I couldn’t help but share my excitement over this latest development in my own career. I presented a conference paper a few years back (titled Foreign Treasures: Elizabeth Ginno’s Costume Etchings at the 1940 Exposition on Treasure Island) and the organizers decided to seek out a publisher and create an anthology. I am happy to report, that this anthology will be released today (May 30) by Mellen Press:
It has already been awarded the Adele Mellen Prize for Distinguished Contribution to Scholarship and been blurbed by several people. Details are available from the Mellen Press.
Thanks for checking it out!
If you are interested in obtaining a deeply discounted copy of the book – please drop a note in the comments section.
Below are my reviews of the final films I showed in class this semester. I really think it was a successful run of films, and I am glad I skipped the ones I did (look back at previous WT posts to see what worked and didn’t work). I would suggest many of these films for your class and/or personal knowlege.
I’m always wanting to know more as well so please send along your thoughts on films to consider for future classes. I think it really makes the classroom a way better place to not hear me go on for hours on end but instead to bring in new voices. Let’s be realistic, many of the textbooks are pretty boring, so the films help. Just don’t turn the lights out all the way or else even the best film cannot discourage the student from catching a nap.
This was a PBS documentary on the pros/cons of Wal-Mart’s business practices. It leaned toward cons, but it really is probably the best I’ve seen at showing both sides of the story. Therefore, it provided great discussion points even though almost all of my students were anti-Wal-Mart. I split it into two sections. The first half of the hour is mostly about history, company development, profit, company relationships, marketing, etc. The second half is geared toward globalization, outsourcing, and the import/export issues. It had a nice place to split at about the 20 minute point so it was easy to show in two sessions or if you wanted just show one w/o the other. It really went fabulously with the textbook we’re using as the talking heads used many of our vocab words and concepts almost verbatim. This one is easy to watch, makes a lot of sense, and is great at textbook reinforcement. it’s neither dumb, nor over anyone’s head.
Toms Shoes-For Tomorrow
This is a promotional film sent to me by the people at Toms Shoes when I mentioned them on WT in the past. It is available through other sources through and often shows on campuses as part of their promotional campaign. It’s about 30 minutes which is perfect for watching then discussion. The students loved it and went on to apply for internships, and have ongoing conversations with me about it via email and otherwise after the fact. It really touched and moved them. If you’re unfamiliar, Toms makes simple walking shoes that are reasonably priced and donates a pair for every pair they sell. I showed it to discuss alternate business models to the strictly for-profit standard model everyone does (although Toms is a for-profit co. but then does a lot with donations). I also showed it to discuss marketing and merchandising as they don’t have many stores and function mostly online and through word of mouth. The students were a little confused about why I showed it, but once I was able to bring in class concepts it made more sense, and they didn’t care as they really enjoyed it. I could have done it back in the soc-psych/culture chapters, but to me it fit better when we were studying business models and merchandising.
A while back I posted about the idea of WT readers sharing abstracts or ideas they are working on. The notion was that those concepts that had been rejected from conferences or journals, or are still in development could possibly benefit from group discussion as a route to improvement.
I’d like WT to sometimes serve as a community discussion, and yeah I know, everyone is afraid of people taking their ideas, blah blah, but I think we need a little leap of faith here that we’re not all crooks and hacks and instead try to help one another rather that keep everything so close to the chest. Perhaps then some of the material that is a little ground breaking, unusual, off the beaten path, etc. can get into the public sphere and get heard or published, rather than the same old rhetoric that I feel like I’ve read a thousand times.
So, I invite you to use the comments space of this post to include your ideas/abstracts and then comment on one anothers’. I got no response last time, but readership is up so I thought I’d give it another go.
I’m not saying any of us are experts editors, or have the biggest publishing CV’s in town, but I am saying that this could be a good place to have some discussions and help one another out. Especially with ideas that aren’t cut from the usual cloth. I’ve been a part of writing groups in the past and unfortunately my time was so limited that I could not devote to them. But, I think those are a good idea as well and not only would I like to start working in that direction again but perhaps if this takes off we can start a WT writing group. Let’s see if anyone posts a comment first though.
This week the Costume Society of America’s National Symposium is taking place in Tempe and Phoenix, AZ. I have been preparing a paper for presentation for the last six months, which I will present on Friday, May 29. Here’s the abstract for my paper, feel free to come have a listen!
