Buffalo Rising Online

take that Scottsdale.

Steel, important pre-20th century pieces were sold. Although the recent selloff was a media spectacle, most deaccessioning at museums throughout the country goes on secretly, so the public doesn't really know what gets sold off on a routine basis. (Read Thomas Hoving's 'Making the Mummies Dance: Inside the Metropolitan Museum of Art' as one example of the shenanigans that go on).

This article and the Albright website don't provide enough detail regarding the breadth and quality of this largest single gift to make any judgements. Hopefully, though, this acquisition will be an important addition to the museum's modern holdings.

One challenge is sure, though: much modern art, especially conceptual art, requires detailed contextual interpretation by curators, without it resulting in platitudes, to make the art accessible to the viewer. I don't think the Albright has yet achieved that goal.

Steel, you're referring to 'Artemis and the Stag'. It may be a fake because the piece is unusual in its perfection. I'll be interested to read about the outcome.

Regarding the remaining pieces, the fact that they fetched handsome prices, and were covered extensively by the art world, confirm that the art community saw the importance of those works. I don't know your perspective about art so, perhaps, we shouldn't discuss antiquities. However, it was not so many years ago that the Albright sold a landmark deKooning painting. (It may have gone to MOMA, but I'm not sure.) That ain't an antiquity.

Biniszkiewicz, one of the difficulties with 'Artemis and the Stag' is that its provenance cannot be clearly traced, so that's one of the elements that adds to the mystery as to whether it's a fake. The Getty pieces are, for the most part, still on display at its two museums; but, there is now a disclaimer on each piece stating that it is on loan from the Italian government.

I'm glad that the Albright is buying new pieces, too, and I hope the collection mentioned in this article is of high quality. The problem I see is whether Buffalo's citizens -- a fairly conservative lot when it comes to art appreciation -- will embrace new art forms that can be more difficult to grasp.

Of course, the major problem with the Albright is that its display space is insufficient. I've said previously on BRO that BECHS should permit the Albright to acquire their building. It's a wild suggestion, I know. If that were not possible, I think the Albright should build a larger structure that can encompass their existing original structure within it. The Augustus Saint-Gaudens caryatids on the building exterior are impossible to appreciate up close now and a building-within-building would allow the original building to be used like a stage set. A new exterior shell would also send a message that the Albright has a renewed collecting philosophy.

Eliz, I'd be interested to read your perspective. Care to elaborate?

Perry, actually some museums, including the Brooklyn Museum and Baltimore Museum of Art, do just that.

Eliz, I agree that my idea for expansion is bold -- hey, I can dream -- and you're correct that it would cause an uproar. I don't know that we disagree on other points. Buffalo is quite conservative in its art appreciation. Even the relatively few comments on BRO about art, in general, is an indication of the disconnect between the community and the gallery (unless the show is a crowd-pleasing blockbuster). I don't know that I have the answer, so what would you do to close the gap between venue and audience?

Eliz, I too, enjoy the mixing of art to present context and I know it has done wonders at the Baltimore Museum and Brooklyn Museum. (Years ago, I could walk through the Brooklyn Museum pretty much alone. Now, when I visit, there are good crowds.)

I wish more people would come out of the shadows and participate in this 'silliness' because I get discouraged at the simple comments regarding blue squares and yellow squares. I'm glad you took the time to comment. I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.

EricOak, I was waiting for you to chime in and I'm glad you did. My comment regarding Buffalo having a conservative taste in art is not directed at the museum staff past or present, but the community, in general. I think Buffalonians generally warm up to a skilled realistic landscape painting but not so much a Diebenkorn landscape.

When I'm in town, I visit the gallery during uneventful weekday afternoons, so I was glad Eliza pointed out her perspective of the events that encourage folks to experience art in new ways. If the gallery is helping people make a connection with art, I don't care how they do it. As I mentioned previously, the Brooklyn Museum was a staid entity with a glorious collection; but, attendance was anemic. Things changed when events similar to those of the Albright were initiated. Attendance there is good and I see more families with children engaged with the collections there on each of my visits.

I know you're questioning the scholarship behind the gimmicks and I can't speak to that. I've told you that my visits in the past few years haven't been as fulfilling as previous visits, so I'm concerned, too. I do think a major problem is the lack of gallery space to adequately present the collection and exhibitions with equal strength. Without true art patrons that can bankroll acquisitions and the next expansion of the gallery itself, what choices does the Albright have? If I remember correctly, the deKooning that was sold off years ago funded an HVAC system.

I'm glad you commented, EricOak, and I hope others with more than a one-sentence flippant view can offer their opinions, too. The Albright is one of my favorite places in the world and I'm eager to read what others think.

