Search News


Browse Archives

News

Brandeis to Sell All of Its Art

January 27, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

In a move that represents the worst fears of university art museums nationwide, Brandeis University announced Monday that it will shut its art museum and sell its entire 6,000-piece collection.

The Rose Art Museum is known for its collections of American Modernism, American Social Realism, Abstract Expressionism, and Surrealism. Holdings include works by Marsden Hartley, Thomas Hart Benton, Andy Warhol, Ellsworth Kelly, Robert Rauschenberg, Roy Lichtenstein, Jasper Johns, Morris Louis, Larry Rivers, Helen Frankenthaler, Jim Dine, Willem de Kooning, Robert Motherwell, Max Ernst, Rene Magritte, and many other leading figures of art in the last century.

The university will auction off the collection and use the proceeds to bolster the institution's finances.

“These are extraordinary times,” said a statement from Jehuda Reinharz, the university's president. “We cannot control or fix the nation’s economic problems. We can only do what we have been entrusted to do -- act responsibly with the best interests of our students and their futures foremost in mind.” The university's statement pledged continued support for teaching the arts, and for the liberal arts, and said that the decision was part of "an emerging new vision for the university aimed at streamlining it for the future while bolstering its focus on undergraduates, the liberal arts and research."

Last week, the Brandeis faculty agreed to create a special committee to review the curriculum. Among plans being discussed are adding business or engineering programs and finding a way to simultaneously expand undergraduate enrollment while shrinking the faculty. University administrators have also floated the idea of replacing all existing majors and minors with new "meta-majors," a term whose definition is hard to pin down even among those who have discussed it. Many faculty members have said that they will never go for the abandonment of traditional disciplines, and many have derided that idea as simply cover for eliminating positions and departments.

While faculty leaders say they feel confident that they will have a meaningful voice in the curricular debates, the decision to close the art museum and sell its holdings was not taken to the faculty or faculty committees for a vote or recommendation.

The decision to shut the museum runs directly counter to the ethics codes of art and museum associations, which permit the sale of art donated for a museum only for the purchase of additional art, not to be shifted to other purposes.

"This puts all of our roles at our institutions in jeopardy," said David A. Robertson, president of the Association of College and University Museums and Galleries and director of Northwestern University's art museum. "And it puts in jeopardy our relationships with our donors with whom we have built our collections," he said. The ethics codes cited by Robertson are vital, museum officials say, because donors will not make gifts to university collections if they believe that their donations could end up in an auction house sometime in the future.

Robertson said he was "saddened and disturbed" to hear of the decision at Brandeis. He said that his organization might ask accrediting groups to adopt standards that would censure or punish institutions taking such steps.

The university statement quoted Reinharz as viewing the decision to close the museum as "very difficult," but "an important step in the ongoing resource management and allocation process" that the university needs. “I am satisfied that our commitment is unwavering, that someday we will look back and say that when the quality of education and student services was at stake, we made hard choices so that Brandeis could emerge even stronger.”

Robertson called the idea that an art museum could be sacrificed "myopic" and said that the decision reflected a general lack of understanding that art is not a luxury, but is a central part of a liberal education. "A student's experience with an original work of art can be transformational. To take that away is sterilizing education in many ways." He stressed that time with original art is "a direct experience," not the "mediated experience" that defines the way so many students experience culture.

There is a "systemic problem" in American higher education, he said, wherein art is viewed by some as something that can be sold off by a college. Randolph College won a legal battle last year for the right to sell several of its paintings over the objections of alumnae who said pledges to donors were being ignored. Fisk University remains in a legal fight over its plan to sell some of the art that Georgia O’Keeffe left to the institution. In both of those cases, the disputes are over parts of collections.

