Will this go down in history as the first NYT article to feature the phrase"pretty epic" in a non-Homeric context?
One of the best corporate collections I've seen was put up by one responsible for Rodin pieces temporarily placed all around the capital of our president's favorite neighbor, a Mexican many times richer than Trump and a substantial holder of Nytimes stock, C. Slim.
Hahahaaa... hey, too bad for the little people! Corporations rule America to the hilt.
Speaking of which, what happened to Red Baloon Flower, Jeff Koons’ sculpture that sat in front of 7 WTC for some years and was removed last year?
Sharing art is always preferable to the hoarding of art by private collectors that will only be seen by buyers and sellers.
Share the wealth, don't hide it. Everyone will benefit!
1
I once had an interview at Readers Digest, which my manic mother would mock, but their H Q north of NYC had a stunning collection of paintings.There is a whole Chrysler museum in Norfolk but that is more due to an heir than corporate collectors. Calder probably owes his career to corporate collectors.
3
Let's not forget the Manoogian Collection. The Manoogian family invented the single faucet mix ball. They turned much of the company's profit into collecting what was considered the finest private collections of 19th and early 20th century American art. Not only did these paintings adorn the walls of the offices and hallways, but they were also sent on exhibition to museums around the country. The paintings were extraordinary. There were artists represented that hardly anyone had heard of, but the recording of life in America was unparalleled. I had heard rumors that the collection was broken up and sold off, much as was stated in the article. I will always remember many of the paintings.
3
IMHO, there's a BIG difference between companies displaying artworks taken from other places -- often ancient, old, and fragile too -- and works of public art created (relatively recently in many / most cases) specifically for display in a corporate headquarters of gallery. One endangers the artwork for hubris or ego and can also put it at risk.
Such a display is also part of the weird dynamic noted by Tom Wollf (in from Bauhaus to Our House) whereby corporations sited in soulless modern glass-boxes tried to recreate a "traditional" decor inside with 18th c-style wood-paneling, antiques (or faux antiques), and other "historic" artifacts. All part of the image-making really.
Public displays of art date back to antiquity and, later, the Renaissance, for both egotistic, hubristic, and nationalistic motives and also social benevolence and a desire to spread "culture" to the public at the same time. It's a complex, faceted topic.
Generally art of good for the public and it improves our lives and consciousnesses, I think, but it often also subserves the self-serving motives of robber barons and the companies they create and want to flaunt.
6
The illustrations here are all historic and from, indeed, a great time in American corporate architecture. But these collections and corporate investments in art are extremely rare these days.
HQs have shrunk as staff have been moved out to "service centers.
Corporations no longer own their buildings, so investing in site specific and architectural art is not logically supported.
Many corporations now fear that art makes them look opulent (wasteful, too rich, etc), and they've lost the ability to credibly articulate the value of art to work life.
And, since tech startups grown by coders on dorm couches are now the highest capitalized corporations, well...
7
@Jim
Many good points. Corps used to be a part of our US culture more than they are now. Many are really international and more divorced from the people of this country. Their allegiance is to maintaining and growing share prices for themselves first and investors second. They essentially, more and more, seem to exist to nearly suck up money like a giant vacuum where ever in the world they can get it.They are no longer even tied to a specific product or service, but buy and sell these as commodities between them selves world wide. It's pretty scary. I agree investing in art is no longer as logically supported as it was once. Its all about cash flow and not hard assets. It's about capitalizing on the moment and not investing in the future. That is sad.
1
In the 1970s and 1980s many financial district firms had first class collections that many museums would give their eye teeth to have. I am sure there are plenty of other great examples that others can cite, but Neuberger Berman's stood out to me. It was large enough that walking around their offices when they were in 120 Broadway seemed like a visit to a museum. If my memory serves me correctly, often they lent pieces from their collection to major museums and hosted occasional events to show their haul off for good causes.
5
Telling that this article misses the Noguchi sculptures on the outside of the AP building in Rockefeller Plaza.
He lived in, and had a studio in, NYC for most of his life. Picasso, though more famous, never visited the USA. And that Noguchi is far from basic 1930s Art Deco.
No disrespect, but I’ve have to look up who Lee Lawrie was.
Then remember the Philip Morris gallery across 42nd Street from Grand Central; that made it into the Altria corpo era of the company—though the gallery was not a corporate lobby.
