Oakley Allred Arts Organizations in Society Fall 2006
Guggenheim Museum: Globe Quest Guggenheim is a name synonymous with modern art elites and prestigious contemporary collections. Once simply a surname, albeit a prominent one, Guggenheim now functions as a cultural and institutional brand that evokes images of sensational architecture and blockbuster, high-profile exhibitions. Its enterprise currently consists of five world-class museums, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York City, the Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao in Spain, Deutsche Guggenheim Berlin in Germany, the Guggenheim Hermitage Museum in Las Vegas, and a governing body, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation. Thomas Krens, Director of the Guggenheim Foundation, is the primary force behind the expansion of the Guggenheim collections and locations, most of which have taken place within the last decade. Although not alone in its globalizing efforts, the Guggenheim Foundation - under Krens’ mandate, unapologetically promotes its multinational museums and institutional partnerships, and is still actively pursuing a number of additional expansion opportunities around the globe. The corporate-like growth of Guggenheim has placed it at the center of a relatively new debate regarding art and culture, namely where is the line between cultural promotion and access to the arts and the effects of cultural franchising? In terms of the Guggenheim, a private American institution, how has it developed its global enterprise? What are the reasons, beyond the obvious financial incentives, for its international expansion? Have the Guggenheim’s franchising methods set a trend for other cultural institutions in today’s global marketplace? If so, how will this trend impact the foreign regions into which such franchised institutions have expanded? By investigating the Guggenheim’s
multinational impetus, this critical study aims to identify the motivations and perils of cultural institutions that go global. Solomon R. Guggenheim came from a wealthy Philadelphia family who made its fortune in the US mining industry during the mid-nineteenth century. Solomon began collecting art as a young adult, first acquiring old masters, American landscapes, the French Barbizon School, and primitive art.1 In the 1930’s, with the assistance of Hilla Rebay, Guggenheim began collecting abstract works by artists like Kandinsky, Klee, Chagall, and others. Rebay and Guggenheim worked together for the rest of Solomon’s life expanding Guggenheim’s modern art collection, then known as the Museum of Non-Objective Painting. Acting as head curator and administrator of Guggenheim’s collection, Rebay organized the first public exhibition of the collection, which took place in Charleston, South Carolina in 1936.2 A year later, Guggenheim created the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation and intended its endowment to operate one or more museums.3 Rebay continued to curate Guggenheim’s Museum of Non-Objective Painting, which by then housed 725 works in temporary quarters at 24 East Fifty-fourth Street in New York City.4 In 1943, Rebay and Guggenheim commissioned architect Frank Lloyd Wright to design a permanent building for the collection. Construction didn’t begin on the museum until 1956, seven years after the death of Solomon, and four years after the resignation of Rebay. The Museum of Non-Objective Painting, renamed the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in memory of its founder, opened to the public on October 21, 1959.5
1
Art of Tomorrow: Hilla Rebay and Solomon R. Guggenheim, “Biography: Solomon R. Guggenheim,” Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York, http://www.guggenheim.org/exhibitions/hilla_rebay/biographies_2.html, (accessed November 25, 2006). 2 Danzker, Jo-Anne Birnie, “The Art of Tomorrow,” in Art of Tomorrow: Hilla Rebay and Solomon R. Guggenheim, ed. Jo-Ann Birnie Danzker, Bridgitte Salmen and Karole Vail, 181 (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 2005). 3 Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, “History,” Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York, http://www.guggenheim.org/history.html, (accessed November 26, 2006). 4 Danzker, Jo-Anne Birnie, “The Art of Tomorrow,” 183. 5 Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, “History,” http://www.guggenheim.org/history.html, (accessed November 26, 2006).
