The Study Center at the A Collections Policy Recommendation Report

by Shannon Robinson Spring 2010

I. Overview page 3

II. Mission and Goals page 5

III. Service Community and Programs page 7

IV. The Collection and Future Acquisition page 8

V. Library Selection page 11

VI. Responsibilities page 12

VII. Complaints and Censorship page 13

VIII. Evaluation page 13

IX. Bibliography page 15

X. Additional Materials References page 16 I. Overview

The American Folk Art Museum in is largely focused on the collection and preservation of the artwork of self-taught artists in the United States and abroad. The Museum began in 1961 as the Museum of Early American Folk Arts; at that time, the idea of appreciating folk art alongside contemporary art was a consequence of modernism (The American Folk Art Museum, 2010c).

The collection’s pieces date to as early as the eighteenth century and in it’s earlier days was largely comprised of sculpture. The Museum approached collecting and exhibiting much like a contemporary art gallery. This was in support of its mission promoting the “aesthetic appreciation” and “creative expressions” of folk artists as parallel in content and quality to more mainstream, trained artists. (The American Folk Art Museum, 2010b). Within ten years of opening, however, and though the collection continued to grow, a financial strain hindered a bright future for the Museum.

In 1977, the Museum’s Board of Trustees appointed Robert Bishop director (The American Folk Art Museum, 2010c). While Bishop was largely focused on financial and facility issues, he encouraged gift acquisitions, and increasing the collection in general, by promising many artworks from his personal collection. During his tenure, Bishop also began a volunteer docent program and, in 1981, a graduate program (with New York University) in folk art studies; four years later, the Folk Art Institute was established to degree certificates in folk art studies (The American Folk Art Museum, 2010c). This set a precedent for the Museum as not only an exhibition space, but also a classroom.

In the early 1990s, Gerard Wertkin succeeded Bishop as director and, while he was focused on improving the facilities of the Museum and its offices, he was also intent on creating opportunities for new scholarship. Under his vision, the Museum developed the Contemporary Center. This Center would be dedicated to twentieth and twenty-first century self-taught artists as well as “taking on a leadership role in the developing international field of the self-taught, especially long-standing challenges revolving around the issues of scholarship quality, and semantics (The American Folk Art Museum, 2010a).” In 2001, the Center acquired much of the work of one artist in particular, a recluse janitor by the name of Henry Darger.

Henry Darger spent his entire life in . By eight years old, Henry was in the poor house in , aban- doned by a father too old and ill to care for the boy. From there he went to live at the Mission of Our Lady of Mercy Catholic boys’ home (Bonesteel, 2000, 8). His unusual behavior did not award him many friends and, in his early teens, a psychiatric diagnosis that his “heart isn’t in the right place” triggered his transfer to the Asylum for Feeble-Minded Children in Lincoln (Darger, The History of My Life, unpublished manuscript, 41). Years later, grieved by the news of his father’s death, Henry ran away from the Asylum, returning to his hometown of Chicago where he began a lifelong career as a hospital dishwasher and janitor.

As a recluse with many quirks, possibly undiagnosed mental health problems, not many people really got to know Henry Darger or his thoughts. It was only about a year before his death when Darger, moved by his caring landlords to a nursing home, was revealed for a prolific artist and writer. After his death, in 1973, the full extent of Darger’s inner world was discovered - and quickly admired.

The Henry Darger Study Center, part of The Contemporary Center, is home to all of Darger’s writing (some thirty thousand pages, divided into four main manuscripts), much of his ephemera and source material, and twenty-four of his over three hundred paintings (The American Folk Art Museum, 2010d). This is the largest public collection of Darger’s work and, because it contains the original manuscript to his 15,000 page epic novel, arguably the most important. Fully titled The Story of the Vivian Girls, in What Is Known as the Realms of the Unreal, of the Glandeco-Angelinnian War Storm, Caused by the Child Slave Rebellion, it is a classic tale of good versus evil with overlay of Catholic doctrine, sadistic violence, and pedophilia that is well-illustrated with hundreds of and watercolor paintings, some nearly a dozen feet in length. Darger also kept diaries of various kinds (daily, weather) and wrote an autobiography, The History of My Life. All of Darger’s work, writing or painting, can stand alone as a stunning success with plenty of mystery; however, all of Darger’s work, together in entirety, is a masterpiece of unequaled brilliance.

II. Mission and Goals

As a division of the American Folk Art Museum, the Henry Darger Study Center must echo the overall mission of promoting traditional folk arts and hold firm to the Contemporary Center’s goal to foster scholarship in the field. In order to do this successfully, the Museum must consider two key objectives: to refrain from blindly following the classic museum model of acquisition and exhibition and to identify ‘folk art’ and clarify semantics. These recommendations comprise the “intellectual framework” for why the Museum should support the acquisition and research of the Henry Darger Study Center (Simmons, 2004, 2).

