Trump & The Arts

I never imagined I'd see what is now happening in this country. These are the darkest times I've experienced in my lifetime. We cannot escape it, but I try, particularly here, to stick to the arts. Even though I wrote on this subject last March, it has gotten so much worse.

Some time ago, Trump installed himself as President of the Kennedy Center, saying the programming was ideologically driven and too woke! He then put his cronies on the board, and they decided that only board members selected by the President could vote. He then had his name added to the title of this National Institution named in honor of a fallen President. Now, subject to his hand-picked board’s vote, the President, without consulting Congress, has decided to close the Kennedy Center down for two years for renovation. He posted “Financing is completed, and fully in place! This important decision, based on input from many Highly Respected Experts, will take a tired, broken, and dilapidated Center … and turn it into a World Class Bastion of Arts, Music, and Entertainment, far better than it has ever been before.” Another scary thought is that he has given no details about his mention of reconstruction. Do you think that this closure could also be due to the fact that many top artists have cancelled their programming at the Center, audiences have dwindled along with revenue, and most recently, the Washington National Orchestra decided to part ways with its home venue?

Recently, alarms were sounded in the arts community with the discovery that a federal building constructed in 1940 to house the Social Security Department was on the General Services Administration list for “accelerated disposal”. More than 1,800 feet of federally funded art commissions fill the building, inspiring a nickname among experts and enthusiasts: the “Sistine Chapel of the New Deal.” Ben Shahn and Philip Guston were among the artists hired as part of this project. Why did the current Administration focus on this building? One factor may be that Shan’s mural lining the central corridor illustrates the social ills in America that the new Social Security Administration was meant to address. The bill that approved this building for disposal was slipped through Congress, attached as an amendment to a water bill. With its desirable location across from the Mall, it is presumed that once sold, the building would be razed, fulfilling the cleansing of history with the destructive tactics the President favors.

Threats of the loss of funding are making museums do the government’s bidding. Under the Executive Order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” museums are being pressured to show only positive images of our country’s history, i.e. references to slavery and the mistreatment of Native Americans are not to be on view.

The Smithsonian has been told that Federal funds can only be used in compliance with the Executive Order to eliminate “improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology” from the institution. Having submitted the Institution’s anniversary plans, the Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch was sent a letter from the White House saying that this “fell far short of what was requested” and what was to be sent for review were, “current wall texts and didactics, exhibition proposals and budgets, object checklists for upcoming programming, internal governance manuals, and chain of command records for content approval are not obscure archival requests”!!! The Smithsonian includes 20 museums, mostly in Washington, D.C. Two of them are the National Museum of the American Indian and the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Do you think this administration might find any objectionable images there? (Image Objectionable Caption: Earle Richardson(1912-1935), Smithsonian American Art Museum)

    Earle Richardson (1912-1935),

Smithsonian American Art Museum

The art world is attempting to fight back. On Friday, January 30th, when people walked out of work, many art galleries around the country closed, including over 120 in New York. A number of museums also closed. A few examples are the Drawing Center and El Museo del Barrio in New York, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, and the Armory Center for the Arts in Pasadena. The Weisman Art Museum at the University of Minnesota, the Madison Museum of Contemporary Art in Wisconsin, and the Portland Institute for Contemporary Art in Oregon. Needless to say, the Walker Art Center and the Minneapolis Museum of Art were also closed. These were mostly contemporary museums since they are defending the rights of artists to express themselves freely. All institutions are being pressured to show art that one man thinks is appropriate, with censorship being the hallmark of authoritarianism.

I know I have only scratched the surface, mentioning just a small portion of what has happened to the arts in the last year, and I am afraid it won’t get better before it gets worse!

Gargoyles

As I searched for a subject for this missive, the sound of rapidly melting snow streaming to the ground from our flat roof brought to mind the function of gargoyles. The stone buildings of medieval times also needed roof drainage systems, and stonemasons incorporated the function in projecting animal and fantastical forms.

Today, most houses have gutters with drainage pipes. In Santa Fe, however, houses follow the tradition of the original Spanish colonial and Pueblo adobe architecture, run off from the flat roof is provided by canales (pronounced cah-NAH-lays). These were originally wooden channels, but today sometimes made with more durable materials that project through the parapets for drainage.