Now I had thought most Olmec heads in the USA were casts like the one in the Museum of Natural History in NYC. Imagine what 1960s air/rain pollution did to that one in front of the Seagram Building—even in just 7 weeks’ time.
Why no mention of the fact that PepsiCo (Pepsi) maintains a huge sculpture garden in Purchase New York a short distance north of NYC in 2019? PepsiCo is in the first paragraph and the implication of this article is that most of those companies no longer have corporate art collections.
https://www.pepsico dot com/sculpture-gardens
Submitted July 19th 4:45 PM
5
@Yaj I've been to the Donald Kendall Pepsi Garden many times-- it's wonderful! A great setting, great art, relaxing pond, what's not to like!
4
@follow the money:
I only just looked at the Pepisco website devoted to that garden yesterday, so as to confirm Pepsi (of all companies) still has a big art collection.
Never been there. I've been to Storm King on the other side of the Hudson--it's excellent.
In college I had a job cleaning the Executive offices at the Upjohn pharmaceutical company in Kalamazoo, Michigan (a thoughtfully designed building by Bruce Graham) which also housed dozens of original Norman Rockwell paintings. I never told my boss, but I probably would've emptied the garbage cans for free simply for the privilege of walking around those halls admiring the architecture and paintings late at night. The building has unfortunately been demolished but I've always wondered were the paintings went.
5
@Joe Uhl - Alas, I just found the answer to my question. Apparently, Pfizer after acquiring Upjohn sold the Rockwell paintings at auction...It figures, Kalamazoo lost its jobs and its artwork!
6
Surprised to see a mention of the GE art collection in the tunnel between the old two corporate buildings in Fairfield. Managed as a profit making venture if I remember correctly.
5
I always wondered what happened to the Chihuly collection (many huge pieces from the 1990's), and the dozens of other pieces that graced the world headquarters of MCI at 1801 Pennsylvania Ave, DC. prior to the bankruptcy. They had wall plaques saying that the collection would be given to the Renwick Gallery at some point, or maybe the plaques said the pieces belonged to the Renwick and were at MCI CHQ for a while. I've forgotten. The Renwick sent a curator over every two months to clean, dust, and inspect every piece.
5
Reviews pro and con, like much else in our lives these days. While it is great that corps invest and show art. When I was young I had a service job in NYC and got to see more great art than I had ever seen before. This lead me to "discover" art as a real enhancer to my life. So I am glad it was and is there. Go to Pepsi Headquarters and see for your selves.
The flip side is that we ALSO have to hold corps accountable to maintain balance between inspiration and what it should inspire. But let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need art and we need good social motives.
9
Regardless of the motives, it is wonderful and commendable that these corporations share these treasures for the general public to see and experience the beauty that they wouldn't otherwise be able to know of or appreciate.
15
@Felipe
Right. If you've got a pass and can get past the armed guards.
Corporate criminals have always tried to buy "respectability." It doesn't work any more. They have rewritten the IRS Tax Code to their benefit. They remind me of John D. Rockefeller handing out dimes to bedraggled children.
They're all gangsters in tuxedos.
11
@george eliot
Of course security has gotten more intense and obviously necessary. Get used to it, we now live in a much more dangerous world. I am still glad we continue to even have access to places like Pepsico.
Back in the late 70's and 1980's I could walk through corp offices to see artworks in lobbies and even small dedicated galleries across Manhattan and not be looked at twice, now I don't think so.
It is not a good state of affairs. while I agree after the 1980's corps got more greedy as a new generation came in and for many other reasons. While we do need to turn that around we need to work at it. As mentioned many, but not all, of these collections were a result of inspired CEO's and not just PR departments.
It's not the fault of the good guys nor of the art. Life is a bit more nuanced than that. It is the fault of the bad guys. There will always be that struggle.
1
Displaying cultural art in these settings stings of tokenism to me.
6
Corporations evade tax responsibility, try to wiggle out of paying pensions and benefits and generally shaft its low-wage employees.
But somehow, plenty of money for expensive corporate buildings and offices designed by "starchitects" which are full of expensive art and furnishings.
Corporate con
15
@SLM:
In to the 1970s it was generally expected that big successful US corporations were to pay their taxes without argument and pay all full time workers a living wage with things like medical, a small pension, sick leave, and real vacation time.
Only in the late 1970s and 1980s did the idea of Milton Friedman (published first in the NY Times circa 1970) that corporations only duty is to make a profit for owners start to be "taught" as established "fact" in US business schools.
Submitted July 19th 4:54 PM eastern
10