Where I've Been

When I saw what they did to Peter Schjeldahl, I went into deep hiding.  Never mess with the Deaccession Police!  Actually I've been on vacation, so haven't been following it that closely, but apparently Peter's been kicked out of the AAMD and other museums are barred from making loans to him.  Or something like that.  I'll be back next week and will get to the bottom of it then.

Peter Schjeldahl says Detroit should sell the art

And it's not a close call:

"Art works have migrated throughout history. Unless destroyed, they are always somewhere. It’s best when they are on public display, but if they have special value their sojourns in private hands are likely temporary. At any rate, they are hardly altered by inhabiting one building rather than another. The relationship of art to the institutions that house and display it is a marriage of convenience, with self-interest on both sides, and not an ineluctable romance. I demur from the hysterical piety, among many of my fellow art folk, that regularly greets news of museum deaccessions—though I do wish museums would have the guts to abjure that weasel word for selling things off. (Paging George Orwell.)"

"How does a museum decide to dissolve?"

The NYT's Robin Pogrebin has a piece asking whether the Fresno Metropolitan Museum of Art, which shut down in 2010, "holds any lessons" for the Detroit Institute.

I think the situations are so different that there aren't many useful lessons to be learned.  But I do think Fresno is relevant to the larger deaccessioning debate, to the following extent:  if we let them fail -- that is, if we prevent them from selling one work (or a handful of works) to keep from going under -- then the result might be that all the works end up being sold.  As Pogrebin's story reminds us, that's what happened in Fresno:  the entire collection was sold to pay creditors.

I was also struck by the matter-of-fact statement that "nonprofit museums" are "founded in the public trust."  I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.  We hear all the time that museums hold work in the public trust.  But now we're told they were "founded in" the public trust.  I did a Google search for the phrase and got fewer then 10 hits.  But if the Times says it, it must be a fact.

Today's Detroit Links

The bankruptcy judge has set a hearing tomorrow on the constitutionality of the proceeding.

Jonathan Chait, who grew up there, says "it’s hard to imagine any plausible way to pull the city out of its death spiral."

Eric Posner:  "Detroit’s bankruptcy filing was unavoidable and largely sensible. But it will help that wounded city little. Detroit’s problems are deeper than its inability to pay its debts. ... When Detroit emerges from Chapter 9, it will have fewer debts, but it will be the same old city: still too big and spread out, still mismanaged."

Today's Detroit Links

New York Times, page A1:  Cries of Betrayal as Detroit Plans to Cut Pensions.

CBS Evening News had a segment last night on the possible sale of the artwork.

Jonathan Adler on Detroit's bankruptcy and the Michigan constitution:  "Federal law trumps the state constitution under the Supremacy Clause, to be sure, but there’s also an argument that insofar as the bankruptcy code contemplates or requires official actions by state officials, such actions are constrained by a state’s constitution."

The Art Market Monitor:  "When discussing the DIA’s art as a public trust, it is relevant to be aware of the shrinking public."

Forbes's Tim Worstall:  Of Course Detroit Should Sell The Paintings.

Jim Johnson:  "The choice should not be between paying pensioners and maintaining cultural heritage. Let the bond-holders eat cake."

Detroit in Ruins:  a photo series.

Another "cash-strapped" city has begun selling off artifacts.

BREAKING: State court judge halts Detroit bankruptcy proceeding

On the grounds that "it's not honoring the president."

Detroit Links

Randy Kennedy and Monica Davey in the NYT:  Detroit’s Creditors Eye Its Art Collection.

A Q+A by Mark Stryker of the Detroit Free Press.

And an on-the-scene report from The Deaccessioning Blog:  "As I drove around the city I could not help but feel that I was in the TV show, The Walking Dead."

"So Mrs. Dogaru told the police that on a freezing night in February, she placed all seven works ...in a wood-burning stove used to heat saunas and incinerated them." (UPDATED 2X)

The New York Times:  Romanian’s Tale Has Art World Fearing the Worst.

Ann Althouse:  "If you're hardcore enough to burn these things, why are you not hardcore enough to lie to the police?"

UPDATE:  Slate.com:  How Often Do Art Thieves Destroy Their Loot?

UPDATE 2:  Now she says she didn't burn the works.

Tell me again about the public trust (automobile edition)

The Petersen Auto Museum in Los Angeles is selling off a third of its collection.

"Ten paintings stolen from Brussels museum"

The Art Newspaper has a report here.

The Art Market Monitor:  "Despite the fact it is nearly impossible to sell stolen art ... vandals continue to target security-deficient regional museums like the one in Brussels hit last weekend."

Everybody's got one (UPDATED)

CNN is first out of the blocks with a story on what Detroit's bankruptcy means for the DIA.  We talked recently about how much weight the Michigan AG's opinion that the work can't be sold carried.  The experts CNN talked to agree it isn't much:

"But the opinion could be for naught, said Eric Scorsone of Michigan State University ....

"'It's certainly better than nothing, but a state attorney general's opinion is certainly not going to be definitive in federal bankruptcy court,' Scorsone said. 'I don't think that is going to carry a huge amount of weight.'

"Laura Martell, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, echoed that sentiment.

"'He just issued an opinion, which is not binding on anyone and certainly has no legal effect in a bankruptcy case,' she said. 'A bankruptcy judge may or may not find it persuasive on the merits of its analysis, but it has no binding effect.'"

