MY FIVE YEARS
1972-77
I was to be director of the gallery while a search committee was formed and an intensive search did occur. Candidates came in to meet with trustees and be interviewed for the position I held. After a six-month search, the trustees decided to appoint me director but I was already director! Accordingly, I did serve as director of the Corcoran for five years, from November 1972 through July 1977.
Corcoran Gallery of Art: lower atrium reinstallation: sculpture and paintings from the American Collection 1974.
This photograph, in black and white, was printed in the 'Wasnington Star-News' with an article by Ben Forgey, headline "Come, Praise The Corcoran's New-Old Look". September 18, 1974.
During the five years that I served as director, I emphasized the Corcoran’s collection of American painting and sculpture; Washington Art; and contemporary American art. Working with limited the funds, I had to be ingenious and frugal in the exhibitions that I presented; but a lively program was sustained. However I was most proud of my commitment to the collection. The story of finding that collection in storage is fully told in the lecture “The American Collection” presented at the Ringling (qv); an extract follows:
“As I have said, when appointed director, I toured the galleries and found masterworks, both paintings and sculpture, laying in storage, neglected and abandoned. In 1974, with an NEA grant, the paintings and sculptures were installed chronologically in 12 galleries, previously boarded-up. These galleries were of beautiful proportion with wooden floors, gorgeous ceilings and mutated skylights, an elegant setting for Mr. Corcoran's collection. The installation was called “The American Collection” and I was hailed as “an American scholar” by the New York Times. I knew little about American Art of that time but as Bill Williams told me, “few people do”! ………..Much was written on the installation. My favorite quote is from the critic Frank Getlein who said, “It is all at the Corcoran and if you are an American you have to go there to begin to understand yourself. But what ever you are, the Corcoran's collection is the best readily available summary of a new country, a new mind, new vision……..”
The American Collection, upper galleries installation c1973.
My tenure remains a blur of frenzied and hectic activity; I can offer only offer a montage of memories. The Annual Reports of the Corcoran Gallery of Art give facts and figures. In my possession, being responsible for their publication, I have reports 1974-75 and 1975-76. The first of these deals retroactively with 1970-74. That summary starts with my understatement: “The first year of the seventies saw many changes in personnel and programs at the Corcoran Gallery of Art.” and concludes: ”Activities and events of this period were numerous, as were the changes in personnel, for the Corcoran continued to reassess its role, particularly within the changing community.”
As I think back to those early months as director, I realize how overwhelmed, initially, I was with the task. However, a job had to be done and decisions made; now I was in charge. One of my first tasks was to bring together the gallery and school; to restore morale; and give clear leadership. I had a photograph taken to include in the ‘Calendar of Events’ January 1973. The photograph shows me surrounded by the entire Corcoran family. The gallery had 97 employees. The school had 61 faculty, 21 staff and over 1000 students. I stated that the gallery and school were “all together". The photograph was important for many reasons: most of all to emphasize that now the Corcoran was as one entity; with one director.
Of my many issues, one of the most pressing was to reduce the number of staff and eliminate the unnecessary duplication of tasks in gallery and school. In doing this, I could immediately cut back our expenditures and begin attempting to balance the budget. The finances were in a bad way; with extravagant expenditures, particularly recent exhibitions, eroding the already small endowment. To cut back costs; raise funds; balance the budget; increase the endowment became the mantra that I shared with most museum directors; unfortunately not my predecessors at the Corcoran!
Another matter to be addressed was the fact that everybody seemed to use the title “director” I decided that there was to be only ONE director now and that was me! All other titles that used to the word “director” (from personnel to janitorial services) would to be changed. I've always thought that both in education and museums there is a poverty of language in regard to staff titles; administrators flounder around struggling for titles. No one wants to be a secretary any longer. Everyone wants some grand title? In comparison to the military, with clearly defined ranks and titles, the museum world exists in a confusion of titular semantics and responsibilities? Of course, I did not help the matter by taking the title director and retaining my authority as dean. In later years, directors began to assume the title of president or chief executive officer or executive director. To this day, I think that the title “director” should suffice to describe the head of the museum.
