Pyramids of Lake Erie: the Historical Evolution of the Cleveland Museum of Art’S Egyptian Collection

Home , Cleveland Museum of Art, Howard Carter, Semat

PYRAMIDS OF LAKE ERIE: THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART’S EGYPTIAN COLLECTION

A thesis submitted

To Kent State University in partial

Fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of Master of Arts

Christine M. Pienoski

May 2016

Except for previously published materials.

Thesis written by

Christine Marie Pienoski

B.A., Walsh University, 2014

M.A., Kent State University, 2016

Approved by

____Dr. Kenneth Bindas______, Advisor

____Dr. Kenneth Bindas______, Chair, Department of History

____James L. Blank______, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... vii

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTERS

I. THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART’S EGYPTIAN COLLECTION AND EDUCATION IN THE 1910s ...... 15

Cleveland and the Cleveland Museum of Art ...... 17

Collecting Egypt: America, Egypt, and Western Ideologies (Why Collect?) ...... 20

Collecting and Displaying Egypt: The Inaugural Exhibition at the CMA ...... 25

Aftermath of the Inaugural Exhibition ...... 35

Conclusion ...... 38

II. THE 1950s: PRESERVATION AND THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART’S EGYPTIAN COLLECTION ...... 40

American-Egyptian Relations ...... 44

Cleveland History ...... 49

CMA Renovation and Egyptian Collection: Preservation is the Focus ...... 50

Conclusion ...... 58

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

CHAPTERS Page

III. TECHNOLOGY AND VISITORS AT THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART’S EGYPT’S DAZZLING SUN EXHIBITION ...... 60

America and Egypt in the 1990s ...... 63

Cleveland in the 1990s ...... 65

The Cleveland Museum of Art and Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: A Special Exhibition...... 66

Conclusion ...... 77

IV. EPILOGUE: THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART AND EGYPT IN THE PRESENT DAY...... 79

Another Renovation and the Permanent Gallery ...... 79

A New Travelling Exhibition: Bringing Egypt Back to the CMA ...... 87

FINAL CONCLUSION ...... 90

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 95

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1. Main Story Plan, Hubbell and Benes Architects, circa 1916. Courtesy of Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 28

1.2. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c338, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 32

1.3. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1922. 22c3661, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 32

1.4. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c270, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 33

1.5. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c281, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 33

1.6. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c288, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 34

2.1. Gallery Floor, Handbook of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 1966, page vii. Courtesy of the Cleveland Museum of Art Ingalls Library ...... 52

2.2. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1956. 29022C, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 54

2.3. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1956. 29022A, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 54

2.4. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1950. 24600, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 55

2.5. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1952. 25548B, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 56

2.6. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 11, 1963. 34955a, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 57

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure Page

3.1. Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III, 1992. 35-333n 24, Photograph Collection, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 70

3.2. Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III, 1992. 35-333n 12, Photograph Collection, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 71

3.3. Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III, 1992. Credit G.M. Donley, Photograph Collection, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 71

3.4. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 205, 1993. 57941e, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 75

3.5. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 204, 1993. 57941d, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 76

3.6. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 204, 1993. 57941c, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives ...... 76

4.1. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 107, March 2015. Photo by author ...... 83

4.2. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 107, March 2015. “Kings and Gods” section panel text. Photo by author ...... 84

4.3. Egyptian Collection, Gallery 107, March 2015. Statue of Heqat, the Frog Goddess (1976.5). Photo by the author ...... 85

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis project is the result of the support and encouragement of many people. First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Kenneth Bindas, for mentoring and guiding me through this project, for providing critical feedback on drafts, and for encouraging my own confidence in my work. Without his help, this thesis would not exist. I would also like to thank my committee members- Dr. Mary Ann Heiss, Dr. Leslie Heaphy, and Dr. Mindy Farmer- for also providing feedback, encouragement, and resources for research. Our email and in person conversations reminded me that I was on track, and could finish this project on time. In a special way, I thank

Dr. Shane Strate who, while not on my committee, aided me in developing my thoughts and crafting my research through a difficult Writing Seminar class. He pushed me to think differently, approach my research and writing from a new angle, and showed me what graduate level writing consists of, forcing me to grow as a scholar and a person. I also thank Dr. Timothy

Scarnecchia for ensuring that I was registered for the proper classes, able to graduate on time, and supporting all of my endeavors.

The History Department secretaries-Carla Weber, Alana “Kay” Dennis, and Heather

Miller- were fantastic. They listened to my struggles, witnessed my breakdowns, directed me to the appropriate forms to fill out, and generally encouraged me throughout my graduate school years. I thank them for all of this, and more, from the bottom of my heart. The History Librarian at the Kent State University Library, Kara Robinson, also helped by answering my research questions, especially when I had trouble finding sources. I thank her for all of her hard work and dedication in helping this project come to completion.

vii

The professionals at Kent State University were not the only professionals that aided me in my quest to write this thesis project. Therefore, I would like to extend a very special thank you the Archivists at the Cleveland Museum of Art’s Ingalls Library - Leslie Cade and Peter

Buettner. They answered my questions, retrieved archival material for me, and set it aside for when I was able to do my research. I also thank them for our email conversations regarding my project, for allowing me access to the archives, and for working with my irregular schedule. In addition to the Archivists, I thank, also in a special way, the Collections Management

Department, especially Tracy Sisson and Gretchen Shie Miller, for allowing me to not only intern in the department during the summer of 2015, but also to go up to the archives to conduct research during my time with them. The head start I achieved on research through this experience allowed me to outline my project in general terms. Also, the experience I had working for, and with, them was invaluable to me as a museum professional. Thank you for everything. Finally, I am indebted to Mr. Jeffrey Strean and Ms. Lori Wienke for allowing me to interview them, for answering my questions, and for granting me permission to use their words in my project. Their insights were critical for my final section, and I graciously thank them for allowing me to cite their words as evidence in my thesis.

Other museum professionals outside of the Cleveland Museum of Art were also instrumental in aiding me in this endeavor. In particular, I thank Meghan Reed, Registrar at the

Massillon Museum, for suggesting sources and lending me books for research. The staff at

Massillon have been incredible in supporting my professional and scholarly endeavors by allowing me to work with them at various times and positions throughout the past three years. I

viii

thank them all immensely for their support, and for the opportunities they provided me for learning more about my future home in the museum world.

My peers, colleagues, and friends in the History Graduate Assistant office have been there from the first day, providing a body of encouragement, feedback, and mentors through my graduate school struggles. I thank especially Sarah Zabic, Mallory Neil, Emily Hager Kasecamp, and Michelle Curran Cornell for being the “moms” of the office, particularly in my first year.

They watched me struggle through the graduate school process, and were always there to lend a listening ear, critical feedback, helpful advice, confidence and self-esteem boosts, and great conversations about non-school related topics. I am indebted to them for all of this and more, and hope that this project makes them proud. I would also like to thank Mike Goodnough, Philip

Shackelford, Alyssa Cady, and Megan Smeznik for their advice, support, and friendship throughout this undertaking as well.

Graduate school was a struggle, and completing this thesis project was a struggle of great proportions. I never would have made it through without my friends and officemates, Kayla

Mason and Whitney Stalnaker. They became my best friends as we shared our love for museums, our thesis problems and triumphs, classes, conversations, and lives with each other. I do not know how I would have completed this project without them, their feedback, support, reality checks, pre-class discussions, and outside-the-office-shenanigans. Thank you for everything, Kayla and Whitney, and good luck in your future careers!

Many friends and relatives outside of the office helped as well. Fr. Jared Orndorf and Fr.

Ed Smith, two close family friends, supported me in my graduate school career. I cannot thank

them enough for all of their help over these past two years, and I thank them for their endless love and support, for checking up on me, and simply being there for me. It meant more to me than they will ever know.

I would also like to thank Katelyn Schiefer for being my best friend, and for being there for me when we are so far apart. She encouraged me, supported me, listened to me, allowed me to cry, made me laugh, and gave me advice on everything when I needed it throughout graduate school. Thank you, Kate, for being an amazing person and a true blessing in my life.

Additionally, I thank my fiancé, Dan Francis III, for loving me, putting up with me when

I was stressed out with school, for reminding me that I could get through and finish my thesis and graduate school, and for calming me down when I was on the verge of a mental breakdown.

Dan encouraged me, reminded me to persevere, listened to my stories and complaints, supported my research, allowed me to bounce ideas off of him, made me laugh when I wanted to cry, and helped me stay up late into the night to complete assignments. I honestly do not know where I, or this project, would be without him, and am eternally grateful for his strong presence and enduring love in my life.

Finally, I want to thank my family, especially my parents Teri and Tom, and my siblings,

Mike and Beth. They were by my side throughout these past two years, reminding me why I was in graduate school and to persevere when I felt like giving up. They comforted me when I had major setbacks, celebrated my victories, listened to my stories, and often reminded me to have fun with my friends, and to enjoy life. They reminded me that school was not the only thing in my life, and that, no matter what, I had the skills and abilities to finish strong. I cannot thank

them enough for pushing me to apply to graduate school, helping me move into my apartment, supplying me with food on my return trips from home, allowing me to do laundry at home, distracting me when I needed a break from work, and leaving me alone to work when I was focused and stressed. My family has been there for me every step of the way, and to them I offer the deepest gratitude I can.

INTRODUCTION

A young, middle school girl visited the Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA) as part of a field trip. When the group first arrived, she and her classmates gathered in the lobby and listened to their teacher’s instructions about staying together, no running in the museum, and proper voice levels. They also met their tour guide, a kind, older woman with a smile. Once all of the preliminary instructions were given, the tour began. The group walked through countless rooms filled with wondrous things. Some rooms had paintings on the walls. Another had an armored knight on a horse and weapons of all kinds in glass cases. Others had statues of people meditating, scrolls of beautiful landscape paintings, and animal heads carved from stone or gold.

All of these treasures captured the girl’s admiration, but it was not until she entered a particular room that her curiosity, imagination, and thirst for knowledge were truly inspired. The room was that of ancient Egypt, filled with sarcophagi, relief paintings, small statues in various colors, and large stone statues of men and women of long ago. Questions filled the girl’s mind. What are these objects, and how were they used? Where did they come from? What are these symbols, and what do they mean?

The wonder and curiosity instilled in a child at the museum may carry into their adult lives, which is how this project came to be. After years of study in both history and museum studies, this thesis project combines the passion for ancient Egyptian history with the Cleveland

Museum of Art, a prestigious institution with a small, though high quality, Egyptian collection.

These ancient artifacts draw people to the museum because the objects seem to be shrouded in mystery, exoticism, and even magic. Representations in popular culture add fuel to this fire,

generating curiosity and interest in a civilization thousands of years old. “Pyramids of

Lake Erie: The Historical Evolution of the Cleveland Museum of Art’s Egyptian Collection” uses the CMA’s collection as a case study that illustrates how museums balance the organic nature of the institution and its connection to the community in which it resides and serves with the static nature of its ancient collections, examining the dynamic relationship between American museums and historical trends from the early 20th century to the present day. The CMA’s acquisition and display of its Egyptian collection exemplifies this modernist struggle to both understand and convey knowledge about the ancient past.

The American museum as it is understood today began to emerge in the early twentieth century, though the concept of a museum originated in the ancient world. The ancient Greeks, for example, erected temples to the Muses, the goddesses that safeguarded the arts, history and astronomy. The Library of Alexandria in Egypt was another example, as the Library was a sanctuary for scholars as they researched and recorded history.1 As civilizations evolved and grew, the research and scholarly centered refuge of the ancients transformed into private collections by members of the wealthy classes in the nineteenth century, private in that the families owned the collections, whereas the Greek and Egyptian collections were owned by governments and religious groups.2 By the next century, these wealthy patrons used their collections as a means of teaching the lower classes “what it meant to be cultured, civic-minded

Americans.”3 They also used these collections, and the new museums that emerged from them, as a means of bringing money and wealthy donors into the cities in which the museums called

1Edward P. Alexander and Mary Alexander, Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Functions of Museums (New York: AltaMira Press, 2008), 3-4.

2 Alexander and Alexander, Museums in Motion, 3-5.

3 Marjorie Schwarzer, Riches, Rivals & Radicals: 100 Years of Museums in America, (Washington DC: American Association of Museums, 2012), 3.

home, representing their civic pride.4 Eventually, museums morphed into the institutions familiar to Americans today.

Because of the long history of the museum concept, as illustrated above, modern scholars debate the exact definition of what a museum is. However, there is general consensus on the overall purpose of the museum, or what a museum should be and do. A broad definition recognizes institutions that acquire, protect, preserve, conserve and display artifacts of various kinds as museums.5 Based on this definition, institutions such as zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens, natural history, art, history, historic houses, children’s, and science centers are all considered museums. Alexander and Alexander’s Museums in Motion is one example of many that discusses the meaning and purpose of the museum.6 Art museums are the institutions focused on throughout this argument, and the understanding of the definition of an art museum is that mentioned above.

4 Steven Conn, Museums and American Intellectual Life, 1876-1926 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), 200-201; Lawrence Levine, Highbrow, Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), 146-154. Levine’s description of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts’ decision to use only original works of art, and therefore to remove reproductions from the galleries, is an example of the civic pride Bostonians felt.

5 Henrietta Lidchi, “The Poetics and the Politics of Exhibiting Other Cultures,” in Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, ed. Stuart Hall (New York: SAGE Publications, 1997), 155-160.

6 Alexander and Alexander. For more on museum studies, including the definition of museums, museum discourse, and other aspects of museums see the following: Bettina Messias Carbonell, ed. Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004); Jeffrey K. Smith, The Museum Effect: How Museums, Libraries, and Cultural Institutions Educate and Civilize Society, (New York: Roman & Littlefield, 2014); Daniel Sherman and Irit Rogoff, eds, Museum Culture: Histories, Discourses, Spectacles (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994); Gerard Corsane, ed. Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An Introductory Reader (New York: Routledge, 2005); Janet Marstine, ed New Museum Theory and Practice: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006); Ivan Karp, et al, eds. Museum Frictions (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006); Simon Knell, Suzanne MacLeod, and Sheila Watson, eds. Museum Revolutions: How Museums Change and are Changed (New York: Routledge, 2007); Gail Anderson, ed. Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift (New York: Roman & Littlefield, 2004); Hugh Genoways, ed. Museum Philosophy for the Twenty-First Century (New York: AltaMira Press, 2006); Graham Black, Transforming Museums in the Twenty- First Century (New York: Routledge, 2012); Steven Conn, Do Museums Still Need Objects (Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 2010).

While the exact definition of a museum is contested, the distinguishing factor of the museum from other institutions of research is the collection, and there are three common methods of acquiring these artifacts- donation, purchase, and loan. Donations account for the majority of museum collections, a tradition going back to the evolution of private collections into public museums. Purchasing artifacts at public auction or through private collectors is common, though neither the primary nor the preferred method. For both of these methods, the provenance, or history, of the objects must be assured and “clean.” Should the provenance be questionable, the museum could face ethical repercussions. Finally, a museum may use the loan system in order to temporarily borrow an object from another museum without taking sole ownership of the item. The museum cares for the loaned artifacts, but does not integrate them into the permanent collection. These methods allow the museum to ethically acquire artifacts and objects for their collections.

After acquiring collections, museums display their artifacts in exhibitions and galleries.

Exhibitions are special shows comprised of loaned artifacts, while galleries are the display of permanent collections. The theories behind displaying, or exhibiting, artifacts have evolved over time as the museum has developed, for exhibition is one of the central aspects of the museum.

Tony Bennett’s theory of the exhibitionary complex, derived from the spectacle of the Crystal

Palace exhibition, is the most well-known and referenced. In his argument, he defined the exhibitionary complex as “the transfer of objects and bodies from the enclosed and private domains…into progressively more open and public arenas.”7 He argued that the exhibitionary complex and the introduction of new academic disciplines, including history, archaeology, and anthropology, combined to change the manner in which museums and their exhibitions were displayed, treated, and examined. The new fields of study also allowed exhibitions to be

7Tony Bennett, “The Exhibitionary Complex,” New Formations, no. 4 (1988), 74.

arranged so as to demonstrate the historical past. These new methods introduced new ideas for museum exhibition- the period room and the progressive gallery.

Additionally, Bennett analyzed the impact of exhibitions on the people that viewed them, and the information that the displays imparted. He argued that exhibitions aided in the ideas of nation building, especially in regards to forming, and sustaining, a national identity among the viewers of the exhibition. As institutions of the state, the museum sought to bring people into the process of state formation, allowing citizens to become participants in the state rather than simply viewers in the museum. 8

Based on the exhibitionary complex and the new importance of visitors, the collections

“formed vehicles for inscribing and broadcasting the messages of power (but of a different type) throughout society.”9 The idea of power and order that Bennett referred to was Foucault’s concept of knowledge/power, a notion that Bennett correlated to the purpose of his exhibitionary complex throughout his argument. In addition, Bennett analyzed Foucault’s theory of knowledge/power in regards to the evolution of exhibitions, most especially in relation to ordering objects and people rather than enabling chaos, such as surveilling the people attending.

The concept of order, especially among the working and lower classes, was also discussed in relation to the transition from a private to that of a public institution, a transition that occurred in the early twentieth century. 10

While Bennett focused on exhibits creating order, Henrietta Lidchi examined the role of exhibits in interpreting other cultures. In her chapter “The Poetics and Politics of Exhibiting

Other Cultures,” Lidchi examined case studies of ethnographic museum exhibits in light of the

8 Bennett, “Exhibitionary,” 89-90, 93-99.

9 Ibid., 74.

10 Ibid.,76,78-79, 82-85.

poetics and politics involved. She explored the definitions of “museum” and “ethnographic museum” and the purpose of artifacts. Lidchi argued that museums do not necessarily rely on collections for stability, but rather that this stability was determined by two characteristics of artifacts- their physical existence and their inherent meaning. While an object’s physical existence remained constant, the meaning attributed to that object changed over time. Therefore, an artifact that held one meaning or interpretation in the past does not necessarily have the same meaning today.11 Even though this statement is logical, reflecting the evolving characteristics of civilizations in terms of history, the shifting meaning of an object did not diminish the importance of the object to the museum collection and the stability of the museum, though

Steven Conn’s Do Museums Still Need Objects? contested this notion. The museum may change the interpretation of the object, and the artifact may obtain a new meaning due to new historical evidence or changing societal ideals, but the fact that the artifact is used by the museum to convey an idea to the public adds to the stability of the museum institution itself.

Lidchi’s central argument involved the poetics and politics of exhibition, as her title states. She defined poetics of exhibition as “the practice of producing meaning through the internal ordering and conjugation of the separate but related components of an exhibition.”12 In other words, she examined the process of creating meaning through connecting and ordering the various parts of an exhibit. She illustrated this concept with the example of a photograph. The context of the photograph can be misinterpreted, or misconstrued, by the visitor merely by changing the placement of the photograph within the exhibit and the location of the information that described it. Likewise, the methods in which objects were displayed, either in out of reach glass cases or in reconstructed displays of places and time periods, had a similar effect. Finally,

11 Lidchi, “The Poetics and Politics,” 162-166.

12 Ibid., 168.

the text information alongside the artifacts had a role in interpreting the information for the visitors, interpretations that may not convey the true meaning of the display.13 These components worked together to create historical interpretations of people, cultures, rituals, or ideas. The level of truth conveyed by the exhibition depended on the manner in which these parts were arranged and combined by the curators to create one version of meaning.

