THE PRIVATE COLLECTOR‘S IMPACT ON MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

BY KAITLIN BECK

DREXEL UNIVERSITY ARTS ADMINISTRATION THESIS

DECEMBER 8, 2014

THE PRIVATE COLLECTOR’S IMPACT ON MUSEUM COLLECTIONS

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty

of

Drexel University

by

Kaitlin Beck

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree

of

Master of Science in Arts Administration

December 2014

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... ii

PURPOSE/PROBLEM STATEMENT, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, RESEARCH QUESTION & HYPOTHESIS ...... 1

LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 5

JAMES A. MICHENER ART MUSEUM ORIGINAL CASE RESEARCH ...... 32

CONCLUSION ...... 50

APPENDIX ...... 52

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 53

ii

ABSTRACT

This thesis examines the relationship between private collectors and nonprofit organizations to understand how private collectors impact museum collections. The paper includes a case study on The James A. Michener Art Museum, and specifically the groundbreaking 1999 bequest of 59 paintings to the museum, by Marguerite and Gerry Lenfest.

The discussion concludes with recommendations based on the research findings including how museums, like the Michener Museum, can make efforts to maintain clear communication with donors as well as adapt to the ever evolving art world while following the standards and best practices of the field.

1

PURPOSE/ PROBLEM STATEMENT, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, RESEARCH QUESTION & HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between private collectors and nonprofit organizations to understand how private collectors impact museum collections. How are they an asset or a liability? How do private collectors become major art donors? How do they compete for the same artwork? What are the current trends in this area? What are the most common concerns? How can the relationship between the two groups be strengthened? How can art organizations increase quality donations? This research answers these questions and can provide museums insight into how they can work with private collectors to build stronger, more permanent collections for public benefit. Organizations will benefit from a strengthened understanding of the issues that are outlined in this thesis. It is important, in any field, to take a step back and examine the dynamics of different groups individually and in relation to one another. This can help reinforce networks. For the arts administration field, private collectors and museums have a long history of interaction. It is essential that the relationship between the two be studied in order for museums to benefit even more from the connection to this important donor group.

For this thesis, I utilized several different research methods. I conducted original interviews, a case study, and academic article research, as well as the examined recent news stories related to the topic. My interviews were conducted with several key individuals at the

James A. Michener Art Museum, including the Senior Director of Advancement Laurie

McGahey and Curator of Collections Connie Kimmerle, who have had experience working with private collectors in the museum setting. I also conducted a survey that allowed Michener 2 docents to provide insight into their unique relationship and interaction with museum visitors. I wanted to better understand, from the perspective of all of these individuals, how they perceive the current relationship between private collectors and museums. What are the challenges? Have they seen trends emerge and change over time? Do they have examples of successes? I also interviewed a private collector, as I wanted to learn about his interests, thoughts, and perspective.

What motivates them? What do they look for when building their private collection? What, if any, is their individual relationship with museums? How do they envision their legacy and their long-term impact on the arts community? Additionally, I interviewed a contemporary artist, who has artwork in the Michener‘s permanent collection. The diversity of the interviewees proved to be useful when I analyzed all of the information gathered.

I also incorporated an important case study about the Marguerite & Gerry Lenfest donation of 59 paintings to the James A. Michener Art Museum, in the year 2000. This was an example of a major donation from a private art collection to a permanent, privately run, public collection. I wanted to examine the facts of the case. How did the relationship form? Who initiated the donation? Why was this donation successful? What, if any can be determined, were the effects of this donation to the Michener or to the field in general? Was there any controversy?

How did this influence other donors? Several of my original interviews and research opportunities related to this case study, including individuals who worked at the Michener during this time. The Lenfests, who are major Philadelphia area philanthropists, have long supported the

Michener and other arts organizations within the community. For this research, I examined their position in the Philadelphia arts community and their private collection in relation to their legacy of charitable giving.

3

My original interviews, archival research, and the examination of several current cases provided an overall, well-rounded perspective of the relationship between the two groups. These research methods helped build my case and show that multiple sources are acknowledging similarities regarding this relationship dynamic. I was able to evaluate what strengths and limitations museums currently have when working with private collectors and identify unrecognized trends that may be beneficial when working together in the future. Private collectors are an essential donor group that must be maintained to ensure the continued success of any arts organization with a permanent collection.

Gathering and appropriately analyzing my data sources was essential for this project. My original interviews were recorded and/or transcribed (with the permission from the interviewees).

While collecting data, natural trends emerged. I looked for these trends and considered several questions. What stood out? What did I see mentioned over and over? Was there something I was looking for that was not being mentioned? I continued to ask these questions and refined my analysis throughout the process.

While I feel that my research will provide valuable insight into the relationship between these two major groups, there were some limitations. My research was limited to fine art permanent collections. I did not examine collections that include, for example, natural history, medical history, libraries and ephemera, coins, and other collectibles. Additionally, I did not examine corporate art collections and monetary donations by private collectors (unless they were in direct correlation with a specific case I analyzed and were noted, such as Leonard A. Lauder‘s

2013 gift to the Metropolitan Museum of Art) (―Collection Will Transform‖ 2013). Short-term art loans, for special exhibits, were also not included in my discussion (again, unless they were directly correlated to a specific permanent donor case that was referenced). I feel that by

4 narrowing my research, I was able to better identify important trends that emerged and strengthen the focus for this specific field.

Today, more than ever, organizations need to establish and maintain a close connection with donors. It is the only way they can ensure continued success. By far, private individuals account for the largest group of donors to nonprofit organizations (more than corporations and foundations) (―Charitable Giving‖ n.d.; Giving USA Foundation 2013). According to national data (that included all types of nonprofits) in 2012, for example, 72% of charitable giving was contributed by private individuals (―Charitable Giving‖ n.d.; Giving USA Foundation 2013).

Many tangible object donations come with monetary gifts. I believe that recognizing this will help organizations to develop strategies to connect with private collectors and, in turn, strengthen their permanent collections. By establishing clearer communication and discussing expectations, visions, and values of both parties, the donor - institution relationship can be strengthened. This will help to ensure that museum collections are developed, improved, and enhanced, with the support of private collectors, over time, so that they can be enjoyed for generations to come. It is time for organizations to capitalize on one of their greatest assets for growth and evolution: the private collector.

5

LITERATURE REVIEW

In order to understand the issues that museums face today, examining the historical context of the relationship between private collectors and institutions is essential. From the late

19th century through current times, museums have had to develop and maintain relationships with private collectors, who hopefully, in turn, would become donors. Issues related to the donation process and donor motives are examined in literature written in the past few decades, and provide insight into relationship in different capacities. It is clear that current museum leaders can learn from previous successes and mistakes that have been seen in national and even international cases.

From the 1870‘s through the 1940‘s, industrial tycoons from America flocked to Europe on a multi-decade buying spree (Rees 1999). They were on a mission to amass the most impressive collections of European art possible. In 1911, the Board of the National Gallery in

London began to conduct an investigation into the ―Retention of Important Pictures in this

Country‖ to determine the issues surrounding the high volume of exported art (Rees 1999). The tycoons competed for priceless works of art. Renaissance art, for example, was the hottest commodity, and paintings by Raphael were the top prize (Holler 2010). Not only were certain artists deemed more important than others, the right provenance, or history, and previous ownership of the artwork, was significant as well. Value was added, for example, if the piece of art was once owned by a European nobleman or hung in a castle (Holler 2010). Status was everything. Collectors often sought artwork by certain artists or with certain provenance, sometimes overlooking the quality of the piece (or lack of), rather selecting work based on what was popular at the time. The foundation of private collecting has not changed much since these early years, and provenance still adds significant value to a work of art.

6

Today, private collectors still compete over works by artists that are deemed important, and many employ the services of private art dealers, much like the tycoons of the previous century. During the 19th century, Joel Duveen was the premier art dealer and consultant (Holler

2010). Whatever he deemed as possessing artistic quality, American collectors coveted. They had the money and he had the knowledge – a perfect, yet dangerous combination. Collectors may have relied too heavily on the word of Duveen, often not knowing themselves if the art was worth the price they paid. Today, many of the works that Duveen helped bring to America are now in public art collections, including Masaccio‘s ―Madonna of Humility‖, donated to the

National Gallery of Art in Washington, by Andrew Mellon (Holler 2010). Many of these paintings helped form some of today‘s most important American museum collections.

In 1870, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in New York City was founded. The original founders supported the efforts in order to demonstrate their ―wealth, power, and leadership over urban society‖ (Thomas 2002, 16). The display of wealth and power during that time, through the arts, was monumental. Today, examples of this trend can still be found as collectors sometimes want to be publically acknowledged for their gift to an organization. This fact must be considered when examining the relationship between donors and institutions.

A few examples do exist, however, that show certain museum founders had an eye for quality rather than status purely through the names of artists in their collection. Edward

Drummond Libbey and his wife, who founded the Toledo Museum of Art, sought pieces that highlighted the best of the period, rather than by a specific artist or craftsperson (Waller 2001).

Every artist has their good and bad days. Not every work by a top artist is top quality. Rather, high quality collections often comprise top examples from a variety of artists – choosing the best examples from each one. This is what the Libbey‘s did. Today, the Toledo Museum of Art

7 continues to be a source for other organizations to borrow from because of their stellar quality collection, established through the vision of its wealthy founders. This is an example to look up to.

Regardless of the collector‘s background, trust and clear communication are necessary for a strong relationship to flourish. While many private collectors during the late18th/early 19th century were extremely wealthy industrial tycoons, others were artists in their own right. French

Impressionist Edgar Degas, for example, built an impressive collection of works by his contemporaries including Vincent van Gogh, Paul Cezanne, and Paul Gauguin, as well as earlier artists including Edouard Manet and Eugene Delacroix (Carrier 1998). Degas lived a modest life and dedicated most of the profits from the sale of his own artwork to building his collection of works by other artists (Carrier 1998). Because he distrusted formal art institutions, he contemplated opening his own museum, but died before any formal plan was solidified. Upon

Degas‘ death, his collection was sold at public auction. The collection returned to private hands for decades, until the groundbreaking 1988 retrospective exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of

Art reunited much of it (at least for a brief period of time) (Carrier 1998). This case is an example of a major missed opportunity by a museum. It is interesting to note however, another artist and collector, Charles Wilson Peale, established his own museum (which became the current Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts) in Philadelphia, based around his private collection and sought ―a role for art in shaping the civic and self-culture of a new republic‖ (Katz

2005, 203). The relationship between a collector, and in the case of Degas, someone who also happened to be a master artist in his own right, and museums, can sometimes be a precarious one. While it is not necessarily known why Degas distrusted formal art institutions, it is possible, and highly probable that it was because of his own personal experience dealing with them as an

8 artist. This case highlights why it is so important for arts organizations to establish a strong, positive relationship with private collectors, especially when dealing with donors coming from different backgrounds.

