"Forging an Art Market in China"

The New York Times had a massive feature on the Chinese art market the other day, well worth reading.

Felix Salmon adds his usual excellent commentary here.  If you don't have time to read the whole story, Jori Finkel sums it up in one sentence:  "Crazy financial speculation + strong copyist tradition in art = a Chinese art market flooded with fakes."  Lee Rosenbaum calls it "shocking" and "revelatory," but The Art Market Monitor is not shocked at all:  "Who seriously thought art in China was anything more than a speculative instrument, a wild casino?"

You MUST read this post (just a suggestion)

The Met got part of a lawsuit relating to its admissions policies thrown out -- the part alleging that it has no authority, under its lease with the city, to charge even a suggested admission fee.  Randy Kennedy has the story here.

The part of the lawsuit alleging that the museum misleads people into thinking the admission fee is mandatory (the more interesting part, in my view) survives.  Nicholas O'Donnell says "those remaining claims face a tall hurdle to survive."  Hrag Vartanian has called the misleadingness claims "the ultimate in legal trolling."  Lee Rosenbaum, on the other hand, thinks "the wording and typesize of the Met’s signage should make it clear and obvious that the amount paid is indeed discretionary" and that the museum "should just take care of that now, without waiting to be forced into greater clarity by a judge’s edict."

Let's get this started again

I've been neglecting the blog lately -- and, like clockwork, there's been a ton of art law happening.  Let's see if we can play some catch-up, but, first, just wanted to extend my thanks to Pippa Loengard for inviting me to be part of a panel discussion on deaccessioning up at the Kernochan Center at Columbia Law School earlier this week.  Speaking of which, they have their annual symposium a week from tomorrow.  Details here.

The latest on Prince-Cariou

I'm quoted in this Art in America piece on the latest developments.

Tell me again about the public trust (education of Kevyn Orr edition)

Gallerist's Dan Duray reports that the Cleveland Museum of Art is selling a pair of works at Christie's next month.

This is a helpful lesson to Detroit emergency manager Kevyn Orr that, if you need money for something (in this case, buying art), selling works from a museum collection is a perfectly acceptable way to obtain it.

He may be hearing from certain people that the works the city owns can't be sold because they are "held in the public trust," but obviously that can't be right or else it wouldn't be possible for the Cleveland Museum to just sell these off like this.  That's obvious, isn't it?

"We can clearly speak of negligence with serious consequences."

A little swamped again, but this story is just too good not to pass along:

"A Romanian man who has admitted to stealing masterpieces by Gauguin, Monet and Picasso on Tuesday threatened to sue the Dutch museum he took them from for making his robbery too easy."

On the Smith-Clay Resolution (UPDATED)

Art in America's Brian Boucher has a report on the agreement reached last week between artist Lauren Clay and the Estate of David Smith.  (I negotiated the settlement on behalf of the Smith Estate.)  He leaves out a crucial element of the agreement – namely, that Clay agreed not to make any more work based on Smith’s work without permission.  With that commitment in hand, the Estate had no problem allowing this limited body of work to be shown.

Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento has some thoughts on the underlying merits here.

UPDATE:  Art in America has a new piece up with a fuller description of the settlement:

"As part of the deal, which allows her to show and sell the seven works, Clay has acknowledged that these are her only pieces based on Smith's sculptures and agreed not to make further such works except by mutual consent. She resolved not to make multiples based on these seven works and pledged to exhibit an agreed-upon artist's statement along with the sculptures wherever possible."

Be sure to check out Nicholas O'Donnell's post (with images) here as well.

"The emergency manager’s deputies have repeatedly told DIA leaders that he needs $400 million-$500 million from them ...."

The Detroit Free Press has a look at some possible ways to "squeeze cash from billions of dollars of city-owned masterpieces without actually selling them."

There's an interesting dynamic at play here for the Deaccession Police.  Their instinct is always to throw cold water on all of these ideas.  For example, if someone suggests the city rent out the works, they will say "there's no real money in that."  They think any effort to generate value from the collection is just so ... icky.  (I believe that is a technical term fully recognized under the bankruptcy statute.)  They want to, as a bankruptcy lawyer quoted in the article says, "pretend the art doesn’t have value."

But I think there's real careful-what-you-wish-for potential here.  If they keep dumping on the alternatives to sale, if they keep arguing that the other options won't work, then that opens the door to the emergency manager saying, "Look, we tried to come up with ways to keep from having to sell the art, but everyone kept telling us those ideas wouldn't work.  We hate to have to do this, but there is no alternative to selling."

If I were a member of the Deaccession Police, I'd be talking up the possible rental streams every chance I got.

MoMA Acquires Occupy Wall Street Art

And Jim Johnson says it's "very, very depressing news."

"The latest outdoor artwork by the modernist sculptor to have been nipped by thieves in Britain"

The New York Times:  Another Henry Moore Work Is Stolen in Britain.

