Posts

2017-12-29 - Berkshire Museum exterior

Museums & the Public Interest: More Questions for the Berkshire Museum

Ruth Osborne
2017-12-29 - Berkshire Museum exterior

Courtesy: Ben Garver — The Berkshire Eagle

 

An opinion piece appeared earlier this month by an economist at George Mason University (D.C.) that emphasized the right of the Berkshire Museum Board to make the decision to sell art and shift its focus to “new areas where they can be strong and discard some older activities”. He compares the Museum Board in question with the actions of other museums to add to their displays either more recent artworks or those by minorities in order to expand their offerings and diversify their audience. But to empty out ones galleries of prized works as a way to keep the Museum itself afloat is an entirely different scenario. The Berkshire is not simply changing with the times and becoming more “high-tech”, nor is it shifting focus because art isn’t as captivating as science and technology are to contemporary audiences. The latter alone has been proven by the hoards of Museum members and locals advocating legal action against the deaccession sales.

The author does ultimately admit that the Museum Board’s decision “isn’t exactly the original intent of the museum”, and that the rather careless attitude towards the American art in their collection is a “sad truth”. The dismissiveness of the Berkshire Museum Board towards its own collection and founding 1903 mission of connecting art and natural history for the public is alarming. Why choose one over the other? Was it because the sale of works of art instead of natural history specimens promised more financial uplift to their endowment?

Just two weeks ago, previously detained documents were released that reveal some less-than-savory details about the Board’s process in making their final decision to sell of collection masterpieces (read: money-makers).

The documents contained reports to the Museum Board from TDC, a Boston-based museum consultant group. Under TDC’s  “summary of capitalization needs”, the Berkshire Museum needs around $2 mil would be required to pay down debt and upwards of $6 mil on top of that to improve the site’s facilities. In addition, TDC advised that $23 million in permanent endowments (the Museum’s current is just over $7 mil), would round out their ability to “stabilize [their] operations on multiple dimensions.” The report insisted that a scenario involving no deaccessions, and therefore no sales, would be absolutely “unsustainable”. From looking at this report, without  deaccessions, the museum would seemingly have no other choice but to close. Anyone see any issue here with how the Museum’s mission is being perceived?

2017-12-29 - Berkshire Museum Board Meeting report

Courtesy: artnet

These scenarios place the institution itself over the importance of the works for which the institution was founded. Between April and October of 2016, around the same time that TDC’s “Scenario summaries” were issued to the Board, they also welcomed both Sotheby’s and Christie’s to take valuation of its collection and see what could fit the bill to make a little cash. Turns out that the artworks they put on the chopping block – 40 out of tens of thousands in the collection – accounted for about 90% of its total value. How are the works that only make up 10% of the collection’s value to support such a sharp shift in mission? Will new audiences actually turn out in the numbers needed to justify this campaign?

Besides being scolded by the many community members it is supposed to serve, and directors at the renowned Peabody Essex Museum (Salem, MA), the Berkshire’s flinging off of AAM regulations has resulted in the loss of its Smithsonian partnership. The AAM, along with the Association of Art Museum Directors also issued a statement on the Berkshire’s decision that read:

Such a sale sends a message to existing and prospective donors that museums can raise funds by selling parts of their collection, thereby discouraging not only financial supporters, who may feel that their support isn’t needed, but also donors of artworks and artifacts, who may fear that their cherished objects could be sold at any time to the highest bidder to make up for a museum’s budget shortfalls. That cuts to the heart not only of the Berkshire Museum, but every museum in the United States.

/0 Comments/by

Museum Mismanagement On Trial: The Berkshire Museum Taken to Court.

Ruth Osborne

2017-11-13 - Thomas Wilmer Dewing The White Dress

Thomas Wilmer Dewing, The White Dress, 1901. Courtesy: Berkshire Fine Arts.

The story of the Berkshire Museum’s massive deaccession sale and change of mission over the past 5 months has been one that mirrors a rapidly tottering see-saw.

 

We reported a few months back on the Berkshire Museum’s planned sale of 40 masterworks in its collection due to failed finances and a decision to “rebrand” their institution. First, the Board of the Museum had decided to sell the works with Sotheby’s before it actually cast votes in June and the public became aware. According to Keating, attorney for the sons of Norman Rockwell (two of whose works were deaccessioned and slated for auction), the Museum “could have avoided [the sale] if they perhaps…had been willing to discuss this two and a half years ago when they decided to sell the art”. Keating has also told reporters that the Museum in fact engaged in talks with auction houses as early as 2015 in light of a failed capital campaign.

Then, two lawsuits were brought by several important members of the national arts community as well as the Museum’s local community have taken a stand against the sale. These included the Massachusets State Attorney General, the family of Norman Rockwell, and current and former Museum members. On Wednesday, Nov. 1st, the Superior Court began hearing arguments.