A member of the Iowa Board of Regents last year raised the question -- after floods caused substantial damage at the University of Iowa -- of whether it should sell “Mural,” a Jackson Pollock masterpiece at the university’s Museum of Art. The painting is insured for $140 million. The idea was dropped after the university produced a report that said, among other things, that such a sale would deprive students from access to a great work of art, would probably cost the museum its accreditation, which would make it difficult for it to acquire or borrow works of art, and that future donors would be unlikely to give works of art to the university.

"In English, you can have a great work of art in front of a student with a paperback," Robertson said. "But the objects we teach do gain value and administrators start poking around and looking for things that they own."

A national discussion is needed, Robertson said, about how art museums have standards and codes of ethics, and why they matter. In the case of Iowa, defenders of keeping the Pollock work were able to cite a threat to the museum's accreditation, but at Brandeis, there will be no museum left to be accredited. The Brandeis museum, which has also organized many visiting exhibitions, will be converted into a fine arts teaching facility.

William Flesch, a professor of American and English literature and chair of the Faculty Senate, said that some faculty members had discussed on a faculty listserv the possibility of selling the museum's collection to deal with the current budget crunch. Flesch said that this "wasn't a leading idea" and was never recommended or approved in a formal way by the faculty. He said he did not object to the administration making the decision on its own. Asked if he knew about museum standards that consider the planned sale unethical, Flesch said he was not aware of them.

He did say that he was convinced that the university needed to take "substantial steps" to deal with the current budget situation. While Brandeis officials have not cited a figure that they must save now, they have for many years been discussing cost cutting. In 2005, administrators faced an uproar over a proposal to phase out the teaching of ancient Greek -- an idea that was dropped following faculty objections. As a small research university with aspirations larger than its endowment, the university has struggled with any number of choices.

Prior to the collapse of the stock market this fall, Brandeis had an endowment worth more than $700 million.

Michael Rush, director of the Brandeis museum, could not be reached for comment after the university announced its closure Monday evening. But a feature about Rush in 2007 in the university's alumni magazine may provide some insight into why the collection was tempting to the university in bad financial times. "Everyone in the art world knows about the Brandeis collection. It's the gem of modern and contemporary art in New England and one of the great gems of university art collections in the nation."

The article cites Rush as saying that by "eyeball," he could tell that the collection was worth at least $300 million, but that he planned to have a formal appraisal done to draw attention to the significance of the art museum. In a quote he may regret, he says: "I'm confident that, after its real estate, art is the university's largest financial asset, and I want everyone to know it."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Brandeis to Sell All of Its Art

  • Paint the building Gray!
  • Posted by Diogenes on January 27, 2009 at 7:40am EST
  • Remove the lighting, rip out the archives, fire the staff and cancel every art course! We just need more plumbers and salesmen! Who needs art? Who needs philosophy? Who needs literary theory? Who needs feminism or history or anthropology? Death to the humanities! You're next! Hell we don't need art for on-line courses to make more drones! We have the internet! We don't need libraries! There's Wikipedia! Just keep pumping out what trade schools do, and you'll be just fine. Your "product" will be ignorant of the larger issues that face our globe, unimaginative, stagnant, putrid, and hollow, but just fine. Ready to follow orders, march, submit, and sell those products! Shame on Brandeis! You've betrayed your mission. Good job, business snarks of the Board of Trustees. You did yours. You took the word "Trust" out of "Trustee" and became stewards of nothing.

  • art and the city
  • Posted by Judith Shapiro , past president at Barnard College on January 27, 2009 at 8:37am EST
  • Dear Diogenes,

    I do not think your level of hysteria is warranted. Leaving aside the issue of responsibilities to donors (which is ethically complicated, but which you yourself do not raise) and focusing on your major point, direct access to art on the part of students: let us remember that Brandeis is located in a metropolitan area with great collections. As an alumna of Brandeis, I know that it is actually possible for students to find their way to Boston. I did so for my own art history courses before there was a Rose Art Museum at Brandeis. And, as past president of a college located in New York City, I know that we managed to have one of the most distinguished art history programs in the country without having a museum located at our College - or even at the eminent University across the street. We somehow made do with MOMA, the Met, etc. etc. etc.
    I know that this sale raises other issues, and I am not commenting on those.