UPDATE:  The museum "remain[s] committed to our position that the Detroit Institute of Arts and the City of Detroit hold the DIA's collection in trust for the public."

remain committed to our position that the Detroit Institute of Arts and the City of Detroit hold the DIA’s collection in trust for the public - See more at: http://www.dia.org/news/1494/Detroit-Institute-of-Arts-Statement-Regarding-City-of-Detroit-Bankruptcy--.aspx#sthash.drVnWrpt.X9WPEJKP.dpuf

remain committed to our position that the Detroit Institute of Arts and the City of Detroit hold the DIA’s collection in trust for the public - See more at: http://www.dia.org/news/1494/Detroit-Institute-of-Arts-Statement-Regarding-City-of-Detroit-Bankruptcy--.aspx#sthash.drVnWrpt.X9WPEJKP.dpuf

remain committed to our position that the Detroit Institute of Arts and the City of Detroit hold the DIA’s collection in trust for the public - See more at: http://www.dia.org/news/1494/Detroit-Institute-of-Arts-Statement-Regarding-City-of-Detroit-Bankruptcy--.aspx#sthash.drVnWrpt.X9WPEJKP.dpuf

remain committed to our position that the Detroit Institute of Arts and the City of Detroit hold the DIA’s collection in trust for the public - See more at: http://www.dia.org/news/1494/Detroit-Institute-of-Arts-Statement-Regarding-City-of-Detroit-Bankruptcy--.aspx#sthash.drVnWrpt.X9WPEJKP.dpuf

remain committed to our position that the Detroit Institute of Arts and the City of Detroit hold the DIA’s collection in trust for the public - See more at: http://www.dia.org/news/1494/Detroit-Institute-of-Arts-Statement-Regarding-City-of-Detroit-Bankruptcy--.aspx#sthash.drVnWrpt.X9WPEJKP.dpuf

BREAKING: Detroit files for bankruptcy

"The largest American city ever to take such a course."

Hey, go big or go home

A whole museum full of fakes.

"The problem is that the art market isn’t allowed, by its practitioners, to be a real market, and instead operates on a series of conventions which make it deeply broken on many levels."

That's Felix Salmon, connecting venture capital "down rounds" to the art market.  Related thoughts from Mostafa Heddaya here.  I'm interested in the notion of a "real" market vs. one that "operates on a series of conventions."  What makes a market "real"?  How do we tell the pretend markets from the real ones?

"In Detroit, though, we run the risk of making smug assumptions about the nature of art and the public trust that won’t necessarily withstand scrutiny. "

Detroit News columnist Laura Berman wonders whether the city really needs a million-dollar Howdy Doody puppet.  (I'm quoted in the column.)

This has to do with the DIA in Detroit, where works are held in the public trust so it's repulsive to ever consider selling any of them, as opposed to Dia in New York, where works by Twombly, Chamberlain, and Newman are not held in the public trust and so can be freely disposed of.  It's all perfectly logical and consistent.

BREAKING: New Rosales Indictment

"The indictment depicts a complete circle of fraud perpetrated by Glafira Rosales - fake paintings sold on behalf of non-existent clients with money deposited in a hidden bank account."

Earlier indictment discussed here.

"It is a betrayal of trust toward the public to which the Foundation is beholden"

Dia's founders continue to violate the rules of deaccession debate.  Somebody forgot to tell them that it's only a violation of the public trust when a museum sells work and fails to use the proceeds to buy other work.  When the sales proceeds are used for acquisitions -- as they will be here -- then it's totally normal, it shouldn't be a touchy subject at all.

Or do you mean to tell me that even works that are sold to buy more work are held in the public trust?  No way!!

Or that the sale of those works might discourage future donations just as surely as sales where the proceeds are used for other things?  Get out of town!!

That's crazy talk!  I mean, it's perfectly obvious that works sold to buy other work are not held in the public trust, and works sold for other reasons are held in the public trust.

Isn't it?

"Artists and collectors will be reluctant to give works to Dia if this sale occurs."

Paul Winkler, former director of the Menil Collection and the brother of Dia co-founder Helen Winkler, is not happy with Dia's deaccession plans.

He breaks an important rule of never mentioning that sales to buy more art might also discourage future donations.  Under the by-laws of the Deaccession Police, we're only supposed to mention that when a museum (or university) considers selling work for another purpose.  Oh well.  Cat's out of the bag now.

On the general issue of the Dia sale:  can you imagine what the reaction would be like if they were not using the proceeds for acquisitions?  We'd need a new outrage meter.

"It’s a fairly lackluster group."

Bernie Madoff's art collection heads to auction.

"The city is past being a city now; it’s gone."

The NYT has a front-page story today on Detroit:  "Financial Crist Just a Symptom of Detroit's Woes."

And the Washington Post's Charles Lane has a related column.  He says the emergency manager's report "tells a harrowing story of institutional rot and social collapse."

Sadly, that may be the best argument of all against deaccessioning in this case:  sales of artwork won't make a lick of difference.  The city's too far gone.

"A key tax benefit for art owners in a same-sex marriage is that there will now be no federal estate tax due on the value of art passing to a spouse."

The Art Newspaper’s Martha Lufkin on the DOMA decision’s effect on art collectors, artists and dealers who are in same-sex marriages.  My partner John Silberman is quoted.

"Dreier Victim Acquires Fraudster’s Fancy Art Collection"

The WSJ Law Blog has the details.  No word yet on what's happening to the non-fancy art.

14.5% more in the public trust

The Met is now open seven days a week.

"Here’s a great example of fair use."

Says Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento.