The Frick Collection after its 5 year, $220 million renovation

Mistress and Maid by Johannes Vermeer c. 1667 in the Frick Collection. 

Has it really been five years since I was last at the Frick prior to my visit on June 22? I guess it must have been. We didn't return as soon as it reopened this spring but waited until the Vermeer "Love Letters" exhibit opened. I'll start with that as I catalogue the renovated museum's hits and misses.

Top Highlight: Vermeer

The special Vermeer exhibit is ranks at the top of my list for the hits of the Frick's reopening. It  brought in two Vermeer paintings to complement the Mistress and Maid shown above. One is Woman Writing a Letter with Her Maid, ca. 1670–72, from the National Gallery of Ireland in Dublin.

The other is The Love Letter, ca. 1669–70 from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

I urge you to get over to the Frick before the exhibit closes on August 31 because it's quite an experience seeing these three paintings together in-person. The Love Letter one reminds me of Vermeer's The Guitar Player  c 1672 and a variation of it on display in the Philadelphia Museum of Art. My favorite of these three is Woman Writing a Letter with Her Maid.*  

Access to the Second Floor

Thanks to the renovation, visitors now have access to the second floor, which showcases some art in what had been bedrooms and also houses the museum's gift shop and cafe. This is generally a hit, though I would have liked the bedrooms to retain their original furnishings or their reproductions to reflect what the rooms were like when a family lived in the mansion. There are only a few dressers with no information about them. Speaking of that ...

Information on the Exhibits

The information on the art on view -- both on the placards on the walls and through the app that replicates information to be found on the Frick's site -- is extremely uneven. You'll get more than you want to know about Jean-Honoré Fragonard's "The Progress of Love," but find out absolutely nothing about some of the clocks and scores of other pieces. It is rather frustrating for those of us who would like more information. It's a serious missed opportunity for the museum not to have improved that aspect of its exhibit while investing so much money and time in the renovation. 

Ticketing and Timing: Hits and Misses

Tickets for adults cost $30. Years ago, the Frick generously offered "pay what you wish" times on Sundays. Unfortunately, it shifted that offer to the far less convenient time of  Wednesday afternoons 1:30-5:30 PM. 

If that doesn't work for you, check your local library for membership passes that will allow entry for 2, saving you $60. If you have a card at a New York City library, inquire about  Culture Pass availability. You won't only save money but time because those membership passes allow you to enter any time of day and  skip the line of people waiting to get their timed tickets.  

Allow me my rant on timed tickets, which were  popularized during the reopening of museums after the pandemic lockdowns. The more enlightened museums like the Met** dropped that major inconvenience aa couple of years ago. It only requires timed entry -- though not additional ticket purchases -- to the special exhibits. That the Frick is still stuck in 2021 even after the 2025 reopening is a major miss, but it pales beside another one. 

Really Rare Restrooms

Who designs a renovation for a building with a legal capacity of 1350 with  just three sets of bathrooms? The architect of the Frick renovation does. 

Yes, only half a dozen people would be able to use the restrooms with just two (one for each gender, though heaven knows why when they are all single-occupancy)  on the second floor and in two basement levels. I cannot comment on what these looked like inside because I never got beyond a locked door or a extended line leading up to it. 

I'm shocked that no architect consulted on this project pointed out a standard ratio based on the projected number of visitors, especially in light of the addition of the cafe. Seriously, who does that, especially on a $220 million budget?

Filling in the Sketch

To end on a positive note about what the Frick does well, I want to comment on the Cabinet Gallery. It's one of the smallest rooms on the first floor that is filled with sketches. The highlight of that for me was seeing a sketch for one of the Frick's celebrated paintings: Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres' portrait of Louise, Princesse de Broglie, Later the Comtesse d'Haussonville. 

*Notice that the love letters theme assumes literate women. I didn't think that much about that aspect until I saw the The Book of Esther in the Age of Rembrandt special exhibit at The Jewish Museum. (You can catch it through August 10, 2025. Check your library for passes, or plan your visit for the Museums on Us Day to save the $15 per person admission.) A number of the paintings show Esther involved in writing, reflecting the unusually  high  literacy rate of the Dutch at the time. You may also notice that the tables featured in most of these paintings are covered by rugs just like the table  in Woman Writing a Letter with Her Maid. 

