on the fenway

Mark wrote in below that the Gardner was one of his favorite places.  Many people probably agree, and about its luminous courtyard I'm one of them.  But oh, it is not one of my favorite places to look at art.  Not that the collection doesn't have many wonderful, wonderful things - Sargent's El Jaleo, a bevy of fifteenth century lovelies, and of course, The Greatest Titian in America^tm.  Curiosities also about - Mrs. Gardner cared about a great many things that, while still collected, aren't foremost in our consciousness nowadays: psalters and liturgies, reliquaries, fabrics, tapesteries, banners, tilework and bits of architectural fragments, all thrown together alongside Old Master paintings, German carved religious sculpture, whatever bits of finery or devotion she could gather from across Europe.  And that's not to mention the Asian, classical, or modern works.

So the place works mostly as atmosphere, a generalized aesthetic sensation, one well-complemented, I'm sure, by the many concerts held there.  The museum's history as given on its website quotes William James writing  on the opening ceremonies,

"The aesthetic perfection of all things seemed to have a peculiar effect on the company…It was a very extraordinary and wonderful moral influence…Quite in the line of a Gospel miracle!"

A passage which, by both its author and its content, provides the exact blend of old Boston, nineteenth century aestheticism, edification, and reverence for religious art, that the Gardner seems to embody.

Yet it has to be said that the Gardner's an awful place to look at pictures.  The problem: you can't see them.  The lighting is exceptionally poor - I made the mistake of visiting on a cloudy day, when even less natural light than usual comes in through the courtyard and windows to weakly illuminate the paintings.  Even on brighter days, certain rooms are more or less permanently in darkness, and works hung on the walls that look out over the courtyard are impossible to see due to the backlighting.  Other paintings are hung so as to make a decent look difficult: they're on the far side of roped off chairs, or next to windows casting a raking light, or high and far away in a dark room.  I'd estimate that one can only get a good view of about half of the objects  displayed.

The idiosyncratic character of a place like the Gardner is part of the enjoyment, and there remains much to enjoy.  Still, in her desire to keep the Museum as she arranged it, one still might wish that Mrs. Gardner had considered the possibility of new advances in lighting technology before she finalized her will.  It's no white cube, and I wouldn't want it to be; but I would like to be able to get a better look.

Comments

[mark]

I totally agree with you JL, the lighting is not a strong point. I am aware of her will being particular, but is the lighting really part of her will? The story behind the Gardner is part of the appeal to me. What parties they must have been. I'm drawn to the quirky collectors. That's why I also like the Barnes and don't want it to move. It will end up doing just what he abhorred, conformity! We can argue about the management details, which can be worked out, but don't throw the baby out. It's like being institutionalized by your relatives against your will, without any good drugs.

[JL]

I doubt the lighting is specifically mention in her will (though it may be), but I believe they can't do anything about it because of her instructions not to make any changes in the presentation of the Museum.

I like museums with an individual stamp as well, and the Gardner is on of the most exotic. The lighting issue is probably something that, if they were inclined, the Museum could petition the relevant court to allow changes. I think they had to do this sort of thing to create their temporary exhibition space and perhaps the elevator, though I may be wrong. That raises the worry that further steps would be taken that would ultimately take away what makes the Gardner what it is.

I think the lesson for us all is, when planning our personal museums, think ahead.

[Katharine]

I volunteer over at the isgm, and occasionally we get whispers that they're going to revamp the lighting. It's a money problem and a conservation problem and a problem with how the collection was intended to be viewed. At least that's what we at the bottom of the food chain are told. The bottom line is that Isabella was crazy.

[JL]

It's a money problem and a conservation problem and a problem with how the collection was intended to be viewed.

Money's always an issue, of course, but I can't imagine that if they really were to do this they wouldn't be able to raise it or get a grant. The latter two are really the problem. With all those tapesties, fabrics, even works on paper permanently installed, proper lighting would be a disaster. And those can't easily be rotated out without conflicting with Mrs. Gardner's intentions.

I know someone who used to work as a conservator over there - perhaps I'll try to pump her for information.

[mark]

{Isabella was crazy.} Eccentric, she was loaded. :)