Britain’s Beaverbrook Foundation is consigning the 48 art works it was given title to in September at the conclusion of a lengthy and expensive legal battle to Sotheby’s auctioneers in New York and London.
Sotheby’s confirmed Friday that it would sell the works at a series of auctions set for December this year and January 2010. The 48 pieces were among the 133 that the foundation and the Beaverbrook Art Gallery in Fredericton, N.B., fought over for more than six years.
Via The Globe and Mail.
I will elaborate more on deaccessioning here and on my other blog, Clancco, soon. What do you think? Deaccession or not? Is there a middle ground?
Bill Viola, April Gornik and Eric Fischl have pulled out of the show Atmospheric Conditions at the Rose Art Museum until Brandeis administrators sign an agreement not to sell art from the collection.
As for the postponement of the show, Brandeis spokesperson Andrew Gully notes, “I don’t think it says anything about the museum; I think it speaks to the artists who decided not to come,’’ he said. “We clearly have a great show in the fall coming.’’
The Rose is replacing the Atmospheric Conditions exhibition with one by James Rosenquist, who sees the three-artist pull-out as negative and knee-jerk. “I’m having a show there that will put a spotlight on the museum, and maybe they won’t sell anything. I’d rather do that than be negative and pull out and let it dry up,” said Rosenquist. More from the Boston Globe here.
Kaiser writes about frustrated nonprofits. In full disclosure, I'm a mentor with the Kennedy Center's Arts in Crisis program, and truth be told, I have not had much problem convincing nonprofits I speak with to increase programming and marketing. Here are some of Kaiser's thoughts:
Many arts managers are angry with me. They do not appreciate my advice not to cut programming during this recession. I continue to say that creating large, important projects is central to creating fiscal health. Especially when there is less money for the arts (and there is less money for the arts today), arts organizations must compete harder. As donors decide which organizations to continue to support, the institutions that are doing vital, important work are the ones who will continue to be supported. Not only must the work be interesting but the marketing of that work and of the institution as a whole must be aggressive and creative.
One arts leader accused me publicly of living in a parallel universe. He was quite upset that his artistic director and his unionized artists threw my advice in his face when he felt he had to make programming cuts. He was dealing with a substantial budget shortfall and saw no other recourse than to cut programming. He was not amused that his artists kept saying, "Michael Kaiser says this, Michael Kaiser says that."
The rest of his thoughts are at The Huffington Post.
London's ICA staff members have been told that a financial deficit currently at around £600,000 ($967,000) might rise to £1.2m ($1.9 million) and if radical steps are not taken the ICA could be closed by May. According to the ICA director, without a wholesale restructuring, the ICA could be the first major British cultural organisation to fall victim to the recession. Via The Guardian.
My solution is this: museums that propose to sell art from their storerooms for purposes other than buying art should submit their cases to an independent arbitrator. And if they make a convincing case, they must also give other public collections two chances to buy the art -- once, in a right of first refusal; a second time, after a public auction, when they all have an opportunity to match the winning public bid.
But maybe we are maturing: I expected to be flooded with complaints about violating sacred principles. Instead, all of the feedback I've received has been positive. One friend made a great addition to my solution, which proposed using neutral parties familiar with art, art law and nonprofit regulation. To her, that spelled lawyers, and she suggested that retired, disinterested museum professionals could also arbitrate.
[I posted this on Clancco.com, but in order to facilitate access to readers of this blog I've also posted it here.]
Judith H. Dobrzynski, a former reporter and editor at the NY Times, wrote yesterday on a very interesting alternative to the deaccessioning fight. In brief, she argues for an "impartial arbitrator," which would hear a museum's argument and need for deaccessioning art to pay the bills.
Maybe it’s best to amend the unwritten sales ban, but not end it. What if a museum had to argue its case for de-accessioning art before an impartial arbitrator? This neutral party would need to be schooled in art, art law and nonprofit regulations. [bold mine]
If done properly, this is actually the best solution put on the table so far, and to my delight (and self-serving position) something not too far from what I have argued here.
THE squeeze is on. Museums everywhere are having trouble making ends meet, what with the overblown expansions they’ve made, the decline in investment income and the steep drop-off in contributions from foundations and individuals. Many have cut staff, frozen pay, trimmed exhibition schedules and slowed or stopped acquisitions. For some, that may not be enough: the American Folk Art Museum, to cite one example, recently admitted that it isn’t making debt payments.
Dobrzynski seems to be reigniting, in an academic and open town-hall-meeting of sorts, the deaccessioning debate started in early 2009 over the Rose Art Museum, and being the first in 2010 to realize that the museum economic disasters are intensifying and not-at-all decreasing. She sites others on her corner with similar thoughts.
What’s next? In some corners, there’s fear that museum officials will do what is absolutely forbidden by art-world rules: raise operating cash with a sale of artwork. Already some respected figures — David Gordon, former head of the Milwaukee Art Museum, and Richard Armstrong, director of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, for example — are saying that the rule against selling art for any purpose other than buying more art is wrong.
What do you think? Deaccessioning Arbitration and Regulation Panel (DARP)? That's my vote! Good start for 2010. Judith's article in its entirety here.
Posts
All Comments