**Speaking of the Met, it also has a temporary exhibit worth catching this summer: Sargent and Paris. Catch that one before it closes on August 3rd. It definitely worth the trip. The Met never imposes an extra charge for its special exhibits. Residents of NY and the metro area always get to pay what they wish, and for other visitors, it's possible to get in free on the first weekend of the month through the Museums on Us program from Bank of America.  Also the Met is home to five Vermeer paintings, so it will make a complement to the three you can see in the Frick now. One of them, Young Woman with a Lute,  features the same yellow jacket. 

Related: 

Vermeer in Philadelphia

Jane Austen at 250

Jane Austen at the Morgan

Valuing kindness above cleverness: Emma's lesson

 

This blanket is one of the hundreds of themed  products available at Totally_Jane_Austen 

Facebook brought this New Yorker cartoon into my feed. I immediately thought of Jane Austen's Emma. She thought the same way the father in this cartoon does that saying something clever but devastating is an irresistible temptation, but she comes to regret the hurt she has caused. 

While the group is seated for their picnic, Frank Churchill stirs things up by declaring a demand from Miss Woodhouse: 

" '..she only demands from each of you either one thing very clever, be it prose or verse, original or repeated--or two things moderately clever--or three things very dull indeed, and she engages to laugh heartily at them all."

wine charms exclusive to Totally_Jane_Austen

"Oh! very well," exclaimed Miss Bates, "then I need not be uneasy. 'Three things very dull indeed.' That will just do for me, you know. I shall be sure to say three dull things as soon as ever I open my mouth, shan't I? (looking round with the most good-humoured dependence on every body's assent)--Do not you all think I shall?"

Emma could not resist.

Locket by Totally_Jane_Austen

"Ah! ma'am, but there may be a difficulty. Pardon me--but you will be limited as to number--only three at once."

Miss Bates, deceived by the mock ceremony of her manner, did not immediately catch her meaning; but, when it burst on her, it could not anger, though a slight blush shewed that it could pain her.

"Ah!--well--to be sure. Yes, I see what she means, (turning to Mr. Knightley,) and I will try to hold my tongue. I must make myself very disagreeable, or she would not have said such a thing to an old friend."

There is some additional dialog and a bit of narrative until Mr. Knightley is able to confront Emma alone and take her to task:

While waiting for the carriage, she found Mr. Knightley by her side. He looked around, as if to see that no one were near, and then said,

"Emma, I must once more speak to you as I have been used to do: a privilege rather endured than allowed, perhaps, but I must still use it. I cannot see you acting wrong, without a remonstrance. How could you be so unfeeling to Miss Bates? How could you be so insolent in your wit to a woman of her character, age, and situation?--Emma, I had not thought it possible."

Emma recollected, blushed, was sorry, but tried to laugh it off.

"Nay, how could I help saying what I did?--Nobody could have helped it. It was not so very bad. I dare say she did not understand me."

"I assure you she did. She felt your full meaning. She has talked of it since. I wish you could have heard how she talked of it--with what candour and generosity. I wish you could have heard her honouring your forbearance, in being able to pay her such attentions, as she was for ever receiving from yourself and your father, when her society must be so irksome."

"Oh!" cried Emma, "I know there is not a better creature in the world: but you must allow, that what is good and what is ridiculous are most unfortunately blended in her."

"They are blended," said he, "I acknowledge; and, were she prosperous, I could allow much for the occasional prevalence of the ridiculous over the good. Were she a woman of fortune, I would leave every harmless absurdity to take its chance, I would not quarrel with you for any liberties of manner. Were she your equal in situation--but, Emma, consider how far this is from being the case. She is poor; she has sunk from the comforts she was born to; and, if she live to old age, must probably sink more. Her situation should secure your compassion. It was badly done, indeed! You, whom she had known from an infant, whom she had seen grow up from a period when her notice was an honour, to have you now, in thoughtless spirits, and the pride of the moment, laugh at her, humble her--and before her niece, too--and before others, many of whom (certainly some,) would be entirely guided by your treatment of her.--This is not pleasant to you, Emma--and it is very far from pleasant to me; but I must, I will,--I will tell you truths while I can; satisfied with proving myself your friend by very faithful counsel, and trusting that you will some time or other do me greater justice than you can do now."

