首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
When, If Ever, Can Museums Sell Their Works? The director of the art-rich yet cash-poor National Academy Museum in New York
When, If Ever, Can Museums Sell Their Works? The director of the art-rich yet cash-poor National Academy Museum in New York
admin
2010-07-24
24
问题
When, If Ever, Can Museums Sell Their Works?
The director of the art-rich yet cash-poor National Academy Museum in New York expected strong opposition when its board decided to sell two Hudson River School paintings for around $15 million.
The director, Carmine Branagan, had already approached leaders of two groups to which the academy belonged about the prospect. She knew that both the American Association of Museums (AAM) and Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) had firm policies against museums’ selling off artworks because of financial hardship and were not going to make an exception.
Even so, she said, she was not prepared for the directors group’s immediate response to the sale. In an e-mail message on Dec. 5 to its 190 members, it condemned the academy, founded in 1825, for "breaching one of the most basic and important AAMD’s principles" and called on members "to suspend any loans of works of art to and any collaboration on exhibitions with the National Academy."
Branagan, who had by that time withdrawn her membership from both groups, said she "was shocked by the tone of the letter, like we had committed some crimes." She called the withdrawal of loans "a death knell (丧钟声)" for the museum, adding, "What the AAMD have done is basically shoot us while we’re wounded."
Beyond shaping the fate of any one museum, this exchange has sparked larger questions over a principle that has long seemed sacred. Why, several experts ask, is it so wrong for a museum to sell art from its collection to raise badly-needed funds and now that many institutions are facing financial hardship, should the ban on selling art to cover operating costs be eased?
Lending urgency to the discussion are the efforts of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, which has one of the world’s best collections of contemporary art but whose funds is said to have shriveled(萎缩) to $6 million from more than $40 million over the last nine years. Wouldn’t it be preferable, some people asked this month, to sell a Mark Rothko painting or a couple of Robert Rauschenberg’s legendary "combines" -- the museum owns 11 -- than to risk closing its doors. Finally, the museum announced $30 million donations by the billionaire Eli Broad last week that would prevent the sales of any artworks.
Yet defenders of the prohibition warn that such sales can irreparably (不能挽回地) damage an institution. "Selling an object is a knee-jerk (下意识的)act, and it undermines core principles of a museum," said Michael Conforti, president of the directors’ association and director of the Clark Art Institute in Williams-town, Massachusetts. "There are always other options."
The sale of artwork from a museum’s permanent collection, known as deaccessioning(博物馆收藏品等出售), is not illegal in the United States, provided that any terms accompanying the original donation of artwork are respected. In Europe, by contrast, many museums are state-financed and prevented by national law from deaccessioning.
But under the code of ethics of the American Association of Museums, the proceeds should be "used only for the acquisition, preservation, protection or care of collections." The code of the Association of Art Museum Directors is even stricter, specifying that funds should not be used "for purposes other than acquisitions of works of art for the collection."
Dorm Zaretsky, a New York lawyer who specializes in art cases, has sympathized with the National Academy, asking why a museum can sell art to buy more art but not to cover overhead costs or a much-needed education center. "Why should we automatically assume that buying art always justifies a deaccessioning, but that no other use of proceeds -- no matter how important to an institution’s mission--ever can" he wrote.
Even Patty Gerstenblith, a law professor at DePaul University in Chicago known for her strong standpoint on protecting cultural patrimony (祖传的财物), said her position had softened over the years. "If it’s really a life-or-death situation, if it’s a choice between selling a Rauschenberg and keeping the museum doors open, I think there’s some justification for selling the painting," she said.
But several directors drew a much harder line, noting that museums get tax-deductible donations of art and cash to safeguard art collections for the public. Selling off any holdings for profit would thus betray that trust, they say, not to mention robbing a community of art, so no exceptions for financial hardships should be allowed.
It’s a classic slippery slope. This thinking goes: letting one museum sell off two paintings paves the way for dozens of museums to sell off thousands of artworks, perhaps routinely.
Deaccessioning has proven thorny for museums even when the money is directed into accepted channels like acquisitions.
