(SEE READERS’ COMMENTS, BELOW)
Tom Sokolowski, director of the Andy Warhol Museum, Pittsburgh, responds to Warhol Museum’s Soda Pop Joins “World’s Largest Collection of Coke Memorabilia”:
I read with some interest your comments about the loan of a number of the Warhol Museum’s art and archival materials to a temporary exhibition to The World of Coke as part the opening celebrations of that new institution. We agreed to do so once we had ascertained that the appropriate facilities conditions would be maintained, as we do for ANY loan request that we receive. Further, just as we do in the Pittsburgh facility itself, we are very interested in the juxtaposition of Warhol artwork within the context in which it was conceived and created.
If our institution were to base our loan policy only upon total agreement with the curatorial imperative of the borrowing venue, we would perhaps never lend anything. As long as the premise of said exhibition is in line with the general Warhol philosophy, we will consider a loan. Anyone who has visited our museum knows that archival material and memorabilia hold a very serious place within our own institution, as they did in Warhol’s own life and art.
Further still, to clarify, the loan consists of several paintings, several drawings, with preponderance of archival material drawn from our archives, especially selected contents from Warhol’s large, lesser-known artwork, “Time Capsules.” This archival material includes a letter from the Coca-Cola Company in the early ’60s, threatening legal action due to the artist’s use of the company’s copyright image.
The loan fees levied for this particular loan are in line with our standard fee structures for all out-going loans. As to your quips about our fraternization with a corporate museum, I would remind you that the Campbell Soup Company traveled its collection of soup tureens to a number of serious museums for 25 years.
I think that before you completely dismiss this situation, it would be worth thinking about the notion that many visitors to The World of Coke might never be or become visitors to traditional art museums and, hence, if this is the sole way that they might view a Warhol art work, I think it is a worthy endeavor.
If Andy Warhol saw fit to design department store windows, show his artwork in bookshops, and make television commercials, then I think our decision to lend a few items to The World of Coke is not so out of line. I think that to imagine that his work should only to presented in highly specialized contemporary galleries or on the walls of genteel Park Avenue salons is well out of line with Andy’s own intentions as well as the intentions of any serious lover of art who wishes to be evangelical about that which he or she loves.
And, if I may be so bold, one might say that a culture blog such as yours could be seen as cheesy when compared to the pages of The New York Times or Artforum. I do not, but would hope that you would have the same equanimity when cultural institutions stretch the traditional boundaries.
Would any CultureGrrl readers care to weigh in and receive their 15 seconds of fame?
UPDATE: Many readers rose to this occasion, offering very thoughtful comments (all agreeing with Sokolowski and disagreeing with me). I really DO have a brilliant audience! I should just let all of you talk amongst yourselves. I knew mine was a provocative view, especially because Andy was Andy.
But will no one chivalrously defend the precarious position of CultureGrrl? Does everyone out there find it appropriate for museum collections to be exploited by what is essentially one big corporate advertisement (with a hefty admission fee, to boot)?
—David Ross, chairman of the curatorial committees of the Artist Pension Trust and former museum director, says:
Sorry Lee, you are way wrong on this one. The Warhol Museum is not just any museum, it is the WARHOL Museum, and has done its best to be both scholarly, serious, and remain open to what might loosely be called “Andy’s Way” of doing things. This has kept the Warhol Museum a lively place, and a welcome partner to many museums (and other exhibiting entities). Your rejection of “corporate” museums strikes me as snobbish and a bit stiff. I know you don’t always take yourself too seriously, and you know how to lighten up. This is an instance where you should have seen the loan for what it is, and not made such a big deal out of it.
[CultureGrrl replies: I’ve been to the Warhol Museum and agree with all your praise of it (and I’m glad you gave me occasion to say that). I just disagree with depositing the bottles with Coke. I’ll plead guilty to “snobbish,” when it comes to certain standards.
—Steven Hanks says:
Andy said Coke was one of the most democratic things in the world: No matter how much or how little money you have, you get the same Coke as anyone else. I think he’d be delighted to have his work there.
—Terry Pitts, executive director, Cedar Rapids Museum of Art, Iowa, says:
I think Tom Sokolowski is right to loan Warhol’s work to the World of Coca Cola Museum. That’s about as logical an Andy move as I can imagine. We learn about art by putting it in different contexts, just as the art itself changes and informs every context in which it is placed. That’s one way that works of art stay alive.
But is there perhaps a double standard here? You rail against the corporate world of Coca Cola while you defend the right of Albert Barnes (whose money came from his international pharmacology and medical supply corporation) to imprison his art collection in perpetuity? It strikes me as a completely corporate and capitalistic act to assemble a great (if oddly mixed) art collection and then try to maintain total control over it from the grave. It seems to me that Albert Barnes’s “gift” to the world was to perpetuate himself rather than his art collection.
Given the two options, I’d much rather have the Warhol Museum continue to breathe new life into Warhol’s work through intellectually adventurous loans than permit another Albert Barnes to develop another art mausoleum.
—Carrie Przybilla, former curator of contemporary art at the High Museum says:
As an Atlanta resident, I’m actually happy that the so-called museum of Coca-Cola will have some art in it for Atlanta residents to see, especially since the other art museums in town aren’t likely to bring much Warhol here any time soon.
I know, because I was a curator of contemporary art at the High Museum from the fall of 1988 until the fall of 2004. A year or two before I left the High, I had proposed organizing a show of soda-pop Pop. Marisol, Warhol, Oldenburg, and Wesselmann all made works that featured Coke and/or 7-Up, and as the world headquarters for Coke, this would be a good place to think about the place of fizzy sugar-water in our culture, its role in the hegemony of U.S. culture, and the power of an object–in this case, the well-known curves of a Coke bottle. The idea was nixed.
I’ve avoided the World of Coca-Cola until now, but I guess I’m going to have to grit my teeth and go so I can see the Warhols. I’ve been dying for a fix. The High has only Warhol prints, which it rarely shows, so this is a rare opportunity for Atlanta. And given the context in which the work is showing, I’ve got to believe that Andy would have loved it.
—Baxter Jones, at Atlanta lawyer and arts supporter, says:
I’d like to teach the world to….appreciate art. But first we have to get them inside a museum. Any museum. The World of Coke is analogous to a “factory tour” attraction—whether it’s a chocolate factory, a winery, or a TV studio, people are curious to see these places. Many of them are not regular art museum visitors. Coke, as an American icon, has been of interest to artists ranging from Norman Rockwell to Howard Finster. Warhol would love seeing his work in such a setting.
At last, someone defends me:
—Charles Hankin, a Philadelphia artist, says:
What Warhol would want for his art misses the point CultureGrrl makes. Art should not be exhibited in a common manner for rent. Art should be free from the economic greed of the common society. The only reason for moving the Barnes Collection is to profit from the collection. This motive seems to be the same for renting the Warhol art to Coke. Art museums should resist the temptation to develop their institutions from the wealth generated by the fame of their art but rather offer the public a secure place to visit those masterworks.
That is just what Dr. Barnes wanted: a safe place to learn about a special kind of art, not a public bazaar where art is treated like a sideshow attraction. CultureGrrl is right to object to the wholesale diminution of the value of fine art that these acts bring forth!