Fred Klonsky’s PREA Prez Blog

Chicago Art Institute Director and President, James Cuno.

There was a big feature story about the head of the Art Institute of Chicago in the Sunday NY Times Arts section. James (you can call him “Jim”) Cuno has been at the AIC since he replaced James Wood in 2004.

The Times goes all gooey over Cuno, describing how he carried his own stuff into his office when he got hired. A real man of the people.

It was an early sign that Mr. Cuno, who goes by Jim and not James, would be a down-to-earth, hands-on leader, one with a deep commitment to recent art-historical scholarship.

Clearly, the Times is part of the campaign to have Cuno replace Phillipe de Montebello as head of the Metropolitan Museum of Art when Montebello retires soon.

Cuno’s main claim to fame has been his ability to raise several hundred million dollars to pay for and maintain the new modern and contemporary wing of the AIC, designed by celebrity architect, Renzo Piano. The building will open in a year.

The Renzo Piano building is typical of what has become a modern urban requirement for tourism: something by Frank Gehry (Chicago has the Pritzker Pavilion at Millennium Park), something by Santiago Calatrava (Chicago is getting a huge residential twisting needle on the lake front) and something by Renzo Piano.

But the thing that is striking was Cuno’s attitude about the issue of national rights to historic art and antiquities. American art museums and collectors have recently been busted for stealing the national artistic treasures of both European and Third World countries. While the practice is centuries old, it is only recently that other countries are reasserting their rights, reclaiming their property and so reclaiming their history

I have written before about the shameful story of Yale and their agent, Hiram Bingham, in stealing Peruvian antiquities from Macchu Pichu.

What does James “Jim” Cuno have to say about this? According to the Times:

Mr. Cuno contends that “the accident of geography” should not give nations exclusive claims on archaeological material that happens to be found within their borders. He asserts that a country’s cultural patrimony policies reflect its political or diplomatic agenda more than a commitment to preserving culture. And he argues for the revival of partage, a practice in which museums or universities aid the excavation of an archaeological site in another country in exchange for some of the artifacts.

“People will assume my argument in favor of partage is a thinly disguised argument for imperialism,” he said. “But partage helped to create not just the university museums and encyclopedic museums in this country, but also museums locally on site — like the national museums of Afghanistan and Iraq.”

An “accident of geography?” I guess I am one of those who think his is a thinly disguised argument for imperialism.

Much like George Bush, who believes national political sovereignty is just an accident of geography, Cuno believes a nation’s cultural sovereignty is just an accident of geography.

Reports the Times:

He glanced around his office at the Art Institute. “To put it simply, this place is a fit,” he said. “I believe I have a personality that is Midwestern.”

Hmmm. I don’t think so.