In the past issue of Art in Wisconsin, I reported on the panel
discussion given at the opening of the Wisconsin Artists Biennial,
held at the Haggerty Museum. There Curtis Carter, James Auer
and Russell Bowman each presented views on the state of Wisconsin
art and artists.
Russell Bowman, Director of the Milwaukee Museum of Art, mentioned
that he saw a “lack of focus” related to the condition
of Wisconsin art. Well....while I do not mean to be disrespectful
to Russell, I simply have to say that it is likely that he, and
the Milwaukee Art Museum, are in good part to blame for a deterioration
in this focus...for there once was a place creating a central
locus, a gathering place, an objective to be reached, a core of
energy and attention, now obliterated by actions taken at the
Milwaukee Art Museum. 1995 was the fateful year of actions by
MAM, AKA Russell Bowman.
There was a time that Wisconsin artists had warmly felt that they
had their “own” public gallery, in the most prominent
art museum in the state of Wisconsin. That was the small,
but vital, Cudahy Gallery in the Milwaukee Art Museum. Not
only did this public place have ongoing displays of art created
by Wisconsin people, it also was managed by a specialist, someone
I believe was titled Assistant Curator for Regional Art. For
years that person was Jane Brite, followed by Janet Treacy. And,
the Director of MAM, oversaw it all...
This gallery space, easily available to all visitors to the Milwaukee
Art Museum, was a central point at which artists felt they were
being supported by this fine institution. It was a gathering
place of sorts, usually exuding energy and providing contacts,
and almost always showing quality art from persons from within
the State’s boundaries. It organized the important
semiannual juried shows for anyone from the State to enter, and
there were curated shows of individuals deemed appropriate for
solo or small group shows. Slides of work were available
there, and sales could be generated thru its activities.
But, there was something else lost when the Cudahy’s programs
were eliminated. Particularly with Jane Brite as the most prominent
personality involved, it is likely that the influence of this
gallery space extended prominently into the general PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS. As
but a single example, it is remembered that one important exhibit
organized thru the Assistant Curator for Regional Art was a truly
community oriented display. Do you recall the exhibit that
truly reached into public spaces, utilizing business and very
public places for the installation of art works for a highly publicized
show? There was Al Blankshien’s neon dripping from the
314 Building on Wisconsin Avenue, Jill Sebastian’s installation
at the Milwaukee Antique Center, a large
sculpture created and displayed by an individual at Charter Wire
Co., and many other art works placed at other varied spots
around Milwaukee and suburbs capturing the attention of the public
and gaining publicity for art and artists. This sort of energy
and potential, and other far reaching opportunities and successes,
emanating from the Milwaukee Art Museum, were lost when the Cudahy
Wisconsin Programs and its management were eliminated.
Additionally, thru the attention given by the Assistant Curator
for Regional Art, or the manager of the Cudahy Gallery, artists
were directly involved within the Art Museum, participating and
organizing programs such as The Artists Forum Series, which arranged
for presentations by prominent artists and art related professionals
covering topics that ranged from The Talking Heads to artist workplace
safety. Many meetings took place between Jane Brite and/or
Janet Treacy with artists and their organizations, in the museum
and in the community, meetings that allowed artists to feel
they were really a part of the process, for indeed they did play
a role thru their participation.
At some point in the 1980’s, some member(s) of the Milwaukee
Art Museum staff saw, not the potential and positive optimism
generated by the Cudahy’s programs, but instead judged that
the Cudahy was a “ghetto” of sorts, in some way a
negative manifestation and an undesirable presentation in the
Museum. Jane Brite was “let go” early on for
reasons not entirely made clear to the public (she had been called
a “loose Canon” in a James Auer newspaper article
and there were reports of “personality and power conflicts”),
the semiannual juryings were eliminated (ostensibly because of
the cost, manpower and lack of room), and soon enough Janet Treacy,
who replaced Jane Brite, was eventually removed in 1995 as manager
of the Cudahy Gallery as well. The Cudahy programs all were
killed by the end of that year..