"If people were able to exchange opinions freely, cases like [Knoedler] would come to light much more quickly."

The Art Newspaper: AbEx fakes scandal silences the experts.

"Keep in mind that art sellers very often have preferences over the quality of buyers they sell to."

Tyler Cowen:  Price ambiguity as a buyer sorting mechanism.

"Because Amazon does not disclose sales figures, it is unclear whether this gamble is paying off."

The NYT's William Grimes: Art Collections a Click Away.

More from Grimes here.

Earlier post on the Amazon Art experiment here.

Sotheby's Battle

The other big story has been hedge fund manager and "activist investor" Daniel Loeb going after Sotheby's CEO William Ruprecht.  Wall Street Journal story on the initial salvo here.  Reuters on the poison pill response here.  Felix Salmon says Loeb is going to lose.

Knoedler Knews

One of the two big art law stories over the last few days was the Southern District decision denying a motion to dismiss a pair of collector lawsuits brought against Ann Freedman and Knoedler.  Laura Gilbert has the story in The Art Newspaper.  To me, the big takeaway was that the court sustained the RICO claims alleging a "pattern of racketeering activity," which, as Gilbert points out, carries the potential for treble damages.

And furthermore

I've been busy with the day job, but, before moving on to catch up on some of the other big art law stories over the last few days, the additional points I wanted to make about last week's big New York Times story on Detroit are:

1.  The story says that, in contrast to any proposed sale here, "museums regularly sell minor artworks in a curatorial culling process, using the proceeds to acquire other pieces."

That's not true at all.  The Hopper the Pennsylvania Academy is selling is not a minor work.  The Yves Klein the Brooklyn Museum sold last year is not a minor work.  The Cindy Sherman the Akron Museum sold last year is not a minor work.

It's misleading to suggest that the distinction is between sales of major works, on the one hand, and sales of minor works in a curatorial culling process, on the other.  Let's at least be honest about what's going on.  It would be more honest to say "museums regularly sell any damn works they please and they call it 'ethical' so long as the proceeds are used to buy more art."

The difference isn't in the quality of the works sold.  The difference is solely in the use of proceeds, and there is one use of proceeds -- to buy more and more art -- that the museum world wants to privilege above all others and then use smoke and mirrors to avoid having to ever actually explain why that use of proceeds is the only legitimate one.

2.  We again hear that a sale of "even a portion" of the collection would "cause an immediate withdrawal of the tax revenue that was voted into being last year by three Michigan counties."  But, as I've pointed out, that's not an unavoidable feature of that tax.  It would just be a punitive measure imposed by the surrounding counties, a form of blackmail.  They could just as easily leave the tax in place.

Tell me he did not just say that

Randy Kennedy has a story in today's Times about the situation at the Detroit Institute.  I hope to have more to say about it later, but for now, I was stopped in my tracks by the following quote from AAM president Ford Bell:

"Our tradition in this country is that artworks are held in trust for the public good, and you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say the works are held in trust until we decide they’re an asset, and we need to sell them."

Are you kidding me?

Am I awake?

Isn't that exactly the AAMD/AAM approach to deaccessioning?  They say the works are held in trust ... until they decide to sell them.

That Hopper was held in trust ... until PAFA decided to sell it.

Those Rymans, Chamberlains, and De Marias were held in trust ... until Dia decided to sell them.

That $30 million Persian rug was held in trust ... until the Corcoran decided to sell it.

And these are just in the last few months.  The list goes on and on.  The plain fact is that museums sell work all ... the ... time.

As museum director Hugh Davies has said:  "We museum directors can huff and puff about how once we bring these artworks into our collections ... they're held in trust for future generations. It's B.S. We go on and sell them [and use the proceeds to buy more art]."  It is, as Gresham Riley has said, simply an exercise in smoke and mirrors.

Bell is exactly right:  you can't have it both ways.  I've been saying that -- in those exact words -- for years.

"[T]he institute has fallen back on the worthless response selling art 'just isn’t done' in the museum world"

"But they’re not living in the museum world now. They’re living in the bankruptcy world."

Detroit News columnist Nolan Finley says the Detroit Institute "lives in a shocking state of economic denial":

"In recent days, I’ve talked to three people at the top of the decision-making in the bankruptcy process. All said, without question, that at least part of the collection will have to be — their word — 'monetized' before the bankruptcy is resolved.  The questions are how, and how much?"

He says "the business folks on the DIA board ... need to take this over and negotiate a deal" with the Emergency Manager to "deliver the $500 million or so I’m told he wants from the artwork as painlessly as possible":

"Can that money be found in the more than 60,000 DIA pieces in storage? Can leasing art deliver a cash flow? Would wealthy DIA donors buy the pieces and loan them back permanently to the museum? Could the major works be collateralized to back a bond sale?"

