The Broader Signficance of the Tate Disclosures

Although I believe (along with Tate Gallery director Nicholas Serota) that transparency is the best policy for most museum expenditures, I not only disagree with requiring museums to publicize the appraised value of donated art (as I explain here), but I’m still pondering how far museums ought to go in disclosing what they pay for works that they purchase from collectors or dealers. Many sellers might find such financial publicity so distasteful as to inhibit their dealings with museums. The loss would be the public’s.
But one lesson drawn from the Tate’s controversial recent purchase of “The Upper Room” for $1.13 million from its own board member, artist Chris Ofili, is that full disclosure is essential for any purchase or gift that could give the appearance of conflict-of-interest or self-dealing. Ofili retired from the Tate’s board last November and was replaced by Anish Kapoor, whose “Ishi’s Light” was another of the Tate’s highest-priced recent purchases, at $908,666. (I am using today’s conversion rate of 1.88 pounds to the dollar.)
Here’s another potential conflict-of-interest problem—purely hypothetical: What if the Metropolitan Museum purchased an artwork from its director’s son, Marc de Montebello, a private New York dealer in blue-chip art? (I emphasize that I have no knowledge that such a transaction has ever actually taken place.) This type of purchase should immediately be disclosed, along with the purchase price. A famous example of a museum official with a dealer/relative was the late William Rubin, former director of painting and sculpture at the Museum of Modern Art, whose brother was Lawrence Rubin, a major modern and contemporary art dealer. (A passion for art runs in families.)
I also believe there should be full disclosure, including appraised value, for any works donated to a museum by members of its own staff—a fairly common practice that benefits the museum but also benefits its curators or other officials, through personal tax deductions. Museum officials may argue that they recuse themselves from decisions on acquisitions for which they could have a conflict of interest. But given their close relationships to the decision-makers, that’s not enough.
Would anyone care to comment?