  • 'Bout Time
  • Posted by Epso on January 27, 2009 at 8:42am EST
  • Look: Keeping millions of bucks in art while tuition goes up and enrollment stagnates? The Pre. did the right thing. I've always felt those curators sit around anyway..This will set precedent and why not?

  • art for art's sake
  • Posted by theron on January 27, 2009 at 8:42am EST
  • Selling off a singular art collection while adding a business major. If art, asthetics, can be liberating; if poor/greed-centered business practices have helped create the current financial crisis to which Brandeis is reacting; then Brandeis has become part of the problem.

  • Why?
  • Posted by Art , Professor on January 27, 2009 at 8:50am EST
  • How come the administration that makes these brillant decisions never question the cost of over employed and overpayed positions that they hold.

  • Posted by RoxyR on January 27, 2009 at 9:00am EST
  • Well yes, it's a sad day for Brandeis when it has to resort to such a painful sale for survival... but it's hard to believe that students attending a university so close to Boston (and Cambridge) will have difficulty finding culture or having a direct experience with original art.

  • Posted by G. Tod Slone on January 27, 2009 at 9:26am EST
  • Theron, excellent comment on l'art pour l'art! There is indeed a systemic problem in American higher education: the widespread suppression of free-speech rights. Why don't the art curators and professors seem to give a damn about that?

  • Art, schmart, who needs it?
  • Posted by Will , President at College Access Counseling, Ltd. on January 27, 2009 at 9:26am EST
  • What an unbelievable thing for an esteemed liberal arts college to consider. It seems that Brandeis is going to rip out its heart to keep itself alive. It's risible to think that Brandeis will keep teaching art after closing its art museum or that it can trade art for new majors in business and engineering--better fields for a "commodified" institution. One would like to think that something like an art museum is a lasting jewel in any university's crown, especially one as well populated as Brandeis's, but it's being treated like a stock portfolio. Unworthy of a liberal arts institution. I think Brandeis should lose its own accreditation if this goes through and I hope other institutions will make their own protests. And with all due respect to Judith Shapiro, having MOMA and the Met in your back yard is not the same as having your own museum that you are now planning to trash.

  • Posted by Molly on January 27, 2009 at 9:37am EST
  • With all due respect to Dr. Shapiro, Boston is hardly New York when it comes to modern art collections. For years there was a deep aversion to collecting modern art at Boston-area institutions, and the Brandeis collection is certainly one of the finest collections in the area.

    But the idea of access to the collections is only part of what saddens me about this decision. I am willing to grant that the administration must be believing that it is doing its best in a bad situation, but selling off the art collection is, at best, a myopic decision. It is at worst a catastrophic economic and cultural miscalculation. There is some real truth to Diogenes' impassioned comment.

  • Posted by Trachtenberg , X President and Professor at George Washington on January 27, 2009 at 10:05am EST
  • It would be nice if those who think the sale is inappropriate (as it well may be) provided us with some alternatives to help address the challenges faced by the college. Close the library? Turn of the lights? Reduce the number of faculty and staff? You cant get six pounds of sugar out of a five pound bag. What is the administration to do?

  • Rose Art Museum
  • Posted by Nancy Doll , Director at Weatherspoon Art Museum on January 27, 2009 at 10:36am EST
  • The unanimous vote by the Trustees at Brandeis University to close the Rose Art Museum and sell its superb collection is unthinkable and unconscionable. It send the clear message that, in their opinion, university art museum do not contribute to the academic life on campus. How they feel they can credibly continue to support the arts and teaching of the arts is contradiction at its highest form. Museums are by nature educational. To sacrifice this incredible resource as the best option out of financial distress is more than misguided. The Trustees are removing a resource for the Brandeis campus, the greater Boston area, and the broader art world.

