Why don't museums sell art (except to buy more art)?

Brian Frye over at the Faculty Lounge published three nice posts about the professional repugnance that art museums have about selling art.

Here's the first:
Are Deaccessioning Norms Ethical?

It's about the rules that associations of art museums have to prevent museums from selling art. It's a professionally repugnant transaction.
 He argues that it's a way to make sure that capital gains on the secondary market accrue only to private collectors...

And here's the second:
Watching the Deaccessioning Police
"One of the biggest stories in the art world this week is the Berkshire Museum's plan to "deaccession" (read "sell") 40 artworks from its "permanent collection" worth about $50 million, in order to pay for renovations and shore up its endowment. The museum plans to auction at Sotheby's works by Norman Rockwell, Frederic Church, Albert Bierstadt, Alexander Calder, and Charles Wilson Peale, among other artists."
...
"Predictably, the deaccessioning police went ballistic. The American Alliance of Museums (AAM) and the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) issued a joint statement saying they are “deeply opposed to the Berkshire Museum’s plans to sell works from its collection to provide funds for its endowment, to make capital investments, and to pay for daily operations.” The AAM and AAMD also noted that their "ethical" codes prohibit museums from selling artworks in order to cover operating costs. And their art world allies piled on, with perennial deaccessioning critics like Lee Rosenbaum lamenting the museum's decision."


And the third:
Deaccessioning Police Redux
"Predictably on cue, the "deaccessioning police" have raised their usual hue and cry. One of loudest voices in the claque is Christopher Knight of the LA Times, who has now gone "full nihilist" on deaccessioning. As Donn Zaretsky of the Art Law Blog observed, Knight's most recent column takes the anti-deaccessioning position to its inevitable reductio ad absurdumendpoint:

Here’s an idea: Don’t sell the art. Do close the museum. Start behaving like the charitable institution you are supposed to be. Spend the next several years responsibly overseeing the dispersal of the collection.

To paraphrase: "We had to destroy the museum in order to save it." 

***********
See this earlier post of mine, concerning university museums:

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Repugnance watch: Deaccessioning art (i.e. selling it)

Assisted suicide--the musical

A Theatrical Rebuttal to the Farce of ‘Dignicide’
The creator of ‘Assisted Suicide: The Musical’ says euthanasia denies the value of people who have illnesses or disabilities.

Liz Carr, an actress with disabilities created a popular London musical to speak out against assisted suicide...

So she created a musical. Much of “Assisted Suicide” involves Ms. Carr taking on her alter ego, a character named Documentary Liz. Film footage shows Documentary Liz living a humdrum disabled life, while a lachrymose melody plays and a narrator dourly describes the scene: “Liz feels trapped, imprisoned by her difficult circumstances. Liz has few freedoms, few choices on a day-to-day basis.”

Onstage, the real Ms. Carr rolls her eyes and provides a running commentary, acidly mocking the documentary clichés. “Music is always used very manipulatively,” she tells me. “The music feeds the emotional journey. It tells you, ‘This is a tragedy. This has one way to go.’ ” The aim is to normalize a choice that was unthinkable a generation ago, with the result that people like her are impelled to conclude: “You know what, my life isn’t worth living.”

Growing up with a severe disability, Ms. Carr recalls, “life was bleak.” She excelled at academics, but no amount of therapy seemed to improve her physical ability. She was never consciously suicidal, “but I didn’t see a future or an escape. I couldn’t see a point. So in that sense I’ve been to very dark places.” She pressed on, however, and now enjoys national prominence as an actress and disability activist.

Ms. Carr, who was born in 1972, considers herself lucky that euthanasia wasn’t on the cultural radar when she was young. “Assisted suicide has become part of the narrative of death, of illness, of disability,” she says. That was the work of euthanasia proponents, who knew that “it takes 15 to 20 years to get social support and to get the culture to change—then you pass the law.”