Another matter that was confusing and needing clarification was how the visitor moved around the Corcoran Gallery of Art. The problem had been made worse by the addition of the Clark Wing. In 1925, the trustees accepted the bequest of the late senator from Montana, William Andrews Clark, of his collection of art. The gift contained many fine works by European artists, along with sculpture, tapestries and antiques. The Clark Wing was built to house the collection and was inaugurated in 1928. A few years later, to define more precisely the artistic orientation of the gallery, the trustees adopted a resolution reaffirming the emphasis of the gallery on American Art.
The Clark Collection and Wing caused problems not only in the mission of the gallery but in the circulation of visitors. In the original Flagg building, visitors viewed the art in the lower galleries and then went up the grand stairs. Even then, at halfway, the stairs divided with two separate stairs going to the upper galleries. With the addition of the Clark Wing, an elegant rotunda was built at the halfway landing of the grand staircase. Visitors were confused as to whether the go into the rotunda or up whichever staircase to the upper atrium. The Corcoran had to come to terms with this dilemma of direction; both of the visitor and with the art of Europe and America.
The first problem to be dealt with was to give visitors some guidance. To do this a floor plan and map of the Corcoran was devised and designed by Peter Thomas. As I have said, Peter was not only Dean of the School, responsible for day to day operations, but was also a very fine graphic designer. On taking over, I realized that the many Corcoran publications were of a different size, typeface and design. I made the decision to standardize all publications to be the same size, with distinctive graphics, creating a house style. In this way, all Corcoran publications could be easily identified. Peter Thomas readily agreed and set about designing the graphics for the Corcoran. Throughout the years, his fine graphic design of publications and catalogs greatly enhanced the image of the Corcoran; serving both school and gallery.
I also dealt with the issue of labeling throughout the gallery. Early in my tenure, my beloved mother MIlla, asked me the simple question, “Why are these works on the wall?!” I had hung a group of photographs of the late 19th century, showing Lewis and Clark's explorations in the West. However, no introductory label or any information put these works within context. I was guilty of the usual curatorial arrogance that assumes every visitor knows why the work is hanging on the wall. My mother’s question remained with me throughout my career; indeed to this very day. Why is the art on view?
Although, I've never wanted to explain away the wonder and awe of art, I realized that there had to be an attempt to put the art within context. Texts were made to introduce the art on the walls or, with sculpture, on the floors. The purpose was to give information to the viewer on the selection of the art and, in the labels, more on the artist, media and date. Art is not to be diminished by simplistic dribble or scholarly diatribe but let us inform and educate the visitor through art within the museum. Nowadays, that debate on didactic presentation rages on amongst directors and curators; many articles and books have been written. In those early days as director, my simple attempt was to provide information and guidance for the visitor.
I have always thought of myself as an educator. To embrace, be involved and committed to fulfilling the educational role of the Corcoran had been an obvious transition for me, coming from school to gallery. The mission of the art museum in America is one of education. I was to become an outspoken advocate for education in museums. For many years, I served at as the chairman of the education committee for the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD). Much more is to be written on education and museums,
Another issue that I dealt with was that of the ‘Washington Room’. This gallery was dedicated to showing Washington artists and, indeed, I had been proud to be included in that installation by Gene Baro. Nevertheless, I began to realize that the ‘Washington Room’ separated local artists from the mainstream of America art. Artists of the stature of Morris Louis and Ken Noland were certainly major American artists and would no longer be separated out? At the same time, every effort was made to encourage new and emerging local artists through gallery shows; group exhibitions; and juried area shows. The founder, WW Corcoran, had always wished to encourage Washington artists and did so, not only through his gallery and school, but with his patronage of artists themselves.