Madame J. Baer and her Gowns: A Study in San Francisco High Society
Hermine Taubles Baer (Mrs. Joseph Baer) n.d. (de Young Museum)
Mrs. Hermine Taubles Baer (1854-1928)was a Jewish dressmaker who catered to the upper echelons of San Francisco’s high society both before and after the great Earthquake of 1906. An immigrant, she was born in Prague and moved to San Francisco in the 1870s with her German husband Joseph Baer. She trained for her career in San Francisco department stores, before starting her own label. Based on extant garments, patent and other primary source research, as well as interviews with surviving family members, this paper aims to present a biography and critical assessment of Madame J. Baer, with an eye to her inspirations, design aesthetic and clientele. Over the course of her career she often traveled abroad to view and design based on Parisian trends. Her status as an immigrant allowed her to present a unique perspective to San Francisco fashionable society.
This is a little-studied time period in terms of San Francisco’s fashion history, and no one has previously undertaken research of this particular designer. Images of extant garments from the de Young Museum in San Francisco and the Costume Institute of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York will be utilized for this presentation. At this time seven garments are known to exist, including two wedding gowns. Patent illustrations and photographs will also be included in this Powerpoint presentation.
Anna Wintour’s involvement with the Metropolitan Museum is reestablished at this time every year with the Met’s renowned Costume Institute gala, and we are again bombarded with pictures of A-list celebrities, socialites and models attending the lush affair. Whether attendees are portrayed in adoring light or to ridicule their outrageous outfits, the glut of coverage across paper publications and the internet succeeds in generating widespread coverage and awareness of the event, invaluable marketing for both the Met and the gala’s loud sponsor, Vogue. These sorts of relationships are so ingrained in our capitalist system that many don’t give Anna Wintour’s involvement in this non-profit fundraiser a second thought, but for me, it highlights the uneasy balance between cultural institutions and their sponsors. Especially in times of economic hardship, relationships between art centers and their patrons are ever more precarious and therefore precious. Among museums the Met retains one of the most prestigious reputations in the world. But the news that is perhaps the most widely disseminated about the Met every year is not about its new acquisitions, nor its beautiful newly renovated American wing, but the Costume Institute gala, arguably the most hotly anticipated social event — to say nothing of fundraising events — of the year.
The 700 invitations are coveted by high society and pop culture icons alike, and the photos are disseminated equally by pop culture websites, blogs, and newspapers. I freely admit that I comb the internet for photos of the chic attendees — more than other galas or award ceremonies even — as there is always a fashion theme relating to the spring costume exhibit that is supposedly being promoted by the event, which I think prompts people to be even more outlandish in their sartorial selections than they might otherwise be, glamorous lives notwithstanding. This year’s “Models as Muse” was a bit weak in terms of gala inspiration (it resulted in many haute micro-mini skirt ensembles), but it did succeed in attracting celebrities who may or may not actually be personally invested in the museum’s mission (specifically the “advance knowledge of works” “in accordance with the highest professional standards”), but whose presence attracts the photographers nonetheless.
Helena Christensen at the Met Costume gala, 2009, shilling for Vogue
Michael Gross concentrates on the questionable relationship between the Met and Vogue in his newly released book “Rogue’s Gallery: The Secret History of the Moguls and the Money that Made the Metropolitan Museum.” In it, he blames the Met’s collaboration first with Diana Vreeland and then with Anna Wintour to co-host the Costume Institute fundraiser, which, he claims, has been twisted into a publicity platform for Vogue and Wintour’s personal vendettas, displacing the Met’s own mission. “The most highly publicized event at the museum has been turned into a magazine and movie-promotion party, where Anna sells herself and movie stars sell their latest projects,” said Gross. “What gets lost in the process is the museum.”
Suspicious as I am of Vogue’s motives (it is clearly in their best interest to invite the beautiful people they’d like to court to be in Vogue’s own pages), I whole heartedly support utilizing an institution’s fashion collection as a revenue generator — which the Costume Institute absolutely is for the Met, raising a significant portion of the museum’s income (the 2008 total of which was $297,790,000). First, as demonstrated by my drive to work on this very blog, I believe there is a wealth of knowledge — social, financial, and political history for starters — to be gleaned from the study of clothes, just waiting to be disseminated in an engaging and articulate manner. I crave museums tackling projects involving costume. Tragically, many institutions small and large (i.e. Merchant House, Brooklyn Museum) have fabulous costume collections that are rarely displayed and even more rarely exhibited in-house due to budget, space, staff, and/or costume history expertise shortages. Second, costume exhibits have been proven to be excellent revenue generators precisely because anything fashion related draws in younger, pop-culture obsessed people who may not otherwise attend museums that have the unfortunate reputation for housing stuffy, inaccessible “high art.” I have no problem whatsoever utilizing fashion exhibitions to tap into this market. Isn’t the goal of museums to market their exhibitions to attract in people, and then actually teach them to look more deeply into a subject they may only have had a superficial understanding of?