I felt that it was also important to look into the thought process of a collector in order to fully understand their perspective, motives, and concerns. The Menil Collection, in Houston,

Texas, for example, includes paintings by European masters and American Modernists, as well as a wide variety of antiques and collectibles (Smart 2006). The collection was amassed over 45 years, by John and Dominique de Menil, during which time it remained in private hands (Smart

2006). In 1987, the collection was opened to the public as a ―gift to [their] adopted city‖ (Menil, n.p.). Author Pamela G. Smart examined the relationship between the collectors and their collection and argues that ―donor-built museums, which open once private collections to the purview of the public, can, in this light, be understood as an extension of the collector‘s project of the self, wherein the content and style of the museum become part of the rhetoric of a distinctively constituted self‖ (Smart 2006, 27). Museums built around one collection can provide a glimpse into the psyche of the original collector, who chose to share his or her efforts, thoughts, and passion with the public. Martin Jay adds that ―collecting can [likewise] be motivated by an organic principle of integrity-searching for a complete set of something, arranged taxonomically, or collecting only variations on one theme-or by a mélange of fragments from various environments, acquired opportunistically and organized paratactically‖ (Jay 2013,

55). He also points out that collections rarely remain intact, and are inevitably disassembled for various reasons (Jay 2013). When a private collection is divided, part of the uniqueness is lost forever, never to be returned. This is an important factor that each individual collector considers when building a collection – and possibly when donating works; the reason that they amass their

9 collection in a specific cohesive manner will be lost. Institutions must recognize this special aspect and approach it with sensitivity and understanding when dealing with any collector as a potential donor.

The desire to compete with contemporary collectors of the time and satisfy personal goals, yet maintain a community conscious perspective, was a standard that drove some dedicated individuals. Thomas Lockwood, for example, an American book collector, not only donated his extensive collection to the University of Buffalo, but donated funds to build a library to hold the collection (Bolze 2010). Thomas A. Bolze (2010) argues that:

the factor that would blur and ultimately merge these private and public identities was book collecting. Beginning as a casual hobby, and then evolving into a focused pursuit with an increasingly clear intent, Lockwood‘s collecting seems to have served a number of functions: a psychological refuge in times of stress, a sentimental tether to fond memories of Yale, and a source of pride and community among his peers. Eventually, it would also guarantee his family‘s legacy by producing a dramatic addition to Buffalo‘s cultural infrastructure…[and aligned] the surge in his collecting with a conscious desire to create a community legacy. (418, 421)

Cultural identities of certain cities have been built, in part, upon the donations of private collectors, like Thomas Lockwood, who were not only driven by personal motives, but saw the bigger picture and wanted to give for the greater good of the community. I believe that this is an asset that could be capitalized upon. When these individuals give to an organization within a community, they help to build an area‘s cultural identity. Organizations and communities can use these donations to promote their cause and the area (ex: tourism marketing). Museums may want to consider creating targeted donor marketing campaigns with this concept in mind, the idea being that they would want to give back to the community they live in and leave an impactful legacy there by doing so.

10

In some instances, private collectors, like the Menils, with significant resources seek to build their own museums, rather than work with already established institutions. Some possibly took inspiration from earlier collectors with similar visions of creating a museum around a single private collection, like Charles Wilson Peale, Albert Barnes, and Isabella Stewart Gardner

(Crumpacker 1999). Walmart heiress, Alice Walton recently amassed an unprecedented collection for Crystal Bridges, her museum in Bentonville, Arkansas. The collection of American art was built in record time and is valued at $500 million (O‘Connor 2013). For Walton, this was a passion project that she had been thinking about since she was a young child and began collecting small works of art. Her museum and collecting practices have been met with some controversy. Walton‘s priorities and the source of funding for the museum have come into question. Some argue, while Walton spends millions of dollars on the finest art, many Walmart employees lack a livable wage and health insurance (Goldberg 2011). As one critic put it, ―Her response so far to the needs of the people whose sweat pays for her paintings is a simple one: Let them eat art‖ (Goldberg 2011, n.p.). Despite the controversy, the museum itself has been well attended since opening in 2011 (O‘Connor 2013). One must also consider what her motives were to build a new museum rather than support an already well-established institution. Was it personal ego? Was it a desire to attain a certain status? Was it a true passion for the arts?

Regardless, because of her efforts, many American masterpieces are now available for the public to enjoy rather than being hidden behind private walls.

Recently, there have been examples of intended art donations that have gone awry and, as a result, envisioned legacies have been altered. In March 2014, the George D. Horst Collection was offered at public auction by Freeman‘s Auctioneers & Appraisers in Philadelphia. Horst, a collector from Reading, PA, amassed an impressive collection of American and European

11 paintings and sculpture including works by Edward W. Redfield, Daniel Garber, Jean-Baptiste

Camille Corot, Childe Hassam, and Frank Weston Benson among others. The artwork was intended to be donated to the Reading Museum, but after construction began on their new location in 1924, and Horst disapproved, he revoked his gift ("A Rare Time Capsule of Fine Art"

2014). The artwork remained in the Horst family for the next 90 years, until the auction. The sale was the eventual result of the original owner‘s conflict with the intended recipient organization.

After the auction, many of the pieces returned to private collections, likely to be unseen by the public for years to come, including Edward Redfield‘s ―Winter Sunlight‖ which sold for

$710,500, Frank Weston Benson‘s ―Marshes of Long Point‖, which garnered $662,500, and

Daniel Garber‘s ―Glen Cuttalossa‖ which brought $398,500 ("George D. Horst Collection

Achieves $4.3 Million" 2014). Details surrounding donor-institution disputes must be examined and learned from in order to attempt to prevent them in the future.

Today, there are many examples of art donations that are in dispute because of donor- institution conflicts, as well as poor communication. The Beaverbrook Art Gallery in Canada is in a dispute over a collection of more than 200 works of art that were believed to be donated to the museum. The museum claims the artwork, which is valued at $200 million, was donated by

Lord Beaverbrook to the museum, and subsequently the public, but the Beaverbrook Foundation believes it is rightfully theirs (Cushing 2008). Because there was no clear paperwork detailing whether the collection was a loan or donation, the dispute continues. Lord Beaverbrook died years ago so he is not able to divulge his true intentions regarding the collection. To this day, the dispute continues. This case is a clear example and lesson for art institutions to learn from when dealing with private collectors regarding what types of legal ramifications may arise when two

12 parties do not agree and lack clear communication. The resources spent on an issue that should have been prevented could surely have been directed in a more productive way.

Recently, several national headlines have brought attention to the fragile relationship between private donors and cultural institutions. They highlight the importance and necessity of proper documentation and accountability on the part of institutions that objects are entrusted to.

This cannot be more evident than in the case of the Baltimore Museum of Art and their fight for the ―Flea Market‖ Renoir. In 2012, ―On the Shore of the Seine‖, by Pierre Auguste Renoir, was scheduled to be sold at auction and valued at up to $100,000 (Shapira 2014). The painting was being sold by a woman who claims she bought it for $7 at a West Virginia flea market in 2009

(Shapira 2014). The day before the auction, however, the BMA claims documentation was found supporting the argument that the painting was stolen from the museum in 1951 (Shapira 2014).

Shockingly, it took a Washington Post reporter, who was researching in the museum‘s archives, to discover this. The reporter found a document stating that the painting was reported missing during an exhibition in November of 1951. Originally, the museum denied having any record of the painting or it being missing. This major oversight highlights the need for proper paperwork and procedures. The painting was donated by private collector and longtime museum donor

Saidie May in 1937 (Shapira 2014). Due to the mistake on the museum‘s part, the painting would have been sold at auction. Eventually, the case was brought to federal court, where it was ruled that the painting rightfully belonged to the museum. We must consider what type of impression this event left on donors of the BMA. Surely this bad press did little to help their cause. While the museum‘s policies and standards have certainly improved since the 1950‘s, it is important for organizations like the BMA to have a strategy in place to handle similar situations if they happen to arise in the future.

13

Patricia Quinn Robertson has examined the sometimes fragile relationship between donors and organizations and emphasizes that ―many donors think that when they make a pledge to a non-profit organization they have incurred a moral obligation, but not a legal obligation‖

(Robertson 2009, 17). Sometimes the donor changes their mind. It is imperative to have all donations clearly described in a written document that can be referenced in the future. If the pledge is clearly written in a contract, the organization would have a stronger case if they wanted to pursue legal action against a donor. This is part of why it is important for organizations to establish certain guidelines that follow industry standards and best practices. Additionally, Iris J.

Goodwin argues that donors are becoming more aware that certain restrictions (especially regarding financial gifts) are being overlooked by public institutions (Goodwin 2005). Financial gifts often accompany tangible object donations. Regarding donor legacy, Goodwin also notes that ―the donor in pursuit of a legacy must come to appreciate that if [their] charitable vision is to survive in any guise, it must over time engage or enlist the vision of other contributors, thereby potentially become something larger than itself‖ (Goodwin 2005, 1099). This suggests that donors may need to be more flexible in their expectations and demands; organizations must be prepared for potential changes in donor decisions. This is evident in several cases that are examined in this paper.

In a February 2013 New York Times article, Patricia Cohen examined ―strings attached‖ gifts (Cohen 2013). The author argued that, especially in the current economic climate, it is very important for museums to handle donor gifts carefully. Cohen (2013) highlighted that fact that:

the tension between contributors and institutions is hardly new, but it has gained a higher profile in recent years. The weak economy has shrunk museum budgets, while technology or evolving tastes have led curators to reassess once venerable works. Institutions, which need money or space as artworks fill their basements, often look to sell items donated with the stipulation that they never be relinquished. … How do you

14

adhere to a donor‘s wishes when they seem to interfere with the best interests of the institution? (n.p.)

It often comes down to a court ruling one way or the other when determining if a donor‘s wishes must be or will be upheld. The case of the Barnes Foundation in Philadelphia is an obvious example of this, as the foundation fought for years to move locations, against the wishes of the original owner, Albert Barnes. The foundation eventually won, after it was argued that its ―very survival depended on breaking the terms of its founder‘s trust‖ (Cohen 2013, n.p.). In 2013, the

Brooklyn Museum was in court trying to ―bypass‖ a donor‘s wishes (Cohen 2013). In that case, the donor stipulated that his donated collection of 926 paintings remain intact, including some works that were later determined to be ―not of museum quality, were misattributed or, in a few cases, were fakes‖ (Cohen 2013, n.p.). The outcome of the suit is currently unknown but it clearly highlights an issue that many museums are facing today.

It is also important for museums to understand incentives that private collectors may consider when donating a work of art. Tax valuations need to be considered when examining the relationship between private collectors and art institutions. This is an important factor in the process of any charitable donation. While individuals who donate an object to an organization can receive a tax credit for the fair market value of the object, the item is often given with some type of restriction. This limits the institution‘s ability to realize the full value of the gift; if, for example, the donor restricts the future sale of the piece (Cromer 2006). Mary Varson Cromer has examined efforts to change the valuation of objects if there are limitations put in place at the time of the gift. If this happens, trends in donations may change. Again, this highlights the issues that surround unclear donor intent, miscommunication between both parties, and the motive behind certain donations – all of which must be considered when looking at the relationship.