"If They Replaced Detroit's Art Treasures with Fakes, Would Anyone be Able to Tell?"

In The New Republic, Michael Kinsley says:

"By not thinking outside the box, Detroit is losing an ideal opportunity to test a suggestion made three decades ago by a curmudgeonly Harvard political scientist named Edward Banfield. Banfield wrote a book called The Democratic Muse, in which he proposed that paintings and sculptures in public museums be sold and replaced by high-quality reproductions. Most museum visitors, he argued, couldn’t tell the difference ... and thus would get the same experience from the fakes as they would from the originals."

Christopher Knight is not amused.

"The total excess payments in some years ran to more than $100 million, a crushing expense for a city in steep decline"

The New York Times:  Detroit Spent Billions Extra on Pensions.

"The main point holds true I think, that nobody really loves the ALR, but they do perform a service for the Art Market."

Derek Fincham weighs in on the NYT story on the Art Loss Register.

"You usually would expect a gallery ... would kind of do due diligence when they heard a story as cockamamie, far-fetched, and unbelievable as this"

The Art Market Monitor:  Jerry Saltz Doubles Down on Due Diligence Doubt.

"78% of respondents said they oppose a possible plan to sell DIA art to help resolve the financial crisis."

Story here.

Here's my question:  what if 78% of respondents said they were in favor of the plan?

Would the Deaccession Police then support a sale?

"But for the Register, despite its official-sounding name and pivotal role as a monitor, profits have not come easily, and the company’s future looks increasingly cloudy" (UPDATED 2X)

The New York Times takes a look at the Art Loss Register.

UPDATE:  Tom Flynn comes out of retirement to offer some (pointed) comments. Dorothy King describes her own experience with ALR here (and be sure to scroll down for the comment in response from Larry Rothfield).

UPDATE 2;  Noah Charney:  "The article was interesting and made clear why so many people within the world of art investigation, policing, and security find the ALR to be problematic."

Restitution Symposium

At DePaul Law, Nov. 14.  Details here.

"My fellow employees and I are entitled to a pension."

NYT:  Residents of Detroit Go to Court for Pensions.

BREAKING: Rosales Pleads Guilty (UPDATED)

Gallerist has the story.

UPDATE:  Lots more coverage.  New York Times here.  Wall Street Journal here.  Art Newspaper here.  And, on Twitter, Georgina Adam ("Oh boy, this is really going to shake everything up") and Lee Rosenbaum ("Who will Rosales implicate? She's agreed to 'cooperate fully' with enforcers for a possibly lighter sentence").  Lee also has more at her blog.

Ann Freedman Goes on Offense (UPDATED)

She's filed a defamation suit against dealer Marco Grassi.  He was quoted in the recent New York Magazine article about her as saying:  ""A gallery person has an absolute responsibility to do due diligence, and I don't think she did it. The story of the paintings is so totally kooky. I mean, really. It was a great story and she just said, 'this is great.'"

UPDATE:  The Art Market Monitor posts the complaint.

"The Louvre Is Allegedly a Hotbed of Crime"

Including roving bands of aggressive pickpockets.

Roberta Smith weighs in on Detroit (UPDATED)

She calls a possible sale "deeply alarming" and "cluelessly self-destructive."  The arguments will be familiar to anyone who's been following the discussion, but apparently some people really wanted to hear them made by someone at the Times.

A few reactions:

1.  She says selling "some of the art" would be "a betrayal of public trust and donors’ bequests."  As we saw yesterday, the donor bequests issue is complicated here.

2.  She also says it would be "a violation of the museum’s nonprofit status."  I don't know where she gets that; I don't think it's a violation of "nonprofit status" to sell some assets.

3.   She says the possible sale raises the question "who owns the art housed in public nonprofit institutions" and that "those who answer that it is held 'in public trust' are not just mouthing idealistic catchwords."  She doesn't say what else they are doing, but I have my usual question:  who owns the Hopper painting that the Pennsylvania Academy has decided to sell?  Is that work not held "in public trust" and if not, why not?

4.  She quotes Graham Beal's statement that "selling any art would be tantamount to closing the museum" and then says:  "This was not hyperbole. As nonprofits, museums can sell art only to buy other, supposedly better art. If Detroit’s art were sold to repay the city’s debts, it would violate the city’s own 1919 agreement with the institute. It would also automatically rescind the year-old tax vote by the three counties."  I'm not sure any of those leads to the conclusion that selling "any art" (don't they have a Hopper lying around somewhere?) is tantamount to closing the museum, but let's take a closer look one by one.

In the first sentence, the conclusion -- "museums can sell art only to buy other, supposedly better art" -- doesn't follow from the lead-in ("as nonprofits").  It is not a feature of all "nonprofits" that they can sell art only to buy other art.  I guess you could say "As a member of the AAMD, the museum can only ..." but then you'd be appealing to the ethics rules of a private organization; you're not saying something about the essential nature of "nonprofits."  And in any event, it isn't clear how the violation of that rule -- in this extreme circumstance -- would be tantamount to closing the museum.  The museum would still be there, with one, or two (or however many) fewer works.