  • Luxury?
  • Posted by Douglas on January 27, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • You don't have to believe that art is a luxury to recognize that it IS a luxury for an organization to continue pursuing an activity that is not part of its core mission. The trustees seem to be saying simply that they are running a university, not a museum. This strikes me as a judgment entirely within their sphere to make.

  • Save The Rose Campaign
  • Posted by Leor Galil on January 27, 2009 at 11:00am EST
  • For those of you who are upset by the decision to close the Rose Art Museum, action is being taken. There is an alumni petition circulating online, which you may sign by going to this website:

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/in-opposition-to-the-closing-of-the-rose-art-museum

    For anyone else who is interested in learning more about the Rose Art Museum and how you can help the cause to keep the gallery open, please visit this website:

    http://savetheroseart.org/

    This is clearly an uneasy time at Brandeis, but the board of trustees' swift and conclusive decision should not be carried out without further inquiry. The lack of transparency in executing this decision is reprehensible, and the point at which one of the biggest attractions at an institution that prides itself on its radical nature in the realm of liberal arts institutions induces more fear and consternation about the school's future than anything else. I hope the Brandeis community's voice manages to get heard, no matter what the opinions may be.

  • Let's get back to the core mission
  • Posted by Plenty of libraries in Boston on January 27, 2009 at 11:52am EST
  • "The trustees seem to be saying simply that they are running a university, not a museum. This strikes me as a judgment entirely within their sphere to make."

    You're darn right, Douglas. But even with this action the trustees haven't gone far enough. I visited Brandeis a couple years ago and was amazed to find they have an entire building full of books. What do those people think they're doing, running a library? Brandeis needs to jettison these frills and get back to its core mission.

  • Mors Schmart
  • Posted by Will , President at College Access Counseling on January 27, 2009 at 11:52am EST
  • If Brandeis doesn't see its extraordinary art museum as worth preserving, then what else isn't up for grabs? If they're desperate enough to eviscerate themselves to keep operating, perhaps the institution is in even worse shape than this action would indicate. And if a major American liberal arts institution can't be trusted to maintain its art museum, what CAN it be trusted with?
    People who suggest that students can just go to a museum to see paintings are missing the point: Colleges and universities are special places that provide their students with intimate exposure to artwork (and other cultural objects) in an environment that enables them to draw on many varied resources as they become educated. While it's great to have major museums in addition to a campus museum, it's not the same experience of even temporary "possession" of great art. What you're really advocating is outsourcing education, so what's the point of having a Brandeis at all, then?

  • Poor Management!
  • Posted by Bob on January 27, 2009 at 12:07pm EST
  • This is like wiping out your bank account to buy all of the available lottery tickets you can afford in the hopes of winning.

    Since the executive staff can't seem to properly administer the college, lets just sell off a part of the colleges resources,culture and identity for a big payday, and hopefully that will keep us out of trouble in the future. Some assets are more than just financial, but not to the soul of the forlorn bean counter.

    Douglas, art IS part of the university. It is in that whole "universe" part. It is akin to the baseball player selling of his bat, but rationalizing he still has his glove.

    My kingdom for a horse!

  • Where's the middle ground?
  • Posted by Wossamotta U. on January 27, 2009 at 12:07pm EST
  • Is any information available as to how Brandeis plans to manage the expenditure of its endowment as a part of the grander financial scheme? Is $300 million the exact number the university requires? Would $150 million, for instance, do for the moment? That would allow the sale of selected pieces only. Does the university even expect to receive more or less full price for its art? It appears that the Brandeis Trustees are the ones acting hysterically.

  • Posted by DocFrog , VP on January 27, 2009 at 12:26pm EST
  • I wonder, given the hysteria about loosing such a critical intellectual resource, so vital to the life of Brandeis and its students, how many students a year actually use the museum as a resource and how many classes are actually taught in or with its collection and facilties...

