Senator PELL. Our next panel will consist of Mr. Wilder, Mr. Lee and Miss Schissler. Mr. Lee, very good to see you again. The last time we met was at the museum. I enjoyed your book very much, too. Which one of you will be taking the lead role? Please proceed. STATEMENT OF SHERMAN E. LEE, DIRECTOR, THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART, CLEVELAND, OHIO; BARBARA SHISSLER, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY ART GALLERY, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.; AND MITCHELL WILDER, DIRECTOR, AMON CARTER MUSEUM OF WESTERN ART, FORT WORTH, TEX., A PANEL Mr. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, before continuing may I express my thanks for the opportunity to speak before you on behalf of my own museum, the Cleveland Museum of Art, and the Association of Art Museum Directors, as well as my intention to be brief and not to repeat the affirmative support just expressed for legislation of S. 1880, sections 221 through 229, which support we acknowledge and affirm. I take the intent of this proposed legislation to be the partial support of special loan exhibitions by the Federal Government through the means of a guaranteed indemnification program where this is deemed in the national interest, and where such action encourages educational, cultural, historical or scientific values. To this intention I would subscribe unqualified, full support. The loan exhibition of works of art has a long and noble history. It is a product of the same age of enlightenment that produced the American Revolution. But at its inception we must admit that Napoleon confused loans and expropriation in his first Imperial collection at the Louvre. The subsequent history of loan exhibitions is more straightforward and savory. From the Crystal Palace of London in 1851, through the various art exhibitions held at the great fairs of Manchester (1857), Paris (1867, 1878, 1889, 1900), Chicago (1893), and New York (1933, 1939), special loan art exhibitions have been evidently both educational and in the national interest. Indeed, some of them were the vital stimulus necessary for new developments everywhere in the arts and crafts. One thinks particularly here of the Armory Show in 1913 in New York City, an event which crystalized hitherto ill-concerted efforts to bring the European modern movement in art to the United States. It is significant that these and later, more sophisticated, more historical and more scientific loan art exhibitions such as those sponsored by the Council of Europe after World War II in Brussels, Munich, Vienna, Paris, Amsterdam, Barcelona, London, among others were made possible only by the cooperative international participation by the member states. These magnificent collections of art, centered around an historical period or theme, made enormous contributions to both public under standing of hitherto far-flung and practically unavailable works, and scholarly study of original works seen side by side though from widely disparate locations. One other example comes readily to mind, the great Poussin exhibition in Paris in 1960, where the unprecedented assembly of 241 works by or attributed to the great 17th century French master permitted, even demanded, a new and more objective evaluation of his contribution to world art history. American museums have participated in this great tradition, despite their largely private and local support. Scarcely a major art museum in this country has not mounted an important international loan exhibition (see appendix A) that has satisfied both the needs of wide public interest and scholarly advancement. As Charles Parkhurst of the National Gallery has written "All museums-do a national (even international) job on a local budget (Lee, S. (ed.)) On Understanding Art Museums, Englewood, N.J. 1975. Such creative exhibitions have become a part of the cultural fabric of our modern, interdependent world. Their worth is by and large clearly acknowledged. And one of their products has been increased interest and justifiable curiosity on the part of both lay and professional constituencies. Museums have happily acquired a rapidly increasing interest and demand, with the unhappy accompanying effects of increased financial drains. This financial pressure, inevitably leading to deficit financing by almost all museums, has been increased by the inexorable rise in the value of art works and the accompanying increase of insurance premium costs for works sent to loan exhibitions. To cite only one example, the insurance premium for foreign works lent to the Cleveland Museum during the Caravaggio and His Followers exhibition of 1971-72 was $10,200 for coverage of a value of $3,800,000 in contrast to a premium for a forthcoming exhibition of Johann Liss, organized by the same museum, of $25,000 for coverage of a value of $4 million. The justifiable need for Federal support of these ventures, therefore, seems quite clear and the pending legislation will do much to satisfy that need. I am delighted to note that the proposed bill is written so as to provide the possibility of relief to numerous museums throughout the country, whether through a few essential international loans for a major exhibition or through relatively modest indemnification for creative small exhibitions. This is, I believe, achieved by the explicit omission of upper evaluation limits, and the reasonable owner limit of $25,000. The decisionmaking apparatus embodied in section 222 and section 223 (a) appears adequate to the tasks assumed, providing there is sufficient professional advice and consultation from existing Federal agencies such as the National Endowment for the Humanities, and that for the arts. Such professional consultation is essential if the risks assumed by the Federal Government are to be for worthy exhibitions that make either or both popular and scholarly contributions to the growth of knowledge and understanding in the Arts and Humanities. I would like to suggest consideration of two substantive matters embodied in the text of the proposed legislation. Section 224 (a) is not sufficiently clear as to the specific identity of the insured party. It lists who may apply for future indemnification, but not who is to be indemnified. This is a small matter, but one of concern to the owner of the object under indemnification. Secondly, section 225 (b) uses the word "incident" with regard to damage in excess of $25,000. I believe it is the intention of those drafting the legislation that this $25,000 deductible clause is to be applicable to the exhibition in question and I would therefore recommend that the word "incident" be changed to the word "exhibition." The long-term and still continuing growth of American art museums has been due to both private philanthropy and governmental support in indirect or carefully and wisely circumscribed ways. The public and scholarly services provided by these art museums have justified these methods of support. The proposed legislation, with the previous support given through the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, the National Museum Act, and others, seems to me a wise and constructive way for our Government to encourage and support the now hard-pressed artistic institutions of this country so that they may continue to fulfill their local, national and international cultural obligations. Thank you. Senator PELL. I think we should hear from all three members of the panel before starting questions. Miss SCHISSLER. I am here today, gentlemen, not simply in my capacity as director of the University of Minnesota Gallery, but as the officially designated representative of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, a consortium of educational institutions, which includes the Midwest universities of the "Big Ten," plus the University of Chicago. So, therefore, I would really like to speak in the way this bill would benefit smaller insurance institutions than those who have spoken previously. The bill you are considering which proposes provision for the indemnification of works of art from other countries on special loan for traveling exhibitions in the United States is of importance to all American museums, but is of special interest at this moment to the universities represented by the consortium of the CIC. In November of 1974 I visited the Soviet Union in an effort to arrange with the Ministry of Culture of that country for a special exhibition of Russian 19th century art which would travel to each of the university galleries of the CIC, and perhaps end its American. tour in Washington, D.C., at the Corcoran. The art of 19th century Russia has never been seen outside the Soviet Union, with the exception of one brief loan exhibition which took place in Germany, in Baden-Baden, several years ago. It has never been exhibited in the United States, and an exhibition comprised of such works would be an event of some international, cultural significance. Our plan was to use the exhibition as the nucleus around which to build a number of interdisciplinary events on campus-symposia, a lecture series covering a broad spectrum of topics, theatrical and musical events so that the art of the period would be seen in its proper historical context. For, if art grows out of the matrix of history, surely, it should not be seen and studied in isolation, but by bringing to bear upon its interpretation the expertise of widely ranging points of view. The Soviet Ministry of Culture responded enthusiastically to our initial inquiry. Plans are underway, at least in the first beginning phases, not only for such an exhibition, but for an exchange of personnel, so that Russian experts in various fields can accompany the exhibition, working on campus, in residence, with students and faculty from relevant departments-for example, theatre arts, history, literature, art history, et cetera. Thus, the exhibition would provide for a genuine international exchange of ideas. However, conversations with Philippe de Montebello of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, which is currently working with the Soviet Government on an exchange exhibition for the year 1976, have led us to believe that insurance valuations which have been astronomically high in the Metropolitan's case, running into the millions, will be a major stumbling block to our plans. It is, of course, understandable that insurance valuations be high since these works represent, for the Soviets, treasures of Russian art and civilization which their Government will not lightly undertake to export for foreign viewing. This is true not only of the particular case which we are considering, but of innumerable other exhibitions involving the exchange of works of art between nations. Each work is a unique creative effort, undertaken at a unique moment in history, and as such is irreplaceable, and nonreproducible. But while the yearly increase in insurance valuations is understandable in view of the uniqueness of the works and the constant rise in their market value, consequent insurance costs make such exhibitions well beyond the budgets of university museums. In the recent past, as you know, and has been stated in these hearings, similar problems have been resolved by special legislation undertaken by Congress to insure the safety of such works on loan to various American museums from both the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union. If necessary, we would ask Congress to enact similar legislation for the exhibition we propose, but blanket coverage by means of the passage of the bill which is before you now would be of much greater benefit. Thus, museums could undertake plans for appropriate exhibitions, knowing that upon fulfilling the requirements outlined in the bill proper indemnification would be automatically available. In conclusion, I should like to point out that the collections of university galleries are generally much less comprehensive and extensive than those of the major, urban museums throughout the country. Special loan exhibitions are thus their lifeblood, by means of which major works of art can be brought to campus for specified periods of time for study by students and faculty. The educational value of such exhibitions is incalculable, providing the focus and stimulus for research and teaching in a wide range of disciplines. Without the enabling legislation before you now, many possibilities for such exhibitions will not even be explored, and the intellectual life of our campuses in some measure impoverished. We hope that you will not let that happen, but will, on the contrary, pursue an active role in providing the means for the international exchange of ideas and art. Thank you. [The following information was subsequently supplied for the record:] |