"Anyone who looks upon DIA as an ATM will be in for a shock."

I know. I haven't been posting here often but probably because, to be completely honest, the deaccessioning battle has pretty much been boiled down to sell and don't sell. There's very little interesting "stuff" being written about the philosophical aspects of relinquishing art and cultural objects for money, so why continue to simply post about institutions that do or do not do it, and those that get chastised for doing it.

Especially when bloggers like Donn Zaretsky have pretty much eviscerated the "public trust" argument to a myopic piece of Deathstar dust. Donn's got great arguments on his blog, and they're not knee-jerk reactions like the ones we tend to get from the deaccessioning police or, as I like to call them, those that shriek a deaccessioning fatwa. Check him out.

Meanwhile, Detroit. Yeah, what's up with Detroit? Here's a nice little argument from Eric Gibson of the WSJ arguing that creditors and pensioners should take what's on the table now given the unpredictable nature of the contemporary art market.

Hmmm, maybe. What do you think?

"Anyone who looks upon DIA as an ATM will be in for a shock."