Wednesday, January 7th, 2009 | 7 Comments
The Deaccessioning Wars
Donn Zaretsky, author of the ArtLawBlog, is the unsung hero of the deaccessioning wars–the ongoing debate launched by the National Academy’s sale of two paintings recently. Zaretsky is consistently the most interesting voice in this debate because he applies unrelenting logic to a lot of emotional positions. Here he is inverting the strict constructionist position:
“The institution is there to safeguard the art. The art is not there to support the institution.” Unless, of course, as I keep saying, the selling off is to buy different art. Then it’s not chipping away at the institution. The institution, apparently, is not there to safeguard that art. When it comes to buying more art, suddenly the institution doesn’t exist to safeguard the existing collection. But as soon as anyone suggests using those proceeds for any other purpose, then that existing collection becomes untouchable. You wouldn’t want the institution to be chipped.
UCLA’s Mark Kleiman: “when museum directors gang up on one of their number for selling some inventory to dig her institution out of a financial hole, they’re acting like a bunch of snobbish jerks.”
Or here he is quoting Michael O’Hare:
“I defy any reader of this [anti-deaccessionist] discourse to infer a goal behind the assertions and pronouncing that could be stated in public with a straight face. My best try: ‘the purpose of art is to be in a museum as soon as possible and to stay in that museum forever’, with the important corollary ‘in a museum does not mean “on display” or accessible to the public!’, and museum practice should be evaluated insofar as it serves that end.”
But I’m not doing his commentary justice. Got to The Artlawblog and educate yourself.
Update: Tyler Green would be more impressive if he didn’t get so huffy every time someone pointed out an inconsistency. Accusing a critic of intellectual dishonesty is going too far.
Also of Interest:
- The Problems with the Public Trust
Donn Zaretsky, author of theartlawblog.com and a prominent art attorney at John Silberman Associates, has an essay in Art in... - Thou Shalt Not Sell
Who Gets to Decide When and Why a Museum Sells? Donn Zaretsky who writes the ArtLawBlog limns two points made... - Deaccessioning Takes Hold in the UK
The Telegraph’s Rupert Christiansen catalogues recent attempts in the UK to raise cash through art sales: As part of an... - Deaccessioning Police Branch Out
Tyler Green is the self-styled crusader of the art world. He’s led some of the most aggressive campaigns against museums... - Deaccessioning by Another Name
Is Restitution Right? Sir Norman Rosenthal wrote an opinion piece in The Art Newspaper suggesting a statute of limitations on...
But, what if the critic actually IS intellectually dishonest–which is clearly the case with Mr. Zaretsky’s post? Your log-rolling is an embarrassment.
You’re entitled to your opinion but there’s nothing dishonest about Zaretsky’s post. He makes it clear that he’s posting random quotes taken out of context. He suggests that the reader might make an inference from those quotes but then offers evidence that the inference would be mistaken.
Where’s the dishonesty in that?
And what does any of that have to do with the rather interesting and nuanced issue of deaccessioning?
“He makes it clear that he’s posting random quotes taken out of context. He suggests that the reader might make an inference from those quotes but then offers evidence that the inference would be mistaken.”
He does? He makes it clear the quotes are taken out of context how–by including a link? He offers evidence that the inference would be mistaken how–by saying “guess again”?
No. It’s cheese-ball stuff. And has nothing to do with the nuances of deaccessioning.
Mr. Green,
You’re entitled to your opinion. But including a link provides the full context and nothing about the quotes suggests that they are in a particular context. They are presented as random comments from which a reader might make an inference. Nothing more.
Mr. Green? Wrong again. (Imagine my surprise.)
It doesn’t matter who it is. You’re wrong in the most important sense of the word — the standard by which the vast majority of people who speak English would understand the word.
Green’s stubborn knee-jerk resistance borne exclusively of arbitrary preference, since it’s certainly not logic or thoughtfulness, would impose his preferences on others at great expense to society, which benefits from sustaining vibrant art markets.
Yes, Admiral, the dodge is an excellent way to pretend you are making an argument when you are actually engaged in flim-flam. Lawyers, like magicians, certainly know how to create distractions to accomplish their actual aim.
As for “sustaining vibrant art markets,” I find your honesty refreshing. Making money is indeed what this is all about–including for dealers, auctioneers and, notably, lawyers.