Repugnance watch: Wedgwood vase could be saved from export after culture minister intervenes

Can cultural treasures be sold to foreign buyers?  The Telegraph has the story:
 Wedgwood vase could be saved from export after culture minister intervenes

"The black “Basaltes” vase was put on sale at Christie’s in July by Anne Makeig-Jones, a descendant of Wedgwood.
...
"The decision to defer the export licence follows a recommendation by the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest, administered by the Arts Council."
******************

See my earlier post: Market for (smuggled) cultural treasures

Repugnance watch: Deaccessioning art (i.e. selling it)

Some time ago I had a set of posts on Brandeis University's plan to sell some of its art. Apparently the professional ethics of museums allows art to be sold to buy other art, but not to fix the roof or pay for other things.  Sometimes a sale would violate the terms of the gift of the art, but apparently the repugnance applies even when it would not. Now comes a story (in the NY Times) about similar considerations at Fisk University: A Prized Stettheimer Painting, Sold Under the Radar by a University

"When Fisk University, the historically black school in Nashville, tried to sell two paintings several years ago from its storied Alfred Stieglitz art collection, a firestorm erupted. The proposed sale violated conditions of the gift of the collection from Stieglitz’s widow, Georgia O’Keeffe, according to her foundation.

"A drawn-out legal challenge ended in a compromise in 2012 that allowed Fisk to share its collection with Crystal Bridges, the Arkansas museum founded by Alice Walton, the Walmart heiress, bringing the struggling university an infusion of $30 million.

"But what was not revealed at the time, and has only recently come to light, is that before the agreement was completed — and with the debate over the future of Fisk itself swirling around her — Hazel O’Leary, then the university’s president, on behalf of the school quietly sold off two other paintings owned by Fisk.

"The institution was “under duress,” said Patrick Albano of Aaron Galleries, an art dealer from Illinois whom Ms. O’Leary asked to broker the sale.
...
"According to Mr. Albano, Fisk decided to sell work by Stettheimer and the painter and illustrator Rockwell Kent, which had been donated to the university with “no strings attached.”

“Shame on them,” said Lyndel King, director of the Weisman Museum at the University of Minnesota and a chairwoman of the Task Force for the Protection of University Collections, referring to Fisk’s actions. “It’s very much against the ethics of our profession.”

"Though the task force does not have legal authority over universities, its members, who represent several museum associations, can censure those who sell art to pay operating expenses, putting pressure on them not to treat art as an A.T.M. That practice “alienates donors and undermines the purpose of having a museum on campus,” Ms. King said.

"Various museum associations say that deaccessioning art, if not in violation of the original gift, is justified if the proceeds are used to buy more art. It is the cherry-picking of a painting here and a painting there to bolster an endowment or support operating expenses that is frowned upon.

"Universities, however, have argued in several settings that they must consider such sales when the fiscal alternatives — cutting programs or staff — are untenable."

So, you want to run an art gallery?

Be prepared for high rent, and insurance: The New Art World Math: What It Really Costs to Be an Art Dealer: And why costs are going up

The singularity is not as near as you thought...

Artificial intelligence may not be poised to take over the world just yet, or at least there will be a distribution of intelligence even among the artificial kind.

I received an email from a biomedical literature service that would like me to sign up to keep track of articles related to one of mine, specifically

Roth AE: The art of designing markets. Harv Bus Rev; 2007 Oct;85(10):118-26, 166, PMID: 17972500

The top three related papers they suggest are (emphasis added)

1. The art of designing markets.

Roth AE.

Harv Bus Rev; 2007 Oct;85(10):118-26, 166.

2. [Art therapy and "art brut"].

Kovács E, Simon L.

Psychiatr Hung; 2010;25(4):323-32.

3. [Multiple pregnancies after ART: problems and possible solutions].

Shebl O, Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Sir A, Urdl W, Tews G.

Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch; 2007;47(1):3-8.

Legacy exhibition at the Nobel Museum in Stockholm

Legacy: 14 Nobel Laureates on inspiration, role models and the value of passing something on

A video exhibition by the artists David Hodge and Hi-Jin Kang Hodge will open at the Nobel museum in Stockholm on March 13 and run through November 15. I was interviewed for it at Stanford.

Here's a trailer for the video

I haven't seen the video of my interview, and don't remember well all the things we talked about, but this paragraph in the exhibition description could possiblyl refer to me talking about Lloyd Shapley:

"In one part of the exhibition, the video installation Legacy is shown, where Nobel Laureates discuss the importance of legacies, both personal and professional. One of the participants tells us that one of his greatest role models in science was a professor that he never worked with. But he was still inspired by their way of thinking and solving problems, methods that made such an impression of him that he in turn could use them for problem solving in other fields. "

Should museums sell art only to buy more art?

Another university has contemplated--and then gone ahead with--selling art to raise money.
Inside Higher Ed has the story:

Art vs. Endowment

February 10, 2014

By

Scott Jaschik

"More than six years after announcing plans to sell a masterpiece of American painting -- the 1912 work "Men of the Docks," by George Bellows -- Randolph College has done so, gaining $25.5 million for its endowment.