The trick is for museums to capitalize on this obsession with glamorous fashion. Obviously, money can and should be raised for the institutions. Museums increasingly struggle for attendees, and in this free market democracy, private investors are relied upon to fund so-called worthy projects more than the government is. With the latest financial crisis, corporate sponsors have become ever more sparse (working for the Development department of a New York museum, I have witnessed this scramble first-hand). In some cases, this has forced museums to hike their admissions (in New York it’s not uncommon for tickets to be $20), which has the unfortunate cyclical consequence of making these exhibitions even less accessible to the general public.
Do these galas confirm the illusion, accurate or not, that fashion is inaccessible to the mainstream public? Or worse yet, that the study and presentation of fashion in an historical context is unimportant, has no bearing on “serious” studies, offers no insight into history, and has no greater implication on or by current events? My fear with the Met Costume Institute gala is that Vogue’s self-promotion cannibalizes what could and should be an opportunity to present fashion as an incredible marker of human civilization that varies according to technological breakthroughs in materials, social morays, etc. I’m doubtful these parties accomplish this. And this is due, in part, to the accompanying spring Costume Institute exhibitions that are usually of the blockbuster variety with a lot of flash and glitz, but weak-themed and presented with little-to-no background information drawing from a larger historical context, which in my mind must be the crux of any exhibition, costume or otherwise (I am specifically thinking of the popular but superficial “Chanel” and “Superheroes” exhibitions).
As friends know, there are few things that exasperate me more than a flubbed costume exhibit. The wasted opportunity hits me like a brick in the face: that money could be collected, venue provided, fashion displayed, and the opportunity to use costume as a teaching tool notutilized kills me. Partly because I’ll walk away disappointed for the lack of new information I personally collect, but mostly because I’m all too aware of how superfluous and flighty the majority of the population views fashion, and exhibits that don’t treat the subject academically confirm people’s belief that there is nothing but pretty, outrageous, or at best creative works at play and nothing deeper. This is perhaps a I see the Met’s Costume Institute gala as just such a wasted opportunity to broaden the public’s opinion and understanding of fashion’s relevance and importance.
Museums must weigh the pros and cons of the opportunities corporate money affords them — not just more elaborate exhibits but more advertising to reach wider audiences — versus the control corporate sponsors believe they become entitled to exert (i.e. Rudy Giuliani’s attempt to cut the Brooklyn Museum’s public funding when it exhibited controversial material in the “Sensation” exhibit of 1999). The American Museum of Natural History in New York actually had trouble securing sponsorship for their 2005 Darwin exhibition because (exasperating as it is to me), creationism and the so-called “theory” of evolution continues to be incendiary and corporations were afraid of alienating their own potential supporters, political and financial. (Ironically — or not so? — once funding was secured, the Darwin exhibition was extremely popular.) The Museum made up for this difficulty with its latest corporate partnership.
The movie series Night at the Museum prominently incorporated two Smithsonian museums: the first film (2006) took place in the Museum of Natural History, the second (2009) in the Smithsonian Institute, and it actually contains “Smithsonian” in the title: marketing jackpot! This arrangement gave writers license to incorporate actual Smithsonian-owned ephemera (like Amelia Earhart’s plane, Dorothy’s ruby slippers, etc. used to great comic effect) into the plots, and both museums have enjoyed the reciprocal reaction of an immediate and impressive surge in attendance. I see this as a fair exchange. Like the Museum of Natural History, the Met needs to reassert its power and purpose with Vogue (or another sponsor), because the Costume Institute is more than an exclusive venue, and should be leveraged as such.
Much as I’ve concentrated on current corporate collaborations, the alliance of patron and artist (or art institution) is not a new subject, though it’s taken new forms. The Mérode Altarpice is a triptych by the early Netherlandish painter Robert Campin. Though ostensibly a religious painting depicting the popular Annunciation, the commissioning family was painted directly into the religious scene (left panel).They also guaranteed their identities by their coat of arms seal in the window, and by the presence of a costume (yay costume historians!) typical of a town messenger from Mechelen, where the family was from.
