Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, January 27, 2009
Visual Art Re: Always Be Closing
Posted by Jen Graves on Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM
I just saw last night's news about Brandeis University selling off its art collection.
Whoa.
I realize I've championed reasoned discussion of this sort of thing in the past, and I'm open to other ideas here, but my first reaction to this announcement is simply, HELLO, SLIPPERY SLOPE.
It's like, first they came for the Durand and the Stuart, then for the Pollock, then the Rauschenbergs (talked about during the LA MOCA debacle). But an entire significant museum collection?
Fnarf points out in the comments that there are plenty of great museums in Boston, anyway, and he's right.
But the principle of this thing is chilling: Art's value is monetary. It's stuff waiting to be pawned. In Boston, the attorney general's office is getting involved and who knows what will actually happen. But after all these examples hammering on this door, you get the feeling it will come crashing down someday soon.
2
Art's value became primarily monetary in the early 70's when the US tax code was amended to favor the buying and selling of art as a tax break. The Seldes book on the Rothko estate case provides a good overview.
3
As a Boston resident I'm going to take exception to part of Fnarf's comments. Specifically that there's a number of museums in Boston superior to the Rose. I won't disagree that there are plenty of excellent museums in Boston ( I frequent them), and I've never been to the Rose partly because Brandeis is a trek to get to from Boston proper if you don't have a car. However the Rose museum's collection appears to be a stash of great modern art, a genre that is WOEFULLY UNDERREPRESENTED IN BOSTON. The MFA has a minuscule modern painting collection compared to their classical collection, the Isabella Gardner museum has none, the ICA is amazing but their collection is contemporary not modern. As I said before I've never been to the Rose because for my purposes it's inaccessible so I don't know how much of a loss it is. But some museum in Boston should step up and expand their modern art collection (I'm looking at you currently expanding MFA).
4
If art doesn't have monetary value then why are absurd prices commanded for the stuff and why do many artists believe they are entitled to make money off something that you believe may not have monetary value?
5
@1 The only problem I potentially see with this is art that was previously on public display now being sequestered in a private collection unavailable to the public.
6
@5 It stands to reason that the public at large doesn't actually value art enough to pay money (or donate money) to see it and only a handful of art fans exist. and within this world of art fans there are those that have money and those that do not. It seems to me that the only people that are concerned about the "public" losing art on display are the have-nots of the art world and they truly only speak for themselves, not the public.
8
@6.
First of all, ouch.
Second of all while I find your nihilism attractive in a hipster sort of way I also think it's far too reductive. Boston is not an arts town, it's a sports town and it still manages to host an expanding MFA (which is packed on the weekends), a brand spanking new Institute of Contemporary Art that mounts exciting and large exhibitions, as well as a number of smaller but (as far as I know) successful museums: The De Cordova, the Fog, the Isabella Gardner.
Also how can you reconcile your claim that only the "have nots" of the art world that are concerned about maintaining a visual arts commons when there's a rich and continuing history of benefactors to arts museums?
First of all, ouch.
Second of all while I find your nihilism attractive in a hipster sort of way I also think it's far too reductive. Boston is not an arts town, it's a sports town and it still manages to host an expanding MFA (which is packed on the weekends), a brand spanking new Institute of Contemporary Art that mounts exciting and large exhibitions, as well as a number of smaller but (as far as I know) successful museums: The De Cordova, the Fog, the Isabella Gardner.
Also how can you reconcile your claim that only the "have nots" of the art world that are concerned about maintaining a visual arts commons when there's a rich and continuing history of benefactors to arts museums?
9
Where are these benefactors now?
And I applaud the growth of the museums you mention but that still doesn't explain how Brandeis came to this point and why the supposed remedy is so awful in the face of success of other museums.
And I applaud the growth of the museums you mention but that still doesn't explain how Brandeis came to this point and why the supposed remedy is so awful in the face of success of other museums.
10
If I had to guess why Brandeis is closing its museum it would probably be because it's endowment has shrunk (tee-hee) due to the current economy and seeing as how they're a learning institution first and foremost and not an arts museum they have to liquidate some assets to ensure they can meet their bottom line. Benefactors may still come forward to help save the Rose, but it's more than possible that the board of trustees decided that having an arts museum on campus is overextending resources and they'd rather have capital available to pay their professors than a Warhol on the wall.
The MFA et al by contrast are purely art museums and can devote their resources and fund raising to this appointed purpose.
The MFA et al by contrast are purely art museums and can devote their resources and fund raising to this appointed purpose.
11
This has nothing to do with demand for viewing art. Nor with people not caring and hence not donating enough. This art is being sold because Brandeis, along with scores of other institutions, is getting severely pinched by the economic clusterfuck. Their art is more liquid than a lot of the other assets, so they are going to sell it to prevent going under. Talk of benefactors and museum-attending have-nots is completely beside the point. This is purely a symptom of the economy, and if suddenly 10 times as many people bought a ticket to see the art it wouldn't matter whatsoever. Brandeis pretty clearly has bigger fish to fry than a museum's operational expenses if it's preparing to sell the collection.
12
@11, the questions and theory are completely relevant because the outcry is over the loss of art on display not the university itself going under.
And whether 10 times as many people donated is also relevant because the contention is that the public at large would be losing something it values without there being strong evidence that the public at large values it.