Many of my decisions were to make order out of chaos; to give a sense of order and direction. After all, that is the responsibility of the director: ‘direction, decision, delegation’. With a sense of order and assurance of authority, potential donors feel secure with their giving; particularly if the museum appears dedicated to excellence. To do this, the museum must rely upon its collections; define its mission; and present a lively and informative program of exhibitions and education. Through the reinstallation of our American paintings and sculpture, named “The American Collection”, I fulfilled our founder’s desire:” to promote and encourage the American Genius”. Further, through an ongoing and never ending schedule of exhibitions, the Corcoran continued to encourage artists.
Looking back at those days in the 70’s, I realize how frenzied and ridiculous the schedule was, as exhibitions lasted for only six weeks! Even worse, up to five shows would open at the same time; lunacy. That hectic schedule was what I inherited; I never thought to change that frantic pace until later. As director, I was responsible for this insanity but, at the time, the Corcoran earned its reputation as being “the liveliest place in town”! Moreover, the press and publicity brought attention and support to the Corcoran; through membership, gifts and donations. May be there was method to this madness; with a dedicated staff and limited resources, much was achieved. I managed ‘to beg and borrow’ in order to present these numerous and endless exhibitions.
As director of a private museum, I turned to individuals, endowments and corporations; the Corcoran was the first to get corporate sponsorship in the federal capital. At the time, government funded federal museums did not seek corporate sponsors; that soon changed. The advantages for the corporations and their lobbyists were considerable in giving a reception at the Corcoran, in the heart of the nation’s capital. Funds were given for exhibitions and events by major corporations from Phillip Morris to Exxon to CBS. I developed strong ties with Ruder & Finn; David Finn being a photographer with real interest in art. Naturally, the issue of renting out facilities was a matter of concern and one article had the headline “The Strain of Parties Tell” (Washington Post 02/25/73). I was the first director to be quoted; a spokesman for CBS said “guests would enjoy the riches of a fine art gallery”. Hopefully, that was true and guests would become visitors, even members; whatever, the Corcoran benefited from the riches of the corporate world!
President Jimmy Carter and Mrs Carter on an informal visitto the American Collection, Corcoran Gallery of Art, 1977.
Political parties were anxious to host parties at the Corcoran, situated across from the White House. Whether Republicans or Democrats, I was happy to take their money! In January 1977, we hosted the Democratic National Committee on the eve of the Inauguration of Jimmy Carter as President of the United States and Walter Mondale as Vice President. Years earlier, as Richard Nixon became President, we hosted the Republicans; Pat Nixon and the daughters came to the Corcoran on that occasion. Not only did we receive money for these events; the printed programs included material on the Corcoran. The democratic Chairman, Robert Strauss, wrote in 1977, “The Corcoran Gallery represents the best of American art from the past and a commitment to the latest trends and innovations. The following pages provide a modest guide to some of the works on display; the floor plan also indicates where refreshments are being served.”
Other sources of funding were eagerly sought. The National Endowment for the Arts was a patron of the arts, providing crucial and needed funding. I became to know and respect the work of Nancy Hanks, a Republican, and Joan Mondale, a democrat. Both were passionate and outspoken spokespeople and supporters of the arts; the nation owes them a debt of gratitude, I certainly do!
Private endowments are another potential source of funding. The Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation was a generous supporter of the arts, particularly of the Corcoran; again critical, particularly for exhibitions. The Foundation gave a grant for the 34th Biennial that I presented. Of course, donors have to be courted and this was very true with Gwendolyn Cafritz. I first met her when I organized a three week program for Corcoran students in London and Paris during the summer of 1969. The widow, Mrs. Cafritz, was staying in London at Claridges; Colonel Myers was one her escorts. As Dean, he wanted me to join him for dinner at the famed club Annabel’s with Mrs. Cafritz; first we had drinks with the Duchess of Devonshire. What an evening and way to meet Mrs. Cafriz who became one of our major benefactors. Later, as director, at the many Corcoran events she attended, I was most solicitous of her.
Within the Corcoran itself, Trust funds had been established in 1921 and 1927 by the late Senator Cark and his widow; these funds also were invaluable. The Women’s Committee of the Corcoran Gallery of Art was most active and generous raising and giving funds towards exhibitions, publications and operations. Another group was The Friends of the Corcoran, established in 1961, to add significant works of art by contemporary artists to the collection. Acquisitions are critical to the ongoing growth of any collection; with publications, acquisitions can be the lasting legacy of the director.