Lidchi’s final focus was the role of the museum in imparting knowledge to others. In order to understand this role, Lidchi, like Bennett, referred to Foucault’s knowledge/power theory and used it as the framework for her argument.14 Focusing on specific exhibitions and museums, Lidchi studied the misinterpretation of artifacts through a typological arrangement, and the evolution into displays according to culture, time period, and other similar themes. By using Foucault’s model, Lidchi argued that power was used to collect artifacts so as to transmit knowledge about cultures to others. While this argument is logical, Lidchi questioned “whether the ends can ever justify the means”15 in collecting, a poignant remark that is still relevant today.

Both scholars studied the impact of how and why exhibitions are constructed as well as the consequences of misinformation, misinterpretation, and arrangement styles.16 While these arguments are valid, and must be taken into consideration, exhibitions and galleries in general do not transmit information alone. They also impart memory. The artifacts and collections on display in exhibits and galleries share the stories and memories of those peoples and cultures that

13 Ibid., 169-184.

14 Ibid., 185-199.

15 Ibid., 198.

16 For more on exhibitions design and interpretation, see Polly McKenna-Cress and Janet A. Kamien, Creating Exhibitions: Collaboration in the Planning, Development, and Design of Innovative Experiences (Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2013) and Juliette Fritsch, ed. Museum Gallery Interpretation and Material Culture (New York: Routledge, 2011).

the objects embody. These memories also affect the visitor and the visitor’s interpretation of the exhibit and the museum as a whole.

The study of memory in relation to museum exhibitions is vital in understanding the relevance of the museum institution, for without memory, the role of museums as educators would no longer be significant as the museum educates the public. Museum displays were initially “arranged to benefit the aesthete, the scholar, the collector, and the craftsman, a knowledgeable audience satisfied with a minimum of interpretation.”17 Because of this mindset, the museum did not need to be concerned with the impact of exhibitions on its visitors. The visitors, presumably, already knew and understood the information that the museum was attempting to impart. After the museum opened its doors and its collections to the masses however, museum professionals began to research and study the effect exhibitions, and therefore the collections, had on its visitors. In terms of memory, museums house artifacts of cultural heritage and have the unique ability and position to share the memories, or stories, of the peoples and places that these objects represent and contain. However, there is debate on how memory is viewed and utilized by cultural history researchers and museums as possessors of cultural heritage.

One such researcher and scholar is Susan Crane. Crane sought to reiterate the importance and significance of individual memory, arguing that anyone who studied history may become part of and write history on their own.18 In a museum perspective, each artifact in the collection embodied its own story and history within a larger context. Each object was created by a person for a specific purpose. These individual memories, then, should be exhibited and given the same

17 Alexander and Alexander, 9.

18 Susan A. Crane, “Writing the Individual Back into Collective Memory,” The American Historical Review 102, no. 5 (Dec. 1997): 1372-1385.

credence as the larger cultural or societal memories within the larger collection, for without these individual memories, the larger story would have no cohesion, no purpose, and no memory as a whole.

Crane also emphasized that every individual participated in, and therefore was part of, collective memory. Collective memory is the type of memory a museum generally protects in its collection as collections contain the stories of entire cultures. Crane viewed collective memory in terms of a broad history that every person is a part of, a combination of individual memories. She stated that “collective memory is a conceptualization that expresses a sense of the continual presence of the past.”19 In other words, collective memory is one method that historians may use to obtain an impression of the past.

Crane employed various examples to denote how collective memory has been interpreted and used over the past decades in the study of history, including studying the works of

Halbwachs, Pierre Nora, and Josef Yerushalmi. Each of these historians had their own notion of collective memory and studied the concept in relation to their own stories, such as Yerushalmi relating collective memory to that of the Jewish tradition. Crane then tied the two types together:

“Perhaps the practice of history, redefined as the active participation in remembering and forgetting within collective memory by each member, can become characteristic of historical consciousness, rather than simply reference to the knowledge of history [original emphasis].”20

Simply put, Crane advocated for individual participation in collective memory so that members of a community may be part of history rather than know the facts. This notion is embodied in the museum exhibition by inviting visitors to be part of the individual and collective memories of the collection.

19 Crane, “Writing the Individual,” 1373.

20 Ibid., 1381-1385.

Whereas Crane examined the individual within collective memory, Alon Confino investigated problems with current methods of studying and defining memory in relation to cultural history. To him, “…the notion of memory, more practiced than theorized, has been used to denote very different things, which nonetheless share a topical common denominator: the ways in which people construct a sense of the past.”21 In other words, memory has been used by various people, both in scholarly research and in everyday life, to refer to a perception of the past. Confino used this notion as a basis for his argument: that because this concept is so broad, there are difficulties in using memory as a method of study. While he did admit that “memory is everywhere,”22 and is therefore unavoidable in the context of history and research, Confino argued that there must be a more constructive method of how to use memory to distinguish various aspects of life experiences.

Confino discussed three aspects of collective memory in support of his argument. First, he detailed the study of “mentalite,” or mentality, in regards to how similar the concept is with memory and that memory is a form of mentality, using Aby Warburg’s examination of the topic as his example.23 A discussion of the “politics of memory” followed, in which Confino described how memory played a significant role in the sphere of politics, society, and power relations.

Finally, Confino explained the relationship between memory and narrative, outlining how memory was used to create a narrative. He concluded by stating that the history of memory must be studied in order for memory studies to be useful in research. Confino’s argument for more

21 Alon Confino, “Collective Memory and Cultural History: Problems of Method,” The American Historical Review 102, no. 5 (Dec. 1997): 1386.

22 Confino, “Collective Memory,”1387-1388.

23 Ibid., 1388-1392.

useful research methods will aid museums in their representations of memory through their collections and exhibitions.

Andermann and Simine viewed memory in yet another perspective. They claim that “in response to feminist, postmodern and postcolonial critiques,” museums and their collections were re-interpreted from the aspect of culture. They also explained the new academic understanding of museology, in which the museum’s role was no longer focused on exhibiting cultural heritage artifacts, but moving beyond exhibitions and knowledge to “entertainment, empowerment, experience, ethics, and narrative endeavor.”24 Simply put, museum exhibitions are meant to do more than merely impart knowledge about a topic. Rather, museums and exhibitions were intended to interact with visitors, conveying a sense of fun alongside the transmission of knowledge and creation of memories.

As Andermann and Simine began to divulge, the importance of museum visitors, and the impact that museums have on visitors, became a relatively new topic of study in the museum community. They argued that the museum had shifted from an institution of research to an open forum of memory and community.25 This shift was then observed and demonstrated through the study of visitors, most notably why they come to museums, what they obtain from museum experiences, and the overall impact of the museum on the public. The answers to these questions, however, are not black and white due to the fact that every person has a different experience within the museum. Visitors attend a museum for various reasons, for example. These “types” of visitors were designated by the lead authority figure on the topic, John Falk, in his Interactive

Visitor Model and Visitor Experience Model, which are both described in detail in Chapter 3.

24Jens Andermann and Silke Arnold-de Simine, “Introduction: Memory, Community and the New Museum,” Theory, Culture & Society 29 no. 1 (2012): 4-5.

25 Andermann and Simine, “Introduction,” 4-5.

Simply put, though, Falk’s models combined various aspects of the visitor, such as personal experiences, expectations, emotions, and the purpose of the museum visit, in order to classify the visitors, understanding that individuals go to museums for a variety of reasons, and that museums must take all of these different types of audience members into account when creating exhibitions in order to create a meaningful experience.26

In addition to the evolution of American museum studies, foreign relations between

America and Egypt, Egyptian history, and the history of the city of Cleveland are interwoven throughout the argument, providing historical context within which to place the development of the CMA and its Egyptian collection. Because of this, historiographical discussions of these areas are not included here. Rather, the history of each topic is presented at the beginning of each chapter, illustrating the context of the time period examined.

The sources used for this project came from a number of different places and institutions.

Most of the primary sources are located at the Cleveland Museum of Art Archives (CMA

Archives), located on the second floor of the Ingalls Library at the museum. The Archives preserves documents related to the museum from its beginning to the present day. A professional relationship began during the summer of 2015 through an internship at the museum with the archivists, who provided access to the documents for this project. The sources used from the

Archives include letters, receipts, survey information, photographs, and grant applications. In addition, the Ingalls Library maintains collections of “clipping files,” folders containing newspaper and magazine clippings about the museum. A few of these folders were utilized as well. Also, the online history database JSTOR offered access to all copies of the Bulletin of the

Cleveland Museum of Art, the museum’s membership magazine where information regarding

26 John H. Falk, Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience (Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press Inc., 2009); John Falk and Lynn Dierking, The Museum Experience (Washington DC: Whalesback Books, 1992).

visitation, membership, endowment funds, research and acquisitions was published for museum members. Finally, a combination of microfilmed articles at the Kent State University Library

Main branch and an online database through the Cleveland Public Library provided access to The

Plain Dealer articles from the 1910s to the present day. All of these sources were used to narrate the story of the CMA and its Egyptian collection. Moreover, these sources provide insight into the thought processes of the individuals who wrote them, allowing the discovery of biases as well as the priorities of the museum. The secondary sources are generally scholarly books, located at various libraries in Ohio, and accessed through OhioLink. They offer historical context, background, and theories regarding the various threads in this project, placing the CMA and its collection into the larger understanding of American history and museum studies.

The project is a contribution to the fields of history and museum studies. First, it analyzes the historical growth of museums by understanding how the modern museum evolved over time.

Second, the relationship between American museums and historical trends becomes evident. In other words, this project demonstrates that museums are influenced by the historical contexts around it, affecting how the museum continues to fulfill its mission. Finally, the case study of the

CMA and its Egyptian collection illustrates how museums balance the changing nature of museums with the static nature of its ancient collections. This project contributes, therefore, a case study by which American museums can learn of the historical significance of an Egyptian collection, how that collection played a role in museum history, and why it is no longer a vital part of the museum, filling a gap in the historiography of museum studies and demonstrating the relationship between museums, ancient collections, and American and World history.

The chapters in this project relate to this contribution. Chapter one examines the museum’s founding, the drive to acquire Egyptian relics, and how this was vital in establishing

power and legitimacy for the CMA. Chapter two analyzes the CMA at midcentury, as a renovation project to expand gallery space in the midst of the Cold War shifted the museum’s focus to preservation, affecting the acquisition and display of the Egyptian artifacts. Chapter three focuses on the museum’s 75th Anniversary celebration, where an Egyptian travelling exhibition brought thousands of visitors to the CMA and integrated technology and visitor studies. Finally, the epilogue discusses the present, 2016 permanent gallery and travelling exhibition, attempting to understand the seemingly new lack of relevance of the permanent gallery to the museum yet possible popularity of the travelling exhibit. These chapters integrate modern Egyptian history, American foreign policy regarding Egypt, Cleveland history, and the history of the CMA in order to understand this evolution of the collection, placing the Egyptian collection into historical context, and thereby filling the historiographical gap in museum studies as well as demonstrating the duality of the relationship between the museum and history.

CHAPTER I

THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART’S EGYPTIAN COLLECTION AND EDUCATION IN THE 1910s

It was late December, 1912. Lucy Olcott Perkins, a respected historian and New York native, was preparing for a trip to Cairo, Egypt, when she received a letter from Henry W. Kent, the Secretary of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, asking if she would purchase ancient Egyptian artifacts “which shall illustrate the art of Egypt”27 for the Cleveland Museum of

Art, on whose behalf Kent was working at the time. Perkins accepted the task, and over the coming months received instructions and money through Kent detailing what to purchase. Kent specified his intentions to Perkins by declaring, “I want to make a collection of objects of art belonging to the Egyptian periods. I want the things bought because they are beautiful, and not because of their archaeological interest…”28 Over the course of a few months, Perkins purchased

Egyptian artifacts, adhering to Kent’s instructions of quality over quantity. The purchases made by Perkins later became the foundation of the Cleveland Museum of Art’s Egyptian collection, which opened on June 6, 1916, regaling the native Cleveland population with the wonders and exotic nature of Ancient Egypt.

During the early 1900s, the desire for Egyptian artifacts was not limited to the Cleveland

Museum of Art (CMA). In fact, museums in Boston, Philadelphia, and New York already had

27 Kent to Perkins, Dec 30, 1912. Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting, Box 52, Folder 748: Lucy Olcott Perkins: Egyptian Antiquities, 1912-1915 (hereafter cited as Perkins Folder), Cleveland Museum of Art Archives, Cleveland, Ohio (hereafter cited as CMA Archives).

28 Kent to Perkins, Jan 22, 1913. Perkins Folder, CMA Archives.

large collections of Egyptian artifacts.29 The notion of having ancient artifacts in the collection reflected the need for prestige and legitimacy in the museum world, as well as promoting the new and transitional museum purpose of educating the public. The CMA, as a fledgling museum, became part of this tradition, working to incorporate Egyptian artifacts into the permanent collection while also establishing itself in the transitioning museum world.

In the 1910s, the American museum was transitioning from an elite institution for research and scholarly endeavors to that of a public forum for educating the masses. The purpose of the museum, and the role the museum played in the community, changed as a result of this.

By examining the relationship between the establishment of the Cleveland Museum of Art’s

Egyptian collection, the fascination with Ancient Egyptian culture in Western society, and the significance of an art museum to a community in the early 20th century, this chapter argues that

Egyptian artifacts are a foundational collection to the new American museum by providing them legitimacy as well as allowing museums to fulfill their purpose of educating the public in art and history. The Egyptian collection at the Cleveland Museum of Art will be used as a case study to represent this emerging, transitional trend in American museums in the early 20th century, providing insight into the historical evolution of museums. The establishment and display of the

Ancient Egyptian collection at the Cleveland Museum of Art in the 1910s demonstrates the cultural significance of Egyptian art and culture in Western society in relation to the emerging purpose of the museum as a visitor centered institution. This chapter will also explore how the intersection of theory, practice, and ideology worked to help scholars understand the intellectual and historical shifts that prompted the Cleveland Museum of Art to begin collecting Egyptian

29 Whiting to Carter, August 13, 1917. Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting, Box 37, Folder-445a-e: Howard Carter, 1913-1919 (hereafter cited as Carter Folder), CMA Archives.

antiquities for display, as well as how the museum transitioned into the new understanding of its role.

Cleveland and the Cleveland Museum of Art

In the early 1900s, the city of Cleveland was young and prosperous. It was considered

“one of the world’s preeminent manufacturing centers” 30 due to the city’s large numbers of iron and steel mills, foundries, and other industrial plants. Immigrants from Eastern Europe contributed to the city’s population growth and ethnic diversity. The territory of the city grew as well with the incorporation of smaller districts into the larger city of Cleveland, and the inner city center of Cleveland was a bustling realm of shops and commercial enterprises.31

Around this same time, city leaders began to shift their focus to culture related projects 32 as a means of civic pride. Wealthy Clevelanders endowed the city with heritage organizations, such as Adella Prentiss Hughes with the Cleveland Orchestra, Charles S. Brooks for the

Cleveland Play House, and the Cleveland Music School Settlement, founded by Almeda Adams in 1912.33 The area now known as University Circle was in the process of coming into its own during this time as well. Jeptha H. Wade II donated the land for University Circle, which housed the Cleveland Museum of Art and the Cleveland Natural History Museum, as well as other cultural institutions.34

30 Carol Poh Miller and Robert A. Wheeler, “Cleveland: The Making and Remaking of an American City, 1796-1993,” in Cleveland: A Metropolitan Reader, ed. W. Dennis Keating, et al. (Kent: The Kent State University Press, 1995), 40.

31 Carol Poh Miller and Robert A. Wheeler, Cleveland: A Concise History, 1796-1990 (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990), 101-103; Miller and Wheeler, “Cleveland: The Making,” 40.

32 Miller and Wheeler, Cleveland, 118; Levine, 149-155.

33 Miller and Wheeler, Cleveland, 118; Holly Rarick Witchey and John Vacha, Fine Arts in Cleveland: An Illustrated History (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994), 62, 75, 78.

34 Ronald R. Weiner, Lake Effects: A History of Urban Policy Making in Cleveland, 1825-1929 (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 2005), 124-125.

The Cleveland Museum of Art was a key aspect of this cultural growth. The museum came about through the collaboration of three wealthy Clevelanders: Hinman Hurlbut, Horace

Kelley, and John Huntington. Hurlbut amassed his wealth first through law, then in banking, owning four banks by 1863. He also had significant railroad holdings. Kelley, on the other hand, made his fortune in real estate after inheriting and selling part of Kelley’s Island on Lake Erie.

Finally, Huntington’s wealth came through the oil industry after he received 500 shares of

Standard Oil stock when Standard Oil absorbed his own firm.35 Each of these men established in their wills that their wealth be dedicated to building an art museum. However, it took almost twenty years for the legality of the museum to be figured out, as combining the three estates into one institution was no easy task. The details of how the funds were to be used in each will were slightly different, making collaboration almost impossible. In addition, by the time the legal problems were settled, the Hurlbut trust was no longer part of the overall discussion, as “there were not enough funds remaining after the passage of years to fulfill his wishes,” leaving what remained for acquiring artifacts.36

Once the legal issues were worked out, a lengthy planning process ensued, and the location of the museum was established on the land donated by Wade. The museum trustees, created in 1913 and consisting of many businessmen and philanthropists, such as Charles W.

Bingham, John H. Lowman, Samuel Mather, Edwin R. Perkins, and Judge William B. Sanders,37 determined the Articles of Incorporation for the museum. The Articles declared that,

35 The Cleveland Museum of Art Staff. “Cleveland Museum of Art: Founders,” The Cleveland Museum of Art, under Collection in Focus. http://www.clevelandart.org/research/in-the-library/collection-in-focus/cleveland- museum-art-founders (accessed Jan 17, 2016).

36 Witchey and Vacha, Fine Arts, 65.

37 Ibid., 66.

“…in and by said will of John Huntington it being provided that the funds bequeathed to said Trustees shall be used ‘for the purposes of establishing and maintaining in the city of Cleveland, Ohio, a gallery and museum of art for the promotion and cultivation of art in said city, and also the organization of a free evening polytechnic school for the promotion of scientific education for the benefit of deserving persons of said city who are unable to acquire a collegiate education; the admission thereto to be determined by said trustees.”38

Then, with the construction of the museum underway in 1913, the trustees named

Frederic Allen Whiting as director for the new museum.39 While he had no art or history degrees,

Whiting’s experience working with the textile employees at Lowell, Massachusetts, advocating for the Society of Arts and Crafts in Boston, and being in charge of an exhibition at the

Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, made him a perfect candidate to promote and fulfill the belief that the museum’s purpose was to serve the community. Indeed, he began promoting the museum before the building was erected, in addition to undertaking the task of acquiring artifacts and building collections.40

During this time, funds donated by wealthy Clevelanders, such as L. C. Hanna, Charles

W. Bingham, Judge William B. Sanders, and John L. Severance, and other sources were used to purchase works of art for the new museum. The John Huntington estate was the largest endowment of monetary funds, and therefore was the primary source of purchasing power, allowing Whiting and the trustees to buy many artifacts on the market. At the same time,

Whiting and the trustees worked with the families of all three founders to incorporate their private art collections into the museum. Finally, Whiting reached out to artists and dealers for loaned artworks in order to promote the art of local Clevelanders and fill the galleries. The

38 “Memorandum of Agreement,” Articles of Incorporation, Box 1, Folder 1: CMA Articles of Incorporation, CMA Archives. Emphasis added.

