Tags
art history, collections, historic house museums, museum collections, museum practice, personal, philosophy
We’re taking a brief break from this week’s nightlife programming to bring you this special report. Regular snark resumes with the next post.
It’s not a secret that I work in a museum. I operate in a world of objects that cannot be touched, sat upon, slept in, worn– you get the idea. Well, sometimes things that I believe belong in a museum don’t end up in one. Sometimes beautiful objects with great stories and deep resonance with the museum I think they belong in don’t make it there. Sometimes museum professionals take phone calls from irate family members who are incensed that you’re even talking to someone in the family about how to organize their materials. Sometimes objects do make it, but then, before the paperwork is executed, the gift is rescinded. People get weird about stuff.
Sometimes they get weird about stuff because of what it’s worth. Eleven years ago, a family chose not to fight over objects, but instead sold their family furniture. They grossed nearly $13 million. Thirteen Million Dollars: Enough for a baker’s dozen of Dr. Evils. With chairs that sell for $204,000 (Sale 8278, lot 586), it’s no wonder people get weird about stuff because of money.
Lot 586. It’s a pity the catalog is no longer available online, but even Sotheby’s has to conserve server space. It was a beautiful chair: a 1763 upholstered easy chair– upholstered by Plunket Fleeson of Philadelphia.* I pored over that catalog page in the Important Americana sale catalog. It would have come in just before Christmas, or just after, slick clay-coated pages printed with fine ink. When the auction catalogs arrive at work, we stand in the kitchen-mail room and bury our noses deep in the gutter: smells like money.**

Staircase Group (Portrait of Raphaelle Peale and Titian Ramsay Peale I)
Charles Willson Peale. Philadelphia Museum of Art, E1945-1-1
I wanted that chair, Lot 586, that walnut easy chair made in Philadelphia. Wrong town, you say? Mais non, Philadelphia was the place to buy fancy goods– especially upholstered goods– in the 18th century. Providence merchants were trading with Philadelphia, the town that set the style for the colonies.*** It was sophisticated, urbane, refined. So, when Sarah Brown was pregnant with their first child, John Brown sent to Philadelphia for an easy chair. It would be the best.
He’d already ordered a tea table and roundabout chairs from Newport at the time of his marriage in 1760. These objects were about more than function: they were signifiers of taste and sensibility as much as wealth. So, as the time came closer for Sarah’s confinement, John Brown became increasingly agitated with Plunket Fleeson, who was delaying the delivery of the chair. John Brown was concerned for Sarah’s comfort postpartum, and said so in a letter. I can’t quote or link to it, because it’s in private hands, quoted in the catalog entry for lot 586.****
So what about that chair? Well… I got permission from the Authorities (a Board-level committee, with the support of the Executive Director) and we bid on the chair by phone. You know already we were not the winning bid. We were willing to bid a lot– really, a lot of money for us– for this chair.
Why?
Not because it’s worth so much. Not because of Plunket Fleeson, or the quality of the carvings, or the craftsmanship, really.
Because Sarah Brown sat in that chair cradling her son, James Brown, in 1763. She sat in that chair with the children who came after him, the babies who lived, and the babies who died.
Because that chair told a story about a family, about a relationship between a husband and wife, a man and a woman, at its most basic level.
That chair told a story about love.
Even I am a sucker for love.
Love is why people get weird about stuff, about the chairs, the family photos, the workbaskets, heck– the drill presses. We imbue objects with meaning, with memories, that substitute for the people we love when they’re gone. Sometimes it’s a t-shirt that smells of a lover. Sometimes it’s sewing basket used by three generations of women. And sometimes it’s a chair.
In the case of the easy chair, imagining the cradling comfort of the chair and the memories it recalls is simple. In the case of, say, shield back side chairs, the leap is a little harder. But perhaps– just perhaps– arranged around a festively set table, those chairs conjure memories of holiday meals, birthday dinners, graduation parties. Maybe those chairs take you back to the people and times when you felt loved.
Or maybe they’re worth $100,000, and you consign them to auction.
But if you value the story as much as the object, here’s the funny thing: you can keep that memory forever, and share the story with everyone, if you give that object to a museum.*****
When people really love an object and are fighting with their families over who gets to keep the things, I don’t play Solomon. I tell them a story about memory, and preservation, and about endurance. Sometimes I can convince them. Sometimes I can’t.
When I can’t, I tell them I understand, and that my priority– and my institution’s priority– is not things, but people. They can keep their object: we’ll be here when they’re ready. It’s all true, and I do mean it.
