There is an article in the New York Times today. It is about how museums find themselves without enough storage space, and then they have to consider selling some of the art. Near the end of the article they are discussing the problems of the Brooklyn Museum. The Brooklyn Museum had already identified, with the help of a Getty grant, the 20,000 best fashion objects in their collection which included some lace, and they are now held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in the Costume Institute in a special group. But apparently the Brooklyn Museum still has other lace that hasn't come to us.
"Ms. Pasternak, who took over as director in 2016, is continuing to look at "next steps" regarding storage. One focus: a room that holds thousands of textiles, European tapestries and lace, and some furniture. She would like to turn it into a gallery for African art. The cost-benefit analysis, she said, seems straightforward: "A permanent home for an African art gallery versus storing something that we've never shown."" I don't know if she is actually correct about never having shown the lace, but it may have been a long, long time since they did. The Met actually had an entire lace exhibit room at one point because lace was so popular. I suspect the Brooklyn Museum also showed lace around the turn of the 20th century. Earlier in the article they talk about how one reason that museums don't de-accession unpopular art is that it might come back into the lime light again. It is interesting that the Brooklyn Museum can't imagine their lace will become interesting again. I am seeing a rising interest in it among younger people. Here is the link to the article. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/10/arts/museum-art-quiz.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage - To unsubscribe send email to majord...@arachne.com containing the line: unsubscribe lace y...@address.here. For help, write to arachne.modera...@gmail.com. Photo site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lacemaker/sets/
