
University Moves to Close Rose Art Museum
That sound you may have heard the past two days rippling through the art world was the sound of a collective shudder, as Brandeis University's trustees unexpectedly announced that it would sell off some 6,000 modern and contemporary artworks in the museum's collection and then shutter the venerable Rose Art Museum. So unexpected was the announcement that the Rose's director Michael Rush didn't have a clue that it was coming when he was summoned to the office of provost Marty Krauss and given the news that in light of the university's increasing fiscal difficulties (its initial endowment has shrunk by an estimated 20-25%) the University would need to shutter the museum. "I didn't know anything about this," Rush is quoted as saying. Not incidentally at least one university trustees--and major Rose benfactor--was bankrupted by the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scam, losing an estimated $145 million in personal wealth. These same benefactors are patrons of other cultural institutions as well, so there is almost certain to be a ripple effect.
What is particularly chilling, of course, is that the university's art institution and objects seemed to be the most expedient place the trustees looked to for quickly raising much needed funds. Jehuda Reinharz, the university's president, said, "The Rose is a jewel. But for the most part it's a hidden jewel. It does not get a lot of foot traffic and most of the great works we have, we are not able to exhibit. We felt that, at this point given the recession and the financial crisis, we had no choice." Such pithy resignation bespeaks a serious breach of faith. Further comments suggsted that the university would now turn to fulfilling its "core academic mission." An academic mission bereft of art and culture is not a good harbinger for the future; don't build the audience and further even engage students, close the museum! The response from both those blind sided at Brandeis and those in the field has been loud, immediate, and appalled. Says Yale School of Art Dean and art historian Rob Storr, " This sets a terrible precedent. The Rose Art Museum has been known for four decades as a hospitable place to show serious and challenging art in an academic context. They are throwing away one of their prime assets." This certainly goes far beyond the proposed sale of individual pieces that other beleaguered institutions have attempted. Indeed the sale of one of the Rose's Warhols, Lichtensteins, or Johns would quickly close the budget gap...at least temporarily. This proposed closing constitutes a wholesale dismissal of the entire institution and its larger mission. As Rose director Rush points out in a recent interview (see second link below) the Rose itself is fiscally sound; indeed, aside from covering the expenses of the physical plant, i.e. heat and electric, the university does not even fund the museum. It is the university that is in a fiscal crisis, not the Rose. And so the university administration hopes to raid (and close) the museum as an answer to their own monetary problems.
Brandeis students are staging a sit-in at the museum today, a petition is circulating (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/in-opposiition-to-the-closing-of-the-rose-art-museum), and no doubt a court challenge looms on the horizon, given the level of outrage among donors, benefactors, and the public. But in the current climate this is no doubt yet another loud and clear wake up call to all institutions as they struggle with continuing dire economic forecasts and their relationships to their various constituencies.
You can read more about this debacle here:
Updates:
• Roberta Smith wrote an incisive article about the proposed Rose closing in todays (2/2/09) New York Times. Read it here:
• A Statement to the public from Rose Art Museum director Michael Rush:
View comments