Visions & Revisions
Avant Vanguard
05/01/2007

Barbara Lee calls the arts her passion and politics her mission. She contributes to both through a family foundation she created in 1999 following her divorce from private equity financier Thomas Lee in 1996. Her $5 million pledge launched a campaign to build a new home for the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston (ICA)—the city’s first new museum in nearly a century. The much-lauded space opened last December. Lee also devotes herself to advancing women in politics. She organizes women’s rallies, hosts fundraisers and supports research to help women prepare for office, including the nation’s highest one. Lee spoke with staff writer Elizabeth Harris about the importance of contemporary art and whether Hillary Clinton is really on her speed dial.

In a city with cultural riches such as the Museum of Fine Arts and the Gardner Museum, why build a new institution?

(Photograph by Thomas Hart Shelby.)
There have been no major organizations committed to cutting-edge art of our time. As an organization, the ICA did terrific work bringing in artists who had never been shown both to Boston and to this country. But we had always been small. Boston is on the cutting edge of technology, of the sciences, of intellectual thought, so it’s really important to have the creative arts be part of that.

You made the first large gift of $5 million to start the $62 million building fund.

I jumped in to be a catalyst for the campaign and to make a lead gift to get it going—and also to convince other trustees that this could be done. I don’t think any organization can really start without leadership. So it was very important to the ICA for someone to take the plunge and make a significant first gift to bring people along.

Was it difficult to stay true to the original concept?

I was lucky enough to be on the architect selection committee. I traveled to Austria, Switzerland, Reykjavik, Iceland, and other places to look at designs. We selected Diller Scofidio + Renfro, who were close to home and had not built a great deal. I met them for a luncheon at Brasserie in the Seagram’s building in New York; the interior of the restaurant was the only architecture they had done in the U.S. I knew that they were very creative, very talented, very edgy, but I didn’t know that they were capable of doing such an inspirational building. I was moved when I saw their initial drawings for the museum. The building looks so much like the drawings. We didn’t give up any of the original concepts in terms of the beauty and the flow of the space.

You purchased your first piece of art after graduating from Simmons College in 1967, when you spent $200 on a Picasso print. How has your taste evolved?

The first thing I was introduced to was Impressionism. Then, in 1963, my father took me to the recreation of the Armory Show in New York. I’ve always been intrigued by the concept of the art of one’s time. Art shows the value of what’s happening in any given period. Right now at the ICA there are Chantal Akerman’s video installations of the Texas-Mexico border and issues surrounding illegal immigration. Then there’s a Sigmar Polke painting with broken-down images from surveillance cameras in Afghanistan.

But back to how I evolved. In 1989, the Guerrilla Girls—a group of women who wear gorilla masks out in public so they are not scapegoats for their subversive activity—had a poster. It is a picture of an odalisque—a woman lounging on a chaise lounge—that says, "Do women have to be nude to get into the Metropolitan?" It’s really about how art by women has been neglected by society, and how the majority of art in museums has been art by men.

Yet they had a sense of humor about their message.

Exactly. A sense of humor is often a great way to make a point. A lot of my work and a lot of my interests have been in empowering women. Over time, I started to buy art by women artists—all of the art I’ve given to the ICA has been art by women.

How do you measure the museum’s success?

I measure it by standing in the space. I had the opportunity to walk through the museum with the mayor, Thomas Menino, the museum director, Jill Medvedow, and the head of the Boston redevelopment authority. I knew it was a success when we stood in the Founders’ Gallery, which is a long, narrow glass room outside the galleries, facing the water. The mayor stood there with us. We finished the tour and this was the last stop and his staff couldn’t drag him away. The museum is an amazing aesthetic experience. It draws you in and up through all the different levels, and it is both exhilarating and quieting at the same time.

You say your passion is the arts but your mission is politics.

I have always been interested in women’s empowerment issues. In the mid-1990s, I started looking at using philanthropy to make change. I went to different women’s organizations to look at the best ways to help empower women and one person said, "Why not run several women for president?" So Laura Niswood and I cofounded a nonpartisan project, the White House Project. In 1998, I started to look at what it would take to elect more women. In November of that year, there were 10 women who ran for governor; three were incumbents, and the women who were not incumbents lost. We began looking at the reasons they lost, and I started my own foundation as an umbrella for all of my charitable giving. I hired both Democratic and Republican pollsters to help me formulate a study to look at the obstacles and to come up with strategies to overcome them.

You grew up in a middle-class household. Does coming into wealth as an adult change the kinds of causes you support?

No, I don’t think so. I think that my wealth allows me to pursue my passions on a larger scale. If you give even $5, you are a philanthropist. Most people are generous to either their churches or educational affiliations or hospitals, and those are all organizations that need to be supported.

With Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House and Hillary Clinton running for president, do women candidates still need special help?

Women candidates think they do. Have you seen the guidebooks I produce? You can use them as quick reference guides. Another project I’ve been involved with is Women’s Voices, Women Vote. After the 2000 election, the head of that organization, Page Gardner, realized that more than 22 million eligible women did not vote.

You weren’t raised as a feminist activist. What led you to this point?

My background as a woman who had gone to women’s colleges was very important. One of the jobs I had was at the Wellesley Centers for Women where they were focusing on new ways of looking at women and psychology. In politics, too, women have different perspectives than men and bring different things to the table.

Your political fundraisers are famous for good turnouts and big names. Yet you could probably contribute personally and skip the party.

The political gatherings I’ve organized have been inspiring to me. When I started, I realized how thrilling it was to be in a room with women senators and to see their different styles, personalities and legislative agendas. I wanted more women to be able to see that, rather than only wealthy women. That’s why I started organizing these large events. We bring in college students with $25 tickets and then we have hundreds of women with $100 tickets.

Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas has been quoted as saying that you create an environment where people become excited about their own potential.

I think it’s about the senators bonding with the audience. It’s not about me. I am lucky to have a network to be able to bring people together and showcase the power and the inspiration of women’s leadership.

It has been said that Hillary’s on your speed dial.

That’s an overstatement.

How would you handicap the 2008 presidential race?

One of my good friends is the newly elected attorney general of Massachusetts, Martha Coakley. When she graduated from law school, her dad gave her a plaque that read, "Sometimes the best man for the job is a woman." And that’s what people are going to figure out about Hillary Clinton. There have been polls every year about the increasing number of people who say they are ready and willing to vote for a woman. Hillary is going to do the best job she can, win or lose—but I think she is going to win.

Is the election of a woman president the only way you’ll feel successful in your efforts to advance women politically?

There are many steps toward success. Having Nancy Pelosi sitting behind the president at the state of the union address—that is a major step. There are many things that will advance women, but because Hillary is running, more women will think about running for office themselves.