In selling the painting, the college disregarded the policies of several art and museum groups, which state that museums (including those run by colleges) should sell art only to buy more art, not to improve their finances. The significance of "Men of the Docks" is evident not only by the price, but by the purchaser, the National Gallery of Britain, for which the painting is the first major work by an American ever bought for the permanent collection.

Randolph officials portray the sale as a success for the college, giving its endowment a significant boost, and point as well to internship opportunities the National Gallery has agreed to create for Randolph students.

But arts associations fear that such sales only encourage others, and undermine the role of college museums in preserving art, and educating students about art. In some cases, as at Randolph, college administrators have proposed to sell art. Brandeis University administrators in 2009 proposed to sell off its noted collection of modern art -- and the university backed away from the plan after a huge uproar.

Sometimes the idea is pushed from outside (especially at public universities). In 2011, some legislators urged the University of Iowa to sell Jackson Pollock's "Mural," an 8-by-20-foot painting that is considered one of the masterpieces of abstract art and of modern American art. (The university resisted the push.)

At Randolph, the board approved plans in 2007 to sell four paintings from the college's art museum, fought off a lawsuit seeking to block the sale, and sold one prior to "Men of the Docks," which is by far the most valuable and artistically significant in the collection."

****************************


Recall the earlier imbroglio that ensued when Brandeis university considered selling some of its art, which I wrote about here.

Nobel labs: panoramic photos

One of the funnier post-Nobel phenomena, aside from the attention of journalists, is the attention of artists.  The most interesting of those whom I have interacted with is photographer Volker Steger, who in collaboration with the Landau organization has created a series of photo/interviews consisting of panoramic portraits of the places where Laureates work, together with links to embedded interviews, some just audio, and some video: NOBEL LABS 360° An Interactive Multimedia Project.

You can see the interviews/photos taken so far here: NOBEL LABS 360°, and here are the interviews with me at Stanford. including some in our actual lab, and with my colleague Muriel Niederle.

I haven't fully figured out how to navigate the site, but you can let the panorama rotate slowly, or you can navigate to parts of it by experimenting with your mouse...if you click on the link called "Introducing Alvin Roth" you can see a video of me working at and walking on (and talking about) my treadmill desk...and if you explore more you can find a nice shot that includes Rodin's Burghers of Callais on the Stanford campus.

Tomorrow I will graduate from being the most recent Economics laureate to a more emeritus status, and I'm looking forward to a few fewer distractions, although some of them have been quite fun.

Art and Economics in Fresno

I received the following, unusual email:

I am writing to let you know about my exhibition "ImPOSSIBLE CONVERSATIONS?" at the Fresno Art Museum. 

It is roughly based on your research in matching theory.

Thank you for the inspiration,

Sonya Rapoport

ImPOSSIBLE CONVERSATIONS? is an interactive artwork that updates the Pattern and Design (P&D) art pieces that I created  from 1966 to 1968. I had painted iconic abstractions directly onto kitchy patterned linen from closeout sales. The results became my Funky P&D artwork.

Upon learning about the 2012 Nobel Prize in Economic Science for Marketing Design and Matching Theory, I was inspired to update the P&D work according to the research of its winners, Alvin Roth and Lloyd Shapley. 

ImPOSSIBLE CONVERSATIONS? pays tribute to Marketing as Andy Warhol's work pays tribute to Celebrity. The updated P&D work consists of ten stable images composed of a black and white, 8 x 10" glossy photograph of a 60's P&D painting placed on a New York Times Advertisement. I titled each of these ten stable art works with an unstable media headline, such as "Find Your Magic." The titles are "unstable" because I invite viewers to reassign the titles to a "stable" image of their choice. I track the results in a Matching Theory algorithm.

The work of Nobel laureates Roth and Shapley seeks to optimize how people, such as medical students and job applicants, and institutions, like residency programs and companies, find and select each other in order to create stable matches.

ImPOSSIBLE CONVERSATIONS? demonstrates both restricted and unrestricted mechanisms for matching. I organized data-gathering events in which groups of ten participants picked one "unstable" title and matched it with one "stable" composite image. I then removed this newly named work, leaving only nine titles for re-matching with the nine remaining composite images. This restricted mechanism of matching continued until all titles were assigned to a composite image. During the exhibition at the Fresno Art Museum, participants will engage in the unrestricted mechanism of matching any title to any composite image, previously selected or not.