However, when I first took over as Director, my first concern was with exhibitions rather than acquisitions. With the tumultuous turmoil and changing directors, there was no schedule or exhibitions planned for the coming months! In desperation, I turned to Gene Baro, asking’ “Where will I get exhibitions?” In his pleasant pomposity and with grand gesture, Gene replied, “My dear boy, do not worry about exhibitions, they fall out of the sky and slip under the door. The problem is not getting exhibitions, it is turning them away. Artists and dealers will be after you”. Gene was right and there was never a shortage of offers and ideas for exhibitions. Even with limited resources, thanks to inventive ingenuity and endless offerings, lively and varied exhibitions were presented over those five years.
In my first few months, I turned to Gene Baro for help as he was a friend and had some exhibitions in mind. With the consent of the Trustees and out of necessity, I had Gene serve as guest curator. In February 1973, Baro curated the Thirty Third Biennial “The Way of Color”; he also helped me with the exhibition “Lowell Nesbitt: The Flower Series”. This exhibition was important as the show was presented at the time of the Women’s Committee Ball; an annual fund raiser and a highlight of the Washington social scene. The ladies were delighted with the flower paintings of Lowell Nesbitt; personally, I think his best work. Certainly, the flowers seemed more appropriate for the Ball than his images of male nudes?
Increasingly, I became responsible for the choice of exhibitions, organized with curatorial assistant, Francis Fralin, and Registrar, Susan Grady. At the beginning, those two fine professionals were my only curatorial staff; with Anthony Blazys as Chief Preparator. Tony was indispensable; a Lithuanian with wavy hair, scruffy appearance, white gloves and heavy accent. Always, in the worst of crisis, he would shrug and say, “Don’t worry, it’ll be alright”; and it always was! Unlike the past, the shows were installed, lit and labeled on time; if there was a catalog that was ready for the opening.
To present exhibitions, I relied on my eye as an artist and my past experience. As a student, I had worked one summer at the National Museum of Wales. I became aware of what occurred behind the scenes. I was involved in the preparation of a juried show; handling work for viewing by the jurors; and assisting with the installation. Later, I was presenting exhibitions as part of my responsibilities as a teacher and lecturer. At Leeds College of Art, I became responsible for the gallery. As director of the gallery, I put on exhibitions; the most notable being a show of work by faculty titled “Past and Present”. For this exhibition, I selected a work from the faculty member’s student days in juxtaposition with a current work. With little money and some ingenuity, the exhibition became of great interest and was most informative, particularly for our students. During those years in the UK, I wrote art criticism for national publications and was very aware of contemporary art in galleries and museums. My past experience served me well. Due to the recent upheavals, the Corcoran was in dire straits with enormous challenges facing me; a fledgling and young museum director.
Robert Stackhouse: "Sleeping King Ascending" 1973 installation, upper atrium bridge, Corcoran Gallery of Art.
Obviously, I knew the artists of the community and could rely upon them as a source of exhibitions. Many were faculty members and were pleased to show their work; Ed McGowin; Bill Christenberry; Eric Rudd; Leon Berkowitz; Tom Green; Frank DiPerna; Mark Power; Robert Stackhouse; and Elliott Thompson. In addition, I brought the British artists Trevor Bell and Michael Tyzack; both of whom were teaching in the US. With the help of dealers, I was able to present to work of Hans Hoffman; Sonia Delaunay; Stanley William Hayter; Paul Jenkins; Robert Morris; Louise Nevelson; Ansell Adams; Milton Avery; Man Ray; Jules Olitski; Lee Krasner; Hans Namuth; Patrick Ireland; and many other artists in one person and group shows.
