Aesthetic Patronage: PepsiCo and the Aristocratic Tradition
by Miles Gamble
The Expansion of the Corporate Estate
The establishment of the corporate estate in the 1960’s created a new paradigm in American enterprise. Businesses that were looking to expand their operation sought out the city’s periphery as a safer and economically viable option to boost revenue.[1] As a consequence, the more the businesses expanded outside of cities during the 1960’s, the more focused they became on their public image. Aesthetic improvements on corporate campuses were used to attract investors, new customers, and gain community support. These desires for enhancing the look of the estate then snowballed into an even larger interest of corporate owners having elaborate works of art on their premises.[2] The purchase of artistic items such as sculptures, paintings, and creative building designs became synonymous with the corporate campus and has endured to the present day.[3] PepsiCo stands as an exemplar of how a corporation established in Westchester becomes defined through its ability to patronize modern art, and use the value of that art to gain credibility.
Aesthetic patronage is the act of being involved in the purchasing, investing, or collecting of works of art. Patronizing, meaning to frequent something, generally deals with purchasing a good or service. Aesthetic deals with one’s appreciation of nature and beauty, and finds its roots in the history of other cultures.
The History of Aesthetic Patronage
In 17th century England, the concept of aesthetic patronage, though not directly related to building the façade of an estate, symbolized a characteristic associated with the aristocracy.[4] In addition to this characterization, there were also political implications that considered “Luxury consumption [as a] visual display of wealth associated with embassies and diplomats [in order] to convey a message or set of messages which formed diplomatic communication just as much as any formal negotiations or written memorials.”[5] Also, patronizing items of “luxury” was seen as a representation of cultural rebirth presented by the aristocracy to the people of England in the late 1600’s. The aristocrats were responsible for setting cultural trends and revitalizing the public conscience, and purchasing different forms of art was a representation of that revitalization. The Renaissance period, for example, was a major artistic movement, spanning from the 14th to16th century, that revolved around the “evidence of economic wealth, [as well as the] standards of elite consumption between the 14th and 17th.”[6] More specifically, these “luxury” or “elite” items, tended to be things that were not affordable or accessible to the public, meaning that aesthetic patronage was a concept that may have served as an indicator of one’s material worth. In sum, the concept of aesthetic patronage, as practiced by the English Aristocracy, shares a similarity with PepsiCo’s consumption of rare and expensive sculptures in that “elite” items are used as evidence of economic wealth.
The Expansion of the Corporate Estate
The establishment of the corporate estate in the 1960’s created a new paradigm in American enterprise. Businesses that were looking to expand their operation sought out the city’s periphery as a safer and economically viable option to boost revenue.[1] As a consequence, the more the businesses expanded outside of cities during the 1960’s, the more focused they became on their public image. Aesthetic improvements on corporate campuses were used to attract investors, new customers, and gain community support. These desires for enhancing the look of the estate then snowballed into an even larger interest of corporate owners having elaborate works of art on their premises.[2] The purchase of artistic items such as sculptures, paintings, and creative building designs became synonymous with the corporate campus and has endured to the present day.[3] PepsiCo stands as an exemplar of how a corporation established in Westchester becomes defined through its ability to patronize modern art, and use the value of that art to gain credibility.
Aesthetic patronage is the act of being involved in the purchasing, investing, or collecting of works of art. Patronizing, meaning to frequent something, generally deals with purchasing a good or service. Aesthetic deals with one’s appreciation of nature and beauty, and finds its roots in the history of other cultures.
The History of Aesthetic Patronage
In 17th century England, the concept of aesthetic patronage, though not directly related to building the façade of an estate, symbolized a characteristic associated with the aristocracy.[4] In addition to this characterization, there were also political implications that considered “Luxury consumption [as a] visual display of wealth associated with embassies and diplomats [in order] to convey a message or set of messages which formed diplomatic communication just as much as any formal negotiations or written memorials.”[5] Also, patronizing items of “luxury” was seen as a representation of cultural rebirth presented by the aristocracy to the people of England in the late 1600’s. The aristocrats were responsible for setting cultural trends and revitalizing the public conscience, and purchasing different forms of art was a representation of that revitalization. The Renaissance period, for example, was a major artistic movement, spanning from the 14th to16th century, that revolved around the “evidence of economic wealth, [as well as the] standards of elite consumption between the 14th and 17th.”[6] More specifically, these “luxury” or “elite” items, tended to be things that were not affordable or accessible to the public, meaning that aesthetic patronage was a concept that may have served as an indicator of one’s material worth. In sum, the concept of aesthetic patronage, as practiced by the English Aristocracy, shares a similarity with PepsiCo’s consumption of rare and expensive sculptures in that “elite” items are used as evidence of economic wealth.