The Merode Altarpice by Robert Campin, c.1425-1430
As religious paintings waned in popularity, patrons continued to be inserted into works. Fragonard’s “The Swing” (1766) is a delightfully naughty paintingportraying a pink-clad woman (I will refrain from dissecting her ensemble in greater juicy detail, though I’m tempted!) being pushed on a swing by a bishop in the background, while her “hidden” lover in the foreground gazes admiringly up her yawning skirt. John Fleming writes “The identity of the patron is unknown, though he was at one time thought to have been the Baron de Saint-Julien, the Receiver General of the French Clergy, which would have explained the request to include a bishop pushing the swing. This idea as well as that of having himself and his mistress portrayed was evidently dropped by the patron, whoever he may have been.” Fleming points out “the picture was depersonalized and, due to Fragonard’s extremely sensuous imagination, became a universal image of joyous, carefree sexuality,” (my italics) as opposed to a straightforward vanity portrait. Since then, corporate sponsorship has replaced less conspicuous donations as a major funding vehicle for many arts organizations.
"The Swing" by Fragonard, 1766
So collaborations between moneyed patrons and starving artists has not been uncommon historically, but patrons were not advertising themselves — no revenue was expected from the inclusion of their images in commissioned paintings, unlike corporate sponsors today who slap their logos on every visible posterboard. There can be mutually beneficial relationships — partnerships — established between non-profits and corporations (as with Fragonard and his patron), but it’s vital that those non-profits remember that they need not be beggars bending to the whim of their sponsors. Corporations can offer money, but museums offer credibility in public relations and marketing return. Children today may very well associate Exxon Mobile with the funding of public television instead of my own foremost memory, the infamous Exxon oil spill of 1989, and the Altria Group, owner of cigarette giant Philip Morris, is not coincidentally one of the most significant donor to the arts in a transparent but successful attempt to gain positive PR-by-association. Perceived cultural good will is important in any era, but essential in times like these when the financial sector and big business are regarded as especially villainous. I don’t condemn corporate backing; I just want curatorial integrity to remain in tact.
disClosure: A Journal of Social Theory
SUBMISSION DEADLINE: June 15th, 2009
The editorial collective of disClosure seeks submissions that explore the ideologies, politics and
practices of consumption, from identity and culture to food.
Possible topics might include:
Consumerism and Gender
Consuming theory
Consumerism and the Body
Shopping
…and lots more options…
disClosure is a blind refereed journal produced in conjunction with the Committee on Social
Theory at the University of Kentucky. We welcome submissions from all theoretical
perspectives and genres (scholarly articles, interviews, reviews, creative writing, artwork) and
from authors and artists (academically affiliated or not) concerned with social theory.
One of my favorite sources for teaching inspiration is Tina Seelig’s “top ten” list titled “What I Wish I Knew When I Was 20.”Dr. Seelig originally wrote her list of tips for her son when he was graduating from high school, and then she further polished it and refined it for use with her college students.As an instructor, I try to use tips from Dr. Seelig’s list at least once every semester, and especially in time for graduation.
The tips below are useful for students of all ages and stages in life, and are especially helpful in classes with group projects and elements of entrepreneurship.
1) Every problem is an opportunity for a creative solution.
2) The harder you work, the luckier you get.
3) Find the intersection between your interests, your skills, and the market.
4) Try lots of things and keep what works.
5) You don’t have to wait to be anointed.
6) Don’t burn bridges.
7) You can do it all, just not all at the same time.
8 ) It’s the little things that matter most.
9) When you are a team, the key is making everybody else successful.
“Fashion In Bloom”
Indianapolis Museum of Art
April 4, 2009-January 31, 2010
Paul Fashion Arts Gallery
Image credit: Norman Norell for Traina-Norell, American, b. Noblesville, Indiana, 1900-72, evening dress, 1950s, silk taffeta. Gift of Jocelyn S. Schwartzman and Stanley E. Weaver in memory of Norman Norell. 1985.644
Image credit: Bill Blass, American, b. Fort Wayne, Indiana, 1922-2002, dress and coat, 1960s, silk satin (dress), cotton velvet (coat). Gift of Mrs. John E. Miklozek. 80.280ab
This exhibition, drawn entirely from the IMA’s extensive Fashion Arts Collection, brings together 25 examples of fashion that feature flower motifs. For centuries, delicate forms and rich colors of flowers have captivated artists and designers alike. Using roses, poppies, petunias, peonies, chrysanthemums and wildflowers, artists gave life to the simplest of silhouettes. The floral patterns on these garments were executed in a range of techniques including printing, embroidery, beading and brocading.
