Immediately from the introduction, this line sticks out from the rest: “A fire-breathing dragon was bearing down on the Detroit Institute of Arts.” At the moment, when people hear “Detroit,” they associate it with “bankruptcy.” However, what does this have to do with art?
This behemoth was constructed by local artists in order to protest the speculations of having the Detroit Institute of Arts to sell world-class art pieces from its collection in order to help pay towards the debt. Now this is the controversy – is it worth giving up countless art collections to help relieve the city from debt? From the results of a poll conducted by The Detroit Free Press and WXYZ-TV, 78 percent were against selling the art. This shows the unity people are able to establish during hard times; the people care about the city’s art. However, just because the majority of Detroit’s population voted against the selling of the art doesn’t guarantee that it won’t happen. If forced legally, the museum is obliged to obey the law and sell. Graham W. J. Beal, the museum’s director, is busy working with two Republican state legislators in order to try and save the museum, as well as using the museum’s repair funds to hire lawyers in case of a legal battle.
But given Detroit’s current financial situation, what other choices do they have? There is always the option of cutting workers’ pensions, but is that any much better? Compared to 78 percent of people voting to not sell the art, 75 percent of people opposed to the cutting of workers’ pensions. This brings the debate between which is the greater good – what will be the sacrifice? Currently, the collection has been valued at possibly over 2 billion dollars. Selling even part of it would create a gaping hole in its value, as well as eliminate art donations and the huge pool of money from tax revenue that was going to be used to support and stabilize the museum for years to come.
Giving my opinion on this situation is hard, and will be biased as I am not a worker, but rather a student. Although I am one to appreciate art, I don’t feel right cutting workers’ pensions. I’m sure this is exactly how officials of Detroit feel – conflicted, lost, and panicked for more time. Perhaps there is a balance that can be found between the two options, although because of the shutting down of the government, it is likely no action regarding this situation will be taken just yet.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/arts/design/detroit-institute-of-arts-copes-with-threat-of-art-selloff.html?pagewanted=2&ref=design
Bibliography:
Terek, Donna. #Save the Art. 2013. Photograph. The New York Times, New York City. Web. 03 Oct 2013. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/10/03/arts/03MUSEUM/03MUSEUM-articleLarge.jpg
Kennedy, Randy. “The Agony of Suspense in Detroit.” New York Times 02 Oct 2013, n. pag. Web. 03 Oct 2013.
It is unfortunate that the people of Detroit are forced to choose between their livelihood and their cultural identity. However, Detroit does not have many other options. With the government shut down and the economy in a mess, Detroiters do not have much luxury to save their art. I think that the best option the city has is to get rid of its debt so that it can give its economy a fresh start. Many technology start-up companies are setting up headquarters in Detroit now. If Detroit can provide the right incentives for more companies to set up shop, it can develop into a great urban city again, providing revenue so that maybe someday, the city can reunite with its art collection.
This moral dilemma must be unsettling for the people of Detroit. I think it is a clash between idealism and practicality. Art besides having a monetary value has an intrinsic value that people appreciate, it cannot be quantified. But people’s livelihoods are not something that are easily relinquished. One could make the argument that there is not point in starving when retired just to save a painting.
I also agree what you sad about people coming together in times of trouble. Usually it is very hard to get people to agree on anything so a 78% vote in favor of something is quite an achievement.
In my personal opinion, I would agree with you and think that cutting pensions is worse than selling art. But then again I am a practical person by nature and I do not live in Detroit so I would not have enough contact with the problem to know what to do.
I have to agree; I would rather sell the art rather than cut pensions. A reduction in pension will cause even more distress to the citizens. If selling the art can jump start the economy in some way; that is the path to take.
What interests me is that 78% of people voted not to sell the arts. I wonder what is the reason behind that. Are the majority of the people living comfortably enough so that they can sacrifice pensions to protect the arts?