    Oh well.

  • Engineering?
  • Posted by Faculty Person on January 27, 2009 at 12:26pm EST
  • I wonder if Brandeis realizes just how expensive engineering education can be? They'll also be competing here with the likes of MIT and Olin (just around Boston).

    Business isn't cheap either.

  • Posted by Curators do not sit around at at a University Art Museum on January 27, 2009 at 1:05pm EST
  • Dear Diogenes,

    I think there IS reason for your hysteria. Too long have we allowed our leaders at all levels to make decisions for us unopposed while we all stand back apathetically shaking our heads. Hopefully, this situation will spark conversation about the ethics, the leadership, and the loss of public trust at stake here and the importance and non-monetary value of our national collection of fine and liberal arts.

  • Survival Trumps All?
  • Posted by Arthur Lee on January 27, 2009 at 1:05pm EST
  • Sad that Bandeis trustees felt they had to make Sophie's choice. It seems a dubious educational decision and may negatively impact the value of their brand - which is built in large part on the knowledge they are perceived to impart for the price of a degree. On the other hand, being first to market is commercially sound if they feel other institutions will be "obligated" to take this route. Brand value should be paramount. It seems here that survival trumped all. This is a clear sign that the collision of fiscal imperatives with academic ones will come more frequent.

  • Posted by David on January 27, 2009 at 1:25pm EST
  • Before you get outraged about the closing of a valuable art resource in the Boston metro region, take a look at the building. It looks like the entrance to a mall food court in the 80s. It looks like it's probably curated by Edina from AbFab (and at Brandeis, it almost certainly is).

    How many people from the broader community actually attend to view the art inside, and how much would it cost the uni to renovate?

  • Easy to complain, but...
  • Posted by Observer on January 27, 2009 at 1:25pm EST
  • As Trachtenberg notes above, its very easy to complain about this decision - who wouldn't WANT to keep an art museum with such treasures open? - but it is incumbent upon anybody who disagrees with this decision to offer an alternative. What would you cut to keep the Museum open? Tenure-lines, adjuncts, benefits, athletic teams, etc. ? The value of these artworks means their sacrifice will cover a tremendous amount of Brandeis's economic problems.

    I don't think any of us know enough about the donor negotiations, and whether Brandeis can do this legally.

    But the biggest thing missing - the buried lede in this story (in journalese) - is any precise of estimate of the economic hole in which Brandeis finds itself. The Madoff scandal severely damaged the Carl Shapiro Foundation funds that have played a huge role in Brandeis fundraising for decades. Add to the fact that the Madoff scandal is - reportedly - causing a "chilling effect" on Jewish philanthropy in general, and I think we can safely assume that Brandeis is facing a far more serious economic crisis than most colleges in the US right now.

    And the loss of endowment value is but one variable here - Universities have commitments that require economic planning into the future. Its clear that Brandeis's problems going forward are much worse than the shrinking endowment. For instance: Brandeis deferred maintainance for so long that its pool was deemed unusable, and the swim teams are now forced to practice at neighboring schools... That's just one example of how over-extended the place is.

    I'm willing to believe that the Trustees know much, much more about the truth of the University's finances than we do.

  • brandeis
  • Posted by anon on January 27, 2009 at 2:01pm EST
  • I have kept my name anon becasue I have a son at Brandeis. As bad as finances may be at Brandeis, the housing is wretched. Clearly they have spend precious little to make living decent for the undergrads at the school and what money they have has gone elsewhere. Brandeis is anything but inexpensive.

    Now from my experienece, I seem to recall that one way you get selected to be a trustee at any university is that you are a know public figure or you have lots of money. Or both. Why not have board members kick in and try to save the art collection? Or at least make an attempt.

    We can be snarky and note that the school need not worry because Boston has museums.
    They also have gyms, other schools, etc so why not simply make the school go away and use Boston facilities?

