Hello, hello?? Here we are on our first day of discussion of our SECOND book by Thomas Hoving. He's got a brand new one out, but I'm wondering how you liked THIS one?

It's an usual perspective, I think, to open a book with a death. And I'm kind of curious WHY Rorimer's wife shot Hoving such a strong glance at the funeral? I'm wondering why...

Who knew this profession was so....what's the word, stressful? Maybe there are always a lot of egos involved with art or antiquities, there's something strange about those who specialize in both, I've always thought.

How do you think this one compares to King of the Confessors?

Ginny

This is not a quick "Comic book" series of MUMMY stories, but an In-Depth Safari into the Jungle of "Museumology". I found it truly exciting - cover to cover, an entirely different perspective from the "Cross" book. The emphasis on the death of Rorimer at the start helps Hoving "Tie-Up" his thoughts at the conclusion.

Best

LJ

It is truly a merry-go-round ride, How that man can make things happen! Of course, I defy anyone to stop reading at Chapter 2. I can't tell how this one would strike me if I read it cold, but having gotten used to Hoving, Rorimer, and the Met in King of the Confessors, this one just picks up the story, and the pace, with hardly a seam. This is what it's like to be at the top of the heap, having the knowledge and the power to make split-second decisions involving millions of dollars. Beyond my comprehension, although i do enjoy it vicariously. Bring on the mummies!

The board of Directors and the Search Committee of the Met apparantly operate very much lik University Boards and Committees. Its like picking a new University president. The selection is made "In Camera" but there's a lot of "Pro Forma" publicity to make it all "Look" democratic.

Best

LJ

I totally agree with Jackie, you can't stop reading at two chapters, and I can't stop reading at four!

Let's take the first four, then, for this week and run MOnday to Monday.

Just some random thoughts at first:

I love this book, read it every night before going to sleep. CANNOT reconcile the PHOTOGRAPHS of the people with the people I thought I'd come to know. James Rorimer (always in combat boots?) does NOT have the eye of a shark, now what do you think??

WHY no photo of Ted Rousseau the impossibly good looking? Have a sinking feeling something happens to him.

WHAT about Houghton? Tongue?? What on earth??? My goodness, the high atmosphere of the Board Room, the money, the power, the tongue??

Don't you find Hoving's wife disarming?? "social climbers??"

What do you think of photo # 17?? WHY am I reminded of Carrie Snodgrass in that movie:...ah, what was it with the social climber?

How about Hoving, isn't he something? Talk about "Moving and Shaking" indeed.

A few thoughts to spark discussion in the top, and LET'S go!!

Ginny

It amazes me that Hoving ever made it to the director position. He is apparently a "mover and a shaker" and must have made a few enemies along the way. It is obvious, however, that he was very well prepared in terms of background and had grown up in the art community and had the education.

As is often the case, real life events often far outweigh fiction and I think this book in an excellent example. I can't believe I am finding it so fascinating as I usually wouldn't read a book about an art museum. This is really an interesting story.

Larry

Larry! I'm so glad you're here. Why is it that movers and shakers are unpopular? Sometimes I wonder what popularity has got to do with anything, what good it is? Sometimes Hoving seems to want to be liked by all, and then he'll turn around and do something he knows will not be received well: following his own star. And you can see he WAS a star. Am half afraid for him as I read on. So far, he's not got too many enemies, Robert Kennedy notwithstanding.

LJ: What kind of a medical condition would cause that tongue "thing?"

Jackie: Liked your quote so much I put it up top!

Ginny

That's one for you Ginny. What "Tongue Thing"???. All I can recall is a somewhat misshapen face and an occult treasure that Hoving in his inimitable way of cutting red tape, scraped for a few minutes to prove authenticity.

Hoving turns out to be the "Alexander the Great" of the world of Fine Arts (Save for the Music World). They both were at war perpetually. Both were "Supreme Commanders" but Hoving (Like MacArthur) had a Commander in Chief with which he at least shared power (Hoving's Board of Directors) Alexander, had only his "General Staff" which was clearly subserviant. Had Hoving had that much power he too would probably have conquered the entire known world.

Hoving suffered a bit because "Command is Lonely", but he was not so arrogant or Bull Headed as to require removal (Like MacArthur)

Best

LJ

LJ: When Hoving went to Arthur Houghton's fabulous home and Houghton asked him to become the next director of the museum, Hoving reports that "I felt triumphant and unbeatable. I realized that I wanted to be accepted into the presige and power of the Metropolitan....." then "Houghton strode over to the bar to mix another batch of martinis. He seemed to have been lifted by the exchange. He handed me the glass. Without warning his tongue emerged from his mouth and ever so quickly slid down almost to his chin and then was sucked back into his mouth. I was shocked. He didn't notice the extraordinary tic. I looked at him as evenly as I could as he sipped his drink and gave me a bashful grin."

WHAT?? Is this some medical problem, what??

Ginny

O.K. I assumed that inasmuch as it was not repetitive, but a single action following on the heels of a strong, much anticipated, and much appreciated Drink, that it was merely a perhaps "Characteristic", response to the resolution of the stressful social situation.

Of course there are "Tics" involving the tongue, but they are nearly always both involuntary and repetitive. I think T.H.'s choice of words here was unfortunate.

I could jus hear Houghton thinking "Ahhhh thats good!!!"

Best

LJ

Maybe Houghton just spilled a little of his drink on his chin and was doing a little facekeeping. So far I haven't seen where Hoving made another reference to Houghton doing the same thing again.

Regarding Jacqueline Kennedy's conversation with Hoving and then the turn around, it made me think that she perhaps wasn't a very strong individual who could be swayed by what the Kennedy men told her to do. As is often the case in the political world, appearances prevail over substance. I expect her first reaction was how she really felt and then after she checked she found that her position was not acceptable to the Kennedys.

Larry

I makes me think of that little boy who is forever lurking behind the facade of suit and tie.

In the reading I have done so far it appears that money was not a serious concern when some art treasure was identified. Since I don't know the history of this museum I don't know whether these funds are all from private sources or the city and/or States contributes. I know there was a little discussion about the city having some funds commited to it and that the Harlem exhibit jeopardized these funds. (Hope I am not ahead of the discussion on this.)

I am looking forward to see how Hoving came up with the money for the massive construction work that he is planning in the early parts of the books.

Larry

Boy, I'm glad to be able to get back in here, such weather!! Have never seen the like! Am very tired of Mr. Nino!!

LJ: I appreciate that, a tic is repeated often, then, and this was not remarked on again. And the little grin, too, as Jackie said, it reminded her of the little boy beneath the suit. And as Larry, said, just licking it off his chin.

But Hoving's take was different. I stared a long time at Houghton's photo, and of course, you can't tell anything from a still shot. I wonder why Hoving included it?

And the "little boy beneath the suit" that Jackie noticed, and Larry's statement about "appearance over substance" seem to be ringing in my head.

Now, we all know people appear one way in public, we've all got on our faces, and another in private. One thing I like about the Internet and these books folders is our ability to be ourselves, and no appearances to distract. But in THIS book, I'm suddenly having trouble with the images.