15

Sometimes objects are unexpectedly donated to an institution due to unforeseen circumstances including tax valuation. It is a rare instance when both parties - the recipient institution and the donor - did not anticipate the gift. This is true in the case of the Museum of

Modern Art in New York City and the Sonnabend family. In 2007, the Sonnabend family inherited Robert Rauschenberg‘s assemblage work ―Canyon‖ (Brooks 2012). The piece, created in 1959, was owned by New York Art dealer, Ileana Sonnabend, and was left to her family

(Brooks 2012). After Ileana‘s death, the family received an inheritance tax bill, from the IRS, totaling $29.2 million and stated the piece was valued at $65 million (Brooks 2012). The only problem was, as the family argued, that the work featured a stuffed bald eagle. The protected bird is illegal to sell, in any form, and thus the painting should be valued at $0 (Brooks 2012).

After a lengthy dispute, an agreement was made. ―Canyon‖ was donated to the MOMA, for the public to view, and the family avoided the hefty tax. This was a compromise that unintentionally and unexpectedly benefitted the public and enhanced a museum‘s permanent collection, all because of tax regulations.

It is important to recognize that when an organization is not prepared to accept a specific donation, it might not be the appropriate fit, even if there is a pre-existing relationship between the donor and the recipient institution. This is illustrated in the case of the Mystic Aquarium and

Institute for Exploration in Mystic, Connecticut. In 2008, the museum received a small Jackson

Pollock oil painting, completed in the 1940‘s, as a gift from a private donor (Wojtas 2008). The donor, Alex Matter, inherited the painting, along with 31 similar works by the artist, from his parents upon their death (Wojtas 2008). Matter decided to donate the specific painting ―Untitled

No. 12‖ to the aquarium because ―it‘s gray and black on blue background [and] resembles an underwater scene‖ (Wojtas 2008). Because the organization does not have a permanent art

16 collection, nor is it properly prepared to care for such an object, the board decided to sell the painting and use the proceeds to advance its cause. The painting was estimated to be valued at between $1 and $5 million (Wojtas 2008). Stephen M. Coan, president of the museum stated it best: ―It‘s inspiring because Alex is giving it to us with no strings attached because of his passion for the oceans and his interest in the research we‘re doing‖ (Wojtas 2008, n.p.). The gift was initiated because of a relationship and conversation between Matter and the aquarium‘s vice president, Peter Glankoff, who suggested the idea (Wojtas 2008). Prior to the sale, the painting was included in a special exhibit at the aquarium, thus allowing the public to learn about the donation and view the work. The organization‘s intentions to sell the work were made clear to the donor upfront. The aquarium and donor found an appropriate use for the gift and because of a pre-existing relationship, they were able to come together to better the organization through mutual understanding and clear, upfront, honest communication.

Often, pre-existing relationships have proven to be the catalyst for successful donations.

In 1990, the Laguna Art Museum received a painting by Jim Morphesis titled ―Winged Figure‖, as a donation from a museum trustee (Lewis 1990). The gift garnered national attention because the painting was originally commissioned by the John Wayne Airport, but later rejected due to what was deemed as inappropriate content including nudity (Lewis 1990). The donor, Joan B.

Rehnborg, was already a collector of Morphesis‘ work, having three pieces in her private collection (Lewis 1990). She decided to take ―someone else‘s missed opportunity and turn[ing] it into a nice opportunity‖ for the museum (Lewis 1990). The painting was purchased by Rehnborg specifically to donate to the museum. In celebration of the donation, the work was exhibited for several months at the museum. It is interesting to note that this donation coincided with the national arts controversy known as the ―Culture Wars‖. Rehnborg noted that she ―does not object

17 to federal funding of more explicit works‖ and that she would ―rather risk a little bad taste in art exhibits than hav[e] someone else determining what is good taste‖ for her (Lewis 1990, n.p.).

Could this donation have been in direct reaction to the national ―Culture Wars‖ debate? Was it to make a statement or take a stand? Was it a way to promote an artist in her own collection? Was it donated because of both? Was it for the pure love of the art, artist, or organization? While her true motives may never be known, institutions like the Laguna Art Museum must consider what donor motives may be in order to strategize how successful donations can continue in the future and how they can evolve through pre-existing relationships.

A donor's long-term vision and established relationship with an organization must not be overlooked or underestimated. In 2013, the Metropolitan Museum of Art (The Met) in New York

City received a donation of 78 works by cubist masters including Picasso, Braque, Gris, and

Leger (―Collection Will Transform‖ 2013). The private collection was donated by longtime collector and philanthropist Leonard A. Lauder (―Collection Will Transform‖ 2013). In addition to the works that were donated, Lauder also established a $22 million endowment to ensure the long-term care of the works and also to establish a research center for modern art (―Collection

Will Transform‖ 2013). Thomas P. Campbell, Director of The Met announced that Lauder‘s gift

―is truly transformational for the Metropolitan Museum‖ and that until this gift the museum

―lacked this critical dimension in the story of modernism‖ (―Collection Will Transform‖ 2013, n.p.). The gift appears to be a catalyst for the museum to move forward with the development of the modernist art department. His donation follows his ―vision of making gifts to museums that strategically build their collections‖ (―Collection Will Transform‖ 2013, n.p.). This was not

Lauder‘s first gift to the museum. In 1984, he donated his premiere collection of 19th century

American posters to the Met and has continued to purchase works to donate and enhance that

18 collection (―Collection Will Transform‖ 2013). In celebration of the most recent gift, a special exhibit is scheduled to open in the fall of 2014. This donor clearly had a long-term vision and strategy related to his gifts, and he understood that it takes additional money to care for these works. He properly planned for the collection‘s future, and because of his previous positive experiences with the museum, this donation was made possible. A similar example can be seen in my case study of the James A. Michener Art Museum‘s Lenfest gift, which will be examined later in this paper.

In some instances, the artist him or herself becomes an important donor of their own work. In June of 2014, the Tate Modern in London announced that they were receiving three paintings and five sculptures by contemporary artist Cy Twombly (Wennerstrom 2014). The works were coming directly from the artist‘s estate (Twombly died in 2011) and worth about $81 million (Wennerstrom 2014). According to Sir Nicholas Serota, the director of the Tate, the gift was a fulfillment of the artist‘s wishes (Wennerstrom 2014). Several of the works already had a noteworthy exhibition history and were well known prior to the donation, thus adding to the significance of the gift. The pieces were recognized as important works by Twombly and have enhanced the Tate‘s permanent collection. It is interesting to note that Twombly was also a collector of works by his contemporaries including Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol, and Claes

Oldenburg (Vogel 2014). It is likely that the Tate and other museums hope that this gift sets a precedent for future gifts of similar merit.

It is important for museums to recognize that a strong established relationship between a donor and the recipient organization is often a key element in the reasoning behind major gifts.

In 2013, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art held a special exhibit featuring a 1615 painting by Bernardo Strozzi (Knight 2013). The work was promised to the museum from a private

19 collection. The owner, Philippa Calnan, a former public affairs director at the museum, decided to donate the painting after it was returned to her family following a court ruling stating that she was the sole rightful heir of the once Nazi-looted artwork (Knight 2013). Would this work of art have been donated to the museum if it were not for Calnan‘s previously established relationship with the museum? It is interesting to note that earlier, one of Calnan‘s relatives bequeathed several works by French Post-Impressionist Paul Cezanne to the White House, which subsequently would be placed in the care of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC

(although it is unclear if this bequest was fulfilled) (Knight 2013). One must consider if a family- held value of giving back to the community was at play here in addition to the existing tie to the museum. Was this a tradition that was continued because of a value instilled through the generations? It is important for an organization to consider a donor‘s mentality when trying to understand donor motives.

Donor motivations, as well as institutional motives, sometimes need to be questioned.

This is especially true when related to gifts that may prove to be harmful to an institution. On occasion, it may be better to decline a gift. It is a sensitive issue. In 2013, the Miami Art

Museum featured an exhibit that included about 45 works donated by Jorge Perez (Dobrzynski

2013). Perez already had established himself as somewhat of a controversial donor when details surrounding his previous gift of $35 million, for the 2011 expansion of the museum, had emerged (Dobrzynski 2013). In exchange for the donation, the museum officially changed its name to the Perez Art Museum (Miller 2013). The decision was met with outrage and led to the resignation of several board members because it appears that the demands and interests of the donor were considered over the best interest of the museum (Miller 2013). The 2013 exhibit was intended to highlight a portion of the 110-work gift that Perez had made (Dobrzynski 2013). The

20 museum was met with controversy again when the quality of the works donated began to be questioned. Did these works appropriately reflect the quality of the rest of the museum‘s permanent collection? Would they match or enhance the collection? Was this exhibit created primarily to keep a major donor satisfied? Many argue that the works of art do not ―match the world-class facility‖, as the Perez collection ―lacks the cutting-edge punch the museum will need to equal the excitement surrounding the new building‖ (Dobrzynski 2013, n.p.). What message does this send to other donors? The motives of the donor and the museum must be considered and evaluated to see if the gift truly enhances the collection, furthers the mission of the organization, and provides a long-term, positive impact for the institution. Has this action set an unwanted precedent for future gifts and demands by other donors? This will surely take time to evaluate and determine.

Probably one of the best examples, in recent times, of a private collector‘s impact on a museum collection would be the case of Herb and Dorothy Vogel. The Vogels lived a modest, middle class life, with Herb earning about $23,000 annually (Lipinski 2013). Despite their financial limitations, they were able to amass an unrivaled collection of 20th century art, with a focus on minimalist and conceptual art. Beginning in the mid-1960‘s, the couple began to acquire art at a steady rate. They purchased works by up-and-coming artists and by the 1980‘s they realized that they were running out of space in their tiny New York City apartment. After meeting with various curators, the Vogel‘s decided to donate their collection to the National

Gallery of Art (Lipinski 2013). They wanted to ensure that their collection could be enjoyed by the public. About 2,400 works of art were given to the museum (Lipinski 2013). In return, the museum created a small annuity for the couple. The Vogel‘s, rather than saving the money for an emergency, used the money to purchase another 1,500 works (Lipinski 2013). They were true art

21 enthusiasts. In response to their generous gift, the National Gallery created the ―Fifty Works for

Fifty States‖ program which donated one work from the collection to a museum in each of the 50 states, thus extending the reach of their generosity (Lipinski 2013).

Some financial institutions have recently taken a stake in the arts as well. In 2012, Bank of America's U.S. Trust released a packet titled "The Real Value of Art". The packet discusses different topics and recommendations surrounding an individual's art collection. The packet emphasizes to collectors that their "collection may not be an investment in the usual sense, but it is an asset that can play an aesthetic, as well as a significant financial role, in [your] life, now and far into the future" (Beck 2012, 3). With prominent subject lines such as "A Higher Calling",

"Legacy: Timeless Alternatives", "Art for All", and "Art Makes a Difference", the information provided suggests that donating a single object or even an entire collection to a museum may be a viable option for many private collectors (Beck 2012). The packet goes on to state that an institution "is more likely to keep your collection intact than if you bequeath individual pieces to a museum" and that "it will help your legacy as a contributor to the public appreciation of art"(Beck 2012, 14). The author discusses the tradition of giving by citing examples of well- known private collectors including Frick, Barnes, and Alice Walton and their legacies. While the brochure clearly serves as a promotion for the bank's financial investment services, it creates a strong argument for giving to nonprofit organizations (with a focus on art organizations) for various reasons, including tax incentives and personal legacy.

