treasuresLocal Refining Philadelphia’s Cultural Heritage Policy BY SHARON M. ERWIN 38 the philadelphia lawyer fall 2008 hiladelphia, with its history of passionate civic and legal debate over its cultural treasures, has articulated to a remarkable degree the common themes and conflicting viewpoints expressed in the intense international debate over responsible cultural heritage policy. The lessons learned from the recent and very public controversies sur- Prounding The Gross Clinic, the President’s House and its slave quarters, The Dream Garden and The Angel of Purity, provide Philadelphia with an opportunity to critically evaluate its cultural heritage policy, informed by the international cultural heritage dynamic. As the first U.S. city to pass a citywide preservation ordinance, and with its abundant and diverse cultural heritage, Philadelphia is uniquely qualified to es- tablish a national model for a comprehensive municipal cultural heritage policy. “the dream garden” by maxfield parrish/louis comfort tiffany Courtesy of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia. Partial bequest of John W. Merriam; partial purchase with funds provided by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts; partial gift of Bryn Mawr Col- lege, The University of the Arts and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. The term “cultural heritage,” which once Edwin Forrest, one of the most renowned Three of the four charitable beneficiaries of referred to the often-monumental remains actors of the 19th century. The agreement the John Merriam estate transferred their re- of cultures, has changed profoundly over the resulting from the suit — reached by the spective interests to the fourth, PAFA, while last sixty years. The term is defined incon- city, the home, the Philadelphia Museum of PAFA agreed to keep The Dream Garden sistently in various laws and conventions, Art and the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine on public display in Philadelphia, using its but there is a clear progression, according to Arts (“PAFA”) — allowed the Philadelphia “best efforts” to keep it in its site in the Cur- renowned arts lawyer Barbara T. Hoffman, Museum of Art to acquire Comedy and Trag- tis Building. Throughout The Dream Gar- toward increasingly complex and broader edy in 1985. den litigation, the city and others seeking to definitions. The broader definitions coin- The recent controversy surrounding The keep the mural in Philadelphia emphasized cide with the movement away from the term Gross Clinic, following Thomas Jefferson The Dream Garden’s context, both histori- “cultural property” to “cultural heritage,” a University’s announcement that it intended cal and physical. The mural, they noted, is concept that includes the tangible and intan- to sell the Thomas Eakins masterpiece, and a site-specific work of public art integral to gible evidence and creations of a culture. All past controversies over proposed sales of the historic building in which it is located, aspects of cultural heritage policy are affect- cultural objects aroused keen debate among the lobby of Curtis Publishing Company’s ed by the tension between what is or should local residents, institutions, preservationists, new headquarters. Removal would extract it be legally required and what — ethically — scholars, arts professionals, dealers, govern- from its unique context, an observation that is the right thing to do in the context of com- ment officials, private owners, advocacy resonates with the views of archeologists peting and often divergent interests. groups and their attorneys. Equally impas- concerning the importance of context and CUltUral HeritaGE and sioned has been the debate over the preserva- contextual analysis. THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIENCE tion of the site of the first president’s house The idea of collective or public ownership The Philadelphia experience illustrates in the United States — onetime residence raised over The Dream Garden was based in how the proper stewardship of cultural heri- of George Washington and John Quincy part on the express characterization of the tage on a local level can be just as complex, Adams — ignited by the discovery of the mural “as a contribution to public art” by ethically challenging and interdisciplinary residence’s slave quarters and the profound Edward Bok, editor of The Ladies’ Home as at the international level. While interna- issues of cultural identity associated with the Journal, who commissioned the mural, and tional definitions of cultural heritage are flu- discovery in a nation founded on principles the public’s acceptance of that dedication id and evolving, Philadelphia established a of freedom and the rule of law. through undisputed access to and enjoy- stable and notably broad policy