Farewell Ferragamos, Pensees about Prada

EDIT: In a twist, the day after the story of their destruction, the Philippine government issued a statement that the clothes were of no historical value except for some Philippine-designed gowns.  I find this interesting as a statement of political theatre--the left-behind excesses went on display as a statement of that abuse of power and the ruins of those excesses are dismissed to cover the larger problem of state underfunding of museums and disrepair of facilities.

There was a story today about the decay of Imelda Marcos' shoes and clothing in the National Museum in Manila. 

So much of this interests me:
I remember Imelda Marcos as beautiful and her husband's dictatorship in the Philippines as cruel and corrupt.  I remember the shopping trips of the 1980s as she came to America and bought her way across Manhattan.  I remember the People Power Revolution of Corazon Aquino.  And of course, I find her worming her way back into politics in 2010 House elections incomprehensible.

The culture of shoes is one that I stand (hee hee) on the outside of.  Part of me is the sturdy practical shoes that don't hurt my feet; part of me wishes Birkenstocks came with sparkly bows.  I cannot comprehend the fashion because I get stuck on how much my feet would hurt and how clumsy I would be.  I love that there is such a focus on footwear though as an aspect of our cultural and personal expression.

The issues of collection (not acquisition) are also interesting to me.  On the things abandoned: "Also listed were 508 floor- length gowns, 888 handbags and 71 pairs of sunglasses. The final tally on Imelda's shoes was 1,060 pairs, less than the 3,000 originally reported."  (1987; You can't read more unless you're a Time subscriber.)  Putting much of the collection on display was politically important for Aquino and they were taken down when Aquino stepped down in 1992, symbolic of moving on from the immediate politics of rescue.  The museum still has 765 pairs that are on display, part of maintaining that history of the Philippines dictatorship for national memory.  But the bulk of the collection was moved in 2010 when the Manila's National Museum had problems with termites, humidity and mold in the palace where they were kept.  Facilities are a major issue for museums: how much can you keep on display?  how much can you afford to store?  how much does it cost in terms of labor, effort, and time to move from storage to display to storage?  When museums take on objects that they cannot support in their facilities (storing or displaying them off site) the issues are multiplied: what does security look like? transport? daily care?

The issues of conservation are fascinating.  Shoes aren't necessarily made of leather any more.  Plastics and polyurethanes have really different problems as they begin to degrade: they discolor, crack and break as they lose flexibility, even turning completely to powder.  (See the Getty site for a good overview).  Barbie dolls (and shoes sometimes) use PVC (polyvinyl chloride) and this becomes sticky over time, attracting oil and dirt in a way that can be stabilized but not reversed.  Some mold can be removed; some can't.  The water damage here was extensive.  So it leads to questions of "what do you save? what do you toss?"  

How do you balance historical value against collection and conservation issues?  How do you sell history? (could/should the Philippine government legally have sold anything they weren't displaying? would opinion have allowed it?  would the pittance they would have made have offset the expenses of preparing them for sale and shipping etc.?  would it not have been unethical to sell collections for any other reason than for buying new collections?)

Just some thoughts.

Museums and Missions: IAE at WKU

Tony Hawk, skateboard

It's an interesting idea: collect and exhibit ordinary objects that have been used to do extraordinary things.  That's the idea behind the collection at Western Kentucky University's museum exhibit, Instruments of American Excellence.  They've got Sandra Day O'Connor's bound copy of the Constitution from her chambers, Jimmy Carter's hammer from Habitat for Humanity projects, Liza Minelli's shoes from "The Act" (1977-8) for which she won a Tony.  Among many other things.

I think that it's an interesting idea from a collection standpoint--ordinary objects made interesting by provenance.  Where the object has been and what it has done.  But that doesn't make it any different really than the Smithsonian's collection of things like Julia Child's kitchen or the muppets from Henson studios.

What makes this collection stand out for ME is the idea that it is a college collection.  The idea that it is deliberately aimed at students, trying to decide what it is that they want from their lives and what matters to them.  I think it's amazing to reach these students with a permanent collection based around aspirations and hard work--like Sara Means' ballet slippers, overcoming adversity--material from Temple Grandin's work, opportunity--a studio mic used by Sam Phillips to record Elvis Presley and Johnny Cash, unexpected paths and changes--the hammer that Jimmy Carter used (the idea of his post-presidency being a new direction and an area for recognition that few could have seen in the presidency years).  I hope they find ways to use it well as part of their teaching mission.