    Brandeis like many schools has lost a lot of money through a terrible economic period, and they seem also to have lost money because of Mr. Made Off.

    Recently the faculty discussed taking a pay giveback to help out. But I did not see anything about administrators giving back any of their salaries.

  • Sad day at Brandeis
  • Posted by EngProf on January 27, 2009 at 3:12pm EST
  • As a professor, an alumni of a liberal arts college, a parent and donor at another liberal college, and the parent of a high-achieving junior in high school, I would share these thoughts. Brandeis does need to focus on its core mission - that of a liberal arts school. If my alma matar or that of my daughter ever took such action, the money train would stop immediately. Brandeis was on my younger daughter's list, but has been removed. Why would I pay the money that Brandeis charges for that which I can get at any public university for considerably less? A University museum isn't a place to "visit" like a public museum. It is a place to study, reflect, relax - for many students on a daily basis. Anyone who does not understand the difference between a university or college art museum and a public one must never have had the pleasure of the experience. I was not an art major - but I am a different human for the experience.

  • Posted by Jennifer at Zoo New England on January 27, 2009 at 3:12pm EST
  • I'm glad to see my own graduate alma mater's former president commenting here (GWU). Gives me two reasons to reply--I live in Waltham, and honestly, I couldn't even tell you to how to find the Rose Museum. I could definitely get you to the MFA in under an hour without a car, though. Or head the opposite direction--twenty minutes tops to the De Cordova Museum and Sculpture Garden. Brandeis is facing what a LOT of NFPs are facing--endowments aren't what they used to be, and schools have a special problem--if they keep raising tuition, getting rid of faculty and programming, and losing basic services, they will not be able to continue to operate. They need money, and they need students, and a business program will bring in more students than an art museum. I echo Trachtenberg--where are they supposed to get the money for everything? If you don't cut the museum, what DO you cut?

  • I’m Siding With Judith Shapiro
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on January 27, 2009 at 4:50pm EST
  • As always, I am impressed with the logic of Judith Shapiro. She is right on the money when she says “ ... Brandeis is located in a metropolitan area with great [art] collections.” Had she been “offered” the Rose Art Museum when she was president at Barnard, I can just hear her saying, “Thanks but no thanks ... somehow we can make do with MOMA, the Met, etc. etc. etc.”

    Pushing her logic to its illogical extreme, however – and with a little help from GoogleMap – I counted more than thirty colleges and universities within a stone’s throw of Brandeis, several of which are amongst the finest in the world. And it’s not even arguable that Massachusetts has upwards of a dozen of the best liberal arts colleges in our fair land. I’m quite certain the Brandeis Board of Trustees could sell off the entire university (founded in 1948) and its 3,200 undergraduate and 2,100 graduate students would discover they can still get damned good educations without even leaving the neighborhood.

    If that won’t “bolster the institutions finances” I miss my bet.

  • A Sign of Our Times?
  • Posted by Al Giambrone , Professor Emeritus, Retired at Sinclair Community College on January 27, 2009 at 5:35pm EST
  • All too often in our society financial exigency trumps ethics. That which is practical and nourishes our bodies like science and business takes precedence over that which is beautiful and nourishes our souls like art and even morality. Is this situation an example? I don't make those kinds of judgements when it is not my responsibility to do so and I certainly wouldn't make such a judgement based only upon an article. But as for principles by which to judge: I think it is well to keep the University afloat, but certainly not if it is at the expense of ethical standards and perhaps not even if it is at the expense of a supposedly expendable component of education such as beauty. But I do judge that there is too little outrage at this movement in our society which seeks to dismantle that which makes man noble in favor of that which makes him economically robust. But no need for despair. There will always be art and there will always be those who speak out for truth, beauty, justice and virtue. The human drive for these things is too strong not to prevail.

  • What to cut?
  • Posted by Shane in Utah on January 27, 2009 at 7:15pm EST
  • "it is incumbent upon anybody who disagrees with this decision to offer an alternative. What would you cut to keep the Museum open? Tenure-lines, adjuncts, benefits, athletic teams, etc. ?"