Kendall and PepsiCo
After establishing PepsiCo’s new Westchester location[7] in 1965, Chairman Donald M. Kendall set out to not only give the corporation a new home, but to redefine the company’s image for a wider audience, and attract new customers.[8] Using his newly acquired property in Purchase, Kendall turned a departed from the Manhattan-style building look and made PepsiCo into a vast and majestic dwelling in Purchase. Kendall wanted PepsiCo to be more than a transplanted factory office; he sought to make PepsiCo a marker through his “Golden Path” garden.[9] The Golden Path was a section of the PepsiCo campus that hosted acres of manicured lawn and expensive sculptures made by some of the world’s greatest modern artists.[10] To Kendall, sculptures represented a strong and unique indicator of creativity and wealth that would eventually earn his company reverence from the greater New York community: “I look for art that displays stability, which is what I seek in our corporation. Yet I want to reach out for New York to show we’re looking ahead”[11]
In Kendall’s opinion, art was a way to draw in public support. In the art world sculpture was not popular due to its difficulty to afford, build and maintain, however, Kendall recognized the creditability that could come with the purchase of elite items.[12] This form of aesthetic patronage was used in the same fashion that it was in the aristocracy of old: a way to establish an undeniable marker of wealth, while introducing a new style in American enterprise that would capture the public imagination. Some scholars believe that the presence of art on corporate estates, such as sculptures on the PepsiCo campus, was the product of the tastes of chief executives who sought to make their new suburban properties a natural, and artistic place.[13] Other scholars believe that corporate estates invest in a heavy artistic presence to build a ubiquitous style that will make them both memorable and marketable to potential investors and consumers.[14] Regardless of his intentions, Kendall made the aesthetics of his campus accessible. In the late 1960’s, PepsiCo “essentially functioned as a local public park, as anyone was (and is) free to wander the grounds right up to the building.”[15] Turning the PepsiCo campus into a public space demonstrated an accessibility not practiced by the aristocracy of the 17th century. Using the campus as a location open to the public, Kendall may have been concerned with it giving the people a sense of transparency and ownership, and the sculptures may have served as items used to impress the visiting public. Though PepsiCo was the proverbial “lord of the land” with their new corporate estate, unlike the aristocracy, they were concerned with garnering public support throughout the their time in Purchase, NY.
After establishing PepsiCo’s new Westchester location[7] in 1965, Chairman Donald M. Kendall set out to not only give the corporation a new home, but to redefine the company’s image for a wider audience, and attract new customers.[8] Using his newly acquired property in Purchase, Kendall turned a departed from the Manhattan-style building look and made PepsiCo into a vast and majestic dwelling in Purchase. Kendall wanted PepsiCo to be more than a transplanted factory office; he sought to make PepsiCo a marker through his “Golden Path” garden.[9] The Golden Path was a section of the PepsiCo campus that hosted acres of manicured lawn and expensive sculptures made by some of the world’s greatest modern artists.[10] To Kendall, sculptures represented a strong and unique indicator of creativity and wealth that would eventually earn his company reverence from the greater New York community: “I look for art that displays stability, which is what I seek in our corporation. Yet I want to reach out for New York to show we’re looking ahead”[11]
In Kendall’s opinion, art was a way to draw in public support. In the art world sculpture was not popular due to its difficulty to afford, build and maintain, however, Kendall recognized the creditability that could come with the purchase of elite items.[12] This form of aesthetic patronage was used in the same fashion that it was in the aristocracy of old: a way to establish an undeniable marker of wealth, while introducing a new style in American enterprise that would capture the public imagination. Some scholars believe that the presence of art on corporate estates, such as sculptures on the PepsiCo campus, was the product of the tastes of chief executives who sought to make their new suburban properties a natural, and artistic place.[13] Other scholars believe that corporate estates invest in a heavy artistic presence to build a ubiquitous style that will make them both memorable and marketable to potential investors and consumers.[14] Regardless of his intentions, Kendall made the aesthetics of his campus accessible. In the late 1960’s, PepsiCo “essentially functioned as a local public park, as anyone was (and is) free to wander the grounds right up to the building.”[15] Turning the PepsiCo campus into a public space demonstrated an accessibility not practiced by the aristocracy of the 17th century. Using the campus as a location open to the public, Kendall may have been concerned with it giving the people a sense of transparency and ownership, and the sculptures may have served as items used to impress the visiting public. Though PepsiCo was the proverbial “lord of the land” with their new corporate estate, unlike the aristocracy, they were concerned with garnering public support throughout the their time in Purchase, NY.
The Significance of Location
In addition to gaining public support, Kendall’s PepsiCo estate represented a change in where American corporations located themselves. In the 1960’s many corporations in Manhattan moved from Manhattan where “political tumult [was] largely concentrated in center cities,” making a move to New York’s periphery a viable option to expand business safely. As Mozingo observed previously, chief executives, such as Kendall, have a large say in the appearance of their establishment, and as they resemble the aristocracy of old, they begin to figure out how to display that façade to their advantage. Further, advancing enterprise that revolved around aesthetic patronage helped PepsiCo not only become reputable in the public eye, but it also helped them dissociate themselves from the city, which was seen as a place of economic death and stagnation.[16]
The practice of aesthetic patronage shares a tradition in the western world that is centuries old. The aristocracy of Britain saw it as a way to distinguish themselves from the have-nots, as well as using it to establish success between their own. The symbol of purchasing luxury items, like art, was highly important in the 17th century as the elite sought to bring sophistication back to Europe during the renaissance era, and what they purchased would have lasting implications on their culture.
