House of the Day: 743 Eastern Parkway

It's closer to the Children's Museum, but walkable to the Brooklyn Museum and the Botanic Gardens. Mopar, it probably does need work but it has leaded glass door built ins! It's close enough to the subway though. Will you be looking at it?

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 1:28 PM

rob- maybe you should actually go to one of those places before you make pronouncements. The Museum and the Botanic gardens are world class, and the Children's Museum is considered to be immensely innovative and inspirational. The B'klyn Museum's collections rival those of the Met.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 2:10 PM

snark- i was lucky enough to have had a temproary position at the Brooklyn Museum for a special exhibition of their costume collection. I got to see behind the scenes and parts of their collections that are so incredible it makes your eyes water.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 2:25 PM

No, sparafucile- but the facts do. And the concensus of museum professionals who do know say so.

rob- you're hopeless. Maybe you feel that way about museums however there are millions of people who don't. Since you've never been specific about what you do its hard for anyone to take your comments as to being "in the field" seriously. And if you are, I can't imagine why you are.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 3:12 PM

NOP- again, another lovely post. You and MM need to write more.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 3:13 PM

I know people who would kill for off-street parking.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 3:24 PM

infinitejester- I don't go to museums as often as I want, but who can see everything in one day? And I like revisiting even the art I've seen many times because its inspiring and creative and who can get enough of art? You make going to the museum sound like a chore, not a joy.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 3:45 PM

Oh no- I have to see art all the time. Art should be lived with, everyday. Now, eating birthday cake only once a year makes it special :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 4:02 PM

I never quite forgave the Met for going so commercial but some of my best memories are of my dad taking me (just me and not my twin sister also) to the Met, sitting himself on a bench and telling me to go explore. It was heaven. I was maybe 10 and the guards didn't bother you so long as you were respectful and quiet. Well, it was hard to talk much when you were dragging your jaw along the floor.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 4:30 PM

My favorites have always been the Medieval rooms- I gasp everytime I see that Choir screen.

NOP- I wasn't able to have kids of my own but we made sure my niece and nephew went to the museums. It's astounding to see what a difference art makes in a child's life. Especially now that they are growing up and their career choices have been so profoundly affected by art. My brother-in-law is a photographer/printmaker with a lot of shows and awards under his belt. My niece and nephew didn't have a chance of escaping art, one way or another.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 4:53 PM

mcKenzie- very true. They began doing that in the late 80's because they thought it needed spiffing up to compete with the met. They used the entry space for some great exhibits but the crowning achievments was the doggy doo exhibit (as we called it). Huge black paper mache...er...sculptures that hung from the ceiling looking for all the world like a rain of dog poop.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 5:06 PM

I totally agree. I believe people are hungry for art and once a museum forgets that and mistakes trendiness for quality, we've lost. I have the feeling they would sell off all of it to become a media-savvy art gallery specializing in shock value and mediocre, but trendy work. Because they think it's popular. I can't wait for the digital museum- see all your favorite paintings in the kiosk. Kindle for artwork. Who needs to see it in real life, the web site shows you everything. NOT.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 5:28 PM

Ohhhhhh, Heather- that's what I was missing. The downpayment and the mortgage. Rats. Well I do have the consolation of being able to walk to the Childrens Museum which is only a couple of blocks from me. The Brooklyn is a little bit of a hike but really well within walkable distance.

I agree with you about most contemporary art. i happen to love folk and outsider art, and medieval and Northern renaissance art. At the risk of sounding like a barbarian i have to say Jackson Pollack 's work looks like a painter's dropcloth at the end of the day. On the other hand, I wouldn't kick a Mark Rothko out of bed :-). I never did understand (or maybe a better term is "accept") the concept of trends as a determinant for art. True art is ageless and transcendental.

Just always seemed to me that if we have to have the NYTimes art critic explain a work before we can understand it, there's something wrong with the artist's work. Too much contemporary work is deliberately obscure and more about shock than true expression. But that's just me.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 6:48 PM

wow- I didn't hear about that. Is the whole ting gone? I knew that the directors never considered it very important (the more fools them) but - crap. Another Brooklyn treasure goes to Manhattan. F**k!!!!!