    Athletic teams. Next question?...

  • This decision *bolsters* art education
  • Posted by Cynic on January 27, 2009 at 7:40pm EST
  • I'm stunned by the tone of some of the comments on this thread.

    Many readers seem to take the decision of the Board of Trustees as a repudiation of the arts in general, and of their centrality to a well-rounded education in particular. In fact, that gets things exactly backwards. Strange though it may seem, the decision by Brandeis is an endorsement of the importance of art education - and that's the most appropriate role for a university to fill.

    Brandeis is in fiscal crisis for a variety of reasons. It's unusually heavily reliant, for a research university, on undergraduate tuition. It has an endowment smaller than many peer institutions to begin with, and that endowment has lost a good chunk of its value. Some of its donors have been hit hard by the Madoff scandal. But the most important factor is one I haven't seen covered - an obscure Massachusetts law which prevents it from accessing those portions of its endowment that are now worth less than the sum of the original gift. (In other words, a professorship endowed with a $2m gift, which funded the chair and swelled to $2.5m in principal, but has now dipped to $1.9m due to the market crash - such a gift can't be touched again until it recovers its original value.) So the university undertook ongoing financial commitments with gifted dollars, and now can't use those gifts to fund them. Something's got to give.

    So what has that to do with an arts education? Well, Brandeis has a projected operating budget gap of at least $10 million. It's already decided to cut the number of GSAS students it accepts in half, as a preliminary to the wholesale elimination of some programs. It has proposed cutting 10% of the faculty, increasing undergraduate enrollment, and consolidating majors, among other initiatives. What are the odds, in this day and age, that programs in the arts would have emerged unscathed in such a process? As others have pointed out, they're generally the first to go.

    Instead of trimming the educational opportunities of undergraduates, however, Brandeis elected to sell off a collection that's hardly ever seen the light of day. The Rose is a gem of a museum, but devotes its paltry gallery space mainly to temporary shows and emerging artists. The loss of the Rose will undoubtedly be keenly felt by some on campus. But the museum itself will be converted into "a fine arts teaching center with studio space and an exhibition gallery." In other words, there will be more space devoted to arts education. More room to exhibit student works. More resources for budding artists. And that's an assault on the arts?

    Brandeis is not a museum. Its prime aim is not the preservation or display of objects. In an ideal world, it would have ample funds, and be able to avoid painful choices. But ask yourselves this: if Brandeis were to receive a $350 million gift, and spend it all amassing a collection of modern and contemporary masters while laying off faculty and slashing programs, wouldn't we be outraged?

    (An aside to those who suggested selling a portion of the works: I'm sure that was the solution the Trustees would have preferred. But as the indignation and condemnation of the art world confirms, that was not a viable option. An art museum that deaccessioned works to meet the needs of its parent institution would have been ostracized: other museums would have refused to lend it works for shows, and scholars would have been discouraged from taking positions or collaborating. If the art world took a less extreme view of strategic deaccessioning, I suspect Brandeis would have sold off those works that were worth millions, and continued to use the thousands of others in the collection for their original purpose - to inspire, educate, and stimulate. The Rose would have been a stronger educational institution for the sales. But by insisting that the issue is black-and-white, leaders of the art world forced Brandeis into an all-or-nothing decision. And if they're dissatisfied with the outcome, I hope they'll reconsider their absolutism.)

  • Brandeis Art Sale
  • Posted by Thomas M. Berger , Adjunct Professor at George Washington University on January 27, 2009 at 9:45pm EST
  • The underlying tragedy might be a failure to undertake serious financial planning and to have made the truly difficult decisions earlier, thus avoiding this drastic measure. The only positive...I now have an outstanding teaching case for my class in financial management.