As noted, in much of the Museum’s early history, collection development and exhibition guidelines mimicked those of the fine art galleries and museums that were (and still are) the Museum’s most comparable neighbors. However, fine art is often “removed from the context of [its] creation” and stands alone as finished work and closing statement in and of itself (The American Folk Art Museum, 2010a). This is unacceptable for self-taught artists, whose works carry the story and culture of an individual as representation of the story and culture of a nation. To separate the two would be to lose true meaning of both. This is particularly relevant to an artist such as Henry Darger; his work defines him and yet his life ephemera provides clues to fully realizing his work. Furthermore, his paintings act as illustration to In the Realms of the Unreal and thereby each is integral to understanding the other. The Museum must keep this at the forefront in acquisitions selection, exhibition display, and support of scholarship that questions the artist, rather than just the works. Likewise, without understanding the language of the genre of folk art, the Museum cannot confidently makes decisions regarding acquisitions and collection maintenance. Naïve or self-taught artists have no formal training and, following the history of art brut (raw art), can be of any age and any mental and social standing. Outsider artists also have no formal training but are those on the outskirts of society, often because of mental or social problems (The American Museum of Folk Art, 2010a). One term is all inclusive and therefore lacks clarity while the other is marginalizing and instantly stereotyping. Today, in scholarship, vernacular is commonly used to refer to the everyday, the commonality of art within the artist’s routine, without separation of studio or critical thought. Henry Darger is mostly described as an outsider artist due to the popularity of the term and the bizarre content of his work that suggests mental incapability; this probability cannot be denied as his work can be seen as an effect of his mental state. The Museum and Center must clearly focus “through the lens of language” in order to view the thin line of distinction between contemporary fine art and traditional self-taught art (The American Folk Art Museum, 2010a).

III. Service Community and Programs

As an international museum, the American Folk Art Museum has a responsibility to support the traditional folk arts and educate the general public about the art, artists, and how they represent a cultural history as well as visual representations of the mind and psyche. Henry Darger should be part of this education, through continued acquisition and exhibition of his work. This is particularly necessary because of the popularity of Darger’s work and life story; he has inspired a book-length poem by and a song by as well as other popular artists’ attributions (Cotter, 2002, 38). As Darger’s influence spreads, demands to view his work and learn more about his life will continue to advance the Center’s mission. As well as the general public, art students, artists, and scholars will be a part of the Center’s service community. While Darger has gained popularity with the general public, he has become idolized within the art world. Dargerphiles, as Henry’s long-term landlord, Kiyoko Lerner calls them, have hounded her (and her late husband) “wanting a piece of Henry Darger (Jones, 2005).” The Lerners had kept Darger’s apartment in tact, almost as a shrine, until the apartment was to be demolished in 2000. Knowing what this devoted audience needed, Kiyoko hosted an overnight in ‘the room’ for these followers (Jones, 2005). This audience, too, will look toward the Center for the preservation of Darger’s work and ephemera as well as participate in developing new scholarship.

Brooke Davis Anderson is currently the director and curator of the Contemporary Center that houses the Henry Darger Study Center. She noted in a 2008 interview that she’s “interested in trying to get other young scholars to study Darger. There’s still a whole lot of work to be done on his oeuvre. There are questions about his work, and I want there to be continued probing for answers. (Xu, 2008).” In response to this, the Museum now supports the Henry Darger Study Center Fellowship. Each year, a fellow (or two) is invited to work with Center, the Museum library, and the permanent collection. According to the 2010 fellowship application, the fellow, who must be a graduate student or PhD candidate, will present their museum research at the Nathan Lerner Annual Lecture given each year at the Fair in New York City with consideration for publication on the website. Recent scholarship includes Missing Girls in the Art of Henry Darger by Mary Trent and Transsexual and White Slave Fantasies: Henry Darger’s Intertextualization by Jaimy Mann.

IV. The Collection and Future Acquisition

The Henry Darger Study Center currently holds all of Darger’s writing, nearly 3,000 objects from his home (much as source material for his artwork, which is derived from tracing magazine and newspaper photographs as well as actual ), and twenty-four of his ten foot long, double-sided paintings (The American Folk Art Museum, 2010d). However, more than three hundred paintings were discovered in Darger’s apartment after his death - these watercolor collages are the primary material the Center must push to acquire, and conserve, for its collection.

As a recluse with no family, Darger simply left all his belongings to his landlords, Kiyoko and Nathan Lerner. Artists and art appreciators, the Lerners’ unearthing of Darger’s lifetime of creativity caused them to pause in admiration. They were fortunate to be able to ask him before his death what he intended for his artwork. “It’s yours. Just throw it away” was the tired old man’s reply (Jones, 2005). Unable to even consider this option, the Lerners set out to share Henry Darger with the world, eventually drawing gallerists, contemporary art scholars, and, of course, the American Folk Art Museum, to their door.