The way Hoving presents himself, I'd vote for him for anything, anywhere, at all. He's somehow managed to, despite his upbringing and the very heady society he lives in, to convince us he's one of us. Yet I must admit being daunted at the parade of big names and society he moves in, and am wondering why he included the Houghton vignette.

Can we conclude he's not as fond of Houghton as he could be? Would you have included that about someone you liked?? As LJ said, it may be an unfortunate choice of phrasing. I've got the feeling the shark does nothing by chance.

On Jacqueline Kennedy, I think she was a person of appearance, was shocked at her statements, and her backing down...I know she was a chain smoker, which was never photographed, but don't know much more about her, except of her emnity with Christina Onassis.

I, too, am looking forward to see if he can carry out his ambitious building projects, he just thrusts ahead, doesn't he, appropriating Parks money, and OK'ing bold new steps. I wish I had his pizzaz! Wonder what he's doing now?

Wonder how he could ever be happy in retirement?

What did you all think of this line: (at his presentation for the National Endowment for the Humanities to present the Temple of Dendur): page 62: "I closed with some appropriately snide and hypocritical remarks about those cities that wanted the grandiose structure purely for touristic reasons and carried on a bit too much about how important The Cloister architeture was to the public's understanding of medieval art." His prose has an amazing quality, I bet he's a powerful presence to meet.

I'm looking forward to the next sections on the curators, as I did read a little ahead, and found his behavior about one of them a little odd.

I am really struck by the expressions on the faces of the people in photo #17, nobody looks as if they are having a good time. They are attending the New York, New York exhibition, but apparently, not happily.

Ginny

Ginny, Jackie's bio reminds ME of an "Arabella" with lots and lots of money.

Best

LJ

That Houghton chin licking thing sounds like something I'd probably be seen doing after a couple of belts!

The line aout WSilliam F Buckley and "jejune" cracked me up. Ginny, you are right, he does give us the I play with the big boys on one hand, and the aw shucks, I'm just folks with the other. Your comment about voting for him is very provacative. Makes you wonder how some other people might have turned out if they hadn't chosen (been chosen by) politics as a career.

I got the book last week (via B & N of course) and have been enjoying it so much. Hoving is fascinating person - almost childlike in his candidness (if such a word exists). At first I thought he tended to be unkind, as in the Houghton tongue thing, or in referring to someone as 'oily,' but he also can be very candid about himself, as when he wrote, "I realized that I wanted to be accepted into the prestige and power of the Met far more than I really cared about the institution or its need."

Hoving also makes up for his occasional unkindnesses by appearing to give credit where credit is due, as with the architects and the designers. And no one could accuse him of being lazy. Both these books make it clear that he is/was capable of working incredibly hard.

I have seen the Temple in the Met, and think the room is very impressive while the Temple itself is a bit underwhelming. And when one considers the the amount of money spent to create the room, I don't wonder that a medieval specialist like Hoving, new on the job, might consider it to be a 'white elephant.'

What a fun book!

Katie Bates too?? WHAT a fab group!

And I heard a little whisper that our own Joan Pearson may sneak in here yet, so am just happy as a clam, as this IS a fun read.

Now Monday we'll do Chapters 5-8, and I'm fascinated by his approach to the Curators and their personalities, but will leave that for Monday.

I, too, have been to the Temple of Dendur, many times, in fact, and did not realize (until this book) it wasn't the greatest thing going, nor did I realize it was of relatively modern origin. That glass room!! The long twisting passages behind plexiglass!! Am just fascinated to hear all the details behind the scenes...especially since he's not whitewashing anything ( that I know of). Yeah, when you compare the price of the Temple to the Bury St. Edumnd's Cross, it does make you sit up and take notice.

I wonder how he keeps from having an overinflated ego?

AND, our Katie used the B&N too. I just ordered two more, one for Prize Winner LJ, and still had a million cookies. Should I turn off that thing that warns me about them? Then I wouldn't notice or care.

Ginny

Ginny, Regarding cookies, I long ago turned that warning off. After about 10 tries to bypass it I finally gave up. You can always delete the cookie file with your file manager. I see this as just one of the little things that go along with the internet.

I find it fascinating that they could tear down the temple, haul it across the ocean, store it and then reconstruct it and have it look like anything.

Larry

Did anyone catch that comment about Yvonne Hackenbroch being forced to cut her bosses toenails once a week or lose her job? WOW! Can you imagine him trying to get away with that today?

At this point in the book I'm really impressed with the money that these blue bloods give away to charity...absolutely amazing! I know it's all part of the game that they're playing but I just can't relate to that kind of philanthropy.

A recent story in the local press about the Met. A wealthy widow in Mexico, named Gelman I believe, left her entire collection of modern art to the Met. (She and her late husband socialized with the likes of Freda Kahloo, et al. ) They may be ready for exhibition as early as September.

WALTER!! How fabulous to see you here!

Yes, I DID notice that, ugg ugg, and I noticed that he babbled to the works of art and the woman ran behind and made nasty comments, and he was "powdered..! Is Hoving referring to a wig here? Did the jurist wear a wig??

I've been thinking a lot about what Larry said about funding. And I see Jackie has read about another wealthy donor. I can see that the museums get a lot of their collections from the fabulously wealthy, and that's where the "toadying" comes in, but, where do they get the money for the salaries? From the Parks budget??

I wonder if these chapters appeal more to a man than a woman? After all they are about taking on a new job and management and shuffling people around??

I'm sort of overwhelmed with all the money and the apparent lack of much to go with it?? And is it true that everyone toadys to the rich, even the other rich?? And if so, what does that say about US as a society??

I've got some new discussion questions coming up, but just wanted to say that this am, still making preserves, back later!!

I thought, by the way, that the story of the Wrightsman's was fascinating. Hoving sure was not impressed with HER, was he?? What did you think about that couple?

So much going on in these chapters, back later....

Ginny

Still playing catch up...have some thoughts/observations on the first four chapters before the discussion gets going on the next...

The thing I like so much about reading Hoving's books - the way the man loves his life! The delight he takes in his work! His whole somewhat reckless approach to life!

A "dynamo in acquisitions, relished hunting down art and spending" while at the Cloisters.


Under Mayor Lindsay, he was the "Clown Prince of Fun City" in his round turret office in the old Arsenal building with the seals barking outside.
And his bold approach to bringing back the Met!
I think his epitaph should be "I was determined my performance would be unforgettable."

Am looking forward to seeing how Nancy Hoving adapts to the new job. Did notice in the dedication that she "never quite became a proper museum wife." I hope that means she enjoyed herself!

I loved the people photographs! The photographs were a great asset in the Confessors too, only in a different way! Both sets really help with visualizing what Hoving is describing! Nancy Hoving did go on that Adriatic cruise with Charlie Wrightsman and wife...So she must have participated to some extent...I must say they don't look very festive in the photo, but so very fashionable. Noticed Katharine Graham went on that same cruise. Amazing how our book discussions intertwine!