That's criminal- they had one of the world's most important collections of Charles James, Worth and Schapiarelli. And some of the rarer designers such as Pingat. I worked on the last major exhibition, the Opulent Era- I can't even begin to tell you how magnificent the Brooklyn museum collection was. But No museum director since 1988 thought it was important or even "art". Talk about your effete, impudent snobs.Brooklyn's loss all the way around.

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 7:04 PM

bkn4life- It was a beautiful exhibition. We even had new, specially sculpted mannequins made, each shaped for the different eras. I worked for a year on getting the costumes ready and then got horrible bronchitus and couldn't make the opening.

they shut the collection down right after the exhibit. Then they closed down the department. If I remember, they made a halfassed attempt to reopen the department but once they got rid of their legendary curator Ann Coleman, they lost the vision and the expertise that really made it a world class collection. Going up into the storerooms was walking with ghosts- it was an experience. It wasn't just costume-the textile collection was also unbelievable. I wonder what happened to that?

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 8:08 PM

egg tempera- now that is a medium I would LOVE to know how to work in. I envy you Heather! I agree with you on everything you said. I work in mixed media- drawing on materials that my mother used to give us to play with, and others that I jsut like. But when I draw, I use a quill point pen and ink. I think one of th reason I love folk art is because it is so honest- or used to be before it became a "style."

Posted by: bxgrl at April 20, 2009 8:59 PM

It's not stupid at all. The costumes come from both places. Curators activley seek things out, and collectors or wealthy or famous women would donate clothes when they were finished wearing them. Wealthy society women would often change wardrobes every season and donate clothes to get a tax writeoff. Wealthy Victorian women didn't usually donate clothing except to poorer relatives or charity but so many of the gowns and outfits were so magnificent that they were kept until the descendents donated them because they were artifacts of their time as well as objects of great beauty.

Sometimes famous designers would donate pieces- they got great prestige. The Brooklyn Museum collection I beeive had pieces dating as far back as the 1500's. We even had a gown worn by the Empress Josephine. Then you had the accessories- the hats, the handbags, the parasols, the jewelry- the craftsmanship was so far above anything we see today.

There was also an incredible doll collection made after WW II from France to show its gratitude to the US. Famous French Designers like Dior, Chanel, etc. were given special wire doll forms and they created handmade one of a kind outfits for each. This collection travelled all over the US and I think the Brooklyn Museum's group was one of several such.

And yes- it was a truly wonderful experience!

Posted by: bxgrl at April 21, 2009 12:26 AM

mopar- do you like vintage clothing? some of the Victorian clothing wasn't just sewn- it was literally engineered. I have never seen a custom tailored contemporary outfit fit anyone the way a Victorian dress could. They were pattern masters- I used to call them textile architecture and there was a real technology to how they were designed and constructed. You do have that today but not to their degree or with their finesse.

One thing that would surprise you- contmeporary designers, even the very famous ones- did nothing that was even close to the quality of 19th century clothing. I've seen the underpinnings of St. Laurent's, Mizrahis, Calvin Klein's, etc - the designer pieces, not the production lines. They are not even close to a Worth day dress.If you're ever interested, email me (MM has it)- I love old costumes and textiles- we can go to the Met (sigh....) and have a field trip. :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at April 21, 2009 9:14 AM

chicken- design? History? techn ology? I'm fascinated and now you have to tell me more! One of my past lives was to conserve and restore vintage and antique clothing which is how I got the Museum job for that final exhibition. I did most of my work for a famous Soho store (sadly, long gone now) and the wonderful thing is I got so much hands on experience, which interestingly enough was something most curators and conservators actually don't get, because they never deconstruct. SO tell me more!!!! ( Bklyn M. also had a huge swatch collection which I hope went to FIT).

Posted by: bxgrl at April 21, 2009 9:32 AM