Dealers are always willing to be most cooperative with museums. Showing their artists is advantageous in every way; a museum exhibition improves and increases the prestige, provenance and price of the artists’ work. Often, for the cost of transportation, in many cases covered by the dealer, the work of a major artist was brought to the Corcoran. Naturally, in this gray area, there is sensitivity to possible conflict of interest between for profit galleries and non profit museums. Another sensitive issue was that of showing work from collectors. In any community, collections of art exist in private hands and are an ongoing resource when presenting exhibitions. Again, showing the work in a museum increases its value and worth. Museums have become extremely careful over the issues of commercial conflicts and dubious gifts. I will not go into this further, except to say that dealers and collectors were in invaluable resource during my tenure. To bring these artists and work to the museum meant that more people could view the work.
Mention must be made of the difference in attitude that I experienced in visiting art galleries. As a young student, I would go to London to visit museum and galleries. Walking in to a posh and plush art gallery, I felt so scruffy and unwelcome. The gallery assistants would look down their noses, regarding the struggling artist with distain. Manhattan and Soho were more welcoming and, of course, a dramatic change occurred when I became a museum director. In those years, indeed to this day, I realized how highly respected and widely known was the Corcoran. When told that I was director, people seem in awe and in reverent tones say, “Oh, THE Corcoran”! With dealers and their minions, such respect became obvious as I was welcomed warmly. Ushered in to the back room or office, I was offered coffee or sherry or whatever, as I looked at works of art brought forward for my viewing pleasure. Dealers were most gracious and cooperative; willing to work together for our mutual benefit. Dealers would have the advantage of showing their artists in a major museum whereas I had access to outstanding works of contemporary American art. Over the years, I made friendships that lasted through my years at the Corcoran and then Cranbrook, always of mutual benefit. Among the dealers that I knew in Manhattan were Leo Castelli; Andre Emmerich; Nancy Hoffman; Paula Cooper; Charlie Cowles. Once viewing had occurred and decisions made, a phone call would suffice to borrow work for show. With even more immediate access, in DC, I worked with Henri; Nesta Dorrance: Ramon Osuna; and Harry Lunn. As usual, there is a tale to be told of each of these fine dealers; suffice to say, they were an invaluable resource and good friends to the Corcoran and its director.
Over the years, the Corcoran had organized exhibitions of local artists. In 1974, seven years after the last show, called the Area Exhibition, artists invited to submit work for a juried show. The response was overwhelming with over 3,000 works submitted from an area within 100 miles of the gallery. Handling the staggering volume of work was done through the dedication of the gallery staff; particularly Richard Boardman, my Special Assistant, on loan for one year from the United States Information Agency. As with most of these reminisces, much more could be written on Richard; for the moment, suffice to say, his patience and efforts Iwere crucial to the organization of the show. James Pilgrim, Deputy Director for Curatorial Affairs at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, was the sole juror. The former Chief Curator of the Corcoran, Jim had the ability, experience and knowledge to deal with this awesome task. Jim wrote. “I was stunned by the number of works submitted to the Area Exhibition and impressed by the diversity of sensibility and interest they represented”. From the 3,389 entries, he selected 57 paintings; 33 drawings; 35 prints; and 31 sculptures. For a museum to fairly represent and encourage local artists is an ongoing challenge; that was the intent and hope with the Nineteenth Area Exhibition.
Another issue was that women artists and minorities had been neglected. No women artists were included in the 1970 Biennial by Walter Hopps; resulting in a protest by feminists on the steps of the Corcoran. Their outrage was justified as many women had emerged as major artists and innovators within contemporary art. I made every effort to address this issue, not only through my exhibitions but with staff appointments. Among the exhibitions that were presented were one person shows of Joan Thorne; Enid Sandford; Pat Steir; Sheila Isham, Anne Truitt; Elleanor Dickinson; Joyce Tenneson Cohen; Jennie Lee Knight; Alma Thomas; and Helen Frankenthaler. At the time of the Bicentennial, Mimi Herbert created huge Bicentennial flags for the exterior and interior of the Corcoran.
