The Ghost Behind the Pollock: Donor/Collector Peggy Guggenheim
Photo (detail): Roloff Beny
I can’t believe we’re again rehashing the arguments over the monetization of the Univerisity of Iowa’s Pollock masterpiece, “Mural.” It’s 2008-2009 all over again, except that the idea of ditching art to diminish deficits may be gaining new traction in the current economic and political climate.
This disturbing news was reported today by William Petroski of the Des Moines Register:
An Iowa House appropriations subcommittee today supported the sale of
a famed Jackson Pollock painting in the University of Iowa’s art
collection, saying the proceeds could be used to fund thousands of
scholarships for students.Rep. Ralph Watts, an Adel Republican who chaired the three-member panel,
said a bill requiring the Iowa Board of Regents to sell the world-class
Pollock painting, “Mural,” will set a minimum price, probably about $120
million. The painting had an estimated value of $150 million in 2008….Carroll Reasoner, the university’s legal counsel, told the subcommittee
that letters written by [Peggy] Guggenheim [previous owner of the Pollock] show that she had donated the
painting to the university with the intent that it be displayed for
students, and the university had said it would be part of its permanent
art collection. She raised the prospect that if lawmakers require that
the painting be sold, the university could be sued and ultimately
lose the artwork before any sale occurred.
CultureGrrl has obtained copies of Peggy Guggenheim’s letters, which speak very clearly to the issue of donor intent. Here’s the key letter (on P. 4 of the batch of letters), written by Guggenheim on May 14, 1963 to then University of Iowa President Virgil Hancher:
I am writing to you about a matter which troubles me greatly. As you are aware in 1946 I made a gift to your University of a second painting by Jackson Pollock
having previously given you a smaller one; This was done through Mr. Lester
Longman, who was at that time connected with your art department. I have
recently been informed that there are rumors in Iowa to the effect that you are
about to ship the large Pollock to Sutheby’s [sic] in London to be sold at auction.If
this is true it is extremely unpleasant for me that you should sell my gift, when
there are so many museums in the world, who would be delighted to own this
wonderful painting. If you no longer wish to have this mural in your University I
must ask you to return it to me, so that I can [have it] in my museum here in Venice
or give it to some other museum in the states.
To this, Hancher replied (P. 5):
The members of the Art Department have assured me that there is no expectation of sending the Pollock, to which you refer, to Sutheby’s [sic], or to dispose of it in any way….There is a unique opportunity in this section of the United States to provide an outstanding art museum, to reach an audience who would not otherwise have an opportunity to see, to know and to share first-rate painting….We are as pleased to have the Pollock now as when you gave it to the University in 1948. [The university gives the date of the gift as 1951.)
These documents, cited by reasonable Reasoner, the university’s lawyer, raise the possibility that legislative action may not be sufficient to allow the sale of the Pollock. Court permission may also be needed, as Fisk University well knows from its long and still inconclusive legal battle to sell to Alice Walton‘s Crystal Bridges Museum a half-share of the celebrated Stieglitz Collection that Fisk had received from donor/artist Georgia O’Keeffe.
The Des Moines Register’s Petroski quotes Sean O’Harrow, director of the University of Iowa Art Museum, saying that monetizing the Pollock “would destroy our reputation in one fell swoop.” And the university today issued a press release quoting these remarks submitted by University President Sally Mason to the Iowa
House Appropriations Subcommittee:
Since this legislation was introduced, donors to the university have
rightfully been asking the question: How they can be sure that their
gifts to the University of Iowa can be protected?“This is an issue that I, and the entire University of Iowa
community, care deeply about and my position has not changed: I do not
want to sell the painting. This very generous donation by Ms. Guggenheim
was made to the University with trust that we would be good caretakers
of her gift. We cannot break the trust of our donors. We must honor
those wishes and requests.
David Miles, president of Iowa’s Board of Regents, which oversees the university, and Michael Gartner, a member of the board who had previously explored the idea of selling the Pollock last week issued dueling statements for and against (respectively) the retention of the Pollock as a cultural and educational asset for the university and the broader Iowa community.
Speaking of donor intent (great segue!), my warm thanks go out to CultureGrrl Repeat Donor 156 from Chicago, who says he’s “been telling my grad students that they have to follow you. And I don’t think there’s anybody better than you when it comes to the ethics/politics of deaccessioning.”
If only I could monetize that!