Another dynamic in the relationship between private collectors and museums is highlighted when organizations actively pursue objects for their collection on the open market. In recent years, the struggle between private collectors and museums over works of art has become a challenge. A lot of attention has been placed on this serious issue, as nonprofit arts

22 organizations, with limited budgets, cannot compete with private collectors, who seem to have unlimited funds. As Lee Rosenbaum argued, in a 2007 LA Times article:

art museums exist to acquire and treasure important works for the benefit of you and me. Exhibitions, education and scholarship are all essential, of course, but those activities derive from art museums' primary function -- collecting works that deeply reward the public's admiring gaze. Unfortunately, economics are challenging all that. Public collecting is endangered by a shortfall of resources, a decline in political support and even a loss of nerve that could cut off the flow of masterworks for the people. (n.p.)

Often, the same donors an organization may rely on for financial support as an ally, can easily turn into a rival when it comes to the acquisition of art. Additionally, individuals that have given to an institution may not do so in the future. Rosenbaum (2007) states:

museums always rely on the kindness of friends -- collectors whom curators and directors nurture with freely shared expertise, board seats and art-market contacts. Those grateful acquirers, in turn, share their bounty through loans and, eventually, gifts and bequests to the museums that cultivate them. Today, many top collectors hire private advisors, and they simply aren't as beholden to museums as were their predecessors. (n.p.)

As previously mentioned, stricter charitable giving tax codes are also becoming an obstacle for collectors who want to donate. If this is the case, art institutions must evaluate how they can overcome these hurdles as there appears to be no foreseeable way for them to compete with individuals at the same level. They are working on tighter and tighter budgets and because of this, for example, "although the Metropolitan Museum of Art splurged...on a pricey early

Renaissance masterpiece by Duccio, its European paintings department, in fiscal 2006, purchased only one work, for $1.36 million. That sum will buy you, as it did the Met, an excellent Corrado Giaquinto, but not even a so-so Rembrandt‖ (Rosenbaum 2007, n.p.). It may prove to be beneficial for organizations to begin long-term planning regarding how to counter the potential negatives effects of this trend.

This development is not unique to American museums and collectors. Asia, among other art meccas, has felt the effect. According to Rhine (2012), in Asia:

23

museums are largely priced out of contemporary art acquisitions, which greatly affects institutions in Asian countries where art philanthropy and donation are less common. However, collectors are adapting to this non-traditional situation and are finding ways to provide access to their collections…a number of other private museums exist purely to house their founders‘ expansive collections. (n.p.)

But the ―mushrooming of private museums and art foundations across Asia‖ does not necessarily translate to more access for the public (Rhine 2012, n.p.). There must be some type of compromise, where collectors and museums can work together and find a way to satisfy the needs of both parties.

Back in the United States, some private collectors, dissatisfied with the current state of affairs at museums, have also taken curation into their own hands. The ―pop-up‖ gallery has become an increasingly popular concept and option for private collectors who want to share their passion with the public. In a 2007 New York Times article, Carol Kino examined an emerging trend which highlights the new role of some collectors, especially when the collector has a significant holding of art that an institution does not have access to. ―A collector can actually assemble a major survey exhibition — buy all the works in a way that no museum could do. But the bigger issue for museums… is price inflation — which is easily fanned by collectors who covet works for their museums and can acquire without committee approval‖ claims Tom Eccles, director of the Center for Curatorial Studies at Bard (Kino 2007). Eccles continues, ―collectors feel they can contribute to the art world just like curators can, and they want to be players‖ (Kino

2007, n.p.). Many collectors, who can turn in to donors, seem to want a bigger stake in the game.

As Colorado private collector Kent Logan says ―the new philanthropy is activist… I‘m going to have a say in what the objectives are‖ (Kino 2007, n.p.). Whether this trend will have a lasting impact, will not be known for some time, but some predict that it is only a temporary phase.

Kino (2007) states:

24

It seems highly unlikely that in a century‘s time big institutions presenting a broad art- historical narrative will be eclipsed by small, idiosyncratic museums focused around a single collector‘s taste. But for the moment, this new crop of exhibition spaces suggests a power shift within the art world — one that is leveling the playing field between collectors and museum professionals, driving up art prices and allowing wealthy private citizens an ever greater say in terms of how their gifts will be used. (n.p.)

It is important for museums to recognize this trend as a viable source of competition.

My research has indicated that identifying changes in donor demographics has become a priority for many arts organizations. There appears to be a consensus that the face of the art donor is changing. Many museums are working hard to keep on top of these shifts. A recent

2014 New York Times article examined this phenomenon. In the article, Wooing a New

Generation of Museum Patrons, current efforts by several American art museums are examined.

The Guggenheim Museum, for example, has begun to host the ―Young Collector Party‖ annually, targeting potential philanthropists (Gelles 2014). Many of the attendees will not likely donate for several more decades, far into the future. The museum however, understands that it is essential to develop life-long relationships with these individuals in order increase the potential for them to become major donors and trustees. The Guggenheim, like other museums, recognizes that ―as wealth becomes more concentrated, tax laws change and a younger generation develops new philanthropic priorities, museums - like other nonprofit organizations – are confronting what, if unaddressed, could become an existential crisis‖ (Gelles 2014, n.p.). Museums must address this immediately. David Gelles (2014) states: "there is a concern among administrators and trustees that millennials are not poised to meet the financial and leadership demands of increasingly complex – and expensive – museums… the newer generation behaves so differently than the last one." Not only does the younger generation have different priorities, they also

―jump from job to job, taking their families across the country, [and] many museums are having a harder time forging lasting ties with community leaders‖ (Gelles 2014, n.p.). This younger

25 generation ―is not always eager to support niche collections‖ that are outside the realm of

‗popular culture‘ (Gelles 2014, n.p.). In order for an organization to prepare for the future, addressing these issues and anticipating this shift appears to be essential.

It is crucial for a museum to appeal to a variety of donors types. Understanding how to connect with them is just as central. In 2012, GuideStar USA, Inc. and Hope Consulting released a study identifying the most common donor types and categorizing them in six different groups.

These categories included the repayer, the casual giver, the high impact giver, the faith based giver, the difference giver, and the personal ties giver (Ottenhoff and Urlich 2012). In 2009,

Ledbury Research, in conjunction with Barclays Bank, conducted similar research. Their study focused on high net worth individuals in the US and UK. They also segmented donors into six groups: privileged youth, eco givers, altruistic entrepreneurs, reactive donors, cultured inheritors, and professional philanthropists (Barclays Bank 2012). While the studies focused on financial donations, my original research suggests that often, donors planning to gift tangible objects have similar motives, thus can be segmented into similar categories. By identifying the type of donor you are dealing with, you can better understand their values and make a connection in a more meaningful, and likely successful, manner. Why would this individual want to donate a work of art to your organization? Do they have personal ties to the museum? Do they recognize the organization‘s name as one of status and merit within the community? Do they think their gift will make a difference in the lives of those who will see it on display? It is important to note, however, the Guidestar study does recommend that ―try as you might to ―be all things to all donors,‖ you will not be able to pull it off. You would have to have five or six different sets of messages, appeals, events, etc. That is just not feasible. Focusing on two to three segments at most is best for most organizations‖ (Ottenhoff and Urlich 2012, 37). It is important for a

26 museum to evaluate their capabilities and determine what sectors they want to focus on and what messages they want to project to them. Both of these studies are accessible for any organization to reference and use as a guide in their own marketing and donor relations plan. Each organization‘s approach to this will be as unique as the museum itself.

Art organizations are not the only type of cultural institutions that need to consider the role of the private collector when building their collections, but observations suggest, they are ahead of the curve regarding donor-institution relations. In December 2013, Mark Carnall, the curator of the Grant Museum of Zoology at UCL, wrote about the challenges of this dynamic in the natural science field and how arts organizations seemingly have an advantage in the relationship being that:

other disciplines not only tolerate but are enriched by private collectors and enthusiasts. Art auctions and art conferences are attended by curators from all over the world, artists and private collectors. Art and art history specialist networks are subscribed to both by collectors, practitioners and museum professionals. Furthermore, many private collectors are patrons, donors and lobbyists that support art museums and galleries. By contrast, it‘s doubtful that you‘ll find a natural history curator at an auction and in order to join a natural history-related professional network you have to have an institutional affiliation. (n.p.)

It is interesting to get an ―art outsider‘s‖ perspective, but it could be just that- a perspective that is based little in fact or reality due to lack of experience in the field. While it appears that the arts field has an edge over other cultural fields, strengths should be capitalized upon, and areas that could be improved need to be analyzed.

As many of the examples in the literature review already suggest, being prepared to appropriately deal with donor and gift management is vital for art organizations. Standards must be in place to ensure quality and expectations are upheld. This will help establish a level of excellence. Today, there are many resources that organizations can reference to model their

27 standards from, as established by the arts community as a whole. They can serve as guidelines for a variety of issues that may arise when dealing with donors. The American Alliance of

Museums (AAM), for example, has a website that provides a multitude of resources for organizations to reference. Everything from collections stewardship to marketing and public relations is addressed. Their website outlines the ―Characteristics of Excellence for U.S.

Museums‖ (AAM n.d.). It states that the ―38 characteristics [listed below] are the core standards for U.S. museums. Broken into seven categories, these broad, outcome oriented statements are adaptable for museums of all types and sizes, with each museum fulfilling them in different ways depending on their unique circumstances (mission, resources, governance, collections, etc...)‖

(AAM n.d., n.p.). The standards outlined include public trust and accountability, mission and planning, leadership and organizational structure, collections stewardship, education and interpretation, financial stability, and facilities and risk management (AAM n.d.). Some of the supplementary content is only available in a members-only resource library.

The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) is another valuable source for current issues in the museum world. Their website offers information concerning industry-wide standards and best practices, articles relating to news-worthy events in the field, information on support and assistance, as well as expectations of members. The AAMD‘s Policy on

Deaccessioning, for example, states that it ―requires member museums to develop clear written collections management policies including written collection goals and acquisition and deaccession principles, procedures and processes, as well as those that address preservation, conservation and collection care‖ (AAMD 2010, n.p.). The document continues by emphasizing that ―when recommending a work to the museum‘s Board of Trustees for deaccessioning, a member museum‘s staff should provide thorough research on prior ownership history, an

28 explanation of expressed donor intent, if any, current scholarly evaluation, and relevance to the existing collection and future collecting goals‖ and should ―publish on its website within a reasonable period of time works that have been deaccessioned and disposed of‖ (AAMD 2010, n.p.). Their expectations are clear and are in line with other, similar national arts organizations.

The Association of Academic Museums & Galleries (AAMG) also provides guidance for member organizations regarding best practices. In their ―News & Views‖ section on the website, the association addresses current controversies in the field. One article, for example, discusses the sale of a rare George Bellows painting by the Randolph College. The AAMG explains the circumstances of the sale (being sold to fund the endowment) and clarifies why they condemn the decision by the museum. They state that Randolph College‘s ―selling of irreplaceable works of art goes against the fundamental ethics and best practices of the museum field as laid out and agreed upon by all major museum organizations…it shows an appalling continuation of an institution of higher education denigrating the academic integrity of its museum by using the art collection as a commodity‖ (Hartz n.d., n.p.). The association continues, by emphasizing the

―breach of public trust‖ and that it ―stands by [their] condemnation of [the] actions and that the passage of time will not waiver [their] collective resolve to uphold the vital importance of the collections‖ (Hartz n.d., n.p.). This is a case that other museums can look towards as a model of what is expected by the arts community as a whole.

