Sotheby's called out over Pollock offer

Over at Modern Art Notes, Tyler Green has the shocking document from the University of Iowa Museum of Art that shows Sotheby's auction house offered a $150-million guarantee if allowed to sell Jackon Pollock's pivotal 1943 painting, "Mural." The offer came in 2007 -- long before June 2008 floods caused an estimated $232 million in damage to the school. The museum refused the offer.

Following the devastating flood, UI regent Michael Gartner caused a ruckus when he requested an estimate on the 8-by-20-foot painting's monetary value. According to an Aug. 8 story in the Des Moines Register, proceeds would have helped defray rebuilding costs. But a museum can lose its accredition if art from the collection is sold to pay operating costs or other bills, and Gartner subsequently denied that a forced sale was his intent.

Sotheby's also inquired about selling Max Beckmann's 1943 "Karnival Triptych," the document says, but no figure is cited. "Mural," a 1946 gift to UIMA from Peggy Guggenheim, was a breakthrough painting for Pollock, introducing the all-over composition that became a standard for American abstract art in the 1950s.

The document was made public by UIMA late Friday. The report, prepared by the museum for the university's board of regents, also includes a 1963 letter from Guggenheim to a former UI president, insisting that the painting be returned to her if the museum no longer wished to keep it.

Modern Art Notes sums it up this way:

Publicly traded companies are in the business of making money, but attempting to loot and plunder (healthy) university art museums is ethically reprehensible. (Imagine what might happen if the auction house making the same offer to the Met or to MoMA!) Sotheby's should be embarrassed.

-- Christopher Knight

Photo credit: Associated Press

Comments

[TheTruth]

Oh please, so dramatic. Yes, Sotheby's is in the business of making money. Inquiring about some pieces from a University that they think might need to raise funds is certainly less problematic than going after the widow of a deceased art collector. And that happens on a regular basis. We probably wouldn't have seen many great works if not for the behind-the-scenes efforts of Sotheby's and Christie's.

They're not trying to "loot and plunder" the museum. They were giving the university an option that might have actually seemed like a good or responsible idea given the circumstances. It was only an offer. No one is forcibly taking anything from them. The museum could simply say, Thanks, but no thanks!

It's just another day in the multi-billion dollar art world. "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

[DeathIsTheOnlyTruth]

Comparing Mural to "Other paintings" implies they share the historical value inherent in Mural. Too bad the first comment is without any appeciation for art ... may as well have come from Sotheby's. Of course, selling a painting isn't really the issue; not even selling Mural, though Mural should remain in public view. The issue is an offer to seel it coming from the same entity that appraised it. That lowers Sotheby's to the same level (if not lower) as that wherein are the politicians behind Indiana's lost money; lost when they invested in a coin dealer. He too was the appraiser of the coins used for intestment. Are no ethics left, anywhere within the business world? Incidentally, I do not agree to the legal terms. LA times can remove this if agreement with the legal terms referenced, is required.