0.4 Chapter two: the formative years, 1804-1920  (Page 6/8)

It was not just the library that was overflowing. The Society could also no longer accommodate its growing art collection. An article in the local press stated that "the building . . . was not intended for displaying a large collection of paint­ings. . . . Four-fifths [of the Society's paintings] are distributed about in dark cor­ridors, galleries and corners, where for want of light they cannot be satisfactorily examined, even during the sunniest days of the year."

The Society continued to accept all donations of art and books, even though it was unable either to store or to catalog them. This policy was to have long-term implications. The Society was building a huge backlog of uncataloged items, cre­ating a future liability that would inevitably have to be addressed.

Critical choices were also made during this pivotal era concerning relations with the New York state and city governments. Early in its history, the Society de­pended on the city and state for various kinds of assistance. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, were it not for the timely actions of DeWitt Clinton (as mayor of New York city, then as state senator, and finally as governor), the Society would probably not have survived its first twenty-five years. But the Society's inability to raise the money needed to erect a building on the two parcels of land the city offered in the 1860s had a profound and long-lasting impact. First, the land offered by the city in 1868 became the site of a new major cultural museum, the Metropolitan Mu­seum of Art, which the Society came to regard as "its great competitor."

Why the Society abandoned efforts to raise funds from the city and state is not entirely clear, although it is possible that widespread corruption in city poli­tics during that era played a role.

The Society's choice of an independent path was consequential. In the short run, it meant that the Society had to purchase land for its present site on Central Park West at a cost of $286,000, nearly all of its available resources. Not only did this purchase leave the Society without the money to erect a new, larger building, but it also limited the Society's ability to maintain and exhibit its collections. As one journalist at the time explained, the Society "has put all its money in a lot... where it is hoped some day to erect a building. Meantime it cannot afford a railing to keep back people . .. nor even a guardian to see that [art works]are not carried off."