2
Over the past fifty years, the Guggenheim Foundation has only had three directors, James Sweeney, Thomas Messer, and its current, perhaps most contentious director, Thomas Krens. Hand-selected by Messer as a replacement upon his retirement, Krens began his tenure at Guggenheim in 1988 as both the Director of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and the Foundation. Krens’ background is a unique combination of visual artist, arts educator, and business mogul. His education includes a Bachelor’s degree from Williams College in Political Economy, an MA in Studio Art from State University of New York, and an MBA from Yale University. During the 1970’s Krens taught printmaking at Williams College and in 1981 became director of the Williams College Museum of Art.6 In 1986, Messer hired Krens to conduct a study on New York City’s zoning restrictions for the renovation of the Wright building. Henceforth, Messer began grooming Krens to assume his position. Messer defended his choice of successors by stating, “I felt [Guggenheim Museum/Foundation] needed someone strong in organizational, administrative, and financial affairs.” For his part, Krens was savvy in marketing himself as a professional who understood business of art.7 Thomas Krens pushed for Guggenheim expansion almost immediately upon entering the institution. In his first few years as director he oversaw the structural renovation of the famed Wright building, established a small Guggenheim satellite branch in SoHo (now closed), and pressed for the creation of MASS MoCA, a 750,000 square foot factory space located in North Adams, Massachusetts whose immense size would enable it to exhibit contemporary works too large for traditional museum display. (This project was ultimately realized in 1999 by Joseph Thompson, a colleague of Krens’ from Williams College.) In Krens’ view, art was going global. Advantages of expansion included more space to exhibit its collection, larger audiences, and
6
Thomas Krens, “Biography,” Royce Carlton, Incorporated, http://www.roycecarlton.com/speakers/krens_bio.html, (accessed November 26, 2006). 7 Andrews, Suzanna, “Self-confidence man,” New York Magazine 27 no.19 (1994): 47.
3
perhaps most importantly, a wider base for fundraising.8 Contrary to public perception, the Guggenheim Foundation’s financial stability was very precarious during the late 1990’s and again during the post-September 11th economic crisis in New York. In 1990, Krens sold three important modernist works from the Guggenheim’s collection for a total of $47 million. This money was in turn used to purchase Count Giuseppe Panza di Biumo minimalist collection - an acquisition gamble still mentioned in today’s art-related press. For art historian Rosalind Krauss, this moment in the contemporary art market represented a shift in the cultural context of museums. Krens’ exchange of Kandinskys, Modiglianis, and Chagalls for Judds, Flavins, and Morrises illustrated the moment where the content of art collections no longer served as irreplaceable embodiments of cultural knowledge or heritage, but instead became assets of exchange whose values were only truly realized once they were put into circulation.9 Krens pursued not only the diversification of the Guggenheim’s collection, but also the distribution of its physical locations. Over the last fifteen years, the Guggenheim Foundation has worked to establish sites in the following locations, none of which have not come to fruition: Salzburg, Austria; a second location in Venice, Italy; St. Petersburg, Russia; a second location in New York City; Taichung, Taiwan; Hong Kong, China; and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Guggenheim branches that have successfully been built during Tom Krens’ tenure include Guggenheim Bilbao in Spain, Deutsche Guggenheim Berlin, and the Guggenheim Hermitage Museum in Las Vegas. The Foundation also operated a branch in SoHo and an additional site in Las Vegas, both of which closed due to poor attendance and lack of funds. In July 2006, the Tourism Authority of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates signed a contract with the Guggenheim Foundation for the creation of a 300,000 square foot museum to, “serve as the linchpin of a sprawling development in a new cultural district of Saadiyat (Arabic for ''isle of happiness''), a 10-square-mile natural
8 9
Andrews, Suzanna, “Self-confidence man,” 51. Krauss, Rosalind, “The Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum.” October no. 54 (1990): 4-5.
4
island just off Abu Dhabi.”10 The following pages will investigate the successes and failures of some of the aforementioned Guggenheim branches. I will also discuss the impact of this American institution upon its foreign destinations. The first international branch of the Guggenheim Foundation came about quite independently of Thomas Krens. Peggy Guggenheim, a niece of Solomon’s, grew up in New York but spent much of her time as an adult in Europe. An collector herself, Peggy formed relationships with many avant-garde European artists, particularly the Surrealists. In 1949, a year after exhibiting her collection at the Venice Biennale, Peggy purchased the Palazzo Venier dei Leoni on the city’s Grand Canal.11 Within that same year she moved permanently to Venice, installed her collection in the Palazzo, and opened it to the public. Three years before her death Peggy bequeathed her collection to the Guggenheim Foundation, with the understanding that the collection would remain on permanent view in her Venetian Palazzo. Peggy Guggenheim died in 1979 at which point the Foundation took over her collection and began the arduous task of conserving and documenting its new Venice holdings.12 Tom Krens advocated for a second Venice property beginning in the mid-1990’s. By the year 2000, it appeared that the Peggy Guggenheim Collection would be gaining a sister Guggenheim, to be called Guggenheim Museum Venice of Contemporary Art, in the Old Customs House (Dogana Vecchia) also on the Grand Canal. In an ARTnews report from February 2000, Rachel Donoadio explains, “the Guggenheim will lease the customs house from the city rent-free for 99 years. In return, the city will be able to use the building…for one or two
10
Vogel, Carol, “Guggenheim Foundation and Abu Dhabi Plan Museum There.” The New York Times (New York), July 9, 2006, first edition. 11 Peggy Guggenheim Collection, Venice, “History: Peggy’s Biography Venice,” Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York, http://www.guggenheim-venice.it/english/07_history/06_Peggy_Venice.htm, (accessed December 2, 2006). 12 Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, “History,” http://www.guggenheim.org/history.html, (accessed November 26, 2006).
