On the morning of January 26, Anthony Hirschel, director of the University of Chicago’s Smart Museum of Art, was on the phone with Michael Rush, director of Brandeis University’s Rose Art Museum, discussing Rush’s application to be admitted to the Association of Art Museum Directors.
Rush was stunned. The museum had nothing to do with the school’s money problems. It was self-supporting and financially sound; maintaining the collection, acquired through gifts and donations, was an obligation. An hour later, the university announced the plan to the world—and ignited a storm of protest that’s still raging. Rush and Hirschel will be part of a panel at this year’s Art Chicago called “Museums on the Line: Cutbacks, Closures and Opportunities”; the discussion will feature the Rose as a case study.
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
If an institution is selling art because it needs money, he notes, then “we’re not talking about the things that are never shown and don’t attract an audience, because they don’t draw the kind of funds that situation requires. And if you sell the best art in your museum, you’ve undermined the very reason for you to be there. That’s the justifiable fear about de-accessioning in general—it’s the most valuable work in any collection that’s at greatest risk.”
Care to comment? Find this column at chicagoreader.com.
Sat 5/2, 2:30 PM, Merchandise Mart Conference Center, 350 W. Mart Center, artchicago.com, free with Art Chicago admission.
