Art & Society

» e_g_c_2 - Gross Clinic - Time to Revise the "Final Tally"?

This is perhaps an unpopular view, but I think the whole "Gross Clinic" saga is completely backward.

In my view the outrage here is not that Thomas Jefferson University agreed to sell "The Gross Clinic" to Alice Walton (in partnership with the National Gallery of Art)for her planned museum of american art in Arkansas, but rather that in a world where millions of children die every year from hunger or other preventable causes (diarhea, flu, infection) Ms. Walton has $18 billion (thats eighteen thousand million) to play with in the first place.

Taken in this context it is hard to think of a better use for Ms. Walton's millions than to build her museum for the public to enjoy and to fill it with art works purchased from worthy institutions (such as Thomas Jefferson Hospital or the New York Public Library). While she's at it, in the spirit of facilitating good works, Ms. Walton could agree to purchase the artwork for a truly astounding amount of money (almost seven times the highest previous paid for the artist's work) through a private sale rather than at public auction which experts in the field agree would yield a lower price.

This of course is what was slated to happen until the PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER and a host of well-intentioned but ultimately short-sighted "white knights" rode to the rescue and matched the $68 million purchase price.

So where are we now? Thomas Jefferson University gets their money and The Gross Clinic will remain in Philadelphia as the joint property of the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.

So everyone wins right? Perhaps, but the cost is great.

First, monies for philanthropy are both finite and fungible. This means that the $38 million raised from donors large and small to ransom the painting is $38 million that will not be available to support worthy causes in the future. For context consider that the slated and historic expansion of the Art Museum (which will essential double exhibition space) is budgeted at approximately $500 million.

Second, to pay the balance of the purchase price the Art Museum and the Academy jointly incurred approximately $30 million of bank debt. Now, with the meter running at nearly $7,000 a DAY (at the prime rate) both institutions are understandably eager to pay the bank off as quickly as possible.

So comes the news in today's INQUIRER that the Academy has sold a different Eakins work, "The Cellist" to help defray its debt burden. Assuming the purchaser is a private individual this will mean that the work will be unavailable for public viewing for the first time in over 100 years.

Not surprisingly, the Art Museum has acknowledged that they too will likely sell artworks to help pay off the bank loan, a process they refer to as "deaccessioning" which certainly sounds more benign that "selling our cultural heritage"

So, what have we accomplished in the past few months? well, 1) we have thwarted a multi-billionaire heiress from consumating the purchase of "The Gross Clinic" for purposes of putting it on display for public view in both Arkansas and at the National Gallery in Washington D.C., 2) have instead paid a likely above-market price to keep the painting in Philadelphia, 3) have used up $38 million of philanthropic capital, and 4) have sold Eakins' "The Cellist" and other as yet to be determined artworks into (presumably) private hands where they will no longer be available to the public.

Call me cynical, but I don't see how everyone is a winner here.

-- posted by e_g_c_2

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Mary Rayme - Gross Clinic - Time to Revise the "Final Tally"?

In response to Gross Clinic - Time to Revise the "Final Tally"? posted by e_g_c_2:
Excellent points, all. I do think the ego of all blue-blood, main line, old money Philadelphians was challenged by "WalMart" trying to quietly buy their masterpiece. And they have indeed paid the Tiffany price for their own heritage.

While the term deaccessioning may sound brutal it could also be viewed as culling a collection. Not every painting, work of art or cultural object is of the same quality or significance as another and it is the job of a good curator to "maintain a collection" which also means conservative deaccessioning to improve the collection. Deaccessioning should always be conservative so that the themes and goals of a museum are not mercurial.

Deaccessioning to sell works to raise money to buy other works is usually done to purchase works deemed more appropriate to the collection. For PAFA to sell an Eakins (presumably a lesser work) for a better quality Eakins seems silly and in poor taste. Philly seems like it is floundering to be taken seriously while creating a vaudeville spectacle.

This is not the last we have heard from Ann Walton's art-buying binge. I imagine this same scenario of cultural carpetbagging will continue and can occur anywhere in the United States.

And...fungible is my new favorite word. It is a good one and apparently has nothing to do with mushrooms. ;-)

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds