Women Art Collectors and Legacy: Two Case Studies Examining the Legacy-Building Strategies of Australian Women Art Collectors of Contemporary Art

Abstract

This paper examines two Australian women art collectors of contemporary art, Sydney-based Gene Sherman, and Melbourne-based Naomi Milgrom, each of whom is subject to case study analysis, interrogating their role and participation in arts-related scenarios, to highlight collector behaviour and discern legacy building strategies and mechanisms. Using observations from these trajectories and case study scholarship of historically significant women collectors as a category of evidence, in addition to theoretical concepts to frame the analysis, I argue that women collectors hold inherent ambitions to construct a legacy. By employing strategic mechanisms in the form of publishing and archiving protocols, collaborative exhibitions with museums and institutions, and philanthropic initiatives, women collectors advance legacy building. Further, women collectors develop innovative and unorthodox programs incorporating multi-disciplinary approaches to facilitate legacy. Finally, I assert that women collectors leverage their positions, connections, and collections to support these legacy-building aspirations. Through a consideration of the women collectors’ active engagement with the art market, together with a comparative analysis of historical collector behaviour present within the relevant literature, this study has revealed several key findings. Collector behaviours discerned in the case studies comprise clearly articulated and intentional legacy building, sustained archival practices to preserve histories, innovation, collaboration with actors to facilitate legacy, and assertive leveraging of position, status and collections to strengthen legacy objectives.

1. Introduction

Art collectors, as a subject of academic enquiry, have been dominated by a pervasive focus on male figures. Recent historically based research, however, is revealing new narratives for women’s roles and positions within the arts. Yet research on contemporary women collectors remains underdeveloped, and the literature on Australian women collectors discloses a paucity of scholarship for either historical or contemporary figures. In addressing this gender imbalance and deficit in the literature, this paper considers the legacy-building strategies and mechanisms observed within selected art market trajectories of two prominent Australian figures within the arts ecosystem: former academic and gallerist, collector, patron and philanthropist, Dr Gene Sherman AM, and influential business leader and entrepreneur, collector, patron and philanthropist, Naomi Milgrom AC.

Gene Sherman has been described as one of the most “adroit and influential members of Sydney’s cultural community”, an assiduous collector with an exceptional eye and “generosity as a modern-day patron” (Roberts 2007, pp. 38–39; Roux 2022; Craswell 2022). A recipient of national and international institutional honours and public service awards, Sherman has received peer endorsement, with appointments to museum boards and committees, and has occupied a visible position within the national arts and cultural landscape. Hailing from a family tradition of collecting and cultural philanthropic legacy, Naomi Milgrom’s profile intersects in the realm of commercial business and arts and culture, wherein she has held leadership roles within each sector. Milgrom’s philanthropic initiatives and collaborations have spanned the arts, cultural, architectural and design spheres. Commercial industry accolades and national and international arts appointments have also been awarded to Milgrom, acknowledging her position and contribution within these sectors. Key players within the arts ecosystem, both Sherman and Milgrom have cast indelible arts and cultural footprints on the Sydney and Melbourne environs, and as such are requisite collectors for this study.

This paper provides insight into an emerging area of scholarship, shedding light on contemporary women art collectors and their position within the arts ecosystem and constitutes a significant contribution to the field of collectors and art market studies. The study builds upon the advances in recent scholarship and archival research on historically based women collectors, to elicit precedent collector behaviour as evidentiary support to the case study analyses. This has generated new and refined information on collector behaviour, affording an analogous bridge between the representation of historical and contemporary women collectors. Adding a further layer to the current discourse on women’s place in the arts, this timely research aims to shift the narrative on women art collectors, re-centralise their position within the fields, highlight women collectors’ active engagement with the art market, and render a nuanced appreciation of women collectors within the Australian art market.

2. Literature

This study has drawn upon several key areas within the historically based literature that converge with my assertions. Gere and Vaizey’s anthology of historical women collectors explores the motivations that have informed the creation of private and public collections (Gere and Vaizey 1999). However, the women’s achievements, which were significant, are frequently diminished, as the collector profiles in this anthology often lapse into biography, eroding the potency of their accomplishments. As an example, the motivation behind American collector Lillie P Bliss’s (1864–1931) substantial gift of post-impressionist and modernist work to the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York, emanating from her belief in the educational attributes of art, is not interrogated (Gere and Vaizey 1999, p. 169). However, in Fowle and Cleary’s compendium of writings on collecting and patronage, it is noted that Bliss’s donation influenced the curatorial direction of MoMA for the next five decades, illustrating the significance of the philanthropic gesture (Walsh in Fowle and Cleary 2025, p. 199). This latter example provides precedent for a collector’s active and influential participation in the art market, the nature of which is prevalent in the sample cohort. In my study, by eschewing a focus on biography and steering the emphasis to collector behaviour, the cohort’s motivations, directions and ambitions for legacy have been revealed.

The diminishment of women collectors’ achievements and the under-representation of women in the histories of collecting have also, to an extent, been contingent on the societal norms of the period, and this has encumbered women’s place in extant art historical scholarship (Stammers 2021, pp. 2–4; Ffolliott 2012 in Bracken et al. 2012, p. xx). A germane example highlighted in Fowle and Cleary is executor and donor Rosalind Birnie Philip’s (1873–1958) reluctance to receive formal public acknowledgement during her stewardship of artist James McNeill Whistler’s (1834–1903) estate (Hughes 2025 in Fowle and Cleary 2025, pp. 145–66). To avoid the reduction of women collectors’ roles to a literal or metaphorical footnote, primary source material intrinsic to the art market trajectories, for example, an exhibition catalogue, has been incorporated as part of the methodological framework, ensuring the sample cohort’s active involvement in the market is evident. Notably, much of the scholarship within gendered art history now relies on the unearthing of such archival material (Chagnon-Burke and Toschi 2023, p. 3). The legacy-building strategies and mechanisms employed by the sample cohort include archiving practices that contribute to the preservation of their individual narratives.

The literature also reveals that, historically, many women developed collections and employed them to either assert their lineage or position (Bracken et al. 2012, p. xvi). This type of research offers revelatory historical precedent for the use of a collection in a public-facing context. The late 19th-century American collector and museum founder, Isabella Stewart Gardner (1940–1924), utilised her collection to assert her position as much as manage public perception, whilst 19th-century German collector Helene Kröller-Müller (1869–1939) derived societal acceptance through her collection (Walker 2019, p. 43; Rovers 2009, p. 242). This historically based insight correlates with the sample cohort’s use of their collections as leverage in selected arts and cultural collaborations.

Noticeably, however, this scholarship has not permeated Australian-based research. The literature reveals a plethora of artist monographs, museum exhibition catalogues, and canonical overviews of Australian art history. Exploration of the market has received limited attention; topics such as the socio-political and economic factors impacting the market, and the development of government and institutional policies have been examined (Bennett et al. 2020; Van den Bosch 2004). The commercial gallery sector has been chronicled, along with a historical overview of the auction sector (Heathcote 2016; Huda 2008). The role of the collector as a focal point within the context of the Australian art market is decidedly absent. However, the renewed interest in women artists and the accompanying exhibitions and publications are notably present within the Australian art market (Bullock 2020; Freek et al. 2025). This elucidates the gap in the literature on Australian women art collectors, illustrating the intersection in which this paper is situated.

Key theoretical scholarship has also been drawn upon to frame the analysis of the collectors’ respective legacy building. Bourdieu’s theory of cultural production, anchored by ‘cultural capital’ or the forms of cultural knowledge, and ‘symbolic capital’, the resultant accumulation of prestige and status from such ‘cultural capital’, renders a conceptual reading of the art world. Bourdieu asserts that the actors within this entity compete for both forms of capital (Bourdieu 1993, p. 7). In applying this theoretical framework, collectors may then be viewed as active agents within the art market, wherein philanthropic gestures such as the gifting of artworks and the financial support of exhibitions are viewed as strategic forms of symbolic capital. With these actions, institutional validation and, therefore, cultural authority are bestowed upon the collector. Similarly, Velthuis’s examination of the contemporary art market, and specifically the symbolic construction of value, provides a further paradigm of analysis. Developing Bourdieu’s forms of capital, Velthuis argues that prices convey meaning beyond the artwork itself, and moreover, that prices can become “cultural entities”, predicating an array of symbolic meaning between the actors (Velthuis 2005, pp. 3–4). Further, Velthuis asserts that prices for contemporary art are contingent on moral, aesthetic, and social narratives produced by the actors within the art market, rather than determined by the more orthodox economic factors of supply and demand. This “circuit of commerce”, the landscape inhabited by artists, collectors, and dealers, relies on various forms of exchange, or “mutual gifts and favours” (Velthuis 2005, pp. 4, 76). These concepts have some relevance for this study and will be articulated throughout the discussion on the collectors’ philanthropic and institutional collaborations.

3. Research Design and Methodology

For this research, I employed a case study methodology, which allowed for an in-depth exploration of the subject within real-life contexts, and the use of multiple sources of support (Robson and McCartan 2011, p. 150). Evidentiary documentation has comprised the primary source material, such as exhibition and biennale catalogues and reports, museum annual reports and accession records, and auction catalogues and indices, alongside the targeted secondary literature, encompassing case study scholarship of historically significant women collectors, and recent scholarship on collector patronage and legacy situated within the contemporary art market. The selected methodology is also discernible in the literature. Sociologist Alain Quemin’s interrogation of two prominent French collectors and their influence on museums, art historian Irene Walsh’s consideration of collector and patron Lillie P Bliss, in addition to art historian Marta Perez-Ibanez’s recent case study on collector and patron Helga de Alvear (1936–2025) are key examples (Quemin 2020, pp. 211–24; Walsh 2025; Perez-Ibanez 2025).

The rationale for the selection of Sherman and Milgrom as the collectors for the case studies rests with their participation in the contemporary art market, encompassing salient elements inherent to legacy building strategies and thereby offering succinct, illustrative support of the thesis. With comparisons to women collectors of note within the Australian arts scene, the significance of Sherman and Milgrom as exemplary collectors for the study is explicated. The variances of this relational group highlight clear distinctions: the curatorial rationale is more intuitive or collector driven as opposed to having been informed by an intellectual or cultural framework; the ambitions and public-facing presentation of collections remain situated within an Australian context as distinct from strategically institutional or selective international positioning; the nature of museum and artist engagement and support is contingent with a personal relationship or extended invitation, in contrast to strategic placement of artists within museological narratives; and the regionally based collector footprints remain specifically tied to local art scenes compared with the purposeful connections across globally significant arts and cultural hubs.

Sydney-based collector, private museum founder, and cultural philanthropist Judith Neilson AM has procured a collection predicated on a personal response to Chinese contemporary art from the years post-2000 and sourced directly from the studios of practising artists living in China. The collection is drawn upon for curated bi-annual exhibitions, supported with catalogue publications, at her Sydney-based White Rabbit Gallery, which was established in 2009. Further public-facing presentations of Neilson’s collection have comprised collaborative exhibitions with the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV), Melbourne, and the National Gallery of Australia (NGA), Canberra. Notably, Neilson has not pursued Chinese-based, institutional collaborations, nor presentation of the collection within internationally significant cultural centres receptive to the genre. Further, apart from the collection’s published monograph, which included contributions from Chinese-based academics, engagement with global contemporary art discourse is not discernible (Keenan 2010).

Perth-based collector Lady Sheila Cruthers (1925–2011) also built a subject-driven collection, in this case, artworks by Australian women artists from the 1880s onwards. A brief residency in New York during the 1980s offered Cruthers the opportunity to introduce and promote the works of Australian women artists. Convening fellow expatriate women to form “Aust Art”, the group conducted charity events and donated funds to American museums specifically for the purpose of acquiring Australian art (Cruthers 2012, p. 19). Cruthers’s endorsement of Australian artists was also personal, often providing support and friendship to visiting artists from Australia (Cruthers 2012, p. 19). Yet as much as Cruthers held an emerging position within the local New York arts scene, and her collection had commenced to gain traction within the United States through loans to selected museums, the first public presentation of her collection was staged in Australia, at the Perth Institute of Contemporary Arts (PICA) and accompanied by a catalogue penned by her son, John Cruthers (Miller 1995). The collection, after its donation to the University of Western Australia (UWA), was contextualised again with a major exhibition at the Lawrence Wilson Art Gallery (UWA) in 2012 and supported with a catalogue published by UWA (Cruthers and Kinsella 2012, p. 3). The legacy of Sheila Cruthers now resides within the Sheila Foundation. Established posthumously, the Foundation remains firmly positioned within Australia and supports ongoing acquisitions for the collection, selected research projects, and contemporary practising Australian women artists (Sheila Foundation 2019/2020).

Inhabiting more the role of arts and cultural patron than definitively as a collector, Adelaide-based Diana Ramsay AO, taking inspiration from the philanthropy of the Alfred Felton Bequest to the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV), pursued a lifelong patronage of her state-based Art Gallery of South Australia (AGSA). Ramsay, alongside her husband, became a founding member of the Art Gallery Foundation and established the Ramsay Art Prize, a biennial acquisitive award valued at $100,000 presented by the AGSA and supported in perpetuity by the James & Diana Ramsay Foundation (Eccleston 2025). The Ramsays’ posthumous legacy was secured with a $38 million bequest towards the stipulated development of the AGSA’s collection (James & Diana Ramsay Foundation 2021, p. 4). Similarly, former gallerist, businesswoman and philanthropist Win Schubert AO (1938–2017) maintained enduring institutional relationships through her Foundations, with the Queensland Art Gallery/Gallery of Modern Art (QAGOMA) and Home of Arts (HOTA). Schubert’s benefaction of $35 million to QAGOMA enabled major international acquisitions, in addition to work by Australian contemporary practitioners (QAGOMA 2020). As denoted for Diana Ramsay, Win Schuber’s patronage is also enshrined at her locally based museum, QAGOMA, through the naming of four galleries, the “Josephine Ulrick and Win Schubert Galleries” (QAGOMA 2020).

Notably, a regionally anchored perspective, ambition and institutional engagement are evident in this comparative group. Moreover, the distinction rests with a divergence in leveraging cultural power and, therefore, purposeful legacy building. The collector behaviour of the above sample group illustrates a relational, Australian-based position, whereas Sherman and Milgrom, as will be observed more fully in the ensuing case studies, present as more strategic, institutionally aligned and globally cognisant.

4. Gene Sherman: A Legacy of Creative Intellect

Gene Sherman’s biography and roles correlate with the bricks and mortar incarnations of Sherman Galleries (1986–2007) and Sherman Contemporary Arts Foundation (SCAF) (2008–2017), both of which have been buttressed by advance planning and definitive objectives. Fundamental to the prominence of these entities has been Sherman’s procurement of audience, peer group, and multi-sector support. As a gallerist, Sherman was able to develop extensive networks and relationships, meet with collectors, and forge alliances with curators and directors of museums. SCAF offered additional opportunities to strengthen international connections, allowing for bilateral arts exchange initiatives, further augmenting Sherman’s reputation as a collector and patron. Sherman’s separate, and yet often coalescing roles within these entities, across the lifecycle of her collection, and more broadly, her biographical chapters, have facilitated a strategic construction of legacy. In examining Sherman’s collector behaviour to discern legacy-building strategies and mechanisms, this case study will briefly introduce Sherman’s background and the environment in which Sherman Galleries commenced operations, for context, and then consider more fully (i) the rationale, establishment, and programming for SCAF and (ii) the dynamics of the collector/donor and institution inherent to the Go East: The Gene and Brian Sherman Contemporary Asian Art Collection collaborative exhibition at the Art Gallery of New South Wales (AGNSW).

It is instructive that Sherman’s childhood was framed by the apartheid system of South Africa, and her formative years were nurtured with familial values of social justice and compassion, alongside intellect and education. These principles are often cited as instrumental in Sherman’s life and career directions. Recalling a Hebrew maxim, tikkun olam, meaning “to mend the world,” from her education at a local Jewish day school in Johannesburg, the notion has underscored Sherman’s philosophy for life as much as her approach to art (Sherman in SCAF 2015). There is a discernible correlation between Sherman’s ideals and the thematic parameters of her collection: the concepts of diaspora, uneven power structures, and social justice permeate many of the artists’ works (Dow 2022; Arcilla 2019; Sherman SCAF 2015). Moreover, Sherman’s selection criteria for acquisition have insisted the work is “emotionally engaging, intellectually challenging and visually compelling,” attributes that are intrinsic to building a legacy collection (Arcilla 2019). Artists whose practice illustrates these criteria, such as Janet Laurence, with a focus on the environment; Imants Tillers, who explores migration and displacement; and the Chinese Australian artist Guan Wei, who examines human rights and the plight of refugees, were acquired by Sherman for her collection, represented by Sherman Galleries, and significantly, remain icons of the Australian contemporary art scene. Sherman’s collecting and curatorial interests merged with the remit of a gallerist and steered the direction and exhibition programme at Sherman Galleries.

Sherman Galleries commenced operations during a period of notable change in governmental policy on the arts, wherein sector initiatives encouraged alliances with the Asia–Pacific and Southeast Asia regions (Mendelssohn et al. 2018, p. 331). A research report in 1988, the Australia Council’s Southeast Asian Survey, disclosed data pertinent to engaging with and appreciating the contemporary art scene of Asia (Mendelssohn et al. 2018, p. 332). Several consequential public sector initiatives followed. The Art Gallery of New South Wales (AGNSW) staged the exhibition, New Art from China: Post Mao Product, in 1992, marking a new direction in curatorship and the institution’s first presentation of contemporary Chinese art. The following year, Mao Goes Pop: China Post 1989, a group exhibition of contemporary Chinese artists from the avant-garde movement of the 1990s, was showcased at the Museum of Contemporary Art (MCA) in Sydney (Mendelssohn et al. 2018, p. 333). Perhaps of most significance for the Australian arts and cultural landscape was the inauguration of the Asia Pacific Triennial (APT) in 1993, by then director Doug Hall AM, at the former Queensland Art Gallery, now Queensland Art Gallery/Gallery of Modern Art (Mendelssohn et al. 2018, p. 332). Sherman responded strategically to this burgeoning and internationally focused artistic climate by implementing an innovative and, at the time, unorthodox gallery programme comprising both Australian and Asian practitioners (Roberts 2007). With this confluence of public and museum sector activity, the curated group exhibitions focusing on Chinese contemporary art showcased at Sherman Galleries during the same period were now contextualised within a prevailing museological framework (Murray-Cree 2006, p. 25; Sherman in SCAF 2015). Moreover, with Sherman’s academic inclinations, the gallery’s exhibitions were regularly framed with prominent guest speakers on opening night, such as Elzabeth Ann McGregor AM OBE, then director of the MCA, and Edmund Capon AM OBE (1940–2019), then director of the AGNSW, industry expert panel discussions aligned with key exhibitions, and associated gallery, exhibition, and artist documentation (Murray-Cree 2006, pp. 14, 16) These curatorial, legacy building practices, as we will observe, ensued and developed with Sherman’s successive chapter commencing in 2008.