39 Witchey, 66.

40 Ibid, 66-67. See also Evan H. Turner, ed., Object Lessons: Cleveland Creates an Art Museum (Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1991), 1-13.

museum’s trustees decided to use the museum for not only classical art, but art from all over the world, supplementing these collections with art that reflected the major industries of Cleveland itself, such as steel and textiles. The desire for artifacts from all over the world suggests that the

CMA wanted to establish itself in the art world as a fine arts museum, establishing the CMA as a legitimate museum. The museum officially opened its doors in a private opening on June 6,

1916, and opened to the public the next day under the title of the Cleveland Museum of Art.41

Collecting Egypt: America, Egypt, and Western Ideologies (Why Collect?)

In order to become a prominent art museum, with power, prestige, and legitimacy in the museum world, the Cleveland Museum of Art set out to build collections of certain world regions. The most important of these collections was Ancient Egypt, for various reasons. Though small, the Ancient Egyptian exhibit at the CMA was a foundational collection for the museum’s mission to display art and artifacts from around the world for the purpose of educating its visitors. This objective reflects the nature of museums. As Alexander and Alexander explain,

“Most museums collect because of the belief that objects are important and evocative survivals of human civilization worthy of careful study and with powerful educational impact. Whether aesthetic, documentary, or scientific, objects tell much about the universe, nature, the human heritage, and the human condition. Museums thus carefully study and preserve their holdings so as to transmit important information to the present generation and posterity.”42

Based on this understanding, the CMA arguably created the Egyptian collection in order to educate the public about the history of the human race, beginning with one of the most ancient civilizations known. The educational aspect is also augmented by the fact that the CMA hired

41 Turner, 1-13; The Cleveland Museum of Art, “Subscribers to the Inaugural Exhibition Fund,” in The Cleveland Museum of Art: Catalogue of the Inaugural Exhibition of the Cleveland Museum of Art, June 6- September 20, 1916 (Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1916). In total, twenty-eight Cleveland locals donated to this fund.

42 Alexander and Alexander, 188. Emphasis added.

Emily Gibson as “Assistant in charge of educational work” under the supervision of Director

Whiting in 1915 for the purpose of conducting educational work that focused on the children.

Adult education and instruction in the galleries were expected as well, though they were not the primary concern for the Director in 1915.43

As part of this educational mission, Whiting began to develop the Egyptian collection during the early planning and building of the museum, around 1913. Other American museums, such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, began acquiring Egyptian antiquities before CMA through purchases and archaeological excavations. These museums built collections that “rivaled, even surpassed, those to be found in

Europe.”44 This meant that if CMA wanted to create an Egyptian collection, it would have to compete with European, as well as other established, prestigious American museums.

In addition to facing competition from already reputable European and American museums, collecting Egyptian artifacts was a way in which to “branch out” of the traditional forms of art collections, such as “purely fine arts, decorative arts, and European medieval arts”45 in the early twentieth century. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, art museums all over the world were in crisis as they attempted to determine what kind of art museum to be. “[T]he debate involved a struggle over how a museum of fine art should function in American society, what values it should express, for what purpose and for whom.”46 Museums

43 Whiting to Gibson, March 3, 1915. Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting, Box 40, Numbered Administrative Correspondence of Frederic A. Whiting, Folder 500: Emily G. Gibson, 1913-1916. CMA Archives. Details regarding the programs implemented have yet to be located by the author.

44 Whiting to Carter, August 13, 1917. Carter Folder, CMA Archives; Turner, 66.

45 Ibid, 67.

46 Conn, Museum and American, 193.

split on this decision, following one of two different paths that reflected the class differences in the period, the “cultural hierarchy” discussed by Lawrence Levine, a cultural historian focusing on multiculturalism.47 The question became one of who would be allowed to visit the museum, and what standards these visitors would be held to when viewing the art.48

The art also impacted how the visitors understood the purpose of the museum in that museums began to shift towards collecting and presenting only original works of art. “The art museum provided the context for the objects inside to retain their authority, where authenticity could be adjudicated, and where the historical testimony of objects could be heard.”49 In other words, art museums presented original works of art, not forgeries or reproductions, so as to provide an accurate historical and artistic story for the visitors. In this way, art became a means by which to educate the public with authentic works, allowing the museum to follow its new purpose. As for Egyptian antiquities, the emphasis on authentic artworks and artifacts indicated that the historical Egypt was represented in the museum, offering the visitor a glimpse into the

“true” or “real” ancient Egypt through the museum’s display of artifacts.

Another reason why an Egyptian collection was foundational for an art museum in the

1900s, and going along with the aspect of authenticity, was the idea of Egypt as an exotic, foreign place. Egypt, along with the Middle East and Africa, was seen as “an essentially exotic, distant, and antique place” to Westernized Europeans and Americans alike because “Egypt had a

47 Levine, 1-9. According to Conn in Museums and American, on 193, the struggle was between the idea of the art museum as a temple or refuge, and that of a school. The difference in the path a museum took depended on the audience the museum targeted. If the museum was for the rich and powerful, then a temple approach was taken. For the working class, however, the school approach was used.

48 Conn, Museums and American, 192-232.

49 Ibid., 194.

greater power of suggestion- mystery and timelessness- than the other countries of the East.” 50

Because of this exoticism and mystery, Egyptian art represented not only an ancient culture, but also an opposite to the abstract and modern American art produced at the time. Also, Americans in general were not well educated about Egyptian history due to the fact that America did not have strong political ties with Egypt before this time. Americans were exposed to the exotic nature of Egypt through Egyptomania and the writings of “missionaries, travel writers, and ancient Near East specialists.”51 However, political ties with Egypt were almost non-existent until after World War I when the interest in Middle Eastern oil began to bring Egypt more into focus in the American political sphere. In addition, Egypt had economic problems during the war, which allowed the British to occupy Egypt for the duration of the engagement as well as for some time after peace. British dominance of the area was emphasized in order to prevent other foreign nations, namely Germany, from gaining control of the region, tying American interests to the continued control of the British.52

In addition, Egypt was popular with Americans. In the eighteenth century, Napoleon’s book Déscription de l’ Égypte was published, revealing the “first archaeological knowledge and accurate images of the country’s ancient monuments” to Western countries, including America.53

In addition, François Champollion translated the ancient hieroglyphs on the Rosetta Stone, an enormous breakthrough in trying to understand the ancient civilization. Napoleon’s account and

50 Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993), 112; Claire Wittler Eckels, “The Egyptian Revival in America,” Archaeology 3 no.3 (Sept 1950), http://www.jstor.org/stable/41662395, (accessed May 14, 2015), 164.

51 Matthew Jacobs, Imagining the Middle East: The Building of an American Foreign Policy, 1918-1967 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011), 26.

52 Jacobs, Imagining, 25-28.

53 Joy M. Giguere, Characteristically American: Memorial Architecture, National Identity, and the Egyptian Revival (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 2014), 2.

Champollion’s discovery led to a revival in scholarly study of ancient Egypt, as well as an explosion of Egyptian references in popular culture known as “Egyptomania.”54 By the twentieth century and the birth of the CMA, Egypt was ingrained in American culture, as displayed by architecture, such as the Washington Monument, advertising, and literature.55 Because of this, obtaining and displaying a collection of Egyptian artifacts was a logical step in creating a museum of art, especially for the purpose of educating the public. An Egyptian collection would, most likely, entice visitors to come to the museum and view real, authentic, Egyptian artifacts.

Simply put, the fascination of Egypt present in American popular culture, such as literature (A

Sun Dial Mystery, The Cairo Garter Murders by Van Wyck Mason for example), music (“Old

King Tut” was a favorite after Carter’s discovery), and superstitions concerning mummies and curses (most notably the Curse of the Pharaoh and the mysterious deaths of the team members involved with Carter’s discovery),56 possibly generated enough curiosity to bring visitors to the museum.

Finally, Egyptology and new discoveries in Egypt kept the ancient history alive in the media, producing more information about the civilization than previously known. The discovery of the Tomb of King Tutankhamen, or King Tut, by Howard Carter in 1922 was one of the most well- known discoveries during the early twentieth century that contributed to this.57 Even though Carter discovered King Tut after the Cleveland Museum of Art established its collection,

54 Giguere, Characteristically, 2. See also Bob Brier, “Egyptomania!” Archaeology 57 no. 1 (Jan/Feb 2004), http://www.jstor.org/stable/41780856 (accessed April 19, 2015), 19-22 and Frank L Holt, “Egyptomania: Have We Cursed the Pharaohs?,” Archaeology, 39 no. 2 (March/April 1986), http://www.jstor.org/stable/41731744, (accessed April 19, 2015), 60-63 for more information about Egyptomania in America.

55 Giguere, 3; Brier, 18-19, 21; Eckels, “The Egyptian Revival in America,” 164-165.

56 Brier; Holt.

57 Brier, 18.

it is important to note because the American fascination with Egypt increased with his discovery as exemplified by the diverse references to King Tut in popular culture.58 New discoveries kept

Egypt in the public realm through the media, particularly in the newspaper. For example, The

New York Times printed various articles relating the latest news and updates about Carter’s discovery, including a sketch and description of the riches within the tomb, his life story, a mention of problems with the Egyptian government and opening the sarcophagus, and finishing clearing out the tomb, a process that took Carter over seven years to complete.59 The nature of these articles suggests that the new information obtained from these discoveries indulged the already present fascination with Egypt in America, providing relevance to the Cleveland

Museum of Art’s collection. Additionally, the discovery of King Tut and other tombs provided new information to the public about ancient Egypt, promoting and maintaining the educational purpose of the collection as well as its relevance, even after the initial collecting.

Collecting and Displaying Egypt: The Inaugural Exhibition at the CMA

While the CMA had many reasons for collecting Egyptian artifacts, actually obtaining the objects, and then displaying them, was the practical, dominant concern. The Inaugural Exhibition needed to be ready to allow the museum to begin educating the Cleveland public about Egyptian art and history. Before the museum building was completed, Director Frederic Whiting began the campaign of obtaining and compiling a variety of artifacts into collections for display. One of the first areas in which he acquired artifacts was Egypt. Henry W. Kent, the Secretary at the

Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and the original candidate for the Director position at

58 Brier; Holt.

59 “New Pictures Show Egypt’s Odd Fancies,” The New York Times March 25, 1923; “Carter, Here, Tells of King Tut’s Tomb,” The New York Times April 20, 1924; “Clearing of Tut-ankh-Amen Tomb Nears End: Carter Hopes to Move Sarcophagus by January,” The New York Times October 15, 1930.

the Cleveland Museum of Art,60 aided Whiting in his quest to obtain Egyptian artifacts. Kent became the liaison for the museum’s interests, promoting the collecting of Egyptian artifacts and handling the details, such as the amount of money to be spent on the endeavor.61

Kent reached out to Lucy Olcott Perkins, a former employee of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and an art historian,62 to begin collecting the artifacts while she was in Egypt. Kent allotted her $20,000 to use for buying artifacts that “make a good showing, and perhaps fill a small room… [that will] be general and representative of an unusual class rather than specialized.”63 After Perkins agreed to the arrangement, Kent explained in further detail the types of artifacts he was after for the museum, including “wall decorations (painting), sculpture in relief and in the round- in stone and bronze; pottery showing glazes, glass and textiles,”64 as well as how he wanted the artifacts to be viewed and interpreted, declaring,

“I want to make a collection of objects of art belonging to the Egyptian periods. I want the things bought because they are beautiful, and not because of their archaeological interest, although the archaeological divisions should be considered in our purchases. I want the collection to give an idea of the various forms of Egyptian art. I would be glad to be able to make the result of our purchases impressive in quantity as well as in quality!”65

In other words, Kent was looking for artifacts that represented all that ancient Egypt had to offer artistically, desiring only the best of what was available. However, Kent may have wanted

“various forms of Egyptian art” for purposes other than the tactile, practical reason of showing

60 Witchey, 66.

61 Kent to Perkins, Dec 30, 1912; Kent to Perkins, Jan 22, 1913; Kent to Perkins, Feb 24, 1913. Perkins Folder, CMA Archives.

62 Arielle Kozloff, “Introduction,” in Catalogue of Egyptian Art: The Cleveland Museum of Art, author Lawrence Berman (Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1999), 3-4.

63 Kozloff, “Introduction,” 3-4.

64 Kent to Perkins, Jan 22, 1913. Perkins Folder, CMA Archives.

65 Ibid.

the diversity of Egyptian styles to the public. He may have intended the diversity of artifacts in order to demonstrate the influences of Egyptian art on modern fashion and artistic designs.

During the early and mid- twentieth centuries, a new art movement, called Art Deco, was popular in all manner of the arts, from architecture and furniture to clothing and trinkets.

Egyptian influences, known as the Egyptian Revival, were among the various influences in this movement.66 Kent’s intention may have been to connect the ancient relics of Egypt to the emerging modern Art Deco style, allowing the public to understand where the designs that pervaded the arts originated. However, because of the nature of the museum in the beginning of the twentieth century, and due to the CMA’s desire to be a legitimate museum, the relationship between Egyptian art and Art Deco becomes a less important, perhaps subtle, reason for collecting Egyptian artifacts. In other words, the connection to Art Deco was not a priority. With instructions delivered and intentions mostly clear, Kent sent Perkins a layout of the museum with the location of the Egyptian room marked for Perkins’s reference in making the purchases (see

Figure 1.1).67

Perkins began collecting right away. She cabled Kent soon after arriving in Egypt for the money to make purchases, as the dealers she was buying from were not holding anything for her.68 After a few months, Perkins wrote to Kent about the artifacts she purchased, declaring that

“Each object is therefore…the best obtainable of its kind, purchased with a view of not only suggesting the quality and the beauty of Egyptian art but also to interest the average citizen in

66 The Metropolitan Museum of Art, “Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History: Egyptian Revival,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art, http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/erev/hd_erev.htm (accessed January 25, 2016); The Metropolitan Museum of Art, “Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History: Design, 1925-50,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art, http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dsgn2/hd_dsgn2.htm (accessed January 25, 2016); Victoria and Albert Museum, “Art Deco: Global Inspiration,” Victoria and Albert Museum, http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/art-deco-global-inspiration/ (accessed January 25, 2016).

67 Kent to Perkins, Jan 22, 1913. Perkins Folder, CMA Archives.

68 “Postal Telegraph-Commercial Cables-Cablegram,” Feb 21, 1913. Perkins Folder, CMA Archives.

Figure 1.1 Gallery map of museum in 1916. The Egyptian Gallery is Number 15, on the top, middle left. Courtesy of the CMA Archives.

Egyptian [civilization].” These artifacts include a door lintel, four sarcophagi (coffins for mummified Egyptians), vases of varying material, granite bowls, flints, seals and beads, weapons and a walking stick, tools such as a hatchet and an axe, a stele (funerary statue), bronze figures, ushebti (funerary figures meant to help the deceased in the afterlife), masks, pottery glazed in blue, glass, necklaces, scarabs, wooden figures, a small wooden boat, mummy textile fragments, canopic jars (jars for the mummified organs of a mummy), papyrus scroll fragments, and a small painted relief. She also suggested where the artifacts could be displayed in the designated

Egyptian room.69 Her ideas suggest that she had the purpose of the museum in mind when making the purchases, as well as the best method to display the artifacts in the room that would make sense to visitors. For example, she wrote that, “All of this material, although Egyptian,

69 Perkins to Kent, written from the Continental Hotel in Cairo, June 1913. Perkins Folder, CMA Archives.

pretty [well] illustrates the type of weapon commonly in use amongst the ancients. You thus have on either side of the door implements of peace and war-fare of the most common every day usage.”70 Perkins purchased a variety of smaller artifacts, with the sarcophagi as the only large purchases, due to the available material on the market and the museum’s gallery space. In the same letter, Perkins outlines the time periods from which all of the artifacts originate. It is clear that Perkins bought artifacts to represent as best as possible the whole of Egyptian art over time, as well as the diversity of artifacts and instruments the Egyptians created for both every day, practical use and luxury or religious purposes. Perkins’s purchases suggest that the aesthetic and practical aspects of the artifacts were the primary concern of Kent and the CMA.

Meanwhile, Perkins’s purchases were shipped to Cleveland via the Metropolitan, and

Kent and Whiting discussed how to deal with them, since the building had yet to be completed.

Kent suggested that, while the artifacts could be temporarily stored at the Metropolitan, the safer course of action would be to send them straight to Cleveland. He also mentioned that, according to contacts in Egypt, “the objects bought for the Cleveland Museum are very exceptional in character, many of them having been secured at prices below their values.”71 The artifacts

Perkins collected were of great quality, setting a standard for the rest of the Egyptian collection as well as all of the museum’s collections. After obtaining the artifacts, ensuring that the artifacts were not damaged, repairing those that were,72 and moving the artifacts into the new building, the construction of which “progressed steadily despite delays caused by the unusual conditions incident to the war,”73 the Egyptian collection was ready to be placed on display.

70 Ibid.

71 Kent to Whiting, Sept 9, 1913. Perkins Folder, CMA Archives.

72 Tice and Lynch to Whiting, Sept 27, 1913; Kent to Whiting, Jan 2, 1914; Perkins Folder, CMA Archives.

73 The Cleveland Museum of Art, “Introduction.”

The Inaugural Exhibition opened on June 6, 1916 to much fanfare and excitement. The news of the museum opening reached far and wide, including North Dakota74 and Utah.75 The building itself is a piece of art, with “an Ionic central portico” entirely made of white marble, and a “color scheme” consisting of “varied tones of gray, ranging from the sandstone which lines many of the halls to warmer notes in some of the galleries.”76 The opening was promoted by

Cleveland art lovers, who donated many artifacts for the special opening. While the majority of the Egyptian artifacts were bought by Perkins using the John Huntington fund, other artifacts in the exhibition included a statuette donated by the Wade family and multiple funerary vessels donated by the British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Other Cleveland art lovers, such as John

L. Severance and Mrs. Myron T. Herrick, also donated items to the museum, although they were in other galleries, such as French painters, Chinese art, and Arms and Armor.77 Also, “many of the objects shown [were] for sale and were secured in the hope that friends might be interested to acquire them as gifts to the Museum.”78 The museum did this to point out that the trustees and director not only needed help in acquiring artifacts, but also wanted to bring the Cleveland

74 “Cleveland’s New Million Dollar Art Museum to Be Opened June 7,” The Grand Forks Daily Herald, May 22, 1916, in Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers database, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov (accessed September 8, 2015).

75 “Cleveland’s New Million Dollar Art Museum to Be Opened June 7,” The Ogden Standard. May 24, 1916, in Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers database, http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85058396/1916-05-24/ed-1/seq-10/ (accessed Sept 9, 2015).

76 “The Cleveland Museum of Art,” Outlook (1893-1924), June 14, 1916, in American Periodicals Series Online database, http://search.proquest.com/americanperiodicals/docview (accessed Sept 9, 2015).

77 Cleveland Museum of Art, Catalogue of the Inaugural Exhibition. See 204-225 for details regarding the Egyptian collection. The other lenders are named in each gallery respective to the items they donated or lent for the exhibition.

78 Cleveland Museum of Art, “Introduction,” in Catalogue of the Inaugural Exhibition.

community into partnership with the museum from its inception, establishing the nature of the museum as an institution for the people of Cleveland.

