Ted Gallagher, a self-described attorney “with a strong amateur art historic streak,” responds to Michael Thomas’s BlogBack that took issue with my post on the Cleveland Museum’s proposed diversion of acquisitions funds to its capital campaign:
Michael Thomas bends logic beyond all reckoning.
He grants the Cleveland Museum leave to invade dedicated acquisition
funds for high-end building projects because “no art museum in
America has adhered for as long to the highest cultural and ethical
standards.” So, is he saying that as long as a museum operates properly and
ethically for a good long while, the rules of donor relations can be
flouted?Yes, it may very well be an emergency, as he says: “They need to
finish their building. They need to get the money somewhere.”
But Thomas doesn’t defend donors’ rights to dedicate funds to a
specific purpose. He doesn’t propose, alternatively, that the museum
seek to “borrow” from the donors, with a promise to repay the loan
with interest.
The only thing getting “real” here is the sure loss of future
donations, where trust is the coin of the realm.
COMING TOMORROW: An art museum director, in another BlogBack, cleaves to my Cleveland position.