Just 7 days later, on Nov. 8th, the AG’s office submitted an emergency motion late in the day in order to try and halt the sale, which had been announced for November 13th. However, despite these measures, the judge proceeded to the decision that the Museum was acting within its rights.

AND THEN, after the AG launched yet another motion in an attempt to halt the sale on Friday morning Nov. 10th, Friday evening the judge agreed that the AG should in fact receive more time to complete the investigation into the sale. Due to this decision, works slated for auction this week have been removed from their sales at Sotheby’s. The AG has reportedly been granted until December 11th to consider the legality of the sales.

 

2017-11-13 - Normal Rockwell Shuffleton's Barbershop

Normal Rockwell, Shuffleton’s Barbershop, 1959. Courtesy: Berkshire Fine Arts.

As of this moment, the American Art sale at Sotheby’s New York is ongoing, BUT there are several lots missing. Those being nos. 10-16:

10. Normal Rockwell, Shuffleton’s Barbershop, est. $20,000,000-30,000,000

11. George Henry Durrie, Hunter in Winter Wood, est. $400,000-600,000

12. John La Farge, Magnolia, est. $200,000-300,000

13. Thomas Wilmer Dewing, The White Dress, est. $600,000-800,000

14. Augustus Saint-Gaudens, Diana of the Tower, est. $250,000-300,000

15. Albert Bierstadt, Connecticut River Valley Claremont, New Hampshire, est. $600,000-800,000

16. Normal Rockwell, Blacksmith’s Boy – Hell and Toe, est. $7,000,000-10,000,000

Click here for more lots listed as “upcoming” in other sales at Sotheby’s, particularly for this week’s Impressionist & Modern Art Evening Sale (tomorrow @7pm) and Day Sale (Wednesday @10am). All these works are still to remain at Sotheby’s until future decisions from the court.

2017-11-13 - Sotheby's auction site

The Museum has also been issued a “Modern Concern Advisory” from Charity Navigator, an organization that evaluates non-profits based on financial documents and, in particular to the Berkshire case,  any “allegations of illegal activity, improper conduct, or organizational mismanagement”.

/0 Comments/by
2005-10-25 - ArtWatch International ICOM Petition
, ,

Petition to the International Council of Museums

Petition circulated by the Association to Respect the Integrity of the Artistic Patrimony (ARIPA)
ArtWatch International, Inc. and ArtWatch UK

The International Council of Museums (ICOM) has a ethological code (1986, revised in 2001) which fixes the moral duties of the museums clearly defined towards the public.

Specifically, this code favored contacts between the public and the museum personnel, for the sharing of knowledge and information, and providing access to the collections, access to documents and to information about the works of art. (Art.7.2, passages in this code 2.6, 2.8, 3.1, 8.3, 8.6 the code of 2001).

Now, the new “”restructured”” code which has just been adopted by the consulting committee of ICOM, in its 65th session last October, through simplification and generalization, has made for the disappearance of these crucial points. At the moment, these contacts and engagements are not mentioned except towards contact between the professional colleagues of the museums and the scientific and academic community, rather then to the public.  This restructuring has therefore introduced an imbalance where the public has no more guarantees of services of transparency, information and openness.

We, the undersigned, demand that the International Council of Museums in its new code complete it with a special Bill of Rights (Bill of Rights of Museum Visitors, following the ideas suggested by a member of the executive council of ICOM).  We propose to integrate all the moral duties so far recognized by ICOM and to returning the points which have vanished and which we mentioned in the proceeding paragraph.

The Bill of Rights for Museum Visitors

Introduction: The museum is an institution which is a public service, as defined by the statutes of ICOM. This charter stipulates clearly what the public can expect from the museum profession. Even though the public can not participate in the national legislation it could play a quasi legal or judicial role when the legislation is badly defined or inexistent about the questioned concerned in the introduction.

With reservations of restrictions based for reasons of confidentiality or security, the museums recognize the following rights to their visitors :

1) a reasonable museum should provide meetings with personnel and access to collections not on view by arranging a meeting or some other arrangement. [art. 2.8],

2) obtain access for the information requested concerning the collections [art 2.8],

3) know about new acquisitions, in a constant and regular manner [art.3.1],

4) get a rapid response to all correspondence and all demands for information from the museum professions and to be courteous and polite in this matter [art.7.2],

5) to share the experience and expertise of the museum professionals [art.7.2, 8.6] and to know the result of there researches [art.8.3],

6) to gain a controlled access but unlimited to the objects and documents demanded which are confided to the museum, because of personal research or some other specific interest [art.7.2],

7) there should be favorable conditions for associations that stand for the objectives of the museums. These organizations should be recognized, their activities encouraged and there should be a harmonies relationship between these associations and the personnel of the museums [art.2.6].

ArtWatch International, Inc.

 

/by