Was Museum management embarrassed by the gallery? Did they
interpret the energy level as a nuisance? Were Wisconsin
artists not important enough, and pushed aside in order to concentrate
on bigger fish from...oh...New York, or folks from “out
of town”...you know, “the experts” and the “anointed”? Wisconsin
artists who were not “making history” on a national
level might have been deemed too unimportant to be displaying
in and hanging around the Milwaukee Art Museum. Was there
a surreptitious force behind Director Bowman’s decision
to close down the programs, or did Russell Bowman make the decision
on his own to shut it down? Did any Board, in its ethereal
heights and far remove from the nitty gritty even recognize what
was happening to the Cudahy, and/or care? Was it merely money
going to other programs? Was/is there some vendetta at work?
And, it is significant that Director Bowman’s favored Folk
Art Collection, his personal baby, a large part acquired thru
some legitimate wheeling and dealing with a private collector
known to Director Bowman, was installed in that space. Gee! How
long had that installation been planned and how long had that
space been coveted?
Did the Wisconsin programs disappear, in part at least, because
the folk art collection needed a home? Russell does favor
and collect folk art, and with his commitment to that collection,
had to find a place to display it when most of the rest of MAM
had its space committed to more or less permanently standing exhibits.
Additionally, we must also recall that another Museum service
which prominently featured Wisconsin Art at and thru MAM had also
been eliminated, and that was the Art In the Working Environment
program, AWE. Ginny Knight had managed this program for some
years, selling the art of Wisconsin artists to businesses and
individuals thru the auspices of the Museum, with proceeds going
to aid the Museum in its operation. This was dropped due
to publicized conflicts with private galleries, especially in
Milwaukee, who felt that they were facing unfair competition from
this public and tax exempt institution. This loss seems more
understandable, due to the private gallery outcry, but many artists
felt its loss. That elimination, along with the loss of the
Cudahy Gallery Wisconsin programs, provided a real blow to the
visibility and focus for Wisconsin artists.
The phrase, Mainstreaming Wisconsin Art, became part of the Milwaukee
Art Museum’s vernacular. Mainstreaming, according to
Russell Bowman, was an ongoing plan to include Wisconsin art,
wherever deemed appropriate, in the ongoing exhibits arranged
by the Museum. Is Mainstreaming the correct word? How
about watering down and diluting? It is curious that Russell
can cite, as he did at the panel discussion, just the exact number
of exhibits in which Wisconsin art was included since 1990. This
is undoubtedly his prepared ammunition to offset some of the criticism
about closing down the Cudahy Wisconsin programs.
Some questions that can be asked about these “exactly counted”
exhibits since 1990 include: (l) How many of those exhibits
existed before the Cudahy was closed down in 1995? (2) How
many of the exhibited works and artists were repeatedly shown
and included more than once in the count? (3) How many exhibited
works were from the Museum’s own “Folk/Naive/Outsider”
collection shown in multiple venues, and now concentrated in the
Cudahy space? (4) How many included in the count were 19th
Century, or otherwise historical, and is some cases deceased? (5)
Did the count include such shows as the exhibits of the high school
competitions? (6) What percentage of these exhibited works
were photographs, prints, paintings, sculpture? (7) And,
importantly, how many FEWER LIVING WISCONSIN ARTISTS WERE
BEING SHOWN compared to when the Cudahy Gallery Wisconsin
programs gave people the opportunities? Undoubtedly, there
are many dozens, probably hundreds, of artists who might have
been incorporated into the Cudahy programs that will never again
have the chances once available to them. And, the visibility,
the locus, the central point is gone.
And, another thing concerning Russell’s statements during
the Panel discussion...He stated that he hadn’t felt any
“pressure” from Wisconsin artists, concerning their
involvement. Well, if I must say, while I was President of
WP&S, I and another member of the WP&S Board officially
met with Director Bowman and Janet Treacy concerning the likelihood of
Wisconsin artists potentially having some input into the planning
stages of the proposed addition. (This was before the decision
to close down the Cudahy was even announced.) It was
hoped that there might be some small space in the new addition
for the display of historical Wisconsin artist figures, and ongoing
displays of contemporary Wisconsin artists. Little were we
aware that plans were already afoot to close down the Wisconsin
programs entirely. Obviously, our meeting was of little significance.