Sherman’s proactive approach is evident in the planning of the Sherman Contemporary Arts Foundation (SCAF). A not-for-profit enterprise, SCAF’s mission was to provide a forum for dialogue and artistic practice, with a global reach. The concept of a philanthropic business model had been a long-held ambition for Sherman, having been uncomfortable with the mercantile aspect of operating a gallery (Ng 2014, p. 53). Sherman’s past academic career also influenced the development of a non-commercial and more intellectually creative platform (Jose 2009, p. 62; Tosic 2020). Historically, women dealers have often chosen to nurture artists’ careers through cultural exchange and employing less orthodox business models, albeit these same women dealers were provided with capital to fund their aspirations (Chagnon-Burke and Toschi 2023, p. 2). Indeed, Sherman was able to pursue SCAF and its objectives due to designated funding by the Sherman family (Ng 2014; Arcilla 2019). In many ways, Sherman Galleries, from its commencement, had been operating as a type of cultural complex, hosting the exchange of ideas across two spaces, one purpose-built for exhibitions, the other for curator talks, meetings, and displaying stock, together with an artist’s residence, all within proximity in Paddington, Sydney (Roberts 2007, pp. 38–39). Sherman’s gallery model, as indicated previously, was supported with an academically rigorous program of curator talks and commissioned catalogue essays couched within museum standard publishing and archival protocols (Murray-Cree 2006, pp. 14, 15). This was clearly indicative of legacy building through the development of cultural capital (Bourdieu 1993, p. 7). Sherman was utilising the mechanism of archiving and publishing to secure the gallery’s history and, more significantly, preserve her narrative. As noted earlier, much of the scholarship within gendered art history has revealed the beneficence of archival documentation for a contemporary appreciation. An example is the late 19th-century collector Isabella Stewart Gardner’s archive of letters, photographs, and newspaper clippings on display at her eponymous museum, enhancing the audience’s understanding of the collector and collection (Silver and Greenwald 2022, pp. 11, 15).

Sherman’s intuitive yet prudent approach to documenting these professional chapters demonstrates foresight. In an equivalent manner, Sherman’s sustained professional relationships and networks reflect the same attitude. Through maintaining these industry connections, Sherman has been afforded access to many of the principal actors in the arts ecosystem. Pertinently, selected players served as a body of knowledge, expertise, and best practice, and one which she openly sought in advance of establishing SCAF. Distinguished speakers from within the field were invited to present perspectives across two discussion forums, on the nature of foundations and the climate for philanthropy in Australia (Smith 2007; Jose 2009). This symposia-based due diligence, comprising national and international learnings and captured in hard copy publications, was arguably a means of establishing SCAF’s bona fides as much as laying the foundations for a legacy.

Drawing on Sherman’s former gallerist skillset and now expansive network of professional relationships and institutional alliances, SCAF presented a range of projects, many entailing collaboration with either another collection, public museum, or commercial gallery. These initiatives, situated within the context of a scholarly, not-for-profit foundation, were continually augmenting the profile, reputation and standing of SCAF, Sherman and her collection, and were in effect, procuring symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1993, p. 7). This is well illustrated in Sherman’s strengthening of an alliance with globally recognised Swiss collector, Uli Sigg. Leveraging her role as Deputy Chair of the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) Board of Trustees, Sherman initiated a collaborative, multi-site exhibition in 2012 between the NPG, the Sigg Collection, and SCAF (Roberts 2012, p. 8). Constituting the first museum showing of the subject in Australia, and with a scholarly catalogue co-published by SCAF and the NPG, Go Figure: Contemporary Chinese Portraiture levied attention and prestige to SCAF and enabled an archival alignment of Sherman and Sigg. This arts initiative illustrates Sherman leveraging her museum board position and collaborative role within the scenario to support an implicit legacy-building aspiration. Yet such a convergence of influence has drawn criticism within the discourse on the power asymmetries between private collectors and public museums. Within this context, collectors inhabiting governance roles may give rise to issues regarding institutional independence and public accountability (Brown 2020, p. 204). Nonetheless, Sherman’s coalescing of her roles has not thwarted collaborative projects and partnering with institutions.

Selected SCAF projects were often strategically conceived through the lens of both a gallerist and a collector. Consider Sherman’s acquisition of work by Cambodian artist Sopheap Pich, first encountered at the 2006 Asia–Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art at Queensland Art Gallery/Gallery of Modern Art. Pich, now sanctioned by an Australian museum, and part of Sherman’s private collection, became the feature artist for the second iteration of SCAF’s Collection+ program, a series of talks and exhibitions with a specific, “cross-pollinating purpose” between collections (SCAF 2013). The premise of the program is to profile an artist from Sherman’s collection alongside work by the same artist, from another collection, to form a cooperative visual discourse. Although meritorious in its innovation and aspiration to bridge the Australian arts sector with the international contemporary art scene, there was an inbuilt benefit for Sherman’s collection. Conversely, the Collection+ program may also be considered an example of “active patronage” (Sandretto Re Rebaudengo 2016, p. 98). In seeking to develop a new project infrastructure, the program offers a unique interaction with another collection and, moreover, illustrates a further legacy building apparatus.