Wish a photo of James Rorimer in his combat boots had been included! Felt so badly for him before he died. At least there was some consolation that final day. He got Charlie W. to approve the $450,000 for the Auvergne Madonna and Child, which delighted Rorimer - he "relished" the prospect of getting it out of Belgium. We will have to make it a point to see that!


I remember that Rorimer's wife gave Hoving the cold stare at the funeral because she felt he had abandonned her husband when he most needed his support. He certainly didn't have an easy time of it as Director!

I enjoyed watching Hoving's preparation for each of his major interviews/presentations. He certainly was a master of persuasion - achieved so simply - "by saying what his listener wanted to hear". He dared mentioned problems, but also offered solutions. Often the solutions were just talk, but he always managed to pull off the show. I think that he was the right man at the right time for the job. A carefully thought out, plodding plan would never have made it past the trustees. Drama was what was needed to wake them up and drama he delivered1


I liked the way he approached the job...starting early, before he was officially director. Toured all the storage areas...tried to see all the art (three million pieces!). I was most intrigued by that underground vault at the Central Park drain off site...could picture the "shrouded 19th century sculptures" eerily placed in this damp, dark setting...

Can just picture how appalled he was to find the exhibited art on pedestals painted from "faded pink to dirty turquoise"!!!

I especially liked the way he chose the people to work with him...Stuart Silver, who really made the first exhibition work..."docile, but eyes full of mischief", plus he talked the talk! Told Hoving, "I'm going to make the met famous." And he did!

And then the two architects...Roche-Dinkeloo. Hoving recognized they had "IT" when he saw them...and chose them over the better known...over I M Pei who did the National Gallery in DC and the Louvre!!!!!!!

Sometimes it seemed he made quick, rash decisions, but he had such confidence in his eye, in his ability to see talent in others behind the facade, much the same as he was able to evaluate art!

Wonder if the restaurant is still black and gold, with the pool - the Dorotheum...

The last time I was at the Met was 1976...and I don't remember seeing the Temple. How could one forget that! I'll tell you...I went with three little boys, aged 7, 5 and 3...and very pregnant with the fourth! Will be interested to read when that section was complete...and if it was there in '76, how did I miss it?

"Dinner at the Temple of Dendur"
What a coup that was for Hoving! Stood up to Jackie O. too! She did obey Bobby when he told her to call back though...he probably promised her that he would offer the Met no support...but she had to call back to avoid negative publicity! I think she was used to getting her way and her first response to Hoving was truly Jackie speaking.

Off to face the day...looking forward to the next chapters. Will try to take part in the discussion this week, rather than dump all my notes in one GIANT post!

Later! Joan

JOAN!! SO glad to see you here, too!!

No, the pool Dorotheum is no longer there, but I liked it. I guess that shows how bourgeoise I am. I well remember getting a nice cold coke there when I took my own two boys, and they were driving me crazy! In fact, I believe I actually threw a temper tantrum in the upper lobby.

anyway, I loved your epitaph for him! It's perfect. I really want to know what he's doing now, and I did put up the Dinner at the Temple of Dendur: wouldn't THAT be a perfect venue for a NYC luncheon!

And yes, we must start adding to our list of must sees: now that Auvergne Mother and Child that's in the Met, right? Not the Cloisters??

I remember that pink and turquoise paint! Does anybody else? I also remember when the Museum of Natural History was all musty and dead looking. Wonder who took IT over??

I cannot CONCEIVE of being on a ship for two months. The longest cruise I've had to date was 14 days on the QE II, and I was almost bonkers to get off. Two months is a long long long time with people you don't know, find myself wanting to interview Nancy Hoving.

Ginny

No! I want more than an interview with Nancy Hoving! I want her to join Senior Net and give us the real story!

Write her! AND him!!

Ginny

I find myself fascinated with the shadowy Nancy Hoving. He has mentioned how wise she is. How, then, did she put up with him? He must ooze charm from every pore (to quote Professor Higgins). Someitimes, as I'm reading along, I ask myself, if he's putting all this in the book, what is he leaving out?

Having spent one of my lives as a financial analyst for a defense manufacturer, I can say that the Met day-to-day running expenses would have been met out of the return on the investments of the endowments. That board did more than discuss potential aquisitions and personnel changes. They would have spent most of their time on financial matters. Let's say that the salary expense for 2000 people for one month would be $1M. Paying them by check would mean that there would be several days between the time the checks were written and were cashed. The interest on that $1M for those days would belong to the Met. This is just a small example of how money begets money.

Charlie Wrightsman is just simply a rich "Drip". Having to spend a summer on a Yacht with the likes of him must have been "Deadly"

I thoroughly enjoyed the descriptions of the curators and the tales of Growing up and learning the ins and outs of "High Society"

Cecil Beaton would have kept conversation going on a superficial level (I've read his bio) but he's mostly, as Shakespere would term it, "Full of sound and Fury, signifying nothing"

Best

LJ

LJ: wouldn't you just DIE? Can you imagine, it would be like hell, really.

Jackie: WHAT?? The interest on the endowments? I wish you'd explain more fully? I thought the endowments went to fund the wings? And build?? Do explain, how can WE get an endowment! hahahahahah

I loved your sentence, how did she put up with him? I think he could sell ice cubes to Mt. Everest explorations. Wouldn't you love to meet him??
Or would you??


LJ??


Katie??


Joan??


Larry??


Walter??


Ginny

In those days we still had 'corporate wives', and as accomplished and educated as Nancy Hoving was, it would have been difficult for her to avoid this horrible situation. How awful. And how incredibly insensitive of this Charlie person to be SO rude to a guest who was unavoidably late in getting to the steamer or yacht or whatever it was. I really can't imagine a more awful experience than being forced to spend time with these people. And what a different world we are in these days - at least I assume we are. How many CEO's can spend 2 months cruising these days? I wonder if the museum world has changed with the rest of the world?

Some saying keeps going through my head, although probably incorrect. It's something like, "The rich are just like you and me except they have more money," meaning, of course, that the rich can be just as boorish (or insecure, or stupid, or boring) as the guy next door - or even worse. No offense to ANY guys who live next door...

How about Wrightsmans comment to Hoving..."you ought to work on your wife a bit...you know,to make a proper museum directors wife out of her." Watta nerve, especially with his flaws!

Isn't it ironic how these "Princes", the curators and directors etal, who live like royalty are doing so off the work of artists who barely made enough money to keep themselves alive! I wonder how many members of the MET re-thought their annual dues obligation after reading about the lavish life style that Hoving and his pals enjoy...

I really had to admire Hovings wife as she went through that experience once but said "no more". I wonder if Hoving didn't rather shortchange his wife in the book (at least to the point I have read) in that she must have attended many of the openings, special events, etc. that went with the museum and especially the Centenniel celebration where there appeared to be something almost every night for 1 1/2 years. I wonder if his wife was still living when he wrote this book. He certainly didn't hide his extra-marital affairs.

