= Premium Content

  • Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Berkeley Accidentally Sells Million-Dollar Sculpture for a Pittance

February 21, 2012, 2:27 pm

How does a university lose an artwork and then accidentally sell it? The astonishing saga is detailed in today’s New York Times. When the University of California at Berkeley took possession of the California School for the Deaf and Blind building, in the 1980s, it obtained a rare 22-foot-long wood-carved sculpture, designed for the building in the 1930s by the acclaimed Harlem Renaissance artist Sargent Johnson. But as the building deteriorated, the university removed the sculpture to storage space, where it was considered safer. Then, over some 20 years, Berkeley lost track of the artwork and eventually labeled it “surplus” property. In 2009 it sold the carving for $164.63 (including tax). The buyer then resold the sculpture, and it now resides at the Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens, in California. The purchase price was not disclosed, but an expert in African-American art estimated it at more than $1-million. A Berkeley official said the university regretted its “error of ignorance.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • nivek

    As a former resident of Mississippi, I’ve been watching this unfold from afar.  It’s a bold strategy by the anti-abortion crowd–”settle” the science via popular vote by a largely scientifically illiterate population.  I confidently assert that the amendment will pass by a wide margin, even in Oktibbeha and Lafayette counties.  Indeed, abortion is effectively illegal in Mississippi anyway as there is only one clinic in the whole state where a woman may receive one.

    One point of correction, though:  I assume you mean Jackson, the state capital, rather than Jacksonville, a large city in Florida (or a small one in Alabama).

  • cwm4c

    Be careful not to discount the public, especially if not college educated, as scientifically illiterate.  There was a great study released recently that shows your education level is actually inverse to scientific positions held. So those of us that do well, actually really well and get graduate degrees, are less discerning.  Cultural beliefs actually drive what the public (and the acdeme) believes with science, and more education on the facts is actually detrimental:
    http://www.culturalcognition.net/browse-papers/the-tragedy-of-the-risk-perception-commons-culture-conflict.html

  • Barbara Piper

    Prof. Berlinerblau: It is not necessary to appeal to this somewhat extreme case to highlight problems with the proposed Mississippi amendment. Many forms of routine birth control ‘work’ by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting or adhering to the uterus wall, and use of those common forms of birth control – including hormone based birth control pills and IUDs — could well be regarded as murder under the proposed legislation.

  • cwm4c

    Be careful not to discount the public, especially if not college educated, as scientifically illiterate.  There was a great study released recently that shows your education level is actually inverse to scientific positions held. So those of us that do well, actually really well and get graduate degrees, are less discerning.  Cultural beliefs actually drive what the public (and the acdeme) believes with science, and more education on the facts is actually detrimental:

    http://www.culturalcognition.net/browse-papers/the-tragedy-of-the-risk-perception-commons-culture-conflict.html

  • theatheist

    JB:

    The tenor of these questions strikes me as a bit naive, especially for this venue. Since when has any legislative body expected that a law could be enforced 100% effectively? Speed limit violations are illustrative here. The vast majority go uncaught and unpunished. If the example seems to trivialize the matter, then consider the large number of violent crimes that likewise go unsolved. The fact that some behaviors can not easily be detected and punished is not, in itself, a strong argument against outlawing them.

    Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not making an argument in favor of the law. I just think that if you’re going to attack it, there are probably stronger premises.

  • fizmath

    Jacques, the purpose of the law has nothing to do with your hypothetical scenario.  It is simply to bring back the system we had years ago when abortion was illegal.

    So, tell us, when is someone considered alive and under the protections of the law?  If it is at birth then exactly at which moment?  Halfway out or completely outside?  What principles do you employ to make this determination? 

  • ledzep

    theatheist and fizmath bring up good points. We’re talking about law here, not some system that requires perfect consistency, especially when it comes to enforceability. It is important to raise questions about the consequences of the premise that the right to life begins at conception, sure, but this often becomes special pleading. As fizmath points out, the current law recognizes, in principle, a full-fledged right to life after birth. But as those on the anti-abortion side point out, what’s the ethical difference between a partial-birth abortion (or whatever you want to call it – just describing it is more horrific than the supposedly biased term I just used) and normal induced birth with immediately subsequent infanticide?
    That comparison aside, though, the general point is this: it’s perfectly rational (and normal in legal contexts) to uphold some principle but recognize that other realities constrain its enforceability in certain kinds of contexts, or limit the kind of penalties that ought to be imposed (cf. the concept of immunity), etc. There’s no reason these kinds of reasoning, so typical in legal matters, should be implicitly ruled out of bounds.
    Finally, as to “zygote fetishism,” could you instead call it “hyperactive concern for the universality of the most basic human right”? It’s not an easy question where to draw the boundary of the magic circle – who gets to be counted part of the community of persons. Historically that circle has expanded – in many cultures a prohibition on infanticide would have (and still might be) regarded as “infant fetishism.”

