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.
Thursday, August 08, 2013
Wednesday, August 07, 2013
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."
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."
Tuesday, August 06, 2013
"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.
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!).
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!).
Monday, August 05, 2013
Friday, August 02, 2013
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
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.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
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.)"
"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.)"
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
"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.
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."
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."
Monday, July 22, 2013
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.
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.
Friday, July 19, 2013
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."
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.
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."
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."
Thursday, July 18, 2013
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:
"'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."
"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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)