Hoving made it very clear that there was a lot of pandering to get the very rich to donate their collections. I am sure the Met wasn't the only museum doing this. It was also pretty shocking to read about the lack of ethics that existed in that environment in terms of purchasing art that had been stolen and smuggled out of a country. Also, if the museum had 3 million pieces in its collection, what do they do with all of that which can never be exhibited, just from the lack of space and time to deal with such vast holdings. Know this is also a problem for the Smithsonian.

Larry

Would I like to meet Hoving ??? Conversation would be too frustratingly one-sided. I don't know enough about "Fine Arts" to carry on a scintillating tete a tete with him, although I could probably hold my own in Anthropology and the Scythian Archeaology. I'd try to steer the dialogue into the realm of music (Not the Beetles), and encourage a debate about the origins of precolumbian remains in South and Central America.

He'd probably appreciate more an introduction to the night life of the downtown streets, but we'd need bodyguards to do that.

Best

LJ

You know, that IS a thought. What WOULD you talk to him about? I'm only on the chapters above, haven't gotten to the affairs, take a dim view of that, am not going to be very sympathetic to him when it comes. I DID see the word "womanizing" and wondered at it when I did. I can't wait to get to the next section and see what you all are talking about.

I thought Larry raised a good point, too, what OF all those pieces hidden and not exhibited? Did they buy them, as part of a package? I thought they would be routinely substituted, but I guess if you've got great things to exhibit, there's no use to take them off for something lesser that's been in the basement.

A social occasion every night for 1 1/2 years? Can't begin to imagine, and I think having to meet potential donors at El Morocco or whatever is a recipe for disaster. Did Jim Rorimer meet them there? Would you have?? Ladies, what would YOU think if YOUR husband were out every night socializing and, as he says, "toadying?"

Gosh.

Ginny

Ginny: you are too good. I have been galloping along, every night I'm reading til my eyes close. (I do not understand the term deferred gratification.) I ;find I'm haunted by her absence. She looms so large by his silence. In fact, there is very little presence except Hoving in the entire tale. Except in how the others serve his ends. Another element that is missing is any sense of Hovings' growth. The successes and set-backs are recounted, but it is: and then I did. . . In spite of his complexity, he does not have much dimension, does he? Maybe I am merely reflecting on my growing distaste for him. But the inner workings of the Met, now there is fascination. Does anyone know of a biography of the Met? The questions about the funding have started me to musing.

Yes, I'd love to meet Hoving some time and have a chance to chat over lunch. I too,don't know enough about the fine arts to make a conversation on that subect worthwhile, but I'll bet he'd be an extremly interesting fellow to listen to among friends, after a few drinks when he's relaxed and "off the record".

Initially,I didn't care for him very much but in the last third of the book,I've come to see him differently. His theatrical personality, enormous ego and seemingly magnetic charm have made me re-think, also, I happened to stumble on a comment he made in the book dedication..."and to my wife Nancy, who, thankfully,never quite became a proper museum wife",which I thought was kinda nice.

He may be a headline hungry,elitest snob but... nobodys perfect!

Every time I start feeling envious of the glittery, star-studded existence - the travel, cruises, hotels, restaurants, art...something like the suicide of Charlie Wrightsman's daughters (both of them!) makes me appreciate my own life, without all those 'perks'. I keep wondering why Charlie brought the subject up with Hoving at all. To shrug off and attribute the suicides to 'bad genes' from their mother - was incomprehensible...But why say it to Hoving?


Other vignettes I found really interesting...Florence Gould of the enormous, ruby red lips, for example. With her fantastic art collections and salon. Camus and Sartre dedicated novels to her!!! And she says to our Tom, "Would you like me to stay" the night?!!!!!


And my favorite, William F. Buckley! To hear that Hoving laughed at him, (at William F. Buckley!) for his vocabulary...for using the word jejune! (jejune, lacking nutritive value, lacking interest or significance, lacking maturity) Remember Buckley, relishing his superior vocabulary, stunning his opponents in debates with it...Can't you see him wincing at Hoving's mockery...and never speaking to him again?!!! Actually, I thought Buckley had thicker skin than that!


Now that Hoving has bared so much of his personal life, I don't think I'd have much trouble talking to him...but Buckley! I couldn't talk to him at all!


Nancy Hoving is the one I can relate to. In those days a trip behind the iron curtain must have been irresistible. But she was not at all impressed with the glitz or the big names. "Never again", was her comment. Found it amusing when Charlie tells Hoving to tell Nancy to get with it! If I were Nancy, I could have put up with the 'toadying', but put my foot down when it came to the womanizing! He says he went beyond toadying...that he became something of a courtier. Why did he feel compelled to put that in the book? Larry, I think Nancy is very much alive. She must have read this book, and it must have been painful for her to see it in print. Maybe that's why he didicated the book "to Nancy, who never quite became a proper museum wife", Walter.


I suppose we should keep in mind that this is the late 60's, and this sort of freedom was the vogue - especially among the 'beautiful people' - also, Hoving's own background must have made such behavior seem commonplace to him:

"My mother's favorite lover - a socialite of movie star looks...My father played the field...an alcoholic drug abuser."

I wish this book had been edited... the real personal stuff - except that which dealt with the art/museum world. I know some of these dealings crossed the line into the personal. But some could have been eliminated. I get the feeling Hoving is trying to impress us, rather than tell the museum story. I intend to read the book with those horse blinders (what are they called?) and focus on "Hoving the Director of the Met" to appreciate the impact he had on the museum. Though fascinating , as gossip is, I'm finding it very distracting at this point. Perhaps there is a reason for including it and that will unfold in later chapters...on to Chapter nine!

Another aspect of the Hoving puzzle: was he a wunderkind? If he was a generation or so younger than his peers . . . It could explain some of the brashness, the chutzpah. I wonder what his IQ is? 170? 180? Nancy could well have been his anchor to reality. I haven't had a chance to research the Met and its financial set-up. When we get to NY, there is one bookstore that is dedicated to New Yorkiana I will visit.

Maybe so, Jackie, that would explain a lot. I'm putting up some changes to the questions above, but I sure would like everybody's take on them, too....now here are some thoughts I had this morning:

Lila Wallace's hair in the photo doesn't look blue to me. Does it to you?? I had the mental picutre of a ghost like blue waif when I read his description, then the photo does surely not jibe.

Anybody who has EVER admired those flowers in the lobby has thought of her, what a gift.

What of the Wrightsmans? Didn't Charles Wrightsman turn AGAINST Hoving as a result of the Harlem thing, and, then, as soon as he got over that, BACK on the boat for more socializing? What?? What??

OH, so much more, think I'll change the questions Thursday instead of today to give everybody a shot at explaining these to me, I'm just struggling with these points.

Ginny

Ginny - I don't think Hoving ever understood the problem with the introduction of the Harlem catalog. I thought the entire "Harlem on My Mind" episode was astonishing. Not only does Hoving invent black servants (not friends, not acquaintances, but servants!), Allon Schoener plagiarized a book and credited the book quotes to a young AA woman. What on earth were these people thinking of? Why didn't Hoving have an introduction written by a prominent person in the African American community? Or by his friend the mayor?

