Previous |
Next |
February 02, 2009, 01:59 PM ET
More on the Rose
Laurie Fendrich has already done such a fabulous job commenting on the ramifications of the decision of the Brandeis mandarins to shutter their lapidary art museum that I hesitate to jump in at this point. But for anyone who requires a primer in how utterly and woefully rotten the deal is, please read Roberta Smith’s article in today’s New York Times.
Putting the Rose’s collection up for sale is an idiotic decision on every level. Students of art history feel that their diploma is debased. Donors rightfully feel swindled. Curators and museum staff were caught unawares — Rose director Michael Rush late last week was imploring Brandeis alumni not to send donations, since the museum had done the wonderful job of balancing its books without depending on the university at all. (Not only was the museum costing Brandeis nothing, it kicked back 15 percent of all its independent fund raising to the school.)
Interviewed by Tyler Green, Rush said, “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.”
Education suffers from this decision. So does commitment, vision, and the sort of enlightened patronage that those who supported the very young university when the Rose was founded in 1961 believed in and gave meaning to. Even if the decision is reversed — and there is tremendous pressure on the university’s short-sighted president, Jehuda Reinharz, to do so — why would anyone ever donate to the Rose in the future? For that matter, what incentive would exist for anyone to donate to any university art collection after Brandeis’s precedent?
And a precedent it is. Universities have been involved in controversial deaccessioning moves previously, but never on this scale, and never so happily announcing that their educational and cultural mission is contingent on a smoothly running economy.
Add Your Comment
Commenting is closed.