By the end of 2004, however, with her husband gone and her life consumed by art dealers hungry for a bit of the crazy janitor’s ephemera, Kiyoko Lerner threw in the towel and announced she was out of the business of selling Darger’s work (Jones, 2005). Many of his paintings were in Chicago and New York City galleries that specialize in outsider art (as the term has become great for marketing, it is still used in the business). But two external pressures changed Kiyoko’s thoughts about the future of Darger’s work and its scholarly interpretation - two pressures the Center must collaborate with to secure conservation and research while remaining firm to their foundation in folk art.

Klaus Biesenbach, one of the curators at MOMA, has been heavily influential in re-branding Henry Darger as a contemporary artist rather than a self-taught or outsider artist. “Klaus has been telling me that Henry’s art doesn’t belong in a folk art museum,” Kiyoko said in 2006 (Ripley, 2006, 12). Biesenbach, and other scholars in the field of contemporary art, believe that Darger’s work surpasses the typical folk art tradition in quality and mainstream popularity, meaning that to exhibit and study him in this genre is to weaken true understanding of him as an artist. The Museum’s development of the Henry Darger Study Center and the annual fellowship opportunity contradicts this notion that Darger is being discredited.

While the Center supports and publishes research by Biesenbach, as a recommended mission of the Center, Darger must continue to be collected and examined as a vernacular artist because “his life and work are inseparable (Cotter, 2002, 38).” Darger’s work cannot be placed in mainstream contemporary art, and thereby collected and exhibited as such, because all context will be lost. A perfect example of the coupled nature between Darger the artist and Darger the hospital janitor is evident in the at the University of Chicago’s 2007-2008 exhibition Drawn from the Home of Henry Darger. This exhibition displayed artifacts from Darger’s apartment alongside his paintings, forcing comparisons and connections. The Museum should echo this viewpoint and also use Darger’s popularity to support its efforts in continued acquisition of Darger’s paintings. This way, education and scholarship in the field of folk art will greatly benefit the Museum’s full audience.

Gardner and Merritt note in their collections planning strategy that identifying and cooperating with analogous collections held by museums, galleries, or individuals must be readily considered (2002, 60). For the Center, the Andrew Edlin Gallery is its competitor and companion. The young gallery is not considered venerable in either the contemporary or folk art fields, but Kiyoko Lerner has put all her faith in it to preserve and appropriately market Darger’s work by giving the Gallery exclusive representation of Darger’s estate. Many believe her decision was largely based on the Gallery’s offer to underwrite the operating costs of the Lerner’s foundation, which provides art training to the mentally ill (Ripley, 2006, 14). Regardless of the reasons, the Center must now work with the Gallery if it hopes to acquire more of Darger’s long watercolors that provide illustration to In the Realms of the Unreal. Because Darger’s writing and painting are essential foundations for each other, the Center should continue to acquire his paintings to further their research on his epic novel that they already hold.

V. Library Selection

It could be considered fortunate that there is a limit to Darger’s work so while selection must be aimed at complete acquisition, there is no real time frame for successfully carrying out this goal. However the Center should not solely focus on the actual work of this vernacular artist; because it supports scholarship and general education, the Center should also focus on research selection for the Museum library.

Supporting materials should include more monumental works like Michael Bonesteel’s 2000 book Henry Darger: Art and Selected Writing and Jessica Yu’s 2004 award-winning film documentary In the Realms of the Unreal. Even Klaus Biesenbach’s 2009 Henry Darger, which examines the artist within the contemporary art context, should be acquired. As converse scholarship to Biesenbach, the library should consider works like outsider art expert John MacGregor’s Henry Darger: In the Realms of the Unreal (2002) and The Transubstantiation of Henry Darger, a dissertation by Faith Ann Shields at the University of British Columbia in 2007 as part of her degree requirement for a Doctorate in Philosophy in the Interdisciplinary Studies program, that examines Darger’s work and the various responses to his work through psychology and social stigma.

While supporting materials relevant to interpreting Darger’s life and work are critical to the library collection, creative work derived from Darger’s influence are not to be considered in the selection process. Many poets, authors, songwriters, and visual artists have studied Darger and produced ample content based on their interpretation of In the Realms of the Unreal. While this work is important in that it suggests encouragement from the mainstream for continued conservation and research, acquisition of this material would be antithetical to the overall mission of the Museum and its establishment in the folk art field.