Philanthropic gestures, often contingent on reciprocity, asymmetry, and strategic alignment, also embody the crafting of a legacy (Ramos 2025, p. 25). Notably, Sherman has asserted that philanthropists and patrons are crucial to the cultural landscape due to their capacity for accommodating artistic risks and initiatives and possessing more available resources and funds than institutions (Iype 2022). Indeed, cultural essayist Nicholas Jose has posited that artistic philanthropy can enable and maintain arts and cultural objectives. Further, Jose contends it is reciprocal, and within the context of a donation of work or collection, views it as “a gift to the public domain” (Jose 2009, pp. 10–23; Baum 2015). This is an apt comment in view of the Shermans’ gift through the Australian government’s Cultural Gifts Program, which has inbuilt tax benefits, of two major artworks, Chinese Bible by Yang Zhichao, and Public Notice 2 by Jitish Kallat, to the Art Gallery of New South Wales (AGNSW). Both works were included in the Go East: The Gene and Brian Sherman Contemporary Asian Art Collection (Go East) exhibition at the AGNSW in 2015.

Zhicaho’s Chinese Bible and Kallat’s Public Notice 2 are aesthetically and thematically profound, and imminently suitable for a museum collection. It is conceivable, therefore, that their inclusion in Go East was part of the exhibition negotiations between the AGNSW and Sherman, either emanating from a request from the Gallery or an offer from Sherman. This illustrates my earlier point regarding the brokerage components inherent to arts philanthropy (Ramos 2025, p. 25). There is also precedent for collectors working in concert with museums to assist with gaps in the collection. Franco-American 20th-century collectors and patrons, Dominique and John de Menil, were proactive in their acquisitions of significant works for institutions. For example, work by the German painter and sculptor Max Ernst (1891–1976) was gifted to the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston and the Guggenheim Museum, New York (Pacquement et al. 2007, p. 10). Further evidence for my position is contingent on the provenance of Chinese Bible and Public Notice 2.1 (Provenance for both works is provided in “Note”) It indicates a short lead time from the date of purchase by Sherman in May and October 2013, respectively, and the presumed planning stage for the Go East exhibition, and its presentation in May 2015. Moreover, in a profile article in 2014 by Elaine Ng, editor and publisher of ArtAsiaPacific, Sherman reveals her intention to gift the works by Zhichao and Kallat, asserting the donation will address a noticeable deficit in the AGNSW’s Asian Contemporary Art Collection. This prompts Ng to contend that Sherman’s philanthropic gesture will be influential in transforming the museum’s collection of Asian art (Ng 2014, pp. 52–53). Curator of the Go East exhibition, Suhanya Raffel, believes collectors as donors join a distinctive “gallery family” through their gifted artworks. (Baum 2015). Through joining this quasi-institutional group, Sherman, as donor, accumulates a form of symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1993, p. 7). These comments by Ng and Raffel also imply that collectors who donate artworks, apart from entering an elite circle of patrons, have an impact or influence on a museum collection, as much as the donations strengthen the museum’s holdings (Walker 2019, p. 25). Consider the correlating historical example of collector Lillie P Bliss, whose impressive donation in 1934 of 120 post-impressionist and modernist works to MoMA served as the institution’s core collection for many years and provided the curatorial direction for the next five decades (Fowle and Cleary 2025, p. 7). Sherman’s donation has impacted the collection, and this is evident in the subsequent loans to the Art Gallery of Western Australia, with both works being on public display again at the AGNSW. It is also reasonable to consider that these donated works will have some bearing on future curatorial directions for Asian contemporary art, given that the holdings were previously limited. However, whilst these philanthropic gestures may elicit applause, there is the question as to whether such patronage, influencing an institution’s future curatorial direction to the point of shaping art history, aligns with the remit of a public museum, that is, to fundamentally serve its audience and community (Brown 2019, p. 8).

The sentiment of Jose’s “gift to the public domain” as noted earlier, is reprised in the director of the AGNSW Michael Brand’s foreword in the co-published exhibition catalogue for Go East (SCAF 2015, p. 9). Effusive in his gratitude, as he has been towards the Shermans on previous occasions for their philanthropy, Brand elaborates on the significance of Chinese Bible and Public Notice 2, observing that it will allow the institution to present the works to the broader community. Brand notes that the Shermans’ gift will enable the institution to continue with its vision of serving a broad-ranging audience and supplement its reputation as “Australia’s leading art museum in the fields of contemporary art” (AGNSW 2015, p. 4). This is a meaningful statement, pronouncing Sherman’s impact as a collector, donor, and patron on the museum sector and more broadly, the arts and cultural landscape. Brand’s assessment also represents the mutually beneficial outcome of a negotiated pathway between the private collector as donor and the institution, as recipient (Ramos 2025, p. 5; Quemin 2020, p. 218). Further, this trajectory, from exhibition through to donation, illustrates how the AGNSW, in maintaining good relations with such prominent collectors as Gene and Brian Sherman, acts as a contingency to enrich the institution’s collection (Quemin 2020, p. 217).

Sherman’s career chapters and manifold roles across the lifecycle and stewardship of her collection have illustrated the legacy-building mechanisms of archival protocols and publishing programs at Sherman Galleries and SCAF. Additionally, donated and loaned artworks to public institutions and the museum contextualised presentation of Sherman’s collection in the Go East: The Gene and Brian Sherman Collection of Asian Art exhibition has further advanced her legacy. Sherman’s fundamental ambition, which has often underpinned many of the collaborations, is to share her collection on a permanent basis. Part of this ambition has been fulfilled with the Shermans’ pledged collection of moving image and virtual reality work to be hou sed at the forthcoming “Sherman Family Gallery” at the Art Gallery of New South Wales. The counterpart to this ambition has been in preparation for the past decade. Sherman has been progressively refining her collection, originally comprising nine hundred artworks, with a considered deaccession plan, to arrive at what will be considered her ‘legacy’ artworks, comprising approximately three hundred artworks. Sherman’s aspiration is to gift this legacy collection to a prominent public museum, which will effectively memorialise her as a collector, and the collection (Meacham 2022; Walker 2024, p. 1). These aspirations of sharing a collection and benefaction for the public preface Naomi Milgrom’s ambitions.