You can judge for yourself which adaption of the picnic at Box Hill, showed this lesson best, thanks to the compilation here:

 

With great status comes great responsibility 

The first line of Emma is not nearly as famous as the opening line of Pride and Prejudice, though it also archly conveys the essence of the story: "Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her."

Emma seems to have all that is necessary for happiness. Out of those three attributes, she takes the most pride in her cleverness, taking her wealth for granted and lacking vanity for her appearance, as Mr. Knightley reveals in conversation with Mrs. Weston. 

Like a tragic hero, Emma's great strengths are also what lead to her undoing -- or rather some misjudgments and hurt feelings that the good-hearted Emma never intended. Austen's novels follow the conventions of Shakespeare's comedies rather than the tragedies, so everything works out fine in the end with the main characters properly paired off. 

However, along the way, our heroine has to admit her faults and mistakes and learn to be better, which she does. Now that I think about it, Emma's lesson is similar to Darcy's who responded to Bingley's suggestion that he ask Elizabeth to dance with "She is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me; and I am in no humour at present to give consequence to young ladies who are slighted by other men." Darcy came to regret that quip as much as Emma regretted what she said to Miss Bates. Like Darcy, Emma learns that kindness and consideration for the feelings of others is a greater measure of worth than attempt to manipulate others -- for their own good -- and clever remarks.  

Related:

Observations on Jane Austen's Emma                    
Jane Austen: Love and Money
Love and Limerence in Jane Austen

Jane Austen at the Morgan
Jane Austen and Autism
Jane Austen's Heroines
Pride, Prejudice and Persuasion: Obstacles to Happiness in Jane Austen's Novels
Three Janes, Two Governesses, and the Abolitionist Movement

Totally_Jane_Austen

Jane Austen at 250

Jane Austen was born on December 16, 1775, which means that her 250th  birthday is still a full half a year away. But why wait to celebrate?

 Jane Austen's novels grace a towels, available here 

 That's the attitude of a number of laces that have are observing her birthday already in various ways. I got to see two of them in one day on a trip into Manhattan today. One was the Morgan Library & Museum exhibit, "A Lively Mind: Jane Austen at 250," which was just set on June 6 and will run until September 14, 2025. 

                    

Joan Hassal's illustrations of Jane Austen's novels published between 1957 and 1963: "Miss Crawford's Harp," "The saunter around Woodstone," "Ann[sic] Elliot and Captain Wentworth," "Captain Benedick runs for help," "Willoughby carries in Marianne," "Elinor meets Miss Steele in Kensington Gardens"

These illustrations are among the many items that enriched the Jane Austen collection at the Morgan thanks to the donation of an extensive collection amassed by Alberta and Henry Gershon Burke (who changed his last name from the more Jewish-sounding Berkowitz).  The exhibit also shows something the Burkes purchased but were pressured not to take out of England -- a lock of Jane Austen's hair that Alberta Burke gifted to the he Jane Austen Society in Chawton.

Alberta willed her her extensive collection to Goucher College and the Morgan. The former was given the books and correspondence, while the latter received Austen letters and manuscripts upon her death in 1975.  In 1979, Henry Burke, along with Joan Austen-Leigh and J. David Grey founded The Jane Austen Society of North America (JASNA).

                           Candles and other Jane Austen items available at Totally_Jane_Austen

Pride and Prejudice Off-Broadway

Extending the celebration of Jane Austen, we took in the adaptation of her most popular novel in a much-cut version played by one actor and two actresses taking on multiple roles each to heighten the comedy and showcase teh adeptness of the depictions of character. In truth, the tickets were purchased before we planned the stop at the Morgan for the morning before the matinee. If you want to catch this version in NYC, you'll have to get your tickets within the month. The play's run is limited to just 5 weeks and so ends at the end of June.