In ImPOSSIBLE CONVERSATIONS? I try to merge art with economic science. By encouraging people to interact with my composite artworks, I created a simplistic model of the Marketing Design and Matching Theory to demonstrate the difference between the restricted and unrestricted selections.

Art project on matching in Berkeley today

File this under "I'm not sure what to make of this"

SONYA RAPOPORT

"ImPOSSIBLE CONVERSATIONS?" Data Gathering Event 

One Day Only!

Sunday, February 10th, 2013 from 1 to 4 pm

Martina }{ Johnston would like to invite you to a one-day special Data Gathering Event for artist Sonya Rapoport's project "ImPOSSIBLE CONVERSATIONS?" on Sunday, February 10th, 2013 from 1 to 4 pm.

Sonya Rapoport will be presenting a new interactive project and invites viewers to come and participate in a simple matching experiment under controlled conditions. The results of this experiment will become part of "ImPOSSIBLE CONVERSATIONS?" and will be exhibited at the Fresno Art Museum in May of this year.

"ImPOSSIBLE CONVERSATIONS?" is structured by Alvin Roth and Lloyd Shapley's "Market Design and Matching Theory", which won the 2012 Nobel Prize in Economics. This theory explores how people, institutions, and companies find and select each other to create stable matches. The work takes the form of a series of collages; each consists of a black and white photograph of a "pattern painting" that Rapoport created and exhibited in the late 60's, overlaid on a contemporary newspaper advertisement, and juxtaposed with a short text appropriated from the media.

Based in the Bay Area, Sonya Rapoport has exhibited her conceptual and new media artwork internationally. She recently had retrospective exhibitions at the Kala Institute in Berkeley and Mills College Art Museum. She received her MFA from UC Berkeley in 1949. Many of her web-based digital pieces can be experienced on her website, and she maintains an active blog about her work.

We hope to see you on Sunday, February 10th!

*Martina }{ Johnston is an artist-run house gallery located at:
1201 6th St., 2nd Floor, 
Berkeley, CA 94701
510.221.8315
martinajohnston@gmail.com
www.martinajohnston.org

Art vs. porn: do you know it when you see it?

An art museum in Vienna has had to censor the ads for its exhibits of male nudes: here's the story (in German, but with before and after pictures).  Penis-Plakat nach Protesten zensiert

HT: Muriel Niederle

Brandeis and critics agree that sales of donated art are repugnant

After a change in presidents, the controversy about whether Brandeis University could sell its art has ended, Inside Higher Ed reports: Brandeis Will Keep Its Art

"One of the flashpoints in the debate over whether colleges and universities should ever sell significant works of art was resolved Thursday -- with Brandeis University pledging to strengthen the Rose Art Museum rather than sell its masterpieces.

"Based on the promise, four supporters of the museum who sued the university two years ago agreed to end the litigation. Further, the Massachusetts attorney general's office has agreed to end its inquiry into the university's handling of the art collection.

...

"There have been several cases in recent years of colleges trying to sell or being pressured to sell parts of valuable collections. Fisk University remains in a legal battle over its desire to sell (or to partly sell) a $30 million collection of modern paintings by Georgia O'Keeffe and others. The University of Iowa this year fended off calls for it to sell Jackson Pollock's "Mural," an 8-by-20 foot painting that is considered one of the masterpieces of abstract art and of modern American art. Some estimated that the painting could have brought in as much as $140 million.

"Longstanding policy in the art world is that donated works of art be sold only to finance the purchase of more art, not to have the funds shifted to other purposes. So art supporters at Brandeis and elsewhere were stunned when the university in 2009 announced plans to shut the Rose Art Museum and sell off its works.

...

"The university made the announcement in January 2009, with officials citing a major hit taken by the endowment and severe budget problems facing Brandeis. “These are extraordinary times,” said a statement from Jehuda Reinharz, then the university's president, as the decision was announced. “We cannot control or fix the nation’s economic problems. We can only do what we have been entrusted to do -- act responsibly with the best interests of our students and their futures foremost in mind.”

The decision immediately prompted an outpouring of anger at the university from supporters of the arts, and donors to the Rose. Eventually, the university faced the lawsuit, an inquiry from the state, and widespread condemnation -- even as Brandeis put the plans to sell the art on hold.

...