And whether 10 times as many people donated is also relevant because the contention is that the public at large would be losing something it values without there being strong evidence that the public at large values it.
13
There are not too many alternatives for Brandeis. Their donor base has contracted very seriously: Jewish mega-doners heavily damaged by the collapse of the financial system. Art happens to be one relatively saleable asset at the disposal of the trustees. This is a little different than a museum selling art. It's a University getting out of the museum business because its probable financial future makes the opportunity cost of continuing to great.
14
One result of the Brandeis sale at this time will be to establish lower prices, which will decrease book values of other private university collections. Nails will be bitten.
15
@12- Whether or not the public is losing something it values is, again, beside the point. The outcry over loss of art (to the public) is likewise beside the point. Insolvent institutions will be forced to liquidate assets. This cannot be seen as sympotomatic of anything, whatsoever, other than the decline of Brandeis' finances.
Brandeis isn't sticking it to art lovers by selling their collection. Nor would they be acting in solidarity with art lovers by keeping the collection. There are no conclusions to be drawn here except that Brandeis is deep in the shit, and we probably shouldn't be surprised to see more of this as more institutions start seeing themselves in similar situations.
Brandeis isn't sticking it to art lovers by selling their collection. Nor would they be acting in solidarity with art lovers by keeping the collection. There are no conclusions to be drawn here except that Brandeis is deep in the shit, and we probably shouldn't be surprised to see more of this as more institutions start seeing themselves in similar situations.
16
@ 12. Oy this is like the incessant causation/correlation fight. Look, if Brandeis didn't sell their artwork there would be an outcry because they would probably start to go under. It's a lose-lose situation, but I think everyone would rather an institution of learning stay soluble than have a university AND a museum go under.
17
Which, I maintain, is the main objection from "the art world". They're ALL about value.
Think about it: if the value of every Warhol in the world was suddenly reduced to $100, would I care? No; I don't own any Warhols, and I'm not likely to. But a lot of people who made significant dollar investments in these things -- FOR THAT PURPOSE ALONE -- would be devastated.
And that would be a good thing.
And the intellectual and aesthetic value of the Warhols would be untouched. Warhol himself would laugh hysterically, of course.
Think about it: if the value of every Warhol in the world was suddenly reduced to $100, would I care? No; I don't own any Warhols, and I'm not likely to. But a lot of people who made significant dollar investments in these things -- FOR THAT PURPOSE ALONE -- would be devastated.
And that would be a good thing.
And the intellectual and aesthetic value of the Warhols would be untouched. Warhol himself would laugh hysterically, of course.
18
It is far from obvious that Brandeis's collection would end up in private hands rather than other museums. And even if it does, take the long view: who cares where Rembrandt's paintings were before they ended up in the Met or the Louvre? They're there now. Paintings in private collections do not disappear for eternity. Indeed, paintings in museum collections frequently DO disappear for as long as privately-held paintings do; museums are stacked to the ceiling with stuff they never exhibit.
If ALL of that stuff hit the market at once, the art dollar world would collapse. Boo fucking hoo.
If ALL of that stuff hit the market at once, the art dollar world would collapse. Boo fucking hoo.
19
i mostly love slog and lineout for gossipy news.
but thanks for this article. good links and an important topic that should be discussed.
gifts of art and artifacts are not contemporarily accepted with stipulations, but in the past this was common. I think its horrific that objects of art that were donated so that they could be enjoyed by the public or a wider audience would enter back into a private collection through sale.
the real problem is that art has become like gold and people collect it not for beauty and truth's sake but because it is a safe investment that can be liquidated while rarely depreciating in value.
brandeis employees took a pay cut to avoid layoffs last year and the university is obviously in trouble but they need to make cuts elsewhere or sell to a public institution or make a permanent loan for an endowment.
but thanks for this article. good links and an important topic that should be discussed.
gifts of art and artifacts are not contemporarily accepted with stipulations, but in the past this was common. I think its horrific that objects of art that were donated so that they could be enjoyed by the public or a wider audience would enter back into a private collection through sale.
the real problem is that art has become like gold and people collect it not for beauty and truth's sake but because it is a safe investment that can be liquidated while rarely depreciating in value.
brandeis employees took a pay cut to avoid layoffs last year and the university is obviously in trouble but they need to make cuts elsewhere or sell to a public institution or make a permanent loan for an endowment.
20
@18
I can only hope all of that stuff WILL hit the market at once, and the art dollar world will collapse. I've always thought Guernica would look splendid in my apartment's foyer but alas it's been outside my price point. Come to think of it I might need a bigger foyer...
I can only hope all of that stuff WILL hit the market at once, and the art dollar world will collapse. I've always thought Guernica would look splendid in my apartment's foyer but alas it's been outside my price point. Come to think of it I might need a bigger foyer...
21
well guernica hangs in madrid.
at brandeis however:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Art_Mu…
and acc. wikipedia. the collection is worth 300 mill of a 700 mill endowment. The liquid portion of which was invested with Mr. Madoff.
at brandeis however:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Art_Mu…
and acc. wikipedia. the collection is worth 300 mill of a 700 mill endowment. The liquid portion of which was invested with Mr. Madoff.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (21) RSS