Gargoyles are often confused with grotesques; the latter were merely architectural decorations that had no function. It seems appropriate to the water-spitting monsters that the term gargoyle comes from the French word "gargouille," meaning throat or gullet. Aside from being functional, they also served as symbols to ward off evil spirits and provide spiritual guardianship for churches and cathedrals. Here is an image of gargoyles, by Carol Di Rienzo Cornwel, on Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.

A recent Associated Press article by Peter Smith is devoted to the two-year restoration of the Cathedral Basilica of the Assumption in Covington, Kentucky. It earned the nickname Notre Dame, for the Paris landmark that was the model for its exterior. There is one difference, however: despite the fact that locals feel their gargoyles have looked after them and kept away evil spirits, the Kentucky versions are not true gargoyles since they are purely decorative and don't drain water.

In Washington, D.C., however, the Washington National Cathedral—begun in 1907 and completed in 1990—has 112 functional gargoyles as well as over 3,000 grotesques. No wonder it took so long to build! President Theodore Roosevelt helped lay the first cornerstone, and President George H.W. Bush oversaw the laying of the final stone atop the towers.

Even without religious significance, there's something exciting about these monstrous figures, whether they are functioning gargoyles or merely decorative grotesques or chimeras. They continued to be used decoratively on buildings in the 19th century and even early 20th-century high-rises. They are very expensive to make or repair, as the continuous water flow can make them structurally unstable, and they have even been known to fall due to deterioration from weathering. Of course, they make no sense on tall glass buildings or buildings of contemporary design.

Allow me to finish with a mansion in New York where the decorative “gargoyles” failed in keeping evil away … the one that belonged to Jeffrey Epstein!

A Major Art Loan Questioned

A few years ago, I wrote a Missive on a newly discovered fragment of the Bayeux Tapestry, the 230-foot embroidery illustrating the Battle of Hastings of 1066 when William the Conqueror defeated Harold Godwinson to become the first Norman King of England.

https://www.geraldstiebel.com/2025/04/will-bayeux-tapestry-get-longer.html

There have been discussions since 1953 about lending this important work of art from its museum home in Bayeux, Normandy, for an exhibition in England, where it was created. President Emmanuel Macron announced the latest plan in 2018 since the Bayeux Museum required renovations.

According to the Smithsonian Magazine, in 2022 the cultural authorities of Normandy commissioned three scholars to study the feasibility of moving the tapestry. While the scholars remain unnamed and their report kept confidential, it was declared that the report “does not state that this tapestry is untransportable”! Six months ago, it was announced as a fait accompli that the British Museum would have the exhibition of the century with the tapestry on view for 10 months.

How do you value an irreplaceable work of art that is an important part of the history of two countries? It was decided that eight hundred million pounds or 1.1 billion dollars would be covered by England’s Government Indemnity Scheme, i.e., the British Treasury, and would be sufficient. I am sure that the highest recorded sale of a work of art, Leonardo’s “Salvator Mundi”, sold for over $450 million dollars, came into the calculation. To whom would it be paid in the event, and what would be done with the money then? Now that is an interesting hypothetical.

Still, there is no way of ensuring the priceless adequately. I can imagine that some would say why bother insuring it at all? One consideration is that when you put a high monetary value on anything, more thought and care are taken with that object. Of course, it would be a political disaster to tell the public it had no value.

The issue comes down to why take the risk of lending it? Those defending the decision say it had to be moved in any case for the construction of a new state-of-the-art installation in Normandy, and it is already in storage, so why not put it on view where it would gain incredible publicity not only for the British Museum but more importantly for the work of art itself? When it came back home, it would be sure to bring many more visitors to the new Bayeux Museum.

The best way to bring wide attention to a matter is if a celebrity, not a scholar or politician, is willing to raise their voice in support or opposition to an idea. In this case, the pre-eminent British artist, David Hockney, has done so. He wrote an op-ed in The Independent, UK, stating his opposition to moving the tapestry. Hockney now lives in Normandy and has visited the Bayeux Tapestry more than 20 times in the last 3 years. He has declared it “madness” to have it travel.