I'm not familiar with the terms of the 1919 agreement between the city and "the institute," but, again, I don't see why a breach of that agreement (for example by selling one Van Gogh) would be tantamount to closing the museum.  It may be wrong, it may be a breach of contract, it may be repulsive.  But why is it tantamount to closing the museum?

And last, this may be splitting hairs a little, but to say a sale would "automatically" rescind the recent millage sounds, to me, like, by its terms, it does not apply in the event of a sale.  But in fact, what I believe has happened is that the surrounding counties have threatened to cut it off if any sales happen (though correct me if I'm wrong about that).  That's like me announcing that, if PAFA sells the Hopper, I will blow up the museum, and then saying "we can't sell the Hopper; it would be tantamount to destroying the museum."  The millage is not being "automatically" cut off as a result of the potential sales; instead a decision has been made by certain political actors to cut off funding if they don't like the outcome of the bankruptcy process.  And, in any event, even the loss of the millage wouldn't necessarily be tantamount to closing the museum.  During the campaign for its passage, the museum said, if the millage didn't happen, "there would be a severe reduction of museum services and programs," including, perhaps, "opening selected galleries only on weekends, elimination of school tours, public programs and community outreach."  They did not suggest it would be tantamount to closing.

UPDATE:  Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento has some thoughts.

And speaking of Mark Stryker's exhaustive history of the DIA

(Last one for tonight, I promise.)  I wanted to break out in a separate post his (excellent) summary of where things stand at the moment:

"The complexity of the situation defies reductive analysis. ... Neither the federal judge in the case nor creditors can force the sale of any asset. However, creditors are pushing for sales to increase the amount of money they'll get beyond the 10 to 20 cents on the dollar Orr is currently offering. In the end, Orr could decide he needs to sell art to get a deal. And if the judge believes the city hasn't done enough to monetize its assets, he can deny Orr's reorganization plan and pressure him to find more cash, which could force a sale.

"The DIA's legal protections also remain unclear. Michigan's attorney general has issued a formal opinion that says a forced sale of DIA art would be illegal because the museum holds the works in the public trust. However, many experts say such reasoning may not hold up in federal bankruptcy court. The DIA has lawyered up, and behind the scenes is preparing for a potential legal fight that could take months or years to resolve. ...

"Some who favor selling argue that it's morally unconscionable to protect the art while city workers may have their pension cuts and city services, including fundamental police and fire protection, remain hamstrung by lack of resources. But those who oppose a sale argue that money would mostly go to Wall Street, that ... destroying one of the city's greatest cultural institutions would leave Detroit weaker, not stronger, post-bankruptcy."

One question:  do you get the sense that the Deaccession Police -- the Day for Detroit crowd -- agree that "the complexity of the situation defies reductive analysis"?

Speaking of clever ...

James Cuno has an op-ed in The Art Newspaper under the headline "The Immorality of using Detroit's art to bail out bankrupt city," but he doesn't really get around to the immorality argument until the last two paragraphs.

When he finally does, he makes an argument not unlike the one I discussed in the post below.  There, the Detroit Institute is trying to create donor intent going forward.  Cuno tries to read in implied donor intent with respect to the past:

"[The city] accepted gifts of works of art from donors who believed that they were going to serve a lasting, public purpose, and it bought others with funds provided by donors who thought similarly. Some no doubt believed that the works of art with which they were identified would forever remain in the museum’s collection. Others presumed that if they were sold, the resulting funds would be limited, as museum professional guidelines stipulate, to the purchase of other works of art. Others may have imagined that the funds could be used to support conservation and education. In any case, they all must have thought that their gifts were going to be used to enhance public access to works of art."

I see a number of problems with this argument, including the following.

First, it assumes every violation of donor intent is "immoral."  But even if you buy his story about what the donors "must have" thought, not every departure from donor intent is necessarily immoral; that has to be argued for, not assumed.  (For example.)

Second, to the extent donors believed their gifts "were going to serve a lasting, public purpose," well, helping to pay retiree pensions, or to save Detroit from total collapse, are lasting public purposes as well.

Third, I could be wrong about this, but, based on the exhaustive history of the DIA just published by the Detroit Free Press's Mark Styker, I think it's factually incorrect.  According to Stryker, the museum "became a city department" in 1919 and began to "dr[a]w operating funds from the same pool of money that supported parks, police and other services."  "Flush with city cash, the DIA embarked on a buying spree between 1922 and 1930 that landed some its greatest treasures" -- Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Bruegel, Matisse, Bellini, Van Eyck, etc.  If this is right, then, with respect to these works at least, THERE ARE NO 'DONORS' TO SPEAK OF IN THE RELEVANT SENSE.  Cuno's (clever) "implied donor intent" theory never even gets off the ground.