But inside, I feel like Indiana Jones, soaking wet on the deck of a pitching ship.
That belongs in a museum.
*If money were no object, I’d buy it for that name alone.
**The quality decreased in 2008, when the financial crisis hit everybody hard, but the paper weight and ink have been creeping back up in quality of late.
***I know, it sounds crazy now, but it was true. At the time of the American Revolution, it was the second largest English speaking city in the world, after London.
****You are correct, sir: I’d like the letter book it’s in, too.
*****Subject to acceptance. Some rules and regulations apply. Leaning is touching. Don’t lick it.
Wow. Working for 30+ years in the museum field (as a curator) myself, I absolutely loved this. Objects tell stories. It’s the way to show people the stories. And if they’re told in the right way, then history transforms from some boring names-and-dates class they had to take in high school to something amazing and real. And all because of objects. What a powerful and profound post!
Dear Kitty Calash,
Your post is one of the most direct and sensible — in both old and new meanings — apologetics for the existence of museums I’ve read. Bravo.
I worked at the Met in NY right after undergrad and wandering the American Wing, gravitated to those objects with a story attached. They were less lonely , and unattached and transient as I was then, leant their meaning to me in an enormous city I found full of anomie.
Today I embroidered, seated in a chair from roughly the same era as Mr. Brown’s, a mahogany pierced splat-back armchair with a period repair on one arm, where someone may have sat on the edge — leaning over whom, maybe? — and cracked the wood. It has a modern repair on a back leg, and it was only for that reason I could afford it. This chair, sans any provenance whatever, talks to me in those repairs and in the squeak it makes when I first sit down.
Embroidering, I thought about women who might have done the same, generation after generation, pulling up to a sunny window, pushing back the curtain for more light, perching their scissors on the sill, and following the sun as they worked, like I did. Maybe they mended, or read, or talked, or wrote, or pushed it into place after dining. As I’ve done with other pieces, I will tuck a scrap of paper into the seat lining, telling where I got it, from whom, and how it lived when it lived with us. Someday someone may find those stories comforting along with the chair’s own open arms.
Very best,
Natalie
I lovethe chair, lot 586. Not the least because its history confirms something I have long suspected about John and Sarah–that there was a good deal more to their relationship than one might guess from a cursory glance at their portraits.
Dear Kirsten,
An extremely eloquent exploration of why objects matter!
I do think that chairs in particular have a kind of special emotional charge–their very form seems to evoke absent occupants.
I wish the RIHS had been able to acquire the John Brown family chair you discussed, and you know my feelings about the sort of family who attacked an historical institution for contemplating a targeted deaccession while merrily auctioning off their own inheritance of historically-significant objects to the highest bidder…
One small quibble, though: your note about Philadelphia being the “second largest” city in the English speaking world unfortunately repeats a canard, albeit a very widely-circulated one. (Somewhere I read a mea culpa of a respected historian of early America for spreading this erroneous factoid; If I could remember where I read it, I’d link to it here!)
The source I consulted just now for Philadelphia’s 1776 population puts it at 34,000 including suburbs. (“Population in the Colonial and Continental Periods,” published by the US census online at http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/00165897ch01.pdf)
For comparison’s sake, Dublin’s 1776 population is estimated to have been at least 150,000 (See J. G. Simms, “Dublin in 1776” Dublin Historical Record 31.1 [Dec., 1977], 2-13.
The English port of Bristol, like its Rhode Island namesake infamous for its slave trading, had 50,000 people by 1750 (James Raven, Publishing Business in Eighteenth Century England, [Boydell, 2014], citing E.A. Wrigley, People Cities and Wealth: the Transformation of Traditional Society [Oxford, 1987].)
Indeed Raven, citing Wrigley, ranks the Bristol of 1750 as the “fourth largest town of the British Isles (after London, Dublin, and Cork)” and British cities continued to grow during the century. So we can see that Philly, with some 34,000 souls 26 years later, was still not even close to being the second largest city in the empire….
A short stint working in a museum here and a long stint fascinated by the people of the past and the objects they left behind, and yes–this resonates on many levels. There is something simultaneously awe-inspiring and so very humble about the beautiful, ordinary pieces that furnished, dressed, served, or cooked the beautiful, ordinary days of a person’s life.
Wonderful post. It’s cool to see Plunket Fleeson’s name come up, he made Washington’s first set of tents.
Pingback: Ceci n’est pas une assiette | Kitty Calash