Hockney suggests that a replica would tell the story just as well. Rather than my quoting what he wrote, I will let you read it for yourselves. There is also an amusing video by President Macron regarding the loan. 

https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/art/features/bayeux-tapestry-david-hockney-british-museum-b2899775.html

I am always of two minds regarding loans. I was not happy when the Metropolitan Museum did not lend its two Vermeers to the Vermeer exhibition three years ago due to the donor’s stipulation. It would have put all the known Vermeers together to get a complete view of his work. On the other hand, what if there had been a fire at the Rijksmuseum and the totality of the artist’s work were lost?

I write my Missives for a number of reasons, but most importantly to my mind, is to get my readers to think about an issue in a new way… or just to think about the issue in the first place. So, make up your own mind about this loan, though you probably won’t be able to change anything more than David Hockney can.

Fame’s Uncertain Path

Following up on "Artistic Self-Promotion," what about those artists who were dissed in their own time, only to find appreciation and fame after they were no longer there to enjoy it? Then there were famous and respected artists, who made little money and may have been known only locally when they were alive. They became lost to history, only to be rediscovered centuries later.

The one always mentioned first is Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890). He was clearly unstable from the beginning. In his few productive years, however, he produced over 850 paintings. He sold only one painting during his lifetime at a fair in Brussels in 1890: "The Red Vineyard" (1888), now in the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow. That same year, he committed suicide at the age of 37.

Artemisia Gentileschi (1593-1654), the daughter of Orazio Gentileschi (1563-1639), was already producing paintings of interest by the age of 15. Her "Susanna and the Elders," painted at the age of 17, is today in the Schönborn Collection, Pommersfelden, Germany. She even became a court painter under the patronage of the Medici. Shortly after her death, however, her reputation suffered from attributions of her work to her father—probably, partly because that is where her inspiration came from, but even more from misogyny and the belief that a woman could not equal a man's achievements. I can remember that in the middle of the last century, I began to hear more and more about her, mostly due to feminist art historians, but backed by evidence of the great paintings that Artemisia actually produced.

Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) had moderate success and indeed respect locally in Delft during his lifetime. He also had a few wealthy patrons. He made his living, however, as an art dealer. When he died suddenly, he left his family in debt. It did not help that while van Gogh produced arguably more than 850 paintings in his brief career, Vermeer produced only around 35 in his entire lifetime. Acknowledgment of him as a great artist had to wait until the mid-19th century.

Paul Cézanne (1839-1906), called today "The Father of Modern Art," was initially ridiculed and rejected from the Salon, with critics calling his work ugly. Change is always rejected at first. I believe that people enjoy their comfort zone and don't want it disturbed. They are also scared of what the repercussions might be—but that is a subject for another time. Cézanne represented the link between Impressionism and what we call modern art. He became a great influence on Braque and Picasso in their development of the Cubist movement. In the same period, Claude Monet (1840-1926) struggled with critics, who thought his impressionist paintings were strange and unfinished. Did it represent progress or just change?

I will end this missive with a favorite artist of mine, Salvador Dalí (1904-1989). A contemporary of Picasso, Pollock, and Mondrian, he is known best as the iconic figure of Surrealism. The movement, however, was started by the writer, poet, and theorist André Breton. Dalí joined the group in 1929 only to be thrown out by Breton in 1939. According to an Art Net article, Breton found him “too flamboyant, too political, and too fond of money”!

I think this brings my missives of the last two weeks full circle. Dalí is an artist who was thrown out of the very movement with which he is so identified because of his self-promotion.

Artistic Self-Promotion

People say a lot of things about the art world without really thinking them through. You've heard them: "My kid could do that" about abstract expressionism. "Art dealers only care about money." "Museums are above all that—they're educational institutions, not businesses." However, without the economic relationship between art and money, artists would starve, dealers and auction houses wouldn't exist. Museums would have to close their doors.

Nobody knows exactly how many artists worked in the 17th century in Europe, though I've seen estimates ranging from 20,000 to 50,000. Today there are probably 500 times that many. These numbers are rough at best, but here's one that caught my attention: apparently only 10,000 individual artists are represented in museums worldwide. That seems low to me ... add a zero or two and it's still nowhere near all the people who call themselves professional artists.

