Soon to be sold? Willem de Kooning, “Untitled,” 1961, Rose Art Museum, loaned last fall to Haunch of Venison gallery
[CORRECTION: My original posting erroneously reported that Michael Rush‘s piece appeared in “the February Art Newsletter.” It was The Art Newspaper. My apologies.]
Michael Rush, the director of the Rose Art Museum, Waltham, MA, must have been cringing at the thought that just days after Brandeis University’s announcement of the planned sales of art from his museum’s collection, the February Art Newspaper would be publishing his opinion piece (not online at this writing) in which he explained his decision to lend de Kooning‘s 1961 “Untitled” (above) to the inaugural show last fall of the New York branch of Haunch of Venison, the Christie’s-connected commercial gallery. (If you have The Art Newspaper, Rush’s piece is on p. 28, but its published de Kooning image, for reasons unknown to me, is NOT the above painting lent by the Rose, which I saw in person and in Haunch’s catalogue.)
Writing before the furor over the Rose arose, Rush opined:
It is foolish and reactionary to think that there exists some “pure” separation between the principled museum and the unprincipled gallery or art fair or auction house. The synergy among these entities is deepening [truer than he knew!] and it is incumbent upon museum professionals to both embrace the good that comes from these combined forces and constantly cling to the boundaries that do indeed keep the encroachments of the marketplace at bay.
If only.
Now it looks like the Rose’s de Kooning may well become fodder for the “encroaching” marketplace, and it got its first art-market exposure, with Rush’s unwitting help, at the launch of Haunch. The bad idea (which I previously criticized here) of nonprofits’ lending to for-profits now looks even worse.
What’s more, Rush may have given momentum to the Brandeis administration’s rush to auction by recklessly brandishing the collection’s dollar value. Rush aided and abetted the monetization of the collection through his foolish idea, contrary to customary museum practice, of publicizing how much the art was worth.
According to an article published in the Spring ’07 issue of Brandeis Magazine:
Rush is not convinced the community fully grasps the splendor and value of its holdings. With key members of the arts community, Rush reckoned by “eyeball,” he says, that the works in hand are worth at least $300 million. Rather than operating on an educated guess, though, he has engaged Christie’s Fine Art Auctioneers of New York to do a formal evaluation. [That’s a convenient headstart, if Christie’s eventually gets this ethically tainted consignment.]
He admits the move is less for insurance purposes than it is to demonstrate to Brandeis the value of its artworks….”I’m confident,” he says, “that, after its real estate, art is the university’s largest financial asset, and I want everyone to know it.”
Great plan, Mike.
Rush may have also have stimulated the administrators’ appetite for of art dollars by himself arranging the disposal in November 2007 of the Rose’s important Childe Hassam at Christie’s, where it fetched $3.74 million. The university has a history of controversial deaccessions.
In a letter last week to CultureGrrl, Rush took issue with my previous post that supported the call by Ford Bell, president of the American Association of Museums, for Brandeis “to seek another steward” for the collection if it wants to disown it.
Rush wrote to me:
While I appreciate
Ford Bell and the AAM’s statement, I fear it misses the central point
and central horror here. Brandeis isn’t closing the Rose because it
can’t afford to keep exhibiting and caring for the collection. [Bell did, inaccurately, suggest that was Brandeis’ motivation.] The
Rose, a financially autonomous entity of the university, is fine. We
are a healthy institution. The university gives us no direct funding.
What they do provide, which is important, is “below the line” support
with lights, heat, etc. but we raise our operating expenses, pay our
own salaries, and benefit from several endowments given over the years
by the enormously generous backers of the museum. The university is
closing the Rose so it can sell the art.
In another letter to CultureGrrl, an important curator at a New England museum (who requested anonymity) said pretty much the same thing, adding that his museum, nevertheless, would “take it all on with pleasure,” should Brandeis wish to give the art to another institution. Similarly, Steve Miller, director of the Morris Museum, Morristown, wrote to me tongue-in-cheek:
I love the idea
of having the collection go to another museum. I will offer the Morris Museum! There is no museum in New Jersey devoted exclusively to post-WWII and contemporary art. We would be an
ideal setting—close to major trade routes, easily accessible to
appreciative audiences, plenty of gallery space,
But seriously…the key point, which I elucidated more fully here (fourth paragraph) is that if a museum wants to dispose of museum-quality objects, monetizing them is not an ethically acceptable option, ESPECIALLY if the proceeds are to be used for anything other than acquisitions. The only appropriate alternative to keeping the works at a nonprofit art museum would be transferring them to another such institution. This is the public’s patrimony. It should not be sacrificed for quick cash.
Of course I understand full well that a free transfer to another museum would defeat the whole purpose of Brandeis’ (almost)-everything-must-go museum clearance. The works, if they could not be sold, would most likely stay where they are—where their donors wanted them—and not be shipped off to Morristown.
That’s just fine with me.