Repugnant sales of art: deaccessioning, in Switzerland

 "Deaccessioning" is a repugnant transaction in the art world, in which it's often considered acceptable to sell art only to finance the purchase of other art, and not to keep a museum from going bankrupt.  I've written about this in the U.S. context, but it's an international phenomenon.

The NY Times has the story, from Switzerland:

Swiss Museum in Financial Straits Sells Three Cézannes for $53 Million. Museum Langmatt said the sales were necessary to keep its doors open. Critics had said they violated industry guidelines on when a museum should sell off parts of its collection.

"The Foundation Langmatt’s decision to sell the Cézannes earned wide criticism before the auction. The Swiss branch of the International Council of Museums, which said the sale was a clear breach of its guidelines for de-accessioning from museum collections, called for the paintings to be withdrawn.

Deaccessioning dispute at Valparaiso

 Selling donated art is controversial, but it is tempting when the budget is bare...

The NY Times has the story:

Its Georgia O’Keeffe Is Worth Millions. And Its Dorms Need Updating. In the face of declining enrollment, Valparaiso University in Indiana wants to raise money to renovate two dormitories by selling treasures from its art museum. Not everyone is on board.  By Kalia Richardson, March 10, 2023

"Valparaiso, a Lutheran university in northwestern Indiana that is struggling with the declining enrollment seen at many schools, is planning to sell several works from the collection of its Brauer Museum of Art to raise $10 million for the renovation of two freshman dormitories, which it sees as key to securing its future.

"The announcement angered many arts organizations and has divided the university: Last week the faculty senate approved a nonbinding resolution that sought to halt the sale and identify alternative ways to fund the renovations.

...

"Schools typically court controversy when they announce they will sell artworks to raise funds, an act known as deaccessioning. Several sales have resulted in sanctions from art associations. To settle a lawsuit, Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass., reversed its decision to sell off its artwork and close its museum, part of a plan it had made in 2009 during the Great Recession."

Debating deaccessioning

 The museum world is divided about deaccessioning--i.e. selling art to finance things other than the purchase of more art, such as museum operations.

The NY Times has the story:

Selling Art to Pay the Bills Divides the Nation’s Museum Directors. Bitter debate has ensued as museum leaders around the country discuss whether to permanently embrace a pandemic-spurred policy that allows the sale of art to cover some operating costs.  By Robin Pogrebin and Zachary Small

"It started as a stopgap measure to respond to the pandemic, a temporary two-year loosening of an Association of Art Museum Directors’ policy that has long prohibited American institutions from selling art from their collections to help pay the bills.

"But more and more museums are taking advantage of the policy and the association began discussing making it permanent, an idea that, depending on which institution you talk to, either makes perfect sense or undermines the very rationale for their existence.

...

"The longstanding policy — enforced by the museum director’s association and widely embraced by its members — has been that the art owned by institutions was held for the public benefit and, as such, should be mostly retained.

"Some items could be sold — known as deaccessioning — but they were supposed to be artworks that were duplicative or no longer in line with the museum’s mission, and the proceeds were to be dedicated to the acquisition of other art, not to underwriting staff salaries or other operating costs.

...

"The stark differences of opinion among museum leaders were evident last week when the association convened two unusual, mandatory sessions to gather feedback from members about the rules for such sales.

...

"It’s difficult to say what would happen if the association pushed through a policy that was unpopular with half of its membership since issues that have divided museum directors at this level have been rare.

"Many have already lined up on either side of the debate. Campbell, who is now the director and chief executive of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, in an Instagram post warned that “Deaccessioning will be like crack cocaine to the addict — a rapid hit, that becomes a dependency.”

...

"Nonetheless, more than 25,000 people have signed a petition urging the Met to reconsider. “We call on the Met’s board to do the job they signed up for: to give, to support the institution,” says the petition, started by the art critic Tyler Green. “We call upon the Met’s senior staff leadership to resist any attempts to sell off the art the Met holds in the public trust.”

"Some museum leaders worry that donors will be less likely to contribute art if they fear it would be sold, or that formerly generous trustees, seeing the cash available from art sales, may become less likely to donate money."

Art museums selling art: relaxing the repugnance against "deaccessioning"

 Here's an interesting look at the ways professional organizations can influence the behavior of their members by endorsing changes in social norms. In this case the association in question is the Association of Art Museum Directors.