I suppose a partial explanation might be the state of race relations at the time. Hoving and his like had probably NEVER talked to a black person in a social situation, nevermind a professional one, and it just didn't occur to him to consult with someone who might have some validity within the black community.

And as far as the Jewish community is concerned, I think Hoving OUGHT to have been fired, and city funding for the museum stopped, for allowing the following: "Thus our (African-American) contempt for the Jew makes us feel more completely American in sharing a national prejudice." Incredible.

WOW...You guys are really being tough on poor old Hoving.However,I might not want him to marry my daughter but, warts and all, I still think he'd an interesting fellow to have lunch with.

Relative to the "Harlem on My Mind" thing, I can recall some discussion,at the time, in the media about the appropriateness of having such a show in the Met but the criticism was tempered by the fact the Lindsay administration was dealing with some major racial problems and there were riots in the streets.They appeared desperate to keep everyone's temperature down. W.

I got the overall impression of "Tempest In a Teapot". over the Harlem thing. It was a good and innovative idea. I thought Hoving might have defended it more vigorously, but in view of the power structure from which he perforce operated, he did pretty darn well.

Best

LJ

LJ - as I read the book, the Harlem exhibit wasn't the problem. The introduction to the catalog was the problem. There probably were people who thought that an exhibit on Harlem history and culture wasn't appropriate for the Met, and Hoving says that criticism included calling the show "mere documentation" and "cultural cutesy-pie-ism." But the public's positive reaction to the show should have carried the day for the Met (and Hoving)- except for the incendiary anti-Semitic remarks in the catalog.

Lehman is an interesting "little character." It seems odd that he would insist that his house and collection be replicated as is within the museum, but then he would worry that a Lehman Pavilion would seem "pushy."

As I recall the book, Hoving didn't actually write the introduction for the cataglog for the Harlem show but did approve it. It appears that this was one of many situations where the egos of the staff members came into conflict. Throughout the book Hoving speaks of trying to keep various curators and other staff happy and they appeared to have a lot of authority, even though Hoving was a very hands-on administrator. The comments included almost appear to have been deliberate to generate controversy. According to Hoving the Harlem show was very well accepted by the community and changed the composition of the people who used the museum.

Larry

The "Catalog" thing turned out to be a "You said, he said, she said" sort of thing which was unfortunate for thin skins as straight up facts often are. We'll have a chance to make comparisons when we get int "The color of Water"

Best

LJ

Larry, yes! The egos! Everyone's! Have you ever seen such fragile egos, such massaging of bruised egos? That's what life seemed about for these people - especially those who had no money concerns... Hoving, despite all his advantages growing up, his education, accomplishments and success, seems to have one of the most bloated ego, and yet such a strong desire to be recognized, to be "unforgettable".


I find it sad - pathetic really. Here's this man who has experienced so much self-gratification, he becomes jaded - that he is no longer interested in the museum really, but in his own reputation "I, Hoving, one of the rare, crusading forces in American museums...considering the possibility of a political career."


Poor Nancy! What kind of a life did she lead while all this was going on? She could write a book! The only time she's mentioned in these chapters is when Hoving is experiencing his great depression after the "Harlem" affair...he has no friends, he tells us, "no one to turn to for solace, except Nancy." He tells us he "railed at the press to my wife."


Ted Rousseau to the rescue! Arranges the Rockefeller thing, takes him off to Europe to get over his disappointment and arrange for the Centennial celebration with their own celebration...in sin city with "the most attractive performers."


I really miss the young Hoving, exuberant with the discovery of the Bury St. Edmund's Cross! He does say he was 'thrilled' at the discovery that the ivory Christ located in the Oslo museum was the original ! But I don't think he was as excited as I was!!!! Perhaps it was no longer a priority with him...after his heady experiences as Director. I read that section in the middle of the night (falling asleep over the book, on and off) and snapped awake immediately. So the figure was found in a fleamarket in the '20's, and moved to Oslo because it was believed to have been carved in Norway!


Will we ever learn how it got from St. Edmunds in England all the way to Copenhagen? Probably not. Will we learn if it got united with the cross in the Cloisters? Probably! I can't wait!

I think it is Hoving's ego and naivete - his own conviction that he can pull off anything he sets out to do simply by telling people what they want to hear that causes his downfall. I think Ted Rousseau got it right - on the nose- when he tells Hoving his problem is that he doesn't remember what he tells people. That's because he doesn't tell people what he really thinks and believes, he tells them what they want to hear, and then has a hard time remembering, because what he says means nothing at all to himself!

I hope we hear more about that cross, more from Nancy, and some true remorse from Hoving before we come to the end of the book!

ps The photo is black and white, Ginny. I bet Lila's hair was a blue-black!

JOAN!! We were posting together, now to go and read yours, and will post to it, too.

Wow, what good posts, as usual.

Katie, I thought your point startling: why invent black servants, wonderful perspective, I knew something about it (aside from the cheerful Aunt Jemima attitude) irritated, but couldn't put my finger on it. And yes, the anti Semitism revealed gave me a startling insight, for a minute, into the depth of the problem. As you say, "incredible." Helps you understand Lehman, somethat, I guess.

Walter: are we being too hard on Hoving? I am noticing that the men in our group are tending to take a more lenient eye, preferring to stress his ability as a mover and shaker...

So is Hoving a "my way" kind of guy like Sinatra? I've been interested in the obits about Sinatra, note that John Leo called him a tremendous talent, but also a thug....did you all see that review??

But I do love his way with words! Laughed out loud and brought the dogs running over: "He was the lawyer Robert Makla, a man who could massacre you with respect and righteousness." I love that. Have you ever known somebody like that? I wish I had the strength of reserve to do that, but I can't....

Also these lines, "I distinguished myself by blowing up at a meeting on the final day."

And "As McHenry spoke, he looked at me more and more sidways until I thought I'd have to get down on my knees to look into his eyes." WHAT A HOOT the man is, would be half afraid to meet him, wouldn't want to be skewered by his tongue. Very Truman Capote like.

Ginny

I've put a red question in the heading? What do you think??

Joan, what a great post, and you hit on the friends issue, too. Yes, I agree with every one of your points.

I mean, what kind of a future CAN a man have, who routinely makes blanket statements like" then the whole pavilion will have to go back to the Landmark's Preservation Commission for a full review and after that the City Council and possibly the Board of Estimate."


"It wasn't true, but I knew Zadok knew nothing about real New York City bureaucracy...." (page 200).

How many times can you get away with stuff like that? Not very nice, I think....

I was also interested in the Ted Rousseau bits: the great handsome suave Rousseau, whose photo belies that, but who did seem to hire Beau Brummels, as evidenced by photo 14. Rousseau, a bachelor, whom Hoving admits he wanted to be just like, tells Hoving, "Tom, all I see these days are your two worst failings: your craving for admiration and a tendency to lapse into self-pity."

Hoving's sort of a flame, in these four chapters, and you wonder how long it can burn so brightly, and what will extinguish it.