5. Naomi Milgrom: A Legacy of Civic Duty

The inheritance of an inter-familial and inter-generational legacy of collecting and broad-ranging cultural philanthropy has informed Naomi Milgrom’s patronage across the visual arts, design, and architecture. To an extent, Milgrom’s personal art collection reflects this legacy and breadth of interest. Milgrom has fortified both her collection and her connections within the arts through collaborative exhibitions, scholarly publications, art loans, and site-specific commissions of cultural projects, in addition to selective sponsorship thereof, across both national and international platforms. This has imparted prestige to Milgrom’s collection and elevated her stature in the broader arts ecosystem. Milgrom has also strategically leveraged her position within the arts communities to facilitate collaboration on philanthropic initiatives through the Naomi Milgrom Foundation. In this case study, the familial influences underpinning the stewardship of Milgrom’s private collection and her arts patronage will be examined to discern the impact on strategic legacy-building initiatives and ambitions. This will be further considered through the trajectories of (i) the 2019 collaborative exhibition of South African artist William Kentridge with the Art Gallery of New South Wales and the Art Gallery of South Australia; and (ii) the establishment of MPavilion, the flagship initiative of the Naomi Milgrom Foundation, founded in 2014, and its multifaceted program in art, design & architecture.

It is fair to suggest that Milgrom inherited an appreciation of the Australian arts and cultural philanthropic landscape from her parents, Marc and Eva Besen, significant collectors and arts patrons (Lynn and Fitzpatrick 2024, pp. 30–31). Accompanying her father on visits to galleries and spending time with the gallery directors during her youth, Milgrom witnessed the dynamics of a collector’s relationship with a gallery alongside the development of her parents’ collection, an early lesson in the value of relationships within the arts (Milgrom 2020a). The Besens are recognised for their gift to the public in 2003 of 564 works from their private collection of modern and contemporary Australian art as the foundation for TarraWarra Museum of Art (TarraWarra), located in the Yarra Valley, Victoria (Lynn and Fitzpatrick 2024, pp. 30–31). Inspired by the Foundation Beyeler Museum in Riehen, Switzerland, the collection’s presentation and pre-destined donation were conceptualised in the 1980s in concert with curator Maudie Palmer AO (1945–2025), later the inaugural director of TarraWarra. Standing as Australia’s first privately funded public museum, TarraWarra encapsulates the Besens’ desire to “give back” to the country that had afforded them so much success (Lynn and Fitzpatrick 2024, pp. 19, 25, 30).

A recent expansion, the Eva and Marc Besen Centre, comprises publicly accessible visible storage of the collection and a cultural and educational program and caters to primary, secondary, and tertiary students, clearly indicative of engaging the next generation. The Centre’s purpose embraces Marc Besen’s acknowledgement of the significance of education for him, and additionally, learning with and through art (Lynn and Fitzpatrick 2024, p. 32). Aside from these educational aspects, which draw on typical museum practices, the interior infrastructure references an international museum sector development of a collection’s inventory on public display. The concept has recently been inaugurated at the Victoria and Albert Museum’s “V & A East Storehouse”, the purpose of which is to both enhance the museum experience and bring the audience closer to the collection (Harris 2025). Milgrom’s integration of selected works from her collection at her corporate headquarters in Cremorne, Melbourne, whilst reiterating the dominant presentation of Australian corporate collections such as Macquarie Group, Wesfarmers and Allens, perhaps reflects more her parents’ sharing of their collection, support of education, and the aspiration of engaging the next generation (Fairley 2016; Ocula Editors 2013; Milgrom 2020a; Roux 2018). It also demonstrates an intentional presentation of cultural capital (Bourdieu 1993, p. 7). International private collector models incorporate educational programs, often as a means of indirectly, yet strategically, preserving a collection’s legacy, for example, a collector’s foundation providing funding and support for an emerging curator’s program (Tomilson Hill and Hill 2025; Belcove 2018; Berg and Ramo 2025; Pogregin 2024).

Inherent to Milgrom’s legacy building and integral to the stewardship of her collection has been the development and maintenance of purposeful alliances, mirroring Sherman’s active fostering of stakeholder relationships (Milgrom 2020a). Milgrom initially collected work by Australian contemporary practitioners in a similar fashion to her parents collecting their peer group. However, during her marriage to collector, philanthropist, and founder of the international artist commissioning platform, Kaldor Public Art Projects, John Kaldor AO, Milgrom expanded the curatorial parameters to include international artists (Marr 2011; Martin 2008). Kaldor’s network of international dealers and gallerists, museums and curators, established from his long-standing collecting, was introduced to Milgrom during their overseas buying trips and his tenure as Commissioner of the Australian Pavilion for the Venice Biennales in 2005 and 2007 (Marr 2011; Acret 2016). These were important meetings for Milgrom and provided opportunities to establish relationships as a collector with an interest in the international scene. Moreover, these introductions would finesse Milgrom’s future acquisitions, given this market’s preferencing of high value private collectors and prestigious institutional collections. The combined collector profile of Kaldor and Milgrom together strengthened relationships within the sector and facilitated access to in-demand artworks for their joint collection, the latter, procured over a period of sixteen years (Marr 2011).

The Besens’ values of expanding the appreciation of art through sharing and gifting a collection are also apparent in Milgrom’s involvement with the donation of this conjoined collection. Kaldor has acknowledged Milgrom’s instrumental role in encouraging the gifting in 2008 to the Art Gallery of New South Wales (AGNSW) (Marr 2011). A significant donation of international contemporary art, estimated at a value of approximately AU$35m, the benefaction afforded Milgrom a valuable relationship with the institution. Further, this gifted tranche of works was imbued with a socially constructed monetary and cultural value affording mutual benefits for both donor and institution (Velthuis 2005, pp. 4, 76). The AGNSW acquired a substantial inventory specific to a collecting category, and ‘naming rights’ were conferred upon the donor, in the form of “The John Kaldor Family Gallery”. It is also reasonable to consider that the works were gifted in the spirit of generosity and as a civic imperative, which harkens back to the premise of the Besens’ gift of TarraWarra. Whilst philanthropic gestures endow prominence to the donor, equally, such a position carries an expectation of charitable gift-giving (Ramos 2025, p. 20). Kaldor and Milgrom recognised the breadth and depth of five decades of collecting and the potential enhancement of the Gallery’s international collection (Marr 2011). As noted previously with reference to the impact of Gene Sherman’s donated artworks to the AGNSW in 2015, the historical analogy of American collector Lillie P Bliss’s donation in 1934 to MoMA influencing the curatorial direction of the museum’s collection was cited. I would suggest that this is equally applicable in this case. Yet, perhaps the more pertinent correlation to Kaldor’s and Milgrom’s donation of their collection to the AGNSW was Bliss’s motivation, which emanated from a strongly held belief in the educational capacity of art (Gere and Vaizey 1999, p. 169). Kaldor and Milgrom’s act fosters the ideal of patronage and legacy, with the collection serving and educating a broader audience and future generations. This echoes Milgrom’s familial legacy and her interest in broadening the appreciation of contemporary art.

