As we don't have any naturally spawned heirs of our own, (but plenty of graces), it has occurred to us that when we shuffle off this mortal coil, we might leave some pictures to a gallery which would find them of interest to their public, (such as for example the China Trade pictures). Sadly however, it would seem that one beneficiary of this largesse took it upon themselves to sell off the surplus art, without the owners' permission. The story, and the picture, above of Thomas Butterworth's Dunira, are from the Guardian.
Which all seems a little ungracious. Nephews and neices can breathe a sigh of relief.
For now. (Well, they could if they knew, but they don't.)
12 comments:
Amazing, but not surprising. I have swapped my late father's original manuscripts at the local Maritime museum for the copies - the originals are much safer with the family.
I see that the comments under the story are crammed to bursting with silly folk all eager to apply current social mores and morality to English history and empire. The past is the past, and it was very different, everyone apart from the apologists has moved on.
I'd always assumed it would be an act of generosity, but perhaps given your own misgivings, and the story in the Graun, they would be best left to the spawn of my brother and my better half's sisters.
I didn't read the whinging comments, and now I wont bother. It is as you say. As the son of empire I can attest that it really was a different time.
"It's hard to be mathematically precise." They are not sure exactly how many pieces are missing? Geez! Will be interesting to read the audit report.
Hmmm, better think twice before lending any of my shabby painted furniture to anyone!
Hello Columnist, Maybe it's we who are behind the times, by considering museums as safe,. permanent repositories for art and history. There have been so many of these scandals and reports over the past few years. This appears at least to be an unintentional mistake, but many museums willfully disregard the wishes and conditions set down by the donors, or even nearsightedly eat away at their core collections by viewing their deacquisition as a source of revenue.
Surely all generous people who own such objects are dismayed by these actions, and their plans all placed at sea; even if a new donation paradigm arrives, how long will it last?
--Road to Parnassus
Dear Columnist -
What an amazing story, though I shouldn't be surprised.
Another sad tendency of museums is to stash away treasures that never again see the light of day. St. Petersburg, Florida was able to attain the largest collection of Dali works outside of Spain because it was the one commnuity that promised to build a museum to display the entire collection. And what a jewel it is!
I suspect that in your bequest you would have the state that the work of art could never be sold. Even that may not be enough protection.
I know at the Bonham's SF sales, I have seen paintings listed as from one of the local museums, sold for new acquisitions.
And if you have not seen the chilling documentary "The Art of the Steal," about the fate of the Barnes Foundation Museum, I highly recommend it. Here is the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMe3r9PLtpI
One can attach a stipulation regarding the terms of deaccession of a gift to a museum, but some won't accept such restrictions. The galleries in the Metropolitan Museum of Art that (more or less) duplicate the rooms of the donor's townhouse as per terms of the gift will be controversial for years to come.
Loi - neither a borrower nor a lender be. I have rarely found that objects lent are returned in the condition they left. But I suppose at least they're returned. When one of my pictures went to Sotheby's for a possible sale it took about 4 months for them to return it.
Parnassus - yes, I was trying to think of the example that I watched recently, and Diogenes has provided the name - the Barnes Foundation Museum and a link, showing the willful disregard of the owner's intentions.
Although of course any bequest of ours will be on a very minor scale by comparison, it would be sad if the same principal applied.
Mark - you highlight another point, and that is museums having too much to display, and therefore so much of it never seeing the light of day. They are obviously in need of curators.
Diogenes - as I noted with Parnassus, I was trying to remember the Barnes saga, and you have very kindly supplied it. Appalling tale. Yes, I too have seen items for sale from museums, and I also wondered whether the original donors were aware of what happened to their gifts.
DC - I suppose it's a pretty good indication that there are too many works of art donated to museums that have too much stock. My intention was to donate to those less well endowed, but the one in the article could hardly be described as famous, and yet it closed. Of course museums do need funds to maintain their upkeep, as indeed do country houses "left to the nation". In UK organisations such as the National Trust will not accept such bequests unless there is a sizeable trust to maintain it. I suppose I'll just have to live forever then.
Post a Comment