Naturally, dealing with the community meant dealing with minorities: the Afro-American community which was the majority in the District of Columbia. In Anacostia there was a fine program encouraging arts in the community; outstanding artists lived and worked within the city. Sam Gilliam; Ed Love; Lou Stovall; Alma Thomas; and Franklin White were among the artists who had exhibitions of their work at the Corcoran during my tenure. Recently, I saw Sam Gilliam in Tampa and we reminisced about the old days. Sam and I were teaching in the Saturday program at the Corcoran; we needed the money! We became good friends, being the same age and both abstract painters; Sam was, and is, one of the best painters that I have known. Sam and I came from such different backgrounds; I was a Blitz kid while he came from Mississippi. We had both suffered but in different ways, yet we had endured and overcome hardship and hatred. Sam and I shared not only a passion for painting but also for the Washington Redskins. Our friends, including Ben Forgey and Bill Christenberry, were also ‘Skins fan; many an argument and story came from watching the ‘Skins games together on TV. On a more serious note, I did exhibit Sam Gilliam’s work both at Corcoran and Cranbrook; on of the most notable occasions was at the Biennial.
Among the endless exhibitions, there are many memories. I was most proud of the 34th Biennial of Contemporary American Painting, presented early in 1975.
I was responsible for the selection of artists, the work, installation and catalog (LCC#75-615). In the introduction, I wrote: “The 34th biennial includes both individual work by modern American masters who have exhibited in past Biennials and work by artists who represent the diverse or new directions of painting today. 50 artists were invited to exhibit. Half these artists have exhibited in Biennials during the past decades. The names include some of the best-known American painters and confirm and celebrate the importance and achievements of past Biennials. The artists were invited to show one recent work, reflecting current developments in their painting.”
“At the same time some of the artists who had not previously exhibited in a Corcoran Biennial were invited to exhibit work relevant and unique to the Corcoran. The exhibition presents paintings which break away from the stretched canvas and deal with other potentials of painting, work that is done directly on the wall or is hanging free from the wall. Several of the artists created new the work specifically for the Corcoran environment. These special environmental works, and indeed the entire presentation of paintings in juxtaposition, will exist only at this time.”
“The decision to invite each selected artist to exhibit one major work was a departure from previous years, in which a smaller number of artists were represented by a greater number of paintings. Taking only one work from each artist, the exhibition allows more artists the opportunity of exposure. In the previous three Biennials, the jury system was not used. The selection was that of the director. The 34th biennial continues that principle. The Biennial then serves many purposes, not only being a celebration American painting, but also confirming the commitment of the Corcoran to modern art and the importance of Washington as a major center for art…The Corcoran Biennial exhibitions have presented some of the best of American painting for nearly 70 years. The Biennials as a whole form a fascinating history of American painting.”
I concluded my introduction by stating that: “No attempt has been made to define painting but rather an attempt has been made to delight in painting. Neither the essay nor the exhibition is intended to be a definitive statement on painting or an attempt to form opinion or distort history. The Biennial is a personal presentation, by a painter, of aspects and attitudes are painting. The 34th Biennial should indeed confirm and celebrate the integrity and vigor of American painting today.”
The exhibition was well received by critics but my introductory essay was not; my writings were considered, and are, too personal and rambling. However, the exhibition remains as a testimony to American painting of that day. Jennifer Barlett presented 78 units each 12 x 12 inches in enamel: “Painting and Drawing 1974”. Interestingly, a larger vision of this work, from 1974, was shown last year (2007) at the Museum of Modern Art. Women artists included Grace Hartigan; Marilyn Lenkowsky; Joan Mitchell; Dorothea Rockburne; Joan Snyder; and Helen Frankenthaler. Other artists of note were Richard Diebenkorn; Robert Motherwell; Ken Noland; Philip Pearlstein; Larry Poons; Frank Stella; Andy Warhol; and Tom Wesselman. The catalog cover was designed by Robert Indiana.
