FOCUS
ON VISUAL ARTS
HARVARD UNIVERSITY ART MUSEUMS
The Totality of Art History in a Museum: A Conversation with Thomas W. Lentz, Director of the Harvard University Art Museums
Thomas W. Lentz became the Elizabeth and John Moors Cabot Director of the Harvard University Art Museums [HUAM] in November 2003. He was previously the Director of International Art Museums at the Smithsonian Institution. A 1985 graduate of Harvard’s doctoral program in fine arts, Lentz is an expert in Persian painting. OFA Director of Programs Cathleen McCormick asked for his thoughts on HUAM and visual education at Harvard.
What attracted you to pursue the directorship of a teaching museum?
Given the historical contributions of the Harvard University Arts Museums
to the development of art history and museums in the United States, this
position is highly desirable. It may not always be readily apparent within
the context of a complex like Harvard, with its many constituencies, but
the impact and relevance of the Art Museums is clear to many people, both
nationally and internationally. The Fogg [the first of the museums] was
responsible in many ways for elevating and formalizing the study of art
history in this country, and played an instrumental role in establishing
that discipline as a serious field of academic inquiry. When you combine
the Fogg and its collections along with our ancient, Islamic, and Asian
collections at the Sackler Museum, the Germanic culture collections
at the Busch-Reisinger Museum, our Straus Center for Conservation, Center for
the Technical Study of Modern Art, and Archaeological Exploration of Sardis [Turkey],
we have a resource of world importance. Many leading art historians, curators,
conservators, critics, and directors have passed through this institution, and
we are allied and work closely with the Department of History of Art and Architecture,
one of the most important and dynamic in this country. This is an extraordinary
resource, for both Harvard and the Cambridge community.
Do you expect that HUAM will require a different leadership style than
the Smithsonian?
The Smithsonian experience was valuable, but I wanted to return to the
things I know and love best: objects and ideas. There is probably no
other museum in
the world that deals with the number and range of issues that the Smithsonian
does—across art, history and science—and I learned some valuable
lessons there about how institutions must change to remain true to their mission
and to their core values. That may
sound contradictory, but in my experience it’s true. HUAM is not the Smithsonian,
the Ashmolean or the Met, but the challenges here will be both eerily similar
and fundamentally different. Some will be physical—we
clearly need to upgrade our infrastructure—others will be intellectual,
such as what does education in the visual arts mean today in a university context.
Art museums are now complex and demanding undertakings, and given the deep and
far-reaching resources and capabilities of Harvard, cross-disciplinary and collaborative
ventures seem natural and instinctive as we move forward.
What do you think are the best methods for an undergraduate to learn
art history
and prepare for museum practice?
This question was debated when I was an undergraduate and will be debated long
into the future—as it should be. The Fogg, for example, was originally
conceived in the 1920s as a kind of laboratory for the visual arts. It took into
account “new” and more rigorous notions of art history then being
advocated in Europe: that learning and research in the visual arts are best furthered
by the interactive study of works of art, techniques, and texts in a single unified
space (as opposed to the literary, moral and “gentlemanly” orientation
practiced in this country). That idea is still enshrined here and is a virtual
mantra. At the same time, there has been a fundamental shift in learning and
perception ushered in by digital technologies, as well as a greater expansion
in the scope
of art historical study, and the Art Museums at Harvard need to adjust accordingly.
What current issue in art history or museum studies strikes you as particularly
important or urgent?
I’m not sure there’s one single defining issue, but I have always
been deeply interested in how museums present the history of art, especially
those in a university where teaching is a central component of the mission. Since
my thinking and experience lies mainly in non-Western art, my focus in part will
be on issues of representation, balance, and a deeper explanation of
the totality of art history in a museum setting. We sometimes forget that art—in
theory, practice or historical terms—is not easily channeled into neat
compartments, that visual ideas and forms have always historically blurred and
morphed under their own particular dynamics, regardless of time or place of origin.
If we are to be the kind of academic and research museum we aspire to, we need
to ensure that the entire history of art is made accessible for interpretation.
However, I would hate to see that direction be interpreted as some form of political
correctness; I see it instead as more akin to full disclosure, as part of the
aesthetic and historical record of artistic production.
How did you first get interested in art history? In Islamic art?
I made several feints and starts—anthropology, political science,
literature—before
finally settling on a field that seemed to embrace all those interests as well
as things I’d never understood or considered. Art history, as a kind of
visual nexus of virtually everything, seemed right. I think I’ve always
been visually oriented, but it was a trip I took to Egypt and Turkey after dropping
out of college in the early 1970s that opened
my eyes to Islamic art. I had studied art history to some extent, but the Islamic
world was hardly part of that education. All of a sudden an entire new world
opened up: whole histories, geographies, languages, topographies, peoples and
visual traditions and cultures that I had never known or imagined. While it is
far from my only interest, the Islamic world and its visual traditions completely
turned my ideas upside down about visual representation and artistic
expression. So whether Islamic art, Chola bronzes from South India, Chinese calligraphy
or Yoruba sculpture, my inclinations have been toward the possibilities that
non-Western art present. If I can be blunt, Americans—and I include myself—have
a huge amount to learn about the rest of the world. I can think of few avenues
more effective than the visual arts for becoming aware of the differences and
commonalities that have constituted life around the globe.
Given that the art museums and the Carpenter Center/VES are next-door
neighbors,
and directly intersect with HUAM’s Sert Gallery in the Carpenter Center,
do you see opportunities that are unique to Harvard?
Even though many people perceive a kind of Manichean split between scholarship
and practice in our missions, we share a deep and abiding interest in the ways
that visual history, practice and theory can help us understand the world and
our place in it. I’ve probably made that sound a bit quaint to some ears,
but I think that a visual path, particularly one that is critical in nature,
represents a vital element in educating the next generation.