The NY Times has the story:

Facing Deficit, Met Considers Selling Art to Help Pay the Bills. Like many museums, the Met is looking to take advantage of a relaxation of the rules governing art sales to care for collections.  By Robin Pogrebin

"Like many institutions, the Met is looking to take advantage of a two-year window in which the Association of Art Museum Directors — a professional organization that guides its members’ best practices — has relaxed the guidelines that govern how proceeds from sales of works in a collection (known as deaccessioning) can be directed.

"In the past, museums were permitted to use such funds only for future art purchases. But last spring, the association announced that, through April 10, 2022, it would not penalize museums that “use the proceeds from deaccessioned art to pay for expenses associated with the direct care of collections.”

Here's the AAMD announcement:

ASSOCIATION OF ART MUSEUM DIRECTORS’ BOARD OF TRUSTEES APPROVES RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL FLEXIBILITY TO ART MUSEUMS DURING PANDEMIC CRISIS

It says in part:

"The resolutions state that AAMD will refrain from censuring or sanctioning any museum—or censuring, suspending or expelling any museum director—that decides to use restricted endowment funds, trusts, or donations for general operating expenses."

HT: Itay Fainmesser

Another art museum cancels sale of art in response to pushback

 The NY Times has the story about another last minute cancellation of a "deaccessioning" sale by an art museum:

Baltimore Museum of Art Cancels Painting Sale that Drew Complaints--The museum was prepared to sell three major works to pay for salary increases and to diversify its collection, but many critics disagreed with the plan.   By Hilarie M. Sheets

"The Baltimore Museum of Art is pausing its plan to sell three major paintings from its collection. A Sotheby’s sale of works by Brice Marden, Clyfford Still and Andy Warhol was estimated to bring in $65 million to fund acquisitions of art by people of color and staff-wide salary increases.

"The decision, on the day of a planned auction of two of the works, came after weeks of criticism from people who opposed the sale and hours after a conversation between leaders of the museum and the Association of Art Museum Directors, a professional organization advancing best practices for art museums.

...

"In April, the association loosened its strict deaccessioning guidelines for the next two years to help museums under financial stress from the pandemic by allowing them to sell works to fund direct collection care, not just the acquisition of other artworks. While the Baltimore Museum has a balanced budget, its director, Christopher Bedford, said earlier this month he saw an opportunity to create an endowment for collection care that would then free up money for salary increases — a vision-based initiative in line with his efforts to bring greater equity to both its collections and workplace culture."

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

Recently:

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Auction of art from Jerusalem museum postponed at the last moment

Auction of art from Jerusalem museum postponed at the last moment

The Guardian has the latest:

Auction for Jerusalem museum’s treasures postponed at last minute--Sotheby’s in London had been due to sell more than 200 items from cash-strapped museum  by Oliver Holmes 

The plan was that Sotheby's would sell a set of artifacts today from the Mayer Museum for Islamic Art in Jerusalem.

Select Works from the L.A. Mayer Museum for Islamic Art | Jerusalem--Live Auction: 27 October 2020 • 10:30 AM GMT • London (now postponed)

Unsurprisingly, this sale drew some opposition.

Here's the story from Haaretz:

Now on Display at the Jerusalem Museum for Islamic Art: Selloff--Financially strained, the L.A. Mayer Museum is auctioning off dozens of rare items, despite harsh criticism: 'They’re going for the easy way out'    by Naama Riba

Deaccessioning art in the time of corona virus--

 Art museums have long frowned on selling art from their collections, and have been frowned upon when they do so. (It used to be not ok to sell art, except to buy different art, but not e.g. to fix the roof over the art...).  That's changing, "temporarily," in response to the financial crisis museums are facing during the coronavirus pandemic.  (It will be interesting to see if the old repugnance prohibitions can be restored later...)

Here's an April story from the Washington Post:

This is how bad things are for museums: They now have a green light to sell off their art

By Sebastian Smee

"To counter the constant temptation to regard art works as a way to get quick cash, the museum world heavily polices the sale of works from permanent collections — otherwise known as deaccessioning. The powerful Association of Art Museum Directors, made up of directors of museums in the United States, Mexico and Canada, has long frowned on any museum that sells off art for purposes other than acquiring new art.

"AAMD’s frowns have an effect. Museums that dare to ignore its guidelines — as the Berkshire Museum in Pittsfield, Mass., did in 2018, ultimately selling more than 20 works from its collection to raise money for a renovation — are censured, sanctioned and publicly shamed. For a renegade — or perhaps simply desperate — museum director, a decision to sell works from the collection, even if it’s to raise money deemed necessary for survival, might mean career death.

"However, in an unprecedented move, and as a direct result of the coronavirus pandemic, the AAMD has recently relaxed its guidelines. It’s too soon to gauge the effect, but it is already big news in the art world. Once unthinkable, the notion of selling off a Claude Monet or two to plug a budgetary hole — or to fend off a total financial meltdown — is suddenly something to contemplate.

