanderer.

“It’s kind of just serendipity, in a way, that she happened to contact him and he happened to tell her, ‘oh no, they’re created by Congolese slaves, who had been brought here and their descendants just kept on doing this,’” Babb says.

The jugs were meant to keep away evil and were sometimes used as funeral grave markers.

Babb says, “They became items that were treasured by families. Luckily, the Georgia Museum of Art decided to have this exhibition, and it dovetailed very nicely with the symposium.”

Besides illuminating the story of the Wanderer, Babb hopes the symposium will begin a series of collaborations among the Institute for African American Studies, the larger University of Georgia and Jekyll Island, which currently has a memorial where the ship landed that it aims to expand.             Babb would also like to collaborate with Brunswick public schools so that students can be involved in expanding the archive for the ship, and a member of the Jekyll Island authority hopes to produce an annual Heritage Day festival on the island inspired by the story.

“I think it is a really good balance of audiences,” Babb says. “It’s a nice blend between the academic, the artistic and actual life.”

Tour at 2: Charles Bird King and William Harris Crawford

Yesterday afternoon's "Tour at 2" focused on a single painting in our Radford Gallery in the permanent collection wing of the Georgia Museum of Art. The museum's Education Department, using a simple flip camera, recorded almost 45 minutes of (exciting!) raw video footage featuring yours truly speaking about this painting:

 

Charles Bird King (American, 1785-1862)
Portrait of William Harris Crawford, 1823
Oil on canvas
Georgia Museum of Art, University of Georgia; Museum purchase with funds provided by The Collectors group of the Friends of the Georgia Museum of Art
GMOA 2007.165

A couple of related links:

• Tally of the 1824 Electoral College Vote, National Archives. 
• Henry Clay's appointment as secretary of state, 7 March 1825, Library of Congress. 

Some of my pictures from a trip out to Crawford, GA, on Monday:

The unedited, raw video from the tour:

Georgia Museum of Art presents second annual Henry D. Green Lifetime Achievement Award to Brad Rauschenberg

L to R: Linda Chesnut, chair of GMOA's Decorative Arts Advisory Committee; Brad Rauschenberg; and Dale Couch

Brad Rauschenberg became the second recipient of the Henry D. Green Lifetime Achievement award, presented by the Georgia Museum of Art on March 10.

The award recognizes the achievements of an antiquarian, art historical or material culture practitioner who has made significant contributions to the field of southern decorative arts. Contributions include scholarship, institutional program expansion, administration, publications, service, exhibitions, presentations, mentorship, research, education, financial support or advocacy of southern decorative art.

Last year’s award went to prominent antiques dealer Deanne Deavours for her influence on the standards and experience of art collection.

This year, in a unanimous decision by the award committee, Rauschenberg won it for his influence on decorative arts scholars and practitioners through mentorship, articles and books, as well as his work at the Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts (MESDA) and Old Salem Museums and Gardens.

“This is not a perfunctory award,” says GMOA curator of decorative arts Dale L. Couch. “It is literally next to impossible to exaggerate the contributions to decorative arts scholarship that this man has made. His published scholarship alone would be significant, but he must be credited with the establishment of many of the tools that most decorative arts scholarship is based on.”

Rauschenberg was instrumental in the conception of MESDA’s photographic research files as well as the development of the museum’s field research program.

“What he did is create, largely through his own ideas and efforts, centralized scholarship for southern decorative arts that has been the basis for satellite programs such as the Green Center,” says Couch.

Artist uses art to illustrate interdependence

Installation from "Symbiosis" by Danielle Peters

Danielle Peters is showing our “biological need for closeness” in her performance-based exit show “Symbiosis.”

Peters’ work in the “Master of Fine Arts Degree Candidates Exhibition” was inspired by her weekly tango lessons as well as videos of mating snakes. The collaborative show will feature organ music, tango dancing and installation and costume design that highlight the similarities between the sensual dance and the entwined snakes.