EricOak, I agree that one spectacular design will aid the Albright. (The Burchfield-Penney structure is dull and I'm disappointed by the interior layout, too, but at least it's not offensive.) While my visits to the Albright have been lacking, I can't pass judgement on their exhibitions and new collections until I see a larger building that allows real curatorial creativity.

Regarding the taste in art, Mapplethorpe was attacked for being obscene and Serrano for being vulgar. It was all silly, of course. The public today may have a higher threshold of what offends them, so tolerance may be confused with sympathy.

I appreciated Eliz's comments and I hope that the Albright is attracting a new audience.

On a curious note, I remember that Mr. Grachos mentioned some time ago that the Buffalo Museum of Science has a larger collection of certain antiquities than the Albright ever did. I wonder what will happen with those pieces.

It was actually all of the controversy over the deaccessioning that led me to purchase a membership to the AKAG in support. I have absolutely no problem with the gallery strategically selling off pieces in order to further its core mission. I would far rather have a world-class contemporary art museum (which is what the AKAG is) than a half-assed mediocre small-town museum that weakly covers all periods. And yes, the AKAG has just about always been a modern and contemporary art gallery (and this has pretty much always caused controversy in the community too).

EricOak writes: "That annoying phrase was scalpeled out so that the board could approve a sale that was unprecedented in the country, not just in Buffalo." What was truly unprecedented about it was that they quadrupled their acquisitions endowment! For that, I can live without Artemis & the Stag (and it's not like NYC is that far away if I can't).

Put it this way: if the Rodin Museum had, tucked away in storage, a masterwork painting by Monet, shouldn't they sell it to bring in money for more Rodin pieces/molds/notebooks/etc.?

JSmith, I agree with you that the Albright is facing an economic reality and has to trade off works, but the public should understand that museums stray from their missions regularly. (I mentioned above that the Albright previously sold an important deKooning painting. It would be a foundation of any modern art collection.) Not all items deaccessioned receive media attention. Many pieces get sold quietly and the public never knows about them.

As a member of the Albright, what draws you to the museum? Do you find the Albright a better museum now? If so, can you give an impression of your experience(s)? What does a world-class contemporary art museum mean to you? I'm curious and glad you ventured to comment in the first place.

PaulBuffalo, I don't really remember enough about the gallery from when I was a kid to make a good comparison, but I have really enjoyed the visits I have made in the last couple of years. I am not a scholar of modern art by any means, so I don't really have preconceived notions about what makes up "good" modern art. EricOak referred to "easily digested stunts" - I'm not sure that would cross my mind as a viewer.

So I'm not a very sophisticated viewer, but I enjoy the fact that the art at the Albright-Knox challenges me. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't - but even the pieces that don't particularly interest me often challenge me to think about why I don't like them. For example, I'm not a big fan of big monochromatic squares, but even those displays can be thought-provoking as to what constitutes "art". (And there are some big squares that I do like from a purely aesthetic angle too.)

I like that the AK has been doing this "remix the collection" thing - it really keeps things fresh, and it has made me look at a few pieces familiar from my youth in a totally new light. The audio tour wands are a great improvement. And I've really enjoyed some of the recent temporary exhibitions. My general gut feeling is that the AK is a much more dynamic and energetic place than it was 15 years ago. I like the direction it seems to be moving towards.

I've actually never been to the MoMA (just the Met) so I don't know how the AK compares to the recognized leader, but I do know that every time I visit the AK I find it thought-provoking and very mentally stimulating. And that's pretty much what I seek in a museum like this one.

JSmith, thanks for following up. I like moving the collection around, too, especially for sculptures that can be seen in a new setting and in different lighting.

The size of the Albright-Knox collection is smaller than MOMA's 150,000-piece collection. Years ago, I understood that the AK collection comprised 12,000-14,000 pieces, but I've read in the last few years that the collection may be as few as 6,000 pieces. The Museum of Contemporary Art here in Los Angeles has 5,000 pieces and is growing quickly. I think the quality of the collection is more important than the number of works, but it's difficult to get a sense of the overall quality of the AK collection because so little of it is on display. I look forward to the day when I can walk through a much larger AK and get a better sense of its breadth.

You mentioned the Metropolitan Museum, but Buffalo is perfectly located to access other great museums within shorter driving distances: The Memorial Art Galery, Rochester; The Everson Art Museum, Syracuse; The Munson-Williams-Proctor Museum of Art, Utica; The Cleveland Museum, Cleveland; The Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo; The Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh; and the Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto.

Thanks for offering your views.