VI. Responsibilities

Selection responsibility for both the art collection and the research material for the library lies with the Center’s director, Brooke Davis Anderson. Though Anderson is ultimately leading selection and management, she cannot do this alone or without documentation; otherwise she runs the risk of “operating in isolation from other staff and other units (Gardner and Merritt, 2002, 30).” The Henry Darger Study Center is one division of the Contemporary Center which is one division of the American Folk Art Museum. All three must work in tandem to support a unified mission and select appropriate materials legally and with a clear vision for future exhibition and scholarship. This may mean that other collections may face deaccession of objects not readily focused on traditional folk art; perhaps re-evaluating their smaller collection of international artists in favor of truly supporting American folk art, as the Museum’s history and title suggest.

Daily management of the collection should follow all the recommendations detailed by the American Association of Museums (AAM). As the Museum and the Center must collaborate with other museums and galleries for exhibition as well as future acquisition, it is important that all parties follow established principles. The Museum’s conservation department will handle the physical care and storage of the artworks while the Board of Trustees must approve any acquisition. This would include possible gifts to the collection which, if deemed authentic Henry Darger, may be accepted (though the popularity of his work reasons this unlikely). Because the AAM upholds proper accessioning, loan policies, conservation efforts, and museum ethics, full compliance with these standards is necessary (American Association of Museums, 2010).

VII. Complaints and Censorship

Given the violent and sexual nature of Henry Darger’s writing and paintings, a policy for handling complaints and censorship is mandatory. While he has gained popularity, many in the general public feel that the content of the work, which includes pedophilia, sexual confusion, rape, war, and anti-Christian sentiments, is inappropriate for collection and exhibition in a public venue and is not worthy of scholarly investigation. On her blog, Museum 2.0, Nina Simon writes about a conference session she participated in that dealt with self- censorship in museums; that is, when the museum predicts controversy and thereby avoids it. Potentially controversial exhibition topics were listed by the intensity of the risk. The “no way” list includes “child predators psychology,” “pedophilia,” and “God” - all three of which are central to Darger’s work (2008). Clearly, the Center will need to be prepared for complaints. This ultimately should be handled by the Museum’s Board of Trustees.

VIII. Evaluation

Evaluation of the Henry Darger Study Center’s collection is necessary for internal purposes only. The collection should not be assessed against other collections because it is too unique. However, an internal evaluation will help the director and her staff objectively see the strengths and weaknesses of the collection and illustrate an overall direction that the scholarship has taken since its foundation in 2001. More directly, an evaluation can prove that audience interest and support should be reflected by an increased budget for the Center. This evaluation should be presented to the entire Museum community to familiarize everyone with the Museum’s most prized holdings and allow feedback for further acquisition and programming. Bibliography

Bonesteel, M. (2000). Henry Darger: Art and selected writings. New York: Rizzoli.

Cotter, H. (2002, April 19). Visions of childhood, showing purity and evil. , pp. 38.

Gardner, J. and Merritt, E. (2002). Collections planning: Pinning down a strategy. Museum News. from http://www.aam-us.org/pubs/mn/MN_JA02_CollectionsPlanning.cfm

Jones, F (2005). Landlord’s fantasy. Forbes. from http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/0425/115_print.html

Ripley, D. (2006). The artful Dager. art on paper, 10(3), pp. 12 & 14.

Simmons, J. (2004). Managing things: Crafting a collections policy. Museum News. from http://www.aam-us.org/pubs/mn/MN_JF04_ManagingThings.cfm

Simon, N. (2008, October 22). Self-Censorship for Museum Professionals. from http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2008/10/self-censorship-for-museum.html

The American Folk Art Museum (2010a). About the Collection. from http://www.folkartmuseum.org/collectio

______(2010b). Mission. from http://www.folkartmuseum.org/mission

______(2010c). Museum History. from http://www.folkartmuseum.org/history

______(2010d). The Henry Darger Study Center. from http://www.folkartmuseum.org/dargerstudycenter

Xu, Ruyian (2008, May 6). An interview with Brooke Davis Anderson about outsider artist Henry Darger. from http://www.pbs.org/pov/blog/2008/05/an_interview_with_brooke_davis_1.php

Additional Materials Referenced

Alutiiq Museum (2010). Alutiiq Museum collections policy. from alutiiqmuseum.org/pdfs/CollectionsPolicy.pdf

American Association of Museums (2010). Code of Ethics for Museums. from http://www.aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/coe.cfm

Evans, G. E. and Saponaro, M. Z. (2005). Developing Library and Information Center Collections. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.

Frederic Remington Art Museum (2010). Collection policies and procedures for Frederic Remington Art Museum. downloaded pdf from http://www.fredericremington.org/page.php?p=10&s=3

Gardner, J. and Merritt, E. (2004). The AAM guide to collections planning. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums.

Smyth, E. B. (1999). A practical approach to writing a collection development policy. Rare Books and Manuscripts Librarianship, 14(1), pp 27-31.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art (2010). Collections Management Policy. from http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/collection_management_policy.aspx