There are resources available for an organization to reference regarding how to deal with undesirable and unwanted gifts. These situations can be very sensitive and must be approached carefully. An organization does not want to alienate a potential donor or compromise a relationship because they do not know how the handle a difficult situation. Sheila O‘Hare and

Andrew Smith at Emporia State University examined this predicament in a 2011 article titled

29

Gifts Nobody Wants: The State of the Art in Dealing with Unwanted Donations. The article addresses different types of undesirable gifts including items with access limitations, unwanted associations, as well as strings attached gifts and how to determine whether an object is an outright gift or temporary loan (O‘Hare and Smith 2011). The article cites many examples of previous cases (and their actions and outcomes), outlines recommendations for different situations, and discusses how to prepare for similar conflicts. O‘Hare and Smith recommend that a gift policy be available for viewing by all potential donors, and that deaccessioning information be included. As the authors point out, ―clearly some gifts are simply not useful, or too labor- intensive, or too tied up with extraneous conditions. They should be avoided, and this is best accomplished by a readily available and clearly-written [library] policy document that presents a neutral and objective approach to the topic‖ (O‘Hare and Smith 2011, 15). It appears that transparency upfront appears to be an essential characteristic for success.

Resources are also available for organizations to utilize that include recommendations regarding how they can select an appropriate donor database. These resources can be very valuable, as many art organizations purchase lists with potential donor names and depend on it to build their donor pool. It is important to make sure that a good investment is made, especially for budget-conscious organizations (which most are). Idealware.org, for example, released a list of ten common mistakes when selecting a donor database. The article, Ten Common Mistakes in

Selecting Donor Databases (And How to Avoid Them), discusses common errors including making sure that you can afford the database and maintenance long-term, selecting the appropriate individuals to be part of the decision making committee, and to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the software before making the final selection (Weiner 2012). This

30 article provides a guideline for organizations to reference when faced with a similar situation and difficult decision.

Some individuals in the field feel that a museum‘s collection is not the primary focus of an organization‘s efforts to grow. Javier Pes, editor of Museum Practice Magazine argues that ―it is all about [the] size-of the new wing or refurbishment, the increased number of visitors who will come once it is open, and the capital campaign to raise the money to build and maintain it.

Often, the collection seems rather an afterthought in the rush to gain visibility and secure a position in the big league‖ (Pes 2007). This indicates that the efforts to build strong collections may not be a top priority for certain organizations and that their efforts in other areas may hurt the potential for collections growth.

The literature focusing on the dynamic between private collectors and museums has provided a wide array of perspectives and highlighted important issues surrounding the unique relationship. By reviewing pertinent literature on the subject, it is clear that certain trends are emerging related to communication (or miscommunication), collector motives, incentives to donate, best practices in the field, and conflicts that may arise - that could be and should be prevented. The literature does however lack a comprehensive strategy for how an organization can best approach collectors and capitalize on them as one of their strongest potential assets. My original research provides additional evidence and support for these arguments and offers arts organizations guidance to strengthen their relationships with private collectors.

31

32

JAMES A. MICHENER ART MUSEUM ORIGINAL CASE RESEARCH

To truly examine the relationship between private collectors and museums, I felt it was essential to examine specific events at a specific institution. The James A. Michener Art Museum in Doylestown, PA became the organization that I focused on during my original research portion of this project. The museum is home to the most comprehensive collection of

Pennsylvania Impressionist and Modernist works of art available to the public. Since its founding in 1988, the museum‘s core permanent collection has been centered on the art and artists of

Bucks County. Currently, the museum‘s permanent collection consists of more than 2,700 objects. Works date from the 19th century through current times. The mission of the museum is to preserve, interpret, and exhibit the art and cultural heritage of the Bucks County region.

However, in recent years, the museum has begun to expand their collecting focus, as ―the strong

Arts and Crafts and modern studio furniture traditions of southeastern Pennsylvania represent a significant collecting opportunity; and the museum is actively building collections in these areas as it expands its holdings of contemporary painting, sculpture, works on paper, and decorative arts‖ (James A. Michener Art Museum 2014, n.p.). There has been a shift to include a more diverse representation of American Art in the collection. As former museum director, Bruce

Katsiff (2009) recalled, in the book An Evolving Legacy: Twenty Years of Collecting at the

James A. Michener Art Museum:

from [its] inauspicious beginning, the Michener Art Museum‘s holding have steadily evolved, from a small and unfocused conglomeration of objects to a distinguished and professionally managed collection that, in a very real sense, is the soul of the institution…through a carefully thought-out process of purchases, gifts, and bequests, the museum has acquired a wide range of remarkable works of art. (n.p.)

33

The collection efforts of the museum have continued, since its founding, and many works have been acquired through the direct support of private collectors in the local community.

In 1992, the museum was undertaking its first capital campaign. When approached to contribute, museum co-founder and namesake, author James Michener, agreed to contribute

$500,000 to the endowment, but only if local community members would donate 40 museum- quality works to the permanent collection (Katsiff 2009). The quality of the paintings were evaluated by an independent source to assure certain standards were met (Katsiff 2009). This matching campaign was a huge success and in all, 189 works were donated including Clarence

Carter‘s Over and Above Series (Fox) and Henry Snell‘s The Barber’s Shop, both of which remain centerpieces of the permanent collection to this day (Katsiff 2009). This effort clearly proved that the community was behind the museum and that private collectors were willing to contribute to the Michener‘s efforts.

During the early years of the museum, as it does now, the museum relied heavily on generous collectors to donate works of art. One gift stands out among all the others. In 1999,

Marguerite and Gerry Lenfest bequeathed to the Michener a collection of 59 Pennsylvania

Impressionist works, including paintings by Daniel Garber, Edward Redfield, Robert Spencer,

William Lathrop, John Folinsbee, and more (Lenfest 2010, Box 7). The acceptance of this gift fell in line with the basic field standards, as established by the AAM, in that the museum should

―own, exhibit, or use[s] collections that are appropriate to its mission‖ (AAM n.d., n.p.). In 2004, the Lenfests gifted the paintings to the museum in full. During the years between the bequest and the outright gift, the Lenfests were also instrumental in helping the museum to acquire 3 additional paintings (that were to be sold at auction and likely return to private hands) for the permanent collection (Lenfest 2010, Box 7). The Lenfests also established an endowment in the

34 amount of $3 million for the long-term care of the paintings (Lenfest 2010, Box 7). The entire gift was featured in a special 2006 exhibition titled ―An Enduring Gift: The Marguerite and

Gerry Lenfest Collection‖. In honor of their generosity, The Lenfest Exhibition of Pennsylvania

Impressionism was created, as a permanent exhibition in the main gallery of the museum.

During my research in the archives at the museum, I was able to examine original documents related to the gift. After reviewing a copy of the trust agreement for the bequest, dated September 1, 1999, it became obvious that both parties wanted to cover as many issues that may develop, have clear communication, and establish a mutual understanding of the transaction.

The agreement was signed by Gerry Lenfest and then Michener director Bruce Katsiff. Terms of the trust included detailed restrictions, loss and insurance liabilities, early termination of the trust, an additions clause, and a section that addressed heirs and successors (Lenfest 2010, Box

7). It was clear legal counsel was consulted to draft the agreement, as would be expected in accordance to national field standards and best practices. The preservation of this document, as well as the others surrounding this gift, are vital, as they provide the framework for this agreement. After curators and directors move on from the museum, it is these valuable documents that serve as the source of information and evidence if a legal conflict arises or a detail needs to be referenced or clarified. The importance of proper documentation cannot be stressed enough, as is seen in this case and also several cases examined in the literature review including the BMA‘s Renoir controversy (Shapira 2014).

It is important to consider several details surrounding the gift in order to understand why this donation was a groundbreaking success for the museum. During my research, it immediately became clear that the Lenfests and the Michener had constant communication and correspondence related to the activities surrounding the gift. It is interesting to note that a letter

35 was sent to Gerry Lenfest in November of 1999 detailing several name options for the new permanent exhibition to be dedicated in his honor (Lenfest 2010, Box 7). He was clearly, actively involved in naming the exhibit and the museum valued his input, as one of the proposed titles was eventually used. Following the gift, communication continued, as a May 2000 letter suggested (Lenfest 2010, Box 7). This letter included a special preview of the new book,

Pennsylvania Impressionism, which the museum was publishing, suggesting that the Lenfests were very special donors with special privileges.

Throughout 1999, regular correspondence was made between the museum and the

Lenfests. The Lenfests provided status updates related to the location of some of the paintings in much of the correspondence. Prior to the bequest, as detailed in an August 10, 1999 letter from the Lenfest Foundation, several of the paintings were on loan and located at the Philadelphia

Museum of Art, while the balance of the works were located in various places including the

Lenfest‘s home, their Oaks office, their West Chester office, their Lancaster office, and several were even unaccounted for (5) (Lenfest 2010, Box 7). The Lenfest Foundation‘s list, which was used by the Michener, became the basis for the official donation list, which exists to this day

(added to the museum‘s collection database), and follows the industry standards as outlined by the AAM in which a ―system of documentation, records management and inventory is in effect to describe each object and its acquisition (permanent or temporary), current condition and location and movement into, out of and within the museum‖ (AAM n.d., n.p.). In a letter dated

November 24, 2000, Lenfest wrote to Bruce Katsiff emphasizing how pleased he and his wife were with the museum staff and board of trustees, stating that a recent museum event they attended ―reinforced [our] conviction that [our] choice in making the gift of the collection and endowment to the Michener was the right one‖ (Lenfest 2010, Box 7).

36

The Lenfests have continued to be supporters of the Michener to this day. In fact, in

2011, the Lenfests donated Daniel Garber‘s painting Tanis to the Philadelphia Museum of Art

(PMA) ("Daniel Garber‘s ‗Tanis‘ Returns to Michener Art Museum" 2011). The terms of the gift stipulated that the painting be loaned to the Michener every three years for three months ("Daniel

Garber‘s ‗Tanis‘ Returns to Michener Art Museum" 2011). Tanis, widely considered one of

Garber‘s masterpieces, was purchased by the Lenfests from a private collector. The gift to the

PMA, and subsequently to the Michener, highlights their passion and dedication to the arts in the

Philadelphia region – to organizations large and small. It would be expected that every organization would strive to have a long-term relationship as strong as the one the Michener developed with the Lenfests. It appears that much consideration was made, by the Michener, to adhere to the standards and best practices of the arts field, during the process of their landmark donation. To this day, all evidence suggests that the museum ―legally, ethically, and effectively manages, documents, cares for, and uses the collection‖ in a professional and appropriate manner

(AAM n.d., n.p.). At any given time, there are always works from this donation on display in the museum, for visitors to enjoy. This is a case to learn from.