This is a fun version of the novel with clever choreography and use of accessories to enable the three people on stage to represent all the Bennets, the Gardiners, Darcy, Wickham, Charlotte Lucas, Mr. Collins, Bingley, his sister, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, and Darcy's housekeeper, though it had to cut out several characters (not just the Hursts the way most productions do) and some key dialog. 

One cut particularly disappointed me: the elimination of the discussion of accomplished women. As you can see from this blog post, it's one that I consider key to the Elizabeth's character and an important life-lesson to push back when you are held to an impossible standard. 

If you want to mark the novelist's 250th birthday, there's no better way to do it than with a the Jane Austen products for sale here. I can assure you that you'll find better pricing at the Zazzle store than you would in the Morgan gift shop. I checked myself.              

                                                                                                                    
                                                                  

Related

Jane Austen: Love and Money

Jane Austen at the Morgan

Love and Limerence in Jane Austen

Observations on Jane Austen's Emma
Jane Austen and Autism

Jane Austen's Heroines

Pride, Prejudice and Persuasion: Obstacles to Happiness in Jane Austen's Novels

Three Janes, Two Governesses, and the Abolitionist Movement

                                   

                                                                                                       Puzzle from Totally_Jane_Austen

                  

Subverting the Cinderella Story and Assumptions About the 1950s in "The Solid Gold Cadillac"

 

The Solid Gold Cadillac is a 1956 comedy film starring Judy Holliday (pictured in the center of the photo above) as the irrepressible small stockholder, Laura Partridge. The car in the title alludes to the gift bestowed on the heroine by the other stockholders in the company for upholding their interests. The brief view of the gold Cadillac is filmed in Technicolor, though the rest of the film is in black-and-white. 

Holliday's character is somewhat similar to the one she played in her most famous role, that of Billie Dawn in the 1950 comedy Born Yesterday. In fact, there's a subtle allusion to that film in this one when she claims that the picture of the leading man in The Solid Gold Cadillac played by Paul Douglas resembles William Holden, her love in interest in the 1950 film. (There is no real physical resemblance between the two).   

In both films, the plot of marrying the love interest is secondary. The primary narrative is about the heroine's discovery of corruption and her determination to push back. It's not the traditional fairy tale in which all the princess needs to do is be discovered by the prince in order to live happily ever.  And that is something that is particularly underscored in The Solid Gold Cadillac.

LIke some other 1950s films, this one has a narrator -- voiced by George Burns in this case. He lets us know who are the bad guys and the good guys and draws parallels to the Cinderella story in describing the heroine's experiences.  

But this is not a princess who leaves behind a glass slipper for the prince to use to find her. The shoes she loses are sturdy boots. Twice in the film, Partridge finds a single boot of her own in the office she's trying to clear out. The second time, she thinks she'll find the mate in a file drawer, though as you see from the picture below, it turns out to be a boot from a different pair. 

I was wondering why so much emphasis on this sight gag until I connected it with the Cinderella narrative. It's an obvious subversion of the symbol of the fairy tale in which the drudge got to don a beautiful dress and ride in a carriage conjured by magic to  get swept off her feet by the prince who would save her from any future work.

In contrast, our heroine gets her man, her career, and a solid car rather than just a title and a carriage that turns back into a pumpkin

She's not the only woman in the film who continues working after marriage. Her secretary does, too. And the happily ever after of all the worthy characters is not just due to their marriages but to their careers, as well. This is the modern deviation from the traditional marriage plots that dominated fairy tales, plays, and  novels for a few hundred years.  Sturdy boots > glass slippers.

Related: Feminine Feet

Generative AI in 2025 Vs. Computers on Television in 1978

Computer vs. Kotter

As the IMDB summary in the screenshot below says, this 17th episode in the third season of Welcome Back Kotter featured a computer capable of speaking about any episode in history brought into the classroom to replace the teacher's lectures. Mr. Kotter finds he no longer has to spend time preparing lessons or even grading assignments but doesn't enjoy feeling useless. The seathogs have their own way of resolving that problem and indicate the usual assumption always portrayed on TV that young people just know how to hack computers without any need for formal training. 