So why are certain artists collected by museums and not others? Yes, galleries promote specific artists ... that's not untrue. But how were those artists chosen in the first place? And why did institutions acquire their work after sifting through all those thousands of other artists?

I'd argue that self-promotion by the artists themselves plays a huge role, and this isn't some new concept. From the Renaissance on, European artists put their own faces in paintings and sculptures to get noticed. Even in commissioned works, an artist would sneak his likeness in there to satisfy his ego, or advertise his prowess showing that some important patron thought he was good enough for the commission.

Take Giotto di Bondone (?-1337). He is believed to have painted himself into The Last Judgement fresco (around 1305) in the Scrovegni Chapel in Padua. Sure, the donor Enrico Scrovegni is front and center, kneeling at the bottom. But scholars think Giotto slipped his own face in among the saved souls.

Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528) a painter, draughtsman and engraver, was versatile in his subject matter doing portraits, nature, animals and religious subjects demonstrating his abilities to a wide variety of patrons. He took commissions from royalty, the gentry, as well as the Church. His woodcuts and engravings, that even appeared in book form, won him recognition far and wide. Dürer started early using his own image. Here is a silver-point drawing in the Albertina, Vienna which he produced at the age of 13!

And then there's Rembrandt (1606-1669), who wasn't subtle about it at all. He depicted himself in drawings, paintings, and etchings 80 times. He documented his entire life—from when he was young and ambitious right through to old age. Talk about advertising your skills by creating your own visual autobiography! This 1633 engraving exists in a number of museum collections and the painting is in The National Gallery, London, one of 3 self-portraits he did the last year of his life.

Andy Warhol (1928-1987) was the master of self-promotion. He's the one who coined "15 minutes of fame." He grabbed every media opportunity, showed up at every important art event, and made sure he was seen everywhere in the art world.

My wife often tells this story: In 1977, as a Met curator, she introduced Dale Chihuly, who's hugely famous today but wasn't yet, to Henry Gelzahler, the head of the Museum’s Department of Twentieth Century Art and a central figure in the contemporary art scene and urged him to acquire examples of Chihuly’s glasswork. Geldzahler acquired two cylinders, which became the first Chihuly works to enter the permanent collection of a major museum. As Chihuly was leaving his office, Geldzahler offered him a piece of advice “Young man, focus more on your work and less on self-promotion.” Geldzahler got that one wrong!

Today, with social media, artists have so many more ways to promote themselves. The tools have changed, but the basic truth hasn't… talent alone has never been enough.

New Year's Resolutions ... Redux

I am taking off one more week, finding this 8-year-old Missive especially appropriate for this new year. If you can imagine a red cap on the character in the second image down, you also have a perfect meme…

**********

We have all made New Year’s Resolutions at one time or another, and this is a subject that hits the news every year at this time.  So what is a New Year’s Resolution?

Our tradition of resolving to change undesired behavior or accomplish a personal goal is probably directly attributable to ancient religions, where people made promises to their gods. I remember a time in my life when every morning on my way to school, I would resolve not to go to the nearby Cake Masters Bakery to buy a slice of chocolate layer cake.  I broke that resolution several times a week!  So much for my willpower!

What started me thinking about this subject was an article in our local free paper, The Santa Fe Reporter, whose front cover banner said, “2018 Resolutions”.  After last week’s Missive titled “Charities” for Christmas, “Resolutions” seemed perfect for January 1. The Reporter article, however, was mainly asking known personages in Santa Fe and nationally for their predictions and aspirations. I cannot resist repeating the one that might be closest to my way of thinking after this most depressing year: Kenneth Baumann, a teacher in Santa Fe, said,  “I’d like to see less fascism, more decentralized institutions.  Less authoritarian impulses, less violent persecution of minorities.”

