This morning, I was reading through my Google Reader feed when I came across a new post by Edward Winkleman to his blog. He was responding to a comment left by an anonymous poster regarding Winkleman's previous post "Brandeis: Art = Cash"
Here is the comment left by the poster:
Yes its a shame, but perhaps its time that the tail no longer wags the dog. Don't forget that the donors get a nice fat charitable tax deduction for the "fair market value" of the art. Remember former Brandeis Professor Maslow's theory-- we need to provide for our basic physiology and safety before we get to be able to worry about our self-actualization. I would suggest that our chemistry, biology, and physics graduates have a better chance of improving the life of mankind than artists.
Quite frankly, this comment absolutely outraged me. Perhaps I've gotten a bit more emotionally invested in the Rose Art Museum crisis than many; however, I couldn't let this sort of flippant comment go without some response. Below is my response to both Winkleman and the anonymous poster. If I was out of line, missed anything, or whatever else, feel free to let me know. I think it's really important to engage in honest, open and thoughtful communication, and I really feel like this commenter was unwilling to and incapable of doing such.
Here is my response:
Edward,
Quite frankly, I think you didn't push the commenter hard enough in this post. What s/he said was not only short-sighted, but selfish, ill-conceived, and clearly comes from a place of severe insecurity and fear.
There are certainly many, many differences between the sciences and the arts as academic undergraduate departments; however, the point to close the museum thrusts both into some form of relationship founded in crisis. The absence of the museum would, ostensibly, benefit the presence of the science programs. But how? By providing more raw materials, better teacher salaries, higher-tech buildings? OK. Sure, one could make that claim, and thus continue by saying that the science students deserve these things to better support their decision to study.
But what of the humanities students? Brandeis is, above and beyond, a liberal arts university, although it does have strong ties to research. So, it appears to me that the commenter would rather the University renounce its ties to the humanities, thereby effectively making it Brandeis Tech, which would therefore allow for a higher dedication to the sciences.
OK, so that may be slightly too much of a stretch, but I suppose what this all gets down to is the equality of the student. One enters the college under a financial contract to pay $50,190 (according to the official website). That $50,190 does not mean anything more if you're a science major than if you're a studio art major. The simple fact is really that each student should be given the same opportunities, access to technologies, faculty and up-to-date facilities, and above and beyond the same level of respect, which thus means that for the studio art, art history, public relations, history, public service, and public policy majors (to name a few), the Rose Art Museum should absolutely be available as shining example for what art is capable of from a spiritual, emotional, economic, and cultural perspective.
I take a lot of issue with the commenter's lack of respect for the students at Brandeis University, and hope that s/he takes a long hard look at their priorities and re-evaluate if their heart is in the right place-- whether their devotion is to the student unequivocally, or only to those benefiting their immediate, insulated world.
One last point-- Brandeis' motto is "Truth Even Unto Its Innermost Parts"... it would be nice to see this anonymous someone working for the University believe in and uphold that rhetoric.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Save The Rose Art Museum
I'm not sure whether you have heard about this situation yet, but since Monday it's been all over NPR, blogs and the news-- Brandeis University in Massachusetts has decided to close the Rose Art Museum and complete liquefy all of its assets and sell the collection.
The Rose Art Museum, seen as one of the most important university museums in America, has a collection of over 8,000 works, focused on modern and contemporary art, ranging from Andy Warhol, Willem de Kooning, Jasper Johns, and Roy Lichtenstein to Cindy Sherman, Matthew Barney, Nan Goldin, and Richard Serra. They've been an exemplar model for other university museums trying to restructure their collection and program of events.
The news came out of nowhere on Monday, when Brandeis' board of trustees voted to close the museum in order to help cushion the outcome of a 25% endowment deficit ($712 million to $549 million) created by the recession. However, as Artnet points out, the projected budget shortfall for 2008 only totals $10 million. None of the people working at the Rose, nor the Rose's board, were notified until the news became public.
The legality of the matter is being hotly disputed-- the Rose is financially independent from the university, save some meager operating cost for heat and lights (nothing that Brandeis wouldn't cover when they transition the museum in July to an academic center), and actually pays 15% income tax TO the university. Many of the acquisitions and donations made to the Rose have been restricted, so the decision to sell off the entire collection would result in some tricky legal finagling.
The question is: why sell the collection? The Rose is a model museum, lending out artworks to the Louvre, Guggenheim, Metropolitan, National Gallery, MOMA, etc. on a regular basis. They're financially secure and operate with a strong connection to alumni and donors. Their collection is seen as one of the most coveted for modern and contemporary art in the United States. They've given first-time exhibitions to the likes of Kiki Smith and Dana Schultz-- huge figures in the contemporary art world. When the contemporary art market is in the worst spot it has been in quite some time, why sell the works in an incredibly soft market? And if one is only trying to cover a projected $10 million deficit, why must the university sell ALL of the 8,000 art works? Even if the economic situation were to get worse, the shortfall would no where near the estimated worth of the entire collection of art ($350 million).
So, this begs the question: is it acceptable for schools to go straight to the arts when there are budget shortfalls? When an estimate of monetary value is placed on a collection of works held under the university, does that mean the eyes of the trustees should just see money signs? When does art get fought for instead of sold first or abandoned during any sort of crisis? Tyler Green has posed some fairly sensational questions on his blog, which I feel are a bit over the line, but they at least make one think about one's position on art. He writes, "It is no more logical that a university sell off the art in its art museum than it is logical that a university would sell the trees off this quad, the books out of its library, or the science labs in its engineering buildings. Why isn't Brandeis University selling off books out of its library or one of its science buildings?... [This] makes just as much sense."
