is in Philadelphia by Advanta, read the tag line on Cezanne posters, postcards, billboards, and buses. Although patronage of the arts by business and the use of art in advertising and marketing are nothing new, the corporate sponsorship of Cezanne at the Philadelphia Museum of Art was widely publicized as a new kind of partnership: one based upon close cooperation between sponsor and recipient. Regardless of whether this relationship was indeed something unique in the history of corporate arts sponsorship, it raises issues about the cultural processes and logics by which, at a particular historical moment, discourses of identity, consumerism, and art intersect. The made possible in the sponsorship acknowledgment points to a rhetoric of endless possibility, imagination, and creativity that links an image of art and artists with that of the consumer to construct an ostensibly unique and authentic identity for a corporation, its workers, and its products.' With over 100 oils, 35 sketches, and 35 watercolors, Cezanne was the first major retrospective of post-Impressionist Paul Cezanne's work in 60 years. The exhibit, which included works gathered from 71 museums and seven private collections, traveled to three museums: the Galeries Nationales du Grand Palais in Paris, the Tate Gallery in London, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Cezanne ran in Philadelphia from May 30 to September 1, 1996, drawing nearly 549,000 visitors. It joined a long string of art exhibitions featuring large collections of the work of canonical artists: Matisse, Monet, Picasso, Homer, and Vermeer, to name a few.2 Despite predictions in the 1980s that museums would begin to lose money on blockbusters as auction prices of major artworks (and, concomitantly, insurance rates) skyrocketed, the blockbuster has survived and become a major source of income for many museums (Csaszar 1996). Although these exhibitions historically have drawn large audiences, they are extraordinarily expensive to mount due to the costs of transporting, securing, and, especially, insuring works of art often valued at millions of dollars (Stapen 1989). For these reasons, combined with an overall decline in government funding