Baltimore Museum Of Art

It's never been so popular in Baltimore. In early October, the museum announced that it would raise funds to maintain the rest of its collection, increase its diversity and raise salaries for its staff by auctioning collections of clyfford still, Brice Marden and Andy Warhol. But unexpectedly, the decision to "sell and remove the collection" caused a thousand waves of controversy and opposition. At the end of October, two hours before the auction, the Baltimore Museum of art finally decided to withdraw the controversial paintings, and the plan was put on hold.

"Wishful thinking" is not satisfactory

Both have long-term funding needs or other ambitious goals. These demands can indeed be partially met by selling artworks, taking advantage of this relaxation. However, no matter how urgent the long-term need may be or how these programs will benefit the future, AAMD's current position is that the funding source of the museum fund must not be obtained through the sale of these "removed collections."

In April this year, the museum directors relaxed the management rules of the museum, which led to the difficulty of paying for the museum collections in the future. Although the Baltimore Museum has always been able to balance its budget, Christopher Bedford, the current curator, has a new idea. He hopes to set up a financial plan called "endowment for the future", which can be used to adjust the existing collection structure and future development by selling some of his collections. AAMD was consulted on the plan when it was developed, and Christine anagnos, executive director of the association, made it clear that the Baltimore Museum of art program met the guidelines in the industry guidelines.

The Baltimore Museum of art has never been so frequently featured with hot search - Information pictures

On October 2, the announcement that three pieces of the collection will be sold through Sotheby's attracted people's attention. Clyfford still's "1957-g" is estimated to be between $12 million and $18 million; Brice Marden's "3" is expected to be sold for $15 million; and Andy Warhol's masterpiece "the last supper" will be sold through private negotiations for about $40 million. It is estimated that the three collections will generate $65 million in revenue. According to a press release from the Baltimore Museum of art The funds raised will be injected into the "future fund" to fund research and protection of new works, and to pay for the required documents and exhibitions; meanwhile, the Baltimore Museum of art can also re measure the proportion of its collection, which has the opportunity to add more works by female and black artists. In addition, the money will also be used to increase staff salaries, so that venues can have longer opening hours. "We firmly believe that the structure of the museum and its collection will be able to meet the needs of the future only through bold and practical action, continuous conception, modification and re conception," the Baltimore Museum of art said in a press release

The museum's board of directors, however, did not seem to take it. Two board members of the Baltimore Museum of art even cancelled a $50 million pledge. More than 200 former directors and community members of the Baltimore Art Museum, led by Laurence Eisenstein, signed a letter to the Attorney General of Maryland seeking to terminate the auction. In an interview with the New York Times, he pointed out that although he agreed with the diversity of collections and fair pay, museums should not take the shortcut of selling their works directly, but should do the seemingly more difficult fundraising and development work.

On October 27, Brent Benjamin, President of AAMD and curator of the St. Louis Museum of art, issued an official statement clarifying its position: "we see that many institutions

Facing industry standards and ethical challenges

In fact, the Baltimore Museum of art is not the only cultural institution in the United States considering selling its collections in response to a pandemic. In response to the financial crisis and layoff losses caused by the epidemic, the Brooklyn Museum also auctioned 12 collections through Christie's earlier this year, hoping to obtain $40 million to maintain the storage expenses of other collections in the museum. Why are the results of the two museums quite different when they sell their collections and recover their funds?

According to the professional specification for art museums revised and issued by AAMD every ten years, the reporter found that there are three clauses concerning the sale of collections, among which it is stressed that "the funds obtained from the sale of art works cannot be used for the operation and capital expenditure of museums. These funds, including the proceeds and value-added income of these funds, can only be used for the acquisition of works of art in accordance with the museum's policy on the use of restricted acquisition funds. " It can be seen that there is a precedent for museums to sell their collections, and the contradiction mainly occurs in the use of funds obtained after the collection is sold.

Generally speaking, "selling and removing collections" can improve the quality and series of collections, but the funds obtained from selling collections can only be used to add new collections, otherwise the association will usually refuse to apply for the sale of collections. Since April's relaxation of industry guidelines to allow "sale and removal of collections," funds can also be used for "direct collection related expenses.". However, due to the fact that the museum also pays for the cost of art, it can also be understood that the cost of the museum's manpower can also be paid. Arnold Lehman, a former curator of the Baltimore Art Museum, also wrote in a letter to the Maryland attorney general: "I support paying employees more for living. However, I am opposed to the museum's choice to encroach on the core collection in order to achieve this goal. "

Apart from the fact that the use of the museum's collection has been relaxed, it is not in line with the ethical criteria of the museum itself. Some experts believe that the sale of collections in exchange for funds, once this precedent is set for other art museums, the "invisible" loss of public rights and interests will be very huge. According to artnet, the Iverson Museum in New York had previously announced the sale of Jackson Pollock's 1946 red composition, saying the proceeds from the auction would be used to "buy black artists, female artists and other niche works.". But the move was severely criticized by Christopher Smith, an art critic at the Los Angeles Times, who predicted that the painting "would probably disappear into the private property of an unknown rich man, or a warehouse of permanent property rights in Switzerland.". "Some important works of art should not be sold and removed, lest they disappear from public view," he said. There has never been a simple answer to the moral debate about the public welfare of art. "

According to the professional norms for art museums, if the professional norms are violated, museums will be subject to a series of sanctions, including the prohibition of obtaining art loans from other member institutions. It is not clear whether AAMD will hold the collection responsible for the auction in further discussions with the head of the Baltimore Museum of art. Although in the end, the Baltimore Museum of art did not sell any of its collections, it expressed its insistence in its latest statement: "we should not adhere to the idea that museums should not serve 'things'. We believe that the objects in the collection must reflect, attract and inspire thousands of different individuals. There is no doubt that we are calling for change in the museum industry, and our vision and goals will never change. At present, it will take longer to achieve this goal, but in the end, we will use all means to make it come true. "

?