Brandeis University issues Rose Art Museum report (updated)

I finally had a moment to read the interim report of the Brandeis University committee charged with examining options for the school's widely admired Rose Art Museum, which was released late Thursday. Brandeis' administration ignited a firestorm in January when it announced a plan to close the museum and sell the collection, valued at more than $300 million, to deal with the impact of the global economic crisis on the university's bottom line. If no news is good news, the interim report is very good news indeed.

Which is to say, the six-page document says almost nothing we didn't already know. A full review of options is planned for completion next fall.

Jonathan Lee, chairman of the Rose's board of overseers and a fierce critic of the university's plan (he's not on the committee), had harsh words for the report. "It reminds me of something like a Stalinesque show committee," Lee told the Boston Globe. Ouch -- yet not necessarily off the mark, since the school's blundering administration picked the participants but didn't ask the museum to recommend members.

Here's the document's most important statement: "[Although] not desirable, it is possible to sell works of art for budget relief and to remain a public museum. We have been considering how best to go ahead on both these fronts."

Yes, legally it is quite possible to sell museum art and pay the university's bills with the income. Ethically, however, it's repulsive. (It's sort of like all those off-shore tax havens American corporations use to avoid paying their fair share -- legal but corrupt.) And once the dirty deed is done, who will want to support a repulsive museum?

I can't wait to see how the committee plans to go ahead on both those fronts. In the meantime, read the report here.

UPDATE: Links to some earlier commentaries on the practice of deaccessioning are here, here and here.

-- Christopher Knight

Photo: Christopher Knight/Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Dennis J Solomon]

An excellent article of the current state of the Reinharz facade concerning the Rose Art Museum at Brandeis. Each hour the current administration remains in office continues the substantial financial damage to the university and museum. Only a repudiation of this sordid attempt to oust the Board of Overseers and wrestle control of the museum will repair the tarnished brilliance of this great university.

[Jerry Samet]

You say:

"Yes, legally it is quite possible to sell museum art and pay the university's bills with the income. Ethically, however, it's repulsive."

As the chair of the Committee whose report you discuss, I have to ask:

Can you explain what exactly is repulsive about it? If you replace "...and pay the university's bills" in your condemnation with a real description of what those bills are FOR--eg: "...and provide scholarships to students whose families are suddenly unable to afford the tuition" or "...and pay professors instead of canceling courses and cutting back programs", and so on, perhaps you'll rethink your judgment.

If you STILL think it's repulsive, then you owe your readers an explanation of how you've arrived at this moral view. Is it your view that selling art to do ANYTHING in the world except buy more art is morally repulsive???

Jerry Samet
Chair, Future of the Rose Committee
Brandeis University

[Christopher Knight]

To answer Mr. Samet: Having written about deaccessioning practices a lot over the years, and especially during the current economic crisis, I have made my thoughts on the matter pretty clear. Perhaps, though, I was remiss in not including in this post a few links to past articles on the subject for new readers. I've updated the post with links to three recent ones.

[Brian Friedberg]

Thank you Christopher - you're position is very clear - it's obvious by Mr. Samet's hasty reply that the Committee is indeed woefully unqualified. Their argument that somehow the liquidating the Rose is the untapped key to Brandeis' survival will haunt the University permanently.

[Sara Cormeny]

I too wanted to comment on the statements cited in this piece about the legality of selling the items whilst remaining an art museum.

Because the official body of art museums in the United States forbids sales of art by museums under most conditions, my own understanding is that whether legal or not, doing so on these terms would significantly diminish the museum's capability to be run as an art museum. This is because other AAM-member museums might (and probably would) refuse to include items from the collection in their shows; art owners who are making donations might refuse to give to a museum that has run afoul of the AAM rules; grantsmaking organizations might refuse grants to artists associated with the museum; etc. The sales as outlined have the potential to horribly ostracize the museum from the art world and from reputable museums in the US and elsewhere, and therefore seems a ludicrous option to consider.

In addition, the Massachusetts Attorney General, in its oversight of nonprofit and educational institutions, is apparently investigating whether it is in fact legal for the university to sell many of these works based on the terms that they were acquired, as I understand the current state of play from following things in the news. So, while it may not be illegal to sell certain works, it may in fact be illegal to sell others.

I am suspicious of this blanket statement by the committee about the "legality" of the proposed art sales, and believe it to be misleading at best. On the other hand I do think that Mr. Knight's own overheated statements about ethics and repugnancy may not shed much light on the specifics of the situation either.

In any event, as a Brandeis alum myself, I think the University has made a terrible misjudgment in trying to dismantle the museum and I'm glad to see the movement to do so seems to be losing steam. What a PR nightmare and what a bunch of art-ignorant philistines it makes us Brandeisians seem to the rest of the world.