Mr. Kotter insists at the end of the program that the computer should be used as a tool but not to replace the human experience of teaching. I found that fascinating that this was portrayed in early 1978 because very few schools were even bringing computers in at that stage. 

Also while the ELIZA chatbot  was born in 1966, it would have carried on conversation via text rather than voice. Also the chatbot could work by responding directly to your input rather like the computer does when Mr. Kotter types in a joke, but it would not have been capable of delivering a lecture on whatever historical topic the teacher typed in, as depicted in "Meet Your New Teacher: Batteries Not Included." There is never any explanation offered about how it is fed data to work with (unlike the computer in the 1957 movie Deskset)

IMDB listing for the episode in question

AI Today

But in 2025, it certainly would be possible given computers ability to tap into the information uploaded to the internet with AI conversion of text to voice, as well. But how does actual generative AI measure up? Ironically, not all that well in context of a very simple query. 

As I discovered Mr. Kotter attempting to get the computer to appreciate one of his uncle jokes via  a video compendium of his jokes, I didn't know which episode to look for and so decided to ask generative AI for help. I presented this query to Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT: In which episode of "Welcome Back Kotter" did Mr. Kotter type a joke into a computer?

Claude completely missed the mark, suggesting such an episode didn't exist and offering its own reasons why I likely was wrong. This is what it wrote: 

I don't recall an episode of "Welcome Back, Kotter" where Mr. Kotter typed a joke into a computer. The show ran from 1975 to 1979, a time when personal computers were just emerging and not commonly featured in television shows, especially in classroom settings.

"Welcome Back, Kotter" was set in a Brooklyn high school where Gabe Kotter (played by Gabe Kaplan) taught a group of underachieving students known as the "Sweathogs." The show primarily focused on classroom interactions, the students' antics, and Kotter's relationship with them, typically using traditional teaching methods rather than technology.

Since my knowledge has a cutoff date, there's a small possibility I might be missing something, but computers were not a significant part of the show's premise or regular storylines. If you're thinking of a specific episode that featured this scenario, it may be from another show or a different context.

Gemini was much more helpful in this context, identifying the correct episode and linking to the IMDB page associated with it.  Here's what it answered: 

Based on the search results, the episode of "Welcome Back, Kotter" where Mr. Kotter interacts with a computer and attempts to tell it a joke is:

• "Meet Your New Teacher: Batteries Not Included" (Season 3, Episode 17)

Here's a key takeaway from the search results:

• The episode features Mr. Woodman bringing a computer into the Sweathogs' classroom. ¹  
  1. Back, Kotter" Meet Your New Teacher: Batteries Not Included (TV Episode 1978) - IMDb

  

  www.imdb.com
• Mr. Kotter does indeed attempt to tell the computer a joke, with less than stellar results.

ChatGPT's response was similar, but I can't account for why it offers a different air date than what is found on IMDB or imputes a particular motive to Mr. Kotter's attempt to the tell the computer a joke.  The the computer doesn't get the joke is not necessarily a slight on its intelligence, as Mr. Kotter's uncle jokes tend to be more groan-worthy than laugh-worthy.  Here's what it wrote: 

​In the "Welcome Back, Kotter" episode titled "Meet Your New Teacher: Batteries Not Included," Mr. Kotter interacts with a computer introduced into his classroom. This episode is the 17th of the third season, which originally aired on February 18, 1978. In this episode, Vice Principal Woodman brings a computer into the Sweathogs' class to teach their lessons, leading to a significant increase in their grades. Feeling jealous and concerned about being replaced, Mr. Kotter attempts to engage with the computer. At the end of the episode, he tries to tell the computer a joke, but the computer does not respond, highlighting the limitations of technology in replacing human interaction. ​Ultimate 70s+10IMDb+10Inner Mind+10

Conclusion

While I do like using Claude for certain tasks, it seems that it suffers from a major shortcoming in making sense of data that should have been accessible to it via the internet. But there's also something very meta about observing the the latest -- of the free -- versions of generative AI only being capable of answering question when they have taken in specific data about them. No computer can simply start lecturing about a historical episode without taking in the relevant data.  And once again, we are reminded that the output of computers depends on what the input is. 