I knew that Detroit was in a severe state of bankruptcy, but not the fact that the state was thinking of selling artworks from the Detroit Institute of Arts. Though I am not an artist, I can still feel the pain and agony of them. However, I still sense a dire need for the government to make a quick decision and sell them, unless it can come up with a better solution. Yes, the great pieces of art will get scattered. But that does not mean they will get destroyed. What good is it if art survives, but people do not? It is the people who produce art. The Arts Institute in Detroit would be able to re-accumulate those sold art pieces once the state recovers.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. Detroit is in a bad position and does not have many options. I believe that selling artwork would be a better option than cutting pensions. It would be unfair for those who worked so hard to save money for their retirement to lose all their money. Although it a shame for the pieces of art to be scattered, it could benefit the general population and the state. Hopefully, in the future when the economy recovers, Detroit can re-collect the artworks.
First off, I want to say how unfortunate it is that the city has reached such perilous point that it needs to sell off its artistic assets to pay for things like the police force. Having lived in New York City my entire life, something like this seems unimaginable. If the dinosaurs of the Natural History Museum and the Monets of the Brooklyn Museum were sold off to fund something like the pensions of the police force, it would be a very sad day. It’s almost surreal, like the destruction of ancient texts within the Parthenon.
On a more related-to-the-article note I do believe what they are doing is necessary. Contrary to what has happened in so many places, the art is not being destroyed. Although I think it will serve an infinitely less important role as it sits in the bathroom of a yacht, works of art do not take priority over the families that the city is set up to govern. The art will remain in existence and hopefully come back into public view one day. The city is doing what it must, and in my opinion art comes second to survival.
This is a terrible situation for both the residents and officials of Detroit to be faced with. Although art is a significant part of our society and culture, I would probably also sell it rather than cut workers’ pensions. If it’ll benefit the city and help pay off its debt, then I think this is necessary. I believe that taking care of the population in Detroit is of utmost importance. However, I’m not trying to say that I don’t appreciate art. Of course it is meaningful to the city and its inhabitants, but it can always be recreated or recovered once Detroit resolves its financial problems.
Unfortunately, I think I have to agree and say that selling some of Detroit’s precious artwork is the only way that they can regain financial stability, but, I think they should be smart about it. While I am not one who usually appreciates fine artwork of museums, I strongly categorize myself as part of that 78% who think that it is immoral to sell the artwork. There must be other ways to help save the city’s debt crisis. Maybe, Detroit could use the paintings and other artwork as a collateral to back city bonds? Or at least they could temporary lease the artwork to wealthy philanthropists. There must be a better solution to the bankruptcy than to simply sell the art.
I’m with the more popular opinion here and while the fiery #savetheart looks like a powerful statement, I consider the art that they’re addressing to be more of a luxury in their situation. In a time when its citizens have to think about paying for rent and food, art is something they can sacrifice for pensions. Yes, art is heavily tied to culture and is very important, but Detroit has to think about pulling itself out of its economic downturn. After all, losing the art that they have is not the end of the world compared to leaving the lives of workers on pensions hanging. Art is not some finite resource, and the people of Detroit will obtain and make more.
It is unfortunate that Detroit citizens have to face such a decision. They will have to either endure getting their pensions cut or face the loss of precious artworks from their beloved museum. Despite how bad one might feel for Detroit there really isn’t too much help one can give to the city. With the current economical depression and government shutdown, Detroit must find a way to pull itself out of the pit. From my personal point of view, art is a pursuit for the quality of life, meaning that it comes after standard of living. One should be able to fulfill the needs of their body before pursuing the needs of their minds; one need to fill their stomach before being able to appreciate art. Detroit must do everything in its power to solve their current bankruptcy problem, even if it means to give up some of their arts.
Great response! The question of whether or not the ends justifies the means is brought up in this instance. The severity of the situation in Detroit can not be ignored, and because they are in such a predicament they have more important things to worry about than their artwork. Although it is sad that they may have to lose such artworks, the loss of pensions or even a lack of safety would cause the city to face even greater troubles. The decision between culture and people’s livelihood is a hard one. Hopefully Detroit will be able to decide on a course of action, and if it is to sell the artwork, hopefully it will be able to buy some of the instances back in the future after a resurgence in their economy.