Detroit is bankrupt. Should it sell the city museum's masterpieces?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,936
Reaction score
5,316
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/arts/design/detroits-creditors-eye-its-art-collection.html?_r=0
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21580490-suburbs-and-city-disagree-motown-steps-degas

The city of Detroit, Michigan, has just declared bankruptcy.

In casting about for assets to sell off to make some cash, creditors have been rather alarmingly focused on the Detroit Institute of Arts, the major downtown museum.

Outside of Detroit, almost all city museums are owned by nonprofit corporations which hold the art collection in trust for the citizens.

Detroit, however, didn't do this, I have no idea why.

The DIA is actually owned by the city, which makes it peculiarly vulnerable to being sold off.

The New York Times said "its collection ... is not particularly deep but includes gems by artists like Bruegel, Caravaggio, Rembrandt and van Gogh. It is considered among the top 10 encyclopedic museums in the country. "

I don't know what "not particularly deep" means. I have visited the DIA many times and it has vast holdings, including an entire room of Rubens paintings.

Its collections were accumulated by the automobile barons of the last century, and they are particularly strong in what was considered fashionable at the time, a lot of it medieval and Renaissance art and Victorian realism (with a few glorious exceptions, such as Diego Rivera's awesomely socialist murals).

The first time I visited the DIA it was terrifyingly shabby, a beautiful, huge, expensive, grimy neoclassical building on what was once a grand boulevard but was now desolate and run-down. The art was incredible, but the space felt gritty and holding on by its fingernails.

In recent decades the DIA has seen renovations and improvements. The area of Detroit it is in is still largely empty, but it seemed to hold more hope.

I don't know what to think. I cannot countenance selling off such a resource. It is a terrible thing to do to a people and puts mockery to the very idea of museums as public trusts.

But Detroit is in a great deal of trouble.

Opinions?
 

Fenika

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
24,311
Reaction score
5,109
Location
-
Just off the cuff I'd say sell off the most expensive half and fill in the gaps in some appropriate way. People don't need to see expensive things to benefit from their visit.

'Deep' probably is similar to having a varied collection?
 

Vespertilion

Flying blind on a rocket cycle.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
5,794
I don't know. My immediate reaction is "no!" but I've seen so many heartbreaking photo essays of Detroit--so many amazing buildings crumbling away to nothing, houses falling in, burnt-down derelicts--if the selling of the art would actually help at all, then maybe... That is, if the proceeds could actually help.

But it also feels like auctioning off the heart to save the body.

I did see on the news last night that the unemployment rate has gone down, which is heartening. If the numbers aren't skewed by people who've given up.
 

Patrick.S

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
469
Reaction score
51
Location
Vermont
Because pillage is always a good idea! How is Detroit going to revitalize if they sell off the only reasons people might want to visit Detroit. Instead of getting rid of a possible money maker, why doesn't the city try to lure people to their museum to generate some revenue?
 

CAWriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
281
Reaction score
18
Maybe this would be the time to privatize the museum? Someone could form a foundation that would take over the running of it. Pieces could be auctioned off, but with the (stated vs. unspoken) understanding that they'd then be on loan to the museum (perhaps for a given period of time. 50+ years)?

Something like this would be a win/win. Detroit keeps their museum and artwork, raises some capital while ridding themselves of the expense of maintaining it. At the same time, it's possible that a private organization would do a better job of maintaining/running/promoting the museum and it would be better off for it.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
I'd guess not deep would mean the majority of the collections are on the walls. Even if it seems like a lot, some museums, especially major ones, like the Louvre, the Met, the Brit, etc., have only a small percent of what they've actually got up for display at any one time. Some have seriously vast collections - in the literal basement, storehouses, out on loans and tours, etc.

It's weird it belongs to the city, wholesale, but I don't think they should sell it off. It seems like a bad, short-term and not very effective solution (I mean even if it raised a few tens of millions, how much is that going to help?), that will have a long-term detrimental effect (then they've got nothing 'big' in the museum).

However, seems like they should be able to maybe raise some cash by privatising in some way or lending out works to other museums or what have you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.