Among the designers whose work will be exhibited are Norman Norell, Bill Blass, Givenchy, Galanos, Trigère and Callot Soeurs. Fashion in Bloom offers an in-depth look at the major styles of Western fashion, by providing a framework of significant shifts in silhouettes of feminine attire from the late 1700s to 1970s. The exhibition features three 18th Century ensembles, including a rare man’s suit from 1775, along with 19th Century gowns and 20th Century garments.
The recently opened exhibition, Model as Muse (at the Costume Institute of the Metropolitan Museum of Art) is in need of comment from WT. However, given my current over-extended schedule, a more in-depth analysis of the topic will have to wait (I’m planning to post a review of sorts in a month or so). But, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t go to the exhibit and let us know what you think.
If you aren’t able to make it to New York, there are a couple of options available. The PR department at the MET is being rather forward-thinking about their promotion and has put an overview of the gallery up on Youtube. It’s a little hard to see, and no labels are shown, so it’s often hard to know what you’re looking at (or to discern the rhetorical context for the garments). The video that WWD produced is a little better, and has some close-ups – but still not a lot of intellectual content. But, they are better than nothing.
From the MET, CI:
From WWD:
Earlier in the week there were a series of lectures from the Museum available through Youtube on The Model as Muse that I was hoping to watch this past weekend – sadly, it looks as if those have now become unavailable. (Should settings be changed, they were available here). In the meantime, I suppose we’ll have to make do editorially with a New York Magazine Youtube interview and tour with Harold Koda and a (much better I think), interview with co-curator Kohle Yohannan by the Assiciated Press:
New York Magazine:
Associated Press:
I hope to have a more in depth book review for you in the next month or so – once I’ve had a chance to actually read the book! In the meantime, here’s an interesting peice that the Wall Street Journal put out on Saturday: Where Have All the Muses Gone?
I would be interested to know what visitors to the exhibition thought of it, and what readers of WT think of Museums putting out promotional videos to market their exhibits to the public. The Scholarly Kitchen blog recently posted a related post on the use video curators online. Check it out and feel free to leave your responses to these thoughts in the comments section below.
(This is a really good opportunity–I’d think about applying but right now California isn’t in the cards for me…)
Wallis Annenberg Curatorial Fellowship in Costume and Textiles or Modern Art
Due Date: June 1
The Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) announces an international search for candidates for the Wallis Annenberg Curatorial Fellowship. This two-year fellowship will provide curatorial training and support scholarly research in connection with the permanent collection and related projects at LACMA in one of two possible areas: Costume and Textiles or Modern Art.
Striving to combine the strengths of academic art history and the art museum, this Fellowship is designed to attract exceptional emerging scholars to the curatorial field. The Annenberg Curatorial Fellowship supports the highest level of professional development, with opportunities to be fully integrated into all aspects of curatorial work and gain experience in research and cataloguing, education and publications, acquisitions, conservation, public speaking, and fund raising. The Fellow will have the opportunity to work on permanent collection reinstallations or rotations and assist with one or more exhibitions.
A Ph.D. in art history in the last five years before beginning the Fellowship is preferred, and some prior museum experience is extremely helpful. Proficiency in appropriate foreign language(s) is expected. Excellent writing and public speaking skills, together with a strong interest in the acquisition, interpretation, care, and display of works of art are essential, as is the ability to work collaboratively. The goal of this Fellowship is to provide opportunities for talented scholars committed to the museum profession. Graduates of the Fellowship program will be uniquely prepared to participate in curatorial programs internationally.
The annual stipend of $50,000 includes compensation ($36,400), benefits, a travel allowance, and modest funding for relocation.
Applicants must submit a cover letter that addresses interest in the Fellowship, a statement, not to exceed three pages describing the applicant’s research interests, a complete curriculum vitae, copies of 2-3 writing samples (preferably published), and three sealed letters of recommendation, no later than June 1, 2009. All application materials should be combined in one envelope. Hard copies only please, no emails. Only those candidates being interviewed will be contacted. LACMA is an equal opportunity employer.
To Apply:
Human Resources
RE: Wallis Annenberg Curatorial Fellowship
Los Angeles Country Museum of Art
5905 Wilshire Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90036
has recently been released.