  • ledzep

    One could also bring up Good Samaritan laws here, or rather a sort of “positive duty” extension of such laws. Obviously there are lots of things we can’t morally or legally do to other people, which nonetheless we don’t have a positive duty to prevent if we see them happening (much less if we think they might be happening somewhere nearby). There may be little moral difference between letting something happen and making it happen, in some circumstances, but it’s not crazy at all to think that the law should make a distinction along those lines – in fact it often does. There are always boundary cases that can call into question the consistency of enforcement regimes – that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have well-defined laws.

  • jacquesberlinerblau

    Hmm, where do I begin?

    Theatheist: speeding violations are a really, really bad analogy to draw with what we have been discussing. Speeding takes place, after all, in the public domain on land regulated by the government. Do I have to point out the difference between a stretch of road and a woman’s uterus? Or to use your logic: this is a crime so hard to detect that many of the “criminals” (i.e., the hypothetical drinking woman) have not detected it themselves!

    Ledzep: do you care to elaborate on your “good samaritan” scenario? Here the conscientious citizen would do what? Report a possible instance of fertilization to the authorities? Is this the type of society you want to live in? Is that a free society? Is that a society that in any way can be said to respect the liberty of its citizens?

    Barbara Piper: my case is not extreme. It is typical. Most women are not aware that conception has occurred at the moment of conception. If these laws stand, then they render all who fall into this category susceptible to who knows what form of state sanction. I am not quite sure why you yourself feel the need to draw this distinction.

    Nivek: I stand corrected on Jackson. Please excuse the error.

  • Barbara Piper

    Prof. Berlinerblau: my point was simply that a common, ordinary, daily practice could be banned, lest women who use several forms of birth control or the ‘morning-after’ pill be accused of murder. We do not disagree about anything substantive. And you may be aware that there have been cases of women being charged with criminal liability in damage to fetuses from excessive alcohol or other drug use, and you are right to draw attention to the possibility that this could become routine in Mississippi.

  • ledzep

    You could start by not misreading egregiously – just a suggestion. My point was exactly the opposite – that having a law against actively doing X to another human being doesn’t entail having a law requiring citizens, at serious expense to their liberty, to prevent X from happening. And one might expect that distinction would be very applicable when the right to life of A is problematically intertwined with the liberty of B. Basically, I think it’s very reasonable to question, as you do, what the implications of this amendment would be – are any women who might become pregnant therefore required to seriously limit their behavior and free choices? – but I don’t think it’s reasonable to use those questions as an argument that the principle in question is “fetishism.”
    Cards on the table: I actually believe in the principle that all human beings have a presumptive right not to be killed by others. So call me a zygote fetishist, I guess. Human beings are a) worthy of moral respect and b) biological entities. I realize that this brings up all sorts of thorny issues around the beginning stages of human life, issues that can’t be treated properly without respect for women’s human rights. And of course you’re right that just declaring personhood doesn’t adequately deal with those issues. I’m just saying that that doesn’t tell against the principle itself, and that one can defend the latter and (without vicious inconsistency) deny that women should be held legally at fault for increasing the possibility of early miscarriage, etc. etc.

  • propson

    “Is the God-fearing woman now a murderer according to Mississippi state law? Is her husband an accomplice to murder?”

    Um.  Murder is, last time I checked, both wrongful and intentional killing.  You cannot accidentally commit murder.  Your extreme case is just silly.

  • Barbara Piper

    Check again. Murder in the second degree is unintentional.

    I do believe that the circumstances that Prof. Berlinerblau describes are extremely rare, but I also know that pregnant women have been charged with crimes for using cocaine and other drugs harmful to a fetus, including alcohol; his scenario, while unusual, is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

  • Kate McCarty

    This is very sad. Since it’s in the Huntington, it’s still in public view, but it seems that since this was publicly owned, it should be somehow reclaimed at least in the sense that it cannot later be resold out of the public view.

  • suburbprof

    Correct me if I’m mistaken, but isn’t this the same campus whose library gratefully received dozens of original, irreplaceable posters for black musicians from the 1930s – 1950s, then allowed a student to cut them up so that pieces could be used in a collage of some kind?

  • Marie M

    At least now it’s nor rotting in some storage facility 

  • mtboots

    Keep your eyes on the prize.

  • Socratease2

    When is the next surplus sale at Berkeley taking place?

  • http://www.facebook.com/melisacgalvan Melisa Galván

    Maybe Berkeley should be the next venue for the show “Storage Wars”?

  • berkeleyprof

    The New York Times piece also mentioned that Berkeley had a chance to buy back the artwork–but passed, because funds are (very, very) short on campus.  MInd you, the Chancellor could have used money from his discretionary accounts.  In fact, he tapped deeply into this money for sports while we were shrugging our shoulders regarding the artwork: in 2008-2009,  $8.893-million and in 2009-2010, $9.953-million.

    This is an apt metaphor for what is happening on campus.  We are so short of staff, we casually and without proper review cut things of real value in an effort to look efficient; simultaneously somewhere else on campus, the bread-and-circuses strategy remains robust.