Manufactured Intent

This is interesting.

The Detroit Institute is going to insert into its deed of gift form "a line stating that from any sale of the work, the proceeds can only be used to buy more art."

So what they're doing is creating the "donor intent" that they will then turn around and rely on to limit sales.  It's clever, but that's a funny conception of donor intent.  Isn't it more an expression of donee intent?

And I have another question.  One of the main arguments we hear against deaccessioning is that it discourages future donations.  We've seen it a million times.  Why wouldn't somebody say, Why should I give this to you? What guarantee do I have that you're not going to sell this tomorrow?

But now we see Detroit going ahead and forcing donors not only to confront the fact that their work might be sold -- that there is in fact no guarantee that it won't be sold tomorrow -- but to actually sign off on it.

It's almost as if museums don't really believe that donors are put off by the possibility of future sales.

"'Central Victim,' hmmmm.”

Via Art F City, some thoughts from Josh Baer on Ann Freedman's NY Mag interview:

"Now that it appears that the defense that the works were not fakes seems to be have evaporated – will Freedman and Knoedler offer $$$ (tens of millions) back as refunds to the 'lesser' victims??? What about the red flags of raising prices 6-700%?? What about their assertions to buyers about some experts who never saw works (although many did) and cataloging that would never happen?"

"Two more guilty pleas in case involving Helly Nahmad"

The Art Newspaper's Laura Gilbert has the details.  Some background here.

"Christo is one step closer to realizing his dream of coating parts of the Arkansas River with shimmering cloth panels"

The Wall Street Journal: Colo. Judge Refuses to Block Christo’s ‘Over the River’ Project.

By the way: the Royal Geographic Society is repulsive

It's selling paintings to plug a pension deficit.

Serious question:  what kind of belief is the belief that deaccessioning (other than to buy more art) is wrong?  If you follow the debates at all, it certainly feels like a moral judgment:  it's repulsive, Stalinesque, beyond the pale.  So why don't we see the same sort of outrage from the usual suspects when, say, a U.K. museum sells work to plug a pension deficit?  If it's morally repulsive, it's morally repulsive, no matter where it happens.  Right?

So complicated, the Deaccession Police Handbook.

Where were we?

A point I wanted to make before the holiday (and other impediments to blogging):  I don't know if it comes through on the blog, but I'm not the world's biggest fan of the AAMD approach to deaccessioning.  Yes, it's true.  But, putting two recent posts together gives, I think, a reasonable outline of an alternative approach:

1.  Judge each case on its merits.

2.  Trust the intelligence and professionalism of museum professionals and the seriousness of responsible boards of trustees.

There.  Is that so hard?

"Deciding that this was a reasonable decision, the association has become willing to judge each case on its merits."

Judging each case on its merits -- what a novel concept!

Deviating

Lee Rosenbaum continues to be outraged by the AAMD's lack of outrage at the Pennsylvania Academy's Hopper sale.  She's figured out that the "AAMD will censure deaccessions only when sale proceeds are not used exclusively for acquisitions. Any other deviations from responsible stewardship, no matter how egregious, get a pass."

But what she doesn't see is that the AAMD has no criteria by which to judge a sale a "deviation from responsible stewardship" other than by reference to how the proceeds will be used.  That is, as far as the AAMD is concerned, if the proceeds are "used exclusively for acquisitions," then -- by definition -- it's an example of responsible stewardship.  If the proceeds are used for anything else, then -- again by definition -- it's always a deviation from responsible stewardship (and always an "egregious" one at that).

If you like those "ethics," you can have them.  I'll pass.

"Selling any art would be tantamount to closing the museum"

The DIA's director Graham Beal would have you know.

Any art!  Even one work.

Tantamount.

Unless of course the proceeds are used "to acquire more (and better) art."

Then it's fine.

Not tantamount at all.

Don't be so touchy.

"We don’t need the AAMD to serve as a museum police force." (UPDATED)

Exactly!  Where do I sign the petition?

David Ross, in a BlogBack to Lee Rosenbaum, says she should lay off the calls for the AAMD to DO SOMETHING NOW about the Pennsylvania Academy's decision to sell an important Hopper.  He writes:

"I do not think this is an issue for the AAMD, or any external oversight body except the museum’s own trustees. They are the men and women entrusted with the preservation of the works held by their museum. If they agree, then you may (and should) criticize them and their director. ... I feel strongly that we should trust the intelligence and professionalism of museum professionals and the seriousness of responsible boards of trustees. We don’t need the AAMD to serve as a museum police force. State and federal tax authorities and attorneys general can and do enforce violations of law, and that’s how it should be.  So criticize all you like when you feel an institution is selling work you feel they should not, and turn up the heat when you feel trustees are not living up to their responsibilities, but don’t expect the AAMD to solve or even address your concern."

