Brandeis — Pariah of the Art World

The American Association of Museums has just entirely revamped their standards for accreditation.  Why did this national organization decide that sweeping changes were needed?

The announcement last year that Brandeis University planned to sell its noted, 6,000-piece collection of modern art stunned and angered museum officials around the world. The university said it needed money for its other operations. But to the art world, the plan represented a rejection of the idea that nonprofit institutions do not sell art from their museums except as a means to expand their collections.

As if you really had to ask…

Now, museums will need evidence of greater levels of commitment from their parent organizations to gain accreditation, particularly when it comes to withholding artwork from their pool of disposable assets.  This really puts into perspective what the Board of Trustees did: not just a major faux pas, but something so uniquely terrible in the art community that the rules have to be changed to account for it.


4 thoughts on “Brandeis — Pariah of the Art World”

  1. Art

    I agree with you 100% on everything from that comment, but that doesn’t mean we should give the administration free pass on the mistakes they made, particularly when they’re still having lasting negative effects. I’ll choose the academy over the museum any day if we’re forced into that unfortunate position. Unfortunately, we’re still losing out because that choice was made inelegantly and potentially prematurely.

  2. It didn’t-I am simply stating that we must look at the university’s actions through a different lens-here the two lenses agree. The Rose debacle was not handled well, no matter how you cut it.
    What it comes down to, is, in the agreeably impossible alternate reality where the funds generated from the Rose were appreciable, we would have to put institution in front of art, ie. if Brandeis’ survival were hinged on the sale, then so be it.

  3. Art, please tell me how the entire Rose debacle has in ANY way helped us fulfill our purpose as a university.

    Do you agree that the Rose Art Museum is a valuable tool for fulfilling our purpose as a university? If so, then don’t you agree that for many reasons, the debacle has actually hurt us in some way as a university?

    If not, than we have no business operating the Rose in the first place, because we’ve clearly proven ourselves to be inadequate trustees of its collection.

Comments are closed.