  • janesdaughter

    The case should be required reading for all Museum Studies courses. Sad to say, there are cases of poorly handled “deacessioning” in museums across the country, the difference here being that a lucky museum won the prize rather than losing it.

  • jamesebryan

    I would not be surprised if colleges and universities do things like this as often as not.  Generally speaking, institutions of higher learning, with the exception of those at the very top, have pretty poor records as stewards of historic properties and artifacts.  Sooner or later, money gets tight, some bean counter decides that maintaining culture isn’t part of the core mission of the institution, granting degrees is, and things are disposed of, eliminated, bulldozed, etc.  How many monumental academic buildings have been demolished to be replaced by nondescript concrete and glass boxes because the latter are cheaper to maintain than the former?  How many monumental academic buildings have been damaged and repaired enough to be put back into service but not restored to their original glory?  How many stories has the Chronicle run about institutions attempting to sell artworks or properties left to them by donors who expected their legacies to form part of the instructional resources of those institutions?  What’s most surprising about this is that it didn’t happen at Podunk State Technical College, which doesn’t even have an arts program, this happened at one of the most prominent universities in the country, which offers doctorates in art history.  (I’m pretty certain nobody in the Dept. of Art History was consulted, because nobody in surplus looked at the thing, decided it looked like art, and thought to consult the in-house experts before taking irreversible action.)  Incidents like this are one of the reasons why, if I were a wealthy collector, a university would be the last place I would bequeath any valuable objects I wanted preserved for posterity.

  • jesor

    While many colleges and universities do serve as repositories for cultural artifacts, how many students do not have the chance to learn at the feet of the great sages that inhabit them because their pocketbooks don’t pass the bursar’s admissions test?  How many additional students will be denied that opportunity after tuition is raised in the name of preserving a building that in it’s time was probably considered just as crass a monument to a donor’s ego as the new glass and concrete boxes that you disparage now?  I would hate to be the one to tell a student “I’m sorry, I know you’re a brilliant student and have made great intellectual contributions to the classes that you’ve been in, but we ran out of need grants since we had to spend money polishing the marble…..I’m sure you understand that as educational institutions we have to maintain our priorities”

    As for your advice to potential art donors, I agree.   Give the piece to a museum where it will be properly cared for, that’s what museums are for.  They are where students and the public can still visit and study it. Then take the tax savings you’ll get and give them to a scholarship fund.

  • jamesebryan

    Please don’t think that I feel that, all things considered, the artifacts are more important than the students, but I do think we could enter a debate as to exactly how educational missions are accomplished and whether some marble polishing might in fact be a legitimate means to educational ends and some students might not be good fits worth abandoning all other expenses in order to aid.  As a scholar of material culture I know people are influenced by their surroundings as much as they influence them, and so the cheapest, most easily maintained facilities are not always the best environments for shaping intellects or inspiring excellence, and that there are intangible benefits to encountering wonders directly rather than in reproduction that make holding costly collections worthwhile.  Moreover, I’m willing to bet lots more is being spent insuring the high-six-figure salaries of scads of top administrators than is being spent on marble polishing at the places where there is still marble in need of polishing, so let’s be certain about what is raising the costs of elite education to prohibitive levels before we praise lowest-bid-always-gets-the-contract-no-matter-what architecture. 

    I am glad we are like minded as to the risks of donating to educational institutions.  On my limited means now I only contribute to encumbered funds directed at exactly what I believe in, and if I ever can donate more it will definitely only be in the form of money with lots of strings attached.   Along those lines, I will add that if I did think a university could always use more money to better effect than it can use a masterpiece, and all masterpieces should be sold to add to the funds available, at the very least Berkeley should have gotten its money’s worth instead of selling the sculpture for less than the price of a good dinner at a four-star restaurant.

  • zagros

    Unless I am misreading your statement completely (which is possible and, if so, I apologize for that), your argument seems to imply a complete disparagement of private property rights. If a public entity sells something, even if it is sold erroneously, to a private individual, that individual has every right to do with it what he or she wants (including hide it from public view or [gasp!], destroy it). We cannot just decide on a “public exemption” to this process. The sole exception would be the selling of something that has been stolen since the seller of the property would not have proper title. However, if you have proper title and sell something, even if you didn’t realize the value of it at the time, how can you possibly use “buyer’s regret” as an excuse to reclaim it.

    To do otherwise would be equivalent to saying the following, “I really didn’t mean to sell those shares of Apple stock when it was trading for $5 back. Maybe I should force the buyer to give them back to me now that Apple stock is trading above $300….”

  • Kate McCarty

    Hi — Just to set the record straight, I don’t want to violate anyone’s or any institution’s private property right, but I think the Huntington, in a gesture of public interest, might pledge to try and keep this piece available for public view. If it’s true that this is the second foul-up Berkeley has had with African-American art, the school might do something appropriate, like create an endowment for black artworks or something similar.

Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.