Precisely, and I have just one question:  why shouldn't it apply to all deaccessions, regardless of how the proceeds are used?

UPDATE:  Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento is signing the petition too.

Felix Salmon on the true age of mechanical reproduction (UPDATED)

Good stuff.

UPDATE:  The Art Market Monitor agrees.

Quick Hits

Schulhof sues.

McEnroe wins.

"Rub should take a short drive over to Philbrick’s place to explain why 'Weehawken,' entrusted to PAFA’s care, must remain in Philadelphia for the benefit of its public." (UPDATED)

Lee Rosenbaum remains the only member of the Deaccession Police to seriously grapple with what it might mean for works to be held in the public trust.

The others are content to say:

Works sold for any reason other than acquisitions -- OMIGOD! REPULSIVE! PUBLIC TRUST!!!!

Very same works sold for acquisitions -- No big deal.  Don't be so touchy.  (For example.)

But here's Lee, on yesterday's news that the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts is selling "a treasured historic masterpiece" from its collection:

"How can the Association of Art Museum Directors convincingly argue for 'the City of Detroit’s responsibility to maintain and protect an invaluable cultural resource [the collection of the Detroit Institute of Arts] that has been entrusted to its care for the benefit of the public,' when one of the association’s own members ... has just announced plans to cavalierly and irresponsibly monetize a treasured historic masterpiece from PAFA’s collection ...?"

She adds:

"How can Detroit successfully (and rightfully) argue for the sanctity of its collection when other museums regard their masterpieces as expendable?"

As I've said repeatedly, the works are either held in the public trust or they're not.  Can't have it both ways.

UPDATE:  More from Lee:  "If AAMD looks the other way when one of its own ... plays fast and loose with the public trust that the 'permanent collection' will ... remain permanent, the credibility of its no-sale argument in Detroit may be seriously undermined."  Ya think?

"The chart of historic gold prices does suggest that art prices may settle in where they are for some time to come"

The Art Market Monitor:  If Gold Is Setting Up For A Historic Tear, What About Art?

Ann Freedman is more shocked than everybody (UPDATED)

She tells James Panero in New York magazine.

Judith Dobrzynski has "a nagging question; Knoedler sold 40 allegedly fraudulent works for $63 million. But she paid much, much less to Rosales. How does she explain that gap? Rosales knew what she had. How did Freedman get such giant markups without doing additional research, conservation, or any of the other things that allow dealers to double and triple the prices they charge?"

Greg Allen:  "Like Vincente Gigante in GVill, Freedman's shuffling around the art world in a victim robe."

UPDATE:  Patricia Cohen says what makes Panero's an exclusive is it's a "story no one else wants."

Tell me again about the public trust (Edward Hopper edition)

The Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts is selling one of its two "signature oil paintings" by Edward Hopper.  Hey, what do you need two signature oil paintings for?  Isn't one enough?

Since the proceeds will go into "a fund largely for acquisition of contemporary art," it's all good.  The signature oil painting is not held in the public trust.  Future generations can fend for themselves.  Potential donors will not say, "Why should I give this to you? What guarantee do I have that you're not going to sell this tomorrow?" Don't be so touchy.

The Philadelphia Inquirer's Stephan Salisbury asks a good question:  "Why not seek donors to seed the new acquisition fund instead of selling?"

The museum director's answer:  "We have extensive capital needs for our buildings. ... We have to harbor our resources."

This points up another way in which the Standard View on deaccessioning is completely incoherent.  If you use the money to buy more art, this view holds, that's perfectly fine; if you use the money for any other reason, up to and including keeping from going out of business, that's repulsive, Stalinesque, etc. etc.  But money is fungible.  Suppose the academy needs $10 million for capital needs and $10 million for acquisitions.  And suppose they can raise $10 million from donors.  They can say they're using that $10 million for the capital needs and so the proceeds from the sale of the Hopper will go to acquisitions.  But we could just as easily say the $10 million from the donors went to the acquisition fund and the Hopper proceeds are being used for the capital needs.  It's all just a semantic game.  Why anyone takes it seriously is beyond me.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20130828_Pennsylvania_Academy_to_sell_Hopper_painting.html#TGWlYjBwKGumj2Jp.99

into a fund largely for acquisition of contemporary art
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20130828_Pennsylvania_Academy_to_sell_Hopper_painting.html#TGWlYjBwKGumj2Jp.99

into a fund largely for acquisition of contemporary art
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20130828_Pennsylvania_Academy_to_sell_Hopper_painting.html#TGWlYjBwKGumj2Jp.99

Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, owner of two signature oil paintings by Edward Hopper
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20130828_Pennsylvania_Academy_to_sell_Hopper_painting.html#TGWlYjBwKGumj2Jp.99

