The NY Times review today of the 2010 Whitney Biennial features a photo of the Thomas Houseago work “Baby.” Nice to see it in it’s NYC resting place. For awhile there, we had our doubts.

As one of the packing & crating suppliers for the Biennial, FINE ART SHIPPING had the challenge of figuring out how to deal with this artwork, which was originating at the artist’s studio here in Los Angeles.

Among the challenges:

• too big to fit in our local trucks
• too large for normal handling via the Whitney elevators
• a piece that was both delicate AND heavy
• and most fun of all, changing dimensions as the artist continued to work on the piece

After much back and forth with the studio and the Whitney curators, it was decided to prebuild a slat crate structure for the piece, rather than fabricate a full museum standard crate. The slat or “skeleton” crate would save crucial inches off the height and width, and every whisker of an inch counted.

OK, so we will deliver the prebuilt crate to the studio, and pack the work there and then…but wait. Once crated it turns out the packed crate will be too large to exit out of the studio doorway. And if packed outside, it won’t fit back in. “Baby” can’t be left in the street!  More phone calls and emails.

In the end we used the studio lift (thank goodness for their help!) to get the piece into the base of the slat crate, then finished packing the crate outside the studio, on the pavement beyond the studio doors. Luckily, a quiet street. Luckily, not raining. Only a bit of sawing and repositioning of braces was required due to the artist adding a couple of hundred pounds of concrete to the thing since we had last seen it… All in a day’s work. Then on a preplanned “just in time” basis the Whitney’s climate controlled trailer, with larger clearances than our local trucks, stopped by and we loaded “Baby” into the trailer. Very carefully.

In the best possible way, we were happy to see him go. That’s one big baby.

Betsy Dorfman

A recent Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/07/AR2009010702804.html?referrer=emailarticle) notes that the coat President Lincoln was wearing when shot by actor John Wilkes Booth has been deemed too delicate to be placed on public display at historic Ford’s theater. So the public will get to see a “replica”, aka a fake, instead. With or without ersatz presidential bloodstains. However for a few special occasions each year the embroidered coat will be brought out from storage and exposed to the, apparently highly damaging, gaze of the great unwashed.

On the surface this seems to make sense, given that textile experts have expressed concern over the deteriorating condition of the garment over time. I am not a textile expert but common sense suggests that it is in the nature of textiles to degrade. Hence, lint. But then comes this sentence: “But some textile conservators expressed concern, saying the coat was too old, too fragile and too famous for long-term display.” Really? In what way does being famous degrade an object? And even in storage the coat is still going to be old, and fragile, and valuable, these factors not being reversible.

There is just too much here in fact that does not make sense. First, current climate control technologies can protect all sort of objects from environmental insults, including light and atmospheric conditions. Museums do this all the time. In essence, the same conditions that will protect the item in storage can protect it while on public view. This has been done with rarities including, not far away, the U.S. Constitution which is on display at the National Archives in Washington DC. So the too delicate etc. argument is hooey.

Next comes the delicious part about bringing the bloodstained coat out of storage and putting it on display for special occasions such as the anniversary of Lincoln’s death. Again, really? Anyone in the fine art handling and shipping world, and all insurers of such commodities, can attest to the fact that objects are at increased risk each time they are moved and handled. Insurers correctly charge more to cover items in transit over items in stable storage. So in order to preserve the coat they are NOT going to house it in a permanent and stable display environment, they are going to pack and unpack it several times a year, schlep it to and fro from wherever and put it up on view for a day or a few days under conditions that are not going to be ideal.

The Theater is spending $50 million on a renovation which, when completed, will include a new gift shop but will not include a proper installation for climate controlled and secure display of arguably the single most historic artifact in their possession. And the one which, presumably, would draw the highest number of visitors to shop in the….you get the point.

For $50 million I suggest they take the whole theater apart and put it into storage for safekeeping. My company will be the first to offer space in our climate controlled warehouse to accommodate the pieces. Each piece will be numbered and the theater can be reassembled in the future when an enlightened public has reclaimed its history from the curators.

Betsy Dorfman