New Law to Prevent Gallery Auctions in New York

by Annie Scott (RSS feed)
Aug 10th 2009 at 8:02PM

Endowments are losing money, which means art museums have less to pay their staff and run their galleries. The solution? Well, they can fire some of their staff, or they can sell off some of their art.

Wealth-Bulletin reports that New York lawmakers are looking for ways to keep the latter from happening. After all, the last thing we want is for the recession to result in less art in our museums. There are already some laws about "de-accessioning" in place, but the newly proposed bill intends to make selling off collections to raise money for operating expenses more difficult. "State Senator Richard Brodsky, a co-sponsor of the bill that could set a legal precedent if enacted, said it came at the behest of the museum community and was drafted with the support of the Museum Association of New York," reports Wealth-Bulletin. "The bill would permit museums to sell collections only if the proceeds could be used for acquisitions or for the preservation, protection and care of works in the collection."

We'd love to think that this will incite museums to find creative ways to save money -- like better energy efficiency -- but realize that this will probably mean jobs, and a $12 sandwich instead of a $10 one at the cafe. Institutions have already raised admission fees, put a hold on expansion plans, and limited special events and new exhibits.

This bill comes in the wake of a controversial sale by the National Academy Museum, which sold Sanford Robinson Gifford's "Mount Mansfield, Vermont, 1859," and Frederic Edwin Church's "Scene on the Magdalene" from 1854 to raise $13.5 million. According to Wealth-Bulletin, "An Academy spokeswoman defended the deal, which she said was done in the face of "serious financial danger" and to protect its 7,000-piece collection focused on American art. The spokeswoman said: 'It's not like we went out and spent the money or handed it to AIG.'"

It's hard to decide which corner to cut in tough economic times.

I remember being asked once if I were in a burning building and had the chance to save one anonymous human being or the last existing copy of Shakespeare's Complete Works, which would I choose?

[via Wealth-Bulletin]

Tags: art, auctions, new york, NewYork

Filed under: Auctions, Art

Subscribe to these comments

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Matthew Kinsey Aug 11th 2009 1:45PM

Selling work from a permanent collection is one decision which can't be undone. I recently visited a small regional museum, hoping to see the few old master works in the collection. The Van Dyck grisaille was gone, likewise the miniature Turner biblical scene, and a very nice Tiepolo as well. When I asked if they were in storage or removed for cleaning, I was told the museum had auctioned several works, and the resulting sale brought in a huge amount of money. I asked what was planned for the newly acquired funds; apparently the museum is actively acquiring collections of 19th and 20th c local pottery, and they currently display an area patron's doll collection.

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to pass laws preventing administrators from screwing up museums. It may be better if those decisions are advised by the public served by the institutions. It's too bad, however, when art objects take centuries to find a home in a public gallery, only to be passed on to private collectors once again. Hopefully the individual lucky enough to own the Van Dyck will eventually donate it to a public gallery... probably not in my lifetime, though.

Matthew Kinsey
www.matthewkinsey.com

Annie Scott Aug 11th 2009 2:04PM

Thank you, Matthew, for your thoughtful comment. I like your idea about decisions being advised by the community. I suppose the museums want to be hush-hush about their financial problems, especially so donors don't start saying "well what did you do with the $2 million I gave you?"

Perhaps if they opened their books, communities could find ways to help protect the art in their areas.