Hopefully we have reached a point in the discussion of whatever inaccuracies there are in the Philippines section article and descriptions in which everyone has been heard, expressed their opinions, and to some extent agreed to disagree. I, too, see no reason why they couldn't have been posted here, but obviously that isn't going to happen.
Yet, it seems that the controversy surrounding the
organization of this exhibition will not go away, despite repeated attempts to explain and correct the misconceptions of people not directly involved in the process. I am glad that Rick has taken the time to directly address and rebut what are being said about alleged mismanagement of the exhibition, but I want to make a couple additions to Rick's comments.
First, let me make it
absolutely clear that there was NO cancelled "first attempt," nor was the Museum's seriousness about the project ever legitimately in question. The Museum was forced
by the Macao government to delay the opening of the exhibition by six months. The Museum's desire was to have the exhibition open in October 2005, coinciding with the Asian Games in Macao. The Macao city government, over a year into the project, decided they didn't like this idea and made the Museum
postpone the exhibition by six months (not cancel). This was communicated
immediately to all the contributors, with a full explanation, more than six months before the original opening date, well before even the first pre-exhibition deadline came up. I personally travelled to Macao in March 2005 to meet with the Museum Director and staff and received the explanation first-hand. I wrote up a report of my trip, which was proved to all the contributors. It is
here, by the way. So there was no "second" attempt at the exhibition, because the preparations for the exhibition were never stopped, or cancelled. There WAS a change in the leadership of the Philippines Section, however, which evidently engendered an enormous amount of resentment and bitterness in some quarters, resulting in the withdrawal of most of the original contribitors and a huge set-back for the Section. It is hardly appropriate, in my opinion, to now sit and sling mud at the people who remained with the project throughout, and at those who stepped up after the set-back and re-built the Section. Correcting errors of fact is fine, but condemning the entire process and everyone involved is not.
A second point is about the chronology of the exhibition, specifically about the contributor who went completely silent in the last weeks before the final deadlines, and was “stuck” with shipping expenses after not having his pieces exhibited. This seems to be the basis for one of the central criticisms of how the Museum handled the organization of the exhibition.
First, it is critical to understand what the process was at the final stages of the exhibition preparation. The catalogue would consist of photographs of every piece in the exhibition, with an accompanying caption, plus an introductory article for each section. Every piece had to be unpacked, catalogued, and photographed by the Museum, then each display had to be arranged and the pieces mounted. None of this can be done without the pieces in hand. Every piece of text had to be translated into two other languages (Chinese and Portuguese), both for the exhibition display, and for the catalogue. All needed to be done by the opening date of the exhibition (May 12, 2006).
Prior to shipping, the Museum had to arrange for insurance for the pieces during shipping, and while in the possession of the Museum. Thus, photographs, descriptions, and insurance values had to be provided to the Museum well in advance of the shipping date. Also, shipping arrangements had to be negotiated with a carrier (a special billing account was set up with Federal Express), requiring at least some idea of the final number of pieces that would be shipped and displayed.
This all required a strict schedule, and specific deadlines for each stage in the process. The schedule and deadlines were communicated to all the participants early on in the process, and again when the “new” organization of the section began in November of 2005.
As critical deadlines approached, one contributor did not respond to
several attempts by
a number of persons to contact him. The deadline for the descriptions of each piece (December 31, 2005) went by, with no word. The deadline for the draft article (February 15, 2006) passed, still no word. The shipping date (March 28, 2005) came and went, and still no word. While there was a list of pieces he was contributing, no descriptions of the pieces had been provided (I don’t think insurance information had been provided either, but I could be wrong on that). No one was sure that the pieces would get shipped (for all we knew he was in the hospital, or had a family emergency, or his collection had been stolen – any number of possiblities).
As the days passed after the shipping deadline, other contributors stepped in and offered additional pieces in order to fill in the gaps left in the collection. Others also stepped in to try and complete a partial draft of the article that was on hand.
He was left messages & e-mails expressly saying
not to ship his items to Macao, as they had been replaced and would not be used in the exhibition.
He finally surfaced April 10, almost two weeks
after the March 28 shipping deadline, informing us that he had shipped his pieces four days earlier (which was still over a week after the shipping deadline). He paid for his own shipping rather than use the billing account set up with FedEx by the Museum (it had lapsed by that point anyway, as its purpose had been fulfilled). Furthermore, the replacement pieces had already arrived in Macao and were being processed for the exhibition (including the translations of the descriptions). He had shipped his pieces over a week past the deadline, against instructions, and at his own expense rather than using the billing account the Museum had set up with FedEx.
I do not mean to chastise or discredit him by saying any of this (I want to keep his name out of it in fact).
He DID have an explanation for his silence, with which no one argued once he offered it. Part of the problem right around the date he shipped, for example, was that he was having internet connectivity problems, so he couldn’t e-mail his waybills to Macao and let anyone know via e-mail that he had shipped until a few days after the fact.
However, the practical reality was that repeated attempts to contact him by e-mail, phone and PM, for several weeks, went unanswered, and the preparations had to move ahead without him. It was unfortunate, but it was just too late for him to participate as a contributor to the collection.
He was informed, once it was known that he had shipped anyway, that his pieces couldn’t be used, and that the Museum couldn't pay for their shipping (because for one thing the Museum told him not to ship them, and for another shipping expenses had been arranged under a special billing account with FedEx, so there wasn’t any mechanism or budget in place to refund individual shipping charges).
So, yes, his pieces were not exhibited, and he was stuck with the shipping bill. This was unfortunate, but it was a result his own failure to communicate, and his own failure to follow the Museum's instructions, not the fault of the Museum.
He was still acknowledged as a contributor to the exhibition, however, as he did make valuable contributions to the project.
As Rick said, it might have been better if those who withdrew from the exhibition for various reasons had stayed engaged. Their knowledge and experience, if not pieces from their collections, would have been invaluable. However, they chose not to. If the exhibition suffered as a result, it is hardly fair to blame those who stuck with it, even more so those who stepped up and filled in the holes that were left in the Section by those departures.