in 1955 with THE DREAM GARDEN ment of The Dream Garden for eighty-five its Preservation Ordinance (see sidebar). To CONTROVERSY years. The estate of John Merriam repre- date, and not surprisingly in a Western cul- During The Dream Garden controversy, sented the contrary view, echoing the re- ture, the debate over the protection of cultur- many argued the importance of its histori- spect for free trade in the market within al heritage in Philadelphia has been ground- cal and physical context as a site-specific the concept of “common culturalism.” Yet ed in notions of property and ownership. work of art as a reason for keeping it in the another perspective on cultural heritage The legal battle in the early 1980s over Curtis Building, where it was installed in policy, sometimes referred to as the posi- William Rush’s sculptures Comedy and 1916. The Maxwell Parrish/Louis Comfort tion of “universal museums,” joined those Tragedy involved several years of litigation Tiffany mural’s history and people’s pas- expressed during The Dream Garden contro- until a negotiated and philanthropic resolu- sionate attachment to it also brought the versy in the debate surrounding The Angel of tion emerged that was significant because of idea of collective ownership, or at least own- Purity and The Gross Clinic. its express recognition of the public’s inter- ership in the public trust, to the debate over THE ANGel OF PUritY est. The city opposed the planned auction of The Dream Garden’s future. AND THE GROSS CLINIC the sculptures by the Edwin Forrest Home, The Dream Garden was nominated as an In 2004, St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church a home for retired actors and actresses es- historic object under the Preservation Or- at 10th and Market Streets decided to sell re- tablished under the will of Philadelphia’s dinance in response to the announcement nowned sculptor Augustus Saint-Gauden’s of its potential sale, and the Philadelphia Angel of Purity (Maria Mitchell Memorial), BY THE BOOK Historical Commission declined to issue a large marble relief commissioned by the the demolition permit requested by the es- Weir family for the church as a memorial Philadelphia’s Preservation Ordinance tate, required for the mural’s removal. The to their deceased daughter. The church ini- provides: The preservation and protection of buildings, structures, estate, claiming it could sell The Dream Gar- tially offered to sell the work, installed in sites, objects and districts of den for $9 million but for the rejection of 1902, to the Philadelphia Museum of Art, historic, architectural, cultural, its permit application, appealed the historic reportedly at a discounted price. When the educational and aesthetic merit are designation. museum was unable to raise the funds, St. public necessities and are in the While none of the substantive issues Stephen’s placed it for sale on the open mar- interests of the health, raised by the parties were resolved in the ket and on display in a New York gallery. prosperity and welfare of ensuing three years of costly litigation, The Many criticized the church because the the people of Philadelphia. Dream Garden lawsuit provided time in donor’s intent was to commission the work It defines “object” as: which a philanthropic, negotiated resolu- for the church, and because St. Stephen’s A material thing of functional, tion could develop, resulting in The Dream was not forced to sell due to financial neces- aesthetic, cultural, historic or Garden’s preservation in the lobby of the sity but chose to sell to increase its endow- scientific value that may be, by Curtis Building. In the spring of 2001, the ment. Eventually, with support from a fund nature or design, movable yet related Pew Charitable Trusts agreed to provide for major acquisitions contributed by the to a specific setting or environment. $3.5 million for the acquisition of the mural. Annenberg Foundation, the Philadelphia 40 thethe philadelphiaphiladelphia lawyerlawyer fallfall 20082008 Museum of Art acquired The Angel of Purity by the next threatened loss of a cultural trea- Philadelphia’s past controversies also have (Maria Mitchell Memorial), which is now on sure. Models of “cultural nationalism,” in identified specific legal issues to address. display at the museum. which cultural objects within a jurisdiction The Gross Clinic, for example, demonstrated The role of museums in conserving art are treated as parts of a national heritage, of- the benefit of distinguishing truly site-spe- and fostering knowledge through access fer alternatives to consider. cific works, like The Dream Garden, from and education, particularly in comparison One model of cultural heritage policy those that are intimately bound with the city to non-museum owners of culturally signif- worth exploring is the Japanese