"David A. Robertson, director of the Mary & Leigh Block Museum of Art at Northwestern University, was president of the Association of Academic Museums and Galleries when the initial Brandeis plans were announced. He said Thursday that he was thrilled with the news that the university was committing itself to strengthening the collection.

"The Brandeis controversy was "the flagship problem" for those worried about the sale of art, because of both the caliber of the university and the stature of the collection, he said. "It was very detrimental to art that Brandeis would have considered that move," he said.

"The debate over art at Brandeis has been valuable, Robertson said, in that it has "made other institutions aware of the issues that revolve around their collections." He said he hoped the uproar Brandeis has faced would discourage similar proposals."


*******


Here's the museum website: The Rose Art Museum

Sales by museums

The NY Times reports on a Philadelphia museum's sales of parts of its collection to finance renovations, and on the controversy this has caused: Museum Sells Pieces of Its Past, Reviving a Debate

"A galloping horse weather vane sold for about $20,000, and the cigar store Indians brought in more than $1 million. A Thomas Sully oil painting of Andrew Jackson netted $80,500, and a still life by Raphaelle Peale, part of the family that put portraiture in this city on the map, was auctioned at Christie’s for $842,500.

"These were just a few of more than 2,000 items quietly sold by the Philadelphia History Museum over the last several years, all part of an effort to cull its collection of 100,000 artifacts and raise money for a $5.8 million renovation of its 1826 building.

In doing so the museum stepped into the quicksand of murky rules, guidelines and ethical strictures meant to discourage museums everywhere from selling collections to pay bills. It is one of the hottest issues in the museum world today. With budgets shrinking in a bad economy, the pressure to generate revenue is growing along with fears that museums are squandering public trusts meant to preserve the artifacts of the past for future generations.

The National Academy Museum in New York, Fisk University and Brandeis have all recently drawn fire — and even sanctions — for selling or planning to sell artworks, and none of them sold as many works as the museum here.

"In general art and objects are supposed to be sold only to finance acquisitions, though different museums are governed by different standards. Art museums, regulated by a formal code of the Association of Art Museum Directors, may not sell work for any other reason.

"As a history museum, though, this institution — formally called the Philadelphia History Museum at the Atwater Kent — is subject to separate, less stringent guidelines put forward by other associations. So museum officials say the installation of new carpet, paint and lighting were all legitimate expenses to be paid from the proceeds under the guidelines of the  American Association of Museums, which say that sales can be used for the “direct care” of a collection. Adding to the confusion, there is a third set of standards maintained by theAmerican Association for State and Local History permitting proceeds to go toward the “preservation” of a collection, a similarly broad term.

"The New York State legislature, confronting this maze of precepts, recently considered passing a law that would make selling collections — the art world term is deaccessioning — to pay operating expenses illegal. It never made it to the Assembly floor because museums opposed it."

And here's another story about a librarian who submitted her resignation over deaccessioning: Small Town, Big Word, Major Issue
"Deaccessioning is the kind of word that makes eyes glaze over and can seem to be the preserve of dusty intellectuals and large museums. But it’s just a fancy name for the sale or giving away of art and artifacts by museums and other cultural organizations, and the dust-up here in this city of about 5,000 demonstrates that such debates occur in all kinds of places, big and small, where people feel protective about materials in their care.
With her personal gesture of protest in late September, Ms. Phillips stepped into a growing public controversy surrounding institutions that have sold or considered selling parts of their collections, which have been entrusted to them for the public’s benefit. Some say such sales can compromise collections, and others argue that museums, libraries and historical societies have to cull their collections periodically, particularly if there is pressure to pay their bills.
In Little Falls, library officials said they were selling things to raise money, not to cover operating costs, which institutions try to avoid, but to preserve other artifacts.
“We don’t have the space to take care of some of these items,” said Chester P. Szymanski III, the library’s president. “We’re not a museum. We’re a library.”

The wholesale market for art

We often think of the art market as essentially retail--each artwork is unique--but that's because we aren't art buyers for hotels, in which every room needs a painting or a print or two.

Hong Kong: Art in Big Batches

"Our first two appointments in Hong Kong were separate meetings with art consultants, Sandra Walters at Sandra Walters Art Consultancy and Nicole Jelicich at Enjay Art Consultancy. They collaborate with designers and property owners in providing art for hotels and corporate clients. They work in a volume unheard of in any gallery. Think thousands and tens of thousands of artworks. A new hotel—and there are hundreds under construction in China now—needs thousands of works for the rooms and the public areas. Both consultants have provided work for Ritz Carltons, Intercontinental Hotels, Four Seasons, Morgan Stanley and hundreds of other clients."