The museum opened on June 6 to over 2,000 invited guests, namely museum members, visiting museum professionals, and collectors. The opening was heralded with a dinner, access to the galleries, and speeches from the presidents of the Art Institute of Chicago and Milwaukee

Museum. Charles L. Hutchinson from the Art Institute declared that art “‘is not for the powerful and the rich, but for the ordinary heart and everyday culture, an inspiration in the art of all arts, the art of living,’” reaffirming the new role of the museum as an institution of education for the public. The CMA then threw the doors open to the public the following day, on June 7, and was met with thousands of visitors. 79

The Egyptian gallery mirrored the excitement of the opening and the fascination of

Egyptian culture in America, while promoting education for the public in an orderly manner.

Most of the artifacts displayed were housed in glass cases with steel frames. The majority of these cases were placed along the outer walls of the room, with one case in the middle (Figure

1.2). Also along the walls were artifacts not under glass, including a bust and an altar piece

(Figure 1.3). The artifacts in the displays included various small figures, a canopic jar, pottery jars and plates, a small bust of a man, perhaps a pharaoh, and a sarcophagus. Wall carvings depicting the gods, people, and hieroglyphs, hung on the walls as well, encased in metal and connected to the ceiling with metal wires (Figure 1.3). The wall carvings were apparently from the walls of tombs in Egypt. Small cards that explained the artifacts were attached to the walls, tables, or shelves next to the objects (see Figures 1.2-1.6).

79 “Cleveland New Art Center: It is the Detail of the New Art Museum which Emphasizes It as an All- Potent Factor in the Progress of the City,” The Plain Dealer June 6, 1916; “Art Museum Thrown Open to Big Crowd: Cleveland’s Magnificent Edifice, Awaited for Years, Dazzles Throng that Views Galleries,” The Plain Dealer June 7, 1916; “Important Gifts to Art Museum Announced,” The Plain Dealer June 11, 1916.

Figure 1.2 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c338, Registrar's Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.

Figure 1.3 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1922. 22c3661, Registrar's Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.

Figure 1.4 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c270, Registrar's Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.

Figure 1.5 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c281, Registrar's Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.

Figure 1.6 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1916. 16c288, Registrar's Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.

The photographs illustrate how the design of the Egyptian gallery ordered the objects and people rather than enabling chaos, a theoretical construct devised by Foucault, referred to as knowledge/power. The application of the knowledge/power model here is based on Tony

Bennett’s use of it when he describes his exhibitionary complex.80 The simple layout of the gallery, with artifacts around the walls and a single case in the middle, defines a designated path for visitors to walk through, rather than a haphazard layout that might confuse visitors as to where they are meant to walk. In addition, the display of the artifacts in the cases brings order from chaos by using symmetry. Each case has the same number of shelves, roughly equal to each other in size and height, with similar numbers of artifacts on each shelf, arranged so that each object is visible.

The purpose of the museum was to educate the masses, and the Egyptian gallery at the

Inaugural Exhibition fulfilled this duty. Not only did the exhibit bring new awareness of

80 Bennett, “The Exhibitionary Complex,” 73-102.

Egyptian art and culture to Cleveland natives, but the labels next to the artifacts provided educational material for the visitors to enjoy and learn from. The labels were placed next to the artifacts they describe, adding to the ordering concept by defining how the visitors should view and learn from the artifacts. For example, the labels were generally placed either on the left side of the artifact, or immediately in front of it, underneath it if the artifact was hanging on the wall

(Figure 1.3 is the best example). This suggests a certain order to how the artifacts were to be viewed: either the label was to be read, then the object was viewed, or vice versa. This method brought order to the education of the visitors when visiting the Egyptian gallery.

Aftermath of the Inaugural Exhibition

With the Inaugural Exhibition over and the rush to obtain artifacts for the grand opening behind them, Whiting began to expand on the collection, filling in gaps, for instance, so as to present the full chronological story for educational purposes. In order to do this, Whiting reached out to Howard Carter because he “may be in a position to act for us in the matter of purchases in

Egypt, the time for which…is propitious,”81 and because of Carter’s familiarity with Egyptian antiquities as well as being a friend of Whiting’s colleagues at other museums. Whiting wrote to

Carter, asking for his assistance to “supplement our present collection with additional material which will round it out so that it will give a fairly adequate idea of Egyptian art.”82

Carter accepted the commission. He began working to purchase artifacts from Egyptian dealers, promising that everything he collected would have proper provenance (history) and that all artifacts would be purchased at as reasonable a price as possible.83 After procuring an initial

81 Whiting to Carter, Aug 13, 1917. Carter Folder, CMA Archives.

82 Ibid.

83 Carter to Whiting, Sept 16, 1917. Carter Folder, CMA Archives.

$2,500, and later an additional $5,000,84 from CMA, Carter set to work, purchasing many ancient artifacts for the museum, including a small painted statuette of a god called a shawabty, a bronze sistrum (a musical instrument, similar in concept to a rattle), a statue of a scribe, a sculpted lion, six other pieces of sculpture, a piece of a headdress, a seated couple, stele and canopic jars, and the Book of the Dead papyrus.85 Many of these artifacts are similar in type to those purchased by

Perkins in 1913. However, many of Carter’s acquisitions were based off a list that Mrs. Williams created, marking which dynasties were missing in the collection and what types of artifacts would be beneficial to fill in those gaps. Carter followed the list, and based his purchases off it, differing again from Perkins in that Carter had specific instructions on what to acquire, and with a much smaller fund to do so, than Perkins had.86 After the conclusion of World War I, the market for ancient artifacts re-opened, allowing many rare pieces to be bought, and safer conditions for the antiquities to be sent overseas to Cleveland.87 Carter continued to work for

CMA in acquiring Egyptian antiquities until 1922, when his discovery of King Tut’s tomb consumed his work.88

Carter’s purchases and work for the Cleveland Museum of Art are also important because the purpose of the acquisitions was to further education. Whiting explained to Carter that “our collection must be built up, not for Egyptologists mainly, but for the purpose of giving the people of Cleveland an understanding of Egyptian art and civilization through the art objects which we

84 Whiting to Carter, Aug 13, 1917; Whiting to Carter, Jan 13, 1919. Carter Folder, CMA Archives.

85 Kozloff, 16-20; “Howard Carter Purchase Account,” Carter Folder, CMA Archives.

86 Williams to Whiting, Feb 7, 1917. Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting, Box 61, Folder 1106: Caroline Ransom (Mrs. Grant) Williams, 1916-1931 (hereafter cited as Williams Folder), CMA Archives; Carter Folder, CMA Archives.

87 Carter to Whiting, Jan 25, 1919. Carter Folder, CMA Archives.

88 Turner, 74-76.

can gather for this purpose.”89 Whiting additionally requested Carter to obtain artifacts of “good quality but not of unique value,” for educative purposes outside of the museum in schools and libraries, spreading knowledge about Egypt through the use of authentic artifacts.90 The intention of Whiting to continue to expand the Egyptian collection, for the explicit purpose of educating the public, suggests the Cleveland Museum of Art’s acceptance of, and adherence to, its new role as educator.

At the same time that Whiting spoke to Carter about obtaining more Egyptian artifacts,

Whiting reached out to Caroline Ransom (Mrs. Grant) Williams. Williams, who had a Ph.D. and given lectures on Egyptian history, catalogued and inventoried the Egyptian collection for

Whiting, specifying the chronological gaps in the collection that needed filling and listing recommendations on what Carter should look for when purchasing new artifacts in order to fill in those gaps.91 Some of these recommendations were for portrait statues, canopic jars, stele, Old

Kingdom period reliefs, and Predynastic pottery. Furthermore, as part of, and an extension to, their agreement, Whiting asked Williams to give talks to children, high school students, and adults regarding Egyptian history, using the collection as a means by which to do this. Williams agreed to the Gallery Talk and the lecture to the high school students, as this was part of her earlier agreement with Whiting.92 The educational purpose of the talks demonstrates the continued educational mission of the collection immediately after the conclusion of the Inaugural

Exhibition, stipulating that the Egyptian collection continued to draw visitors to the new museum.

89 Whiting to Carter, Jan 3, 1918. Carter Folder, CMA Archives.

90 Whiting to Carter, Dec 7, 1917. Carter Folder, CMA Archives.

91 Williams to Whiting, Feb 7, 1917. Williams Folder, CMA Archives.

92 Whiting to Williams, Dec 16, 1916; Williams to Whiting, Dec 21, 1916; Williams to Whiting Feb 7, 1917. Williams Folder, CMA Archives.

Conclusion

The Egyptian collection at the Cleveland Museum of Art is a foundational collection which demonstrates the new museum purpose of educating the public. American museums developed into institutions that promoted education, though solely through the form of scholarly research. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, however, this notion began to change as private collections became organized into public establishments. The Cleveland

Museum of Art was born in the midst of this transition, with the city of Cleveland maturing and desiring to confirm its status as a major American city.

The Egyptian collection became a foundational aspect of the CMA, providing legitimacy in the museum world as well as fulfilling its purpose as an educational resource for the citizens of Cleveland. Egyptian artifacts also provided an opportunity to demonstrate the authenticity of art museums and their collections by displaying real artifacts with historical value and meaning.

The artifacts drew visitors to the museum in the midst of Egyptomania, or Egypt in popular culture.

The CMA, in order to obtain these foundational artifacts, initially hired Henry Kent of the

Metropolitan Museum of Art and Lucy Perkins to purchase and maintain the initial collection of artifacts on the museum’s behalf. With the objects obtained by Perkins, the CMA opened the collection, and the museum, in June 1916 with an orderly display that educated the public both about Egyptian art and history as well as the regulatory dynamics of the museum, as analyzed through Foucault’s knowledge/power model. After the success of the Inaugural Exhibit, the

CMA director, Whiting, continued the quest for more Egyptian artifacts in order to fill in gaps in the chronology by hiring Carter, and by promoting lectures and talks regarding Egyptian history for the public of all ages to understand and enjoy.

Central to the work of Whiting and the founders of the Cleveland Museum of Art was the purpose of education, which continues to be the primary purpose of the museum. The Egyptian artifacts, though one small aspect of the museum overall, is the single most significant collection at the time of the museum’s founding because of the fascination with Egyptian art and culture as revealed by the prevalence of Egypt in popular culture. The Egyptian collection draws people to the museum, enticing their curiosity and stoking their imaginations with artifacts from a culture so ancient and far removed from the modern day that it is near impossible to comprehend the ancient civilization as it once was. The Cleveland Museum of Art’s Egyptian collection anchored the museum to the art museum world, placing Cleveland, and the museum, in a position of power and prestige. The museum continued to thrive through the subsequent decades, surviving the

Great Depression and the Second World War, only to face an uncertain future with the onset of the Cold War in the 1950s, as the real possibility of nuclear destruction threatened the safety of the museum’s collections.

CHAPTER II

THE 1950s: PRESERVATION AND THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART’S EGYPTIAN COLLECTION

Dr. Sherman E. Lee, Curator of Oriental Art at the Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA), lived a “double life” in 1958. His one life involved reconnaissance research on the artifacts under his care, usually done in his fourth floor office or in the basement storage room. In this life, Dr.

Lee existed behind-the-scenes, traveling “hidden” passages between his office and the storage room to complete his research mission. His other life, however, was less mysterious as he traversed the corridors and hallways to his other office: Director of the Cleveland Museum of

Art. Dr. Lee took up this position in 1958 after the previous director, William M. Milliken, retired after thirty-nine years of service to the CMA. Dr. Lee helped the museum through a new expansion project as Director, but he also facilitated the largest number of sculptural acquisitions

(as compared to other types of art, such as reliefs or pottery) to the museum’s Oriental and

Egyptian collections, comprising approximately 80 percent of the current sculpture in the

Egyptian collection.93

By the mid-twentieth century, the Cleveland Museum of Art was thriving. The museum completed construction on a new wing in 1958 that provided much needed gallery and storage

93 Allan Arthur, “Sherman Lee’s Double Life: Art Museum’s New Director Stays a Scholar as He Becomes an Executive,” The Plain Dealer, April 13, 1958; “Annual Report of the Year 1958,” The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 46, no 6 (June 1959), 115, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25142346 (Accessed Feb 11, 2016); Arielle Kozloff, “Introduction,” Catalogue of Egyptian Art: Cleveland Museum of Art, author Lawrence Berman (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1999), 25,29.

40 41 space for its growing collections, the Egyptian collection included, which had experienced almost continuous growth from the 1930s through the 1950s. This twenty year period culminated in the most acquisitions for the collection since its establishment in 1913. Also in 1958, Director

William M. Milliken retired, allowing Dr. Sherman Lee to take the lead for the museum’s future by living his “double life” as curator and director. While the museum grew in overall wealth through funds and acquisitions, the city of Cleveland’s fortunes began a slow decline as many of the city’s residents began migrating out of the city proper, losing almost 39,000 residents to the suburbs over the course of the decade according to the 1960 census.94

The continued wealth and development of the American museum, particularly of the

Cleveland Museum of Art, in terms of funding, collecting, and visitor attendance occurred during a time of crisis and uncertainty in America. The Cold War with the Soviet Union was well underway, striking the fear of Communism and nuclear war into the hearts of Americans.

Museums in particular faced the fear of attack, as the institutions were charged with protecting the cultural heritage of the world, which caused museums to focus “less [on] uplifting the citizenry and more about the obligation to protect and preserve art and artifacts.” Many museums underwent expansion projects during this time, the CMA included, with the practical “concerns of storage, ventilation and security” in mind in order to protect the precious collections in their care from a nuclear attack. 95

In addition to the threat of attack from the Soviet Union, the United States’ relations with

Egypt and the Middle East became more complicated as the battle for oil, Israel’s recognition as

94 W. Dennis Keating, et al, eds. Cleveland: A Metropolitan Reader (Kent: Kent State University, 1995), 43.

95 Marjorie Schwarzer, Riches, Rivals & Radicals: 100 Years of Museums in America (Washington DC: The American Alliance of Museums, 2006), 17.

an independent nation, and the process of decolonization in the Middle East strained affairs.

American relations with Egypt in particular became more difficult due to America’s support for the newly created Israel, an enemy of the Egyptian state. The Egyptian leader during this time,

Gamal Abd al-Nasser, complicated matters further by throwing the British out of the region and nationalizing the Suez Canal. He also entangled himself in convoluted and generally covert diplomatic negotiations with Congress and the CIA in the attempt to gain economic aid, weapons, and technology for the purpose of modernizing Egypt and attacking his Israeli enemy.

Finally, Nasser sought to create a united Arab Republic throughout the Middle East, adding to the complex nature of diplomatic relations between the United States, Egypt, and the Arab world in general.96

Because of the unrest in the Middle East and the tension between America and the Soviet

Union in the 1950s, the museum world focused its attention on another aspect of the museum mission: preservation. Preservation, otherwise referred to as preventive care, or preventive conservation, is defined as “the mitigation of deterioration and damage to cultural property through the formulation and implementation of policies and procedures.” These policies and procedures include, but are not limited to: proper handling techniques, such as wearing cotton gloves and carrying artifacts with two hands; maintaining light, temperature, and relative humidity levels; proper packing and display techniques; and pest management. These policies and procedures are created and implemented in order to sustain the current condition of artifacts, allowing the objects to survive for future generations. The policies also take into account the

96 See H.W. Brands, Into the Labyrinth: The United States and the Middle East, 1945-1993 (New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1994); Matthew F. Jacobs, Imagining the Middle East: The Building of an American Foreign Policy, 1918-1967 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011); Douglas Little, American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2002); Melani McAlister, Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, and U.S. Interests in the Middle East, 1945-2000 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001) for information on U.S. relations with the Middle East and Egypt during the 1950’s.

various types of materials that artworks and historical artifacts are created with. For example, a

17th century oil painting on canvas is more susceptible to deterioration by light, heat, and high relative humidity than an Egyptian stone sculpture.97

The concept of preservation has existed for almost as long as art has, tracing its foundation back to the ancient Greeks. The Industrial Revolution in the 19th century brought new technology to the museum’s disposal, such as artificial lighting and heating and cooling systems to maintain temperature and relative humidity. These technologies could also increase the deterioration of artifacts if not properly used and kept within certain limits. Recent analysis suggests that storage areas for multiple types of collections (cotton dresses, fur coats, stone sculpture, glass, ceramic pottery, etc.) should maintain a relative humidity of about 50 percent in order to prevent the growth of mold spores, for example. However, new skills in chemistry increased the understanding of various materials, allowing preservationists and conservators to apply new methods and scientific knowledge to their craft of safeguarding artifacts.98

With preservation as the dominant concern in the 1950s, not just in America, but on an international level, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) published a guide in 195899 that detailed how museums could protect their holdings from various types of attack, including nuclear warfare. The Cleveland Museum of Art’s expansion project reflects many of the guidelines outlined in the publication as the museum looked to preserve its collections and displays. The Egyptian gallery demonstrated these changes

97 Genevieve Fisher, “Preventive Care,” in Museum Registration Methods 5th Edition, eds. Rebecca A. Buck and Jean Allman Gilmore (Washington D.C.: The American Alliance of Museums Press, 2010), 287-292. The other articles and sections of Museum Registration discuss aspects of preservation in more detail, including storage procedures, which is the focus of museums during the 1950s.

98 Alexander and Alexander, 8-9; Fisher, “Preventive,” 288-289.

99 A. Noblecourt, Protection of Cultural Property In the Event of Armed Conflict (UNESCO: UNESCO, 1958) http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000712/071205eo.pdf (accessed Feb. 13, 2016).

as the gallery space shifted from a small, light filled room with multiple windows to a larger, darker room where there was less danger to the artifacts in the event of an attack. As a result of the Cold War and nationalist movements in the Middle East due to decolonization, the Cleveland

Museum of Art and its Egyptian collection in 1958 demonstrated the shift to preservation as the central focus for museum policy through its building renovation project.

American-Egyptian Relations

In the midst of the Cold War with the USSR in the late 1950s, America’s relations with the Middle East, and Egypt in particular, became more complex due to the rise of nationalism in the wake of decolonization in the Middle East. After the end of the Second World War, Egypt, and more specifically the Suez Canal, remained under British occupation, a position that the

British had maintained since 1882 so that the British could “assure their easy access to India.”100

The continued occupation after the war caused violent clashes between the Egyptians and the

British as the Egyptians fought for their independence from the British crown. In addition,

Egyptian monuments and heritage were not under Egyptian control, but rather that of the British and French. Both European countries were part of the bureaucracy, and the French controlled the

Egyptian Antiquities Service, an organization that worked with and supervised archaeological excavations and investigations into the ancient sites of Egypt.101

The United States entered the conflict between Egypt, Britain and France for two reasons.

First, America viewed Egypt as vital in settling the Arab-Israeli conflict, a struggle that was occurring over the proposed plan to create the separate Jewish state of Israel out of Palestine.

The American government believed that by enticing Egypt into accepting the new nation, other

100 Brands, Into the Labyrinth, 45; Little, American Orientalism, 160.

101 Kent R. Weeks, “Archaeology and Egyptology,” in Richard H. Wilkinson, ed. Egyptology Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 20.

