I just wanted to throw out my 2 cents about the current issues surrounding the sale of almost 200 works from the antiquities collection in order provide more funding for contemporary works of art.
Personally I have mixed feelings about the issue. My background in art History is mainly Ancient Greek and Roman, so naturally I hold these works in the highest regard and believe them to be absolutely precious. How an institution would be willing to part with these works is beyond me.
- MONEY- The Albright wants to compete on the level of MoMA and to do this, they need more money. Their operating budget is about 40 mil. So I'm told, and they would like to increase this to about 80 by selling the works. This would increase their annual spending budget for the year from about 4 to 8 mil. This is nowhere near that of MoMA.
- DIRECTOR- The director has never been responsible for a collection befor. His background is in Gallery sales.
- TRUSTEES- The board of 12 members, unanimously voted to sell all works of antiquity in the collection dating from befor 1800.
- Members- do not have the right to vote.
Keeping these things in mind. I want to state my issues with the sale.
1. The board proposed the sale of these works and not the Director. Legally, this is not kosher. All de accessions must first be proposed by the Director.
2. They tried to keep the sale a secret.
3. In the future, who will want to donate their collection if the AK cannot be trusted to preserve donated works. Should they be allowed to sell donated work for their own profit?. They should consider renaming the PERMANANT collection to something like the SEMI- PERMANANT collection.
4. Their actions do not support the mission statement. Specifically, as an educational institute concerned with exhibiting works of diverse cultural backgrounds.
- In the list of featured artists in the collection they name, picasso, Gorky, Pollock, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Monet, Rodin, Tanguey, Miro, Matisse, Cezeanne, Renoir, and others. But these are all white, men of European or American descent. There is absolutely no interest in listing any women or non Western artists as important aspects of the collection, let alone any contemporary artists still living.
5. The museum was originally built in order to house a collection largely made up of antiquities. Look at the classical architecture of the building. Look at the interior space for monolithic sculpture. It is supported by classical columns and covered by a dome. The walls and foundation of this building are constructed out of Limestone. These antiquities are at the heart of the AK and should be an integral part of its collection. If they remove these artifacts, they might as well remove the dome.
6. Who owns these works of art, and who has the right to decide their fate? Trustees donate a minimum of $30,000 a year in order to keep their seat on the board. Does this mean that these individuals claim a greater percentage of ownership of these works than those who donate less? This action implies a shift in power.
7. What are the implications of this sale when applied to the need for both progress and preservation. I believe that the concern for progress at AK is becoming subject to tunnel vision. They are looking only toward a distant goal. They want to make giant leaps without first taking small steps to test the quality of the ground they travel.
- In comparison to the city of Buffalo. Who is to say which buildings are to be replaced? What is worth preserving?
The Buffalo Central terminal for instance is a beautiful piece of architecture and an intergral part of the current and past identity of Buffalo. The importance of the building is being reaffirmed and re examined by changing the way it functions in the community. Its context is changing. How many of these buildings need to be replaced, and what will replace them?
In conclusion, I would like to state that I cannot blame the AK for wanting to be at the forefront of the Contemporary art world, but I also think that the collection would remain stronger if they could offer antiquities to future exhibitions in order to shape coplex relationships between ancient and contemporary art. The presence of both makes each other stronger. The presence of both can be arranged in new and exciting ways in order to bring new meaning to the works. Now however, this possibility seems to be coming to an end. I can however blame the gallery for acting in inappropriate and underhanded ways. There are lies and agendas at work in this controversy and such an important descision should have been made public for debate and analysis. Hopefully though, something goodd will come of this and museums will consider this as an example. New discussions will also certainly take place concerning:
-the role of the museum.
-its power relationships
-ownership
-progress vs. preservation
Thanks all,
I have more to say but I figured I would start with this. I'm also intereested to hear what all of you have to say.