5
exhibitions of its own each year.”13 Though the deal seemed complete, the Guggenheim Museum Venice never materialized. However, in a surprise finding during my research, the latest issue of Artforum announced an ongoing bidding war for the Dogana between French billionaire Francois Pinault, who opened a private museum to house his contemporary collection in Venice’s Palazzo Grassi last year, and the Guggenheim Foundation.14 Apparently Krens hasn’t abandoned his ambitions for a second Venetian museum after all. In perhaps the most successful Guggenheim venture thus far, the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao (GMB) is the benchmark of the Guggenheim expansion effort. Opened in 1997, the Gehry-designed, titanium-clad museum has become an architectural icon, and has singledhandedly placed Bilbao, Spain on the cultural tourism map. The cost for the project, paid in full by the Basque government, included a $100 million construction, a $50 million acquisition program, and a $20 million “donation” to the Guggenheim Foundation, seen by many as a franchise fee.15 The museum operates independently of its mother institution, however its exhibitions and acquisitions are considered part of the Guggenheim mission and therefore must be approved by the New York headquarters. Prior to the museum, Bilbao was a deteriorating port town afflicted with a twenty-five percent unemployment rate, industrial pollution, and outmoded steel and shipbuilding trades. The Basque government claims to have recouped its initial investment in the museum within the first two years of its opening. New York Times reporter Carol Vogel writes, “[Guggenheim Museum Bilbao] generated more than one billion dollars for the Basque region…and some $183.4 million in local tax revenue.”16 These figures are the primary impetus for many other nations that are considering Guggenheim branches. However, a new art museum is hardly the
13 14
Donadio, Rachel, “Duty Free,” ARTnews, 99 no.2 (2000): 66. Allen, Jennifer, “Pinault vs. Guggenheim,” Artforum: International News Digest, http://www.artforum.com/news/week=200647#news12099, (accessed December 3, 2006). 15 Bradley, Kim, “The Deal of the Century,” Art in America, 85 no.10 (1997): 52. 16 Vogel, Carol, “Guggenheim Foundation and Abu Dhabi Plan Museum There.”
6
only factor in the rejuvenation of Bilbao. The city has also built a new airport and public transport system, cleaned and remarketed its port as a commercial and recreational facility, and created a waterfront property development for commercial, retail, and residential complexes along the Nervión River. Figures from the GMB indicate a constant presence of cultural tourism in the city. The Foundation estimates that about 7.1 million people have visited the museum since it opened in 1997.17 The same year that the Bilbao museum opened, the Guggenheim Foundation also launched its German branch, the Deutsche Guggenheim Berlin. Corporate sponsor Deutsche Bank, which prides itself on its support of Berlin’s cultural industry, provided the ground floor of its Berlin office for the 5500 square foot gallery, and also pays for all exhibition-related expenses. Of the previous Guggenheim branches discussed thus far, the Deutsche Guggenheim Berlin maintains the strongest curatorial ties to its New York base. German opponents of the exchange criticized the partnership asking, “Why turn over an estimated $1.3 million a year to an American institution when, just a few blocks from [Deutsche] Bank’s Berlin office, the historic Museum Island desperately needs funds for restoration?”18 The aim of the Deutsche Guggenheim Berlin is relatively modest in comparison with other Guggenheim endeavors. It exhibits works primarily by living artists, many of whom are commissioned to produce art specifically for the space. Michael Kimmelman notes of the Berlin outpost that essentially, “for its curatorial services and the occasional loan of works, the Guggenheim acquires art and a new site.” He also argues that the introduction of American-style,
17 18
Bradley, Kim, “Basque Report: Regional Renaissance,” Art in America, 93 no.10 (2005): 83 Phillips, Christopher. “Guggenheim Opens Berlin Outpost.” Art in America 86 no.1 (1998): p.29
7