The Michener Museum relies heavily on private donors. Curator of Collections, Connie

Kimmerle, provided a unique insight into the process of acquiring permanent collection works for the Michener. She emphasizes that ―because of [the museum‘s] limited acquisition funds,

[they] rely on the generosity of private collectors, bequests, and contemporary artists. The downside of this reliance is that [they] cannot be as proactive in collecting‖ (Kimmerle 2014, n.p.). This was also seen in several cases cited in the literature review. The museum does have ―a collecting plan that guides the development‖ of the collection and can help focus acquisition efforts (Kimmerle 2014, n.p.). While it is common for the museum to receive unexpected

37 donations, it is the job of the curator, museum director, and collections committee to evaluate which pieces will be added to the permanent collection. Kimmerle (2014) says that in her experience at the museum, and her previous role as a curator for a private collector, when working with individuals and their collections:

it‘s interesting to observe how collecting is driven by cultural values and traditions that are attached to particular objects, as well as forces that lie at the deepest level of individual personalities. It is also interesting to see how collectors derive pleasure from acquiring, conserving, sharing, and trading their collections with others and to observe how values attached to objects change as they become part of an individual‘s collection, as they find their way into established museums, and as they are subjected to interpretation in the museum exhibition process. (n.p.)

She says that the ―ultimate reward for a curator is receiving a donation from a collector of a long- sought-after work‖ (Kimmerle 2014, n.p.). Getting to that place is the ultimate challenge.

When asked about the Lenfest donation and how that has affected subsequent donations to the museum, Connie responded that while no donor, to her knowledge, specifically indicated that they were gifting a piece of art because of the Lenfest gift, she does feel that the gift:

marked a rite of passage for the Michener, allowing it to begin a more selective program of shaping its collections. The Lenfest Collection also provided a foundation of support for a series of major exhibitions and publications, including a traveling survey of Pennsylvania Impressionists, as well as exhibits and monographs on Bucks County frame makers. (n.p.)

It appears that the donation helped to establish a targeted collections plan, in line with the

AAM‘s standards, in that, ―considerations regarding future collecting activities [were] incorporated into institutional plans and other appropriate policy documents‖ (AAM n.d., n.p.). It was a true game-changing gift that was a catalyst to push the museum to the next level. It is this model that other institutions should look to.

To better understand the current activities that surround the relationship between the

Michener and private donors, it was essential to hear directly from other current Michener staff

38 members such as Senior Director of Advancement, Laurie McGahey. Laurie has a vital role at the Michener. She works with current and potential donors on a regular basis. She says that continuous, transparent communication with donors is key to building a strong relationship

(McGahey 2014).

Laurie, who received her Master‘s in Arts Administration from Drexel University, has more than 20 years of experience working in the development department of various institutions, in different capacities. She spent about 15 years working with donors at museums in California, including the Orange County Museum of Art and UCLA‘s Hammer Museum, before joining the

Michener in 2013 (McGahey 2014). In her current position, Laurie oversees two other museum staff in the development department, is responsible for hitting fundraising goals, manages the

Corporate Business Partner Program, and organizes special event benefits, among other things

(McGahey 2014). She is also one of the staff members who makes the ―asks‖ for funding

(McGahey 2014).

Laurie works closely with donors who not only want to give financially, but also may have artwork they plan to bequest to the museum. When someone contacts the museum regarding the potential donation of a work of art, Laurie is often the person they speak with first

(the may also speak with the Curator of Collections). After speaking with the potential donor,

Laurie then passes the information on to the Director of the Museum, Lisa Tremper Hanover and

Connie Kimmerle, but often remains in contact with the individual, as she says the process is a collaborative effort (McGahey 2014). Laurie often works with these donors to make sure that they have a positive experience with the museum, and that all the proper paperwork is in place- it is a true collaboration (McGahey 2014). While the final decision regarding whether a donated work of art is added to the permanent collection or not lies with Lisa, Connie, and the

39

Collections Committee, Laurie is often there every step of the way, working to ensure the smoothest transaction possible (McGahey 2014).

One of the museum‘s common practices includes site visits – not only to the homes of individuals who plan to donate works of art, but also to the homes of individuals who many have specific artwork that the museum is interested in. In regards to pursuing a specific work of art,

Laurie says that it is ―in a museum‘s best interest to do so‖, as they want to build the best collection possible, following their mission (McGahey 2014, n.p.). Asking for a financial donation to accompany an object is ideal, but not always possible. A financial donation helps to ensure the long term care of the item and takes some of the burden off the museum.

Sometimes, individuals approach the Michener with objects that will clearly not further the mission of the museum or prove to be an enhancement to the collection. This can be a sensitive situation, as every donor is important. Laurie says, in her experience, it is best to be upfront and honest with the individual and that the museum does not ―want to accession something just for the sake of accessioning‖ it (McGahey 2014, n.p.). She pointed to the case of the New York Historical Society. McGahey related that she felt the New York Historical Society had gotten out of control with their collection (McGahey 2014). In this case, it is always better to make the donor aware of the Michener‘s concerns and what steps they would take if the objects were still to be donated. The Michener has a strict policy in which objects that are donated, but will not be added to the permanent collection, will be sold and the proceeds from the sale will go directly into the acquisition of new works – that more appropriately fit the focus of the collection

(McGahey 2014). This is a standard practice in the field. Clear communication from the start of the relationship is always best, especially in this situation. Maybe the donor, hearing this decision, would want to give the art to a family member. Maybe they would want to donate it to

40 another museum that would add it to their permanent collection. Or, maybe they are fine with the

Michener selling their art to support the acquisition fund. In any case, it is essential that the donor is aware of the options from the start. All of these situations are possible and have happened in the past.

Continuing to cultivate relationships with current and potential donors is an essential part of Laurie‘s position. She says the biggest challenge in development is tending to everyone in the donor pool (McGahey 2014). It takes a lot of time and effort. You cannot, for example, take for granted a donor who has promised financial support or object bequests in a will (nor do you always know who has mentioned the Michener in their will, but it is Laurie‘s job to try and find out) (McGahey 2014). People can change their mind at any moment, so keeping a close relationship with each person is vital. You cannot take any relationship for granted. This may include calling them on the phone, taking them to lunch, attending a cocktail party they are hosting, or inviting them to special events at the Michener - paying attention to details is important (McGahey 2014). Really listen to them – find out what they are interested in, what is important, and ―figuring the puzzle out‖ is key (McGahey 2014, n.p.). In terms of learning more about a potential art donor, it is crucial to find out what their collecting motives are. Do they collect for the pure passion of it? Do they collect for the status of it? Is their collection one of their major financial investments? Or is it a mix of all three and more? Conversely, it is vital to try and figure out what their donor motives might be as well. Learning about this is fundamental to identifying and cultivating a potential art donor and is also one of the most rewarding parts of

Laurie‘s job.

This fall, under Laurie‘s direction, the museum is offering a special collector‘s series, in which three private collectors will be opening their homes to the public. The collectors will

41 speak about how they choose pieces for their collection, how they live with their art, how they display it, the future of their collection, etc. (McGahey 2014). Are they interested in donating a work of art to the Michener in the future? Do they plan to keep their collection intact and leave it to a family member? This program is not only a fundraiser for the museum, targeted at the upper level donors and members, but also a way to connect further with the host collectors. This program is based off a similar one that Laurie found to be successful during her time in

California (McGahey 2014).

Throughout her career, Laurie has seen some trends emerge. While larger institutions generally have higher budgets that allow for more flexibility, it is the smaller institutions, with a smaller donor pool, where you can really get to know the core of the donor base better

(McGahey 2014). At institutions, in general, a majority of donations also tend to come from a small group of individuals. Being creative and developing new ways to fundraise is important for the evolution of any organization. Timing of new programs is often key. Finding ways to really reach and connect with donors is essential.

It is interesting to note that during her time in California, Laurie encountered a special type of donor - the celebrity donor. As Laurie pointed out, many of the celebrities she worked with were artists in their own right and wanted to support the arts in their community, which just happened to be in the LA area (McGahey 2014). She also emphasized that a majority of celebrity donors gave anonymously, not wanting special recognition - they just wanted to give to a cause they truly believed in (McGahey 2014). In certain instances, their name helped the cause (just like if a prominent community member becomes the chair of a committee to inspire others to support). But like any donor group, some celebrities want to be acknowledged for their support, while many others just want to give without public praise in return (McGahey 2014). This is

42 important to keep in mind when dealing with local ―celebrities‖ or similar donors with high status in a community.

Another perspective that I felt was important to examine was that of the Michener docents. I wanted to see from their point of view how the public perceives the permanent collection and also if they had any memorable experiences related to donors. The museum has approximately 30 active docents that lead many types of tours for visitors of all ages and demographics. More than 600 tours are given annually for over 8,500 people (Sandquist 2014).

From school tours to highly specialized event tours for upper tier donors, these guides cover every type. They are the face of the museum and often the only people guests interact with during their visit. Of the 30 active docents, 24 participated in my survey. Eighty-three percent of the docents lead one or more tours per month and while 56% lead school tours most often, 43% lead adult tours on a regular basis.

When I asked if the docents incorporate the history of the artwork or how the museum acquires objects in their tours, overwhelmingly (75%) the response was yes. Many docents mention that they speak about Henry Snell‘s painting The Barber’s Shop, which was donated by the family of a local doctor, who treated several of the Pennsylvania Impressionists in the early- mid 20th century. It appears that Dr. Leiby became a collector almost by accident, as many of the artists paid for his services with a painting rather than money. This painting was one of several

(14) that the doctor‘s family donated to the Michener during the 1992 endowment challenge campaign. Other docents highlight the origins of the George Nakashima reading room, which was created (and the objects in the room donated by) the artist‘s daughter, Mira Nakashima in

1993. Many mention the story of the Lenfest collection and their generosity to the museum, as well as James Michener‘s initial contribution to the museum and his 1992 challenge. While only

43

41% of respondents find that adult visitors ask about the history of works of art, once the docent begins to talk about the history, additional questions are often asked. It is also very rare that a docent is aware of a donor being on their tour, but certain cases stand out in their mind. One docent recalls a visitor mentioning that they made an art donation to the museum because of the tax incentives. On occasion, relatives of some of the artists are on a tour, but it is not common for them to reveal if they or their family have donated art to the museum. In all, only about 10% of the docents recall visitors asking them about the donation process and how they could learn more about giving art to the Michener. This appears to be a ―market‖ that could be tapped into, to educate and spread the word about giving to the museum. Several docents mentioned that they would be willing to learn more about the donation process and felt it may be something that could be incorporated into certain tours (specifically adult tours).

Two docents provided me with a more in-depth look into occurrences and their experiences leading tours. Docent Diane Morgan has been involved with the Michener for many years in several capacities, first as an intern in the archives and library, and most recently as a docent. Prior to her involvement at the Michener, the Bucks County resident founded an art lecture group where guest speakers would lead discussions on art and also arrange tours to regional museums (Morgan 2014). It was the experiences she had during those years that helped to form her unique approach when leading tours at the Michener. For example, when researching a work of art several years ago, Diane was surprised to learn that the museum it was housed in did not have it on display. She called and asked to see it in the vault. The experience made her realize that ―art collections are owned by the people‖ and that the public should have the right to see it (Morgan 2014, n.p.). Because of that, she sometimes tells the people on her tours that there are additional works stored in the Michener‘s vault and they can schedule an appointment to see

44 it if they have interest in learning more. She finds that most tour attendees are there ―to learn, to understand‖ (Morgan 2014, n.p.). Often times, people do ask her about the monetary value of the paintings, but because of strict museum guidelines, staff and volunteers are not allowed to disclose such information (Morgan 2014). One must consider why they are asking. It is just out of pure curiosity? Do they have a work by the artist? While Diane finds that not many people on her tours specifically ask her about donating art, she does get asked by people outside the museum, because they know of her association (Morgan 2014). They view her almost like an ambassador for the museum within the community.

