The Rose that’s Starting to Wilt

Brandeis University President Jehuda Reinharz announced on January 26 that due to a projected multimillion dollar deficit this year, the Board of Trustees and President had unanimously voted to close the Rose Art Museum on Brandeis’ campus and deaccession the 7,000 piece collection to pay for administrative tasks. The student body, faculty, and art community were outraged by the decision, especially since the employees of the Rose Art Museum were not included in the discussion of the matter, nor was any member of the faculty or student body. The legality of the decision was in question as well, since according to the American Association of Museums (AAM), no museum may sell works of art unless the money is then used to buy more art to replace it. It is specifically cited that no works can be sold to cover administrative costs. Also in terms of legality, much of the art in the Rose were donated as gifts to the museum under restricted status: meaning that they were donated for the sole purpose of educating and enriching the experience of Brandeis students, and in no way could they be sold or taken off display. For Brandeis to sell these restricted works, the status would have to be overruled in a court of law.

The Rose Art Museum is one of the largest collections of modern and contemporary art in New England, houses works by de Kooning, Pollock, and Warhol. Director of the museum Michael Rush issued a statement posted on the Brandeis website, saying that the loss of the Rose Art Museum would be disastrous to the respect and educational potential of Brandeis, and would be a detrimental blow to the greater Boston art culture and heritage.

For “Methods in Public Humanities”, an American Civilization course I am taking this Spring with Professor Stephen Lubar of the graduate department in Public Humanties, we were asked to write a memo to the Brandeis University president giving counsel on the situation as our first assignment. In my letter, I explained in the beginning that while the economic logic may seem practical and reasonable in the short term, the loss of the Rose Art Museum would be disastrous to Brandeis’ liberal arts departments and in no way would they be seen as a credible, competitive program OR be entrusted with art ever again in the future. While the economic payoff would save the University for now, the decision would break away at the very heart of the institution and would totally discredit it, potentially ending in Brandeis closing for good.

My solution proposed in the memo was that Brandeis, if they were serious that there was no other option to remedy the economic crisis but to sell the artwork, focus on how to best serve the public with these sales. I proposed that the artwork without restricted status be sold as planned, but any with restricted status be donated to the Institute for Contemporary Art in Boston, where they would still be accessible to the Brandeis community, and available to an even larger audience in Boston. This would at least make Brandeis look more philanthropic and interested in preserving cultural heritage and staying true to agreements with donors. It would also save them the time and cost of lawsuits.

Fortunately, Reinharz announced today that he apologizes for the mismanagement of the economic crisis and the hasty decision to liquidate the Rose. He e-mailed apologies to the faculty and students and released statements to the public. As reported by the Boston Globe: “In an attempt to quell the public outcry, Reinharz also walked a fine semantic line and said in his letter that “the museum will remain open” and “be more fully integrated into the university’s central educational mission.” The art community can breathe a sigh of relief.

But not so fast. As the Boston Globe pointed out, this decision was not without it’s grain of salt.

“In reality, the Rose museum as it exists today will eventually cease to operate and instead will be turned into an educational center for Brandeis students and faculty, Reinharz told the Globe on Wednesday. It will include more student and faculty exhibits, and the public will still be allowed to visit.”

While I’m proud of the art appreciators for making Reinharz realize his big mistake, it worries me that agreements, contracts, and policies can be easily brushed aside in the face of economic woes. Museums never want to admit that their precious works have monetary value, and directors and curators are never proud when they must sell of artwork for the survival of their collection, whatever that may mean. I’ve begun to think of the museum as the material version of the animal rescue non-profit. If the animals/ objects were left to fend in the cruel world of pure economics and practicalities, they would be ruined, lost, destroyed, or neglected until they were in too poor of a condition to ever be of use. These precious objects that are prized and cherished in museum settings could so easily be defaced and ruined. Their value comes from their preservation and conservation. So when a place like Brandeis decides that not only is it no longer their mission to protect and preserve these cultural objects, but they see no purpose in them whatsoever except for monetary assets, the cultural value of the objects ceases to exist. Yes, due to their conservation, the works that make up the Rose Art collection would catch a nice price at auction, but what if every museum was to see their artwork as a chance to make some profit? Soon they would be seen as a form of currency and nothing more. No one preserves a dollar bill. It is in constant exchange, there would be no value to holding on to it or preserving it. Art would eventually be lost and destroyed. It worries me that there is no enforcement for the protective laws and agreements of the AAM. This should be a lesson to the AAM that they need to hold their museums and members accountable.