I envision more of a rarified auction setting, with high enough reserves that only whatever institutions still have money when they do the sale (not until after the end of the school year) will bother to go. No clue whether they'll get what they're 'worth;' art is hard to quantify like that.
I don't understand why a university is not completely or mostly transparent in its business.... at least not completely secretive.
How badly did the endowment do that they're doing this?
It seems like such a poor long-term decision and such an inadequate short-term fix, considering how much effort it takes to divest an art collection, especially in these market conditions.
Apparently the endowment is down 25%. Since one of the biggest donors was a major Madoff investor (to the tune of half a billion dollars, if the radio news is correct), and likely others were, too, it's unclear how bad the hit will be.
But art students would never protest! And it's not like there aren't digital images of things out there anyway! (As if there's a replacement for direct experience.)
I'll admit that I went there perhaps once or twice when I was an undergrad, and not at all since then. Its focus is on modern, rather experimental, art. Or at least, a lot of art that I don't understand at all, whether or not I think the colors pretty. Just shows my ignorance about non-representational modern art, I suppose.
Yeah, well they also have a $10 million shortfall in their 2010 budget and were planning to lay off 10% of their faculty in addition to selling the art museum.
OH, and they're laying off staff as well and plan to increase the enrollment of the next years incoming class and offer a summer session. How they'll be able to manage that with fewer faculty and staff is beyond me. http://thehoot.net/articles/4623
*sigh* I hope they can pull themselves out of the hole they've dug for themselves. I understand why they're selling off the museum, in a sense it isn't a core competency, they're a University and if I'm not mistaken, they aren't especially known for their programs in the arts. *shrug* Either way it still sucks.
All Things Considered interviewed Reinharz tonight, and the way he was talking about it was very different: it's unclear how much art will be sold, if any, depends on whether the market for art is decent and what monies they'll need then, etc., etc.
I still have no idea how they'll climb out of the hole.
Alas, having gone to Brandeis, I always felt that the core problems had to do with administrative incompetence. Remember when Evelyn Handler (sp?) decided to serve shrimp in the cafeteria and ended up causing a huge uproar among Jewish donors? It is a nice gesture that faculty members are willing to give up 1% of their salary. But the sacrifice has limited effect. So far, they have saved 2 staff positions. But the deepr problems remain. The financial workings of Brandeis have been kind of a mystery to everyone on campus. No transparency = no check and balance. The quality of education has also gone down. They have made questional hires and at least the humanities have too many dead weight professors who could care less about teaching and research. Couple that with the very public display of a bad judgment in the form of closing Rose Art, who in their right mind would go to Brandeis? Every applicant has to be asking him or herself "Would this school be here in 4 years?" Brandeis had a niche market: smart Jewish kids could go to a great school without worrying about quotas. Nowadays, the niche is quickly disappearing. They want to increase enrollment but that will not happen unless they lower their admission standards. The ship, I am afraid, is sinking.
I remember the Handler thing, and how bizarre it felt to me, as a student who kept kosher: now the non-kosher line in Usdan would serve shrimp, or pork, or whatever. Who cares? If keeping kosher matters, choose the kosher line. End of story. (And I remember one of the student mashgichim saying something to that effect to the Justice, to a reporter who apparently expected him to be full of wrath or something. I also remember a plane flying over graduation with a banner "Brandeis off the pig!"
I don't know why they went on such a building spree recently; that's got to be at least a decent part of the problem.
And I agree, once it starts spiraling down, that can be hard to recover from.
The New England Museum Association has officially weighed in with a letter to the AG's office. It reads in part:
"Although Brandeis University was established as a not-for-profit educational institution, when the university established the Rose Art Museum and built its collection, it accepted the responsibility for ensuring that these artworks would be used for the education of the present generation and accessible to all who wish to be educated and inspired by them in the future. As a consequence of holding the artworks on behalf of the public, it also took advantage of tax- exempt status as it relates to donations of artwork as well as any revenues that the museum might generate. The university further signaled its commitment to this mission by engaging museum professionals to develop public exhibitions and programs and improve the care of the collection. It has continued on this course for almost fifty years."
Interesting points that I do not believe Brandeis has addressed yet.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
magid![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 04:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 01:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 07:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 01:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 05:29 pm (UTC)I don't understand why a university is not completely or mostly transparent in its business.... at least not completely secretive.
How badly did the endowment do that they're doing this?
It seems like such a poor long-term decision and such an inadequate short-term fix, considering how much effort it takes to divest an art collection, especially in these market conditions.
Whoever is making decisions there shouldn't be
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 11:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 08:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 01:12 pm (UTC)I'll admit that I went there perhaps once or twice when I was an undergrad, and not at all since then. Its focus is on modern, rather experimental, art. Or at least, a lot of art that I don't understand at all, whether or not I think the colors pretty. Just shows my ignorance about non-representational modern art, I suppose.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 03:01 pm (UTC)OH, and they're laying off staff as well and plan to increase the enrollment of the next years incoming class and offer a summer session. How they'll be able to manage that with fewer faculty and staff is beyond me. http://thehoot.net/articles/4623
*sigh* I hope they can pull themselves out of the hole they've dug for themselves. I understand why they're selling off the museum, in a sense it isn't a core competency, they're a University and if I'm not mistaken, they aren't especially known for their programs in the arts. *shrug* Either way it still sucks.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 11:54 pm (UTC)I still have no idea how they'll climb out of the hole.
Rant-o-matic
Date: 2009-01-28 06:13 pm (UTC)Re: Rant-o-matic
Date: 2009-01-28 11:58 pm (UTC)I remember the Handler thing, and how bizarre it felt to me, as a student who kept kosher: now the non-kosher line in Usdan would serve shrimp, or pork, or whatever. Who cares? If keeping kosher matters, choose the kosher line. End of story. (And I remember one of the student mashgichim saying something to that effect to the Justice, to a reporter who apparently expected him to be full of wrath or something. I also remember a plane flying over graduation with a banner "Brandeis off the pig!"
I don't know why they went on such a building spree recently; that's got to be at least a decent part of the problem.
And I agree, once it starts spiraling down, that can be hard to recover from.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-30 09:40 pm (UTC)weighed in with a letter to the AG's office. It reads in part:
"Although Brandeis University was established as a not-for-profit
educational institution, when the university established the Rose Art
Museum and built its collection, it accepted the responsibility for
ensuring that these artworks would be used for the education of the
present generation and accessible to all who wish to be educated and
inspired by them in the future. As a consequence of holding the
artworks on behalf of the public, it also took advantage of tax-
exempt status as it relates to donations of artwork as well as any
revenues that the museum might generate. The university further
signaled its commitment to this mission by engaging museum
professionals to develop public exhibitions and programs and improve
the care of the collection. It has continued on this course for
almost fifty years."
Interesting points that I do not believe Brandeis has addressed yet.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-31 11:05 pm (UTC)And I haven't seen anything on those points, either.