Related:


Add a pinch of salt to creative claims for AI

Bard vs Bard: why you can't just accept the first AI prompt response
AI's early attempts at screenwriting
The perils of prompt engineering
An A/B test of generative AI
Bard brings in the clowns

"You'll get there" VS "You're not you..."

When I  have a contrarian reaction to something, it inspires me to think of what I would like to see in its place. That happened today after  someone in my LinkedIn feed shared the Snickers commercial that featured Betty White getting pounded in football practice back in 2010.

Another senior actor who appears briefly at the end is Abe Vigoda, who is famous for his role as Fish on Barney Miller.* (What's really remarkable is that he looks very much the way he did in the 1970s, and he happens to be playing to type, as Fish was constantly complaining of his aches and pains that he attributed to again.). No one focused on Vigoda, though who is not named in the commercial the way White is. 

In fact, this commercial opened the door to other commercials in the snack category, so the actress was quite busy with lucrative work when she was already in her late 80s. That someone can continue to work in their profession even when past the standard age of retirement is a very good thing. 

What is not a very good thing is the unconscious bias against older people that colors this commercial. They are not even themselves but stand-ins for the substandard "you" in the tagline "You're not you when  you're hungry."

I get that it was played for humor and that it certainly resonated with the target market for the candy bar that experienced a surge in sales after this campaign. But success is not necessarily the reward for virtue or an absence of bias, as we see from the example of the Yorkie bar. 

Back around the same period as theat Snickers campaign, the British Yorkie bar that put "It's not for girls" on its label with a female figure crossed out taking the play of the O in its name. Taking this so far that samples of the chocolate bar were only distributed to men and not given to women in 2002 did land the brand in trouble, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't finding the sexist messaging worked to increase sales to men. It must have worked if the company kept it going until 2011 despite the protests and even outright bans it incurred.

So we see that sexism is used as a marketing gimmick and can increase sales, and I'd say the same applies to ageism. Things are getting slightly better as marketers realize that older people -- particularly women -- are a viable market unto themselves. 

What I'd like to see is a commercial in which older people are not just featured as the "you" that you don't wish to be but as the "you" that you aspire to be. It can be used to promote a rage of products and services related to building one's future through education, investment, health, etc with the tagline "You'll get there." 

*Speaking of Barney Miller, Hal Linden, who played the title role is still alive and kicking and acting at 93 (AMV)! 

Charlotte Brontë's Juvenilia and Fanfiction

What was the original fanfiction? If you look this up, as I did, you'd find that most date it to the 1960s when Star Trek fans  penned their own tales about the characters onboard the Enterprise.  This was, of course, pre-internet, so these stories were shared via actual publication. 

A few article on fanfiction claim that the genre (yes, many would count it as that) predates the world of television. They would claim that references and reimaginings of pre-existing stories can fall under that umbrella term and so count works of  literature like Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost as fanfiction for the Bible. Some even contend that Shakespeare's plays are fanfiction because they rework stories that were invented earlier. 

I don't quite buy that broad definition of the term. I'd possibly grant that Sherlock Holmes stories by authors other than Arthur Conan Doyle could rank as fanfiction in depicting a recognized character that someone else had invented in new stories, though I wouldn't say that any work of literature that is infulenced by common stories and myths can be considered fanfiction. 

What's the key differentiator here? I think it may really need to start on the basis of  deep interest in a character they did not first create. But would that character have to originated in fiction for fanfiction? I think not. 

On that basis, I'd content that Brontë's juvenilia constitutes fanfiction -- a term I wasn't familiar with back in the day when I wrote my dissertation. Her depictions of the Duke of Wellington that evolved into the Duke of Zamorna and then the king of Angria really was a Victorian forerunner of modern fanfiction. 

Much in the way fanfiction writers take their inspiration from television characters, Brontë looked to the celebrity figure of her day and cast him in new adventures and then her own world. Whereas Louisa May Alcott was able to profit from her overwrought tales that did sell, Brontë's were not meant for publication.