"According to AAMD, museums may now “use the proceeds from deaccessioned works of art … to support the direct care” of their collection.

...

"AAMD says it recognizes “the extensive negative effects of the current crisis on the operations and balance sheets of many art museums.” It acknowledges, too, the impossibility of knowing when revenue streams might return to normal.

"The new guidelines are temporary, and are “not intended to incentivize … the sale of art.” But their effect may do just that."

***********

And, sure enough...:Here's the NY Times

Brooklyn Museum to Sell 12 Works as Pandemic Changes the Rules

Museums selling their art has long been frowned upon, but recent financial pressures have sent works to the auction block at Christie’s. The proceeds would pay for the care of the collection.

By Robin Pogrebin, Sept. 16, 2020

What can museums do with their excess art?

The NY Times has the story:
Clean House to Survive? Museums Confront Their Crowded Basements

"Fueled by philanthropic zeal, lucrative tax deductions and the prestige of seeing their works in esteemed settings, wealthy art owners have for decades given museums everything from their Rembrandts to their bedroom slippers.

"It all had to go somewhere. So now, many American museums are bulging with stuff — so much stuff that some house thousands of objects that have never been displayed but are preserved, at considerable cost, in climate-controlled storage spaces.
...
"“There is this inevitable march where you have to build more storage, more storage, more storage,” said Charles L. Venable, the director of the Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields. “I don’t think it’s sustainable.”

"His museum was so jammed with undisplayed artwork that it was about to spend about $14 million to double its storage space until he abruptly canceled the plan.

"Instead, it embarked on an ambitious effort to rank each of the 54,000 items in its collection with letter grades. Twenty percent of the items received a D, making them ripe to be sold or given to another institution.
...
"Part of the problem is that acquiring new things is far easier, and more glamorous, than getting rid of old ones. Deaccessioning, the formal term for disposing of an art object, is a careful, cumbersome process, requiring several levels of curatorial, administrative and board approval. Museum directors who try to clean out their basements often confront restrictive donor agreements and industry guidelines that treat collections as public trusts."
***********

Earlier related posts:

Sunday, January 7, 2018

More on the repugnance of selling art, if you're an art museum

Sunday, September 10, 2017

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

More on the repugnance of selling art, if you're an art museum

In Philadelphia:
La Salle plan to sell museum masterpieces stuns art community

"La Salle University, which has struggled to plug a projected deficit in recent years, plans to sell 46 pieces of art from its prized museum collection to help fund teaching and learning initiatives in its new strategic plan, officials said Tuesday...

Approved by the school’s board of trustees and announced by university president Colleen M. Hanycz, the decision “is a strategic and good use of our assets,” university spokeswoman Jaine Lucas said. “We are doing what we feel is in the  interest of our students.”

It follows similar steps by other universities around the country in recent years to help stem financial woes — although some schools that have sold or attempted to sell art have faced challenges.

At Brandeis University in Massachusetts, a plan to close its museum and sell its art was reversed after backlash from students and faculty and legal action. Randolph College in Virginia was roundly criticized for its decision to sell a George Bellows painting worth more than $25 million.

The same controversy could follow the decision at La Salle, a 3,200-student Catholic university in Philadelphia’s Logan section, whose collection composes one of the most highly regarded university museums in the region. Just hours after the announcement, members of the local art community began questioning the decision."

From the NY Times: Art Owned by La Salle University Headed for Auction at Christie’s

"The process of selling art, known as deaccessioning, is a fraught one for museums; major professional organizations like the American Alliance of Museums condemn the sale of art to pay for expansions, physical repairs or ongoing expenses, as opposed to using the proceeds for the acquisition of other works or, perhaps, the care of a collection.

At times, government agencies that oversee nonprofit institutions have intervened to halt sales.

In 2009, for instance, the attorney general’s office in Massachusetts conducted a detailed review of Brandeis University’s unexpected announcement that it would shore up its struggling finances by selling all of the works––including those by Robert Rauschenberg, Jasper Johns, Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein––held by its Rose Art Museum, one of the most important collections of postwar art in New England.

Later four of the museum’s benefactors sued to stop any art sales.

That lawsuit and the attorney general’s investigation were both resolved in 2011, with Brandeis announcing that it had “no aim, plan, design, strategy or intention to sell any artwork donated to or purchased by” the school for the museum and that the Rose museum will remain a “university art museum open to the public.”

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)

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."

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.”

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.""