I can hardly begin to express how disappointed I am about the cancellation of plans for a Wesleyan museum (“Art sits in vault after Museum scrapped,” Feb. 29, vol. CXLIII, no. 33). Wesleyan is incredibly lucky to have remarkable collections of prints, photographs, rare books, instruments, East Asian art, and archaeological objects, all of which go largely unseen. As an art history student, I have been lucky enough to have contact with the collections at the Davison Art Center and the Center for East Asian Studies, but this contact has also made me acutely aware of how desperately Wesleyan needs a space in which to display, work with, and store our collections. Even if extensive renovation is done to buildings such as the DAC, the fact remains that the university is only reinforcing a building that is not meant to be a museum-quality exhibition and storage space. We need a museum to keep our cultural holdings safe and to share them with the student body, the community, and visitors. With a museum we could share our collections with community members, and welcome local school groups to view art and historical objects pertinent to their studies. We could even show off to potential students and their families; after all, names like Rembrandt and Picasso mean as much to some people as Dar Williams, Bill Belichick, Joss Whedon, or Michael Bay might to others. And of course a museum would be a huge boon to Wesleyan’s students — both those who use the collections for class and those who would simply be able to enjoy more of Wesleyan’s collections.
I believe President Michael Roth to be profoundly incorrect in asserting that a Wesleyan museum is not necessary because “important art” would only be given to established museums. As of now, a piece of art or historical object which arrives at the University collections will not necessarily be on view, or secure from damage caused by climate control issues. This cannot be an encouragement to potential donors. It is also why the Davison Art Center can only display objects from its own collection — a serious disadvantage when most museum-quality exhibitions draw their objects from multiple collections. The building of a Wesleyan museum would therefore allow Wesleyan to display works of art from other collections, and it would encourage donations by alumni and the many artists who have been connected to the university over the years. Not only that, but Roth’s statement does not take into account that the university already owns a great deal of pieces which are “important,” whether because of their creators or because of their fine quality. We cannot let these objects languish in overcrowded, outdated storage carved from basements, closets, and old science labs; we cannot keep displaying them in spaces which are not up to museum standards of climate control; we cannot let them go unnoticed by the students, the community, and, apparently, the administration. We need a new museum. Unless an equally suitable plan for improving the current exhibition and storage situation is put forward and implemented, the University will have, at least in my eyes, chosen to ignore the cultural and historical bounty which out collections contain, failing the departments, the students, and anyone who might have visited the museum.
Leave a Reply