I did, however, want to look up some of the most popular resolutions online and found that every article had a different slant.  Being more careful with money or getting out of debt were, of course, near the top of any list. Also, there was losing weight, eating healthier, getting in better shape (ie, going to the gym), and drinking less alcohol, which could all be considered the same resolution. The one that amused me was spending less time on Social Media: it sounds so new, how is it already a bad habit you want to get over!  Here is a cartoon you will relate to if you have ever thought, “I must listen to my mother more”.

If people have made resolutions for thousands and thousands of years, why have they found them so difficult to keep?  For one thing, even if you continue to work on a resolution for a long period of time, eventually you stop and go back to your old ways.  I know that half a century ago, I lived in London for 9 months and walked everywhere, often 9 miles in a day, and lost 45 lbs.  I actually went to a Savile Row tailor to have my clothes taken in because it was cheaper than buying all new suits.  When I was back in New York and still walked and pedaled a lot, it was never the same. After some time, I gained much of the weight back.  If your patience and stamina don’t pay off sooner or later, you say “What’s the use?"

I found this article from Psychology Today titled, “Why People Can’t Keep Their New Year’s Resolutions”. It looks at what researchers and psychologists have to say.  Articles from various publications are quoted with links as references. It is an interesting method of internet footnoting! The article actually explains my weight problem as my having been discouraged after really trying, but also that resolutions require a “rewiring of the brain,” which is not easy to do on your own.

Artist Cards From Holidays Past ... Redux

Authors' note: I have decided to take a break for the next week or two and asked my Associate, Vince Hickman, who has published my Missives since the beginning, to pick which he thought might be best for the season ...

*originally published Dec 2014

The History Museum in Santa Fe had the wonderful idea to mount a small Christmas card show for this holiday season; “Gustave Baumann and Friends; Artist Cards from Holidays Past” curated by Tom Leech, director of the Palace Press, and guest curator Jean Moss.  Baumann was a German-born artist who came to Santa Fe in 1918.  He was already well known in the U.S. as a print maker when he came here.  The wide distribution of prints throughout time has spread images across time and nations.  So it was with Baumann’s prints of New Mexico making this part of the world better known throughout the states and internationally.

Ann Baumann, Gustave and Jane’s daughter, left to the Fray Angelico Chavez History Library in Santa Fe a collection of original cards that her parents had received and others that they had sent.  There are about 400 cards in the collection and one quarter of them have been chosen for this exhibition.  Here is a photo of Jane and Gustave Baumann with their daughter Ann in 1954 courtesy of the Ann Baumann Trust.

The tradition of Christmas cards started in the times of Charles Dickens and soon were printed en masse by commercial houses.  If you have ever sent out Christmas cards you know it can be an expensive endeavor and artists usually do not have that kind of money to spend frivolously.  Many of them therefore made and printed their own.

The cards in this show are cleverly divided into categories such as, Angels and Madonnas, Santa and the Mailman, and Greeting Irreverent and Belated plus many others.  Of course, since the period of 1918 to 1971 when Baumann died included the Great Depression there is a selection from that time as well.

As said, the show is quite small and in a long narrow gallery but it is dense with gems.  It is a bit like one of those racks of sayings you might find at the Five and Dime and can’t tear yourself away from.  One is continuously surprised by the humor and insights on the cards.

In 1929 the Baumanns received a very appropriate and simple Christmas card from their friends Mary Lou and Oswald Cooper, it says, “We view with frugal disregard; The customary Christmas Fuss; You may have heard that times are hard- This card is all you’ll get from us”. 

The label for the card of mother and child says “Jenny Owens, age 17, linocut, date unknown.  I had a dyslexic moment and read instead of undated, updated, which I thought appropriate for this particular Holy Family. 

Playing on the fact that there is too little rain in New Mexico and water is a continuous source of anguish one of the Baumann greetings says, “The Baumanns send you their best umbrella: Just in case it decides to rain in 1955”.  The printing process was woodcut and marble papered collage and came from the collection of David Carter and Geneva Austin. 

In 1956 the Baumanns came up with a theme that I would love to appropriate considering our interest in the Hopi tribal culture.  It says, “The Hopi are a Peaceful People, Here’s to a Hopi Year for all of us”.

The exhibition also includes audio of the family’s reminiscences and all in all opens a time capsule into the life of an artist, family and friends.