Market for (smuggled) cultural treasures

Trading in certain kinds of antiquities and "cultural treasures" is regarded as a repugnant transaction in many parts of the world, and governments seek to prevent it in various ways. (For example, France sometimes exercises a right to "preempt" auctions of art it deems important, essentially by exercising a right of first refusal (see footnote 3 in the linked paper). Many countries make exports of certain kinds of "cultural treasures" illegal.


Ray Fisman and Shang-Jin Wei have a paper that attempts to measure how often such laws are flouted (by comparing export declarations and U.S. import declarations--not everything that is illegal to export is illegal to import). It's called "The Smuggling of Art and the Art of Smuggling: Uncovering the Illicit Trade in Cultural Property and Antiques ," AEJ-Applied Economics, 1,3,2009.


It turns out that the level of illegal exports from a country is correlated with how often its UN diplomats violate NYC parking regulations.

Market for art: Brandeis, continued

When I earlier wrote about Brandeis University's decision to close its art museum and sell its art, I noted that many of the reactions to this announcement treated the selling of (donated) art by a museum as a repugnant transaction. Now, Brandeis is reconsidering: Brandeis president issues an apology: Laments museum announcement. "Reinharz's effort yesterday to soothe a fractured Brandeis community followed last week's surprise announcement that the school planned to close the museum and sell off its artwork as it confronts a financial crisis. That decision had incited protests on campus as well as a firestorm of criticism from the art and philanthropic worlds.... "As for the art, Reinharz said that the university does not intend to put all 7,180 works on the auction block. Only a "minute number" would be sold "if and when it is necessary," he said in Wednesday's interview.... "Reinharz released the letter following a rebuke from faculty late Wednesday, urging him to suspend any final decisions on the museum. His administration's abrupt announcement last week had created a "crisis of confidence" among faculty members, the faculty said in a letter to the president." Letters to the NY Times on the subject eloquently express strong, conflicting opinions. E.g., on the one hand, "In a meeting with alumni leaders in the fall, Jehuda Reinharz, president of Brandeis, stated that he would not allow a student to drop out because his or her parents could no longer afford tuition. I thought that was a wonderful position, and it made me prouder of my university than any work by Jasper Johns or Andy Warhol ever did....No one thinks selling art is desirable. But allowing students to have to leave school is not an acceptable alternative. " And on the other, "On Jan. 20, I stood on the Mall and watched as President Obama said, “We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” He continued, “Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.” Six days later I discovered that my alma mater had done just that, when Brandeis University’s board and president traded the Rose Art Museum for a short-term fiscal fix. Of the university that ignited my intellectual curiosity and helped to instill in me a lifelong love of the arts, I ask: If you do not stand for the arts when it would be easier not to, did you ever really stand for them at all? "

Market for art

One of the unusual things about the art market is that the "velocity" of art that becomes acknowledged as important, i.e. the rate at which it changes hands, is low. This is particularly so for art that is acquired by museums; it is often much harder for museums to sell art ("deaccession" it) than to buy it; many people think that museums should not sell art, particularly when it is acquired by donation. (Tax laws cause a lot of art to be donated to museums, as does the desire to maintain the integrity of particular collections.) All of this is on display following the decision of Brandeis University to close its art museum and sell all of its art: Ailing Brandeis will shut museum, sell treasured art. The university needs both to cut its budget and replenish its endowment, but the decision to do it this way has aroused at least a little repugnance. Some quotes from the Globe article: "The move shocked local arts leaders and drew harsh criticism from Rose supporters and the Association of College and University Museums and Galleries. " "While museums regularly deaccession individual pieces, the wholesale sell-off of a collection of the Rose's stature is unprecedented. Codes of practice common among museums stress that art should not be sold to cover operating expenses." ""I'm in shock," said Mark Bessire, the recently named director of the Portland Museum Of Art. "This is definitely not the time to be selling paintings, anyway. The market is dropping. I'm just kind of sitting here sweating because I can't imagine Brandeis would take that step."" ... ""This art was never given to the museum for those purposes," he said. "It should be a last resort. I can't understand how Brandeis is in such dire straits." "There's a history of the Rose, a beautiful history in the annals of contemporary art that is not understood by the president or any of the board of trustees," said Lee. "What they’re doing is a travesty.""