When I asked her if she felt it would be beneficial for docents to receive training on how to discuss donating art with people on tours, she said yes and that it would be helpful to understand how the museum would want the docents to respond. It would also be helpful to learn a bit more about the donation process and the bigger picture of donating to the museum (Morgan

2014). Diane also noted that approaches and interests might change as different leadership is involved with the museum. For example, since 2012 when Lisa Tremper-Hanover joined the museum as director, different types of special exhibits have begun to be offered (Morgan 2014).

Over time, this may bring a new type of audience to the museum and docents must be prepared to greet anyone that comes through the doors – including new prospective donors.

Docent Irene Uzinskas has found that people on her tours usually respond in a similar way as Diane‘s attendees. Visitors are interested in learning about the history of the artwork, especially when she discusses the personal lives‘ of the artists. She always finds that a good way to connect with the visitors is to talk and keep talking. ―I always talk, because then they start telling me their stories,‖ Irene says (Uzinskas 2014, n.p.). This exact thing happened on a recent tour, in September 2014, when Irene was leading a group through the permanent exhibit

45 galleries. She began talking to a man in his 50‘s, who eventually disclosed that he was a collector of Pennsylvania Impressionist art and that he had works by many big name artists in his personal collection (Uzinskas 2014). The gentleman also told Irene that he had just purchased a work by contemporary sculptor Steve Tobin, after viewing his retrospective exhibit at the museum

(Uzinskas 2014). The collector asked Irene about how someone would go about getting one of their pieces of art into an exhibit at the Michener (Uzinskas 2014). She told him to speak to the staff at the front desk, as she did not have much information about the process. Because of that experience and other similar ones, she also feels that the docents should receive special training on how to approach similar situations in the future (Uzinskas 2014). Before he left, the man also mentioned that he will consider leaving some of his art to the museum in his will, but he has not given much thought to that since he is fairly young (Uzinskas 2014). Irene also mentioned that she feels the museum should offer special ―collector tours‖ to target potential donors. She finds that while there may be some potential donors on tours, many of the attendees on general tours are there purely out of interest in the art and learning more about it, and that a specialized

―collector‖ tour could provide the opportunity to target and reach a specific donor audience

(Uzinskas 2014).

As Connie Kimmerle previously mentioned, the museum relies, in part, on the generosity of many types of donors including artists and their family members. I had the opportunity to speak with a contemporary Bucks County artist who has been involved with the Michener for many years, in different capacities (but who would like to remain anonymous). The man is not only an artist in his own right, but his uncle and grandfather were also well known, well established artists in Bucks County during much of the 20th century. All three men have works in the Michener‘s permanent collection. When I asked about his uncle‘s and grandfather‘s work in

46 the permanent collection, he mentioned to me that his family worked with the museum to get their art into the permanent collection and that his aunt was a big advocate for the cause

(Anonymous Artist 2014). He also feels that until recently, when a retrospective about his uncle was curated at the museum, his aunt was disappointed that the Michener did little to promote his uncle‘s work (even after it had been in the permanent collection for many years) (Anonymous

Artist 2014). ―Everyone has an agenda‖ he says, curators, directors, artists, and collectors all have their own motives and values for what drives them (Anonymous Artist 2014, n.p.). When he was approached by the museum to donate a piece of his own work (a photograph), he gladly agreed. The photograph was originally part of the special 2012 exhibit, Parting Gifts: Artists

Honor Bruce Katsiff Director/CEO 1989-2012, honoring retired museum director Bruce Katsiff.

Katsiff, a photographer in his own right, always advocated for high quality photography exhibits at the museum throughout his time at the museum. The artist noted that while Bruce always loved photography exhibits, he has noticed that the new director, Lisa Tremper Hanover, has different interests that have been reflected in several of the more recent exhibits the museum has curated and wonders if some of the shows were chosen purely to get ―feet through the door‖ or to satisfy a personal agenda (Anonymous Artist 2014, n.p.). Hanover, for example, was instrumental in organizing recent retrospective exhibits on Harry Bertoia and Steve Tobin, both well-renowned regional sculptors. Either way, he is glad he has a work in the Michener‘s permanent collection. It is always ―a great line on your resume and for potential collectors to hear about‖ (Anonymous Artist 2014, n.p.). Overall this artist has had a positive experience with the Michener and will continue to support the museum in the future- if they ask.

I felt that getting the perspective of a private collector is important when considering how museum permanent collections are affected by them. James Wentzel, a Bucks County resident in

47 his 50‘s, is one of those collectors. James and his wife have been collecting art for several years now. They currently focus on collecting works by living artists. In fact, James always tries to get a photo with the artist to attach on the back of each new work they acquire (Wentzel 2014). The

Wentzels‘ first and foremost look for works that ―catch their eye‖ and that they have an instant gravitation towards, but also consider the potential for increased value over the years (Wentzel

2014). Their collection is a true investment in every sense. The core of their collection centers on contemporary Bucks County artists including Alan Goldstein, Mavis Smith, Wendy Paton,

Gordon Haas, Colette Sexton and more (Wentzel 2014). Many of the works are by artists who already have pieces in the Michener‘s permanent collection or have been included in special exhibits at the museum. When asked about donating a work from his collection to the Michener,

James immediately responded with enthusiasm. He would love to have a work in the Michener‘s permanent collection. In fact, he currently has a work on loan at the museum for a special photography exhibit (Wentzel 2014). He is already a supporter of the museum, and this would be a way to show even more support. While collecting, James keeps in mind the long-term ―life‖ of his collection (Wentzel 2014). To keep a record of all his purchases, he attaches a copy of the sales receipt to the back of each work (Wentzel 2014). He also noted that he is afraid, like other collectors, his children will not appreciate his artwork and fears it may end up in a yard sale one day (Wentzel 2014). Because of the value of their collection, the Wentzels do not discuss their art with many people, in fear of being exposed to theft (Wentzel 2014). While he always reminds his children of the value, he says it may make better sense to leave his collection to an institution, like the Michener, that can really care for and appreciate it (Wentzel 2014).

It must be mentioned that during the course of my original research, many of the individuals I interviewed, especially the museum staff, were cautious when discussing the

48 negative aspects of working with private donors. Understandably, they recognize that the relationship is fragile and that current and prospective donors are vital to the museum‘s long- term survival and growth. They would not want to compromise that. It is clear, however, as suggested in some of my other original research, and also examples cited in the literature review, working with donors can be challenging. Donors often have their own agenda and personal concerns. Some donors, as evident in several of the cases referenced, collect and donate primarily for status or financial reasons. A collector, for example, may want to donate a work of art by a certain artist to help increase the value of other works by the same artist they may have in their collection. After all, if you own a work by an artist that already is in museum collections or major exhibitions, it adds credibility and value to the artist‘s other works – some of which you may own. Often, items that individuals intend to donate are very personal to them and they may have strict conditions that they want an organization to adhere to if they decide to gift an object

(or money). It is the job of the museum to develop a way to satisfy both parties and advance the mission of the museum at the same time.

Several important themes and commonalities emerged across many of my interviews.

First, although museums and private collectors may come to the relationship with different motives, they are usually willing to work together for a collaborative, mutually-agreed upon end result. Both parties need to work together to reach their personal and joint objectives. It is also essential for organizations to raise awareness about their collecting efforts and goals. Building a museum‘s permanent collection is a collaborative effort that evolves over time. Everyone at an organization should have basic knowledge about the permanent collection and giving - they are the representatives in the community. It is also crucial for organizations to understand and establish certain standards for collecting, which can endure leadership changes, without

49 unnecessary compromises. This will only benefit them. As evidenced in existing research that establishes best practices in the field, anticipating and appropriately reacting to donor demographic shifts is also necessary (Gelles 2014). Having the right resources and knowledge to do this is a must. Lastly, and most evident, there is never any time to stop working with potential donors. Every day is a new opportunity to advance the cause of an organization and its collection. Even when a relationship is established, it is imperative for it to be tended to. No relationship can be taken for granted and when one is nurtured, the possibilities for growth are limitless. Recognizing that is key!

50

CONCLUSION

It is time for museums to make collections planning more of a priority. Times are changing and the face of donors is evolving. While this research is intended to provide guidance for institutions, looking at relationships from the perspective of the donor was necessary. Private collectors come in all forms and with many different motivations. The key is for organizations to understand this and anticipate the shifts in donor demographics, values, and motives, because they are inevitable. By examining the different types of donors, an institution will be better prepared to plan for its collection‘s future. While academic literature primarily discussed the history of art donation and specific collectors/donors, my original research uncovered additional trends in the museum art donation realm. Organizations must recognize that as leadership changes, and with it new programs and exhibits, new audiences will develop. Donors with different backgrounds may emerge. Also, there may be untapped resources within the museum that can be capitalized upon. Museum staff and volunteers should be trained and well versed on the donation process. Being an advocate for the museum should start from the bottom up. Having the right support and understanding the best practices and standards in the field will help create a framework and foundation for success.

While certain authors examined donation related issues that cause conflict and can lead to serious legal ramifications, others highlighted examples of how having pre-existing relationships with individuals can be one of the best assets when attempting to cultivate a donor. This was evident in my original research as well. Private collectors and other types of donors (including contemporary artists and their families) are fostered, over time through continuous contact. I feel that my research findings will help organizations develop and implement stronger strategic plans

51 that specifically focus on strengthening their permanent collections. They will be able to better identify trends in private collecting and focus on how they can work with private collectors to ensure that important works of art remain available for the public. Private collectors impact museum collections – positively and negatively- and it is the responsibility of the museum to ensure that their positive impact is stronger. It is essential that this happens before precious works of art are locked behind private doors forever.

52

APPENDIX

A survey was conducted to gain insight into the perspective of the James A. Michener Art Museum docents. Of the 30 active docents, 24 responded to the survey. The survey was created through Survey Monkey and open for one week (September 19, 2014 - September 26, 2014).

Docent Survey Questions: 1) How long have you been a docent? 2) How many tours, on average do you lead per month? 3) What type of tour of you lead most often? 4) Do you ever incorporate the history of the artwork (how the museum acquired the art) in your tours? If yes, please provide examples. 5) Do people ever ask about the history of the artwork? If yes, please provide examples. 6) Have you ever had anyone (that you were aware of) that has donated artwork to the Michener (or another museum) on your tour? If so, what did they say? 7) Do you ever mention specific donors on your tour? Lenfest, Michener, Nakashima, artist family, etc? Please provide an example if possible. 8) Have you ever had anyone inquire about art donations or want to learn more about the donation process? For example, if they have an item that they might want to donate? Please provide an example if possible. 9) Please provide any additional comments regarding permanent collection history, private donors or specific permanent collection pieces that come to mind. How do these things relate to your tours and your interaction with the visitors?

