the art collectors

Monday, February 2nd, 2009

To Sell Or Not To Sell? – Brandeis Closes Rose Art Museum

Rose Art Museum Director, Michael Rush. Image: Erik Jacobs for The New York Times

Brandeis University’s Rose Art Museum is quickly becoming the next art institution to fall victim to the worldwide economic meltdown.

Brandies’ shocking announcement early last week to close the museum and sell off its entire collection of 7,180 works of modern and contemporary art (including Lichtenstein, Warhol, Rauschenberg, de Kooning, Magritte, and recent acquisitions of Richard Serra, Donald Judd, Matthew Barney, Kiki Smith, and Cindy Sherman) has ignited a firestorm of protest. The Association of College and University Museums and Galleries, Association of Art Museum Curators, Association of Art Museums, College Art Association, a joint group 18 directors of contemporary art museums, and the director of the Rose Art Museum himself, have all issued statements voicing adamant disapproval.  One of the most disconcerting facts that these voices bring to light is that the Rose is by no means facing financial danger. Rather, it is Brandeis University itself that is in trouble.

In an emotional press release, the Roses’ Director, Michael Rush, had the following to say:

“I want to express to you, the Rose Art Museum community, my shock and horror at the university’s decision to close the Rose Art Museum…Do not be fooled into thinking that the Rose is being closed because it is a financial drain on the university. It isn’t…the Rose, a fundamentally self sustaining entity within Brandeis, is in relatively good financial health. The Rose is being closed due to the University’s desire to sell the cherished collection. Period.

Read on for the full story.

Rush expanded on these claims in an interview with Modern Art Notes:

“The Rose is not in financial trouble. We’re secure. I can’t say that strongly enough. We’re meeting our fundraising goals. We’re doing fine. We have a tight managerial structure. We’re utterly responsible. There’s no trouble for the Rose.

This is all about selling the artwork. If the university gives any indication that they’re selling the Rose to save money, that’s untrue. They’re just selling the artwork. The university doesn’t give us a penny. We are financially autonomous within the university. They don’t pay our salaries or anything, just below-the-line costs like the heat and the lights. That’s not going to change if they get rid of us – they’re going to use the building for something else, and they’ll have those same costs.”

This revelation sets the Rose’s situation apart from the recent financial troubles to hit other museums, including MOCA and the National Academy, both of which were in critical condition and struggling to meet operating costs. While the former was lucky enough to receive a $30 million donation from Eli Broad, the National Academy has been widely criticized for the decision to sell off several works in efforts to stay afloat.

Without question, Brandeis’ deaccession of thousands of works is far more dramatic. The sale of art for any purpose other than the purchase of new works is forbidden by the code of ethics of all major art museum associations. Furthermore, much of the Rose’s money comes via endowment funds specifically designated for the museum’s operation and acquisition of art – not for Brandies.  Yet, if the collection is sold, profits would go to Brandeis, and along the same lines, when the museum is closed, its remaining funds (last calculated at 20 million) would be taken over by the university.

This runs counter to donor intent and raises significant legal question.

AAM’s statement against Brandeis’ move notes that “By selling its art collection for cash to the highest bidder to erase a temporary deficit, Brandeis University is in fundamental violation of the public trust responsibilities it accepted the day it founded the Rose Museum. Such a sale is also a betrayal of the donors, who generously gave art for the benefit of the students and the public, not for paying bills.”

The CAAs press release states their support for, “the Codes of Ethics of the American Association of Museums and the Association of Art Museum Directors, which clearly state that works of art in museum collections are held as a public trust and that any proceeds of sales must only support the acquisition of new works,” adding that “perceiving an entire art collection as a disposable financial asset and then dismantling that collection wholesale to cover other university expenses is deeply troubling for all college and university collections.”

In fact, the Rose Musuem’s board is seeking legal action.  Rush commented to Modern Art Notes that Jonathan Lee, the chairman of Rose’s board of trustees, will be talking with the attorney general and the governor too,” and on Friday Lee, himself substantiated these claims. Both The New York Times and Boston Globe report that the attorney general’s office has said it would review the sale and decide if selling artworks violated any terms of donation. “We’re talking about 6,000 pieces of art..It’s going to take some time. But we will review the Brandeis plan as it evolves,” noted a spokesperson for the attorney general’s office.

If a legal battle does ensue, it won’t be the first lawsuit between a university and its benefactors over the obligation to honor original donor intent.  The Wall Street Journal highlighted several recent examples, including litigation involving Princeton University that was settled for nearly $100 million. Randolph College in Lynchburg, Va., won their suit, allowing them to move forward with the sale of four paintings, in efforts to and raise an anticipated $50 million, while Fisk University in Nashville, Tenn., is still engaged in an ongoing lawsuit over plans to sell off paintings donated by artist, Georgia O’Keeffe.

Perhaps due to the widespread outrage and threat of legal action, Brandeis had backed away from its original statement by the end of last week. While the university is still going ahead with the closure of the museum, it now says it may not sell off the entire Rose collection. On Saturday, University President, Jehuda Reinharz, spoke with several media outlets, commenting in an interview with NPR, that “the decision of the board of trustees did not mandate in any form or shape, how much to sell, when to sell, if we decide to sell – if the economy, God help us, changes quickly, we will need to sell much less, or perhaps none of the art.”

Reinharz reiterated these claims to the Boston Globe, again stating “we have no particular mandate from the board of trustees as to when to sell, how to sell. “If in fact there is a miracle tomorrow morning and the economy turns around and the stock market is up by 45 percent, nothing impels me, nothing impels us, to do anything.”

The chances of that are not likely, considering that the value of Brandeis’ endowment has been deflated by 25%, and several of its most important donors have fallen victim to the Madoff scheme.