Sometimes the controversy centers on the irreplaceable nature of the object for sale, when Thomas Hoving, then the director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, began aggressively sorting out its collection in the early 1970s, selling high-profile paintings like Van Gogh’s "Olive Pickers" and Rousseau’s "Tropics". The Metropolitan owned only one other painting by Rousseau, and the resistance was fierce.
Yet critics of strict deaccessioning rules make a public-access argument as well. "Most big museums can’t show 90 percent of the objects they own -- it’s all in storage," said Michael O’Hare, a cultural policy professor at the University of California, Berkeley. "What’s wrong with selling these objects to smaller museums or even private collectors, who are more likely to put them on display?"
At the National Academy, Branagan called deaccessinning an act of last resort, one that she would not have considered without a "long-range financial and programmatic" plan. Branagan said she told her members as much before they voted for the sale -- 181 to 2 in favor -- in November:
"I remember saying: unless you believe you can support sweeping change, then do not vote for deaccessioning," she said. "The tragedy isn’t that we’re going to sell these four pieces. That’s not a tragedy. The tragedy would be if in 10 or 15 years we were back here having the same conversation."
From the first paragraph we know that the National Academy Museum is ______.
选项
A、abundant in artworks
B、expecting strong resistance
C、abundant in money
D、selling three paintings
答案
A
解析
段首处设题。第段第一句提到The director of the art-rich yet cash-poor National Academy Museum in New York....其中art-rich与选项 A 中的abundant in artworks属于同义转换,故 A 为本题答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/rIN7777K
0
大学英语四级
相关试题推荐
JapaneseComputerIsWorld’sFastest,asU.S.FallsBackTheworld’sfastestcomputerAJapaneselaboratoryhasbuiltth
A、Goodluckandhealth.B、Loveandinspiration.C、Patienceandcourage.D、Efficiencyandmodernequipment.C
A、Hehaseditedthreebooks.B、Hehasboughtthewrongbook.C、Hehaslosthalfofhismoney.D、Hehasfoundthebookthatwill
A、Ontelevision.B、Atregistration.C、Inclass.D、Atwork.B
DepartingforLosAngelesisnoordinary【C1】______whereasforforeignstudentswhoarestartinganewexperiencelivingonthe
AninternationalteamofscientistsisstudyingtheproblemofpollutionanddustinAsia.Onehundredthirtyscientistsfrom
Highschoolstudentswho,aftergraduation,wouldliketocontinuetheireducationarefrequentlyfacedwithmanyproblemsinfi
Theriseofradioandtelevisionbroadcastingmadenewcompetitivethreatsfornewspapers.Radiobeganofferingthe【M1】
A、HehasgraduatedfromKuwaitUniversity.B、Hewantstostudyforhismaster’sdegreeintheUnitedStates.C、Hehasbeenaccep
Themajorcauseof"forgetting"isfailuretolearnthematerial【B1】______inthefirstplace.However,weforgetata【B2】______r
随机试题
观察旋转后眼震颤的反应可判断()
保单抗辩是由投保人的( )引起的。
根据《中国银监会办公厅关于进一步加强银行业务和员工行为管理的通知》,下列关于加强个人存款开户和网银业务管理的表述,错误的是()。
下列各项财务指标中,能够综合反映企业成长性和投资风险的是()。(2011年)
一般资料:求助者,男性,24岁,无业。案例介绍:求助者兴趣广泛,两年前大学毕业,找了几家单位都不理想,不是路远,就是挣得少,索性在家上网、玩游戏,自得其乐。但其父母觉得这样下去不是办法,近一年经常批评指责他。求助者也觉得自己大学毕业了,应该自食其
教育学中所研究的教育是指思想品德教育。()
[2002年GRK真题]美国授予发明者的专利数量,由1971年的56000项下降到1978年的45000项。美国在研究和开发方面的投入在1964年到达其顶峰——占GNP的3%,而在1978年只是2.2%,在这期间,研究和开发费用占GNP的比重一直在下降。同
Inthefollowingtext,somesentenceshavebeenremoved.ForQuestions41-45,choosethemostsuitableonefromthelist(A、B、C、
PureorTheoreticalKnowledgeForme,scientificknowledgeisdividedintomathematicalsciences,naturalsciencesorscie
Whohasgotapencil?
最新回复
(
0
)