More on the Met

  • Share
  • Read Later

I’m beginning to think of Thomas Campbell, the new director-designate of the Metropolitan Museum, as the Sarah Palin of the museum world — the out-of-left field choice that, after an initial moment of head scratching, suddenly makes sense to everybody. With my own episode of head scratching now safely behind me, I’m also entering into my own “makes sense” moment. Tentatively, of course — because everything will depend on how Campbell actually performs in the job.

Plainly his scholarly background makes him a reassuring choice for anyone — that would include me — looking for signs that the Met will remain commited to its core project: elucidating the history of art in a serious way. And at a time when Western museums are trying to take a global view of that history, Campbell’s specialty in a relatively marginalized field — tapestries — could actually have been an advantage. With the two smashing tapestry shows that he organized for the Met, he proved that he could re-order art history and show why neglected chapters were essential ones. (And not so incidentally, crowd pleasing ones, too — without playing to the peanut gallery those shows were a draw.)

Since three of the final four candidates for the Met job turned out to be — no surprise — Met curators, I’m wondering how much use was actually made of the head hunting firm the Met employed. In his memoir Making the Mummies Dance the former Met director Tom Hoving recalls that when he was tapped for the job in 1967 a curator acting as go-between for a group of trustees told him that the worldwide candidate search was a smoke screen for a decision that would actually be made by then-Met Board Chairman Arthur Houghton and his inner circle. Has anything changed? I’m just wondering.