A friend just alerted me to the website, DefendtheDIA.org, set up by people trying to save the art works in the Detroit Institute of Arts from being sold off.
From the website:
In August Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr hired Christie’s auction house to appraise the value of the Detroit Institute of Arts’ collection in preparation for selling off the art to cover the city’s debts.
The Detroit Institute of Arts contains some of the world’s most important paintings, including works by van Gogh, Matisse, and the irreplaceable murals by Diego Rivera. The people of Detroit cannot stand by while the financial barbarians loot and pillage this priceless trove of human culture!
No one should believe the claims that sale of the art will help save workers’ pensions. After they take the art, the banks will be even more eager to steal municipal workers’ pensions and to slash city services! The right to culture must be defended along with all the rights of the working class.
Art as a right of working people. What a concept!
It’s one of those things already jettisoned by Hawaii’s Department of Education in many if not all schools.
And it’s fascinating that it is a self-proclaimed socialist group that is raising the cry to save this municipal art collection.
But they are not the only ones raising the issue.
From U.S. Catholic” “Should the city of Detroit sell its works of art to fight bankruptcy?
The NY Times: “In Detroit, a Case of Selling Art and Selling Out”
Detroit Free Press: “DIA in peril: A look at the museum’s long, tangled relationship with Detroit politics and finances”
A Google search turns up lots of information.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Art as a right of the working people” is a difficult concept to convey to people who don’t understand the many tangible and intangible benefits of art.
The intangibility is what makes it a hard sell, of course. To that I would say, “I pay taxes for your kids’ education. What benefits am I getting?”
Of course, I am getting many, as a well-educated populace is vital to a thriving democracy. We should be able to make a similar argument for art’s sake.
If a government, or corporation, or individual, issues a bond or takes out a loan, then the bank or person who gave the money has a right to receive interest payments and to eventually get the principal back. If the borrower defaults, then the loan maker has a right to foreclose on property or bank accounts as necessary to get the principal or the collateral back. Works of art are property. It’s too bad that nowadays some people think it’s OK to take the loans and then welch on their obligation to pay back. Because poor people shouldn’t have to pay rich people back? Because art is important for humanity? Don’t take a loan if you can’t pay it back. Don’t complain if a creditor exercises his right to foreclose or collect collateral. These are not merely matters of law; they are also matters of morality. Congress, state legislators and county councils should look at what’s happening in Detroit and stop spending money they don’t have and are unlikely to ever be able to pay back. After a life of living below my income and saving up to be able to pay cash before buying, I’m happy to be self-sufficient and owe no money to anyone. I wish our governments had followed the same strategy, but they didn’t. What’s happening now in Washington with the government shutdown and quarreling over raising the debt limit is all because a bunch of politicians spent too much money they didn’t have, for too long a time, and the chickens have come home to roost. If someone thinks it’s important to “save” Detroit’s artwork, then take up a collection to buy it when it gets auctioned, and put it on display for the peoples’ enjoyment.
I wonder if Hawaii’s finances will ever reach the crisis stage where the art in HISAM is sold. I hope that the art has been ensnared in a legal net to prevent this from happening. Regarding access to art, as more and more museums place their collections online that becomes less of an issue. While nothing can replace looking at the actual paintings and objects, it isn’t as though they would disappear from public consciousness. Whether the DIA’s collection stays in Detroit is less important than whether it is available for public viewing in the United States. It should not disappear into the hands of Russian or Chinese oligarchs. Perhaps Alice Walton will step up and buy it for her museum in Arkansas. Who could have imagined that visiting Arkansas would be preferable to visiting Detroit? That’s a true measure of how far the city has fallen.
It’s a hard question. I love museums, but I’m not sure what position I would take if I were a retired city worker facing the possibility that my pension may be going down the drain. It’s not just anonymous bondholders that will be taking the hit when Detroit (or the courts) decide who comes up short when there isn’t enough money to pay the city;s obligations.
If this were a private person who was going bankrupt, if you were a creditor would you accept the argument; you can’t sell it because that would take away my children’s opportunity to appreciate art. I don’t think so. The people who want to save the collection should step up, money in hand, buy the art and then donate it back to the DIA.
Soon we will all enjoy a new $5 million art collection to be displayed at train stations along Oahu’s south coast. I’d have preferred restrooms but, hey, that’s just me.
They do have to-tos.
Hi Ian, just FYI — arts programs offered in public schools, arts in STEM, partnerships with arts orgs and artists — information on this link. Thanks.
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/StudentLearning/Arts/Pages/home.aspx