Statement of Nancy Hanks Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts Joint Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Arts and Humanities of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of the U.S. Senate and the Select Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S. House of Representatives on Part B of Title II of S. 1800 and H.R. 7216 June 4, 1975 I am very pleased to have the opportunity to testify on the proposed Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act contained in Part B of Title II in S. 1800 and H.R. 7216, legislation to amend and extend the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, to provide for the improvement of museum services, and to provide indemnities for exhibitions of artistic and humanistic endeavors, and for other purposes. Placing the Federal Government in the role of a "guarantor" or "indemnitor" with respect to possible loss or damage to works of art and other objects in exhibitions certified by the Secretary of State to be in the national interest would reflect and follow policies already established and practiced by Great Britain and Australia, the Soviet Union and other nations. These countries have adopted this policy in the interests of easing the financial burden of their nationally important cultural institutions. And, as others will testify here, the experience of financial loss to those governments under this program has been practically nonexistent. The International Council on Museums, an advisory body to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization on international museum matters, has recommended strongly that all nations adopt such a policy. It has long been generally accepted that international exhibitions and exchanges between countries benefit the individual citizen in terms of the spiritual and cultural awareness and enlightenment that results from exposure to the artistic and cultural products and artifacts of other civilizations, both contemporary and ancient. By increasing man's knowledge of mankind, through the exhibition of these objects, we enhance man's knowledge of himself and, hopefully, stimulate future artistic and cultural activity to the ultimate benefit of the nation and its people. While international exhibitions, usually part of exchange agreements, are generally held in high favor, the public is not fully aware of the exorbitantly high insurance costs in connection with these programs. Because of such costs, some major exhibitions in the past have been impossible to mount or sharply curtailed. In other instances the high costs of insurance have been covered in part through grants made by the National Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for the Humanities. This was the case last winter regarding the "Masterpieces of Tapestry from the 14th to the 16th Century" exhibition at the Metropolitan, in which a major collection of tapestries from Europe and the United States were put on special exhibition and were viewed by approximately 400,000 persons. Insurance costs for that exhibition alone totaled almost $100,000 and were paid for in part by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. Similarly, an exhibition of recent works by Jean Dubuffet held at the Guggenheim Museum in New York carried an evaluation of several million dollars and an insurance premium in excess of $80,000. I wish to note that the need for an indemnification policy is not restricted to New York City or to the major institutions only. There is already well established precedent for the enactment of such legislation. Recently, two major exhibitions in the United States were made possible because of special ad hoc indemnity legislation enacted to cover 1 these specific exhibitions. On May 21, 1974, the President signed into law P.L. 93-287 (S. 3304) which made possible the Exhibition of Archeological materials from the People's Republic of China, now on view in Kansas City following a very successful showing at the National Gallery here in Washington. More recently, P.L. 93-476 (S.J. Res. 236) was passed by the Congress and signed by the President October 26, 1974. This bill made possible the historically unprecedented current exchange agreement between the Metropolitan Museum of New York and the Soviet Union, resulting in the nationally acclaimed exhibition of ancient Scythian gold and silver objects from the Hermitage in Leningrad and the Lavra State Museum in Kiev. It is my understanding that these exchanges could not have taken place without the Federal indemnity legislation. It is almost embarrassing for me to describe the situation that exists with a major exhibition organized by the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. As I understand it, the museum wished to present an exhibition entitled "From Manet to Matisse" that would draw heavily on foreign collections. Since the insurance premium on such an exhibition was estimated in the neighborhood of $200,000, the Museum was prepared to abandon the project when the Australian government expressed interest. As I mentioned, the Australians have an indemnification policy. The exhibition has opened in Sydney with Australian indemnification and will ultimately be seen in the United States, thanks to Australia. American museums are among our most vital and active cultural institutions. They are normally engaged in exchange of all sorts of objects and works of art with their counterparts outside the United States. Indemnity legislation will afford our museums the kind of protection they require to continue these programs by eliminating the costs of prohibitively expensive insurance, while not requiring any additional immediate Federal appropriations. If the British experience to date is a valid criterion, the Federal government may never have to appropriate any significant amounts to cover losses under this authorizing legislation. Of course, we have to recognize that there could, despite all protections, be a catastrophic loss. Museums, both domestic and international, take every sound precaution to protect valuable objects. These precautions, taken by very responsible people, range from adequate security protection, to superb transportation and packaging technology. The experience of nonloss in exchange of objects speaks well for the care of treasures. But, a plane carrying invaluable objects could go down. It has not happened but it could. This possible event, totally unsubstantiated by experience, must be in my view accepted by this government without fear. - - I believe the museum professionals of this country and the nations of the world assume with greatest responsibility the objects entrusted to their care. The question before us today is to enable indeed, to encourage -- these professionals to step up an exchange of objects to the benefit of people of all nations. I believe action by this government will encourage all other nations to take similar action. 2 Cultural exhibitions and exchanges of high quality should be encouraged by the laws and policies of the United States Government. They are in the national interest because of the personal esthetic, intellectual, and cultural benefits accruing to every man, woman and child of this nation who has the opportunity to experience these beautiful and enlightening presentations. We believe that this country should do as much as any nation in the world to insure that these vitally important programs are strengthened. The Office of Management and Budget has advised us that the Administration does not support the legislation in its present form. OMB indicates that the need for Federal involvement in this area; the extent of such involvement; and how it should be accomplished are questions requiring further study. This hearing is being held, of course, to obtain answers to questions like these and others. In the Office of Management and Budget's view, the legislation as written appears to present a possible constitutional problem concerning separation of powers, since the Federal Council has Congressional members. Also, there is a concern that there is no upper limitation specified on the size of indemnities which could be provided. Also, OMB notes that there is no indication of a lack of availability of private insurance for these purposes. A basic question in regard to the present legislation is whether the bill adequately circumscribes the Federal role, that is, the bill as written appears to be open ended with respect to procedures and questions relating to the specific kind of exhibition intended to be covered. In the meantime, I should like to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to the members of the subcommittes and to their staffs and to all of those in the Senate and the House, who with imagination and dedication have worked with the museum profession in developing legislation that could immeasurably benefit the people of this country. Listings of Exhibitions Supplied to Museums in Various States Boston Museum of Fine Arts "Chinese Art Treasures: A Selected Group of Objects from the "Painting in Italy in the Eighteenth Century: Rococo to Romanticism" (1970). "Paintings by Monet" (1975): "Paintings by Renoir" (1973). "Impressionist and Post-Impressionist Painting from the U.S.S.R." (1973). The Cleveland Museum of Art "Caravaggio and His Followers" (1971-72). "Chinese Art Under the Mongols: The Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368)" "Japonism: The Impact of Japanese Art on France" (1975). Detroit Institute of Arts "Art in Italy, 1600-1700" (1965). "French Painting, 1774-1830" (1975). Los Angeles County Museum "Art Treasures of Japan" (1965-66). New York S. Guggenheim Museum "Constantin Brancusi, 1876-1957′′ (1969). "Max Ernst: A Retrospective Exhibition" (1975). "Piet Mondrian, 1872-1944: Centennial Exhibition" (1971).. New York Museum of Modern Art "René Magritte" (1965). "The Sculpture of Picasso" (1967). "Dada, Surrealism and Their Heritage" (1968). Philadelphia - Museum of Art "Edouard Manet, 1832-1883" (1966). |