subscribe
back issues
reprints
contact us
Wealth in Perspective
Wealth Management
Thought Leaders
Money and Meaning
Passion Investments
Wealth Management Sourcebook
Multifamily Office 2008
Previous Issues Index
/ Home / Editorial / Thought Leaders / Profiles /
Q&A
Matron of the Arts
03/01/2008

You mention the distinction between a center and a gallery. What is so important about that difference?

A gallery is really what houses art to be seen in exhibition by the public. A center has components. We have three galleries: the Dinner Party Gallery, the Feminist Art Gallery and the Herstory Gallery. We also have artist talks, panel discussions based on The Dinner Party. There are dialogues and discussions: What is feminist art? What is women’s art? The center is about looking at art, feminism, feminist art, women’s art—because there are no answers. The idea is to bring the dialogue out for people to exchange ideas.

Some would argue there is no need to separate feminist art.

There are women artists who consider themselves feminist artists, and it has to do with content. What is feminist art? It is art that has content that has to do with feminist ideals and goals. Certainly feminist art didn’t start before the 1970s. So are there women artists who predate feminist art, as a coined term, whose content of art is feminist? The answer is yes. Do we have a right to take that art and put it into a feminist-art context? That’s what’s being discussed. Georgia O’Keeffe did not consider herself a feminist artist, and she was alive after the feminist-art movement started. Everybody looks at Georgia O’Keeffe and says, "Oh my God, this is a woman’s vocabulary, these are women’s colors, these are women’s images." So is that feminist art? If she didn’t consider herself a feminist artist, she certainly inspired feminist artists. That’s no small thing.

You purchased Hopi and Navajo masks at Sotheby’s in 1991 for repatriation. What inspired you?

The Hopi and Navajo had contacted Sotheby’s and asked it to remove the kachinas from auction. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act had been passed six months earlier, and Sotheby’s correctly said that it was not bound by it because it only binds federally funded institutions. But coming from a family background and education where ethics, morality and integrity were really held high, I felt that it was outrageous that Sotheby’s wouldn’t acknowledge the offense that was being taken and recognize that distinction between art and a spiritual object needed by a living culture. Sotheby’s stood on the premise that [the items were] consigned, and it had to leave them up by law—which really was just a smokescreen, as it turned out, because in the future it would take other things off the block. I did go in to purchase them to return them. I had no idea at the time that there would be this outpouring of gratitude by native and nonnative people.

There is more sensitivity to this issue today; but how much more work is there to do in this area?

Even when I started in the early ’90s and people asked, "How long will repatriation take?" I said, "Forever." Since then, there are a number of things that have happened that have raised the visibility of the issues surrounding spoils of war and the source nations for looting and the sale of art. It was status quo for museums to get their artifacts from source nations. It was the way of the world for certain works of art—for certain areas. I think that’s now being contested. Nazi looting, for example, became an issue, and now there are certain things required by museums.

Provenance has become a huge issue for museums.

Provenance, that is number one. The time is ripe right now in terms of peoples’ sensitivities—not only about legal issues but about moral issues. Look at the agreements that have been negotiated between the Metropolitan, the Getty and the Italian government. On the other hand, there were 16 million works of art stolen by the Nazis during World War II.

As head of the foundation, how do you balance continuing the work that was important to your father and carving out your own areas?

The work for the Arthur M. Sackler Foundation is my work. Of course, it was important to my father. When my father passed away, he was involved in so many things, in so many ways, a lot of it got divided among the children by what ignited our interest. I run the foundation; my siblings are on the board. We’re a private operating foundation, but we think of ourselves as being more of a family foundation.

Is there a challenge in dividing your time or resources?

No, I work very hard. And what it means is, some-times I don’t get up to see my grandchildren as often as I’d like to in Vermont, or sometimes I don’t have a big family dinner on a particular holiday. I am not only a working mother, I am a working grandmother. And I don’t have a wife.

You challenge the idea of patronage, yet you support the arts. What is the distinction?

When people have referred to me as a patron, I say, "I’m not a patron, I’m a matron." You know the old [anti-rape] expression, "Take back the night"? I’m trying to win back the title. If you look it up in the dictionary, "patron" has to do with patronage and "matron" says "old lady." And there we are into our patriarchal vocabulary. So if anything, I’m a matron of the arts.
1 | 2 |
Printer Friendly Version  Email a Friend
 
Get a FREE ISSUE and a FREE GIFT

Simply fill out this form to receive a complimentary issue of Worth and a FREE gift ("The top 25 Questions for Your Private Banker"). If you like the magazine, you’ll pay just $36 for 5 more issues (6 in all). If it’s not for you, you can return your invoice marked "cancel", and owe nothing. The FREE issue and FREE gift are yours to keep.
Name
Address
Canadian orders click here
International orders click here

Unsubscribe from subscription emails click here
 



Family Office Wealth Conference