The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, owner of two signature oil paintings by Edward Hoppe
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20130828_Pennsylvania_Academy_to_sell_Hopper_painting.html#TGWlYjBwKGumj2Jp.99

The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, owner of two signature oil paintings by Edward Hoppe
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20130828_Pennsylvania_Academy_to_sell_Hopper_painting.html#TGWlYjBwKGumj2Jp.99

The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, owner of two signature oil paintings by Edward Hoppe
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20130828_Pennsylvania_Academy_to_sell_Hopper_painting.html#TGWlYjBwKGumj2Jp.99

The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, owner of two signature oil paintings by Edward Hoppe
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/20130828_Pennsylvania_Academy_to_sell_Hopper_painting.html#TGWlYjBwKGumj2Jp.99

Knoedler's profits from Rosales sales were $43 million

Lee Rosenbaum walks through the latest indictment.

"Will accurate 3-D reproductions disrupt art markets?"

Some thoughts from Tyler Cowen.

"Could museums routinely sell shares of their work, raising billions of dollars they never thought possible? Maybe so."

Denver Post art critic Ray Mark Rinaldi makes a repulsive Stalinesque trickle down theorist suggestion:  "What if [Detroit] sold part ownership of a dozen or so pieces? That might help save the city with enough left over to actually purchase additional pieces for the collection, and expand arts education efforts to schools. Even the Association of Museum Directors would have a hard time arguing against that."  Oh, don't be so sure.

"Perhaps the biggest question Detroit is forcing all of us to ponder is a basic one, and fundamentally political in nature: what is the value of art to a city?"

Michael Bennett:  How Best to Spend The Detroit Institute of Arts' 15 Minutes of Fame.

"There's nothing in Chapter 9 that enables creditors to force an asset sale." (UPDATED)

Georgetown bankruptcy professor Adam Levitin on whether creditors can force the liquidation of the DIA collection.  He expands upon it at Salon.com, where he makes three central points.

First, he argues that the collection "should be off-limits for the city’s creditors. If Detroit is to be rebuilt, it needs a cultural base, not just an economic base. ... Proximity to cultural treasures is ... part of what makes living in a city attractive and part of the package Detroit needs to attract businesses and tourism.  Letting creditors liquidate the city’s cultural patrimony would doom Detroit to a stillborn restructuring, the ultimate in penny-wise, pound-foolish decisions."

Second, he points out that, unlike with a personal- or corporate-bankruptcy, "bankruptcy law has no provision that requires cities to sell their assets to satisfy creditors."  So Detroit cannot be forced to sell the art.  If the Michigan Legislature passes legislation affirming the attorney general's "non-binding opinion" that the art is off limits to creditors, then it cannot be sold in bankruptcy.  Period.

And third -- and this, I think, is really a crucial point -- while the "creditors may complain that it is unfair for the city to hold on to a valuable asset while not paying them in full," the truth is that "liquidating the art collection would represent a giant windfall for creditors. No creditor ever relied on being able to seize the DIA collection when extending credit to the city."

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE:  Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento has some questions in response to Levitin's piece.

Axa suing Christie's

Sandy-related.

More arrests "expected" in Knoedler case

Latest developments here.

"But the danger of the appraisal now taking place ... is that it will reveal a much greater value than the $2.5bn bandied about recently."

The Art Market Monitor:  What if the DIA's collection is worth a lot more than people think?

"If it’s true, I’m shocked about it and disgusted. It’s crazy. Isn’t being Jasper Johns’s assistant enough?"

The New York Times on the reverberations from the theft charges against a long-time assistant.

"The way we look at reality is highly influenced by the context it’s presented to us." (UPDATED 2X)

New details about the creator of the Knoedler fakes, from the superseding indictment handed up Wednesday against Glafira Rosales.

UPDATE:  Rosales seems to be cooperating with the investigation.

UPDATE 2:  The Painter has been identified.

"Jasper Johns Assistant Charged With Stealing the Artist’s Work"

Patricia Cohen has the story.

"Christo Facing New Lawsuit To Stop His ‘Over The River’ Project"

Story here.  Kriston Capps points out that "Christo and Jeanne-Claude's medium isn't fabric and nature, it's community hearings and Environmental Impact Statements."

Rosales out on bail

"Federal prosecutors have accused Ms. Rosales of selling dozens of fake paintings that she said were by Modernist masters like Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko and Robert Motherwell through the now-shuttered Knoedler Gallery on the Upper East Side and another dealer over a period of 15 years."

"Paintings worth tens of millions of dollars that were stolen last October from an art museum in the Netherlands have not been burned ..."

". . . and a Romanian gang behind the theft wants to cut an unspecified deal with the authorities so the artwork can be returned, lawyers for the defendants said on Tuesday as they went on trial in Romania."

Detroit and The Barnes

Interesting post from The Art Market Monitor.