Ginny

"Close Friends" ??? A good administrator cannot afford to be well liked if he/she intends to remain a GOOD administtrator. (I know you ladies will pounce on that, but like it or not, it's true)

What's wrong with his ego??? A man I knew once, when asked how he was so certain he could feel a spleen responded "Because of my innate ability to feel spleens". Hoving's innate abilities warrented his ego as did his savvy and expertise in his field(s).

Actually, his candid writing implies a modicum of humility and modesty (At best -- plain old honesty ---- at worst)

Best

LJ

As I plod toward the end of "Mummies"... I'm beginning to find it rather tedious...I found a line about Hoving in Chapt.18 (Pg.343) that really defines him,"The winning was what he loved.The prize was inconsequential."

With that thought in mind,everything else falls into place, or so it seems to me.W.

I finally finished the book yesterday and am afraid Joan is going to be disappointed in not finding much more about Nancy or the ivory cross.

I felt that Hoving comes off as a very complex personality, with many strengths as evidenced by his success in the art world as well as politics (at least in his view), and many weaknesses. Isn't this the case of most very successful people and strong characters. I believe we can dislike the actions that appear inappropriate as a part of our culture while still recognizing the positive things that a person like Hoving accomplished. It would certainly take a strong personality and one with a lot of self assurance to deal with the boards and committees and the political climate the existed during his tenure at the Met. It wore me out just reading about it, can you image how difficult some of his days must have been.

One of the things that certainly stood out in his story is the lack of honesty and integrity in the art world. If it is a wonderful work of art then we can overlook the fact that it was stolen merchandise that was spirited out of a country. It sounded like the curators had to deal with some pretty unsavory art dealers and merchants.

Larry

I don't know which is better, reading the book or your responses!

LJ: Surely he could have had close friends OUTSIDE his work?? Or did he move at too frenetic a pace to even light long enough? Is that a "man " thing, not to have many close friends??

On his ego: I think it's his ego that squashed him, his need for approval overcame it and caused such events as his threatening to "punch David Douglas in the face" when he questioned Hoving's collector abilities. If his ego were as strong as his intellect and drive, he'd not have done that.

Walter: I found these four chapters plodding, and somewhat tedious, but it's obvious to me a great deal went on that could not be made highly dramatic and interesting. What do you think of his tenure as a manager? I think you are absolutely right about his "winning" need, and it's probably what burnt him out early...but maybe he'd not have been interested in a long tenure anyway, he really did accomplish so much.

Larry: That was beautifully put, in recognizing the positive and ignoring some of the more destructive behaviors, yet I can see an esclation even here of these "kerfuffles."

When you were a manager, did you have these constant blowups?

Is this any way to manage people? Or are these special people??

I have only sat on one board, and I forget the saying, Katie Bates knows it, about what Board Members are supposed to do. I was elected to a college board by a Church Convention, and it was an education in itself...but at one juncture, when they were trying to attract the "perfect" candidate, and funds were short, the descendant of the college's namesake drew out his checkbook and wrote out a check for $21,000 to make up the lack.....then checkbooks appeared all over the table, but the buck sure stopped with me! I had thought a sense of right and wrong, and they were surely doing wrong, would be a nice contribution on my part, but there was surely a little silence...shoot. One may do wrong in this life, but most of us don't PAY to do it.

Anyway, I can see THIS board is way way over my head, and I think some people let their disposable income go to their heads, particularly some of those mentioned here. It's really disillusioning, to me, to read this, but I'm glad I did.

Ginny

Ginny - the classic Board of Directors is supposed to "Give, Get, or Get Off". In other words, in addition to taking on the responsibility of hiring the executive director, and bringing individual talents and skills to the institution, they are to support the organization with their own money and influence, and the money and influence of their friends. The Met Board certainly seems to understand their role well, and to take it very much to heart. This book certainly highlights the flaws in the system, but like other long-standing systems, removing the flaws only creates other potential flaws. One of the most fascinating aspects of this book is to get this insider's view of the B of D's system at this very high level. It is a little disillusioning, isn't it?

Wouldn't it really "mark you" as being at the top of the heap to be a member of such an exclusive and prestigious board. It seemed that there was always a hidden agenda with the people they elected as they wanted them to leave their treasures to the Met. However, apparently Hoving was able to change the structure of the board to get a broader representation from the political side of NYC.

The Met must be a really huge place. I just checked my bookmarks and see I have one for the Met. I expect you all have visited the site and I don't find a lot of info there, will include the URL if anyone is interested:

Met

Larry

There is a history of the Met, author's name is Howe. It is out of print. I shall research the local libraries, but it may not be high on the list for California aqisitions.

Question Number Four is one which Hoving himself discusses from time to time. Although there is something to be said for continuity, there are inherrant disadvantages to long tenure in highly visable administrative positions. As I've suggested previously, A good administrator cannot afford close friendships because they interfere with his/her efficiency and effectiveness. "Command is Lonely".

Best

LJ

LJ, can't this lonely executive have friendships beyond his work world.


What about one's wife? Can she not fill the bill as 'friend' if executive is a workaholic?


Do men feel more comfortable without friends, or do they wish it otherwise?

Joan, Of course, but the social and home and/or outside "Friends" though they may be seen and encountered in the ordinary course of events are strictly separate from "Work"

One wonders if the Hovings weren't aware of this and thus avoided as much as possible encourageing Ms. Hoving into the role of a wife that the board wanted for its Exec.

Best

LJ

I find this question of Hoving's friendships interesting.

While most of his relationships were clearly transitory, I feel that his contact with Rousseau was more substantive...maybe even a "friendship"?

On page 358, Hoving wrote,"When Ted Rousseau died,my interest in the Met began to fade away swiftly.Without his elan and humor and sense of quality,the place became just another bureaucracy"...and "in the fall,Ted could no longer move around and he went to the apartment of his lover and remained there to die.I saw him as much as I could and once,after a frantic phone call in the middle of the nite, rushed over to help hold him".

Now,does that sound like friendship or what? W.

I, too, was struck by this relationship, and I doubt that we've sufficient information to fully analyze it. Clearly, Ted was competant and "Earned his keep", but he was also, even more clearly, Hoving's "Aide de Camp", right hand man, alter ego, and perhaps "Soul-mate"

Best

LJ

Yeah, you all are a little ahead, and Rousseau has not died in the current section, but I'm with you, Walter, if that's not friendship, what is it??

So why did Hoving write what he did above? He had to have written this after Rousseau died?

And, I also agree that Nancy could have been his best friend.

Ginny

Wow! Mr. Hoving sure speaks his mind describing his enemies' shortcomings! I found myself wondering if they were living when the book was published in 1993...and how it affected them if they read it!

Walter, you are so good! You finished the whole book! At least from your last post, we know that Ted Rousseau didn't read the book!


Do you suppose that it was his depression talking when TH claimed he had no friends? Because, while it may be true that he did not have many, there is certainly enough proof in these chapters that he regarded Rousseau as his friend - even without reading the death scene Walter describes..
.

