Like many in the art world — take a look on Facebook — I was surprised that Peter Schjeldahl wrote on the New Yorker website that he favored the sale of the Detroit Institute of Art’s collection to pay the city’s creditors. I saw the headline, wondered what this esteemed art critic had to say, and immediately read the piece, to see what I had been missing in this argument.
As it turns out, nothing. I was amazed by the shallowness of the piece. Sure enough, I was not the only one. Before I could even contemplate how to respond here, an email from Hyperalleric landed in my mailbox, with a piece by Hrag Vartanian (at left). It begins:
Would New Yorker art critic Peter Schjeldahl suggest that Greece sell the Parthenon to pay its crippling national debt? How about Italy or Spain or Portugal or Ireland, which have financial problems of their own — should they sell off national treasures, maybe a national forest, or part of their coastline to pay creditors? The stodgy critic known for his purple prose seems to have, obliviously or not, penned a poisonous exhibit A for justifying the shameless “asset stripping†of a museum collection held in trust for the public. …
…It’s worth noting that Schjeldahl’s post on the New Yorker website is without any real facts that demonstrate the dangers Detroit is facing, and it is mostly filled with vague notions of culture and concern for retirees…
With that, I agree (hence my surprise). Vartanian says of the sale, “I personally don’t think it will” happen — and I agreed from the start of this. Now I am not so sure. I think the art may have been put on the table in some sort of political game of chicken. But that game could not be stopped once the number of players in it increased dramatically to include powerful creditors. They, let’s face it, are only about the money. The governor, emergency manager, mayor and other pols do have other considerations — like the future of the city. Looks as if they should never has started this, because it can no longer be contained.