ArtsWatch

Your "in other words" nailed it. Nothing bad managers like more than a good excuse to give up.

Have you ever been to the Rose? Do you know anything about Brandeis' efforts to promote it?

In fact, it's been embarked on a multi-year membership drive and publicity campaign. It built a substantial addition in 2001, and had a huge new wing on the drawing boards.

But the museum is on the campus. Parking is scarce. It's in an isolated suburb - a terrible location for a major collection. The existing galleries are almost wholly devoted to new and emerging artists, which is nice, but also meant that its enormous and wonderful permanent collection never left the vault. Fundraising for the new gallery - necessary to display the collection - lagged even in the boom years, and its major donor pulled his commitment a few months ago, forcing the cancellation of the project. And membership is up slightly, but attendance has been stagnant. Moreover, extensive efforts to promote the collection on-campus have largely failed.

On a good day, the museum puts a hundred visitors through the door, counting students and others required to attend. On an average day, it's around forty-five.

Its educational value is indisputable. But the arts at Brandeis were in serious jeopardy. The institution is a whole is in absolute crisis, largely because an obscure state law has suddenly barred it from accessing the greater part of its endowment - those gifts whose principal has been depleted, by the stock market plunge, below its original value. In other words, it's legally prohibited from dipping into the funds that were supposed to tied it through rough stretches. A committee is currently meeting to decide on changes - short-term proposals include laying of 10% of the faculty, cutting the number of graduate students in half, slashing staff, and eliminating majors.

So Brandeis is at a crossroads. It can preserve the Rose Museum, but without an immediate change in state law or a sudden and massive infusion of cash, it's going to start shutting down the less popular undergraduate majors and non-grant-funded graduate programs. And case what that means? That's right. The arts, as usual, would probably be in the first round of cuts.

Or it can sell the museum. It'd be a loss, but not a great loss. These works are almost never exhibited, anyway. Almost no one comes to the museum. They'll get recirculated; many will be snapped up by public institutions with the reserves to purchase in these tough times. Those which aren't may eventually be donated elsewhere. And even if they're not, they'll hardly be less accessible than they are at present. More importantly, the sale will allow the university to preserve its core educational mission, including a revitalized arts program. The space will be converted for teaching, exhibition, and studios -all for the arts.

If you're looking for someone to blame, how about the doyennes of the art world and their draconian stance on deacquisition? Brandeis contemplated selling off just a few of its most valuable paintings, to endow Rose, plug the budget hole, and put the institution on a sound footing. But the unequivocal opposition of the arts community to such sales rendered such a plan impractical - museum associations have made it abundantly clear that they will not loan to institutions that seek to monetize their artwork, and many donors won't give works to or support such museums. So instead of selling off the truly valuable pieces, leaving the bulk of the teaching collection intact, and preserving its role in the educational community, Brandeis was forced to confront a bi-polar choice: all or nothing. It opted to sell the entire institution.

And comments like yours confirm it in that decision.

Geoff Edgers has a related article in the Boston Globe here on moves to try to stop the sale. The irony, perhaps cynical, is that this publicity may cause a spike in traffic to the museum more than what it appears to have had lately. One more article by Peter Schworm is here.

In response to "Cynic," I copy here the statement issued today by Michael Rush, the director of the Rose, to ACUMG, the Association of College and University Museums and Galleries. I believe it stands on its own, without need for further comment.

From: ACUMG-L@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ACUMG-L@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Robertson
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:49 PM
To: ACUMG-L@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ACUMG-L] Statement from Michael Rush, Director of the Rose Art Museum

Statement from Michael Rush, Director of the Rose Art Museum, regarding the impending closing of the museum.

As Director of the Rose Art Museum at Brandeis University I want to express to you, my colleagues, my shock and horror at the university's decision to close the Rose Art Museum. As a member of the Brandeis community I feel shame and deep regret over the shortsightedness of this decision. The Rose's cherished collection, known from participation in countless exhibitions around the world, now stands on the verge of dissemination into private hands. I want you to know from me some basic facts: neither the Rose staff nor the Rose Board of Overseers had any knowledge of this decision. Indeed, we were never consulted at all. We were informed one hour before the press release went out. The Rose Museum is a financially autonomous entity within Brandeis. We are financially secure thanks to the deep and enduring commit! ment of members over the years. We face difficulties that all institutions face now, but we have been meeting them. Our fundraising goals for the year were almost completely met. The Rose was not closed because it was a financial drain to the university. Quite the opposite, we actually contributed money to the university. The Rose was closed due to the University's desire to sell the cherished collection. Period.

Many forms of protest are currently underway, most especially with the Massachusetts Attorney General's office. Brandeis, a truly inspiring university, built on the foundation of social justice and commitment to the highest pursuit of human understanding and dignity, has temporarily betrayed this vision for supposed short-term gain, which may, in the end, prove unattainable in any case.

My colleagues, we must redouble our efforts to maintain our very identities as art museums. Laws that govern us, indeed protect us and our art, must be very clear and not nuanced to such an extent that subtle legalities could jeopardize our very existence and the fundamental obligation and privilege we have to care for our precious charge: our art.

Michael Rush

Henry and Lois Foster Director

Rose Art Museum