A couple of follow-up points on Randolph College's recent sale of a $25 million Bellows. (Not to be confused with the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts recent sale of a $40 million Hopper. The former is the Worst Thing That's Ever Happened. The latter is nothing for anyone to be concerned about.)
First, I like how Randolph's president deals with the slippery slope objection:
"Randolph’s collection contains significant works, Dr Bateman said,
that aren’t up for sale, such as works by Georgia O’Keeffe and Edward
Hopper. Asked if the logic of selling off the Bellows shouldn’t
concern those afraid that similar arguments could be made to sell the
O’Keeffe or the Hopper, Dr Bateman said that wasn’t the case. 'We know
how much money we need and it can be done with these [already planned]
sales,' he said."
That's a good answer, but what really interests me is: how come we never hear the same question with the "good" kind of deaccessionings? How come no one ever asks if the "logic of selling off the Hopper" shouldn't concern those afraid that similar arguments could be made to sell lots of other masterpieces? I saw some people criticize the Hopper sale, but only on its own merits (just as one could criticize the Randolph sale on its own merits). But you never see anyone criticize sales-to-buy-more-art on slippery slope grounds. That's reserved exclusively for sales where the proceeds are used for other purposes. Strange.
I also wanted to call attention to the statement issued by the AAM on the sale. Here it is, in its entirety:
"The sale of George Bellows’s 'Men of the Docks' by the Maier Museum of
Art at Randolph College is a flagrant, egregious violation of our Code
of Ethics for Museums, showing total disregard of an important tenet
common to the charter of all museums: collections are held in the public
trust. And the public’s trust is the coin of the realm for museums.
Strict adherence to the highest standards and best practices has made
museums of all types among the most trusted sources of information for
the American people. And the sale of 'Men of the Docks' threatens that
lofty status. Further, the trust of both the public and elected
officials at all levels of government has enabled museums to remain
largely a self-regulated industry; this action belies that distinction.
The 3,500 museum members of the American Alliance of Museums—and
especially our 441 college museum members—vigorously protest the sale of
a great American artistic treasure."
Is it me, or are they not even trying any more? The "coin of the realm"? What is that supposed to mean in this context? This action belies what distinction? Who is going to be convinced by this kind of rhetoric that didn't already completely agree with their position? What then is the point? It's almost as if they felt like they had to say something so the Deaccession Police couldn't criticize them for not saying anything.
Their statement on the Pennsylvania Academy's Hopper sale was less publicized, so, as a public service, I am reproducing it here:
"The sale of Edward Hopper's 'East Wind Over Weehawken' by the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Artse is a flagrant, egregious violation of our Code
of Ethics for Museums, showing total disregard of an important tenet
common to the charter of all museums: collections are held in the public
trust. And the public’s trust is the coin of the realm for museums.
Strict adherence to the highest standards and best practices has made
museums of all types among the most trusted sources of information for
the American people. And the sale of 'East Wind Over Weehawken' threatens that
lofty status. Further, the trust of both the public and elected
officials at all levels of government has enabled museums to remain
largely a self-regulated industry; this action belies that distinction.
The 3,500 museum members of the American Alliance of Museums vigorously protest the sale of
a great American artistic treasure."
It's the coin of the realm, people. What more do you need to know? You can read the whole statement here.
Oh, one other important distinction between the two sales: the (bad) Randolph sale was to the National Gallery in London, so the work remains in the public domain. The (good) PAFA sale was to an anonymous private buyer.
As usual, it all makes perfect sense.
