Crystal Bridges Museum – Illicit Cultural Property

Fisk University Wins Appeal

Georgia O’Keeffe Radiator Building

In a 2-1 decision Fisk University has won an appeal against the state of Tennessee which will allow it to sell a partial share in works of art to the Crystal Bridges Museum in Arkansas. The Tennessean reports today that the proceeds from the sale can be used as Fisk sees fit, it will not have to set aside 2/3 ($20 million) of the proceeds to care for the art. This is the latest, but not the last ruling in a dispute which has been ongoing since Fisk decided in 2004 to help offset its financial difficulties by selling works of art donated by Georgia O’Keeffe and her husband Albert Stieglitz.

Fisk officials called the ruling a victory: “On behalf of the many students who attend and the faithful alumni and friends, we look forward to working out the details with the Chancery Court and the (Tennessee) Attorney General,” said Fisk President Hazel R. O’Leary. We will never know for certain whether O’Keeffe would have approved of the sale of part of the collection, and as a consequence sharing the art in the South equally between Fisk and Crystal Bridges makes good sense for the University and the Museum, and art patrons in the South. It seems an interesting bit of timing that just as the Court of Appeals released its decision, Crystal Bridges is opening as well. The long legal battle is nearly done, as it will now be up to The State Attorney General, Fisk and the Chancery Court of Davidson County to work out the final arrangements for the sale in accordance with the latest appellate ruling.

Brian Haas, Court validates Fisk’s Georgia O’Keeffe art-sharing deal, Tennessean, (last visited Nov 30, 2011).

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Who Benefits From the Stieglitz Collection at Fitz University?

So asks Boston University Law Prof. Alan Field in a piece on SSRN: Who Are the Beneficiaries of Fisk University’s Stieglitz Collection? Here is the abstract:

Most fiduciary relationships determine with specificity the beneficiaries of the fiduciary’s activities. Not-for-profit entities, however, serve a class of unspecified beneficiaries and can exercise discretion in determining who to serve and how to serve them. This paper explores the limits of discretion that recent litigation established for Fisk University in balancing its educational mission and its administration of a valuable art collection donated decades earlier. The paper analyzes the case as it addresses respect for donor conditions, changes in circumstance, standing issues, the doctrine of cy pres and the designation of the appropriate class of public beneficiaries. Race and geography also play contributing roles.

Well worth a read. Donn Zaretsky finds it “much more interesting” than the Attorney General’s brief in the very long legal battle over the present disposition of the collection.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

No Real Decision yet in In re Fisk University

A decisions of sorts has been reached in the case remanded to Davidson County Chancery Court in Tennessee in which Fisk University sought permission to sell an interest in the Stieglitz Collection to the Crystal Bridges Museum. Lee Rosenbaum has done some terrific reporting on this decision here and here, and posted the decision online (embedded below). The end result? The court is open to the sale, but also wants to hear more about whether there is an option to keep the art in Nashville.

Fisk/Crystal Bridges Decision

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Another Deaccessioning Decision in Duluth

Donn Zaretsky has an interesting overview, with lots of links, to an emerging problem for the National Galleries of Scotland, which may have to find £50 million in the next four months to purchase Titian’s Diana & Actaeon.

It may have to do the same within the next four years for another one.

He concludes by arguing:

[T]o oppose the deal between Fisk University and Alice Walton’s Crystal Bridges Museum on “anti-deaccessioning” grounds just means that you would prefer that Fisk suffer whatever consequences follow from its inability to consummate the proposed sale (elimination of various athletic programs, faculty layoffs, etc.) than that the works at issue be relocated (and, in that case, for only half the time, and probably to a venue which would allow even more people to see them).

The difference in Scotland and the UK is the process is somewhat more regulated. If a work is slated for export outside of the UK, important “Waverley” level works are temporarily delayed so funds can be raised. Perhaps a similar idea could work in the United States, though that idea is anathema to the ethos of many American cultural institutions which are often eager to acquire works to build collections.

Another example is the city of Duluth, Minnesota which is considering selling this window featuring Princess Minnehaha, which is installed in the railroad depot in the city. The city is considering selling the window to help make up a $6.5 million budget gap. This window could fetch between $1-3 million at auction.

The window was commissioned by the State of Minnesota and was used in an 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago. A Duluth civic group bought the Tiffany window soon after the exhibition. City officials have tried to justify the sale, arguing it doesn’t have a strong Duluth connection, and that the city isn’t a museum. That may be true, but a window which has been in the city for well over a century must have begun to develop a kind of attachment to the city. I wonder what differences there might be between the city of Dulth’s potential decision to sell the window, and the Univeristy of Iowa’s potential decision to sell its Pollock.

I’d recommend to Duluth, that if it is considering selling the window, it give civic groups and interested parties an opportunity to raise funds to keep the window in Duluth (as the Waverley criteria accomplish in the UK), or try to work out a sharing agreement to allow the window to be viewed by its citizens. If so, then it seems like a good idea to allow the city to continue its day-to-day operations in exchange for auctioning off the window.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

More on Civic Cultural Heritage, the Ozarks, and Eakins

Daniel Brook of the Boston Globe has a can’t miss article on the “Gross Clinic” fund raising efforts in today’s edition, available here. He neatly summarizes all of the salient issues in the dispute, and rightly points out the hypocrisy in an American city, which owes much of its artistic resources to the power of its Gilded Age benefactors, crying foul when an important work is purchased by wealthy outsiders. Were Philadelphians perhaps upset at the idea of Bentonville Arkansas, home to Wal-Mart, upstaging its own perceived cultural importance? I think so. The article echoes a lot of the arguments I’ve been making here, namely that the civic export restrictions are quite similar to the policies implemented by source nations to protect their own archaeological heritage.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com