Large works dominated the show; Chuck Close presented the large 9’ x 7’, portrait “Richard 1974-75”. Paul Sarkasian’s canvas was 17’ x 24’; a life size rendering of a store front. The young Alan Shields presented a work of canvas, rope, beads, concrete and acrylic which measured 9' x 20' x 16', covering the upper atrium bridge. The work could be walked through and was a three dimensional painting. Another artist creating colorful works that were between painting and sculpture was Robert Hudson from California. John Walker created a drawing on the wall of the gallery for his Corcoran debut. As a friend and fellow artist from the UK, John gave me the idea of asking some artists to create works specifically for the Corcoran. The California artist, Ed Moses, did that with “Rack 1975”, 20’ x 18’, a dry wall, wood scaffold and asphalt construction. The massive installation by Sam Gilliam of his hanging canvases “Three Panels for Mr. Robeson 1975” filled an entire gallery. The largest work was by the Washington artist, Gene Davis, who painted the rotunda in his famed stripes. The work, titled “The Magic Circle 1975”, was painted on the two circular walls of the rotunda, each 59 feet by 14 feet. American painting certainly was alive and well through the work of these artists; and, despite the naysayers and video voyeurs, remains so to this day.
Gene Davis "The Magic Circle" 1975 Corcoran Biennial.
Bicentennial 1976
Mimi Herbert 1976.
Mimi Herbert "Bicentennial Flag" 1976. Above: Corcoran exterior facade. Below: Corcoran grand staircase.
During the Bicentennial, the exhibition and catalog (LCC#76-457) “Corcoran” was presented to honor the founder W. W. Corcoran. During that year, the exhibition “The Corcoran & Washington Art” was presented, along with a catalog (LCC#76-42098). Both exhibitions were favorites of mine, as were the catalogs, for they dealt with art of the past and present; reconfirming the intent of the founder. To show the work of Washington artists, my friends and colleagues, was particularly gratifying. The work by Washington artists reflected all media; sculpture, drawing, prints, photography, mixed media, installation and site specific work. In the catalog, I conclude: “…in many different ways, the Corcoran will continue its vital role within the community, for there will always be room at the Gallery for Washington Art’. Over thirty years later, I trust that this statement rings true?
Photography had come to play an increasing role in both the gallery and school; a new darkroom and studio had been installed when I became Dean. Within the gallery, Walter Hopps was also supportive of photographers; a commitment that I furthered with major exhibitions of Ansell Adams and Walker Evans. Jane Livingston became Chief Curator in 1973. She is photographed with me on the catalog cover of “The Corcoran & Washington Art”, as are Frances Fralin and Susan Grady. For the Bicentennial, Jane Livingston organized, with Frances Fralin, a series of exhibitions, “The Nation’s Capital in Photographs, 1976”. Eight eminent photographers were invited to stay and photograph the city and its people. Again, catalogs do exist; the one on Robert Cumming is LCC#76-466. The other photographers were Lewis Baltz; Joe Cameron; Roy DeCavara; Lee Friedlander; John Gossage; Jan Groover; and Anthony Hernandez. Other ’76 exhibits included contemporary landscapes in “Ameica 76”, organized by the Department of the Interior, and “Palladio in America”. With these diverse exhibitions, in 1976, the Corcoran celebrated its influential role and fine achievements in the art and culture of our nation.
The financial well being of any museum is vital to its operation and well being. Not only must funds be raised but finances managed wisely. When I took over the Corcoran in November1972, the deficits were increasing and the small endowment was eroding. In the fiscal year ending the previous August, the gallery deficit was $265,323; four years later, August 1976, the gallery deficit had been reduced to $3,096. The school operated with a small excess during those years. The endowment remained at three million dollars; amongst the challenges facing the Corcoran was increasing the endowment; climate control; building maintenance and the endless problems faced by many museums. Nevertheless, finances were stabilized; the exhibition program sustained; acquisitions and gifts enriched the collection; staff morale and the reputation of the Corcoran were restored.
Years later, my wife Agnes and I were visiting the National Gallery of Art; I saw my former board chairman, David Lloyd Kreeger. He was with a friend to whom he introduced me warmly, saying, “This is Roy Slade, the man who saved the Corcoran.” No accolade or praise could mean more to me than those few words that I cherish to this day.
(03/03/08)