Arab nations would also submit, bringing peace to the Middle East at last. The second reason for

America’s involvement was in direct correlation to the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

America hoped to bring Egypt into an alliance against the spread of Communism and the Soviet

Union, therefore allying the leader of the Middle East’s Arab nations against Communism. The attention given to Egypt in American foreign relations also focused on the Suez Crisis, the struggle between Egypt and Britain for control over the Suez Canal.102

The conflict over the Suez Canal, and the continuing relations between Egypt and

America, began in the Egyptian government. In July 1952, a military coup led by the

Revolutionary Free Officers overthrew King Farouk (Faruq), placing Gamal Abdul Nasser in power. Nasser “hoped to rid Egypt of foreign domination, combat the Jewish presence in

Palestine, provide political stability, reduce rampant poverty, and promote economic development.”103 The solutions to these various problems, though, were based on a strong sense of Egyptian nationalism rather than on concrete plans, reflecting the zeal for an independent

Egypt while demonstrating Nasser’s lack of political and civic problem-solving experience. This nationalist zeal focused on removing the last vestiges of colonialism from Egypt, which meant ridding the Suez area of the British.104

Nasser wanted aid from the United States in the form of weapons in order to accomplish this goal of throwing out the British. Congress was reluctant to send military aid, though, because the weapons sent to Egypt had the potential of being used against Israel, an American ally and Egyptian enemy. In addition, Nasser needed foreign money and weapons in order to

102 Brands, 43-54; Jacobs, Imagining the Middle East, 120-123.

103 Jacobs, 117.

104 Jacobs, 117-118.

obtain new technology for Egypt, technology that could potentially be used against Israel while aiding Egypt in the process of modernization, a process that Nasser believed was crucial for any nation to survive and grow after the Second World War.105

These events, including other political maneuvers on the part of Congress, and American

Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, led to the Suez Crisis in 1956. Eisenhower agreed to send secret military and economic aid to Nasser in Egypt, a tactic that Nasser agreed to as he believed that he could circumvent any restrictions that Congress would impose on his use of the funds and weapons. Nasser backed out of the agreement, though, on the grounds that he would be discredited by his enemies if the deal was found out. A few months later, with his power more firmly secured, Nasser reached out to America for the deal, only to be rejected. Other complications, such as continued and increased fighting between Israel and Egypt, and Nasser’s agreement to obtain Soviet weapons, further strained relations between America and Egypt.106

Simultaneously, the projected building of the Aswan dam was another consideration in

Egyptian and American relations. America wanted to support the project as a show of humanitarianism to the Middle Eastern countries, and in retaliation to criticisms that America was only interested in military aid. The dam would also bring hydroelectric power to many

Egyptian homes and businesses while simultaneously providing water to arid land for cultivation. America withdrew its funding for the project, however, in 1956 due to Nasser’s dealings with the Soviet Union, his refusal to come to terms on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and recognition of Communist China. America’s withdrawal of funding resulted in Nasser seizing control of the Canal from the British and French owned company that controlled it, nationalizing

105 Jacobs, 118; Brands, 54-55.

106 Brands, 54-59.

the Suez Canal for Egypt, whose toll revenue alone would pay for the Aswan dam as “three- quarters of the oil consumed in Western Europe” was transported through the Canal.107 Britain,

France, and Israel were angered over this maneuver, and having exhausted all manner of diplomatic courses to remedy the situation, attacked Egypt in October 1956 so that Britain and

France could regain control of the Canal. Previous to the attack, Eisenhower declared that he rejected fighting, noting the imperialist attitudes that his allies conveyed through the use of force, and instead sought a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Once the attack in October occurred, however, Eisenhower pressured the European nations to withdraw by blocking Britain’s access to money and oil, bringing an end to the Suez War as first Britain, then France, and finally Israel pulled out of Egypt.108

In the aftermath of the Suez War, the Middle East was no longer under control or occupation by a Western force, resulting in continued tense relations with the region as many of the Arab countries began to display nationalist sentiments and tendencies. Many American government officials, including President Eisenhower, were afraid that Nasser was becoming a new Hitler in the Middle East due to his belief in this strong Arab nationalism and in his leading the campaign for a Pan-Arabic nationalization coalition, and therefore developed policies that

“equated Middle Eastern nationalism with the perceived Soviet threat.”109 Nasser’s actions in

1957 and 1958 further convinced American officials of this threat, as Nasser attempted to overthrow Hussein in 1957, and established a union with Syria, sparked by the United States’

107 Jacobs, 122-123; Little, 28.

108 Jacobs, 123.

109 Ibid., 124.

secret plan to implement a coup in Syria, that resulted in the formation of the United Arab

Republic.110

The upheaval in the Middle East and Egypt, combined with the atrocities of the Second

World War, and the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, added to the museum world’s need to preserve and conserve artifacts. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO) was a product of this global need. The organization was created in

1945 “in order to respond to the firm belief of nations, forged by two world wars in less than a generation, that political and economic agreements are not enough to build a lasting peace. Peace must be established on the basis of humanity’s moral and intellectual solidarity.”111 Part of this belief included, and continues to include, the protection of world heritage, or artifacts and sites that tell the story of humanity. In the 1950s, UNESCO published documents and handbooks that focused on preservation and conservation, addressing this aspect of the museum’s purpose and providing guidelines on how museums globally can better protect their buildings and collections from various types of attack, including nuclear and commando attacks, what to do in the event of a civil war, and how to prevent and cope with toxic gas, fire, seismic shocks from explosions, bomb splinters, tank fire, and air bombs. The guidelines detailed the amount and type of concrete to be used in order for the buildings to withstand these attacks, where to place barricades and of what material these should be made of, and a provision to establish a safe area for storing collections, both off site and in museum basements.112

110 Brands, 31-80; Jacobs, 124-125.

111 UNESCO, “Introducing UNESCO,” under About, http://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco (accessed Feb. 13, 2016).

112 Noblecourt.

Cleveland History

While the United States and world governing bodies dealt with problems in the Middle

East, Cleveland was facing its own problems, largely economic in nature. Even though

America’s national economy was booming due to the end of World War II, Cleveland was struggling. “Its central business district and its neighborhoods were deteriorating. Crime was worsening, and thousands of city residents were leaving for new homes in the suburbs.”113 The migration to the suburbs characterized the decade, yet hurt the downtown, central city of

Cleveland economically. In addition, there were problems with parking, transportation, the need for schools and parks, and a need to prevent residential areas from becoming slums. The city leaders were at a loss of how to solve these problems. In addition, the migration to the suburbs coincided with the emergence of the shopping mall, draining revenue as well as residents from the city center.114

However, as the main center of Cleveland declined and struggled financially, other areas of Cleveland, especially University Circle, thrived. Many of these institutions, including the

Cleveland Museum of Art, underwent expansion projects in the latter half of the decade. In addition, University Circle as a unit formed an organization, the University Circle Development

Foundation, in 1957 to “reinforce the commitment of cultural institutions to the Circle and to implement a twenty-year development plan.” A police force, new roads, and parking were part of this plan.115 The continued dedication to the cultural institutions in the Circle suggest that even though the city itself was in decline and residents removed themselves from this situation by

113 Miller and Wheeler, Cleveland: A Concise History, 156.

114 Ibid., 158-159.

115 Ibid., 163.

migrating to the suburbs, Clevelanders wanted to remain close to the culture and education that the museums provided. As the baby boomer generation began to grow in population numbers, the significance of the Circle’s museums increased and remained strong in the community.

CMA Renovation and Egyptian Collection: Preservation is the Focus

The Cleveland Museum of Art grew during the 1940s and 1950s as a result of

Clevelanders wanting to remain closely tied to their cultural institutions. Exhibitions incorporating the artwork of various Cleveland artists were a regular occurrence, and these showings were emphasized by the Mayor, “stressing the importance of the artist to the community, the cooperation of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce, [and] the active participation of many stores, banks, and other corporations….”116 The city’s wealthy and non- wealthy alike donated funds to the museum for the use of purchases and building upkeep through membership, which generally increased over the decades, large donations in the form of endowments, and smaller, voluntary donations by residents.117 During these decades, and because of the number of donations and funds available to them, the CMA staff continued to collect art and artifacts, increasing the size of all the museum’s holdings.118

Because of this growth, and the need to ensure that all of the collections were properly stored and protected, the museum underwent an expansion project. In the Annual Report for

1951, Harold T. Clark, president of the CMA, reported,

116 William M. Milliken, “The Annual Exhibition: Foreword,” The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 37 no 5 (May 1950), 75 http://www.jstor.org/stable/25141632 (accessed Feb 7, 2016).

117 Carl Wittke, The First Fifty Years: The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1916-1966 (Cleveland: The John Huntington Art and Polytechnic Trust and the Cleveland Museum of Art, 1966), 137; Bulletins of the Cleveland Museum of Art. Every Annual Report details membership, visitation, and funds donated to the museum each year. The trend demonstrated by these numbers shows an increase in each of these areas, with a slight drop in 1957 due to the closure of the museum in April for the renovation.

118 Turner, 96. See also the Bulletins of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 1948-1956, https://www.jstor.org/journal/bulleclevmuseart.

“It was a busy year, marked by great acquisitions, by important exhibitions, and by an attendance record far above the average. The funds for a new addition to the building and to its endowment show a substantial increase. The steady development of collections and services makes a new addition a vital need. In the meantime much serious study has been given to the maintenance and rehabilitation of the structure of the present building, which has had very intensive use for over thirty-five years.”119

In the same year’s Annual Report, Director Milliken announced that the new total for the building fund increased to $1,324,704.97 through generous donations by members and non- members alike.120 Over the next few years, this total increased and eventually totaled about

$9,000,000 in 1957 for both the new wing addition and updated renovations to the 1916 building.121 New lighting designs and increased space for the galleries, stacks for library materials, air conditioning and air cleaning systems, and new storage areas for the art were all part of this endeavor, demonstrating the centrality of preservation in the project.122 The museum broke ground on May 14, 1955 at noon123 and laid the cornerstone on June 14, 1956.124 The new wing progressed from there, and the museum continued its mission of education and display throughout the process, promoting small exhibits in the old Cleveland Institute of Art building while the museum closed for nine months beginning April 1, 1957 in order to protect the collections from damage and dust caused by the construction.125 The museum, with its brand new

119 Harold T Clark, “Annual Report Issue for the Year 1951 Letter of Transmission,” The Bulletin of the CMA 39, no 6 Part II (June 1952) http://www.jstor.org/stable/25141804 (accessed Feb 9, 2016).

120 Ibid, 132.

121 Wittke, Fifty Years, 139.

122 Wittke, 140; William M. Milliken, “Report Issue for the Year 1957,” The Bulletin of the CMA, 45, no 6 (June 1958), 159 http://www.jstor.org/stable/25142278 (accessed Feb 9, 2016).

123 “Break Ground for Art: Officials Will Hold Ceremony at Noon.” The Plain Dealer. May 14, 1955.

124 Paul B. Metzler, “Clark Turns Mason for Museum Rite.” The Plain Dealer, July 15, 1956.

125 William M. Milliken, “Annual Report Issue for the Year 1957,” Bulletin of the CMA, 46, no 6 (June 1958), http://www.jstor.org/stable/25142278 (accessed Feb 9, 2016).

wing and updated original building (see Figure 2.1 for the layout), reopened to the public on

March 5, 1958 with a prelude for special guests on March 4.126

Figure 2.1 Map of the Cleveland Museum of Art in 1966 after the renovation project. The Egyptian Gallery is number 11, next to the Garden Court on the left side of the original building. From the Museum Handbook, 1966. Courtesy of the CMA Archives. The Egyptian collection specifically grew with a number of new acquisitions before the expansion project was completed with the idea of preservation in mind. Acquisitions from 1948-

1951 consisted of sixteen relief paintings for the Egyptian collection and Coptic embroideries from Egypt for the Textile Collection.127 The Egyptian collection experienced this growth due to

126 “Museum of Art’s Glories Recounted at Union Club,” The Plain Dealer, March 4, 1958; “Art Museum Showing New Plant, Treasures,” The Plain Dealer, March 5, 1958.

127 Dorothey G. Shepherd, “Late Coptic Embroideries,” The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 37 no. 3 (March 1950), 46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25141619 (accessed Feb 7, 2016); William M. Milliken, “Annual

the budding relationship between Director William Milliken and the Mallons family in 1948. The

Mallons were a family of art dealers who focused on obtaining quality pieces of art for their clients, both in the private sector and for museums. They travelled to Egypt often while searching for artifacts for their clients, including the Cleveland Museum of Art, focusing primarily on Egyptian sculpture, as this type of artifact was generally missing from many museum collections.128 Dr. Sherman Lee, Curator of Oriental and Ancient Art in 1952 and appointed Director in 1958, continued to purchase and acquire Egyptian artifacts, an endeavor that temporarily stopped after 1948, most likely due to the 1952 Egyptian Revolution that overthrew the British imperial occupation. Lee focused on purchasing Egyptian sculptures with funds given him by a large endowment to the museum in 1958.129

The acquisition and updated display of Egyptian sculpture and artifacts reveals this notion of preservation and security from an imminent attack, but also a sense of protection from the elements in the museum. Before the new wing opened, the Egyptian gallery continued to be displayed similarly to when it was first unveiled during the Inaugural Exhibition in 1916. Many artifacts were enclosed in glass cases along the walls or in the middle of the room. Stone busts and sculptures stood proudly on relatively tall pedestals in various places throughout the gallery.

Some changes occurred over time, however. Most of the artifacts were moved away from the windows, especially those sculptures that were not in protective cases (Figures 2.2 and 2.3). The arrangement of the artifacts demonstrates a consciousness of a possible attack or a commitment to the UNESCO protocol to protect and preserve in light of a possible attack.

Report Issue for the Year 1951,” The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art (June 1952). 131-166. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25141805?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (accessed Feb 9, 2016).

128 Kozloff, “Introduction,” 22-23.

129 Ibid., 25.

Figure 2.2 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1956. 29022C, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.

Figure 2.3 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1956. 29022A, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.

The relief paintings were also protected, as they were embedded in the walls, with one wall in particular being newly constructed, and all placed under glass (Figures 2.4 and 2.5). The decision to embed the reliefs in the walls rather than leaving them hang against the walls on wires again suggests that the CMA understood the consequences of an attack as outlined in the guidelines of the UNESCO publication Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed

Conflict. One of the consistent measures the document proscribes is the use of reinforced concrete of varying thicknesses, depending on the type of attack to be expected. For example, against tank fire, 1.75 meters of reinforced concrete is suggested, 3.5 meters against super-heavy artillery projectiles, and an underground shelter built with 600 meters of reinforced concrete to withstand a 20 kiloton nuclear bomb that explodes in the air.130 While reinforced concrete is expensive to use, the fact that the CMA created another wall in the gallery, most likely of wood and plaster, suggests that considerations were taken in order to protect the reliefs from an attack.

Figure 2.4 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1950. 24600, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.

130 Noblecourt, 87-88.

Figure 2.5 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 15, 1952. 25548B, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives. Similarly, most of the artifacts were placed away from the windows rather than placed right in front of them. This could be for a number of reasons. First, in the event of an attack, the shattered glass of the windows would come into contact with the glass of the cases first, then the art. Also, the material of the artifacts, generally stone, would be more difficult to break compared to a canvas painting or other, less dense material. Third, natural light is a source of heat and ultraviolet radiation. The heat and radiation would raise the relative humidity and temperature in the gallery, affecting the artifacts. While stone is less susceptible to these deteriorating factors, it is not completely impervious. Placing the artifacts away from the windows reduces the effect of heat, working in conjunction with the new air conditioning system installed in the CMA during the renovation. 131 Finally, the gallery’s purpose of education was not overlooked, and the

131 Alexander and Alexander, 220-223; Wittke, 140.

arrangement of the display dictated a path the visitors could walk, enabling them to move freely in the space while exploring the display.

After the renovation, a few significant changes occurred. The gallery for the Egyptian collection was larger and no longer located near windows. This decreased the amount of natural light shining on the artifacts, reducing the deterioration rate. Instead, artificial spotlights and overhead lighting were used to highlight the artifacts, which were still in protective glass cases.

Also, the lack of windows suggests a heightened awareness of the danger to the collection as the risk of damage was greatly reduced (Figure 2.6). Stone statues still sat on their pedestals, but they were relatively smaller after the renovation, suggesting that the stone was able to withstand the occasional touch by visitors as well as a slightly relaxed state of being for the artifacts.

Figure 2.6 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 11, 1963. 34955a, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.

Conclusion

Next to education, preservation of artifacts was the primary objective for a museum and its staff. Museums were charged with “pass[ing] on their collections in pristine condition to succeeding generations.”132 In order to do this, the museum carefully stored and displayed its artifacts in such a way that deteriorating agents, mostly environmental in nature, slowed down or stopped altogether. In 1950s America, in the midst of the Cold War, the fear of the Soviet Union sharpened the museum world’s focus on this aspect of their mission. New techniques and suggestions were promoted in order to ensure the safety of museum collections, including the guidelines published by UNESCO. In addition, the upheaval in the Middle East due to the creation of the new Israeli state and the wars for independence from colonial powers such as

Great Britain directed American attention to that region of the world. The United States sent both military and humanitarian aid in order to quell the violence, protect American business interests in the oil industry, and obtain Arab allies in the fight against Soviet encroachment into the region.133 The chaos that these conflicts in ideology produced provided another incentive to protect the world’s heritage and historical artifacts from the spoils and destruction of war.

Egypt’s plight in particular promoted the acquisition of artifacts in order to better protect Egypt’s rich history from destruction.

The Cleveland Museum of Art was part of this initiative. While the city of Cleveland underwent an economic descent, the cultural institutions in University Circle thrived on the donations of their members and Cleveland-area residents. New acquisitions to the various collections were made regularly, including the Egyptian collection. The Egyptian collection continued to develop at a much slower pace, though, possibly due to a smaller market for

132 Alexander and Alexander, 217.

133 Brands, Jacobs, Little, McAlister.

artifacts in the midst of the conflicts occurring in Egypt at the time. In order to accommodate the growing collections, and properly store and display them for the future, the CMA experienced an expansion project, adding a new wing to the museum for both storage and gallery space, while also updating the original 1916 building. As part of this project, and for the same purpose, the museum incorporated new equipment, notably air conditioning and an air cleaning system, to aid in the preservation process. The Egyptian gallery benefited from the new focus as well, as it was protected from possible attacks before the renovation, and better preserved with reduced lighting after the completion of the new wing.

The Cleveland Museum of Art, a world renowned institution of culture and heritage, weathered the fear of the 1950s well by demonstrating its dedication to its purpose of preservation while maintaining its overall mission of educating the public. The CMA continued to demonstrate these qualities in the ensuing decades, reaching the 1990s and the next chapter of admiration and excellence for Egyptian antiquities at the Cleveland Museum of Art.

CHAPTER III

TECHNOLOGY AND VISITORS AT THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART’S EGYPT’S DAZZLING SUN EXHIBITION

Larry Sharp, a cab driver in Cleveland, received an invitation to a special viewing of

“Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World” at the Cleveland Museum of Art. A

Cleveland native, Sharp had never been to the art museum before, but decided to see the exhibition. Free admission, a free meal, and the entire exhibition for him and his fellow cabbies were the promises the CMA advertised. About two dozen cabbies accepted the museum’s offer and arrived at the museum on Monday, July 13, 1992 to see the show. The special invitation to

Cleveland’s cab drivers was a marketing attempt by the museum, because “Taxi drivers often play the role of tour guides to out- of -town visitors.” All of the drivers who commented to The

Plain Dealer reporter expressed how impressed they were with the show. For example, Cabbie

Augustus Ashley said that he would bring his grandchildren to it while Harry Baker proclaimed that he would be back, saying others should see the show as well.134

The museum’s ploy with the cabbies was one way to spread the word about the last special exhibition celebrating the Cleveland Museum of Art’s 75th Anniversary. The show,

“Egypt’s Dazzling Sun,” focused on the reign of a single ancient Egyptian Pharaoh, Amenhotep

III, the grandfather of the infamous King Tutankhamen. Amenhotep’s reign was one marked by peace as the pharaoh preferred to marry the daughters of his neighbors rather than fight them. He

134 John F. Hagan, “Hey, Mac, Seen Amenhotep? Museum Uses Cabbies to Get Out Word of Egyptian Exhibit,” The Plain Dealer, July 14, 1992.