53

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Alliance of Museums [AAM]. ―Characteristics of Excellence for US Museums.‖ aam- us.org. Accessed December 1, 2014. http://www.aam-us.org/resources/ethics-standards-and- best-practices/characteristics-of-excellence-for-u-s-museums.

Anonymous Artist, in discussion with the author, October 1, 2014.

Association of Art Museum Directors [AAMD]. AAMC Policy on Deaccessioning. New York: Association of Art Museum Directors, 2010.

―A Rare Time Capsule of Fine Art: The George D. Horst Collection to be Sold at Freeman‘s.‖ Freeman’s Auctioneer’s & Appraisers. Accessed June 4, 2014. http://www.freemansauction.com/content/show_news.

Barclays Bank and Ledbury Research. Philanthropology: The Evolution of Giving. London: Barclays Bank PLC, 2012.

Beck, Ernest. The Real Value of Art. New York: Capital Acumen, 2012.

Bolze, Thomas A. ―From Private Passion to Public Virtue: Thomas B. Lockwood and the Making of a Cultural Philanthropist, 1895-1935,‖ Libraries & the Cultural Record 45 (2010): 414-441,495.

Brooks, Katherine. ―Robert Rauschenberg's 'Canyon' Donated to MoMA.‖ Huffington Post. Last Modified November 28, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/robert-rauschenbergs- canyon_n_2203680.html.

Carnall, Mark, ―Natural History Under the Hammer,‖ UCL Museums and Collections Blog, December 4, 2013, http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/museums/2013/12/04/natural-history-under-the- hammer.

Carnall, Mark, ―Sold Out of Science: Embracing Private Collectors in Natural History Museums,‖ Center for the Future of Museums Blog, December 10, 2013, http://futureofmuseums.blogspot.com/2013/12/sold-out-of-science.

Carrier, David. ―Art Collecting as Interpretation: The Case of Degas.‖ Art Journal 57, (1998): 112-114.

―Charitable Giving in America: Some Facts and Figures.‖ National Center for Charitable Statistics. Accessed December 1, 2014. http://nccs.urban.org/nccs/statistics/Charitable-Giving- in-America-Some-Facts-and-Figures.cfm.

54

Clare O‘Connor. ―Inside the World of Walmart Billionaire Alice Walton, America‘s Richest Art Collector.‖ Forbes. Last Modified September 16, 2013. www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/09/16inside-the-world-of-walmart-billionaire-alice- walton-americas-richest-art-collector/.

Cohen, Patricia. ―Museums Grapple with the Strings Attached to Gifts.‖ The New York Times, Last Modified February 4, 2013. www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/arts/design/museums-grapple- with-onerous-restrictions-on-donations.html.

―Collection Will Transform the Museum: One of the Foremost Collections of Cubist Art in the World- A Gift to the People of New York.‖ The Metropolitan Museum. Last Modified April 9, 2013. www.metmuseum.org/about-the-musempress-room/news/2013/lauder-announcement.

Cromer, Mary Varson. ―Don't Give Me That!: Tax Valuation of Gifts to Art Museums.‖ Washington and Lee Law Review 63, (2006): 777-808.

Crumpacker, Laurie. ―The Art of Scandal: The Life and Times of Isabella Stewart Gardner.‖ The New England Quarterly 72, (1999): 141-144.

Cushing, Deborah. ―Art in Dispute at the Beaverbrook Art Gallery.‖ International Journal of Cultural Property 15, (2008): 297-320.

―Daniel Garber‘s ‗Tanis‘ Returns to Michener Art Museum.‖ Bucks Local News. Last Modified August 21, 2011. www.buckslocalnews.com/articles/2011/08/24/entertainment/art/doc.

Diane Morgan (docent, James A. Michener Art Museum), in discussion with the author, September 30, 2014.

Dobrzynski, Judith H. ―Perez Collection Disappoints Some: Buyer‘s Remorse?‖ Arts Journal. Last Modified April 25, 2013. www.artsjournal.com/realcleararts/2013/04/perez-collection- disapoints-some-buyers-remorse.html. Gelles, David, ―Wooing a New Generation of Museum Patrons.‖ New York Times. Last Modified March 19, 2014. www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/arts/artsspecial/wooing-a-new-generation-of- museum-patrons.html

―George D. Horst Collection Achieves $4.3 Million, Sets 18 Auction Records.‖ Antiques and the Arts Weekly, Last Modified April 1, 2014. http://antiquesandthearts.com/news/2014/04/01george-d-horst-collection.

Giving USA Foundation. Giving USA 2013: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2012. Chicago: Giving USA Foundation, 2013.

Goldberg, Jeffrey. ―Wal-Mart Heiress‘s Art Museum a Moral Blight.‖ Bloomberg View. Last Modified December 12, 2011. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2011-12-13/wal-mart- heiress-s-museum-a-moral-blight-commentary-by-jeffrey-goldberg.

55

Goodwin, Iris J. ―Donor Standing to Enforce Charitable Gifts: Civil Society vs. Donor Empowerment.‖ Vanderbilt Law Review 58, (2005): 1091-1163.

Hartz, Jill. ―AAMG Condemns the Actions of Randolph College.‖ Association of Academic Museums & Galleries. Accessed December 1, 2014. http://www.aamg-us.org/stand-with-us/.

Holler, Manfred J; Klose-Ullmann, Barbara. ―Art Goes America.‖ Journal of Economic Issues 44, (2010): 89-112.

Irene Uzinskas (docent, James A. Michener Art Museum), in discussion with the author, October 7, 2014.

―James A. Michener Art Museum.‖ James A. Michener Art Museum. Accessed September 25, 2014. www.michenermuseum.org/collections/permanent-collections.

James Wentzel (private collector), in discussion with the author, September 25, 2014.

Jay, Martin. ―Mementoes Post-Mori: Thoughts on the Collector's Mania.‖ Salmagundi 180/181, (2013):49-59.

Katsiff, Bruce, Erika Jaeger-Smith, Connie Kimmerle, Kristy Krivitsky, and Brian H. Peterson. An Evolving Legacy: Twenty Years of Collecting at the James A. Michener Art Museum. Doylestown: Brilliant Graphics, 2009.

Katz, Wendy Jean. ―Charles Wilson Peale: Art and Selfhood in the Early Republic.‖ The Journal of American History 1, (2005): 202-205.

Kimmerle, Connie (Curator of Collections, James A. Michener Art Museum), email message to author, September 24, 2014.

Kino, Carol. ―Welcome to the Museum of My Stuff.‖ Los Angeles Times. Last Modified February 18, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/arts/design/18kino.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Knight, Christopher. "Recovered Nazi-Looted Painting on View at LACMA." Los Angeles Times. Last Modified November 26, 2013. articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/26/entertainment/la-et- cm-nazi-art-lacma-20131126. Laurie McGahey (Senior Director of Advancement, James A. Michener Art Museum), in discussion with the author, August 18, 2014. "Lenfest Documents". James A. Michener Art Museum Archives, Box 7, 2010.20. Lewis, Randy. ―Collector Buys ‗Winged Figure,‘ Will Donate it to Museum: Controversy: The Icarus-Themed Painting of a Nude Male Torso that had Been Commissioned—Then Rejected – for John Wayne Airport, is Purchased by a Laguna Art Museum Trustee.‖ Los Angeles Times. Last Modified September 13, 1990. Articles.latimes.com/1990-09-13/entertainment/ca- 577_1_laguna-art-musuem.

56

Lipinski, Jed. ―How a Working Class Couple Amassed a Priceless Art Collection.‖ Mental Floss (The Mag). Last Modified February 14, 2013. http://mentalfloss.com/article/48844/how- working-class-couple-amassed-priceless-art-collection.

Melissa Sandquist, in discussion with the author, October 23, 2014.

The Menil Collection. ―About.‖ Menil.org. Accessed December 1, 2014. https://www.menil.org/de-menils-1.html.

Miller, Michael E., ―Perez Art Museum of Miami: Despite Odd Angles and Odious Name, PAMM is Promising.‖ Miami New Times Blog. Last Modified August 5, 2013. blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2013/08/perez_art_museum_of_miami_desp.php. O‘Hare, Shelia and Andrew Smith. ―Gifts Nobody Wants: The State of the Art in Dealing with Unwanted Donations.‖ Kansas Library Association College and University Libraries Section Proceedings 1; no. 1, (2011). http/dx.doi.org/10.4148/culs.v1i0.1363

Ottenhoff, Bob and Greg Urlich. More Money for More Good. Washington, D.C.: GuideStar USA, Inc. and Hope Consulting, 2012.

Pes, Javier. ―Art Museums in the Age of Expansion.‖ World Literature Today 8,1 (2007): 38-42.

Rees, Helen. ―Art exports and the construction of national heritage in late-Victorian and Edwardian Great Britain,‖ History of Political Economy 31, (1999): 187-208.

Rhine, Patrick. “Museums in the Age of the Mega-Collector: Can Public Institutions Compete?‖ Art Radar. Last Modified September 22, 2012. http://artradarjournal.com/2012/02/22/are- collectors-more-important-than-museums-one-curators-take-wsj-blogs/.

Robertson, Patricia Quinn and James Mark Lewis. "Donor's Remorse and Broken Promises: The Enforceability of Charitable Pledges." Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 12, (2009): 15-27.

Rosenbaum, Lee. ―Museums Can‘t Compete.‖ Los Angeles Times. Last Modified September 4, 2007. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oe-rosenbaum4sep04-story.html#page=1.

Shapira, Ian. ―‗Flea Market‘ Renoir Ordered Back to Baltimore Museum of Art by Federal Judge.‖ The Washington Post. Last Modified January 10, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/flea-market-renoir-ordered-back-to-baltimore-museum-of- art-by-federal-judge/2014/01/10/c1fa2796-79f9-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html.

Smart, Pamela G. ―Possession: Intimate Artifice at The Menil Collection,‖ Modernism/Modernity 14, (2006): 19-39.

57

Thomas, Adam. ―A Rich Man's Guide to Social Climbing: Philanthropy as a Bourgeois Behavioral Pattern in Nineteenth-Century New York.‖ Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 32, (2002): 15-24.

Vogel, Carol. ―Christie‘s to Sell Works from Twombly‘s Collection.‖ The New York Times. Last Modified September 18, 2014. www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/arts/design/christies-to-sell- works-from-twomblys-collection.html.

Waller, Britta. "Covet This!" Dialogue 24, (2001): 42-43.

Weiner, Robert. ―Ten Common Mistakes in Selecting Donor Databases (And How to Avoid Them).‖ idealware.org. Last Modified February 2012. www.idealware.org/articles/ten_common_mistakes_in_selecting_donor_databases.php

Wennerstrom, Nord. ―£50 Million Gift of Cy Twombly Paintings and Sculpture to the Tate.‖ Nord on Art (Blog), June 12, 2014, Nordonart.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/50-million-gift-of-cy- twombly-paintings-and-sculpture-to-the-tate/.

Wojtas, Joe. ―With Donated Painting, Aquarium Enters Art World Controversy.‖ The New York Times. Last Modified January 27, 2008. www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/27pollockct.html