Whilst these principles have underpinned collaborative exhibitions with museums and institutions, Milgrom has also leveraged her position, collection, and alliances throughout such partnerships. A prominent example is the 2019 collaborative exhibition William Kentridge: That which we do not remember at the AGNSW, which subsequently toured to the Art Gallery of South Australia (AGSA). Milgrom’s evolving collector profile and nurtured commercial gallery relationships enabled the acquisition of a substantial collection of work by leading contemporary South African practitioner, William Kentridge (Roux 2018). The works were likely procured through one or more of the artist’s representative globally based galleries, Marian Goodman Gallery, Hauser & Wirth, and Goodman Gallery, which would impart prestigious provenance to the artworks and, by association, Milgrom’s collection. The AGNSW, which holds limited works by Kentridge, in extending an invitation to Milgrom to partner on the exhibition, was undoubtedly in recognition of such status and holdings. Moreover, there was, conceivably, the hope of a donation. This was not unfounded, as the AGNSW had been the recipient of Milgrom’s conjoined collection with Kaldor in 2008. Additionally, during Milgrom’s tenure as Commissioner of the Australian Pavilion for the 57th Venice Biennale in 2017, she assisted with the purchase of a photographic series by Tracey Moffatt, the appointed artist for the Biennale, for the AGNSW (Australia Council for the Arts 2016, p. 6). As observed in the case study on Sherman and the surmised purchase of Chinese Bible and Public Notice 2 on behalf of the AGNSW, there is precedent for collectors working cooperatively with institutions to assist with the development of collections.

With these historical donation precedents in place, and the Naomi Milgrom Foundation’s role as principal partner, lender, and sponsor of the exhibition catalogue, Milgrom occupied an advantageous position within this collaboration. To strengthen the impact of the public display of works from her private collection, Milgrom was purposeful in her invitation to Kentridge to curate the exhibition, with the knowledge that he would also engage his preferred collaborator and set designer, Brussels-based Sabine Theunissen (Roux 2018). For the accompanying catalogue, Milgrom commissioned South African cultural critic, playwright, and scholar Jane Taylor as editor, who had a nuanced understanding of Kentridge’s practice (Taylor 2018). This appointment, alongside Kentridge as curator, lent cachet to the contextualisation of Milgrom’s collection. With an interview between Kentridge and Taylor, and an introduction to the Naomi Milgrom Foundation, the catalogue was an important form of archival legacy-building documentation for Milgrom’s collection and her position as a collector and patron. Further, the inclusion of Milgrom’s previous philanthropic support for Kentridge’s 2018 performance in the iconic Turbine Hall at the Tate Modern, London, was a well-placed public and international alignment of her foundation (Taylor 2018). This collaborative exhibition with the AGNSW illustrates how Milgrom leverages her foundation as a formalised entity and, crucially, as a legacy-building apparatus, through which she can drive art and cultural projects. The trajectory also illustrates the strategic cultivation of institutional validation, thereby bestowing cultural authority on Milgrom (Bourdieu 1993, p. 7). The Foundation’s signature project, the MPavilion program, further illustrates Milgrom’s use of an innovative and multi-disciplinary approach to facilitate a legacy.

Located in the Queen Victoria Gardens opposite the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV), and freely accessible during Melbourne’s summer months, the MPavilion program comprises the commissioning of architecturally designed pavilions, which host events and symposia of broad-ranging content across the fields of art, design, and architecture. Commissioned architects have included Australian Glenn Murcutt AOin 2019, Netherlands-based Rem Koolhaas and David Gianotten of OMA in 2017 and, most recently, Pritzker Prize Laureate Tadao Ando from Japan in 2024. The iteration held during Tadao Ando’s pavilion included events such as Yorta Yorta woman, soprano Deborah Cheetham Fraillon AO composing a piece for the Wominjeka Song Cycle, photographer John Gollings AM holding workshops, and the “MCurators” program supporting emerging curators (17–25 years) with new projects for the MPavilion season (Naomi Milgrom Foundation 2018, pp. 14, 15, 26). Cross-cultural, multi-disciplinary, inter-generational, and inter-sectoral, the MPavilion program encapsulates both a local and international perspective. The program’s content and aspirations also have some correlation with Sherman’s programming for SCAF, particularly the Collection+ program and its international perspective. The questions of interest, therefore, are what was the catalyst for the MPavilion and what precedent and expertise did Milgrom draw upon to inform the program’s infrastructure? Further, what does the nature of the MPavilion program, as the flagship initiative of the Foundation, tell us about Milgrom as a patron and philanthropist?

Milgrom had held aspirations of insinuating Melbourne into an international dialogue on art, design and architecture, and civic thinking (Naomi Milgrom Foundation 2018, p. 36). After being chaperoned through an iteration of the Serpentine Pavilion in London, an annual architectural commission established in 2000 and conceived by the former director of Serpentine Galleries, Julia Peyton-Jones DBE, Milgrom gained an appreciation of the commission and its infrastructure and engagement with architectural practice. This experience served as the catalyst in conceptualising a similar entity in Melbourne (Zafiriou and Buckingham 2020, p. 21). Milgrom consulted Peyton-Jones for insight and expertise in the development and management of the project. A further impetus, and in line with the proposed location for MPavilion, was Milgrom’s wish to honour the past, specifically, John Truscott’s (1936–1993) Melbourne International Arts Festival (1989–1993), applauded for its reinvigoration of the city of Melbourne, particularly in and around the Arts Centre, the NGV, and the neighbouring botanical gardens (Zafiriou and Buckingham 2020, p. 21; Levenspiel 2016). Whilst Sherman drew upon symposia-based due diligence for her foundation’s infrastructure and programming at SCAF, Milgrom relied upon direct access to precedent: the intellectual property of the Serpentine Pavilion program provided by Peyton-Jones and the recent historical footprint of Truscott’s festival. Milgrom’s MPavilion builds on local and international model precedents, resulting in an imbrication of legacy.