The tradition of aesthetic patronage endures, as PepsiCo reinvented their image from a Manhattan office to a pastoral garden. Pieces of modern art, such as Kendall’s sculptor collection, served two purposes: 1) to garner public support and imagination, and 2) serves as symbols of a new corporate image for PepsiCo. Patronizing the arts assisted PepsiCo in upholding a traditional standard of art and luxury consumption while inventing a memorable façade that remains to present day.
Notes:
[1] Rowe, “Corporate Estates.” From Middle Landscapes
[2] Mozingo, Louise A. “Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes” The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2011) pg. 136
[3] Stein, Donna. “The Donald M. Kendall Sculpture Gardens at PepsiCo.” From The Donald M. Kendall Sculpture Gardens at PepsiCo. A. Colish Inc, Mount Vernon, New York (1986) pg. 14
[4] Jacobsen, Helen, “Luxury and Power: The Material World of the Stuart Diplomat, 1660-1714,” Oxford University Press, New York City, NY (2012) pg. 1
[5] Jacobsen, Helen, “Luxury and Power,” pg. 1
[6] Helen, 2
[7] http://www.town.harrison.ny.us/docs/PlanningZoning/PepsiCo/Chapters/II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.pdf
[8] Stein, Donna. “The Donald M. Kendall Sculpture Gardens at PepsiCo,” pg. 4
[9] Stein, 7
[10] Ibid, 7
[11] Ibid, 6
[12] Ibid, 2
[13] Mozingo, Louise A. “Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes,” pg. 137
[14] Wally Olins. “The Corporate Personality: An Inquiry into the Nature of Corporate Indentity.” Design Council, London, United Kingdom (1978) pg. 101
[15] Mozingo, 137
[16] Schroth, Raymound. Fordham: A History and Memoir, Loyola Press, Chicago, Illinois, pg. 323-28
In addition to gaining public support, Kendall’s PepsiCo estate represented a change in where American corporations located themselves. In the 1960’s many corporations in Manhattan moved from Manhattan where “political tumult [was] largely concentrated in center cities,” making a move to New York’s periphery a viable option to expand business safely. As Mozingo observed previously, chief executives, such as Kendall, have a large say in the appearance of their establishment, and as they resemble the aristocracy of old, they begin to figure out how to display that façade to their advantage. Further, advancing enterprise that revolved around aesthetic patronage helped PepsiCo not only become reputable in the public eye, but it also helped them dissociate themselves from the city, which was seen as a place of economic death and stagnation.[16]
The practice of aesthetic patronage shares a tradition in the western world that is centuries old. The aristocracy of Britain saw it as a way to distinguish themselves from the have-nots, as well as using it to establish success between their own. The symbol of purchasing luxury items, like art, was highly important in the 17th century as the elite sought to bring sophistication back to Europe during the renaissance era, and what they purchased would have lasting implications on their culture.
The tradition of aesthetic patronage endures, as PepsiCo reinvented their image from a Manhattan office to a pastoral garden. Pieces of modern art, such as Kendall’s sculptor collection, served two purposes: 1) to garner public support and imagination, and 2) serves as symbols of a new corporate image for PepsiCo. Patronizing the arts assisted PepsiCo in upholding a traditional standard of art and luxury consumption while inventing a memorable façade that remains to present day.
Notes:
[1] Rowe, “Corporate Estates.” From Middle Landscapes
[2] Mozingo, Louise A. “Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes” The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2011) pg. 136
[3] Stein, Donna. “The Donald M. Kendall Sculpture Gardens at PepsiCo.” From The Donald M. Kendall Sculpture Gardens at PepsiCo. A. Colish Inc, Mount Vernon, New York (1986) pg. 14
[4] Jacobsen, Helen, “Luxury and Power: The Material World of the Stuart Diplomat, 1660-1714,” Oxford University Press, New York City, NY (2012) pg. 1
[5] Jacobsen, Helen, “Luxury and Power,” pg. 1
[6] Helen, 2
[7] http://www.town.harrison.ny.us/docs/PlanningZoning/PepsiCo/Chapters/II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.pdf
[8] Stein, Donna. “The Donald M. Kendall Sculpture Gardens at PepsiCo,” pg. 4
[9] Stein, 7
[10] Ibid, 7
[11] Ibid, 6
[12] Ibid, 2
[13] Mozingo, Louise A. “Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes,” pg. 137
[14] Wally Olins. “The Corporate Personality: An Inquiry into the Nature of Corporate Indentity.” Design Council, London, United Kingdom (1978) pg. 101
[15] Mozingo, 137
[16] Schroth, Raymound. Fordham: A History and Memoir, Loyola Press, Chicago, Illinois, pg. 323-28