private enterprise museums in Europe have forced us all to consider who truly benefits from museums and their collections.19 The Guggenheim Foundation targeted Las Vegas as its next expansion site based on the success of the Steve Wynn’s Bellagio Gallery of Fine Art in the late 1990’s. The Foundation opened two spaces inside the Venetian Resort and Casino in 2001, the Guggenheim Hermitage Museum (GHM) and the Guggenheim Las Vegas (GLV). The Guggenheim Hermitage Museum is a single-room gallery slightly larger than its cousin in Berlin. Formed as an institutional partnership with the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, works and curatorial staff from both collections contribute to the GHM’s biannual exhibitions. The 63,000 square foot Guggenheim Las Vegas opened in the summer of 2001 and closed a brief fifteen months later. Reasons for the closure of GLV are strictly monetary. In its partnership with the Venetian Resort and Casino, the Guggenheim Foundation agreed to pay a rental fee for the GHM space and split the proceeds from GLV with the resort. However, no such proceeds were being generated by the larger museum, whose daily anticipated attendance was projected at 5000 but in actuality only received about 1750 visitors per day.20 Though Tom Krens blames the failure of the Guggenheim Las Vegas partially on mis-targeted advertising, Barbara Bloemink, former managing director of both Las Vegas Guggenheims, simply states, “people don’t go to Las Vegas for art; they go for gambling and entertainment.”21 As mentioned earlier, the Guggenheim Foundation has attempted to open a multitude of other branches outside the United States. Though case studies of each failed location are too numerous for significant discussion here, it bares mentioning some of the pitfalls encountered by the Foundation during its other expansion efforts.
19
Kimmelman, Michael, “The globe-straddler of the art world: the Guggenheim’s Thomas Krens,” Museum International 51 no.1 (1999): 51. 20 Rosenbaum, Lee, “The Guggenheim Regroups: The Story Behind the Cutbacks,” Art in America 91 no.2 (2003): 45. 21 Rosenbaum, Lee, “The Guggenheim Regroups: The Story Behind the Cutbacks.” 46.
8
In 2003, Taichung - Taiwan’s second-largest city - seemed ready to build the next global Guggenheim as part of a new cultural district. Taiwan’s governmental parliamentary body, the Executive Yuan, endorsed the $250 million construction of the Zaha Hadid-designed museum, agreeing to foot eighty percent of the entire cultural district venture. The remaining twenty percent, and the museum’s operating expenses, were to be funded by the city of Taichung. A year later however, Taichung’s mayor had not yet received the necessary governmental funds to begin construction. Did the government listen to the many critics who argued that one can’t just set up a museum in a young country with no history of public cultural support and no museum ecology?22 Additional concerns included Taichung’s lack of an international airport and other necessary tourism infrastructure, and a fear of American cultural hegemony. 23 A second Asian endeavor positioned a Guggenheim museum as one of four art institutions inside Hong Kong’s planned West Kowloon Cultural District. As opposed to Taichung, Hong Kong is already an international destination and competition for its real estate is fierce. Yet the project is at a standstill because the city’s private developers want the site divided into smaller portions so that they too will have a chance to bid on the projects, along with the larger and wealthier conglomerates. A similar concern resonates throughout the arts community. Many feel that too much emphasis has been placed on the district’s property development. They fear that Hong Kong might allow these cultural centers to be developed by the highest bidder rather than based on cultural merit. In a humorous side note, the Georges Pompidou Center is also interested in creating an outpost in West Kowloon. When asked if it might partner with the Guggenheim Foundation, a senior Pompidou official scoffed, saying that the Center was
22
Sudjic, Deyan, “Is this the end of the Guggenheim dream?” The Observer (London), January 23, 2005, Arts Review p. 6. 23 Kaufman, Jason Edward, “Taiwan and Brazil have second thoughts about Guggenheim,” Art Newspaper (London) March 1, 2005, p.18.