This has created huge outrage from all corners of the United States, from the The AAM (American Association of Museums), ACUMG (Association of College and University Museums and Galleries), AAMD (Association of Art Museum Directors), CAA (College Art Association) to students from colleges and universities all over.
Anyway, this is the biggest piece of news to hit the art world since the MOCA crisis of fall 2008. If you're at all interested in reading more about it, I've included some fantastic links that hopefully will give some more perspective on this story.
I hope you think about this situation and please-- tell me what you think! This isn't merely restricted to the art world, after all. While extreme of a viewpoint, there is certainly an argument to be made that a decision as such can be seen as a harbinger for the precedent of closing entire schools, which is becoming more and more of a reality with the shrinking economy. This collection isn't important to people just interested in modern/contemporary art-- this is about education, access to knowledge, economic corruption, and in the end, the human creative impulse.
xoxo
Peter
LINKS:
Tyler Green interviews Michael Rush, Rose Art Museum's director
Richard Lacayo of TIME Magazine interviews Michael Rush
Edward Winkleman says: "Brandeis: Art = Cash"
Paddy Johnson's coverage via ArtFagCity blog
CultureGrrl has fantastic updates on the struggle
Related: CultureGrrl chronicles the AAM call to transfer the collection to another museum
Greg Cook keeps us all updated
Students Rally for Brandeis Museum (Boston Globe, Jan 30)
COMESEEART: A Visual Protest (Facebook)
Save The Rose Art Museum (Facebook)-- now at 5,348 members!
The Rose Art Museum, seen as one of the most important university museums in America, has a collection of over 8,000 works, focused on modern and contemporary art, ranging from Andy Warhol, Willem de Kooning, Jasper Johns, and Roy Lichtenstein to Cindy Sherman, Matthew Barney, Nan Goldin, and Richard Serra. They've been an exemplar model for other university museums trying to restructure their collection and program of events.
The news came out of nowhere on Monday, when Brandeis' board of trustees voted to close the museum in order to help cushion the outcome of a 25% endowment deficit ($712 million to $549 million) created by the recession. However, as Artnet points out, the projected budget shortfall for 2008 only totals $10 million. None of the people working at the Rose, nor the Rose's board, were notified until the news became public.
The legality of the matter is being hotly disputed-- the Rose is financially independent from the university, save some meager operating cost for heat and lights (nothing that Brandeis wouldn't cover when they transition the museum in July to an academic center), and actually pays 15% income tax TO the university. Many of the acquisitions and donations made to the Rose have been restricted, so the decision to sell off the entire collection would result in some tricky legal finagling.
The question is: why sell the collection? The Rose is a model museum, lending out artworks to the Louvre, Guggenheim, Metropolitan, National Gallery, MOMA, etc. on a regular basis. They're financially secure and operate with a strong connection to alumni and donors. Their collection is seen as one of the most coveted for modern and contemporary art in the United States. They've given first-time exhibitions to the likes of Kiki Smith and Dana Schultz-- huge figures in the contemporary art world. When the contemporary art market is in the worst spot it has been in quite some time, why sell the works in an incredibly soft market? And if one is only trying to cover a projected $10 million deficit, why must the university sell ALL of the 8,000 art works? Even if the economic situation were to get worse, the shortfall would no where near the estimated worth of the entire collection of art ($350 million).
So, this begs the question: is it acceptable for schools to go straight to the arts when there are budget shortfalls? When an estimate of monetary value is placed on a collection of works held under the university, does that mean the eyes of the trustees should just see money signs? When does art get fought for instead of sold first or abandoned during any sort of crisis? Tyler Green has posed some fairly sensational questions on his blog, which I feel are a bit over the line, but they at least make one think about one's position on art. He writes, "It is no more logical that a university sell off the art in its art museum than it is logical that a university would sell the trees off this quad, the books out of its library, or the science labs in its engineering buildings. Why isn't Brandeis University selling off books out of its library or one of its science buildings?... [This] makes just as much sense."
This has created huge outrage from all corners of the United States, from the The AAM (American Association of Museums), ACUMG (Association of College and University Museums and Galleries), AAMD (Association of Art Museum Directors), CAA (College Art Association) to students from colleges and universities all over.
Anyway, this is the biggest piece of news to hit the art world since the MOCA crisis of fall 2008. If you're at all interested in reading more about it, I've included some fantastic links that hopefully will give some more perspective on this story.
I hope you think about this situation and please-- tell me what you think! This isn't merely restricted to the art world, after all. While extreme of a viewpoint, there is certainly an argument to be made that a decision as such can be seen as a harbinger for the precedent of closing entire schools, which is becoming more and more of a reality with the shrinking economy. This collection isn't important to people just interested in modern/contemporary art-- this is about education, access to knowledge, economic corruption, and in the end, the human creative impulse.
xoxo
Peter
LINKS:
Tyler Green interviews Michael Rush, Rose Art Museum's director
Richard Lacayo of TIME Magazine interviews Michael Rush
Edward Winkleman says: "Brandeis: Art = Cash"
Paddy Johnson's coverage via ArtFagCity blog
CultureGrrl has fantastic updates on the struggle
Related: CultureGrrl chronicles the AAM call to transfer the collection to another museum
Greg Cook keeps us all updated
Students Rally for Brandeis Museum (Boston Globe, Jan 30)
COMESEEART: A Visual Protest (Facebook)
Save The Rose Art Museum (Facebook)-- now at 5,348 members!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)