The New York Times posted this article last week. Here is my review!
Museum selling art…in order to buy more art. Now that’s very interesting.
But apparently it’s a thing because the Dia Art Foundation is selling three pieces in order to purchase new ones. The founders of the Foundation, Heiner Friedrich and Fariha de Menil Friedrich, decided to sue the museum for doing this just last week. However, they withdrew the lawsuit, saying “the foundation is our precious child, and we do not wish to continue to oppose it through legal action.” Although, they did call it “utterly wrong” and “against Dia’s mission,”
The action of selling pieces of art has sparked much criticism. The foundation defended itself by saying it needs to continue growth by purchasing new artworks. It is expected to raise around $20 million from the sales.
The money will be going into a fund that will be used to buy more art. Dia has never had this before. It also plans on opening a gallery in Chealsea after two of its galleries closed their doors there in 2004. Right now, the main gallery is located in Beacon, N.Y. and features art from the 60’s to the present, including Minimalist, post-Minimalist and Conceptual works.
The Friedrich’s formed Dia in 1974 with the art historian Helen Winkler, in order to support contemporary artists who were producing difficult pieces that took time to make.
Philippe Vergne, Dia’s director, said that this sale is vital for the foundation. “Dia cannot be a mausoleum,” Mr. Vergne said in June, when the sale was first announced. “It needs to grow and develop.”
Cy Twombly’s “Poems to the Sea”, from 1959, Barnett Newman’s “Genesis — The Break,” a 1946 abstract canvas, and “Shortstop,” a 1958 sculpture by John Chamberlain are being sold this week.
I can see where the Friedrich’s are coming from. I’m sure it must’ve taken a lot of time to acquire some of those art pieces. People also get emotional when it comes to art. But, if it’s for growing the “business,” it may be necessary. The Board of Directors (or whoever is in charge) should have contacted the Friedrich’s and asked if they had any preferences. I can understand where both sides are coming from.
Works Cited:
Kennedy, Randy. “Lawsuit Over Sale of Dia Artwork Is Withdrawn.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Nov 2013. Web. 13 Nov 2013.
Selling art to acquire more art is quite interesting, but I agree with your point that it may be necessary. If Dia is truly supporting contemporary artists, then Dia should be willing to buy artworks at the price of others. I believe that this situation is not such a negative concept. It also depends on what time period or genre of art the institution is specialized in and what part of the public they want to appeal towards.
I feel that because the art had belonged to the Friedrich’s they should have been consulted before the sale began. But at the same time I think in order to remain competitive and attract new people to their exhibits buying and selling art is their only option. It is not like they are this huge museum that can afford putting the art in a vault somewhere. They seem to be a local museum that can use every dollar they have. So bottom line while I don’t think its the most desirable thing to sell donated art, if it allows them keep their doors open all the power to them!
First, I wanna say that you did an excellent review. You’re perspective is almost identical to mine, and I agree with you when you say that you “understand where both sides are coming from.” Like any other institution, museums are a business. To stay afloat, businesses must break even. This is simple. If you cannot break even based upon admissions fees alone, there is one obvious alternative – sell. I don’t think that this article is discussing anything extremely radical. For me, all art should be appreciated and if you can sell one piece to obtain 3 of different types while earning a chunk of change, this should obviously be the thing to do. Since we are at a business school, and professor Wymbs is teaching me the oh so crucial tools to succeed, I would definitely opt to run a museum like a business and buy and sell depending on what would be most fiscally responsible and not upon what piece I was most attached to.
Selling art to keep the museum afloat is a logical tactic, as you mentioned. It may even prove to be good for the museum because new artwork will attract new customers. Additionally, the art pieces for sale will be able to be seen in other parts of the world instead of solely in the Dia Art Foundation. I believe this tactic is providing more variety and am definitely not against it.
I suppose that in order to keep itself going the museum does have to sell art. And in a way, it makes sense. What are museums good at? Showcasing historical artifacts, and art. So why not turn something that they’re good at into money? By selling art, they can ensure their own longevity, which is what matters in the end.
The idea of selling art to buy more art is very interesting. I wonder how is Dia managing its funds. Or maybe it just wants to expand rapidly. But the fact that the director even cautions that Dia must not become a mausoleum makes me lean toward selling the art. It seems expansion is the right solution.
The first thing that stood out to me with this article review was that you showed both sides of this dispute very nicely, with no bias towards either side–excellent job. I might have taken a stance defending Dia, mainly because I do agree with what Mr. Vergne said. How many times are people going to flock to one museum to see the same art pieces over and over? Perhaps it’s plausible for some, but realistically speaking, most people don’t have the attention span.
That being said, the argument could still be made for the Freidrichs because the museum was pretty much their baby. I agree with you–there should have been some consultation going on. At the same time, if they have no stock in the museum, and if they’re not on the board, I’m not sure that they legally have a right to have a say in the matter–but I could be wrong. Either way, this is an interesting situation and I’d like to see if more museums go Dia’s way.
It is interesting how Dia is circulating the artwork it displays in this way. Making the museum into a business is efficient, but many spectators will think that by selling artwork in order to buy new pieces to show is disrespectful to art. Anyways, we have debated about whether or not it is right to put a price on art in class, and this news about Dia is another example of our discussion. I agree with you that Dia and the founders both have good arguments for their actions. Dia has to buy and sell in order to stay alive and attract audiences, and that is what it has to do in order to survive as a museum. This reminds me of a person I interviewed for my feature article. He disliked museum art because it treats art as a business. But although museums are so economic, they do help spread art information, so that is one important thing about what Dia is doing. It cannot have the same artwork displayed forever because (1) they will go out of business and (2) they put a limit to art, but art is about infinite possibilities.
I feel like the museum has the right to sell the art pieces, however they should have consulted the founders first and gotten their feedback. The founders have a good argument saying that selling the art is not part of the “goal” and “mission” they envisioned for the Museum. But I also see the point that the museum has that they need to sell some older, less popular pieces of art to obtain more modern pieces. Ultimately, I feel like the museum does have the right to sell the art works and that it is doing what is best for the museum as a whole, which is to attract more people and to get more people involved with different types and genres of art pieces.
I can understand why a museum might want to sell new art to buy new art. After awhile, I am sure that the museum is looking for a little bit of a change and tries to update the art on display. It is kind of like trading game. Some people think museums are boring enough as it is, and having the same art on display all the time would be the farthest thing from enticing for people to pay to visit the museum. This is a very interesting article however I stand by the idea that museums should be able to sell and buy new art.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in this piece? Dia was trying to punish the museum by calling their actions inexcusable and filing a lawsuit against the museum. Now that they have taken back their lawsuit the only result of Dia’s action is that the museum has received a tremendous amount of publicity. Now there are going to be more art collectors who know the museum is selling art and more people who know that the museum is going to have a new collection…. Ironic how publicity works sometimes.
Very interesting concept. Museums want to sell art in order to buy more art?! I believe in our day and the way businesses work, there should be no problem with this kind of logic. Despite the fact that people may get emotionally attached to some of the pieces, the museum needs to do whatever it needs to in order to stay afloat. I for one would find museums more interesting if the art inside the museum was changed every once in a while.