"Hence a donation to prevent trachoma offers at least 10 times the value of giving to the museum."

Peter Singer on how to give.

Detroit Dialogue

The responses to the NYT's "invitation to dialogue" regarding Frank Robinson's letter on Detroit are in.  You can read them here.  Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento has a summary here.  Judith Dobrzynski runs some responses that didn't make it into the paper.

"How, even at a theoretical level, can we elevate inanimate things -- no matter how transcendent they are in their beauty and history -- over the needs of human beings?"

Bill McGraw:  Six Things About Detroit That Are Worse Than The Idea Of Selling Its Artwork.

"It is hard to imagine the revival of a city that divested itself of its great art museum for cash."

The Weekly Standard's Philip Terzian on Detroit.

Clarifying (UPDATED)

Judith Dobrzynski and Lee Rosenbaum get into it a little bit over Frank Robinson's NYT letter to the editor, and Robinson chimes in to clarify that his "central point" was that it's "important" that "museum people" "understand" and "respond" to the view (held not by him but "some people") that "this is not the time to provide support to museums, especially when it means people might lose part of their pensions, or have basic city services cut."  I have to say I didn't come away from it with that as the central point; I read him as posing an "agonizing" question -- namely, how do museums justify choosing art over "basic services"?  (Which I assume is why the Times singled his letter out as an "invitation to dialogue.")  But I'm happy for the clarification.

UPDATE:  Christopher Knight reads Robinson's letter the way Dobrzynski did.

"Detroit’s assets need to be understood in terms of what they can do to revive the city, not on what cash they will produce at auction."

Bloomberg's James Russell is against a sale.

Customers who bought this Monet also bought ... (UPDATED 3X)

Amazon Art has launched.

The early reviews are not good.  Tyler Cowen does not think it will revolutionize the art world.  Greg Allen says the search "filters have nothing to do with how I look for and buy art."   Hyde or Die:  "Blech."

Strangely, though, the Washington Post thinks it's awesome.

UPDATE:  Via The Art Market Monitor, the on-site commenters are having a field day with this.

UPDATE 2:  Matthew Yglesias:  "This is probably not going to work for seriously high-end art where things Amazon is great at like shipping and customer reviews aren't very important. That said, I wouldn't be quite as down on this as Tyler Cowen. My feeling is that there's a real business opportunity in the 4-5 figure range selling stuff that art snobs would look down on to people who art snobs would look down on."

UPDATE 3:  The NYT's Patricia Cohen:  "The day after Amazon unveiled its new fine art marketplace, the online retailer was finding that its customers are as willing to offer their opinions on a $1.45 million oil painting by the Impressionist master Claude Monet as they are of the $2.74 Hutzler 571 banana slicer."

"For some museum professionals, ... simply discussing the monetisation of the collection is worrisome."

I missed this while I was away last week, but I'm quoted in this Art Newspaper article on Detroit.

"How can we equate a few pieces of canvas with paint on them with the pensions of thousands of firefighters, nurses, police officers, teachers and other civil servants?"

In the latest installment of their "Invitation to Dialogue" series, the NYT runs this letter from former museum director Frank Robinson.

Responses will be published in Sunday's paper, but I managed to get my hands on some responses of the Deaccession Police:

1.  Shut up.

2.  Frank Robinson is repulsive.

3.  Frank Robinson is Stalinesque.

4.  Frank Robinson should be sanctioned.

5.  Frank Robinson should be fired.

6.  If Frank Robinson can't be fired because he's retired, then Peter Schjeldahl should be fired.

I imagine the "public trust" may make an appearance too, but we'll have to wait till Sunday to fond out.

Wait -- you mean this thing wasn't over when Peter Schjeldahl conceded?

Detroit emergency manager Kevyn Orr has hired Christie’s to appraise "the city-owned multibillion dollar collection at the DIA."

Meanwhile, Art F City's Corinna Kirsch says a sale will never happen because it's "strictly forbidden" for a museum to do so -- but, since when you click on "forbidden" you get an article about a slew of recent auction sales by museums, I think she may be joking (in which case I say:  well played, Corinna!).

"Deaccessioning debates are not for the faint of heart."

A pair of good posts from Nicholas O'Donnell on the situation in Detroit.

And while I'm here ...

Judge Oetken has dismissed the rest of Peter Paul Biro's defamation lawsuit against The New Yorker (and others).  See here on the earlier, partial dismissal.

Okay, back into the witness protection program.

"It's not an 'argument' to suggest that anyone who advocates selling off the DIA's masterpieces is an art-hating philistine."

"Even if they're wrong, as I think they are, the sell-the-art crowd is making a morally serious case that can't be countered by name-calling."

I'm coming briefly out of hiding to recommend this piece by Terry Teachout, who suggests that it might be helpful if the Deaccession Police try directing their arguments towards those who don't already agree with them.

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.