9
reluctant to work with any “second-class” operation that turned out overseas museums like a “Coca Cola factory.”24 The latest Guggenheim branch to loose momentum was the museum planned for Rio de Janeiro. Like Taichung, Guggenheim Rio had finalized its design, by architect Jean Nouvel, and had secured most of the financing via the Brazilian government. A court order blocked the commencement of the project deeming the contract illegal because it was negotiated in American dollars rather than Brazilian reales, governed by New York State rather than Brazilian law, and extended beyond the term of Rio’s mayor who originally approved the development.25 Additionally, some opponents took to the streets papering Rio with posters that pictured starving children and read, ‘does Rio want a Guggenheim, or does it want to feed these children?’.26 All of the halted Guggenheim branches stand little chance of revival, regardless of the fact that millions of dollars have already been spent conducting feasibility studies in their respective areas and, in some cases, creating elaborate architectural renderings. Mr. Krens must have a multitude of expansion projects progressing simultaneously. It appears that his businesssavvy vision of a multinational museum suffers little more than a bruised ego when projects like Taichung and Rio do not materialize. However such endeavors have caused rifts among some of the Foundation’s trustees. Peter Lewis, the former Chairman of the Guggenheim Foundation and primary donor of the New York museum, resigned from his post in 2005 citing philosophical differences with Krens’ multinational Guggenheim vision. Thomas Krens is often quoted saying, “the art museum is an 18th-century idea in a 19thcentury box that more or less fulfilled its structural destiny sometime in the middle of the 20th-
24
Bradsher, Keith, “Culture Clash in Hong Kong,” The International Herald Tribune (London) January 6, 2005: Feature p.20. 25 Kaufman, Jason Edward, “Taiwan and Brazil have second thoughts about Guggenheim.” 26 D’Arcy, David, “An Ever-Expanding Universe,” Art Review 1 no.11 (2003): p.43.
10
century.”27 This, I suppose, suggests that Krens is developing a different model of museum, one not based in historic tradition but that instead reflects the cultural climate of contemporary society, or more specifically contemporary American society. In terms of running the Guggenheim, Krens admits to thinking about the museum more as an operational structure rather than a cultural sanctuary. He relates to the Foundation and its museums much like a corporate CEO, often commenting on audience (consumer) trends, brand recognition, distribution, and economies of scale. The Guggenheim Foundation also frequently partners with corporate sponsors. The Guggenheims in Berlin and Las Vegas are an examples of an institutional sponsorship, and exhibitions like The Art of the Mortorcycle or Giorgio Armani illustrate programmatic sponsorships whose artistic significance many have questioned. Is Tom Krens’ strategy of global Guggenheims necessarily negative? As Michael Kimmerman notes, “American museums, unlike most European ones, have their roots in a strain of 19th-century political philosophy that specifically sought to marry commerce with spectacle to achieve a form of social engineering.”28 His specification of American museums is important. I personally have enjoyed the two Guggenheim museums that I have visited in New York and Bilbao. Do they share a similar aesthetic? Absolutely, but so do the majority of major modern and contemporary art museums in the Western world. The danger of global cultural enterprises like the Guggenheim Foundation lies in its promotion of specific cultural values that are unique to the society in which it originates, but do not necessarily circulate worldwide. Unfortunately, Krens sees the Guggenheim brand as barometer of universal artistic quality stating, “we think of ourselves as storytellers, custodians
27
Weideger, Paula, “The supreme commander of the Guggenheim empire,” New Statesman (CITY?), February 20, 1998: p.43. 28 Kimmelman, Michael, “The globe-straddler of the art world: the Guggenheim’s Thomas Krens.”