    Thomas M. Berger
    Adjunct Professor
    Graduate Program in Museum Studies
    George Washington University
    Washington, DC

  • Posted by truth on January 28, 2009 at 5:25am EST
  • what's the fuss all about? The director clearly stated that he does not care about art anymore and that the financial strain or something is keeping him from profiting... Forget brandies, selling works of some of its own past students that were entrusted to their, THEIR museum - is similar of moving your parents to a nursing home and selling their house... funny i know

  • Brandeis white sale
  • Posted by J. Stephen Lahr , Professor at Valdosta State University on January 28, 2009 at 1:10pm EST
  • Wow, what a unique concept, times are tough, let’s get rid of the art. This seems to me to be fuzzy thinking and a total knee jerk reaction. The proposed selling of this unique art collection actually points out how unsophisticated many so called higher education administrators really are. If indeed the collection is looked at as a "stock portfolio" these challenged folk overlooked a very important fact, artworks are unique holdings that almost always appreciate in value. So it gets sold for $600 million minus fees, what will be the value in say five or ten years, a $100,000? Do the math.

  • Posted by Dennis Ruhl on February 1, 2009 at 11:10am EST
  • Is this a short term solution for long term incompetence? What do they sell after they've piddled away the proceeds? Why would anyone donate anything realizing that their desires are irrelevant to the school? How do they plow through possible thousands of conditional bequests without making mistakes and ticking off a lot of people?

    As trustees of culture they fail. Is it time for a national art trust which selectively accepts individual works of art or collections on the condition that they will permanently retained? They could then be lent to galleries and museums per the bequester's desire for as long as the gallery makes appropriate use of them. Any national art trust should be prohibited from operating its own gallery.

  • Posted by Laura on February 3, 2009 at 11:00am EST
  • I am currently an Art History major (not meta-major) at Carleton University of Ottawa. Being in Canada's capital city, we do have the luxury of having the country's largest art collection at the national gallery. But it's not merely for the appreciation that we have them, they are an integral aspect of our curriculum seeing these works first hand and understanding the mechanics and techniques of these esteemed artists.
    My jaw hit the floor upon reading the names of the artists present at the Rose Gallery, and I was immediately disheartened at the thought of losing these pieces to private collections. It would be depriving the liberal arts students of a primary source, one that is so varigated, rich with history and context, all for the sake of making a few extra bucks for the short term. And to add insult to injury, the money would be alloted to other areas of the campus - what appears to me as another nail in the coffin of artistic study.
    I wish that these pieces would remain as reminders, some of them being created during the time of economic strife in the 1930s, to enhance the college experience of students in all programs of study.

  • Some things never change...
  • Posted by Univ. Retiree , Dir. IT at Univ. of CT on February 11, 2009 at 2:56pm EST
  • In the early 1970's when Reagan was Gov. of the State of California, he proposed cost savings by ceasing purchase of library books for the University Libraries' as well as selling their Special Collections.

    There's just no telling what parts of Universities' collections or assets can be targeted for sale when times are difficult.

    A strategic planning process that involves the Brandeis faculty, students, staff, alums, administration and others, might be able to offer constructive solutions to their fiscal crisis. It is possible that the collective wisdom of a broader representative group, would be able to identify courses of action that were overlooked by the Board of Trustees.

  • Selling museum collections
  • Posted by Simon Storey at Freelace advisor to treasury on cultural worth on February 12, 2009 at 6:25am EST
  • There is no doubt in my mind that major works noted for de-accession should be listed for at least ten years before such action. In that tn years economics, tastes and appreciation may change. The thought of a major Jackson Pollack being sold, perhaps never to be studied or loved again by students and lovers of art is appalling. I am currently involved with the reappraisal of Jackson's Blue Poles, his "Masterpiece". It is a hypothetical thought but if it was sold we diminish our culture as much as the Taliban blowing up the famous Buddhist sculptures.
    I say wait. There will always be an angel to pay the gas bills with out sacrificing culture.