60 61 was also “one of the world’s greatest swingers” as he “preferred building grand temples and encouraging art and making love.”135 Because of this, Amenhotep III’s legacy revolves around temples, statues, and artistic wonders, making him “the most productive of all the kings who reigned during Egypt’s golden age” in the realm of art.136

Amenhotep’s big debut on the museum stage occurred during an exciting time in history.

The Berlin Wall had fallen three years previously, and the Cold War was officially over. With the beginning of a new decade, America’s attention was no longer focused on combating

Communism, but on other endeavors. Relations between Egypt and America, for instance, were cordial, if not friendly, after the signing of the Camp David Peace Accords in 1978 and recognizing Egypt’s leadership role in the First Gulf War in 1991. The advent of modern technology in the form of the internet and computers began to take root as well, providing new forms of education for museums to implement and inspiring them to include technology in their presentations of artifacts. In addition to technology, museums began to re-focus their attention on the visitor, whom the museum catered to and “worked for.” New research studies and methods were in the early stages of development in order to identify the underlying cause of why visitors attend museums, what visitors expect to experience and learn from their visit, and how museums could better market themselves to reach a wider, more diverse audience.

One researcher in particular delved into visitor research. John Falk, a professor at Oregon

State University, studied “free-choice learning, museum research, and science education.”137 His theories regarding the visitor experience are helpful in interpreting the interaction between the

135 William F. Miller, “Star of Exhibit Enjoyed Wine and Women,” The Plain Dealer, July 1, 1992.

136 Arielle Kozloff, “Preface,” in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art, 1992), xii.

137 John H. Falk, “About the Author,” in Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience (Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press Inc., 2009).

museum and the visitor, providing an analytical model from which to examine the technological and exhibitionary choices of the CMA in their Amenhotep III exhibition. In 1992, Falk conceived of the Interactive Visitor Model, a model that studies three different aspects of people’s behavior- physical, social, and personal- and brings those aspects together into the museum to assess how and why visitors behave the way they do. For example, the model attempts to understand why some people watch the films while others skip them, or why certain individuals read all of the labels whereas others read only those labels for the artifacts that capture and hold their attention. The “physical context,” as Falk calls it, refers to “the architecture, the objects on display, [and] the ambiance” of the museum, for visitors remember their surroundings. The “social context” involves the ages of those attending and working at the museum as well as the various types of people there, such as volunteers, staff, grandparents or peers. Finally, the “personal context” encompasses the person’s motivations, experiences, knowledge of the exhibit contents, and what they intend to get out of the museum experience.138

Falk expanded upon this theory later, studying in-depth the different types of visitors that attend museums, classifying them into five categories based on various attributes. The classifications are Explorers, Facilitators, Experience Seekers, Professional/Hobbyists, and

Rechargers. Explorers are usually those who visit a museum because they are curious about the topic on display or have a general interest in the subject matter. Facilitators do not come for themselves, but rather bring someone else for their benefit, such as a mother bringing a child so that the child may learn about a topic from another perspective. The mother, then, would be the

Facilitator. Experience Seekers may be commonly called tourists, for their attitude in visiting the museum is one of “checking it off the bucket list.” They want to say that they have been there

138 John Falk and Lynn Dierking, The Museum Experience (Washington DC: Whalesback Books, 1992), 1- 7.

and see why the museum is famous or iconic. Professional/Hobbyists have expert knowledge on the content of museum displays and exhibitions and “will judge the content to be accurate.”139

The final group, Rechargers, visit the museum in order to relax, rejuvenate, or simply marvel at the wonders contained within.140

The Cleveland Museum of Art’s special exhibition “Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep

III and His World” and the museum’s permanent collection gallery demonstrated the incorporation of technology in order to reach a wider audience and illustrate the history of Egypt during the reign of Amenhotep III in new methods. Technology, specifically audio tours and cinematic films, conveyed historical knowledge as well as revealed the popularization of

Egyptian history and motifs in the media. Visitor studies based on Falk’s models influenced the exhibitions as well. The CMA used technology and visitor research in order to bring in more visitors, reach a larger audience base, and supplement the artifacts on exhibit.

America and Egypt in the 1990s

As in the past few decades, the relationship between the United States and Egypt continued to be complex in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Though the relationship was no longer hostile, it was based primarily on American economic and military aid to Egypt, now an

American ally. In 1978, President Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel signed the Camp David Peace Accords, forming a peace treaty between the two nations. Because of this peace treaty, the relationship between the United States and Egypt changed from that of enemies to allies.141 Three years after this accomplishment, Sadat was assassinated, leaving Vice

139 John H. Falk, Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience (Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press Inc., 2009), 200.

140 Falk, Identity, 190-206.

141 Tarek Osman, Egypt on the Brink: From Nasser to Mubarak (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 89-90.

President Hosni Mubarak in charge of Egypt. Mubarak “offered the [people] hope of an Egypt restored to balance and given the time to nourish its weakened self-confidence.”142 In order to do this, Mubarak implemented many domestic reforms, including allowing opposition parties to participate in government, decreasing the restrictions on free speech in the press, freeing prisoners, and “quietly shevl[ing]” controversial laws enacted by Sadat. However, in the midst of attempts to help the developing Egypt, various circumstances proved to make growth and progress difficult. Dropping oil prices in the mid- and late 1980s forced many Egyptians working abroad to return home unemployed. Also, Egypt received little direct support from foreign countries, and the revenue Egypt obtained through the Suez Canal greatly diminished as well.

Finally, Mubarak did not have a plan by which to fix the economic problem, and was eventually forced to follow programs and guidelines outlined by the International Monetary Fund in order to start fixing Egypt’s economy.143

The advent of the Gulf War in 1991 both damaged and aided the Egyptian economy and political relations between Egypt and other nations. The war forced over 400,000 Egyptians out of work in the Gulf region’s oil fields, adding to the already high percent of unemployed.

Revenue from tourists and the Canal also dramatically declined due to the war. Egypt’s debt to foreign powers was high as well, adding to the economic strain.144 However, Egypt’s role in the

Gulf War proved to benefit the country. Because Egypt was a leader for the Arab nations in opposition to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the “United States forgave $6.7 billion in military debt” while increasing economic aid during and after the war in conjunction with other foreign

142 Osman, Egypt on the Brink, 166.

143 Osman, 167.

144 Bruce K. Rutherford, Egypt After Mubarak: Liberalism, Islam, and Democracy in the Arab World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 136-137.

nations.145 The leadership that Egypt displayed in the course of the Gulf War, and the subsequent aid it received from foreign powers, allowed Egypt to continue to develop as a nation.

Cleveland in the 1990s

Cleveland in the late 1980s and early 1990s was a mixture of decline and prosperity. The population decreased dramatically during the 1970s at a rate of twenty three percent annually.

The population continued to drop during the 1980s, though at the less dramatic rate of about one percent annually. Unemployment was high as well, reaching 11.4 percent in the downtown area in 1987, significantly higher than the suburban rate of 5.4 percent. The loss of Cleveland industries, especially “steel, automotive products, and machinery,” contributed to the migration and the high unemployment rates, representing a job loss of 86,100 jobs between 1970 and 1985.

The city also let go many of its employees in order to help balance the city’s budget and repay its

$111 million debt.146 Poverty was a serious problem for the city, too.

“[It] widened its reach to inner-ring suburbs like Lakewood, East Cleveland, and Cleveland Heights. In 1989, the Council for Economic Opportunities in Greater Cleveland reported that poverty in Cuyahoga County had increased by 42.5 percent since 1980; that almost one-fifth of all county residents were poor; and that three-quarters of the county’s poor (or about 215,700 people) lived in the city of Cleveland.”147

School drop-out rates approached 50 percent in 1987, adding to the overall declining state of the city.148

Paradoxically, Cleveland also continued to grow and prosper. The skyline changed as corporations such as “Standard Oil Company (acquired by BP America and renamed in 1987),

145 Rutherford, Egypt After Mubarak, 137-138.

146 Carol Poh Miller and Robert Wheeler, Cleveland: A Concise History, 1796-1990 (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990), 182-185.

147 Miller and Wheeler, Cleveland, 188.

148 Miller and Wheeler, 189.

Ohio Bell, and Eaton Corporation all built new office towers.”149 Other projects ensued as well, including the transformation of historic buildings in the Warehouse District into “offices, loft apartments, and new shops and restaurants,” and the restoration of Playhouse Square, providing entertainment through the arts and bringing approximately $15 million to Cleveland’s economy each year.150 Even though the city was rebuilding itself economically and physically, Cleveland faced a new decade of transition with the American shift “to the new technology-based service economy,” a shift that Clevelanders were forced to confront.151

The Cleveland Museum of Art and Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: A Special Exhibition

The Cleveland Museum of Art at the beginning of the 1990s was, like the city itself, having financial problems. While the museum continued to grow in membership, artifacts, and gallery space, the largest fund that supported the museum since the 1950s, the Hanna fund, was no longer sufficient in maintaining the museum’s needs. The continued growth, and therefore maintenance, of the CMA forced the Board of Trustees to begin a fund-raising department in the

1980s in order to “[seek] income producing programs,” including corporate sponsorship of special exhibitions.152 Through these fund-raising avenues, the CMA was able to continue prospering, and prepare for the road ahead.

With funding for the museum secured, the CMA began looking forward to, and making preparations for, a large celebration in honor of the museum’s 75th Anniversary. As part of this

149 Ibid., 185.

150 Ibid., 186.

151 Ibid., 190. See also Barney Warf and Brian Holly, “The Rise and Fall and Rise of Cleveland,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 551 (May 1997), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1047948 (accessed Feb. 13, 2016), 208-221.

152 Evan H. Turner, ed. Object Lessons: Cleveland Creates an Art Museum (Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1991), 196, 198.

celebration, the museum prepared three special exhibitions that incorporated artworks from other institutions, private collectors, and the CMA’s permanent collections into large displays over the course of a year. The first, “The Triumph of Japanese Style: 16th Century Art in Japan,” focused on Japanese art at “the moment when Japanese cultural identity blossomed into full flower after centuries of soaking up ideas from outside the island nation.”153 The second, “Picasso and

Things: The Still Lives of Picasso,” displayed the painter’s still life works of inanimate objects rather than people.154 The final special exhibition was Egyptian in focus and nature: “Egypt’s

Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World.”

Amenhotep III, the third king in Dynasty 18, came to the throne of Egypt in 1391 BC during the New Kingdom era, or Egypt’s Golden Age. He originally grew up near modern day

Memphis, with the Giza pyramids across the river, influencing his childhood. Supposedly, it was this fact of growing up near the Pyramids of Giza that inspired Amenhotep III to build large monuments of himself throughout Egypt. The pharaoh not only erected monuments to himself, but he built temples to the gods in various locations, including Thebes, Luxor, Karnak, and

Saqqara. Because he associated himself with the sun god Amun-Ra, Amenhotep constructed colossal statues of himself to stand at the entrances of temples, reminding the people of the greatness of their king. In addition to construction projects, Amenhotep III treated his officials with greater regard than past kings, giving one of these officials a mortuary temple next to

153 Steven Litt, “Nature Ascendant in Artistic Stunner,” The Plain Dealer, October 20, 1991.

154 Steven Litt, “Preview Picasso Art Museum Frames a Still-Life Happening,” The Plain Dealer, February 23, 1992.

Amenhotep’s as a reward for his work. His family is also well represented in art, as statues almost always depict his wife, Queen Tiy, by his side.155

The story behind the conception through the completion of this particular king’s exhibition involves a lot of time, effort, and coordination between various parties on an international scale. The idea began in 1977 in Egypt with the meeting of two scholars: Betsy M.

Bryan, Alexander Badawy assistant professor of Egyptian art and archeology at The Johns

Hopkins University, and Arielle Kozloff, Curator of Ancient Art at the Cleveland Museum of

Art. Both were in Egypt doing research, Bryan focusing on monuments erected by Thuthmosis

IV and roles of women in Dynasty 18, while Kozloff studied and photographed styles of painters in Theban tombs during the same dynasty. Both women wished to create an exhibition about

Amenhotep III’s art and, with the help of the new CMA director, Evan Turner, the women were able to bring this dream into fruition.156 Inevitably, the special exhibition came into its own in

July 1992 after eight years of research and preparation. The exhibition was displayed first in

Cleveland and then traveled to two other locations, the Kimbell Museum in Fort Worth and the

National Museum in Paris. The exhibition “included 143 masterworks from minute to monumental, some newly discovered, lent by collections in 27 cities in 11 countries” for the purpose of presenting “Amenhotep III as ancient Egypt’s greatest builder and art patron.”157

“Egypt’s Dazzling Sun” faced multiple struggles throughout the process of obtaining and installing the artifacts. First, the Egyptian government, the body in charge of international loans

155 Arielle Kozloff, “Introduction,” in Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World, authors Arielle Kozloff, Betsy M. Bryan, and Lawrence M. Berman (Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art in cooperation with Indiana University Press, 1992), 1-8.

156 Arielle Kozloff, Betsy M. Bryan, and Lawrence M. Berman, Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World (Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art in cooperation with Indiana University Press, 1992), xii.

157 Arielle Kozloff, “Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World, July 1- September 27, Special Exhibition Gallery,” found in “1992 Annual Report,” The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 80, no. 6 (July 1993): 244. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25161418 (accessed Feb. 22, 2016).

of Egyptian antiquities, refused to loan a 9-foot alabaster statue of Amenhotep with the crocodile god Sobek due to protestations from the Egyptian public. Supposedly, the Egyptians were concerned about the safety of the statue travelling overseas, declaring the artifact as “too important a treasure to allow out of Egypt.” The statue was supposed to be “a centerpiece of the exhibit,” though Director Turner was happy to withdraw the request for the sculpture when the protests were raised.158 This corresponded with the “anti-Western feeling” in Egypt as the

Egyptians did not take the museum’s project seriously until the Curator, Arielle Kozloff, presented the government with copies of seminar papers, demonstrating that the exhibition was not simply “another blockbuster,” but rather a scholarly driven exhibit of importance to the history and art worlds.159 Another struggle for the museum was in moving and placing the artifacts, specifically the larger statues that weighed thousands of pounds. Systems of ramps, pulleys, and forklifts were used to move the priceless artifacts carefully and safely into their positions for the exhibit. One of the artifacts, the “Monumental Royal Lion,” was originally intended to be placed near the entrance to the exhibit. However, because another statue, the

“Ram of Amen Protecting the King,” had yet to arrive and was larger and heavier than the lion, the lion was placed further back in the exhibit while the ram was placed near the front.160

Despite these struggles, the exhibition was a success. The head and body of a figurine that was separated for thousands of years were reunited and put together before the opening. The realization that the two pieces matched was the result of extensive measurements and research by

158 Steven Litt, “Egypt Won’t Lend Statue to Cleveland Museum,” The Plain Dealer, February 29, 1992.

159 Helen Cullinan, “Pharaoh of the Arts Museum Pulls Political, Cultural Strings to Assemble Amenhotep Exhibit,” The Plain Dealer, June 28, 1992.

160 Karen Sandstrom, “Uncrating the Ages Museum of Art Sets Up Amenhotep III, His World,” The Plain Dealer, June 4, 1992.

the exhibition’s curators, who were overjoyed at the union of the pieces in the museum.161

Additionally, “Egypt’s Dazzling Sun” was “like stepping into an ancient Egyptian time warp, whisking the visitor to the court of the Dazzling Sun Pharaoh” due to the effects of “creative lighting, the huge statues and dramatic cobalt blue setting- the pharaoh’s favorite color” according to one critic (see Figures 3.1-3.3 for views of the exhibition).162 Visitors totaled

186,000 for Amenhotep’s exhibition, and the combination of the three exhibitions for the

Anniversary celebration brought approximately $33 million into Cleveland’s economy, a great success by museum standards and a record number of visitors.163

Figure 3.1 Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III, 1992. 35-333n 24, Photograph Collection, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.

161 Helen Cullinan, “Amenhotep Gets His Head Together,” The Plain Dealer, June 30, 1992.

162 William F. Miller, “Star of Exhibit Enjoyed Wine and Women,” The Plain Dealer, July 1, 1992.

163 Steven Litt, “Art Shows Aided City Economy, Museum’s Study Says,” The Plain Dealer, December 5, 1992.

Figure 3.2 Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III, 1992. 35-333n 12, Photograph Collection, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.

Figure 3.3 Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III, 1992. Credit G.M. Donley, Photograph Collection, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives

The show’s success was due to a number of factors. First, it was “the first major international exhibition to draw together from many parts of the world the monuments of a single pharaoh.” Artifacts for the exhibition came from all over the world, including the Louvre in

Paris, The British Museum, The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, The Egyptian

Museum in Cairo, and museums in Vienna, Florence, and Russia. Many American museums also loaned artifacts for the exhibition, including the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and the Toledo

Museum of Art. Second, the exhibition took eight years to prepare for due to the amount of research involved for such a large display, successfully culminating in the July exhibition.

Finally, the show promoted art from a single pharaoh in ancient Egyptian history that is not as well- known as others, like King Tut and Ramses II, because much of Amenhotep’s art was either defaced or destroyed by his successors, even though he was “the most productive of all the kings” with his “rich artistic output.”164

In addition to the various artifacts on display, the museum supplemented the main exhibition with other displays and programs that place Egypt and Amenhotep III into historical context. “19th Century Views of Egypt” and “Photomurals: Temples of Amenhotep III” acted as complementary exhibitions on display to coincide with Amenhotep’s show. “19th Century

Views” was a collection of lithographs by Louise Haghe that showed visitors what Egypt looked like in the 19th century, providing visuals of Egypt through an artistic lens. “Photomurals” was similar in that it placed the various temples of Amenhotep into historical and architectural

164 Kozloff, et al. Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, viii, xii.

context. Additionally, a scholarly symposium provided a comparative study between Amenhotep and other notable, famous leaders in history, such as Catharine the Great and Hadrian.165

The Cleveland Museum of Art decided to implement technology for informational guides and educational purposes in order to reach a wider audience. Audio tours were developed for the visitors to use as they walked through the exhibition, though they were not required and were offered to the visitor as an additional option. The audio guide provided more in-depth, detailed information about various artifacts, possibly of a historical nature. The tours were designed to accompany the information present on the labels next to the artifacts. According to a questionnaire provided at the end of the exhibition, audio tours were the second most used source of information, with 49.9 percent of those surveyed saying they utilized this technology. The wall labels were the most used at 71.4 percent.166

Popular films, cartoons, and other audio visual programs were also used during the exhibition. The twentieth century movies related Egyptian culture or history in fictionalized accounts and non-fiction, documentary style productions. The films shown were in a variety of formats: black and white or color, silent movies and talkies, full length, live action movies and short cartoons, made in Egypt and staged elsewhere, with non-Egyptian or Egyptian directors.

Many of the themes in the movies and cartoons involved mummies, curses and tombs, the story of Cleopatra, and Biblical references to the story of the Ten Commandments. The films were used to “testify to the allure that ancient Egypt has exerted on the imaginations of filmgoers for

165 Exhibition Compendium: Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, Amenhotep III and his World, July 1, 1992 - September 27, 1992. Box 78, Folders: Programs-PI-Credit Lines-William Talbot’s Office (hereafter cited as Amenhotep Collection), CMA Archives.

