Thursday, October 30, 2014

Thursday, October 23, 2014

More on my deaccessioning puzzle

Michael Rushton offers up a speculative, tentative, cautious, possible answer to the deaccessioning puzzle I presented last week.

It's basically a "capture" theory -- that, as with all large, complex nonprofit organizations, the general direction of major art museums is determined by their "knowledge workers" (i.e., the curatorial staff), and the deaccession policy that we see is the one they prefer.  Like anything Rushton writes, it's worth thinking about, and I will do so, but in the meantime, let me offer two quick reactions:  (1) I'm not sure it's true.  I've linked before to a number of curator-types who have publicly questioned the wisdom of the standard view on deaccessioning; I've heard many others do the same in private conversations.  And (2) even if true, all this would do is explain where the rule came from; it wouldn't tell us whether we ought to give it any weight.  So curators want more and more art.  Big surprise.  Why is that the end of the discussion?

But more importantly, notice how nuanced ... subtle ... creative Rushton's answer is.  This is in stark contrast to the way the AAMD and its accomplices among the Deaccession Police talk about it.  For them, it's a simple, black and white issue.  There is no puzzle, there is nothing to be explained or defended.  It's a simple matter of "common sense."  It's the "coin of the realm."

In fact, the Deaccession Police don't have an answer at all.  What they do, instead, is pretend the question doesn't exist.

Ain't it grand!

The Atlantic: One-Fifth of Detroit's Population Could Lose Their Homes.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Inching Closer

The hedge funds are on board in Detroit.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

"Detroit could make $25M selling copper from old streetlights"

Are streetlights held in the public trust?

If not, why not?

Is everything valuable a city owns held in the public trust and therefore not permitted to be sold?  If not, why not?  What makes art different?  When does the magic fairy dust get sprinkled on?

Monday, October 20, 2014

"The Feud That’s Shaking Gallery Walls"

Robert Frank had a piece in the Times this weekend on the Perelman-Gagosian lawsuit.

The story leaves out that the bulk of the case was thrown out earlier this year.

Felix Salmon boils it down:  "I really don't understand what the Perelman beef is here.  Larry set a price, Ron voluntarily paid it."

"He was taken into custody by police after he struggled with the museum’s security guards."

New York Times:  Vandal Strikes Koons Exhibit.

Breaking non-news: Banksy has not been arrested

Artnet doesn't have the news.

Friday, October 17, 2014

A Deaccessioning Puzzle

Reading about Mitch Rales's Glenstone collection in Carol Vogel's column today got me thinking about how museums come to be bound by the "ethical" rules regarding deaccessioning.  I mean in the most literal sense:  how does it happen?

Imagine a wealthy collector -- Rales, Stevie Cohen, somebody like that -- decides to buy a building in Chelsea and open his collection up to public view.  I don't think anyone would say that, having done so, he forfeits his right to sell works from his collection.  It's his property.  If he wants to sell his Film Stills, he can sell his Film Stills.  And I think we would all also agree that, if he does so, he should be able to use the sales proceeds however he wants.  He can use them to buy more art, or help pay for the building he's using to make his amazing collection available to all of us, or to pay the curators and guards he's employing to further enhance our experience.  Since we are lovers of art, we may think the best thing he can do with the sales proceeds is plow them into buying more art, but certainly he's under no ethical or other obligation to do so.  Again, it's his property, he's doing us a great favor by sharing it with us, he can do anything he wants with the money, including using it to put his kids through college.  Right?

Next, imagine the same scenario except now the collector decides to take the formal legal step of becoming a "museum."   It's still his collection, he's still doing us the amazing favor of giving us access to it.  Has it now become "unethical" (repulsive etc.) to use sales proceeds for anything but the purchase of more art?  How did that happen?  Really:  how?

One answer some might be tempted to give is that becoming a museum carries with it certain tax benefits, which in turn brings the ethics rules into play.  But that seems odd to me.  I can understand the argument that those tax benefits carry with them certain obligations -- the museum must be generally open to the public, everything it does must be for the public benefit (so using sales proceeds to pay for the founder's kids to go to college would no longer be possible), and so on.  But how do you get from there to a commitment to the deaccesioning-to-buy-more-art-good, deaccessioning-for-any-other-reason-bad museum "ethics" rules.  Those rules are the rules of a private organization (the AAMD) that seems to think they make sense for some reason.  They don't flow naturally from the fact that an institution is tax-exempt.  (Tax-exempt artist foundations like the Warhol Foundation, for example, sell work and use the proceeds to fund their operations all the time, and no one thinks there's anything wrong with that, nor should they.)  So how is it that calling yourself a museum automatically brings them into play?  I've never seen a good answer to that question.

30 months

Prison time for foundry owner who sold Jasper Johns fakes.

Family Squabble

NYT:   Charges of Looting as Heirs Dispute C.C. Wang Collection.