Sale of Outerbridge Photo Collection Spurs Debate : Dividing the Modernist Collection Is Irresponsible

This response to Cathy Curtis’ Feb. 1 article “Laguna Museum to Sell Outerbridge Collection” is not only intended as a Counterpunch to the Laguna Art Museum’s shocking decision of deaccession--through piecemeal auction sale at Christie’s in New York in April--of one of the finest core holdings of a Modernist’s photographic work in the country, but as a plea for public pressure to persuade museum officials to revoke their decision. In lieu of that possibility, at least plead for them to make their best good-faith, diligent effort to keep the collection intact in the United States. This may be accomplished by either selling or trading it to another public art museum, or allowing time for a benefactor to be sought to underwrite a gift to a museum that expresses interest. The article reports that none of these alternatives was sincerely attempted.

Subsequent articles by Curtis and Christopher Knight revealed that neither the Los Angeles County Museum of Art nor the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego was ever contacted, which if efforts were successful would have kept the collection in Southern California. (Museums cannot bid at auction for entire collections because of the lead time needed to gather funding.)

There are so few core collections of historic Modernist work, in any medium, permanently assembled in the world. The Paul Outerbridge collection of vintage photography is one of these and many of the images are singular pieces.

Museums are the appointed protectors of works of art that come into their permanent collection. Theirs is a public trust. This decision by the Laguna museum is a violation of that trust. One must call into question the credibility of the present-day decision-makers at this institution.

Originally gifted by the artist’s widow nearly 30 years ago, this collection had been stored in the museum vault, its existence undisclosed to all but a few, for many years. As a graduate intern doing field study in 1980, I exhumed the collection and assembled the international traveling exhibition and compiled its accompanying catalog raisonne. This enabled thousands in this country and in Europe to study and experience the joy of a rediscovered body of 20th century Modernism. If this important collection is disbursed through auction (many Outerbridge collectors are in Europe and Asia), most of the images will be buried in obscurity once again. But not in any solitary grave, this time the art will be scattered into private collections worldwide making reassembly by a future curator all but impossible.

The Times reported that before consigning the collection to auction, the Laguna museum’s staff dealt through Jeffrey Fraenkel, a San Francisco photography dealer (not an Outerbridge specialist) who spoke to “less than a handful of museums” on Laguna’s behalf in his attempt to place the collection in its entirety; and he further stated that it was “simply tradition” not to contact more institutions. All due respect to Fraenkel, but that is a strange response that should not have been accepted by the museum officials when assessing his efforts.

Why did not Bolton Colburn, the newly appointed chief curator at the Laguna Art Museum, make the overtures to other museums directly, or, if he were too busy, another staff or board member? Furthermore, no one attempted to contact me. As former curator of the initial exhibition, I had established numerous museum contacts and could have made recommendations.

Many kudos came forth from the Outerbridge exhibition, including awards and major national reviews. This attention served both the memory of Paul Outerbridge and served as well to establish the reputation of the then-little-known Laguna Art Museum. Outerbridge essentially introduced Laguna Beach to the proverbial map of the art world.

The Laguna museum’s reputation continued to grow in the 1980s, and all on the coattails of Outerbridge. With NEA validation, more grants followed, enabling a succession of other traveling exhibitions and more publicity for the museum.

The announcement of this disbursement of a core holding will assuredly be received with horrified shock by other institutions in this country. It can’t help but reflect badly on the Laguna Art Museum for decades to come. Not only in the context of peer judgment, but the museum should be gravely concerned for how this decision will negatively influence future donors’ fears for a similar fate befalling their gifts. What an irresponsible action this is.