Look at the picture caption(#13) in the middle of the book (around p.250)..."Theodore Rousseau, curator of paintings, mydear friend...
And again on p.282..."Another serious management problem was my closest friend, Ted Rousseau"...
And again..."there was our deep friendship"...
And again..."I came close to firing my dearest friend"...
And: "The only thing good about the disgraceful affair was that Ted and I became warm friends again"

I think that if you have even one close friend like that, you count yourself blessed! You don't say you never had any friends, when you've had a friend like that!


I think it was a very telling comment when TH refers to "my almost desperate need for an understanding companion." Where is Nancy Hoving! I can't help but wonder what their life must have been like. He mentions making it though a long Thanksgiving weekend at home, as if this was an unusual occurrence. And yet, their marriage has survived...at least "Thomas and Nancy Hoving" are still listed in the New York telephone book...........

Speaking of reading or not reading the book, do you suppose the board closed its ears to his (Hoving's) appeal for the missing "Christ" on the Bury St E's cross because it had read the book?

The impossibility of pleasing everyone is emphasized by the statement "More outraged about New York, New York than the critics who didn't like it, were the artists who hadn't made it"

My first secretary was better than Dillon's. I'd watch her mail my letters written in haste and wrath, then next day when I'd comment that I wished I'd softened the language a bit, she'd produce the unsent letter for revision.

Weren't those stonemason's markings deciphered by the Ottovino men the subject of a "Geographic" presentation. There was an article in "BAR" about it too.

And NOW I know why the entrance to the parking garage under the KY center for Performing Arts has such a low clearance.

The master building plan was a accomplishment of almost stupendous merit on Hoving's part, and the Velasquez incident was exciting, but following (Next Week's discussion) except for trhe "Hot Pot" it began to seem anticlimactic.

Best

LJ

Oh yes! LJ the Christ figure! Of all the successes TH had in "winning", the cross was lost! I am going to call the Cloisters on Monday and find out a. if it is at the Met or b. are there photographs of the cross with the Christ attached. Ginny, have you received that fabulous book on the cross yet? Look for photos of the figure! Wasn't there supposed to be a four year swap with Oslo? Where is it now I wonder? I was sick about that loss!

Speaking of the Cloisters...did you find it odd that Hoving was so opposed to decentralization of the Met's holdings...for so many reasons...which all seemed to speak against the medieval collection being located the seven miles away. Someone brought it up during the struggle to keep it all together, but Hoving never really addressed it. It was fine for the medieval collection, but not for anything else.

He also mentioned that he wanted a summer restaurant at the Cloisters...I'll ask about that on Monday too!..


I think we should start a list of all the things to see at the Met...tops on my list would be the Velasquez...Juan de Pareja...hey it's the "single finest painting by the greatest painter in history" Where would it go on your list?

Remember in the early chapter...the curators' game...where each one picks the five paintings he'd 'steal' from a museum? Let's play that game with the works mentioned in this book!

Joan, no I haven't received the book!! I can't even remember who was supposed to be sending it to me? Amazon, wasn't it? And they wrote me back that they had lowered the price, and that was a LOOOOOOONG time ago. Well, for Pet'es sake!!

Yes, please DO find out if the cross is there, o, great disappointment if not!!

LJ: Yes, I've thought of that a million times since reading it here: the lowered ceilings of parking buildings! Isn't that something??

I didn't know about the stonemason's thing being on National Geographic: I wish I had seen it.

Jonkie: Yes, let's get up our list! Where to put it, tho??

Ginny

Well, here we are in THIS book club, too, at the end of the book. I think it's eerie how they are all ending at this time, but am glad I won't miss too many comments.

I feel myself strangely in sinc with Hoving in this last of the book. He does mention Ted Rousseau fondly, gives his wife a little more credit for her sharpness and counsel, and lists one after another of conquests. Just when you think he's conquered the art world and, like Alexander, there's nothing left, here come the Chinese or the Russians.

He's sort of funny, too, about his run off at the mouth ness, I like that. He's an enigmatic character, and he's honest about when he failed.

On the cover of my book, which is a hardback, the background is white, and he's cavorting all over the title, while he's about 5" tall on the back cover, and is doing the TUT on the spine, you couldn't miss it in a bookstore!

I have seen most of the exhibits he talks about at the end of the book, and found that stuff most interesting. I loved the photo # 49 of him expounding over the Tut mask and the expressions on the faces of those present, almost all EXCEPT Carter Brown are listening raptly. Wonder if Carter Brown wrote a book?? hahahahahah Obviously he doesn't care for Hoving, or to hear him, anyway.

Wasn't the Russian stuff fascinating? So like what you think of as Russia...

But the triumph was the Euphronios krater, another MUST SEE Jonkie, and all the questions on "provenance."

What did you think of Hoving's theory of TWO kraters to explain away Hect's problems?

The Wyeth thing really jangled bells, our own Greenville Art Museum is the recipient of the Wyeth paintings!! WOW!! Close to home. I think they're traveling, tho.

Loved the Egyption stories, too. He must be something at the dinner table, I agree with Walter, let's invite him to dinner.

I've got an interview with him from the first of the month, will type part of it in here tomorrow, but meanwhile, what are your thoughts on him and the museums in general. Wasn't it interesting that JP Getty was supposedly so strict and by the book when it came to establishing provenance when he was about to DONATE, but not before? Is that what you got out of it?

Anyway, a fascinating world of people and places, quite a ride, I did enjoy it and enjoyed reading it with this astute group, too!

Ginny

I really had no idea how a museum operated and found Hovings description very revealing of how huge an institution a museum like the Met is and how complex. This was the type of book that I would not generally pick up to read but am certainly glad that I did read it. Hoving may have been something of a rebel, but it appears he really accomplished a lot and left quite a legacy.

I think I will certainly think of museums in a different vein than I did before. I still wonder why they collect so much that they will never exhibit. They must have some kind of huge storage rooms and the record keeping must be very complex. Am sure the computer is a big help in that department in this day and age.

Larry

Am going out of town this am, but here's a bit of an interview with Hoving I'd like to get in before I leave: the date was April 6, 1998.

"My favorite show was 'Scythian Art,' the art of the wandering tribes of the Ukraine. Because they were on the move all the time, they had nothing big..." and then he recounts his Russian trade exploits.

He starts the article in the 30th Anniversary edition of New York Magazine by saying he wanted to make the museum exciting, and "We went about it in a very, very calculating way."

Then he says, "I think the critics got mad at these big shows because for the first time in history, we ran advertisements, and like anybody on Broadeay, we ran quotes of critics, and of course we always picked out the one that said, 'Sensational! Unbelievable! and left out the word 'trash.' It was very controversial, primarily because there was an art-critic clique--still is-- which is very conservative, very elitist. They just detest popularization and call it the cheapening of art. But it's virtually impossile to cheapen a great work of art by popularizing it! No matter how hard I treid to popularize, I never cheapened a great work of art."

That's interesting, isn't it? I wonder if he's open to interviews now??

You ought to HEAR what Peter Mayle has to say about the art world in HIS new book Chasing Cezanne, just started it last night, will post some here, very provocative!

