The Tennessean had a story over the weekend with the rather dramatic headline: "Fisk art deal in jeopardy." What that turns out to mean is just that the Tennessee Attorney General may decide to appeal the latest ruling approving the deal. It's not in any more jeopardy than it was the day that ruling came down or any day since. The deadline to appeal is Jan. 28.
We also hear from "the larger art museum community," represented in this instance by the director of the Georgia Museum of Art at the University of Georgia, who informs us that "the case could change the boundaries for selling off artworks." The AAMD and AAM say sales proceeds should be used "solely to acquire more art or maintain existing collections," but, if this decision is not put in jeopardy and the Fisk-Crystal Bridges collection-sharing arrangement is allowed to happen, those boundaries could change. But why would that be so? Isn't it more likely that the boundaries (i.e., the AAMD and AAM policies) will stay right where they are, but this deal will be an "exception" to (or, if you prefer, "violation" of) those boundaries?