166 “Visitor Survey- Statistical Comparison for Three Surveys,” Box 78, Folder: Amenhotep III Survey- William Talbot’s Office (hereafter cited as Amenhotep Survey). CMA Archives. The survey covered the three 75th Anniversary exhibitions: “The Triumph of Japanese Style: 16th Century Art in Japan,” “Picasso and Things,” and “Amenhotep III.” The numbers provided in the text are from the Amenhotep exhibition only.

many years in various countries.”167 In other words, the films were a testament to the continuing presence and influence of Egyptomania in popular culture. Short films directly connected to the exhibition, such as “Offerings Fit for King and God-The Cleveland Nome god Relief,” were also created and used to further explain, visually, features of particular artifacts and to place these artifacts into their historical context.168

The audio guides and films were developed in order to bring a larger variety of visitors to the museum, as well as enhance the experience of the exhibition for every type of visitor. As described earlier, research into the visitor experience at museums began to develop at this time, and continues to develop today. Falk’s classifications of Explorer, Facilitator, Professional/

Hobbyist, Experience Seekers, and Rechargers can all be applied to the multiple technological and educational materials implemented as part of the exhibition. The symposium lectures, for example, most likely attracted Professionals as they were scholarly in nature. The audio tours possibly enticed the Professionals as well, though Experience Seekers, Facilitators, and

Explorers could have used the audio tours for their own purposes, too, such as curiosity or educating others in the group. Films would be a huge hit for all of these types of visitors, though the knowledge they obtained from watching the films would have been different. Also, the films may have been more popular with Facilitators and Explorers, as these could have been marketed towards children and teenagers rather than adults. Statistical data gathered through surveys after the exhibition allude to these classifications. When asked about educational background, 28.9 percent of participants said that they had post-graduate degrees.169 These participants would most

167 “Mood Movies Set the Stage for Amenhotep,” The Plain Dealer, July 1, 1992; “Educational Programs for Amenhotep III, From NEH Submission 12/1990,” Amenhotep Collection, CMA Archives.

168 “Educational Programs,” Amenhotep Collection, CMA Archives.

169 Records of the Egyptian and Near Easter Art Department, A2001-033, Box 4, Visitor Surveys Folder, CMA Archives.

likely be Professionals/Hobbyists because they had specific training in their post-graduate programs.

While Amenhotep III received the most attention during his brief exhibition, the

Cleveland Museum of Art’s permanent collection gallery remained open to the public, allowing visitors to enjoy more Egyptian artifacts that were not necessarily from the reign of Amenhotep

III. The display of the permanent collection was not on the same grand scale in regards to the size of the artifacts, but the number of objects on display countered this deficiency. Most of the items were reliefs, small statues and figurines, and sarcophagi in glass cases with other stone statues on pillars along the walls. The reliefs were upright in cases, at about eye level with the average person, for easy viewing. The lighting was such that certain artifacts were highlighted and the artifacts were easily viewed, yet the light did not damage the displayed items (Figures

3.4-3.6).

Figure 3.4 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 205, 1993. 57941e, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.

Figure 3.5 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 204, 1993. 57941d, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.

Figure 3.6 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 204, 1993. 57941c, Registrar’s Gallery Views Photographs, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.

Falk’s Interactive Visitor Model, based on three contexts within the visitor experience, can be used to analyze this display. The arrangement of the room allowed visitors to move freely within a directed path and provided objects that each of Falk’s classifications would be encouraged to see. In the “personal context,” Professionals/Hobbyists would be drawn to the exhibit for the scholarly value, much as they were drawn to the Amenhotep exhibit. Explorers would come to satisfy their curiosity while Facilitators could connect Amenhotep’s art to the permanent gallery, comparing and contrasting artistic qualities for the purpose of education.

Rechargers would continue to be awe-inspired by the objects, and Experience Seekers would have been able to “check off the bucket list” seeing the famous, high quality permanent collection of the CMA. These visitors would have been able to move freely in the “physical context” of the gallery as the displays were far enough apart to allow movement of bodies while close enough together to encourage interaction with other museum visitors and staff in the

“social context.”170

Conclusion

The Cleveland Museum of Art’s 75th Anniversary special exhibition “Egypt’s Dazzling

Sun: Amenhotep III and His World” incorporated technology and visitor research studies into its exhibition design in order to bring in more visitors and reach a wider audience. Movies and audio tours provided more detailed information to audiences regarding the artifacts in the exhibition as well as ancient Egyptian history and culture. The use of popular cinematic films from a variety of decades, directors, and themes allowed audiences to glimpse Egyptian culture while viewing a popularized version of Egypt as part of Egyptomania. The audio tours provided

170 John H. Falk, Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience (Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press Inc., 2009); John Falk and Lynn Dierking, The Museum Experience (Washington DC: Whalesback Books, 1992).

more information to those that desired it while also offering another method of viewing the exhibition to visitors who had hearing or sight problems.

The exhibition opened at an opportune time in world and museum history. The end of the

Cold War, progress towards peace in the Middle East, and friendly relations between Egypt and the United States all contributed to the experiences at the museum. The advent of the computer and the internet also made the opening of the new decade an exciting time. Museums worked to incorporate these new technologies into their exhibitions and practices while further researching their visitors, as American museums re-focused their attention on providing meaningful experiences for those coming through their doors. Research into the visitor experience, especially the theoretical models developed by John Falk, were helpful devices in learning why visitors go to museums and how the museum can offer more variety in their programs and exhibitions for the multiplicity of attendees.

The incorporation of technology and use of visitor studies is still important today, though on a different scale. The CMA’s Gallery One is an example of an experiment in bringing technology into the galleries and museum setting. While there is much debate among museum professionals as to the benefits and drawbacks of such practices, especially regarding ethics and ethical behavior towards visitors and the collection, technology will continue to be part of the museum experience and affect the visitors that use it. The incorporation into Amenhotep’s exhibit was rather small compared to today’s practices and multitude of forums through which to use technology, but the continued presence of Egyptian artifacts in American museums, and in the Cleveland Museum of Art particularly, remain as testaments to a different, wondrous, and awe-inspiring past that endures for centuries, regardless of the lack of attention the collection actually draws.

CHAPTER IV

EPILOGUE: THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART AND EGYPT IN THE PRESENT DAY

In 2016, the Cleveland Museum of Art continues to serve the Cleveland public by collecting, displaying and preserving works of art for the purpose of educating the public and providing visitors with a meaningful, memorable experience. The museum’s current, 2016 mission statement reflects this service:

The mission of the Cleveland Museum of Art is to fulfill its dual roles as one of the world’s most distinguished comprehensive art museums and one of northeastern Ohio’s principal civic and cultural institutions. The museum, established in 1913 “for the benefit of all the people forever,” seeks to bring the pleasure and meaning of art to the broadest possible audience in accordance with the highest aesthetic, intellectual, and professional standards. Toward this end the museum augments, preserves, exhibits, and fosters understanding of the outstanding collections of world art it holds in trust for the public and presents complementary exhibitions and programs. The Cleveland Museum of Art embraces its leadership role in collecting, scholarship, education, and community service.171

Another Renovation and the Permanent Gallery

After the turn of the century, the CMA appropriated funds for another renovation project, reshaping the museum building so that it “transforms outdated museum spaces and prepares the institution to meet the needs of the public for the next 100 years.”172 The renovation included

171 The Cleveland Museum of Art staff, “Mission Statement,” The Cleveland Museum of Art, http://www.clevelandart.org/about/history-and-mission/mission-statement (accessed March 26, 2015).

172 The Cleveland Museum of Art staff, “Renovation and Expansion Project: Overview,” The Cleveland Museum of Art, http://www.clevelandart.org/join-and-give/support-the-transformation/renovation-and-expansion- project/overview (accessed April 10, 2015).

construction of a new atrium, a 32,000 square foot skylight that connects the original 1916 building to the Education Wing built in 1973, making the atrium “one of the largest public rooms in Cleveland.”173 The 1916 galleries underwent an extensive change as well, transforming “dark, tired spaces” into “airy and inviting [spaces], with 11-foot-3-inch ceilings that feel higher than they actually are.” New galleries in expanded wings were constructed, adding “nearly 100,000 square feet of gallery space to the museum.”174 These newly reconditioned spaces also allow the various art galleries to be organized in a chronological manner, taking the visitor on “a smooth, seductive ride through the centuries.”175 In order to ensure that the changes would satisfy the users of the museum, the staff reached out to the public for feedback on what they wished to see from the new design. During these forums, as the meetings were coined, the project architect

Rafael Viñoly noticed that “[The museum] is a resource for the people, part of the life of the city.”176 The museum and the renovation project reflect the will and desire to serve the people of

Cleveland and the world, displaying art for the enjoyment of everyone.

Unfortunately, in the midst of these physical changes to the CMA building, the importance of the Egyptian collection and gallery has decreased since the Amenhotep III special exhibition. The collection is, as Director of Facilities Jeffrey Strean says, “a really finite collection and it’s not an area that is experiencing a lot of growth in terms of the market. There

173 Steven Litt, “Cleveland Museum of Art’s atrium skylight rises at last,” October 31, 2010; Steven Litt, “Museum of Art Oks More Building $205 Million Raised for Construction,” June 17, 2008. The Plain Dealer.

174 Steven Litt, “Museum’s President a Builder of Consensus,” The Plain Dealer, January 20, 2002.

175 Steven Litt, “An epic adventure through time: New 1916 galleries at Cleveland Museum of Art opens Saturday,” The Plain Dealer, June 20, 2010.

176 Rafael Viñoly, quoted in Gregory M. Donley, “Civic Architecture,” Cleveland Museum of Art Members Magazine, (May 2002), 8.

aren’t as many opportunities out there as there are in some other areas [to collect].”177 While many factors may contribute to the lack of a market, such as repatriation laws based on the 1970

UNESCO edict and the 2011 revolutions in Egypt, the Egyptian collection remains a low priority for the museum.

In addition to the collection not growing and the lack of a market in Egyptian antiquities, the Mr. Strean and the Assistant Director of Interpretation, Lori Wienke, each described how the new Egyptian gallery is supposed to be more accessible to the public visitor (Figure 4.1). The exhibit employs various methods to pass on information about its artifacts to the public and create connections between the ancient past and the modern present. The first, and most important, method is through the overall design of the exhibit. “[I]t’s not a chronological arrangement of works, it’s thematic, so…Kings and gods…public and private life…[and the] whole back area is really about the afterlife…”178 By presenting Egyptian art through familiar themes rather than a chronological approach, the display allows the public to identify with various aspects of Egyptian life, using the artifacts as the means to do this. “Also, chronological arrangements can be sort of dry, and this sort of gave the opportunity to delve more deeply into these really significant themes that are appropriate for this collection in a way that was, hopefully, more engaging for visitors.”179 The themes of pre-dynastic, kings and gods, public and private life, and the afterlife are designed so as to take the visitor through various aspects of

Egyptian life and history. These themes not only provide “people a glimpse into what life was like at that time in Egypt, [but]…it allows them, hopefully, to sort of see how they had the same

177 Jeffrey Strean, interviewed by author, Cleveland, OH, March 23, 2015.

178 Lori Wienke, interviewed by author, Cleveland, OH, March 31, 2015.

179 Wienke, interview, March 2015.

sort of reverence.”180 In other words, the themes are arranged in an attempt to better connect the ancient lives of the Egyptians to the modern life of the visitor by demonstrating that there are, in fact, similarities between the cultures, regardless of time and location. For example, as Ms.

Wienke discussed, the section on the Afterlife is able to show how much the Egyptians revered and prepared for the afterlife, how strong their beliefs in a life after death were in their culture.181

This can be related today to the Abrahamic faith systems and their beliefs in a life after death, as well as some of the rituals and ceremonies that accompany these belief systems.

These themes were determined by the previous curator of the Egyptian collection based on the artifacts in the CMA’s holdings. According to Mr. Strean, “[the curator] just wanted to resurrect the old installation ideas in a different space, so it wasn’t a big stretch”182 when it came time to re-install the exhibit after the completion of the museum’s building renovation. This would suggest that, even though the Egyptian art is a “really finite collection and it’s not an area that is experiencing a lot of growth,”183 the collection covers enough history to be displayed and interpreted in these categories, a method which seems to work to the best advantage for the collection, the curator, and the visitors. However, this lack of growth and the fact that the collection does not represent a full chronological picture of Ancient Egypt suggests that the collection is not a priority for the art museum’s staff. Rather, it is something that is available to

180 Ibid. See also Bob Brier, “Egyptomania!” Archaeology 57 no. 1 (Jan/Feb 2004), 16-22, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41780856 (accessed April 19, 2015) for information about the Egyptian quest for immortality as a possible reason why Americans, and Western cultures in general, are fascinated by ancient Egyptian culture.

181 Wienke, interview, March 2015.

182 Strean, interview.

183 Ibid.

the public should the visitor wish to view it. The exhibit is no longer a means to bring people in, though, as it once was in 1916.

Figure 4.1 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 107, March 2015. Photo by the author.

Arranging the exhibit thematically is not the only change that represents this lack of motivation. The object labels and wall panels throughout the gallery demonstrate this as well

(Figures 4.2 and 4.3). The labels and panels were intended to work in tandem with the themes in order to provide more historical background information for the visitor. While the object labels provide basic information on the artifacts displayed, the wall panels explain the overarching themes of the exhibit so that the visitor is able to understand how the exhibit was designed by the curator. 184

184 Strean, interview; Wienke, interview, March 2015. To clarify, the object labels are the labels next to the artifacts that provide the name/title of the artifact, when it was made, by whom and where (all if known), some basic information about the materials and technique used to create it, the accession number of the artifact in the CMA’s catalogue, as well as some historical context, though the context is not included on every artifact. The wall panels

Figure 4.2 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 107, March 2015. "Kings and Gods" section panel text. Photo by the author. Unfortunately, while these labels are intended to help the visitor understand the exhibit, most visitors tend to overlook or ignore them. According to Mr. Strean,

“I don’t think at this point people are getting the themes. They’re only expressed in the panels which we now know people aren’t reading. So I think it’s time, and there hasn’t been a curator to say we got to get back in there and do this. So that’s been the impact of not having a curator of that area, is that we really need to get back in there now that we’ve been distracted by installing the rest of the collection. Now that it’s in, I think it’s probably time to go back and make some of those ideas clearer. It doesn’t seem to be critical to people if they don’t get them. They just want to go in there and look, which is not a bad thing either. But if we think it’s important enough to put it together that way, then we probably ought to make it a little bit clearer.”185 provide an overview of the particular theme that is displayed and a broad historical context for the artifacts within that theme. One of the wall panels provides an introduction to the entire exhibit. These formats are consistent in all of the exhibits in the CMA.

185 Strean, interview. Mr. Strean explained in his interview that the CMA currently has no curator of Egyptian antiquities. The previous curator took a position at a museum in Boston, and with the renovation of the museum over, Mr. Strean is able to view these problems and address them.

The museum staff recognizes that there is a problem with aspects of the design of the exhibit, namely that the public does not understand the themes that the Egyptian exhibit is organized around. While that information is provided for the visitors, the manner in which, and possibly location where, that knowledge is presented is not effective for displaying historical content related to the artifacts. Therefore, as Mr. Strean acknowledges, it is time to change the labels again to make the central themes more apparent.

Figure 4.3 Egyptian Collection, Gallery 107, March 2015. Statue of Heqat, the Frog Goddess (1976.5). The label under the statue is an example of a "bare bones" label, consisting only of basic information. Photo by the author. At the same time, though, this statement reflects the nature of the museum visitor and the lack of interest in the Egyptian gallery. The fact that visitors are not stopping to read the information provided on the labels and panels, but rather walk through the exhibit to simply view

the artifacts, demonstrates the lack of interest by the populace to learn about Egypt, especially in spite of the presence of Egyptomania and the news coverage regarding the revolutions in modern

Egypt only three years ago. Also, because the gallery was displayed the same way after the recent renovation as it was before suggests that the gallery is not a top priority for the museum staff, but rather that they are content to keep the gallery the same. Finally, even though there is recognition of the fact that the visitors are not reading the wall texts provided, there appears to be no real motivation to go into the gallery to change anything, especially to bring out the themes.

Nina Simon’s concept of the “participatory museum” provides another argument for why the Egyptian collection is no longer relevant to visitors. The participatory museum argues for a change in museum methodology, promoting the participation of the visitor within the museum galleries. She classifies this notion as “multidirectional,” allowing the museum to offer an experience that the visitor is able to voluntarily provide feedback on, which the institution can then utilize to improve its exhibitions for the next visitors. This feedback can be given in multiple ways, for example through a voting system upon exiting the museum.186 This new concept can be applied to the current Egyptian gallery at the CMA. There is currently no method of providing immediate feedback on the gallery’s display. Simply put, there is no manner by which visitors are able to participate in the gallery, but are rather confined to the traditional museum method of text labels and glass cases, facing static artifacts that do not allow an opportunity for interaction with the visitor. While this method is not wrong, it is an older concept that visitors in a technology driven world, and at this stage in museum evolution, seem to not prefer. In addition, the gallery is in the back of the 1916 building. Visitors must enter the lobby, cross the atrium, enter the 1916 building, walk all the way to the back, and turn left in order to

186 Nina Simon, The Participatory Museum (Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0, 2010), 1-13.

find the gallery. It is, therefore, not front and center, and not promoting easy access to the gallery to offer Egypt as the significant collection it once was.

A New Travelling Exhibition: Bringing Egypt Back to the CMA

Despite this ambivalence towards the Cleveland Museum of Art’s permanent gallery, a new Egyptian travelling exhibition will be on display and open to the public on March 13, 2016.

The exhibition, entitled

“Pharaoh: King of Ancient Egypt, introduces viewers to the men (and women) who ruled Egypt over three millennia. Opening on March 13, the exhibition presents a varied selection of 145 objects—including monumental reliefs, stone sculpture, faience ornaments, splendid jewelry, and historic papyri—from the vast holdings of the British Museum, along with a number of masterworks from Cleveland’s own collection.”187

The exhibition looks into the “public and private lives of pharaohs” within the objects’ historical contexts.188 Even though the permanent collection is no longer a center of attention for the museum staff, this special exhibition demonstrates the continued interest by the public for

Egyptian exhibitions.

Additionally, the special exhibition incorporates aspects of museum studies that were developed in the past and continue to be developed now. For example, “Pharaoh” will utilize audio tours for in-depth information about twenty-three of the artifacts on display. With the progression of technology, the format used for the audio tours, called Acoustiguide wands, will include small images of the artifacts in conjunction with the auditory information. The use of the

187 Aude Semat, “Art and Power in Ancient Egypt,” The Cleveland Magazine (March/April 2016), http://www.clevelandart.org/magazine/marchapril-2016/art-and-power-ancient-egypt (accessed Feb. 29, 2016).

188 Lori Wienke, follow up interview via email with the author, February 29, 2016.

audio tours is included in the ticket price for the exhibition and will be distributed to interested visitors at the entrance of the exhibit.189

The educational purpose of the museum has continued into the present day as well.