To enhance the infrastructure of MPavilion, Milgrom utilised the legacy-building apparatus of a monograph, MPavilion: Encounters with Design and Architecture, co-published by the Naomi Milgrom Foundation, to ensure the permanent record of its lifecycle (Milgrom 2020b). Leveraging her network to procure content, Milgrom also strategically situated the publication within the discourse on the urban environment, with the writing brief to examine the commissioned architects’ design philosophy informing their pavilion and, significantly, its civic role. Endorsed by Sir Nicholas Serota, Chair, Arts Council of England and former director of the Tate (1988 to 2017), who delivered a keynote talk as part of MPavilion’s MTalks series in 2018, contributions from figures within the visual arts and architectural and museum spaces for the monograph included Rory Hyde, curator at the V&A Museum, design advocate for the Mayor of London, and adjunct senior research fellow at the University of Melbourne; Aric Chen, curator at the M+ Museum in Hong Kong, and professor at the College of Design & Innovation at Tongji University in Shanghai; and senior global director at Galerie Thaddaeus Ropac (since 2017) Julia Peyton-Jones. This list of contributors highlights Milgrom’s strength of global influence, the evidential nurturing of professional relationships, and the gravitas of the MPavilion program (Zafiriou and Buckingham 2020, p. 31).

Milgrom fostered an intended legacy for the MPavilion, with its inbuilt archival mechanism of location, duration, and architectural epilogue. The dedicated site of the Queen Victoria Gardens, directly opposite the NGV, contextualises its program and purpose with the MPavilion residing within the “Melbourne Arts Precinct.” It is also pertinent that the location of the MPavilion, along a literal and metaphorical continuum with reference to Truscott, allows for a historically archival quality (Zafiriou and Buckingham 2020, p. 31). Further, although the program’s commission is a temporary installation, Milgrom has embedded a sustainability element. At the cessation of the season, the pavilion is gifted to a tertiary, arts, or other suitable space. The relocations have included the University of Melbourne, the Melbourne Zoo, and Docklands, sites that demonstrably benefit from these types of structures. Placed within its new environment, the pavilion is re-purposed and recontextualised, culminating in a permanent structural legacy. As much as the MPavilion’s program encompasses an international component, Milgrom also harbours a sense of civic duty to the people of Melbourne. In gifting the pavilion and allowing the populace to enjoy a new public space, Milgrom’s patronage reiterates Nicholas Jose’s sentiment of a “gift to the public domain,” and the tenor of the Besens’ gifting of TarraWarra.

The influence of Milgrom’s family, the Besens, and their legacy of sharing their collection with the public through TarraWarra, the imperative of art education encapsulated in the Eva and Marc Besen Centre, and the value of sustained relationships have had a direct bearing on the direction of Milgrom’s patronage and philanthropy. This has been evidenced by Milgrom sharing her collection at her corporate headquarters, encouraging the gifting of her joint collection with Kaldor to the AGNSW, and the loan of her collection of work by Kentridge for the exhibition at the AGNSW. Milgrom has also observed the value and legacy-building apparatus of publication, as seen with the Kentridge exhibition catalogue and MPavilion monograph and her sponsorship of the recent monograph for the TarraWarra Collection (Lynn and Fitzpatrick 2024). Inherent to these endeavours has been Milgrom’s sense of civic responsibility and philanthropic obligation. As a variation on her parents’ perspective, Milgrom has harnessed a global outlook across her collection, patronage, and philanthropy, whilst still retaining a vision and legacy for Melbourne.

6. Conclusions

This study has revealed salient and revelatory themes that permeate both the reviewed literature and the observations drawn from the collectors’ trajectories, thus supporting my assertions. In contrast to a propensity for biography in certain historically based collector profiles, the foci in this paper have been on the collectors’ active engagement with the market, firstly, as a means of discerning aspirations to establish a legacy. This revealed Sherman’s clear intentions with the gifting of Zhichao’s Chinese Bible and Kallat’s Public Notice 2 to the AGNSW and her ‘legacy’ collection for a public museum, whilst Milgrom’s role in her and Kaldor’s donated collection to the AGNSW, and the MPavilion program’s inherent archival mechanism, illustrates the civic imperative of legacy. Gendered art history has also disclosed a reliance on archival resources to further highlight women’s involvement in the market. Both collectors have embraced strategic mechanisms of legacy building, publishing, and archival protocols. Sherman’s scholarly practices implemented at Sherman Galleries and carried through to SCAF and Milgrom’s monographic documentation of the MPavilion program will contribute to preserving their histories.

Further, the SCAF and MPavilion programs, conceived within the context of their respective foundations, constitute innovative and multi-disciplinary approaches to facilitate legacy, aspects of which were also discerned in the literature on historical women art dealers. Collector, curatorial and institutional alignment of collections as a legacy-building apparatus was observed in the trajectories, notably with Sherman’s Collection+ program at SCAF and Milgrom’s collaborative exhibition for William Kentridge with the AGNSW. It was also asserted that women collectors strategically leverage their positions, connections, and collections to support their legacy-building aspirations, and this was commensurate with historically based precedent collector behaviour. Milgrom’s partnered exhibition with the AGNSW for William Kentridge was contingent upon both the status and holdings of her collection of works by the artist, in addition to her elevated position as a donor to the institution, whilst Sherman’s collaborative, multi-site exhibition between the NPG, the collection of Swiss collector Uli Sigg, and SCAF drew upon her former museum board role at the NPG.

Gene Sherman’s and Naomi Milgrom’s active engagement with the art market is a striking feature within the research and accounts for their respective temerity in cultivating a legacy. What is most interesting about this study is the analogous bridge conceived between the motivations and aspirations of the contemporary collectors Sherman and Milgrom and those residing in historically based and gendered art history scholarship. This case study analysis clearly denotes the pivotal role of these contemporary women collectors within the art market and, moreover, demands a realignment of their position within the fields. Most significantly, the study, with its intentional collation of contemporary archival knowledge, illustrates the necessity for the narratives and achievements of these women art collectors, indeed their legacy, to be archived for future generations.