“Taking cues from systems evident in nature, my work draws parallels between human intimacy and the natural world,” said Peters. She allowed the collaborators freedom to create their own elements of the performance, giving them little direction before they come together for a moment of “spontaneous synchronization,” which will be performed three times on the night of March 22, at the Lamar Dodd School of Art.

Peters creates her works of art by layering pieces of hand-cut paper to form sculptures, installations, drawings and costumes. She is interested in the contrast between human physiology and natural phenomenon.

Heavy patterning and texture on Peters’ surfaces suggest bodily elements like hair, tissue and fluid. She said her fluorescent pastels create a clean perception of the body, idealizing its inner workings.

Peters’ influences include swarm dynamics, symbiosis, synchronicity and studies of the nervous system. Her work is often collaborative, building on these ideas of interdependence.

Peters received her BFA in printmaking from the University of Kansas in 2009 and studied printmaking at Hongik University in Seoul, South Korea, that same spring. She is a 2013 MFA candidate in printmaking and has exhibited her works of art both nationally and internationally.

Collaborators for “Symbiosis” include: composition by musician T.S. Woodward; tango performances by Frances Torres, Fuad Elhage, Maggie Malone, A.J. Wheeler, Christie Moody and Dorian Zevos; and set and costume design by Peters with the assistance of artist Katrina Shoewe.

The “Master of Fine Arts Degree Candidates Exhibition” is on view at the Georgia Museum of Art March 16 to April 22, 2013, with an opening reception in conjunction with 90 Carlton: Spring on March 22. MFA Speaks is scheduled for March 21 at 5:30 p.m. and will feature the artists discussing their work.

Artist questions identity and history in works of art

Quilt detail by Mei Ling Cann

Mei Ling Cann’s informative works of art deal with identity politics in relation to race and ethnicity.

Cann has created two quilts for the “Master of Fine Arts Degree Candidates Exhibition” that question heritage and history and the “irreconcilable differences” that can exist between them. One quilt deals with experiences in the United States while the other focuses on experiences in Taiwan.

“I treat every experience as a valuable tool to learn and create new personal realities,” said Cann. She said her work is influenced by her own experiences living as a biracial Asian American in a “racially disparate” environment.

Cann’s heritage quilts attempt to delve into history and the symbols and biases society associates with past events. For her exit show, she was influenced by childhood stories from Taiwan and recognizable symbols from the South, specifically in Georgia and North Carolina. Both of her quilts deal with controversial symbols that differ in meaning depending on region and culture.

The quilt of Taiwanese experiences depicts large swastikas. Cann said her quilt is inspired by the time she visited Taiwan as a child and noticed the symbols decorating Buddhist temples. She recalls asking her mother why hateful symbols adorned places of worship, and her mother responded that the symbols were not racist in this context, but Buddhist.

“From this initial experience, I would have many more throughout my life involving the swastika, not only as a stereotypical symbol of hate but also as a decorative and auspicious one of good luck and peace—two very contrasting interpretations,” said Cann.

Confederate flags adorn the other quilt, which reflects on the contradictory meaning of that symbol.

Cann’s informative art mainly addresses social and personal issues, health and disease. She prefers not to limit herself to one medium or certain materials; instead, she chooses a topic, then explores how to express it best.

Cann often worked on her quilts in public places during large-scale events. “Art-making in unexpected public venues really throws off inadvertent viewers and makes for interesting conversations between strangers who would have otherwise never spoken,” said Cann.

Cann grew up in the small southern town of Havelock, North Carolina. In 2008, she graduated from East Carolina University, earning a BFA with a concentration in painting and drawing as well as textile design. She is a 2013 MFA candidate at the University of Georgia in painting and drawing.

The “Master of Fine Arts Degree Candidates Exhibition” is on view at the Georgia Museum of Art March 16 to April 22, 2013, with an opening reception in conjunction with 90 Carlton: Spring on March 22. MFA Speaks is scheduled for March 21 at 5:30 p.m. and will feature the artists discussing their work.