11
and guardians and framers of cultural narratives…”29 This institutional confidence places value on the objects it displays, regardless of the location in which it resides. Therefore, I believe multinational museums like the Guggenheim pose a threat to cultural and artistic diversity by promoting a uniquely American, corporate-culture authority. According to media reports as recent as November 2006, Abu Dhabi is scheduled to construct the next Guggenheim museum. Slated to open in 2011, this will be the first American cultural institution present in the United Arab Emirates, and possibly the entire Middle East region. Due to the ongoing war in Iraq and other foreign policies, the United States is an unpopular presence in the region. Undoubtedly, Abu Dhabi is hoping to create its own Bilbao effect, perhaps prompting a lucrative tourism industry, but at what diplomatic cost? Art in America reports that a number of Middle Eastern press announcements refer to the project as a “Jewish foundation’s” undertaking, and its head designer, Frank Gehry, as a “Jewish architect”.30 Additional concerns include the Islamic nation’s censorship policy, and the equal treatment and status of women. The Guggenheim Foundation’s globalizing trend does not appear to be slowing down. While its Hong Kong development has not moved forward, should the region’s government approve the creation of the West Kowloon Cultural District, chances are high that Guggenheim will try to secure a site. Additionally, Guadalajara has conducted a feasibility study for a museum in Mexico. Negotiations for this project are also on hold, though an architect and building design have been selected. While the Guggenheim’s expansion efforts seem most prevalent, other art museums are beginning to follow suit including the Louvre, which will open a museum in Lens in 2008, and the Britain’s Tate Museums, whose outposts include the Tate Britain, Tate Modern, Tate Liverpool, and Tate St. Ives. The appeal of such institutions is
29 30
Mahoney, Sarah. “Thomas Krens.” Advertising Age(CITY?), October 2, 2006: p.18 Cash, Stephanie, “Guggenheim in the Middle East?” Art in America 94 no.9 (2006): 37.
12
obvious. High profile artists, extremely valuable artworks, and sensational architecture is like candy for the capitalist soul. However, the prevalence and promotion of westernized cultural institutions around the world may hinder the artistic development of divergent modes of expression and presentation. What is the value of cultural awareness if it all looks the same?
13
Works Cited Allen, Jennifer, “Pinault vs. Guggenheim,” Artforum: International News Digest, http://www.artforum.com/news/week=200647#news12099. Andrews, Suzanna, “Self-confidence man,” New York Magazine 27, no.19 (1994): 47-52. Art of Tomorrow: Hilla Rebay and Solomon R. Guggenheim, “Biography: Solomon R. Guggenheim,” Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York, http://www.guggenheim.org/exhibitions/hilla_rebay/biographies_2.html. Bradley, Kim, “Basque Report: Regional Renaissance,” Art in America, 93 no. 10 (2005): 83-85, 87, 89. Bradley, Kim, “The Deal of the Century,” Art in America 85 no. 7 (1997): 48-55+ Bradsher, Keith, “Culture Clash in Hong Kong,” The International Herald Tribune (London), January 6, 2005: Feature p.20. Cash, Stephanie. “Guggenheim in the Middle East?” Art in America 94 no.9 (2006): 37. D’Arcy, David, “An Ever-Expanding Universe,” Art Review 1 no.11 (2003): 43. Danzker, Jo-Anne Birnie, “The Art of Tomorrow,” In Art of Tomorrow: Hilla Rebay and Solomon R. Guggenheim, ed. by Jo-Ann Birnie Danzker, Bridgitte Salmen and Karole Vail. New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 2005. Donadio, Rachel, “Duty Free,” ARTnews, 99 no.2 (2000): 66. Kaufman, Jason Edward, “Taiwan and Brazil have second thoughts about Guggenheim,” Art Newspaper (London) March 1, 2005: p.18 Kimmelman, Michael, “The globe-straddler of the art world: the Guggenheim’s Thomas Krens.” Museum International 51 no.1 (1999): 51-55. Krauss, Rosalind, “The Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum,” October, no. 54 (1990): 3-17. Mahoney, Sarah, “Thomas Krens.” Advertising Age (New York), October 2, 2006: p.18 Peggy Guggenheim Collection, Venice, “History: Peggy’s Biography Venice,” Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York, http://www.guggenheimvenice.it/english/07_history/06_Peggy_Venice.htm. Phillips, Christopher. “Guggenheim Opens Berlin Outpost.” Art in America 86 no.1 (1998): p.29 Rosenbaum, Lee, “The Guggenheim Regroups: The Story Behind the Cutbacks,” Art in America 91 no.2 (2003): 43-47. 14
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, “History,” Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, New York, http://www.guggenheim.org/history.html. Sudjic, Deyan, “Is this the end of the Guggenheim dream?” The Observer (London), January 23, 2005, Arts Review p. 6. Thomas Krens, “Biography,” Royce Carlton, Incorporated, http://www.roycecarlton.com/speakers/krens_bio.html. Vogel, Carol, ”Guggenheim Foundation and Abu Dhabi Plan Museum There.” The New York Times (New York), July 9, 2006: 3. Weideger, Paula, “The supreme commander of the Guggenheim empire,” New Statesman (London) February 20, 1998: p.42-44.
15