Ginny

Me again, just saw an ad for a new book "The J. Paul Getty Museum and it's Collections: A Museum for the New Century."

Ring any bells? It says it's a new museum in the "center's dramatic site in the Santa Monica Mountains above Los Angeles." "Paintings include works by Breughel, Rubens, Rembrandt, Carpaccio, Turner, van Gogh, Cazanne, and Monet...sculptures by Cellini, Bernini, Gras."

J. Paul Getty himself supervised the building of the new center.

Interesting, no? Quite a collection he's got.

Ginny

Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy HappyHappy Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy Birthday, our KATIE BATES!!!!!

And our Pat Scott says there are cards for you at:

Rae Inskeep "Swingin' Summer" 6/4/98 3:10am

We love you!

GAGS

Hi Ginny;

Really enjoyed the"Mummies"discussion.

This was my first participation in a seniornet book discussion group and I got a big kick out of it.I found that posting my thoughts and comments forced me concentrate and THINK about the text as I read it,something I don't always do...and,as a result I enjoyed the book more.However,I must admit that the last few chapters were a struggle.

A very erudite group you've gathered here...I very much enjoyed reading their posts. W.

PS: Just started reading "Titan" by Ron Chernow.A brilliant bio of John D.Rockefeller. I can't put it down!

Walter, I didn't realize this was your first discussion, you were splendid. I really enjoyed this, and there's a HUGE article in the June 8 issue of US NEWS and World Report about provenance, the Met and Phillipe de Montebello, the current Director of the Met. There's also a horrid thunderstorm here, so going off, back later, you'll enjoy what this article says.

ARE we or are we NOT au courant here?

Ginny

This article in the June 8 issue of US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT is fascinating, it's HUGE, too, here's some of it:

"But often enough, the spotty provenance conceals a ligitimate, though unrecorded, transaction. Until February, on of the great modernist treasures at the Met in NY, van Gogh's Wheat Field with Cypesses, hung under a legal shadow. The years between 1939 and 1951 were missing. In 1993 the Met had bought the work for $57 million from the son of a Swiss industrialist known to have purchased loot from the Nazis. Because of the gap in time, no one knew exactly how the industrialist had acquired it until a NY TIMES reporter discovered a grandchild of the original owner, a Jewish are collector named Franz von Mendelssohn. Strapped for cash, this grndchild had sold the work to the industralist in 1951. The Met could rest easy."

So what we've been reading was the real skinny.

More: "This week, American museum directors will gather in Worcester, Mass., to establish guidelines for dealing with looted art. A task force headed by Philippe de Montebello, director of the Met, has spent months putting together proposals to help museums grapple with this crisis. Among its likely recommndations is the creation of a central database of all works with a suspicious past, an effort expected to cost about $400,000."

Larry said that he was sure they were using computer databases to keep track of their acquisitions last week, they could have saved all that time and effort by just asking us!

I really enjoyed learning about what's going on in this part of the world, and am glad you were all along for the ride!

Ginny

Ginny!!! Love all these museum articles! Where do you find the time to read so much???



I simply must read faster! Just finished the book, want to talk about it...and everyone has gone home! Or on vacation...to Italy and the like!!!

But I did finish...Consider these few observations END NOTES!!!

Yes, Ginny, the Greek calyx krater vase(510 BC) is definitely one for the MUST -SEE list

"to adore it you must read Homer" (!!!)
'Hoving felt as if punched in the stomach at first sight.'
"Single most perfect work of art I've ever encountered!"

Greek bronze athlete (Lysippos) "The discovery of a fine Lysippos bronze would be equivalent to finding the Mona Lisa - if all other Leonardos had been destroyed."

Frank Lloyd Wright house and contents...

Walter! So glad you joined this discussion! You simply must check out the MUST-SEES and meet us at the Met!!! A deal??? We'll buy you something real nice in the Museum shop...........



Though there was perhaps a dash of truth in Sophie Burnham's observation in The Art Crowd, I didn't agree with this statement:

"The winning was what he (Hoving) loved, the prize was inconsequential."

In so many cases, the prize was everything!!!


Liked the description of the 'Hoving treatment': poetry and bull

Truly odd relationship with Charlie Wrightsman after having spent so much time at sea with him!!!!!!

So the jewels in the magnificent King Tut gold pieces are........GLASS? Did I understand that correctly? And that 11 million that went to renovate the Cairo Museum back in the seventies...is where? This book was published in 1993! I find it difficult to believe the money is safely invested for the museum's use today, don't you?

I too was happy to see more of Nancy Hoving in these chapters. Travelled with him...Iran, etc. Tried on, fondled the golden necklace in Kiev, without telling Hoving........ while he was only allowed to view a replica! And she actually knew of Wyeth's relationship with Helga Testorf and kept it a secret from TH for two decades!!! This is some lady!!!!!!!!



Funny reading about Joseph Levine's Japanese monster movie, Godzilla the same week the new release comes out in 1998!
So he grew tired of the Met and sold his excellent collection of Wyeth's to a collector in South Carolina and they ended up WHERE? Hoving says Japan bought them up, but our own South Carolingian says they are in the Greenville Art Museum?



Hoving was 47 when he resigned from the Met, never headed the Annenburg project..........What did he do next? Want more! Are we reading another?????????????Hmmmmm?

Jonkie, well, they were in the Greenville Art Museum, because I saw them. Seems like they said it would be temporary, till.....but then some of them came back. Maybe they ARE now in Japan. Tell you where, when I get back I'll call them and get the skinny. Or maybe if I have time tomorrow.

Yes, I'd like to read another, really would. Didn't somebody (Jackie?) mention a behind the scenes at the Met? Or are we tired of the Met and want to move on??

Walter mentioned he was reading Titan about John D. Rockefeller Sr. It's a new book, but apparently about another mover and shaker. Isn't he the one referred to as a "bandit?"

Joan brought up several good points: the Helga thing. Boy, that was something, wasn't it? THAT'S another different family, I think.

I personally think the Tiffany windows at the Met are alone worth the trip, in a wing by themselves, almost more than you can take in.

ALSO: there was a big piece in the Met book about the Lehman wing, and let me tell you, guys, he REALLY had the stuff. The names alone are enough to choke a horse: Botticelli, Di Paolo, Bellini, Hans Holbein the Younger of Erasmus, Goya, El Greco, Rembrandt, Corot, Monet, Renoir, Cezanne, Degas, bowls and plates,Durer, I mean, ONE of these would do!!

Yes, I noticed Nancy Hoving doing her own thing, think it would be neat to read HER thoughts.

Here's what Peter Mayle, of A Year in Provence thinks of the art crowd: (this is from his new book, Chasing Cezanne ):

"The rich are acquisitive, and with a few notable exceptions, they like other people to know about their acquisitions. After all, half the satisfaction of a priviliged life is the envy it engenders; and what is the point of having rare and costly possessions unless others know you have them?"

That's pretty harsh, isn't it? Do you agree with it? I think it's interesting.

Ginny