Money, Money, Money, Money . . . MONEY!

Let's play devil's advocate here. Or just devil. Or just plain advocate.

The Times has an article about the controversy following Brandeis University's decision to sell off the collection from its Rose Art Museum to bolster its finances, which have taken an enormous hit in the wake of the recession (and, indirectly, the Madoff scandal). The reaction seems to be uniformly negative: how could Brandeis do such a thing, surely this portends terrible events to come when universities treat these priceless objects as vulgar commodities . . .

This reminds me of Lee Rosenbaum's talk at Penn's ethnohistory colloquium series last year. Much of her talk concerned the selling of artworks, archeological finds, and other assorted objects by institutions in search of funds. (And this was before the current recession!) There was a disapproving tone throughout her entire talk, along with more than a vague air of elitism. How could institutions in charge of protecting all that is good and holy fall victim to such crass concerns of money? The conversation of course also turned to the Gross Clinic debacle. For those of you not in Philly, Thomas Jefferson University sold a Thomas Eakins painting to one of the Wal-Mart heirs (which seemed to be the real offense) in order to finance building new dorms. A storm of protest ensued, appeals were sent out, and many otherwise-reasonable Philadelphians donated money so that the painting could be purchased by a consortium of Philadelphia-based museums, keeping it in the city (and not going to a new museum in Arkansas, perish the thought).

But let me ask a question, because the reactions to the Gross clinic fiasco, Rosenbaum's talk in general, and the current Brandeis controversy leave me wondering: is it ever OK for an institution to sell an object from its collection in order to finance other projects? I understand if there are legal issues about selling things that may have been bequeathed in wills, etc. But let's imagine all of those things are sorted out. Is it still "wrong" or "bad" for Thomas Jefferson or Brandeis to decide that it has other priorities for its assets? In a perfect world, everyone would have art museums, dorms, state-of-the-art facilities, and tenure-track jobs. (Actually, I'm not sure that a perfect world would have art museums, at least the way they are now, but that's another conversation.) So short of living in a perfect world, institutions make choices. And we should argue about those choices, advocate for the causes we believe are most improtant, absolutely. But I don't know why the selling of art works has to be immediately off the table and protected as something existing in a rarified realm, above petty concerns. Actually, I think that ideology of art is incredibly damaging both for art and society as a whole. In the current job market, if Brandeis can keep the lights on and maybe hire some more professors with the money to be gained from selling off its art collection, I don't know why I'm supposed reflexively be against that as a matter of principle. Maybe it's a good idea, maybe it isn't. But let's argue about it constructively rather than just dismissing it out of hand. Am I missing something here?