I am also aware that at least twice since then, proposals have
been presented to the staff of the Milwaukee Art Museum for exhibits
involving Wisconsin artists, including finding room for the WP&S
Centennial juried show and the Wisconsin Artists Biennial. Somehow,
after months of consideration (foot dragging?), the response from
the Museum was “no”. Oh! Of course it seems possible
that some folks there just have little regard for WP&S as
a professional organization...or is it little regard for Wisconsin
artists as a whole?
Also, during his panel presentation, he mentioned that members
of the Art Museum staff are willing to make visits to artists
home and studios. While I was aware of this, it was a clear
surprise to almost everyone else attending the discussion. Somehow,
such information hasn’t made its way to artists. So,
you are all encouraged to contact the offices of MAM to arrange
such visits...and, I must add this caution, find out just who
and why someone will visit. Is it to potentially show
your work in the Museum? Is it to inform the staff of what
is going on in Wisconsin? Is it for the staffer to do public
relation work for the Museum, to appease the artists...to make
it look like MAM is truly interested? To what end do any
visits occur?
I apologize to anyone offended by my bringing up this dead horse
issue, Director Bowman included. Yes! The Wisconsin artist
programs appear to be in the morgue, now too many years removed...but,
the Cudahy Wisconsin programs once were extremely important statewide! Unfortunately,
when the Cudahy was basically closed down to us, there really
wasn’t much openly discussed about its demise...we Wisconsin
artists hardly raised a stink, and the effects of the programs
demise then could not be measured.
Perhapsnow we can feel its loss and measure the effect of its
departure? If it can’t be talked about at this time,
why not? Is it because we fear offending Russell Bowman,
or other Museum staff? What can we loose? It seems almost
frightening to consider the weak position of artists who tremble
with fear at offending the Director of the Milwaukee Art
Museum, artists who still expect some opportunity to show there,
who still believe there is a chance that Museum management will
find it in their plans to again draw upon the wealth of talent
and energy of the many Wisconsin artists.
I, the author of this article, feel in little danger from the
anger of members of the Milwaukee Art Museum. I haven’t
much of a “career” in art to worry about. I have
become too jaded and cynical to believe that the Milwaukee Art
Museum staff really
thinks it has helped Wisconsin artistsby actions over the past
several years. Mainstreaming, indeed! I can’t
let go...Wisconsin artists should be offended by the road the
Milwaukee Art Museum has taken specifically concerning elimination
of the Cudahy Wisconsin programs. In the eyes of MAM, we
were too insignificant and too powerless...
Obviously, I hope, it is not intended to imply that the Milwaukee
Art Museum’s mission is to merely concentrate upon Wisconsin
artists, nor suggest that MAM fails in other ways. There
are ongoing national and community programs enriching citizens. Greatly
visible, of course, is the Calatrava expansion which will be wonderful
and exciting...it has taken much of the Museum’s attention. But,
in 10 or 30 years, when the building is tired and deteriorating,
when there is new consideration of renovations and repairs, when
Russell Bowman has moved on, there will still be Wisconsin artists
adding to the vitality of the community, just as we have been
doing in Wisconsin since the 19th Century. It would have
been nice to believe that the Milwaukee Art Museum had maintained
a greater partnership with us, and more greatly aided us in exposing
what is made within the State’s boundaries, a part of the
region’s riches.
Congratulations Wisconsin Painters & Sculptors organization,
for holding on for a century, and to other artist organized and
maintained groups. And, thank you to all those unaligned
artists in all sorts of media, professional and amateur, publicly
active and privately producing, for following the creative spirit
despite setbacks, losses and cold shoulders, including those wittingly
or unwittingly imposed by the Milwaukee Art Museum.
OK! Maybe I am finally done...maybe I can let go...but just
how far did that dead horse travel?
Gary John Gresl,
One of the Former Presidents of Wisconsin Painters & Sculptors
(And a once young fellow who recalls his first visit to the Milwaukee
Art Museum...seeing art by Wisconsin artists...as important to
him then as pieces by nationally known artists.)
Back to Compositions