Artifact labels will accompany the objects, providing textual information for visitors should they choose to read it. Other educational materials for teachers and families are available in order to offer an educational experience designed for younger children with their classmates on field trips and with their families. Finally, as the above information implicitly states, the display and design of the exhibition and its supplementary educational material focuses on the visitor experience, attempting to reach a broader audience, possibly based on Falk’s research regarding the Visitor

Experience Model to create meaningful memories of the visit. 190

All in all, the Egyptian collection at the Cleveland Museum of Art is not as relevant to the museum’s mission nor as important to the staff as it was in the museum’s past. The collection has not grown in terms of acquisitions since the early 1990s due to a non-existent market. Also, even though the museum underwent a recent renovation that doubled the gallery space for the

Egyptian collection, the static re-installment of the previous arrangement of the display in themes that visitors do not understand nor realize, the textual information that is not read by the visitors, and the location of the gallery in the rear of the first floor 1916 building, all combine to make the

Egyptian gallery and collection an uninteresting stop for visitors to the CMA. The upcoming

“Pharaoh: King of Ancient Egypt” travelling exhibition may be an attempt to re-generate interest in the legacy and history of Ancient Egypt through the lens of artistic aesthetes, but the general attitude towards the permanent collection suggests that this is unlikely. As the Cleveland

189 Wienke, interview, Feb. 2016.

190 Ibid.; John H. Falk, Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience (Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press Inc., 2009), 190-206.

Museum of Art moves forward into the future, though, perhaps the current attitudes towards ancient Egypt will change.

FINAL CONCLUSION

The Cleveland Museum of Art’s Egyptian collection evolved over time into the world renowned, yet small, collection that it is today due to various circumstances in history, demonstrating the relationship between the museum and the historical contexts in which it finds itself. Many historical aspects affected the museum staff’s decisions, priorities, and displays, revealing how the CMA was influenced by the world around it. The Egyptian collection in particular was effected by the history and circumstances in Egypt, as well as the state of relations between the American and Egyptian governments. This project, based on multiple themes, establishes these interconnected affiliations to prove that museums are organic, ever changing institutions based on the evolving nature of global historical contexts through the case study of the CMA’s Egyptian collection.

One of the central themes to this argument is the relationship between the American and

Egyptian governments. In 1916, the two governments were not working closely together as the

First World War diverted most of the United States’ attention from the Middle East to Western

Europe. After the Second World War, though, Egypt became more of a priority. The Middle East and Africa became regions of upheaval and chaos as the nations in these areas fought for independence from their colonial overlords. Egypt struggled for freedom from Great Britain, for example. The creation of the new Israeli state in 1948 added to the anti-Western sentiment in the

Arab world and also contributed to the nationalist movements in the region. These circumstances directed American attention to the Arab world, and specifically to Egypt, during the 1950s, sending both military and humanitarian aid in order to quell the violence, protect American

business interests in the oil industry, and obtain Arab allies in the fight against Soviet encroachment into the Middle East. Later, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the relationship shifted from one of hostility and enemies to cordial allies. Egypt signed the Camp David Accords in 1978, ending the country’s conflict with Israel, America’s ally. This allowed America and

Egypt to be on friendly terms at the conclusion of the Cold War in 1989 and the beginning of the

First Gulf War in 1991. Because Egypt was an Arab leader in the Gulf War, the United States forgave much of Egypt’s debt, promoting the continuation of good relations. This intention was soured, however, with America’s involvement in Iran and Iraq in the early 1990s, and continued into the present day due to Egypt’s actions during the 2011 revolution. Currently, the relationship between the two countries is somewhat strained.

As the ties between Egypt and America have changed over time, so too, has the concept and policies of the American museum. In the early 1910s, American museums began a transition from private collections to public institutions that focused on educating visitors from all walks of life, though educated visitors remained the primary audience. With the onset of the Cold War in the aftermath of World War II, and the threat of a nuclear (or any type of) attack on the United

States from the Soviet Union, this focus on education shifted to preservation. Museums in general are charged with “pass[ing] on their collections in pristine condition to succeeding generations.” This aspect of museum missions became the new priority, protecting collections from the real possibility of destruction. In order to do this, museums began to pay more attention to storage and display conditions, such as light, heat, and humidity, as well as the location of storage facilities. UNESCO published guidelines for museums globally to follow and implement in 1958 as a means of facilitating this change and ensuring that collections were protected. The timing of the publication was perfect in that museums were also undergoing expansion and

renovation projects, at which time they were able to incorporate these guidelines into their buildings. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1989, museums shifted their focus yet again to two emerging aspects: technology and the visitor. Museums worked to bring technology into their exhibitions in order to provide more information to the visitor, as well as reach a wider audience base. Research into the types of people that visit museums developed, such as John Falk’s theoretical models, into new techniques for display and exhibitions, for the American museum wished to remain relevant to the population by providing meaningful and memorable experiences for their visitors. All of these techniques are relevant today, though the incorporation of technology began an ethical debate regarding the benefits and drawbacks of such practices, and the new concept of a participatory museum challenges the older methods of display by promoting visitor feedback, relegating some of the power of the institution to those who utilize it.

The Cleveland Museum of Art represents the shifts in American museology in addition to the growth and development of the city of Cleveland. The CMA was born in the midst of the

First World War and the transition of museums from private to public, education driven institutions, opening in 1916 to Clevelanders. It promoted education by collecting and displaying artifacts from multiple regions of the world and various time periods, using labels to convey information about the artifacts to the visitors. The museum reflected the wealth of Cleveland at the same time, bringing power, prestige, and legitimacy to the sixth largest American city.

During the 1950s, the continually growing museum underwent an expansion program, adding a new wing to the building. With the priority shifted to preservation, the CMA used the expansion project to add air conditioning and air cleaning systems in order to better preserve its holdings from environmental pollutants. Later on, in the early 1990s, the museum celebrated its legacy

and wealth. The 75th Anniversary festivities included three travelling exhibitions, bringing record numbers of visitors to the institution while also utilizing technology to reach more people.

Surveys were offered as a chance for visitors to present feedback on the exhibitions, reflecting the need to create memorable experiences and determine the success of the exhibitions. The

Cleveland Museum of Art underwent another renovation in recent years, bringing the museum into the modern, twenty-first century with a new atrium and new, larger gallery spaces. The museum is still a center of education, prestige, and experimentation with the development of

Gallery One, a space combining technology and art.

Finally, the Egyptian collection and gallery illustrates the combination of these themes. It began as a foundational collection for the CMA, forming in 1913 through the efforts of Lucy

Perkins, Henry Kent, and the CMA Director Frederic Whiting. The collection provided legitimacy for the CMA in 1916, highlighting the educational purpose of the museum by displaying art from one of the oldest, most recognized civilizations in world history. Egypt’s integration into the museum’s holdings also reflected the continuing presence of the ancient region in popular culture, a concept referred to as Egyptomania. The Egyptian artifacts also provided an opportunity to validate the authenticity of art museums and their collections by displaying real artifacts with historical value and meaning. Over the decades, new acquisitions were made for the collection, though the Cold War and the nationalization movement in Egypt during the 1950s affected this trend by placing the purchase of new artifacts on hold from 1948-

1952. Also, preservation became of greater concern during this decade, as the collection’s gallery display changed in order to foster this new priority. The change occurred during the CMA’s renovation, completed in 1958. The display moved from a gallery filled with natural light to a darker, larger room with fewer opportunities for the destruction of the artifacts. With the start of

the 75th Anniversary celebrations a few decades later, the Egyptian collection took on new status as a travelling exhibition, “Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III and His World,” came to the

CMA, rekindling the fascination of Egypt in visitors. Technology was utilized in combination with the artifacts to reach more audiences, notably in the forms of movies and audio tours. The visitor experience was also a concern for the exhibit, and the museum used surveys to collect data from visitors about their experience in the exhibition, the majority of which was positive. In recent decades, though, the Egyptian collection is no longer considered a draw for the museum.

There is no curator for the art, visitors do not understand the layout of the gallery, and there is no urgency in fixing the problems that the staff are aware of. However, another travelling exhibition focusing on the Pharaohs of Egypt, may yet again rekindle the influence and draw of the mystical, exotic land of the Nile, bringing visitors to the Cleveland Museum of Art for a memorable experience.

All in all, the Cleveland Museum of Art’s Egyptian collection and gallery brings history and art to the public, influenced by events occurring in the world and in the evolution of museum studies. The future will continue to see the incorporation of technology into the galleries and new methods of drawing visitors to the museum, both of which will further ethical debates about, and research into, the visitor experience. The Egyptian collection, unfortunately, may not grow and may not be the foundational aspect of the museum as it once was. However, the fascination with

Egypt and Egyptian history is still strong today, as evidenced by the new film “Gods of Egypt,” continuing the presence of Egypt in popular culture. Therefore, the collection at the Cleveland

Museum of Art will remain, strong and proud as the Pyramids in Giza, along the shore of Lake

Erie, standing as a reminder of the ancient past, of the mysterious, exotic land of the Nile, and as testament to the longevity of the human race.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

American Periodicals Series Online.

http://search.proquest.com/americanperiodicals/advanced?accountid=11835.

Articles from The New York Times, 1922-1930.

Articles from The Plain Dealer, 1913-2015.

The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 1950-1993. In JSTOR

https://www.jstor.org/journal/bulleclevmuseart.

Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov.

The Cleveland Museum of Art staff. “Mission Statement.” The Cleveland Museum of Art.

http://www.clevelandart.org/about/history-and-mission/mission-statement (accessed

March 26, 2015).

The Cleveland Museum of Art staff. “Renovation and Expansion Project: Overview.” The

Cleveland Museum of Art. http://www.clevelandart.org/join-and-give/support-the-

transformation/renovation-and-expansion-project/overview (accessed April 10, 2015).

“Educational Programs for Amenhotep III, From NEH Submission 12/1990.” Box 78, Folder:

Amenhotep III-Programs-PI-Credit Lines-William Talbot’s Office (cited as Amenhotep

Collection). The Cleveland Museum of Art Ingalls Library Archive, Cleveland, OH.

Exhibition Compendium: Egypt’s Dazzling Sun, Amenhotep III and his World, July 1, 1992 –

September 27, 1992. Box 78, Folders: Programs-PI-Credit Lines-William Talbot’s

Office, Cleveland Museum of Art Archives.

Interview with Jeffrey Strean, Director of Facilities, March 23, 2015.

Interview with Lori Wienke, Assistant Director of Interpretation, March 31, 2015 and February

29, 2016 via email.

“Memorandum of Agreement.” Articles of Incorporation. Box 1, Folder 1: CMA Articles of

Incorporation. The Cleveland Museum of Art Ingalls Library Archive, Cleveland, OH.

Noblecourt, A. Protection of Cultural Property In the Event of Armed Conflict. UNESCO:

UNESCO, 1958. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000712/071205eo.pdf (accessed

Feb. 13, 2016).

Photographs of the Egyptian Gallery and “Egypt’s Dazzling Sun.” The Cleveland Museum of

Art Archives, Cleveland, OH.

Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting: Howard Carter Correspondence. Box

37, Folder 445a-e: Howard Carter, 1913-1919.

Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting: Emily G. Gibson Correspondence.

Box 40, Folder 500: Emily G. Gibson, 1913-1916.

Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting: Lucy Olcott Perkins Correspondence.

Box 52, Folder 748: Lucy Olcott Perkins: Egyptian Antiquities, 1912-1915.

Records of the Director’s Office: Frederic Allen Whiting: Mrs. Caroline Grant Williams

Correspondence. Box 61, Folder 1106: Caroline Ransom (Mrs. Grant) Williams, 1916-

1931.

Viñoly, Rafael. In Gregory M. Donley, “Civic Architecture,” 8-9. Cleveland Museum of Art

Members Magazine (May 2002).

“Visitor Survey- Statistical Comparison for Three Surveys.” Box 78, Folder: Amenhotep III

Survey- William Talbot’s Office (cited as Survey Collection). The Cleveland Museum of

Art Ingalls Library Archive, Cleveland, OH.

Secondary Sources

Alexander, Edward P. and Mary Alexander. Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History

and Functions of Museums. New York: AltaMira Press, 2008.

Andermann Jens, and Silke Arnold-de Simine. “Introduction: Memory, Community and the New

Museum.” Theory, Culture & Society 29 no. 1 (2012): 3-13.

Anderson, Gail, ed. Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the

Paradigm Shift. New York: AltaMira Press, 2004.

Bennett, Tony. “Civic Seeing: Museums and the Organization of Vision.” In Critical

Trajectories: Culture, Society, and Politics, edited by Tony Bennett, 121-137. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishing, 2007.

Bennett, Tony. “The Exhibitionary Complex.” New Formations, no. 4 (1988), 73-102.

Berman, Lawrence. Catalogue of Egyptian Art: The Cleveland Museum of Art. Cleveland: The

Cleveland Museum of Art, 1999.

Black, Graham. Transforming Museums in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Routledge,

2012.

Brand, Laurie A. Official Stories: Politics and National Narratives in Egypt and Algeria.

Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014.

Brands, H. W. Into the Labyrinth: The United States and the Middle East, 1945-1993. New

York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1994.

Brier, Bob. “Egyptomania!” Archaeology 57 no. 1 (Jan/Feb 2004), 16-22.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41780856 (accessed April 19, 2015).

Carbonell, Bettina Messias, ed. Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing, 2004.

The Cleveland Museum of Art. The Cleveland Museum of Art: Catalogue of the Inaugural

Exhibition of the Cleveland Museum of Art, June 6-September 20, 1916. Cleveland: The

Cleveland Museum of Art, 1916.

The Cleveland Museum of Art Staff. “Cleveland Museum of Art: Founders.” The Cleveland

Museum of Art. Under Collection, in Focus. http://www.clevelandart.org/research/in-the-

library/collection-in-focus/cleveland-museum-art-founders (accessed Jan 17, 2016).

Confino, Alon. “Collective Memory and Cultural History: Problems of Method.” The American

Historical Review 102, no. 5 (Dec. 1997): 1386-1403.

Conn, Steven. Museums and American Intellectual Life, 1876-1926. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press, 1998.

Conn, Steven. Do Museums Still Need Objects?. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,

2010.

Corsane, Gerard, ed. Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An Introductory Reader. New York:

Routledge, 2005.

Crane, Susan A. “Writing the Individual Back into Collective Memory.” The American

Historical Review 102, no. 5 (Dec. 1997): 1372-1385.

Curl, James Stevens. Egyptomania: The Egyptian Revival: a Recurring Theme in the History of

Taste. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994.

Eckels, Claire Wittler. “The Egyptian Revival in America,” Archaeology 3 no.3 (Sept 1950),

164-169. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41662395, (accessed May 14, 2015).

Falk, John H. Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast

Press Inc., 2009.

Falk, John H. and Lynn Dierking. The Museum Experience. Washington DC: Whalesback

Books, 1992.

Fisher, Genevieve. “Preventive Care.” In Museum Registration Methods 5th Edition, edited by

Rebecca A. Buck and Jean Allman Gilmore, 287-292. Washington D.C.: The American

Alliance of Museums Press, 2010.

Fritsch, Juliette, ed. Museum Gallery Interpretation and Material Culture. New York:

Routledge, 2011.

Genoways, Hugh H., ed. Museum Philosophy for the Twenty-First Century. Oxford: AltaMira

Press, 2006.

Giguere, Joy M. Characteristically American: Memorial Architecture, National Identity, and the

Egyptian Revival. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 2014.

Gunn, Simon. History and Cultural Theory. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006.

Holt, Frank L. “Egyptomania: Have We Cursed the Pharaohs?” Archaeology 39 no. 2

(March/April 1986), 60-63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41731744, (accessed April 19,

2015).

Jacobs, Matthew F. Imagining the Middle East: The Building of an American Foreign Policy,

1918-1967. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011.

Johnston, Patricia, ed. Seeing High & Low: Representing Social Conflict in American Visual

Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.

Karp, Ivan, Corinne A. Kratz, Lynn Szwaja, et al., eds. Museum Frictions. Durham: Duke

University Press, 2006.

Keating, W. Dennis, et al, eds. Cleveland: A Metropolitan Reader. Kent: Kent State University,

1995.

Knell, Simon J, Suzanne MacLeod, and Sheila Watson, ed. Museum Revolutions: How Museums

Change and are Changed. New York: Routledge, 2007.

Kozloff, Arielle, Betsy M. Bryan, and Lawrence M. Berman. Egypt’s Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep

III and His World. Cleveland: The Cleveland Museum of Art in cooperation with Indiana

University Press, 1992.

Levine, Lawrence. Highbrow, Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.

Lidchi, Henrietta. “The Poetics and the Politics of Exhibiting Other Cultures.” In

Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, edited by Stuart Hall,

151-220. New York: SAGE Publications, 1997.

Little, Douglas. American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945.

Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2002.

Marstine, Janet, ed. New Museum Theory and Practice: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing, 2013.

McAlister, Melani. Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, and U.S. Interests in the Middle East,

1945-2000. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.

McKenna-Cress, Polly and Janet A. Kamien. Creating Exhibitions: Collaboration in the

Planning, Development, and Design of Innovative Experiences. Hoboken, New Jersey:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013.

100

The Metropolitan Museum of Art. “Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History: Design, 1925-50.” The

Metropolitan Museum of Art. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dsgn2/hd_dsgn2.htm

(accessed January 25, 2016).

The Metropolitan Museum of Art. “Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History: Egyptian Revival.” The

Metropolitan Museum of Art. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/erev/hd_erev.htm

(accessed January 25, 2016).

Miller, Carol Poh and Robert A. Wheeler. Cleveland: A Concise History, 1796-1990.

Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990.

Miller, Carol Poh and Robert A. Wheeler. “Cleveland: The Making and Remaking of an

American City, 1796-1993.” In Cleveland: A Metropolitan Reader, edited by W. Dennis

Keating, et. al, 31-48. Kent: The Kent State University Press, 1995.

Osman, Tarek. Egypt on the Brink: From Nasser to Mubarak. New Haven: Yale University

Press, 2010.

Rutherford, Bruce K. Egypt After Mubarak: Liberalism, Islam, and Democracy in the Arab

World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993.

Schwarzer, Marjorie. Riches, Rivals & Radicals: 100 Years of Museums in America. Washington

DC: American Association of Museums, 2012.

Semat, Aude. “Art and Power in Ancient Egypt.” The Cleveland Magazine (March/April 2016).

http://www.clevelandart.org/magazine/marchapril-2016/art-and-power-ancient-egypt

(accessed Feb. 29, 2016).

Sherman, Daniel J. and Irit Rogoff, eds. Museum Culture: Histories, Discourses, Spectacles.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1994.

101

Simon, Nina. The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0, 2010.

Smith, Jeffrey K. The Museum Effect: How Museums, Libraries, and Cultural Institutions

Educate and Civilize Society. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014.

Turner, Evan H., ed. Object Lessons: Cleveland Creates an Art Museum. Cleveland: The

Cleveland Museum of Art, 1991.

UNESCO. “Introducing UNESCO.” Under About. http://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-

unesco (accessed Feb. 13, 2016).

Victoria and Albert Museum. “Art Deco: Global Inspiration.” Victoria and Albert Museum.

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/art-deco-global-inspiration/ (accessed January

25, 2016).

Warf, Barney and Brian Holly. “The Rise and Fall and Rise of Cleveland.” Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science 551 (May 1997): 208-221.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1047948 (accessed Feb. 13, 2016).

Weeks, Kent R. “Archaeology and Egyptology.” In Egyptology Today, edited by Richard H.

Wilkinson, 7-22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Weiner, Ronald R. Lake Effects: A History of Urban Policy Making in Cleveland, 1825-1929.

Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 2005.

Witchey, Holly Rarick and John Vacha. Fine Arts in Cleveland: An Illustrated History.

Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994.

Wittke, Carl. The First Fifty Years: The Cleveland Museum of Art, 1916-1966. Cleveland: The

John Huntington Art and Polytechnic Trust and the Cleveland Museum of Art, 1966.

102