Attendance USA

One masterpiece can go a long way

Why blow the budget on a blockbuster when a single Caravaggio or Titian will bring in the crowds?

Caravaggio’s "The Fortune Teller" at the Speed Art Museum in Louisville, Kentucky, proved a big draw

There might be less money to organise exhibitions in many US museums, but by borrowing one masterpiece, putting it on display, and so turning a single work into a star attraction, several are stretching their budgets a long way.

Titian’s La Bella, 1536, a portrait of a noblewoman in a blue dress, has been borrowed by the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, Texas, from the Galeria Palatina at the Palazzo Pitti in Florence (“Woman in a Blue Dress”, until 18 September). It is due to travel to the Nevada Museum of Art in Reno this month (24 September-20 Novem­ber) and then on to the Portland Art Museum in Oregon.

The Capitoline Venus by Praxiteles, around 360BC, has spent the summer at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, on loan from Rome’s Musei Capitolini (until 5 September). In November, The Medusa, 1630, Bernini’s baroque masterpiece, is due to be displayed at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, also on loan from the Capitoline museums (19 November-19 February 2012).

Cedar Rapids Museum of Art, Iowa, looked to the Brooklyn Museum for its first single-work show, borrowing Charles Willson Peale’s portrait of George Washington, around 1779-81, billed as “An American Masterpiece” (until 31 December).

New York’s Frick Collection, combining the trend for single-work shows with another recent phenomenon, the collection-based exhibition (The Art Newspaper, March), displayed its re-cleaned St Francis in the Desert, around 1475-78, by Giovanni Bellini, under the title “In a New Light” this summer.

Creative use of smaller budgets for exhibitions is one driving force behind this trend. The directors we spoke to said that loan fees, design, insurance and transport costs for a single work are minuscule compared to a big thematic or an in-depth show for a single artist. Marketing tends to be the main expense, leaving museums in control of spending as much or as little as their budget allows.

Quality time

Directors cite other virtues of single-work shows: they encourage people to really look, rather than move on after a few seconds to the next thing on the gallery walls. “We use them to teach how to experience a great work of art and see why it is a masterpiece,” said Brian Ferriso, the director of the Portland Art Museum. In 2009, when Ferriso arranged to bring Raphael’s La Velata, 1514-15, to Oregon from the Palatine Gallery, “people sat for ten to 20 minutes looking, and often they’d come back after going through our Renaissance galleries,” he said. Last year Portland borrowed Thomas Moran’s vast canvas Shoshone Falls on the Snake River, 1990, from the Gilcrease Museum in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Charles Venable, the director of the Speed Art Museum in Louisville, Kentucky, is also an enthusiast. In 2008, when the museum borrowed medieval and renaissance treasures from London’s Victoria & Albert Museum, he pulled Leonardo’s Forster Codex from the show and exhibited the late 15th-century notebook separately. Pleased with how that was received, he has started an ongoing “Masterpiece Series”. This summer, the Speed exhibited Caravaggio’s The Fortune Teller, around 1594, from the Capitoline museums.

Some directors we have spoken to say privately that some of their trustees have needed convincing, worried that visitors—primed for blockbusters—will not come to see just one work. Media coverage has, therefore, proven to be important in attracting visitors, which means that the works really must be masterpieces.

“Exhibitions that feature one great work or a small group of related works are definitely going to be [more popular],” said Venable. “As larger exhibitions just become too expensive for many museums, less is more might prove itself true again,” he added.

More from The Art Newspaper


20 Sep 11
15:14 CET


One thing you forget though... Art is not only blockbusters! Like movies, museums will sure have it easier to attract an audience with big names - celebrities so to speak, long known to a large public. It sure is cheaper, easier to organize and all these well rehearsed adjectives you display in your article... What is missing in your report are the downsides. We need to see more than just blockbusters! To discover some small artist, his style and life, can be more rewarding than fighting with a large crowd to catch one glimpse of something we already know by heart from tourist guides and the media. How many people who went to see the Mona Lisa have seen the rest of the renaissance wing in the Louvre? How many were really interested? It's all about being able to say "I was there, I saw X." Sure museums will use that. Why not? Brings money to the house... But you should never forget: Blockbuster, trendsetting... it's not about art - it's buisness!

16 Sep 11
14:32 CET


While I am always a fan of well mounted, large-scale exhibitions this is a brilliant idea that prevents "Blockbuster Fatigue". It allows viewers to focus on a single work of art and not become overwhelmed. It also permits smaller museums and galleries to feature works that they wouldn't normally be able to house or afford if it were a blockbuster.

Submit a comment

All comments are moderated. If you would like your comment to be approved, please use your real name, not a pseudonym. We ask for your email address in case we wish to contact you - it will not be made public and we do not use it for any other purpose.


Want to write a longer comment to this article? Email


Share this